Skip to main content

Full text of "Critical and exegetical handbook to the Gospel of Matthew ... tr. from the 6th ed. of the German by ... Peter Christie ; the translation rev. and ed."

See other formats 




Library of The Theological Seminary 


PRINCETON : NEW JERSEY 


C=): 


Green Fund 

















CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY 
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 


From the German, With the Sanction of the Author. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 


WIDEIAM PF: DICKSON, Dw, 
AND 


WILETAM STEWART, D:D: 


PART I. 
The GOSPEL OR Sf. MATTHEW. 
WOE oIah. 


DIN BU RG EH: 
i & 2. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREEEL 


MDCCCLXXIX. 


PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, 
FOR 


T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 


LONDON, - . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, ANI) CO. 
DUBLIN,. . . . . ROBERTSON AND CO. 


NEW YORK, - . . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


HANDBOOK 


THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


BY 
/ 
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz#.D., 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 


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


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 


WILLIAM STEWART, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


WA is IA 


EDINBURGH: 
me TT) CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET 


MDCCCLXXIX. 





PREFATORY NOTE. 


S Dr. Crombie has been prevented by other engagements 
from continuing his co-operation with me in the 
revision and editing of this series of translations, I have asked 
my esteemed colleague, Dr. Stewart, to take part in it. He 
has kindly consented to do so; and he has revised, and seen 
through the press, the present volume, with the exception of a 
few pages at the beginning which I had previously looked 
over. I learn from him that the translation has been executed 
with care and skill by Mr. Christie. 

Mr. Christie desires me to mention that at the time of pre- 
paring his translation of the earlier portion of the Commentary 
on Matthew (from chapter vi. onward) he was not aware of 
the mode of rendering, which had been adopted in the previous 
volumes, for Dr. Meyer’s references to other portions of his 
own Commentary (e.g. “comp. on Luke xvi. 7 ;” “see on Rom. 
vi. 5”); and he requests that, in conformity to it, the word 
“note” inserted by him in such cases may be held as deleted, 
since the references are, in general, to the text of the commen- 
tary itself, and not to the notes or Remarks appended (except 
when so specified). 

The following important work ought to have been included 
in the “ Exegetical Literature” prefixed to vol. I. :— 


Weiss (Bernhard): Das Matthiiusevangelium und seine Lukas- 
Parallelen. 8°, Halle, 1876. 


WILLIAM P. DIcKSON. 


GuLascow CoLiece, Febru ry 1879. 





GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


CHAT TE BR Xx VLE 


VER. 1. pe] Lachm.: 74ép¢, which Fritzsche has adopted, against 
decisive evidence; although ancient, since both readings are 
found as early as the time of Origen, juép¢ is a gloss instead of 
ape, as there appeared to be nothing in the context to which 
the latter might be supposed to refer.— Ver. 4. rareswon] 
The future rareaces is, with Lachm. and Tisch, to be adopted 
on decisive evidence. — Ver. 6. e/g rov rp.] for eis Elz. has éai, 
while Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read zepi. Only «fs and zepi have 
anything like important testimony in their favour. But ep/ is 
taken from Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2.— Ver. 7. On weighty 
evidence we should follow Lachm. in deleting écrw after yap, 
and éxefvw in the next clause, as words that might naturally have 
been inserted; Tisch. 8 has deleted éor only. — Ver. 8. aira] 
BDL &, min. vss. and Fathers: airév. So Lachm. and Tisch. 
correctly; airé is an emendation to include both—Further 
on Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have xvarw 7 xwrdv, following B &, 
Vulg. It.; a transposition to suit xefp and cots.— Ver. 10. The 
evidence is too weak to warrant us in substituting 2 r@ obpavm 
(so Lachm. in brackets) for the first év odpavois; still weaker 
is the evidence in favour of omitting the words, although 
they are omitted at an early period (as early as the time of 
Clem. Or. Syr. ?).— Ver. 11. This verse does not occur in 
B L* 8, 1*, 13, 33, Copt. -‘Sahid. Syrie. Aeth. (cod. 1), Eus. 
Or. Hil. Jer. Juv. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. ; condemned 
also by Rinck. Already suspected by Griesb. to have been 
an interpolation from Luke xix. 10, which in fact it is, con- 
sidering how much evidence there is against it, and considering, 
on the other hand, that, if it had been genuine, there was no 
obvious motive on exegetical grounds for the omission. — Ver. 
12. dgels... copevdetc] Lachm.: apo... xai ropevdeis, follow- 
ing B D L, min. Vulg. It. (of which, however, D, Vulg. have apinouy, 
MATT. IL A 


2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


and D, opevéuevos). Exegetical analysis, in order to remove 
ambiguity as to the connection.— Ver. 14. ¢7s] Lachm. and 
Tisch.: &, following B D L M*x8, min. Altered to ¢éf¢ in 
accordance with ver. 10; while zarpég mov, which Lachm. sub- 
stitutes for tarp. tuav (following B F H J, min. vss. Or.), is to 
be regarded in the same light.— Ver. 15. «fs o#] deleted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B &, 1, 22, 234*, Sahid. Or. Cyr. Bas. 
This evidence is too weak, especially as the omission of EIZ3E 
might easily enough have happened from its following H=H 
(auaprjon), While it is further to be borne in mind that, in 
what goes before, it was sin in general, not merely an offence, 
that was in question. The <«/s oé, which is here genuine, was 
inserted from our passage into Luke xvii. 3, Elz. — 2acyEov] 
Elz., Scholz: xa: a., against B C 8 and many min. vss. and 
Fathers. The xas was inserted as a connective particle. — 
Ver. 19. réarv &wyv] Elz. (so also Griesb. Scholz, Fritzsche, 
Rinck, Tisch. 8) has merely +éAw, and Lachm., following min. 
only (B being erroneously quoted), has merely éujv. But the 
attestation for réAw a&ujv (Tisch. 7) is about equal in weight 
(incl. B) to that in favour of the simple +é% (incl. &), and 
one of the words might easily enough have been omitted from 
the combination not occurring anywhere else.— cvuzparvjowory| 
Seeing that the future cvumpwrjcove is supported by the prepon- 
derating evidence of B DE HILV AS, min, and seeing, on 
the other hand, that it might very readily have been supplanted 
by the subjunctive as being the mood most in accordance 
with the usual construction, it is, with Tisch., to be adopted 
as the correct reading.— Ver. 24. rpoonvéxd7] Lachm. and 
Tisch. 7: spoojxén, following B D Or. Correctly; this and 
Luke ix. 41 are the only instances in which zpocéyew occurs in 
the Gospels, zpoogépew being the form most familiar to the 
copyists. — Ver. 25. 7] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: zye, following 
only B, min. Or.; but it is to be preferred, since to the mecha- 
nical transcribers the present would doubtless seem to be 
improper. — Ver. 26.] xtpse before waxp. is to be regarded as 
interpolated, being omitted by B D, min. Vulg. codd. of It. 
Syr™ Or. Chrys. Lucif., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch, — 
Ver. 27. éxefvov] omitted by Lachm., only after B, min., as is 
also éxeivos, ver. 28, only after B.— Ver. 28. wo.] not found in the 
more weighty witnesses; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An 
interpolation.— <7 r:] Elz.: 6, 1, against decisive evidence. 
Erroneous emendation.— Ver. 29. aisot] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, 
Scholz, Tisch. 7, insert <is rods aédaz airct, which, however, is 
omitted by BC* DGLavxs, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Syre 


CHAP. XVIII. 1, 2. 3 


It. (Brix. excepted) Vulg. Or. Lucif. Gloss on the simple zeou, 
In regard to «s,comp. John xi. 32, al.—ardvra] Deleted by 
Matth., Scholz, Tisch., on preponderating evidence; bracketed 
by Lachm. It is a mechanical interpolation from ver. 26.— 
Ver. 31. For the first yeviweva Fritzsche and Tisch. substitute 
yiwoueva, following only D L &**, min. Vulg. It. Chrys. Lucif., 
but correctly. The transcribers failed to notice the difference 
of meaning. — For airéy or airay we should, with Lachm. and 
Tisch., read éavrav, upon decisive evidence ; the reflexive refer- 
ence of the pronoun was overlooked, as was often the case. — 
Ver. 34. #i7@] not found in B D &**, min. vss. Lachm.; but it 
may easily enough have been left out in conformity with ver. 
30. — Ver. 35. suav] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz insert ra 
Toparrwwara avrav, Which is not found in BDL ¥&, min. and 
several vss. and Fathers. Gloss from vi. 14,15; Mark xi. 25, 
26.— But érovpévioc, for which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 
substitute odpavos (B C** D K L IL8, min. Or. Damasc.), is 
to be retained, all the more that the expression 6 rarzp 6 éroup. 
occurs nowhere else, though we frequently find 6 =. 6 cipévos. 


Ver. 1. "Ev éxeivy tH dpa] the account of Matthew, which 
is throughout more original in essential matters than Mark ix. 
33 ff. and Luke ix. 46 ff., bears this impress no less in this 
definite note of time: in that hour, namely, when Jesus was 
holding the above conversation with Peter.— és dpa] quis 
igitur (see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176). The question, according 
to Matthew (in Mark otherwise), is suggested by the considera- 
tion of the circwmstances: Who, as things stand, is, etc.; for 
one of them had just been peculiarly honoured, and that for 
the second time, by the part he was called upon to take in a 
special miracle. Euthymius Zigabenus says well: avOpémwov 
Te TOTe TeTOVOacw ot paOnTtai.— pwelfwv] greater than the 
other disciples in rank and power. —éoviv] they speak as 
though the approaching Messianic kingdom were already present. 
Comp. xx. 21. 

Ver. 2. ILavdiov] According to Nicephorus, ii. 35, the 
child in question is alleged to have been St. Ignatius. 
Chrysostom correctly observes that it is a little child («¢ddpa 
Tatdiov) ; TO yap ToLodTOY Tatdlov Kal amrovoias Kai Sofopavias 
k. Backavias x. hidoverkeias kK. TavT@V TOV TOLOVT@Y aT7)hNaAK- 
Tat TaGav, Kal ToAAAS éxov TAS apeTas, abédeLav, TaTreLVod- 


4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


poovvny, ampaynoovvny, er ovdert TovTwy émaipetat. Comp. 
Mark ix. 36; Luke ix. 47. 

Ver. 3. Ei tis améyetar Tov TpoaipeTiKav Tabdv, yiveTat 
@s Ta Taldla, KT@pevos 8 acKiocews, dmep Exovot TA Travia 
e& agenreias, Euthymius Zigabenus. — Zo turn round (otpa- 
dire, representing the peravova under the idea of turning 
round upon a road), and to acquire a moral disposition similar 
to the nature of little children—such is the condition, without 
complying with which you will assuredly not (od jm) enter, 
far less be able to obtain a high position in, the Messianic 
kingdom about to be established. The same truth is presented 
under a kindred figure and in a wider sense in John iii. 3, 
5 ff.; the divine agent in this moral change, in which child- 
like qualities assume the character of manly virtues, is the Holy 
Spirit; comp. Luke xi. 13, ix. 55. 

Ver. 4. Inference from the general principle of ver. 3 to 
the special child-like quality in which the disciples were 
deficient, as well as to the special subject of their question. 
If your entering the future Messianic kingdom at all is deter- 
mined by your returning again to a child-like frame of mind, 
then above all must you acquire, through humble self-abase- 
ment, the unassuming character of this child, in order to 
be greater than others in the Messiah’s kingdom. — éorus] 
quicunque ; “de individuo, de quo quaerebant, non respondet,” 
Bengel. In what follows tazrewaoe is emphatic, and accord- 
ingly stands near the beginning of the sentence. Had the 
subjunctive been critically certain, we should not have had to 
borrow édv from the second part of the statement (Fritzsche), 
but rather to observe the distinction in the manner of pre- 
senting the idea, according to which the insertion of ay marks 
the presupposition as conditioned. The /futwre assumes the 
action as actually occurring in the future; while the subjunc- 
tive after the relative without av keeps the future realization 
still within the domain of thought, without, however, conceiving 
of the realization as conditioned (av). For this usage among 
Attic prose writers, see Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 138.— 
Moreover, the words of vy. 3, 4, inasmuch as they are essentially 
connected with the question of the disciples, are certainly 


CHAP. XVIII. 5, 6. 5 


original, not an anticipation of xix. 13 ff. (Holtzmann), and 
dispose us to prefer the account of Matthew to that of Mark 
or Luke. 

Ver. 5. Comp. Mark ix. 37; Luke ix. 47. The question 
of the disciples has been answered. But His eye having 
lighted upon this child who happened to be present, Jesus 
now seizes the opportunity of inculcating upon them the duty 
of taking an affectionate interest in such little ones,—an exhor- 
tation, of which the jealous and ambitious spirit evinced by 
their question in ver. 1 must have shown they stood but too 
much in need. —acdiov tovodtov] such a little child, i.e. 
according to the context, not a literal child (Bengel, Paulus, 
Neander, de Wette, Arnoldi, Bleek, Hilgenfeld), which would 
give a turn to the discourse utterly foreign to the connection, 
but a man of such a disposition as this little child represents 
one who with child-like simplicity is humble and unassum- 
ing. So Chrysostom (zaidiov yap évtad0a tovs avOpmrovs Tods 
ovTas adenreis Gynot Kai TaTreLvos Kal aTreppipévous Tapa ToOIS 
modXots), Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel, 
Olshausen, Kern, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Keim. Jesus 
well knew how much the unassuming, child-like disposition, free 
from everything like self-assertion, was just that which others, 
animated by an opposite spirit, were in the habit of overlook- 
ing, slighting, and thrusting aside.—€v] @ single one. So 





very precious are they !— dé£n tac] denotes a loving reception 
with a view to further care for the soul; the opposite to this 
is cxavdanrifew, ver. 6.— él TO dvopartié pov] on the ground 


of my name (xxiv. 5)—i.e. on account of my name, which, 
however, is not, with de Wette, to be taken subjectively, and 
referred to the faith of the one who receives (whosoever confess- 
ing my name, on account of his faith in me, etc.) but is to be 
understood as referring to the waidiov tovodtov that is to be 
received (Mark ix. 41; Matt. x. 42), because my name (Jesus 
the Messiah) contains the sum of his belief and confession (“ non 
ob causas naturales aut politicas,’ Bengel).— éwé] comp. x. 
40, xxv. 40; John xiii, 20. 

Ver. 6. Comp. Mark ix. 42 ; Luke xvii. 2. — ccavdanrion] 
Opposite of d¢&)rar, meaning: will have been to him the 


6 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


oceasion of his fall, especially of his apostasy from the faith 
(v. 29, xi. 6).— Tv pLxpOv TovTa@r] not to be understood, 
any more than ra.diov ToodTo, ver. 5, of literal children (Holtz- 
mann), and consequently not to be used as proof of the faith 
of little children (Baur, Delitzsch), but as meaning: one of 
those little ones,—a way of designating modest, simple-minded, 
unassuming believers, that had just been suggested by seeing 
in the child then present a model of such simplicity. This is 
not quite the same as Tay muKpav Tov’Twy, x. 42 (xxv. 40), 
where the expression is not borrowed from the illustration of 
a child. —cupdépes adTo, iva, x.7.r.] For the construction, 
comp. note on v. 29. “ But whoever will have offended one 
of those little ones,’—it is of service to him, with a view 
to, ie. in hune finem ut. That, which such a person may 
have come to deserve, is thus expressed in the form of a 
divine purpose, which his evil deed must help him to bring 
about; comp. John xi 50. <A comparative reference of 
oupdéper (Jerome: “ quam aeternis servari cruciatibus ;” others: 
than again to commit such a sin) is a pure importation. — 

“pvros dvexds] The larger mills (in contradistinction to the 
xerpoutrar, xxiv. 41) were driven by an ass ; Buxtorf, Lez. 
Talm. p. 2252. Comp. also Anth. Pal. ix. 301; Ovid, A. A. 
iii, 290.—The xatarovticpos (Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. 
xvi. 35; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 72, 26; Casaubon, ad 
Suet. Oct. 67) was not a Jewish method of putting to death, 
neither was it a practice in Galilee (Joseph. Anéz. xiv. 15. 10), 
but belonged to the Greeks, Romans, Syrians, and Phoenicians. 
Consequently it here expresses in a manner all the more 
vivid and awe-inspiring that punishment of death to which 
the man in question has become liable, and which is intended 
to represent the loss of eternal life; comp. vv. 7—9. 

Ver. 7. Odal] Opnvet ds firtavOpwrros Tov Koopov as péh- 
Aovta PBraBhvar ard Tov cKavdarwv, Theophylact. — ao] 
indicating the causal origin of the woe for humanity (7@ 
coop). The world is not conceived of as giving the offence 
(in answer to Jansen, Arnoldi, Bleek), but as suffering from it. 
With regard to dz, see Buttmann, Newt. Gramm. p. 277 [E. T. 
322].—dvdyxn yap] assigns the reason for the amo tév 


CHAP. XVIII. 8, 9. 7 
oxavoan. immediately before: on account of offences, I say, for 
they cannot but come. This necessity (necessitas consequentiae) 
has its foundation in the morally abnormal condition of man- 
kind, yet (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 19) is to be traced back to the divine 
purpose (not merely permission), which, however, does away 
neither with the moral freedom of him who, by word or deed, 
gives offence (Rom. xiv. 13), nor with his liability to punish- 
ment. Hence: Any (yet) oval TO avOpeTro, K.T.A.—Ta oKAaD- 
Sanda] temptations, as a general conception.— 76 cxav6.] the 
temptation as conceived of in each individual case. 

Ver. 8 f. Comp. Mark ix. 43 ff. A passing direction, sug- 
gested by ver. 7, for avoiding certain specified offences, and 
substantially the same as in v. 29. A repetition depending 
here, no doubt, on Mark (Weiss), yet not to be regarded as out 
of place, because the proverbial saying refers to one’s own 
temptations as coming through the senses, while here the point 
in question is the temptation of others (de Wette, Kuinoel, 
Strauss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld), but on the contrary as 
quite appropriate, inasmuch as the cxdvédara occasioned from 
without operate through the senses, and thereby seduce into 
evil. —xanrov cou éotiv ... 4] a mixture, by attraction, 
of two constructions: J¢ 7s good to enter into the life (of the 
Messiah’s kingdom at the second coming) maimed (and 
better) than, etc. See Fritzsche’s note on this passage, and 
Dissert. WI. ad 2 Cor. p. 85; Winer, p. 226 [E. T. 302]; 
Buttmann, p. 309 [E. T. 360]. For examples from classical 
writers, see Kypke, Obss. I. p. 89; Bos, Hilips. ed. Schaefer, 
p. 769 ff. See besides, the note on v. 29, 30. But in the 
present passage the material representation of mortification as 
the condition of eternal life is somewhat more circumstantial 
and graphic. — ywX6r] refers to the feet, one of which, indeed, 
is supposed to be awanting (comp. Hom. J. ii. 217: yards 
& €repov mda); while, according to the context, cvArov here 
(more general in xv. 30) refers to mutilation of the arm, from 
which the hand is supposed to be cut off. Hence: limping 
(x@Aov) or maimed (kvddov). But the circumstance of xywAdv 
being put jirst is due to the fact that the cutting off of the foot 
(avTov, see critical notes) had been specified, although at the 


8 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


same time an identical proceeding in regard to the hand is, of 
course, to be understood. — wovofOarp.] Herod. iii. 116, 
iv. 27; Strabo, II. p. 70. According to the grammarians, we 
should have had érepopOanru. in contradistinction to wovddParu., 
which denotes the condition of one born with one eye. See 
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 136 f.; Becker, Anecd. I. p. 280. 

Ver. 10. Jesus now proceeds with His cautions, which had 
been interrupted by the parenthetical exhortation in vv. 7-9. 
The belief that every individual has a guardian angel (see 
Tob. v.; comp. in general, Schmidt in Igen’s Denkschr.I. p. 24 ff.) 
—which is a post-Babylonian development of the Old Testa- 
ment view, that God exercised His care over His people through 
angelic instrumentality—is here confirmed by Jesus (Acts 
xii. 15)—a point which is to be simply admitted, but not to 
be explained symbolically, neither by an “as it were” (Bleek), 
as though it were intended merely to represent the great value 
of the little ones in the sight of God (de Wette), nor as 
referring to human guardians, who are supposed to occupy a 
position of pre-eminent bliss in heaven (Paulus). — év ovp. dia 
mavtTos BNETovet,K.T.r.] inasmuch as they are ever in imme- 
diate proximity to God’s glory in heaven, and therefore belong 
to the highest order of angels. This is not merely a way of 
expressing the great importance of the puxpoi, but a proof 
which, from Déyo tpiv and Tod matpds pov, receives all 
the -weight of an emphatic testimony; while the mode of 
representation (comp. o% ‘Nb of the Rabbinical writers, 
Schoettgen’s note on this passage) is borrowed from the court 
arrangements of Oriental kings, whose most confidential ser- 
vants are called 9287 38 ‘N40, 2 Kings xxv. 19; 1 Kings 
mee Lop. xu, 15: Lukes lo. 

Ver. 11 f. Omitting ver. 11, which is not genuine (see 
critical notes), we come to the parable vv. 12-14, which 
is intended to show that it would be in direct opposition to 
God’s desire for human salvation to lead astray one of those 
pxpoi, and to cause him to be lost, like a strayed sheep. 
Luke xv. 4 ff. records the same beautiful parable, though in a 
different connection, and with much tenderer, truer, and more 
original features. But the time-hallowed parable of the 


CHAP. XVIII. 14. 9 


shepherd came so naturally to Jesus, that there is no reason 
why He should not have employed it more than once, in a 
shorter or more detailed form, according as it happened to be 
appropriate to the occasion. — Té bpiv doxet] “suavis com- 
municatio,’” Bengel. — dav yévnraz, «.7.d.] if a hundred sheep 
have fallen to a man’s lot, if he has come into the possession of 
them (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 364). The contrast to & requires that 
we should conceive of éxatov as a large number (not as a small 
flock, Luke xii. 32). Comp. Lightfoot. — It is preferable to 
connect émt ta dpn with adeis (Vulgate, Luther), because the 
connecting of it with .zopevGeis (Stephanus, Beza, Casaubon, 
Er. Schmid, Bengel) would impart an unmeaning emphasis to 
él Ta dpn. The man is pasturing his sheep upon the hills, 
observes that one of them is amissing, therefore meanwhile 
leaves the flock alone upon the hills (for the one that has 
strayed demands immediate attention), and, going away, searches 
for the one sheep that is lost. The reading of Lachmann repre- 
sents the right connection. — él ta dpn] evi is not merely 
upon (as answering the question: where ?), but expresses the 
idea of being scattered over the surface of anything, which 
corresponds exactly with what is seen in the case of a flock 
- when it is grazing, and which is likewise in keeping with 
ageis, which conveys the idea of being Jet owt, let loose. Comp. 
notes on xiii. 2, xiv. 19, xv. 35. — édv yévntac ebpety ado] 
uf wt should happen that he finds it. Comp. Hesiod, Theog. 
639; in classical Greek, found mostly with, though also with- 
out, a dative. Xen. Mem. i. 9.13; Cyr. vi. 3.11; Plato, 
Rep. p. 397 B; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 582. This expression is 
unfavourable to the notion of irresistible grace. — yaipeu, 
«.T.d.] This picture, so psychologically true, of the first im- 
pression is not applied to God in ver. 14 (otherwise in Luke 
xv. 7), although, from the popular anthropopathic point of 
view, it might have been so. Luke’s version of the parable is 
characterized by greater freshness. 

Ver. 14. Accordingly, as it is not the will of that man that 
one of his sheep should be lost, so it is not the will of God 
that one of those wuxpod should be lost (should fall into eternal 
perdition). The point of the comparison therefore lies in the 


10 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


unwillingness to let perish ; in the parable this is represented 
by the case of a strayed sheep, for the purpose of teaching the 
disciples that if a suxpos happens to err from the faith and the 
Christian life, they should not abandon him, but try to induce 
him to amend.—What is said in regard to the pxpoi is there- 
fore put in the form of a climax: (1) Do not despise them, 
inasmuch as you would cause them to go astray, and be the 
occasion of their ruin (vv. 6-10); (2) On the contrary, if 
one does go wrong, rescue him, just as the shepherd rescues his 
wandering sheep, in order that it may not be lost (vv. 12-14). 
— éumpocGer] coram (xi. 26; Luke xv. 10). There is not 
before God (before the face of God) any determination having 
as tts object that, etc.; consequently, no predestination to 
condemnation in the divine will. On the idea involved in 
6énpa, comp. note oni. 19. For the ¢elic sense of tva, comp. 
vii. 12; Mark vi. 25, x. 35, al., and the é0érew ddpa of 
Homer; Niigelsbach’s note on liad, i. 133. — &v] See critical 
notes. The idea of the sheep still lingers in the mind. 

Ver. 15. The connection with what precedes is as follows : 
“ Despise not one of the pexpor (vv. 10-14); if, however, one 
offends against thee, then proceed thus.” The subject changes 
from that of doing injury to the puxpol, against which Jesus 
has been warning (vv. 10-14), to that of suffering injury, in 
view of which he prescribes the proper method of brotherly 
visitation. However, in developing this contrast, the point 
of view becomes so generalized that, instead of the puxpoit, 
who were contemplated in the previous warning, we now 
have the Christian brother generally, 0 ddehpos cov — there- 
fore, the genus to which the puxpds as species belongs. — 
apaptynon eis oé] The emphasis is not on es oé, but on 
dpaptynon: but if thy brother shall have sinned against thee, 
which he is supposed to do not merely “ scandalo dato” 
(Bengel), but by sinful treatment in general, by any un- 
brotherly wrong whatsoever. Comp. ver. 21. Ch. W. Miiller 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 339 ff, Julius Miller, Dogmat. 
Abh. p. 513 ff, reject the reading ets oé, ver. 15, though on 
internal grounds that are not conclusive, and which might 
be met by stronger counter-arguments against the use of 


CHAP. XVIII. 16. ib 


auaptyon without modification of any sort. How can it 
be supposed that the procedure here inculcated was intended 
to apply to every sin without any limitation whatever ? Would 
we not have in that case a supervision omniwm contra omnes ? 
The reference can only be to private charges, to offences in 
which the one sins against the other (ets oé), and which, as 
such, ought to be dealt with within the Christian church. 
Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1 ff.—darye] do not wait, then, till he 
himself come to thee.—peta&d cod Kk. adtod povov] so 
that except him no one else is to be present along with thee, 
so that the interview be strictly confined to the two of you. 
We must not therefore supply a povouv after cod as well. 
But the rebuking agency (Eph. v. 11) is regarded as in- 
tervening between the two parties. The person who re- 
proves mediates between the two parties, of which he himself 
forms one. — édv cov axovcon] if he will have listened to 
thy admonition, will have complied with it. But Fritzsche 
and Olshausen connect the preceding povov with this clause: 
“ §2 tibi soli aures praebuerit.” This would imply an arrange- 
ment that is both harsh and foreign to New Testament usage. 
— éxépdnoas] usually explained: as thy friend; mparov 
yap é€nusod todTov, Sua Tod cKavdddov pyyripevov amd Tis 
aderguxhs cov cvvadeias, Euthymius Zigabenus. But what a 
truism would such a result imply! Therefore it should much 
rather be explained thus: thou hast gained him Jor the eternal 
blessedness of my kingdom, to which, from not being brought to a 
state of repentance, he would otherwise have been lost (ver. 17). 
But the subject who gains is the party that has been aggrieved 
by the offence of the brother, because the successful result is 
understood to be brought about by his affectionate endeavours 
after an adjustment. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 19; 1 Pet. 11. 1. 
Ver. 16. Second gradus admonitionis. The one or the two 
who accompany him are likewise intended to take part in the 
eheyyew (see avtarv, ver. 17). — tva él otdpatos, K.7.dr.] in 
order that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word 
may be duly attested ; i.e. in order that every declaration which 
he makes in answer to your united éAéyyew may be heard by 
two or three persons (according as one or two may happen to 


£2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


be present besides thyself), and, on the strength of their testi- 
mony (él orduatos, ‘5 Sy), may be duly authenticated, so that 
in the event of his submitting to the ééyyew the possibility 
of evading or denying anything afterwards will be precluded ; 
or else, should he prove so refractory that the matter must 
be brought before the church, then, in the interests of this 
further disciplinary process, it will be of consequence to have 
the declaration made by him in the previous attempt to deal 
with him in an authentic and unquestionable shape. — In 
order to convey His idea, Jesus has used, though somewhat 
freely (otherwise in 2 Cor. xiii. 1), the words of the law, 
Deut. xix. 15, and made them His own. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 19. 

Ver. 17. TH éxxrAnoia] is not to be understood of the 
Jewish synagogue (Beza, Calvin, Fritzsche), which is never 
called by this name, and any reference to which would be 
contrary to the meaning of Jesus; but it is to be taken as 
referring to the community of believers on Jesus (comp. note on 
xvi. 18), which is, as yet, regarded as one body with the 
apostles included (ver. 18). There is here no allusion to 
individual congregations in different localities, since these 
could come into existence only at a later period ; neither, for 
this reason, can there be any allusion to presbyters and bishops 
(Chrysostom), or to those whom they may have invested, as 
their representatives, with spiritual jurisdiction (Catholic 
writers, comp. besides, Dollinger). There is, further, nothing 
to warrant the assumption of an historical prolepsis (de Wette, 
Julius Miiller), for the truth is, the Sap of believers was 
actually existing; while, in the terms of this passage, there 
is no direct reference to individual congregations. But 
as Jesus had already spoken elsewhere of His snp (xvi. 18), 
it was impossible for the disciples to misunderstand the 
allusion. The warrant for regarding the judgment of the 
church as final in regard to the édey&s lies in the moral 
power which belongs to the unity of the Holy Spirit, and, 
consequently, to true understanding, faith, earnest effort, 
prayer, etc., the existence of all which in the church is pre- 
supposed. It is not inconsistent with this passage to suppose 
that, under the more developed circumstances of a later 


CHAP. XVIII. 18, 19. 13 


period, when local congregations sprung up as offshoots from 
the Snp, there may have been some representative body, com- 
posed of individuals chosen for the purpose of maintaining 
discipline, but the choice would necessarily be founded on 
such conditions and qualifications as were in keeping, so far 
as it was possible for man to judge, with the original principle 
of entrusting such matters only to those who were actual 
believers and had been truly regenerated. — éav Sé Kal Tr. 
exkyr. Tapak.| but if he refuses to listen even to the church ; if he 
will not have submitted to its advice, exhortation, injunction. — 
ETTW TOL dome, «.7.r.] let him be for thee (ethical dative) ; 

let him be in thy estimation as, etc. ; Nowrov aviata 6 ToLodTOS 
vooet, Chrysostom. What is here ‘indicated 4 is the breaking 
off of all further Christian, brotherly fellowship with one 
who is hopelessly obdurate, “as not being a sheep, nor caring 
to be sought, but willing to go right to perdition,” Luther. 
In this passage Christ says nothing, as yet, about formal 
excommunication on the part of the church (1 Cor. v.); but the 
latter was such a fair and necessary deduction from what he did 
say, as the apostolic church, in the course of its development, 
considered itself warranted in making. “Ad eam ex hoc 
etiam loco non absurde argumentwm duci posse non negaverim,” 
Grotius. In answer to the latter, Calovius, in common with 
the majority of the older expositors, asserts that the institu- 
tion of excommunication is, in the present passage, already 
expressly declared. — 6 é@vixds] generic. 

