Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/

=

WU

.

: ; —— f
a Terr, VERITAS FJ
RARY “<=

AUMLU ROY LUNA NED ASLAM AHURA

TD ent

pote

|
|

Ba

e , f

Mee tentck (use wth ier,

wer

nse ting Ag ke Nig Taga ie

Ivey.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

HAND-BOOK

TO THE

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

PA 2S

BY

HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D.,

OBEROONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

TRANSLATED FROM THE SIXTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
Rev. PETER CHRISTIE.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D., and WILLIAM STEWART, D.D.,

PROFESE0R OF PROFESSOR OF
BIBLICAL CRIPICISM, BIBLICAL ORITICISM
ST. MARY'S COLLEGE, 8ST. ANDREWS. IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY
GEORGE R. CROOKS, D.D.,

PROFESSOR IN DREW THEOLOGIOAL SEMINARY, MADISON, N. J.

FUNK & WAGNALLS

NEW YORK 1884 LONDON
10 AND 12 Dry STREET 44 FLEET STREET
All Rights Reserved

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1884,
By FUNK & WAGNALLS,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.

/2. 6-37

ed AVP

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

WHEN we come to the gospel of Matthew we stand upon the thresh-
old of that history which more than any other has wrought a perma-
nent change in the thoughts and habits of mankind. In its effects upon
the world it stands apart from all other histories ever written. What-
ever is precious and hopeful in modern civilization is derived directly
from it ; we cannot, therefore, as members of Christian society, approach
it without certain prepossessions in its favor. Most wisely are we,
therefore, called upon by Neander, in entering upon the study of the
gospels, to reject the indifference of science. In the investigation of
truth all depends upon the spirit in which we work. And as the gospels
are the very breath of life to us, we can only investigate them aright
when we acknowledge that our intellectual and: moral being is contin-
ually nourished by them. To deny the possibility of the manifestations
of the supernatural, to carp at or to belittle such manifestations as they
are made known to us in God’s-word, are obvious disqualifications for
the study of revealed truth. The one prepossession with which we should
approach the study of the gospels is, that ‘‘ Jesus Christ is the Son of
God in a sense which cannot be predicated of. any human being—the
perfect image of the personal God in the form of that humanity that
was estranged from Him ; that im Him the source of the divine life itself
in humanity appeared ; that by Him the idea of humanity was realized.’’ '
Of this prepossession, Neander says most eloquently, ‘‘It is one at
whose touch of power the dry bones of the old world sprang up in all
the vigor of a new creation. It gave birth to all that culture (the mod-
ern as distinguished from the ancient) from which the Germanic nations
received their peculiar intellectual life, and from which the emancipation
of the mind, grown too strong for its bonds, was developed in the Ref-
ormation. It is the very root and ground of our modern civilization ;
and the latter, even in its attempts to separate from that root, must rest
upon it. Indeed, should such attempts succeed, it must dissolve into its
original elements, and assume an entirely new form.” ?

1 Neander, Life of Christ, Amer. Ed., p. 3. 8 Thid.

1V PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

I think, therefore, that before we let vurselves be lost in the perplex-
ities of historical detail, which from the lack of necessary information
we can, never wholly unravel, we should meditate much upon the higher
harmony of the gospel collection, by which the four narratives are brought
into perfect accord. Whether we call Matthew’s gospel Jewish and Luke’s
Gentile, or whether we contrast Matthew’s as the gospel of the body,
with John’s as the gospel of the spirit, or whether we dwell on Mark’s
almost Roman compression of style, we perceive no blur or indistinct-
ness in the image given us of Jesus Christ. Wesee Him on several
sides, but the identity of the representation is perfect. In each and all
Ife is the same sympathetic helper of men, has the same clear vision of
His mission on earth, gives the same account of His origin and the same
foretokening of His end, dies the same death, and has the same resurrec-
tion. There isno jar, no dissonance in the stories told by the evangelists.
Whatever the discrepancies in subordinate points, the narrative of no
one of them could have been the creation of the age in which they lived.
They were incapable of conceiving or of inventing the Messiah whom
they describe. This sense of the spiritual harmony of the gospels will
guard us against ascribing difficulties which we cannot solve to blunder-
ing on the part of the evangelists, or to legends which they have credu-
lously accepted as true, an error into which Dr. Meyer, despite his great
exegetical sagacity, sometimes falls. One cannot but wish that modesty
should be shown in dealing with a history which, though witnessed to
by the ages, is nearly two thousand years old, for the full explication of
whose minutise a thousand collateral facts long since faded from the
knowledge of men are needed. ‘‘ We do not,’’ says Ebrard, ‘ enter
upon the evangelical history with spyglass in hand, to seek our own
credit, by essaying to disclose ever fresh instances of what is contradic-
tory, foolish, or ridiculous, but with the faithful, clear, and open eye of
him who joyfully recognizes the good, the beautiful, the noble, whereso-
ever he finds it, and on that account finds it with joy, and never lays
aside his favorable prepossession till he is persuaded of the contrary.
We give ourselves up to the plastic influence of the gospels, live in them,
and at the same time secure to ourselves, while we thus act in the spirit of
making all our own, « deeper insight into the unity, beauty, and depth
of the Evangelical History.’’ '

An example of the hypercritical spirit which is employed upon the
writings of the evangelists, as upon no other historical documents, is the
objection made to the authenticity of Matthew’s gospel, because it

' Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte, Quoted by Ellicott, Life of Christ,
p. 23, note.

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Vv

lacks graphic power. We are told that an eye-witness would have had
a more vivid apprehension of events and would have put more life into
his account of them. Did the critics who urge this ever consider that
the vivacity of a witness is not reckoned an element of credibility in a
court of law? If witnesses were to be believed only as they were vi-
vacious, the administration of justice would come to a stand-still. Many
an examiner in court has found clear, consistent truth in a witness who
was as precise as the multiplication table. And if we were to pro-
nounce written documents spurious on the ground of a lack of vivacity,
we should reject some of the most valuable materials of history. Han-
sard is not very graphic, but it contains the sum and substance of the
proceedings of the English Parliament, in the period covered. One of
the most important works in American Ecclesiastical history is the jour-
nal of Francis Asbury, the first Methodist Bishop ; it is almost as dry
as Euclid, but is as veracious as if delivered under oath. Vivacity and
veracity are not necessarily correlated. Tried by the tests of common
sense, this objection to the authenticity of Matthew’s gospel seems too
absurd for serious refutation. And yet it is one of a large class of
cavils which do more credit to the ingenuity than to the candor of
their authors. Davidson thinks that the nature of Matthew’s occupa-
tion was unfavorable to lively narrative : ‘‘ As a collector of taxes, we
should not expect much of the picturesque or imaginative from his pen.
Accountants are not ordinarily possessed of the best talent for descrip-
tion. They deal in the exact and formal, in accuracy of detail, or in
grouping trath of what is analogous.’’? Though we do not place much
value on this explanation, it may have weight with some. The want of
necessary connection between vividness and trathfulness is, we conceive,
a sufficient answer. |
Dr. Meyer’s treatment of Matthew is freer than will be acceptable
to many American Christians. Especially will his theory of the origin
of this gospel encounter opposition, inasmuch as it leaves the apostolicity
of the Hebrew original, from which our Greek Matthew was made, in
doubt. Resting upon the supposed testimony of Papias to that effect,
he holds that Matthew composed a digest of the sayings of Christ, but
yet not a proper gospel history. This collection of Hebrew sayings
gathered by Matthew was gradually expanded through the interweaving
of the historical facts of the life of Christ at the hands of others.
Matthew is therefore responsible only for those discourses of Jesus
which are to be found in his gospel ; from whom we have derived the
interwoven history no one can tell. This theory is convenient for
Dr. Meyer, because it enables him to reject some portions of our first
gospel as legendary, and other portions as contradictory of John. Such

Vil PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

a bias of opinion should lead us to weigh all the more cautiously the
reasoning on which the theory rests. The general testimony of antiq-
uity is against it; Dr. Meyer refers it to Schleiermacher, who gave a
new rendering of the words of Papias, quoted by Eusebius. The words
of Papias on this point are: MatOaios pév ovy ‘Efaidt Oradénten
ta Aoyia ouvera&ato,' which Dr. Meyer makes to mean that Mat-
thew arranged the sayings of Jesus, in the Hebrew. It is, however,
well urged by Davidson that ra Aoyza, neither in its New Testament nor
its subsequent use, is limited to the sayings or discourses of any one.
In Romans iii. 2, Hebrews vy. 12, and 1 Peter iv. 11, it is used of
the entire Old Testament, the history of course inclusive. Hence, says
Cremer, “it is not like 6 Aoyos rou Oeou, ‘the word of God,’’ that
which God has to say, but the term to denote the historical (O. T.)
manifestation of this.”” Moreover, in the context of the passage cited
from Papias, where he speaks of Mark, he uses ra Aoyia as descriptive
of our second gospel. Davidson thus puts the argument: ‘‘In speak-
ing of Mark’s gospel, it is related that the evangelist did not write in
regular order (ra&e) the things spoken or done by Christ (ra vzo
tov Xpiorod 7 AsyGévta 7 mpayOGévra), to which it is imme-
diately subjoined, that Peter gave Mark such instruction as was neces-
sary, bnt not as a connected history of our Lord’s discourses (@AA’
ovy @orep ovvra&iv tav Kupiandy norovpevos Aoytwr).
Here ra Kupiaxa Aoyta is explained by ra vx0 rob Xpiorob 7
mpayOévra H AExyOEvra, both being used synonymously in relation
to the contents of Mark’s gospel.’’? It is very clear that in this pas-
sage the discourses are not differentiated from the history ; the one
term Aoyza is used of both.*

Still further, it was the conviction of the apostles that the ‘life ’’
of their Master ‘‘ was the light of men,’’ and they would not therefore be
likely to separate His words from His deeds. To show what He was was
as important to their purpose as to rehearse what He said. Luke tells
Theophilus that his gospel was an account of all that Jesus ‘‘ began both
to do and to teach.’’ John closes his account saying ‘‘ that there were
many other things that Jesus did,’’ proving that full as is his gospel of
the discourses of our Lord, the acts of Jesus are in his mind an essential

1 See page 3 seq.

? Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i., p. 66.

3 Dr. Meyer argues that the words obxy domep ovvtaéiy Tav Kuptaxdy ToLodpevog
Aéywy [* not as though he were making a methodical digest of the discourses of
the Lord’’] are not the equivalents of 12 iréd rov Xmorov 7 AexGévta f wpaxSévra
(‘‘the things said or done by Christ”], but Papias is in both clauses speaking
of the same subject ; the difference is merely in the phrasing of his thought.

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Vil

part of the record. Matthew’s purpose also of exhibiting the fulfilment of
prophecy in the life of his Master would compel the recording of the
‘working and suffering of Jesus for men in their proper connection with
His sayings. To show that Jesus was the expected Messiah, it was indis-
pensable that Matthew should depict Him moving through the cycle of
labors and sufferings which had been foretold by the prophets. ‘‘ Who
shall undertake,’’ asks Davidson very pertinently, ‘‘to separate the
mere Acyza from the facts and circumstances with which they are sur-
rounded?’ The attempt has never been seriously made, and we venture
to affirm that it is practically impossible. Theorists may pronounce it
an easy thing ; but the different materials of the gospel are so interlaced
that they will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate the
truth of their opinion by fairly dividing what they declare to be
practicable.’’ '

A natural sequence of this theory of Schleiermacher, adopted by Dr.
Meyer, is the supposition that Mark’s is, in the order of time, the first
gospel, and that upon it the legendary accretions of Matthew and Luke
have grown. Under this supposition the testimony of antiquity that
Matthew wrote first is limited to the Aoyza@ above described ; and as this
collection of Christ’s discourses has wholly disappeared, and as the com-
plete Hebrew gospel of Matthew was a subsequent growth out of this,
a plausible claim may be made for Mark in point of time. But if the
theory that the first Matthew was a bare collection of Christ’s discourses
falis, an important support of the claim of the priority of Mark falls with
it. The testimony of antiquity must then be applied with all its eviden-
tial power to the complete Hebrew gospel of Matthew, and the testimony
of antiquity is that he wrote first. This support being thus taken away
from Dr. Meyer’s supposition, it might very properly be dismissed ;
but it may be well to show other reasons for its untenableness.

In the first place, it bears evident marks of a controlling bias of opin-
ion. Dr. Meyer wishes, as we have already said, to dispose of certain
parts of Matthew as legendary. Thus he writes: ‘‘ With this assumption
that Mark is the oldest of the synoptics, the distinctive internal
character of this gospel is quite in harmony—the omission of all pre-
liminary histories, the beginning with the appearance of the Baptist, the
as yet altogether undeveloped narrative of the Temptation, the freedom
from legendary insertions in the history of the Passion which are found
in Matthew, and especially the original stamp of direct liveliness and
picturesque clearness of style and description.’?* The obvious utility

1 Introduction to New Testament, p. 68.
* Condensed from pp. 28, 29.

vn PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

of this supposition of the priority of Mark, for the effectual disposing of
certain portions of Matthew, must for us at least break the force of Dr.
Meyer’s arguments. Moreover, in the narrative of the Temptation, Mark
shows all the evidences of legend, if legend there be. He says, ‘‘ And
straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness, And he was
in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan ; and he was with the wild
beasts ; and the angels ministered unto him’’ (chap. i. 12, 13, R. V.).
Wherein the account of Matthew differs from this, except in greater
fulness of detail, it is difficult to see. The same extraordinary super-
natural agencies are to be found in both; and we may add that it was
humanly impossible for any Jew to invent the additional circumstances
of the Temptation given us by Matthew.

In the second place, we have reason to be distrustful of internal
criticism where it is unsupported by external evidence. No better
example of the futility of such criticism is needed than Dr. Meyer’s
own account of the relationship of the first three gospels to each
other. (See his Introduction, pp. 19-31.) Whether the supposi-
tion be taken that all the three are from a common original, or the sup-
position that each evangelist made use of the others, the results of
such attempts to trace the derivation of the three are simply chaotic.
Dr. Meyer himself admits that the schemes of derivation which have
been framed upon the supposition of a common written original are
worthy of note only as evidences of inventive conjecture. No more can
be said, however, for his own theory, or the theories of others, which
undertake to show, apart from external testimony, the order in time of
the synoptical gospels, and the use made by each, of his predecessors.
Of the six arrangements of the order of these evangelists cited by him,
every one has the sanction of great names, and each, as far as it is sup-
ported by internal criticism, is as valid as the rest. We may for this
second reason also, as well as for the reason of the contradictory testi-
mony of antiquity, set aside Dr. Meyer’s supposition that Mark’s gospel
is the first in the order of time, and that Matthew and Luke are fuller
in numerous details by reason of legendary additions to Mark’s report.

Inasmuch as Dr. Meyer’s solution of the relation of the synoptists to
each other appears so radically defective, it may not be amiss to pur-
sue the subject a little further. Its difficulties are freely admitted.
Nor can wé at the best reach any more than conjectural conclusions.
The objections made by Alford to the supposition that the evangelists
copied from each other seem to be conclusive. ‘‘ It is inconceivabile,”’
says he, ‘‘ that one writer, borrowing from another matter confessedly of
the very first importance, in good faith and with approval, should alter
his diction so singularly and capriciously as on this hypothesis we find the

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR, 1x

text of the parallel sections of our gospels altered. Let the question be
answered by ordinary considerations of probubility, and let any passage
common to the three evangelists be put to thetest. The phenomena pre-
sented will be much as follows : first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or
more words identical ; then as many wholly distinct ; then two clauses or
more expressed in the same words, but differing in order ; then a clause
contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical ;
then a clause not only wholly distinct, but apparently inconsistent ; with
recurrences of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences,
and tran8positions. . . . Hqually capricious would be the disposition of
the subject-matter. Sometimes, while coincident in the things re-
lated, the gospels place them in the most various order, each in turn
connecting them together with apparent marks of chronological se-
quence,’’? If the synoptists borrowed from each other, their gospel writ-
ing was of the most mechanical description. Alford, it seems to us, is
right in saying that a method of ‘‘ such borrowing can only be explained
on the supposition of an effort of the evangelists to conceal their obliga-
tions to each other, a supposition inconsistent with the character of the
men.’’ Rejecting this, and also the supposition that the three evan-
gelists were indebted to a common written original which very soon
perished, we have the remaining one, to wit, that Matthew, Mark, Luke
drew alike from a body of oral tradition, which had been cast, as tradi-
tion naturally will be, into a somewhat fixed shape.?/ Whatever may be
the shortcomings of this hypothesis, it answers as well as any other to
the facts, and is certainly to be preferred to that of Dr. Meyer, namely,
that Mark’s gospel is the first in the order of time, and that Matthew’s
has been shaped out of additions, some of them unhistorical, made fo a
collection of the sayings of our Lord.

Passing from the question of the origin of the three synoptical gos-
pels, we come next to Dr. Meyer’s general characterization of Matthew.
Summarily stated it is as follows: (1) Matthew’s gospel contains many
indefinite statements of time, place, and other things which are irrecon-
cilable with the living recollections of an apostolic eye-witness and par-
ticipator in the events. (2) It lacks clearness and directness in many of
the historical portions. (3) It lacks historical connection in the citation
and introduction of a substantial portion of the discourses of Jesus. (4)
It contains narratives whose unhistorical character must have been
known to an apostle, such as the legendary history which precedes
chapter iii., and certain particulars in the account of Christ’s death.

1 See Alford’s Prolegomena to the Gospels, p. 5.
*Ibidem, pp. 8, 9.

x PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

(5) It contains an enlarged account of the Temptation, which is not
apostolic. (6) It contains inaccuracies in its account of the Last Supper
and the appearances of the risen Saviour, and in these particulars must
be corrected by John.’ Such an opinion of Matthew necessarily carries
with it a denial of the apostolicity of his gospel as it has come down to
us, and Dr. Meyer, as we have shown, consistently denies its apostolicity.
With regard to the first three of these objections, it is allowable to
ask, may not a memoir have a purpose? May it not, in following out a
purpose, omit some points and dwell more largely upon others? If it
was the plan of Matthew to give with especial fulness the discourses of
Christ, will not the omission of minute references to time and place be
natural? Grote tells us that the pictures given by Xenophon and Plato
of Socrates show the differences in the character and temperament of
the two men, and the consequent difference in the design of their ac-
counts. Xenophon, the man of action, looks at his master on the prac-.
tical side, ‘‘ bringing out those conversations of Socrates which, had a
bearing on conduct. Plato leaves out the practical, and consecrates
himself to the theoretical Socrates.’’ Grote admits that the two pic-
tures do not contradict each other, but are readily blended into unity.
Moreover, Xenophon presents Socrates, as Matthew does Christ, more as
the positive, didactic teacher; while Plato dwells on the Socratic
‘‘irony ’’ by the use of which this great teacher, assuming the attitude
of an inquirer seeking knowledge, stirred up his hearer to think.* The
prevailing intention governs the mode of presentation, and this we may
believe is true of the evangelist Matthew. The fact that Matthew makes
but brief notice of Christ’s ministry in Judea is as true of Mark and
Luke as of him, and yet in chapter iv. 12 he mentions a return to
Galilee, and in chapter xix. speaks of Christ’s departure from Galilee to
Judea. What motives may have determined the synoptists to give a
full account of the Galilean life of their Master, and to say less of that
in Judea, we are not able to determine, but we have no reason, on the
ground of such a determination, to impeach their credibility as witnesses.
And as to Matthew’s omission to give exact notice of times and places
in parts of his gospel, it is a sufficient answer that one principle of
grouping reduces to a subordinate position other principles of grouping.
This is true universally of historical composition. If Matthew intends
to bring together in clusters the discourses of Christ, he will naturally
pay less regard to the sequence of events as to time and place. ‘‘ How-
ever much,’’ says Ellicott, ‘‘we may be tempted to speculate on the

1 8ee Dr. Meyer's Introduction, pp. 2, 3.
* Grote, History of Greece, vol. viii., p. 416.

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. x1

. causes which led’’ to the principle of arrangement, ‘‘this much ap-
pears certain, that such an arrangement does exist, and can be easily veri-
fied, if we examine the peculiar structure of the portion of the gospel
which begins with the fifth and closes with the thirteenth chapter. We
see, for example, that, on the one hand, we have three large portions con-
taining discourses, viz., the Sermon on the Mount, the apparently grouped
and collected instructions which our Lord addressed to the Twelve pre-
vious to their mission, and the collection of the parables in the thirteenth
chapter; and, on the other hand, that we haye a large collection of miracles
related in the eighth and ninth chapters, which comprise, with scarcely
any exception, the scattered events of the period preceding the sending
out of the Twelve ; after which the narrative proceeds in strict chrono-
logical order. When we add to this the concluding observation, that,
singularly cnough, we find in several instances careful notices of place
exactly where the order of time scems most disarranged, it seems almost
impossible to resist. the conviction that the first evangelist was by no
means unacquainted with the correct order of events, but that he de-
signedly departed from it, and directed his first attention to his Master's
preaching during this momentous period, and then grouped together
the nearly contemporary events and miracles, with such notices of place
as should guard against any possibility of misconception.” '

To say, as in the objection which we have marked (4), that any con-
siderable part of Matthew is legendary virtually discredits the entire
gospel. Dr. Meyer’s supposition of an original collection of our Lord’s
sayings will not save this evangelist’s credit ; for the number of persons .
who are likely to accept the supposition is not great. Assuming with
the Church universal that the gospel as we have it is an exact reproduc-
tion in Greek of that written by Matthew's hand, we are left, if the suspi-
cion of legend is entertained, to tho mercy of the whims of critics.
Each will find the legendary where his fancy inclines him to see it ; and
what remains as confessedly historical will be rendered doubtful by its
connection with the fabulous. Indeed, Dr. Meyer's assumption of an
original Matthew which is not our gospel is indispensable to his theory
of legendary interpolations. With the fall of his theory, the mixture of
history and legend fails to be accounted for. So long as we hold fast
to the conviction that our Matthew proceeded from one and the same
hand, so long may we presume that the whole is veracious.

Taking the subject, however, ina larger view, we may ask, What were
the opportunities for the growth of legend in relation to Christ up to
the time of the writing of Matthew's gospel? Dr. Meyor admits that in

1 The Life of Christ, pp. 150, 161.

Xll PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

its present shape it antedates the destruction of Jerusalem (a.p. 70).
Matthew’s original collection of the sayings of Christ was, he saya,
composed much earlier than a.p. 70, in or about a.p. 40, and in the in-
tervening thirty years perished, and was wholly forgotten of men. We
have then barely thirty years for the formation of legends in relation to
Christ, in a region thickly populated, crossed and re-crossed by great
Roman roads, and consequently in the enjoyment of every facility of
intercourse known to antiquity ; ina region, too, whose inhabitants were
practised in writing, and who,were accustomed to the use of historical
records, and among men who were distinguished for their sobriety of
speech, and whose Master had promised them that the Holy Spirit
should guide them into the truth. The placing of the superacription
over the head of Christ on the cross implies that the crowd gathered
thereabout were able to read. It is safe to say that legends do not
grow up among such a people, under such conditions, or in such short
space of time. The moral earnestness and soberness of the early prop-
agators of Christianity precluded the growth of legend. After these
qualities suffered diminution, and sccts arose, on the one side half
Jewish and half Christian, and on the other half heathen and half
Christian, legends were mixed with the histories of the evangelists.
That, however, was long after the original witnesses of the facts recorded
by the gospels had disappeared.

But as to this whole matter of time, I think we fail to notice how
long a pure tradition may perpetuate itself, with but a single remove,
from the original witnesses or actors. On the 31st of May, 1884,
there died in New York City Benjamin Bosworth Smith, senior Bishop
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States ; in October,
1832, nearly fifty-two years before, he had been consecrated to his office
by Bishep William White, the founder of that Church, who had him-
self been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1787. Thus
the original testimony to the formation of the Protestant Episcopal
Church is carried with a single transmission over the space of ninety-
seven years. When the centennial commemoration of the capture of
Major André was observed in Tarrytown, N.Y., September 23, 1880,
prayer was offered, in the presence of the vast concourse of people
gathered together, by the Rev. Alexander Van Wart, a son of one of the
original captors, On July 9, 1884, there died in Poughkeepsie, New
York, Philip Hamilton, the youngest son of Alexander Hamilton, the
originator of our National Constitution, and almost the founder of our
National Government. We have thus had, till this year, a witness to an
event dating ninety-seven years ago, only one remove from one of the
original actors therein. These instances of a close association of the

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. xill

witnesses to the truth of a historicak fact with the original witnesses can
be readily paralleled in the life of our century. They all go to show
that original testimony need not pass through a long series of trans-
missions in order to cover a hundred years ; and that the chances of cor-
ruption, supposing the ordinary conditions of veracity to be present,
have been grossly exaggerated by the adherents of the supposition of a
legendary admixture with the gospel narratives, But Dr. Meyer would
have us believe that the legendary additions to the gospel of Matthew grew
up between a.p. 40 and a.p. 70, during all of which time original wit-
nesses of the facts of the gospel might easily be still living. But this is
subjecting the theory of legend to a greater strain than even Strauss would
be willing to accept ; for he fixes the date of the origin of our gospels at
a point between a.p. 160 and a.p. 180. Ile writes: ‘‘These most
ancient testimonies tell us, firstly, that an apostle or some other person
who had been acquainted with an apostle wrote a gospel history, but
not whether it was identical with that which afterward came to be cir-
culated in the Church under his name; second, that writings similar to
our gospels were in existence, but not that they were ascribed with cer-
tainty to any one individual apostle or companion of an apostle. Such is
the uncertainty of these accounts, which, after all, do not reach further
back than the third or fourth decade of the second century.’’' It seemsa
pity, therefore, that Dr. Meyer should hold on to these shreds of the
Straussian theory of the origin of parts at least of gospel history, with-
out the support of the Straussian conditions as to time. Strauss’s as-
sertion with respect to the time of the composition of the gospels has
been refuted ; and with that prop gone, his theory of myth and legend
has nothing to rest upon.

More specifically Dr. Meyer’s theory of the origin of the first three
chapters of Matthew may be thus stated. Chapteri. 1-16 was a distinct
document appropriated by the collectors who added to the original Mat-
thew ; chapter i. 18-25, a second such document; and chapter ii. a
third, in which are now found, for the first time, the locality and time
of the birth of Jesus (pp. 57, 58). In general terms, these may be
described as legendary. The story of the Magi, especially, ‘‘has its
profound truth in the ideal sphere in which the Messianic idea surround-
ed the little known childhood of Jesus with the thoughtful legends, its
own creation, preserved by Matthew and Luke. The ideal truth of these
legends lies in their corresponding relation to the marvellous greatness
of the later life of the Lord and His world-embracing work.’’* To tell us

| Life of Jesus, vol. i., p. 62.
* Condensed from page 64.

Xiv PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

that a statement of history is false irt fact and yet ideally true is to leave
us without solid standing ground. For truth is correspondence to fact,
and what is false in fact can only be said to be ideally true in the sense
of being cleverly invented. Dr. Meyer is ready to admit that certain
‘¢ Kastern astrologers may, according to the divine appointment, have read
in the stars the birth of the Jewish Messiah who was to be the light of
the heathen, and with this knowledge have come to Jerusalem,” but he
rejects the star guidance and the murder of the children of Bethlehem
by Herod. Many, however, will hesitate to accept these suppositions of
Dr. Meyer when it is seen how far he is carried by them. Consistently
with his principles, he rejects also as legendary the history of the In-
carnation as given by Luke, so that, although he holds fast to the fact of
the Incarnation, all the record of it is for him swept out of existence.’
For Dr. Meyer the words of the Apostles’ Creed, ‘‘ He was conceived
by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,’’ are not expressive of
certaintics. These consequences of the adoption of a legendary theory
may very properly determine us to draw back from the theory itself.
But the whole procedure is arbitrary ; we are here in this history in the
midst of the supernatural ; the miracle of miracles, the incarnation of
the Divine Logos, is its subject-matter. If we can receive this, how
can we hesitate to receive the other statements, provided they have the
stamp of authentic history? And that these opening chapters have
such stamp is proved by the concurrent testimony of the ancient Church.
Moreover, if prophecy had promised that Jesus should be a light to the
Gentiles, it is not extraordinary that some divine guidance should have
led Gentiles to the place of His birth. Dr. Meyer accepts as authentic
the statement of Mark: ‘‘ And immediately the spirit driveth Him into
the wilderness’’ (chap. i. 12), which is in its place as remarkable as
the statement of Matthew that the Magi were led by a star.

For ourselves we do not set much store by the astronomical solutions
of the guidance of the Magi. Yet they show that even as an astronom-
ical event, the appearance of a new star at this time is supposable.
But the expectation of a divine person by the heathen world has not
perhaps been sufficiently dwelt upon ; and the dispersion of the Jews in
the far East must have made many heathen scholars acquainted with the
themes of Hebrew prophecy. But, as Davidson well says, ‘‘ Other
circumstances combined to induce the Magi to associate the phenomenon
with the Messiah ; but those circumstances would probably have been
insufficient, without supernatural influence, to create a settled conviction

1 See pp. 64, 65.

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. XV

__ of the connection, whence these wise men were led to undertake a length-
ened journey to Judea. This isin accordance with the fact that they were
afterwards divinely warned (ypnuarisSévres nar Gvap) to return to
their own country by another way. In them, as the representatives of
the heathen world, we behold that world as doing homage to the Lord.
And if such were the significance of the transaction, surely it was not
unworthy of Deity to interfere in the extraordinary mode implied in the
narrative. There is no reason for asserting that they distrusted the guid-
ance of the star, because they asked at Jerusalem, ‘‘ Where is He that
is born King of the Jews?’’ They had travelled to Judea and its cap-
ital, Jerusalem, in consequence of the remarkable phenomenon ; and now
they wish to discover the place in Judea where the Messiah should be
born. The narrative does not even sanction the idea of the star being
a general guide to them, by retaining the appearance and probably the
locality which it had when they first perceived it, to say nothing of its
moving before them in their long journey. On their leaving J erusalem
it became a specific index to the place which they were directed to visit,
in conformity with a prediction contained in the Old Testament script-
ures. Even after coming to Jerusalem, they did not mistrust the appear-
ance, for they are reported to have said,‘‘ We have seen His star in
the East.’’ '

‘Considering, therefore, on the negative side the consequences to
which the theory of Dr. Meyer leads him, and on the positive side
the testimony of antiquity to the authenticity of the first two chap-
ters of Matthew, and the harmony of their contents with the promises of
God to the heathen world, and with the expectation of a Messiah
by that world, we may reasonably decline to reject these chapters as un-
trustworthy. As to Dr. Meyer’s objection to the slaughter of the chil-
dren of Bethlehem, that it was ‘‘ unnecessary and without result,”’ it is
perhaps enough to answer that this behavior of Herod agrees well with
his conduct on other occasions, as, for example, in the murder of his
wife and three sons.. It was that Herod of whom Augustus, the em-
peror, said, ‘‘ Herodis mallem porcus esse quam filtus,’’ ‘*I had rather
be Herod’s hog than his son.’’? If his sagacity failed here, it failed
also on other occasions, when his understanding was blinded by his
passions.

The difficulties in Matthew’s genealogy and its apparent want of
agreement with the genealogy traced by Luke can be admitted, and yet

1 Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 121, 122.
* Quoted by Neander, Life of Christ, p. 27, where also see a graphic charac-
terization of this king.

xvi PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

it does not of necessity follow that the first chapter of Matthew is un-
historical. Dr. Meyer thinks that the genealogies ‘‘ owe their origin to
the view that Joseph’s paternal relation was real, and that their original
purpose bore that Joseph was the actual not the putative father of Jesus,
because otherwise the composition of a genealogical tree of Joseph would
have been without any motive of faith. But we must also grant that
the evangelists, as early as the time when they composed their works,
found the genealogy with the definite statements announcing the puta-
tive paternal relationship, and by that very circumstance saw it adapted
for reception without any contradiction to their belief in the divine
generation of Jesus. They saw in it a demonstration of the Davidic
descent of Jesus according to the male line of succession, and so far as
it was possible and allowable to give such in the deficiency of a hu-
man father—that is, a sfar back asthe reputed father.’’' It may be said,
however, that what was a good reason for the reception of a genealogy
would be an equally good reason for the compilation of one by the
evangelists from the original records, The supposition of Dr. Meyer
that the genealogies as first compiled showed Joseph as the real father
of Jesus, is, we think, wholly gratuitous. If it was at all important to
show that Jesus was of the line of David through his putative father, 80
that legally he was David’s descendant, then it was important enough
to justify the original construction of the genealogy in that form. And
if we assume that Luke’s genealogy traces the Davidic descent of Jesus
through his mother, then the one record of descent is the complement
of the other.

On the harmony of the genealogies, I know nothing clearer than the
presentation of Robinson : ‘‘ Both tables at first view purport to give
the lineage of our Lord through Joseph. But Joseph cannot have been
the son, by natural descent, of both Jacob and Heli (Matt. i. 16; Luke
iii, 28). Only one of the tables, therefore, can give his true lineage by
generation. Thisis done, apparently, in that of Matthew ; because, be-
ginning at Abraham, it proceeds by natural descent, as we know from
history, until after the exile, and then continues on in the same mode
of expression until Joseph. Here the phrase is changed ; and it is no
longer Joseph who ‘ begat’ Jesus, but Joseph, the husband of Mary,
of whom was born Jesus who is called the Christ.’’ To whom, then,
does the genealogy in Luke chiefly relate? If in any way to Joseph, as
the Janguage purports, then it must be because he in some way bore the
legal relation of son to Heli, either by adoption or by marriage. If the
former simply, it is difficult to comprehend why, along with his true per-

\
1 p. 44, note.
\

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. TV

sonal lineage as traced by Matthew up through the royal line of Jewish
kings to David, there should be given also another subordinate geneal-
ogy, not personally his own, and running back through a different and
inferior line to the same great ancestor. If, on the other hand, as is
most probable, this relation to Heli came by marriage with his daughter,
so that Joseph was truly his son-in-law (comp. Ruth i., viii., xi., xii.),
then it follows that the genealogy in Luke is, in fact, that of Mary, the
mother of Jesus. This being so, we can perceive a sufficient reason
why this genealogy should be thus given— viz., in order to show definite-
ly that Jesus was in the most full and perfect sense a descendant of David ;
not only by law in the royal line of kings through his reputed father,
but also in fact by direct personal descent through his mother.’”?

In regard to Matthew’s account of the temptation in the wilder-
ness, Dr, Meyer candidly admits that the acceptance of it ‘‘as a real
external, marvellous occurrence is a necessary consequence of the denial
of any legendary elements in the canonical gospels.’’’ He therefore
again falls back upon his supposition of a legendary formation in the
third chapter of the first gospel. With clearest insight he admits that
our choice of solutions lies between the real facts and ‘‘ an ideal history in
_ the garb of legend brought into shape by the power of the idea.’’ He
therefore rejects (1) the view which regards the Temptation as a vision
or a morning dream, and says well that there never ‘‘ occurs in the life
of Jesus any condition of ecstasy or a trace of any special manifestation
in dreams.’’ (2) The supposition which transfers the occurrence into
‘‘an internal history, which took place in the thoughts and fancy of
Jesus.”’ This view compels us to admit a liability in the mind of
Jesus to the internal suggestions of evil, which is offensive to Christian

1 Robinson's Greek Harmony of the Gospels, pp. 183-185.

** It is painful,’’ says Ellicott, ‘‘to notice the hardihood with which the genu.
ineness of these chapters has been called in question, even by some of the better
class of critics. When we remember (1) that they are contained in every man-
uscript, uncial or cursive, and in every version, eastern or western ; that most
of the early Fathers cite them, and that early enemies of Christianity appealed
to them ; when we observe (2) the obvious connection between the beginning
of chapter ili. and the end of chapter ii., and between chapter iv. 13 and ii. 23;
and when we remark (3) the exact accordance of diction with that of the ro-
maining chapters of the Gospel—it becomes almost astonishing that even &
priori prejudice should not have abstained at any rate from so hopeless a course
as that of impugning the genuineness of these chapters. To urge that these
chapters were wanting in the mutilated and falsified gospel of the Ebionites
(Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13), or that they were cut away by the heretical Tatian
(Theodoret, Haer, Fab. i. 20), is really to concede their genuineness, and to
bewray the reason why it was impugned.” (Life of Christ, pp. 65, 66, note.)

3See p. 98, et seq.

* xvii PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR,

feeling and contradictory to the testimony of Scripture. (3) The view
that the tempters were a deputation of the Sandedrim, co-operating
‘‘ with the sympathetic inworking of the national and world-spirit upon
Christ’s soul.’’ (4) The supposition that the event was a parable, which
Dr. Meyer finely says is in contradiction ‘‘to the narrative und alien to
the style of parabolic address employed by Jesus elsewhere.’’ Dr.
Meyer does well to exhibit in series these unsatisfactory solutions of
Matthew’s record of the Temptation, because he shows to what straits
commentators who reject the simple gospel narrative are reduced. But
his own solution is encompassed with as many difficulties as each one of
those we have described. ‘‘ Nothing else remains,’’ he tells us, ‘‘ than
to explain the narrative as a legend, the contents of which regarded as
thought possessed historical truth, and which arose among Jewish Chris-
tians, being derived from the idea of Christ as opposed to the devil.’’?
And again: ‘‘ The contents of the narrative certainly belong to history,
but not as a concrete occurrence with its three individual acts, but as a
summary reflection of the work of Jesus in His vocation in relation to
the demoniacal kingdom, without, however, our being obliged to assume
as an historical foundation any internal temptation taking place in
thought and any originally symbolic representation of the same, which
was transformed into actual history in the course of tradition.’’?

This mode of explaining the Temptation leaves the detailed account in
Matthew without any historical basis. If it be asked whose thought is
meant in the above statement, we are readily answered by Dr. Meyer,
the thought of Jewish. Christians. We must then imagine, that having
the bare fact of a temptation of Jesus in the wilderness made known to
them, they conceived that He must have been tempted thus and so.
But a pure invention of this sort would show more traces of human im-
perfection ; it would break down at one or several points by a failure to
apprehend worthily the relation between the kingdom of evil and the
kingdom of God. It would lack the dignity of Matthew’s record when
that record is looked at in its moral aspects. Some absurdity would
have crept in, as is apt to be the case when men shape out of their own ‘
imaginings the coming forth of an actor from the invisible world. Say-'
ing nothing of the difficulty.of supposing the formation of a legend in the
short time allowed by Dr. Meyer,*® he and those who think with him
leave us without any satisfactory account of the process of the legendary
formation. Beginning the narrative of the temptation, we are in the
clear light of history, when suddenly we plunge into mist ; at some point
or other wo have passed the boundary of the really true, and have en-

1Condensed from p. 100. , 9p, 101. * Thirty years, see p, xii.

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. xix

tered the region of the ideally true. Meanwhile the diction ard the
terms of speech remain the same as in the preceding and following
chapters of this gospel. No dissecting hand of critic bas traced in the
body of the narrator’s language the lines where the iron and the clay
refuse to become incorporate. There is force in Ellicott’s exegetical
judgment on this point: ‘‘It need scarcely be said that all such opinions
—whether the Temptation be supposed a vision especially called up, or a
mere significant dream—clearly come into collision with the simple yet
circumstantial narrative of the first and third Evangelists ; in which not
only is there not the faintest hint that could render such an opinion in any
degree plausible, but, on the contrary, expressions most studiously chosen
(avnyOn, Matt. iv. 1; myero, Luke iv. 1. Comp. Mark i. 12,
ExBadder; mpooeAOwrv, Matt iv. 3; zapadapuPavet, ver. 5;
avayaycv, Luke iv. 5; azéorn, ver. 18) to mark the complete objee-
tsve character of the whole..... I could as soon doubt my own exist-
ence as doubt the completély outward nature of these forms of tempta-
tion, and their immediate connection with the personal agency of the
persunal Prince of Darkness. I could as soon accept the worst statements
of the most degraded form of Arian creed as believe that this temptation
arose from any internal strugglings or solicitations. I could as soon admit
the most repulsive tenet of a dreary Socinianism as deem that it was en-
hanced by any self-engendered enticements, or hold that it was aught else
than the assault of a desperate and demoniacal malice from without, that
recognized in the nature of man a possibility of falling, and that thus far
consistently, though impiously, dared even in the person of the Son of
Man to make proof of its hitherto resistless energies.’’? As Dr. Meyer ac-
cepts the doctrine of the personality of the Satan (sce p. 102), his theory
of the Temptation seems the more difficult to reconcile with sound exe-
getical principles.

The discrepancies between Matthew’s account of the time of the last
Passover and John’s are treated by Dr. Meyer in his commentary on
the fourth gospel, and therefore do not come within the scope of this
preface. It only remains to notice the rising of the dead from their
graves, which, according to Matthew, accompanied the death of Christ
and the bribery of the guard appointed to watch His tomb. Of the
former of the two events Dr. Meyer thus speaks: ‘‘ The opening of the
graves is 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.
The thing thus signified by the divine sign was so moulded and ampli-

1 Life of Christ, pp. 112, 113, text and notes.

xx PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

fied in the course of tradition, that it became ultimately transformed
into an historical incident: wolAAa@ owmpara tev xexon. aylor
nyépOn.” * The supernatural opening of the graves is, therefore, con-
sidered by our learned author to be historical, but the actual rising of the
dead to be legendary. But if we can believe that the graves of dead
saints were supernaturally opened, there can be no difficulty in also
believing that their occupants came forth. The divine symbolism which
Dr. Meyer sees in the first fact is only made more complete by the
additional fact. Itis easier to reject the whole of this passage of the
gospel than to make an excision of one of its parts. The latter course,
in the absence of manuscript authority, is arbitrary ; the former is
entirely consistent for those who are disposed to reduce the super-
natural in the life and death of Jesus to a minimum. It is true
that this event as given by Matthew was made, several centuries after,
the basis of extravagant legends ; but the same is equally true of the narra-
tive of the crucifixion itself. These subsequent legendary insertions bear
too on their face the marks of beinginventions. Thus in the Acia Pilati,
cited by Dr. Meyer, the high priests being angry with Joseph of Ari-
mathea, sentence him in these words: ‘‘ For the present remain under
guard, but on the Lorn’s pay early you will be delivered to death.’? *
This shocking anachronism shows at once that the so-called Acta Pilati
isa forgery. We do not, therefore, attach as much importance as Dr.
Meyer seems to do to the engrafting of legend upon this passage of
Matthew’s gospel ; it proves nothing in the face of the harmony of the
passage with the rest of the first gospel, and the support which it has in
the testimony of ancient manuscripts.*

Upon the improbability of a mythic origin of this account, Davidson
reasons very pertinently : ‘‘ It cannot be said, with any degree of prob-
ability, that the two verses describing the unusual phenomenon of
some persons awaking from their graves, and going into Jerusalem, are
spurious. Neither external nor internal testimony can be adduced in
favor of that hypothesis, advocated as it has been by Stroth and Bauer.
Other writers have resorted toa mythic explanation of theevent. In the
Epistle to the Colossians, and in the Apocalypse, Christ is declared to
be the first-born from the dead, and, therefore, the mythic theory would

1 Condensed from note on chap. xxvii. 51, 52.

2 See works of Huidekoper, vol. ii., p. 137.

® On this point Ellicott says very pertinently: ‘‘ Ifthe Evang. Nicod. tends
to prove anything, it is this: that the ancient writer of the document regarded
Matthew xxvii. 52 as an authentic statement, and as one which no current tra-
ditions enabled him to embellish, but which was adopted as a convenient
starting-point for his legendary narration,.”” ‘‘ Life of Christ,” p. 324.

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. xxi

have introduced the passage in the description of Jesus’s resurrection,
not in that of his death. It is difficult to conceive of its insertion on
mythic principles, in the position it now occupies, especially as that very
position occasions some perplexity.’’ '

With respect to the setting of the watch over the grave of Christ, and
the bribing of the guards after the resurrection, Dr. Meyer’s reasons
for concluding the whole to be unhistorical are : (1) The improbability
that the women would have gone to the grave to embalm the body, if
they had known there was a watch. (2) The improbability that the
members of the Sanhedrim would have so little understood their own
interest as to leave the body of Jesus in the hands of the disciples
instead of taking possession of it themselves. (3) The improbability
that Pilate would take no notice of the neglect of duty by his own
soldiers. We do not consider that these difficulties are insuperable.
In the first place, the women might easily have been unaware that a guard
had been placed over the grave. They were not official persons ; they
did not move in the circle of official persons. Their position was a very
humble one indeed ; and they doubtless spent the intervening Sabbath
day in retirement, mourning the loss of Him they loved. In the second
place, the giving of the body of Jesus to His friends, or the withholding
it from them, was not in the power of the Sanhedrim. The disposition
of it was determined by the Roman governor. (Matt. xxvii. 57, 58.)
And the powerlessness of the members of the Sanhedrim in this regard
may hare all the more prompted them to ask for soldiers to watch the
sepulchre. Even though Pilate had weakly yielded to the clamors of
the Jewish mob, there was enough of humanity in him to incline him to
give to the disciples of Jesus the privilege of burying their Master. In
the third place, we must not assume too confidently that we understand
the state of the governor’s mind. Between Roman contempt for what-
ever was Jewish, the awe with which the bearing of Jesus had inspired
him, and the superstition which mysteriously clings to scepticism, and
is its dark shadow, he may have drifted into a condition of irresolution
and hesitancy which left him but imperfectly master of himself. Under
such circumstances he might be willing to accept the story of the
soldiers as a welcome relief, and might for this reason not care to
examine it too narrowly. ‘‘ Had he heard,’’ says Davidson, ‘‘ the true
circumstances attendant on the rising of Jesus from the dead, his fears
would have been excited, and his conscience rendered doubly uneasy.
Such tidings must have been disagreeable to his agitated spirit. But
when he learned that the body had been stolen by the disciples at

1 Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i., p. 79.

XXil PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.

night, his fears had not to be allayed, nor were his superstitious feelings
to be quieted. He felt that the part which he had taken in putting
Christ to death was unattended by the guilt and impiety in which it
must have presented itself had Jesus proved Himself the Son of God by
rising from the dead. Thus the information given by the Sanhedrim
to Pilate, false though it was, found a welcome reception.” '

These and all like criticisms need not detract from our estimate of the
great merit of Dr. Meyer as an expositor of the New Testament. Fifty-
two years have elapsed since the publication of his first volume, and
these years have only confirmed the first judgment of his great merit.
He is independent, yet reverent ; acutely grammatical, yet clear-sighted
in discerning the spiritual ; and utilizing the labors of his predecessora in
all the past centuries, his work is ‘‘rich with the spoils of time.’’
Considering exegesis purely as a historical science, he seeks the sense
of Scripture ‘‘ by the positive method of studying the grammar, the
usus loqguendi, and the connection in detail, as well as in its wider
and widest sense.’’ The result is an exemplar of exegetical tact and
conscientious research applied to the elucidation of the New Tes-
tament. In one of his golden sentences he tells us that in the task of
exegesis, ‘‘ we have always to receive what Scripture gives to us, and
never to give it aught of our own.’’ If he has not always succeeded in
realizing his lofty ideal, this is no more than comes to all men, for
supreme excellence is beyond our reach. But to have thoroughly
mastered his commentary is itself an education in exegesis. It must
not be forgotten, that when his exegetical works first appeared, myth
and legend were, throughout Germany, as one might say, in the air. ‘‘ All
history originates in myth,’’ was the accepted dictum of scholars, and
the application of the formula to the Old and New Testaments was
fearlessly made. The gospel records were examined with an almost pre-
ternatural suspicion ; and the disposition to concede legendary admix-
tures with their history was strong, even among orthodox men. That
Dr. Meyer should share to some extent in this wavering need not
repel us from him. His exegetical integrity is conspicuous in his treat-
ment of those parts of Matthew which he thinks have had a legendary
origin. For he first interprets them on sound principles, seeking for
their exact meaning, and then expresses his doubts of their historical ac-
curacy. We see all through these volumes, into which such vast learn-
ing has been compressed, the working of an honest and thoroughly
Christian mind,

We of the English-speaking race realize but imperfectly the terrible-

1 Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i., pp. 82, 83.

PREFACE BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. XXill

ness of the conflict through which the Scripture records have passed in
Germany during this century. We should not, therefore, be surprised
to find the marks of the conflict in the opinions of German scholars with
whose spirit we are most in sympathy. Even the loving and lovable
Neander, who has done so much in the sphere of Church history to
vindicate the leading principles of evangelical theology, shares with
Dr. Meyer the opinion that parts of Matthew are legendary.’ But our
faith in the historical accuracy of the first gospel need not be dis-
turbed by these deflections from the right line of thinking, and our
criticism may be well disarmed by Neandcr’s confession of the dimness
which surrounded him ‘‘ growing out of the errors and defects of an age
just freeing itself from a distracting infidelity.”?* And in the same
sweet temper Dr. Meyer sees in the spread of German theological litera-
ture throughout the world that ‘‘ it communicates what has been given to
it, in order, by the mutual working of the spirit, to receive in its turn
from abroad ; stimulates, so far as in it lies, in order that it may itself
find stimulus and furtherance, instruction and correction ; and in all this
lends its aid, that the divided theological strivings of the age, and the
various tendencies of religious national character, may be duly brought
closer together, and united in the eternal focus of all general science,
which is truth and nothing but truth.’’ * In this spirit, so thoroughly
Christian, we can receive the results of the laborious German study of
the Old and New Testaments. And we need the results of these labors ;
for our German brethren have been driven by the stress of the conflict
in the midst of which they havo lived to a broader and deeper explora-
tion of the sources of religious truth. Where all has been put in peril
—even our most precious spiritual possessions—all has been dared to
save from peril. And if scholars like Dr. Meyer show here and there a
scar, we know that they have fought a good fight. And if German
theological literature is ready to receive what we have to give, we can
heartily welcome the rich treasures which it dispenses to us with such a
liberal hand.

The Rev. Dr. J. A. Spencer, of New York, has added translations to
the Greek and Latin quotations, and the Rev. G. F. Behringer, of
Brooklyn, N. Y., has prepared the Topical Index and exercised a gen-
eral supervision of the work while passing through the press.

GEORGE R. CROOKS.
Drew Semwrnary, Manpison, N. J.,
July 20th, 1884.

! See, for instance, his Life of Christ, pp. 26, 27.
? Address to his Christian Brethren in the United States, Life of Christ, x.
3 Preface to the American edition of the Epistle to the Romans, p. viii.

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

Tue translation of this first volume of the Commentary on Matthew
has been made from the last (sixth) edition of the original, which had
been carefully revised by Dr. Meyer himself, and which has been re-
cently edited from his manuscript, with very slight alterations, by Dr.
Albert Ritschl, of Gottingen. The translator of the portion extending
from the sixth chapter to the end is the Rev. Peter Christie, of Abbey
St. Bathans, who has performed his work with care and ability ; but
the whole has been revised and carried through the press by myself.
As in the volumes of the series already published, reference has been
made throughout to the English translations of Winer’s and Buttmann’s
Grammars of New Testament Greek, and frequently also to translations
of other German works, quoted or referred to by Dr. Meyer. For the
copious Bibliographical list prefixed to the book, I am indebted to my
learned friend and co-editor Professor Dickson, who has also translated
the biographical sketch of Dr. Meyer by his son, which accompanies it.

For a statement of the circumstances which have led to the issue of
the Commentary of Dr. Meyer in an English translation, of the special
grounds for preferring it to the kindred work of de Wette, and of the
reasons which have induced the editors to undertake the work of revis-
ing the several portions of the translation in the interests of technical
accuracy and uniformity, the reader may be referred to the “‘ General
Preface,’’ prefixed by Dr. Dickson to the volume first issued, viz.
Romans, vol. I,

It is only necessary to say further, that the editors are not to be held
as concurring in Dr. Meyer’s opinions on some matters embraced in
this volume, such as his theory of the original composition of the
Gospel, and his views regarding the credibility of certain portions of
the history.

FREDERICK CROMBIE.

Sr. Mary's Cotzrce, 8t, ANDREWS,
31st October, 1877.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER

BY HIS SON, DR. GUSTAV MEYER, Pu.D.

My father, who died on the 21st June 1873, was born in Gotha on
the 10th January 1800. On the 12th January he was baptized in the
St. Margaret’s Church, and received the names Heinrich August
Wilhelm. His father was shoemaker to the ducal court, and was a
native of Righeim in Lower Franconia. An old family document,—a
certificate of my grandfather’s baptism,—composed with the pleasing
diffuseness of the olden time, states that Riigheim was ‘‘ under the
dominion of the most reverend Prince and Lord of the Holy Roman
Empire, Lord Francis Louis, Bishop of Bamberg and Wirzburg.’’ It
is a peculiarity of this document, drawn up in 1781, that the name is
never written Meyer, but always Majer or Mayer. My Jate father was a
tender child, and a crayon portrait which has been preserved, represent-
ing him when a boy of about seven years of age, shows a pale and deli-
cate face—in which, however, the large, earnest-looking eye suggests an
active mind. His bodily training was anything but effeminate. He
practised swimming and skating, not merely as a schoolboy and a
student, but at a much later age, when such exercises had long been
given up by many of his companions, And it was in truth not a time
for rearing boys tenderly. One of his earliest recollections was of the
autumn of 1806, when, not quite seven years old, he saw the prisoners
from the battle of Jena confined in the churches of his native town.
Gotha lay in the line of retreat of the beaten French in the days of
October 1813 ; and he was an eye-witness of the way in which the
Cossacks drove before them and made havoc of the magnificent Imperial
Guard.

He received his school training in the Gymnasium of his native town,
which had a reputation passing far beyond the narrow bounds of the
little province, and could point to pupils drawn from the most remote
regions. His teachers were Déring, Kaltwasser, Galletti, Kries,
Schulz, Regel, Uckert, Rost, and eventually also Bretschneider as re-

XXVl BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER.

ligious instructor. At the Gymnasium of Gotha he laid the foundations
of his classical culture ; there he first acquired a deep and thorough
familiarity with the laws of the Greek and Roman languages,—a
tenacious adherence to which was a characteristic feature of his later
labors, and not unfrequently brought on him the reproach of pedantic
stiffness. While he greatly lamented the neglect of modern languages
during his days at school, he was yet far from granting that the methods
of instruction pursued in the Gymnasia of more recent times, or the
requirements of the Abzturient examination, were preferable to those of
his youth. He conceived that in former times there were greater
facilities for each individual following out his own course of self-
development. It was not to be denied that an Abiturient of the present
day, after having passed a good examination, could show a greater ex-
tent and wider range of knowledge ; but it was to be feared that this
knowledge was more of an encyclopedic nature, and excluded thor-
oughness and depth. Be this as it may,—and the question is not even
now to be held as decided,—the grammar-schoolboy, August Meyer,
who had gradually been advanced to the highest class and to the fore-
most place in it, must have been esteemed by his teachers as one who
had well bestowed his time and strength on following out his predomi-
nant bias—bordering perhaps on one-sidedness—for the classical
languages.

The third centenary celebration of the Reformation was duly honored
even in the Gymnasium at Gotha. To Meyer was entrusted the Latin
address on the occasion, which was to be delivered in hexameters.
There lies befure me the third edition of Heyne’s Ztbullus, which was
presented to him by some of the citizens ‘‘ in celebration of the jubilee
festival of the Reformation, 1817, upon the recommendation of his
teachers.’” Half a year after this incident, important at all events in
the career of a grammar-schoolboy, namely, at Easter 1818, he passed
his Abiturtent-examination, and entered the University of Jena to study
theology. ‘‘ These were different times,’’ he was wont to say, ‘‘ from
the present. Everything was much simpler and less luxurious than
now, when the course of study costs more than twice as much, and yet
not twice as much is learned.’’ All honor to the greater simplicity of
those days; but unless money had had a far greater value then than
now, such a course of study, moderate as it was in price, would not
have been possible for him even with the strictest frugality. The father
of the young student of theology had sustained a serious loss of means
by the continuance of the troubles of war, the quartering of troops in
large numbers, severe sickness, and other misfortunes. His son cost
him at Jena 80 thalers (£12) half-yearly. We had no exhibition, no

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. XXvil

free board ; only he had, of course, mostly free clothing, the renewal of
which was as a rule reserved for the holidays. And yet he was withal
no recluse. The charm of the fresh student-life, which, just after the
War of Liberation, burst into so fair a bloom, had strong attractions for
him. He was a member of the great Burschenschaft. Most leaves of
his note-book exhibited the crossed rapiers with the G. E. F. V. of the
fraternity. Thoroughly simple must have been the social life of that
joyous academic youth of 1818 and 1819! Should these lines perhaps
meet the eyes of one or another of my father’s old comrades, especially
in Thuringia,—and some are still there, he was wont to say, but not
many,—they will possibly awaken recollections of the cheap Commerse
in the public market, of the drinking and guitar-playing, of the rapier
duels fought out in the open street, of the journeyings home at vacation
time,—fifteen hours on foot from Jena to Gotha, without putting up
for the night, not seldom in bad weather, in snow and rain. Many who
shared these journeys are doubtless no Jonger surviving. One who,
on account of his ever-ready knowledge of Greek, was called by his
friends the Count of é7i, equally prepared for conflict with the rapier
or with the tongue, was especially often mentioned by him, and held
in sincere esteem. He was called away long before him, and died uni-
versally respected as a Head-master in our province. After the unhappy
deed of Karl Sand in March 1819, and the dissolution of the great
Burschenschaft which thereupon ensued, my father took no further part
in student-life, but applied himself all the more zealously to those
studies of which he had not hitherto been neglectful. His theological
teachers were Gabler, Schott, Danz, Baumgarten-Crusius, Kosegarten
the Orientalist, Eichstadt the philologist, Fries the philosopher, and
Luden the historian. As he was fond of recalling—and not without re-
gret that their days were over—the lectures read in Latin, such as
Schott’s, he often alsu, and with pleasure, called to mind the discussions
on theological subjects, which were started by the young students even
in their walks and were conducted in Latin. He felt himself least
attracted by the prelections on philosophy ; his whole bent was already
at that time decidedly towards the field of languages.

After a curriculum of two years and a half, at Michaelmas 1820 he
left the University ; and entered, as domestic tutor, the educational in-
stitution of Pastor Oppermann, who subsequently became his father-in-
law, at Grone near GOttingen. The time for young theologians then
was similar to whatit is now. They were wholly, or almost wholly,
spared that long and laborious career of domestic tutorship, which led
many a one, amidst the subsequent crowd pressing forward to the study
of theology, to lose heart and hope. At Easter 1821 he underwent his

XXVili BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER.

examination as candidate at Gotha, and soon he had the choice between
an appointment in the Gymnasium of his native city and a pastorate.
He chose the latter ; and in December 1822 was nominated as pastor at
Osthausen in the district of Kranichfeld, which subsequently (1826) was
ceded, on the division of the ducal inheritance, from Gotha to Meinin-
gen. In January of the following year, when exactly twenty-three
years old, he was installed as pastor in Osthausen ; and in July of the
same year he brought home from Grone to fair Thuringia his youthfu}
bride. How soon afterwards came a change of times! To the candi-
dates who not long thereafter appeared in numbers exceeding the
demand,—men, who had but finished their examinations at the age of
thirty, whose hair not seldom began to get suspiciously grey while they
were stiJl domestic tutors, and who counted the duration of their
affianced state at least by dustres,—it must have sounded almost like a
fable, that a young theologian had established for himself a home of his
own as an independent pastor at the age of twenty-three. God, who be-
stowed on him this great favor, granted to him also a duration of the
married state for almost forty years.

The pleasant Jeisure which fell to the young pastor’s lot in a com-
munity of about 400 souls—for which down to the close of his life he
cherished the utmost affection—did not make his mind indolent or his
hands idle. It was natural that so juvenile a pastor should still for a
time address himself to private study before coming before the public
as an author, and all the more so in his case, seeing that in 1827 he
went to Hannover for the purpose of passing a Colloquium, with a view
to acquire the privilege of naturalization in the then existing kingdom.
But as early as the year 1829 there was issued by Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht—the esteemed publishing-house, with which he so long main-
tained most friendly relations—the first portion of his work on the New
Testament, containing the Greek text and the German translation. In
the year 1830 followed his Libri symbolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae. In the
same year—as a fruit of his Colloquium, and probably also of the services
already rendered by him in the field of theological literature—he was ap-
pointed as pastor at Harste, near Gottingen. Althopgh he had paved
the way for such a step by acquiring naturalization in 1827, and had by
his marriage with the pastor’s daughter in Grone become half a Han-
noverian, and indeed a man of Gottingen, the breaking up of the home
established seven years before at Osthausen was a sore trial to my
parents. On the day after Christmas, amidst a severe snowstorm, when
they doubly missed their wonted comfortable abode, they set out on
their perilous journey from Osthausen amidst tcars shed alike by those -
departing and by those left behind. It was not till the third day that

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. Xxx

the hardships and perils of the winter-migration were over. Their new
relations were not at first of too agreeable a nature. They needed to be
gradually inured to their new position in life before they could feel
themselves at home in it. With the far less perfect communication at
that time between the several districts of our country, and with the
loose connection subsisting between one portion of the Germanic Federa-
tion and another, a journey from the Meiningen to the Gottingen district
was amore distant, and a transference of abode thither in more than
one respect a more difficult, matter than at present. Yet, in spite of
the many new impressions which had to be formed and assimilated,—
the power of which did not permit him in the remotest degree to antici-
pate that he would part from this community also with deep pain,—
my father did not allow his scientific Jabors to lie in abeyance. In the
beginning of the year 1832 appeared the second part of his work on the
New Testament, containing the Commentary. The long time that
elapsed between the first part (1829) and the second is explained by
‘the change of his place of abode, and the edition of the Libri
symbolici, issued in the jubilee-year of the Augsburg Confession’’
(Preface, 20th Jan. 1832). The Commentary, according to the
original plan, was to form two divisions, the first of which was to ex-
tend to the Book of Acts (inclusive), and the second was to embrace
the remaining books. That this idea proved a mistaken one ; that the
work has extended to 16 divisions ; that his own strength did not
suffice to overtake the constantly increasing labor ; that new editions
were continually needed ; that an English translation of it is in the
press,—all this is evidence of the rare favor which the Commentary
has retained for more than forty years among the theological public of
all schools. It would be surprising, if in so long a period the stand-
point of the author, diligent as he was and unwearied in research, had
not undergone modifications ; and that in the course of years his views
did become more positive, is a fact well known to his readers ; but to
the principle of grammatico-historical interpretation, on which so much
stress is laid in the Preface of 1832, he remained unalterably faithful
down to the close of his Jife. And as a zealous representative of this
schoo] he will maintain his place in the history of exegesis, whatever
new literary productions time may bring to light.

With a rare activity of mind, he had the skill to lay hold of whatever
—whether from friends or from opponents—could be of service to him.
The circumstance that he mastered without difficulty the contents of
the most voluminous Latin exegetes, and most conscientiously consulted
the old Greek expositors, cannot surprise us, when we consider his pre-
ponderant leaning to classical studies ; but the facts, that he used with

XxX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER.

ease commentaries written in English and French, that he never left out
of view works composed in Dutch, and that he made himself master of
Gothic so far as in a critical and exegetical point of view he had need
of it,—all serve to attest alike his uncommon qualifications and his iron
diligence. Everything new that made its appearance in the field of
theological literature, especially in the domain of exegesis, excited his
interest ; sparing in self-indulgence otherwise, he conceived that, so far
as concerned the acquisition of books, he had need to put a restraint on
himself ; as regards edition, place of publication, size, rarity, and the
like, he had an astonishing memory. The administration of a large and
liberally supported library seemed to him to be an enviable lot. The
theological public hardly needs to be told that studies so comprehensive
in range required of course years, and many years, to reach maturity,
and that between the Commentary on Matthew of the year 1832 and
the fifth edition of the same work in 1864, a very considerable differ-
ence in every respect is discernible. Among the mss. left behind him
I find a sixth edition of his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,
which, although according to his own expression not yet quite ripe for
the press, to judge from a superficial glance through it, deserves in
every respect to be pronounced an improvement on its predecessor. He
was in the habit of long polishing ata work and correcting it, before
he marked it ‘‘ ready for the press.’’ The ninth division—the Epistles
to the Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon—was being printed in a
fourth edition, when an incurable visceral disorder threw him on his
last short, but painful, sickbed.

It was beyond doubt in great measure a result of the favor which
his Commentary enjoyed, that the author was at a comparatively early
age withdrawn from the quiet work of a rural pastor and called to Hoya
as superintendent at Michaelmas 1837. In this position as Hphorus and
as preacher in a country town, whose inhabitants must be presumed to
have had other claims than those of simple villagers, two aspects of his
nature had opportunity to show and further develop themselves—that
of the practical man of business, and that of the pulpit orator. In the
first-named relation he was thoroughly exact ; his principle was ‘‘ to be
always ready.’’ To postpone disagreeable affairs, to put off irksome
reports, was just as impossible for him as to leave accounts unpaid.
He vied with his fellow-commissary, the no Jess exact von Honstedt,
former high-steward at Hoya, in the quick despatch of the business on
hand, and the art of gaining something from the day—namely, by
early rising. Asa pulpit orator he strove honestly and with success to
expound the word of the cross in plain and simple form as the power of

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. Xxxi

God unto salvation, and he was listened to with pleasure so long as he
acted as a preacher (till Midsummer 1848).

His ministry in Hoya lasted only four years, during which the pub-
lication of his Commentary went on with unabated vigor. At
Michaelmas 1844 he was called to Hannover as Consistorialrath, Superin-
tendent, and chief pastor of the Meustddter St. Johanniskirche. I well
remember the many attestations of unfeigned affection and cordial attach-
ment, when on the clear sunny autumn day, thirty-two years ago, he
departed from Hoya to enter upon the more stirring and more respon-
sible career before him in the capital. None but a man in the prime of
his vigor could do justice at once to his position in the supreme
ecclesiastical court, and to the duties of superintendent and pastor in a
community of more than 5000 souls. Ie had but little ministerial help
in his pastoral office. It was his duty to preach every Sunday fore-
noon ; a scantily paid court-chaplain, who was obliged to make up the
deficiency of his income by giving private lessons, had regularly the
service in the afternoon, and was expected, moreover, to act for him in
any pastoral duties when at any time he was hindered from discharging
them. But how often it happened that he was called away even from
the sittings of the Consistory to administer baptism to infants ap-
parently dying and the communion to the sick, because his court-chap-
lain was under the necessity of giving private lessons somewhere! It
required, in truth, a stubborn following out of his principle of ‘‘ being
always ready’’ (as in fact it was his wont, almost without exception, to
prepare for his sermon even on the Monday), to remain faithful to his
vocation as an exegete amidst this burden of work. It was again the
early hours of the morning which put him in a position to do so. He
obtained an honorable recognition of the services thus rendered at
Easter 1845, when he was nominated by the Facnlty at Gottingen
Doctor of Theology, “‘ propter eximiam eruditionem artemque thcologi-
cam eamque praecipue editis excellentissimis doctissimisque in libros
Novi Testamenti commentariis, quibus consensu omnium de ornanda et
amplificanda hermeneutica sacra praeclarissime meruit, comprobatam.’’

Hitherto the lines of the son of the court-shoemaker in Gotha had
fallen in pleasant places ; but he was now to see days in which the hand
of the Lord was to be laid heavily upon him. It was doubtless in part
a result of the unusual demands made on his strength—to which was
added his taking part in the Church Conference at Berlin in the winter
of 1846—that at the end of February in that year he was stretched by a
severe visceral affection on a sickbed, which Jong threatened to be his
last. But the goodness of God averted the danger, and preserved him
stil} for a number of years to his friends and to theclogical science.

XXXil BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER.

The strenuous care of the now Jong departed Hofrath Holscher was suc-
cessful in putting him on the way to slow recovery, which was
accelerated in a most gratifying manner by a visit to the mineral waters
of Marienbad. But the old indomitable strength was gone. This he
perceived only too plainly, even when he had for the second time grate-
fully felt the benefit of the Bohemian medicinal springs. His weak-
ened health imperatively demanded a change in his manner of life, and
a consequent diminution of the burden of labor that Jay upon him.
Henceforth he became—what he had never previously allowed himself
the time for—a habitual walker. Every morning between 7 and 8
o’clock, after having previously devoted some hours to exegesis, in wind
and storm, summer and winter, even on the morning of the Sundays
when he had to preach, he took his accustomed walk, to which he
ascribed in no small degree his gradual recovery of strength. At the
same time he became a zealous water-drinker, and he called water and
walking his two great physicians. The lightening of his Jabor, that
was so essentially necessary, came at Midsummer 1848, when he re-
signed his dutics as Ephorus and pastor, in order to devote himself
henceforth solely to the Consistory, in which, however, as may readily
be understood, the measure of his Jabors became greater in point both
of quality and of quantity. Many of the clergy of our province belong-
ing to the days when there were still three examinations to be passed
and that in Latin, will recollect with pleasure the time when he con-
ducted the preliminary, and regularly took part in the stricter, trials.
Hlis easily intelligible Latin, and his definite and clear mode of putting
questions, were specially spoken of with praise.

His aged mother witnessed with just pride his enjoyment of the fruit
of his exertions ; she did not die till the year 1851, after she had had,
and had conferred, the pleasure of a visit to him at Hannover. On the
Christmas eve of 1858 he stood by the bier of a son of much promise,
who, as a teacher of the deaf and dumb at Hildesheim, was carried off
by typhus, away from his parental home, in the flower of his age, at
twenty-three. This blow was no doubt far more severe than that by
which, in 1847, God took from him a boy of seven years ; but under
this painful trial the word of the cross approved itself to him a power of
God. In May 1861 he became Obverconsistorialrath. The constant un-
certainty of his health, moreover, and in particular a very annoying
sleeplessness, made him even at that time entertain the idea of super-
annuation, In the summer of 1863 he sought and found partial relief
at the springs of Homburg. In January 1864 the hand of God dis-
solved the marriage-tie, which he had formed in the year 1823. In the
preface to the fifth edition of the Commentary on St. Matthew he has

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. XXXlil

penned a well-deserved tribute to the memory of the faithful companion
of his life, who had shared with him the joys and sorrows of forty
years, 7

From the Midsummer of this year down to his death—exactly, there-
fore, nine years—he lived under the same roof with me, affectionately
tended by my wife, the teacher, friend, companion, I might almost say
playmate, of his two granddaughters.

On Ist October 1865 he retired from official life, on which occasion,
in honorable recognition of his lengthened services, he obtained a higher
decoration of the Guelphic Order which he had already worn since 1847
—the cross of a Commander of the Second Class. At first he retained
some share in conducting the examinations ; but this official employ-
ment, too, he soon gave up. Twice after his superannuation he was
present by direction of the Government at Halle to take part in the
Conference, which occupied itself with the settlement of a uniform text
for Luther’s translation of the Bible, and the fruit of which was the
edition of 1870, published at the -Canstein Bible-Institute. Now that,
at the age of sixty-five, he was released from professional activity in the
strict sense of the term, he could devote his life the more tranquilly to
science and to the pleasure of the society of his friends. His two
granddaughters accompanied him regularly on his walks in the morning ;
and I know several houses, the inmates of which looked out every day
upon the company regularly making its appearance, in which hoary age,
with blooming youth playing around it, seemed to return to the bright
days of childhood. And the kindly grandfather in the midst of his
granddaughters on these morning walks was not monosyllabic or mute.
On these occasions jest and earnest alternated with instructions and re-
flections of the most varied character. Punctually every morning at
the same hour he returned home from these walks, which he continued
to his last day of health. But he returned not in order to be idle. He
was wont by way of joke, even after his superannuation, to speak’ of
how precisely his time was meted out, and how strictly he had to hus-
band it. The earlier rapidity of his writing no doubt ceased, and in-
creasing age imperatively demanded pauses, where his more youthful
vigor would not have even felt the need of a break.

To all political party-proceedings he was thoroughly hostile ; but he
followed the mighty events of the years 1866 and 1870 with the liveliest
interest. When the German question was being solved by blood and
iron, when old thrones tottered and fell, he had a cordial sympathy
with much that was disappearing irretrievably ; but he did not
obstinately close his eyes to the gratifying fruit which sprang up on the
bloody soil of 1866. Difficult as it certainly would have been for the

XXXIV BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER.

old man to reconcile himself to altogether new relations of allegiance, he
sincerely rejoiced over the increasing strength of Germany, and that with
the greater reason, because he knew from the experiences of his youth
how sad was the prospect in those days when Germany was simply a
geographical idea. And if the year 1866 may have kept alive some
bitter recollections now and then in one who had grown grey in tho
service of the kingdom of Hannover, he wel] understood the language
of thunder, in which God spoke to the nations in 1870, and he recog-
nized the sovereign sway of the Almighty, who with strong arm saved
us from the house of bondage. To a man, who in the years of his
boyhood had so often heard the French shout of victory, had seen the
great Napoleon, had passed through the times of the Rhenish Con-
federation, and had grown up to manhood in the period when so many
political hopes were nipped in the bud, the blows of Weissenburg and
Worth, the united onset of all Germans, appeared almost like a fable.
How often he changed the direction of his accustomed walks, in order
to hear at the telegraph-office of new victories and heroic deeds! And
how grateful was he, who had shared in the times of gore calamity
and ignominy, for what God permitted the Germans to achieve! He
was born under the last Emperor of the honse of Hapsburg ; could any-
thing else be expected of the Protestant exegete, than that he should
cordially rejoice at the mode in which the German Empire was recon-
stituted on the 18th January 1871 at Versailles ?

In the sphere of religion, as in that of politics, all ill-temper and
irritation were odious and repugnant to him. He had, in the course of
time, as every reader of his exegetical work well enough knows, become
more positive in his views ; but he was far removed from any confes-
sional narrow-mindedness or persecuting spirit. He desired that there
should be no stunting or spoiling of the homely, simple words of Script-
ure either from one side or another; and he deeply lamented it,
wherever it occurred, let the cause of it be what it would. He never
concealed his conviction ; it has gone abroad everywhere in many thou-
sand copies of his book ; and he carried with him to the grave the hope
that it would please God, in His own time, to complete the work of the
Reformation.

A mere outward observer of the tranquil and regular course of life of
my late father might not surmise, but those who were in closer inter-
course with him for the last two years could not conceal from them-
selves, that his day was verging to its close. No doubt he still always
rose, summer and winter, immediately after four o'clock ; he was con-
stantly to be seen beginning his walks at the same time ; his interest in
his favorite science was still the same ; but his daily life became more

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. XXXV

and more circumscribed in its range, and the pendulum of his day’s
work vibrated more and more slowly, so that its total cessation could
not but be apprehended. The journeys to the house of his son-in-law,
Superintendent Steding at Drausfeld, where he had so often found re-
freshment and diffused joy by his visits, had long since ceased. After
a fal], which he met with about a year before his death, his walks were
curtailed. To this outward occasion he attributed what was probably a
consequence of gradual decline of strength and advancing age.

The Lord of life and death, who had so graciously dealt with him
for seventy-three years, as he himself most gratefully acknowledged,
spared him also from prolonged suffering at the last. On the 15th
June he still followed quite his usual mode of life; he spent the after-
noon with contentment and cheerfulness in his garden, then took a little
walk, and went to rest punctually at eight o’clock, as he always did in
his latter years. The walk on that Sunday afternoon wasto be his
last, and the unfolding glories of the summer were not to be seen by him
again with the bodily eye. During the night, towards one o’clock, he
awoke us, as he was suffering from violent iliac pains. With the
calmest composure he recognized the hand of the Lord, which would
remove him from the scene of his rich and fruitful labors. He declared
that’ he was willing and ready to depart, asking only for a speedy and
not too painful end. The medical aid which at once hastened to his
side afforded indeed momentary relief by beneficial injections of mor-
phia ; but the eye of science saw the same danger as those around him
had immediately felt and foreboded.’ It was an incurable visceral affec-
tion, which was conjectured to be connected with the severe illness that
he had happily survived twenty-seven years before. On the 19th June
a transient gleam of hope shone once more for a short time.
“* Willingly,’’ he said on this day, after an uneasy night, ‘* would I still
remain with you ; but willingly am I also ready to depart, if God calls
me.’’ It was but a brief gleam of the setting sun before the approach
of night. This we could not but soon perceive, and this he himself saw
with the manly Christian self-possession, by means of which he had
been so often in life a comfort and example to us. Soon after there set
in a state of half-slumber, during which the most diversified images
flitted in chequered succession before his mind. Now he saw himself

1I may here be allowed, under the natural impulse of melancholy recollec-
tion conscious of its indebtedness, to mention with the most sincere thanks
the considerate and devoted care of the physicians in attendance on him—the
chief-physician Dr. Kéllner and chief-staff-physician Dr. Hiibener. So often
did they afford to their dying patient the great blessing of mitigating his pain,
where their tried skill had limits assigned to it by a higher hand.

XXXVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER.

seated before a large page from the New Testament, on which he was
employed in commenting, while he fancied that he held the pipe in his
mouth. In this way had he devoted many a quiet morning hour to his
favorite study, when his window had been the only one lighted up in
the street. Then, again, he busied himself with the Fatherland ;
‘¢ Germany, Germany above all,’’ we heard him distinctly say. Was it
that the recollections of his cheerful student-days, when the Burschen-
schaft was full of fervor and enthusiasm specially for the Fatherland,
became interwoven with the mighty events of his latter years? Soon
afterwards he saw clearly the cross, of which he had so often during his
long life experienced and diffused the blessing. On the 20th June
there was yiven the fatally significant intimation that he might be
allowed to partake of anything which he wished. He made no further
use of it than to take some beer, of which he had always been fond.
But it was only for a passing moment ; and the beer also soon remained
untouched, just as his pipe and box, formerly his inseparable attendants,
had since his sickness lost their power of attraction. Violent vomiting
and the weary stngultus, which hardly abated for a moment, announced
but too plainly that the end of that busy life was closely approaching.
Shortly before 10 p.m., on the 21st June, he entered without struggle
upon his rest. His wish, often and urgently expressed during his life-
time and also on his deathbed, that his body might be opened for medi-
cal examination, was complied with on the following day. The result
was to exhibit such visceral adhesion and intussusception,—bevond
doubt an after-effect of his earlier illness,—that even the daring venture
of a surgical operation could not have been attended with success. On
Midsummer-day he was buried in the Neustadter churchyard, where he
had so often, during the exercise of his pastoral functions, stood by the
open grave of members of his flock. On the cross at his tomb are
placed the words from Rom. xiv. 8: ‘* Whether we live, we live unto
the Lord ; whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Whether we live
therefore or die, we are the Lord’s.’’

Hannover, December 1873.

PREFACE TQ THE PRESENT (SIXTH) EDITION.

Tue venerable author of the Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospel of Matthew, who was called away from this life this day just two
years ago, left behind him a complete revision of the book with a view
to a sixth edition of it. He was most conscientiously careful in keeping
the successive editions, that were ever being called for, of the several
portions of his Commentary on the New Testament thoroughly on a
level with the competing critical and exegetical labors of his contem-
poraries. Accordingly he had prepared in good time the matter to be
substituted for the fifth edition of the present part, which appeared in
1864. The few material changes and the supplementary additions, Dy
which this edition is distinguished from its predecessor, are thus wholly
the work of Meyer. The undersigned, out of friendship for the pub-
lisher, and out of dutiful affection towards the author, with whom he
was closely connected in his latter years, undertook to look over the
manuscript, and has accordingly deemed himself entitled merely to make’
alterations of minor compass in form and style. This Preface, there-
fore, has no other object than simply to introduce the book afresh to
the theological public, to whom there is no need that I should descant
on the merits of the deceased author in order to keep alive his memory
and the enduring intellectual influence of his work.

Prorrssor Dr. A. RITSCHL.

GorrmncEN, 21st June, 1875.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

[Tue following list—which is not meant to be exhaustive, but is intended to
embrace the more important works in the several departments to which it
applies—contains commentaries, or collections of notes, which relate to the
New Testament as a whole, to the four Gospels as such, to the three Synoptic
Gospels (including the chief Harmonies), or to the Gospel of Matthew in partic-
ular, along with the principal editions of the Greek New Testament that are
referred to in the critical remarks prefixed to each chapter, and the more note-
worthy Grammars and Lexicons of New Testament Greek. It does not include
(with the exception of some half-dozen works that contain considerable exegeti-
cal matter) the large number of treatises dealing with questions of Introduction
or of historical criticism in relation to the Gospels, because these are generally
specified by Meyer when he refers to them ; nor does it contain monographg
on chapters or sections, which are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. Works
mainly of a popular or practical character bave, with a few exceptions, been
excluded, since, however valuable they may be on their own account, they
have but little affinity with the strictly exegetical character of the present work.
The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the
book has been more or less frequently reissued ; + marks the date of the
author’s death ; c. = circa, an approximation to it.—W. P. D.]

ALBERTI (Johannes), + 1762, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Observationes philologicae

in sacros N. F. libros. 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1725.

ALEXANDER (Joseph Addison), D.D., + 1860, Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. History at
Princeton : The Gospel according to Matthew explained.

12°, New York [and Lond.] 1861.

Atrorp (Henry), D.D., + 1871, Dean of Canterbury: The Greek Testament,

with a critically revised text... and a critical and exegetical com-

mentary. 4 vols. 8°, Lond. 1849-61, al.

Anozz (Rudolph), ¢ 1866, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Synopsis Evangeliorum

Matthaei, Marci, Lucas... . 8°, Lips. 1852,

AXNoTATIONS upon all the books of the O. and N. Testament... . by the
joint Jabour of certain learned divines thereunto appointed .. . [by
the Westminster Assembly of Divines]. 2 vols. 2°, Lond. 1645, al.

Anse, of Laon, +1117, Teacher of Schol. Theol. at Paris: Glossa interli-
nearis. 2°, Basil. 1502. al.

Aquinas (Thomas), + 1274, Scholastic philosopher ; Catena vere aurea in qua-
tuor Evangelia. 2°, 3. lL. 1474, al.
(Translated by Dr. Pusey and others. 4 vols, in 8.

8°, Oxf. 1841-45. }

Azerius (Benedict), ¢ 1574, Prof. Theol. at Berne: Commentarii in quatuor
Evangelia. 8°, Lausannae, 1577, al.
Commentarii in N. T. 2°, Paris. 1607, al.

Ants Montano (Benito), + 1598, Spanish monk, Editor of the Antwerp Poly-
glott : Elucidationes in quatuor Evangelia. 4°, Antverp. 1573.

xl EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

ABNAULD (Antoine), { 1694, Port Royalist : Historia et concordia evangelica.
12°, Paris. 1643, al.
ARNOLDI (Matthias) : Commentar zum Evangelium des bh. Matthaus.
8°, Trier, 1856.
Avcustinus (Aurelius), ¢ 430, Bishop of Hippo: Exegetica commentaria in
., viz. De consensu Evangelistarum libri iv.; De sermone Domini
in Monte libri ii.; Quaestionum Evangeliorum libri i li.; Quaestionum
septendecim in Evang. secundum Matthaeum liber i. In Joannis
‘Evangelium tractatus crxiv. ; in Epistolam Joannis ad Parthos tractatus
x.; Expositio quarundam propositionum ex Epistola ad Romanos,
liber i.; Epistolae ad Romanos inchoata expositio, liber i.; Expositio
Epistolae ad Galatas, liber i. [Opera, tom. iii. ed. Benedict.
2°, Paris. 1680, al.}
[Partly translated in ‘‘ Library of the Fathers’’ and in ‘‘ Works of St.
Augustine.’’]

BauMGaRtTen-Crusius (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), + 1843, Prof. Theol. at Jena:
Commentar tiber das Evang. das Matthaus ’[und iiber die Evang.

des Markus und Lukas... .]. 8°, Jena, 1844-45.
BaxTez (Richard), + 1691, Nonconformist divine : A paraphrase on the N. rT.
with notes. . . 4°, Lond. 1685, al.

Bravusosne (Isaac de), + 1738, French pastor at Berlin: Remarques histo-
riques, critiques et philologiques sur le N. T. 2 tomes.
4°, La Haye, 1742.
And Lenrant (Jacques), + 1728, French pastor at Berlin : Le N. T. .
traduit en francois . .. avec des notes litérales, pour éclairir le

texte. 2 tomes. 4° Amst, 1718, al.

Bena (Venerabilis), + 735, monk at Jarrow : Commentarii in quatuor Evangelia.
1 hol

BEELEN (Jean-Théodore), R. C. Prof. Or. Lang. at Louvain : Grammatica

Graecitatis N. T. 8°, Lovanii, 1857.

Bence. (Johann Albrecht), + 1751, Prelate in Wiirtemberg: N. T. Graecum ita
adornatum, ut textus probatarum editionum medullam, margo vari-

antium lectionum . . delectum, apparatus subjunctus criseos sacrae,
Millianae praesertim, compendium, limam, supplementum ac fructum
exhibeat. 4°, Tubing. 1734, al.

Gnomon N. T., in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas,
concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. 4°, Tubing.
1742, al. [Translated by Rev. A..R. Faussett. 5 vols.

Edin. 1857-58, al.

Richtige Harmonie der vier Evangelisten. 8°, Tibing. 1736,
BreR.erscH (August, Freiherr von): Quatuor N. T. Evangelia .. . orthodoxe
explanata. . Ratisb. 1849.

BEzz [Brza] (Theodore de), + 1605, Pastor at Geneva: N. T. sive N. Foedus,
cujus Graeco textui respondent interpretationes duae, una vetus, altera
nova Theodori Bezae ... Ejusdem Th. Bezae annotationes...

29. Genev. 1565, al.

BrsPrne Cugue). R. C. Prof. Theol. at Miinster : Exegetisches Handbuch zum

9 Bande. 8°, Miinster, 1867-76.

BLEEK (riedsich), + + 1859, Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Synoptische Erklérung der
drei ersten Evangelien. 2 Bande. 8°, Leip. 1862.

BLOOMFIELD (Samuel Thomas), D.D., + Vicar of Bisbrooke : The Greek Testa-
ment, accompanied with Eng ish notes, critical, philological, and ex-

egetical. 2 vols. 8°, Lond. 1829, al.
Recensio synoptica annotationis sacrae . . . 8 voll. go, Lond. 1826-28.
Bos (Lambert), + 1717, Prof. of Greek at Franeker : Observationes miscellaneae
ad loca quaedam .. . N. F. 8°, Franek. 1707.
Exercitationes philologicae in quibus N. F. loca nonnulla ex auctoribus
Graecis illustrantur. 8°, Franek. 1700, al.

Brent (Johann), + 1570, Provost at Stuttgart : Commentarii in Matthaeum,
Marcum et Lucam. [Opera. Tom. v.] 2°, Tubing. 1590.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xli

BRETSCHNEIDER (Karl Gottlieb), + 1848, General Superintendent at Gotha:
Lexicon manuale Graeco-Latinum in libros N. T. 2 voll.

8°, Lips. 1824, al.

Brown (John), D.D., + 1858, Prof. Exeg. Theol. to United Presbyterian Church,

Edinburgh : Discourses and sayings of our Lord illustrated in a series

of expositions. 3 vols. 8°, Edin. 1850.

Brown (David), D.D., Principal of Free Church College at Aberdeen : A com-

mentary, critical, experimental, and practical, on the New Testament.

Vols. V. VI. of Commentary ... by Dr. Jamieson, Rev. A. R.

ausset, and Dr. Brown. 8°, Glasg. 1864-74.
Bucer (Martin), + 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge : In sacra quatuor Evangelia
enarrationes perpetuas, .. . 8°, Argent. 1527, al.

Bun.inGEr (Heinrich), 1575, + Pastor at Zirich. N.T. historia evangelica sigilla-
tim per quatuor Evangelistas descripta, una cum Act. Apost. omni-
busque Epistolis Apostolorum explicata commentariis. 2°, Turici,

1554, al.
Bunsen (Christian Carl Josias von), + 1860, German statesman : Vollstindiges
Bibelwerk fiir die Gemeinde. . . . 10 Bande. 8°, Leip. 1858-70.
nd IV. Die Bucher des N. B. Herausgegeben von Heinrich Julius

oltzmann. ]

Burman (Franciscus), ¢ 1719, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht : Harmonie ofte overeen-
stemminge der vier h. Evangelisten. 49, Amst. 1713, al.
Burton (Edward), D.D., + 1836, Prof. Theol. at Oxford : The Greek Testament
with English notes. 2 vols. 8°, Oxf. 1831, al.

Burrmann (Alexander), retired Professor at Berlin: Grammatik des neutest.
Sprachgebrauchs, im Anschlusse an Ph. Buttmann’s Griechische

Grammatik bearbeitet. 8°, Berlin, 1859.
[Authorized translation (by J. H. Thayer), with numerous additions
and corrections by the author. 8°, Andover, 1873. ]

CayeTanvs [Tommaso Da Vio], ¢ 1534, Cardinal: In quatuor Evangelia et Acta
Apostoloram ... ad sensum quem vocant literalem commentarii.
. « » 2° Venet. 1530, al.
Catrxrvs (Georg), + 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstédt : Quatuor Evangelicoram
scriptorum concordia, et locorum . . . difficiliorum explicatio.
4°, Halberstadii, 1624, al.
Catmet (Augustin), + 1757, Abbot of Senones: Commentaire litteral sur tous
les livres de l'A. et du N. Testament. 23 tomes.
4°, Paris, 1707-16, al.
Carovrus (Abraham), + 1676, General Superintendent at Wittenberg : Biblia
Testamenti Veteris [et Novi] illustruta. .. .
2°, Francof. ad M. 1672-76, al.
(Tom. IV. Cum Harmonia evangelica noviter concinnata. ]
Carvin [Cuavuvin] (Jean), + 1564, Reformer : Commentarii in Harmoniam ex
vangelistis tribus . . . compositam. .. . 2°, Genev. 1553, al.
(Translated by Rev. W. Pringle. 8°, Edin. 1844-45.]
Cameranius (Joachim), ¢ 1574, Prof. of Greek at Leipzig : Notatio -figurarum
sermonis in quatuor libris Evangeliorum, indicata verborum significa-
tione et orationis sententia ... Hin scriptis apostolicis.
4°, Lips. 1572.
Subsequently issued under the title, ‘‘Commentarius in N. F. .. .”
along with Beza’s N. T. and Annotations. 2°, Cantab. 1642.
Cameron (John), ¢ 1625, Prof. Theol. at Montauban: Praelectiones in selec-
tiora quaedam loca N. T. 8 voll. 4°, Salmur. 1626-28, al. Myrotheci-
um evangelicum, hoc est, N. T., loca quamplurima vel illustrata, vel
explicata vel vindicata. .. . 4°, Genev. 1632.
CamPBELL (George), D.D., + 1796, Principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen :
The four Gospels translated from the Greek, with preliminary disser-
tations and notes critical and explanatory. 2 vols. 4°, Lond. 1789, al.
Carpe (Jacques) (Capretius], + 1624, Prof. Theol. at Sedan : Observationes
in N. T. ... nunc demum ... in lucem editae, procurante Ludo-

xiii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

vico Cappello [+ 1658, Prof. Theol. at Saumur] . . . una cum ejusdem
Lud. Cappelli Spicilegio. . .. 4°, Amstel. 1657.
CaRPENTER (Lant), LL.D., ¢ 1840, Unitarian Minister at Bristol: A harmony
or synoptical arrangement of the Gospels. 2d ed. 8°, Lond. 1838.
CaznTwkicHt (Thomas), + 1603, Puritan divine: Harmonia evangelica, com-
mentario analytico, metaphrastico et practico illustrata.

4° Amstel. 1627, al.
CasTaLio [CHATEILLON] (Sebastian), + 1563, Prof. of Greek at Basel: Biblia V.
et N. T. ex versione Sebast. Castalionis cum ejusdem annotationibus.
2°, Basil. 1551, al.

CaTENAE Patrum. See Cramer, CorpExIvs, Possinvs. :
CHAPMAN (Richard), B.A. A Greek harmony of the Gospels . . . with notes.
49 Lond. 1836.
CHEMNITz (Martin), + 1586, Teacher of Theol. at Brunswick: Harmonia qua-

tuor Evangelistarum, a... D. Martino Cheninitio primum inchoata :
D. Polycarpo Lysero post continuata, atque D. Johanne Gerhardo tan-
dem felicissime absoluta. 3 voll. 2°, Francof. 1652, al.

[First issued separately, 1593-1627. ]

CHRYsostomus (Joannes), + 407, Archbishop of Constantinople: Homiliae in
Matthaeum [Opera, ed. Bened. VII., al,].—Homiliae in Matth. Graece,
textum ... emendavit, praecipuam lectionis varietatem adscripsit,
annotationibus . .. instruxit Fredericus Field. 3 voll.

8°, Cantab. 1839.

[Translated in ‘‘ Library of the Fathers.” 8°, Oxf. 1843-51. ]
Cryrtrazus (KocuHarF] (David), + 1600, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Commenta-
rius in Evangelium Matthaei. 8°, Vitemb. 1555, al.

Criarro [Cuarrus] (Isidoro), ¢ 1555, Bishop of Foligno: Vulguta editio V. et
N. T., quorum alterum ad Graecam veritatem emendatum est...
adjectis . . . scholiis . . . locupletibus. .. . 2°, Venet. 1542, al.

CLARKE (Adam), + 1832, Wesleyan minister: The Bible... with a commen-
tary and critical notes. 8 vols. 4°, Lond. 1810-26.

CuakkE (Samuel), D.D., + 1729, Rector of St. James’, Westminster: A para-
phrase of the four Evangelists , . . with critical notes on the more
difficult passages. 4°, Lond. 1701-02, al.

CLAUBEN (Henrik Nicolai), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Quatuor Evangeliorum
tabulue synopticae. Juxta rationes temporum ... composuit, an-
notationibusque .. . instruxit H. N. Clausen, 8°, Kopenh. 1829,
Fortolking af de synoptiske Evangelier, 2 parts. 8°, Copenh. 1850.

Crenicus [Le Cierc] (Jean), ¢ 1736, Prof. Eccles. Hist. at Amsterdam : Har-
monia evangelica Graece et Latine. .. . 2°, Amstel, 1699, al.
ee 4°, Lond. 1701. See also Hammonn. ]

Conant (Thomas J.), D.D., Prof. Heb. at New York : The Gospel of Matthew
... With a revised version, and critical and philological notes,
[American Bible Union. ] New York, 1860.

Corperius [CornpriER] (Balthasar), + 1650, Jesuit: Catena Graecorum patrum
triginta in Matthaeum, collectore Niceta episcopo Serrarum. Cum
versione Latina ed. B. Corderius. 2°, Tolosae, 1647.

Cramer (John Anthony), D.D., + 1848, Principal of New Inn Hall, Oxford :
Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum. 8 voll.

8°, Oxon, 1838-44.

Crewt (Johann), + 1633, Socinian teacher at Racow : Opera omnia exegetica
sive in plerosque libros N, T. commentarii .. .

Opera. I.-ITT.]} 2°, Eleutheropoli Craelgeat 1656.

Cremer (Hermann), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Biblisch-theologisches Worter-

uch der neutestamentlichen Graecitat, 8°, Gotha, 1866, al.
(Translated by D. W. Simon, Ph,D., and William Urwick, M.A.
8°, Edin. 1872.]

Crriricr Sacki sive doctissimorum virorum in sacra Biblia annotationes et trac-
tatus [In N. T.: Vallae, Revii, Erasmi, Vatabli, Castalionis, Munsteri,
Clarii, Drusii, Zegeri, Grotii, Scaligeri, Cameronis, Pricaei et ere
9 tomi. 2°, Lond. 1660, ai.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xliil

DeryiiveG (Salomon), + 1755, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Observationes sacrae, in
quibus multae Scripturae V. ac N. T. dubia vexata solvuntur, loca dif-

ficiliora ... illustrantur.... 5 partes. 4°, Lips. 1708-48, ai.
Dickson (David), + 1662, Prof. Theol. at Edinburgh: A brief exposition of the
Gospel according to Matthew. 12°, Lond. 1651.

Drev (Louis de), + 1642, Prof. at Walloon College, Leyden : Animadversiones
sive commentarius in quatuor Evangelia....

4°, Lugd. Bat. 1631, al.

Critica sacra, seu animadversiones in loca quaedam difficiliora V. et

N. T. variis in locis ex auctoris manuscriptis aucta. 2°, Amstel, 1693.

DrtHERE (Johann Michael), + 1669, Prof. Theol. at Niirnberg : Eclogae sacrae

N. T. Syriacae, Graecae et Latinae, cum observationibus philologicis.

12°, Jenae, 1638, al.

Dionysius CartTHusianus [Denys DE Rycxet], ¢ 1471, Carthusian monk : Com-

mentarii in universos §. S. libros. 29 Colon. 1530-36.

Doppripez (Philip), D.D., + 1751, Nonconformist minister at Northampton :

The family expositor ; or, a paraphrase and version of the N. T., with

critical notes. ... vols. 4° Lond. 1738-47, al.

Dovertry [Doverarvs] (John), + 1672, Rector of Cheam, Surrey: Analecta

sacra, sive excursus philologici breves super diversis S. 8. locis. 2

voll. 8°, Lond. 1658-60, al,

Drusius (Joannes) [VAN DEN DriescHE], + 1616, Prof. Or. Lang. at Franeker :

Anuotationum in totum Jesu Christi Testamentum ; sive praeterito-

rum libri decem. Et pars altera.... 49 Franek. 1612-16.

Ad voces Ebraeas N. T. Commentarius duplex. 4°, Franek. 1606, ai.

Exszagp (Johann Heinrich August), Consistorialrath at Erlangen: Wissen-
schaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte. .. .
8°, Erlangen, 1841, al. 3t Auflage. 8° Frankf. 1866.
[Translated in ‘‘ Foreign Theological Library.” ]

EckE®8MANN (Jakob Christian Rudolph), ¢ 1836, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Erklérung

aller dunklen Stellen des N. T. 3 Bande. 8°, Kiel, 1806-08.
EIcHTHAL (Gustave de), Les Evangiles. 1° partie: examen critique et compar-
atif des trois premiers Evangiles. 8°, Paris, 1863.
Exstzy (J.), M.A., Vicar of Burneston: Annotations on the Four Gospels ;
compiled and abridged.... 2vols. _ 8°, Lond. 1799, al.
Exsnes (Jakob), + 1750, Consistorialrath at Berlin : Observationes sacrae in N.
F. libros.... 2 voll: 8", Traject. 1720-28.

Commentarius critico-philologicus in Evangelium Matthaei, edidit et
notulas quasdam adjecit Ferdinandus Stosch. 2 voll.
4°, Zwollae, 1767-69.

Exzrvim, or Euzevrer, name of the celebrated family of printers at Leyden.
The abbreviation Elz. denotes the edition of the N. T. issued in 1633
i T. Ex regiis aliisque optimis editionibus cum cura impressum,

2°, Lugd. 1633], and frequently reprinted, which presents what is
called the Textus Receptus.

Episcoprus (Simon), + 1643, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Notae breves in xxiv.

- priora capita Matthsei. [Opera theol. 2°, Amstel. 1650.]

Esasmvs (Desiderius), ¢ 1536: Novag Testamentum omne, diligenter recogni-
tum et emendatum... 2°, Basil. 1516. Editio princeps followed hy
others edited by Erasmus in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535.—Adnotationes
in Novum Testamentum, 2°, Basil. 1516, e¢ al.—Paraphrases in Novum
Testamentum, 2°, Basil. 1522, etal. [Translated. 2 vols.

2°, Lond. 1548, al.]

Evrxyrmins ZicaBenvs, ¢ c. 1118, Greek monk : Commentarius in quatuor Evan-

gelia Graece et Latine. Textum Graecum.. . suis animadversionibus

edidit C. F. Matthaei. 3 tomi in 4. 8°, Lips. 1792.
Ewatp (Georg Heinrich August), + 1876, Prof. Or. Lang. at Gdttingen : Die drei
ersten Evangelien tibersetzt und erklirt. 8°, Gotting. 1850, al.

Fasricrus (Johann Albrecht), + 1736, Prof. Eloq. at Hamburg : Observationes
selectae in varia loca N. T. 8°, Hamb. 1712.

xliv EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

FERvs [W1Lp] (Johannes), + 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz : Enarrationes
in Matthaeum. 2°, Mogunt. 1559, al.
FrscHer (Johann Friedrich), + 1799, Principal of the Firsten Collegium at Leip-
zig: Prolusiones in quibus varii loci librorum divinorum utriusque
Testamenti. .. explicantur atque illustrantur. . . . 8°, Lips. 1779.
Fuactus Illyricus (Matthias) [Fuacu], + 1575, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Clavis
scripturae sacrae, seu de sermone sacr. litterarum. 2°, Basil. 1567, al.

Glossa compendiaria in Novum Testamentam. 2°, Basil. 1570, al.
FRIEDLIEB (Joseph Heinrich), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Breslau : Quatuor Evan-
gelia sacra in harmoniam redacta. . . 8°, Vratisl. 1847.

Farrzscue (Karl Friedrich August), +1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Evangelium
Matthaei recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis edidit D. C. F. A.
Fritzsche. 8°, Lips. 1826.

GaGNaEvs (Johannes) [Jean de GaGnEE], + 1549, Rector of Univ. of Paris: In
quatuor . . . Evangelia necnon Actus Apostolorum scholia ex praeci-
puis Graecorum et Latinorum scriptis selecta. 2°, Paris. 1552, al.

GEHRINGER (Joseph), R. C. : Synoptische Zusammenstellung des griechischen
Textes der vier Evangelien. 8°, Tubing. 1842.

GERHARD (Johann), ¢ 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Adnotationes posthumae in
Evangelium Matthaei. 2°, Jenae, 1663.
Harmonia quatuor Evangelistarum. See CoEemnirz (Martin).

Gru (John), + 1771, Baptist pastor in Southwark: An exposition of the New
Testament. 3 vols. 2°, Lond. 1743-48, al.

G1écKELER (Conrad): Die Evangelien des Matthius, Markus, und Lukas in
Uebereinstimmung gebracht und erklart. 2 Abtheilungen.

8, Frankf. 1834.

Gratz (Aloys): Kritisch-historischer Commentar fiber das Evangelium Mat-
thaei. 2 Theile. 8°, Tubing. 1821-23,

Green (Thomas Sheldon), M.,A., Headmaster of Grammar School at Ashby de
la Zouch : Treatise on the grammar of the N. T. dialect... .

8°, Lond. 1842, al.

GRESWELL (Edward), B. D., Vice-Pres. of Corpus Christi Coll., Oxford : Har-
monia evangelica, sive quatuor Evangelia Graece, pro temporis et
rerum serie in partes quinque distributa. 8°, Oxon. 1830; al.
Dissertations upon the principles and arrangement of a Harmony of

the Gospels. 3 vols. 8°, Oxf. 1830.
An exposition of the parables and of other parts of the Gospels. 5 vols.
in 6. 8°, Oxf. 1834-35.

GrrespacH (Johann Jakob), + 1812, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Novum Testa-
mentum Graeco, Textum ad fidem codicum, versionum et Patrum
recensuit et lectionis varietatem adjecit D. Jo. Ja. Griesbach. Editio

secunda. 8°, Halis, 1796-1809, al.
Synopsis Evangeliorum. .. . 8°, Halae, 1776, al.
Grom (Karl Ludwig Willibald), Prof. Theol. at Jena : Lexicon Graeco-Latinum
in libros Novi Testamenti. 8°, Lips. 1868.

GRINFIELD (Edward William), M. A.: N. T. Graecum. Editio Hellenistica,
2 voll. Scholia Hellenisticain N.T. ... 2voll. 8°, Lond. 1843-48.
Grotius (Hugo), + 1645, Dutch Statesman ; Annotationes in N. T. 2°, Paris,
1644, al.—Annotationes in N. T. Benno emendatius editae. 9 voll.

8°, Groning. 1826-34.

Haun oe 1863, General Superintendent in Breslau : N. T. Graece, post
J. A. H. Tittmannum ad fidem optimorum librorum secundis curis
recognovit, lectionumque varietatem subjecit Augustas Hahn.

8°, Lips. 1840.

Hammond (Henry), D. D., + 1660, Sub-dean of Christ Church, Oxford : Para-

phrase and annotations upon all the books of the N. T.

2°, Lond. 1653, al.
[Ex Anglica lingua in Latinum transtulit suisque animadversionibus
auxit J. Clericus. 2°, Amstel. 1698, al.]

Haxrpovurn (Jean), + 1729, Jesuit : Commentarius inN.T. 2°, Hagae-Com. 1741.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xly

Hermstvs (Daniel), + 1665, Prof. Hist. at Leyden : Sacrarum exercitationum ad

N.T. librixx. ... 2°, Lugd. Bat. 1639, al.
HENGEL (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Annotatio ad loca non-
nulla N. T. 8°, Amstel. 1824.
Hevumann (Christoph August), +1764, Prof. Theol. at Gdttingen : Erklurung
des N. T. 12 Bande. 8°, Hannov. 1750-63.

Hreronymes (Eusebius Sophronius), + 420, monk at Bethlehem ; Commentarius
in Matthaeum. (Opera. ]

Hu.aztvs Pictaviensis, +368, Bishop of Poitiers: In Evangelium Matthaei com-

mentarius. (Opera. I. ed. Bened. 2°, Paris. 1693.

Ho.rzmann (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. in Heidelberg: Die Synoptische

Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charakter. [See also

BunseEn. ] 8°, Leip. 1863.

Hompercu zu Vach (Johann Friedrich), + 1748, Prof. of Laws at Marburg:
Parerga sacra, seu observationes quaedam ad N. T.

. 4°, Traj. ad Rhen. 1712, al.

Howntvs (Aegidius), + 1603, General Superintendent at Wittenberg : Thesaurus

evangelicus complectens commentarios in quatuor Evangelistas et

Actus Apost. nunc primum hac forma editus. 2°, Vitemb. 1706.

Thesaurns apostolicus, complectens commentarios in omnes N. T.

Epistolas et Apocalypsin Joannis . . . novis, quae antea deficiebant,

commentationibus auctus . . . 2°, Vitemb. 1707. [Also, Opera

Latina, III., IV. 2°, Vitemb. 1607. ]

Jacoznus (Melanchthon W.), Notes on the Gospels, 2 vols. 12°, New York, 1841.
JaANSENIUS (Cornelius),+ 1638, R. C. Bishop of Ypres: Tetrateuchus ; seu com-
mentarius in quatuor Evangelia. 4°, Lovanii, 1639, al.
JansENtus (Cornelius), + 1576, R. C. Bishop of Ghent : Concordia evangelica.
49 Lovanii, 1549, al.

Commentariorum in suam Concordiam ac totam historiam evangelicam

partes IV. 2°, Lovanii, 1571, ai.

Juntrvus (Franciscus) [FRancors pv Jon], + 1602, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Sacra
arallela, id est, comparatio locorum 8. 8., qui ex Testamento Vetere

in Novo adducuntur. 8°, Lond. 1588, al.

Kaorrer (Johann Ernst Rudolph), Court chaplain in Dresden: N. T. Graece
... 6didit et . . . brevibus notis instruxit J. E.R. Kiuffer. Fasc. I.

Evangelium Matthaei. 12°, Lips. 1827,
KEvucHEN (Peter), + 1689, Pastor at Arnheim: Adnotata in quatuor Evangelis-
tas et Acta apostolorum. 49°, Amstel. 1689, al.
Annotata in omnes N. T, libros. 4°, Amstel. 1709.

KrisTemaker (Johann Hyazinth), ¢ 1834, R. C. Prof. Theol. at Minster : Die
Evangelien uebersetzt und erklirt. 4 Bande. 8°, Minster, 1818-20.
Kwnarp (Georg Christian), + 1825, Prof. Theol. at Halle.: N. T. Graece Recogno-
vit atque insignioris lectionum varietatis et argumentorum notationes
subjunxit G. Ch. Knapp. 4°, Hal. 1797, al. .

Scripta varii argumenti maximam partem exegetica atque historica.
8°, Hal. 1805, al.

KNaTCHEULL (Sir Norton), Bart., ¢ 1684 : Animadversiones in libros N. T.

8°, Lond, 1659, al.
Kocuer (Johann Christoph), + 1772, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Analecta philologica
et exegetica in quatuor 8S. 8. Evangelia, quibus J. C. Wolfii Curae

philol. et crit. supplentur atque augentur. 4°, Altenb. 1766.
Koetitm (Karl Reinhold), Prof. Theol. at Tibingen : Der Ursprung und die
Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien. 8°, Stuttg. 1853.

Krarrt (Johann Christian Gottlob Ludwig), + 1845, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen :
Chronologie und Harmonie der vier Evangelien. Herausgegeben von

Dr. Burger. 8°, Erlang. 1848.
Krxss (Johann Tobias), + 1782, Rector at Grimma : Observationes in N. T. e
Flavio Josepho. 8°, Lips. 1755.

Kornogt (Kianix] (Christian Gottlieb), { 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Com-
mentarius in libros N. T. historicos. 4 voll. 8°, Lips. 1807-18, al.
Observationes ad N. T. ex libris Apocryphis V. T. 8°, Lips. 1794.

xlvi EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

Kourrnez (Christian Gottfried), + 1789.: Hypomnemata in N. T., quibus Grae-
citas ejus explicatur et scholiis . . . illustratur. 8°, Lips. 1780.
Kypxe (Georg David), + 1779, Prof. Or. Lang. at Kénigsberg : Observationes
sacrae in N. F. libros ex auctoribus potissimum Graecis et antiquita-
tibus. 2 partes. 8°, Vratislav. 1755.

Lacumann (Karl), + 1851, Prof. Philos. at Berlin : Novum Testamentum Graece
et Latine, Carolus Lachmannus recensuit, Philippus Buttmannus lecti-

| onis auctoritates apposuit. 2 voll. 8°, Berol, 1842-50.
Lamy (Bernard), + 1715, R. C. Teacher of Theol. at Grenoble: Historia, sive
concordia quatuor Evangelistarum, 12°, Paris. 1689.
Commentarius in Harmoniam. .. . 2 voll. 4°, Paris. 1699.

LancE (Joachim), + 1744, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Evangelisches Licht und
Recht ; oder richtige und erbauliche Erkl4rung der heiligen vier Evan-

gelisten und der Apostelgeschichte. 2°, Halae, 1735.
Apostolisches Licht und Recht... . 2°, Halae, 1729.
Apocalyptisches Licht und Recht, .. . 2°, Halae, 1730.
Biblia parenthetica . . . darinnen der biblische Text durch gewisse
mit andern Littern darzwischen gesezte Worte nach dem Grundtext
erldutert wird. 2 Bande. 2°, Leip. 1743.

Lance (Johann Peter), Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Das Evangelium des Matthaeus
theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet. [Theol.-hom. Bibelwerk.]
8°, Bielefeld, 1857, al.
(Translated from the 3d German ed., with additions . . . by Philip
Schaff, D.D. New York and Edin. 1865, al.]
Laprmx (Cornelius 4) [VAN DEN STEEN], + 1637, S. J., Prof. Sac. Scrip. at
Louvain :Commentaria in V. ac N. Testamentum. 10 voll.
2°, Antverp. 1664, al.
Leien (Edward), M.P., + 1671 : Annotations upon the N. T.
2°, Lond. 1650, al.
Critica sacra... _4°, Lond. 1650, al.
Lieutroot (John), D.D., ¢ 1675, Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge: The
harmony of the four Evangelists among themselves and with the O. T.,
with an explanation of the chief difficulties. .. .
4°, Lond. 1644-50, al.
Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae . . . issued separately first in Eng-
lish and subsequently in Latin. 4°, 1644-64, al.
Edited by H. Gandell. 4 vols. 8°, Oxf. 1859. [On the four Gospels,
Acts, part of Romans, and 1 id ieiecnnray
LivERMorE (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati: The four Gospels, with a
commentary. 12°, Boston, U. S., 1850.
LoxrsNnERr (Christoph Friedrich), + 1803, Prof. Sac. Philol. at Leipzig : Observa-
tiones ad N. T. e Philone Alexandrino. 8°, Lips, 1777.
Lucas (Francois), + 1619, R. C. Dean at St. Omer : Commentarius in quatuor
Evangelia. 2 voll. 2°, Antv. 1606.
Supplementum commentarii in Lucam et in Joannem. 2 voll.
2°, Antverp. 1612, al.
Lurare (Martin), + 1546, Reformer: Annotationes in aliquot capita [1-18]
Matthaei. . . . [Opera.]
Lyna (Nicolas de), + 1340, Franciscan monk : Postillae perpetuae ; sive bre-
via commentaria in universa Biblia. 2°, Romae, 1471, al.

Macxnicnt (James), D.D., + 1800, Minister at Edinburgh : A harmony of the
Gospels, in which the natural order of each is preserved. With a par-
aphrase and notes. 2 vols. 49, Lond. 1756, al.

Marpona‘o (Juan), + 1583, Jesuit ; Commentarii in quatuor Evangelistas. 2 voll.

2°, Mussiponti, 1596, ai.

Manna (Juan), + 1624, Jesuit : Scholia brevia in VY. et N. Testamentum.

2°, Matriti, 1619, al.

Maxnrorat (Augustin), + 1563, Pastor at Rouen : Novi Testamenti_catholica ex-

positio ecclesiastica . . . sea bibliotheca expositionum N. T.
2°, Genev. 1561, al.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xlvii

Marrgagr (Christian Friedrich von), + 1811, Prof. of Class, Lit. at Moscow :
N. T. . Graece et Latine. Varias lectiones . . . ex centum codici-
bus Mss. vulgavit . . scholia Graeca . . . addidit animadversiones
criticas adjecit et edidit C. F. Matthaei. 12 voll, 8°, Rigae, 1782-88.

Mayer (Ferdinand Georg), Prof. of Greek and Heb. at Vienna: Beitriige zur
Erklirung des Evang. Matthaei fiir Sprachkundige. 98°, Wien, 1818.

MELANCETHON (Philipp), + 1560, Reformer : Breves commentarii in Matthaeum.

8°, Argentor. 1523, al.

Menocuio (Giovanni Stefano), + 1655, Jesuit at Rome : Brevis expositio sensus
litteralis totius Scripturae. ... 3 voll. 2°, Colon. 1630, al.

MegvscHEN (Johann Gerhard), + 1743, Prof. Theol. at Coburg : Novum Testa-
mentum ex Talimude et antiquitatibus Hebraeorum illustratum curis

. B. Scheidii, J. H. Danzii et J. Rhenferdi, editumque cum suis
propriis dissertationibus a J. G. Meuschen. 4°, T.ips. 1736.

Meyer (Johann Friedrich von), ¢ 1849, Jurist in Frankfort : Die heilige Schrift

in berichtigter Uebersetzung "Martin Luther’s mit kurzen Anmerkun-

gen. 3 Theile. 8°, Frankf. 1818, al.
MicwaEuis (Johann David), + 1791, Prof. Or. Lit. at Gattingen : Uebersetzung
des N. T. 2 Bande. 4° Gdtting. 1790.
Anmerkungen fiir Ungelehrte zu seiner Uebersetzung des N.T. 4

Theile. 4°, Gotting. 1790-92.

Mitt (John), D.D., 4 1707, Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford : Novum
Testamentum Graecum cum lectionibus variantibus. .. . ot in easdem

notis. . . 20, Oxon. 1707.
Collectionem Millianam recensuit .. . suisque accessionibus

locupletavit Ludolphus Kusterus. 2°, Amstel. 1710. |

Mo.pEnHaver (Johann Heinrich Daniel), ¢ 1790, Pastor at Hamburg : Das N, T.
tibersetzt und so erklart dass ein jeder Ungelehrter es verstehen kann.

2 Bande. 8°, Quedlimb. 1787-88.
MotizR (Sebastian Heinrich), + 1827, Pastor at Gierstiadt in Gotha: Neue An-
sichten schwieriger Stellen aus den vier Evang. 8°, Gotha, 1819.
Morrson (James), D.D., Prof. Theol. to the Evangelical Union, Glasgow : Com.
mentary on the Gospel according to Matthew. 8°, Lond. 1870.
Munstex (Sebastian), ¢ 1552, Prof. Heb. at Heidelberg : Evangelium secundum
Matthaeum in lingua Hebraica, cum versione Latina atque succinctis
annotationibus. 2°, Basil. 1537.
MuntHe (Kaspar Fredrik), + 1763, Prof. of Greek at Copenhagen : Observa-
tiones philologicae in sacros N, T. libros, ex Diodoro Siculo collectae.

8°, Hafn. 1755.

Muscuius [Mevssiin] (Wolfgang), ¢ 1573, Prof. Theol. at Berne : Commenta-
rius in Matthaeum. 2°, Basil. 1548, al.

Nast (William) : A Commentary on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
8vo°, pp. 760, Cincinnati, 1864.
Newcome (William), D.D., + 1800, Archbishop of Armagh : An harmony of the
Gospels. ... Observations subjoined. 2°, Lond. 1778, al.
Nicetas Serrariensis, See CorpExgIvs.
Norton (Andrews), + 1853, formerly Prof. Sac. Lit. at Harvard: A translation

of the Gospels, w ith notes. 2 vols. 8°, Boston, U.S., 1855.
Novanrno (Luigi), ¢ 1658, Theatine monk: Matthaeus expensus, sive notae in
Evangelium Matthaei, nan 2°, Venet. 1629.
Marcus expensus, ... 2°, Lugd. 1642.
Lucas expensus. .. . 2°, Lugd. 1643.
OxcotamPapius (Johann) [HavsscHery], ¢ 1531, Pastor at Basel: Enarrationes
in Evangelium Matthaei. 8°, Basil. 1536.
Oxrzanrrvs (Gottfried), + 1715, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Observationes sacrae ad
Evangelium Matthaei. 4°, Lips. 1713, al.

OxLsHAUsEN (Hermann), + 1839, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen ; Biblischer Commentar

iiber sdmmtliche Schriften des N. T. Fortgesetzt von J. H. A. Ebrard

and A. Wiesinger. 7 Bande. 8°, Kénigsb. 1830-62.
[Translated in ‘‘ Foreign Theological Library.’’ 9 vols.

8°, Edin, 1847-63. ]

x} vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

OnicEnEs, + 254, Catechist at Alexandria: Commentaria in Matthaei Evange-
lium ; Series veteris interpretationis commentariorum Origenis in
Matthaeum ; Homiliae in Lucam: Commentarii in Evangelium Jo-
ANNIS ; Commentaria in Epist. ad Romanos; Fragmenta in Lucam,
Acta Apostolorum, Epistolas Pauli. [Opera. Ed. Bened. III., IV. =
Philocalia, de obscuris S. §. locis . . . ex variis Origenis commen-

tariis excerpta. . 4°, Paris. 1609, ai.
OSIANDER (Andreas), + 1552, ‘Prof. Theol. at Pere Harmoniae evangel-

icne libri quatuor, Graece et Latine. . . . Item elenchus Harmoniae :

adnotationum liber unus. 2°, Basil. 1537, al.

Owen (John J.): A Commentary on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
12°, pp. 613, New York, 1866.

Pauarret (Elias), + 1765, French pastor at London : Observationes philologico-
criticae in sacros N. F. libros, quorum plurima loca ex auctoribus po-
tissimum Graecis exponuntur. . . 8°, Lugd. Bat. 1752.
Specimen exercitationum philol. -crit, in sacros N. F. libros.

8°, Lond. 1755.

Parevs (David) [WaENnGueER], ¢ 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Commenta-
rins in Matthaeum. 4°, Oxon. 1631.

Pavxivus (Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob), + 1851, Prol. Eccl. Hist. at Heidelberg :
Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Commentar iiber das N. T. 4

Theile. 8°, Leip. 1800-04.
Exegetisches Handbuch tiber die drei ersten Evangelien. 3 Theile in
6 Hiilften. 8°, Heidelb. 1830-33.

Pearce (Zachary), D.D., + 1774, Bishop of Rochester: A commentary, with
notes, on the four Evangelists and Acts of the Apostles. . . . 2 vols.
4°, Lond. 1777.
PEe.uican (Konrad), ¢ 1556, Prof. Heb. at Zurich : Commentarii in ‘libros V. ac
N. Testamenti. 7 voll. 2°, Tiguri, 1532-37.
Piscator [Fiscoer] (Johann), + 1626, Conrector at Herborn : Commentarii in
omnes libros V. et N. Testamenti. 4 voll. 2°, Herbornae, 1643-45.
In omnes libros N. T. 2 voll. "49, Herbornae, 1613. ]
Puancx (Heinrich), + 1831, Prof. Theol. at Gdttingen : Entwurf einen neuen
synoptischen Zusammenstellung der drey ersten Evangelien. . .
8°, Gotting. 1809.
Pootz [Potvus] (Matthew), + 1679, Nonconformist: Synopsis criticorum alio-
rumque §, 8. interpretum et commentatorum. 6 voll.
2°, Lond. 1669-74, al.
Possrnvs (Peter), ¢ c. 1650, Jesuit at Rome : Spicilegium, seu commentaria in
loca selecta quatuor Evangeliorum. 2°, Romae, 1673. Catena Patrum

Graecorum unius et viginti in Matthaeum. 2°, Tolosae, 1646.
ee ee (John), + 1676, Prof. of Greek at Pisa : Commentarii in varios
T. libros. . . 2°, Lond. 1660.

PrrestTLey (Joseph), + 1804, formerly Unitarian minister: Harmony of the
Evangelists in Greek, to which are prefixed critical dissertations in
English. 4°, Lond. 1777 [and in English, 1780].

Rasanus Mavrvs, ¢ 856, Archbishop of Mentz: Commentarii in Evangelium
Matthaei. ([Opera.

Rapsertvs (Paschasius), + 865, Abbot at Corbie: Expositionis in Evangelium

Matthoei libri duodecim, [Opera, ed. Sirmond, I.]

Rixcx (Wilhelm Friedrich), Pastor at Grenzach in Baden : Lucubratio critica

in Act. App. Epistolas catholicas et Paulinas in qua. . . observationes

ad plurima loca cum Apostoli tum Evangeliorum dijudicanda et emen-

danda proponuntur. 8°, Basil. 1830.

REIcgEL (Vincent), Prof. N. T. Exeg. at Prague : Quatuor sacra Evangelia in
pericopas harmon. chronologice ordinatas dispertita . . . 2 partes.

8°, Prag. 1840.

Revss (Edouard), Prof. Theol. at Strassburg : a Bible.—Traduction nouvelle

avec introductions et commentaires.—N. T. 1° partie, Histoire evan-

gelique (Synopse des trois premiers Evangiles) ; 2° partie, Histoire

Apostolique (Actes des Apdtres). 8°, Paris, 1874-76.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xlix

Ronson (Edward), D.D., + 1864, Prof. Bib. Lit. at New York: A harmony of
the four Gospels i in Greek. 8°, Boston, U. S., 1845, «i.
A Greek and English lexicon of the N. T. 8°, Boston, 1836, “al. [Ed-
ited by A. Negris and J. Duncan, Edin. 1844, al. ; and by S. T. Bloom-
field, Lond. 1837, al.]

Roenicer (Moritz), + 1837, Pastor at Halle: Synopsis Evangeliorum ... Tex-

tum... ex ordine Griesbachiano dispertitum cum varia scriptura

selecta edidit M. Roediger. 8°, Hal. 1829.
RosENMULLER oe Georg), ¢ 1815, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Scholia in N. T.
5 voll 8°, Nuremb. 1777, al.

Rus (Johann Reinhard), + 1738, Prof. Theol. at Jena; Harmonia Evangelis-
tarum. ... 3 partes in 4 voll. 8°, Jenae, 1727-30.

Sa tie + 1596, Portuguese Jesuit : Notationes in totam sacram Scrip-
taram. 4°, Antverp. 1598, al.

Scholia in quatuor Evangelia, ... 4°, Antverp. 1596, al.

SatmggEon (Alphonso), ¢ 1585, Spanish Jesuit : Commentarii in Evangelicam
Historiam et in Acta Apostolorum [in omnes Epistolas e¢ Apocalyp-
sin}. 16 voll. 2°, Matriti, 1597-1602, al.

Sanp [Sanprvs] (Christoph), + 1680, Socinian, residing at Amsterdam : Inter-
pretationes paradoxae quatuor Evangeliorum. oe

8°, Cosmopoli [Amstel.], 1669, al.
ScariaER (Joseph Justus), + 1609, Hon. Prof. at Leyden : Notae in
nN. T. Graec. 8°, Lond. 1622, al., and in the Critici sacri. ]

ScCHEGG ( star). RB. C. Prof. of N. T. Exegesis at Miinich : Evangelium nach
Matthaus iibersetzt und erklart. 3 Bande. 8° Miinch. 1856-58.

Scuiruitz (Samuel Christian), Prof. at Erfurt : Grundziige des neutestament-
lichen Gracitat. 8°, Giessen, 1861.

ScHievsner (Johann Friedrich), + 1831, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg : Novum
lexicon Graeco-latinum in N. T. 2 voll. 8°, Lips. 1792, al.

Scuuicutine (Jonas), + 1564, Socinian teacher at Racow : Commentaria post-
huma in plerosque N. T. libros. 2 partes.

2°, Irenopoli [Amstel.], 1656.

Scamrp (Erasmus), + 1637, Prof. of Greek at Leipzig : Opus sacrum posthumum,
in quo continentur versio N. T. nova. . . et notae et animadversiones
in idem. 2°, Norimb. 16538.

Scusap (Sebastian), + 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: Biblia sacra; sive
Testamentum V. et N., ex linguis originalibus in linguam Latinam
translatum. ... 4°, Argent. 1696.

Scumipr (Johann Ernst Christian), + 1831, Prof. of Eccl. Hist. in Giessen :
Philologisch-kritische Clavis tuber des N. T. 8°, Gissae, 1796-180a.

Scuoxiz (Johann Martin Augustin), + 1853, R. C. Prof. Theol. in Bonn : Novum
Testamentum Graece. Textum ad fidem testium criticoram recensuit,

lectionum familias subjecit . .. ex Graecis codd. mss... . copias
criticas addidit J. M. Aug. Scholz. 2 voll. 4°, Lips. 1830-35.
Die heilige Schrift des N. T. tibersetzt, erklurt und . . . erliutert.

8°, Frankf. 1828-30.
Scuotr (Heinrich August), + 1835, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Novum Testamentum
Graece nova versione Latina illustratum . .. praecipuaque Jectionis
et interpretationis diversitate instructum. 8°, Lips. 1805, al.
Scu6tTrcGen (Christian), ¢ 1751, Rector in Dresden : Horae Hebraicae et Talmu-
dicae in N. T. 2 partes. 4°, Dresd. et Lips. 1733-42.
Novum lexicon Graeco-Latinum in N. T. 8°, Lips. 1746, al.
Scuvuuiz (David), + 1854, Prof. Theol. at Breslau : Novam Testamentum Graece
(Griesbachii]. Vol. I. Evangelia complectens. Editionem tertiam
emendatam et auctam curavit D. Schulz. 8°, Berol. 1827.

De aliquot N, T. locorum lectione et interpretatione.
8°, Vratisl. 1833.
SCULTETus (Abraham), + 1625, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Exercitationes
evangelicae. . . 49°, Amstel. 1624.
Semzr (Georg Friedrich), + 1807, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Uebersetzung der
Schriften das N. T. mit beigefiigten Erklirungen dunkler und
schwerer Stellen. 2 Theile. 8’, Erlangen, 1806.

] EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

Sevix (Hermann), Theol. tufor at Heidelberg: Die drei ersten Evangelien
synoptisch zusammengestellt. 8°, Wiesbaden, 1866.
Spannerm (Friedrich), + 1649, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Dubia evangelica partim
iEnynrixa, partim éZeyxrixd discussa et vindicata . . . 3 partes.
4°, Genev. 1639, al.
Spannem (Friedrich), + 1701, Prof. Theol. at Leyden: Evangelicae vindiciae ;
seu loca illustriora ex ee ac praecipue illo Matthaei a falsis .
interpretamentis vindicata . .. Libri tres.
4°, Heidelb.-Lugd. Bat. 1663-85.
STeEPpHaNus [Estrenne or STEPHENS] (Robert), ¢ 1059, Printer at Paris: Novum
Testamentum. Ex bibliotheca regia. [Editio me)
Paris. 1550, al.

Harmonia evangelica. Paris. 1553.
Sree (Rudolph Ewald), + 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben : Die Reden des
Herrn Jesu. Andeutungen fir gliubiges Verstandniss derselben.
7 Bande. 8°, Barmen, 1853-55.
(Translated in ‘‘Foreign Theol. Library.’’ 8 vols. 8°, Edin. 1855-58. ]
Sroxz (Johann Jakob), + 1821, Pastor in Bremen : Uebersetzung der simmtlichen

Schriften des N. T. ... 8°, Ziirich, 1781-82, al.
Anmerkungen zu seiner Uebersetzung.... 8°, Hannov. 1796-1802.
StrricEp (Victorin), + 1569, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg : Hypomnemata in omnes
libros N.T. ... 8°, Lips. 1565, al.

Srrovup (William), M.D.: A new Greek harmony of the four Gospels. oe
4°, Lond. 1853

Tagnovius [TaRnow] (Johannes), f 1629, Prof. Theol. at Rostock : Exercitationem
rade libri quatuor, in quibus verus. . . sensus locorum multo-

. . inquiritur. .. 4°, Rostoch. 1619, al.

THEILE (Karl Gottfried Wilhelm), + 1854, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Novum Tes-
tamentum Graece ex recognitione Knappii emendatius edidit, annota-

tionem criticam adjecit C. G. G. Theile. 12°, Lips. 1841-44, al.
THropHyxactvs, after 1107, Archbishop of Achrida in Bulgaria : Commentarii
in quatuor Evangelistas Graece. 2°, Romae, 1552. al.

Tutess (Johann Otto), + 1810, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Das N. T. neu itibersetzt
und mit einer durchans anwendbaren Erklarung. 4 Theile.
8°, Hamb. 1791-1800.
Neuer kritischer Commentar itiber das N. T. Halle, 1804-1806.
Ta (Salomon van), + 1713, Prof. Theol. at Leyden. Het Evangelium das h.
Apostels Matthaei, na eene beknopte ontleding . . . betoogt.

4°, Dord. 1683.
Tramus (Jacques), + 1636, Jesuit at Antwerp : Commentarius in sacram Scrip-
turam. 2 voll. 2°, Antverp. 1645, al.

TiscHENDorF (Lobegott Friedrich Constantin), + 1874, Prof. Bibl. Palaeogr. at
Leipzig : Novum Test. Graece. Textum ad antiquorum testium fidem
recensuit, brevem apparatum criticum subjunxit L. F.C. Tischen-
dorf. ... 12°, Lips. 1841. al.
N,. T. Graece. Ad antiquos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum
omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem isagogicam prae-

texuit . . . Editio septima. 2 partes. 8°, Lips. 1859.
. . . Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit . . . Editio octava
critica major. 2 voll. 8°, Lips. 1869-72.
Synopsis evangelica . . . Concinnavit, brevi commentario illus-
travit. . . 89, Lips. 1851, al. Ed. tertia, 1871.
Tomarp (Nicolas), 4 1706, Seigneur de Villan-Blin : Evangelioram harmonia
Graeco-Latina. . . 2°, Paris. 1707, al.

TREGELLES (Samuel Prideaux), LL.D., + 1872: The Greek New Testament
edited from ancient authorities, with the various readings of all the
ancient mss. ... together with the Latin version of Jerome... 4
parts. 4°, Lond. 1857-70.

VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar), + 1785, Prof. of Greek at Leyden: Selectae
scholis L. C. Valckenarii in libros quosdam N, T. Edidit Eberhardus
Wassenbergh. 2 partes. 8°, Amstel. 1815-17.

EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. li

Varia (Lorenzo), + 1457, Humanist: Adnotationes in N. T. ex diversorum

utriusque linguae, Graecae et Latinae, codicum collatione. |
2°, Paris. 1505, al,
Varae (Johann Severinus), + 1826, Prof. Or. Lang. at Halle: Nov. Test. Textum
Griesbachii et Knappii denuo recognovit, delectu varietatum lec-
tionis . . . adnotatione cum critica tum exegetica . . . instruxit J. 8.
Vater. 8°, Hal. Sax. 1824,
Votxmar (Gustav), Prof. Theol. in Zitrich : Die Evangelien, oder Marcus und
die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanonischen Evangelien,

nach dem altesten Text mit historisch-exegetischen Commentar.

8°, Leip. 1870.

Want (Christian Abraham), + 1855, Consistorialrath at Dresden : Clavis N. T.
philologica. 2 partes. 8°, Lips. 1822, al.
Waxaevs (Balduin), Teacher at Leyden : N. T. libri historici Graece et Latine
perpetuo commentario ... illustrati.... 4°, Lugd. Bat. 1653, al.
Warton (Johann Georg), + 1775, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Observationes in N. T.
libros. 8°, Jenae, 1727.
WEBER (Michael), { 1833, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Eclogae exegetico-criticae ad
nonnullos librorum N. T. historicorum locos. 214 partes.
4°, Hal. 1825-32,
Wesstes (William), M. A., and Wrxwson (William Francis), M. A.: The
Greek Testament, with notes grammatical and exegetical. 2 vols.
8°, Lond. 1855-61.
Wes (Bernhard), Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Das Marcusevangelium, und seine
synoptische Parallelen. 8°, Berl. 1872.
Weiss (Bernhard): Das Matthiusevangelium und seine Lukas Parallelen.
8°, Halle, 1876.
WauissE (Christian Hermann), + 1866, retired Prof. at Leipzig : Die evangelische
Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet. 2 Bande.
8°, Leip. 1838.
Wrrsicxer (Karl Heinrich), Prof. Theol. at Tibingen : Untersuchungen iiber
die evangelische Geschichte. 8°, Gotha, 1864.
Weis (Edward), ¢ 1724, Rector of Blechley : An help for the more easy and
clear understanding of the Holy Scriptures . . . paraphrase... an-
notations . . . 8 vols. irst issued separately. ] 49, Lond. 1727.
Werstrer (Johann Jakob), + 1754, Prof. in the Remonstrant College at Am-
sterdam : Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lec-
tionibus variantibus . . . necnon commentario pleniore.. . opera
.. 3. d. Wetstenii, 2 partes. 2°, Amstel. 1751-52.
Werre (Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de), + 1849, Prof. Theol. at Basel: Kurzge-
fasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T. 3 Bande.
8°, Leip. 1836-48, al.
Die heilige Schrift des A. und N. Testaments uebersetzt. .. .
8°, Heidelb. 1831-32.
pene translated by de Wette and Augusti, 1809-14. ]—Synopsis
vangeliorum . . . (along with F. LUoke). 4°, Berol. 1818.
Waurirsy (Daniel), D.D., + 1726, Rector of St. Edmunds, Salisbury: A para-
phrase and commentary on the N. T. 2 vols, 2°, Lond. 1703, al.
Waurre (Joseph), D.D., + 1814, Prof. of Arabic at Oxford: Diatessaron. .. .
8°, Oxon. 1799, al.
Wreseier (Karl), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald: Chronologische Synopse der
Evangelien. 8°, Hamb. 1843.
Wizz (Christian Gottlob), + 1856, formerly pastor at Hermannsdorf : Clavis
N. T. philologica. 8°, Dresd. 1840.
. - . Quem librum ita castigavit et emendavit ut novum opus haberi
possit C. L. W. Grimm. 8°, Lips. 1868.
Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch-kritische Untersuchung itiber des
Verwandtschaftsverhaltniss der drei ersten Evangelien.
8°, Dresd. 1838.
Wrxerk (Georg Benedict), + 1858, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Grammatik des

hi EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.

neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms als sichere Grundlage der neutest.
USS bearbeitet. 8°, Leip. 1822, ad.
. . » Siebente Auflage besorgt von Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann.
8°, Leip. 1867.
anslated . . . with large additions and full indexes by Professor
.F. Moulton, D.D., 8°, Edin. 1877 ; and by Professor J. H. Thayer,
8°, Boston, 1872. ]

Wor (J ohann Christoph} t 1739, Pastor in Hamburg : Curae philologicae et
criticae in N. T. voll. 4° Basil. 1741.
[Previously issued separately, 1725-35. ]

Wo.zocGen (Johann Ludwig von), + 1661, Socinian : Commentarius in Evange-
lium Matthaei, Marci, Lucae, J ohannis. [Opera. 2°, Amstel. 1668.]

ZEGER Con Nicolas), { 1559, R. C. monk at Louvain : Scholia in omnes
. libros. 8°, Colon. 1553.

ZWINGLI (Ulrich), + 1531, Reformer: Adnotationes in Evangelistaram scripta.
operas Vol. IV.]

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

INTRODUCTION.

SEC. I.—BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF MATTHEW.

GARDING the life and ministry of the Apostle Matthew, ex-
ceedingly little is known to us that is historically certain. In
Mark ii. 14, his father is named Alphaeus. According to Euthy-
mius Zigabenus, Grotius on Matt. ix. 9, Paulus, Bretschneider,

Credner, Ewald, and others, this individual is said to have been
identical with the father of James the Less. But this assumption is
rendered extremely improbable by the circumstance, that in the lists of
the apostles (Matt. x. 3; Mark iii. 18 ; Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 18) Matthew
is not grouped along with that James, and that the name “DON was of very
frequent occurrence, and it would only be admissible if in Mark ii. 14 the
name Leri designated a different person from the Apostle Matthew, in which
case Levi would not have been an apostle.

It was Matthew who, before he passed over to the service of Jesus, was
called Zevi, and was a collector of taxes by the lake of Tiberias, where he
was called away by Jesus from the receipt of custom. From Matt. ix. 9,
compared with Mark ii. 14 and Luke v. 27, it is sufficiently evident that the
two names Matthew and Levi denote the same individual ; for the agree-
ment between these passages in language and contents is so obvious, that
Levi, who is manifestly called to be an apostle, and whose name is yet «ant-
ing in all the lists of the apostles, must be found again in that Matthew
who is named in all these lists ; so that we must assume that, in conformity
with the custom of the Jews to adopt on the occasion of decisive changes in
their life a name indicative of the change, he called himself, after his en-
trance on the apostolate, no longer 1, but "SAD, ze. TA (Theodore =
Gift of God). This name, as in the cases of Peter and Paul, so completely
displaced the old one, that even in the history of his call, given in our Gos-
pel of Matthew, he is, at the expense of accuracy, called, in virtue of a his-
torical icrepov mpérepov, by the new name (ix. 9) ; while Mark, on the other
hand, and after him Luke, observing here greater exactness, designate the
tax-gatherer, in their narrative of his call, by his Jewish name, in doing
which they might assume that his identity with the Apostle Matthew was
universally known ; while in their lists of the apostles (Mark iii. 18 ; Luke vi.

2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

15 ; Acts i. 13), where the apostolic names must stand, they rightly place
the name Matthew.

In this way we dispose of the view, opposed to the prevailing tradition,
that Matthew and Levi were two different individuals (Hcracleon in Clement
of Alexandria, Strom. iv. 9, p. 505, ed. Potter ; and Origen, c. Celsum, i.
13), and yet two tax-gatherers (Grotius, Michaelis, and Sieffert, Ursprung
d. erst. kanon. Evang. p. 59, Neander, Bleek doubtfully), where Sieffert
supposes that in the Gospel of Matthew the similar history of the call of
Levi was referred through mistake by the Greek editor to Matthew, because
the latter also was a tax-gatherer. So also, substantially, Ewald, Keim,
Grimm in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1870, p. 723 ff. From Clement of Alexan-
dria, Paedag. ii. 1, p. 174, ed. Potter, we learn that the Apestle Matthew
was an adherent of that stricter Jewish-Christian asceticism which refrained
from eating animal food (comp. on Rom. xiv. 1 ff.) ; and we have no reason
to doubt that statement. Regarding his labors beyond the limits of Pales-
tine (i9’ é-épovc, Euseb. H. £. iii. 24) rothing certain is known, and it is
only more recent writers who are able to mention particular countries as the
field of his labor, especially Ethiopia (Rufinus, H. E. x. 9 ; Socrates, H. E.
i. 19 ; Nicephorus, ii. 41), but also Macedonia and several Asiatic countries.
See, generally, Cave, Antiquitt. Ap. p. 553 ff. ; Florini, Exercitatt. hist.
philol. p. 23 ff. ; Credner, Einleitung, I. p. 38. His death, which accord-
ing to Socrates took place in Ethiopia, according to Isidore of Seville, in
Macedonia, is already stated by Heracleon (in Clement of Alexandria,
Strom. iv. 9, p. 595, ed. Potter) to have been the result of natural causes ;
which is also confirmed by Clement, Origen, and Tertullian, in so far as
they mention. only Peter, Paul, and James the Elder as martyrs among the
apostles. As to his alleged death by martyrdom (Nicephorus, ii. 41), see
the Roman martyrology on the 2ist Sept. (the Greek Church observes the
18th Nov.), Acta et Murtyr. Matth. in Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apoer. p.
167 ff.

SEC. II.—APOSTOLIC ORIGIN AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF
THE GOSPEL.

(1.) In the form in which the Gospel now erists, it cannot have originally

proceeded from the hands of the Apostle Matthew. The evidence in favour of

this view consists not merely of the many indefinite statements of time,
place, and other things which are irreconcilable with the living recollection
of an apostolic cye-witness and a participator in the events, even upon the
assumption of a plan of arrangement carried out mainly in accordance with
the subject-matter ; not merely in the partial want of clearness and direct-
ness, which is a prominent feature in many of the historical portions (even
ix. 9 ff. included), and not seldom makes itself felt to such a degree that
we must in this respect allow the preference to the accounts of Mark and
Luke ; not merely in the want of historical connection in the citation and in-
troduction of a substantial portion of the didactic discourses of Jesus, by
which the fact is disclosed that they were not originally interwoven in a liv-

INTRODUCTION. 3

ing connection with the history ; but also—and these elements are, in con-
nection with the above, decisive—the reception of narratives, the unhistor-
ical character of which must certainly have been known to an apostle (such
as, even in the history of the Passion, that of the watchers by the grave, and
of the resurrection of many dead bodies); the reception of the preliminary
history with its legendary enlargements, which far oversteps the original be-
ginning of the gospel announcement (Mark i. 1, comp. Johni. 19) and its
original contents (Acts x. 37 ff. ; Papias in Eusebius, HZ. Z. iii. 89: ra ixo
row Xptotov f AexOivra 7) tpaxOévra, ‘‘the things which were spoken or done
by Christ’’), and which already presents a later historical formation, added to
the original gospel history ; the reception of the enlarged narrative of the
Temptation, the non-developed form of which in Mark is certainly older ;
but most strikingly of all, the many, and in part very essential, corrections
which our Matthew must receive from the fourth Gospel, and several of
which (especially those relating to the last Supper and the day of Jesus’
death, as well as to the appearances of the risen Saviour) are of such a kind
that the variations in question certainly exclude apostolic testimony on one
side, and this, considering the genuineness of John which we must decided-
ly assume, can only affect the credibility of Matthew. To this, moreover.
is to be added the relation of dependence (see Section IV.) which we must
assume of our Matthew upon Mark, which is incompatible with the compo-
sition of the former by an apostle.

(2.) Nevertheless, it must be regarded as a fact, placed beyond all doubt by the
tradition of the church, that our Matthew is the Greek translation of an orig-
inal Hebrew (Aramaic) writing, clothed with the apostolic authority of Matthew
as the author. So ancient and unanimous is this tradition. For (@) Papias,
a pupil, not indeed (not even according to Irenaeus, v. 33. 4) of the Apostle
John, but certainly of the Presbyter, says,’ according to the statement of
Eusebius (iii. 39), in the fragment there preserved of his work Aoyiwy xypraxav
tEfynowc,” ‘* Exposition of our Lord’s discourses :” Mar@aiog pév oby ‘EBpacde

1 Eusebius introduces the above-quoted
statement regarding Matthew with these

ToUTwy* Kai ToUTO 6 mpeaPUrepos EAcye: Mdpxos,
«.7.A.,‘° We shall now perforce set forth....

words: wept &@ rod Mar@aiov ravra eipnrat,
There can be no doubt that these are the
words of Kusebtus, and that their meaning
is, “regarding Matthew, however, it ts thus
stated (in Paptas),"’ since there immediately
precede the words raiva pév ody iordpyra Te
Nlawia wept Tou Mapxov. It may be doubted,
however, whether Eusebius, as he has just
quoted with regard to Wark what Papias
relates concerning him from a communica-
tion received from the Presby/er, meant to
quote the statement of Papias which fol-
lows respecting Jatihew us derived from
the same source or not. As Eusebius, how-
ever, in what precedes, refers to the Pres-
byter only the statement of Paptas regard-
ing Mark, and that purposely at the very
beginning (dvoyxaiws viv mpoOjoouey.. .
wapddoo.v, hy wept Mdpeov éardderar da

a tradition which was put forward respect-
ing Mark in these words; and the Presbyter
said this, Mark, etc.’’); as he, on the other
hand, introduces the statement regarding
Matthew with the quite simple expression
mepi &@ tov Mard, ravra eipnra, Without again
making any mention of the Presbyter,—we
can thus discover no sufficient reason for
taking this statement also to be derived
from a communication of the Presbyter. It
contains, rather, only the simple quotation
of what Papias says regarding Matthew.
This in answer to Sieffert, Ebrard, Thiersch,
Delitzsch, and others. :
2 See on Papias and his fragment, Holtz:
mann, Synopt. Evang. p. 248 ff.; Weizsicker,
Untersuch. db. d. evang. Geschichte, p. 27 ff.;
Ewald, Jahrb. VI. p. 55 ff.; Steitz in Her-
zog’s Encykl. XI. p. 79 f.; Zyro, neue Le-

4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

diadéxry ta Adyta cvverakaro (al. ovveypdyaro), ypufverce P aira d¢ Fv dvuvaroe
Exaoroc : ‘‘Matthew wrote (lit. put together) the discourses in the Hebrew
dialect, and each one interpreted them as he could.” An attempt has indeed
been made to weaken this very ancient testimony, reaching back to the very
apostolic age, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, by means of the well-known
addédpa yap ouixpos Hv Tov vowv’ ‘‘for he was a man of small understanding,”
which Eusebius states regarding Papias ; but Eusebius by that expression
refers to what he had stated immediately before regarding the millenarian-
ism of the man. A simple historical remark, which stood in no connection
either with millenarianism or with accounts of fabulous miracles (to which
Papias, according to Eusebius, was inclined), cannot, owing to that de-
preciatory judgment, be @ prior regarded as suspicious, especially if, as in
the present case, there is added the confirmation of the whole subsequent
tradition of the church. The supposition, however, that Papias is indebted
for his statement to the Nazarenes.and Ebionites (Wetstcin, Hug), is pure
imagination ; since one narrative, which he had in common with the Gos-
pel according to the Hebrews (Eusebius, iii. 89: éxréecrac d2 Kat G24
icroptav wept yuvaixdc éxt woAAaic duapriaw diaBAnbeiong exit tov Kvpiov, 7v 74
Kal? 'ESpatouvg evayyéacov wepséyvec, ‘‘he mentions also another
history about a woman, accused before the Lord of many sins, which the
gospel according to the Hebrews contains,” where these last words belong
to Eusebius, and do not contain a remark of Papias), stands altogether
without any reference to the above statement concerning Matthew. (0)
Irenaeus, Huer, iii. 1. 1, relates: 6 pév 6) Marfaiog év roig ‘EBpaioe rh idig
diaaéxt avtar Kal ypagny ékiveyxev evayyediov, tov Wétpov x. tov TlatAov év 'Pduy
evayyeACouévey x. Oeuersobvrwer tiv éxxAnoiav, ‘‘ Matthew also published a gos-
pel, among the Hebrews, in their own dialect, when Peter and Paul were
in Rome, and were founding the Church.” Against this it has been ob-
jected, that Irenaeus borrowed his judgment from Papias, whom he es-
teemed very highly as the friend of Polycarp (Haer. v. 33). But, irrespec-
tive of this, that if this objection is to deprive the testimony of weight, the
authority of Papias must first fall to the ground, it is extremely arbitrary,
seeing we have now no longer any other authorities contemporary with Pa-
pias, to regard him, and no one else, as the author of the tradition in ques-
tion, which, yet, is uncontradicted throughout the whole of ecclesiastical
antiquity. And Irenacus was not the man to repeat at random. See Ter-
tullian, de test. anim. i. ; Hieronymus, ep. ad Magn. 85. (c) Of Pantaenus,
Eusebius (v. 10) says: 6 Idvracvag xal elg "Ivdove (probably the inhabitants of
Southern Arabia) éAfeiy Aéyerac’ EvOa 2éyog etpeivy avrdv mpopldcav tiv aizov

leucht. @. Paptasatelle, 1869; Zabn in the Stud.
u. Kritik. 1866, p. 649 ff.: Riggenbach in the
Jahro. f. D. Theologie, 1868, p. 819 ff. In an-
swer to the two last (who regard Papias as
a pupil of the Apostle John), see Steitz in the
Stud, u. Kritik. 1868, p. 68 ff., and in the
Jahrb. f. D. Theologie, 1869, p. 188 ff. ; comp.
also Overbeck in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift,
1867, p. 85 ff., and Hilgenfeld, ibidem, p. 179

ff. [also, D. Papias-Fragment, von Wilh.
Welffenbach, Giessen 1874; and D. Papias-
Fragment, von Carl L. Leimbach, Gotha
1875.—Ep.].

1 The counterbalance of praise, that Pa-
pias was or pdAvora Aoywwraros Kai THs ypadis
eidyjper (Eusebius, iif. 86), falls to the
ground, as these words are spurious.

INTRODUCTION. 5

mapovoiay Td Kara Maréaiov evayytiov rapé riow avré& tov Xprorov éreyvoxdow,
olg BapoAouaioy rav aroorédwy iva xnptiat, avroig re ‘EBpaiwy ypdupact tiv row
Mar@aiov xaradziwa: ypaghy' fy nai cdCeobas eic Tov dndovpevov ypdvov, ‘* Pantae-
nus is also suid to have gone to the Indians; the story is that he found
there the gospel of Matthew, among some who had the knowledge of
Christ before his arrival : to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, is
said to have preached, and to have left with them the gospel of Matthew in
the Hebrew, which was also preserved among them to the time indicated.”
This testimony, which is certainly independent of the authority of Papias,
records, indeed, a legend, but this description refers not to the Hebrew
Matthew of itself, but to the statement that Pantaenus found it among the In-
dians, and that Bartholomew had brought it thither (Thilo, Acta Thomae, p.
108 f.). Irrespective of this, Pantaenus, in keeping with his whole position
in life, certainly knew so much Hebrew that he could recognize a Hebrew
Matthew as such. If, however, the objection has often been raised, that it
is not clear from the words whether an original Hebrew writing or a trans-
lation into Hebrew is meant (see also Harless, Lucubr. evangelia canon. spec-
tant. Erlangen 1841, I. p. 12), there speaks in favour of the former view
the tradition of the entire ancient church concerning the original Hebrew
writing of Matthew, a tradition which is followed by Eusebius (see after-
wards, under:¢) ; he must therefore have actually designated it as a transla-
tion, if he did not wish to recall the fact which was universally known,
that the Gospel was composed in Hebrew. The same holds true of the ac-
count by Jerome, de vir. illust. 836 : ‘‘ Reperit [Pantaenusin India], Barthol-
omaeum de duodecim apostolis adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi juxta
Matthaci evangelium praedicasse, quod Hebraicis literis scriptum revertens
Alexandriam secum detulit.” (d) Origen in Eusebius, vi. 25 : 81: rparov
pev ylyparra: td Kxata tov more reAdviy, votepov 62 axédcroAov "Incov Xpioroi
MarOaiov, éxdeduxéra avtd roic ard ‘lovdaiopot moretoact ypdéupacw ‘EBpaixoic
ourreraypzévov, ‘‘ The first written was that by him, who was once a publican,
but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who gave it to Jewish
believers, composed in Hebrew.” He indicates tradition, indeed, as the
source of his narrative (d¢ év rapadéce: wabdv) ; but the witness of tradition
on so thoroughly undogmatic a point from the mouth of a critical and
learned investigator, who, in so doing, expresses neither doubt nor dis-
agreement, contains especial weight ; while to make Origen derive this
tradition from Papias and Irenaeus (Harless, U.c. p. 11), is just as arbitrary
as to derive it merely from the Jewish Christians, and, on that account, to
relegate it to the sphere of error. (¢) Eusebius, iii. 24: Maréaiog pév yap
xpétrepov ‘EBpaiag xypbac, o¢ Euedde nai 颒 érépoug iévat, ratpiy yAdrry ypaon
rapadotc Td kar’ avrdy evayyédiov, Td Acixov Ty avTod Tapovoia Tobroig ag’ av
borédrero, 61a rij¢ ypagis arerAfpov, ‘‘ For Matthew, having formerly preached
to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples delivered to
them in their own language, the gospel according to him ; and thus sup-
plied by this gospel the lack of his presence among them.” Comp. ad
Marin. Quaest. ii. in Mai, Script. vet. nov. collectio, I. p. 64 f. : AéAexrar J?

oy? tov caBBarouv rapa tov épunveboavros tiv ypaghy’ 6 pév yap evayyedotag Mar-

6 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Aaiog ‘EBaids yAdrry wapéduxe Td evayyéduov, x.7.4., ‘It was read, late upon the
Sabbath, by a translator ; for Matthew published his gospel in the Hebrew
tongue.” It is already evident from the latter passage that Eusebius relates
that the Gospel was composed in Hebrew, not merely as a matter of his-
tory, but that he himself also adopted that view, against which his own re-
mark on Ps. Ixxviii. 2 has been erroneously appealed to (in Montfaucon,
Collect. Patr. Gree. I. p. 466) ; avri rot g0éyfouar mpoBAjuata an’ apxic ‘EBpai-
o¢ Ov 6 MarOaiog otxeia éxdébcec éxpyrat etrrov’ épebEouat kexpyupéva amd xataBodrne.
‘Instead of ‘I will speak forth dark sayings from of old,’ Matthew, being
a Hebrew, used his own edition, saying: ‘I will proclaim things hidden from
the foundation.’” For oixeig éxdécee cannot here be his own (Greek) transla-
tion of the passage of the Hebrew psalm (Marsh, Hug, and several others),
but only—as the reference to Efpaioc dv, and the antithesis to Aguila which
there follows, clearly show—a vernacular, z.¢. Hebrew edition of the original
text, so that the meaning is: Matthew transcribed the words of the psalm
from a Hebrew edition into his (Hebrew) Gospel ; the result of which was,
that in the Greek they now agree neither with the LXX. (¢@éyfoua: mpoPag-
uara an’ apyyc) nor with Aquila, the Greek editions of which (avf ov 6 pv
"AxbdAac’ uBphow aivtypata é& apy7bev, éxdédunev, ‘‘instead of which Aquila
has expressed it: ‘I will pour forth riddles from the olden time’”), Eusebius
continues, had no influence on Matthew, who wrote in Hebrew. (j*) Cyril
of Jerusalem, Catechet. 14 : MarOatocg 5 ypdwag rd evayyédiov ‘EBpaid: yAwoon
Trovro éypawev, ‘‘ Matthew, the same who wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew dia-
lect, wrote this.” (g) Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 3: Mar@aioc pévoc ‘EBpaiori
kai 'ESpaixoi¢ ypdupacty év tH xatvg Stabhxy exothoato tH tov evayyedtov ExOecly re
xai kfpvyua, ‘* Matthew alone made his setting forth and proclamation of the
Gospel in the New Testament according to the Hebrew and in Hebrew
characters.” Comp. li. 5, also xxx. 6, where a converted Jew testifies that
he discovered the Hebrew Matthew in a treasure-chamber. (h) Jerome,
Praef. in Matt.: ‘* Matthaeus in Judaea evangelium Hebraeo sermone edidit
ob eorum vel maxime causam, qui in Jesum credidcrant ex Judaeis,” ‘‘ Mat-
thew, in Judea, published the Gospel in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the
sake of those who, from among the Jews, had believed on Jesus.” Comp.
de vir. ill. 8, where he assures us that he discovered the original Hebrew
text among the Nazarenes in Beroea in Syria, and that he transcribed it.
Comp. also Ep. ad Damas. IV. p. 148, ed. Paris ; ad Hedib. IV. p. 178; in
Jes. III. p. 64 ; in Hos. III. p. 184. — The testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen,
Chrysostom, Augustine, and of later Fathers, may, after those already men-
tioned, be passed over, as well as that also of the Syrian Church in Asse-
mann’s Bibl. Orient. III. p. 8. — The weight of this unanimous and ancient
tradition has secured acceptance down to the most recent times, notwith-
standing the opposition of many critics,’ for the hypothesis that Mat-
thew wrote in Hebrew (Richard Simon, Mill, Michaelis, Marsh, Storr, Cor-
rodi, J. E. Ch. Schmidt, Haenlein, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Ziegler, Kuinoel,

1 See the history of this controversy in Credner, Zinleitung, I. p. 78 ff.; Neudecker,
p. 195 ff.

INTRODUCTION. v4

Gratz, Guericke, Olshausen, Klener (de authent. Ho. Matth., Gottingen
1861), Sieffert, Ebrard, Baur, Weisse, Thiersch, Tholuck, Lange, Lu-
thardt (de compos. Ho. Matth., Leipsic 1871), Giider (in Herzog’s En-
cykl. TX. p. 166), and others). The opposite view of a Greek original of
our Gospel, from which the polemic interest which operated in the older
Protestantism, in opposition to tradition and the Vulgate, has long ago
disappeared, is found in Erasmus, Cajetan, Beza, Calvin, Flacius, Gerhard,
Calov., Erasmus Schmidt, Clericus, Lightfoot, Majus, Fabricius, Wetstein,
Masch (Grundspr. d. Ho. Matth., Halle 1755), Schubert (Diss., Géttingen
1810), Hug, Paulus, Fritzsche, Theile (in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s krit.
Journal, II. p. 181 ff. 346 ff.), Buslav (Diss., 1826), Schott, Credner, Volk-
mar, Neudecker, Kuhn, B. Crusius, Harless, Thiersch (with reference to the
canonical Matthew, which, according to him, is a second edition of the
apostie’s original work in Hebrew), de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Ritschl (in the
theolog. Jahrb. 1851, p. 536 ff.), Késtlin (Ursprung u. Kompos. der synopt. Ev.,
Stuttgart 1853), Hilgenfeld, Anger (Ratio, qud loci V. T. in Eo. Matth.
laudantur, 3 Programme, Leipsic 1861 f.), Holtzmann (synopt. Hv. 1863),
Tischendorf, Keim, and others, predominantly also by Delitzsch, but is en-
tirely destitute of any external foundation, as the unanimous tradition of the
church is rather insuperably opposed to it ; while to deduce the latter from an
error occasioned by the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Bleek, Tischen-
dorf, Keim, and others), is a decision of critical peremptorinesa which must
gice way especially before the testimony of Jerome, who was minutely acquaint-
ed with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, aswell as with the Hebrew Matthew.
The loss of the Hebrew original is all the more explicable the more early
and widely the Greek Matthew was circulated ; while the heretics obtained
possession of the Hebrew work, and caused it to lose canonical authority. |
The internal grounds, moreover, on which stress has been laid, are sufficient
only to show that our Matthew might be an original composition in Greek, but
not that it 7s (actually) such. For the dissemination of the Greek language
in Palestine at that time (Hug) so little excludes, especially considering the
predilection of the people for their own language (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), the
composition of a Hebrew Gospel, that it only makes the early translation of
such a work into Greek more conceivable. If, further, it has been observed
(Credner, sec. 46) that to the Hebrew feminine M1 no male function (i. 18)
can be ascribed without the antecedent medium of the Greek tongue, as in-
deed in the Gospel according to the Hebrews the maternal position towards
Christ is actually assigned to the Holy Spirit (Credner, Beitrdage, I. p. 402 f.);
so, on the other hand, it holds good that in i. 18 no male function of
the Spirit is at all spoken of, but a generation in which the specifically sev-
ual meaning remains out of consideration, as, moreover, the Greek zveiza is
not masculine. The unimportant play upon the word in vi. 16 might already
have its impress in the original, but may also, either from intention or acci-
dent, have originated with the translator. With respect to xxvii. 46, see
the remarks in loc. The frequent identity of expression, moreover, in
Matthew with Mark and Luke, does not necessarily point to an original
composition of the former in Greek, but leaves this question quite unaffected,

8 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

as the translated Matthew might either have been made use of by the later Synop-
tics, or might even have originated also from the use of the latter, or of common
sources. The most plausible support for an original composition in Greek is
found in the circumstance that a portion, although a small one, of the quo-
tations from the Old Testament, especially those which are cited as Mes-
sianic predictions (comp. Jerome, de vir. ill. 8; and see, especially, the
copious dissertation by Credner, Beitrdge, I. p. 893 ff.; Bleek, Beitr. p. 57
ff.; Ritschl, in the theolog. Jahrb. 1851, p. 520 ff.; Késtlin, p. 86 ff.; Anger,
d.c.; Holtzmann, p. 258 ff.; Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 59 ff.), do not follow
the LXX., but deviate with more or less freedom from it, although taking ac-
count also of the same, and follow the original text as the case requires.
This presents the appearance of not being the work of a translator, who
would have adhered more mechanically to the LXX. But, irrespective of
the fact that this observation is by no means always beyond doubt with
regard to the individual passages to which it is applied (Delitzsch in
the Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theologie, 1850, p. 463 f., and Hntsteh. u. Anl.
d. kanon. Eo. I. p. 13 ff; Weiss in Stud. u. Kritik. 1861, p. 91 f.), we
are not at liberty to prescribe limits so narrow either to the freedom and
peculiarity of the manner of citation which was followed in the Hebrew
work, or to that of the translator,—who, as generally throughout his work,
so also in the rendering of the quotations, might go to work with pragmat-
ic independence,—that the tradition of a Hebrew original of the Gospel
would be excluded as incorrect. This conclusion no more follows, than it
would be at all necessary to suppose that the translator must have had as
the basis of his text that of a different writer, more familiar with the Old
Testament (Baur); or that this variation betrays evidence of the hand of a
second redactor (Hilgenfeld, Keim).

(8.) The original Hebrew writing, however, from which our present Matthew
proceeded through being translated into Greek, must, apart from the language,
have been in contents and form, in whole and in part, substantially the same
as our Greek Matthew. The gencral evidence in favor of this view is,

.that throughout the ancient church our Greek Matthew was already used
as if it had been the authentic text itself. Accordingly, although the
church knew that it was a text which had arisen only through a transla-
tion, it cannot have been aware of any essential deviation from the original.
Jerome, however, in particular, de cir. ill. 8, who was minutely acquainted
with the Hebrew original, and made a transcript of it, makes mention of
it in such a way that the reader can only presuppose its agreement with the
translation, and makes (on Matt. vi. 11, ad Hedib. IV. p. 178, on oé, xxviii.
1) exegetical remarks, which rest upon the presupposition that it is a literal
translation. The same holds true in reference to the passages of Eusebius
quoted under 2 ¢. On the whole, no trace is anywhere found that the
Greek Gospel in its relation to the original Hebrew work was regarded as
anything else than a translation in the proper sense ; and therefore the
opinion which has recently become current, that it is a free redaction, ex-
tended by additions (Sieffert, Klener, Schott, der d. Authenticit. d. Eo.
Matth., 1834, Delitzsch), is destitute of all historical basis. If, however,

INTRODUCTION. 9

our Greek Gospel of Matthew is to be regarded as a simple translation, not
as an altered and extended revision ; if, moreover, the Hebrew work, which
was translated, consequently possessed, at the time when the translation
was made, the same substantial extent, contents, and expression which are
presented by our present Matthew,—then it follows, agreeably to what is
observed under (1.), that the Hebrew document cannot hate been composed by
the apostle in the shape in which it was translated into Greek.

(4.) Notwithstanding, the Apostle Matthew must have had in the Hebrew
composition, of which our present Gospel is a translation, so substantial a part,
that it could, on sufficient historical grounds, vindicate its claim to be regarded,
in the ancient and universal tradition of the church, as the Hebrew evayyédcov
xara Mar@aiov. To ascertain what this part was, we must go back to the
oldest of the witnesses in question, which in fact discloses the original rela-
tion of the apostle to the Gospel which bears his name. The witness of
Papias, namely, in Eusebius, ili. 89 (above under 2 a), declares that
Matthew, and that in the Hebrew tongue, ‘‘rd Aé6y:a ovveragaro,” ‘‘ put togeth-
er the discourses,” where the—to us unknown—context of the Fragment
must have shown the Aéya to be those of the Zord. According to this view,
his own work, composed by himself, was a ctvraéc¢ or (according to the
reading ovveypdwaro) Bovyypagy Tov Aoyiwy, consequently nothing else
than a placing together, an orderly arrangement (comp. on civyragi¢ with gen.
in this literal sense, Polybius, xxx. 4. 11, i. 4. ii. 8, iv. 5. 11; Diodorus
Sic. i. 3, xiv. 117), of the sayings of the Lord (Acts vii. 38 ; Rom. iii. 2 ;
Heb. v. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 11) ; asin the Classics also Aédya is always used of
sentences, especially divine, oracular sentences, and the like (Kriiger on
Thucyd. ii. 8. 2). A similar undertaking was that of Papias himself, in his
work : Aoyiwy xupiaxdéy éSiynorc, ‘‘ exposition of the Lord’s discourses,” which
consisted of five books (ovyypduuara). He also gave the Aéya of Christ ;
but in such a way that he erplained (é£yyfoato, comp. on John i. 18) their
divine meaning historically (Eusebius himself quotes such a history), and
from other sources (thus, according to Eusebius, he also made use of testi-
monies from some New Testament Epistles); Matthew, on the other
hand, had given noéf4#ynac¢, but onlyacthyraéec of the Lord's sayings.
The work of Papias was an Interpretatio (Jerome : ‘‘ explanatio”) ; that of
Matthew was only an orderly Collectio of the same. Schleiermacher in the
Stud. u. Kritik. 1832, p. 7385, has the merit of having brought forward and
made good ' the precise and proper meaning of Aéy:a : he has been rightly

1 Although he did not correctly hit the
meaning of the second part of the testimo-
ny of Paplas : qpuyvevce 3 avra ws Fw buvards
gxagros. He referred this »punveva eto
the explanation furnished by the addition of
the relatire histories. But the bearing of
Rpuyvevee is to be sought simply in “Efpaté
8caddery, 30 that the meaning which Papias
wishes to convey must be this: every one
translated (Xen. Anabd. v. 4. 4; Esdras tv. 7;
additions to Esther vii. fin.) the Aéyca, which
were arranged together In Hebrew, accord-

ing to his capacity,—which refers to that
use which, whether ecclesiastically or pri-
vately, the Greek Christians made of Mat-
thew's collection of Hebrew sayings, in
order to render them intelligible, by such a
process of translation, to those who needed
a translation in order to understand them.
They were translated (orally and in writing)
by every one who undertook the work, as
well as ho was able to do it. When Papias
wrote this, such a self-translation, varying
always according to the capacity of each

10 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

followed by Schneckenburger, Uraprung des ersten kanon. Evang. 1884, by
Lachmann in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1885, p. 577 ff., Credner, Weisse, Wiese-
ler, B. Crusius, Ewald, Késtlin, Reuss, Weizsicker, and others ;' also by
Holtzmann, p. 251 ff.; Steitz in the Stud. u. Krittk. 1868, p. 68 ; Grau,
Entwickelungegeschicht. d. N. T. 1. p. 173 f.; Scholten, d. dlteste Hoang.
tibers. v. Redepenning, 1869, p. 244 f. On the other hand, many others have
found in the Aéy:a even evangelic history, so that it would be a designation
a poteort for the entire contents of a Gospel. So Liicke in the Stud. wu.
Kritik. 1833, p. 501 f., Kern, Hug, Frommann in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1840,
p. 912 ff., Harless, Ebrard, Baur, Delitzsch, Guericke, Bleck, Weiss
(partly), Hilgenfeld, Thiersch, Giider, Luthardt, Kahnis, Anger, Keim,
Zahn. This is quite untenable, because Paptas shortly before designates the
entire contents of a Gospel (that of Mark) in quite a different way, viz.: ré
ixd Tov Xpiorov h AexOévra 7 mpaxbévra, ‘the things said or done by Christ”
(comp. Acts i. 1) ; and because, in the title of his work : é&#ynotg trav Aoyiuy
kuptaxav, he undoubtedly understood the 26yza in the proper sense of the word,
1.€. Ta Acxfévra, effata, so that the history which his book contained be-
longed not to the 26y:a, but to the é&#y7o«¢ which he gave of the Aéyra._ And
with a comparative glance at this his literary task, he says of Peter : ovy
Gorep obvragiy tav Kkuprandv rrotobpevog Aédywv (var. Aoyiwy), ‘‘ not as if he were
making a methodical arrangement of the Lord’s words”—-words which are
not therefore to be used to prove the identity of meaning between Adyca and
AcxOévra and rpaybévra (as is still done by Keim and Zahn) ; comp. § 4, Rem.
1. On the other hand, our Matthew contains in its present shape so much
proper history, so much that is not given as a mere accompaniment of the
discourses, or as framework for their insertion, that the entire contents cannot
be designated by the one-sided ra 26):a, especially if we look to the title of the
work of Papias itself. The later Patristic usage of rad Aéy:a, however (in
answer to Hug and Ebrard), does not apply here, inasmuch as the view, ac-
cording to which the contents of the N. T. in general, even the historical parts,
were regarded as inspired, and in so far as Adyca rod feod, did not yet exist in
the time of Papias nor in his writings (Credner, Beitr. I. p. 23 f.; Kahnis,
com heilig. Geist. p. 210 ff.; Holtzmann, p. 251), against which view the d¢
yéypanxra: in Barnabas 5 can prove nothing (comp. on John, Introd. § 2, 2).
—<According, then, to this opinion, the Apostle Matthew, agreeably to the

individual, was no longer requisite, as our
Greek Matthew had already attained eccle-
slastical authority. and the Aéyca, originally
written in Hebrew, were contained in it.
It is because he was aware of éhis that
npeyvevce is employed, and this ought not
to have been called in question (Bleek,
Holtzmann, and others); but it does not
follow that the whole of our Gospel of
Matthew (only composed in Hebrew) was
the original work written by the apostle
himself.

1Comp. also Réville, Ztudes crit. avr St.
Maith. 1862, p. 1 ff., who has sought to de-

termine more exactly out of our Matthew
the parts of the original Aoyra. Holtzmann's
view is different: he seeks to reconstruct
the collection of sayings chiefly out of Luke.
See his synopt. Hvang. p. 140 ff.; according
to him, Luke made more use of it than
Matthew, the 5th and 23d chapters of the
latter being derived from special sources.
Weizsicker, Weisse (protest. Kzeit. 1863, No.
23), Grau, and others, rightly defend the
view, that the collection of sayings is pre-
ponderantly contained in the first Gospel,
whose name already rests upon this.

INTRODUCTION. 11

testimony of Papias, has composed a digest of the sayings of Christ,’ and that
in the Hebrew tongue, but not yet a proper gospel history, although, per-
haps, the Aéyca might be briefly accompanied, now and again, with special
introductory remarks of a historical kind, and a gospel history was thereby,
in some measure, formed beforehand. It is this collection of sayings now
which obtained and secured for the Gospel, which was afterwards further
elaborated out of it, the name of the apostle as author, the name evayyéjcov
xara Marfatov. The collection of Hebrew sayings, namely, such as it pro-
ceeded from the apostle, was, in the hands of the Hebrew Christians, for
whom it was intended, gradually erpanded by the interweaving of the history
into that gospel writing which, translated into Greck, presents itself in the
present Gospel ; and which, under the name of the apostle, rightly obtained
the recognition of the church in so far that the ofvragi¢ tov Aédywv, Which
was composed by Matthew himself, was substantially contained in it, and
was the kernel out of which the whole grew. This apostolic kernel by itself
perished ; but the name of the apostle, which had passed over from it to
the Hebrew Gospel work which so originated, led to the latter being re-
garded as the original composition of Matthew himself,—a view which lies
at the foundation of the testimonies of Ircnacus, Origen, Eusebius, Epipha-
nius, Jerome, and others. In any case, however, this Hebrew work, which
gradually grew out of the collection of sayings, must, before it was trans-
lated into Greek, have undergone a systematic, final redaction, by means of which
it received the form which corresponds to our present Greek Matthew, for
the latter is always attested only as a translation; and it is precisely to this
Jinal redaction, before the translation was made, that the recognition of the work
by the church as apostolic must have been appended and confirmed, because
in the rendering of the work into Greek, the Hebrew was only translated, —
a view which underlies the testimonies and quotations of the Fathers
throughout. The Hebrew original, which arose out of the apostle’s collec-
tion of sayings, and which corresponds to our present Matthew, fell, after
it was translated, into obscurity, and gradually became lost,’ although it
must have been preserved for a long time as an isolated work in Nazarene
circles (besides and alongside of the so-called Gospel according to the
Hebrews), where it was still found in Beroea by Jerome, who made a tran-
script of it, and who also testifies that it existed down to his own day in the
library of Pamphilus at Caesarea (de cir. illust. 3). — That the translator was
one individual, is attested by the fixed style of expression which runs
throughout the whole (Credner, Hinleit. § 87 ; Holtzmann, p. 292 ff.) ; who
he was, cannot be at all determined : ‘‘quod quis postea in Graecum transtu-
lerit, non satis certum est,” ‘‘ who afterwards may have translated it into

1Jt is arbitrary to think only of longer, that Aéyca denotes the entire Gospel. See,

actual discourses (Kostlin), and to exclude
shorter sayings, gnomes, and the Ilke. Both
are to be understood. So also Photius,
Cod. 228, p. 248, where 7a xvptaxa Adysta Cor-
responds to the 7a dwocroAud xynpiypnara
which follow. Without any reason, Anger,
Ill. p. 7, employs the passage as a proof

on the other hand, also Weizsiicker, p. 82.

2 The Syriac Matthew, which Cureton has
edited, and which he regards as a transla-
tion of the original Hebrew writing (Lon-
don 1858), has been derived from the Greek
text. See Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 77 ff.

12 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Greek is not satisfactorily known,” Jerome. The opinions, that the transla-
tion was executed by Matthew himself (Bengel, Guericke, Schott, Olshausen,
Thiersch), or at least with his co-operation (Guericke),—or by another apos-
tle (Casaubon, Gerhard), perhaps James the Lord’s brother (Synopsis S. S.
Pseudo-Athanasius), or even by John (Theophylact, Scholia on Matthew,
Subscriptions in the mss.), or was prepared under the eye and commission of
the apostles (Ebrard),—or that two of the disciples of Matthew had written
down, the one in Aramaic, the other in Greek, the tradition preserved by
the apostle (Orelli, Selecta Patr. Eccles. Capita, 1821, p. 10),—easily connect
themselves with dogmatic presuppositions, but are destitute of all historical
foundation, and must, in consequence of the testimony which Papias bears
as to what Matthew wrote, altogether fall to the ground. — If, as the result
of all that precedes, the share of the apostle in the work which bears his
name must be referred back to his Hebrew otvraéic ray Aoyiwy, and in so far
the book as a whole cannot be called apostolic in the narrower sense, but
‘‘already a secondary narrative” (Baur), the apostolic authenticity,’ which has
been strictly defended down to the most recent time, can remain only in a very
relative degree. If, however, the gospel history thereby loses this direct
guarantee, so far as in many single points it would lack the weighty author-
ity of the apostle and eye-witness as a voucher, yet the gain is to be more
highly estimated which it derives from being completely emancipated from
the contradictory statements of two apostles on which apologetic harmo-
nists, since Augustine, Osiander, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Calovius, Bengel, Storr,
and others,* have exercised their inventive ingenuity with the Sispyhus-labour
of a one-sided acuteness, and from seeing the decisive authority of John
in relation to the first Gospel altogether unshackled. To this authority
must also be subordinated the discourses of Jesus in individual parts, which,
considering the genetic development under which our Matthew gradually
grew up out of the collection of sayings, cannot have remained unchanged
(especially those relating to the last things and to the last Supper). Yet
the greater portion of them, so far as they belong to the non-Johannean
stage of action, are independent of and unaffected by the Johannean ac-
counts of the discourses. If, namely, as our Gospels furnish the actual
proof of it, there was formed earliest of all a Galtlean cycle of gospel history

1 See, especially, Theile in Winer’s crit.
Journ. IT. p. 181 ff. 346 ff. ; Heidenreich, das.
I. p. 129 ff. 885 ff.; Kuinoel, Fritzsche,
Kern, Schott, Guericke ; Olshausen, Apos-
tolica Ev. Matth. or. def., Erlangen 1885-37 ;
Rordam, de fide patr. eccles. antiquiss. in
fis, quae de orig. evo. can. maxime Matth.
tradider., Hafniae 18389; Harless, Ebrard,
Thiersch, Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, and
others.

2 Even the most recent, which {s set forth
inthe most consistent form with the acute-
ness of comprehensive learning by Wiese-
ler in his chronol. Synopee, 1843 (translated
by Venables), and later, down to his Belfr.
zur Wiurdig. d. Ev. 1869; in the most bulky

shape with the roughness of passionate
feeling by Ebrard in his wissensch. Krit. d.
evang. Gesch. ed. 3, 1868 (2d ed. translated ;
Clark, Edinburgh). Harmonizers have
done much harm by fostering the opinion
that the gospel history needed thelr brittle
support. The substance of this history ifs
altogether Independent of such help, as
was already correctly recognized by Gries-
bach. The discord of harmonists, however,
with each other Is only the process of the
self-dissolution of their artificial labors,
the result of which has been less to the ad-
vantage of the history itself than of its
opponents.

INTRODUCTION. | 13

which extended itself to Judea only at the last great termination of the his-
tory ; so it is conceivable enough, since Galilee was actually the principal
theatre of the ministry of Jesus, that Matthew in his obvragi¢ ray Aoyiuv
already confined himself to this cycle, while it was reserved for John first,
when evangelic historical composition had reached its culminating point,
to include the whole of the Judaic teaching and acting,—nay, by supple-
menting that older and defective range of narrative, to place it in the fore-
ground of the history. Delitzsch, in connection with his fiction of a penta-
teuchal construction of our Gospel (see afterwards, Section Iv.), without
any reason regards Matthew as the creator of the Galilean gospel type : he
only connected himself with it by his collection of sayings, which an apos-
tle could also do if he did not wish to write a history of Jesus.

Remark.—The Hebrew Matthew was adopted, as by the Hebrew Christians
in general, so by the Nazarenes and Evionites in particular, as their Gospel, and
was overlaid (by the Ebionites, who omitted the two first chapters, still more
than by the Nazarenes) with heretical and apocryphal additions and partial
changes, as well by spinning out as by omitting, by which process arose the
evayyéArov xaQ’ “EGpaiouc, “ the gospel according to the Hebrews ;”’ see the frag-
ments of the same collected from the Fathers in Credner’s Beitr. I. p. 380 ff. ;
by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 345 ff. ; and in the N. T. eatra Canon.
recept. IV. According to Eusebius, iii. 39, Papias had already received into his
work an apocryphal history, which was contained ! in the evayyéAcov xa 'Egpalove,
and which had been already made use of by Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 3 (see Je-
rome, de vir. illust. 16), and by Hegesippus (see Eusebius, iv. 22, iii. 20; Pho-
tius, Bibl. Cod. 232). This essential relationship of the evayyéAiov xa? 'EGpaiourg
—the contents of which, according to the remains that have been preserved,
must have been extensive,? and wrought up with skill and some degree of bold-
ness (see Ewald, Jahrb. VI. p. 37 ff.)—to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, makes
it explicable how the former might be regarded by many who did not possess
an exact acquaintance with it, as the Hebrew Matthew itself (Jerome, contra
Pelag. iii. 2, ‘* Ut pleriqgue autumant ;" ad Matt. xii. 13, ‘‘ quod vocatur a plerisque
Matthaei authenticum,’’ ‘‘ which is called by many the authentic gospel of
Matthew.”) To the number of these belonged also Epiphanius, who says (Haer.
xxix, 9) that the Nazarenes possessed 7d xara Mar, evayyéAcov tAnpéotarov
(comp. Irenaeus, J/aer. iii. 11. 7) &3paicri, but who, nevertheless, does not know
whether it also contained the genealogy. Of the Hvionifes, on the other hand,
he states (Haer. xxx. 3. 13) that they did not possess the Gospel of Matthew ina

The remark of Eusebius, fv 7d xaé
"ESpacovs evayyéAtory mepréxer, leaves it doubt-
fal whether he intended by the remark to
note the apocryphal character of this histo-
ry, or at the same time to point to the
source from which Papias had taken it.
According to the connection, since two
apostolic letters had just previously been
mentioned as having been used by Papias;
and now, with the addition of the above
remark, another, /.¢. a non-apostolic histo-
ry is quoted, which Papias is said to have
narreted,—it ls more probable that Eusebl-

us wished to point to the use of the Gospel
according to the Hebrews by Papias (in
answer to Ewald and several others). Tho
history itself (wepi yuvacds dri woAAais apap-
tiass ScaBAnGeions éwi rou xupiov, “ respecting
@ woman who had been accused of many
sins before the Lord *’), moreover, is not to
be regarded as that of the adulteress in
John.

2 According to the stichometry of Nice-
phorus, it contained 2200 crixo: ; the Gospel
of Matthew, 2500. See Credner, zur Gesch.
ad. Leanon, p. 120.

14 : THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

complete form, but vevo9evutvov xai nxpornpiacpévoy, “adulterated and mutilated,”
and quotes passages from the Ebionitic ‘EGpuixév. Wemust suppose that he had
au exact acquaintance only with the Ebionite edition of the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, probably derived from Ebionite writings. Jerome, on the other
hand, hada minute acquaintance with the evangelium secundum Hebraeos, and, in
opposition tothe view which has recently become current, definitely distinguished
it from the Hebrew Matthew.' Of the latter, namely, which he found in use
among the Nazarenes at Beroea, he made a transcript (de vir. illust. 3); the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, of which, consequently, there could not have been
as yet any widely diffused and recognized translation, he translated into Greek
and Latin (de vir. illust. 2, ad Mich. vii. 6, ad Malt. xii. 13), which of course he
did not do in the case of the Hebrew Matthew, as that Matthew was every-
where extant in Greek and also in Latin. Jerome consequently could not
share the erroneous opinion of the pleriqgue above mertioned ; and the very pre-
carious assumption —precarious because of his well-known acquaintance with
the Hebrew language—that he held it at a former time, but abandoned it after-
wards (Credner, de Wette, Holtzmann, Tischendorf, and several others), or at
least expressed himself more cautiously regarding it (Hilgenfeld), is altogether
baseless, and is only still more condemned by Credner’s arbitrary hypothesis
(Beitrage, I. p. 394). It is, however, also conceivable that it was precisely
among the Nazarenes that he found the Hebrew Matthew, as they naturally
attached great value to that Gospel, out of which their own Gospel, the
evangelium secund. Hebraeos, had grown. Of the former (de vir. ill. 3), as well
as of the latter (c. Pelag. iii. 2), there was a copy in the library at Caesarea.
As Jerome almost always names only the Nazarenes as those who use the
evangelium sec. Hebraeos, while he says nothing of any special Ebionilic Gospel ;
nay, on Matt. xii. 13, designates the Gospel according to the Hebrews as that
‘¢quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae,” “which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use,”’
he does not appear to have known any special Ebionitic edition, or to have
paid any attention to it ; while he simply adhered to the older, more original,
and more widely disseminated form of the work, in which it was authoritative
among the Nazarenes, and was certainly also retained in use among the Ebio-
nites side by side with their still more vitiated gospel writing. The supposition
that the evangelium sec. Hebraeos arose out of a (reek original (Credner, Bleek,
de Wette, Delitzsch, Reuss, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann ; comp. also Sepp, d. Hebr.
Evang. 1870), has against it the statement of the Fathers (Eusebius, iv. 22;
Epiphanius, Haeres. xxx. 3. 13; and especially Jerome), who presuppose a

1 It is objected to this (see also Anger, ITT.
p. 12), that Jerome in his epistle to Hedibia
(Opp. I. p. 826, ed. Vallarsi), on ch. xxviif. 1,
remarks: “Mihi videfur evangelista Mat-
thaeus, qui evangellum Hebraico sermone
conscripsit, non tam vespere dixisse quam
sero, et eum, qui interpretatus est, verbi
ambiguitate deceptum, non se7v interpreta-
tum esse, sed vespere,” ‘The Evangelist
Matthew, who wrote his Gospel in the He-
brew tongue, seems to me to have said not
so much in the evening as late in the day; it
seems also that he who interpreted it, de-
ceived by the ambiguity of the word, ren-

dered it not /ate, but in the evening.’ Be-
cause Jerome employs here only a tidetur,
the word is said to betray on his part a non-
acquaintance with the original Hebrew writ-
ing. This objection is erroneous. Jerome
rather means that the Hebrew word em-
ployed by Matthew is ambiguous; that it
may signify vespere and sero ; that Matthew
appears to have expressed by it the latter
conception, while the translator took it fn
the former sense. What Hebrew word
stood in the passage Jerome does not state ;
it may probably have been N3Wi1 M1353.

INTRODUCTION. 15

Hebrew original ; while, further, there stands in conflict with it the old and
widely disseminated confusion between that Gospel and the original Hebrew
work of Matthew. The alleged wavering, moreover, between the texts‘of Mat-
thew and Luke, which has been found in some fragmentary portions, is so
unessential (see the passages in de Wette, sec. 64a), that the fluidity of oral
tradition is fully sufficient to explain it. Just as little can that hypothesis find
any support from the individual passages, which are still said to betray the Greek
original (of Matthew), from which the evangelium sec. Hebraeos arose by means
ofan Aramaic edition. For, as regards the éyxpic, ‘‘ the oil and honey cake,’’ in
Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13, see on Matt. iii. 4. And when Jerome, on.ch. xxvii.
16, relates that in that Gospel the name Barabbas was explained by filius magistri
eorum, ‘‘ the son of this master,” it has been erroneously assumed that the Greek
accusative Bapaj3dv was taken as an indeclinable noun ({3793= ns} 3).
So Paulus, Credner, Bleek, Holtzmann. Such a degree of ignorance of Greek,
precisely when it is said to be a translation from that language, cannot at all be
assumed, especially as the Greek Bapa33. was written with only one p, and the
name M3813 and Bapassds was verycommon. ‘Filius magistri eorum’’ is rather
to be regarded simply as an instance of forced rabbinical interpretation, where ~
RIN was referred, in the improper sense of magister, to the devil ; and in sup-
port of this interpretation, an eorum, giving a more precise definition, was, freely
enough, subjoined.! When, further, according to Jerome on Matt. xxiii. 35,
fulius Jojadue, ‘‘ the son of Joiada,’’ stood in the Gospel according to the He-
brews in place of viod Bapayiov, this does not necessarily presuppose the (reek
text, the mistake in which was corrected by the Gospel according to the He-
brews, but the yT'Y 3 may just as appropriately, and quite independently of
the Greek Matthew, have found its way in, owing to a more correct statement of
- the tradition, in room of the erroneous name already received into the original
Hebrew text. Just as little, finally, is any importance to be attached to this,
that, according to Jerome on Matt. vi. 11, instead of rév éexcovorov, ‘* the coming,”’
there stood in the Gospel according to the Hebrews ‘WD, since there exists
no difference of meaning between these two words. Seeon Matt./.c. None
of these data (still less that which, according to Jerome, the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews, ch. xxv. 51, contained respecting the breaking of
the supraliminare templi, ‘‘the lintel of the Temple ;’’ and what was formerly
adduced, still especially by Delitzsch, Entsteh. u. Anl. d. kanon. Evang. I. p.
21 f.) is fitted to lay a foundation for the opinion that that apocryphal Gos-
pel was derived from a Greek original, and especially from our Greek
Matthew, or from the (alleged) Greek document which formed the foundation
of the same, which is said to have undergone in the Gospels of the Nazarenes
and Ebionites only other redactions, independently of the canonical one
(Hilgenfeld, Evangel. p. 117). — The converse view, that our Greek Matthew
proceeded from a Greek translation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
which was subjected to modification of various kinds until it finally became
fixed in its present shape in our canonical Gospel of Matthew (probably about
the year 130 a.p.), Schwegler, Baur, renders necessary the unhistorical supposi-

1 Quite in the same way has even Theo- name as “‘filius patris, h. e. diadboli,”’ was,
phylact himself explained the name by ry on the whole, very common. See Jerome
vioy rou watpds avtmwy, Tov d&aBdAov. Seo on Ps, cviil., Opp. vil. 2, p. 206.
on ch. xxvii. 16. The interpretation of the

16 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tion, which especially contravenes the testimony of Jerome, that the Hebrew
writing of Matthew was identical with the Gospel according to the Hebrews ;
leaves the old and universal canonical recognition of our Matthew, in view of
the rejection by the church of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, unex-
plained ; overlooks, further, that the assumed transformations which our
canonical Matthew underwent prior to its being finally fixed, must—since,
according to the unanimous testimony of the church, it is a translution—have
related not to the Greek, but only to the Hebrew work ; and it must, finally,
refer the relative quotations of Justin (and of the Clementines, see Uhlhorn,
Homil. u. recog. d. Clemens, p. 119 ff.) to the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
or assume as a source the Gospel of Peter and other unknown apocrypha
(Schliemann, Schwegler, Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, after Credner's example),
although it is precisely our Matthew and Luke which aré most largely and
unmistakably employed by Justin in his quotations from the d¢rouyqyovetpata
Tov atooréAwy, ** memoirs of the Apostles,’’ although freely and from memory,
and under the influence of the oral tradition which had become current, and
which stood at his command (Semisch, d. Apost. Denkwiirdigk. Justin’ s, 1848 [Eng.
' transl. Messrs. Clark’s Cab. Libr.]; Delitzsch, Enisteh. u. Anl. d. Ieanon. Evang.
I. p. 26 ff.; Ritschl in the theolog. Jahrb. 1851, p. 482 ff.). See, generally, on the
priority of the Gospel of Matthew to that of the Gospel according to the
Hebrews, which is most decidedly and persistently denied by Hilgenfeld ;
Késtlin, p. 118 ff. ; Bleek ; Beitr. p. 60 ff., Einl. p. 104 ff. ; Frank in the Stud.
u. Kritik. 1848, p. 369 ff. Ewald, Jahrb. VI. p. 36 ff. ; Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. 29
ff. ; Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. d. N. T. L p. 265 ff. ; Volkmar, and others.

SEC. III.—READERS, AND OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL—TIME
OF ITS COMPOSITION.

Not merely was the collection of discourses composed by Matthew him-
self intended for the Jewish Christians of Palestine, but the Hebrew Gospel
also. which gradually grew out of that collection, as already appears from
the lantuage of the work itself, and as is confirmed by the testimonies of
the Fathers (Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 1 ; Origen in Eusebius, vi. 25 ; Eusebius,
Jerome, and others). Hence the frequent quotations from the O. T. to
prove that the history of Jesus is the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy,—
quotations, amongst which are to be classed even such as, without some ex-
planatory addition, were intelligible only to those who were acquainted with
the Hebrew language (i. 22) and the Hebrew prophetic manner of expres-
sion (ii. 23) ; and hence, also, as a rule, all in the Gospel is presupposed as
known which, in reference to manners and customs, to religious and civil,
to geographical and topographical relations, could not but be known to res-
idents in Palestine as such ; while, on the contrary, by the other evangelists
(comp. Mark vii. 2—4 with Matt. xv. 2), such remarks, explanations, etc. as
were unnecessary for the inhabitant of Palestine, are frequently added in
consideration of readers living out of that country. That the unknown
translator, however, had also in view Jewish Christians owt of Palestine, is
clear from the very fact of his undertaking a translation. It was in refer-
ence to such readers that some interpretations of specially noteworthy names

INTRODUCTION. 17

(i. 28, xxvii. 88), and the translation of the exclamation on the cross in
xxvii. 46, were added by the translator, to whose account, however, prag-
matical observations such as those in ch. xxii. 28, xxviii. 8, 15, are not to
be placed.

The object which was to be attained, both by Matthew's collection of dis-
courses as well as by the Gospel, could be no other than to demonstrate Jesus
to be the Messiah, which demonstration is carried out in the Gospel by means
of the history and teaching of Jesus (in the collection of discourses by
means of His teaching) in such a way that Jesus is set forth as He who was
promised in the O. T. Credner, Kini. I. p. 60 ; Ewald, Jahrb. II. p. 211.
We must regard, however, as entirely alien from this view,’ the premature
thought of a Jewish Christian (Petrine) party writing (so the anonymous
work, Die Evangelien, thre Geschichte, ihre Verfasser, Leipzig, 1845), with
which the universalism which pervades the Gospel from iil. 9 to xxviii. 19
is in decided conflict. The chronological and even historical exactness,
which could be in harmony only with a later period (Luke i. 3), retired into
the background before this didactic purpose, and the tradition which dom-
inates the Gospel found therein that quite unlimited room to play which was
allowed it by the belief of the community, while it was not lessened on ac-
count of its wanting the testimony of an eye-witness, owing to its redactor
not being an apostle. Considering the Palestinian destination of the work,
and the contents assigned it by the collection of the discourses, and by the
history itself and its tradition, it was natural and necessary that it should
set forth much that was in antithesis to an unbelieving Judaism and its degen-
erate leaders. We are not, however, to assume a special tendential character
referring to that (Késtlin), or the prosecution of an anti-Hbonitic aim (Grau),
as that antithesis has its basis in the position of Christ Himself and of His
historical work ; while upon a Gospel intended for Palestinian Jewish
Christians it could not but impress itself spontaneously, without any special
purpose, more than on other Gospels.*—-The principal sections of the Gospel

1 According to Hilgenfeld, Zvangetien,
p. 106 ff. (see also Zeiischr. f. wise. Theol.
1862, p. 33 ff., 1865, p. 43 ff., 1866, p. 186
ff., and elsewhere), our Gospel is the pro-
duct of ‘wo opposed factors. It originated
in an apostolic fundamental document,
which was composed from the particularis-
tic standpotnt of strict and close Judaism ;
the later canonical working up of which,
however, was effected soon after the de.
struction of Jerusalem, from the point of
view that the Christianity which had been
disdainfully rejected by the Jews had a
universalistic destination for the heathen
world. According to this theory, the in-
congruous portions are, with great arbi-
trariness, assigned by Hilgenfeld—although
they are frreconcilable even with the
scantiest systematic plan of a tendential
redaction—to the one or the other of the
factors which are supposed as the deter-

mining elements, and transposed in part to
places where they do notnowstand. With
much greater caution Baur recognizes the
impartiality of the Gospel; declares it,
however, to be at least not altogether free
from a particular interest, and from cer-
tain tendential leanings, and regards it, be-
sides, as the original and most credible
Gospel, although he holds it to have grown
up out of the Gospel according to the He-
brews by a process of lengthened develop-
ment. See,in answer to Hilgenfeld, Holtz-
mann, p. 878 ff.; Keim, Geschichil. Christ. p.
54 ff. The latter, however, while laying on
the whole decided emphasis on the unity of
the Gospel, admits that additions of very
varying value were made by the individual
who worked up the whole (Gesch. Jesu, I. p.
68 ff.).

8 When the principal source of the dis-
courses in Matthew, the collection of say-

18 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

are as follow : (1) History of the birth and childhood, ch. i., ii. ; (2) Prepa-
rations for His appearance as Messiah, ch. iji.-iv. 11 ; (8) Messianic ministry
in Galilee, until His departure from the theatre of His work up to that
time, xix. 1; (4) Setting out for Judea, and completion of His Messianic
ministry and destiny, ch. xix.-xxviii. 20. Plans of a more complicated char-
acter (see in Luthardt, J. c. p. 14 ff.) are the outcome of subjective presup-
positions.

As regards the time of composition, the tradition of the church assigns to
the Gospel of Matthew the jirst place amongst the canonical Gospels (Origen
in Eusebius, vi. 25 ; Epiphanius, Haer. li. 4; Jerome, de cir. ill. 3). Eu-
sebius states more precisely (iii. 24) that Matthew wrote when he wished to
take his departure from Palestine ; Irenaeus, however, lii. 1, 2 (comp.
Eusebius, v. 8), while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome. Of these
two notices, the first is very indefinite ; but between the two there certainly
lics a long period of time, especially since, at the dates when Paul made his
first apostolic journeys to Jerusalem (Gal. i. and ii.), there is at least no
longer any express trace of Matthew's residence in that city. This very
varying tradition of the time of composition is, however, conceivable with-
out any difficulty from this consideration, that Matthew’s collection of sayings
must in reality have been composed at a far earlier date than the Gospel
which bears his name. The time when the one originated was easily trans-
ferred to the other, as at a later date, when the jirst was no longer ertant, the
two writings were not, in general, separately distinguished. Nothing,
however, could be more natural than that Matthew, when he wished to fol-
low his vocation amongst strangers, should present his Palestinian hearers
with a well-arranged collection of the Lord’s sayings, which might remain
with them as a legacy in place of his oral preaching. The Gospel, which
then gradually grew out of this collection of sayings, might have been in
constant process of formation down to the time indicated by Irenacus (from
60-70), and then have received its last redaction, after which also the trans-
lation soon followed, consequently shortly before the destruction of Jerusa-
lem. For as the Hebrew work is in any case to be placed before the de-
struction of Jerusalem, so also is the Greek translation ; because in xxiv.
29 ff. the Parousia is so definitely predicted as commencing immediately
after the desolation of Palestine (comp. xvi. 28, xxiv. 84), that all attempts
to evade this conclusion remain ineffectual. On the other hand, we are not
to infer from xxiii, 85, xxiv. 15 (Hug, Credner), that at the time when the
last chapters were composed the Romans had already taken possession of
Galilee, and were upon the point of conquering Judea.’"—Any more precise

ings, arose, the sharp party severance of
Judaism from Paulinism still belonged to
the future. Comp. Holtzmann, p. 377 ff.
By introducing in this way these party
divisions into our Gospel, we commit a
great torepoy xpwroy, In Jesus Himself, the
consciousness that he was destined for
the Jews, and also that he was destined for
all nations, lay side by side with each other;

but with Him the two come Into view al-
ways according to the relations of the mo-
ment,—the latter most decidedly at His de-
parture in xxviii. 19.

1 With regard to xxil. 35, see the com-
mentary. The parenthesis, moreover, in
xxiv. 15, 3 avaywweckwy vocire, only draws
attention sharply to the remarkable pre-
diction, but contains nothing from which

INTRODUCTION. 19

determination of the locality where it was composed is nowhere pointed to,
not even in xix. 1 (see on the passage), where Késtlin finds the residence of
the writer presupposed as being in the country to the east of the Jordan, to
which view Holtzmann also is inclined (p. 414 f.).

Remarx.—The above notice of time given by Eusebius is more precisely de-
termined : by Eusebius of Caesarea, in the Chronicon, as the year 41 ; by Casmas
Indicopleustes, as in the time of the stoning of Stephen ; by Theophylact and
Euth. Zigabenus, as eight years after the ascension ; by the Alexandrine Chron-
icon and Nicephorus, as fifteen years after the ascension. All these are the out-
come of a desire to place the Gospel as early as possible. In modern times,
the determination of the time within the 60 years has been for the most part
rightly adhered to (Keim, 66). Still, in so doing, any alleged use of the Apoc-
alypse (Hitzig, Volkmar) is to be left out of consideration.

SEC. IV.—RELATIONSHIP OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.’

The strange mixture of agreement and divergence ‘in the Synoptics
when compared with each other, in which there appears an obvious
communion, not merely as to the matter and extent and course of the
history, but also as to the words and transactions, extending even to the
most accidental minutiae and to the most peculiar expressions,—partly,
again, a very varying peculiarity in the manner of receiving and dealing
with the subject-matter, as well as in the selection of the expressions and
links of connection (see the more minute demonstration of this relation in
de Wette, Hinl. secs. 79, 80 ; Credner, sec. 67 ; Wilke, neutestament. Rhet-
orik, p. 435 ff. ; Holtzmann, p. 10 ff.), has, since the mechanical strictness
of the older theory of inspiration had to yield its place to the claims of sci-
entific investigation, called forth very different attempts at explanation.
Either all the three Gospels have been derived from a common source, or
critics have contented themselves with the old hypothesis (see already Au-
gustine, de consensu Evang. i. 4), that one evangelist made use of the other,
—the later of the earlier one or more, where, however, ancient evangelical
writings and the oral traditions of the apostolic age have been called in,
and could not fail to be so, by way of aid.

the BséAvypua 7. épquecews should announce redaction; the fundamental document,

itself as already begun. Baur, p. 605, de-
duces from the assumption that the péé¢-
Avyua THs dpnuwo. in xxiv. 15 is the pillar of
Jupiter which Hadrian caused to be erect-
ed upon the site of the ruined temple, that
the Gospel falls within the years 180-140.
But see remark 8, after chap. xiv. Késtlin,
rightly understanding the destruction in
the year 70, yet deals much too freely with
the ei@éws In xxiv. 20, 80 as to extend it to
a period of about 10 years, and accordingly
places the composition of the Gospel after
the destruction of Jerusalem, about 70-80,
when it originated amid the most lively ex-
pectation of the Parousia. Within the
same time Hilgenfeld also places the final

however, as early as 50-60.

1QOn the history of the Investigations
bearing upon this subject, see Weiss in the
Stud. u. Arit. 1861, p. 678 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in
his Zettschrij?, 1861, p. 1 ff. 187 f., 1862, p. 1
ff., 1865, p. 171 ff., and in his work, der Ka-
non u.@. Kritik d. N. T. 1868; Holtzmann,
adie synopt. Evangelien, p. 15 ff.; Weizsiicker,
p. 10 ff.; Keim, Geschichie Jesu, I. p. 99 ff. :
Volkmar, Relig. Jesu, p. 875 ff., and Urepr.
der Evangelien, 1866, also die Evangelien oder
Markus u. d. Synopsis, etc., 1870; Scholten,
d. dlleste Heang., German transl. by Rede-
penning, 1869; Hilgenfeld in his Zetéschri/t,
1870, 2 and 4.

20 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

I.

A. After Clericus (Hist. ecel. II. prim. saec., Amstelodami 1716, p. 429)
had already directed attention, with a view to the explanation of the affinity
in question, to ancient gospel writings composed by eye- and ear-witnesses,
—while, at a later date, Semler in his translation of Townson’s Discourses
on the Four ‘Gospels, Halle 1783, I. pp. 221, 290, had assumed one or more
original Syro-Chaldaic writings, as Lessing also had (theol. Nachl. 1785, p.
45 ff.) already regarded the Gospel according to the Hebrews as the com-
mon source, in which he was followed by Niemeyer (Conjecturae ad illustr.
plurimor, N. T. seriptor. silentium de primord. vitae J. Ch., Hal. 1790),
C. F. Weber (Untersuch. ib. d. Hv. d. Hebr. 1806), Paulus (Introductio in
N. T. capita selectiora, Jenae 1799), Thiess, (Kommentar, I. p. 18 f.),
Schneckenburger, and several others,—it was, first, pupils from the school
of Eichhorn (Halfeld and Russwurm in the Gottinger Preisschriften, 1798,
and see the work of the latter on the origin of the first three Gospels, Rat-
zeb. 1797), and, soon after, Eichhorn himself (in d. Bibl. d. bibl. Literatur,
1794, p. 759, ff.), who came forward with the hypothesis, which has become
famous, of an original written Gospel, which, with manifold modifications,
was adopted by Marsh (Remarks and Additions to Michaelis, Hinl. aus dem
Engl. von Rosenmiller, Gott. I. 1795, II. 1803), Ziegler (in Gabler’s neuest.
theol. Journ. TV. p. 417), Hénlein, Herder (partly), Gratz (see afterwards),
Bertholdt, Kuinoel, and several others.

According to Eichhorn, an original Syro-Chaldaic Gospel, composed
about the time of the stoning of Stephen, contained the sections common
to all the three evangelists ; but in such a way that four, likewise Aramaic,
editions of the same served ag a foundation for the Synoptics,—namely,
edition A to Matthew ; edition B to Luke ; edition C, composed of A and
B, to Mark ; and besides these, still an edition D to Matthew and.Luke
alike. The less, however, that in this way the verbal agreement was ex-
plained, and that too of the Greek Gospel, consisting, as it does so often,
of casual and unique expressions, the less could more complicated attempts
at explanation fail to be made. Herbert Marsh, l.c. I. p. 284 ff., set up
the following genealogy : (1) &, an original Hebrew Gospel ; (2) yx, a Greek
version of the same ; (3) X+a+ A, atranscript of the original Hebrew
Gospel, with smaller and larger additions ; (4) ® + 8 + B, another trans-
cript of the same, with other smaller and larger additions ; (5) & + y +T,
a third transcript, again with other additions ; (6) 3, a Hebrew gnomology
in various editions. The Hebrew Matthew, according to this theory, origi-
nated by means of R+3+a+A+y+T; the Gospel of Luke, by means of
KR+3+84+B+y7+0+y%; the Gospel of Mark, by means ofx +a+A
+8+B+ %; the Greek Matthew, however, was a translation of the Hebrew
Matthew, with the addition of jx, and of the Gospels of Luke and Mark.

In order to remove the objections which were raised against him, Ejich-
horn (Hinl. I. p. 858 ff.) expanded his view in the following way :—(1) An
original Hebrew Gospel ; (2) a Greek version of this ; (8) a peculiar recen-
sion of pumber 1 ; (4) a Greck version of number 8, with the use of number

INTRODUCTION. 21

2; (5) another recension of number 1 ; (6) 8 third recension, derived from
numbers 8 and 5 ; (7) a fourth recension from number 1, with larger addi-
tions ; (8) Greek version of number 7, with the use of number 2 ; (9) a He-
brew Matthew, derived from numbers 3 and 7; (10) a Greek Matthew, from
number 9, with the assistance of numbers 4 and 8; (11) Mark, derived
from number 6, with the use of numbers 4 and 5 ; (12) Luke, from numbers
§ and 8. The hypothesis of an original written gospel received a some-
what more simple shape from Gritz (neuer Versuch der Entstehung der drei
ersten Evang. zu erkldren. Tiib. 1812) as follows :—(1) An original Hebrew
Gospel ; (2) an original Greek Gospel, derived from former, with many ad-
ditions ; (8) shorter evangelic documents ; (4) Mark and Luke arose out.of
number 2, with the help of number 3 ; (5) a Hebrew Matthew, derived from
number 1, with additions, partly its own, partly borrowed from a document
which here and there agreed with the gnomology employed by Luke ; (6) a
Greek version of the Hebrew Matthew, in making which the Gospel of Mark
was consulted, and additions derived from it ; (7) interpolations from the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke, by means of mutual transpositions of many
sections from the one to the other.

Considering the entire want of any historical basis for the existence of an
original written Gospel of the kind in question, although it could not but
have been regarded as of very high authority ; considering the meagre and
defective materials of which it must needs have been composed ; consider-
ing the contradictions which the testimonies of Luke in his preface, and of
the fragment of Papias, carry in themselves to an original written Gospel ;
considering the artificial nature of the structure which is raised up upon a
presupposed basis by the arbitrary calling in of materials at will ; consider-
ing the accumulated and strangely trivial cultivation of authorship, which
ig presupposed, in opposition to the spirit, the wants, and the hope of
the apostolic age ; considering the dead mechanical way especially in which
the evangelists would have gone to work, altogether without that indepen-
dent idiosyncrasy which, in the case of apostles and apostolic men, cannot,
even in respect to their written activity in the service of the church, be con-
ceived of as wanting without doing injury to the historical character and
spirit of the original Christian age ; considering the high authority, finally,
which the Synoptics have attained, but which they could scarcely have
reached by a style of writing history so spiritless, so laboriously fettered,
and of so compilatory a character :—it can only be regarded as an advance
and a gain, that these artificial hypotheses have again disappeared, and are
worthy of note only as evidences of an inventive conjectural criticism,
which, when we consider the theological character of its time, cannot as-
tonish us even in respect of the approval which it received. A beneficial
recoil from this approval was brought about first by Hug (Hin/. 1808, 4te Aufl.
1847), who simply went back to the critical use to which Mark subjected
Matthew, and Luke both his predecessors, consequently in harmony with
the order of succession in the Canon,—a view which, at the present day, is
held most decidedly by Hilgenfeld.

The assumption also of many kinds of original gospel writings and essays as

99 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

sources of the Synoptics (after Clericus, 7. ¢., Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, and
others ; first, in reference to the third Gospel, by Schleiermacher, #d. d.
Schriften des Luk. Berlin 1817 [Eng. transl. by late Bishop of St. David’s]),
is by no means sufficient to solve the riddle, especially if we keep in view
the harmony of the three in respect of their plan and design as a whole ; for
if we were to explain all the peculiarities of the relation in this way, we
would be entangled in a mosaic work of multitudinous combinations and
separations, in which there would again fall to the share of the evargelists
themselves nothing but a curiously mechanical skill as their undeserved fate.

B. Far greater reputation, nay, even permanent approval down to the
most recent time (Guericke, Ebrard, Thiersch, and many others ; also
Schleiermacher, Hinl., ed. Wolde, 1845). has been attained by the hypothe-
sis of an original oral Gospel, which, after Eckermann (theol. Beitr. V. 2,
p. 148), Herder (Regel d. Zusammenstimm, unserer Evangel. in: von Gottes
Sohn, der Welt Heiland, 1797), has found its most thoroughgoing represen-
tative'in Gieseler’s celebrated Versuch iiber die Entstehung und frihesten
Schicksale der schriftl. Hvang., Leipzig 1818. According to this hypothesis,
which may be compared with that of Wolf regarding the origin of Homer,
the doctrines, acts, and destinies of Christ were, among the apostles and
first Christians at Jerusalem, the oft-repeated subject of their conversation,
in a greater or less degree, always in proportion as they appeared more or
less as witnesses for the Messiahship. The memory of one disciple thus
aided that of another in the way of correction and arrangement, so that the
facts and discourses were apprehended ina firm living recollection. By
this process, however,—through which men who were destined to be fel-
low-laborers with the apostles were prepared for their vocation, instruction
being imparted by one apostle in the presence of the others,—these azouvy-
povetpara attained a continuous historical shape ; and in order to prevent
any disfiguration, the expression also, and therewith, at the same time, the
thought, became fixed,* which might take place all the more easily, consid-
ering that the state of culture among the first narrators was pretty much
the same. There was thus formed a standing, as it were stereotype, narra-
tive, which comprised the sections common to the three Synoptics. As,
however, some portions of the history formed more the topic of conversa-
tion and of narration to the converts, and others less, always according to
their greater or less importance,—which determined, also, a more or less
free form of address ; and as, in addition, special recollections of the apos-
tles flowed into their addresses, —there are explained in this way the diver-

1See, besides, Sartorius, drei Adh. 1b.
wichtig. Gegenst. d. exeg. u. system. Theol.
1820; Rettig, Ephemerid. exeg. Theol. I.,
Giessen 1824; Schulz in the Stud. u. Arik.
1829; Schwarz, tiber das Verwandischafts-
verhdlin. d Evangelten, 1844. In reference to
Mark, Knobel, de ev. Marci orig. 1831.
belongs also Kalchreuter in the Jahrv. /.
deulsche Theol. 1861, p. 507 ff., who refers the
harmony, without any written medium, to

Here,

the original Gospel of Christian recollection.

2 Compare the Rabbinical rule in Schabd.
f. 15.1: ‘‘ Verba praeceptoris sine ullé im-
mutatione, ut prolata ab illo fuerant, erant
recitanda, ne diversa illi affingeretur sen-
tentia,”’ ‘“‘ the words of the teacher, without
any change, as they have been uttered by
him, were to be repeated, lest a contradic-
tory sense should be affixed to them.”’ See,
generally, Gleseler, p. 105 ff.

INTRODUCTION. 23

gencies which are found in some parts of the historical narrative. This
oral narrative was impressed upon the memory of those who were intended
for the vocation of teaching by frequent repetition. The language of this
original type of oral Gospel, the Aramaic, was with all care translated into
Greek, when Hellenists in increasing numbers were received into the com-
munity. Finally, the word became fettered by the letter, whereby, the
individual author, in selecting and setting forth his material, fell in with
the wants of his readers ; so that Matthew handed on a purely Palestinian ;
Mark, a Palestinian Gospel, modified abroad, and for strangers out of Pal-
estine ; Luke, a Pauline Gospel.

The want, however, of all historical testimony for a standing apostolic
tradition of that kind ; the mechanical method, opposed to the living spirit
of the apostolic age and activity, which is presupposed in order to its orig-
ination and establishment ; the mechanical literary manner in which the
evangelists are said to have continued the oral account which pre-existed ;
the incompleteness and limitation, beyond which a narrative of that kind
could not have risen ; the want of agreement precisely in the all-important
histories of the passion and resurrection of Christ ; the circumstance that,
as already appears from the Acts of the Apostles and the New Testament
Epistles, the preachers of the apostolic age (see on Acts xxi. 8) had to deal
chiefly with the whole redemptive work of Christ, and that therefore they,
by preference, announced His incarnation, His manifestation and ministry,
in brief, condensed summary (see, ¢.g., Acts x. 37-42), His doctrine 4s a
fact viewed as a whole, the testimony to His miracles, His sacrificial death,
His resurrection, glorification, and second advent, in doing which they pos-
sessed, in thcir own recollection, and relatively in the living tradition, mate-
rial and warrant enough for the preaching also of the individual doctrines,
discourses, acts, and destinies of the Lord, which they certainly had like-
wise to do in the discharge of this great chief vocation of theirs (comp. 1
Cor. xi. 23, ch. xv. 1 ff. ; see also what Papias says of Mark, as the hearer
of Peter, in Eusebius, 111. 39), and did not need a previous stereotype didac-
tic preparation ; the want of every trace of such a standing type in the New
Testament Epistles ; finally, the testimonies of Luke and Papias, which are’
exactly oppaqsed to an original Gospel tradition in the sense assumed ; the
complete breaking through of such already by Luke, and its annulling by
John :—all these are just so many reasons why any explanation of the sy-
noptic Gospel8 upon that hypothesis of an original oral Gospel (without pre-
judice, however, to the necessary and great influence of oral tradition in
general) must be renounced, even apart from this, that the formation of such
an original Gospel, by means of the designed co-opcration of the apostles,
would be simply irreconcilable with the contradictions which are presented
by the Gospel of John.

Il.
The tview, according to which one evangelist made use of the other,—where

however, the gospel tradition, as it existed in a living form long before it
was recorded in writing (Luke i. 2), as well as old tcritten documents, com-

24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

posed before our Gospels (Luke, l.c.), come also essentially into considera-
tion, —is the only one which is fitted to enable us to conceive of the synop-
tic relationship in a natural manner, and in agreement with the history.
The order in which the three originated has, according to this view, been
very variously determined. Namely, (1.) according to the order of the
canon, Matthew wrote first, Mark made use of him, and Luke of both. So
Grotius, Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, Townson (Abhandlungen iiber d. vier Eran-
gel., aus dem Engl. von Semler, Leipzig 1783, I. p. 275, II. p. 1 ff.), Seiler
(de temp. et ord., quo tria ev. pr. can. scripta sunt, Erlangen 1805, 1806),
Hug, Credner,’ Hengstenberg, Grau, and several others ; of the Tabingen
school, Hilgenfeld (d. Markus-Hvangel., Lpz. 1850, krit. Untersuch. ib. d.
Evangel. Justin’s, etc., Halle 1850, also in the theolog. Jahrd. 1852, p. 102 ff.,
158 ff., 1857, p. 381 ff., 408 ff., and die Evangelien nach threr Entstehung,
and 1854, d. Urchristenthum, 1855, and in his wes. Zeitschrift, 1859, 1861,
1862, 1868, 1865, 1867, 1870 ; also in his Kanon u. Kritik. d. N. T. 1868),
who refers our canonical Matthew to an apostolic documentary work—of a
strictly Judeo-Christian character—between the years 60 and 70, which,
however, received, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, a freer
treatment, and in this way attained its present shape, as he also places, as
an intermediate link, between Matthew and Mark, not mcrely the Petrine-
Roman tradition, but also a Petrine edition of Matthew, a Gospel of Peter,
which was also made use of by the author of our Mark, while he makes the
Gospel of Luke to arise out of a Pauline working up of the two first Gos-
pels, and other sources about 100 years after Christ. Augustine’s opinion
(de consen. ev. i. 4) already was : ‘‘ Marcus Matthaeum subsequutus tanquam
pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur,” ‘* Mark, having come next to Matthew,
seems to be his follower and abbreviator,” which Koppe (Marcus non epito-
mator Matthaei, 1782) rightly controverts, as is done afterwards also by Her-
der and others, proceeding from other principles ; and especially by those who
assign to Mark the priority among the three (see subsequently). (2.) Mat-
thew, Luke, Mark, the so-called hypothesis of Griesbach. So Owen, Obser-
tations on the Four Gospels, London 1764 ; Stroth in Eichhorn’s Repert. IX. p.
144 ; and especially Griesbach, Commentat. qua Marci ev. totum e Matthaeé
et Lucae commentariis decerpt. esse monstratur, Jen. 1789, 1790 (also in his
Opuse., ed. Gabler, I. p. 385 ff.) ; Ammon, de Luca emendatore Matthaei,

1 According to Credner, Zinleit., it was
not long after the destruction of Jerusalem,
‘“‘on the border of the transition period
from historical tradition to legend,” that
attempts at a written record of the gospel
history were first made. There were found
in existence about that time both the He-
brew collection of sayings by the Apostle
Matthew,and also those observations which
Mark, the companion of Peter, had set
down accurately, Indeed, but without ref-
erence to arrangement, probably after the
apostle’s death. A Palestinian writer made
that work of Matthew, with the aid of
Mark's memoranda, as well as of oral tra-

dition, the basis of a written redaction of
the gospel history, and there thus originated
**our first canonical Gospel, rightly entitled
cata Mar@aiov.” Another took those
memoranda of Mark as the foundation of
his work, and, arranging and supplement-
ing, worked up the history in agreement
with them, and thus arose the evayyea.
cata Mdpxov., Luke, along with oral tra-
dition, already made use of 87yijoes of the
gospel history, and amongst these probably
of our Matthew and Mark, but more cer-
tainly of the Aéyra, which Matthew himself
had written, and of the observations which
Mark bimself had recorded.

INTRODUCTION. , 25

Erl. 1805 ; Saunier, ad. d. Quellen des Ev. Mark., Berlin 1825; Theile, de
trium prior. ev. necessitud., Leipzig 1825, and in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s
brit. Journ. V. 4, p. 400 f., Sieffert, Fritzsche, Neudecker, Kern, de Wette,
Gfrorer, heil. Sage, p. 212 ff., Strauss, Schwarz, neue Untersuch. ib. d. Ver-
wandtschafteverhdliniss d. synop. Hoang., Tubingen 1844, p. 277 ff., Bleek,
Schwegler in the theolog. Jahrb. 1843, p. 203 ff., and in the nachapoat. Zeit-
alter, I. p. 457 ff., Baur, p. 648 ff., and d. Markus-Hoangel., Tiib. 1851, also
in the theolog. Jakrb. 1853, p. 54 ff.; and frequently Strauss, Zeller, Dédlling,
K6stlin,’! Kahnis, Keim. Among these defenders of the priority of Mat-
thew, Delitzsch, in a manner which is peculiar to himself, believes that he
has demonstrated the same (see his newe Unters. ib. Hntstehung und Anlage
d. kanon. Evangelien, I. p. 59), namely, by means of a presumed pentateuchic
plan of the Gospel in harmony with the setting forth of Christianity as a
new, not less divine vdéuoc, raised above that of Moses. This discovery,
lhowever, is nothing else than a playing of the Rabbinical mind with a fan-
ciful typology (see especially Liicke : de eo, quod nimium artis acuminisque
est in ea, quae nunc praecipue factitatur sacrae scripturae . . . interpreta-
tione, Gdtt. 1853 ; Baur in the theolog. Jakrbd. 1854, p. 235 ff.; Weiss in the
deutsch. Zeitschr. Beibl. 1854, 8), for the sake of laying a foundation for the
confident assertion of the author, that to think of the priority of Mark will
be henceforth quite impossible,—a remark which has been already abun-
dantly refuted by experience.

(3.) Mark, Matthew, Luke. So Storr, ib. d. Zweck d. evang. Gesch. u. d.
Briefe des Johannes, p. 274 ff., and de fontibus evang. Matt. et Lucae, Tib.
1794 (also in Velthusen, Commentatt. III. p. 140 ff.) ; from Mark, namely,
the Hebrew Matthew, and partly, also, Luke were derived, and that the
Greek translator of Matthew then made use of Mark and Luke.

The order, Mark, Matthew, Luke," is maintained also by Lachmann in the

1 According to Kdistlin, our Matthew,
which first arose between the years 70-80,
was composed with the use of the Apostle
Matthew’s collection of discourses, as well
as of the Petrine Gospel, which is intended
in Papias’ testimony regarding Mark, and
of other sources, and experienced its last
catholic redaction about the years 90-100.
Luke made use of Matthew, although not as
a principal source, but chiefly of South-Pal-
estinian, Judeo-Christian sources, and wrote
still in the first century, in Asia Minor,
where the Gospel long circulated as a pri-
vate writing, until it became known in
Rome also, where ecclesiastical use was
not made of it probably till after the middle
of the second century. Our Mark, finally,
an epitomized, neutral, and irenic work, is
dependent upon Matthew and Luke, as
well as on the older written source of Mark,
is a product of the idea of catholicity upon
an originally Judeo-Christian basis, and
originated in the Roman Church In the first

decennium of the second century. Gener-
ally the consideration of the Gospels as
tendential writings, in which the develop-
ment of early Christianity {nto the Old
Catholic Church {s said to disclose itself, ts
peculiar to the school of Baur, where, how-
ever, Hilgenfeld claims for his method of
apprehending the subject the character of
the literary-historical, a name which does
not change the nature of the tendential
view.

2 Against this reputed ‘pet child of the
most recent crilicism,’’ Keim, in particular
(Inaugural Address @. menechl. Entwick. J.
Ch., Ziirich 1861, and in his Gesch. Jesn), has
come forward in support of Matthew, and
to the prejudice of John. Hilgenfeld con-
tinues most zealously to contend against
the priority of Mark ; Kahnis, Dogmatik, I.
p. 409, classes the same among the ‘ hard-
test aberrations of modern criticiem,’’—Klos-
termann (¢. Markus-Evang. nach s. Quellen-
werthe, 1867) rejects the hypothesis of an

26 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Stud. u. Kritik. 1835, p. 570 ff. ; Weisse, evang. Geach. 1888, and Hvange-
lienfr. 1856, Ewald, Reuss, Thiersch ; Tobler, Heangelienfr. 1858 ; Ritschl
in the theolog. Jahrb. 1851, p. 480 ff. ; Phitt, de compos. evang. synopt. 1860 ;
Weiss in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1861, p. 29 ff., 646 ff., and in the Jahrb. f. D.
Theolog. 1864, p. 49 ff., 1865, p. 319 ff. ; compare his Markus- Hvangeél. 1871 ;
Eichthal, les évangiles, 1863 ; Schenkel ; Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. D.
Th. 1862, p. 314 ff., 1866, p. 427 ff. ; Holtzmann, d. synopt. Heangelien,
1868 ; Weizsicker, who assumes a written source common to the three, the
extent and arrangement of which may be recognized substantially in the
representation of Mark ; Scholten, d. dlteste Heang., krit. Unters., aus d.
Holland. v. Redepenning, 1869. Amongst these, Ewald and Scholten
especially have laid down, in very dissimilar ways, a most complicated
order of origination. This, according to Ewald, is as follows :—(1) The
oldest Gospel, describing the most prominent events in the life of Jesus,
made use of by the Apostle Paul, probably composed by the Evangelist
Philip in the Greek language, but with a Hebrew coloring ; (2) the Hebrew
collection of sayings by Matthew, containing \chiefly large portions of dis-
courses, but also narrative introductions ; (3) the Gospel of Mark, for which
1 and 2 were used, yet of independent origin, although no longer preserved
quite in its original form ; (4) the book of the higher history, which under-
took to depict in a new fashion the very heights of the gospel history, and
from which proceeds, ¢.g., the copious narrative of the temptation in
Matthew and Luke ; (5) our present Gospel of Matthew, written in Greek,
with the use of 1-4, especially, however, of Mark, and the collection of
sayings, probably also of a writing upon the preliminary history ; (6, 7, 8)
three different books, which may still be pointed out from the Gospel of Luke ;
(9) the Gospel of Luke, in which all the hitherto enumerated writings, with
the exception, however, of Matthew, were used. According to Scholten,
however, a sketch by John Mark, after undergoing a first revision (Proto-
Markus), was united with Matthew's collection of sayings (Proto-Matthaeus),
through which process arose a Deutero-Matthaeus, a second recension of
which (TZrito-Matthaeus) produced our first canonical Gospel ; the latter,
hovever, must also have been already known to a second redactor of the
Proto-Markus, 7.e. to our canonical Mark (Deutero-Markus), as is shown by
its putting aside the history of the birth. The view of Holtzmann is
simpler, who regards an original Mark (A) as the sole basis of our present
Mark, which, however, was also used, after the collection of sayings (A),
by Matthew and Luke, yet in such a way that these two, along with A and
A, made use also of other smaller written sources and oral traditions.
Weiss, again, supposes the Adyia to be the original Gospel, with which
portions of the history, of the nature of sketches, yet without the history of
the birth and passion, were already combined, and then makes our Mark
follow at once, as a working up of the original Gospel with the recollections
of Peter. The question, whether Luke made use of our Matthew, is denied,

original Mark ; finds, however, in our Mark representation of the history, which may
the traces of an earlier and more original again be recognized in our first Gospel.

INTRODUCTION. 2%

not merely by Ewald, but also by Weisse, Reuss, Thiersch, Plitt, Weiss,
Holtzmann, Weizsdcker.

(4.) Mark, Luke, Matthew. 80 Wilke (der Urevangelist, 1838), B. Bauer.
Comp. also Hitzig, a. Johann. Markus und seine Schriften, 1848 ; and
especially Volkmar, die Heangelien od. Markus u. d. Synopsis, etc., 1870,
according to whom the Gospel of Mark is said to be a self-conscious didactic
poem upon a historical basis ; the Gospel of Luke a Pauline renewal of the
original didactic writing against a Jewish-Christian reaction ; while the
Gospel of Matthew is a combination of both in the universalistic Jewish-
Christian sense. See also Volkmar, Urspr. uns. Evangelien nach d.
Urkunden, 1866.

(5.) Luke, Matthew, Mark. So Biisching, die vier Evangelisten mit ihren
eigenen Worten zusammengesetzt, Hamb. 1766 ; Evanson, The Dissonance of
the Four generally received Hvangelists, 1792.

(6.) Luke, Mark, Matthew. So Vogel (in Gabler’s Journ. fiir auserl. theol.
Lit. I. p. 1 ff.). A more minute statement and criticism of these various
views belongs to the science of Historico-Critical Introduction. It may
here suffice to note the following points.

Since the testimony of Papias regarding the work of Mark furnishes
no reason (see remark 1, p. 29) for regarding this work as different from
our second canonical Gospel ; and since our present Gospel of Matthew is
not identical with the oiwrafi¢ tév Aoyiwy which the apostle composed, but
is a non-apostolic historic product which gradually grew up out of this
apostolic writing ; since, finally, Luke, who already presupposes a manifold
evangelic literature, and who wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem, must
be regarded in any case as the last of the Synoptics, while the tradition,
which assigns the first place to Matthew, may be fully conceived and ex-
plained from the very early existence of that apostolic obvrafic ray Aoyiwy,—
the Gospel of Mark thus most naturally presents itself, on a historical con-
sideration of the origin of the three synoptic Gospels—and that without the
assumption, which is devoid of historical testimony, and throws everything
back into uncertainty, of an original writing,’ differing from its present
form—as the one which is the oldest amongst the three, and which along-
side of oral tradition and other original evangelic written sources, exercised

1 Weisse, Ewald, Kostlin, Reuss, Schol- of the discourses, and to the passing over

ten, and several others. It has been sought
to determine the unknown magnitude of
an original Mark, against which Weiss and
Klestermann have also decidedly declared
themselves, partly by means of a multitude
of interpolations (comp. also Wilke and
Volkmar) which our Mark contains, partly
by means of many large omissions which it
is sald to have experienced, partly by the
assumption of many variations in expres-
sion, and in the setting forth of individual
details. Holtzmann reduces the literary
treatment which this original writing re-
ceived through Mark—{1) to abbreviations

of minutiae in the narratives ; (2) to an im-
portant abbreviation at the beginning, and
a great gap, occasioned by the Sermon on
the Mount, with which, at the same time,
two miracles have fallen out; (8) to brief
explanatory additions and _ insertions.
Welzsicker goes further in comparing the
ewangelic fundamental document, which he
assumes, with the present Mark. Wittich-
en, too, finds in the latter a redaction of the
fundamental document; while Scholten
brings out the original Mark only after
many arbitrary excisions.

ve &

28 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

a dominant influence upon the others. With this assumption that Mark is
the oldest of the Synoptics, the distinctive internal character of this Gos-
pel is quite in harmony,—the omission of all preliminary histories which
cannot be explained as resulting from design (according to Baur, from neu-
trality), the beginning [of the history] with the appearance of the Baptist,
the as yet altogether undeveloped narrative of the temptation, the circum-
stantial treatment of the history of the miracles, the freedom from legend-
ary insertions in the history of the Passion which are found in Matthew, the
objective character which, nevertheless, indicates the theological design and
method, and especially the original stamp of direct liveliness and pictur-
esque clearness of style and description. ‘‘ This enamel of the fresh flower,
this full pure life of the materials” (Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 204), eannot be ex-
plained from the ‘‘ tendency towards what is drastic and striking” (Kahnis),
or from a purely ‘‘ subjective manner on the part of the author” (Késtlin),
and is not reconcilable with the assumption of a compilatory treatment ;
while the peculiar omission, moreover, and abbreviation on the one side, and
the numerous, more circumstantial narratives and individual features on the
other, which Mark exhibits, when compared with Matthew, would be con-
ceivable neither psychologically nor historically, if Mark were the copyist
and extractor of Matthew (or even of Matthew and Luke). See especially
Weiss, Holtzmann, Weizs&cker, Klostermann. The Gospel of Mark, which,
agreeably to its extent, arrangement, and presentation of the gospel mate-
rial, fiowed most directly from the early Christian tradition, must have pre-
‘ ceded our present Gospel of Matthew, and it is only the actual composition
of the Apostle Matthew’s collection of sayings, which can be regarded as
the source which Mark, and that with the independence of his peculiar ob-
ject, which did not go in quest of copious accounts of discourses, made use
of from Matthew. His Gospel, moreover, had the authority of Peter in its
favor (see the fragment of Papias) ; and it is all the more explicable, when
the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew gradually formed itself amongst the Chris-
tians of Palestine out of the Apostle Matthew’s collection of sayings, that it
obtained a very substantial influence not only upon the shaping of this it-
self as to contents and form, but was also, at its final redaction and subse-
quent translation into the Greek language, made use of in such a way that
the community even of expressions, which appears so often in the portions
that are common, is thereby explained, exactly as at a later time again Luke
had the Gospel of Mark also as one of his sources, and by the manner in
which he made use of it, might make it appear as if it occupied a middle
position between the first and third Gospels, borrowing in a dependent
manner from both ; a view by which a crying injustice is done to Mark un-
der the domination of the Griesbachian hypothesis’ (especially, also, by de

1 Lachmann, N. 7., ed. maj. Praef. p.
xvi., appropristely says that this hypothesis
represents Mark as ‘* tneptissimum desulto-
rem, qui nunc taedio, modo cupliditate, tum
negligentia, dentque vecordi studio, inter evan-
gelia Matthaet et Lucae incertus feratur atque
oberret.". The most thorough demonstra-

tion of its inaccuracy, see in Holtzmann,
p. 118 ff. Compare also the whole of his ex-

" cellent section upon the linguistic character

of the Synoptists (p. 271 ff.). The correct
recognition of the linguistic pecullarities of
the three decidedly excludes any mechan-
ical compilation.

INTRODUCTION. 29

Wette, Baur, Kdstlin, Bleek, Keim). If accordingly, besides oral tradition,
the ofvragic rév Aoyivv of the Apostle Matthew, aud our Gospel of Mark, are
to be regarded as the chief Christian sources of our first Gospel, to the lat-
ter of which sources the relation of our Matthew is often directly that of
omission and extraction, there yet must also have been other original evan-
gelic writings in existence, which were worked up along with these when
the Gospel was moulding itself into shape. Such individual writings are
certainly to be recognized in the genealogy and in the preliminary history,
and though less certainly determinable, yet also not to be denied in the fur-
ther course of the history. The uniformity of the linguistic stamp, which
exists in general, finds its sufficient explanation partly in the final redaction
which preceded the translation, partly in the unity of the translator.

Remark 1.—The testimony of the Presbyter John (not of the Evangelist
John, as Zahn, Riggenbach, and Klostermann think), in Papias, regarding
Mark, as quoted in Eusebius iii. 39, is as follows:—‘“‘Mdproc¢ pév, épun-
veurne érpov yevdpevoc, baa épunudvevoev axpiBag Eypawper,
ov pévros TéEet, TA VTD TOU Xpcoroy f AcxGévra rpayxOevra:
otre yap Rxovce Tov kupiov obre mapynKodovOnoey atrtg, tore-
pov 68, o¢ Egonv, Thétpy, b¢ wpdoc rac ypeiag Eroreiro rag didac-
kadiacg, GAA’ ovx dorep cbvrakiv trov Kuptaxdav Totovpevoc
Aédywp (al. Aoyiwyv, as Laemmer reads). "Qore ovdiv Huapre Maépxocg
otruwcg Evia ypaéwpac O¢ arepvnudvevoev’ bvdic yap éExotgoaro
xpévotav, TOU pydiv ov Reovoe mapadineiv f pevoacbal re év
avtroic. Tatra pév odv lorépyrar tg Manwia wep? rov Mdprov:”
‘‘ Mark, being Peter’s interpreter, wrote accurately as he remembered them, but
yet not in order, the things which were said or done by Christ. For he was not
a hearer of the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but as I said, afterwards accom-
panied Peter, who, as he had need, shaped his teaching, but not as if making a
methodical arrangement of the Lord’s sayings. So that Mark made no mistake
in writing what‘-he remembered. For he was careful in one respect—to omit
nothing of the things that he had heard, or to falsify anything in relation to
them. This is the account which Papias gives of Mark.’’ This statement,
now, in the opinion of Credner (compare also Schleiermacher in the Stud. u.
Kritik. 1832, p. 758 ff.), Schneckenburger, Weisse, Schwegler, Baur, Késtlin,
and others, is said not to be appropriate to our Gospel of Mark, because rate,
in general, is a feature that is applicable to it. According to Baur, the work
meant by Papias is to be conceived of as after the fashion of the Clementine
Homilies ; according to Késtlin, as a Petrine gospel, containing for the most part
discourses of Jesus ; according to Ewald and Hilgenfeld, its contents were at
least of greater extent than our Mark. But the meaning of the above passage
is as follows :—After Mark had become the interpreter, i.e. not the translator
(Grimm in the Stud. u. Kritil. 1872, p. 686), but the secretary of Peter, he com-
mitted to writing so much of what had either been spoken or done by Christ
as his memory enabled him to recall, although not in the order of historical
succession. He could not have adoptéd the latter plan, because he had been
neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord ; but at a later date, as mentioned
(uf dizi, namely, in the words épyn. Tlérpov yevdu.), he became a follower of
Peter, ‘‘ who regulated his doctrinal teaching according to therequirements of the oc-

30 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

casion, though not in such a way as if he had intended to set forth the discourses of
the Lord in an orderly combination. Mark therefore committed no error in having writ-
ten down some things in the shape that his recollection presented! them to him ; for one
thing he made of importance, to omil nothing of what he had heard (from Peter), and
to falsify none of the statements.’’ Tho éypawev, mentioned af the beginning of the
statement, refers then fo the writing down which immediately followed the hearing of
the addresses of Peter, which might take place ov rdfe:, not according to histori-
ical order, but only in the form of notices, in the fashion of Adversaria. The -
yodwac, on the other hand, that follows, refers to the later composition of the Gos-
pel, as clearly appears from the éva which stands beside it (in opposition to
the preceding dca), This éxc, however, brings into prominence some things,
out of the entire contents of his Gospel, which might, indeed, have been ex-
pected to be given in a different way from that in which Mark’s memory recalled
them, i.e. in a better pragmatic arrangement and connection ; but in reference
to which the presbyter justifies the evangelist on the ground of the accidental,
fragmentary style and fashion in which his notices regarding the matter of the
Gospel originated. It is not, then, to the gospel writing of Mark as a whole,
but only to a few individual portions of it (évia), that the presbyter denies the
property of raf:¢ ; and he explains this defect, and offers an excuse for it.? If,
then, there is no ground stated in the words of Papias for any intention to
point out in the Gospel of Mark generally a deficiency in definite arrangement
(Ebrard, Reuss),—or at least a deficiency in closeness of succession, perhaps
also in chronological certainty (Zahn),—these words cannot, on the other side,
serve also to prove that our present Gospel is not intended. The ov rage, see-
ing it is limited only to some things, is to be left entirely in its objective accu-
racy, as an attested defect in the Gospel of Mark, without our having to refer
this attestation to a comparison—lying at its basis—with another Gospel, espe-
cially with John (Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 206) or with Matthew (Ebrard, Hilgenfeld,
Weiss, Bleek, Holtzmann, and several others), or even with the work of Papias

1 Namely, without bringing this éa into
the historically connected arrangement.
We might also explain os amepyynn. : as he
has related it in his treatise (comp. Plato,
Theag. p. 121 D, Tim. p. WE, Crit. 110 B;
Xenophon, Cyr. vili. 2 18; Demosthenes,
815. 10. a/.), #.¢. in no better order. But the
above view is to be preferred on account of
the correlation with dca éuynpdvevoev.—Ob-
serve, moreover, that it is not sald that
Mark wrote only éva, and that therefore he
in general wrote incompletely (so still Weiz-
siicker, p. 29); but that he wrote some
things in such way, etc. Késtlin, Welss,
Klostermann, have taken the right view.

2 Compare also Klostermann, d. Afarkuse-
vang. p. 827, who, however, misunderstands
the Introduction to the passage of Paplas,
in interpreting, a way which is linguistl-
cally incorrect, dea, which is quantitative,
as gualiiative (consequently, as if ofa stood
in the passage), and ¢pyyy. TI. yerdp. as a
modal definition of 60a. . . éypawer (so also
Grau, I. p. 178), where é¢punvevris is said to

be a figurative expression, in so far as Mark
presented to his hearers the addresses of
Peter, which they themselves could not
hear; and thereby was, as it were, an in-
terpreter of the apostle. Apart from this
extension of the meaning of éppyvevris,
which is forced and artificial, and more ap-
propriate toa poetic context than to one of
so simple a nature, and which is opposed,
moreover, to the testimonies of the
Fathers such as Irenaeus, lif. 10. 6, Tertul-
lian, c. Marc. iv. 5, al., Klostermann ex-
plains the passage as if the words were:
Madpxos pév épunveurns Ildrpov éyévero, ofa
curnudvevoey axpiBws ypayas, or: M. wey
ola dur. axpiBuas eypaer, otrws cpunrveuThs
Ildrpov yevouevos. Klostermann also errs in
this, that he expunges the comma after ov
pev rafec, and, again, supplies axpifas éypaper
after wpaxOévra, “Oca éuvnucr. is, rather, an
intermediate clause; and the ta vwd rod
Xptorod, etc., is that which Mark wrote
axpiBas, ov wevrot tafe,

INTRODUCTION. 31

(Weisse). The inference, moreover, is not to be drawn from the present pas-
sage, that the alleged original Mark contained chiefly discourses of Christ (Kést-
lin), since ovy dorep ovvrativ Tov Kupraxav Toodmsvog Adywv characterizes a potiori
the instructions of Peter, and that in a negative manner in comparison with
Papias’ own work, which had the Aéya as its contents. Peter, in his didao-
xadiat, certainly communicated the Lord's sayings, but in a sporadic manner,
according to the measure of the varying needs [of his hearers], but not in
such a way as if he had wished to produce a currusic of them ; and he connect-
ed them in so far with the relative historical instructions, that his companion
Mark might write down from the addresses of the apostle to which he had list-
ened, not merely rd ixd rov Xpiorov AexOlvra, but rd 7 AeXOivta } rpay-
Oévra.

Remark 2. — With regard to the order of the synoptic Gospels in respect of
their origin, the tradition of the church is unanimous for the priority of Mat-
thew, and almost unanimous for assigning a middle position to Mark, in oppo-
sition to which there is only the isolated notice in Eusebius vi. 14, by Clement
of Alexandria, in favor of the hypothesis of Griesbach : mpoyeypag9a: Ereyev
TOY evayyediuy Ta weptéyorra Trac yeveaduyiac, ‘‘ He said that those Gospels which
contain the genealogies were written first.’” That unanimous tradition, how-
ever, is reconcilable also with our view regarding the origin of the Gospels, in
so far, namely, that Matthew in reality wrote before Mark, i.e. his owvraéi¢ ray
Zoyiwy, out of which our present Gospel then grew up. To this relation to
the first written source of the Gospel is the origin of that tradition to be refer-
red.—Altogether without reason has Baur, in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 93, with
the approval of Volkmar, interpreted the predicate of Mark, 6 xosoBoddxruAoc
(with the mulilated finger), in the Philosophumena Origenis, which cannot, without
arbitrariness, be understood otherwise than quite in its proper sense (see
Ewald, Jahrb. VIL. p. 197), of the epitomatory character of the Gospel.

Remark 3.—Although the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the Synoptics, and
has apparently preserved in part purer and more original traditions than the
Gospel of Matthew, it may still be partially inferior in point of originality to the
tradition which has stamped its impress upon the latter, since Mark could mainly
work up his notices, gathered from his connection with Peter, only by help
of tradition ; and since, on the other side, the Gospel of Matthew was moulded
into shape gradually, and in Palestine itself, so that in any case, even apart from
the apostolic collection of sayings, which passed over substantially into this
Gospel, many older elements of tradition, and older documentary portions
than any in Mark, may have been preserved in it. To the critical comparison
of the narratives given in Matthew with those of Mark, no hindrance can then
be interposed by the placing of the latter first ; as in Mark in comparison with
Matthew, so also in Matthew in comparison with Mark, we may recognize more
original elements, and thus, in so far, partly assign to the first also a primary
position. )

Digitized by Google

SUPERSCRIPTION.

Evayyédiov xata Mar@Oaiov.

Tus superscription has the oldest and best witnesses in its favor. Kard
Mar$aiov (B &, Codd. Lat.) is in conformity with this, because whole volumes
bore the title of EvayyéAov. All longer superscriptions are of later date, as:
rd «, M. evayyéAuov ; 7rd x. M. Gytov ebayyéAcov ; evayyéAcov Ex Tov K, M. 3 éx TOU kK,
M. evayyéAcov, Both the latter are derived from Lectionaries. — Instead of
Mar@aioc, Lachmann and Tischendorf write Ma66aioc, after B D &.

EtayyéAuov signifies in the old language @ present given in return for joyful
news,' or a sacrifice offered up for the same.’ First in later Greek only does
it also mean the good news itself.* So throughout the N. T. (corresponding
to the Hebrew 111¥3), where it signifies car’ éfox#v, ‘‘ pre-eminently,” the
joyful news of the Messiah's kingdom,‘ which news preached Jesus as the Mes-
siah. So also in the superscriptions of the Gospels, which present the
knowledge of salvation by Jesus as the Messiah in historical form, in the form
of a historical demonstration of the Messiahship of Jesus. The designation of
our writings as news of salvation by the Messiah (ciayyéiua) is derived from
the most remote ecclesiastical antiquity.* — xara Mar@aiov] The knowledge
of Messianic salvation, as it was shaped (in writing) by Matthew.* There is thus
also a evayyéiov kata Mar@aiov, xara Mdpxov, and soon.’ It is incorrect, how-
ever, to maintain, as do others, and even Kuinoel, after older writers, that
xavé denotes simply the genitive. For if so, then, firstly, this case, which
certainly most obviously suggested itself, and which would also have been
analogous to Paul’s expression, rd ehayyéA:dv pov (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25),
would have been employed ; secondly, the Hebrew 5 of authorship, which
is to be viewed as the dative of connection, is not applicable here, because
the LXX. does not express it by «ard ; thirdly, even in the passages which
are quoted from Greek writers, the genitival relation is not contained di-

2Hom. Od. 152. 166; Plut. Ages. 88; 2 In YVillotson’s Scholia on Homer we

Sam. iv. 10; Cie. Adz. ff. 12. have the expressions : “Oznpos cara ‘Apiotap-
2 Xen. Hell. i. 6. 6, iv. 3.7; Aristoph. Hy. yov, cara Zyvdboroy, xara "Apioroparny.

636 ; Diod. Sic. xv. 74; Pollux, v. 129. 7Comp. Euseb. fii. 24: MarOaios...
3 Pint. Ser¢ 11; Lucian. Asin. 2%; Appian, ypady wrapadois rd nar’ avrdy evayy.

B. C. iv. 2; LXX. 2 Sam. xvill. 3. Matthew isin this way designated as the
4 Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; Aots xx. atthor of this written form of the Gospel,

24. which In Itself 1s one (Credner, Gesch. d.

*See Justin. Apol. i. 66, Dial. c. Tryph. Kanon, p. 87.
100.

34 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

rectly, but is only derived in the relation of the thing to the persons, as in
the numerous passages in Polybius.’ It is quite opposed to history (Intro-
duction, sec. 2) when others? fall into the opposite extreme, and draw the
inference from xavé that the composition is not here ascribed to the evange-
lists, but that all that is said is, that the writings are composed after them,
i.e. after their manner, So Faustus the Manichaean in Augustine ;* Volk-
mar, who sees himself driven, by the fact that Luke and John were the
authors of the third and fourth Gospels, to the arbitrary assumption that
the superscriptions of the first two Gospels are to be regarded as original,
while those of the third and fourth were intentionally added by o third
hand for the sake of uniformity, after the proper meaning of the «ard in the
first two had come to be lost. Even in the titles of the apocryphal gospels
(evayyéA. xaf ‘E3paiovs) xara designates not the readers, for whom they were
intended, but the gospel, as it had shaped itself under the hands of the
Hebrews, etc., the gospel as redacted by the Hebrews, in this sense also shortly
termed 'Epaixdy.*

CHAPTER I.

Vv. 1-17. In the writing of the names there are manifold variations in MBR.,
verss., and Fathers. Lachm. and Tisch. have in vv. 1, 6, 17 Aaveid, which is
attested throughout as the manner of writing the word by the oldest and best
Mss. ; ver. 5. ‘Jad, after BC A &, verss. Fathers ; ver. 8 f. ’Ofeiur, ’Oeiag,
after B A &; ver. 10. 'Ayoc, after BC M A X, verss. Epiph. ; ver. 10 f. "Iwceia»,
"Iwoeiac, after B A ®&, Sahid.; ver. 15. Ma66dav, after B*. Lachmann has, be-
sides, in ver. 5, Bodc, after C, and Tischendorf (8th ed.) Boéfc, after BS;
Lachm. and Tisch. (8th ed.) in ver. 7 f. ’Aodg, after BC 8, verss. — Ver. 6.
6 Basdeic, which BI 8, 1, 71, Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. al, omit (deleted by
Lachm. and Tisch.), has the preponderance of voices in its favor; its em-
phasis being overlooked on account of what precedes, it was regarded as super-
fluous, and was easily passed over. — Ver. 11. After éyévunae, MU Carss.
have rdv "Iwaxelur "Iwaxeiu dé tyévvnoe. A later interpolation (yet already before
Irenaeus), but put in circulation after Porphyry had already reproached the
church with a defective genealogy. — Ver. 18. BC PS ZAR, Curss. Eus. Ath.
Max. have yévecic. So also Lachm. and Tisch. Others: yivrnocc, which
has been adopted by Elz. Scholz, and Rinck. The former is to be preferred,
because the latter might very easily arise from the frequently preceding éyévynce
and ‘yevv74n, and might also appear more appropriate to the connection (partus
modus). Comp. ii. 1, Luke i, 14.— Ver. 19. mapadetypaticac] Lachm. and
Tisch. have detyuatica:, only, indeed, after BZ &** I, Schol, on Orig., and

1 Schwelghauscr’s Ler. p. 823; comp. al-
ready, Thuc. vi. 16 5: €v to nar avrois Bip ;
Bernhardy, p. 241: Valckenaer, Schot. I. p.
4; Buttmann, X. 7. Gramm. p. 137 [E. T.
pp. 156, 157]. Sec also 2 Macc. if. 13: é» rots
Vroprymatiauois Tos KaTa Toy Neeuiav, and
Grimm on the passage.

2 Eckermann in the (theolog. Betir. 5 Bd. 2
St. p. 106 ff.

3c, Faust. xxvil. 2, xvii. 2, xxxifi.3; Cred-
ner's Finleit.§§ 88-90 ; Jachmann fn Illgen's
Zeifechr. 1842, 2, p. 18.

4Epiph. Waer. xxx. 13.

CHAP. I., 1/ 35

Euseb., but correctly, as detyyarizw is preserved only in Col. ii. 15, while rapa-
decyyaticw (Heb. vi. 6) is common in the LXX. and elsewhere, and suggested
itself, therefore, as the better known and stronger expression (comp. Scholion
in Tisch.). — Ver. 24. dteyepSeic] Lachm. and Tisch. (8th ed.) have éyepGeic, after
BC* Z &, Curss. Epiph. The less current compound verb gave place to the
very common (comp. ii. 14) simple form.—.Ver. 25. rov vidv avriig Tov T pu
76T0«xov] Lachm. and Tisch. have simply vid», after B Z &, 1, 33, Copt. Sahid.
Syre*- Codd. It. Ambr. al, Certainly (comp. especially Bengel) the Received
reading has the appearance of having originated from Luke ii. 7 (where there
is no various reading). The witnesses, however, in favor of the Recepla great-
ly preponderate ; the virginity of Mary, also (agaipst which, according to the
testimony of Jerome, doubts were raised in consequence of the rpwrdroxor),
certainly more probably suggested the removal of the zpurdroxov than its in-
sertion. Comp. Mill and Wetstein. Finally, had vidv merely been the original
reading in the present passage, the tpuréroxoy in Luke ii. 7 could scarcely have
remained unassailed.

Ver. 1. BiBAog yevécewc] Book of origin ; nin D9, Gen. ii. 4, v. 1,
LXX.' The first verse contains the title of the genealogy which follows in vv.
2-16, which contains the origin of Christ from the Messianic line that runs
on from the time of Abraham (genitive of contents).?_ The evangelist adopted
the genealogical piece of writing (3/320¢), and which ‘‘velut extra corpus
historiae prominct,” ‘‘as it were stands out beyond the body of the his-
tory” (Grotius), without alteration, as he found it, and with its title
also. Others’ take yéveore as meaning life, and regard the words as a super-
scription to the entire Gospel : commentarius de vita Jesu. Contrary to the
usage of the language ; for in Judith xii. 18, and Wisdom vii. 5, yéveou de-
notes the origin, the commencing point of life ; in Plato, Phaedr. p. 252
D, it means existence; in Hierocles, p. 298, the creation, or that which is
created ; and in Jas. ili. 6, tpoyi¢ rie yevéceue is the rpoyé¢ which begins
with birth. And if we were to suppose, with Olearius,‘ that the superscrip-
tion liber de originibus Jesu Christi was selected first with reference to the
commencement of the history, to which the further history was then append-
ed with a distinctive designation,’ as N117)A also confessedly does not al-
ways announce a mere genealogy (Gen. v. 1 ff., xi. 27 ff.), nay, may even stand
without any genealogical list following it °—so the immediate connection in
which ifA0¢ . . . Xpwrov stands with viod Aav., viov 'Afp., here necessitatcs
us to think from the very beginning, in harmony with the context, of the
genealogy merely ; and the commencement of ver. 18, where the yéveocc in
the narrower sense, the actual origination, is now related, separates the
section vv. 18-25 distinctly from the preceding genealogical list, so that
the first words of chap. ii., rov d2 Incot yevynbévroc, connect themselves, as
carrying on the narrative, with vv. 18-25, where the origin of Jesus, down

3 Comp. Gen. vi. 9, xi. 10. ‘Comp. Hammond and Vitringa, also
780 Beza, Calvin, Grotlus, Bengel, Wet- Euthym. Zigabenus.
stein, Paulus, Kuinoel, Gratz, de Wette, 5 Comp. Catonis Censoril Origines.
Baumgarten-Crusius, and others. 6 Gen. Il. 4, xxxvil. 2 ff.

3 Bede, Maldonatus, Schleusner.

36 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

to His actual birth, is related. This is, at the same time, in answer to
Fritzsche, who translates it as rolumen de J. Christi originibus, and, appeal-
ing to the words in the beginning of ch. ii., regards fi3A0¢ yevéoews, x.7.A.,
as the superscription of the first chapter (so also Delitzsch), as well as to Ols-
hausen (see also Ewald and Bleek), who takes it as the superscription of the
Jirst two chapters. —If the Israelite set a high value, in his own individual
instance, upon a series of ancestors of unexceptional pedigree,’ how much
more must such be found to be the case on the side of the Messiah !— Inco
Xpioroi’] The name Jwwiwv (Ex. xxiv. 18; Num. xiii. 16), or, after the exile,
yw? (Neh. vii. 7), was very common,* and denotes Jehovah is helper. This
meaning, contained in the name Jesus (comp. Sir. xlvi. 1), came to full per-
sonal manifestation in Christ, see ver. 21. Xpord¢ corresponds to the
Hebrew "WD, anointed, which was used partly of priests ;* as a prophet also,
according to 1 Kings xix. 16, might be an anointed person. From the
time of the Book of Daniel—for throughout the whole later period also,
down to the time of Christ, the Messianic idea was a living one amongst
the people‘ —this theocratic name, and that as a king’s name, was applied,
according to the Messianic explanation of the second Psalm, to the king of
David's race, whose coming, according to the predictions of the prophets, was ever
more ardently looked for, but with hopes that became ever purer, who was to raise
the nation to its theocratic consummation, to restore the kingdom to its highest
power and glory, and ertend His blessings to the heathen as tell, while, as @ nec-
essary condition to all this, He was, in a religious and moral respect, to work
out the true spiritual gorernment of God, and bring it to a victorious termi-
nation. See on the development of the idea and hope of the Messiah, espe-
cially Ewald.® According to B. Bauer,* Jesus is said to have first developed
the Messianic idea out of His own consciousness, the community to have
clothed it in figures, and then to have found these figures also in the Old
Testament, while the Jews first received the idea from the Christians! In
answer to this view, which frivolously inverts the historical relation ;’ and
on the Messianic ideas of the Jews at the time of Christ, especially Hil-
genfeld,® according to whom, however, the original sclf-consciousness of
the Lord had been matured at an earlier date, before he found® for it, in

1 Rom. xi.1; Phil. iif. 5; Josephus, ¢. Ap.
i]. 7; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 178.

2 See the different persons who bear this
name in Keim, Gescht. J. I. p. 884 ff.

3 Lev. iv. 3, v. 16. vi. 15, Ps. cv. 15; partly
of kinge, 1 Sam. xxiv. 7, 11, Ps. il. 2, Isa. xlv.
1, comp. Dan. ix. 25, 26.

* Comp. Langen, d. Judenthum tn Palaes-
tina zur Zeit Christi, 1866. Weissenbach,
Jesu in regno coel, dignittas, 1868, p. 47 ff.

® Geach. Christ. p. 188 ff., ed. 8 (E. T. by
Glover, p. 140 ff.) ; Bertheau in @. Jahrb. f.
D. Th. IV. p. 59 ff., V. p. 486 ff.; Riehm in
d, Stud. u. Kritik, 1865, I. and III. [E. T.,
Clark, Edinburgh, 1876).

* Comp. Volkmar, Rel. Jesu, p. 1138.

7 See Ebrard, Arik. d. evang. Gesch., ed.

8, § 120 ff. [E. T. 2d ed., Clark, Edinburgh, p.
485 f.].

8 Messias Judaeorum libris eorum paulo
ante et paulo post Christum natum conscriptis
wlustratue, ‘‘the Messiah of the Jews illus-
trated by their books written a little before
and a little after the birth of Christ," 1869 ;
also Holtzmann in d. Jahrb. f. d. Theol.
1887, p. 389 ff.

®° In connection with this view, we would
be obliged to acquiesce in the belief of a
very radical misunderstanding, which
would permeate the gospel history from the
baptism and the witness of John, namely,
that the evangelists ‘‘apprehended as a
beginning what was rather a reeult."" On
exegetical grounds this cannot be justified.

CHAP. I., 2, 3. 37

His confession of Himself as the Messiah, a name that might be uttered be-
fore His contemporaries, and an objective representation that was conceiv-
able for Himself. — The official name Xprorés, for Jesus, soon passed over in
the language of the Christians into a nomen proprium, in which shape it ap-
pears almost universally in the Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles,
with or without the article, after the nature of proper namesin general. In
the Gospels, Xpcoré¢ stands as a proper name only in Matt. i. 1, 16, 17, 18 ;
Mark i. 1; Johni. 17; and appropriately, because not congruous to the
development of the history and its connection, but spoken from the stand-
point of the much later period of its composition, in which 'Iycov¢e Xproréc
had been already long established as a customary name in the language of
Christians ; as here also (comp. Mark i. 1) in the superscription, the whole
of the great name ‘Iycove Xpcorée is highly appropriate, nay, necessary. —
Further, Jesus could be the bearer of the idea of Messiah, for the realization
of which He knew from the beginning that He was sent, in no other way
than in its national definiteness, therefore also without the exclusion of its
political element, the thought of which, however,—and this appears most
fully in John,—was transfigured by Him into the idea of the highest and
universal spiritual government of God, so that the religious and moral task
of the Messiah was His clear aim from the very outsct, in striving after and
attaining which He had to prepare the way for the Messiah’s kingdom, and
finally had to lay its indestructible, necessary foundation (founding of the
new covenant) by His atoning death, while He pointed to the future, which,
according to all the evangelists, was viewed by Himself as near at hand,
for the final establishment, glory, and power of the kingdom, when He will
solemnly appear (Parousia) as the Messiah who is Judge and Ruler. — viot
Aaveid] for, according to prophetic promise, He must be a descendant of
David, otherwise He would not have been the Messiah.' David is des-
ignated as Abraham's descendant, because the genealogical table must be-
gin nationally with Abraham, who, according to the promise, is the original
ancestor of the series of generations (Gal. ili. 16), so that consequently the
venerable chiefs of this genealogy immediately appear in the superscription.
Luke’s point of view (iii. 23) goes beyond the sphere of the nation, while
Mark (l.c.) sets out from the theocratico-dogmatic conception of the
Messiah. ([Sce note I., p. 55.]

Vv. 2, 3. K. r. adeApode air.| ** Promissiones fuere in familia Israelis,” ‘‘ the
promises were in the family of Israel,” Bengel.—Ver. 3. These twin sons
of Judah were illegitimate, Gen. xxxvii. 16-30. The Jews were inclined
to find a good side to the transgressions of their ancestors, and alleged here,
e.g., that Thamar entertained the idea of becoming an ancestress of kings
and prophets. See Wetstein and Fritzsche. The reason why Thamar is
here brought forward, as well as Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba in vv. 5, 6
(for ovx qv Mog yeveadoyeiofa: yuvaixac, ‘‘it was not the custom for women to
be reckoned in genealogies,” Euth. Zigabenus), is not ‘‘ ut tacitae Judaeo-

1 John vil. 42; Rom. J. 8; Acts xii. 22f.; Matt. xif. 28, xxi. 9, xxif. 42; Luke xviii. 39.
the Messiah is called pre-eminently WI 1 Comp. Wetstein, and Babylon. Sanhed?. fol.
; 97,

ia

38 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

rum objectioni occurreretur,” ‘‘to meet a tacit objection of the Jews,” Wet-
stein ; for the reproach of illegitimate birth was not raised against Jesus in
the apostolic age, nor probably before the second century,’ and would be
very indelicately referred to by the naming of these women ; nor the point
of view of eractness (Fritzsche), which would not explain why these women
and no others were mentioned ; least of all the tendency to cast into the
shade the Jewish genealogical tree (Hilgenfeld). In keeping with the
whole design of the genealogical register, which must terminate in the won-
derful one who is born of woman, that reason cannot, without arbitrariness,
be found save in this, that the women named entered in an extraordinary
manner into the mission of continuing the genealogy onwards to the future
Messiah, and might thereby appear to the genealogist and the evangelist as
typi Mariae,? and in so doing the historical stains which cleaved to them
(to Ruth also, in so far as she was a Moabitess) were not merely fully com-
pensated by the glorious approval which they found precisely in the light in
which their history was regarded by the nation,’ but far outweighed and
even exalted to extraordinary honors. Sce the numerous Rabbinical pas-
sages, relating especially to Thamar, Rahab, and Ruth, in Wetstein in loc.,
and on Heb. xi. 31. Olshausen is too indefinite : ‘‘in order to point to the
marvellous gracious leading of God in the ordering of the line of the Mes-
siah.”” Luther and some of the Fathers drag in here what lies very remote :
because Christ interested Himself in sinners ; Lange, more remote still, ‘‘in
order to point to the righteousness which comes, not from external holiness,
but from faith ;” and Delitzsch,‘ ‘‘because the sinless birth of Mary was
prepared throughout by sin.”

Ver. 5. Boaz is also called, in Ruth iv. 21 and 1 Chron. ii. 11, son of
Salma; but his mother Rahab is not mentioned. The author without
doubt drew from a tradition which was then current, and presupposed as
known (according to Ewald it was apocryphal), which gave Salma as a -
wife to her who had risen to honor by her conduct in Jericho (Heb. xi.
81; Jas. ii. 25). The difficulties which, according to Rosenmiiller,
Kuinoel, and Gratz, arise from the chronology,—namely, that Rahab must
have become a mother at seventy or eighty years of age,—are, considering
the uncertainty of the genealogical tradition, which already appears in
Ruth iv. 20, as well as the freedom of Orientals in general with regard to
genealogies, not sufficient to justify here the assumption of some other
Rahab.*

Ver. 6. Tov Aaveid rdv Bacidéa] Although an apposition with the article
follows the proper name, yet Aaveid also takes the article, not for the sake of
uniformity with the preceding name (de Wette), but in order to designate
David demonstratively, as already marked out in ver 1. In ver. 16, also,
the article before 'Iwc#¢, which is accompanied by an apposition, has, in

1 See Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr.I. p. 526 f. 1850, p. 575 f. .

2 Paulus, de Wette, Ebrard ; comp. Gro- 5 According to Megill. f. 14, 2, and Koheleth
tius on ver. 8. R. 8, 10, Joshua married Rahab,—a tradition

> Heb. xi. 81; Jas. {i. 2%. which is not followed by our genealogy.

4 In Rudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschrift,

CHAP. I., 8-11. 39
keeping with the decp significance of his paternal relation to Jesus, demon-
strative power.’ — The rév Saordéa also, and the subsequent emphatic repeti-
tion of 6 Paordetc, are a distinction for David, with whom the Messiah’s
genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity.—r7¢ rev Orpiov] Such methods
of expression by the simple genitive suppose the nature of the relationship
in question to be Anown, us here it is that of wife.?

Ver. 8. Iopau . . . ’OSiav] Three kings, Ahaziah, Joaz, and Amaziah, are
wanting between these.* The common opinion is that of Jerome, that the
omission was made for the sake of obtaining an equal division of the names,
in order not to go beyond the three Tesseradecades. Such omjssions were
nothing unusual.‘ The evangelist accepted the gencalogical list without
alteration, just as he found it ; and the cause of that omission cannot be
pointed out, but probably was only,and that without special design, the simi-
larity of those names, in which way the omission also which occurs in ver.
11 is to be explained. Ebrard and Riggenbach, erroneously introducing
the point of view of theocratic illegality (comp. Lange), are of opinion that
Matthew omitted the three kings for this reason, that Joram, on account of
his marriage with the daughter of Jezebel, and of his conduct, had deserved
that his posterity should be exterminated down to the fourth generation ;°
that Matthew accordingly declared the descendants of the heathen Jezebel, °
down to the fourth generation, unworthy of succeeding to the theocratic
throne. This breaks down at once before the simple éyévwyce. The omis-
sions are generally not to be regarded as consciously made, otherwise they
would conflict with ver. 17 (zacac), and would amount to a falsification.

Ver. 11. The son of Josiah was Joakim, and his son was Jechoniah.
Here, consequently, a link is wanting, and accordingly several uncials,
curss., and a few versions *° contain the supplement : Iwo’ar dé éyévvgoe Top
"lwanxcip’ "Iwaxeip 02 étyévunoe tov ’lexoviay (1 Chron. iil. 15, 16).
The omission is not, with Ebrard, to be explained from the circumstance
that under Joakim the land passed under the sway of a foreign power (2
Kings xxiv. 4), and that consequently the theocratic regal right became ex-
tinct (against this arbitrary view, see on ver. 8) ; but mercly from a confu-
sion between the two similar names, which, at the same time, contributed
to the omission of one of them. This clearly appears from the circumstance
that, indeed, several brothers of Joakim are mentioned (three, sce 1 Chron.
iii, 15), but not of Jechoniah, Zedekiah is, indeed, designated in 2 Chron.

1 Kfihner, IT. p. 520. * Amongst the edélions this interpolation

2Comp. Hecloris Andromache, Luther's
Xatharina, and the like. See Kiihner, II.
p- 25 f. Winer, p. 178 [E. T. p. 287].

32 Kings vilf. 24; 1 Chron. ili. 11; 2 Chron.
xxii. 1, 11, xxiv. 2%.

41Chron. viii. 1; Gen. xlvi. 21.
enhusius, AiBA. xaradA. p. 97. Lightfoot,
Hor. p. 181. On the same phenomenon in
the Book of Enoch, see Ewald in the Kéeler
MMonatechrift, 1882, p. 520 f.

6 So already some of the Fathers, Maldo-
natus, Spanheim, Lightfoot.

See Sur-

has been received into the text by Colinaeus,
HI. Stephens, and Er. Schmidt, also by Beza
(ist and 2d); by Castalio in his translation.
It has been defended by Rinck, Lucud. crit.
p. 245 f.; Ewald assumes that ver. 11 origi-
nally ran: "Iwoias 8 eyévy. Tr. Iwaxip nai Trois
abeAdovs abrov: Imaxin 8¢ édyévy. roy ‘lexoviav
éwi ths petro, BaS. The present form of
the text may be an old error of the copyists,
occasioned by the similarity of the two
names.

40 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Xxxvi. 10 as the brother of the latter (and in 1 Chron. iii. 16 as his son), but
was his uncle (2 Kings xxiv. 17; Jer. xxxvii. 1). That our genealogy,
however, followed the (erroneous) ' statement in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, is not
to be assumed on account of the plural roi adeApobs, which rather points to
1 Chron. iii. 15 and the interchange with Joiakim. It is quite in an arbi-
trary manner, finally, that Kuinoel has assigned to the words nai . . . avzoi
their place only after 2a1c6i77, and Fritzsche has even entirely deleted them
as spurious. — éri ri¢ pero. Ba,3vzcvoc] during (not about the time, Luther
and others) the migration.? The statement, however, is inexact, as Jecho-
niah was carried avay along with others (2 Kings xxiv. 15). The genitive
Bajv2. is used in the sense of cic BaSviAdva.*

Ver, 12. Mera... petoux.] After the migration had taken place.‘ Not to be
translated ‘‘ during the exile’ (Krebs, Kypke), which is quite opposed to the
language,— perocxecia] change of abode, migration ; consequently here, ‘‘ the
being carried auay to Babylon,” not the sojourn in the exile itsclf, which
would lead to an erroneous view of the pzerd.* — LarafinA}] he is called in
Luke iil. 27 a son of Neri and a grandson of Melchi; a variation which,
like many others in both gencalogies, is to be acknowledged, and not put
aside by the assumption of several individuals of the same name, by the pre-
‘supposing of levirate relationships (Hug, Ebrard), or arbitrary attempts of
any other kind. 1 Chron. iii. 17. When, however, in Jer. xxii. 30 the
father of Sealthicl is prophetically designated as “YY, the prophet him-
self explains this in the sense that none of his descendants will sit upon the
throne of David.* Moreover, according to 1 Chron. iii. 19, Pedaiah is
wanting here between Salathiel and Zerubbabel. Yet Zerubbabel is else-
where also called the son of Salathiel (Ezra iii. 2, v. 2; Hag. i. 1; Luke iii.
27), where, however, 1 Chron. iii. 19 is to be regarded as a more exact state-
ment.” Observe, moreover, that also according to 1 Chron. ii. both men
belong to the Solomonic line.

Ver. 18. None of the members of the genealogy after Zerubbabel, whose
son Abiud is not named in 1 Chron. iii. 19 f. along with the others, occurs
in the O. T. The family of David had already fallen into a humble posi-
tion. But even after the exile, the preservation and, relatively, the restora-
tion of the genealogies remained a subject of national, especially priestly,
concern.* This concern could not but be only all the more lively and ac-
tive in reference to the house of David, with which the a of the
Messiah was always connected.

Ver. 16. . "Iwo#] In Luke iii. 24, Joseph is called a son of

’Taxw3

1 See Berthean, p. 430.

2See Bernhardy, p. 246; Kfhner, II. p.
480.

1Comp. Eurip. Jph. 7. 1073: yas rarpgas
vooros, Matt. x. 5: odd5 €Ovay; iv. 15, al.
Winer, p. 176 [E. T. p. 284].

41 Chron. lil. 16; 2 Kings xiv. 8; Joseph.
Antt. x. 9.

‘The ahove meaning is yielded by the
Hebrew Tia, 1 Chron. vy. 22; Ezek. xii. 11;

2 Kings xxiv. 16; Nah. fff. 10. Comp. the
LXX. Anthol. 7. 731 (Leon. Tar. 79). The
usual word fn the classics {is pmeroiucjors
(Plato, Legg. 8, p. 850 A), also perowirpes
(Plutarch. Popl. 22).

¢ Comp. Paulus inloc., Hitzig on Jerem. i.c.
The Talmudists are more subtle, see Light-
foot in loc.

7 See Bertheau.

® Comp. Joseph. c. Apion,

CHAP. I., 17. 41

Eli. This variation, also, cannot be set aside. As in the case of most
great men who have sprung from an obscure origin, so also in the case of
Jesus, the ancestors of no reputation were forgotten, and were given by
tradition in varying form. The view, however,’ that Luke gives the
genealogy of Mary, and consequently that in Luke ili. 24 Joseph is entered
as son-in-law of Eli, or Eli as maternal grandfather of Jesus,” is just as base-
less and harmonistically forced an invention as that of Augustine ;? or of
Wetstein, Delitzsch, that Joseph was the adopted son of Eli; or that of
Julius Africanus in Eusebius i. 7, that Matthew gives the proper father of
Joseph, while Luke gives his legal father according to the law of Levirate
marriage (Hug), or conversely (Schleiermacher, after Ambrose and others).
The contradictions which our genealogy presents to that of Luke are to be
impartially recognized. Sce amore minute consideration of this in Luke after
ch. ili. — It is well known that the Jews* call Jesus the son of Pandira® or
Panthera.* — évdpa}] is to be rendered husband, and not (Olshausen, after
Theophylact, Grotius) betrothed. For when the genealogist wrote, Joseph
had been long ago the husdarid of Mary ; and the signification of avfp is
never that of sponsus. — if 7c) see on Gal. iv. 4. —6é Aeyéuevoc Xpiordc] if the
assumption of Storr,’ that this addition expresses the doubt of the gene-
alogist, an unbelieving relative of Jesus, is a pure imagination, and com-
pletely opposed to the standpoint of the evangelist, who adopted the
gencalogy, still we are not to say, with Olshausen,® that Aéyeofla: here means
to be called, and also actually to be. This would be to confuse it improperly
with xadcio6a:.° The genealogical source, which found a reception in our
Matthew, narrates in a purely historical manner : who bears the name of
Christ (iv. 18, x. 2, xxvil. 17) ; for this name, which became His from the
official designation, was the distinctive name of this Jesus.”

Ver. 17. This contains the remark of the evangelist in accordance with
(oiv) this genealogical tree, contained in vv. 2-16. The key to the calcula-
tion, according to which the thrice-recurring fourteen links are to be
enumerated, lics in vv. 11,12. According to ver. 11, Josiah begat Jechoniah
at the time of the migration to Babylon ; consequently Jechoniah must de
included in the terminus ad quem, which is designated by éu¢ rie perotkeciag
BavAavos in ver. 17. The same Jechoniah, however, must just as neces-
sarily again begin the third division, as the same begins with a7é ri¢ peror-

doth Jeschu, calls the father of Jesus, Joseph
Pandira. See Eisenmenger, p. 105; Paulus,

1 Epiphantus, Luther, Calovius in answer
to Grotius, Bengel, Rosenmfiller, Paulus,

Gratz, Hofmann, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange,
Arnoldi, Bisping, Auberlen.

* Spanhelm, Wieseler, Riggenbach in the
Stud. u. Kritik. 1855, p. 585 ff., Krafft.

8 de consen. ev. ii. 3.

* The Talmud, and in Origen, c. Celsum, |.
a2,

& wy UD. Epiphanius, Haeres. 78. 7, thus
(War@np) terms the father of Joseph. John
of Damascus, de Ade Orthodox. iv. 15, re-
moves this name still further back in the
roll of ancestors. The Jewish book, Zole-

exegel. Handb. I. p. 136 f., Thilo, Cod. apoer.
L. p. 526 f.

*See Paulus, exege?. Handb. I. p. 290:
Nitzsch in the Stud. v. Kritik. 1840, 1: Keim,
Leben Jesu, I. p. 868; Ewald, Gesch. Christi,
p. 187, ed. 38.

7 Zweck d. evangel. Gesch. u. d. Briefe Joh.
p. 278.

®Comp. Gersdorf, and already Er.
Schmidt.

» See Winer, p. 571 (E. T. 769).

10 Comp., besides, Remark 3, after ver, 17.

42 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

xeolac Bafvaavoc. Jechoniah, however, who was himself begotten at the time
of the migration, did not become a futher until after the migration (ver. 12).
so that he therefore belonged as begotten to the period éwe rie uerorx. BaSve.,
but as a father to the period amé ri¢ uerotx. BaSva., standing in his relation
to the epoch of the peroxecia as a twofold person. It is not so with David,
aS the latter, like every other except Jechoniah, is only named, but not
brought into connection with an epoch-making event in the history, in
relation to which he might appear as son and father in a twofold per-
sonality. He has therefore no right to be counted twice. According to
this view, the three tesseradecades are to be thus divided, '—

I. 1. Abraham; 2. Isaac; 8. Jacob; 4. Judah; 5. Perez; 6. Heeron;
7, Ram; 8. Aminadab; 9. Naasson; 10, Salma; 11. Boaz; 12. Obed >
18. Jesse ; 14. David.

II. 1. Solomon ; 2. Rehoboam; 8. Abijah; 4. Asa; 5. Jehoshaphat ;
6. Joram, 7. Uzziah ; 8. Jotham; 9. Ahaz; 10. Hezekiah ; 11. Manasseh ;
12. Ammon ; 18. Josiah ; 14. Jechoniah (é7t rie perouxeciac, ver. 11).

TIL. 1. Jechoniah (werd ri peroxeciav, ver. 12); 2. Salathiel ; 8. Zerubbabel;
4, Abiud ; 5. Eliakim ; 6. Azor ; 7. Zadok ; 8. Achim; 9. Eliud ; 10. Elea-
ear ; 11. Matthan ; 12. Jacob; 13. Joseph ; 14. Jesus.

In the third division we have to notice that in any case Jesus also must be
counted, because ver. 17 says éw¢ rot Xprorov, in keeping with ver. 1, where
"Inaovs Xpiorée is announced as the subject of the genealogy, and consequent-
ly as the last of the entire list. If Jesus were not included in the enumera-
tion, we should then have a genealogy of Joseph, and the final terminus
must have been said to be éw¢ "Iwo#g. Certainly, according to our Gospel,
no proper yeved existed between Joseph and Jesus, a circumstance which in
reality takes away from the entire genealogical tree its character as a gen-
ealogy of Jesus in the proper sense. The genealogist himself, however,
guards so definitely against every misinterpretation by the words rév drvdpa
Mapiac, é 7¢ éyervyOn 'Incovc, that we distinctly see that he means to carry
the descent of Jesus beyond Joseph back to David and Abraham, only in so
far as Joseph, being husband of the mother of Jesus, was His father, merely
putatively so indeed, but by the marriage his father in the eye of the law,
although not his real parent. After all this, we are neither, with Olearius,
Bengel, Fritzsche, de Wette (who is followed by Strauss,* Delitzsch, Bleek,
and others, to divide thus : (1) Abraham to David, (2) David to Josiah, (8)
Jechoniah to Christ ; nor, with Storr,* Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Olshausen :
(1) Abraham to David, (2) David to Josiah, (3) Josiah to Joseph ; nor are
we to say, with Paulus, that among the unknown links, vv. 18-16, one has
fallen out owing to the copyists ; nor, with Jerome, Gusset, Wolf, Gratz,
to make Jechoniah in ver. 11 into Joiakim, by the insertion of which Ewald

1 Comp. Strauss, 2d ed.; Hug, Gufachten ;
Wieseler inthe Stud. u. Kritik. 1845, p. 877;
KOstlin, Urepr. d. synopi. Evang. p. 30; Hil-
genfeld, Hvang. p. 46; also Riggenbach in
the Stud. u. Aritik. 1856, p. 580 f.. Leb. Jes.
p. 261. Soearly as Augustine, and at a lJa-
ter date. Jansen and several others, count

Jechoniah twice; so also Schegg; substan-
tially also Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth.
Zigabenus, who only express themselves
awkwardly in saying that the time of the
Exile is placed év rdfe yeveas.

2 4th ed., I. p. 189. .

3 Diss. in libror. hist. N. T. loca, p. 1 ff.

CHAP. I., 17. 45

completes (see on ver. 11) the second tesseradecade, without counting David
twice ; nor, with Ebrard, Lange, Krafft, to insert Mary as an intermediate
link between Joseph and Jesus, by whose marriage with Joseph, Jesus be-
came heir to the theocratic throne. The latter is erroneous on this account,
that it contradicts the text, which does not speak of succession to the theo-
cratic throné, but of yeveai, the condition of which is éyévvqce and éyevvf6n.

— We must assume that the reason for the division into three tesseradecades
was not merely to aid the memory,' which is not sufficient to explain the em-
phatic and solemn prominence given to the equal number of links in the
three periods, ver. 17 ; nor even the Cabbalistic number of the name David,?
as it is not David, but Jesus, that is in question ; nor a reminiscence of the
forty-two encampments in the wilderness,* which would be quite arbitrary
and foreign to the subject ; nor a requirement to the reader to seek out the
theocratic references concealed in the genealogy (Ebrard), in doing which
Matthew would, without any reason, have proposed the proper design of
his genealogical tree as a mere riddle, and by his use of éyévyvyce would have

made the solution itself impossible : but that precisely from Abraham to
David fourteen links appeared, which led the author to find fourteen links
for the two other periods also, in which, according to Jewish idiosyncrasy,

he saw something special, which contained a mystic allusion to the system-

atic course of divine leading in the Messiah’s genealogy, where perhaps also
the attraction of holiness in the number seven (the double of which was

yielded by the first period) came into play.‘ It is altogether arbitrary,

however, because there is no allusion to it in Matthew, when Delitzsch ° ex-

plains the symmetry of the three tesseradecades from this, that Matthew al-

ways makes a generation from Abraham to David amount to eighty years, but

each of the following to forty, and consequently has calculated 1120 + 560

+ 560 years. To do so is incorrect, because yeveai receives its designation

from éyévyjoe, it being presupposed that yeved denotes a generation.

Remark 1. —It is clear from rdoa: that the evangelist supposed that he
had the genealogieal trée complete, and consequently was not aware of the im-
portant omissions.

Remark 2.—Whether Mary also was descended from David, as Justin,® and
other Fathers, as well as the Apocrypha of the N. T.,1 already teach,® is a point

1 Michaelis, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Fritzsche.

2, &¢. 14; 80 Surenhusius, Ammon,
Leben Jesu, 1. p. 178.

* Origen, Luther, Gfrédrer, PAuo, II. p.
429, after Num. xxxiili.

“Comp. Synops. Soh. p. 182. 18: ** Ab Ad-
rahamo usque ad Salom. quindecim sunt gen-
erationes, atque tune luna fuit in plenilunio,
- @ Salomone usque ad Zedekiam iterum sunt
quindecim generationes, ef tunc luna defecit,
et Zedekiae effossi sunt oculi,"’ ‘‘ from Abra-
ham to Solomon are fifteen generations,
and then the moon was at its full; from
Bolomon to Zedekiah are again fifteen gen-
erations, and then the moon was eclipsed

and the eyes of Zedekiah were torn out."
See also Gen. v. 8 ff., xi. 10 ff., where, from
Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Abra-
ham, ten links in each cuge are counted,

6 In Rudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschrift,
1850, p. 587 ff. ;
6 Dial. c. Tryph. xxill. 45. 100, Irenaeus, Ili.
21. 5, Jullus Africanus, ap. Eueebium, 1. 7,

Tertullian.
7 ¢.9g. Protec. Jacobi. 10, de nativ. Mariae.
§In the Testament of the Twelve Patri-
archs, on the other hand, the tribe of Levi
is definitely alluded to as that to which
Mary belonged. See pp. 542, 546, 654, 689.
In another passage, p. 724, she is represent-

44 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

upon which any evidence from the N. T. is entirely wanting, as the genealogical
tree in Luke is not that of Mary. Norcana conclusion be drawn to that effect, as
is done by the Greek Fathers, from the Davidic descent of Joseph ; for even if
Mary had been an heiress, which, however, cannot at all be established (comp.
on Luke ii. 5), this would be quite a matter of indifference so far as her de-
scent is concerned, since the law in Num. xxxvi. 6 only forbade such daughters
to marry into another tribe.! The Davidic descent of Mary would follow from
passages such as those in Acts ii. 30, Rom. i. 3, 4, 2 Tim. ii. 8, comp. Heb.
vii. 14, if we were certain that the view of the supernatural generation of Jesus
lay at the basis of these ; Luke i. 27, 32, 69 prove nothing, and Luke ii. 4 just
as little ;? we might rather infer from Lukei. 36 that Mary belonged to the
tribe of Levi. The Davidic descent of Jesus, however, is established as certain
by the predictions of the prophets, which, in reference to so essential a mark
of the Messiah, could not remain without fulfilment, as well as by the unani-
mous testimony of the N. T.,? and is also confirmed by Hegesippus,‘ according
to whom, grandsons of Jude, the Lord’s brother, were brought, as descendants
of David (o¢ éx yévoug évrag Aavid), before Domitian. To doubt this descent of
Jesus, and to regard it rather as a hypothesis which, as an abstraction deduced
from the conception of Messiah, had attached itself to the Messianic predicate
Son of David,’ is the more unhistorical, that Jesus Himself lays down that de-
scent as a necessary condition of Messiahship.*®

Remark 3.—As the evangelist relates the divine generation of Jesus, he was
therefore far removed from the need of constructing a genealogy of Joseph, and
accordingly we must suppose that the genealogy was found and adopted by him."
Add to this that, as clearly appears from Luke, various genealogical trees must
have been in existence, at the foundation of which, however, had originally °
lain the view of a natural yéveore of Jesus, although the expression of such a

ed as a descendant of Judah. Comp. on
Luke 1. 86, and see Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. p.
86. Ewald's remark, that the Proferang
Jacobdi leaves the tribe of Mary undetermin-
ed, is incorrect, ch. x. b. In Thilo, p. 212,
it is said: Orc Mapiay ex GuARs Aafid éore,
**Mary 1s of the tribe of David."’

1 Ewald, Alterth. p. %9 f. [E. T. p. 208],
Saalschitz, Jf. R. p. 829 f., and in later
times was no longer observed; see De-
litzsch, /.c. p. 5&2.

2 In answer to Wleseler, Belir. z. Wirdig.
der Evang. p. 144.

* Rom. fi. 8; 2 Tim. if. 8; Heb. vif. 14;
Joho vil. 41; Rev. v. 5, xxil. 16.

4 In Eusebius iff. 20.

*Comp. Schlelermacher, Strauss, B.
Bauer, Weiss, Schenkel, Holtzmann, Ejich-
thal.

* See on Matt. xxii. 42 ff.; besides Keim,
Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 826 ff., also Weiss, dv.
Theolog. § 18, and Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 242
ff. ed. 3.

7 Harduin, Paulus, Olshausen, and most
moderns, but was not his own composition
(older view, de Wette, Delitzsch).

*It must be admitted that the genealo-

gies owe their origin to the view that
Joseph's paternal relation was real, and
that their original purpose bore that Joseph
was the actual, and not merely the puta-
tive, father of Jesus, because otherwise the
composition of a genealogical tree of
Joseph would have been without any
motive of faith. But we must also grant
that the evangelists, so early as the time
when they composed their works, found the
genealogies with the definite statements
announcing the putative paternal relation-
ship, and dy that very circumstance saw it
adapted for reception without any contra-
diction to their belief in the divine genera-
tion of Jesus. They saw in it a demonstra-
tion of the Davidic descent of Jesus accord-
ing to the male line of succession, so fir as
it was possible and allowable to give such in
the deficiency of a human father, that is,
back beyond the reputed father. The cir-
cumstance, however, that Joseph recog-
nized Jesus asa /azful son, presented to
him in a miraculous manner, although he
was not his flesh and blood (Delitzsch and
others), assuredly leads, in like manner,
only to a yevea which fs not reat.

CHAP. I., 18. 45

view had already disappeared from them, so that Matt. i. 16 no longer ran
Tuoyo dé éyévvgcev "Incotv, and in Luke iii. 23, o¢ évouifero was already inter-
polated. Such anti-Ebionitic alterations in the last link of the current genea-
logical registers of Jesus are not to be ascribed, first, to the evangelists them-
selves (Strauss, Schénkel) ; nor is the alteration in question which occurs in
Matthew to be derived from a supposed redactor who dealt freely with a funda-
mental gospel document of a Judaistic kind (Hilgenfeld). The expression 6
Aeyopnevoc- Xpioréc in ver. 16 rather betrays that the genealogical written
source passed over into the Gospel in the shape in which it already existed ;
neither the author nor an editor would have written 6 Aeyéuevocg (comp. vv. 1,

18), or, had they made an alteration in ver. 16, they would not have allowed it
to remain.

Ver. 18. Tod ‘I7cot Xpicrov] provided with the article, and placed first
with reference to ver. 16. ‘‘ The origin of: Jesus Christ, however, was as
follows.” — pvyorevdelon¢] On the construction.’ On the betrothal, after
which the bride still remained in the house of her parents without any
closer intercourse with the bridegroom until she was brought home.* — yap]
explicative, namely* — rpiv 7] belongs as much as the simple zpiv to the
Ionic, and to the middle age of the Attic dialect ;‘ it is, however, already
found alone in Xenophon,’ as also in Thucydides, v. 61. 1, according to our
texts (see, however, Kriiger in loc.), but is foreign to the Attic poets,
With the aorist infinitive, it denotes that the act is fully accomplished.*—
ovve*Beiv| Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Maldonatus,
Jansen, Bengel, Elsner, Loesner, and others understand it of cohabitation in
marriage. The usage of the language is not opposed to this.’ Just as.cor-
rect, however, in a linguistic point of view (Kypke, Obes. p. 1 f.), and‘at the
same time more appropriate to the reference to vv. 20, 24, is the explanation
of others® of the bringing home and of domestic intercourse. Others® combine
both explanations. But the author in the present case did not conceive the
cohabitation in marriage to be connected with the bringing home, see ver.
25. — etpéf7] Euth. Zigabenus (comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact) appro-
pnately renders it : é¢dv7. Etpé&@y dé ele did 7d arpoodéxyrov, ‘‘ was seen, or
appeared ; but he said was found, on account of its being a thing unex-
pected.” Etpefjjvac is nowhere equivalent to elva:z.°—éy yaorp? éyew or
¢pecv, to be pregnant, very often in the LXX., also in Greek writers,’ —
ix xy. dy.] without the article." WP 1 or WT wp TW, arveiua, wy,

18ee Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 270 f.
[E. T. 815].

?See Maimonides, Tract. [iW'N; Saal-
schiitz, If, R. p. 728 ff.; Keil, Archaeol. § 109.

2See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 4 ff.; Baeum-
lein, Pertik. p. 86 ff.

‘See Elmsiey, ad Hur. Med. 179; Reisig,
ad Soph. Oed. Coton. 86.

§ Kahner, ad Anad. tv. 5. 1.

* Klotz, ad Devar. p. 726. Comp. Acts it.
90, vil. 2; Mark xiv. 80; John fv. 49; Tob.
xiv. 15.

Tee the passages of Philo fin Loesner,
Obse. p. 2; Joseph. Anté. vil. 9.8; Diodorus
Siculus, ili. 57, Test. X77. Patr. pp. 600, 701.

® Luther, Beza, Er. Schmid, Lightfoot,
Grotius, Kypke, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de
Wette, Arnoldi, Bleek.

* Calvin, Wetstein, Rosenmiiller, Olshau-
sen.

10 See Winer, p. 572 (E. T. 769].

1) Herodotus, fil. 32, Vit. Hom. ii.; Plato,
Legg. vil. p. 792 E.

13 See Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 151].

46 ’ THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Gytov, rv. Tov Ocod, is the personal divine principle of the higher, religiouws-moral,
and eternal life, which works effectually for the true reign of God, and espe-
cially for Christianity, which rules in believers, and sanctifies them for the
Messiah’s kingdom, and which, in reference to the intellect, is the know]}-
edge of divine truth, revelation, prophecy, etc., in reference to morals is
the consecration of holiness and power in the moral life of the new birth
with its virtues and world-subduing dispositions, bringing about, in partic-
ular, the truth and fervor of prayer, the pledge of everlasting life. Here
the rveiya aytov is that which produces the human eristence of Christ, through
whose action—which so appeared only in this, the single case of its kind—
the origin of the embryo in the womb of Mary was causally produced (éx)
in opposition to human generation, so that the latter is thereby excluded.
It is not, however, that divine power of the Spirit (Luke i. 35), which only
concurs in the action of human generation and makes it effectual, as in the
gencration of Isaac and of the Baptist, and, as the idea is expressed in the
Sohar Gen.’ — éx rvetpy. ay., moreover, is added, not as an object to et'p/On,

but from the historical standpoint, to secure at once a correct judgment

upon the év yaorpl Exovaa.?

ReMaRK.—As regards the conception of Jesus by a virgin, we have to notice the
following points in their exegetical bearing :—(1) Mary was either a daughter
of David (the common view), or she was not. See on ver. 17, Remark 2. In

_the first case, Jesus, whose divine generation is assumed, was, ns Matthew and
Luke relate, a descendant of David, although not through an unbroken line of
male succession, but in such a way that His mother alone conveyed to Him the
Davidic descent. But if Mary were not a daughter of David, then, by the
divine conception, the possibility of Jesus being a descendant of David is
simply excluded; because, on that view, the Davidite Joseph remains out of
consideration, and this would be in contradiction not only with the statements
of prophecy, but also with the unanimous testimony of the N. T. (2) As it is
nowhere said or hinted in the N. T. that Mary was a descendant of David, we
must assume that this is tacitly presupposed in the narratives of Matthew and
Luke, But as a consequence of this supposition, the genealogical trees would
lose all their importance, in so far as they are said to prove that Jesus was vid¢
Aaveid (ver. 1). Joseph’s descent from David, upon which in reality nothing
would turn, would be particularly pointed out ; while Mary's similar descent,
upon which everything would depend, would remain unmentioned as being a
matter of course, and would not be, even once, incidentally alluded to in what
follows, say by Ovydr7p Aaveid, as Joseph is at once addressed in ver. 20 as vidc

1Comp. Schmidt in the Bidl. f. Krii. ov.
Exeg. d. N. T.1.p.101: ‘* Omnes tli, qui
sctunt se sanctlificare in hoc mundo, ut par est
(ubl generant), attrahunt super id Spiritum
sanctitatis et exeuntes ab eo illi rocantur fills
Jehovae,” ‘* All those who know to con-
secrate themselves in this world, asis pro-
per (when they beget), draw upon it tho
spirit of holiness, and going forth from it
these are called sons of Jehovah.” Theo-
dore of Mopsuestia (apud Fred. Fritzsche,

Theodorit Mops. in N. T. Commentar, p. 2):
wonep yap (ro mrvevma TO ayvoy) KoL\vwydr éoTi
waTpi T¢ Kai vip eis THY TOU wavTds Snucovpyiar,
ovTmw cai rd éx HS wapdEevov ToV
cwTHpos capaxatrergxevace, “For as
(the Holy Spirit) is a partner to both the
Father and the Son for the creating of every-
thing, so also He prepared the body of the
Saviour from the Virgin.”
2 éepdmrevoe rdv Adyoyv, Euth, Zigabenus.

CHAP. I., 18. 4?

Aaveid. (3) Paul and Peter! designate the descent of Jesus from David in such
away, that without calling in the histories of the birth in the first and third
Gospels, there is no occasion for deriving the Davidic descent from the mother,
to the interruption of the male line of succession, for which Gal. iv. 4? also
affords neither cause nor justification. Nowhere, moreover, where Paul speaks
of the sending of the Son of God, and of His human yet sinless nature,’ does he
betray any indication that he presupposes that divine conception.* (4) Just
as little does John, whose expression 6 Adync caps éyévero, although he was so
intimate with Jesus and His mother, leaves the question as to the how of this
éyévero without a direct answer, indeed ; but also, where Jesus is definitely
designated by others as Joseph’s son, contributes no word of correction'—nay,
relates the self-designation ‘‘ Son of a man” from Jesus’ own mouth (see on
John v. 27), where the context does not allow usto refer dv@pu7ov to his mother.
(5) It is certain, further, that neither in Nazareth 6 nor in Capernaum (John vi.
42), nor elsewhere in the neighborhood (John i. 46), do we meet with such
expressions, in which a knowledge of anything extraordinary in the descent of
Jesus might be recognized ; and in keeping with this also is the unbelief of
His own brethren (John vii. 3),—nay, even the behavior and bearing of Mary.’
(6) We have still to observe, that what is related in ver. 18 would obviously
have greatly helped to support the suspicion and reproach of illegitimate birth,
and yet nowhere throughout the N. T. is there found the slightest whisper of so
hostile a report.? If, moreover, in the narratives of the first and third evangel-
ists, angelic appearances occur, which, according to the connection of the his-
tory, mutually exclude each other,*—namely, in Matthew, after the conception,
in order to give an explanition to Joseph ; in Luke, before the conception, to
make a disclosure to Mary,—nevertheless that divine conception itself might
remain, and in and of itself be consistent therewith, if it were elsewhere cer-
tainly attested in the N. T., or if it could be demonstrated as being an un-
doubted presupposition, belonging to the conception of Christ as the Son of
God.

? Rom. i. 8, 4; Acts fl. 80: éx owdpparos, ex above sinful humanity; for which rea-

Kapwov THs Sopvos ; Comp. 2 Tim. fi. 8.

2 Certainly, in Rom. i. 4, Paul expressly
refers Christ's relation to God as His Son to
His rvevya aywovyns not to His capg. See
on Rom. 1.8. The supernatural generation
is not a logical consequence of his system,
as Weiss, bid. Theol. p. 315, thinks. If Paul
had conceived the propagation of sin as
taking place dy means of generation (which
is probable, although he has not declared
himself upon the point), he cannot, in so
thinking, — after the history of the fall (2
Cor. xi. 3), and after Ps li. 7,—have regard-
ed the woman's share as a matter of in-
adtference.

32 Cor. v. 21; Rom. vill. 8; Phil. fi. 6 f.

4 We should all the more have expected
this origin to have been stated by Paul, that
he, on the one side, everywhere ascribes to
Christ true and perfect humanity (Rom. v.
15; 1 Cor. xv. 21, a/.), and, on the other, so
often gives prominence to His elevation

son he also designates the cdpf of Christ—
which was human, and yet was not, as in
other men, the seat of sin—as opoiwpna
capxds apaprias (Rom. viii. 3), with which
Heb. il. 14, 17 also agrees.

5 {. 46, vi. 42; comp. vil. 27,

6 Matt. xlil. 55; Mark vl. 8; Luke fv. 22.

7 Mark iii. 21, 81; comp. on Matt. xii.
46-50 ; see also Luke If. 50 f.

§ The generation (nay, according to Luke
li. 5, the birth also) defore the marriage was
concluded is necessarily connected with
faith in the divine generation. The reproach
of tlegitimate birth was not ralsed by the
Jews until a later time (Origen, c. Celzum, 1.
28), as a hostile and base inference from the
narratives of Matthew and Luke. Thilo,
ad Cod. Apocr. 1. p. 526 f. They called Jesus
a Mameer [i.e. one born fn incest]. See
Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 105 ff.

® Strauss, I. p. 165 ff.; Keim, Gesch. Jesu,
I. p. 3€2 ff. P

48 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Taking into account all that precedes, it is clear, in the first place, that the
doctrine which became dominant in the church, in opposition to all Ebionitism,
of the birth of Jesus Christ from a virgin, is indeed fully justified on exegetical
grounds by the preliminary history in Matthew and Luke ; but that, secondly,
apart from the preliminary history, no glimpse of this doctrine appears any-
where in the N. T.,—nay, that elsewhere in the N. T. it has to encounter con-
siderable difficulties of an exegetical kind, without, however, breaking down
before physiological or theological impossibilities (in answer to Strauss). Ex-
egetically, therefore, the proposition of faith, that in Jesus the only-begotten
Son of God entered as man into humanity, cannot be made to depend upon the
conception, which is recorded only in Matthew and Luke,' but must also, irre-
spective of the latter, remain fast and immutable in its full and real meaning
of the incarnation of the divine Logos, which took place, and takes place, inno
other ; so that that belief cannot be made to depend on the manner in which
Jesus was conceived, and in which the Spirit of God acted at the very com-
mencement of His human existence. And this not merely for exegetical, but
also for dogmatical reasons, since the incarnation of the Son of God is by no
means to be subjected to the rule of universal sinful origin (John iii. 6) in fallen
humanity (by which His whole redemptive work would be reduced to nothing);
and which indeed must also—considering the supernatural conception—be con-
ceived as exempted on the mother’s side from this rule of traducianism.?

Ver. 19. ’Avfp] Although only her betrothed, yet, from the standpoint of
the writers, designated as her husband. The common assumption of a pro-
leptic designation (Gen. xxix. 21) is therefore unfounded. It is different
with rv yuvaixd cov in ver. 20. — dixatog] not : aequus et benignus.* For dixa:oc,
like p"1¥, means generally, he who is as he ought to be;* therefore rightly con-

1 The comparison with heathen rapGevoy-
evecs, called wap8évoc in Homer, such as
Buddha, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Plato, Rom-
ulus (see the literature in Hase, Led. Jest,
§ 27 a), should have been here left entirely
out of consideration,—partly because they
belong, for the most part, to an entirely
foreign sphere of Ilfe, have no analogies in
the N. T., and amount to apotheoses ex even-
tu (Origen, c. Celsum, 1. 87); partly because
so many of the wap0éno: are only the fruits
of the lust of the gods (see Homer, Jtiae,
xvi. 180 ff.). Far too much weight has been
attached to them, and far too much has
been transferred to them from the Christian
idea of the Son of God, when the thought
is found expressed in them that nothing can
come forth by the way of natural genera-
tion which would correspond to the ideal
of the human mind, Olshausen, Neander,
Krabbe, Schmid, di. Theol. I. p. 43; Ddllin-
ger, Heidenth. u. Judenth. p. 256.

2Comp. Schleiermacher, Chrietl. Glaube,
§ 97, p. 64 ff., and Leben Jesu, p. 60 ff. Too
much {is asserted, when (see also Geass, Pers.
Christ. p. 218f.) the limitation is Imposed
upon the divine counsel and will, that the

freedom of Jesus from original sin must
necessarily presuppose the divine concep-
tion in the womb of the Virgin. The incar-
nation of the Logos is, once for all, a mys-
tery of a peculiar kind; the fact is as
certain and clear of itself as the manner in
which it took place by way of human birth
is veiled in mystery, and is in no way deter-
minable @ priori. This is also in answer to
Philippi’s assertion (Dogmalik. IV. 1, p.
158, ed. 2), that the idea of the God-man
stands or falls with that of the birth from a
virgin.—a dangerous but erroneous dilem-
ma. Dangerous, because Mary was not
free from original sin ; erroneous, because
God could also have brought about the in-
carnation of the Logos without original sin
In some other way than by a birth froma
virgin.

3 So (after Chrysostom and Jerome) Euth.
Zigabenus (da thy wpadryra Kai ayaBwovvnr),
Luther, Grotius, Kuinoel, Fritzsche. B. Cra-
sius, Bleek.

4 Hermann, ad Soph. Ajac. 548; Kihner,
ad Xen. Memor. iv. 4.5; Gesen. Thes. ITI. p.
1151.

CHAP. I., 20. 49

stituted, and, in a narrower sense, just, but never kind, although kindness,
compassion, and the like may be in given cases the concrete form in which
the dicacooivy expresses itself. Here, according to the context, it denotes
the man who acts in a strictly legal manner. Aixatog down to detyparioat con-
tains two concurring motives. Joseph was an upright man according to the
law, and could not therefore make up his mind to retain Mary, as she was
pregnant without him ; at the same time he could not bring himself to_
abandon her publicly ; he therefore resolved to adopt the middle way, and
dismiss her secretly. Observe the emphasis of 14@pa. — detypuarica:] to expose ;
see on Col. ii. 15. Here the meaning is: to expose to public shame. This,
however, does not refer to the punishment of stoning (Deut. xxii. 23), which
was to be inflicted ; nor toa judicial accusation generally (the common view),
because de:yyarica: must mean a kind of dismissal opposed to that denoted
by 4d@pa ; comp. de Wette. Therefore: he did not wish to compromise
her, which would have been the result had he given her a letter of divorce,
and thus dismissed her gavepic. — AdOpa] secretly, in private, i.e. by means of a
secret, private interview, without a letter of divorce. This would, indeed,
have been in opposition to the law in Deut. xxiv. 1, which applied also to
betrothed persons ;’ but he saw himself liable to a collision between the two
cases, —of either, in these circumstances, retaining the bride, or of exposing
her to public censure by a formal dismissal ; and from this no more legal
way of escape presented itself than that on which he might with the more
propriety lay hold, that the law itself in Deut. l.c. speaks only of married
persons, not of betrothed. De Wette thinks, indeed, of dismissal by a letter
of dicorcement, but under arrangements providing for secrecy. But the letter
of divorce of itself, as it was a public document,’ is in contradiction with
the Ad@pa. — On the distinction between 6éAw and BotAouza:,—the former of
which expresses willing in general, the action of the will, of the inclina-
tion, of desire, etc., in general ; while BotAouzac denotes a carefully weighed
self-determination.*? Observe the aorist iBovAsAy : he adopted the resolution.
Ver. 20. 'Idot] as in Hebrew and in Greek writers, directs attention
quickly to an object brought into view. Very frequent in Matthew. — kar’
dvap] tn somnis.* Frequent in later Greek, but not in the LXX. and Apocry-
pha ; rejected by Photius, p. 149. 25, as BapSapov ; amongst the old writers,
commonly only dvap.° xaré serves to designate the manner and way, and
yields the adverbial meaning in a dream, dy¢ dveipov év rH imvy, Herod. i.
88. The appearance of the angel was an appearance in a dream.® It might
denote the time, if,’ xara roi imvove, or xa? imvov (Gen. xx. 6), had been
employed. Express visions in dreams in the N. T. are related only by Mat-
thew.*— vids A.] The reason of this address ° is not difficult to see (de Wette) ;
it is highly natural in the case of the angel, because he has to bring news

3 Maimonides, Tract. Niw'¥, c. 1; Wet- *Vulg., Virg. Aen. il. 270; év dveipocs,

stein in loc. ; Philo, de leg. spec. p. 788. Niceph. Schol. in Synea, p. 442.

2 See Saalschiiltz, M. R. p. 800 ff. ; Ewald, ® See Phrynichus, ed Lobeck, p. 428 f.
Alterth. p. 272 [E. T. p. 208 ff.]. ® See Kiihner, ITI. 1, p. 418.

3 See Buttmann, Leril. I. p. 2 ff. [E. T., 7 Asin Joseph. Antiq. xi. 9. 8.

Fishlake, p. 194 ff.], partly corrected by ® Comp. besides, Acts ff. 17.
Ellendt, Lez. Soph. I. p. 816. ® Vominative, see Kihner, II. 1, p. 43.

50 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

of the Messiah. B.-Crusius says too little : Joseph is so addressed as one
Javored by God, or, as he for whom something miraculous was quite appro-
priate. Fritzsche says too much: ‘‘ut ad Mariam ducendam promtiorem
redderet,” ‘‘to render him more ready to take Mary as his wife.” The
former neglects the special connection, the latter imports a meaning. —
tv yuvaixd cov] apposition to Mapu: the Mary, who is thy wife: in
which proleptic designation there lies an element stating the cause. This
view (in answer to Fritzsche, who explains : Mary, as thy wife) is required
by ver. 24. —év avrg] not for é£ avrg, but also not to be translated, with
Fritzsche : per eam, as év with persons is never merely instrumental, and
as the context (ver. 18 : év yaorpi Eyovoa éx. xv. dy.) demands a different ren-
dering ; but, quite literally, in utero Mariae, that which has been begot-
ten in her.—The neuter places the embryo still under the impersonal, mate-
rial point of view.' — é rv. éorw dyiov] proceeds from the Holy Ghost as au-
thor, by whom, accordingly, your suspicions are removed. Observe the
emphatic position, which lays the determining emphasis upon rvetyaroc, in op-
position to sexual intercourse. Upon the distinction between éOupeicba:
with the genitive (rationem habere alic. rei) and the accusative (‘* when he had
considered this”), see Kiihner.?

Ver. 21. TéEera: dé] and she will bear. ‘‘ Non additur ¢ii, ut additur de
Zacharia, Luc. i. 18,” ‘‘It is not added éo thee, as it is added concerning
Zachariah,” Bengel. — Katéoeee . . . ’Incovy] literally : thou wilt call His
name ‘‘ Jesus.”* Exactly so in Hebrew : YN NP. The Greeks, how-
ever, would say : xadécere rd dvoua avrod (or also atte) ‘Incovy.* — xaréceig] the
future serves in classical writers to denote the softened idea of the impera-
tive. In the LXX. and in the N. T. it is especially used of divine injunc-
tions, and denotes thereby the imperative sense apodeictically, because it sup-
poses the undoubted certainty of the result.* So also here, where a divine
command is issued. When Fritzsche would here retain the proper concep-
tion of the suture, it becomes a mere prediction, less appropriate in the con-
nection ; for it is less in keeping with the design of the angelic annunciation,
according to which the bestowal and interpretation of the name Jesus is
referred to a divine causality, and consequently the genus of the name itself
must, most naturally, appear as commanded. — avtég] He and no other. — rév
Aadv abrov] The people of Israel: because for these first, and then also for the
heathen, was the Messiah and His work intended, John iv. 22 ; Rom. i. 16 ;
Gal. iii. 14. As certainly, moreover, as the manner and fashion in which
the promised one was to accomplish the salvation, and by means of His re-
demptive work has accomplished it, is to be conceived as being present to
the eye of God at the sending of this news, as certainly must Joseph be con-
ceived as regarding it only in its national definiteness, consequently as re-
ferring to the theocratic liberation and prosperity of the people (comp. Luke

1 Comp., first, ver. 21: réfera: 8¢ vidw. See Matt. i. 28,25; Luke {. 18, 81, il. 21.

Wetstein, and on Luke Ii. 35. 4 Matthiae, p. 985 [E. T., Kenrick, p. 675
2 Ad Xen. Memorabdiiia, |.1.17; Krfigeron ff.]; Heindorf, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 238 A.
Thucyd. i. 42. 1. : ® Bernhardy, p. 878; Kiéhner, I. 1, p. 149.

$ Comp. LXX. Gen. xvii. 19; 1 Sam. 1. @; ® Comp. Winer, p. 296 [E. T. 896 f.].

CHAP. I., 22, 23. 51

i. 68 ff.), along with which, however, the religious and moral renewal also
was regarded as necessary ; which renewal must have presupposed the an-
tecedent forgiveness of sin (Luke i. 77). dyapriayv, therefore, is to be taken,
not as punishment of sin, but, as always, simply as sins. — avrov, not to be
written airov (for the angel speaks of Him asa third person, and without
any antithesis): His people, for they belong to the Messiah.’

Vv. 22, 28. No longer the words of the angel (in answer to Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Paulus, Arnoldi), but of the evangelist, who
continues his historical narrative, and that with a pragmatic observation,
which serves to advance his object. Comp. xxi. 4, xxvi. 56— iva is never
éxSarcxdv, so that (Kuinoel and older interpreters), but always reddy, in
order that ; it presupposes here that what was done stood in the connection
of purpose with the O. T. declaration, and consequently in the connection
of the divine necessity, as an actual fact, by which the prophecy was des-
tined to be fulfilled. The divine decree, expressed in the latter, must be ac-
complished, and to that end, this, namely, which is related from ver. 18
onwards, came to pass, and that according to the whole of ite contents (dAov).
The prophecy itself is Isa. vii. 14 according to the LXX., without any es-
sential variation. — 7 tapfévog corresponds here to mp v7, which denotes an
unmarried young woman of nubile years, not also a young woman (for which
Prov. xxx. 19 is erroneously appealed to by Gesenius and Knobel).* On
the other hand, mana means virgin in the strict’ sense of the word. The
evangelist, nevertheless, interpreting the passage according to its Messianic
destination, understands the pregnant Mary as areal virgin. Here we have
to observe that such interpretations of O. T. passages are not to be referred
to any principle of accommodation to the views of the time, nor even toa
mere occasional application, but express the typical reference, and there-
with the prophetic meaning, which the N. T. writers actually recognized in
the relative passages of the O.T. And in so doing, the nearest, i.e., the his-
torical meafiing of these passages in and of itself, did not rule the interpre-
tation, but the concrete Messianic contents according to their historical
definiteness a posteriori—from their actual fulfilment—yielded themselves to
them as that which the Spirit of God in the prophecies had had in view as
the ideal theocratic subject-matter of the forms which they assumed in the
history of the time.* The act by which they saw them Messianically ful-

filled, i.e. their Messianic contents become an accomplished fact, was recog-
nized by them as lying in the purpose of God, when the declaration in
question was spoken or written, and therefore as ‘‘eventum non modo
talem, qui propter veritatem divinam non potuerit non subsequi ineunte N. T.,”
‘‘Not merely such an event as, on account of divine veracity, could not
but follow at the entering in of the New Covenant,” Bengel. This Mes-
sianic method of understanding the O. T. in the New, which they adopted,
had its justification not merely in the historically necessary connection in
which the N. T. writers stood to the popular method of viewing the O. T.

1Comp. John i. 11; on the plural atrar, ? Comp. Riehm in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1869,
see Buttmann, nevt. Gr. p. 114 [E. T. 180). p. 272 f. [E. T., Clark, Edin. 1876, p. 160 ff.].
2? See Hengstenberg, Christo’. II. p. 53 ff.

52 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in their day, and to its typological freedom of exposition, but as it had its
justification also generally in the truth that the idea of the Messiah pervades
the whole of the prophecies of the O. T., and is historically realized in
Christ ; so also, in particular, in the holy guidance of the Spirit, under
which they, especially the apostles, were able to recognize, both as a whole
as well as in details, the relation of prophecy to its N. T. fulfilment, and
consequently the preformations of Christian facts and doctrines, as
God, in conformity with His plan of salvation, had caused them to take a
beginning in the O. T., although this result was marked by varying degrees
of certainty and of clearness of typological tact among the individual
writers. Although, according to this view, the N. T. declarations regard-
ing the fulfilment of prophecies are to be presupposed as generally having
accuracy and truth on their side, nevertheless the possibility of erroneous
and utenable applications in individual instances, in accordance with the her-
meneutical license of that age, is thereby so little excluded, that an unpre-
judiced examination upon the basis of the original historical sense is always
requisite. This way of estimating those declarations, as it does justice on
the one side to their importance and ethical nature, so on the other it erects
the necessary barrier against all arbitrary typological hankering, which
seeks to find a connection between prophecy and fulfilment, between type
and antitype, where the N. T. has not attested the existence of such.* In
reference to types and prophecies generally, we must certainly say with the
N. T.: rotry wdvreg of mpoppra: papreupovorw x.7.A., Acts x. 43, but not with
the Rabbins: ‘‘Omnes prophetae in universum non prophetarunt nisi de’
dicbus Messiae,” ‘‘ All the prophets universally prophesied only concerning
the days of the Messiah,” Sanhedrin, f. 99, 1. As regards Isa. vii. 14,?
the historical sense is to the effect that the prophet, by his promise of a
sign, desires to prevent Ahaz from begging the aid of the Assyrians against
the confederated Syrians and Ephraimites. The promise itself does not
indeed refer directly, by means of an ‘‘ideal anticipation,” to Mary and
Jesus (Hengstenberg), but neither also to the wife of the prophet,* nor to any
other mother elsewhere of an ordinary child,‘ but to the mother—who at
the time when the prophecy was uttered was still a virgin—of the expected
theocratic Saviour, z.¢., the Messiah,* the idea of whom lives in the prophetic

1 Comp. also Disterdieck, de rei prophet.
natura ethica, Q@éttingen 1852, p. 79 ff.

2 Comp. H. Schultz, alitest. Theolog. TI. p.
244 ff.; Engelhardt in the Luther. Zeitschrift.
1872, p. 601 ff.

3 Gesenlus, Knobel, Olshausen, Keim,
Schenkel, and others; comp. also Tholuck,
das A. T.inN. T. p. 8, ed. 6.

4 Stihelin, H. Schultz.

6 Hofmann has corrected his earlier ex-
planation (Weissagung und Erfiillung, I. p.
221) in point of grammar (Schriflbeweia, IT.
1, p. 85), but not in accordance with the
meaning. He sees in the son of the virgin
mother the Jsrae which does not arise in the
way of a natural continuation of the present,

but in a miraculous manner, to which God
again turns In mercy. In the person of
Jesus this Israel of the future of salvation
takes its beginning; while that which in
Isaiah was figurative language, is now re-
alized in the proper sense. With greater
weight and clearness Kahnis (Dogmatik, I.
p. 845 f.) remarks: The Virgin and Imman-
uel are definite but ideal persons. The lat-
ter is the Israel of the future according to
its ideal side; the Virgin, the Israel of the
present and of the past according to fits
ideal side, in accordance with which its
vocation is, by virtue of the Spirit of God,
to give birth to the holy seed; this Israel
will one day come to its true realization in

CHAP. I., 24, 25. 53

consciousness, but has attained its complete historic realieation in Jesus
Christ.'. That we might, however, from the consideration of the fulfilment
of the prophetic oracle, accomplished in the birth of Jesus from a virgin,

find in the word 704y the mother of the Messiah designated as a virgin,

follows, as a matter of course, from the meaning of my, which by no
means excludes the idea of virginity, and was not first rendered possible by
the rap@évoc of the LXX., by means of the ‘‘subtleties of Jewish Christians”
(Keim), and this all the less that even rap@évoc also in Greek does not always
denote virgin in the strict sense, but also ‘‘nuptas et devirginatas.”* Mat-
thew might also just as well have made use of veavic, which Aquila, Theo-
dotion, and Symmachus employ. — On the article, Bengel appropriately re-
marks: ‘‘ex specula divinae pracscientiae singularem demonstrandi vim
habet,” ‘‘from the height of divine foreknowledge it has a singular power
of demonstrating (pointing out) ;” she who is present to the prophet’s eye is
intended. — xadfaover] they will call. The LXX. incorrectly gives xatécecc.

The evangelist generalizes the third person singular of the original Hebrew
into the plural. —'Exuavevga] OW BY, God is with us, which symbolical

name, according to the historical sense in the prophet, derives its signifi-

cance from the saving by divine help from the destruction threatened by the.
war in question, but, according to its Messianic fulfilment, which the evan-
gelist now sees beginning, has the same essential meaning as the name Jesus.

The xadéoover rd bvoua avrov ’EupavovgA corresponds to the xadéoecc rd dvou.

avrov "Incovv (ver. 21), and therefore the translator of the Gospel has added
the interpretation of the significant name. The Fathers of the church

(Hilary, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Lactantius), and expositors like Calvin,

Flacius, Maldonatus, Jansen, Schegg, interpreted it of the divine nature in

Christ. In the divine nature of the Lord as the Son of God is found the

divine help and safety, which make up the meaning of the name (Jerome),

its dogmatic foundation in the developed Christian consciousness, as the

latter is certainly to be assumed in the evangelists Matthew (ver. 20) and

Luke (i. 35), according to whom, as a consequence of the superhuman gen-

eration, the superhuman character, not merely the Messianic vocation, is to

come forth.

Ver. 24. Ard rov irvov] from the sleep in which he had had the vision.— xai
wapé2. | The course of the thought proceeds simply, without any participial
construction, by means of the epexerctic and.

Ver. 25. ’Eyivwoxev] He had no sexual intercourse with her (imperfect). In

a virgin, who will be the mother of the
Messiah. Substantially similar also is the
view of W. Schultz in the Stud. u. Kritik.
1861, p. 713 ff., who understands by the Vir-
gin the quiet ones in the land, the better
portion of the community who are truly sus-
ceptible of the working of the Lord. But the
whole style of expression, and the connec-
tion in the context farther on, are through-
out not of such a character that in the Vir-
gin and her son, ideal, and indeed collective
persons, should have been present, first of

all, to the prophet’s view. I must continue,
even after the objections of Hengstenberg,
Tholuck, W. Schultz, H. Schultz, and others,
to regard Ewald's view as the right one.

1 See especially Ewald on Jeaiah, p. 389 f.,
ed. 2; Umbreit in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1855,
p. 578 ff.; Bertheau inthe Jahrb. f. Deutsche
Theologte, 1859, 4; Drechsler on Jsaiah, l.c. ;
Delitzsch; Oehler in Herzog's Zncyki. IX.
p. 415; Engelhardt, 7. ¢.

9 See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 210.

54 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

this sense )’'T is used by the Hebrews, and ycvdoxery by the Greeks of a later
age (often in Plutarch); also the Latin novi and cognosco.' Since Epiphanius,
Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, very many exposi-
tors have maintained, with a view to support the perpetual virginity of
Mary, but in opposition to the straightforward and impartial character of
the narrative, that Joseph, even after the birth of Jesus, had no sexual in-
tercourse with Mary.” — But (1) from éwc ot of itself no inference can be
drawn either in favor of or against such a view, as in all statements with
“until” the context alone must decide whether, with regard to that which
had not formerly occurred, it is or is not intended to convey that it after-
wards took place. But (2) that it is here conceived as subsequently taking
place, is so clear of itself to every unprejudiced reader from the idea of the
marriage arrangement, that Matthew must have expressed the thought, ‘‘ not
only until—but afterwards also he had not,” if such had been his meaning.
That he did not, however, mean this is clearly shown (3) by his use of
mpwréroxov, Which is neither equivalent to mpéiro¢ xat pdvog (Theophylact,
Euth. Zigabenus), nor does it designate the first-born, without assuming
others born afterwards (so formerly most expositors). The latter meaning
is untenable, because the evangelist employed mpwréroxay as an historian,
from the standpoint of the time when his Gospel was composed, and conse-
quently could not have used it had Jesus been present to his historical con-
sciousness as the only son of Mary. But Jesus, according to Matthew (xii.
46 ff., xiii. 55 f.), had also brothers and sisters, amongst whom He was the
Jirst-born.* (4) All a priori suppositions are untenable, from which the per-
petual virginity of Mary is said to appear;‘ of Olshausen : ‘‘it is manifest
that Joseph, after such experiences, might with good reason believe that his
marriage with Mary was intended for another purpose than that of beget-
ting children.” Hofmann has the correct meaning.°—éxddeoe] is not to be
referred to Mary, so that éwe ov frexe . . . xai éxddece would be taken to-
gether, as Paulus, after some older interpreters, maintains, but to Joseph,
as is certain after ver. 21 ; comp. Grotius.

1 Justin, v. 2, xxvii. 8; Ovid. Meéa. iv. 564;
comp. Caesar, de bello Gallico, vi. 21: feminae
notiliam habuisse). See Wetstein and Kypke.

2 As a logical consequence of this suppo-
sition, Joseph was made to be a worn-out
old man (Thilo, ad cod. Apocr. I. p. 861;
Keim, Gesch. Jes. I. p. 365), and his children
were regarded either as children of a for-
mer marriage (Origen, Epiphanius, and
many other Fathers), or the brothers of
Jesus were transformed into cousins (Je-
rome). Of any advanced age in the case of
Joseph there is no trace in the N. T. In
John vi. 42, the Jews express themselves in
such a way that Joseph might be conceived
as still alive at the time.

* Lucian’s remark (Demonaz, 29), speaking
of Agathocles, is correct : ci nev spwros, ov

wdvos: et 6é pdvos, OV rparos.

* Such as that of Euth. Zigabenus: res a»
éwexeipnoey, Kai GAws evebunyOn yrwvar Tey
ovAAaBoveay ex wvevparos ayiov Kai ToLovTOP
Soxeiov yeyeynudvyy; “Show could he at-
tempt, or even for a moment think, to
know (carnally) her who was pregnant by
the Holy Ghost and become a receiver of
such precious treasure ?”’

5 Schriflbeweis, II. 2, p. 405; so also
Thiersch, Wieseler, Bleek, Ewald, Laurent,
neut. Stud. p. 158 ff., Schenkel, Keim, Kahnis,
I. p. 426 f. Comp. on the passage before us,
Diogenes Laertius, fil. 22, where {it is said of
Plato's father: S0cv caOapav yduov dvAdgar
€ws THS aToxvygews ; Seu also Wetstein ; Pau-
lus, eveget. Handd. I. p. 168 f, ; Strauss, I. p.
209 ff.

NOTE. 55

Note By AMERICAN Eprros.

I.

Dr. Meyer’s view of Matthew's genealogical table is noticed in the Preface,
page xv., e seg., which see.

56 - THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER II.

Ver. 8. axpiB, tEerdcare] According to BC* D &, 1, 21, 33, 82, 124, 209, Copt.
Sahid. It. Vulg. Syr. p. Eus. Aug., we must read éferdoare dxpifac, with Lachm.
and Tisch. — Ver. 9. é0r7] BC D ¥&, 33, 209, Or. Eus. read eord67. So Lachm.
and Tisch., of the nature of a gloss ; for the more precise definition of the con-
ception in the passive, as in xxvii. 11, in almost the same manuscripts. — Ver.
11, eldov] Elz. : etpov, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 13. gairerus car’ dvap]
CKTIi, Curss. Theophyl.: xar’ dvap gaivera:, B: kat’ dvap egary. So Lachm.
Latter reading is derived from i. 20, which passage also led to the xar’ drup
being placed first. The Received reading is therefore here to be retained, and
ver. 19, after B D Z 8, Curss. Verss., to be changed into gaiverac nat’ Svap
(with Lachm. and Tisch.). — Ver. 17. i176] BC D Z &, Curses. Verss. Chrys. Jer.
read dia. Corresponds to the standing style of quotation in Matth., therefore
rightly approved (comp. on iii. 3) by Griesbach and Schultz, after Gersdorf ;
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. — Ver. 18. Opjvo¢ x. xAav@udc] BZ ®&, 1, 22, Verss.
and Latin Fathers have merely xAavOué¢. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Re-
ceived reading is an extension from that of the LXX. — Ver. 21. 746ev] BC &:
eo7nAGev. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8, correctly: the compound was easily
neglected, — Ver. 22. évi] is wanting in B &, Curss. Eus. Deleted by Lachm.
and Tisch. 8. But it was all the more easily omifted as unnecessary, because
the syllable EI preceded it.

The genuineness of the whole of the first and second chapters has been controverted,
or at least suspected, by Williams,’ by Stroth,? Ammon,‘ J. J ones. In answer
to Williams, Flemming wrote a work,' and Velthusen ;* in answer to Stroth,
Henke,” to Hess, Rau. Amongst the defenders are Griesbach,® Schubert,'°
Kuinoel,"! Fritzsche,'* Muller.!3 Amongst the writers of Introduction, Eichhorn
and Bertholdt have gone over to the side of the opponents. — Both chapters are
genuine — that is, they were integral portions of the Hebrew Gospel writing, of
which our Matthew is the translation, and consequently belonged to the latter
from the very beginning. For (1) all the Codices and Versions contain them, the

1A Free Inquiry into the Authentictiy of
the First and Second Chapters of St. HMat-
thew's Gospel, Lond. 1771, enlarged, 1790.

* Eichhorn'’s Repert. IX. p. 99 ff.; Hess,
Bibdlioth. d. heil. Geach. I. p. 208 ff.

3 Diss. de Luca emendatore Matthaei, Er.
1806.

4 Sequel to Ecclesiastical Researches, etc.,
Lond. 1818,

® Free Thoughis upon @ Free Inquiry, eto.,
Lond. 1771.

© The Authentictly of the First and Secor.d
Chapters, etc., Lond. 1771.

Tde ev. Matth. integritate, eto., Helmst.
1782,
8 Symbola ad quaestionem de autheniia, etc.,
1793.

® Enimetron ad Comment. crit. in Matth.
II. p. 47 ff.

10 de infantiae J.C. historiae authentia atque
indole, Gripeswald 1815.

11 Profag. § 6.

13 Commentar. Eexcurs. III.

13 ib, d. Aechth. der ersten Kapttel des
Evang. nach Matth., Trier 1880.

CHAP. II., 1. 57

Fathers of the second and third centuries! also quote passages froin them, and
Celsus has made reference to them ;* (2) their contents are highly appropriate
to the beginning of a gospel writing composed for Jewish Christians ; (3) the
beginning of ch. iii. is connected with ii. 23, where the residence of Jesus at
Nazareth is mentioned ; iv. 13 also manifestly refers to ii. 23. The construc-
tion and style of expression are in keeping with the character of the whole
Gospel.* — The main argument of those who oppose the genuineness is, that
our chapters were wanting in the Gospel of the Ebionites (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13).
But on a correct estimate of the Gospel secundum Hebraeos in its relation to
the Gospel of Matthew, that counter argument can be of no weight (see Intro-
duction, § 2); and, in accordance with Ebionitic views, it is very conceivable
that they did not admit the miraculous preliminary history, and made their
Gospel (according to Epiphanius), in keeping with the original gospel type,
begin at once with the appearance of the Baptist.‘ As, moreover, the gene-
alogy contained in ch. i. implies the use of a piece of writing already in exist-
ence, so also the legendary character of both chapters in general,—and the
certainly peculiar manner in which the third chapter is connected with them,
which, amid all its literal connection with what has preceded it, passes over
the whole history of the youth of Jesus,—appear to point to this, that the por-
tions composing both chapters were originally special gospel documents. Ch. i. 1-16
appears to have been one such document by itself, then vv. 18-25 a second, and
ch. ii. a third, in which are now found for the first time the locality and time
of the birth of Jesus. The unity of the Greek style of expression with that in
the other parts of the Gospel is not opposed to this,5 but is to be explained
from the unity of the translator. How much, however, considering the free
style of quoting Old Testament passages, is to be set down to the account of
the first author of these documents, or to that of the Hebrew editor of the
Gospel, or to the translator, cannot be determined.

Ver. 1.° Tevvnbtvrog] The star is to be considered as appearing contempo-
raneously with the birth (ver. 7). But how long it was after the birth when the
Magi came, is ascertained approximately from ver. 16, according to which,
even taking into account all the cruelty of Herod, and his intention to go to
work with thorough certainty, the arrival of the Magi is most probably to be

placed somewhat more than a year after the birth.

1 Irenaeus, fii. 9. 2f., Clement of Alexan-
dria, and others.

§ Orig. c. Cels. 1. 28, il. 82.

3gee Griesbach, Zpimetr. p. 57; Gers-
dorf, Beitr. p. 38 ff.; Credner, I. p. 62 ff.;
Fritzsche, /.c. p. 850 ff.

¢ It is also related of Tatian (Theodoret,
‘Haeret. fab. 1. 20) : rds re yeveadAoyias repexdépas
aai Ta GAAa, boa. éx owdpparos AaBié xara capxa
yeyevrnudrvoy tov xiptoy Seixvucow, “He mu-
tilated the genealogies and the rest which
show that the Lord was begotten of the
seed of David accordingto the flesh.” But
Tatian was a disciple of Docetism, and his
treatment was determined by dogmatic
considerations.

[See note IL, p. 71.]

6 Ewald, Bleek, Holtzmann.

* See on the history of the Magi, Thilo,
Eusebti Emeseni oratio repi agrpovéper prae
missa de magts et stella quaestione, Hal. 1883 ;
Minter, Stern der Weisen, 1827; Roth (Cath-
olic), de stella a magts conszpecta, 1865. In ref-
erence to chronology based upon astronom-
ical observation, Ideler, Handbd. d. Chro-
nol. TI. p. 889 ff.; Anger in the Zeilschr. f.
histor. Theol. 1847, p. 847 ff.; Wieseler,
chronol. Synopse u. Beitrdge z. Wirdigung
d. Evang., 1869, p. 149 ff.; also in Herzog’s
Encykl. XXI1. p. 548 f.; Seyffarth, Chronol.
sacr. 1846; Welgl, 2d. d. wahre Ceburle u.
Sterddjahr. J. Chr. J., Suizbach 1849; Keim,
Gesch. J. 1. p. 87% ff.

58 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

—4é is continuative, leading on to another history connected with the birth
of Jesus which has just been related.— ByfAeéu (house of bread) ri¢ "Iovdalas
to distinguish it from Bethlehem in the tribe of Zabulon, Josh. xix. 15.
Our village,’ designated in John vii. 42 as x4éuy, was situated in the tribe of
Judah (Judg. xvii. 9, xix. 1; 1 Sam. xvii. 12), six miles to the south of Je-
rusalem, now the little manufacturing town Beit lachm.*—év jytpasc) “D'S,
Gen. xxvi. 1; 2 Sam. xxi. 1; 1 Kings x. 21.— ‘Hpddov] Herod the Great, .
son of Antipater, received in the year 714 v. c. from the Senate the dignity
of king through the influence of Antony, by whom he had been not long
before made tetrarch, but first came into the actual possession of his king-
dom after the capture of Jerusalem by himself and Sosius in the year 717,
and died, after a brilliant and flagitious reign, in 750.*— payo:] The Magi
(0°2') constituted, amongst the Persians and the Medes, of whom they
formed, according to Herod. i. 101, one of the six tribes, a distinguished
priestly caste, and occupied themselves principally with the knowledge of
the secrets of nature, astrology, and medicine.* Amongst the Babylonians
also (Jer. xxxix. 3) there was, at the time when the Chaldean dynasty was
in power, such an order, of which Daniel became the president (Dan. ii.
48). The name of Magi was then generally transferred, without distinction
of country, to all those who had devoted themselves to those sciences,
which, however, were frequently also accompanied with the practices of
magic and jugglery (Acts viii. 9, xiii. 6, 8).*— ard avar.] belongs to payor,
Magi from the East—that is, Oriental Magi. The position of the words
most naturally suggests this connection ; but the article (oi a6 avaz.) 1s not
required, because payo: is without the article (in answer to Fritzsche, who
connects it with mapeyévovro). The indefinite expression, eastern lands (viii.
11, xxiv. 27; Luke xiii. 29 ; Rev. xxi. 13), is to be left in its indefinite-
ness, and in so doing we are to assume that the evangelist himself had no
more precise information at his command. If Arabia has been thought of *
or Persia’ or Parthia® or Babylonia’ or even Egypt,’ yet we have no sure
hold, even in aslight degree, either in the very indefinite avaroAav, or in the
nature of the presentsin ver. 11. It was entirely baseless to determine their
number from the threefold gifts, and to regard them as kings on account of

1 Bethlehem Ephrata, Gen. xxxv. 16, 19.

2 See Robinson, Pal. II, p. 879 ff.; Tobler,
Bethi. in Paldst. 1849, and the relative arti-
cles in Herzog and Schenkel.

% See concerning the whole family of
Herod, Schlosser, Gesch. d. Fam. Herodes,
Lpz. 1818; Ewald, Gesch. d. Volks Ier. IV.,
and Gesch. Chr. p. 95 ff. ed. 8; Gerlach in
the Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 18 ff.; Haus-
rath, neut. Zeitgesch. I. and IT.

* Herod. {. 82; Xen. Cyr. viil. 8.6; Diog.
Laert. 1. 1-9; Aelian. V. H. il. 17; Porphyry,
de abst. an. iv. 16; Cic. de div. 1. 41; Plin.
N. H. xxiv. 29, xxx. 2; Curt. ffi. 8. 8.

5 See Wetstein, and Miller in Herzog's
Encyki. Vill. p. 675 ff.

* Justin. c. 7y. 77 f.; Epiphanius, Tertul-
Han, Maldonatus, Jansen, Cornelius a
Lapide, Grotius, Lightfoot, Michaelis, Kui-
noel, de Wette, Wieseler.

7 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Ziga-
benus, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Petavius,
Casaubon, Wolf, Olshausen.

® Hydius.

® Paulus.

10 MGller, neue Ansichten in loc.

11 According to Bede, their names also
have been commonly given as Caspar, Mel-
chior, and Balthasar (see Petr. Comeator.
Tist. Schol. 8), but also differently. See
Beza in loc., and Paulus, exeget. Handbd. I. p.
204.

CHAP. II., 2. 59

Ps. Ixviii. 80, 82, Ixxii. 10 ; Isa. xlix. 7, 1x. 8, 10 (especially since the fifth
century ; yet Tertullian, c. Marcion, already takes this view). Are we to
think of heathens (so most expositors, including Olshausen, Krabbe, B.-Cru-
sius, Lange, de Wette, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Keim), or of Jews?! In
favor of the first, the question, Where is the new-born King of the Jews? is
decisive. And how appropriate was it to the idea of Messiah, that the very
first-fruits of the distant heathen appeared to do homage to the King of the
Jews (Isa. lx. 3 ff.) ! The expectation of the Jews, that their Messiah was
to rule over the world, might at that period have been sufficiently dissemi-
nated throughout the foreign countries of the East’ to lead heathen astrol-
ogers, for’the object in question, to the Jewish capital.*— ‘IepoodéAvua] In the
capital they expected to find, if not the Babe Himself, at least the most
certain information regarding Him.

Ver. 2. Tép}] Reason of the question.* — atrod rav dorfpa] that is, the star
which indicertes Him. We are to think of a strange star, which had not pre-
viously been seen by them, from the rising of which they had inferred the
birth of the new King of the Jews, in accordance with their astrological
rules. Here we must observe the emphasis on the airov, which is placed
first, the star which refers to Him, and to no other. From the word aorfp
(not dorpov) it is indisputably certain, ver. 8, that it is not a constellation
which is meant. This is in answer to Kepler,® Miinter, Ideler, Paulus,
Neander, Olshausen (with hesitation), Krabbe, Wiescler, Ebrard, who think
of a very close conjunction, which occurred in the year 747 u.c., of Jupiter
and Saturn in the sign of the fishes ; where Ebrard, however, keeping more
closely to the word aorfp, is of opinion that it is not that constellation
itself, but the new star of the first magnitude, which Kepler saw appear in
the year 1604 at the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, and again disappear
in 1605 ; whilst Wieseler summons to his aid a comet which was observed in
China in 750. The Jew Abarbanel in his Commentary on Daniel (1547) in-
ferred, from a similar conjunction in the year 1463, that the birth of the
Messiah was at hand, and indicates the sign of the fishes as that which is of
importance for the Jews. If ver. 9, however, points only to a miraculous
star, to one that went and stood in a miraculous manner, then it is evident
that neither a comet (Origen, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller), nor a jized star, nor a
planet, nor even a meteor, is what is meant, which dorfp by itself might sig-

nify.* The Fathers of the church (in Suicer, sub aor#p) thought even of an
angel. The glory of the star is wonderfully portrayed in Ignatius, Eph. 19

(sun, moon, and stars, illuminated by it, surround it as a choir).". The uni-
versal belief of antiquity was, that the appearance of stars denoted great

1 y.d. Hardt, Harenberg in the Bill. Brem.
Vil. p. 470 ff.; Minter, Paulus, Hofmann,
L. J. ton Strauss genriift, p. 249 ; Rettig in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 217.

* Sueton. Vesp. iv.; Tac. H. v. 18; Joseph.
B. J. vi. 5. 4.

%Comp. Dio Cass. Hist. R. xlv. 1; Suet.
Oct. xciv.

4"*De re deque tempore ita certi sunt, ut

tantum quaerant wdi,”’ ‘Concerning the
Jact and the dime they are so certain that
they only ask the where,’ Bengel.

8 de J. Chr. servator. nostri vero anno nata-
bitto, 1605.

® Schaefer, ad Apoll. Rh. II. p. 206.

7 Protev. Jac. xxi. See Thilo, ad Cod.
apocr. I. p. 800 f.

60 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

changes, and especially the birth of men of importance. Wetstein in loc.
The Jews in particular believed, in accordance with the Messianic passage,
Num. xxiv. 17,’ in a star of the Messiah.* — év rq avaroAg] Several commenta-
tors (Hammond, Paulus, Fritzsche, Ebrard, Wieseler, Ewald) translate : in
the rising.* In this way the avaroA4 corresponds to the reyGeic. And as the
ordinary explanation, ‘‘in the Hast” (Luther), in accordance with ver. 1,
and especially with the current usage of the word, which in the singular
only rarely denotes the East,‘ would lead us to expect the plural,* the first
rendering is to be preferred. Comp. regarding the use of the word to de-
note the rising of stars, Valckenaer.*— rpooxvveiv] TINAYH, to show reo-
erence and submission to any one by bowing down with the face toward the ground."
To connect it with the dative (instead of the accus.) is a usage of the later
Greek.®

Ver. 8. Herod was afraid, because he dreaded the overthrow of his throne ;
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, however, not so much on account of the times
of misfortune which were expected to precede the Messiah,’ but in keeping
with their special circumstances, because they dreaded the adoption by the
tyrant, in the maintenance of his rule, of measures hostile to the people. —
‘IepoodAvza] Feminine form, occurring only here and in iii. 5, and without
any various reading in the Codd. It is found also in Latin." To take the
name as neuter, and to supply wédc," is not grammatically possible. The
feminine form must have been in actual use, although the neuter, as in ver.
1, and 'IepovoaAgu, were and remained the prevailing forms.

Ver. 4, Ildvrac . . . Aaov] is regarded, after Grotius, by Fritzsche, Arnol-
di, Lange, not as an assembly of the Sanhedrin (so commonly), but an extraor-
dinary convocation of all the high priests and learned men. This expla-
nation, in which, moreover, zdvra¢ is not to be taken literally, is the correct
one. Indeed, of apyepeic xai ypaypareic, even without adding the third ele-
ment of the Sanhedrin, the rpecBirepor, may denote the Sanhedrin (xx. 18,
xxi. 15 ; while, on the other hand, elsewhere, asin xxvi. 47, xxvii. 1, the
ypaupareic are not mentioned along with them). But here révrag is decisive,
which would designedly draw attention to a full sitting of the high coun-
cil, and therefore would have made it necessary not to omit an entire class
of the members, but to mention in full all the three classes, asin xvi. 21, xxvii.
41 ; row Aaod also stands opposed to the common interpretation, as the latter,
in designating the Sanhedrin in Matthew, serves only to denote the rpecBirepor
more precisely (xxi. 23, xxvi. 8, 47, xxvii. 1). Herod summoned together

© Ad Eur. Phoen. 506.

7 Gen. xix. 1, xvill. 2, xlil. 6, xlviil. 12;
Herod. 1. 184; Nep. Con. ili.; Curtius, v. 2,
vi. 6. See Hoelemann, Bidelstud. I. p. 96 ff.

1See Baur, alitest. Weissag. I., 1861, p. 846

4 Bertholdt, Christolog. Jud. p. BS ff.
3 Comp. Luke 1. 78; Wisd. xvi. 28; 2 Macc.

x. 28; 8 Esdr. v. 47; Plat. Polit. p. 260A;
Locr. p. 96 D: Stob. Ea. Phys. i. 20; Poly
bius, xi. 22. 6,

4 As in Herodian, fil. 5. 1, fi. 8. 18.

5 Gen. ii. 8: Judg. viil. 11; Ezek. xf. 1,
xivii. 8; Bar. iv. 86 f.; 8 Macc. iv. 15 ; Herod,
iv. 8; Polyb. xi. 6. 4, fl. 14. 4

® Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 463.

9 Lightfoot on Mark xill. 19; Bertholdt,
Christol. p. 45 f.

10 Tac. Hist. v. 2; Sueton. Aug. xcili.

11 Wetstein, Grimm, Buttmann, neul. Gr.
p. 16 [E. T. 18].

CHAP. II., 6. 61

all the theologians of the nation, because he wanted a theological answer ; row
Auov belongs to both words ; observe the non-repetition of the article after
xai, —apytepeic] certainly comprises partly the actual ruling high priest
(6 apxeepete, A 113, Lev. xv. 10), partly those who had formerly held
this high official post, which very often changed hands under the Herods.?
That the presidents of the twenty-four classes of priests are also to be under-
stood (Bleek, Ewald), is nowhere certainly attested, and has against it the
designation of the office itself, apyepeic. Both reasons, moreover, are in
opposition to our including, with Wiescler, the priestly nobles, or, with
Schirer, the members of the at that time privileged high-priestly families, *
which is not justified by Acts iv. 6, and cannot be proved by a few individual
names mentioned in Josephus, whose relation to the high-priesthood is other-
wise unknown.*® The last high priests who ruled before the death of Herod
were Matthias (5 B.c.), and Juzarus, who soon after followed him.‘ — ypan-
pateic] corresponds to the Hebr. 0°19‘ — that is, first writers, then learned
men.© This was the name specially of the expositors of the divine law, who,
as Jewish canonists and learned councillors, belonged chiefly to the sect of
the Pharisees, and in part to the Sanhedrin, and were held in great respect.
See Lightfoot on the passage, and on xxiii. 18.° —yevvara:] not in the sense
of the future, but purely present : whereis the Messiah born? The theologians
were to tell what they knew concerning the birthplace of the Messiah. By
this question Herod leaves it quite undetermined whether the birth had al-
ready taken place, or was still to come.

Ver. 6. In Mic. v. 1 the sense is; Although Bethlehem is too unimportant
to be reckoned among the cities of the district, yet a ruler in Israel will come
forth from it. In Matthew this thought is, with a slight deviation,
changed into : Bethlehem is undoubtedly an important place, because, etc. It
is therefore unnecessary, with Grotius, to take the passage in Micah as
interrogative : ‘‘ Art thou, then, Bethlehem, too small,” etc., and to derive
the turn of the thought with obdayé¢ from this interrogative interpretation
(Hilgenfeld). But the Ruler to whom Micah alludes is none other than the
Messianic King of David’s race (see Ewald, Proph.), so that in the birth of
Jesus this prophecy receives its complete historical fulfilment. Comp. John
vii. 42.—év roicg wyeudorr] "DONS, LXX. év yAdow. The Hebrew onl
denotes the subdivision of the tribes (the thowsands),’ which had their princi-
pal places and their heads (AR), * The translation by #yezéow (Chrysos-
tom : gvAdpyorc) clearly shows that either the evangelist himself had read
the word in question not "DONS, but “DONS, or that his translator had com-
mitted this mistake. In the Septuagint also atone is rendered by #yeuép,
Gen. xxxvi. 15 f. ; Ex. xv. 15 ; 1 Chron. i. 51 f. ; Ps. lv. 14. According
to the words as they stand in Matthew, Bethlehem, the town, appears per-

1 See Schirer, Stud. u. Xrit. 1872, p. 598 These. II. p. 966.

ff. *Leyrer in Herzog's EncyXi. XIII p.
4 Joseph. Bell. tv. 3. 6. 731 ff.
3 Schflrer, p. 6388 f. 7 See Ewald, Alterth. p. 828 f.; Keil, Arch.
* Joseph. Anét. xvii. 4. 2, xvii. 6. 4. II. p. 228.

® Ezra vii. 6, 11; Neh. vilf. 1; Gesenius, 8 See Gesenlus, 7hes. I. p. 106.

62 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

sonified in the midst of the heads of families (Ewald, ‘‘ amongst the princes
of Judah”), amongst whom it had by no means the lowest position.
Fritzsche conjectures raic¢ jyesdorv, in primariis familiarum in Judaea sedibus,
But even thus the sense of 28 is not yet obtained. How easily, on the
contrary, might the evangelist or his translator derive ‘DOR from ANT, as
the #yobuevoc which follows must have been before him ! — y#] not city, but
strip of land, province, which includes the same, 1 Macc. v. 68. Often like-
wise in the tragic writers.’ — éeAretcera:] will come forth, namely, by birth.
Thus ®¥° Gen. xvii. 6.7 — roizavei] Comp. the Homeric mouévec Acav. In
like manner 1) is used of rulers, 2 Sam. v. 2, vil. 7; Jer. xxiii. 2 ff. ;
Mic. v. 8.

Ver. 7 f. Aé@pa] Inconsistently enough, as that could only arouse sus-
picion ; but to adopt secret measures is natural to wickedness | — The ques-
tion after the time of the appearance [of the star] has its reason in this,
that the mistrustful Herod already thinks of the possibility of his not see-
ing the Magi again, and that he will then still have a hold for taking fur-
ther proceedings against the mysterious child (ver. 16). — qxpifwce] with
the accusative does not mean : he investigated minutely (axpiBdw rept rivog
may mean this), but : after he had made them come to him secretly, he obd-
tained from them a minute knowledge, and so on. Vulgate appropriately
says: ‘‘ Diligenter didicit.”* But the passages where it means to make
evact ‘ do not apply here.* — rob gacvouévov aorépoc] Grotius : ‘‘ Non initium,
sed continuitas.” Herod asked : How long does the star appear? how long
does it make itself visible? namely, since its rising in the east, where ye saw
it arise (ver. 9). Thus the present is not to be taken either in the sense of
the aorist or of the imperfect (de Wette, Bleek). — réuyac] not’ contempora-
neous with the eire (de Wette), but prior to it ; comp. xi. 2. After he had
directed them to Bethlehem (in consequence of ver. 5 f.), he added the
commission, etc. Otherwise it would have been freyypev . . . cimdv.

Ver. 9. ’Axoboavrec rov Bacid.] After they had heard the king, they set off on
their journey. Description of their unsuspicious behaviour. Comp. Theo-
phylact. — xai idob, 6 dorgp, x.t.4.] They travelled by night, in accordance
with Eastern custom. * — &v eldov] The aorist in the relative sentence, where
we use the pluperfect." — xpojyev] is the descriptive imperfect, not pracceaserat
(Hermann, Stiskind, Paulus, Kuinoel), as if the star had again first shone
upon them after they had come to Bethlehem. This explanation is ungram-
matical,°® and serves only to help to diminish the miraculous element, which
is quite opposed to the character of the narrative. The common view alone

1 See Fritzsche in loc. Comp. Seldler, ad
Eurip. Troad. iv. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p.
361.

2 Comp. Heb. vil. 5; 1 Macc. i. 10.

? Comp. Plat. Charm. p. 156 A; Xen. Mem.
iv. 2. 10; Eur, Hec. 1192; Lucian, Jov. trag.
27, Piseat. xx. ; Herodian, {. 11. 14.

* Aquila, Isa, xlfx. 16 ; Simonides, Ixxxiv. ;
Xen. Cyr. ii. 1. 26.

® Euth. Zigabenus rightly says: wpocedd-
wnge yap, Src Ste otros (the star) édavy, rore

wavrus éyevyiOy cat 6 Xpiords, “ He waited,
because when this (the star) was visible,
then surely was the Christ born.”’

* See Hasselquist, Reise nach Paldst. p. 152.
Bengel appropriately remarks on iéov:
“Toto itinere non viderant stellam.”’ “‘ On
the entire journey they had not seen the
star.’’

T See Kihner, I. 1, p. 145; Winer, p. [53
[E. T. 348].

® Buttmann, neu. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. 200).

CHAP. II., 10-12. 63

is in keeping with the words : the star, which they had seen in its rising,
went before them on their journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and took up a
position over the place (the house) where the child was. Amongst the Greeks
also stars are mentioned as extraordinary guides.’— érdvw ov yw] See ver. 11,
tv oixiav. The going and standing of the staris miraculous ; hence also
the manner in which the particular house is indicated is left undetermined.

Ver. 10. 'Exdpyoav].*—ogddpa] Adverbs at the end.?—évydp. yap.]*
Therefore here yapav peyaAyv odddpa.®

Ver. 11. Eic ry oixiav] As the Magi did not arrive till some time after
the birth (ver. 1), it does not follow indeed from ei¢ r. oix. in and by ateel f
that the evangelist makes Jesus be born not in the stable of a friend (Luke),
or in a cave (Justin and Apocrypha), but in Joseph's house. Certainly, how-
ever, the latter follows from this, that, according to Matthew, Bethlehem
is the dwelling-place of Joseph ; see Remark after ver. 28. — rd ra:dlov pera
Mapiac] The non-mention of Joseph is not to be ascribed to any design. —
trove Onoavpotc] the chests which held their treasures.° To find symbolical ref-
erences in the individual presents is arbitrary. Tertullian and Chrysostom :
Incense and myrrh they presented to Him as to a God ; Irenaeus, Origen
(in answer to Celsus, who ridiculed the divine worship of a v#m0c), Theo-
phylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther: as a king, they presented
Him with gold ; as a God, with incense and with myrrh, o¢ péAAovre yetoao-
faz Aavdrov.’ —It was and still is the Eastern custom not to approach princes
without presents, Gen. xliii. 11.° That the gifts of the Magi are said to
have enabled the poor parents to make out their journey to Egypt (Wet-
stein, Olshausen, and others), is a strange conceit.

Ver. 12. ypyuariofévres] Vulgate correctly renders : responso accepto: pas-
sages in Wetstein, Kypke, Krebs, and Loesner. The question that pre-
ceded is presupposed, Luke ii. 26 ; Heb. xi. 7.° The passive is found in
this meaning only in the New Testament and in Josephus.” — avaxduypac

. . avexydpyoav] The latter is not : they turned back (vv. 13, 14, 22, iv. 12),
but they withdrew, went away, made off ; avaxduyac is ‘‘ cursum refiectere.”

certainly designated,” Lobeck, Paralip. p.

1 Elsner, p. 5f.; Wetatein on the passage.

2Eath. Zigabenus correctly says: as ev-
porres roy avevidararoy ddnycv: exAnpodopyé-
Heavy yap Aotwov, Sri kai 7d CyroUpevoy evpjaovcs,
“As having found the unerring guide ; for
they were fully assured already that they
will find that which was sought."’

* Comp. iv. 8; Schaefer, ad Demosth. V.
p. 867: Bornemann, ad Xen. Anabd. il. 6. 9;
Afem. ili. 5. 17.

***Etenim ubi nomen per se ipsum verbi
significationem neque circumscribit neque
intendit, adminiculo opus est vel adjectivi
vel pronominis vel articull, quo rerum ge-
hus certum designatur,” ‘Where a noun
by itself neither limits nor marks out the
meaning of the verb, there is need of the
assistance of an adjective, or pronoun, or
article, by which the character of things is

307.
8 Comp. Mark v. 42 5; Wilke, neutestam.
Rhetor. p. 880. The opposite, peydAnv Avwny
AvrecoOas John iv. 11; doBeroGar PdBov péyay,
Mark iv. 41.

Xen. Anab. v. 4. 27; 1 Macc. ili. 20; 4
Mace. iv. 4. See Wetstein and Valckenaer,
ad Herod. iv. 162.

7 Comp. the Christian Adameduch in Ewald,
Jahrd. VY. p. 81, which makes the three gifts
and their meaning to be derived from
Adam.

® 1 Sam. x. 27; 1 Kings x. 2; Aelian, V. Z.
i. 81; Harmar, Beobacht. vib. d. Ortent, I. p.
1f.

®* Comp. on Acts x. 22. Bengel well says:
“Sic optarant vel rogarant.”’

10 Anté, ill. 8. 8, xl. 8 4.

64 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

They were not to turn back to Herod, from whom they had come hither,
and that with the instruction, ver. 8, but were to select another way to
their home,’— The divine direction had for its object, that Herod should
not at once take measures against the true Child eho was pointed at.

Remarx.—The narrative regarding the Magi, as it bears in Matthew the
stamp of real history, has its profound truth in the ideal sphere, in which the
Messianic idea, which was afterwards set forth, realized in all its glory in the
historical life of Jesus, surrounded the little known childhood of this life with
the thoughtful legends—its own creation—preserved in Matthew and Luke.
The ideal truth of these legends lies in their corresponding relation to the mar-
vellous greatness of the later life of the Lord and His world-embracing work;
they are thereby very definitely distinguished from the legendary poetry, which
assumed various shapes in the Apocryphal narratives of the infancy. Whether,
moreover, any real fact may have lain at the basis of the narrative of the
Magi,? and what the nature of this is, cannot be more minutely ascertained.
Certainly Eastern astrologers may, according tu the divine appointment, have
read in the stars the birth of the Jewish Messiah, who was to be the light of
the heathen, and with this knowledge have come to Jerusalem ; but how easily
did the further miraculous formatiun of the history lay hold of the popular
belief in the appearance of a miraculons star at the birth of the Messiah,*’—a
belief which probably had its basis in Num. xxiv. 17 compared with Isa. lx. 1 ff.,4
as well as in the Messianic expectation that foreign nations would bring gifts
to the Messiah (Ps, Ixxii.; Isa. Ix.), as on other occasions, also, rich temple
gifts had arrived from the East (Zech. vi. 9 ff.). It was easy to connect with
this, by way of antithesis to this divine glorifying of the child, the crafty and
murderous interference of Herod as the type of decided hostility, with which
the ruling puwer of the world, necessarily and conformably to experience, entered
with cunning and violence the lists against the manifested Messiah (Luke i.

1 Luke x. 6; Acts xviii. 21; Heb. xi. 15;
Herod. if. 8; Plat. Phaed. p. 72 B; Diod.
Sic, ill. 54.

2 Schlelermacher, Schr. d. Lukas, p. 47,
L. J. p. 75, assigned a symbolical character
to the narrative. According to Bleek, the
symbolical point of view (‘‘the first destl-
nies of the Christian church being, as it
were, reflected"’) predominated at least in
the mind of the first author; but the pref-
erence In point of historical truth is due to
Luke. According to de Wette, the narra-
tives contained in ch. fi. are to be regarded
more with a dogmatico-religious than with
a strictly historical eye; the dangers sur-
rounding the child Jesus are a type of the
persecutions awaiting the Messiah and His
church, and an Imitation of the dangers
which threatened the life of the child
Moses, and so on. According to Welsse,
what is set forth is the recognition which
Christianity met with amongst the heathen,
the hatred it experienced amongst the Jevza,
and then how it took refuge amongst the

Hellenists in Egypt. According to Ewald, the
inner truth of the narrative is fhe heavenly
Light, and the division amongst men, on the
other hand, into the faith of the heathen
and the hatred of the Jews. According to
Hilgenfeld, it is the expression of the world-
historical importance of Jesus, and of the
recognition which, amid the hostility of the
Jews, He was to find precisely amongst the
heathen. According to Késtlin, the narra-
tive has an apologetic object, to declare
Jesus in a miraculous manner to be BacAcis
tev lovéaier, at the basis of which, perhaps,
was the constellation of the year 747. Ac-
cording to Keim, it is an ideal history, the
true form of which stands before the eyes
of the Christians of all ages. and which pro-
ceeded from the fundamental thought of
the conflict of the Messiah with the pseudo-
Messias (Herod).

§ See Fabricius, cod pseudepigr. I. p. 384 f. :
Schoettgen, IL p. 881; Bertholdt, Christci.
§ 14.

4 Schoettgen, I. p. 151 f.

CHAP. IL, 13-15. 65

51 f.), but in vain. If we were to regard the whole narrative, with its details,
as actual fact (see amongst the moderns, especially Ebrard and Gerlach), the
matter would be very easily decided ; the difficulties also which have been
raised against so extraordinary an astral phenomenon, both in itself and from
the science of optics, would be authoritatively removed by means of its mirac-
wous nature,' but there would still remain unexplained the impolilic cunning .
and falsehood of the otherwise so sly and crafty Herod, who allows the Magi
to depart without even a guide to make sure of his designs, and without ar-
rangements of any other kind, his expenditure of vigilance and bloodshed,
which was as unnecessary as it was without result, and the altogether irrecon-
cilable contradiction between our account and the history narrated by Luke,?
according to which the child Jesus received homage of an altogether different
kind, and is not threatened by any sort of persecution, but at the date when
the Magi must have arrived, had been for a long time out of Bethlehem (Luke
ii. 39). Considering the legendary character of the star phenomenon, it is not
adapted to serve asa chronological determination of the birth of Christ, for
which purpose it has been used, especially by Weiseler and Anger, who calcu-
late, according to it, the beginning of the year 750 as the date of that birth.®

Ver. 18. *Avayup. d2 aitrév] The divine direction and flight into Egypt
must be conceived as taking place immediately after the departure of the
Magi. — Ver. 16. gaivera:] historic present. — The continuation of the narra-
tive in connection with the legend of the murder of the children by Herod
makes Jesus take refuge in Egypt, not because it was near at hand, not sub-
ject to Herod, and inhabited by many Jews, but because a residence in
Egypt, and that as an antitype to that of the Israelites in that country, was
in accordance with the passage in Hos. xi. 1 (ver. 15). A later age named
Matarea, near Leontopolis, as the locality. — éu¢ av eirw col] until Ishall have
told thee (av, of a case occurring), that is, that thou shouldst come back
again. Ellipsis of the common “‘#” is, since the time of Homer,® in uni-
versal use. — roi dzoAéca:] Expression of the intention.°

Ver. 15. Tév vidy pov] refers in Hos. xi. 1 (quoted according to the original
text) to the people of Israel (Ex. iv. 22 ; Jer. xxxi. 9). The Septuagint
has +4 réxva airow (Israelis), Upon the iva rAnpufp, see oni. 22. Here it
refers to the arrival of Jesus in Egypt and His residence there, which could not
but take place as an antitype to the historical meaning of Hos. xi. 1, in
order that that declaration of the prophet might receive its Messianic fulfil-
ment.

1 Eusebius, Demonst. ev. 9; John of Da-
mascus, de Ade Orthod. il. 7.

?The assumption (Paulus, Olshausen,
Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Ebrard) that the
presentation in the temple took place before
the arrival of the Magi, breaks down at
once before Luke il. 89. See, besides,
Strauss, I. p. 264 ff. The accounts in Mat-
thew and Luke are irreconcilable (Schleier-
macher, ZL. J. pp. 65 ff., 75). This is also
recognized by Bleek, who gives the prefer-

ence to Luke.

3Ideler, Minter, Schubert, Huschke,
Ebrard, 747; Kepler, 748; Lichenstein and
Weigl, 749: Wurm, 751; Seyffarth, 752.

4 See Paulus, Merkw. Reisen in d. Orient, ITI.
p. 286 ; Schubert, Helse in d. Morgent. II..p.
170.

® Nagelsabach on the Jliad, pp. 60, 120,
ed. 8.

® See Kfihner, IT. p. 204; Buttm. neud. Gr.
p. 282 [E. T. 270).

66 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 16. 'Evexaiz6y] mocked, made a fool of.' The words are from Herod's
point of view. —a7d dcerovc] Whether this is to be taken as masculine, a
bienni, from two years onwards,* or as neuter, a bimatu, from the age of two
years,* is not determined by the similar passages, Num. i. 3, xx. 45 ; 3 Esdr.
viii. 1; 1 Chron. xxvii. 23 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. 16. It is in favor, however,
of the latter view, that although several are spoken of, yet the singular al-
ways stands (not ad derév) ; s0 likewise the analogy of émi dcevéc.t — nai
xatutépw] (beginning) from two years old and (continuing) downwards.
The opposite expression is : xai éradvw (Num. i. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. 16). The
boys of two years old and younger, in order the more unfailingly to attain
his purpose. — 7xpi3woe] he had obtained precise knowledge (ver. 7). He had
therefore ascertained from the Magi that, agreeably to the time of the ap-
pearance of the star, the child could not be more than two years old at the
most. — év maox roic édpiotg ait.) The houses and courts outside of Bethlehem
which yet belonged to its borders.

Ver. 18. Jer. xxxi. 15 (freely quoted according to the Septuagint) treats
of the leading away of the Jews to Babylon, whose destiny Rachel, the an-
cestress of the children of Ephraim, bewails. According to the typically
prophetic view in Matthew, the lamentation and mourning of Rachel, repre-
sented by the prophet, has an antitypical reference to the murdering of the
children of Bethlehem, who are her children, because she was the wife of
Jacob, and the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (Gen. xxxv. 18). And this
reference was all the more obvious that, according to Gen. xxxv. 19,° Rachel
was buried at Bethlehem (Robinson, I. p. 878). According to Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Piscator, Fritzsche, Rachel is regarded as
the representative of Bethlehem, or of the mothers of Bethlehem. But
why, in keeping with the antitypical view of the prophet’s words, should
not Rachel herself appear as lamenting over the massacre of those children ?
Rama, however, where, according to the prophet, that lamentation resound-
ed, is here the type of Bethlehem. — Regarding the position of Rama (now
‘the village er Ram), near to Gibeah, two hours to the north of Jerusalem, be-
longing at one time to Ephraim, at another to Benjamin, and on its identity,
which is denied by others, with the Ramah of Samuel.* There the exiles were
kept in custody, Jer. xl. 1.—x«Aaiovsa] The participle, which in general
never stands for the finite tense (in answer tode Wette), has here its govern-
ment either with jxobof7 (Fritzsche) or with oi« ede, where xai is to be
translated ‘‘also” (Rachel weeping . , , was also inaccessible to consolation).*

1 Sophocles, Ant. 794; Lucian, 7rag. 381:
Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 108; Luke xviii.
82; and frequently in N. T., LXX., and
Apocrypha.

2Syr., Ar., Erasmus,

Legg. vii. p. 794 A.

5 Where, however, the words on> v3
NTT are to be regarded as a gloss. See
Thenius on 1 Sam. x. 2; Graf in the Stud.
u. Kritix. 1854, p. 868.

Beza, Bengel,

Fritzsche, Bleek.

3 Vulg., Castalio, Calvin, Er. Schmid,
Rosenmiiller, Gratz.

Dem. 1135. 4; Aesch. in Ctes. 122; éwi
tperds, Arist. H. A. v. 14. Comp. likewise
Arist. H. A. fl. 1, and dwd rprerois, Plat.

© Gesenius, Zhes. ITI. p. 1275; Thentus,
Winer, von Raumer, Keim ; see Graf in the
Stud. u. Kritik. 1854, p. 858 ff.; Pressel in
Herzog's Encyki. XII. p. 515 f.

7 On the distinction between «ai ov« and
ovéé, see Hartung, Fartikel. 1. p. 212 f.

CHAP. II., 20, 21. 67

The first is to be preferred as the most natural and most appropriate to the
emotional style, so that ‘Paz7A «Aaiovoa links itself on as an apposition, and
then the author ‘‘sequentium sentcntiarum gravitate commotus a participio
ad verbum finitum deflectit,” ‘‘moved by the gravity of the following sen-
timents, turns from the participle to a finite verb,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Mei.
ii. 1. 30.'

Remarx.—The slaughter of the children at Bethlehem is closely connected
with the appearance of the Magi, and was in its legendary character already
extended as early as Justin (c. Tr. 78) to all the children of Bethlehem. Jose-
phus, who makes such minute mention of the cruelty of Herod,° is silent regard-
ing this event, which, had it been known to him as a matter of history, he
would most probably have mentioned on account of its unexampled brutality.
The confused narrative of Macrobius (Sat. ii. 4)? can here determine nothing,
because it first proceeded directly or indirectly from the Christian tradition.
Finally, the slaughter of the children itself appears not only as an altogether
superfluous measure, since, after the surprising homage offered by the Magi,
the child, recently born under extraordinary circumstances, must have been
universally known in the small and certainly also provincial village of Bethle-
hem, or could at least have been easily and certainly discovered by the in-
quiries of the authorities ; but also as a very unwise measure, since a summary
slaughter of children could by no means give the absolute certainty which was
aimed at. To understand the origin of the legend, it is not enough to point
back to the typical element in the childhood of Moses, or even to the dangers
undergone in childhood by Romulus, Cyrus, and so on (Strauss) ; but see the
Remark after ver. 12. It is arbitrary, however, to exclude the flight of Jesus
into Egypt from this cycle of legends, and to explain it historically in an alto-
gether strange fashion, from the terrible commotion in which, after the death of
Herod, Jerusalem and the surrounding localities were plunged.‘ It is indissol-
ubly connected with the slaughter of the children, and stands or falls with it; in
the preliminary history of Luke there is no place whatever for it.

Vv. 20, 21. Te@vexacr . . . Cnyrovvrec] is to be understood simply of Herod.
The plural is very often used where the conception of a species is to be ex-
pressed, and then denotes the subject, not according to number, but chicfly
according to the category to which it belongs.” Frequently, particularly in
the tragic writers, it contains a special emphasis,* which also announces it-
self in the present passage. Others'regard it as including Herod and his
councillors or servants. Ver. 19 is decisive against this view. Others: * the

! On the tragic designation ov« eZva:, mor-
tuum esse, comp. xifi. 86; Thue. ii. 44. 2;
Herod. ili. 65; Wetstein in loc. ; Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. 1. p. 515.

2 Antt. xv. 7. &, xvi. 11. 8, xvii. 2. 4; see
Ortll Spicileg. p. 541.

8 Ed. Bipont. p.341 of Augustus : “‘ Cum au-
disset, inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes,
rex Judaeorum, intra bimatum jussit inter-
fici, fillum quoque ejus occisum, ait : melius
est Herodis porcum (év) ease quam filium
(viéy).” A confusion of the murder of An-

4

tipater (Joseph. Andi. xvil. 7) with our his-
tory, as if a son of the king himself (in an-
swer to Wieseler, Beitr. p. 154) had been
among the murdered Syrian children.

4 Ammon, L. J. I. p. 226 f.

5 Reisig, ad Soph. Oed. C. 966, and Conject.
in Artetoph. p. 58; Wunder, ad Soph. O. R.
861; Elwert, Quaestion. ad philolog. sacr.
1860, p. 10f.; Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219].

* Hermann, ad Viger. p. 789.

1 Euth. Zigabenus.

® Gratz, B. Crusius, de Wette.

68 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

plural is put, because the words are taken from Ex. iv. 19. But there the
plural is required not only by the wdvrec, which stands in the text, but like-
wise by the whole connection. The resemblance to Ex. iv. 19 is either ac-
cidental, or, more probably, intentionally selected in the consciousness of
being a historical parallel. — ei¢ y. "Iop.] Note the extent and indefiniteness of
the designation ; Joseph could thus afterwards turn his steps to Galilee
without acting in opposition to the instruction. Comp. 1 Sam. xiii. 19;
Ezek. xi. 17. — Cyreiv rv puxhy] WP-NK Wp3 seck the soul—that is, seek after
one’s life (Rom. xi. 8). The present participle with the article used as a

substantive.’ Herod died in Jericho (according to Gerlach, in Jerusalem) in
- the year 750, his genitals and bowels being eaten up of worms,’ in the
thirty-seventh year of his reign, and in the seventieth of his age.* The ty-
rant became a prey to despair at his death, an attempt at suicide having failed
in his last extremity.

Ver. 22. Augustus, after the death of Herod and the complications connect-
ed with it,‘ divided the kingdom amongst his three sons in such a manner
that Archelaus received the half of the four quarters of the kingdom, namely,
Judea, Idumaea, and Samaria ; Antipas, Galilee and Perea ; Philip, Batanea,
Trachonitis, and Auranitis.—Both the latter were called Tetrarchs, but Arche-
laus obtained the title of Ethnarch,® which was to be exchanged for the title of
king should he prove worthy of it. But after nine years he was banished
by Augustus on account of his cruelty to Vienne,* and died there. His ter-
ritory was added to the province of Syria, and placed under the administra-
tion of a procurator.— Baocdcierv is therefore here taken generally : regnare,
as it often is in the classics. On avri, compare Herod. i. 108 ; Xen. Anad.
i, 1, iv. 2; 2 Chron. xxxili. 20; 1 Macc. iii. 1, ix. 81, xiii. 4. — 2403767]
for Archelaus resembled his father in his suspicious and cruel temper.’ — éxei
areAfeiv] a well-known attraction : adverbs of rest with verbs of direction,
xvii. 20.°— TatsAaiac] in the portions of his district belonging to Galilee (xv. 21,
xvi. 18 ; Acts ii. 10), so that he avoided Judea, and did not return to Beth-
lehem. The voluptuary Antipas was known to be more humane than
Archelaus.

Ver. 23. 'EA#év] to Galilee. —ei¢ wéAw] ei¢ does not belong to éAfiéy
(Fritzsche, Olshausen), but to xargxyoev, beside which it stands in Gen.
xiii. 18; xargx. includes the movement connected with the settlement, and
that in such a way that the latter was the predominating element in the

thought of the writer : he went and settled at Nazareth.* — Nazareth **} in
1 See Winer, p. 108 f. [E. T. 219].

Comp. xv.24; LXX. Deut. { 87; 2 Sam. xvii. 18;

Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 288.

2 Joseph. Bell. 1. 88. 1,5; Anté. xvii. 6. 5;
Euseb. H. Z. i. 68.

3 Josephus, Anté. xvil. 8. 1, xvii. 9. 3.

Comp. Schneckenburger, neutest. Zeit-
gesch. p. 201 ff.; Hausrath, neul. Zeitgesch.
I. p. 284 ff. ; Keim in Schenkel’s Bibellex.

® Josephus, Antt. xvii. 8. 1, xvii. 11. 4.

* Josephus, Antd. xvii. 18.2; B. J. il. 7. 3.

7 Josephus, Anté. xvii. 11. 2. f.

® John vil. 85, vill. 21, x1. 8, xviii. 8; Rom.

Winer, p. 439 [E. T. 591]; Bernhardy, p.
849 f.

* Comp. iv. 18; Acts vil. 4; 2 Chron. xtx.
4. See Kihner, I. p. 471.

10 Upon the form of the name Nagapa,
which, although attested as ancient in
many ways, is yet found only In a few pas-
sages in the mss. of the N. T., and very un-
equally supported (Tischendorf, 8th ed., has
received it into the text in iv. 18, and In
Iuke iv. 16), see Keim, I. p. 819; comp. also

é

CHAP. II., 23. 69

Lower Galilee, in the tribe of Zabulon, situated on a hill (Luke iv. 20),
with pleasant environs." Mentioned neither in the O. T. nor in Josephus.
— brug] in order that. See i, 22. — dia rv rpog.] not the plural of cate-
gory (ver. 20, so Fritzsche), according to which Isaiah only could be meant,
but the prophets generally, Luke xviii. 81 ; Rom. i. 2. — 81] not the Recita-
ticum, although its use in the Gospel of Matthew cannot be denied, vii. 28,
ix. 18, xiv. 26, xxvii. 48, 47, but ‘‘that,” as no individual express state-
ment is quoted. — Nalwpaioc] of Nazareth, xxvi. 71. In Isa. xi. 1, the Mes-
siah, as the offspring of David, is called “¥), shoot, with which, in the rep-
resentation of the evangelist, this designation was identified, only expressed
by another word, namely, M>¥ (Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15; Zech. iii. 8, vi.
12; Isa. iv. 2) ; therefore he wrote, d:d rév rpogyriv. In giving this pro-
phetic title of ‘¥1 to the Messiah, he entirely disregards the historical
meaning of the same (LXX. Isa. xi. 1 : dvfloc), keeps by the relationship of
the name Nazareth to the word %¥3, and recognizes, by virtue of the same,
in that prophetic Messianic name Nezer, the typical reference to this, that
Jesus, through His settlement in Nazareth, was to become a Nalupaioc ;
the translator therefore, rigthly apprehending this typical reference, expressed
the Hebrew ¥) by Nafwpaioc, although he may have also found in the orig-
inal Hebrew draft of the Gospel 1¥) {3,or, more probably, *1¥3. The evangel-
ist must in any case have derived the name Nazareth from %¥3, and it is like-
wise probable in itself.2 But others ® regard the words as a quotation from
a lost prophetical book. But always, where in the N. T. the prophets are
quoted, those in the completed canon are meant. Others‘ are of opinion
that Nafwpaioc refers to the despised and melancholy position of the Messiah
depicted by the prophets in accordance with Ps. xxii., Isa. lili. For Naz-
areth was despised, see Johni. 47, vii. 52. But the question here is not as to
& prophetic description (of the lowliness of the Messiah), but as to the definite
prophetic name (xAyOfceTa1), to which the settlement in Nazareth may corre-
spond ; and, indeed, the evangelist must have found the name ttself' in the
prophets, and not have inserted it ex eventu, namely, because Nazareth
served to make the Messiah an object of misapprehension (in answer to

Delitzsch, Jesus u. Hillel, p. 18. In the pas-
eage before us it is without any support, as
well as in xxi. 11, and in the remaining pas-
sages of the other evangelists,except Lukel.
%, iv. 16. The farm Nagapdé is often found
in uss., as also Nagepar. But itis the admis-
Sion of Nagepér (or Nagapd6) alone into the
text that can be justified, and that as the
standing reading, ail the more that even in
iv. 18 and in Luke iv. 16 there is by no
means a decisive predominance of testi-
mony for Negapd, which has no support,
moreover, in Acts x. 88. Although Nazara
was the original form of the name (see in
answer to Ewald's doubts, Keim, I. p. 421
f.), which is probable, it must notwith-
standing have been strange to the evangel-
iste,

1 Robinson, Paldst. III. p. 419 ff.; Ritter,
Erdk. XVI. p. 789 ff.; Furer, Wander. durch.
Patdst. p. %7 ff.; Tobler, Nazer. in Paldst.,
1868.

9 See Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 124 ff.
“Kruditt Hebraedi”’ already referred the
Nagwp. «An. back to the V¥3: see Jerome
on Isa. xi. 1, and, more recently, Piscator,
Casaubon, Jansen, Maldonatus, Surenhu-
sius, Bauer (0i0. Theol. I. p. 168), Fritzsche,
Gleseler, Kern, Krabbe, de Wette, B. Cru-
sius, Kietlin, Bleek, Hengstenberg, Kahnis,
Anger, formerly also Hilgenfeld.

8 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Clericus,
Gratz.

4 Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Gersdorf,
Katiffer, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange.

70 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Hofmann, Weissag. vu. Erfill. p. 66). For that reason also the opinion of
others is to be rejected,’ who, after Tertullian and Jerome, take Nag. for
the Hebrew 33, that it might be fulfilled . . . that He shall be (called) a

yazarite. Jesus had neither represented Himself to be such a consecrated
person, Matt. xi. 19, nor can any passage in the prophets be pointed out as
referring to this ; therefore Ewald, in opposition to 6:4 rév mpog., assumes
the statement to be taken from an Aypocryphal book, in which the Messiah,
on His first appearance, was represented as a Nazarite, so that the evange-
list was led, from the similarity of the word, to infer a reference to Naza-
reth. If, however, in Nafwpaioe the Hebrew 1¥3, Presercer, has been sup-
posed to be contained, and that in such o way that it had as its basis either
Ex. xxxiv. 6 f.,? then something entirely foreign is thus imported, as in
those passages there is to be found neither a designation of the Messiah nor
any prophetic declaration. Still more arbitrary is the reference of Hitzig’
to Isa. xlix. 6, where *}'¥) has been taken as singwlar, and explained as a pred-
icate of the Messiah, as the leader of those who are saved. Delitzsch has
referred to Isa. xlii. 6 ; so that Christ is predicted as He who is preserved
in dangers (48), Isa. xlix. 6), whilst Nazareth was His place of concealment.

REmMARK.—-The evangelist expresses himself in ver. 23 in such a manner that
throughout the narrative Nazareth cannot appear to the reader as the original
dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. Bethlehem rather, according to his ac-
count, appears to be intended as such (ver. 22), whilst Nazareth was the place
of sojourn under the special circumstances which occurred after the dexth of
Herod. The account given by Luke is quite different. This variation is to be
admitted, and the reconciliation of both accounts can only be brought about
in an arbitrary manner,‘ which is all the more inadmissible that, on the whole,
the narratives of Matthew and Luke regarding the birth and early infancy of
Jesus in important points mutually exclude each other. Amid all their other
variations, however, in the preliminary history in which they are independent
of one another, they agree in this, that Bethlehem was the place of birth, and it isin
opposition to the history to relegate this agreement to the sphere of dogmatic
reflection, and to transport the birth of Jesus to Nazareth,® since the designa-

1 Erasmus, Boza, Calvin, Grotius, Wet-
stein, Hilgenfeld.

9 Zuschlag in Guerioke’s Zetéschs’. (1834,
III. p. 417 ff., or Ps. xxxi. 24 (Riggenbach in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 606 f.)

3 In the ‘heol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 410.

« That Joseph, brought to Bethlehem by
the census, setiled there. Matthew accord-
ingly represents Bethlehem as his delling-
place. The flight to Egypt, however, again
soon broke up the residence in Bethlehem,so
that the sojourn was only a passing one, and
therefore Luke rightly regarded the subse-
quent settlement at Nazareth asa refurn
thither. See Neander, Ebrard, Hofmann,
Krabbe, Lange. Wieseler’s reasons also
(chronolog. Synopee, p. 35 ff.) against the view
that Matthew makes Bethlehem appear as

the original dwelling-place of Jesus, will
not stand. This view is to be regarded, by
the account in Matthew, which is to be
looked on as independent, and standing by
tieelf, a8 a necessary exegetical result by
means of ver. 22, and is undoubtedly con-
firmed by ver. 28, where Joseph's settle-
ment in Nazareth appears as something
new, which must occur in order to fulfil a
prophetic prediction, so that consequently no
reader of Matthew could come to think
that Nazareth had been Joseph's dwelling-
place. Wieseler, however, has, moreover,
strikingly demonstrated the unhistorical
nature of the view that Jesus was dorn at
Nazareth.
§ Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Keim.

NOTE. 71

tion of Jesus as belonging to Nazareth! finds its natural and complete explana-
tion in the short and passing sojourn of His parents at Bethlehem after His
birth, whereas, had Jesus Himself been a native of Galilee, He would neither
have found a believing reception amongst His people, nor, on the other hand,

could His Messiahship have been held to be based on a prophetic foundation.
Comp. also Luke ii. 39 and John vii. 42.

Nore spy American Eprror.

IT.
v

In relation to the visit of the Magi to Jerusalem, see Preface to this volume,
page xili., ef seq.

1 Matt. xiii. 84; Mark vi. 1; Luke Iv. 19.

7 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER III.

Ver. 2. xat Aéywv] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely Aéyur, only after B &, Hil.
and some Verss. The superfluous «xa! was easily overlooked. — Ver. 3. i] B
CD X&, 1, 13, 33, 124, 157, 209, Syre=* Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Sax. read did ; 80
Griesbach, Gersdorf, Schulz, Lachm., Tisch. Correctly ; see on ii. 17. — Ver.
4, The position 4%» avrov (Lachm., Tisch.) is, by means of BC D &, 1, 209, so
sufficiently attested, that it must be preferred*to the ordinary position avrov 7y,
which spontaneously suggested itself to the copyists. — Ver. 6. ’lopddvy] B C*
M A X&, Curss., and many Verss. and Fathers, add moray ; so Lachm. and
Tisch. 8. Addition from Mark i. 5.— Ver. 7. The airov was easily passed
over after Gdzr:oza as unnecessary ; it is wanting, however, only in B &°*,
Sahid. Or. Hil., but is deleted by Tisch. 8.— Ver. 8. xaprév déiov] Elz. has
xaprove agiovc, after too weak testimony. Retained by Fritzsche. It arose from
the copyists, who deemed the plural more appropriate to the sense, and had
Luke iii. 8 in view. — Ver. 10. dé xai] Lachm. Tisch. : dé, which is so prepon-
derantly attested by BC DM A X&, Curss. Verss. Or. Ir. Did. Bas., that 62 «ai
is to be regarded as introduced from Luke iii. 9.— Ver. 14. Instead of 6 d2
"Iwavync, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have only 6 dé, after B ®*, Sahid. Eus. Correctly ;
the name was much more easily interpolated than omitted. — Ver. 16. The
transposition et@dc avéBy in BD &, Curss. Verss. and Fathers (so Lachm. and
Tisch.), isa change, which assigned to the ev6vc its more usual place (Gersdorf,
L p. 485). — atrw] is bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., but has a decided
preponderance of witnesses in its favor, and its significance was easily mis-
understood and passed over. — xai] before épxéu. is to be defended on decisive
testimony, against Tisch. 8; comp. on ver. 2.

Ver. 1. 'Ev . . . éxelvacc] OF O'D°3, Ex, ii. 11, 28 ; Isa. xxxviii.1. In-
definite determination of time, which, however, always points back to a
date which has preceded it. Mark i.9; Luke ii. 1. Here : at the time when
Jesus still sojourned at Nazareth. 'The evangelist passes over the history of
the youth of Jesus, and at once goes onwards to the forerunner of the Mes-
siah ; for he might not have had at his command any written documents,
and sufficiently trustworthy traditions regarding it, since the oldest manner
of presenting the gospel history, as still retained in Mark, began first with
John the Baptist, to which beginning our evangelist also turns without fur-
ther delay. It employs in so doing only the very indefinite transition with
the same simplicity of unstudied historical writing, as in Ex. ii. 11, where
by the same expression is meant the time when Moses still sojourned at the
court of Egypt, though not the time of his childhood (ver. 10), but of his
manhood. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are unnecessary ; that of
Paulus: in the original document, from which Matthew borrowed the fol-
lowing narrative, something about John the Baptist may have preceded, to

CHAP. III., 2. 13

which this note of time was appended, which Matthew retained, without
adopting that preliminary matter; of Holtzmann: that a look forward to
Mark i. 9 here betrays itself ; of Schneckenburger :' that in the gospel accord-
ing to the Hebrews év rai¢ juépare ‘Hpddov erroneously stood, instead of which
Matthew put the indefinite statement before us ; of Hilgenfeld :* in the older
narrative, which lay at the foundation of our Matthew, the genealogical tree
of Jesus was perhaps followed by év rai¢ nuépace ‘Hpddov roi BaotAtwg rij¢ "Iov-
daiag 4ABev (or zyéveTo) "Iwdvvyc.? The correct view was already adopted by
Chrysostom and his followers, Beza, Camerarius, Bengel : ‘‘ Jesu habitante
Nazarethae, ii. 23 ; notatur non breve, sed nulla majori mutatione notabile
intervallum,” ‘‘ Jesus dwelling at Nazareth, ii. 23 ; there is noted a not
brief interval, yet not remarkable for any great change.” It is Luke iii. 1
which first gives the more precise determination of time, and that very mi-
nutely. — rapayivera:}] Historic present, as in il. 18.‘ Opposed to this is the
tv TH Epfuy that follows. Matthew has only the more general and indefinite
expression : he arrives, he appears. Luke xii. 51; Heb. ix. 11. — 6 Baxrior.]
Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 2: "Iwdvy. 6 émixadobuevoe Barriorycs. — tv TH Ephup
vig "lovdaiac] TVT VT), Judg. i. 16, Josh. xv. 61, a level plain adapted
for the feeding of cattle, sparsely cultivated and inhabited,*® which begins
at Tekoa, and extends as far as the Dead Sea.* The mention of the locality
is more precise in Luke iii. 2 f. ; but that in Matthew, in which the wilder-
ness is not marked off geographically from the valley of the Jordan, which
was justified by the nature of the soil,’ and involuntarily called forth by the
following prophecy, is not incorrect. Comp. Ebrard (in answer to Strauss) ;
Keim, /.c. p. 494.

Ver. 2. Meravocire] denotes the transformation of the moral disposition, which
is requisite in order to obtain a share in the kingdom of the Messiah.* In
the mouth of John the conception could only be that of the Old Testament
(O93, 33%), expressing the transformation according to the moral require-
ments of the daw, but not yet the Christian idea, according to which perdvoaa
has as its essential inseparable correlative, faith in Jesus as the Messiah
(Mark i. 15), after which the Holy Spirit, received by means of baptism,
establishes and completes the new birth from above into true (w4.° — fryyixe]
it is near ; for John expected that Jesus would set up Hiskingdom. Comp.
iv. 17, x. 7. — Baotdeia rev otpavin)]." The kingdom of heaven (the plural is

1 @. d. erste kanon. Ev. p. 120.

6 Winer, Realwériterb. 8.v. Wiiste ; Tobler,
§ Evang. p. d5.

Denkblatter aus Jerus. p. 682; Kelm, Gesch. J.

® Compare also Keim, Geach. J. I. p. 61. I. p. 484 f.
4Eath. Zigabenus: wd0ery 6 lwdvrvns wapay- T Josephus, Bell. iii. 10. 7, iv. 8. 2 f.
¢yovey ; amd ris dvSordpas épyjpov. 8 Sanhedrin f. 97, 2: “Si Israelitae

poenitentiam agunt, tunc per Goélem lib-

® The idea of a flat surface called 3°13

fs given us partially in the Ldneburger
Heath. See generally, Crome, Belfrdge cur
Erklér. des N. T. p. 41 ff. Not to be con-
fused with mm \y), sleppe, concerning which
see Credner in the Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 798

ff. Compare in regard to our wilderness,
Robinson, Pal. I. p. 481.

erantur.”’

® John iii. & 5; Tit. il. 5f.; Acts fi. 38.

10 See Fleck, de regno div. 1820 ; Weissen-
bach, Jesu in regno coelor. dignitas, 1868 ;
Keim, Gesch. J. II. p. 40 ff.; Kamphausen,

_d. Gebet des Herren, p. 56 ff.; Wittichen, d.

Idee des Reiches Gottes, 1872.

%4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

to be explained from the popular idea of seven heavens ; see on 2 Cor. xii.
2) corresponds to the Rabbinical O’pw8nN mo°D,\—an expression which is
used by the Rabbins mostly indeed in the ethico-theocratic sense, but. also in
the eventually historical meaning of the theocracy, brought to its consumma-
tion by the Messiah.? In the N. T. this expression occurs only in Matthew,
and that as the usual one, which, as that which was most frequently employed
by Jesus Himself, is to be regarded as derived from the collection of say-
ings (in answer to Weiss). Equivalent in meaning to it are : Baovteia rov
Geod (also in Matthew, yet much rarer and not everywhere critically certain),
Bao. tr. Xpiotov, 7 Baordeia.? The kingdom of the Messiah is designated by
4 Bac. T. ovp., because this kingdom, the consummated theocracy in its glory,
is no earthly kingdom, John xviii. 36, but belongs to heaven, appears to us as
descending from heaven, where, up till that time, its blessings, its salvation,
and its défa are preserved by God for bestowal at some future period.
Although among the Jewish people the theocratic idea, of which the proph-
ets were the bearers, had preserved its root,—and from this people alone,
in accordance with its divine preparation and guidance, could the realiza-
tion of this idea, and with it the salvation of the world, proceed, as, indeed,
the profounder minds apprehended and cherished the mighty thought of
Messiah in the sense of the true rule of God, and of its destination for the
world,—yet the common idea of the people was predominantly political
and particularistic, frequently stamped with the fanatical thought of a
world-rule and with millenarian ideas (the Messiah raises up the descend-
ants of Abraham, then comes the kingdom which lasts a thousand years,
then the resurrection and the condemnatory judgment of the heathen, the
descent of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the everlasting life of the descend-
ants of Abraham on the earth, which has been transformed along with the
whole universe). In the teaching of Christ, however, and in the apostolic
writings, the kingdom of the Messiah is the actual consummation of the
prophetic idea of the rule of God ; and as it is unaccompanied by millena-
rian ideas (which exist only in the non-apostolic Apocalypse), so also is it
without any national limitation, so that participation therein rests only on
faith in Jesus Christ, and on the moral renewal which is conditioned by the
same, and ‘‘ God all in all” is the last and highest aim, without the thought
of the world-rule, and the expectation of the renewal of the world, of the
resurrection, of the judgment, and also of the external glory losing their
positive validity and necessity,—thoughts which rather form the subject
of living Christian hope amidst all the struggles and oppressions of the
world. Moreover, those expressions, Baosia trav oipavav, x.t.2., never
signify anything else than the kingdom of the Messiah,* even in those passages
where they appear to denote the (invisible) church, the moral kingdom of
the Christian religion, and such like ; or to express some modern abstrac-
tion of the concrete conception,® which is one given in the history,—an

1 Schoettgen, Diss. de regno codor.I.in 6 f.

his Horae, 1. p. 1147 ff., and Wetstein én loc. 4 Koppe, Zc. I. ad Thess.
* Targum, Mich. iv. 75 in Wetstein. 5 e.g. an organized commonwealth under
® Comp. Isa. xx. 6; Dan. ii. 44, vil. 14 ff., | the principle of the divine will (Tholuck) ;

CHAP. III., 3. (6)

appearance which is eliminated by observing that the manner of expression
is frequently proleptic, and which has its historical basis in the idea of the
nearness of the kingdom, and in the moral development which necessarily
precedes its manifestation (comp. Matt. xi. 12, xii. 28, xvi. 19). That
John the Baptist also had, under divine revelation, apprehended the idea of
the Messiah’s kingdom in the ethical light, free from any limitation to the
Jewish people (John i. 29), without, however, entirely giving up the polit-
ical element, is already shown by ver. 7 ff. It cannot, however, be proved,
and is, considering the divine illumination of the Baptist, improbable, and
also without any foundation in xi. 8, that too much has been put into his
mouth by ascribing to him the definite announcement of the kingdom. If
Josephus, in his account of John, makes no mention of any expression
pointing to the Messiah,” yet this may be sufficiently explained from his
want of susceptibility for the higher nature of Christianity, and from his
peculiar political relation to the Romans.

Ver. 8. Tap]* does not belong to John’s discourse, ver. 3, so that by
ovzoc he points to himself, as Er. Schmid, Raphel, Fritzsche, Paulus, Rettig ‘
maintain, since so prominent a self-designation has no basis in the connec-
tion (John i. 28 ; on the other hand, John vi. 50, 58) ; further, the descrip-
tive present éori is quite in keeping with rapayivera: in ver. 1 ; and avrac dé,
ver. 4, is quite in keeping with the sense of the objectively and generally
delivered prophetic description (the voice of one calling, and so on), and leads
to the conerete person thereby intended. — év rj épf#yq] belongs in the origi-
nal text to érouuécare, and in the LXX. also there is no reason for separating
it from it ; but here it belongs to Bodvrocs, according to ver. 1: xypicouv év
th épfyy. This in answer to Rettig, Hofmann,’ and Delitzsch. — The pas-
sage, Isa. xi. 3, quoted according to the LXX., contains historically a sum-
mons to prepare the way for Jehovah, who is bringing back his people from
exile, and to make level the streets which He is to traverse, after the anal-
ogy of what used to take place in the East when rulers set out on a journey
(Wetstein and Miinthe). In this the evangelist recognizes (and the Baptist
himself had recognized this, John i. 23) the typically prophetic reference to
John as the prophet who was to call on the Jews to prepare themselves by
repentance for the reception of the Messiah (whose manifestation is the mani-
festation of Jehovah). In Isaiah, the voice which calls is that of a herald

arrangement of things In which this will bas
come to its consummation, and now alone
is operative (Hofmann). Schleiermacher :
“The idea of the kingdom of God must
have originated in Christ from His self-
consciousness and His perception of sin, if
He conceived of His We as disseminated
among the masses."

1Comp. on Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20;
Col. 1. 18, iv. 11; Matt. vi. 10.

2 Ant. xvill. 5.2: Kreive: rovrow "Hpwdys,
éyabdy dyéipa cai rois “Iovéalove ceAcvovra
aperyy dwacxouvras nai TH wpds GAAHAovE 8ucato-
CUry naz wpds roy Gedy eveeBeig xpwudvous Bax-

TioKe cuvidvas’ ovTW ydp Kai Thy Bdericty awo-
Sexrhy abre daveicOar, wy eri tive auaprddey
wapa.THoe: xpepdvev, add’ é>" ayveiq TOU capa-
Tos, ave 8m Kat THs Wuxis Sixatcootvy wpoexce-
caBappéyvns. [See Whiston's translation of
Josephus's Works.]

3“ Causa, cur Johannes ita exorirl tum
debuerit, uti v. 1, 2, describitur, quia sic
praedictum erat,” ‘‘ The cause why John at
that time ought thus to appear (arise) is
described in vv. 1 and 32, because it had
been so predicted,’ Bengel.

4In the Stud. u. Kriz. 1888, p. 205 f.

& Weissag. u. Erf. Il. p. 17 f.

%6 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

of Jehovah, who desires to begin his journey ; inthe Messianic fulfilment, it
is the voice of the Baptist. —- Faith in a God-sent forerunner of the Messiah,
based on prophecy (Mal. iii. 1; Luke i. 17, 76) and confirmed by Jesus
Himself (xi. 10, xvii. 11), and attested as realized in the appearance of the
Baptist, had in various ways’ assumed the form of the expectation of the
return of one of the ancient prophets. Comp. xvi. 14 ; Johni. 21.

Ver. 4. Avré¢] ipse autem Johannes, the historical person himself, who is
intended (ver. 8) by that ¢uvf of Isaiah.— elye . . . xaufiov] He had his
(distinctive, constantly worn) robe of camels’ hair. The reading is avroi,
which is neither to be written atrod (it is used from the standpoint of the
narrator, and without any reflective emphasis), nor is it superfluous.
Whether are we to think of a garment of camels’ skin, or a coarse cloth of
camels’ hair? Er. Schmid and Fritzsche are of the former opinion. But
as hair alone is expressly mentioned as the material? (comp. also Mark i. 6)
the latter is to be preferred. Even at the present day coarse cloth is pre-
pared from camels’ hair for clothing and for covering tents.* Of clothes
made from the hides of camels (probably, however, from sheep and goat-
skins, compare Heb. xi. 37) there is not a trace to be found among either
ancient or modern Oriental saints.‘ — depuxarivyy] not of a luxurious material,
but like Elijah, 2 Kings i. 8, whose copy he was.’ Dress and food are in
keeping with the asceticism of the Baptist, and thereby with the profound
earnestness of his call to perdvoa. ‘‘ Habitus quoque et victus Johannis
praedicabat,” ‘the dress also and the food of John were preaching,”
Bengel. — axpidec] Several kinds of locusts were eaten, Lev. xi. 22.° This
is still the custom in the East, especially amongst the poorer classes and the
Bedouins. The wings and legs are torn off, and the remainder is sprinkled
with salt, and either boiled or eaten roasted.” The conjectures of the older
writers, who, deeming this food unworthy of John, have substituted some-
times cakes (éyxpidec),® sometimes crabs (xapidec), or fruits of the nut kind
(4xpédpva), and other articles, deserve no consideration. — ué2 dypiov] Com-

1 See Bertholdt, Christof. p. 58.

2 Comp. Josephus, Bell. Jud. xvii. %. 8:
es avri tay Bacwrttcwy éy rdxet weprOjcovdiy
davrais éx Tptxwyv werotnudvas,

3 See Harmar, III. p. 356.

4 Harmar, IIT. p. 374 ff.

® Comp. Ewald, Gesch. d. Volks Isr. II1. p.
529.
6 Comp. Plin. V.Z. vi. 83, xi. 82, 35.

7 Niebuhr, Reise, I. p. 402; Harmar, I. p.
274 f.; Rosenmiller, alies und neues Morgenl.
in loco.

8 Epiph. Haer. xxx. 18 quotes from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews: Kai rd
Bpoua avrod, dior, péA dypiov, of } yevors hy
Tov pavva ws dyxpis ev édalp (conjecture : év
wéActs, ‘* His food, he says, was wild honey,
the taste of which was that of manna, asa
cake in ofl (or, in honey).” A confusion
has hera been supposed between axpises and
éycpiées, and it has been inferred that that

Gospel was derived from Greek sources,
especially from the Greek Matthew. So
also Credner, Belfr. I. p. 344 f.; Bleek, Betir.
p. 61; Harless, Eri. Weihnachisprogr. 1841,
p.21. Comp. Delitzsch, Znisteh. u. Ant. d.
kanon. Ev. I. p. 2%. Rut that passage from
the Gospel to the Hebrews contains only
one kind of sustenance employed by John,
the nd dypiov, the taste of which is de-
scribed according to Ex. xvi. 31, Num. xi.
8. The Eblonites altogether omitted the
locusts, as being animal food, but did not
substitute, as Epiphanius erroneously sup-
poses, ¢yxpises for axpises. The resemblance
of the tree honey to the manna could not
but be welcome to their Jewish point of
view ; but because the word ¢yxpis occurs
in the books of Moses in the description of
its taste, they adopted it; this has no rela-
tion whatever to our axpides,

CHAP. IIl., 5. ° U¢
monly : honey prepared by wild bees, which in the Hast flows out of the clefts
of the rocks.’ It is still frequently found in abundance at the present day
in the Jewish wilderness.* Others (Suidas, Salmasius, Reland, Michaelis,
Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Schegg, Bleek, Volkmar) understand ¢tree-honey, a sub-
stance of the nature of honey which issues from palms, figs, and other trees.*
This explanation of tree-honey is to be preferred, as, according to Diod. Bic.
l.c. and Suidas, the predicate dyp:ov, as terminus technicus, actually desig-
nates this honey, whilst the expression yuéA: dypsov cannot be proved to be
employed of the honey of wild dees (which, moreover, is the common honey).

Ver. 5. ‘H replywpog tov "Iopddévov] {TV 1395, Gen. xiii. 10, 11; 1 Kings
vii. 47 ; 2 Chron. iv. 17. The country on both sides of the Jordan, now
E'gor.* The whole passage conveys an impression of solemnity, with which
also the naming of the town and district, instead of the inhabitants,* is con-
nected. The baptism of John has been erroneously regarded as a modified
application of the Jewish baptism of proselytes.* For the baptism of prose-
lytes, the oldest testimony to which occurs in the Gemara Babyl. Jebamoth
xlvi. 2, and regarding which Philo, Josephus, and the more ancient Tar-
gumists are altogether silent, did not arise till after the destruction of
Jerusalem.’ The reception of proselytes was accomplished, so long as the
temple stood, by means of circumcision and the presentation of a sacrifice,
which was preceded, like every sacrifice, by a lustration, which the prose-
lyte performed on himself. It is not, however, with this lustration merely,
but chiefly with the religious usages of the Jews as regards washings, and
their symbolical meaning, * that the baptism of John has its general point of
connection in the history of the people, although it is precisely as daptism
and accompanied by the confession of sin, that it appears only as something
new given to this dawn of the Messiah’s kingdom, under the excitement of
_ the divine revelation, of which John was the bearer. Venerable prophetic
pictures and allusions, like Isa. i. 16, iv. 4, xliv. 44, 8 Ez, xxxvi. 25, Zech.
xiii. 1, Ps. li. 4, might thus serve to develop it still further in the soul of
this last of the prophets. What was symbolized in the baptism of John
was the perdvoa.’ To this, however, the immersion of the whole of the

1 Euth. Zigabenus: 1d éy rais rey werpey
Cxicpais vwd tev pedtoowy yewpyoumevor,
“The honey in the clefts of the rocks pro-
duced by the bees.” Bochart, Hieroz. II.
4. 12; Suicer, Thes. I. p. 880; Ewald,
Geach. Ter. TIT. p. 50. .

28chulz, Leifungen d. Hochsten auf den
Reisen durch Eur. As. Afr. V. p. 188;
Rosenmiiller, I. 1, p. 7; Oedmann, Samm-
lungen aus d. Naturk. sur Erk. d. hei.
Schr. VI. p. 186 f.

3 Diod. Sic. xix. 94; Wesseling in loc. ;
Plin. N. H. xv.7; Suidas, 8. v. axpis. Comp.
Heyne, ad Virg. Eel. iv. 80. Similarly,
Polyaenus, iv. 8. 82: 7d vor «dru, the Persian
manna.

4See Robinson, Pal. IT. p. 496 ff. Comp.
Lightfoot, Hor. p. 216.

&§ Nagelsbach on the Jiiad, p. 108 ff. ed. 8.

* So Selden (jus. nat. li. 2), Lightfoot (Zor.
p. 220 ff.), Danz (in Meuschen, N. 7’. ex Talm.
iZ?. pp. 288 ff., 287 ff.), Ziegler (¢heol. AdA. IT.
p. 18 ff.), Eisenlohr (hist. Bemerk. db. d.
Taufe, 1804), Kaiser (ditt. Theol. II. p. 160),
Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Bengel, db. d. Alter d.
Jiid. Proselytent. 1814.

™ Schneckenburger, @. d. Alter der Jad.
Proselytent. u. deren Zusammenst. m. d. joh.
u. chr. Ritus, 1828; Paulus, exveg. Handb. I. p.
807 ff.

8 Gen. xxxv. 2; Ex. xix.10; Num. xix. 7,
19; 1 Sam. xvi. 8; Judith xii. 7.

* Comp. Josephus, Anti. xvill. 5.2. See
this passage of Josephus above on ver. 2.
Without any reason has this meaning been
discovered in it, that Jobn viewed his

78 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

baptized person, as the yerévora, was to purify the whole man, corresponded.
with profound significance, and to this the specifically Christian view of the
symbolic immersion and emersion afterwards connected itself’ by an
ethical necessity. — fouodoy.] In the same way asin the case of the sin-
offering,* and in general to be taken as a venerable pre-condition of divine
grace and blessing, Ps. xxxii. 5, li. 1 ff. ; Ezra ix. 6; Dan. ix. 5.— The
participle is not to be taken as if it were conditional (Fritzsche : #... con-
Jiterentur”), as the subjection to this condition, in the case of every one
who came to be baptized, is necessarily required as a matter of course ;
but : they were baptized whilst they confessed, during the confession, which
is conceived as connected with the act of baptism itself. Whether is it a
summary or a specific confession which is intended? Both may have
taken place, varying always according to the individuals and their relations.
The compound,* however, expresses, a8 also in Acts xix. 18, Jas. v. 16, an
open confession.

Ver. 7. The Pharisees (from W132, separavit, the separated ones, dé: rv 6Oe20-
sreptocobpnoxetav, ‘* on account of their excessive will-worship,’* received, be-
sides the law, also tradition ; taught the doctrine of fate, without, however,
denying the freedom of the will ; of immortality, and that in the case of
pious persons, in pure bodies ; of good and evil angels, and were, in all the
strictness of external righteousness, according to law and statute, the crafty,
learned, patriotic, and powerful supporters of the degenerate orthodoxy.
The Sadducees* recognized merely the written law, and that not only of the
Pentateuch, but of the whole of the O. T., although according te the strict
exposition of the letter, and to the exclusion of tradition ; they denied the
existence of higher spirits, of fate and personal immortality, and adhered toa
strict code of morals ; they had less authority with the people than the exclu-
sive orthodox Pharisees, against whom they formed a decided party of oppo-_
sition, but had much influence over men of rank and wealth. The strictly
closed order of Hssenes, in its separation from the world and the temple, as well
as in its ascetic self-satisfaction and self-sanctification, the quiet separatistic
holy ones of the land, connected together by community of goods, and under
obligation, besides, daily to perform holy lustrations, kept themselves far
away from the movement evoked by John. — Observe that the article is not
repeated before Zaddoux., because they are conceived as forming, along with the

baptism as a means of covenant, by explain-
ing Baxtiche ovndvac to mean: lo unite
through or for baptism (Strauss, Keim,
Hausrath). The meaning of the passage is
rather: John commanded the Jews fo be
wise in the exercise of virtue, and so on
(sapere, comp. Rom. ffi. 11; 2 Cor. x. 12), dy
means of baptism.

1 Rom. vi. 8 ff.: Tit. iff. 8.

3 Lev. xvi. 21 ff.; Num. v. 7.

3 Josephus, Antt. vill. 4. 6; passages in
Philo; see in Loesner.

4 Epiphantus, Haer. 1 16.

® Epiphanius, Haer. 1. 14: drovoudgoves

davrovs Zas8ouxaiovs 890ev awd Stxacocirys rH
émcxAtjcews Opuwpdérns, ‘* They call themselves
Sadducees, viz., from dikaiosune (righteous-
ness), the surname cheering on." The
Jewish tradition derives it from the proper
name Zadok. R. Nathan, ad Pirke Adoth, 1.
8. The latter i to be preferred, with
Ewald, Geiger, Hitzig, and others; see
Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 278. WHausrath, Zefé-
gesch. I. p. 118. That name, however, fs to
be understood as that of an old and distin-
guished priestly family ; 2 Sam. vii. 17, xv.
24; Evek. xivili. 11; 1 Macc. vii. 14.

CHAP. III., %. 79

Pharisees, one unworthy category.’ — éxi} not contra (Olearius), which would
be quite opposed to the context, but delic, in order to be baptized ; comp.
Luke xxiii. 48. Why should the Pharisees and Sadducees not also have
come to baptism, since they shared with the people the hope of the Messiah,
and must have felt also on their part the extraordinary impression made by
the appearance of John, and the excitement awakened by it, and, in keep-
ing with their moral conceit, would easily enough have compounded with
the confession of sins? It is, however, already probable @ priori, and
certain, by means of Luke vii. 80, that they, at least so far as the majority
were concerned, did not allow themselves to be baptized, although they
had come with this intention, but were repelled in terror by the preaching
of repentance and punishment, ver. 8 ff. — There exists, therefore, no varia-
tion between this and Luke vii. 30 ; the Pharisees and Sadducees are no
addition by Matthew (Ewald, Holtzmann), and neither is Matthew to be
blamed for committing a historical mistake, occasioned by John i. 24
(Schneckenburger, Bleek), nor is Luke to be charged with want of origi-
nality in this section (de Wette). But the former relates with more minute-
ness than Luke (ili. 7: roig . .. dydAors) in separating the persons in
question from the mass along with whom they came. — yevvfyara tyidvav]
cunning, malignant men! xii. 84, xxiii. 88 ; Isa. xiv. 29, lix. 5 ; Ps. viii.
5.?— rao peddobone opyzc] is to be understood of the divine wrath which is
revealed at the Messianic judgment (Rom. ‘ii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 10). The com-
mon belief of the Jews referred this to the heathen.* John, however, to the
godless generally, who would not repent. The wrath of God, however,
established as a unity in the holy nature of the divine love as its inseparable
correlate, is not the punishment itself, but the holy emotion of absolute dis-
pleasure with him who opposes His gracious will, and from this the punish-
ment proceeds as a necessary manifestation of righteousness. The revelation
of the divine wrath is not limited to the last judgment (Rom. i. 18 ; 1 Thess,

ii. 16 ; Luke xxi. 28), but in it attains its consummation. Comp. Rom. i,

18 and Eph. ii. 3, and so on, especially Ritschl, de ira Dei,* 1859; Bar-
tholomaei in the Jahrb. f. deuteche Theol. 1861, II. p. 256 ff. ; Weber, vom

Zorne Gottes, 1862. — guyeiv a6] is, like }) 13 (Isa. xlviii. 20, xxiv. 18),

constructio praegnans : to flee away from, xxiii. 33; Mark xvi. 8; John
x. 11.° The injinitive aorist designates the activity as momentary, setting

forth the point of time when the wrath breaks forth, in which the flight
also is realized. Meaning of the question: Nobody can have instructed you,

that you should escape. Comp. xxiii. 88 : mac gtyyre.

1 “Nempe repetitur articulus, ubi distinc-
tio logica aut emphatica ita postulat,” Dis-
sen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 574.

3 Wetstein on the passage. Comp. Dem.
790.4: mcxpdy xal éxiv thy dicw dvbpwmrov, ‘a
bitter man and a viper as to his nature.”

® Bertholdt, Christal. pp. 28 ff., 228 ff.

‘Who determines the conception, p. 24,
thus: “Certum argumentum justitiae divi-
nae ab humana diversae, quatenus valet ad
defendendum adversus homines contuma-

citer Deo fidem denegantes finem ejus sum-
mumet absolutum, per Christum cum ge-
nere humano communicatum,” “It isa sure
argument of divine justice being different
from human, since it avails for defending,
against men stubbornly denying faith in
God, its complete and absolute end, im-
parted through Christ to the human race.”

5 Hom. Od. xil. 120: dvydew xdpricroy ax”
avris, Xen, Mem, il, 6, 81; Plat. Phaed. p.
62 D.

80 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 8. Otv] Deduction from what precedes. In your impenitent condition
you cannot escape from the wrath ; proceed then to exhibit that morality of con-
duct which is appropriate to the change of mind as its result. Instead of your
unrepentant condition, I require of you a practical repentance, the hindrance
and opposition to which arises from your overweening conceit as children
of Abraham (ver. 9). What John here requires applied, indeed, to the peo-
ple in general, but was especially appropriate to their scholastic leaders.—
tic petavolac is governed by dgiov (Acts xxvi. 20) ; on xaprdv roveiv, like MY
‘WD (occurring likewise in Greek writers), borrowed from fruit-trees ;1 xapz.
is collective, Gal. v. 22 ; Eph. v. 9; Phil. i. 11.

Ver. 9. Adéyre] Do not allow yourselves to suppose, do not say to yourselves,
1 Cor. xi. 16 ; Phil. iii. 4. — Aéyeev év gavroig 1373 “VOR, cogitare secum. It ob-
jectively represents reflection as the language of the mind. Ps. iv. 5, x. 6,
xiv. 1; Matt. ix. 21 ; Luke iii. 8, vii. 49.*— warépa . . . ’ASpadu] The Jews
of the common sort and their party leaders believed that the descendants
of Abraham would, as such, become participators of salvation in the Mes-
siah’s kingdom, because Abraham’s righteousness would be reckoned as
theirs.* — br: divarat, x.t.A.] God is able, notwithstanding your descent from
Abraham, to exclude you from the Messiah’s salvation ; and, on the other hand,
to create and bring forth out of these stones, which lie here around on the bank
of the Jordan, such persons aS are GENUINE children of Abraham.‘ It is an
anticipation, however, to find the calling of the heathen here indicated. It
Jollows first from this axiom.

Ver. 10. Already, however (it isthen high time), is the decision near at hand,
according to which the unworthy are excluded from Messiah's kingdom, and
are consigned to Gehenna. — In 767 is contained the thought that the hearers
did not yet expect this state of things ; see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 139 ; the
presents exxérretas and BéAAera denote what is to happen at once and certainly,
with demonstrative definiteness, not the general idea: ts accustomed to be
hewn down, against which ody is decisive (in answer to Fritzsche), the mean-
ing of which is: ‘‘that,as a consequence of this, the axe, etc., every tree
will be, and so on.”’*

Ver. 11. Yet it is not I who will determine the admission or the exclu-
sion, but He who is greater than I. In Luke iii. 16 there is a special reason:
assigned for this discourse, in keeping with the use of a more developed tra-
dition on the part of the later redactor. — ei¢ uerdvorav] denotes the telic ref-
erence of the baptism (comp. xxviii. 19), which imposes an obligation to

perévorca. To the characteristic év idar: cig perévocay stands opposed the

1Comp. vil. 17 £. al.; xapwowotds, Eur.
Bhes. 964.

® Delitzsch, Psych. p. 180 [E. T. 218]. Comp.
Adyety wpds davrdy in Plat. Phaed. p. 88 C.

3 Sanhedrin, f. 901: Oo w Sew Sob
wom ody pon. Bereschith, R. xvill. 7.
Wetstein on the passage. Bertholdt, Chris-
tol. p. 206 ff. Comp. in the N. T., especially
John vili. 38 ff.

‘That is, as Euth. Zigabenus strikingly

expresses it: of ras dperds atvrov pipovperac
Kai THS aUTig avr Katafiovmevor pepidos éy TH

' Bacideig tev ovpavey, “Those imitating

his virtues and counted worthy of the same
lot with him in the kingdom of heaven.”
Comp. Rom. Iv., tx. 6 ff.; Gal iv. ; John viiL
89 f.

§ See upon the present, Dissen, ad Pind.
Nem. iv. 89 f., p. 401.

CHAP. III, 12. 81
higher characteristic éy mvetyar: dyiy x. srvpi, the two elements of which fo-
gether antithetically correspond to that ‘‘baptism by water unto repent-
ance ;” see subsequently. — ev is, agreeably to the conception of Barrifu,
not to be taken as instrumental, but as in, in the meaning of the
element, in which baptism takes place.’—6é d2 dzicw pov épyduevoc] that
is, the Messiah. His coming as such is always brought forward with
great emphasis in Mark and Luke. The present here also denotes the near
and definite beginning of the future. — icyvpér. uov écriv] In what special
relation he is more powerful is stated afterwards by atrd¢ inac Barricer,
K.T.A. — ov ovK iui, k.T.4.] In comparison with Him, I am too humble to be fit-
ted to be one of His lowest slaves. To bear the sandals of their masters
(Sacrdca), that is, to bring and take them away, as well as to fasten them
on or to take them off (the latter in Mark and Luke), was amongst the Jews,
Greeks, and Romans the business of slaves of the lowest rank.* — avréc¢}] He
and no other, i. 21. — suas] was spoken indeed to the Pharisees and Saddu-
cees ; but it is not these only who are meant, but the people of Ierael in
general, who were represented to the eye of the prophet in them, and in
the multitude who were present. — év mv. dy. x. xupi] in the Holy Spirit, those
who have repented ; in jire (by which that of Gehenna is meant), the unre-
pentant. Both are figuratively designated as Barrifev, in so far as both are
the two opposite sides of the Messianic lustration, by which the one are
sprinkled with the Holy Ghost (Acts i. 5), the others with hell-fire, as per-
sons baptized are with water. It is explained as referring to the jire of
everlasting punishment, after Origen and several Fathers, by Kuinoel, Schott,’
Fritzsche, Neander, de Wette, Paulus, Ammon, B. Crusius, Arnoldi, Hof-
mann, Bleek, Keim, Volkmar, Hengstenberg, Weber,‘ Gess.° But, after
Chrysostom and most Catholic expositors, others (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin,
Clericus, Wetstein, Storr, Eichhorn, Kauffer, Olshausen, Gléckler, Kuhn,
Ewald,) understand it of the fire of the Holy Spirit, which inflames and puri-
Jies the spirits of men.* These and other explanations, which take zrvpi as
not referring to the punishments of Gehenna, are refuted by John’s.own de-
cisive explanation in ver. 12 : rd dé dyvpov xaraxatces rupi acBéory. It is
wrong, accordingly, to refer the rupi to the fiery tongues in Acts il." The
omission of xai xvpi is much too weakly attested to delete it, with Matthaei
and Rinck.*

Ver. 12. And fire, I say ; for what a separation will it make !— ov]
assigns a reason, like our: He whose (German, Hr, dessen].° It is not, how-
ever, as Grotius, Bengel, Storr, Kuinoel think, pleonastic, but the literal
translation is to be closely adhered to : whose fanis in his hand ; that is, he
who has his (to him peculiar, comp. ver. 4) fan in his hand ready for use.

' Mark 1. 5; 1 Cor. x. 2; 23 Kings v. 14; * Comp. Isa. iv. 4
Polyb. v. 47. 2: Bawreopevos dy rots réApacs 3 7 Euth. Zigabenus, Maldonatus, Elsner,
Hom. Od. ix. 892. Er. Schmid, Bengel, Ebrard.

3 See Wetstein, Rosenmiller, Morgeni. in 8 Tucubr. crit. p. %8. See Griesbach,.
loc. ; comp. Talmud. Kiddusch. xxil. 2. Comm. crit. p. Wf.

8 Opwec. IT. p. 198. *8ee Ellendt, Zexr. Soph. I. p. 871;

“ Yom Zorne Goties, p. 219 f. Kfhner, I. p. 989.

® Christi Vere. u. Werk, I. p. 810.

82 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Comp. LXX. Ise. ix. 5. According to Fritzsche, év rg yep? avrov is epexe-
getical : ‘‘ cujus erit ventilabrum, sc. in manu ejus.” But such epexegeti-
cal remarks, which fall under the point of view of Appositio partitica, stand,
as they actually occur, in the same case with the general word, which they
define more minutely (ov 7d wriov, ri¢ yecpo¢ avrowv).'— aiwva] GAwc,* in Greek
writers commonly after the Attic declension, is the same as {73, a circular
firmly-trodden place upon the field itself, where the grain is either trod-
den out by oxen, or thrashed out by thrashing machines drawn by oxen.?
The floor is cleansed in this way, that the seed grains and the pounded straw
and similar refuse are not allowed to lie upon it indiscriminately mingled
together, in the state in which the threshing has left this unclean condition
of the floor, but the grain and refuse are separated from each other in order
to be brought to the place destined for them. In the jigure, the jioor,
which belongs to the. Messiah, is not the church (Fathers and many others),
nor mankind (de Wette), nor the Jewish nation (B. Crusius), but, because
the place of the Messiah's activity must be intended (Ewald), and that,
according to the national determination of the idea of the Baptist, the holy
land, as the proper sphere of the work of the Messiah, not the world in gen-
eral (Bleek), as would have to be assumed according to the Christian fulfil-
ment of the idea. In accordance with this view, we must neither, with
Zeger, Fischer, Kuinoel, de Wette, explain +. aiwva, according to the
alleged Hebrew usage (Job xxxix. 12 ; Ruth iii. 2), as the grain upon the
‘floor ; nor, with Fritzsche, regard the cleansing as effected, removendo inde
Jrumentum, which is an act that does not follow until the floor has becn
cleansed. The diaxabepifev, to purify thoroughly, which is not preserved
anywhere exccpt in Luke li. 17, designates the cleansing from one end to
the other ; in classical writers d:axafaipecy.* — arobyxyv| place for storing up,
magazine. The grain stores (o:ré30Acov, Polyb. ii. 100, 4 ; @yoavpoi cirov,
Strabo, xii. p. 862 ; ocrodéxy, Pollux) were chiefly dry subterranean vaults. *
— dyvpov] not merely chaff in the narrower sense of the word (}°9), but all
those portions of the stalk and ear which contain no grain, which are torn in
pieces by the threshing, and remain over (j27).6 These were used as fuel.”
-— The sense, apart from figurative language, is: The Messiah will receive
into His kingdom those who are found worthy (comp. xiii. 80) ; but wpon the
unvorthy He will inflict in full the everlasting punishments of Gehenna.
Comp. Mal. iii. 19.—aoféory] which is not quenched.* Not, therefore:
which is not extinguished till all is consumed (Paulus, Bleek).

RemMaRK.—John i. 26 is not to be regarded as parallel with Matt. iii. 12, for,
according to John, the Baptist speaks afler the baptism of Jesus, and to the

1 See Eph. lil. 5, and remarks tn loc. * Herod. iv. 72; Xen. Oec. xvii. 1, vi. f.;

3 Xen. Cec. xvill. 6; Dem. 1040. 28.

§ Keil, .{7chk. IT. p. 114; Robinson, III. p.
870. Similarly in Greek writers; see Her-
mann, FPrivatalierth. xv. 6, xxiv. 3.

4 Plat. Pol. lil. pp. 309 E. 411 D; Alciphr.
iil. 26.

§ Jahn, Archdol. I. 1, p. 376.

Gen. xxiv. 25; Ex. v. 7.

7 Mishna tract, Schabbath ii. 1: Parah. tv.
8. Paulsen, vom Ackerbau der Morgeni. p.
150.

® Hom. Ji. xvil. 89; Pind. JstAen. fil. 72:
Dion. Hal. Anét. i. 76, corresponding to the
thing portrayed ; comp. Isa. Ixvi. 24.

CHAP, III., 13. 83

members of the Sanhedrim. And doubtless he had often given expression to
his testimony regarding Christ, who was the point which the prophet had in
view in his preaching of repentance and baptism.—That he is not yet defi-
nitely designated in Matthew as Elijah (Luke i. 17; Matt. xi. 10, 14), is rightly
regarded as an evidence of the truth of the gospel narrative, which has not
anticipated the subsequently developed representation of John. To relegate,
however, the announcement of the Messiah from the preaching of the Baptist
into the realm of legend (Strauss) is a mockery of the entire evangelical testi-
mony, and places it below the narrative of Josephus, which was squared
according to the ideas of political prudence (Anti. xviii. 5, 2).

Ver. 18. Tére] at that time, when John thus preached the advent of the
Messiah, and baptized the people, vv. 1-12. — amd r. Tadd.] See ii. 28. It
belongs to xapay. The position is different in ii. 1. — rot Barriof. tr’ abroi]
Jesus wished to be baptized by John (genitive, as in ii. 18), but not in the
personal feeling of sinfulness,' or as the bearer of the guilt of others ,? not
even because He, through His connection of responsibility with the unclean
people, was unclean according to the Levitical law (Lange), or because He
believed that He was obliged to regard the collective guilt of the nation as
His guilt (Schenkel) ; just as little in order to separate Himself inwardly from
the sins of the nation (Baumgarten), or make it certain that His cdp£ aodevelac
should not be opposed to the life of the Spirit,* or because the meaning of
the baptism is : the declaration that He is subjected to death for the human
race (Ebrard) ; not evento bring in here the divine decision as to His Messi-
ahship (Paulus), or to lay the foundation for the faith of others in Him, so
far as baptism is a symbol of the regeneration of those who confess Him,‘
or in order to honor the baptism of John by His example,’ or to bind
Himself to the observance of the law ; * or because He had to conduct Him-
self, before the descent of the Spirit, merely as an Israelite in general.
The opinion also of Schleiermacher, that the baptism of Jesus was the sym-
bolicul beginning of His announcement of Himself, and, at the same time, a
recognition of John's mission, is foreign to the text. The true meaning ap-
pears from ver. 15, namely, because Jesus was consciously certain that He must,
agreeably to God's will, subject Himself to the baptism of His forerunner, in or-
der (vv. 16, 17) to receive the Messianic consecration ; that is, the divine decla-
ration that He was the Messiah,’ and thereby to belong from that moment solely
and entirely to this great vocation, The Messianic consciousness is not to be
regarded as first commencing in Him at the baptism, so that He would be
inwardly born, by means of baptism, to be the Messiah, and would become
conscious of His divine destination, to full purification and regeneration as
the new duty of His life ; but the rpérov écriv jyiv, ver. 15, presupposes a
clear certainty regarding His vocation ; and John’s relation to the same, as
in general the existence of that consciousness, must have been the necessary
result of His own consciousness, which had attained the maturity of human

1 B. Bauer, Strauss, Pécaut. ® Calvin, Kuinoel, Keim.
3 Riggenbach, Krafft. * Hofmann, Krabbe, Osiander.
* Hofmann, Welssag. und Ey/iil. II. p. 82. 7 (va avaderxOn ry Aag, ‘That he might be

4 Ammon, ZL. J. I. p. 268. exhibited to the people,”’ Euth. Zigabenas.

84 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

development, that He was the Son of God. But that baptism, to which He
felt certain that He must submit Himself, was to be for Himthe divine ordi-
nation to the Messiahship. It is clear, according to this, that ZZis baptism was
quite different from that of others, so far as in Him, as a sinless being, there
could be no confession of sin ; but the lustrative character of the baptism
could only have the meaning, that from that moment He was taken away
from all His previous relations of life which belonged to the earthly sphere,
and became, altogether and exclusively, the Holy One of God, whom the
Father consecrated by the Spirit. Although he was this God-sanctified One
from the beginning, yet now, as He was aware that this was the will of God,
He has, by the assumption of baptism, solemnly bound and devoted Himeelf
to the full execution of His unique destiny,—a devotion which was already
more than a vow (Keim), because it was the actual entrance into the Messi-
anic path of life, which was to receive at the very threshold its divine legit-
imation for all future time. In so doing, He could, without any conscious-
ness of guilt (xi. 29), associate Himself, in all humility (xi. 29), with
the multitude of those whom the feeling of guilt impelled to baptism ;
because in His own consciousness there was still the negation of absolute
moral goodness, to which He, long afterwards, expressly gave so decided
expression (xix. 17). [See note II., p. 89, seq.]

Ver. 14. According to John i. 33, it was revealed to the Baptist that He
upon whom he should see the Spirit descending was the Messiah. It was
accordingly not until this moment that the recognition of Jesus as the Mes-
siah entered his mind ; and therefore, in the Gospel of John, he says of the
time which preceded this moment : xayo otx ydscv aitév. The passage before
us is not in contradiction with this, for the recognition of the Messiahship of
Jesus does not yet lie at its foundation, but the prophetic anticipation of the
same, which on the approach of Jesus, as that solemn decision was about to
begin through the revelation of the cnyeiov, seized the soul of the Baptist in-
voluntarily and miraculously, and yet psychologically, in keeping with the
spiritual rapport prepared by revelation. Comp. Luther: ‘‘he scents the
Spirit.” Accordingly, we are not to assume in our passage either a recog-
nition only of higher excellence (Hess, Paulus, Hofmann), or a contradic-
tion with John (Strauss, de Wette, Keim), or, after Liicke, Holtzmann, and
Scholten, that the oldest and shortest tradition of Matthew contained mere-
ly vv. 16, 17, while vv. 14, 15 were a later addition of the complete Mat-
thew,’ which Hilgenfeld seeks to support from the silence of Justin regard-

1 According to Epiphanius, Haer. xx. 18,
the Gospel according to the Hebrews con-
tained the conversation, although with em-
bellishments, but placed it after the baptism.
The want of originality of this narrative in
tteelf (in answer to Schneckenburger, Hil-
genfeld) already shows its apocryphal and
extravagant character. The correctness
of its posilion bas found favour, indeed,
with Bleek (p. 179 f., and in the Stud. uw.
Krit, 1883, p. 486), Usterl (in the same, 1829,

p. 446), and Lficke, and Keim also, at the
expense of our Gospel ; but, after what has
been said above, without any reason, as
the want of agreement between Matthew
and John is only apparent, and is not to be
removed by changing the meaning of the
simple and definite ov« jéer avrév. See on
John i. 81. The Wolfenbiltel Fragmentist
(rom Zwecke Jesu, p. 188 ff.) has notoriously
misused John i. 81 to assert that Jesus and
John had long been acquainted with each

CHAP. IIL, 15. 85
ing the refusal of the Baptist, whilst Keim gives, indeed, the preference to
the statement of Matthew over that of John, but still allows it to be very
problematical. — duexéAvev] Stronger than the simple verb. The word (which
does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. nor in the LXX., yet in Judith iv. 7,
xii. 7, and frequently in the classical writers) is selected, in keeping with the
serious Opposition of the astonished John. The tmperfect is descriptive, and,
indeed, so much so, that ‘‘vere incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret
eventu, ‘‘truly it begins actions, but on account of hindrances is lacking in
result.”* John actually repelled Jesus, and did not baptize Him at once, but
only when the latter had made representations to the contrary effect. — iyo
xpelav, x.7.A.].* Thus spoke John in the truest feeling of his own lowliness
and sinfulness, in the presence of the long-longed for One, the first recogni-
tion of whom suddenly thrilled him. —xa? od foyy zpdéc pe;] A question
indicative of the astonishment with which the Baptist, although he had re-
ceived the divine declaration, John i. 83, was yet seized, through the
impression made on him by the presence of the Lord. Moreover, this dis-
course necessarily excludes the idea that he too connected the baptism of
Jesus with the profession of a confession of His sins. Yet the apocryphal
Praedicatio Pauli, according to Cyprian,* had already made Jesus deliver a
confession of sin ; in the Heangelium sec. Hebraeos, on the other hand,
quoted by Jerome, ¢. Pol. iii. 1, Jesus answers the request of His mother and
His brethren to let Himself be baptized along with them : ‘‘ Quid peccavi,
ut vadam et baptizer ab eo ? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est.”’

Ver. 15. "Aprc] now, suffer it just now. The antithesis of time is here not
that of the past (see on Gal. i. 9), but of the future, as in John xiii. 87; 1
Cor. xiii. 12.4— The meaning : ‘‘ sine paulisper” (Fritzsche),° is not suffi-
cient. Schneckenburger, p. 122, regards the dgec as having been inappro-
priately transferred from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Errone-
ously, as it there belongs (in the sense : let 14 remain) to the apocryphal
addition, according to which John, after the baptism of Jesus, prays the
latter to baptize him ; and Jesus answers : ddec, bre obrue éoti mpérov TAnpU-
Oqva: xévra.6 This apocryphal outgrowth is manifestly a farther spinning
out of the tradition, as recorded in Matthew. Several of the Fathers like-
wise inferred from dpr:, in our verse, that John was afterwards baptized by
Jesus. — juiv] to thee and to me. To refer it merely to Jesus (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Gléckler), or, in the first place to Jesus
(de Wette, Bleek), is opposed to the context. See ver. 14. — wacav dixaco-
otvyv] all righteousness, all which as duty it is obligatory on us todo.” If I

other, and had come to an understanding
to work to each other’s hands, but to con-
ceal this from the people.

1 Schaefer, ad Kur. Phoen. 81. Kiihner,
IL. 1, p. 123.

3 Grotius: Si aller nostrum omnino dapti-
zandus sit,ego potius abs te, ul dignissimo, bap-
tismum petere debui, ‘If only one of us {s to
be baptized, I ought rather to seek baptism
from thee, as the most worthy.”

3 Opp. p. 142, Rigalt (Credner, Beiér. I. p.

860 ff.)

4 Chrysostom : ov &yyvexms ravra éorat, GA’
Swe. we éy rovrots ols dwcOupeis: dpre pdvroe
bropewov rovro, ‘* These things shall not per-
petually be, but thou shalt see me in those
things which thou desirest ; now, however,
bear this patiently.”

® Comp. de Wette: “‘ let it be for once.”

* Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 18.

7 Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p.
81. Comp. wAnp. ebodBaay, 4 Maco. xiv. 15.

e

86 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

do not allow myself to be baptized, and thou dost not baptize me, there re-
mains something unfulfilled (therefore, osrw) which ought to be done by us,
in accordance with the divine will ; then satisfaction is not made by us to
all righteousness.’

Ver. 16. Ev@6c] which cannot belong to dvedz6. (Maldonatus, Grotius,
B. Crusius), nor can it be referred to BarrioGei¢ by supposing a hyperdbaton
(Fritzsche).* Matthew would have written, xai evéve Barribeic. It belongs
to avéBy, beside which it stands : after Hewas baptized, He went up straight-
way, etc. This straightway was understood at once as a matter of course,
but does not belong, however, merely to the descriptive, but to the circum-
stantial style of the narrative, setting forth the rapid succession (of events).
— avediyOnoav abt ol ovpavoi] designates neither a clearing up of the heavens
(Paulus), nor a thunderstorm quickly discharging itself (Kuinoel, Ammon),
since the poctic descriptions, as in Sil. It. i. 535 ff., are quite foreign *to our
simple historical narrative ; as, moreover, neither in the Gospel according to
the Hebrews, nor in Epiphanius,‘ is a thunderstorm meant. Only an actual
parting of the heavens, out of which opening the Spirit came down, can be
intended. Ezek. i. 1; Johni. 52; Rev. iv. 1; Acts vii. 56; Isa. Ixiv. 1.
—air¢ does not refer to the Baptist,® since ver. 16 begins a new portion of
the history, in which John is no longer the subject. It refers to Jesus, and
is the dative of purpose. Jo Him the heavens open ; for it was on Him that
the Spirit was to descend. Comp. Vulgate. —eldée] Who? not John, but
Jesus, without én’ airév standing for 颒 airév.4 The Gospel according to
the Hebrews clearly referred eide to Jesus, with which Mark i. 10 also decid-
edly agrees,’ — deel repiorepdv] The element of comparison is interpreted by
modern writers not as referring to the shape of the visibly descending Spirit,
but to the manner of descent, where partly the swiftness (Fritzsche), partly
the soft, gentle movement (Bleek) and activity (Neander), and the like, have
been imagined as referred to. But as all the four evangelists have precisely
the same comparison (Mark i. 10 ; Luke iii. 22 ; John i. 82), which, as a
mere representation of the manner of the descent, would be just as unessen-
tial as it would be an indefinite and ambiguous comparison ; as, farther,
Luke expressly says the Spirit descended, cuyarine elder Soei reprotepd, where,
by the latter words, the cuyar. eldec is defined more precisely *°—so that in-
terpretation appears as a groundless attempt to lessen the miraculous ele-

1 Comp. on sacar the plural expression
d.cacoovvar in Sir. xliv. 10; Job if. 14.

2 See Kithner, IT. 2, p. 642.

* See Drackenborch, ad Si. It. ill. 186;
Heyne, a@ Virg. Aen. ill. 198. ,

4 Haer, xxx. 18, nor in Justin, ¢. 7ryph.
88. In the Gospel according to the He-
brews : weprdAauwper roy réwov Gas néya. Jus-
tin : xareA@dvrog Tov "Incod éxi Td Vdwp nai rup
avin ev te ‘lopddvp, ‘‘A great light shone
round the place,” Justin: ‘‘ Jesus, having
gone down to the water, a fire also was
kindled in the Jordan.”’

5’ Beza, Heumann, Bleek, Kern, Krabbe,

de Wette, Baur.

* Kuinoel; Kihner, II. 1, p. 489 f.; Bleek
on the passage.

7 Schmidt tn the Jahrd. f. D. Th. 1889, p.
655, erroneously says: If Jesus were the
subject, ¢>’ avrédy must necessarily have
been put. See Buttmann, neu. Gr. p. 97 f.
[E. T. 111 £.].

® Comp. the Gospel according to the He-
brews In Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 18: cide,
namely, Jesus, rd rvevua Tov Geov Td ayrow ey
eideac weptorepas xareAGovoys ; also Justin, ¢.
Tr. 88,

CHAP, III., 17. 87

ment, and only the old explanation,’ that the form of a deve actually appeared,
can be received as the correct one. So also Paulus (who, however, thought
of a real dove which accidentally appeared at the time !), de Wette, Kuhn,’
Theile,* Keim, Hilgenfeld, who compares 4 Esdr. v. 26. The symbolic
element of this divine cnyeiov (see remarks after ver. 17) rests just in its ap-
pearance in the form of a dove which descends.

Ver. 17. uv) . . . Aéyovoa] Here neither is éyévero to be supplied, after
Luke iii. 22 ; nor does the participle stand for the finite tense. See on ii.
18. But literally : and lo, there, a voice from heaven which spoke.‘— 6 ayaryréc]
dilectus, not unicus (Loesner, Fischer, Michaelis, and others). The article,
however, does not express the strengthened conception (dilectissimus), as
Wetstein and Rosenmiiller assert, but is required by gremmar ; for the em-
phasis lies on 6 vié¢ yov, to which the characteristic attribute is added by
way of distinction.» Exactly so in the same voice from heaven, xvii. 5. —
év » evdéxyoa] Hebraistic construction imitative of 1 }'20).°—The aorist de-
notes : in whom I have had good pleasure (Eph. i. 4; John xvii. 24), who has
become the object of my good pleasure.’ The opposite is éuio7oa, Rom. ix.
18 ; axOnpe xpovioy, Hom. Jl. xx. 306.—The divine voice solemnly proclaims
Jesus to be the Messiah, 6 vidg yov ; which designation, dcrived from Ps, il.
7,°1is in the divine and also in the Christian consciousness not merely the
name of an office, but has at the same time a metaphysical meaning, having
come forth from the Father’s being, xara rveiya, Rom. i. 4, containing the
Johannine idea, 6 Adyo¢ capt éyévero (according to Matt. i. 20, Luke i. 35,
also the origin of the corporeity). That the passage in Isa. lxii. 1 (comp.
Matt. xii. 18) lies at the basis of the expression of that voice, either alone
(Hilgenfeld) or with others (Keim), has this against it, that 4 vid¢ nov is the
characteristic point, which is wanting in Isaiah J.c., and that, moreover, the
Other words in the passage do not specifically correspond with those in
Isaiah.

Remanr.—The fact of itself that Jesus was baptized by John, although left
doubtful by Fritzsche, admitted only as possible by Weisse, who makes it rather
to be a baptism of the Spirit, while relegated by Bruno Bauer to the workshop
of later religious reflection, stands so firmly established by the testimony of the
Gospels that it has been recognized even by Strauss, although more on a priori
grounds (LZ. J. L. p. 418). He rejects, however, the more minute points as unhis-
torical, while Keim sees in it powerful and speaking figures of spiritual occur-

1 Origen and the Fathers in Suicer, Thee.
8.0. wepcorepd, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus,
Luther.

32. J.1. p. 819.

® Zur Blogr. Jesu, p. 48.

Comp. xvii. 5; Luke v. 12, xix. 9; Acts
vill. 27; Rev. iv. 1, vi. 2, vii. 9.

® Comp. Kithner, II. 1, p. 529 f.

* See Winer, p. 218 [E. T. 291]. Fritzsche,

ad Rom. II. p. 871 (Polybius il. 12. 18 does
not apply here); frequently in LXX. and
Apocrypha.

¥ See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 746; Bern-

hardy, p. 881 f. ; Kaihner, IT. 1, p. 184 f.

8 In the Gospel according to the Hebrews
the words of the voice ran, according to
Epiphanius, Haer, xxx. 18: ov pov el 4 vide
dyads, cv cot evddunca: Kai waAty: eye oHE-
por yeydvvnxd oe. So also substantially in Jus-
tin, c. 77. 88. Manifestly an addition from
later tradition, which had become current
from the well-known passage in Ps. ii.
Nevertheless, Hilgenfeld regards that form
of the heavenly voice as the more original.
See on the opposite side, Welsse, Zvange-
Uenfrage, p. 190 ff.

88 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

rences which then took place on the Jordan ; Schenkel again introduces thoughts
which are very remote ; and Weizsicker recognizes in it the representation of
the installation of Jesus into His vocation as Ruler, and that by the transforma-
tion of a vision of Jesus into an external fact, and refers the narrative to later
communications probably made by the Lord to His disciples. The historical
reality of the more minute details is to be distinguished from the legendary
embellishments of them. The first is to be derived from John i. 32-34, accord-
ing to which the Baptist, after an address vouchsafed to him by God, in which
was announced to him the descent of the Spirit as the Messianic onyeiov of the
person in question, saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descend upon
Jesus, and abide upon Him, and, in accordance with this, delivered the testi-
mony that Jesus was the Son of God. The seeing of the Baptist, and the tes-
timony which he delivered regarding it, is accordingly to be considered as based
on John i, 32-34, as the source of the tradition preserved in the Synoptics, in
the simplest form in Mark. According to Ewald, it was in spirit that Jesus saw
(namely, the Spirit, like a dove, consequently ‘‘in all ifs liveliness and fulness,”’
according to Isa. xi. 2) and heard what He Himself probably related at a later
time, and that the Baptist himself also observed in Jesus, as He rose up out of
the water, something quite different from what he noticed in other men, and
distinguished Him at once by the utterance of some extraordinary words.
But, considering the deviation of John’s narrative from that of the Synoptics,
and the connection in which John stood to Jesus and the Baptist, there exists
no reason why we should not find the original fact in John.! Moreover, that
seeing of the Spirit in the form of a dove is a spiritual act, taking place in a
vision (Acts vii. 55, x. 10 ff.), but which was transformed by the tradition of
the apostolic age into an external manifestation, as the testimony of John
(John i. 34), which was delivered on the basis of this seeing of his, was changed
into a heavenly voice (which therefore is not to be taken as Bath Kol, least of
all ‘‘as in the still reverberation of the thunder and in the gentle echo of the
air,” as Ammon maintains, L. J. p. 273 f.). The more minute contents of the
heavenly voice were suggested from Ps. ii. 7, to which also the old extension
of the legend in Justin, c. Tryph. 88, and in the Ev. sec. Hebr. in Epiph. Haer.
xxx. 13, points. Consequently the appearance of the dove remains as an act-
ual occurrence, but as taking place in vision,* as also the opening of the heavens.?
Origen designates the thing as @ewpia vonrixy, ‘a beholding with the
mind (or intelligence).’’4 Finally, the question® whether before the time of

1 Comp. Neander, Z. J. p. 8 f.; Schleler-
macher, p. 144 ff.; Ewald, Geach. Car. p. 280.

3 Orig. c. Cele. 1. 48-48. Theodore of Mop-
suestia: éy «ide: mwepiorepas yevoundyy h Tov
wvevparos xdbobos oF racw apy Trois Tapovery,
GAAa card ria wrevmeatixhy Oeaplay
oply udvy Te ‘Iwavrp, cadios Edo Fy ToIs wpod-
Hras éy udow wodAwy Ta wag. adewpyra BAdrer
. .. dwracia ydp Fv, ob dace Td darvdpevor,
**The descent of the Spirit in the formof a
dove was not seen by all those present, but
in accordance with a spiritual vision it was
seen by John alone, just as it was custom-
ary with the prophets, in the midst of
many, to see the things not seen by all...
for the phenomenon was a vision, not na-

ture.”

3 Jerome: “Non reseratione elemento-
rum sed spiritualibus oculis, ‘“‘ Not by an
opening of the elements, but with spiritual
eyes.””

Comp. Grotius, Neander, Krabbe, de
Wette, Bleek, Weizsiicker, Wittichen.

® Talmudic and Rabbinical witnesses, but
no pre-Christian ones, are in existence for
the Jewish manner of regarding it (amongst
the Syrians the dove was held sacred as
the symbol of the brooding power of na-
ture; see Creuzer, Symbol. II. p. 80). See
Chagig. ii., according to which the Spirit of
God, like @ dove, brooded over the waters
(comp. Bereshith rabba, f. iv. 4; Bohar, f.