Ver. 18 f. By way of giving greater confidence in the 
exercise of this last stage of discipline at which the matter 
is finally disposed of by the church, let ne assure you of two 
things: (1) Whatever you (in the church) declare to be un- 
lawful on the one hand, or permissible on the other (see note 
on xvi. 19), will be held to be so in the sight of God; your 
judgment in regard to complaints brought before the church 
is accordingly ratified by divine warrant. (2) If two of you 
agree as to anything that is to be asked in prayer, it will be 
given you by God; when, therefore, your hearts are thus 
united in prayer, you are assured of the divine help and 
illumination, in order that, in every case, you may arrive at 


14 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


and, in the church, give effect to decisions in accordance with the 
mind of God.—Those addressed in the second person (éyonTe, 
k.7.r.) are the apostles (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 266 f,), 
but not the disciples in the more comprehensive sense of the word 
(Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 103), nor the church (Bleek, Schenkel, 
Keim, Ahrens), nor its Jeaders (Euthymius Zigabenus, de Wette), 
nor the parties who have been injured (Origen, Augustine, 
Theophylact, Grotius). In order to a clear understanding of 
the whole discourse from ver. 3 onwards, it should be observed 
generally, that wherever the address is in the second person 
plural (therefore in vv. 3, 10, 12,14, 18, 19), it is the Twelve 
who came to Jesus, ver. 1, that are intended; but that where 
Jesus uses the second person singular (as in vv. 8, 9, 15-17), 
He addresses every believer individually (including also the 
puxpot). But as far as the éxxAyova is concerned, it is to be 
understood as meaning the congregation of belrevers, including the 
apostles, It is the possessor and guardian of the apostolic moral 
legislation, and consequently it is to it that the offender is in 
duty bound to yield obedience. Finally, since the power of bind- 
ing and loosing, which in xvi. 19 was adjudged to Peter, is 
here ascribed to the apostles generally, the power conferred 
upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be 
of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is 
not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it either in 
whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as primus 
inter pares.— Twadrw.v apnv r bp.| Once more a solemn 
assurance! and that to the effect that, etc. Comp. xix. 24. 
For éay with the indicative (cupdwrvicovow, see critical 
notes), see note on Luke xix. 40, and Buttmann, Neut. 
Gramm. p. 192 [E. T. 222]; Bremi, ad Lys. Alc. 13. The 
construction is a case of attraction; wav should have been 
the subject of the principal clause of the sentence, but was 
attracted to the subordinate clause and joined to wpdyuaros, 
so that without the attraction the passage would run thus: 
éav dvo by. cuphwvicovow emt T. yas Tepl mpdypyatos, 
mav 0 éay aitnowvTat, ywroetar avtois. Comp. Kiihner, 
II. 2, p. 925. For the contrast implied in ei 7. yfs, comp. 
ix. 6. 


CHAP. XVIII. 20-22. US 


Ver. 20. Confirmation of this promise, and that not on 
account of any special preference for them in their official 
capacity, but generally (hence the absence of vudy in connec- 
tion with the dvo 7 tpets) owing to the fact of His gracious 
presence in the midst of His people when met together: for 
where two or three are gathered together with reference to my name, 
there am I (my presence being represented by the Holy Spirit, 
comp. Rom. vii. 9 f.; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; 1 Cor. v. 4; Gal. ii. 20; 
Eph. i. 16 f.; also in general, xxviii. 20) in the midst of them ; 
so that you need therefore have no doubt as to the yevijceras 
just promised to you, which I, as associated with my Father 
(ver. 19), will bring about. The statement is put in the form 
of an axiom; hence, although referring to the future, its terms 
are present. The higher, spiritual object of the meeting 
together of the two or three lies not in cuvnypévor, which 
expresses nothing more than the simple fact of being met (in 
answer to Grotius, de Wette), but in eis To euov dvoua, which 
indicates that the name of Jesus Christ (ze. the confession, 
the honouring of it, etc.) is that which in the cuvnypévoy 
eivat is contemplated as its specific motive (wu Ov érépay 
aitiav, Euthymius Zigabenus). “Simile dicunt Rabbini de 
duobus aut tribus considentibus in judicio, quod m3 sit in 
medio eorum,” Lightfoot. 

Ver. 21. At this point Peter steps forward from amongst 
the disciples (ver. 1), and going up to Jesus, vouifov gavirat 
peyarovrvyotatos (Euthymius Zigabenus), proposes that for- 
giveness should be shown more than twice the number of 
times which the Rabbis had declared to be requisite. Baby. 
Joma, f. 86. 2, contains the following words: “ Homini in 
alterum peccanti semel remittunt, secundo remittunt, tertio 
remittunt, quarto non remittunt.” 

Ver. 22. Ov rXéyw cor] are to be taken together (in answer 
to Fritzsche), and to be rendered thus: J do not say to thee, I 
do not give thee ¢he prescription; comp. John xvi. 26.— 
éEBdounkovtakis éwta] not: till seventy times seven, we. till 
the four hundred and ninetieth time (Jerome, Theophylact, 
Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, de Wette, Bleek); but, seeing that 
we have émra, and not éwtd«s again, the rendering should 


16 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


simply be: till seventy-seven times. No doubt, according to 
the classical usage of adverbial numerals, this would have 
been expressed by ém7a kal éBdopnkovtdkis or éSdouHnKovTa 
értaxis ; but the expression in the text is according to the 
LXX. Gen. iv. 24.1 So, and that correctly, Origen, Augustine, 
Bengel, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Keim ; comp. “the Gospel of the 
Hebrews” in Hilgenfeld’s W. 7. extra can. IV. p. 24.— For 
the sense, comp. Theophylact: ody tva apiOued tmepikrelon THY. 
cuyyepnow, add TO dTretpov evTavOa onpaiver ws av et 
édeyev’ ocadkis dv TTalcas peTavon cUyY@pEL AUTO. 

Ver. 23. Mia todro] must refer to the reply to Peter's 
question, for a new scene was introduced at ver. 21. Therefore 
to be explained thus: “ because I have enjoined such wnlimited 
forgiveness” (not merely a conciliatory disposition generally, 
in answer to de Wette and Bleek). The duty of unlimited 
forgiveness proves any shortcoming in regard to this matter to 
be but the more reprehensible, and to point this out is the 
object of the parable which follows. — ®y01w6n 4 Bac. T. 
ovp.| See note on xiiii 24.—The dodo are the king’s 
ministers who are indebted to him through having received 
money on loan (Savecov, ver. 27), or, relatively, as treasurers, 
land stewards, or the like. But it is not without reason that - 
aOparw is joined to PBacrre?, seeing that the kingdom of 
heaven is likened to a human king. Comp. the avip Bactreds 
of Homer. — cvvaiperv Aoyor] to hold a reckoning, to settle 
accounts, occurs again in xxv. 19, but nowhere else. Classical 
writers would say: SsaroyiecOar mpos twa, Dem. 1236. 17. 

Ver. 24 ff. According to Boeckh, Staatshaush. d. Athener, I. 
p. 15 ff., an (Attic) talent, or sixty minae, amounted to 1375 
thalers [about £206 sterling]. Ten thousand talents, amount- 
ing to something considerably over thirteen millions of thalers, 
are intended to express a sum so large as to be well-nigh 


1 Where, indeed, mya mya cannot possibly mean anything else than 
seventy-seven, as is clear from the }, not seventy times seven; comp. Judg. 
viii. 14. This in answer to Kamphausen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 121 f. 
The (substantive) feminine form MYyaw cannot be considered strange (seventy 


and a@ seven). See Ewald, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. § 267 ¢., and his Jahrb, XI. 
p- 198, 


CHAP. XVIII. 28. Lz 


incalculable. So great was the debt of one (els). — éxéXNevcer 
avtov ... éyxet] according to the Mosaic law; Lev. xxv. 39, 
47; 2 Kings iv. 1; Ex. xxii. 2. See Michaelis, % R.§ 148; 
Saalschiitz, 2 R. p. 706 f. The word adrov is emphatic: 
that he should be sold, etc. On the present indicative éye 
(see critical notes), which is derived from the idea of the 
narrative being direct, comp. Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1058.— Kai 
atoooOhvac] and that payment be made. This was the king’s 
command ; it must be paid, viz. the sum due. The fact of the 
proceeds of the sale not proving sufficient for this purpose did 
not in any way affect the order; hence dzodo8. is not to be 
referred merely to the proceeds (Fritzsche). The king wants 
his money, and therefore does the best he can in the circum- 
stances to get it.—mavta cot atod@ca] in his distress 
and anguish he promises far more than he can hope to per- 
form. And the king in his compassion goes far beyond what 
was asked (adfxev att). — For davecov, money lent, comp. 
Deut. xxiv. 11; found frequently in classical writers since 
the time of Demosth. 911. 3. 

Ver. 28. A hundred denarii, about forty Rhenish Gulden, 
or 23 thalers [about £3, 9s. sterling] (a denarius being not quite 
equal to a drachma), what a paltry debt compared with those 
talents of which there were a hundred times a hundred ! — 
émvuye| Creditors (as the Roman law allowed them to do) 
often dragged their debtors before the judge, holding them by 
the throat. Clericus and Wetstein on this passage. — a7é5os, 
el TL @PetrELs] ef Te is not to be taken, as is often done, as 
though it were equivalent to 6, 7x. For where ei 7, like 
si quid, is used in the sense of quicquid (see Kiihner, ad Xen. 
Anab. i. 10. 18), e¢ always has a conditional force, which 
would be out of place in the present instance; but, with 
Fritzsche and Olshausen, to trace the expression to Greek 
urbanity, would be quite incongruous here. Neither, however, 
are we to affirm, with Paulus and Baumgarten-Crusius, that 
the conditional expression is rather more severe in its tone, from 
representing the man as not being even certain in regard to the 
debt ; for the certainty of the debt is implied in the terms of 
the passage, and, moreover, in the kpatycas adr. érvuye was 

MATT. II. B 


18 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


necessarily to be presupposed on the part of the doddes. No, 
the e¢ is simply the expression of a pitiless logic: Pay, if thou 
owest anything (d7ddos being emphatic). From the latter the 
former follows as matter of necessity. If thou owest anything 
(and such is the case), then thou must also pay,—and therefore 
I arrest thee! 

Ver. 29. lecdy] after that he had fallen down,—that is, 
as one who 7pocexvver, which follows, as a matter of course, 
from ver. 26, without our requiring to insert such words as eis 
Tovs T70das avTod (see critical notes). Chrysostom appropri- 
ately observes: od TO oxyfpa Ths txeTnplas avéuynoev avTov 
Ths TOU SeaTrdTOU piravOpwrias. 

Ver. 31 f. “EdXurn@noav]| They were grieved at the hard- 
heartedness and cruelty which they saw displayed in what 
was going on (Ta yuvoweva, see critical notes). — dsecad.] 
not simply narrarunt (Vulgate), but more precisely: declar- 
arunt (Beza) ; Plat. Prot. p. 348 B; Legg. v. p. 733 B; Polyb. 
i 46. 4; i 27. 3; 2 Macc. i 18, ii 9.—7O Kupio 
éavt@v| The reflective pronoun (see critical notes) indicates 
‘ that, as befitted their position, the ovvdovdor addressed them- 
selves to their own master. Their confidence in him led them 
to turn to him rather than to any one else. — éwel mapexdn. 
pre] because thou entreatedst me. And he had not gone so far 
as to beg for entire remission of the debt, but only for for- 
bearance ! 

Ver. 33. On the well-known double xaé used comparatively, 
see Klotz, ad Devar. p.635. Baeumlein, Partik. p.153.—édec] 
the moral oportwit.— tots Bacaviotais| to the tormentors 
(Dem. 978, 11; 4 Mace. vi. 11) to torture him, not merely 
to cast him into prison, which latter was only a part of their 
functions (Fritzsche). The idea involved in Bacavifew is of 
essential importance, typifying as it does the future Bdoavos 
of Gehenna. Comp. viii. 29; Luke xvi. 23; Rev. xiv. 10. 
Grotius well observes, though he takes the Bacaworas as = 
SecpopvAaxas (Kuinoel, de Wette), “utitur autem hic rex ille 
non solo creditoris jure, sed et judicis."— ws 08 a7roda] as 
in ver. 30. wntil he shall have paid. Though not expressly 
asserted, it is a legitimate inference from the terms of the 


CHAP. XVIII. 33. 19 


passage (comp. v. 26) to say: toutéote Simverds, ote yap 
atrode@cet Troté, Chrysostom. 

Doctrine of the parable: The remission which thou hast 
obtained from God of thy great unpayable debt of sin, must 
stimulate thee heartily to forgive thy brother the far more 
trifling debt which he has incurred as regards thee; otherwise, 
when the Messianic judgment comes, the righteousness of God 
will again rise up against thee, and thou wilt be cast into 
Gehenna to be punished eternally ; comp. v. 25 f., vi. 14 f£— 
That motive, drawn from the forgiving mercy of God, could 
only be exhibited in all its significance by the light shed upon 
it in the atoning death of Christ (Eph. iv. 32, Col. ii. 12 f.), 
so that Jesus had to leave to the future, which was fast 
approaching, what, as yet, could be but inadequately under- 
stood (so far we have here a tatepov mporepov), and hence 
our passage is not inconsistent (Socinian objection) with the 
doctrine (also expressly contained in xx. 28, xxvi. 28) of 
satisfaction. — amo tT. xapo. by.) from your heart, therefore 
out of true, inward, heartfelt sympathy, not from a stoical 
indifference. Comp. ver. 33. This is the only instance in 
the New Testament of azo being used in connection with this 
phrase; elsewhere it is é« that is employed. But comp. the 
classical expressions amo yvouns, amd orovdss, amd dpevos, 
and the like; also do xapdias in Antoninus ii. 3, and azo 
THs Yuxjs. Dem. 580, 1. 


20 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


CHAPTER X1X, 


VER. 3. of @apso.] Lachm. has deleted oi, following BC LM AT, 
min. Correctly; the oi dap. would suggest itself mechanically 
to the transcribers from being in current use by them; in 
several manuscripts it is likewise inserted in Mark x. 2.— 
After Aéyovres Elz. and Scholz insert air@, which, owing to the 
preponderance of evidence against it, is to be regarded as a 
common interpolation, as are also «iro, ver. 4, airqv, ver. 7. — 
avoparw)] is wanting in B L res* min. Aug. deleted by 
Lachm. Correctly; supplement from ver. 5, and for which 
Cod. 4 has dvdpf (Mark x. 2).— Ver. 5. rpooxorA78.] Lachm. 
and Tisch., also Fritzsche: x09, following very weighty 
evidence. The compound form, however, is more common, 
and is taken from the LXX.—Ver. 9. ér: before és is not, 
with Lachm. and Tisch. 7, to be deleted. It has the pre- 
ponderance of evidence in its favour, and how readily 
may it have been overlooked, especially before ¢¢, seeing 
that it is not indispensable. — Instead of jj 2a? cropyeia Lachm. 
has supexris Adyeu sopvetas, following B D, min. It. Or., but 
clearly borrowed from v. 32 by way of a gloss. For mua, Elz. 
and Scholz have <i «4, against decisive evidence; an exegetical 
addition.— x. 6 droreruu. yaw. woryara:| are deleted by 
Tisch. 8, following C** D LS x, vss. Or.? Chrys. But there is 
preponderating evidence in favour of the words, and the 
homoeoteleuton might readily enough be the occasion of their 
omission. Moreover, there is no parallel passage verbally 
identical with this. — Ver. 13. tpoonvéxé7] Lachm. and Tisch.: 
xpoonvexdnoay, following BC DL», min. Or. In presence of 
such weighty evidence, the singular is to be regarded as a gram- 
matical correction. — Ver. 16. é4ya4é] is justly condemned by 
Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (B D Ls, min. 
codd. of It. Or. Hilar.). Inserted from Mark x. 17; Luke 
xvill. 18.— Ver. 17. The Received text (so also Fritzsche and 
Scholz) has cf ws Aéyers cyuddv; oddels cyabic ef mun eis 6 dds. 
But the reading: ri we epwrdis rep) rod dyabod; cig goriv 6 ayadés, 
is attested by the very weighty evidence of B D LX¥, Vulg. 


CHAP, XIX, 1, 2 21 


It. Or. and other vss. and Fathers. So Griesb., Lachm., 
Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from Mark 
and Luke, and would be adopted all the more readily the more 
the original reading seemed, as it might easily seem, to be 
inappropriate! The order: e¢ rv wiv eiocad. (Lachm., Tisch.), 
has decisive attestation ; but rype7 (Lachm., Tisch. 7) for rjpyoov 
finds but inadequate support, being favoured merely by B D, 
Homuil. Cl. — Ver. 20. EQUAGE amNY Ex VEdTHTOS ov] Lachm. and 
Tisch. : 2pdAuZa, following important, though not quite unani- 
mous, witnesses (B D L &* among the uncial manuscripts; but 
D has retained 2x veér., though omitting wov). The reading of the 
Received text is taken from Luke and Mark. — Ver. 23. Lachm. 
and Tisch., following decisive evidence, read zAoveis ducxdrAws. — 
Ver. 24. Instead of the first eiceAdew, Elz. has 6sAde%, which is 
defended by Fritzsche and Rinck, and also adopted again 
by Lachm., in opposition to Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Schulz, 
Tisch., who read <«iceAdc. The evidence on both sides is very 
weighty. dee 1s a correction for sake of the sense, with 
which <iceAdeiv was supposed not to agree. Comp. note on 
Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25. If the second é:eAde% were to be 
retained, the preponderance of evidence would be in favour of 
inserting it after zActomy (Lachm.); but we must, with Tisch., 
following L ZX, 1, 33, Syr™ Or. and other Fathers, delete it 
as being a supplement from the parallel passages. — Ver. 
28. For xai iue7s read, with Tisch. 8, xa) airo/, following DLZx, 
1, 124, Or. Ambr. The reading of the Received text is an 
exegetical gloss. — Ver. 29. éorsc] The simple é¢ (Elz., Griesb., 
Fritzsche, Scholz) is opposed by preponderating evidence; zs 
was omitted as unnecessary (but comp. vil. 21, x. 32).—7 
yuvatxa| after wyr.is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., 
on the evidence of B D, 1, Or. Ir. Hil. vss. Taken from Mark 
and Luke. — For ixarovrarAacfova Lachm. and Tisch. have vo A«- 
graciova, following B L, Syr Sahid. Or. Cyr. Correctly; it 
would be much more natural to explain the indefinite roA,«- 
ahac. from Mark x. 30 by means of the definite expression 
txarorarAae., than to explain the latter from Luke xvii. 30 by 
means of woAAuTAas. 


Ver. 1 f. With his usual formula, «. éyév. bre érér., «7.2. 
(vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53), Matthew here introduces the accownt 
of the closing stage in Christ’s ministry by mentioning His 

1 So also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 268f. Differently Hilgenfeld in the Theol. 
Jahrb. 1857, p. 414 f., but not on critical evidence. 


22 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


departure from Galilee to Judaea. It does not follow (comp. 
note on xvi. 21) that there may not have been previous visits 
to Judaea (in answer to Baur), but, in order to give to this 
journey, above all, the prominence due to its high significance, 
it was necessary that the Synoptists should confine their view 
to the Galilaean ministry until the time came for this final 
visit to the capital——The conversation concerning divorce and 
marriage is likewise given in Mark x. 1 ff., and, on the whole, 
in a more original shape. — wethpev amo ths T'adsr.] Comp. 
xvii, 22, 24. mwépav rod Iopddvov] This expression can- 
not be intended to define the locale of eis Ta dpa THs Iovdaios, 
for the reader knew, as matter of course, that Peraea and 
Judaea (iv. 15, 25) meant diferent districts, although, accord- 
ing to Ptolem. v. 16. 9, several towns east of the Jordan 
might be reckoned as included in Judaea; neither can it 
belong to petipev azo tr. Tax. (Fritzsche : “ Movens a Galilaea 
transiit fluvium”’), for «. 7AGev eds 7. dp. T. Love. is not of the 
nature of a parenthesis; rather is it to be regarded as in- 
dicating the route (Mark x. 1) which Jesus took, thus defining 
HNOGev (Mark vii. 31) somewhat more precisely, lest it should 
be supposed that He was on this side Jordan, and therefore 
approached Judaea by going through Samaria, whereas, being 
on the farther side of the river, He went by Peraea, and 
reached the borders of Judaea by crossing over to the west 
side of the Jordan (somewhere in the neighbourhood of 
Jericho, xx. 29). The expression is not awkward (Volkmar) ; 
nor, again, is it to be erroneously understood as showing that 
the Gospel was written in some district east of the Jordan. — 
Further, the narrative of Matthew and Mark cannot be recon- 
ciled with that of Luke, who represents Jesus as keeping to 
this side of the Jordan (ix. 51, and see note on xvi. 11); 
nor with the account of John, who, x. 22, says nothing 
about the jowrney to Jerusalem, but represents Jesus as 
already there, and in ver. 40 as setting out from that city 
to make a short sojourn in Peraea. — éxe@] that is, in Peraea, 
just mentioned, and through which He was travelling on 
His way to the borders of Judaea, ver. 1. On avrovs 
(their sick), see Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 183]. Instead of the 


CHAP. XIX. 3. 23 


healing, Mark speaks of the teaching that took place on this 
occasion. 

Ver. 3. etpdfovres] The question was of an ensnaring 
nature, owing to the rivalry that existed between the school 
of Hillel and that of the more rigorous Sammai. See note 
on v. 31. There is not the slightest foundation in the text 
for the idea that the questioners had in view the matrimonial 
relations of Antipas (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Ewald), as 
though they wanted to involve Jesus, while yet in Peraea, 
within that prince’s domains, in a fate similar to that of the 
Baptist. Moreover, the adoption of this view is altogether 
unnecessary, since the whole school of Sammai had already 
condemned that most unlawful state of matters just referred 
to, and therefore there was on this score nothing of a specially 
tempting character about the question. But they expected 
that Jesus in His reply would declare in favour of one of the 
rival schools (and that it would doubtless be that of Sammai ; 
for with «. wacav aitiay they suggested the answer, Wo), so 
that they might be able to stir up party feeling against Him. 
Falling back, however, upon the divine idea on which the 
institution of marriage is founded, He took higher ground than 
either of the schools in question, inasmuch as from this divine 
idea He deduces that marriage is a union which no human 
authority has a right to dissolve; but as for Himself, He 
avoids prescribing any law of His own with reference to this 
matter ; comp. Harless, Ehescheidungsfr. p. 34 ff.— et] See 
note on xii. 10.—7)v yuvaixa avdtod] Assuming avOpér@ 
to be spurious, the avrod can only refer to something in the 
context, and that doubtless to the logical subject, to the ris 
implied in the éfeo7s. For a similar classical usage, comp. 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 503 D.—xata wacav aitiar| 
for every cause, which he has to allege against her,—the view 
maintained by the school of Hillel, and which was precisely 
that which gave to this question its tempting character, though 
it is not so represented in Mark. As given by the latter 
evangelist the question is not presented in its original form ; 
as it now stands it would have been too general, and so not 
calculated to tempt, for it would certainly have been foolish 


24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


to expect from Jesus any answer contrary to the law (in 
answer to Weiss, Keim) ; but, according to Matthew’s version, 
the persons who were tempting Jesus appear to have framed 
their question with a view to His splitting on the casuistical 
rock implied in «. tacav aitiay. After having laid down as 
a principle the indissoluble nature of the marriage tie, Jesus, 
in the course of the conversation, replies to this captious point 
in their query in the very decided terms of ver. 9, where He 
says, 2) éml Topveia. 

Ver. 4. Adrovs]| Sydrad) robs avOpmmovs* TouTi pev odv TO 
pyntov év TH BiB THs yevécews (i. 27) yeypamrat, Euthymius 
Zigabenus. The following adtovs should be understood after 
0 Tounoas, as the object of the succeeding verb has often to 
be supplied after the participle (Kriiger’s note on Xen. Anab. 
i. 8.11). For qoceiv, to create, comp. Plat. Tim. p. 76 C; 
Hesiod, Theog. 110, 127 (yévos avOpérrwv).— am’ apxis] 
does not belong to 6 tromoas (as usually explained), in which 
case it would be superfluous, but to what follows (Fritzsche, 
Bleek), where great stress is laid on the expression, “ since the 
very beginning” (ver. 8).—dpoev x. Orv] as male and 
female, as a pair consisting of one of each sex.— émoincev] 
after 0 moinoas the same verb. See Kiihner, ad Xen, Mem. 
iv. 2. 21, and Gramm. II. 2, p. 656. 

Ver. 5. Eiwev] God. Comp. note on 1 Cor. vi. 16. Al- 
though, no doubt, the words of Gen. ii. 24 were uttered by 
Adam, yet, as a rule, utterances of the Old Testament, in 
which God’s will is declared, are looked upon as the words 
of God, and that altogether irrespective of the persons 
speaking. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus and Fritzsche on the 
passage. — €vexev tovtov] refers, in Gen. ii. 24, to the for- 
mation of the woman out of the rib of the man. But this 
detail, which belongs to an incident assumed by Jesus to be 
well known, is included in the general statement of ver. 4, so 
that He does not hesitate to generalize, somewhat freely, the 
particular to which the évexev tovrovu refers. Observe, at the 
same time, that vv. 4 and 5 together constitute the scriptural 
basis, the divine premisses of what is to appear in the shape 
of an inference in the verse immediately following. — cata- 


CHAP. XIX. 6-8 Qt 


Retwer] “necessitudo arctissima conjugalis, cui u- HoLyaTas] 
materna cedit,” Bengel. — oi dv0] These words are with the 
in the Hebrew, though they occur in the Samaritan7et been 
they must also have done in that which was followé this 
the LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of m.an 
distinctly emphasizing the claims of monogamy. See note 
on 1 Cor. vi. 16. The article indicates the two particular 
persons in question. — ets cdpxa piav| Ethical union may 
also be represented by other ties; but this cannot be said of 
bodily unity, which consists in such a union of the sexes, 
that in marriage they cease to be two, and are thenceforth 
constituted one person. Comp. Sir. xxv. 25 and Grimm’s 
note. The construction is not Greek (in which eivau ets 
means to refer to anything, or to serve for anything, Plat. 
Phil. p. 39 E; Alc. I. p. 126 <A), but a rendering of the 
Hebrew ) mn (Vorst, Hebr. p. 680 f.). 

Ver. 6. Ovdxére] after this union, ver. 5. — iad] are they, 
that is, the two of ver. 5.—6] quod, “ut non tanquam de 
duobus, sed tanguam de wno corpore loqueretur,” Maldonatus. 
— 0 Oeos] through what is said in ver. 5. Obseive the con- 
trast to dv@pwros. — Having regard, therefore, to the specific 
nature of marriage as a divine institution, Jesus utterly con- 
demns divorce generally as being a putting asunder on the 
part of man of what, in a very special way, God has joined 
together. With regard to the exception, by which, in fact, 
the essential idea of marriage as a divine institution is already 
practically destroyed, see ver. 9, and comp. note on v. 32. 

Ver. 7. Supposed counter-evidence.— éveteinato] Deut. 
xxiv. 1, in which, indeed, there is no express command, 
though it may be said to contain cata dvavoray the prescrip- 
tion of the bill of divorce. Mark—and in this his account is 
certainly more original—represents the whole reply of Jesus 
as beginning with the question as to the law of Moses on 
the matter (x. 3). Moreover, the more appropriate expression 
emrétpewev, Which in ver. 8 is ascribed to Jesus (not so in 
Mark), undoubtedly betrays the influence of riper reflection. 
— Comp. besides, note on v. 31. 

Ver. 8. IIpos] out of regard to, with (wise) consideration 


24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


to expect frert greater evil. — oKAnpoKapdiav] stubbornness 
answer to Mark xvi. 14; Rom. it. 5; Acts vi. 51; Sir. xvi. 
the perseut. x. 16), which will not be persuaded to self- 
their ion, gentleness, patience, forbearance, etc.; cata dvado- 
rocks aitias pucovvtav tas yapertas, Kal un KaTadANaTTOMEvOV 
pavtais. "“Evopobétnce yap arodvew tavtas, va pr ovev- 
evrat, Kuthymius Zigabenus.— ov yéyovev ott] non ita 
factum est, namely, that a man should have permission to put 
away his wife. The above primitive institution of God is 
accordingly not abrogated by Moses, who, on account of the 
moral obduracy of the people, is rather to be understood 
as only granting a dispensation in the form of a letter of 
divorce, that the woman might be protected against the rude 
severity of the man. 

Ver. 9. See note on v. 32.— wx éri mopy.] not on account — 
of fornication, i.e. adultery. The deleting of those words 
(Hug, de conjug. vinculo indissolub. p. 4 f.; Maier’s note on 
1 Cor. vii. 11; but also Keim, who sees in them the correc- 
tion of a subsequent age) is justified neither by critical 
evidence, which Keim himself admits, nor by the following o 
GTONEN. yap. wouxarat, which is in no way inconsistent with 
the exception under consideration, seeing that, as a matter of 
course, the dzroXex. refers to a woman who has been divorced 
arbitrarily, 2) ézt mopv. (see note on v. 32); nor by ver. 
10, where the question of the disciples can be sufficiently 
accounted for; nor by 1 Cor. vu. 11 (see note on this passage). 
We are therefore as little warranted in regarding the words 
as an interpolation on the part of the evangelist in accord- 
ance with a later tradition (Gratz, Weisse, Volkmar, Schenkel). — 

> The exception which they contain to the ‘law against divorce 
is the unica et adaequata exceptio, because adultery destroys 
what, according to its original institution by God, constitutes 
the very essence of marriage, the wnitas carnis; while, on this 
account also, it furnishes a reason not merely for separation 
a toro et mensa (Catholic expositors), but for separation guoad 
vinculum. To say, as Keim insists (according to Mark), that 
Jesus breaks with Moses, is unwarranted, not only by Matthew’s 
narrative, but also by Mark’s; and any indication of such a 


CHAP. XIX. 10-12. 27 


breach would betray the influence of a later age. — wouyaraz] 
commits adultery, because, in fact, his marriage with the 
woman whom he has arbitrarily dismissed has not yet been 
disannulled. The second povyarac is justified: because this 
amonerupevn is still the lawful wife of him who has, in an 
arbitrary manner, put her away. 

Ver. 10. This conversation is to be understood as having 
taken place privatim, in a house (Mark x. 10), or elsewhere. 
—el ottTws éotivy } atta, K.T.r.] 7 aitia means causa, but 
not in the sense of res or relation (Grotius) : “sz ita res se habet 
hominis cum uxore” (Grimm), which is at variance with the 
Greek usage, and would be tantamount to a Latin idiom; nor 
is it to be understood in the sense imported by Fritzsche: 
“causa, qua aliquis cum uxore versari cogatur.” According to 
the text, 7 aitia can only be taken as referring back to the 
question concerning divorce, kata tacav aitiav, ver. 3. The 
correct interpretation, therefore, must be as follows: Jf it 
stands thus with regard to the reason in question, which the 
man must have in relation to his wife (in order, namely, to her 
divorce). The Lord had, in fact, declared the wopveia of the 
wife to be such an airia as the disciples had inquired about, 
and that, moreover, the sole one. This also leads me to with- 
draw my former interpretation of aitéa in the sense of guilt, 
that, namely, which was understood to be expressed by the 
pouyarat. The correct view is given by Hilgenfeld in his 
Zeitschr. 1868, p. 24, and, in the main, by so early an expositor 
as Euthymius Zigabenus: éay pla wovn éotlv  aitia 4 pécov 
Tov avopos K. THS yuvarKos ) Svafevyvvovca, — ov cup. yap.] 
because one cannot be released again, but, with the exception of 
adultery alone, must put up with all the woman’s other vices. 