NOTE, 89

Christ the Jews already regarded the dove as a symbol of the Divine Spirit, is
so far a matter of perfect indifference, as the Baptist could have no doubt, after
the divine address vouchsafed to him, that the seeing the form of a dove descend-
ing from heaven was a symbolical manifestation of the Holy Spirit; yet it is
probable, from the very circumstance that the érracia took place precisely in
the form of a dove, that this form of representation had its point of connection
in an already existing emblematic mode of regarding the Spirit, and that con-
sequently the Rabbinical traditions relating thereto reach back in their origin
to the pre-Christian age, without, however (in answer to Liicke on John), hav-
ing to drag in the very remote figure of the dove descending down in order to
brood, according to Gen. i. 2. Here it remains undetermined in what proper-
ties of the dove (innocence, mildness, and the like)! the point of comparison
was originally based. Moreover, according to John i. 32 ff., the purpose of
what took place in vision does not appear to have been the communication of
the Holy Spirit to Jesus (misinterpreted by the Gnostics as the reception of the
Adyoc), but the making known of Jesus us the Messiah to the Baptist on the
part of God, through a onpeiov of the Holy Spirit. In this the difficulty disap-
pears which is derived from the divine nature of Jesus, according to which He
could not need the bestowal of the Spirit, whether we understand the Spirit in
itself, or as the communicator of a nova virtus (Calvin), or as rvedya mpogyrixéy
(Thomasius), or as the Spirit of the divine éfovcia for the work of the Messiah
(Hofmann), as the spirit of office (Kahnis), which definite views are not to be
separated from the already existing possession of the Spirit. The later doubts
of the Baptist, Matt. xi. 2 ff. (in answer to Hilgenfeld, Weizsicker, Keim), as a
momentary darkening of his higher conscionsness in human weakness amid all
his prophetic greatness, are to be regarded neither as a psychological riddle
nor as evidence against his recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, which was
brought about in a miraculous manner ; and this is the more conceivable when
we take into consideration the political element in the idea of the Messiah en-
tertained by the imprisoned John (comp. John i. 29, Remark). If, however,
after the baptism of Josus, His Messianic appearance did not take place in the
way in which the Baptist had conceived it, yet the continuous working of the
latter, which was not given up after the baptism, can carry with it no well-
founded objection to the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah, which is related in
the passage before us, Comp. on John iii, 23,

Nore sy American Eprror,

II.

The points of Dr. Meyer's exposition of the narrative of the Baptism of
Christ, contained in this chapter, may be thus stated. (1) The fact of the bap-

xix. 8 on Gen. i. 2, according to which the
Spirit brooding on the water is the Spirit of
the Messiah). Targum on Cant. fi. 12: ‘* Vox
tarturis, vox Spiritus s."’ Ir. Gibborim, ad
Gen. |. 2; Bemidd. rab. f. %0.1. See also
Sohar, Num. f. 68, 971 f., where the dove of
Noah is placed in typical connection with
the Messiah; in Schoettgen, II. p. 587 f.

Comp. besides, Lutterbeck, neutest. Lehr~
begr. I. p. 259 f.; Keim, Geach. J. I. p. 589
The dove was also regarded as a sacred
bird in many forms of worship amongst
the Greeks.

1 Theodore of Mopsuestia : ¢urdcropyop «x.
dirdvdpewor coor.

90 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tism is admitted. (2) He finds the real facts of the event in John i. 32, and
distinguishes the additional or differing statements in Matthew as legendary
embellishments. (3) John the Baptist saw the descent of the Spirit, as a spir-
itual act in the form of a vision, and founded his testimony to Jesus as the
Messiah thereon. (4) The vision of John was transformed by tradition into an
external act, and his testimony into a voice from heaven. (5) The words ‘‘ This
is my beloved Son” are formed out of Psalm ii. 7 (‘* Thou art my Son,”’ etc.)
It will be seen that Dr. Meyer relies, here as elsewhere, on his theory of the
origin of Matthew—to wit, that this apostle wrote only a collection of the say-
ings of Christ, and that the narrative of events was added by another hand,
possibly by other hands. We have already characterized this theory, as having no
sure foundation in the testimony of antiquity (see Preface, page v., ef seg.). Nothing
remains, then, but to relegate the distribution of the matter in Matthew into his-
torical and legendary, to the category of purely subjective criticism. But this
species of criticism, in the nature of the case, yields very uncertain results, Thus
Schenkel, who follows the same method, comes to conclusions directly the op-
posite of Dr, Meyer’s. Thus he tells us: ‘‘ The account of the fourth gospel can
prefer no claim to historical credibility in the usual sense of the word. . . . There
is not the slightest probability that the Baptist ever distinctly recognized the
Messianic destiny of Jesus, to say nothing of his bearing testimony before the
whole people to the divine Sonship of Jesus. Just as little ground is there for
the assumption that it had been revealed to him in a vision, and at the baptism
of Jesus, that Jesus was the Messiah. . . . Not in the fourth gospel, but in the
first three, especially in the second, is the relation between John and Jesus
most correctly represented.”! Thus, what one of these scholars on the
grounds of subjective criticism affirms, the other denies. With one, John only
has the true account of Christ’s baptism ; for the other, the Synoptists alone
are the exact reporters. Whether the ground of such subjective criticism be the
congruity or otherwise of the narrative with the critic’s personal judgment of.
reasonableness, or the congruity or the reverse of the narrative with what is
assumed to be the Christian consciousness, the results are alike discordant.
Renan does no more than caricature this method when he refers the state-
ments of all the gospels to a standard of msthetic congruity. He tells us
boldly : “In such an effort to revivify the lofty souls of the past, we must be
permitted to some extent to divine and conjecture. A great life is an organic
whole, which cannot be represented by the simple agglomeration of little facts.
The method of art in such a subject is a good guide. . . . Suppose that in re-
storing the Minerva of Phidias according to the texts, an unnatural, maimed,
artificial whole should be produced ; what must we conclude therefrom? But
one thing: that the texts demand artistic interpretation, that they must be
gently entreated, until they finally combine to produce a whole in which all
the materials are happily fused.”* Very properly we reject with scorn such a
treatment of the Gospels as this. But is it anything more than a logical result
of subjective criticism applied to the evangelists, when the criticism is without
the support of historical or documentary authority? The Christian conscious-
ness of the Church universal in past ages has not found it impossible to
receive, in its obvious sense, the narrative of a divine testimony to Jesus, at the

1 “‘ Character of Jesus,” American ed., vol. 1. pp. 71, 72.
3‘ Life of Jesus,’’ Amer. ed., pp. 47, 48.

NOTE. 91

time of His baptism ; nor is the symbolism here more difficult to acceP? than
the symbolism of the day of Pentecost.

There is an ambiguity in the word vision, the noticing of which may protect
us from confusion of thought. It may mean subjectively something seen by a
person in an exalted state of mind, but which has reality for that person only ;
or it may mean objectively something externally exhibited by supernatural
power as a divine symbol, and which may be perceived by one or more persons.
Dr. Meyer, as we understand him, holds that the vision of the opening heavens
and the descending Spirit was an experience of John the Baptist in the first
sense ; but we quite agree with Lange in saying, ‘‘The fact that this was a
vision does not exclude the objective reality of this miraculous event ; on the
contrary, it is in perfect accordance with it.”! And Lange also says well:
‘« The objections raised by modern criticism against the historical character of
this narrative fall to the ground the moment we acknowledge the supernatural
element in the life of our Saviour.” As to the assertion that the tradition
qnoted by Justin Martyr, to wit : ‘‘ when he had stepped into the water, a fire
was kindled in the Jordan,”® is presumption of the legendary character of Mat-
thew’'s narrative, we fail to see its force. The acute and lively but not closely log-
ical Justin might pick up this story from some one of the apocryphal gospels cur-
rent in histime. Still, the growth of apocryphal legends in the second century
cannot prove that Matthew is here legendary—no more than the story that
the Wandering Jew saw Christ on the way to Calvary is proof that the account
of the Crucifixion is a legend.

On the purpose of the vision Dr. Meyer is more satisfactory. It was ‘‘not the
communication of the Holy Spirit to Jesus, but the making known of Jesus as the
Messiah to the Baptist, on the part of God through a onyeiov of the Holy Spirit’’
(p. 89). We can add that it was a testimony from heaven to the divine Son-
ship of Jesus, not only for the Baptist, but for othersalso. The view that Jesus
here first received the qualifications for his office is contradicted by the whole
tenor of His life. It is contradicted also, as Neander reminds us, by His own
testimonies of Himself. ‘‘In all these there is manifested the consciousness
of His own greatness, not as something acquired, but as unoriginated, and
inseparable from His being. He does not speak like one who has become what
He is by some sudden revolution.’’ 3

1 “Com. on Matt.,”” Amer. ed., p. 78.
2 “ Dialogue with Trypho,” chap. 88.
8 “Life of Christ,” Amer. ed., p. 62

92 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER IV.

Ver, 4. 6 dvéper.] Elz., Scholz omit the 6. It might easily have been added
from the LXX. in Deut. viii. 3, where, however, it is wanting in several wit-
nesses ; but as the article is superfluous, and the witnesses in ils favor greatly
preponderate, there are decisive reasons for retaining it. — ém} wavri] év wavri
is found in C D, 13, 21, 59, 124, 300 ; approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche,
Lachm., Tisch. Rightly ; évi was just as easily suggested by the first clause
of the sentence by itself as by the reading of the LXX., which is attested by
preponderating witnesses. — Ver. 5. forgo] BC DZ ®&, 1, 33: éorgoev. Reo-
ommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The aorist interrupts
and disturbs the representation as present, and has been introduced from Luke
iv. 9.— Ver. 6. Aéyes] Lachm., but upon very slight authority, reads elrev,
which is not to be adopted, even in ver. 9, instead of Aéyer, with Lachm. and
Tisch. 8, after BC D Z & and Curss, It is taken from Luke. — Ver. 10. ériow
pov] is wanting in Elz., deleted also by Fritzsche and Tisch. 8, bracketed by
Lachm. The witnesses are greatly divided, and the preponderance is uncertain
(against it: BC* K P8 VA X&, Curss., Or. Ir. and other Fathers, and several
Verss., among which Syr. Vulg. ; in favor: C** DE LM U T Z, and several
Curss., Justin., and many Fathers and Verss., amongst which is It.). An old
insertion from xvi. 13, where the circumstance that Peter is there the person
addressed, might cause the less difficulty that he also is called Satan. In Luke
iv. 8, éxaye déticw pov oar. is also an interpolation. — Ver. 12. 6 "Iycon¢] is
wanting in B C* D Z &, 16, 33, 61, Copt. Aeth. Or. Eus. Aug. The omission is
approved by Griesbach. Rightly ; the addition of the subject suggested itself
the more easily that a new section begins iu ver. 12. Comp. ver. 18. Deleted
also by Tisch. — Ver. 18. dé] Elz. adds 4 ’Incotc, against decisive testimony.
Comp. on ver. 12. — Ver. 23. 6Anv 7. Tadcd.] Lachm. : 649 1. Tadsdaig, without
evidence, as not merely C but B also has éy Ay r. T'aA., which Tisch. has adopt-
ed, 8th ed. &* has merely év r7 Tad. The reading of Tisch. 8 is to be adopted ;
the Received reading is a change made to harmonize with the more common
construction,

Vv. 1-11. Temptation of Jesus. Mark i. 12 f.; Luke iv. 1 ff."—The
narrative in Matthew (and Luke) isa later development of the tradition,
the older and still undeveloped form of which is to be found in Mark. —

1 Alex. Schweizer, exeg. hist. Darstellung
d. Versuchsgeech. in s. Kritik d. Gengensdtze
zw. Rationalism. u. Supernat. 1888; P.
Ewald, d. Versuch. Christi mit Bezugnahme
auf d. Versuch. d. Protoplasten. 1888; Kohl-
schfitter in the Sdchs. Stud. 1848; Ullmann,
Stindlosigk. Jesu, ed. 7, 1868; Graul in
Guericke’s Zellschr. 1844, 8; Pfeiffer in the
Deutech, Zeitechr, 1851, No. 8 ; Koenemann

(purely dogmatic) in Guericke’s Zelischr.
1850, p. 586 ff.; Laufs in the Stud. u. Kriz.
1858, p. 835 ff.; Nebe, d. Versuch. d. Hernn
e. duesere Thatesache, 1857 ; v. Engelhardt, de
Jesu Chr. tentatione, 1858; Held in Hilgen-
feld’s Zeitechr. 1866, p. 884 ff. ; Haupt in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1871, p. 209 ff.; Pfleiderer in
Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr, 1870, p. 188 ff.

CHAP. IV., 2 93

rére] when the Holy Spirit had descended upon Him. — av4y67] de was led
upwards, i.e. from the lower ground of the river bank to the higher lying
wilderness. Luke ii. 22, xxii. 66.— rv épzuov] the same wilderness of
Judea spoken of in ch. iii. According to the tradition, we are to think of
the very rugged wilderness of Quarantania (wilderness of Jericho, Josh.
xvi. 1). But in that case a more precise, distinctive designation must have
been given ; and Mark i. 18, qw yera rév Onpiay, is a point which has a sufii-
cient basis in the idea of the wilderness in general. Nothing in the text
points to the wilderness of Sinai (Chemnitz, Clericus, Michaelis, Nebe). —
brd tov xveipatoc] by the Holy Spirit, which he had received at His baptism.
avhx6n does not indicate (Acts viii. 89 ; 2 Kings ii. 16) that He was trans-
ported in a miraculous, involuntary manner, but by the power of the Spirit,
which is expressed still more strongly in Mark i. 12. Others (Bertholdt,
Paulus, Glickler) understand Jesus’ own spirit, Paulus regarding it as an
ecstatic condition. This would be opposed to the context (iii. 16), and to
the view of the matter taken by the Synoptics, which, in Luke iv. 1, is ex-
pressed without any doubt whatever by the words mveiparog dylov rAgpyc.*
— xe:pacGyva:] designates the purpose for which the Spirit impelled Jesus
to go into the wilderness: recpdélecv, to put tothe proof, receives its more
precise definition in each case from the connection. Here : whether the
Messiah is to be brought to take an unrighteous step which conflicts with His
calling and the will of God. —imd rov d:a864.v] In what shape the devil ap-
peared to Him, the text does not say ; and the view of the evangelist as to
that is left undetermined. ‘Yet the appearance must be conceived of as
being directly devilish, not at all as taking place in the form of an angel of
light (Ambrose, Menken), or even of aman. [See note IV., p. 108.]

Remarx.—The two opposed principles, id rov rv. and é76 Tob dia3., are es-
sentially related to one another ; and the whole position of the history, more-
over, immediately after the descent of the Spirit on Jesus, proves that it is the
victory of Jesus, filled with the Spirit (Luke iv. 1, 2), over the devil, which is to
be set forth. It appears from this how erroneous is the invention of Olshausen,
that the condition of Jesus in the wilderness was that of one who had been
abandoned by the fulness of the Spirit. The opinion of Calvin is similar, al-
though more cautiously expressed, ver. 11: ‘‘Interdum Dei gratia, quamvis
praesens esset, eum secundum carnis sensum latuit.”’

Ver. 2. Nyoreboac] to be taken absolutely. Luke iv. 2. Comp. Deut. ix,
9; Ex. xxxiv. 28; 1 Kings xix. 8, It is explained, without reason, by
Kuinoel, Kuhn, and many others in the sense of deprivation of the usual
means of nourishment. This relative meaning, which, if presented by the
context, would be admissible,* is here, however, where even the nights are

1 Robinson, Pal. II. p. 852; Schubert, rod saBddov, “After his baptism he gives
Reise, 111. p. 78; Raumer, p. 47. Himself up to the Holy Spirit, and by him
* Rath. Zigabenus well remarks: éxdisac.y is led to whatever that one may order, and
lavrby pera 1d Béwricna TH dyig wyevpar. cai is led up into the wilderness, for the war to
te” avrov dyeras wpdc 8 Gy exeivo xeAevy, kat be made upon him by the devil.”
dévdyera: cig Thy fpnuov exit Te wodeunORvas Urd § Kuhn, Z. J. I. p. 364 ff.

94 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

mentioned as well as the days, contradicted by the context, the supernat-
ural character of the history, the intentionally definite statement of Luke
(iv. 2), and the types of Moses and Elijah. It is just as irrelevant to change
the forty days as a sacred number into an indefinite measure of time (Késter) ;
or, as a round number, into several days (Neander, Krabbe). That, morc-
over, the forty days’ fast became the occasion of the temptation, cannot ap-
pear as out of keeping (Strauss, de Wette) with the object, but, according to
ver. 1, was contained in the design of the Spirit. —icrepov] of itself super-
fluous, indicates, however, the circumstance that the hunger did not attack
Him until He had fasted.’

Ver. 3. ‘0 recpdfuv] Part. present taken substantively. See on ii. 20.
Here : the devil. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 5. — ei] does not indicate that Satan
had doubts of Jesus being the Son of God (Origen, Wolf, Bengel), or was
not aware of it (Ignat. Phil. interpol. 9), comp. xxvili. 40 ; but the prod-
lematical expression was to incite Jesus to enter upon the unreasonable
demand, and to prove Himself the Son of God.* — vide rot Oeov} See ili. 17.
The devil makes use of ¢his designation of the Messiah, not because he
deemed Jesus to be only a man, who vioberfOy 1r@ Oe bia Tag aperac avrod,
‘was adopted as a Son by God on account of His virtues” (Euth. Ziga-
benus), or because he had become doubtful, owing to the hungering of
Jesus, of His divinity, which had bcen attested at His baptism (Chrys-
ostom) ; but because Jesus’ supernatural relation to God is well known to
him, whilst he himself, as the principle opposed to God, has to combat the
manifestation and activity of the divine. Observe that by the position of
the words the emphasis lies on vid¢ : if Thou standest to God in the relation
of Son. — sind, iva] iva after verbs of commanding, entreaty, and desire,
and the like, does not stand in the sense of the injinitice, as is commonly
assumed (Winer, de Wette, Bleck), in opposition to the necessary concep-
tion of the words, but is, as it always is, an expression of the purpose, in
order that, the mistaking of which proceeds from this, that it is not usual in
the German language to express the object of the command, and so on, in
the form of a purpose. Here : speak (utter a command) tn order that these
stones, and so on. Comp. xx. 21.*—dproc] Bread, in the proper sense ; not,
like Dn), food in general. Comp. vii. 9. — The Son of God must free Him-
self from the state of hunger, which is unbecoming His dignity, by an act
similar to the divine creation, and thus employ His divine power for His own
advantage. The tempter introduces his lever into the immediate situation of
the moment.

Ver. 4. Deut. viii. 3, after the LXX., contains the words of Moses

1 Bengel : ‘‘ Hactenus non tam fuerat ten-
tatio, quam ad eam praeparatio,” ‘“ Thas
far it had not been so much a temptation
as a preparation for it.’ Comp. the sim-
ilar usage of elra. and érecra after participles
by classical writers, Stallbaum, ad Fiat.
Phaed. p. 70 E.

2 Euth. Zigabenus: ¢gero, dr: wapaxnod}-
wera te Adyy, xaddwep bvediodeics ert re wh

etvas vids deov, ‘He thought, that he would
be {irritated by the word, as if being re-
proached for not being the Son of God.”

* The oldest examples from Greek writers
after ¢0¢Aayv, dpe, In Hom. J. i. 188 (see
N&gelsbach thereon), occur in Herodotas
and Demosthenes. See Schaefer, ad Dem.
279. 8: afsvoty, tva Bondijoyn ; Kiihner, II. 2,
p. 519. — ot Aivos ofro.] comp. fil. 9.

CHAP. Iv., 5. 95

addressed to the Israelites, which have reference to the divinely-supplied
manna, Note how Jesus repels each one of the three temptations, simply
with the sword of the Spirit (Eph. vi. 17). — ix’ apry] the preservation of
life does not depend upon bread alone.’ This construction is 2 common one
in classical writers with éx, avd, or the simple dative. — (jeera:] The future
tense designates in Deut. i. 1, and in LXX. as well as here, simply the
Suture, that which will happen, the case which will occur under given circum-
stances. So also in classical writers in general sentences.? — 6 évfpwroc]
unicersal: Man. So in the original text and in the LXX.; there is the less
reason to depart from this, and to explain it : de insigni illo homine, that is,
Messiah (Fritzsche), as the application of the universal statement to Himself
on the part of Jesus was a matter of course. — pjyar:] Word, in its proper
sense. By every statement which proceeds from the mouth of God, that is,
through every command which is uttered by God, by which the preservation of
life is effected in an extraordinary, supernatural manner (without dpro¢).?
Comp. Wisd. xvi. 26. jjua is not res (134), not even in xviii. 16, Luke ii.
15, Acts v. 82, 1 Macc. v. 87, since éxmop. dia ord. Oeow necessarily points to
the meaning of word, declaration, which, however, is not to be explained,
with Fritzsche (comp. Usteri and Ullmann) : omni mandato ditino peragendo.

Ver. 5. Mapatayp.] he takes Him with him, 1 Macc. iii. 87, iv. 1, and fre-
quently in Greek writers. — ri dyiav réA] wpa YY, Isa. xlviii. 2, lii. 1;
Neh. xi. 1. Jerusalem, the city of God, on account of the national temple.‘
Even at the present day it is called by the Arabs : the place of the Sanctuary,
or the Holy City [El Kuds].° The designation has something solemn in
contrast to the devil. — iergarv] not ‘‘ auctor erat, ut Christus (with him) illue
se conferret,” ‘‘ he was the contriver, that Christ should bring Himself thither
(with him),” (Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but: he places Him, which implies the
involuntary nature of the act on the part of Jesus, and the power on the
part of the devil. Comp. Euseb. H. Z. ii. 23: toryjoav . . . rav IdxwPov ext
Ts xteptytov tov vaov, ‘‘They placed James upon the wing of the temple.”
A more precise determination of what is certainly a miraculous occurrence
(conceived of by Jerome as a carrying away through the air) is not given in the
text, which, however, does not permit us to think of it as something inter-

nal taking place in the condition of a trance (Olshausen).

1 Examples of ¢9v éwi in Kypke, Odes. I. p.
14f.; Markland, ad Maz. Tyr. Diss. xxvil.
6; Bergler, Ad alciphr. p. 204.

3 Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 369.

3 Amongst the Israelites it was effected
by means of the manna; therefore we
must not say with Eoath. Zigabenus: sa»
pyya éxwopevépevoy 84 ordéparos Geov éxi roy
wewervra Sicnyvy trpodis auvdxe thy Cwhy
avrov, *‘Every word proceeding out of
the mouth of God to the man hungering
after nourishment, keops together his life.”
Comp. Chrysostom: 8vvara: 6 dede cai pymare
Opdya: rar wecvwovra, ‘‘God is able even by
a word to nourish the hungry one.”
Pfleiderer also refers it to the power of

Comp. Acts viii.

spiritual nourishment contained in the di-
vine word; as also Calovius, who says:
‘“Revocat a verbo polentiae, quo lapides
erant in panem convertendi, ad verbum
gratiae, cul adhaerentes vivent. etiamsi
pane careant,” “He recalls from a word
of power, by which stones were to be con-
verted into bread, to a word of grace, to
which men adhering shall live, even
though they lack bread.”

4V. 35, xxvil. 58; Luke iv. 9; Sir. xxxvl.
18, xlix. 6; Josephus, Antt. iv. 4.4; Light-
foot, Hor. p. 48; Ottii Spictleg. p. 9.

§’ Hamelsveld, dt. Geogr. I. p. M4 ff.;
Rosenmfller, Morgent. in loc.

96 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

88. — 1d wreptytov rod lepov] the little wing of the temple’ is sought for by many
on the temple building itself, so that it is either its battlement (Luther, Beza,
Grotius), that is, the parapet surrounding the roof, or the ridge (Fritzsche,
Winer), or the gable, pediment (Vulgate : pinnaculum ; Paulus, Bleek), the
two latter from their wing shape ( A ), or rooy generally (Keim, and older
expositors.* But, apart from this, that the roofing of the temple house,
according to Josephus, Anti. v. 5. 6, vi. 5. 1, was furnished on the top with
pointed stakes as a protection against birds, and, moreover, on account of
the extreme sacredness of the place, would hardly be selected by tradition
as the spot where the devil stationed himeelf, the row iepov is opposed to it,
which does not, like vaéc, designate the main building of the temple, prop-
erly speaking, but the whole area of the temple with its buildings.* The
view, therefore, of those is to be preferred who, with Euth. Zigabenus,
Olearius, Reland, Valckenaer, seek the wreptycov in an outbuilding of the
temple area ; where, however, it is again doubtful whether Solomon’s portico
or the crod BaorAuxch, the former (Josephus, Antt. xx. 9. 7) on the cast side,
the latter (Josephus, Anti. xv. 11. 5) on the south, both standing on an
abrupt precipice, is intended. Wetstein and Michaelis prefer the former ;
Kuinoel, Bretschneider, B. Crusius, Arnoldi, the latter. In favor of the
latter is the description of the giddy look down from this portico given in
Josephus.‘ In Hegesippus, quoted by Eus. ii. 23 (where James preaches
downwards from the rreptyov rov vact, and the scribes then go up and
throw him down), it is not the gable, but the pinnacle, the balustrade of the
temple building, which formed a projection (axpwrfprov), that we are to
think of.* The article denotes that the locality where the occurrence took
place was well known.

Remanx.—The second temptation in Matthew is the third in Luke. The
transposition was made with a view to the order in which the localities suc-
ceeded each other. But in a climactic point of view, how inappropriate is the
order in which it occurs in Luke, and how appropriate is that in Matthew, * whose
greater originality must here also be maintained against Schneckenburger and
Krafft. The variation itself, however, is not removed by the circumstance
that Matthew only continues the narrative with rére and mdA.v (Ebrard), but it
remains and is unessential.

Ver. 6. In Ps. xci. 11, 12, according to the LXX., it is God's providential

1 Amongst the Greeks (Strabo, Plutarch,
the Scholiasts), wrepév, wing, is specially
used inan architecfural sense. See the Lez-
tca, also Miller, Archdol. § 220.8. On mrdpvé
in this sense, comp. Poll. vii. 121; on
atepvyvov, Joseph. <Antt. xv. 11. 5; on
atépwua, Vitruv. iil. 3. 9.

28ee especially Krebs on the passage
that is indicated.

* See Tittmann, Synon. p. 178 f.

4 gi tug aw’ axpou rou tadrys Téyous dude our-
riudeig ra Bady Scomrever, cxorodimay, ove
éfixvouperys THs SWews eis audrpyroy roy Byddy,

‘If any one looked down from the top of
the battlements, or down both those alti-
tudes, he would become giddy, while his
sight could not reach to the immeasurable
depth.”’

5 Comp. Hesychius: wrepiy:ov: axpwrijor.

*Luther: At the first temptation, the
devil appeared as a Black one; at the
second, where he puts forth a word of
Scripture, a light, white one; at the third,
“quite as a divinely majestic devil, who
comes out straightway, indeed, as if he
were God Himself."

CHAP. IV., 7, 8. 97

care for the pious in general that isspoken of. Here the tempter, who now
himself grasps the weapon of, Scripture, which had just been used against
him, cunningly applies the typical expressions in the Psalms (the figure is
borrowed from maternal anxicty) strictly to the Messiah. —ér:], not the
recitative, but a part of the passage.—The Son of God, in reliance on the divine
protection, must undertake a daring miracle of display in order to win over
the masses for Himself. For the multitudes, with a view to influencing
whom this miracle is proposed, are understood to be, as a matter of course,
on the temple area ; and therefore we are not to assume, with Kohlischiitter,
Tlimann, Engelhardt, that it was only an exhibition of divine favor and
protection, and no public spectacle, which was aimed at. On that view no
sufficient reason is shown why Jesus is brought from the wilderness to the
most populous centre of the metropolis.’

Ver. 7. WéAcw] rursus, never signifies in the N. T., not even in 2 Cor. x. 7,
Gal. v. 8, 1 John ii. 8, a¢ guogue, e diverso, a meaning which it frequently has
in classic writers (Ellendt, Lez. Soph. II. p. 485), as Erasmus, Er. Schmid,
Schleusner, B. Crusius, have interpreted it ; but here means, on the other
hand, looking back to the yéyparra: of the devil in ver. 6, and introducing
another passage of Scripture as something which again has been written ;
comp. v. 88.? — ovx éxeipdoerc] future, as in i, 21 ; the compound strengthens
the meaning ; comp. on 1 Cor. x. 9.—The meaning is: ‘* Do not let it bea
question whether God will save thee from dangers on which thou hast entered
unealied. n 8

Ver. 8 f. IIdoac .. . xédcpov] YIRN niann-49, Ezra i, 2. Not a hyper-
bolical expression: amplissimum terrarum tractum, but actually all the king-
doms of the world, Luke iv. 5. The devil could indeed regard only all heathen
lands as his disposable possession ; ‘ but even unto those remote heathen lands,
and beyond, and far beyond the small country of Palestine, has the marvel-
lous height of the mountain enabled the eye to look; the Holy Land, with the
temple and the peculiar people of God, certainly belonged besides to the
Son of God as a matter of course ; therefore to explain it away as omnes
Palaestinae regiones (Krebs, Loesner, Fischer, Gratz) is quite away from the
point. —éav mec. . . . pot} If thou wilt have cast Thyself down before me
as Thy master, and thereby have manifested Thy homage (ii. 2) to me. By
the fulfilment of this demand the devil would have made Jesus unfaithful
to Himself, and would have secured his own world-rule over Him. Where
the mountain in question is to be sought for (according to Michaelis, it was
Nebo, according to others, the Mount of Olices, Tabor, Moriah, Horeb) is, con-
sidering the miraculous nature of the scene (Luke iv. 5: év orcyp@ ypdvov),
not even to be asked ; just as little is deixvvow to be rationalized as if it
denoted not merely the actual pointing, but also the verbis demonstrare,

2 Euth. Zigabenus strikingly remarks : &a
wevobofias éActy avroy éxixaipe:, ‘* He attempts
to catch him through vainglory.”

* Bengel well says: Scriptura per scrip-
turam interpretanda et concilianda,
“Scripture is to be interpreted and har-
monized through Scripture.”

? Flacius: Si habuisset expressum man-
datum dei, non faisset tentatio, “If he had
had an express command of God, it had not
been a temptation.”” Deut. vi. 16 (LXX.),
comp. Ex. xvii. 2

‘Luke iv. 6; Lightfoot, p. 1068; Elsen-
menger, entd. Judenth. TI. p. 820 ff.

98 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(Kuinoel, Gléckler); the défa airy, moreover, is the external splendor of
the kingdoms that lay before His eye.

Ver. 10. “Yraye] The spurious words éziow ov would have to be explained :
go behind me—that is, go back that I may see thee no longer ! agaviofyr:,
Euth. Zigabenus, oziow with the genitive belongs to the LXX. and the Apoc-
rypha, after the Hebrew, ‘D ‘11\# ; in this way the Greeks construe dzicfev.
— arava] to infer from this that Jesus now for the first time (too late) recog-
nizes Satan (de Wette), is arbitrary, and opposed to the representation of
the matter in ver. 1, according to which Jesus cannot have been unaware
of the intention of the Holy Spirit, who impelled Him to go into the wil-
derness. That He now calls Satan by name, is in keeping with the growing
intensity of the emotion in general, as well as with the personal address of
the tempter in ver. 9.'—xipcov, x.r.4,] Jehovah alone shalt thou worship, do
homage to Him only as thy master. Deut. vi. 18, according to the LXX.,
freely applied to the proposal of Satan. According to this arrangement,
it is by the way of obedience to God that Jesus is aware that He will attain
to the government of the world. John xviii. 36; Phil. ii. 6 ff.; Matt.
xxviii. 18 ; Acts x. 86 ff.

Ver. 11. “AyyeAot] Angels, without the article. — diyxévovv] ministered to
Him. The remark of Bengel is correct : ‘‘sine dubio pro eo, ac tum opus
erat, sc. allato cibo,” ‘‘ without doubt, even as then there was need, sc. food
being brought.” ? Concerning the use of diaxoveiy in this sense ;* and how
pragmatically dpes this appearance of angels, after a series of temptations
that have been victoriously withstood, correspond to the appearance of
Satan in ver. 8! Comp. 1 Kings xix. 5. Others, not referring it to food,
say that ertraordinary divine support (John i. 52) is intended,‘ on which view
the angels themselves are partly left out, partly effaced from the narrative ;
whilst Chrysostom (who compares the carrying of Lazarus by angels into
Abraham's bosom), Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, do not enter
into any more minute exposition of the diaxoveiy. But considering the ap-
propriateness of the above definite explanation, it is not right to be satisfied
with one that is indefinite and wavering.

RemMaRK.—According to the representation of the evangelists, the temptation
of Jesus by the devil appears in the connection of the history as a real external
marvellous occurrence. See Ch. F. Fritzsche iu Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 122 ff. To
abide by this view (Michaelis, Storr, Ebrard, P. Ewald, Graul, Kénemann,
Arnoldi, Schegg, Delitzsch, Nebe, Engelhardt, Hofmann, Riggenbach, Baum-
garten) is a necessary consequence of the denial of any legendary elements in
the canonical Gospels, and is equally justifiable with this denial in general.
The evangelists were aware that they were relating a real external history in time
and space (in answer to Kuhn, Lichtenstein), and the choice only remains hetween

1“Tentatorem, quum is maxime fuvere de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Nebe, Keim.
videri vult,Satanam appellat,”’ “ He calls the 3 See Wetstein, and Matthiae, ad Soph.
tempter Satan, when that one wishes to Phil. 284.
seem especially friendly,” Bengel. ‘ Calvin, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, O]shausen,
3 So Luther, Piscator, Jansen, Wolf, Ham- Kuhn, Ammon, Ebrard.
mond, Michaelis, Paulus, Fritzsche,Strauss,

CHAP. IV., 11. 99

adopting either this view or assuming that of an ideal history in the garb of legend,
gradually brought into shape by the power of the idea. All attempts at explaining
away the devil and his external appearance are arbitrary contradictions or crit-
ical carpings, opposed to the design and representations of the evangelists,
more or less of a rationalistic character. This holds good, not merely of the
absurd, and, in relation to the third act, even monstrous view of those who,
instead of the devil, introduce one or even various individuals, perhaps 4 mem-
ber of the Sanhedrim or high priest, who wished to examine Jesus and to win
Him over, or destroy Him (Herm. v. d. Hardt, Exegesis loc. difficilior. quat. ev.
p. 470 ff. ; Basedow, Venturini, Mdiler, neue Ansichien, p. 20 ff. ; Rosenmiiller,
Kuinoel, Feilmoser in the Tid. Quartalschr. 1828, 1, 2), but also of the view
which regards the event as a vision, whether this was brought abont by the
devil (Origen? Pseudo-Cyprian, Theodore of Mopsuestia), or by God (Farmer,
Inquiry into the Nature and Design of Christ's Temptation, London, 1761 ; comp.
also Calvin on ver. 5), or by natural means (Balth. Becker, Scultetus, Clericus,
Wetstein, Bolten, Bertholdt, Jahn, Gabler, Paulus, Gratz, Pfleiderer), or of those
who view it as a significant morning dream (Meyer in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1831,
p. 319 ff.),—which interpretations, moreover, are in contradiction with the
clear repose and moral definiteness of the divine-human consciousness of Jesus,
in virtue of which there never occurs in His life any condition of ecstasy, or a
trace of any special manifestations in dreams. Akin to this, but equally offensive
to the gospel history, and besides by no means leaving unaffected the moral
character of the development of Jesus Himself, if we look to Heb. ii. 18, iv. 15,
is the view which transforms the occurrence into an infernal history, which
took place in the thoughts and fancy of Jesus (Déderlein, Eichhorn, allg. Bibl.
II. p. 283 ffi. ; Thaddaeusid. i. Dereser, d. Versuch. Christi, Bonn, 1794 ; Hezel,
Augusti, Bretschneider, Weisse, Aritik d. ev. Gesch. II. p. 12 ; Hochvisen in the
Tub. Zeitschr. 1833, 2; Kohlschitter, Pfeiffer, Rink, Ammon, Laufs, Schenkel,
Held). On this view the devil has again been recently brought forward, on
grounds exegetically justifiable, as the operating principle (Krabbe, Hofmann,
Schmid, bibl. Theol. L p. 65 ; and very indirectly also by Ullmann) ; while, in a
more arbitrary manner, it has been attributed to the disciples that they appre-
hended in an objective form the inner fact related to them by Jesus, that He had
rejected the false idea of the Messiah ; while Neander, L. J. p. 120 ff., sub-
stantially giving up the reality of the history of the temptation (‘‘a fragmentary
symbolical setting forth of the facts of His inner life,” where the manner of the
devil's co-operation is left undetermined), holds hesitatingly by its truth ; and
Kuhn, moreover, is divided between the historical and unhistorical view of the
manner of itscccurrence. To those who transfer the history into the inner life
of Jesus’ spirit, belong also Hase and Olshausen, the former of whom recognizes
it in the whole history of His mental growth, probably externalized by Himself,
with reference to Ex. xvi., Deut. viii. 2, Ps. xci. 11 £., into an individual fact,
but in the tradition assumed to be actual history, and who volatilizes the devil
into the spirit of the world ; while Olshausen, notwithstanding the 7d rod
nveipatog in ver. 1, finds the reality of the occurrence in this, that the soul of
Jesus was exposed to the full operations of the kingdom of darkness ; while
Lange regards the internal temptation of Jesus as caused by the devil, but
brought about by human means—that is, as an assault of the sympathetic in-
working of the national and world spirit upon His soul, and as the tentative
representatives of this spirit, drags in, by an invention that is his own, the

100 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

deputation of the Sanhedrim, which had been despatched to John (John i. 19),
as they were on their way back to Jerusalem. With more caution and with
profounder historical insight, Keim (comp. Weizsicker, p. 239 ff.) regards the
history of the temptation in the light of the victorious beginning of the strug-
gle with Satan, xii. 25 ff., where the historical kernel is the heavy weight of
questions and doubts which were imposed on the soul of Jesus whilst He was
calmly meditating upon the obligation and the manner of His vocation to the
Messiahship, and on His decision to enter upon it, which had so powerfully
taken hold of Him on the banks of the Jordan ; on this initial victory Jesus
could not have left His disciples without some information. But however wo
may apprehend the narrative as an historical occurrence in the mind of Jesus,
the monstrous nature of the external formation ‘of the history remains the more
inexplicable the more directly its origin is brought into connection with Jesus
Himself and His circle of disciples, especially as the threefold details of the
temptation were still unknown to Mark. To view the event as a parable, is in
contradiction to the narrative, arbitrary in itself, and alien to the style of par-
abolic address employed by Jesus elsewhere. So, after older writers, who,
however, endanger the sinless character of Jesus, it has been viewed as a sym-
bolical address of Jesus or of one of His disciples directed against false Messi-
anic hopes. See Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Lukas, p. 54 f., and L. J. p. 157 ff. ;
B. Crusius, bibl. Theol. p. 303, and on Matthew, p. 82; Usteri in the Stud. u. Krit.
1829, p. 455 ff., who at a later time recanted this opinion, and regarded the
narrative as a myth (1832, p. 768); Richter, formam narrat, Maith. iv. 1-11.
parabolicam ex Judaeor. opinione de duplici Adamo esse repetend., Viteb. 1824;
Schweizer, Bleek ; comp. Theile, z. Biogr. J. p. 49: ‘‘a warning directed by
some adherent or another in support of the spiritually moral view, in opposi-
tion to the chief elements of the earthly Messianic hope.” Against the para-
bolic character, see Hasert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 74 f. ; Strauss, Z. J. I.
p. 444 f. ; Schmid, bibl. Theol. I. p. 60; Engelhardt, Nebe. — As now, however,
the history of the temptation in the first and third evangelists, viewed as an
actual external occurrence, contains not merely a legendary magical scenery
which is still foreign to the oldest Gospel, but also absolute impossibilities and
coutradictions with the moral character of Jesus as filled with the Spirit, who
does not at once get rid of Satan, but allows him to proceed to the utmost ex-
treme ; as, moreover, this occurrence on the other side stands in contradiction
with the devil’s cunning and craftiness (Paulus, exegel. Handb. I. p. 376), whose
assaults as proceeding from the devil against the Son of man would be planned
with as much clumsiness as pointlessness,—there thus remains nothing else
than to explain the narrative which in Mark: still exhibits its first undeveloped begin-
nings, the first crystallizations of ils ideal contents, the subject of which the narrators
deemed to be true hislory, and repeated as such, as a legend, the contents of which,
regarded as thought, possessed historical truth, and which arose among Jewish Chris-
tians,' being derived from the idea of the Messiah as opposed to the devil, and

1 Various conceptions from the legendary
or mythical point of view, see in Theiss,
Loffer, ki. Schr. Il. p. 185 ff.; Fritzsche,
Usteri in the Stud. u. Krié. 1882, p. 768 ff. ;
Strauss, I. p. 479 f.; de Wette, Gfrodrer,
Gesch. d. Urchr.1. 1, p. 870 ff.; Ewald.—The
locality of the temptation, the swildernese,

X

-

was at once suggested as the ideg gradually
assumed bodily form from the sojourn of
Jesus with the Baptist, and from the popu-
lar belief that demons had their dwellings
in the wilderness ; the forty days, however,
found their venerable polut of connection in
the types of Moses and Elias (hardly of the

CHAP. Iv., Ll. 101

the necessity and complete realization of which was exhibited in the whole life
and work of Christ, placed, like a compendious programme, an ‘epitome om-
nium teniationum’’ (Bengel), at the beginning‘of the Messianic career, which
commenced at the baptism. Not as if there had not been on the part of Jesus
after His baptism, and before His entrance on His work, the most serious prep-
aration and most intense concentration of thought in still retirement, in which
the whole opposition of the devil, as wellas the manner of His own struggles
and conquests which had been peculiarly determined by God, must have pre-
sented themselves vividly before His eyes ; although this alone could not have
given rise to the history of the temptation. For that purpose it was necessary that
His holy life, that actual victory over Satan, should first be completed. That
narrative might now first have arisen in the living history-moulding. power of
the ideas which prevails generally throughout the preliminary history, first of
all in the form in which it appears in Mark, but soon after gradually expanded
into detail, yet again silently excluded by John, considering the impossibility
of assigning a place to it in connection with his history. Its expanded form,
however, as it lies before us in Matthew and Luke, corresponds with the highest
internal lruth to the main relations of the opposition directed by the power of the devil
against the second Adam and His kingdom,—an opposition which is decidedly to
be recognized from the very beginning onwards to the end, and victory over
which was the condition of His whole work. In this way the contenis of the nar-
rative, the psychological factors of which are quite as much the temptability as the sin-
lessness of the Lord, certainly belong to the history, but not as a concrete occurrence
with ils three individual acts, bul as a summary reflection of the work of Jesus in
His vocation in relation to the demoniacal kingdom, without, however, our being
obliged to assume as an historical foundation any internal temptation taking place in
thought, and any originally symbolic representation of the same, which was trans-
formed into actual history in the course of tradition (de Wette). This founda-
tion is rather the complete victory of our Lord over the craft and power of the
devil, as the whole course of His Messianic life is a series of temptations by
the devil, with the result of the latter being conquered both in detail and in
the main (Heb. ii. 18, iv. 15); comp. John xiv. 30. With profound meaning
and truth (for from the very beginning must Jesus make experience of the enemy
of His kingdom, begin the struggle with him, and become certain of the right
victory) has the synoptic tradition unanimously assigned to the narrative the
early place which it occupies ; and the attempt cannot be successful to main-

tain a later special situation as the historical seat of its origin, as Pfleiderer

does, who transposes the vision which he assumes into the time of ch. xv.

xvi., making use, moreover, of John vi. 26 for the first act of the temptation.

That the history of the temptation in Matthew is even a later insertion derived

from oral tradition (Késtlin), is a very arbitrary inference, from the circum.

Sorty years’ duration of the wanderings of
the people in the wilderness, which Delitzsch,
Baumgarten, and others drag in here asa
type.) They are also not excluded by the
* statement of Justin. c. 7. 108, that, accord-
ing to the dwournpor. 7. dwoor., the devil
came to Jesus dua ty avaBiva: avrdov ard Tov
rorayou tov ‘lopSdvov, “together with his
gotng up from the river Jordan ;"’ but this
statement agrees with Mark {i.12f. As re-

gards the individual temptations, the frst
was thus connected with the forty days’
fast of Moses, Deut. ix. 9, 18; the second,
with the necessity which existed in the
case of the Messiah of His deing accredited
by miracles ; the third, with the certainty of
the Messiah's rule over the world, by means
of which the government of the devil must
come to an end.

102 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

stance that ver. 12 does not make any reference to the history of the tempta-
tions ; Matthew follows Mark, and quotes his short notice from a special
source.—The existence of Satan; as well us his personulily, is attested through-
out the whole of the New Testament, and is altogether independent of the
view which may be taken of this individual narrative ; see in answer to Hof-
mann, Schrifibew., Philippi, Dogm. III. p. 332 ff. ed. 2.

Ver. 12. Fritzsche gives the sense and connection of vv. 12 to 16 thus :
‘¢ Post conditi in carcerem Johannis famam discessit Jesus in Galilaeam, et
relicta Nazaretha Capharnaumi quidem consedit, ut, quaemadmodum apud
prophetam est, magnis, amisso Johanne, tenebris oppressi Galilaei splen-
dida Messiae luce fruerentur,” ‘‘ After the report of John’s being cast into
prison, Jesus departed into Galilee, and having left Nazareth, settled in
Capernaum, so that, as it is in the prophet, John being lost, the Galileans,
oppressed by great darkness, might enjoy the magnificent light of the
Messiah.”” But it appears, from the words in ver, 12, that Jesus, upon
learning that the Baptist had been delivered over to Herod, deemed it dan-
gerous to appear in the same district where the latter had baptized and
excited so much attention, and that therefore He withdrew into the more
remote Galilee (comp. xii. 15, xiv. 13). This belonged, indeed, to the
dominion of Herod Antipas, who had caused the Baptist to be apprehended
(xiv. 8) ; but it removed Jesus more from his attention and that of the
hierarchical party, and gave Him the natural retirement of home. Accord-
ing to John iii. 24, John had not yet been apprehended, and the journey to
Galilee was occasioned by the marriage at Cana (ii. 1). In Luke iv. 14 no
external reason is stated for the journey, which is a later avoidance of the
inaccuracy of the earlier tradition (retained in Mark and Matthew) (in
answer to Schneckenburger). The contradiction, however, between Mat-
thew and John is to be recognized, and to the latter is to be assigned the
preference in point of accuracy.’ Comp. on John iii. 24. A longer inter-
vening period between the temptation and the return to Galilee is not
hinted at by Matthew (nor even by Mark), and is excluded by Luke.

Vv. 18, 14. Kagapvaobu}] so, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, we must write
Di) “W2, vicus Nachumi, not yuwpiov rapaxAfcewc (Origen), or villa pulcher-
rima (Jerome). It was a prosperous manufacturing town on the north-west
shore of the Lake of Tiberias. Not mentioned in the Old Test. ; in Jose-
phus.? It has now disappeared, and not even can its site be determined
with certainty (Tell Him? soalso Wilson’s Lands of the Bible, II. p. 187 f£.,

1 Wecannot say that it is the journey to degins His office as teacher. This holds

Galilee, John vi. 1, which is intended in our
passage (Wieseler, chronol. Synopses, p. 161 f.,
and Beitr. z. Wirdig. d. Ku. p. 174 ff.), for
that Matthew conceived the journey re-
corded by him as the frst after the sojourn
in the wilderness, is shown not only by the
whole context, but also by ver. 18 ff., where
the settling down at Capernaum is related,
and the reason assigned for it; and
by ver. 17, where Jesus first actually

good against the frequent assumption that
the journey to Galilee, Matt. iv. 12, coincides
with John Iv. 3, 48-45 (Kuhn, Ebrard, Lange,
Mircker, Uebereinst. d. Matth. u. Joh., 1868,
p. 9). Exegetically, the discrepancy must
remain a blank, which is also recognized by
Bleek and Keim ; by the latter, however, in
such a way that he denies to John's acoount
a strictly historical character.

2 Vit. Lxxil., copy Kedaprapy.

CHAP. Iv., 15, 16. 103

and Furer in Schenkel’s Bideller, III. p. 494 f., likewise Ritter, Ewald, and
several others ; Robinson,’ III. p. 548 ff., and Later Researches, p. 457 ff. ;
Saulcy, II. p. 491 ff. ; Ritter, Hrdk. XV. 1, p. 338 ff.). The designation
of the situation by r. wapa@ada. and év dpioc, etc. (where the boundaries of
both tribes touch each other), is given with reference to the following
prophecy, for which even the position of these boundaries was not a matter
of indifference,’ as, in consequence of it, the settlement in Capernaum had
reference to the districts of both the tribes. —xarajr. r. Nacap.] why,
Matthew does not say, but see Luke iv. 16 ff. Misconceived in Nazareth,
Jesus preferred as a place of settlement the more populous, and, through
intercourse with strangers, the more liberally-minded Capernaum. Con-
sidering His migratory life and work, neither viii. 5 f. nor viii. 20 can be
regarded as not agreeing with the statement in our passage (in answer to
Hilgenfeld).

Vv. 15, 16. As the evangelist, ii. 23, found a prophecy in support of the
settlement at Nazareth, so also now for the removal to Capernaum, viz. Isa.
viii. 22, ix. 1 (quoted from memory, but adhering to the LXX.): The land
of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles, the people which sat in darkness, and so on. — y7 is not
the eocative, but the nominative, corresponding to 6 Aadc, etc., ver. 16. The
article was not required.* As, by the dddv Oardcanc, the ri mapafadacciav
expressed of Capernaum in ver. 13 is prophetically established, so must
Oaddéoonc, in the sense of the evangelist, refer to the Sea of Galilee, the Lake
of Gennesareth. These words, namely, determine the situation of y# Za.
and y7 Neg@., and are to be translated seaward. The absolute accusat. ddéy
is quite Hebraistic, like 77] in the sense of versus,‘— a usage which is partly
retained in the LXX. 1 Kings viii. 48, ddd» yj¢ avvwr, in the direction of
their land ; exactly so in 2 Chron. vi. 38, and most probably also in Deut. i.
19. In this sense has the evangelist also understood 0°) 77‘) in the origi-
nai text of the passage before us ; so also Aquila and Theodotion, not the
LXX., according to B (in A, by an interpolation). No completely corre-
sponding and purely Greek usage is found, as the accusatives of direction,"
do not stand independent of a verb. répayv rot Iopd. is not, like dddv 6aA.,
a determination of the position of y7 ZaZ. and y7 Neg@., as these tribes were
situated on this side the Jordan, while répay (in answer to Bengel),® can
never signify on this side ;” but it designates, after these two lands, a new
land as the theatre of the working of Jesus, viz. Peraea (comp. on ver. 25),
whose customary designation was JTW V3), répav rov 'lopddvov—that is, the
land east of Jordan. The evangelist includes this land as well as Taaa. r.
éOvev, because it stands in the prophetic passage along with the others (not
with reference to the Peraean ministry of Jesus, de Wette, Bleck, which

1 According to Robinson, it is the present 1 Kings viii. 48; 2 Chron. vi. 8; Deut. 1.
Khén Minieh, farthersouth than TellHfim; 2, 19.

so also Sepp, Keim. §In Bernhardy, p. 1:4f., comp. Kahner,
* In answer to Hengstenberg, Chrie/ol. II. TI. 1, p. 268 f.

p. 98. ® Kuinoel, Linder in the Stud, u. Krit.
3See Winer, p. 114 f.[E. T. 22]. 1862, p. 558.

4 Ezek. vill. 5, xl. 20, xli. 11 f., xlil. 1 ff.; 7 Crome, Beitr. p. §3 ff.

104 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

has no place heré), leaving it, besides, to the reader to decide that it was
only in y7 ZaBovdav . . . Baddcone that the specific element of locality which
was to be demonstrated from the prophecies was contained. The citation,
moreover, which specially sets forth that Jesus, after He had quitted Naza-
reth, settled at Capernaum, on the borders of Zebulon and Naphtali, in their
telic connection with a divine prediction (iva of the divine determination),
showsin this very circumstance the Messianic fulfilmentof the historical rela-
tion of the prophetic declaration, according to which there was announced to
northern Galilee safety and salvation from the oppression of the Assyrians,
and consequently theocratical, political salvation. — Tad. r. svar] DNIN 9)
(district of the heathen), that is, in keeping with the originally appellative
term 55a, which had become a proper name, Upper Galilee, in the neigh-
borhood of Phoenicia, inhabited by a mixed population of heathens and
Jews.’

Ver. 16. ‘0 Aads 6 xaPfuevoc, x.7.A.] In opposition to Taddaia rév evan,
whose inhabitants are characterized as darkened, that is, devoid of divine
truth, and sunk in ignorance and sin. The great light, however, which
these darkened ones saw is Jesus. —xai roi¢ xafnuévarc, x.t.A.] repeats the
same thought, with the climactic designation of darkness: év yope x. ong
6avérov, in the land and darkness, which belong to death. Death, that is,
spiritual death (viii. 22, see on Luke xv. 24), the negation of that living ac-
tivity which recognizes the truth and is morally determined, is personified; the
land, whose inhabitants are spiritually dead, belongs to it as the realm of its
government, and darkness surrounds it, The common interpretation of it as
Ev dia duoiv : ‘‘in regione et in spissis quidem tenebris = in regione spissis tene-
bris obducta,” ‘‘hendiadys : ina region and thick darkness = a region cov-
ered with thick darkness” (Fritzsche), is, indeed, admissible, but unneces-
sary,” and takes away from the poetic description, which is certainly
stronger and more vivid if favdrov is connected not merely with oxg (AYN,
infernalis obscuritas, i.e. crassissima), but also with yépg. On the significant
xaOjpevoc, comp. Lam. l.c. Pind. Ol. i. 188 : év oxéry xaOhpevog.*

Ver. 17. ’Awd rére] from that time onwards—that is, after this return to
Nazareth and Capernaum. It determines the commencement of the preach-
ing not merely from Capernaum onwards. In the N. T. avd rére stands only
here, xvi. 21, xxvi. 16 ; Luke xvi. 16. More frequently in the writers of
the xow#, LXX., Ps. xciii. 2.4— Bac. trav oipavav] See on iii. 2. Jesus in
the presence of the people does not yet designate Himself as the Messiah,
but announces in quite a gencral way the nearness of the Messianic kingdom,
the divinely-ordained bearer of which He knew Himself to be ; this is quite
in keeping with the humility and wisdom of His first appearance, when He

1 Strabo, xvi. p. 760; 1 Macc. v. 15: Tada.
adAopiAwy. Its geographical limits are de-
fined by Joseph. BelZ. ili. 8. 1.

2 See Fritzsche, re. IV. p. 856; Nagels-
bach on Hom. Ji. ili. 100.

Comp. especially, Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p.
307; Breml, ad Dem, Phii. I. p.119. Nagels-
bach on Hom. Ji. {. 184. — avrots] see Winer,
p. 189 f. [E. T. 265] ; Buttmann, p. 125 [E. T.
381].

3“* Sedendi verbum aptum notandae soll-
tudini inerti,” ‘‘a verb of ¢itting suitable
for denoting a waste wilderness” (Bengel).

4 Wetstein in loc. Not in classical writers.
Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 461.

CHAP. IV., 18—20. 105

resumed the preaching of John. The view, that at the beginning He did
not regard Himself as the Messiah, but only as a forerunner like John, and
only at a later time appropriated to Himself the Messianic idea (Strauss,
Schenkel), is in contradiction to all the four Gospels, But in His self-attes-
tation as the Messiah He proceeded to work, according to the Synoptics, in
a more gradual manner than He did according to John.'

Ver. 18. Comp. Luke v. 1 ff. — 6dAace. rH Ta2.] Lake of Gennesareth
or Tiberias (see on John vi. 1) is 140 stadia long and 40 broad, with ro-
mantic environs, and abounding in fish (Josephus, Bell. iii. 10. 7), about 500
feet below the level of the Mediterranean.* — rév 2Zeyéu. Tlérpov] not a torepov
xpérepov, but see on xvi. 18. That the evangelists always have (with the
exception of the diplomatic passage, John i. 43) the name Peter, which in
Paul is certainly found only in Gal. ii. 7 f., not Cephas, is explained in the
case of Matthew by the circumstance that his Gospel is only a translation,
and that at the time of its composition the Greek name had become the
common one.

Vv. 19, 20. Acire érisw pov] come here after me! “WR 19 (2 Kings vi. 19;
1 Kings xi. 5), be my pupils. The disciples were in constant attendance on .
their teacher.* — roiwjow. . . avOparuv)] I will put you ina position to gain men, —
that they may become members of the kingdom of the Messiah. Words borrowed
from the domain of hunting and fishing (Jer. xvi. 16) often denotes the win-
ning over of souls for themselves or others.‘ Here the typical phraseology
suggested itself from the circumstances. — ciféuc] belongs to agévrec, not to
7K0A. — xoA.] a8 disciples, — xaraprif., either arranging (Bengel) or repairing
(Vulgate and most commentators). We cannot determine which; Luke
has arérAvvay.

RemaRkK.—The want of harmony between Matthew iv. 18 ff. and John i. 35
ff. is to be recognized, and is not (as the Fathers of the church, Kuinoel, Gratz,
Olshausen, Hofmann, Krabbe, Neander, Ebrard, Arnoldi, Luthardt, Bleek,
Riggenbach, Lange, Ewald, Hausrath, Marcker, have attempted) to be removed
by supposing that in Matthew it is a second calling of the apostles in question
that is recorded, viz. that they had already been at an earlier date (John i. 36 ff.)
disciples of Jesus in the wider sense of the word, but that now for the first
time they had become so in the narrower sense--that is, had become apostles,
Comp. on John, remark after ch. i. Matthew does not even agree with Luke
v. 4 ff. See remarks on the passage, and Keim, Gesch. J. II. p. 215. We must
in any case (in answer to Baur, Hilgenfeld) seek the true history of the occur-
rence in John, in whose account a merely preliminary adherence to Jesus is the
less to be thought of, that immediately afterwards ol paOyrai atroid go with Him
to Cana (ii. 2), to Capernaum (ii. 12), and to Jerusalem (ii. 17, 22). This also
in answer to Liicke on John, I. p. 466 f., and to Wieseler, who distinguishes a
threefold act in the selection of the disciples : the preliminary calling in John i.
35 ; the setting apart to be constant attendants, Matt. iv. 18 ff., ix. 9 ff. ; and

1 Comp. Gess, Christi Personu. Werk, I.p. 509 ff.

247 ff. 3 Schoettgen, Hor. in loc.

* See Robinson, Pal. II. pp. 499, 309: ‘ Wetstein and Loesner, Hemsterhusius,
Ritter, Erdk. XV. 1, p. 264 ff.; Rfietschi in ad-Lucian. Dial. Mort. vill. ; Burmann, ad
Herzog’s Encyki. V.; Kelm, Gesch. J. p. Phaedr. iv. 4. Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 20,

e

106 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the selection of the Twelve to be apostles, Matt. x. 2-4. Wieseler (chronol.
Synopse, p. 278) lays especial weight on the circumstance that John names rov¢
dddexa for the first time in John vi. 67. But John in general, with the excep-
tion of this passage (and the verses 70 and 71 belonging to it), only once again
expressly mentions the rovc dudexa (viz. in xx. 21), which is determined by the
antithetic interest in the context. Especially in vi. 67 are the Twelve opposed
to those others, many of whom had deserted Him. Previously, however, John
had no opportunity, where this or any other antithetical relation might give
him occasion, to give prominence tu the number of the Twelve.—Besides, the
history of the calling in Matthew, if it were not in contradiction to John, would
by no means bear in ilself a mythical character (Strauss finds in it a copy of the
call of Elisha by Elijah, 1 Kings xix. 19 ff.), but is to be explained from the
great, directly overwhelming impression made by the appearance of Jesus on
minds prepared for it, which Matthew himself experienced (ix. 9); and this
also is to be applied to the Johannine account. This narrative, which
Schenkel and Keim relegate to the sphere of free invention, does not exclude
the profound and certainly original words, ‘‘ fishers of men,” which may have
proceeded from the mouth of Jesus to His first called disciples on that day,
John i, 40 ; and upon the basis of these words the narrative of the call, as it is
preserved in Matthew and Mark, might easily be formed.

Vv. 23, 24 serve by way of introduction to the Sermon on the Mount,
where the description is manifestly exaggerated as regards the time of the
Jirst ministry of Jesus, and betray the work of a later hand in the redaction
of our Gospel. Comp. ix. 35. — The synagogues were places of assembly for
public worship, where on Sabbaths and feast days (at a later period, also
on the second and fifth days of the week,' the people met together for
prayer, and to listen to the reading of portions of the Old Testament,
which were translated and explained in the vernacular dialect. With the
permission of the president, any one who was fitted might deliver addresses. ?
In the N. T. only in Matthew (x. 35, x. 1). —év rq 2ag] belongs to Oepaz.
Comp. Acts v. 12, vi. 8. — Observe that such summary accumulations of the
activity of Jesus in healing as v. 23 f. (viii. 16, xii. 15) are not mentioned
in John’s Gospel. They are, moreover, especially at so early a date, not in
keeping with the gradual progress of the history, although explicable
enough in the case of a simple historian, who, easily anticipating the repre-
sentation which he had formed from the whole history, gives a summary
statement in the account of a single portion of the narrative.

Ver. 24. Eic oAyv rv Xupiavy] His reputation spread from Galilee into the
whole province. — mévrag Tove xaxds Exovrac] all the sufferers that there were.
The following roid. vécoe belongs not to xaxa¢ Exovrac (Syriac, Euth. Ziga-
benus), but to cvve youévouc. — vécac x. Bacdvorg] Sicknesses and torments.—The
first is general, the -last special. — xa2 dacuov. xal ceAqv. x. wapadvr.] makes

1 Jerusalem Megillah, f.735.1; Babylonian every dind of sickness which was brought to
Bava Cama, f. 82. 1. Him. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 728, wada-
2 Vitringa, de synagoga velerum, Franecker xia, weakness, deprivation of strength through
1606 ; Keil, Archdol. §80; Leyrerin Herzog’s sickness. Herod. Vit. Hom. 36, and often in
Encyh. XV. p. 209 ff.; Keim, Gesch. J.T. p. the LXX. Comp. madaxigoue: and paraxw,
482 ff.—avrev}) of the Galileans. — wacayv] Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 889.
@

CHAP. IV., 24. 107
prominent three special kinds of what had previously been described in a
general manner, so that the first xai is to be rendered : especially also, partic-
ularly also. — daipoviCouévove] according to the popular view, shared by the
evangelist ; possessed by demons (ix. 34, xii. 26), whose bodies had become
the seat and organ of demoniacal working ; da:uémov is not a diminutive
form, little devil (Ewald, Keim), but the neuter of da:udévioc as substantive. !
They were real sick persons with diseases of a peculiar character (mania,
epilepsy, delirium, hypochondria, paralytic condition, temporary dumbness),
whose sufferings, being apparently inexplicable from physical causes, were
believed to have their foundation not in an abnormal organization, or in
natural disturbances of the physical condition, but in diabolical possession—
that is, in the actual indwelling of demoniac personalities, very many of
which might even be counted in one sick person (Mark v. 9, xvi. 9).* This
belief, which is conceivable from the decay of the old theocratic conscious-
ness and of its moral strength, which referred all misfortune to God’s send-
ing, is, however, a belief which rendered healing possible only through the
acceptance of the existing view leaving the idea itself untouched, but made it
all the more certain for the Messiah, who has power over the kingdom of
devils, and who now, in the pure manifestation of Jesus, accompanied with

miraculous working, stood victoriously opposed to all diabolic power.’ If

1 See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. Soer. p. 27 f.

2 After the old view of actual bodily pos-
session of the sick had, after Balth. Becker
(Bezauberte Welt, iv. 5 ff.), Mead (medica
sacra, ix.), Wetstein, been, especially by
Semler, (Comment de daemoniacis, 1700, u.
umsidndliche Untersuch. d. ddmonischen
Leute, 1762), successfully refuted, and had
disappeared altogether (see also Timmer-
mann, de daemoniac. evangelior. 1786;
Winzer, de daemonologia N. T., 1812, 1821),
although attempts at its defence were not
wanting (Storr, Opusc. I. p. 58 ff. ; Eschen-
mayer, Mysficism, 1823; Jahn, Nachtrdge zu
8. theol. Werken, 1821), the old view was
again brought forward, partly before (v.
Meyer, Bideldeut. p. 40 ff.; Olshausen on
Matt. vili. 28, and others), partly after, the
assaults of Strauss (Krabbe, Hoffmann,
Ebrard, Arnoldi, Hofmann, Steinmeyer),
and supported with more or less acuteness,
and with turns of a partly obscure and eva-
sive character, especially by means of com-
parisons with magnetism. Delitzach, di.
Psychol. p. 293 ff.; Ebrard in Herzog's
Encyk. TIT. p. 240 ff. Not so, however,
Lange, II. 1, 285 ff., who, regarding the con-
dition asa natural one, refers it to a nervous
disease, having an dective affinity with de-
moniacal influences, which the patient as
well as the people represented to himself as
possession. By this the old view is not re-
tained even in appearance. Against its
tenability, however, irrespective of all ob-

jections of a physiological and medical
kind, the following are decisive proofs : (1)
The non-occurrence of demons in the O. T. ;
(2) the undisputed healing of the same by
exorcists (Matt. xil. 27; Mark ix. 88; Jose-
phus, Anéé, vill. 2.5; Justin. c. Tryph. 8 ;
Lucian. PhWopseud. 16); as well as (8) the
non-occurrence of reliable instances in
modern times (? Justinus Kerner, Gesch.
Besessener neuerer Zett., Carlsruhe 1834),
although the same sicknesses, which were
deemed to be demoniacal, are common:
and (4) the complete silence of John, which
(comp. especially Luke ix. 49) is the more
eloquent the miore essentially he also re-
gards miraculous healing as belonging to
the work of the Messiah, and the conquest
of the devil as the Messiah's task. InJohn,
moreover, diabolical possession Is found
mentioned (xiii. 27), but not as the effect of
physical sickness, but of spiritual domina-
tion and obduracy, the so-called odsessio
sptritualis. Comp. John vil. 2, vill. 48, x.
20. Definite references to the expulsion of
demons from the sick are wanting also in
Paul’s Episties, although they mighé be in-
cluded with others in 1 Cor. xii. 9. Observe,
moreover, (5) the demoniacs were not aé al
filled with godless dispositions and anti-
Christian wickedness, which, nevertheless,
was necessarily to be expected as the
result of the rea] indwelling of devils.

3Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. VII. p. 54 ff., also
Bleek, Neander, p. 287 ff.

108 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

we assume, however, that Jesus Himself shared the opinion of His age and

nation regarding the reality of demoniacal possession of the sick (Strauss,
' Keim, Weiss), we find ourselves in the dilemma of either being obliged
again to set up the old doctrine upon the authority of Jesus, or of attrib-
uting to the latter an erroneous belief not by any means remote from the
religious sphere, and only of a physiological kind, but of an essentially
religious character, and which would be irreconcilable with the pure height
of the Lord’s divine knowledge. — xa? ceAyv. x. wapadur.] Hpileptics, whose
sufferings, it was observed, increased as the month advanced (Wetstein),
and sufferers from nervous diseases. Epilepsy also might be of such a kind
as to be regarded as demoniacal sickness (xvii. 15 ; here, however, is meant
the form of sickness which is regarded as natural.

Ver. 25. Aexarédewc] a strip of land with ten cities,* chiefly inhabited by
the heathen, on the other side of the Jordan, in the north-east of Palestine.
As to the towns themselves, which were reckoned as included in it, and to
which Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippo, and Pella certainly belonged, there was,
so early as the time of Pliny (H. N. v. 16), no unanimity of opinion.’ — répva
tov Iopddvov] as in v. 15, xix. 1, Mark ili. 8, a geographical name : Peraea,‘
the land east of the Jordan, from Mount Hermon down to the river Arnon.

Nore py AMERICAN Eprron.

IV.

Dr. Meyer’s ascription of Matthew's history of the Temptation of Christ to
a legendary formation has already been noticed in the Preface, to which the
reader is referred. Summarily stated, his opinion is: (1) That the legend is
true as thought, but untrue as history. (2) That Matthew’s story contains ab-
solute impossibilities and contradictions of the moral character of Jesus, as
filled with the Spirit (p. 100, e seg.). (3) That the exclusion of this history by John
from his gospel is a fact of some weight. But the omission of all reference by
John to the temptation of Christ is sufficiently accounted for if we suppose
his gospel to be, of purpose, supplementary to the others, and for this suppo-
sition there is ancient testimony. Points (1) and (2) apparently exclude each
other ; for it is difficult to perceive how the legend can be ideally true, and at
the same time contradictory of the moral character of Jesus. To be ideally
true here means to be conformable to the idea of the Son of God. There is
nothing in Matthew's narrative incompatible with the dignity of Jesus, nothing
out of harmony with the nature of the work He had assumed for mankind, and
. nothing that lowers our estimate of His perfect purity. The contradictions of
His moral character, supposed to be found in the narrative, are, we apprehend,
purely imaginary.

No one has shown better than Dr. Meyer, in few words, the untenableness
of many of the suppositions which seek to explain the process of the Tempta-

1 Richter, de paralyet, 1775. Herzog, III.; Holtzgmann in Schenkel’s
2 Josephus, Vid. 9. Bidellez.
3 Lightfoot, Hor. p. 563 ff.; Vaihinger in ‘ Josephus, Bell. ix. 8.8; Plin. v. 15.

{

NOTE. 109

tion, while denying, in a greater or less degree, the objective truth of the account
given by the Synoptists. Ullmann, who supposes that the experience of Jesus
‘‘consisted in tempting thoughts during a time of mental clearness and self-
possession,” disposes of the theory of legend in a single pregnant sentence: ‘‘ That
the evangelists,’’ he-writes, ‘‘ should commence their account of the distinctively
Messianic portion of Christ’s life, directly with a fable, is entirely inconsistent
with their character as writers, and is throughout incredible.’’' Thus, among
those who reject the entire verity of this passage of the gospel history, as given
us by the Synoptists, there is no agreement ; each theory suppresses the others,
and the result is confusion. Our most rational course, therefore, is to accept
this part of the narrative as being equally valid with the other parts, especially
as it is supported by the same manuscript testimony.

Reference has been made in the Preface to the point that in the gospels we
are in the midst of the supernatural. On this Trench says finely, in his notes
upon the Temptation of Christ: ‘‘ It is nothing wonderful that the endeavors
should have been many to explain away the Temptation, to exhaust it of its
supernatural element, and so to reduce it to the level of an occurrence, ex-
plicable by the laws habitually at work around us and within us. Now
if our Lord’s life had been itself such an occurrence, it would be certainly
perplexing to find a fragment of wonder, such as this is, intruding into
the midst of that life ; nor would the instinct be unnatural, which, as it every-
where desires moral harmony and keeping, should endeavor in some way or
another to get rid of an event out of all such harmony and keeping with the other
events of that life. But if the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh be
itself the wonder of all wonders, then that this should be surrounded by a group
of secondary wonders, that there should be nothing common in His life, or, to
speak more accurately, very much altogether uncommon, this might have been
expected beforehand. What would indeed be startling and perplexing would
be the absence of everything supernatural from such a life—the fact that He
whose name is Wonderful (Isa.-ix. 6) should have fallen at once into the com-
mon course and order of things, and never, either by what He did or what was
done in respect of Him, have testified that there was any difference between
Himself and the other children of men.’’ *

1 “ Sinlessneas of Jesus,” Clark's Bib. Cabinet, vol. xxxvili. p. 54.
8 “ Studies in the Gospels,” Amer. ed., p. 58.

110 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER V.

Ven. 1. abrg) is wanting in Lachm., after B. Correction, with a view to im-
prove the style. — Ver. 5. Lachm. Tisch. have this verse before ver. 4, but on
too weak authority (D, 33, Lat. Verss. Syrc** Or. Eus. and other Fathers). A
logical bringing together of the rrwyol rq xvevyar: and of the rpueic. — Ver. 9.
avvol] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. 8, wanting in C DX, 13, 134,
Lat. Verss. Syr. Hil. But how easily would the omission occur in writing,
since here the similarly ending vioi follows (otherwise in ver. 4 ff.) !— Ver. 11.
bjua]is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B D &, Vulg. It. and other Verss.
andsome Fathers. But as the word is altogether unnecessary as far as the mean-
ing is concerned, it might easily be omitted, especially after the syllable PON. —
wevdéuevor is wanting only in D, Codd. of the [t., and some Fathers, includ-
ing Origen. Suspected, indeed, by Griesbach, and deleted by Fritzsche,
Tisch, 7 ; wrongly, however, since the word is quite decisively attested (again
restored by Tisch. 8). A definition that appeared so much a matter of course
might easily be passed over. — Ver. 13. BAnOjvac éfw nai] Lachm. Tisch. 8 ;
BAnOév Eu, after BC, 1, 33. An attempt to help out the style. — Ver. 22. eixy]
is wanting in B &, 48, 198, Vulg. Aeth. Or. and some other witnesses. Ex-
pressly rejected as spurious as early as Jerome and Augustin. Rer. i. 19, and
Pseud.-Athan. Iren. and Hil. place it after dpy. Deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm.
Tisch. It is an inappropriate addition, resulting from bias, although of very
ancient date (already in Syr. It. Eus.). — Ver 25. The second ce rapady is want-
ing only in B &, 1, 13, 124, 127* Arm. Aeth. 13, 124, 127* Chrys. Hilar. Arn.
Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch, 8. Passed over as unnecessary, because its
emphasis was mistaken. — Ver. 27. //bi6n] Elz. adds roi¢ apyatorc, for which,
however, decisive testimony is wanting. Taken from vv. 21 and 33. — Ver. 28.
éxiO, adrnv] Elz.: é7.0, avric, against decisive testimony. &, 236, Clem. Or.
Chrys. Isid. Tert. have no pronoun at all. 8So Fritzsche and Tisch. 8. But the
testimony for avr7y is too strong, and the omission might easily have arisen
from its being unnecessary. — Ver. 30. 3A799 ei¢ yéevvav] Lachm. and Tisch.: ei¢
yéevvav aréAGn, after BD? 8, Curss. and many Verss. and Fathers; it is uncertain
whether also in Or. Correctly ; the Received reading is derived from ver. 29.
— Ver. 31. ér:] is wanting in BDL &, Curss. Vulg. It. Chrys. Suspected by
Griesbach, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly. An addition that easily
suggested itself. See the exegetical remarks on ii. 23. — Ver. 32. d¢ dv atodtcy]
Lachm. and Tisch. 8: wd¢ 6 aroAtwy, after BK L M ATT &, Curse. Vulg. It. and
other verss. A change made in accordance with vv. 22, 28; Luke xvi. 18. —
potydoGar] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: potyevfjvar. SoBD &, Curss. Theoph. Or.
Chrys. Theod. A gloss (to be seduced to adultery) to distinguish it from yer ydarat,
which follows. Lachm. has afterwards xai 6 arodeAuuévny yaunoac, after B and
some Curss., connected with the reading wd¢ 6 aroAtwy at the beginning of the
verse. — Ver. 39. parice:] B 8, 33: parife: ; so Tisch. 8. Correctly ; the fature-
is a conformation to ver. 41, — Ver. 42. didov] Lachm. and Tisch.: éé¢, after B D

/

CHAP. V., 1, 2. 111
N, 13, 124, Clem. The Received reading is taken from Luke vi. 80. — Ver. 44.
roc pecove.y] Elz.: rove pcovryrac, against the best and most nume1ous witnesses.
To exchange, with Lachm. and Tisch., the whole passage from evAoy. to su0.
duds, after B &, Curas. Copt. Syr"' and many Fathers (including Or. Eus.), and
to explain it as an interpolation from Luke, is too bold, since in Luke vi. 27 f.
the sentences stand in different order. Omissions, however, caused by the
Homoeoteleuta might easily occur. érnpeatévrwy ide xai is, however, very sus-
picious ; it is wanting in B &, Curss. and many Verss. Or. (five times; he has
the words twice, but then «ai diwax, dude is wanting) ; also in Cypr. Aug. Lucif.
and in others stands after diwx.; it therefore betrays itself as an interpolation
from Luke vi. 28. — Ver. 47. adeAgovc] gidovs, in EK LMS 41, Curss. Arm.
Goth. Bas. Lucif., is a gloss. — é6vxoi] Elz., Matthaei and Scholz have reAdvar,
against B D Z &, Curss. Verss. and Fathers. Brought hither from ver. 46. —
Ver. 48. 6 €v roi¢ obpavoic] Lachm. and Tisch.: 6 ovpdévioc; also approved by
Griesb., in accordance with very important witnesses. Isto be preferred ;
the Received reading flowed as a gloss from ver. 45.

Ver. 1.’ rove 5yAove] see iv. 25. The evangelist does not determine either
the time or place precisely, yet he by no means agrees with Luke vi. 17.—
The pabyral airot are not the twelve apostles (Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld), against
which ix. 9 is already decisive, but, besides the first four that were selected
(iv. 18 ff.) His disciples generally, ‘‘qui doctrinam ejus sectabantur,”
Grotius. — ic rd dpoc¢] The article is not indefinite : wpon a mountain
(Luther, Kuinoel), which explanation of the article is always incorrect (Ben-
gel on xviii. 17), but also not generic ; upon the hilly district, or on the heights
(Ebrard, Bleek), as Spo in the singular (on the plural, comp. xviii. 12, xxiv.
16) in the N. T. is always only a single hill, as in classical writers; but
rd dpoc designates that hill which is situated in the place, where Jesus saw the
dx2ouc.7 Others (Fritzsche, de Wette) make it the zell-known hill ; comp.
Delitzsch : ‘‘ the Sinai of the New Testament ;” Ewald : ‘‘ the holy hill of
the gospel ‘history.”.» These are arbitrary presuppositions, opposed to the
analogy of xiv. 28, xv. 29. It is a misuse of the article, however, to assume
that in the Gospels the same mountain is always designated by 1d dpoc.*
Tradition points out the ‘‘ mount of beatitudes” as near the town of Saphet.‘

Ver. 2. ’Avoiyeww 1d oréua] after 19 MWN3.5 Individual instances also
amongst classical writers. This phrase belongs to the distinctly descriptice
style of narrative, and denotes of itself nothing else than the opening of the
mouth to speak, where the connection alone indicates whether in this
descriptive element the emphasis of solemnity, of boldness, or the like is con-
tained or not.* Here, where the first extensive discourse of Jesus, which
forms the great programme for the membership of His kingdom, follows,

1See on the Sermon on the Mount, tho
exposition of Tholuck, ed. 5, 1872. [Achelis,
Die Bergpredigt, 1875.) Luther's exposition
(sermons of 1580), which appeared in 1582.

* Comp. John vi. 8; Euth. Zigabenus: +d
Spos rd wAncloy.

* Gfrdrer, Aeli. Sage, I. p. 189; B. Bauer;
Volkmar.

4See Robinson, Palestine, ITI. p. 485.
Comp. also Schubert, III. p. 28; Ritter,
Erdk. XV. 1, p. 887; Keim, Geach. J. Il. p.
236.
® Vorstius, de [ebratemis, p. 708 ff.

¢ Aristophanes, Av. 1720; Aeschylus,
Prom. 612: Lucian. Phtlops. 38.

7 Comp. on3 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. vi. 19.

112 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the solemn character of the moment, ‘‘He opened His mouth,” is not to be
mistaken ; compare xiii. 35. A similar indication of purpose in Job iii. 1,
Dan..x. 16, Acts viii. 35, x. 84, but not in Acts viii. 14, Luther well says,
‘* There the evangelist makes a preface and shows how Christ placed Him-
self to deliver the sermon which He intended ; that He goes up a mountain,
sits down, and opens His mouth, that men may see that He was in earnest.”
— avrot¢] rove uabnréc. Jesus at first directed His discourse to the entire
circle of His disciples, but kept also in view the éyAoi, who, according to
vii. 28, pressed after Him, and became hearers of the discourse ; see also
Luke vi. 20, vii. 1.

Vv. 8-10. The beatitudes in general, in order to set forth, first in a general
way, the moral conditions of future participation in the Messiah’s king-
dom.—‘‘That is, indeed, a fine, sweet, friendly beginning of His teaching
and sermon. For He does not proceed, like Moses, or a teacher of the law,
with commands, threats, and terrors, but in a most friendly manner, with
pure attractions and allurements, and pleasant promises,” Luther.— paxdpros] ?
What the blessedness is ("1@8) which He means, is stated by all the causal
sentences * with dr: in vv. 3-10, viz. that which is based on this, that they wil]
attain the salvation of the kingdom, which is nigh .at hand. —ol rrwyoi ty
rvebpart] the 0'1), 03°32 were those who, according to the theocratic
promise of the O. T., had to expect the Messianic blessedness (Luke iv. 18).
Jesus, however, according to Matthew, transports the idea of the poor (les
miserables) from the politico-theocratic realm (the members of the oppressed
people of God, sunk in poverty and external wretchedness) into the purely
moral sphere by means of the dative of more precise definition, r@ wvebyare
(comp. ver. 8) : the poor in reference to their spirit, the spiritually poor—
that is, those who feel, as a matter of consciousness, that they are in a miserable,
unhappy condition; comp. Isa. Ivii. 15; Prov. xxix. 23. The zrwyeia
intended is then subjectively determined according to the consciousness of
the subject, so that these latter (comp. vv. 4-6) are conceived of as those
who feel within them the opposite of having enough, and of wanting nothing in a
moral potnt of view ; to whom, consequently, the condition of moral poverty
and helplessness is a familia. thing,—as the praying publican, Luke xviii.
10 (the opposite in Rev. iii. 17 ; 1 Cor. iv. 8), wassuch a poorman. We have
neither to supply an ‘‘ also” before 76 svebyari, nor, with Baur, to explain it
as if it meant of rrwyol, GAA rh wvebpate robot 3; Comp. 2 Cor. vi. 10.‘

1“ Initiale hoc verbum toties repetitum
indicat scopum doctrinae Christ!,” ‘* This
initlal word so often repeated shows the
goal of Christ's doctrine,’ Bengel.

2 These causal sentences justify also the
usual enumeration of the Makarisms as the
** seven beatitudes.’”’ For vv. 3 and 10 con-
taln the same promise, which, therefore, is
to be counted only once in order to retain
the number seven; comp. Ewald, Jahrd. I.
p. 188; also Késtlin and Hilgenfeld. Others,
like Weizsicker and Keim, counting ver. 10
specially with the others, arrive at the

number eghf. But Delitzsch, to bring out
an analogy with the Decalogue, reckons,
besides the paxdpco In ver. 11, the xaipere «.
ayaa, also in ver. 12, as ‘the full-sounding
finale,’ and in this way knows how to force
out ten beatitudes.

*See Isa. Ixi. 1, Ixvi. 2, and the post-
exilian Ps. xxxvii. 11.

‘Chrysostom is substantlally correct
(comp. Theophylact) : ot rawewvoi «. cvrrerpts-
névar Thy dcdvoay, “the lowly and broken-
hearted.’ Comp. de Wette in the Stud. ron
Daud und Creuzer, IIT. 2, p. 809 ff. ; de morte

CHAP. V., 4. 113

Comp. iynid¢ rvebuart, Eccles. vii. 8. They are not different from the y9
Baérovrec in John ix. 89. They know that in point of knowledge and moral
constitution they are far from divine truth. The declaration that such are
blessed, however, at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, is in perfect
accordance with the fundamental condition of participation in the kingdom
of the Messiah, the yeravoeire, with the call to which both Jesus and John
began their public appearance. The rruyeia rH rvebpar: is the precondition
of rAovreiv ei¢ Oedv (Luke xii. 21), and of becoming a true rAoboioe r@ mvebuare
(Barnabas 19). These poor people ave humble, but we are not to say that
mrwx. T. wy. signifies the humble (in answer to Kuinoel and older interpret-
ers) ; for which reason we have not to appeal to Isa. Ixvi. 2, where NW
does not agree with ‘)¥.. Older Catholics (Maldonatus and Corn. a Lapide),
after Clement of Alexandria and many Fathers, taking rvefyar: of the self-
determination, misused our passage in support of the vow of voluntary pover-
ty." Others (Olearius, Michaelis, Paulus) connect ro mvebyare with. paxdpror :
the poor are spiritually happy. Opposed to this is the position of the words and
ver. 8. Moreover, no example is found in the N. T. or in the Jewish writ-
ings, where, in the case of beatitudes, to the paxdpios, or “WR, or 1210, any
more precise designation of fortune was immediately subjoined.* Accord-
ing to Késtlin, p. 66, the r@ xvebyarc, which is not expressly read in the Clem-
entines (see Homily xv. 10) and Polycrates ii. (as also rj dixacoc. ver. 6), is
said to be a limiting addition proceeding from later reflection, one of the
many changes which must be assumed as having taken place in the original
collection of discourses.‘ But see on Luke vi. 23. — 7 Bac. r. ovp.] the king-
dom of heaven belongs to them (see on iii. 2), namely, as a certain possession
in the future. Comp. the following futures. Observe in all the beatitudes,
vv. 3-10, the symmetrically emphatical position of avrav, airot ; it is just
they who.

Ver. 4. Of revOoivrecg] Comp. Isa. Ixi. 2, lvii. 17 f. After Chrysostom, these
have frequently been understood as those who mourned over their own sins
and those of others. These are not excluded, but they are not exclusively
or specially meant by the general expression (Keim). They are generally
those who arein suffering and distress. Think, for example, of Lazarus, of
the persecuted Christians (John xvi. 20 ; Heb. xii. 11), of the suffering re-

pentant ones (2 Cor. vii. 9), and so on ; for that no unchristian zevfeiv, no -

Airy tov xécpov, is meant, is (2 Cor. vii. 10) understood of itself from the

erpiat. p. 86f. Jerome strikingly says: of rrexot ry dvavoig, as Origen, de prince. tv.

“ Adjunxit spiri(u, ut humilitatem intelll-
geres, non penuriam,” ‘* He added, in spir-
if, that you might understand by it low-
Hiness, not want.”’

1 Fritzsche, in a way that is not in har-
mony with the moral nature and life of the
whole discourse, limits the meaning to that
of discernment : ‘“‘ Homines ingenio et erudt-
tlone parum florentes,” “ men flourishing to
smal! extent in ability and education :* so
also Chr. Fritzsche, You. Opuac. p. 241, in
which meaning (consequently equivalent to

22, calls the Ebjonites) the saying was al-
ready made a subject of ridicule by Julian.

2 On the other hand, Calovius strikingly
remarks: ‘‘ Paupertas haeo splritualis non
est consilli, sed praecepti,” “This spiritual
poverty is not of counsel, but of com-
mand."’

?Comp. especially, Knapp. Scripla var.
arq. pp. 851-380.

4Comp. also Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Bleek,
Wittichen, Jakrd. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 828;
Holtzmann, p. 176 ; Schenkel, and others.

114 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

whole surroundings. The zevfowrec shall, Rom. viii. 18, 2 Cor. iv. 17,
John xiv. 18, be comforted as a matter of fact in the Messiah’s kingdom by
the enjoyment of its blessedness (Luke ii. 25), xvi. 25), therefore the Mes-
siah Himself is also called 0M3).! According to the beatitudes, which all
refer to the Messiah’s kingdom, there is no mention of temporal comfort by
the promise of the forgiveness of sins, and so on.*

Ver. 5. According to Ps. xxxvii. 11, where the LXX. have oi dé mpaci¢
KAnpovoufhoovar yzv. The xpaei¢ (xi. 29, xxi. 5) are the calm, meek sufferers re-
lying on God's help, who, without bitterncss or revenge as the razecvol x.
fobxioe (Isa. xvi. 2), suffer the crueltics of their tyrants and oppressors.’
The very ancient popular (Gen. xv. 7 f.) theocratic conception : to come into
possession of the land (of Palestine) (in Ps. xxxvii.: after the expulsion of
their haughty enemies), has been raised to its antitypical Christian idea, so
that the Messiah’s kingdom and the receiving possession of it is intended.
Comp on Gal. iii. 18 ; Eph. 1. 11.

Ver. 6. Concerning zecvjv and diyqv, which regularly govern the genitive
with the accusative, where the object is conceived as that which endures the
action, see examples of this rare use in Kypke, Obes. I. p. 17 ; Loesner, Obes.
p. 11; and especially Winer, p. 192 [E. T. 256]. The metaphorical mean-
ing (Isa. lv. 1; Ps. xlii. 3; Sir. li. 24) of the verbs is that of longing desire.‘
The d:xacociv7, however, is the righteousness, the establishment of which was
the aim of Christ’s work, and the condition of participation in the Messiah's
kingdom. They are designated as such whose ‘‘ great earnestness, desire,
and fervor’ (Luther) are directed towards a moral constitution free from
guilt. Luther, besides, strikingly draws attention to this, that before all
these portions of the beatitudes, ‘‘ faith must first be there as the tree and
headpiece or sum” of righteousness. — yoprac@joovra:] not generally regni
Messiani felicitate (Fritzsche), but, as the context requires, dixazoctyne : they
will obtain righteousness in full measure, namely, in being declared to be
righteous (Rom. v. 19 ; Gal. v. 5, and remarks thereon) at the judgment of
the Messiah (Matt. xxv. 34), and then live for ever in perfect righteousness,
so that God will be all in all (1 Cor. xv. 28). Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 18. On
the figurative yopval., Ps. xvii. 15, cvii. 9.

Ver. 7. Oi éAchuovec} the compassionate (Heb. ii. 17 ; Hom. Od. v. 191) in
general, not, as de Wette arbitrarily limits it, in opposition to the desire for
revenge and cruelty against the heathen, which were contained in the ordi-
nary Messianic hopes. —éAenMpoovra] that is, in this way, that they get
assigned to them the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom, which will be the
highest act of the divine compassion, Luke i. 72 ; Rom. ix. 16, v. 17. The
divine maxim, which lics at the foundation of the statement, Matt. vii. 2,
xxv. 35. Kienlen is wrong when he says the éAe7. refers to the forgiveness

1 Schoettgen, Hor. II. p. 18; Wetstein, I.
p. 665.

2 This in answer to Kienlen in the Stud. u,
Krittk. 1848, p. 681.

?The opposite is xaAewoi (Plat. Pol. vi. p,
498 B), mexpoc (Dem. 815, 5), ayprot, and the
like ; Plat. Def. p. 412 D: wpadrys xardoracis

Kivicesss Ths Us’ bpyas: Kpacts Yuxhs ovpperpor,
‘*‘Meekneas is a calming down of excite-
ment produced by passion; a moderated
temperament of soul.” Comp. 1 Pet. ill. 4.

‘See Pricaeus and Wetstein tn loc. ; as
regards é., also Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p.
26, VIII. p. 288,

CHAP. V., 8, 9. 115

of the sins which still cleave even to the regenerate ; it points to this, that
the entire bestowal of Messianic salvation is the work of divine grace, which
follows in its procedure its own moral rules (faith working by love).

Ver. 8. Oi xaBapoi rg xapdig}] denotes the moral blamelessness of the inner life,
the centre of which is the heart, in conformity with the view that doa dyuapria
pbroy evridne: rg yvz%, ‘‘ Every sin puts a foul mark on the soul.”*? How this
purity is actually attained (by justification and the sanctification of be-
lievers) remains even now left over to the future.—rdv @edy dyporraz]
certainly refers, according to the analogy of all the other beatitudes,
to the aiav péAdwy, but is not (in accordance with the Oriental idea
of great good fortune in being an intimate friend of the king’s, 1
Kings x. 8; Esth. i. 14) to be taken as a typical designation of the
Messianic happiness in general (Kuinoel, Fritzsche, and others), nor as an
inward seeing of God (knowledge, becoming conscious of God, inmost fellowship
with God), as de Wette also understood it to mean direct spiritual fellow-
ship with God here on earth and there in heaven ; but, as the words do not
allow us to understand it differently : of the seeing of God who gloriously re-
teals Himself in the Messiah's kingdom, a seeing which will be attained tn the
condition of the glorified body.* Passages like Ex. xxxiii. 20, John i. 18,
vi. 46, Col. i. 15, Rom. i. 20, 1 Tim. vi. 16, are not opposed to it, because
they refer to seeing with the earthly eye. The seeing of God, who, although
Spirit (John iv. 24), has His essential form of manifestation (Phil. ii. 6),
will one day be the consummation of the zpocaywyf obtained through Christ
(Rom. v. 2). Comp. Clem. Hom. xvii. 7.

Ver. 9. Ol eipyvorowt] not the peaceful (cipyrixol, Jas. iti. 17, 2 Macc. v. 25 ;
or eipyvebovrec, Sir. vi. 7), a meaning which does not appear even in Pollux,
i. 41, 152 (Augustine thinks of the moral inner harmony ; de Wette, on the
contrary, of the inclination of the contemporaries of Jesus to war and tumult ;
Bleek reminds us of Jewish party hatred), but : the founders of peace,’ who
as such minister to God’s good pleasure, who is the God of peace (Rom. xvi.
20; 2 Cor. xiii. 11), as Christ Himself was the highest Founder of peace
(Luke ii. 14; John xvi. 88 ; Eph. ii. 14 ff.). —vlot cot xAnOgo.] again a
characteristic designation of community in the future kingdom of the Messiah,
so far, namely, as the participators in it have obtained the vlofecia, a rela-
tion which begins with their reception into the kingdom ; comp. on Luke
vi. 385. If we import the conception of being loved by God (Kuinoel), or of
resemblance to God (Paulus, de Wette), and the like, then we are not in har-
mony with the expression, and, contrary to the context, we identify it with
the conception of the temporal Sonship of God, as it appears in John as a
being begotten by God ; in Paul, as adoption ; see John i, 12, 14. Cer-
tainly this temporal Sonship is the moral premiss of that future one ; but it
is only the latter which can here be meant ; comp. Rom. viii. 19, 28. — «A764-
covraz] What they are is designated as expressly recognized by the (honorable)

* Origen, Hom. in Joh \xxifi. 23. Comp. Ps. xii. 14.
ixxill, 1, xxiv. 4; 1 Tim. 1 5, til 9; Plat. 3 Xen. Mist. Gr. vi. 8. 4; Plut. Mor. p.
Crat. p. 408 E. wuxh xabapd, p. 405 B, ai. 279 B; comp. Col. 1. 20; Prov. x. 10.

* Rev. vil. 15, xxii 4; 1 John ili. 2; Heb.

116 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
name in question, by which they are called. That xcadeicfa: does not stand
for eivac. See Fritzsche on i. 16 ; Winer, p. 571 f. [Eng. Tr. 769].'

Remuarx.—In the beatitudes, vv. 3-9, the various characteristic designations
of the Messianic happiness ingeniously correspond to the various designations
of the subject, so that in the first declaration, ver. 3, the subject of the promise,
the kingdom of the Messiah, is named expressly, and as a whole, and in the fol-
lowing it is always those individual sides of the happiness of this kingdom that
are brought forward which correspond to the subjects designated. Thus, to
those who mourn corresponds the state of being comforted ; to the patient
sufferers, who now allow themselves to be oppressed, the future condition of
possession and mastership; to the hungry, that of being filled; to the
merciful, the receiving of mercy ; to the pure in heart, the seeing of God, of
which no impure person is capable ; to the founders of peace, the sonship of
God, who Himself in His own Son has reconciled men to Himself, and to one
another. Merely different beams of light from the same glory. At the close,
after the seven independent beatitudes, in ver. 10, which is the foundation and
transition to the following direct address, the Messiah's kingdom is once more
expressly named, and as a whole, ag in the beginning, ver. 3. In this way vv. 3-
10 form an ingenious and profound harmonious whole. To this unity and com-
pleteness belongs also the series of the subjects, which, taken together, set forth the
whole position (vv. 3-5) and the whole endeavors and life (vv. 6-9) of the future
member of the kingdom. For as to his position, he is full of lowly feeling (ver.
3), a bearer of suffering (ver. 4), in quiet patience (ver. 5). But as to his endeav-
ors and life: full of fervor after moral perfection (ver. 6), he cherishes towards
others the feeling of compassionate love (ver. 7), and by the purity of heart
which he attains (ver. 8), his outward actions tend towards peace (ver. 9),
whether he also suffer persecution (this by way of transition to ver. 11) for
righteousness’ sake—all springing from the one root, faith in his Lord.

Ver. 10. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 14, iv. 14. — dixasootv., as in ver. 6 vex. du.,
is, as to substance, not different from évexev éuot, ver. 11. In communion
with Christ there is righteousness, and in this évexev éuov is expressed the
full Messianic consciousness,* the certain holy self-feeling of which for the
persecuted begins (Acts ix. 4).—To take the abrév ior 7 Baad. r. otp. dif-
ferently from ver. 8,’ is purely arbitrary. See rather the preceding remark.

Vv. 11, 12. Comp. Isa. li. 7 ff. Application of ver. 10 to the disciples.
To explain évedifev, to make reproaches,‘ and didxecv (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 12),
with Beza, Raphel, and Wolf, of indignities and accusations before the court,
is an unwarrantable limitation. The whole of the hostility which is to

1 Comp. Eur. Hec. 625: 4 & éy wodlrats ripcos
xexanudvos, ‘He who among citizens bears
the name of honorable;” and Pflugk on
the passage ; Hom. Ji. li. 260; and Nagels-
bach in loc.

*This puttmg forward the person as
Lord and Master is, in Weizsicker’s view, p.
151, a reason for regarding ver. 11 f. as a
later explanation to the original text. But
even In the whole train of the discourse that
follows from ver. 17 onwards, such a per-

sonal assertion comes out strongly enough ;
comp. especially the constant symmetrical
recurrence of éyw 62 A¢éyw vuiy, and immedi-
ately in ver. 17 the expression of the Mess!-
anic consciousness, #AGoy, «.7.A.

8 Kienlen in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 678:
ver. 813 the entrance into the kingdom of
God ; ver. 10, the consummation in the same,
comp. Lange.

4 Wurm, Dinarchk. p. 7.

CHAP. Y., 12,13. _ 117

assail His disciples stands even now before the soul of the Lord, and He
prepares them for it ; there is accordingly no reason to see in vv. 10-12 an
addition by the evangelist (Hilgenfeld).—The wevdéuevor, which is to be de-
fended as genuine (see the critical remarks), easily and appropriately connects
itself with xa? tuév, so that the latter forms with évexev tuoi an emphatic
correlative ; the whole participial definition, however, from eimwe: to pia, is
appended as a statement of modality, ‘‘in their speaking falsely against you
Sor my sake”—that is, because you belong to me, which is their motive for
making lying statements against you. On pebdecac with xard, contra, comp.
Jas. iii. 14 ; often thus amongst Greek writers.

Ver. 12. ‘0 usc66¢] comp. xarepydlera:, 2 Cor. iv, 17, and remarks thereon.
The article denotes : the reward which is destined, kept in readiness for you,’
and that for the indignities, persecutions, and lies borne through faith in me.
— ty roig ovpavoic] is great in heaven. A reference to the book of life * is not
yielded by the text, which only presents the idea that the reward is laid up
in heaven until the future communication of it, which begins with the
establishment of the kingdom, and therefore not éora:, but éor/, is to be sup-
plied ; and this is to be taken not as irrespective of time (de Wette), but as
present. — yép] assigns the reason from the recognized certainty (x. 41) that
to the prophets, who formerly were persecuted in like manner (xxiii. 29 ff.),
great reward is reserved in heaven for future communication in the kingdom
of the Messiah.—The prophets (comp. vii. 52) are a typical example for the
disciples. On the conception of ptoO6c, which xara xdpev Aoytlerac (Rom. iv.
4), comp. xx. 1 ff. ; Luke xvii. 10.*

Vv. 13-16. The course of thought : The more important and influential
your destined calling is, all the less ought you to allow yourselves to be
dispirited, and to become faithless to your calling through indignities and
persecutions ; youare the aaiéand the light / Weizsicker rightly claims for
this section (in answer to Holtzmann, Weiss) originality in this connection,
in which it attaches itself with great significance to the last beatitude and
its explanation.

Ver. 18. Td adac ra¢ y#¢] A figure of the power which counteracts corrup-
tion, and preserves in a sound condition—the effect which salt has upon
water (2 Kings ii. 20), meat, and such like. Thus the ministry of the dis-
ciples was destined by the communication of the divine truth to oppose the
spiritual corruption and powerlessness of men, and to be the means of bring-
ing about their moral soundness and power of life. An allusion to the use
of salt tn sacrifices (Mark ix. 49) is not hinted at here (in answer to Tholuck).*
Without this salt humanity would have fallen a prey to spiritual ¢6opd.
Fritzsche, overlooking the positive ¢ficacy of salt, derives the figure only
from its indispensable nature. Observe, moreover, how the expression ri¢ 77¢;
as a designation of the mass of the inhabitants of the earth, who are to be

1 Matt. xxv. &; Col. £ 5. Comp. rather Col. iv. 6; Theodoret,
® Fritzsche, Gratz, Phil. iv. 8, Rev. iil. 5, | Heracleon (in Cramer, Caé. p. 88): daAas 7.
xx. 15, xxi. 27, Dan. xii. 1. yis éorw 7d Wuxecdy dpruwa, “Salt of the

3 See generally Welses in d. Deutsch. earth is the natural seasoning.”
Zeiischr. 1888, p. 0 ff.; Bibl. Theol. p. 104 ff.

118 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
worked upon by the salt, is as appropriately selected for this figure as rov
xéopuou for the following one. And Jesus thus even now throws down the
thought of unicersal destination into the souls of the disciples as a spark to
be preserved. — pupavlg] will have become savorless, Mark ix. 50: avairoy
yévytat.' — év rive dAsoPjoerat ;| by what means will it again receive its salting
power?? Laying figures aside: If you, through failing to preserve the
powers bestowed upon you, and by allowing them to perish, become in de-
spondency and torpidity unfaithful to your destiny and unfitted for your
calling, how will you raise yourselves again to the power and efficiency
appropriate to your vocation, which you have lost.* Your uselessness for
your calling will then be an trreparabile damnum!‘ Luther differently :
Wherewith shall one salt? * Putting figure aside : Who, then, will supply
your place ? However appropriate in itself this meaning might be, never-
theless cic obdév icybe stands opposed to it. See also Mark ix. 50. — sid
sav avOp.] ab hominibus ‘‘ obviis guibusque,” Bengel.

Ver. 14. Td ga¢ rov xédcpou] As the natural light ilumines the world, which in
its f is dark, 80 are ye intended to spiritually enlighten humanity. Christ is
principaliter the Light (John i. 4, ix. 8, xii., al.) ; the disciples mediate (Eph.
iii. 9), as the mediators of His divine truth to men ; and all Christians in
general are, as those who are enlightened, also, on their part, bringers of
light, and light in the Lord (Phil. ii. 15; Eph. v. 8). —ob dtwara: xéAuc,
x.7.A4.] If you would desire timidly to withdraw into concealment (comp.
vv. 11, 18), then that would be conduct as opposed to the purpose for which
you are destined as if a town set on a hill should wish to be concealed, or if
one were to place (ver. 15) a light under a bushel.—No definite town is in-
tended ; Saphet has been conjectured." We are not to think of Jerusalem
(whose destination the disciples are, in the opinion of Weizsicker, to realize,
p. 886). It is just any city in general situated upon a hill.

§ Erasmus, Paraphr.: ‘quid tandem
erit reliquum, quo multitudinis insulsa vita

1 Dioscoridesin Wetateln : pigar yevcandvy
pepal, ‘* Roots insipid to one tasting."’

* Theophylact : bd:0pbwAyjcera.

* Whether the salt can really become quite
insipid and without power, and thus lose its
essential property, is not at all the question.
Jesus puts the case. We need not therefore
either appeal, with Paulus, to the salt
which has been exposed to the weather and
become tasteless, which Maundrell (Reise
nach Pal. p. 162; Rosenmilller, Aforgentand,
in foc.) found in the district of Aleppo, or
make out of the common cooking salt,
saltpetre (Altmann, Vriemoet), or asphalt (v.
d. Hardt, Schuoettgen), or sea salt (Ebrard).

“Non enim datur sal galis,’’ Jansen.
Grotius well says, ‘‘ipsi emendare alios
debebant, non autem exspectare, ut ab aliis
ipsi emendarentur,” ‘‘They themselves
ought to correct others, but not to wait, in
order that they themselves may be cor-
rected by others.” Augustine, dé serm. in
mont, 1. 16,

condiatur?’ ** What at length will be left
by which the Insipid life of the multitude
may be made savory ?”

* This «is ovdéw ioxvea, etc., clearly sets
forth its utter uselessness for the purpose for
which it was designed, not the exclusion
from the community, or the being rejected
by Christ (Luther, Chemnitz, and others),
to which the idea, ‘it is fé for nothing
but,” is not appropriate. It would be dif-
ferent If Christ had sald BAndycera éfw, etc.
Theophylact understands exclusion from
the dignity of teacher; Chrysostom,
Erasmus, and others, the most supreme
contempt.—Observe, moreover, that the
expression igxve (has power for nothing ex-
cept, etc.), and so on, contains an acumen
in its relation to the following passive
BAndnvas, etc.

7 See, on the other hand, Robinson, Pal.
ITI. p. 587.

CHAP. V., 15-17. 119

Ver. 15. ‘Yd rév pddtov]' The article denotes the grain measure that is at
hand in the house.* It was one-sixth of the pyédiyvoc, the pédtuvoc, according
to Boeckh, 2602 Paris cubic inches [nearly 12 gallons English]. What Hebrew
measure did Jesus mention? most probably #0, as in Mark xiii. 38.— -
The xai is the consecutioum: and, and thus, that is, placed upon the candle-
stick.’ On the lamps which were in domestic use, and the candlesticks upon
which they were placed, see as regards the Greeks, Hermann, Privatalterth,
xx. 23.‘ ;

Ver. 16. Oirw] like a burning lamp upon its stand. —rd ¢a¢ tuev] the
light, of which you are the trusted possessors. This shines before men, if the
disciples come forward publicly in their office with fidelity and courage, do
not draw back, but spread abroad the gospel boldly and freely. — d2rac
idwory tov, x.t.A.] that they may see the excellent works done by you. These
are not their virtues in general, but, in accordance with the whole context
from ver. 11, their ministry as faithful to its obligations, their specific
works as disciples, which, however, are also of a moral nature. — xa? dofdcwot,
«.t.A.] that He has made you fit (2 Cor. iii. 5) to perform such works, they
must recognize Him as their author ; comp. ix. 8 ; 1 Pet. ii. 12. The op-
posite, Rom. ii. 24. —r. rar. iuay r. év roic oip.] see on vi. 9. This designa-
tion of God, which Christ gives forth from the fundamental standpoint of
His gospel, already presupposes instructions previously given to the disciples
upon the point. Observe, moreover, that here it is not iuév which, as
formerly, has the emphasis,

Vv. 17-48. Messianic fulfilment of the law by the setting forth of which
Jesus now, after He had made clear to the disciples their high destiny,
desired to establish before all othér things the relation of His ministry to the
religion of the Old Testament, introducing it, indeed, with sus vouioyre, x.7.A. 3
because the thought of an abrogation of the law by the Messiah (which was
actually current among the Jews, upon the basis of Jer. xxxi. 81,° and there-
with a renewal of religion from the very foundation, might easily suggest it-
self so as to become highly injurious, and might give to the work of the
disciples themselves an altogether perverted direction, as it was, moreover,
maliciously laid hold of by their enemies in order to accuse the Lord (xxvi.
61) and His disciples (Acts vi. 14, xxi. 21). The more designedly Jesus in-
troduces and carries through this part (of His discourse), the less does it
suffice to assume the occasion thereto as arising from the law retiring into
the background in His daily life, and from a neglect of the law thus in-
ferred (Keim) ; or from this, that Jesus was accustomed to set out, not from
the law, but from the universal truths of faith, from testimonies of nature
and life (Weizsicker, p. 846). In this way the twice sharply emphasized
“* destroy” especially would appear altogether out of proportion.

Ver. 17.° A connection with what precedes is not to be artificially sought

1 Fulgentius, ili. 6: “‘tucernamque modio 4 Becker, Chariki. II. p. 214 ff.; as to the

contegit. Greek expression Avxvia, Lobeck, ad Phryn.
2 On wék&os, comp. Plut. Demetr. 38. p. 818.
? Comp. iv. 19; Maetzner, ad Lycurgum, & See Gfrérer, Jahrh. d. Hetle, 11. p. 841.

p. 353. ¢ Special writings upon the passage :—

Set SS 8 — eee

120 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

out. Jesus breaks off and introduces the new section without any intermedi-
ate remarks, which corresponds precisely to its pre-eminent importance (for
He shows how the Christian dicawotvy, having its root in that of the Old
Testament, is its consummation). On py? vouic. br: 740., comp. x. 84. — #]
never stands for xai,' but is always distinctive. Here, to abrogate the one or
the other. I have to abrogate neither that nor this. The véyo¢c is the divine
institute of the law, which has its original document in the Pentateuch. The
further Old Testament revelation, in so far as its final aim is the Messiah and
His work, is represented by ol rpog#rac, who make up its principal part ; ac-
cordingly, 6 véuog and ol rpogyrat summarily denote the whole Old Testament
revelation (comp. Luke xvi. 6), partly as a living divine economy, as here ;
partly as ypa¢7, as in Luke xxiv. 27.* Moreover, in the expression roi¢ mpo-
gfrac we are not to think of their predictions as such (the Greek Fathers, Au-
gustine, Beza, Calovius, and others ; also Tholuck, Neander, Harnack,
Bleek, Lechler, 8chegg, and others), as nobody could imagine that their ab-
rogation was to be expected from'the Messiah, but, as the connection with
véuoc shows (and comp. vii. 12, xxii. 40 ; Luke xvi. 29), and asis in keeping
with the manner in which the idea is carried out in the following verses,
their contents as commands, in which respect the prophets have carried on
the development of the,law in an ethical manner.* In vduoc, however, to
think merely of the moral law is erroneous, as it always signifies the entire
law, and the distinction between the ritualistic, civil, and moral law is
modern ;. comp. on Rom. iii. 20. If, afterwards, sentences are given from
the moral law, yet these are only quotations by way of illustration from the
whole, from which, however, the moral precepts very naturally suggested
themselves for quotations, because the idea of righteousness is before the
mind. He has fulfilled the entire law, and in so doing has not destroyed
the slightest provision of the ritualistic or civil code, so far as its general
moral idea is concerned, but precisely everything which the law prescribes is
raised to an ideal, of which the old legal commands are only croyeia. The-
ophylact well illustrates the matter by the instance of a silhouette, which
the painter ov xaradAte:, but carries out to completion, avarAnpoi. — xaradioa]
often employed by classical writers to denote the dissolution of existing con-
stitutions,‘ which are thereby rendered non-existent and invalid.*— The
mAfpwors Of the law and the prophets is their fulfilment by the re-establish-
ment of their absolute meaning, so that now nothing more is wanting to
what they ought to be in accordance with the divine ideas which lie at the

Baumgarten, doctrina J. Ch. de lege Mos. ex
orat. mont. 1888; Harnack, Jesus d. Christ
oder der Erfilller d. Gesetzes, 18042; J. E.
Meyer, der d. Verhdlin. Jesu und seiner
Juinger zum alttest. Gesetz. 1858. See espe-
clally, Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 85 ff.; Bleek in
ad. Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 804 : Lechler, tdidem,
1854, p. 787 ff.; Weiss, ididem, 1858, p. 50 ff.,
and bid. Theol. § 27; Ewald, Jahrb. X. p.
114 ff. The collection of sayings is to be
simply regarded as the source of this sec-
tion, not any special treatise upon the

position of Jesus towards that law (Holts-
mann); comp. Weiss in d. Stud. u. Ari.
1964, p. 56 f.

18ee Winer, p. 410 [E. T. 549 f. ] ; comp.
on 1 Cor. xi. 27.

* Acts xxiv. 14, xxviil. 28; Rom. iil. 21.

3 Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 36 f.

4 Spectally also of the abrogation of laws,
Isocr. p. 129 E; Polyb. fii. 8 2

* Comp. 2 Maco. 1. 22; John vii. 2%; also
véuov xarapyeip, Rom. iil. 81; dverety, Heb, x.
28; Gal. lif. 15.

CHAP. V., 17. - 121
foundation of their commands. Jt is the perfect development of their ideal re-
ality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and
limited. So substantially, Luther, Calvin (comp. before them Chrysvustom ;
he, however, introduces what is incongruous), Lightfoot, Hammond,
Paulus, Gratz, de Wette, Olshausen, Ritschl, Ewald, Weiss, Hilgenfeld ;
likewise Schleiermacher,' and others. Comp. Tholuck (who, however,
brings together the too varying elements of different explanations), also
Kahnis,* who understands it as the development of what is not completed
into something higher, which preserves the substance of the lower. This
explanation, which makes absolute the righteousness enjoined and set forth
in the law and the prophets, is converted into a certainty by the two verses
that follow. The matter is represented by rAnp. as a making complete,* in op-
position to xaraAioa, which expresses the not allowing the thing to remain.
Others (Bretschneider, Fritzsche) : jfacere quae de Messia preacripta sunt ;
others (Kauffer, B. Crusius, Bleek, Lechler, Weizsicker, after Beza, Elsner,
Vorst, Wolf, and many older interpreters): legi satisfacere, as in Rom. xiii.
8, where, in reference to the prophets, zAnp. is taken in the common sense of
the fulfilment of the prophecies,‘ but thereby introducing a reference
which is not merely opposed to the context (see ver. 18 f.), but also an
unendurable twofold reference of zAyp.* Luther well says: ‘‘ Christ
is speaking of the fulfilment, and so deals with doctrines, in like manner
as He calls ‘destroying’ a not acting with works against the law, but a
breaking off from the law with the doctrine.” The fulfilling is ‘‘showing
the right kernel and understanding, that they may learn what the
law is and desires to have.” — I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil; the
object is understood of itself, but the declaration delivered in this general
way 1s more solemn without the addition of the pronoun.

Rrmarx.—The Apostle Paul worked quite in the sense of our passage ; his
writings are full of the fulfilment of the law in the sense in which Christ means
it; and his doctrine of its abrogation refers only to its validity for justification
to the exclusion of faith. It is without any ground, therefore, that this pas-
sage, and especially vv. 18 f., have been regarded by Baur ° as Judaistic, and
supposed not to have proceeded in this form from Jesus, whom, rather in op-
position to the higher standpoint already gained by Him (Schenkel), the
Apostle Matthew has apprehended and edited in so Judaistic a manner (Kdst-

1Z. J. p. 814 ff.

® Dogmat. I. p. 474.

§ John xv. 11; 2 Cor. x. 6.

4 See specially, Euth. Zigabenus, Calovius,

and Calovius ; recently, Philippi, vom thdé.
Gehors. Chr. p. 84; Baumgarten, p. 15. On
the other hand, B. Crusius and also Tholuck.
Acoording to Bleek, p. 804, Christ has fulfill-

and Bleek.

$Vitringa, who compares ‘Dj, even
brings out the meaning ‘to expound."
The explanation of Kuimoel goes back to
the legi satisfacere, but gives as meaning,
docendo ticendoque stabdiiire. Comp. Keim,
“to teach the law, to do it, and to impose
it." The older dogmatic exegetes, who ex-
plained it by satig/acere, here found the sat-
isfactio activa. See, for example, Er. Schmid

ed the moral law by His sinless life, the cer-
emonial law by His sacrificial death, by
means of which the prophecies also are ful-
filled. According to Lechler, Jesus fulfils
the law as doer, by His holy life and sacrifi-
cial death ; as teacher, in teaching mankind
rightly to understand and fulfil the com-
mandments.
© Neutest. Theol. p. 55.

122 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

lin, p. 55 f.), or the supposed Matthew has made to speak in so anti-Pauline a
way ;' according to Hilgenfeld,? ver. 17 is indeed original, but in accordance
with the view of the Hebrew gospel ; vv. 18 f., however, is an anti-Pauline ad-
dition ; Weizsicker sees in ver. 19 only an interpolation ; but Schenkel finds in
vv. 18 f. the proud assertion of the Pharisee, not Jesus’ own conviction. Paul
did not advance beyond this declaration,* but he applied his right understanding
boldly and freely, and in so doing the breaking up of the old form by the new
spirit could not but necessarily begin, as Jesus Himself clearly recognized
(comp. ix. 16; John iv. 21, 23f.) and set forth to those who believed in His
own person and His completed righteousness (comp. Ritschl). But even in
this self-representation of Christ the new principle is not severed from the QO.
T. piety, but is the highest fulfilment of the latter, its antitypical consumma-
tion, its realized ideal. Christianity itself is in so far a law.*

Ver. 18. ’Apiv ydp ALyo tyiv] for verily (augv = aAnbac, Luke ix. 27), that
is, agreeably to the truth, do I tell you. What He now says serves as & con-
Jirmation of what preceded. This form of assurance, so frequently in the
mouth of Christ, the bearer of divine truth, is not found in any apostle. —
éwe Gv waptAOy, x.7.A.] until heaven and earth shall have passed away. These
words of Jesus do not indicate a terminus, after which the law shall no
longer exist (Paulus, Neander, Lechler, Schleiermacher, Planck, Weizsicker,
and others), but He says : onwards to the destruction of the world the law will
not lose its validity in the slightest point, by which popular expression * the
duration of the law after the final catastrophe of the world is neither taught
nor excluded. That the law, however, fulfilled as to its ideal nature, will
endure in the new world, is clear from 1 Cor. xiii. 8 (aydéa7) ; 1 Pet. i. 25 ;
2 Pet. iii, 8 (dtxasootvy). The unending authority of the law is also taught
by Bar. iv. 1.6 The passage in 1 Cor. xv. 28 is not opposed to our expla-
nation ; for if God is all in all, the fulfilled law of God yet stands in its
absolute authority. — iwe av révra yévyra:] not : until all the prophecies are
fulfilled, that would then be down to the Parousia (Wetstein, J. E. Meyer,
comp. Ewald) ; nor even till all is carried out theocratically which I have
to perform (Paulus), or what lies shut up in the divine decree (K6stlin), or
even until the event shall occur by means of which the observance of the
law becomes impossible, and it falls away of itself (Schleiermacher) ; but,
in keeping with the context, until all which the law requires shall be accom-
plished (vi. 10), nothing any longer left unobserved. This sentence is not
co-ordinate to the first zw, but subordinate.’ ‘So long as the world stands

non suus finis, haec est lex," ‘* To everything

1 Gfrérer, A. Sage, Il. p. 8A.

2 In his Zeifechr. 1867, p. 874.

* Comp. Planck in 4. theol. JaArd. 1847, p.
268 ff.

«Comp. Wittichen, p. 828; Holtzmann, p.
457 f.; Weizsicker, p. 848 f.; see also on
Rom. fil. 27; Gal. vi. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 21.

§ Luke xvi. 17; Job xiv. 12.

® Tob. 1. 6; Philo, vit. Mos. ii. p. 656; Jo-
seph. c. Ap. il. 38,and the Rabbins. See
Bereschith # x. 1, “omni ref suus finis,
coelo et terrae suus finis, una excepta re, cui

is its own end, to heaven and to earth its own
end, one thing only excepted, to which
there is not its own end, é.¢., this law ;”
Schemoth 2. vi., “nulla Htera aboletur a
lege in aeternum,” “No letter is effaced
from the law for ever;’’ Midrash Cohei. f.
71, 4, (ex) ‘“‘perpetuo manebit in secula
seculorum,” “The law will remain forever
and ever."’
7 Kthner, ad Xen. Mem, 1. 2 36.

CHAP. V., 19. 123
shall no iota’ of the law pass away till all its prescriptions shall be realized.”
All the requirements of the law shall be fulfilled ; but before this fulfilment
of all shall have begun,? not a single iota of the law shall fall till the end
of the world. Fritzsche: tilt all (only in thought) 7s accomplished. He as-
sumes, accordingly, agreeably to the analogous use of conditional sentences, *
a double protasis : (1) éw¢ dy rapéAby, «.7.A4., and (2) duc... yévyra. But
the parallel passages, Matt. xxiv. 84, Luke xxi. 82, are already opposed to
this ; and after the concrete and lively éur av rapéAéy 6 ovpavic x. 3 yf, this
general and indefinite tug ay wévra yévyrac would be only a vague and lum-
bering addition. As correlative to éy and ia, révra can only mean all por-
tions of the law, without, however, any definite point of time requiring to be
thought of, in which all the commands of the law will be carried out, ac-
cording to which, then, the duration of the present condition of the world
would be conformed. This thought is rendered impossible by the nearness
of the Parousia, according to xxiv. 29, 84, as well as by the growth of the
tares until the Parousia, according to xiii. 80. The thought is rather, the
law will not lose its binding obligation, which reaches on to the final realization of
all its prescriptions, so long as heaven and earth remain. — Observe, moreover,
that the expression in our passage is different from xxiv. 35, where the perma-
nency of the Aéya: of Christ after the end of the world is directly and defi-
nitely affirmed, but that in this continued duration of the Aéyo: of Christ the
duration of the dew also is implied, i.e. according to its complete meaning (in
answer to Lechler, p. 797) ; comp. on Luke xvi. 17. ‘The déixacooivy of
the new heavens and of the new earth will be no other than what is here
taught,” Delitzsch. So completely one with the idea of the law does Jesus
in His spiritual greatness know His moral task to be, not severed from the
latter, but placed in its midst.

Ver. 19. Conclusion from ver. 18. On dé¢ éév with the conjunctive of the
aorist, denoting that which was probably to happen in the future (the con-
tingent futurum exactum).‘ —Aboy] like xatadvoa, ver. 17 ;° Fritzsche and

1 Iera, the smallest letter, and xepaia, horn,
alittle stroke of writing (Plut. Mor. p. 1100
A, 1011 D), especially also in single letters
(Origen, ad Ps. xxxiil.), by which. for exam-
ple, the following letters are distinguished-
Sand 3, and‘, Mand. See Lightfoot,
Schoettgen, and Wetstein. Both expres-
sions denote the smallest portions of the
law ; see ver. 19.

2 In this is contained the perpetually abid-
ing obligation of the law; for that condi-
tion of things, in which no part of the law
remain sunfulfilled, in which, consequently,
all is accomplished, will never occur until
the end of the world. Of the wdéyra, more-
over, nothing is to be excluded which the
law contains, not even the ritvalistic por.
tions, which are to be morally fulfilled in
their ideal meaning, as ¢.g. the Levitioal
prescription regarding purification by mor-
al purification, the sacrificial laws by moral

self-sacrifice (comp. Rom. xii. 1), and so on,
so that in the connection of the whole, in
accordance with the idea of wAjpecs, not
even the smallest element will perish, but
retains its importance and its Integral mor-
al connection with the whole. Comp.
Tholuck ; Gess, Christi Pers. und Werk, 1. p.
202; and before him, Calvin on ver. 17.

* Heindorf and Stallbaum. ad Flat. Phaed.
p. 67 E; Kiihner, II 2, p. 988 f.

* See Winer, p. 267 f. [E. T. 885] ; Kaihner,
II. 2, p. 929; éd» for ay, see Winer, p. 291
(E. T. 890].

® Comp. on Ave» in the sense of abro-
gating, overturning of laws, John vii. 2;
Herod. iif. 8&; Demosth. xxxi. 12. 186. 14.
Ebrard (on Olshausen) erroneously explains
it: ‘‘the mechanical dissolution of a law
into a multitude of casuistical and ritualis-
tic precepts.” The rovrey rev ddaxiorey
should have prevented this view. Amongst

124 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Arnoldi (after Castalio, Beza, Wolf, and others): transgressus fuerit, on
account of the sro:foy in the opposition.’ But this rocgoy partly forms a very
appropriate antithesis to the Aicoy in our sense, which, after xaraAvea: in ver.
17, would be abandoned only from arbitrariness ; partly there is by no
means wanting between Abe and diddoxecv an appropriate, i.e. a climactic,
distinction (they shall declare it to be of no authority, and teach accord-
ingly); partly it is not credible that Jesus should have declared that the
transgressor of the law was éAdyorov év rH Bac. rT. ovpavav, see Xi. 11. Doing
(roihoy) and teaching (d:dé&y) refer, as a matter of course, without it being
necessary to supply any object besides the general word ‘‘is" (translated :
whosoever shall have done and taught it), to that which is required in the
smallest commandment, and that in the sense of the rAfpwor, ver. 17. — raw
évrodéy tobruy rév éAayiorwy] robrev points back to what is designated by
tara and xepaia in ver. 18, not forwards to vv. 22, 28 (Bengel) ; é2c¢yicrwy
refers, therefore, not to the Pharisaic distinctions between great and small
commandments,* but to what Jesus Himself had just designated as iéra and
xepata, those precepts which in reality are the least important. They stand,
however, in accordance with the rAgpwoie of the law, in essential organic
connection with the ideal contents of the whole, and can therefore be so
little regarded as having no authority, that rather he who does this (Aécy),
and teaches others to act in this manner (d:dé£y), will obtain only one of the
lowest places (one of the lowest grades of dignity and happiness) in the
kingdom of the Messiah. He is not to be evcluded (as Augustine, Luther,
Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, and others have misinterpreted the meaning
of éAdy. xAn@.), because his antinomianism is not a principle, not directed
against the law as such, but only against individual precepts of the law,
which in themselves are small, and whose importance as a whole he does not
recognize.* — Note the correlation of rév tAayiorwy. . . tAdyeotog.. . . péyas.

Ver. 20. T4ép] Unnecessary difficulties have been raised on account of this
connection (Ritschl and Bleek, who even declare 6é to be more appropriate),
and the obvious sense passed over (de Wette, who, as well as Hilgenfeld,
refers back to ver. 17). Jesus does not state any ground for recognizing
why there must be distinctions of rank in the kingdom (Ritschl), which
must be understood as a matter of course ; but He assigns the reason—and
how important was that for the vocation of the disciples !|—for the ro:foy x.
é6é€y which He had just uttered, in accordance with its necessary connec-
tion; ‘‘ For if ye do not unite acting with teaching, then can ye not enter
into the kingdom, being upon the same stage of righteousness as the scribes

Greek writers also the simple verb repre-
sents the compound that has preceded it;
comp. on Rom. xv. 4.

1 Comp. also Ritschl, p. 40.

* See especially, Wetstein, p. 205 i

® Ver. 19 stands in so essential a Aonnec.
tion with the discourse, that the supp sition
of Olshausen, that Jesus had in view s}ecial
acts of an antinomian tendency or} the
part of some of His disciples, appears fur

\

\
\

\

as unnecessary as it Is arbitrary. Ké6stlin
and Hilgenfeld find here a very distinct dis-
approval of the Apostle Paul and of the
Paulinites, who break free from the law ;
nay, Paul, thinks Késtlin, was actually
named by Jewish Christians the smallest
(Eph. ili. 8), as he so names himself (1 Cor.
xv. 9). A purely tmaginary combination.
Comp. 1 Cor. fil. 15.

~,

CHAP. V., 21. 125

and Pharisees” (xxiii. 2 f., 14). —mepioc. wAeiov is to be rendered : shall
have been more abundant than.' — 4 dixatootvy tpéov] your moral righteousness,
as in vv. 6, 10, not the justitia fides (Calovius), although the truly moral
life rests upon the latter. — rév ypappar. x. dapic.] well-known comparatio
compendiaria for rij¢ dixasootvng trav, x.7.4.* It is understood, besides, as a
matter of course, that Jesus here has in view the false righteousness of the
Pharisees in general, so that nobler manifestations, like Gamaliel, Nico-
demus, and othcrs, do not determine His general judgment.

Ver. 21. There now follow on to the end of the chapter six—neither five
(Hilgenfeld) nor seven (Késtlin)—antithetic examples of the fulfilling of the
law of Jesus, not merely derived from the Decalogue, or from its second
table (Keim), but from the Pentateuch generally ; not, however, of an anti-
nomian kind, consequently not in opposition to the divine law itself (Chrys-
ostom antl many Fathers, Maldonatus, Neander, Bleek, Socinians and
Arminians), but opposed, indeed, to all the manifold limitations and one-
sided apprehensions and applications of the same, as it was represented and
followed out in life by the common traditional Judaism, and specially by
the Pharisees, without insight into the deeper unity and the purely moral
absolute meaning.* That use of the law produced a false legalism, without
sincerity and virtue, in opposition to which Jesus wishes to develop and
assert the true and full righteous morality out of the divine law. — 7xotcare]
from the law which is read before you,‘ and from the instruction which you
have received regarding its exposition. — roi¢ adpyator¢] may grammatically
be taken not only as a dative (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus,
Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, and many others; also
Tholuck, Neander, de Wette, Ritschl, Bleek, Weizsicker), but also as an
ablatice : by the ancients ;* so Beza, Piscator, Schoettgen, Raphel, and many ;
also Paulus, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Baumgarten, Ewald, Lechler,
Keim. On the jirst rendering, which most obviously suggests itself,* the
ancients are the Jewish generations of earlier times (before Christ), to which
Moses and his followers (xxiii. 2 f.), the scribes, spoke (de Wette, Ritschl),
not simply the Israelites in the time of Moses, to whom the latter spoke
(Neander, Bleek); on the latter view it is Moses (who would not have to be
excluded, as Keim maintains), and his ancient expositors learned in the Script-
ure ; for there follow their sayings, which are partly without, partly accom-

1 These men thought and appeared to
make themselves prominent by abundant
acts of &xa:octvym, whilst they “‘ ceremonia-
jem et forensem morali missa tutati sunt,”
“‘observed ceremonial and external, but
neglected moral righteousness” (Bengel).
An abounding in righteousness on the part
of His disciples in a higher degree and meas-
wre of morality, which wAcoyv, however, in
accordance with the actual relation of the
thing compared, contains in itself an essen-
tially qutte different kind of dcacocvvn, is
required by Christ on the ground of faith
in Him. That external righteousness,

whilst the heart is impure, “ does not be-
long to heaven, but to hell’ (Luther).
Comp. sepiooeiew vadp Twa, 1 Macc. fil. 30.

2 Kiihner, IT. p. 847.

®Comp. also Hofmann, Schri/thew. I. p.
509 f.; Harless, d. Ehescheidunge/rage, 1861,
p.7f.; Weiss, Keim.

4Jobhn xii. 84; Rom. ff. 18; Gal. iv. 21;
Acts xv. 21.

§See Kihner, IZ. 1, p. 868 f.; Winer, p. 206
(E. T. 277].

¢ Rom. ix. 12, 2%; Gal. ill. 16; Rev. vi. 11,
ix. 4,

126 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

panied with, additions proceeding from the scribes. The decision between
these two views is given not merely by the constant usage of the N. T.,
which joins £p)é6y with the dative, but also by the antithesis éyo d2 Afyw tiv,
in which éyé corresponds to the logical subject of éppéf7, and ipiv to roi¢
apyatoc ; the latter consequently cannot itself be the subject. Luther
therefore rightly renders : that it is said to them of old time.’ Pointless
objections are made by Keim, II. p. 248, who even finds in this view some-
thing opposed to the sense ; because the people of the present day have not
yet heard of that which was enjoined on them of old time, but of what has
been enjoined upon themselves. On the other hand, it is to be recollected
that it was precisely a peculiarity of the Jewish method of instruction, and
still is so, to refer the present generation to those of old time, to inculcate
upon the former the rapddoo1¢ which had been common in ancient times,
and had been already given to their forefathers. Thus the people of the
present time have certainly heard in the synagogues what was said to them
of old time.* Kxadéc elpyrat toi¢ madaiotc, ott, x.7.A., ‘‘ well has it been said to
the ancients, that,” etc. — ob goveboerc] Ex. xx. 12. The prohibition refers
to the act, though not by itself, but as the effect of anger, of hostility, and
so on ; for there is also a putting to death which is permitted, nay, even
commanded. The Pharisaic explanation and application of the legal saying
was confined to the literal prohibition of the act; the fulfiller of the law
lays open the whole disposition that deserves punishment, which, as the
ethical condition of the act, was aimed at by the prohibition of the latter.
The following words contain a traditional addition, although one not alien
to the law, by the scribes, who interpreted that prohibition externally. —
xpiotc, according to ver. 22, opposed to the Sanhedrin, is the local court,
found, according to Deut. xvi. 18, in every city of Palestine, to which it
belonged to take cognizance of and to punish even murder (ezecution by the
sword).* According to the Rabbins, it consisted of twenty-three members ;
according to Josephus, of seven.‘ To the higher court of justice, the San-
hedrin, ver. 22, it belonged to take cognizance also of crimes punishable by
stoning.

Ver. 22. I, on the other hand, as the fulfiller of the law, already declare
unrighteous anger to be as worthy of punishment as the act of murder was
declared to be to those of old time ; as still more worthy of punishment,
however, the expression of such anger in injurious language, to which I, in
the worst cases, even assign the punishment of hell. Observe (1) that Jesus
does not at all enter into the question of murder itself, by which He makes
it to be felt that it was something unheard of amongst those who believed
on Him ; (2) that for the same reason He does not mention any outbursts of

1 Instead of ¢}p¢48y, Lachmann and Tisch-
endorf have, after B D E K V, the form
épp%0y. Both forms are found in Plato (see
Heindorf, ad Gorg. p 46),to whom, how-
ever, Schneider, ad Pol. V. p. 480 A, every-
where assigns the latter as the proper one.
The first is the more common In the later
Greek, and therefore to be preferred in the

N.T. See in general, Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 447. Comp. on Rom. ix. 12; Gal. fil. 16.

*Comp., moreover, Diodorus Siculus
xii. 20.

$2 Chron. xix. 5; Josephus, Andi. iv.
8. 14.

‘See generally, Tholuck, Keil, Arch. I.
250 ff. Z

CHAP. V., 22. ; 127

anger in acts, such as ill-usage and the like ; (8) that the abusive words,
which are quoted by way of example, represent different degrees of out-
bursts of anger in speech, in accordance with the malignity of the disposi-
tion from which they proceed ; and (4) that xpioic, ovvédpiov, yéevva, illus-
trate different degrees of greater culpability before God (for xpiow and
ovvédpiov are also analogical representations of divine, although temporal,
penal judgment), down to the everlasting damnation ; so that (5) as the
general moral idea in the concrete discourse, whose plastic ascent in details
is not to be pressed, the highest and holiest severity appears in the point of
unlovingness (comp. 1 John iii. 15), and therein lies the ideal consummation
of the law, ot govetcers, not only in itself, but also in the antithesis of its
traditional threat, ¢ & av goveboy, etc. — é dpyitéu. } has the emphasis of oppo-
sition to goveberv. —1¢ adeAgp] does not go beyond the popular conception
(a member of the nation, comp. ver. 47), out of which grew at a later time
the representation and designation of Christian brotherly fellowship. The
conception of the xAyofov from the point of view of humanity, Luke x. 29,
is not contained in the adeAgbc. —If eixj were genuine (but see critical
remarks), then this idea would be contained in it, that Jesus does not mean
simply being angry, but the being angry without a reason (Rom. xiii. 4 ;
Col. ii. 18), the anger of mere passionateness, without moral justification.
There is, moreover, a holy anger, which has its basis in what is right, and in
its relation to the unholy world.? But never ought it to be unloving and
hostile anger ; and that such an anger is here meant is shown by the con-
text, therefore eixj would not even be an appropriate closer definition. — jaxd]}
as Jerome and Hesychius already correctly interpret it, is the Chaldee ®p"),
vacuus, that is, empty head /—At that time a very common word of oppro-
brium.* That it is, so far as regards its idea, of the same nature with pwpé
that follows, speaks rather in favor of than against this common interpre-
tation.‘ Ewald thinks of the Aramaic ®Yp, and interprets it: rascal. —
pope | 52), fool, but in the moral sense,* as the virtuous man was rightly re-
garded as wise * and the wicked as foolish ; therefore equivalent to ‘‘ wicked,”
and thus a stronger word of opprobrium, one affecting the moral character,
than jaxé ; see Wetstein. — ei¢ rv yéevvar] literally : into hell,’ which is to
be regarded as a pregnant expression from the idea of being cast down into

1 etm would stand as equivalent to dAcyi-
ores, “unreasonably’’ (Polyb. i. 5&2. 2),
waparcyes, ‘‘ unexpectedly” (Polyb. i. 74.
14), aoxéwees, “ heedlessly” (Polyb. iv. 14. 6).

2 Comp. on Eph. iv. 26.

? Buxtorf, Lez. talm. p. 224; Lightfoot,
Hor. p. %4; Wetstein in loc.

* Comp. cerés (Jas. fi. 20; Soph. And. 709),
aerépper (Aesch. Prom. 761), «xerdxpayos
(Sibyll. ffl. p. 418).

® Hupfeld on Ps. xiv. 1.

* Comp. Xen. Mem. ill. 9. 4.

™The attributive genitive rot wrvpds (xill.
42; 2 Thess. 1, 8), as an expression of the spe-
cific nature, is to be explained from the

well-known popular representation of hell
(comp. iii, 11, xvill. 8 f., xxv. 41, and else-
where). The explanation of Kuinvoel, who
follows the older interpreters, “is dignus
est,qui in valle Hinnoml vieus comburatur,”
“that one is worthy to be burned alive in
the valley of Hinnom,”’ Is, irrespective of
the illegality of burning alive, opposed to
the constant usage of yéerva as signifying
hell, which usage also forbids us to think of
the burning of the body in the valley of
Hinnom (Michaelis) after execution, or at
least of a casting forth of the latter into
this detested place (B. Crusius, comp.
Tholuck).

128 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

hell.' Plastic representation with the increasing liveliness of the discourse,
instead of the more abstract dative. No example elsewhere. yéevva, prop-
erly 037 ®'2, or pan-y3 *°) (D371, name of a man otherwise unknown ; other
interpretations, as ‘‘ valley of howling,” are arbitrary), a valley to the south of
the capital, where the idolatrous Israelites had formerly sacrificed their chil-
dren to Moloch.* The name of this Aated locality was transferred to the
subterranean abode of the damned.* So always in the N. T., where, how-
ever, it is found only in the Synoptics and James.

Ver. 23 f. ’Edv . . . mpoogtpyc] If thou, then, art about to present thy sac-
rifice (dapov, Vili. 4, xv. 5, xxiii. 18, also in the LXX., Apocrypha, and
Greek writers) ; consequently, art already occupied with the preparation of
the same in the temple.‘ This explanation is required by the words éuzpoo-
Gev tov Ovo. (ad aram), ver. 24.— éxi rd Gvocacr.] to the altar, in order that
the priests may offer it upon the same, — xaxei pvyo8 pc, x.7.A.]® The injured
part is the adeAgéc ; differently in Mark xi. 25, where forgiveness is required.
— surpood. tov Ovocacr.] A closer definition added to éxei. — rpérov] in the first
place (vi. 38), before everything else, what thou now hast to do. Compare
rére afterwards. Itis to be connected with izaye (Luther, Erasmus, Castalio,
Bengel, and many others ; also Gersdorf, p. 107 ; de Wette, Ewald, Arnoldi,
Bleek).° The connection with diaAddy. (Beza, Calvin, Er. Schmidt, and
many others ; also Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others) overlooks the
essential moment which is contained in the connection precisely by the
iraye, the unavoidable, surprising, nay, repellent removal of oneself from
the temple. For that iraye is not here merely an appeal, age, is shown by
the context through the words dgec¢ éxei, etc. In xviii. 15, xix. 21, also, it
means abi. — diaraAdyt] be reconciled, deal so that a reconciliation may begin
with him who has been injured by thee. Comp. 1 Sam. xxix. 4, and on the
passage 1 Cor. vii. 11. In this way the act of sacrifice receives the moral
foundation of a disposition pleasing to God, by which it is no mere exter-
nal work, but is at the same time Aoyixy Aarpeia, Rom. xii. 1.’ Moreover, the
distinction asserted by Tittmann to exist between diaAAdocery and xaraA2docerv,
that the former denotes the removal of mutual hostility, the latter that of
one-sided enmity (Synon. p. 102), is decidedly erroneous. *®

Ver. 25 f. The precept, to be reconciled with the injured person in order

1 Winer, p. 200 [E. T. 267] ; Buttmann, p.
148 (E. T. 170].

22 Kings xxiif. 10; Jer. vil. 32, xix. 2;
Ritter, Erdk. XVI. 1, p. 872; Robinson, Pai.
IT. p. 38.

8 Lightfoot, Hor. ; Wolf on the passage ;
Eisenmenger, Enidecktes Judenthum, I. p.
828 ff.

4The severance of the Jewish believers
from the temple service was only to begin
at a later time, John iv. 21. The Catholic
exegesis knows, indeed, how to find here
the permanent sacrifice of the Eucharist,
regarding which Christ is said in the pas-
sage before us to have given a law which is

for ever valid, Déllinger, Christenthum und
Kirche, p. 250 f., ed. 2.

§ ‘inter rem sacram magis subit recorda-
tio offensarum, quam in strepitu negotio-
rum,” ‘“‘ The recollection of offences comes
up in the midst of sacred things rather than
in the noise of business,’ Bengel.

© Comp. vil. 5, xilf. 30, xxill. 26.

7 Flacius well remarks, 2.v. munue : “* Vult
primam haberi rationem moralium, secun-
dum ceremonialium,” ‘“‘ He wishes the rea-
son of moral things to be esteemed first, of
ceremonial things second.*’

6 Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 276 ff.

CHAP. V., 2%. 129

not to be cast into hell by God the judge, is made clear by the prudential
doctrine of satisfying a creditor in order not to become liable to imprison-
ment. To abide merely by the prudential doctrine itself which the words
convey,’ is opposed to the context (vv. 21-24) ; to take the gvjan4, however,

as the representation of purgatory (many Catholics, not Schegg), or of Sheol
(not Gehenns) (Olshausen), is forbidden by the idea of the judgment, which
also excludes the vague and indefinite ‘‘ transference of that which is de-
structive for the external life to that which is destructive in a higher sense”
(de Wette). Luke xii. 58 has the precept in quite a different connection ;
but this does not justify us in not regarding it in the present passage as be-
longing to it (Pott, Kuinoel, Neander, Bleek, Holtzmann, Weiss, and
others), since it may be given here and there as a popular symbolical prov-
erb ; while precisely here it is most clearly and simply appropriate to the
connection. — eivody] be well disposed—that is, inclined to satisfy him by.
making payment or composition. —71@ avridixg cov) The opponent (in a law-
suit) is to be conceived of as acreditor (ver. 26). The injured brother is in-
tended ; comp. ver. 28. Explanations of the Fathers referring it to the devil
(Clement of Alexandria), to God (Augustine), to the conscience (Euth. Ziga-
benus), see in Tholuck. — rayi] without delay, without putting off, xxviii. 7
f.; John xi. 29; Rev. ii. 16.* — éwe drov] If by raz it was intimated that
the compliance should degin without delay, so it is now stated that it shall
remain till the extreme termination : even until thou art with him on the
road to the judge—even then still shalt thou yield compliance. Not of itself
(in answer to Tittmann, Synon. p. 167), but, in virtue of the context, is gu¢
the inclusire ‘‘ until,” as according to the context it may also be exclusive
(comp. on the passage, i. 25).—The servant of justice (imnpérnc) belongs to
the representative of the legal act ; and who is meant thereby, is evident
from xiii. 41 f. — BAyOgoy] The future, which might be dependent on p#rore,®
taken independently, gives the appropriate emphasis to the tragic closing
act.—In ver. 26 is by no means contained the finality of the condition of
punishment, but its non-finality ; since the azodidévar, that is, the removal
of the guilt of sin, is for him who is in this gvdaxg an impossibility, xviii.

84, xxv. 41, 46, etc. éu¢ states, then, a terminus which is never reached.

Comp. xviii. 34.—-The quadrans is As in copper. or 2 Aerré, } of a farthing

(Mark xii. 42) ; see on the Roman coins in circulation amongst the Jews,

Cavedoni, bibl. Numismat. I. p. 78 ff.

Ver. 27 f. From vv. 28-80 it appears that the tradition of the Pharisees
limited the prohibition in Ex. xx. 14 to adultery proper, and left out of
consideration adulterous desires. — BAfruv] he who looks upon a woman,
opposed to the actual poryeterv. — yuvaixa] woman in general, so that it may
be a married (Erasmus, Grotius, Tholuck, de Wette, Bleek) or an unmarried
one ; for the fAéruv is conceived of as a married man, as is clear from the
signification of ot potxeboecc, Which means adultery. — xpd¢ 7d érifvuqoa arty]

1 Theophylact, Vatablus, and others, In- 3 Winer, p. 468 f. [E. T. 629] ; Buttmann,
cluding Paulus. neut. Gr. p. 201 [E. T. 288]; see on the pas
**Tarda est superbia cordis ad depre- sage, Col. fi. &
candum et satisfaciendum,” Bengel.

130 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

not ita ut, etc., not even in accordance with (Weiss), but, agreeably to the
constant usage of rpéc¢ with the infinitive, to denote the ¢elic reference (vi. 1,
xxvi. 12, and elsewhere) : in order to desire her. The Biézew, which termi-
nates in lustful desire, which is kindled and felt to be strengthened by
gazing on, is designated." He who looks upon a woman with euch a feel-
ing has already (jam ¢o ipso, Bengel), in virtue of the adulterous desire with
which he does so, committed aduktery with her in his heart, which is the
seat of fecling and desire. Thus he is, as regards his moral constitution,
although without the external act, already an adulterer. Similar proverbs
from the Rabbinical writers in Lightfoot and Schoettgen ; from the Greek
and Roman writers in Pricaeus. On poryebew with the accusative, comp.
Plato, Rep. p. 860 B. — éxcAupeiv] with the accusative, is rare and late.*?_ Even
if avrfv were spurious, it could not be explained with Fritzsche : ‘‘ ut adsit
mutua cupiditas,” ‘‘that desire may be mutual.”

Ver. 29.° Unconditional self-denial, however, is required in order not to
stumble against the prohibition of adultery in its complete meaning, and
thereby to fall into hell. Better for thee that thou decidedly deprive thy-
self of that which is so dear and indispensable to thee for the temporal life,
and the sacrificing of which will be still so painful to thee, than that thou,
seduced thereby, andsoon. In the typical expression of this thought (comp.
on Col. iii. 5) the eye and hand are named, because it is precisely these that
are the media of lust ; and the right members, because to these the popular
idea gave the superiority over the lIcft.‘ The non-typical but literal in-
terpretation * is not in keeping with the spirit of the moral strictness of
Jesus ; and to help it out by supplying a limitation (perhaps in the ertreme
case, to which, however, it cannot come ; comp. Tholuck) is arbitrary. The
view, however, which is, indeed, also the proper. one, but hyperbolical, ac-
cording to which the plucking out is said to represent only the restraining
or limiting the use, does not satisfy the strength of the expression. So
Olshausen, comp. already Grotius. Only the typical view, which is also
placed beyond doubt by the mention of the one eye, satisfies the words and
spirit of Jesus. Yet, having regard to the plastic nature of the figures, it
is not the thought ‘‘as is done to criminals” (Keim), but merely that of
thoroughgoing, unsparing sely'-discipline.* — oxavdadifer] & typical designation,
borrowed from a trap (cxavddAy and oxavdéAcOpov, the trap-spring), of the idea
of seducing to unbelief, heresy, sin, etc. Here it isthe latteridea. The word
is not found in Greek writers, but in the LXX. and Apocrypha, and very

1°O ydp crovbdcer dpay rds evudspdhous Seis,
avros padtora Thy Kdputvoy avdrre Tov wadous,
**He who is eager to gaze on beautiful
faces does himself kindle upthe furnace of
passion,’’ Chrysostom. Comp. Augustine:
“* qui hoc fine et hoc animo attenderit, ut eam
concuplscat, quod jam non est titillari de-
lectatione carnis, sed plene consentire libi-
dini,” ‘* Who should apply himself, eith this
end and purpose in view, viz., to long after
her, which in fact is not merely to be pleascd
by fleshly delight, but fully to consent to

lust."

2Comp. Ex. xx. 17; Deut. v. 20; Judith
xvi. 22; see Winer, p. 192 [E. T. 255].

§ Comp. xvill. 8 f.; Mark ix.48 ff. Holtz
mann assigns the original form to Mark.
On the other hand, see Weiss.

4 Ex. xxix. 20; 1 Sam. xi. 2; Zech. xi. 17;
Aristotle, de animal. incessu, iv.

® Pricaeus, Fritzsche, likewise Ch. F.
Fritzsche in his You. Opuec. p. 7 f., Arnol-
di.

® Gal. y. &, vi. 14; Rom. viii. 18

CHAP, V., 31. 131
frequently in the N. T. Observe the present. What is required is not to
take place only after the completion of the seduction. — cvudépe: yép oor, iva,
x.T.A.] not even here, as howhere indeed, does iva stand instead of the injin-
itive (comp. Xviil. 6), but is to be taken as teleological : ‘‘ it is of importance
to thee (this plucking out of the eye), in order that one of thy members may be
destroyed, and not thy whole body be cast into hell.” Thus Fritzsche alone cor-
rectly ; comp. Kauffer. The alleged forced nature of this explanation is a
deception arising from the customary usage of the infinitive in German. —
xai uy bAov . . . yéevvav] namely, at the closely impending establishment of
the kingdom ; comp. x. 28. Ver. 80 is the same thought, solemnly repeated,
although not quite in the same words (see the critical remarks).'

Ver. 31 f.? In Deut. xxiv. 1 there is stated as a reason for the dismissal
which is to be carried out, 137 FV), something hateful, loathsome.* This
was explained by the strict Rabbi Sammai and his adherents as referring to
adultery and other unchaste behavior ; but the gentle Rabbi Hille and his
school as referring to everything in general that displeased the husband.‘
Rabbi Abika went still further, who allowed dismissal if the husband found
amore beautiful woman ; see Wetstein. To these and other ° ill-considered
principles—for Hillel’s doctrine had become the prevalent one—Christ op-
poses Himeelf, and draws out from the original and inmost nature of
marriage (comp. xix. 4 ff.) a firm rule, preserving the sanctity of the idea,
and admitting only that as a ground of separation by which the nature of
marriage and its obligations is, as a matter of fact, directly and immediately
destroyed.* — aroAtcy] not repudiare constituerit (Fritzsche after Grotius),
but will hace diemissed. In this is implied the oral declaration of dismissal, the
accomplishment of which as a fact is to take place by means of a letter of
divorce. The command to give the letter of divorce, moreover, the use of
which was already in existence before the law, is only indirectly implied in
Deut. xxiv. 1; comp. on xix. 7. The Greek expression for the dismissal of
the woman is dzoxéurew.? On the wanton practice of the Greeks in this
matter, see Hermann, Privatalterth. § 80. — azocrdo:ov] departure, that is,
by means of a f:3Alov arooraciov.® In Demosthenes, 790. 2, 940. 15, itis the
desertion of his master, contrary to duty, by a manumitted slave.* The

1“Sane multos unius membri neglecta
mortificatio perdit,” ‘* Truly, mortification
of one member being neglected destroys
many (persons),"’ Bengel.

2 The assertion that, if Jesus had deliy-
ered this declaration ere, the discussian re-
garding divorce in ch. xix. could not have
taken place (Kéetlin, p. 47 ; Holtzmann, p.
176 f.), has no foundation, especially as in
xix. 8, Mark x. 2, the discussion is called
forth by the Pharisees; comp. Weiss. Ols-
hausen and Bleek also find in ch. xix. the
historical position for the declaration,
which Hilgenfeld regards as a non-original
appendix to what precedes; which fs also
substantially the judgment of Ritschl, who
regards the metabatic 84 In ver. 31 as in-

troducing an objection to vv. 29, 80.

38ee Ewald, <Alterthum. p. 272; Keil,
Archiol. Il. p. 74 f., Gesenius, Zhes. II. p.
1068. :

4 Josephus, Antt. iv. 8 28; Vita, 76.
Lightfoot, p. 278 ff.; Ewald, Jakrd. X. p. 86
ff.
8 See Othonis, Lex. Radd. p. 504.

*Comp. Harless, Zhescheidunge/rage, p.
17 ff.

7 Bekker, Anecd. p. 421; Bremi, ad Dem-
adv. Onetor. iv. p. 92.

® Deut. xxiv. 1; Matt. xix. 7; Mark x. 4;
Jer. iff. &

® Hermann, é.¢c. § 57. 17.—The formula of
the lettor of divorce, see in Alphea. in Git-
tin, f. 600; in Lightfoot, p. 277.

132 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
object of the same was to prove that the marriage had been legally dissolved,
and that it was competent to enter into a second marriage with another man
(Ewald, 7.c.). Observe, moreover, how the saying%f the scribes, which has
been quoted, is a mutilation of the legal precept, which had become tra-
ditional in the service of their lax principles, as if it, beside the arbitrary act
of the man, were merely a question of the formality of the letter of divorce.
Ver. 82. Ilapexrdc Adyou ropy.| that is, except (see on 2 Cor. xi. 28) if an
act of whoredom, committed by the woman during marriage,’ is the motive*
(and see on Acts x. 29). In spite of the point of controversy which lies at
the foundation, Paulus and Gratz are of opinion—most recently especially, -
Déllinger *—that by ropveia, which does not mean adultery,* whoredom before
marriage is meant, so that the man, instead of a virgin, receives one who is
no longer so.° The correct view is already to be found in Tertullian, and in
the whole old exegetical tradition, where, however, on the Catholic side, the
permission was limited only to separation @ toro etmensa. On the subject,
comp. the explanation which was specially called forth on a later occasion,
xix. 8 ff. But in Mark x. 11, Luke xvi. 18 (also 1 Cor. vii. 10 f.), this excep-
tion is not expressed, not as if Jesus had at the beginning made greater con-
cessions to the pre-Christian Jewish marriages, and only at a later time com-
pletely denied the dissolubility of marriage,* nor even as if that raoexrdr,
x.t.4., were a later modification, and not originally spoken by Christ (Bleek,
Wittichen, Weiss, Holtzmann, Schenkel, and others), but Mark and Luke
regard this exception by itself, understanding it as a matter of course ; and
rightly so,” since adultery eo ipso destroys the essence of all marriage obliga-

1 Consequently adultery, John viil. 41;
Amos vii. 17; Hos. iif. 8; Sir. xxvi. 9, xiv.
12.

2 Adyos, comp. Thuc. {. 102, fli. 6, 1xi. 4.

8 Christenthum und Kirche, p. 892 ff., 460
ff., ed. 2 (comp. Baeumlein in the Stud. und
rit. 1857, p. 886).

4It means in general every kind of zwhore-
dom (Dem. 403. 26, 483. 25, 612. 5). Where it
specially refers to adultery (uorxeia) this is
clear from the context, as here and xix. 9.
Thus, for example, it means also the idola-
try of the people of God, because that is
adultery against Jehovah, wopyveia, as in
Hos. 1. 2; Ezek. xvi. 15, xxili. 48.

§ How can one seriouSly suppose that Je-
sus could have laid down so slippery an
exception! indelicate, uncertain, unwise, a
welcome opening to all kinds of severity and
chicanery, especially considering the jeal-
ousy of the Jews. And the exception
would have to hold good also in the case of
marriages with widows !

° Hug, de conjugii christ. vinculo tndiseolud.
1816, who therefore declares, in xiv. 9, #7
éxi ropyeig to be spurious.

7 But by the circumstance that Jesus here
expressly quotes asan exception this actual
ground of separation, which was under-

stood as a matter of course, He excludes
every other (comp. especially Calovius); and
it is incorrect to say that, while He grants
one actual ground of separation, He still
allows several others (Grotius, de Wette,
Bleek, and others; comp. also Werner in
@. Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 703 ff.), which is
quite opposed to the point of view of moral
strictness, from which He excepts only that
case in which the actual dissolution of the
marriage in its innermost nature is directly
given.—That Christ bases His answer on
the question of divorce purely upon the
nature of the divine ordinance of marriage
as it was already given at the creation (una
caro, ix. 5), not upon Its object, is of decisive
importance for the legislation in question,
where we have also to observe that the
altered form of divorce (the judicial) can
make no change in the principles laid down
by Jesus. Otherwise the legislation relat-
ing to marriage is driven on and on, by way
of supposed consistency, to the laxity of
the Prussian law and that of other lands
(comp. the concessions of Bleek). More-
over, as regards malicious desertion, the
declarations of Christ admit of application
only so far as that desertion guoad formam,
consequently according to its essential na-

CHAP. V., 33-36. 133

tions.’ But as the exception which Jesus here makes cannot become devoid
of meaning by means of Lev. xx. 10 (in answer to Schegg, see John viii. 8
ff.), so also it is not to be annulled on critical grounds, which in view of
the witnesses is impossible (in answer to Keim here and on xix. 9), The
second half of the verse also, xa? dc, x.r.4., cannot be condemned with Keim
on the authority of D and Codd. in Augustine. — roi abriv por yaoba:),?
although, according to that principle, she is still the wife of the first hus-
band ; therefore the man also, if he marries again, woryarac (xix. 9). — xai]
not causal, but and, and on the other side. — yo:yara:] because he has inter-
course with a person who, according to the divine law, is the wife of another.
That by aroAeAvuévyy, 8 woman who is dismissed illegally, consequently not
on account of adultery, is intended, was understood as a matter of course,
according to the first half of the verse.

Ver. 38. déA:v] as in iv. 7. — ov émtopxfcecg] Doctrinal precept, according
to Ex. xx. 7; Lev. xix. 12. It is not to the eighth commandment that Jesus
refers (Keim, following an artificially formed scheme), but the second com-
mandment forms the fundamental! prohibition of perjury. — The Pharisaic
tradition made arbitrary distinctions between oaths that were binding (by
Jehovah) and those that were not binding.* The second half of the pre-
cept quoted (formulated after Num. xxx. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 22) was so
weakened by them, that special emphasis was laid upon the words 76 xvpiy,
and other oaths were deprived of their obligatory powers.

Vv. 34-36. M? oudoa: 520] to swear not at all (the adverb placed emphat-
ically at the end, compare ii. 10), dependent upon Aéyu tyiv,‘ interdicts all
kinds of swearing in general ;* not merely that of common life, which is at

tare, is fully equivalent to adultery, which,
however, must always bea question in each
individual case. It cannot be shown from
1 Cor. ix. 15 that malicious desertion was
regarded asa reason for dissolving Chris-
tian marriage. See on the passage. —Of
that case of separation, where the man
commits adultery, Christ does not speak,
because the law, which does not know of
any dismissal of the man on the part of the
woman, presented no occasion to it. But
the application of the principle in the case
of adultery on the part of the woman to
that of the man as a ground of divorce
rightly follows in accordance with the
moral spirit of Jesus; comp. Mark x. 12;
Gal. lif. 28; 1 Cor. xi. 11.

1Comp. Weiss in d. Zeitschr. J. christ.
Wissensch. 1856, p. 261.

2 ** Per alias nuptias, quarum potestatem
dat divortium,” “ through other marriage
of which divorce gives the power,” Ben-
gel

® Comp. also Philo, de Spec. Legg. p. 770
A. See Lightfoot, p. 280; Eisenmenger, I.
p. 400; Wetstein on ver. 86; Michaelis,
Moe. Recht, VY. p. 141 ff., upon their loose

principles regarding this matter.

4 Comp. Plat. Phaed. p.59 E, Menex.240 A),
in which the command ts implied (Jacobs,
ad) Anthol. X. p. 200; Kiihner, ad Anab. vy.
7. 84; Wunder, ad Soph. 0. C. 887.

® Comp. West in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852,
p. 221 ff.; Nitzsch, christ. Lehre, p. 808 ff.;
Werner in the Stud. u. Xrit. 1858, p. 711 ff.;
Wuttke, Sidtend. I. § 277; Achelis in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 486 ff. Jerome had
already remarked, with striking simplicity :
“‘evangelica veritas non recipit juramen-
tum cum omnis sermo fidelis pro jurejuran-
do sit,” ‘Evangelical truthfulness does
not pledge itself with an oath, since every
faithful word is equivalent to an oath.”
The emphatic oAws forbids, however, the
limitation only to the forms of the oath
that are afterwards mentioned (Althaus in d.
Luther. Zeitechr. 1868, p. 504, and already
Theophylact, 1), so that the oath by the
name of God would remain unaffected ; in
like manner, the restriction of the prohbibi-
tion to promissory oaths (Ficker in the same
Zeitechr. 1870, p. 688 ff., and already
Grotius).

134 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

variance with reverence for God (Luther, Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, Fritzsche,
Ewald, Tholuck, Harless, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and others), nor even merely
oaths regarded ‘‘ex Judaeorum sensu.” ' The simple prohibition,—given,
however, to the disciples, and for the life of fellowship of true believers,
—and in so far not less ideal than the requirements that have preceded,
appears from the words themselves (comp. Jas. v. 12), and also from
ver. 37. Christianity as it should be according to the will of Christ, should
know no oath at all.* To the consciousness of the Christian, God should
always be so vividly present, that, to Him and others in the Christian com-
munity, His yea and nay are, in point of reliability, equivalent to an oath.
His yea and nay are oath enough. Comp. on dAwrc, prorsus.* Accordingly,
it is only in the incomplete temporal condition of Christianity, as well as in
the relation to the world in which it is placed, and to the existing relations
of the department of public law, to which it conforms itself, that the oath
has its necessary, indeed (comp. Heb. vi. 16), but conditional and tempo-
rary existence. Christ Himself has sworn (xxvi. 63 f.) ; Paul has frequently
sworn (Rom. i. 9; 2 Cor. i. 28, xi. 8 f.; Gal. ii. 20 ; Phil. i. 8) ; nay, God
swears to His own people (Gen. xxii. 16, xxvi. 3; Num. xiv. 28 ; Isa. xlv.
23; Luke i. 73; Acts vii. 17; Heb. vi. 18). Therefore Anabaptists and
Quakers are wrong in rejecting an oath without any exception, as was already
done by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and other
Fathers. The various but altogether arbitrary explanations of those who
here recognize no absolute prohibition may be seen in Tholuck. The direct
oath, by God, is not indeed expressly mentioned along with others in what
follows ; its prohibition, however, is implied, just as a matter of course,
and entirely, first of all in the general uy oudoa: dAwe, 25 it isthe reference to
God which constitutes precisely the fundamental conception and nature of
the oath, and, as in the doctrine here discussed, ver. 88, the direct oath is
contained not only in ov« émopx., according to Lev. xix. 12, but also expressly
in atoddéceie TQ Kupiy, etc. If Christ, therefore, had intended to forbid
merely the oaths of common life, He would, instead of the altogether gen-
eral statement, 47 oudéoas 6Aw¢, have made use of a form of expression excEud-
ing oaths to be taken in relation to the magistracy (probably by 8 sapex ré¢,
as in ver. 82). It is true, indeed, that in the special prohibitions which
follow, He mentions only indirect oaths,—consequently not those that are
valid in a court of justice,—but just because the prohibition of the direct
oath was already contained in yu? Sudo. SAwe, first of all and before all other
_ kinds of oaths ; and His object now is simply to set forth that even indirect
swearing fell under the general prohibition of swearing. And He sets this
forth in such a way, that in so doing the prohibition of the direct oath forms
the presupposition of His demonstration, as it could not otherwise be ex-
pected after yu? duédca: bAwc. What a scanty rAfpwore of the law—and one

1 Thus Matthael, doctrina Christi de jure- 8 = gzavredkos Hesychius, Xen. Mem. |. 2.
jur. Hal. 1847. 35 : mpoayopevouer Trois véots SAWS pH Sradcyer-

27d mh dpvvery GAws ewereivee pddAtora thy at, ‘We charge you not to discourse at
evodBevay, ‘‘not to swear at all augments all with young men,” Oecon. xx. 20.
especially piety,"’ Euth. Zigabenus.

CHAP. V., 37. 135

altogether out of keeping with the ideal character of the points which pre-
ceded—would it have been had Jesus only intended to say : I forbid you
“‘ the wanton oaths of the streets, of the markets” (Keim), in all their forms !—
eefre Ev TE ovp., x.T.A.] not to swear in general, nor (specially) by heaven, nor
by earth.'—The kinds of swearing censured by Jesus were very common
amongst the Jews.*— Apévoc Heov and ixordédiov. . . avrov) (Isa. xvi. 1;
Matt. xxiii. 22). — rot wey. Bao.] of Jehovah (Ps. xlviii. 2, xcv. 4; Job xiii.
18 ff. : therefore the holy city, iv. 5). — uf#re* év rH xeoaAg] Not merely the
Jews,‘ but also the heathen,® swore by their head.* — ouvtew is by the Greek
writers connected with xaré r:voc, or with the accus. (Jas. v. 12). Here, as
in xxiii. 16 ff., Jer. v. 7, Dan. xii. 7, with é (in harmony with the idea that
the oath cleaves to the object appealed to, comp. on édpodoyeiv év, x. 82), and
with ei¢ (directing the thought,’ after the Hebrew ’3 30). — dri ov divacai,
x.t.A.] for thou art not in a condition to make one single hair (if it is black)
white or (if it is white) black. There is, of course, no allusion to the dyeing
of hair. Wolf, Kécher, Kuinoel, and others incorrectly render it: thow
canst not produce a single white or biack hair. On such a signification, what
means the mention of the color? The meaning of the whole passage is:
‘¢ Ye shall not swear by all these objects ; for all such oaths are nothing less
than the oath directly by God Himself, on account of the relation in which
those objects stand to God.” In the creature by which thou swearest, its
Creator and Lord is affected.

Ver. 87. Let your manner of asseveration be affirmation or negation, without
an oath. The repetition of the vai and od is intended to make prominent the

earnest and decisive nature of the assurance.* Similar examples of [1 {0
and ®” ® in the Rabbins, in Lightfoot, and Schoettgen, p. 41.° As a

1 See on #F. . . ware, Klotz, ad Devar. p.
709; Kfihner, IT. 2, p. f.; Winer, p. 454
{EB. T. 612] ; also Bauemlein, Purt. p. 222.

2 Philo, de Spec. Legg. p. 770 A; Lightfoot,
i.c.; Meuschen, NV. 7. ex Talim. illustr. p.
58.

8 If 4»Sé were here the reading (Fritzsche),
then the meaning would be: nof even by thy
head ; see Hartung, Parti2. I. p. 196. But
this reading is neither critically admissible
—as it has only 8** In its favor—nor exe-
getically necessary, since the series of ne-
gations is symmetrically continued with
ayre ev 7, xed. o., Which symmetry is not in-
terrupted by éuéeps, because the latter does
not stand defore iv rij xed. ¢. Matthew
might have written m»5é (comp. also Borne-
mann, ad Xen. Anad. til. 2.27; Ellendt, Lez,
Soph. Tl. p. 128), but he was not odiged to
do so.

4 Berachoth, f. ill. 2; Lightfoot, Hor. p.
281.

§ Ear. Hel. 885.

® Dougtius, Anal. II. p.7 f.; Wetstein on
the passage. Comp. the exposition of Virg.
Aen. ix. 800.

’ Comp. Plut. Oth. 18.

®In answer to Beza’s erroneous expla-
nation, “let your affirmative discourse be
yea, and your negative, nay ;”" and, in an-
swer to Grotius (comp. also Erasmus), who
takes the second vai and ov to refer to the
act which corresponds to the assurance, 80
that the meaning would be : “ fidem a nobis
praestari debere in promissis etiam inju-
ratis,” “ Faith ought to be kept by usin
promises even unsworn,"’ see Fritzsche on
the passage. According to Hilgenfeld, the
original text is said to have been, {n accord-
ance with the quotations in Justin (A pos. i.
16, p. 68) and the Clementines (Rom. iff. 58,
xix. 2): gore 8@ Useoy 7d vai var, Kai rd ov Ov,
Comp. Jas. v. 12; 2 Cor. 117%. Matthew
would appear again to Introduce an assur-
ance like an oath. Kelm also deems the
form of statement as given by Matthew to
be less correct.

® Comp. the vai xai od Mudayopexdy, “the
Pythagorean yea and nay,” in Ausonius,
Idyfil. 17: * Sj consentitur, mora nulla inter-
venit, est, es¢; Si ocontroversum, dissensio
subjiciet, ‘non,’ ‘If there is agreement, no

136 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

matter of course, by this representation other asseverations—made, however,
without an oath—are not excluded. — rd d2 mepioo. rovr.] whatever is more
than yea and nay (robruv), that is swearing.— éx tov xovy pow} Euth. Zigabenus:
ix rov dia3éaov : auctorem habet diabolum, ‘‘ has the devil for its author.” So
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Zwingli, Castalio, Piscator, Wetstein, and
others ; also Fritzsche, Keim.’ Others (Luther, Calovius, Bengel, Rosen-
miller, Kuinoel, Paulus, Tholuck, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald,
Bleek, and others) take roi sovypoi as neuter, so that it would have to be ex-
plained : isin the category of evil, is sinful.* But how insipid and devoid
of meaning is the closing thought if this be the meaning ! how energetic if
4 wovnpéc, xiii. 19, 88, is intended! And by this energetic rejection of the
oath amongst the ideal people of God, to whom the completed law applies,
there is no opposition to the Old Testament sacredness of an oath. But if
under the completed law the mere yea and nay are to have the weight and
reliability of an oath, then this highest moral standard and ordinance of
truthfulness would be again taken away and perverted by him who never-
theless should swear ; while the yea and nay would again be deprived of
the guarantee of truthfulness, which, like all opposition to the truth, would
be diabolical (John viii. 44). The oath by God could not be rejected by
Jesus, in and by itself, as éx tov rovnpod, for it certainly rests upon the divine
law ; but (in answer to Keim) it has, upon the standpoint of the zAgpuar
of the law, given way to the yea and nay, therefore its re-establishment
would only be a desertion of these higher stages, a falling away from
the moral reAecér7¢ up to which Christ means to fulfil the law. This could
not proceed from God, but only from the enemy of His will and kingdom.
In a similar way, ss Theophylact rightly saw, circumcision in the O. T.
is ordained of God, and is worthy of honor ; but to uphold its validity
in Christianity to the injury of faith, and of righteousness by faith, is sin-
ful, devilish ; 2 Cor. xi. 3, 14. So also with sacrifices, festival days, pro-
hibition of meats, and so on.

Ver. 88. "Og6aAudyv . . . ddévro¢] supply déce, which supplement is pre-
supposed as well known from the saying referred to (see Ex. xxi. 24). In
the usual formula (comp. also Lev. xxii. 20, xxiv. 20 ; Deut. xix. 21) is ex-
pressed the jus talionis, the carrying out of which was assigned to the
magistracy.* Instead of seeking and asserting this right before the magistra-
cy, the Christian, in the feeling of true brotherly love, free from all desire
of revenge, is to exercise self-denial, and to exhibit a self-sacrificing spirit
of concession. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 7. This principle of Christian morality,
laid down absolutely as an ideal, by no means excludes, under the deter-
mining circumstances of sinful life, the duty of seeking one’s legal rights,
as is clear, moreover, from the history of Christ and His apostles. That
Jesus, moreover, is speaking against the misuse by the Pharisees of the legal

delay intervenes, te 1s is: if there be dispute, *Comp. XII. Tab. : “si membrum rupit. ni
discord will ensue, (it will be) no.” cum eo pacit, talio esto,” “If he has
1 Comp. Jobn villi. 44; 1 John fil. 8, 12. broken a limb, unless he come to an agree-

* Comp. the use of éx rot éudavois, &x rod §=390 ment with that one, let there be retaliation
eveperovs, etc., Matthiae, p. 1884. in kind.”

CHAP. V., 39-41. 137

standard, as a standard within the sphere of social life, isa groundless sup-
position of Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, B. Crusius, Keim, and
others, especially as in ver. 40 xp:6jva: follows. But certainly the Pharisees
may, unlovingly enough, in cases occurring in social life, have claimed those
rights before the magistracy, and have influenced others also to practise
similar unloving conduct. Glosses in reference to the payment in money of
legal talio, see in Lightfoot.

Vv. 89, 40. To xovnp] is neither to be understood of the devil (Chrysos-
tom, Theophylact), nor, as neuter (Augustine, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Ewald,
and others), of injustice ; but, in accordance with the antithesis 4A’ dcric os
parifer, etc., and with vv. 40 and 41: homini maligno. — Christ names first
the right cheek, although the blow most naturally strikes first the left, but
after the common fashion of naming the left after the right. — xpc6jva:] to go
to law. Vulgate well renders : in judicio contendere.’ It refers to legal con-
troversy, not to the extra-judicial beginnings of contention (de Wette ; also
Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others), by which the distinction between the
two cases, vv. 39 and 40, is quite overlooked. — y:rava] 13, the shirt-like
under-garment, tunica ; on the other hand, inériv] 99%, 333, the mantle-
like over-garment, toga, which also served for a covering by night, and
might not therefore be retained as a pledge over night ; Ex. xxii. 26 ; Deut.
xxiv. 18. The iudriov was more valuable and more indispensable than the
qutév ; that is the point which, according to Matthew, Jesus has in view.
It is different in Luke vi. 29 (according to the order of succession in cover-
ing the body). — AaBeiv] by the lawsuit, which follows from xpAjvac ; whilst
the pettiness of the object is not opposed to this, seeing that the method of
illustration is by way of concrete example.

Ver. 41. ’Ayyapeberv, passed over from the Persian’ ints Greek, Latin
(angariare, Vulgate,* and into the Rabbinical dialect (#°73)%,* Lightfoot on
the passage), fo force into transport service. The Persian arrangements re-
specting post messages, instituted by Cyrus, justified the couriers (4yyapoz)
in making requisitions from station to station of men, or cattle, or carriages
for the carrying on of their journey.* Here it refers to continuing a forced
journey, comp. xxvii. 82. — uidsov] One thousand steps, or eight stadia, onc-
fourth of a German mile. A late word found in Strabo.

Remark.—The spirit of the ethics of Jesus, His own example (John xviii. 22
f.) and that of the apostles (Acts xxiii. 3, xvi. 35, xxvi. 25, xxv. 9 f.), require us
to recognize, in these maniféstly typical representations, vv. 39-41, not pre-
cepts to be literally followed, but precepts which are certainly to be determined
according to their idea. This idea, which is that of Jove, yielding and putting to
shame in the spirit of self-denial, and overcoming evil with good, is concretely
represented in those,examples, but has, in the relations of external life and its
individual cases, the measure and the limitation of its moral practice. Comp.

? Comp. on1Cor. vi. 1; Rom. fil. 4; and 4 Buxtorf, Ler. Rabd. p. 181.
see Wetstein, Nagelsbach on the Jiiad, p. 6 Herodotus, vili. 98; Xenoph. Cyrop. viil.
806, ed. 3. 6. 17; Josephus, Anté. xil. 2.8. See Doug-
3 See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 28, tius, Anal. IT. p. 9 f.
* Augustine, ep. 5.

138 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

on ver. 38. Luther appropriately lays emphasis here upon the distinction
between what the Christian has to do as a Christian, and what as a worldly per-
son (in so far as he is in a position or an office, and so on). The Lord leaves
to the state its own jurisdiction, xxii. 21.

Ver. 42. A precept (in opposition to selfishness) which does not stand
indeed in essential connection with what precedes, but which is still brought
into connection with it through the natural connection of the thoughts.
According to Ewald, who here lays weight’ upon the number seven im the
quotations of the O. T. laws, there must have stood after ver. 41 in the
original collection of sayings the following words : jxobeare, bre épbHOy" ov
KAéwerc, aroddbaoete 62 7d iudriov TG trax’ éyd 62 Abyo tyiv’ TP airovvrs, and 80
on, and then, ver. 40. The command that is wanting was put together
from Ex. xx. 15 ; Deut. xxiv. 12 f. A very thoughtful conjecture, which is
followed by Holtzmann ; but unnecessary, for this reason, that the contents
and order of the sentences, vv. 40-42, attach themselves to one fundament-
al thought ; and improbable, becausc not merely an omission, but also a
transposition, is assumed, and because r¢@ airovyri, x.7.A., does not correspond
to the prohibition of thieving as its fulfilment. — davetc.] That Jesus did not
think of lending out at interest, appears from Ex. xxii. 24.*

Ver. 43. Tov rAnoiov cov] In Lev. xix. 18, }31 denotes a member of the
nation, whereby the proselyte also is included with others ; hatred towards
the heathen, however, is not conceived of by the legislator as an antithesis
that follows of itself, and therefore we may all the less assume that Jesus
Himself introduced info the law hatred of one’s enemies, as an abstraction
from the national exclusiveness, in which the law keeps Judaism towards
heathenism, as if it commanded this hatred (Weiss, Bleek). The casuistic
tradition of the Pharisees, however, explained Lev. xix. 18, as the antithet-
ical r. éy0pdv o. shows, of a friend, and deduced therefrom (perhaps with
the addition of passages like Deut. xxv. 17-19, comp. Mal. i. 8) the antithe-
sis (which confessedly was also a principle of the common Hellenism :* «ai
puohaere Tov éxOpd6v cov, by which was meant not the national enemy (Keim),
but the personal (cov) private enemy, in opposition to the law (Ex. xxiii.
4f.; Lev. xix. 18) and to the pious spirit of the Old Covenant.‘ Jesus Him-
self also may have understood the Pharisaic addition only to refer to pri-.
vate enemies, as is clear from His antithesis, vv. 44 ff.

Ver. 44. Observe the entire love which is here required : disposition, word,
act, intercession.* But it is as ayaray (to esteem highly), not as g:reiv (amare),
that we are required to love our enemy.® It rests upon the clearness and
strength of the moral will to separate between the person of the enemy and
his hostile disposition towards us, so that the latter does not prevent us

1 Jahrb. I. p. 182 f. Sam. xxiv. 7, xviil. 5; 2 Kings vi. 2.

2 Lev. xxv. 87: Deut. xv. 7, xxiii. 2; ® “Primo fere continetur tertium, et se-
Ewald, Alterthimer, p. 242 f. (E. T. 181]: cundum quarto,” “The third is almost en-

2 See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Pi. 110, p. 154; _—i tirely contained in the first, and the second
Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 144. in the fourth,’’ Bengel.

4 Ps. vil. 5, xxxv. 18f.; Job xxxi. 29; Prov. * Comp. on John xi. 5.
xxiv. 17, 20, xxv. 21 f.; comp. Gen. xlv. 1; 1

CHAP. V., 45-47. 139

from esteeming the former, from blessing it, and applying to it acts of
kindness and intercession, The Christian receives this moral clearness and
strength, and the consecration of enthusiasm thereto, in his self-experience
of the divine love of one’s enemy in Christ.’

Ver. 45. "Orug yévaobe viol, x.7.2.] is commonly understood, in keeping
with the dr: rév Gaov, «.7.A., that follows, of the ethical condition of similar-
ity to God, according to which the child of God also exhibits in himself the
divine disposition and the divine conduct (Eph. v. 1f.). But the correct
interpretation is given by ver. 9, and is supported by yévyoée (for yivecba: is
never equivalent to elva:). What is mcant is, as in ver. 9, the obtaining of
the coming salvation in the kingdom of the Messiah, which, according to the
connection, as in ver. 9, is designated as the future sonship of God, because
the participators in the Messanic blessedness must necessarily be of the same
moral nature with God as the original type of love ; therefore the words that
follow, and ver. 48, — rot év otpav.] See on vi. 9. As to the thought, comp.
Seneca.* — ri] is not equivalent to é¢, but the simple as (for), stating that
bruc yévnobe viol, «.7.A., isrightly said. Fritzsche here inappropriately (comp.
already Bengel) dragsin the usage of ei¢ éxeivo 6ri.*— avaréAAec} transitive.* —
Tov Hduov avrov)|.* The goodness of God towards His enemies (sinners) Jesus
makes His believers feel by the experimental proof of His all good adminis-
tration in nature—a proof which, like every one derived a posteriori in favor
of a single divine attribute, is, on account of opposing experiences (God
also destroys the good and the evil through natural manifestations), in itself
insufficient, but, in popular instruction, has its proper place, and is of as-
sured efficacy, with the same right as the special consideration of individual
divine attributes in general.

Ver. 46. Argumentum e contrario in favor of the command to love one’s
enemy ; for the mere love of one’s friend belongs to no higher stage of
moral life than that of the publicans and heathens.—In what follows neither
is a uévov to be supplied after rove cyan. tudc, nor iséyere to be taken for éfere
(both in answer to Kuinoel and others). Jesus opposes the doctrine, ‘‘ Love
them who lore you,” and views the reward, as in ver. 12, vi. 1, a8 a posses-
sion, preserved in heaven with God, to be realized in the kingdom of the
future. —ol reAava:] the taz-gatherers (partly natives, partly Romans), who
were employed in the service of the Roman knights, who farmed the reve-
nues, They were generally greatly hated amongst the Jews on account of
their severity and avarice, especially, however, for being the servants of the
Roman power.*

Ver. 47. And if ye shall have welcomed your brethren alone (saluted them

’ xvill. 21 ff.; Eph. iv. 8; Phil. il, 1f.;1
John Iv. 10 f.

3 De Bene. iv. % ; ‘* 81 deos imitaris, da et
ingratis beneficia; nam e eceleraiie sol ort-
tur, et piratis patent maria,” “If you imi-
tate the gods, bestow kindnesses upon even
the ungrateful ; for the sun arises upon even
the accursed, and seas lie open to pirates."

® See on John it. 18, ix. 17, etc.

4 Hom. Zi. v. 77 ; Pind. Jsthm. vi. 5, v. 111;
Soph. PAU. 1128; Diod. Sic. xvil. 7; LXX.
Gen. fil. 18; Sir. xxxvil. 17; Clem. Cor. L

5 Magnifica appellatio ; ipse et fecit solem
et gubernat et habet in sua unius potes-
tate” (Bengel).

® Wetstein on the passage; Keim, II. p.
217 f.

140 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

lovingly), what special thing have you done? The conception, ‘‘to act in
a friendly manner” (Luther, Tholuck, Bleek, Hofmann), is not the significa-
tio, but certainly the adsignijicatio of aondleoGa:, as often in classic writers.'
— Tore adeAg, tpav uévov] is not to be limited to the members of families and
other close associations (Tholuck and others), as was already done by the
reading ¢idovg, approved of by Griesbach ; but it refers to the members of the
nation, and applies to the national particulariem of the Jews ; consequently
the national antithesis is of é@vixof. Comp. Bleek. — ri repicadv] what prefer-
ence? what distinguishes you above others.* Instead of ri reproodv, Justin ®
quotes ri xarvév, which substantially agrees with ri repoodv, and belongs
only to another form of the idea, not to a higher point of view (Hilgenfeld).‘

Ver. 48. "Eoeofe] imperatively. — ctv] draws a deduction from vv. 44-47,
where the emphatic tei forms the sublime antithesis to the last-mentioned
publicans and heathens. The highest summary of the unending obligation
of Christian love. — réAeo.] év undevi Aecrduevor, Jas. i. 4. Euth. Zigabenus
well remarks : ol uév ayanavrec toig ayarévrac avrovg aredeic ciow eig aydryy :
ol d2 rovcg éxflpodc, ovrot réAeior, ‘‘ They who love those that love them are in-
complete in regard to (true) love ; but they who love their enemies are per-
fect.”* Thus the closing admonition stands in close relation to what pre-
cedes. Others (Beza, Fritzsche, Kuinoel, Ewald, who also regards vii. 12
as originally belonging to this passage) : integri, sine vitiis in general,
without exclusive reference to the commandment of love. They consider
the verse as the top-stone of the whole discourse, directed from ver. 20 on-
wards against the Pharisees. But this anti-Pharisaic tendency is still con-
tinued also in ch. vi., and the pointing to the example of God would at
least not be appropriate to vv. 27 ff. and to 81 ff. — dorep] equality of the
moral modality, ver. 45, by which the relation of the adequate degree is not
required, and yet the ideal task, the obligation of which is never exhausted
(Rom. xiii. 8 ff.), is for ever made sure. Observe, moreover, how this dozep
corresponds, indeed, to the Platonic conception of virtue (duocotofa: rH Bey) 5
the latter, however, is surpassed, on the one side, by the specific require-
ment of Jove as similarity to God ; and, on the other, by the idea of God
as the heavenly Father.

1 Comp. dowdferdar nai drretv, Stallbaum, 490 f. ;
ad Plat. Ap. p. 29 D, and Rep. 499 A. ® Comp. Luther: “‘after the example of

2 ** Ut decet filios Dei,” Bengel. Oomp. the heavenly Father, who does not piece
Rom. iti. 1; Soph. 0. 2B. 841. nor divide His love,’’ and already Ignatius,
3 Apol, 1. 15. ad Philad., interpol. 3.

4 See Ritschl in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p.

CHAP. VI. 141

CHAPTER VI.

Ver. 1. After rpocty. Tisch. inserts dé, no doubt only in conformity with
L Z &, Curss. Verss. ; yet correctly, inasmuch as dé would be readily omitted
from its coming immediately after the syllable TE, and from its reference not
being noticed. — d:xacoovvyv] Elz. Matth. Scholz have éAenyootvyy, against B D
%, 1, 209, 217, It. (Brix. excepted) Vulg. Or. and some other Fathers. A false
gloss. — Ver. 4. avréc] not found in BK LU Z X, Curss. Vulg. It. Copt. Syre
and several Fathers. It seemed superfluous, and was accordingly omitted, and
that all the more readily that it is likewise wanting in vv. 6, 18. Cancelled by
Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 8. — co] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz add 2 re
¢avep, which is not found in B D Z &, Curss. Codd. gr. in Aug. Syr™™ Copt.
Valg. and several Fathers. Also in the case of ver. 6, the testimonies in favor
of omitting are essentially the same ; while, as regards ver. 18, the testimony
for excluding is far more decided. It should be retained in vv. 4 and 6, butin
ver. 18 it is an interpolation, and ought to be deleted.! — Ver. 5. rpocetxy, ovn
éog}] Lachm. and Tisch. : zpocevznofe, ovn tceobe, after B Z, 1, 22, 116, Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Goth. It. Vulg. Or. Chrys. Aug. Correctly; the singular was
occasioned by the use of that number in what precedes and follows. ®& has
mpooeyyxy ovn Eceabe ; see, however, Tisch. on Cod. ®. — Ver. 12. dgievev] DE L
A Il, 157, 253, Ev. 26: aglovev; B Z ®*, 1, 124 (on the margin), Harl. For. Or.
Nyss. Bass. : egyxauev. So Lachm. and Tisch. The latter is to be adopted.
The reading of the Received text and agiouev are from Luke xi. 4, into which,
again, as quoted in Origen (once), aé7xayzev has found its way from our present
passage. — Ver. 13. rovypov] Elz. Matth. add the doxology : dr: cot éoriv 7 Baca.
ela xa f dda ei¢ Tove aiGvac, ’Au7v. Against a preponderance of testimony, and
contrary to the whole connection with ver. 14 f. A very old (Syr.) addition
from the liturgy ; one, however, that has assumed a variety of forms. — Ver. 15.
Td xapant. avrav] is correctly deleted by Tisch. It is wanting in D &, Curss.
Vulg. It. Syr. Aug., and how easy was it mechanically to insert it as a supple-
ment from ver. 14 !— Ver. 18. out] Elz. Fritzsche add tv tr gavepe ; see on ver.
4, — Instead of xputrg, Lachm. and Tisch., in both instances, have xpv¢aly,
after BD &, 1, 22 ; correctly, seeing that xpvrr¢ is the common reading, and
derived from vv. 4, 6. — Ver. 21. Instead of judy, B &, 1, 128, and important
Verss. and Fathers, have cov both times, which Griesb. has recommended, and
Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have adopted. Correctly ; iudv is taken from Luke
xii. 34. — Ver. 22. After the first 599a”2ué¢ Lachm. has cov, only after B, Vulg.
Aeth. Codd. It. Or. Hil. Taken from the one which follows. Then in what
comes next Lachm. places the 7 immediately after ody, only according to B. In
* and several Verss. and Fathers odv is omitted ; deleted by Tisch. 8, against
decisive testimony. Coming as-it does after fd», it might easily be left out

1 Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted év re it is also erased by Griesb. Matth. and
¢evepy in all the three passages; inver.18 Scholz.

142 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

through an oversight on the part of the transcriber. — Ver. 25. xa? z/] Fritzsche,
Lachm. # ri, according to B, Curss. and a few Verss. and Fathers. Too inade-
quate testimony. ® Curss. Verss. and Fathers, who are followed by Tisch. 8,
omit xa) ri rinze altogether. In conformity with Luke xii. 22. — Ver. 28. Instead
of avédvet, xomid, and ve, Lachm. and Tisch. have the plurals, after B X,
Curss. Ath. Chrys. Correctly. See Luke xii. 27. Likewise in ver. 32, where
Lachm. and Tisch. have érc{rrovo.y, the sing. is used to conform with Luke .
xii. 30. — Ver. 33. r. Bao. 7. Geod x. r, dtxatoc, abrov] Lachm. : r. dixaioc. xai av
BaciAeiay abrod, only after B. In &, 1. Geod is wanting; and ita omission, in
which Tisch. 8 concurs, is favored by the testimony of the reading in B. Sev-
eral Verss. and Fathers also leave out r. Geov, which, as being a supplement,
ought to be deleted. The testimony is decisive, however, in favor of putting
T, Bac. first. — Ver. 34. ra éavric] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely éavrij¢, accord-
ing to important testimony. Correctly ; from the genitive not being ander-
stood, it was attempted to explain it by means of rd, and in other ways (zp)
éauTi¢, éauTnyv, éavrg).

Ver. 1. Connection: However (rpoctzere dé, be upon your guard), to those
doctrines and prescriptions regarding the true d:xacocivy, I must add a trarn-
ing with reference to the practice of it (sroetv, 1 John iii. 7). This warning,
stated in general terms in ver. 1, is then specially applied in ver. 2 to alms-
giving, in ver. 5 to prayer, and in ver. 16 to fasting. Accordingly d:xacoot-vy
is righteousness generally (v. 6, 10, 20), and not benevolence specially, which,
besides, it never means, not even in 2 Cor. ix. 10, any more than iPT¥ (not
even in Prov. x. 2, xi. 4; Dan. iv. 24), which in the LXX., and that more
frequently by way of interpretation, is rendered by éAenyocbvy, in which the
Stxaoctvy manifests itself by acts of charity.’ — On et dé u#ye, after which we
are here to supply zpocéyere ri dixaootby. in. ui rwoteiv, etc., see on 2 Cor. xi.
16. — piofiv . . . otpavoic}] See on v. 12, 46.

Ver. 2. M# cadricnc] do not sound a trumpet, metaphorically : make no
noise and display with it (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus).*
Here éurp. refers to the idea of a person sounding a trumpet, which he
holds upto his mouth. Others (Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Paulus, also rivé¢
referred to by Euth. Zigabenus) render : cause not a trumpet to be sounded
before thee. They think that, in order to make a display, the Pharisees had
actually made the poor assemble together by the blowing of trumpets. But
the expression itsélf is as decidedly incompatible with this extraordinary ex-
planation as it is with the notion that what is meant (Homberg, Schoettgen)
is the sound produced by the clinking of the money, dropped into the alleged
trumpet-like chests in the temple (see on Mark xii. 41), and this notwith-
standing that it is added, év r. ovvay. x. év r. Pby.® In the synagogues it was

1 Comp. Tob. fi. 14, xii. 9.

Comp. Achill. Yat. vill. p. 507; Cic. ad
Div, xvi. 21: “te buccinatorem fore exis-
timationls meae,” ‘that you will be a
trumpeter of my good name :” Prudent. de
Symmach. ii. 68.

On the injunction generally, comp.
Babyl. Chagig. f. v. 1: “R. Jannal vidit

quendam nummum pauperi dantem palam ;
cul dixit : praestat non dedisse, quam sic
dedisse,’” ‘‘ Rabbi Jannal saw a certain
person giving money to a poor man openly
(ostentatiously); to whom he said, it is
better not to have given at all, than to
have given in this wise.”

CHAP. VI., 3-6. j 143

the practice to collect the alms on the Sabbath ; Lightfoot and Wetstein on
this passage. — iwoxpira:] in classical writers means actors ; in the New Tes-
tament, Aypocrites.'— arfyove:. . . airav] inasmuch as they have already
attained what was the sole object of their liberality, popular applause, and
therefore have nothing more to expect. dréyecv, to have obtuined, to hare
Sully received. See on Phil. iv. 18. ;

Ver. 3. Xow dé] in emphatic contrast to hypocrites. — uv) yvdrw } dprorepa
gov, x.7.A.] The right hand gives, let not the left hand know it. Proverbial
way of expressing entire freedom from the claiming anything like self-lau-
dation. For sayings of a similar kind among the Fathers, see Suicer, Thes.
I. p. 508. De Wette, following Paulus, thinks that what is referred to is
the counting of the money into the left hand before it is given away with the
right. This is out of place, for the warning is directed, not against a
narrow calculating, but against an ostentatious almsgiving. For the same
reason we must object to the view of Luther, who says : ‘‘ When you are
giving alms with the right hand, see that you are not seeking to receive more
with the left, but rather put it behind your back,” and so on.

Ver. 4. '0 Bréruv tv ro KpuTT@] who sees, i.e. knows what goes on in secret,
where He is equally present. Grotius and Kuinoel arbitrarily take the
words to be equivalent to ra éy 16 xp. —abré¢ aroddce co] He Himself will
reward you, that is, at the Messianic judgment (i.¢. év 76 gavepo, 2 Cor. v.
10) ; avré¢ forms a contrast to the human rewards, which the hypocrites,
with their ostentatious ways of acting, managed to secure in the shape of
applause from their fellow-men, ver. 2.

Ver. 5. Ouvx,écectle}] See the critical remarks. The future, as in v. 48, —
Sri] as in v. 45. —oAovow] they have pleasure in it, they love to do it,—a
usage frequently met with in classical writers,* though in the New Testa-
ment occurring only here and in xxili. 6 f. — éerdrec] The Jew stood, while
praying, with the face turned toward the temple or the holy of holies, 1
Sam. i. 26; 1 Kings viii. 22; Mark xi. 25; Luke xviii. 11 ;* at other
times, however, also’ in a kneeling posture, or prostrate on the ground.
Therefore the notion of jizi, immobiles (Maldonatus), is not implied in the
simple ésrir., which, however, forms a feature in the picture ; they love to
stand there and pray. — év tai¢ yoviac r. 7A] not merely when they happen to
be surprised, or intentionally allow themselves to be surprised (de Wette),
by the hour for prayer, but also at other times besides the regular hours of
devotion, turning the most sacred duty of man into an occasion for hypo-
critical ostentation.

Ver. 6. Tayeiov] any room in the interior of the house, as opposed to the
synagogues and the streets. We are therefore not to think exclusively of
the closet in the strict sense of the word, which was called imepgov ; see note
on Actsi. 18. For the expression, comp. Isa. xxvi. 20 ; for rayeioy, conclave. *
— arodécet gor] for thy undemonstrative piety. It is not public prayer in

1 * Hypocrisis est mixtura malitiae cum 3 Lightfoot, p. 202 f.
specie bonitatis,”” Bengel. 4See Xen. Hell. v. 4.5; Matt. xxiv. 26;

® Ellendt, Lew. Soph. II. p. 910 f. Sir. xxix. 12; Tob. vil. 17.

144 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
itself that Jesus condemns, but praying in an ostentatious manner ; rather
than this, He would have us betake ourselves to a lonely room.’

Ver. 7. Aé] indicating a transition to the consideration of another abuse
of prayer. — Barrodoyeiv]* is not to be derived, with Suidas, Eustathius,
Erasmus, from some one of the name of Battus (passages in Wetstein), who,
according to Herod. v. 155, was in the habit of stammering, but, as already
Hesychius correctly perceived (xara pinyor ri guv7c), is to be regarded as a
case of onomatopoeia (comp. Bérradog as a nickname of Demosthenes, Bar-
tapilw, Barraptouéc, Batrapiorfc), and means, properly speaking, to stammer,
then to prate, to babble, the same thing that is subsequently called roAvioyia.
Bx have the form farradoy.; see Tisch. 8. — ol é6xoi] Whose prayers, so
wordy and full of repetitions (hence, fatigare Deos), were well known.’ In
Rabbinical writers are found recommendations sometimes of long, some-
times of short, prayers (Wetstein). For an example of a Battological
Jewish prayer, see Schoettger, p. 58. f., comp. Matt. xxiii. 15; and for
disapproval of long prayers, see Eccles. v. 1, Sir. vil. 14. — éy rq woAvdoyie
airay] in consequence of their much speaking ; they imagine that this is the
cause of their being heard.‘

Ver. 8. Ot] seeing that you are expected to shun heathen error. — oide
yap, x.7.A.] so that, this being the case, that BarroAoyeiv Is superfluous.

Ver. 9. ‘‘ Having now rebuked and condemned such false and meaning-
less prayer, Christ goes on to prescribe a short, neat form of His own to
show us how we are to pray, and what we are to pray for,” Luther.—The
emphasis is, in the first place, on oirwc, and then on tyeic, the latter in con-
trast to the heathen, the former to the Barrodoyeiv ; while ody is equivalent
to saying, ‘‘inasmuch as ye ought not to be like the heathen when they
pray.” Therefore, judging from the context, Christ intends oirwe to point to
the prayer which follows asan example of one that is free from tain repeti-
tions, as an example of what a prayer ought to be in respect of its form and
contents if the fault in question is to be entirely avoided, not as a direct pre-
scribed pattern (comp. Tholuck), excluding other ways of expressing our-
selves in prayer. The interpretation, ‘‘in hune senswm” (Grotius), is at
variance with the context ; but that of Fritzsche (in some brief way such as
this) is not ‘‘ very meaningless” (de Wette), but correct, meaning as he does,
not brevity in itself, but in its relation to the contents (for comprehensive
brevity is the opposite of the vain repetitions). — On the Lord's Prayer,
which now follows, see Kamphausen, d. Gebet d. Herrn, 1866 ; J. Hanne,

’
ft

1 Theophylact : 4 réros ov BAdwre, add’ db
Tpomos Kai 6 OKOROS.

2 Simplic. ad Epici. p. 840.

3 Terent. Heautont. v. i. 6 ff.

4 As to the thing, consider the words of
Augustine : “ Absit ab oratione multa locu-
do, sed non desit multa precatio, si fervens
perseveret intentio ;"’ the former, he adds,
is “rem necessariam superfluis agere ver-
bis,’ but the multum precari fs : ‘ad eum,
quem precamur, diuturna et pla cordis

excitatione pulsare,’’ “Let much speaking
be absent from prayer, but let not much
supplication be wanting, if fervent pur-
pose steadfastly abides ;” the former, he
adds, is ‘“‘ to accomplish a necessary duty
with superfluous words,” but the suppli-
cating much is, “ to urge us, with long con-
tinued and pious rousing up of soul, to Him
whom we supplicate.” (Zp. 180. 2, ad
probam.)

CHAP. VI., 9. 145

in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1866, p. 507 ff. ; and in Schenkel’s Bideller. II. p.
346 ff. According to Luke xi. 1, the same prayer, though in a somewhat
shorter form, was given on a different occasion. In regard to this differ-
ence of position, it may be noted : (1) That the prayer cannot have been
given on doth occasions, and so given twice (as I formerly believed) ; for if
Jesus has taught His disciples the use of it as early as the time of the Ser-
mon on the Mount, it follows that their request in Luke xi. 1 is unhistorical ;
but if, on the contrary, the latter is historical, then it is impossible that the
Lord's Prayer can have been known in the circle of the disciples from the
date of the Sermon on the Mount. (2) That the characteristic brevity of
Luke’s version, as compared with the fulness of that of Matthew, tells in
favor of Luke's originality ; but, besides this, there is the fact that the
historical basis on which Luke’s version is founded leaves no room whatever
to suspect that legendary influences have been at work in its formation,
while it is perfectly conceivable that the author of our version of Matthew,
when he came to that part of the Sermon on the Mount where warnings are
directed against meaningless repetitions in- prayer, took occasion also to
put this existing model prayer into our Lord’s mouth. Schleiermacher,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Sieffert, Olshausen, Neander, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek,
Holtzmann, Weiss, Weizsicker, Schenkel, Hanne, Kamphausen, also rightly
declare themselves against the position of the prayer in Matthew as unbis-
torical. The material superiority of Matthew's version (see especially Keim)
remains unaffected by this verdict. On the Marcionitic form, especially in
the first petition, and on the priority of the same as maintained by Hilgen-
feld, Zeller, Volkmar, see the critical notes on Luke xi. 2-4. — rérep jpudv]
This form of address, which rarely occurs in the O. T.,! but which is con-
stantly employed in the N. T. in accordance with the example of Jesus, who,
exalted it even into the name for God,* brings the petitioner at once into an
attitude of perfect confidence in the divine love ; ‘‘ God seeks to entice us

with it,” and so on, Luther.* But the consciousness of our standing as.

children in the full and specially Christian sense (comp. on v. 9), it was not
possible perfectly to express in this address till a later time, seeing that the
relation in question was only to be re-established by the atoning death. —
é éy roi¢ ovpavoic] distinguishes Him who is adored in the character of Father
as the true God, but the eymbolical explanations that have been given are of
an arbitrary character (Kuinoel, ‘‘Deus optime maxime, benignissime et
potentissime ;” de Wette, ‘‘the elevation of God above the world ;”
Baumgarten-Crusius, ‘‘God who exists for all men ;” Hanne, ‘‘ Father of
all”). Surely such a line of interpretation ought to have been precluded
by ver. 10, as well as by the doctrine which teaches that Christ has come from
heaven from the Father, that He has returned to heaven to the right hand

1Tsa. lxifl 16: Deut. xxxii. 6; in the here and tn Luke xi. 2 by enser Vater; in
Apocrypha, in Wisd. fi. 16, xiv. 8; Sir. the Catechism and manuals of prayer and
xxill. 1; If. 10; Tob. xiflf. 4; 8 Maco. vi. 3 baptism, Vater unser, after the Latin Pater

3 Mark xiv. 86; Weisse, Zvangelienfr. p. noster. See Rieriecker in ad. Stud. u. Krié.
200 ff. 1887, p. 883 f. Kamphausen, p. 80f.

3In bis translation, Luther renders it

146 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
of the Father, and that He will return again in majesty from heaven. The -
only true God, though everywhere present (2 Chron. ii. 6), nevertheless has
His special abode in heaven ; heaven is specially the place where He dwelis in
majesty, and where the throne of His glory is set,’ from which, too, the Spirit
of God (iii. 16 ; Acts ii.), the voice of God (iii. 17 ; John xii. 28), and the
angels of God (John i. 52) come down. Upon the idea of God’s dwelling-
place is based that very common Jewish invocation D’2V3¥ 1)'aK (Light-
foot, p. 229), just as it may be affirmed in a general way that? ‘‘ mdvre¢ rdv
avurétw TQ Aeiy rémov arodidéact,” ‘all men assign the highest place to the
Deity,” Aristot. de Coelo, i. 8.* On heaven as a plural (in answer to
Kamphausen), comp. note on 2 Cor. xii. 2; Eph. iv. 10. — dycac6¢ru}
Chrysost., Euth. Zigabenus, dofac6#rw ; more precisely, let it be kept sacred
(Ex. xx. 8; Isa. xxix. 28). God’s name is, no doubt, ‘‘holy in itself”
(Luther), objectively and absolutely so ; but this holiness must be asserted
and displayed in the whole being and character of believers (‘‘ ut non existi-
ment aliquid sanctum, quod magis offendere timeant,’’ Augustine), inwardly
and outwardly, so that disposition, word, and deed are regulated by the
acknowledged perfection of God, and brought into harmony with it.
Exactly as in the case of U1), Lev. x. 3, xxii. 2, 82; Ezek. xxviii. 23,
xxxviii. 23; Num. xx. 18; Sir. xxxiii. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 15.— 1d dvopua cov]
Everything which, in its distinctive conception, Thy name embraces and
expresses, numen tuum, Thy entire perfection, as the object revealed to the
believer for his apprehension, confession, and worship. SoM DY, Ps. v.
12, ix. 11; Isa. xxix. 23; Ezek. xxxvi. 23; and frequently also in the
Apocrypha. Everything impure, repugnant to the nature of God, is a
profanation, a BeByAciv rd dvoua 7d aywov (Lev. xviii. 21).—Observe once
more that the three ¢mperativces in vv. 9, 10 are not meant to express the
idea of a resolution and a vow (Hanne, comp. Weizsicker), which is opposed
to mpooehxeote, but they are airfuara (Phil. iv. 6), supplications and desires,
as in xxvi. 89, 42. [See note VI., p. 159, seg. ]

Ver. 10.* ’EAGérw, «.7.4.] Let the kingdom of the Messiah appear. This was
likewise a leading point in the prayers of the Jews, especially in the Kad-
disch, which had been in regular use since the captivity, and which con-
tained the words, Regnet tuum regnum ; redemptio moz veniat.* Here, like-
wise, the kingdom of God is no other than the kingdom of the Messiah, the
advent of which was the supreme object of pious longing.‘ This view of
the kingdom and its coming, as the winding up of the world’s history, a view

1 Iga. Ixvi. 1; Ps. fl. 4, cll. 19, cxv. 8; Job
xxii. 12 ff. ; Acts vii. 55, 56; 1 Tim. vi. 16.

2 Comp. the doi ovlpaviwves of Homer.

? Comp. generally, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nov.
Opuec. p. 218 ff. Augustine, Xp. 187. 16, cor-
rectly thinks that there may be an allusion
to the heavenly temple, ‘‘ ubi est populus
angelorum, quibus aggregandi et coaequan-
di sumus, cum finita peregrinatione quod
promissum est sumserimus,” ‘‘ Where is
the host of angels, to whom we are to be
joined and made equal, when, our peregrin-

ation being finished, we shall have attained
that which is promised."

4 On the inverted order of the second and
third petition in Tertullian, see Nitzsch in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. &46 ff. This trans-
position appeared more logical and more
historical.

® Hence the canon, 73 PRY MIA 4D
TIDND TK MNDID. Bab. Berac. f. 40. 2.

® Luke ijl 2, xvii. 20; Mark xv. 48; Luke
xxii. 18, xxiil. 51; 2 Tim. iv. 8

CHAP. VI., 11. . 147

which was also shared by the principal Fathers (Tertullian, Chrysostom,
Augustine, Euth. Zigabenus), is the only one which corresponds with the
historical conception of the Bao:dcia r. Geow throughout the whole of the
N.T.; comp. on iii. 2, the kingdom comes with the Messiah who comes to
establish it ; Mark xi. 9, 10; Luke xxiii. 42. The ethical development
xii. 31 ff., xxiv. 14 ; comp. on iii. 2, v. 8 ff., 48 ; also on Acts iii. 21),
which necessarily precedes the advent of the kingdom (Luke xix. 11) and
prepares the way for it, and with which the diffusion of Christianity is
bound up, xxviii. 19 (Grotius, Kuinoel), forms the essential condition of that
advent, and through éA@érw, «.7.4., is thus far indirectly (as the means
toward the wished-for end) included in the petition, though not expressly
mentioned in so many words, so that we are not called upon either to sub-
stitute for the concrete conception of the future kingdom (Luke xxii. 18)
one of an ethical, of a more or less rationalistic character (Jerome, Origen,
Wetstein : of the moral sway of Christianity ; Baumgarten-Crusius : the de-
velopment of the cause of God among men), or immediately to associate
them together. This in answer also to Luther (‘‘ God’s kingdom comes first
of all in time and here below through God’s word and faith, and then here-
after in eternity through the revelation of Christ”), Melanchthon, Calvin,
de Wette, Tholuck, ‘‘the kingdom of God typified in Israel, coming in its
reality in Christ, and ever more and more perfected by Him astime goes on ;”
comp. Bleek. — yevyfyre, x.t.A.] May Thy will (vii. 21 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8) be
done, as by the angels (Ps. ciii. 21), so also by men. This is the practical moral
necessity in the life of believers, which, with its ideal requirements, is to
determine and regulate that life until the fulfilment of the second petition
shall have been accomplished. ‘‘ Thusit is that the third petition, descend-
ing into the depths of man’s present condition and circumstances, damps
the glow of the second,” Ewald.’ Accordingly the will of God here meant
is not necessarily the voluntas decernens (Beza), but praecipiens, which is
fulfilled by the good angels of heaven. This petition, which is omitted in
Luke, is not to be taken merely as an explanation (Kamphausen) of the one
which precedes it, nor as tautological (Hanne), but as exhibiting to the pe-
titioner for the kingdom the full extent of moral requirement, without com-
plying with which it is impossible to be admitted into the kingdom when
it actually comes. As, according to ver. 33, the Christian is called upon to
strive after the kingdom and the righteousness of God ; 80 here, after the
petition for the coming of the kingdom, it is asked that righteousness, which
is the thing that God «cills, may be realized upon the earth.

Ver. 11. Tdv dprov}] same as on), victus; Gen. xviii. 5 ; Prov. xxx. 8; 2
Thess, iii. 12 ; Sir. x. 26 ; Wisd. xvi. 20. —rév émioboiov] occurring nowhere
else in the Greek language but here and in Luke xi. 8.* It is possible that
it may be derived from oicia, and accordingly the phrase has been supposed
to mean : the food necessary for subsistence, ‘PN on, Prov. xxx. 8. §8o Syr.,

‘ * Coelam norma est terrae, in qua aliter 2 See Origen, de Orat. § 27: éo.xe werdae-
alia flaunt omnia,” ‘Heaven isthe pattern ac pwd rey evayyecrey, “ it seems to have
for earth, where all things are inharmoni- been formed by the evangelists."”
ous,’” Bengel.

148 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Etym. M.; Beza, Mal-
donatus, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Ewald (de Wette undecided), Arnoldi, Bleek,
Weizsicker, Keim, Hanne, and probably this explanation has also given rise
to the rendering ‘‘daily bread” (It., Chrysostom, Luther), é¢fyepoc, Jas. ii.
15.2 But ovoia does not mean subsistence (obcracic), but * essence, as also real-
ity, and, finally, possessions, res familiaris, in which sense also it is to be
taken in Soph. 7rach. 907 (911), where the words rac dracdag ovoiac denote
a home without children. In deriving the expression, therefore, from oicia,
the idea of necessary food*® must be brought out in a very indirect way (as
Gregory of Nyssa : that which is requisite or sufficient for the support of
the body ; comp. Chrysostom, Tholuck, Hitzig). Again, if the word were
to be derived from oicia (elva:), it would have to be spelt, not écotooc, but
éxotoioc, in a way analogous to the forms émovoia, overplus, erovowwdnc, non-
essential, which come from elva:. Forms in which there is either a different
preposition (such as sreprotoroc), or in which the derivation has no connection
with ecivac (as ércopxeiv), have been brought forward without any reason with
a View to support the above ordinary explanation. After all this we must,
for reasons derived from grammatical considerations (in answer to Leo
Meyer, Weizsiicker, Kamphausen, Keim), prefer the other possible deriva-
tion from # émiovea (therefore from ém:éva:), dies crastinus,* which is already
expressly given by Ambrose, lib. v. de sacram. 4. 24, and according to
which we should have to interpret the words as meaning to-morrow’s bread.*
This explanation, furnished historically by the Gospel according to the He-
brews, where Jerome found ‘WD, is recommended in the context by the
ofuepov, Which, besides, has no correlative, nor is it incompatible with ver.
84, where the taking no thought for to-morrow does not exclude, but rather
presupposes (1 Pet. v. 7), the asking for to-morrow’s bread, while, moreover,
this request is quite justified as a matter of prayer, considering how cer-
tain is the uncertainty of life’s duration. The granting to-day of to-morrow’s
bread is, accordingly, the narrow limit which Christ here assigns to prayers

1 Comp. Victorinus, ¢. Ar. if. p. 278, Au-
gustine.

2 Ast, Ler. Plat. II. p. 491 f.

$To this amounts also the view of Leo
Meyer in Kuhn’s Zeitschr. f. vergleich.
Sprachforech. VI. 6, p. 401 ff., who, how-
ever, regards the word as expressing adjec-
tively the idea of the aim involved in the
éxi: “what evi ts." In this Kamphausen
substantially concurs. The word is said to
be derived from éwetpac: ‘belonging to,” in
which the idea of being “ sufficient" or nec-
essary is understood to be implied. But in
that case we should also have expected to
find érovcvs, and besides, ¢weiva: certainly
does not mean fo belong to, but to be by, also
to be standing over, to impend, and 80 on.
This explanation of éwroveros is an erroneous
etymological conjecture. Bengel very prop-
erly observes; ‘‘éri non semper quidem
in cempositione ante vocalem amittit, sed

amittit tamen in éreory,” “ éwi does not
indeed always lose in composition before a
vowel, but yet it loses in éweory.” [See
Lightfoot, A Fresh Revision of the English
New Testament, Appendix on the words
éxiovcros, weptovewos.—ED. ]

4 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 464; Prov. xxvii. 1.

* Not what is necessary for the next meal
(Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 238).
Baumgarten-Crusius, correctly, ‘to-day,
what we need for fo-morrow.”” On chpepov
was founded the very ancient (Constitutt.
apost. vii. 24.1f., Tertullian, Cyprian) daily
use of the Lord's Prayer. So Ar., Aeth.,
Copt., Sahid., Erasmus, Annot., Scaliger,
Salmasius, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein,
Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 190, and V; also
Winer, p. 92 [E. T. 120), Fritzsche, Kauffer,
Sohegg, Ddllinger, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann,
Schenkel, Wittichen.

CHAP. VI., 12, 13. 149
for earthly objects,—a limit not open to the charge of want of modesty
(Keim), inasmuch as it is fixed only at de die in diem. Of late, Olshausen
and Delitzsch (‘‘the bread necessary for man’s spiritual and physical life’)
have again adopted, at least along with the other view, the erroneous expla-
nation,—exegetically inconsistent with ofpepov, but originating in a supposed
perverse ascetism, and favored by the tendency to mystical interpretation
generally, no less than by the early (Irenaeus, Haer. iv. 18) reference to the
Lord’s Supper in particular,—the explanation, namely, that what is here
meant is supernatural,’ heavenly food (John vi.), as, indeed, many Fathers
(Cyprian and Jerome) and older expositors understood doth kinds of bread
to be included. ([See note V., p. 158, seg. ]

Ver. 12. ‘Q¢ xat spueic, x.7.2.] does not indicate the extent (Chrysostom,
Baumgarten-Crusius) to which forgiveness is asked from God, which is not
in harmony with the tone of the prayer ; rather is o¢ the as which assigns
the reason as well as makes the comparison, doubtless not as being directly
equivalent to nam (Fritzsche), but it expresses the existence of a frame of
mind on the part of the petitioner corresponding to the divine forgiveness :
as then, we also, and so on.* Yet not as though human forgiveness can be
supposed to merit the divine pardon, but the former is the necessary moral
“‘ requisitum subjecti” (Calovius) in him who seeks forgiveness from God.* —
agfxauev] see the critical remarks. Jesus justly presupposes that the believer
who asks from God the remission of his own debts has already forgiven (Sir.
xxviii. 2; Mark xi. 25) those who are indebted to him—that, according to
Luke, he does it at the same time.

Ver. 13. After the petition for forgiveness of sin, comes now the request to
be preserved from new sin, negatively and positively, so that both elements
constitute but one petition. Luke makes no mention whatever of the aa1a
pioa, etc. — pa eloevtyxys, x.7.A.] Neither the idea of mere permission,‘ nor
the emphatic meanings which have been given, first to the eloevéyxyc,® then to
the reipaopzdc,* and lastly, to the etc,” are in keeping with the simple terms
employed ; such interpretations are rationalistic in their character, as is also,
once more, the case with Kamphausen’s limitation to temptations with an evil
result, God leads into temptation in so far as, in the course of His adminis-
tration, He brings about a state of things that may lead to temptation, #.¢.,

1 The expression was derived partly from
éwusy (as Ambrose)—the bread of the world
to come (80 again Weisse, Hvangeliensr. p.
201); partly from oveia, in which case it was
interpreted to mean: the bread requisite
for the &fe of the sow ; or, as though it were
vrepovoros: panis supersubstantialis; as in
the Vulg. and Jerome (“‘ super omnes sudstan-
tias”). Melanchthon fully and pointedly
expreeses his opposition to the view of
heavenly bread, when he says: ‘‘Its advo-
cates are deficient In eruditio ef spirituale
judicium.” However, itis likewise found
in Erasmus’s Poraphr.; but Calvin pro-
nounces: “ prorsus abeurdum est."

2 See on John xiii. 44; Schaeffer, ad Dem.
V. p. 108; Hartang, Partikell. I. p. 460;
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 766; comp. Luke xi. 4

8 Comp. xviii 21 ff. ; Apol. Conf. A. p. 115
f.; Cat. maj. p. 528; Kamphausen, p. 118.

4 ph wapaxupions eicerexdqva:, Euth. Ziga-
benus, Tertullian, Melanchthon.

5 ph xararodqvas Uxd Tov wacpacpoy, “ not
to be swallowed up by the temptation.”
Theophylact.

*Jerome, in eek. xivili.: ‘“‘in tenta-
tionem, quam ferre non posstanus."

¥ Grotius: ‘“ introducere, ut ei
succumbas,” “to bring deeply within, so
that one would yield to it.”

150 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the situations and circumstances that furnish an occasion for sinning ; and
therefore, if a man happens to encounter such dangers to his soul, it is caused
by God—it is He who does it (1 Cor. x. 18). In this way is solved, at the
same time, the apparent contradiction with Jas. i. 18, where it is a question
of subjective inward temptation, the active principle of which is, not God,
but the man’s own lusts.’ In these latter are also to be found, in the case of
the believer, and that in consequence of his odpé (xxvi. 41 ; Gal. v. 17), the
great moral danger which renders this prayer a matter of necessity. — aid
pboat ua¢ ard Tov rovnpov] Rom. xv. 31 ; 1 Thess. i. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 2 ; 2
Tim, iv. 18. But rov rovypov may be neuter (Augustine, Luther,—see, how-
ever, Catech. maj. p. 532 f.,—Tholuck, Ewald, Lange, Bleek, Kamphausen) as
well as masculine (Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostum, Theophylact, Erasmus,
Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Ebrard, Keim, Hilgenfeld,
Hanne). In the former case, it would not mean ‘‘ evid” in general, but, ac-
cording to the New Testament use of tovypéc, as well as the context, moral
wickedness, Rom. xii. 9. However, it is more in keeping with the concrete
graphic manner of view of the New Testament (v. 37, xiii. 19 ; John xvii. 15 ;
1 John ii. 13, iii. 8, 12 ; Rom. xvi. 20 ; Eph. vi. 16 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3), to pre-
fer the masculine as meaning the devil,® whose seductive influence, even over
believers, is presupposed in the seventh petition, which also supplicates
divine deliverance from this danger, by which they know themselves to be
threatened (aré : away from; not ix, asin Rom. vii. 24 ; 2 Cor. i. 10 ; Col. i
13 ; 2 Tim. iii. 11, iv. 17; 2 Pet. ii. 9). For an opposite view of a by no
means convincing kind, see Kamphausen, p. 136 ff.

Remarxs.—The Lord's Prayer, as it stands in Matthew, is an example of a
prayer rich and true in respect of its contents, and expressed in language at
once brief and comprehensive ; see on ver. 9. It is only in an indirect way that
it presents itself in the light of a summary of the principal matfers for which
one is to pray (Ndsselt, Hrercitatt. sacr. p. 2 ff., Kuinoel, de Wette), inasmuch
as Jesus, as matter of course, selected and connected with each other such
leading requests as were appropriate to the solemn period when the establish-
ment of His kingdom was at hand, that, by setting before us a prayer of so
comprehensive a character, He might render the model thus supplied all the
more instructive. Tertullian, indeed, correctly describes the contents of it as
breviarium totius evangedii. According to Maller (neue Ansichien, p. 34 ff.) and
Augnsti (Denkwiirdigk. IV. p. 182), the prayer before us is made up merely of
the opening words of well-known Jewish prayers, which Jesus is supposed to
have selected from the mass of Jewish forms of devotion as being eminently
adapted for the use of His disciples. Wetstein already was of opinion that it
was ‘‘ex formulis Hebraeorum concinnata.’’ But between the whole of the parallels
(Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Wetstein), not even excepting those taken from the
synagogal prayer Kaddisch, there is only a partial correspondence, especially in

1 Comp. Késter, Bidt. Lehre v. d. Versuch, eminently is that one thus called,” Chrys-

p. 19 f. ostom.
3 **Omne ld, quod felicitati nostrae adver- 4 Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 447; Krum-
sum est,” Olearius. wy macher in the Stud. u. Ariz. 1860, p. 122 ff.

3 xat’ éfoxny 5é ovrTws éxecvos KaAdetras, “ pre-

CHAP. VI., 14-16. 151

the case of the first and second petitions ; but lively echoes of familiar prayers
would so naturally suggest themselves to our Lord, and any reason for reject-
ing them was so entirely wanting, that the absence of such popularly conse-
crated echoes, extending to the very words, would even have been matter for
surprise. — Augustine divides the contents into seven petitions ; and in this
he is followed by the Lutheran practice, as also by Tholuck, Bleek, Hilgenfeld.
On the other hand, Origen and Chrysostom correctly make six, in which they
are followed by the practice of the Reformed Church in the catechisms of
Geneva and of the Palatinate, as also by Calvin, Keim. As to the division of
the prayer in respect of form, it is sufficient to observe, with Bengel: ‘ Petita
sunt septem, quae universa dividuntur in duas partes. Prior continet tria
priora, Patrem spectantia : tuum, tuum, tua; posterior quatuor reliqua, nos spec-
tantia.” According to Calvin, the fourth petition is the beginning of ‘‘ quasi
secunda tabula” of the prayer. In regard to the matter, the twofold division into
coelestia and terrena, which has been in vogue since Tertullian‘’s time, is sub-
stantially correct ; and in the more detailed representation of which there follows
—after the upward flight towards what is of highest and holiest interest for be-
lievers, and the specific nature of which, with the aim for which it longs, and
its moral condition. floats before the praying spirit—a humble frame of spirit, pro-
duced by the consciousness of man’s need of God’s favor, first in the temporal
and then in the moral sphere, in which the realization of that with which the
prayer begins can be brought about only through forgiveness, divine guidance,
and deliverance from the power of the devil. The division into vows and petitions
(Hanne) is inaccurate ; see on ver. 9.

Ver. 14 f. Tép] points back to ver. 12, the subject of which is now fur-
ther discussed. — agfoe:] like the preceding d¢#re, placed first to render it
emphatic. For the thought, the fundamental basis of which was stated
in ver, 44 ff., comp. Sir. xxviii. 2 ff.

Ver. 16. Aé] indicating a transition from the subject of prayer to another
kindred subject. — vyorebyre] here with reference to private fasting, which
depended on the inclination of the individual,’ though regularly observed
by the Pharisees on Thursday (when Moses is supposed to have ascended
Mount Sinai) and on Monday (when he is believed to have come down again),
but never on the Sabbath and festival days, except at the feast of Purim.
Mourning attire was worn during the fasting.* — oxv§pwroi] common in the
classics.* —agavifovo:] is a play upon the word in allusion to gavéor. They
conceal their countenances with a view to their ‘‘being seen of,” and so on.
This is intended to indicate how, partly by sprinkling themselves with
ashes, and by the dirt on the unwashed face and beard, and partly by actual
veiling of themselves (2 Sam. xv. 30 ; Esth. vi. 12), they contrive to prevent
it being seen what their countenance is really like. It should be observed,
however, that agavifev does not mean to digfigure, but, even in passages

1 Ewald, Alterth. p. 110. vultum habentem, sed fingentem vel au-

2 Isa. Ivill. 5, xi. 8; Joel ff. 18; Zech. vii. gentem,” “Commonly it is regarded asa
8; Dan. x. 8; 2 Sam. xil. 20, xiii. 19; 1 Macc. defect, and denotes a man not only having
it. 47. asad and sour face, but also feigning and

*“ Pleramque in vitio ponitur et notat enlarging,” Brem!, ad Aeschin. adv. Clesiph,
hominem non solum tristem et tetricum p. 200f.

152 | THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

like the one quoted from Stob. Serm. 74, 62, with reference to a painted
woman, it denotes to make invisible, 6 conapectu submovere. The Vulgate cor-
rectly renders by exterminant, i.e. e conspectu removent.' Hence in Greek
writers it is often asseciated with xptrrecv.

Ver. 17. Dress thyself as if to go to a festive entertainment.* Of course
Jesus does not intend the anointing, and so on, to be taken literally ; but
under this form of requirement He expresses the sincerity which He desires
in connection with the—of itself voluntary—practise of fasting. Comp.
Chrysostom. The form is one that is suited to an attitude of radical oppo-
sition to Jewish formalism. Luther: ‘‘If thou so fastest between thyself
and thy Father alone, thou hast rightly fasted in that it pleases Him ; yet
not as if one must not go on a fast-day with few clothes, or unwashed, but
the additional ceremony is rejected, because it is observed for the sake of
applause, and to ltoodwink people with such singular demeanor.”

Ver. 18. To év re xpupaiy] sc. byt, i.e., who is present where we are hidden
from human eye. He who fasts is év r¢ xpupgaiy everywhere, when he is
present as anointed and washed, for in this state of his person no one will
be able to recognize him as fasting. In accordance with this, we are bound
to reject the explanation of Fritzsche, who supplies vycrebecv (‘‘ eo quod clam
inediam in te suscipias,” ‘‘ for the reason that you secretly undertake a fast
for yourself”), which, however, is far-fetched, and introduces a superfluous
meaning, besides being inconsistent with ver. 6. — aroddce: cos} not the fast-
ing by itself, but the sincerely penitent and humble frame of mind, which
secks to express itself in that devout fasting which is free from everything
like pretence and ostentation ; there is therefore no satisfactory reason for
expunging vv. 16-18 (as also vv. 1-6) from the Sermon on the Mount.’

Vv. 19-34. Comp. Luke xii. 88 f., xi. 84 ff., xii. 22 ff. The theme stated
in ver. 1 is still pursued, and, without any formal indication of a transi-
tion, a new and essential point in the discourse is here introduced, viz. care
about earthly things, which is treated (1) as striving after wealth, vv. 19-24,
and (2) as care for food and raiment, vv. 25-85. To give up the idea of a
fixed plan from this point onwards (de Wette), and especially to regard vv.
19—84 as an irrelevant interpolation (Neander, Bleek, Weiss), is quite unwar-
ranted, for we must not lose sight of the fact that the discourse was intend-
ed not merely for the disciplcs, but for the people as well (vii. 28), The
unity of the Sermon on the Mount is not that of a sermon in our sense of the
word ; but the internal connection of the thought in ver. 19 ff. with what
goes before lies in the drodéce: co: just mentioned, and the object belong-
ing to which is, in fact, the heavenly treasures.

Ver. 19. Oncavpots] Treasures. To understand particular kinds of them,
either stores of corn, or costly raiment, or gold and silver, is a mistake, for the
special treasure meant would also require to have been specially indicated.
— Bpacig] eating, corroding in general. Any further defining of the matter,

1 Beck, Anecd. p. 468, 25: SAwe rd dvedetw tion.”
cai adavés wowjoa, Swep éxdAovy aicrwcat, 2 Ps. xxili. 5; Luke vil 46; Suicer, Zhes.
“The taking away entirely and makingto _iI. p. 18; Wetstein.
disappear, which thing men call annihila- * Wittichen, [des des Menachen, p. 100.

OSHAP, VI., 20-23. 153

whether with the Vulgate and Luther we understand rust (Jas. v. 2, 8) or
weevils (Clericus, Kuinoel, Baumgarten-Crusius) to be meant, is arbitrary,
as is also the assumption of a éy d:d dvoiv for of¢ Bpdcxovea (Casaubon in
Wolf. — dgavife:] causes to disappear, ‘annthilates. Comp. note on ver. 16.
On brov (upon earth) Bengel correctly observes : ‘‘Habet vim aetiologiae,”
‘*it has the force of a bringing of proof.” The thieves dig through (the
wall),' and steal.

Ver. 20. 'Ev ovpavg] belongs to @ycavpifere. By what means is this done ?
By everything which the Lord has hitherto been insisting upon from ver. 8
onwards as the condition on which those who believe in Him are to obtain
eternal salvation, and which therefore constitutes the sum and substance of
the dcxasocivy that comes through faith in Him. In this way, and not spe-
cially by almsgwwing, xix. 21, which, according to v. 7, vi. 8, is here only in-
cluded along with other matters (in answer to Chrysostom), do men gather
treasures (the Messianic felicity) for themselves, which are reserved for us
with God in heaven until the establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom, in
which their destowal is then to take place. Comp. on v. 12.

Ver. 21. For (deep moral obligation to comply with that exhortation) if the
treasure which you have gathered is upon earth, so will your heart, with its
feelings, dispositions, and tendencies, be also upon the earth asin the con-
genial sphere of your inner life, will be ethically bound to the earth, and vice
versa. From the treasure, which is the result of effort and the object of
love, the heart also cannot be separated. In the ground of obligation just
stated it is assumed that the believer's heart must be in heaven.*

Vv. 22, 28. Connection : In order to fulfil the duty mentioned in vv. 19,
20, and warranted by what is said in ver. 21, you must not allow the light
within you, #.6., the reason (4 voi¢, Chrysostom), which apprehends divine
truth, to become obscured, i.¢., it must be preserved in that state of normal
action in which error and moral evil find no place. The obscuring of this
faculty of thought and volition, by which the divine is perceived and
morally assimilated, imparts a wrong tendency and complexion to the entire
life of the individual man. Comp. Luther: ‘‘ This is a warning not to
allow ourselves to be taken in by fair colors and outward appearance, with
which avarice may trick itself out and conceal the knave.” The supposi-
tion that ver. 22 f. originally stood immediately behind v. 16° is therefore
without sufficient logical warrant, and Luke xi. 88-86 may be a later digest
of similar import. Observe, moreover, that nothing is said here about the
capability of the natural reason, purely as such, to apprehend the divine by
its own unaided efforts ; for Jesus has in view those who are believers, whose
vovg is already under the infiuence of the divine truth which He has revealed
to them (Eph. i. 18; Rom. xxii. 2). However, the subjective meaning of
belarus and ¢a¢ must be preserved intact, nor is gé¢ to be understood, with
Hofmann,‘ as referring to the holy nature of God, which seeks to illuminate
the hearts of men.—é Abyvoc rov odparée zor 6 bg8aAuéc] for without the eye

1 Comp. Dem. 787. 18, 1268.18; Job xxiv. John ii. 15 ff.
16; Ezek xii. 5. * Ewald, Jahrd. I. p. 129.
9 Phil. ili, 80; Col. iil. 2 ff. ; 3 Cor. iv. 17; 1 4 Schriflbew. II. 2, p. 820.

154 THE GOSPEL OF. MATTHEW.

the body is in darkness ; the blind man is without light, which comes
through the medium of the eye as though it were a lamp. The subject is
not 4 o¢GaAuds (Luther, Bengel), but 6 Abyvor tov cdu., to which corresponds
Td gac rd év ooi, the subject in the application of the illustration. —drAcis and
xovnpég are mostly understood in the sense of : healthy (which many have
defined more precisely as the opposite of double-sight), and damaged. But
usage is in favor only of zrovapéc being employed in this sense :' rovypia ég0aA-
nov (also the German expression ‘‘ bése Augen”), but not drAcic, which means
only integer in the moral sense of the word.” arAéri¢ o¢6aAuov, as meaning the
opposite of the dishonest, hypocritical cast of the eye. Consequently the
above meaning is contrary to usage, and both words must be understood in
their moral signification, so that Jesus has selected the predicates in His
illustration in view of the state of things to which the illustration refers, and
in which the darkness of the voi¢ is the result of the evil will resisting
divine truth (Rom, i. 21). Therefore: if thine eye is honest, i.e., if it
honestly does its duty,—and : if it is good for nothing, i.¢., if it maliciously
refuses to perform its functions. — gyrecvév] is enlightened, so that it is clear
round about him ; through the light which is perceived by the eye, no one
of his members is in darkness, — ¢ oiv, x.7.A.] Inference a minori ad majus.
— Td ga¢ Td év col] t.e., the vod¢ especially as practical reason (Vernunft). The
figurative designation’ is suggested by, and is correlative to, 6 Abzvos, etc.,
ver. 22.‘ — oxéroc] corresponds to srovapéc above, though denoting at the
same time the effect of the evil condition. — rd oxérog réaov] 8c., éori: how great
then (since the worthlessness of the outward eye involves one in darkness)
is the darkness, 1d oxéroc, in which thou liest !_ But rd oxéroc, from being put
first, is veryemphatic. Luther (following the ordinary reading of the Vulg. :
ipsae tenebrae) and Calvin interpret incorrectly : how great will then be the
darkness itself. Thine, in that case, is the condition in which there is no
susceptibility for that divine truth which would enlighten and sanctify
thee ; and this darkness, how great is it !

Ver. 24. But certainly do not suppose that ye can combine the eager pur-
suit of wealth with striving after the kingdom of God ! no, aut, aut / — dvoi]
t.e. of course, two who are of opposite characters. —# yap . . . xatagpovioet]
he will either hate A and love B, or if not, vice versd, he will cleave to A
and despise B. In the second clause évéc is without the article, because the
idea is somewhat different from that in the first, namely : ‘‘ or he will cleave
to one (not both) and despise the other concerned.” — ysoeiv and ayaray, like
83% and 3%, are used neither here nor anywhere else* ‘ with a less forcible
meaning ” (de Wette, Tholuck, Bleek), so as to be equivalent to posthabere and
praeferre. See, on the other hand, note on Rom. ix. 12, also Fritzsche on

1 See Kypke; comp. Plat. Hipp. min. p. _zer, ad Plot. de puler. p. 361.
874 D. * Comp. Euth. Zigabenus: 4 vovs 6
2Comp. Test. XTT. patr. p. 624. Swpynders eis rd Gurifey cai drryety Thy puxiy,
* Philo, de cond. mund.I. p. 12: Sxep vots *‘ The intellect (or reason) given for the en-
dy Wux7. Touts dpdaduds dv godparr, ‘“What- lightening and guiding the soul."
ever intelligence is in the soul, this the eye ® Gen. xxix. 81; Mal. 1.28; Luke xiv. &,
isin the body,” comp. Plat. Rep. vil. p. 588 xvi.18; John xii. 25; Rom. ix. 18
D: 1d rhs Yuyys Supa, Soph. p. Wi A. Creu-

OHAP. VI., 25, 26. - 155

this passage. The doo masters are conceived of as being of such a nature
that the one is loved, the other hated, and vice versd,—and that in a decided
manner, without any intermediate attitude of indifference. Luther : although
the world can do it skilfully ; and asit is expressed in German, by “ carry-
ing the tree on both shoulders.” In the second alternative, then, the xara-
gpoveiy Corresponds to the uceiv as being the effect of the hatred, while to
the ayazav corresponds the avréyveoGa: as the effect of the love. — avfégera:]
he will hold to him, faithfully cleave to him.'’— yaywvac] Chaldee %)12),
consequently it should be spelt with only one yz, and derived, not from
DX, but from DY, so that its origin is to be traced to {\DMN, thesaurus
(Gen. xliii. 23).* It means riches, and, according to Augustine, is, in the
Punic language, equivalent to lucrum. In this instance it is personified
owing to its connection with dovAetecv, and from its antithesis to @em : wealth
conccived of as an idol (Plutus).*—Moreover, the idea implied in the dov-
deterv prevents the possible abuse of the saying. Luther says well: To
have money and property is not sinful ; but what is meant is, that thou
shouldst not allow them to be thy master, rather that thou shouldst make
them serve thee, and that thou shouldest be their master. Comp. Chrysostom,
who quotes the examples of Abraham and Job. According to the axiom
in the text, Christ justly (see on Luke xvi. 9, the note) requires unfaith/ful-
ness in regard to mammon.

Ver. 25. Aca rovro] because this double service is impossible. — obz? 4 yz,
x.t.4. ].‘—The care has been unwarrantably limited to anzious care, a mean-
ing which is no less unjustifiable in Sir. xxxiv. 1; the context would be ex-
pected to furnish such a limitation if it were intended. Jesus does not only
forbid believers the roAAa yepipvav,® the peptuvgyar’ txerv Badpy,® or such like,
but His desire is that—simply giving themselves to the undivided (curae an-
mum divorse trahunt, Terence) service of God, ver. 24, and trusting to Him
with true singleness of heart—they should be superior to all care whatsoever
as to food, drink, etc. (Phil. iv. 6); nevertheless, to create for themselves
such cares would amount to little faith, ver. 80 ff., or a hal/-hearted faith as
compared with their duty of entire resignation to that God whose part it is
to provide for them. It is only by absolute and perfect faith that the moral
height of avrapxeca (Phil. iv. 11 ff.), and of exemption from earthly care, is
to be attained. Comp. A. H. Franke’s example in founding the orphanage.
— rj yvxg} Dative of immediate reference : in regard to the soul (as the
principle of physical life, x. 89, xvi. 25, ii. 20), in so far as it is sustained by
means of food and drink. In the case of pepuvav the object (rf géyyre) is in
the accusative (1 Cor. vii. 82-84, xii. 25 ; Phil. ii. 20, iv. 6).

Ver. 26. Ta rerecva rov ovpavov] OYDBI "iy, the birds that fly in the air, in
this wide, free height, are entirely resigned ! Genitive of locality, as in

1 Plat. Rep.x. p 600D: Phil. p.88E; Ax. ob duce, ‘He therefore who gave the
p. 300 E; Dem. 290. 9; 1 Macc. xv. 8; Tit. greater (life and body), how is it that He

L 9. will not give the less (food and clothing) ?””
* Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 552. & Xen. Cyr. viil. 7. 12, or the aAyewds pe
8 Baxtorf, Lex. Taim. p. 1217 f. puszvds (Soph. Ané. 830).

4 Chrysostom : 5 roivyr 1d peifoy (life and *Soph. Phil. 187.
body) Sots siog 1d dAarroy (food and clothing)

156 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

ver. 28. This is manifest (in answer to Fritzsche : towards the heavens) from
the juxtaposition of the words in Gen. i. 25, ii. 19; Ps. vili. 9, civ. 12.’—
bri] equivalent to ei¢ éxeivo 6r1, John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi, 51, xvi. 9 ; 2 Cor. i.
18, xi. 10. To this belongs all that follows as far as ard. — ya2A. diadépere
aitayv] This aor (magis) only strengthens the comparative force of d:aeépetw
tivog (to be superior to any one). Comp. on Phil. i. 28, and the yaAAoy that
frequently accompanies poaipeiofa:.

Ver. 27. Taw pixiav] the duration of life (Hammond, Wolf, Rosemiiller,
Kuinoel, Schott, Kauffer, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Tho-
luck, Ewald, Bleek, Hilgenfeld). For, after the more comprehensive ex-
hortation of ver. 25, Jesus passes in ver. 26 to the special subject of the
support of life by means of rpo¢4, with which subject ver. 27 is intimately
connected, Vv. 28-80 refer, in the first place, specially to the body itself,
regarded by itself and as an outward object. The duration of life determined
by God is set forth under the figure of a definite lineal measure.* In opposition
to this, the only true connection, others (Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther,
Maldonatus, Jansen, Bengel, Fritzsche), following the Vulgate and Chrys-
ostom, interpret : the height of the body, the stature, Luke xix. 3, ii. 52.
But what an absurd disproportion would there be in such a relation in rep-
resenting a very trifling addition (Luke xii. 26) by mjxw! For mix,
TDN, is equivalent to the whole length of the lower part of the arm, two
spans or six handbreadths, Béckh,* who thinks, however, without any rea-
son, that the sacred ell (seven handbreadths) is meant.

Ver. 28. Ka? epi évdtu.] the new object of care placed first in the sentence.
— xaraudGere consider, observe: occurring nowhere else in the New Testament,
frequent in Greek writers, Gen. xxiv. 21, xxxiv. 1; Job xxxv. 5. —xpivoy,
{ZiW, lilies generally, various kinds of which grow wild in the East, without
cultivation by human hands (roi dypov). There is no reason to think merely’
of the (flower) emperor’s crown (Kuinoel), or to suppose that anemones are
intended (Furer in Schenkel’s Bibellex.); the latter are called dveydvac in
Greek. — rc] relatively : how, i.¢., with what grace and beauty, they grow
up! To take rac aif. interrogatively (Palairetus, Fritzsche), so that ob xoz.,
etc., would form the answer, is not so simple, nor is it in keeping with the
parallel in ver. 26. They toil not, neither (specially) do they spin, to provide
their raiment. The plurals (aigdvover, etc., see the critical remarks) de-
scribe the lilies, not en masse, but singly,‘ and indeed as though they were
actual living persons.’

Ver. 29. "Ev réoy rH d6fy avrod] Not even (otdf) Solomon when he appeared
in all his glory, not merely in his royal robes (Kuinoel); it is in srepseSddAero

1Comp. Hom. JZ. xvif. p. 675 : twovpariay
wereyyoy. On the saying itself, comp.
Kiddushin, s. fin.: “ Vidistine unquam
bruta aut volatilia, quibus esset aliqua
officina? et tamen {lla nutriuntur absque
anxietate,” “‘Have you ever seen brute
or winged creatures who had any work-
shop? and yet these are supported without
anxiety.”

2 Comp. Ps. xxxix. 6; Mimnermus in Sto-
baeus, 98. 18.

§ Bockh, Metrol. Unters. p. 210 ff. Fenne-
berg, a. d. Lingen-, Feld- u. Wegernaasse d.
Valk. d. Alierth. 1859.

4 Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. tv. 8. 12, ad Anabd.
i, 2. 28.

®§ Kriger on Thuo. i 881. Comp. in
general, Schoomann, ad Jeaeum ix. 8.

CHAP. VI., 30-33. 15%

that the special part of the whole dééa is first mentioned. On the défa of
Solomon, see 2 Chron. ix. 15 ff.—airov, not atrov. Observe further the & ;
his glorious apparel was not equal to any one of these.

Ver. 80. Tov xéprov rev aypov] Placed first for sake of emphasis ; 6 yépro¢,
however, is simply the grass, so that Jesus mentions the genus under which
the lilies (which grow among the grass) are included, and that intentionally
with a view to point them out as insignificant ; 1 Cor. iii. 12 ; 1 Pet. i. 24.
— ofpepov bvra]| which to-day exists.— cic KAiB. BadAdu. | expresses what is done
to-morrow, hence the present.’ Dried grass with its flower-stalks and such
like was also used for the purpose of heating baking ovens.*— roAA@ yaaa. |
expressing certainty.

Ver. 82. The second yép does not append another reason co-ordinate with
the first, but after the injunction contained in ver. 81 has been justified by
the reference to the heathen (to whom they are not to compare themselves),
this same injunction is provided with an explanation of an encouraging
nature, so that the first yép is logical, the second explanatory, as frequently in
classical writers.* The referring of the second yép to something to be sup-
plied after ra &17, such as ‘‘ who know nothing of God” (Tholuck), is arbi-
trary. — olde is emphatic ; is certainly known to your Father, and so on. —
drz} that, not 5, rs (Paulus: that, which ; Fritzsche : quatenus).

Ver. 33. Zyreire dé] now states what they ought to do, instead of indulg-
ing that care forbidden in ver. 81. — rpérov] in the jirst place, before you
strive after anything else ; your jirst striving. In that case a second is, of
course, unnecessary, because their food, their drink, and their raiment
spooreOgoera:. But in the rpédrov the subordinate striving after something is
not even ‘‘ darkly” sanctioned (de Wette) ; on the contrary, and notwith-
standing the xpérov, this striving is exeluded as miuch by ver. 82 as by xat.. .
xpoote?. Accordingly, that jirst striving is the only one.—The simple (yreire
is distinguished from ér:f{7r. not in respect of degree, but only in such a way
that the latter points out the direction of the striving. Hence émi{yreiv éixt
teva, 2 Sam. iii. 8.4 —rjv Baoid. xal ri dixatootvyy atrov] (see the critical re-
marks) where the avroi belonging to both substantives refers, according to
ver. 82, to God, and is meant to convey the ideathat what is to form the
object and aim of our striving is the Messianic kingdom, the becoming par-
takers in it, the being admitted into it, and the moral righteousness which
God imparts to the believer to assist him to attain the kingdom. — ratra
xévra} See vv. 81, 82. The distinction between ratra rdvra and révra
tavra lies merely in this, that in the former it is the demonstrative idea on
which the emphasis is placed, whereas in the latter it is the idea of univer-
sality that is so.* — rpooreOhoera:] will be added, namely, to the moral result
of your striving. Comp. the saying of Christ handed down by Clement,

1 Comp. Buttmann, new. Gr.p.178[E. T. scher, ad Hieron, 11. 6.

A « Comp. note on Rom. xi. 7; Phil. iv. 7.

3 ghifern, or Attic xcplfero:, see Lobeck, 5 gee Winer, p. 510 [E. T. 686]. Comp.
ad Phryn. p.179. Comp. remark on iil. 12; Lobeck, ad Aj. 1088; Saupp, ad Hipparck.
Harmar, Beobacht. ab. d. Orient, I. p. 280 f. VL 6. ;

* Kithner, ad Xen. Anad. vy. 6. 6 Frot-

158 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Origen, and Eusebius,’ which differs from our passage in the generality of its
terms, and in having aireire.

Ver. 84. Concluding saying of this section—practical, fresh, bold, and
taken from the life.—Fritzsche arranges the words thus : 4 ydp abpzov pepip-
vioet. Ta éaurg¢e dpkerdv rH huépg, 1) xaxia avrgc. He takes # xax. avrf¢ as in
anposition with ra éavr#¢ ; which is forced in itself, and precluded by the
reading éaurg¢ without rd. If this reading be adopted, the meaning will be
as follows : Therefore (inference from all that has been said from ver. 25
onwards) have no care about to-morrow ; for to-morrow will care for itself—will
have itself as the object of its care, which you ought not, to-day, to take
away from to-morrow (7 aipiov is personified). The day, i.e., every day,’ as it
comes round, has enough (does not need to have anything more added, as
would be the case if we cared for to-morrow) in ifs own evil, 4.6., in its evil
nature, as represented by dangers, sorrows, and soon. Luther well ob-
serves : Why wilt thou be concerned beyond to-day, and take upon thyself
the misfortunes of two days? Abide by that which to-day lays upon thee :
to-morrow the day will bring thee something else.* In classical writers,
commonly xaxéryg 3‘ pepezvay does not occur elsewhere with the genitive, but,
like gpovrifecv revoc, may be connected with it.®

Nores spy American Eprror.

V.

The rendering of émiotciov is so difficult that Tholuck quotes a scholar as
saying that it is the ‘‘rack of theologians and grammarians.” The history of
the ancient and modern interpretations of the word is exhibited by Tholuck in
his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (Olark’s Bib. Cab. v. 2, pp. 174-
186). Itis also given in outline from Tholuck by Alford in his Commentary
on the Gospels, pp. 53, 54. On the question whethtr éExcovococ is derived from
elvac (to be) or lévac (to go) with the preposition, Cremer controverts the posi-
tion of Meyer. ‘‘ Meyer,” he says, ‘‘ maintains this view (namely, that éxcovoro¢
is derived from ézieva:—to be coming on), notwithstanding its incompatibility
with Matt. vi. 34, and he does so professedly in keeping with a strictly critical
canon, the application of which in exegesis is false almost as often as itis put
to the test by him and others proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua. [The difficult is
to be preferred to the easy wording]. Against this view, moreover, is Ex.
xvi. 14-16, which may be taken as, so to speak, an authentic interpretation of

1 aireire ra peydAa, kai Ta wixpa Umiy wpocte-
Ghceras: kai aireite ta éwovpdmca, xal 7d éwiyea
mpooredijcera: vuiv, ‘‘ Ask the great things,
and the small will be added to you; ask
also the heavenly things, and the earthly
will be added to you" (Fabricius, Cod.
Apocr. i. p. 829).

2 Bernhardy, p. 815.

®Comp. on «xaxia (Chrysostom: saAai-
wepla), Luke xvi. 25; Eocles. vil. 15, xif. 1;

Amos ffl. 7; Sir. xix.6; 2 Maco. iv. 47.

4Hom. Ji. xi 882; Od. v. 200; Herod. if.
128; Soph. ZZ. 228. Comp. however, also
xaxia, Thucyd. ill. 58.1; Plato, Legg. vil. p.
814 A.

‘ Bernhardy, p. 176 f.; Krtiger, § 47. 11;
Ktihner, IV. 1, p. 82%. Onthe well-known
neuter usage, apxerorv, sufficient, see Ktthner,
II. 1, p. 52 f.

NOTES, 159

this petition. Comparatively few of the Greek Fathers, in particular not
Origen, espouse this derivation ; not only is the tenor of the context against it,
but the fact also that there is not a derivative single ending in covows to be found
as formed from iéva: and its compounds. Far better is it to regard the word
as one of that not uncommon class of adjectives which have been formed from
elvat, or obola —évovorog, éEovouoc, duoodtoros, érepovowoc, roAvovews, simesovococ,
avefataog, meptotococ.’”

The difficulty, with Meyer’s derivation of érovotoc, in disposing of opepor,
is serious and has been noticed by expositors. For the reasoning by which
Cremer aims to show that émrovoroc may be derived from the substantive ovoia,
and also that this substantive may be taken to mean “ existence,’’ see his Lex-
icon, Eng. ed. pp. 239-241. ‘Emovoroc thus derived will mean that belongs to
existence; Tholuck renders it ‘‘that serves for our being or subsistence ;’’
Alford, required for our subsistence, proper for our subsistence, and adds, ‘thus
only oyepov has its proper meaning.”

Tholuck’s balancing of probabilities in favor of each derivation of érototoc
touches neatly the difficulty on either side. ‘‘ Far stronger than the objection
which might be raised to the derivation from ovoia founded on the formation of
the word, is that which stands against the derivation from éméva: founded upon
the meaning. The readiest way to defend even that would be to say, that
Christ had indeed forbidden indulging care for the morrow, but it is just the
person who prays who does not do so. Still it might be here replied, as is done
by Augustine, that a prayer for anything which the person has not seriously at
heart is in reality no genuine prayer. Whoever then at his prayers actually
feels in his heart the inclination to be always looking beyond the boundaries
of the present day, of that man it cannot be said with truth that he is in the
frame of mind which becomes a Christian.’’!

VI.

It remains now to consider Dr. Meyer’s objection to the historicity of
Matthew's version of the Lord’s Prayer and its occasion. His positions are (1)
that if Luke’s account of the occasion of teaching the prayer (in chap. xi. 1)
is correct, then Matthew's is not; if Matthew's is correct, then Luke’s is not.
He decides for the accuracy of Luke’s report as against Matthew's. (2) That
the brevity of Luke’s version tells in favor of its historical accuracy, while the
author of our Matthew finds his justification for placing it just where he has
from its relevancy to the line of thought immediately preceding. That is to say,
to use Dr. Meyer's language, ‘‘ he here takes occasion also to put this existing
model prayer into our Lord's mouth!” But as the questioner, according to
Luke xi. 1, is ‘‘a certain one’ of the disciples, is it inconceivable that this
one may not have heard, or heard of the prayer as taught in Christ’s earlier
ministry, and may have had a condensed repetition of the fuller form for an
answer? It has been conjectured that he may have been one of the Seventy ;
but he may have been entirely outside both of the circle of the Twelve and the
larger circle of the Seventy. Tholuck asks “if there is anything at all vio-
lent, anything forced, in the supposition that the prayer set forth by Jesus in

1 Exposition of Sermon on the Mount, v. fi, p. 162

160 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the presence of the people, as an example of how we are fo avoid battology
(vain repetition) in praying, and which in the context before us is so entirely
destitute of the character of a formula, was not looked on by the disciples as a
formula at all, or as being intended for their use, and consequently that, un-
mindful of this type of a true prayer, they at a later period solicited one par-
ticularly destined for themselves? Were they not in other cases also uncertain
whether what the Lord said before the peoplo had a special application to
them? See Luke xii. 41. And snpposingit were to be considered very unlikely
that all of them should labor under a mistake, still might not that be the case
with one or more? Should any, however, object that the Lord must have inti-
mated by some word or other that they had only to call to mind the prayer
which, at a former period, He had already given them, would this be the sole
instance in which, of what was spoken by Christ, the essential part alone has
been communicated ?””!

Here, as usual, the conjectures of the critics which are supported by no docu-
mentary authority neutralize each other. Dr. Meyer holds that the ‘‘ brevity of
Luke's version as compared with the fulness of that of Matthew tells in favor
of Luke's originality ;’ Olshausen, that the recension of Matthew should there-
fore be considered as the original form of the prayer, for what is peculiar to
him cannot possibly be a mere amplification originating in later traditions ; that
of Luke, on the other hand, should be viewed as an abbreviated form, inasmuch
as he is found dealing in a similar way with many of those passages which
Matthew included in the Sermon on the Mount.* On the whole, there is no
reason for maintaining Matthew’s version to be a legendary formation, and there
is reasonableness in supposing that there could have been an occasion when
it was entirely appropriate for Christ to repeat the prayer in a condensed form.

1 Sermon on the Mount, Clark's ed., vol. fl. pp. 184, 185.

2 Commentary on the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 310. Clark’s edition. For text of Luke's version
of the Lord's prayer, see the Revisers’ text of the New Testament, published by Palmer, in
Luke, chap. xi.

CHAP. VIL 161

CHAPTER VII.

Ver. 2, perpy6] In opposition to decisive testimony, Elz. has dvriperp76.,
from Luke vi. 38.—Ver. 4. For a6, Lachm. Tisch. 8 read éx, found only in B.
®, Curss. With éxfdéAw and ver. 5 before them, the copyists involuntarily
wrote the éx. — Ver. 6. Lachm. and Tisch. have the future xarararjoovory, ac-
cording to BC L X, 83. With such important testimony in its favor, it is to
be preferred to the generally received aor. conj.— Ver. 9. The omission of
éorw in B* L, Curss. and several versions (Lachm.: 4 7:¢), a8 well as the read-
ing éy air7ost which follows (Lachm. Tisch. 8), is meant to help out the con-
struction. — Ver. 10. xai éav iy60v alrjoy] Lachm. Tisch. 8 ; } cal iy6dv airfoer,
as in BC &, Curss. Verss., after Luke xi. 11.— Ver. 13. 4 xvAn] is deleted by
Lachm. and bracketed by Tisch. 8, but only, however, after ® Codd. of the It.
and Fathers (Clem. Or. Cypr. Hilar. Lucif.). From its resemblance to rAarzia
immediately preceding, this word was very liable to be omitted. The author-
ity for its omission in ver. 14 is decidedly weaker (® being in this case against
it). Here also it is bracketed by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. — Ver. 14. ri] Elz. and
Tisch., with a decided preponderance of testimony against them, prefer 6r:,
which owed its origin to 6r: rAareia, etc., ver. 13, the meaning of r/ not being
understood. — Ver. 16. cragvAjv] Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have oragvdd¢, ac-
cording to B ® and several Curss. and Verss. The plural originated in conse-
quence of ovAAfy. and cixa. — Ver. 18. Tisch. 8 has éveyxeiv for roeivy in both
instances, against decisive testimony. After ray Lachm. has ody in brackets
(C** L Z, Curss. Verss). An interpolation for the sake of connection, rendered
in Brix. by enim, and in Germ. 2 by aulem. — Ver. 21. After év (Lachm. Tisch.
8: ly roic, according to B Z &) ovpavoic, Fritzsche, following Bengel, inserts odro¢
eicedetaerat et¢ THY Bac, TGV otpavdy, but on far too slender authority. A sup-
plementary gloss. — Ver. 24. duodow avrév] B Z &, Curss. Verss. and several
Fathers have duowncera:. Derived from ver. 26 for the sake of the nominat.
dc. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. — Ver. 28. cvveréAecev] Lachm. Tisch.
read éréAecev, according to B C Z?T ¥&, Curss. Or. Chrys. But how easily
might the syllable cvy drop out between OTE ETE! especially as ovrredeiv
occurs nowhere else in Matth. — Ver. 29. Lachm. inserts airdv xai ol dapicaios
after ypayparveic, on authorities of unequal value. The evidence is stronger in
favor of airév, which, moreover, is confirmed by 8. Tisch. has adopted
merely airy after ypaupareic, in which, however, he is right ; because, whilst
there was no reason for adding avréy, the omission of it was natural in itself,
and suggested by Mark. i. 22.

Jesus warns (1) against judging, vv. 1-6 ; urges (2) to prayer, vv. 7-11 ;
then (8) prepares for the transition, ver. 12, to the exhortation to enter the
Measianic kingdom through the strait gate, vv. 18, 14 ; warns (4) against
false prophets, vv. 15-28 ; and concludes with the powerful passage regard-
ing the wise and the foolish man, vv. 24-27.

162 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 1. Without any intermediate connection, the discourse passes on to
a new subject. Comp. v. 17, vi. 1. — 9 xpivere] xpivecv means nothing more
than to judge, and the context alone will decide when it is used in the sense
of a condemnatory judgment, as in Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 4 ; Gal. v. 10 ; Heb. x.
80 (frequently in John). In this respect it resembles the Heb. DDY. But
in this instance it is proved by ver. 2 and vv. 8-5 that xpivecy is not to be ex-
plained as synonymous with xaraxpivecv.' Nor is this required, but, on the
contrary, plainly forbidden, by Luke vi. 87, for there the difference between
xpivery and xaradixdCecv is of the nature of a climax, the latter being the result
of the former. Accordingly, the correct interpretation is this : Do not sit in
judgment upon others ; do not set yourselves up as judges of their faults
(ver. 8), meaning thereby an officious and self-righteous behavior (the
opposite of that prescribed in Gal. vi. 1-5), that ye may not become obnozious
to judgment, i.e., that ye may not be subjected to the divine, the Messianic,
judgment ; that instead of obtaining mercy and the forgiveness of your sins
in that judgment, you may not draw down upon yourselves that judicial
sentence (which, according to v. 7, vi. 15, ig averted by cherishing a for-
giving spirit). To refer xpcjre to our being judged by others (Erasmus,
Calvin, Kuinoel, Fritzsche), and not, with Chrysostom, to the future judg-
ment, is wrong ; because ver. 2, if referred to the Nemesis of the existing
order of things, would not be altogether true ; and further, because, through-
out His address, Jesus treats the idea of retribution from the Messianic point
of view.? Of course it is unnecessary to say that, in forbidding judging,
Christ is not speaking ‘‘ de ministeriis vel officiis divinitus ordinatis, sed de
judiciis, quae flunt extra seu praecter vocationes et gubernationes divinas," ‘‘ con-
cerning ministry or duties divinely appointed, but concerning judgments
which are made outside of or beyond divine callings and leadings,” Melanch-
thon. Nor does he forbid the moral judging of others in general, which is
inseparable from truth and love, and is at the same time a necessary element
in the duty of brotherly voubereiv.*

Ver. 2. ’Ev] Instrumental repetition of the same thought.‘ The second iy
is also instrumental, by means of, and pérpov is to be understood as a meas-
ure of capacity (Luke vi. 88).

Ver. 8. Képdoc, 8 minute fragment of twig, wood, or straw, which, in
entering the eye,* becomes the figurative representation of a slight moral
fault ; doxéc, again, is the figure by which a heinous ®* fault is denoted.’

1In answer to Theophylact, Euth. Ziga-
benus, Kuinoel, and Olshausen.

ing the faults of others, is foreign to the con-
text. Luther correctly observes: ‘‘ That

2 'V. 1-12, 19, 20, 22, 25, 29 f., vi. 1, 4, 6, 14 f.,
18, 20, 38, vil. 18, 19, 21, 28, 24 ff.

3 “Canis pro cane et porcus pro porco est
habendus,” Bengel.

4 Sota, ed. Wagenseill, p. 52. Comp.
Schoettgen, p. 78.

§ See Wetstein.

* The view of Theophylact, Banmgarten-
Crusius, and several others, that the beam
in a man‘s own eye is calculated to make
him conscious of his incapacity for recognisz-

He may the more earnestly warn us, He
takes a rough simile, and paints the thing
before our eyes, pronouncing some such
opinion as this,—that every one who judges
his neighbor has a huge beam in his eye,
while he who is judged has only a tiny chip,
(and) that he is ten times more deserving of
judgment and condemnation for having
condemned others.”

™Comp. Lightfoot p. 807; Buxtorf, Lex
Talim. p. 2080.

CHAP. VII., 4-6. 163

Tholuck prefers to find the point of comparison in the pain caused by the
splinter or beam in the eye. This is inadmissible, for otherwise it could
not be said, in reference to the beam in the eye, ot xaravoeic, i.¢., thou perceivest
not, art not aware. It is the magnitude of his own moral defects that the
self-righteous man fails to discover. Thy brother, as in v. 22. Notice, fur-
ther, the arrangement of words so appropriate to the sense in the second
clause.

Vv. 4, 5. Or how will it be morally possible for thee to say? and so on.
The rae, like ri (cur), ver. 8, expresses what is morally absurd.’ — cai idod,
x.t.A.] The more emphatic from there being no éor: ; and lo, the beam in
thine eye ! — txBéAw}] Conjunct. hortatory, and in the present instance, in
the sense of calling upon oneself.* — troxpir4] Hypocrite, who pretendest to
be free from fauits. The attribute is here taken from his demeanor as seen
from its objective side, while the subjective side, which here presents itself as
hypocrisy, is the conceit of sel/f-delusion. — draBAéwerc] neither imperative nor
permissive (thou mayest see), but future. The result of self-amendment
will be the earnest effort to help others to amendment. Observe the com-
pound (correlative of the simple verb, ver. 8) intenta acie spectabis.*

Ver. 6. The endeavor to correct the faults of others must be confined
within its proper limits, and not allowed to become a casting of holy things
to the dogs. As isusual, however, in the case of apophthegms, this prog-
ress in the thought is not expressed by a particle (444é)._ To abandon the
idea of connection (Maldonatus, de Wette, Tholuck), or to suppose (Kuinoel,
Neander, Bleek ; Weiss doubtful) that vv. 6-11, at least ver. 6, do not
belong to this passage, is scarcely warranted.—rd dy:ov] the holy, not the
holy flesh, Jp 3, Jer. xi. 15, Hagg. ii. 12, the flesh of sacrifices (v. d.
Hardt, Paulus, Tholuck), which, besides, would require to be more precisely
designated, otherwise there would be just as much reason to suppose that the
holy bread, Up on (1 Sam. xxi. 5), or any other meat-offering (Lev. xxii.
2), was meant. Christ has in view the holy in general, figuratively designat-
ing in the first clause only the persons, and then, in the second, the holy
thing. What is meant by this, as also by rote papyaptrac immediately after, is
the holy, because divine, evangelic truth by which men are converted, and
which, by rote papyap. tzev, is described as something of the highest value,
as the precious jewel which is entrusted to the disciples as its possessors.‘—
Dogs and swine, these impure and thoroughly despised animals, represent those
men who are hardened and altogether incapable of receiving evangelic truth,
and to whom the holy is utterly foreign and distasteful. The parallelism
ought to have precluded the explanation that by both animals two different
classes of men are intended (the snappish, as in Acts xiii. 46 ; the filthy
licers, Grotius).— pfprore xatam., x.T.A., xat orpagévrec, x.7.A.] applies to the

1“ Est enim proprium stultitiae, alioram ip. 30. °
vitia cernere, oblivisci suoram,”’ Cic. Twae. *Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 8 D; Arist. de
iil. 80. 78. Som. 8: Plut. Mor. p. 86 E.

* Used also in the singular, see Kfihner, 4 For Arabian applications of this simile,
II. 1, p. 185; N&gelebach on J/iad, p. 404, ed. comp. Gesenius in Rosenm. Rep. I. p. 128,
3; Bornemann, in d. Sidche. Stud. 1846,

164 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

swine, who are to be conceived of as wild animals, as may be seen from avrot¢
and the whole similitude, so that, as the warning proceeds, the figure of the
dogs passes out of view, though, as matter of course, it admits of a corre-
sponding application.’ But this is no reason why the words should be re-
ferred to both classes of animals, nor why the trampling should be assigned
to the swine and orpd¢. pfé. to the dogs.* For the future xcaraz, (see the
critical remarks), comp. note on Mark xiv. 2; Matt. xiii. 15. — év roi¢
cooly avr.] instrumental. — or ec] not : having changed to an attitude
of open hostility (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus), or to savagery (Loesner),
but manifestly, having turned round upon you from the pearls, which they
have mistaken for food, and which, in their rage, they have trampled under
their feet ; the meaning of which is, lest such men profane divine truth (by
blasphemy, mockery, calumny), and vent upon you their malicious feeling to-
wards the gospel. In how many ways must the apostles have experienced
this in their own case ; for, their preaching being addressed to all, they
‘would naturally, as a rule, have to see its effect on those who heard it before
they could know who were ‘‘ dogs and swine,” so as then to entice them no
JSurther with the offer of what is holy, but to shake off the dust, and so on.
But the men here in view were to be found among Jews and Gentiles. It is
foreign to the present passage (not so xv. 26) to suppose that only the
' Gentiles as such are referred to (Késtlin, Hilgenfeld).

Vv. 7-9. The new passage concerning prayer begins, without any trace of
connection with what goes before. Comp. note on ver. 1. It is otherwise
in Luke xi. 9, which, however, does not affect Matthew’s originality (in
answer to Holtzmann, Weiss, Weizsiicker), nor does it warrant the opinion
that some connecting terms have been omitted. Influenced by a later tra-
dition, Luke bas given the sayings in a connection of his own, and one that,
so far as can be discovered, has no claim to be preferred to that of Matthew.
—aireire, Cnreire, xpotere] Climax depicting the rising of the prayer into
intense fervor, that ‘‘he may thereby urge us all the more powerfully to
prayer” (Luther). — Ver. 8. The obvious limitation to this promise is suffi-
ciently indicated by dyafé in ver. 11 (1 John v. 14), just as the childlike,
therefore believing, disposition of the petitioner is presupposed * in vv. 9-11.—
Ver. 9. 7] or, if that were not the case, then, in the analogous human rela-
tion must, and so on. —ri¢ tore. . . u) MOov éxid. avrg] Dropping of the
interrogative construction with which the sentence had begun, and transi-
tion to another. A similar change in Luke xi. 11.‘ This irregularity is
occasioned by the intervening clause, quem si filius poposcerit panem. 'The
sentence is so constructed that it should have run thus: # rig éorey t& ipow
&vOpwroc, dv édv airfoy ;5 but after the relative clause the construction with

1 Pricaeus, Maldonatus, Tholuck.

* Theophylact, Hammond, Calovius, Wolf,
Kuinoel.

*The specific determination of prayer
that will certainly be heard, as prayer
offered in the name of Jesus (John xiv.-xv1),
was reserved for a further stage of develop-
ment. Comp. on vi. 18, note 2. It is not the

divine relation to men in general (Baur), but
to His own believing ones. that Jesus has in
view. Comp.Weiss, didl. Theol. p. 67 f., ed. 2.

*Sfee Fritzsche, Conject. p. & ff.; Butt-
mann, neut. Gr. p. 248 f. [E. T. 284].

5 i.¢. ds, €dy abrdy airfey, see Kithner, IT. 2,
P. 918), 6 vide avrod dproy, Aidoy émubaore airy
(without #7).

CHAP. VII., 11, 12. 165
uf supersedes that at the beginning of the sentence. — pu) Aibov émid. aito]
surely he will not give him a stone? With regard to the things compared,
notice the resemblance between the piece of bread and a stone, and between
a fish and a serpent ; and on the other hand, the contrast with regard to the
persons: && tpav dvOpupoc, and 6 rarip ip. 6 dv t. obpavoic.

Ver. 11. Movapot bvrec] although ye, as compared with God, are morally
evil. Comp. xix. 17. Even Kuinoel has given up the false rendering, nig-
gardly (in conformity with Prov. xxiii. 6 ; Sir. xiv. 5). — oldare didévac] not
soletis dare (Maldonatus, Wetstein, Kuinoel), but ye know, undérstand, how
to give (1 Tim. iii. 5, and see note on Phil. iv. 12), not as referring, how-
ever, to the disposition (de Wette, Fritzsche), which in so doing is rather
presupposed, but appropriately pointing to the thoughtful nature of paternal
love, which, in spite of the sovypia, understands how to render possible the
giving of good gifts to children. — déuata ayabé] wholesome gifts, in contrast to
the stone and the serpent. For the second dya04, Luke xi. 183 has rvetya
aywov —a later substitution of the particular for the general. For the infer-
ence a minort ad majus, comp. Isa. xlix. 15.

Ver. 12. At this point Jesus takes a retrospective glance at all that He
has been saying since v. 17,—-beginning with Moses and the prophets,—
concerning our duty to our neighbor, but introducing, indeed, many other
instructions and exhortations. But putting out of view such matters as
are foreign to His discourse, He now recapitulates all that has been said on
the duties we owe to our neighbor, so that oiv points back to v.17. The
correctness of this view is evident from the following : otrog yép tori 5 vdpog,
etc., from which it further appears that otv does not merely refer back to v.
1-5 (Kuinoel, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius). As Luther well observes :
‘‘ With those words He concludes the instructions contained in those three
chapters, and gathers them all into one little bundle.” Fritzsche is some-
what illogical when he says that oty generalizes the conclusion from oidare,
déuara ... téxvoe duev, which proposition, however, was a mere lemma.
Ewald thinks that ver. 12 is here in its wrong place, that its original posi-
tion was somewhere before ayarare, v. 44, and might still be repeated after
v. 48 ; according to Bleek and Holtzmann, founding on Luke vi. 31, its
original position was after v. 42. But it is precisely its significant position
asa concluding sentence, along with its reference to the law and the proph-
ets, that Luke has taken away from it. Comp. Weiss. On 6éAew iva, see
note on Luke vi. 31. — oirw]} not for ravra, as if the matter were merged in
the manner (de Wette), but in such a manner, in this way,corresponding,
that is, to this your 6éAev.—The truth of this Christian maxim lies in this,
that the words dca Gv 6éAnre, etc., as spoken by Jesus, and, on the ground of
His fulfilment of the law (otv), which presupposes faith in Him, can only

1 Chrysostom appropriately says: ravra 82
dAeyer ov ScaBdAdwy thy dvdpuwivagy ovary, ovbe
aaxifesw Td ydvos, GAAA wpds dyridiacroAhy Tis
ayaddryros TH avrov (of God) rhy ¢:Aocropyiay
Tey warpiuchy wornpiay xadwy [‘‘ He said this
not as calumniating human nature, or re-
proaching the race, but for distinction of

the goodness of God, calling their fatherly
love evil’). It is not original sin, but
the Aisforical mantfestation of the sin of
all men, which is spoken of, of which, how-
ever, original sin is the internal, natural
root. Comp. xv. 19; John ili. 6.

166 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

mean a willing of 8 truly moral kind, and not that of a self-seeking nature,
- such as the desire for flattery. — ovroc, etc.] for this is the sum of moral duty,
and so on.’ But being all of a negative character, like Tob. iv. 15, they are
essentially different from the present passage. For coincidences of a more
meagre kind from Greek writers, see Spiess, Logos Spermat. p. 2A.

Ver. 18. There now follow some additional concluding exhortations and
warnings, which in Luke are partly omitted, partly scattered and displaced
(in answer to Calvin, Keim) and abridged. With ver. 13 comp. Luke xiii.
24. The thought is one of the fundamental thoughts of the Sermon on the
Mount. — eioéA6ere] where the entering leads to is not stated till ver. 14. —
dre] assigning the reason ¢ contrario. — eig riv anxddeav] i.e., to eternal death,
as being the punishment of such as are condemned in the Messianic judg-
ment.? The opposite is {w4, the eternal life of felicity in the kingdom of
the Messiah. Wide gate and broad way ; figures representing the pleasures
and excesses of sin and wickedness. Strait gate and narrow way ; repre-
senting, on the other hand, the effort and self-denial which Christian duty
imposes. It is only when regenerated that a man comes first to experience
the lightness of the yoke (xi. 29), and of the commandments (1 John v. 8),
and all the more the further progress he makes in the love of Christ (John
xiv. 15 ff.) — 7 aydr. ei¢ r. add.) refers equally to } r6Ay,* to which again
the &' airi¢ belongs. There is a similar construction in v. 14, where aura
in like manner refers to rbA7.

Vv. 14, 15. Ti] quam (Vulg.): how strait is the gate ! as conforming to
the Sept., which renders 7) in this sense by ri,‘ though not good Greek.
The rendering why, as though there were something sorrowful in the ques-
tion (Fritzsche), is unsuited to the whole tone of the discourse. — eipicxovrer]
The strait gate requires to be sought, so far'is it from being readily seen, or
from obtruding itself upon the attention.—By most, the gate is erroneously
conceived to be at the end of the way ; with Bengel, Schegg, and Lange, it
is to be understood as at the beginning of it, as opening into it, for which
reason, in vv. 13, 14, the gate is mentioned before the way. The entering
by the strait gate is therefore the entering into life (into the Messiah's king-
dom), but still brought about through following the narrow way, which is
reached by means of the strait gate. — rpootyere dé] But in order to find it,
beware, and so on. — The yevdorpog#ra: are not the Pharisees (Tholuck), nor
Jews, pretending to be divine messengers (Bleek), nor people like Judas the
Galilean (Acts v. 87, de Wette), but false Christian teachers without a
divine call (xxiv. 11, 24), as is evident from vv. 21-23.5 A warning in view
of coming events, and such as Jesus knew His followers would soon be need-
ing. —év évdiyace mpoBdr] dressed in sheep's clothing. Here we are not to
think of literal sheep skins (Grotius, Kuinoel), seeing that these were worn

1 For parallels from prufane writers, see 9 Phil. 1. 28; Heb. x. 89; 2 Pet. fil. 7, 16.
Wetstein ; Bad. Schadd. f. 81. 1: ‘Quod § Kithner, IT. 1, p. 70 f.
tib! ipsi odiosum est, proximo ne facias; 42 Sam. vi. 20; Cant. vil. 6: Luke xil. 49.
nam haec est tota lex,”’ “ What is hateful *Comp. Chrysostom, Calvin, Grotius,
to you yourself, do not doto your neigh- Calovius.
bor; for this is the whole law.”

CHAP. VII., 16-23. 16%
by others, and were not specially the prophets’ dress (comp. iii. 4), but as
emblematic of the outward appearance of innocence and gentleness, not of the ex-
ternal profession of a member of the Christian church,’ which would have
been admissible only if the context had spoken of the church in the light of
a flock, in which case the false prophets would have been far more appropri-
ately represented as in shepherds’ clothing.* — fawhev] t.¢.; according to the
figure ; under the sheep’s clothing ; in realtty ; in their true inner nature,
which is disguised by hypocrisy.*

Vv. 16-18. Excyvdéc.} Yeo will know them, not ye should (Luther). — The
xopvot are the results of principles, as seen in the whole behavior, the works
(vv. 21, 23, xii. 33), not the doctrines (Jerome, Calvin, Calovius). — dxav@az
x. tp{Bodo:] Thorns and thistles occur together in a corresponding figurative
sense in Heb. vi. 8. —ovrw] application of those images to the false proph-
ets, in such a way, however, that the latter, in keeping with adr. xapr.
avr. (comp. ver. 20), just before, appear again as trees.— A dévdpov ayabér is,
as contrasted with the carpév, a sound, healthy tree ; fora cazpdv is not some
tree of an inferior species, but one whose organism is decaying with age,
etc., rotten, the carpérnc of which,‘ owing to a defective and corrupted state
of the sap, admits of nothing in the way of fruit but what is bad, small, and
useless.° With the ot divara: of the corrupt tree, comp. Rom. viii. 7f. In
this emphatic ot dévara: lies the progressive force of the simile.

Ver. 19. Simply a thought introduced by the way (not as being necessary
for the logical connection of vv. 16-20), and pointing to the condemnation
to Gehenna which awaits the false prophets. Comp. with iii. 10.

Ver. 20. "Apaye] tlaque (xvii. 26 ; Acts xi. 18), pointing to the inference
from. vv. 17, 18, and, by way of emphasis, introducing once more that
which was already stated in ver. 16 as the theme of discourse.

Vv. 21-23. Jesus now states in literal terms what He meant to convey
through the simile of the fruit. There is much that is arbitrary in the way
this passage is dealt with by those who, from their having supposed the
yevdorpog. of ver. 15 to be Jews, are under the necessity of adopting a dif-
ferent explanation in the present instance. De Wette, going against the
context, sees a gradual transition from teachers who teach what is unsound
(vv. 15-20) to such (teachers and others) as are satisfied with the mere
acknowledgment of their belief. 'Thatit isstill the same false prophets against
whom the warning in vv. 21-28 is directed, appears from the use of mpoegyret-
oauev in ver. 22, and of of épyal. r. avouiay in ver. 23, the latter further show-
ing that xaprot rovnpol is to be understood as denoting the characteristic mark

1 ** Nominis Christian! extrinsecus super-
ficies,”’ Tertullian, de praescr. 4.

* Bengel well remarks: ‘‘ Veatibus wi e
essent oves.""

9 With Avco: dprayes, as representing soul-
destroying agency, comp. Acts xx. 99; John
x. 12.

4 Plat. Rep. p. 609 E; Diosc. {. 118.
® Comp. é¥Aoy caxpév, Job xl. 19. campol
eréfavo., Dem. 615. 11. ‘“‘Bonitas arboris

ipsius est veritas et lux interna, ete. ;
bonitas fructuum est sanctitas vitae. Si
fructus essent in doctrina positi, nullus
orthodoxus damnari posset,” “The good-
ness of dhe tree itself is truth and internal
light, eto.; the goodness of the fruile is
holinees of life. If fruit had been placed
in doctrine (alone), no orthodox Christian
could be condemned,” Bengel.

168 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

of such prophets. —oi zac] not, no one (Elsner, Fritzsche), but, not every
one, 1 Cor. xv. 89.1 Not all who acknowledge me as their teacher will
enter the Messianic kingdom, only those among them, and so on. Many
will not enter therein. Therefore it is not the case that the teachers
are not referred to till ver. 22, according to the idea of gradation
which de Wette introduces into that verse : ‘‘ even those who work in my
name,” and so on. —«xtpie, xbpie] In addressing their teachers, the Jews em-
ployed the title 31 or 1D. Accordingly it came to be used as a title in
addressing the Messiah (John xiii. 18f.), and in the church itself came to be
regarded asthe summary of belie/, inasmuch as it contained the full recogni-
tion of the majesty of Jesus’ person (1 Cor. xii. 8; Phil. ii. 11). Christ
Himself called no man master. It is on this occasion, and while applying
to Himself this Messianic title, that He also says for the first time, 6 rar%p
pov (comp. iii. 17). The twice repeated xtpe is meant to convey the idea of
earnest ness.*

Vv. 22, 28. ’Ev éx. r9 fuépa].* —rp of dvéuarc] not jussu ot auctoritate sua
(as the majority of commentators, Fritzsche included), as if it had been év
T® o¢ bveu., but by means of Thy name, i.e. through Thy name (‘‘ Jesus
Messiah”), having satisfied our religious consciousness, and having become
the object of our confession. It was by this, as forming the condition and
instrument, that the works in question were accomplished. In the casting
out of devils and in performing miracles the name was pronounced.‘ —
Notice the stress laid upon the o¢, and the threefold repetition of the prom-
inent words r¢ of ovéu., a8 expressing that by which the individuals in ques-
tion think to shelter themselves from disapprobation and rejection, and
make good their claim to the Messianic kingdom. — zpoegyreto.] not in the
special sense of foretelling (Grotius, Fritzsche), but (comp. ver. 15) with
reference to those who taught under the influence of a prophetic enthusiasm
(see note on 1 Cor. xii. 10). The distinguishing feature in those men is an
impure, often fanatical, boldness in the faith, which, though enabling them
to perform outward acts of a marvellous nature, yet fails to exercise any
influence upon their own moral life—just the sort of thing described by
Paul in 1 Cor, xiii. 2, and the manifestations of which are to be met with
in every age, especially in times of great religious excitement.—Ver. 23.
duodoy.] ‘‘ aperte, magna potestas hujus dicti,” Bengel. The conscious dig-
nity of the future judge of the world. — ri] Recitative. The rendering
because, to which a different arrangement of the words by Origen, Chrysos-
tom, Cyprian, and others has given rise (ér:. . . tuac after aroxup.), is less
in harmony with the emotion of the passage. — yyw] not probavi (Kuinoel),
but novz. Because 5 I have never known you, have obtained no knowledge
of you whatever, which I would have done (John x. 14) had ye really been

1 Winer, p. 161 [E. T. 214].

2 See Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 58, and
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 124. Comp.
xxV. 11; Add. ad Heth. ill. 2,8; LXX. Pu.
Ixxi. 5, 16,

8 Euth. Zigabenus, qudpay dxeivey elwe rhy
TRS Kpicews, ws tyvwrudyny cai mpogdebony-

uévny, “‘ He spoke of that day (i.¢.) the day
of judgment, as well knownand expected.”
Comp. the Jewish phraseology; Schoett-
gen, Hor. in loco,

* Acts ili. 6, xix. 18; comp. on Luke ix.
49, x. 17.

5“ Etsl nomen meum allegatis,” Bengel.

CHAP. VII., 24-27. 169

in fellowship with me.’ The knowledge is the knowledge of experience
founded upon the possession of @ common life.* — aroyupeite, x.r.A.] according
to Ps. vi. 9.° of zpyaféu. is used as a substantive ; while avouia is the
antithesis of dixa:octvy.‘ Notice how in this passage the great utterance of
vv. 17, 18 continues to echo to the last, and to bear the impress of the final
judgment ; comp. Rom. ii, 18.

Vv. 24-27. Conclusion of the whole sermon, but, as appears from oi,
taking the form of an inference from what is said immediately before, where
admission into the Messianic kingdom is made to depend on moral obedience.
— xac obv bore, x.t.A,] The nominative with rhetorical emphasis placed ana-
colouthologically at the beginning in x, 14, xiii. 12, xxiii. 16.*— dnodow]
This future, as well as duow6yoera, ver. 26, is not to be taken as referring
to the comparison immediately following (which is the common view), which is
not warranted by the interrogatory passages, xi. 16, Mark iv. 80, Luke vii.
31, xiii. 18, 20, but to be understood (like duzoAcyfow in ver. 23) of the day
of judgment (Tholuck), when Christ will make him who yields obedience to
those sayings of His, like (7.¢e., demonstrate as matter of fact that he is like)
& wise man, and 80 0n. ‘Oodw therefore does not here denote comparare, but
the actual making him liketo.* De Wette is at one with Fritzsche as regards
éuotaow, but differs from him, however, in his view of dowfoera: as refer-
ring to the future result that is developing itself. — gpovizy] as in xxv. 2. —
éxi ryv wétpav| upon the rock. No particular rock is intended, but the cate-
gory, as in ver. 26: upon the sand.—Observe the emphatic, nay solemn,
polysyndeta, and (instead of dre or érei, followed by a statement of the con-
sequence)’ the paratactic mode of representation in vv. 25 and 27, as also the
important verbal repetition in ver. 27, -where, in the last of the assaults, xpoaé-
copay (they assaczled it) is only 8 more concrete way of describing the thing
than the corresponding mpocémreooy of ver. 25. The three points in the picture
are the roof, the foundation, and the sides of the house. — The pluperfect
teOepediwro is without the augment.*— peyéAy]’ — The meaning of this simple
but grand similitude, harmonizing in some of its features with Ezek. xiii.
11 ff., is this : Whoever conforms to the teaching just inculcated is certain
to obtain salvation in my kingdom, though trying times may await him ; but
he who is disobedient will lose the expected felicity, and the dire catastrophe
that is to precede the advent of the Messiah will overwhelm him with aréAeca

(inasmuch as the Messiah, at His coming, will consign him to eternal
death).

With regard to the Sermon generally, the following points may be noted :—
(1.) It is the same discourse which, though according to a different tradi-
tion and redaction, is found in Luke vi. 20-49. For although it is there

1 Comp. Luke xiii. 27. ' €Plat. Rep. p. 898 C; Matt. vi. 8, xxv. 1,

2 Similarly 1 Cor. vill. 8, xill. 12; Gal.iv.9. xifl. 94; Rom. ix. 20. See the scholion of

3 Comp. xxv. 41. Photius in Matthael, ad Futh. Zig. p. 290.

42Cor. vi. 14, Heb. 1. 9, as in xiii. 41, xxifil. 7 Kriger, Xen. Anabd. p. 404 ; Kihner, I. 2,
28, xxiv. 12. p. 782 f.

5 See Kihner, I. 1, p. 48; Winer, p. 584 f. ® On this see Winer, p. 70 [E. T. 8].
(BE. T. 718}. * ** Magna, sane totalis," Bengel.

170 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

represented as occurring at a later date and in another locality (ver. 17), and
although, in respect of its contents, style, and arrangement it differs widely
from that in Matthew, yet, judging from its characteristic introduction and
close, its manifold and essential identity as regards the subject-matter, as
well as from its mentioning the circumstance that, immediately after, Jesus
cured the sick servant in Capernaum (Luke vii. 1 ff.), it is clear that Matthew
and Luke do not record two different discourses (Augustine, Erasmus,
Andr. Osiander, Molinaeus, Jansen, Biisching, Hess, Storr, Gratz, Krafft),
but different versions of one and the same (Origen, Chrysostom, Bucer,
Calvin, Chemnitz, Calovius, Bengel, and most modern commentators).

(2.) The preference as regards originality of tradition is not to be accorded
to Luke (Schneckenburger, Olshausen, Wilke, B. Bauer, Schenkel, and, in
the main, Bleek and Holtzmann), but to Matthew (Schleiermacher, Kern,
Tholuck, de Wette, Weiss, Weizsiicker, Keim), because, as compared with
Matthew, Luke’s version is so incomplete in its character, that one sees in
it merely the disjointed fragments of what had once been a much more
copious discourse. In Matthew, on the other hand, there is that combina-
tion of full detail, and sententious brevity, and disregard of connection,
which is so natural in the case of a lengthened extemporaneous and spirited
address actually delivered, but not suited to the purpose of a mere compiler
of traditions, to whose art Ewald ' ascribes the structure of the discourse.
The Sermon on the Mount is omitted in Mark. But the view that this evan-
gelist originally borrowed it, though in an abridged form, from Matthew's
collection of our Lord’s sayings, and that the place where it stood in Mark
ili, 19, just before xa? ipy. sic olxov, may still be traced (Ewald, Holtzmann),
rests on the utterly unwarrantable supposition * that the second Gospel has
not come down to us in its original shape. On the other hand, see espe-
cially Weiss. Besides, there is no apparent reason why so important a pas-
sage should have been entirely struck out by Mark, if it had been originally
there.

(3.) Since the original production of Matthew the apostle consisted of the
Aéyta Tov xupiov,* it may be assumed that the Sermon on the Mount, as given
in the present Gospel of Matthew, was in all essential respects one of the
principal elements in that original. However, it is impossible to‘maintain
that it was delivered (and reproduced from memory), in the precise form in
which it has been preserved in Matthew. This follows at once from the
length of the discourse and the variety of its contents, and is further con-
firmed by the circumstance that Matthew himself, according to ix. 9, did not
as yet belong to the number of those to whom it had Leen addressed. By
way of showing that the Sermon on the Mount cannot have been delivered
(Luke vi. 20) till after the choice of the Twelve (Wieseler, Tholuck, Hilgen-
feld, Ebrard, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim), reasons of this sort have been al-
leged, that, at so early a stage, Jesus could not have indulged in such a
polemical style of address toward the Pharisees. This, however, is unsatis-
factory, since even a later period would still be open to a similar objection.

1 Jahrb. I. p. 181. 3 Introduction, sec. 4 8 Introduction, seo. 2.

THE SERMON-ON THE MOUNT. 171
On the other hand, it is to be observed further, that so important a histori-
cal connection (viz. with the choice of the Twelve) could not fail to have
been preserved among the ancient traditions recorded by Matthew, if such
connection had actually existed, while again it is in accordance with the
natural development of tradition, to suppose that the presence of the pafyrai
(Matt. v. 1), which is historically certain, as well as the numerous impor-
tant references to the calling of the disciples, may have led to the adoption
of a later date in the subsequent traditions. Those who represent the evan-
gelist as introducing the Sermon at an earlier stage than that to which it
strictly belongs, are therefore charging him with gross confusion in his de-
termination of the place in which it ought tostand. But although Matthew
was not present himself at the Sermon on the Mount, but only reports what
he learned indirectly through those who were so, still his report so preserves
that happy combination of thoughtful purpose with the freedom of extem-
poraneous speech which distinguished the discourse, that one cannot fail
clearly enough to recognize its substantial originality. This, however, can
only be regarded as a relative originality, such as makes it impossible to say
not only to what extent the form and arrangement of the discourse have
been influenced by new versions of the Aéya on the one hand, and new
modifications of the Gospel on the other, but also how much of what our
Lord altered on some other occasion has been, either unconsciously or inten-
tionally, interwoven with kindred elements in the address. But, in seeking
to eliminate such foreign matters, critics have started with subjective as-
sumptions and uncertain views, and so have each arrived at very conflicting
resulta. Utterly inadmissible is the view of Calvin and Semler, which has
obtained currency above all through Pott? and Kuinoel, that the Sermon on
the Mount is a conglomerate, consisting of a great many detached sentences
uttered by Jesus on different occasions,* and in proof of which we are re-
ferred especially to the numerous fragments that are to be found scattered
throughout Luke. No doubt, in the case of the Lord’s Prayer, vi. 9 ff., the
claim of originality must be decided in favor of Luke’s account. Other-
wise, however, the historical connection of Luke’s parallel passages is such
as, in no single instance, to justify their claim to the originality in question.
In fact, the connection in which most of them stand is less appropriate than

1 De natura alque indole orat. mont. 1788.

2 Strauss compares the different materials
of the discourse to boulders that have been
washed away from their original bed;
while Mattbew, he thinks, has shown special
skill in grouping together the various cog-
nate elements. This is substantially the
view of Baur. Both, however, are opposed
to the notion that Luke's version is distin-
guished by greater originality. Holtzmann
ascribes to Matthew the arrangement and
the grouping of the ideas, while to Jesus
again he ascribes the various apothegms
that fill up the outline. Weizeicker regards
the discourse as fabricated, and having no

reference to any definite stiuation, with a view,
as he thinks, to show the relation of Jesus to
the law, and therewith its introduction into
the kingdom of God; what interrupts this
branch of the discourse, which was sketched
as a unity, viz. v. 11 f., vi. 9 ff., vii. 21-28, are
inexplicable additions, and vil. 1-28 con-
tains insertions which have a general re-
lationship to the principal thoughts. Ao-
cording to Weiss, the following passages in
particalar belong to the insertions: v. 18-16,
Vv. % f., vi. 7-15, vi. 19-8, vil. 7-11. The dis-
course, moreover, is said to have begun
originally with only four beatitudes.

172° THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

that of Matthew (Luke xi. 84-86 compared with Matt. vi. 22 f. ; Luke xvi.
17 compared with Matt. v. 18; Luke xii. 58 ff. compared with Matt.
v. 24 ff. ; Luke xvi. 18 compared with Matt. v. 82), while others leave
room for supposing that Jesus has used the same expression twice (Luke
xii. 88 f. comp. Matt. vi. 19-21 ; Luke xiii. 24 comp. Matt. vii. 18 ; Luke
xiii, 25-27 comp. Matt. vii. 22 f. ; Luke xiv. 84 comp. Matt. v. 18 ; Luke
xvi. 18 comp. Matt. vi. 24) on different occasions, which is quite possible,
especially when we consider the plastic nature of the figurative language
employed. For, when Luke himself makes use of the saying about the
candle, Matt. v. 15, on two occasions (viii. 16, xi. 83), there is no neces-
sity for thinking (as Weiss does) that he has been betrayed into doing so by
Mark iv. 21. Luke’s secondary character as regards the Sermon on the
Mount is seen, above all, in his omitting Jesus’ fundamental exposition of
the law. In deriving that exposition from some special treatise dealing with
the question of Jesus’ attitude toward the law, Holtzmann adopts a view
that is peculiarly untenable in the case of the first Gospel (which grew di-
rectly out of the Aéy:a) ; so, on the other hand, Weiss, 1864, p. 56 f.

(4.) Those whom Jesus addressed in the Sermon on the Mount were, in
the first instance, His own disciples (v. 1), among whom were present some
of those who were afterwards known as the Twelve (iv. 18 ff.), for which
reason also a part of the discourse has the apostolic office distinctly in view;
but the surrounding multitude (vii. 28) had also been listening, and were
deeply astonished at the instruction they received. Accordingly, it may
well be supposed that though Jesus’ words were intended more immediately
fay the benefit of His disciples (v. 2), the listening multitude was by no
means overlooked, but formed the outer circle of His audience, so that by
look and gesture He could easily make it appear what was intended for the
one circle and what for the other ; comp. v. 2. What is said of ancient or-
atory is no less true of the animation with which Jesus spoke : ‘‘in antiqua
oratione oculus, manus, digitus vice interpretis funguntur,” ‘‘in ancient
oratory the eye, the hand, the finger serve in place of an interpreter.” ’
These observations will suffice to explain the presence of a mixed teaching
suited to the outer and inner circle, partly ideal and partly of a popular and
less abstract character (in answer to Wittichen).*

(5.) The object of the sermon cannot have been the consecration of the
apostles (Zacharias, Pott, Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 129), partly because the con-
nection in which Luke places this address with the choosing of the Twelve
is not to be preferred to the historical connection given in Matthew (see
above, under 2)$ partly because Matthew, who does not record any passage
containing special instructions for the apostles till ch. x., makes no mention
whatever of such an object (he only says édidaoxev avrotc, v. 2); and partly
because the contents are, as a whole, by no means in keeping with such a
special aim as is here supposed. Judging from the contents, the object of
Jesus, as the fulfiller of the law and the prophets, ts to set forth the moral con-
ditions of admission to the approaching Messianic kingdom. But the principle

1 Wolf, a@ Leptin. p. 365. 2 Jahrd. f. D. Th. 1662, p. 318 ff.

CHAP. VII., 28, 29. 173

of s morality rooted in the heart, on which He insists, is, seeing that it is
His disciples that are immediately addressed, necessarily faith in Him, as
Luther especially has so often and so ably maintained.’ The whole dis-
course isa lively commentary on the words with which Jesus introduced
His public ministry : peravoeire, qyyue yap 4 Bacieia tév ovpavar, setting
forth the great moral effects of the nerévoca which He requires, and declar-
ing them to be the condition of Messianic bliss for those who believe in
Him. So far the discourse may be correctly described as the inaugural
address of His kingdom, as its ‘‘magna charta” (Tholuck), less appropri-
ately as the ‘‘ compedium of His doctrine” (de Wette).

(6.) The passages in which Jesus plainly reveals Himself as the Messiah
(v. 17 f., vii. 21 ff.) are not at variance with xvi. 17 (see note on this pas-
sage), but fully harmonize with the Messianic conviction of which He was
already possessed at His baptism, and which was divinely confirmed on that
occasion, and with which He commenced His public ministry (iv. 17); just
as in the fourth Gospel, also, He gives expression to His Messianic con-
sciousness from the very outset, both within and beyond the circle of His
disciples. Consequently, it is not necessary to suppose that a icrepov mpére-
pov * has taken place, which, according to Késtlin, had already been forced
into the Aéy:a ; nor need we allow ourselves to be driven to the necessity of
assigning a later date to the discourse.* Besides, in the Sermon on the
Mount, Jesus does not as yet assume to Himself any express or formal desig-
nation as Messiah, although a Messianic sense of the importance of His éyé
runs through the entire discourse ; and the notion that His consciousness of
being the Messiah only gradually developed itself at a later period,‘ is con-
trary to the whole testimony of the Gospels.

Ver. 28. Kai éyévero] ‘i31.°— eri] as throughout the New Testament. In
classical Greek the usual construction is with the dat., sometimes with the
acc., and more rarely with éxi.* The discourse, which has been listened to
with deep and unwearied attention, having now been brought to a close,
there follows an outburst of astonishment, ‘‘ quod nova quaedam majestas et
insueta hominum mentes ad se raperet,” Calvin. This in answer to Kdstlin,
p. 77, Holtzmann, who regard this statement as borrowed from Mark i. 22.

Ver. 29. "Hy d:ddoxwv] expresses more emphatically than a simple imperf.
that it was a continuous thing.’— d¢ éavoiav yur] as one who is invested
with prophetic authority, in contrast to the ypaypereic, in listening to whom
one could hear that they were not authorized to speak in the same fearless,
candid, unconstrained, convincing, telling, forcible way. ‘‘ All was full
of life, and sounded as though it had hands and feet,” Luther.°

3} Comp. Hofmann, Schrifteew. I. p. 506 ff., * Xen. Cyrop. 1. 4. 27; Polyb. v. 48, 8, li. 8
Tholuck. al

2De Wette, Baur. 1 Ktthner, Ii. 1, p. 3%. Winer, p. 526 f.
* Tholuck, Hilgenfeld. [E. T. 487].
4 Strauss, Schenkel, Weissenbach. * Comp. Luke fv. 8%, 86; Mark 1. 22, 97;

5 Winer, p. 565 [E. T. 760]. Rev. ix. 19.

174 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER VIII.

Ver. 1. xaraBévri 62 att@] Lachm, According to Z Codd. of the It. Hil. : xai

xaraBavrog avrov, instead of which BC ®** Curss. have xarafdvrog d2 abrov. A

mere correction, like the similarly attested eice2Odévro¢ dé atrov, ver. 5, in Lachm.
and Tisch. 8.-—— Ver. 2. é46év] Lachm. and Tisch. : mpooeA§ov, according to
BEM A & and several Curss. as well as some Verss. and Fathers. Correctly,
apéc having dropped out owing to the final syllab. of Aempéc. — Ver. 3. 6 'Inootc]
is not found in B C* &, Curss. Verss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A
common supplementary addition, and evidently such in the present instance,
from its shifting position, for several authorities have it before fyaro. — Ver. 5.
atte] Elz. : ry ’Iyoov, contrary to decisive authorities. — Ver. 8. Adyy] Elz:
Aéyov, against such decisive authority, that Ady» must not be regarded as intro-
duced from Luke vii. 7; but Adyov seems to be a correction through igno-
rance. — Ver. 9. After éfovciay Lachm. has racoduevoc (B &, 4, 238, 421, Vulg. It.
Chrys.) ; taken from Luke vii. 8. — Ver. 10. obddé év rg "IopanaA rocatryy siorw
etpov] Lachm. : rap’ otdev) rocattny xioriw év t@ "lap, eipov, only according to
B, Curss, and several Verss. and Fathers. The same reading, though not so
well attested, is also found in Luke vii.9. An interpretation in which the
meaning of ovdé has been missed, and the prefixing of év re "IopayA. misunder-
stood (comp. Vulg.). — Ver. 12. éxBAn§zo.] Tisch. 8 : é&eAevcovra:z, on too slender
authority ; among the Codd. only ®.*— Ver. 13. avrov] wanting in B ® and
several Curss. and Verss, and in Basil. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8.
Passed over as unnecessary. For what immediately follows Lachm. reads ard
TAG Opac Exelync, in accordance with less important authorities (C A). Incon-
formity with ix. 22, xv. 28, xvii. 18. — Ver. 15. avr¢] so also Scholz, Lachm.
and Tisch., according to decisive authority. The avroic of the Received text,
defended by Griesb. and Fritzsche, is taken from Mark i. 31, Luke iv. 39. —
Ver. 18. roAAoic byAovg] Lachm. : SyAov, only according to B, but correct.
Matth. would certainly have written SyAovc voAAave, as in ver. 1, xiii. 2, xv. 30,
and all through ; for only in xiv. 14 does he put voAv¢ first, where, however, the
singul. occurs. Besides, the reading of the Received text might éasily be a
gloss to strengthen the expression. — Ver. 23. rd srAoiov) The article is omitted in
BC, Curss, Or., and is deleted by Lachm., but hud been left out from not being
understood. So also in ix. 1, xiii. 2, in which cases it is deleted by Tisch. 8 as
well. — Ver. 25. ot zafnrai] The Received text inserts avrot, which, however, is
deleted, in accordance with decisive testimonies. Ol yafnral is also omitted in
B &, Verss. as well as by Jerome, Bede. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by
Tisch. 8. But the omission may be accounted for from the fact that, similarly
in the parallels of Mark and Luke, this, the obvious subject, is not expressed.—
#pds] is wanting in BO ® 1, 13, 118, 209. Justly deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm.
and Tisch. ; for, while there seemed to be no reason why it should have been
omitted, the insertion of it, on the other hand, would naturally suggest itself,
if it did not happen to be noticed how the mode of expression is suited to the

CHAP. VIII., 1, 2. 175

feeling of the passage. — Ver. 28, éA0évre aird] Lachm. Tisch. 8: ¢A@dvro¢
abrov, according to BC ®** and Curss. See ver. 1.—Tepacgvaéy] Fritzsche and
Scholz, also Tisch. : Tadapyvav, according to B C M A, Curss. Syr. utr. Perss.
Eus. Epiph. ; Elz. : Tepyeonvav, according to C*¥#** EK LSU VX &* Seein
general, Orig. iv. p. 140. The reading I'adapnvav. which Orig. found év diiyore,
bas topographical reasons in its favor ; 'epacyvdv, however, is supported by
Origen’s statement, that in his time it was the prevailing reading.! — Ver. 29.
coi] Elz. and Scholz insert "I7cotv, which is not found in BC L &, Curss. Codd. It.
Copt. Cypr. Or. Taken from Mark v. 7, Luke viii. 28.— Ver. 31. exirpewpov jyiv
azxedeiv] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. : azécreAov judc, according to B &, Curss. Syr.
and the majority of Verss. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is adopted
from Luke viii. 32 (where several authorities have areAQeiv instead of eloeAGeiv).
Had it been a correction from Mark v. 12, weshould have found ézwor instead
of dréore:Aov in the present passage. — Ver. 32. et¢ rode voipovc] as Lachm. and
Tisch. 8, according to B C* &, Curss, and most Verss. But the Recept. ei¢ rv
ayé/nv tév xolpwy is to be preferred all the more that the adoption of ei¢ rod¢
xoipovc, from the parallels of Mark and Luke, was favored by the greater defi-
niteness of meaning (into the bodies of the swine). — After 4 dyfAn Elz. inserts rav
zoipuv. It is wanting, indeed, in B C* M A &, Curss. and the majority of
Verss., and is deleted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily
may it have been omitted as quite unnecessary, owing to the parallels in Mark
and Luke! In a case where the meaning was so obvious, there was no motive
for inserting it.

Ver. 1. Aire . . . airg] as in v. 40, and frequently in Matthew as well as
in classical writers.* — The healing of the leper occurs in Luke (v. 12 ff.) be-
Jore the Sermon on the Mount, and in Mark (i. 40 ff.) and Luke not till after
the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. It is not to be regarded as the earliest
of all the miracles of healing.

Ver. 2. Aerpéc] Aérpa, NYI¥, a most dangerous contagious disease, de-
scending to the fourth generation, which lacerated the body with scales,
tetter, and sores.* ——xipce] To express the reverence that is founded on the
recognition of higher power. — éav 6éAy¢] entire resignation to the mighty
will of Jesus. — xaflapica:] from the disease that was polluting the body.‘
—ixaSapio6y aitod } Aéxpa] and immediately his leprosy was cleansed.*
The leprosy is spoken of as cleansed, according to the idea that the disease
experiences the healing—that the disease is healed (iv. 28). Differently and
more correctly expressed in Mark i. 42. — On 6éA0, Bengel aptly observes :
“echo prompta ad fidem leprosi maturam,” ‘‘speedy echo to the ripe faith
of the leper.”” In answer to Paulus, who understands the cleansing in the
sense of pronouncing clean,—as also Schenkel, Keim. See Strauss, II. p. 48
ff., and Bleek.

1 Tepes. fs still found in the Syr. p. onthe Winer, p. 180 f. [E. T. 275].
margin, Sahid. Sax. It. Vulg. Hilar. Nyss. 3 Trusen, ditt. Krankh. p. 108 ff.; Kurtz in
Ath. Juv. Prud. Adopted by Lachm. For Herzog’s EncyHi. I. p. 626 ff.; Furer in
the decision, see exegetical notes.—X* has Schenkel’s Bivellez. I. p. 817 ff. ; Saalschutz,
Teapqrey, which is only another way of WM. RB. p. 238 ff.
oe Yaéap. ; see Grimm on 1 Maco. #Plut. Mor. p. 184 D.

» 18, § John xi. 8, xiil. 25, xxii. 18, xxv. 51.
*See Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 68;

176 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 4. The injunction, not to mention the matter to any one, cannot be re-
garded as an evidence of Matthew’s dependence on Mark (Holtzman ;
comp. xii. 15 with Mark i. 48 and iii. 7 ff.), because the connection in Mark
is supposed to be somewhat more appropriate, but is only to be taken as ex-
pressing a desire on the part of Jesus to prevent any commotion among the
people with their fanatical Messianic hopes, at least as far as, by discourag-
ing publicity, it was in His own power to do so (Chrysostom)—to prevent
what, according to Mark i. 45 (Luke v. 15), actually took place through a
disregard of this injunction.! The miracle was no doubt performed (ver. 1)
before the people (in answer to Schenkel), and in the open air ; but, in the
first place, only those standing near would be in a position to hear or see
the course of the miracle with sufficient minuteness ; and, secondly, in giv-
ing this injunction, Jesus was also keeping in view the fact of the leper’s
being about to visit Jerusalem, and to sojourn there. Consequently we
must reject the view of Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Kuinoel,
Paulus, Gléckler, to the effect that He wished to provide against any refusal
on the part of the priests to pronounce the man clean. Equally inadmissible
is that of Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Keim, that at present, above
all, he insisted on the more important duty,—that, namely, of the man’s
subjecting himself to the inspection of the priests, which is not in accord-
ance with the occasional dpa (comp. ix. 31) ; nor can we accept Olshausen’s
view, that the motive for the injunction is to be sought in the man himeelf.
Baur holds that the injunction is not to be regarded as historical, but only
as the product of tradition, arising out of the application to Jesus of Isa.
xlii. 1 ff. But the truth is, that prohibition is not once mentioned in Isa.
xlii., which contains only a general description of the Messiah’s humility.
Moreover, it would not be apparent why the passage from Isaiah is not
quoted here, when the injunction in question occurs for the first time, but
afterwards in xii. 17. — ceavréy] thyself. Instead of making a talk about the
matter, go and present yourself in person before the proper authorities. —
TG lepéi] Lev. xiv. 2. — 1d dépor] the offering prescribed in Lev. xiv. 10, 21.*
— el¢ papripiov avroic] as an evidence to them, 7.€., to the people, that thou hast
been healed. This reference of airoi¢ follows contextually from dpa, pzydevi
elxyc, and that of uapripiov (evidence that thou art cleansed) from a consider-
ation of the object of the legal prescription in question ; see Lev. xiv. 57.
It is importing a foreign element, to suppose that the testimony was further
meant to show that ‘‘I am not abrogating the law ” (Chrysostom, Theophy-
lact ; see what follows); comp. also Fritzsche, who looks upon the words
as containing a remark by Matthew himself: ‘‘ Haec autem dixit, ut turbae
testaretur, se magni facere Mosis instituta.” As decisive against the latter
view, we have the fact that both Mark and Luke record the words ei¢ pap-
ripiov airoic, and that, too, in such a way as to make it evident that they
formed part of what was spoken by Jesus (Luke v. 14). Chrysostom and
Fathers understand avroi¢ as referring to the priests, in which case the testi-

1 Comp. ix. 80, xil. 16; Mark fil. 12, v. 48, 2See Ewald, Alterth. p. 210 f.; Kell,
vil, 96, vill. 26,30; Matt. xvi. 20, xvil. 9. Archdol. § 59.

CHAP. VIII., 4. 177
mony is regarded as intended to show either (what is in itself correct) Jesus’
respect for the law,'to which the person cleansed was expected to bear wit-
ness before the priests, * — or the reality of the cure, ‘‘si sc. vellent in posterum
nhegare, me tibi sanitatem restituisse,” ‘‘if they should wish to deny in the
future that I have restored you to health,” * and at the same time the Mes-
siahship of Jesus (Calovius). According to Olshausen, it is a testimony borne
by the priests themselves that is meant ; inasmuch as, by pronouncing the
man clean, they become witnesses to the genuineness of the miracle, and at
the same time condemn their own unbelief (a confusion of two things that
are no less erroneous than foreign to the purpose). If airoic referred to the
priests, then of course yapripov could only be understood as meaning an
evidence or proof that the cleansing had taken place (Grotius). However,
the offering was not meant to furnish such evidence to the priests, but to the
people, who were now at liberty to resume their intercourse with the pcrson
who had been healed.

Remarx.—Attempts of various kinds have been made to divest the miracles of
Jesus‘ of their special character, and to reduce them to the order of natural events
(Paulus),partly by accounting for them on physiological or psychological grounds,
and partly by explaining them on certain exegetical, allegorical, or mythical
principles of interpretation. Some, again, have sought to remove them entirely
from the sphere of actual fact, and to ascribe their origin to legends elaborated
out of Old Testament types and prophecies (Strauss) ; to the influence of relig-
ious feeling in the church (B. Bauer); to narratives of an allegorical character
(Volkmar) ; to the desire to embody certain ideas and tendencies of thought in
historical incidents (Baur) ; as well as to mistakes of every sort in the under-
standing of similitudes and parables (Weisse). To admit the supernatural
origin of Christianity is not inconsistent with the idea of its historical conti-
nuity (Baar) ; but the denial of miracles involves both an avowed and a covert
impugning of the evangelic narrative,—which, as such, is in its substance condi-
tioned by miracles (Holtzmann, p. 510),—and consequently does away almost
entirely with its historical character. As ao further result, Christianity itself is
endangered, in so far as it is matter of history and not the product of the inde-
pendent development of the human mind, and inasmuch as its entrance into
the world through the incarnation of the Son of God is analogous to the mira-
cle of creation (Philippi, Glaubenst. I. p. 25 ff., ed. 2). The miracles of Jesus,
which should always be viewed in connection with His whole redeeming work
(Kostlin, 1860, p. 14 ff.), are outward manifestations of the power of God’s

! Euth. Zigabenus, Bengel, Keim.

2 Chrysostom : eis éAcyxov, eis awddecfcy, eis
naTyyopiav, day ayraporeccy, “for proof, for
argument, for accusation, if they act un-
fairly.’

? Kuinoel, Erasmus, Maldonatuar, Grotius

* See Schleiermacher, Z J. p. 206 ff.; Ju-
lius Miller, de miracdor. J. Ch. natura et ne-
cesgitate, I. IT. 1889, 1841; Késtlin, de mira-
culor. quae Chr. et primi ¢. diacip. fecerunt,
ratura e ratione, 1860; Rothe in d. Sind. u.
Krit. 1888, p. 21 ff., and zur Dogrnat. p. 104 ff.;

Beyschlag, vd. d. Bedeut. @. Wunders im
Christenth. 1862; Dorner, Jesu siindlose Voll-
kommenh. 1862, p. 51 ff. ; Hirzel, ¢b d. Wun-
der. 1863; Giider, #5 a. Wunder, 1868 ; Stein-
meyer, Apolog. Beitr. I. 1866: Baxmann tn
ad. Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1863, p. 749 ff. + Keéstlin,
thid. 1864, p. 205 ff.; Bender d. Wundcrbeg.
d. N. T.1871. On the synoptic accounts of
the miracles, see Holtzmann, p. 497; and
on the various kinds of miracles, Keim, IT.
125 ff.; on the miracles of healing, see
Weizaiicker, p. 360 ff.

178 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Spirit, dwelling in Him in virtue of His Sonship, and corresponding to His
peculiar relation to the world (Hirzel), as well as to His no less peculiar rela-
tion to the living God ; their design was to authenticate His Messianic mission,
and in this lay their telic necessity,—a necessity, however, that is always to be
regarded as only relative (Schott, de consilio, quo Jesus mirac. ediderit, Opusc. I.
p. 111 ff.). And this according to John ii. 11. In exercising His supernatural
power of healing, the usual though not always (Matt. viii. 5 ff. ; John iv. 47 £f.;
Matt. ix. 23 ff. ; Luke xxii. 51) indispensable condition on which He imparted
the blessing was faith in that power on the part of the person to be healed ;
nothing, however, but positive unbelief prevented this power from taking effect
Matt. xiii. 58 ; Mark vi. 5 f.; comp. Julius Miller, I. p. 17) ; but Christ’s heart-
searching look (John ii. 25) enabled Him to detect those cases where the attempt
would be fruitless. Moreover, the miracles of Jesus are not to be regarded as
things that contradict or violate the laws of nature, but rather as comprehended
within the great system of natural law, the harmonious connection of which in
all its parts it is not for us to fathom. In this respect the phenomena of magnet-
ism furnish an analogy, though a poor and imperfect one ; and the more that is
known of the laws of nature, the idea of any annulling or suspension of these
laws only appears the more absurd. See Késtlin, 1860, p. 59 ff., 1864, p. 259 f£.;
Rothe, p. 34 ff. The miracles, therefore, are ‘‘reflections in nature” of God's
revelation of Himself (Beyschlag), ‘‘something strictly in accordance with
law” (Nitzsch), which, in the sphere of nature, appears as the necessary and
natural correlative of the highest miracle in the spiritual world—viz. the ac-
complishment of the work of redemption by the incarnate Son of God. As
this work has its necessary conditions in the higher order of the mpral world
established and ruled by the holy God in accordance with His love, so the mir-
acles havo theirs in the laws of a higher order of nature corresponding to the
loving purposes of the Creator, inasmuch as this latter order, in virtue of the
connection between nature and spirit, is upheld by that Being whose spiritual
power determines all its movements. Comp. Liebner, Christologie, I. p. 351:
‘‘ The miracles of Christ are occasional manifestations of the complete intro-
‘duction, through the God-man, of that relation between nature and spirit
which is to be perfected in the end of the world’’—means by which the 7 dyo¢
reveals Himself in His human impersonation and work, so that they are always
of a moral nature, and have always a moral aim in view, unfolding, in their es-
‘sential connection with His preaching, the miracle of the incarnation on which
His whole work was based (Martensen, Dogm. § 155 [E. T. p. 301]). Observe,
moreover, how the power to work miracles was a gift and onuzeior of the apostles
(Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 4), and a ydapreua of the apostolic church
(1 Cor. xii. 9 f.), a fact which warrants us in assuming, indeed in inferring a
minori ad majus, the reality of the miracles of Jesus Himself—in general, we
mean, and without prejudice to the criticism of the narratives in detail. At
the same time, in the application of such criticism, the hypothesis of legendary
‘embellishments should be treated with great caution by a modest exegesis, and
all the more that, in the fourth Gospel, we have a series of miracles bearing the
attestation of one who was an eye-witness, and which, in their various features
correspond to many of those recorded by the Synoptists.

Ver. 5. The centurion was a Gentile by birth, ver. 10, but connected with
Judaism (Luke vii. 3), probably from being a proselyte of the gate, and was

CHAP. VIII., 6—9. 179
scrving in the army of Herod Antipas. The narrative is, in the main, iden-
tical with Luke vii., differing only in points of minor importance. The
question as to which of the two evangelists the preference in point of orig-
inality is to be accorded, must be decided not in favor of Matthew
(Bleek, Keim), but of Luke, whose special statements in the course of the
incident (misinterpreted by Strauss and Bruno Bauer, comp. de Wette) can-
not, except in an arbitrary way, be ascribed to an amplifying tendency ;
they bear throughout the stamp of historical and psychological originality,
and nothing would have been more superfluous than to have invented them
for the sake of giving greater prominence to the man’s humility, which is
brought our quite as fully and touchingly in Matthew's narrative.’ For the
points of difference in the account John iv. 47 ff., see note on that passage.

Ver. 6. ‘0 zaic yov] not son (Strauss, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek,
Hilgenfeld, Keim), but slave (Luke vii. 7; Matt. xiv. 2); yet not: my
Javorite slave (Fritzsche, comp. Luke vii. 2) ; but either the centurion had
only the one, or else he refers to that one in particular whom he had in view.
From ver. 9, the former appears to be the more probable view. — 8éBAyra:|
is laid. down.” The perf. as denoting the existing condition. The descrip-
tion of the disease is not at tariance with Luke vii. 2, but more exact. —
mapaAzvr.] see on iv. 24.

Ver. 7. And Jesus (perceiving, from his mode of address and whole de-
meanor, the centurion's faith in His divine miraculous powcr) answered
him: I (emphatically) «ill come, and so on. Fritzsche puts it interroga-
tively. But* said Jesus to him, Am I to come and heal him (@epaz. conj.
aor.) ? This is refining more than is necessary, and not in keeping with the
simple character of the passage.‘

Ver. 8. Aéyy] Dat. of the means and instrument, as in Luke vil. 7 ; speak
it, 7.¢., command, with a word, that he become whole. This is by way of
expressing a contrast to the proffered personal service.’ Here again the iva
does not represent the infinitive construction, but : I am not sufficient (worthy
enough) Jor the purpose that Thou shouldst go (John i. 27) under my roof.*
As a Gentile by birth, and loving, as he does, the Jewish people (Luke
vii.), he feels most deeply his own unworthiness in presence of this great
niracle-worker that has arisen among them.’

Ver. 9. Kal . . . é&oveiav] ard rov xa tavrov trodeiyparog Karaoxevd et, ors
kai Adyy pévy dbvarat, ‘‘ from the pattern in his own case he argues that (the
J.ord) has power by evenawordonly.”* ‘Avép. ive é£. go together (in answer
to Fritzsche). The connecting of this substantive with yw», etc., serves to
indicate at once his own obedience and that which he exacts and received

? Comp. Neander, Krabbe, Lange.

2 Comp. ix. 2.

8xai, by way of coupling an objection,
Porson, ad Eur. Phoen. 1378.

*Bengel well says, ‘Divina sapientia
Jesus, eos sermones proponit, quibus elicit
confessionem fidellum eosque antevertit,”’
* By divine wisdom Jesus sets forth those
sayings by which He elicits the confession

of the faithful, and anticipates them."

§ Lobeck, Paralip. p. 525.

® Soph. Ant. 1288.

7 And “non superstitione, zed fide dixit,
se indignum esse," ‘“‘he said, not supersti-
tlously, but in faith, that he was un-

_ worthy," Maldonatus.

* Euth. Zigabenus.

180 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
from others. It is quite gratuitous to suppose that the centurion regards
the disease as caused by demons that are compelled to yield to the behests of
Jesus (Fritzsche, Ewald) ; and it is equally so to impute to him the belief
that the duty of carrying out those behests is entrusted to angels (Erasmus,
Wetstein, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius). From the context it simply
appears that he looked upon diseases as subject to Christ’s authority, and
therefore ready to disappear whenever He ordered them to do so (Theophy-
lact, Euth. Zigabenus, Bengel, de Wette). It is thus that he commands the
Sever in Luke iv. 39, and it ceases. His inference is a case of reasoning @
minori ad majus.

Ver. 10. Oidé év r. "Iap.] not even among Israelites, the people of God, who
are in possession of rac epi Euov paptupiac Tov ypagor, ‘the witness of the
Scriptures respecting me,” (Euth. Zigabenus). So the centurion was not 8
proselyte of righteousness ; comp. ver. 11 f., where Jews and Gentiles are
contrasted with each other. And yet in him faith and humility were
found inseparably united, as by nature they ought to be, and that more than
in the case of the ordinary native Jew. With this unfavorable testimony
against Israel, comp. the history of the woman of Canaan, xv, 22 ff.

Ver. 11. ’Awé avar. xai dvopz.}] from the most widely separated quarters of
the world— Gentiles. Comp. Isa. xlv. 6 ; Mal. i. 11.—According to Jewish
ideas, one of the main elements in the happiness of the Messianic kingdom
was the privilege of participating in splendid festive entertainments along
with the patriarchs of the nation.? Jesus employs the expression in a sym-
bolical sense (xxvi. 29; Luke xiii. 28, xiv. 15 ; Rev. xix. 9; Matt. xxii.
80 ; 1 Cor. xv. 50): many Gentiles will become beliecers, and so hace their part
én the blessings of the Messianic kingdom in happy fellowship with the patriarch,
of the people of God.* Hilgenfeld secs in the whole narrative the milder
comprehensive Judaeo-Christianity of the author of the revised Gospel ;
but Keim again, while upholding the account in all other points, ascribes
ver. 11 f. to the hand that framed the later version, although, with ver. 10,
preparing the way for them, the words neither interrupt the connection nor
clash with the then standpoint of Jesus (ili. 9), seeirg that in the Scrmon
on the Mount (especially vii. 21 f.) He has taken away from the kingdom of
God anything like national limitation.

Ver. 12. The sons of the kingdom: the Jews, in so far as, according to the
divine promise, they have the right, as the theocratic people, to the Mes-
siah’s kingdom (John iv. 22 ; Rom. ix. 4, 5, xi. 16 f.), and are, in conse-
quence, its potential subjects. The article describes them, summarily, in
body, vids, {a, as denoting physical or moral relationship.‘ The true vivi -.
Bac., who are so in point of fact, sec xiii. 38. — rd eSdrepov] which is outside

1 Observe with Bengel the “ rapientia fide-
lis ex ruditate militar! pulchre elucens,”
“the wisdom of faith shining forth beau-
tifully out of his military abruptness."

2 Bertholdt, Christol. p. 196. Schoettgen
on this passage.

8In sharp contrast to incarnate (ii. 9)
Jewish pride, Zanchum (in Schoettgen): ** In

mundo futuro, (dixit Deus) mensam ingen-
tem vobis sternam, quod gentiles ridebunt a
pudeftent,” “In the future world (God said)
I will spread a great table for you, which
the Gentiles shall see and be ashamed.”
Bertholdt, p. 176.

* Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 298].

CHAP. VIII., 13-16. 181

the (illuminated) Messianic banqueting hall.’ For the thing, see xxii. 18, xxv.
30. It is not some special degree of infernal punishment that is represented
to us (Grotius), but the punishments themselves, and that as poena damni et
sensus at once. —6é kAavOuog . . . ddévruv] indicating the wail of sufferings
and the gnashing of teeth that accompanies despair. The article points to
the well-known (xar éfox#v) misery reigning in hell (xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 18,
xxiv. 51, xxv. 80). Found in Luke only at xiii. 28, where the same expres-
sion occurs on 4 different occasion,—a circumstance which is not in Luke’s
favor (de Wette, Gfrdrer), but is to be explained from the fact that Jesus
made frequent use of the figure of the Messianic reclining at table, and of
the expression regarding the infernal xAavOudc, etc.

Ver. 13. 'Ep ri pg éx.] Spe is emphatic. In the very hour in which Jesus
was uttering these words, the slave became whole, and that through the
divine power of Jesus operating upon him from a distance, as in John iv.
46 ff. The narrative is to be explained neither by a desire to present an en-
larging view of the miraculous power of Jesus (Strauss), nor as a parable
(Weisse), nor as a historical picture of the way in which God’s word acts ata
distance upon the Gentiles (Volkmar), nor as being the story of the woman
of Canaan metamorphosed (Bruno Bauer); nor are we to construe the pro-
ceeding as the providential fulfilment of a general but sure promise given by
Jesus (Ammon), or, in that case, to have recourse to the supposition that
the healing was effected through sending an tntermediate agent (Paulus).
But if, as is alleged, Jesus in His reply only used an affirmation which was
halficay between a benediction depending on God and the faith of the house,
and 2 positire act (Keim), it is impossible to reconcile with such vagueness of
meaning the simple imperative and the no less impartial statement of the
result. Moreover, there exists as little a psychical contact between the sick
man and Jesus, as at the healing of the daughter of the woman of Canaan,
xv. 22, but the s/ate was cured in consideration of the centurion’s faith.

Ver. 14. Mark 1. 29 ff., Luke iv. 88 ff., assign to the following narrative
another and earlier position, introducing it immediately after the healing of
a demoniac in the synagogue, which Matthew omits, The account in Mark
is the original one, but in none of the reports are we to suppose the evan-
gelists to be recording the earliest of Jesus’ works of healing (Keim). —
ec Tiv oixiav Tlérpov] in which also his brother Andrew lived along with him,
Mark 1.29. Not inconsistent with John i. 45, as Peter was a native of Beth-
saida, though he had removed to Capernaum. Whether the house belonged
tohim cannot be determined. — ri revfepav airov] 1 Cor. ix. 5.

Vv. 15, 16. Acqxévec) at table, John xii. 2; Luke x. 40. There is a differ-
ence, though an unimportant one, in Luke’s account (iv. 39) of the mode in
which the miracle was performed. — diac d2 yev.] with more precision in
Mark and Luke, at sunset. Besides, in the present instance there is nothing
of the special reference to the Sabbath which we find in Mark and Luke,
but we are merely given to understand that Jesus remains in Peter’s house

1 Wetstein on this passage, comp. on é¢fwrepos, LXX. Ex. xxvi. 4, xxxvi. 10; Ezek. x. 5;
not found in Greek authors.

182 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

till the evening (comp. on xiv. 15). By this time the report of the miracu-
lous cure had spread throughout the whole place ; hence the crowds that
now throng Him with their sick,—a fact which accords but ill with the
attempt to destroy or weaken the supernatural character of the act (‘‘ miti-
gating of the fever,” and that by gentle soothing words or a sympathetic
touch of the hand, Keim, comp. Schenkel). — A6y~] without the use of any
other means.

Ver. 17. This expelling of demons and healing of discases were intended,
in pursuance of the divine purposes, to be a fulfilment of the prediction in
Isa. liii. 4. Observe that this prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus in another
sense also, viz., by His atoning death (John i. 29 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24).—The pas-
sage is quoted from the original (Hebrew) text, but not according to the
historical meaning of that original, which would involve the necessity of
representing the Messiah, in the present instance, as the atoning sin-bearer,'
which, however, is not suited to the connection—but rather according to
that special typical reference, which also seems to have been contemplated
by that prediction when read in the light of the acts of healing performed
by Jesus. At the same time, Aaufdvew and Baorafecy must not be taken in
a sense contrary to that of *W) and 530, to take away, to remote (de
Wette, Bleek, Grimm) ; but when their ailments are taken away from the
diseased, the marvellous compassionate one who does this stands forth as he
who carries them avay, and, as it were, bears the burden lifted from the
shoulders of others. The idea is plastic, poetical, and not to be understood
as meaning an actual personal feeling of the diseases thus removed.

Ver. 18. Ei¢ rd xépav] from Capernaum across to the east side of the lake
of Tiberias. He wished to retire. Instead of putting the statement in the
pragmatic form (it is different in Mark iv. 85) adopted by Matthew, Luke
viii. 22 merely says, nai éyévero év yu@ Tov quepov. According to Baur, it is
only the writer of the narrative who, in the historical transitions of this
passage (here and ver. 28, ix. 1, 9, 14, 18), ‘‘ turns the internal connection
of all those events into an outward connection as well.”

Ver. 19. Eic ypazparetc] Never, not even in passages like John vi. 9, Matt.
xxi. 19, Rev. viii. 18,* is cig equivalent to the indefinite pronoun ric, to
which the well-known use of cig reg is certainly opposed, but is always
found, and that in the N. T. as well, with a certain numerical reference,
such as is also to be seen*® in the passages referred to in classical writers.‘
It is used (vi. 24) in the present instance in view of the érepoc about to be
mentioned in ver. 21 ; for this ypauuarefc, ver. 19, and the subsequent érepor,
were both of them disciples of Jesus. It is therefore to be interpreted thus:
one, @ scribe. It follows from ver. 21 that this ypayyarete already belonged
to the number of Jesus’ disciples in the more general sense of the word, but.
he now intimated his willingness to become one of His permanent and inti-
mate followers.—The difference in time and place which, as regards the two

1 See Kleinert In d. Stud. u. Arit. 1862, p. ® Blomfield, Gloss. in Persas, 338.

728 f, 4 Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 898, ad Anthol.
2 In answer to Winer, p. 111 [E. T. p. 145); XII. p. 455.

Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 74 [E. T. 83).

CHAP. VIII., 20. 183

incidents, vv. 19-22 (in Mark they ere omitted), is found in Luke ix. 57-60,
is not to be removed. The question as to which evangelist the preference
is to be assigned in point of the historical faithfulness of his narrative, falls
to be decided in favor of Matthew,' as compared with the loose and indcfi-
nite account in Luke (Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, Gfrérer, Olshausen,
Arnoldi, Holtzmann), who, moreover, adds (ix. 61 f.) still a third, and
~ doubtless no less historical an incident with which he had been made
acquainted. Schleiermacher inaptly refers drov dv arépyp to the various
roads by which Jesus might travel to Jerusalem.” It is clear, however,
from the fact of this narrative occurring so far on in Luke, that he cannot
have supposed that the ypayparebo was Judus Iscariot, and that the éreporc
was Thomas (Lange). As far was he from supposing that the one was
“Bartholomew and the other Philip (Hilgenfeld), according to the discovery
already made by Clement of Alexandria.—Observe, further, how quite dif-
ferently Jesus answers the scribe with his supposed claims as compared with
the simple-minded érepoc (Ewald), and how in addressing the latter He
merely says axodot@e: pot.

Ver. 20. Karacxnviserc} Places of abode, where, as in their quarters, so to
speak,® they used to dwell.‘ Not nests specially. — 6 vld¢ rov avp.* Jesus,
who thus designates Himself by this title (in Acts vii. 56 Stephen does so
likewise), means nothing else by it than ‘‘the Messiah,” according to its
significant prophetic characteristic, which, assuming it to be known to those
whom He addressed, the Lord claims for Himself. But this self-chosen
title, the expression of His full Messianic consciousness, is not founded,®* not
even in the first place, at least (Keim), upon Ps. viii. 5, seeing that evidence
of a Messianic interpretation of this psalm is nowhere to be found in
the New Testament (not even in Matt. xxi. 16). Still less again must we
start with the well-known usage in Ezek. ii. 1, iii. 1 (Weizsicker), which
has nothing to do with the Messianic idea. Much rather is it to be triccd,
and, as specially appears from xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64, to be solely traced, to the
impressive account of that prophetic vision, Dan. vii. 18, so familiar to the
Jews (John xii. 34), and vividly reflected in the pre-Christian Book of
Enoch,—a vision in which the Messiah appears in the clouds, YW) 123, de.
tlég avOpazov, surrounded by the angels that stand beside the throne of the
divine Judge, i.¢., in a form which, notwithstanding His superhuman
heavenly nature, is not different from that of on ordinary man.’ The whole

' Rettigin d. Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 940 ff. 218 ff.; Schulze, von Menschensohn u. v.
4 Schlelermacher, Schrift. d. Luk. p. 169. Logos, 1867; Welssenbach, Jesu in reqno

3 Polybius, xi. 26. 5. coel. dignitas, 1868; Gess, Christi Perron wu.
*Comp. xiii. 82; Wisd. ix. 8; Tob. 1.4; 2 Werk, I. 1870, pp. 185 ff., 208 ff.; Keim,
Macc. xiv. 35. Geach, Jesu, IT. p. 65 ff. ; Beyschlag, Chrix‘ol,

*For the idea of the Son of man. see @. V. 7. p.9 ff.; Ewald, Geach. Chr. p. 804 f.,
Scholten, de appell. rot viov r. avdpwr. 189; ed. 3; Wittichen, Jdee des Menschen, 1868;
Bolme, Geheimniss d. Men ‘cheneohnes, 1839; Holsten,z. Ke. d. Paul. u. Petr. 1868, p. 179 ff. ;
Gass, de utroque J. Chr. nomine, 1840 ; Nebe, Colani, J. Chr. et lea croyancea muasian. p.
&. d. Begr. dea Naumens & vids r. avdp. 1860; =: 112 ff., ed. 2; Weiss. did!. Theol. p. 538 ff., ed.
Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Ze}/e-*r. 18600. p. 24 f¥.; 2: Volkmar, d. Erangelien, 1870, p. 197 ff.
Hilgenfeld In his Z ié-chr. 1868, p. 380 ff.: * Delitzsch, Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 446.
Holtzmann in the same Zeilechr. 1865, p. 7 Hitzig, Schenkel, Keim understand by

184 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
depended, then, on whether those who were present when Jesus named
Himself the Son of man would understand this predicate in Daniel's sense or
not. In himself, however, this Son of man, whose form had been delineated
in Daniel’s vision, was Jesus Himself, as the historical reality, in so far as in
His person He who there appeared in heavenly form had come down to earth.
As often, therefore, as Jesus, in speaking of Himself, uses the words, ‘‘ the
Son of man,” He means nothing else than ‘‘ the Son of man in that prophecy
of Daniel,” i.e., the Messiah.’ But, behind the consciousness which led Him to
appropriate to Himself this designation from Daniel, there was, at the same
time, the correlative element of His dizine Sonship, the necessary (in answer
to Schleiermacher) conviction, more decidedly brought out in John, of His
divine pre-existence (as Logos), the défa of which He had left behind, in
order, as the heavenly personage in Daniel's vision, o¢ vidc av@pazor, to
appear in a form of existence not originally belonging to Him. And so far
those are right, who, following the Fathers, have recognized (Grotius contra-
dicted by Calovius) the Pauline xévwore in this self-designation, based as it is
upon the consciousness of His pre-existent divinity. Comp. Chrysostom on
John iii. 13, where he says : Jesus has so named Himself azo rye eAarrovog
ovciag ; and Augustine, de consens. ev. ii. 1, who observes : in this we are
taught ‘‘ quid misericorditer dignatus sit esse pro nobis,” ‘‘ how pitifully he
deemed it worthy of himself to be in our behalf.” It is to import ideas
historically inconsistent with Dan. vii., when, in spite of the definite nature
of the expression in Dan. vii. 13, it has been so understood as if Christ meant
thereby to describe Himself as the man in the highest sense of the word, as the

*the-Son of man’ in Daniel, nat the Mes-
siah, but the people of Israel. This, however,
is unquestionably wrong. See, on the other
hand, Ewald. Jahrd. III. p. 281 f. On the
Son of man in the Book of Enoch, see Dill-
mann, d. B. Henockh, p. xx. ff.; Ewald,
Geach. Chr. p. 147; Weltzsaicker, p. 428;
Weissenbach, p. 16 ff.; Wittichen, Zdee des
Menschen, p. 66 ff. On insufficient grounds,
Hilgenfeld is disposed to delete ch. xxxvil.-
Ixx!. of the Book of Enoch asa Christian
interpolation. Comp. Rev. {. 13, xiv. 14;
Hengstenberg, Christol. 1II. 1, p. 10 f.;
Schulze, alttest. Theol. II. p. 380 f.; Ewald,
Gesch. Chr. p. 146 ff.; Schulze, p. % ff. ;
Weissenbach, p. 14 ff.

1 Mark viil. 27 ff., where the settled faith
of the disciples is contrasted with the views
of the people, is plainly a very decisive
passage (in answer to Weisse, Evangelien-
Jrage, p. 212 f.) In favor of the Messfanic
nature of the expression ; for in ver. 31 of
that chapter o vids rou avdpwrov is evidently
identical with o Xpords, ver. 30. On John
xii. 84, see the notes on that passage. Comp.
also on Matt. xvi. 18, which passage, ac-
cording to Hofmann, Weiss. u. Erf. Il. p.
19, Schriftbew, MH. 1, p. 79, and Kahnis, is
also supposed to contradict our explanation

of the vlds rov avdpwwov. Only let it be
carefully observed that the expression,
* the Son of man," {is not directly synony-
mous with “ the Messiuh,”’ but acquired this
definite meaning for others only when first
they came to refer it, in Daniel's sense, to
Jesus, 80 that it did not immediately involve
the idea of ‘‘the Messiah,” but came to do
so through the application, on the part of
believers, of Daniel’s prophetic vision.
But we must avoid ascribing to this self-
designation any purpose Qf concealment
(Ritschl in d. theolog. Juhrb. 1851, p. 514;
Welsse, Wittichen, Holtzmann, Colani,
aegis all the more that Jesus 80
atyles Ilimself inthe hearing of His disci-
ples (already in John i. 52). Comp. with
Mark ii.8. And He so names Himeelf in
the consciousness that in Him the above
prediction has been /uiflled. For those, in-
deed, who did not share this belief, this
designation of Himself continued. as well
it might, to be mysterious and unintelligi-
ble, as xvi. 18. Bat to suppose that Jesus
has chosen it ‘‘to avoid the consequences
of a haphazard Messianic title’? (Holtz-
mann), would be to impute a calculating
reserve which would scarcely be consistent
with His character.

CHAP. VIII., 20. 185

second Adam, as the ideal of humanity,’ or as the man toward whom, as its
aim, the whole history of humanity since Adam has been tending,” or as the
true man renewed after the image of God (Schenkel), as He who is filled with
the whole fulness of God (Colani), and such like. Fritzsche supposes Jesus
to have meant, jilius ille parentum humanorum, qui nunc loguitur, homo ille,
quem bene nostis, i.e., ego, ‘that Son of human parents, who now speaks,
that man whom you well know, 2.e., I,” and that, on the strength of Dan.
vii. 13, the Christians were the first to ascribe to the words the signification
of Messiah. This would only be conceivable if 6 vide rov avOpdrov had
happened to be a current self-designation in general, in which case it would
not be necessary to presuppose a special hi&torical reason why Jesus should
so frequently have used the title in reference to Himself. Consequently
Baur is likewise in error in thinking that the expression denotes the man as
such who stands aloof from nothing human, and esteems nothing human foreign
to himself. In like manner Holtzmann’s view, viz. that Jesus intends to
describe His central place in the circle of the viol rav dvOpdruv, is at vari-
ance with the original phrase as used in Daniel, and rests upon inferences
from expressions which Jesus, while designated as above, has used in ref-
erence to Himself, which predicates, however, cannot determine the mean-
ing of the subject. This, at the same time, in answer to Weizsiicker, p. 428
ff., who thinks that by that expression Jesus had endeavored to bring
His followers to a higher spiritual conception of the Messiah, for whom it
was possible to appear without royal splendor. In 6 vidc rot arfp. He
describes Himself as the great Messiah, and that in the form of a human
life, but not specially as the lovely, self-humbling servant of humanity (Keim),
or he who is intimately bound up with humanity (Gess, 1. p. 186). Accord-
ing to the corresponding passages elsewhere, ideas of this sort are found
first to emerge in predicates, and, as a rule, in the course of the context ;
which, however, is not the case here, where the main point is the contrast,
as secn in the fact that He who is that Son of man of the prophet’s vision has
not where to lay His weary head. Finally, Holsten asserts what is contrary
to the whole Christology of the New Testament, as well as irreconcilable
with Rom. i. 8 f., when he says that as Messiah of the aiav oi'roc, Jesus is
Daniel’s vide rot avOpdrav, and that as Messiah of the future aisv He passes over
into the form of existence belonging to the vid¢ rov Aevi, which latter He is in
this present era of time, as being the Son of man, destined to become the
Son of God. In the analysis of the phrase, tov avOparov is to be understood
neither of Adam (Gregory Nazianzen, Erasmus) nor of the Virgin Mary
(Euth. Zigabents), but, according to Dan. l.c., to be taken generically ; so
that, as fur as the essential meaning goes, it is in no way different from the
anarthrous avOpdhrov in Danicl. — roi rv xed. KAivy] t.€., & resting-place, a slecep-
ing-place which He can call His own. Of course an evidence of poverty (in
contrast to the earthly aims of the scribe, which the eye of Jesus had fully

1 Herder, BOhme, Neander, Ebrard, Ols- 2Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 81; Tho-
hausep, Kabnis, Gess, Lange, Weisse, masius, Chr. Per. u. Werk, II. p. 15.
Beyschlag, Wittichen.

186 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

penetrated), but of that which is connected with an unsettled life, which is -
not necessarily to be identified with want (John xiii. 29, xii. 5, xix. 23).

Ver. 21. Tév pafyrav] of His disciples, in the more general sense of the
words. This is evident from érepoc, which (see note on ver. 19) places him
whom it represents in the same category with the scribe. According to
Luke ix. 59, the érepoc is not spoken of a3 yallyrye, and is summoned by Jesus
to follow Him, which is to be regarded as an altered form of the tradition. —
aparov] in the first place, before I follow thee, vv. 19, 22. — @dya:] It was,
and, to some extent, is still the practice of the Jews, to bury their dead on
the very day on which they die, Matt. ix. 28, Acts v. 7 f. ; and it was the
sacred duty of sons to attend to the obsequies of their parents. Gen. xxv.
9; Tob. iv. 8 ; Schoettgen, Horae, on this passage.

Ver. 22. Totc vexpoic ... vexpobc) The first vexp. (not the second likewise,
as Weisse improperly holds) denotes the spiritually dead (comp. on iv. 16,
' on John v. 21, 25, and on Luke xv. 24), who are without the spiritual life
that comes through Christ.! The second literally ; the dead belonging to
their own circles. Fritzsche (comp. Kaeuffer, de not. Cui atwy. p. 84) inter-
prets literally in both cases : let the dead bury themselves among one another,
as a paradox by way of refusing the request. What a meaningless view of
Jesus’ thoughtful way of putting it! The seeming harshness of Jesus’ reply
(in answer to Weisse, Bruno Bauer) must be judged of by considering the
necessity which he saw of decided and immediate separation, as compared
with the danger of the contrary (Chrysostom) ; comp. x. 87. Moreover, it
is to be inferred from dxodoife: por. Comp. with Luke ix. 60, that this
pabnthe procecded at oncc to follow the Lord, while that ypayparei¢ of ver.
19 probably went away like the rich young man mentioned in xix. 22,

Ver, 23 ff. Comp. Mark iv. 36 ff. ; Luke viii. 22 ff. —1rd xAocior] the boat
standing ready to convey them over, ver. 18. —oi pafyrai] not the Twelve in
contrast to the multitude, ver. 18 (Fritzsche), which is forbidden by ix. 9,
but His disciples generally, who, as appears from the context, are in the
present instance those who had joined themselves more closely to Him, and
were following Him, as the scribe also of ver. 19 and the person indicated
in ver. 21 had declared their willingness to do.

Vv. 24, 25. Zevouss] Agitation, specially in the sense of datinaane here:
storm (Jer. xxiii. 19 ; Nah. 1. 3). —xaAbrreofla:] The waves were dashing
over the boat. saetene dé éxaberde| but He Himself was sleeping, contrasting
with the dangerous position of the boat in which He was.* — oaoov, aroAAipeba]
Asyndeton indicating urgent alarm, and this alarm with Jesus present was
the ground of His rebuke.—On the situation of the lake, as rendering it
liable to gusts and storms, see Robinson.’

Ver. 26. ’Exeriugoe] inerepuit, on account of the unseasonable fury of its
waves. Similarly 12, Ps. cvi. 9; Nah. i.4.4 This rebuking of the elements
(at which Schleicrmacher took special offence) is the lively plastic poetry,

1 Origen in Cramer's Ca/ena: ux ev naxig 2 “Securitas potestatis,"* Ambrose.
ovea vexpa éoriy, ‘a soul being in wickedness 3 Pal. Il. p. 571: Ritter, Ardk. XV. p. 338.
is dead.” Comp. xvii. 18; Luke iv. 39.

CHAP. VIII., 27. 187

not of the author of the narrative, but of the mighty Ruler. —On rére
Bengel observes: ‘‘Animos discipulorum prius, deinde mare composuit,”
‘‘He calmed the minds of His disciples first, and then the sea." Unques-
tionably more original than Mark and Luke ; not a case of transforming
into the miraculous (Holtzmann). The miraculous does not appear till
after the disciples have been addressed. — yadgvy péy.] Ver. 24. cesopic
pey. — Here was a greater than Jonaza, xii. 41.

Ver. 27. Oi dv0pur0:] Meaning the people who, besides Jesus and His disciples,
were also in the boat, not the disciples’ included (de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Bleek), seeing that the specially chosen dv@pwro (Matthew does
not at all say vdvrec) most naturally denotes other parties than those pre-
viously mentioned, viz. ‘‘ quibus nondum innotuerat Christus,” ‘‘to whom
Christ had not yet become known,” Calvin. Fritzsche’s homines quotquot
hujus portenti nuntium acceperant, ‘‘the men, however many (they were who)
had received tidings of this marvel,” is incorrect. From the nature of the
case, and by means of the connection with ver. 28, Matthew represents
the astonishment and the exclamation as coming immediately after the still-
ing of the tempest, and in the boat itself. — ér:] seeing that. Giving the
reason for the roramdg (qualis, see on Mark xiii. 1).—The narrative itself
must not be traced to a misconception on the part of the disciples, who are sup-
posed either to have attributed the cessation of the storm to the presence of
Jesus and His observations regarding this condition of the weather (Paulus),
or to have misapprehended the Lord’s command to be still, addressed to the
storm within them at the moment when that which raged without was over
(Hase). As little should we have recourse to a symbolical explanation of the
fact, as though it had been intended to exhibit the superiority of the friend
of God to the war of the elements (Ammon), or to represent the tranquillity
of the inner life that is brought about by the spirit of Christ (Schleiermacher).
But if Strauss has classed the narrative in the category of mythical sea
stories, Keim again, though feeling sure that it is founded upon fact, is
nevertheless of opinion that the actual event has been retouched, beyond
recognition, with the coloring and in the spirit of the psalms (such as cvi.,
cvii.), while Weizsicker sees in it nothing more than an evidence cf the
spiritual power with which, in a case of outward distress, Jesus so works
upon the faith of His disciples that they see themselves transported into a
world of miracles ; the miracle, he thinks, resolves itself into the extraor-
dinary impression produced by what had taken place. Itis to do manifest
violence to the clear and simple account of the Gospels, to adopt such expedi-
ents for divesting the narrative of its supernatural character, as Schenkel also
has had recourse to, who thinks that, after the pilot had despaired, Jesus,
with assured confidence in His destiny, stood up, and, after rebuking and

1 According to Mark Iv. 41, Luke viil. 23, that what the exclamation asked the discI-
it was the disciples who uttered the excla- ples already knew. Moreover, the prefer-
mation. Possibly a more original part of ence, in all essential respects, ts due to
the tradition than the statement in Mat- Matthew's account; comp. Weiss in d.
thew, which presupposes a wider reficction Stud. u. Arit. 1865, p. 344.
than Mark's account, that statement being

188 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

allaying the fears of those around Him, assumed to Himself the direction of
the boat. The text renders it necessary to insist on treating the event
(Neander, Stcinmeyer) as miraculous—as a proceeding the cause of which is
to be found in the divine energy dwelling in the Lord (Luke xi. 20)—in a
powerful exercise of His authority over the elements, which there should be
no more difficulty in admitting than in the case of His other miracles in the
sphere of nature (the feeding, Cana) and upon the bodily organism (even
when dead).

Ver. 28 ff.'— T'spacmviv] Since Gerasa, the eastern frontier town of Peraea,?
which Origen and others look upon as even belonging to Arabia, stood much
too far to the south-east of the Scaof Tiberias, as the ruins of the town also
still prove ;* since, further, the reading Tepyeoyvev has the preponderance of
testimony against it, and since that reading has gained currency, if not
solely on the strength of Origen’s conjecture, ‘ at least mainly on the strength
of his evidence ; since, again, no trace is found of a Gergesa either as town
(Origen : éAc¢ apzaia) or as village (Ebrard),* expressly stating that of the
ancient Tepyecaioe (Gen xvi. 21, x. 16; Deut. viii. 1; Josh. xxiv. 11)
nothing remains but their names ; since, finally, the reading Tadapyvav has
important testimony in its favor (see the critical remarks), being also con-
firmed by Origen, though only as found é» ddiyos, and harmonizes with
geographical facts,—we are therefore bound to regard that as the original
reading, whilst Tepacyvév and Tepyeoyvav must be supposed to owe their ori-
gin to a confusion in the matter of geography. Even apart from the author-
ity of Origen, the latter reading came to be accepted and propagated, all the
more readily from the circumstance that we are made acquainted with actual
Gergesenes through the Old Testament. On Gadara, at present the village
of Omkeis, at that time the capital of Peraca,* standing to the south-east
of the southern extremity of the Sea of Tiberias, between the latter and
the river Mandhur, consult Ritter,’ Riietschi in Herzog,* Kneucker in
Schenkel.® According to Paulus, who defends Tepacyvav, the district
of Gerasa, like the ancient Gilead, must have extended as far as the
lake ; the wéAc, however, vv. 83, 34, he takes to have been Gadara, as
being the nearest town. The context makes this impossible. — dito] Accord-
ing to Mark and Luke, only one. This difference in the tradition (ix.
27, xx. 30) 1s not to be disposed of by conjectures (Ebrard, Bleek, Holtz-
mann think that, as might easily enough have happened, Matthew com-
bines with the healing of the Gadarenes that of the demoniacs in the
synagogue at Capernaum, Mark i. 23 ff.), but must be allowed to remain as
itis. At the same time, it must also be left an open question whether
Matthew, with his brief and general narrative (Strauss, de Wette), or Mark

1Comp. Mark v. 1 ff.; Luke viil. 26 ff. dela Rue.
Comp. Ewald, Jahrd. VII. p. 54 ff. 5 Josephus, in fact, Antti. 1. 6. 2.
2 Joseph. Bell. ili. 8. 3, iv. 9. 1. § Joseph. Bell. iv. 7. 8.
3 Dietericit, Reisebiider aus @. Morgenl. 7 Erdk. XV. p. 375 ff.
1853, II. p. 275 ff.; Rey, Voyage dans le 5 Encykl. IV. p. 686 f.
HHaouran, 1860. ® Bibellex. 1. p. 318 ff.
4 On John 1. 28, ii. 12; Opp. iv. p. 140, ed.

CHAP. VIII., 29-31. 189

and Luke (Weisse), with their lively, graphic representations, are to be
understood as giving the more original account. However, should the
latter prove to be the case, as is probable at least from the peculiar features
in Mark,’ it isnot necessary, with Chrysostom, Augustine, Calvin, to hit upon
the arbitrary method of adjustment implied in supposing that there were
no doubt two demoniacs, but that the one—whom Mark (and Luke) accord-
ingly mentions—was far more furious than the other. According to Strauss
and Keim, the change to the singular has had the effect of giving a higher
idea of the extraordinary character of a case of possession by so many
demons ; Weisse and Schenkel hold the reverse ; Weiss thinks the number
two owes its origin to the fact of there having been a great many demons.
Mere groundless conjectures.—The demoniacs are lunatics, furious to a high
degree ; they took up their abode among the tombs (natural or artificial
grottoes in the rocks or in the earth) that were near by, driven thither by
their own melancholy, which sought gratification in gloomy terrors and in
the midst of impurity,? and which broke out into frenzy when any one hap-
pened to pass by. Many old burial vaults are still to be seen at the place
on which Gadara formerly stood. [Sec note VII., p. 191 seg.]

Ver. 29. Ti nuiv x. coi] See on John ii. 4. The demons, according to their
nature, already recognize in Jesus, the Messiah, their mighty and most dan-
gerous enemy.* — zpé xaipow] prematurely, i.e., before the Messianic judgment
(xxv. 41). — acavicas juac] to hurl us, as servants of Satan, down to the tor-
ments of Hades.‘ The lunatics identify themselves with the demons by
whom they are possessed. It is plain, however, from their very language
that they were Jews, and not Gentiles (Casaubon, Neander).

Ver. 30. Maxpdyv] relative idea, therefore not incompatible with éxei in Mark
v. 11; Luke vili. 32 (Wilke, Holtzmann).—Seeing the Jews were forbidden
(Lightfoot) to keep sine, as being unclean animals, the herd must cither
have been the property of Gentile owners, or becn the subject of Jewish
trade. — 3ooxouévy] not to be connected with 7, but with ayéAy.

Ver. 31. Eig . . . xoipwv] They mean : into the bodies of the swine that were
feeding. To the unclean spirits in the possessed Jews, anticipating, as they
certainly do, their inevitable expulsion, it appears desirable, as well as most
easily attainable, that they should find an abode for themselvcs in impure
animals,*—The request implies that the demoniacs considered themselves to
be possessed by a multitude of evil spirits, a circumstance noticed in detail
by Mark and Luke, from which, however, it may be inferred that the form
of the tradition is not the same as the one made use of in our Gospel. The
former is so peculiar, that, had Matthew only abridged it (Ewald), he would
scarcely have omitted so entirely its characteristic features, On the contrary,
he followed another version of the story which he happened to light upon,
and which likewise mentioned two demoniacs instead of one ; comp. on ver.

1Comp. Weiss, op. cif., p. 942. Bengel.
* Lightfoot in loc., and on xvii. 15; Schoett- 4 Luke xvi. 28; Rev. xiv. 10, xx. 10.
Ren, p. 92; Wetstein tn loc. ® Eisenmenger, enldeckies Judenth. II. p.

* And “cum éerrore appellant filium Del,” 447 f.
“and with terror they call him Son of God,”

190 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

28. Probably this is also the source to which we are to trace the expression
Jaizoves, Which does not occur anywhere else in Matthew, and which in
Mark v. 12 is of doubtful critical authority.

Ver. 82. ’E€eAévreg amgAdov, x.7.A.] therefore the demons who, quitting
those who were possessed, enter the bodies of the swine. The idea that the
demoniacs ran away among the swinc is opposed to the narrative. — xai idoi,
Opyunoe, x.T.A.] in consequence of the demons taking possession of the ani-
mals, and thereby producing in them a state of fury corresponding to that
which had been excited in the men.

Vv. 83, 84. Idvra xai, x.7.4.] They reported everything, and especially how
it had fared ‘from first to last with the two demoniacs (xxi. 21). — raoa 9
nxéd&c| the Gadarenes. See ver. 28. — rapexddecav, brug perafg, x.t.A.] The
subject of the request is conceived as the aim in asking (xiv. 86; Mark v.
10).—The motive for the request was fear lest a greater disaster should follow.

Remark. —Seeing that all the attempts that have been made to evade the force
of this narrative —such as saying that the demoniacs themselves had rushed in
among the swine, or that the herd perished through some accidental and un-
known circumstance (Neander), or that in the ecépyeo%ac we have merely to
think of an operating in some way or other upon the animals as a whole (Ols-
hausen)—run counter to what is clearly recorded, nothing remains but either
to take the whole account as real history, and just as it stands (Krabbe, Ebrard,
Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 296 ff.; Klostermann, VMarkusevang. p. 101 ff. ;
Steinmeyer, apolog. Beitr. I. p. 144 ff.), in which case it will be necessary to
dispose of objections in the best way possible,' or else to admit the existence of

legendary elements, and then eliminate them.

‘Paulus and Strauss object that the
demons would have acted the part of very
silly devils, if they had gone so far as im-
mediately to destroy again their new
abodes. It is observed by Ebrard, on tho
other hand, that they were unable to con-
trol their wicked desires, or (on Olshausen,
p. 806) that the shock to the nervous system
of the animals was so much greater than
was expected. Theophylact and LEuth.
Zigabenus suppose that their intention was
to do damage to the owners, that they
might not be disposed to welcome Jesus.
Some explain one way and others another.
In reply to the objection founded on the
morality of the thing, Ebrard (comp.
Wetsteln) pleads the absolute right of the
Son of God, and that the object was to pun-
ish the Gadarenes for their avarice. Simi-
larly Luther. Comp. Bengel: “ rei erunt
Gergeseniamittendi gregis; jus et po‘estalem
Jesu res ipsa ostendit,’ ‘‘the Gergesenes
were guilty and deserved to lose the herd:
the fact itself shows the right and authorily
of Jesus;"" so Olshausen, coupling with
his own the opinion of Theophylact.
Schegg contents himself with supposing

The latter course is imperative

that what happened was by way of feating
the Gadarenes, to see whether, to them, the
possession of eternal was of more conse-
quence than the loss of temporal things,
therefore a matter of discipline and to
awaken faith ; comp. Arnoldiand Ullmann,
Sundlosigk. p. 176. Bleek thinks the whole
question of the morality is one with which
he is not called upon to deal, inasmuch as
the destruction was not the doing of Jesus,
but of the lunatic. According to Stein-
meyer, ft was not the doing of the demons,
but ofthe animals. Theonly way of decid-
ing this question is to reply that, according
to the text, it was not the demoniacs but the
demons that caused the destruction of the
swine—a result which Jesus did not antici-
pate. Otherwise it is vain to try further to
help matters by the view that it was the Re-
deemer offering Himself to deliver from the
power of Satan and calling for the feeling
that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for
the sake of this deliverance (Klostermann),
in violation of that principle of justice
which forbids the use of means so flagrantly
unrighteous to attain a holy end.

NOTE. 191

and inevitable if we are not to look upon the condition of the demoniacs as a
case of possession at all (see on iv. 24, note). According to this view of the
matter, Jesus is supposed to have cured the two maniacs by means of His won-
derful power, transmitting its influence through a humoring of their capri-
cious fancies, and that this yielding to their request to be allowed to enter the
swine may have led in a subsequent form of the tradition—a tradition, at the
same time, which did not require to be assisted by the supposed recollection
of some disaster to a herd of swine that happened about the same time on that
side of the lake—to the statement being added about the drowning of the whole
herd, which addition might take place all the more readily from the fact that
swine were unclean and forbidden animals, and considering also how much is
often due to the play of popular wit (Ewald), which, in the death of the swine,
would pretend to see the demons going down at length to the hell they feared
somuch. Strangely enough, Lange, L.J. II. p. 661, inserts in the text that the
hideous yell of the demoniac in his Jast paroxysm has acted like an electric shock
upon the herd. Ewald likewise supposes that the last fearful convulsions of
the sufferer just before he was quieted may have occasioned such a terror as
might readily communicate itself to a whole herd. But in this affair of the
demons, not one of the three accounts says anything whatever about last con-
vulsions and sach like. Yet Schenkel, too, boldly asserts that, just before the
cure took place, there were violent outbursts of the malady, which threw a herd
of swine into a panic, and sent them rushing into the water. Keim, on the
other hand, favors the view that ‘the introduction of the four.footed beasts owes
its origin to legend, inasmuch as it sought to expound the healing from the life,
and with bitter mockery of the Jews to explain and avenge the banishing of
Jesus from the district.” If this is to ascribe too much to legend,—too much
to invention and wit, had not, indeed, the presence of a herd offered u handle
for it,—then, to say the least of it, Weizsdcker followed the more cautious
course when he abandoned the idea of finding out the fact on which the obscure
reminiscence may probably have been founded,— although, when we consider
the essential uniformity of the three evangelic narratives in other respects, the
obscurity, if we keep out of view the difference in the naming of the locality,
may not appeur sufficiently great to warrant such entire abandonment.

Nore by AMERICAN Eprrtor.

Vil.

In construing the meaning of the accounts of demoniacal possession contained
in this and other passages of the synoptists, our choice lies between the theory
of accommodation and the acceptance of the verity of the record. But the ob-
jections to the theory of accommodation are so weighty that they cannot be fully
overcome. The supposition that Jesus cured the two demoniacs ‘‘ by means of
His wonderful power, transmitting its influence through the humoring of
their capricious fancies,’’ impeaches His veracity. Trench reminds us that ‘‘ in
His most confidential discourses with His disciples, our Lord uses the same lan-
guage” in relation to demoniacal possession as He does when addressing the
people (see especially Matt. x. 8, where casting out devils is included in His
charge to the Twelve). ‘‘ The allegiance,’’ says this writer, ‘‘ we owe to Christ

192 THE GOSPEL UF MATTHEW.

as the King of truth, who came, not to fall in with men’s errors, but to deliver
men.out of their errors, compels us to believe that He would never have used
langnage which would have upheld and confirmed so great an error in the
minds of men as the supposition of Satanic influences, which did not in truth
exist. For this error, if it was an error, was so little an innocuous one, that
might have been safely left to drop naturally away, was, on the contrary, one
which reached so far in its consequences, entwined its roots so deeply among
the very ground truths of religion, that it could never have been suffered to ro-
main at the hazard of all the misgrowths which it must needs have occasioned."!

In view of this difficulty, the theory of accommodation has been variously
modified. Thus Neander draws a distinction between material and formal accom-
modation, the latter being moral, the former wholly immoral. But his applica.
tion of this distinction is by no means satisfactory. For, in regard to Christ's
humoring of the opinions ‘‘ which the demoniacs themselves had of their own
condition,” he says, ‘‘the law of veracity in the intercourse of beings in pos-
session of reason does not hold good where the essential conditions of rational
intercourse are doneaway.’”? This might apply, if Chr:st had used the language
of accommodation in speaking to demoniacs only ; but He used the same terms
in speaking to persons in their rational senses, e.g. the Twelve and the Phari-
sees, At best this supposition lexves on our minds a painful impression of the
character of our Lord, whom we believe to be THe Trutu. Neander admits
that the starting-point of demoniacal possession is the dominion of the king-
dom of evil and its king over the minds of the possessed persons? But when

he admits this much, he is but one step short of admitting the literal truth of
’ the gospel narrative, and his distinction here between material and formal ac-
commodation becomes unnecessary. He himself says, ‘‘If it could be proved
that Christ had only taken up the doctrine of the existence of Satan by way of
formal accommodation, the questiop: of the demoniacs would be at once decided.”
Most certainly ; and it may be said conversely, it being proved that Christ un-
equivocally affirmed the personal existence of Satan, the literal truth of the gos-
pels in relation to demoniacs is at once determined.

The objections of Dr. Meyer to the acceptance of literal truth of this and
other accounts in the gospels of demoniacal possession are summed up in the noto
to his comment on Matt. iv. 24. The most important of these is (4) the silence
of John in regard to all such cases. This argument, however, proves too much ;
for it is just as valid against the credibility of the synoptical account of Christ's
Galilean ministry, which is omitted by John. Moreover, John admits Satanic
possession (ch. xiii. 27), and quotes without remark the language of the Jews,
which charged on Christ that he had a devil (darudvior).

Both Trench aud Neander find the explanation of the prevalence of demoniacal
possession in the character of the age, and this furnishes an answer to another
objection of Dr. Meyer, that there are no instances of demoniacal possession
in modern times. ‘‘If there was anything that marked,’’ says Trench, ‘the
period of the Lord’s coming in the flesh and that immediately succeeding, it
was the wreck and confusion of men’s spiritual life which was then, the sense of
utter disharmony, the hopelessness, the despair which must have beset every man
that thought at all —this, with the tendency to rush with a frantic eagerness into

1 Miracles of our Lord, pp. 126, 127. 3 Ibid., p. 148, note.
2 Life of Christ, Amer. ed., pp. 149, 150. 4Ibid., pp. 145-151.

NOTE. 193

sensual enjoyments as the refuge from despairing thoughts. That whole period
was the hour and power of darkness—of a darkness which then, immediately
before the dawn of a new day, was the thickest. The world was again a chaos,
and the creative words, ‘Let there be light,’ though just about to be spoken, as
yet were not uttered. It was exactly the crisis for such soul maladies as
these, in which the spiritual and bodily should be thus strangely interlinked,
and it is nothing wonderful that they should have abounded at that time; for
the predominance of certain spiritual maladies at certain epochs of the world’s
history, which were specially fitted for their generation, with their gradual
decline and disappearance in others less congenial to them, is a fact itself
admitting no manner of question.”’ !

Planck also, who admits that our Lord and other inspired teachers did accom-
modate themselves to imperfect or erroneous ideas of the people, yet hesitates to
affirm this of demoniacal possession. He admits that it is never justifiable on
the principles of hermeneutics to ‘‘apply the doctrine of accommodation to any
passage, unless it can be historically shown that the passage does really con-
tain an opinion prevalent at the time, and, further still, unless it can be proved
from internal evidence that this prevalent opinion is erroneous.” * He concludes,
therefore, that ‘‘our Lord and His apostles may have been governed by certain
opinions of their time, not merely because they were opinions of their time,
but because, according to their own convictions, the views which they afforded
were true, correct, and well founded. Thus He may have spoken so often of
demons, not merely because the people believed in their existence, but because
He believed in it Himself; and therefore it is possible that He has not, in this
matter, accommodated to the popular ideas, and it must therefore be allowed
to be possible that by His declarations He has Himself attested their existence, —
and thal it was His intention to attest it.”* It will not do therefore for those
who find an accommodation to popular opinion in this and like passages of the
gospels to assume the thing to be proved—namely, that the belief in demo-
niacal possession is an ancient error, wholly repugnant to reason.

1 Trench, Miracles of our Lord, p. 184.
% “ Sacred Philology,” Clark’s Biblical Cabinet, p. 160, 3 Tbid., p. 162.

194 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER IX.

Ver. 2. dgéwvra:] Lachm. Tisch. 8: agievrar (also ver. 5), only according to B
*, Or. (once). On the other hand, cov ai dvapria: (Lachm. Tisch.) for oor ai dp.
is certainly supported by important testimony, but suspected, however, of
being taken from ver. 5. — Ver. 4. idov] Lachm.: eidws, according to B M E**
TI* Curss. Verss. Chrys.; a gloss. Comp. xii. 25; Luke vi. 8. — Ver. 5. cov]
Elz.: cot, against decisive testimony. —éyecpa:] There is decisive testimony
for Zyecpe. Adopted by Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Correctly ; see the exegetical
notes. In all the passages in which éye:pe occurs, there is found, as a diff.
reading, éye:pa:. — Ver. 6. tyepOeic¢] Lachm.; according to B, Vulg. Codd. of the
It. : éyecpe. Mechanical repetition from ver. 5. Comp. Mark ii. 11. — Ver. 8.
égoB70ncav] so also Lachm. and Tisch., according to B D &, Curss. Verss. (also
Vulg. It.)and Fathers. é6atyacay of the Received text is a gloss. — Ver. 9.
HxodAuvGyncev] Tisch. 8: FxodovOer, on the too slender authority of D &® and three
Curss. — Ver. 12. The omission of "Iyootc, favored by Lachm. and Tisch.
8, rests on too slender authority; while that of avroic, which Lachm. and
Tisch. leave out, has a preponderance of evidence in its favor. — Ver. 183.
éAcov] Lachm. and Tisch. : éAeoc ; see the exegetical notes, — duaptwAorc] Elz.,
Fritzsche, and Scholz insert et¢ zerdvorav, which BD V* T* A &, Curss. Vulg.
It. Syr. utr. Perss. Aeth. al. and several Fathers omit. Supplement from Luke
v. 32. — Ver. 14. zoAAa] although deleted by Tisch. 8 (only according to B ®*
and three Curss.), has decisive testimony. — Ver. 17. aoAobvrac] Lachm. Tisch.
8: axdAAvvra:, after B &, Curss. Verss. The present is due to the other verbs
around it. — aug¢drepo] Elz. : dug¢érepa, against decisive testimony. A correc-
tion. — Ver. 18. eic¢ eA0uv] Elz. : éA@cdv, only after Curss. ; others: ciceAGay ;
others ; ri¢ eioeAOdy ; others : Tic tAGGy ; others: rec (or elc) rpoceA@ay ; Lachm.:
el¢ mpoocAGav, after B &**. In the original, stood EIZEASGQN.'—Ver. 19.
. Tisch. 8. (comp. on ver. 9) has #xodovGe:, after B C D. — Ver. 30, Lachm.;
Tisch. have the rare Alexand. form éveSpiu79n, which has B* & in its favor,
and was replaced by the more usual évefpiujoaro. — Ver. 35, padaxiayv] Elz, in-
serts év Tw Aag, against B C* D SA &**, Curss., and several versions and
Fathers. Supplement from iv, 23.— Ver. 36. éoxvAuévor] Elz.: éxAcAvpuévoi.
The former, on which the latter is a gloss, resta on decisive testimony.

Vv. 1 ff. Mark ii. 1 ff., Luke v. 17 ff., introduce the account somewhat
earlier. Matthew reports, briefly and simply, only the essential points,
following, it may be, an older form of the tradition. — Ty» idiav wéjuy]
Capernaum.* See iv. 18.

1 But whether els éAduy (Griesb. Scholz, vaovp, “the city which bore Him was
Kuinoel, Fritzsche) or eiceAdwy (Tisch.) Bethlehem; the one which nurtured Him
should be written, see the exegetical notes. was Nazareth: the one in which He dwelt

26 wey yap Hveyxev atrov » BydAdeu: § 82 was Capernaum,” Chrysostom.
edpeyer » Nagapdr: § 82 elyey oixotyra Kawep-

CHAP. IX., 2-5. 195

Vv. 2, 8. Atrév] the paralytic, and those who were carrying him. — réxvov]
affectionately ; Mark ii. 5, x. 24; Luke xvi. 25, and elsewhere. '— agéwvraz]
are forgiven,* avéwrra,’ with aveivrac (so Bahr), however, as a different
reading.‘ The view that Christ’s words imply an accommodation to the
belief of the Jews, and also of the paralytic himself, that diseases are
inflicted by way of punishment for sins, is all the more to be rejected that
Jesus elsewhere (John ix. 83 ; Luke xiii. 1) contradicts this belief. He saw
into the moral condition of the sick man, precisely as afterwards, ver. 4,
He read the thoughts of the scribes (John v. 14, ii. 25), and knew how it
came that this paralysis was really the punishment of his special sins
(probably of sensuality). Accordingly, he tirst of all pronounces forgive-
ness, as being the moral condition necessary to the healing of the body (not in
order to help the effect upon the physical system by the use of healing
psychical agency, Krabbe), and then, having by forgiveness removed the
hindrance, He proceeds to impart that healing itself by an exercise of His
supernatural power. — elrov év éavr.] as in iii. 9.— BAacgnu] through the
assumption of divine authority (Ex. xxxiv. 7 ; comp. with xx. 5 f.). He
thereby appeared to be depriving God of the honor that belongs to Him,
and to be transferring it to Himself ; for they did not ascribe to Him any
prophetic authority to speak in the name of God.

Ver. 4. The power to discern the thoughts and intentions of others (comp.
on ver. 8) was a characteristic mark of the expected Messiah (Wetstein),
was present in Jesus in virtue of His nature as the God-man, and analogous
to His miraculous power. — ivari] why? that is tosay, iva ri yévirac.* — rovnpd)
inasmuch, that is, as you regard me as a blasphemer, and that with a mali-
cious intention ; whereas the sick man, and those who carried him, were
full of faith. In contrast to them is the emphatic tei¢ (you people /), which,
being ignored by important authorities, is deleted by Tischendorf 8.

Ver. 5. Tap] gives a reason. for the thought expressed in the preceding
question,— the thought, namely, that they were not justified in thinking
evil of Him. —rf éorw eixordérepov] The meaning is unquestionably this :
the latter is quite as easy to say as the former, and conversely ; the one
requires no less power than the other ; the same divine éfovcia enables both
to be done ; but in order that you may know that I was entitled to say the
one, I will now add the other also: Arise, and soon. The result of the
latter was accordingly the actual justification of the former. For ri in the
sense of rérepov, comp. Stallbaum.* — #yecpe (see the critical remarks) is not a
mere interjection, like dye, érecye,” seeing that it is followed by «ai, and that
the circumstance of the arising has an essential connection with the incident
(see ver. 2, éri xAiv. BeBAnpévov ; comp. vv. 6, 7) ; but the transitive is used

1 Comp. dvyarep, ver. 22 Gr. p. 42 [E. T. 49). Beza_ correctly

4 Doric (Suidas), not an Attic (Aiym. WM.) observes, that in the perf. is ‘“ emphasis
form of the perf. ind. pass.; Herod. if. 165. minime negligenda.”

*See also Phavorinus, p. 380, 49, and ® Hermann, ad Vig. p. &9; Klotz, ad
Gdttling, Lehre vom Accent. p.82; Abrens, Devar. p. 681 f.
Dial. Dor. p. 844; Giese, Dor. Dial. p. 83 f. * Ad Plat. Phil. p. 168.

‘ Winer, p. 77 [E. T. 96) ; Buttmann, neue. 7 Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 55 f.

196 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

intransitively,' as is frequently the case, especially in verbs denoting
haste. ?

Vv. 6, 7. Egovciay éye:] placed near the beginning of the sentence so as to
be emphatic : that the Son of man 4s empowered upon carth (not merely to
announce, but) to communicate the forgiveness of sins. é7? r7¢ y#¢ does not
belong to ag. du. (Grotius),—in which case its position would convey an
awkward emphasis, and the order of the words would naturally be a¢. az.
éxi r. y7¢ (a8 Marcion read them),—but it is joined to ééovoiay Fre in the
consciousness of the éfovcia brought with Him from heaven.* —rére Atyer 16
mapadvr.] is neither to be taken parenthetically, nor is réde to be understood
(Fritzsche), in order to justify the parenthesis ; but Matthew's style is such
that no formal apodosis comes after duapriac, but rather the call to the
paralytic éyepGeic, etc. Matthew reports this change in regard to the parties
addressed with scrupulous fidelity ; and so, after concluding what Jesus
says to the scribes with the anacoluthon iva dé eid#re . . . duaprtias, he pro-
ceeds to add, in the narrative form, ‘‘ then He says to the paralytic.” This
is a circumstantial simplicity of style which is not to be met with in
polished Greek writers, who would have omitted the rére Atyec rG@ wapad.
altogether as a mere encumbrance. ‘ — xa? tyep¥eic, x.7.A.] therefore an imme-
diate and complete cure, which does not favor the far-fetched notion that
the declaration of Jesus penetrated the nervous system of the paralytic as
with an electric current (Schenkel).

Ver. 8. "EgoB7Pnoav] not equivalent to {@atyzacav (not even in Mark iv. 41 ;
Luke viii. 85), but they were afraid. This was naturally the jirst impression
produced by the extraordinary circumstance ; and then they praised God,
and 80 on. — roi¢ avOpdroic] Not the plural of category (ii. 20), so that only
Jesus is meant (Kuinoel), but men generally,—the human race. In one indi-
vidual member of the human family they saw this power actually displayed,
and regarded it as a new gift of God to humanity, for which they gave God
praise.

Vv. 9, 10. Comp. Mark ii. 13 ff. (whom Matthew follows) and Luke v.
27 ff. — Kai rapdywv] not: as He went further (as is commonly supposed),
but (xx. 80 ; Marki. 16, xv. 21; John ix. 1; 1 Cor. vii. 31) : as He went
away from where (He had cured the paralytic), and was passing by (8 Macc.
vi. 16; Polyb. v. 18. 4), the place, that is, where Matthew was. Exactly
as in Mark ii. 14, and in ver. 27 below. — Maré. Aeyéu.| Named Matthew (ii.
23, xxvi. 36, xxvii. 88), anticipation of the apostolic name. — rd reAdvicr]
the custom-house of the place (Poll. ix. 28). On Matthew himself and his
identity with Levi (Mark ii. 14 ; Luke v. 27), further confirmed in Conetitt.
Ap. viii. 22. 1, see introduction, § 1. Considering the locality, it may be
assumed that Matthew already knew something of Jesus, the extraordinary
Rabbi and worker of miracles in that district, and that he does not now for
the first time and all of a sudden make up his mind to join the company of

1 Kthner, II. 1, p. 81 ff. Bengel.
2 Bernhardy, p. 840. Eur. Zph. A. @24: “See passages from Demosthenes in
Eyetp’adeAdhis é' Vudvatov evruxas. Kypke, L p. 48 f.

® *Coelestem ortum hic sermo sapit,”

CHAP, 1X., 10-12. 197

His disciples (axoAovfeiv). What is here recorded is the moment of the
decision (in answer to Strauss, B. Bauer). This in opposition to Paulus,
who interprets thus: ‘‘Go with me into thy house !” See Strauss, II. p.
570, who, however, sweeps away everything in the shape of a historical
substratum, save the fact that Jesus really had publicans among His disciples,
and that probably Matthew had likewise been one of this class ;—‘‘ that
these men had, of course, left the seat at the custom-house to follow Jesus,
yet only in the figurative sense peculiar to such modes of expression, and
not literally, as the legend depicts it.”

Ver. 10. 'Eyévero . . . nai] see note on Luke v. 12. — dvaxeiuévov) In
classical Greek, to recline at table is represented by xaraxeicOa, as frequently
also in the N. T. (Mark ii. 15, xiv. 3), though in Polybius, Athenaeus, and
later writers avaxeicfa:, too, is by no means rare.’ On the custom itself
(with the left arm resting on a cushion), comp. note on John xiii. 23. —éy
rH otxig] With the exception of Fritzsche, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim, Hilgen-
feld (yet comp. already the still merely doubtful remark of Bengel), critics
have gratuitously assumed the house to have been that of Matthew, which
accords, no doubt, with Luke v. 29 (not Mark ii. 15), but neither with the
simple év rg otxia (see ver. 23, xiii. 1, 86, xvii. 25) nor with the connection.
Seeing, then, that the publican who rose from his seat at the custom-house
and followed Jesus cannot, of course, have gone to his own residence,
nothing else can have been meant but the house of Jesus (in which He lived).
There lies the variation as compared with Luke, and like many another, it
cannot be disposed of. But de Wette’s objection, reproduced by Lichten-
stein, Lange, and Hilgenfeld, that it is scarcely probable that Jesus would
give feasts, has no force whatever, since Matthew does not say a single
word about a feast; but surely one may suppose that, when the disciples
were present in his residence at Capernaum, Jesus may have eaten, i.¢.,
have reclined at table with them. The publicans and sinners who came
thither were at the same time hospitably received. — xai duaprwdoi] and in
general men of an immoral stamp, with whom were also classed the publicans
as being servants of the Roman government, and often guilty of fraudulent
conduct (Luke iii. 18) ; comp. Luke xix. 7. Observe that Jesus Himself
by no means denies the srovypdv eiva: in regard to those associated with Him
at table, ver. 12 f. They were truly diseased ones, who were now, how-
ever, yielding themselves up to the hands of the physician.

Ver. 11. *Idévrec] How they saw it is conceivable in a variety of ways (in
answer to Strauss, B. Bauer), without our requiring to adopt the precise
supposition of Ebrard and de Wette, that they saw it from the guests that
were coming out of the house. May not the Pharisees have come thither them-
selres either accidentally or on purpose? Comp. ropevfivrec, ver. 18 ;
éyepOeic, ver. 19 ; and see note on ver. 18.

Ver. 12. The whole and the sick of the proverb are figurative expressions
for the dixaco: and the duaprudof, ver. 18. In the application the Pharisees are
included among the former, not on account of their comparatively greater

1 Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 217.

198 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(de Wette), but because of their fancied, righteousness, as is evident from
the sentiments of Jesus regarding this class of men expressed elsewhere, and
likewise from ver. 13. The thought, then, is this: ‘‘the righteous
(among whom you reckon yourselves) do not need the deliverer, but the
sinners.” This contains an ‘‘ ironica concessio” to the Pharisees.’ The objec-
tion, that in point of fact Jesus is come to call the self-righteous as well, is
only apparent, seeing that He could not direct His call to these, as such
(John ix. 39 ff.), so long as they did not relinquish their pretensions, and
were themselves without receptivity for healing.

Ver. 13. After having justified His holding intercourse with publicans
and sinners, Jesus with the dé proceeds to tell the Pharisees what they would
have to do in order to their receiving His invitation to be healed : ‘‘but go
and learn what is meant by that saying of the Scripture (Hos. vi. 6, LXX.), I will
have mercy and not sacrifice.” You must understand that first of all, if you
are to be of the number of those who are to be invited to enter the Messiah's
kingdom : ‘‘for I am not come to call righteous, but sinners” (1 Tim. i. 15).
Through that quotation from the Scripture (mentioned only by Matthew
here and xii. 7), itis intended to make the Pharisees understand how much
they too were sinners. According to others, Jesus wishes fo justify His con-
duct, inasmuch as the exhibition of love and mercy constitutes the Messiah's
highest duty (Ewald, Bleek). This, however, is less probable, owing to the
ropevdévrec with which He dismisses them from His presence, the analogy of
xii. 7, and the very apt allusion in ov @voiay to the Pharisees with their legal
pride. — ropev0. dbere] corresponds to the Rabbinical form m7 *¥, which is
used in sending one away, with a view to fuller reflection upon some matter
or other, or with a view to being first of all instructed regarding it ; see
Schoettgen. — ydp] assigns the reason for the ropevOévrec udbere, through which
pavOdverv they are first to be rendered capable of receiving the invitation to
participate in the blessings of the kingdom. This invitation is uniformly
expressed by the absolute xadciv.—The masculine éieoe is the classical form ;
the neuter, which rarely occurs in Greek authors,’ is the prevailing form in
the LXX., Apocrypha, and the New Testament, although the manuscripts
show considerable fluctuation. In the present instance, the neuter, though
possessing the authority of B C* D ® (like xii. 7), was naturally adopted
from the LXX.— xa? ov 6vc.] The negative is absolute, in accordance with the
idea aut...aut. God does not desire sacrifice instead of mercy, but mercy
instead of sacrifice. The latter is an accessory (Calvin), in which everything
depends on the right disposition, which is what God desires.

Ver. 14. Concerning private fasting. See note on vi. 16. On the fasting
of the Baptist, comp. xi. 18. On the fasting of the Pharisees (Luke xviii.
12), to whose authority on the rigid observance of the law the disciples of
John adhere.* A not inappropriate addition by Matthew (Weiss, Holtz-
mann). — ov vyoretovc:] comparatively, to be understood from the standpoint

’ 1In qua ideo offendi eos docet pecoato- arrogate righteousness to themselves,”
rum intuitu, quia justitiam sibi arrogant,’’ Calvin.

‘**in which he shows that they are thus dis- 3 Isocr. 18, p. 878; Diod. lif. 18.

pleased at sight of their sins, because they * See Lightfoot on this passage. Serar.

CHAP. Ix., 15-17. 199

of the questioners, who hold the freedom of the disciples of Jesus, as con-
trasted with the frequent fasting of themselves and the Pharisees, to be
equivalent to no fasting at all.

Ver. 15. Of viot (viii. 12) rod vuupdvoc] of the bride chamber,' are the rapa-
viugeot, the friends of the bridegroom, who amid singing and playing of in-
struments conducted the bride, accompanied by her companions, to the
house of her parents-in-law and to the bride-chamber, and remained to take
part in the wedding feast, which usually lasted seven days.* Meaning of
the figure : So long as my disciples have me with them, they are incapable of
mourning (fasting being the expression of mourning) : when once I am taken
JSrom them—and that time will inevitably come—then they will fast to express
their sorrow. Christ, the bridegroom of His people until His coming, and
then the marriage ; see on John iii. 29. It is to be observed that this is the
first occasion in Matthew on which Jesus alludes to His death, which from
the very first He knew to be the divinely appointed and prophetically-an-
nounced climax of His work on earth (John i. 29, ii. 19, iii. 14), and did
not come to know jt only by degrees, through the opposition which he ex-
perienced ; while Hase, Wittichen, Weizsiicker, Keim, postpone the cer-
tainty of His having to suffer death—the latter, till that day at Caesarea
(chap. xvi.) ; Holsten even puts it off till immediately before the passion ;
see, on the other hand, Gess, op. cit., p. 258 ff. — The rére, which has the
tragic emphasis of a sorrowful future (Bremi, ad Lys. p. 248, Goth.), ex-
presses only the particular time specified, and not all time following ae well,
and while probably not condemning fasting in the church, yet indicating it
to be a matter in which one is to be regulated, not by legal prescriptions
(ver. 16 f.), but by personal inclination and the spontaneous impulses of
the mind. Comp. vi. 16 ff.

Vv. 16, 17. No one puts a patch consisting of cloth that has not been fulled upon
an old robe, for that whichis meant to fill up the rent (the patch put on to mend
the old garment) tears off from the (old rotten) cloak, when it gets damp or
happens to be spread out, or stretched, or such like. That airoi does not
refer to the piece of unfulled cloth (Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, de Wette,
Bleek), but to the old garment, is suggested by the idea involved in rA4-
pupa (id quo res impletur, Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 469). Tiis not to be
supplied after alpe:, but the idea is: makesarent.* The point of the compari-
son lies in the fact that such a proceeding is not only unsuitable, but a posi-
tive hindrance to the end in view. ‘'The old forms of piety amid which John
and his disciples still move are not suited to the new religious life emanat-
ing from me. To try to embody the latter in the former is to proceed in a
manner as much calculated to defeat its purpose as when one tries to patch
an old garment with a piece of unfulled cloth, which, instead of mending it,
as it is intended to do, only makes the rent greater than ever ; oras when

de Trihaeresio, p. 96.—x0AAd] frequenter, ad. Hebr.1748; on the Greek wraparpvpdios,
Vulg., Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 61 C, consult Hermann, Privatailierth. $81, 18.
ad Parmen. p. 12% B; Kihner, I. 1, p. 270. ®Comp. Rev. xxii. 19, and especially
1 Joel fi. 16; Tob. vi. 16; Heliod. vil. 8. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. 757).
® Pollux, Onom. ill.8; Hirt, de paranymph.

200 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

one seeks to fill old bottles with new wine, and ends in losing wine and
bottles together. The new life needs new forms.” The Catholics, follow-
ing Chrysostom and Theophylact, and by way of tinding something in
favor of fastings, have erroneously explained the old garment and old
bottles as referring to the disciples, from whom, as ‘‘adhuc infirmes et
veteri adsuetis homini” (Jansen), it was, as yet, too much to expect the
severer mode of life for which, on the contrary (ver. 17), they would have
to be previously prepared by the operation of the Holy Spirit. This is
directly opposed to the meaning of Jesus’ words, and not in accordance with
the development of the apostolic church (Col. ii. 20 ff.), by which fasting,
as legal penance, was necessarily included among the orotyeia rob xéopov,
however much it may have been valued and observed as the spontaneous
outcome of an inward necessity (Acts xiii. 2 f., xiv. 23; 2 Cor. vi. 5, xi.
27). Neander suggests the utterly irrelevant view, that ‘‘it is impossible to
renovate from without the old nature of man” (the old garment) through
fasting and prayers (which correspond to the new patch).—Leathern bottles,
for the most part of goats’ skins’ with the rough side inward, in which it was
and still is the practice (Niebuhr, I. p. 212) in the East to keep and carry
about wine.* — arodovvra] Future, the consequence of what has just been de-
scribed by the verbs in the present tense. Oni dé ufye, even after negative
clauses, see note on 2 Cor xi. 16.

a
@

Remark. — According to Luke v. 33, it was not John’s disciples, but the
Pharisees, who put the question to Jesus about fasting. This difference is in-
terpreted partly in favor of Luke (Schleiermacher, Neander, Bleek), partly of
Matthew (de Wette, Holtzmann, Keim), while Strauss rejects both. For my
part, I decide for Matthew ; first, because his simpler narrative bears no traces
of another hand (which, however, can scarcely be said of that of Luke) ; and
then, because the whole answer of Jesus, so mild (indeed touching, ver. 15) in
its character, indicates that those who put the question can hardly have been
the Pharisees, to whom He had just spoken in a very different tone. Mark ii.
18 ff., again (which Ewald holds to be the more original), certainly does not rep-
resent the pure version of the matter as regards the questioners, who, accord-
ing to his account, are the disciples of John and the Pharisees, —an incongruity,
however, which owes its origin to the question itself.

Ver. 18. "Apyuv] a president ; Matthew does not further define the office.
According to Mark v. 22, Luke viii. 41, it was the synagogue- president,
named Jairus.—The correct reading is eice2#4v (comp. the critical remarks),
and not ei¢ éAféy (Gersdorf, Rinck, de Wette, Tischendorf, Ewald), yet not
as though the e¢ following were at variance with Matthew’s usual style
(xxii. 35, xxiii. 15, xxvi. 40, 69, xxvii. 14 ; see, on the other hand, v. 41, vi.
27, xii. 11, xvili. 5, xxi. 24) ; but since this, like the former incident, also
occurred at that meal in the residence of Jesus (according to Matthew, not
according to Mark and Luke), and as this fact was misapprehended, as most

1 Hom. J. iti. 247, Od. vi. 78, ix. 196, v. 265.
* Comp. Judith x. 6; Rosenmiller, Morgeni. on Josh. 1x. 5.

CHAP. IX., 20-22. 201

critics misapprehend it still, consequently it was not seen to what eioed-
6ov might refer, so that it was changed into eic éA@év. According to
Matthew, the order of the incidents connected with the meal is as follows :
(1) Jesus sends away the Pharisees, vv. 11-18. (2) After them, the disci-
ples of John approach Him with their questions about fasting, and He in-
structs them, vv. 14-17. (8) While he is still speaking to the latter, a
president enters, ver. 18, and prefers his request. Thereupon Jesus rises, %.¢.,
from the table (ver. 10), and goes away with the dpyuwy, ver. 19 ; and it is
not till ver. 28 that we read of His having returned again to His house.—
dpte éredeirycev | has just now died. The want of harmony here with Mark v.
23, Luke vii. 49, is to be recognized, but not (Olearius, Kuinvel) to be
erroneously explained as meaning jam moritur, morti est prozima. Others
(Luther, Wolf, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Lange) interpret, with Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus : croyafduevog elev, bréAaBe yap, bri pb ype rére
rdvtwc av aréfavev, ‘She spoke with an aim, for he supposed that by this
time the maid would be entirely deceased.” A harmonizing expedient.—
Laying on of the hand, the symbol and medium in the communication of a
divine benefit, xix. 13 ; Luke iv. 40, xiii. 18. See on Acts vi. 6, viii. 17 f.,
xiii. 8, xix. 5; Gen. xlviii. 14; Num. xxvii. 18.—The account of Mark
v. 22-42, which is followed by Luke viii. 41 ff., is so unique and fresh
in regard to the detail which characterizes it, that it is not to be re-
garded as a later amplification (Strauss, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Bleek) ;
that of Matthew follows a condensed form of the tradition, which, morc-
over, is responsible for straightway introducing the éreAetrjoey as if forming
part of what the president addressed to Jesus.

Ver. 20. The particular kind of haemorrhage cannot be determined. Some :
excess of menstruation. Others: haemorrhoids. From its having lasted
twelte years, it may be inferred that the ailment was periodical. — éricfev]
out of modesty. «pdoredov] LXX. Num. xv. 88, N¥*¥. Such was the name
given to the tassel which, in accordance with Num. xv. 88 f., the Jew wore
on each of the four extremities of his cloak, to remind him of Jehovah's
commands.’ — The article points to the particular tassel which she touched.
Comp. xiv. 86.

Ver. 22. Jesus immediately (see on ver. 4) perceives her object and her
faith, and affectionately (@iyarep, as a term of address, like réxvov, ver. 2,
occurs nowhere else in the New Testament) intimates to her that 9 rior cov
oiauxé ce, on account of thy faith, thou art saved (healed)! The perfect de-
scribes what is going to happen directly and immediately, as if it were
something already taking place.* Comp. Mark x. 52, Luke xviii. 42, and
the counterpart of this among tragic poets, as in 6Auda, ré6vyxa, and such
like. The cure, according to Matthew, was effected by an exercise of Jesus’
will, which responds to the woman’s faith in His miraculous power, not
through the mere touching of the garment (in answer to Strauss). The
result was instantaneous and complete. To try to account for the miracle

1 Lund, Jiéd. Helligth. ed. Wolf, p. 806 f. ; Keil, Archdol. § 102; Ewald, Alterth. p. 307.
* See Ktthner, II. 1, p. 129.

202 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

by the influence of fear (Ammon), religious excitement (Schenkel), a pow-
erful hope quickening the inactive organs (Keim), is not sufficiently in
kecping with the well-authenticated result, and is inadequate to the removal
of so inveterate a malady (the twelve years’ duration of which must indeed
be ascribed to legend). — ard rij¢ dp. éx.] not equivalent to év rg dp. éx.
(viii. 14), but the thing begins to take place from that hour onward. Comp.
xv. 28, xvii. 18. ’Aré and év therefore express the same result, the instan-
taneous cure, in forms differing according to the manner in which the thing is
conceived.—According to Eusebius,' the woman’s name was Veronica,’ and
a Gentile belonging to Paneas, where she erected a statue to Jesus. How-
ever, see Robinson, neuere Forsch. p. 587.

Ver. 28. The use of the lugubrious strains of flutes (and horns), such as
accompanied the funerals of the Jews,* was known also among Greeks and
Romans. — dy/ov] consisting partly of the women hired to mourn, partly of
the friends and relations of the president. — 6opvfotu.| did not require an
article, as being a mere qualifying attribute. Therefore 6opvZ. is not, with
Fritzsche, Ewald, to be referred to iddy.

Vv. 24, 25. The maid is not to be regarded as being permanently dead, but
only as sleeping and certain to come to life again, like one who awakens out of
sleep. Thus, from the standpoint of His own purpose, does Jesus clearly
and confidently speak of her actual death.‘ It is wrong to found upon
these words the supposition of a mere apparent death (Paulus, Schleiermacher,
Olshausen, Ewald, Schenkel ; Weizsiicker, without being quite decided).
See, on the other hand, John xi. 4, 11. This hypothesis is as incompatible
with the view of the evangelists as it is inconsistent with a due regard to
the character of Jesus.* Keim, again, hesitates to accept the idea of an un-
real death, yet continues to harbor doubts as to the historical character of
the narrative. He thinks that, at least, the firm faith of the president may
be accounted for by the later hopes of Christianity, which may have prompted
the desire to see, in the risen Christ, the future restorer of the dead already
manifesting Himself as such in His earthly ministry,—a matter in connection
with which the statement in xi. 5 and the paralle? of Elias and Elisha (1
Kings xvii. 17 ; 2 Kings iv. 8, 18. Comp. Strauss) also fall to be consid-
ered. Surely, however, a legendary anticipation of this sort would have
been far more fertile in such stories | Then, apart even from the raising of
Lazarus related by John, we have always (xi. 5) to show how hazardous it
must he to relegate to the region of myths those cases in which Jesus raises
the dead, considering what a small number of them is reported. — é£eBA#Ay]
Comp. xxi. 12. The request to retire (avayupetre, ver. 24) not having been
complied with, a thrusting out follows. Marki. 48 ; Acts ix. 40.—Notice in
eioeANv (viz. into the chamber of death) the noble simplicity of the concise
narrative. — rd xopaccov] See Lobeck ;* on 7 ¢fun, Wyttenbach."

1H £. vil. 17. 4“ Certus ad miraculum accedit,” Bengel.
3 Evang. Nicod. in Thilo. I. p. 3861. ® See Krabbe, p. 827 ff.
* Lightfoot on this passage; Geler, de © ad Paryn. p. 74.

luctu Hebr. v.$ 16; Grundt, die Trauerge- 7 ad Julian. Or. I. p. 159, Lps.

brduche d. Hebr. 1868.

CHAP. IX., 27-34. 203

Vv. 27, 28. Abo rvgiof]’ Matthew alone records the two miracles, vv.
27-84, but it is rash to regard them (Holtzmann) as a literary device in an-
ticipation of xi. 5. The title ‘‘son of David” is surely conceivable enough,
considering the works already done by Jesus, and so cannot serve as a ground
for regarding the healing of the blind man here recorded as a variation of
xx. 29 ff. (Wilke, Bleek, Weiss, Keim). — rapcy. as ver. 9. — ei¢ r. oixiav] in
which Jesus resided. Comp. ver. 10.

Ver. 30. f. "AvegyOnoav . . . dpOaApoi] they recovered their power of seeing.*
—éveBpiutOn (see the critical remarks) : He was displeased with them, and said
(see on John xi. 33). The angry tone (Mark i. 48) of the prohibition is due
to the feeling that an unsuccessful result was to be apprehended. Tosuch a
feeling correspond the strict terms of the prohibition : take care to let no one
know it ! — dtephutoav, x.r.A.] ‘‘ propter memoriam gratiae non possunt tacere
beneficium,” Jerome. éfeAévrec : out of the house. Ver. 28. Paulus, not-
withstanding the context, interprets : out of the town. See also ver. 82,
where airév éfepxouévuv can only mean: whilst they were going out from
Jesus, out of His house.

Vv. 82, 38.° Avrav] Placed first for sake of emphasis, in contrast to the
new sufferer who presents himself just as they are going out. — ig¢éy7 obruc]
é¢avy is impersonal, as in Thucyd. vi. 60. 2,‘ so that the general ‘‘ i” isto be
regarded as matter for explanation.” What the matter in question specially
is, comes out in the context ; vv. 33, 34, éx@aAAe ra dasuéria. Therefore to
be taken thus : never has it, viz., the casting out of demons, been displayed in
such a manner among the Israelites. According to Fritzsche, Jesus forms the
subject ; never had He shown Himself in so illustrious a fashion.* But in that
case, how is év r@ "Iopa4A to be explained ? Formerly it was usual to inter-
pret thus : ofrwe stands for rovro or rosovré rt, like the Hebrew ]2 (1 Sam.
xxilil. 17). A grammatical inaccuracy ; in all the passages referred to as
cases in point (Ps. xlviii. 6; Judg. xix. 80; Neh. viii. 17), neither {2 nor
obrug Means anything else than thus, as in 1 Sam., loc. cit., nal Tacvad
tathp pov oldev obrwc : and Saul my father knows it thus. That false canon is
also to be shunned in Mark ii. 12.

Ver. 34. What a contrast to those plaudits of the people ! — év r¢ dpyovrs
rav datpoviey] His power to cast out demons originates in the prince of
demons ; everything depends on the Devil, he is the power through which he
works.”

1 paddévres, wept dy COavuarovpye, cai murred-
garres, avrov elva Troy mpocsoxwpmevoy Xpicror,
“having learned concerning the wonders
which He was working, and having be-
Heved that He was the long-looked-for Mes-
siah,”’ Euth. Zigabenus.

* Comp. John ix, 10; 2 Kings vi. 17; Isa.
xxx. 5, xifl. 7; Ps. exlvi. 8; Wetstein on
this passage.

* Holtzmann thinks that this story like-
wise owes its origin merely to an anticipa-
tion of xi. 5. According to de Wette,
Strauss, Keim, it is identical with the heal-

ing mentioned in xii. £2 ff. According to
various sources ‘“ marked as a duplicate”
(Keim) the demoniac, ch. xif., is blind and
dumb. And see note on xii. &.

¢ See Kroger in loc.

§See by all means Erfiger, § 61. 5. 6.
N&gelsbach, note on Jiias, p. 120, ed. 8

® Rettig in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1888, p. 788 f.

7 Comp. on é¢v, Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p.
607; Winer, p. 364 [E. T. 486] ; on 4 apyey fr,
Sa:u., Hv. Nicod. 28, where the devil is called
apxésdBodos ; see in addition, Thilo, p. 786

204 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 85. Here we have the commencement of a new section, which opens,
vv. 35-88, with the introduction to the mission of the Twelve, which intro-
duction has been led up to by the previous narratives. Comp. iv. 23-25. —
avrav}] Masculine. Comp. iv. 23, xi. 1.

Ver. 36. 'Iday dé] in the course of this journey. — rote 5xAove] who were
following Him — éoxvauévor] What is meant isnot a herd torn by wolves
(Bretschneider), which would neither suit the words nor be a fitting illus
tration of the crowds that followed Him ; but a dense flock of sheep which,
from having no shepherd, and consequently no protection, help, pasture, and
guidance, are in a distressing, painful condition (verati, Vulg.) ; and
épptupévor, not scattered (Luther, Beza, Kuinoel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek),
which is not the meaning of pixrecv, nor even neglecti,' like the German
weggeworfen (castaway),® which would be too feeble, coming after éoxvay. ; but
prostrati, thrown down, stretched upon the ground (frequently in the LXX. and
Apocrypha), like sheep exhausted, that are unable to walk any farther (Vulg. :
jacentes).* Jesus was moved with compassion for them, because they
happened to be in such a plight (essent ; notice how He has erpressed His
pity in this illustration), and then utters what follows about the harvest
and the laborers. We have therefore to regard zoxvau. and éppeup. as illus-
trations of spiritual misery, which are naturally suggested by the sight of
the exhausted and prostrate multitudes (that had followed Him for a long
distance).—The form éppizpévo: (Lachm. with spir. len.) is found only in D.*‘

Vv. 37, 38. The pyafyrai in the more comprehensive sense. The Twelve are
expressly specified in x. 1 immediately following. — 6 pév Oepropoc, x.7.A] The
literal (John iv. 835) meaning of which is this : Great is the multitude of people
that may be won for the Messiah's kingdom, and that is already ripe for being 80,
but small the number of teachers qualified for this spiritual work ; pray God
therefore, and so on. Luke x. 2 connects those words with the mission of the
Seventy. They are as appropriate in the one case as in the other, and in
both cases (according to Bleek, only in Luke x. 2) were actually used by
Jesus. But to infer from the ilustration of the harvest what season of the year
it happened to be at the time (Hausrath, Keim), is very precarious, consider-
ing how the utterances of Jesus abound with all sorts of natural imagery,
and especially considering that this present simile was frequently employed.
— defOyre, x.7.A.] 80 entirely was He conscious that His work was the same
as a work of God, John iv. 84. — éxBdéAy] force them out, a strong expression
under the conviction of the urgent necessity of the case. Comp. note on
Mark i. 12.

1 Soph. Aj. 1250. 508; and for the usual spir. asp., Gdtt'ing,

®* Kypke, Fritzsche, de Wette. Accentil. p. 205. On the form épeupévor,

* Comp. Xenoph. Mem. fli. 1.7: Herodian, adopted by Tischendorf after B C &, etc.,
ii. 12. 18, vi. 8. 15; Polyb. v. 48. 5. consult Kuhbner, I. p. 908.

4 See Lobeck, Pural. p. 18; Kthner, I. p.

CHAP. X. 205

CHAPTER X.

Ver, 2. Tisch. 8 has xai before ’IdxwPoc, only according to B &* Syr. — Ver.
3. Ae33. 6 éxcxd, Oadd.] Fritzsche : Oadd. 6 éxixd, Ae3B., only according to 18,
346. Changed because Oadd. is really the proper noun.! — Ver. 4. xavavirnc]
the form xavavaioc (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested. — Ver. 8. xaGapifere]
Elz. inserts vexpove éyeipere, which words Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 (so B C*
D ®&) place after Oeparevere, while Fritzsche puts them after éxGé2Aere. Cor-
rectly struck out by Scholz and Tisch. 7. For besides being suspicious, owing
to their omission in C*** EF G KL MSU VXTITI and very many Curss.,
also several versions and Fathers,—a suspicion that is heightened by their di-
versity of position in the unquestionably important authorities which witness
in their favour,—they have the appearance of being an interpolation, which, in
accordance with the apostolic narrative (Acts ix. 20 ff.), seemed necessary by
way of completing the list of miraculous powers that had been conferred. Had
the words been original, their contents would in any case have contributed
much more to preserve them than to cause their omission. — Ver. 10. fufdor]
CEFGKLMPSUVXAITI Curss. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. Theoph. have JéGdovuc.
Adopted by Scholz and Tisch. Altered because of the preceding plurals, and
because what is spoken applies at the same time to a plurality of persons. —
éotc] should be deleted, see on Luke x. 7.— Ver. 19. The reading fluctuates
between zapadidwow (Elz. Tisch. 7), tapadaoovery, and mapadéorv (Tisch. 8, after
B E* 8 and Lachm.). The future is adopted from ver. 17; while the present,
which is best authenticated, and most in accordance with the sense, would be
easily transformed into the aorist by the omission, on the part of the tran-
scribers, of the middle syllable. — do6yoera: to Aadjoere] is not found in D L,
Curss. Arm. Codd. of It. Or. Cypr. and a few Verss. Bracketed by Lachm.
Ancient omission occasioned by the homoioteleuton. — Ver. 23. getyere ei¢ rv
dAAnv] Griesb. : gevyere ele tiv érépav, xdv ex radtn¢ diiKxwoww tude, gevyere ele riv
GAAny,* after D L, Curss. and some Fathers and Verss., however, with differ-
ences in detail. A continuous extension of the sentence. — Ver. 25. émexdAecay]
Elz. : éxdéAecav, against decisive testimony. Lachm. again (defended by Rettig
in Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 477 ff; Buttmann, ibid. 1860, p. 342 f.) has, instead of
the accusative, the dative rq oixodeoréry and oixaxoic, only after B*, which is to

1D, 122, Codd. quoted in Augustine, Hesy-
chius, Rufinus, have merely AeBBaios. BR,
17, 124, and several versions have only
@absaios. SO Lachm. I regard the simple
AeBBaios (with Tisch. and also Ewald) as the
original reading. The other readings are
derived from Mark ifi. 18, because of
the identity of Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus.
Comp. Bengel, Appar. crit. Had the simple
@aSSaios been the true one, it would have
been impossible to see how AeAfaios should

have been fnserted, seeing it does not occur
anywhere else in the New Testament. No
doubt D and Codd. of It., also Mark iff. 18,
have AeBfaior, but against testimony so de-
cisive that it appears to have come there
from our present passage.

2 Instead of the dAAny of the Received
text, Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following BN
88, 265, Or. Petr. Ath. have érdpay, which,
however, is undoubtedly connected with
the above interpolation.

206 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

be ascribed to a grammarian who took ixicaAziy as meaning to reproach. — Ver.
28. ¢oBeicbe] Elz., Fritzsche : goGnfjre, against decisive testimony. Adopted
from ver. 26. Likewise in ver. 31 we ought, with Lachm. and Tisch., to restore
goBeioGe in accordance with B DL X&, Curss, Or. Cyr. — dxoxrevdévrev} so also
Scholz, The croxrewévrev (B, Or.) of the Received text is condemned by
counter testimony as a grammatical correction. But although the form dzoxre-
vévrwy is supported by important testimony, yet we ought, with Lachm. and
Tisch., to follow C DUI ATI & and Curss. and adopt the Aeolic-Alexandrine
form anoxrevvévrwv (see Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 128), because arocrevévruy as a pres-
ent is nowhere found, while an aorist, if the verb had had that form, would
have been in this instance without meaning. — Ver. 33. The position xcayo atrév
(Beng. Lachm. Tisch. 8) is a mechanical alteration on account of ver. 32.

Ver. 1. Not the choosing, but merely the mission of the Twelve, is here
related ; Mark vi. 7; Luke ix. 1. The choosing (Mark iii. 14 ; Luke vi.
13 ; comp. also John vi. 70), which had taken place some time before,—
although a still earlier one, viz. that of the five (iv. 18 ff., ix. 9), is recorded,
—is assumed, as far as the complete circle of the Twelve, to be generally
known, which is certainly an omission on the part of the narrator.— éfovsiar]
Authority over unclean spirits. The following dore is epexegetical : so that
they would cast them out. But xa? Gepareierv, etc., is not dependent on dove
also, but on égovciay (1 Cor. ix. 5). Power was given to them both to cure
demoniacs and to heal those who suffered from natural disease as well ;
comp. ver. 8. The manner of imparting this power, whether through a
laying on of hands, or breathing on them (John xx. 22) through a symbolic
act (de Wette), or by communicating to them certain sacred words or signs,
or by certain movements of the hands (Ewald), or even by magnetic influ-
ences (Weisse), or by the mere effectual word of the Lord (which is more
likely, since nothing is specified), is not stated.—On the genitive, comp.
Mark vi. 7 ; John xviii. 2; Sir. x. 4.

Ver. 2. Addexa]* comp. xix. 28. On this occasion, when the mission is
understood to take place, it is precisely the designation drooréAwy (not oc-
curring elsewhere in Matthew, while in Mark it is found only in vi. 80) that
is made choice of, though doubtless also used by Jesus Himself (John xiii. 16 ;
Luke vi. 18), and from that circumstance it gradually came to be employed
as the distinguishing official title. — rpdro¢g Ziuwy] The first ie Simon. The
further numbering of them ceases, for Matthew mentions them in pairs.
The placing of Peter first in all the catalogues of the apostles (Mark iii.
16 ff. ; Luke vi. 14 ff.; Acts i. 18) is not accidental (Fritzsche), but is due to
the fact that he and his brother were looked upon as the rpwréxArrox (see,
however, John i. 41). This accords with the pre-eminence which he had
among the apostles as primus inter pares,* and which was recognized by
Jesus Himself. For that they were arranged in the order of their rank is
perfectly obvious, not only from the betrayer being uniformly put last, but

1 Theophylact : cara roy apcOpdy rev Sadexa «= 440; Luke viil. 45, ix. 82, xxif. 81 f.; John xxi.
dvdcy. 15; Acts {. 15, il. 14, v. 8f., vili 14, x. 5, xv.
3 xvi. 16 ff., xvil. 1, xxiv. 19, xxvil. 26, 37, 7: Gal. f. 18, fi. 7.

CHAP. x., 3. 207
also from the fact that in all the catalogues James and John, who along with
Peter were the Lord’s most intimate friends, are mentioned immediately
after that apostle (and Andrew). Moreover, a conjoint view of the four
catalogues of the apostles’ will confirm Bengel’s observation.? — 6 Aeyéy.
Tlérpoc] toho is called Peter,’ that was his usual apostolic name. — ’Avdpéac]
Greek name,‘ like Philippus below. Doubtless both originally had Hebrew
names which are not recorded.

Ver. 8. BapSodouaioc] "27 3, son of Tolmai, LXX. 2 Sam. xiii. 87,
patronymic. His proper name was Nathanael ; see note on John i. 46, and
Keim, II. p. 811. —Owpa¢] OR, Aidvyoc, twin (John xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2),
perhaps so called from the nature of his birth. In Eusebius and the Acts of
Thomas he is called * ’Ioidag Qwpuae 5 xai Aidvyoc. — 6 reAdvyc] In reference to
ix. 9 without any special object. — 6 row ’AAgaiov] Matthew’s father was like_
wise called Alphaeus (Mark ii. 14), but this is a different person ; see In-
troduction, sec. 1.— AeBBaioc] who must be identical with Judas Jacobi,*
Luke vi. 16 (comp. John xiv. 22), Acts i. 18; who, however, is not the
author of the New Testament epistle bearing that name. Leddaeus (the cour-
ageous one, from 24), according to our passage, had become his regular apos-
tolic name. According to Mark iii. 18, he had the apostolic name of Gad-
daiog (which must not be taken as the correct reading of the present pas-
sage ; see the critical notes), and it is in vain to inquire how this twofold
appellation has arisen. The name 7haddaeus, however, is not ‘‘ deflexio
nominis Judae, ut rectius hic distingueretur ab Iscariot,” ‘‘a bending of the
name Judas, so that he may be more correctly distinguished from Iscariot”
(Lightfoot, Wetstein), but the independent name ‘81, which is also cur-
rently used in the Talmud (Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Wetstcin). Thereis the
less reason to seek for an etymology of Oadd. such as will make the name
almost synonymous with Ac@f., as if from WH (which, however, signifies
mamma), or even from “IY, one of the names of God, and meaning potens
(Ebrard). For the apocryphal but ancient Acts of Lebbaeus, see Tischen-
dorf.’ According to these, he received the name Oaddaiog when John the

2 Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 805 ff., Bleek,
Ketm.

2“ Universi ordines habent tres quater-
niones, quorum nullus cum alio quicquam
permutat ; tum in primo semper primus est
Petrus, in secundo Philipnus... in tertio
Jacobus Alphaei ; in singulis ceteri apostoli
loca permutant; proditor semper extre-
mus,” “All the arrangements contain
three divisions of four each, of which no
one changes any name with either of the
others : then in the first Peler is always the
first, in the second Philip... in the third
James the Son of Aiphacus; in each division
of the four the other apostles vary thelr
places : the traitor is always last.”

* Schaeffer, Melet. p. 14.

* Found even in Herod. vi. 126.

5 See Thilo, p. 94 ff.

* On the relation of the genitive in Judas

Jacobi (not brother, but eon), see note on
Luke vi. 16; Acts 1 18 Comp. Nonnus,
John xiv. 22: "Iov8ac vide “IaxwBowo. The
view that this Judas isa different person
from Lebbaeus, and that he had succeeded
to the place rendered vacant, probably by
the death of Lebbaeus (Schlelermacher,
Ewald), cannot possibly be entertained, for
this reason, that in that case the statement
in Luke vi. 18 (ecAefduevos, etc.) would be
simply incorrect, which is not to be sup-
posed in connection with a matter so lm-
portant and generally known (Rufinas, in
Prag’.ad Origeninep.ad Rom.). Accord-
ing to Strauss, only the most prominent of
the Twelve were known, while the others
had places assigned them in conformity
with the various traditions that prevalled.
1 Acta ap. apocr. p. 261 ff.

208 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Baptist baptized him, and was previously known by the name of Lebdbaeus.
This is in accordance with the reading of the Received text in the case of
the present passage, and with the designation in the Constit. apost.,’—a cir-
cumstance which, at the same time, goes to show that the name of the apos-
tle as given in Mark is to be preferred to that found in Matthew.

Ver. 4. ‘0 xavavaiog] see the critical remarks. Luke calls him (7Adérq¢, the
(quondam) zealot.* Zealots were a class of men who, like Phinehas (Num.
xxv. 9), were fanatical defenders of the theocracy ; and who, while taking
vengeance on those who wronged it, were themselves frequently guilty of
great excesses ; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 67 f. But the 6 Kavavaiog (or
Kavavirnc, according to the Received text) is not to be explained in this
way, inasmuch as this form of the epithet is derived from the name of some
place or other : the Canaanite, or Cananaean ; comp. Kavavirg¢ in Strabo,
xiv. 5, p. 674 (ad xéune tevoc). It cannot be derived from the town of Cana
in Galilee (Luther, Calovius) ; in that case it would require to have taken
the form Kavaioc, just as the inhabitants of Kévac in Aeolis* were called
Kavaio.‘ This enigmatical name is to be explained from the fact that, in
accordance with his previous character, Simon bore the surname *)%Jp,
C7AGrnc, & name which was correctly interpreted by Luke ; but, according
to another tradition, was erroneously derived from the name of a place, and
accordingly came to be rendered 4 Kavavaioc. —’loxapidryc] nvap we a
native of Karioth, in the tribe of Judah.* ‘Iorofog (210 WR). There is no
evidence that he was the only one that did not belong to Galilee (which has
induced Ewald to think that the place in question is the town of TP
(Josh. xxi. 84) in the tribe of Zebulon. The proposal of Lightfoot, to
derive either from M'O)POR, leather apron, or from RIOR, strangulation, is
indeed recommended by de Wette ; but like the interpretation Dp WR,
man of lies (Paulus, Hengstenberg), it is not suited to the Greek form of the
word ; nor are de Wette’s or Hengstenberg’s objections to the ordinary
explanation of the name to be regarded as unanswerable. — 6 xa? rapadois
abvrév] who also delivered him over (not betrayed, in which case we should have
had mpodoic). A tragic reminiscence, and ever present to the mind! Kaé
has the force of gui idem.‘

Vv. 5 ff. From this on to ver. 42 we have the instructions to the Twelve;
comp. Mark vi. 8 ff., and especially Luke ix. 8 ff. As in the case of the
Sermon on the Mount, so on this occasion also, Luke’s parallels are irregular
in their connection (in ch. ix. connected with the mission of the Twelve, in
ch. x. with the mission of the Seventy). But this is only an additional
reason (in answer to Sieffart, Holtzmann) why the preference as respects
essential originality—a preference, however, which in no way excludes the
idea of the proleptical interweaving of a few later pieces—should also in
this instance be given to Matthew, inasmuch as the contents of the passage

1 AcBBatos 4 émixAndeis @ad8aios, 6. 14. 1, 8. ® Strabo, xiii. 1, p. 581.
25. ¢ Parmenides in Athen. 8, p. 76 A.

* Lake vi. 15; Acts 1. 18; Chald. Ra § Josh. xv. 25; Joseph. Ante, vil. 6. 1.
Hebr. NI); Ex. xx. 5, xxxiv. 14; Deut. lv. * Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636.
4.

CHAP. X., 5-7. 209

now before us are undoubtedly taken from his collection of our Lord’s
sayings. — The mission itself, to which Luke xx. 35 points back, and which
for this very reason we should be the less inclined to regard as having taken
place repeatedly (Weisse, Ewald), was intended as a preliminary experiment
in the independent exercise of their calling. For how long? does not appear.
Certainly not merely for one day (Wieseler), although not exactly for
several months (Krafft). According to Mark vi. 7, they were sent out by
twos, which, judging from Luke x. 1, Matt. xxi. 1, is to be regarded as
what originally took place. As to the result, Matthew gives nothing in the
shape of an historical account.

Ver. 5. With the Gentiles (sddv tOvav, way leading to the Gentiles, Acts
ii, 28, xvi. 17 ; Kiihner, I. 1, p. 286) Jesus associates the Samaritans, on
account of the hostility which prevailed between the Jews and the Samari-
tans. The latter had become intermixed during the exile with Gentile
colonists, whom Shalmaneser had sent into the country (2 Kings xvii. 24),
which caused the Jews who returned from the captivity to exclude -them
from any participation in their religious services. For this reason the
Samaritans tried to prevent the rebuilding of the temple by bringing ac-
cusations against them before Cyrus. Upon this and upon disputed ques-
tions of a doctrinal and liturgical nature, the hatred referred to was
founded.’ In accordance with the divine plan of salvation (xv. 24), Jesus
endeavors, above all, to secure that the gospel shall be preached, in the
first instance, to the Jews (John iv. 22) ; so, with a view to the energies of
the disciples being steadily directed to the foremost matter which would
devolve upon them, He in the meantime debars them from entering the
field of the Gentiles and Samaritans. This arrangement (if we except hints
such as vill. 11, xxi. 48, xxii. 9, xxiv. 14) He allows to subsist till after His
resurrection ; then, and not till then, does He give to the ministry of the
apostles that lofty character of a ministry for all men (Matt. xxviii. 19 f. ;
Acts i. 8), such as, from the first, He must have regarded His own to have
been (v. 13). The fact that Jesus Himeclf taught in travelling’ through
Samaria (John iv.), appears to be at variance with the injunction in our
passage (Strauss); but this is one of those paradoxes in the Master’s pro-
ceedings about which the disciples were not to be enlightened till some
time afterwards. And what He could do, the disciples were not yet equal
to, so that, in the first place, they were called upon only to undertake the
lighter task.

Vv. 6, 7. Ta wpéBata . . . "IopasA] the members of Israel, the family of
Israel (Lev. x. 6 ; Ex. xix. 8), the theocratic nation, who were alienated
from the divine truth and the divine life, and so were found wandering in
error, like sheep without a shepherd. Comp. xv. 24. And such sheep
(ix. 86) were they al, seeing that they were without faith in Him, the
heaven-sent Shepherd. For the figure generally, comp. Isa. liii. 6 ; Jer.
1. 8; Ezek, xxxiv, 5, Ver. 7. #yyixev, «.1.4.] being precisely the same

2 Sir. 1. 95 ff.; Lightfoot, p. 827 f.

210 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

terms as those in which Jesus Himself (iv. 17), and the Baptist before
Him, had commenced their preaching (iii. 2).

Vv. 8, 9. Awpedy . . . dére] with reference to the miraculous gifts just men-
tioned, not to the teaching, for which, as a matter of course, nothing was to
be asked in return except the bare necessaries of life, ver. 10 (1 Cor. ix. 4 ff.).
— iAdBere] refers back to ver. 1. —? xrhonobe] you must not provide for your-
selves. — The girdle, which holds together the loose upper robe, served the
double purpose of keeping money as well, the different kinds of which are,
in the order of their value, denoted by ypvodv, apyvpov, xadxdv.' Therefore
ei¢ r. €. &. : in your girdles, is depending on xrgo.

Ver. 10. M#] 8. xrhonofle, with which ei¢ ddév is to be connected. Ilfpa, a
bag slung over the shoulder, see Duncan, Lev. Hom. ed. Rost, 8. 0. — dbo
xitavac] two under-garments, either with a view to wear both at one time
(Mark vi. 9), or only one while carrying the other with them in case of need.
— irodfuara] namely, forthe requirements of the journey, besides the pair
already in use. The question whether, as Lightfoot and Salmasius think, it
is shoes in the strict sense of the word * that are here meant, or whether it is
ordinary cavdé2.a (Mark vi. 9), is, judging from the usual Oriental mode of
covering the feet, to be decided in favor of the sandals, which the Greeks
also called by the same name as that in the text.* — pundit bafdov] nor a staff
to carry in the hand for support and self-defence (Tob. v. 17), an unimpor-
tant variation from Mark vi. 8. — d&coc yap, x.7.2.] @ general proposition, the
application of which is of course evident enough. Free and unembarrassed
by any tAccae gpovridos, eig pdviy d2 BAkrovrec tiv tyyetpiofleicay airoic dtaxoviav,
‘‘ worldly care, but looking to the ministration alone which was entrusted
to them” (Euth. Zigabenus), such as is represented by the matters just
specified, they are to rely upon God’s care of them, who will cause them to
realize in their own experience how true it is that the laborer is worthy of
His support.

Ver. 11. "Agcoc] according to what follows : worthy to provide you lodging
at his house.‘ Jesus forbids the apostles to indulge in a fickle and frequent
shifting of their quarters asa thing unbecoming thcir office, and as calculat-
ed to interfere with the steady progress of their labors. And Le directa
them to go to private houses, not to the synagogues nor to the market-places,
seeing that they were unaccustomed to making public appearances, but also
out of regard to the importance of domestic efforts.

Ver.12. Eig rv otxiay] This does not mean the house at which you arrive
(de Wette), but that which belongs to him whom, on inquiry, you find to be
worthy of you (ver. 11), and where, if the owner is worthy, you are to stay
until you remove to another locality. The article is definite as referring to
naxei, —Goracaote avtiy] Euth. Zigabenus : érebyeode eipfuqv airy, tho usual
form of salutation, 77 DYOW, Gen. xl. 283 ; Judg. xix. 20 ; Luke x. 5.

Ver. 18. ’Agia] not ‘‘bonis votis, quae salute dicenda continebuntur”

1 Rosenmiller, Morgent. V. p. 88 f. infamia deturpetur,’’ “ Let not the worthi-
2 veodhpara xoida, Becker, Charici. p. 221. ness of preaching be disfigured by ill report
* Pollux, VII. 85 ff. i of him who undertakes {t,”” Jerome.

«Ne praedicationis dignitas suscipientis

CHAP. X., 14-16. 211
(Fritzsche), but, as in ver. 11, worthy of your remaining in it. It should be
noticed that 7 and ,») 7 are put first for sake of emphasis ; and should the
house be worthy, then come, and so on ; but if it 4s not a worthy one, then,
and so on. In this way the reference of déco¢ remains unchanged. —iAséro]
shall come, that is my will. — } eiphvy tua] the blessings brought by you by way
of salutation. — pd¢ tuas émcorpaggra).’ An expression which represents the
idea to the senses. Isa. xlv. 28, Ix. 11.

Ver. 14. Kai &¢ éav, x.7.A.] The nominative is a case of anacoluthon, and
placed at the beginning, so as to be emphatic, as in vii. 24 : Whosoever will
not have received you. . . as you quit that house or that town, shake, and 80 on.
— épyeoba, with a simple genitive (Acts xvi. 89).* The é&, which Lach-
mann, Tischendorf 8. insert (B D &), is a gloss upon what is a rare con-
struction in the New Testament. Notice the present participle, thereby
meaning ‘‘ upon the threshold,” and relatively ‘‘ at the gate.” — 7] or, should
a whole town refuse to receive you and listen to you. The shaking off the
dust is a sign of the merited contempt with which such people are reduced to
the level of Gentiles, whose very dust is defiling.* This forcible meaning of
the symbolical injunction is not to be weakened ;* de Wette: ‘‘ Have noth-
ing further to do with them ;” Ewald : ‘‘ Calmly, as though nothing had hap-
pened ;” on the contrary, it is strengthened by ver. 15. Comp. vii. 8.

Ver. 15. T'9 Lod., x.1.A.] the land (those who once inhabited the land) where
Sodom and Gomorrah stood, The truth of this asseveration is founded on the
principle in morals, that the more fully the will of God is proclaimed (Luke
xii. 47 ; Matt. xi. 20 ff.), the greater the guilt of those who resist it.
Notice how the resurrection of the wicked also is here assumed (John v.
29); observe likewise how Jesus’ words bespeak the highest Messianic self-
consciousness.

Ver. 16. "Idot] Introduces demonstratively the thought for which vv. 14,
15 have prepared the way. Such forms of address as ido, dye, etc., fre-
quently occur in the singular in classical writers also, and that, too, where
it is a question of plurality (xviii. 31, xxvi. 65 ; John i. 29; Acts xiii. 46).°
—iyé] here, as always, is emphatic (in answer to Fritzsche, de Wette,
Bleek) : Jt is Twho send you into the midst of such dangers ; conduct
yourselves, then, in such circumstances in a manner becoming those who
are my messengers ; be wise as serpents, and s0 on. —d¢ rpéfara ly ptow
Aixuv] tanquam oves, etc., t.¢., 80 that, as my messengers, you will be in the
position of sheep in the midst of wolves, Usually tv péow Abx. is made to
depend on azooréAAw, in which case éy, in accordance with its well-known
pregnant force,® would not only express the direction of the verb, but also
convey the idea of continuing in the position in question, while é¢ would
have the meaning of as. This is harsh, inasmuch as the azooréAdw, which

1 Eath. Zigabenus : water dvepyycére, ddAd
ratray ped’ davrioy AaBdvtes CEdAdere, ‘*‘ Let it
accomplish nothing, but having received
this with your own selves, depart.”

* Kohner, IL 1, p. 846.

* Lightfoot, p. 881 f.; Mischna Surenhusif,
VL p. 151; Wetatein on this passage ; Acts

xiif. 61, xvill. 6.

¢Grotius, Bleek: ‘‘Nil nobis yvobiscum
ultra commerciil est.

§ See Bremi, ad Dem, Philipp. L 10, p. 119,
Goth.

¢ Bernhardy, p. 206 f.

212 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

occurs so often In the New Testament, is in no other instance (in Luke iv.
19 it isan abstract expression) used in such a local sense. Moreover, év péoy
gives more striking prominence to the danger than the simple év. — axépar-
og].2 In view of the dangerous circumstances in which they would be
placed, Jesus asks of them to combine (a combination to be realized under
the direction of the Holy Spirit, as in ver. 19) prudence (in the recognition
of danger, in the choice of means for counteracting it, in regard to their
demeanor in the midst of it, and so on) with uprightness, which shuns
every impropriety into which one might be betrayed in the presence of the
dangers referred to, and therefore refrains from thinking, choosing, or doing
anything of a questionable nature in connection with them.*—The loftiest
example of this combination is Jesus Himself ; while among the apostles, so
far as we know them, the one who ranks highest in this respect is Paul.

Ver. 17. Aé] denoting continuation of this same matter: ‘‘ But in order
to comply with this injunction (usually the wisdom alone is arbitrarily sup-
posed to be referred to), be on your guard, and soon.” The passage that
now follows on to ver. 23 originally formed part (comp. Mark xiii. 9 ff.) of
the eschatological utterances, but the connection in which it now stands
was probably that in which it was already met with in the collection of
our Lord’s sayings. Comp. xxiv. 9-18; Luke xxi. 12 ff. Then again,
taken in detail, the different portions of this address, as given by Matthew,
possess the advantage of originality.*— amd trav avOpéruv) The article is not
meant to indicate men who are hostile (ver. 16, Erasmus, Fritzsche), who
must have been indicated in some other way than by the simple article (by
t&v towbter, or such like), or by the general expression dvOpéruv ; but it is
to be understood generically : men in general, taken as @ whole, are conceived
of as hostile, in accordance with the idea of that xécyoc to which the disciples
do not belong (John xv. 19), and by which they are hated (John xvii. 14).
—omédpia] taken generally, tribunals in general. —év raig owvay.] That
scourging also belonged to the synagogal forms of punishment, as a matter
of synagogue discipline, is placed beyond a doubt by the New Testament.‘
The evidence from Rabbinical literature is doubtful.

Ver. 18. Kat. . . dé] and. . . but (always separated except in the epic
poets), is of the nature of a climax, introducing still another circumstance,
whereupon dé follows this new and emphasized thought.* — #yeudvac] com-
prises the three kinds of provincial chicf magistrates, propraetors, proconsuls,
and procurators.* — cic papripiov . . . svecw] as a testimony to them and to the
Gentiles, i.e., those wrongs and that violent treatment have this as their
object, that (through your confession and demeanor) a testimony regarding
me may be given to the Jews and the Gentiles.‘ Let it be observed ; (1) that

1 Etym. M.: 6 wh xexpayewos xaxois, add’
a&wdovs xai awoixtAos, “one not mixed with
evil, but plain and simple.’’ Comp. Rom.
xvi. 19, Phil. ii. 15, common in classical au-
thors ; see Rubnken, ad Z¥m. p. 18.

2 For Rabbinical passages bearing on the
wisdom of the serpent (Gen. lif. 1) and the

innocence of the dove (Hos. vii 11), see ©

Schoettgen.

3 Comp. Weizsiicker, p. 160 ff.

* See, besides the Synoptists, Acts xxiL
19, xxvi. 11 ; 2 Cor. xi. 24.

* Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 181 f.; Klotz, ad
Devar. p. 645; Baoumlein, Parfik. p. 148 f.

* Fischer, de vit. Lex. N.T. p. 483 ff.

7 Comp. villi. 4, xxiv. 14.

CHAP. X., 19-22, 213

it is arbitrary to refer ei¢ papriproy, as is usually done, merely to the last
point, xai éri jyeudvac, etc., seeing that everything, in fact, from rapaddécovoy
onwards, belongs to one category and has one common aim ; (2) that
avroic, therefore, cannot point to the syeudvac and Baoreic, to whom it is
commonly referred (Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek), though not in keeping
with the distinction expressed by xa? roi¢ é6veorv, for the truth is, the pro-
curators and kings were Gentiles also ; but that, as is at once suggested to
the reader by this adding on of xai roi¢ éveorv, it rather refers to the Jews
(Maldonatus, Bengel, Lange, Hilgenfeld, Schegg, following Theophylact),
who (avrav, ver. 17) are the active subjects of rapaddécovar, paorrydooverv, and
partly also of ay@jocoGe ; (8) that, according to the context, roi¢- fvecwv, to
the Gentiles, refers to the jyeudvac and Baotreic and their Gentile environment ;
(4) and lastly, that the further reference of napripcov is to be gathered from
Evexev Exod : a testimony of me, regarding my person and work. The dative
case, however, is that of reference as regards the yapripiov ; to define more
specifically would be an unwarrantable liberty. This is applicable to the
view adopted since Chrysostom : ei¢ Aeyxov avrév (Theophylact, Euth. Zig-
abenus, Erasmus, Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel), although this is included in
that general reference.

Vv. 19, 20. But now, when the delivering of you up actually takes
place, give yourselves no anxious concern, and so on.—# rf] not xal ri,
but the distinctive expression used renders more fully prominent the two
elements, the how and the what.’ The difficulty, first of all, is with regard to
the xc ; observe, however, that in the sequel only ri is used.*— dofeerat]
not docebitur, but suggeretur, by God through the Holy Spirit, Isa. 1. 4 ; Eph.
vi. 19; 1 Cor. ii. 10 ff.; Luke xxi. 15.—Observe the difference between ri
2aAfonre and ri Aadgoere (what you ought to speak, and what you will speak).?
—ov . . . GAAd] In this decided, and not in any half and half way, does Jesus
conceive of that relation, in virtue of which His disciples were to become
rvevparixols tvevpatixa ovyxpivovres (1 Cor. ii. 18). — éoré] the future situation
is thought of as present.

Ver. 21. Comp. Mic. vii. 6. — éravacrfo.] not merely before the judges,
but generally. It is the expression in classical Greek for rebellious rising,‘
in Greek authors usually with the dative, also with éri rive. — @avardcovoi]
take away life (xxvi. 59), i.¢., bring about their execution. A vivid expression.
Comp. also xxvii. 1. The reason of this hostile treatment is self-evident,
but may be further seen from ver. 22.

Ver. 22. ‘Yd xévrwv] Popular way of expressing the universal character
of the hatred.—did 1rd dvouzd pov] because you confess and preach it.°—
tropeivac] whoscever will have persevered in the confessing of my name.

1 Dissen, ad Dem. decor. p. %4, in which Dion. p. 38,
“eleganter notatur cura” (Benge)). § Tertullian, Apol. 2; ‘‘Torquemur confi-
2“Ubi 16 quid obtigit, ré quomodo non _tenteset punimur perseverantes et absolvi-
deest,” “where the what is supplied te mur negantes, quia nominis proelium est,”

how is not wanting,” Bengel. “We are tortured for confessing, and pun-
3 For this use of ri, see Bernhardy, p. 448. ished for persisting, and absolved for deny-
Kahner, IT. 2, p. 1016. ing, because the contest is about our

4 dsavdorags, 2 Kings ill.4; Kriiger, ad mame.”

214 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

This is to be inferred from did rd dvoud pov. Comp. note on xxiv. 13. —ei¢
téAoc].? Others think that the end of life is meant, or (as also Bleek) mingle
together a variety of references. Contrary to ver. 23. — odfecfa:] obtain
the blessedness of the Messianic kingdom.

Ver. 23. Tavrg and ry dAAyv are to be understood derixég. Jesus points
with the finger in the direction of various towns. Your sphere is large
enough to admit of your retreating before persecution in order to save others.
—yép] A ground of encouragement for such perseverance. — ov yi reAéonre,
x.T.A.] You will not have completed your visits to the towns of the people of
Israel ; 7.¢., you will not have accomplished in all of them your mission,
associated as it will be with such flights from town totown.* The jnter-
pretation : to bring to Christian perfection (Maldonatus, Zeger, Jansen, fol-
lowing Hilary ; Hofmann),* is an erroneous makeshift, by way of removing
the second coming farther into the future. Observe that here, too, as in ver.
5, the apostolic ministry is still confined to Israel. — uc dv 248y] until the Son
of man will have come, i.e., the Messiah, such as He has been promised in
Daniel’s vision (viii. 20), who will then put an end to your troubles, and re-
ceive you into the glory of His kingdom. Jesus means neither more nor
less than His second coming (Matt. xxiv.), which He announces even at this
early stage, and as being so near, that xxiv. 14, and even xvi. 28, are not to be
reconciled with this view. Different elements of the tradition, which, in
the course of experience, came to view the prospect as more remote, —a tradi-
tion, however, that was still the product of the existing yeved (xxiv. 84, xiv.
28). The interpretations which explain away the final coming, content them-
selves, some with the idea of a vague coming after or coming to their help ;* others
with the coming through the Holy Spirit (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Bleek),
or with supposing that the, as yet too remote, destruction of Jerusalem is re-
ferred to (Michaelis, Schott, Gldckler, Ebrard, Gess); and others, again,
explaining it allegorically of the victory of Christ's cause (Baumgarten-
Crusius). On the prediction of the second coming itself, see on ch. xxiv.

Ver. 24. Similarly, what follows from here on to the close consists of
anticipations of later utterances. Comp. as far as ver. 83; Luke xii. 1 ff.,
and from ver. 84 onward ; Luke xii. 49 ff.—Do not be surprised at such
intimations beforehand of the sad troubles that await you ; for (as the prov-
erb has it) you need not expect a better fate than that which befalls your
Lord and Master. Comp. John v. 20 ; Rabbinical passages in Schoettgen,
p. 98.

Ver. 25. 'Apxerdv to pabyrg, iva, x.r.2.] It 18 enough for the disciple he should
be as his Master, i.e., let him satisfy himself with being destined to share the
same fate ; a better he cannot claim. For iva, comp. John vi. 29 and the
note upon it. — xa? 6 dotvAoc, «.7.4.] by attraction for nai rH dobAy, iva yévytar

1 Usque ad finem horum malorum (Theophy-
lact, Beza, Fritzsche).

2Comp. the analogous use of awey
(Raphel, Krebs, Loesner, on this passage),
explere, in Tibull. 1. 4.69 (Heyne, Odse. p. 47);
consummare, in Flor. {, 18. 1 (see Ducker on

the passage).

9 Welesag. u. Erfilll. Il. p. 267 f.

4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Ziga-
benus, Beza, Kuinoel; even Origen and
Theodoret, Heracleon in Cramer’s Caé. p.
78.

CHAP, X., 26, 27. - 215

oc é Kip. abrov.'— BeeAfeBobA, name of the devil, which the majority of mod-
ern critics (Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek, Grimm) agree, with Light-
foot and Buxtorf, in deriving from 5”3 and ai, dominus stercoris, an expres-
sion intended to designate with loathing the prince of all moral impurity. It
is supposed, at the same time, that the name Beelzedud, the Philistine god

' of flies, by being changed into Beelzedul (god of dung), came to be employ-

ed, in a jocular way, as a name for the devil. See below on the reading
BeeAleBotB. But, as against the meaning god of dung, there is (1) the form
of the name itself, which, if derived from 521, should have been spelt Beed-
(aff, or BeeAléBea, according to the analogy of ’Ie{af4A Orr), or "lela Ber
(Rev. ii. 20). (2) The fact that Jesus’ own designation of Himself as oixo-
deoxérn¢ is evidently chosen with reference to the meaning of BeeAlefobd, as
indeed is clear from deoréry¢= oy, and that, accordingly, the name BeeALeBota
must contain something corresponding to olxoc as well. This being so, it is
preferable to derive the word from °y3 and aa, a dwelling,* according to
which the devil, as lord of his domain, in which the evil spirits dwell, was
called Dominus domicilii (but neither tartari, as Paulus, nor domicilii coelestia,
as Hilgenfeld, Keim, suppose). Jesus was, in relation to His disciples (rod¢
cixtaxove abrov), the Herus domesticus, 1°37) 23 ;* but, in malicious jest, they
applied to Him the corresponding name of the devil: Herus Domicilit.
Jerome wrote BeeAfeBob8, from 3131, musca, i.e., Dominus muscarum. Such
was the name given to a fortune-telling divinity of the Ekronites (2 Kings
i. 2, 16), which during an illness was consulted by King Ahaziah, and to
which, in connection with the very ancient heathen worship of flies, was
ascribed the dominion over those insects, and which therefore was supposed,
at the same time, to have the power of averting this scourge of the East.‘
But critical testimony most decidedly preponderates in favour of the read-
ing BeeAfeBoba, which might easily have been changed into BeeAfeBotB, on
account of what is found in 2 Kings i.; and the greater the correspond-
ence between the meaning of the former name and that of oixodeoréryc, it is
also the more likely to be the correct form. — That the Jews really called
Jesus BeeAfeBobA, is not elsewhere stated in any of the Gospels, though from
our present passage the fact cannot be doubted, while is it probably con-
nected with the accusation in ix. 84, xii. 34, though going rather further.
Vv. 26; 27. Otv] inference from vv. 24, 25: since, from the relation in
which, as my disciples, you stand to me as your Master, it cannot surprise
you, but must only appear as a necessary participation in the same fate, if
they persecute you.—The yép which follows, then, conjoins with the 7) ¢of.
avr, a further awakening consideration—that, namely, which arises out of the
victorious publicity which the gospel is destined to attain ; whereupon is

' added, in ver. 27, the exhortation—an exhortation in keeping with this

divine destiny of the gospel—to labor boldly and fearlessly as preachers of
that which He communicates to them in private intercourse. This addition

1 Winer, p. 583 (E. T. 788]. § Buxtorf, Lex. Talim. p. 888.
7 Gusset, Michaelis, Paulus, Jahn, Hitzig, 4Plin. W. H. x. 28; Pausan. viii. 26, 27;
Prilistder, p. 814; Hilgenfeld, Volkmar. Aelian. H. A. v. 17; Solin. Polyh. 1.

216 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

is the more emphatic from there being no connecting particle to introduce
it, The thought, ‘‘elucescet tandem orbi vestra sinceritas,” ‘‘ your sincer-
ity shall shine forth at length to the world,” which others (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Theodoret, Heracleon in Cramer’s Cat., Erasmus, Grotius,
Beza) have found in ver. 26, as well as the reference to the judgment (Hil-
genfeld), are equally at variance with the context, as seen in ver. 27. For
the figurative contrasting of oxoria and ¢éc, in the case of Aéyew and such
like, comp. Soph. PAil. 578, and Wunder én loc.; for cic r. ovc, also a
common expression among classical writers for what is told in confidence, see
Valckenaer, ad Kurip. Hipp. 932.

Ver. 28. Tov duvépevov. . . yeévvg] whois in position to consign body
and soul, at the day of judgment, to everlasting destruction in Gehenna.
Comp. v. 29. It is God that is meant, and not the devil (Olshausen, Stier).
Comp. Jas. iv. 12 ; Wisd. xvi. 13-15. — goBeioOa aré, as a rendering of ¥1)
}?, and expressing the idea of turning away from the object of fear, occurs
often in the LXX. and Apocrypha; the only other instance in the New
Testament is Luke xii. 4 ; not found in classical writers at all, though they
use ¢6Boc aré.'— paAAov] potius.*

Ver. 26. Further encouragement by pointing to the providence of God.
—orpoviia] The diminutive is used advisedly.* Two small sparrows for a
single farthing. The latter was one-tenth of a drachma, and subsequently
it was still less. It is also used by Rabbinical writers to denote the smallest
possible price of anything.‘ — xai] is simply and, and placed first in the
answer, which is, in fact, a continuation of the thought contained in the
question.* —év] a single. — reoeira: iri tr. yv] not spoken of the bird that is
caught in the snare or gin (Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus), but of
that which has dropped dead from the sky or the branches. — dvev] indepen-
dently of, without the interference ; the reading dvev rij¢ BovAge Tov warp. tu. 18
an old and correct gloss.°

Ver. 80. ‘Yyév dé] Put first by way of emphasis.” Poetical expression for
the providentia specialissima.*

Ver. 82 f. Tag otv, x.r.A.] Nominative, like ver. 14. —év éuoi] is neither
a Hebraism nor a Syriac mode of expression ; nor does it stand for the
dative of advantage ; nor does it mean through me (Chrysostom); but the
personal object of confession is conceived of as the one to whom the confes-
sion cleaves. Exactly as in Luke xii. 8. Similar to dyvbecv tv, v. 84.—In the
apodosis, notice the order : confess will I also him (as really one of mine, and

2 Xen. Cyr. lil. 8. 53; Polyb. il 35. 9, if 50.

2Euth. Zigabenus: ¢éfov oty axwcacde
O68, Toy Twv avdpwrewy Te Tou Geov, ‘ Thrust
away fear by fear, the fear of men by the
fear of God.”