Vy. 11, 12. The disciples have just said: od cupdpéper 
yaujca. But to this saying must tov Oyov TovToy be re- 
ferred, not to the statement concerning the indissoluble nature of 
marriage, as though Jesus meant to say that this was to be 
insisted on only in the case of those who had been endowed 
with the donum continentiae (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 
410 f.) ; which would be to contradict His argument in favour 
of non-dissolution taken from the objective nature of marriage, 


28 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


no less than His absolute declaration in v. 32, as well as to 
render nugatory, for all practical purposes, the primitive moral 
law of non-dissolution, by making it dependent on a subjective 
condition. Besides, the illustration of the ewnuchs is only 
applicable to continence generally, not to a mere abstaining 
from the sin of adultery. No. Jesus wishes to furnish His 
disciples with the necessary explanation regarding their ov 
cupdéper yaujoat, and for this end He by no means questions 
their Adyos, but simply observes that: it is a proposition which 
all do not accept, v.e. which all cannot see their way to adopt 
as a maxim, but only such as God has endowed with special 
moral capabilitees. ‘Then, in ver. 12, He explains who are 
meant by the ois déd0Ta, namely, such as have become 
eunuchs ; by these, however, He does not understand Jiteral 
eunuchs, whether born such or made such by men, but those 
who, for the sake of the Messiah’s kingdom, have made them- 
selves such so far as their moral dispositions are concerned, 
ze. who have suppressed all sexual desire as effectually as 
though they were actual eunuchs, in order that they might 
devote themselves entirely to the (approaching) Messianic 
kingdom as their highest interest and aim (to labour in pro- 
moting it, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 32, 34). Finally, He further 
recommends this ethical self-castration, this “ voluntary chas- 
tity” (Luther), when He exclaims: Whosoever is able to accept 
(to adopt) az (that which I have just stated), let him accept it! 
Chrysostom well observes: He says this, wpo@vpotépovs te 
molov TO Sei~ar wrépoyKov Ov TO KaTopOwma, Kal ovK aduels 
els avaykKnv vomov TO Tpaywa KrecoOjvar. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1 f. 
The ywpetv, ver. 11 f, means simply to receive, and to be 
understood as referring to a spiritual reception, a receiving in 
the heart (2 Cor. vii, 2); and those endowed with the power 
so to receive it have, in consequence of such endowment, not 
only the inclination to be continent, but at the same time the 
moral force of will necessary to give effect to it, while those 
who are not so endowed “aut nolunt, aut non implent quod 
volunt,” Augustine. The more common interpretation, praestare 
posse (“negat autem Jesus, te, nisi divinitus concessis viribus 
tam insigni abstinentiae, qua a matrimonio abhorreas, parem 


CHAP. XIX. 11, 12. 29 


esse,” Fritzsche), might be traced to the rendering capere, but 
it is precluded by the fact that the object of the verb is a 
Aovyos (a saying). Others take it in the sense of: to wnder- 
stand, with reference, therefore, to the power of apprehension 
on the part of the ztellect (Maldonatus, Calovius, Strauss, 
Bretschneider, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald ; similarly Bengel, 
de Wette, Bleek, who, however, arbitrarily take tov Ady. Tod. 
as pointing forward to ver. 12). So Plut. Cat. min. 64; Ael. 
V. H. iii. 9; Phocyl. 86: od yopet peyddrnv dudaynv 
adidaxtos axovew ; Philo, de mundo 1151: avOpamwos rNoyio- 
pos ov xwpei. But the difficulty with respect to what the 
disciples have said, and what Jesus says in ver. 12, is not 
connected with the apprehension of its meaning, but with its 
ethical appropriation, which, moreover, Jesus does not abso- 
lutely demand, but leaves it, as is also done by Paul, 
1 Cor. vil, to each man’s ability, and that according as he 
happens to be endowed with the gift of continence as a donwm 
singulare. Consequently, the celibate of the clerical order, as 
such, acts in direct opposition to this utterance of the Master, 
especially as the evvovyifew éavtov cannot be acted on by any 
one with the certainty of its lasting. Comp. Apol. Conf. A., 
p. 240f: “non placet Christo immunda continentia.” As 
showing how voluntary celibacy was by no means universal, 
and was exceptional even among the apostles themselves, see 
1 Cor. ix. 5—The metaphorical use of edvovyicay éavtovs to 
denote entire absence from sexual indulgence, likewise occurs 
in Sohar Ex. f. 37, c. 135; Levit. f. 34,¢. 136 b; Schoettgen, 
p. 159.—It is well known that from a misunderstanding of the 
meaning of this passage Origen was led to castrate himself. 
On the correctness of this tradition (in answer to Schnitzer and 
- Bauer), see Engelhardt in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 157; 
Redepenning, Origenes, I. p. 444 ff—That Jesus was not here 
contemplating any Lssenian abstinence (Strauss, Gfrorer, Philo, 
II. p. 310f, Hilgenfeld), is already manifest from the high 
estimate in which marriage is always held by Him, and from 
His regard for children. The celibacy which a certain class of 
Essenes observed was founded on the fact that they regarded 
matrlage as wmpure. 


30 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Ver. 13. Comp. Mark x. 13. At this point (after being 
suspended from ix. 51—xviii. 14) the narrative of Luke 
again becomes parallel, xviii. 15.—Little children were brought 
to Jesus, as to a man of extraordinary sanctity, whose prayer 
was supposed to have peculiar efficacy (John ix. 31); as, na 
similar way, children were also brought to the presidents of the 
synagogues in order that they might pray over them (Buxt. 
Synag. p. 138). The laying on of the hands (Gen. xlvii. 14) 
was desired, not as a mere symbol, but as a@ means of com- 
municating the blessing prayed for (Acts vi. 6); hence, with a 
nearer approach to originality, Mark and Luke have simply 
apnras and a&mretas (which, in fact, was understood to be 
of itself sufficient for the communication in question).—The 
conjunctive with tva after the preterite (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 897; 
Winer, p. 270 [E. T. 359]) serves to represent the action as 
immediately present. — adtots] are those of whom the zpo- 
onvexOn is alleged, ze. those who brought the children. The 
disciples wished to protect Jesus from what they supposed to 
be an unseemly intrusion and annoyance; a verecundia intem- 
pestiva (Bengel), as in xx. 31. 

Ver. 14. By r@v tovovTwy we are not to understand literal 
children (Bengel, de Wette), for the Messianic kingdom cannot 
be said to belong to children as such (see v. 3 ff.), but men of 
a child-like disposition and character, xvii. 3 f. Jesus cannot 
consent to see the children turned away from Him; for, so far 
from their being too insignificant to become the objects of His 
blessing, He contemplates in their simplicity and innocence 
that character which those who are to share in His kingdom 
must acquire through being converted and becoming as little 
children. If they thus appeared to the Lord as types of the 
subjects of His kingdom, how could He withhold from them 
that prayer which was to be the means of communicating to 
their opening lives the blessing of early fellowship with Him! 
Herein lies the warrant, but, according to 1 Cor, vu. 14, not 
the necessity, for infant baptism; comp. in general, note on 
Acts xvi. 15. 

Ver. 16 ff. Comp. Mark x. 17 ff.; Luke xviii. 18 ff. — Eés] 
One, a single individual out of the multitude. According to 


CHAPS XIKas7: on 


Luke, the person in question was an adpxyev, not a veavicxos 
(ver. 20), which is explicable (Holtzmann) on the ground of a 
different tradition, not from a misunderstanding on the part 
of Matthew founded on é« veotnt. wou (Mark x. 20).—rié 
aya0dv totnoco] is not to be explained, with Fritzsche, as 
equivalent to Ti ayaOov ov troujow, quid, quod bonum sit, faciam ? 
for the young man had already made an effort to do what is 
right, but, not being satisfied with what he had done, and not 
feeling sure of eternal life in the Messiah’s kingdom, he 
accordingly asks: which good thing am I to do, etc.? He 
wishes to know what particular thing in the category of the 
eternal good must be done by him in order to his obtaining 
life. 
Ver. 17. Thy question concerning the good thing, which is 
necessary to be done in order to have eternal life in the 
Messianic kingdom, is quite superfluous (7/ pe épwrds, x.7.r.) ; 
the answer is self-evident, for there is but one (namely, God, 
the absolute ideal of moral life) who is the good one, there- 
fore the good thing to which thy question refers can be 
neither more nor less than obedience to His will,—one good 
Being, one good thing, alterwm non datur! But if thou (6, 
the continuative autem: to tell thee now more precisely what 
I wished to impress upon thee by this eis éotly 0 dyabos) 
desirest to enter into life, keep the commandments (which are 
given by this One dyaos). Neander explains incorrectly thus: 
“ Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One 
is the good one, and to Him thou must address thyself; He 
has, in fact, revealed it to thee also; but since you have asked 
me, then let me inform you,” etc. This view is already pre- 
cluded by the enclitic we (as otherwise we should necessarily 
have had éuwé)—For the explanation of the Received text, see 
note on Mark x. 18 ; the claim to originality must be decided in 
favour not of Matthew (in answer to Keim), but of Mark, on 
whom Luke has also drawn. The tradition followed by Matthew 
seems to have already omitted the circumstance of our Lord's 
declining the epithet dyaos. The claims of Mark and Luke are 
likewise favoured by Weisse, Bleek, Weiss, Schenkel, Volkmar, 
Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, the last of whom, however, gives the 


ar THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


palm in the matter of originality to the narrative of the Gospel 
of the Hebrews (WV. 7. extra can. IV. p. 16 f.)—For oddeis 
adya0os, «7X. comp. Plat. Rep. p. 379 A: ayabos 6 ye Oeos 
T® OvtTt TE Kal NexTéov ovTwS.—On the dogmatic importance 
of the proposition that God alone is good, see Koster in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1856, p. 420 ff; and on the fundamental 
principle of the divine retribution: ef Oédes .. . THpyoov Tas 
évtodds, which impels the sinner to repentance, to a renuncia- 
tion of his own righteousness, and to faith; comp. notes on 
Rom. ii. 13; Gal. iii. 10 ff. Bengel well remarks: “Jesus 
securos ad legem remittit, contritos evangelice consolatur.” 
Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 83. 

Ver. 18 f. Agreeably to the meaning of his question, ver. 
16, the young man expected to be referred to commandments 
of a particular kind, and therefore calls for further informa- 
tion respecting the évtoAds to which Jesus referred; hence 
molas, which is not equivalent to tivas, but is to be under- 
stood as requesting a qualitative statement.—For the purpose 
of indicating the kind of commandments he had in view, 
Jesus simply mentions, by way of example, one or two 
belonging to the second table of the decalogue, but also at 
the same time the fundamental one (Rom. xiii. 9) respecting 
the love of our neighbour (Lev. xix. 18), because it was 
through it (for which also see note on xxii. 39) He wished 
the young man to be tested. This latter commandment, 
introduced with skilful tact, Origen incorrectly regards as an 
interpolation ; de Wette likewise takes exception to it; comp. 
Bleek, who considers Luke’s text to be rather more original. 

Ver. 20. In what respect do I still come short? what further 
attainment have I yet to make? Comp. Ps. xxxix. 4: wa wo 
Ti votep® eyo; 1 Cor. xii. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 5, xi.11. This 
reply (Plat. Rep. p. 484 D: wnS év ddr undevi pépet aperijs 
tatepodytas) serves to show that his moral striving after the 
Messianic life is confined within the narrow limits of a decent 
outward behaviour, without his having felt and understood 
the spirit of the commandments, and especially the boundless 
nature of the duties implied in the commandment of love, 
though, at the same time, he has a secret consciousness that 


CHAP. XIX. 21, 22. 36 


there must be some higher moral task for man, and feels 
impelled towards its fulfilment, only the legal tendencies of 
his character prevent him from seeing where it lies. 

Ver. 21. Tédevos] perfect, one, who for the obtaining of 
eternal life, oddév ete torepe’. In accordance with the moral 
tendencies and disposition which He discerned in the young man, 
Jesus demands from him that moral perfection to which, from 
not finding satisfaction in legalism, he was striving to attain. 
The following requirement, then, is a special test for a special 
case,’ though it is founded upon the universal duty of absolute 
self-denial and devotion to Christ; nor is it to be regarded 
merely in the light of a recommendation, but as a command. 
Observe that the Lord does not prescribe this to him as his 
sole duty, but only in connection with axonrov9e por. It was 
intended, by pressing this requirement upon him, that the 
young man should be led to realize his own shortcomings, and 
so be enabled to see the necessity of putting forth far higher 
efforts than any he had hitherto made. It was meant that 
he should feel himself weak, with a view to his being made 
morally strong; accordingly it is precisely upon the weak 
side of the young man’s character that Jesus imposes so heavy 
a task, for with all his inward dissatisfaction he was not 
aware of his actual weakness in that direction. — 7twyots]| 
the poor. — év ovpave@| thou wilt have (instead of thy earthly 
goods) a treasure im heaven, i.e. in the hands of God, where it 
will be securely kept till it comes to be bestowed at the setting 
up of the Messiah’s kingdom. Comp.v. 12, vi 20. For the 
whole saying, comp. Avoda Sara f. 64, 1: “Vendite omnia, 
quae habetis, et porro oportet, ut fiatis proselyti.” 

Ver. 22 f. Avmovpevos| because he could not see his 
way to compliance with that first requirement, and saw himself 
thereby compelled to relinquish his hope of inheriting eternal 
life. “ Aurum enervatio virtutum est,” Augustine. — duc- 
kOXws] because his heart usually clings too tenaciously to 
his possessions (vi. 19-21) to admit of his resigning them at 


? The Catholics found upon this passage the consiliwm evangelicum of poverty, 
as well as the opera supererogativa in general. See, on the other hand, Miller, 
von d. Siinde, I. p. 69 ff., ed. 5. 


MATT. IL, Cc 


34 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


such times and in such ways as the interests of the kingdom 
may demand. For analogous passages from the Greek classics 
bearing on the antagonism between wealth and virtue, see 
Spiess, Logos spermat. p. 44. 

Ver. 24. “ Difficultatem exaggerat,” Melanchthon. For wanuw, 
comp. xviii. 19. The point of the comparison is simply the fact 
of the impossibility. A similar way of proverbially expressing 
the utmost difficulty occurs in the Talmud with reference to © 
an elephant.' See Buxtorf, Lew. Talm. p. 1722, and Wetstein. 
To understand the expression in the text, not in the sense of 
a camel, but of a cable (Castalio, Calvin, Huet, Drusius, Ewald), 
and, in order to this, either supposing xauAov to be the correct 
reading (as in several cursive manuscripts), or ascribing this 
meaning to xdpumydos (Twés in Theophylact and Euthymius 
Zigabenus), is all the more inadmissible that «ayndos never has 
any other meaning than that of a camel, while the form xapidAos 
can only be found in Suidas and the Scholiast on Arist. Vesp. 
1030, and is to be regarded as proceeding from a misunder- 
standing of the present passage. Further, the proverbial ex- 
pression regarding the camel likewise occurs in xxiii. 24, and 
the Rabbinical similitude of the elephant is quite analogous. — 
eioeNOetp after pag. is universally interpreted: to enter in (to 
any place). On the question as to whether pads is to be 
recognised as classical, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 90. To render 
this word by a narrow gate, a narrow mountain-pass (so Furer 
in Schenkel’s Zex. III. p. 476), or anything but a needle, is — 
simply inadmissible——The danger to salvation connected with 
the possession of riches does not lie in these considered in 
themselves, but in the difficulty experienced by sinful man in 
subordinating them to the will of God. So Clemens Alexan- 
drinus: tls 6 cwfowevos wAovcLos. Hermas, Pastor, i. 3. 6. 

Ver. 25. Tis apa] who therefore, if the difficulty is so great 
in the case of the rich, who have the means of doing much 
good. The inference of the disciples is a majoribus ad minores. 


1 The passage in the Koran, Sur. vii. 38: ‘‘ Non ingredientur paradisum, 
donec transeat camelus foramen acus,” is to be traced to an acquaintance with 
our present saying ; but for an analogous proverb concerning the camel which 
“ saltat in cabo,” see Jevamoth f. 45, 1. 


CHAP, XIX. 26, 27. 35 


The general expression tis cannot be intended to mean what’ 
rich man (Euthymius Zigabenus, Weiss), as is further evident 
from what is said by Jesus in vv. 23, 24. 

Ver. 26. "EuBréwas] This circumstance is also noticed 
by Mark. The look which, during a momentary pause, pre- 
ceded the following utterance was doubtless one of a telling 
and significant character, and calculated to impress the startled 
disciples (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus: juep@ Bréppare). 
Comp. Luke xx. 17; John i. 43. — rapa dvOpe@rots] so far 
as men are concerned, t.e. not hominwm judicio (Fritzsche, Ewald), 
but serving to indicate that the impossibility is on the part of 
man, is owing to human inability, Luke i. 37. — rodTo] namely, 
the cwjvat, not: that the rich should be saved. See ver. 25 
(in answer to Fritzsche, de Wette). Jesus invites the disciples 
to turn from the thought of man’s own inability to obtain salva- 
tion, to the omnipotence of God’s converting and saving grace. 

Ver. 27. Peter’s question is suggested by the behaviour of 
that young man (hence dzroxp., see note on xi. 25), who left 
Jesus rather than part with his wealth. The «apostles had 
done quite the contrary (eis placed emphatically at the be- 
ginning, in contrast to the young man).—ddyKapev Tavta| 
employment, the custom-house, worldly things generally. It 
is therefore a mistake to suppose that the disciples were still 
pursuing their former avocations while labouring in the service 
of Jesus (not to be proved from John xxi. 3 ff.). See Fritzsche, 
ad Mark. p.441. —tidpa écrac jpiv] dpa: in consequence of 
this. The question has reference to some special compensation 
or other by way of reward; but as to the form in which it is to 
be given, it leaves that to be explained by Jesus in His reply. 
In spite of the terms of the passage and the answer of Jesus, 
Paulus incorrectly explains thus: what, therefore, will there be 
for us still to do? Similarly Olshausen: what is awaiting us ? 
Are we, too, to be called upon yet to undergo such a test (as 
the young man had just been subjected to)? In Mark x. 28 
and Luke xviii. 28 it is not expressly asked, Ti dpa €otat jpiv; 
but the question is tacitly implied in the words of Peter (in 
answer to Neander, Bleek), as reported by those evangelists, 
while Matthew appears to have gleaned it from Mark. 


36 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Ver. 28. This part of the promise is omitted in Mark, but 
comp. Luke xxii. 30.—JIn answer to the question concerning 
the reward, Jesus, in the first place, promises a specual recom- 
pense to His disciples, namely, that they should have the 
honour of being associated with Him in judging the nation at 
the second coming ; then, in ver. 29 (comp. Mark x. 29; Luke 
xvill. 29), He adds the general promise of a reward to be given 
to those who for His sake have sacrificed their worldly 
interests; and finally, in ver. 30, He makes a statement calcu- 
lated to rebuke everything in the shape of false pretensions, 
and which is further illustrated by the parable in xx. 1 ff— 
There is no touch of zrony throughout this reply of Jesus 
(in answer to Liebe in Winer’s exeget. Stud. I. p. 73). Comp. 
Fleck, de regno div. p. 436 ff.—év TH madiyyevecia] in 
the regeneration, does not belong to adkoXovOncavrés woe (Hilary, 
explaining the words by baptismal regeneration (Titus i. 5) ; 
also Calvin, who understands by wanuyyeveoia the renovation 
of the world begun in Christ’s earthly ministry), for the 
disciples could only have conceived of the renovation of the 
world as something that was to take place contemporaneously 
with the actual setting up of the kingdom; the azoxata- 
otaows, Acts iil. 21, does not represent quite the same idea 
as the one at present in question. Neither are we, with 
Paulus, to insert a point after waduyyev., and supply éo7e 
(“you are already in the position of those who have been 
regenerated,” spiritually transformed), which would have the 
effect of introducing a somewhat feeble and irrelevant idea, 
besides being incompatible with the abruptness that would 
thus be imparted to the 67ay (otherwise one should have 
expected 67ay 6€). The words belong to xa@icec@e, and 
signify that change by which the whole world is to be restored to 
that original state of perfection in which it existed before the fall, 
which renewal, restitutio in integrum, is to be brought about 
by the coming Messiah (ohyn win). See Buxtorf, Lex Tal. 
p- 712; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 214 f£.; Gfrorer, Jahrh. d. 
Heils, Il. p. 272 ff. Comp. Rom. viii. 19 ff; 2 Pet. iii. 13. 
When the resurrection is over, and the last judgment is going 
on (and it is to this part of the scene that the Lord is here 


Pad 


CHAP. XIX. 28. ys 


referring), this renovation will have already begun, and will be 
in the course of development, so that Jesus can say with all 
propriety: €v 7H wadiyy. “Nova erit genesis, cui preerit 
Adamus secundus,” Bengel. Comp. waduyyevecia ths matpidos 
in Joseph. Antt. xi. 3. 9; taduyyev. Tov GAwv in Anton. xi. 1. 
Philo, de mund. p. 1165 C.; leg. ad Caj. p. 1037 B. Augus- 
tine, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche, interpret 
the expression of the resurrection, in favour of which such 
passages might be quoted as Long. ui. 4; Lucian, Muse. 
enc. 7; but this would be to understand it in too restricted a 
sense, besides being contrary to regular New Testament usage 
(avdotacts). — dtav Kabion, K.7.r.] as judge. -— S0Ens 
avtov| the throne, that is, on which the Messiah shows 
Himself in His glory, xxv. 31.—«at avroi (see critical notes) : 
likewise, just as the Messiah will sit on His throne. — 
KaBicecGe| you will take your seats upon. Christ, then, is 
to be understood as already sitting. Moreover, though the 
promise applies, in a general way, to the twelve disciples, it 
does not preclude the possibility of one of them failing, 
through his apostasy, to participate in the fulfilment of the 
promise ; “ thronum Judae swmsit alius, Acts 1. 20,” Bengel. — 
Kkptvovtes| not: ruling over (Grotius, Kuinoel, Neander, 
Bleek), but, as the word means and the context requires: 
judging. As believers generally are to be partakers of the 
glory and sovereignty of Christ (Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12), 
and are to be associated with Him in judging the non- 
Christian xoopos (1 Cor. vi. 2), so here it is specially pro- 
mised to the disciples as such that they shall have the 
peculiar privilege of taking part with Him in judging the 
people of Israel. But it is evident from 1 Cor. vi. 2 that the 
people of Israel is conceived of as still forming part of the 
koopos, therefore it will be so far still wnconverted, which 
coincides with the view that the second coming is near at hand, 
x. 23. It is a mistake, therefore, to take the people of Israel 
as intended to represent the people of God in the Christian 
sense (de Wette, Bleek); but it is no less so to suppose that 
the judging in question is merely of an indirect character, 
such as that which in xii. 41 is ascribed to the queen of the 


38 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


south and the Ninevites (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Erasmus, Maldonatus),—a view which does not at all corre- 
spond with the picture of the judgment given in the text, 
although those expositors correctly saw that it is the wnbeliev- 
ing Israel that is meant. This sitting upon twelve thrones 
belongs to the accidental, Apocalyptic form in which the 
promise is embodied, though it is not so with regard either to 
the judging itself or its special reference to the dwdexagvrov 
of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7), to which latter the number of the 
apostles expressly corresponds; for the second coming, instead 
of subverting the order of things here indicated, will only 
have the effect of exhibiting it in its perfection, and for the © 
apostles themselves in its glory. It is therefore too rash 
to infer, as has been done by Hilgenfeld, that this passage 
bears traces of having been based upon an original document 
of a strictly Judaeo-Christian character. Even the Pauline 
Luke (xxii. 30) does not omit this promise, although he 
gives it in connection with a different occasion,—a circum- 
stance which by Schneckenburger, without sufficient reason, 
and by Volkmar, in the most arbitrary way possible, is 
interpreted to the disadvantage of Matthew. It is not the 
case that ver. 28 interferes with the connection (Holtzmann), 
although Weizsicker also is disposed to regard it as “a mani- 
fest interpolation.” 

Ver. 29. The promise that has hitherto been restricted to 
the apostles now becomes general in its application: and 
(in general) every one who, etc. —adijxev] has left, com- 
pletely abandoned. Comp. ver. 27. — €vexev 7. ov. p.] We. 
because my name represents the contents of his belief and 
confession. Comp. Luke xxi. 12. This leaving of all for the 
sake of Jesus may take place without persecution, simply by 
one’s choosing to follow Him as a disciple; but it may also 
be forced upon one through persecution, as for instance by 
such a state of matters as we find in x. 35 ff— modXamAa- 
otlova (see critical notes) Ajyeras, according to the context 
(see xaBicecOe, ver. 28; KAnpovounoe, ver. 29; écovTat, 
ver. 30), can certainly have no other reference but to the 
recompense in the future kingdom of the Messiah, in which a 


CHAP. XIX. 30. 39 


manifold compensation will be given for all that may have 
been forsaken. Here the view of Matthew diverges from 
that of Mark x. 38, Luke xviii. 30, both of whom represent 
this manifold compensation as being given during the period 
preceding the second advent. This divergence is founded 
upon a difference of conception, existing from the very first, 
regarding the promise of Jesus, so that the distinction between 
the karpos odros and the aiwy épyowevos in Mark and Luke 
may be regarded as the result of exegetical reflection on the 
meaning of the expressions in the original Hebrew. The 
words are likewise correctly referred to the reward of the 
future world by de Wette, Bleek, Keim, Hilgenfeld, while 
Fritzsche is at a loss to decide. In opposition to the context, 
the usual interpretation in the case of Matthew as well, is to 
refer the promise of a manifold compensation to the alev 
odTos, Some supposing it to point to the happiness arising 
from Christian ties and relationships, as Jerome, Theophylact, 
Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein ; others, to 
the receiving of all things in return for the few (1 Cor. 
ii. 21; Olshausen) ; others, again, to inward peace, hope, the 
fellowship of love (Kuinoel, Calvin), or generally, the spiritual 
blessings of believers (Bengel); and others still, to Christ 
Himself, as being (xii. 49 f.) infinitely more to us than father, 
mother, brother, etc. (Maldonatus, Calovius). Julian mocked 
at the promise. — x. €w7v at. kXnp.| the crown of the whole, 
which perfects all by rendering it an eternal possession. 
Observe, further, how what is promised is represented as a 
recompense, no doubt, yet not for meritorious works, but for 
self-denying, trustful obedience to Christ, and to His invita- 
tion and will. Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 285 f. 

Ver. 30. However, the measure of rewards in the Messianic 
kingdom is not to be determined by the time, sooner or later, 
at which any one may have entered into fellowship with me. 
No, it is not seniority of discipleship that is to be the standard 
of reward at the setting up of the approaching kingdom: 
Many who were the first to enter will receive just the same treat- 
ment as those who were the last to become my followers, and vice 
versa. The correct construction and translation are not those 





40 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


of Fritzsche, who interprets: Many will be first though last 
(€oxaTou dvtes, namely, before the second coming), and last 
though first (rpartot dvtes), but those usually adopted, accord- 
ing to which wp@ro: is the subject of the first, and éoyatou 
that of the second part of the sentence. This is not forbidden 
by xx. 16, where, on the other hand, the order seems to have 
been inverted to suit the context. Observe, further, that the 
arrangement by which woAdol . . . mpotos stand so far apart 
serves to render vroAdoi very emphatic: In multitudes, how- 
ever, will the first be last, and vice versé. The second clause 
is to be supplemented thus: xat moddol ecovtar éxyaTot 
mpoto.. But to understand mp@rov and éoyaror as referring, 
not to ¢ime, but to rank, regarded from the divine and human 
point of view, as though the idea were that “when the 
rewards come to be dispensed, many a one who considers 
himself among the highest will be reckoned among the lowest” 
(Hilgenfeld, following Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Jansen, 
Wetstein, de Wette, Bleek),—1is forbidden by the subsequent 
parable, the connection of which with the present passage is 
indicated by yap. However, there is a little warrant in the 
text for taking the words as referring specially to the Jews on 
the one hand, and the Gentiles (who were later in being called) 
on the other (Theophylact, Grotius). 


CHAP, XX. Al 


CHAPTER XX. 


Ver. 6. wpa] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a sup- 
plement, following B D L 8, vss. Or. —éoraras] Elz., Fritzsche, 
Scholz insert &pyots, which is not found in B C** D L 8, vss. and 
Fathers. Interpolation taken from vv. 3 and 7. — Ver. 7. x. 6 Za» 
n Oixasov, AR~Yeode] is Wanting in important codd. (B DLZ »&), 
vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. For ajbeods, 
several vss. have dabo vobis. The words are a very ancient 
interpolation, in conformity with ver. 4.— Ver. 8. Delete airoiz, 
with Tisch. 8, following CL Zs, Or. A supplement. — Ver. 10. 
are tova| Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 7: Asi, following B C* 
N Z A, min. vss. Or. The reading of the Received text is of 
the nature of an explanation (a greater number of denarii). — 
For dvé read rd dvé, with Tisch., following CLN Z x, 33. The 
article was omitted in conformity with ver. 9.— Ver. 12. ér:] 
does not occur, it is true, in B C*¥* D 8, 1, Vulg. It. Syr., 
and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may 
it have been overlooked before ofro:!— Ver. 15. The first 7 
is deleted by Lachm., following B D L Z, Syr™ Arm. (in 
accordance with which evidence, as well as that of &, the 
arrangement 6 02.w sorjou: should be restored). Correctly ; 
an old interpolation for the purpose of marking the ques- 
tion. There would be no motive whatever for omitting the 
4. For the second 7 (in Elz.) we should, with Tisch. 7, read 
e/, following B** H S 1, Chrys. Did. and many min. From 
not being understood, </ was all the more readily replaced by 
7, owing to the pronunciation being much the same. — Ver. 16. 
ToAAol yap siot xAnrol, dAfvyor OF ExAexro/| omitted in BLZR, 
36, Copt. Sahid., and deleted by Tisch. 8, with whom Keim con- 
curs. But it is not at all likely that the words would be inter- 
polated from xxii. 14; for, so far from there having been any 
occasion for so doing, they have here more the appearance of 
being out of place than otherwise. This apparent irrelevancy 
may have led to the omission of the saying, which is supported 
by testimony so old as that of C D, It. Syr., unless we suppose 
it to have been due rather to the simple homoeoteleuton éoya- 


42 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


TOU... éxAexTOI.— Ver. 17. 2v +4 60% xa/] read with Lachm. 
and Tisch.: xa ¢v rj 66%, following B L Z &, min. Copt. Sahid. 
Arm. Pers?. Or. (twice). At a very early period (Vulg. It. 
Hil.), év +7 66% was omitted either accidentally, or because it 
is likewise awanting in the parallel passages in the other 
Synoptists. But, in restoring it, it would most naturally occur 
to those who did so to insert it after xar #d/av.— Ver. 19. dvao- 
rnoeras] Tisch.: éyepdjoeras, following C* L N Z 8, Or. Chrys. 
The reading of the Received text is taken from the parallel 
passages. — Ver. 22. wivesy;] Elz., Scholz insert: xa/ (Scholz: 
i) vd Barriowa, 6 @ya BarriZouu, Parriobjver, against BD LZR, 
1, 22, the majority of vss. and Or. Epiph. Hilar. Jer. Ambr. 
Juv. Taken from Mark x. 38.— Ver. 23. rieode] Elz., Scholz, 
in opposition to the same witnesses, insert: xa? (Scholz: 
7) rb Bdarioue b ya BurriCouwos, Pamriobjocobe. — Ver. 26. torus 
év bury] for gore, Lachm. has éori#, following B D Z, Cant. 
Sahid. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is an 
alteration to suit what follows in this and the 27th verse, where, 
with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8, we ought to read goras instead 
of Zorw, in accordance with preponderating evidence; zorw (like- 
wise derived from Mark x. 43) is a gloss. But Fritzsche was 
scarcely warranted in restoring 6é after odrws, ver. 26, for it is 
condemned by decisive evidence, and is a connecting particle 
borrowed from Mark.— Ver. 31. ¢xpa@ov] Lachm. Tisch. 8: 
éxpacay, following BD LZI18, min. Copt. Sahid. A repetition 
from ver. 30. — Ver. 33. dvorydGorv jy. of 696.) Lachm. Tisch. 8: 
avoryaow of 698. yu, following BDL Z 8, min. Or. Chrys. To 
be adopted, inasmuch as the first aorist was the more common 
tense, comp. ix. 30, John ix. 10.— Ver. 34. é¢daAuav] B D 
L Z, min. Or. have éumérar. So Lachm., Rinck, Tisch. 8. 
Correctly; the more usual term has been adopted from the 
context. — Lachm. and Tisch. 8 delete airéy of épdadrmoi after 
dvéBarevav. The words are not found in B D L Z 8, min. vss. 
(also Vulg. It.) and a few Fathers, but they were left out as 
being superfluous and cumbersome. There was no motive 
whatever for inserting them. 