* Comp. Ps. xi. 1, lxxxiv. 3; Aristot. H.
An. v. 2, ix. 7.

‘ Buxtorf, Lex. JZalm. p. 175, Lightfoot,
Schoettgen.

§ See Kfihner, ad Xen, Mem. ii. 10. 2.

* Comp. the classical expressions avev d<oi,

drep Seor, and sine Diis, Isa. xxxvi. 10.

7 Euth. Zigabenus aptly observes: ves
82 rocotrey core tipo, doTe nail wacas Yuu
tpixas Hpdunudvas elvas wapd Geov .. . xal
Aewrronepes olde wdvra ra cad’ vas, ‘‘ You are
so worthy that even all the hairs of your
heads have been numbered by God... .
and He knows to the smallest particle all
that appertains to you.”

® Comp. Luke xxi. 18; Aots xxvil. 34; 1
Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam. xiv. 11; 1 Kings 1 &;
Plato, Legg. x. p. 900 C.

CHAP, X., 34-39. 217%

80 On). — Zutpocbev . . . ovpavoic] namely, after my ascension to the glory of
heaven as olv@povoc of the Father, xxvi. 64 ; comp. Rev. iii. 5. — Vv. 82
and 88 contain, as an inference from all that has been said since ver. 16, a
final observation in the form of a promise and a threatening, and expressed
in so general a way that the disciples are left to make the special application
for themselves.—The address, which is drawing to a close in ver. 88, pur-
sues still further the same lofty tone, and that in vivid imagery, in ver.
84, so full is Jesus of the thought of the profound excitement which He
feels He is destined to create.

Ver. 34. "HAGov Badeiv] The telic style of expression is not only rhetorical,
indicating that the result is unavoidable, but what Jesus expresses is a pur-
pose,—not the jinal design of His coming, but an intermediate purpose,—in
seeing clearly presented to His view the reciprocally hostile excitement as a
necessary transition, which He therefore, in keeping with His destiny as
Messiah, must be sent first of all té bring forth. — Badeiv] an instance of
geugma, in which the thought of a sword is the predominant one, after
which the verb also spontaneously suggested itself for cipfvzv, and all the
more naturally the more sudden and powerful was to be the excitement of
men’s minds, which He, instead of a comfortable peace, was to bring
about.

Vv. 85, 86. Comp. ver. 21. Involuntary recollection of Mic. vii. 6. '—
#ABov yép] solemn repetition. — diydoa:] to separate (Plat. Polit. p. 264 D),
i.6., to place & man in that attitude of party hostility (d:vooracia) toward his
father which results in their separation, and so on. — vinden : young wife (com-
mon in classical writers), specially in the sense of daughter-in-law (in the
LXX.). — xai éx@po, x.r.2.] imminent, as if already present : and a man's
enemies (are) the members of his own family ! éx6poi is a predicate.

Ver. 37. Demeanor in the midst of this excitement: the love of the
family on no account to take precedence of love to Christ, but quite the
reverse | The inalienable rights of family affection remain intact, but in
subordination to the love of Christ, which determines how far it is of a truly
moral nature. — pov d§:0¢] worthy to belong to me as his Lord and Master.
Comp. Luke xiv. 26.

Ver. 88. To take up his cross means, willingly to undergo the severe trials
that fall to his lot (2 Cor. i. 5; Phil. iii. 10). Figurative expression, bor-
rowed from the practice according to which condemned criminals were
compelled to take up their own cross and carry it to the place of execution ;
xxvii. 82.2 The form of this expression, founded as it is upon the kind of
death which Christ Himself was to die, is one of the indications of that
later period from which the passage from ver. 24 onward has been trans-
ferred to its present connection. Matthew himself betrays the prolepsis in
xvi. 24 f. ; comp. Mark viii. 84 ; Luke xiv. 27. —omiow pov : in conformity
with the Hebrew “N®,?

Ver. 89. Yvzfv and airq have no other meaning than that of soul (ii. 20,

1 Comp. also Sota xlix. 2, in Schoettgen. divin. i. 26; Valer. Max. xi. 7.
3 Luke xxill. 26; John xix. 16; Aitemid. *Comp., however, axoA, xardmw tivds,
iL. 56, p. 158; Plut. for. p.854 A; Cic. de Arist. Plu. xill.

218 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

vi. 25, ix. 28) ; but the point lies in the reference of the jinding and losing
not being the same in the first as in the second half of the verse. ‘‘ Whoever
will have found his soul (by a saving of his life in this world through deny-
ing me in those times when life is endangered), twill lose 4¢ (namely, through
the ardéAza, vii. 18, the eternal death at the second coming ; comp. Luke
ix. 24 f.) ; and whoever will have Jost his soul (through the loss of his life
in this world in persecution, through an act of self-sacrifice), will find it”
(at the resurrection to the eternal (u#); cwhhoera:, ver. 22.1 The jinding in
the jirst half, accordingly, denotes the saving of the yvz4#, when to all ap-
pearance hopelessly endangered from temporal death ; while, in the second,
it denotes the saving of the yy after it has actually succumbed to death,
The former is a finding that issues in eternal death ; the Jatter, one that
conducts to eternal life.

Vv. 40-42. Before concluding, the reassuring statement is added that :
In all such troubles you are to have the less hesitation in claiming to be entertained
and supported by believers ; the holier the deeds and the greater (in the Messianic
kingdom) the reward of those will prove to be who 80 receive and maintain you."

Ver. 41. A general expression, the special reference of which to the dis-
ciples is found in ver. 42. — cic dvoua] from a regard to that which the name
implies, to the prophetic character.* Therefore ; for the sake of the cause
which stamps them with their distinguishing characteristics, for sake of the
divine truth which the prophet interprets from the revelation that has been
made to him, and for sake of the integrity which the dixacoc exhibits in his
life. — dixatov] an upright man, correct parallel to rpog7ryv. The apostles,
however, belong to both categories, inasmuch as they receive and preach the
revelation (spoo#ra:) communicated by God through Christ, and seeing that,
through their faith in the Lord, they are characterized by true and holy
righteousness of life (dixaco:).—The reward of a prophet and of a righteous
man is the same reward, which they will receive (in the Messianic kingdom).

Ver. 42. “Eva . . . robrur] a single one of these (decxtinac) little ones. Ac-
cording to the whole context, which has been depicting the despised and
painful circumstances of the disciples, and is now addressing to them the
necessary encouragement, it is to be regarded as intentional and significant
that Jesus employs the term pexpdv (not yvafyrév), an expression which (in
answer to Wetstcin) is not usual among Rabbinical writers to convey the
idea of disciples. Otherwise xviii. 6. — pévov] only, connected with what
precedes, — rév picddv avroi] the reward awaiting him, in the kingdom of the
Messiah ; v. 12.‘

1For ardAd, puxyy, comp. Eur. Hee. 21;
Anth. Pal. vil. 272. 2.

*Euth. Zigabenus appropriately ob-
serves : ravta elwey avotywy Trois padyrais ra¢
oixias Trev morevévrwor. Comp. with ver. 40,
John xiii, 90; and with ver. 41 f., comp.
Mark ix. 87, 41.

98.’ avrd 7d bvoudgerdas cai ely, Euth.

Zigabenus. In Rabbinical writers we find
py. Schoettgen, p. 107; Buxtorf, Lez.
Talm. p. 2481.

‘ Grotius says correctly : ‘‘ Docemur hic,
facta ex animo, non animum ex factis apud
Deum aestimari,” “We are taught here
that deeds are estimated in God's sight by
the spirit, not the spirit by the deeds.”

CHAP. XI. 219

CHAPTER XI.

Ver. 2. 6:4] Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz: dvo, against BC* DPZ A ¥&,
33, 124, Syr. utr. Arm. Goth. Codd. of It. From Luke vii. 19.—Ver. 8.
iuvatlowc] wanting in B D Z X&, Vaig. Tert. Hil. al. Bracketed by Lachm., de-
leted by Tisch. Interpolation from Luke. — Ver. 9. ldeiv; mpogyrny ;] Tisch. :
Tpogytyy ideiv ; (with mark of interrogation after é&749.) So BZ &*. The Re-
ceived text, notwithstanding its preponderance of testimony, is a mechanical
conformation to ver. 8 (comp. Luke). — Ver. 10. Lachm. has bracketed yép and
éys. The former only has important testimony against it (B D Z &, Codd. of
It. Syr<*" Or.), is likewise deleted by Tisch., though it may easily have been -
omitted in consequence of a comparison with Luke vii. 27. — On far too inade-
quate testimony, Lachm. and Tisch. 7 have «ai instead of é¢.— Ver. 15.
axoverv] is not found in BD, 32. Here and in xiii. 9, 43, itis bracketed by
Lachm. and correctly deleted by Tisch. Borrowed from Mark and Luke,
where, in all the passages, dcovecv cannot be disputed. — Ver. 16 f. maidiow év
dyopai¢ xabnpévore Kat mpoogwrvoder Toig éraipore avrav Kai A£yovowv] Rinck, Lucubr.
crit. p. 257f.; Lachm. and Tisch.: macdiowe nabnuévore tv Gyop@ (Tisch. 7:
Gyopaic, Tisch. 8 : raic ayop.) d mpooguvoivra roic éraipore (Tisch. : éréporg) A£yovoey.
On the strength of preponderating testimony this whole reading is to be pre-
ferred ; it was partially altered in accordance with Luke vii. 32. But the bal-
ance of the testimony is decidedly in favor of substituting érfpor¢ for éraiporc ;
and the former is to be preferred all the more that, for exegetical reasons, it
was much more natural to adopt the latter. Testimony is also decidedly in
favor of év ayopaic, and that without the article (which is found only in
BZ &). — e4pnvyc. tuiv] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely ¢@pnryc., according to
BCDZ &, Curss. Verss. and Fathers. Correctly; tuiv is inserted from what
precedes.—Tisch. 8 has Zpywy instead of réxvuy, but only after B* &, 124, Codd-
in Jerome, and Verss, (also Syr.). An interpretation (a. 1. épywy ray vl. a.). —
Ver. 23. 4 &w¢ Tov otpavoi tyubeicag] EF GSU VI Il**. Curss. Syr. p. Chrys. :
luc rot ovpavod idOnc (approved by Griesb. and Rinck, also Tisch. 7, who,
however, has correctly deleted rot). But B C D**®, 1, 22, 42, Copt. Aeth.
Pers. Wh. Vulg. Corb. For. Ir. (comp. Colb. Germ.) : ys) tug ctpavod tw67cp.
The reading of the Received text must be given up, then, on account of the ex-
ternal testimony, and either # . . . dpdAnc or pi). . . tywhxoy is to be read.
The former is to be preferred. The reading p#, eto., originated in the final
syllable of Kagapvactu having been twice written by the copyist, which neces-
sarily involved the change of tWi6n¢ into ywhjoy. The other variations arose
out of a misunderstanding asto H. It was taken for the article, hence the
reading in the Received text: 7... dywheica. The interrogative reading, ,7,
etc. (Lachm. Tisch. 8), is foreign to the sense (you will not be raised to heaven,
surely ?), a reflection that is here out of pluce.—xarafBifac67c7] Lachm. and Tisch.
7: xataPoy, after B D, It. Vulg. Syr. al. Ir. Correctly ; the reading of the Re-

220 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

ceived text is from Luke x. 15, where the testimony in favor ef kaTaphoy is
somewhat weaker.

Ver. 1. Exeifev] from where the sending out of the apostles took place,
It is impossible to define the locality further ; at all events Capernaum is
not intended, but some open space (ix. 86) on the road, along which Jesus
was at that time prosecuting his journey through Galilee (ix. 35). Whilst
the Twelve were out on their missionary tour, Jesus continued His labors
by Himself ; and it was during this interval also that He was visited by
the messengers from the Baptist. Where these latter happened to find
Him, it is impossible to say. For the return of the Twelve, see note on
ver. 25. —avrév] in the towns of those to whom He came (the Galileana).
Comp. iv. 28, ix. 85, xii. 9. Fritzsche refers airav to the apostles : in
which the apostles had already published the knowledge of the kingdom. Incor-
rectly, for the werfBy, «.7.4., follows at once and immediately upon the
conclusion of the instructions to the Twelve.!

Vv. 2 ff. Comp. Luke vii. 18 ff., where the account is introduced some-
what earlier, and where nothing is said about the prison (but see Luke iii.
20). — axotoac, x.7.A.] Occasion of the message. See the note after ver. 5.
— by 76 deopwr.| in the fortress of Machaerus.* See on xiv. 3. How John
could hear anything of Jesus’ works in prison was possible i in various ways ;
most naturally it was through his disciples, with whom he was permitted to
have intercourse. Luke vii. 18.— 1a épya] are the deeds, the first element
in the roceiv re nai diddoxecv (Actsi. 1). These were for the most part miracles,
though there is no reason to suppose that they were exclusively so. See on
John v. 86. — réuyac] absolutely. The following da rév pebyr. avrov belongs
to elrev aird, not to réupac (de Wette), because this latter connection
would involve the supposition of a Hebraism, °3 ny, 1 Sam. xvi. 20, 1
Kings ii. 25, Ex. iv. 18, which is in itself unnecessary.

Ver. 8. Si] Placed first for sake of emphasis. Comp. Erepov. — é épzduevoc]
He who is coming (Heb. x. 87), 1.¢., the Messiah, who, because His advent,
as being certain and near, was the object of universal expectation, is
called, xar’ éfox#v, the coming one (¥3'3), perhaps in accordance with Ps, xl.
8. Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Keim, suggest Ps. cxviii. 26; Hengstenberg
suggests Mal. iii. 1; Hitzig, Dan. ix. 26. — érepov] so that thou too wouldst,
in that case, be only a forerunner. — zpoodoxiuev] may be conjunctice (as
commonly preferred) or indicative (Vulg. Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Fritzsche).
The idea of deliberation is, for psychological reasons, more appropriate.
The we in the question is the expression of the popular expectation.

Vv. 5, 6. In words that seem an echo of Isa. xxxv. 5 f., 8, lxi. 1f£,
though, in accordance with existing circumstances, embracing some ad-
ditional matters, Jesus draws His answer clearly and decidedly from the

1 On the following section, see Wieseler pital Zeltschr. 1857, p. 167 ff. ; Keim, IT. p.
in the Gdttingen Vierteljahrechr. 1845, p.197 858 ff.
ff.; Gams, Joh. d. T. im Géfangn. 1858; 2 Joseph. Anté. xvill. 5. 2.
Gademann, in d. Luth. Zettechr. 1852, 4; 3Xen. Anabd. vii. 1.2; Hell. tii. 2.9; Thue.
Grote, idid. 1857, 8, p. 518 ff. Comp. also 1. 91. 2; Bornem. Schol. in Lue. p. lxv.

CHAP. XL, 5, 6. 221

well-known facts of His ministry, which prove Him to be the tpyépevog fore-
told in prophecy.’ The words of the answer form a résumé of cases such as
those in viii. 2, ix. 1, 23, 27, 32 ; therefore they cannot have been intended
to be taken in the sense of spiritual redemption, which Jesus might lay claim
to as regards His works (in answer to de Wette, Keim, Wittichen).*—
axTwxor evayyeA.] well-known passive construction, as in Heb. iv. 2, 6; Gal.
ii. 7; Rom. iii. 2; Heb. xi. 2; Bernhardy, p. 841 f.—xrwyoi] are the
poor, the miserable, the friendless, the oppressed and helpless multitude
(comp. on v. 8), elsewhere compared to sheep without a shepherd (ix. 86),
and likened a little further on to a bruised reed and smoking flax (xii. 20).
Such people crowded about our Lord, who proclaimed to them the Messi-
anic deliverance. And this deliverance they actually obtained when, as rrwyol
ro xvebpart, V. 8, they surrendered themselves to His word under a deep heart-
felt consciousness of their need of help. — oxavdaA. év éuoi] will have been offended
in me, so as to have come to entertain false views concerning me, so as to
have ceased to believe in me, to have come to distrust me ; xiii. 57, xxvi.
81, 38 ; comp. on v. 29.

Remark.—Judging from John’s question, ver. 2, and Jesus’ reply, ver. 6, it
is neither unwarrantable nor, as far as can be seen, incompatible with the
evangelic narrative, to assume that nothing else is meant than that John was
really in doubt as to the personal Messiahship of Jesus and the nature of that Messiah-
ship altogether,—a doubt, however, which, after the honorable testimony of
Jesus, ver. 7 ff., cannot be regarded as showing a want of spirituality, nor as
inconsistent with the standpoint and character of one whom God had sent as
the forerunner, and who had been favored with a divine revelation, but only
asa temporary eclipse of his settled conviction, which, owing to human in-
firmity, had yielded to the influence of despondency. This condition isso ex-
plicable psychologically from the popular nature of the form which he expected
the Messianic kingdom to assume on the one hand, as well as from his impris-
onment on the other, coupled with the absence of any interposition in his
favor on the part of Him who, as Messiah in the Baptist’s sense, should have
given things a totally different turn by manifesting Himself in some sudden,
overwhelming, and glorious crisis, and so analogous to undoubted examples of
the same thing in other holy men (Moses, Elias), that there is no foundation
for the view that, because of this question of the Baptist (which Strauss even
regards as an expression of the first beginnings of his faith), the evangelic ac-
counts of his earlier relation to Jesus are to be regarded as overdrawn (on the
other hand, Wieseler, I.c. p. 203 ff.),—a view which seems to be shared by
Weizsiacker, p. 320, and Schenkel. Actual doubt was the cause of the question,
and furnished the occasion for informing him about the works of Jesus, which, as
characteristic marks of the Messiah, formed again a counterpoise to his doubts,
and so awoke an internal conflict in which the desire to call upon Jesus finally
to declare Himself was extremely natural ; and, accordingly, there is no reason
for Strauss’ wonder that, ere this, ov« dxovoa¢ has not been substituted in ver. 2
as a likely reading instead of axovoac. From all this, and without importing any

2 Comp. Luke fv. 18 1886, p. 106 ff.; Weiss, dit. Theol., ed. 2,
* Comp. Schweizer in the Stud. u. Xrit. p. 48; Hofmann, Schrifiew. II. 1, p. 181.

222 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

subjective element into the accounts, it is to be considered as settled that the
Baptist’s question proceeded from real doubt as to whether Jesus was the ép-
xouevoc, yea ornay ; nor is itfor a moment to be limited (Paulus, Olshausen,
Neander, Fleck, Kuhn, Ebrard, de Wette, Wieseler, Déllinger, and several
others ; comp. also Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. Ul. p.75; Lichtenstein, L. J. p.
256 ; Hausrath, Zeitgesch. I. p. 338; Gess, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 352) to
doubts regarding the true nature of the Messiah's manifestation and works ; but
still less is the whole narrative to be explained by supposing, in accordance
with the time-honored exegetical tradition, that John sent the message for the
benefit of his own disciples, to confirm in them a belief in Jesus as the Messiah
(Origen in Cramer's Catena, Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, Theophy-
lact, Euth. Zigabenus, Miinster, Luther, Caivin, Beza, Melanchthon, Clariur,
Zeger, Jansen, Maldonatus, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel), or by seeing in it an
expression of impatience, and an indirect challenge to the Messiah to establish His
kingdom without delay (Lightfoot, Michaelis, Schuster in Eichhorn’s Bibl. XI. p.
1001 ff.; Leopold, Joh. d. Tauf. 1825, p. 96 ; Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Hase). The
correct view was substantially given by so early a writer as Tertullian, and sub-
sequently by Wetstein, Thies, J. E. Ch. Schmidt, Ammon, Léffler, kl. Schriften,
II. p. 150 ff.; Neander, Krabbe, Bleek, Riggenbach, and several others ; comp.
also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 420, who, however, supposes at the same time that
the disciples of John may have been urging him to tell them plainly whether
they ought to transfer their allegiance to Jesus or not; similarly Keim, who
thinks that John, though hesitating between the alternative : Heis the Messiah
and He is not so, was nevertheless more disposed in favor of the affirmative
view ; so also Schmidt in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1869, p. 638 ff., who notices the
way in which, as he supposes, the Baptist belies his former testimony regard-
ing Christ.

Ver. 7. The answer to John’s question has been given ; the disciples are
withdrawing ; but just as they are going away (opevouéver) Jesus turns to
the multitude that was present, and with some emotion proceeds to set forth
to them, in the plainest way possible, the sacred character and the whole
position of the Baptist, and by this means seeks to anticipate or correct any
false opinion that might be formed regarding him.—The mark of interroga-
tion should be placed after Gedcac@a: (in answer to Paulus and Fritzsche, who
put it even after Zpnyov) ; according to the correct reading (see the critical re-
marks), the animated style of the passage does not change till ver. 9, so that
GAG ri &EfAGere forms a question by itself. — é4Aere] at the time that John
appeared in the wilderness, Observe that here stands @edoaca:, to behold,
and immediately after the simple ideiv, to see. The more earnest expression
is in keeping with the jirst question. —xéA. oa.] figuratively, in allusion to
the reed growing on the bank of Jordan, and meaning : a fickle and irreao-
lute man. Others’ understand it literally: ‘‘non credibile est, vos coivisse,
ut arundines vento agitatas videretis,” ‘‘it is not credible that you have come
together to see reeds shaken by the wind.” Thisis not in keeping with the
qualifying expression, id dvéuov cadevduevov, And how meaningless the

3 Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Gratz, Fritzsche, de Wette.

CHAP. XI., 8-11. 2238

question would be alongside the parallels in vv. 8, 9! Comp. 1 Kings xiv.
15 ; Ezek. xxix. 6.

Vv. 8, 9. °AAI4] no, on the contrary ; it is assumed that what has just been
asked was not the intention.’ It seems, from the fact of his sending those .
messengers, as if John were (1) a man of hesitating, unstable character, ver.
7; or (2) a voluptuary, whose sole concern was how to exchange his condi-
tion of hardship for one of luxurious ease, ver. 8. Jesus removes any im-
pression of this sort by appealing to His hearers to consult their own hearts as
to what they had expected, and what they had found in John. Certainly
they had expected neither a man of fickle mind, nor a voluptuary ; but what
they had looked for, that they had found in him, namely a prophet (xxi.
26), indeed more than a prophet ! Accordingly, there is no apparent reason
for regarding* the clauses containing a statement of the intention as the
rhetorical expression of the result (as if the words were ri éeAAfdvre¢ eig rv
p. éOedcacfe). But even to find in the negative questions an ironical allu-
sion to the character of the Galileans (Keim), is foreign to the connection,
especially as the real motive is given in the third of these questions.—Ver.
9. vai confirms the mpo¢frzv ideiv which has just been asked (see the critical
remarks), and that in accordance with its result: ‘‘ Certainly, I tell you (you
saw a prophet), and more.” epicodrepov is regarded by Erasmus and
Fritzsche as masculine. Nowhere, however, in the New Testament does the
simple meprooérepo¢ occur as masculine, and in this instance the interrogative
zi tells in favor of its being taken as neuter. Comp. xii. 41f. Therefore to
be rendered : something more (Vulgate : plus) than a prophet,—inasmuch,
that is, as he is not only the last and greatest of the prophets, but also be-
cause he was sent by God to prepare the way of the Messiah through the preach-
ing and baptism of repentance, ver. 10. In a different sense, viz., as the
source, the aim, and the fulfiller of all prophecy, is Christ more than a
prophet. *

Ver. 10 is not an interpolation by the evangelist (Weizsicker) ; on the
contrary, it forms the connecting link between vv. 9and 11. The passage
is Mal, iii. 1, and is a free rendering of the Hebrew and not from the LXX.
In Malachi, Jehovah speaks of His messenger going before Himself ; here, He
addresses the Messiah; before Him will He send the messenger (not an
angel). A free application without any substantial change in the contents
of the passage, also without any special design in view ; comp. remark on
iii. 3.

Ver. 11. "Ev yew. yvr.] among those born of woman. Intended to denote
the category of men according to that nature which is peculiar to the whole
race in virtue of its origin (mortality, weakness, sinfulness, and so on).°
For éyfyepra: (by God), comp. Luke vii. 16 ; John vii. 52 ; Acts xiii. 22 f.
— peilwv] @ greater, one more distinguished generally, and that just because he

1 Hartung, Partikell. Il. p. 38. Klotz,ad odrepoc, excellentior.
Devar. p. 18. 4 Comp. Kleinschmidt, d. typolog. Citaie d.
2 Oppenrieder, Zelischr. f. luth. Theologie, vier Evang. p. 4.
1886. * Sir. x. 18 Comp. MYR-15", Job xiv. 1,
* Symmachos, Gen. xlix. 8: otc log wepio- xv. 14, xxv. 4; see also on Gal. iv. 4

aad THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

is this promised herald of God who was to precede the Messiah. The words
do not warrant our interpreting them to mean : @ greater prophet, as has
been done by Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, and the older critics. — 6 62 pixpérepoc,
k.7.A.] he, however, who is less in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. It is to
be observed, (1) that neither here nor elsewhere does the comparative stand
for the superlative ; (2) that, according to the context, the reference of the
comparative (see pei{wv 'Iudvvov, and afterwards peifav airov) need not be
looked for elsewhere but in ’Iwéyvov rov Bartiorod ;* (8) that, since 6 pexpé-
repoc cannot refer to Jesus, it is (xviii. 1, 4) necessarily limited and defined
by év rg Baciteia trav ot:pavén, with which it has been connected by Isidore,
Cyril, Theodoret, Heracleon (see Cramer, Cat. p. 85). Hence it is to be ex-
plained thus : But he who stands lower in the kingdom of the Messiah, stands
(according to the divine standard) higher than he. Notas if John would be
excluded (as against this, see x. 41) from the kingdom of Messiah that
was about to be established, but the standpoint of those who share in the
kingdom is compared with the high position which, as still belonging to the
ancient theocracy, the Baptist occupies in the aidv oiroc. There he is the
greatest of all; yet he whois lower in the approaching kingdom of the
Messiah, and can by no means compare himself with the eminent personage
in question, is, nevertheless, greater than he. Thus the Bacidea rav ovpavar,
raised above the Old Testament order of things, simply appears as the state
of perfection towards which the theocracy, ending with John, its fore-
most representative, is only the jirst step. Others* interpret : he who, as com-
pared with him, retires into the shade (Jesus, pexpdtepoc xara tiv pAuxiav xal Kata
tiv ToAAGv défav, ‘inferior in regard to age and in the estimation of many,”
Chrysostom) will, as Messiah, outshine him in the kingdom of heaven. These
expositors have rightly understood the comparative pixpérepoc a8 comparing
some one with the Baptist ; but how extremely improbable that Jesus, con-
scious as He was of a Messiahship that had been divinely confirmed at His
baptism, and with the multitudes flocking around Him, would have spoken
of Himself as jcxpérepo¢ than John the prisoner! And is it not utterly
foreign to the context to suppose that He would here have compared Him-
self with the Baptist? Finally, were the év rg Baowelg rov obpavdr, again
(referred to what follows), only anawkward toning down of the sharp char-
acter of the statement, it would have been far more sensible (since Jesus

1 Therefore not: less than the others who
participate in the kingdom, as it has been
commonly understood of late (Winer, Butt-
mann, Bleek, Weizsicker, Keim), accord-
ing to which view the superlative sense is
developed, as in xvifi. 1; Luke xxil. 24.
So Bengel also: ‘“‘ minimus in regno coelo-
rum est minimus civium regni.”” Keim sar-
castically observes that, according to the
view I have given above, John ‘ would
still occupy a subordinate place even in
heaven,” and I confess that I am at a loss
to comprehend how one can understand
ver. 11 in such a way as to exclude (80 also

Schenkel) the Baptist from the kingdom of
heaven, in which, however, the patriarchs
and prophets find a place. Where is the Bap-
tist’s place to be? Outside the kingdom is 73
oxdéros Td éEwrepoy, Vill. 12. And outside the
church, if this be understood (though erro-
neously) as what fis meant by the kingdom,
is the «écnos of unbellfevers. Thisalsoin an-
swer to Welzsiicker, p. 411f.; Weissenbach,
p, 31 f.; Weiss.

* Chrysostom, Hilary, Theophylact, Euth.
Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon,
Osiander, Jansen, Corn. & Lapide, Calorvius,
Fritzsche, Fleck, de regno div. p. 88.

CHAP, XI., 12. 225
would mean Himself ae the Messiah, whose greatness in the Messianic kingdom
is a matter of course) if He had merely said with regard to Himself: 6 d2
pixpdérepoc peifwy avrov éoriv.

Ver. 12. After the remark in passing that 6 d2 pixpérepoc, etc., Jesus now
continues His testimony regarding John, and, in order to prove what He
had just said of him in vv. 10, 11, He calls attention to the powerful movement
in favor of the Messiah's kingdom which had taken place since the commencement
of the Baptist's ministry. — avd tiv juep. "Iwévy.] This is not the language of
one belonging to a later period, but only such as Jesus could have used at
this juncture ; for the days when John labored and flourished were gone
by.’ — Bidlerac]* it 8 taken possession of by force, is conquered (not magna vi
praedicatur, according to the idea imported into the words by Loesner and
Fritzsche) ;* wéAeg . . . rag BeBraopévac ; Thuc. iv. 10. 5: Bidlorro, it would
be forced ; * Elwert * would take the present indicative as meaning oult ex-
pugnari, which is not required by the context. In this way is described
that eager, irresistible striving and struggling after the approaching Messi-
anic kingdom® which has prevailed since the Baptist began to preach ; it
is as though it were being taken by storm.” If others have adopted the idea
of a hostile violence with which the Messianic kingdom is persecuted,® or
violently (Hilgenfeld) crushed and arrested (by the Pharisees and scribes),
their view is partly an anachronism, and partly forbidden by the connection
with ver. 13 and with what goes before. Finally, to take the verb in a
middle sense, and as describing the breaking in of the kingdom which makes
its way in spite of all resistance,° is certainly not contrary to usage (Dem.
779. 2 ; Lucian, Herm. 70), but inconsistent with the context in which
Bracrai follows. — xal Biacrat dpréovoww avthy] and those who use violent afforts
drag it to themselves. The anarthrous facrai is not intended to be emphatic ;
such is now the character of the times, that those of whom the Bidlera holds
true achieve a speedy success, in that, while they press forward to join the
ranks of my followers, they clutch at the approaching kingdom as though
they were seizing spoils, and make it their own. So eager and energetic
(no longer calm and expectant) is the interest in regard to the kingdom.
The fiaorat are, accordingly, believers struggling hard for its possession.
Jesus Himself (this in answer to Zyro) cannot be included among those who
are here in view. Those who interpret (:dfera: in a hostile sense, render
dpralovew : they snatch it away from men (according to Schneckenburger,
they bar the way to it), in allusion to the conduct of the scribes and Phar-
isees. ?°

1 This in answer to Gfrodrer, hell. Sage, II.
p. 92, and Hilgenfeld.

3 Hesychius: Biaiws xparetras,

8 Xen. H. G. v. 2. 15.

*Dem. 8&4. 24; Zosimus, v. 29; 2 Macc.
xiv. 41.

® Quaestion. ad philol. sacr. N. T., 1860, p. 19.

® Chrysostom: sédvreg of peta cmovdns
wpocuévres,

7 Comp. the neuter usage in Luke xvi.
16: wag cig abriy Bidgera: ; and further, Xen.

Cyr. lil. 8. 60: Bidcayro eiow; Iikewise
Thuc. {. 68, vil. 69; Ael. V. H. xifi. 82; Her-
odian, vil. 10. 18; Polyb. 1. 74. 5, if. 67. 2, iw.
71

. 6.
§ Lightfoot, Schneckenburger, Beir. p..
49

- 9% Melanchthon, Bengel, Baur, Zyro in the:

Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 401.

10 For fraonjs, comp. Pind. Of. ix. 114;
Pyth. i. 18. 82, lv. 420, vi. 28; Nem. ix. 122;
Duncan, Zex., ed. Rost, p. 209. In Pindar

226 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Vv. 18, 14 are by way of showing how it happens that, since the commence-
ment of the Baptist's ministry, the Messiah’s kingdom has been the object
toward which such a violent movement has been directed. All the prophets,
and even the law, have prophesied up till John’s time; John was the termt-
nus ad quem of the period of prophecy which he brought to a close, and he
who forms the termination of this epoch then steps upon the scene as the
immediate forerunner of the Messiah—as the Hlias who was to come. Ac-
cordingly, that new violent stirring of life among the people must be con-
nected with this manifestation of Elias. Others interpret differently, while
Bleek and Holtzmann are even inclined to suppose that originally ver. 18
was uttered before ver. 12.—xai 6 véuoc] for even with this the era of proph-
ecy began, John v. 46 ; Acts vii. 37 ; Rom. x. 6, xi. 19 ; although prophecy
was not the principal function of the law, for which reason the prophets are
here mentioned first. Different in v. 17. —ei OéAere déEacfa:] if you—and on
this it depends whether by you also he is taken for what he is—will not
reject this assurance (see on 1 Cor. ii. 14), but ave disposed to receive 1¢ with a
view to fuller consideration. The reason for interposing this remark is to
be found in the fact that the unhappy circumstances in which John was then
placed appeared to be inconsistent with such a view of his mission. — airéc]
no other than He. — ’HAfac] in accordance with Mal. iii. 28 (iv. 5), on which
the Jews founded the expectation that Elias, who had been taken up into
heaven, would appear again in bodily form and introduce the Messiah,’—
an expectation which Jesus regarded as veritably fulfilled in the person and
work of the Baptist ; in Aim, according to the ideal meaning of the proph-
ecy, he saw the promised Elias ; comp. Luke i. 17. — 6 péAAuy épyecbas] the
usual predicate. *

Ver. 15. A request to give due attention to this important statement in
ver. 14.8

Vv. 16 ff. After this high testimony respecting the Baptist, we have now
a painful charge against the men of his time, whom, in fact, neither John nor
Himself is able to satisfy. In expressive, appropriate, and certainly
original terms (in answer to Hilgenfeld), He compares the existing genera-
tion to children reproaching their playfellows for not being inclined to
chime in either with their merry or their lugubrious strains. Usually the
Jews are supposed to be represented by those refractory playmates, so that
Jesus and John have necessarily to be understood as corresponding to the
children who play the cheerful music, and who mourn.‘ But (1) the words
expressly intimate that the children with their music and lamentation
represented the yeveé, to which John and Jesus stand opposed, so that the
latter must therefore correspond to the érépoc who are reproached by the
madia. (2) If the arrangement of the passage is not to be arbitrarily dis-

also it is always used in a good sense. For language is as if from a looking forward
apwag., comp. Xen. Anabd. iv. 6. 11, vi. 5. 18; out of the Old Testament into the New.”

Hierodian, if. 6. 10, fi. 8. 23. * Comp. xili.9; Mark iv. 9; Luke vill. 8;
1 Wetstein on this passage ; Lightfoot on Ezek. Iff. 27; Hom. 2. xv. 129.
xvil. 10; Schoettgen, p. 148. ¢ Fritzsche, Oppenrieder, Koéater in the

7 Bengel: ‘‘sermo est tanquam e pros- Stud. u. Arit. 1862, p. M6f.
pectu testamenti veteris in novum,” ‘‘ The

CHAP. XI., 18, 19. 227

turbed, the thrice repeated Aéyovocy must be held to prove that, since those
who speak in vv. 18, 19 are Jews, it is to these also that the children corre-
spond who are introduced as speaking in ver. 16. (8) If we were to suppose
that Jesus and John were represented by those children, then, according to
vv. 18 and 19, it would be necessary to reverse the order of the words in
ver. 17, so as to run thus: éOpyvfcapev tuiv . . . 7iAgoauev, etc. Conse-
quently the ordinary explanation of the illustration is wrong. The correct
interpretation is this : the radia are the Jews, the érepor are John and Jesus ;
first came John, who was far too rigid an ascetic to suit the tastes of the
free-living Jews (John v. 35); then came Jesus, and He, again, did not
come up to their ascetic and hierarchical standard, and was too lax, in their
opinion. The former did not dance to their music ; the latter did not
respond to their lamentation (similarly de Wette with a slight deviation,
Ewald, Bleek, Keim). — razdiorg, x.r.4.] The allusion is to children. who in
their play (according to Ewald, it was playing at a riddle) imitate the way
in which grown-up people give expression to their joy and their sorrow ;
Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. in loco. — The jiute was played at weddings and
dancings. — éxéyaofe] beating upon the breast was the ordinary indication
of grief.’ — roic¢ éréporc] the other children present, who are not among the
number of their playmates.

Vv. 18, 19. Mére éofiov pire river] hyperbolical.* Comp. iii. 4 ; Luke i.
15 ; Dan. x. 8. In contrast to the liberal principles of Jesus, who ate and
drank without imposing upon Himself Nazarite abstinences (like John) or
regular fastings (ix. 14), or without declining (like the Pharisees) to go to
entertainments provided by those in a different rank of life from His own. —
dauéviov Ever] which, through perverting His judgment, leads Him into
those ascetic eccentricities ; comp. John x. 20. — ¢ayéc] glutton, is a word
belonging to a very late period.* — nat édixarcd6n 3 copia Grd Tiv Téxver atric]
not a continuation of the words of the Jews, in which case édcxaro7 would
have to be taken ironically (in answer to Bornemann), but the closing obser-
vation of Jesus in reference to the perverse manner in which His own claims
and those of John had been treated by the Jews ; and justijied (i.e., shown
to be the true wisdom) has been the wisdom (the divine wisdom which has
been displayed in John and me) on the part of her children, i.e., on the part
of those who reverence and obey her (Sir. iv. 11), who, through their
having embraced her and followed her guidance, have proved how unwar-
ranted are those judgments of the profanum culgus ; comp. Luke vii. 29.
The (actual) confirmation has come to wisdom from those devoted to her.‘ Those
disciples of wisdom are the same who in ver. 12 are said fidlecw rH Baoideiar ;
but the cai which introduces the passage ‘‘cum vi pronuntiandum est, ut
saepe in sententiis oppositionem continentibus, ubi frustra fuere, qui «afro

1 Ezek. xx. 48; Nah. fi. 8; Matt. xxiv. 30; %8ee Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 484; on the
Luke xvii. 18; Hom. 7. xviil. 31; Plat. accent, Lipsius, gramm. Unters. p. 28.
Phaed. p. 0 A, al. ; Herod. vi. 58; Diod. Sic. 4azé6, comp. on Acts if. 22; Hermann, ad
L 44; Kéeter, Eridut. p. 92 f. Soph. El. 65; Kthner, ad Xen. Anad. vi. 5.

2h pew “leedvvov Siaita bvampdotros cai roa- 18; not urd,
xea, Eath. Zigabenus.

228 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

requirerent,” ‘‘ is to be proclaimed with force, as often in sentences containing
opposition, where they are to no purpose who would demand «airo:.""* This
view is in the main that of (though in some cases the réxva ri¢ cogiag has been
too much limited by being understood as referring merely to the disciples of
Jesus) Jerome (‘‘ego, qui sum Dei virtus et sapientia Dei, juste fecisse ab
apostolis meis filiis comprobatus sum”), Minster, Beza, Vatablus, Calovius,
Hammond, Jansen, Fritzsche, Olshausen, de Wette, Ebrard, Bleek, Lange,
Hofmann, Keim, Weiss. Yet many, while also retaining the meaning given
above, take the aorist, though without any warrant from the text, or any ex-
ample of it in the New Testament, in the sense of cherishing.* Chrysostom,
Theophylact, and Castalio understand the words as expressing the thought
-that the wisdom manifested in Jesus has nothing to answer for with regard to the
Jews (similarly Weizsicker) ; a view to which it may be objected—first, that
dixatovobat avd tivog cannot be taken in the sense of to be free from the guilt of
any one (dix. ard tie duapriag tevdg ; comp. Sir. xxvi. 29; Rom. vi. 7) ; and
secondly, that the Jews, unless something in the context should specially sug- —
gest or lead to it, cannot straightway be spoken of as the children of wisdom.
The latter objection is equally applicable to the explanation of Schneckenbur-
ger: and so wisdom (which is supposed to mcan God's care for His people;
comp. also Euth. Zigabenus and Grotius) has been treated cavalierly (has been
arrogantly condemned) by her own children, which, moreover, is precluded by
the fact that dicasovcba: is never used in this sense in the New Testament.
Oppenrieder, p. 441 f., likewise understands the children of wisdom to refer
to the Jews, inasmuch, that is, as they were subjected to the discipline of
divine wisdom. The doings of cogia were demonstrated to be righteous by
the conduct of the Jews ; that is to say, they had desired, instead of John,
a divine messenger of a less ascetic character (and him the divine wisdom
sent them in the person of Christ); while, on the other hand, instead of Christ,
with His freer manner of life, they desired one more rigorously disposed (and
this wish the divine wisdom had gratified by giving them the Baptist). So
far Schneckenburger. But this conduct of the Jews was capricious and wilful,
and was ill calculated to display the justice of the divine dealings, which it
could have done only if it had been supposed to proceed from a feeling of real
moral need, for which, however, in vv. 16-19, Jesus shows Himself by no
means inclined to give themcredit. Besides, one is ata loss to see, even if
this view were adopted, how the Jews with their foolish and obstinate behavior
should come to be called réxva ri¢ cogiag. According to Ewald, Jesus means
to say that it is just her wrong-headed children (who quarrel with her) that
do most to justify the divine wisdom by their not knowing, with all their
wisdom, what they would really like. But this view, again, which necessi-
tates an antiphrastic interpretation of the réxva r7¢ cogiac, finds no support in

1 Stallbaum, ad Fiat. Apol. p.29B. Such
ause of xa occurs with special frequency
in John. Wolf, ad Lept. p. 2388; Hartung,
Partikel. 1. p. 147.

2See Kihner, II. 1, p. 189; Fritzsche, ad
Rom. I. p. 805, as Kuinoel (“ sapientia non

nisi a saptentiae cultoribus et amicis pro-

batur et laudatur, reliqui homines eam ri-

dent,” etc., ‘Wisdom is approved and

praised only bythe cultivators and friends of

wisdom, the rest of men laugh at it,"’ etc.
3 Geach. Chr. p. 482.

CHAP. XI., 20-25. 229

the text, besides involving accessory thoughts to which there is no allusion.
Similarly Calvin even understood the words to refer to the Jews who thought
themselves so wise ; before whom, however, wisdom is supposed to assert her
dignity and authority through the medium of her genuine children.

Vv. 20 ff. Then He began, and so on (#pfaro). Luke introduces this up-
braiding of the cities at a later stage—that is, on the occasion when the in-
structions were addressed to the Seventy (x. 18-15), for which he is assigned
the preference by Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, Holtzmann ; while de
Wette and Keim are justified in going against Luke, who generally uses
considerable freedom as to the connection in which he introduces the sayings
which in this chapter are all connected with the same subject.—The Gospels
make no further mention of the miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida (not far
from Capernaum),’ John xx. 80. — év Tipy x. %ud., x.7.4.] Even these
wicked heathen cities would have been brought to amendment long ago with
deep sorrow for their sins. The penitent sorrow is represented by év odxx. x.
oxod@, 8form of mourning in popular use among the Jews (comp. on vi. 16).
—év odxxy] 7.e.,in the dark, sack-shaped mourning attire, made of coarse
cloth, and drawn over the naked body ; Gesenius, Thes. III. p. 1886. — Ver.
22. rAqv] however, in the sense of ceterum, that is, to add nothing more, I tell you.
Frequently used in this way by classical writers, and comp. note on Eph. v.
83. — Ver. 23. And thou, Capernaum, who hast been exalted to heaven, t.e., raised
to the highest distinction through my dwelling and laboring within thee,
wilt be brought down to Hades, namely, on the day of judgment, to undergo
punishment in Gehenna ; see ver. 24. Grotius, Kuinoel, Fritzsche interpret
the eraliation of Capernaum as referring to its prosperity, derived from trade,
the fisheries, and so on. But this is not in keeping with the connection as
indicated by év aig éyévovro al mAsiora: duvduerc avrow in ver, 20.—Still more
humiliating than the comparison with Tyre and Sidon, is that with Sodom ;
because the responsibility was greatest in the case of Capernaum — éyervay dv]
This dv, here and in ver. 21, is simply according to rule, because the ante-
cedent clauses contain a sumtio jicta.2—Ver. 24. Comp. on x. 15. —ipiv...
coi] *® rd pév duiv mpd tobe woditag tHe wbAewe Exeivng eipyrat’ Td d2 cor Pog
tiv wéAcv, ‘the to you is addressed to the inhabitants of that city ; the to
thee is spoken to the city.” The dyziv, that is, does not refer to the audi-
ence (see ver. 22).—Observe further in vv. 21-24, first, how the passage as-
sumes the form of a weighty climaz ; and then, secondly, the solemn paral-
lelism of the antecedent clauses in vv. 21, 28, and of the threatened punish-
ments in vv. 22, 24.

Ver. 25. ’Aroxp. means, like )}), to take up speech, and that in connection
with some given occasion, to which what is said is understood to refer by
way of rejoinder. Comp. xxii. 1, xxviii. 5 ; John ii. 18, v.17, al. How-
ever, the occasion in this instance is not stated. According to Luke x. 21
(Strauss, Ebrard, Bleek, Holtzmann), it was the return of the Seventy, of
whom, however, there is no mention in Matthew. Ewald, Weissenborn,

1 Robinson, neuere Forech. p. 457 ff. 3 Euth. Zigabenus.
3 Eliendt. Lex. Soph. 1. p. 488.

230 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

and older expositors find it in the return of the apostles. See Mark vi. 12,
80 ; Luke ix. 6,10. This is the most probable view. Luke has transferred
the historical connection of the prayer to the account of the Seventy, which
is peculiar to that evangelist ; while in xii. 1, Matthew assumes that the
Twelve have already returned. The want of precision in Matthew’s account,
which in x. 5 expressly records the sending out of the Twelve, but says noth-
ing of their return, is, of course, a defect in his narrative ; but for this rea-
son we should hesitate all the more to regard it as an evidence that we have
here only an interpolation (Hilgenfeld) of this ‘‘pearl of the sayings of
Jesus” (Keim), which is one of the purest and most genuine, one of Johan-
nean splendor (John viii. 19, x. 15, xiv. 9, xvi. 15). — For é£opodoy. with
dative, meaning to praise, comp. on Rom. xiv. 11; Sir. li. 1. —ravra] what?
the imperfect narrative does not say what things, for it introduces this
thanksgiving from the collection of our Lord’s sayings, without hinting why
it does so. But from the contents of the prayer, as well as from its sup-
posed occasion, —viz., the return of the Twelve with their cheering report,—
it may be inferred that Jesus is alluding to matters connected with the Messianic
kingdom which He had communicated to the disciples (xiii. 11), matters in the
proclaiming of which they had been laboring, and at the same time been
exercising the miraculous powers conferred upon them. — The cogoi and
ovverot are the wise and intelligent generally (1 Cor. i. 19, iii. 10), but used
with special reference to the scribes and Pharisees, who, according to their
own opinion and that of the people (John ix. 40), were pre-eminently so.
The novices (O°RND), the disciples, who are unversed in the scholastic wisdom
of the Jews. Comp. on this subject, 1 Cor. i. 26 ff. Yet on this occasion
we must not suppose the reference to be to the simple and unsophisticated
masses (Keim), which is not in keeping with ver. 27, nor with the idea of
amoxdAvin¢ (comp. xvi. 17) generally, as found in this connection ; the con-
trast applies to two classes of teachers, the one wise and prudent, indepen-
dently of divine revelation, the others mere novices in point of learning, but
yet recipients of that revelation.—Observe, further, how the subject of
thanksgiving does not lie merely in drexdAvy. abra vaio, but in the two,—
the azéxpuypac, etc., and the arexéAvypac, being inseparably combined. Both
together are the two sides of the one method of proceeding on the part of
His all-ruling Father, of the necessity of which Christ was well aware (John
ix. 39).

Ver. 26. Solution of the contradiction regarded as a confirmation of the
ground for thanksgiving. Understand ifouodoyotyuai oo before ér: (not
because, but that, as in ver. 25). — éumpoobéy cov] belongs to evdoxia : that thus
(and not otherwise) was done (was accomplished, comp. vi. 10) what és well-
pleasing before Thee, in Thy sight ; what is to Thee an object pleasing to
look upon. Comp. xviii. 14; Heb. xiii. 21. For etdoxia, comp. iii. 17 ;
Luke il. 14.

Ver. 27. Here the prayer ends, and He turns to address the multitude
(ver. 28),—but, according to Luke x. 22, it is His disciples, —still full of
the great thought of the prayer, under a profound feeling of His peculiar -
fellowship with God, — rdvra yo: raped.] It is quite as unwarrantable to limit

CHAP. XI., 28-30. 231

sdvra in any way whatever, as it is to take sapedé6y a8 referring to the reve-
lation of the doctrine (Grotius, Kuinoel, and others), or to the representation
of the highest spiritual truths (Keim), which Christ is supposed to have been
appointed to communicate to mankind. It is not even to be restricted to
all human souls (Geass). What Jesus indicates and has in view, is the full
power with which, in sending Him forth, the Father is understood to have
invested the Son, a power to dispose of everything so as to promote the object
for which He came.’ Jesus speaks thus in the consciousness of the univer-
sal authority (xxviii. 18; Heb. ii. 8) conferred upon Him, from which
nothing is excluded (John xiii. 8, xvi. 15); for He means to say, that
between Him and the Father there exists such a relation that no one knows
the Son, and so on.* On both thoughts Christ founds the invitation in ver.
28. On the relation of the words zévra yo: raped. to xxviii. 18, see note on
that passage. — émcy:vdoxer] means more than the simple verb, viz., an adequate
and full knowledge, which de Wette wrongly denies (see ovdé rév rarépa ric
éxcytvéoxer). Comp. on 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Nothing is to be inferred from this
passage as to the supernatural origin of Jesus (in answer to Beyschlag,
Christol. p. 60). The éxcyiwéoxery rdv vidv applies to His whole nature and
thinking and acting, not merely to His moral constitution, a limitation (in
answer to Weiss) which, if necessary, would have been shown to be so in
the context by means of the second correlative clause of the verse. — éav
Bov2. 6 vide aroxaA.] bears the impress of superhuman consciousness. Accord-
ing to the context, we have simply to regard rév arépa as the object of
aroxaA, For aroxad. with a personal object, comp. Gal. i. 16.

Ver. 28. Idvrec] gratia universalis. ‘‘In this all thou oughtest to include
thyself as well, and not suppose that thou dost not belong to the number ;
thou shouldst not seek for another register of God,” Melanchthon. — kor, xai
xegopr.] through the legal and Pharisaic ordinances under which the man is
evhausted and weighed down as with a heavy burden, without getting rid of the
painful consciousness of sin, xxiii. 4. Comp. Acts xv. 10, xili. 39. — xayo]
emphatic : and I, what your teachers and guides cannot do. — avaratau] I
will procure you rest, i.¢., éAevbepdow xai tov rocobrov xérov Kal Tov Tovofrou Bapove
(Euth. Zigabenus), so as to secure the true peace of your souls, John xiv. 27,
Xvi. 38 ; Rom. v. 1. Ver. 29 tells in what way.

Vv. 29, 30. To regard (vyé¢ (Olshausen, Calvin) as referring to the cross,
is at variance with the context. Jesus has in view His guidance and disci-

1 Bengel: “ nibfl sibi reservavit pater."’

*In this first clause, to supply the
thought, from the first—viz., ‘‘ and to whom
the Pather is willing to reveal it” (de Wette,
following the older expositors)—is arbi-
trary, for Jesus bas just said: wdvra por
wape8&é0n, etc. To whomsoever the Son re-
veals the knowledge of the Father, to
him He thereby reveals the knowledge of
the Son likewise.—Hilgenfeld adopts the
Marcionite reading: ovd8eis éyves ray wardpa di
BHO vids, cai Toy vidy ei wh db warhp Kai g av 3
wie dwocaddyp, ‘No man knew the Fa-

ther but the Son, and no man knew the
Son but the Father and he to whomsoever
the Son should reveal Him."’ This reading,
being that of the Clementines, Justin, Mar-
cion, has earlier testimony in its favor than
that of the Received text, which first ap-
pears in Irenaeus in a duly authenticated
form; Irenaeus, ij. 2. 8, ascribes it to the
Marcosians, though he elsewhere adopts it
himself. However, an examination of the
authorities leads to the conclusion (see
Tischendorf) that it must be excluded from
the text. Comp. also note on Luke x. 21.

232 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

pline, to which they are to subject themselves through faith in Him. Comp.
Sir. li. 26, and the very common Rabbinical use of 7\y in Schoettgen, p.
115 ff. — rc] not that, but because; motive for udbere an’ épod (i.e., learn in
me, learn from me,* with which words Jesus presents Himself as their moral
example, in contrast to the character of the teachers of the law and the
Pharisees, who, if they affected to be meek and humble, were, as a rule, not
so at heart (rj xapd. belongs to both words), but only in appearance, while in
reality they were tyrannical and proud. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 1. —x. etpqoete,
x.7.a.] Jer. vi. 16.— xpyoréc] may mean good and wholesome,’ or suave
(Vulg.), gentle and agreeable. The latter suits the figure and the parallel-
ism. — 7d gopriov pov] the burden which I impose (comp. on Gal. vi. 5). — éa-
¢p6v] for it is the discipline and duty of love, through which faith manifests
its practical results,1 John v. 8. ‘‘ Omnia levia sunt caritati” (Augustine),
notwithstanding the strait gate and the narrow way, and the cross that is
to be borne.

2 Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 279 [E. T. 824).
§ Comp. raidevots xpnory, Plat. Rep. p. 424 A.

CHAP. XII. 233

CHAPTER XII.

Ver. 3. éweivace] Elz. and Fritzsche insert airéc, against decisive testimony.
From Mark ii. 25 ; Luke vi. 3. — Ver. 4. éguyev] Tisch. 8: ég¢ayov, only accord-
ing toB ®. Altered to suit what follows. — otc] Lach. Tisch. : 4, after B D
13, 124, Cant. Ver. Harl.* Correctly ; the Received text is a correction in ac-
cordance with Mark and Luke. — Ver. 6.— peijoxvy] BDEGKMSUVIIT,
Curss. and Fathers: pei{ov. So Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Authority
and exegesis favor the neuter, by way of explaining which the masculine
would readily suggest itself. — Ver. 8. Before roi cafBarov Elz. inserts xai,
which has been deleted in accordance with decisive testimony. From Mark
and Luke. — Ver. 10. #7 rv] is certainly wanting in BC %, while Vulg. and
Codd. of the It. Copt. leave it doubtful whether they did not read simple 7.
"Hy ry is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly. The brevity of Matthew’s
statement was supplemented from Mark iii. 1, and hence éxei came to be in-
serted between fv and ryv (by others at a different place). — Ver. 11. Lachm.,
following inadequate testimony, reads éyeipe: instead of éyepei. An error on
the part of the transcriber. — Ver. 14. The following arrangement, éfeA@évrec¢
02 of Gap. cuuf. A. kar. avrou (B CDA 8, Curss. Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. Eus.
Chrys. Fritzsche, Gersd. Lachm. Tisch.) is to be preferred to that of the
Received text (ol 6, . o, 21. x. d. éé.), as being simpler and more in keeping with
Matthew's style. — Ver. 15. 5yAo:] omitted in B &, Vulg. It. Eus., deleted by
Llachm. and Tisch. Homoeoteleuton. — Ver. 17. With Lachm. and Tisch. we
ought to adopt Iva instead of drwc, in accordance with BCD &, 1, 33, Or.
Eus. ; 6tw¢ was introduced for sake of variety. — Ver. 18. sic 4v] Lachm. and
Tisch. 8 (see note of the latter): 6, after B ®* and several Curss. On inad-
equate testimony, for ei¢ would be readily dropped out, from a mechanical ef-
fort to conform the construction to 5» gpérica; év G in D is a gloss. — Ver. 21.
ry évouari] Elz. Fritzsche : év r@ dvdu., against decisive testimony. é» is an in-
terpolation, as is also ézi in Eus. and several Curss. — Ver. 22. rdv rugAdy nar
xwedv]) Lachm. and Tisch. have merely rév xw¢dv (B D &, Copt. Syre™ Cant,
Corb. 1, Germ. 1). But Acdeiy coming first in what follows gave rise partly to
the omission of rvgAdév, partly to the inverted arrangement : xwodv nad tugadv
(LX A, Curss. Syr. Arm). — Ver 28. The order év wvevp, Geov éyo, a8 against
that of the Received text, éyd év rvevu., is supported by decisive testimony
(less adequately the arrangement of Lachm. and Tisch. : «pera? écovra: tar, in
ver, 27). — Ver. 29. In accordance with B C* X, Curss., Lachm. and Tisch. have
dpxdca: instead of diaprdce:. The reading of the Received text is adopted
from Mark. In what follows Lachm. has dprdce instead of d:aprdce: ; 80 also
Tisch. 7, but according to testimony that is far too inadequate. Tisch. 8, fol-
lowing D GK II &, Curss., reads dsaprdoy. But still the evidence in favor
of dtapréce: remaing so strong, that there is but the more reason to look upon
d.apréoy a8 & Supposed grammatical correction. — Ver. 31. Tisch. 8, following
lachm., has indeed also deleted the second roic¢ avOpdroc (after B ¥%, Curss.

234 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Verss. and a few Fathers); it is, however, to be preserved as a solemn yet
superfluous repetition. — Ver. 35. Elz., against decisive testimony, inserts ri¢
xapdiag after the first Gyoavpov. Agloss. But with Tisch. 8, and on the strength
of sufficient testimony, rd before aya6d is to be maintained, in opposition to
Griesb. Lachm.. Tisch. 7. The article came to be omitted from a desire to con-
form to the second clause. — Ver. 36. The reading AaAjcovow, adopted by
Tisch. (B C &), is to be traced to the futures which follow. — Ver. 38. With
Lachm. and Tisch. atr@ should be inserted after azexpi§., in accordance with
BCD LM &, Curss. and most Verss. and Chrys. Perhaps it was omitted
from being considered unnecessary. — xa) éapic.] is deleted by Lachm. on too
inadequate testimony. — Ver. 44. The arrangement: ele r. olk. gb. Emorp.
(Lachm, Tisch.), as opposed to that of the Received text (éxcorp. é. r. 6. u.),
finds testimony sufficiently strong in BD Z &. Comp. Luke. — £A96v] D FG
X. T, Curss.: éA@4v. So Fritzsche and Tisch. Correctly ; the reading of the
Received text is here and in Luke xi. 25 a grammatical correction. — Ver. 46,
dé] omitted in B &, Curss. Vulg. It. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But
how easily may it have been omitted at the beginning of the new section (one
reading even begins with atrov) !— Ver. 48. eirévti} Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. :
A£yovri, after B D Z II 8, Curss. Correctly. The former has crept in mechan-
ically, in conformity with ver. 47.

Ver. 1. ff. Comp. Mark ii. 23 ff.; Luke vi. 1 ff. Any one was allowed to
pluck’ ears of corn in another man’s field till he was satisfied. Deut. xxiii.
25. It is customary and allowable even at the present day.* But according
to Ex. xvi. 22 ff., it might seem as if it were unlawful on the Saddath, and
it appears from tradition’ that it was actually so regarded. That the disci-
ples did not hold themselves bound by this view, is an evidence of their
more liberal spirit.‘ — 7pfavro] After this plucking had begun, there came the
remonstrance on the part of the Pharisees, ver. 2. — Luke, in accordance
with the historical arrangement which he observes, places this incident some-
what earlier ; Mark and Luke introduce it after the question about fasting.
Both of them, however, mention only the first of the two proof-texts quoted
by Jesus. Matthew, following a tradition that is more original as far as
this matter is concerned, supplements the account in Mark, from whom,
however, he essentially differs in regard to the object in plucking the corn.’

Vv. 8, 4. "Avéyvure] 1 Sam. xxi. — The spurious atré¢ is unnecessary; xai
ol per’ avrov is connected with ri éroinaev Aaveid.* —olxog tov Geov] in this in-
stance the tabernacle, which wasthen at Nob. Comp. Ex. xxiii. 19. Forthe
twelve pieces of shew-bread, on this occasion called dpro: r7¢ mpofécewe, 7.€.,
AWN DIN), loaves of the pile (1 Chron, xxiii. 29 ; Ex. xl. 23), elsewhere
named dpra row xpoodmov, D°IBi3 ony, loaves of the presence (of God), 1 Sam.
xxi, 7, which, as a meat-offering, stood in the holy placc, arranged in two
rows upon a golden table, and were renewed every Sabbath, those of the

1 riAAay, Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss. 4 Comp. Weizsioker, p. 890.

214. ® See on Mark, and Holtzmann, p. 78.
% Robinson, II. p. 419. *Comp. Thue. i. 47. 2: eseye 82 & Eridey
8 Schabb. c. 8; Lightfoot and Schoettgen «ai oi mer’ avrov, and Poppo's note.

on this passage.

CHAP. XII., 5-8. 235
previous week being given to the priests, see Lev. xxiv. 5 ff.1— ei u#] only
appears to stand for 4444, and retains its usual meaning of nisi. The lan-
guage, however, assumes the tone of absolute negation : which it was not
lawful for Him to eat, nor for those who were with Him, not lawful except
Jor the priests alone. The neuter 5 (see the critical remarks) indicates the
category : what, t.¢., which kind of food.*

Ver. 5. ’Avéyvore] Num. xxviii. 9. — BeByAcie:] that is, if one were con-
sistently to judge according to your precepts, which forbid every sort of
work on the Sabbath as being a desecration of that day.*

Ver. 6. As in ver. 8f. Jesus had reasoned a majori (from the fact of David,
when hungry, being allowed to eat the shewo-bread) ad minus (to the fact of
the hungry disciples being allowed to pluck the corn on the Sabbath), so in
ver. 5 He reasons @ minori (viz., from the temple, where the Sabbath is sub-
ordinated to the sacrificial arrangements) ad majus, viz., to His own authority,
which transcends the sanctity of the temple, and from acting under which
the disciples might well be the less disposed to be bound to keep the Sab-
bath. The key to this argument is to be found in ver. 6, which contains
the minor proposition of the conclusion : what is allowable in case of the
servants of the temple, namely, to work on the Sabbath, must be conceded
to the servants of Him whois greater than the temple ; I am greater than
the temple ; therefore, and so on. —In all the elevation and truth of His
self-consciousness Jesus points with rob lepot peildv éorw dde to His own person
and character as surpassing the temple in sanctity and greatness ; not to the
Measianic work (Fritzsche, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), with which the
plucking of the corn had nothing to do ; nor, again, to the interests of the
disciples ! (Paulus, Kuinoel); nor, finally, to the 2Aco¢ in ver. 7 (Baur). The
neuter peilov, a greater thing, is more weighty than the masculine.‘ Comp.
xi. 9. — de] demonstrative, as in vv. 41, 42. Notice how sublimely great
is the consciousness that God is dwelling in Him in a higher sense than in
the temple ; comp. note on John ii. 19.

Ver. 7. After this defence of His disciples, He shows the Pharisees that
in judging them as they had done they were animated by a perverse disposi-
tion. He shows how they were destitute of the compassionate love which
God requires in Hos. vi. 6, while their thoughts were exclusively directed
to sacrifice and ceremonial religion generally. From want of éAcoc, which
would have disposed them to regard the conduct of the hungry ones in a
totally different light, they, z.¢., those ceremonialists, had condemned the
disciples. See, besides, note on ix. 13,

Ver. 8. Tép] roi¢g avatriave, I say, for, and so on.° The authority of the
Messiah (under which His disciples have acted) is superior to the law of the

1 Lund, Jid. Hetligth., ed. Wolf, p. 184 ff.;
Ewald, Alterth. pp. 87, 158; Keil, Arch. I. p.
91.

* See Matthiae, p. 987; Kihner, IT. 1, p.
55. Comp. note on Gal. 1. 7, li. 16; Luke iv,
26 f.; Dindorf in Steph. Thes. TI. p. 190 C;
Fritzsche, ad Rom. IIL p. 195.

8 For BeBnA., prevfanant, comp. Acts xxiv.
6, and see Schleusner, 7hes. I. p. 558.

4 Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 896.

§“ Majestate Christi nititur discipulorum
innocentia et libertas,’’ ‘‘The innocence
and freedom of the disciples rest upon the
majesty of Christ,’ Bengel.

236 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Sabbath ; the latter is subject to His disposal, and must yield to His will.’
Others (Grotius, Kuinoel) interpret thus : Man may set aside the laws regard-
ing the Sabbath, whenever it is for his advantage to do so. In opposition to
the regular use of 6 vide r. avfp., the argument is different in Mark i. 27.

Vv. 9 ff. Comp. Mark iii. 1 ff.; Luke vi. 6 ff. — Kai weraBac éxeiBev, x.7.2.]
therefore on the same Sabbath day. Different from Luke, who has ép érépy
oaBBdry, to which further division of time Mark likewise fails to make any
reference whatever. —airév] the Pharisees, whom He had just sent away.
It is impossible to say where the synagogue was to which those Pharisees
belonged. But to take airév without any definite reference, asin xi. 1 (‘‘ of
the people of the place,” de Wette, Bleek), is precluded by érypéryoap, etc., of
which the Pharisees mentioned in ver. 14 are to be regarded as the subject.

Ver. 10. The nature of the affection of the withered hand, in which there
was a defective circulation (1 Kings xiii. 4 ; Zech. xi. 17 ; John v. 8), can-
not be further defined. It is certain, however, that what was wrong was
not merely a deficiency in the power of moving the hand, in which case the
cure would be sufficiently explained by our Lord’s acting upon the will and
the muscular force (Keim).—Theraditions forbade healing on the Sabbath,
except in cases where life was in danger. Wetstein and Schoettgen on this
passage. — ei] in the New Testament? is so applied, in opposition to classical
usage,® that it directly introduces the words containing the question.‘
However, in the order of ideas in the mind of the questioner is to be found
the logical connection, which has occasioned and which will explain the
indirectly interrogative use of e (I would like to know, or some such expres-
sion), just as we Germans are also in the habit of asking at once : ob das er-
laubt ist? The character of the questions introduced by ei is that of uncer-
tainty and hesitation,® which in this instance is quite in keeping with the
tempting which the questioners had in view. Fritzsche’s purely indirect
interpretation (‘‘interrogarunt eum hoc modo, an liceret,” etc.) is precluded
by Aéyovrec, and the passages where the question is preceded by some form
of address such as xtpe in Actsi. 6; Luke xxii. 49, —iva xaryyop. avrov}
before the local court (xpiotc, v. 21) in the town, and that on the charge of
teaching to violate the law of the Sabbath.

Ver. 11. The construction, like that of vii. 9, is a case of anacoluthon.—
The futures indicate the supposed possible case ; see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 147:
what man may there be from among you, and so on. — rpé8arov év] one, which
on that account is all the dearer to him. — xa? éav éuzéog, x.t.A.] There must
have been no doubt as to whether such a thing was allowable, for Jesus
argues ez concesso. The Talmud (Gemara) contains no such concession, but
answers the question partly in a negative way, and partly by making casu-
istical stipulations.® — xparfoe: aid x. éyepet] descriptive. He lays hold of

1 Bertholdt, Christo’. p. 162 f. For the Comp. xix. 8; Luke xiii. 2 xxif. 49;
idea, comp. John v. 18; Holtzmann, p. 458. Actsi.6; occurring also in the LXX., not in
2 Winer, p. 474 (E. T. 689]; Buttmann, the Apocrypha.
neut. Gr. p. 214 [E. T. 249]. * Hartung, l. 1; Kfibner, 1. 2, p. 1082.
$See Hartung, Partixell. Il. p. 22 f.; ¢ See the passages in Othonis, Lex Badd.
Klotz, ad Devar. pp. 508, 511. p. 527; Wetstein, and Buxtorf, Synag. o. 16.

CHAP. XII., 12-17. 237

the sheep that has fallen into a ditch (@é@vvov, Xen. Occ. xix. 8, not exclu-
sively a well, but any kind of hole, like é@poc), and, lifting out the animal
lying bruised in the pit, he sets it upon its feet.

Ver. 12. Ovv] Inference founded on the value which, according to ver. 11,
is no doubt set upon an animal in such circumstances, notwithstanding the
laws of Sabbath observance : Of how much greater consequence, then, is aman
than a sheep? The ansver is already involved in the question itself (is of far
more consequence, and so on) ; but the jinal conclusion is: therefore it is allow-
able to do what is right on the Sabbath. By means of the general expression
xadac covey, Which does not mean to be beneficent,' the Oepareterv is ranked
under the category of duty, and the moral absurdity of the question in ver.
10 is thereby exposed. So, by this adroit handling of the argument, the
inference of Jesus is socured against all contradiction ; de Wette’s objection,
to the effect that it might have been asked whether the healing did not
admit of delay, is founded on a misunderstanding of the cada roetv. This
latter is the moral rule by which resting or working on the Sabbath is to be
determined.

Vv. 18, 14. 'Arexareor.]| just as He was stretching it out, and at the bid-
ding of Jesus.* — ty:fc] result of the avexareor.* Mark’s version of the inci-
dent is more animated, fresher, and more original (Keim’s opinion is differ-
ent), and likewise free from the amplification contained in what is said about
the animal falling into the well. This saying is introduced by Luke in
another form, and in connection with a different incident (Luke xiv. 5),
which, however, would not justify us in holding, with Strauss, that the
different narratives are only different settings for the saying in question,
while supposing at the same time that there is even an allusion here to 1
Kings xiii. 4, 6. According to the Hoang. s. Hebr.,* the man with the
withered hand was a mason, who begged to be healed, that he might not be
under the necessity of begging. —éfeAOévrec] from the synagogue, ver. 9.
— ovuBobA, taf. xar. abr., dtwc] they devised measures for the purpose of crush-
ing Him (see on xxii. 15) ; the opposition to Him had now assumed this very
decided character.

Ver. 15 ff. Vv. 17-21 are peculiar to Matthew. — avrot¢ mévrag] all the
sick who were among the multitudes. Indefinite expression. On the con-
densed style of Matthew, 15 f., comp. Mark iil. 7 ff. ; Luke vi. 17 ff, —
Ver. 16. He gave them strict injunctions, in order that, and so on (xvi. 20,
xx. 81) ; for He did not wish, by creating too great a sensation, to provoke
His enemies to proceed to extremities before the time. Comp. on viii. 4.
—Ver. 17. This éreriu. avroi¢ was designed, in accordance with the divine
order in history, to fulfil the prophecy that the Messiah was to act without
anything like ostentatious display in His proceedings. On the silent
majesty of Jesus, comp. Dorner, Jesu siindlose Vollkommenh. p. 28 ff.

1Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek, but recte § See Winer, pp. 491, 580 [E. T. 668, 770];
agere (Acts x. 83; 1 Cor. vil. 88f.; Phil. iv. Litibcker, grammat. Stud. p. 88 f.; Pflugk,
14; Jas. ii. 8, 19; 2 Pet. 1. 19; 8 John 6). ad Hec. 690.

*¥or the double augment, see Winer, p. * Hilgenfeld, N. 7. extra can. TY. 16, 28.

00 ¢. (KE. T. 84].

238 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 18. Isa. xl. 1 ff., a very free rendering of the original Hebrew text,
yet not without some reminiscences of the LKXX. For the MM 2y, which
the LXX. (‘IaxaB 6 raic pov) and modern expositors interpret as applying to
Israel as a nation, or the ideal Israel of the prophets." Matthew under-
stands it as referring to the Messiah. Similarly the Chaldee paraphrasts
and Kimchi, in which they are justified by the Messianic idea, as fulfilled
in Christ, running through the whole passage.* — ei¢ bv] in regard to whom.
Direction of the approbation. Comp. 2 Pet. i. 17. The qorists, as in iii.
17. —6fow 1d rveipa] t.¢., I will make Him the possessor and the bearer of
my Holy Spirit, by whose power He is to work, Isa. xi. 2, lxi. 1; Matt.
iii. 16; Acts iv. 27.—xpiow] not: quod jfiert par est (Fritzsche); not:
justice and righteousness (Bleek) ; the good cause (Schegg) ; or the cause of
God (Baumgarten-Crusius) ; not: recta cultus divini ratio (Gerhard) ; nor :
doctrina divina (Kuinoel),—which interpretations have been given in view
of the ©DWP of the original (where it denotes the right, i.¢., what is right
and matter of duty in the true theocracy.? But in the New Testament
xptorc has no other meaning but that of final sentence, judgment (also in xxii
23) ; and this, in fact, is the sense in which the Hebrew was understood by
the LXX. Matthew’s Greek expression is doubtless to be understood no less
in the sense of a judicial sentence, t.e., the Messianic judgment, for which the
Messiah is preparing the way through His whole ministry, and which is to
be consummated at the last day. —roi¢ s6vec.v] not : the nations, generally,
but the heathen. Similarly also in ver. 21. The point of fulfilment in the
prediction here quoted lies simply in its serving to describe, as it does in
ver. 19 f., the unostentatious, meek, and gentle nature of Christ’s ministry
(ver. 16), so that it is unnecessary to look to what precedes in order to find
something corresponding to roi¢ 26veor (some finding it in the multitudes that
followed Jesus). Jesus did not preach to the heathen till He did it through
the apostles, Eph, ii. 17, a matter altogether beyond the scope of the pres-
ent passage. It should be observed generally, and especially in the case of
somewhat lengthened quotations from the Old Testament, that it is not in-
tended that every detail is to find its corresponding fulfilment, but that
such fulfilment is to be looked for only in connection with that which the
connection shows to be the main subject under consideration.

Vv. 19, 20. Contrast to the conduct of the Jewish teachers. He will not
wrangle nor cry,4 and so on.—The bruised reed and smoking wick represent
those who are spiritually miserable and helpless (xi. 5), whom Christ does
not reduce to utter hopelessness and despair, but (xi. 28), to whom He rather
gives comfort, and whose moral life He revives and strengthens. And see-
ing that ver. 17 refers to ver. 16, they cannot be taken to represent the
sick, whom Jesus heals (Hengstenberg). For those figures, comp. Isa

1 See, besides, the commentaries on 2 See Acts fil, 18, 26, fv. 27, 80; Hengsten-
Isaiah ; Drechsler and Delitzsch in Rudel- _— berg, Christol. II. p. 216 ff., compared with
bach's Zetéschr. 1852, 2, p. 258 ff.; Tholuck, Kleinert, Zc.
dad. Propheten u. thre Weissag. p. 158 ff.; 3 Comp. Ewald on Isaiah, /.c. ; Hengsten-
Kleinert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 690 ff.; berg, p 288; and see in general, Gesenius,
F. Philippi in the Mecklend. Zeitschr. 1864, 5, Thes. III. p. 1464.
and 6. 4 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 337.

OHAP. XII., 21-23. 239

xxxvi. 6, lviii. 6, xliii. 17. — éwe dv éxBdAy, x.7.A.] until He shall have led
Sorth to victory the judgment announced by Him, 7.¢., until He shall have
finally accomplished it at the last day. For with this holding of the assize
is associated the subjection to it of every hostile power. The final holding
of it is the victory of the judgment. —In exBédy, forced out, is implied the
idea of violent effort, overcoming the resistance offered. The words, however,
do not correspond to the UBYD WY NK, Isa. xlii. 8, but to the DY'—W
Ow 7183, ver. 4, as is evident from éuc, and from the words xai ré dvéyare,
etc., which follow. But this is a very free quotation made from memory,
with which, however, the expression in ver. 8 (8’¥1) is at the,same time
blended.

Ver. 21. T6 dvéuare aivrot] In Hebrew, inviny ; LXX., ém) r¢ dvdu. avrod.
Matthew and the LXX. had a different reading before them (nw), This
is the only passage in the New Testament in which éAri{w is used with the
dative (elsewhere and in the LXX. with &, eic, or éré) ; it is proved, how-
ever, to be good Greek from the fact of its occurring in Thuc. iii. 97. 2,
and it is meant to indicate the object on which, as its cause, the hope (of
salvation) is resting. On the ground of His name, i.e., on account’ of that
which the name Messiah imports, the Gentiles will cherish hope.

Ver. 22. In Luke (xi. 14 ff.) this incident comes in at a later stage, while
he reports less of what was spoken on the occasion, and arranges it to some
extent in a different, though not the original, order ; Mark iii. 22 ff., who
omits the incident in question, introduces the discourse which follows in a
peculiar convection of his own.—The resemblance of the narrative to that —
contained in ix. 82 is not due to a mixing together of different incidents, —
viz., the healing of the blind man on the one hand, and of the man who was
dumb on the other, ix. 27, 32 (Schneckenburger, Hilgenfeld),—nor to the
way in which incidents often assume a twofold form in the course of tra-
dition (Strauss, de Wette, Keim), but is founded upon two different events :
the former demoniac was dumb, the present one is blind as well,—a circum-
stance, however, which is not recorded by Luke, who follows a less accu-
rate version. The term Beelzebul, used in this connection as in ix. 34, is
one, however, which may have been found often enough upon the lips of
the Pharisees. Its recurrence can no more prove that a later hand has been
at work (Baur, Hilgenfeld), than the cireumstance that we find ourselves
back again into the heart of the contest, although from ver. 14 it seemed to
have reached its utmost extremity ; for the measures which in ver. 14 the
Pharisees are said to have taken, have just led to further and no less bitter
hostility, a hostility in keeping with the spirit of the purpose they have in
view. — Aad. x. B2éx.}] the thing as it actually takes place. Casaubon and
Fritzsche, without sufficient grounds, assume the existence of a Chiasmus
here.

Ver. 23 ff. Mri obroc, x.7.A.] Question of imperfect yet growing faith, with
emphasis upon oiroc : May this (who, however, does not possess the qualities
looked for in the Messiah) not possibly be the Messiah ? John iv. 29. To this

1 Kriiger’s note on Thucydides, as above.

240 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

corresponds the emphatic obroc in ver. 24. —axoboavrec] that question pfre
ovroc, etc. — elzov] to the multitude, not to Jesus ; for see ver. 25. They
desire at once to put a stop to such dangerous language, and that, too, in a
very demonstrative way. —év TO BeeAlefodd, dpxovre trav daru.] See on ix. 34.
dpyovr: r. 6. is not to be rendered : the ruler of the demons (which would
have required r¢ dpy.), but : as ruler over the demons. Pragmatic addition.
Mark iii. 22, comp. John vii. 20, x. 20, states the accusation in more
specific terms. —eidéc] comp. ix. 4. The charge urged ‘by the Pharisees is
& foolish and desperate expedient proceeding from their hostility to
Jesus, the absurdity of which He exposes. — pepioGeica xaf éavrijc] t.6., di-
vided into parties, which contend with each other to its own destruction.
In such a state of matters, a kingdom comes to ruin, and a town or a family
must cease to exist ; crafjva: means the same as or#va.'— Ver. 26 xai]} the
and subjoining the application. — ei 6 caravag rdv caravay éxBdAAe] not : the
one Satan, the other Satan (Fritzsche, de Wette), but: if Satan cast out
Satan, if Satan is at once the subject and the object of the casting out,
being the latter, inasmuch as the expelled demons are the servants and
representatives of Satan. This is the only correct interpretation of an ex-
pression so selected as to be in keeping with the preposterous nature of the
charge, for there is only the one Satan; there are many demons, but
only one Satan, who is their head. This explanation is an answer to de
Wette, who takes exception to the reasoning of Jesus on the ground that
Satan may have helped Christ to cast out demons, that by this means he
might accomplish his own ends. No, the question is not as to one or two
occasional instances of such casting out,—in which it might be quite con-
ceivable that ‘‘for the nonce Satan should be faithless to his own spirits,”
—but as to exorcism regarded in the light of a systematic practice, which, a8
such, is directed against Satan, and which therefore cannot be attributed to
Satan himself, for otherwise he would be destroying his own kingdom.

Ver. 27. A second way of rebutting the charge.—Notice the emphatic
antithesis : éyé and ol vici tuév. The latter (people of your own school ; see,
in general, note on viii. 12) are exorcists who have even pretended actually to
cast out demons,* who have emanated from the schools of the Pharisees, not
the disciples of Jesus, as the majority of the Fathers have supposed.* Jesus
reasons e& concessis, —avrot (ipsi) tuev are placed together for sake of em-
phasis. . °

Ver. 28. Previously it was éyé that was emphatic. in the antecedent
clause ; but here it is év rvebuar: Oeov : but if it is by THE POWER OF GOD'S
Sprrit that I, on the other hand, cast out the demons, then it follows that the
KINGDOM oF Gop has come to you ; in the consequent clause (the apodosis)

1 See Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. II.1, 11; vosex virulentia haec de actionibus metls

Elliendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 851. pronuntiare,” “Because your disciples
2 Acts xix. 18; Josephus, Anéé. vill. 2.5, cast out demons, you do not attribute it to
Bell. vil. 6.3; Justin, c. Tryph. p. 811. Beelzebul; they therefore in this matter

3“ Quod discipull vestri daemonia ejici- are able to be your judges, that you out of
unt, vos Beelzebuli non attribuitis; illi virulence affirm these things respecting DY
ergo possunt hao in re judices vestri esse, actions,’ Lightfoot.

CHAP. XII., 29-31. 241

the emphasis is on the words: the kingdom of God has come, etc. The
reasoning is founded on the axiom, that such deeds, wrought ae they are by
the power of God’s Spirit, go to prove that He who performs them is no
other than He who brings in the kingdom—the Messiah. Where the Messiah
is present and working, there, too, is the kingdom, not yet, of course, as
completely established, but preparing to become so through its preliminary
development in the world. See on Luke xvii. 20f. For ¢6évev (used by
classical writers as meaning to anticipate, 1 Thess. iv. 15), in the simple
sense of to reach, arrive at, see on Phil. iii. 16.'—Notice, in the form of the
reasoning in vv. 27, 28, the real dilemma (tertium non datur) : ei dé, etc.

Ver. 29. "H] Transition by way of proceeding to give further proof of the
actual state of the case. —rov ioxupov| The article indicates the particular
strong man (hero) with whom the ric has to do.—The thought embodied in
this illustration is as follows : Or—if you still hesitate to admit the infer-
ence in ver. 28—how is it possible for me to despoil Satan of his servanis and
instruments (rd oxeby avrov corresponding to the demons in the application)—
withdraw them from his control—without having first of all conquered him?
Does my casting out of demons not prove that I have subdued Satan,—have
deprived him of his power, just as it is necessary to bind a strong man before
plundering his house ? For 4, when serving to introduce a question by way
of rejoinder, see Baumlein, Partik. p. 182. The oxetq in the illustration are
the furniture of the house (not the weapons), as is evident from r. oixiar avrov
below. Mark iii. 27.—The figurative language may have been suggested by
a recollection of Isa. xlix. 24 f.

Ver. 30. Jesus is speaking neither of the Jewish exorcists (Bengel,
Schleiermacher, Neander), nor of the uncertain, fickle multitude,’ neither of
which would suit the context ; but as little is He expressing Himself in gen-
eral terms ; so that yer’ évov must be applied to Satan, while Jesus is under-
stood to be representing Himself as Satan’s enemy ;* for the truth is, He pre-
viously as well as subsequently, speaks of Himself in the first person (vv. 28,
81), and He could not be supposed, He who is the Messiah, to represent
Himeelf as taking up a neutral attitude toward Satan. On the contrary, He
is speaking of the Pharisees and their bearing toward Him, which must neces-
sarily be of a hostile character, since they had refused to make common
cause with Him as it behoved them to have done : He that is not with me is,
as is seen in your case, my enemy, and 80 on. — ovvdywr] illustration borrowed
from harvest operations; iii. 12, vi. 26 ; John iv. 36.

Ver. 81. Aca rovro] refers back to all that has been said since ver. 25:
On this account—because, in bringing such an accusation against me, ver.
24, you have as my enemies (ver. 80) resisted the most undoubted evi-
dence of the contrary (ver. 25 ff.),—-on this account I must tell you, and so
on. — duapr. x. BAacg.] Genus and species: every sin and (in particular)
blaspheming (of sacred things, as of the Messiah Himself, ver. 82). — 9 row mv.

1 Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 86; Line- Zeitschr. 1851, p. 21 ff.; Bleek.

msnn’s note on 1 Thess. if. 16. 3 Jerome, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Kui-
* Elwert in the Stud. d. Wirtemd. Geist. noel, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius.

TX. 1, p. 111 £3 Ullmann in the Deutsch,

242 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Baacg.] Blaspheming of the Spirit (Mark iii. 29; Luke xii. 10 (is the sin in ques-

tion, and of which that allegation on the part of the Pharisees, ver. 24, is an

instance, so that it is probably too much to say, as though the new birth must

be presumed, that it can only occur in the case of a Christian, —a view which

was held by Huther, Quenstedt, and others. As, then, in the present instance

the Pharisees had hardened themselves against an unmistakable revelation

of the Spirit of God, as seen in the life and works of Jesus, had in fact

taken up an attitude of avowed hostility to this Spirit ; so much so that

they spoke of His agency as that of the devil : so in general the S/acg7ju0
Tov mvehuarog may be defined to be the sin which a man commits when he
rejects the undoubted revelation of the Holy Spirit, and that not merely
with a contemptuous moral indifference,' but with the evil will struggling to
shut out the light of that revelation ; and even goes the length of express-
ing in hostile language his deliberate and conscious opposition to this divine
principle, thereby avowing his adherence to his anti-spiritual confession.
This sin is not forgiven, because in the utterly hardened condition which it
presupposes, and in which it appears as the extreme point of sinful develop-
ment, the receptivity for the infiuences of the Holy Spirit is lost, and noth-
ing remains but conscious and avowed hatred toward this holy agency. In
the case of the Christian, every conscious sin, and in particular all immoral
speech, is also sin against the Holy Spirit (Eph. iv. 80); but what is meant
by blaspheming the Spirit in the passage before us, is to go to the utmost ex-
tremity in apostasy from Christ and pd¢ 6évarov (1 John v. 16, and Huther’s
note).* For the way in which the blaspheming against the Spirit is sup-
posed to coincide, as faras the Christian is concerned, with the falling away
mentioned in Heb. vi. 4-6, see Delitzsch On the Hebrews, p. 281 ff. ; Liine-
mann, p. 205 ff. —ovx« ageMfoerar] should not have its meaning twisted by
supplying ‘‘as a rule,” or such like ; nor, with Grotius, is ov« to be taken
comparatively (more heinous than all other sins). The simple impossibility of
forgiveness is just to be sought in the man’s own state of heart, which has
become one of extreme hostility to God.

Ver. 32. Kara roi viod r. avfp.] against the Son of man, such as Daniel prom-
ised that the Messiah should be. In this case also (comp. on ix. 6, viii. 20)
this select expression indicates the majesty of the Messiah in His human
manifestation, in contrast to the hostile terms with which it has been assail-
ed. Grotius and Fritzsche erroneously understand it as in contrast to man

1 Gurlitt ; see, on the other hand, Miller,
Lehre v, d. Stinde, II. p. 598, ed. 3.

*See Grashoff in the Stud. u. Krit. 1888,
p. 985 ff. ; Gurlitt, did. 1834, p. 509 ff. ; Tho-
luck, ibid. 1836, p. 401 ff.; Schaf, d. Siinde
toider d. hetl. G. 1841; Jul. Mfiller. Le. ;
Alex. ab Oettingen, de pecc.in Sp. 8. 1858,
where the older literature may also be
found, and where the different views are
criticised. At p. 87, Oettingen defines the
sin thus: “Impoenitentia perpetua atque
incredulitas usque ad finem, quae ex rebel-
lante et obstinatissima repudiatione testi-

moni! Sp. s. evangelio sese manifestantis
et in hominum cordibus operantis profecta
blasphemando in Sp. s. per verbum et facl-
nus in lucem prodit,"’ ** Perpetual impen-
itence and incredulity even to the end,
which, from a rebellious and most obstl-
nate repudiation of the testimony of the
Holy Spirit manifesting Himself in the Gos-
pel and working in the hearts of men,
comes into light set forth through word
and deed in blaspheming against the Holy
Ghost.”

CHAP. XII., 33. 243

in gencral.— adeOfoera: air@] For if the hostile expressions are directed
only against the person of the Messiah as such, not against the Holy Spirit
who may be recognized in that person, even without our ascribing to it a
Messianic character, it is possible that fuller knowledge, change of disposi-
tion, faith, may be created by the Spirit’s own influence, whereupon the
man will be forgiven. Comp. Luke xxiii. 84. —é aidv oiroc is the period
previous to the coming of the Messiah, 733 py, as Jesus understood it:
the time before the second coming. ‘O aidv péAAwy, the period that succeeds the
coming of the Messiah, 839 pip, as Jesus understood it : the time that fol-
lows the second coming.' — obre év r@ péAAovre] where it would be granted in the
shape of acquittal in the judgment, combined with the eternal consequences
of such acquittal (everlasting felicity). The threatening of a very different
fate—that is to say, the thought of endless punishment—must not be in any
way softened down (Chrysostom, de Wette). Schmid, dl. Theol. I. p. 858,
is quite mistaken in thinking that the period referred to is that between
death and judgment, which, in fact, does not belong to the aiav péAdwy at
all.

Ver, 33.* Either make the tree good (i.e. judge it to be good), and its fruit
good ; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad (see on vii. 17),—do not proceed
in the same absurd way as you did when you pronounced an unfavorable
judgment upon me, when you made the tree bad (declared me to be an
instrument of the devil), and gave him credit for good fruit (the casting
out of demons). oetv, similarly to our make, is used to denote the expres-
sion of a judgment or opinion, therefore in a declarative sense.‘ 1d dévdpor
denotes the tree on which you pronounce a judgment, and nothing is
to be supplied after rv xaprdv aizov. Some (Grotius, Fritzsche), who,
however, attach substantially the same meaning to the figurative terms,
take soiv in the sense of to suppose, assume, animo fingere,® though the
imperative is not so well suited to the second clauses, kai rdv xapzéy,
etc. Others, understanding roeiy as meaning, partly to judge, as well
as partly to assume, refer it to the evil disposition of the Pharisees, which can
be detected in the kind of language they indulgein. So Minster, Castalio,°

? Bertholdt, Crristol. p. 88; Koppe, Exc.
1, ad Ep. ad Eph. p. 289 ff.

Comp. Olshausen and Stirm in the
Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theot. 1861, p. 800.

8 Eath. Zigabenus says correctly (comp.
Hilary, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus,
Beza, Jansen, Raphel, Kypke, Kuinoel,
Schegg, Grimm): wovjoare avyri rou eiware.
Karacxtves 5¢ wddcy érdpws avrovs, ws avaxd-
AovOa cai mapa dvcw xatyyopoiyras. "Emei
yap rd pév amzeAatverOat rovs Saipovas ovx
dxdxiory . . . tov 8¢ aweAatvorvta rovrovs &:¢-
Baddoyv, wapaserypariaws avrods dAdyxet, rd ney
épyov caddy xpivoytag, Tov 5¢ épyagéuevoy xaxdy,
Srep éoriv dvarmidryros kat avacyxurrias, ‘‘ Do
contrary to what you say. He now shames
them again in another way, as blaming
Him contrary to reason and nature. For,

since they did not cast reproach on His
driving out demons .... but slandered
Him who drives them out, He convicts
them by example of judging the work to
be good, but the worker bad, which is mere
contrariness and shamelessness.”’

4 John v. 18, vill. 58, x. 88; 1 John 1. 10, v.
10; Xen. Hist. vi. 8. 5.: wovetoGe 52 wodAepious,
you declare them to be enemies. Stephanus,
Thesaurus, ed. Paris, VI. p. 1292, and the
passuges in Raphel, Herod. p. 154; Kypke,
I. p. 66.; among Attic writers usually in the
middle voice.

§ Xen. Anad. v.7.9; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p.
186 f.

* “Hoc pro certo hahere necesse esse,
quae arbor sit bona, ejus fructum esse
bonum.... Atqui ista vestra verba malus

244 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Maldonatus, and others ; also de Wette, Neander, Bleek (comp. Olshausen).
But in that case the imperative is no longer appropriate to the second
clauses. According to Ewald,’ the connection and meaning may be thus
stated : ‘‘Let it not be supposed that these are but mere words! It is
exactly the words . . . that spring from the deepest source, and proceed as
it were from the root of a man;; like tree, like fruit.” someare is a bold
expression in reference not only to the fruit, as has been supposed, but also
to the tree itself (‘‘ cultivate the tree well, and thus make the tree good”’).
But roviy is not used in this sense (which would have required ¢tecy instead) ;
and, once more, the imperative expression would scarcely have suited the
second clauses, for an alternative so imperious might, with much more pro-
priety, be addressed to persons who were undecided, neutral. Similarly
Keim, though without any further grammatical elucidation (‘‘man either
makes himself good—a tree which bears good fruit—or makes himself evil’’).

Ver. 34.° For yevvfu. éxidv. comp. iii. 7. — rag dbvacbe] moral impossibility
founded upon the wickedness of the heart, although not denying that one
may still be open to conversion, and that with conversion the impossibility
in question must ccase to exist. — ix y. r. wepioocbp. Tr. xapd.| out of that
with which the heart is overflowing, so that with the speaking a partial empty-
ing, outflow, takes place.*

Ver. 85. Ovoavpés, here the inward treasure-house (receptaculum) of the
heart’s thoughts (Luke vi. 45) which are revealed in words, through which
latter they take outward shape, are thrown out, as it were, from the heart
of the speaker through the channel of the mouth. — rovypot Ogcavpov] Incarp.
of wickedness.*

Ver. 86 f. Nominative absolute, as in x. 14, 82.—dpyév] meaning,
according to the context, morally useless, which negative expression brings
out the idea more pointedly than movypéy, the reading of several Curss.,
would have done.° — éx ydp rv Aédyuv cov, «.7.A.] For on thy words will be
founded thine acquittal, on thy words will be founded thy condemnation in
the Messianic judgment. The connection required that this matter of a man’s
accountability for his words should be prominently noticed ; and, seeing that
the words are to be regarded as the natural outcome of the disposition, such
accountability is quite consistent with justice ; nor does it exclude responsi-
bility for his actions as well, though this does not come into view in con-
nection with the subject now under consideration. °

fructus est: ex quo consequens est vos
stirpem esse malam,”’ ‘It is necessary to
hold this as certain, that whatever tree is
good, ites fruit is good..... Now indeed
it is evil fruit these words of yours: from
which the consequence is that you are an
evil stock.”

1 Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, and Holtz-
mann, p. 187.

8 Ovx iorw Oavpacrdy, ei roradra (the pre-
posterous nature of which Jesus has just
exposed, ver. 88) BAacdnueire, wornpoi ydp
Svres oF Stvacde ayadad Aadrciv, Elsa cai

¢uovodoyices awoseixvvc. was oF sUrarrai,
Euth. Zigabenus.

® Book, didi. Seeleni. p. 68.

4 Also in Eur. Jon. 928.

5 Comp. Aéyoe dxapro: in Plato, Phaedr. p.
277 A.

* With reference to the bearing of this
saying on justification by faith, Calovius
appropriately observes: ‘‘ Quid enim aliud
sermones sancti, quam des sonans ff"
*““What else are holy words than faith
sounding forth?” and vice verad.

CHAP. XII., 38-40. 245

Ver. 88. The narrative is more original than that in Luke xi. 16. — onpeiov]
a manifestation of miraculous power that, by appealing to the senses, will serve to
confirm thy divine mission. In such a light they had not regarded the cure
of the demoniacs, ver. 24. In thus insisting as they did upon yet further
proof, they were actuated by a malicious desire to put Him to the test and
reduce Him to silence. — avd cov] from Thee Thy sign. —In deference to
Mark viii. 11, Luke xi. 16, many erroneously suppose that in this instance
it is specially a onyeiov éx row oipavod that is meant. In xvi. 1, however, the
sign is being requested for the second time.

Ver. 89. Motyadic] d¢ agiordyevor ard tov Geot, Theophylact. The Hebrew
(Ps. Ixxiii. 27 ; Isa. lvii. 8 ff.; Ezek. xxiii. 27, al.) conceived his sacred
relation to God as represented by the figure of marriage, hence idolatry and
intercourse with Gentiles were spoken of as adultery.’ On this occasion
Jesus transfers the figure to moral unfaithfulness to God, Jas. iv. 4; Rev.
ii. 20 ff. — yeved] generation ; the representatives of which had certainly
made the request, while.the multitude, ver. 46, was likewise present.
— énxifyrei] See on vi. 32. — onpeiov ov dodhoera: atta] Seeing that the demand
of the Pharisees had manifestly pointed to a sign of a higher order than any
with which Jesus had hitherto favored them,—that is to say, some wonder-
ful manifestation, by which He might now prove, as He had never done
before, that He was unquestionably the Messiah—for they would not admit
that the miracles they had already seen were possessed of the evidential
force of the actual onyeioy ; it is certain that, in this His reply, Jesus must
likewise have used oyyeiov as meaning pre-eminently a confirmatory sign of a
very special and convincing nature. Consequently there is no need to say
that we are here precluded from looking upon the miracles in the light of
signs, and that, according to our passage, they were not performed with any
such object in view (de Wette) ; rather let us maintain, that they were cer-
tainly performed for such a purpose (John xi. 41 f., with which John iv. 48
is not at variance, comp. the note following viii. 4), though, in the present
instance, it is not these that are referred to, but a sign xar éfoy#v, such as
the Pharisees contemplated in their demand.’ — 70 ony. "Iuva] which was given
in the person of Jonah, John ii. 1. Jesus thus indicates His resurrection, da
ryv duoéryra, Euth. Zigabenus. Notice the emphasis in the thrice repeated
onucioy.

Ver. 40. Tow xfrovc] the monster of the deep.* The allusion is to the well-
known story in Jonah ii. 1.—Jesus was dead only a day and two nights.
But, in accordance with the popular method of computation (1 Sam. xxx.
12 f.; Matt. xxvii. 63), the parts of the first and third day are counted as
whole days, as would be further suggested by the parallel that is drawn be-
tween the fate of the antitype and that of Jonah.‘—The sign of Jonah has

1 Gesenius, 7hee. I. p. 422.

*Euth. Zigabenus (comp. Chrysostom)
inaptly observes : ri oty ; ovx éwoiyoer éxrore
oRucion; drolyoey GAA’ ov bt atrovs, terwpw-
pévoar yap foray: dAAA 81d Thy Tey GAAwY whHdAccay,
“ What then? did He not make thereafter
asign? He did not, however, on their ac-

count, for they had become hardened, but
for the profit of the rest.”

® Hom. Jl. vy. 148; Od. iv. 446; Buttmann,
Lexil. IT. p. 95.

‘But the question as to what Jesus
meant by fora... dy Ty xapdiq TH yas,
whether His lying in the grate (so the great-

246 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
nothing to do with the withered rod that budded, Num. xvii. (in answer to
Delitzsch) ; Jonah is the type.

Remarx.—Luke (xi. 30) gives no explanation of the sign of Jonah (v. 40), as
is also the case with regard to Matt. xvi. 4 (where, indeed, according to Holtz-
mann, we have only a duplicate of the present narrative). Modern critics
(Paulus, Eckermann, Schieiermacher, Dav. Schulz, Strauss, Neander, Krabbe,
de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ammon, Bleek, Weizsiicker, Schenkel) have
maintained that what Jesus meant by the sign of Jonah was not His resurrection
at all, but His preaching and His whole manifestation, so that ver. 40 is supposed
to be an ‘‘ awkward interpolation,’”’ belonging to a later period (Keim), an inter-
polation in which it is alleged that an erroneous inierpretation is put into Jesus’
mouth. But (1) if in ver. 41 it is only the preaching of Jonah that is mentioned,
it is worthy of notice that what is said regarding the sign is entirely brought
to a close in ver. 40, whereupon, by way of threatening the hearers and putting
them to shame, ver. 41 proceeds.to state, not what the Ninevites did in conse-
quence of the sign, but what they did in consequence of the preaching of Jonah ;
and therefore (2) it is by no means presupposed in ver. 41 that the Ninevites had
been made aware of the prophet’s fate. (3) Of course, according to the historical
sense of the narrative, this fate consisted in the prophet’s being punished, and
then pardoned again ; but according to its typical reference, it at the same time
constituted a onueiov, deriving its significance for after times from its antilype as
realized in Christ's resurrection; that it had been a sign for the Ninevites, is no-
-where said. (4) If Jesus is ranked above Jonah in respect of His person or
preaching, not in respect of the sign, this, according to what has been said
under observation 1, in no way affects the interpretation of the sign. (5) The
resurrection of Jesus was & sign not merely for believers, but also for un-
believers, who either accepted Him as the Risen One, or became only the more
confirmed in their hostility toward him. (6) Ver. 40 savors entirely of the
mode and manner in which Jesus elsewhere alludes to His resurrection. Of
course, in any case, he is found to predict it only in an obscuresort of way (see
on xiv. 21), not plainly and in so many words ; and accordingly we do not find
it more directly intimated in ver. 40, which certainly it would have been if it
had been an interpretation of the sign put into the Lord’s mouth ew eventu.
The expression isa remarkable parallel to John ii. 21, where John’s explanation
of it as referring to the resurrection has been erroneously rejected. It follows
from all this that, so far as the subject-matter is concerned, the version of Luke

ernumber of expositors), or His abode in
Hades (Tertullian, Irenaeus, Theophylact,
Bellarmin, Maldonatus, Olshausen, K6nig,
Lehre von Christi Houenfahri, Frankf. 1842,
p. 54; Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 508), is deter-
mined by xap8ta ris ys, to which expression
the resting in the grare does not sufficiently
correspond ; for the eart of the earth can
only indicate Its lowest depths, just as xapdia
ts daddoons, Means the depths of the sea
in Jonah il. 4, from which the biblical ex-
pression «apdiia in our present passage
seems to have been derived. Again, the
parallel in the cotAia Tov «x#rovs is, in any
case, better suited to the idea of Hades

than it Is to that of a grave cut out of the
rock on the surface of the earth. If, on
the other hand, Jesus Himself has very
distinctly intimated that His dying was to
be regarded as a descending into Hades
(Luke xxiii. 48), then eora: . . . év ry xapé. +.
y. must be referred to His sojourn there.
There is nothing to warrant Giider (Zr
echein. Chr. unter ad. Todten, p. 18) in disput-
ing this reference by pointing to such
passages as Ex. xv. 8; 2 Sam. xvill. 14. We
should mistake the plastic nature of the
style in such passages as those, if we did
not take 35 as referring to the inmost
depth.

CHAP. XII., 41-45. 247

xi. 80 is not to be regarded as differing from that of Matthew, but only as less
complete, though evidently proceeding on the understanding that the interpre-
tation of the Jonah-sign is to be taken for granted (Matt. xvi. 4).

Ver. 41 f. "Avacr#covra:] Men of Nineveh will come forward, that is to say,
as witnesses. Similarly D3p, Job xvi. 8; Mark xiv. 57.’ Precisely similar
is the use of éyep9f4oera: below (comp. xi. 11, xxiv. 11). Others (Augustine,
Beza, Elsner, Fritzsche) interpret: in vitam redibunt. This is flat and insipid,
and inconsistent with év rg xpice:. — werd] with, not: against. Both parties
are supposed to be standing alongside of each other, or opposite each other,
in the judgment. — xaraxp.] by their conduct, dr: perevdéyoayv, etc.? Comp.
Rom. ii. 27. — dde] like ver. 6, refers to the person of Jesus, which is a
grander phenomenon than Jonah. For wAziov, comp. xii. 6.— Bacidiooa vérov]
a queen from the South, i.e., from Sheba in Southern Arabia, 1 Kings x. 1 ff.;
2 Chron. ix. 1 ff.

Vv. 43-45. Having foretold that the existing generation would be con-
demned on the judgment day by the Ninevites and that queen from the
South, Jesus now proceeds—according to the account in Matthew, which
is undoubtedly original *— to explain in an allegorical way the condition of
things on which this melancholy certainty is founded. The case of this gen-
eration, He says, will be very much like that of ademoniac, into whom the
demon that has been expelled from him is ever seeking to return. The demon
finds his former abode ready for his reception, and, reinforced by seven
others still more wicked than himself, he again enters the demoniac, making
his latter condition worse than the former. So will it be with this genera-
tion, which, though it should happen to undergo a temporary amendment,
will relapse into its old state of confirmed wickedness, and become worse
than before. The reason of this is to be found in the fact that the people
in question have never entered into true fellowship with Christ, so that their
amendment has not proved of a radical kind, has not been of the nature of
anew birth. Comp. Luke xi. 23, 24 ff., where the words are connected
with what is said in Matt. xii. 80, and are equally allegorical, and
not intended literally to describe a case in which demons have actu-
ally returned after their expulsion. — dé] the erplanatory autem. It is
quite gratuitous to suppose that in our present Matthew something has
dropped out before ver, 43 (Ewald). —azd rot avSpérov] in whom he had
had his abode. — d? avidpuwy rérwv] because deserts (7 dvvdpoc, the desert, in
Herod. iii. 4) were reputed to be the dwelling-place of the demons.* —
29év, ver. 44 (see the critical remarks), is due to the fact that the rveiya
axé¥aprov is viewed in the light of ada{ywv, in accordance with a con-
struction, xara oiveory, of which classical writers also make a similar use. °—
oxoAdlovra, cecapuy. x. Kexoop.] empty (unpossessed), swept and garnished, a
climax by way of describing the man's condition as one that is calculated to

1 Plat. Legg. x. p. 987A; Plut. Marcell. 27. 4 Tob. vill. 8; Bar. iv. 85; Rev. xvill. 2.

4 ‘* Ex ipsorum comparatione ist merito & See Kihner, II. 1, p. 49 f.; Bornemann
damnabuntur,”’ Augustine. in the Sdchs. Stud. 1846, p. 40.

* Comp. Weiss, 1864, p. 8&4 f.

248 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

induce re-possession, not to indicate (Bengel, de Wette, Bleek) that healthy
state of the soul which forms such an obstacle to the demon in his efforts
to regain admission, that he is led to call in the assistance of others. This
would be to represent the state of the case in such a way as to make it
‘appear that the demon had found the house barred against him ; but it
would likewise be at variance with the whole scope of the allegory, which
is designed to exhibit the hopeless incorrigibility of the yeved, so that what is
pragmatically assumed is not the idea of moral soundness, but merely that
of a readiness to welcome the return of evil influence after a temporary
amendment. The reinforcement by seven other spirits is not to be ascribed
to the need of greater strength in order to regain possession, but rather
(hence rovnypérepa, not iaxvpérepa) to the fiendish desire now to torment the
man much more than before ; and so, according to our interpretation, it is
yo more neccessary to impute the calling in of those others to the noble
motive of sympathetic friendship (de Wette’s objection) than it would be
in the case of the legion with its association of demons. —1ré écyara] the
last, i.¢., the condition in which he finds himself under the latter possession ;
Ta rpata : when there was only one demon within him.'

Vv. 46-50. The same incident is given in Luke viii. 19 ff. in a different
but extremely loose connection, and, as there recorded, compares unfavor-
ably with Matthew's version (in answer to Schleiermacher, Keim). The
occasion of the incident as given in Mark iii. 20 ff. is altogether peculiar
and no doubt historical. — oi adeAgot avrov] even if nothing more were said,
these words would naturally be understood to refer to the brothers according
to the flesh, sons of Joseph and Mary, born after Jesus ; but this reference is
placed beyond all doubt by the fact that the mother is mentioned at the
same time (Mark iii. 81 ; Luke viii. 19 ; John ii. 12 ; Acts i. 14), just as in
xili. 55 the father and the sisters are likewise mentioned along with him.
The expressions in i. 25, Luke ii. 7, find their explanation in the fact of the
existence of those literal brothers of Jesus. Comp. note on i. 25 ; 1 Cor. ix.
5. The interpretations which make them sons of Mary's sister, or half
brothers, sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, were wrung from the words
even at a very early period (the latter already to be found as a legend in
Origen ; the former, especially in Jerome, since whose time it has come to
be generally adopted in the West), in consequence of the dogmatic assump-
tion of Mary’s perpetual virginity (nay, even of a corresponding state of
things on the part of her husband as well), and owing to the extravagant
notions which were entertained regarding the superhuman holiness that at-
tached to her person as called to be the mother of Jesus.* —2&w] The former

12 Pet. il. 20; Matt. xxvii. 64.

* The same line of interpretation is, for
similar reasons, still adopted in the present
day by Olshausen, Arnoldi, Friedlieb, Z.J.
§ 36; Lange, apost. Zeitalt. p. 189 ff.; and in
Herzog's Encyki. VI. p. 415 ff. ; Lichtenstein,
L.J. p. 100 ff.; Hengstenberg on John il. 12;
Schegg, and others; also Déllinger, Chiris-
tenth. u. Kirche, p. 108 f., who take the

brothers and sisters for sons and daughters
of Alphaeus; while Hofmann, on the other
hand, has abandoned this view, which
he had previously maintained (Z¥iang.
Zeiischr. 1851, Aug., p. 117), in favor of the
correct interpretation (Schri/tbew. TI. 2, p.
405 f.). See, besides, Clemen in Winer's
Zeitechr. 1829, 3, p. 829 ff.; Blom, de rois adeAg-
ots xupiov, 1889 ; Wieseler in the Stud. u. Arif.

CHAP. XII., 46-50. 249

incident (ver. 22 ff.) must therefore have occurred in some house. Mark
iii. 20 ; Luke viii. 20. —ém? rove padyrad¢ atrov] not his hearers generally
(rove SyAove), and yet not merely the Twelve (ver. 50), but those who fol-
lowed Him in the character of disciples ; these He indicated by pointing
to them with the finger. — idod } uyrnp pov, x.7.A.] my nearest relations in
the true ideal sense of the word.’ True kinship with Jesus is established
not by physical, but by spiritual relationship ; Johni. 12f., iii. 3; Rom.
viii. 29." Comp. Jesus’ own requirement in x. 87. He is not to be under-
stood as avowing a sharp determination to break off His connection with
them (Weizsiicker, p. 400),—a view, again, which the account in Mark is
equally inadequate to support. Besides, it is evident from our passage,
compared with Mark iii. 20 f., John vii. 8, that the mother of Jesus, who is
placed by the latter in the same category with the brothers, and ranked
below the zadyraf, cannot as yet be fairly classed among the number of His
believers, strange as this may seem when viewed in the light of the early
gospel narrative (Olshausen has recourse to the fiction of a brief struggle to
believe). Again, judging from the whole repelling tendency of His answer,
it would appear to be more probable that He declined the interview with
His relations altogether, than that He afterwards still afforded them an op-
portunity of speaking with Him, as is supposed by Ebrard and Schegg. Be
this as it may, there is nothing to justify Chrysostom and Theophylact in
charging the mother and the brothers with ostentation, inasmuch as they had
requested Jesus to come out to them, instead of their going in to Him. —
boT1¢ yap, x.r.A.] spoken in the full consciousness of His being the Son of
God, who has duties incumbent upon Him in virtue of His mission. — avréc]
He, no other.

1842, p. 71 ff., and note on Gal. {. 19; Schaf,
ueber d. Verh. des Jak. Bruders des Herrn cu
Jakob. Alphdt, 1842; Neander, Geach. d.
Phanzung u. s. w. p. 554 ff.; Hilgenfeld on
Gal. p. 188 ff.; Wijbelingh, Diss. quis sit
epistolae Jacobi scriptor, 1854, p. 1 ff.; Rig-
genbach, Vorles. db. d. Leb. d. Herrn, p.
286 ff.; Huther on Jas. Eitnl. $1; Kahnis,
Dogm.I. p. 426 f.; Wiesinger, 3. Br. Judd
Fini. ; Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 158 ff.; Keim,
I. p. 422 ff. For the various interpretations
of the Fathers, see Thilo, Cod. Apocr. I. p.
262 ff.

1Comp. Hom. Ji, vi. 429; Dem. 287. 11;
Xen. Anad. i. 8. 6, and Kiihner’s note ; Eur.
Hec. 280 f., and Pflugk’s note.

2 In reference to the seeming harshness of
the reply, Bengel appropriately observes:
‘*Non spernit matrem, sed anteponit Pa-
trem ; ver. 50, et nunc non agnoscit matrem
et fratres sub hoo formali,” ‘‘ He does not
scorn His mother, but prefers to her His
Father ; ver. 50, and now, on this principle,
does not acknowledge His mother and His
brethren."

250 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER XIII.

Ver. 1. The omission of dé (Lachm. Tisch. 8) is supported by B®, three Curss.
It. Arm. Aeth. Or. But the apparently superfluous dé might very easily be left
out, coming as it does before r7.— amd r. oix.] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : é« r. oix., after
Z &, 33, Or. Chrys. Weakly attested. Yet B, Or. (once) omit the preposition
altogether. — Ver. 2. 76 zAviov] Lachm. : zAciov (BCL Z &). But see on viii.
23. — Ver. 4. #A9e] Lachm. : 7A6o0v, after D L Z, Curss. Since xarégayev below
necessarily presupposes the singular, this reading must be regarded as merely
an error on the part of the transcriber, which was amended in B, Curss. by
substituting «Aéévra and omitting the following «ai (so Tisch. 7). Otherwise,
Fritzsche, de conform. N. T. crit. Lachm. p. 52 f£. — Ver. 7. Instead of arérvigay,
with Tisch. 8, read éxvfav, after D &, Curss. The reading of the Received
text is from Luke. — Ver. 9. dxovecy] is, with Tisch., to be deleted, in accord-
ance with B L &* Codd. It. See on xi. 15. — Ver. 14. avroic] Elz. : éx’ atroig,
against decisive testimony. An interpretation. — Ver. 15. ovydc:] So Elz
1624, 1633, 1641, Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Tisch., according to decisive testi-
mony. Scholz: ovmdot. —idowua:] Lachm. Tisch. : idcova:, after testimony
of so decisive a character that it cannot have been derived from the LXX.,
while the subjunctive mood may have been adopted for sake of conformity
with the preceding verbs, Comp. on John xii. 40.— Ver, 16. After dza
Lachm. deletes the superfluous tua, only according to B, Curss. Codd. It. Hil.;
and for axove, he and Tisch. read axovovov, after BC M X & and Curss. Or.
Eus. Cyr. Chrys. The latter is a mechanical conformation to the previous
verb. — Ver. 17. yap] is deleted by Tisch. 8, only after X &, Curss. It. Arm.
Aeth. Hil. — Ver. 18. For oveipovrog Lachm. Tisch. 8 read ozeipavroc, after B
X &* Curss. Syr. p. Chrys. Correctly ; the orcipwy of ver. 3 would still be lin-
gering in the minds of the transcribers. Therefore, in deference to still
stronger testimony, should ozeipayt: be adopted in ver. 24, with Lachm. and
Tisch. 8. — Ver. 22. rovrov] omitted after aidvog in B D &* Arm. Cant. Vere.
Germ. 1, Corb. 2, Clar. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Explanatory addition.
— Ver. 23. The form ovweic¢ (Lachm. Tisch., after B D &, 238, Or.) instead of
ovviev has been adopted in consequence of ver. 19. — Ver. 25. éoreipe) Lachm.
and Tisch. : éréore:pev, after B X** (* has éxéorapxev) and Curss. Arm. It.
Vulg. Clem. Or. and several Fathers. Correctly ; how easily might the preposi-
tion be dropped through carelessness in transcribing ! More easily than that the
éréoretpev, Which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, should have been
inserted as a gloss, — Ver. 27. The article, which in Elz. is placed before ¢:faya,
is deleted by Griesb. and the later critics, according to decisive testimony. So
also with regard to r® before carp> in ver. 30, where Fritzsche wrongly main-
tains rw to be necessary. — Ver. 30. ei¢ déouac] D L X A, Curss. Or. Chrys.
Codd. I. have merely désuac, some with and others without avréd. Tisch. 7 has
deleted e:¢ (comp. Rinck), and that correctly ; an explanatory addition. — Ver.
32. The form xataoxnvoiy (Lachm. Tisch.) is only found in B* D; in the case

OHAP. XIII, 1-52. 251
of Mark iv. 32, only in B*. — Ver. 34. ovx] Lachm. Tisch. : ovdév, after B C M
A &®* Curss. Syr. p. Arm. Clem. Or. Chrys., should be adopted on the strength
of this testimony, and because ov« is found in Mark, and is by way of toning
down the expression. — Ver. 35, 6:4] ®* 1, 13, 38, 124, 253 insert ’Hoatov, which
is supported by Eus. Porphyr. and Jerom. A false gloss,' notwithstanding
that it is adopted by Tisch. 8. Jerom. suggests ’Acu¢. — xéopov] deleted by
Tisch. 8, after B 8** 1, 22, several Codd, of the It. Syrc«* Or. Clem. Eus. Tho
omission was occasioned by the LXX., which has merely ax’ apyic. — Ver. 36.
6 "Incovc} and avroic, ver. 37, as well should be deleted as interpolations, accord-
ing to B D &, Curss. Verss. and Or. Chrys. — Ver. 40. xaievar:] Elz. Lachm.,
and Tisch. 8: xaraxaiera:, after B D &. Taken from ver. 30. — For aidav.
rovrov Lachm. and Tisch. have merely aiwvoc, after B DT &, Curss. Verss. Cyr.
Ir. Hil. Correctly ; revrov is quite a common addition, as in ver. 22. — Ver.
44. waAcv dpoia] B D &, Vulg. It. Syre* Copt. Arm. Tisch. have merely dyoia ;
Lachm. has radcv only in brackets. It would be more readily deleted than
inserted, for at this point a new series of parables begins, and it would seem
to be in its proper place only in the passage that follows (vv. 45, 47). — Ver.
46. For é¢ evpav, we should, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch.,
read eipov dé, after BDL ¥&, 1, 33, Cyr. Cypr. and Verss. To continue the
discourse with the relative was in accordance with what precedes and what
comes after, which accounts for the relative construction superseding the eipay
dé, which would seem to break the continuity. Ver. 48. Lachm. has aizyy
after drva3i8. ; so also Tisch. 7. On too inadequate testimony. With Tisch. 8,
and on sufficient testimony, read instead of ayyeia the more uncommon term
dyyn. — Ver. 51. Aéyee atroig 6 "Incovc] before cvvyx. is wanting in B D &, Copt.
Aeth. Vulg. Sax. It. (not Brix. Clar. Germ. 2) Or. Deleted by Fritzsche,
Lachm, and Tisch. ; would be more readily inserted than omitted, although
the discourse of Jesus is only continued. With Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., and
on somewhat similar authority, we should delete the xipe after vai as being a
common addition. — Ver. 52. r7 Baotdeig] Elz. Scholz: cig rv BaoAciav, Lachm.:
év Tg Baord, (D M 42, Vulg. It. Chrys. Ir, Hil. Ambr. Aug.). Both readings
appear to be explanations of r9 Baord., which latter is sufficiently confirmed
by the testimony of B C K II &, Curss. Syr. Ar. Aeth. Slav. Or. Ath. Cyr.
Procop. — Ver. 55. 'Iwo7¢] without adequate testimony, B C &** 1, 33, Copt.
Syr. p. (on the margin) Syr‘** It. (exc. Cant.) Vulg: Sax. Or. (twice) Eus. Jer.
have 'Iuo7¢.; DEF GMS UV XI ®*? Curss. Cant. Or. (once) have
"Iudvene. Accordingly, with Lachm. and Tisch., we ought to prefer ’Iwo7¢ as
having the largest amount of testimony in its favor. See, besides, Wieseler in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 677 ff.

Vv. 1-52. ’Ev 62 rp 4u. éx.] fuller detail than in Mark iv. 1, which evan-
gelist, however, describes the situation with more precision, though he like-
wise introduces the parable of the sower immediately after the scene with

1 A clear idea of the age of this erroneous

addition may be obtained from the fact
that it was even found in a copy of Mat-
thew made use of by the Clementine Homli-
lies (see Uhlhorn, Homil. u. Recogn. d. Clem.
p. 119), and also from the circumstance of
Porphyry’s chuckling over the ‘Heafov as

being an error on the part of the inspired
evangelist. But the weight of critical tes-
timony is very decidedly in favor of re-
jecting the reading "Hoaiov in Matthew as
spurious (in answer to Credner, Beiés. I.
p. 802 ff.; Schneckenburger, p. 186, and
Bleek).

252 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the mother and brothers (otherwise in Luke viii.), and indeed as one of the
many (iv. 2, 88) that were spoken at that time, and thereupon proceeds in
ver, 26 ff. to add another having reference to sowing, which is followed
again by the parable of the mustard seed, which Luke does not introduce
till xiii. 18 ff. along with that of the leaven. But seeing that Matthew lets
it be distinctly understood (ver. 36) that the first four parables (on to ver.
84) were spoken in presence of the multitude, and the other three again
within the circle of the disciples, there is the less reason for regarding the
similarity of character which runs through the seven, as recorded by Matthew,
in the light of an ‘‘ overwhelming” with parables (Strauss), and the less need
to ascribe some of them (Keim, comp. Schenkel), and especially those of the
mustard seed and the leaven, to a different period, from their being supposed
to be applicable (Weizsiicker) to a later order of things. Yet, when we
consider that Jesus surveyed the future of His work with a prophetic eye,
we need not be at a loss to see how a parabolic address might contemplate
a later state of things just as fittingly as does the Sermon on the Mount, to
which this series of parables stands in the same relation as the superstruct-
ure to the foundation of a building. Comp. Ewald, who holds, however,
that originally the parables stood in a somewhat different order. — az r.
oixiac] is to be taken in connection with 2, xii. 46, and not to be regarded
as referring to no house in particular (Hilgenfeld).

Ver. 2. Td rAciov] the boat standing by. —ém? rav aiy:adév] along the shore
(comp. xiv. 19), as in xviii. 12.1. The expression is suited to the idea of a
gathering of people extending over a considerable space.

Ver. 8 f. IlapaBoaq (Arist. Rhet. ii. 20), ‘wn, the narrating of an incident
which, though imaginary, still falls within the sphere of natural events, with the
view of thereby illustrating some truth or other.* See Unger, de parabolar. Jesu
natura, interpretatione, usu, 1828, who gives the following definition : colla-
tio per narratiunculam fictam, sed veri similem,* serio illustrans rem subli-
miorem.* The correct canon for the interpretation of the parables is already
to be found in Chrysostom on xx. 1: otd2 yp) mdvra ra lv raicg rapaBodaic
Kata AéEw mepuepyalecdat, GAAa Tov oxérov paddévrec, dc bv ovverédy, rovrov
dpétecda: nat pndév woAvrpaypovety mepartépw, ‘‘ Nor is it necessary to waste
labor by way of explanation over all matters in the parables, but having

4 Winer, p. 880 [E. T. 508]; Niagelsbach,
note on Hom. J1. ii. 808.

Siva cal éudharicwrepoy toy Adyor wotjoy,
cal wAciova Thy pvipny évdy, cat vm’ oyu
aydyp Ta wpdypuara, ‘‘that He might make
His teaching more emphatic,and strengthen
the memory, and bring affairs under sight,”
Chrysostom.

To be distinguished from the fable,
which, forexample, may introduce animals,
trees, and such like as speaking and acting.
‘“*Fabula est, in qua nec vera nec veri-
similes res continentur,” Clic. tnvend. 1. 19.
So far as appears from the New Testament,
Christ never made use of the fable; as little
did the apostles ; in the Old Testament, in

Judg. ix. 8 ff.

4 Observe, moreover, that the New Tes-
tament sapafoaAy and 40 may mean some-
thing more comprehensive and less definite
(including every description of figurative
speech, Mark fil. 28, iv. 30, vil. 17; Lake fv.
28, v. 36, vi. 89, xiv. 7; Matt. xv. 15, xxiv.
82) than is implied in the above definition
of the parable asa hermeneutical terminus
technicus, Comp. the Johannean wapomia
(note on Jobn x. 6). John does not use the
word parable ; but then he does not report
any such among the sayings of Jesus,
though he has a few allegories; as, for
example, those of the vine and the good
shepherd.

CHAP. XIII., 6-12. 253

learned the design for which it was constructed, to get possession of that and
not to busy one self with anything further.” — é oreipwy] the sower, whom I
have in view. Present participle, used as a substantive. See on ii. 20. A
similar parable is given in the Jerusalem Talmud Kilaim I. f. 27. — rapa r.
6d6v]| upon the road (which went round the edge of the field), so that it was
not ploughed in or harrowed in along with the rest. — ra wetpddy] the rocky
parts, z.e., ‘‘saxum continuum sub terrae superficie tenui,” Bengel.

Ver. 6 f. 'Exavzar.| was scorched (Rev. xvi. 8 f. ; Plut. Mor. p. 100 D, with
reference to fever-heat). — dca rd un Eye pifav] Owing to the shallowness of .
the earth, the seed sent up shoots before the root was duly formed. — émi
Tac axdvd.] upon the thorns (which were about te spring up there), and these
grew up (avéByoav, Xen. Oec. xix. 18), shot up.’

Ver. 8. ‘Exardv x.r.A.] That grains are meant is self-evident, without our
having to supply xaprotcs. For the great fertility of the East, and especially
of Galilee, consult Wetstein on this passage.* However, such points of de-
tail (comp. as to éxarév, Gen. xxvi. 12) should not be pressed, serving as they
do merely to enliven and fill out the picture.

Vv. 9, 10. See on xi. 15. — The parabolic discourse is resumed at ver. 24,
after Jesus has finished the private exposition of those already spoken, into
which He was led in consequence of the question addressed to Him by the
disciples. The exposition was given in the boat, where it is sufficiently pos-
sible to conceive such a conversation to have taken place without the neces-
sity of our regarding the whole situation as imaginary (Hilgenfeld), or with-
out our having to suppose it ‘‘rather more probable” that the exposition
took place after the whole series of parables was brought to a close (Keim).
—Ver. 10. The question, which in Matthew is framed to suit the reply
(Neander, Weiss, Holtzmann), appears in a different and certainly more
original form (in answer to Keim) in Mark iv. 10 ; Luke viii. 9.

Ver. 11. Aédora:] by God, through the unfolding, that is, of your inward
powers of perception, not merely by means of the exposition (Weizsicker,
p. 413). The opposite condition, ver. 18. — yvéva:] even without the help
of parabolic illustration, although previous to the outpouring of the Spirit,
nay, previous to the second coming (1 Cor. xiii. 9 f.), this would always
be the case only to an imperfect degree. — 1d vor. r. Bao. r. ovpav.] the
secret things of the Messiah's kingdom, things which refer to the Messiah’s
kingdom. They are called pvorfpia, because their dzoxdAvyic was now being
brought about for the first time by means of the gospel.* They are the
purposes that are hid in God, which man can only know by the help of
divine teaching, and-which the gospel unveils. — éxeivorg d2 ov dédorar] is
still to be connected with rc (because). [See note VII., p. 265, e¢ seq.]

Ver. 12. Proverbial saying derived from the experience of ordinary life
(xxv. 29) : The wealthy man will become still richer even to superabun-
dance ; while the poor man, again, will lose the little that still remains to
him ; see Wetstein. In this instance the saying is used with reference to

1 Comp. der. iv. 8; Theophrastus, ¢. pl. fi. ridut. p. 171; Keim, IT. p. 448.
17.3: ro rp axdvdy émiowapéuevoy crdppa. * Comp. note on Rom. xi. 25, xvi. 2.
1 Dougtius, Anal. II. p. 15 f.; Kédster,

254 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

spiritual possessions, and is applied thus: With the knowledge you have al-
ready acquired, you are ever penetrating more deeply and fully into the things
of God's kingdom ; the multitude, on the other hand, would lose altogether the
little capacity it has for understanding divine truth, unless I were to assist its
weak powers of apprehension by parabolic illustrations. The contrast between
the two cases in question is not to be regarded as consisting in vwéi and non
uti (Grotius), deing willing and not being willing (Schegg). — For the passize
meptoortecda, to be in possession of a superabundance, see on Luke xv. 17. —
dorig Zyec is the nominative absolute, as in vii. 24, x. 14. éyew and oix
éve.v, in the sense of rich and poor, is likewise very common in classical au-
thors.’

Ver. 18. Acad rotro) refers to what immediately precedes ; because their
case is similar to that of the poor, and so they would lose the little that
they had ; but the a7: (because, namely) which follows introduces an expla-
nation by way of justifying d:d rovro (comp. John x. 17), and which depicts
in proverbial language (Isa. xxxii. 3, xxxv. 5 f., 9f. ; Jer. v. 21) the peo-
ple’s dullness of apprehension. It is unnecessary to make the reference of
dia rovro extend so far back as ver. 11 (Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek). In de-
fiance of grammar, yet in deference to the parallels in Mark and Luke, Ols-
hausen says that d7:, because, expresses the result intended (iva).*

Vv. 14, 15. Kai] still depending on ér: ; but, in a manner suited to the
simplicity of the language, and the conspicuous reference to the fulfilling of
the prophecy, it begins a new sentence : and—indeed so utterly incapable are
they of comprehending the pure, literal statement of divine truth—is being
Sulfilled with regard to them, and 80 on. avaxdAnp., as being more forcible
than the simple verb (comp. on Gal. vi. 2, and éxmAnp., Acts xiii. 33), is ex-
pressly chosen (occurring nowhere elsc in Matthew, and, as referring to the
predictions and such like, not found again in the whole New Testament),
and for sake of emphasis placed at the beginning of the sentence ; ai:zoi¢ is
the dative of reference : the fulfilment of the prophet’s words is realized in
them.—The passage in question is Isa. vi. 9, 10, as found in the LXX.'—
éxayivdn] in a metaphorical sense, like pinguis. See Wetstein. The ex-
pression represents the indolent and inactive state into which the energies
of the spiritual life have been allowed to sink. — Bapéwe fxovoar] they hare
become dull of hearing (Sapvfnoo). — éxduprvoar] have they closed, Isa. vi. 10,
xxix. 10; Lam. iii. 44. The genuine Greek form is xaraytev.‘ — pirore]
ne; they are not willing to be instructed by me, and morally healed. This
shows that, in regard to the weakness of their capacity, it is their own will
that is to blame.—By adopting the reading idoouaz (see the critical remarks)
we do not introduce the meaning, which is out of place in the present in-
stance: and I will heal them (Fritzsche), but rather effect a change in the
construction of u#zore,® that is, in accordance with the sense (because ex-

1 Ast, ad Flat. Legg. V. p. 172; Borne- 4See Lobeck, Phryn. p. 889 f.; Becker,

mann, ad Xen. Anabd. vi. 6. 88. Anecd, I. p. 108.
2Similarly Schegg; comp. also Weiz- ®’ Heindorf, ad Plat. Crat. p. 86; Her-
sicker, p. 413. mann, ad Soph. El. 992; Winer, p. 468 [E. T.

? Comp. on John xii. 40; Acts xxvili. 25 ff. 630].

CHAP. XIII.,16,1%. . 255

pressing the result). Comp. note on Mark xiv. 2. Notice in idooua the
consciousness of being a personal revelation of God.

Remark. — According to Matthew, ‘then, the principle on which Jesus pro-
ceeds is this: He speaks to the multitude in parables, because this mode of
instruction is suited to their intellectual poverty and obtuseness. Plain literal
teaching would fail to attract them, and so lead to their conversion, which
latter their very obtuseness stubbornly resists. But what is spoken in a para-
bolic form captivates and lays hold of the man of limited comprehension, so
that it does not repel him from his instructor, but rather becomes in him, even
though not yet apprehended in its abstract meaning, the starting-point of a
further gradual development of fuller understanding and ultimate conversion.
There is no reason why de Wette should be stumbled to find that the disciples
themselves likewise failed to understand the parable, and were therefore on
the same level as the multitudes ; therefore, he argues, one is at a loss to see
why Jesus did not favor the latter also with an explanation. But the differ-
ence between the two cases is, that the disciples, from having been already
converted, and from their minds having been already stimulated and developed
by intercourse with Jesus, were just in a position to understand the interpre-
tation, which the people, on the other hand, were incapable of doing, so that
it was necessary to present to them the mere illustration, the parable without the
interpretation, in order to, first, interest and attract them. They had to be
treated like children, for whose physical condition the only suitable food is
milk, and not strong meat likewise, whereas the disciples had already shown
themselves capable of receiving the strong meat as well. Consequently de
Wette is wrong in conceiving of the matter differently from the representation
of it given by the evangelists, and which is to this effect : that the object of Je-
sus in awakening a spirit of inquiry by means of the parables was, that those so
awakened should come to Him to obtain instruction ; that those who did so are to
be regarded as the yafyrai in the more comprehensive sense of the word ; and
that to them the explanation was given and the congratulation addressed ;
while, on the other hand, Jesus pities the unimpressionable multitude, and
applies to them the words of Isa. vi. 9 f. (comp. already Miinster). Lastly,
Hilgenfeld professes to find in this passage indications of the view, censured
by Strauss as ‘‘ melancholy,” that the use of parables was not intended to aid
weak powers of comprehension, but in the truly literal sense of the words to
keep them slumbering. But as regards Matthew, above all, this is out of the
question, seeing that in ver. 13 he has dri, and not ?va. Comp. Keim also, IT.
p. 441. It is otherwise in Mark iv. 12 ; Luke viii. 10.

Vv. 16, 17. ‘Yudv] stands first for sake of emphasis, and in contrast to
the stupid multitude. — paxdpcor ol 6¢9aAuoi} Personification of the faculty of
sight. Luke xi. 27; Acts v. 9; Isa. lil. 7.— re BAérovoe . . . Gre axoter]
The thought underlying this (and keeping in view vv. 18, 15) may bestated
thus : your intellect, as regards the apprehension of divine truth, is not un-
receptive and obtuse, but susceptible and active. — yép] justifies the con-
gratulation on the ground of the important nature of the matter in question.
—dixawo] Upright, holy men of old.!— ideiy & BAémere, x.7.4.] the pvorhpra

2 Comp. x. 41, xxill. 20, also dysros, xxvii. 52.

256 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tig Bactdeiac, ver. 11; Heb. xi. 18, 89. The vision of Abraham, John viii.
56, is foreign to the present passage, from the fact of its not having been
seen during his life in the body. — The Biérecv in ver. 16 was equivalent to,
to be capable of seeing, while here it means simply to see. Comp. note on
John ix. 39. But there is no ground for supposing that Matthew has mixed
up two distinct discourses (de Wette).

Ver. 18 f. 'Yyeic] emphatic, as in ver. 16. —ovy] for it is with you pre-
cisely as has been said in ver. 16. — dxovcoare] not : understand (de Wette),
but : hear, attend to the parable, that is, with a view to see the meaning
that it is intended to convey. — ravrdc, x.r.A] an anacoluthon. The evange-
list had perhaps intended to write : ravré¢ axobovrog — ovnévrog ex Tig xapdiac
apTase: 6 movnpoc Td éortaputvoy, from the heart of every one that hears without
understanding, the wicked one, and soon; but, from the circumstance of
the épyerac coming in the way, he was led to break off the construction
with which he had set out.’— 1. Adyov 7. Bao.] the preaching of the Messianic
kingdom, iv. 28, xxiv. 14; Acts i. 3, xxviii. 831. — ovvévrocg] understands,
not : attends to it, which is grammatically and contextually (év 19 xapdig)
wrong (in answer to Beza, Grotius). Mark and Luke say nothing whatever
here about the not understanding ; it does not appear to have been found
in the collection of our Lord's sayings (Acyia), but to have been added to
the original narrative by way of explanation (Ewald), its adoption being now
rendered further necessary owing to the turn given to the sentence by sravror,
which latter would otherwise be out of place. The explanation given in
this addition happens, however, to be correct ; for the word that is not
understood, that is, not appropriated through the understanding, lies on the
surface of the heart without being incorporated with the inner life, and
therefore, in presence of the devil’s temptations, is the more liable to be
forgotten again, and cast away, so that faith fails to take possession of the
heart (Rom. x. 10). —ovré¢ éoriy, «.7.4.] @ cutting short of a similitude
before it is fully worked out, that is not uncommon owing to the liveliness
of the Oriental imagination. Not the man, but the truth taught, is 6 orapeic.
What is meant is to this effect : This is he in whose case the seed was sown
upon the road. Others* interpret : This is he who was sown upon the road.
Paulus and Vater refer ovroc to Aoyoe. Neither of the explanations harmonizes
with vv. 20, 22, 23. That the loss of the seed is tantamount to the loss of
one’s own life, though not stated in so many words (Lange), is implied in
the nature of the case.

Ver. 21. Description of one whose mind is so stirred as instantly to wel-
come the word with joy, but who, when subjected to the testing influence
of affliction, abandons his faith and relapses into his former condition.
Such an one is without root in his own inner being, i.¢., he is destitute of that
faith (Eph. iii. 16 f.) which, as a power in the heart, is fitted to maintain
and foster the life that has been momentarily awakened by means of the
word. — mpécxa:poc] temporary, not lasting, not enduring. See Wetstein.

1 Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, mus, Schmid, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel,
p. 107. Rosenmiller, Kuinoel.
* Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Beza, Eras-

CHAP. XIII., 22-25. 25%

—OAlpews diusyuod] by means of the ‘‘ or” the special is added on to the
general, — cxavdadilera] he encounters a stumbling-block, i.e., a temptation to
unbelief ; see notes on v. 29, i. 6. Affliction in his case proves a re:pacud¢
to which he succumbs. Substantially the same as Luke viii. 18 : d¢foravraz.

Ver. 22. ’Axotwy] is simply to hear, as in all the other cases in which it
is here used ; and neither, with Grotius, are we to supply xal pera yapac
7opBévev, nor, with Kuinoel and Bleek, to take it in the sense of admittere.
— The care for this world, which (vv. 39, 49) extends even to the setting up -
of the promised kingdom (roévov is a correct gloss), is the care which men
cherish with regard to temporal objects and temporal affairs, as contrasted
with the higher concern, the striving after the Messiah’s kingdom (vi. 33).
Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10.— amdéry] the deceitfulness of those riches, which (per-
sonified) delude men with their enticements ; not : ‘‘ Delectatio, qua divitiae
animos hominum afficiunt” (Kuinoel), a classical meaning of amér7 (Polyb.
ii. 56. 12, iv. 20. 5) which is foreign to the New Testament, and which in
this instance is as unnecessary as it is flat. 2 Thess. ii. 10; Heb. iii. 18.—
dxapr. yiv.j not the word (Bengel), but the man ; see ver. 23.

Ver. 23. "Oc] refers to ax. «. ow. —For the more correct accentuation,
ovviey, see note on Rom. iii. 11. — 64] gives significance and. prominence to
the &¢ : and now this is he who; ‘ut intelligas, ceteros omnes infrugiferos,
hune demum reddere fructum,” ‘‘ to understand that all the rest being non-
fruit-bearers, this one at last produces fruit,” Erasmus.'— Whether we ought
toread 6 piv... 662... 66é (Beza, Grotius), or 5 pay... 52...
6 dé (Bengel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, following the Vulgate), is certainly
not to be determined by Mark iv. 20, though I should say the latter is to
be preferred, on account of the solemn emphasis with which, according to
this reading, the concluding words of the parable itself are repeated. at the
close of the exposition, without their requiring any particular explanation :
the one (seed, t.¢e., according to the blending which takes place of the
figure and the person : one of those who hear and understand) brings forth
a hundred, the other sizty, and 80 on.

Ver. 24. Atroic] to the multitude. Comp. vv. 3, 10, 34. — dno:édy] the
Messiah's kingdom has become like (see note on vii. 26). The aorist is to be
explained from the fact that the Messiah has already appeared, and is now
carrying on His work in connection with His kingdom. Comp. xii. 28.—
oxeipavr: (see critical remarks) : the sowing had taken place; whereupon
followed the act that is about to be mentioned. It is to be observed, more-
over, that the kingdom is not represented merely by the person of the sower,
but by his sowing good seed, and by all that follows thereupon (as far as
ver. 30) ; but to such an extent is the sower the leading feature in the par-
able, that we are thereby enabled to account for such phraseology as aporddy
9 Baotteia . . . avdpéry orelpavrz. Comp. ver. 45, xviii. 28, xx. 1.

Ver. 25. Zilévov] Darnel, lolium temulentum, a grain resembling wheat,
acting injuriously upon the brain and stomach, and likewise known by the

18ee Hartung, Purtikel. I. p. 274 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 404; Baeumlein, Partik.
p. 106,

258 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

name of alpa ; see Suidas. In Talmudic language it is called }*0.'—The
people who slept are men generally (pragmatic way of hinting that it was
during the night, when no one else would be present), not merely the agri
custodes (Bengel), or the laborers (Michaelis, Paulus), whom it would have
been necessary to indicate more particularly by means of dotvAo: or some
similar expression. This little detail forms part of the drapery of the pat-
able (comp. xxv. 5), and is not meant to be interpreted (as referring, say to
the sleep of sin, Calovius ; or to the negligence of instructors, Chrysostom,
Jerome ; or to the slowness of man’s spiritual development, Lange), as is
further evident from the fact that Jesus Himself has not so explained it.—
airov 6 éx3p.| his enemy; comp. note on vill. 8—émoreiperv : to sow oer
what was previously sown.*

Vv. 26 ff. It was only when they were in the ear that it was possible to
distinguish between the wheat and the tares, which when in the blade re-
sembled it so much. — ovaAéfwpuev] deliberative ; shall we gather together? —
éxpiCdonre] ye take out by the root. The roots of tares and wheat are inter-
twined with each other. — dua airoi¢] along with them. dua, which is in the
first instance to be regarded as an adverb (hence dua ofv, 1 Thess, iv. 17, v.
10), is also used as a preposition by classical writers) which Klotz, ad Decar.
p. 97 f., denies, though without reason), and that not merely in reference to
time (xx. 1), but on other occasions, such as the present for example.*

Ver. 30. ’Ev xacp@ without the article.‘ — dgoare aira deopu.] (see critical
remarks) : bind them into bundles. For this construction of d7o. with two
accusatives, considering the resemblance between it and the root of dcop,
comp. Kihner, IT. 1, p. 274. — The explanation of the parable, which latter
is different from that given in Mark iv. 26 ff. (in answer to Holtzmaan,
Weiss), is furnished by Jesus Himself in ver. 37 ff. It is to this effect. The
visible church, up till the day of judgment, is to comprise within its pale
those who are not members of the invisible church, and who shall have no
part in the kingdom that is to be established. The separation is not a thing
with which man is competent to deal, but must be left in the hands of the
Judge. The matter is to be understood, however, in a broad and general
way, so that it cannot be said at all to affect the right of individual ex-
communication and restoration. In regard to individuals, there remains the
possibility (to which, however, the parable makes no reference whatever) :
‘*Ut qui hodie sunt zizania, cras sint frumentum,” ‘‘ that they who to-day
are tares may to-morrow be grain,” Augustine.

Ver. 31. Zivazc] a herbaceous plant that, in the East, sometimes attains to
the height of a small tree.* In Attic Greek it is called varv.* Inasmuch as
the plant belongs (ver. 32) to the order of the Aaydva, it is unnecessary to
suppose, with Ewald,’ that it is the mustard-tree (Salvadora Persica, Linnaeus)
that is intended ; comp. in preference the expression devdpodd yava.* — Aa fav]

3 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 680. 4 Winer, p. 118 (KE. T. 147 ff.).
3 Pind. Nem. vill. 67 ; Theophr. c. pl. fli. 15. ® Celsii Hierod. II. p. 250 ff.
4: Poll. 1. 228. ¢ Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 228.

$ Herod. vi. 188; Soph. Phil. 971, 1015; * Jahrod.T1. p. 8 f.
Polyb. ib. 5. 11, x. 18.1; comp. Wisd. xvii. ® Theophrastus, A. pl. i. 8. 4,
11; 2 Macc. xi. 7.

CHAP. XIII., 32-35. 259

an instance of the usual circumstantiality (comp. ver. 88), but not intended
to convey the idea of the care with which so tiny a seed is taken into the
Aand (Lange).

Ver. 32. °0] refers to xéxxoc ocvdw., and owes its gender to the fact of its
being attracted by the neuter following.'— pixpérepov] not instead of the
superlative ; see, however, on note xi. 11. But, inasmuch as this is a pro-
verbial expression of a hyperbolical character, little need be made of the
fact that seeds ofa still more diminutive kind are to be met with ; comp.
xvii. 20, and Lightfoot.’ — rév Aazyévar] than any other vegetable. —brav d2
avé., «.T.A.] but when it shall have grown, portrays the ertraordinary result
that follows the sowing of the tiny little seed. The astonishing nature of
such a result is still more forcibly brought out in Luke xiii. 19 by means of
dévdpov péya. —xataox.] dwell. The interpretation of the word as meaning
to build nests (Erasmus) is not genera] enough ; comp. note on viii. 20.

Ver. 38. Zérov] 8D, one-third of an ephah, a dry measure, and, accord-
ing to Josephus* and Jerome on this passage, equivalent to one and a half
Roman bushels. It befits the pictorial style of the passage that it should
mention a dgfinite quantity of flour ; without any special object for doing so,
it mentions what appears to be the wsval quantity.‘ So much the more ar-
bitrary is Lange’s remark, that three is the number of the spirit. A great
deal in the way of allegorizing the three céra is to be found in the Fathers.
According to Theodore of Mopsuestia, they denote the Greeks, Jews,and Sa-
maritans ; Augustine, Melanchthon suppose them to signify the heart, the
soul, and the spirit.

The parable of the mustard seed is designed to show that the great commu-
nity, consisting of those who are to participate in the Messianic kingdom,
é.e., the true people of God as constituting the body politic of the future
kingdom, is destined to develop from a small beginning into a vast multi-
tude, and thereforeto grow eztensively ; rrotuvov bvre¢ dAiyor, etc dmetpov nvE{Inoar,
‘‘being a small flock, they were increased into a countless one.”* The par-
able of the leaven, on the other hand, is intended to show how the specific in-
fluences of the Messiah’s kingdom (Eph. iv. 4 ff.) gradually penetrate the
whole of its future subjects, till by this means the entire mass is brought
intensively into that spiritual condition which qualifies it for being admitted
into the kingdom.

Ver. 84. Otddv 214.2] ward rdv xapdv éxeivov dydadf, Euth. Zigabenus ;
comp. Chrysostom. This is further indicated by the imperfect relative (pre-
viously aorists were being used). The absolute sense in which the words
are understood by Baumgarten-Crusius and Hilgenfeld is inconsistent with
historical facts; nor could Matthew, or Mark iv. 84, have intended the
words to be so taken without being guilty of the grossest absurdity. This
in answer no less to Weiss, Holtzmann, Volkmar.

Ver. 85. The circumstance that, on this occasion, Jesus spoke exclusively

1 Winer, p. 156 (E. T. 217 ff]. Gen. xvili.6; Judg. vi. 19; 1 Sam. 1. 2.
Satis est, in genere verum esse, quod ® Euth. Zigabenus ; Acts i. 15, fl. 41, 47, iv.
dicit Dominus,” Erasmus. 4, v. 14, vi. 7, xxi. 20; Rom. xv. 19, xi. Bf.

§ Antt. ix. 4. 5.

260 | THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. =

in parabolic language, was supposed, according to the divine order in history,
to be a fulfilling ' of, and so on. —pogfrov] Asaph, who in 2 Chron. xxix.
80 is called TIN (LXX. has rod mpogfrov). The passage referred to is Ps.
Ixxviii. 2, the first half being according to the LXX., the second a free ren-
dering of the Hebrew text. — épetyeoda:] to give forth from the mouth, 3,
employed by Alexandrian Jews in the sense of pronuntiare, Ps. xviii. 2.*
— xexpuup. ard xaraB. xbop.] 4.€., Ta prorhpra rig Baordeiac, Rom. xvi. 25.

Ver. 86. Tv olxiav] the house mentioned in ver. 1. — ¢gpécov ; comp. xv.
15. Occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It denotes speaking in
the way of explaining, unfolding anything.* The reading dcacégyoor (Lach-
mann, after B ¥ and Origen once) is a correct gloss.

Vv. 87, 88. In explaining this parable Jesus contents Himself, as far as
ver. 89, with short positive statements, in order merely to prepare the way
for the principal matter with which He has to deal (ver. 40), and thereafter
to set it forth with fuller detail. There is consequently no ground for treat-
ing this explanation as if it had not belonged to the collection of our Lord’s
sayings (Ewald, Weiss, Holtzmann),—for regarding it as an interpolation
on the part of the evangelist, in advocating which view Weiss lays stress
upon a want of harmony between the negative points in the parable and the
positive character of the exposition ; while Hilgenfeld questions the correct-
ness of this exposition, because he thinks that, as the progress that takes
place between the sowing and the harvest corresponds with and is applica-
ble to the whole history of the world, therefore the sower cannot have been
Christ, but God and Him only,—an objection which has been already dis-
posed of by the first parable in the series.— The good seed represents the sons
of the kingdom, the (future) subjects, citizens of the Messianic kingdom
(comp. note on viii. 12), who are established as such by the Messiah in their
spiritual nature, which is adapted thereto (6 oreipwy rd xaddy oréppya éotiv 5
vidg Tov avIpdrov, ver. 87). Itis not ‘“/fruges ex bono semine enatae” (Fritzsche)
that are intended by ré 62 xadav orépua, but see vv. 24, 25. — of viol rod rrovnpoi']
whose ethical nature is derived from the devil (see ver. 89). Comp. John
viii. 41, 44; 1 John iii. 8, 10. Not specially: the heretics (the Fathers
and several of the older expositors).

Ver, 89. ZuvréAa r. aidévoc] not found in any of the other Gospels : the

1 The passage, however, is not a prophecy
80 far as its historical meaning is concerned,
but only according to the typical reference
which the evangelist discerns in it. In the
original Hebrew it is expressly said 4yin3,
not in parables, but in a song of proverds, the
contents of which, however, though Aiséort-
eal from beginning to end, “ latentes rerum
Messiae figuras continebat’’ (Grotius), and
a similar instance of which we meet with
afterwards in the discourse of Stephen.
Accordingly, the prophet, instructing and
warning as he does by means of a typical
use of history, is looked upon by the evan-
gelist as the type of Christ speaking in par-
abolic narratives, and through this medium

unfolding the mysteries of the completed
theocracy. In Christ he finds realized what
the prophet says with reference to Aimsea/:
avoite, etc., and dpevgonas, etc., the anfifypi-
cal fulfiment, though it must be granted
that in doing so itis undoubtedly the ex-
pression éy sapaBodais on which he makes
the whole thing to turn, but that, availing
himself of a freedom acknowledged to be
legitimate in the use of types, he has em-
ployed that expression in a special sense, and
one that is foreign to the original Hebrew.

2 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 68 f.

2 Plat. Gorg. p. 468 E, Theaet. p. 180 B;
Soph. 7rach. 158, Phil. 535.

CHAP. XIII., 40—43. 261

close of the (current) age (ver. 22), é.¢., of the pre-Messianic epoch ; the great
catastrophe that is to accompany the second coming, and which is to intro-
duce the Messianic judgment.'—The reapers are angels ; see xxiv. 81; comp.

- John xv. 6.

Ver. 40. Katera:] not xaraxaferac, but are set on fire. No doubt the tares
are consumed by fire (ver. 30); still the point of the comparison does not lie
in their being consumed, but in the fact of their being set on jire,—a fact
which is intended to illustrate the everlasting punishment now beginning to
overtake the wicked in Gehenna. John xv. 6; Matt. xxv. 46.—The wick-
ed (the oxuvdada, ver. 41 ; the carpé, ver. 47) are connected with the church
as a mere outward institution, but do not belong to the number of its living
members (to the body of Christ).?

Ver. 41. Atrod . . . atrov] they are His to serve Him whenever He
chooses to command ; ‘‘ majestas filii hominis,” Bengel ; comp. note on viii.
20. — ovdA2éfovory éx] pregnant expression equivalent to: colligent et secernent .
er. — éx tTI¢ BaotA. avrov} for the judgment will take place as soon as the earth
has undergone that process of renovation (xxiv. 29 f. ; 2 Pet. iii. 18) which
is to transform it into the scene of the Messiah’s kingdom. Moreover, the
separation about which Jesus here speaks is a separation of persons—of the
good on the one hand, from the bad on the other, which, again, is the only
means of likewise effecting a separation between good and bad things.
Comp. xxiv. 31. Jesus distinguishes only between oxdvdada and dixao,
without recognizing any intermediate classes of men (xxv. 82 f.), a view
which subsequently found its explanation in the doctrine of faith and of
justification by faith. The question as to whether or not there are various
degrees of felicity for the righteous, as of punishment for the wicked, is one
upon which the present passage does not touch. — oxdévdada] stumbling-blocks,
é.e.. men who, through their unbelief and sin, may put temptation in the
way of others. Comp. xvi. 23.2 For this abstract way of designating indi-
viduals by means of the characteristic feature in their character, see Kiihner,
II. 1, p. 10 f. The dvoyia is immorality, as in vii. 28, xxiii. 28, xxiv. 12.

Ver. 42. The furnace (Dan. iii. 6) represents Gehenna. Comp. Rev. xx.
15. — 6 xAavOude] see note on viil. 12. ;

Ver. 43. Tére] then, when this purging out of all the cxdévdata has been
effected. — éxAduy.] the compound verb, which is used on purpose (to shine
Jorth, to burst into light,‘ and so not to be taken merely as descriptive of
eternal felicity in its general aspect, but as conveying the idea of a sublime
display of majestic splendor, of the dé6&a of the righteous in the future kingdom
of the Messiah.*® Contrast to the fate of the wicked in the furnace of fire. —
Tov ratpos avrav] sweet closing words, full of blessed confidence, xxv. 34.

2 4 Eadr. vii. 48; Bertholdt, Christol.p. 89; rods svrois dvondea, ‘He namesthe same
comp. vv. 40, 49, xxiv. 8, xxvilf. 20; Heb.ix. persons as stumbling-blocks and workers

26, and see note on xil. 32. of iniquity.”
*Comp. Apol. Conf. A. p. 147 f.; Thoma- # Xen. Cyr. vil. 1,2; Plat. Gorg. p. 484 A,
sius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, Ill. 2, p. 870. Rep. |v. p. 485 A.

* Euth. Zigabenus is correct, so far as the ®Comp. Dan. xiil. 8; Enoch xxxvill. 4,
substantial meaning Is concerned, when he xxxix. 7, clv. 4.
observes: oxdyéakta xai wototrras Thy avopuiay

262 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Vv. 44 f£. WéAcv duota] introduces a second illustration of the kingdom of
the Messiah, by way of continuing that instruction of the disciples which
began with ver. 36. —év rq dype] in the field; the article being generic.
For cases of treasure-trove mentioned by Greek and Roman writers, consult
Wetstein. — bv etpav dvPpwrog Expupe] which some man found and hid (again
in the field), so as not to be compelled to give it upto the owner of the
field, but in the hope of buying the latter, and of then being able legitimately
to claim the treasure as having been found on his own property.’ But the
most natural way is to regard eipéy as the correlative to xexpupzpéry ; while,
again, the behavior here supposed would have been a proceeding as singular
in its character as it would have been clearly dishonest toward the owner
of the field. — amd rjc yapa¢ avrov] aré marks the causal relation,” and avzob
is not the genitive of the object (over the treasure: Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther,
Beza, Calvin, Maldonatus, Jansen, Bengel, Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but, as the
ordinary usage demands, the genitive of the subject: on account of his joy,
without its being necessary in consequence to read airod, but avrov, as look-
ing at the matter from the standpoint of the speaker. The object is to in-
dicate the peculiar joy with which his lucky find inspires him. — orayet x.1.A.]
Present: the picture becoming more and more animated. The ides embodied
in the parable is to this effect : the Messianic kingdom, as being the most
valuable of all possessions, can become ours only on condition that we are
prepared joyfully to surrender for its sake every other earthly treasure. It
is still the same idea that is presented in vv. 45, 46, with, however, this
characteristic difference, that in this case the jinding of the Messiah’s king-
dom is preceded by a seeking after blessedness generally ; whereas, in the
former case, it was discovered without being sought for, therefore without
any previous effort having been put forth. — [yrowvr:] with the view of pur-
chasing such goodly pearls from the owners of them (comp. vii. 6 ; Prov.
iii. 15, viii. 19, and see Schoettgen). — éva] one, the only one of real worth;
according to the idea contained in the parable, there erists only one such. —
aérpaxe] the perfect alternating with the aorist (7yépacev) ; the former look-
ing back from the standpoint of the speaker to the finished act (everything
has been sold by the merchant), the latter simply continuing the narrative (and
he bought).*

Vv. 47 ff. For aiysatdc, see note on Acts xxvii. 39. — 1a xaddé and cazpa]
the good, t.e., the good fish, such as were fit for use, and the putrid ones
(comp. note on vil. 17), which, already dead and putrefying, are yet en-
closed in the cay#vy ‘ along with the others. The men took them out of the

1It is mentioned by Bava Mezta f. 28, 2,
that, in clroumstances precisely similar, R.
Emi purchased a hired field in which he had
found treasure: “ui pleno jure thesaurum
possideret omnemque litium occasionem prae-
cideret,”” ‘‘that by full right he might ob-
tain possession of a treasure and cut off
all occasion of strife.” Paulus, exeg. Handb.
Il. p. 187, observes correctly : ‘‘ That it was
not necessary, either for the purposes of the
parable or for the point to be illustrated,

that Jesus should take into consideration
the ethical questions involved in such
cases.’’ Fritzsche says : ‘‘ quem alidi, credo,
repertum nonnemo tluc defoderit,”’ ** which
Sound elsewhere, 1 dare say, Many an one
would hide there.”

2 xiv. 26; Luke xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14;
Ktthner, IT. 1, p. 366 f.

® Kfihner, IT. 1, p. 144 f.

‘Large drag-net, Luc. Flac. 51, Tim, 2;
Plat. de solert. an. p. 977 F.

CHAP, XIII., 52-58. | 263

net (#fw) and cast them away.—The aorists in vv. 47 and 48 are to be
understood in a historical sense, not as expressing what was the practice,
but merely as narrating what took place on the occasion, just as in vv. 44,
45, 46. — Observe further, that the net encloses fish of every yévoc, é.¢., of
every species (that is, according to the literal meaning, out of every nation) ;
yet no yévoc, as such, is cast away, but only the putrid fish belonging to
each yévoc, and that not before the end of the world (in answer to the whole
Donatist view).—Ver. 50. Closing refrain, as in ver. 42.

Ver. 52. Taira wévra] that which has been addressed to the disciples
since ver. 86. This vai xipe, this frank acknowledgment, calls forth from
Jesus a gladsome did rovro, as much as to say, ‘‘it is because of such under-
standing that every one, and so on (such as you are), resembles a house-
holder, and soon.” But for the understanding in question, this similitude
would not have been made use of. — ypapparetc] The ordinary conception of
a Jewish scribe is here idealised and applied to the Christian teacher, comp.
xxiii. 84. But in order specifically to distinguish the Christian ypauuareic
from the Jewish scribes, who were Moses’ disciples (xxiii. 2 ; John ix. 28),
he is significantly described as padyrevOele tH Baotd. rT. ovp., t.e., made a
disciple of the kingdom of heaven. padnreterv tim, to be a disciple of any one
(xxvii. 57),' is here used transitively (discipulum facere alicui).2 The king-
dom of heaven is personified ; the disciples of Christ are disciples of the
kingdom of heaven, of which Christ is the representative (comp. xii. 28).—
xatva xai wadaé] is on no account to be restricted to any one thing in
particular, but to be rendered : new and old, i.e., things hitherto unknown, and
things already known, already taught in former ages, and that in regard both
to the matter and the manner. Thus the predictions of the prophets, for
example, belong to the things that are old, the evidences of their fulfilment
to those that are new ; the precepts of the law are to be ranked among the
ad, the developing and perfecting of them, in the way exemplified by
Christ in Matt. v., among the new ; the form of parables and similitudes,
already in use, is to be referred to the old, the Messianic teaching embodied
in them is to be included under the new. The view that has been much in
vogue since Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome, and which repre-
sents the words as referring to the Old and New Testament, or to the law
and the gospel (Olshausen), is a dogmatic limitation. In the éllustration the
Broavpé¢ means the chest (ii. 11, xii. 85) in which the householder keeps his
money and jewels (not the same thing as aro¥jxn) ; in the tnterpretation it
means the stores of knowledge which the teacher has at his disposal for the
purposes of instruction. — é«fdAAea] throws out, thus describing the zeal
with which he seeks to communicate instruction. Comp. Luke x. 85.

Vv. 53-58. The majority of more recent critics (Lichtenstein, ZL. J. p.
271 ff., de Wette, Baur, Bleek, Késtlin, Holtzmann, Keim) adhere to the
view, received with special favor since Schleiermacher, that this narrative
(which, moreover, in Mark vi. 1 ff., comes after the raising of Jairus’
daughter) is identical with Luke iv, 16-30, But, in that case, it becomes

1 Plut. Mor. p. 887 D. 2 Comp. xxviil. 19; Aots xiv. 21.

264 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

necessary to set aside the very precise statements in Luke’s narrative on the
one hand ; and, on the other, to tamper with the rigid sequence so distinctly
indicated by Matthew in vv. 58, 54, xiv. 1, as has been done in the most
awkward way possible by Olshausen (‘‘he came once more to the town in
which he had been brought up”). It is not without ample reason that
Storr, Paulus, Wieseler,' Ewald, have insisted that our passage is not iden-
tical with Luke iv. 16 ff. What Luke records is an incident that took place
during the jirst visit of Jesus to Nazareth after the temptation in the wilder-
ness. The only passage to which this can correspond is Matt. iv. 12, 13, so
that in Luke we get an explanation of What Matthew means by his caradurav
tiv Nalapér. How conceivable, likewise, that on ¢wo occasions Jesus may
have been driven from Nazareth in a similar way, so that He would be twice
called upon to utter the words about the prophet being despised in his
native place.?

Ver. 54. Warpida avtov] Nazareth, where His parents lived, and where He
had been brought up, il. 23. — ré¥er tobtw] robrw is contemptuous? (John vi.
42, and frequently), and zé3ev is due to the circumstance that the people
knew all about the origin and outward training of Jesus. John vii. 15, vi.
41 f. —xai ai dvvdépecc] so that in Nazareth also He must not only have taught,
but must have performed miratles, although not to the same extent, ver. 58.

Vv. 55 ff. Tov réxrovoc] of the carpenter, which, however, also embraces
other workers in wood (the cabinetmaker, the cartwright, and such like).'
In Mark vi. 3, Jesus Himself is spoken of by the people as 6 réxrwy, and cer-
tainly not without reason ; see note on that passage. — ol adeAgoi airov] See
note on xii. 46.—According to the reading ’Iwo#, there was only one of the.
sons of that Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus, who was certainly of the
game name, viz., James (xxvii. 56 ; on the Judas, brother ‘of James, see note
on Luke vi. 16). But if this Mary, as is usually supposed, had been the
sister of the mother of Jesus, we would have been confronted with the un-
exampled difficulty of two sisters bearing the same name. However, the
passage quoted in support of this view, viz., John xix. 25, should, with
Wieseler, be so interpreted as to make it evident that the sister of Jesus’
mother was not Mary, but Salome. Comp. note on John i. 1. — racaz] there-
fore hardly to be understood, as some of the Fathers did,*® as meaning only
two.—Observe, further, that in the course of what is said about the rela-
tives, there is not the slightest indication of their being supposed to be dif-
ferent from the ordinary inhabitants of the place. — ovx fort xpoghtys . . . év
Th xatpidt avrov (not aitov) x. év tr. olx. avr. is (John iv, 44) a principle
founded on experience, which is found to apply to the present case only as
relatively true, seeing that, under different conditions, the contrary might
prove to be the case. — The év r. oixig avrov, in his own family (xii. 25), cor-
responds with John vii, 8, comp. Mark iii. 20. See also the note on xii.
46-50.

1 Chronol. Synopee, p. 24 f. See Philo, Cod. apocr.I. p. 868f. ; Justin,
2“ Nazarethanis priore reprehensione c. 7ryph. 88 ; Suicer, Zhes. IT. p. 1254 f.
nihilo factis melioribus,”’ Beza. ® In Philo, Cod, apocr. p. 368.

§ Xen. Anad. iif, 1. 80.

NOTE, 265

Ver. 58. ’Exolycev] In Mark vi. 5, put more definitely thus : #divaro roig-
ca, This does not include the idea of unsuccessful attempts, but what is
meant is, that the unwillingness of the people to acknowledge the greatness
of His person (ver. 55) compelled Jesus, partly on moral (because of their
unworthiness) and partly also on psychical grounds (because the condition
of faith was wanting), to make but a limited use of His miraculous power.

Nore sy American Eprros.

VIII.

By the question ‘‘ Why speakest Thou unto them in parables ?’’ the disciples
undoubtedly meant to express their feeling that the one they had just heard
was & dark saying (v. 10), whose meaning must be unintelligible to the multi-
tude. Christ’s answer shows that His parabolic teaching was intended to be
the penalty of the people’s unbelief, and yet a penalty which carried in its
heart a blessing ; for, as the riddle stimulates thought by the awakening of our
curiosity to know its hidden sense, so the parable, which is for the moment a
puzzle, rouses the docile disciple to search into the mysteries of the kingdom
of God. These parables of Christ are so deftly worded, each is so complete in
itself, each is related by so close a kinship to all the rest, that they are the
most attractive of the lessons given us by Him. Alluding to this double func-
tion of concealing and disclosing, Von Gerlach compares the parables to ‘' the
pillar of cloud and fire which turned its dark side towards the Egyptians, but
the light side to the people of the covenant.” Lisco says of them, with great
beauty : ‘‘ The more frequently and attentively we apply ourselves to consider
them, whether as a whole or in their separate parts, the more are we filled with
wonder and astonishment at the perfection of their form and matter. They
always appear to me like a lovely casket made in the handsomest style, of the
most precious materials, and embellished with simple yet most attractive or-
naments ; but when the key is put into our hand, and we open it, and see the
jewels it contains, these appear to surpass all worth, and make it difficult for
us to be satisfied with looking on their glory. However attractive in form may
be the parables of Jesus, and however inviting, when considered only as spec-
imens of poetic beauty, the truth contained in them is still more glorious, for
it is the truth which makes blessed, trnth leading to divine felicity through
the hope of eternal life. What Luther said of Scripture in general, that it is a
garden of God, with many beautiful trees full of the most precious fruit, and
though he had often already knocked upon the boughs and got much fruit into
his lap, yet did he continually find new fruit, as often as he sought and knocked
egain—this may be said more especially of its parables, in which is treasured
up an inexhaustible store of instruction, consolation, warning, and admonition.
Their meaning is richer than the sea, no one has ever drunk out its fulness ;
every new consideration of them discovers to us new relations, gives new solu-
tions, spreads new light over the affairs of the heavenly kingdom.’’!

Very wisely, we think, Dr. Meyer refrains from indicating any one point in

1 Biblical Cahinet, ‘* Lisco on Parables,’ pp. 21, 22.

266 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

which all the parables of Jesus meet, or, in other words, from specifying a
common object to which they tend. Krummacher finds this point of union in
a theocratic purpose—the exhibition prophetically of the progress of the king.
dom of God. This certainly is true of some, but is not fairly descriptive of
the whole collection.! Lisco makes the essential point in them all to be com-
munion with God. ‘‘Sometimes,’’ to carry out this thought, ‘‘ the discourse
is of the means through which such communion is attainable, as of the word
of God (in the parable of the sower), sometimes of its worth (as in the treas-
ure and the pearl), sometimes of the company, brought into that state wherein
it appears asa church or community in the present world (asin the tares), then,
again, of the progress of its development (as in the mustard-seed), and, finally,
in a number of parables, of the spiritual condition and destiny of those who are
willing to participate in this communion, or have already partaken of it. The
kingdom of God, in its constitution as a church, in its past and future history,
in time and in eternity, thai is the great burden in the parables of Jesus.”* All
this is.true, but communion with God is as well the object of the whole scheme
of divine revelation. In point of fact, most of the attempts to fix upon one
common object of the parables of Christ have led to a narrowing if not to a per-
version of their meaning, through false methods of interpretation.?

1 See “‘ Trench on the Parables,” Amer. ed., p. 48.
2 Biblical Cabinet, ‘‘ Lisco on Parables,” pp. 28, 24.
3 See on this subject, “Trench on the Parables of our Lord,” chap. iil °

CHAP. XIV. 267

CHAPTER XIV.

VER. 3. Ka) ero év gvd.] Lachm., after B &* Curss. : nai év rg dvd, aréGero.
So also Tisch. 8, though without rg, after &*. The simple ev rg gua. is found
in D, Or. (once), but it is adopted from Mark vi. 17. Lachm.’s reading is all
the more to be regarded as the original, that amé6ero also occurs once in Origen,
and that, in restoring the verb that had been omitted, in accordance with
Mark, the simple é@ero, without the preposition (comp. Acts v. 25, xii. 4),
would most readily have suggested itself. — @:Airrov] after yuvaixa is omitted
in D, Vulg. Codd. of the It. Aug., is deleted by Tisch. 7, and only bracketed
by Tisch. 8. Supplement from Mark, the interpolation : éri adrjy éyaunoer,
being derived from the same source. — Ver. 6. yeveoiwy d2 ayou.| Lachm. and
Tisch.: yeveolocc d2 yevoutvorc, after BD L &, Curss. Correctly. The genitive
was by way of explaining the dative, hence the reading yeveciwv dé yeropévun,
and then came ayopz. (Received text) as a gloss on yevou., which gloss is partially
found in the case of the dative reading as well (yeveciore d? ayouévorc, 1, 22, 59).
— Ver. 9. éAvmnn] Lachm. and Tisch. : Avurneic, omitting the dé after 4:4,
according to B D, Curss. and Codd. of It. The reading of the Received text is
a logica] analysis of the participle. — Ver. 12. cdza] BC DL ¥&, Curss, Copt.
Syre" have truza. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.
8. Taken from Mark vi. 29. — Ver. 13. With Lachm. and Tisch. 8 we ought to
read dxovoag dé, after BD L Z &, Curss. Verss. Or. ; xai is a mechanical repeti-
tion. With Tisch. read me{ot for me{j, according to adequate testimony
(including ®). The reading of the Received text is taken from Mark. — Ver.
14. On the strength of important testimony, 6 ’Incotc after éfeA8Gv (Elz. Scholz)
is deleted. Beginning of a church lesson. Similarly, in ver. 22, after 7vdyc.
Comp. ver. 25, where, in like manner, 6 "Iycove was inserted after atrotc. — én’
abroig] Elz. : éx’ avrotc, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 15. Tisch. has ovv
after doj., and that only according to C Z ¥&, 1, 238, Copt. Syr. p. (on the
margin) Or. (twice); but correctly, seeing that ody might readily drop out in
consequence of the ON immediately preceding it, as well as from its not being
found in Mark vi. 36. — Ver. 19. rode yéprovc] The readings rov xoprov (B C* &,
Currs. Or., so Lachm. and Tisch. 8) and rdv ydprov (D, Curss.) are to be
etplained from the circumstance that the plural of yéproc occurs nowhere else
in the New Testament. — Aafiv) Elz. : xa? Aafdv, against the best and most
numerous authorities. — Ver. 21. The arrangement : raid. x. yur. (Lachm.) is,
as also in xv. 38, without adequate testimony. — Ver. 22. The deleting of
etc (Tisch. 8), which, no doubt, may have been adopted from Mark, is, how-
ever, not warranted by testimony so inadequate as that of C* ® Syr" Chrys.
— Ver. 25. 49492] Lachm. and Tisch. 8. : #49e, after B C** &, Curss. Verss. Or.
Eus. Chrys. The preposition overlooked in consequence of the attraction not
having been noticed (comp. the simple Zpyera: in Mark). — éxi rig OaAdoons)
L&chm. and Tisch., : ér? rjv Gadacoar, after B P A © &, Curss. Or. The reading
of the Received text is taken from the parallel passages. — Ver. 26. éxi ri

268 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

GdAacoav] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : én? rij¢ OaAdoonc, after BC D Te &, Curss. Eus.
Chrys. Theophyl.' Correctly ; the accusative crept in mechanically from ver.
25, through not noticing the difference of meaning in the two cases, — Ver. 28.
The arrangement éAéveiv mpd¢ ce (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by decisive testi-
mony. — Ver. 29. éAGeiv] Tisch.: xai 7A8ev, after B C* (?) Syree™ Arm. Chrys. By
way of being more definite, since, according to ver. 31, Peter was beside Jesus.

Ver. 1 f. ’Ev éxeivy 7 xaspp] See xiii. 54-58. The more original narrative
in Mark vi. 14 ff. (comp. Luke ix. 7-9) introduces this circumstance as well
as the account of the Baptist’s death, between the sending out and the re-
turn of the Twelve, which, considering the excitement that had already
been created by the doings of Jesus, would appear to be rather early. Yet
Luke represents the imprisonment of John as having taken place much
earlier still (iii. 19 ff.). —‘'Hpdédyc] Antipas. Not a word about Jesus, the
Jewish Rabbi and worker of miracles, had till now reached the ear of this
licentious prince in his palace at Tiberias ; because, without doubt, like
those who lived about his court, he gave himself no particular concern about
matters of this sort : he, upon this occasion, heard of Him for the first time
in consequence of the excitement becoming every day greater and greater.
—T. axon "Inoov, as in iv. 24.

Ver. 2. Toic ra:civ attov] to his slaves (comp. note on viii. 6), who, accord-
ing to Oriental ideas, are no other than his courtiers.* — airé¢] indicating by
its emphasis the terror-stricken conscience : He, the veritable John. — axd tiv
vexpav] from the dead, among whom he was dwelling in Hades. The sup-
position of Wetstein and Bengel, that Herod was a Sadducee (erroneously
founded upon Mark viii. 15, comp. Matt. xvi. 6), is no less inconsistent with
what he here says about one having risen from the dead, than the other sup-
position that he believed this to be a case of metempsychosis ;* for he assumes.
that not merely the soul, but that the entire personality of John, has re-
turned. Generally speaking, we do not meet with the doctrine of transmi-
gration among the Jews till some time after.‘ Herod’s language is merely
the result of terror, which has been awakened by an evil conscience, and
which, with the inconsistency characteristic of mental bewilderment, believes
something to have happened—though contrary to all expectation—which, in
ordinary circumstances, was looked uponas theoretically impossible ; while,
again, the opinions that were circulating respecting Jesus (Luke ix. 7 f.)
would suggest, in the case before us, the particular idea to which Herod
here gives expression. The Pharisaic belief in the resurrection, which was
not unknown to Herod, became, in spite of himself, the psychological start-
ing-point. — dia tovro] on this account, because he is no ordinary man, but
one risen from the dead. — al duvdéuerc] the powers manifesting themselves in
his miracles.

Ver. 3. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great,
_ and of Berenice. She married Herod Antipas, who had become so enamored

2 Comp. note on fi. 2. § Grotlus, Gratz, von Célin.
2 Comp. 1 Sam. xvi. 17; 1 Maoo. 1. 6,8; 8 4See Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 468 f. [EK T.
Eadr. ii. 17; Diod. Slo. xvil. 86. 645 f.].

CHAP. XIV., 4—6. 269
of her that he put away his wife, the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas.'
The brother of this Herod, Herod Philip (Mark vi. 17), called by Josephus
simply Herod, a son of Herod the Great and Mariamne, the high priest's
daughter, and not to be confounded * with Philip the ¢etrarch, who was
Cleopatra’s son, had been disinherited by his father, and was living privately
at Jerusalem in circumstances of considerable wealth.* The aorists are not
to be taken in the sense of the pluperfect, but as purely historical. They re-
late, however (Chrysostom : divyobuevog obtwc gforv), & statement that has
been already made in a previous passage (iv. 12), namely, that Herod, in order
to give a more minute account of the last (and now completed, see on ver.
18) destiny of the Baptist, seized John, bound him, and so on.‘—é rg
¢viaxg] Comp. xi. 2.° What Josephus* says about Machaerus being the place
of imprisonment, is not to be regarded as incorrect ;"’ but see Wieseler, p.
244 f., to be compared, however, with Gerlach as above, p. 49 f. On the
date of John’s arrest (782 vu. c., or 29 Aer. Dion.), see Anger, rat. temp. p.
195.*° Otherwise, Keim, I. p. 621 ff.,° with whom Hausrath substantially
agrees. For dzéGero (see critical notes), comp. 2 Chron. xviii. 26.'° .

Ver. 4 f. Obx &eor:] Because Philip was still living, and had a daughter.”
For éyetv yvvaixa, 08 expressing matrimonial possession, see note on 1 Cor. v.
1. It is probable that Herod only made John’s bold rebuke a pretext for
putting him in prison ; the real cause, according to Josephus, xviii. 5. 2 f.,
was fear lest he should be the means of creating an insurrection. — cizov]
not : aestumabant (a common but ungrammatical rendering), but : they held
him asa prophet, i.e., they stood tohimastoa prophet. This isin conformity
with classical usage, according to which éyw riva, with a predicate, ex-
presses the relation in which a person stands to some other person ; for ex-
ample, gidovue abroig Exerc :'* thou standest related to them as to friends :!* raid’
brug Exo o dudv, I stand to thee as to a child ;“ and see likewise the note on
Luke xiv. 18; Philem.17. The appended cc means : not otherwise than as.”

Ver. 6 ff. Tevéow, Birthday celebration. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 108 f.;
Suicer, Thes. I. p. 746 ; Loesner, Odes. p. 40. Others (Heinsius, Grotius,
Is. Vossius, Paulus) interpret: a festival by way of commemorating Herod's

1 Joseph. Anét. xviii. 5. 1, 4.

2 Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 51, thinks that
Mark has fallen into this error, and that the
omission of the name Philip in Matthew
and Luke (iif. 19) should be regarded as in-
tended to correct it. Comp. also Hase,
Bleek, Volkmar, Keim. No doubt it is
strange that the two sons of Herod the
Great should have borne the name Philip.
But then this was only a surname, while it
is to be remembered that Herod had also
two sons, both of whom were called Anti-
pater. Besides, the two Philips were only
half-brothers. See Gerlach also in the Lu-
ther. Zeilechr. 1869, p. 8 f.; Wieseler, Beitr.
Pp. 7.

3 Joseph. Anéé. xvii. 1. 2, 8 2

‘ Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. 200].

® For the pregnant use of the dé, see
Kébner, II. 1, p. 865 f.; Buttmann, p. 268
[E. T. 899].

6 Antt. xvili. 5. 2

¥ Gléckler and Hug, Gutachéen, p. 82 f.

® Wieseler, p. 288 ff.; and in Herzog’s
Eneya. XXI. p. 548 f., also in his Beitr. p. 8 ff.

® Aer. Dion. 84-35.

10 Polyb. xxiv. 8. 8 (cic dvAaxijy).

11 Lev. xvill. 16, xx. 21; Joseph. Anét.
xvili. 5. 1,2; Lightfoot on this passage.

12 Xen. Symp. iv. 4.

33 Eur. Herc. Sur. 1405.

14 Herodilan, 1. 18. 16,

15 Krtiger, § 57. 8.1 and 2; Ktihner, IT. 2,
p. 995. Similarly also in xxl. 9%. Otaerwise
in Mark xi. 8&8.

270 «s,s THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

accession, because the latter is often compared toa birth, Ps. ii. 7 ; 1 Sam.
xiii. 1. An unwarranted departure from ordinary usage. Wieseler like-
wise takes the word as referring to the accession, but improperly appeals,
partly to the fact of its being used to denote a celebration in mem-
ory of the dead (Herod. iv. 26),' a jigurative sense which only tells
in favor of our interpretation, and partly to the Rabbinical Dw wD
po>n,? where, however, the royal birthdays are likewise meant. No instance
is to be found in the Greek classics (for the Latin natalis, see Plin. Paneg.
82).2— 4 Suydryp ric ‘Hpwd] and of Philip. She was called Sulome, and
married her uncle, Philip the tetrarch.‘ Her dancing was, doubtless, of a
mimetic and wanton character. Wetstein on this passage. Moreover,
this circumstance of the girl dancing is in keeping with the view that fixes
the date of this scene as early as the year 29 ; while it is entirely at variance
with Keim’s supposition, that it occurred in the year 84-35, by which time
Salome had been long married, and, for aught we know, may already have
been left a widow ; for which reason Keim considers himself all the more
justified in ascribing a legendary character to the narrative, though without
interfering in any way with the historical nucleus of the story, which he
believes has not been affected by the plastic influence of legend ; while
Volkmar again declares the whole to be a fabrication. — év rp néow]} In the
centre of the banqueting hall. The subject of jpece is still 9 Svyar. — d9er]
as in Acts xxvi. 19, frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and common
in classical writers. —poB:Bac¥eica] urged, induced, prevailed upon, not:
instructed (neither is it to be so rendered in Ex. xxxv. 84).° — ade] therefore
without any delay. — éxi mivex:] upon a plate.

Ver. 9. AuriSeic] he was annoyed, didre Eueare péyav avedeiv dvdpa, xai xivgoas
mpd¢ uicog Eavrow tov dyAov, ‘‘ because he was about to put to death a distin-
guished man, and to rouse the multitude to hatred against himself,” Euth.
Zigabenus, comp. ver. 5 ; Mark vii. 20. Altogether, he was deeply pained
at finding matters take this sudden and tragic turn, which is not inconsis-
tent with ver. 5, but may be accounted for psychologically as arising out
of that disturbed state of the conscience which this unlooked-for catastrophe
has occasioned ; consequently, we must not, with Schneckenburger, sup-
pose (comp. Weiss and Holtzmann) that Matthew has failed to notice
Mark’s statement that Herodias was desirous to see John put to death. This
circumstance is involved in what Matthew says in ver. 8.’ — dia rode Spx]
The ped Spx. in ver. 6 represents a series of oaths that had been given, one at
one time and another at another. — ovvavaxetuévous] to whom he did not
wish to appear as perjured. A case of unlawful adhering to an oath, simi-
lar in its character to what was done by Jephthah.

Vv. 10, 11 f. Considering that it would require rather more than two days

1 Comp. Lex rhet. p. 281. 5. 1; Polyb. ili. 50.2, xxiv. 8.7; Bremi, ad
2 Avoda Sara I. 8. Aeschin. Clesiph. 23; Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem.
* For the dative of time, see Winer, p. i. 2. 17.

205 [E. T. 276]. “T Bengel appropriately observes: ‘ Lat-
4 See Josephus, Anté. xvii. 5. 4. uerat in rege judicil aliquid,” ‘something
6 Hor. Od. ili. 6. 21. of discretion lay hid in the king.”

See Plat. Prot. p. 8&8 B; Xen. Mem. 1.

CHAP. XIV., 13. 271

to return from Machaerus (see note on ver. 8), the fortress on the southern
frontier between Peraea and the dominion of Aretas, to Tiberias (where
Antipas was residing), Fritzsche thinks that it is out of the question to
suppose that the head can have been actually delivered at the feast ; comp.
Lightfoot. But this circumstance, helping as it does to lend a tragic air to
the whole proceeding, is just one which the reader naturally takes for
granted, and one which is found to be necessary in order to give unity and
completeness to the scene,’ so that, with Maldonatus, Grotius, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Gerlach, Keim, we must suppose the festival to have taken place
in Machaerus, and not in Tiberias. Not even Wieseler’s view, that the feast
was held in Juliasin Peraea, and that the head was brought thither by
messengers travelling post-haste, can be said to be in sufficient accord with
the tragic scenery of the simple narrative. The account in Mark (vi. 25,
egauri¢ ; ver. 27, evexd7vac) is unfavorable to such a view, as is also the dde
in ver. 8 and ver. 11, which plainly implies that the thing was done there
and then. —é» rj ¢gvAaxg] therefore in private by the hand of an assassin.?
—xal 26697 T. x. nat fveyxe rt. uw. a] the horrible scene in a few simple words.
—Ver. 12. The disciples, to be near their master, had remained somewhere
in the neighborhood of the prison, probably in the town of Machaerus
itself.?

Ver. 13. Since we find it stated immediately before that «. 219. arfyyecAav
t@ "Inoov, it is clear that the xai dxobcac, which is not further defined, can
only be referred to the arfyye:Aav of the preceding verse ;‘ while the ref-
erence to ver. 2, so frequent since Chrysostom’s time, is arbitrary, inasmuch as
Matthew does not so much as hint at it. There is no anachronism here, oc-
casioned by Mark vi. 31.5 Matthew does not show such want of skill in the
use he makes of Mark ; neither does he go to work in so reckless and con-
fused a way as Wilke and Holtzmann would have us believe. But the nar-
rative runs somewhat as follows : (1) Matthew mentions that, at that time,
Herod heard of Jesus, who was then in Nazareth, and said : This is John,
and so on; (2) thereupon he gives an account of the death of John, to
which reference has thus been made ; (3) and lastly, he informs us in ver.
12 f. how Jesus came to hear of this death, and how it led to His retiring
into some solitude or other, to shelter Himself for a little from the persecution
of Herod, which was probably being directed against Himself as well.
From this it would appear that it must have been whilst Herod, who had
just beheaded John, was indulging such dangerous thoughts regarding Jesus
(ver. 2), that the latter, through hearing from John’s own disciples of the fate
of their master, so felt the necessity of being upon His guard against Herod's
hostility, that He took the precaution to retire lest His own death should

1 Strauss, Lp. 307. people,’ Grotius.

*“Trocidatur vir sanctus ne judiciorum 3 For srapua, a corpse, see Phrynichus, ed.
quidem ordine servato ; namsontes populo Lobeck, p. 37.
omni inspectanti plecti lex Musis jubet,” ‘Jerome, Augustine, Euth. Zigabenus,
“a holy man {s butchered, without pre- Erasmus, Maldonatus, de Wette, Ewald,
serving any order of judicial proceed- Keim.
ings; for the law of Moses orders the ® Weiss in the Stud. u. KXrtt. 1861, p. 40 f.
guilty to be punished in the sight of all the

272 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

be precipitated. Comp. iv. 12, xii. 15. It is clear from the shape in which
the narrative is thus presented, that the beheading of John is to be under-
stood as having taken place only a short time before the words of ver. 2
had been uttered, so that the terror that was awakened in Herod’s con-
science when he heard of Jesus came on the back of his recent crime ; but
there was no reason why vv. 1 and 2 should have been regarded as a literary
expedient devised merely for the purpose of introducing John once more
into the narrative. — éxeiSev] from the place, where He had been staying
when the intelligence reached Him ; whether this was still Nazareth (xiii.
54) or some other locality in Galilee, is determined by é rAoly, according
to which it must have been a place upon the sea-coast. — Epnyov térov] accord-
ing to Luke ix. 10; near to Bethsaida in Gaulonitis, lying within the do-
minion of Philip the tetrarch. — xar’ idiav].1— mefot (see critical notes) : by
land, walking round by the head of the lake. — réAeuv] of Galilee. sd
’ Ver. 14. ’EfeA94v] that is to say, from the solitude into which he had re-
tired. In opposition to ver. 18, Maldonatus and Kuinoel, following Mark
vi. 84, interpret : out of the boat. — iordAayy. én’ ait.) abroic refers not merely
to the sick (Fritzsche), but, like airay below, to the dyA0¢, which, however,
became the object of compassion just because of the sick that the people
had brought with them. Not so in Mark vi. 84.

Ver. 15 ff. Comp. Mark vi. 85 ff. ; Lukeix. 12 ff. ; John vi. 5 ff. ‘Oviac]
means, in this instance, the jirst evening, which lasted from the ninth till
the twelfth hour of the day. It is the second evening, extending from the
twelfth hour onwards, that is meant in ver. 24.*— dpa] the time, i.e., the
time of the day ; comp. Mark xi. 11. Some, like Grotius; understand : meal
time ; others (Fritzsche, Kauffer) : tempus opportunum, sc. disserendi et sa-
nandi. But the ‘‘ disserendi” is a pure importation ; and how far the suit-
able time for healing might be said to have gone by, it is impossible to con-
ceive. Our explanation, on the other hand, is demanded by the context
(apiag 52 yevou.), besides being grammatically certain.*— éavroic] for we, as
far as we are concerned, have nothing to give them. — According to John
vi. 5 ff., it was Jesus who first began to inquire about bread, and that not in
consequence of the evening coming on. An unimportant deviation, which
shows that even the memory of an apostle may sometimes be at fault. Of
greater consequence is the fact that, according to John, Jesus puts the
question whenever he sees the multitude,—a circumstance made to tell against
John by Strauss especially ; comp. also Baur and Hilgenfeld. And there
can be no doubt that this little detail is an unconscious reflection of the
Johannine conception of Christ, according to which it was but natural to
suppose that Jesus had Himself intended to work a miracle, and that from
the very first, so that in John the recollection of the order of proceeding,
which we find recorded by the Synoptists with historical accuracy, had
been thrust into the background by the preponderating influence of the
ideal conception. Comp. note on John vi. 5f. John, on the other hand,

‘ Nemine assumto nisi disolpulis,"’ Ben- * See Raphael, Polyd. ; Ast, Lex. Feat. II.
Ze Gesenlus, 7hes. IT. p. 1064 f. ees

[

CHAP. XIV., 19, 20. 213

mentions the more precise and original detail, that it was a ra:ddpsov who
happened to have the bread and fish. — dére avroic ipeic gay, | said in view
of what the disciples were immediately to be called upon to do ; therefore,
from the standpoint of Jesus, an anticipation of that request, which the ex-
pectation of something in the way of miracle was just about to evoke on
the part of the disciples.’

Ver. 19. 'Eri r. xépr.] upon the grass, xiii. 2. — Participle following up on
participle without conjunctions, and in logical subordination.* — xAdoac]
The loaves were in the form of cakes, a thumb’s breadth in thickness, and
about the size of a plate. °— In saying grace Jesus did what was done by the
father of a family. In John it is expressed by etyapiorfoas, because the
meaning of the grace was the giving of thanks (comp. notes on xxvi.-26 f. ;
1 Cor. x. 16, xiv. 16) ; Luke again says: etAdynoev avrobc, where we have
the idea of a consecrating prayer, as in the case of the Lord’s supper.

Ver. 20 f. Tév xAaop. is independent of 1d repos. (the fragments that were
over), with which latter also ddédexa xo. wAGfperc, twelve baskets full, is in
apposition. In travelling, the Jews carried small baskets with them to hold
their provisions and other necessaries.‘ It is more general * than orupi¢ (xv.
87 ; Acts ix. 25). — par] they took up, from the ground on which the
people had been eating. The subject of the verb is the apostles (John vi. 12) ;
each of the Twelve fills his travelling-basket. But the «Adcyara are the
pieces (comp. ver. 19, «Adoac) into which the loaves had been divided, and
which had so multiplied in the course of distribution that a great quantity
still remained over. — ywvacx. x. maid.) occurring frequently in classical
writers, and sometimes with the order of the words inverted.* But observe
here the diminutive ra:diuy, little children, whom their mothers either carried
in their arms or led by the hand.

Remarx.— 70 explain away the miracle, as Paulus has done (who thinks that
the hospitable example of Jesus may have induced the people to place at His
disposal the provisions they had brought along with them ; comp, Gfrorer,
Heiligth. u. Wahrh. p. 171 ff. ; Ammon, L. J. IL p. 217 f.), is inconsistent with
the accounts of all the evangelists, and especially with that of the eye-witness
John. Notwithstanding this, Schleiermacher, UL. J. p. 234, thought that, even
on exegetical principles, the plural oy7ueia in John vi. 26 but (see note on this
passage) would justify him in declining to rank the incident among the
miracles ; whilst Schenkel thinks he sees his way to an explanation by suppos-
ing what is scarcely possible, viz., that Jesus fed the multitude with a rich
supply of the bread of life from heaven, which caused them to forget their
ordinary food, though at the same time He devoutly consecrated for their use
the provisions which they had brought with them, or had managed to procure
for the present emergency. Weizalicker likewise leaves the fact, which is sup-

3 Bengel well observes: wpeis, vos, signi- Backen. Robinson, Pal. IIL. pp. 40, 298.
ficanter. ‘‘ Rudimenta fidel miraculorum 4 For xédivos, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. [X. p.

apud discipulos.” 455. .

2 8ee Stallbaum, ad Flat. Apol. p. 27 A; 5 In Xen. Anad. iil. & 6, it is used in the
KGbner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.18; Dissen, ad sense of a dung-basket.
Dem. de cor. p. 249. 6 Mactzner, ad Lycury. p. 765.

® Winer, Realwerterduch, under the word

274 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

posed to underlie the present narrative too much in a state of perplexing un-
certainty ; this element of fact, he thinks, must somehow correspond with the
symbolism of the miracle, which is intended to teach ns that there is no sphere
in which the believer may not become a partaker of the fulness of Jesus’ bless-
ing. Keim, adhering above all to the ideal explanation that the bread which
Jesus provided was spiritual bread, and referring by way of parallel to
the story of the manna and the case of Elisha, follows the Paulus-Schenkel
line of interpretation, in conceding a residuum of historical fact, though he
seems to doubt whether that residuum will be considered worth retaining.
But to eliminate the element of fact altogether is no less inconsistent with his-
torical testimony. This, however, has been done by Strauss, who thereupon
proceeds to account for the narrative, partly by tracing it to some original
parable (Weiss, I. p. 510 ff.), partly by treating it as a myth, and deriving it
from the types of the Old Testament (Ex. xvi. ; 1 Kings xvii. 8-16 ; 2 Kings
iv. 42 ff.) and the popular Messianic ideas (John vi. 30 f.), partly by supposing
it to belong to the lofty sphere of ideal legend (Ewald, see note on John vi. 12),
and partly by understanding it in a symbolic sense (Hase, de Wette). Such a
mode of dealing with this incident is the result of denying the possibility of
bringing a creative agency to bear upon dead, rather upon artificially prepared
materials—a possibility which is not rendered mofye conceivable by having
recourse to the somewhat poor expedient of supposing that what was done may
have been brought about by an accelerated natural process (Olshausen). But
that such agency was actually brought to bear, is a historical fact so well estab-
lished by the unanimous testimony of the evangelists, that we must be con-
tented to accept it with all its incomprehensibility, and, in this case not less
than in that of the changing of water into wine at Cana, abandon the hope of
being able to get a clearer conception of the process of the miracle by the help
of natural analogies. Thesymbolical application, that is, to the higher spiritual
food, was made by our Lord Himself in John vi. 26 ff. ; but, in doing so, He
takes the miraculous feeding with material bread as His historical basis and
warrant. Moreover, the view of Origen, that it was ro 76yq nal TH etAoyig that
Jesus caused the bread to multiply, is greatly favored by the fact that the cir-
cumstance of the thanksgiving is mentioned by the whole four evangelists,
and above all by Luke’s expression : evAdyyoev avrorc.

Ver. 22 f. The walking on the sea comes next in order, in Mark vi. 45 and
John vi. 15 as well.’ Luke omits it altogether. — etdtur ivdyxace] not as
though He were already looking forward to some unusual event as about to

1 Instead of the mere eis 7d wépay, ver. 22,
Mark vi. 45 specifies Bethsaida, and John vi.

sAotov 75y pécor tH Caddos. fr, from which

it is clear that what is meant in spodyew —

17 Capernaum. A more precise determina-
tion without substantial difference. Not so
Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 274, who
thinks that the town mentioned fn Mark vi.
45 was the Bethsaida (Julias) situated on
the eastern shore of the lake; and that it Is
intended to be regarded as an inéermediate
halting-place, where the disciples, whom He
sends on before Him, were to await His
arrival. This view is decidedly forbidden
by Matt. xiv. 24 (comp. Mark vi. 47): rd é¢

avroy eis Td wépay isa direct crossing of the
lake. It is likewise in opposition to John
vi. 17, comp. with vv. 21, 3%. Wieseler’s
view was that of Lightfoot before him; it
is that which Lange has substantially
adopted, although the constantly prevailing
usage in regard to the simple eis rd wéper,
ver. 22 (vili. 18, 28, xvi. 5; Mark iv. 85, v. 1,
21, viii. 18; Luke vill. 22), should have pre-
vented him from doing so.

CHAP. XIV., 24. 275

happen (Keim); He rather wanted to get away from the excited: multitudes
(who, according to John, had gone the length of wishing to make Him a
king), and retire into a solitary place for prayer, ver. 23. The disciples
would much rather have remained beside Him, therefore He compelled them
(Euth. Zigabenus); ev. 7vdyx. implies the haste and urgency with which He
desires to get them away and to withdraw into retirement,—not an outward
compulsion, but the urgere which takes the form of a command.’— gue od. . .
dxAouc} literally : until He should hare sent the multitude away ; and then He
will come after them. The disciples could only suppose that He meant to
follow them upon foot. Comp. note on John vi. 24, 25. —1d dpoc] the moun-
tain that was close by. Seeon v. 1. x«ar’ idiav belongs to avéBy ; ver. 18,
xvii. 1. — dyiac] second evening, after sunset ; ver. 15.

Ver. 24 f. Mécov] Adjective ; with more precision in John vi. 19. At
first the voyage had proceeded pleasantly (77), but they began to encounter
a storm in the middle of the lake. — Bacawféu] not dependent on #v : being
plagued by the waves ; vivid picture. — rerdpry gvAaxg] mpui, i.¢., in the early
morning, from three till somewhere about six o’clock. Since the time of
Pompey, the Jews conformed to the Roman practice of dividing the night
into four watches of three hourseach ; formerly, it consisted of three watches
of four hours each.* — a77Ade xpd¢ air. |] He came away down from the mountain
togotothem. Attraction.2—According to the reading : reper. éri riv IdAaccav
(see critical notes): walking over the sea ; according to the reading of the
Received text : 7. 2. r#¢ Yaddoonc : walking on the sea. According to both
readings alike, we are to understand a miraculous walking on the water, but
not a walking along the shore (éxi r. Yad., on the ground that the shore may
Be said to be over the sea,‘ as Paulus, Stolz, Gfrérer, Schenkel are disposed
to think ; this view is absolutely demanded by the character of the incident
which owes its significance to this miraculous part of it, by the solemn stress
that is laid on the reprrar. Eri r. 894A, by the analogy of the repiewdryoev in?
ré idara in ver. 29, by the ridiculous nature of the fear of what was supposed
to be an apparition if Jesus had only walked along the shore, by the ar#Ave
mpd¢ avrob¢ in ver. 25, as well as by the fact that, if Jesus had been on the
shore,* then the disciples, who were in the middle of the lake, forty stadia
in breadth, with the roar of the waves sounding in their ears, could not
possibly hear what He was saying when He addressed them. It remains,
then, that we have here a case of miraculous walking on the sea, which least
of all admits of being construed into an act of swimming (Bolten); but
neither are we to try to explain it by supposing (Olshausen) that, by the ex-
ercise of His own will, our Lord’s bodily nature became exempted, for the
time being, from the conditions of its earthly existence ; nor should we at-
tempt to render it intelligible by the help of foreign analogies (the cork-
footed men in Lucian, Ver. hist. ii. 4; the seeress of Prevost ; the water-

'Kypke, I. p. 286f.; Hermann, ad Eur. ®’ Hermann, ad Viger. p. 891 ff.; Bernhardy,
Back. 462). Comp. Luke xiv. 28. F p. 468.
2 See Wetstein and Krebs, p. 89 f.; Winer, 4 Comp. Xen. Anad. iv. 8 2%; Polyb. 1. 44.

Realwérterbuch, ander the word Nachtwa- 4; 2 Kings il. 7: Dan. vill. 2; John xxi. 1.
chen ; and Wieseler, Synopese, p. 406 f. 5 Strauss, IT. p. 170

276 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

treaders, and such like), but, as being akin to the miracle of the stilling of
the tempest (iv. 85 ff.), it should rather be examined in the light of that
power over the elements which dwells in Christ as the incarnate Son of God.
At the same time, it must be confessed that it is utterly impossible to deter-
mine by what means this miraculous walking was accomplished. From a
teleological point of view, it will be deemed sufficient that it serves to form
a practical demonstration of the Messiahship of Jesus, a consideration (cgmp.
ver. 88) which was no less present to the minds of the evangelists in con-
structing their narratives. The credibility of those evangelists—among
. whom is John, whose personal experience lends additional weight to his tes-
timony—must prove fatal, not only to any attempt to resolve our narrative
into a mythical sea story (Strauss, who invokes the help of 2 Kings ii. 14, vi.
6, Job. ix. 8, and the legends of other nations), or even into a docetic fiction
(Hilgenfeld), but also to the half and half view, that some event or other,
which occurred on the night in question, developed (Hase) into one of those
genuine legendary stories which serve to embody some particular idea (in this
instance, the walking on the water, Job ix. 8). In the same way Baum-
garten-Crusius, on John, I. p. 284, regards a case of walking on the sea,
recorded by John, as the original tradition ; while Weisse, p. 521,’ avails
himself of the allegorical view ; Bruno Bauer, again, here as elsewhere, pushes
negative principles to their extreme limit ; and Volkmar sees reflected in
the narrative Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. Weizsicker and Keim likewise
assume, though with more caution and judgment, the allegorical standpoint,
the former being disposed to regard the interposing of Jesus with His help,
and the power of faith in conquering danger, as constituting the essence of
the whole ; Keim again being inclined to see in the story an allusion to the
distress and desolation of the church waiting for her Lord, and not know-
ing but that He may not come to her help till the very last watch in the
night (xxiv. 43 ; Mark xiii. 85),—an idea which, as he thinks, is indebted
in no small degree to Job ix. 8, where God is represented as treading on the
waves of the sea. But even this mode of interpretation, though in accord-
ance, it may be, with the letter, cannot but do violence to the whole narrative
as a statement of fact.*

Ver. 26 ff. ’Em? rig OaAdcoone (see critical notes) : upon the sea. There, just
at that spot, they saw Him walking as He was coming toward them over the
sea (ver. 25), Observe the appropriate change of cases. For genitive, comp.
Job ix. 8. mepenarav . . . émi Daddoonc.* ig’ tdarog Badifovra.*‘ — gévracpa]
They shared (Luke xxiv. 87) the popular belief in apparitions :* yuyéy oxioecd7
gavrdcuata, ‘‘the shadowy appearances of souls.”*—Ver. 27. iada. abr.] ard
THE durag d7Aov éavrdy roi, Chrysostom. — Vv. 28-31 are not found in any of
the other gospels, but their contents are entirely in keeping with Peter’s
temperament.’ — Biéruv] not : as He perceived, but : as He saw ; for, when
on the sea, He was in immediate contact with the manifestations of the storm.

1 Comp. Schneckenburger, erst. kan. Ev. ® Plat. Phaed. p. 81 D.

p. 68. * Eur. Hec. 54; Lucian, Philops. 299; Wisd.
2 Comp., besides, the note on John vi. xvii. 15. Comp. the nocturnos Lemures in
16-21. . Horace, Zp. il. 2. 200.
3 Lucian, Philope. xill. 70 wavraxou Geppds «. acl trav EAA

4 Ver. htet. ii. 5, al. wporynswy, Chrysostom.

CHAP, XIV., 31-386. Q¢7%
— xataxovrifecda:];' namely, by the influence of Christ’s power, for which in-
fluence, however, he became unreceptive through doubt, dnd accordingly
began to sink.

Ver. 31 f. Eic ri idior.]* For eicg ri, wherefore? comp. xxvi. 8.* — étuBdvrav
avy] According to John, Jesus did not go up into the boat, but the disci-
ples wanted to take Him on board. A difference that may be noted, though
it is of but trifling importance. See note on John vi. 21. —éxéracev].‘ It
beeame calm. Anthol. vii. 630 : 4 paxpy nar’ éuod dvordAoin xowdoe, ‘‘ my great
difficulty of sailing will abate,” and see Wetstein.

Ver. 88. cot vidc] the Messiah. See note. on iii. 17. The impression re-
corded in the text was founded, so far as the people were concerned, upon
the miraculous walking on the sea itself, and partly upon the connection which
existed, and which they recognized as existing, between the calming of the
storm and the going on board of Jesus and Peter. oj év 7G wAoip are not the
disciples (Hilgenfeld, Schegg, Keim, Scholten), but those who, besides
them, were crossing in the boat, the crew and others. Comp. ol dv9pwroz, viii.
27. Bygneans of an expression of this general nature they are distinguished
from the zadyrai (ver. 26), who had hitherto been in question.* Mark omits
this concluding part of the incident, and merely records the great astonish-
ment on the part of the disciples. As it stands in Matthew, it is to be re-
garded as connecting a traditional amplification with the episode of Peter,
which that evangelist has embodicd in his narrative, but yet as containing
nothing improbable, in so far as it makes it appear that the outburst of as-
tonishment was so great that it expressed itself in the acknowledgment of
our Lord’s Messiahship, especially as it is to be borne in mind that the mi-
raculous feeding of the multitudes (John vi. 14, 15) had taken place but so
short a time before. Moreover, this is, according to Matthew, the first time
that Jesus was designated the Son of God by men (iii. 17, iv. 8, viii. 29).
According to John (i. 50), He had already been so styled by Nathanael ; in
the present instance He received the designation from those who, as yet,
were not of the number of His disciples.

Ver. 84. Comp. Mark vi. 53 ff. T% Tewo.] that beautiful district of
Lower Galilee, stretching along.the border of the lake, and measuring thirty
stadia in length by twenty in breadth.‘

Ver. 36. Summary statement, as in iv. 24. — rapexdA.] descriptive imper-
fect. — xpaorédov] See note on ix. 20. They wanted merely to touch Him, as
In ix. 21. — duecd8ycav] were completely saved," so that they quite recovered
from their ailments, and that, according to the analogy of the other miracles
of healing, just at once. Hilgenfeld is wrong in supposing that this took
place ‘‘ without the medium of faith ;” as a matter of course, faith was im-
plied in their very repaxadziy,

1“Pro modo fidel ferebatur ab aqua,”
“according to the measure of his faith
he was borne up from the water.” (Benge).

faari wpwrov méy eddbpycas, torepoy &¢
dSecAiagas ; ‘“‘ wherefore were you at first
courageous, but afterwards terrified!”
Euth. Zigabenus.

8 Wisd. iv. 175 Sir. xxxix. 17, 21; Soph.

Tr. 408, Oed. C. 528, and Hermann's note.

4 Comp. Herod. vii. 191. LXX. Gen. vill. 1.

* Grotinus limits the meaning too much
when he says: “ipsi nauiae.””

* Josephus, Anéé. fil. 10. 8, the ef Gulweir
of the present day; Ewald, Gesch. Car. p.
234; Furer in Schenkel’s Bidellex. Il. p. 824.

7 Xen. Mem. il. 10.2; Luke vil. &

278 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER XYV.

Ver. 1. of] is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B D &, Curss. Or’ But
how readily might the article have been overlooked, seeing that, in this passage,
it might well appear superfluous, as rather in the way, in fact! Had it been
adopted from Mark vii. 1 (whence, according to well-nigh the same testimony,
is derived the arrangement ¢ap. x. ypayuu., followed by Tisch. 8), it would have
been put before ypaup. — Ver. 4. évereiAaro Aéywv) Fritzsche, Lachm. : elzev,
which Griesb. likewise approved, after B D Te, 1, 124, and several Verss. and
Fathers. Taken from Mark vii. 10.— Ver. 5. xa? ov ud Tiunoy] Lachm. and
Tisch. 8 : ov nu) Teunoe, after BC D Te ® (which has reznon), Curss. Verss. and
Fathers. The omission of «ai is by way of simplifying the constructjon. But
the future has so much testimony in its favor, besides that of B C D, etc., that
(with Tisch.) it must be preferred. In what follows Lachm. has deleted 9 rjv
pntépa avrov (after B D &® Syr*"), Omitted in consequence of homoeoteleuton.
—Lachm. Ver. 6. rjv évroajy]. : Tov Adyov, after BD &** Verss. and Fathers ;
Tisch. : tov véuov, after C Te &* Curss. Ptol. The last is correct ; r. évroA. is from
ver. 3, 7, Ady. from Mark vii. 18. — 6 Aads obrog] Elz. Scholz : éyyifes pos 6 Aadg obror
T@ oTréuat: avrav xai, against B D L T¢ &, 33, 124, and many Verss. and Fathers.
From the LXX.— Ver. 14. ddnyoi eice rugdol rugAcv] Numerous variations ;
Lachm.: rvgdoi eiow édnyoi rugdov. So L Z &**, Curss. and many Verss. and
Fathers, and supported also by B D, 209, Syr**", which latter have merely rveAoi
eiowv ddnyol,' where rugAdyv has been displaced by the rugAdéc immediately follow-
ing. Nevertheless, we must prefer to retain the reading of the Received text,
which has still strong testimony in its favor, besides being defended by Tisch.
The reading of Lachm. is an unsuccessful attempt to amend the style. — Ver.
15. tavrnv] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B Z ®, 1, Copt. Or., but it
may have been omitted all the more readily from the fact that Mark vii. 17 has
no demonstrative, and because the parable does not immediately precede. —
Ver. 16. "Incots] with Lachm. and Tisch., and on the strength of important tes-
timony, is to be deleted as being a common supplement. —Ver. 17. obra]
Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. : ov, after B D Z, 33, 238, Syr. Syre™ Aeth. Arm.
It. Vulg. Altered in conformity with Mark vii. 19.— Ver. 22. éxpadvyacev
avr] Lachm, : éxpafev (on the margin: éxpagéev), after B D ®** 1; Tisch. 8:
Expagev, after Z ®* 13, 124, Or. Chrys. But of the two words xpdlecyv is far more
generally used in the New Testament (xpavydferv occurs again in Matthew only
in xii. 19), and was further suggested here by ver. 23. Avry, although having
rather stronger testimony against it, is likewise to be maintained ; for, with the
reading éxpavy., it proved to be somewhat in the way, and hence it was either
omitted, or interpreted by means of éricw avrov (D, Cant.), or placed after
Aéyovoa (Vulg. and Codd. of It.). — Ver. 25. xpocexivncev] Elz. : rpocextver, which
Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. likewise read, after Griesb. had approved

1Q*: SSryoi ciotw ruPAoi.

CHAP. XV., 1-3. 279

of the aorist, and Matthaei had adopted it. The greatest amount of testimony
generally is in favor of the aorist ; the greatest amount of the oldest testimony
(including Curss. B D ®*, though not C), in favor of the imperfect ; the latter
is to be preferred, partly just because it is better authenticated, and partly be-
cause the transcribers were more used to the aorist of rpoooxuy. — Ver. 26. ovx gore
xadév] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. : ovx« é£eor:, only after D and a few Verss. and
Fathers, also Orig. Correctly ; the reading of the Received text is from Mark
vii. 27. — Ver. 30. Instead of rot "Incov we should read atroé, with Lachm.
and Tisch., according to important testimony. — Ver. 31. For Aaotvras, B,
Aeth. and a few Curss. have axovovras. Defended by Buttmann in the Sud. u.
Krit. 1860, p. 348. It is taken from xi. 5. — For édééacayv, Tisch. 8 reads éddEalov,
only after L, ®, Curss. — Ver. 32. qyépar] Elz. : jugpuc, against decisive testimony.
Correction. — Ver. 35 f. éxédevoe . . . AaBdév] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : wapayyelAac
Te dxAw dvar, é, t. y. EAaBev (and «ail before ebyap. below), after B D &, Curss.
Or. An attempt to amend the style with the help of expressions taken from
Mark. — For éduxe, Tisch. 8 has édidov, after B D, Curss. Chrys. Taken from
Mark viii. 6.— Ver. 39. avé@y] Elz. Schulz, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 8: évéfy,
only after B &, Curss. Correction, because éuf, ei¢ +r. 7A. happens to be the
common form of expression ; viii. 23, ix. 1, xiv. 32. D has év@aive:.

Ver. 1. The three sections of ch. xv., having as their respective subjects
the washing of hands (vv. 1-20), the woman of Canaan (vv. 21-31), and the
feeding of the four thousand (vv. 32-89), occur elsewhere only in Mark (vii.
8), whom Matthew partly abridges and partly supplements. —rére] when
He was staying in the country of Gennesareth. —ol a7d ‘Iepoo. yp. (see crit-
ical notes): the scribes who belonged to Jerusalem, and had come from that
city (Mark vii. 1). Well-known attraction of the preposition with the
article.!

Ver. 2. Mapédoorc].? The Jews, founding upon Deut. iv. 14, xvii. 10, for
the most part attached greater importance to this tradition than to the writ-
ten law.* They laid special stress upon the traditional precept, founded on
Lev..xv. 11, which required that the hands should be washed before every
meal (bray dprov toViworv, a rendering of the Hebrew on? OR). « Jesus and
His disciples ignored this rapddooie as such. — trav rpecBur.| which had been
handed down from the men of olden time (their forefathers). It is not the
scribes that are meant (Fritzsche), nor the elders of the nation (Bleek, Schegg),
but comp. Heb. xi. 2. It is the wise men of ancient times that are in view.
Observe, moreover, the studied precision and peremptory tone of the ques-
tion, which has something of an official air about it. The growing hostil-
ity begins to show itself in an open and decided manner.

Ver. 8. Kai] also, implies a comparison between the ipeic and of padyrai
cov; that is to say, the rapafaivew is acknowledged to be true of both
parties, the only difference being in the matters in which the transgression
is exemplified.*— dia r. rapdd. in.) which you observe. Notice how the

1 See Kihner, IT. 1, p. 478 ff., and ad Xen. =PUNN “ND TW DDD. Comp. Sohoettgen.
Mem. ii 6. 11. Comp. Acts xxl. 27; Col. tv. 4 See Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wet-
16, al. stein.

2 aypados 8:8acnaXkia, Hesychius. ® Klotz, ad Devar. p. 686.

* Hence, Beracoth f. 83. 2: 933 DDD

280 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

one question is met with another in the same style, thereby rendering the re-
ductio ad absurdum only the more telling. Luther appropriately remarks
that ‘‘ He places one wedge against the other, and therewith drives the first
back.”

Ver. 4, Ex. xx. 12, xxi. 17. — riua] involves the idea of a practical man-
ifestation of reverence in the form of kind deeds, ver. 5. — Gavdérw redevr.]
Noy Nin, the meaning of which (he shall certainly die, be executed) has not
been exactly hit by the LXX. in the phrase Savdry red., though it is in con-
formity with Greek idiom: He shall end (ii. 19) by death (execution, Plat.
Rep. p. 492 D, and very frequently in classical writers).?

Ver. 5 f. Adpov] sc. tort, [3\P. a gift, xar’ éEoxfv, namely, to God, 4.¢., to the
temple. Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, Maldonatus connect dapov with
OpeArdic : a@ temple-offering, which will be given by me, will bring a blessing to
thee. The conjunctive, however, is clearly independent of édv. Chrysos-
tom observes correctly : ddpév eort rovro re Yep, 6 Fide EF Euod wHEAWI7ZvaAL Kal
ov divacat AaBeiv, ‘‘ this is a gift to God, whatsoever thou wishest to be
profited by me and art not able to attain.” — There is an aposiopesis after
apelAndgc, Whereupon Jesus proceeds in His discourse with «ai ov pi tTiphe.
But your teaching is: “‘ Whoever will have said to his father: It is given to the
temple, whatever thou wouldest have got from me by way of helping thee” (the
Jews, of course, understood the apodosis to be this : he is not bound by that
commandment, but the obligation is transferred to his Corban). And (in conse- -
quence of this vow) he will certainly not be honoring.* Some, however, post-
pone the aposiopesis till the close, and understand xa? ob pu? riuho. as forming
part of what is supposed to be spoken by the Pharisees in their teaching :
But whosoever says . . . and does not honor . . . (he is not liable to punish-
ment). So Fritzsche. But this is not in keeping with usage as regards ov
v4 ; nor is it in itself a probable thing that the Pharisees should have said
quite so plainly that the honoring of parents might be dispensed with.
Others, again, reject the aposiopesis, and regard «al ob pu? tiv. etc. as an
apodosis, taking the words, like the expositors just referred to, as forming
part of what is understood to be spoken by the Pharisees : ‘‘ whoever says
. . . hetsnot called upon, in such cases, to honor his parents as well.” Such,
after Grotius, is the interpretation of Bengel, Olshausen, Bleek.‘ Accord-
ing to this view, xai would be that of the apodosis* in a relative construc-
tion.* But od 4? riz. does not mean : he need not honor, but: he assuredly
will not honor ; or, as Ewald and Hofmann’ explain it, he shall not honor,
—which direct prohibition from the lips of such wily hypocrites as those
Pharisees, is far less conceivable than the prudent aposiopesis above
referred to.—More frequently dgedeiodal re ex tivog® with x6, wapd, ard,

1 See Lobeck, Paral. p. 523 ; Koster, Hridut. *Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146.

p. 58. ? Schriflbew. II. 2, p. 891.
*See Lightfoot and, in general, Ewald, 8 For adpedcioGai 1: éx tvs, comp. Thuo. vi.
Alterth. p. 81 ff. 12.2: whedndy re ex rhs apyys, “would be
* Comp. Ki&uffer, de (wns aiwy. notione,p. benefited In any respect by his command,”
82 f.,and Beza, de Wette, Keim. Lys. xxi. 18, xxvii. 2; Aesch. Prom. 22:
«Comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. 750, note]. Soph. Aj. 588.

® Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636.

CHAP, XV., 7-11. 281

The opposite of it is : Cyusovodat te Ex tevoc." For the passive with accusative
of the thing, see Kiihner, I. 1, p. 279 f. —xat yxvpdcare] and you have thereby
deprived of tts authority. xvp is placed first for sake of emphasis, and is
stronger than rapafaivere in ver. 8. That such vows, leading to a repudia-
tion of the fifth commandment, were actually made and held as binding,
is evident from Tr. Nedarim v. 6, ix. 1.°—Ver. 6 is a confirmation, and not
a mere echo, of what is said in ver. 8.

Ver. 7 ff. Kadac] admirably, appropriately characterizing. — rpoeg#r.] has
predicted, which de Wette unwarrantably denies to be the meaning of the
word in the present instance, understanding zpog. in the sense of the in-
spired utterance generally. Jesus regards Isa. xxix. 13 (not strictly in ac-
cordance with the LXX.) as atypical prediction, which has found its fulfilment
in the conduct of the scribes and Pharisees. — pdr dé] dé denotes a continua-
tion of the matter in hand ; and pér7 indicates, according to the usual ex-
planation, that their ofBeoda: is attended with no beneficial result (2 Macc. vii.
18, and classical writers), produces no moral effect upon their heart and life,
because they teach as doctrines the commandments of men. But seeing that
the wary ofBecda: consists of mere lip-service in which the heart plays no
part, thus according with the idea involved in éroxp:raf,—and inasmuch as
d:ddoxovrec, etc., is evidence that such is the nature of the service, the inter-
pretation : sine causa, found so early as in the Vulgate, is better suited to
the context. Their céSeoda of God is meaningless,* because they do not
teach divine, but Auman doctrine, the consequence of which is that the
ofBeo9a: has no motive principle in the heart, where, on the contrary,
human interest takes the place of the fear of God.‘ For the opposite of
such worship, consult John iv. 24.*—— There is no Hebrew word correspond-
ing to udz7v in the above quotation from Isaiah ; probably the text made use
of by the LXX. contained a different reading. — évrday. av9p.] promulgating
as doctrines, precepts of a merely human origin ; comp. Col. ii. 22.

Ver. 10.° During the discussion the 3zAo¢ had been standing in the back-
ground ; He invites them to come near.

Ver. 11. Koivoi] makes common, profanes bn), comp. 4 Macc. vii. 6,
nowhere found in classical writers ; in the New Testament, in Acts x. 15,
xi. 9, xxi. 28; Heb. ix. 18; Rev. xxi. 27. What Jesus has in view at
present is not legal, but moral defilement, and which is not produced (1
Tim. iv. 4) by what goes into the mouth (food and drink, as well as the
partaking of these with unwashed hands), but by that which comes out of
it (improper language). So far as can be gathered from the context, he is
not saying anything against the Mosaic regulations relating to meats, though
one cannot help regarding what he does say as 80 applicable to these, as to
bring into view the prospect of their abrogation as far as they are merely

2 Dem. If. 11. adyxey, ws dvidrovs, rpéwes bt roy Adyoy wpds Toy
3 Joseph. ¢. Ap. 1. 2. 5xAov, ws afvoAoywrepoy, * Having stopped the
2 Temere, comp. Soph. Aj. 684, and Lo- mouths of these and put them to shame he

beck's note, Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 285. sent them away asincurable ; but he directs
4 Comp. the «arasos Opyoxeia of Jas. 1. 26. his discourse to the crowd, as more wor
® See Apol. Conf. A., pp. 208, 256. thy,’’ Euth. Zigabenus.

© 'Exetvous my émicropicas xal xaraoxuvas

282 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

ceremonial,’ and, as a consequence of this latter, the triumph of the idea
which they embody, 7.¢., their fulfilment (v. 17). Observe, further, that it
is meat and drink only in themselves considered, that he describes as matters
of indifference, saying nothing at present as to the special circumstances in
which partaking of the one or the other might be regarded as sinful (excess,
offences, 1 Cor. viii., and soon). See ver. 17.

Ver, 12. IIpoceAd.] Matthew does not say where? According to Mark
vij. 17, this took place in the house. —rév Adyov] Fritzsche and many more
take this as referring to vv. 8-9. It is to understand it, with Euth. Ziga-
benus, as pointing to the saying in ver. 11 (Paulus, de Wette, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Bleek). For this, addressed as it was to the multitude, must have
been peculiarly displeasing to the Pharisees ; and axoveavrec rdv Adyov would,
on any other supposition than the above, be deprived of its significance as
stating the ground of offence.

Ver. 13. The correct interpretation is the ordinary one (being also that
of Ewald and Keim), according to which ¢vreia is taken as a figurative way
of expressing the teaching. The fact of Jesus having attacked their teaching,
in ver. 11, had given offence to the Pharisees. Consequently He now ex-
plains why it is that He does not spare such teaching : every doctrine, He says,
that is not of God, that is merely human in its origin, will pass away and perish,
as the result, that is, of the Messianic reformation which is in the course of
developing itself. Nothing is said about the Pharisees personally (whom
Chrysostom supposes to be included in what is said about the teaching) till
ver. 14. This in answer to Fritzsche, Olshausen, de Wette, Hilgenfeld,
Bleek, who find in the words a prediction of the extirpation of the Pharisees
(‘characters of this stamp will soon have played out their game,” de
Wette). What is expressed figuratively by means of raca gureia, fv ovx égbrev-
cev 6 watip pov, is the same thing that, in ver. 9, is designated literally as
didackadiag évrdApara avdporuv. — On gvreia, planting,® i.¢., in this instance :
something planted,* where, however, it is not used with regard to false teach-
ing, but with reference to false teachers. In classic Greek the form is
pbrevua, OF gurdv.

Ver. 14. "Agere abrote] Let them alone, dismiss them from your thoughts ! * —
In the application of the general saying : rupAds d2 rupddy, etc., the falling
into a ditch (cistern, or any other hole in the earth, as in xii. 17) is to be
understood as a figurative expression for being cast into Gehenna. These
blind teachers, whose minds are closed against the entrance of divine truth
(comp. xxiii. 16; Rom. ii. 19), are with their blind followers hopelessly
lost !—Observe what emphasis there is in the fourfold repetition of rvgAol,
etc. The very acme of Pharisaic blindness was their maintaining that they
were not blind, John ix. 40.

Ver. 15, ‘0 Iérpoc] differs, though not materially, from Mark vii. 17. —

1 Comp. Kelm, and Welzsiicker, p. 4638. 4 Comp. Soph. Phil. 1043 (1054): adere yap
2 Plat. Theag. p. 121C; Xen. Cec. vil. 20, avrdy, unde wpoowavoyr’ én, “ now leave htm
xix. 1. there, and do not lay hand on him.” “ In-

* Comp. Ignatius, ad Philad. I7I.ad Tra. dignos esse pronuntiat, quorum haberi
debeat ratio,’’ Calvin.

CHAP. XV., 16-21. 283

sapaBoaf] in this instance own, a saying embodied in some figurative rep-
resentation, an apophthegm.’— rairzy] It was the saying of ver. 11 that
was present to Peter’s mind as having given occasion to the words that had
just fallen from Jesus. It is just that same Adyo¢ which, according to ver.
12, had given offence to the Pharisees. But the explanation of it which
is now furnished by Jesus is of such a nature as to be by no means self-
evident.

Ver. 16. ’Axufv] in the sense of adhuc (frequently met with in Polybius),
belongs to the Greek of a later age.* — xai iyeic] even you, although you are
my regular disciples.

Ver. 17 f£. Obre voeire, «.7.4.] Do you not yet understand that, and 80 on, not-
withstanding all that I have already done to develop your minds ?—Food
and drink are simply things that pass into the stomach to be digested there,
and have nothing in common with man’s spiritual nature, with his reason,
his will, and his affections and desires (xapdia, the centre of the whole in-
ner life, see note on xxii. 87). Notice the contrast between eic¢ tiv xordiav
(abdominal cavity, see note on John vii. 88) and éx rio xapdiac.—Ver. 19.
Proof of what is said in ver. 18 : for the heart is the place where immoral
thoughts, murders, adulteries, and so on, therefore where inward and out-
ward sins, are first conceived, and from which they pass into actual trans-
gressions. Accordingly, it is that which comes out of the heart, and ex-
presses itself by means of the mouth (ver. 18), which defiles the man as a
moral being. The opposite case, in which the heart sends forth what is
good, presupposes conversion.—The plurals denote different instances of
murder, adultery, and so on.* — BAacgnu.] 7.¢e., against one’s neighbor, on
account of the connection with yevdou. Comp. note on Eph. iv. 31.

Ver. 21. 'Exeidev] See xiv. 84. —avexdpyoev] He withdrew, to avoid being
entrapped and molested by the Pharisees. Comp. xii. 15, xiv. 18. —ei¢ ra
pépn] not : towards the districts, versus (Syr. Grotius, Bengel, Fritzsche,
Olshausen), for the only meaning of eic that naturally and readily suggests
itself is : into the districts (ii. 22), of Tyre and Sidon. This, however, is
not to be understood as implying that Jesus had crossed the borders of
Palestine and entered Gentile territory, which is precluded by the words of
ver, 22: axd r. dpiwy ix. é€eASovea, but as meaning, that he went : into the
(Galilean) districts which border upon the precincts of Tyre and Sidon. Comp.
note on Mark vii. 24, according to which evangelist Jesus does not pass
through Sidon till afterwards, when proceeding farther on His way (vii.
81). This in answer to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, de
Wette, Arnoidi, Bleek, Schenkel, whose expedient of supposing that Jesus
betook Himself to this Gentile valley, not for the purpose of teaching, but
to make Himself acquainted with the feelings of the people who lived there

1 Etym. M.: aivctyparsdys Acyos,8 woAAct some hidden meaning.’ Comp. note on
Adyovas Cyrnua, eudacvoy wdy Ti, ove avrodey 620s oon. xill. 8: ¢pdcor, asin xiii. 36.
Waytag SijAov 5 awd Tey pyudtey, GAA’ éxow évrdg ? Phrynichus, p. 123, and Lobeck's note.
Sidvoray xexpuspévny, “an enigmatical say- * Kfihner, II. 1, p. 15 f.; Maetzner, ad
ing, which many call a searching. displaying Lycurg. p. 144f.), and render the language
something, yet what is not altogetherplain more forcidie (Breml, ad Aeschin. p. 826
of itself from the words, but having within

284 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(Schenkel), may be pronounced to be as arbitrary as the supposition that
He only wanted (Calvin) to give praeludia quaedam of the conversion of
the Gentiles.

Ver. 22. Xavavaia] Several tribes of the Canaanites, ‘1233, who were
the original inhabitants of Palestine, went and settled in the north, and
founded what was subsequently known asthe Phoenician nation.’ Light-
foot on this passage. — éfeA3ovca] She crossed the frontier into the contig-
uous territory of the Jews, where Jesus ‘happened to be. According to
Paulus, the woman came out of her house ; according to de Wette, Bleek :
Jrom some place nearer the centre of the country. Both views are in oppo-
sition to the terms of our passage, which plainly state where she came out
from. — vid Aav.] She so addresses Jesus, because, from living in the neigh-
borhood of the Jews, she was familiar with their Messianic expectations,
and with the Messiah’s title, as well as with the Messianic reputation of
Jesus. _ Looking to what is said in ver. 26, she cannot be supposed to have
been a proselyte of the gate. The Gentiles also believed in demoniacal
possession. — éAénodv pe]. ‘‘Suam fecerat pia mater miseriam filiae,” ‘‘ The
pious mother had made the misery of her daughter her own,” Bengel.

Ver. 28. At first a silent indication, and then an express intimation of His
disinclination to favor her. — ardéAvooy airiy] send her away, that is, with her
request granted.*—Thus they begged Jesus ; very frequently in the New Testa-
ment (in Matthew, only on this occasion ; in Mark, only in vii. 26 ; in Luke
and John, very often ; in Paul, only in Phil. iv. 3; 1 Thess. iv. 1, v. 12;
2 Thess. ii. 1), and contrary to classical usage, though according to the
LXX.* épwrdw is used in the sense of to beg, to request. It is not so with re-
gard to irepurdu. See note on xvi. 1. — dre xpdfer, x.7.4.] so Importunate is
she.

Ver. 24. Those words are addressed to the disciples (comp. note on x. 6) ;
the answer to the woman comes afterwards in ver. 26.—It is usually supposed
that what Jesus had in view was merely to put her confidence in Him to the
test (Ebrard, Baur, Schenkel, Weiss) ; whilst Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, Gléckler, assert that His aim was to furnish her
with an opportunity for displaying her faith. But the moral sense protests
against this apparent cruelty of playing the part of a dissembler with the
very intention of tormenting ; it rather prefers to recognize in our Lord's
demcanor a sincere disposition to repel, which, however, is subsequently con-
quered by the woman’s unshaken trust (Chrysostom : xaZjv dévacyvvriay).
Ewald appropriately observes how, on this occasion, Jesus shows His great-
ness in a twofold way : first, in prudently and resolutely confining Himself
to the sphere of His own country ; and then in no less thoughtfully over-
stepping this limit whenever a higher reason rendered it proper to do so,
and as if to foreshadow what was going to take place a little farther on in the
future.—It was not intended that Christ should come to the Gentiles in the
days of His flesh, but that He should do so at a subsequent period (xxviii.

1 Winer, Realwdrterbuch. tomed to seud away (suppliants).”
2?Bengel says well: “Sic solebat Jesus 3 = DRY, see Schleusner, 7hes. II. p. 529.
dimittere,” ‘‘In this wise Jesus was accus-

CHAP. XV., 26, 27. 285

19), in the person of the Spirit acting through the medium of apostolic
preaching (John x. 16 ; Eph. ii. 17). But the difficulty of reconciling this
with viii. 5, xi. 12, on which Hilgenfeld lays some stress, as being in favor
of our present narrative, is somewhat lessened by the fact that, according to
Luke vii. 2 ff., the centurion was living in the heart of the people, and
might be said to be already pretty much identified with Judaism ; whereas
we have a complete stranger in the case of the woman, before whom Jesus
sees Himself called upon, in consequence of their request, ver. 28, strictly to
point out to His disciples that His mission, so far as its fundamental object
was concerned, was to be confined erelusively to Israel. Volkmar, indeed,
makes out that the words were never spoken at all ; that their teaching is
of a questionable nature ; and that the whole thing is an imitation of the
story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings xvii.); while Scholten,
p. 218, regards it merely as a symbolical representation of the relation of tha
Gentile world to the kingdom of God, and which had come to be treated as
a fact.

Ver. 26. It is not allowable (see critical notes) to take (sumere, circumstan-
tial way of putting it, not : to take away) the bread belonging to the children
and cast it to the dogs,—a general proposition for the purpose of expressing
the thought : I must not allow the Gentiles to participate in my blessings, be-
longing as they do only to the people of Israel (the children of God, Rom. ix.
4). Jesus speaks ‘‘ex communi gentis loquela potius quam ex sensu suo”
(Lightfoot) ; for it was the practice among the Jews to designate heathens
(and subsequently, Christians also) as dogs.’ For the diminutive, see note
on ver. 27. In this passage it is intended to mitigate the harshness of the ex-
pression.

Ver. 27. Naf, asin xi. 9, 26, confirms the whole statement of Jesus in ver.
26 (not merely the appellation of dogs, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus,
Erasmus, Maldonatus) ; and «ai yép means, as everywhere in the New Testa-
ment, and even to a far greater extent among classical writers (who use it
but rarely in the sense of namgue,—xaf consequently is connective), for
even.* It gives a reason for the vai ; but it is quite according to rule to regard
7a xvvépia as the expression to which «af is meant to give prominence. Conse-
quently the passage would run thus : Yes, Lord, Thou art right in what Thou
sayest, for even the dogs eat of the crumbs, and so on ; or, to express it nega-
tively (with oid? ydp) : for even the dogs are not sent away empty, and so on.
That is to say, this xaf, so far as can be seen from the context, cannot be in- ©

‘tended to serve any other purpose than to suggest a comparison between the
-uvdpia and the réxva, so that the passage may be paraphrased as follows :
Thou art right, Lord ; for not merely the children are filled with bread at the
family-meal, but—so richly is the table spread—even the dogs receive their
share, inasmuch as they eat of the fragments, and so on. It would therefore
be but the more unseemly to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs,
so as possibly to leave the former unfed. But in thus justifying her vat, xbpce,

18ee Lightfoot and Wetstein, likewise 2 See especially, Kfihner, II. 2, p. 885.
Elsenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 718 ff.

286 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the woman seeks to suggest the inference to our Lord that He might yet
venture to give her that which is hinted at in those wyia with which the
xuvdépia have to be contented. Of course by this she means a share of His
abundant mercy, after the wants of Isracl have been fully supplied. Follow-
ing Grotius and Kuinoel, de Wette explains incorrectly : For it is eren usual
Sor the dogs to get nothing but the fragments. In that case we should have ex-
pected to find : xai yap ard rév yuiyiov éodiet, x.7.2. Fritzsche (comp. Bleek,
Schegg) is likewise wrong when he explains thus : Yes, Lord, it ts allowable
' to give the bread to the dogs, for, and so on. As against this view we have
not merely vai, which can only be taken as a confirming, a justifying of
what Jesus had said, not simply the ignoring of xa? yép, which it would in-
volve, but also the ‘‘repugnandi audacia,” which is not to be excused in
consideration of the xipze, and the meaning itself, which would certainly
not bear out the idea of a contradiction on the part of the woman. But
if there is one thing more than another that must not be associated with the
tender language of this woman, it is the appearance of anything like con-
tradiction. Finally, all interpretations are wrong which would necessitate
our having ad instead of xai ya4p (Chrysostom, Luther, Vatablus, Glickler,
Baumgarten-Crusius).—The reason why we find Jesus, ver. 26, and conse-
quently the woman also, ver. 27, making use of the diminutive xvvépi (a
classical term),' is because His idea is that of a family-meal, inconnection with
which it was not unnatural to think of the little Aowse-dogs that ran about
under the table.* The plural rév xvpivoy may be ascribed to the fact that,
in what she says, the woman is understood to be stating what is matter of
general experience. ;

Ver. 28. Ard rij¢ Spac éx.] See note on ix. 22.—The miracle is one of heal-
ang from a distance, as in viii. 18, John iv. 46 ff., and is to be regarded
neither as an allegory of Jesus’ own composing (Weisse, I. p. 527), which
came subsequently to be looked upon as the record of a miracle, nor as
being a mere case of the miraculous prediction of the future.*

Vv. 29 ff. Mapa ray 344. r. Taa.] according to Mark vii. 31, the eastern
shore. — 1d dpoc] the mountain just at hand. See notes on v. 1, xiv. 22. —
xvAdotc] deformed, lame, without specifying further ; but the word is used
not merely with reference to the hands or arms (comp. as evidence to the
contrary, the well-known nickname of Vulcan: xvAjorodiuy, ‘‘crook-footed”’),*
but also to the feet. —épjcpav] The flinging down is to be taken, not as
indicating the careless confidence (Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek), but rather
the haste of the people, in consequence of so many sick being brought to
Jesus.° The reference to the helplessness of the sick (Baumgarten-Crusius)
would be suited only to the case of the yw20i and xvAdoi. — rapa r. rédac]
for as xpooxuvoivres it behoved them to prostrate themselves before Him. —
Ver. 31. rév Sedv 'Iop.] who shows His care for His people by communicat-
ing to them, through Jesus, such extraordinary blessings. ’Iop. is added

1 Plat. Duthyd. p. 28D; Xen. Cyr. vili.4. 178.
20, although discarded by Phrynichus, p. * Ammon. L. J. II. p. 277.
180. 4 Hom. J. xvill. 871, xxi. 881.
*Comp. rparegies xvves, Hom. Ji. xxill. * Comp. Er. Schmid, Bengel.

CHAP. XV., 32, 33. 287

in the consciousness of the advantages they possessed over the neighboring
Gentiles.

Ver. 32. In this second instance of feeding the multitude, and which is
likewise recorded in Mark viii. 1 ff. (and that in a more authentic form),
Jesus takes the initiative, as in John vi. 5; not so in Matt. xiv. 15, — puépaz
tpeic| because they have remained with me, it is now three days, and, and so on.
For this elliptical way of inserting the time in the nominative, see Winer, p.
523 [E. T. 704].’—xai on Exovot, x.r.A.] for in the course of the three days
they had consumed the provisions they had brought along with them.

Vv. 33 ff. See note on xiv. 15 ff. — juiv] ‘‘ Jam intelligebant discipuli, suas
fore in ea re partes aliquas,” Bengel. — Sore] not atelic particle (de Wette),
but what is meant is : such a quantity of bread as will be sufficient for their
wants, and soon. The use of dore after rocovroc in a way corresponding to
this is of very frequent occurrence (Plat. Gorg. p. 458 C).* Notice the
emphatic correlation of rogotros and rocovrov.—The perplexity of the dis-
ciples, and the fact of their making no reference to what was formerly
done under similar circumstances, combined with the great resemblance
between the two incidents, have led modern critics to assume that Matthew
and Mark simply give what is only a duplicate narrative of one and the same
occurrence (Schleiermacher, Scholz, Kern, Credner, Strauss, Neander, de
Wette, Hasc, Ewald, Baur, Kostlin, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Weiss, Weiz-
sicker, Volkmar, Keim, Scholten) ; while Wilke and Bruno Bauer maintain,
though quite unwarrantably, that in Mark the account of the second
instance of miraculous feeding is an interpolation ; and Weiss, on the other
hand, is of opinion that this evangelist has constructed his duplicate out of
materials drawn from two distinct sources (1865, p. 846 f.). As a conse-
quence of this duplicate-hypothesis, it has been found necessary to question
the authenticity of Matt. xvi. 9 f., Mark viii. 19. The whole difficulty in
connection with this matter arises chiefly out of the question of the dis-
ciples, and the fact of their seeming to have no recollection of what took
place before,—a difficulty which is not to be got rid of by reminding us of
their feeble capacities (Olshausen), but which justifies us in assuming that
there were actually two instances of miraculous feeding of a substantially
similar character, but that (Bleek) in the early traditions the accounts came
to assume pretty much the same shape, all the more that the incidents them-
selves 60 closely resembled each other. — Ver. 34. iz6idia] Observe the use
of the diminutive on the part of the disciples themselves (‘‘ extenuant appa-
ratum,” Bengel) ; the use of iydiac, on the other hand, in the narrative, ver.
36.—Ver. 85. xedeteey seve] occurs nowhere else in the New’ Testament,
though frequently in Homer and later writers.*—Ver. 87. Seven baskets full
isin apposition with 71a repoc. 7. kAaop., as in xiv. 20. — omvpic is the term
regularly employed to denote a basket for carrying provisions when on &
journey, sporta.‘ The seven baskets corresponded to the seven loaves, ver.

? Buttmann, neul. Gr. p. 122 [E. T. 189] ; * Plat. Rep. p. 306 A. See Bornemann in
Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 810 f. the Sdchs. Stud. 1848, p. 51.

* See Sturz, Lex. Xen. IV. p. 830; Kfihner, 4 Comp. Arr. Zp. iv. 10. 21; Athen. vill. p.
li. 2, p. 1008. 8065 A; Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 4

.

288 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

34; the twelve baskets, xiv. 20, to the twelve apostles. — yupic yvva. «.
xa. | See note on xiv. 21.

Ver. 39. The village of Magdala (Josh. xix. 88 7) is not to be regarded as
situated on the east (Lightfoot, Wetstein, Cellarius), but on the west side of
the lake, where now stands the Mohammedan village of Mejdel.' This situ-
ation likewise corresponds with Mark vii. 21. Comp. note on ver. 29. It
is well, however, to take note of the reading Mayaddy (B D ® Syr“™ Syr. in
this instance ; similarly Lachmann, Tischendorf; comp. Erasmus and
Grotius), or Mayedév (Vulgate, It., Jerome, Augustine), which unknown
name might readily enough have been supplanted by one rendered more
familiar on account of its connection with Mary Magdalene. In C M, Curss.
the final syllable is still retained (MaydaAdv). According to Ewald, Maga-
dan, or Magedan, refers to the well-known town of Megiddo. But this latter
was too far inland,* for it would seem, from what is stated in the text (avéB7
cic rd WA. xai #AVev), that the place meant must have been somewhere on the
shore, and one admitting of being approached by a boat. Mark viii. 10
calls it Dalmanutha.

1 See Gesenius on Burckhardt, I. p. 350; ® Robinson, III. p. 418 f.; Furer in Schen-
Buckingham, I. p. 404; Robinson, Pal. DI. kel’s Bibellex.,
p. 580.

CHAP, XVI. 289

CHAPTER XVI.

Ver. 8. broxpiraf] omitted before rd név in C*#D L A, Curss. Verss. Aug. De-
leted by Lachmann (who has «ai instead, only after C**) and Tisch. Correctly ;
borrowed from Luke xii. 56.—In accordance with important testimony, Lachm.
and Tisch. have correctly deleted tov mpog7rov, ver. 4 (comp. xii. 39), as also
avrou, ver. 5. — Ver. 8. éAdfere] Lachm.: éyere, after BD &®, Curss. Vulg. It.,
and other Verss. (mot Or.). Correctly ; 44é@. was more likely to be derived
mechanically from ver. 7 than éyere to have been adopted from Mark viii. 17.
Had the latter been the case, we should likewise have found éyoueyv in ver. 7.
— Ver. 11. dprov}] Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.: dprwv, which Griesb. likewise ap-
proved, in accordance with a preponderance of testimony. The sing. would |
naturally come more readily to the transcribers, and that on account of the mate-
rial rather than the numerical contrast.—For rpocéye:v, B C* L &, Curss. Verss.
Or. have : mpooéyere dé (D, Curss. and Verss., however, omitting the dé). Cor-
rectly adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The infinitive, as well as the
omission of dé, originated in the reference of the words not having been under-
stood. — Ver. 12. rot dprav] Tisch. 8: rdv dapicaiwy x. Zaddovx., only after **
33, Syree* ; Lachm. has rdv dprwy, which, however, is not so well supported as
in ver. 11 (BL &**), besides having the appearance of being simply conformed
to this verse. — The reading of Tisch. 8 is somewhat of a gloss. — Ver. 13. ye]
is omitted after riva in B ® and several Verss. and Fathers; in C it is found
after Aéy. Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., bracketed by Lachm. Omitted
because, from the circumstance of r. vidv r. dv8p. following (otherwise in Mark
and Luke), it seemed superfluous and out of place. — Ver. 20. diecreiAaro] Orig.
already found éxeriuncey in Codd. So Lachm. after B* D, Arm. Taken from
Mark viii. 30, Luke ix. 21, for diaoréAAw occurs nowhere else in Matthew. — 6
Xpioréc} Elz., after numerous and important Codd. (also O &**): ‘Incoic 6
Xpworéc. But 'Inoove is omitted by very important authorities, and, as it is out
of place in the present connection, the transcriber must have inserted it me-
chanically. — Ver. 23. nov ei] BC 8, 13, 124: el guov (s0 Lachm. Tisch. 8), or el
pov. D, Marcell., in Eus. Vulg. It. al. : el éuol (so Fritzsche), With such a want of
unanimity among the authorities, the reading of the Received text cannot be
said to havea preponderance of testimony, while the variations turn the scales
in favor of el éuov, — Ver. 26. dgedeira:] Lachm. Tisch. : d¢eAnSjoera:, after B
L &, Curss. Verses. Or. Cyr. Chrys. Altered to be in conformity with the verbs
in the future that precede and follow. Comp. also Mark viii. 36, 37.— Ver. 28.
tév Ode éordruv] Elz. : trav cde éotyxétwv, after K M II. Fritzsche: rav ode
éorérec, after Ev. 49. Both are to be rejected, owing to the testimony being
too inadequate. Scholz and Tisch. 7: dde éordrec, after EF G HV XT A,
Curss. No doubt rév dde éotorwr is supported by the preponderating testi-
mony of BC DLSU X, Curss. Or. Ephr. Chrys. Epiph. Theodoret, Damasc.,
and adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8 ; still it is clearly taken from Mark ix.
1, Luke ix. 27. It therefore remains that dde éorarec is the correct reading.

290 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 1 ff. Comp. Mark viii. 11 ff. Not aduplicate of the incident re-
corded in xii. 38 (Strauss, de Wette, Bruno Bauer, Schneckenburger, Volk-
mar, Weizsicker, Bleek, Scholten), but @ second demand for a sign, and that
from heaven, in which respect it is distinguished from the first. With
regard to the alliance between Pharisees and Sadducees, supposed by some to
be utterly improbable (de Wette, Strauss, Weiss, Scholten), it is sufficient
to say, with Theophylact, xav roig déyuaoe diicravto Papioaio: nad Laddovxaior,
GAAG ye xara Xpiorov cvurvéovet’ onpeiov 62 éx Tov ovpavow Cytovor, Edéxowy yap,
ore Ta em? THe yHE Onmeia amd datmovexge duvduewg nal év BeedfeBova ylvovra.,
‘‘Although the Pharisees and Sadducees were at variance in their dogmas,
yet they conspired together against the Christ: they seek a sign from
heaven, for they thought that the signs upon the earth were from demoniac
power and in Beelzebub.” In the unbelieving hostility with which they
are animated, they demand of Him the very highest sign which the Messiah
would be expected to give (xxiv. 29 f. ; Joel iii. 3 f.), intending thereby to
have Him put to the test, but thinking, all the time, that it would be
beyond His power to comply with their demand. — érypéryoav] Their chal-
lenge was put in the form of inguiry.—The compound ézepwrav never
means: to request, to beg; see note on xv. 23.—Their questions had refer-
ence to such a sign, by way of Messianic credential, as, coming from heaven,
would be visible to their outward eye. — érideifa:] spectandum praebere, John
ii. 18.

Vv. 2, 83 f.!’—etdia] clear weather! An exclamation in which it is not
necessary to supply éora:, except, perhaps, in the way of helping the gram-
matical analysis, as also in the case of ofepov yetudv (stormy weather to-
day !), For the opposite of evdia and yezdv, comp. Xen. Hell. ii. 8. 10 : év
evdia yetuava ToLoveww. —orvyvdluv] being lowering. See note on Mark x. 22.
—rd mpéowrov]*—rd d2 onueia tév Katpav] the significant phenomena con-
nected with passing events, the phenomena which present themselves as
characteristic features of the time, and point to the impending course of
events, just as a red sky at evening portends fina weather, and soon. The
expression is a general one, hence the plural rév xa:pdv ; so that it was a
mistake to understand the onyeia as referring to the miracles of Christ (Beza,
Kuinoel, Fritzsche). Only when the reproach expressed in this general
form is applied, as the Pharisees and Sadducees were intending to apply it,
to the existing xa:péc, do the miracles of Christ fall to be included among the
signs, because they indicate the near approach of the Messiah’s kingdom.
In like manner the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, such as was to be

1The whole passage from oyias on to
ov dvvacde, ver. 8, is omitted in BV XT R,
Curss. Codd. in Jerom. Syrcur. Arm. Or. (f),
while in Eit is marked with an asterisk.
Tisch. 8 encloses itin brackets. The omis-
sion is certainly not to be explained onthe
physical ground (Bengel) that these signs of
the weather are not applicable to every
climate, but from the fact that a similar
saying does not happen to be found in the

corresponding passage in Mark. Lightfoot,
p. 378: “‘ Curiosi erant admodum Judaei in
observandis tempestatibus coeli et temper-
amento aéris.”” Babyl. Joma f. 21. 8;
Hieros. Taauith f. 65.2 For Greek and
Roman testimonies relative to the weather
signs in our passage, see Wetstein.

***Omnis rei facies externa,’’ Dissen, ad
Pind. Pyth. vi. 14, p. 278,

CHAP. XVI., 5-7. 291

traced in the events that were then taking place (Grotius),’ was to be re-
garded as among the signs in question, as also the Messianic awakening among
the people, Matt. xi. 12 (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius). According to
Strauss, the saying in vv. 2, 3 is inconceivable. But the truth is, it was pe-
culiarly in keeping with the thoughtful manner of Jesus, if, when a sign
JSrom heaven was demanded, He should refer those demanding it to their
own practice of interpreting the appearances of the sky, so as to let them see
how blinded they were to the signs that already existed. A similar saying
is found in Luke xii. 54f., where, however, it is addressed to the multitude.
There is no reason for thinking that it appears in its authentic form only in
Matthew (de Wette), or only in Luke (Schleiermacher, Holtzmann), for
there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that Jesus may have used
similar and in itself very natural language on several occasions. — xa?
Katauin, avr. aryAbe] depicting in a simple way the ‘‘justa severitas”
Bengel) shown toward those incorrigibles. Comp. xxi. 17. —Comp.,
besides, the note on xii. 89.

Ver. 5. This, according to Fritzsche, is the voyage mentioned in xv. 389,
so that the disciples are supposed to have come shortly after ‘‘in eum
ipsum locum, quem Jesus cum Pharisaeis disputans tenebat.” Unjustifiable
deviation from the very definite account in Mark viii. 18. After disposing
of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus crossed over again to the east side of
the lake along with His disciples ; but Matthew mentions only o: padyrai,
because they alone happen to form the subject of éeAddovro, though ver. 6
shows, beyond all doubt, that Jesus crossed along with them. — éreAdVovro] is
neither to be taken (Erasmus, Calvin, Paulus, Hilgenfeld) as a pluperfect
(see, on the other hand, note on John xviii. 24), nor as equivalent to
‘‘piderunt se oblitos esse’ (Beza, Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but thus: after the
disciples had reached the east side, they forgot to provide themselves with
bread (to serve them for a longer journey). After coming on shore they
should have obtained a supply of provisions in view of having a further
journey before them, but this they forgot. According to Mark viii. 14 ff.,
which in this instance also is the more authentic version, the following con-
versation is not to be understood as having taken place in the boat (Keim,
Weiss), but in the course of the further journey after going on shore.

Ver. 6. The craft and malice of the Pharisecs and Sadducees were still
fresh in His memory, vv. 1-4. — Cia ri didaxgv] Exddecev, d¢ O&0dq Kal
carpéav, ‘‘ He called their doctrine leaven, as being like vinegar and worth-
less,” (Euth. Zigabenus) ; see ver. 12. The allusion is to their peculiar
sectarian views, in so far as they deviated from the law. The expression is
explained differently in Luke xii. 1. Comp. note on Gal. v. 9; 1 Cor. v.
6.’ Used differently again in xiii. 88.

Ver. 7. Owing to the notion of bread being associated in their minds
with that of leaven, the words of Jesus led them to notice that their supply
of the former article was exhausted, so that they supposed all the time

1¥For the figurative use of Tk by the of any one who Is dad), see Buxtorf, Ler.
Rabbis (as denoting the infecting influence alm. p. 2808. Lightfoot on this passage.

292 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

that His object was to warn them against taking bread from the Pharisees
and Sadducees. — dce2oyifovro] not disceptabant (Grotius, Kypke, Kuinoel),
but : they consulted among themselves, i.e., they deliberate (Aéyovrec) over the
matter within their own circle without saying anything to Jesus, who, how-
ever, from His being able to penetrate their thoughts, is quite aware of
what is going on, ver. 8.'— rc] not : recitative, but : (He says that) because
we have not provided ourselves with bread. In ver. 8 it means : over the fact,
that. — rt diadoy.] why, and so on, how meaningless and absurd it is !

Ver. 9f. After those two miracles you have so recently witnessed (xiv.
15, xv. 82), have you still so little penetration as not to understand that the
thing to which I am alluding is not literal bread, which you ought to have
depended (oA:yémcor.) on my being able to supply whenever occasion might
require, but rather to something of a spiritual nature ? Jesus lays no more
stress here than He does elsewhere upon the physical benefit of His bread-
miracle (de Wette), but simply makes use of it in the way of suggesting
deeper reflection.—The difference between «6g. And ovp. does not lie in
oxupic being larger (Bengel, which does not follow from Acts ix. 25), but in
the fact that «égcvo¢ is a general term, whereas orupic denotes a food-basket in
particular. See note on xiv. 20, xv. 37.

Ver. 11. Idéc] how is it possible ! Astonishment in which a certain
amount of censure is expressed. — zpooéyere dé] see critical notes. It is not
necessary to supply elzov (Paulus, Fritzsche), but we are rather to under-
stand that after the question ending with elvov tuiv, Jesus repeats, and with
a view to its being yet more deeply pondered, the warning given in ver. 6,
in which case dé is simply continuative (autem) : But (let me say again)
beware, and so on.

Ver. 13 ff. Comp. Mark viii. 27 ff. ; Luke ix. 18 ff. (which latter evange-
list rejoins, at this point, the synoptic narrative, having left it immediately
after recording the first miraculous feeding of the multitude, a circumstance
which is sometimes alleged as a reason for doubting the authenticity of the
second miracle of this kind).—-Caesarea Philippi, a town in Gaulonitis, at
the foot of Mount Lebanon, which was formerly known by the name of
Paneas, Plin. V. H. v. 15. Philip the tetrarch enlarged and embellished it,*
and called it Caesarea in honor of Caesar (Tiberius). It received the name
of Philippi in order to distinguish it from Caesarea Palestinae.* —rov vidv
tov avdpdrov] See, in general, note on viii. 20. The words are in charac-
teristic apposition with ye. That is to say, Matthew does not represent
Jesus as asking in a general way (as in Mark and Luke) who it was that the
people supposed Him to be, but as putting the question in this more special
and definite form : whom do the people suppose me, as the Son of man, to be?
He had very frequently used this title in speaking of Himself ; and what
He wanted to know was, the nature of the construction which the people
put upon the designation in Danicl, which He had ascribed to Himself,
whether or not they admitted it to be applicable to Him in its Messianic

1 Comp. Xen. Hem. ili. 5. 1. neuere Forsch. p. 581 ff.; Ritter, rdk. XV. 1,
2 Joseph. Antt, xviii. 2, Bell. 11.9. 1. p. 194 ff.
® Robinson, Pat. jl. pp. 612, 626 ff., and

CHAP, XVL., 14. | 293

sense." From the answer it appears that, as a rule, He was not being taken
for the Messiah as yet (that consequently the more general appellation : 4
vid¢ Tod avdp., was not as yet being applied to Him in the special sense in which
Daniel uses it), He was only regarded as a forerunner ; but the disciples
themselves had understood Him to be the Son of man in Daniel’s sense of
the words, and, as being such, they looked upon Him as the Messiah, the Son
of God. Accordingly it is not necessary to regard r. vidv r. avdp. as interpo-
lated by Matthew (Holtzmann, Weizsacker), thereby destroying the suggestive
correlation in which it stands to the expression, Son of God, in Peter’s reply.
It is not surprising that Strauss should have been scandalized at the ques-
tion, seeing that he understood it in the anticipatory sense of : ‘‘ whom do
the people suppose me to be, who am the Messiah?” Beza inserts a mark of
interrogation after eivac, and then takes the following words by themselves
thus : an Messiam? But this would involve an anticipation on the part of
the questioner which would be quite out of place. De Wette (see note on viii.
20) imports a foreign sense into the passage when he thus explains : ‘‘ who
do the people say that I am, I, the obscure, humble man who have before
me the lofty destiny of being the Messiah, and who am under the neces-
sity of first of all putting forth such efforts in order to secure the recognition
of my claims ?”? Keim’s view is correct, though he rejects the pe (see critical
notes).—Observe, moreover, how it was, after He had performed such mighty
deeds in His character of Messiah, and had prepared His disciples by His
previous training of them, and when feeling now that the crisis was every
day drawing nearer, that Jesus leads those disciples to avow in the most
decided way possible such a conviction of the truth of the Christian confes-
sion as the experience of their own hearts might by this time be expected
to justify. Comp. note on ver.17. As for themselves, they needed a relig-
ious confession thus deeply rooted in their convictions to enable them to
confront the trying future on which they were about to enter. And to Jesus
also it was a source of comfort to find Himself the object of such sincere
devotion ; comp. John vi. 67 ff. But to say that it was not till now that
He Himself became convinced of His Messiahship (Strauss, before 1864,
Schenkel), is to contradict the whole previous narrative in every one of the
evangelists.*

Ver. 14 f. "Iwdveuny tov Barr.] Their opinion is similar to that of Antipas,
xiv. 2. — ’H2iav] These 420: cannnot, therefore, have realized in the person
of the Baptist, that coming of Elias which was to precede the advent of the
Messiah. — érepo: dé] a distinct class of opinion which, whatever may have
been the subsequent view, was not at that time understood to be in any
way connected with the expected coming of Elias. For érepoc, comp. note
on 1 Cor. xii. 9, xv. 40 ; 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. i. 6. As forerunner of the Mes-
siah they expected Jeremiah, who at that time was held in very high repute
(Ewald, ad Apoc. XI. 3), or some other ancient prophet (risen from the
dead).? — # éva rév rpog. ] where we are not to suppose 4AAov to be understood

1Comp. Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld’s p. 41 ff.

Zeilechr. 1865, p. 2B. 3 Bertholdt, CAristol. p. 58 f.
2 Comp. Weizsicker, Keim, Weissenborn,

294 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(Fritzsche), but should rather regard the persons in question as intending
to say (in a general way) : it is ei¢ rév zpog.! without mentioning any one
in particular. For eic, see note on viii. 19. — tpeic dé] from them He expected a
very different kind of confession, and He was not disappointed.

Ver. 16. As was to be expected from his impetuous character, his personal
superiority, as well as from the future standing already assigned him in
John i. 48, Peter (rd oréua rév arocréAwy, Chrysostom) assumes the part of
spokesman, and in a decided and solemn manner (hence : 6 vld¢ rob deo row
Cavrocg, the higher, and not, as in xiv. 33, the merely theocratic meaning of
which the apostle could as yet but dimly apprehend, it being impossible for
him to understand it in all its clearness till after the resurrection, comp. note
on Rom. i. 4) declares Jesus to be the Messiah (6 Xpiord¢) the Son of the living
God (rov Cavrog, in contrast to the dead idols of the heathen), Both elements
combined, the work and the person constituted then, as thcy do always,
the sum of the Christian confession. Comp. xxvi. 68 ; John xi. 27, xx. 31;
Phil. ii. 11 ; 1 John ii. 22 f.’

Ver. 17. Simon, son (13) of Jona, a solemnly circumstantial style of address,
yet not intended as a contrast to the designation of himas Peter which is
about to follow (de Wette), in connection with which view many expositors
have allegorized the Bapcwva in an arbitrary and nugatory fashion, but merely
on account of the importance of the subsequent statement, in which case
Bapwva is to be ascribed to the practice of adding the patronymic designa-
tion, and blending the fap. with the proper name (x. 8 ; Acts xiii. 6; Mark
x. 46). rz] because thou art favored far above my other followers in
having had such a revelation as this. —odp£ x. alua] OT) WW3 (among the
Rabbis), paraphrastic expression for man, involving the idea of weakness as
peculiar to his bodily nature.* Therefore to be interpreted thus : no weak
mortal (mortalium ullus) has communicated this revelation to thee ; but, and so
on. Inasmuch as droxadtrrev, generally, is a thing to which no human
being can pretend, the negative half of the statement only serves to render
the positive half all the more emphatic. Others refer cap£ x. aia to ordina-
ry knowledge and ideas furnished by the senses, in contradistinction to
rvevpa (de Wette, following Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Neander, Olshausen,
Gléckler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Keim). Incorrectly, partly because the
lower part of man’s nature is denoted simply by odpé, not by capé x. aia (in
1 Cor. xv. 50 the expression flesh and blood is employed in quite a peculiar,
a physical sense), partly because azexdAvpe (xi. 25) compels us to think ex-
clusively of a knowledge which is obtained in some other way than through
the exercise of one’s human faculties. For a similar reason, the blending
of both views (Bleek) is no less objectionable. —It must not be supposed
that, in describing this confession as the result of a divine revelation, there
is anything inconsistent with the fact that, fora long time before, Jesus

1 Observe the climaz at the same time; Bengel.
“nam cognitio de Jesu, ut est fliue Dei, 2 Sir. xiv. 18; Lightfoot on this passage;
sublimior est quam de eodem, ut est Chris- Bleek's note on Heb. fi. 14. Comp. the note
tus,” ‘forthe knowledge of Jesus,as Son on Gal. i. 16; Eph. vi. 12
of God, is higher than of Him as the Christ,”

CHAP. XVI., 18. ‘295

had, in word and deed, pointed to Himself as the Messiah (comp. above all
the Sermon on the Mount, and such passages as xi. 5 f., 37), and had also
- been so designated by others (John the Baptist, and such passages as viii.
29, xiv. 33), nay, more, that from the very first the disciples themselves had
recognized Him as the Messiah, and on the strength of His being so had
been induced to devote themsclves to His person and service (iv. 19;
John i. 42, 46, 50) ; nor are we to regard the point of the revelation as con-
sisting in the 4 vidc r. Seov r. Cavroc, sometimes supposed (Olshausen) to in-
dicate advanced, more perfect knowledge, a view which it would be difficult
to reconcile with the parallel passages in Mark and Luke ; but observe : (1)
That Jesus is quite aware that, in spite of the vacillating opinions of the
multitude, His disciples continue to regard Him as the Messiah, but, in
order to strengthen and elevate both them and Himself before beginning
(ver. 21) the painful and trying announcement of His future sufferings, and
as furnishing a basis on which to take His stand in doing so, He secks first
of all to elicit from them an express and decided confession of their faith.
(2) That Peter acts as the mouthpiece of all the others, and with the utmost
decision and heartiness makes such a declaration of his belief as, at this
turning-point in His ministry, and at a juncture of such grave import as re-
gards the gloomy future opening up before Him, Jesus must have been
longing to hear, and such as He could not fail to be in need of. (3) That
He, the heart-scarching one, immediately perceives and knows that Peter
(as 6 rod yopow Tév droctéAwy Kopvdaioc, ‘‘ the leader of the apostolic band,”
Chrysostom) was enabled to make such a declaration from his having been
favored with a special revelation from God (xi. 27), that He speaks of the
distinction thus conferred, and connects with it the promise of the high
position which the apostle is destined to hold in the church. Consequently
érexdavpe is not to be understood as referring to some revelation which had
been communicated to the disciples at the outset of their career as follow-
ers of Jesus, but it is to be restricted to Peter, and to a special revelation
from God with which we had been favored. This confession, founded as it
was upon such a revelation, must naturally have been far more deliberate,
far more deeply rooted in conviction, and for the Lord and His work of far
greater consequence, than that contained in the exclamation of the people
in the boat (xiv. 83) when under the influence of a momentary feeling of
amazement, which latter incident, however, our present passage does not
require us to treat as unhistorical (Keim and others) ; comp. note on xiv.
83. — Observe, further, how decidedly the joyful answer of Jesus, with the
great promise that accompaniesit, forbids the supposition that He consented
to accept the title and dignity of a Messiah only from ‘‘not being able to
avoid a certain amount of accommodation” to the ideas of the people.’

Ver. 18. But I again say to thee. The point of the comparison in xayé is,
that Peter having made a certain declaration in reference to Jesus, Jesus al-
#, in His turn, now does the same in reference to Peter. — rérpoc] as an ap-
pellative : thou art a rock, Aram. ®D°D, The form 6 zérpoc* is likewise

' Schenkel ; see, on the uther hand, Weis- 2 Among the later poeta } wérpos is like-
tenborn, p. 43 ff. wise to be met with. See Jacobs, ad Anthot.

296 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

common among classical writers, and that not merely in the sense of a stone,
as everywhere in Homer in contradistinction to rérpa,' but also as meaning
arock.*? Jesus declares Peter to be a rock on account of that strong and
steadfast faith in himself to which, under the influence of a special reve-
lation from God, he had just given expression. According to John i. 43,
however, Jesus conferred the name Cephas upon him at their very first in-
terview (according to Mark iii. 16, somewhat later) ; but our passage is not
to be understood as simply recording the giving of the name, or the giving of
it for the second time. It is rather intended to be taken as a record of the
declaration made by Jesus, to the effect that Simon tas in reality all that
the name conferred upon him implied. Consequently our passage is in no
way inconsistent with that of John just referred to, which could only have
been the case if the words used had been ov xAydyon Mléspoc. —xai éxi tabry
ty wétpg] The emphasis is on ratry, which points to Peter (not to Jesus, as
Augustine would have us suppose), and to be understood thus : on no other
than on this rock,—hence the feminine form in this instance, because it is
not so much a question of the name as of the thing which it indicates, i.¢., of
that rocky element in the apostle’s character which furnished so solid a
foundation for the superstructure of the church that was to be built upon
it. — oixodoufow pov Ti éxxAnotav] will I build for myself (uov, as in viii. 3, and
frequently ; see note on John xi. 82) the church. The éx«Agoia—in the Old
Testament 7), Deut. xviii. 16, xxiii. 1, Judg. xxi. 8, the whole assembly
of the Jewish people (Acts vii. 38), the theocratic national assembly *—is
used in the New Testament to denote the community of believers, the Chris-
tian church, which, according to a common figure (1 Cor. iii. 10 f. ; Eph.
ii. 19 ff. ; Gal. ii. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 4 f.), is represented as a building, of which
Christ here speaks of Himself as the architect, and of Peter as the founda-
tion on which a building is to be raised (vii. 24 f.) that will defy every ef-
fort to destroy it. But the term ixxa. was in such current use in its theo-
cratic sense, that it is not necessary to suppose, especially in the case of a
saying so prophetic as this, that it has been borrowed from a later order of
things and put into Jesus’ mouth (Weisse, Bleek, Holtzmann). Besides,
there can be no doubt whatever that the primacy among the apostles is
here assigned to Peter, inasmuch as Christ singles Aim out as that one in
particular whose apostolic labors will, in virtue of the steadfast faith for
which he is peculiarly distinguished, be the means of securing, so far as
human effort can do so (comp. Rev. xxi. 14; Gal. ii. 9), the permanence
and stability of the church which Jesus is about to found, and to extend
more and more in the world. As in accordance with this, we may also
mention the precedence given to this disciple in the catalogues of the apos-
tles, and likewise the fact that the New Testament uniformly represents
him as being, in point of fact, superior to all the others (Acts xv. 7, ii. 14 ;

XII. p. 22.—The name lérpos is also to be =mann, Zeri. II. p. 179.
found in Greek writers of a later age 2 Plat. Az. p. 871 E: Seovdhor wérpos ; Soph.
(Leont. Schol. 18); more frequently in the Phil. 272, O. C. 19, 1591; Pind. em. iv. 46,
form Merpaios (Lobeck, Paral. p. 842). x. 126.

1 See Duncan, p. 987, ed. Rost, and Butt- 3? Comp. Sir. xxiv. 1, and Grimm's note.

CHAP. XVI., 18. 297
Gal. i. 18, ii. 7, 8). This primacy must be impartially conceded, though
without involving those inferences which Romanists have founded upon it ;
for Peter’s successors are not for a moment thought of by Jesus, neither can
the popes claim to be his successors, nor was Peter himself ever bishop of
Rome, nor had he any more to do with the founding the church at Rome than
the Apostle Paul.’ The explanation frequently had recourse to in anti-popish
controversies, to the effect that the rock does not mean Peter himself, but
his steadfast faith and the confession he made of it*® (Calovius, Ewald, Lange,
Wieseler), is incorrect, because the demonstrative expression : éxi rairy r9
xétpg, coming immediately after the ot el xérpoc, can only point to the
apostle himself, as does also the nai déow, etc., which follows, it being under-
stood, of course, that it was in consideration of Peter’s faith that the Lord
declared him to be a foundation of rock. It is this circumstance also that
underlies the reference to the apostle’s faith on the part of the Fathers.2—
The expression : rida ddov (which does not require the article,* is to be
explained by the circumstance that because Hades is a place from which
there is no possibility of getting out again (Eustathius, ad Od. xi. 276 ;
Blomfield, Gloss. in Aesch. Pers. p. 164), it is represented under the figure
of a palace with strong gates.°— ov xaricxboovorw attic] So securely will I
build my church upon this rock, that the gates of Hades will not be able to re-
sist it, will not prove stronger than it ; indicating, by means of a compar-
ison, the great strength and stability of the edifice of the church, even
when confronted with so powerful a structure as that of Hades, the gates
of which, strong as they are, will yet not prove to be stronger than the
building of the church ; for when the latter becomes perfected in the Messi-
anic kingdom at the second coming, then those gates will be burst open, in
order that the souls of the dead may come forth from the subterranean world
to participate in the resurrection and the glory of the kingdom (comp. note
on 1 Cor. xx. 54 f.), when death (who takes away the souls of men to im-
prison them in Hades), the last enemy, has been destroyed (1 Cor. xv. 26).
So far the victory of the church over Hades is, of course, affirmed, yet not
in such a way as to imply that there had been an attack made by the one
upon the other, but so as to convey the idea that when the church reaches
her perfected condition, then, as a matter of course, the power of the
nether world, which snatches away the dead and retains them in its grasp,
will also Ge subdued. This victory presupposes faith on the part of the
xaraxSovio: (Phil. ii. 10), and consequently the previous descensus Christi ad
inferos. Moreover, had He chosen, Christ might have expressed Himself

1 For the false reasoning on this subject, fde,’" comp. Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom,

see Dollinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 815 ff.

2 Comp. Luther's gloss: ‘‘ All Christians
are Peters on account of the confession
here made by Peter, which confession is the
rock on which he and all Peters are built.”
Melanchthon, generalizing the #érpa, under-
stands it in the sense of the verum ministe-
rium. Comp. Art. Smale. p. 845.

% Ambrose: “non de carne Petri, sed de

Augustine,

4 Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 147. ff.]

® Cant. vill. 6 f.; Job xxxvill. 17; Isa.
xxxvill. 10; Ps. ix. 14, evif. 18; Wisd. xvi.
18; 8 Maco. v. 51; Ev. Nicod. xxi, and
Thilo’s note, p. 718; more frequently also
in Homer, as Zé. vill. 15; Aesch. dgamn. 1201;
Eur. Hipp. 56.

298 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

thus : xai rvdv gdov xarioztoe: ; but, keeping in view the comparative idea
which underlies the statement, He prefers to give prominence to ‘‘ the gates
of Hades” by making them the subject, which circumstance, combined with
the use of the negative form of expression (Rev. xii. 8), tends to produce a
somewhat solemn effect. xarioxiew tivo : praevalere adversus aliguem.' If —
we adopt the no less grammatical interpretation of : to overpower, to subdue
(Luther and the majority of commentators), a most incongruous idea emerges
in reference to the gates, and that whether we understand the victory as one
over the devil (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Maldonatus,
Michaelis, Keim) or over death (Grotius) ; for the gates of Hades would
thus be represented as the attacking side, which would hardly be appropri-
ate, and we would have to suppose what, on the other hand, would be for-
eign to the sense, that all the monsters of hell would rush out through the
opened gates.* The point of the comparison lies simply in the strength that
distinguishes such solid gates as those of Hades, and not also in the Oriental
use of the gates as a place of meeting for deliberation (Gléckler, Arnoldi), as
though the hostile designs of hell where what was meant. Notwithstanding
the progressive nature of the discourse and the immediate subject, Wetstein
and Clericus refer avr#s to Peter (ratry r. wérpg), and suppose the meaning
to be: ‘‘eum in discrimen vitae venturum, nec tamen eo absterritum iri,”
‘‘that he was about to come into peril of his life, but nevertheless, that he
would not have been terrified by it,” etc.—Notice, besides, the grandeur of
the expression: ‘‘ grandes res etiam grandia verba postulant,” ‘‘ grand
matters require grand words.”* ([Sce note IX., p. 804.]

Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys of the Messianic kingdom,‘ i.e., the
power of deciding as to who are to be admitted into or excluded from the
future kingdom of the Messiah. For the figurative expression, comp. Luke
xi. 52; Rev. i. 18, iii. 7, ix. 1, x. 1; Isa. xxii. 22; Ascens. Isa. vi. 6. —
d4ow] The future expresses the idea of a promise (the gift not being, as yet,
actually conferred), as in the case of oixodouyow, pointing forward to the time
when Christ will no longer administer the affairs of the church in a direct
and personal manner. This future already shows that what was meant
cannot have been the office of preaching the gospel, which preaching is supposed
to lead to admission into the kingdom of heaven, wherever God has pre-
pared men’s hearts for its reception (Diisterdieck, Julius Miller). The si-
militude of the keys corresponds to the figurative oixodou., ver. 18,gin so far as
the éxxAnaia, ver. 18 (which is to be transformed into the BacrAcia r. otp. at
the second coming), is conceived of as a Aouse, the doors of which are opened
and locked by means of keys (generally, not exactly by two of them). In re-
gard to Peter, however, the figure undergoes some modification, inasmuch as
it passes from that of the foundation of rock, not certainly into the lower one

1 Jer. xv. 18; Ael, VW. A. v. 19; comp. Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 486 ff.;
ayrnoxvey revos, Wisd. vil. 80, and icxva» likewise the reviews of the first-mentioned

xara Tivos, Acts xix. 16, work in the Eriang. Zeilachr. 1865, 8 p.
3 Ewald, comp. also Weizsiicker, p. 494. 187 ff; and that of Diisterdieck In the Stud.
% Dissen, ad Pind. p. 715. u. Krit. 1865, p. 743; Julius Maller, dog.

4See Ahrens, @. Amt. Schitissel, 1864; AbdA. p. 496 ff.

CHAP. XVI., 19. 299
of a gate-keeper, but (comp. Luke xii. 4; 1 Cor. iv. 1, ix. 17; Tit. i. 7
into that of an oixovduoc (rayutac, Isa. xxii. 15 ff.), from the ordinary relation
of a disciple to the church to the place of authority hereafter to be assigned
him in virtue of that relation. The authority in question is that of a house-
steward, who is empowered to determine who are to belong and who are not
to belong to the household over which his master has commissioned him to
preside.' All this is expressed by means of an old and sacred symbol, ac-
cording to which the keys of the house are promised to Peter, ‘‘ that he may
open and no man shut, that he may shut and no man open” (Isaiah as above).
—For the forms xAzic and (as Tischendorf 8, on inadequate testimony) xAeidac,
see Kiihner, I. p. 357. — xa? 8 éav dhoye, x.r.A.] & necessary adjunct of this
power : and whatsoever thou wilt have forbidden upon earth will be forbidden in
heaven (by God), so that it will, in consequence, prevent admission into the
Messianic kingdom ; and whatsoever thou wilt have permitted upon earth (as
not proving a hindrance in the way of admission to the future kingdom)
will be permitted in heaven. It will depend on thy decision—which God will
ratify—what things, as being forbidden, are to disqualify for the kingdom
of the Messiah, and what things, as being allowed, are to be regarded as
giving a claim to admission. déev and Ate are to be traced to the use, so
current among the Jews, of 10% and Vs, in the sense of to forbid and to
allow.? In the face of this common usage, it would be arbitrary and absurd
to think of any other explanation. The same may be said not only of the
reference to the supreme administrative power in general (Arnoldi and the
older Catholics), or to the treasures of grace in the church, which Peter is
supposed to be able to withhold or bestow as he may deem proper (Schegg),
but likewise of the view which represents the words as intended to indicate
the power of admitting into and excluding from the church,* and in support of
which an appeal is made, notwithstanding the 6, to the ancient practice of
tying or untying doors ; as well as of that other view which has been so

1 There is no force in the objection that
this would be to confound the keys of the
house-steward with those of the porter
(Abrens). The keys of the house are en-
trusted to the sieward for the purpose of
opening and locking it; this is all that the
figure implies. Whether he opensand locks
in his own person, or has it done through the
medium of a porter, is of no consequence
whatever, and makes no difference as far as
the thing intended to be symbolized is con-
cerned. The power of the keys belongs, in
any case, to the oixovéuos, and not to the
Ovpepdés. The view of Ahrens, that the keys
are to be regarded as those of the rooms,
and of the place in which the family provi-
stone are stored, the rayecov, the contents of
which it is supposed to be the duty of the
steward to distribute (so also Ddllinger,
Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 81), is in opposition
to the fact that the thing which is fo b6
opened and locked must be understood to be
that which is expressed by the genitive im-

mediately after xAeis (accordingly, in this
instance, the Aingdom, not the rameior),
comp. note on Luke xi. 52, likewise Isaiah
asabove. Moreover, according to the ex-
planation of Abrens, those, on whose be-
half the rayies uses his keys, would have to
be regarded as already within the Kingdom
and participating in Its blessings, so that
there would be no further room for the
idea of exclusion, which 1s not in keeping
with the contrast which follows.

3 Lightfoot, p. 878 ff. ; Schoettgen, IT. p.
804 f., and Wetsteln on this passage ; Len-
gerke’s note on Dan. vi. 8; Rosenmiiller,
Morgent. V. 67; Steitz, p. 488f. Following
Lightfoot, Vitringa, Schoettgen, and oth-
ers, Fritzsche, Ahrens, Steitz, Welizsiicker,
Keim, Gess (I. p. 68), Gottschick in the Stud.
u. Krit. 1878, also adopt this interpretation
of those figurative expressions.

§ Thaddaeus aS. Adamo, Commentat. 1789.
Rosenmiiller, Lange.

300 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

currently adopted, after Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Eras-
mus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Maldonatus, to the effect that what Jesus means
is the remission and non-remission of sins.' So Grotius, Olshausen, de Wette,
Bleek, Neander, Gléckler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ddllinger, Julius Miller,
Diisterdieck. But to quote in connection with this the different and much
later saying of Jesus, after His resurrection, John xx. 28, is quite unwar-
ranted ; the idea of sin is a pure importation, and although Aiecy duapr. may
properly enough be understood as meaning : to forgive sins,’? yet the use of
déecy duapr., in the sense of retaining them, is altogether without example.
Exception has been taken to the tdea involved in our interpretation ; but
considering that high degree of faith to which Peter, as their representative,
here shows them to have attained, the apostles must be supposed to possess
‘‘the moral power of legislation” (objected to by de Wette) as well, if they
are to determine the right of admission to the Messiah’s kingdom.* This
legislative authority, conferred upon Peter, can only wear an offensive aspect
when it is conceived of as possessing an arbitrary character, and as being in
no way determined by the ethical influences of the Holy Spirit, and when it
is regarded as being of an absolute nature, as independent of any connection
with the rest of the apostles (but see note on xviii. 18).4 Ahréns, likewise,
correctly interprets the words in the sense of to forbid, and to allow, but
supposes the words themselves to be derived from the practice of fastening
with a knot vessels containing anything of a valuable nature.* Artificial and
far-fetched, but resulting from the reference of the keys to the rayeiov. —
Eoras dedex.] Observe how that is spoken of as already done, which is to take
place and be realized immediately on the back of the 8 éév dfoge.6 To such
a degree will the two things really harmonize with one another.

Ver. 20. Avecreidaro] He appointed, strictly enjoined." — ori abrég tori 6 X.]
that He Himself is the Messiah. This airdée points back to ver. 14, according
to which some one else was looked for as the Messiah, while Jesus was only
regarded as His forerunner. The reason of this prohibition is not that He
wanted to anticipate any offence that might afterwards arise in consequence
of His sufferings (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus), for Jesus quite foresaw
His resurrection and défa, and the effect which these would have upon His
followers (John xii. 32); but (see note on viii. 4) its explanation is to be found
in His uniform desire to avoid awakening and fostering sanguine Messianic
hopes among the people.

1In which case the result of apostolic
preaching generally, t.¢., its efficacy in judg-
ing men by the spiritual power of the word
(Julius Miller, comp. Neander and Dtister-
dieck), ceases to have any significance other
than that of a vague abstraction, by no
means in keeping with the specific expres-
sion of the text, and leaving no room for
assigning to Peter any special prerogative.
This also in answer to Weiss, did’. Theol. p.
99, 2d ed., who holds that, originally, the
words were intended to indicate merely
that general commission which was given

to the apostles to publish among men the
call to the kingdom of God.

Isa. xl. 2; 8 Esdr. ix. 18; Sir. xxviii. 8;
and see Kypke on xvill. 18.

3 See Steitz also, p. 458.

4 Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. d. Ap. p. 387 f.

® Hom. Od. viil. 447.

® Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 267 [E. T.
811) ; Ktihner, IT. 1, p. 85.

7 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 585 B; Aristot. Polit.
1.5; Judith xi. 12; 2 Macc. xiv. 28; Mark
v. 48; Acts xv. 2%; Heb. xil. 20.

CHAP. XVI., 21. 301

Ver. 21. 'Azd rére $pfato] Comp. iv. 17; a note of time marking an im-
portant epoch.’ To announce His future sufferings’ to His disciples, and
that immediately after their decided confession, ver. 16, was highly oppor-
tune, both as regards their capability and their need—their capability to
stand so trying an intimation, and their need of beginning to relinquish their
false hopes, and of attaining to a true and exalted conception of what con-
stitutes the work of the Messiah. Mark viii. 31 likewise introduces the Je-
ginning of the announcement of the future sufferings somewhat prominently
after Peter’s confession, whereas Luke ix. 21 f. omits it altogether. — dei]
Necessity in accordance with a divine purpose, xxvi. 54; Luke xxiv. 26;
John iii. 14. — areAVeiv cig ‘Iepoo.] because connected with xai 7oA2a raveiv,
x.7.A., does not forbid the idea of previous visits to Jerusalem mentioned by
John (in answer to Hilgenfeld, Hoang. p. 89); comp. xxiii. 37. —azé] at the
hands of ; comp. note on xi. 19. — rév mpeo. x. apy. x. ypaup.] This circum-
stantial way of designating the’ Sanhedrim (comp. note on ii. 4) has here
something of a solemn character. — azoxrav?.}] further detail (though with
ver, 24 already in view) reserved for xx. 19. What Jesus contemplates is
not being stoned to death by the people (Hausrath), but judicial murder
through the decision of a court of justice. — kai 79 rpiry Hu. éyep9ivac] With
so clear and distinct a prediction of the resurrection, it is impossible to rec-
oncile the fact that, utterly disheartened by the death of their Lord, the dis-
ciples should have had no expectation whatever that He would come to life
again, that they consequently embalmed the body, and that even on the
Sunday morning the women wanted to anoint it ; that they should have placed
a heavy stone at the mouth of the grave, and afterwards are utterly at a loss
to account for the empty sepulchre, and treat the statement that He has
risen and appeared again as simply incredible, some of them even doubting
His identity when they do see Him ; and further, that the risen Jesus appeals,
indeed, to an Old Testament prediction (Luke xxiv. 25), but not to His
own ; just as John, in like manner, accounts for Peter and himself not be-
lieving in the resurrection till they had actually seen the empty grave, mere-
ly from their having hitherto failed to understand the scripture (John xx.
9). All this is not to be disposed of by simply saying that the disciples had
not understood the prediction of Jesus (Mark ix. 22); for had it been so
plainly and directly uttered, they could not have failed to understand it,
especially as, in the course of His own ministry, cases had occurred of the
dead being restored to life, and as the Messianic hopes of the disciples must
have disposed them to give a ready reception to tidings of a resurrection.

2 * Antea non ostenderat,” ‘‘He had not _— especially ix. 15, x. 88, xil. 40)}—statements

shown it to them before,’ Bengel.

2 Whoever supposes that it was only
somewhere ahout this time that the thought
of His impending sufferings and death first
began to dawn upon Jesus (Hase, Weiz-
sicker, Keim, Wittichen), can do so only by
ignoring previous statements on the part of
the Lord, which already point with suffi-
cient clearness to His painful end (see

the testimony of which Is to be set aside
only by explaining away and rejecting them
by the artifice of mixing up together dates
of different times, and the like, and thus
depriving them of validity, a course which
is decidedly opposed to the Gospel of John
(comp. 1. 29, if. 19, lll. 14, vi. 51 ff.) so long as
its authenticity is recognized !

302 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Then, again, the fulfilment would necessarily have had the effect of awakening
both their memory and their understanding, and that all the more that pre-
cisely then light was being shed upon the mysterious saying regarding the
temple of the body (John ii. 21 f.). We must therefore suppose that Jesus
had made certain dark, indefinite allusions to His resurrection, which as yet
had not been apprehended in their true meaning, and that it was only ex
eventu that they assumed, in the course of tradition, the clear and definite
form of a prediction such as is now before us. It is only such faint, obscure
hints that are as yet to be met with in John ii. 19, x. 17 f., and see observa-
tion on Matt. xii. 40.' Other expositors (Paulus, Hase, Scholten, Schenkel,
Volkmar), arbitrarily ignoring those traces of a dim prophetic hint of the
resurrection, have contended that, originally, nothing more was meant than
a symbolical allusion,—an allusion, that is, to the new impetus that would be
given to the cause of Jesus, while some of them have denied that any announce-
ment of the death ever took place at all (Strauss ; see, on the other hand,
Ebrard). But the arguments of Siiskind,* Heydenreich,* Kuinoel, Ebrard,
and others in favor of the perfect authenticity of the definite and literal pre-
dictions of the resurrection, are not conclusive, and, to some extent, move
in a circle.

Ver. 22. TipoodaBéu.] after he had taken Him to himself, comp. xvii. 1, 7.¢.,
had taken Him aside to speak to Him privately. The very common inter-
pretation : he took Him dy the hand, imports what does not belong to the
passage. — 7#pfaro] for Jesus did not allow him to proceed further with his
remonstrances, which had commenced with the words immediately follow-
ing ; see ver. 28. — iAed¢ oor] sc. ely 6 Sede, & Wish that God might graciously
avert what he had just stated, a rendering of the Hebrew nyon, 2 Sam. xx.
20, xxiii. 17; 1 Chron. xi. 19, LXX. 1 Macc. ii. 21, and see Wetstein.
Comp. our: God forbid !— iora:] purely future ; expressive of full conji-
dence. “O pév arexadigdy, 6 Tétpog opdjoc dyodsynoev. & dd ox arexadiodn,
éogéay, ‘‘as to what was revealed Peter rightly confessed ; but as to what
was not revealed he went wrong,” Theophylact. Peter was startled ;
nothing, in fact, could have formed a more decided contrast to the Messianic
conception on which hisconfession seemed to have been based, than the
idea of a Messiah suffering and dying like a malefactor.

Ver. 28. Zrpageic] He turned away, by way of indicating His horror. —
inaye bricw pov] See note on iv. 10.— arava] Satan! A term of reproach,
springing out of the intense displeasure with which He now saw Peter
striving, like Satan, against that purpose of God of which he was so pro-
foundly conscious. Not ‘‘ moral veration” (Keim), but moral displeasure.
Comp. John vi. 70. Secing that Peter’s feelings have changed, it was
proper that the testimony of Jesus regarding him should undergo a corre-
sponding change (Augustine), although without prejudice to the high posi-
tion just promised to him by Jesus ; for this distinction neither excludes the
idea of there being still a strong carnal element in Peter’s character, nor

1 Comp. besides, Hasert, tb. d. Vorhersag. 1In Flatt's Magaz. VIL. p. 181 ff.

Jesu von 8. Tode u. 8. Auferst. 1839, Neander, ?In Huffel’s Zetéschr. I. p. 7 ff.
de Wette, Ammon.

CHAP, XVI., 24-27%. 303

does it imply that he was beyond the need of correction ; consequently, the
evasive interpretation of Catholic expositors, who, in this instance, take
carava 88 an appellative (adversarius; so Maldonatus, Jansen, Arnoldi), is
utterly groundless. — oxdvd. pov ei]. — gpoveic] thou hast in thy mind ; indicat-
ing the direction of his aims, the bent of the practical reason. Comp. note
on Rom. viii. 5. —ré rov Seov] matters of divine interest ; because God is to
be understood as having ordained the sufferings of Jesus for the purpose of
carrying out the plan of redemption. — ré rév av8péruv] who are concerned
about having as their Messiah an earthly hero and prince.

Ver. 24 f. Comp. Mark viii. 34 ff.; Luke ix. 23 ff. As J must suffer, so
also must all my followers ! —oriow pov eAdeiv] as in iv. 19. — éavrdy] i.6., His
own natural self.*. To that which this déAyuza desires, He says : No/—
Gparw tr. or.] let him not shrink from the pain of a violent death such as He
Himself will be called upon to endure. Comp. note on x. 38, — xa? axoa.
xo} that is, after he has taken up his cross. What goes before indicates the
precise kind of following which Jesus requires. John xxi. 19. According
to the context, it is not a question of moral following generally (xa? racav
tiv bAAny aperiy exidecxvbcda, Theophylact, comp. Euth. Zigabenus, Chrysos-
tom). But, by way of illustrating the idea of self-denial, Theophylact ap-
propriately refers to the example of Paul, Gal. ii. 20.—Ver. 25. See note
on x. 30.

Ver. 26. Ver. 25, compared with ver. 24, involved the thought that the
earthly life must be sacrificed for sake of gaining the eternal. The reason
of this thought is now brought forward. — d¢edeira:] represents as already
present the man’s condition at the day of judgment, not an Aftie future
(Bleek). — rpv 62 yoy. abtod SyutwdG] but will have lost his soul, that is to say,
by his having rendered himself unfit for eternal life, by having, there-
fore, lost his soul as far as the Messianic (wf is concerned, and be-
come liable to eternal death. Cyumd% is the opposite of xepdfoy. It
must not on this ground, and because of the ayrdAAayza which follows, be
explained as meaning, to sustain damage in his soul (Luther), but : animae
detrimentum pati (Vulgate), comp. Herod. vii. 89: rov évdg roy yuxqy Cnp-
écea, thou wilt lose thine only one through death. — 4%] It avails a man
nothing if he, and so on, it might be that (at the judgment) he would have
something to give to God with which to purchase back his lost soul.* There
exists no such means of exchange (commutationem, Vulgate), nothing which,
in the sight of God and according to His holy standard, would be of such
value as to serve as an dvrdéA2ayua for the soul.‘

Ver. 27. T'4p] justifies and confirms what Jesus has just stated with respect
to the loss of the ywy7. I say that not without reason ; for assuredly the
time of the second coming and of a righteous retribution is drawing near
(uéi4e being put first for sake of emphasis). — év rj dé£y tod marp. abr.] in

1 duwddicy pou vow brdpxes, ayTixe(pevos TE 8 ayrdAAaypwa, Eur. Or. 1157, frequently
ing SeAjuan, Euth. Zigabenus. met with in the LXX. and Apocrypha.
1 70 davrod OéAnua 7d didrSovor, Td Gidsgwor, 4 ** Non sufficit mundus,” Bengel. Comp.

“ bis own will, loving pleasure, loving life,” Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1868, p. 284 ff.
Ruth. Zigabenus,

304 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the same glory as belongs to God. For in this state of glory (John xvii. 5) the
ascended Christ occupies the place of civdSporoc of God. — riv mpativ] the
conduct, the sum of one’s doings, including, in particular, that self-denying
adherence to their faith and their confession on which, above all, so much
depended, in the case of the apostles, in the midst of those persecutions
which they were called upon to endure.

Ver. 28. Having affirmed the certainty of the second coming and the
divine retribution, He now proceeds to do the same with regard to their
nearness. — eici tivec x.t.A.] which refers to those present generally, and not
merely to the disciples, presupposes that the majority of them will have
died previous to the event in question. — yebouvra: Savdrov] The eaxperienc-
ing of, death regarded as a tasting of it (of its pains). See note on John
vili. 52, and Wetstein. — éwe, x.r.4.] not as though they were to die after-
wards, but what is meant is, that they will still be living when it takes place.!
—év ry Baoreig abrov) not for eic r#v x.r.A. (Beza, Raphel, and others), but
as aking in all his regal authority. Luke xxiii. 42. There is no substantial
difference between the present prediction of Jesus as to His impending advent
in glorious majesty (comp. x. 238, xxiv. 84), and that in Mark ix. 1; Luke ix.
27. The Baoreta cannot be supposed to come without the Baoiretc. This,
at the same time, in answer to Ebrard,* who interprets this passage, not of
the second coming to judgment, but, laying stress on the év (against which
the év ra dé&y, Ver. 27, should have duly warned), understands it as referring
to the founding of the church, and particularly to what took place at Pen-
tecost, and that notwithstanding the context and the words cici rivec, etc.,
which, if this view were adopted, would be entirely out of place (Glass,
Calovius). It is likewise to explain it away in a manner no less arbitrary, to
understand the passage in the sense of a figurative coming in the destruction
of Jerusalem and the diffusion of Christianity (Jac. Cappellus, Wetstein,
Kuinoel, Schott, Gléckler, Bleek), or of the triumphant historical development
of the gospel (Erasmus, Klostermann, Schenkel), or of the powerful influ-
ences of the spirit of the glorified Messiah as extending over the world
(Paulus). Others, such as Beda, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Jansen, Clarius,
Corn. & Lapide, following Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Theophylact,
have so strangely perverted Christ’s prediction as even to make it refer to
the incident of the transfiguration immediately following. — On the impend-
ing advent in general, see the observations at the close of ch. xxiv.

Note sy American Eprror.
IX.

Of the words éri ravrg r7 wétpg there are three interpretations, and it would
seem only three-possible : (1) that the rock meant is Christ ; (2) that the rock is
Peter ; (3) that the rock is Peter's confession. Each of these has had support,

1Comp. xxiv. 834; Hofmann, Schriftdew. and kings.”

II. 2, p. 629 f. > Comp. Baumeister in Klaiber’s Studien,
2 Plat. Rep. p. 499 B: rav vir dv Suvacreface =‘. 1, p. 19.

} Bacwciats Syrov, “the present sovereigns

NOTE. , 305

both from ancient and modern scholars. Augustine, to whom Dr. Meyer refers,
changed his opinion, first interpreting the rock to be Peter, but afterwards to
be Christ. Astrong polemic interest has biassed the minds of both Protestants
and Catholics, in arguing, the one side, that Peter is the rock, and the other,
Peter's confession. But the former interpretation makes nothing for the
Catholic claim of Peter’s perpetual headship of the Church through his suc-
cessors ; for we know that the other apostles, and particularly Paul, were
wholly independent of Peter; we know also that there is no proof that the
man of rock appointed the bishops of Rome his successors to the headship,
which it is falsely assumed belonged to him. If xérpa be referred to Peter,
still it is not on Peter’s bare personality, but on Peter confessing his Master
to be the Son of God, that the Church is built. The confession, if we may so
say, underlies Peter, and makes him the rock. Peter, misconceiving his Master,
and dissuading Jesus from a career of suffering, is soon after called Satan, and
is set aside as an offence ; Peter inspired of the Father in heaven to confess
the divine sonship of Jesus, is selected for an important function in the build-
ing of the Church. This function he afterwards fulfilled, in laying the foun-
dation of the Church both among the Jews and the Gentiles. ‘‘ That this,”’
says Alford, ‘‘is the simple and only interpretation of the words of our Lord,
the whole usage of the New Testament shows, in which not doctrines nor con-
fessions, but men are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building.
See 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6; 1 Tim. iii. 15; Gal. ii. 9; Eph. ii. 20; Rev. iii, 12. And
it is on Peter, ag by divine revelation making this confession, as thus under
the influence of the Holy Ghost, as standing out before the apostles in the
strength of this faith, as himself founded on the one foundation, that the
Jewish portion of the Church was built, Acts ii. 5, and the Gentile, Acts
x. xi,””?

In interpreting od xarioyvoovcry atric, Dr. Meyer rejects the idea that there is
implied an attack of the gates of Hades upon the Church. Hence he renders,
‘‘the gates of Hades will not be able to resist it, will not prove stronger than
it ;” on the other hand, our revised English version reads : ‘‘ the gates of Hades
shali not prevail against it,” implying that the kingdom of death is engaged in
active hostility to the kingdom of life. This not only agrees with the natural
meaning of xarioytw, but agrees also with the analogy of Scripture. In the
New Testament death and life are antitheses, and to death is assigned an active
antagonism to life, which antagonism Christ meets and subdues. Christ comes
to abolish death and tring life and immortality to light (2 Timi. 10); and the
last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, for he hath put all things under
his feet (1 Cor. xv. 26, 27; see also Heb. i. 14, 15). The assurance of a life
which death cannot overcome is one of the objects, as well as one of the fruits
of Christ’s manifestation in our flesh.

As to the power of binding and loosing, it is to be observed, that whatever
is granted to Peter in this passage is subsequently granted to the whole body
of disciples (chap. xviii. 18). Whatever the contents of this power, there-
fore, they pertain not to Peter exclusively, as chief of the apostles, nor to the
body of apostles exclusively, but to the Church. It is a question much mooted
by interpreters, whether the words dée:v and Avecv refer to legislative or judi-
cial authority. Dr. Meyer decides for the former, and renders these words

2 Com. on Matthew," Amer. ed., p. 159.

306 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

‘‘ forbid” and ‘‘allow.’’ Alford also claims that this is the sense, strictly con-
sidered ; and so also does Mansel, in the Speaker’s Commentary, both evi-
dently following Meyer. Cremer, however, determines, with some hesitation,
for ‘‘binding” and ‘‘loosing”’ in a judicial sense. “Our judgment as to the
allowableness of this explanation’ [i.e., Meyer’s], he says, ‘‘ must depend upon
internal grounds. In the face of such expressions as Matt. v. 19, xxiii. 3, 4,
such an interpretation seems more than hazardous; the quantitative dca
(xviii. 18) especially would militate against the spirit of New Testament life,
thought, and phraseology ; and it is evident from the context that in Matt. v.
19 a judicial and not a ‘legislative’ authority is referred to, while in the first-
named passage (Matt. xvi. 19) ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’’ simply
imply the same thing, cf. Rev. iii. 17. ‘‘The simpler plan would perhaps be
to take 5 and décu as collective designations of persons, for which, indeed, ac-
cording to the rule, the neuter singular is used, yet also the plural, e.g., 1 Cor.
i. 27, 28. Avecv teva would then be = to release any one from punishment. But dca
would not sound acceptably to Greek ears if used in this sense.!

Dr. Thomas Arnold, in his essay on the Church, construes ‘‘ binding and loos-
ing’’ as a grant of both legislative and judicial powers. His distinction is very
clear : To bind, legislatively, is to impose a general obligation ; to say that a
thing ought to be done, or ought not to be done. To bind judicially is to im-
pose a particular obligation on an individual ; to oblige him to do or suffer
certain things for the sake of justice. To loose judicially is to pronounce a
man free from any such obligation ; to declare that justice does not require of
him, in this particular case, to do or to suffer anything for its satisfaction.*
There is force in this cares, and it may help us to reconcile disagreeing
interpretations.

1 * Bibiico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek," pp. 407, 408
2 Essay on the Church, Miscellaneous Works, pp. 19, 20.

CHAP. XVII. 307

CHAPTER XVII.

Ver. 3. &¢Oncav] Lachm. and Tisch.: 6997, after BD %, Curss. and Codd. of
the It. The plural isa grammatical correction ; the sing. can scarcely be taken
from Mark ix. 4. — Ver. 4. totjowuzer}] Lachm. and Tisch.: ro:jou, after BC &,
Ver. Corb. 1, Germ. 1. Correctly ; the plural is from Mark and Luke.—The
arrangement 'H2ia ziav (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by decisive testimony. —
Ver. 5. guretv7] Only on the authority of a few Curss. and Epbr. Griesb. and
Fritzsche have gw7éc, which Olshausen also prefers. An interpretation for the
purpose of defining the wonderful nature of the cloud.—The order axovere avrov
(inverted in Elz.) is, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after BD X&, 1, 33, to be preferred.
The reading of the Received text is according to the LXX.— Ver. 7. Lachm.
and Tisch. 8 : xa. zpooiGev 6°I xatapauevog avtay elrev, after B (in the first
half of the sentence also D) &, Verss. Seeing how much the reading fluctuates
in the various authorities, the Received text, from having the balance of testi-
mony in its favor, is not to be abandoned. — Ver. 9. éx] Elz.: a6. Approved
by Scholz, against decisive tustimony. From Mark ix. 9, for the sake of con-
formity with the ordinary usage. — avacr7] Lachm. and Tisch.: éyep6%, after B
D, Sahid. The reading of the Received text is from Mark ix. 9.— Ver. 11. On
important testimony, "Inoot¢ and avrni¢ are, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be de-
leted. Common interpolations. —zpuwrov] is omitted after fpy.in B DX,
Curss. Verss. Aug. Hil.; L inserts it after dwoxar. Suspected by Griesb.,
deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. Repetition from ver. 10, in accordance
with Mark ix. 12.— Ver. 14. airév] which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted, is
omitted in B Z ¥&, 1, 124, 245, Sahid.; it might easily have been overlooked
from coming, as it does, immediately after A06,TQN. — avrév] Elz.: airg,
against decisive testimony. — Ver. 15. macyvec] Lachm.: éye,, after BL ZX,
Or. Either an involuntary alteration occasioned by the current use of the ex-
pression xan éyecv (iv. 24, viii. 16, ix. 12, xiv. 35), or inlentional, on account of
the apparent pleonasm. — Ver. 17. The order ueG’ iuav Ecova: (Lachm. Tisch.) is
supported by the preponderating testimony of BC DZ &, Curss. Or., and
ought to be adopted. Comp. Mark and Luke. — Ver. 20, dxicriavy] Lachm.
Tisch. 8: dAcyortioriay, after B ¥, Curss. Syre’ Sahid. Copt. Arm. Aeth. Or.
Chrys. An ancient emendation to soften the expression, amoriav, after ver.
17 especially, may have offended pious sensibilities. — The reading erdBa éOev
(Lachm. Tisch.) is neither satisfactory nor hasit uniform testimony in its favor.
— Ver. 21. Tisch. 8 has deleted the whole verse, but only after B ®* 33, and a few
Verss. The great preponderance of testimony is in favor of retaining it, although
Weiss likewise rejects it. It might have been regarded as inserted from Mark
ix. 29 had the terms of the two passages coincided more fully. Why it was
omitted, it is really impossible to say ; it may only have happened accidentally,
and the omission remains an isolated instance. —- Ver. 22. dvacrpeg.] Lachm.
and Tisch, 8 ; ovovpe¢., after B &, 1, Vulg. Codd. of the It. A gloss, in order
that avacrped. might not be taken in the sense of return. — Ver. 23. éyep9jeerac]

308 . THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Lachm.: avacrjcera, after B, Curss. Or. Chrys. From Mark ix. 31. — Ver. 25.
bre eio7AGev] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : eiceA6évra, which is found in ®* ; inB itis:
éAGévra; in C: bre #AGov; in D: eiceAGdvri, Others have: dre eionAadov, eiceA-
évrur, eiaeAddvros. Seeing there is such variety in the readings, we ought to
prefer, not the simple verb, which B and C concur in adopting, but the com-
pound form, which is supported by D & and the numerous authorities in favor
- of the reading of the Received text ; further, the plural is to be rejected, inas-
much as it is without adequate testimony and has been inserted from ver. 24;
and finally, the reading dre is to be regarded as an analysis of the participle.
Consequently the reading eloeXQévra should be adopted. — Ver. 26. For 2éye
avr@ 6 Ilérpog read, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, simply eirévroc dé, after BC L
8, Verss. Or. Chrys. The reading of the Received text is somewhat of a gloss.
4

Ver. 1. Comp. Mark ix. 2 ff. ; Luke viii. 28 ff. ; 2 Pet. i. 16 ff. Me?
tuépac é£| Luke ix, 28: doet juépac oxtd. This dScei makes it unnecessary to
have recourse to any expedient for reconciling the numbers. Chrysostom,
Jerome, Theophylact, Erasmus, and many others, are of opinion that Luke
has included the dies a quo and ad quem. — tic bpoc iynaév] Since the fourth
century there has been a tradition that the mountain here referred to was
mount Zabor, the situation of which, however, was such as altogether to
preclude this view. If we are to understand that Jesus remained during
the six days in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, we may, with some
probability, suppose that the height in question was one of the peaks of
Hermon, a clump of hills standing to the north-east of that town.—Those
three disciples were the most intimate friends of Jesus. Comp. xxvi. 37.
For avagépex, comp. Luke xxiv. 51; 2 Macc. vi. 10; Polyb. viii. 31. 1. —
kar’ idiav| so that they alone accompanied him to this mountain solitude.

Ver. 2. Mereyopd.] was transfigured, in the way about to be described.
That is to say, His external aspect was changed ;’ His face gleaming like
the sun, and His raiment being so white that it shone like light. He ap-
peared in outward heavenly défa, which peyadedry¢ (2 Pet. i. 16) was the
foreshadowing of His future glorified state.* The analogy presented by
Ex. xxxiv. 29 comes short in this respect, that, whereas the brightness on
the face of Moses was the result of God’s having appeared before him, in the
case of Christ it proceeded from His own divine nature and life, the désa of
which radiated from within. — w¢ rd gic] The aspect of it, therefore, was
luminous, radiant.

Ver. 8. Avroitc] the disciples, ver. 2. They saw conversing with Jesus,
Moses and Elias, who, as forerunners of the Messiah, represented the law
and the prophets (Schoettgen, Wetstein). Comp. vv. 5, 8. It was not
from what Jesus told them afterwards that they came first to know who those
two were, but they themselves recognized them at once (ver. 4), though not
from their conversation, as has been arbitrarily supposed (Theophylact).
The recognition was immediate and directly involved in the marvellous man-
ifestation itself.—The subject of conversation, so far as the accounts of

1“Non substantialis, sed accidentalis 3 John xii. 16, 23, xvil. 3, xxil. 24; 2 Cor.
fuit transformatio,”’ Calovius. iil. 18; Matt. xiil. 43.

CHAP. XVII, 4, 3. 309

Matthew and Mark are concerned, does not appear to have been once in-
quired into. According to Ebrard, Jesus communicated to the fathers of
the old dispensation the blessed intelligence of his readiness to redeem them
by His death. According to Luke ix. 81, Moses and Elias converse with
Jesus about His impending death.

Ver. 4. ’Amoxp).} see note on xi. 25. Taking occasion from what he
now saw before him, he proceeded to say. — xadév éori, x.7.A.] 13 usually
interpreted thus: ‘‘ Amoenus est, in quo commoremur, locus’ (Fritzsche,
Keim) ; or, what is much to the same effect, it is referred—particularly by
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus—to the security of the
place, protected as it was by the two cclestial visitants, in contrast to Jeru-
salem, where Jesus was destined to suffer. But, inasmuch as the terms
used by Peter are juac (not juiv) and the simple eiva: (not uévecy) ; further,
inasmuch as what he says is occasioned by the presence of Moses and Elias,
and has reference to them, as is likewise proved by the following ei 0é2«:c,
x.t.A., Which implies that he wishes to do something towards enabling Jesus
to have a longer interview with them,—it is preferable, with Paulus,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Clostermann, Weiss, Volkmar, to interpret as follows :
It is highly opportune that we (disciples) happen to be here (in which case,
therefore, the #juac is emphatic) ; accordingly, I would like to erect (ro:jou,
see critical remarks) tabernacles (out of the brushwood growing around) for
you here, with a view toa more prolonged stay. The transition to the
singular is in keeping with Peter’s temperament ; he would like to make the
tabernacles.

Ver. 5 ff. ‘Idot nat . . . idob] lively way of introducing the various points
of importance. — vegéAy gurecvg] a luminous, clear, bright cloud, represented’
in Matthew as, without doubt, a marvellous phenomenon, not in itself cer-
tainly, but in connection with the incident which it accompanies. — ézeo-
xiagev} A luminous cloud orershadows them, casts a kind of light and shade over
their forms, so that they are rendered less clear than they were before the
cloud intervened. Olshausen unwarrantably fancies that ézeox. has been
employed in consequence of the light having been so strong as to dazzle the
eyes and affect the sight. — airoic] viz., Jesus, Moses, and Elias (ver. 4).
The disciples hear the voice from out the cloud (vv. 5, 6), are therefore not
to be regarded as being within it, as is likewise manifest a priori from the
fact that the cloud, as was so frequently the case in the Old Testament, is
here the sacred symbol of the divine presence,'! and therefore accompanies
those three divine personages as a onueiov for the disciples, on whose account
likewise the voice sounds from the cloud. This in answer to Olearius,

. Wolf, Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, who refer avrofs to the disciples; and

to Clericus, who refers it to all who were present. — pwr}, x.r.A.] no less the
voice of God than that in iii, 17. —dxovere atrov (see critical remarks) is
the divine ratification of the words of Moses in Deut. xviii. 15, according
to their Messianic import. However, the hearing (i.¢., faith and obedience)
is the point on which stress is to be laid, as is evident from its being put

1 Wetstein on this passage, comp. Fea, ad Hor. Od. 1. 2. 81.

310 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

first. This command is now in order (not so, as yet, in iii. 17), coming as
it does at a time when Jesus had attained to the full dignity of His pro-
phetic office, but when, at the same time, the prospect of what awaited
Him was calculated to put the axote:y of the disciples to the severest test.
— Vv. 6, 7 occur only in Matthew. Comp. Dan. x. 9f.; Rev. i. 17.—
gwato]. ‘* Tactus familiaris et efficax,” ‘‘the familiar and effective touch,”
_Bengel.

Ver. 9. *Opaua] the thing seen, spectaculum.' Used in the LXX. with refer-
ence to whatever is seen in vision by a prophet. — éx vexpav] from Sheol, as
the abode rév vexpov.* The reason of the prohibition can only be the same
as in xvi. 20, where see note. According to the mythical view (see obser-
vations after ver. 12), it was intended to explain the circumstance of a nar-
rative composed in a later age, and, nevertheless, one which proceeded
from the three witnesses.

Ver. 10. Oty] can have no other reference than to the foregoing prohibi-
tion (comp. xix. 7): ‘‘ Seeing that we are forbidden to tell any one about
the appearing of Elias which we have just witnessed, and so on, what
reason, then, have the scribes for saying that Elias must first come (before
the Messiah appears, to establish His kingdom) ?” Does it not follow from
Thy prohibition that this teaching of the scribes must be erroneous, seeing
that, if it were not so, Thou wouldst not have enjoined us to keep silence
regarding this manifestation of Elias? This is likewise in harmony with
the answer of Jesus, which is to this effect : ‘‘That teaching is quite correct;
but the Elias whom it speaks of as being the Messiah’s forerunner is not
the prophet who has just been seen upon the mount, but John the Baptist,
whom they did not recognize, and so on.” This view is so entirely in
accordance with the context as to exclude any others, as, for example, that
of Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Kuinoel, who, emphasizing zpérov, interpret
thus : dari ol yp. Aty., Sti 'HAiav xph e2Beiv rps row Xpiorov; wade ovv oven HADev
ovrog mpd cov; or that which ascribes to the disciples the idea, of which
there is not the remotest hint, that Christ is going to be revealed before the
world in His glory, and that therefore there is really no further room for
the manifestation and the services of Elias ;* or that of Grotius, Michaclis,
Fritzsche, Lange, Olshausen, Bleek, Hengstenberg, who understand the
question of the disciples as referring to the circumstance that Elias had not
remained, but had so quickly disappeared again (it was believed, though of
this the question contains no hint whatever, that Elias would teach the
Jews, settle the disputes among their instructors, restore the pot of manna
and Aaron’s rod, and so on); or, again, that of Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Neander, Krabbe, Ebrard, who suppose that the object of the question was
to know whether the manifestation of Elias, which the scribes had in view,
was that which had just taken place, or whether it was some other one yet
to come ; or, lastly, the expedient of Schieiermacher and Strauss, who

1 Acts vil. 81; Sir. xliff. 1; Xen. Cyr. ill. Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 158].
8. 66; de re equesir. ix. 4; Dem. 1406. 26; ? Hofmann, Schriftoéew. IT. 1, p. 318.
Pollux, fi. 54. 4 Lightfoot on this passage; Winzer, de
£On the omission of the article, see awoxcatacréce sdévrev, IT., 1821, p. 9.

CHAP, XVII., 11, 12. d11

think that the whole conversation originated in the disappointment felt in
consequence of the prediction regarding the coming of Elias not having
been fulfilled, and that it has only found its way into the present connection
through an erroneous process of combination. According to K@stlin, p.
75, ovv does not refer back to the transfiguration at all, but seems to say :
‘‘Seeing that the Messiah is already come,” which is the idea supposed to
be contained in xvi. 13-27. He thinks the connection has been interrupted
by the evangelist interpolating the story of the transfiguration between xvi.
7 and xvii. 10.

Ver. 11. In His reply, Jesus admits the correctness of the teaching of the
scribes in regard to this matter, and at the same time supplements the quo-
tation made from it by the disciples (by adding x. droxar. 7.), in which
supplement the use of the future-present épyerac and the future aroxaraor.
are to be justified on the ground that they are the ipsissima verba of the
teaching in question. ‘‘ Unquestionably it is precisely as they say : Elias is
coming and will restore everything again.” Inasmuch as what is here
meant is the work of the coming Zlias, and not the whole moral work of
the Messiah in regenerating the world (as in Acts iii. 21), the aroxardoracte
wévtwy, an expression taken from the rendering of Mal. iv. 6 by the LXX.,
refers, in the sense of the scribes, to the restitutio in integrum (for such is the
meaning of the word, see note on Acts iii. 21) of the entire theocratic order
of things by way of preparation for the Messiah, in which case we are not to
think merely of a moral regeneration of the people, but also of the restora-
tion of outward objects of a sacred character (such as the urna mannae, and
s0 on). Jesus, on the other hand, knowing as He does that the promised
coming of Elias has been fulfilled in the Baptist (xi. 14), refers to the
preaching and preparatory labors of the latter, in which he believes the
Groxaracrhoe. wavra to have been realized in the highest sense, and in the
way most in keeping with the prophet’s own words in Mal. iv. 6 (Sir. xlviii.
10 ; Luke i. 17, iii. 1). The coming of the real Elias, who is expected to
appear before the second advent (Hilary, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophy-
lact, Euth. Zigabenus, the majority of the older Catholic expositors, like-
wise Arnoldi, Schegg), is taught by Jesus neither here nor elsewhere. Sce,
on the contrary, ver. 12 f., xi. 14. This also in answer to Lechler in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1854, -p. 881.

Ver. 12. Ovx éréyvwoav aitéy] that is, as the expected Elias. The subject
is the ypaypareic, ver. 10. —év avrg] towards him, not classical, but comp.
LXX. Gen. xl. 14; Dan. xi. 7 ; Luke xxiii, 81. —éoa i6éAnoav] indicating
the purely arbitrary manner in which they treated him, in contradistinction
to the way in which God desired that he should have been received.

Remanx.— The incident of the transfiguration has been regarded as a vision by 80
early a writer as Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 22. by Herder, Gratz, Krabbe, Bleek,
Weizsicker, Pressensé, Steinmeyer ; it would have been nearer the truth if a
distinction had been made between the real and the visionary elements contain-
ed in it. We have no vision, but a reality in the glorious change which came
over the outward appearance of Jesus, vv. 1, 2, that objective element to which

as

312 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the ecstatic subjective manifestation owed its origin. On the other hand, we
cannot but regard as visionary the appearing of Moses and Elias, and that not
merely in constquence of d¢6n, ver. 3 (Acts ii. 8, vii. 26; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Cor.
xv. 5 ff.), but owing to the vanishing away of the heavenly visitants in the cloud,
and the impossibility ‘of any bodily manifestation, at least of Moses (whose
resurrection would, according to Deut. xxxiv. 5 f., have to be presupposed.’
Moreover, Matthew and Mark themselves represent the manifestation of both in
such a way, that it is impossible to assert that they regarded it in the light of
an actual fact ; notice, on the contrary, the different modes of conception as
implied in xai pereuopgeIn Eutpoo§er avrdv (not: x. b¢99 avroic perapopewiels)
and d9An avroic Mworjc, etc. Only in the case of Luke is it manifest that he has
followed a tradition which has divested the incident of its visionary character
(Luke ix. 30, 81). The of course obvious and common objection, that three
persons must be supposed to have witnessed the same phenomena and to have
heard the same voice, is deprived of its force if it is conceded, as must neces-
sarily be done, that a supernatural agency was here at work with a view to en-
able the three leading disciples to have a glimpse beforehand of the approach-
ing glory of Him who was more to them than Moses and the prophets. How-
ever, it is attempting too much to attempt to show the higher naturalism of the
incident (Lange, L. J. I. p. 904 f., thinks that the heavenly nature of Jesus
flashed forth from under the earthly ; that the disciples had actually had a peep
into the spirit world, and had seen Moses and Elias, which was rendered pos-
sible in their case through the peculiar frame of Christ’s mind and the inter-
course with those spirits which He enjoyed), in opposition to which Ewald insists
that the event was altogether of an ideal character ; that the eternal perfection
of the kingdom of God was unquestionably disclosed to view, in such a manner,
however, that everything of a lower nature, and which was at all calculated to
suggest the form which the narrative ultimately assumed, was lost sight of
amid the -pure light of a higher sphere of things (Gesch. Chr. p. 462). To
assume as the foundation of the story (Baumgarten-Crusius) only some inward
manifestation or other in Jesus Himself, such as led to His obtaining a glimpse
of the glory that was to follow His death, is as decidedly at variance with the
statements of the Gospels as it is to trace the matter to a vision in a dream (Rat,
Symbola ad ill. ev. de metamorph., etc., 1797; Gabler in the neuest. theol. Journ.

1 It is thus that Origen, Jerome, andother words: “sicut angei videntur.” Similarly

Fathers consistently argue. According to
Hilgenfeld, the ‘‘ Ascension of Mosea”
(N. 7. extra canon. 1. p. 96; Alessias Judaeor.
p. 459) was already known to the evange-
list ; but the Ascensio Mosis belongs, in any
case, to a somewhat later period. Grotius
saw himself driven to adopt the expedient
of supposing that ‘‘haec corpora vidert
possunt a deo in hunc usum asservata,”
“‘these bodies are able to be seen, having
been preserved by God for this purpose,”
very much as Ambrose had maintained that
the body of Moses had been exempted from
putrefaction. According to Calvin, God had
raised the bodies ad tempus. Thomas and
several other expositors refer the appearing
of Moses to the category Indicated by the

Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 427 [E. T. 499], accord-
ing to whom the form in which Moses
appeared, and which bore a resemblance to
His earthly body, was the immaterial prod-
uct of his spiritualized psychic nature.
Gess, with greater indefiniteness, speaks of
the manifestation as a coming forth on the
part of Moses and Elias from their state of
invisibility. But neither Delitzsch nor
Gess satisfies the requirements of the words
Her’ avrov ovAAaA., which In any case presup-
pose a glorified corporeity, or else it amounts
to nothing else than a mere appearance.
Comp. Beza, who adds: nisi malumus ecsta-
ticam fuisse cisionem, ** unless we prefer to
regard it asa trance-like viston.”

CHAP. XVII., 12. 313

1798, p. 517 ff., Kuinoel, Neander), in connection with which view some have
likewise had recourse to the idea of a thunderstorm (Gabler), and the presence
of two secret followers (Kuinoel). This way of looking at the matter is not
favored by Luke ix. 32. No less inconsistent with the gospel narrative is the
hypothesis of a secreé interview with two unlcnown personages (Venturini, Paulus,
Hase, Schleiermacher), in connection with which, again, a good deal has been
made of atmospheric illumination, and the effect of the shadows that were pro-
jected (Paulus ; Theile, z. Biogr. J. p. 55; Ammon, LZ. J. p. 302 ff.). The
mythical view (Strauss, Scholten, Keim)—which regards the narrativeas a legend-
ary invention, and substantially ascribes its origin to a desire to see the glory
of Moses on Sinai repeated in a higher form in the case of Jesus, and to represent
the latter as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets—can least of all be
justified here, where it is not only at variance with the studied unanimity of
the evangelists in regard to the date of the occurrence, but also with the fact
that the testimony of the three apostles must have gone far to prevent the myth
from finding its way into the circle of their brethren ; while, as regards the
silence of John, it is certainly not to be explained on anti-docetic grounds (in
answer to Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 62 ff., see Strauss, I. p. 250), but it is
explicable, to say the least of it, on the ground of his ideal conception of Christ’s
mundane défa, and no more disproves the reality of the incident in question
than his silence regarding so many other important historical facta already re-
corded by the Synoptists. Further, we must regard as purely subjective, and
subversive of the intention and meaning of the evangelists, not merely the
rationalistic explanation of the incident, according to which Jesus is represented
as telling the three disciples in what relation He stood to Moses and Hlias, and as
thereby bringing them ‘‘into the light of His Messianic calling” (Schenkel), but
likewise the imaginary notion of an admonitory symbol, after the manner of
Rev. i. 12 ff., xi. 3 ff., the historical basis of which is supposed to be contained
in the fact that Peter and the first disciples had seen the risen Lord appear in
heavenly radiance (Volkmar) ; and lastly, also the allegorical view (Weisse), ac-
cording to which we are understood to have before us the symbolical conception,
originating with the three enraptured apostles themselves, of the light which
then dawned upon them in regard to the mission of Jesus, especially in regard
to His relation to the old theocracy.—But, according to Bruno Bauer, the inci-
dent is to be regarded as the product of the conviction on the part of the church,
that, in the principle on which it is founded, the powers of the past have found
their glorified centre of unity.—The passage 2 Pet. i. 16-18 can be of no
service in the way of confirming the historical character of the incident, except
for those who see no reason to reject this Epistle as spurious ; but it is of great
importance, partly as furnishing, all the same, an ancient testimony in favor
of the occurrence itself, and the significance attached to it asa historical event ;
partly in reference to the telic point of view from which it is to be regarded,
namely, as a foreshadowing of the impending dééa of the Lord, in which He is
to come back again, and into which His most intimate disciples were in this
wonderful way privileged to gaze previous to His sufferings, in order that they
might be strengthened for fulfilling the difficult task that would devolve upon
them after His ascension. So far as the object of the incident is concerned, it
must have been intended expressly for the disciples, as is evident from axovere
avrod.—According to what has been said above, and judging from what is
stated in ix. 31 as tothe subject of conversation, it may be affirmed that Luke's

314 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

account bears the impress of a later stage of development (Fritzsche, Strauss, de
Wette, Weisse, Ewald, Weiss), so that in point of originality we must give
Matthew the preference (in answer to Schulz, Schleiermacher, Holtzmann, and
others), and that even over Mark (comp. Ewald, Kédstlin, p. 90; Keim, IL. p.
588). See also note on Mark ix. 2 ff. [See note X., p. 320 e seq. ]

Ver. 14. Notwithstanding divergence in other respects, the healing of the
lunatic (ceAyud§., see note on iv. 24) comes next in order in all the three Syn-
optists (Mark ix. 14 ff. ; Luke ix. 37 ff.),—a circumstance which also mili-
tates against the mythical view of the transfiguration. — airév] Comp. Mark
i, 40, x. 17. The accusative is to be understood as conveying the idea that
He was directly touched by the man, as much as to say : he clasped Him by
the knees."

Ver. 15. The lunatic, whose malady was regarded as the result of demoni-
acal possession (ver. 18; Mark v. 16; Luke v. 39), was evidently suffering
from epilepsy, and, according to Mark, deprived of the power of speech as
well. — xaxic réoxzecv] tobe ill (opposite of cd réay.), is likewise very common
among classical writers. *

Ver. 17. O unbelieving and perverse generation! Comp. Phil. ii. 15. By
this Jesus does not mean the scribes (Calvin), but is aiming at His disciples,
who are expected to apply the exclamation to themselves, in consequence of
their not being able to cure the lad of his disease. In no sparing fashion,
but filled with painful emotion, He ranks them, owing to their want of an
energetic faith, in the category of the unbelieving generation, and hence it
is that He addresses it. Bengel fitly observes : ‘‘severo elencho discipuli
accensentur turbac,” ‘‘ by a severe rebuke the disciples are reckoned as part
of the crowd.” That the disciples are intended (Fritzsche, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Steinmeyer, Volkmar), is likewise evident from ver. 20. They
wanted the requisite amount of confidence in the miraculous powers con-
ferred upon them by Christ. The strong terms dmorog x. dteorpayp. (Deut.
xxxii. 5 ; Phil. ii, 5, ii. 15), are to be explained from the deep emotion of
Jesus. Nor can the people be meant, who are not concerned at all, any
more than the father of the sufferer, who, in fact, invoked the help of Jesus
because he had faith in Him, The words are consequently to be referred
neither to all who were present (Paulus, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Krabbe, Bleek,
Ewald), nor to the father (Chrysostom, Theophylect, Euth. Zigabenus,
Grotius), nor to him and the people (Keim), in which latter case many go
the length of holding that the disciples are exculpated, and the blame of the
failure imputed to the father himself.* In opposition to the context (vv. 16,
20). Neander and de Wette explain the words in the sense of John iv. 48,
as though Jesus were reflecting upon those who as yet have not known what
it is to come to Him under a sense of their deepest wants, and so on. — fu
n6re, x.T.A.] & passing touch of impatience in the excitement of the moment :

1 Comp. rpocxuveiy riva, wpoomitvey riva, 3 ob ris exeivmy acGerciag TocovTor Td WTAl
wpoominrey yoru tivos (Pflugk, ad Eur, Hec. cpa, door ris ots amorias, * this failure was
839; Kfihner, IT. 1, p. 251. not due to their weakness so much as to

2 Hom. Od. xvi. 275; Plat. Menez. p. 244 your unbelief,’ Theophylact.
B; Xen. Anad. iil. 8.7; Herod. ili. 146,

CHAP. XVIL., 18-21. 315

How long is the time going to last during which I must be amongst you and
bear with your weakness of faith, want of receptivity, and so on ?— ¢épere]
like what precedes, is addressed to the disciples ; it was to them that the
lunatic had been brought, ver. 16. This in answer to Fritzsche, who thinks
that Jesus ‘‘generatim loquens” refers to the father.

Ver. 18. ’Emeriz. air) He rebuked him, namely, the demon (Fritzsche,
Ewald), reproached him for having taken possession of the boy. Comp.
vill. 26. For this prolepsis in the reference of airég (which Vulgate, Theo-
phylact, de Wette, Winer, Bleek, refer to the lunatic).'— 7d r. Spac éx] as
in xv. 28, ix. 22. .

Ver. 20. The disciples ought to have applied to themselves the general ex-
clamation in ver. 17. This they failed to do, hence their question. But the
anxcoria with which Jesus now charges them is to be understood in a relative
sense, while the ziorc, of which it is the negation, means simply faith in
Jesus Christ, the depositary of supernatural power, so that, in virtue of their
fellowship with His life, the disciples, as His servants and the organs of His
power, were enabled to operate with greater effect in proportion to the
depth and energy of the faith with which they could confide in Him. — éav
éxyre} if you have (not : had). — d¢ xéxxov ov.] found likewise in Rabbinical
writers as a figurative expression for a very emall quantity of anything.
Lightfoot on xiii. 832. The point of the comparjson does not lie in the stim-
ulatice quality of the mustard (Augustine ; on the other hand, Maldonatus).

—To remove mountains, a figurative expression for : to accomplish extraordi-
nary results, 1 Cor. xiii. 2.2 For legends in regard to the actual removing of
mountains, see Calovius. —ovdév] the hyperbole of popular speech. For
advvar., comp. Job xlii. 2.

Ver. 21. Tovro rd ybvoc] this species of demons to which the one just expelled
belongs.* But the rovro, used with special reference to the fact of its being a
case of epilepsy, must be intended to specify a kind of demons which it is
peculiarly difficult to exorcize.— év mpocevyy x. vyoreig] inasmuch as the
nioree is thereby strengthened and elevated, and attains to that pitch which
is necessary in ordcr to the casting out of such demons. The climax in vv.
20 and 21 may be represented thus : if you have only a slender amount of
faith, you will, no doubt, be able to accomplish things of an extraordinary and
seemingly impossible nature ; but, in order to expel spirits of so stubborn a

character as this, you require to have such a degree of faith as can only be
reached by means of prayer and fasting. You have neglected the spiritual
preparation that is necessary to the attainment of so lofty a faith. Comp.
Arts xiv. 28. Prayer and fast’ng are here represented as means for promot-
ing faith, not as good works, which are of themselves effectual in dealing with
the demons (Schegg and the older Catholics). Paulus and Ammon incor-
rectly suppose that the prayer and fasting are required of the sick persons
themselves, with a view to some dietetic and psychological effect or other

' See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 11 f.; Borne- 8 Otherwise, Euth. Zigabenus: rd yévos
mann, ad Xen. Symp. viii. 84. rev Sapdvey savtewv. So Chrysostom,

* Lightfoot on xxi. 21; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm- §Theophylact, Elsner, Fritzsche, Bleek.
Pp. 1068,

816 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

being produced upon their bodies ; while Chrysostom, Theophylact, and
Euth. Zigabenus are of opinion that they are demanded not merely from the
healer, but also from the patient, as necessary weapons to be used against the
demon. Inasmuch as éxropetera: is, according to the context, the correlative
of éxBadeiv, ver. 19 (comp. also é&7A6ev, ver. 18), we must likewise discard the
view of Ewald, who thinks that in Matthew there is an allusion to a class of
men whose character is such that they cannot be induced to set to work but
with fasting and prayer. Comp, on the contrary, éxop., Acts xix. 12 (and
Mark ix. 29: é&e#eiv). — Those who adopt the mythical view of the whole
incident (Strauss) pretend to find the origin of the legend in 2 Kings iv. 29
ff., which is no less unwarrantable than the interpretation, according to
which it is treated asa symbolical narrative, intended to rebuke the want of
faith on the part of the disciples (Scholten), or as a didactic figure as an ad-
monition of the hidden Christ for an increase of faith amid the violent de-
moniacal excesses of the time (Volkmar). Moreover, the somewhat more cir-
cumstantial account of Mark is of a stamp so peculiar, is so clear and full of
meaning, that it is not to be regarded as a later amplification, but the
account in Matthew (and Luke) is rather to be looked upon as an abridg-
ment of the formér.

Vv. 22, 23.* While they were still in Galilee,* and before they entered
Capernaum (ver. 24), Jesus once more (comp. xvi. 21) intimated to His dis-
ciples His approaching sufferings, death, and resurrection. This is not a
meaningless repetition of xvi. 21 (Késtlin, Hilgenfeld); but this matter
was introduced again because Jesus knew how much they required to be
prepared for the impending crisis. — cic yeipag avdp.] intomen’s hands, uttered
with a painful feeling, sensible as He was of the contrast between such a
fate and what He knew to be His divine dignity. It was in keeping with
the feelings now present to the mind of Jesus, not to indicate that fate with
so much detail as on the former occasion (xvi. 21).—éAvm7970av o¢65pa] there-
fore not impressed by the announcement of the resurrection, although it is
said to have been made with so much clearness and precision. This an-
nouncement, however, is not found in Luke. See note on xvi. 21.

Ver. 24 ff. Peculiar to Matthew. — After the return from the Babylonian
captivity, all males among the Jews of twenty years of age and upwards
(on the ground of the command in Ex. xxx. 18 f.; comp. 2 Chron. xxiv.
6; Neh. x. 82 ; 2 Kings xii. 4 ff.) were required to contribute annually the
sum of half a shekel, or two Attic drachmae, or an Alexandriin drachma
(LXX. Gen. xxiii. 15 ; Josh. vii. 21), about half a thaler (1s. 6d. English
money), by way of defraying the expenses connected with the temple ser-
vices.* After the destruction of the temple the money went to the Capitol.‘
The time for collecting this tax was the fifteenth of the month Adar.’
Certain expositors have supposed the payment here in question to have been

1 Comp. Mark ix. 80 ff. ; Luke ix. 43 ff. Alterth. p. 408; Keim, II. p. 599 f.
* dvacrped., Xen. Cyr. "Vil 8. 7, Afem. iv. 4 Joseph. vil. 6. 6.
8.8; Thuc. vill. 94; Josh. v. 5. ®See Tract. Schekalim |. = iL 7; Ideler,

3 See Saalschiitz, Uos. R. p.291f.; Ewald, . Chronol.I. pp. 488, 509.

CHAP. XVII., 25. 317

a civil one, exacted by the Roman government—in other words, a poll-taz.'
This, however, is precluded, not merely by the use of the customary term
ta didpayua, which was well known to the reader as the temple-tax, but
likewise by the incongruity which would thereby be introduced into the
succeeding argument, through making it appear as though Jesus had
strangely and improperly classed Himself among the kings of this world, with
a view to prove with how much reason He could claim to be free. Even
had He regarded Himself as David’s son, He would have been wrong in argu-
ing thus, while, so far as the case before us is concerned, He was, to all in-
tents and purposes, one of the adAdrpion. — ol... AauBdvovrec] used as a
substantive : the collectors. That there were such, though Wieseler denies
it, is not only evident from the nature of the case, seeing that it was not
possible for everybody to go to Jerusalem, but is also proved by statements
in the Jr. Schekalim (‘‘ trapezitae in unaquaque civitate,” etc.); see also
Lightfoot. The plural ca didpayua indicates the large number of didrachmae
that were collected, seeing that every individual contributed one ; and the
article points to the tax as one that was well known. In the question put by
the collectors (which question shows that this happened to be the time for
collecting, but that Jesus had not paid as yet, though it is impossible to
determine whether or not the question was one of a humane character,
which would depend entirely upon the tone in which it was put) the plural
ra didpaxpya indicates that the payment had to be repeated annually, to which
the present redei likewise points. That the collectors should not have asked
Jesus Himself, and that Peter should have happened to be the particular
disciple whom they did ask, are probably to be regarded merely as accident-
al circumstances, But why did they ask at all, and why ina dubious tone ?
They may have assumed or supposed that Jesus would claim to rank with
the priests (who did not consider themselves liable for temple-tax, 7r.
Schekal. i. 4), seeing that His peculiarly holy, even His Messianic, reputa-
tion cannot certainly have remained unknown to them.

Ver. 25. From the vai of Peter it is clear that Jesus had hitherto been in
the habit of paying the tax. — rpofpdacev] Since it is stated in ver. 24 that
the collectors came to Peter, and as one is at a loss to see why, if Jesus had
been present at the same time, they should not have asked Himself, it
follows that the evangelist must have ascribed what Jesus says to Peter to
His immediate knowledge of the thoughts of others.* Instead of rpofpdacev
zéiyov * we might also have had mpogddoac feye.4— Linev].6 Comp. Mark
xiv. 87.—réAn] duty upon goods. — xjvoocg] Taz upon individuals and
landed property, xxii. 17, 19, the Greek ¢époc in contradistinction to réAo¢
(indirect tax). Comp. note on Luke xx. 22; Rom. xiii. 7.— amd rév
adAorp.| from those who are not members of. their family, ¢.¢., from their
subjects.

1 See Wolf and Calovius ; and of modern § Arist. Eccl. 884 ; Thuc. vil. 73. 8.
writers, consult especially, Wieseler, « Plat. Rep. vi. p. 300 A; Thue. vill. 51. 1.
CAronol. Synopse, p. 265 ff.,and Beilr. p. See Kfihner, I. 1, p. 626f.

108 ff. 8“ Appellatio quasi domestica et famili-

2 Comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. aris,” Bengel.

Zigabenus, Steinmeyer, Ewald, Keim.

318 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 26. "Apaye. . . vloi] Application: Therefore I, as the Son of God,
am exempt from the tax which is payable to Jehovah, i.¢., to His temple.
The inference in this argument, which is of the nature of a dilemma, and
which proceeds on the self-consciousness of Jesus regarding His supernatu-
ral sonship (comp. note on xxii. 45), is an inference @ minori ad majus, as is
indicated by ol Bac. r#¢ ype. If, indeed, in the case of earthly kings their
sons are exempted from the taxes they impose, it follows that the Son of the
heavenly King, the Son of God, can be under no obligation to pay the taxes
which He imposes (for the temple). The plural oi vioi is justifiable in the
general proposition as a generic (comp. note on ii. 20) indefinite plural, but
the application must be made to Jesus only, not to Peter as well,’ inasmuch
as the predicate, in the sense corresponding to the argument, was applicable
to Jesus alone, while vio/, taken in the wider spiritual sense, would embrace
not merely Peter and the apostles, but those believers in general whose con-
nection with the Jewish temple was not broken off (John iv. 21) till a some-
what later period. —The principle laid down by Jesus, that He is under
no obligation to pay temple-tax on the ground of His being the Son of
God, is, in thesi, to be simply recognized, and requires no justification (in

- answer to de Wette); but, in prazi, He waives His claim to exemption, and

that from a regard to the offence which He would otherwise have given, in-
asmuch as the fact of His divine sonship, and the peifov eivae rov iepov (xii.
6) which it involved, were not recognized beyond the circle of believers,
and He would therefore have been looked upon exclusively as an Israelite,
as which He was, of course, subject to the law (Gal. iv. 4). If on some
other occasion we find Him asserting His Messianic right to subordinate
certain legal enactments to His own will (sce xii. 8 ; John vii. 21 ff.), it
must be borne in mind that in such cases He had to do with enemies, in
answer to whose accusation He had to appeal to the authority implied in His
being commissioned to bring about the Messianic fulfilment of the law (v.
17). This commission did not supersede His personal obligation, imposed
upon Him in His birth and circumcision, to comply with the law, but only
gave to His obedience the higher ideal and perfect character which distin-
guished it. — éAeb3epn:] put well forward for sake of emphasis.*

Ver. 27. But in order that we may not scandalize them (the collectors), that
we may not give them occasion to misjudge us, as though we despised the
temple.* Jesus thus includes others along with Himself, not because He re-
garded Peter as strictly entitled to claim exemption, nor because He was an-
ticipating the time when His followers generally would cease to have such
obligations in regard to the temple,‘ but because Peter, who, in like man-
ner, had his residence in Capernaum (vili. 14), had not paid, as yet, any
more than Himself. — ropevric] belongs to cic rv YdAacc. (to the sea),
which latter Fritzsche connects with B4ae, which, however, would have the

1 Paulus, Olshausen, Ewald, Lange, Hof- * Bengel: “‘illos, qui non noverant jus
mann, Schriftbere. II. 1, p. 181, Gess, Keim. Jesu,"’ ‘‘those who did not know of the
2 The idea that the &8paxyor is given to = rights of Jesus.”
God, {s found likewise in Joseph. Aniéé. ¢ Dorner, Jesu siindlose Volk. p. 37.
xvill. 4. 1.

CHAP, XVII., 27%. 319

effect of rendering it unduly emphatic. — dyxorpov] It is a jish-hook,! and
not a net, which Jesus asks him to throw in, because in this instance it was
a question of one particular fish. Consequently this is the only occasion in
the Gospels in which mention is made of a fishing with a hook. — ray ava-
Bavra] out of the depths. — mpérov] the adjective : the first fish that has come
up. — dpov] lift it with the hook out on the land. Jesus is therefore aware
that this one will be the first to snap at the hook. — eipfoese cratqpa] that
is, in the mouth of the fish. The stater wasa coin equivalent to four drach-
mae, for which reason it is likewise called a rerpédpaypyoc, and must not be
confounded with the gold stater (20 drachmae). — dvr? éuod x. cov] not an
incorrect expression for xai avr? éuot (Fritzsche), but avri is used with refer-
ence to the original enactment, Ex. xxx. 12 ff., where the half-shekel is rep-
resented as a ransom for the soul. Comp. xx. 28. With condescending
accommodation, Jesus includes Himself in this view.

Remarx.—The naturalistic interpretation of this incident, so far as its mirac-
ulous features are concerned,—which, in a teleological respect, and on account
of the magical character of the occurrence, Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 228, also
regarded with suspicion,—has, in conformity with earlier attempts of the kind,
been advocated above all by Paulus and Ammon, and consists substantially in
supposing that eipyoec otar. was accomplished by the selling of the fish. But
whether dvoigac 76 ordua avdrov be referred to the act of taking the fish from the hook
(Paulus, Komment.), or even to Peter as offering it for sale, in which case avrov
is said to signify on the spol, we always have, as the result, an incongruous
representation and unwarrantable perversion of what, for the narrative of a
miracle, is extremely simple and appropriate, to say nothing of so enormous a
price forasingle fish, and that especially in Capernaum, though Paulus, in spite
of the zpurov, understands the ‘y6vv in a collective sense. The mythical mode
of explaining away this incident (Strauss, II. p. 184, according to whom it is “a
legendary offshoot of tales of the sea’’)—the occasion of which is to be found
partly in a take of fish by Peter, partly in the stories current about jewels (for
example, the ring of Polycrates, Herod. iii. 42) having been found in the inside
of fish—breaks down in consequence of its own arbitrariness, and the absence
of any thought or Old Testament event in which the myth might be supposed
to originate, Again, it would be to make it simply a curiosity (in answer to
Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 293 ff.) to treat it as an invention for
the purpose of exhibiting the superiority of Jesus over the circumstances to
which He was accommodating Himself. But Hase’s hypothesis, that whut
was a figurative way of expressing the blessing that attended the labor by
means of which the little sum was handily raised, has been transformed, in the
popular legend, into an apocryphal miracle, is inconsistent with the fact that
the actual miraculous capture of the fish is not once mentioned, an omission
which is scarcely in keeping with the usual character of apocryphal narratives.
Lastly, the view is no less unfounded which derives the narrative from a par-
able, in which our Lord is supposed to be representing the contrast between
the righteousness of faith that distinguishes the children of God, and the legal
righteousness of those who are only slaves (Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 263 ff.).

1 Hom. Od. iv. 8369; Herod. fl. 70, al.

320 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Besides, this would be to import into the passage the Pauline contrast of a
similar kind. In short, the incident must continue to be regarded as in every
way as historical as the evangelist meant it to be. As for the difficulties in-
volved in so doing, such as that of the fish snatching the hook with the stater
in its mouth (not in the stomach), or that implied in the circumstance that, of
all places, Capernaum was the one where Jesus had no need whatever to have
recourse to miraculous means for raising the little sum required, they must
likewise continue unsolved, belonging as they do to those mysteries that are
connected with miracles generally ; and while not justifying us in discarding
the narrative without other reasons for so doing, they will at least warrant us
in letting it standas it is (de Wette), no matter whether the miraculous char-
acter of the affair, so far as Jesus is concerned, is supposed to lie in what He
there and then performed (‘‘ piscis eo ipso momento staterem ex fundo maris
afferre jussus est,’’ ‘‘the fish was ordered to bring a stater at that very moment
from the bottom of the sea,’’ Bengel), or in what he knew, which latter is all
that the terms of the passage permit us to suppose (Grotius), Finally, the fact
that the execution of the order given by Jesus, ver. 27, is not expressly recorded, is
no reason why the reality of the thing itself should be questioned ; for, consid-
ering the character of the Gospel, as well as the attraction which the thing must
have had for Peter, the execution in question is to be assumed as a matter of
course. But even apart from this, the result promised by Jesus would be sure
to follow in the event of His order being complied with. For this reason Ewald’s
view also is unsatisfactory, which is to the effect that Jesus merely wanted to
indicate with what readiness the money for the tax could be procured, the
phraseology which He employed being supposed to proceed upon well-known,
although extremely rare, instances of such things being found in fish.

‘ Nore By AMERICAN Eprror.

xX.

The distinction which Dr. Meyer draws between the objective reality of the
Transfiguration of Jesus and the purely visionary manifestation of Moses and
Elias is hardly sustained by the text. For as to the words d¢$ycav avroic, the
same form is used by Paul in speaking of the appearances of Christ (699 Kn¢¢,
6697 *laxi3y, etc., 1 Cor. xv. 5-7), after His resurrection, which were certainly
as objectively real as the ‘Transfiguration itself. Nor is the possibility of any
bodily manifestation of Moses an insuperable difficulty. Olshausen solves this
by assuming the bodily glorification of Moses as well as Elias. ‘‘In support
of this idea,’’ he writes, ‘‘Scripture itself gives sufficient intimations (Deut.
xxxiv. 6 compared with Jude 9; 2 Kings ii. 11 compared with Sirach xlviii.
9, 13), which men have accustomed themselves to set down as biblical mythol-
ogy ; but whatright they had to do so is another question.’’! Lange makes the
better point, that ‘spirits of the blessed are not necessarily destitute of all
corporeity.”’

Dr. Meyer disposes of the very serious objection to the assumed visionary
character of the appearance of Moses and Elias—to wit, ‘‘that three persons

1 ** On the Gospels,”’ vol. ff., pp. 229, 280.

NOTE. 821

must be supposed to have witnessed the same phenomena, and to have heard
the same voice”—by saying that this is deprived of its force if ‘‘ it is conceded
that a supernatural agency was here at work with a view to enable the three
leading disciples to have a glimpse beforehand of the glory’’ of their Master.
But if a supernatural agency is here found, may we not suppose that it was equal
to the task of bringing Moses and Elias before the eyes of the disciples in visi-
ble form? Where is the occasion for departing from the obvious meaning of
the text, if the supernatural is fully admitted? In disposing of the natural and
mythical interpretations of this event, however, Dr. Meyer is exceedingly clear.

For a full exposition of the history of the Transfiguration, from the super-
natural point of view, the reader is referred to Trench, ‘‘Studies in the Gospels,’’
pp. 184-214

322 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Ver. 1. dpg] Lachm.: j#yépg, which Fritzsche has adopted, against decisive
evidence ; although ancient, since both readings are found as early as the time
of Origen, 7zépg is a gloss: instead of dpe, as there appeared to be nothing in
the context to which the latter might be supposed to refer. — Ver. 4. rarewicy]
The future razevoce: is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted on decisive
evidence. — Ver. 6, ei¢ roy tp.] for ei¢ Elz. has éri, while Lachm. and Tisch. 8
read repi. Only eic and repi have anything like important testimony in their
favor. But wepi is taken from Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2.— Ver. 7. On
weighty evidence we should follow Lachm. in deleting éorw after ydép, and ixcivy
in the next clause, as words that might naturally have been inserted ; Tisch. 8
has deleted éoriv only. — Ver. 8. ci7d4] BD L ®&, min. vss. and Fathers : airév.
So Lachm. and Tisch. correctly ; avré is an emendation to include both.—
Further on Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have «vAdov 7 ywAdv, following B &, Vulg. It. ;
& transposition to suit yveip and roic. — Ver. 10. The evidence is too weak to
warrant us in substituting év r@ obpayp (so Lachm. in brackets) for the first
év ovpavoic ; still weaker is the evidence in favor 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* &, 1*, 13, 33, Copt. Sahid. Syrie.
Aeth. (cod. 1), Eus, Or. Hil. Jer. Juv. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. ; con-
demned also by Rinck. Already suspected by Griesb. to have been an inter-
polation from Luke xix. 10, which in fact it is, considering 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. dgeig . . . wopevOeic] Lachm.: agjoe . . . kad ropevfeic, following
BDL, min. Vulg. It. (of which, however, D, Vulg. have agiyo.v, and D, ropev-
éuevoc). Exegetical analysis, in order to remove ambiguity as to the connec.
tion. — Ver. 14. els] Lachm. and Tisch.: é», folowing B D L M* 8, min.
Altered to elc in accordance with ver. 10 ; while zatpé¢ vov, 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. el¢ of] 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 EIZZE might easily enough have happened from its following
H2ZH (dyaprjag), 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
ei¢ oé, which is here genuine, was inserted from our passage into Luke xvii. 3,
Elz. — éAeyfov] Elz., Scholz: xai é4., against B C Sand many min. vss. and
Fathers. The «ai was inserted as a connective particle. — Ver. 19. réAw auqv]
Elz. (so also Griesh. Scholz, Fritzsche, Rinck, Tisch, 8) has merely xd/cv, and
Lachm., following min. only (B being erroneously quoted), has merely daujy.
But the attestation for 4A ayy (Tisch. 7) is about equal in weight (incl. B)
to that in favor of the simple wéAcv (incl. &), and one of the words might
easily enough have been omitted from the combination not occurring anywhere

CHAP. XVIII., 1. 323

else. — ouzgwvyjowov) Seeing that the future cuzgwr7coverv is supported by the
preponderating evidence of BD EHILV A &, 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. xpoonvé x67] Lachm.
and Tisch. 7: zpoony67, following B DOr. Correctly ; thisand Luke ix. 41 are
the only instances in which mpoodyev occurs in the Gospels, rpocgéperv being
the form most familiar to the copyists. — Ver. 25. elye] Lachm. and Tisch. 7 :
éye:, following only B, min. Or. ; but it is:to be preferred, since to the mechan-
ical transcribers the present would doubtless seem to be improper. — Ver. 26.]
nvpte before pap. is to be regarded as interpolated, being omitted by BD,
min, Vulg. codd. of It. Syres* Or. Chrys. Lucif., and deleted by Lachm. and
Tisch. — Ver. 27. éxeivov] omitted by Lachm., only after B, min., as is also
éxeivoc, ver, 28, only after B,— Ver. 28. ues not found inthe more weighty
witnesses ; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation. — ef 7: Elz.: 6, rz,
against decisive evidence. Erroneous emendation. — Ver. 29. airov Elz.
Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz, Tisch. 7, insert ei¢ rode xéda¢ atrov, which, however,
is omitted by B C* D GLA X®&, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Syr* It. (Brix.
excepted) Vulg. Or. Lucif. Gloss on the simple wecwv. In regard to eic,
comp. John xi. 32, al. —avra] Deleted by Matth., Scholz, Tisch., on prepon-
derating evidence ; bracketed by Lachm. It isa mechanical interpolation from
ver. 26.*— Ver. 31. For the first yevoueva Fritzsche and Tisch. substitute
ywoueva, following only D L &®**, min. Vulg. It. Chrys. Lucif., but correctly.
The transcribers failed to notice the difference of meaning. — For atray or
aivav we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read éavraév, upon decisive evidence;
the reflexive reference of the pronoun was overlooked, as was often the case.—
Ver. 34, avrp] not found in B D &**, min, vss. Lachm. ; but it may easily
enough have been left out in conformity with ver. 30. — Ver. 35. tar] Elz.
Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz insert ra raparroéuata aitav, which is not found in B
DL &, min. and several vss. and Fathers. Glossfrom vi. 14, 15; Mark xi. 25,
26. — But érovpaving, for which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 substitute otpdvo¢
(BC** DKL II 8, min. Or. Damasc.), is to be retained, all the more that the
expression 6 rarjp 6 émovp. occurs nowhere else, though we frequently find 6 x,
0 obpaviog.

Ver. 1. ’Ev éxeivy rj Ope] 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 : tn that hour, namely,
when Jesus was holding the above conversation with Peter. — ri¢ dpa] quis
igitur. The question, according to Matthew (in Mark otherwise), is sug-
gested by the consideration of the circumstances: Who, as things stand, is, etc. ;
for one of them had just been peculiarly honored, and that for the second
time, by the part he was called upon to take in a special miracle.? — peifwr]
greater than the other disciples in rank and power. — éoriv] they speak as
though the approaching Messianic kingdom were already present.®

1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176. ples displayed at the time ordinary human
2 Futhymius Zigabenus says well: av@pa- _— feelings.”
wevoy Te TOTe weRéVOacty oi pabyrai, ‘' the disci- 3 Comp. xx. 21.

324 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 2. Waidiov] According to Nicephorus, ii. 85, the child in question is
alleged to have been St. Ignatius.’

Ver. 8.2 To turn round (orpagqre, representing the yerdvoca under the idea
of turning round upon a road), and to acquirea moral disposition similar to
the nature of little children—such is the condition, without complying with
which you will assuredly not (oid u#) 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 ££;
the divine agent in this moral change, in which child-like qualities assume
the character of manly virtues, is the Holy Spirit.’

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 determined by your returning again to a child-like frame of mind, then
above all must you acquire, through humble self-abasemefit, the unassuming
character of this child, in order to be greater than others in the Messiah's
kingdom. — doric] guicunque.4 In what follows rarecvéce: is emphatic, and
accordingly stands near the beginning of the sentence. Had the subjunctite
been critically certain, we should not have had to borrow éé4y from the second
part of the statement (Fritzsche), but rather to observe the distinction in the
manner of presenting the idea, according to which the insertion of dy marks
the presupposition as conditioned. The future assumes the action as actually
occurring in the future ; while the subjunctive after the relative without av
keeps the future realization still within the domain of thought, without,
however, conceiving of the realization as conditioned (dv). — Moreover, the
words of vv. 3, 4, inasmuch as they are essentially connected with the ques-
tion of the disciples, are certainly 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.° The question of the disciples has been answered. But His cye
having lighted upon this child who happened to be present, Jesus now
seizes the opportunity of inculcating upon them the duty of taking an affec-
tionate interest in such little ones,—an exhortation, of which the jealous
and ambitious spirit evinced by their question in ver. 1 must have shown

1 Chrysostom correctly observes that it is
a little child (o¢édpa watdiov) ; 7d yap TrovovTow
wavcioy xai amovoias xai Sofomavias x. Bagxavias
K. GiAovetxeias K. WavTWY THY TOLOUTWY arTAAAK-
Tat wa0wy, cai woAAas Exoy Tas aperds, adéAccay,
Tanwevopporvmy, axzpaynoovrny, ex” ovderi
TovTwy emaiperar, (‘‘a very little child’);
‘for a child of this sort is free from foolish-
ness, love of fame, envy, contentiousness,
and all such passions, and possessing many
excellences, simplicity, humility, quietness,
is elated by no one of these."" Comp. Mark
ix. 86; Luke ix. 47.

2 Ei rig awéxeras trey wpoatperixnayv wabwy,
yivetas ws ta watdia, xrwpevos &° acxicens,

Grep Exoveor ta wasdia éf adedciac, “if any
one abstains from deliberately chosen
passions, he becomes like the little children,
having acquired by discipline what they
have through guilelessness,”” Eutbymius
Zigabenus.

? Comp. Luke xi. 18, ix. 55.

4 “De individuo, de quo quaerebant, non
respondet,”’ “ as to the individual concern-
ing whom they were inquiring, he does
not make any reply," Bengel.

‘For this usage among Attic prose wri-
ters, see Ktihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 6. 18.

* Comp. Mark ix. 87; Luke ix. 47.

CHAP, XVIII, 6. 325
they stood but too much in need. — rasdiov rovotrov] 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 dis-
course utterly foreign to the connection, but a man of such a disposition as this
little child representse—one who with child-like simplicity is-humble and un-
assuming. So Chrysostom,’ 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 overlooking, slighting, and thrusting aside. —év] a
single one. So very precious are they ! — dé£yraz] denotes a loving reception
with a view to further care for the soul ; the opposite to this is cxavdadifery,
ver. 6. —émi r@ dvéuari 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 subjective-
ly, and referred to the faith of the one who receives (whosoever confessing
my name, on account of his faith in me, etc.), but is to be understood as
referring to the zacdiov roovrov that is to be received,” because my name (Jesus
the Messiah) contains the sum of his belief and confession.* — iué] comp. x. 40,
xxv. 40 ; John xiii. 20.

Ver. 6.4 oxavdadiocy] Opposite of dé&7ra:, meaning : will have been to him
the occasion of his fall, especially of his apostasy from the faith (v. 29, xi.
6). — Tov puxpav tobruv] not to*be understood, any more than zavdiov roovro,
ver. 5, of literal children (Holtzmann), 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, unassum-
ing believers, that had just been suggested by seeing in the child then pres-
ent a model of such simplicity. This is not quite the same as rév pxpav
robruv, X. 42 (xxv. 40), where the expression is not borrowed from the illus-
tration of a child. — ovudépe: air¢, iva, «.r.4.] 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, i.e., in hune jinem ut. That, which
such & 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 cvudéfpe:,* is a pure importation. —
pbdoc dvixéc] The larger mills (in contradistinction to the yerpoutaa, xxiv.
41) were driven by an ass.°— The xaravovriopude ™ was not a Jewish method of
putting to death, neither was it a practice in Galilee,* but belonged to the

1 was8ion yap dvravOa sovs avOpairovs rovs § Jerome: “ quam aeternis servari cruci-

obras adercis dyot cal rawatvovs cai dweppiupe-
yous wapa toigs woAAocs, “for He says that
these men are like a little child who are
thas simple, and lowly, and thrust aside by
the masses.”

3 Mark ix. 41; Matt. x. 42.

%“*Non ob causas naturales aut politi-

cas," ‘not for reasons of nature or expedi-

ency,”’ Bengel.
4 Comp. Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2.

atibus,”’ ‘“‘thanto be preserved for eternal
tortures; others: than again to commit
such a sin.

* Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 2252. Comp.
also Anth. Pal. ix. 901; Ovid, A. A. fil. 290.

7 Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. xvi. 35; Her-
mann. Prirataiterth. § 72,26; Casaubon, ad
Suet. Oct. 67.

* Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 10.

826 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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. Ovai] Spqvei de giAdvdpwrog rdv xbopov a¢ péAAovra BAaByva axé civ
oxavddAwy, ‘*as loving man, He laments that the world is about to be injured
by reason of stumblingblocks,” Theophylact. —a7é] indicating the ezus:/
origin of the woe for humanity (r@ xéouw). The world is not conceived of
as giving the offence (in answer to Jansen, Arnoldi, Bleek), but as sufferii 7
from it. With regard to amd, see Buttmann, Neut. Gramm. p. 277 [E. T.
832]. — avayxy ydp| assigns the reason for the amd rév oxavddd. immediately
before : on account of offences, I say, for they cannot but come. This neces-
sity (necessitas conseqguentiac) has its foundation in the morally abnormal con-
dition of mankind, yet (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 19) is to be traced back to the di-
vine 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 punishment. Hence : rAqy (yet) otai 7
Gv¢pory, K.T.A.—Td oxdvdadAa] temptations, asa general conception. — 73
oxavd.] the temptation as conceived of in each individual case.

Ver. 8 f.' A passing direction, suggested 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 tempta-
tion of others (de Wette, Kuinoel, Strauss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld), but on
the contrary as quite appropriate, inasmuch as the oxéydaAa occasioned from
without operate through the senses, and thereby seduce into evil. — «aur
co éotly . . . f] a mixture, by attraction, of two constructions : It is good
toenter into the life (of the Messiah’s kingdom at the second coming) maimal
(and better) than, etc.? But in the present passage the material representa-
tion of mortification as the condition of eternal life is somewhat more circum-
stantial and graphic. — ywA6v] refers to the feet, one of which, indeed, is
supposed to be awanting,* while, according to the context, «v72év here (more
general in xv. 30) refers to mutilation of the arm, from which the hand is
supposed to be cut off. Hence : limping (yuAdv) or maimed (xvaidv). But
the circumstance of ywAév being put first is due to the fact that the cutting
off of the foot (airév, see critical notes) had been specified, although at the
same time an identical proceeding in regard to the hand is, of course, to be
understood. — povddda?y.*] According to the grammariana, we shoul‘
have had érepéo¥a2u. in contradistinction to povdgdaru., which denotes the
condition of one bern with one eye.°

1 Comp. Mark ix. 48 ff. v. 29, 80.

2 See Fritzsche’s note on this passage, and 3 Comp. Hom. Zi. iL. 217: xewAds & eErepor
Dissert. WI. ad 2 Cor. p. 8; Winer, p. 26 wééa.
[E. T. 302] ; Buttmann, p. 809 [E. T. 360]. 4 Herod. tii. 116, iv. 27: Strabo, IZ. p. <0.
For examples from classical writers, see 5 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 196 f.; Becker,
Kypke, Obdss. I. p. 89: Bos, ilips., ed. Anecd. I. p. 280.
Schaefer, p. 769 ff. See besides, the note on

CHAP. XVIII., 10, 11. 327

Ver. 10. Jesus now proceeds with his cautions, which had been inter-
rupted by the parenthetical exhortation in vv. 7-9. The belief that every
individual has a guardian angel '—which is a post-Babylonian development
of the Old Testament 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 symboli-
cally, neither by an ‘‘ as it were” (Bleck), 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 oip. dia mavrog BAérovet, K.7.A.]
inasmuch as they are ever in immediate 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 pxpo/, but a proof which, from
Atyw tiv and rov rarpé¢ pov, receives all the weight of an emphatic festi-
mony ; while the mode of representation’ is borrowed from the court
arrangements of Oriental kings, whose most confidential servants are called
32D “2p wD? |

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 yxpoi, 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 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 occa-
sion. — ri tuiv doxet] ‘‘ suavis communicatio,” Bengel. — éav yévyraz, x.1.A.] if
a hundred sheep have fallen to a man’s lot, if he has come into the posses-
sion of them.‘ The contrast to év requires that we should conceive of éxarév
as a large number (not as a small flock, Luke xii. 82).°— It is preferable to
connect éi ra dp7 with ageic (Vulgate, Luther), because the connecting of it
with ropevéeic (Stephanus, Beza, Casaubon, Er. Schmid, Bengel) would im-
part an unmeaning emphasis to ém? rd 5p7._ The man in 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 represents the right connection. — ézi ra
dpy] évi is not merely upon (as answering the question: where ?), but
expresses the idea of being scattered over the surface of anything, which cor-
responds exactly with what is seen in the case of a flock when it is grazing,
and which is likewise in keeping with agefr, which conveys the idea of
being let out, let loose.* — tav yévyrat eipeiv avtd] if it should happen that he

1 See Tob. v.; comp. in general, Schmidt 15; Luke |. 19.

in Iigen's Denkechr. I. p. 24 ff. 4 Kthner, IT. 1, p. 364.
7Comp. 0°99 ‘DRI of the Rabbinical 5 Comp. Lightfoot.
writers, Schoettgen’s note on this passage. ¢ Comp. notes on xili. 2, xiv. 19, xv. 38.

92 Kings xxv. 19; 1 Kings x. 8; Tob. xif.

328 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Jinds it.'| This expression is unfavorable to the notion of irresistible grace.
— yalpe, x.r.4.] This picture, so psychologically truc, of the first impression
is not applied to God in ver. 14 (otherwise iu 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 scxpoi
should be lost (should fall into eternal perdition). The point of the compar-
ison therefore lies in the unwillingness to let perish ; in the parable this is
represented by the case of a strayed shcep, for the purpose of teaching the
disciples that if a yxpé¢ 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 yexpoi is therefore 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). — &umpoodev] coram (xi. 26 ; Luke
xv. 10). There is not before God (before the face of God) any determination
having as its object that, etc.; consequently, no predestination to condemna-
tion in the divine will. On the idea involved in SéAyua, comp. note on i.
19.*— é] 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 pxpoi (vv. 10-14) ; if, however, one offends against thee, then
proceed thus.” The subject changes from that of doing injury to the pux«pol,
against which Jesus has been warning (vv. 10-14), to that of suffering in-
jury, in view of which he prescribes the proper method of brotherly visita-
tion. However, in developing this contrast, the point of view becomes so
generalized that, instead of the pcxpoi, who were contemplated in the previous
warning, we now have the Christian brother generally, 5 adeAg¢é¢ cov—there-
fore, the genus to which the pexpdc as species belongs. — duaprhcy cic of] The
emphasis is not on cic oé, but on duaprycy : but af thy brother shall have
sinned against thee, which he is supposed todo not merely ‘‘ seandalo dato”
(Bengel), but by sinj‘ul treatment in general, by any unbrotherly wrong what-
soever. Comp. ver. 21.2 How can it be supposed that the procedure here
inculcated was intended to apply to every sin without any limitation what-
ever? Would we not have in that case a supervision omnium contra omnes?
The reference can only be to private charges, to offences in which the one
sins against the other (elc of), and which, as such, ought to be dealt with
within the Christian church. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1 ff. — éraye] do not wait,

1 Comp. Hesiod, Theog. 689; in classical
Groek, found mostly with, though also with-
out, a dative. Xen. Mem.i.9.13; Cyr. vi. 3.
11; Plato, Zep. p. 897 B ; Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 582.

2 For the delic sense of iva, comp. vil. 12;
Mark. vi. 25, x. 35, al., and the ¢@éAc»ddpa of
Homer; Nagelsbach’s note on J#ad, i. 188.

3 Ch. W. Miller in the Stud. u. Krit, 1857,

p. 389 ff., Julius Miiller, Dogmat. Abk. p.
513 ff., reject the reading eis o¢, ver. 15,
though on internal grounds that are not
conclusive, and which might be met by
stronger counter-arguments against the
use Of auapricy without modification of
any sort.

CHAP. XVIII., 16, 17. 329

then, till he himself come to thee. — peragi cod x. airoi pdvov] 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 uévov
after cov as well. But the rebuking agency (Eph. v. 11) is regarded as in-
tervening between the two parties. The person who reproves mediates
between the two parties, of which he himself forms onc, — iév cov axotoy] if
he will have listened to thy admonition, will have complied with it. But
Fritzsche and Olshausen connect the preceding ydévov with this clause =:
‘6 Si tibi soli aures praebuerit,” ‘‘if he should listen to thee alone.” This
would imply an arrangement that is both harsh and foreign to New Testa-
ment usage. — éxépdyoac] usually explained : as thy friend.’ But what a
truism would such a result imply ! Therefore it should much rather be ex-
plained thus : thou hast gained him for the eternal blessedness of my kingdom,
to which, from not being brought to a state of repentance, he would other-
wise have been lost (ver. 17). But the subject who gains is the party that
has been aggrieved by the offence of the brothcr, because the successful result
is understood to be brought about by his affectionate endeavors after an ad-
justment.’ -

Ver. 16. Second gradus admonitionis. The one or the two who accompany
him are likewise intended to take part in the éAéyyew (see abrav, ver. 17).—
iva éxi orduaroc, x.t.A.] in order that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses,
every wcord may be duly attested ; i.e., in order that every declaration which
he makes in answer to your united é/¢yye may be heard by two or three
persons (according as one or two may happen to be present besides thyself),
and, on the strength of their testimony (éxi oréuarog, “D 5D), may be duly
authenticated, so that in the event of his submitting to the éaéyyecv the pos-
sibility 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
oun. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 19.

Ver. 17. Ti éxxAnoig, 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 belierers 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 preabyters and bishops (Chrysostom),
or to those whom they may have invested, as their representatives, with

1 wpmrov ydp é¢nurov Trovroy, &ka rou cxavédAov broken away from thy brotherly union,”
Pryvipevov awd Tis abdeAdiais gov cuvvadeias, Euthymius Zigabenus.
“ for at first you were at loss as to this one 2 Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 19; 1 Pet. ili. 1.
who, through the stumbling-block, had

330 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

spiritual jurisdiction (Catholic writers, comp. besides, Déllinger). There
is, further, nothing to warrant the assumption of an historical prolepsis (de
Wette, Julius Miiller), for fhe truth is, the “np 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
IMs Yap (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 éAcy颢 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 presupposed.
It is not inconsistent with this passage to suppose that, under the more de-
veloped circumstances of a later period, when local congregations sprung up
as offshoots from the mp, there may have been some representatire body,
composed of individuals chosen for the purpose of maintaining discipline,
but the choice would necessarily be founded on such conditions and qualifi-
cations 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. — édv d2 xai r. éxxA. capa. ]
but if he refuses to listen even to the church; if he will not have submitted to
its advice, exhortation, injunction. — éorw co: dorep, x.7.2.] let him be for thee
(ethical dative) ; let him be in thy estimation as, etc.’ What is here indi-
cated 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.* In answer to the latter, Calovius,
in common with the majority of the older expositors, asserts that the institution
of excommunication is, in the present passage, already expressly declared.—
6 édvixdc] 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 me assure you of two things : (1) whatever you (in the church)
declare to be unlawful 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 rc-
gard to complaints brought before the church is accordingly ratified by di-
vine warrant. (2) If two of you agree as to anything that is to be asked ia
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 and, in the church, give effect
to decisions in accordance with the mind of God.—Those addressed in the
second person (djonre, x.7.A.) are the apostles,* but not the disciples in the

1 Jordy aviara 6 ToLovTOs voce, ‘“ such a one “I would not deny that for this purpose, a
is already incurably diseased ,** Chrysostom. strong argument can be drawn from this
2“ Ad eam ex hoc etiam loco non absurdo place,”’ Grotius.
argumentum duci posse non negaverim,” 3 Hofmann, Schriftdew. Il. 2, p. 266 f.

CHAP. XVIII., 20. 331

more comprehensive sense of the word," nor the Church,’ nor its /eaders,* nor the
parties who have been injured.‘ In order to a clear understanding of the
whole discourse from ver. 8 onwards, it should be observed generally, that
wherever the address is in the second person plural (therefore in vv. 8, 10,
12, 14, 18, 19), itis 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 pcxpoi). But as
far as the éxxAyoia is concerned, it is to be understood as meaning the con-
gregation of believers, including the apostles. It is the possessor and guardian
of the apostolic moral legislation, and consequently it is to it that the of-
fender is in duty bound to yield obedience. Finally, sincethe 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.—
wédzv ayuiyv A. bu.] Once more a solemn assurance ! and that to the effect
that, etc. Comp. xix. 24. For édv with the indicative (cupdurvjcovery, see
critical notes).* The construction is a case of attraction ; ay should have
been the subject of the principal clause of the sentence, but was attracted
to the subordinate clause and joined to mpdéyparoc, so that without the
attraction the passage would run thus: édy dbo ty. cvpdwrfcover éml t. vig
rept mpdyuatoc, av & édv airhowrvrat, yevhoerat avroic.® For the contrast im-
plied in éri r. y#¢ comp. ix. 6.

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 iyzdy in connection with the dbo } rpeic) 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, theream I
(my presence being represented by the Holy Spirit, comp. Rom. viil. 9f.; 2
Cor. xiii. 5; 1 Cor. v.45; Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iii. 16 f.; also in general,
EXVili. 20) in the midst of them ; so that you need therefore have no doubt as
to the yevfoera: 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 aziom ;
hence, although referring to the future, its terms are present. The higher, |
apiritual object of the meeting together of the two or three lies not in
ouvi7ypévot, which expresses nothing more than the simple fact of being met
(in answer to Grotius, de Wette), but in ei¢ rd éudv bvoua, which indicates
that the name of Jesus Christ (i.e., the confession, the honoring of it, etc.) is
that which in the ovryyyévoy elvac is contemplated as its specific motive.’

1 Weiss, Bidl. Theol. p. 108. 7 wh 80 érépay aitiav, Euthymius Ziga-
* Bleek, Schenkel, Keim, Ahrens. benus. ‘Simile dicunt Rabbinide duobus
* Euthymius Zigabenus, de Wette. aut tribus considentibus In judicio, quod

* Origen, Augustine, Theophylact,Grotius. i1'3Dw sit in medio eorum,” “the Rabbins

*See note on Luke xix. 40, and Butt- say a like thing concerning two or three
mann, Neut. Gramm. p. 192 [E. T. 222); sitting in Judgment, that Shebania is in the
Bremi, ad Lys. Alc. 18. midst of them," Lightfoot.

* Comp. Kfhner, II 2, p. 928.

332 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 21. At this point Peter steps forward from amongst the disciples
(ver. 1), and going up to Jesus,’ proposes that forgiveness should be shown
more than twice the number of times which the Rabbis had declared to be
requisite. *

Ver. 22. Ov Atyw oor] are to be taken together (in answer to Fritzsche), and
to be rendered thus : I do not say to thee, I do not give thee the prescription ;
comp. John xvi. 26. — éBdounxovrdénc tra] not : till serenty times seven, t.c., till
the four hundred and ninetieth time (Jerome, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther,
Grotius, de Wette, Bleek) ; but, seeing that we have érré, and not enraaic
again, the rendering should simply be : till seventy-seven times. No doubt,
according to the classical usage of adverbial numerals, this would have been
expressed by éxrd xa) é3dounxovrdnee OF éBdouhxovra Exrdxec ; but the expression
in the text is according to the LXX. Gen. iv. 24.7. So, and that correctly,
Origen, Augustine, Bengel, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Keim.‘

Ver. 23. Ad rovro] 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 unlimited forgiveness” (not merely a conciliatory dis-
position generally, in answer to de Wette and Bleek). The duty of unlim-
ited 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. — dporhOy 1 Bac. tr. ovp. | See note on xiii. 24.—The dodAo are the king’s
ministers who are indebted to him through having received money on loan
(ddveiov, ver. 27), or, relatively, as treasurers, land stewards, or the like.
But it is not without reason that avdpdry is joined to Bao:dei, seeing that
the kingdom of heaven is likened to a ‘human king. Comp. the dv9p Bacirzci¢
of Homer. — ovvalpetv Adyov] to hold a reckoning, to settle accounts, occurs again.
in xxv. 19, but nowhere else.*®

Ver. 24ff. According to Boeckh, Staatshaush. d. Athener, I. p. 15 ff., an
(Attic) talent, or sixty minae, amounted to 1875 thalers [about £206 Ster-
ling]. Ten thousand talents, amounting to something considerably over
thirteen millions of thalers, are intended to express a sum go large as to be
well-nigh incalculable. So great was the debt of one (cic). — éxéAevoev atrov
. . « Exec] according to the Mosaic law ; Lev. xxv. 89, 47; 2 Kings iv. 1;

1 vopiger davyrat peyadoyuxératos, ‘ deem-
ing that he would appear most magnani-
mous,” Euthymius Zigabenus.

2 Babyl. Joma, f. 86. 2, contains the fol-
lowing words: ‘**Homini in alterum pec-
canti semel remittunt, secundo remittunt,
tertio remittunt, quarto non remittunt,”
“To a man sinning against another they
remit once, they remit twioe, they remit a
third time, they do not remit a fourth
time.”

3 Where, indeed, nyayy oyav cannot
possily 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 Ip3W cannot be considered strange
(seventy and a seven). See Ewald, Lekrb. d.
Hebr. Spr. § 267 o., and his JaArb. XI. p. 198.

4 Comp. “the Gospel of the Hebrews” in
Hilgenfeld’s N. 7. extra can. IV. p. 24. — For
the sense, comp. Theophylact: ovx iva
apOug@ wepicdcion Thy ovyxwpnoty, adAAad Td
&wecpow évravOa oynuaives: ws av ei EAcyer
dodas dy mwraivas peravoyj gvyxepe avre,
‘‘not that He may shut in forgiveness by
number, but he points out there the bound-
lessness of it, as if he should say, however
often one stumbling repents, forgive
him.”

®* Classical writers would say: dado
yigerOat wpdés tirva, Dem. 1236. 17.

CHAP. XVIII., 28-31. | 333

Ex. xxii. 2.1. The word airév is emphatic: that he should be sold, etc. On
the present indicative Eve: (see critical notes), which is derived from the idea
of the narrative being direct, comp. Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1058. — xat arododjvai]
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 suffi-
cient for this purpose did not in any way affect the order ; hence azodod.
is not to be referred merely to the proceeds (Fritzsche). The king wants his
money, and therefore does the best he can in the circumstances to get it.
— ravra oot at0dGow] in his distress and anguish he promises far more than
he can hope to perform. And the king in his compassion goes far beyond
what was asked (a¢jxev aig). — For ddvecov, money lent, comp. Deut. xxiv.
11; found frequently in classical writers since the time of Demosth. 911. 8.

Ver. 28. A hundred denarii, about forty Rhenish Gulden, or 28 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 | — éxvtye] 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. — amddoc ef re dgeidecc] el re is not to
be taken, as is often done, as though it were equivalent to 3,7. For where
el rc, like si quid, is used in the sense of guicquid,? et 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 re-
gard to the debt ; for the certainty of the debt is implied in the terms of
' the passage, and, moreover, in the xparfoag abr. érveye was necessarily to be
presupposed on the part of the dovaoc. No, the ei is simply the expression
of a pitiless logic : Pay, if thou owest anything (arédoc 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. Meodv] after that he had fallen down,—that is, as one who pocex-
évet, which follows, as a matter of course, from ver. 26, without our requir-
ing to insert such words as ei¢ rove médac avrov (see critical notes).*

Ver. 831 f. 'EAurfSnoav] They were grieved at the hard-heartedness and
cruelty which they saw displayed in what was going on (ré y:vdpeva, see
critical notes). — d:eodg.] not simply narrarunt (Vulgate), but more precise-
ly : declararunt (Beza).‘—rg xvpiy éavtév] The reflective pronoun (sec crit-
ical notes) indicates that, as befitted their position, the ofvdovAo: addressed
themselves to their own master. 'Their confidence in him led them to turn to

1 See Michaelis, 1. 2. § 148; Saalschfitz, the supplication (of his fellow servant) did
M. R. p. 706 f. not cause him to remember the kindness of

4 See KOhner, ad Xen. Anad. 1. 10. 18. his lord.”’

® Chrysostom appropriately observes : ov ‘Plat. Prot. p. 8 B; Legg. v. p. 7383 B;
7d oxHua ris ixernpias avdurngey airov THs rou §©=©—- Polyb. 1. 46. 4; Ll. 27.8; 2 Maco. 1. 18, fl. 9.
Seowcrou dUavOpumias, ‘the appearance of

334 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

him rather than to any one else. — éei wapexéA. ye] because thou entreatedat
me. And he had not gone so far as to beg for entire remission of the debt,
but only for forbearance !

Ver. 88. On the well-known double xa? used comparatively, see Klotz, ad
Devar. p. 685.' — édec] the moral opportuit. —roi¢ Basamoraic] to the tormentors*
to torture him, not merely to cast him into prison, which latter was only a
part of their functions (Fritzsche). The idea involved in fasavifecy is of es-
sential importance, typifying as it does the future Bacavoc of Gehenna,*
Grotius well observes, though he takes the facamoréc as = deopoptAaxag
(Kuinoel, de Wette), ‘‘ utitur autem hic rex ille non solo creditoris jure, sed
et judicis,” ‘‘the king uses here not only the right of creditor, but also of
judge.” — éwe ob aod] as in ver. 80: until he shall have paid. Though not
expressly asserted, it is a legitimate inference from the terms of the passage
(comp. v. 26) to say : rovréore duqvexic, obre yap anoddce: roré, ‘{ that is, per-
petually, for he will never repay him,” 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 for-
give 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.
iii. 12 f.), so that Jesus had to leave to the future, which was fast approach-
ing, what, as yet, could be but inadequately understood (so far we have here
& torepov mpérepov), and hence our passage is not inconsistent (Socinian ob-
jection) with the doctrine (also expressly contained in xx. 28, xxvi. 28) of
satisfaction. — amd tr. xapd. tu.) 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 e7é being used in connection
with this phrase ; elsewhere it is éx that is employed. But comp. the clas-
sical expressions a76 yvdunc, ard omovdy7c, ard gpevdc, and the like.‘

1 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 158. xiv. 10.
2 Dem. 978, 11; 4 Macc. vi. 11. 4 Also awd xapsias in Antoninus if. 8, and
* Comp. vill. 20; Luke xvi. 28; Rev. dd ris yvxis. Dem. 580, 1.

CHAP. XIX. 335

CHAPTER XIX.

Ver. 3. ol dapic.] Lachm. has deleted oi, following B C L M A II min,
Correctly ; the of dap. would suggest itself mechanically to the transcribers
from being in current use by them ; in several manuscripts it is likewise in-
serted in Mark x. 12, — After Aéyovrec Elz. and Scholz insert airg, which, owing
to the preponderance of evidence against it, is to be regarded as a common in-
terpolation, as are also avroic, ver. 4, airyv, ver. 7.— dOpdry] is wanting in
BLI ®* min. Aug., deleted by Lachm. Correctly ; supplement from ver. 5,
and for which Cod. 4 has avdpi (Mark x. 2). — Ver. 5, rpnoxoAAn@.] Lachm. and
Tisch., also Fritzsche : xoAAn9., following very weighty evidence. The com-
pound form, however, is more common, and is taken from the LXX. — Ver. 9.
or: before o¢ is fot, with Lachm. and Tisch. 7, to be deleted. It has the pre-
ponderance of evidence in its favor, and how readily may it have been over-
looked, especially before dc, seeing that it is not indispensable. — Instead of
fe) Em. ropveig Lachm. has sapexrog Adyou ropveiac, following B D, min. It. Or.,
but clearly borrowed from v. 32 by way of a gloss. For 7, Elz. and Scholz
have ei yj, against decisive evidence ; an exegetical addition. — x. 6 arodeAup,
yau. woryazar) are deleted by Tisch. 8, following C** DLS 8, vss. Or.? Chrys.
But there is preponderating evidence in favor of the words, and the homoeote-
leuton might readily enough be the occasion of their omission. Moreover, there is
no parallel passage verbally identical with this. —.- Ver. 13. rpooqvéy67] Lachm.
and Tisch. : npoonvéy6noav, following BC DL &, min. Or. In presence of such
weighty evidence, the singular is to be regarded as a grammatical correction.
— Ver. 16. dyaGé] is justly condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. and
Tisch. (B DL ®&, min. codd. of It. Or. Hilar.). Inserted from Mark x. 17;
Luke xviii. 18. — Ver. 17. The Received text (so also Fritzsche and Scholz) has
Ti pe Aéyece dyaOdy ; obdele aya%dc ei uy ele 6 Gedc. But the reading: ri ue épwrde
mepi Tov dyaGod ; el¢ toriv 6 ayaldc, is attested by the very weighty evidence of
BDL &, Valg. 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: ei¢ tiv Guy eiceA9. (Lachm.,
Tisch.), has decisive attestation ; but type: (Lachm., Tisch. 7) for r7pnooyr finds
but inadequate support, being favored merely by B D, Homil. Cl.-— Ver, 20.
eguiatauny éx vedrytéc pov] Lachm. and Tisch. : egidAaga, following important,
though not quite unanimous, witnesses (B D L 8* among the uncial manu.
scripts ; but D has retained éx veédr., though omitting pov). The reading of the
Received text is taken from Luke and Mark. — Ver. 23. Lachm. and Tisch., fol-
lowing decisive evidence, read rAovorocg dvoxéAwc. — Ver. 24. Instead of the first
eloeAfeiv, Elz. has dceaGciv, which is defended by Fritzsche and Rinck, and also

1So also Rinck, Lucudr. crit. p. 268 f. Differently Hilgenfeld in the Zheal. Jahrd. 1857,
p. 414f., but not on critical evidence.

a
336 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

adopted again by Lachm., in opposition to Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Schulz,
Tisch., who read ciceA§eiv. The evidence on both sides is very weighty. d:e/Geiv
is a correction for sake of the sense, with which eiceAfeiv was supposed not to
agree. Comp. note on Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25. If,the second eiceAGeiv were to
be retained, the preponderance of evidence would be in favor of inserting it after
mAovotov (Lachm.); but we must, with Tisch., following L Z &, 1, 33, Syre™”
Or. and other Fathers, delete it as being a supplement from the parallel pas-
sages. — Ver. 28. For xa? tueic read, with Tisch. 8, xa) avroi, following DL Z &,
1, 124, Or. Ambr. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical gloss.
— Ver. 29. dcr:¢] The simple &¢ (Elz., Griesb., Fritzsche, Scholz) is opposed by
preponderating evidence ; t:¢ was omitted as unnecessary (but comp. vii. 21,
x. 32). — 7) yuvaixa] after unr. is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., on the
evidence of B D, 1, Or. Ir. Hil. vss. Taken from Mark and Luke. — For
éxatovrardAaciova Lachm. and Tisch. have roAAazAaciova, following B L, Syri«
Sahid, Or. Cyr. Correctly ; it would be much more natural to explain the in-
definite oAdarAac. from Mark x, 30 by means of the definite expression
éxarovramdAac., than to explain the latter from Luke xviii. 30 by means of
woAAatAao,

Ver. 1f. With his usual formula, x. éyéy, bre éréA., «7.4. (vii. 28, xi. 1,
xiii. 53), Matthew here introduces the account of the closing stage in Christ’s
ministry by mentioning His 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. — perjpev and reg Tadsca.] Comp. xvii. 22, 24. — wépay rov
’Iopdévov] This expression cannot be intended to define the locale of tig ra
bpia ti¢ "lovdaiac, for the reader knew, as matter of course, that Peraea and
Judaea (iv. 15, 25) meant different districts, although, according to Ptolem.
v. 16. 9, several towns east of the Jordan might be reckoned as included in
Judaea ; neither can it belong to werjpev ard r. Tad.," for x. pABev etc tr. Sp. Tf.
"Iovd. 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 74Gev (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 dy Peraea,
and reached the borders of Judaea by crossing over to the west side of the
Jordan (somewhere in the neighborhood of Jericho, xx. 29). The expres-
sion is not awkward (Volkmar) ; nor, again, is it to be erroneously under-
stood as showing that the Gospel was written in some district east of the
Jordan. — Further, the narrative of Matthew and Mark cannot be reconciled
with that of Luke, who represents Jesus as keeping to this side of the Jordan
(ix, 51, and see note on xvii. 11) ; nor with the account of John, who, x.

1 Fritzsche : “‘ Movens a Galilaea transilt fuvium.”

CHAP. XIX., 3, 4. 337

22, says nothing about the journey to Jerusalem, but represents Jesus as
already there, and in ver. 40 as setting out from that city to makea short s0-
journ in Peraea. — éxei] that is, in Peraea, just mentioned, and through
which He was travelling on His way to the borders of Judaea, ver. 1. On
aivot¢ (their sick), see Winer, p. 189 [E. T. 183]. Instead of the healing,
Mark speaks of the teaching that took place on this occasion.

Ver. 3. Tlepafovrec] 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. 81. There is not the slightest founda-
tion in the text for the idea that the questioners had in view the matri-
monial 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 favor of one of ‘the rival schools (and that it would doubtless be
that of Sammai ; for with «. racav airiay 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.' — <i]
See note on xii. 10. —rv ywaika airov}] Assuming avipdryw to be spurious, the
evrov can only refer to something in the context, and that doubtless to the
logical subject, to the ric implied in the &cor:.? — xarad racay airiay] 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 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 «. xaoav airfav. After having laid down as a principle the indis-
soluble 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, “7 éri tropvela.

Ver. 4. Airotc]* The following airotc should be understood after 4 rocfoac,
asthe object of the succeeding verb has often to be supplied after the

‘Comp. Harless, Zhescheldungafr. p. 84 ff. — pnrov dv 175 BiBAw ris yevdorews (1. 27) yéyparras,
*For a similar classical usage, comp. ‘plainly, human beings; since this saying

Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 608 D. was written in the Book of Genesis (i. 27),'
* bnradn rots arOpumovs: rourt may ody ro Euthymius Zigabenus.

838 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

participle.’ For roviv, to create, comp. Plat. Tim. p. 76 C ; Hesiod, T’heog.
110, 127 (yévog avOpdruv).—az’ apxzq¢] does not belong to 6 xoujoag (as
usually explained), in which case it would be superfluous, but to what fol-
lows (Fritzsche, Bleek), where great stress is laid on the expression, ‘‘ since °
the very beginning” (ver. 8). — dpocv x. O7Av] as male and female, as a pair con-
sisting of one of each sex, — éroinoev] after 4 xoinoac the same verb.?*

Ver, 5. Elrev] God.* Although, 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 willis declared, are looked upon as the words of God, and that alto-
gether irrespective of the persons speaking.‘ — évexev robrov] refers, in Gen.
ii, 24, to the formation of the woman out of the rib of the man. But thia
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 rotrov 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. —xaradzive:] ‘‘ necessitudo arctis-
sima conjugalis, cui uni paterna et materna cedit,” ‘‘ conjugal necessity is
the very closest, and to it alone that of father and mother yields,” Bengel.
— ol dio] These words are not found in the Hebrew, though they occur in
the Samaritan text, as they must also have done in that which was followed
by the LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of more distinctly
emphasizing the claims of monogamy.* The article indicates the two par-

ticular persons in question. —ei¢ odépxa 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.* The construction is not Greek
(in which elvac etc means to refer to anything, or to serve for anything,’
but a rendering of the Hebrew 5 mn (Vorst, Hebr. p. 680 f.).

Ver. 6. Oixérc] after this union, ver. 5. — eici] are they, that is, the twoof
ver. 5. — 4] guod.* — 6 6eé¢] through what is said in ver. 5. Observe the
contrast to avOpwroc. — Having regard, therefore, to the specific nature of
marriage as a divine institution, Jesus utterly condemns 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. — évereiAaro] Deut. xxiv. 1, in which,
indeed, there is no express command, though it may be said to contain xara
éiévocav the prescription of the bill of divorce. Mark—and in this his
account is certainly more original—represents the whole reply of Jesus as

' Krtiger’s note on Xen. Anad. i. 8. 111). ¢ Comp. Sir. xxv. % and Grimm's note.

2 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 21, and 7 Plat. PAU. p. 89 E; Ale. I. p. 196 A.
Gramm. TI. 2, p. 656. ®& “Ut non tanquam de duobus, sed

® Comp. note on 1 Cor. vi. 16. tanguam de uno corpore loqueretar,” “30

‘ Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus and_ that it should be declared not as ooncern-
Fritzsche on the passage. ing two, but as @f one body,”” Maldonatus.

® See note on 1 Cor. vi. 16.

CHAP. XIx., 8-10. 339

beginning with the question as to the law of Moses on the matter (x. 8).
Moreover, the more appropriate expression éérpewev, which in ver. 8 is as-
scribed to Jesus (not so in Mark), undoubtedly betrays the influence of riper
reflection. — Comp. besides, note on v. 81.

Ver. 8. Ilpdéc] out of regard to, with (wise) consideration so as to avert
greater evil. — oxAnpoxapdiav] stubbornness of heart,’ which will not be per-
suaded to self-reflection, gentleness, patience, forbearance, etc. — ob yéyovev
oitw] 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. 82. — pu éxi rropy.] not on account of fornication, i.e.,
adultery. The deleting of those words’ is justified neither by critical evidence,
which Keim himself admits, nor by the following 6 arodeA. yan. potyaras,
which is in no way inconsistent with the exception under consideration,
seeing that, as a matter of course, the avoded. refers to a woman who has
been divorced arbitrarily, 22 éxi mopy. (see note on v. 32) ; nor by ver. 10,
where the question of the disciples can be sufficiently accounted for ; nor
by 1 Cor. vii. 11 (see note on this passage). We are therefore as little war-
ranted in regarding the words as an interpolation on the part of the evan-
gelist in accordance with a later tradition.‘ 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, con-—
stitutes the very essence of marriage, the unitas carnis; while, on this
account also, it furnishes a reason not merely for separation @ toro ef mensa
(Catholic expositors), but for separation quoad 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 breach would betray the influence of a later age. — potyarac] commits
adultery, because, in fact, his marriage with the woman whom he has arbi-
trarily dismissed has not yet been disannulled. The second potxzara: is jus-
tified : because this droAeAvutvy 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
privatum, in a house (Mark x. 10), or elsewhere. — ei otrug éorly 3 airia,
x.t.2.] 9 airfa means causa, but not in the sense of res or relation (Grotius) :
‘“si ita res ae habet hominis cum uzore” (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

1 Mark xvi. 14; Rom. 1. 5; Acts vil. 51;
Sir. xvi. 10; Deut. x. 16.

3 xara Scaddpous ainsas picovvrey ras yaeras,
nai pH xaradAatroudywy aurais. "EvonoOérnce
yap dwodvey ravras, iva uh doveiwrra, * ac-
cording to the various reasons of those
hating their wives, and not being reconciled

tothem. For he enjoined by law to put
away these, in order that they might not
be slain,’’ Euthymius Zigabenus.

® Hug. de conjug. vinculo indtesolud. p. 4 f.;
Mater’s note on 1 Cor. vil. 11.

‘Gratz, Welsse, Volkmar, Schenkel.

340 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

aliquis cum uxore versari cogatur,” ‘‘the cause, by which any one may be
compelled to abide with his wife.” According to the text, 9 airia can
only be taken as referring back fo the question concerning divorce, xara
naocav airiav, ver. 8. The correct interpretation, therefore, must be as fol-
lows : If 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 ropveia 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 withdraw my former interpretation of airia in the sense of guilt,
that, namely, which was understood to be expressed by the poryéra:.
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: édv pia pévg
toriv } airia 4 uécov Tov avdpd¢ x. THE yuvaKdc } dialevyviovoa, ‘‘ since there is
only one cause which separates between husband and wife.” — ov cup. yan. |
because one cannot be released again, but, with the exception of adultery
alone, must put up with all the woman’s other vices.

Vv. 11, 12. The disciples have just said : ot cupdéper yauqoa. But to thie
saying must rdv Adyoy rovroy be referred, 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,* which would be to contradict His argument in favor of
non-dissolution taken from the objective nature of marriage, no less than
His absolute declaration in v. 32, as well as to render nugatory, for all prac-
tical purposes, the primitive moral law of non-dissolution, by making it de-
pendent on a subjective condition. Besides, the illustration of the eunuchs
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 neces-
sary explanation regarding their ot ovugéper yuzqoa:, and forthis end He by no
means questions their Adyoc, but simply observes that : it is a proposition
which all do not accept, i.e., which all cannot see their way to adopt as a
maxim, but only such as God has endowed with special moral capabilities. Then,
in ver. 12, He explains who are meant by the ol¢ dédora:, namely, such as
have become eunuchs; by these, however, He does not understand literal
eunuchs, whether born such or made such by men, but those who, for the
sake of the Messiah’s kingdom, have made themselves such so far as their
moral dispositions are concerned, 7.e., 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 labor in promoting it, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 82, 34).
Finally, He further recommends this ethical self-castration, this ‘‘ voluntary
chastity” (Luther), when He exclaims : Whosoever is able to accept (to adopt)
at (that which I have just stated), let him accept it !* The yupeiv, ver. 11 f.,

1 Hofmann, Schriftew. II. 2, p. 410 f. more earnest by showing that the good
2 Chrysostom well observes: Hesaysthis, | work is exceedingly great, and not suffer-
wpoOvuotdpous Te mommy Te Sei~ar Uwdpoyxov dy ing the thing to be shut up in the necessity
Td xaTdépOwua, Kal on adueis cig avdyxny vouov of alaw.’’ Comp. 1 Cor. vil. 1f.
7) mpayua cAccORra, ‘both making them

CHAP. XIXx., 13. 341

means simply to receive, and to be understood as referring to 9 spiritual re-
ception, 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,” ‘‘are either unwilling, or do not
attain what they wish,” Augustine. The more common interpretation, praes-
tare posse," might be traced to the rendering capere, but it is precluded by
the fact that the object of the verb is a Adyoc (a saying). Others take it in
the sense of : to understand, with reference, therefore, to the power of ap-
prehension on the part of the ¢ntellect (Maltdonatus, Calovius, Strauss, Bret-
schneider, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald ; similarly Bengel, de Wette, Bleek,
who, however, arbitrarily take rév Aé6y. rovr. as pointing forward to ver. 12).?
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. vii., to each
man’s ability, and that according as he happens to be endowed with the
gift of continence as a donum singulare. Consequently, the celibate of the
clerical order, as such, acts in direct opposition to this utterance of the
Master, especially as the etvovyifev tavréy cannot be acted on by any one
with the certainty of its /asting.* As showing how voluntary celibacy was by
no means universal, and was exceptional even among the apostles them-
selves, see 1 Cor. ix. 5. — The metaphorical use of etvobzicar éavrobc to denote
‘entire absence from sexual indulgence, likewise occurs in Sohar Hz. f. 87,
c. 185; Levit. f. 34, c. 186 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. wu. Krit. 1888, p. 157 ; Redepen-
ning, Origenes, I. p. 444 fi.—That Jesus was not here contemplating any
Essenian abstinence,‘ 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 marriage as impure.

Ver. 13. Comp. Mark x. 18. 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, ina
similar way, children were also brought to the presidents of the synagogues

1“Negat autem Jesus, te, nisi divinitus
concessis viribus tam insigni abstinentiae,
qua a matrimonio abhorreas, parem esse,”
* But Jesus declared that you are not equal
‘(to the effort), unless strength be given you
from heaven for so remarkable abstinence,
by which you refrain from marriage,”
Fritzsche.

380 Plat. Cat. min. 64; Ael. V. ZH. iil. 9;

Phocyl. 86: od ywpet peydAny &c8ayhy adiSaxror
axovey, “an ignorant person is incapable
of hearing a great doctrine," Philo, de mun-
do 1151: avOpwriwos Acyurpds ov xmpet.

Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 40 f.: “‘non
placet Christo immunda continentia,”’ “ Im-
pure continence is not pleasing to Christ.”

« Strauss, Gfrdrer, Philo, U1. p. 810 f., Hil-
genfeld.

342 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in order that they might pray over them (Buxt. Synag. p. 188). The lay-
ing on of the hands (Gen. xlviii. 14) was desired, not as a mere symbol, but as
a means of communicating the blessing prayed for (Acts vi. 6) ; hence, with
a nearer approach to originality, Mark and Luke have simply dyyra: and
arrerat (which, in fact, was understood to be of itself sufficient for the com-
munication in question)..—The conjunctive with iva after the preterite ' serves
to represent the action as immediately present. — abroic] are those of whom
the pooyvéx6y is alleged, 7.e,, those who brought the children. The dis-
ciples wished to protect Jesus from what they supposed to be an unseemly
intrusion and annoyance ; 8 verecundia intempestiva, ‘‘ an unseasonable back-
wardness” (Bengel), as in xx. 31.

Ver. 14. By rév rowobruv 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. 8 ff.), but men of a child-like disposition and character,
xviii. 8 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. vii. 14, not the necessity, for infant baptism;
comp. in general, note on Acts xvi. 15.

Ver. 16 ff.” Eic] one, a single individual out of the multitude. Accord-
ing to Luke, the person in question was an dpywy, not a veavioxoc (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 veéryr. pov
(Mark x. 20).— ri adyabdv ro:fow] is not to be explained, with Fritzsche, as
equivalent to ri dyabdv by rochow, quid, quod bonum sit, faciam? for the young
man had already made an effort to do what is right, but, not being satis-
fied 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 necagaty to
be done in order to have eternal life in the Messianic kingdom, is quite
superfluous (ri ue épwrac, x.7.4.) ; the answer is self-evident, for there is but
one (namely, God, the absolute ideal of moral life) who is the good one,
therefore 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,
alterum non datur ! But if thou (dé, the continuative autem: to tell thee now
more precisely what I wish to impress upon thee by this etc éorly 6 ayaBéc)
desirest to enter into life, keep the commandments (which are given by this

1 Kihner, II. 2, p. 897; Winer, p. 270 (E. 2 Comp. Mark x. 17 ff.; Luke xviil. 18 ff.
T. 859].

CHAP. XIX., 18-20. 343

One dyaéc). © 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 ne (as otherwise we should necessarily have had éyé).
For the explanation of the Received tent, see note on Mark x. 18 ; the claim
to originality must be decided in favor not of Matthew (in answer to
Keim), but of Mark, on whom Luke has also drawn. The tradition fol-
lowed by Matthew seems to have already omitted the circumstance of our
Lord's declining the epithet ayafés. The claims of Mark and Luke are like-
wise favored by Weisse, Bleek, Weiss, Schenkel, Volkmar, Holtzmann,
Hilgenfeld, the last of whom, however, gives the palm in the matter of orig-
inality to the narrative of the Gospel of the Hebrews (N. T. extra can. IV.
p. 16 f.).1— 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 funda-
mental principle of the divine retribution : ei @éAec . . . rhpyooyr rae evrodde,
which impels the sinner to repentance, to a renunciation of his own right-
eousness, and to faith ; comp. notes on Rom. ii. 18 ; Gal. iii. 10 ff.°

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 information respecting the évroAd¢ to which Jesus
referred ; hence rolac, which is not equivalent to rivac, but is to be under-
stood as requesting 8 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 neighbor (Lev. xix. 18), because it was through 7¢ (for which also see
note on xxii. 39) He wished the young man to be tested. This latter com-
mandment, 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 ?* This reply ‘ serves to show that his moral striving after the
Messianic life is confined within the narrow limits of a decent outward be-
havior, without his having felt and understood the spirit of the command-
ments, and especially the boundless nature of the duties implied in the com-
mandment of love, though, at the same time, he has a secret consciousness
that 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.

1 For ovéeig ayabds, «.7.A., comp. Plat. Rep. with the Gospel.” Comp. Apal. Conf. A.,
P. 879 A: ayabds 5 ye Oeds Te SvTc Te KaiArAexréow p. 88.

ovrws, ‘*the Deity is indeed good in reality,
and is to be so represented.”

3? Bengel well remarks: “Jesus securus
ad legem remittit, contritos evangelice con-
solatur,” ‘“* Jesus refers those who feel se-
cure to the law; the contrite he consoles

® Comp. Ps. xxxix. 4: iva yw ri vorepes tye;
1 Cor. xii. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11.

* Plat. Rep. p. 484 D: und év arAdrAm pnderi
mdper aperas vorepovvras, “those not at all
coming behind in any department of ex-
cellence.”’

344 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 21. TéAecoc] perfect, one, who for the obtaining of eternal life, cpdév
éri torepei. 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 isit to be regarded merely in the light of a recommendation, but
as acommand. Observe that the Lord does not prescribe this to him as his
sole duty, but only in connection with axodobfe: po. 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 put-
ting 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 dissat-
isfaction he was not aware of his actual weakness in that direction. — zrwyoic]
the poor. — év ovpave] thou wilt have (instead of thy earthly goods) a treasure
in 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.?

Ver. 22 f. Avrotuevac] 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.* — dvoxéAwe] because his heart usually clings
too tenaciously to his possessions (vi. 19-21) to admit of his resigning them
at 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.‘ For rd, comp. xviii. 19. The point of the comparison is sim-
ply the fact of the impossibility. A similar way of proverbially expressing
the utmost difficulty occurs in the Talmud with reference to an elephant.*
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 xéyucdov to be the correct reading (as in several cursive manuscripts),
or ascribing this meaning to xdyundoc (revég in Theophylact and Euthymius
Zigabenus), is all the more inadmissible that xéuydoc never has any other
meaning than that of a camel, while the form xdy:Ao¢ can only be found in
Suidas and the Scholiast on Arist. Vesp. 1080, and is to be regarded as pro-

4“Difficultatem exaggerat,’’ Melanch-

thon.

1 The Catholics found upon this passage
the consilium evangelicum of poverty. as well

as the opera supererogativa in general. See,
on the other hand, Miller, von d. Sdnde, I.
p. 69 ff. ed. 5.

2 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,” ‘Sell all that you have, and
moreover it is necessary that you become
proselytes.”’

*““Aurum enervatio virtutum est,”
Augustine.

‘The passage in the Koran, Swr. vil. 88:
‘*Non ingredientur paradisum, donec tran-
seat camelus foramen acus,"’ “They shall
not enter paradise, until a camel pass
through a needle’s eye,” is to be traced to
an acquaintance with our present saying ;
but for an analogous proverb concerning
the camel which “ saltat in cabo,”’ see Jera-
moth f. 45, 1. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p.
1722, and Wetstein.

CHAP, XIX., 25-27. 345

ceeding from a misunderstanding of the present passage. Further, the pro-
verbial expression regarding the camel likewise occurs in xxiii. 24, and the
Rabbinical similitude of the elephant is quite analogous. —eioeAdeiv after
pag. is universally interpreted : to enter in (to any place). On the question
as to whether /a¢i¢ is to be recognized as classical, see Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 90. To render this word by a narrow gate, a narrow mountain-pass,' or
anything but a needle, is simply inadmissible.—The danger to salvation con-
nected with the possession of riches does not lie in these considered in them-
selves, but in the difficulty experienced by sinful man in subordinating them
to the will of God.’

Ver. 25. Tig dpa] 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. The general expression ri¢ cannot be
intended to mean what rich man (Euthymius Zigabenus, Weiss), as is further
evident from what is said by Jesus in vv. 28, 24.

Ver. 26. 'EuBaépac}] This circumstance is also noticed by Mark. The look
which, during a momentary pause, preceded the following utterance was
doubtless one of a telling and significant character, and calculated to impress
the startled disciples (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus : juépy BAéupaze,
‘‘ with a gentle look”’).*— rapa dvOpdérog] 90 far as men are concerned, i.e.,
not hominum judicio (Fritzsche, Ewald), but serving to indicate that the im-
possibility is on the part of man, is owing to human inability, Luke i. 87. —
rovro] namely, the cw7va:, 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 salvation, to the omnipotence
of God’s converting and saving grace.

~ Ver. 27. Peter’s question is suggested by the behavior of that young
man (hence aroxp., see note on xi. 25), who left Jesus rather than part with
his wealth. The apostles had done quite the contrary (jueic placed em-
phatically at the beginning, in contrast to the young man). — a¢fxapev révra]
employment, the custom-house, worldly things generally. It is therefore a
mistake to suppose that the disciples were still pursuing their former avo-
cations while laboring in the service of Jesus (not to be proved from John
xxi. 3 ff.).‘ — ri dpa forat jyuiv;] 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
Hisreply. 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, ri dpa fora: pyivs
but the question is facitly 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.

{ 8o Furer in Schenkel's Zez. ITI. p. 476. Hermas, Pastor, \. 8. 6.
2So Clemens Alexandrinus: ris 0 cwgo- § Comp. Luke xx. 17; John i. 43.
pevor mAovoros ; *‘ what Rich Man is saved!" 4 See Fritzsche, ad Mark. p. 441.

346 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 28. This part of the promise is omitted in Mark, but comp. Luke
xxii, 80. — In answer to the question concerning the reward, Jesus, in the
first place, promises a special recompense to His disciples, namely, that they
should have the honor of being associated with Him in judging the nation
at the second coming ; then, in ver. 29 (comp. Mark x. 29 ; Luke xviii. 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 calculated to rebuke everything in the shape of false pre-
tensions, and which is further illustrated by the parable in xx. 1 ff. — There
is no touch of irony throughout this reply of Jesus (in answer to Liebe
in Winer’s exeget. Stud. I. p. 78).’— év rq matsyyevecia] in the regeneration,
does not belong to axodovijoavréc por (Hilary, explaining the words by
baptismal regeneration (Titus iii. 5); also Calvin, who understands by rady-
yeveoia 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 contemporancously with the actual setting
up of the kingdom ; the aroxardorao:c, Acts iii. 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 radyyev., and supply éore (‘‘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 drav (otherwise one should have expected éray dé). The
words belong to xaficec@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 conyn wv'rt).? When the resurrection is over, and the last judg-
ment is going on (and it is to this part of the scene that the Lord is here re-
ferring), this renovation will have already begun, and will be in the course
of development, so that Jesus can say with all propriety: év r@ waduyy.*
Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche, interpret the ex-
pression of the resurrection, in favor of which such passages might be
quoted as Long. iii. 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 (avdoraoic).—brav xabicy, x.t.A.] a8 judge. —dé6&n¢ avrov] the throne,
that is, on which the Messiah shows Himself in His glory, xxv. 31. —xat
avrot (see critical notes) : likewise, just as the Messiah will sit on His throne.
— xaficecbe] 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.‘

2 Comp. Fleck, de Regno div. p. 436 ff. Bengel. Comp. wadAtyyevecia tas warpises in

2 See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p.712 ; Bertholdt,
Christol. p. 214 f.; Gfrérer, JaArh. d. Heils, TL
p. 272 ff. Comp. Rom. villi. 19 ff.; 2 Pet. iif. 18.

3 * Nova erit genesis, oul preerit Adamus
secundus,”’ ‘‘ There will be a new creation,
over which the second Adam will preside,”

Joseph, Anét. xi. 3.9; wadcyyey. rer SAwy In
Anton. xi. 1. Philo, de muna. p. 1165 C. ; leg.
ad Caj. p. 1087 B.

4‘“Thronum Judae sumsti alius, Acts 1.
20," ‘‘ Another has taken the throne of
Judas, Acts |. 290," Bengel.

CHAP. XIX., 29. 347

apivovrec] 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
xdapuoc (1 Cor. vi. 2), 80 here it is specially promised to the disciples as such
that they shall have the peculiar privilege of taking part with Him in judg-
ing 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 xéoyoc, therefore it will be so
far still unconverted, 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 south and the Ninevites (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus,
Erasmus, Maldonatus),—a view which does not at all correspond with the
picture of the judgment given in the text, although those expositors cor-
rectly saw that it is the unbelieving 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
tteclf or its special reference to the dwdexdgvAov 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 them-
selves 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 Pau-
line Luke (xxii. 80) does not omit this promise, although he gives it in
connection with a different occasion,—a circumstance which by Schnecken-
burger, 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 manifest 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. — agjxev] has left, completely abandoned. Comp. ver. 27. — évexev r.
ov. p.] i.€., because my name represents the contents of his belief and con-
fession.* 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. 85 ff. — rodAardaciova (see critical notes)
Afwerat, according to the context (see xabiceobe, ver. 28 ; xAnpovouhcer, ver.
29; gcovra:, ver. 80), can certainly have no other reference but to the
recompense in the future kingdom of the Messiah, in which a manifold com-
pensation will be given for all that may have been forsaken. Here the
view of Matthew diverges from that of Mark x. 88, Luke xviii. 80, both of
whom represent this manifold compensation as being given during the

1 Comp. Luke xxi. 12,

348: THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 xa:pd¢ ovrog and the aid épyé-

yevoc in Mark and Luke may be regarded as the result of exegetical reflec-
tion 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 usval interpretation in the case of Matthew
as well, is to refer the promise of a manifold compensation to the aid» oiroe,
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. iii. 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 Himsel/, as being (xii. 49 f.)
infinitely more to us than father, mother, brother, etc. (Maldonatus, Calo-
vius). Julian mocked at the promise. —x. funy ai. xAnp.] 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 invitation and will.’

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 disciple-
ship that is to be the standard of reward at the setting up of the approach-
ing 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 versi. The
correct construction and translation are not those of Fritzsche, who inter-
prets : Many will be first though last (éoxaro: dvrec, namely, before the second
coming), and last though first (pita dbvreg), but those usually adopted,
according to which zpéro is the subject of the first, and gozaro: 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 woddol . . . zpéroe stand
so far apart serves to render roAAoi very emphatic : In multitudes, however,
will the first be last, and vice versd. The second clause is to be supple-
mented thus : kai roAAot gcovra: Eoyarot mpa@ro.. But to understand para
and éoyaro: as referring, not to time, 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, Bleck),—is forbidden by
the subsequent parable, the connection of which with the present passage is
indicated by yép. 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 Gen-
tiles (who were later in being called) on the other (Theophylact, Grotius).

1 Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 285 f.

CHAP. XX. 849

CHAPTER XX.

Ver. 6. cpav] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a supplement,
following BDL ¥, vas. Or. — éordrac] Elz., Fritzsche, Scholz insert apyovc,
which is not found in B C** DL 8, vss. and Fathers. Interpolation taken
from vv. 3 and 7. — Ver. 7. x. 8 édv 9 dixacov, Ajpeobe] is wanting in important
codd. (BDL Z 8), vas. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. For
Anweose, several vss. have dabo vobis. The words are a very ancient interpola-
tion, in conformity with ver. 4. — Ver. 8. Delete atroic, with Tisch. 8, following
CLZR&, Or. A supplement. — Ver. 10. rAciova] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.
7: wAeiov, following B C* N Z A, min. vas. Or. The reading of the Received
text is of the nature of an explanation (a greater number of denarii). — For avé
read 76 avd, with Tisch., following CL N Z ¥&, 33.. The article was omitted in
conformity with ver. 9. — Ver. 12. 5r:] does not occur, it is true, in B C** D &,
1, Valg. It. Syr., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. ; but how readily may it
have been overlooked befure otro: ! — Ver. 15. The first 7 is deleted by Lachm.,
following B D L Z, Syre** Arm. (in accordance with which evidence, as well as
that of %, the arrangement 4 61 zoijoa: should be restored). Correctly ; an
old interpolation for the purpose of marking the question. There would be no
motive whatever for omitting the 7. For the second # (in Elz.) we should, with
Tisch. 7, read ei, following B** H 8 T, Chrys. Did. and many min. From not being
understood, ei was all the more readily replaced by 7, owing to the pronuncia-
tion being much the same. — Ver. 16. roAAol ydp eto KAnrot, dAiyoe dé bxAexroi)}
omitted in BL Z &, 36, Copt. Sahid., and deleted by Tisch. 8, with whom Keim
concurs. But it is not at all likely that the words would be interpolated 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 ap-
parent irrelevancy may have led to the omission of the saying, which is sup-
ported by testimony so old as that of C D, It. Syr., unless we suppose it to
have been due rather to the simple homoeoteleuton éoyaTOI. . . exAexTOI. —
Ver. 17. év ri édy xai] read with Lachm, and Tisch.: xai év 77 dd9, following
BL ZX, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Persp. Or. (twice). At avery early period
(Valg. It. Hil.), ¢v rg 6d@ was omitted either accidentally, or because it is like-
wise awanting in the parallel passages in the other Synoptists. But, in restor-
ing it, it would most naturally occur to those who did so to insert it after car’
idiav. — Ver. 19. dvaorjoerat}] Tisch. : éyep@qcera:, following C* L N Z X&, Or,
Chrys. The reading of the Received text is taken from the parallel passages. —
Ver. 22. rivety ;] Elz., Scholz insert: «al (Scholz: }) rd Bdrriaya, 6 eyo Barrilouar,
BarrioOjvat, against BDL Z &, 1, 22, the majority of vss. and Or. Epiph.
Hilar. Jer. Ambr. Juv. Taken from Mark x. 38. — Ver. 23. ziec@e] Elz., Scholz,
in opposition to the same witnesses, insert : xai (Scholz: 9) ro Parriopa § eyo
Jarrigouat, BarricOnoecbe. — Ver. 26. Eorac év tyiv] for écra:, Lachm. has éori»,
following B D Z, Cant. Sabid. Correctly ; the reading of the Received text is

an alteration to suit what follows in this and the 27th verse, where, with
8

a

350 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8, we ought to read éora: instead of forw, in accord-
ance with preponderating evidence ; éorw (likewise derived from Mark x. 43) is a
gloss. But Fritzsche was scarcely warranted in restoring dé after ofvu¢, ver.
26, for it is condemned by decisive evidence, and is a connecting particle bor-
rowed from Mark. — Ver. 31. xpaZov] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : éxpaéay, following B D
L ZTl &, min. Copt. Sahid. A repetition from ver. 30.— Ver. 33. avorzyOcow
pu. ot 669.] Lachm. Tisch. 8: avocydocy of 669. 7u., following BD L Z &, min.
Or. Chrys. To be adopted, inasmuch as the first aorist was the more common
tense, comp. ix. 30, John ix. 10. — Ver. 34. d¢@aAyov] BD L Z, min. Or. have
éuuétev. So Lachm., Rinck, Tisch. 8. Correctly ; the more usual term has been
adopted from the context, — Lachm. and Tisch. 8 delete avrav of d¢@aAuoi after
dvéBAepav. The words are not found inB DL Z &, min. vas. (also Vulg. It.)
and a few Fathers, but they were left out as being superfluous and cumber-
some, There was no motive whatever for inserting them.

Remarx.—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. : duetc dé Cyreire ex pixpov abtjoa xn. éx peilovoc eAarrov
elvat, Kicepyduevor dé nal rapaxAnOévreo deurvijoa: yp avaxdiveode ei¢ rove é&éxov-
tac réroue, py wore Evdusdrepd¢ cov EnEADy, Kad mpoceAIOv oO dettvoKAnTup eliry cor
éry xdTw yapet, kal KataroyuvOnon. 'Edv dé avaréoge ei¢ rov frrtova rémov xai EniAby
cov Array, épei ao 6 derrvoxAnrup* ovvaye Ett dvw, xat ora cot TOTO yYpHotpoy :
‘‘But seek ye to increase from little, and from greater to be less. Moreover,
being invited to supper, do not recline in the choice places, lest a more honor-
able man than thou approach, and he who invites to supper come to thee and
say, Go down still lower, and thou be put toshame. But if thou art reclining in
an inferior place, and one less than thou come up, he who invites to supper
will say to thee, Go up still higher, and this will be profitable to thee.’’ Comp.
Hilar., also Syre’.

Ver. 1. The parable is peculiar to Matthew.—ydp] explaining and con-
firming what has been said in xix. 80. — av@p. oixod.] See notes on xiii. 24,
xviii, 23. — aya rpwi] Comp. notes on xiil. 29, Acts xxviii. 28 : axd zpui.’ —
eig Tov aureA, avrov] into his vineyard, into which he wished to send them,
ver. 2. Comp. Acts vii. 9 ; and see, in general, Wilke, Rhetor. p. 47 f.*

Ver. 2. 'Ex dyvapiou tiv juépav] After he had agreed with the laborers, on
the condition that he was to pay them a denarius per day. é&x does not denote
the payment itself (which would have been expressed by the genitive, ver.
13), although éx dyvap. 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.? 17 juépav 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

1 Classical writers would say : duaéy, dua Mincohmeyer, {did. p. 728. For proof that
TH NMépa, Gua SpOpy, and such like. itis not to be regarded as furnishing direc-
3 On the whole parable. see Rupprecht in __ tions for the regulation of offices, see Kéat-
the Stud. u. Krit. 1847, p. 396 ff.; Steffensen, lin, d. Wesen d. Kirche, 1854, p. 52 ff.
ibid. 1848, p. 686 ff.; Besser inthe Luther. 3 Comp. Kahner, II. 1, p. 899 f.
Zetischr. 1851, p. 122; Rudel, ibid. p. 511;

CHAP. Xx., 3-12. 351

they might work. Asan accusative of time (which it is usually supposed to
be), it would not correspond with cvuger. 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
+t ayopa] where they were waiting in expectation of getting employment.
The men in question belonged to the class of free laborers.’

Ver. 4. Kaxeivoic] to those also he spoke. The point 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. — é éav 9 dixacov] so that, as part of the
day had already elapsed, he did not make with them any definite agreement
as to wages for the day, and therefore acted differently in this case from
what he had done in the former.

Ver. 5 ff. ’Exoinoev dcatrwc] 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. — dr] because.

Ver. 8. ’Owiac dé yev.] i.¢., at the close of the twelfth hour (six o’clock in
the evening). — 16 émitpértw airov) the chief of the servants (otxovéyuoc), to
whom was entrusted the management of the household, Luke viii. 3. — rév
poOév} the wages in question. The oixovéuo¢c had instructions from his master
to give the same amount of wages to all, although all had not wrought the
same number of hours. — fw rév mpdruy] is connected with axddog ayr. r.
peo8., without anything requiring to be understood (and continuing, and
such like), as is evident from those passages in which the terminus ad quem
is placed jirst.?

Ver. 9 ff. Oi wept tiv évdex. Spav] that is, those who, according to ver. 6,
were sent into the vineyard about the eleventh hour. —rAeiov] more than a
denarius, plainly not more denarii. — avd] used distributively.* The article
té before ava dnv., ver. 10 (see critical notes), denotes : the sum amounting in
each case to a denarius, so that in analyzing 6v 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. *Orc] recitative, not because (yoyybfouev, bre), Inasmuch as the words
Atyovrec’ Sri, x.T.A. express the contents of the yoyybfecv. — otro] spoken dis-
dainfully. — éxoincav] they have spent one hour.‘ The ordinary interpreta-
tion ; they have wrought, labored, 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
mov éroinoag Means : where hast thou been occupying thyself ?) ; there would
have been more reason to interpret thus: they have been doting it (that is,
the work) for one hour, if the specifying of the time in connection with

V Poll. fil, 82: dAev@epor pv, 5a weviay Sdéw’ = Luke xxifi. 5; Acts 1. 21; John viil. 9
épyupip SovAevovres, ‘free men, but on ac- 3 Winer, p. 872 [E. T. 496].
count of poverty serving for money.” 4 Acts xv. 88, xvill. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 25;
* For example, Plat. Legg. vi. p. 771 C; Eccles. vi. 12; Wetstein on this passage;
wéoas tag Stavomas éxet wdxpr rev Sadexa awd Schaeffer, ad Boe. p. 813; Jacobs in Anthol.
mas dptduevos, “it has all the distributions, IX. p. 449, X. p. 44
beginning from one up to twelve.” Comp.

302 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

éxoinoav had not suggested our explanation as the most obvious and most
natural. — r. xaicura | Those others had not entered till the evening.

Vv. 13-15. ‘Evi] One, as representing the whole. — éraipe] Comrade, a
mild way of introducing a rebuke, similar to *‘ good friend” among ourselves. '
So also ayafé, 3é2rcove.? — oix adcxa oe] From the standpoint of justice. —
dyvapiov}] genitive of price. Somewhat different from the idea of ver. 2. —
Aé79 dé] ‘‘ Summa hujus vocis potestas,” ‘‘the force of this word is the very
highest,” Bengel. — év roic¢ zuoic] not to be taken in the general sense of : ta
my affairs (Fritzsche, de Wette), but, according to the context, to be under-
stood in the more definite sense of : in disposing of my own property.* — ei 6
69fa7,ud¢ cov, x.t.4.] see critical notes. The e is not interrogatice, as in xii.
10, xix. 3 (for, according to the connection, the doubé 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 ei may be taken as
almost equivalent to ci xai :* if thine eye is evil (i.¢., envious, comp. Mark vii.
22, and J, Prov. xxviii. 22; Ecclus. xiv. 10), because I (I, on my part,
hence ¢yé) am good! The mark of interrogation after zyoic is therefore to
be deleted.

Ver. 16. The teaching of the parable : So,—just, as in the case here sup-
posed, those who were the last to be sent into the vineyard received the same
amount of wages as the first ; s0 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 disadvantage.
Comp. xix. 30.—écovra:] 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 zpéroc from the kingdom, and the admission of
the écyaro: ;* and as little to favor the view, adopted by Steffensen : those
who esteem themselves last shall be first, and those who esteem themselces first shall
be last, for the laborers in the parable were in reality foxaro: and mpdrot.
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 con-
stitute the leading thought set forth in the parable, though, no doubt, it may
be supposed to underlie it. — roAdol yap, x.r.A.] Confirmation of what has
just been said about the éoyaro: being put upon an equality with the
mporo : ‘‘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 éxAexroi are not the éoyaro: (those, as Ols-

1 Comp. xxif. 12, xxvi. 50. 969 C.
28ee Herm. ad Vig. p. 722. Comp. Wet- 4 Jacobs, Del. Epigr. p. 405; Hartung,
stein. Partikell, TI. p. 212; Kihner, II. 2, p. 991.

* Comp. 7d oéy, and Plato, Legg. fl. p. 5 Krehl in the Sdchs. Stud. 18438,

CHAP. XX., 16. 353

hausen fancies, whose attitude toward the kingdom 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 xAyroi. Weare 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: xai oi
nparot éoxaro, for, from this equalizing of the first with the last, only a few
will be excepted,—namely, those whom God has selected for 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 con-
template the prospect of receiving rewards of a peculiarly distinguished char-
acter (xix. 28), but does not warrant the certainty of it, nor does it recognize
the existence of anything like so-called valid claims ; for, according to the
idea running through the parable, the éxdoy7 is to be ascribed simply to the
purpose of God (Rom. ix. 11, 15 f.). See ver. 15. Comp. also note on
xxii, 14,

RemarE.—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 oixovduoe is Christ ; the (welfth
hour, 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 themselves
to the service of God’s kingdom ; the denarius denotes the blessings of the Mes-
sianic 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
mporo: are represented as murmuring, whereupon they are dismissed from the
master’s presence. Calvin appropriately observes: ‘‘ hoc murmur asserere no-
luit ultimo die futurum, sed tantum negare causam fore murmurandi,’’ ‘‘He was
unwilling to affirm that this murmur would be at the last day, but only fo declare
that there would not be cause for murmuring.” But there is nothing to warrant
the view that, inasmuch as they consented to be hired only for definite wages,
the rpoéro betrayed an unworthy disposition, while those who came later exhib-
ited a more commendable spirit in being satisfied simply with the promise of 8
édv 9 dixaiov. 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 dif-
ferent hours as referring to the different stages of life, childhood, youth, man-
hood, and old age (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), inasmuch
as they are meant to represent various periods between the time of Christ and
the ¢lose of the aldy otroc, 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 the leading epochs of history from
the beginning of the world (1) till the flood ; (2) till Abraham ; (3) till Moses ; (4)
till Christ ; (5) till the end of the world. This view is decidedly forbidden by
xix. 29f. Yet similar explanations, based upon the history of the world, are
likewise given by Theophylact and others. No less foreign is the reference to

354 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the Jews and Gentiles, which Grotius, but especially Hilgenfeld, following
Jerome, has elaborated, so that the first of the laborers are taken to represent
the Jews, whose terms of service, so to speak, are distinctly laid down in the
law, and subsequently reaffirmed, 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, pre-
cisely 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 Jows to precedence and distinction in the kingdom.

Vv. 17-19. According to the Synoptists, Jesus now takes occasion, as He
approaches Jerusalem (ava. cig ‘Iepoo. 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.’—.xar’ idiav]* There
were others travelling along with them. — Oavdry] dative of direction : eren
to death.* This is in accordance with later Greek usage.‘ On the prediction
of the resurrection, see note on xvi. 21.

Ver. 20. Tére] after the announcement in vv. 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 apos-
tles. — airovcé 1] making a request. It is to anticipate to suppose r to
imply aliquid magni (Maldonatus, Fritzsche). Comp. ver. 21, ri 0ée¢¢.°

Ver. 21. She thus designates the two most distinguished positions in the
Messiah’s kingdom. For among Orientals the foremost place of honor was
considered to be immediately on the right, and the next immediately on the
left of the king.* Wetstein and Paulus on this passage. She desired to see
her sons not merely in the position of ordinary ovyxAypovéyo: and ovpaca-
evovrec (Rev. ili. 21), but in that of the most distinguished proceres regni. —
eiré iva] a8 in iv. 8. The fact that the gentle and humble Jon 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.’

Ver, 22. Ovx oidare, «.7.A.] You do not understand what is involved in your
request ; you do not seem to be aware that the highest stages of ovu3a-
ovAevey*® in my kingdom cannot be reached without previously sharing in
such sufferings as I have to endure. Jesus addresses the two disciples them-
selves. — divacbe] said with reference to moral ability. — 1d orfptov] D3,

1 Comp. Mark x. 82 ff. ; Luke xviil. 31 ff. ad Phryn. p. 475; Grimm's note on Wisd. as

2 8idre ovK C8er TavTa pabeir TOVs WOAAOUS, iva above.
nn oxavdarcc8@ory, ** because it was not nec- 5 On the present participle, see Kihner,
essary for the multitude to learn these II. 2, p. 622f.; Dissen, ad Pind. OV. vii. 14:
things, lest they should be caused to Bornem. ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 17.
stumble,’’ Euthymius Zigabenuus. * Joseph. And. vi. 11. 9.

3 See Winer, p. 197 f. [E. T. 268]. 7 Comp. Introduction to John, § 3

¢ Comp. Wisd. fl. 20; 2 Pet. il. 6; Lobeck, 8 2 Tim. fi. 12; 1 Cor. iv. 8

9

CHAP. XX., 23-25. 355

. figurative description of his fate generally, and of his sufferings in par-

ticular.’

Ver. 28. The disciples reply : dvvéye6a, not because they did not quite
understand what Jesus meant (ver. 18 f.), but because they were animated
by asincere though self-confident determination, such, too, as was afterwards
sufficiently verified in the case of both, only in somewhat different ways. —
ovn gory éudyv dovvar, GAR olc Hroiu. td Tov warp. .] 8c. doffoera: 18 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.* Jesus thus discourages the questionable request by frankly de-
claring that the granting of what has just been asked is one of those things
which God 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, sec 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 a4 as equivalent to ci uf ; the latter by Augustine, Luther, ac-
cording to whom the words as man (‘‘secundum formam servi’’) are to be
understood, and Bengel, who modifies ovx éoriv éuév dovva: by erroneously
supplying the words : till after my death. Further, the words 10 pév rorfp.
yu. wieode are to be regarded as expressing the Lord’s unfeigned trust and con-
Jidence in the duvdyeba of the disciples ; He feels confident that they will cerify
it by their actions. His words, therefore, are only indirectly tantamount to a
prediction, and that not exactly of death by martyrdom, which was certainly
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
Jull of poison,‘ 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,®
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. ’Hyavéxryoav] Jealousy of the two disciples who were thus aspiring
to be first. *

Ver. 25 ff. Those ambitious desires which prompted the request of the
sons of Zebedee have likewise a good deal to do with the displeasure of the
other disciples. Accordingly, Jesus endeavors to check their ambition by

1See the exposition of Isa. li. 17; Jer. cussion of this point, see Hilgenfeld in his
xlix. 12; Martyr. Polyc. 14. Zetlschr. 1866, p. 78 ff.; Overbeck, ibid. 1867,

3 For éuov dort with infinite, comp. Plat.
Legg. li. p. 664 B: dudv ay ein Adyeuw, ‘it
would be mine to say.”

* The statement of Gregorius Hamartolos
(quoted by Nolte in the 71d. theol. Quar-
tolechr. 1862, p. 466), to the effect that, in his
Aéyia, 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 dis-

p. 68 ff.; Holtzmann in Schenkel's Zez, III.
p. 888; Keim, III. p. 44 f.; Steitz in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 487 ff.

4 See Fabricius, ad Cod. Apoer. I. p. 376;
Tischendorf, Act. ap. apocr. p. 269.

® Tertullian, de pracscr. 96.

* Eathymius Zigabenus: ot Séxa rots Svc
pabytrais ébOdvycay, Tov mpwrteiwy epieudvois,
** the ten are envious of the two disciples
aiming at the highest distinctions.”

356 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

insisting on the humble spirit of the servant as the way to true greatness in
the ranks of His followers. —oi apyovre¢ rév é6v.| the heathen rulers. —
xataxup. | the intensive force of the compound verb serves to convey the idea
of oppressive rule.’ Similarly with regard to the xarefove., which occurs
nowhere else, and which may be rendered : they practise violence tovard. —
avrév] refers in both instances to r. svar. —oi peydda] the magnates.* — ory
oitwg éotiv év dyiv] it isnot so among you. Observe the present (sce critical
notes) ; there is no such order of things among you. — yéyac] great, not
equivalent to uéycoroc, but in the sense of : to occupy a high and distin-
guished 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 Zora: ; for, in the event of any one wishing to become great, he
will aim at it by means of serving ; the latter is the way to the former. —
mparoc] one of the first in point of rank, a sort of climar to péyac, a8 didxovog is
to dovAoc. The emphasis in the consequent clauses rests on those two predi-
cates, and hence the emphatic word is placed in each case at the close.
Ver. 28. *Qorep]* Observe here the consciousness, which Jesus had from
the very first, that to sacrifice Himself was His great divine mission.‘ — dia-
xovnbivat] to be waited upon, as grandees are. — xal dodva:] intensive; adding
on the highest act, the culminating point in the dcaxorgoa: ; but dotva: is made
choice of, because the yuyf (the soul, as the principle of the life of the body)
is conceived of as Airpov (a ransom) ; for, through the shedding of the blood
(xxvi. 28 ; Eph. i. 7), it becomes the riu4 of the redemption, 1 Cor. vi. 20,
vii. 23. Comp. note on John x. 11. —avri roAAdy] avri denotes substitution.
That which is given as a ransom takes the place (is given instead) of those
who are to be set free in consideration thereof. The Airpov* is an avridurpor
(1 Tim. ii. 6), avréAAaypua (xvi. 26). Whether avr? roAAdv should be joined
to Atirpov, which is the simpler course, or connected with dotva:, is a matter
of perfect indiffcrence,* so far as the meaning of dvri is concerned. In any
case, that meaning is strictly and specifically defined by Airpov (1P5),’ ac-

1 Comp. Diod. Sic. xiv. 64, and the Sept.
passim ; see Schieusner ; 1 Pet. v. 8; Acts
xix. 16.

2Hom. Od. xvili. 882, comp. seyioraves,
Mark vi. 21: ‘“‘ipsis saepe dominis imperio-
siores,”’ ‘‘often more imperious than their
lords themselves,’’ Bengel.

®* Summum exemplum,” Bengel. Comp.
Phil. ii. 5; Rom. xv. 8; Polyc. PAU. 5: bs
éyévero didxovos wavTwv.

4Comp. Dorner, sindlose Yollk. Jesu, p
44 ff.

8 Plat. Legg. xi. p.919 A, Rep. p. 203 D,
Thuc. vi. 5. 4.

* In angwer to Hofmann, Schriftbew. IT. 1,
p. 300.

7 Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, p.
222 ff., defines Avrpov as meaning something
given by way of equivalent in order fo avert
death ; this, however, is not sufficient, for,
throughout the Sept. also, in which 195 is

rendered hy Avrpow (Ex. xxi. 80, xxx. 12;
Num. xxxv. 81 f.; Prov. vi. 85, xill 8), pre
tium redemtionis is found to be the specific
meaning given to the word, although the
connection may sometimes admit er adjunc
fo 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 ren-
dered by Avrpoy, such as fFT- reed (Lev. Xxv.
24, 51), Onda) (Nim. iif. 51), aD (Ex. xxi
80), VID (Isa. xlv. 13). Ritschl interprets
our present passage as follows: “7 am
come to give away my life lo God in sacrifice,
that I may become the substitule of those who
could never hope to succeed in finding, either
Sor themselves or others, any adequate ransom
asa means of securing thetr exemption from
death ; but the eubstitute only of those who,
through fuith and self-denying devotion to my
person, fulfl the condition on which alone the

CHAP. XX., 29-31. 357
cording to which dvri tan only be understood in the sense of sudsttintion
in the act of which the ransom is presented as an equivalent to securé thé
deliverance of those on whose behalf it is paid,—a view which is only con-
firmed 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, 20; 1 John iv,
10; Rom. iti, 25 5 Isa lili, 103 1 Pet. i 18 f,, iii, 18 That which they
are redeemed from is the eternal ax¥Asa, in which, as having the wrath of
God abiding upon them (John iii. 86), they would remain imprisoned (John
iii. 16 ; Gal. iii. 18 ; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 24; Col. i. 14, ii. 18 f.) asin
a state of hopeless bondage (Heb. ii. 15), unless the’guilt of their sins were
expiated. — zoAAdv] The vicarious death of Jesus may be described as having
taken place for all (Rom. v. 18 ; 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; 1 John ii. 2), or for many (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 all men), or look at
it in relation to the subjective appropriation of its results on the part of in-
dividuals (which happens only in the case of believers). So in the present
case, where, accordingly, zoAAdv 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. 85 ff. — Kat éxrop. atraiv ard
'Ieptyé] The Synoptists make no mention whatever of the visit to Ephraim
and the journey to Bethany (mentioned in John xi. 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 morning 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 heal-
ing as having taken place év 16 éyyifew avrov ei¢ ‘Iepx., 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 healing, 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 difficulty connected with the mention of two men is not removed by a
supposed reminiscence of ix. 27 ff. (Strauss), nor explained by supposing
that the blind man of Bethsaida, Mark viii. 22, may have been included
(Holtzmann, Volkmar); but it proves that, in point of authenticity,
Matthew's account compares unfavorably 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. 81 f. “Iva owrfo.] Aim of éreriuyoev avroic.\— They probably saw

ronsom furnished by me can procure the hoped — rag airév, “ the crowd curbed them through
for exemption," p, G88, fespect for Jesus on the ground that the

1 Euthymius Zigabenus says well: éverré- Dblind men were troublesome to him,”
micey avrovs cis Tushy tov “Incod, es évoxAovr- Comp. xix. 18,

358 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

that He was just then in the act of conversing on some topic or other. —ri
OfAere rrorgow ipiv;| The question is intended to increase their confidence by
means of the hope which it excites.' There is no need to supply iva, but
comp. note on xiii. 28.

Ver. 33 f. “Iva avocydorv, x.7.A.] answering the above question in terms of
the object aimed at in the cry, éAéyoov judas, of which iva avory., x.r.A. is the
continuation. — #yparo] different from Mark and Luke, who represent Jesus
as healing merely by the power of His word. — rév ouparon (see critical notes),
used for variety, being, as far as the mcaning is concerned, the same as
6¢0aA poi. *— avéBAa. ait. of 690.) their eyes recovered the power of seeing ; natvely
told. — 7xoAcbf. abrG] we cannot tell whether they followed him peeaneny
though this seems probable from Mark x. 46.

1 Comp. note on John v. 6. % Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 4. 17; Plat. Ale. L p. 183 B.

CHAP. XXI. 359

' CHAPTER XXI.

Ver. 1. rpd¢ rd dpo¢] Instead of mpd¢, Lachm. and Tisch. have eis, following B
C** 33, codd. of It. Or. (once). Correctly ; zpdé¢ is taken from Mark xi. 1 ; Luke
xix. 29. — Ver. 2. ropev@nre] Lachm. Tisch. 8: ropevecGe, following important
evidence. But the transcribers liappened to be more familiar with sropeveoGe (x. 6,
xxii. 9, xxv. 9, 41).— For drévavri, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have xarévayti, which, though
sanctioned by important evidence, is borrowed from Mark and Luke. — aydyeze,
for which, with Lachm., dyere should be read, is likewise taken from the par-
allel passages (see, however, on Mark xi. 2). — Ver. 3. With the Received text,
Lachm, and Tisch. read drvoreAci, following BD H M &, Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid.
Arm. Or., while Matth. Griesb. Scholz, on the other hand, have adopted dzoc-
réAdec. Important evidence on both sides. The connection seemed to require
the future, which was accordingly introduced here and in Mark xi. 3. — Ver. 4.
dAov] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following C* DL Z ®&, vss.
Or. Chrys. Hil. Comp. i. 22, xxvi. 56. — Ver. 5. raAov] Lachm. Tisch. : ém
maAov, following BLN ®&, 1, 124, vss. Correctly ; in the Sept. there is only
one évi.— Ver. 6. The evidence of B C D 33 in favor of cvvéragev (Lachm.
Tisch. 7) is sufficient. Tisch. 8, with the Received text, reads rpocéraéev, the
more usual form. — Ver. 7. For the first érdéyva avrav, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read
éx’ avray, following B L Z ¥, 69, Or., with which we may class D and codd. of
It., which have éx’ avréy. The transcriber would be apt mechanically to antic-
ipate the subsequent erdrw. — émexaOicev (Elz. : érexaQicav) is supported by de-
cisive 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. éorpdvvvov] Tisch. 8 : éotpwoay, following only D ®* Or. A
repetition of éozpwoav in the earlier part of the verse. — Ver. 9. spodyovrec]
Lachm. Tisch. : tpodéy, avré6v, following B C D L 8, min. vss. Or. Eus. This
aivéyv, which in itself is not indispensable, was still more apt to be omitted in
consequence of Mark. xi. 9. — Ver. 11. Lachm. (B D &, Or.) puts 6 zpog. before
"Incove ; 80 also Tisch. 8. But how current was the use of the phrase, ‘“‘ Jesus
of Nazareth !"’ — Ver. 12. rod Ocot] deleted by Lachm., following B L &, min.
vas. and Fathers. It was omitted as superfluous, and from its not being found
in Mark and Luke, also in consequence of its not occurring elsewhere in the
New Testament. — Ver. 13. érotjoare] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: oveire, follow-
ingB L &, 124, Copt. Aeth. Or. Eus, Correctly ; éxoijoare is from Luke. Comp.
on Mark xi. 17. — Ver. 19. unxére] Lachm. and Tisch.: of znxéri, following, it is
true, only B L; but od would readily be omitted, all the more that Mark xi. 14
has simply pnxérs. — Ver. 23. éAOévrs arg] Lachm. Tisch. 8: éA@évro¢ avrov.
See on viii. 1. — Ver. 25. ’Iwévvov] Lachm. and Tisch: 1d ’Iwévvoi, which is
sufficiently attested by B C Z &, Or.; ré was omitted as superfluous. — rap’
éauvr.] Lachm. : éy éaur., following B L M** Z, min. Cyr. Gloss in accordance
with xvi. 7, 8. — Ver. 28. wov] upon important evidence, is with Fritzsche,

360 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Tisch. is to be deleted as an interpolation. — Ver. 30. érépy] So also Griesb.
Scholz, Tisch. The devrépy (Lachm.) of the Received text is opposed by C* D
EFGHKUX4AIIX&, min. vss. and Fathers, and, coming as it does after
mputy, looks like an exegetical gloss. — Ver. 31. wpdroc) Lachm.: dorepor.
Maintained by Rinck and Schweizer! in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 944. Comp.
Ewald also, who, however, suggests forepov, sc. weraueAnGeic. Similarly Buttm.
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 343 ff. torepoc is found in B, while D, vss. (also
codd. of It. and the Vulg.) and several Fathers read éoyaroe. Consequence of
the transposition that had taken place in vv. 29, 30 (B, min. vss. and Fathers) :
6 62 dtoxp. eltev’ Eyd, xvp., xai ovx amjABev. Kai mpocead. rh érépo el. do. ‘0
62 aroxp. elxev: Od GéAu, torepov dé, 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. ot] Lachm. : oddé, following B, min. Syre*™ *=4 jer, Copt.
Aeth. It. Vulg. Hilar. The compound negative, the force of which had not
been observed, would be omitted all the more readily that dé occurs just before.
—Ver. 33. ri¢ after dvOpwroc (in Elz. Matth.) is deleted by Griesb. and more
recent editors, in accordance with decisive evidence. — Ver. 38. xardcyoper]
Lachm. and Tisch.: oyozev, following B DL 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 md¢ 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 airf¢ xai to avrév xai, —
Ver. 46, dc] Lachm. and Tisch: eis, following B L ¥&, 1, 22, Or. ¢ is from
ver. 26, xiv. 5.

Ver. 1.7 Kai #AGov ei¢ BrOgay7] by way of giving greater precision to the
foregoing jyytcav eic ‘Iepoo. They had come towards Bethphage ; 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 John iv. 5.
Hard by them (‘‘in latere montis Oliveti,” Jerome) was the neighboring
village of Bethany (ver. 17), about which, however, and its position with
reference to Bethphage,* nothing more precise can now be said. Conse-
quently there is no divergence from Mark and Luke, so that it is unnec-
essary to understand eic, versus, after 7AGov (Fritzsche), which is distinct
from, and more definite than, 7yyicav. — Of Bethphage, ‘48D 3, house of
Jigs, no trace remains (Robinson, as above). It is not once mentioned in the

1 Schweizer explains thus : 3 terepos, a.
éwedOuy (which Buttm. should not have de-
clared to be erroneous). The answer, he
says, is hesitating and reluctant, perhaps
intentionally ambiguous. But coming after
the question ris éx r@v Sv, x.7.A., the simple
6 vorepos can Only be taken as equivalent to
6 Sevtepos, as in Xen. Hell. i. 7.6, al. Lachm.
was of opinion that the answer was in-

tended to be inappropriate (comp. already
Jerome), though he ultimately decided in
favor of the view that the words Adyovow. . .
"Incovs, which Or. omits, are spurious. See
the latter's Praefat. II. p. v. Tisch., Bleek,
and others have correctly upheld the read-
ing of the Received text.