Remark.—After ver. 28 there occurs in D (and in codd. of 
It. with many variations in detail) the following interpolation, 
apocryphal, no doubt, but akin to Luke xiv. 8 ff: iyers 62 Cnreire 
én pinpod avejous x. &x weiCovos crAurroy civ. Eicepyomevor Of xa mapan 
nrnoevres Oeimvjous uy cvaxdAiveode cig Tors ELEyovTAS TimOUS, MH ToTE Ev- 
doZérepég cou eréAdn, nal xpocsAdav 6 deimvoxAnrwp ein col orl naTW 
x wpe, nad AAT GOK UVOTON. "Edy 0& avaméons is Tov qrrova romov nai 


CHAP, XX. 14 43 


extrdn cou nrrwy, pe? oor 6 OermvoxAnrwp? obvaye ert ave, xl ZorEs cos 
roure xpyoiwov. Comp. Hilar., also Syre™. 

Ver. 1. The parable is peculiar to Matthew. — yap] ex- 
plaining and confirming what has been said in xix. 30.— 
av@p. 0ix08.] See notes on xiii. 24, xviii. 23.— aya rpwi] 
Comp. notes on xiii. 29, Acts xxviii. 23: dao mpwi. Classical 
writers would say: dua &, dua TH Hpépa, dua opOpe, 
and such like. —eés Tov aumer. avtod] into his vineyard, 
into which he wished to send them, ver. 2. Comp. Acts vii. 9 ; 
and see, in general, Wilke, Rietor. p. 47 f—On the whole 
parable, see Rupprecht in the Stud. u. Krit. 1847, p. 396 ff.; 
Steffensen, ibid. 1848, p. 686 ff.; Besser in the Luther. 
Zeitschr. 1851, p. 122; Rudel, aid. p. 511; Miinchmeyer, 
ibid. p. 728. For proof that it is not to be regarded as 
furnishing directions for the regulation of offices, see Kostlin, 
d. Wesen d. Kirche, 1854, p. 52 ff. 

Ver. 2. "Ex 8nvapiov thv jpépav] After he had agreed 
with the labourers, on the condition that he was to pay them 
a denarius per day. é€k does not denote the payment itself 
(which would have been expressed by the genitive, ver. 13), 
although é« Syvap. is that payment (xxvii. 7; Acts i. 18); 
but it is intended to indicate that this payment was the 
thing, on the strength of which, as terms, the agreement was 
come to; comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 399 f. tv aépay is the 
accusative, as further defining the terms of the agreement: in 
consideration of the day, so that a denarius was to be the wages 
for the (current) day during which they might work. As an 
accusative of time (which it is wswally supposed to be), it would 
not correspond with cuwdwr. to which it belongs. — A denarius 
was the usual wages for a day’s work (Tob. v. 14). See 
Wetstein. . 

Ver. 3. The third hour: somewhere about nine o'clock in 
the morning. In ordinal numbers the article is unnecessary. 
See note on 2 Cor. xii. 2.—év TH ayopa] where they 
were waiting in expectation of getting employment. The 
men in question belonged to the class of free labourers; Poll. 
iii. 82: éAedOepor pev, Sua rreviav Sé em” apyupieo SovdevovTes. 

Ver. 4. Kdxetvous] to those also he spoke. The point 


44 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


of assimilation (also) lies in the circumstance that, as he had 
invited the first, so he now invites these also to go into the 
vineyard. — 6 éav 7 dSixacov] so that, as part of the day had 
already elapsed, he did not make with them any definite agree- 
ment as to wages for the day, and therefore acted differently 
in this case from what he had done in the former. 

Ver. 5 ff. "Esroincev ®cavtas] the same thing, namely, 
as he had done in the preceding case, ver. 4, sending them 
away, and promising them also only what was equitable. Comp. 
ver. 7. — 67] because. 

Ver. 8. "Owias Sé yev.] we. at the close of the twelfth 
hour (six o’clock in the evening).—7T@ émutpoT@ adTod] 
the chief of the servants (occovdpuos), to whom was entrusted 
the management of the household, Luke viii. 3. — tov prc Aor] 
the wages in question. The ofcovouos had instructions from 
his master to give the same amount of wages to all, although 
all had not wrought the same number of hours. — éws tov 
mpata@v] is connected with dmddos avr. tT. uio8., without 
anything requiring to be understood (and continuing, and 
such like), as is evident from those passages in which the 
terminus ad guem is placed first; for example, Plat. Legg. 
vi. p. 771 C: wacas tas Svavopas éyer péypt tov SHdeKa 
amo yas apEawevos. Comp. Luke xxiii. 5; Acts i.21; John 
viii. 9. 

Ver. 9 ff. Of wept tHv Evdex. Bpav] that is, those who, 
according to ver. 6, were sent into the vineyard about the 
eleventh howr.—mXetov] more than a denarius, plainly not 
more denarii.— dvd] used distributively; Winer, p. 372 
[E. T. 496]. The article 7d before dva Snv., ver. 10 (see 
critical notes), denotes: the sum amounting in each case to a 
denarius, so that in analyzing év would require to be supplied. 
— According to ver.10 f., they do not contemptuously decline 
to lift the denarius (Steffensen), but begin to murmur after 
receiving it (Miinchmeyer). 

Ver. 12. "Ore] recitative, not because (yoyyvfouev, Ste), 
inasmuch as the words Aéyortes Ste x.7.r. express the contents 
of the yoyytfeuw. — od701] spoken disdainfully. — évo/nacav] 
they have spent one hour (Acts xv. 33, xvill. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 


CHAP. XX. 13—16. 45 


25; Eccles. vi 12; Wetstein on this passage; Schaeffer, ad 
Bos. p. 313; Jacobs, in Anthol. IX. p. 449, X. p. 44). The 
ordinary interpretation: they have wrought, laboured, one 
hour, is in opposition to the terms of the passage (as little is 
it to be confirmed by an appeal to Ruth ii. 19, where zovd 
émoinoas means: where hast thou been occupying thyself 2) ; 
there would have been more reason to interpret thus: they 
have been doing it (that is, the work) for one hour, if the 
specifying of the time in connection with éoimcav had 
not suggested our explanation as. the most obvious and 
most natural.— +r. kavcwva] Those others had not entered 
till the evening. 

Vv. 13-15. “Ev/] One, as representing the whole. — étaipe] 
Comrade, a mild way of introducing a rebuke, similar to 
“good friend” among ourselves. Comp. xxii. 12, xxvi. 50. 
So also ayaGé, BéXtucte. See Herm. ad Vig. p.722. Comp. 
Wetstein. —ovx« adsx@ ce] From the standpoint of justice. 
— dnvapiov] genitive of price. Somewhat different from the 
idea of ver. 2.—6édo 6é] “Summa hujus vocis potestas,” 
Bengel.—év tots éwots] not to be taken in the general 
sense of: in my affairs (Fritzsche, de Wette), but, according 
to the context, to be understood in the more definite sense 
of: in disposing of my own property. Comp. Td adv, and 
Plato, Legg. ii. p. 969 C.— ei 0 dfOarpos cov, k.7.r.] see 
critical notes. The e¢ is not interrogative, as in xii. 10, 
xix. 3 (for, according to the connection, the doubt implied in 
such a question would be entirely out of place), but the 
speaker is to be regarded as saying that, though such and 
such be the case, his right to do what he pleases with his 
own is by no means impaired, so that ef may be taken as 
almost equivalent to e kai (Jacobs, Del. Epigr. p. 405; 
Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 212; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 991): if 
thine eye is evil (ic. envious, comp. Mark vii. 22, and yn, 
Prov. xxviii. 22; Ecclus. xiv. 10), because I (I, on my part, 
hence éy#) am good! The mark of interrogation after éyois 
is therefore to be deleted. ‘ 

Ver. 16. The teaching of the parable: So, — just, as in the 
case here supposed, those who were the last to be sent into the 


46 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


vineyard received the same amount of wages as the first; so 
in the Messiah’s kingdom, the last will be on the same footing 
as the first, and the first as the last, without a longer period 
of service giving an advantage, or a shorter putting to a dis- 
advantage. Comp. xix. 30.— €covtas] that is, practically, 
as far as the reward they are to receive is concerned. The 
first will be Jast, inasmuch as the former receive no more 
than the latter (in answer to de Wette’s objection, as though, 
from the expression here used, we would require to suppose 
that they will receive less than a denarius). There is nothing 
whatever in the text about the exclusion of the mpa@ror from 
the kingdom, and the admission of the éoyarou (Krehl in the 
Stichs. Stud. 1843); and as little to favour the view, adopted 
by Steffensen: those who esteem themselves last shall be first, 
and those who esteem themselves first shall be last, for the 
labourers in the parable were in reality éryatou and mpwrot. 
The proposition: “that, in dispensing the blessings of the 
kingdom of heaven,-God takes no account of human merit, 
but that all is the result of His own free grace” (Rupprecht, 
Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim), does not constitute the leading 
thought set forth in the parable, though, no doubt, it may be 
supposed to wnderlic it.— moAXot yap, «.7.r.] Confirmation of 
what has just been said about the éryarou being put upon an 
equality with the zp@to.: “for although many are called to 
share in the future recompense for services rendered to the 
Messiah’s kingdom, yet those chosen to receive rewards of a 
pre-eminent and peculiarly distinguished character in that 
kingdom are but few.” These éxdexror are not the éryarou 
(those, as Olshausen fancies, whose attitude toward the king- 
dom is of a more spontaneous nature, and who render their 
services from hearty inclination and love), but those who are 
selected from the multitude of the «Anrot. We are taught in 
the parable what it is that God chooses them for, namely, to 
be rewarded in an extraordinary degree (to receive more than 
the denarius). The train of thought, then, is simply this: It 
is not without reason that I say: cat of mpdtou éoyxarou, for, 
from this equalizing of the first with the last, only a few will 
be excepted, — namely, those whom God has selected for 


CHAP. XX. 16. 47 


this from among the mass of the called. Thus the parable 
concludes, and that very appropriately, with language which, 
no doubt, allows the Apostles to contemplate the prospect of 
receiving rewards of a peculiarly distinguished character 
(xix. 28), but does not warrant the certainty of it, nor does it 
recognise the existence of anything like so-called valid claims ; 
for, according to the idea running through the parable, the 
éxroy is to be ascribed simply to the purpose of God (Rom. 
ix. 11,15 f.). See ver. 15. Comp. also note on xxii. 14. 


REMARK.—The simple application of ver. 16 ought to warn 
against arbitrary attempts to trace a meaning in all the little 
details of the parable, many of which belong to the mere 
drapery of the story. The householder is God; the vineyard is 
the Christian theocracy, in which work is to be done in the 
interests of the approaching kingdom of the Messiah; the 
oizovouos 18 Christ; the twelfth howr, at which the wages are 
paid, is the time of the second coming; the other hours mark 
the different periods at which believers begin to devote them- 
selves to the service of God’s kingdom; the denarius denotes 
the blessings of the Messianic kingdom in themselves, at the 
distribution of which the circumstance of an earlier entrance 
into the service furnishes no claim to a fuller measure of reward, 
however little this may accord with human ideas of justice; 
hence the zpara are represented as murmuring, whereupon 
they are dismissed from the master’s presence. Calvin 
appropriately observes: “hoc murmur asserere noluit ultimo 
die futurum, sed tantum negare causam fore murmurandi.” 
But there is nothing to warrant the view that, inasmuch as 
they consented to be hired only for definite wages, the zpara 
betrayed an wnworthy disposition, while those who came later 
exhibited a more commendable spirit in being satisfied simply 
with the promise of 6 é&y 4 dixasmv. It can only be of service in 
the way of edifying application, but it is not reconcilable with the 
historical sense of the passage, to explain the different hours as re- 
ferring to the different stages of life, childhood, youth, manhood, 
and old age (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), 
inasmuch as they are meant to represent various periods be- 
tween the time of Christ and the close of the aia oiros, at 
which the second coming is to take place, and are therefore to 
be regarded as exhibiting the time embraced by the generation 
then existing (xvi. 28) under the figure of a day with its 
various divisions. Origen supposed that the allusion was to 


48 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


the leading epochs of history from the beginning of the world 
(1) till the flood; (2) till Abraham; (3) till Moses; (4) tall 
Christ ; (5) till the end of the world. This view is decidedly 
forbidden by xix. 29 f. Yet similar explanations, based upon 
the history of the world, are likewise given by Theophylact 
and others. No less foreign is the reference to the Jews and 
Gentiles, which Grotius, but especially Hilgenfeld, following 
Jerome, has elaborated, so that the first of the labourers are taken 
to represent the Jews, whose terms of service, so to speak, are 
distinctly laid down in the law, and subsequently re-affirmed, 
at least, in an indefinite form; while those who come last are 
supposed to represent the Gentiles, who, in accordance with 
the new covenant of grace, receive, and that before all the 
others, precisely the same reward as those who were the first 
to be called. Scholten is disposed to think that the parable 
was also intended to expose the pretensions of the Jews to 
precedence and distinction in the kingdom. 


Vv. 17-19. According to the Synoptists, Jesus now takes 
occasion, as He approaches Jerusalem (dvaf. eis “Iepoc. is the 
continuation of the journey mentioned in xix. 1), to intimate 
to His disciples more plainly and distinctly than before (xvi. 
21, xvii. 22) His impending fate. Comp. Mark x. 32 ff; 
Luke xviii. 31 ff —xar idlav] didts otk Sev tadTa pabeiv 
Tovs ToAAOdS, a 1) GKavdadicGeow, Euthymius Zigabenus. 
There were others travelling along with them.— @avato] 
dative of direction: even to death. See Winer, p. 197f. 
[E. T. 263]. This is in accordance with later Greek usage. 
Comp. Wisd. ii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 6 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475 ; 
Grimm’s note on Wisd. as above. On the prediction of the 
resurrection, see note on xvi. 21. 

Ver. 20. Tére] after the announcement in vy. 17-19. 
Salome, His mother’s sister (see note on John xix. 25), was 
one of those women who were in the habit of accompanying 
Jesus, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1. She may have heard 
from her sons what He, xix. 28, had promised the apostles. — 
aitovad TL] making a request. It is to anticipate to suppose Te 
to imply aliquid magni (Maldonatus, Fritzsche). Comp. ver. 21, 
tl Oéres. On the present participle, see Kiithner, IT. 2, p. 622 f.; 
Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. vii. 14 ; Bornem. ad Xen. Anab. vii. 7. 17. 

Ver. 21. She thus designates the two most distinguished 


CMAP. XX. 22, 23. 49 


positions in the Messiah’s kingdom. For among Orientals the 
foremost place of honour was considered to be immediately on 
the right, and the next immediately on the left of the king, 
Joseph. Antt. vi. 11. 9; Wetstein and Paulus on this passage. 
She desired to see her sons not merely in the position of 
ordinary ovyKAnpovopoe and cvpRacirevovtes (Rev. iii. 21), 
but in that of the most distinguished proceres regni.— ite 
iva] asin iv. 3. The fact that the gentle and humble John 
should also have shared this wish (for both the disciples, in 
whose name also the mother is speaking, are likewise to be 
regarded as joining in the request, ver. 22, so that there 
cannot be said to be any essential difference between the 
present passage and Mark x. 35), shows how much his character 
must subsequently have been changed. Comp. Introduction 
to John, § 3. 

Ver. 22. Ovd« olSare, «.7..] You do not understand what is 
involved in your request ; you do not seem to be aware that 
the highest stages of cupBacirevew (2 Tim. ii. 12; 1 Cor. 
iv. 8) in my kingdom cannot be reached without previously 
sharing in such sufferings as I have to endure. Jesus 
addresses the two disciples themselves. — divac Oe] said with 
reference to moral ability.— ro wortypsov] di3, figurative 
description of his fate generally, and of his sufferings in par- 
ticular. See the exposition of Isa. li. 17; Jer. xlix. 12; 
Martyr. Polye. 14. 

Ver. 23. The disciples reply: Suvdywefa, not because they 
did not quite understand what Jesus meant (ver. 18 f.), but 
because they were animated by a sincere though self-confident 
determination, such, too, as was afterwards sufficiently verified 
in the case of both, only in somewhat different ways. — ov« 
éotiv éwov Sodvat, GAN obs jToip. UO TOD TaTp. m.] SC. 
So0yceTat: is not my business (does not behove me) to give, 
but it will be given to those for whom it has been prepared 
(has been put in readiness, xxv. 34; 1 Cor. ii 9) by my 
Father. For éuov éoré with infinitive, comp. Plat. Legg. ii. 
p. 664 B: éeuov dy ein réyeev. Jesus thus discourages the 
questionable request by frankly declaring that the granting 
of what has just been asked is one of those things which God 

MATT. U. D 


50 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


has reserved to Himself; that it is a matter with which He, 
the Son, must not interfere. For another instance of such 
reservation on the part of the Father, see xxiv. 36; Mark 
xiii. 32. This evident meaning of the words is not to be 
explained away or modified. The former has been done by 
Chrysostom and his successors, also by Castalio, Grotius, 
Kuinoel, who took ada as equivalent to «¢ yu; the latter by 
Augustine, Luther, according to whom the words as man 
(“secundum formam servi”) are to be understood, and Bengel, 
who modifies ov« éotw éuov dodvar by erroneously supplying 
the words: til after my death. Further, the words 70 pev 
moTnp. 4. mlecOe are to be regarded as expressing the Lord’s 
unfeigned trust and confidence in the dvvaueba of the disciples ; 
He feels confident that they will verify it by their actions. His 
words, therefore, are only indirectly tantamount to a prediction, 
and that not exactly of death by martyrdom, which was cer- 
tainly the fate of James, Acts xii, though not of John,* but 
of suffering generally in the interests of the Messiah’s kingdom 
(Rom. viii. 17; 2 Cor.i.5). It is probable, however, that the 
apocryphal story about John swallowing a cup full of poison 
(see Fabricius, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 576; Tischendorf, Act. ap. 
apocr. p. 269), and that without being anything the worse 
(Mark xvi. 18), as well as the legend about the attempt to 
scald him to death in boiling oil (Tertullian, de praescr. 36), 
owe their existence and propagation to the present passage. 
Origen views our Lord’s words on this occasion in connection 
with the banishment of John to Patmos. 

Ver. 24. “"Hyavaxtyncav] Jealousy of the two disciples 
who were thus aspiring to be first. Euthymius Zigabenus: o¢ 
déxa Tois Svol pabytais epOovncav, Tov TpwTelwy epiepéevats. 

Ver. 25 ff. Those ambitious desires which prompted the 
request of the sons of Zebedee have likewise a good deal to do 

1 The statement of Gregorius Hamartolos (quoted by Nolte in the T'%ib. theol. 
Quartalschr. 1862, p. 466), to the effect that, in his aéy«, Papias declares that 
John was put to death by the Jews, cannot outweigh the testimony of the early 
church to the fact that he died a natural death. For the discussion of this 
point, see Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 78 ff. ; Overbeck, ibid. 1867, 


p- 68 ff. ; Holtzmann in Schenkel’s Lex. III]. p. 333; Keim, Ill. p, 44 £5 
Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 487 tf. 


CHAP. XX. 28. ta 


with the displeasure of the other disciples. Accordingly, Jesus 
endeavours to check their ambition by insisting on the humble 
spirit of the servant as the way to true greatness in the ranks 
of His followers. — 01 dpyovtes THv €Ov.] the heathen rulers. 
—x«atakup.| the intensive force of the compound verb serves 
to convey the idea of oppressive rule. Comp. Diod. Sic. xiv. 
64, and the Sept. passim; see Schleusner; 1 Pet. v. 3; Acts 
xix. 16. Similarly with regard to the carefouvc., which occurs 
nowhere else, and which may be rendered : they practise violence 
toward. —avt@yv| refers in both instances to tT. €Ov@v.— of 
peydaXot] the magnates (Hom. Od. xviii. 382, comp. wey Taves, 
Mark vi. 21), “ipsis saepe dominis imperiosiores,’ Bengel. — 
ovX oUTwS éoTLV év Vuty] it is not soamong you. Observe 
the present (see critical notes); there is no such order of 
things among you. — péyas] great, not equivalent to péysotos, 
but in the sense of: to occupy a high and distinguished place 
among you. In the sphere to which you belong, true greatness 
lies in doing service; that is the principle on which you will 
act. Hence the future éora; for, in the event of any one 
wishing to become great, he will aim at it by means of serv- 
ing; the latter is the way to the former.—ap@ros] one of 
the first in point of rank, a sort of climax to péyas, as Staxovos 
is to dodAos. The emphasis in the consequent clauses rests 
on those two predicates, and hence the emphatic word is placed 
in each case at the close. 

Ver. 28. “Qozep] “summum exemplum,” Bengel. Comp. 
Phil. ii. 5; Rom. xv. 3; Polye. Phil. 5: os éyévero StdKxovos 
mavtwv. Observe here the consciousness, which Jesus had 
from the very first, that to sacrifice himself was His great divine 
mission. Comp. Dorner, siindlose Vollk. Jesu, p. 44 ff. — 
StaxovnOjvac| to be waited upon, as grandees are.— Kai 
Sodvat] intensive ; adding on the highest act, the culminating 
point in the SvaxovAcas; but dodvas is made choice of, because 
the Wuy7 (the soul, as the principle of the life of the body) is 
conceived of as AvTpov (a ransom); for, through the shedding 
of the blood (xxvi. 28; Eph. i. 7), it becomes the tv.) of the 
redemption, 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23. Comp. note on John x. 11. 
—avTi TodAGr] avi denotes substitution, That which is 


52 THE GOSPEL OF MATTIIEW. 


given as a ransom takes the place (is given instead) of those who 
are to be set free in consideration thereof. The Avtpoy (Plat. 
Legg. xi. p. 919 A, Rep. p. 393 D, Thue. vi. 5. 4) is an avti- 
Avtpov (1 Tim. ii. 6), avtddXaypa (xvi. 26). Whether avti 
modroy should be joined to Avzpov, which is the simpler 
course, or connected with dodvar, is a matter of perfect indif- 
ference (in answer to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 300) so 
far as the meaning of ayti is concerned. In any case, that 
meaning is strictly and specifically defined by Awvtpov (72), 
according to which avré can only be understood in the sense 
of substitution in the act of which the ransom is presented 
as an equivalent to secure the deliverance of those on whose 
behalf it is paid,—a view which is only confirmed by the fact 
that in other parts of the New Testament this ransom is usually 
spoken of as an expiatory sacrifice, xxvi. 28; John i 29; 
1 John iv. 10; Rom. ui, 25; Isa. li 10; 1 Petia 
iii. 18. Zhat which they are redeemed /rom is the eternal 
am@neva, in which, as having the wrath of God abiding upon 
them (John i. 36), they would remain imprisoned (John iii. 
16; Gal. m.13;.2 Cor v.21; 1 Pet. 1 24; Col tam 
13 f.) as in a state of hopeless bondage (Heb. 11. 15), unless the 
guilt of their sins were expiated. — 7oAA@v] The vicarious 
death of Jesus may be described as having taken place for 
all (Rom. v. 18; 1 Tim. i. 6; 1 John ii. 2), or for many 


1 Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, p. 222 ff., defines avrpoy as mean- 
ing something given by way of equivalent in order to avert death ; this, how- 
ever, is not sufficient, for, throughout the Sept. also, in which 155 is rendered 
by Adrpov (Ex. xxi. 30, xxx. 12; Num. xxxv. 31 f.; Prov. vi. 35, xiii. 8), pretiwm 
redemtionis is found to be the specific meaning given to the word, although the 
connection may sometimes admit ex adjuncto the additional idea of something 
given for the purpose of averting death. The Sept. likewise adheres to the same 


meaning in cases where other expressions are rendered by Avrpoy, such as nya 
(Lev. xxv. 24, 51), DY (Num. iii. 51), jp (Ex. xxi. 30), VM (Isa. 
xlv. 13). Ritschl interprets our present passage as follows: ‘‘Z am come to 
give away my life to God in sacrifice, that I may become the substitute of those 
who could never hope to succeed in finding, either for themselves or others, any 
adequate ransom as a means of securing their exemption from death ; but the 
substitute only of those who, through faith and self-denying devotion to my person, 
fulfil the condition on which alone the ransom furnished by me can procure the 
hoped for exemption,” p. 238. 


CHAP. XX. 29-32. na 


(so also xxvi. 28; Heb. ix. 28), according as we regard it 
as an objective fact (that fact being: Jesus has given His 
life a ransom for a// men), or look at it in relation to the sub- 
jective appropriation of its results on the part of individuals 
(which happens only in the case of believers). So in the 
present case, where, accordingly, woAA@y is to be understood as 
meaning all who believe now and will believe hereafter (John 
xvii. 20). 

Ver. 29. Comp. Mark x. 46 ff; Luke xviii. 35 ff'— Kat 
éxTop. avTav ato ‘Lepryo| The Synoptists make no mention 
whatever of the visit to Ephraim and the journey to Bethany 
(mentioned in John x1. 54, xii. 1) ; indeed, their narrative (Matt. 
xxi. 1 f.) positively excludes at least the latter of these. This 
divergence, and not a mere want of precision, should be fairly 
acknowledged (comp. note on xxi. 1), and not explained away 
by means of ingenious conjectures (Paulus, Schleiermacher, 
Neander, comp. also Sieffert, who suppose that Jesus may have 
entered Bethany along with the rest of the pilgrims in the 
evening, and may have left it again next morning or the morn- 
ing after; see, on the other hand, on John xii. 17 f., note). 
A further discrepancy is to be found in the fact that Luke 
represents the healing as having taken place &v 7@ éyyifew 
avtov eis ‘Iepuy., and that Mark and Luke mention only one 
blind man, although the first mentioned divergence has been 
turned to account in the way of supporting the hypothesis 
that Matthew has blended together two distinct cases of heal- 
ing, one of which is supposed to have taken place when Jesus 
was entering the town, the other when He was leaving it 
(Theophylact, Neander, Wieseler, Ebrard, Krafft). The diffi- 
culty connected with the mention of two men is not removed 
by a supposed reminiscence of ix. 27 ff. (Strauss), nor ex- 
plained by supposing that the blind man of Bethsaida, Mark 
vill. 22, may have been included (Holtzmann, Volkmar); but 
it proves that, in point of authenticity, Matthew’s account 
compares unfavourably with the characteristic narrative of 
Mark, which bears traces of being the original account of what 
took place. Comp. note on viii. 28 ff. 

Ver. 31. “Iva ciwmno.] Aim of éxetiynoey avtois. — 


54 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Euthymius Zigabenus says well: éweoropicey adtods eis Tyunv 
Tod ‘Incod, as évoyAodvtas adtov. Comp. xix.13. They pro- 
bably saw that He was just then in the act of conversing on 
some topic or other. — ri OédXeTe Totnow vpiv ;|] The ques- 
tion is intended to increase their confidence by means of the 
hope which it excites. Comp. note on John v. 6. There is 
no need to supply fva, but comp. note on xiii. 28. 

Ver. 33 f. “Iva dvowydouv, x.7.d.] answering the above 
question in terms of the object aimed at in the cry, éAénoov 
nas, of which iva avovy., x.T.r. is the continuation. — HyaTo] 
different from Mark and Luke, who represent Jesus as healing 
merely by the power of His word.— tév oupartor (see critical 
notes), used for variety, being, as far as the meaning is con- 
cerned, the same as 6d@admol. Comp. Xen. Mem. i. 4.17; 
Plat. Alc. I. p. 133 B.—avéBnr. adr. of 666.) their eyes re- 
covered the power of seeing ; naively told.— Kxorov8. adto| 
we cannot tell whether they followed him permanently, though 
this seems probable from Mark x. 46, 


CHAP. XXI, 


on 
ct 


C yA, Pi Tek, Xe X TE 


VeR. 1. rpic rd pos] Instead of zpéc, Lachm. and Tisch. have «is, 
following B C** 33, codd. of It. Or.(once). Correctly; =pés is 
taken from Mark xi. 1; Luke xix. 29.— Ver. 2. wopevdnre| 
Lachm. Tisch. 8: zopeteode, following important evidence. But 
the transcribers happened to be more familiar with sopeteads 
(x. 6, xxii. 9, xxv. 9, 41). — For dwévavrs, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have 
zarévavrt, Which, though sanctioned by important evidence, is 
borrowed from Mark and Luke. — éyéyere, for which, with 
Lachm., éyere should be read, is likewise taken from the parallel 
passages (see, however, on Mark xi. 2).— Ver. 3. With the 
Received text, Lachm. and Tisch. read dooreA<z; following B D 
H Mx, Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Or., while Matth. Griesb. 
Scholz, on the other hand, have adopted drooréxAe. Important 
evidence on both sides. The connection seemed to require the 
future, which was acordingly introduced here and in Mark xi. 
3.— Ver. 4. Gaov] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, 
following C* D L ZX, vss. Or. Chrys. Hil. Comp. i. 22, xxvi. 
56.—Ver.5. r#Aov] Lachm. Tisch. : éx/ réAcv, following BLN x, 
1, 124, vss. Correctly ; in the Sept. there is only one éai,— 
Ver. 6. The evidence of B C D 33 in favour of owéraZev (Lachm. 
Tisch. 7) is sufficient. Tisch. 8, with the Received text, reads 
xpoosracev, the more usual form.— Ver. 7. For the first éréva 
airév, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read é@ airév, following B L Z 8, 
69, Or., with which we may class D and codd. of It., which 
have tm aid. The transcriber would be apt mechanically to 
anticipate the subsequent érévw.— erexcéicev (Elz.: exexcbsouy) 
is supported by decisive evidence (adopted by Matth. Griesb. 
Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.),so that instead of supposing 
it to be taken from Mark xi. 7 (comp. John xii. 14), we should 
rather regard the reading of the Received text as derived from 
Luke xix. 35. — Ver. 8. gorpuvyuov] Tisch. 8: gorpwouy, following 
only D &* Or. A repetition of Zozpwouv in the earlier part of 
the verse. — Ver. 9. mwpoayovres| Lachm. Tisch. : rpoay. avrey, fol- 
lowing B C D Lx, min. vss. Or. Eus. This «irév, which in itself 
is not indispensable, was still more apt to be omitted in con- 





56 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


sequence of Mark xi. 9.— Ver. 11. Lachm. (B D 8, Or.) puts 6 
=pog. before "Ijcots; so also Tisch. 8. But how current was the 
use of the phrase, “Jesus of Nazareth!”— Ver. 12. rod ©¢oi] 
deleted by Lachm., following B L &, min. vss. and Fathers. It 
was omitted as superfluous, and from its not being found in 
Mark and Luke, also in consequence of its not occurring else- 
where in the New Testament. — Ver. 13. éro:qc0ur¢| Fritzsche, 
Lachm. Tisch.: zos?rz, following B L &, 124, Copt. Aeth. Or. 
Eus. Correctly; éro:joure is from Luke. Comp.on Mark xi. 17. 
— Ver. 19. wyxér:] Lachm. and Tisch.: od wqxér, following, it 
is true, only B L; but od would readily be omitted, all the more 
that Mark xi. 14 has simply wyxér:— Ver. 23. erddves aire] 
Lachm. Tisch. 8: éAdévrog adrod. See on viii. 1.—Ver. 25. Iwdvvov] 
Lachm. and Tisch.: +3 "Iwévov, which is sufficiently attested by 
BC ZX, Or.; 7é was omitted as superfluous. — rap éavr.] 
Lachm.: év éavr., following B L M** Z, min. Cyr. Gloss in 
accordance with xvi. 7, 8. — Ver. 28. wov] upon important evi- 
dence, is with Fritzsche, Tisch. to be deleted as an interpolation. 
— Ver. 30. répw]| So also Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. The devrépw 
(Lachm.) of the Received text is opposed by C* DEFGHKU 
X A IL8, min. vss. and Fathers, and, coming as it does after 
zpérw, looks like an exegetical gloss.— Ver. 31. rparo¢] Lachm.: 
Sorepog. Maintained by Rinck and Schweizer’ in the Stud. uw. 