* Comp. Mark xi. 1 ff. ; Luke xix. 29 ff.

* Robinson, Pal. II. p. 212.

CHAP. XXL., 2. 361

Old Testament, though frequently in the Talmud.’— rére] an important
juncture.* 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 isnot something done simply to gratify the enthu-
slastic wishes of those about Him (Neander, de Wette, Weizsiicker).*

Remarx.—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. iiber 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 anointing (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 iiself, and agrees at the same time with John xii. 1, 12, inas-
much 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 |
xii. 1). Still, as regards the dates of the passion week, there remains this fun-
damental 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 synoptical 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. Ele riv xduny, x.t.A.] Bethphage. — ev0twe) essentially appropriate
to the specific character of the instructions : immediately, after you have
entered. — The mention of two animals made by Matthew, though seemingly
at variance with Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 80, 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 misapprehension of the words of the prophet (de
Wette, Neander, Strauss, Hilgenfeld), who intends Vy 2) as an epexe-
getical parallel to ION-y ; for just in the same way are we to understand
xa2 él réAov, ver. 5, 80 that, according to Matthew as well, Jesus rides upon
the foal, though accompanied by the mother, a detail which the other evan-
gelists 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). — rc] recitative, — arooréAAe] so far

} Buxtorf, p. 1601; Hug, Zinl.I. p. 18. indicated),"* Bengel.
2“ Non prias; vectura mysterii plena,"’ 3 Comp. Keim, ITI. p. 8 f.
“not before; an entrance full of mystery (is

362 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

from refusing, He sends them away. The present represents as already
taking place what will immediately and certainly be realized. Comp. Mark
iv. 29. In ecidfléwe dé, 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 mean-
of the 6 xipcog, x.7.4., and to find in those words sufficient reason for at
once complying with His request. Comp. xxvi. 18. The idea of o 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).'

Ver. 4 f. "Iva rAnpw6y] 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. |xii. 11
(elmare... Xdv) and Zech. ix. 9, where the riding of the idcal Messianic king
upon an ass is simply a representation, not indeed of absolute humility,* for
such riding isa sign of rpatryc, but of a peaceful disposition.* He does not
come upon a war-horse, not dpyata EAaivwy od¢ of Aoirot Baardreic, ‘* driving
chariots, as the rest of kings do,” Chrysostom. The incident in which Jesus
then realized the recognized fulfilment of the prophecy (Hengstenberg,
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 prophet embodied his prediction.‘ For the
prophetic expression daughter of Zion (the locality of the town regarded as
its mother), see Knobel’s note on Isa. i. 8.°— coi] Dative of ethical refer-
ence, common likewise in classical Greek along with Zp yeo@ac. — nai ézi radov]
See note on ver. 2. xai is eperegetical. — vidv trozvy.] NINK-73.*

Ver. 7. They spread their outer garments upon both animals, being uncer-
tain which of them Jesus intended to mount. —The (second) éxdvw airav 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 airay 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
x. évexdOtoev Ex. avrdav 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

1 See note on John xif. 14 f. * For two¢vyor, beast of burden, a term

2 Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 860 f. more frequently used in the Septuagint to

* Comp. Ewald, Propheten, I. p. 256,ed.2. designate the ass, comp. Herod. ix. 24, 39, 41;

‘ Disterdieck, de ret propheticae natura Xen. Anab. 1.8.1; Luctan, Cynic. x. ; Polyb.
ethica, 1852, p. 78 f. ill. 51.4; 8 Esdr. v. 43; 2 Pet. if. 16.

® Comp. Lam. |. 6.

CHAP. XXI., 8, 9. 363

such like, is out of the question, for the simple reason that no such ofAAmpe
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 walk-
ing by her side.

Ver. 8. Manifestations of respect, such as kings were usually greeted with
on entering cities, 2 Kings ix. 13.'— 6 rigioroc dyA0¢] the most of the people,
the greatest part of the multitude.* — éavrav] states what the multitude did
with their own garments, after the disciples had spread theirs upon the two
Deasts,

Ver. 9 ff. ‘Qoavvd] 82 TOI, Ps. cxviii. 25, bestow dlessing /—addressed
to God. The dative is due to the meaning of the verb (opitulare) contained
in dcavyd. — dcavva év roig ipior.] Grant blessing in the highest places (Luke
ii. 14), i.¢., 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 con-
Jjirmed in heaven, let it be ratified by God ! Nor is é r. iy. equivalent to 6
oy» r. by. (grant blessing, O Thou who art in heaven), as Beza, Vatablus,
Calovius, Bengcl, Kuinoel, are disposed to think. — év dvdu. xvpiov] 4.¢., a8
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). — éceic67] was thrown
into a state of commotion,* on account of the sensation created by this Messi-
anic entry into the city. The excitement was contagious. — 6 rpogyryc] the
acell-known prophet. The crowds that accompanied Him had, in most explicit
terms, designated Him the Messiah ; but the less interested people of the
the city wished above all to ascertain His name and rank. Hence the full
reply, "Ijoctc . . . Tadd., in which the 6 amd Nafap. +r. Tada. doubtless
betrays somewhat of the Galilean consciousness of the multitude, inasmuch as
it was for most part composed of Galileans.

Remanx.—The triumphal entry of Jesus is not 4 final attempt to establish the
Messianic kingdom in a political sense ( Wolfenb. Fragm.), such a kingdom hav.
ing been entirely foreign to His purpose and His function. Itis rather to be
tegarded as His last publioand solemn appearance as the Messiah,—an appear-
ance 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 connection with
what happened so soon after, it was calculated, on the other hand, to destroy
all expectations of a merely political 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 forbidding the publication of His

1 Wetstein'’s note on this passage; Rob- Xen. Anab. ill. 2. 86.
inson, IT. p. 388. 3 Pind. Pyth. iv. 484; Soph. Ant. 168.
2 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 397 D; Thuc. vil. 78;

364 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Messiabship. 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 cir-
cumstance of the utmost significance as regarded the sense in which His Mes-
siahship 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
vii.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. According 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 keep-
ing with the unusual preparations mentioned in ver. 2 ; comp. ver. 7.

Ver. 12. Different from Mark xi. 11, 15, where the narrative is more pre-
cise ; Comp. Weiss’ note on Mark. —In the court of the Gentiles were the
tabernae, NYIN, where animals, incense, oil, wine, and other requisites for
sacrifice were exposed for sale.'— The money-changers* exchanged on com-
mission ® 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, Olshausen, Kern,
Ebrard, Baumgarten-Crusius, Schleiermacher, Hengstenberg, Wieseler, to be
regarded as the second that took place, the first being that recorded in
John ii. 18 ff., and which occurred on the occasion of the first visit to Jeru-
salem. 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 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 ac-
counted for from the similarity of the incidents themselves ; whereas the sup-
position 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 unanimous 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, Weizsiicker have done. Others again, have
rejected the fourth evangelist’s account, so far as its chronology is concerned,
in favor of that of the Synoptists (Ziegler, Theile, Strauss, Baur, Weisse,
Hilgenfeld, Schenkel, Keim).‘

Ver, 18, Free combination of Isa. lvi. 7 and Jer. vii. 11, and taken from

1 Lightfoot on this passage. * Comp., further, the remarks under John
3 xoAAvB., see Phrynichus, p. 440. if. 17,
2121p, Maimonides, Shekal. 8,

CHAP. XXI., 14. 365

the Sept. — xAnffo.] how sacred the purpose for which it was intended, but
ye, etc. — roveire (see critical notes) censures this desecration of the temple as
a thing in which they are still persisting. — orqAaiov Ayorav] The strong lan-
guage of the prophet (otherwise in John) was in keeping with the emotion
that was awakened in Jesus, The use of such language is sufficiently ac-
counted for by the fact that avarice-had taken up its abode in those sacred
precincts to carry on its huckstering and money-changing : rd yap g:Aoxepdec
Agatpixdy waOog gots, ‘‘the love of guin is a robber’s passion,” Theophylact.’
—In vv. 12, 18, Jesus acts with higher authority than that of a mere zealot
(Num, xxv. 11) : He addresses Himself to the purifying of the temple and
its worship with such, a reforming energy as, according to Mal. iii. 1-3,
befitted the Messiah. And the acquiescence of the astonished multitude is
all the more intelligible on the occasion of this cleansing, that the indignant
reformer had just celebrated His triumphal march into the city in the char-
acter of Messiah. But even on the jirst occasion, John ii., their acquies-
cence is sufficiently explicable from the sudden and dccided nature of the
proceeding, taken in connection with the spiritually-imposing character of
the Lord’s person and bearing (‘‘ divinitatis majestas lucebat in facie,” ‘‘ the
majesty of divinity was shining forth in his countenance,” 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 pecul-
iar to Matthew. — ra Oavudora] the only instance of this usage in the New
Testament, though very common in classical Greek and the Sept.: the won-
derful things, viz., the cleansing of the temple and the miraculous cures.
This combination has suggested the use of the more comprehensive term. —
Ver. 16. axoberc, x.r.A.] in a tone of rebuke, implying that He was the occa-
sion of such impropriety, and was tolerating it. —ér:] recitatire. 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. 8, God has perfected. — vyriuv x.
Qn7.aZ6vrwv}] 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 Macc. vii. 27), nor even to the idea of the children
being transformed into adult instruments in effecting the triumph of God's
cause,* but only to bearin mind that, as a genuine poct, the psalmist seemed
to hear, in the noise and prattle of the babes and sucklings, a celebration of their
Maker’s praise. But, inasmuch as those children who shouted in the temple
were not vf#mot (2.€., in connection with @Ad¢. 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 inference @ minore ad majus. That is to say,

1 Differently Fritzsche :‘‘ Vosundequaque into acave,’—where, however, due promi-
pecuniam, animalia huc congerere susti- nence is not given to the distinctive point
netis, ut latrones praedam comportant in of comparison, viz. the rodbery.
speluncam,” ‘‘ You (get) money from every 2Comp. Bertholdt, Christol. p. 1683; Ull-
quarter, you take upon yourselvesto gather mann, Sidndl. p. 177.
hither animals, as robbers carry thelr booty 3 Hofmann, Weiss. u. Erf. II. p. 118.

366 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

if, according to Ps. viii. 8, 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 honor of the
Messiah, who, however, is God’s Son and Representative, so that in His dé£a
God is glorified (John xiii. 31, xiv. 13 ; Phil. ii. 11), nay, God glorifies Him-
se/f (John xii. 28). — x. 7i:2io6n 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 aiAifec8a: used in the sense of birouacking.1 Comp. Tob. iv. 14,
vi. 10, ix. 5; Judg. xix. 9 f.2—At present Bethany 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. Miav]*—éi rij¢ édov] The tree, which
was by the side of the public road (not on private property), stood abore the
road, either projecting over it merely, or occupying an eminence close to it,
or the road itself may have been ina ravine. It was a favorite 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. WV. H. xv. 19. — 726ev éx’ avrfy) not: conscendit arberem (Fritzsche),
but : He went up to tt. From seeing the tree in foliage, Jesus expected, of
course (for it was well known that the fig-tree put forth its fruit before com-
ing 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 leares.‘ On the disappointed expectation of Jesus, Bengel
observes : ‘‘ maxima humanitatis et deitatis indicia uno tempore edere soli-
tus est,” ‘‘He was wont to unite together the greatest proofs of both man-
hood and divinity.” It is a perversion of the text to say, with Chrysostom,
Euthymius Zigabenus, that He did not expect 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 cynuarifecfa:, ‘‘ making an appear-
ance” (Euthymius Zigabenus), or an esuries sponte ercitata (Cornelius 2
Lapide). The account of the withering of the tree, contained in Mark x1.
12 ff., 19 f., is more precise and more original (in answer to Késtlin, Hilgen-
feld, 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 favorable answer to
all their prayers. The participation in the life of Christ, implied in the
wiottc, would make them partakers of the divine power of which He was the

.1 Apollonid. 14; Diod. Sic. xffl. 6. 809 ff.; Sepp, Jerus. u. d. heid, Land. I. p.
2On Bethany, some 15 stadia from Je- 588 ff.
rasalem (John xi. 18), see Tobler, Topogr. 2 ‘“Unam illo loco,” Bengel.

v. Jerus, II. p. 482 ff.; Robinson, Pai. IT. p. 4 Comp. Tobler, Denkdl. aue Jerus. p. 101 ff.

CHAP. XXI., 23. 867

organ, would be a guarantee that their prayers would always bein harmony
with the will of God, and so would prevent the promise from being in any
way abused. — The affair of the jig-tree (rd tH¢ ovxje, comp. viii. 88) 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 pur-
pose of the miracle cannot have been to punish an inanimate object, nor, one
should think, merely to make a display of miraculous power (Fritzsche, Ull-
mann), but to represent in a prophetic, symbolical, visible form the punishment
which follows moral barrenness (Luke xiii. 6 ff.),—-such a punishment as
was about to overtake the Jews in particular, and the approach of which
Jesus was presently to announce with solemn earnestness on the eve of His
own death (vv. 28—44, xxii. 1-14, xxiii., xxiv. xxv.). It is true He does pot
make any express declaration of this nature, nor had He previously led the
disciples to expect such (Sieffert); but this objection is met partly by the
fact that the rac 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. — airfanre tv
t% wpooevxyi] Comp. note on Col. i. 9: what ye will have desired in your
prayer. — moretuvteg] Condition of the Aj pecfe. He who prays in faith,
prays in the name of Jesus, John xiv. 18.

Ver. 28. Comp. Mark xi. 27 ff. ; Luke xx. 1 ff. — Arddcxovr:] while He was
engaged in teaching. — év rolg éfovcia] in virtue of what kind of authority.
The second question is intended to apply to Him who has given the author-
ity ; the first is general, and has reference to the nature of the authority
(whether it be divine or human). — ravra] 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 min-
istry 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 raira, the questioners mean to include all that up till that mo-
ment 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 teaching in the temple, all which, taken together, seemed to betoken
the Messianic pretender.* The members of the Sanhedrim hoped cither to
hear Him acknowledge that the éfoveia was divine, or presumptuously assert
that it was eelf-derived, so that in cither case they might have something on
which to found judicial proceedings against Him. They seem to have been
a provisional deputation of the Sanhedsim appointed to discover a pretext
for excommunicating Him. Comp. John i. 19.

1 Comp. Acts Iv. 7. 2 Comp. de Wette, Bleek, Weizaiicker, p. 582; Keim, ITZ. p. 112.

368 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 24 f. Jesus prudently frustrates their design by proposing in reply 3
puzzling question, which, in the circumstances, they did not know how to
answer. — Adyov éva] a single word, a single question ; not more. The subject
of the question itself is admirably chosen, seeing that the work of reform
in which Jesus was engaged had a necessary conncction with that of John ;
both would stand and fall together. — ré@ev qv] whence did it proceed ? The
following alternative is explanatory : was it from God, who had commis-
sioned John, or from men, so that he baptized simply on his own authonity
or that of his fellow-mortals ? The latter was out of the question, if John
was a prophet (ver. 26). Comp., further, Acts v. 39. — dsedoy. zap’ éavzois]
they deliberated by themselves, privately xar’ idiav, 1.6., with each other, during a
brief pause for private consultation, before giving their decision, which was
intimated in the subsequent azoxp:Aévrecg r@ "Inoobd. dia2oyiceofar in this in-
stance also denotes reflection combined with mutual consultation.’ —
émiarevoate avt@] AéyovrTe TOAAG Kal peydda repl éuov, Euthymius Zigabents.

Ver. 26 f. 030ie8a trav 5xA0v] Those words are preceded by an aposiope-
sis, the import of which, however (Luke xx. 6), is indicated by the words
themselves.—The language of embarrassment : ‘‘ But suppose tce should say :
From men; we are afraid of the people,” etc. Comp. note on Acts xxiii. 9.
— wavreg yap, x.7.A.] See on xiv. 5. — «ai avréc] He also on His part ; for as
they with their wretched ov« oidayev left the question of Jesus unanswered, 80
now in like manner He with His decided and humbling oidé £74 (neither do J)
refuses to answer theirs.

Ver. 28-32. Peculiar to Matthew, and doubtless taken from the collection
of the sayings of the Lord.—Jesus now assumes the offensive in order to con-
vince His adversaries of their own baseness. —réxva and réxvov suggest the
father’s lore. —Ver. 30. éy4] is to be taken elliptically, and that with due re-
gard 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 «(pce expresses the hypocritical submis-
sion of the man. — The publicans and harlots are represented by the jirst men-
tioned 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 prophets, they practically said : ob #éAw), 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, xipie), they in real-
ity 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 exam-
ple of the publicans and harlots had any effect upon them in the way of pro-
ducing conversion, To understand by the two sons the Gentiles and the

1 Comp. xvi. ?; Mark vill. 16; Luke xx. 14

CHAP. XXI., 33. 369
Jews, is entirely against the context. — rpodyover ipat] as though the future
entering into the Messianic kingdom were now taking place. The going be-
Jore, however, does not necessarily imply that others are following. Comp.
Xwill. 14. — iv 666 dixaootvyc] in the way of righteousness, i.e., as one whose
walk and conversation are characterized by moral integrity. év duéurry Biv
(Theophylact), iva xai a&cérorog ¢avg (Euthymius Zigabenus).! The preaching
of righteousness (de Wette, Bleek, Keim) would have been expressed by
some such terms as éddv dixatoc. diddoxwv (xxii. 16). — idévrec] the fact, name-
ly, that the publicans and harlots believed Him. — oid? pereueA. tor.] 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 torep., but on perex.— tov meoredvaa] Object
of perepu. tor., 80 a8 to believe Him.

Ver. 33ff.7 Jesus, 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. — dpvéev év avto Anvév] dug a wine-vat init.* 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.* —
xtpyov] @ tower, for watching the vineyard. Such tower-shaped structures
were then, and are still, in common use for this purpose.* — ¢&édoro] he let it
out,* namely, to be cultivated. Seeing that the proprictor 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, in-
cluding only part of the produce.’ — roi xaprote avrov)] airov 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
Jruit that the master wished to have bropghtto him. The fruit of the
vineyard, and the whole of it too, belongs to him. — éA0oBdAyoav] they stoned
him,® forms a climaz to axéxr., as being a ‘‘ species atrox” (Bengel) of this
latter. — évrpazjo.] a reasonable expectation. — eimoy év éavroic] they said one
to another. — xat oxapuev tiv KAnpov. avrov] and let us obtain possession of his in-
heritance, namely, the vineyard to which he is the heir. In these words they
state not the resul¢ 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. — 2€éBadov x. azéxr.} dif-
ferently in Mark xii. 8, hence also the transposition in D, codd. of It.
This passage contains no allusion to the previous ercommunication (Grotius),

2 Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 21, 11.2; Prov. vifi. 20, xii.
28, xvii. 28.

2 Comp. Mark xii. 1 ff.; Luke xx. 9 ff.

3Comp. Xen. Oec. xix. 2; dwécov Babos
bpurrey Se: 7d Guréy, ‘how great depth it is
necessary to dig (for planting) the tree.”

4 See Winer, Realw. I. p. 653 f.

5 Tobler, Denkdl. p. 118.

* Pollux. i. 73; Herod. i. 68; Plat. Parm.
p. 127 A; Dem. 268, 9.

7 Otherwise in Mark xii. 2; Luke xx. 10;
comp. Weiss’ note on Mark.

8 xxii. 87; John vili.5; Acts vil. 58 f., xiv.
5; Heb. xii. 20.

370 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

or to the crucifixion of Christ becausé it took place outside of Jerusalem
(comp. Heb. xiii. 12 f. ; so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabe-
nus, Olshausen), but simply describes the scene in which the son on his ar-
rival is thrust out of the vineyard and murdered.—The parable illustrates the
hostile treatment experienced time after time by God’s prophets (the dovdo:)
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 mes-
' sengers from God.’ Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, like-
wise find a meaning in the hedge (the law), the wine-rat (the altar), and the
tower (the temple). So also Bengel, who sees in azedju7oev an allusion to
the ‘‘ tempus divinae taciturnitatis,” ‘‘time of divine silence,” while Origen
takes it as referring 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 adverscrie
themselves are forced to pronounce their own condemnation (in answer to
Schneckenburger, de Wette, Bleek) !— xaxoi¢ xaxéc arodéoet avr.] as despi-
cable creatures (scoundrels), He will miserably destroy them. The collocation
Kaxovc xaxac serves to indicate in an emphatic manner the correspondence
between the conduct in question and its punishment.* If we are to apply
the parable in accordance with the order of thought, and, therefore, in con-
formity with the meaning intended by Jesus Himself, we cannot understand
the coming of the xtp¢ and the execution of the punishment as denoting
the second advent and the last judgment ; for, apart from the fact that it is
God and not Christ that is represented by the xiproc, the words oiriveg aodd-
govotv, x.T.A., 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 di-
vine judgment is to overtake the then guardians of the theocracy, where-
upon this latter would be entrusted to the care of other guides (i.e., the
leaders of the Christian church as representing the true "IcpajA rov Geoi),
who as such will be called upon to undertake the duties and responsibilities
of their unfaithful predecessors.* Such are the things which those hostile
questioners ‘‘dxovreg mpogyrebovo:,” ‘involuntarily prophesy” (Kuthymius
Zigabenus). — év roic xarpoi¢ abtav] avrov 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

1 Comp. Acts vil. 51 f. evilly ;"’ and, in general, Lobeck, ad Soph.
3 See Wetstein’s note; Fritzsche, Diss.in Aj. 866; Elmsl. ad Kur. Med. 787.
2 Cor. il. p. 147 f.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 88. Comp. xxii. 7; John vil. 8; Eph. iv.
Comp. Eur. Cyct. 270: caxws obra xaxot awé- 11 f.
Ao", “let these evil children perish

"a

CHAP. XXI., 43. 371

words added by our Lord. The quotation is from the Septuagint version
of Ps. cxvili. 22 f., which was composed after the captivity, and in which
the stone, according 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, accord-

ing to the typical reference of the passage (which the Rabbinical teachers
also recognized, see Schoettgen), it denotes the ideal head of the theocracy,
viz. the Messiah. — 2i6ov bv] a stone which, attraction of very frequent occur-
rence. — aredoxiv.] as not fit for being used in the building. — ovroc] this,
and no other. — xedaAqv ywviac] 139 WR), head of the corner, i.e., corner-stone,'
is the metaphorical designation of Him on whom the stability and develop-
ment of the theocracy depend, without whom it would fall to pieces, and in
this respect He résembles 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,* the Messiah. — éyévero airy]
did he become so (viz., the corner-stone, xe¢aAy ywriac). Here the feminine is
not a Hebraism for the neuter (as little is it so in 1 Sam. iv. 7; Ps. xxvii.
4), as Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 108 [E. T. 128], would have us suppose, but
strictly grammatical, inasmuch as it refers to xed. yor. ; and accordingly we
find that in the Septuagint also NW is rendered according to its contextual
reference. To refer to ywviag merely (Wetstein) is inadmissible, for this
reason, that, in what precedes, xegady yur. was the prominent idea. — xai
for: Oavpaory, x.7.2.] Viz., this xegaay ywr. ‘* Our eyes,” as referring to believers.

Ver. 43. Ard rovro] 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 Aéyw iyiv, however, like the ag’
tuov below, implies the obvious intermediate thought : ‘‘ for it is you who
reject this corner-stone.” — apffoera: ag’ tuev] for they, along with the whole
"lopayA xara odpxa represented by them, were by natural right the owners of
the approaching Messianic kingdom, its theocratic heirs ; comp. xiii. 38. —
tOver wowoivts, x.T.A.] 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 in-
dicates, to the whole of the future subjects of the kingdom of the Messiah,
conceited 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, 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
nocovvre ; for Jesus regards the future subjects of the kingdom ae already

1In Hesychius we find xegadims in the _p. 700.
sense Of corner-stone ; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 2 Acts iv. 11; Eph. if. 9; 1 Pet. li 7.

372 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 neg-
ative form of apSjoera:, x.r.A., Jesus now proceeds 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 (whosoever 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), i¢ shall winnow him, i.e., throw him off like the chaff from
the winnowing-fan. ow@/acfa (to be crushed) and AcuaoOa, which form a
climax, are intended to portray the execution of the Messianic judgments.
Atxudw is not equivalent to conterere, comminuere, the meaning usually as-
signed to it in accordance with the Vulgate, but is rather to be rendered by
to winnow, ventilare.' See likewise Job xxvii. 21, where the Sept. employs
this jigurative term for the purpose of rendering the idea of driving away as
before a storm (VYW).?— 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
stumbling (Isa. viii. 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 the same thought in a passive form, xeirae ei¢ wrdaww
(Luke ii. 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 para-
bolic address directed against His enemies. — oi apytepeic x. oi bapic.] identi-
cal with the of apy. x. of mpecBirepoe of ver. 23, so that, in the present instance,
the latter are designated by the name of the party to which they belonged.
—#yvwoav] 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 upto
that point no trace of such knowledge, otherwise we should have to suppose
that they consciously pronounced their own condemnation. —ei¢ (see criti-
cal remarks) rpog4r7v: held Him as a prophet, i.e., in Him they felt they
possessed a prophet ; on eic, which is met with in later writers in the sense
of the predicate, see Bernhardy, p. 219.

1 2. v. 500; Xen. Cec. xvili. 2.6; Plut. Mor. Ecclus. v. 10.
p. 701 C; Lucian, Gymnas. xxv. ; Ruth fii. 2; 2 Comp. Dan. il. 44; Wisd. xi. 20.

CHAP, XXII. 373

CHAPTER XXII.

Ver. 4. #roizaca) Following BC* DL &, 1, 22, 28, we should, with Lachm.
and Tisch., read #roizaxa because of the preponderance of manuscript author-
ity. — Ver. 5. dé... 6 dé] BL, min. Or.: &¢ wév . . . 5¢ dé. So Fritzsche,
Lachm. Tisch. To be preferred on the strength of this external authority,
particularly as C* &, which have 6 piv . . . d¢ dé, cannot be regarded as coun-
ter-evidence. — For ei¢ r7v, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read ém) r7v, following B
CD ®, min. Or. Correctly ; ei¢ is a mechanical repetition of the one preced-
ing. — Ver. 7. The Received text has dxovoac dé 6 Bac. Of the numerous read-
ings, the simple 6 d2 BacAevc is the one favored by B L &, min. Copt. Sahid.,
while most of the other witnesses have xai dx. 6 Bac. (so Fritzsche, Scholz,
Tisch. 7). Lachm. reads 6 dé Bac. éxotcac, but only following min. It. Valg.
Arm. Ir. Chrys. Eus. In presence of such a multiplicity of readings, we ought
to regard the simple 6 dé 3ac’ 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 ii. 3), axovcag was added, being inserted sometimes in one place and
sometimes in another. Many important witnesses insert éxeivoc after BacrA. (D and
codd. of It. Lucif. place it before), a reading which is also adopted by Scholz and
Tisch. 7 (therefore : x. axovoac 6 Baciede éxeivoc). It is not found in BL &,
min. Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Valg. 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 éxeivoc which follows.
— Ver. 10. 6 yduoc] Tisch. 8: 6 vungor, following B* L &. A mistaken gloss,
for vuzdov means the bride-chamber. — Ver. 13. dpare avrév xai éxBadere] Lachm.
Tisch. 8 : éxBddAere airév, following B L &, min. vss. and Fathets. The word
dpave, not being needed to complete the picture, was struck out. The reading
of the Received text ought to be maintained. The genuineness of the dpare is
likewise confirmed by the gloss dpare avrév modwyv x. yetpov, which came to be
substituted for djoavreg atrov méd. x. yeipac (80 D, Cant. Verc. Ver. Colb. Corb.
2, Clar. Ir. Lucif.). — Ver. 16. Aéyovrec] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8: Aéfyovrag,
following B L 8, 27, vss. (7). An improper emendation. — Ver. 23. of Aéyovre¢]
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have deleted the article, following BD MS Z &, min. Or.,
no doubt ; but incorrectly, for it is indispensable, and would be readily enough
overlooked in consequence of the OI which immediately precedes it. — Ver. 25.
For yeunoac, with Lachm. and Tisch., following BL &, min. Or. read yyyac, a
form which the copyists would be very apt to exchange for one of more frequent
occurrence in the New Testament. — For cai 7 yuvy, ver. 27, read, with Tisch.
8, simply 7 yvv7, in accordance with the preponderance of evidence. — Ver. 28.
Instead of év r§ otv avacr., we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read év r. avaor.
oty, following BDL &, min. The reading of the Received text was intended
to be an emendation as regards the position of the ov. — Ver. 30. éxyapilovrar]
Lachm. Tisch. 8: yauifovra:, following B D L &, min. Clem. Or. (twice) Ath.
Isid. The compound form, besides being obviously suggested by Luke, is in-

84 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tended 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 gram-
matical nature. — rod Oeoi] wanting in B D, 1, 209, vss. and Fathers. Deleted
by Lachm. Left out, in accordance with Mark xii. 25.— Ver. 32. ob« éorw 6
Ged¢ Ge6¢] The second 6¢6¢ is deleted by Lachm., following B L A, min. Copt.
Sahid. Or. (?). It is likewise wanting in D &, min. Eus. Chrys., which author-
ities drop the article before the first §e6¢. Tisch, 8 follows them, simply read-
ing ovx éorw Oe6¢. The sufficiently attested reading of the Received text is to
be adhered to ; it was simplified in accordance with Mark and Luke. — Ver. 35.
kal Aéywv] not found in BL &, 33, vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The
omission, though opposed to Matthew's usual style (xii. 10, xvii. 10, xxii. 23,
41, xxvii. 11), is in accordance with Mark xii. 28. — Ver. 37. 'Incotc] is to be
deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B L &, 33, Copt. Sahid. Inserted
from Mark xii. 29. — $7] having decisive evidence in its favor, is to be pre-
ferred to elev of the Received text.—- Ver. 38. For porn x. peydAn, read, with
Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. : 7 peydAn x. modrn, following B D (which latter, how-
ever, omits 7) L (which, however, inserts the article also before zpwrz) Z ¥,
min. vss. Hilar. ; tparq would be placed first as being the chief predicate.
Comp. devrépa below. — Ver. 40, xai of mpog#ra: xpésavrar] B D L Z &, 33, Syr.
Vulg. It. Tert. Hil.: xpéuarat xat ol xpog. Recommended by Griesb., adopted
by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical
correction. — Ver. 44, troréddiov] BDGLZI AX, min. vss. Aug.: troxdru.
Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the
Received text is taken from the Sept. and Luke.

Ver. 1. Kai amoxp. 6 "Ino. mada elev, x.t.A.] In the full consciousness of
His mission and His own superiority, Jesus replied (aroxp., see note on xi.
25) to their hostile ¢yreiv, which only fear of the people kept in check,
by adding another parabolic address (év rapaf. plural of the category).
Olshausen and Keim are not justified in doubting this connection on the
ground that xxi. 45 f. is, as they suppose, the formal conelusion. The para-
ble as given in Luke xiv. 16 ff. is not a Pauline modification of the one be-
fore 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.’ 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 heap-
ing 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 withdraw (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.

1 Ewald, Schneckenburger, de Wette, Strauss, Weizsicker, Keim, Scholten.

CHAP. XXII., 2~10. 375

Ver. 2 f. On ydyoug roeiv, to prepare a marriage feast,’ Michaelis, Fischer,
Kuinoel, Paulus are mistaken in supposing that what is meant is a feast on
the occasion of his son's accession to the throne. — The Messiah is the bridegroom
(xxv. 1 ; Rev. xxi. 2, 9), whose marriage represents the setting up of His
kingdom.? — xadéoac] i.6., to tell those who had been previously invited that
it was now time to come to the marriage.* — avfp. Baod.] as in xviii. 23 ;
wporeOn, as in xiil. 24.

Ver. 4. Td dprorov] not equivalent to deirvov,‘ nor a meal generally, but in
the sense of breakfast, prandium (towards mid-day, Joseph. Antt. v. 4. 2),
with which the series of meals connected with marriage was to begin. — jroi-
paxa (see critical remarks): paratum habeo. —xai mdvra] and everything
generally.

Ver. 5 ff.]. 'ApeAgoavrec] 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 : ol dé ayed., of név
azg?Bov . . . of dé Aowrol, x.t.A. Instead of so expressing himself, however,
he leaves it to appear from the context that the first ol represents the major-
ity of those invited, while the of dé Aotroi constitute the remainder, so that
the general form of expression (oi dé ayed., «.7.4.) finds its limitation in oi dé
4oxoi. This limitation might also have been expressed by of dé alone, in the
sense of some, however.” — cic rdv idtov aypdv] 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 idtoc, comp. note on Eph. v. 22.

Ver. 8. Ovx foav G£to:]* To represent 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,—is to intro-
duce an episode quite in accordance with the illustrative character of the para-
ble, 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. ’Eni- rac dieEddovg trav 6dr] to the crossings of the roads, where people
were in the habit of congregating most. It is evident from ver. 7, accord-
ing to which the city is destroyed, that what is meant is not, as Kypke and
Kuinoel suppose, the squares in the city from which streets branch off,
but the places where the country roads cross each other.’

Ver. 10. "EseA@évrec] from the palace of the king out into the highways.

“ Praeteritum

1 Comp. Wetstein and Xen. de rep. Lac. {.
6; Tob. vilf. 19.

2 Comp. ix. 15, John ill. 29, and note on
Eph. v. 2.

3 Comp. ver. 4; Luke xiv. 17. For in-
stances of such repeated invitations, see
Wetstein.

“See Luke xiv. 12; Bornemann, ad Xen.
Cyr. il. 8. 21.

* See Kfihner, IT. 2, p. 808.

*Comp. Acts xiii. 46.
indignos eo magis praetermiltit,” ‘* the past
(were not worthy) passes by the unworthy
the more markedly,” Bengel.

7™Comp. Babyl. Berac. xiiil. 1. Gloss. :
*Divitibus in more fult, viatores pauperes
ad convivia invitare,” “It was customary
for the rich to invite poor travellers to their
feasts.”

376 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

— ovvfyayov] through their invitation, which was accepted. — zovyp. re xai
ayad.] not ‘‘locutio quasi proverbialis,” ‘‘as if a kind of proverbial expres-
sion,” Bengel, but they proceeded on the principle 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
movnpoi. — 6 yduoc] not equivalent to veugdy, but the wedding (i.e., the mar-
riage feast, as in ver. 8),’ was full of guests. The emphagis, however, is on
eT AHo0n.

Ver. 11 f. "Evduye’ ydéuov] a dress suited for a marriage? It is true that,
in interpreting this passage, expositors (Michaclis, Olshausen) lay stress on
the oriental custom of presenting handsome caftans to those who are ad-
mitted to the presence of royalty ; * and they are all the more disposed to
do so, that such a custom is calculated to make it appear with greater promi-
nence that righteousness is a /ree gift, and that, consequently, man’s sin is
so much the more heinous ; but neither can it be proved * that 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 eti-
quette.* The only thing intended to be represented here is the moral dixacoctvn,
which, by faith in Christ, men are required to assume after being called to
the Messianic kingdom through yerévoa.* 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 é:xa:ocivy 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.” The knowledge of this truth,
however, had to be reserved for a later stage in the development of Chris-
tian doctrine. — éraipe] Comp. on xx. 13. —é¢ cioq#Abec, x.7.A.] a question
expressive of astonishment : how has it been possible for thee to come in
hither (how couldst thou venture to do s0), without, etc.?— yp tzu)
although thou hadst not. Differently ver. 11: ov« évdedup.®

Ver. 13. Ageavrec, x.7.2.] that is, to make it impossible for him to get
loose in course of the éxéA2co8ar, as well as to secure against his escape sub-
sequently from the oxérog égarepov. — abrov x6d.] his feet ; comp. on viii. 3.—
For the dcdxovec of this passage (not dovAo: this time, for the servants waiting
at the dadle are intended), see xiii. 41. — éxei Zora: x.r.A.] not the words of
the king, but, as the future éora: indicates, a remark on the part of Jesus,
having reference to the condition hinted at in the words 70 oxdér. r. éfar.
See, further, on viii. 12.

1 Comp. Hom. Qd. tv. 8, Jd. xviii. 491. Kings v. 22, x. 22: Esth. vi. 8, villi. 15.
2Comp. xAavis yauexi, Aristoph. Av. 5 See Dougt. Anal. II. p. 23.

1698. * Comp. vi. 83, v. 20.
® Harmer, Beobacht. II. p. 117; Rosen- 7 Comp. the Fathers in Calovius.

miller, Morgenl. V. p. 73 ff. 8 Comp. Buttmann, Neu. Gr. p. 301 [E. T.

4Not from Gen. xlv. 22; Judg. xiv. 12; 2 351].

CHAP. XXII., 14. | 3¢7

Ver. 14. Iép] introduces the reason of the éxei fora, x.r.4. For, so far from
the mere calling availing to secure against eternal condemnation, many, on
the contrary, are called to the 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 éxAoy# 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 honor those who, by appropri-
ating and faithfully maintaining the requisite d:xacooivy (see on ver. 11 f.),
will be found te possess the corresponding disposition and character.
Comp. xxv. 34. Similarly, too, in xxiv. 22; Luke xviii. 7. It was, how-
ever, only a legitimate consequence of the contemplation of history from a
religious point of view, if the Christian consciousness felt warranted in at-
tributing even this amount of human freedom to the agency of God (Eph. i.
4; Phil. ii. 13), and had to be satisfied, while maintaining the human ele-
ment 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 anion: is about to be
established, instead of those who have been invited to enter it, 7.6., 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 behavior (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 /jirst invitation, and which is referred to in
the rote xexAnuévouc of ver. 8, is conveyed to Christ ; the successive invitations
which followed were given through the apostles, who, ver. 9, likewise invite -
the Gentiles.’ — Observe in conection with rére, ver. 8, that itis not intended
thereby to exclude the calling of the Gentiles before the destruction of Jeru-
salem ; 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 rére 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 passage and the very definite statement regarding the
date of the second advent contained in xxiv. 29. Asisclear from the whole
connection, we must not suppose (Weisse) that the man without the wedding
garment is intended to represent Judae,; but see on ver. 12. What is meant
is a Christian with the old man still clinging to him.*

Remanrk.-—The part of the parable extending from ver. 11 onwards was cer-
tainly not spoken, so far as its immediate reference is concerned, with a view to

1 Comp. xxvill. 19; Acts 1. 8, xiii. 46. |
2 Comp. on Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. {fl. 27; Eph. iv. 243 Col. iff. 12.

378 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the Pharisces, but was essential 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 sin-
gle out such as appear without the garment of d:xacocvvn, and consign them to
the punishment of hell.

Ver. 15 ff.’ — 01 ¢apicaio:] 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. — érwc] They took counsel (comp. Aafdv aipecr, “ having
had a choice given,’”? Dem. 947, 20), expressly with a view to. Not equiva-
lent to rac, the reading in D, and originating in a mistaken gloss.* For
ovuBobiov, consultation, comp. xxvii. 1, 7, xxviii. 12 ; Mark iii. 6 ; Dio Cass.
Xxxviii. 43 ; classical writers commonly uso cvufovay, cuuSovaia. Others
(Keim included), without grammatical warrant, render according to the
Latin idiom: consilium ceperunt. Euthymius Zigabenus correctly ren-
ders by ovoxérrovra:z. — iv 26yw] in an utterance, i.e., in a statement which
he might happen to make. This statement is conceived of as a trap or
snare,* into which if He once fell they would hold Him fast, with a view
to further proceedings against Him. Others explain : d¢ épwrjcews (Euthy-
mius Zigabenus). But Jesus could not become involved in the snare unless
He gave such an answer to their queries as they hoped to elicit. aycdeiev,
illaqueare, is not met with in classical writers, though it frequently occurs
in the Septuagint.

Ver. 16. 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 8
pure theocracy, though willing also to take part with the powerful Phari-
sees against the unpopular Roman sway, should circumstances render such 8
movement expcdient. For other interpretations, some of them rather singu-
lar, see Wolf and Kécher in loc. The passage in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 10,
refers to different circumstances from the present.‘ 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 particular), 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 savoring of opposition to the pay-
ment of the tribute. This was the drift of the flattering preface to their

1 Comp. Mark xil. 13 ff.; Luke xx. 20 ff. XI. p. 98.

2 Comp. xii. 14. ‘Comp. Ewald, Geach. Car. p. 97 ff. ; Keim,
® xayis, see Jacobs ad Anthal. VII. p. 409, IIt. p. 130 ff.

CHAP. XXII., 17, 18. 379

question, and upon His answer they hoped to found an accusation before
the Roman authorities." 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. —Aéyovrec] that is, through
their representatives, * — d:ddéoxade, oidauev, x.7.A.] Comp. with this cunning,
though in itself so true an instance of captatio benevolentiae, the sincere one
in John iii. 2. — a2x6j¢ el] true, avoiding every sort of pexdoc in your deal-
ings, either simulando or dissimulando. In what follows, and which is still
connected with 67:, this is made more precise, being put both positively and
negatively. — r7v dddv rov Ocow] the way prescribed by God, 1.6., the behavior of
men to each other which God requires,* — év aAnbeig] truthfully, as beseems
the character of this way ; see on John xvii. 19. — ov péAce coe repi oidevdc|
Thou carest for no man, in Thy teaching Thou actest without regard to the
persons of men. — ov yap BAémerc, x.r.A.] giving the reason for the statement
contained in oidayev, x.7.2. : 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, ore aAnfijg el xal r#v ddév, x.t.A. TIpéawxov avOp. denotes the out-
ward manifestation in which men present themselves (comp. on xvi. 8).‘
The emphasis, however, is on ot BAémecce. We have not here a ‘‘ natural
paraphrase” of the Hebrew idiom 2apuBdveww mpdowrov (Luke xx. 21), which
expresses another, though similar idea (in answer to de Wette ; sce on Gal.
ii. 6). In classical Greek, B. ei¢ rp. revog is used in the sense of being bare-
faced.°

Ver. 17. "Efeor:] problem founded on theocratic one-sidedness, as though
the Jews were still the independent people of God, according to their di-
vine title to recognize no king but God Himself.* It was also on this
ground that Judas the Gaulonite appears to have refused to pay the tribute.’
As to xjvooc, not merely poll-tax, but land-tax as well, see on xvii. 25. —
Kaicap:] without the article, being used asa proper name. — # od] ‘‘ flagi-
tant responsum rotundum,” ‘‘ they demand imperatively a direct response,”
Bengel.

Ver. 18. Ti» rovnpiav] for they concealed malicious designs (the reverse of
arAérnc) behind their seemingly candid, nay, flatteringly put question, in
which their object was to try (e¢pafere) whether He might not be betrayed
into returning such an answer as might be used in further proceedings
against Him. Apropos of troxpirai, Bengel appropriately observes : ‘‘ verum
se cis ostendit, ut dixerant, ver. 16 ;” ‘‘He shows them that He is true, as
they had said, ver. 16 ;” but in the interrogative ri, why, is involved the
idea of : what is your design in putting such a question ?

1 Comp. Luke xx. 20. 4 Comp. Oavudtar xpécwrov, Jude 16.
2 Comp. xi. 2, xxvil. 19. ® See Bremi ad Aeschin. p. 870.
3 Comp. thy Sicatocvvyy +. Oeov, vi. 88; 7a ® Comp. Michaelis, Mos. #. III. p. 154.
épya 7. Geov, John vi. 28; and so Ps. xxvii. T Bee Joseph. Anté. xviil. 1. 1.
11; Wisd. v. 7; Bar. iff. 18.

380 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 19. Td véuioua 7. x.]' The tribute was paid in Roman, not in Jew-
ish money.? — mpoonveyx. ait@ dyvép.] 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 existence 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 rec- -
ognizes 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 matcrial, re-
ligious, and ethical nature, which God, as sovereign of the theocratic
people, is entitled to exact from them as His due. By the ra Kaicapoc, on
the other hand, we are not to understand merely the civil taz, but every-
thing 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 EN
into the whole domain of duty ; in a quick and overpowering manner He
disarmed His adversaries, and laid the foundation for the Christian doctrine
which was more fully developed afterwards,*® 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 re-
garded as the unconditional and absolute standard, not only for the first of
the duties here mentioned (comp. Acts v. 29), but for every other. Chrys-
ostom observes that : what is rendered to Caesar must not be rH evotBecav
mnapaPrAarrovra, ‘‘ damaging to piety,” otherwise it is oixére Kaioapoc, Gada tod
diaBdAov pépoc xa? réAoc, ‘* no longer Caesar’s tribute and tax, but the devil’s.”
Thus the second part of the precept serves to dispose of any collision among
our duties which accidental circumstances might bring about (Rom. xiii. 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 xii. 14), and then adds in
the second part: ‘‘ You can and ought to serve God, in the first place,

1“Nummum aliquem ejus monetae, in ino agnoscunt,” “ Wherever the coin of any
qua tributum exigi solet,” ‘‘a certain piece king obtaining currency, there the inhabi-
of that money by which the tribute was _ tants acknowledge that king for their lord,”
customarily exacted,’’ Grotius. Maimonides.in Gezelah v. 18.

2“Ubicunque numisma regis alicujus 3 Rom. xilf. 1 ff.; 1 Tim. fi. 1 f.; 1 Pet. if.
obtinet, illic incolae regem istum prodom- 18 f., 17.

CHAP. XXII., 23-29. 381

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 gen-
eral thought : is it lawful to be subject to Caesar, or to God only ? Where-
as 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 the-
ocratic notions of a one-sided and degenerate character, to the higher unity~
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 neces-
sarily part and parcel of itself (John xix. 11), and consequently a simple
yes or no in reply to the question under consideration is quite impossible. —
anédore} the ordinary expression for paying what it is one’s duty to pay, as in
xx. 8, xxi.-41 ; Rom. xiii. 7.— Ver. 22. efabyacav]. ‘‘Conspicuo modo
ob responsum tutum et verum,” ‘‘in a conspicuous manner at his safe and
true answer,” Bengel.?!

Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xii. 18 ff. ; Luke xx. 27 ff. ; Matthew condenses.
— Of A£yovres uh elvat avdar.| who assert, etc., serving to account for the ques-
tion which follows. On the necessity of the article, inasmuch as the Sad-
ducees do not say to Jesus that there is no resurrection, but because their
regular confiteor is here quoted, comp. Ktihner ad Xen. ii. 7. 13 ; Mark xii.
' 18: ofreveg Aéyovot.

Ver. 24 ff. A free citation of the law respecting levirate marriage, Deut.
xxv. 5, and that without following the Septuagint, which in ¢his instance
does not render 03° by the characteristic ér:yauBp. 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 hus-
band.* — ércyauBpetecv, to marry as brother-in-law (levir. DA*).§ — tue tov éxrd]
until the seven, 4.¢., and in the same manner they continued to die until the
whole seven were dead. Comp. xviii. 22 ; 1 Macc. ii. 88. — torepov révtov]
later than all the husbands.

Ver. 28. Founding upon this alleged incident (which was undoubtedly
a silly invention got up for the occasion, Chrysostom), as being one strictly
in accordance with the law, the Sadducees now endeavor 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—
is 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 favorable to their doctrine. — yv4] Predicate.

Ver. 29. Jesus answers that, in founding upon Deut. xxv. 5 the denial of
the resurrection, which their question implies, they are mistaken, and that

1 Ove ériorevoay 84, Euthymius Zigabenus. Bodenstedt, d. Volker des Kaukasua, p. 82;
2 See Saalschiitz, M. R. p. 754 ff.; Ewald, Benary, p. 31 ff.
Alterth. p. 276 ff.; Benary, de Hebraeor. levi- *Comp. Gen. xxxvifi. 8; Test. XTI. patr.
ratu, Berl. 1885. As to other Oriental na- p. 599. Differently és:yaufp. rex in 1 Macc.
tions, see Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. VY. p. 81; x. 54; 1Sam. xviii. &.

382 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in a twofold respect : (1) they do not understand the Seriptures, t.¢., they
fail to see how that doctrine actually underlies many a scriptural utterance ;
and (2) they do not sufficiently realize the extent of the power of God, inas-
much as their conceptions of the resurrection 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 illustra-
tion of the latter point in ver. 80, and of the former in ver. 31.

Ver. 80. ’Ev yap r9 avacrdoe} 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 cor-
poreality, 1 Cor. xv. 44. The cessation of human propagation, not the abo-
lition of the distinction of sex (Tertullian, Origen, Hilary, Athanasius,
Basil, Grotius, Volkmar), is essentially implied in the agfapoia of the spir-
itual body. Comp. Luke xx. 386. — yayovoww] applies to the bridegroom ;
yapiCovrat,’ on the other hand, to daughters who are given in marriage by their
parents. — GA2’ dc dyyedo, x.7.A.] but they are as the angels of God in hearen.
év ovpavy belongs not to eici, but to dyyeAo r. Bcov, because the partakers in
the resurrection (and the Messianic kingdom) are not understood to be in
heaven.” 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 con-
ceived of not as mere spirits, but as possessing a supramundane corporeality.
This is necessarily presupposed in the language before us." The dééa of the
angels is essentially connected with their corporeality,‘— 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.°

Ver. 31 f. But with reference to the resurrection, set over against the fore-
going év yap rf avaor. ; the sequence of the address is indicated by the
prepositions. cpi r7¢ avaor. should be taken along with ov« avéyvere. — tyiv]
imparts the vivacity of individuality to the words of Jesus. The quotation
is from Ex. iii. 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 authoritative scripture.* Yet
these aristocrats regarded the law, and the mere letter of the law too, as
possessing supreme authority. — obx fori 6 Gedc, x.t.A.] This is the major
proposition of a syllogism, in terms of which we are warranted in recogniz-

2 Apoll. de Synt. p. 277, 18. § “Mulier fla, quae duobus nupsit in hoo
2 xxv. 31 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 62; 2 Pet. iii.18; | mundo, priori restituitur in mundo futuro."
not inconsistent with 1 Thess. iv. 17. “That woman who married two husbands

7 Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40; Phil. 1.10; Hahn, in this world is, in the future world, restor-
Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 267; Weiss, Bt. Theol. ed to the former,” Sohar Gen. f. xxiv. 98.
p. 68; Kahnis, Dogm. 1. p. 556. * Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Luther,
*In opposition to Delitzsch, Psychol. p. Paulus, Olshausen, Siiskind in the Stud. wu.
Krit. 1880, p. 665.

CHAP. XXII., 33-35. 383 °

ing in the passage here quoted a scriptural testimony in favor of the resur-
rection. The Sadduccees had failed to draw the inference thus shown to be
deducible from the words ; hence ver. 29 : su? eidérec rag ypagds, a fact which
Jesus has now confirmed by the illustration before us. The point of the ar-
gument does not turn upon the present eiui (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, 7.¢.,
those who are absolutely dead, who have ceased to exist (ov« dvrwv xai xabé-
nak agaviobéivruv, ‘‘not existing and absolutely disappeared,’ Chrysostom),
but only toward the living, it follows that the deceased patriarchs must be
living,—living, that is, in Sheol, and living as avaorfva: uéA2ovrec, ‘‘ about
to rise from the dead” (Euthymius Zigabenus).’

Ver. 33. Of 6xA0c] amévnpot nai adéxaoro, ‘‘ free from malice and impartial,”
Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. vii. 28.

Ver. 34. The following conversation respecting the great commandment
is given in Mark xii. 28 ff. with such characteristic detail, that Matthew’s
account cannot fail to have the appearance of being incomplete, and, consid-
ering the bias of the incident (see note on ver. 85), to look as if it represent-
ed 8 corrupt tradition. In Luke x. 25 ff. there is a similar conversation,
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. —
oi dt? dapic.] Comp. ver. 15. They had already been baffled, and had with-
drawn into the background (ver. 22); but the victory of Jesus over the Sad-
ducees 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 favored by

anything analogous elsewhere,—but, as was the object in every such chal- ©

lenge, to tempt Jesus, if that were at all possible, to give such an answer as
might be used against Him, see ver. 85. — dxoboavrec] whether while present
(among the multitude), or when absent, through the medium, perhaps, of
their spies, cannot be determined. — ovvfzycav ézi rd aité] for the purpose
of concertirg measures for a new attack. Consequently the vopexds 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
(Késtlin) between the present verse and ver. 41. — é7? rd aiz6] locally, not
said with reference to their sentiments.

Ver. 35. Noucxédc] the only instance in Matt. ; it is met with in none of the
other Gospels except that of Luke. It occurs, besides, in Tit. iii. 18. The
word is used to signify one who is coneersant with the law, éxtorhpuv trav vépnwv
(Photius).* It is impossible to show that there is any essential difference of
meaning between this word and ypapparetc (see note on ii. 4); comp. on the
contrary, Luke xi. 52, 58. — The term vouxde is more specific (jurisconsultus),

1Comp. Heb. xi.16. The similar infer- 2 See on Acts 1. 15; Ps. fl. 2.
ence in Menasse f. Isr. de Resurr. 1. 10, 6, ap- $Plut. Sul. 36; Strabo, xii. p. 589; Diog.
pears to have been deduced from the pas-__L. vi. 54; Epictet.1. 13; An¢hof. xi. 862. 19.
sage before us. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 190.

384 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

and more strictly Greek ; ypauparei¢, on the other hand, is more general
(literatus), and more Hebrew in its character (19D). The latter is also of
more frequent occurrence in the Apocr.; while the former is met with only
in 4 Macc. v. 8.. In their character of teachers they are designated
vouodiddoxaam, Luke v.17; Acts v. 87; 1 Tim. i. 7. — recpéfur airév] differ-
ent 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 zoéry¢ 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. Hespecifies, 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
neighbor, constitute the zocéryc 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) is
great in the law ; what must be the nature of a commandment in order to
constitute it great? The commandment, then, which Jesus singles out as
the great one xar’ éfoxfv, and which, as corresponding to the subsequent
devtépa, He places at the head of the whole series (7 peydAy x. mpdrn, see the
critical notes) in that of Deut. vi. 5, quoted somewhat freely after the Sept.
—Kbptov tiv Oedy cov] SAAR) mi? NX, in which regular designation rév Oedy
cov is in apposition, consequently not to be rendered : ‘‘ utpote Dominum
tuum,” ‘‘as being thy God,” Fritzsche.—Love to God must fill the whole
heart, the entire inner sphere in which all the workings of the personal con-
sciousness originate,’ the whole sowl, the whole 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 10 deiv dyardv trav Gedy ddopiywr, rovTd Eore TS
dia wévrwv tev tHe Wexne pEepOv Kal duvduewv atte mpoctzerv, ‘the necessity of
loving God with all the heart, that is the devoting oneself to Him with all
the portions and powers of the heart” (Theophylact), the complete harmo-
nious self-dedication of the entire inner man to God, as to its highest good.?

Ver. 39. But a second ia like unto it, of the same nature and character, pos-
sessing to an equal extent the xoér7c,* which is the necessary condition of
greatness, and therefore no less radical and fundamental.‘ We should not
adopt the reading éyuoia airy, recommended by Griesbach, following many
Uncials and min. (but in opposition to the vss.) ; nor again that of
Fritzsche, duoia ettg, airy (conjecture). The former was presumed (comp.
Mark xii. 31) to be a necessary emendation, because from the commandment

1 Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 248 ff.; Krumm, _ ed,” Chrysdstom.

de notionibd, psych. Paul. § 12. 4 Comp. 1 John iv. 16, 20, 21; Matt. xxv.
2Comp. Weiss, Bidt. Theol. p. 81, ed. 2. 40, 45. Euthymius Zigabenus : adAproxoor-
Sore altn éxeivny mpoofomoe:, cai wap tain. depadAnAoi ciccy ai sve, ‘‘ these two are

abris ovyxporetra: waAcy, ‘* because this leads held together and carried together.”

the way for that, and by it again is approv-

e

CHAP. XXII., 40-43. 385

being immediately added, the demonstrative seemed requisite by way of in-
troducing it. Moreover, according to the context, there would be no need
forthe dative in the case of éuo10¢. The commandment is quoted from Lev.
xix. 18, after the Sept. — éyarfoec] This, the inward, moral esteem, and the
corresponding behavior, may form the subject of a command, though the
same cannot be said of ¢:Aciv, which is love as a matter of feeling.' The
gaia Tow xéopov (Jas. iv. 4), on the other hand, may be forbidden ; comp.
Rom. viii. 7 ; the g:Aeiv of one’s own wr (John xii. 25), and the uA gureiv
rov xtprov (1 Cor. xvi. 22), may be condemned. comp. also Matt. x. 87. —d¢
ceavr.] as thou shouldst love thysel/, so as to cherish toward him zo less than
toward thyself that love which God would have thee to feel, and to act
toward him (by promoting his welfare, etc., comp. vii. 12) in sucha
manner that your conduct may be in accordance with this loving spirit.
Love must do away with the distinction between I and Thou.’

Ver. 40. Those two commandments contain the fundamental principle of
the whole of the commandments in the Old Testament. —ratraic] with
emphasis: these are the two commandments on which, etc. — xpéuaraz]
depends thereon, so that those commandments constitute the basis and essen-
tial condition of the moral character of all the others, Rom. xiii. 8 f. ; Gal.
v. 14. —xai ol mpogjra:] so far as the preceptire element in them is con-
cerned.‘ Thus Jesus includes more in His reply than was contemplated by
the question (ver. 36) of the vourxéde.

Ver. 41." Jesus, in His turn, now proceeds to put a question to the Phar-
isees (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 convinc-
ing 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 favored 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. xxii.

Ver. 48 f. Mdc] how is it possible, that, etc.—In his question Jesus starts
with what was a universal assumption 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 en-
tertained no doubt as to the accuracy of the title of the psalm, 1s not to be
questioned, though it should not be made use of, with Delitzsch and many
others, for the purpose of proving the Davidic authorship of the composi-

1 Comp. on v. 44, and seein general Titt- xpenanudvy waca Yuxy wodlrov, “from which
mann, Syn. p. 00 ff. (possessions) every citizen's life being sus-
2? Bengel: ‘Qui Deum amat, se ipsum pended.” Pind. Ol. vi. 125; Xen. Symp.
amabit ordinate, citra philautiam,” “He viii. 19; Gen. xliv. 80; Judith vill. 24.
who loves God will love himself, in a proper 4 Comp. on v. 17.
degree, without selfishness,” Eph. v. 28. ® Comp. Mark xii. 35 ff. ; Luke xx. 41 ff
*Comp. Plat. Legg. vili. p. 881 C: ¢ é&»

386 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
tion ; fora 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 é mveiu. 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-critical one of persuading His opponents that the
psalm was not composed by David, and that it contains no reference to
the Messiah.' — év rveivaz:] meaning, perhaps, that He did not do so on
His own authority, but impulsu Spiritus Sancti (2 Pet. i. 21).? David was
regarded as a prophet, Acts ii. 30, i 16. — aizé:] the Messiah ; for the per-
sonage in the psalm is a prophetic type of the Messiah ; as also the Rabbini-
cal teachers recognized in him one of the foremost of the Messianic predic-
' tions (Wetstein, Schoettgen), and only at a later period would they hear of
any other reference.* — Zug av 00, «.7.4.] see on 1 Cor. xv. 25.

Ver. 45 f. Ei obv Aaveid, x.r.2.] The emphasis rests on the correlative terms
xbpiov and vidc : If, then, as appears from this language of the psalm, David,
whose son He is, according 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
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, accord-
ing to His divine origin as the Son of God, from whom He is sprung, and
by whom He is sent,‘—in virtue of which relation He is superior to David
and all that is merely human, and, by His elevation to the heavenly défa
(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 influence of the Holy Spirit, called his Lord. 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 tothe 7éc . . . gore. Observe that the question does not imply a
negative, as though Jesus had asked, yp? vid¢ abvrod tort ;—ovxétc}] ‘*‘ Nova
dehinc quasi scena se pandit,” ‘‘ From hence a new scene, as it were, opens
itself,” Bengel.

1 For the correct view of this matter, see
Diestel in the Jahrb. /. D. Theol. 1868, p. 541
f. ; see also the pointed elucidation, as well
asrefutation of the other interpretations,
in Keim, III. p. 154 ff. ; comp. Gess, I. p. 128
f. Then there is the explanation, frequent-
ly 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 de-
ecended from David,—a circumstance which

is supposed to have undoubtedly stood in
the way of His being recognized as the
Messiah (Schenkel, Weisse, Colani, Holtz-
mann); 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 in adjecto.

2? Luke li. 27; 1 Cor. xlf. 3; Rom. viiL 15,
ix. 2.

* Delitzsch on Heb. I. 18, and on Ps. cx).

# xi. 27, xvil. 26; John i. 14, 18, vi. 46, vib
28 f.; Rom. 1 8f.

CHAP. XXIII. 387

“CHAPTER XXIIL

Ven. 3. rypeiv) after tiv is deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch., follow-
ing Mill. It is wanting in very important authorities. A gloss, for which certain
authorities have sroceiv. — rnpeite x. roteite] Lachm. : rowgoare x. tnpeire. So also
Tisch. This is the original reading (B L Z &** 124, Hilar.); for the sake of
uniformity, zo:joare was changed into oeire (D, 1, 209, Eus. Dam.) ; but the
transposed order rnp. x. mr. is an ancient logical correction) as old as Syr. Vulg.
It.). — Ver. 4. For ydp Lachm. and Tisch. read dé, following weighty attesta-
tion. Correctly ; yéo was meant to be more precise. — xal dvoGacor.] deleted by
Tisch. 8, following L 8, vss. Ir. But the evidence in favor of the words is too
strong, and their omission on account of the two xai’s might so readily occur
that they must not be regarded as an interpolation from Luke xi. 46. — r¢ dé]
Lachm. Tisch. 8 : atrol 62 16, following B DL ¥%, and two min. vss. and
Fathers. Exegetical amplification after Luke xi. 46.— Ver. 5. For dé after
r2zarov. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have ydp, in accordance with B D L 8, min. vss Chrys.
Damasc. See on ver. 4. — ray luar, avr.] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., follow-
ing B D &, 1, 22, vss, Correctly ; an explanatory addition. — Ver. 6. For ¢iA.
ve we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read g:4. dé, in accordance with decisive
evidence. — Ver. 7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have Jaffi only once, following B L
A &, 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. xaOnyn-
T#¢] Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., following Grotius, Mill, and Bengel, read
éiddoxadoc, which Rinck also approves. No doubt xa%nyy7. has a very decided
preponderance of evidence in its favor (of the uncials only B U &°*? read
é:dacx.) ; 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, xa6synr)¢ 6 Xproréc, 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 in ver. 10 below. — Ver. 10. ele yap tudy éorev 6 xabny.) Lachm. and
Tisch. : bri xafnynrng tuav éorly elc. The latter is the best attested reading ;
that of the Received text is to conform with ver. 8 f. —In the Teztus receptus the
two verses, 13 and 14, stand in the following order: (1) ova? . . . elaeAGetv; (2)
ota? . . . xpiua, in opposition to EF GH K MSU VI AI, vss. and Fathers.
On this evidence Griesbach, Scholz, Fritzsche have adopted the transposed _
order. But ovai . . . xpiva (in Elz. ver. 14) is wanting in BD L Z &, 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. rig yap peifov] Lachm. : ri ydp peifov, but, undoubtedly,
on the evidence of Z only. The vss. (Vulg. It.) can have no weight here. —
éyidfwv] Lachm, and Tisch. : cyuicas, following B D Z &, Cant.; Vulg. has
sanctificat. The present participle is from ver. 19, where there is no difference
in the reading. — Ver. 19. pwpol xai] is wanting in D L Z 8, 1, 209, and several

388 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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
katotxyoav7s Elz. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have xaro:xotyr:, following B H 8 &, min.,
the force of the aorist not being apprehended. — Ver. 23. Elz. : ravra ide; but
Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. 7 have adopted_raira dé édex. In both cases
the evidence is considerable ; but how readily might dé be omitted before éde:
through oversight on the part of the transcriber ! — Ver. 25, é£] is wanting in C
D, min. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. It had been omitted as unnecessary. —
Elz. Lachm. Tisch. read axpaolac, instead of which Griesb. and Scholz have
adixiag, The evidence is very much divided, being strong on both sides ; dxpa-
oiag is to be preferred. This word, the only other instance of which in the
ty. T. is at 1 Cor. vii. 5, appeared to be inappropriate, and came to be repre-
sented by a variety of glosses (uxaQapoiac, wAcovefiac, adixiag, rovnpiac). — Ver.
26, abrav] Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. : avvov, following B* D E* min, Aeth. Vere.
This airov is bound up with the omission of -«al ri¢ mapoy. in D, min. Cant.
Vere. Clem. Chrys. Ir. (deleted by Tisch.). Those words, however, are eyvi-
dently an insertion from ver. 25, an insertion, moreover, which is inconsistent
with atvov, so that the words ought to be deleted and avroi preferred to abréy,
— Ver. 27. rapopodfere] Lachm. : duordfere, 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. — Ver. 30. gue6a, instead of qyuev of the Received
text, is supported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 34. xai é& aiz.] in the first case
xai is wanting in B M A II &, min. codd. of It. Syr. Arm. Or. (once). Deleted by
Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may this cat have been omitted since the
next clause opens with «ai! — Ver. 36. Before #fe, Griesb., followed by Matth.,
Fritzsche, Scholz, inserted 4r:, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted
again. 67: has important evidence both for and against. A common interpo-
lation.—raira rdvta] The order ruvra ravra (Lachm. Tisch. 7) is well attested,
though there is a preponderance of evidence (C D &, etc., Vulg. It. for the
reading of the Received text. — Ver. 37. voocia éavri¢] Lachm. has deleted
éav7., but only on the evidence of B, vas, Clem. (once) Or. (once) Cypr. Hil.,
and notwithstanding the probable omission of the pronoun as apparently
superfluous. Had it been inserted from Luke xiii. 34, it would have been
placed between rd and vocoia. For éavri¢ Tisch. reads atric, following B*¥* D,
marg. M A &* 33, Clem. (once) Eus. Cyr. Theodoret. The reflective might be
ensily overlooked, as was often the case. — Ver. 38. épnuoc is wanting in B L
Copt.* Corb. 2, Or. Deleted by Lachm. ; to be maintained on account of the
preponderating evidence in its favor, 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 overwhelm-
ing denunciations extending to ver. 39, and which, uttered as they are on
the eve of His death, form a kind of Messianic cyueiov 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

CHAP. XXIII., 2, 3. 389

considering the originality in respect of matter and arrangement which
characterizes the grand utterances now before us, the preference must be
accorded to the report furnished by this apostle (in answer to Schleier-
macher, Schulz, Schneckenburger, Olshausen, Volkmar). The entire dis-
course 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
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 6720 are
mentioned first, because the first part of the discourse on to ver. 7 is
directed to them, then the yafyrai 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 dy/o0: and the parrai to
beware of them ; and finally, the concluding passage, ver. 87 ff., containing
the pathetic exclamation over Jerusalem. The glance, the gesture, the atti-
tude, the matter and the language, were such that there could be no doubt
who were immediately aimed at in the various sections of the discourse.
We may imagine the scene in the temple to have been as follows : in the
Soreground, Jesus with His disciples ; a little farther off, the 5x40 ; more in
the background, the Pharisees, who in xxii. 46 are spoken of as having with-
drawn.

Ver. 2. The phrase : ‘‘to sit in Moses’ seat” (in the seat which Moses had
occupied as lawgiver), is borrowed not from Ex. xviii. 18, but refers to the
later practice of having chairs for teachers (comp. Acta xxii. 8), and is
intended as a figurative mode of describing the functions of one who ‘‘ acts
as a public teacher of the Mosaic law,” in discharging which functions the
teacher may be regarded as the representative and successor of Moses. Ac-
cordingly, in Rabbinical writers, one who succeeds a Rabbi as the represen-
tative of his school is described as 02-79 Ip, « sitting upon his seat.”!
— éxdficav] 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 tothe pretensions and self-seeking character of the Pharisees.’

Ver. 3. Oiv] inasmuch as they speak as teachers and interpreters of the
Mosaic law. —rdvta . . . dca] Limitations of the sense, which lie outside
the point of view marked out by the expression ‘‘ Moses’ seat,” —as though
Jesus had in 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 as-
sumed 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 6x40, whom Jesus had neither the power nor the wish to

1 See Vitringa Synag. p. 165 f. 8 Comp. 2 Thess. il. 4.

390 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

release from their obligations in respect to the manifest teachings of the
law. But having a regard tothe glaring inconsistency between the teaching
and the conduct of their pharisaic instructors, and considering His own
fundamental principle with regard to the obligatory character of the law,
ver. 18 f., He could not have spoken otherwise than He did when He incul-
cated upon the people the duty of complying 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; Acta
v. 29.— roigoare x. tnpeite (see critical notes) : aorist and present ; doit, and
observe it constantly.’

Ver. 4. Comp. Luke xi. 46. —In deopebana: dé (see critical notes), the dé
introduces an instance of their Aéyover nai ob rovover 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 requirements and pre-
cepts, so that, from their accumulation, they become difficult to fulfil. — ro
d2 daxridw avtav, x.t.A.] but are themselves indisposed to move them even with
their finger, in the direction, that is, of their fulfilment. The emphasis rests
on 7T@ daxrbaw ; they will not move the burdens with their jinger, far less
would they bear them upon their shoulders.

Vv. 5-7. Comp. Luke xi. 43 f. — ¢vAaxrijpia, amulets, were the Popa, 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.* — rAarbvove:] they broaden
their @vAaxrfpia, i.e., they make them broader than those of others, in order
that they may thereby become duly conspicuous. Corresponding to this is :
peyaatvove:, they enlarge. On the xpdoreda, see on ix. 20. — ri rpwroxdciav]
the foremost couch at table, i.e,, according to Luke xiv. 8 ff.,* the uppermost
place on the divan, which the Greeks also regarded as the place of honor.*
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 synop-
tical Gospels and the Fathers.* — Ja8fi, paf3i] ‘3, °31.° The reduplication
serves to show how profound the reverence is.’ For the view that Radvi

1 See Kiihner, IT. 1. p. 158 f. * Plut. Symp. p. 619 B.

9 Joseph. Anét. iv. 8. 18; Lund, Jiéd. Hei- 5 Suidas : wpwroxAicia: ) wpwrn cabédpa.
ligth., ed. Wolf, p. 896 ff. ; Keil, Arch. I. p. * &8doxade, John I. 89; with yod paragogic.
842 f. 7 Comp. Mark xiv. 15; Matt. vil. 21 f.

8 Joseph. Anét. xv. 2. 4.

CHAP, XXIII., 8-13. 891

(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 Encykl, XII. p. 471 ; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 805.

Vv. 8-12. 'Yyeic] with which the discourse is suddenly turned to the dis-
ciples, is placed first ’ for sake of emphasis, and forms a contrast to the Phar-
isees and scribes. — 9 xAnOjre} neither wish nor allow it. — rdvre¢ dé] 80
that no one may violate the fraternal tie on the ground of his supposed su-
periority as a teacher.— xai warépa, x.r.4.] The word xarépa, by being placed
at the beginning, becomes emphatic, and so also tyuév, by being separated
from srarépa to which it belongs : And you must not call ary one father of
you upon earth, ¢.e., you must not apply the teacher’s title ‘‘ our father” ® to
any mere man.* — Ver. 10. Neither are you to allow yourselves to be called lead-

.ers (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, sce. Wetstein. — 6 d2 peifuv tydv, «.7.A.] But
among you greatness is to be indicated quite otherwise than by high-sound-
ing titles : the greater among you, t.e., he among you who would surpass the
others in true dignity, will be your servant.‘ This is a saying of which Jesus
makes very frequent use (Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14). Comp. xx. 26 f. ; also
the erample of Jesus in the washing of the disciples’ feet, and Phil. ii. 6 f.
— rare). . . . byw.) that is, on the occasion of the setting up of my
kingdom.

Remarx.—The prohibitions, ver. 8 ff., have reference to the hierarchical
meaning and usage which were at that time associated with the titles in ques-
tion. 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 appropriately observes: ‘‘ Hac clausula
ostendit, se non sophistice litigasse de vocibus, sed rem potius spectasse,’’
‘¢In this conclusion he shows that he has not been disputing, in a sophistical
manner, about words, but has had regard rather to things,”’

Ver. 18. Here begins the direct and withering apostrophe of Jesus to His
adversaries themselves who are still present, this part of the address consist-
ing of seven troes, and extending to ver. 36. For the spurious ver. 14, Ziz.,
concerning the devouring of widows’ houses, see the critical remarks. The
characteristic feature in this torrent of woes is its intense righteous indigna-
tion, such as we meet with in the prophets of old,*—an indignation which
abandons the objects of it as past all hope of amendment, and cuts down
every bridge behind them. Io Celsus (in Origen, ii. 76) all this sounded as
mere empty threat and scolding. —6r:] assigns the reason of this oval. —

1In consequence of this address to the groupsof which the audience was composed
disciples, Holtzmann, p. 200, regards the (see on ver. }).
whole discourse, in the form fn which it 258, see Ruxtorf, p. 10, 2175; Ewald as
has come down to us, as an historical im- above.
possibility. Observe, however, the impas- 2 Comp. Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 788).
sioned and lively way in which the topics * Comp. ver. 12.
are varied so as to suit exactly the different ® Comp. Isa. v. 8, x. 1; Hab. iL. 6 ff.

392 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Kieiere, x.t.A.] 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 had appeared among them, and show themselves indiffer-
ent to the dcxazocivy, necessary in order to admission into the kingdom from
which they are consequently excluded.’ They thus shut the door of the king-
dom tn men’s faces. —ipeic yap, x.t.A.] explanatory reason. — rove eicepyou. |
who are trying, who are endeavoring to obtain admission.*

Ver. 15. Instead of helping men into the Messiah’s kingdom, what con-
temptible efforts to secure proselytes to their own way of thinking! This
representation of pharisaic zeal is doubtless hyperbolical, though it is, at
the same time, based upon actual journeyings for the purpose of making
converts. * — éva] a single. —xal érav yévgta] se. mpoohAvrog. — vidv yeévvyc]
one fit for Gehenna, condemned to be punished in it.*— d&irAdérepov tpov] is
commonly taken in an adverbial sense (Vulg.: duplo quam), asense in which
it is consequently to be understood in the corresponding passage of Justin.°
Coming as it does after vidv, it is more natural to regard it, with Valla, as
an adjective: who is doubly more so than you are.* But it is still rendered
doubtful whether d:rAérepov is to be taken in an adverbial or adjective sense
by a passage from Justin as above : of d? mpoovAvroc ov pdvov ob morevovow,
GAA SinAdrepov ipav BAacgnpoic:, ‘‘ the proselytes not only do not believe, but
they blaspheme doubly what you yourselves do.” This passage is likewise
unfavorable 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 justijiable in using the words dixiérepov tuov? According
to Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Euthymius Zigabenus : in conse-
quence of the evil example of him who made the convert, which was such
that *‘ex malo ethnico fit pejor Judaeus,” ‘from an evil heathen he be-
comes a worse Jew” (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 advantage 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 (woeire) : on account of the manner in which the
proselytes continued to be influenced and wrought upon by those who con-
verted them, in consequence of which they were generally found to become
more bigoted, more unloving, and more extreme than their instructors, and,
of course, necessarily more corrupt.

1 Comp. Luke xi. 52. 8 C. Tr. 122: vor 8 &trAdrepov vioi yeérrns,
2 See Bernhardy, p. 870 f. @s avrds elne, yiverOe, ‘‘but now ye are
3 Joseph. Anti. xx. 2.4. On Jewish pros- become doubly the children 6f Gehenna, as
elytism generally, see Danz In Meuschen, He Himself said.’’
N. T. ex Talim. ill. p. 649. Wetstein's note * For the comparative itself, comp. App.
on this passage. Hist. praef. 10: oxevy Sixddrepa rovrwr.
4 Comp. on viii. 12; John xvif. 12. .

CHAP. XXIII., 16-23. 393
‘Ver. 16. A new point, and one so peculiarly heinous that a somewhat
larger portion of the denunciatory address is devoted to it. —év ro vag] as
im the Mischna we frequently meet with such expressions as: per habita-
eculum hoc, MN YD. '— év rH xpvog roi vaov] by the gold which belongs to the
temple, the ornaments, the vessels, perhaps also the gold in the sacred treas-
ury (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 cows in the
present instance. For é with ouvbev, comp. on v. 34. — oidév éoriv] it (the
oath) is nothing, is of no consequence. It is not the person swearing who is
the subject, but é¢ av oudoy, x.7.A., form an absolute nominative, as in vii.
24, x. 14, xiii. 12. — dgeiAec] ts indebted, bound to keep the oath.

Ver. 17 ff. [dp] Justifies the preceding epithets. — pei{av] of greater con-
sequence, and consequently more binding, as being o more sacred object by
which toswear. The reason of the pei{wy lies in 6 dy:doas rov ypvodv, according
to which the consecrated relation is conceived of as one between the temple
and the gold, that has been brought about(otherwise if dy:df{wv be read) by
the connecting of the latter with the former. — rd dépov] the offering (v.
23), as laid upon the altar, it belongs to God.

Ver. 20-22. Oty] inference from ver. 19 ; because the greater, from which
the less (the accessorium), as being bound up with it, derives its sanctity,
necessarily includes that less. —6 dudécac . . . ouvber] The aorist participle
represents the thing as already in the course of being done :* he who has pro-
ceeded to swear by the altar, swears ( present), according to the point of view
indicated by otv, not merely by the altar, but at the same time by all that is
upon it as well. — Ver. 21. No longer dependent on oi» ; but two other ex-
amples of swearing are adduced independently of the former, in each of
which even the highest of all, God Himself, is understood to be included.
Accordingly we find the objects presented in a different 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 per-
fect agreement as to the sacred and binding character of the oaths. — xaro:-
xhoavtt] who made it his dwelling-place, took up his abode in it (after it was
built).* — Ver. 224]. Comp. on v. 84.

Ver. 23.° In accordance with certain traditional enactments,® the Phari-
sees extended the legal prescriptions as to tithes” so as to include even the
most insignificant vegetable products, such as mint, anise, and cummin.*—

1 See Wetstein and Lightfoot.

2 Kfihner, IL 1, p. 184, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 1.
18.

3 Comp. Jas. iv. 5; Luke fi. 49.

4 The opposite of ver. 2 occurs in Schev.
uoth, f. xxxv. 2: ‘‘ Quia praeter Deum, coeli
et terrae creatorem, datur etiam ipsum
coelum et terra, indubilum esse debet, quod
is, qui per coelum et terram jurat non per
eum juret, qui illa creavit, sed per illas ip-
sas creaturas,” “Since beside God, the
Creator of heaven and earth, there is given

heaven itself and the earth, it ought to be
beyond doubt that he who swears by
heaven and earth, swears not by Him who
created them, but by the very creations
themselves.”

® Comp. Luke xi. 89 ff.

6 Babyl. Joma, f. |xxxill. 2,

7 Lev. xxvii. 80; Num. xviii. 21; Deut.
xii. 6 f., xiv. 22-27.

®See Lightfoot and Wetstein on this
passage. Ewald, Allerth. p. 809.

394 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

r& Bapttepa tov véuov] the weightier things, i.e., the more important (graviora)
elements of the law (comp. Acts xxv. 7), not : the things more difficult of ful-
Jiument (difficiliora, as Fritzsche), which interpretation is indeed grammati-
cally 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 im-
portant, and most probably had in view the analogy of the praecepta gratia
(DNDN) ct lecia (@a"7p) of the Jewish doctors.'— rv xpiow] comp. Ps.
xxxili. 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.* The xplac is the practical manifestation of right-
eousness. — rv rior] faithfulness.2 The opposite of this is amsoria, perfidia.*
— av-a] the Baptrepa just mentioned, not the tithing of mint, etc. (Bengel).
— éde:] oportebat.* Those were the duties which had been neglected. — py
adifvat] scarcely so strong as the positive zo:joa:. Observe the contrasts :
What you hate neglected you ought to have done, and at the same time not
hace neglected what you are in the habit of doing,—the former being of par-
amount importance ; the subordinate matter, viz. your painful attention to
tithes, is not superseded by the higher duties, but only kept in its proper
place.

Ver. 24. The Jews were in the habit of straining their wine,* in order
that there might be no possibility of their swallowing with it any unclean
animal, however minute (Lev. xi. 42).’ Figurative representation of the
painful scrupulosity with which the law was observed. — rév xévera} a kind
of attraction for percolando removentes muscam (that found in the wine, rdv x.),
just as in classical writers the phrase xa@aipe rc is often used to express the
removing of anything by cleansing. xdvey is not aworm found in sour wine
(Bochart, Bleek), but, as always, a gnat. In its attempt to suck the wine,
it falls in amongst it. — rj dé xéund. xatamiv.] proverbial expression, ra
péyiota 62 araparnphtuc duaptévovrec, Euthymius Zigabenus, Observe at the
same time that the camel is an wnelean animal, Lev. xi. 4.

Ver. 25. But inwardly they (the cup and the plate) are jilled from extortion
and excess (axpaciac, 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 exorbitance have
contributed to fill them. On yéuecy éx, see on John xii. 8. The simple gen-
itive (ver. 27) would only be equivalent to : they are full of plunder, etc. —
axpaotac| a later form of axpareiag.”

Ver. 26. Kaépicov mpérov, x.7.A.] 4.6., let it be your first care (xparov, as in
vi. 83, vil. 5, and elsewhere), to see that the wine in the cup is no longer
procured by extortion and exorbitance, —iva yévyra:, x.7.A.] not: ‘ut tum

1 8ee Schoettgen, p. 188. T Buxtorf. Lex. Talim. p. 516. Comp. the
* Comp. Bengel and Paulus. , liquare vinum of the Greeks and Romans;
3 Jer. v. 1; Rom. iil. 8; Gal. v. @; and =Mitscherlich,ad Hor. Od.i. 11.7; Hermann,

see on Philem. 5. Privatalterth. § xxvi. 17.

4Wisd. xiv. 25, frequent in classical ® Hom. ZZ. xiv. 171, xvi. 667; Dio. Cass.
writers. xxxviif. 52.

6 See Kfihner, ITI. 1, p. 176 f. ® See on 1 Cor. vil. 5.

6 &HAcg., Plut. Mor. p. 692 D.

CHAP. XXIII., 27-29. "895

recte etiam externae partes possint purgari,” Fritzsche, but with the em-
phasis on yévyra: : 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 cleans-
ing, 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 con-
duct. The external cleansing is not declared to be unnecessary (de Wette),
nor, again, is it intended to be regarded as the true one, which latter can
only be brught about after the purifying of the contents has been ef-
fected.! That which is insisted on with zpédrov is to be attended to in the
Jirst place. : .

Ver. 27 f. The graves were whitewashed with lime (xovia) every year on
the 15th of Adar (a custom which Rabbinical 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 to-
tally different character. — ioxpic. x. avou.] (immorality): both as represent-
ing their disposition. Thus, morally speaking, they were rdgoe Euyvzor,
Lucian, D. XM. vi. 2.

Ver. 29 ff. Comp. Luke xi. 47 ff. — The oixodoueiv of the tombs of the
prophets and the xoopeiv of the sepulchres of the righteous (the Old Testa-
ment saints, comp. ver. 35, xiii. 17 ; Heb. xi. 28); this preserving and or-
namenting of the sacred tombs by those who pretended to be holy was
accompanied with the self-righteous declaration of ver. 30.2?— ei queda, x.
7.A,] not: #f we had been, but : if we were (comp. on John xi. 21), 4f we were
living in the time of our fathers, certainly we would not be, etc. — Sore paptre-
peire éavroic, x.t.A.] Thus (inasmuch as you say trav warkpwy judy) you witness
against yourselves (dative of reference, Jas. v. 8), that you are the sons, etc,
vioi contains a twofold meaning. From rév xarép. ju., in which the Pharisees
point to their dedily 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 vioi, the discourse becoming more and more impas-
sioned. ‘‘When you thus speak of your fathers, you yourselves thereby
testify to your own kinship with the murderers of the prophets.” De
Wette’s objection, that this interpretation of vioi would be incompatible
with what is said by way of vindicating themselves at ver. 80, 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

1 Bengel fitly observes: “alias enim illa character, see, in general, Robinson, Pui.
mundities externa non est mundities,” “for _IT. p. 17% ff., and on the so-called ‘‘ tombs of
otherwise that external cleanliness {is not the prophets” still existing. p. 194. Tobler,
cleanliness." Topogr. v. Jerus. II. p. 227 ff.

* On the ancient tombs of a more notable

896 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

their hearts and reads their thoughts. — év 7 aivare] ¢.¢., the crime of shed-
ding their blood.' For é, 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 rAnpooare (comp. Xxv.
45), the mere permissice 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 Him-
self as well as his messengers to death. — xal tyeic] ye also. The force of xai
is to be sought in the fact that rAypdoare, x.r.A., is intended to indicate 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. Ilé¢ giyyre] Conjunctive, with a deliberative force: how are you,
judging from your present character, to escape from (see on iii. 7), etc.?
The xpiore tHe yeévv. means the pronouncing of the sentence which condemns

to Gehenna. The phrase judicium Gehennae is also of very frequent occur-
rence in Rabbinical writers.‘ The judgment comes when the measure is
full.°

Ver. 84. Acad rovro] must be of substantially the same import as drug 2407
ég’ tuac in ver. 85. Therefore, in order that ye may not escape the condem-
nation of hell (ver. 83), behold, I send to you. . . and ye will, etc.; xai éé
airaéy is likewise dependent on dia rovro. Awful unveiling of the divine
decree. Others have interpreted as follows : diéte péAAere mAnpwoat To péTpov
Tij¢ Kaxiag Trav marépwv tuaov, ‘* wherefore ye are about to fill up the measure of
your fathers’ wickedness” (Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche), thus arbitra-
rily disregarding what immediately precedes (ver. 83). Moreover, without
any hint whatever in the text of Matthew, idot, éyd azooré22u, x.r.4., has
sometimes been taken for a quotation from some Jost apocryphal prophecy,
épn 6 Aedc, or some such expression, being understood ‘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.’

1 On ala in the sense of caedes, see Dor-
vill. ad Charié. p. 427.

2 The readings érAynpwcare (D H, min.) and
wAnpwecere (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 inter-
preted by Wilke, Rhefor. p. 367 ; the latter,
again, jsadopted by Ewald, who regards «.
Umets wAnpecere as also dependent on ér.

3 Comp. xxvi. 54; Mark iv. 30; Hom JZ. 1.
150 : was tis ror wpddpwy Exeoiy weiOyra Axa-
«ov; ‘* How shall any one of the Achaeans
hearken to thy bidding with all his heart?”

4 Sco Wetstein.

® Comp. 1 Thess. it. 16.

°Van Hengel, Annofatio, p. 1 ff., and
Paulus, Strauss, Ewald, Weizsiicker,

7** Jesus,’ he says, ‘is here speaking as
the very impersonation of wisdom ; Mat-
thew has omitted the quotation formula,

The corresponding pas-

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.
1868, p. 84 ff., also has recourse to the hy-
pothesis of a lost book, belonging, as he
thinks, to a date subsequent to the de-
struction 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 earli-
est times. In this Strauss, following in the
wake of Baur. is influenced by anti-Johan-
nine 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 en-
titled 4 copia tov Seov, The oravpweere, he
thinks, was inserted by Matthew himself.
Bleek, in the Stud. u. Krié. 1858, p. 834, and

CHAP. XXIII., 35. 397

sage in Luke has the appearance of belonging to a later date (in answer to
Holtzmann and others). Comp. on Luke xi. 49. — éyé] 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 idot. Through this éyo arooréAdu, x.7.4., 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).
— Tpogytac x. cupoic x. ypauy.] 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 (0°D)M) and
scribes of a later time ought to bave been, in the Jewish theocracy. For
the last-mentioned order, comp. xiii. 52. Olshausen is of opinion that the
Old Testament prophets themselres must also have been intended to be includ-
ed, and that arooré#4w (which represents the near and certain future as
already present) must indicate ‘‘God’s pure and eternal present.” The sub-
sequent futures ought to have prevented any such construction being put
upon the passage. For ypayup., comp. xiil. 52. — nai é& aitav] ov rdvreg (Eu-
thymius Zigabenus), but more emphatic than if we had had rivdc besides :
and from their ranks ye will murder, etc., 80 that the actions are conceived
of absolutely.1 The same words are solemnly repeated immediately after. —
cai oravpacere] and among other ways of putting them to death, will crucify
them, i.e., through the Romans, for crucifixion was a Roman punishment.
As a historical case in point, one might quote (besides that of Peter) the
crucifixion of Simeon, a brother of Jesus, recorded by Eusebips, H. £. 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 cravpdcere Jesus
was referring to Es 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 standpoint of His personal manifestation in time (Ols-
hausen), 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. 82, — éy rai¢ ovvayuy.] x. 17. — amd wéAeug eg médv] x. 23.°

Ver. 85. "Orue 826y, x.1.4.] Teleology of the divine decree : in order that
all the righteous (innocent) blood* may coine upon you, t.e., 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 responsible. — aiza] ‘‘ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu, magna vi,” ‘‘ three
times this word is spoken in this one verse, with great force,” Bengel.
And it is dixacov, because it contains the life (see on Acts xv. 20).* — éxyuvd-
uevov] present, conceived of asa thing going on in the present.* A vivid

in his commentary, agrees inthe main with another.”

Ewald. 3 Jonah 1. 14; Joel ill. 19; Ps. xoiy. 21; 1
1 Winer, p. 552 (E. T. 743]. Mace. i. 87.
2 Comp. Xen. Anabd. v. 4. 81: ei¢ ry érépay * Comp. Delitzsch, Psych. p. 242.

«x THE éTépas woAews, ‘‘from one town into § Ktihner, IT. 1, p. 116.

398 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

picture, in which we seem to sec the blood still actually flowing.’— éx?
TH¢ yao] according to the canonical narrative (see below). — Zayapiov viod
Bapayiov|] refers to 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, where Zechariah, son of Jehoiada,
is said to have been stoned to death by order of King Joash, éy aiAg oixov
xupiov.* The detail contained in peraéd, x.r.4., renders the narrative more
precise, and serves to emphasize the atrocious character of a deed perpe-
trated, as this was, on so sacred a spot. Since, according to the arrange-
ment of the books in the Hebrew Canon, Genesis stood at the begin-
ning and 2 Chronicles at the end, and since the series here indicated opens
with the case of Abel (Gen. iv. 10; Heb. xi. 4), so this (2 Chron.
xxiv. 20) is regarded as the last 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.* And how ad-
mirably appropriate to the scope of this passage are the words of the
dying Zechariah ; WVT) TT RY, 2 Chron. xxiv. 22; comp. with Gen.
iv. 10! If ths latter is the Zacharias referred toin the text, then, inasmuch
as the assumption that his father had two names‘ is no less arbitrary than
the supposition that vioi Bapay. isa 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 Himself did
not mention the father’s name at all (Luke xi. 51), and that it was intro-
duced 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).° 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.* According to others, the person referred to is that
Zacharias who was murdered at the commencement of the Jewish war, and
whose death is thus recorded by Joseph. Bell. iv. 6,4 : dto d2 rav roaunpord-
tuv (Snlwrdv) mpooreadvtes tv peop TH iepe dradGeipovor ror Layapiav vid»
row Bapotyov.’ It isthe opinion of Hug that Jesus, as speaking pro-
phetically, 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.* Finally, we

1 On the later form see Lobeck, ad Phiryn.
p. 726.

2 Comp. Joseph. Anizé. ix. 8. 3.

*See Targum Lam, ii. 20; Lightfoot on
our passage.

4 Scholion in Matthaeil, Chrysostom, Lu-
ther, Beza, Grotius, Elsner, Kanne, didi.

Unters. II. p. 196 ff.

’ Comp. Holtzmann, p. 404. ;

6 Hilgenfeld, VY. 7. extra can. IV. p. 17, 11.

™8o Hammond, Krebs, Hug, Credner,
Kin, I. p. 207, Gfrorer, Baur, Keim.

® As against this whole hypothesis, see
besides Theile in Winer's neu. krit. Journ.

CHAP. XXIII., 36-38. 399

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 Protevang. Jac. 23). The latter view is that of Origen, Basil,
Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylact, and several others among the Fathers.’ —
petaty Tov vaov, x.t.A.] between the temple proper and the altar of burnt-
offerings in the priests’ court.

Ver. 36. ‘Hée:] Put first for sake of emphasis : shall come, shall inevitably
come upon, etc. Comp. ix. 15, xxvii. 49. — rdvra ravra] according to the
context : all this shedding of blood, i.e., the punishment for it. — éxi r. yeveay
tabr.] Sec on xi. 16 ; upon this generation, which was destined to be over-
taken by the destruction of Jerusalem and the judgments connected with
the second coming (ver. 88 f.), comp. on xxiv. 84.

Ver. 87 ff. After denouncing all those woes against the 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
ats love has been despised. Thus ver. 37 ff. forms an appropriate conclu-
sion to the whole drama of the discourse. Luke xiii. 84 introduces the
words in a historical connection entirely different. — The repetition of the
name of Jerusalem is here éugavrixde EAcoc, Euthymius Zigabenus. — dzroxrei-
vovea, x.T.A.] The present participles denote the wsual conduct : the murderess,
the killer with stones. — pic airy] 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 proceeds (xooducg . . . réxva
cov) with the vocative of address in 'Iepovea?4u.* With Beza and Fritzsche,
airiv might be read and taken as equivalent to ceavrfv ; but airfy 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 mpéc o¢
in that case). — roodxic, x.r.2.] The literal meaning of which is: ‘‘ How
often I have wished to take thy citizens under my loving protection as
Messiah |? (Rabbinical writers speak of the Shechinah as gathering the
proselytes under its wings.) Observe éaur#e : her own chickens. Such was
the love that I felt toward you. On the form voce. for veooc., see Lobeck,
ad Phryn. p. 206. ovx seAgoare] se. ixcovvazbjva ; they refused (Naigelsbach
on JZ, ili. 289 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278), namely, to have faith in him as
the Messiah, and consequently the blame rested with themselces. This refusal
was their actual xpiua, John ix. 89.

Ver. 38 f. "Aglerar ipiv 6 olxoc tu.) your house ts abandoned to your own
disposal; the time for divine help and protection for your city is now

TI. p. 406 ff., Kuhn in the Jafrd. d. Theol. I. ® Comp. Luke i. 45; Job xvill. 4; Isa. xxii.
p. 350 ff. 16.

1See Thilo, Prac. p. Ixiv. f.; and re- 3 For the metaphor, comp. Eurlp. Herc.
cently of Miller in the Stud. u. Krig, 1841, Fur.70 f., and the passages in Wetstein,
p. 673 ff. Schoettgen, p. 208.

400 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

gone by!! The present implies the tragic and decisive ultimatum. The
Epnsoc, which is to be retained on critical grounds (see critical notes),
intimates what is to be the jinal result of this abandonment, viz., the de-
struction of Jerusalem (épyyworc, xxiv. 45 ; Luke xxi. 20) ; on the pro-
leptic use of the adjective, comp. on xii. 18, and Kihner, II. 1, p. 286. Ac-
cording to the context, 6 olxog tay can only mean ‘IepovoacAjyu, 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.* — Ver. 89 proceeds
to account for this d¢ierac tiv, x.r.A. 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 (eizgre, dizeritis) me, whom .
you have been rejecting, with the Messianic confession eiAoynuévoc, «.7.A.
(xxi. 9). This is not to be understood of the conrersion 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 superintending
care, and that until the second appearing of Messiah (6 épyduevoc), and hence
He cannot have had in view an intervening perdvoca 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 enemics will be constrained to join in the loyal
greeting with which the Messiah will be welcomed (xxi. 9), for the man-
ifestation of His glory will sweep away all doubt and opposition, and
Joree 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.2 Wieseler, p. 3822, 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 favored by the use, in the present instance, of
"IepovocAtu, ver. 87, the form in which the word regularly appears in Luke,
and for which, on every other occasion, Matthew has ‘IepoodéAvya ; but it

1 For the meaning, comp. Joseph. Andt?.
xx. 8. 5.

3 Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Ziga-
benus, Calvin, Olearius, Wolf, Michaelis,
Kuinoel, Neander, Baumeister in Klaiber'’s
Stud. 11. p. 67 f.; Hofmann, Schrifwew. II. 2,
p. 92; Ewald.

*Euthymius Zigabenus very justly ob-
serves in connection with ¢ws ay cixnre,
K.7.A.: cai wére TOUTO eimwow; tcxdvTes pey

7

ovddwore: dxovres 82 xara roy xaipdy Ths Sevrépas
avrov wapovgias, Stay Hfea pera Suvduews xai
SdEns woAAns, Stay ovddv avrois SpeAos THs éxty-
yucews, “and when would they say this?
willingly never, but unwillingly at the
period of His second advent, when He shall
come with power and great glory, when
there will be no profitto them in acknowl-
edging Him.” Comp. Theophylact, Cal-
vin, Gerhard, Calovius.

CHAP. XXIII., 38, 39. 401

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 ‘‘'Iepov-
caAnu,” which had come to acquire so fixed a character as part of the utter-
ance before us.

REmaRK.—It is fair to assume that Christ’s exclamation over Jerusalem pre-
supposes 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. ; Weizsicker, p. 310. Those who deny
this (among them being Hilgenfeld, Keim) must assume, with Eusebius in the °
Theophan. (Nova bibl. pair. 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 un-
warrantable 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 in their
present form, so that, when they were uttered, tocdx:¢ 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 huve been substantially present ; comp.
Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 90.

402 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER XXIV.

Ver. 2. For é 62 "Inootc we should read, with Lachm. and Tisch., 6 62 azoxp:-
Geis, following important evidence. The insertion of the subject along with
the participle led to the omission of the latter.— ov BAérere] Fritzsche :
Baérere, following D L X, min. vss, and Fathers. Ancient (It. Vulg.) correction
. for sake of the sense, after Mark xiii. 2.— For tdvra tatra we should read,
with Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. 8, ravra rdvra, in accordance with a preponder-
ance of evidence, — é¢ ot] Elz. : d¢ of py, against decisive evidence. Mechani-
cal repetition of the preceding od uy. — Ver. 3. 7i¢ ovvreA.] The article is want-
ing in B C L X&, min. Cyr. (in the present instance), and has been correctly
deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Superfluous addition. — Ver. 6. zdvra] is want-
ing, no doubt, in B DL ®&, min. vas., and has been deleted by Lachm. and
Tisch. 8, but it had been omitted in conformity with Mark xiii. 7; while in
some of the witnesses we find raira, in accordance with Luke xxi. 9, and in
some others, again, tdyta tairéd (Fritzsche : tavra mavra). The various qorrec-
tions were occasioned by the unlimited character of ravra. — Ver. 7. xai Aorpoi]
is wanting in B D E* &, min. Cant. Ver. Verc. Corb. 2, Hilar. Arnob. Deleted
by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Other witnesses reverse the order of the words, which
is strongly favored by Luke. All the more are they to be regarded as inserted
from Luke xxi. 11. — Ver. 9. Elz. has é#vév. But the reading trav é9vaw has a
decided preponderance of evidence in its favor ; and then how easily might rav
be overlooked after tévruy! The omission of tov é6vdy in C, min. Chrys. was
with a view to conformity with Mark and Luke. — Ver. 15. éorec] Fritzsche,
Lachm. and Tisch. : éoréc, following a preponderance of ms. authority (includ-
ing B* &), and correctly. The transcribers have contracted into éorac what,
strictly speaking, should be spelt éorads, though the spelling éoré¢ is also met
with in classical writers. — Ver. 16. éri] Lachm. : cic, following B D A, min.
Fathers, Adopted from Mark xiii. 14; Luke xxi. 21. Mark is likewise the
source of the reading «ara@dru, ver. 17,in B DL Z ®, min. Or. Caes. Isid.
Chrys., and which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have adopted. — For rz é«, as in
Elz., read, with Lachm. and Tisch., ra éx, following decisive evidence. — Ver.
18. ra iudria] 1d ivdreov, no doubt, has weighty evidence in its favor, and is
approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it is taken from
Mark xiii. 16. — Ver. 20. The simple caGBdty (Elz. : év caf.) is supported by
decisive evidence, — Ver. 23. miorevoyre] Lachm. : miorevere, following only B*
Or. Taken from Mark xiii. 21. — Ver24. For tAavjoa: Tisch. 8 has zAarvn9ijvaz,
following D &, codd. of It. Or.'=*- and several other Fathers. The reading of
the Received text is, nv doubt, supported by preponderating evidence ; but how
readily might the active have been substituted for the passive in conformity
with vv. 5, 11 !—Ver. 27. xal is, with Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted after
éorai, in accordance with decisive evidence. Inserted in conformity with the
usual mode of expression ; in vv. 37, 39 we should likewise delete the xai,
which Tisch. 8 retains in ver. 39. — Ver. 28. yép] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.

CHAP, XXIV. ; 403

8, following B D L 8, 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 xéy.]
The omission of 7ére by Tisch. 8 is without adequate evidence, having among
the uncials only that of ®*. Had the words been inserted in accordance with
Mark xiii. 26, Luke xxi. 27, they would have been placed before dypovrac.— Ver.
31. gwr7ic] is not found in L A &, min. Copt. Syr. and several Fathers. Being
awkward and superfluous, it was in some cases omitted altogether, in others
(Syr.jer- Aeth., also Syr.?., though with an asterisk at gwv.) placed before oaAr.,
and sometimes it was conjoined with caAr. by inserting xai after this latter (D,
min. Vulg. It. Hilar. Aug. Jer.).— For the second dxpuy Lachm. has ray dxp.,
following only B, 1, 13, 69. — Ver 34. After Aéya tuiv, Lachm., in accordance
with BD FL, min. It. Vulg. Or., inserts 6r:, which, however, may readily have
crept in from Mark xiii. 30; Luke xxi. 32. — Ver. 35.1 Griesb. and the more
recent editors (with the exception, however, of Matth. and Scholz) have adopted
swapeAevoerac in preference to the zapedAevoovra: of Elz., following B D L, min,
Fathers. The plural is taken from Mark xiii. 31; Luke xxi. 33.— Ver. 36.
Before dpac Elz. has rics, which, though defended by Schulz, is condemned by
decisive evidence. Superfluous addition. Comp. ver. 3. — After otpavav
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ovd? 6 vidc, in accordance with B D &, min. codd. of
It. Syr.j- Aeth. Arm. Chrys. Or.'**: Hil. Ambr., etc. For a 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 interpolation was all the more likely to take place in
the case of Matthew, from its serving to explain pdévo¢ (which latter does not
occur in Mark). — Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7 have pov after xarzp. Defended
by Schulz, though deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8. It is likewise adopted
by Pritzsche, who, however, deletes the following pévoc, which is wanting only in
Sehid. In deference to the ordinary usage in Matthew (vii. 21, x. 32 f., etc.),
pov should be restored. It is wanting, no doubt, in BD LAT &, 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. dé] Lachm. : ydp, following B D I, vss. Fathers. An exegetical gloss.
— Ver. 38. raic xpd] 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 mechanically omitted ; it can scarcely
have been inserted as the result of reflection. Before raic Lachm. has éxeivace,
following B D (which latter omits raic), codd. of It.,—a reading which ought
to be adopted, all the more because in itself it is not indispensable, and be-
cause it was very apt to be omitted, in consequence of the similarity in the
termination of the words. — For éxyayifovres read yapilovrec, with Tisch. 8,
following D &, 33, Chrys. ; comp. on xxii. 30.— Ver. 40. For 6 ele Fritzsche,
Lachm. and Tisch. have simply els in both instances, following BDIL &,
min. (A and Chrys, Jeave out the article only in the first case). For sake of

1 The omission of this whole verse by ®*, nor by later evidence, is simply an error of
an omission sanctioned neither by earlier the transcriber.

404 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

uniformity with ver. 41. — Ver. 41. gvdév] Lachm. and Tisch. : ptdy, follow-
ing preponderating evidence ; the reading of the Received textis intended to
be more precise. — Ver. 42. jpg) Lachm. and Tisch. : juipe. So B DI AR,
nin. Ir, Cyr. Ath. Hilar. and vas. The reading of the Received text is by way
of being more definite. Comp. ver. 44. — Ver. 45. avrov after xipioc is wanting
in important witnesses (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), but it must have
been left out to conform with Luke xii. 42. — Geparelac] Lachm. and Tisch. :
oxereiag, following B I L A, min. Correctly; from the word not occur-
ring elsewhero in the New Testament, it would be explained by the gloss
oixiag (8, min. Ephr, Bas. Chrys.), or at other times by Odepaz. — For the follow-
ing didéva: read dovvar, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm, Tisch., in accordance
with preponderating evidence, — Ver, 46. rowoivra ofrw¢]) Lachm. and Tisch. :
otras rocovvra, following BC DIL ® min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Ir. Hil. The read-
ing of the Received text is from Luke xii. 43. — Ver. 48. The order pov 6 xipios
is favored by a preponderance of evidence, and, with Lachm. and Tisch.,
ought to be preferred. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 omit éAfeiv, though on some-
what weaker evidence ; éA9civ is further confirmed by the reading {pyeofa: in min.
Or. Bas., which is taken from Luke xii. 45. The infinitive not being indis-
pensable (comp. xxv. 5), was passed over. — Ver. 49. atrov, which is wanting in
Elz. (and Tisch. 7), has been restored by Gfiesb. Lachm. and Tisch. 8, in
accordance with preponderating evidence. Similarly with regard to éo%iy di
nal wivy (for éo@iew dé xad wivery in Elz.), which has decisive evidence in
its favor, and is an altered form of Luke xii. 45.

Ver. 1." The 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
not a few in a different, and that an carlier historical connection (ch. xii.
17). But this would not justify us, as Luther, Schleiermachcr, Neander,
Hase suppose, in using Luke's narrative for correcting Matthew,’ 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 influence of the ideas and expectations of the

10On the following discourse generally,
see: Dorner, de orat. Chr. eschatologica,
1844; R. Hofmann, Wiederkunft Chr. u. Zei-
chen d.Menachensohnea, 1850 ; Hebart, d. zweile
eichtb. Zuk. Chr. 1850: Scherer in the Straesd.
Bettr. 1851, I. p. 88 ff.; E. J. Meyer, krit.
Comment. zu a. eschatolog. Rede Matth. xxiv.,
xxv., I., 1857; Cremer, d. eschatolog. Rede
Matth. xxiv., xxv., 1860; Luthardt, Lehre v.
d. letzten Dingen, 1861; Hoelemann, Bidelsiu-
Gien, 1861; II. p. 129 ff.; Auberlen in the
Stud.u. Krit. 1862, p. 218 ff.; Pfleiderer in
the Jahrd. f. D. Theol. 1868, p. 134 ff.; Kien-
len, édid. 1869, p. 706 ff., and Commeniaire sur
Papocalypee, 1870, p. 1 ff.; Wittichen, Idee d.
Reiches, Gottes, 1872, p. 219 ff. ; Weissenbach,

d. Wiederkunfts-gedanke Jesu, 1878, p. 69 ff.
comp. his Jesu in regno coel. dignitas, 1868,
p. 79 ff.; Colani, Jésus Christ et les croyances
messian, de son lemps, ed. 2, 1864, p. 204 ff.

2 Strauss, IL p. 387 f.; Holtzmann, p.
200 ff.

* 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, Kést-
lin, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar). If this supposi-
tion were correct, the discourse would have
to be regarded as a late product of the

CHAP, XXIV., 2. 405
apostolic age, although the shape in which they appeared first of all was
given to them, not by Mark,' but by Matthew in his collection of the say-
ings 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 char-
acterized by all the unity and consecutiveness of a skilful piece of compo-
sition, 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 (Weizsicker) or Judaeo-Christian (Pfleiderer, Colani,
Keim, Weissenbach) apocalyptic writing have been mixed up with the utter-
ances 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).— é€eA6dév] from the temple, xxi. 23. —
éxopebero amd Tov lepoi | He went away from the temple, withdrew to some distance
from it." For this interpretation we require neither a hyperbaton (Fritzsche,
de Wette), according to which azéd r. iepov would belong to é£eA0év,* nor the
accentuation dro.‘—ra¢ oixodoud¢g rov lepov] not merely rov vaov, but the
whole of the buildings connected with the temple, all of which, with the vade
and the porches and the courts, constituted the lepév.** The magnificent
structures * were not then finished as yet, see on John ii. 21. — Even Chry-
sostom, Erasmus, and Bengel did not fail to perceive that what led the dis-
ciples to direct the attention of Jesus to the temple-buildings was the
announcement contained in xxiii. 38, which, though it did not refer
exclusively 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 splendors 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 xxiii. 88.

Ver. 2. Ov" BAémere ravta wévra (see critical notes) does not mean : ‘‘do
not gaze so much at all this” (Paulus), in which case pf, 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 BAérere ; but : ye see not all this, by which, of course, Jesus
does not intend the mere temple-buildings in themselves considered, but the
doom which awaits all those splendid edifices,—a doom which He at once pro-

apostolic age, and therefore asa vaticinium
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., xxv. (in answer to E. J. Meyer, p. 50
ff.).

1 Holtzmann, p. 9; see, on the other
hand, Weiss. ;

3 Comp. xxv. 41.

3’ This supposition, indeed, has likewise
led to the transposition : aq (Lachm. : éx.
following B) tov iepov éwopevero (BD LAR,

min. vss. Fathers), which order is adopted
by Tisch. 8.

‘Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848,
p. 108 f.

§ Comp. on Iv. 5.

® Joseph. Bell. v. 5. 6, vi. 4. 6, 8;
Hitst. v. 8. 12.

7 Among modern critics, Kuinoel, Fritz-
sche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek,
have decided in favor of omitting ov, as
approved by Griesbach and Schulz. Among
those belonging to an earlier date, Casaubon
says distinotly, with regard to the negative:
* hic locum non potest habere.”’

Tac.

406 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

ceedsto reveal. Instead of having an eye to perceive all this, to them every-
thing looked so magnificent ; they were BAérovrec ov BAérovrec (xiii. 18), 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 fore-
saw the coming ruin ; the more distinct the terms in which He had just
' been pointing to it, xxiii. 88 ; the deeper the emotion with which He bad
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. 838 ; somuch the
more intelligible is this introductory 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 yy BAéwovres BAéxwor (John ix.
89). Further, it is better to take this pregnant uttterance in an affirmative
rather than than in an interrogative sense, as is usually done, because there
is no preceding assertion on the part of the disciples to which the question
of surprise might be said to correspond. Grulich' places the emphasis on
xévra: ‘‘videtis quidem ravra, sed non videtis retire rdvra (nimirum templi
desolationem, etc.).”» So also Hoelemann. This is improbable, if for no
other reason than the ordinary usage as regards ravra ravra, which has no
such refinement of meaning anywhere else. Jesus would simply have said :
ov ndvra BAérere. Bornemann, 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 : ravra mdvra xaradvigoera, but that He interrupts Himself in
order to introduce the asseveration auyv Aéyw vuiv, and so breaks the construc-
tion. That Jesus, however, would not merely have broken the construc-
tion, but still more would have used the words ob yu) agef@ Without any logi-
cal reference to ratra révra, is clearly indicated by ode, which therefore con-
tradicts the explanation just given. — 6¢ od xaradv8.*] Nota stone will be
left upon another without being thrown down. Occurring as it does in
a prophetical utterance, this Ayperbolical language should not be strained in
the least, and certainly it ought not to be made use of for the purpose of
disproving the genuineness of the passage.’

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 favor them
with a secret revelation. Differently Mark xiii. 8.— raira] those disas-
trous events of ver. 2. — kai ri rd onueiov, x.r.A.] The disciples assume, as
matter of course, that immediately after the destruction in question the
Lord will appear, in accordance with what is said xxiii. 89, for the purpose
of setting up his kingdom, and that with this the current (the pre-Mes-
sianic) era of the world’s history will come to an end. Consequently they
wish to know, in the second place (for there are only two questions, not three,

1 Delocit Matth. xxiv. 1,2, interpret., 1889. __p. 190 ff.; Weissenbach, p. 168 ff. And on

? For ov, see Winer, p. 448 [E. T. 604]; account of Rev. xi. 1 ff., comp. also Welz-
Buttmann, p. 305 [E. T. 855). slicker, p. 548 f.

§ See, as against this abuse, Keim, III.

CHAP. XXIV., 4. 40”

as Grotius, Ebrard suppose), what is to be the sign which, after the destruc-
tion of the temple, is to precede this second coming and the end of the
world, that by it they may be able to recognize the approach of those events.
The above assumption, on the part of the disciples, is founded on the doc-
trine respecting the Mwnn “ban, dolores Messiae, derived from Hos. xiii.
13.’ — rij¢ of¢ mapovoiac] After his repeated intimations of future suffering
and death, the disciples could not conceive of the adzent 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 expected the Risen One straight-
way 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, Actsi. 11, iii. 20 f., al., and the numerous
passages in the New Testament Epistles.? Observe, too, the emphatic ofe
coming after the general expression ratra. — xai cvvreA. rod aidvoc] In the
Gospels we find no trace of the millenarian ideas of the Apocalypse. The
Tov aiwvog, with the article, but not further defined, is to be understood as
referring to the eristing, the then current age of the world, 7.¢., to the aidy
ovroc, Which is brought to a close (ovvréJera) with the second coming, inas-
much as, with this latter event, the aidy néAAwv begins.* The second coming,
the resurrection and the last judgment, fall upon the éoydéry juépa,* which,
as it will be the last day of the aiay otro in general, so of the éoydruv suepar *
in particular, or of the xatpic foxaroc (1 Pet. i. 5), or of the ypdvo¢ éoyarog
(Jude 18 ; 1 Pet. i. 80), which John likewise calls the éoydry pa (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. 1. 4).
The article was unnecessary before cvyredziac, seeing that it is followed by
the genitive of specification.° .
Ver. 4. The reply of Jesus is directed, in the first instance, to the second
question (ri rd onpeiov, x.r.A.), inasmuch as He indicates, as the discourse
advances, the things that are to precede 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. 86), and in so far as it was advisable to do so, if
the watchfulness of the disciples was to be maintained. The discourse pro-
ceeds 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 an-
nouncement 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

1 gee Schoettgen, IL p. 580; Bertholdt, 4 John vi. 89, xi. 24. e

Christol. p. 45 ff. ® Acts if. 17; 2 Tim. iff. 1; Jas. v. 8; Heb.
Comp. Wittichen in the Jahrd.f. Deut- 1.2; 2 Pet. ili. 3

sche Theol. 1862, p. 854 ff. 6 Winer p. 118 f. [E. T. 155).

3 See on xili. 89.

408 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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? finds in vv. 4-14 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 onueiov ri¢ éavrotv mapovoiag Kar ekoxgv, t.e., ad secundae
quaestionis partem priorem,” ‘‘to the sign of His own coming, very spe-
cially, 7.¢., to the former part of their second question.” This supposition is
simply the result of an imperious dogmatic preconception, and cannot be
justified on any fair exegetical principle. See below. Dorner, who spirit-
ualizes the discourse, 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 religi-
onis ;” 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 Aistorico perfungi possit.”

Vv. 4, 5. In the first place—and how appropriate and necessary, consid-
ering the eagerness of the disciples for the second coming |---a warning
against false Messiahs, and then ver. 6 f. the first, far off, indirect prognos-
tics of the second advent, like the roll of the distant thunder. — éi r. ovdy.
pov] 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 Afyovrec, x.r.4. 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 viii. 9), Theudas (Acts v. 36), the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38),
Menander, Dositheus, who have been referred to as cases in point (Theophy-
lact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel), did not pretend to be
the Messiah.? Then as for the period subsequent to the destruction of the cap-
ital, itis 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, Montanus, and least of all Mohammed.

Ver. 6. Aé] continuative : but to turn now from this preliminary warning
to your question itself—ye will hear, etc. This reply to the disciples’ ques-
tion as to the events that were to be the precursors of the destruction of the
temple (comp. xére, ver. 3), is so framed that the prophetic outlook is
directed first to the more general aspect of things (to what is ta 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 concerns the disciples and the community of Chris-
tians, vv. 9-14).* — roréuoug x. axodg ToAéuwv] 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. — dpare, yu) Opoeiabe] take care, be not terrified. For @poeiobe,
comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Song of Sol. v. 4 ; on the two imperatives, as in viii.

®e

1 Adv. erroneam nonnull. opinion., qua 2 Comp. Joseph. Anté. xx. 3. 1; 8 6; Beil.
Christus Christique apost. existumasse per- 1. 18. 5.
hibentur, fore ut univ. tudicium tpeor. aetate 3 For the future pedAjo. (you will have to),
superveniret, 1842. comp. 2 Pet. i. 12; Plat. Zp. vii. p. 86 C.

CHAP. XXIV., 7. 409

4, 15, ix. 80, see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 209 [E. T. 248]. — dei ydp rdvra
yevéobac| they are not to be terrified, because it is necessary that all that should
take place. The reflection that it is a matter of necessity in pursuance of the
divine purpose (xxvi. 54), is referred to as calculated to inspire o calm and
reassured frame of mind. dyvraisto be understood as meaning : everything
that is then to happen, not specially (ra@ sxdvra, ravra mdvra, comp. critical
notes) the matters indicated by peAdfoere . . . wodéuwv, but rather that :
nothing, which begins to take place, can stop short of its full accomplish-
ment. The emphasis, however, is on dei. — 42/1’ obrw éoti rd réAoc] however,
thia will not be as yet the jinal consummation, so that you will require to pre-
-serve your equanimity still further.’ 1d réAo¢ cannot mean the ovyréAera, ver.
8 (Chrysostom, Ebrard, Bleek, Lange, Cremer, Auberlen, Hoelemann, Gess),
but, as the context proves by the correlative expression apz? adivwr, ver. 8,
and by rd réAnc ver. 14, comp. with ot» ver. 15, the end of the troubles at pres-
ent under consideration. Inasmuch, then, as these troubles are to be straight-
way followed by thé world's last crisis and the signs of the Messiah's
advent (vv. 29, 30), rd réAoc must ‘be taken as referring to the end of the
dolores Messiae. This end isthe laying waste of the temple and the unparal-
leled desolation of the land 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. Tdp] it is not quite the end as yet ; for the situation will Bacon
still more turbulent and distressing : nation will rise against nation, and king-
dom against kingdom, etc. We have here depicted in colors 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 predic-
tion was fulfilled in 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 iso-
lated 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 Késtlin in particular. As for the Parthian wars and the risings
that took place some ten years after in Gaul and Spain, they had no connec-
tion whatever with Jerusalem or Judaea. There is as little reason to refer
(Wetstein) the roAfuouc of ver. 6 to the war waged by Asinaeus and Alinaeus
against the Parthians,* and the axod¢ roAéuwv to the Parthian declaration of
war against King Izates of Adiabene,? or to explain the latter (dxod¢ woAéuwyr)
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

1 Comp. Hom. Ji. fl. 122: réAos 8 of we Tt 2 Joseph. Ant/. xvill. 9. 1.
wédavra, * Joseph. Anét. xx. 8 8.

410 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Jerusalem, presents a picture of them to the view of His hearers.’ — Azyol x.
cecouoi] 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 neighbor-
hood of Colossae).* — xara rérovg] which is applicable only to cecoyoi, as in
Mark xiii. 8, is to be taken distributively :* locatim, travelling 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 ertraordinary
character of the events referred to. In vv. 6, 7, Dorner finds merely an
embodiment of the thought : ‘‘evangelium gladii instar dissecabit male
conjuncta, ut vere jungat ; naturae autem phaenomena concomitantia quasi
depingent motus et turbines in spiritualibus orbibus orturos,” ‘‘ The Gospel,
like asword, will dissever things badly joined together, that it may truly join
them ; but the phenomena of nature in accord will picture forth as it were
disturbances and whirlwinds about to arise in spiritual worlds.”

Ver. 8. But all this will be the beginning of woes (Euthymius Zigabeuus :
mpooisia Tov cvudopdav), will stand in the same relation to what is about to
follow, as the beginning of the birth-pangs does to the much sererer pains
which come after. It is apparent from ver. 7 that éora: is understood. The
figure contained in ddivev is to be traced to the popular way of conceiving of
the troubles that were to precede the advent of the Messiah as Mwnn ‘an,
Comp. on ver. 8.

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. —rére] then, when what is said at ver. 7 will have begun.
Differently in Luke xxi. 12 (xpd 62 robrwv), where, though rére 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. Sceing that the expressions are distinctly different from
each other, it is not enough to appeal to the “‘ elasticity” of the rére (Hoele-
mann). —droxrevovorw tudo] spoken generally, not as intimating, nor even
presupposing (Scholten), the death of all of them. After rapadéc. tude the
current of prophetic utterance flows regularly on, leaving to the hearers
themselves to make the necessary distinctions. — xai éceode picofpevor] It is a
mistake to suppose that we have here a reference to Nero’s persecution

1 Comp. 4 Esdr. xill. 21; Sohkar Chadasch,
f. vill.4: ‘“‘Nlo tempore bella in mundo
excitabuntur; gens erit contra gentem, et
urbs contra urbem : angustiae multae con-
tra hostes Israelitarum innovabuntur.”
Beresch. Rabba, 42 f., 41.1: ‘Si videris regna
contra se invicem Insurgentia, tunc attende,
et adspice pedem Messiae,"’ “At that time
wars shall be stirred up in the world ; nation
shall be against nation, and city against

city; much distress shall be renewed
against the enemies of the Israelites."
Beresch Rabba, 42f., 41.1: “ If you shall see
kingdoms rising against each other in turn,
then give heed, and note the footstep of the
Messiah."

2 Oros. Hist. vil. 7, Tacit. Ann. xiv. 27, and
that at Pompell.

® Bernhardy, p. 240; Kihner, I 1, p.
414.

CHAP, XXIV., 10-12. 411

(proceeding upon an erroneous interpretation 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 representa-
tives 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. —ird mévrov tr.
éfvayv} by all nations. What a confirmation of this, in all general respects, is
furnished 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 coloring given to our discourse, must we beware of straining
the révrwy in order to favor the notion that the expression contains an allu-
sion to the vast and long-continued efforts that would be made to dissemi-
nate the gospel throughout the world (Dorner) ; let us repeat that it is the
apostles who are in question here.’

Ver. 10. Kai rére] and then, when those persecutions will have broken
out against you. — oxavdarobhoovra: roAdoi] many will receive a shock, t.¢.,
many Christians will be tempted to relapse into unbelief, see on xiii. 21.
For the converse of offendentur in this sense, see ver. 18. Consequence of
this falling away : cai a227A0v¢ mapadic.| one another, i.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 Ohristian teachers living
in the very bosom of the church itself (comp. vii. 15). These latter should
not be more precisely defined.” The history of the apostolic age has suffi-
ciently confirmed this prediction, Acts xx. 80; 1 Johniv. 1.

Ver. 12. And tn consequence of the growing prevatence of wickedness (as the
result of what is mentioned in vv. 10, 11), the love of the greater number will
become cold ; that predominance 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 prevailing want of charity, that specific contrast to
the true characteristic of the Christian life.* For dvozia, the opposite of
moral compliance with the law of God (= duapria, 1 John iii. 4), comp. vii.
23, xiii. 41, xxiii. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 7. For yiyey with y,
comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 818. — rév rodddy] are not the roA20i 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 * of Chris-
tians. Inthe 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 oAfyo. According to Dorner,
vv. 11, 12 apply not to the apostolic age, but to a subsequent stage in the

2 Comp. x. 17 f., 2. Theol. p. 586, ed. 2.

® Kdstlin : ‘‘ extreme antinomian tenden- § Gal. v. 6; 1 Cor. xill. 1 ff. ; 1 John iv. 20.
cies :’’ Hilgenfeld: ‘‘those who adhere to * Kfhner, IT. 1, p. 548; Ast, Lex. Plat. Il.
Pauline views;’’ comp. also Weiss, Bidl. pp. 148.

412 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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. ‘0 d2 iroueivac] contrast to what in the cxavdatiofho. roAAoi of ver.
10 and the rAavfo. roAdoics of ver. 12 is described as apostasy, partly from
the faith generally, and partly (ver. 12) from the érwe Christian faith and
life. Comp. x. 22. According to Fritzsche, it is only the persevering in
love that is meant, so that the contrast has reference merely to yypeera,
«.t.Aa. But according to our interpretation, the contrast is more thorough
and better suited to the terms of the passage. — sic réAoc] not perpetuo
(Fritzsche), which, as the connection shows (ver. 6), is too indefinite ; but:
unto the end, till the last, until the troubles will have come to an end, which,
as appears from the context (cwSycera:), will, in point of fact, be coincident
with the second advent. Comp. vv. 30, $1, x. 22. The context forbids
such interpretations as: unto death (Elsner, Kuinoel, Ebrard), until the
destruction of Jerusalem (Krebs, Rosenmiiller, R. Hofmann), swfyoera: being
referred in the latter case to the flight of the Christians to Pella.’ Of
course ver. 13 describes the ‘‘sanam hominis Christiani dispositionem
spiritualem ad eschatologiam pertinentem,” ‘‘the sound spiritual disposi-
tion of the Christian man pertaining to eschatology” (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 ¢i¢ réAoc, Christ now reveals the
prospect of a most encouraging state of matters which is immediately to precede
and usher in the consummation indicated by this cic réAoc, namely, the
preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world in spite of the hatred
and apostasy previously mentioned (vv. 9, 10 ff.).*. The substantial fulfil-
ment of this prediction is found in the missionary labors of the apostles,
above all in those of Paul.? — rovro rd eiayy.] 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 rovro 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 6Ay rH otxovy.] 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’ con-
sciousness of His Messianic mission, and with the mao: roic éveoe which
follows. —ei¢ papripiov, x.r.A.] in order that 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 : ei¢
éXeyxov, is therefore substantially in accordance with the context (ver. 9),

1 Eusebius, H. Z. fil. 5. Gospel’), Euthymius Zigabenus.

2ore ovsdy trav Savor weptyenjoeras tou §§_* Comp. Acts 1.9; Rom. 1. 14, x. 18, xv.
anpvyuaros, ‘‘No one of the terrible things 19; Matt. xxvili. 19; Col. 1. 23; Clem. 1
shall prevail over the proclamation (of the Cor. ¥.

CHAP. XxIV., 15. 413

though there was no need to import into the passage the idea of the con-
demnation of the heathen, which condemnation would follow as a conse-
quence 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,” ‘‘ that the obstinacy of the Jews may be known to
them” (Grotius), or: ‘ut gentes testimonium dicere possint harum calami-
tatum et insignis pompae, qua Jesus Messias in has terras reverti debeat,”’
‘that the Gentiles may be able to declare the testimony of these calamities
and of the remarkable display by which Jesus the Messiah must return to
this earth” (Fritzsche), or: ‘‘ita ut crisin aut vitae aut mortis adducat,”
‘‘so that it may bring on a crisis of either life or death” (Dorner). — xai
tére] and then, when the announcement shall have been made throughout
the whole world. — rd réAo¢] the end of the troubles that are to precede the
Messiah’s advent, correlative to apy7, ver. 8. Comp. ver. 6; consequently
not to be understood 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 termination of the dolores Messiae.
Ver. 15.’ More precise ‘information regarding this réAo¢. — obv] therefore,
in consequence of what has just been stated in the cai rére 7£ee rd réAoe. AC-
cording to Ebrard and Hoelemann, otv indicates a resuming of the previous
subject :* ‘‘ Jesus ad primam questionem revertitur, praemisso secundae quaes-
tionis responso.” But even Ebrard himself admits that Jesus has not as yet
made any direct reference to the disciples’ first question, ver. 8, accord-
ingly he cannot be supposed to recur to it witha mere oiv. Wieseler
also takes a similar view of oiv. He thinks that it is used by way of resum-
ing the thread of the conversation, which had been interrupted by the pre-
liminary 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 of a mere warning, has not been interrupted at all.
According to Dorner, otv marks the transition from the eschatological
principles contained in vv. 4-14 to the applicatio eorum historica 8. 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. —1d BdéAvypa ric Epnpdcews] the abomi-
nation of desolation ; the genitive denotes that in which the SdéAvyua specifically
consists and manifests itself as such, so that the idea, ‘‘ the abominable deso-
lation,” 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 desolation.
But in Daniel also the épfuwor is the leading idea. The Greek expression
in our passage is not exactly identical with the Septuagint*® rendering of

18ee Wleseler in the Gétiing. Viertel- ([E. T. 553].
jJahrechr. 1846, p. 188 ff.; Hengstenberg, 3In the Hebrew of the passage reforred
Christal. ITI. p. 116 ff. to in Daniel the words are not intended to
? Baeumlein, Partik. p. 177; Winer, p. 414. be taken together (Ha&vernick, von Len-

414 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
bEwP D'¥pY, Dan. ix. 27 (xi. 81, xii. 11).' In this prediction it is not to
Antichrist, 2 Thess. ii. 4 (Origen, Luthardt, Klostermann, Ewald), that
Jesus refers ; nor, again, isit to the statue of Titus, which is supposed to
have been erected on the site of the temple after its destruction (Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus) ; nor to that of Caligula, which is
said* to have been 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 sacri-
legious 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 abom-
inable 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 Bdé/. r. ép. without any explanation whatever,
in consequence of the 6 dvay:vdox. voeirw, by which, as he thinks, Jesus
meant to indicate that the reader was to find out the prophet's meaning for
himself. The above gencral 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 themselres (Hengstenberg), or of the corrupt state
of the Jewish hierarchy,* is foreign to the whole connection. — ré pyféy dia
Aav. r. mpog.] what has been said (expressly mentioned) by Daniel,” not :
‘‘ which is an expression of the prophet Daniel” (Wieseler) ; for the impor-
tant point was not the prophetic expression, but the thing itself indicated
by the prophet. Comp. xxii. 31.—On éoréc, see critical notes, and
Kiihner, I. p. 677. —év rémy dyiy] in the holy place ; i.e., not the town
as invested by the Romans,‘ 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 passage referred to. The designation selected forms a tragic

contrast to the PdéAvyya ; comp. Mark xiii. 14: Sov ob dei.

gerke on Dan. ix. 27, Hengstenberg, Chrisiol.
III. p. 108 f.). They are, moreover, very
variously interpreted; von Lengerke (Heng-
stenberg), for example: ‘the destroyer
comes over the pinnacles of abomination ;”
Ewald (Auberlen): “and that on account
of the fearful height of abominations ;”
Wieseler: ‘“‘and that because of the de-
structive bird of. abomination” (referring
to the eagle of Jupiter Olympius, to whom
Epiphanes dedicated the temple at Jerusa-
lem, 2 Macc. vi. 2); Hofmann, Welssag. u.
Erf. 1. p. 809: “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

Others, and

(opp OyIpy 422 yp ts this: the de-
stroyer (comes) on the wing of abominations,
and that until, etc. Comp. Keil. Ewaldon
Matthew, p. 412, takes 9 as a paraphrase

for rd iepdv. The Sept. rendering is prob-
ably from such passages as Ps. Ivii. 2. For
other explanations still, see Hengstenberg,
Chrisiol. TIT. p. 128 ff. ; Bleek in the JaAro. f.
D. Theol. 1860, p. 98 ff.

1 Comp. 1 Mace. i. 34, vi. 7.

2 But see Krebs, p. 58.

3 Weisse, Evangelien/r. p. 170 f.

4 So Hoelemann and many older exposi-
tors, after Luke xxi. 20.

CHAP. XXxIv., 16. 415

among them de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius (comp. Weiss on Mark), un-
derstand the words as referring to Palestine, especially to the neighborhood
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 irrelevant, for this reason, that in ver. 16
the words used are not ‘‘in Jerusalem,” but év rg "Iovdala ; 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 every-
thing is to be given up as lost, and safety sought only by fleeing from
Judaea to places of greater security among the mountains. —6é dvay:vdoxuv
voeirw] let the reader understand ! (Eph. iii. 4). Parenthetical observation by
the erangelist, 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 Zig-
abenus, Paulus, Fritzsche, Kaeuffer, Hengstenberg,’ 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 6 axobuy
voeirw.— We may add that our explanation is favored by Mark xiii. 14, where
Td prev bxd Aav. tov tpog. being spurious, it is consequently the reader, not
of Daniel, but of the gospel, that ismeant. Hoelemann incorrectly interprets :
‘* he who has discernment, let him understand it” (alluding to Dan. xii. 11) ;
avayivéox. is never used in the New Testament in any other sense than that of
to read.

Ver. 16 ff. Apodosis down to ver. 18. —ol év r. "Iovd.] means those who
may happen to be living in the country of Judaea (John iii. 22), in contra-
distinction to Jerusalem with its holy place, the abominations in which are
to be the signal for flight. — 4 xaraBawéro, x.t.A.] Some have conceived
the idea to be this: ‘‘ne per scalas interiores, sed exteriores descendat,”
‘“‘let him come down not by stairs within, but outside,” Bengel (Grotius,
Wetstein) ; or: let him flee over the roofs (over the lower walls, separating
house from house, till he comes to the city wall, Michaelis, Kuinoel,
Fritzsche, Paulus, Winer, Kaeuffer). Both views may be taken each ac-
cording to circumstances. — 7a é« TH¢ oixiag abrov] common attraction for ra
év rH oixig éx rij¢ oixtac.* — iv 76 ayp@] where, being at work, he has no upper
garment with him. — People will have to flee to sace 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, in 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

1 Authent, d. Dan. p. 258 ff.
* See Ktihner, I. 174, and ad Xen. Mem. iil. 6.11; Winer, p. 584 [E. T. 764].

416 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
with reference to the flight does not assume an individualizing character
till ver. 20.

Ver. 19. Al uév yap éyxvos ov duvhoovra: det'yetv, TH goptig THE yaoTpd¢ Baprvé-
pevat’ al d2 AyAdlovea dia tiv mpdc Ta Téxva oupmabecav, ‘‘Some being pregnant
will not be able to flee, weighed down by the burden in the womb ; others
suckling (will not be able) on account of their strong feeling of sympathy
for their children,” Theophylact.

Ver. 20. “Iva] Object of the command, and therefore its purport.’ — und?
oa33a7w] without é, as in xii. 1.7. On the Sabbath the rest and the so-
lemnities enjoined by the law, as well as the short distance allowed fors
Sabbath-day’s journey (2000 yards, according to Ex. xvi. 29),* could not
but interfere with the necessary haste, unless one were prepared in the cir-
cumstances to ignore all such enactments. Taken by themselves, the words
pnd? oa33aTy seem, no doubt, to be inconsistent with Jesus’ own liberal
views regarding the Sabbath (xii. 1 ff. ; John v. 17, vii. 22); but he is
speaking from the standpoint of His disciples, such a standpoint as they oc-
cupied at the time He addressed them, and which was destined to be out-
grown only in the course of a later development of ideas (Rom. xiv. 5 | Col.
ii. 6). As in the case of ye:udvoc, what is here said is simply with a view to
everything being avoided calculated to interfere with their hasty flight.‘

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 bea
matter of the most urgent necessity. — éwe rov viv] usque ad hoc tempus, Rom.
viii. 22, Kéoyov is not to be supplied hero (Fritzsche).* On the threefold
negative ovdi ov uf#, see Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 109 f.°

Ver. 22. And unless those days had been shortened, those, namely, of the
O2iyic peyarn (ver. 29), etc. This is to be understood of the reduction of the
number of the days over which, but for this shortening, the @Aiy¢ would
have extended, not of the curtailing of the length of the day (Fritzsche),—
a thought of which Lightfoot quotes an example from Rabbinical litera-
ture (comp. the converse of this, Josh. x. 18), which, seeing that there is a
considerable number of days, would be to introduce an element of a very ex-
traordinary 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. — éoé@7] used here with reference to the
saving of the life (viii. 25, xxvii. 40, 42, 49, and frequently).’ Hofmann in-
correctly explains : saved from denying the Lord. — raca cép&] every flesh,
1.e., every mortal man (see on Acts ii. 16), would not be rescued, i.6., would have
perished.® The limitation of raoa odpf to the Jews and Christians belonging

1 Mark xiv. 85; Col. 1. 9.

2 Winer, p. 205 (E. T. 274).

* See Lightfoot on Luke xxly. 80; Acts i
12 ; Schoettgen, p. 406.

4 Comp. x. 28.

§ See, on the other hand, Mark xiil. 19; 1
Macc. if. 88; Plat. Parm. p. 152 C, Zp. xiii.
p. 861 E.

*¥For the expression generally, Plat. 7tm.

Pp. 88 A: ov88 yeréodar word ove yeyordvas viv
ové' ecigavérs eceoda, ‘‘ nor ever did become,
or has become now, or hereafter will
be,"’ etc., Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 492 E.

7 Kuthymlus Zigabenus: ovx av vwefedvye
Tov Sdvaror, “ would not, could not escape
death.”

8 Comp. for the position of the negative,
Fritzsche, Diss. IL on 2 Cor. p. Mf.

CHAP. XXIY., 23. 417

to town or country who are found in immediate contact with the theatre of
war, is justified by the context. The éxJexrof are included, but it is not these
alone who are meant (Hofmann). — The aorist éxoAoB. conveys the idea that
the shortening was resolved upon in the counsels of the divine compassion
(Mark xiii. 20), and its relation to the aorist 067 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 xoz0,70. 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. —- dia dé rots éxAexrot¢] for sake
of the chosen (for the Messianic kingdom), in order that they might be pre-
served for the approaching advent. That in sceking to save the rightcous,
God purposely adopts a course by which He may save others at the same
time, is evident from Gen. xviii. 18 ff. But the éxAexrof (see on xxii. 14)
are those who, at the time of the destruction of the capital, are belierers in
Christ, and are found persecering in their faith in Him (ver. 15) ; not the
future crediturt as well ;* which latter view is precluded by the ciOéug of
ver. 29. — There is a certain solemnity in the repetition of the same words
xo203. ai nutpac éxeivaz. Ebrard lays stress upon the fact, as he supposes,
that our passage describes a calamity ‘‘cui finis sit imponendus, et quac
ab actate paulo saltem feliciore sit excipienda,” ‘‘to which an end may
be put, and which may be followed by an age a little more happy at
least,’ and accordingly infers that the idea of the immediate end of the
world is thereby excluded. But the aetas paulo saltem felicior, or the sup-
position that there is any interval at all between the @2iyi¢ peyéan and ver.
29, is forcign 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. Tére] then, when the desolation of the temple and the great
AAiue shall have arrived, false Messiahs, and such as falsely represent them-
selves to be prophets, will again come forward and urge their claims with
greater energy than ever, nay, in the most scductive ways possible. Those
here referred to are different from the pretenders of ver. 4f. The excite-
ment and longing that will be awakened in the midst of such terrible dis-
tress will be taken advantage of by impostors with pretensions to miracle-
working, and then how dangerous they will prove! By such early exposi-
tors as Chrysostom and those who come after him, ver. 23 was supposed to
mark the transition to the subject of the advent, so that rére 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 con-
dition 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 -ére by which the point of time is precisely defined, as
well as to the circumstance that the allusion here is merely to the coming

2 Jahn in Bengel's Archiv, II. 1; Schott, Opusc, IL p. 205 ff.; Lange, following Augus-
tine, Calovius.

Se eee

= SS ee ee eee

418 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 ecangelium. He is still speaking of
that period of distress, ver. 21 f., which ts to be immediately followed, ver.
29, by the second advent. — evdd ypioror] those who falsely claim to be Mes-
siah ; nothing is known regarding the historical fulfilment of this.’ — werdo-
mpooyra:| according to the context, not Christian teachers (ver. 11), in the
present instance, but such as pretended to be sent by God, and inspired 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 mis-
fortunes of earlier times (Jer. xiv. 14, v. 18, vi. 18, viii. 10).* Others sup-
pose 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). — ddcovar]
not : promise (Kypke, Krebs), but : give, so as to suit the idea involved in
onpeia.* — On onueia xai tépara, between which there is no material difference,
see on Rom. xv. 19. Miracles may also be performed by Satanic agency, 3
Thess. ii. 9. — Gore xAavyfigvas (sce critical notes): so that the very elect may
be led astray ‘ if possible.°— Ver. 25. Acauapriperar éfacpadilouevoc, ‘* being
perfectly sure, He solemnly asseverates,” Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp.
John xiv. 29.

Ver. 26. Oiv] 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 repe-
tition of the 4? moreboyre of ver. 23. — éori] the Messiah, ver. 23. — é roi¢
tauetocc] the article is to be taken demonstratirely, while the plural denotes
the inner rooms of a house. According to Fritzsche, we have here the cate-
gorical plural (see on ii. 20): ‘‘ en, ibi est locorum, quae conclavia appellan-
tur.” That would be too vague a pretence. The phraseology here made
use of : tn the wilderness—in the inner rooms of the house—is simply apoca-
lyptic imagery.°

Ver. 27. Reason why they were not to listen to such assertions. The ad-
vent 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." Not as though the advent were not to be connected

1 Jonathan (Joseph. Bell. vil. 11. 3) and
Barcochba (see on ver. 5) appeared at a
luter period.

2Comp. Joseph. Bell. f1. 13. 4: wAdvo. yap
avOpwwo. kal awarwrvres mposxnuart Gecagpov
vewTreptopovs Kai peraBoAds mpaymarevouervot,
Saruovgv Td wANG0s avéreOor, «.7.A.

® Comp. xii. 89; Deut. xili. 1.

* Kobner, ITI. 2, p. 1008.

Si duvaréy: si fleri possit; ‘‘conatus sum-
mus, sed tamen irritus,”’ “‘if it can be ac-
complished; the very highest effort, but

yet in vain,’ Bengel.

*“ Ultra de deserto et penetraiibus
quaerere non est sobrii interpretis,"* ** It be-
longs not toa sober interpreter to seek de-
yond concerning the desert and the inner
rooms,” Maldonatus.

7 oUTws tora: } wapovgia éxeivn, dnou wavra-
xov datvoudyyn Sad Thy exAanyuw THs Sofys,
“thus that coming shall be, together every-
where shining forth through the brightness
of His glory,” Chrysostom.

CHAP, XXIV., 28. 419

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 compar-
ison 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 unwar-
rantable pretence.

Ver. 28. Confirmation of the truth that the advent will announce its pres-
ence everywhere, and that from the point of view of the retributive punish-
ment which the coming One will be called upon everywhere to execute.
The emphasis of this figurative adage is on érov éav 9 and éxei: ‘‘ 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. 87. The carcase isa
metaphorical expression denoting the spiritually dead (viii. 22 ; Luke’ xvi.
24) who are doomed to the Messianic ardéAea, while the words ovvayOfoovrat
- (namely, at the advent) oi aeroi 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, ovAAéfoverw ix rH¢ BactAeiac abrov mévra Ta oxdvdada,
nai Badovory avrov¢ ei¢ riv xdutvov Tov mvpéc, 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 ofthe carcase and the eagles (Bleek,
Luthardt, Auberlen). Others (Lightfoot, Hammond, Clericus, Wolf, Wet-
stein) 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.’ But it isthe advent that is in question ; while, according to vv.
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
cagles as representing the Messiah and His angel-hosts, he nevertheless under-
stands 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 physi-
eal and moral ruins of Israel... According to Cremer, the carcase denotés
the anti- Messianic agitation previously described, which is destined to be sup-
pressed and punished by the imperial power (the eagles). This view is erro-
neous ; for, according to ver. 27, the ovvayé. ol aeroi can only represent the
mapovoia T. viov r. avip.2 Similarly such early expositors as Chrysostom (who
thinks the angels and martyrs are intended to be included), Jerome, Theo-

? Xen. Anad. 1. 10. 12; Plut. Mar. 2. sias, Ibi homtnes, qui ejus potestatis fuburi
2 Fritzsche and Fleck, p. 884: ‘“‘ubl Bfes- sind’ (ot daAexros, ver. 81).

420 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
phylact,' Euthymius Zigabenus, Miinster, Luther, Erasmus,’ Beza, Calvin,
Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, Jansen. But how inappropriate and incongruous
it would be to compare the Messiah (who is conceived of as rpog wvevparing,
Euthymius Zigabenus) to the carcase ; which is all the more offensive when,
with Jerome, zraua is supposed to contain a reference to the death of Jesus
—a view which Calvin rejected. Wittichen * reverses the subjects of com-
parison, and takes the carcase as representing the Israelitish éxAexroi, and the
eagles as representing the Messiah. But this interpretation is likewise for-
bidden by the incongruity that would result from the similitude of the car-
case 80 suggestive of the domain of death, as well as by that universal char-
acter of the advent to which the context bears testimony. With astonish-
ing disregard of the context, Kaeuffer observes : miorebonre, sc. illis, nam
ubi materies ad praedandum, ibi praedatores avidi, h. e. nam in fraudem
vestram erit,” ‘‘do not trust, viz., them, for where there is matter for booty,
there are eager robbers, that is, for it will be to your damage.” * — oi éeroi]
are the carrion-kites (vultur percnopterus, Linnaeus), which the ancients re-
garded as belonging to the eagle species.°

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. 29-88) ; 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 that it will break unex-
pectedly upon the world (vv. 34-41) ; this should certainly awaken men to
watchfulness and preparedness (vv. 42-51), to which end the two parables,
xxv. 1-30, are intended to contribute. The discourse then concludes with
a description of the final judgment over which the coming one is to preside
(xxv. 31-46). — eiféuc d2 peta r. O2ipev Tov huep. éx.| but immediately after the
distress of those days, immediately after the last (ré réAoc) 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 juep. éxeivur,
comp. vv. 19, 22; and for 6A/:», ver. 21. Ebrard’s explanation of this
passage falls to the ground with his erroneous interpretation of vv. 23,
24, that explanation being as follows: immediately 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 edféuc involves the
meaning : ‘‘nullis aliis intercedentibus indiciis.. It may be observed gen-
erally, 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 imme-
diately upon the destruction of Jerusalem. This assumption, however, is

1 Gowep emi vexpdr capa ocvvdyorrat bfdu¢ ot

3 In the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 837.

GETOL, OUTW Kai EvOa ay ein O Xptords, EAevoovTar
wavres ot ayo, ‘As the eagles quickly
gather at a dead body, so also, where the
Christ may be, all the holy ones will come.”’

2“*Non deerunt capiti sua membra,"
“the head will not be lacking its mem-
bers."

4On the question as to whether rraxza
without a qualifying genitive be good
Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 3%.

5 See Plin. V. H. x. 8; Aristot. ix. 92. For
the similitude, comp. Job xxxix. 30; Hos.
vill. 1; Hab. vill. 1; Prov. xxx. 17; Ezek.
xxxix. 17.

CHAP. XXIV., 29, 421

contrary to all exegetical rule, considering that Jesus repeatedly makes ref-
erence elsewhere (sce also ver. 34) to His second coming as an event that is
near athand. Among those interpretations may also be classed that of Schott
(following such earlier expositors as Hammond and others, who had already
taken cvféwe in the sense of suddenly), who says that Matthew had written
DD, subito, but that the translator (like the Sept. in the case of Job v. 8)
had rendered the expression ‘‘ minus accurate” by ciféwc. This is certainly
a wonderful supposition, for the simple reason that the OND 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,” ‘‘ it was not yet time
to reveal the whole series of future events from the destruction of Jerusalem
to the end of the world,” and by his paraphrase of the passage: ‘‘ De iis,
quae post pressuram dierum illorum, delendae urbis Jerusalem, evenient,
prozimum, quod in pracsenti pro mea conditione commemorandum et pro
vestra capacitate expectandum venit, hoc est, guod sol obscurabitur,” etc.,
‘*concerning those things which shall happen, after the tribulation of those days,
the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, the nearest, which at the present, ac-
cording to my condition, comes to be remembered, and according to your ca-
pacity to be waited for, is this, that the sun shall be darkened,” etc. Many
others, as Wetstein, for example, have been enabled to dispense with gratui-
tous 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 ex-
plain away the literal advent,’ which is depicted in language as clear asit is
sublime. And yet E. J. Meyeragain interprets vv. 29-34 of the destruction
of Jerusalem, and in such a way as to make it appear that the prediction re-
garding the final advent is not introduced till ver. 35. But this view is at
once precluded by the fact that in ver.35 6 oipavig x. 4 yz wapeAeboerae 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 oi d2 Aéyot pov
ov ui) wapéAd. immediately after (observe, Christ does not say oj yap Aéyat,
x.T.4., but ol 62 Adéyot, x.7.4.). Hoelemann, Cremer, Auberlen are right in
their interpretation of ev#éws, but wrong in regarding the time of the culmi-
nation of the heathen power—an idea imported from Luke xxi. 24—as antece-
dent to the period indicated by eciféuc. Just as there are those who seek to
dispose of the historical difficulty connected with eiffuws by twisting the
sense of what precedes, and by an importation from Luke xxi. 24, so Dorner

1Comp. the Old Testament prophecies Zech. xiv. 6, etc., and the passages from
respecting the day of the coming of Jeho- Rabbinical writers in Bertholdt, Christol.
vah, Isa. xill. 9 ff., xxxiv. 4, xxiv.21; Jer.iv. § 12; Gfrérer, Geach. d. Urchrist. I. 2, pp.
2% f.; Ezek. xxxii.7f.; Hag. il. 6f.; Joelil. 195 ff., 219 ff.
10, lif. 8 f., iv. 15; Zeph. 1.15; Hag. li. 21; .

422 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

seeks to dispose of it by twisting the sense of what comes after. —6é Fd
oxoriod., «.T.A.] Description of the great catastrophe in the hcavens which is
to precede the second advent of the Messiah. According to Dorner, our
passage is intended as a prophetical delineation of the fall of heathenism,
which would follow immediately upon the overthrow of Judaism ; and, ac-
cordingly, 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. 34.1". Ewald correctly interprets : ‘‘ While the whole world
is being convulsed (ver. 29, after Joel iii. 3 f. ; Isa. xxxiv. 4, xxiv. 21),
the heaven-sent Messiah appears in His glory (according to Dan. vii. 18) to
judge,” etc. — oi aorépes meoovvrat, x.t.A.] Comp. Isa. xxxiv. 4. To be un-
derstood literally, but not as illustrative of sad times (Hengstenberg on the
Revelation ; Gerlach, letzte Dinge, p. 102) ; and yet not in the sense of
Jalling-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 firmament Mm 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, Olshau-
sen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Cremer, following the Greek Fathers, so as to
mean a mere obscuration) to the earth—which, in accordance with the cos-
mical views of the time, is the plain and natural sense of cic r#v y#v (see
Rev, vi. 18)—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 as-
tronomical conceptions of our own day. —al duvdpere rdv oipavisy cadevé.] is
usually explained of the starry hosts,? which, coming as it does after ol acrépec
meoovvrat, would introduce 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, etc.) till be 80 shaken as to lose their
usual stability. 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 ii. 18), is inconsis-
tent not merely with cadevffo., but also with tHe whole connection which
refers to the domain of physical things. For the plural rév otpariy, 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 prelude 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. 7f. ; Joel ili.
8 f.) that are in view, but the new birth of the world, and the establishment
of the Messiah’s kingdom. [See note XI., p. 484 e¢ seg. ]

1 See E. J. Meyer, p. 125 ff.; Bleek, p. 2 Isa. xxxlv. 4, xl. 26; Ps. xxxiii. 6; Deut.
$56; Hofmann, p, 686; Gess, p. 136. fy. 19; 2 Kings xvii. 16, eto.

CHAP. XxIv., 30. 423

Ver. 80. Ka? tére| and then, when what is intimated at ver. 29 shall have
arrived. — gavgcera:] universally, and so not visible merely to the elect
(Cremer), which would not be in keeping with what follows. — 1d onpeiov
Tow viov r. avép.] accordingly the sign inquired about in ver. 3, that phenome-
non, 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 indefinite ;
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 mani-
Jestation of light, the dawning of the Messianic défa which is perhaps to go
on increasing in brilliancy and splendor until the Messiah Himself steps
forth from the midst of it in the fulness of His glory. There is no founda-
tion 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);
similarly Bleek, though rather more by way of conjecture. Following the
older expositors, Fritzsche, Ewald, Hengstenberg, R. Hofmann understand
the coming Messiah Himself: ‘‘miraculum, quod Jesus revertens Messias
oculis objiciet” ‘‘the miracle which Jesus returning as Messiah will present
to their eyes,” (accordingly, taking rod vlod r. avOp. as a genitive of subject ;
while Wolf, Storr, Weiss, Bidl. Theol. p. 56, ed. 2, assume it to be a geni-
tive of apposition). This view is inconsistent not only with what follows,
where the words xa? dpovra: rdv vidv, x.7.A., evidently point to something still
farther in the future, and which the onyeiov serves to introduce, but also
with the question of the disciples, ver. 8. R. Hofmann thinks that the ref-
erence 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. 29-81, certainly does not refer to the
destruction of Jerusalem, after which event Hofmann supposes our evan-
gelist to have written. Lastly, some (Schott, Kuinoel) are even of opinion
that o7peiov 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 rére is decidedly against this view. — xai rére] a new point brought
forward : and then, when this onueiov has been displayed. — xéyovraz] ;* 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 relation-
ships 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 mourn (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

Comp. Zech. xil. 10; Rev. I. 7.

424 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(the Adyca), dyovrac probably occurred twice here, and that it was reserved
for the last redactor of those sayings to make a play upon the word by sub-
stituting xépovra:. — épyduevov, x.t.A.] a8 in Dan. vil. 13. — pera duvdy. x. dé£.
“roAA.| This great power and majesty will also be displayed in the accompany-
ing angel-hosts, ver. 31. The aca: ai gv?ai rig ypc are not : ‘omnes familias
Judaecorum” (Kuinoel), as those who explain ver. 29 ff. of the destruction of
Jerusalem must understand the words, but : all the tribes of the earth."

Ver. 81. Ka? arooredci] And He will send forth, i.e., from the clouds of
heaven, 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.— otc ayyéAove avrov] the angels specially
employed in His service. — pera odAmcyyoc gwvic peyda.] with (having as
an accompaniment) a trumpet of a loud sound. The second genitive qual-
ifies and is governed by the first.?. The idea is not that the individual an-
gels 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). — ériauvdiovar] gather together,*
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).*
But the dpwdéfeo8a: ei¢ 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. — rod ixAexr. abzoi} the elect belonging to Him (chosen by God for
the Messianic kingdom, as in ver. 22).°— ard Gxpwv otpav.| ab extremitatibus
coclorum uaque ad extremitatea corum, i,e., from one horizon to the other, °
therefore from the whole earth (ver. 14), on which the extremities of tho
sky secm ta rest.'—As showing the exegetical abusca to which this grand
passage has been subjected, take the following, Lightfoot : ‘‘ emittet filius
hominis ministros suos cum tuba evangelica,” ctc.;° ‘‘the Son of man will
send forth His ministers with the trumpet of the Gospel,” eto, 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, This is sub-
stantially the view of Tholuck also.—It may be observed, moreover, that
this passage forbids the view of Késtlin, p. 26, that our Gospel does not
contain a specifically Christian, but merely an ethical universalism (as con-
trasted with Jewish obduracy),°

1 Comp. Gen. xii. 3, xxvill, 14.

2 See Buttmann, .Veul. Gr. p. 205 (E. T.
$43].

8 xxili. 27; 2 Thess. if. 1; 2 Macc, {, 27, il,
18,

4 See Hoelemann, p. 171,

§ Comp. Rom. {, 6.

¢ For atparay without the article, see
Winer, p. 115 [E. T. 150}.

7 Deut, iv. 883, xxx. 4; Ps. xix. 7.

®Kulnoel (comp. Wetstein: “in tanta

calamitate Judaels, adversariis religionis
Christianae, infiigenda, ubivis locorum
Christ! sectatores per def providentiam i1-
laesi servabuntur,” “In so great calamity
inflicted upon the Jews, the enemies of
Christ's religion, In every place the followe
ers of Christ shall be preserved unharmed
through the providence of God," cto.

® See, an the other hand, especially vill,
11, xxil. 9f., xxv. 31 ff., xxvill, 19, eto,

CHAP, XXIV., 32. 425

Ver. 82 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 inter-
pretation (1) of 7d Gépoc, (2) of rdévra raira, and also (3) on our taking care
not to supply anything we choose as the subject of éyyi¢ éorw éxi Obparc. —
dé is simply peraBarixév. —axé rH¢ cvxijc] the article is generic; for axé, comp.
on xi. 29. From the jig-tree, i.e., in the case of the fig-tree, see the parable
(s#v wap.) that is intended for your instruction in the circumstances referred
to. For the article conveys the idea of your similitude ; here, however,
mapaBoAy means simply a comparison, wapddecyua. Comp. on xiii. 8. — xal ra
gbAdAa éxgiy] and puts forth the leaves (the subject being 4 xAddoc). Matthaei,
Fritzsche, Lachmann, Bleek, on the authority of EF G H K M V A, Vulg.
It., write éxgvj, taking it as an aorist, i.e., et folia edita fuerint.' Butin
that case what would be the meaning of the allusion to the branches re-
covering their sap? Further, it is only by taking «. r. ¢. éxdby as present
that the strictly definite element is brought out, namely : when the xAddog¢ is
an the act of budding. — 76 6époc} is usually taken in the sense of aestas, after
the Vulgate. But, according to the correct interpretation of xdvra raira,
summer would be too date in the present instance, and too indefinite ; nor
would it be sufficiently near to accord with éyyt¢ éorw ént Otpatc. Hence
it is better to understand the harcvest* as referred to, asin Prov. xxvi. 1;
Dem. 1253. 15, and frequently in classical writers.? It is not, however,
the jig-harcest (which does not occur till August) that is meant, but the
JSruit-harvest, the formal commencement of which took place as early as the
second day of the Passover season. —ovrw x. tuei¢] so understand ye also.
For the preceding indicative, y:vdoxere, expressed what was matter of com-
mon observation, and so, in a way corresponding to the observation referred
to, should (y:véox. imperative) the disciples also on their part understand, etc.
— bray idnte mdvta tavta] when ye will have seen all this. It is usual to seek
for the reference of rdvra tairain the part of the passage before ver. 29,
namely, in what Jesus has just foretold as to all the things that were to pre-
cede 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 ques-
tion, in order to restrict the reference of xdvra ravra to them ; as, for ex-
ample, the incrementa malignitatis (Ebrard), or the cooling of loce among be-
lievers, the preaching to the Gentiles, and the overthrow of Jerusalem (Gess).
If we are totake the words in their plain and obvious meaning (ver. 8), rdévra
ravra can only be understood to refer to what immediately precedes, therefore to
what has been predicted, from that epoch-making ter. 29 on to ter. 81, re-
specting the enyeiov of the Son of man, and the phenomena that were to accom-
pany the second coming itself. When they shall have seen all that has been
announced, vv. 29-81, they are to understand from it, ete. — bre éyyte tori ~
Ext Gpac] To supply a subject here is purely arbitrary ; the Son of man has
been supposed by some to be understood (Fritzsche, de Wette, Hofmann,

1 See, in general, Ktihner, I. p. 990 f. 3 Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIL. p. 857. Comp.
* Equivalent to @epigucs, Photius, p, 86, also Ebrard, Keim,
18,

426. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Bleek, Weiss, Gess) ; whereas the subject is rd 6époc, which, there
being no reason to the contrary, may also be extended to ver. 83. This
6épo¢ 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 arrest, understanding it, however,
in the higher Messianic sense symbolized by the natural harvest,’ namely,
the reception 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.?

Ver. 84. 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 7 yeved airy such mean-
ings 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. 80), or: ‘‘the class of
men consisting of my believers” (Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthym-
ius Zigabenus, Clarius, Paulus, Lange), resembles the unreasonable way
in which Ebrard; following up his erroneous reference of zrdvra ravra (see
on ver. 33), importsinto the saying the idea : inde ab ipsorum (discipulorum)
aetate omnibus ecclesiae temporibus interfutura, ‘‘from this generation of
these (disciples) about to profit all times of the Church,” an imaginary view
which passages like x. 23, xvi. 28, xxiii. 89, 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. 836.— The rdvra raira is the same as that of
ver. 33, and therefore denoting ncither the mere prognostics of the second
advent, or, to be more definite, ‘‘ the taking away of the kingdom from Israel”
(Gess), not specially the destruction of Jerusalem.* 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 révra raiva yévyrac will commence the pass-
ing 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 utter-
ances 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.
éxrinxrecv, 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 life-
time of the generation then existing, but no one knows on what day or at what

1 Gal. vi. 9; 2Cor. ix. 6. the plural, see Kfihner, ITI. 1, p. 17.
2 On éwi Opus without the article, see 3 Schott, E. J. Meyer, Hoelemann, Bium-
Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. i. 3.2; and for _lein in Klaiber's Stud. I. 8, p. 41 ff.

CHAP. XXIV., 37-41. 427

hour within the period thus indicated. Accordingly it is impossible to tell
you anything more precise in regard to this than what is stated at ver. 34. —
el un 6 mar. nov yévoc] 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 (dé, 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. —
qoav . . . Tpdyovrec] not for the imperfect, but to make the predicate more
strongly prominent.' rpdyev means simply to eat (John vi. 54-58, xiii. 18),
not devouring like a beast (Beza, Grotius, Cremer), inasmuch as such an
unfavorable construction is not warranted by any of the matters ufterwards
mentioned. — yapowvrec x. éxyau.] uxzores in matrimonium ducentes et filias col-
locantes, descriptive of a mode of life without concern, and without any
foreboding of an impending catastrophe. — xai ovx fyvwoav] The ‘* it’”* to be
understood after zyvwoar is the flood that isso near at hand. Fritzsche’s
interpretation : ‘‘ quod debebant intelligerc” (namely, from seeing Noah
build the ark), is arbitrary. The time within which it may be affirmed with
certainty that the second advent will suddenly burst upon the world, can-
not be supposed to refer to that which intervenes between the destruction of
Jerusalem and the advent, a view precluded by the eiOéuc 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 imme-
diately following it, forms the terminus ante quem, and corresponds to the
mpd tov xaraxAvopot of the Old Testament analogy. —év yuépg g] without
repeating the preposition before 7 (John iv. 64).?

Vv. 40; 41. Tére] then, when the second advent will have thus suddenly
taken place. — rapatauBdverar] is taken away, namely, by the angels who are
gathering the elect together, ver. 81. The use of the present tense here
pictures 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 Zigabenus, Jansen), avadayBdverac would have
been used instead. — adieraz] 48 left, expressing ob wapadayBaverac in its posi-
tive form.‘ 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 (wapadauv3. cannot, when standing alone,
be taken as equivalent to bello capere, although it is used to denote the
receiving of places into surrender, in deditionem accipere, Polyb. ii. 54. 12, iv.
68. 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

1 Comp. on vii. 29. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apo. p. %D. Comp.

3 See Nagelsbach, Jiiad, p. 120, ed. 8. ver. 50.

3 Comp. Xen. Anabd. v. 7. 17, and Kfthner, 4 Comp. xxiil. 38, xv. 14; Soph. 0. 2. 500.
on the passage; Winer, p. 898 [E. T. 524 f.] ;

428 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

John xiv. 8. It is no doubt admissible to interpret the expression in the
hostile sense : the one is seized'or carried off (iv. 5,8; Num. xxiii. 27 ;
1 Mace. iii. 37, iv. 1), namely, to be punished. But the ordinary explana-
tion harmonizes better with the reference to ver. 31, as well a3 with the
subsequent parable, ver. 45 ff., where the moré¢ dobAog is first introduced. —
dbo aApbovoat, x.7.A.] of teeo who grind at the mill, one will, etc. For the con-
struction, in which, by means of a perdBaotg ard dAov ei¢ pépn, the plural-
subject is broken up into two separate persons.* If we were to adopt the
usual course of supplying écovra: from ver. 40, we would require to translate
as follows : two will be grinding at the mill. But this supplying of éoovra: is
not at all necessary ; as may be gathered from the annexing of the parti-
ciple, we have in this other case, ver. 41, just a different mode of presenting
the matter. — aA7Govca:] the hard work usually performed by the lower
order of female slaves (Ex. xi.5; Isa. xlvii. 2; Job xxxi. 10; Eccles.
xii. 8), and such as is still performed in the East by women, either singly or
by two working together.* A similar practice prevailed in ancient Greece,
Hermann, Privatalterth. § 24. 8.‘—év r@ ptaw] which is not to be con-
founded (sce the critical notes) with pfAw (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 ériufdcov (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 r. yp. : 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 follow-
ing drt, x.7.A. (because ye, etc.) is an emphatic epexegesis of oty. This exhor-
tation 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 in
an attitude of spiritual watchfulness (1 Cor. xvi. 18, 22). The idea of
watchfulness, the opposite of security, coincides with that implied in the
constant érowacia tov evayyediov (Eph. vi. 15). Comp. ver. 44.—xoig] at
what (an early or a late).°

Ver. 438. But (that I may show you by means of a warning example how
you may risk your salvation by allowing yourselves to be betrayed into a
state of unpreparcdness) know this, that if, etc. — 6 oixodeawéry¢] the particular
one whom the thief has anticipated. —e gdec . . . éypyydpnoev av] if he had
been aware at what watch in the night the thief comes, to break into his house, he
would hare watched. Butas he does not know the hour which the thief

1 Polyb. fil. 69. 2; similarly Baumgarten-
Crusius.

2 Comp. Hom. JI. vil. 806 f.: ra S& Scaxpey-
Odyre, 5 ev pera Aady’ Ayatwy Hi’, 6 5 és Tpwwy

§ Rosenmiiller, Morgen. on Ex. xi. 53; and
on the present passage, Robinson, Paddst.
II. p. 405 f.

* Hemsterhuls, ad Lucian. Tim. xxill. On

Suatoy nie, ‘So these two parted, the one
went to the Achaean host, the other betook
himself to the throng of the Trojans.” Plat.
Phaedr. p. 248 A, al. ; see Dissen, ad Pind.
Ol. vill. 87; also ad Dem. decor. p. 7 f.

the unclassical adj@eyv (for adciv). see Lo-
beck, ad Phryn. p. 151.

® Comp. ver. 48; Rev. ifl.8; 1 Pet. L 11;
Eur. ZpA. A, 815; Aesch. Ag. 278.

CHAP. Xxly., 44-51. 429

chooses (it being different in different cases), he is found off his guard when
the burglary is being committed. The rendering tigilaret (Luther, Kuinoel,
Bleek, after the Vulg.) is incorrect. For the illustration of the thief, comp.
1 Thess. v. 2, 4; 2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev. iii. 8, xvi. 15.

Ver. 44. Aca rovzo] 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 ¢vAaxy of the thief. — xai iyeig] as the house-
holder would have been had he watched. — éro:zo:] spoken of their spiritual
readiness for the second advent, which would take them by surprise (xxv.
10; Tit. iii. 1). This preparedness they were to acquire for themselces
(yiveo6e).

Ver. 45 f. Tig dpa, x.7.4.] who therefore, considering the necessity for pre-
paredness thus indicated. The inference itself is presented in the form of
an allegory, the dotAoc 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 dis-
position habitually determining their whole behavior and characterized by
devotion to the will of the Lord, the latter by the intelligent choice of ways
and means, by taking proper adtantage of circumstances, etc. The cic is not
equivalent to ci rz¢ (Castalio, Grotius), which it never can be ; but 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 accord-
ance with the termsof the question, ‘‘7tis he, whom his lord, on his return,”
etc., prominence is given to the dlessedness 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,”
‘‘who then, etc., I would greatly desire to know this one.” 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 characteristic 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
question, ric dpa éoriv 6 motég J. K. op. — oixereia, domestic servants.’ — ovruc]
thus, in accordance with duty assigned him in ver. 45 ; the principal em-
phasis being on this word, it is put at the end of the sentence.

Ver. 47. He will assign him a far higher position, setting him not merely
over his domestics, but, etc. The ovufaci2eterv 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 ordi-
nary servants,’

Vv. 48-51. ‘Edy d2, «.7.4.] the emphasis is on 6 xaxé¢ as contrasting with
6 maroc K. opdviuog, ver. 45, therefore 6 amiorog x. ddpwv. — éxeivoc] refers back
to by Karéorgoev, x.t.A., 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

1 Lucian, Merc. cond. 15; Strabo, xiv.p. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 508.
668. Comp. oixeria, Symmachus, Job i. 3; 2 Comp. xxv. 21 ff. ; Luke xix. 17 ff.

430 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(the servant is either faithful or wicked), the second of which we are to
regard as presupposed and pointed to by éxeivoc (de Wette, Kaeuffer), is to
burden the passage with unnecessary confusion. —dpfyrac] will have begun,
does not refer to the circumstance that the lord surprises him in the midst
of his misdemeanors (Fritzsche), because in that case what follows would
also have to be regarded as depending on épSyra:, but on the contrary it
brings out the fearless wickedness of the man abandoning himself to tyranni-
cal behavior and sensual gratifications. —iobin 62 x. x.] 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 olxereia. — dtyorouhoe: avrdv] he will cut him in two,’ a
form of punishment according to which the criminal was sawn asunder, 2
Sam. xii. 81; 1 Chron. xx.3 ; Heb. xi. 37.7 There is no force in the usual
objection that, in what follows, the slave is assumed to be still living ; for,
in the words xa? rd pépog abrod, x.t.A., Which are immediately added, we have
a statement of the thing itself, which the similitude of that terrible punish-
ment was intended to illustrate. All othcr explanations are inconsistent
with the text, such as : he will tear him with the scourge (Heumann, Paulus,
Kuinoel, Schott, de Wette, Olshausen), or: he will cut him off from his
service (Beza, Grotius, Jansen, Maldonatus; comp. Jerome, Euthymius
Zigabenus), or: he will withdraw his spiritual gifts from him (Basil, Theo-
phylact), or generally : he will punish him with the utmost severity (Chrysos-
tom). — xa? rd pépog avrod, x.t.2.] 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.*
Rabbinical writers likewise regard Gehenna as the portion of hypocrites ;
sce Schoettgen. But the expression rév troxprr. is made use of here because
the xaxd¢ dovAoc 78 a hypocrite in the inmost depths of his moral nature, inas-
much as he acts under the impression ypoviZer pov 6 xbproc, though he hopes
that when his lord arrives he will be able to assume the appearance of one
who is still faithfully discharging his duty, just as he must have pretended
to be good at the time when he received the trust which had been committed
to him ; but now he is suddenly unmasked. — éxei] namely, in hell, viii. 12,
xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxv. 30.

REMARK 1.—It is exegetically certain that from ver. 29 onward Jesus an-
nounces 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
evféws of ver. 29, a different terminus a quo (see on ver. 29), and therefore to find
room enough before this evféwc 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 af the second advent is introduced (Chrysostom : ver. 23 ; E.
J. Meyer : ver. 35 ; Siisskind : ver. 36 ; Kuinoel: ver. 43 ; Lightfoot, Wetstein,

1 Plat. Polit. p. 302 F; Polyb. vi. 28,2; x. general, Wetstein and Rosenmiiller, 2or
15. 5; Ex. xxix. 17. genl., On Our passage.

2Comp. Sueton. Caliq. xvil.: ‘* medios *Comp. on John xiii. 8, and the classical
serra dissecuit..’ Herod. vii. 37. See, in phrase év pépes rivds TiOerOan.

CHAP. XXIV. 431

Flatt : not till xxv. 31 ; Hoelemann: as early as xxiv. 19), are not the fruits of
an objective interpretation of the text, but are based on the assumption that
every trifling detail must find its fulfilment, and lead to interpretations in
which the meaning is explained away and twisted in the most violent way pos-
sible. The attempts of Ebrard, Dorner, Cremer, Hoelemann, Geass, to show
that the prediction of Jesus is in absolute harmony with the course of history,
nre 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 op-
position to Hofmann, Schrifibew. IL. p. 630 ff.) ; nor again, in ver. 34, can we
narrow the scope of the mdvra ravra, or extend that of the yeved airy, or make
yévnrac denote merely the dawning of the events in question.

Remark 2,—It is true that the predictions, ver. 5 ff., regarding the events
that were to precede the destruction of Jerusalem were not fulfilled in so special
and ample a way asto 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 pre-
vailed, 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 hecame procurator of Judea in 64). This prophecy, though in
every respect s 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 vaticinium post eventum (see on ver. 1) is not to be thought of.
Comp. Holtzmann, Weizsicker, Pfleiderer.

Remazx 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 Jerusalemn,—and as an explanation of which the assump-
tion 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 ; (b)
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 up-
on 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. u. Krit.
1836, p. 626 ff.), and in connection with which it is to be observed that in John
the avasryow airov éyd TH eaxaTy nuépg (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 under-
go 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 inter-
vene between this latter event and the second coming than would scem to cor-
respond with the efMéwe of xxiv. 29. (2) But though Jesus Himself predicted

432 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

His second coming as an event close at hand, without understanding it, how-
ever, in the literal sense of the words (see above, under a and b) ; though, in
doing so, He availed Himself to some extent of such prophetical phraseology
as had come to be the stereotyped language for describing the future establish-
ment 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 em-
bodying His conceptions of the ideal advent,—it is nevertheless highly con-
ceivable that, in the minds of the 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 conceivable 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 conse-
quence, 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 ex-
pectation, 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 correcting the errors to which this confusion gave rise (Acts i. 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
tpon 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 teach-
ing 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 expectation 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 prom-
ised 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. Ex eventu 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 heat the same time saw,
and in prophetic symbolism announced, what He could aot fail to be aware of,
viz., the connection that there would be between this catastrophe and the
triumph of His ideal kingdom, then nothing was more natural than to expect
that, with Jerusalem still standing (differently in Luke xxi. 24), and the dura-
tion of the existing generation drawing to a close, the second advent would
take place immediately afler the destruction of the capital,—an expectation
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 pre-
cede it (Strauss, II. 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
Palast. p. 494 f.). The form of the expectation involuntarily modified the form

CHAP. XXIV. 433

of the promise ; 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 gor-
geous coloring of prophetic delineation, 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
Strassb. Beitr. I. 1851, p. 83 ff. ; Holtzmann, p. 409 f.; Keim, II. 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 Christianity,—a renovation which is to go on
until the last revelation from heaven takes place (Kern, Dorner, Olshansen),
But this is only to commit the absurdity of importing into the passage a poeti-
cal judgment, such as is quite foreign to the real judgment of the New Testa-
ment. No less objectionable is Bengel’s idea, revived by Hengstenberg and
Olshausen (comp. also Kern, p. 56; Lange, I. 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,
i.e., an optical delusion, to Jesus if the latter had failed to specify a definite
time by means of a statement so very precise as that contained in the et9éue of
ver. 29, or had not added the solemn declaration of ver. 34. Dorner, Witti-
chen, rightly decide against this view. Asa last shift, Olshausen has recourse
to the idea that some condition or other is to be understood : ‘‘ All those things
will happen, unless men avert the anger of God by sincere repentance,"’—a reserva-
tion which, in a prediction of so extremely definite a character, would most cer-
tainly have been expressly mentioned, even 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. 333 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 represents Him to havo done, then it would follow that He made
use of false means for the pnrpose of attaining a moral end,—a thing even more
inconceivable in His case than theoretical error, which latter Strauss does not
hesitate to impute. According 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 com-
promised by such an error as is here in view,—an error affecting a prediction
80 intimately connected with His whole work, and of so much importance in
ita moral consequences. Comp. John viii. 46.

Remakxk 4.—The statement of ver. 29, to the effect that the second advent
would take place immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that of
ver. 34, to the effcct 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 previous to the de-
struction of the capital. Baur, indeed (Evangelien, 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

434 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. —

the composition of our Gospel (namely, 130-134) in the Bded. ric épnude. 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 question-
able (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, #b.
d. Ev. Justin’s, p. 367, has sought to make the duration of the period in
question extend over a century and more, therefore to somewhere about the year
130 and even later, although the common notion of a yeved was such that a
century was understood to be equal to something like three of them (Herod.
ii. 142 ; Thuc. i. 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
lifetime of the existing generation, the generation living at the time the dis-
course was being delivered (the yeved 7 xara tov mapdévra ypévov, 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. 209; also Késtlin, p.
114 ff.

Nore sy American Eprror.

XI.

The difficulties in the interpretation of this chapter have been acknowledged
by all commentators. It is admitted as beyond dispute that there is contained
therein a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and also a prediction of
Christ’s second coming to judge the world. All turns, however, upon the con-
struction of ciféwc, v. 29. Dr. Meyer properly insists that the attempts to twist
this word from its proper meaning of ‘‘immediately’’ are inconsistent with the
laws of purely objective exegesis. The question then recurs, How are we to ex-
plain the promise of a second advent of the Son of God to follow at once upon the
fall of Jerusalem? Some meet the difficulty boldly by declaring that Christ did
so come in the life-time of that generation, and did gather His elect from their
graves. This exposition is at once met by the objection that the gathering of
the saints must, in that case, have been invisible. Dr. Terry, in his Herme-
neutics, answers by saying: ‘‘ The sending forth of the angels, and the gather-
ing of the elect, described in Matt. xxiv. 31, whatever its exact meaning, does
not necessarily depict a scenic procedure visible to human eyes. If understood
literally, it may, nevertheless, be only a verbal revelation of what took place
in such a supernatural manner as that no man might behold it and remain
alive. It is said in vv. 40 and 41 that at the Parousia ‘two men shall be in
the field : one is taken, and one is left ; two women shall be grinding at the

NOTE. 435

mill : one is taken, and one is {eft.’ In such a miraculous rapture of living saints
(comp. 1 Thess, iv. 16, 17; 1 Cor. 15, 51, 52) the person left may not have
been permitted to see the one taken.” ! The author of the Parousia thinks that
the visible accomplishment of the destruction of Jerusalem may be accepted
asa voucher for the invisible fulfilment of the rest of the prophecy ; that the
one “is a presumption and guarantee in favor of the exact fulfilment of that
portion which lies within the region of the invisible and spiritual, and which
cannot, in the nature of things, be attested by human evidence.? To this scheme
of interpretation the obvious reply is that it strains the sense of the passage,
especially v. 30, quite as much as the forced construction of etOéw¢ in v. 29,
For (1) the whole tenor of Scripture is against the thought that the second
coming of Christ will be without the consciousness and knowledge of mankind,
(2) To establish this interpretation, verse 30—‘‘and they [all the tribes of the
earth] shall see the Son of man coming’’—must be taken wholly out of its
obvious meaning. (3) In order to make this theory hold good, the formal judg-
ment of the human race, described in chap. xxv. must be conceived as
beginning with the fall of Jerusalem (see chap. xxv. 31). But the last verses
of ch. xxv. are a description of the closing scene which marks the end of the
Messianic reign. This construction of Christ’s discourse appears therefore still
to leave its difficulties unsolved.

Lange gives ct@éu¢ ita proper sense of ‘‘immediately,’’ but draws a distinc-
tion between the “great tribulation” of v. 21 and the “tribulation of those
days” in v. 29. He says: ‘‘The OAimpoir trav jyuepar éexeivor is not the same as the
OAiwoce peydin (ver. 21), which betokens the destruction of Jerusalem. It is
rather a new OAiporc, in which the restrained days of judgment under the
Christian dispensation issue (ver. 22), and which are especially characterized
by the stronger temptations of pseudo-messianic powers. Thus, when this
GAiworc of temptations has reached is climax (comp. 2 Thess. 4: 8; Rev. xiii.,
xiv.), then immediately (etSéw¢) the great catastrophe will come.’’? Thus we are
brought back to the idea of a Messianic reign intervening between the fall of
Jerusalem and the coming of Christ to judgment, an idea to which the Chris-
tian mind instinctively clings. Dr. Meyer’s account of the threefold sense in
which Jesus spoke of His coming may help us to construe the sense of the
chapter (see remark 3, at end of ch. xxiv.).

1 “ Biblical Hermeneutios,”’ pp. 447, 448.
3 Quoted by Terry in ‘‘ Hermeneutics," p. 458,
§ ** Commentary on Matthew,” p. 427.

436 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

; CHAPTER XXV.

Ver. 1.! axdvryow] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: irdvrgov, following B C X&, 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: révre dé && atvrav foay pwpal nai zévre gpdvizot, following
BCD LZ ®&, min. and vas, (also Vulg. It.). Considering what a preponder-
ance 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 s subsequent transposition. — Ver. 3. For aircvec¢ there are found the
readings (glosses) : a: dé in Z, Vulg. codd. of the It. Lachm., and ai yap in BC
L &, Tisch. 8; likewise ai otv in D.— Ver. 4. In witnesses of importance
aire is wanting after dyyeios, so that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it is to be
deleted as a common interpolation. — Ver. 6. épyera:] is wanting in such im-
portant witnesses (B C* DL ZX&, 102, Copt. Sahid. Arp°. 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 avrov after azavr., which Tisch. 8 deletes, is
wanting only in B &, 102, Meth. Cyr.— Ver. 7. For avrév it is better, with
Lachm. and Tisch., to read éavray, following AB LZ ¥*&. The reflective force
of the pronoun had never been noticed, especially with ver. 4 preceding it, in
which verse éavrov instead of avrov after Aaur. (so Tisch. 8) is supported only
by the evidence of B &®. — Ver. 9. For ov«, as in the Received text, there is a
preponderance of evidence in favor of reading ov «7, which Griesb, has recom-
mended, and which Lachm., Tisch. 7, and also Scholz have adopted. The py,
which Fritzsche and Tisch. 8 have discarded, was omitted from its force not
being understood. — dé after opeteo$e (in Elz., Tisch. 7) would be just as apt
to be inserted asa connective particle, as it would be ready to be omitted if
wopevecve, x.T.A., was taken as the apodosis. Accordingly, the matter must be
decided bya preponderance of evidence, and that is in favor of deleting the
dé — Ver. 11. xai al] Lachm, has simply ai, but against decisive evidence ; and
then think how readily xai might be dropped out between TAI and AI! — Ver.
13, After dpav Elz. inserts év 9 6 vid¢ rod av0parov épyetat, words which, in
accordance with a decided preponderance of evidence, are to be regarded as a
gloss (xxiv. 44). — Ver. 16. — éxoincev] A** BO DL &** min. : éxépdnoev. Rec-°
ommended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Gloss derived from
what follows. —The omission of the second rddavra by Lachm. is without
adequate authority, nor had the transcribers any motive for inserting it ; comp.
ver. 17. — Ver. 17. xa? avréc] is wanting in important witnesses, and is erased
by Lachm. and Tisch. 8 ; but, owing to the circumstance of ocavrus xai having
preceded, it may very readily have been left out as superfluous ond clumsy. —
Ver, 18. Lachm. inserts rdAavrov after &, only on the authority of A, It. ; but

1The Codex Alex. (A) joins the list of xxv. It begins at ver. 6 with the word
critical authorities for the first time at ch. éfdpxecde,

CHAP. XXxV., Ll. 437

Expypev (Lachm. Tisch.) for dzéxpvpev 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 zoAdv
xpévov and Adyov per’ avrav, in accordance with preponderating evidence. —
Ver. 20. éx’ avroic] is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, both here and in ver,
22, following BD L ®&, min. and vss., while E G, min. read & avroic ; but D.
Vulg. It. Or. insert éxexépénoa before the én’ avroic¢. Later variants are inter-
pretations of the superfluous (and therefore sometimes omitted) éx’ adbroic. —
Ver. 21. dé, which Elz, inserts after é¢7, has been deleted, in accordance with
preponderating evidence, as being an interpolation of the connective particle
(so also Griesb., Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.).— Ver. 22. Aa@dv] is wanting
inABC LAX, min. Syr."'- ; a few min. have e:Angdic. Deleted by Lachm.
and Tisch. Correctly ; a supplement.— Ver. 27. For rd dpywtp. pov Tisch.
8 reads ra apyvpid uov, following B &, Syr.P. 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 7d éudv following. — Ver. 29. amd 62 rov) BD L ®&,
min. : rov dé. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. ;
the ordinary reading is by way of helping the construction. — Ver. 30. éxGddere
for éx@daAAere (in Elz.) is confirmed by decisive evidence. — Ver. 31. Elz. Scholz
insert dyco: before dyyeAo, in opposition to B D L II* &, min. and many vss.
and Fathers. An adjective borrowed from the ordinary ecclesiastical phrase-
ology, and which, though it might readily enough be inserted, would scarcely
be likely to be omitted. Comp. Zech. xiv. 5.— Ver. 40, rév ddeAgav pov]
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
BL ®&, and that correctly ; it is taken from ver. 34.

Ver. 1 f. An additional exhortation to watchfulness in corsequence of
the day and hour of the advent being unknown, and embodied in the para-
ble of the ten virgins, extending to ver. 18, 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 essentially
different, that we meet with in Mark xiii. 35-37 and Luke xii. 35-88. —
rére| then, 4.e., on the day on which the master will return, and inflict con-
dign punishment upon his worthless slave. Not: after inflicting this pun-
ishment (Fritzsche), for the parable is intended to portray the coming of
the Messiah ; but neither, again, is it to be taken as pointing back to ver. 87
and ver. 14 of the previous chapter (Cremer), which would be an arbitrary
interruption of the regular sequence of the discourse as indicated by rére. —
duowOpoeva:] will be made like, actually so ; see on vii. 26.—7 Baad. ray
ovpav.] the Messianic kingdom, in respect, that is, of the principle of admis-
sion and exclusion that will be followed when that kingdom comes to be
set up. — é£#ABov cic aravr. tov vuud.] Here the marriage is not represented as
taking place in the house of the bridegroom, in accordance with the usual
practice,’ 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 mar-

1 Winer, Realw. I. p. 490; Kell, Arch. § 109,

438 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

riage to the home of the bride, is to be found in the nature of the thing to be
illustrated, inasmuch as, at the time of His advent, Christ is to be under-
stood as coming to the earth and as setting up His kingdom here below, and
not in heaven. Comp. also the following parable, ver. 14 ff. — é&jA0ov] they
went out, namely, from the bride’s house, which is self-evident from the con-
text (cig andvrjow Tov vuygiov), Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p.
112 f.,—who, like the majority of expositors, supposes that what is here in
view is the ordinary practice of conducting the bride from her own house
to that of the bridegroom (but see on ver. 10),—and Ewald understand
éé720ov 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 meet-
ing 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&7A@ov and ti¢
andvryow (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 usual number
for bridesmaids 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,” ‘‘the Jewish race delighted for the most part in
the number ten, both in sacred and in civil matters,” Lightfoot. Comp.
Luke xix. 13. — gpévyor].' This second virtue belonging to a right éroczasia
(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.*

Ver. 8. Airiveg pwpai] sc. yoav, guotquot erant stultae. — tAapov] they took, on
setting out ; not for the pluperfect (Erasmus, Vatablus). — pe éavréy] 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 oppo-
sition to Cremer and Lange, who suppose é£7A8ov to contain a prolepsis), and
therefore are no longer there, have betaken themselves to some house on the
way (éfépyeo8e, observe), in order there to await the passing by of the bride-
groom The coming of the latter was delayed on till midnight ; the maids
who sat waiting began to get wearied, they nodded (aorist), and slept (im-
perfect).* — idod 6 vupdiog (without épyera:, see critical remarks) : behold the
bridegroom! The cry of the people who see him coming a little way off.
They are made aware of his approach from seeing the light of the torches
or lamps carried by those who accompanied him in the procession.

Ver. 7 f. "Exéouycav] they put in proper order, namely, by trimming the
wick and such like, they dressed them. — éavrév (see critical remerks) : each
one her own ; betokening the individual preparation that was now going on.
— oBévvurrat] are just on the point of going out.

Ver. 9. Manure . . . tiv] Since ov vf is the correct reading (see critical
remarks), and seeing that the dpxéoy following cannot be regarded as
dependent on yp@ore, but only on ot u4, the punctuation should be as fol-

1Comp. xxiv. 45, vii. 24, 26. 2 Comp. Isa. v. 27; Ps. xxi. 4. Vulgate:
2 Comp. xopdcrov dpdéveov, Tob. vi. 12, ‘* dormitaverunt omnes et dormieraunt.”’

CHAP. Xxv., 10-14. 439
lows : uArote’ ob pp apxécy, x.7.4. : never (shall we give you of our oil) :
there will certainly not be enough for us and you !»

Ver. 10 f. While they were going away, came (not : advenerat, Fritzsche).
—eioyAbov per’ avrov] 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 7AGev 6 vuugiog and eio#ABov per abrov stand to each other. — xipie,
xipie}] expressive of most urgent and anxious entreaty. Comp. vii. 21.

Ver. 12 f. Ov« olda tzac] 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 ex-
perience arising out of the intercourse of life (vii. 23 ; 1 Cor. viii. 3, xiii.
12 ; Gal. iv. 9) is the point intended to be thus illustrated. Besides, Jesus
might also have said (in opposition to Cremer) : ova éyvuv ip. (I have not
known you). — ovv] because the foolish virgins were shut out, and because
something corresponding to this would happen to you unless you watch.—
According to ver. 18, the teaching of the parable is: that the moral prepared-
ness that continues to maintain itself up till 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
maintained till the end will, when surprised by the sudden appearing of the
Lord, experience in themselves the irreparable consequences of their foolish
neglect, and be shut out from His kingdom. This latter is a negative expres-
sion of condemnation, not, as Olshausen supposes, notwithstanding the éxAzioOy
4) Opa, merely a way of designating such a salvation as is spoken of in 1 Cor.
ili. 15. More specific interpretations—of the virgins, the lamps, the oil, the
xpavy4, etc.—are to be found not only in Origen, Hilary, Cyril, Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine, Jerome,*? but also in Ols-
hausen, 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." 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 short-
coming.

Ver. 14. The parable of the talents, extending to ver. 80,‘ is introduced as |

1 For the absolute negative «}, comp.
xxvi. 56; Ex. x. 11; Matthiae, p. 1454;
Kfihner, IT. 2, p. 1047. Correctly Borne-
mann, as above, p. 110; Bleek, Lange, Lu-
thardt. Comp. Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 682];
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IT. p. 107.

* See Cremer, p. 156 ff.

? Calvin well remarks: “ Multum se tor-
quent quidam in lucernis, in vasis, in oleo.
Atquf simplex et genuina summa est, non
sufficere alacre exiguil temporis studium,
nisiinfatigabilis constantia simul accedat,”
‘Some torment themselves in lamps, in

vessels, In oil. And yet the real sum of
the matter is, that active zeal for a brief
period does not suffice, unless unflagging
constancy be added."’

4In connection with this parable, com-
pare the following traditional sayings at-
tributed to Christ : yiverde rpawediras 8dxcnor,
“Show yourselves tried money-changers”
(Hom. Clem. ii. 51, ill. 50, xviii. 20, ete. ;
Clement of Alexandria, Origen ; Aposiolical
Constitutions); and ¢v ols dv vuas naraddBe,
év rovrou xai xpove, “In whatsoever I may
find you, in this also will I judge you”

440 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

an additional ground for the ypryopeire, and that by viewing it as a question
of work and responsibility. The parable in Luke xix. 12 ff., which, not-
withstanding 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 orig-
inal and simpler one before us (in opposition to Calvin, Olshausen, Neander,
Holtzmann, Volkmar), and which Luke also represents as having been
spoken at adifferent time.’ In this latter Gospel we have.what was originally
an independent parable (that of the rebellious subjects) blended with that of
the talents.* 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 unnatural view that the simpler (Matthew’s) is the later form, or
to suppose, in opposition to what ts 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 parabolic materials for the
purpose of illustrating different subjects” (Auberlen) would thus comprise
only a few days. Mark xiii. 34 is extracted from what Matthew has taken
from the collection of our Lord’s sayings. — dorep, x.7.2.] a case of ananta-
podosis similar to that of Mark xiii. 34, and doubtless reproducing what
already appeared inthe collection of sayings from which the passage is
taken. Comp. Rom. v. 12. Fritzsche on ver. 10. At the outset of the
discourse it would be the intention to connect the whole parable with Gozep,
and, at the conclusion, to annex an apodosis by means of otru¢ (probably
otrw kal 6 vldg r. avOpdrov roigoe, OF obtwe Lota: Kal 7) rapovoia T. viov T. avélp.) ;
but, considering the somewhat lengthened character of the parable, this had
to be omitted. — azodyu.] on the point of going abroad (xxi. 33). — roi
idiove dotAove] not strangers, such as exchangers, but his own servants, of
whon, 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. Kara ry idiav divauy] not arbitrarily, therefore, but according to
each one’s peculiar capabilities’ for doing business. The different charismatic
gifts are bestowed in a manner corresponding to the varying natural apti-
tudes of men. Those endowments are conferred according to an individu-
alizing principle.‘ — ciOéwc] immediately, 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 evféoc with
what follows. In that case it would be necessary either to insert the dé of
ver, 16 before ropev8. (N**), or, with Tisch., to delete it altogether (#*).

(Justin, c. 7%. 47). Eusebius gives a kin- Bleek, Keim, Weiss, 1864, p. 128 ff.
dred parable from the Gospel of the 3 “ Prudentia et peritia,”’ Beza.

Hebrews, and for which see Mai's Nova «** Nemo urgetur ultra quam potest,”
patrum biblioth. IV. p. 155. ““no one is burdened beyond that which he
1Comp. Weizsacker, p. 181. is able," Bengel.

2 Strauss, I. p. 686 f.; Ewald, p. 419 f.;

CHAP. XXV., 16-24. 441

However, the evidence in favor of this view is quite inadequate. And it is
precisely in connection with aredjunoev that evOéwe 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
Kava TH idiav divauty. — rd2avra] see on xviii. 25.

Ver. 16. Eipydcaro] traded with them (év avroic, instrumental). Very com-
mon in classical writers (especially Demosthenes) with reference to commerce
and matters of exchange, though usually with the simple dative of the in-
strument. — ézoincev] he acquired, gained ; as in German : er machte Geld (he
made money).'

Ver. 18. ’AreABdv] he went away, removed to a distance. How entirely
different in the case of the first two, ver. 16! They started upon a journey
(xopevd). — dpvéev év t. yy] he digged, 7.e., he made a hole in the earth. The
reading y#v, which Tisch. adopts, following BL & (C* : rv 77), but from
which the vss. deviate, would mean : he dug up the earth (Plat. Huthyd. p.
288 E).—7éd apyip. tev xvp. avr.] brings out emphatically the idca of re-
sponsibility and dereliction of duty.

Ver. 20 f. ’Ex’ avroic] in addition to them ; comp. on Col. iii. 14. The ide
points the master to what had been gained ; the boldness of a good con-
science. — ei] is generally taken absolutely: excellent ! that is right! But
this would have required eiye,? which reading (taken from Luke xix. 17,
where edye is the original one) Fritzsche actually adopts, following A*, Vulg.
It. Or. (once). Consequently we should connect eb with #¢ mioréds : Thou
wast admirably (probe) faithful in regard to a little. For ed when separated from
the word to which it belongs, comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 6.24; Mem. ii. 1. 38, and
Kihner thereon. 'Ayeéand moré represent the genus and species of an up-
right character. The opposite of this : ver. 26. — cic rv zapay rod xrpiov
cov] xapd is not to be understood of a feast,* a sense in which the word is not
used, * and which the context docs not sanction any more than it counte-
nances the idea of a festieal in honor of the master’s return (in opposition to
de Wette and Lange) ; but what is meant is that the slave is invited to par-
ticipate in the happiness which his master is enjoying,* thus exhibiting the
thought of Rom. viii. 17. The use of the expression ciccAfe is, in that case,
to be regarded as due to the nature of the thing which the parable is meant
to illustrate (the Messianic kingdom).

Ver. 24 f. "Eyrwy ce, 571] well-known attraction.* 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 unconscionably hard to please, and demanding more
than is reasonable. — cuvdywy d6ev ov dieoxépr.] gathering (corn into the azo-

1 See instances in Wetstein and Kypke. “LXX. Esth. ix. 171s an inaccurate ren-
8o also the Latin facere. dering.

2 Plat. Gorg. p. 494 C; Lack. p. 181 A; § Chrysostom admirably : rhy wacay paxa-
Soph. PAil. 327. proryta 6a tov pyaros tovrou Secavus, ** show-

3 Clericus, Schoettgen, Wolf, Michelsen, ing by this word the whole blessedness."'
Kulinoel, Schott. 6 Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781].

442 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

6ixn) from a place tchere you hace not threshed (with reference to the threshing-
floor of another man's farm). diacxopwiferv, to scatter 80 as to separate from
each other,’ is expressly used in the present instance, because it forms a better
contrast to ovvdyuv than Accuav (xxi. 44). If it were to be taken as equiva-
lent to ozeiperv, 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. — go3nfeic] namely, of losing the talent in business, or of not being able
to satisfy thee. — rd odv] self-righteous.

Ver. 26 f. The master chastises the worthless and indolent (Rom. xii. 11)
servant with his own weapons. — qdecc, x.t.2.] question of astonishment, which
is more spirited and more in keeping with the surprising nature of the
excuse than to understand the words in a conceding sense (Kuinoel, de
Wette), or as an independent hypothesis,” in which case the ovy of the apo-
dosis would be deprived of its force.*— Badeiv . . . roig rparec.] flinging
down upon the table of the money-changers, represents the indifference of the
proceeding. — éyd] is emphatic as related to the preceding ide, éxerg 7d o6v,
ver, 25. To it likewise corresponds ré éuév, to which, however, civ réxy is
now added for sake of emphasis.

Vv. 28-30. Ovv] because his conduct was so inexcusable. — Ver. 29. Justi-
fication of this mode of proceeding, by appealing to a principle founded on
universal experience, and which was to find its verification in the case
before us. Comp. xili. 12.— rod d2 pi Exovroc] see critical remarks. The
genitive, here placed first for sake of emphasis, might be regarded as de-
pendent on apOjcerae (Fritzsche), in accordance, that is, with the construc-
tion of verbs of depriving with rivé¢ rx (Kithner, IT. 1, p. 282). Inasmuch,
however, as the éz’ atrov 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).‘ We thus obtain ‘‘ duobus membris factis ex uno oppositio
neroosior,” ‘‘two members being made a more vigorous opposition from one.” *
For 6 éywr, the rich man, comp. Isocr. vii. 55 and Benseler thereon. — For
ver. 80, comp. vill. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 18, 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 departure, 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 with you (ver. 19), then those who have exerted them-
selves in a dutiful manner will receive a distinguished reward in the king-
dom of the Messiah ; but those who have allowed their gifts, 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 interpreta-
tions, all of them of a more or less arbitrary character, see Origen, Chry-

1 For the classical character of which ex- Klotz, ad Devar. p. 718 f.

pression sce Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 218. «Comp. Thue. v. 18. 8, and Kruger there-
3 Bernhardy, p. 885. on.
+See Hartung, Partiked. II. p. ® f.; 5 Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 272.

CHAP. XXxv., 31. 443

sostom, Theophylact. The reference to all Christian endowments generally
(1 Cor. xii.), is to be regarded rather as an application of the parable in a
more comprehensive sense.

Ver. 81 ff. It is unnecessary to suppose that this utterance about the judg-
ment—an utterance taken, like the preceding, from the collection of our
Lord’s sayings (Aéy:a)—should be immediately connected with xxiv. 80 f.
(Fritzsche, de Wette) or with xxiv. 51 (Bwald). The coming of the Mes-
siah and His judicial dealing with His servants had been portrayed imme-
diately before, and now the prophetic glance extends and takes in the judg-
ment 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 sim-
plicity and beauty so original that there is but the lcss reason for imagining
that this discourse about the judgment is the product of the apostolic period
(Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Scholten, Wittichen, Keim). —It is usual to under-
stand those who are being judged as representing men generally, Christians and
non-Christians alike,’ Bleek arbitrarily assuming that the evangelists have
extended the application of what originally referred only to Christians. On
the other hand, Keil? and Olshausen, as well as Baumgarten-Crusius,
Georgii,* Hilgenfeld, Weizsiicker, Volkmar, Keim, Wittichen, Auberlen,
Cremer, understand all who are not Christians to be referred to, some of them,
however, expressly excluding the Jews. But non-Christians could not
have been intended, because it would be improper to say that the Mes-
sianic kingdom has been prepared for such, to say nothing of the ard xara-
Boags xéopnov, ver. 84, in which the idea of the éxAexrot is exclusively involv-
ed ; further, because it would be no less improper to suppose, without
more ado, that non-Christians are intended by the oi dixaco: of ver. 837, 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, nevertheless, continucd to remain out-
side 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 opportunity of displaying their love. If the Messianic
Jelicity 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 Rev. xxi. 24‘ does not
countenance, —a humanity which does not need faith, because it compen-
sates for the want of it by its love.* If, after all this, we cannot

1 See, among modern expositors, Kuinoel, Anal, 1818, III. 177 ff.
Fritzsche, de Wette, Lange, Weizel, as 3 In Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, p. 18 f.
above, p. 608; Kaeuffer, de Gwis aiwv. not. p. * See Dtisterdieck on that passage.
44; Hofmann, Schrifidew. p. 645. ® Volkmar, p. 546.

2In the Opusc., ed. Goldh. p. 136 ff., and

444 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

suppose that a judgment 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 éxAoy4,
ver. 84, or the idea of the dixaco., 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 betweén belief and unbelief, harmo-
nizing with the notion of a mixed body consisting of Christians and non-
Christians, they entirely exclude the the latter. We should therefore return
to the very old view (Lactantius,' 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 depict-
ing is the judgment of Christians.* All the points previously adduced as ar-
guments against the other explanations combine to favor 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 mrdvra ta 26vn. 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 universality of Christianity by the time of the advent when
all the nations of the earth ( 2@v7, as expressing the idea of nation, does not
exclude the Jews ; comp. xxviii. 19, xxiv. 9, and see on John xi. 50) will
have heard the gospel and (to a proportionable degree) received Christ
(xxiv. 14; Rom. xi. 25). Jesus, then, is here 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 consist-
ing of two scenes, not two acts with a chiliastic interval coming in between.*
— mdvrec ol dyye2o.] ‘‘ omnes angeli, omnes nationes ; quanta celebritas !”
‘‘all angels, all nations ; how great publicity !” Bengel. — ra rpé3ara ard
tov épidwy| sheep and goats (Ecclus. xvii. 3 ; Gen. xxxviii. 17) are here rep-
resented as having been pastured together (comp. Gen. xxx. 33 ff.). The
wicked are conceived of under the figure of the Zpidor, not on account of the
wantonness and stench of the latter (Grotius), or in consequence of their
stubbornness (Lange), but generally because those animals were considered
to be comparatively worthless (Luke xv. 29); and hence, in ver. 33, we

1 Insiit, vii. 20. (is) there,’’ Euthymius Zigabenus, who
2 wept rwv Xpioriavwy 88 pdver 6 Adyos évrad- —_ proves this, above all, from vv. 35, 86.
da, ‘‘ concerning Christians alone the word 3 See, on the other hand, xiii. 37 ff.

CHAP, XXV., 34-37. 445
have the diminutive ra épigca for the purpose of expressing contempt. — For
the significance attached to the right and left side (Eccles. x. 2), see Schoett-
gen and Wetstein on our passage.’

Ver. 34. ‘0 Baordeic] because Christ is understood to have appeared é ri
Baoreia avrov, xvi. 28, which fact is here self-evident from ver. 31. —ol
evioynuévor tou tarpdéc pov] the blessed of my Father (for ‘‘in Christo electi
sumus,”’ Bengel), now actually so (see on Eph. i. 3) by being admitted into
the Messianic kingdom that has been prepared for them.? — jromacpévyy]
not merely destined, but: put in readiness; comp. xx. 23; 1 Cor. ii. 9;
John xiv. 2.” This xAypovoyuia is the fulfilment of the promise of v. 5,
xAnpovounoove: ty yjv. Comp. xix. 29. — amd xaraf. x.] xiii. 85, not equiva-
lent to mpd «. x., when the election took place (Eph. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 20).*

Ver. 35 f. Zuvyyayeré ue] ye have taken me along with, introduced me, that
is, into your family circle along with the members of your family. This
meaning, but not that of Fritzsche : ‘‘simul convivio adhibuistis,” is in-
volved in the idea of févoc.° For instances of Rabbinical promises of para-
dise in return for hospitality, see Schoettgen and Wetstein.—yunvé¢] ‘* Qui
male vestitum et pannosum vidit, nudum se vidisse dicit,” ‘‘He who saw
thee. badly clad and ragged says that He saw thee naked,” Sencca, de benef.
v. 3.°

Ver. 37 ff. Not mere modesty (not even, according to Olshausen, uncon-
scious 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-
ing 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 dixa:o: ‘‘have not as yet been con-
sciously leading the New Testament life” (Auberlen, Cremer). Bengel well
remarks : ‘‘ Fideles opera bona sua, impii mala, ver. 44, non perinde aesti-
mant ut judex,” ‘‘ the faithful do not estimate their good deeds, the wicked
their bad (ver. 44), as the Judge does.” —wrére o# cidouev] three times, ecar-
nestly, honestly. — 颒 dcov] in quantum, inasmuch as ; see on Rom. xi. 13. —
éxo:foaze| ye have done it, namely, the things previously mentioned. — évi
Tobruy ray ade2oav mov Tov EAayiorwr] 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. 81 f.), to Christians
in general ; by Cremer, to the elect ; by Luthardt, to the Christian church
in its distress ; by Auberlen, to their poor miserable fellow-men,’—do not ad-

1 Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. § xxxviil. 9 f.
Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 614 C; Virg. Aen. vi.
512 f.

2 On the use of the participial substantive
with a genitive, seo Lobeck, ad Aj. 358;
Winer, p. 178 [E. T. 236].

3 Kai ove elwe: AaBere, aAAd’ KAnpovopijcare,
Os oixeia, os waTpya, ws VudTepa, ws Univ dveder
dderAdueva, ‘‘He did not say, take, but, in-
herit, as one’s own, as your Father's, as
yours, as due from the first,’’ Chrysostom.

‘For the order of the words, comp.
Ktihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18.

§ For ovvayw, asused with reference toa
single individual who is gathered in along
with others, comp. Xen. Cyrop. v. 8. 11;
LXX. Deut. xxii. 2; 2 Sam. xi. 27; Judg.
xix. 18; Ecclus. xifi. 15.

6 Jas. il. 15. Comp. on John xxl.7; Acts
xix. 16.

™ Comp. de Wette, Ullmann in the Stud.
u. Arit. 1847, p. 164 ff.

446 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

mit of being also referred to the apostles (xxviii. 10; 1 Cor. iv. 18), 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 univer-
sal standard of judgment; and theagh the apostles themselves, appearing
here, as they do, in their relation to the rest of Christians, may well be
called the brethren of Christ (xxviii. 10 ; John xx. 17) ; yet they would cer-
tainly 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 de-
spised (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 judgment (comp. Ewald,
p. 420). In consequence of their longing after Him, and of their love for
Him, and the eternal salvation to be found in Him (as 7yarnxdres riv émigd-
vecay avrov, 2 Tim. iv. 8), they here come crowding around the throne of
His glory ; and to theses He now points. They are the rrwyoi, revboivrec,
mpgeic, dedtwypévac of the Sermon on the Mount, who are now on the point of
receiving the promised bliss.

Ver. 41. Ol xarnpayévor] opposite of of evAoynuévor. This consigning to
everlasting destruction is also a reality, and the doing of God. But the
words roi rarpéc¢ pov are omitted this time, because the idea of rarfp accords
only with the loving act of blessing. The divine «ardpa is the effect of holy
wrath and the consequence of human guilt. — 12d #rocuacpévov] not this time
amd xataBoAje xéouov ; this the hearer knew as matter of course. The Rab-
bins 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 deter-
mined 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 #rouacu. with iyiv, as in ver. 84, but with ro draBdAy, x.7.A. 3 De-
cause the fall of the angels (Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4), which Scripture every-
where presupposes in its doctrine of the devil and his kingdom,’ took place
previous to the introduction of sin among men (John viii. 44 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3),
so that it was for the former in the first instance that the everlasting fire
was prepared ; comp. viii. 29. But as men became partakers in the guilt
of demons, so now are they also condemned to share in their punishment.’

Ver. 44. Self-justification, by repelling the accusation as unwarranted. —
xai avroi] they too; for their answer is in exact correspondence with that of
the righteous. —ére. . . nal ob dinnovfc. cot] when sato we Phee hungry, etc.,
without ministering to Thee? What was the occasion on which, 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 cir-
cumstances, so can we never have refused Thee our good services. In this
self-justification it is assumed that if they had seen Him, they would have
shown their love toward Him.

1 Hahn, Theol. d. N. 7. I. p. 818 ff.
2 For ayyeAo: rod 8a8., comp. 2 Cor. xil. 7; Rev. xil. 7.

APR 5 1954

book is net relerned
fhe above dale a

CHAP. xxv., 46. 447

46. Comp. Dan. xii. 2. The absolute idea of eternity, in regard to
tishment of hell (comp. ver. 41), is not to be got rid of either by a
r toning down of the force of aidévore (Paulus), or by appealing (de
Schleiermacher, Oetinger) to the figurative character of the term jire
€ supposed incompatibility between the idea of eternity and such a
as evil and its punishment, any more than by the theory that the
representation is intended simply by way of warning (according to
view it is not meant thereby to throw light upon the eternal nature
ags, but only to portray the xpioc, t.e., the cessation of the conflict
2n good and evil by the extinction of the latter) ; but is to be
ed as exegetically established in the present passage (comp. iii. 12,
8) by the opposed (uv aiévov, which denotes the everlasting Mes-
life.’ — of d2 dixatoc] ‘hoc ipso judicio declarati,” ‘‘ declared to be so
S very judgment,” Bengel. Comp. Rom. v. 19.

-aRK.— Because the judgment is a judgment of Christians (see on ver. 31),
is presupposed though not formally mentioned. The truth is, the Judge
tes His decision according to the way in which faith has been evidenced
2 (1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff. ; John xiii. 35), without which as its necessary fruit
loes not save (Gal. v. 6). Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 138. The manifesta-
of love, as forming the principle of the Christian’s life, accordingly con-
» the rpdfi¢ by which he is to be judged (xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 10). Comp.
But, in so far as, according to this concrete view of the judgment, Jesus
His sentence upon the principle that love shown to or withheld from the
f His brethren is the same as love shown to or withheld from Himself,
es so in harmony with the view contained in xviii. 5, x. 40. Comp. John
0.

suffer, as above, p. 21; comp. also Schmid in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1870, p.
in the Stud. u. Xrit. 1886, p. 605 ff.; 186 ff.

448 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Ver. 3. After apyiepei¢ Elz, Scholz. have xai ol ypaypareic, which, in accord-
ance with AB DL 8, min. vss. Or. Aug., has been deleted as an interpolation
from Mark xiv, 1, Luke xxii. 2.— Ver. 4. The order d6Aw kparyowa (reversed in
Elz.) is supported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 7. Bapuzizov] Lachm. and Tisch-
8: rodurinov, which, though in accordance with AD LM I1 8, min., is, never-
theless, taken from John xii. 3. Comp. Mark xiv. 3. From this latter passage
is derived the order éyovoa aié8. pvpov (Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L
N, min.). — r7v xcpaAqv] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: ri¢ xegarge, following BD M X&,
min. Chrys. But the genitive would be suggested to the transcribers by a com-
parison with ver. 12, quite as readily as by Mark xiv. 3.— Ver. 8. avrov] is,
with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, both here and in ver. 45, as being a
common interpolation ; similarly with Tisch. after BAac¢., ver. 65. — Ver. 9.
tovto] Elz. inserts rd pupov, against decisive evidence ; borrowed from Mark
xiv. 5; John xii. 5. — The article before ztwyoic, which may as readily have
been omitted, in accordance with John xii. 5, as inserted, in accordance with
Mark xiv. 3, is, with Elz. and Tisch. 8, to be left out. There isa good deal
of evidence on both sides; but the insertion might easily take place out of
regard to ver. 11. — Ver. 11. mdvrore yap rove rrwyotc] E F H MT, min. Chrys.:
Tove xTwyxod¢ yap zdvrore. Recommended 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 determined simply by the
balance of evidence, and this is in favor of the Received text. — Ver. 17. éroiud-
cuwuev] The evidence of D K U, min. Or. in favor of the reading éroiudoouev
(Fritzsche) is inadequate. — Ver. 20. Lachm. and Tisch. read pa@yrov after
dudexa, on the authority of A L M A II &, min. vss. Chrys. Correctly ; the
omission is due to Mark xiv. 17. — For éxaoro¢ airadv, ver. 22, it is better, with
Lachm. and Tisch., to adopt cl¢ éxacvoc, in accordance with weighty evidence.
Had cic been derived from Mark xiv. 19, we should have had eis xa9’ cic 3 atror,
again, was an interpolation of extremely common occurrence. — Ver. 26. evAoyy-
cag] Scholz: etyapictycas, following AE F HK MS U VI ATI, min. vss.
Fathers. Considering, however, the weight of evidence that still remains in
favor of evAoy. (BC DL Z &), and having regard to the preponderating influ-
ence of Luke and Paul (1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.) rather than Mark, upon the ecclesias-
tical phraseology of the Lord’s Supper, it is better to retain etAoy. — For this
reason we should also retain rév before dprov, though deleted by Lachm. and
Tisch. 8, and not found in BC DGL Z B®, min. Chrys. Theophyl. — For
¢didov Lachm. reads dors, omitting at the same time xai before ele, in accord-
ance with B D L Z &** min. Cant. Copt. Due toa desire to make the con-
struction uniform with the preceding. Had dove been changed to a tense in
accordance with Mark and Luke, we should have had édéwxe. — Ver. 27. rd zo77-
ptov] The article, which is deleted by Tisch., and is wanting in BEF GLZAR,
min., is due to the ecclesiastical phraseology to which Luke and Paul have

CHAP. XXVI. 449

given currency. — Ver. 28. 7d r7¢] Lachm. and Tisch, have simply ric, in accord-
ance with BD LZ 8, 33. 7d is an exegetical addition. — xa:vij¢ before diad. is
wanting in B L Z &, 23, 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. duaoxopricOjoera:] AB C G H* IL M X, min. Or.
(once) : dtacxopricOnjcovra:z. So Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received
text is a grammatical correction. — Ver. 33. Instead of «i xai of the Received
text, there is decisive evidence for the simple et. «ai would be written in the
margin from Mark xiv. 29, but would not be inserted in the text as in the case
of Mark. — yd] The evidence in favor of inserting dé (which is adopted by
Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche) is inadequate. An addition for the purpose of
giving prominence to the contrast. — Ver. 35. After duoiwc important witnesses
read dé, which has been adopted by Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche. Taken
from Mark xiv. 31.— Ver. 36. é&¢ of] Lachm. : éw¢ od dv; D K LA, min. : fu¢
év. The reading of Lachm., though resting only on the authority of A, is never-
theless to be regarded as the original one. od dv would be omitted in confor-
mity with Mark xiv. 32 (C M* &, min. have simply éwe), and then there would
come a restoration in some instances of ot only, and, in others, merely of dv-
— Ver. 38. We should not follow Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7, in
adopting 6 'Incote after avroic ; a reading which, though attested by important
witnesses, is nevertheless contradicted by a preponderance of evidence (A B C*
DJL, and the majority of vss.), while, moreover, it would be inserted more
readily and more frequently (in this instance probably in conformity with
Mark xiv. 34) than it would be omitted. — Ver. 39. mpoeAG6”] so B M I, It.
Vulg. Hilar. Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. 7. The preponderance of evidence is in
favor of xpoceA9cv, which, indeed, has been adopted by Matth., Scholz, and
Tisch. 8 ; but it is evidently a mechanical error on the part of the transcriber ;
mpoépyecbac occurs nowhere else in Matth.— The ov after rdrep (deleted by
Tisch. 8) is suspected of being an addition from ver. 42 ; however, the evidence
in favor of deleting it (A BC D X, etc.) is too weighty to admit of its being
retained. — Ver. 42. 73 sorjpiov] is wanting in A BC IL B®, min. vss. and
Fathers ; in D it comes before rovro (as in ver. 39); in 157, Arth., it comes be-
fore éay, in which position it also occurs in A, though with a mark of erasure.
Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch. A supplement
from ver. 39. Farther, the an’ éuod following, though the evidence against it is
not quite so strong (B D L X, however), 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. eipioxec abrovde maddy] Lachm.
and Tisch., with the approval of Griesb. also : mdAy edpev atrotc, folowing B C
DIL &, min. and the majority of vss. ; while other important witnesses (such
as A K .\) also read etpev, but adhere to the order in the Received text. Accord-
ingly, etpev is decidedly to be adopted, while etpicxes is to be regarded as
derived from ver. 40 ; as for a/v, however, there is so much diversity among
the authorities with reference to its connection, and consequently with refer-
ence to its position, that only the preponderance of evidence must decide, and
that is favorable to Lachm. and Tisch. — In ver. 44, again, wdAcv is variously
placed; but, with Lachm. and Tisch., it should be put before ameAfay, in
accordance with B C D IL X&, min. vss. é« rpirov, 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

450 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

nad ; had it been from Mark xiv. 41, again, we should have had 70 rpirov.
The omission may have been readily occasioned by a fear lest it should be sup-
posed that Jesus prayed rév avrdv Adyov but once before. — After cindy Tisch. 8
repeats the rdAcv (B L &, min.:Copt.), which may easily have been omitted as
superfluous. However, the preponderance of evidence (especially that of the
vss. also) is against udopting it, so that there is reason to regard it rather as a
mechanical repetition. — Ver, 50. The reading 颒 6 (instead of é9’ ¢, as in Elz.)
is attested by decisive evidence. — Ver. 52. aroAotvrac] FH K MS U VI A,
min. vss. and Fathers : azofavovyrat. Approved by Griesb. in opposition to the
principal mas. ; a gloss, for which Sabid. must have read mecovvrac. — Ver. 53.
The placing of dprz after wapaor. uot, by Tisch. 8, is in opposition to a prepon-
derance of evidence, and is of the nature of an emendation ; dde is likewise
inserted by some, — rAeiovg] Lachm. and Tisch. : rdeiw, after B D &*. Cor-
rectly ; 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 L &; though we should not follow Tisch. 8 in
reading Aeyiovev (A C K L A T1* &*) for Acyedvac, because the genitive is con-
nected with the reading rAciouc. — Ver. 55. rpd¢ tude] is, with Tisch., following
B L ®&, 33, 102, Copt. Sahid, Cyr. Chrys., to be deleted as an interpolation
from Mark xiv. 49. — Ver. 58. amd paxpd6ev] azé should be deleted, with Tisch.,
in accordance with important evidence. Taken from Mark xiv. 54. — Ver. 59.
xai ol tpecBirepo] is wanting, no doubt, in BD L 8, 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 witnesses, éAov is placed before ro ovvédp. — Bavare-
cwoty] Pavaraoovory, as read by Lachm. and Tisch., is supported by decisive evi-
dence, and had been altered to the more usual subjunctive. airév should like-
wise be put before Gavar. (BC DLN ¥&, min. Vulg. It.). — Ver. 60. The reading
of the Received text, which is attested by the important evidence of A C** E
F G, etc., and likewise maintained by Fritzsche and Scholz, is: xat obx evpov.
Kai rodAdv pevdouaptiper rpoce0dvruv ovx etpov. Griesb. : Kal oby etpov roAAdy
wevd. mpoceA§. Lachm. and Tisch. : nai ovy etpoy wold. mpooeA9. wevd., after
which Lachm. gives the second ovyz edpov in brackets. This second ovy etpov is
wanting in A C* L N* 8, min. vss. and Fathers (Or. twice) ; while in A BL 6.
®, min. Syr. Or. Cyr. the order of the words is: roAA. rpoceA8. pevd. Further,
Syr. Arr. Pers.P Syr.jer Slav., though omitting the second ody etpov, have retained
xai before 7oAAdv ; and this reading (accordingly : xa oby etpov cai roAAdy zpo-
ocAOdvruv wevdouapripwv) I agree with Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 282 f., regarding as
the original one. This «ai, 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 ovy evpov, while others got
rid of the troublesome xai by simply omitting it.—dvo pevdozapr.| Tisch., fol-
lowing B L X&, min. vas. (also Syr.) and Or. (once), reads merely dio. Correctly ;
wevdoudpt. is an addition, which might seem all the more necessary since a
saying of Christ’s actually underlay the words. — Ver. 65. 5r:] is wanting before
éBAac¢nu. in such important witnesses, that Lachm. and Tisch. are justified in
deleting it as a common interpolation. — Ver. 70. For avrév ravroyv read, with
isch. 8, following preponderating evidence, merely séyrwv, to which atray
was added for sake of greater precision. — Ver. 71. For roi¢ éxei, which Tisch.
8 has restored, Scholz and Tisch. 7 read avroi¢ ixet. Both readings are strongly

CHAP. XXVI., 1-5. 451
attested ; but the latter is to he preferred, because the current roic ixei would
involuntarily suggest itself and supersede the less definite expression avroic éxei.
— Ver. 74, xataGeparifey] Elz., Fritzsche : xatavaGeparifvecv, against decisive evi-
dence. A correction,

Ver. 1 f.’ For this form of transition, by which a marked pause is indicat-
ed at the close of a somewhat lengthened discourse, comp. vii. 28, xi. 1,
xili, 58, xix. 1, —évrac] referring 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 pre-
ceding discourse, consisting, as it does, of several sections (xxiv. 4-xxv.
46), not a parallel to LXX. Deut. xxxi. 1 (Delitzsch). — peré dbo guépac]
after the lapse of two days, i.e., the day after next the Passover commenced.
It would therefore be Tuesday, if, as the Synoptists inform us (differently
in John, see on John xviii. 28), the feast began on Thursday evening. —
7d méoza] NOP, Aram. RMNOD, the passing 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 mean-
ing as a feast in connection with the consecration of the first-fruits of the
spring harvest, see Ewald, alterth. p. 466 f.;*—xai 6 uld¢, x.7.4.] a definite
prediction of what was to happen to Him at the Passover, but represented
as something already known to the disciples (from xx. 19), and which,
though forming part of the contents of oldare, is at the same time introduced
by a broken construction (not as dependent on rz), in accordance with the
depth of His emotion.