Krit. 1839, p. 944. Comp. Ewald also, who, however, suggests — 
Lorepov, sc. weraernderc. Similarly Buttm. in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1860, p. 343 ff. dorepos is found in B, while D, vss. (also 
codd. of It. and the Vulg.) and several Fathers read Zoyuros. 
Consequence of the transposition that had taken place in vv. 29, 
30 (B, min. vss. and Fathers): 6 6: daoxp. sixev "Eya, xup., nad 
on aayrdsv. Kal apoozrd. ra érépw six. wo. “O 0 aaoxp. cimevr Od 
déAw, dorepoy 6, x.7.A. But this transposition was the result of the 
ancient interpretation of the two sons as referring to the Jews 
and the Gentiles. — Ver. 32. 03] Lachm.: 0t62, following B, min. 
Syreur and jer, Copt. Aeth. It. Vulg. Hilar. The compound nega- 
tive, the force of which had not been observed, would be omitted 


1 Schweizer explains thus : 6 tarepes, sc. dx2A¢av (which Buttm. should not have 
declared to be erroneous). The answer,he says, is hesitating and reluctant, perhaps 
intentionally ambiguous. But coming after the question ris tx ray dv, x.7.A., the 
simple é derepos can only be taken as equivalent to 6 dedrepos, as in Xen. Hell. i. 
7. 6, al. Lachm. was of opinion that the answer was intended to be inappro- 
priate (comp. already Jerome), though he ultimately decided in favour of the 
view that the words 2éyouow . . . "Inzovs, which Or. omits, arespurious. See the 
latter’s Praefat. Il. p. v. Tisch., Bleek, and others have correctly upheld the 
reading of the Received text. 


CHAP, XXI. 2. 57 


all the more readily that 62 occurs just before. —Ver. 33. rs after 
dévépwros (in Elz. Matth.) is deleted by Griesb. and more recent 
editors, in accordance with decisive evidence. — Ver. 38. za7d- 
oxwwev) Lachm. and Tisch.: syépev, following B D L Z¥, min. 
Or. Cyr. The compound form, for sake of greater precision. — 
Ver. 44. This whole verse is wanting in D, 33, Cant. Ver. Vere. 
Corb. 1, 2, Or. Eus. (?) Lucif. Cyr.(?); condemned by Griesb., 
bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. The external evidence 
is not sufficient to warrant deletion. Had the words been 
borrowed from Luke xx. 18, they would have been inserted 
after ver. 42, and the first half of the passage would have been 
in closer agreement with Luke (that is to say, the zés would 
not have been left out). The omission, again, might well be 
due to a mistake on the part of the copyist, whose eye might pass 
at once from air%s xai to airiv xa/.— Ver. 46. ws] Lachm. and 
Tisch. : ec, following B L&,1,22,Or. ag is from ver. 26, xiv. 5. 


Ver. 1. Comp. Mark xi. 1 ff; Luke xix. 29 ff. Kat 7X0ov 
ets BnO@dayh] by way of giving greater precision to the 
foregoing iyyicav eis ‘Iepoo. They had come towards Beth- 
phage; that is, as the connection shows (ver. 2), they had not 
actually entered the village, but were close upon it, so that 
it lay right before them; comp. on Johniv. 5. Hard by them 
(“in latere montis Oliveti,” Jerome) was the neighbouring 
village of Bethany (ver. 17), about which, however, and its 
position with reference to Bethphage (Robinson, Pal. II. p. 
312), nothing more precise can now be said. Consequently 
there is no divergence from Mark and Luke, so that it is 
unnecessary to understand ets, versus, after #Oov (Fritzsche), 
which is distinct from, and more definite than, *y yar. 
—Of Bethphage, "385 ™2, house of figs, no trace remains 
(Robinson, as above). It is not once mentioned in the 
Old Testament, though frequently in the Talmud. Buxtorf, 
p. 1691; Hug, Hinl. I. p. 18. — ere] an important juncture. 
“Non prius; vectura mysterii plena,” Bengel. To any one 
travelling from Jericho, the holy city would be in full view at 
Bethphage (not at Bethany). And Jesus makes due arrange- 
ments for the entry ; it is not something done simply to gratify 
the enthusiastic wishes of those about Him (Neander, de Wette, 
Weizsacker) ; comp. Keim, III. p. 85 f. 


58 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


REMARK.—The stay of Jesus at Bethany, recorded by John 
(xii. 1 ff.), does not admit of being inserted into the account given 
by the Synoptists (in answer to Ebrard, Wichelh. Komment. tiber 
d. Leidensgesch. p.149; Lichtenstein); we should rather say that 
these latter expressly forbid the view that the night had been 
passed at Bethany, all the more that they introduce the anoint- 
ing (Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.; Mark xiv. 3 ff), and consequently the 
stay of Jesus at this village after the triumphal entry, and 
that not merely in the order of their narrative, but also in the 
order of events (Matt. xxvi. 2; Mark xiv. 1). This likewise in 
answer to Wieseler, p. 391 f—The tradition, to the effect that 
the triumphal entry took place on the Sunday (Palmarum), is in 
no way inconsistent with the synoptic narrative itself, and 
agrees at the same time with John xii. 1, 12, inasmuch as it 
would appear from this evangelist that the day on which Jesus 
arrived at Bethany was most probably the 8th of Nisan, which, 
however, according to John’s representation, must have been 
Saturday (see note on John xi. 1). Still, as regards the dates 
of the passion week, there remains this fundamental divergence, 
that, according to the Synoptists, the Friday on which Jesus 
died was the 15th, while according to John (see note on John 
Xviii. 28) it was the 14th of Nisan; and further, that John xii. 
12 represents Jesus as having passed the night at Bethany 
previous to His triumphal entry, while according to the synop- 
tical account He appears to have gone at once from Jericho to 
Jerusalem. In any case, the most authentic view of this 
matter is that of John, on whose authority, therefore, must rest 
the tradition that Sunday was the day on which Christ rode 
into the city. 


Ver. 2 f. Eis tHv copnv, «.7.r.] Bethphage. — ed0éws] 
essentially appropriate to the specific character of the instruc- 
tions: immediately, after you have entered. — The mention of 
two animals made by Matthew, though seemingly at variance 
with Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 30, John xii. 14, represents the 
matter more correctly than the other evangelists, and is neither 
to be explained symbolically (of Judaism and heathenism, Justin 
Martyr), nor to be regarded as a reduplication on the part of 
Matthew (Ewald, Holtzmann), nor to be traced to a misap- 
prehension of the words of the prophet (de Wette, Neander, 
Strauss, Hilgenfeld), who intends Y ay as an epexegetical 
parallel to nion~>y ; for just in the same way are we to understand 


CHAPAXXE 46) 59 


Kal émt mo@ndov, ver. 5, so that, according to Matthew as well, 
Jesus rides upon the foal, though accompanied by the mother, 
a detail which the other evangelists fail to notice. Moreover, 
it is simply arbitrary to assign a mythical character to the 
prediction of Jesus on the strength of Gen. xlix. 11 (Strauss ; 
on the other hand, Bleek). —- 670] recitative. -— a@roorénNnXeu] 
so far from refusing, He sends them away. The present repre- 
sents as already taking place what will immediately and cer- 
tainly be realized. Comp. Mark iv. 29. In ev@éws 5é, but at 
once, observe Jesus’ marvellous knowledge, not merely of the fact 
that the animals would undoubtedly be found awaiting them 
exactly as He said they would be, but of the further fact that 
the people of the place are so loyal to Him as perfectly to 
understand the meaning of the 6 xvpsos, «.7.r., and to find in 
those words sufficient reason for at once complying with His 
request. Comp. xxvi. 18. The idea of a magical virtue 
attaching to the use of the name Jesus (Strauss) is foreign to 
the text; while, on the other hand, we fail to satisfy the 
requirements of the three accounts of this incident by 
resolving it into a mere case of borrowing (Paulus) or 
requisition (Keim).— The simple account of John does not 
affect the credibility of the synoptic narrative (also in answer 
to Bleek). See note on John xu. 14 f. 

Ver. 4 f. “Iva tAnpwO7] not accidental, but in accordance 
with the divine purpose of fulfilling, etc. This quotation, 
which is a free rendering, partly of the original Hebrew and 
partly of the Septuagint, combines Isa. lxii. 11 (elzrate... 
Sov) and Zech. ix. 9, where the riding of the ideal Messianic 
king upon an ass is simply a representation, not indeed of 
absolute humility (Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 360 f.), for 
such riding is a sign of mpavrns, but of a peaceful disposi- 
tion; comp. Ewald, Propheten, I. p. 256, ed. 2. He does not 
come upon a war-horse, not apyata éAavvwv ws of RoxTrOL 
Baotreis, Chrysostom. The incident in which Jesus then 
realized the recognised fulfilment of the prophecy (Hengsten- 
berg, Ewald, Keim) would suggest the strained interpretation of 
the figure, and quite properly, inasmuch as Christ’s riding into 
the city revealed the typical nature of the form in which the 


60 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


prophet embodied his prediction (Diisterdieck, de rei propheticae 
natura ethice, 1852, p.'78 f.). For the prophetic expression 
daughter of Zion (the locality of the town regarded as its 
mother), see Knobel’s note on Isa. i. 8. Comp. Lam. i. 6.— 
coi] Dative of ethical reference, common likewise in classical 
Greek along with épyeo@ar.— nai éri odor] See note on 
ver. 2. Kal is epexegetical.—vidv brotvy.] MHN ja, For 
wmotiytov, beast of burden, a term more frequently used in the 
Septuagint to designate the ass, comp. Herod. ix. 24, 39, 41; 
Xen. Anadb. 1. 3. 1; Lucian, Cynic. x.; Polyb. ii. 51. 4; 
3 Esdr. v. 43; 2 Pet. 1. 16. 

Ver. 7. They spread their outer garments upon both animals, 
being uncertain which of them Jesus intended to mount. — 
The (second) ¢rdvw avtév must necessarily be referred, with 
Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Castalio, Beza, Homberg, 
Fritzsche, Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219], to the garments, in which 
case it is clear from ver. 5 that Jesus sat upon the foal. Were 
we to refer avtav to the animals, the result would be the absurd 
idea (which Strauss, B. Bauer, Volkmar make use of against 
Matthew) that Jesus mounted both of them at once, not one 
after the other (Fritzsche, Fleck), seeing that «. érexd@icev én. 
avtov denotes the instantaneous, finished act which followed 
the spreading of the garments. To suppose (Ebrard, Olshausen), 
by way of justifying the reference to the animals, that we have 
here a loose form of speech, corresponding to the German phrase: 
he leaps from the horses, and such like, is out of the question, 
for the simple reason that no such ovAAnYus can be assumed 
in the case of ver. 5, all the less so that, from this verse, it 
would appear that it was the dam on which Jesus rode, with 
the foal walking by her side. 

Ver. 8. Manifestations of respect, such as kings were usually 
ereeted with on entering cities, 2 Kings ix. 13; Wetstein’s 
note on this passage; Robinson, II. p. 383.—0o mAeloros 
dxXos] the most of the people, the greatest part of the multi- 
tude. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 397 D; Thuc. vii. 78; Xen. 
Anab. iii. 2. 36.— éavrdvr] states what the multitude did 
with their own garments, after the disciples had spread theirs 
upon the two beasts. 


CHAP) XXI. 9-11. OL 


Ver. 9 ff. ‘Acavva] SI 7YwIN, Ps. exvilil. 25, bestow 
blessing !—addressed to God. The dative is due to the 
meaning of the verb (opitulare) contained in woavyva, — 
aocavva év Tots biort.| Grant blessing in the highest places 
(Luke ii. 14), ze. in the highest heaven (Eph. iv. 10), where 
Thy throne is fixed, and from which let it descend upon the 
Messiah. The interpretation of Fritzsche, Olshausen: let 
blessing be proclaimed (by the angels) in heaven! is far- 
fetched. No less so is that of de Wette, Bleek: let Hosanna 
be confirmed in heaven, let it be ratified by God! Nor is éy r. 
inp. equivalent to o dv T. oy. (grant blessing, O Thou who art 
in heaven), as Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Kuinoel, are 
disposed to think. — év dvd. kupiov] i.e. as sent by God to 
be His representative, John v. 43.— Speaking generally, the 
exclamation may be described as an outburst of enthusiasm 
expressing itself, in a free and impromptu manner, in language 
borrowed from the hymn for the feast of Tabernacles, Ps. cxviii. 
(Succoth iv. 5).— écetcOn] was thrown into a state of com- 
motion (Pind. Pyth. iv. 484; Soph. Ant. 163), on account of 
the sensation created by this Messianic entry into the city. 
The excitement was contagious.— 06 tpodytys] the well- 
known prophet. The crowds that accompanied Him had, in 
most explicit terms, designated Him the Messiah; but the less 
interested people of the city wished above all to ascertain His 
name and rank. Hence the full reply, Inoots... Tarr, 
in which the o ao Nagap. r. adn. doubtless betrays some- 
what of the Galilean consciousness of the multitude, inasmuch 
as it was for most part composed of Galileans. 


REMARK.— The triumphal entry of Jesus is not a final 
attempt to establish the Messianic kingdom in a political 
sense (Wolfenb. Fragm.), such a kingdom having been entirely 
foreign to His purpose and His function. It is rather to be 
regarded as His last public and solemn appearance as the 
Messiah,—an appearance which, coming as it did immediately 
before His passion, was on the one hand a matter of deep 
personal interest because of the necessary bearing it was felt 
to have upon the mission of His life; while, if taken in con- 
nection with what happened so soon after, it was calculated, on 
the other hand, to destroy all expectations of a merely political 


62 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


kind. The time was now come when Jesus felt that, just 
because He was the Messiah, it behoved Him to do something— 
and for this He appropriates the prophet’s symbol of the Prince 
of Peace—by way of contrast to His practice hitherto of for- 
bidding the publication of His Messiahship. This step, which, 
from the fact of the crisis being so near, might now be taken 
without risk, He had postponed till the eve of His death,—a 
circumstance of the utmost significance as regarded the sense 
in which His Messiahship was to be understood. This 
incident, too, was one of the things for which His hour had 
not previously come (John vi. 15). Comp. note on John vi. 
5 f. Strauss asserts that there is here the possibility at least 
of a mythical story, though his objections are far from being to 
the point. See, on the other hand, Ebrard and Bleek. Accord- 
ing to Wittichen, Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 365, Jesus did 
not intend this incident to be regarded in any other light than 
as an ordinary festival procession, but the multitude, without 
consulting Him, turned it into an occasion for a Messianic 
demonstration. This is not in keeping with the unusual pre- 
parations mentioned in ver. 2; comp. ver. 7. 


Ver. 12. Different from Mark xi. 11, 15, where the narra- 
tive is more precise; comp. Weiss’ note on Mark. — In the 
court of the Gentiles were the tabernae, nvin, where animals, 
incense, oil, wine, and other requisites for sacrifice were ex- 
posed for sale. Lightfoot on this passage. — The money- 
changers (KoNAvB., see Phrynichus, p. 440) exchanged on 
commission (jap, Maimonides, Shekal. 3) ordinary money for 
the two drachmae pieces which were used in paying the 
temple tribute (see note on xvii. 24).— This cleansing of the 
temple is, with Chrysostom, Paulus, Kuinoel, Tholuck, Olshau- 
sen, Kern, Ebrard, Baumgarten - Crusius, Schleiermacher, 
Hengstenberg, Wieseler, to be regarded as the second that took 
place, the first being that recorded in John i. 13 ff, and 
which occurred on the occasion of the first visit to Jerusalem. 
The abuse having been repeated, there is no reason why Jesus 
should not have repeated this purifying process, and that (in 
answer to Hofmann, Luthardt, Hengstenberg) without any 
essential difference. The absence, in the synoptical account, 
of any allusion to a previous occasion, is sufficiently explicable 
from the length of time that intervened, and from the fact 


CHAP. XXI. 13. 63 


that the Synoptists take no notice generally of what took 
place during the earlier visit to Judea. The similarity of the 
accompanying circumstances may be accounted for from the 
similarity of the incidents themselves ; whereas the supposition 
that the cleansing took place only on one occasion would 
necessarily involve a chronological derangement extending to 
almost the whole period of Christ’s ministry,—a derangement 
which can neither be fairly imputed to the synoptical narrative 
nor even conceived of as far as John is concerned, whose 
testimony is that of an eye-witness. This is not “ wishy- 
washy criticism ” (Keim), but it is based upon the authenticity 
of the fourth Gospel, as well as upon the weighty and unani- 
mous testimony of the synoptical writers, to sacrifice whose 
authority for the sake of John would be both one-sided and 
violent. This, however, is what Wetstein, Liicke, Neander, 
de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, Weizsicker have done. Others, 
again, have rejected the fourth evangelist’s account, so far 
as its chronology is concerned, in favour of that of the 
Synoptists (Ziegler, Theile, Strauss, Baur, Weisse, Hilgen- 
feld, Schenkel, Keim). Comp., further, the remarks under 
John ii. 17. 

Ver. 13. Free combination of Isa. lvii 7 and Jer. vii. 11, 
and taken from the Sept.—«r7@7c.] how sacred the pur- 
pose for which it was intended, but ye, etc. — trovetre (see 
critical notes) censures this desecration of the temple as a 
thing in which they are still persisting. — om7Xatov AnoTOV] 
The strong language of the prophet (otherwise in John) was in 
keeping with the emotion that was awakened in Jesus. The 
use of such language is sufficiently accounted for by the fact 
that avarice had taken up its abode in those sacred precincts 
to carry on its huckstering and money-changing: To yap 
diroxepdés AnoTpiKdoy Taos éo7r, Theophylact. Differently 
Fritzsche : “ Vos undequaque pecuniam, animalia hue conge- 
rere sustinetis, ut latrones praedam comportant in speluncam,” 
—where, however, due prominence is not given to the dis- 
tinctive point of comparison, viz. the robbery. — In vv. 12,13, 
Jesus acts with higher authority than that of a mere zealot 
(Num. xxv. 11): He addresses Himself to the purifying of the 


, 


64 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


temple and its worship with such a reforming energy as, 
according to Mal. iii. 1-3, befitted the Messiah. Comp. 
Bertholdt, Christol. p. 163; Ullmann, Sind/.p.177. And the 
acquiescence of the astonished multitude is all the more in- 
telligible on the occasion of this cleansing, that the indignant 
reformer had just celebrated His triumphal march into the 
city in the character of Messiah. But even on the first occa- 
sion, John ii., their acquiescence is sufficiently explicable from 
the sudden and decided nature of the proceeding, taken in 
connection with the spiritually -imposing character of the 
Lord’s person and bearing (“divinitatis majestas lucebat in 
facie,” Jerome), so that it is quite needless to resort to the 
hypothesis of a miracle (Origen, Jerome). 

Ver. 14 ff. The insertion of vv. 14-16 from the apostolic 
tradition is peculiar to Matthew. — Ta @avydcua] the only 
instance of this usage in the New Testament, though very com- 
mon in classical Greek and the Sept.: the wonderful things, viz. 
the cleansing of the temple and the miraculous cures. This 
combination has suggested the use of the more comprehensive 
term. — Ver. 16. dkovets x.7.d.] in a tone of rebuke, implying 
that He was the occasion of such impropriety, and was tolerat- 
ing it.— 671] recitative. The reply of Jesus, so profoundly 
conversant with the true sense of Scripture, is as much as to 
say that this shouting of the children is altogether befitting, as 
being the praise which, according to Ps. viii. 3, God has perfected. 
—vnriov xk. Onralovtwr] In explaining the words of the 
psalm, there is no need to have recourse to the fact that 
children usually received suck for two and three years 
(Grimm’s note on 2 Mace. vii. 27), nor even to the idea of the 
children being transformed into adult instruments in effecting 
the triumph of God’s cause (Hofmann, Weiss. u. Erf. II. p. 
118), but only to bear in mind that, as a genuine poet, the 
psalmist seemed to hear, in the noise and prattle of the babes 
and sucklings, a celebration of their Maker's praise. But, in- 
asmuch as those children who shouted in the temple were not 
vymuot (1e. in connection with @yraf. infantes, Isa. xi. 8 ; 
1 Cor. iii. 1), the scriptural warrant by which Jesus here 
justifies their hosannas may be said to be based upon an in- 


CHAP, XXI. 19. 65 


ference a minore ad majus. That is to say, if, according to 
Ps. viii. 3, God had already ordained praise from the mouths 
of sucklings, how much more has He done so from the mouths 
of those little ones who now shouted hosanna! The former, 
though unable to speak, and still at the mother’s breast, are 
found praising God; how much more the latter, with their 
hosanna cries! These last are shouted in honour of the 
Messiah, who, however, is God’s Son and Representative, so 
that in His d0éa God is glorified (John xiii. 31, xiv. 13; 
Phil. ui. 11), nay, God glorifies Himself (John xii. 28). — x. 
nvricOn éxei] Consequently He did not pass the night in 
the open air (in answer to Grotius), for neither in classical 
Greek do we always find avAifeoac used in the sense of 
bivouacking (Apollonid. 14; Diod. Sic. xiii. 6). Comp. Tob. 
iv. 14, vi. 10, ix. 5; Judg. xix. 9 f,_— On Bethany, some 
15 stadia from Jerusalem (John xi. 18), see Tobler, Topogr. 
v. Jerus. II. p. 432 ff. ; Robinson, Pal. IL p. 309 ff. ; Sepp, 
Jerus. u. d. heil. Land, I. p. 583 ff. At present it is only a 
miserable village, known by the Arabic name of el-Aziriyeh (from 
el-Azir, i.e. Lazarus). For the name, see note on John i. 28. 

Ver. 19. Comp. Mark xi. 19 ff Muiav] “unam illo loco,” 
Bengel. — él ris 0600] The tree, which was by the side 
of the public road (not on private property), stood above 
the road, either projecting over it merely, or occupying an 
eminence close to it, or the road itself may have been in a 
ravine. It was a favourite practice to plant fig-trees by the 
roadside, because it was thought that the dust, by absorbing 
the exuding sap, was conducive to the better growth of the 
fruit, Plin. VW. H. xv. 19.—d@ev ex’ adtyy] not: con- 
scendit arborem (Fritzsche), but: He went up to it. From 
seeing the tree im foliage, Jesus expected, of course (for it 
was well known that the fig-tree put forth its fruit before 
coming into leaf), to find fruit upon it as well, namely, the 
early boccére, which, as a rule, did not ripen till June, 
and not the harvest-figs, kermuse, that had been on the 
tree all winter, and the existence of which He could not 
infer from seeing leaves. Comp. Tobler, Denkbl. aus Jerus. 
p. 101 ff On the disappointed expectation of Jesus, Bengel 
MATT. IL. E 


66 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, 


observes : “maxima humanitatis et deitatis indicia uno tem- 
pore edere solitus est.” It is a perversion of the text to say, 
with Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, that He did not ex- 
pect to find fruit upon the tree, but went up to it merely for 
the purpose of working the miracle. Moreover, the hunger 
is alleged to have been only a oynwariteoOar (Euthymius 
Zigabenus), or an esuries sponte excitata (Cornelius a Lapide). 
The account of the withering of the tree, contained in Mark 
xi, 12 ff, 19 f., is more precise and more original (in answer 
to Kostlin, Hilgenfeld, Keim). Matthew abridges. 

Ver. 21 f. Instead of telling the disciples, in reply to 
their question, by what means He (in the exercise of His 
divine power) caused the tree to wither, He informs them 
how they too might perform similar and even greater wonders 
(John xiv. 12), namely, through an unwavering faith in Him 
(xvii. 20), a faith which would likewise secure a favourable 
answer to all their prayers. ‘The participation in the life 
of Christ, implied in the riots, would make them partakers 
of the divine power of which He was the organ, would be a 
guarantee that their prayers would always be in harmony 
with the will of God, and so would prevent the promise from 
being in any way abused. — Zhe affair of the fig-tree (70 Ths 
ovkhs, comp. vill. 33) should neither be explained on natural 
grounds (Paulus says: Jesus saw that the tree was on the 
point of dying, and that He intimated this “in the popular 
phraseology” ! Comp. even Neander, Baumgarten - Crusius, 
Bleek), nor regarded as a mythical picture suggested by the 
parable in Luke xiii. 6 ff. (Strauss, de Wette, Weisse, Hase, 
Keim), but as the miraculous result of an exercise of His will on 
the part of Jesus—such a result as is alone in keeping with 
the conception of Christ presented in the Gospel narrative. 
But the purpose of the miracle cannot have been to punish an 
inanimate object, nor, one should think, merely to make a 
display of miraculous power (Fritzsche, Ullmann), but to ve- 
present in a prophetic, symbolical, visible form the punishment 
which follows moral barrenness (Luke xii. 6 ff)—-such a 
punishment as was about to overtake the Jews in particular, 
and the approach of which Jesus was presently to announce 


CHAP. XXI. 23. G7 


with solemn earnestness on the eve of His own death (vv. 28-44, 
xxii. 1-14, xxiii., xxiv., xxv.). It is true He does not make 
any express declaration of this nature, nor had He previously 
led the disciples to expect such (Sieffert); but this objec- 
tion is met partly by the fact that the mas of the disciples’ 
question, ver. 20, did not require Him to do so, and partly by 
the whole of the subsequent denunciations, which form an 
eloquent commentary on the silent withering of the fig-tree. 
—aitnonte év TH TpocevxyH] Comp. note on Col. i. 9: 
what ye will have desired in your prayer.— meotevortes| 
- Condition of the AyfecGe. He who prays in faith, prays in 
the name of Jesus, John xiv. 13. 

Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xi. 27 ff.; Luke xx. 1 ffi— 4.éa- 
axov7t| while He was engaged in teaching.—év oda 
e€ovaola| in virtue of what kind of authority. Comp. Acts 
iv. 7. The second question is intended to apply to Him who 
has given the authority ; the first is general, and has reference 
to the nature of the authority (whether it be divine or human). 
—tadta] these things, cannot point merely to the cleansing 
of the temple (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), which is 
too remote for such special reference. As little can the 
teaching by itself be intended (Grotius, Bengel), that being a 
matter in connection with the ministry of Jesus about which 
the Sanhedrim was comparatively unconcerned, and for which 
He did not need a higher authority. We should rather say 
that, in their tadra, the questioners mean to include all that 
up till that moment Jesus had done and was still doing in 
Jerusalem, and therefore refer to the triumphal entry, the 
cleansing of the temple, the miraculous healing and the teach- 
ing in the temple, all which, taken together, seemed to betoken 
the Messianic pretender. Comp. de Wette, Bleek, Weizsicker, 
p. 532; Keim, III. p.112. The members of the Sanhedrim 
hoped either to hear Him acknowledge that the é£ovcla was 
divine, or presumptuously assert that it was self-derived, so 
that in either case they might have something on which to 
found judicial proceedings against Him. They seem to have 
been a provisional deputation of the Sanhedrim appointed to 
discover a pretext for excommunicating Him. Comp. Johni. 19. 


68 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Ver. 24 f. Jesus prudently frustrates their design by pro- 
posing in reply a puzzling question, which, in the circumstances, 
they did not know how to answer.—dyor éva] a single 
word, a single question ; not more. The subject of the ques- 
tion itself is admirably chosen, seeing that the work of reform 
in which Jesus was engaged had a necessary connection with 
that of John ; both would stand and fall together. — 7o0ev 
Vv] whence did it proceed? The following alternative is ex- 
planatory : was it from God, who had commissioned John, or 
from men, so that he baptized simply on his own authority or 
that of his fellow-mortals ? The latter was out of the ques- ~ 
tion, if John was a prophet (ver. 26). Comp., further, Acts 
v. 39.—dvedXoy. wap éavtots] they deliberated by themselves, 
privately cat’ idiav, ic. with cach other, during a brief pause 
for private consultation, before giving their decision, which 
was intimated in the subsequent dmoxpilévtes tO “Iqood. 
dvaroyifecPac in this instance also denotes reflection combined 
with mutual consultation. Comp. xvi. 7; Mark viii. 16; 
Luke xx. 14.—éauctevoate avt@] AéyovTe OANA Kal 
peyara rept ewov, Euthymius Zigabenus. 

Ver. 26 f. BoBovpea tov dyrov] Those words are pre- 
ceded by an aposiopesis, the import of which, however (Luke 
xx. 6), is indicated by the words themselves.—The language 
of embarrassment: “ But suppose we should say: From men ; 
we are afraid of the people,’ etc. Comp. note on Acts xxiii. 
9,—advtes yap, «.7.r.] See on xiv. 5.—x«al adros] He 
also on His part ; for as they with their wretched ov« oidapev 
left the question of Jesus wnanswered, so now in like manner 
He with His decided and humbling odd éye (neither do I) 
refuses to answer thes. 

Vy. 28—32. Peculiar to Matthew, and doubtless taken from 
the collection of the sayings of the Lord—dJesus now assumes 
the offensive in order to convince His adversaries of their own 
baseness. — Téxva and téxvov suggest the father’s love. — Ver. 
30. éy@] is to be taken elliptically, and that with due regard 
at the same time to its emphatic character, in virtue of which 
it forms a contrast to the negative answer of the other son: 
J, sir, will go and work in the vineyard this very day. The 


CHAP. XXI. 33-39. 69 


xupte expresses the hypocritical submission of the man. — The 
publicans and harlots are represented by the jirst mentioned 
son ; for previous to the days of John they refused to obey 
the divine call (in answer to the command to serve Him, 
which God addressed to them through the law and the pro- 
phets, they practically said: od 0éd), but when John appeared 
they accorded him the faith of their hearts, so that, in con- 
formity with his preaching, they were now amending their 
ways, and devoting themselves to the service of God. The 
members of the Sanhedrim are represented by the second son ; 
for, while pretending to yield obedience to the law of God 
revealed in the Scriptures (by the submissive airs which they 
assumed, they practically uttered the insincere éya, cvpte), they 
in reality disregarded it, and, unlike the publicans and the 
harlots, they would not allow themselves to be influenced by 
the movement that followed the preaching of the Baptist, so 
that neither the efforts of John nor the example of the publicans 
and harlots had any effect upon them in the way of producing 
conversion. To understand by the two sons the Gentiles and 
the Jews, is entirely against the context.— mpoayoucuwy 
vas] as though the future entering into the Messianic king- 
dom were now taking place. The going before, however, does 
not necessarily imply that others are following. Comp. xviii. 
14,— év 086 8iKxatoctvns] in the way of righteousness, i.e. 
as one whose walk and conversation are characterized by 
moral integrity. év auéumt@ Bio (Theophylact), a xai a&v- 
motos dav (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 21, 
i. 2; Prov. vii. 20, xii 28, xvi. 23. The preaching of 
righteousness (de Wette, Bleek, Keim) would have been ex- 
pressed by some such terms as oddv dixatoc. didacKkwv 
(xxii. 16).— idovres] the fact, namely, that the publicans 
and harlots believed Him. — ov6é wetepen. tot.] did not even 
feel penitent afterwards (ver. 29), far less did you get the 
length of actual conversion. The example of those others 
produced so little impression upon you. The emphasis is not 
on vortep., but on petew.— TOD mictedoas] Object of mereu. 
voT., so as to believe Him. 


Ver. 33 ff. Comp. Mark xu. 1 ff; Luke xx. 9 ff. Jesus, 


70 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


in ver. 28 ff., having shown His adversaries how base they are, 
now proceeds to do this yet more circumstantially in another 
parable (founded, no doubt, upon Isa. v. 1 ff.), in which, with 
a lofty and solemn earnestness, He lays bare to them the full 
measure of their sin against God (even to the killing of His 
Son), and announces to them the punishment that awaits them. 
—dpv&ev év adt® Anvor| dug a wine-vat in it. Comp. 
Xen. Occ. xix. 2: omocov Babos dpvrrew Sei TO utov. This 
was a trough dug in the earth for the purpose of receiving the 
juice of the grape as it flowed down from the press through 
an aperture covered with a grating. See Winer, Aealw. I. 
p. 653 f.—-7vpyov] a tower, for watching the vineyard. 
Such tower-shaped structures were then, and are still, in 
common use for this purpose (Tobler, Denkbl. p. 113.— é&é- 
Soro] he let it owt (Pollux. i. 75; Herod. i 68; Plat. Parm. p. 
127 A; Dem. 268, 9), namely, to be cultivated. Seeing that 
the proprietor himself collects the produce (vv. 34, 41), we 
must assume that the vineyard was let for a money rent, and 
not, as is generally supposed, for a share of the fruit. For 
nothing is said in this passage about payment in kind to 
the proprietor, including only part of the produce. Other- 
wise in Mark xii. 2; Luke xx. 10; comp. Weiss’ note on 
Mark.—rovs xaptovs avtobd] avtod is often taken as 
referring to the vineyard ; but without reason, for there is 
nothing to prevent its being referred to the subject last 
mentioned. It was his own fruit that the master wished to 
have brought to him. The fruit of the vineyard, and the 
whole of it too, belongs to him.— érvOoBornaar] they stoned 
him (xxiii. 37; John viii. 5; Acts vii. 58 f, xiv. 5; Heb. xi. 
20), forms a climax to améxr., as being a “species atrox” 
(Bengel) of this latter. — évtpamo.] a reasonable expecta- 
tion. —ezrov év éavtots] they said one to another.—kat 
TXGwev THY KXNpov. avTOd] and let us obtain possession of 
his inheritance, namely, the vineyard to which he is the heir. 
In these words they state not the reswlt of the murder (as in 
Mark), but what step they propose to take next. After the death 
of the son, who is therefore to be regarded as an only one, 
they intend to lay claim to the property.— é&éSanov x. 


CHAP. XXI. 40, 41. 71 


améxt.] differently in Mark xii. 8, hence also the transposition 
in D, codd. of It. This passage contains no allusion to the 
previous excommunication (Grotius), or to the crucifixion of 
Christ because it took place outside of Jerusalem (comp. Heb. 
xii. 12 f.; so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Olshausen), but simply describes the scene in which the son 
on his arrival is thrust out of the vineyard and murdered.— 
The parable illustrates the hostile treatment experienced 
time after time by God’s prophets (the dodA0r) at the hands 
of the leaders (the husbandmen) of the Jewish theocracy 
(the vineyard), an institution expressly designed for the 
production of moral fruit,—and also shows how their self- 
seeking and love of power would lead them to put to death 
even Jesus, the Son, the last and greatest of the messengers 
from God. Comp. Acts vii. 51f. Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Euthymius Zigabenus, likewise find a meaning in the hedge 
(the law), the wine-vat (the altar), and the tower (the temple). 
So also Bengel, who sees in azedjunoev an allusion to the 
“tempus divinae taciturnitatis ;” while Origen takes it as re- 
ferring to the time when God ceased to manifest Himself in 
a visible shape. 

Ver. 40 f. According to Mark and Luke, it is Jesus who 
replies. But how appropriate and how striking (comp. ver. 
31) that the adversaries themselves are forced to pronounce 
their own condemnation (in answer to Schneckenburger, de 
Wette, Bleek) !— xaxovs kaxos aTodécet adt.] as despic- 
able creatures (scoundrels), He will miserably destroy them. The 
collocation Kaxov’s Kakés serves to indicate in an emphatic 
manner the correspondence between the conduct in question 
and its punishment. See Wetstein’s note; Fritzsche, Diss. in 
2 Cor: ii. p. 147 f.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 58. Comp. Eur. 
Cycl. 270: Kaxos obtot xakol amodow6’; and, in general, 
Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 866; Elmsl. ad Eur. Med. 787. If we 
are to apply the parable in accordance with the order of 
thought, and, therefore, in conformity with the meaning 
intended by Jesus Himself, we cannot understand the coming 
of the xvpsos and the execution of the punishment as denoting 
the second advent and the last judgment.; for, apart from the 


72 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


fact that it is God and not Christ that is represented by 
the xupios, the words oftives atrod@covew, «.7.r., would point 
to the period subsequent to the advent and the judgment,— 
a reference not in keeping with the sense of the passage. 
The true reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, the 
shape in which the divine judgment is to overtake the then 
guardians of the theocracy, whereupon this latter would be 
entrusted to the care of other guides (ie. the leaders of the 
Christian church as representing the true "IcparA tod Geod), 
who as such will be called upon to undertake the duties 
and responsibilities of their unfaithful predecessors. Comp. 
xxii. 7; John vii. 34; Eph. iv. 11f. Such are the things 
which those hostile questioners “dxovtes mpopntevovor” 
(Euthymius Zigabenus).— év tots Katpots avTa@v| avTov 
refers to the yewpyoi: at the terms prescribed to them for 
doing so. 

Ver. 42. The enemies of Jesus have answered correctly, 
but they are not aware that they have thus pronounced their 
own condemnation, since those who thrust out the Son that 
was sent to them are no other than themselves. To bring 
this fully home to them (ver. 45), is the purpose of the 
concluding words added by our Lord. The quotation is 
from the Septuagint version of Ps. exvili. 22 f, which was 
composed after the captivity, and in which the stone, ac- 
cording to the historical sense of the psalm, represents the 
people of Israel, who, though rejected by the Gentiles, were 
chosen by God to form the foundation-stone of His house 
(the theocracy); while, according to the typical reference of 
the passage (which the Rabbinical teachers also recognised, 
see Schoettgen), it denotes the ideal head of the theocracy, 


viz. the Messiah. —iOov dv] a stone which, attraction of 
very frequent occurrence. — a7redoxipu.| as not fit for being 
used in the building.— odros] this, and no other. — 


cehariny yovias] 3B WN, head of the corner, i.e. corner- 
stone (in Hesychius we find xegaditys in the sense of 
corner-stone ; see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 700), is the meta- 
phorical designation of Him on whom the stability and 
development of the theocracy depend, without whom it would 


CHAP. XXI. 43, 73 


fall to pieces, and in this respect He resembles that stone in 
a building which is indispensably necessary to the support 
and durability of the whole structure. The antitype here 
referred to is not the Gentiles (Fritzsche), but, as must be 
inferred from the connection of our passage with what is said 
about the Son being thrust out and put to death, from the 
further statement in ver. 44, and from the common usage 
throughout the New Testament (Acts iv. 11; Eph. 11. 20; 
1 Pet. ii. 7), the Messiah. — éyéveto airy] did he become so 
(viz. the corner-stone, cepadn ywvias). Here the feminine is 
not a Hebraism for the xeuwter (as little is it so in 1 Sam. iv. 
7; Ps. xxvii. 4), as Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 108 [E. T. 123], 
would have us suppose, but strictly grammatical, inasmuch as 
it refers to xed. yov.; and accordingly we find that in the 
Septuagint also nxt is rendered according to its contextual 
reference. To refer to ywvias merely (Wetstein) is inad- 
missible, for this reason, that, in what precedes, xefadn yov. 
was the prominent idea.—xai éote Pavpacty, K.T.r.] Viz. 
this cepary yov. “ Our eyes,” as referring to believers. 

Ver. 43. Ata todro] therefore, because, according to the 
psalm just quoted, the rejected stone is destined to become 
the corner-stone. What is contained in the following 
announcement is the necessary consequence of the inversion 
of the order of things just referred to. The rAéyw tyiv, how- 
ever, like the ag’ tuav below, implies the obvious inter- 
mediate thought: “ for it is you who reject this corner-stone.” 
—apOyncetat af’ vudr] for they, along with the whole 
*Iopaii Kata cdpxa represented by them, were by natural | 
right the owners of the approaching Messianic kingdom, its 
theocratic heirs; comp. xiii. 38.— €@ver movodvte, x.7.2.] 
Jesus is not here referring to the Gentiles, as, since Eusebius’ 
time, many, and in particular Schenkel, Hilgenfeld, Keim, 
Volkmar, have supposed, but, as the use of the singular 
already plainly indicates, to the whole of the future subjects 
of the kingdom of the Messiah, conceived of as one people, 
which will therefore consist of Jews and Gentiles, that new 
Messianic people of God, which is to constitute the body 
politic in the kingdom that is about to be established, 


74 TUE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


1 Pet. ii 9. The fruits of the Messiah’s kingdom are those 
fruits which must be produced as the condition of admission 
(v 3 ff, xiii. 8). Hence, likewise, the use of the present 
movovvtt; for Jesus regards the future subjects of the king- 
dom as already anticipating its establishment by producing 
its fruits. The metaphor is to be regarded as an echo of 
the parable of the vineyard. The fruits themselves are 
identical with those mentioned in Eph. v. 9; Gal. v. 22; 
Rom. vi. 22. 

Ver. 44. After having indicated the future punishment in 
the merely negative form of ap@jcetar x.7.r., Jesus now pro- 
ceeds to announce it in positive terms, by means of parallelism 
in which, without dropping the metaphor of the stone, the 
person in question is first the subject and then the object. 
A solemn exhausting of the whole subject of the coming 
doom. And whosoever will have fallen upon this stone (who- 
soever by rejecting the Messiah shall have incurred the 
judgment consequent thereon) shall be broken (by his fall) ; 
but on whomsoever it shall fall (whomsoever the Messiah, as 
an avenger, shall have overtaken), 2 shall winnow him, “ee. 
throw him off like the chaff from the winnowing-fan. ovvOddo- 
Oar (to be crushed) and AuKpac@a, which form a climax, are 
intended to portray the execution of the Messianic judgments. 
ikaw is not equivalent to conterere, comminuere, the meaning 
usually assigned to it in accordance with the Vulgate, but 
is rather to be rendered by to winnow, ventilare (Zl. v. 500; 
Xen. Occ. xviii. 2. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 701 C; Lucian, Gymnas. 
xxv.; Ruth ii. 2; Ecclus. v.10). See likewise Job xxvii. 21, 
where the Sept. employs this figurative term for the purpose 
of rendering the idea of driving away as before a storm (ryw). 
Comp. Dan. u. 44; Wisd. xi. 20.— Observe the change which 
the figure undergoes in the second division of the verse. The 
stone that previously appeared in the character of the corner- 
stone, lying at rest, and on which, as on a stone of stum- 
bling (Isa. vii. 14 f.), some one falls, is now conceived of as 
rolling down with crushing force upon the man; the latter 
having reference to the whole of such coming (ver. 40) in 
judgment down to the second advent; the former expressing 


CHAP. XXI. 45, 46. ta 


the same thought in a passive form, xelrau els mréow (Luke 
iil, 34). 

Ver. 45 f. It was the hint contained in this concluding 
remark that led Jesus at once to follow up what had been 
already said with another parabolic address directed against 
His enemies. — of apycepets x. 0t Papso.] identical with 
the of apy. K. ot mpecBitepor of ver. 23, so that, in the 
present instance, the latter are designated by the name of the 
party to which they belonged. — éyvwcav] what had now 
become clear to them from what was said, vv. 42-44. The 
confident manner in which they express themselves in ver. 41 
bears up to that point no trace of such knowledge, otherwise 
we should have to suppose that they consciously pronounced 
their own condemnation. — e¢s (see critical remarks) rpog1- 
tnv: held Him as a prophet, i.e. in Him they felt they possessed 
a prophet; on eis, which is met with in later writers in the 
sense of the predicate, see Bernhardy, p. 219. 


76 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Oo AvP ER, xe 


VER. 4. qro/waca] Following BC* DL», 1, 22, 23, we should, 
with Lachm. and Tisch., read Aroiucno because of the prepon- 
derance of manuscript authority. — Ver. 5. 6 wiv... 6 6&| eam 
min. Or.: 65 wiv... 5 6& So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. To be 
preferred on the strength of this external authority, particularly 
as O* &, which have 6 ey ... 0g 6é, cannot be regarded as counter- 
pealence: —For «ic rq, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read ea? rq, 
following B C D x, min. Or. Correctly ; e/g 18 a mechanical 
repetition of the one ‘preceding, — Ver. 7. The Received text has 
anobous 6¢ 6 Bac. Of the numerous readings, the simple 6 6: BaciAedbs 
is the one favoured by B Ls, min. Copt. Sahid., while most of 
the other witnesses have zai ax. 6 Buc. (so Fritzsche, Scholz, 
Tisch. 7). Lachm. reads 6 6: Bas. dxovenc, but only following min. 
It. Vul& Arm. Ir. Chrys. Eus. In presence of such a multi- 
plicity of readings, we ought to regard the simple 6 6: Bac. as 
the original one (so also Tisch. 8), to which, in conformity with 
Matthew’s style (comp. on the reading of the Received text, 
especially il. 3), dxoboug was added, being inserted sometimes in 
one place and sometimes in another. Many important witnesses 
insert éxefiog after Baca. (D and codd. of It. Lucif. place. it 
before), a reading which is also adopted by Scholz and Tisch. 7 
(therefore: ~. dxodoug 6 Pacireds exec). It is not found in B L 
®, min. Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Vulg. Ir. It, too, has been 
inserted mechanically as being in accordance with Matthew’s 
usual manner; it would scarcely have been omitted as being 
somewhat in the way because of the éxstios which follows. — 

Ver. 10. 6 y anos | Tisch. 8: 6 vyuguy, following B* L&® Agnige 
taken gloss, for ued» means the bride-chamber. — Ver. 13. 
dpure auroyv nal éxParere| Lachm. Tisch. 8: euBdrer ¢ adrov, 
following B L 8, min. vss. and Fathers. The word épare, not 
being needed to complete the picture, was struck out. The read- 
ing of the Received text ought to be maintained. The genuine- 
ness of the d&pare is likewise confirmed by the gloss dpure aidriv 
rodwy x. xerpav, Which came to be substituted for dyouvres adrod 
«60. x. xeIpas (so D, Cant. Verc. Ver. Colb. Corb. 2, Clar. It. 


CHAP. XXII. th 


Lucif.). — Ver. 16. Aéyovres] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8: Aéyo- 
rac, following B L 8, 27, vss. (?). An improper emendation. — 
Ver. 23. of Aéyovres] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have deleted the 
article, following B D M S Z¥8, min. Or. no doubt; but in- 
correctly, for it is indispensable, and would be readily enough 
overlooked in consequence of the OI which immediately precedes 
it. — Ver. 25. For yaujous, with Lachm. and Tisch., following 
B Lx, min. Or. read yjuas, a form which the copyists would be 
very apt to exchange for one of more frequent occurrence in the 
New Testament. — For xai 4 yg, ver. 27, read, with Tisch. 8, 
simply % yvv4, in accordance with the preponderance of evidence. 
— Ver. 28. Instead of év r¥ ody dvaor., we should, with Lachm. 
and Tisch., read 2 +. dvaor. otv, following BD L®&, min. The 
reading of the Received text was intended to be an emendation 
as regards the position of the oiv.— Ver. 30. éxyapmiovras] 
Lachm. Tisch. 8: yamwiGovros, following B D Ls, min, Clem. Or. 
(twice) Ath. Isid. The compound form, besides being obviously 
suggested by Luke, is intended to be more precise, so as to bring 
out the reference to women. Neither of the words belongs to 
the older Greek, hence the variations are not of a grammatical 
nature. — rod dot] wanting in B D, 1, 209, vss. and Fathers. 
Deleted by Lachm. Left out, in accordance with Mark xii. 25. 
— Ver. 32. odx Zoriv 6 bebe b26¢] The second é<é¢ is deleted by 
Lachm., following B L A, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. (2). It is like- 
wise wanting in D x, min. Eus. Chrys., which authorities drop 
the article before the first ésés. Tisch. 8 follows them, simply 
reading odx gor eds. The sufficiently attested reading of the 
Received text is to be adhered to; it was simplified in accord- 
ance with Mark and Luke. — Ver. 35. xa/ A2ya»] not found in 
B LX, 33, vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The omis- 
sion, though opposed to Matthew’s usual style (xi1. 10, xvii. 10, 
xxii. 23, 41, xxvii. 11), is in accordance with Mark xii. 28.— 
Ver. 37. ’Inoods] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., follow- 
ing B Ls, 33, Copt. Sahid. Inserted from Mark xu. 29.— ¢97] 
having decisive evidence in its favour, is to be preferred to sivev 
- of the Received text. — Ver. 38. For rpwry x. weydéan, read, with 
Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: 4 weyaan x. sparn, following B D (which 
latter, however, omits 7) L (which, however, inserts the article 
also before xpairy) Z 8, min: vss: Hilar.; rpwrn would be placed 
first as being the chief predicate. Comp. devrépa below.— Ver. 40. 
naloi rpopyras: xpewavra:] BDL ZX, 33, Syr. Vulg. It. Tert. 
Hil.: xpzwaras xa) of zpog. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by 
Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The reading of the Received text 
is an exegetical correction. — Ver. 44. irorédsov] BD G L 


78 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


ZY AX, min. vss: Aug.: isoxérw. Recommended by Griesb., 
adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received 
text is taken from the Sept. and Luke. 


Ver. 1. Kai dzoxp. 0 ’Ino. waduv elzrev, «.7.r.] In the 
full consciousness of His mission and His own superiority, 
Jesus replied (a7oxp., see note on xi. 25) to their hostile 
&mreiv, which only fear of the people kept in check, by adding 
another parabolic address (€v vrapaf. plural of the category). 
Olshausen and Keim are not justified in doubting this con- 
nection on the ground that xxi. 45 f. is, as they suppose, the 
formal conclusion. The parable as given in Luke xiv. 16 ff. 
is not a Pauline modification of the one before us (Baur, 
Hilgenfeld), but is rather to be regarded as representing an 
imperfect version of it which had found its way into the 
document consulted by Luke. Others are of opinion that the 
parable in Luke xiv. 16 ff. is the more original of the two, 
and that here it is interwoven with another (ver. 8 ff.), the 
introduction to which, however, has disappeared, and that, in 
the process, still a third feature (vv. 6, 7) has been added from 
the parable which precedes (Ewald, Schneckenburger, de Wette, 
Strauss, Weizsiicker, Keim, Scholten). But coming as it does 
after the remark of xxi. 45 f., a somewhat copious parable such 
as that before us, so far from being a mere heaping of passage 
upon passage, is intended to serve as a forcible concluding 
address directed against His obdurate enemies,—an address, too, 
which does not interrupt the connection, since it was delivered 
before those for whom it was intended had had time to with- 
draw (ver. 15). As, in presence of such obduracy, thoughts of 
the divine love and of the divine wrath could not but crowd into 
the mind of Jesus; so, on the other hand, there could not fail to 
be something corresponding to this in their parabolic utterance. 

Ver. 2 f. On yadmous rovety, to prepare a marriage feast, 
comp. Wetstein and Xen. de rep. Lac. 1. 6; Tob. vii. 19. 
Michaelis, Fischer, Kuinoel, Paulus are mistaken in supposing 
that what is meant is a feast on the occasion of his son’s acces- 
sion to the throne. — The Messiah is the bridegroom (xxv. 1 ; 
Rev. xxi. 2, 9), whose marriage represents the setting up of 
His kingdom, Comp. ix. 15, John in. 29, and note on Eph. 


CHAP. XXII. 4-9. 79 


v. 27.—Kadéoat] we. to tell those who had been previously 
invited that it was now time to come to the marriage. Comp. 
ver, 4; Luke xiv. 17. For instances of such repeated invita- 
tions, see Wetstein. — av@p. Pactn.] as in xviii. 23 ; opowwOn, 
as In xii. 24. 

Ver. 4. Td dprorov] not equivalent to detrvov (see Luke 
xiv. 12; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 21), nor a meal gene- 
rally, but in the sense of breakfast, prandium (towards mid-day, 
Joseph. Anti. v. 4. 2), with which the series of meals con- 
nected with marriage was to begin. — 7To(waxa (see critical re- 
marks): paratum habeo.— kat wavta] and everything generally. 

Ver. 5 ff. "Aperynoavtes| having paid no attention, said 
with reference merely to those who went away ; for the others, 
ver. 6, conducted themselves in a manner directly hostile. 
This in answer to Fritzsche, who holds that Matthew would 
have expressed himself more precisely: of O6€ duer., of mev 
aTHAGov . . . of 6é AowTrol, x.7.X. Instead of so expressing himself, 
however, he leaves it to appear from the context that the first 
oi represents the majority of those invited, while the of 68é 
Aov7rot constitute the remainder, so that the general form of 
expression (ot dé dpen., x.7.r.) finds its limitation in of 5€ Nowrod. 
This limitation might also have been expressed by o/ 6€ alone, 
in the sense of some, however (see Kiihner, II. 2, p. 808). — eds 
Tov Ldtov aypor] to his own farm (Mark v. 14, vi. 36), so that 
he preferred his own selfish interests to being present at the 
marriage of the royal prince, as was also the case with him who 
went to his merchandise. For iévos, comp. note on Eph. v. 22. 

Ver. 8. Od« oav d£Evot] Comp. Acts xiii. 46. “ Prae- 
teritum indignos eo magis praetermittit,’ Bengel. To repre- 
sent the expedition against the rebels, and the destruction of 
their city as actually taking place while the supper is being 
prepared, —a thing hardly conceivable in real life,—jis to 
introduce an episode quite in accordance with the illustrative 
character of the parable, which after all is only a fictitious 
narrative. Comp., for example, the mustard seed which grows 
to a tree; the olive on which the wild branch is engrafted, 
Rom. xi., etc.; see also note on xxv. 1 f. 

Ver. 9. “Emi tas SueEddous trav 6501] to the crossings of 


80 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


the roads, where people were in the habit of congregating most. 
It is evident from ver. 7, according to which the city is 
destroyed, that what is meant is not, as Kypke and Kuinoel 
suppose, the squares im the city from which streets branch 
off, but the places where the country roads cross each other. 
Comp. Babyl. Berac. xlui. 1. Gloss.: “Divitibus in more 
fuit, viatores pauperes ad convivia invitare.” 

Ver. 10. "E&eAOovres] from the palace of the king out 
into the highways. — cuvvyyayor] through their invitation, 
which was accepted.—wovnp. te wai ayad.] not “locutio 
quasi proverbialis,” Bengel, but they proceeded on the prin- 
ciple of not inquiring whether the parties in question were at 
the time morally bad or good, provided they only accepted 
the invitation. The separation between the bad and the good 
was not to be made by them, but subsequently by the king 
himself, and that according to a higher standard. Accordingly, 
the separation takes place in ver. 11 ff., where the man who 
has no wedding garment represents the sovnpol.— o yapos] 
not equivalent to vupydev, but the wedding (i.e. the marriage 
feast, as in ver. 8; comp. Hom. Od. iv. 3, J/. xviii. 491), was 
full of guests. The emphasis, however, is on éAjo0n. 

Ver. 11 f. "Evduua yapov] a dress suited for a marriage. 
Comp. yAavis yapyixny, Aristoph. Av. 1693. It is true that, in 
interpreting this passage, expositors (Michaelis, Olshausen) 
lay stress on the Oriental custom of presenting handsome 
caftans to those who are admitted to the presence of royalty 
(Harmer, Beobacht. II. p. 117; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. 
p. 75 ff); and they are all the more disposed to do so, 
that such a custom is calculated to make it appear with 
greater prominence that righteousness is a free gift, and 
that, consequently, man’s sin is so much the more heinous: 
but neither can it be proved (not from Gen. xlv. 22; Judg. 
xiv. 12; 2 Kings v. 22, x. 22; Esth: vi 8) vin Do)Ghas 
any such custom existed in ancient times, nor does the text 
make any allusion to it whatever, although it would have 
contributed not a little to bring out the idea of the parable. 
That those invited, however, should appear in festive attire was 
a matter of course, and demanded by the rules of ordinary 


CHAP! WII 13, 14, 81 


etiquette (see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 23). The only thing intended 
to be represented here is the moral Sixatocvvy, which, by faith 
in Christ, men are required to assume after being called to the 
Messianic kingdom through petdvoa. Comp. vi. 33, v. 20. 
So far, our Lord’s adversaries themselves could understand 
the figure of the wedding garment. But, of course, the true 
inward basis of the moral dicarocvvn was to be sought in that 
righteousness which, as a free gift, and in virtue of the death 
of Jesus, would be bestowed on those who believed (comp. 
the Fathers in Calovius). The knowledge of this truth, how- 
ever, had to be reserved for a later stage in the development 
‘of Christian doctrine. — étatpe] Comp. on xx. 13.— ds 
elonrOes, «.7.r.] a question expressive of astonishment : how 
has it been possible for thee to come in hither (how couldst 
thou venture to do so), without, etc.? — yu» éywv] although 
thow hadst not. Differently ver. 11: od« évdeduu. Comp. 
Buttmann, Weut. Gr. p. 301 [E. T. 351). 

Ver. 13. Anoavtes, «.7.r.] that is, to make it impossible 
for him to get loose in course of the éxBaddeoOas, as well as 
to secure against his escape subsequently from the oxdtos 
éEotepov.— avdtod 706.| his feet; comp. on vill. 3. — For 
the Svaxovor of this passage (not doddou this time, for the 
servants waiting at the table are intended), see xii. 41.— 
éxel otras, «.7.A.| not the words of the king, but, as the 
future éoras indicates, a remark on the part of Jesus, having 
reference to the condition hinted at in the words 70 oxor. . 
é&oT. See, further, on viii. 12. 

Ver. 14. I'ap] introduces the reason of the éxe? gorau, «.7.X. 
For, so far from the mere calling availing to secure against 
eternal condemnation, many, on the contrary, are called to tha 
Messiah’s kingdom, but comparatively few are chosen by God 
actually to participate in it. This saying has a somewhat 
different purport in xx. 16; still in both passages the é«doy1) 
is not, in the first instance, the judicial sentence, but the 
eternal decree of God; a decree, however, which has not 
selected the future subjects of the kingdom in any arbitrary 
fashion, but has destined for this honour those who, by appro- 
priating and faithfully maintaining the requisite d:mavoovvy 

MATT. II. r 


82 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


(see on ver. 11 f.), will be found to possess the correspond- 
ing disposition and character. Comp. xxv. 34. Similarly, 
too, in xxiv. 22; Luke xviii. 7. It was, however, only a 
legitimate consequence of the contemplation of history from 
a religious point of view, if the Christian consciousness felt 
warranted in attributing even this amount of human freedom 
to the agency of God (Eph. i. 4; Phil. i. 13), and had to be 
satisfied, while maintaining the human element no less than 
the divine, with leaving the problem of their unity unsolved 
(see on Rom. ix. 33, Remark). 

Teaching of the parable: When the Messianic kingdom is 
about to be established, instead of those who have been 
invited to enter it, ze. instead of the people of Israel, who 
will despise the (according to the plural) repeated invitations, 
nay, who will show their contempt to some extent by a violent 
behaviour (for which God will chastise them, and that before 
the setting up of the kingdom, ver. 7), God will order the 
Gentiles to be called to His kingdom. When, however, it is 
being established, He will single out from among the Gentiles 
who have responded to the call such of them as turn out to 
be morally disqualified for admission, and condemn them to 
be punished in Gehenna. — The first invitation, and which is 
referred to in the tods xexAnuévous of ver. 3, is conveyed 
through Christ; the successive invitations which followed were 
given through the apostles, who, ver. 9, likewise invite the 
Gentiles. Comp. xxvii. 19; Acts i. 8, xii. 46.— Observe in 
connection with tore, ver. 8, that it is not intended thereby 
to exclude the calling of the Gentiles before the destruction of 
Jerusalem ; but simultaneously with this event the work of 
conversion was to be directed in quite a special manner toward 
the Gentiles. The destruction of Jerusalem was to form the 
signal for the gathering in of the fulness of the Gentiles 
(Rom. xi. 25). Thus the tore marks a grand epoch in the 
historical development of events, an epoch already visible to 
the far-seeing glance of Jesus, though at the same time we are 
bound to admit the discrepancy that exists between this pas- 
sage and the very definite statement regarding the date of the 
second advent contained in xxiv. 29. As is clear from the 


+ 


CHAP. XXII. 15. \ 83 


whole connection, we must not suppose (Weisse) that the man 
without the wedding garment is intended to represent Judas ; 
but see on ver. 12. What is meant is a Christian with the 
old man still clinging to him. Comp. on Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. 
iii. 27; Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii, 12. 


_ Remarx.—tThe part of the parable extending from ver. 11 
onwards was certainly not spoken, so far as its immediate refer- 
ence is concerned, with a view to the Pharisees, but was essen- 
tial to the completeness of the truths that were being set forth, 
inasmuch as, without that part, there would be no reference to 
the way in which the holiness of God would assert itself at the » 
setting up of the Messianic kingdom. And the more this latter 
point is brought out, the more applicable did it become to the 
case of the Pharisees also, who would be able to infer from 
it what their fate was to be on that day when, even from 
among those who will be found to have accepted the invitation, 
God will single out such as appear without the garment of 
dimasootvy, and consign them to the punishment of hell, 


Wern i> i. Comp. Mark xi. 13 ff; Luke xx, 20. ff,— 
Oi Papicaior] now no longer in their official capacity, as 
deputed by the Sanhedrim (xxi. 23, 45), but on their own 
responsibility, and as representing a party adopting a still 
bolder policy, and proceeding upon a new tack. —é7ws]| 
They took counsel (comp. AaBov aipecw, Dem. 947, 20), ex- 
pressly with a view to. Not equivalent to was, the reading in 
D, and originating in a mistaken gloss. Comp. xii. 14. For 
oupBovrLov, consultation, comp. xxvii. 1, 7, xxviii. 12 ; Mark 
ii. 6 ; Dio Cass. xxxvill. 43 ; classical writers commonly use 
oupBovry, cvpPovdia. Others (Keim included), without gram- 
matical warrant, render according to the Latin idiom: consilium 
ceperunt. KEuthymius Zigabenus correctly renders by: cvcKéa- 
TovTal.— €v AoYa] in an utterance, i.e. in a statement which 
he might happen to make. This statement is conceived of as 
a trap or snare (maryis, see Jacobs ad Anthol. VII. p. 409, 
XI. p. 93), into which if He once fell they would hold Him 
fast, with a view to further proceedings against Him. Others 
explain: 6.’ épwryjcews (Euthymius Zigabenus). But Jesus 
could not become involved in the snare unless He gave such 


84 ‘ THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


an answer to/ their queries as they hoped to elicit. rayudeveuv, 
illaqueare, iss not met with in classical writers, though it fre- 
quently ogeurs in the Septuagint. 