Vv. 3-5. Tére] i.¢., at the time that Jesus was saying this to His disciples.
Fatal coincidence. — ig tv aiAjy rot apy.] It is usual to understand the
palace of the high priest, in direct opposition to the use of avAyz* 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,* such
courts having been regularly used as meeting-places.* This meeting is not
to be regarded as one of the public sittings of the Sanhedrim (on the proba-
ble official meeting-place of this body at that time, the so-called taverns,*®
but as a private conference of its members. — rov Aeyou. Kaiaga] who bore the
name of Caiaphas. Comp. ii. 238. This was a surname ; the original name
was Joseph ;* but the surname having become his ordinary and official des-

1See on ch. xxvi. f. (Mark xiv., Luke
xxil.); Wichelhaus, avafiitri. Kommentar
tiber die Geach. dea Letdens J. Chr. Halle
1885 ; Steinmeyer, d. Letdenegesch. d. Herrn
in Bezug auf d. neueste Krit., Berl. 1868.

2 Dillmann in Schenkel’s Lez. IV. p.
887 f.

2 Of course avAy is used as equivalent to
Bacirevov (see, for example, the passages
from Polyb. in Schweighi&user’s Lez. p. 101),
not only by later Greek writers (Athen.
Deipn. iv. p. 189 D; Herodian, 1. 18. 16, fre-
quently in the Apocr.), but also by Homer

(see Duncan, Ler., ed. Rost, p. 181), Pindar,
and the Tragedians, etc. Never, however,
is it so used in the New Testament. Even
in John xviii. 15, avA® rob apxeep. is undoubt-
edly the court of the house.

See Winer, Realw. under the word
Hduser ; Friedlieb, Archdol. d. Leidensgesch.
p. 7 f.

Comp. Vulg. (atrium), Erasmus, Casta-
lio, Calvin, Maldonatus.

* See Wieseler, Beitr. p. 200 ff.

7 Joseph. Anté, xvill. 2. 2

452 THE GOSPEL OF MATIHEW.

ignation, it was used for the name itself ; hence Aeyouévov, not éxixadovytrer
or émAeyouévov. Caiaphas (either = 8D'9, depressio, or ¥D‘3, rock) obtained
his appointment through the procurator Valerius Gratus, and, after enjoy-
ing his dignity for seventeen years, was deposed by Vitellius,’ 4. 3.—
ouveBovaetcavro, iva] they consulted together, in order that they, John xi. 53. —
ud év Ty éoprg] namely : let us arrest him, and put him to death! For the ab-
solute 47, 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.* It is
true no scruple was felt, especially in urgent and important cases (comp. on
Acts xii. 3 f.), about having executions*® 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,‘ and that with a view to making the exam-
ple more deterrent (Deut. xvii. 13). But the members of the Sanhedrim
dreaded an uprising 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,* though, by and by, they overcame this fear,
and gladly availed themselves of the opportunity which Judas afforded them
(ver, 14). To regard ju} év ry éoprp 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 connection 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 Pass-
over (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 warrant the assump-
tion that each case is but another version of one and the same story.’ This,
however, is not a different incident ® from that recorded in John xii. 1 ff.°

1 Joseph. Ant?. xviii. 2. 2.

2 Wieseler, Chronot. Synops. p. 367.

3 Sanhedr. f. 89. 1.

4 Comp. on John xviii. 28, and see, above
all, Bleek’s Betir. p. 186 ff. .

§ Comp. Joseph. Antt. xvil. 9.8; Bed. 1. 4. 8.

*“ Sic consilium divinum successit,”’
“*so the divine counsel was fulfilled,”
Bengel.

7™In opposition to Chrysostom, Grotius,
Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 110 ff.;
Strauss, Weisse, Hug, Ewald, Bleek, Baur,
Hilgenfeld, Schenkel, Keim.

8In opposition to Origen, Chrysostom,
Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabe-
nus, Osiander, Lightfoot, Wolf.

®*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 Nied-
ner's Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1852, I. p. 54 ff.
This distinguishing of three Marys (which
was also adopted by so early an expositor
as Euthymius Zigabenus, and by mivés, to
whom Theophylact refers) is, in fact, rather
too much at variance wich the tradition
that the sister of Lazarus is identical with
the woman who was a sinner, Luke vii.,
and was no other than Mary Magdalene.
Yet In none of the three accounts of
anointing is this latter to be understood as
the Mary referred to.

CHAP, XXVI., 6, 7. 453

The deviations in John’s account of the affair—to the effect that the anoint-
ing 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 extrava-
gance is specially ascribed to Judas—are not to be disposed of by arbitra-
rily 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 historical connection,
although, on the whole, in its right order, if with less regard to precision as
to the time of its occurrence. Hence the loose place it occupies in the prag-
matism of the passage, from which one might imagine it removed altogether,
without the connection being injured in the slightest degree. The tradi-
tion 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. Tevoz. tv Brfav.] i.e., having come to Bethany, 2 Tim. i. 17; John
vi. 25, and frequently in classical writers ; comp. on Phil. ii. 7. To remove
this visit back to a point of time previous to that indicated at ver. 2, with the
effect of simply destroying the sequence (Ebrard, Lange), is to do such har-
monistic violence to the order observed in Matthew and Mark as the rére of
ver. 14 should have been sufficient to avert. — Ziuwvro¢g tov Aezpov] In a way
no less unwarrantable has the person here referred to (& 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 associated with the family
of Bethany ; he has been supposed to have been the deceased father of this
family,’ or some other relative or friend,* or the owner of the house. Of
the person who, according to Matthew and Mark, provided this entertain-
ment, nothing further is known ; whereas, according to John, the entertain-
ment 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. Tvvy] According to John, it was Mary. — aaéBacrpov] Among
classical writers the neuter of this word does not occur except in the plural ;
in the singular 4A4acrpoc is masculine, as also in 2 Kings xxi. 13, and femi-
nine.* — ixi r. x. avrov] A divergence from John’s account, not to be recon-
ciled in the arbitrary manner in which Calvin and Ebrard have attempted,
as though the oil had been so unsparingly poured on that it ran down and was
used for the feet as well (comp. Morison). Matthew narrates an anointing

1 Theophylact, Ewald Geach. Chr. p. 481. in alabaster boxes,” Plin. V. 2. ili. 3;

* Grotius, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Lange, Bleek. Herod. iil. 90; Theoor. Jd, xv. 114; Anta.

§ “ Unguenta optime servantur in alabas- Pal. ix. 158.8; Jacobse, ad Anthol. XI. p. 92.
tris,” ‘““ Unguents are especially preserved

454 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

of the head ; John, of the feet. The practice of anointing the heads of guests
by way of showing them respect is well known.’ Seeing, however, that the
anointing of the feet was unusual (in opposition to Ebrard), and betokened a
special and extraordinary amount of respect (as is, in fact, apparent from
Luke vii. 46), our passage would have been all the less likely to ‘‘ omit” it
(Lange), had it really formed part of the tradition. — dvaxe:uévov] while He
was reclining at table, a circumstance qualifying the avrod.

Ver. 8. The feature peculiar to John, and having an essential bearing up-
on 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,® or that Judas simply gave utterance to an observation
in which the others have innocently concurred,* or that several of them be-
trayed symptoms of murmuring (Lange). — 7 amdAea avry] this loss, in making
such a use of an expensive oil. This word never occurs in the New Testa-
ment in a transitive sense (as in Polyb. vi. 59. 5).

Ver. 9. IoAAci] 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. WV.H. xii. 26, xiii. 4. — xai do6jva:] the sub-
ject (the equivalent in money, had it been sold) may be inferred from the
context (rpabyvat roAAov).‘

Ver. 10. Tvotc] Comp. xvi. 8. We may imagine what precedes to have
been spoken among the disciples in a low murmuring tone. — xézovg wapéxeev,
to give trouble, to cause annoyance.*—épyov ydp, x.7.A.] Sustification of the
disapproval implied in the foregoing question. xadAév, when used with épyor,
is, according 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 utility,
and not by that of moral propriety, especially of love to Christ.

Ver. 11 f. Justification of the xaAév on the ground of the peculiar circum-
stances under which the anointing took place. Jesus was onthe very
threshold of death ; they would always have opportunities of showing kind-
ness to the poor, but by and by it would be no longer in their power to doa
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.
—ot wévrore éyere] a sorrowful litotes involving the idea : but I will soon be
removed by death, to which idea the yép of ver. 12 refers. — Badovca] tnas-
much as she has poured .. . she has done it (this outpouring) with the view (as
though I were already a corpse) of embalming me (Gen. 1. 2). The aorist

1 Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 898 A,andStallbaum Paulus, Wichelhaus.

thereon. ‘See Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 80 f.
* Jerome, Beza, Maldonatus. § See Kypke, Odss. I. p. 180. Comp. sévoy
* Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, sapéye» (Herod. i. 177), and such like.

CHAP, XXVI., 13-16. 455

participle represents the act as finished contemporaneously with énolyoav.
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. 18. To evayy. retro] comp. on xxiv. 14. In this instance, however,
the emphasis is not on rovro (as in xxiv. 14), but on 1d evayyédov : this
message of redemption, where rovro 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 roiro refers is, when
put in explicit terms, identical with ré evayy. ri¢ ydperog r. Oeot (Acts xx. 24),
Td ebayy. THe awrnpiag tu. (Eph. 1. 18), 7d evayy. tie eipfync (Eph. vi. 15), 6
Adyoc Tov oravpov (1 Cor. i. 18). —év day 1H xdcuy] is not to be connected
with 40176. (Fritzsche, Kuinoel), but with «pvz67. Comp. Mark xiv. 9;
érov denotes the locality in its special, év day 1G xdopy in its most comprehen-
site sense.—ei¢ prgyoc. avt.] belongs to Aad7?. She has actually been
remembered, and her memory is blessed.

Vv. 14-16. On ’Iobdag 'Icxap., see on x. 4. —rére] after this repast, but
not because he had been so much offended, nay, embittered,* 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
recognized, especially as it becomes very marked when Luke xxii. 3 1s com-
pared with John xiii. 27. — cic rév ddédexa] tragic contrast ; found in all
the evangelists, even in John xii. 4; Actsi. 17.—In ver. 15 the mark of
interrogation should not be inserted after dotva: (Lachmann), but allowed to
remain after rapad. airév. Expressed syntactically, the question would run:
What will ye give me, if I deliver Him to you? In the eagerness of his
haste the traitor falls into a broken construction :* What will ye give me,
andI will, etc. Here xat is the explicative atque, meaning : and so; on éyd,
again, there is an emphasis expreasive of boldness. — &ornoav] they weighed for
him, according to the ancient custom, and comp. Zech. xi. 12. No doubt
coined shekels‘ were in circulation since the time of Simon the Maccabee
(143 B.c.), but weighing appears to have been still practised, especially when
considerable sums were paid out of the temple treasury ; it is, in any case,

1 Comp. xxvii. 4; Eph. 1. 9, a2. ; Hermann, * Kfbner, II. Q p. 762 f.
ad Viger. p. 774; Miller in thé Luther. “Otto, Spictl. p. 60 ff.; Ewald in the
Zeilschr. 1872, p. 681 ff. Nachr. 0. @. Gesellech. d. Wise. QStt. 1886,
* Wichelhaus, Schenkel, following the p. 100 ff.
older expositors.

456 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

unwarrantable to understand the zorjcav merely in the sense of : they paid.
For iornu, to weigh, see Wetstein on our passage.’ The interpretation of
certain expositors : they arranged with him, they promised him,’ is in opposi-
tion not only to xxvii. 8, where the words ré dpyipea refer back to the
shekels already paid, but also to the terms of the prophecy, Zech. xi. 12
(comp. Matt. xxvii. 9). —rprd«. apy.] apyipia, shekels, only in Matthew, not
in the LXX., which, in Zech. xi. 12, has rpidxovra apyupoig (ac. cixzore) ;
comp. Jer. xxxii. 9. They were shekels of the sanctuary (ZIP) 7P¥), which.
as containing the standard weight, were heavier than the ordinary shekels ;
according to Joseph. Anét. iii. 8. 2, they were equivalent to four Attic
drachmae, though, according to Jerome (on Mic. iii. 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—i.e., to something
like 26 to 27 silbergroschen (2s. 6d.).2— é#ree evxapiav, iva] he sought a
good opportunity (Cic. de off. 1. 40) for the purpose of, etc. Such a eixacpia as
he wanted would present itself whenever he saw that ovAAng@évroc ox Euerre
Oépu3o¢ yevéoOa, ‘‘a disturbance was not likely to take place on His being
apprehended,” Euthymius Zigabenus ; comp. ver. 5.

Remanx 1.—As the statement regarding the thirly pieces of silver is peculiar
to Matthew, and as one so avaricious as Judas was would hardly have been con-
tented 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 amountas was suggested by Zech. xi.12. Then, as tend-
ing 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 pop-
ular vidlence’’ (Paulus, Goldhorn in Tzschirn. Memor. i. 2; Winer, Theile,
Hase, Schollmeyer, Jesus u. Judas, 1836 ; Weisse, I. p. 450),—the traitor him-
self 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 ren-
der 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
wounded ambiiion 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

1Schleusner, Zhes. III. p. 122; Valck- Lange.

enaer, ad Eurip. Fragm. p. 288. § See Bertheau, Geach. d. Isr. pp. 34, 39;
*Vulg. Theophylact, Castalio, Grotius, Kell, Arch. Il. p. 146.

Elsner, Fritzsche, Kéuffer, Wichelhaus,

CHAP. XXVI., 17. 457

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
anticipate that he would be condemned to death (xxvii. 3), and only began to
realize whai 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 hav-
ing 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 funda-
mental vice of Judas, tAcovetia, 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, Script-
ure requires us to keep in view the divine teleology, Peter already speaking of
Jesus (Acts ii. 23) as rH dpopévy BovAg nal mpoyvuices Tod Oecd éExdurov, 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
eiuapuévn, 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; Actsi. 25; and
see, further, on John vi. 70, Remark 1.

Ver. 17. Ty d2 rpdéry rav alip.) on the first day of the unleavened bread, i.¢.,
on the first day of the feast, the day on which the unleavened bread (MSD) is
eaten. The day referred to is the 14th of Nisan (Thursday, according to the
synoptic evangelists), which, following the loose popular mode of reckon-
ing, to which Josephus (Antz. 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.
XXxviiil. 16 ; Ex. xii. 18.’— oi} in what house. —oa] ‘‘ Jesus est ut pater-
familias inter discipulorum familiam,” ‘‘ Jesus is as the father of a family in
His family of disciples,” Bengel. — 1d rdoya] 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 after-
noon before sunset (O'2 Wt [°3, see Hupfeld, de primitiva festor. ap. Hebr.
ratione, I. p. 12). —It may seem strange that, at a season when the pres-
ence of such multitudes of strangers in the city was certain to create a scarc-
ity of accommodation,’ Jesus should have put off His arrangements for cele-
brating 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 re-
ferred to in ver. 18, whose houses were so much at His disposal at all times
that it was unnecessary to make any earlier preparation.

Remarx.-—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 rpory
tav aGyuwv. On this great and irreconcilable discrepancy, which even the most

1 Otto, Spicil. p. 70. 2 Joseph. Bell. il. 1. 8, vi. 9.8; Anté. xvii. 9. &

a

458 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

recent exhaustive inquiry, viz. that of Wieseler (Beifr. p. 230 ff.), has failed to
dispose of, see on John xviii. 28.

Ver. 18. Eig ryv wédev] to Jerusalem. According to ver. 6 ff., they were
still at Bethany. — zpdc rdv deiva] as we say when we either cannot or will
not mention the name of the person intended : fo s0 and 30.‘ But it was
not Jesus Himself who omitted to mention the name (‘‘ ut discipulus ex
diuturna consuetudine notissimum,” ‘‘as a disciple well known from long
companionship,” 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 didéox.|] the Teacher xar’ éfox7#v. Doubtless the unknown person here
referred to was also a believer. Comp. xxi. 3. — é xacpég pov] i.¢., the time
of my death (John xiii. 1), not: for my observing the Passover (Kuinoel),
which would render 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.* Further, this preliminary
preparation implies a pious regard for Jesus on the part of the deiva, who
was thus singled out; this Passover observance, for which preparations
are being made, was destined, in fact, to be a farewell feast ! According to
Ewald, 6 xapé¢ ov 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). — ro] is not the Attic future,‘ but the present, representing
what is future as now going on, and suited to the idea of a distinct friendly
arrangement beforehand : at thy house I obserce the Passover.® Similarly
classical writers frequently use zoveiv 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
question, and in consequence of which this latter not only understood what
was meant by the 6 xa:pé¢ ov, 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 understanding or other with him, so that all that now required to be
done was to complete the preparations. It was reserved for the later tradi-
tion, 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. 2f. This being the case, the claim of originality

1See Wetsteln and Hermann, ad Vig. 4 Fritzsche, Bleek.
p. 704. ® Comp. Ex. xii. 48; Josh. vy. 10; Deut.
* See on John xviii. 28. xv.1; 8 Esdr. i. 6.

3 Comp. éAfAvderv h Spa, John xvil. 1.

CHAP. XXVI., 20-23. 459
must be decided in favor of what is still the very simple narrative of
Matthew,’ in preference to that of Mark and Luke.” As represented, there-
fore, by Matthew (who, according to Ebrard and Holtzmann, seems to have
regarded the circumstance aout the man bearing a pitcher of water as only
‘Can unnecessary detail,” and whose narrative 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 deternrined. |

Ver. 20. 'Avéxecro] for the enactment (Ex. xii. 11) requiring the Passover

lamb to be eaten standing, staff in hand, and in travelling attire, had been
subsequently superseded by the necessity of reclining."—It was considered
desirable that no Passover party should ever consist of fewer than ten
guests,‘ for the lamb had to be entirely consumed (Ex. xii. 4, 43 ff.).
. Ver. 21. 'Eoiiévruv airaiv] whilst they were eating, but previous to the insti-
tution 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, "Hpfavro] 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. — yfre eye eit] surely it is not I? presupposes a
reply in the negative.© 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. ‘0 éu3dpac, x«.7.A.] he who has dipped (not : 4s dipping, Luther, fol-
lowing the Vulgate). We have here no such 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 subseguent to the intimation by Jesus in
ver. 21 and the commotion of ver. 22,—two circumstances calculated to in-
terrupt 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 éuBarrdépuevoc of Mark xiv. 20

1 Strauss, Bleek, Keim.

2 Schulz, Schlelermacher, Weisse, Ewald,
Weiss.

*See Hieros Pesachim f, 87. 2: ‘‘Mos ser-
vorum est, ut edant stantes, at nunc come-
dant recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse
eos © servitute in libertatem,” “It is the
custom of slaves to eat standing, but now
they consume reclining, in order that it may
be discerned that they have gone out of
slavery into freedom."" See Usterl, Com-

ment, Joh. ev. genuin, esse. 1828, p. 26 ff.

4 Joseph. Bell. vi. 9. 8.

§“Cum scelus exhorreant, cupiunt ab
ejus suspicione purgarl ; bona tamen con-
scientia freti. libere testari volunt, quam
procul remoti sint a tanto scelere,"’ ‘“ While
they shudder at the crime, they are eager to
purge themselves from suspicion of it;
trusting, moreover, to a good conscience,
they wish freely to declare how far removed
they are from so great a crime,” Calvin.

460 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(see on the passage) is not a substantial variation ; neither has it been
misunderstood by Matthew,' and converted by him into a special means of
recognition.* The contents of the dish were the broth charoset (NON), made
out of dates, figs, etc., and of the color of brick (to remind those who par-
took of it of the bricks of Egypt.* — év r@ rpuBAiw] has dipped in the dish,
into which he has put his hand, holding a piece of bread.‘

Ver..24. 'Yrdyec] peraBaiver ard rig évradOa Cuic, ‘he departs from this
present life,” Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. oiyecfa, arépyeofaz, 37. Jesus
is conscious that His death will be a going away to the Father (John vii. 33,
Vili. 22).— xaddv, x.7.4.] well would it have been for him, etc. ; 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.* The expres-
sion is a popular one, and not to be urged with logical rigor, which it will
not admit of. The fundamental idea embodied in it is : ‘‘ multo melius est
non subsistere quam male subsistere,” ‘‘it is much better not to exist at all
than to exist, or live, in wickedness,” Jerome. Observe, further, the tragic
emphasis with which 6 dvOpuro¢ éxeivoc is repeated ; but for xaddv 7v without
av, see Buttmann,® and onod asa negative, where there is only one idea con-
tained in the negation, consult Kihner.’? Euthymius Zigabenus aptly ob-
serves : ov diére mpodpioto, dia trovto mapéduxev’ GAAa didtt wapfdwxe, dtd rovTo
spodptoro, Tov Beod mpoedérog Td mévtwe axoBnobpevov’ Euedde yap dvruc aro Sivas
ToLovTog ov ex dvaewe, GAA' éx mpoaiptoewc ; ‘‘ not because it had been foretold
did he on this account betray Him ; but because he betrayed Him on this
account had it been foretold, God foreseeing entirely the result ; for he was
about to turn out really to be such an one as he was, not from nature but
from his own choice.” —

Ver. 25. This final direct intimation regarding the betrayer (6 rapadidoi's),
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. 25is an out-
growth of tradition, the absence of which from the older narrative of Mark
is unquestionably correct. — ov elwac] a Rabbinical formula by which an em-
phatic affirmation is made, as in ver. 64. See Schoettgen. There is no such
usage in the Old Testament or among classical writers, At 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 xxii. 21, was not present at the cele-
bration of the last supper ; see on John xiii. 38, Remark) to have taken
place. Matthew likewise, 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 ezxtraor-

1In opposition to Weiss in the Stud.u. LXX. Dent. xxxiil. 24; Ruth fi. 14.

Krit. 1861, p. 58 f. § Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 14; Job ffi. 1 ff. ;
* Holtzmann. Jer. xx. 14 ff., and the passages from Rab-
3 Maimonides, ad Pesach. vil. 11. See Bux- _ bintcal writers in Wetstein.

torf, Lex. Talm. p. 881.° ¢ Neut. Gr. pp. 188, 195 [E. T. 217, 226].

* Hom. Od. ix. 892; Aesch. Prom. 868: TIL. 2, p. 748; Buttmann, p. 290 [E.T. 347].

a

CHAP. XXVI., 26. 461

f
dinary nature of the circumstances in which Judas found himself ; but |
see on ver, 26.

Ver. 26.’ The meal—having been, naturally enough, interrupted by the
discussion regarding Judas—would now be resumed ; hence the repetition
of the éo6ié6vrwv abrév of ver. 21 with the continuative dé, which latter is so
often used in a similar way after parentheses and other digressions, espe-
cially in cases where previous expressions are repeated ;* — AaBdv 6 Ino. r.
aptov] According to the Rabbis, the order of the Passover meal was as fol-
lows :?— (1) It began with drinking wine, before partaking of which, how-
ever, 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).‘ (2) Then bitter herbs (0°), 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 unleavened bread, the broth charoset (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 cAaroset, and then ate it, all the other guests fol-
lowing hiscxample. (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
Hallel (Ps. cxiii., cxiv.), another short thanksgiving by the father, and the
drinking of the second cup. (7) The father then washed his handa, took two
pieces of bread, broke one of them, laid the broken pieces upon that which
remained whole, repeated the ‘‘Benedictus sit ille, 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, con-
cluding, however, with the father eating 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 (13737 NOD) was drunk. Then came the singing of the
second part of the Hallel (Ps.cxv.—cxviii.) and the drinking of the fourth cup,
which was, in some instances, followed by a fifth, with the final singing of

on Mark xiv. 2 f.; Luke xxii. 19 f. ; 1 Cor.
xi. 24 f.

1On ver. 2% ff. and the parallel passages,
ree Ebrard (Dogma vom hetl. Abendm. I. p.

97 ff.), who also (II. p. 751 ff.) mentions the
earlier literature of the subject; see be-
sides, the controversy between Strébel and
Rodatz in the Luther. Zeilachr. 1842 ff.;
Ritckert, d. Adendm., Lpz. 1886, 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.

* Comp. on 2 Cor. v.83; Eph. il. 4.

3 See Tr. Pesach. c. 10; Otho, Lex. Rald. p.
448 ff.; Lightfoot, p. 474 ff.; Lund, Jild.
Helligth., ed. Wolf, p. 11% ff.: Wichelhaus,
p. 248 ff.; Vaihinger in Herzog's Encyki. XI.
p. 141 ff.

4“ Pooulum ebibit, et postea benedicit de
lotione manuun, et lavat,”’ Maimonides.

462 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ps. cxxs-cxxxvii.'—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 irstitution of
the last supper,——the Passover meal had already extended pretty far on into
the night (John xiii. 30),—we must assume that the coO$vrav avrayv 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 dprov (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 ob-
served 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 suffering inseparable from
His death. —xal cidoyfoac] after having repeated a blessing—whether the
‘* Benedictus ille, gut producit panem e terra” (comp. No. 7 above), or some
other more appropriate to the particular act about to be performed, it is im-
possible to 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 in-
tention 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 intro-
duce at the end a special repast of significance so profound as never to be
forgotten. The idea that His evAoyeiv, as being the expression of His omnip-
otent will,” 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 wince to a sacred use. —It is, further, impossible to deter-
mipe whether by «ai édidov roi¢ uafy7. 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 AdfSere. This
Aé8ere 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

3 Bartoloce. Bib. Rabdd. II. p. 786 ff. * Philipp!, p. 467 ff.

CHAP, XXVI., 26. 463
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. — rovré tov: rd cud pov] There can be no doubt that rotro
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 (Strébel), while
it is equally certain that no emphasis of any kind is to be laid
upon the enclitic pov (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 supposed
what, on the occasion of the first celebration of the 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 un-
derstood 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 ? is to have recourse to an expedient that is not only unwarrantable,
but extremely questionable,* and because, so long as the idea of the xpéag is
not taken into account, any substantial partaking of the cjua alone and by
itself, without the aia, appears utterly inconceivable ;‘ for here, again,
the idea of a epiritual body, which it is supposed Jesus might even then
have communicated,' belongs entirely to the region of non-execgetical and
docetic fancies, for which even the transfiguration furnishes no support
whatever (see on 1 Cor. x. 16), and is inconsistent with the alua (1 Cor. xv.
50 ; Phil. iii. 21): it follows that écri is neither more nor less than the
copula of the symbolic statement :* ‘* This, which ye are to take and eat, this

1 Wetatein well observes: “Non quaere-
bant utrum panis, quem videbant, panis
esset, vel utrum aliud corpus inconspicuum
in interstitils, panis delitesceret, sed quid
haec actio significaret, cujus ret esset repracsen-
tatio aut memoriale,” ‘‘They did not ask
whether the bread which they saw was
bread, or whether some other body being
invisible in the interstices of the bread was
being hid, but ehat this action signified, of
what thing tt was the representation or me-
morial.’’ Thomasius, however, as above, p.
61, finds no other way of disposing of the
simple imposstbility referred to, but by main-
taining that this giving of Himself on the
part of the Lord was of the nature of a
miracle. Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. ITI.
2, p. 215, also Philippi, p. 488 f., who js at the
same time disposed to assume that the
Spirit illuminated the minds of the disciples
as with lightning flash. The supposition of a
miracle is certainly the /as¢ resort, and this
on exegetical grounds is wholly unjustifi-
able in a case in which neither the narrative
itself nor the thing narrated implies a
miracle.

? Schmid, Bil. Theol. I. p. 841 ; Thomasius,

Chr. Pers. u. Werk, Ill. 2, p. 62; Stier; Gess,
I. p. 167. e

* See, on the other hand, Tholuck in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 126 f.

4In reply to the question why Jesus dis-
tributes the body and blood separately,
Thomasius, p. 68, has no answer but this: ‘I
do not know.” We are accordingly met on
the one hand with the assertion of a miracle,
on the other with a non liqvet. 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 itseff, 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.

®QOlshausen; Rodatz in the Lwuther.
Zellachr. 1848, 8, p. 56; Kahnis, Adendmm. p.
458; Hofmann; Schoeberlein, #. d. hei.
Abendm. 1860, p. 66.

In the case of Luke and Paul, the ne-
ceasity of adopting the symbolical interpre-

464 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

broken bread,' is, symbolically speaking, my bedy,“—the body. namely,
which is on the point of being put to death as a Zi-por avi =0770r (xx. 28).
The symbolical interpretation has also been correctly adhered to by David
Schulz, de Wette, Julius Miiller, Bleek, Rickert, Kerm, Weizsacker ; comp.
Ewald, Morison, Weiss on Mark, and others. According to Matthew, as
also according to Paul (1 Cor. xi. 24, where «/cueroy is spurious), Jesus
omits entirely the fertium 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, wnich 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 break-
ing of the bread and the putting to death of the body resemble each other
in so far as the connection of the whole is violently destroyed, so that the
bread in fragments can no Jonger be said to be the bread, nor the body when
put to death to be any longer a living being.* The eating (and the drink-
ing), 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 : 7d i<ép tur) and in the shedding
of the blood of Jesus ; so that the act of receiving the elements in the con-
sciousness of this, establishes a xo:wvia 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
communicant realizes in his inward experience that the divine-human life

tation of éori shows itself above all (1) in
the words used with reference to the cup
(4 axasvy d:adnen). 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
efectica of the covenant. It is so in virtue
of the historical fact of the shedding, while it
1s this same fact that justifies its being des-
ignated 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 eo far as it
represents that real covenant-blood asit was
precious to its being shed, and with the
near prospect of its shedding fully in view ;
it is this blood, but only in the sense war-
ranted by a profound vivid symbolism. (2)
It is on the strength of this symbolical in-
terpretation that Luke and Paul would
appear to have added the expression eis r.
dunv avayynow to the words of the institu-
tion. Seeon Luke xxii.19f. The avaprnois
denotes a realizing of that as present which
is no longer so in bodily form.

1 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, eith, and
under the covenant (the synecdoche of Zu-

theran orthodoxy). The doctrine of the om-
nipresence 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 : ‘‘ Caven-
dum enim est, ne ita divinitatem adstrua-
mus hominis, ut veritatem corporis aufera-
mus,” “ We must beware lest we so ascribe
divinity to His manhood as to take away
the reality of His body,” Augustine, ep. 57,
ad Dardan. ; they understood the body of
Christ to be in heaven, where it always re-
mained.

* Philippi, p. 422 ff.,is wrong in refusing
to admit that the point of comparison lies
in the breaking. The éxAace is the circum-
stance above all which the whole four evan-
gelists 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
xAdguevoy of 1 Cor. xi. 24 had come to be ex-
tensively adopted, may be regarded as
affording evidence in favor of the correct-
ness of the church’s interpretation of this
symbolical act. The same view is implied
in the reading Opumrrénervoy ; comp. Constilt.
Ap. viii. 12. 16,

CHAP. XXVI., 27. 465

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 with-
out 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 interpretation of the écri 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’ between the interpretation of Zwingli (and
Oecolampadius) and that of Calvin.? On the relation of Luther's doctrine
to that of Calvin, see Julius Miller's dogmat. Abh. p. 404 ff. For éori (which,
however, Jesus would not express in Aramaic, His words probably being
‘Di ¥) as a copula of symbolical or allegorical being, comp. xiii. 88 f. ;
Luke xii. 1; John x. 6, xiv. 6; Gal. iv. 24; Heb. x. 20; Rev. i. 20.—
That Jesus might also have used odp£ instead of céuza (comp. John. vi.) is
clear ; in that case prominence would have been given to the material of
which the cdua is composed (comp. Col. i. 22).2 But it would not have
been proper to use xpéac (dead flesh, the flesh of what has been slain, Rom.
xiv. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 18).

Ver. 27. Matthew says indefinitely : a cup, for ré before rorfp. is spurious,
Luke and Paul are somewhat more precise, inasmuch as they speak of the
cup as having been the one which was presented yerd rd decrvqoar. Accord-
ingly, the cup in question here is usually understood to have been the pocu-
lum bencdictionis, 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 significance was associated ; as ver.
29 expressly forbids the supposition 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 sup~
pose 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 illud perficit Hallel, additque insuper benedictionem cantici
(YON ND), quod est: Laudent te, Domine, omnia opera tua, etc., et dicit:
Benedictus sit, qui creavit fructum vitis,—et postea non quicquam gustat ista
nocte,” ‘‘ Then he mixes a fourth cup, and over it completes the Hallel, and
adds thereupon the blessing of the canticle, Blessed be He who created the
fruit of the vine,—and afterward he does not taste anything that night.”
Paul, no doubt, expressly calls the cup used at the supper rd zorhpiov rife

1 Rodatz in Rudelbach's Zeidechr. 1848, 4, | which it figures,” Calvin.
p. 11. ® Comp. Rickert, p. 69.

3 ** Externum signum dicitur id esse, quod * See Schulz, Abendm. p. 94.
figurat,” “‘ an outward sign is said to be that

466 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

evAoyiac (1 Cor. x. 16), which corresponds with the name of the third cup
(see on ver. 26) ; but, as the epexegetical 6 eiAoyotyzev shows, this designa-
tion 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 consecra-
tion. 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.! — evyapior.] is substantially the same as eddoy., ver. 26, which
latter has reference to the phraseology of the prayer (Genedictus, etc.).2 The
M33 was a thanksgiving prayer.*

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 anywhere elsc 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, glori-
fied blood is as much a contradictio in adjecto as glorified flesh. This also in
opposition to Hofmann, p. 220. — rovro] this, which ye are about to drink, the
wine which is in this cup. Although this wine was red, it must not be sup-
posed that the point of the symbolism lay in the color (Wetstein, Paulus),
but in the circumstance of its being poured out (see below : ro x. woAA. Exxv-
véu.) into the cup; the outpouring is the symbolical correlative to the
breaking in the case of the bread. — ydp] justifies the wiere . . . wdvrec, on
the ground of the interpretation given to that which is about to be drunk.
— éori] as in ver 26. —1é aiud pov tio diabqxnc] This is the preferable read-
ing ; sce the critical remarks. ‘‘ 7his is my blood of the covenant,” my core-
nant blood (130 OA, Ex. xxiv. 8), my blood which serves to ratify thé
covenant with God. This is conccived of as sacrificial blood (in opposition
to Hofmann).* Ina similar way Moses ratified the covenant with God by
means of the sacrificial blood of an animal, Ex. xxiv. 6 ff. The connect-
ing of the uov with aiza corresponds to the ré caud pov of ver. 26, as well as
to the amplified form of our Lord’s words as given by Luke and Paul ; con-
sequently we must not, with Rickert, connect the pronoun with r. drafpane
(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 law.* — ra epi
ToAAav Exyxuv. cic dgecty auapriov] Epexegesis of 1d aizd pov rig diabfanc, by way
of indicating who are to participate in the covenant (rep? zoddév), the
divine benefit conferred upon them (ei¢ dg¢eo. duapr.), and the means
by which the covenant is ratified (éxyvvdéu.) : which is shed (expressing as
present what, though future, is near and certain) for the benefit of many,

21In the Conettit. Ap. vill. 12. 16, Christ *On the double genitive with only one

Himself is even spoken of as 13 rorjpoy noun, see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 111 f.;
xepagas ¢£ oivov xaivéaros, ‘having mingled Lobeck, ad Aj. 800; Winer, p. 180 [E. T.

the cup of wine and water." 289]. For the arrangement of the words,
2Comp. xiv. 19; Luke xxiv. 30; Acts comp. Thue. iv. 85. 2: ry re dsoxAjon pev
xxvii. 85; 1 Tim. iv. 8 f.; Matt. xv. 36. TwY TvAmy.
3 Comp. on 1 Cor. xiv. 16. See on 1 Cor. xi. 2.

4 See Delitzsch on Heb. ix. 20.

CHAP. XXVI., 28. 467

inasmuch as it becomes instrumental in procuring the forgiveness of sins.

_ The last part of this statement, and consequently what is implied in it, viz.

the atoning purpose contemplated by the shedding of blood (comp. Lev.
xvii. 11), is to be understood as setting forth more precisely the idea
expressed by wepi. It must not be.supposed, however, that irfp, which
is used by Luke instead of repi, 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 ier), so that
both the prepositions are often interchanged in cases where they have
exactly one and the same reference, as in Demosthenes especially.! — The
shedding of the blood is the objective medium of the forgivenessof 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 roAAoy, as well as in the
symbolic reference of the viere. —It is to be observed, further, that the
genuineness of the words elc dec. duapr. is put beyond all suspicion by the
unexceptionable evidence in their favor (in opposition to David Schulz),
although, from their being omitted in every other record of the institution
of the supper,* they should not be regarded as having been originally
spoken by Christ, but as an explanatory addition introduced into the tradi-
tion, and put into the mouth of Jesus.

RemaRkk 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 apos-
tles were convinced that such was the intention of our Lord, so much so, that
tothe words of the institution themselves was added that express injunction to
repeat the observance éi¢ r. éujv dvduvnocy which Paul and Luke have recorded.
As bearing upon this matter, Paul’s declaration : tapéAaBov ard rov xvpiov, ver.
23, is of such decisive importance that there can no longer be any doubt (Riick-
ert, p. 124 ff.) as to whether Jesus intended to institute an ordinance for future
observance. We cannot, therefore, 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. = Weiske,
Evangelienfr. p. 195).

Remank 2.—-The two most recent and exhaustive Protestant iuaseeraens
treating of the Lord’s supper on the lines of the Confessions, but also discuss-
ing 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., 8. Wesen. u. 8. Gesch. (Lpz. 1856), ignores the Confessions altogether,
and proceeds on purely exegetical 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,

1 See generally, on Gal. 1. 4; 1 Cor. L 18, xv. 3 3 Algo in Justin, Ap. 1. 66, ¢. Tr. 70.

468 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

and inasmuch as He declares those substances to be pledges of the new covenant
in His blood, the bread and the wine are, therefore, not mere symbols, but they
assume that he who partakes of them is an actual sharer 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 ; 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 rovro, 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 distinction to say that
the former blood ratifies, and that the latter propitiates); and that, accordingly,
the reality in point of efficacy 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 establish-
ing the strictly Lutheran view, it would not be difficult to make out a case in
favor of that doctrine of transubstantiation and the mass which is still keenly
but awkwardly maintained by Schegg, and which finds an abler but no Jess
arbitrary and mistaken advocate in Déllinger (Christenth. u. Kirche, pp. 37 f£.,
248 ff., ed. 2), because in both cases the results are based upon the application of
the exegetical method to dogmatic premises.—Then, in the last place, Rickert

1In his Dogmatik, however (1861), I. pp.
516, 616 ff., II. p. 657 ff., Kahnis candidly
acknowledges the shortcomings of the
Lutheran view, and the necessity of correct-
ing 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 eff-
cacy places him to whom itt ts imparted in
mysterious fellowship with the body of Christ.”
Kahnis now rejects, in particular, the Lu-
theran synecdoche, and approves of the sym-
bolical interpretation in so far as bread and
wine, being symbols of Christ’s body and
blood, constitute, in virtue of the act of
institution, that sacramental word concern-
ing our Lord’s body and blood which when

emitted by Christ has the effect of convey-
ing 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, inthe form of bread and
wine, the symbols of the body and blood of
Christ, which have been sacrificed for us,
imparts to the believing communicant the
sin-forgiving efficacy of Christ’s death.’’
Those divinely appointed symbols he re-
gards as the risidble weord 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.¢., the forgiveness of sins, is com-
municated. From the bread and wine
Christ is supposed to create a eucharistic
corporeality, which He employs as the
medium for the communication of Himself.

CHAP, XXVI., 29. 469

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 under-
stood 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 entered the mind either of Jesus or of the
disciples ; that it was Paul who, in speculating as to the meaning of the :mate-
rial 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 con-
ceived them to exist subsequent to the Lord’s ascension. In this way, accord-
ing 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 furnished the germs of a version of the mat-
ter which, so far at least as its beneficial results are concerned, does not tell in
his favor (p. 242). In answer to Rickert 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 (Mat-
thew’s coming next), and, considering 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 state-
ments furnished by the others are serviceable in the way of exposition, for they
let us see what view was taken of the nature of the Lord’s supper in the apos-
tolic age, as is pre-eminently the case with regard to the rovro moceire etc r. Euny
avéyuvnow of Paul and Luke. Comp. on Luke xxii. 19. According to Gess., I.
p. 147, the variations in question are to be accounted for by supposing that,
while the elements were circulating, Jesus Himself made use of a variety of
expressions. 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). —
bre ov pu iw] that I will certainly not drink. According to the synoptic con-
ception 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 ore 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 offeace by omitting the fourth Pass-
over-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. 80). —azépri] 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, incompatible with the ordinary Passover
usage. We are to understand the drinking on the part of Jesus as having

470 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
taken place after the eci:yapiorhoac, ver. 27, before He handed the cup to the
disciples, and announced to them the symbolical significance that was to
be attached to it.’ Matthew does not mention this circumstance, because
he did not regard it as forming part of the symbolism here in view.* — éx
rovrov Tov yevviu. T. aur. ] tobrov isemphatic, and points to the Passover-wine.
Mark and Luke are less precise, not having rojrov. From this it must not
be assumed that Jesus never drank any wine after His resurrection.? For
yévynua as used by later Greek writers (likewise the LXX.) in the sense of
xapréc, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 286. For the reasons for rejecting the
reading yevfuarog (Lachmann, Tischendorf), notwithstanding the far greater
number of testimonies in its favor, see Fritzsche on Mark, p. 619 f. The
use of this term instead of olvoc has something solemn about it, containing,
as it does, an allusion to the form of thanksgiving for the Passover wine :
‘* benedictus sit, qui creavit fructum vitis.” Comp. Lightfoot on ver. 27.
—rxawév}] nooum, different in respect of quality ; ‘‘novitatem dicit plane
singularem,” ‘‘it indicates evidently a peculiar newness,” Bengel ; not
recens, véov. This conception of the new Passover wine, which is to be the
product of the coming aeon and of the glorified «rics, is connected with
the idea of the renewal of the world in view of the Messianic kingdom.‘
To understand the new celebration of the Passover in the perfected kingdom
only in a figurative sense, corresponding somewhat to the feasts of the pa-
triarchs, alluded to at viii. 11,° would, in presence of such a characteristic
allusion to the Passover, be as arbitrary on the one hand as the referring of
the expression® to the period subsequent to the resurrection of Jesus (Aets x.
41) would be erroneous on the other, and that on account of the rotrov and
the words év r9 Baca. r. +. w.. Which can only be intended to designate the
kingdom of Messiah. It is wrong to take xarvév, as Kuinoel and Fritzsche
have done, in the sense of iterum, for it is a characteristic predicate of the
acine that it is here in question ; besides, had it been otherwise, we should
have had anew: éx xa:vqc," or the ordinary rad of the New Testament.

Ver. 80. ‘Yuvfoarrec] namely, the second portion of the Hallei (Ps. cxv.-—
cxviili.).° Jesus also took part in the singing.’ — é£7fov, x.r.7..] The regu-
lation (comp. Ex. xii. 22), which required that this night should be spent
in the city,” appears not to have been universally complied with.”

Ver. 31. Tére] whilst they were going out, ver. 36. —mdyvrec] put first so
as to be highly emphatic. — cxavdad.]"* In this instance it means : instead
of standing faithfully by me till the last, ye will be cowardly enough to run

4 Comp. Chrysostom.

2Euthymius Zigabenus correctly’ ob-
serves: et: 6¢@ rou wornpiov perdcxe, perédAaBey
&pa xai Tov aprov, ‘If he partook of the cup,
then he shared also the bread." Comp. on
ver. 26.

3 Acts x. 41; Ignat. Smyrn. 8.

4 Luke xxii. 16, comp. ver. 30.

5 * Vos aliquando mecum in coelosumma
laetitia et felicitate perfraemini,’’ ‘‘ you at
some time shall fully enjoy with me in

heaven the highest joy and felicity,”
Kuinoel, Neander.

* Chrysostom,
Minster, Clarius.

7 Thuc. iii. 92. 5.

8 See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 618 f.

®* Comp. Justin, c. 77. 106.

19 Lightfoot, p. 564.

11 See Tosapht in Pesach. § in Lightfoot,
minister. templi, p. 727.

12 Comp. on xi. 6.

Euthymius Zigabenus,

— eee

CHAP. XXVL, 32-36. 471

away and leave me to my fate, and thus show that your faith has not been
able to bear the brunt of the struggle. With what painful astonishment
these words must have filled the disciples, sincerely conscious as they were
of their faithful devotion to their Master ! Accordingly this announcement
is followed up with quoting the prediction in which the tragic event is fore-
told. The passage here introduced with yfyp. yép is from Zech. xiii. 7
(quoted with great freedom). In the shepherd who, according to this pas-
sage, is to be smitten, Jesus sees a typical representation of Himself as de-
voted 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.*

Ver. 82 f. Ipoeixray ra Aurnpa, mpodtyet xal Ta wapapvOobpeva, ‘‘ Having told
them before of sorrowful things, He also foretells of consoling things,”
Euthymius Zigabenus.—They were again to gather around Him in Galilee,
the native scene of His ministry. Comp. xxviii. 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-contidence of his
love, savors somewhat of self-exaltation ; consequently the impression made
upon him by the experience of his shortcomings was all the deeper.

Ver. 34 f. Ipiv atéxropa guvica:] 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 dAexropodwvia in Mark xiii. 85." For a later modifica-
tion of the expression in conformity with the repeated denials, see Mark xiv.
30. This prediction as to the time was subsequently confirmed dy the actual
crowing of a cock, ver. 74. —arapvhay pe] thou wilt deny me, deny that I am
thy Lord and Master. For civ coi aro8@., comp. John xi. 16. — azapr-
fooua:] The future after ob u4* is rather more expressive of a confident asser-
tion than the subjunctive, the reading of A E G, etc. — duoiwe xa ravrec,
x.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. 86. T'eOonuavg or, according to a still better attested form, Te€onpuavel
(Lachmann, Tischendorf), is most likely the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew
129 NA, an oil-prees, It was a plot of ground,’ perhaps a small estate with

1 Comp. Jobn xvi. 8%. See ver. 56.

*Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 1, p.
528.
® For the opposite of the rpiv aA. duv., see
Plat. Symp. p. 228 C: wpos nudpay dy aArax-
tpvévey gdovremy, ‘already near day, the cocks
crowing ;"’ Lucian, Ocyp. 670 : éwet 8 dAdxtwp
Huépay erdAmoey, ** but since the cock pro-
claimed the day ;’’ Horace, Saé. {. 1. 10.

On the question as to whether or not
dAdcrwp can be considered good Greek, con-
sult Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 228 f.

®Comp. Celsus in Origen, fi. 45: ovre
cvvanrédavoy ovre Ureparédavoy avrov, ovdse
KoAdcewy xarappovery éweiodyncary, aAAd xai
npvicavro elvat padyrai, ‘‘ They neither died
with Him, nor died for Him, they were not
even persuaded to despise chastisements,
but they also denied that they were His
disciples.”

* See Hartung, Partikell. p. 157 ; Winer, p.
471 f. [E. T. 685).

7 xwpiov, John iv. 5; Acts {. 18, iv. 34, v. 8,
xxvill. 7.

472 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 Dechesmanije), which subsequent tradition has fixed upon as the site
of the ancient Gethsemane,’— airov] here; the only other instances in the
New Testament are found in Acts xv. 84, xvili’ 19, xxi. 4; of frequent
occurrence in classical writers. — éxei] pointing toward the place.

Ver. 87 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. — #pfato] indicating the jirst symptoms of the condition
in question. —Avmeiofa: x. aéquoveiv] Climax. Suidas explains adzpov. as
meaning : Alav Avreiaba.* — reptavroc] very sorrowful, Ps. xliii. 5. The oppo-
site of this is repiyaphc. — 4 yuyh pov] Comp. John xii. 27.' The soul, the in-
termediate element through which the spirit (7d xvetvya, ver. 41) is connected
with the body in the unity of the individual,* is the seat of pleasure and pain. °
—éwe Savdrov] defining the extent of the mepidurocg : unto death, so as almost
to cause death, so that I am nearly dead from very grief ; Jonah iv. 9 ; Isa.
xxxviii. 1 ; and see on Phil. ii. 27. The idea of the mors infernalis (Calo-
vius), as though Christ had been experiencing the pains of hell, is here exe-
getically unwarrantable.’ — peivare. . . iuov] ‘‘ In magnis tentationibus juvat
solitudo, sed tamen, ut in propinquo sint amici,” ‘‘In great trials solitude is
a help, but yet only as friends may be near at hand,” Bengel.

Ver. 89. Mcxpév] belongs to rpoeAddv : after He had gone forward a short
distance.® — éxt xpéowrov airov] The article was not necessary before zpdéowr.
(in opposition to Fritzsche, who takes avrot as meaning there). Comp. xi.
10, xvii. 6, and elsewhere.° Bengel appropriately observes : ‘‘in faciem,
non modo in genua ; summa demissio,” ‘‘on His face, not only on His
knees ; the lowliest humility.” — ei dvvarév éorc] ethical possibility according
to the divine purpose. Similarly the popular expression rdvra dvvard oor is
to be understood, according to the sense in which Jesus uses it, as implying
the necessary condition of harmony with the divine will. —1d zor#prov rovro]
z.¢., this suffering and death immediately before me. Comp. xx. 22. —
mwAgv ovx, k.t.A.] 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
(&decEe rd avpdrivov, Chrysostom), at once gives place to absolute submission,
John v. 80, vi. 88. The word to be understood after of (6éAec) is not
yevéodw, but, as corresponding with the ovy (not uf, observe), yevfoerai, or
éorat, in which the petitioner arpresses his final determination. It may be
observed further, that the broken utterance isin keeping with the deep

1 See Robinson, Pal. I. p. 889; Tobler,d. 8, p. % ff.

Stloahquelle u. d. Oelberg, 1852. 7Euthymius Zigabenus correctly ob-
* See Buttmann, Zezilog. II. p. 185 f.; Ael. serves: davepwrepoy éfayopevec ray aodéveray
V. H. xiii. 8; Phil. ti. 26. THs Ovens ws AvOpwros.
® 8 Edsr. villi. 71 f£.; Isocr. p.11B; Aristot. ® For «ecpéy comp. Xen. Cyrop. iv. 2.6
Eth. iv.8; Diog. L. vil. 97. (ucxpdy wopevddvres); Hist. Gr. vil. 2. 18
4 Xen. Hell. iv. 4.8: adnuovigoa ras yuxds. (utxpdy 8 avrovs spomdywarres.
§ See Beck, Bidl. Seelenl. p. 11. ® Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 152).

* Comp. Stirm in the 7'id. Zeitechr. 1884,

CHAP. XXVI., 40—42. 473

emotion of our Lord. —For dc, which, so far as the essential meaning is
concerned, is identical with the relative pronoun, comp. Hermann.’

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 explanation that it was amd ri¢ Aimne (xxii. 45), a psychological
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
unhistorical, but is to be taken as implying that Jesus had spent a consider-
able time in prayer, and that the disciples, in consequence of their deep
mental exhaustion, found it impossible to keep awake. —xai] three times ;
the narrative is characterized by a simple pathos. —7@ Ilérpy] to him He
addressed words that were equally applicable 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, 85. —oirwe] siccine,
thus, uttered with painful surprise, is to be taken in connection with what
follows, without inserting a separate mark of interrogation (in opposition to
Euthymius Zigabenus and Beza).*

Ver. 41. *Iva] indicating, not the object of the mpoceizecde, but purpose,
and that of the watching and praying. — eioéADnre cig retpacyuéyv] in order that
ye may not be betrayed into circumstances in which ye might be led to show
yourselves unfaithful to me (into the cxavdadifecda: 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 circumstances as might prove dangerous to
their moral wellbeing. The watching here is no doubt of a physical nature
(ver. 40), but the mpoceiyeoa: has the effect of imparting to it the character
and sacredness belonging to spiritual watchfulness (Col. iv. 2).— rd pév
wvevpa, K.T.A.] & general proposition (all the more telling that it is not intro-
duced with a ydp), intended to refer, by way of warning, to the circum-
stances 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 unfaithfulness by which
you are beset." In order, therefore, to avoid getting into a predicament in
which, owing to the weakness in question, you, would not be able to with-
stand the overmastering power of influences fatal to your salvation without
the special protection and help of God that are fo be obtained through vigi-
lance and prayerfulness, watch and pray /

Ver. 42 ff. TdAcv éx devrépov] a well-known pleonasm. John xxi. 15 ; Acts
x. 15.4— ci] not guandoquidem (Grotius), but :’if. The actual feelings of

1 Ad Hom. h.in Cer, 172. shrinks back and has no power”? (to resist).

* Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5. 4 Comp. Sevrepow mary, Plat. Poti. p. 260

® Comp. on John iii. 6. Euthymius Ziga- D, adds wdAcw (p. 282 C), and such like. We
benus: 4 8 cdpé, doderys otca, UgoordAAeras sometimes find even a threefold form:
ral ovx etrover, “the flesh, being weak, caddis ai wdAcw, Soph. Phil. 940, O. C. 1421.

ge

474 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Jesus are expressed in all their reality in the form of acquiescence in that
condition of impossibility (ov dévara:) as regards the divine purpose which pre-
vents the thing from being otherwise. — rovro] without 7d zorjpiov (sev the
critical remarks) : this, which I am called upon to drink. — éday yz? aird xia]
without my having drunk it ; if it cannot pass from me unless it is drunk. —
yevnOyrw Td OéAnua cov] this is the traxop pexpi Savdrov cravpov, Phil. ii. 8 ;
Rom. v. 19. Observe in this second prayer the climaz of resignation and
submission ; His own will, as mentioned in ver. 39, is completely silenced.
Mark’s account is here less precise. — Ver. 48. joav yap, «.r.A.] for their eyes
(see on viii. 8) were heavy (weighed down with drowsiness).’— Ver. 44. éx
tpirov] belongs to xpoontf. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 8. —r. air. Ady.] as is given
at ver. 42. °

Ver. 45. The annoyance at finding the disciples asleep (ver. 40 : otru¢ ove
ioytoare, x.t.A.) now deepens into an intensely painful trony: ‘‘ sleep on
now, and have out your rest” (the emphasis is not on rd Aordév, but on
xaGevdere x. avar.) | He had previously addressed them with a ypyyopeire, 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, etc.? On Aourdy and rd Aouréy, for the rest of
the time, in the sense of jam (Vulgate), henceforward (Plat. Prot. p. 821 C),
see Schaefer, ad Long. p. 400; Jacobs, ad Philostr. p. 633. 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 overpowering
tendency to sleep on the part of His disciples, and to find everything so dif-
ferent from what He needed, and might reasonably have expected ! Winer,
p. 292 [E. T. 891], 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 accord-
ance 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 indulgentis eis jamsomnum.” But the idea that any such indulgence
was seriously intended, would be incompatible with the danger referred to
at ver. 41, and which He knew was threatening even the disciples themselves.
There ere others, again, who are disposed to take the words interrogatively,
thus : are ye still asleep ? Such is the view of Henry Stephens, Heumann,
Kypke, Krebs, in spite of the ordinary usage with regard to 1d Ac:réy, to
understand which in the sense of ‘‘ henceforth” (Bleek, Volkmar) would be
entirely out of keeping with the use of the present here. If, however, the

1 Comp. Eur. Alc. 385. natus, Bengel, Jansen, Michaelis, Fritzsche,
2 Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza,Miin- Keim, Ewald.
ster, Erasmus, Calvin, Er. Schmid, Maldo-

CHAP. XXVI., 46. 475

mark of interrogation be inserted after xafetdere, and 10 Aowrdv nat avaratecbe
be then taken imperatively (Klostermann), in that case xaf would have the
intensive force of even; but its logical position would have to be before rd
Aouréy, not before avaratecbe, 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 xafet-
dere, x.t.A., He observes the hostile band approaching ; the painful irony
changes to a painful earnestness, and He continues in abrupt and disjointed
words : idod, fFyyiev, «.t.A. The dpa should be taken absolutely: hora
Jatalis, John xvii. 1. The next clause describes in detail the character of
that hour. —ei¢ yeipac duapr.] into sinners’ hands. He refers to the members
of the Sanhedrim, at whose disposal He would be placed by means of His ap-
prehension, and not to the Romans,’ nor to both of these together (Lange).
The rapad:dobe is not God, but Judas, acting, however, in pursuance of the di-
vine purpose, Acts ii. 23.

Ver. 46. Observe the air of quick despatch about the words éyeipeo$e, dyw-
nev, idob. — dywuev] is not a summons to take to flight, in consequence per-
haps of a momentary return of the former shrinking from suffering (which
would be inconsistent with the fact of the victory that had been achieved,
and with the clear consciousness which He had that 4 vid¢ r. a. rapadidoraz,
x.t.a. ver. 45), but: to go to meet the betrayer, with a view to the fulfilling
of the rapadidora: of which He had just been speaking. Kavreifev ideckev,
bre éxv arofaveira, ‘‘ And thereupon He made it clear that He willingly is
about to suffer death,” Euthymius Zigabenus.

RemarK.—On the agony in the garden (see, in general, Ulimann, Siindlos., ed.
7, p. 127 ff.; Dettinger in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1837, 4, 1838, 1; Hofmann,
Schriftbew, TI. 1, p. 306 ff. ; Keim, IL. p. 306 ff.), the following points may be
noted : (1) As to the nature of it, we must not regard it simply as bodily suffer-
ing (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
(Wolfenbititel Fragments), nor as grief at the thought of parting from His friends
(Schuster in Eichhorn’s Bibl. 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, ii.
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 pros-
pect before Him of a most dreadful death, a death in which He was expected,

1 Maldonatus, Grotius, Hilgenfeld.

476 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 doféve:a incidental to His state of humiliation (comp. 2 Cor. xili. 4;
Heb. v. 7), and should be regarded simply as 4 natural shrinking from suffer-
ing and death, a shrinking entirely free from sin (comp. Dorner, Jesu siindlose
Vollkommenh. p. 6 f.). Neither was it in any way due to the conviction, unwar-
rantably ascribed to Him by Schenkel, that His death was not absolutely
necessary for the redemption of the world. That touch of human weak-
ness should not even be described as sin in embryo, sin not yet developed
(Keim), because the absolute resignation to the Father’s will which immedi-
ately manifests itself anew precludes 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 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, IIT.
1, p. 69 f.; Weber, v. Zorne Goites, p. 266 ff.), is erroneously to take a materi-
alistic and quantitative view of the iacrjpiov of Jesus ; whereas Scripture esti-
mates 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 constituting the efficient catse of the atone-
mbnt, 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 pun-
ishment due to mankind, but because the vicarious Avrpoy on behalf of human-
ity consisted in the voluntary surrender of His own life. Comp. ver. 27 f., xx.
28 ; John i. 29; 1 John ii. 2, iii. 5°; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 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 (Késtlin 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 (Dettinger, 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 sufficiently recorded by the other evangelists, for s 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
Licke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Ebrard). We should rather seek the explanation
of the matter in the greater freedom which characterizes the composition of this
Gospel, and therefore in the peculiarities of style and form which are due to
this work of John being an independent 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 was no reason

CHAP, XXVI., 47, 48. 477

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 culmi-
nating in the triumphant issue of xix. 30; in fact, when Jesus offered up that
prayer, He did so as though He were already victorious (xvi. 33). Itis quite
unfair to make use of John’s silence either for the purpose of throwing dis-
credit upon the synoptic narrative (Goldhorn in Tzschirner’s Magaz. f. chr.
Pred. 1, 2, p. 1 ff. ; Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 422 f.), or as telling against John
(Bretschneider, Probab. p. 33 ff. ; Weisse, II. 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 Gfrérer, Heil. Sage, p.
337 ; Usteri in the Stud. u. Krii, 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 presuine to say what
changes of feeling, what elevation 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 consequence of any moral
weakness, but owing to the struggle that had to be waged with the natural
human will (comp. Gess, p. 175 , Weizsiicker, 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. El¢ rév dédexa] precisely as in ver. 14, and repeated on both oc-
casions in all three evangelists. In the oral and written tradition this tragic
designation ' had come to be 80 stereotyped that it would be unconsciously in-
serted without there being any further occasion for doing so. The same
holds true with regard to 6 rapadidoic airév, ver. 48, xxvii. 3. — dyAo¢ woAtc]
Matthew makes no reference to the Roman cohort, John xviii. 3; his
account, however, does not, at the same time, exclude it, as it is simply
less precise. Luke xxii. 52 likewise represents the high priests and elders as
appearing at this carly stage among the throng ; but this is an unwarrant-
able amplification of the tradition ; see on Luke. — giAwv] cudgels, fustibus
(Vulgate).* — ard rav, x.7.A.] belongs to 7Ave ; see on Gal. il. 12.

Ver. 48. It is usual, though unwarrantable (see on John xviii. 24), to
take 2duxev 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 dAjow, x.r.A.] Fritzsche inscrtsa colon after g:Ajow,
and supposes the following words to be understood : est cobis comprehenden-

1 xaryyopia, Euthymius Zigabenus.
2 Herod. il. 63, iv. 180; Polyb. vi. 86.8. Wetsteln on the passage.

478 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

dus. Yt may be given more simply thus : Whomsoerer I shall have kissed, He
it is (just He, no other is the one in question) | This avrég serves to single
out the person intended, from those about Him.’

Ver. 49. Ep@éac] is not to be taken with ceive (Fritzsche), but with mpoce?Gay :
immediately, a8 soon as he had given them this signal, he stepped up, etc. No
sooner said than done. —xaregidnoev] embraced and kissed Him, kissed Him
most endearingly.* It is not the case, as de Wette imagines (see Luke vii.
88, 45 ; Acts xx. 37), that in the New Testament (and the LXX.) the com-
pound has lost the force here ascribed to it ; but itis to beinsisted 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 no mistake as to the person intended.

Ver. 50. ‘Eraipe] as in xx. 13. —颒 8 wépe:] As the relative é¢ is never used
in a direct,® but only in an indirect question,‘ it follows that the ordinary
interrogative interpretation must be wrong ; and that to suppose ® that we
have here one of those corrupt usages peculiar to the Greek of a less classi-
cal age, is, so far as 5¢ is concerned, without any foundation whatever.
Fritzsche, followed by Buttmann,’ understands the expression as an erclama-
tion: ‘‘ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades!” ‘‘for accomplishing what
sort of matter you are here !” But even then, Greek usage would have re-
quired that it should have been put in an interrogative form and expressed
by ri, or failing this we might have had the words é9’ otov instead.” The
language, as might be expected from the urgent nature of the situation, is
somewhat abrupt in its character: Friend, 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 eixé (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 tothe 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 pre-
vent us from supposing that it may have taken place just before the question
tiva Cyreire, John xviii. 4 ; see on this latter passage.

Ver. 51. It is strange that the Synoptists have not mentioned 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

1 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 7838. ® See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 57.

2 Xen. Mem. 11.6, 88: ws rots wey Kadods 4 Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 942; Ellendt, Zer. Soph.
drjoarrds pov, Tovs & ayadots xarapiAyjcarvros, _II. p. 872.

*‘asI shall then caress the beautiful and § Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207 f.]
also warmly caress the good; Tob. vil. ® Neut. Gr. p. 217 [E. T. 258].

6; Ecclus. xxix. 5; 8 Macc. v.49; Zest. XII. 7 Ellendt, as above, p. 800 f.
patr. p. 730.

CHAP, XXVI., 52-54, _ 479

been reserved for John ultimately to supply this omission. — avrot 7d drtov]
his car (see on viii. 8).' He missed the head at which the stroke was aimed.

Ver. 52. Put back thy sword into its place (G4xnv, John xviii. 11 ; xoAedv, 1
Chron. xxi. 27). A pictorial representation ; the sword was uplifted. —
madvrec yap, «.7.2.] 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 xpogyreia tic
diagfopac tav ereAOsvrwv ato 'Iovdaiwy, ‘‘ prophecy of the destruction of the
Jews who had come against Him” (Euthymius Zigabenus, comp. Grotius),
nor ‘‘an ideal sentence of death” (Lange) pronounced upon Peter—all such in-
terpretations being foreign to our passage. Luther, however, fitly observes :
‘Those take the sword who use it without proper authority.”

Ver. 58. "H] or, in case this should not be sufficient to induce thee to
thrust back thy sword. — apr:] this instant. See on Gal. i. 10. — The inter-
rogation does not extend merely as far as yov, in which case it would lose
much of its significance, while the language would be rendered too abrupt,
but on to ayyéAuy ; yet not as though xaé (for that, dr:) introduced a broken
construction, but thus: Thinkest thou that Tam 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.
— twhelw dOdexa eyedvac ayyéAwv (see the critical remarks) is a genuine Attic
usage, according to which it is permissible to have the neuter wAciov or rAziw
without a change of construction, or even without inserting 7.2. The number
twelve corresponds to the number of the apostles, because of these only one
had shown a disposition to defend him.

Ver. 54. Ilad¢ oby] 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, ctc. In his
comment on oiv, Euthymius Zigabenus aptly analyzes it as follows: e 4?
obtwc dvapeOG. For rac, comp. on xxiii. 88. — dr:] states the purport of
the ypagai, so that to complete the sense a Aéyovoa: or ypdgovoa: may be under-
stood :* how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled which say that it must happen thua,
and not otherwise? Jesus here alludes to the fact of His arrest, which, accord-
ing 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 all the predictions relating to the sufferings of the Messiah find their
necessary fulfilment in the historical events of our Lord’s life, the arrest it-
self not ercluded. Comp. ver. 81.—The healing of the wounded servant is
peculiar to Luke xxii. 51. It probably came to be engrafted upon the tra-
dition at a later period ; for this act of healing, in virtue of the peculiarity
of its alleged occasion and character, as well asin 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.

1 On wriov, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 211. 847.
2 Lobeck, ad PAryn. p. 410 f.; Stallbaum, ® Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 68f.; Maetzner
ad Plat, Apol. p. 17 D; Kuhner, II. 2, p. ad Antiph. p. 215.

480 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 55. ‘Ev éxeivg rj pg] 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. —roi¢ dyAouc] not to the high priests, etc., as Luke xxii. 52
would have us suppose. What is meant is the crowds of which the dyAoc
moaic of ver. 47 was composed.

Ver. 56. Tovro. . . mpogyrav] 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, Ben-
gel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Schegg, Bleck, 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 al ypaga? r. rp., 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. — rére ol puaOyrai,
x.T.A.] Observe the révrec. Not one of them stood his ground. Here was
the verification of the words of Jesus, ver. 81 ; comp. John xvi. 82.

Ver. 57 f. The Synoptists make no mention of the judicial examination
before Annas (John xviii. 18); 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, xviii. 24, where, however, aréoreev
is not to be taken as a pluperfect. —a7d paxpddev] a well-known pleonasm :
in later Greek theazéis dropped.’ Bengel appropriately observes : ‘‘ medius
inter animositatem ver. 51 et timorem ver. 70,” ‘‘it was midway between the
boldness of ver. 51 and the fear in ver. 70.” — rie avAgc} not the palace but
the court, as in ver. 3. — eiceAfav gow] see-Lobeck, ad Aj. 741; Paralip. p.
538. —rd réAoc] exitum rei; B Macc. iii. 14, common in classical writers.
Luther renders admirably : ‘‘ wo es hinaus wollte” (what the upshot would
be).

Ver. 59 f. Kat rd ovvédpiov dA0v] and the whole Sanhedrim 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 pro-
ceeding. — perdouaprupiav] so called from the ‘Aistorian’s own point of view.?
— brug Oavar. ait.| 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 evpov Kal woAAdy wpoceAbdvrary pevdopaprtpur (see the crit-
ical remarks): and they found no means of doing so, even though many false wit-
nesses had come forward, 'There were many who presented themselves to bear
witness against Jesus ; yet the Sanhedrim did not jind what it wanted to

1 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 93. evdouaprupiay, ‘as it seemed to them, wit-
2 Euthymius Zigabenus well remarks: ws ness, but as it was in truth, false witness.”
pay éxeivacs eddxec, paprupiay, ws 6¢ ry aAnveia,

CHAP. XXVI., 61-63. : 481

find, doubtless because of the lack of that agreement between two of the
witnesses at’ least which the law required (Num. xxxv. 80; Deut. xvii. 6,
xix. 15). See what immediately follows : torepov 62 rpocedf. dbo, 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), 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 : Aicare): 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.' —
éua Tplov fuep.] 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.* 7 :

Ver. 62. With the sublime calm of one who is conscious of his own supe-
rior worth, Jesus meekly abstains from uttering a single word before this
contemptible tribunal in the way of self-vindication, «ida d2 xai, dre pata
Grroxpiveira: mapa Towtroc, ‘‘ moreover, knowing also that he would answer in
vain before such as these,” 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 utterence into two questions :
answerest thou not? what (i.e. how heinous a matter) do these witness against

. thee? is, so far as the latter question is concerned, neither feeble (de Wettc)

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 ri in the sense of cur, or (ad Marc. p. 650) the whole sentence as equiv-
alent to ri rowré éorcy, 5 ovroi cov xarayaprupovoy ; 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 permissible to use droxpiveofai re in the
sense of : to reply to anything (see Ast),* and to take ri as equivalent to d,rz
(Buttmann),‘* who supposes ‘‘ hérend” (hearing) to be understood before ri).

Ver. 68. The high priest answers this second refusal to speak by repeat-
ing @ formal oath, in which Jesus is adjured to declare whether He be the
Messiah or not. For this confession 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. — éfopxif{w] means, like the earlier form
éEopxéw : I call upon thee to swear. To give an affirmative answer to this

1 Comp. Acta vi. 18 f. 4 Neut. Gr. p. 216 [E. T. 251].
2 Seeson Gal. if. 1. * Dem. 1265,6; Polyb. iff. 61. 10, vi. 21. 1,
® Lex. Plat. 1. p. 280. xvi. 81.5. Comp. yawn, Gen. xxtv. 8, al.

482 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

formula was to take the full oath usually administered in any court of law.!
The fact that Jesus took the oath has been denied, though without any
reason whatever, by Wuttke, Ddllinger, Steinmeyer. — xara rob @eod, x.7.A. ]
by the living God.* Common in Greek authors.? The living God as such
would not fail to punish the perjured, Heb. x. 31. It was the uniform prac-
tice in courts of law to swear by God.* — 6é vide rov Peo] ordinary, recognized
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. Xd elrac] see on ver. 25. Mark xiv. 62: éyé ei. A distin-
guished confession on the part of the Son in presence of the Father,
and before the highest tribunal of the theocratic nation. — jg] not
profecto (Olshausen), nor guin (Kuinoel), but: however, i.e.,° apart
from what I have just affirmed, ye shall henceforward have reason to
be satisfied, from aetual observation, that I am the Messiah who was seen
by Daniel in his vision (Dan. vii. 18).—ardpr:] is not to be taken with
A£éyw tpiv,® but—since in any other connection it would lose its force—with
dpecb_e ; nor is it to be understood in any other sense than that of henceforth,
i.e., from the time of my impending death, through which I am to enter into
my défa. But seeing that ardpr: forbids us to understand dyecfe 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 re-
ferred to) the fact of His being seated at the right hand of God (in allusion

to Ps. cx. 1), and that He did not intend épyduevov, x.r.4., to refer to the

second advent, but (Beza, Neander, Holtzmann, Schenicel,” Gess, Weissen-
bach) to a coming in the Jigurative sense of the word, namely, in the shape
of those mighty influences which, from His place in heaven, He will shed upon
the earth, manifestations, all of them, of His sovereign sway. We are shut
up to this view by the fact that the sitting cannot possibly be regarded as
an object of actual sight, and that dmdpre éweoGe can only be said of some-
thing that, beginning now, is continued henceforth, — rij¢ duvéu.] The Mighty
One is conceived of as power (the abstract for the concrete." Such abstract
terms (as for instance our: majesty) have somewhat of an imposing
character. °

Ver. 65. As may be seen from 2 Kings xviii. 17, the rending of the gar-
ments as an indication of unusual vexation was indulged in above all on
hearing any utterance of a blasphemous nature.® That part of the law

1 Michaelis, 3foe. 2. § 302; Matthael, doctr,
Christi de furejur. 1847, p. 8; Kell, Arch. II.
p. 256.

2 Comp. 1 Kings ili. 24; Judith 1 12.

3 See Ktihner, I. 1, p. 434; also Heb. v1 13,
and Bleek thereon.

4 See Saalschutz, Hf. RB. p. 614.

5 Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 725.

® Schulz in 3d ed. of Griesbach.

7 Similarly in the Talmud 3327), Bux-

torf, Lex. Talim. p. $85.

® Comp. 2 Pet. i. 17.

* See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2146 ; Schoett-
gen, p. 234; Wetstein on our passage.
Maimonides, quoted by Buxtorf as above,
thus describes the usual mode of proceed-
ing in such cases: “‘ Laceratio fit stando, &
collo anterius, non posterius, non ad latus
neque ad fimbrias inferiores vestis. Longi-
tudo rapturae palmus est. Laceratio non

CHAP. XXVI., 66, 67. 483

which forbade the high priest to rend his garments (Lev. x. 6, xxi. 10) had
reference merely to ordinary mourning for the dead.'— éSiacdfuyoe] in so
far as by falsely pretending to be the Messiah, the Son of God, and by
further arrogating to Himself participation in divine honor 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).*

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 conclave to which reference
is made at xxvii. 1.

Ver. 67. Those to whom Matthew here refers are the members of the San-
hedrim (as are also the revéc of Mark xiv. 65). Coarse outburst of passion
on the verdict being announced. A somewhat different form of the tradi-
tion is adopted by Luke (xxii. 68), who, moreover, represents the maltreat-
ment 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 xviii. 22 has no con-
nection with that now before us, but refers to an incident in the house of
Annas, which the Synoptists have entirely omitted. — ixordg.] buffetings,
blows with the fist.‘ — ippdrr.] slaps in the face with the palm of the hand.°
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,* the sense
in which the word is commonly used by Greek authors, and which ought
to be preferred here, because oi dé (see on xxviii. 16) introduces the mention
of a different kind of maltreatment, and because in Mark xiv. 65 the Jarilew

fit in interula seu indusio linteo, nec in pal-
lio exterlori: in reliquis vestibus corpori ac-
commodatis omnibus fill, eliamsi decem fue-
rint,” “The rending takes place while one
is standing, from the neck before, not be-
hind, not at the side nor the lower fringes
of the garment. The breadth of the tearing
isaspan. The rending does not take place
in the tunic or linen under-garment, nor in
the mantle outside : i¢ fakes place in all the
rest of the garments fitted to the body, event/
there be ten." The last-mentioned particular
may serve to account for the use of the
plural ra ivdérea (1 Mace. il. 14),

1Comp. 1 Macc. xi. 71; Joseph. Bed. il.
15. 4.

3 For ri érs xp. €x. wapt., comp. Plat. Rep.
p. 840 A.

3 Mera ydp thy ddicoy xarabixny ws aridéy
Tia Kai TpusBodrAcuatoy Adforres, x.7.A., “for
after the unjust sentence having seized
him as a disgraced man and worthless
(worth only three ubol!),”” etc., Euthymius
Zigabenus.

4 Comp. the Attic expression «dr8vAos.

8 pawisuds 82 rd wraiccy card Tov TpogwToV,
Euthymius Zigabenus ; comp. v. 80; Hos.
xi.5; Isa. 1.6; Dem. 787, 28; Aristot. Meteor.
il. 8 9; 8 Esdr. iv. 80; Lobeok, ad Phryn. p.
176: Becker, Anécd. p. 300.

* Herod. vill. 50; Anacr. vii. 3; Plut. Zhem.
xi. ‘

484 THE GOSPEL OF .MATTHEW.

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. Ilpog#revoov juiv] Differently in Mark xiv. 65. But so far as the
mpoghr., tig éotwv, x.t.A., is concerned, Luke xxii. 64 agrees with Matthew,
although the favorite 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, i8 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, proceeds 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 Xpsorés. Fritzsche thinks that the prominent
idea here is that of /oretelling, as being calculated, when thus conjoined
with the preterite raicas, to form an acerba trrisio. But that would be more
likely to result in an adsurda irrisio, unmarked by the slightest touch of
humor.

Ver. 69. "Efw] with reference to the interior of the particular building in
which the trial of Jesus had been conducted. In ver. 58 éow is used be-
cause in that instance Peter went from the street into the court-yard. — pia
radiony| pia is here used in view of the dA, of ver. 71 below.’ Both of
them may have seen (jo6a, 7v) Peter among the followers of Jesus some-
where in Jerusalem, and may have preserved a distinct recollection of his
appearance. sazdioxy, in the sense of a female slave, corresponds exactly to
our (German) Médchen.* — ai ci }o6a, «.7.4.] categorical accusation, as ‘in
vv. 71, 78, and not a question (Klostermann). — rov T'auA.] 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 6 Nafupaioc.

Ver. 70. "Euxpoober révrav (see the critical remarks) : before all who were
present. — ovx oida rl Akyecc] 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. 'EgeA6évra} 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 (mpoabjov ; according to Mark
xiv. 68, it was in this latter that the present denial took place).’ In spite of
the plain meaning of 7vAd», door, doorway,‘ it is usually supposed that it is
the outer court in front of the house, the xpoatjov,® that is meant. — airoi¢
éxei] éxet belongs to Aéye:, while atroic, in accordance with a loose usage of
frequent occurrence, ° is meant to refer to the people generally whom she hap-
pened to meet with. It would be wrong to connect éxei with xai ovroc (Mat-
thaei, Scholz), because in such a connection it would be meaningless.

Ver. 72. Observe the olimac in the terms of the threefold denial. — ne?

1 Comp. on vill. 19. xtv. 18; Rev. xxi.

* See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 239. ® See Poll. I. 77, ix. 16.

* Comp. Hermann, Privataiterth. § 19. 9 ff. * Winer, p. 187 f. [E. T. 181).
4 See Luke xvi. 3; Aots x. 17, xi. 18f.,

CHAP. XxVI., 73—%5. 485
épxov] is peculiar to Matthew, and is here used in thé sense of an oath. — rév
dvOpwrov)] the man (in question). Alas, such is the language, cold and dis-
tant, which Peter uses with reference to his Master! What a contrast to
xvi. 16!?

Ver. 73. The answer of Peter given at ver. 72, and in the course of which
his Galilaean dialect was recognized, gave occasion to those standing by
(that they were exactly Sanhedrim officers, apparitores, Kuinoel, Paulus, does
not necessarily follow from the use of éorarec) to step, up to Peter after a
little while, and to corroborate (aAy@ac) the assertion of the maid-servant.
—é£ avray] of those who were along with Jesus, ver. 71. —.xai yép] for even,
apart from circumstances by which thou hast been already identified. —7
Aahid cov] thy speech (see on John viii. 43), namely, through the coarse pro-
vincial accent. The natives of Galilee were unable to distinguish especially
the gutturals properly, pronounced the letter w like a J, etc.?

Ver. 74. Tére #p£aro) for previously he had not resorted as yet to the xara-
Geyarifecv, but had contented himself with the simple opvbew (ver. 72, ue?
Spxov). Whereas before he had only sworn, he now takes to cursing as well.*
The imprecations were intended to fall upon himeelf (should he be found,
that is, to be telling an untruth). For the word xara@eyari{w, which was in
all probability a vulgar corruption, comp. Rev. xxii. 8.‘ — dr:] recitantis, as
in ver. 72,—aAéxrwp] a cock. There are Rabbinical statements (see the pas-
sages 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,* it is unnecessary to have recourse (Reland,
Wolf) to the supposition that the bird in question may have belonged to a
Gentile, may even have been about Pilate’s house, or some house outside the
city.

Ver. 75. ’EgeAd. 2&9] 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 out-
side to be all alone with his remorse and shame. The fear of being detected
(Chrysostom) had by this time undoubtedly become to him a very secondary
consideration ; he was now himself again. — cipyxdro¢ aire] who had said to
him (ver. 84), in itself a superfluous expression, and yet ‘‘ grande partici-
pium,” ‘‘a noble participle,” Bengel. — pos] he wept bitterly. How
totally different was it with Judas!"

1“ Eoce, oolumna firmissima ad unius an-
rae impulsum tota contremult,” ‘Lo, a
most firm column all trembling greatly at
the impulse of a single voice,"’ Augustine.

2See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 435, 2417;
Lightfoot, Centur. Chorogr. p. 151 ff.; Wet-

“stein on our passage; Keim, I. p. 310.

“Nunc gubernaculum animae plane
amisit,”’ “now he plainly lost self-control,"
Bengel.

‘Tren. Haer. 1. 18, 2, 16.3; Oecolampadius,
ad Act. xxiil. 12

8 See Lightfoot, p. 488. .

* Comp. Isa, xxii. 4, and the passages tn
Wetstein.

™**Lacrymaram physica amaritudo
(comp. Hom. Od. iv. 158) aut dulcedo (comp.
yAvevéazpvs, Meleag. 45), congruit cum af-
fectu animi,” ‘‘the natural bitterness
of tears (comp. Hom. Qd. iv. 153), or thetr
eweetness (comp. yAv«vdaxpus, causing
eweet tears, Meleag. 45) is in accord with
mental emotion,"’ Bengel.

486 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Remskx.—Seeing that the whole four evangelists concur in representing Peter
as having denied Jesus three times, we are bound to regard the threefold repeti-
tion 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 eigh/ different denials). The information 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 xxii. 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 Synoptists agree neither with John nor with one another
as tocertain points of detail connected with the three different scenes in ques-
tion, 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 interro-
gated as to his connection with Jesus ; while to say, in attempting to dispose
of this, that ‘‘ Abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogationes facta uno parog-
ysmo, pro una numeratur” (Bengel), is to make a mere assertion, against which
all the accounts of this incident without exception enter, so to speak, an em-
phatic 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 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 confounding them all.

CHAP, XXVII. 487

CHAPTER XXVII.

VER. 2. avréy] 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 superfluous character, a character likely to be ascribed to it all
the more that it is wanting alsoin Mark xv. 1. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8.
— Tovriy 1cA.] BL &, 33, 102, vss. Or. have simply Il:Adrw ;‘but the full form
of the name is to be preferred all the more that the parallel passages have only
IlcAar, — Ver. 3. rapadidovc] Lachm. : zapadovc, following only B L 33, 259, vss.
(?). The aorist would more readily occur to the transcribers, since the betrayal
had already taken place. — Ver. 4. a§gov] dixacov, although recommended by
Griesb. and Schulz, has too little evidence in its favor, and should be regarded
as an early exegetical correction with a view to render fhe expression more
forcible ; comp. xxiii. 35. — dper] Scholz, Lachm., Tisch. : dyy, in accordance
with decisive evidence, — Ver. 5. Instead of év rj vag, Tisch. 8 has ei¢ rdv vadv.
Exegetical emendation, against which there is a preponderance of evidence. —
Ver. 9. 'Iepeuiov] The omission of the prophet’s name in 33, 157, Syr. Pers. and
Codd. in Aug., as well as the reading Zayapiov in 22, Syr.P: in the margin, is
due to the fact that the quotation is not found in Jeremiah. — Ver. 11. éorn]
BCL®, 1, 33, Or. : éoré67. So Lachm. and Tisch.8. Exegetical emendation
with a view to greater precision. — Vv. 16, 17. Bapa3dv] Fritzsche : "Incovy
Bapa3Gav. So Origen'"t- several min. Aram. Syr.j*-, and early scholiasts. Advo-
cated above all by Fritzsche in the Lit. Blatt z. allgem. Kirchenzeit. 1843, p. 538 f.,
in opposition to Lachm. ed. maj. p. xxxvii. f., with which latter critic Tisch.
agrees. For my own part, I look upon the reading ‘Injcovy BapaZ3dy as the
original one, for I am utterly at a loss to see how ’Incovv 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 Iyocty (IN), in which case it
is supposed that YMININ came to be substituted for YMIN) ; 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 suppressed in the tradition current in the apostolic age.
Comp. also Rinck, Lucubr, crit. p. 285, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weiz-
sicker. The view that 'Ijcotv has been adopted from the Gospel of the Hebrews
(Tisch.) is a very questionable inference from the statement of Jerome, that
instead of BapaZG. that Gospel had substituted fllium magistri eorum. It would
be just as warrantable to quote the same authority in favor of the originality of
the reading 'Incoty BapaBB.— Ver. 22. atr® (Elz., Scholz) after Agyovo: has
been deleted in accordance with preponderating evidence. — Ver. 24. The read-
ing xarévavr: (Lachm.) is supported only by the insufficient evidence of B D;
comp, xxi. 2. — roi dixalov tovrov] The words rod dixaiov are wanting in B D 102,
Cant. Ver. Verc. Mm. Chrys. Or.'st: They are placed after rovrov in A, while A

488 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

reads rov rovrov dixciov. Lachm. inserts them after rovrov, but in brackets ;
Tisch. deletes them, and that correctly. They are to be regarded as a gloss
(suggested by the reading dixazov, ver. 4), written on the margin at first, and
afterwards, when incorporated in the text, conjoined in some instances with
tov aluarog (as in ver. 4) and in others with rovrov; hence so many different
ways of arranging the words. — Ver. 28. éxdvcavrec] B D ®** 157, Cant. Ver.
Verc. Colb. Corb. 2, Lachm. ; évdvcavrec. Correctly ; évdic. was not understood:
and was accordingly altered.! Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 3. In what follows we should,
with Lachm, and Tisch., restore the arrangement yAay. xoxx, reptéO. aire, in
accordance with important evidence. — Ver. 29. éx! rv defidv] As the reading
év tg de&ig (approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.) has
such important evidence as that of AB DL N &, min. vas. Fathers in its favor,
and the one in the Received text might so easily originate in a mechanical con-
forming with ém ri «eg. (for which Tisch., in opposition to a preponderance
of ms. evidence, substitutes évi ry¢ xegaAgc), we cannot but regard év r9 defid as
having the best claim to originality. — Ver. 33. Elz. has d¢ éor: Aeyépevog xpavion
réroc. So also Scholz. There is a multiplicity of readings here. Fritzsche, Rinck .
(comp. also Griesb.) have simply 8 éor: xpavlov réroc, while Lachm. and Tisch.
read é éorw xpaviov témog Aeyéuevoc. The balance of evidence is decidedly m
favor of regarding the neuter 5 as genuine ; it was changed to the masculine to
suit rérov and réroc. Further, Aeydéuevoc is wanting only in D, min. Copt. Sahid.
Arm. Vuilg. It., where its omission may probably have been resorted to as a
means of getting rid of a difficult construction, while the readings Aeyépevor,
ueGepunvevduevoc, peGepunvevduevoy (Mark xv. 22), xadovpevoy (Luke xxiii. 33), are
also to be regarded as exegetical variations. We ought therefore to retain the
Acyéuevoc, and in the order in which it is taken by Lachm. and Tisch., on the
authority of B L &%, min. Ath. Its earlier position in Elz is probably due to
éort Aeyéu. (comp. fore pefepu., Mark xv. 22) being sometimes taken together. —
Ver. 34. S0¢] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : olvov, which is supported by evidence so
important, viz. B D K LII* &, min. vss. and Fathers, that we must regard dfo¢
es derived from Ps. Ixviii. 22. The word olvoy 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. lxviii. as above, would not so
readily suggest itself. — Ver. 35. After «Ajpoy Elz. inserts: Iva wAnpw99 1d bnbév
td row mpogntou: Acepepioavro Ta ludriad pov éavroic, Kai ém Tov iuariopdy pou ~AaBow
xAjpov. Against decisive evidence ; supplement from John xix. 24. — Ver. 40.
xatd3n6t] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: «az xaré@., following A D &, min. Syr.ier- Cant.
Ver. Vere. Colp. Clar. Cyr. The «ai has been added for the purpose of connect-
ing the two clauses together. — Ver. 41. After mpecfvrépwy, Matth., Fritzsche
insert xal bapicaiwv, for which there is important though not preponderant evi-
dence. 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 substituled for, mpecButépwy (as in D, min. Cant. Ver.
Vere. Colb. Clar. Corb. 2, Gat. Cassiod.).— Ver. 42. ei aod.) Fritzsche and
Tisch. read simply faocd., following BD L &, 33, 102, Sahid. Correctly ; ¢ is
@ supplementary addition from ver. 40, its insertion in D, min. vas. Eus. before

1 Lachm. adopts the reading ér8vcoryres In = errorof early date See his Prag/. ed. maj.
accordance with his fundamental principles _ITI. p. 6.
of criticism, still he looks upon it as an

CHAP. XXVII., 1, 2. 489

rérobev below being likewise traceable to the same source, — ticrevoouer]
Lachm. : mutedozev, only in accordance with A, Vulg. Ver. Vere. Colb, Or.!2*,
but correctly notwithstanding. By way of gloss the present was replaced some-
times by the future (Elz.) and sometimes by the subjunctive mioreiowuer. Tisch.
& adopts the latter. — ix’ avrg] The witnesses are divided between aire (Ek,
Lachm.), éx’ avrg (Griesb., Tisch. 7), and éx’ airéy (Fritzsche, Tisch. 8). The
reading ér’ arg (E F GH K MSU VAITII, min.) should be preferred, inasmuch
as this expression not only occurs nowhere else in Matthew, but is a somewhat
rare one generally. — Ver. 44. For avrév, Elz. has airy, against decisive ms.
authority. Emendation in conformity with the construction dvedifecy rivi ti.
— Ver. 46, The mss. present very considerable variety as regards the spelling
of the Hebrew words. Lachm. : ’HA2 422 Anua caBaxbavi. Tisch. 8: ‘Hae? ‘Hie
Awa oafaxzGavi, The latter is the best attested. — Ver. 49. dAdog d2 AaBav Abyxnv
Evugev abrov ri rAeupay, nai éEfABev bdwp xai alua, supported though it be by B
C LUT X, min. vss. Chrys., is clearly an irrelevant interpolation (after airdéy)
borrowed from John xix. 34, Yet this interpolation occasioned the error con

*demned by Clem. v. 1311, that Christ’s side was pierced before He expired. --
Ver. 52. #y£p6n] BD GL X&, min. Or. Eus. : #yép8yoav. So Fritzsche, Lachm.,
Tisch. But how readily would the whole surroundings of the passage suggest
the plural to the mechanical transcribers !— Ver. 54. yevdueva] Lachm. and
Tisch.: yivoueva, following B D, min. Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, has yevduera
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 'Iwey, Tisch. 8 has "Iwo7¢, following D* L ®, vas.
Or. Eus. Emendation suggested by the assumption that the mother of Jesus
must have been intended (comp. on xiii. 55); hence &* anumerates the three
Marys thus : Map, # rov "laxaBov nai # Map, 4 "Iwond xai # Map. 4 rav vidv ZeB. —
Ver. 57. éuabgrevoe] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : éuafnrev6n, following O D ® and two
min. Altered in accordance with xiii. 52. — Ver. 64. Elz. inserts véxro¢ after
avrov, against decisive evidence; borrowed from xxviii. 13. The dé again,
which Elz. has after égn, ver. 65, is an interpolation for sake of connection, and
is wanting in very important witnesses (not, however, in A C D &).

Ver. 1. Bythe time the Sanhedrim met, as it now did, in full sederunt
(révrec, comp. xxvi. 59), for the purpose of consulting 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). — ore] 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 : fvoyo¢ Gavdrtov éori.

Ver. 2. Afoayres] 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 xviii. 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 securety
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 earfyayow was the work of the members -

”

490 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 unquestionably the product of a later tradi-
tion. As for Matthew and Mark, they seem to assume that merely a depu-
tation accompanied the prisoner, though doubtless it would be large enough
to be in keeping with the importance of the occasion.'— wapéduxay airév
Tlovrig, x.7.4.] For after Judaea became a Roman province (from the time
that King Archelaus was dethroned, 759 u.c.), the Sanhedrim had lost the
jus gladii.2 On Pontius Pilate, the fifth procurator of Judaea, who was suc-
cessor to Valerius Gratis, 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 Euseb. ii. 7) banished to Vienne, where he is said
to have committed suicide, see Ewald,? Leyrer,‘ Gerlach,’ Hausrath.*
For certain Christian legends regarding His death, consult Tischendorf." |
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). —z@
hyeudve] principi, The more precise designation would have been r@ ézirpézy,
procuratori.® On the comprehensive sense in which #yezdv is frequently
used, see Krebs, Obes. p. 61 ff.

Ver. 3. Tére] as Jesus was being led away to the procurator. From this
Judas eaw that his Master had been condemned (xxvi. 66), for otherwise
He would not have been thus taken before Pilate. —¢é xapadidoic atrév] His
betrayer, xxvi. 25, 48. —perapuedySeic, x.7.2.] cannot be said to favor the
view that Judas was animated by a good intention (see on xxvi. 16. Re-
mark 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.* Such was his repentance, but it was not of a godly nature
(2 Cor. vii. 9f.), for it led to despair. — axtorpepe] he returned them (xxvi.
52)," ie., he took them back (Gen. xliii. 21 ; Judg. xi. 18; Jer. xxviii. 8),
Heb, 3°}. —roi¢ apz. x. t. mpeoB.] from which it is to be inferred that
Matthew did not look upon this as a full meeting of the Sanhedrim (ver. 2).

Ver. 4. “Hyaprov rapadobs] see On xxvi. 12. —aiza adgov] ei¢ rd xvd7val,
Euthymius Zigabenus." — ri mpdc fuac] ec. tors; what is it as regards us ? i.e.,

1 Comp. also on ver. 8. 883 rie lov8aias Hyepey.

* Comp. on John xvill. 81. ® Now : ‘‘vellet, si posset, factum infec

3 Gesch. Chr. p. 87 ff. tum reddere,” ‘‘He would, if he could,

4 In Herzog's Encyk. XI. p. 668 ff. undo what was done,” Bengel.

8D. Rom. Statthalier in Syr. u. Jud. p. 10 Thue. vy. 75, vill, 108; Ken. Anad. il. 6.
58 ff. 8, al.

® Zettgeach. I. p. 812 ff. 11 Comp. Deut. xxvii. 2% ; 1 Macc. i. 87; 2.

Y Evang. Apocr. p. 426 ff. Macc. 1. 8; Phalar. ep. 40; Heliod. vill. 10.

® Comp. Joseph. Anté. xviil. 8. 1: ThAdros

CHAP. XXVIL., 5. 491

what matters it to ue? 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. — ov dp7] Thou wilt see to it
thyself, thou wilt have to consider for thyself what is now to be done by
thee.’

Ver. 5. Ev r@ vag] is to be taken neither in the sense 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 r¢ lep@ (Fritzsche, Olshausen,
Bleek) ; but, in accordance with the regular use of wade (see on iv. 5) and
the only possible meaning of é, 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 in his despair had ventured within that place which
none but priests were permitted to enter. — arfyfaro] he strangled himself.’
There is no reason why the statement in Acts i. 18 should compel us to take
ardéyxzouat as Genoting, in a figurative sense, an awakening of the conscience
(Grotius, Perizonius, Hammond, Heinsius), for although éyye:v is sometimes
so used by classical authors,? such a meaning would be inadmissible
here, where we have no qualifying term, and where the style is that of a
plain historical narrative.‘ With a view to reconcile what is here said
with Acts i. 18, it is usval 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,
Kaseuffer, Paulus, Ebrard, Baumgarten-Crusius), But such a way of par-
celling out this statement, besides being arbitrary in itself, is quite inad-
missible, all the more so that it is by no means clear from Acts i. 18 that
suicide had been committed. 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, it
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 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).*
In Matt xxvii. 5 and Acts i. 18, we have two different accounts of the fate of
the betrayer, from which nothing further is to be gathered by way of his-
torical fact than that he came to a violent end. In the course of subsequent

1 Comp. ver. 4; Acts xvill. 15; 1 Sam. xxv. Cyrop. Mii. 1.14; Hier. vil. 18; Aesch. Suppl.
17; 4 Maco. ix. 1. “Impll in facto consor 400; Ael. V. Hv. 8%
tes, post factum deserunt," ‘‘ The ungodly, ®? Dem. 406, 5; and see the expositors, ad
who share In acrime with others, desert Thom. Mag. p. 8.
them after the deed,” Bengel. 4 Comp. 2 Sam. xvil. 23; Tob. iil. 10.

* Hom. Od. xix. 230; Herod. vii. 282; Xen. 5 Comp. on Acts |. 18.

492 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tradition, however, this violent death came to be represented sometimes as
suicide by means of hanging,’ 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.” There is no other way of accounting for so many diverse tradi-
tions 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 enter-
tain the view that Judas sunk into obsourity, and so disappeared from history,
but that meanwhile the Christian legends regarding him were elaborated
out of certain predictions and typical characters* 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 supposed predictions (Ps.
Ixix., cix., xx.) and typical characters‘ 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 éfeorc] ‘‘argumento ducto ex Deut. xmiii. 18, Sanhedr. f.
112,” Wetstein. — rius aivaroc] the price of blood, which is supposed to have
been shed. — xopB.] rdv lepdv Snoavpsyv, xadeira: 62 xopBavac, Josephus, Bell, ii.
9. 4.

Ver. 7 f. 'Hyépacay] It is not said that they did eo immediately ; but the
purchase took place shortly after, according to Acts i. 18. — rav aypdy row
xepau.} the field of the potter, the fleld 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. — ei¢ ragiy r. Févoic]
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. — d:6] because it had been bought with the rius aiuarog above
(ver. 6). —dypo¢ ainzarog] *D47 pn, Acts i. 18, where, however, the name
is traced to a different origin. On the place which in accordance with tra-
dition is still pointed out as the field here referred to, see Robinson, IL. p.
178 ff. ; Tobler, Topogr.

Ver. 9 f. Tére] 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 Matthew, Ignatius, ad PAtlipp. interpol. 4.

* Papias as quoted by Oecumenius, ad
Act. l.c., and by Apollinaris in Routh’s
rdiquiae sacr.p. 9, 2 ff. ; also in Cramer's
Catena, p. 281; Overbeck in Hilgenfeld's
Zeitechr. 1867, p. 89 ff.; Anger, Synops.
p. 288.

3 Strauss, Kelm, Scholten.

‘Such as Ahithophel, 2 Sam. xv. 8 f.,
xvii. 28; Antiochus, 2 Maoo. ix. 5 ff.

*If the evangelist had meant to combine

two different predictions (Hofmann, Weis
sag. u. Evf. IL. p. 128 f.; Haupt, alitest.
COitate, p. 286 ff.), then, according to the
analogy of il. 28, we should have expected
the words 8&4 rev wpodyrey to be used.
But, in short, our quotation belongs so
exolusively to Zechariah, that candor
forbids the idea of a combination with
Jer. xvili., as well as the view adopted
by Hengstenberg (comp. Grotius), that
Zechariah reproduces the prediction of

CHAP. XXVII., 9. 493
‘Iepeuiov being simply a slip of the memory,’ such, however, as might readily
enough occur through a reminiscence of Jer. xviii. 2. Considering that in
the original Hebrew the resemblance of this latter passage to Zechariah, as
above, is sufficiently close to warrant the typical mode of interpretation,’ it
is arbitrary to maintain, in the somewhat uncritical fashion of Rupert, Lyra,
Maldonatus, Jansen, Clericus, Friedlieb, that ‘Iepezfov is spurious ; or, on
the other hand, to resort, as Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, Kuinoel, Ewald
have done, to the idea of some lost production of Jeremiah’s, or of some oral
utterance that had never been committed to writing (see, above all, Calo-
vius, who in support of this view lays great stress on jyfiv). As for the
statement of Jerome, that he had seen the passage in a copy of Jeremiah be-
longing 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.
eo, x. 4, that the Jews may have deleted the passage from Jeremiah ; for
though it reappears again in a certain Arabic work,* and in a Sahidic and a
Coptic lectionary,‘ it does so simply as an interpolation from our present
passage.°—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, consist-
ing 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 (ironically) 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.° For we ought to read “yin oe, into the
treasury (equivalent, as Kimchi explains, to ‘SKN OM, and as is actually
the reading of two mss. in Kennicott), and not Wy¥YT- MM, to the potter, as
Matthew, in fact, also read and understood the words, though such a mean-
ing is entirely foreign to the context in Zechariah.’ The expositors of
Zechariah, who take 7¥‘'71 in the sense of potter, have had recourse to
many an unfounded and sometimes singular hypothesis.* — éaafov] in
Zechariah and LXX. ig the first person singular, herve 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: xafa ovvéragé pord
xopwoc. Neither the original Hebrew nor the LXX. countenances the sup-
position that the evangelist erronesusly took #2afov to be third person

Jeremiah. For a detailed enumeration of
the various attempts that have been made
to deal with the inaccurate use of “Iepepniov,
consult Morison, who follows Clericus in
holding that there must have been a (tran-
scriber's error in the very earliest copy of our
Gospel.

Comp. Augustine, de cons. ev. ill. 8, and
recently Keil himself, following Calvin and
the Fathers.

4 Credner, Beitr. II. p. 158 2.

® Bengel, Appar. crit. p. 142.

* See Michaelis, BIW. IV. p. 208 ff. ; Brief-
wechas. TI. pp. 68, 89; Hinleit. I. p. 264.

5 Ree Paulus, exeget. Handb. IIL. p. 615 ff.

* Bleek in the Stud. u. Artté. 1882, p.
279 ff.

’ Comp. Hitzig, &. Proph. p. 874.

® For specimens of these, see also Heng-
stenberg’s Christol. III. 1, p. 457 ff.; Hof-
mann, Welssag. u. Erf Il. p. 128 f.: Lange,
ZL. J. TI. p. 1404 f.; Stelnmeyer, p. 105 f.;
Haupt, altéest. Citate, p. 272 ff.

494 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

plural, like édéuxavy immediately following (in opposition to Hilgenfeld)-
—rTd tptdxovra apybp.] meaning, according to the typical reference in
Matthew, the thirty shekels brought back by Judas. — ry riudv, «.7.4.] In
apposition with ra rpidx. apy. 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 ‘S11. We we have once more (comp. on éAafov) the
third person plural dy éreufoavro, and for DIYIYN the explanatory rendering
ard vidv "IopafA. The passage then is to be rendered as follows : And they
took the thirty pieces of siloer—the value of the highly valued One, on whom they
put their own price (middle, ériuhoavro) at the instance of sons of Israel, i.e., the
price of the priceless One, whose market value they fized for themselves upon an
occasion furnished by sons of Israel. The expression vidv 'IcpafA is the plural
of category (ii. 20), and is regarded as finding its historical antitype in
Judas, who, xxvi. 14 f., undertakes and carries through the shameful trans-
action 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 attention to the following details :— (1) rot reriunutvov is in-
tended to represent the Hebrew word ‘}\) (pretit) ; but the evangelist has
evidently read IP} (cari, aestumati), which he refers to Jesus as being the
highly,valued One xar’ éfoy#v ; nor must we fail to notice here the remarkable
collocation : pretium pretiost, t.6., tiv aviy rod ravrisov Xpistodv, ‘‘ the price of
the precious One, that is, the purchase-money of the ever honorable Christ,”
Euthymius Zigabenus.’ That distinguished personage, whose worth as such
cannot in fact be estimated by any mere money standard (riuf), they have act-
ually valued (éreufoavro) at thirty shekels! To take the rot reriunu. merely in
the sense of dv ériuho. (of the valued one, him whom they have valued), as the
majority of expositors do (including even yet de Wette, Lange, and Hof-
mann,’ instead of expressing the idea in a more forcible manner, would
simply produce, especially after r. riufv, atautological redundancy. (2) The
subject of ériugoavro is the same as that of 2Aafov, namely, the high priest ;
nor is the verb to be taken in the sense of estimating highly, as in the case of
reteunu., but in thatof valuing, putting a price upon, the sense in which it is
used in Isa. lv. 2, and very frequently by classical writers, and in which the
Hebrew ‘f\}p) is intended to be understood. (3) ad vidv "Iop., which is a
more definite rendering of the pm oyn of the original, must necessarily be
connected, like ifs corresponding Hebrew expression, with ér:ufoavro, and
not with 2Aafq (Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld), nor with rot rereunu. (which de
Wette considers possible), and be understood as denoting origin, t.¢., as
denoting, in our present passage, the occasion brought about by some one
(comp. also Bleek) in connection with which the ériufoavro took place.’
They were indebted to the sons of Israel (Judas, see above) for that which
suggested and led tothe ériufcavro. We cannot approve of the course which

1 Comp. Theophylact, also Ewald. that which furnishes occasion or opportu-

2 Weissag. u. Evy. Il. p. 180. nity, that something can be done,” Stall-

3‘* awd de eo ponitur, quod praebet occa- baum, ad Piat. Rep. p. 549 A; comp. Koih-
sionem vel opportunitatem, ut aliquid fieri ner, Il. 1, p. 896; similarly xi. 19; see also
possit,"* ‘‘dxé (from) is used concerning Ellendt, Lez, Soph. 1. p. 1%.

CHAP. XXVII., 9. 495

some adopt of supplying revéc : equivalent to of "IopanAira: (Euthymius Ziga-
benus), or ‘§qué sunt ex filiis Israel” (Beza, Grotius, Maldonatus, Paulus,
Kuinoel, Ewald, de Wette, Grimm, Anger), thus making ard vidy "Iop. the
subject of ériufo. In that case, the ordinary éx' would have been used (as
in xxiii. 34 ; John xvi. 17, al.), and instead of vidv we should have had rav
viov, inasmuch as the whole community would be intended to which the
rivég are supposed to belong. Comp. also 1 Macc. vii. 33, 8 Macc. 1. 8,
where, though azé is the preposition used, the article is conjoined with the
substantive following. The absence of the article here is likewise unfavor-
able to the views of Hofmann,’ who, taking a7é to mean on the part of, in-
terprets thus : ‘‘ What Caiaphas and Judas did (érizfoavro), was done in-
directly by the whole nation.” To explain aré as others have done, by assum-
ing the idea of purchase in connection with it,? is not only arbitrary, inas-
much a3 the idea involved in ériufoavro does not justify the supposed preg-
nant force of ard,‘ but is incompatible with the Syn of the original. No
less inconsistent with the original is the explanation of Baumgarten-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 vid» ; 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 maintains,* that aré is equivalent to rivd éx : as an Israelite (whom
they treated like a slave) ; and to the same effect is the explanation of Stein-
meyer, p. 107 : whom they have valued in the name of the nation. Neither
the simple a7é nor the anarthrous viév ’Iop. admits of being so understood,
although Hilgenfeld is also of opinion that our passage meant to describe the
betrayal as an act for which the whole body of the Jewish people was to be held re-
sponsible. Ver. 10. Kal éduwxay avra sig trav aypdv tov xepay.] Zech., as above,
ayo Ox nim mg ine Powe. But, inasmuch as the important matter
here was the purchase of the potter’s field, Matthew Icaves M1" 3 entirely
out of view, takes I¥V in the sense of potter (see, on the other hand, on ver.
9 above), and, inorder that 1¥" ON may fully harmonize with a typical and
prophetic view of the passage, he paraphrases the words thus : ei¢ rév aypdv
tov xepauéwc, where eic is intended to express the destined object of the thing :
for the purpose of acquiring the field belonging to the potter. — xafa ovvéraft
Hot xbpto¢] corresponds to Zechariah’s Oe MT Wx, ver. 13, the words
employed by the prophet when he asserts that in 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 fleld was simply giving effect to the decree of Him from

'Comp. Buttmann, Neut. Gr.p. 188 (E.T. they purchased from the Israelites," comp.
158]. Erasmus, Luther, Vatablus, Jansen, Lange.
® Weissag. u. Zrf. I. p. 181. * Buttmann, p. 276 (E. T. 822].
*Castalio: ‘“‘quem licitatl emerunt ab * In the Stud. u. Krtt. 1859, p. 513.
Israclitis,” “* Which, having offered a price,

496 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

whom the prophet had received the command in question. That which God
had commissioned the prophet (o:) 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.?. Itis quite possible that
the words used in the Hebrew original of Matthew were 13°) WD or TWD
mi¥, which in the LXX. are likewise rendered by xafa ovvérage, Ex. ix.
12, xl 25; Num. viii. 3

Ver. 11 f. Continuation, after the episode in vv. 8-10, 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 promi-
nence to the political aspect of the Messianic pretensions of Jesus. — od Aéyecc]
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 éyd pév rovro ov
A£Yw, ad dd Afyecc, 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. — obdév axexp.] Comp. on xxvi. 62. The calm and digni-
fied silence of the true king.

Ver. 14. pac obd? éy poua] intensifying the force of the expression : to
not even a single word, i.e., to not even a single inquisitorial interrogative.
The silence mentioned in vv. 12, 14 comes in after the examination reported
in John xviii. 37. — dcre Oavudfecv] convinced as he was of the innocence of
Jesus, he was all the more at a loss to understand the forbearance with
which He maintained such sublime silence.

Ver. 15. Kara éopriy] on the occasion of the feast, i.e., during the feast-time ; ”
that the Passover is here meant is evident from the contert. — As there is no |
allusion to this custom anywhere else,* nothing whatever is known as to
when it originated. But whether we date the custom back to the Macca-
baean age or to an earlier period still,‘ or regard it as having being intro-
duced’ 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 refer-
ence to that which is intended to be set forth by the Passover (sparing
mercy), and applicable most probably to the 14th of Nisan.°

Ver. 16. Elyov] The subject is to be found in 6 #yeudv, 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

1 Kada, just as (Xen. Mem. iv. 6.5; Polyb.
iif. 107. 10; Lucian, Cont.. 24; Diod. Sic. 1.
86; in classical Greek xaddmep is usually
employed), occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament.

2 Kfibner, 1. 1, p. 412; Winer, p. 874 [E. T.
500].

* For an account of which, however, see
Bynaeus, de morte Chr. ITI. p. 97 ff.

4 Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 570.

* It may be mentioned as tending to favor
this supposition, that while no trace of
sach a custom is met with in the Talmud,

there is something to a certain modified
extent analogous to it in the practice ob-
served by the Romans at the feast of the
lectisternia (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. 8, 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.
® Comp. on John xviii. 2, 39.

CHAP, XXVII., 17-19. 497 -

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.’ There is the less
reason, therefore, for thinking, with Olshausen, that the characteristic sig-
nificance of the name 838 3, father’s son (i.e., probably the son of a Rabbi,
xxvii. 9), in close proximity with the person of Jesus, is an illustration of
the saying : ‘‘ Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus,” ‘‘ Divine power
amuses itself with human affairs.” Still it is possible 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. Oiv] 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. —airév] refers not to
the members of the Sanhedrim, but to the dyAorc, ver. 15. See ver. 20.

Ver. 18. Tép] Had he not been aware, etc., he would not have thus at-
tempted to effect the release of Jesus, — rapéduxav] The subject of the verb
is, of course, the members of the Sanhedrim (ver. 2), whose dominant selfish-
ness was too conspicuous in itself, as well as from the animus that char-
acterized their behavior, to escape his notice. They were jealous of the im-
portance and influence of Jesus ; dé denotes tie motire which animated
them : because of envy. This was the causa remotior.

Ver. 19. Before, Pilate had submitted the question of ver. 17 to the con-
sideration of the people by way of sounding them. Now, he seats himself
upon the tribunal (upon the A6éerpwrov, John xix. 13) for the purpose of
hearing the decision of the multitude, and of thereafter pronouncing sen-
tence. 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 (xxiii. 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 narrative of Matthew, and that without any want of harmony being
found between the two evangelists. — 1 yv») avrov] for since the time of
Augustus it was customary for Roman governors to take their wives with
them into the provinces. According to tradition, the name of Pilate’s
wife was Procla, or Claudia Procula.* In the Greek church she has been
canonized. — 2£yevea] through her messengers, xxii. 16, xi. 2. — pydév oor x.

1 Lightfoot, p. 489. * See Evang. Nicod. iL, and thereon Thilo,

2 See Winer, p. 872 [E. T. 497]. p. 522 ff.
® Tacit. Ann. ili. 88 f.

498 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

t. dtx. éx.] comp. vill. 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. — woAdd yap érabov, x.r.2.] This alarming dream is to be
accounted for on the understanding that the governor's wife, who in the
Kang. Nicod. is described, and it may be correctly, as GeoseBp¢ and iovdaiCovoa,'
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 in-
tended 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). — ofuepov] during the part of the night belonging
to the current day. —xar dvap] see on i. 20. It was a terrible morning-
dream.

Ver. 20. The question of ver. 17 is still under the consideration 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
persuade the people, etc. —iva] purpose of éxe:cav. “Orwc is likewise used
with zeiMerv by Greek authors.’

Ver. 21. ’AzoxpiBeic d2, x.7.2.] 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 toa
final decision : 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 obv rothow "Inco ;] What, then (if Barabbas is to be released),
am I to do with Jesus, how shall I dispose of Him? On this use of the
double accusative with voeiy, in the sense of doing good or evil to any one,
comp. Kihner, II. 1, p. 277; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 684. — cravpw6f7w] ot
Atyover’ goverOyTw, GAAa ocravpwhfzw, iva Kai 7d eldog tov Oavdrov Kxaxovpxov (as a
rebel) areAfyyy avrév, ‘‘they do not say, let him be put to death, but let him
be crucified, in order that the manner of his death may convict him as a
rebel,” Euthymius Zigabenus. Doubtless it was also at the instigation of
the hierarchs that they demanded this particular form of punishment.

Ver. 23. Ti ydp] does not presuppose a ‘‘non faciam,” or some such phrase
(Grotius, Maldonatus, Fritzsche), but yép denotes an inference from the exist-
ing state of matters, and throws the whole emphasis upon ri: guid ergo.
See on John ix. 80 and 1 Cor. xi. 22.— Chrysostom appropriately points
out how dvdvdpuc¢ xai o¢ddpa padaxéc Pilate behaved.

Ver. 24. The circumstance of Pilate’s washing his hands, which Strauss
and Keim regard as legendary, is also peculiar to Matthew. — ére ovdév wgedci]
that it was all of noarail, John xii. 19.3 — 4A2a uardAov OdpuBoc yiverar] that the
tumult is only aggravated thereby. — areviparo tag xeipac] he washed his hands,

1See Tischendorf, Pilati circa Christum practicum,” “ This prejudging our efforts
judic. etc. ex actis Pilat. 1835, p. 16 f. before the issue is desperate indeed,” Ben-

* See Schoem. ad Plut. Cleom. p. 192. gel.

2“Desperatum est hoc praejudicium

CHAP. XXVII., 25-27. 499

to show that he was no party to the execution thus insisted upon. This
ceremony was a piece of Jewish symbolism,’ 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 con-
form to this Jewish custom was the analogy between it and similar practices
observed by Gentiles after a murder has been committed,’ more particularly as
it was also customary for Gentile judges before pronouncing sentence to
protest, and that ‘‘ rpé¢ rév 7Anv,” ® that they were innocent of the blood of
the person about to be condemned.‘ —azé rov aivaroc] a Greek author would
have used the genitive merely. The construction with aré is a Hebraism
(O33 *P3, 2 Sam. iii. 27), founded on the idea of removing to a distance.°
— tipeic dy.] See on ver. 4.

Ver. 25. ’Eq’ duac, «.7.4.] Defiant and vindictive cry, in the hurry of
which (ro:atr7 yap 1 dpuy x. 1) wovypa éwiSupia, ‘‘ for such as this are passion
and evil desire,’? Chrysostom) the verb is left to be understood (xxiii. 35).’
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 judgment for putting Jesus to death. And as for their wicked impre-
cations 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 un-
conscious prophecy.

Ver. 26. ¢payeA2dcac¢] a late word adopted from the Latin, and used for
pactcyovv.® It was the practice among the Romans to scourge the culprit
(with cords or thongs of leather) before crucifying him.* 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 con-
templated ultimate scourging immediately after the examination before
Herod,—a circumstance which neither prevents us from supposing that he
subsequently carried out his intention (in opposition to Strauss), nor justi-
fies the interpretation of our passage given by Paulus: whom he had pre-
viously scourged (with a view to His being liberated). — wapéduxev] namely,
to the Roman soldiers, ver. 27. These latter were entrusted with the task
of seeing the execution carried out.

Ver. 27. Eig rd mpacrépiov] It would appear, then, that the scourging had
taken place outside, in front of the praetorium, beside the tribunal. This
coincides with Mark xv. 16, fow rj¢ avAyc, which merely defines the locality

1 Deut. xxi.6 f.; Joseph. Andi. iv. 8. 16; * Comp. Hist. Susann. 46, and cadapds axe,

Rota viil. 6. Acts xx. 26.
2 Herod. 1. 85; Virg. Aen. il. 719 f. ; Soph. 7Comp. 2 Sam. 1. 16, and see on Acts
Aj, 654, and Schneidewinthereon; Wetstein xviii. 6.
on our passage. ® Comp. John il. 15; see Wetstein.
3 Constitt. Ap. 1.52.1; Evang. Nicod. ix. ® Liv. xxxili. 36; Curt. vii. 11. 28; Valer.
4See Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr.I.p. 573 f.; Max. i.7; Joseph. Ball. v. 11. 1, al. ; Heyne,
IIeberle in the Stud. u. Krit, 1856, p. 859 ff. Opuec. III. p. 184 f.; Keim, LI. p. 890 f.

* Maetzner, ad Lycurg. 79.

500 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

more precisely. The rpa:tdpiov was the official residence, the palace of the
governor, it being commonly supposed ' that Herod’s palace, situated in the
higher part of the crty, 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
oreipa (comp. Acts xxi. 31-38) was quartered.* — ol orpatidra: rod fyeu.] who
were on duty as the procurator’s orderlies. — éz’ avrév] about Him ; comp.
Mark v. 21, not adversus eum (Fritzsche, de Wette); for they were merely to—
make sport of Him. — rv oveipav] the cohort, which was quartered at Jerusa-
lem in the garrison of the praetorium (in Caesarea there were five cohorts
stationed).* The expression : the whole cohort, is to be understood in its
popular, and not in a strictly literal sense ; the otpar:éra:, 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. ’Evdboavres (see the critical remarks) is to be explained by the
fact that previous to the scourging all His clothes had been pulled off.‘
They accordingly put on His under garments again, and instead of the
upper robes (ra iudrea, ver. 831) they arrayed Him in arcd sagum, the ordi-
nary military cloak,® for the purpose, however, of ridiculing His pretensions
to the dignity of king; for kings and emperors likewise wore the yAaubr,
the only difference being that in their case the garment was longer and of a
finer texture. On this military cloak, which was first uscd by the Macedo-
nians, see Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxi. 20 ; Friedlicb, p. 118. Accord-
ing to the other evangelists, the cloak made use of on this occasion was of
a purple color ; but Matthew would intend scarlet" to be taken as at least
conveying the idea of purple.

Ver. 29 f. "EE axavddv] belongs to rAéfavrec. 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 tke
rendering Barenklau (dxavGoc); but thisis incompatible with the axdvdcvov 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 sculpt-
ure and on the capitals of Corinthian pillars), and therefore would be but
ill suited for a caricature. It is impossible to determine what species of
thorn it was.® — xa? xéAayuov] 29nxav being understood, the connection with

1So also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 58, and ® Plut. Demetr. 41 f. ; Mor. p. 186 C, al.

Keim, ITI. p. 350 ff. 7 Heb. ix. 19; Rev. xvil. 8; Num. iv. 8;
2 Comp, also Weiss on Mark xv. 16. Plut. Fad. xv.
3 Comp. on John xviii. 3. ® Possibly the so-called spina Christi ?
* Acts xvi. 22; Dionys. Hal. ix. 596. see Tobler, Denkbi. pp. 118, 179.

5 Plut. Sert. 14; Phtlop. 9, 11.

CHAP. XXVII., 31, 32. 501

éxtéSnxay is zeugmatic.—Observe the imperfects évéza:foyv and érumrroy as indi-
cating the continuous character of the proceeding.

Ver. 81. Kai évédvoav avrév ra iudr. airov] His upper garments, for which
they had substituted the sagum. This is in no way at variance with évdi-
cavtec, 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. "Egepzéuevor] because the law required that all executions should
take place outside the city." On the question as to whether this Simon of
Cyrene, a place in Libya Pentapolitana, thickly peopled with Jews, 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 ;* 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 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,

1 Num. xv. 35 f. ; 1 Kings xxi.13; Acts vil.
58; Lightfoot and Grotius on our passage.

2 See on x. 88, and Keim, p. 897 f. That is
tosay, the post, the upright beam of the
cross, to which the transverse 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 criminal nalled to it. Hence (because
oravpés Originally meant a’ post) we find
Greek authors making use of such expres-
sions aS cravpov dépew, exddpay, Bacracer»,
AauBavey, aipey, COMP. vravpodope:y ; Latin
writers, however, with rather more regard
for precision, distinguish between the up-
right dbeam which the criminal was called
upon to carry, and the cruz as it appeared
when completed and set up at the place of
execution. ‘The upright beam which the
cruciarius was compelled to drag after him
was called patibulum ; hence we never meet
with the phrase crucem ferre, but always
patibulum (the upright post) ferre, which
patibulum was placed upon the poor crimi-
nal’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 shoul-
ders. It is this distinction between cruz
and patidulum that enables us adequately

to explain the well-known passages of
Plautus: ‘“‘Patibulum ferat per urbem,
deinde affigatur cruci” (ap. Non. Marcell.
221), and ‘*‘ Dispessis manibus quom patibu-
lum habebis"’ (fi. glor. fi. 4.7%), and simi-
larly with regard to expressions referring to
the cross (as completed and set up): in
crucem (ollere, in crucem agere (Cicero and
others), etc. ; the comic expression crucisa-
lus (Plaut. Bacch. il. 8. 128); as also the
passage in Tacit. Ann. xiv. 38, where the
different modes of punishing by death are
enumerated, beginning with those of a
general nature and ending with the more
specific: ‘“‘Caedes, patibula (beams for
penal purposes generally), ignes, cruces.’’
From this it is manifest at once that it
would be incorrect to suppose, with Keim,
that all that Christ had to carry was the
croes-beam. Such a view is at variance both
with the language of our text: vay cravupdy
aipey, and with the Latin phrase: patidu-
lum ferre. So much is the patibulum re-
garded as the main portion of the cross,
that in poetry it is sometimes used as equiv-
alent to crux, asin Prudent. Feristeph. tx.
641: ‘Crux illa nostra est, nos patibulum
ascendimus,” ‘‘That cross is ours, we
mount the beam.”’

502 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

according to the text, the determining circumstance lies in the fact that he
was év3pwrov Kupyvaiov. A foreigner coming from Cyrene would not be con-
sidered 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 legit-
imate inference from Mark xv. 21 compared with Rom. xvi. 18. —7yydp.]
See on v. 41. -— iva] mentions the object for which this was done.

Ver. 88. ToAyoda, Chald. x27), Heb. nia, meaning a skull, Jerome
and most other expositors (including Luther, Fritzsche, Strauss, Tholuck,
Friedlicb) derive the name from the circumstance 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 Cyril, 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* and Furer,®? ought to be preferred, because
the name means nothing more than simply a skull (not Aill of skulls, calley
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, Scheitel,* Stirn, and the like, is not uncommon among ourselves—
(Germans). —% éort xpaviov rérog Acyduevoc] which, i.e., which Aramaic term
denotes (éori) a so-called (Aeyéu.)* place of a skull, Lat.: quod calvariae quem di-
cunt locum significat. It was probably a round, barehill. 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 subsequently
to the time of Constantine had been excavated under the impression that it
was s0,—a point, however, which Ritter® leaves somewhat doubtful.’

Ver. 84. The Jews were in the habit of giving the criminal a stupefying
drink before nailing him to the cross.° This drink consisted of trine (see
the critical remarks) mixed with gall, according to Matthew ; with myrrh,
according to Mark. yoA7 admits of no other meaning than that of gall, and

1In trying to account for the origin of 2 In Iigen's Zeitechr. f. Theol. 1842, 4, p. 1
the name, the Fathers, from Tertullianand ff.
Origen down to Euthymius Zigabenus, make 7 In Schenkel’s Zez. II. p. 506.

reference to the tradition that Adam was
buried in the place of askull. This Judaeo-
Christian legend is very old and very widely
diffused (see Dillman, *‘ zum christl. Adam-
buch,”’ in Ewald’s Jahrd. V. p. 142); but we
are not warranted in confidently assuming
that it was of pre-Christian origin (Dill-
mann, simply because Athanasius, Epipha-
nius, and others have characterized it as
Jewish; it would naturally find much
favor, as being well calculated to serve the
interests of Christian typology (Augustine :
*‘quia ibi erectus sit medicus, ubi jacebat
aegrotus,” ‘‘since there a physician would
be raised up where a sick man was lying,”
cte. etc.).

4 Comp. the hills called Kegéadai in Strabo,
xvii. 8, p. 835.

§ Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 282.

6 Erdk. XVI. 1, p. 427 ff.

7 See Robinson, Paldst. Il. p. 270 ff., and
his nevere Forsch. 1857, p. 882 ff. In answer
to Robinson, consult Schaffter, d. dchie Lage
d. hetl. Grabes, 1849. But see in general,
Tobler, Golgatha, seine Kirchen und Kiister,
1851; Fallmerayer in the Ad;k. d. Bater.
Akad, 1852, V1. p. 641 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. 1.
p. 118 ff., VI. p. 84 ff.; Arnold in Herzog’s
Encyki. V. p. 807 ff. ; Keim, III. p. 404 ff.

8 Sanhedr. vi. See Wetstein, ad Mare. xv.
23; Doughtaeus, Anal. II. p. 42.

CHAP. XXVII., 35. - 503
on no account must it be made to bear the sense of myrrh or wormwood '
(Beza, Grotius, Paulus, Langen, Steinmeyer, Keim). The tradition about
the gall, which unquestionably belongs to a later period, originated in thé
LXX. rendering of Ps. Ixix. 22 ; people wished to make out that there was
maltreatment in the very drink that was offered. — yevoduevoc] 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. Lravpdoavrec] The cross consisted of the upright post and the
horizontal beam (called by Justin and Tertullian : antenna), the former
usually projecting some distance beyond the latter (as was also the case,
according to the tradition of the early church, with the cross of Jesus.)? As
arule, it was first of all set up, and then the person to be crucified was
hoisted on to it with his body resting upon a peg (ya) that passed be-
tween his legs ;* after which the hands were nailed to the cross-beam.
Paulus, * following Clericus on John xx. 27 and Dathe on Ps. xxii. 7, firmly
maintains that the feet were not nailed as well.’ In answer to Paulus, see
Hug,°* and especially Bahr.’ For the history of this dispute, see Tholuck.*®
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 follow-
ing reasons : (1) Because nothing can be more evident than that Plautus’
presupposes that to nail the feet as well as the hands was the ordinary practice,
and that he intends the dis to point tosomething of an erceptional character;

1 No doubt the LXX. translate 73),
swormwood, by xoA¥# (Prov. v. 4; Lam. ill.
15); but in those passages they took It as
meaning literal ‘‘ gall,’ just as in the case
of Ps. lxix. 22, which regulates the sense of
our present passage, they also understood
gall to be mean?, although the word in the
original is Wx (poison). Comp. Jer. viil.
14; Deut. xxix. 17. A usage so entirely for-
eign 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 gail, in fact mtzed with it, and this
idea he expresses as plain as words can
speak it. Comp. Barnab. 7: cravpwiei¢
dworigero fe. nai xoAy, ‘‘at His crucifixion
there was given Him to drink vinegar and
gall.”

*See Friedlieb, p. 180 ff.; Langen, p.
821 ff.

9&6’ @ éwoxotvras of cravpovuevot, Justin,
¢. Tryph. 91; Iren. Haer. il. 24. 4.

“See his Komment., exeg. Handd., and
Skizzen aus m. Bildungsgesch. 1889, p. 146 ff.

* This question possesses an interest not
merely antiquarian ; it is of essential 1m-
portance in enabling us to judge of the
view held by Dr. Paulus, that the death of
Jesus was only apparent and not real. An
opinion which is likewise held more or less
decidedly by Liicke, Fritzsche, Ammon,
Baumgarten-Crusius, Winer, de pedtwam in
cruce afiztone, 1845; Schlelermacher, L. J. |
p. 447.

*In the Fred. Zeitechr. III. p. 167 ff., and
V. p. 102 ff., VII. p. 158 ff.; Gutacht. IL p.
174.

7In Heydenreich and Hiiffell's Zeilechr.
1880, 2, p. 308 ff., and in Tholuck’ s liter.
Anz. 1885, Nos. 1-6.

8 Liter. Anz. 1884, Nos. 53-55, and Langen,
p. 812 ff.

® Mostell. ii. 1. 18 (‘ego dabo ei talentum,
primus qui in crucem excucurrerit, sed ea
lege, ut ofigantur bis pedes, bis brachia,” “I
will give a talent to that one who first has
gone to destruction (to a cross), but with
this condition, that twice his feet, twice
his arms be fastened to It’’).

504 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(2) because Justin' expressly maintains,” 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 ; (8) because Tertullian,* in whose day also crucifixion was
universally 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‘ and Lucan? furnish nothing
but arguments a@ silentio, which have the less weight that these passages de
not pretend to give a full account of the matter ; (5) because we nowher?
find in ancient literature any distinct mention of a case in which the fee
hung loose or were merely tied to the cross, for Xen.* merely informs us that
the binding of the hands and the feet was a practice peculiar to the Egy;-
tians ; (6) and lastly, because in Luke xxiv. 39 f. itself the piercing of tho
feet is taken for granted, for only by means of the pierced hands and fee:
was Christ to be identified (His corporeality was also to be proved, but thai
was to be done by the handling which followed). It is probable that eack
foot was nailed separately.". The most plausible arguments in addition to
the above against the view that the feet were nailed are : (1) what is said in
John xx. 25,° 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 conveniently 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’ speaks
of the Empress Helena, who found the cross, as having also discovered rote
HAove ot Taic xepol Tov Xpotov xara tov oravpoy éverrdyyoay, ‘‘the nails which

1. Tryph. 9.

2 Comp. Ano. I. 85.

8 C. Mare. iff. 19.

4 Prometh. 2 (where, moreover, it is not
crucifying in the proper sense of the word
that is alluded to).

8 Phare, vi. 547 (‘‘insertum manibus chaly-
bem).’’

6 Eph. iv. 2.

7 This view Is borne out not only by the
simple fact that it would be somewhat im-
practicable to pierce doth the feet when lying
one above the other (as they usually appear in
pictures, and as they are already repre-
sented 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 bea danger of dislocating,
if not of shattering the feet, but it is still
further confirmed by the ancient tradition
respecting the two pairs of nails that were
used to fasten Jesus to the cross. See
below under No.2 And how is it poasible
to understand aright what Plautus says
about feet twice-nailed, if we are to con-
ceive of them as lying one upon the other !
Probably they were placed alongside of
each other, and then nafled with the soles
flat upon the upright beam of the cross. A
board for the feet (euppedaneum) was not
used, being unnecessary.

® See Liicke, II. p. 798.

9H. £E. i. 17.

CHAP. XXVII., 37. 505

were fastened in the hands of Christ at the cross,” 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 partof what was dis-
covered 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,' 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 nails for the feet (‘‘ferro pedum”). It would
appear, then, that ¢wo 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 present-
ed together.* This diversity of opinion bears, however, a united testimony,
not against, but in favor of the practice of nailing the feet, and that a testi-
mony belonging to a time when there were many still living who had vivid
recollection of the days when crucifixion was quite common. — d:eyepicavro
7a ludétia abrov] The criminal when affixed to the cross was absolutely
naked,* and his clothes fell, as a perquisite, to the executioners (Wetstein
on our passage). The supposition that there was a cloth for covering the
loins has at least no early testimony to support it.‘ — BaAdovre¢ xAgpov] 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 (cavic) put over the
cross containing a statement of the crime (r#y airiav airov) 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 crimi-
nal even when he was passing through the city to the placc of execution.°
— ixt3nxav] It was undoubtedly affixed to the part of the cross that pro-
jected 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, 85, 36, 89, so Wassenbergh in Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 31), or to
take éréSnxav (Kuinoel) in the sense of the pluperfect, or to assume some
tnaccuracy 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 under-
stood to have nailed up the ‘‘ title” as well !). According to Matthew's
statement, it would appear that when the soldiers had finished 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 inscrip-

1 Or. deobliu Theodos. § 47. ¢ See Thilo, ad Evang. Nicod. x. p. 582 f.
2 Rufinus, 7. Z. li. 8; Theodoret, H. Z. t. 6 Comp. also Sueton. Domit. 10; Calig. 32;
17 Euseb. v. 1. 10.

§ Artemid. ii. 58; Lipsius, de eruce, ii. 7.

506 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

tion are given with diplomatic precision in John xix. 20, though others,
including Keim, prefer the shortest version, being that found in Mark.

Ver. 38. Tére] then, after the crucifixion of Jesus was thus disposed of. —
oravpovvra:] spoken with reference to another band of soldiers which takes
the place of xafuevos éerfpovy avrov éxei, ver. 36. The whole statement is
merely of a cursory and summary nature.

Ver. 39. Oi dé xaparzop.] 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,’ though it cannot be assumed with certainty
that such was the case. But there can be no doubt that the place of execu-
tion was close to a public thoroughfare. — xcvoivre¢ tag neg. avt.] The shak-
ing of the head here is not to be regarded as that which expresses refusal or
passion,” but, according to Ps. xxii. 8, as indicating @ malicious jeering at
the helplessness of one who had made such lofty pretensions, ver. 40.*

Ver. 40. "Edeyov 68 rd rotaira xwpydovrtes o¢ Weboryv, ‘“ Now they said such
things, mocking at Him as a liar,” Euthymius Zigabenus. We should not
fail to notice the parallelism in both the clauses (in opposition to Fritzsche,
who puts a comma merely after ceavrév, and supposes that in both instances
the imperative is conditioned by ¢ vide ei rod Seov), 6 xaradbwr, x.7.4., being
parallel to e vide ei tr. 9., and cdcov ceavrév to xatrdBySi axd tov otavpov. — 6
xatadbuy, x.7.A.] is an allusion to xxvi. 61. For the use of the present par-.
ticiple in a characterizing sense (the destroyer, etc.), comp. xxiii. 87. The
allegation of the witnesses, xxvi. 61, had come to be a matter of public talk,
which is scarcely to be wondered at considering the extraordinary nature of
it. — Observe, moreover, that here the emphasis is on vids (comp. iv. 3),
while in ver. 48 it is on Veoi.

Ver. 42. Parallelism similar to that of ver. 40.—xal rioretoper (see
the critical remarks) ér’' airg@: and we believe on Him (at once), that is, as
actually being the Messiah. ézi with the dative (Luke xxiv. 25) conveys
the idea that the faith would rest upon Him.‘

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.°— 9éAe avrév] is the rendering of the Heb. 13 YdN,
and is to be interpreted in accordance with the Septuagint usage of JéAecv :°
if He is the object of his desire, i.¢., if he likes Him." In other instances the
LXX. give the preposition as well, rendering the Hebrew (1 Sam. xviii. 22,

1 Comp. on John xvilf. 28; Mark xv. 21. 1 Pet. if. 6.
2 Hom. Jl. xvii. 200, 442; Od. v. 285, 876. 6 HAmcoey éwi eUptoy, pucdode alréy, cwodTe
* Comp. Job xvi. 4; Ps. cix. 25; Lam. fi. avrov, Sri déAet avrdv,
15; Isa. xxxvil. 22; Jer. xviii. 16; Buxt. ®See Schleusner, Zhes. I. p. 51, and
Lex. Taim, p. 2089; Justin, Ap. I. 88. comp. on Rom. vil. 21.
4So also Rom. ix. 83, x. 11; 1 Tim. i. 16; 7 Comp. Tob. xili. 6; Ps. xvili. 19, xlf. 11.

CHAP. XXVII., 44, 45. 507

al.) by Sérew tv ren. Fritzsche supplies picacda: ; but in that case we
should have had merely ei 32 without avrév ; comp. Col. ii. 18. — bre Seod
eiue vidcg] The emphasis is on Seov, as Conveying the idea : I am not the son
of a man, but of God, who in consequence will be certain to deliver me.’ —
Observe further the short bounding sentences in which their malicious jeer-
ing, ver. 42 f., finds vent.

Ver. 44. Td d aird] not : after the same manner (as generally interpreted),
but expressing the object itself,* for, as is well known, such verbs as denote
a particular mode of speaking or acting are often construed like Aéyecy teva re
or xaely tivd te.* — ol Ayorai] different from Luke xxiii. 39; the generic inter-
pretation of the plural‘ is precluded by the necessary reference to ver. 88.
The harmonists (Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Ziga-
benus, Zeger, Lange) resorted to the expedient of supposing that at jirst
both of them may have reviled Him, but that subsequently only one was found
to do so, because the other had in the mean time 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. 'Azd d2 Exrn¢ Spac] 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.
—oxéroc} 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,® and already referred to by Eusebius, is equally out
of the question.* But as little must we suppose that the reference is to that
darkness in the air which precedes an ordinary earthquake,’ 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 wasdying. The prodigies, to all appearance similar,
that are alleged to have accompanied the death of certain heroes of anti-
quity (see Wetstein), and those solar obscurations alluded to in Rabbinical
literature, were different in kind from that now before us (ordinary eclipses
of the sun, such as that which took place after the death of Caesar,)°® and,
cven apart from this, would not justify us in relegating what is matter of

1 Comp. Wisd. {f. 18. ‘ Augustine, de cons. ev. ili. 16; Ebrard,
2Comp. Soph. Qed. Col. 1006: rocaur® Krafft.

ovecdigecs me; Plat. Phaedr. p. 241: é0a rdv 5 Chronogr. I. p. 614, ed. Bonn.

érepov AeAocEopyjxaper, ‘* whatever evil things * Wieseler, chronol. Synope. p. 887 f.

we have reproached the other with.” 7 Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Schlieler-
* Kroger, § xlvi. 12; Kfthner, II. 1,p. 276. $macher, Z. J. p. 448, Weisse.

Comp. on Phil. il. 18. ® Serv. ad. Virg. G.I. 466.

508 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

history, John’s omission 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 oguciov
of the rending of the veil of the temple. — éxi racav ri yqv] Keeping in
view the supernatural character of the event as well as the usage elsewhere
with regard to the somewhat indefinite phraseology zaoa or 6An 7 y7," it is
clear that the only rendering in keeping with the tone of the narrative is :
over the whole earth (xooucxov d2 qv 1d oxéroc, ov pepixdv, ‘‘the darkness was
over the world, not a particular part of it,” Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom,
Euthymius Zigabenus), not merely : over the whole land (Origen, Erasmus,
Luther, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Paulus, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Stcin-
meyer), 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. ’Ave3déyoev] He cried aloud.? — The circumstance of the following
exclamation being given in Hebrew is sufficiently and naturally enough ac-
counted for by the jeering language of ver. 47, which language is under-
stood to be suggested by the sound of the Hebrew words recorded in our
present passage. — caZayJavi] Chald. : \JAPIY =the Heb. YAY. 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 agonies of death, and which was in every
respect similar to that which had been experienced by the author of the
psalm. The combination of profound mental anguish, in consequence of
entire abandonment by men, with the well-nigh intolerable pangs of dissolu-
tion, was all the more natural and inevitable in the case of One whose feel-
ings were so deep, tender, and real, whose moral consciousness was so pure,
and whose love was so intense. In éyxaréAcres Jesus expressed, of course,
what He felt, for His ordinary conviction that He was in fellowship with God
had for the moment given way under the pressure of extreme bodily and men-
tal suffering, and amere passing feeling, as though He were no longer sustain-
ed by the power of the divine life had taken its place ;* but this subjective
feeling must not be confounded 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 impossibility. The
dividing of the exclamation into different parts, so as to correspond to the dif-
ferent 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,‘ or the injliction of divine punish-

1 Luke xxi. 35, xxili. 44; Rom. ix. 17, x. 88; LXX. and Apocr., Herod., Plato.
18; Rev. xiii. 3. 3 Comp. Gess, p. 196.

4See Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. coms 4“ Tra Del adversus nostra peccata effun-
pos. usu, 1888, ILI. p. 6 f.; comp. Luke ix. _— ditur in ipsum, et sic satisfit justitiae Dei,”

CHAP. XXVII., 47, 48. | 509

ment,’ 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 zhole psalm in view, including, therefore, the
comforting words with which it concludes (Paulus, Gratz, de Wette, Bleek).*
This, however, besides being somewhat arbitrary, gives rise to the incon-
gruity of introducing the element of reflection where only pure feeling pre-
vailed, as we see exemplified by Hofmann,’? who, in accordance with his
view that Jesus was abandoned to the mercies of an ungodly world, substi-
tutes a secondary thought (‘‘request for the so long delayed deliverance
through death”) for the plain and direct sense of the words. The authen-
ticity of our Lord’s exclamation, which the author of the Wolfenbiittel Frag-
ments has singularly misconstrued (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 ques-
tioned by Keim, partly on account of Ps. xxii. and partly because he thinks
that the subsequent accompanying 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.—ivar:] the momentary but agonizing feeling that He is aban-
. doned 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 char-
acterized the prayers of Jesus. — tyxaradzizw] means: to abandon any one
to utter helplessness.‘

Ver. 47. A heartless Jewish witticism founded upon a silly malicious per-
version of the words 74/, 74i, and not a misunderstanding of their meaning
on the part of the Roman soldiers (Euthymius Zigabenus), or illiterate Jews
(Theophylact, Erasmus, Olshausen, Lange), or Hellenists (Grotius), for the
whole context introduces us to one scene after another of envenomed
mockery ; see ver. 49. — otroc] 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 a contrast to thisin ver. 49! According to
John xix. 28, Jesus expressly intimated that he was thirsty. Mark xv. 86
makes it appear that the person who reached the drink to Jesus was also one
of those who were mocking Him, a discrepancy which we should make no

“the anger of God against our sins is * Comp. Schleiermacher, Glaudensi. IT. p. ,

poured out upon Him, and so He satisfies 141, ed. 4, and Z. J. p. 457.

the justice of God,"’ Melanchthon, comp. 3 Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 809.

Luther on Ps. xxii, Calvin, Quenstedt. 4Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 9; Aots if. 27; Heb.
1 K6datlin in the Jahr’. f. D. Theol. 11.1, xiii. 5; Plat. Conv. p. 179 A; Dem. p. 158,

p. 125, and Weiss himself. 10, af. ; Ecclus. ffi. 16, vil. 30, ix. 10.

510 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 xxiii. 36 he states that by way of mocking our Lord the soldiers
offered Him the posca just before the darkness came on. Strauss takes ad-
vantage of these discrepancies so as to make it appear that they are but
different applications of the prediction contained in Ps. lxix., without, how-
ever, disputing the fact that drink had been given to Jesus on two different
occasions.— dove] poscae, sour wine, the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers.’
— ddec] stop! don’t gite 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. — épyera:] placed first
for sake of emphasis : whether he is coming, does not fail coming !

Ver. 50. Waa] refers to ver. 46. What did Jesus cry in this instance ?
See John xix. 30, from which Luke xxiii. 46 diverges somewhat, contain-
ing, in fact, an explanatory addition to the account of the great closing
scene, that is evidently borrowed from Ps. xxxi. 6. — agjxe rd rveipa) 1.6.,
He died.* There is no question here of a separating of the rvetya from the
yvxh.® The theory of a merely apparent death (Babrdt, 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 de-
structive of the fundamental idea of the resurrection, undermines so com-
pletely the whole groundwork of the redemption brought about by Christ,
is so inconsistent with the accumulated testimony of centuries as furnished
by the very existence 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 authenticated facts regarding Christ’s ap-
pearance 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 physiological 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 dispute the reality of His
death, their view is nevertheless as much at variance with the whole of the
New Testament evidence in favor of the resurrection as is the one just
adverted to.‘

Ver. 51 f. Not an ordinary earthquake, but a supernatural phenomenon,
as was that of the darkness in ver. 45. — xai idot] ‘‘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 nar-

1 Comp. ver. & and Wetstein thereon. Wisd. xvi. 14,

2 See Herod. iy. 190; Eur. Hee. 571: adjxe 2See in answer to Strdbel, Delitzsoh,
rveipa Savaciuy opayp, ‘‘he dismissed the Psych. p. 400f.
spirit with a deadly slaughter,’ Kypke, I. ‘Comp. xxviil. 10, Rem., and Luke xxiv.
p. 140; Gen. xxxv. 18; Ecclus. xxxvill. 28; 51, Rem.

CHAP. XXVil., 51. 511

rative here is characterized by a simple solemnity, among other indications
of which we have the frequent recurrence of xai. — rd xararéracpa] ND DN,
the veil suspended before the holy of holies.’ The rending in two,? of which
mention is also made by Mark and Luke, was not the effect of the convul-
sion in nature (which was a subsequent occurrence), but a divine onpeiov,
accompanying the moment of decease, for the purpose of indicating that in
this atoning death of Jesus the old dispensation of sacrifices was being done
away, and free access to the gracious presence of God at the same time re-
stored.* To treat what is thus a 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 transforming the rending of the veil into an incident of a
more imposing and startling nature : ‘‘ superliminare (the lintel) templi in-
finitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum,” ‘‘ the lintel of the temple
of immense magnitude was broken and divided.”* The idea underlying
this legend was that of the destruction of the temple.— What follows is pe-
culiar to Matthew. The rocks in question were those in the immediate
neighborhood, and so also with regard to ra pvygpeia. 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
iii. 14 f., vi. 54). The thing thus signified by the divine sign—a sign suffi-
ciently intelligible, and possessing all the characteristics of a genuine sym-
bol*—was so moulded and amplified in the course of tradition that it became
ultimately transformed into an historical incident : 042d oGpara Trav KeKorp.
ayiuy nyfp0n, x.t.A. For a specimen of still further and more extravagant
amplification of the material in question—material to which Ignatius like-
wise briefly alludes,* and which he expressly mentions,’—see EHrang. Nicod.
17 ff. This legend respecting the rising of the Old Testament saints (dyiwv)
is based upon the assumption of the descensus Christi ad inferos, in the course
of which Jesus was understood not only to have visited them, but also to
have secured their resurrection.* 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.’” Be-
sides, 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
arapxy tav xexoiu. (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

1 Ex. xxvi. 81; Lev. xxi. 28; 1 Maco. 1. 22; § In opposition to Steinmeyer, p. 226.

Ecclus. xxx. 5; Heb. vi. 19, ix. 8, x. 20. 6° Ad Magnes. 9.
2For ¢i¢ 8v0, comp. Lucian, Jor. 54; 1 Ad Trall. interpol. 9.

Lapith. 44. 8 Comp. Ev. Nicod. ; Ignatius, ad Tradl. é.c.
> Comp. Heb. vi. 19 f., Ix. 6 ff., x. 19 f. ® Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Hag, Krab-

4 Krang. sec. Hebr. quoted by Jerome. be, p. 505; Steudel, Glaudensl. p. 455;
See Hilgenfeld, NV. 7. extr. can. IV. p. 17. Bleek.

512 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Epiphanius, Origen, Ambrose, Luther, Calovius,’ 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 : ‘‘ Non antea resur'rezerunt, quam Dominus resurgeret,
ut esset primogenitus resurrectionis ex mortuis,” ‘‘ They did not rise before
the Lord had risen, in order that He might be the firstfruits of the resur-
rection from the dead.”? In the Acta Pilati as found in Thilo, p. 810,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, and Noah, are erpressly men-
tioned as being among the number of those who rose from the dead.”

Ver. 53. Mera riv éyeporv avrov] is to be taken in an active sense,* yet not
as though airov were a genitive of the subject (‘‘ postquam eos Jesus in vitam
restituerat,” Fritzsche, which would be to make the addition of airov some-
thing like superfluous), but a genitive of the object, in which case it is un-
necessary to say who it was that raised up Christ. The words are not to be
connected with éfeASévrec (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 eio7Adov. After life was restored they left
their graves, 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 testi-
mony in favor 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. — dyiav réA1v] is in keeping with the solemnity of
the entire narrative ; cdmp. iv. 5.

Ver. 54. ‘0 d2 éxardévrapyzoc|® He belonged to the omeipa, ver. 27. — of per
avrov Tnpovvrec r. 'Inc.] is to be taken as one expression ; see ver. 85 f. — «ai
Ta yivéueva] cai, AS In xxvi. 59, and numerous instances besides, serves to
conjoin the general with the particular : and what was taking place (generally,
that is), viz. the various incidents accompanying the death of Jesus (ver.
46 ff.). The present participle (see the critical remarks) is used with ref-
erence to things they have been witnessing up till the present moment.* —
_ §90349n0av] they were seized with terror, under the impression that all that
was happening was a manifestation of the wrath of the gods, — #eoi vide]
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. — #»] during
His life.

Ver. 55 f. "HxoAot37oav] Here, as in ver. 60 and often elsewhere, we have
the aorist in the relative clause instead of the usual pluperfect. — 4 Mayda-

1 Comp. also Delitzsch, Psych. p. 414. éf¢yepors, Polyb. ix. 15. 4; avéyepors, Plat.
*Comp. also Calvin, and Hofmann, Jor. p. 156 B.
Schriftbew. Il. 1, p. 492. §“Centurio supplicio praepositus,” “a
* The names are given somewhat differ- centurion in charge of (inflicting) the pun-
ently in the Evang. Nicod. ishment,’’ Seneca, de ira, i. 16

4 Ps. oxxxix. 2; Plat. Zim. p.70C; comp. ® See Kiihner, IT. 1, pp. 117, 168.

CHAP. XXVII., 57, 58. 513

Anvf] from Magdala (see on xv. 39), comp. Luke viii. 2 ; she is not identical
with the Mary of John xii. 1 ff.,who again has been confounded with the
sinner of Luke vii. 36.2. The #3°9729 is likewise mentioned in Rabbinical
literature,? though this must not be confounded with nOND, a plaiter of
hair, which the Talmud alleges the fnother of Jesus to have been.*— # row
"IaxéBov, x.t.A.] 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,‘
otherwise we should have had xal 9 rot "Iwo# ufryp. See also Mark xv. 47,
Remark. —# ypfrnp trav vidy ZeBed.] Salome. Comp. on xx. 20. In John
xix, 25 she is designated : 4 adeAgy ti¢ uytpdg avrov. The mother of Jesus,
whose presence on this occasion is attested by John, is not mentioned by
the Synoptists, though at the same time they do not exclude her (in oppo-
sition 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 # tov "laxéfov xai "Iwoq uftnp (xiii. 55).°

Ver. 57. ‘Owiac d2 yevou.] the so-called first or early evening, just before
the close of the Jewish day.* — ad 'Apizad.] belongs to dvSpuro¢ rAotetog.
Comp. pdéyo: ard avaroAdy, ii. 1. The other evangelists describe him as a
member of the Sanhedrim ; an additional reason for supposing him to have
resided in Jerusalem. — 7/1 9ev] namely, to the place of execution, as the context
shows, and not to the praetorium (de Wette, Bleek), to which latter ver. 58
represents him as going only after his return from the scene of the crucifix-
ion. Arimathia, D:D). with the article, 1 Sam. i. 1, the birthplace of
Samuel,’ and consequently identical with Rama (see on ii. 18); LXX.:
"Apuavain. —xai aitéc] et ipse, like those women and their sons, ver. 56. —
padnreverv tive] 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. 88.

Ver. 58. According to Roman usage, the bodies of criminals were left
hanging upon the cross, where they were allowed to decompose and be de-
voured by birds of prey." 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.® — zpooead.] therefore from the place of exe-
cution to the praetorium. — arododjva: rd cGua] rd cdua is due not merely to
the simple style of the narrative, but in its threefold repetition expresses with
involuntary emphasis the author’s own painful sympathy. dodo’. has the
force of reddi (Vulg.), the thing asked being regarded as the petitioner’s
own peculiar property. Comp. xxii. 21.

1 Comp. on xxvi. 6 ff. See also Lightfoot, p. 499.
* Kisenmenger, enfdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 7 See Eusebius, Onom., and Jerome, Ep.

277. 86, ad EKustoch. epitaph. Paul. p. 678.
§ Lightfoot, p. 498. ® Plaut. mil. gior. il. 4. 9; Horace, Ep. 1.
4 Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 401. 16. 48.
®8o0 also Hesychius of Jerusalem in * Ulpian, xlvill, SM. 1, de cadar. punit. ;
Cramer’s Catena, p. 256. Hug in the Freyd. Zettechr. 5, p. 174 ff.

Deut. xxi. 2 f.; Joseph. Bell. tv. 5. 2.

aw ae. ¥ ¥ ea

514 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 59. ‘‘ Jam initia honoris,” ‘‘ Here now is the beginning of honor,”
Bengel. — orvdéve xadapg] with pure (unstained linen) linen, the dative of in-
strument. 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 ebands (John xix. 40), in which the
body was swathed after being washed.’ 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
opposition 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 (aAeiyworw, Mark
xvi. 1) what had been done imperfectly, because somewhat hurriedly, by
Joseph and (see John xix. 39) Nicodemus.

Ver. 60. "0 éAaréunoev] 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 un-
supported 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 tradi-
tion 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 supposition,
that Matthew’s account is intended to supplement those of the other evange-
lists, 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 anew grave was calculated to do honor 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 sup-
posing that what is said with reference to this has been added without his-
torical warrant (Strauss, Scholten). — év r# érp¢] The article is to be under-
stood as indicating a rocky place just at hand. — ri Stpe].* In Rabbinical
phraseology the stone used for this purpose is called 713, a roller? Such a
mode of stopping up graves is met with even in the present day.‘

Ver. 61. "Hv dé éxei] present at the burial. — aAAy Map.] see ver. 56.
The article is wanting only in A D*, and should be maintained, Wieseler *®
notwithstanding. Its omission in the case of A may be traced to the reading
§ 'Iwofd, which this ms. has at Mark xv. 47. Wieseler approves of this

1 Comp. Wetstein. * See Paulus, ereget. Handd. III. p. 819.
2 Comp. Hom. Od. ix. 448: wérpyy éxddyxe 4 Strauss, Sinai u. Golgatha, p. 205.
Sippow, “he placed a huge rock against 8 Chronol. Synope. p. 427.
the door-way.”

CHAP. XXVII., 62-65. 515

reading, and holds the Mary of our text to be the wife or daughter of
Joseph of Arimathea. But see remark on Mark xv. 47. — xadfyevas, x.7.A.]
unoccupied, absorbed in grief.’

Ver. 62. “Hric éorl pera tiv rapack.] which follows the day of preparation,
i.e., on Saturday. For rapaoxein is used to designate the day that immedi-
ately precedes the Sabbath (as in the present .instance) or any of the feast
days. Comp. on John xix. 14. According to the Synoptists, the rapacxeiy
of the Sabbath happened to coincide this year with the first day of the feast,
which might also properly enough be designated odffarov (Lev. xxiii. 11,
15),—this latter circumstance being, according to Wieseler,* the reason
why Matthew did not prefer the simpler and more obvious expression ric
éatl od3arov ; an expression which, when used in connection with the days
of the Passover week, was liable to be misunderstood. 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 gri¢ éori o4BBarov.
But as little does that precise statement regarding the day permit us to
suppose that the expression in question has been made to turn on the diver-
gent narrative of John (in opposition to de Wette). The most natural ex-
planation of the peculiar phraselogy: #ri¢ tor? pera r. rapaok., is to be found
in that Christian usage according to which the rapacxety (i.6., the xpooéBBarov
Mark xv. 42) has come to be the recognized 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 r@ ératbpiov.

Ver. 63. 'Euvgonpev] 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). — éxeivng 6 wAdvoc] that deceiver (2 Cor. vi. 8), impostor.* With-
out 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
éxeivoc is frequently used by Greek authors. ‘ — éyeipoua:] present ; marking the
confidence with which he affirmed it.

Ver. 64. Kai éora:] is more lively and natural when not taken as depend-
ent on wfrore. The Vulgate renders correctly : e¢ erit. —74 toxdry rAdvy] 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. — ri¢ rpérnc] which
found acceptance with the multitude through giving out and encouraging
others to give out that He was the Messiah. — yeipwr] worse, i.e., more fatal
to public order and security, etc.*

Ver. 65 f. Pilate’s reply is sharp and peremptory. — 2yere xovorwdiay] with
Luther, Vatablus, Wolf, Paulus, de Wette, Keim, Steinmeyer, fyere is to be
taken as an imperative, habetote :° ye shall have arwatch ! For if it be taken as

1 Comp. Ni&gelsbach on Hom. Ji. {. 134. ‘For the use of this expression, comp.
2 Synops. p. 417. xii. 45; 2 Sam. xill. 15.
8 Justin, c. 77. 69: AaowAdvos. © Comp. Xen. Cyrop. viil. 7.11; Mark ix.

Schoem. ad ds. p. 177; Eliendt, Lez. 60, xi. 22; Soph. PAU. 778.
Soph. I. p. 350.

516 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 de-
tachment that guarded the cross (Kuinoel), for its duties were now over, but
simply to the ordinary temple guards. But it is evident from xxviii. 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. mag-
nifies into a cohort. — d¢ oidare] as, by such means as, ye know how to prevent
it, i.e., in the best way youcan. The idea : ‘‘vereor autem, ut satis com-
munire illud possitis” (Fritzsche), is foreign to the text. — pera ri¢ xovetwdiac]
belongs to 7ogadic. r. rdg.; they secured the grave by means of’ the watch,
which they posted in front of it. The intervening ogpayic. 7. Aid. is to be
understood as having preceded the jogad. r. r. peta tr. cover: after they had
sealed the stone. To connect pera rt. xovorwd. with ogpayic. (Chrysostom)
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 unnec-
essary assumption that our expression is an abbreviation for yerd rov mpood-
eivac tiv Kovotwdiay (Fritzsche). —o¢payic.]* 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 end by means of sealing-clay ;? or if the
stone at the door happened to be fastened with a cross-beam, this latter was
sealed to the rock.‘

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 that the women who visited the grave on the resur-
rection 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 improbable, just as
much so as the idea that the procurator would be likely to take no notice of a der-
eliction 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 them-
selves 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 mentioning the rumor about the stealing of the body,—a
rumor emanating to all appearance from a Jewish source, and circulated with

1 Stalibaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 530 D. mar, Beodacht. IT. p. 467.
2 Comp. Dan. vi. 17. 4 Strauss, Sinai und Golgatha, p. 208.
* Paulsen, Regier. d. Morgent. p. 298; Har-

CHAP. XXVII. 517

the hostile intention of disproving the resurrection of Jesus (Paulus, ezeg.
Handb. Ill. p. 837 ff.: Strauss, II. p. 562 ff.; Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 458 ff.;
Weisse, Ewald, Hase, Bleek, Keim, Scholten, Hilgenfeld). The arguments ad-
vanced by Hug in the Freyburg. Zeitschr. 1831, 3, p. 184 ff.; 5, p. 80 ff.; Kui-
noel, 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 incomprehen-
sible 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 Repert. IX. p. 141),—an in-
terpolation, too, that would have had to be introduced into three different pas-
sages (xxvii. 62, 66, xxviii. 4, 11 ff.); yet one can understand how this apocry-
phal 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
tous. Fora further amplification of the legend, see Hv. Nicod. 14.

518 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Ver. 2. d70 Tt. Gipac] is wanting in B D 8, 60, 84, Vulg. It. Or. Dion. De-
leted by Lachm. and Tisch. Exegetical addition, which many witnesses have
‘supplemented still further by adding rov pvnyefov (Mark xvi. 3).— Ver. 6.
6 xipioc] is wanting, no doubt, only in B X&, 33, 102, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Ar.P°!-
one Cod. of the It. Or.i=*- Chrys.; but, with Tisch., it is to be condemned.
This designation is foreign to Matth., while as ‘‘gloriosa appellatio” (Bengel)
it was more liable to be inserted than omitted. — Ver. 8. é&A9.] Tisch.: aze26.,
following BC L 8, 33, 69, 124. Correctly ; the more significant reading of the
Received text is derived from Mark. — Ver. 9. Before xa} idov the Received text
inserts : w¢ dé éxopevovro anayyeiAa Toi¢g paGnraic avrov. No such clause is found
in BD X&, min. Syr. Ar.P°!- 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 o¢
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 &, Or. Chrys. The
Received reading is taken from ver. 10, while dvayyéAAev occurs nowhere else
in Matthew. —- Ver. 14. ém rov #y.] Lachm.: i76 tod fy., following B D, 59,
Vulg. It. But this is an explanatory correction in consequence of not catching
the sense, — Ver. 15. Lachm. inserts #uépac after onjpepov, in accordance with
BDL. Correctly ; as Matth. does not add j7ép. in any other instance (xi. 23,
xxvil. 8), it was more natural for the transcriber to omit than to insert it. —
Ver. 17.avrg] is wanting in B D &, 33, 102, Vulg. It. Chrys. Aug. Deleted by
Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A somewhat common addition, for which other mss.
(min.) have airéy. — Ver. 19. After zropev@. Elz. inserts ov, which is bracketed
by Lachm. and deleted by Matth. and Tisch. Added as a connecting particle,
but wanting in very important witnesses, while other and less important ones
have vty.

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. — oye,
62 cafBdtuv] but late on the Sabbath, means neither . . . after the close of the
Sabbath,’ nor : after the close of the week ;° for oyé, sero, with a defining geni-
tive (without which it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament) always

1 Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten- * Severus of Antioch, Euthymius Ziga-
Crusius, Ewald, Bleek. benus, Grotius, Wieseler, p. 425.

CHAP. XXVIIL., 1. 519
denotes the lateness of the period thus specified and still current (rd redevraia
rovrwy, Euthymius Zigabenus).’ Take the following as examples of this
usage from classical authors.* Hence by : late on the Sabbath, we are not
to suppose Saturday evening to be intended,—any such misunderstand-
ing being precluded both by the nature of the expression made use of,
an expression by no means synonymous with the usual oywiag yevouéryc (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 Sunday, 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 ‘p‘D4
ROW, aptly observes : ‘‘oyé totam noctem denotat.”* Consequently the point
of time mentioned here is substantially identical with that given in Luke
xxiv. 1: rH ug Tdv 0a33drwv Sp3pov Badéoc, and in John xx. 1: ry pug rav
0a,3;3. mpwt oxoriac ért oboe ; While, on the other hand, Mark xvi. 2 repre-
sents the sunas already risen. *‘ — rij éxcgwox. ei¢ piav a8 3dtuwr] when it was daun-
ing toward Sunday, i.e., as the light was beginning to appear on the morning
of Sunday. Understand juépa after éxiguox. ; and for érepwoxer 4 yuépa, comp.
Herod. iii. 86 : au’ fuépy dcagwoxotey, also ix. 45, The participial expression
without the juépa is similar to 7 éxcovoa, and the like.’ Keim supposes the even-
ing 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 mean-
ing of our passage would be as follows : ‘‘ In the evening after siz 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 pas-
sage), of understanding the words immediately following as simply equiva-
lent to : ri uig ca33druv éxidwoxotay.’ Nor, if we adopt Keim’s interpretation,
is it at all clear what substantive should be understood along with rg éigwox.
Ewald® unwarrantably supplies éorépg, and, like Keim, supposes the refer-
ence to be to the erening lighting of the lamps, though he is inclined to think
that Matthew intended summarily to include in his statement what the wom-
en 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 Gos-
pel has had recourse to a combination of Mark xvi. 1 and 2 (Weiss), is to give

1 Comp. in general, Krfiger, § xIvil. 10. 4;
Kihner, IT. 1, p. 292.

2Xen. ist. {1.1.14; Thuc. iv. 93. 1: ris
nudpas od; Dem. p. B41, ull. : Oe THs wpas
éytyveto; Luc. Dem. enc. 14, and dé morte
Peregr. 21: ope rae jAicias.

* Comp. so early a writer as Augustine,
@é cons, ev. 2A.

4 For of¢, comp. Ammonius: dowdpa pep
yap tory » pera Thy Siow TOU HAiov wpa’ dy
82 peta woAd ris dvcews, “evening is the
time after the setting of the sun; but Jaée is

the time after the sun has been long set.”

® Koihner, Lf. 1, p. 228.

® This idea of Kelm's about the fwinkling
Of the stars is an importation; for the ex-
pression éridwoxce, as applied to the even-
ing, has reference only to the ordinary
domeatic lighting of the lamps. See in par-
ticular, Lightfoot on Luke xxiii. 54.

7 Comp. caBBarov émipucne, Ev. Nicod. 12,
p. 600, Thilo's edition.

8 Apost. Zeit. p. &.

520 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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 : diayevouzévov roi caBBarov, Aiav xpwi ris
ua caf8arwv. But so far from that, he has proceeded in entire indepen-
dence of Mark. — The expression ia cafBarwy corresponds exactly to the
Rabbinical mode of designating the days of the week : D303 “MR, Sunday ;
NIW3 IW, Monday ; awa wow, Tuesday, and so on.’ Observe that
o433ara denotes, in the first instance, Sabbath, and then week; and similar-
ly, that the #uépg to be understood with érigwox. is to be taken in the sense
of day light.2 — 4 4AAn Mapia] asin 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 men-
tioning two, Mark three (Salome), while Luke (xxiv. 10) gives us to under-
stand 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. Wesee an illustration of this in the supposition that Mary
Magdalene came jirst 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 (Ols-
hausen, 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.? — Sewpy-
oat tov tdgov] 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 713« as not yet com-
pleted (de Wette). Matthew represents what is here recorded as taking place
in presence of the women (748. . . Sewp7oat.. . xai idob), whose attention, how-
ever, had been so much occupied with the accompanying phenomena, that they
did not 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) supernatural 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

1 See Lightfoot, p. 500. the divergent narratives, see Griesbach,
2 John ix. 4, xi. 6; Rom. xiil. 12; 1 Thess. Opuse. II. p. 241 ff. ; Strauss, II. p. 570 ff.;
v. 5. Wieseler, p. 425 ff.

? For the various attempts to harmonize

CHAP. XXVIII., 3-7. §21
objective perceptions of impartial and disinterested spectators. — ydp]
assigning the reason for the violent earthquake which, as a divine o7yeiov,
formed an appropriate accompaniment to this miraculous angelic manifes-
tation. — x. ixddyro, x.7.A.] as the heaven-sent guardian and interpreter of
the empty tomb.

Ver. 3 f. 'H idéa abrov] his appearance, his outward aspect, found nowhere
else in the New Testament, though occurring in Dan. i. 15, 2 Macc. ili. 16,
and frequently in classical authors." The appearance of the countenance is
meant ; sce what follows. Comp. xvii, 2.— dé¢ dotpaz#] not: as having
the form, but as shining with the brightness of lightning.’ For the white
raiment, comp. 2 Macc. xi. 8; Actsi. 10. The sentinels were couvulsed
(éceioSnoav, 8 Esdr. iv. 86) with terror at the sight of the angel (airov), 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. ’AroxpcSeic] said in view of the terrifying effect which he saw
was being produced upon the women by what was taking place. Comp. on
xi. 25. — up goBtiode tusic] ietc 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, iueic being thus re-
garded as forming a contrast to the sentinels, who are paralyzed with terror.
To say that no particular emphasis ever rests upon the personal pronoun (de
Wette) is to say what, as regards the whole of the New Testament, is simply
not the case (instance also Mark xiii. 9; Acts viil. 24). —oida yap, x«.7.4.]
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 them /

Ver. 7. Mpodyec] he isin the act of going before you to Galilee ; 5r: is
recitative.* Accordingly tudo and bpeode refer to the disciples (comp. xxvi.
82), not to the women as well, who, in fact, saw Jesus forthwith ; 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. Be-
tween what is here stated and the narratives of Luke and John there is a
manifest and irreconcilable difference.‘ Observe, moreover, the dpecde ;
on no earlier occasion than that of their meeting in Galilee were they to be
Savored with a sight of Him. — elroy tiv] I have told you it, in the sense of :
take this as my intimation of the fact (see on John vi. 86), 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 elxov we

! On the relation of this term to «l8os, see = cipulis dicenda se porrigunt usque ad vide-

Stallbaum, ad fiat. Rep. p. 506 A, and
Parmen. p. 128 E; and comp. Amelis on
Hom. Od. ix. 508, Appendix.

2Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 254 B: el8ov rhv
éYuv acrparroveay, ‘* they bebeld the gleam-
ing countenance.”

§ Bengel correctly observes: “ Verba dis-

bitis,” “‘the message to the disciples ex-
tends as far as ye shall see.”

4 In the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 682 ff., Graf
still tries in vain to make outa case in
favor of assuming, as matter of course,
the expiry of the festival period before the
mpodye: and op.

522 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

should read eiev, after Mark xvi. 7 (Maldonatus, Michaelis), in which case
some assume an error in translation ;’ others, an error on the part of the
transcriber (Scholten) ; and others, again, an erroneous use of Mark (Schneck -
enburger, Holtzmann). The idod, elrrov iyiv is here peculiar to Matthew.

Ver. 8. Mera ¢6f0v, é¢' ol¢ eldov mapaddéacg’ pera yapa¢ dé, ég’ ol¢ FKovoay-
evayyediors, ‘‘ with fear, because of the incredible things which they saw ;
with joy, because of the good news which they heard,” Euthymius Zigabe-
nus. — ueyaAnc] applying to doth substantives. For similar instances of the
mingling of fear with joy,? consult Wetstein.*®

Ver. 9. On seeing the strange and superhuman appearance presented by
the risen Lord, the women are so filled with consternation (u? do3eiode, ver.
10) that they take hold of His feet in a suppliant attitude (éxpdar. avroi r.
nédac), and testify their submission and reverence by the act of mpocxivyors.

Ver. 10. M? gofciode: imdyere, atayy.] Asyndeton, the matter being press-
ing, urgent. — roi¢ adeAgoic pov] He thus designates His disciples,* not xpi¢
tyui avrav (Euthymius Zigabenus), for which there was no occasion, but in
view of that conception of Him as a superhuman being which had so pro-
foundly impressed the women prostrate at His feet. — iva] does not state the
purport of the order involved in amayy. (de Wette ; there is nothing
whatever of the nature of an order about amay.), 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 reccive these tidings from you) they may proceed to Galilee, xxvi. 32.
— Kaxei ne Spovrac] is not to be regarded as dependent on iva, but : and there
they shall see me. This repetition of the directions about going to Galilee
(ver. 7), to which latter our evangelist gives considerable 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 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. 81), e-
cludes Galilee altogether, just as Matthew excludes Judaea. To harmonize
these divergent accounts is impossible ;* 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

1 Bolten, Eichhorn, Buslav, de ling. orig. quam discipult,” ‘* before His passion, Jesus

ev. MW. p. 67. was worshipped by others, strangers, rather
2 Virg. Aen. {. 514, xi. 907, al. than by His disciples.’
3 Koster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 851. ® Comp. on John xx. 17; Justin, ¢. 7r. 106,

‘Bengel says correctly: “Jesum ante ¢ Strauss, II. p. 558 ff. ; Holtzmann, p. 500
passionem alil potlus alfeniores adorarunt f.; Keim.

CHAP. XXVIII., 10. 523
intends the meeting with the eleven, ver. 16 ff., as the jiret 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, however, 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 Gali-
laean, 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; (8)
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 Jeru-
salem and in Galilee as well might be already deduced as a legitimate
historical inference from the fact of a distinct Judaean and Galilaean tradi-
tion 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 histor-
ical 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
in Judaea altogether’ entirely excludes them as being unsuited to the con-
nection.” 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 pas-
sages in our Gospel which show traces of other than apostolic authorship.
See Introd. § 2.

RemMakk.—It is evident from 1 Cor. xv. 6 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. 60), 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 appearances in question to some objective 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,

1 Rud. Hofmann (de Berg Galiiia, 1856),
following certain early expositors, nas at-
tempted to explain the discrepancies be-
tween the various narratives by maintain-
ing that 7 TaAcAaia, Matt. xxvill., is not the
country out a mountain of this name, name-
ly, 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 passage 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 any-
thing of a trustworthy 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 Evang. Nicod. 14; see al-
ready, Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr.I. p. 620 f.
3 Comp. Schlelermacher, Z. J, p. 465 f.

§24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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, asthough it were based merely on mental phenomena,
are in opposition in general to the explicit and unhesilating view of all the evan-
gelists 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 unfailing 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 incontrovertible evidence for, and as an arapyf of the resur-
rection of the body (1 Cor. xv. 23; Rom. viii. 11), and as constituting an
essential factor in man's justification (Rom. iv. 25; Phil. iii. 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. iii. 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 con-
struing the resurrection from the grave of one whose body was exempted from
corruption (Acts ii. 31, x. 41) into something or other which might be more
appropriately described as a resurrection from the cross, and which would there-
fore 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 resurrec-
tion were adopted, then, in opposition once more to New Testament authority,
we should have to identify it with the ascension (comp. on Luke rxiv. 51,
Remark); while, on the other hand, it would be necessary to give up the
Descensus Christi ad inferos as a second error arising out of that which has just
been referred to.

Ver. 11. Tlopevoy 62 avr] but while they were going away, to convey the in-
telligence 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. Lwayztéivres] Change of subject.’ — cvpBota. re AaBévrec] after
consulting together, as in xii, 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. 1, 7. The conjunctive
particle re has the same force as in xxvii. 48, and occurs nowhere else in
Matthew ; found so much the more frequently in Luke's writings, especially
in the Acts, — dpyipa] as in xxvi. 15, xxvii. 8, 5,9. Silver pieces, a suffi-
cient number of shekels. — elrare, x.r.4] an infeliz astutia, ‘‘a miserable
piece of cunning” (Augustine), seeing that they could not possibly know
what had taken place while they were sleeping. — Ver. 14. é? rot jyeudvoc]

1 Winer, p. 586 ([E. T. 787].

&

CHAP, XXVIII., 16, 17. 525
coram procuratore. axotev is not to be understood, with the majority of
expositors, merely in the sense of : to come to the ears of, which is inadmis-
sible on account of éwi (forin that case Matthew would have simply written
kai édv axoboy tovro 6 7y., or used the passive with the datize) but in the judi-
cial sense :' if this comes to be inquired into, if an investigation into this matter
should take place before the procurator.? — jycic] with a self-important
emphasis. Comp. ide in the next clause. — reicouev airdy] we will persuade
him, t.e., satisfy, appease him (see on Gal. i. 10), in order, that 1s, that he
may not punish you ; see what follows. — dauepipvoue] free from all concern
(1 Cor. vii. 82), and, in the present instance, in the objective sense : free
JSrom danger and all unpleasant consequences.* — Ver. 15. we édcdd yd.) as they
had been instructed, Herod. iii. 184. — 6 Adyo¢ otrog] not : ‘‘ the whole narra-
tive” (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.‘ For an abominable expansion of it, as quoted
from the Toledoth Jeschu, see Eisenmenger’s entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 190 ff.
For } ofpepov yuépa, 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, etc. —ov érdéaro,
x.T.A.] an additional particular as to the locality in question, which the
women received, ver. 10, and had subsequently communicated to the
disciples. The ov, ubi, is to be regarded as also including the preceding
whither (to go and abide there), Luke x. 1, xxii. 10, xxiv. 28.°

Ver. 17. "Idévrec, x.7.4.] According to the account now before us, evi-
dently the jirst occasion of mecting again since the resurrection, and the
Jirst impression produced by it—corresponding to the dpeode of vv. 7, 10.
See, besides, on ver. 10. — oi dé édicracay] It was previously said in a general
way that the eleven fell prostrate before Him, though al did not do so:
some doubted whether He, whom they saw before them, could really be
Jesus. This particular is added by means of oi dé, which, however, is not
preceded by a corresponding oi uév before mpocexbvycay, because this latter
applied to the majority, whereas the doubters, who did not prostrate them-
selves, were only the exception. Had Matthew's words been : oi uév xpocext-
vyoav, ol d2 édictacav, 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 d2 éppémicav of xxvi. 67, where, in like
manner, the preceding éxoAdgicay avréy (without oi uév) represents what was
done by the majority.* According to Fritzsche, a preceding ol yuév ovx

1 John vil. 51; Xen. Cyrop. 1. 2. 14, and ponitur, deinde partitio nascitur, quae

frequently.

3 Erasmus: “sires apud illum judicem
agatur.’’ Comp. Vatablus and Bleek.

* Herodian, fi. 4. 8.

40. Tr. xvil. 108.

® Winer, p. 439 f. [E. T. 502]; Kohner, II.
1, p. 478.

6“ Quibus in locis primum wniverea res

ostendit, priora quoque verba non de uni-
verea causa jam accipi posse,"’ ** In whatever
places first a unirersal statement is made,
thence a subdivision arises, which shows
that the former words cannot possibly be
accepted respecting universal cause,” Klotz,
ad Devar. p. 88. Comp. Xen. Hell. 1. 2.14:
@xovro és AexdAccay, 1 S ds Méyapa; Cyrop.

526 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
édicracav Should be understood. This, however, is purely arbitrary, for the
édicraoay has its appropriate correlative already in the preceding xpocextyyoay.
Again, as matter of course, we must not think of predicating the zpocext-
vnoav of the doubters as well, which would be psychologically absurd (only
after his doubts were overcome did Thomas exclaim : 6 xuped¢ pov x. 6 Dede
yov!), Fritzsche’ attempts to obviate this objection by understanding
édioraoov in a pluperfect sense (they had doubted before they saw Jesus) ;
an expedient, however, of the same arbitiary nature as before (comp. on
John xviii. 24), and such as no reader of our passage (with mpooextvycav
before him) would have suspected to be at all necessary. Others, in spite of
the plain and explicit statements of Matthew, and in order 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 attributed the édicracav to certain of these!
Others, again, have resorted to conjecture ; Beza, for example, thinks that
for oi dé we might read otdé ; Bornemann * suggests : of dé diécracav (some
fell prostrate, the others started back from each other with astonishment).
The doubting itself on the part of the disciples * is not to be explained by the
supposition of an already glorified state of the body,‘ for after His resurrection
Christ still retained His age bodily organism, as the evangelists are at
some pains to remind us. 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 rela-
tion 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
existence, 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, exactly the same essential nature as belonged to it
before death, but still it was not as yet the cia rij¢ déEn¢ atrod (Phil. 111. 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.* IpoceAdév] From feelings of modesty and reverence, the eleven
had not ventured to go quite close to Him. — £6697] with all the emphasis of

iv. 5. 46: opare trove, Soot Huty wdpeoiw, ot 19, 26.

8¢ xpordyorras, ‘* You see the horses, as many
as are with us; but others are being brought
up,” and the passage in Pflugk, ad Zur. Hec.
1160; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 808.

1 Comp. Theophylact, Grotius, and Mark-
land in Eur. Suppl. p. 826.

3In the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 126 (comp.
Schleusner).

*Comp. Luke xxiv. 31, 87, 41; John xx.

‘ Following the Fathers, Olshausen,
Gléckler, Krabbe, Kfthn, wie ging Chr. durch
ad. Grabes Thir? 1888; comp. Kinkel’s un
scriptural idea of a repeated ascension to
heaven, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p. 897 ff.

§ Luke xxiv. 80-48; John xx. 20, 27, xxi.
5; comp. also Acts i. 21 f., x. 41.

® Comp. for ver. 18ff., Theod. Schott in the
Luther, Zeitechr. 1871, p. 1 ff.

CHAP. XXVIII., 19. 527

the conviction that He was triumphant at last: was giren to me, ctc., was
practically given, that is, when the Father awoke me out of death. There-
by His state of humiliation came to an end, and the resurrection was the
turning-point at which Christ entered into the heavenly glory, in which He
is to reign as xipiog wdvrov 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 éfovcia over all things (xi.
27 ; John xiii. 8) ; but in His state of xévwore 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 égovcia
fully and absolutely restored, so that He once more came into complete
possession of His premundane dééa,' the défa in which He had existed as the
26yo¢ Goapxoc, and to which He was again exalted as the glorified Son of
man.’ — raoa é<ovcia] all authority, nothing being excepted either in heaven
or earth which can be referred to the category of éfovcia. Some, unwarrant-
ably interpreting in a rationalistic sense, have understood this to mean the
‘* potestas animis hominum per doctrinam imperandi” (Kuinocl),—or, as
Keim expresses it, the handing over to Him of all spirits to be His instru-
ments in carrying out His purposes in the world,—or absolute power to
make all necessary arrangements for the establishment of the Messianic
theocracy (Paulus), or power over the whole world of hnmanity with a
view to its redemption (Volkmar), and such like. Whdt is really meant,
however, is the munus regium of Christ, free from all limitation, without,
however, compromising in any way the absolute supremacy of the Father.*
Ver. 19. The otv of the Received text (seo 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 gov-
ernment, and made subject to His sway by means of the padrrebew, etc. —
patyreicate] make them my padnrai (John iv. 1).4 This transitive 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 padyrfc, in accordance with which view the term came to be
applied to Christians generally. — ravra ra E9vy] all nations without exception,
xxv. 82, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 18. With these words—and this is the new feature
in the present instructions—the previous prohibition, 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 Gen-
tiles 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 necessary ; and hence, because of this omission, the difficulty which the
apostles had at first about directly and unconditionally admitting the Gen-
tiles. If this latter circumstance had been borne in mind, it could hardly

1 John xvii.5; Luke xxiv. 26; Phil. if. 9 f.; 2 Comp. on John I. 14.
Rom. xiv. 9; Eph. i. 20 ff., iv. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 8 John xiv. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 27, xi. 3.
25 ff. * Comp. xill. 52; Acts xiv. 21.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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.’ — 3azrisovrec,
x.7.2.] in which the padyreve is to be consummated, not something that must
be done after the zadrei-care,* as though our passage ran thus, pavdyretcarsec
... Paxvisere. Besides, that the phrase 3arrijovrec x.r.2., did not require in
every case the performance of the ceremony by the apostles themselves, was dis-
tinctly manifest to them in the discharge of their functions even from the
first (Acts 11. 41). — 3amrifew cic] means to baptize with reference to. The par-
ticular 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 jarrifew ei¢ rd dvoua is regarded as that
through which the pzadnretec 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 Father (of Christ) and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as the sum of his
creed and confession. 1d évoza, because it is precisely the name of him whois
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 ac-
cept as his both now and for all time coming.‘ Consequently the Cor-
inthians were not baptized ci¢ rd dvoua Mabou (1 Cor. i. 13), because it was

2In answer to Credner, Zinleié. I. p. 208;
Strauss, Keim.

2 Hofmann, Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 164; comp.
also, on the other hand, Theod. Schott, p.
18.

® Comp. also 1 Cor. 1. 17.

4 Had Jesus used the words ra dyépara in-
stead of 1d cvoza, then, however much He
may have intended the names of three dis-
tinct persons to be understood, 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 singu-
lar points to the specific name assigned in the
text to each of the three respectively, so that eis
7d Gvona is, of course, fo be understood both
before rov viov and rod ayiov wvevparos;
comp. Rev. xiv. 1: 73 Svouxa avrov xai rd
Svoua Tov warpds avrov. We must beware of
making any such dogmatic use of the singu-
lar as to employ It as an argument either
Jor (Basilides, Jerome, Theophylact) or
against (the Sabellians) the orthodox doc-
trine of the Trinity. Weshould be equally
on our guard against the view of Gess, who
holds that Christ abstained from using the
words “of God the Father,” etc., because
he considers the designation God to belong

to the Son andthe Holy Spirit as well. Such
a dogmatic idea was not at all likely to be
present to His 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 6eés elther for
Himself or forthe Holy Spirit. Still the New
Testament, ?.¢., the Subordination, 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 2 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 ae Christ's representative (Sengelmann
in the Zeitechr. f. Protestantism. 1856, p. 341.
ff.), neither is this view countenanced by
Acts x. 48. Tertullian (de dap. 13) gives the
correct rendering in nomen, though as early
as the time of Cyprian (Zp. Ixxiii. 5) in
nomine is met with. The practice of dipping
three times dates very far back (being
vouched for even by Tertullian), but cannot
be traced to the apostolic age.

CHAP, XXVIII, 19. 529
not the name ‘ Paul,” but the name ‘‘ Christ,” that was to constitute the
sum of their creed and their confession. Fora similar reason, when the
Samaritans circumcised, they did so O11 7 OW (see Schéttgen on the
passage), because the name ‘‘ Gerizim” represented the specific point in
their distinctive creed and confession (their shidboleth). The dedication of the
believer to the Father, ctc., is of course to be regarded as practically taking
place in the course of the Barrifer ei¢ rd dvoua, «.7.4.; for though this is not
directly intimated by the words themselves," it is implied in the act of bap-
tism, and could have been expressed by the simple use of cig (without 1d
évoua), a8 in 1 Cor. x. 2; Rom. vi. 8 ; Gal. ili. 27. Further, cic ro dbvoya is
not to be taken as equivalent to ei¢ rd dvoudfecy,* 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, 1d rvevua dyiov must be under-
stood to be a specifically Christian designation of the Spirit. 71d dvoua 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 Christian’s confession and creed. Finally, in oppo-
sition to the utterly erroneous view of Bindseil,* that Barrifew cic 1d dvoua
means : to lead to the adoption of the name through baptism, 7.¢., to get the
person who is to be baptized to call himself after the particular name or
names in question, see Fritzsche as above. But as for the view of Weisse‘*
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 resur-
rection of Jesus. Ewald, too,® is disposed to trace the origin of the commis-
sion to the inner world of a later apostolic consciousness.—It is a mistake to
speak of our passage as the formula of baptism ;* for Jesus is not to:be under-
stood 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

1In opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbevw.
II. 2, p. 168; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk,
III. 2, p. 12

* Francke in the Sdchs Stud. 1846, p. 11 ff.

In the Stud. u. Krit. 1882, p. 410 ff.

* Bvangelienfr. p. 186 f.

8 Geach. d. Apost. Zeit. p. 180.

* It is no less erroneous to suppose that
our passage represents the first institution
of baptism. For long before this the disci-
ples had been baptizing in odedtence to the
instructions of Jesus, as may be seen from
Jobn iv. 1 f., where baptism by the disciples
1s spoken of as tantamount to baptism by
Jesus Himself, and where again there is as
little reason to suppose the mere continua-
tion of the baptism of John to be meant as
there is in the case of our present pas-
sage (John Ili. 5). In the passage before
us we have the same commission as that
Just referred to, only with this difference,

that it is now exlended so as to apply to al
nalions. This at once disposes of the
question as to whether baptism.should not
occupy merely a secondary place as a sacra-
ment (Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p.
215 ff.). Comp. also, on the other hand, 1
Cor. x. 1-8, where there is an unmistakable
reference to baptism and the Lord's Supper
as the two great and equally important sac-
raments of the Christian church. Ofthese
two, however, it is clearly not the Lord's
Supper, but baptism, on whick the greatest
stress is laid as forming the divine constitu-
ent 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 Corinthians, and
even then it {s of a somewhat incidental
character.

530 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the apostolic age ; comp. on the contrary, the simple expression : Barrifecv ei¢
Xptorév, Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27 ; Barrier eig 7d bvoua X., Acts viii. 16, and
ixi 7 ovéu. X., Acts ii. 38), but as indicating the particular aim and mean-
ing of the act of baptism.’ The formula of baptism (for it was so styled
as early as the time of Tertullian, de bapt. 13), which in its strictly litera]
sense has no bearing whatever upon the essence of the sacrament,? was
constructed out of the words of the text at a subsequent period,* as was also
the case, at a still later period, with. regard to the baptismal confession of the
three articles.‘ There is therefore nothing here to justify those who ques-
tion the genuineness of our passage,® or those who of late have doubted
its originality, at least in the form in which it has come down to us,* and
that because, forsooth, they have professed to see in it a torepov mpérepov.
Exception has been taken, again, partly to the rdyra ra &9vy, 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 endeavoring 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 onpeiov to be used by the disciples
when they went forth to proclaim the gospel.’ The conjecture put forward
by Keim,® that Jesus instituted baptism—though without any specific refer-
ence 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 rec-
onciling sucha view with John iv. 1 f. :

Ver. 20. Acddoxovrec avtoty, «.7.A.] without being conjoined by «ai, there-
fore not coordinate with, but subordinate to the Barrifovrec, intimating that
& certain ethical teaching must necessarily accompany in every case the
administration of baptism : while ye teach them to observe everything, etc.
This moral instruction must not be omitted ° when you baptize, but it must

1 See Reiche, de dantism. orig., etc., 1816,
p. 141 ff.

3 HOfling, I. p. 40 ff.

8 See already Justin, Ap. i. 61.

4 See K6liner, Symbol. d. Luth. K. p. 14 ff.
- § Teller, Exc. 2, ad Burnet de fide et oficiis
Chrtstianorum, 1786, p. 262; see, on the other
hand, Beckhaus, Aechth. d. 8. g. Taufforme,
1794.

¢ Strauss, Bruno Bauer, de Wette, Witti-
chen in the Jahrd. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 336;
iflgenfeld, Volkmar, Scholten, Keim.

7 Chrysostom: ragav civropoy bidacxadiav

éyxeipyocas thy &a tov Banricuaros, ‘‘ having

' put into their hands acomplete summary of

the doctrine, that expressed by the form of
baptism.”’

8 TIT. p. 286 f.

® Ovx apxe: yap 7d Bdwricna Kai Ta Sdypara,
mpos cwrmpiay, ef py Kal woAtteia wpocecn,
* for baptism and the doctrines relating to
salvation are not sufficient, unless govern-
ment (that is the church) be added,”’ Euthy-
mius Zigabenus, who thus admirably points
out that what is meant by d:ddcxorres, «.7.A.,
is not the teaching of the gospel with a

CHAP. XXVIII., 20. 531

be regarded as an essential part of the ordinance. That being the case,

infant baptism cannot possibly have been contemplated in farrig., nor, of

course, in révra tr. é9vy either. —xai idod, x.7.A.] Encouragement to execute

the commission entrusted to them, ver. 19. — éyé] with strong emphasis : I
who am invested with that high éfovcia to which I have just referred. —
ped’ iuov eiut] namely, through the working of that power which has been

committed to me, ver. 18, and with which I will continue to protect, sup-

port, strengthen you, etc.’ The iei¢ are the disciples to whom the Lord is

spcaking, not the church ; the present tense (not écouac) 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.

viii. 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 unscriptural idea of a sub-

stantial ubiquity (in opposition to Luther, Calovius, Philippi).* — zacag r.

nuép.| all the days that were still to elapse éuc r. ouvreA. rod aidvoc, 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,” ‘‘ a continual presence,”

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 dis- .

ciples 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 Aéy:a terminated with our Lord’s parting address,
ver. 19 f. We must beware of imputing to the evangelist any subjective
motive for making no mention of any other appearance but that which took

view to conversion. The axoy wicrews (Gal.
fil. 2) and the xiorcs «€ axons (Rom. x. 17) are
understood, as a matter of course, to have
preceded the baptism. Comp. Theodor
Schott, who, however, witaout being justi-
fied by anything in the text, is disposed to
restrict the dca évere:Adu. dwiv, on the one
hand, to the instructions contained in the
farewell addresses (from the night before
the crucifixion on to the ascension), and
rypecv, on the other, to a faithful observance
on the part of the convert of what he al-
ready knew. Comp., on the contrary, xix.
17; John xiv. 15, 21, xv. 10; 1 Tim. vi. 14;

1 John ff. 8 f., lif. 22f., v.2f.; Rev. xii. 17,
xiv. 12; Ecclus. xxix. 1, in all which pas-
sages Typety Tag dvroAds Means Observe, f.¢. to
obey, the commandments Adumirable, how-
ever, is the comment of Bengel: ‘Ut
baptizatis convenit, fidei virtute, “‘ as is prop-
er for the baptized, by the power of faith.”

1 Comp. Acts xvill. 10: 2Cor. xii. 9, 10.

? Beza well observes: ‘‘ Ut quicorpore est
absens, virtute tamen sit totus praesentis-
simus,”’ “that He who is absent in body
may nevertheless be wholly and perfectly
present in efficacy.”

532 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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. iii.
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,
notwithstanding that in any case this latter would have been an eye-witness.
But yet the fact itself 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 presup-
pose a 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 indispensable basis for anything like certainty in regard to Christian
eschatology. On the ascension, see Luke xxiv. 51, Rem.

TOPICAL INDEX.

A.

Abraham, 37,

Accountability, Moral, 244.

Adultery, The law against, 129 seq. ;
the ground for divorce, 339 seq.

Advent of Christ, The Second, 303
seq., 419 seq., 431 seq., 443 seq.

Agony in the Garden, The, 472 seq.,
475 seq.

Almsgiving, True and false, 142 seq.

Amulets, 390.

Anabaptists, and the civil oath, 134.

Anointing of Jesus, The, 452 seq.

Alphaeus, 1.

Ambition, Spiritual, 354 seq.

Angel, The, at Christ’s sepulchre,
520 seq.

Angels, 98 ; guardian, 327.

Anger, deserving of punishment, 126
seq.

Antipas, 68.

Apostasy in the latter days, 411.

Apostles, The, their commission, 206,
209 ; their names, 207 seq. ; not to
gad for themselves, 210 ; their

oldness in preaching, 216.
Archelaus, 68.
Ascension of Christ, The, 532.

B.

Baptism, The, of John, 77 seq.; of
Christ by John, 83 seq., 89 seq.

Baptismal Formula, The, 528.

Barabbas, 497, 499.

Bartholomew, 207.

Bathsheba, 38.

Beatitudes, The, 112 seq.

Beelzebub, 215 ; not assisting Christ,
239 seq.

Benevolence, Christian, 165 seq. ;
commended, 344.

Bethany, 361.

Bethlehem, 58 ; prophecy concerning,
61 seq. ; its relation to Nazareth,
70.

Bethphage, 360 seq.

Bethsaida, 229.

Blessedneas, Spiritual, 112, 116.

Blasphemy, 242.

Boaz, 38.

Bridal Customs, 199.

Brotherhood, with Christ, 248 seq.
Building, on foundations, 169.

C.

Caesarea, Philippi, 292.
Caiaphas, 451; examines Christ, 480

seq.

Capernaum, 102 seq. ; upbraided by
Christ, 229,

Care, about. earthly things, 152 seq. ;
with anxiety, 155 seq. ; for food and
raiment, 155.

Casting pearls before swine, 163 seq.

Centurion of Capernaum, The, 178
seq.

Charity, exercised, 138 ; commanded,
344

Chastity, 340 seq.

Children, Interest in, 324 seq. ;
their exalted position, 327; re-
ceived by Christ, 342; praising
Christ, 365 seq.

Children in the Market Place, 226
seq. ; of the Bridé Chamber, 198
seq.

Chorazin, 229.

Christ Jesus, Hie genealogy, 35 seq.;
His name, 36; its use, 37; His
Davidic descent, 44, 47; His mir-
aculous conception, 45 seq.; His
incarnation, 48; in prophecy, 51
seq.; born of a virgin, 53 seq.; His
refuge in Egypt, 65 seq.; home in
Nazareth, 69 seq.; His baptism, 81 ;
His judgment, 82; is baptized, 83
seq., 89 seq. ; as the Messiah, 84,
184; His divinity attested, 86 seq.,
90 seq., 196, 277, 318, 366 seq., 526
seq. ; tempted by the devil, 92 seq.,
98 seq., 108 seq.; retires into
Galilee, 102; at Capernaum, 103
seq., 178 seq. ; begins His preaching,
104 ; calls His disciples, 105 ; visits
the synagogues, 106; His Sermon
onthe Mount, 112 seq., 169 seq.;

534

His teachings, 173 ; heals the leper,
175 seq.: also the Centurion’s
servant, 180 seq.; cures Peter's
wife’s mother, 181; heals many
sick and possessed, 107 seq., 182;
crosses Lake Tiberias, 182; His in-
terview with a scribe, 182 seq.; as
the Son of Man, 184 seq.; calms
the sea, 186 seq.; heals the demoni-
acs of Gadara, 188 seq.; returns to
Capernaum, 194 ; heals the paralyt-
ic, 195 seq. ; forgives sin, 195 seq.;
calls Matthew, 196 ; eats with pub-
licans and sinners, 197 seq.; as the
bridegroom, 199; instructs as to
fasting, 199 seq.; heals a woman,
201: restores Jairus’ daughter, 202 ;
heals the blind and the dumb, 203,
230 ; commissions His apostles, 208
seq., 527 seq.; receives the Baptist’s
messengers, 220 seq.; proofs of His
Messiahship, 221 seq., 235 seq.;
eulogy of John the Baptist, 222 seq. ;
criticises His generation, 226 seq.,
244 seq.; compared with John the
Baptist, 226 seq.; upbraids the
cities, 229 ; His prayer of thanks.
giving, 230; invites the oppressed,
231 ; discourses upon the Sabbath-
day, 234; heals the man with the
withered hand, 236 seq.; His uni-
versal brotherhood, 248 seq. ; His par-
ables about the kingdom, 251 seq,;
returns to Nazareth, 263; is not
honored by His own, 264 ; retires to
the desert, 271 seq.; feeds the five
thousand, 272 seq.; retires to pray,
275 ; walks on the sea, 275 seq.;
heals the sick in Gennesaret, 277 ;
questioned by Scribes and Phari-
sees, 279 seq.; condemns their
teachings and practice, 282 ; retires
towards Tyre and Sidon, 283 ; heals
the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician
woman, 284 seq.; returns to Galilee,
286; heals the multitudes, 286;
feeds the four thousand, 287 seq.;
tempted by Sadducees and Phari-
sees, 290 seq.; crosses to the east
side of the Lake, 291; comes to
Caesarea Philippi, 292; asks His
disciples’ confession, 292 seq.; as
the Rock, 296 seq., 304 seq. ; bestows
authority upon Peter, 298 seq., 305
seq.; predicts His own death and
resurrection, 801 seq., 354; His
return to judgment, 303 seq., 400
seq., 419 seq., 443 seq. ; _ is
transfigured, 308 seq., 320; heals
the lunatic, 314 seq.; returns to
Capernaum, 316; pays tribute, 318
seq.; teaches humility, 324, 356 ;

TOPICAL INDEX.

His immanence, 331 ; teaches for-
giveness, 334 ; departs from Galilee
to Jordan, 336; instructs upon
marriage and divorce, 336 seq.;
receives little children, 342 seq.; His
interview with the young ruler, 342
seq.; checks spiritual ambition, 354
seq.; as a ransom, 356; heals the
blind men of Jericho, 357 seq.; His
triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 360
seq.; expels the money.changers,
364 seq.; withers the fig-tree, 366
seq.; confounds His questioner,
368 seq.; defines duty to God and
man, 378 ; answers the Sadducees,
381 seq.; questions the Pharisees,
385 seq.; His two-fold nature, 386 ;
denounces the Scribes and the
Pharisees, 388 seq.; bewails Jeru-
salem, 399 seq.; foretells its destruc-
tion and the end of the world, 404
seq., 419 seq., 430 seq.; His self-
limitation, 427 ; predicts the final
judgment, 443 seq.; is anointed in
Bethany, 452 seq.; keeps the Pass-
over in Jerusalem, 458 seq.; insti-
tutes the Lord’s Supper, 462 seq.;
prays in Gethsemane, 472 seq.; is
etrayed, 477 seq.; examined before
Caiaphas, 480 seq.; confesses His
Messiahship, 482 ; condemned by
priest and people, 483 ; maltreated,
483 seq.; denied by Peter, 484 seq. ;
examined by Pontius Pilate, 490 ;
scourged and crucified, 499 seq.;
railed at, 506 seq.; His cry of
abandonment, 508 seq.; His death,
510; is buried, 514; His resurrec-
tion, 520 seq., 523 seq.; meets the
women, 522 ; His appearances there-
after, 523 seq., 531 seq.; meets the
eleven in Galilee, 625 seq.; imparts
His final commands, 527 seq.
Church, The, visible and invisible,
258 ; built upon the Rock ,296 seq.,
304 seq. ; its victory over Hades,
297 seq. ; its discipline, 328 seq.
Cloud, The, as a symbol, 309.
Comfort, Spiritual, 114.
Commandments, The, their obliga-
tion, 343 ; the great, 383 seq.
Conversion, The need of, 324.
Compassionate, The, 114.
Conduct, Rules of, 212.
Confessing Christ, 216, 294 seq.
Crown of Thorns, The, 6500.
Crucifixion of Christ, 601 seq.

Dp.

Darkness, The, at Christ's crucifixion,
507.
David, 37.

TOPICAL INDEX. a

Decapolis, 108.

Decisiveness, fo the truth, 241.

Decrees of God, The, 377; the pur-
pose of, 397 ped

Defilement, Moral, 281 seq.

Demoniacs, The, of Gadara, 189 seq,,
191 seq.

Demons, and Demonology, 107 seq.,
189 seq., 203, 247 seq., 314 seq.

Denarius, A, the value of, 333.

Devil, The,94; in Christ’s temptations,
98 seq.; his name applied, 215 ; not
in Christ's works, 239 seq.

Discernment, of Christ, 195.

Discipline, Church, 258; how to be
administered, 328 seq.

Disciples, The, as salt, 117 seq. ; as
light, 118 ; fruitful in good works,
119 ; and the moral law, 125 seq.;
their moral perfection, 140 ; their
rules of conduct, 212 seq.; their re-
ward, 218, 346 seq.; striving for
the kingdom, 225; their favored
position, 255 seq., 263 ; their eternal
happiness, 261; confessing Christ,
294 seq.; exhorted to self-denial,303;
lacking faith, 314 seq.; to be long-
suffering, 328 ; their united prayers,
831; to suffer bitter persecution,
410 seq.; apostasy of some, 411; to
watch and pry, 473 seq.; to be
baptized and instructed, 528 seq.

Discreprancy, between Matthew and
John, 105 ; between Matthew and
Luke, 200; between John and the
Synoptists, 486.

Disease, and Sin, 195.

Divorce, 131 seq.; Christ’s teaching
upon, 336 seq.

Doubts, Spiritual, 221.

Dreams, and visions, 49.

Duty, Moral, 165 seq.; to God and
earthly rulers, 380 seq.

E.

Earthquake, at Christ’s death, 510
seq.; at Christ’s resurrection, 520

seq.

Economy, illustrated, 273, 285.

Egypt, The flight to, 65 seq.

Elias, The Coming of, 310 seq.; in
Christ's Transfiguration, 311 seq.
End of the World, The, 407 seq., 413

seq., 420 seq. , 430 seq.

Epilepsy, 108.

Essenes, The, 78.

Eunuchs, 340 seq.

Evil, overcome with good, 137 seq.;
delivery from, 150 ; spirits of, 189
seq.

Excommunication, 330.

F.

Faith, Illustrations of, 179 seq., 201
seq., 277, 284 seq., 296; wanting in,
186 seq., 277, 293, 314 seq.; its mar-
vellous power, 315, 366 seq. ; exer-
cised in love, 446 seq.

False Teachers, 166 seq.

Family, The, and Christ, 217.
Fasting, True and false, 151 seq. ;
private, 198 seq. ; its power, 315.

Fatherhood, of God, 145 seq.

Fear, of God, 216.

Fidelity, enjoined, 429 seq. ; in the
use of gifts, 440 seq.

Fig-tree, The, 425.

Fishing, with a hook, 319.

Food, Daily, 148 seq., 158 seq.

Forgiveness, of sins, 149 ; by Christ,
195 seq. ; taught by a parable, 332
Se].

Fruits, Good, 167.

Funeral Customs, 202.

Gadara, 188.

Galilee, Sea of, 105.

Gehenna, The, 82; as punishment,
127 seq., 334.

Gennesaret, The Land of, 277.

Gentiles, The, inheriting the king-
dom, 180 seq. ; and the Jews, 285
seq. ; invited to the kingdom, 377.

Gerasa, 188. :

Gethsemane, 471 seq.

Gifts, Fidelity in their use, 440 seq.

God, His wrath, 79; His judgment,
80 seq.; His providence, 97 seq.,
148 seq., 155 seq., 158 seq., 216 ; to
be worshipped, 98 ; His love, 139 ;
as Father, 145 seq.; His name holy,
146 ; His will done, 147, 248 seq. ;
His service, 155 ; answering prayer,
164 seq.; the fear of, 216; His
mercy, 328 ; His omnipotence, 345 ;
His decrees, 377 seq.

Golden Rule, The, 165 seq.

Gospel, The meaning of the, 33 seq.;
its superior claims, 186; its sup-
port, 210 seq. ; its universal proc-

mation, 412.

phen reg The Synoptical, their mutual
relationship, 19 seq.; theories of
their origin, 20 seq. ; an original
written Gospel, 21; an oral Gospel,
22 ; one using the other, 23 seq.

Grace, Free, 352.

H.

Hades, The gates of, 297.
Heart, The, as the seat of life, 244.
Hermon, Mount, 308.

536

Herod Antipas, 68; imprisons John
the Baptist, 269; beheads him,
271.

Herod the Great, 58; summons the
Sanhedrim, 61; inquires of the
Magi, 62; and the slanghter of the
innocents, 66 seq. ; his death, 68.

Herodians, The, 378 seq.

Herodias, 268 seq.

Hillel, 337.

Holy Ghost, The, 81; descending
upon Christ, 86 seq., 88 seq. ; sin-

ning against the, 242 seq.

Humility, illustrated, 179 seq., 324;
enforced, 356.

Husbandman, The Wicked, 369 seq.

Hypocrisy, 143 seq. ; illustrated, 162
seq., 166 seq.

I.

Importunity, illustrated, 284 seq.
Incarnation, The, of Christ, 48.
Innocents, The slaughter of the, 67.
Irony, 474 seq.

J.

Jairus, 200 seq.

Jechoniah, 39, 41.

Jerusalem, bewailed by Christ, 399
seq.; its destruction, 415 seq., 430
seq.

Jews, The, cast out, 180 seq.; and
Gentiles, 285 ; rejected, 371 seq.
John, the Baptist, 72 seq.; preaches
repentance, 73 ; announces the ad-
vent of the Messiah's kingdom, 74 ;
his food and raiment, 76 seq.; his
baptism, 77 seq.; baptizes Christ
83 seq., 89 seq.; delivered to Herod,
102 ; sends messengers to Christ,
220 seq.; his doubts as to Christ's
Messiahship, 221; as estimated by
Christ, 222 seq. ; as the end of O. T.
prophecy, 226; compared with
Jesus, 226 seq.; is imprisoned, 269 ;

beheaded, 271 ; as Elias, 311.

Jonah, 245 ; as a type, 246 seq.

Joram, 39.

Joseph, 40; his genealogy, 41 seq.;
his relation to Christ, 44; as the
betrothed of Mary, 49; receives a
vision, 49 seq.; as the husband of
Mary, 53 seq.

Joseph of Arimathea, 513.

Josiah, 39.

Judas, 207.

Judas Iscariot, betrays Christ, 455 ;
his motives, 456; his treachery re-
vealed, 459 seq.; performs the deed,
477 seq.; repents and hangs him-
self, 490 seq.

TOPICAL INDEX.

Judgment, Self-righteous, 162 seq.; in
the church, 258 ; final, 303 seq., 443
seq.; Messianic, 372.

K,

Keys, The Power of the, 298 seq., 305
seq., 330 seq.

Kingdom of Heaven, The, 73 seq.; the
possessors of, 113; prayer for its
advent, 146 seq.; to be sought, 157 ;
parables concerning the, 252 seq.,
375 seq., 437 seq. ; classes in the,
256 seq. ; the enemy of, 256, 260
neq. ; the keys of, 298 seq., 305 seq. ;
its consummation, 303 seq., 346 seq. ;
rank in, 323 seq. ; and marriage,
340 seq. ; the standard of, 224, 342.

King’s Son, The Marriage of the, 375

seq.
Kiss of Judas, The, 478.

L

Laborer, The, worthy of hire, 210 seq.
Laborers in the Vineyard, 350 seq.
Language, ar a moral test, 244.

Law, The, its fulfilment, 119 seq.;
keeping and violating it, 124 ; its
obligation, 343. ,

Leaven, The Parable of the, 259.

Lebbaeus, 207.

Leprosy, 175 seq.

Levi, or Matthew, 1 seq.

Levirate Marriage, 381." ;,

Life, on what it depends, 95 ; its du-
ration, 156; the way to, 166 seq.;
eternal, how gained, 303, 342 seq.

Light, as a symbol, 118.

Lord's Prayer, The, 144 seq., 158 seq.

Lord's Supper, The, instituted, 462
seq.; its meaning, 463 seq. ; doc-
trinal views of, 465 seq., 467 seq. ;
recent authorities upon, 467 seq. ;
versions of institution, 469.

Love, of our enemies, 137 seq. ; Chris-
tian, 139 seq. ; to Christ, 217; of
God and man, 383 seq. ; its practi-
cal exercise, 446 seq. ; and rever-
ence, 454.

Lunatic, The, healed, 314 seq.

Lutheran Doctrine of the Lord’s Sup-
per, The, 463 seq., 468 seq.

M.

Magdala, 288.

Magi, The Visit of the, 57 seq. ;
home of the, 58; their gifts, 63;
the truth of the narrative, 64 seq.,
71.

Man, The good, and the Thief, 428

seq.
Mark, The Gospel of, 27 seq., 29 seq.

TOPICAL INDEX.

Marriage, Christ’s teachings upon, 336
seq. ; customs, 375 seq., 438 seq. ;
the law of levirate, 381 ; in heaven,
382 seq.

Mary, The Virgin, her descent, 43 seq.,
46 seq. ; her Virginity and mother-
hood, 53 seq. ; her family, 248 seq. ;
at the Cross, 513,

we Magdalene, 453 ; at the cross,

1

Matthew, The Apostle, his parentage,
1; his life and death, 2; called asa
disciple, 196.

Matthew, The Gospel of, its origin, 2
seq. ; written in Hebrew, 3 sea. ; its
identity with the Greek, 8, seq. ; a
collection of sayings, 11 seq. ;
adopted by Nazarenes and Ebion-
ites, 13 ; textual difference between
Matthew and Luke, 15 ; itsreaders,
16 seq. ; its object, 17 ; its principal
sections, 18 ; the time of its com-
position, 18 seq.; locality of its com-
position, 18 seq.; its relationship to
Mark and Luke, 19 seq. ; genuine-
ness of first and second chapters,
56 seq.

Meek, The, 114.

Mercy, 114 seq.$ rather than sacrifice,

35 seq.

Merit, Human, 352.

Messiah, The, 293.

Messiahs, False, 408, 417 seq.

Messianic Kingdom, The, 73 seq. ;
the conditions of, 112 seq. ; prayer
for its advent, 146 seq. ; its pleas-
ures, 180 seq. ; the Baptist’s view
of, 221 seq.; the standard of, 224;
struggling for, 225 ; revealed to the
humble, 230 ; parables concerning,
252 seq., 375 seq., 437 seq.; classes
in the, 256 seq. ; the enemy of, 256,
260 seq. ; its fulfilment, 303 seq.,
346 seq., 413 seq.; rank in, 323
seq. ; eating the Passover in, 470.

Miracles of Christ : cleansing of the
leper, 175 seq. ; healing of the Cen-
turion'’s servant, 180 seq. ; Peter's
wife’s mother healed, 181 ; calms
the sea, 186 seq. ; heals the demo-
niacs of Gadara, 188 seq. ; the par-
alytic healed, 195 seq. ; the bloody
issue cured, 201 ; Jairus’ daughter
raised, 202 ; ‘the blind men restored,
203 ; the dumb man healed, 203 :
the withered hand restored, 236
seq.; heals the blind and dumb,
239 the feeding of the five thou-

sand, 272 seq.; His walking on the

sea, 275 seq. ; healing the daughter
of the woman of Canaan, 284 seq. ;
the feeding of the four thousand,

537

287 seq. ; the lunatic healed, 314
seq. ; the fish with the tribute
money, 318 seq.; the two blind
men of Jericho restored, 357° the
fig-tree cursed, 366 seq.

Misery, Spiritual, 204.

Moneychangers, The, 364 seq.

Morality, Christian, 136 seq.

Moses, in Christ’s Transfiguration,
311 seq.

Mount of Beatitudes, The, 111.

Murder, The law against, 126 seq.

Mustard-seed, The Parable of the, 258.

N.

Names, Changing of, 1.
Nature, and Providence, 155 seq. ;
convulsions of, at Christ’s death,

510 seq.
Nazareth, 68 seq.; its relation to
Bethlehem, 70 seq.
Net, The Parable of the, 262 seq.
O.
Oaths, 133 seq
Offenses, to te punished, 326.
P.

Papias, his work and testimony, 9 seq.,
27 8

Parables 252 ; why used, 253 seq.,
255, 265 seq.

Parables of Christ, The : the Physi-
cian, 197 seq. ; the Children of the
Bride Chamber, 198 seq. ; the New
Patch, 199 seq. ; the New ‘Wine, 199
seq.; the Children in the Market
Place, 226 seq. j the Sower, 251
seq., 256 seq. 5 the Tares, 257 seq.,
260 seq. ; the Mustard- Seed, 258 ;
the Leaven, 259 ; the Hid Treasure,
262 ; the Pearl of Great Price, 262 ;
The Net, 262; the Unmerciful Ser-
vant, 332 seq. ; the Laborers in the
Vineyard, 350 a: the Two Sons,
868 seq. ; the Wicked Husbandman,
369 seq. ; the Marriage of the King’s
Son, 875 | seq. ; the Ten Virgins, 437
seq. ; the Good Man and the Thief,
428 seq. ; the Talents, 439 seq.

Passover Festival, The, 451; kept 2
Jesus and His disciples, 458 se
the ceremonial meal, 461 seq. ;
new, 470.

Patch, The New, 199 seq.

Peacemakers, The, 115.

Pearl of Great Price, The, 262.

Perjury, The Law against, 133 seq.

Penny, A, the value of, 333.

Persecution, 116; of the Apostles,
213 ; at the end, 410 seq.

038

Peter, Simon, called as an apostle,
105; his rank, 206, 297, 331 ; walks
upon the sea, 277 ; confesses Christ,
294 ; as the rock, 296 seq., 304 seq. ;
receives authority, 298 seq., 305
seg.; pays tribute, 318 seq.; re-
buked as Satan, 302 seq. ; his de-
nial foretold, 471; uses the sword,
478 seq. ; his denial of Christ, 484

seq.

Phavisses The, 78 ; invited to repent-
ance 80; their righteousness, 124
seq. ; their hypocrisy, 143 seq., 280,
394 seq. ; destitute of love, 235;
condemned, 244 seq., 292, 388 seq. ;
asking for a sign, 245 seq., 290; as
blind leaders, 282 ; their traditions,
279 seq. ; tempting Christ, 290 seq.,
378 seq.

Phoenicia, 284.

Physician, The, 197 seq.

Pilate, 496 ; receives his wife’s mes-
sage, 497; releases Barabbas, 499 ;
washes his hands, 498 seq.; con-
demns Christ, 499 seq.; delivers
Christ’s body to be buried, 513;
sets a watch at His tomb, 516 seq.

Poor, The, 112.

Potter’s Field, The, 492 seq.

Prayer, posture of, 143; true, 144;
the Lord's, 144 seq., 158 seq. ; com-
manded 164 seq., 473 ; in solitude,
275 ; its power, 315, 367; united,
331 ; Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane,
472 seq.

Profession, and practice, 166 seq.

Prophecy, fulfilment of, 51 seq., 69
seq., 75 seq., 103 seq., 182, 184 8eq.,
221, 223, 238 seq., 254 seq., 260,
281, 362, 364 seq., 409, 414 seq.,
479, 493 seq.

Proselytes, The baptism of, 77; the
making of, 392.

Providence, of God, The, 97 seq.,
155 seq.

Punishment, 258; at the end of the
world, 261, 263; in the Gehenna,
127 seq., 334; of the unfaithful,
430: of eterna] duration, 447.

Purity, Moral, 115.

Phylacteries, 390.

Q.

Quakers, and the civil oath, 134.
Quarantania, 93.

R.

Race animosity, 284 seq.
Rachel, the mourning of, 66.
Rahab, 38.

Rama, 66.

TOPICAL INDEX.

Reason, Human, 153 seq.

Recompense, Spiritual, 218; in
Christ's kingdom, 346 seq.

Reconcitiation, 128.

Renovation, Spiritual, 199.

Repentance, 73; demanded by the
Baptist, 80; by Christ, 324.

Resurrection The,of Christ, predicted,
301 seq., 471; and marriage, 382 seq.
of the dead, 382 seq. ; of the elect,
424 seq.; of the O. T. saints at
Christ’s death, 511; His resurrec-
tion accomplished, 520 seq., 531

seq.

Retaliation, 136 seq.

Retribution, Divine, 303 seq., 419.

Revelation, Divine, 294 seq.

Reverence, Parental, 280; and love,
454.

Rich Man, The, and salvation, 344
sey.

Hinhtcouanedd 85: desire for, 114 ;
in Christ, 116; false and genuine,
124 seq.; to be sought, 157 seq. ;
of Christ, 197 seq. ; its moral basis,
376.

Ruler, Young, The, 342 seq.

Ruth, 38.

S.

Sabbath-Day, The, 234 seq. ; healing
on, 236 seq. ; its rest, 416.

Sacrifice, true, 128 sed:

Sadducees, 78 ; invited to repentance,
80 ; tempting Christ, 290 seq., 381
seq. ; denounced, 388 seq.

Salathiel, 40.

Salome, 270; presents her request,
354 ; at the cross, 513.

Salt, its symbolic use, 117 seq.

Samaritans, The, 209.

Sammai, 337.

Sanhedrim, The, 60; summoned by
Herod, 61; call Christ to account,
367 seq. ; conspire against Christ,
480 seq., 489.

Scriptures, The, how quoted, 94 seq.

Self denial, 180 seq.; enjoined, 136
seq., 166; a law of the kingdom, 303 ;
rewarded, 346 seq.

Self-mortification, 326.

Self-righteousness, 163 seq.

Sermon on the Mount, The, 111 seq.,
169 seq.

Service. single-hearted, 154 seq.

Sheep, Lost, Parable of the, 327 seq.

Shekels, 455 seq.

Shewbread, The, 234 seq.

Sick, The, possessed of demons, 107

seq.
Simon of Cyrene, 501 seq.
Simon the Canaanite, 208.

TOPICAL INDEX. 539

‘Sin, and sickness, 195 ; the unpardon-
able sin, 242 seq. ; remitted by God,
334

Son of Man, The, 184 seq.

Sons, The Two, 368 seq.

Soul, The, its worth and loss, 303.

Sower, The, 251 seq.

Star of Bethlehem, The, 59 seq.

Stone Rejected, The, 371.

Substitution, of Christ for sinners,
356.

Sufferers, Spiritual, 113 seq.

Superscription of the Cross, The, 505.

Swearing, 133.

Synagogues, The, 106.

T.

Tabor, Mount, 308.

Talent, A, the value of, 332.

Talents, The, 439 seq.

Tares, The, 257 seq., 260 neq.

Taxes, Roman, 316 ; temple, 317.

Teachers, Spiritual, the want of, 204.

Temple, The, its magnificence, 405 ;
its destruction foretold, 406 seq.

Temptation, 149 seq. ; from others,
326.

Temptations of Christ, The, 92 seq.,
98 seq., 108 seq. ; the first, 94 seq. ;
the second, 96 seq. ; the third, 97

seq.

Thaddaeus, 207.

Thamar, 37.

Threshing of grain, 82.

Time, Roman division of, 275.

Tithing, 393 seq.

Traditions, 279 seq.

Transfiguration of Christ, 308 seq., 320
seq.

Treasure, Hid, The Parable of the,
262.

Treasures, on earth, 152 ; in heaven,
153, 344.

Tribute, The duty of paying, 378 seq.

Trust in God, 157 seq.

U.

Unbelief, its weakness, 315.
Unmerciful Servant, The, 332 seq.
Unpardonable Sin, The, 242 seq.

Vv

Veil, The rending of the, 511.
Virgins, The Ten, 437 sed.
Visions, and dreams, 49, 91.

W.

Wages for work, 351 seq.

Washing, of hands, 279 seq.

ogi, enjoined, 429, 437 seq.,

73.

Wealth, Striving after, 152 seq. ; and
salvation, 344 seq.

Weather, signs of, 290 seq.

Wedding-Garment, The, 376.

Will of God, The, 147; doing, 167.

Wine, The New, 199 seq.

Wisdom, and her children, 227 seq.

Woes against Scribes and Pharisees,
388 seq.

Woman, and genealogies, 37 seq.

Women, The, at the cross, 512 seq. ;
at the sepulchre, 519 seq.

Works, Good, 167.

Wrath of God, The, 79.

Z.
Zacharias, the murder of, 398.

wee ee Oe