Ver. 1f. The Herodians are not Herod’s courtiers (Fritzsche, 
following Luther), but the political party among the Jews that 
sought/to uphold the dynasty of the Herods, popular royalists, 
in opposition to the principle of a pure theocracy, though 
willing also to take part with the powerful Pharisees against 
the unpopular Roman sway, should circumstances render such 
<4 movement expedient. For other interpretations, some of 
them rather singular, see Wolf and Kocher in loc. The pas- 
sage in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 10, refers to different cir- 
cumstances from the present. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. 
p. 97 ff; Keim, III. p. 130 ff To regard (as is done by 
Origen, Maldonatus, de Wette, Winer, Neander, Volkmar) 
those here referred to as supporters of the Roman sway 
generally (and not merely of the Herodian dynasty in parti- 
cular), is certainly not in accordance with the name they bear. 
We may further observe that no little cunning was shown by 
the orthodox hierarchy in selecting some of the younger 
members of their order (who as such would be less liable to 
be suspected) to co-operate with a party no less hostile than 
themselves to the Messianic pretender, with a view to betray 
Jesus into an answer savouring of opposition to the payment 
of the tribute. Zhis was the drift of the flattering preface to 
their question, and upon His answer they hoped to found an 
accusation before the Roman authorities. Comp. Luke xx. 20. 
But though the plot miscarried, owing to the answer being 
in the affirmative, the Pharisees had at least succeeded in 
now getting the Herodians to assume a hostile attitude 
toward Jesus, while at the same time they would be able 
to turn the reply to good account in the way of rendering 
Him unpopular with the masses. — réyovtes] that is, 
through their representatives. Comp. xi. 2, xxvii. 19. — 
OudadcKare, oldapev, K.T.r.] Comp. with this cunning, 
though in itself so true an instance of captatio benevolentiae, 
the sincere one in John iii. 2.—ad7Ons €@] true, avoiding 
every sort of yeddos in your dealings, either simwlando or 


CHAP. XXII. 17, 18. 85 


dissimulando. In what follows, and which is still connected 
with 670, this is made more precise, being put both positively 
and negatively. — rv od0v Tod Oeod] the way prescribed by 
God, 7.e. the behaviour of men to each other which God requires. 
Comp. tiv Scxavoctyny tT. Beod, vi. 33; Ta épya tT. Ocod, John 
win 29 and so Ps:-xxvir, 1h » Wisd..v. 7; Bar) iii, 13.— ép 
anrnGeia] truthfully, as beseems the character of this way ; 
see on John xvii. 19.— od péder coe epi oddeves] Thou 
carest for no man, in Thy teaching Thou actest without 
regard to the persons of men.—ov yap Bréeis, K.7.r.] 
giving the reason for the statement contained in oléapev, x.7.X. : 
for Thou lookest not to mere external appearances in men ; to 
Thee it is always a matter of indifference in regard to a 
man’s person whether he be powerful, rich, learned, etc., or 
the reverse ; therefore we are convinced, 671 adnOns ef Kal Thy 
ooor, «.7.X. IIpoowrrov avOp. denotes the outward manifesta- 
tion in which men present themselves (comp. on xvi. 3). 
Comp. Oavydfew tpocwrov, Jude 16. The emphasis, how- 
ever, is on ov Brees. We have not here a “natural para- 
phrase” of the Hebrew idiom AapBdvew mpdcwmov (Luke 
xx. 21), which expresses another, though similar idea (in 
answer to de Wette; see on Gal. ii. 6). In classical Greek, 
B. eis mp. Twos is used in the sense of being barefaced. See 
Bremi ad Aeschin. p. 370. 

Ver. 17. "E&eo7] problem founded on theocratic one-sided- 
ness, as though the Jews were still the independent people of 
God, according to their divine title to recognise no king but 
God Himself. Comp. Michaelis, Mos. R. III. p. 154. It was 
also on this ground that Judas the Gaulonite appears to have 
refused to pay the tribute. See Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1. 
As to «jvoos, not merely poll-tax, but land-tax as well, see 
on xvil. 25. —- Kaicapz] without the article, being used as 
a proper name.— 7) ov] “flagitant responsum rotundum,” 
Bengel. 

Ver. 18. Tijv wovnpiav] for they concealed malicious 
designs (the reverse of dm)détns) behind their seemingly 
candid, nay, flatteringly put question, in which their object 
was to try (wewpafere) whether He might not be betrayed 


86 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


into returning such an answer as might be used in further 
proceedings against Him. Apropos of w7oxpitai, Bengel 
appropriately observes: “verwm se eis ostendit, ut dixerant, 
ver. 16;” but in the interrogative ri, why, is involved the 
idea of: what is your design in putting such a question? _ 

Ver. 19. To vopicpa rt. «.] “nummum aliquem ejus 
monetae, in qua tributum exigi solet,’ Grotius. The tribute 
was paid in Roman, not in Jewish money. “Ubicunque 
numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolae regem istum pro 
domino agnoscunt,” Maimonides in (rezelah v. 18.— 7po- 
onveyk. avT@ Onvadp.| they had such current coin upon them. 

Ver. 21 f. “There He catches them in their own trap,” 
Luther. The pointing to the image and inscription furnishes 
the questioners with ocular demonstration of the actual exist- 
ence and practical recognition of Caesar’s sway, and from 
these Jesus infers not merely the lawfulness, but the duty 
of paying to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (namely, the money, 
which shows, by the stamp it bears, the legitimacy of the 
existing rule) ; but He also recognises at the same time the 
necessity of attending to their theocratic duties, which are not 
to be regarded as in any way compromised by their political 
circumstances: and to God what is God’s (what you derive 
from Him in virtue of His dominion over you). By this is 
not meant simply the temple tribute, nor the repentance which 
God may have desired to awaken through punishing them 
with a foreign rule (Ebrard), nor merely the life of the soul 
(Tertullian, Erasmus, Neander); but everything, in short, of a 
material, religious, and ethical nature, which God, as sovereign 
of the theocratic people, is entitled to exact from them as 
His due. By the ta Kaicapos, on the other hand, we are not 
to understand merely the civil tax, but everything to which 
Caesar was entitled in virtue of his legitimate rule over the 
theocratic nation. So with this reply Jesus disposes of the 
ensnaring question, answering it immediately with decision and 
clearness, and with that admirable tact which is only met with 
where there is a moral insight into the whole domain of duty ; 
in a quick and overpowering manner He disarmed His adver- 
saries, and laid the foundation for the Christian doctrine which 


CHAP. XXII. 21, 22. 87 


was more fully developed afterwards (Rom. xii. 1 ff; 1 Tim. 
ii, 1 f.; 1 Pet. ii. 13 f, 17), that it is the duty of the Christian 
not to rebel against the existing rulers, but to conjoin obedience 
to their authority with obedience to God. At the same time, 
there cannot be a doubt that, although, in accordance with 
the question, Jesus chooses to direct His reply to the first and 
not to the second of those two departments of duty (in answer 
to Klostermann’s note on Mark), the second is to be regarded 
as the unconditional and absolute standard, not only for the 
first of the duties here mentioned (comp. Acts v. 29), but for 
every other. Chrysostom observes that: what is rendered to 
Caesar must. not be tyv evoéBevay TapaBrarTovta, otherwise 
it is ov«ére Kaicapos, adda Tod StaBorov Popos Kal Tédos. 
Thus the second part of the precept serves to dispose of any 
collision among our duties which accidental circumstances 
might bring about (Rom. xii. 5). According to de Wette, 
Jesus, in the first part of His reply, does not refer the 
matter inquired about to the domain of conscience at all, 
but treats it as belonging only to the sphere of politics 
(Luke xu. 14), and then adds in the second part: “You can 
and ought to serve God, in the first place, with your moral 
and religious dispositions, and should not mix up with His 
service what belongs to the domain of civil authority.” 
But such a severance of the two is not in accordance 
with the context; for the answer would in that case be 
an answer to an alternative question based on the general 
thought : is it lawful to be subject to Caesar, or to God only ? 
Whereas the reply of Jesus is: you ought to do both things, 
you ought to be subject to God and to Caesar as well; the 
one duty is inseparable from the other! Thus our Lord rises 
above the alternative, which was based on theocratic notions 
of a one-sided and degenerate character, to the higher wnity of 
the true theocracy, which demands no revolutions of any kind, 
and also looks upon the right moral conception of the existing 
civil rule as necessarily part and parcel of itself (John xix. 11), 
and consequently a simple yes or no in reply to the ques- 
tion under consideration is quite impossible. — aw06o7¢] the 
ordinary expression for paying what i is one’s duty to pay, 


88 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


as in xx. 8, xxi. 41; Rom. xiii, 7.— Ver. 22. é@avdpacar] 
“conspicuo modo ob responsum tutum et verum,’ Bengel. Ov« 
ériatevoay 6é, Euthymius Zigabenus. 

Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xii. 18 ff. ; Luke xx. 27 ff. ; Matthew 
condenses. — Of NéyovTes wy elvat dvaoT.| who assert, etc., 
serving to account for the question which follows. On the 
necessity of the article, inasmuch as the Sadducees do not 
say to Jesus that there is no resurrection, but because their 
regular confiteor is here quoted, comp. Kiihner ad Xen. ii. 
7.13; Mark xii. 18: oftwes Aéyover. 

Ver. 24 ff. A free citation of the law respecting Jevirate 
marriage, Deut. xxv. 5, and that without following the Sep- 
tuagint, which in ¢his instance does not render 53° by the 
characteristic évvyau8p. If a married man died without male 
issue, his brother was required to marry the widow, and to 
register the first-born son of the marriage as the son of the 
deceased husband. See Saalschiitz, WR. p. 754 ff. ; Ewald, 
Alterth. p. 276 ff.; Benary, de Hebracor. leviratu, Berl. 1835. 
As to other Oriental nations, see Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. p. 81; 
Bodenstedt, d. Volker des Kaukasus, p. 82; Benary, p. 31 ff. 
— éruvyapBpevew, to marry as brother-in-law (levir. o>). 
Comp. Gen. xxxviil. 8; Test. XII. patr. p. 599. Differently 
eruyauBp. Twein 1 Macc. x. 54; 1 Sam. xviii. 22. — &ws 
Tov éeTta] wntil the seven, i.e. and in the same manner they 
continued to die until the whole seven were dead. Comp. 
xvill. 22; 1 Mace. 1. 38.—dtortepov ravtw@r]| later than all 
the husbands. 

Ver. 28. Founding upon this alleged incident (which was 
undoubtedly a silly invention got up for the occasion, Chry- 
sostom), as being one strictly in accordance with the law, the 
Sadducees now endeavour to make it appear that the doctrine 
of the resurrection—a doctrine which, for the purpose of being 
able to deny it, they choose to apprehend in a gross material 
sense — 1s irreconcilable with the law; while, by their fancied 
acuteness, they try to involve Jesus Himself in the dilemma 
of having to give an answer either disadvantageous to the law 
or favourable to their doctrine. — yuv7] Predicate. - 

Ver. 29. Jesus answers that, in founding upon Deut. xxv. 5 





CHAP. XXTl 20: 89 


the denial of the resurrection, which their question implies, 
they are mistaken, and that in a twofold respect: (1) they 
do not understand the Scriptures, i.e. they fail to see how 
that doctrine actually underlies many a scriptural utter- 
ance; and (2) they do not sufficiently realize the extent of 
the power of God, inasmuch as their conceptions of the resur- 
rection are purely material, and because they cannot grasp 
the thought of a higher corporeality to be evolved from the 
material body by the divine power. And then comes an 
illustration of the latter point in ver. 30, and of the former 
im ver.-31. 

Ver. 30. "Ev yap TH avactdcet] not: in the resurrection 
life, but, as in ver. 28: at the resurrection (in answer to Fritzsche), 
which will be signalized not by marrying or giving in marriage, 
but by ushering in a state of things in which men will be 
like the angels, therefore a higher form of existence, from 
which the earthly conditions of life are eliminated, in which 
human beings will be not indeed disembodied, but endowed 
with a glorified corporeality, 1 Cor. xv. 44. The cessation of ° 
human propagation, not the abolition of the distinction of 
sex (Tertullian, Origen, Hilary, Athanasius, Basil, Grotius, 
Volkmar), is essentially implied in the ad@apoia of the 
spiritual body. Comp. Luke xx. 36.—yayodcur] applies 
to the bridegroom ; yapifovras (Apoll. de Synt. p. 277, 13), 
on the other hand, to daughters who are given in marriage by 
their parents.— aA’ ws ayyeror, K.7.r.] but they are as the 
angels of God in heaven. év ovpav@ belongs not to eict, but to 
ayyerou T. Geod, because the partakers in the resurrection (and 
the Messianic kingdom) are not understood to be in heaven 
(xxv. 31 ff.; 1.Cor. xv. 52; 2 Pet. iii, 13; not inconsistent 
with 1 Thess. iv. 17). It is obvious from our passage—in 
which the likeness to the angels has reference to the nature 
of the future body—that the angels are to be conceived of not 
as mere spirits, but as possessing a supramundane corporeality. 
This is necessarily presupposed in the language before us. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 40; Phil. ii, 10; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 
267; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 68; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 556. 
The do£a of the angels is essentially connected with their cor- 


90 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


poreality (in opposition to Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 66). — While 
a similar idea of the future body and the future mode of 
existence is met with in Rabbinical writers (see Wetstein), it 
‘is also conjoined, however, with the gross materialistic view: 
“Mulier illa, quae duobus nupsit in hoc mundo, priori 
restituitur in mundo futuro,” Sohar Gen. f. xxiv. 96. 

Ver. 31 f. But with reference to the resurrection, set over: 
against the foregoing év yap TH dvact.; the sequence of the 
address is indicated by the prepositions. rept ths avaot. 
should be taken along with ov« avéyvwte. — buiv] imparts 
the vivacity of individuality to the words of Jesus. The 
quotation is from Ex. i. 6. His opponents had cited a 
passage from the law; with a passage from the law Jesus 
confutes them, and thus combats them with their own 
weapons. It is wrong to refer to this in support of the view 
that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authori- 
tative scripture (Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Luther, Paulus, 
Olshausen, Siiskind in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 665). Yet 
these aristocrats regarded the law, and the mere letter of the 
law too, as possessing supreme authority. — od« éotuy 6 Beds, 
k.7.r.] This is the major proposition of a syllogism, in terms of 
which we are warranted in recognising in the passage here 
quoted a scriptural testimony in favour of the resurrection. 
The Sadducees had failed to draw the inference thus shown 
to be deducible from the words; hence ver. 29: py eidotes 
Tas ypadas, a fact which Jesus has now confirmed by the 
illustration before us. The point of the argument does not 
turn upon the present e¢ué (Chrysostom, and those who follow 
him), but is to this effect: seeing that God calls Himself 
the God of the patriarchs, and as He cannot sustain 
- such a relation toward the dead, ze. those who are absolutely 
dead, who have ceased to exist (ov« dvTwyv Kai KaOaraé 
apaviolwtov, Chrysostom), but only toward the living, it 
follows that the deceased patriarchs must be living,—living, 
that is, in Sheol, and living as dvactivat wéddovtes (Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus). Comp. Heb. xi. 16. The similar inference 
in Menasse f. Isr. de Reswrr. i. 10. 6, appears to have been 
deduced from the passage before us. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 180. 


CHAP, XXII. 33-35. 91 


Ver. 38. Of dyXot] arrovnpor Kai adéxacrot, Euthymius 
Zigabenus. Comp. vil. 28. 

Ver. 34. The following conversation respecting the great 
commandment is given in Mark xii. 28 ff. with such charac- 
teristic detail, that Matthew’s account cannot fail to have the 
appearance of being incomplete, and, considering the bias of 
the incident (see note on ver. 35), to look as if it represented 
a corrupt tradition. In Luke x. 25 ff. there is a similar con- 
versation, which, however, is not given as another version of 
that now before us, but as connected with a different 
incident that took place some time before. —oé d€ Papis.] 
Comp. ver. 15. They had already been baffled, and had 
withdrawn into the background (ver. 22); but the victory of 
Jesus over the Sadducees provoked them to make one more 
attempt, not to avenge the defeat of those Sadducees (Strauss), 
nor to display their own superiority over them (Ebrard, Lange), 
—neither view being hinted at in the text, or favoured by any- 
thing analogous elsewhere,—but, as was the object in every 
such challenge, to tempt Jesus, if that were at all possible, to 
give such an answer as might be used against Him, see ver. 
35.—axovoavtes| whether while present (among the 
multitude), or when absent, through the medium, perhaps, of 
their spies, cannot be determined.— cuvyiyOncav éri Td 
auto] for the purpose of concerting measures for a new 
attack. Consequently the vousxeds of ver. 35 had to be 
put forward, and, while the conversation between Jesus and 
him is going on, the parties who had deputed him gather 
round the speakers, ver. 41. There is, accordingly, no 
reason to apprehend any discrepancy (Kostlin) between the 
present verse and ver. 41. — éwl ro avdro] locally, not 
said with reference to their sentiments. See on Acts i. 15; 
PS, i. 2. 

Ver. 35. Noywcxods] the only instance in Matt.; it is met 
with in none of the other Gospels except that of Luke. It 
occurs, besides, in Tit. ii. 13. The word is used to signify 
one who is conversant with the law, émictnwov Tév vouwv 
(Photius), Plut. Sull. 36; Strabo, xii. p. 539; Diog. L. vi. 
54; Epictet. 1.13; Anthol. xi. 382.19. It is impossible to 


92 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


show that there is any essential difference of meaning 
between this word and ypapupareds (see note on ii. 4); comp. 
on the contrary, Luke xi. 52, 53.—The term vopixos is 
more specific (jwrisconsultus), and more strictly Greek; 
ypappatevs, on the other hand, is more general (literatus), 
and more Hebrew in its character (15D), The latter is also 
of more frequent occurrence in the Apocr.; while the former 
is met with only in 4 Macc. v. 3. In their character of 
teachers they are designated vopodidaoKaror, Luke v. 17; Acts 
v. 37; 1 Tim. i. 7.— wetpafav avror] different from Mark 
xii. 28 ff, and indicating that the question was dictated by 
a malicious intention (Augustine, Grotius). The ensnaring 
character of the question was to be found in the circumstance 
that, if Jesus had specified any particular vovdrns of a great 
commandment (see on ver. 36), His reply would have been 
made use of, in accordance with the casuistical hair-splitting 
of the schools, for the purpose of assailing or defaming 
Him on theological grounds. He specifies, however, those 
two commandments themselves, in which all the others are 
essentially included, thereby giving His answer indirectly, as 
though He had said: supreme love to God, and sincerest love 
of our neighbour, constitute the zrovrns about which thou 
inquirest. This love must form the principle, spirit, life of 
all that we do. 

Ver. 36 f. What kind of a commandment (qualitative, 
comp. xix. 18) ts great in the law; what must be the nature 
of a commandment in order to constitute it great? The com- 
mandment, then, which Jesus singles out as the great one cat’ 
é£oyyv, and which, as corresponding to the subsequent Sevrépa, 
He places at the head of the whole series () weydAn «. mporTn, 


in which regular designation tov @eov cov is in apposition, 
consequently not to be rendered: “wtpote Dominum tuum,” 
Fritzsche—Love to God must fill the whole heart, the entire 
inner sphere in which all the workings of the personal con- 
sciousness originate (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 248 ff.; Krumm, 
de notionib. psych. Paul. § 12), the whole soul, the whole 


CHAP, XXII. 39. 93 


faculty of feeling and desire, and the whole understanding, all 
the powers of thought and will, and must determine their 
operation. We have thus an enumeration of the different 
elements that go to make up 70 deiv dyarrdv Tov Oedv odopiyas, 
TovTO €oTt TO Sid TaVTWY TOY THS Wuyns wepov Kal Suvapwewv 
avt@® tpocéyew (Theophylact), the complete harmonious self- 
dedication of the entire inner man to God, as to its highest 
good. Comp. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 81, ed. 2. 

Ver. 39. But a seeond is like unto it, of the same nature 
and character, possessing to an equal extent the movorns (674 
alTn éxeivnv TpoovoTrolel, Kai Trap’ avTHS TuUyKpoTeirae Tau, 
Chrysostom), which is the necessary condition of greatness, 
and therefore no less radical and fundamental. Comp. 1 John 
iv. 16, 20, 21; Matt. xxv. 40,45. Euthymius Zigabenus: 
AAnroyxodvtat x. Pepadrnroi eta ai dvo. We should not adopt 
the reading oyola airy, recommended by Griesbach, following 
many Uncials and min. (but in opposition to the vss.); nor 
again that of Fritzsche, opoia adth, at'rn (conjecture). The 
former was presumed (comp. Mark xii. 31) to be a necessary 
emendation, because from the commandment being immediately 
added, the demonstrative seemed requisite by way of intro- 
ducing it. Moreover, according to the context, there would 
be no need for the dative in the case of Guovos. The com- 
mandment is quoted from Lev. xix. 18, after the Sept. — 
ayatnaoets| This, the inward, moral esteem, and the corre- 
sponding behaviour, may form the subject of a command, 
though the same cannot be said of guAciv, which is love as a 
matter of feeling. Comp. on v. 44, and see in general Tittmann, 
Syn. p. 50 ff. The irda tod xdopouv (Jas. iv. 4), on the 
other hand, may be forbidden ; comp. Rom. viii. 7; the guretv 
of one’s own Wuy7 (John xii. 25), and the px) pireiy tov Kvpsov 
(1 Cor. xvi. 22), may be condemned, comp. also Matt. x. 37. 
—s ceavt.| as thou shouldst love thyself, so as to cherish 
toward him no less than toward thyself that love which God 
would have thee to feel, and to act toward him (by promot- 
ing his welfare, etc., comp. vii. 12) in such a manner that 
your conduct may be in accordance with this loving spirit. 
Love must do away with the distinction between I and Thou. 


94 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Bengel: “Qui Deum amat, se ipsum amabit ordinate, citra 
philautiam,’ Eph. v. 28. 

Ver. 40. Those two commandments contain the funda- 
mental principle of the whole of the commandments in the Old 
Testament. — tavtats] with emphasis: these are the two 
commandments on which, etc. —«péuatar] depends thereon, 
so that those commandments constitute the basis and essen- 
tial condition of the moral character of all the others, Rom. 
xiii, 8 £; Gal. v. 14. Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 831 Clee 
Ov Kpewamevn Taca ux Todritov. Pind. Ol. vi. 125; Xen. 
Symp. viii. 19; Gen. xliv. 30; Judith viii. 24.—xai ot 
mpopytac| so far as the preceptive element in them is con- 
cerned. Comp. on v.17. Thus Jesus includes more in His 
reply than was contemplated by the question (ver. 36) of the 
VOMLLKOS. 

Ver. 41. Comp. Mark xii. 35 ff; Luke xx. 41 ff. Jesus, 
in His turn, now proceeds to put a question to the Pharisees 
(who in the meantime have gathered round Him, see on 
ver. 34), for the purpose, according to Matthew’s view of the 
matter (ver. 46), of convincing them of their own theological 
helplessness, and that in regard to the problem respecting the 
title “Son of David,” to which David himself bears testimony, 
and with the view of thereby escaping any further molestation 
on their part. According to de Wette, the object was: to 
awaken a higher idea of His (non-political) mission (Neander, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Schenkel, Keim). This view, 
however, is not favoured by the context, which represents 
Jesus as victor over His impudent and crafty foes, who are 
silenced and then subjected to the castigation described in 
ch. xxiii. 

Ver. 43 f. II és] how is it possible, that, etc.—In His ques- 
tion Jesus starts with what was a universal asswmption in 
His day, viz. that David was the author of Ps. cx., which, 
however, is impossible, the fact being that it was only composed 
in the time of this monarch, and addressed to him (see Ewald 
on this psalm). The fact that Jesus shared the opinion 
referred to, and entertained no doubt as to the accuracy of the 
title of the psalm, is not to be questioned, though it should 


CHAP. XXII. 45, 46. 95 


not be made use of, with Delitzsch and many others, for the 
purpose of proving the Davidic authorship of the composition ; 
for a historico-critical question of this sort could only belong 
to the sphere of Christ’s ordinary national development, which, 
as a rule, would necessarily bear the impress of His time. 
With ev rvevy. before us, the idea of accommodation or of a 
play upon logic is not to be thought of, although Delitzsch 
himself maintains that something of the kind is possible. 
Among the unwarrantable and evasive interpretations of 
certain expositors is that of Paulus, who thinks that the object 
of the question of Jesus from beginning to end was the historico- 
critwcal one of persuading His opponents that the psalm was 
not composed by David, and that it contains no reference to 
the Messiah.'"— év mvevmarte] meaning, perhaps, that He did 
not do so on His own authority, but dmpulswu Spiritus Sancti 
(2 Poetic: 21) 5) Luke. 27 5,1, Cor. xi,,3';. Roms. viii. 15, 
ix. 2. David was regarded as a prophet, Acts ii 30,1. 16. 
—avrtov] the Messiah ; for the personage in the psalm is a 
prophetic type of the Messiah ; as also the Rabbinical teachers 
recognised in him one of the foremost of the Messianic pre- 
dictions (Wetstein, Schoettgen), and only at a later period 
would they hear of any other reference (Delitzsch on Heb. 
i, 13, and on Ps. cex.).— €ws av 00, «.7.r.| see on 1 Cor. 
xv. 25. 

Ver. 45 f. Ei ody Aavetd, «7.r.| The emphasis rests on 
the correlative terms xvpsov and vids: If, then, as appears from 
this language of the psalm, David, whose son He is, accord- 
ing to your express confession, still calls Him Lord, how is this 
to be reconciled with the fact that He is at the same time the 

1 For the correct view of this matter, see Diestel in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 
1863, p. 541 f.; see also the pointed elucidation, as well as refutation of the 
other interpretations, in Keim, III. p. 154 ff.; comp. Gess, I. p. 128 f. Then 
there is the explanation, frequently offered since Strauss suggested it, and which 
is to the effect that Jesus wished to cast discredit upon the currently received 
view regarding Messiah’s descent from David, and that He Himself was not 
descended from David,—a circumstance which is supposed to have undoubtedly 
stood in the way of His being recognised as the Messiah (Schenkel, Weisse, 
Colani, Holtzmann); all which is decidedly at variance with the whole of the 


New Testament, where the idea of a non-Davidic Messiah would be a contradictio 
tn adjecto. 


96 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


psalmist’s son? Surely that styling of Him as Lord must seem 
incompatible with the fact of such sonship! The difficulty 
might have been solved in this way: according to His human 
descent He is David’s son ; but, according to His divine origin 
as the Son of God, from whom He is sprung, and by whom He 
is sent (xi. 27, xvi; 26; John 1 14, 18, vi 46, va Zoey 
tom. 1. 3 f.)—in virtue of which relation He is superior to 
David and all that is merely human, and, by His elevation to 
the heavenly Sofa (Acts ii. 34), destined to share in the 
divine administration of things in a manner in keeping with 
this superiority,—He is by David, speaking under the in- 
fluence of the Holy Spirit, called his Zord. The Pharisees 
understood nothing of this twofold relation, and consequently 
could not discern the true majesty and destiny of the Messiah, 
so as to see in Him both David’s Son and Lord. Hence not 
one of them was found capable of answering the question as 
to the més... €o7. Observe that the question does not amply 
a negative, as though Jesus had asked, pa vids adtod éote ; — 
ovxéte] “ Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit,” Bengel. 





CHAP. XXIIL 97 


CHAP TER xe L 


VER. 3. rype7v] after yw is deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and 
Tisch., following Mill. It is wanting in very important autho- 
rities. A gloss, for which certain authorities have oe%,.— 
rnpeire x. coretre| Lachm.: somoure x. ryperre. So also Tisch. 
This is the original reading (B L Z s** 124, Hilar.) ; for the 
sake of uniformity, sojoars was changed into soir (D, 1, 209, 
Eus. Dam.); but the transposed order rap. x. 7. is an ancient 
logical correction (as old as Syr. Vulg. It.).— Ver. 4. For yap 
Lachm. and Tisch. read 6:2, following weighty attestation. Cor- 
rectly; yép was meant to be more precise.— xai dueBaez.| 
deleted by Tisch. 8, following L 8, vss. Ir. But the evidence 
in favour of the words is too strong, and their omission on 
account of the two z«/’s might so readily occur that they must 
not be regarded as an interpolation from Luke xi. 46.—+ra 6é] 
Lachm. Tisch. 8: «iro? 6: ra, following B D L x, and two min. 
vss. and Fathers. Exegetical amplification after Luke xi. 46.— 
Ver. 5. For 62 after +Aariv. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have yep, in accord- 
ance with B D L»&, min. vss. Chrys. Damasc. See on ver. 4. 
— ray eae air.| deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B 
Dx, 1, 22, vss. Correctly; an explanatory addition. — Ver. 6. 
For gia. re we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read gv. 62, in 
accordance with decisive evidence. — Ver. 7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 

have «867 only once, following B L A 8, min. vss. and Fathers. 
But how easily may the reduplication have been overlooked, 
both on its own account and in consequence of its not occurring 
in the instance immediately following! Comp. on Mark xiv. 45. 
— Ver. 8. xaénynrq¢| Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., following 
Grotius, Mill, and Bengel, read 6:dé0x«2.0¢, which Rinck also ap- 
proves. No doubt xaéjyzr. has a very decided preponderance of 
evidence in its favour (of the uncials only B U x**? read d:déox.); 
but, owing to ver. 10, it is so utterly inappropriate in the 
present instance, that it must be regarded as an old and clumsy 
gloss inserted from ver. 10 (namely, xadnynris 6 Xpiorés, according 
to the reading of Elz. Scholz). By this it was merely intended 
to intimate that it is Christ that is referred to here as well as 

MATT. II. G 


98 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


in ver. 10 below. — Ver. 10. «7s yap duav gory 6 nxadny.] 
Lachm. and Tisch.: ér: xadnynris id éoriv cig. The latter is 
the best attested reading ; that of the Received text is to con- 
form with ver. 8 f.—In the Zeaxtus receptus the two verses, 13 
and 14, stand in the following order: (1) otal... siserAdew; (2) 
odai,.. xpque, in opposition to E FG HKMSU VIrAQ, vss. 
and Fathers. On this evidence Griesbach, Scholz, Fritzsche 
have adopted the transposed order. But oda? .. . pia (in Elz. 
ver. 14) is wanting in B D L Z 8, min. vss. and Fathers (Origen 
as well), and is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., although 
defended by Rinck and Keim. An interpolation from Mark 
xii. 40; Luke xx.47.— Ver. 17. ris yap weiZwv] Lachm.: si yap 
weiGov, but, undoubtedly, on the evidence of Z only. The vss. 
(Vulg. It.) can have no weight here.—éy:é@ov] Lachm. and 
Tisch.: éyidous, following B D Z 8, Cant.; Vulg. has sancti- 
ficat. The present participle is from ver. 19, where there is no 
difference in the reading. — Ver, 19. wmpo/ xai] 1s wanting in 
D LZR, 1, 209, and several vss., also Vulg. It. Bracketed by 
Lachm., condemned by Rinck, deleted by Tisch. ; and justly so, 
‘because there was no motive for omitting the words, while their 
insertion would be readily suggested by ver. 17.— Ver. 21. 
For xzaromjoauvrs Elz. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have AATOMMOUYTH, following 
BH Sx, min., the force of the aorist not being apprehended. 
—Ver. 23. Elz.: ratra de; but Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm., 
Tisch. 7 have adopted ruira 6: ¢ée. In both cases the evi- 
dence is considerable ; but how readily might 6: be omitted 
before ¢ds: through oversight on the part of the transcriber ! — 
Ver. 25. 22] is wanting in C D, min. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. 
It had been omitted as unnecessary. — Elz. Lachm. Tisch. 
read d&xpacias, instead of which Griesb. and Scholz have éé:xias. 
The evidence is very much divided, being strong on both sides ; 
dxpucias is to be preferred. This word, the only other instance 
of which in the N. T. is at 1 Cor. vii. 5, appeared to be inap- 
propriate, and came to be represented by a variety of glosses 
(anabapsiacs, mrsovecing, admins, covnpiac). — Ver. 26. aur ay] 
Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.: airod, following B* D E* min. Aeth. 
Vere. This airoi is bound up with the omission of zai r%s 
capo. in D, min. Cant. Vere. Clem. Chrys. Ir. (deleted by 
Tisch.). Those words, however, are evidently an insertion from 
ver, 25, an insertion, moreover, which is inconsistent with airod, 
so that the words ought to be deleted and airod preferred to 
wdrév. — Ver. 27. rapowora ere] Lachm.: swoaéZere, only on the 
evidence of B, 1. The preposition has been left out, probably 
because the compound form is not found elsewhere in the N. T. 


CHAP, XXIII. 1. 99 


— Ver. 30. 7a, instead of jue of the Received text, is sup- 
ported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 34. xa/ 2& ai-.] in the first 
case zai is wanting in BM ATL, min. codd. of It. Syr. Arm. 
Or.(once). Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may 
this xaé have been omitted since the next clause opens with xa/! 
— Ver. 36. Before 72, Griesb., followed by Matth., Fritzsche, 
Scholz, inserted 6, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have 
deleted again. é7, has important evidence both for and against. 
A common interpolation.—raira révra| The order révra raira 
(Lachm, Tisch. 7) is well attested, though there is a prepon- 
derance of evidence (C DX, etc., Vulg. It.) for the reading of 
the Received text. — Ver. 37. voccia éaurye| Lachm. has deleted 
zaur., but only on the evidence of B, vss. Clem.(once) Or.(once) 
Cypr. Hil., and notwithstanding the probable omission of the 
pronoun as apparently superfluous. Had it been inserted from 
Luke xii. 34, it would have been placed between ré and vosoia. 
For eaur%s Tisch. reads airs, following B** D, marg. M A®* 33, 
Clem.(once) Eus. Cyr. Theodoret. The reflective might be easily 
overlooked, as was often the case. — Ver. 38. zpyuwog is wanting in 
B L Copt.* Corb. 2, Or. Deleted by Lachm.; to be maintained on 
account of the preponderating evidence in its favour, though in 
the case of Luke xiii. 35 it is inserted as a gloss from Matthew. 


Ver. 1. After the Pharisees have been thus silenced, there 
now follows the decisive and direct attack upon the hierarchs, 
in a series of overwhelming denunciations extending to ver. 39, 
and which, uttered as they are on the eve of His death, form 
a kind of Messianic onpetoy through which Jesus seeks to 
testify against them. Luke has inserted at ch. xi. portions of 
this discourse in an order different from the original; but he 
has given in the present connection, like Mark xii, only a 
few fragments, so that, keeping in view that a collection of 
our Lord’s sayings was made by Matthew, and considering the 
originality in respect of matter and arrangement which charac- 
terizes the grand utterances now before us, the preference 
must be accorded to the report furnished by this apostle (in 
answer to Schleiermacher, Schulz, Schneckenburger, Olshausen, 
Volkmar). The entire discourse has so much the character of 
a living whole, that, although much that was spoken on other 
occasions may perhaps be mixed up with it, it is scarcely 
possible to disjoin such passages from those that are essentially 


100 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


original. Ewald thinks that the discourse is made up of 
passages that were probably original, though uttered on 
very different occasions; Holtzmann has recourse to the 
hypothesis that the evangelist has derived his account from 
a supposed special source, the same as that on which ch. v. 
is based; in answer to the latter, see Weiss, 1864, p. 114. 
Observe that the ¢yAo are mentioned first, because the first 
part of the discourse on to ver. 7 is directed to them, then the 
paOnrai are addressed in vv. 8-12, whereupon in ver. 13 ff. 
we have the withering apostrophe to the Pharisees who were 
present, and that for the purpose of warning the éyAou and 
the pa@nrai to beware of them ; and finally, the concluding 
passage, ver. 37 ff., containing the pathetic exclamation over 
Jerusalem. The glance, the gesture, the attitude, the matter 
and the language, were such that there could be no doubt who 
were immediately aimed at in the various sections of the dis- 
course. We may imagine the scene in the temple to have been 
as follows: in the foregrownd, Jesus with His disciples ; a little 
farther off, the 6ydou ; more in the background, the Pharisees, 
who in xxii. 46 are spoken of as having withdrawn. 

Ver. 2. The phrase: “to sit in Moses’ seat” (in the seat 
which Moses had occupied as lawgiver), is borrowed not from 
Ex. xviii. 13, but refers to the later practice of having chairs 
for teachers (comp. Acts xxi. 3), and is intended as a figura- 
tive mode of describing the functions of one who “ acis as a 
public teacher of the Mosaic law,’ in discharging which functions 
the teacher may be regarded as the representative and successor 
of Moses. Accordingly, in Rabbinical writers, one who suc- 
ceeds a Rabbi as the representative of his school is described 
as INDI“2Y wi. See Vitringa, Synag. p. 165 f. — éxaOicar] 
have seated themselves, have assumed to themselves the duties 
of this office. In the whole of this phraseology one cannot 
fail to detect an allusion to the pretensions and self-seeking 
character of the Pharisees. Comp. 2 Thess. u. 4. 

Ver. 3. Odv] inasmuch as they speak as teachers and 
interpreters of the Mosaic law.—mavta...6ca] Limitations 
of the sense, which lie outside the point of view marked out 
by the expression “ Moses’ seat,’—-as though Jesus had in 


CHAP. XXIII. 4. LOL 


view only the moral part of the law (Chrysostom), or contem- 
plated merely what had reference to the theocratic polity 
(Lange), or meant simply to speak comparatively (Bleek),— 
are in opposition to the text, and are of an arbitrary character, 
all the more so that the multitude was assumed to possess 
sufficient capacity for judging as to how much of the teaching 
was binding upon them, and how much was not. The words 
are addressed to the 6yAor, whom Jesus had neither the power 
nor the wish to release from their obligations in respect to 
the manifest teachings of the law. But having a regard to 
the glaring inconsistency between the teaching and the conduct 
of their pharisaic instructors, and considering His own funda- 
mental principle with regard to the obligatory character of the 
law, ver. 18 f., He could not have spoken otherwise than He 
did when He inculcated upon the people the duty of comply- 
ing with the words while refusing to imitate the conduct of 
those instructors. This utterance was conservative, as befitted 
the needs of the people, and unsparingly outspoken, as the 
conduct of the Pharisees deserved ; but, in opposition to both 
Pharisees and people, it guarded the holiness of the law. 
Observe that He is here speaking of the Pharisees in their 
special capacity as teachers of the Mosaic law (Augustine, Calvin, 
Grotius, Bengel), so that His language is at variance neither 
with xvi. 6 nor with the axiom given in xv.13; Acts v. 29. — 
Tounoate K. THpelTe (see critical notes): aorist and present: do 
it, and observe it constantly. See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 158 f. 
Ver. 4. Comp. Luke xi. 46.— In Secpevovar Sé (see critical 
notes), the dé introduces an instance of their Aéyover Kal od 
movovot of a peculiarly oppressive character.— The binding 
(tying up into a bundle portions from the various elements, 
comp. Judith viii. 3) of heavy burdens is an expression intended 
to represent the connecting together of a number of require- 
ments and precepts, so that, from their accumulation, they 
become difficult to fulfil—7@ d€ daxtirXw ad’tor, x.7r.] 
but are themselves indisposed to move them even with their finger, 
in the direction, that is, of their fulfilment. The emphasis 
rests on T@ OaxTvA@ ; they will not move the burdens with 
their finger, far less would they bear them upon their shoulders. 


102 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Vv. 5-7. Comp. Luke xi. 43 f:— dvdaxtypia, amulets, 
were the pPaN, the strips of parchment with passages of 
Scripture, viz. Deut. xi. 13-22, vi. 4-10, Ex. xiii. 11-17, 
1—11, written upon them. They were enclosed in small 
boxes, and, in accordance with Ex. xiii. 9, 16, Deut. vi. 8, 
xi. 18, worn during prayer, some on the forehead, some on the 
left arm next the heart. They were intended to remind the 
wearer that it was his duty to fulfil the law with head and 
heart, and, at the same time, to serve the purpose of protecting 
him from the influence of evil spirits. Joseph. Anti. iv. 8.13; 
Lund, Jiid. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 898 ff; Keil, Arch. I. 
p. 342 f.—awdrartvvover] they broaden their dudraxtypia, i.e. 
they make them broader than those of others, in order that 
they may thereby become duly conspicuous. Corresponding 
to this is: weyadvvovor, they enlarge. On the cpaomeda, see 
on ix. 20.— Tv mpwtokrLclav] the foremost couch at table, 
ie. according to Luke xiv. 8 ff. (Joseph. Anétt. xv. 2. 4), 
the wppermost place on the divan, which the Greeks also 
regarded as the place of honour (Plut. Symp. p. 619 B). The 
Persians and Romans, on the other hand, looked upon the 
place in the middle as the most distinguished. The term is 
met with only in the synoptical Gospels and the Fathers. 
Suidas: mpwtoxdcla’ % mpeTn Kabédpa.— paBBi, paBBi] 
‘D1, 131 (d:dacKxare, John i. 39; with yod paragogic). The 
reduplication serves to show how profownd the reverence is. 
Comp. Mark xiv. 15; Matt. vi. 21 f For the view that 
“Rabbi (like our “ Dr.”) was the title used in addressing learned 
teachers as early as the time of Jesus (especially since Hillel's 
time), see Lightfoot, also Pressel in Herzog’s Hncykl. XII. 
p. 471; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 305. 

Vv. 8-12. ‘Ywets] with which the discourse is suddenly 
turned to the disciples, is placed first’ for sake of emphasis, 
and forms a contrast to the Pharisees and scribes. — yp) 


1 In consequence of this address to the disciples, Holtzmann, p. 200, regards 
the whole discourse, in the form in which it has come down to us, asan historical 
impossibility. Observe, however, the impassioned and lively way in which the 
topics are varied so as to suit exactly the different groups of which the audience 
was composed (see on ver. 1), 


CHAP. XXIII. 13. 103 


kX OAT] neither wish nor allow it.—7mdvtes 8é€] so that 
no one may violate the fraternal tie on the ground of his sup- 
posed superiority as a teacher. — Kal matépa, «.7.d.] The word 
matépa, by being placed at the beginning, becomes emphatic, 
and so also tuev, by being separated from watépa to which 
it belongs: And you must not call any one father of you upon 
earth, 7.e. you must not apply the teacher’s title “owr father” 
(a8, see Buxtorf, p. 10, 2175; Ewald as above) to any mere 
man. Comp. Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 738].— Ver. 10. Neither 
are you to allow yourselves to be called leaders (in the scholastic 
sense), for the leader of you is One (see critical notes), the Messiah. 
For examples of the way in which Greek philosophers were 
addressed by their disciples, see Wetstein.—o dé pe(fav 
vp@v, k.7.r.| But among you greatness is to be indicated quite 
otherwise than by high-sounding titles: the greater among you, 
ve. he among you who would surpass the others in true 
dignity, will be your servant. Comp. ver. 12. This is a say- 
ing of which Jesus makes very frequent use (Luke xiv. 11, 
xvill. 14). Comp. xx. 26 f.; also the example of Jesus in 
the washing of the disciples’ feet, and Phil. 11. 6 f. — ravrewvo®. 

. Uw9.] that is, on the occasion of the setting up of my 
kingdom. 


ReMARK.—The prohibitions, ver. 8 fi., have reference to 
the Awerarchical meaning and usage which were at that time 
associated with the titles in question. The teacher’s titles in 
themselves are as legitimate and necessary as his functions ; but 
the hierarchy, in the form which it assumed in the Catholic 
church with the “holy father” at its head, was contrary to the 
spirit and mind of Jesus. Apropos of ver. 11, Calvin appro- 
priately observes: “ Hac clausula ostendit, se non sophistice 
litigasse de vocibus, sed vem potius spectasse.” 


Ver. 13. Here begins the direct and withering apostrophe 
of Jesus to His adversaries themselves who are still present, 
this part of the address consisting of seven woes, and extending 
to ver. 36. For the spurious ver. 14, £lz., concerning the 
devouring of widows’ houses, see the critical remarks. The 
characteristic feature in this torrent of woes is its intense 
righteous indignation, such as we meet with in the prophets 


104 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


of old (comp. Isa. v. 8, x. 1; Hab. ii. 6 ff.),—an indignation 
which abandons the objects of it as past all hope of amendment, 
and cuts down every bridge behind them. To Celsus (in Origen, 
ii. 76) all this sounded as mere empty threat and scolding. 
— 671] assigns the reason of this ova’. — creleTe, «.7.r.] The 
approaching kingdom of the Messiah is conceived of under the 
figure of a palace, the doors of which have been thrown open 
in order that men may enter. But such is the effect of the 
opposition offered to Christ by the scribes and Pharisees, that 
men withhold their belief from the Messiah who has appeared 
among them, and show themselves indifferent to the ducaroovvn, 
necessary in order to admission into the kingdom from which 
they are consequently excluded. Comp. Luke xi. 52. They 
thus shut the door of the kingdom in men’s faces. — twets yap, 
x.T..] explanatory reason. — tods efoepyou.] who are trying, 
who are endeavouring to obtain admission. See Bernhardy, 
p. 370 f. 

Ver. 15. Instead of helping men into the Messiah’s kingdom, 
what contemptible efforts to secwre proselytes to their own way 
of thinking! This representation of pharisaic zeal is doubt- 
less hyperbolical, though it is, at the same time, based upon 
actual journeyings for the purpose of making converts (Joseph. 
Antt. xx. 2. 4). On Jewish proselytism generally, see Danz 
in Meuschen, NV. 7. ex Talm. wll. p. 649. Wetstein’s note on this 
passage. — €va] a single. —xai Otay yévnrat] sc. Tpoon- 
AuUTOS.—viov yeévyns] one fit for Gehenna, condemned to 
be punished in it. Comp. on vul. 12; John xvii. 12.— 
Sum@AOTEpov vu@r] is commonly taken in an adverbial sense 
(Vulg.: duplo quam), a sense in which it is consequently to 
be understood in the corresponding passage of Justin (¢. 77. 
122): viv dé Simdorepov viol yeévyns, os avTds eizre, yiveoOe. 
Coming as it does after vicv, it is more natural to regard 
it, with Valla, as an adjective: who is doubly more so than 
you are. For the comparative itself, comp. App. Hist. praef. 
10: oxevn durrdotepa To’Twy. But it is still rendered doubt- 
ful whether Su7rAdrepov is to be taken in an adverbial or 
adjective sense by a passage from Justin as above: of 6é 
TpooHAVTOL ov movOY Ov TiaTEvoVoW, GAAA SuTAOTEPOY VUaV 


CHAP. XXIII. 16. 105 


Bracdypodct. This passage is likewise unfavourable to 
Kypke’s interpretation : fallaciorem, which adjective would be 
of a more specific character than the context would admit of. 
But in how far was Jesus justifiable in using the words 
Su@AoTepov vuov? According to Chrysostom, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Euthymius Zigabenus: in consequence of the evil 
example of him who made the convert, which was such that 
“ex malo ethnico fit pejor Judaeus” (Erasmus) ; according to 
de Wette: in consequence of the high estimate in which the 
teachers are held by their disciples, and because superstition 
and error usually appear with a twofold greater intensity in 
the taught than in the teachers; according to Olshausen: 
because the converted heathen had not the atlvantage of 
enjoying the spiritual aid to be found in Mosaism ; according 
to Bleek: because it was common also to admit as converts 
those who were influenced by mere external considerations. 
According to the context (7rovetre) : on account of the manner 
in which the proselytes contiiwed to be influenced and wrought 
upon by those who converted them, in consequence of which 
they were generally found to become more bigoted, more un- 
loving, and more extreme than their instructors, and, of course, 
necessarily more corrupt. 

Ver. 16. A new point, and one so peculiarly heinous that 
a somewhat larger portion of the denunciatory address is de- 
voted to it.—év T@ va@] as in the Mischna we frequently 
meet with such expressions as: per habitaculum hoc, nn py. 
See Wetstein and Lightfoot.— é€v T@ ypva® Tod vaod] by 
the gold which belongs to the temple, the ornaments, the vessels, 
perhaps also the gold in the sacred treasury (to which latter 
Jerome, Maldonatus, refer). We nowhere meet with any 
example of such swearing, and the subject of Corban (xv. 5) 
is foreign to our passage (Lightfoot), inasmuch as there is no 
question of vows in the present instance. For év with oprvey, 
comp. on v. 34.— ovdév éotuv] it (the oath) is nothing, is 
of no consequence. It is not the person swearing who is the 
subject, but os av duocn, x.7.X., form an absolute nominative, as 
in vu. 24, x. 14, xiii, 12.— ode/rex] is indebted, bound to 
keep the oath, 


106 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Ver. 17 ff. Idp] Justifies the preceding epithets. — 
petCor] of greater consequence, and consequently more binding, 
as being a more sacred object by which to swear. The reason 
of the peifov lies in 6 dyacas Tov ypvaor, according to which 
the consecrated relation is conceived of as one between the 
temple and the gold, that has been brought about (otherwise if 
aylafwv be read) by the connecting of the latter with the 
former. — 70 S@pov] the offering (v. 23), as laid upon the 
altar, it belongs to God. 

Vv. 20-22. Odv] inference from ver. 19; because the 
creater, from which the less (the accessoriwm), as being bound 
up with it, derives its sanctity, necessarily includes that less. 
—0 duocas... duvve.] The aorist participle represents the 
thing as already in the course of being done (Kihner, II. 1, 
p. 134, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18): he who has proceeded to 
swear by the altar, swears (present), according to the point 
of view indicated by odv, not merely by the altar, but at the 
same time by all that is upon it as well.— Ver. 21. No 
longer dependent on ody; but two other examples of swearing 
are adduced independently of the former, in each of which 
even the highest of all, God Himself, is understood to be in- 
cluded. Accordingly we find the objects presented in a dif- 
ferent relation to one another. Formerly the greater included 
the less, now the converse is the case. But though differing 
in this respect, there is in both instances a perfect agreement 
as to the sacred and binding character of the oaths.—«arTov- 
KnoavtTe] who made it his dwelling-place, took up his abode 
in it (after it was built). Comp. Jas. iv. 5; Luke i. 49.— 
Ver. 227]. Comp. on v. 34. 

Ver. 23. Comp. Luke xi. 39 ff.— In accordance with cer- 
tain traditional enactments (Babyl. Joma, f. lxxxiil. 2), the 
Pharisees extended the legal prescriptions as to tithes (Ley. 
xxvii. 30; Num. xviii. 21; Deut. xii. 6 f., xiv. 22-27) so as 
to include even the most insignificant vegetable products, such 


1 The opposite of ver. 22 occurs in Schevuoth, f. xxxv. 2: ‘‘ Quia praeter 
Deum, coeli et terrae creatorem, datur etiam ipsum coelum et terra, indubium 
esse debet, quod is, qui per coelum et terram jurat non per eum juret, qui illa 
creayvit, sed per illas ipsas creaturas.” 


CHAP. XXIII. 24, 107 


as mint, anise, and cummin. See Lightfoot and Wetstein on 
this passage. Ewald, Alterth. p. 399.—tTa Bapuitepa tod 
vopou] the weightier things, 7c. the more important (graviora) 
elements of the law (comp. Acts xxv. 7), not: the things more 
dificult of fulfilment (difficiliora, as Fritzsche), which inter- 
pretation is indeed grammatically admissible (1 John v. 3), 
but must be rejected, because, according to the context (see 
ver. 24), Jesus was comparing the important with the less 
important, and most probably had in view the analogy of the 
praecepta gravia (awn) et levia (orp) of the Jewish doctors 
(see Schoettgen, p. 183).— tv xpicev] comp. Ps. xxxiii. 5; 
not: righteousness (the usual interpretation), a sense in which 
the term is never used (comp. on xii. 18), but judgment, i.e. 
deciding for the right as against the wrong. Comp. Bengel and 
Paulus. The «picts is the practical manifestation of righteous- 
ness. —THv wictev] faithfulness, Jer. v. 1; Rom. iii. 3; Gal. 
v. 22; and see on Philem. 5. The opposite of this is amiotia, 
perfidia (Wisd. xiv. 25, frequent in classical writers). — 
tadta] the Bapvtepa just mentioned, not the tithing of mint, 
ete. (Bengel). — €dec] oportebat. See Kiihner, IL. 1, p. 176 f. 
Those were the duties which had been neglected. — wn adrévac] 
scarcely so strong as the positive zroujoas. Observe the con- 
trasts: What you have neglected you ought to have done, and at 
the same time not have neglected what you are in the habit of 
doing,—the former being of paramount importance; the sub- 
ordinate matter, viz. your painful attention to tithes, is not super- 
seded by the higher duties, but only kept in its proper place. 
Ver. 24. The Jews were in the habit of straining their wine 
(dwg, Plut. Mor. p.692 D), in order that there might be no 
possibility of their swallowing with it any unclean animal, how- 
ever minute (Lev. xi. 42). Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p.516. Comp. 
the liquare vinum of the Greeks and Romans; Mitscherlich, 
ad Hor. Od. i. 11.7; Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxvi. 177. 
Figurative representation of the painful scrupulosity with 
which the law was observed. — tov k@vwtra] a kind of attrac- 
tion for percolando removentes muscam (that found in the wine, 
Tov «.), just as in classical writers the phrase ca@aipew te is 
often used to express the removing of anything by cleansing 


108 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


(Hom. Jl. xiv. 171, xvi. 667; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 52). xovory 
is not a worm found in sowr wine (Bochart, Bleek), but, as 
always, a gnat. In its attempt to suck the wine, it falls in 
amongst it. — Tv 6€ Kaper. KataTriv.] proverbial expression, 
Ta péeyiota Sé aTrapatnpntws dpaptavovtes, Euthymius Ziga- 
benus. Observe at the same time that the camel is an wnclean 
animal, Lev. xi. 4. 

Ver, 25. But inwardly they (the cup and the plate) ave 
filled from extortion and excess (axpacias, see critical notes). 
That with which they are filled, viz. the wine and the meat, has 
been obtained through extortion and excess. Plunder (Heb. x. 
34, common in classical writers) and exurbitance have contri- 
buted to fill them. On yéwew éx, see on John xii. 3. The 
simple genitive (ver. 27) would only be equivalent to: they 
are full of plunder, ete.—akpacias] a later form of axpa- 
tetas. See on 1 Cor. vii. 5. 

Ver. 26. Ka@dpicov mpartov, x.7r.] ic. let it be your 
first care (7p@Tov, as in vi. 33, vii. 5, and elsewhere), to see 
that the wine in the cup is no longer procured by extortion 
and exorbitance.— iva yévnrat, «.7.r.] not: “ut tum recte 
etiam externae partes possint purgari,” Fritzsche, but with 
the emphasis on yévytau: in order that what you aim at 
may then be effected, viz. the purity of the outside as well, 
—in order that, then, the outside of the cup also may 
not merely appear to be clean through your washing of it, 
but may actually become so, by losing that impurity which, 
in spite of all your cleansing, still adheres to it (which 
it contracts, as it were, from its contents), simply because 
it is filled with that which is procured through immoral 
conduct. The external cleansing is not declared to be un- 
necessary (de Wette), nor, again, is it intended to be regarded 
as the true one, which latter can only be brought about 
after the purifying of the contents has been effected. Bengel 
fitly observes: “alias enim illa mundities externa non est 
mundities.” That which is insisted on with wpwrov is to be 
attended to in the first place. 

Ver. 27 f. The graves were whitewashed with lime (xovia) 
every year on the 15th of Adar (a custom which Rabbinical 


CHAP, XXIII. 29-31. 109 


writers trace to Ezek. xxxix. 15), not for the purpose of 
ornamenting them, but in order to render them so conspicuous 
as to prevent any one defiling himself (Num. xix. 16) by 
coming into contact with them. For the passages from 
Rabbinical writers, see Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein. 
A kind of ornamental appearance was thus imparted to the 
graves. In Luke xi. 44, the illustration is of a totally dif- 
ferent character. — b7roxpic. x. dvop.| (immorality): both as 
representing their disposition. Thus, morally speaking, they 
were Tdgot Eurapvyo., Lucian, D. M. vi. 2. 

Ver. 29 ff. Comp. Luke xi. 47 ff. —- The olxodopeiv of the 
tombs of the prophets and the coopety of the sepulchres of the 
righteous (the Old Testament saints, comp. ver. 35, xiii. 17; 
Heb. xi. 23); this preserving and ornamenting of the sacred 
tombs by those who pretended to be holy was accompanied 
with the self-righteous declaration of ver. 30. On the ancient 
tombs of a more notable character, see, in general, Robinson, 
Pal. 11. p. 175 ff., and on the so-called “ tombs of the prophets ” 
still existing, p.194. Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. I. p. 227 ff. — 
et nueOa, «.7.r.] not: if we had been, but: if we were (comp. 
on John xi. 21), of we were living in the time of our fathers, 
certainly we would not be, ete. — Wate paptupeite EavTots, 
«.7.r.] Thus (inasmuch as you say tay tatépwv juov) you 
witness against yourselves (dative of reference, Jas. v. 3), that you 
are the sons, ete. viot contains a twofold meaning. From trav 
matép. nu., in which the Pharisees point to their bodily descent, 
Jesus likewise infers their kinship with their fathers in respect 
of character and disposition. There is a touch of sharpness in 
this pregnant force of viol, the discourse becoming more and 
more impassioned. “ When you thus speak of your fathers, you 
yourselves thereby testify to your own kinship with the mur- 
derers of the prophets.” De Wette’s objection, that this inter- 
pretation of uvéot would be incompatible with what is said by 
way of vindicating themselves at ver. 30, does not apply, because 
Jesus feels convinced that their character entirely belies this 
self-righteous utterance, and because He wishes to make them 
sensible of this conviction through the sting of a penetration 
that fearlessly searches their hearts and reads their thoughts, 


110 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


-— €yv 76 aiparte] ic. the crime of shedding their blood. On 
aia in the sense of caedes, see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 427. 
For év, see on Gal. vi. 6. 

Ver. 32. Quite in keeping with the deepening. intensity 
of this outburst of indignation is the bitter irony of the 
imperative 7Anpwocate (comp. xxv. 45), the mere permissive 
sense of which (Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel) is too feeble.’ 
This filling up of the measure (of the sins) of the fathers 
was brought about by their sons (“haereditario jure,” Calvin), 
when they put Jesus Himself as well as His messengers to 
death. —xat tpets] ye also. The force of «ai is to be 
sought in the fact that wAnpwcate, «.7.r., is intended to in- 
dicate a line of conduct corresponding to and supplementing 
that of the fathers, and in regard to which the sons also must 
take care not to come short. 

Ver. 33. IIas gvynre] Conjunctive, with a deliberative 
force: how are you, Jadging from your present character, to 
escape from (see on iii. 7),etc. Comp. xxvi. 54; Mark iv. 30; 
Hom. Jl. i. 150: was tis tow mpodpwv érecw retOnta 
"Ayatov ;—The xpiors tis yeévv. means the pronouncing of the 
sentence which condemns to Gehenna. The phrase judiciwm 
Gchennae is also of very frequent occurrence in Rabbinical 
writers. See Wetstein. The judgment comes when the 
measure is full. Comp. 1 Thess. u. 16. 

Ver. 34. 41a tovro] must be of substantially the same 
import as G7rws EXOn ep’ buds in ver. 35. Therefore, in order 
that ye may not escape the condemnation of hell (ver. 33), 
behold, I send to you... and ye will, etc.; nat é& adtav is 
likewise dependent on 8a todro. Awful unveiling of the 
divine decree. Others have interpreted as follows: d:oTe wédXeTE 
TANPGoat TO MEeTpov THS KaKlas THY TaTépov Luov (Euthymius 
Zigabenus, Fritzsche), thus arbitrarily disregarding what im- 
mediately precedes (ver. 35). Moreover, without any hint what- 


ihe readings tranpocers (D H, min.) and wxAnpacere (B* min. vss.) are 
nothing but traces of the difficulty felt in regard to the imperative. The 
former is preferred, though at the same time erroneously interpreted by Wilke, 
thetor. p. 867; the latter, again, is adopted by Ewald, who regards x. speis 
awanpwcere as also dependent on és, 


CHAP. XXIII. 34. Pie 


ever in the text of Matthew, idov, éyw droctédXo, «.T.X., has 
sometimes been taken for a quotation from some lost apocryphal 
prophecy, éfn o Geos, or some such expression, being under- 
stood (van Hengel, Annotatio, p. 1 ff., and Paulus, Strauss, 
Ewald, Weizsiicker),—a view borne out, least of all, by Luke 
xi. 49, which passage accounts for the unwarrantable inter- 
pretation into which Olshausen has been betrayed. The corre- 
sponding passage in Luke has the appearance of belonging to 
a later date (in answer to Holtzmann and others). Comp. on 
Luke xi. 49. — éyo] is uttered not by God (Ewald, Scholten), 
but by Jesus, and that under a powerful sense of His Messianic 
dignity, and with a boldness still more emphatically manifested 
by the use of ¢dov. Through this éy@ amootédXo, x.7.X., Jesus 
gives it to be understood that it is Himself who, in the future 
also, is still to be the object of hatred and persecution on the 
part of the Pharisees (comp. Acts ix. 5).—=apog¢ytas x. 
copous Kk. ypaup.| by whom He means His apostles and other 
teachers (Eph. iv. 11), who, in respect of the Messianic 
theocracy, would be what the Old Testament prophets were, 
and the Rabbins (0937) and scribes of a later time ought to 
have been, in the Jewish theocracy. For the last-mentioned 
order, comp. xill. 52. Olshausen is of opinion that the Old 
Testament prophets themselves must also have been intended 
to be included, and that dmooréAXw (which represents the 
near and certain future as already present) must indicate 
“God's pure and eternal present.” The subsequent futures 


1 « TJesus,”’ he says, ‘‘is here speaking as the very impersonation of wisdom ; 
Matthew has omitted the quotation formula, because his object was to represent 
Jesus as the one from whom the words originally and directly emanate ; but the 
original form of the passage is that in which it is found in Luke.” Strauss, 
in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 84 ff., also has recourse to the hypothesis of a 
lost book, belonging, as he thinks, to a date subsequent to the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and written by a Christian, and in which the messengers in question 
are understood to be those whom God has been sending from the very earliest 
times. In this Strauss, following in the wake of Baur, is influenced by anti- 
Johannine leanings. According to Ewald, a volume, written shortly after the 
death of the prophet Zechariah in the fifth century before Christ, but which 
is now lost, was entitled % ccPia cod éeod. The oravpwcezt, he thinks, was in- 
serted by Matthew himself. Bleek, in the Stud. u. Arit. 1853, p. 834, and in 
his commentary, agrees in the main with Ewald. 


ri2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


ought to have prevented any such construction being put 
upon the passage. For ypayp, comp. xiii. 52.—x«xati é& 
aut@v| ov mavtes (Euthymius Zigabenus), but more em- 
phatic than if we had had teas besides: and from their 
ranks ye will murder, etc., so that the actions are conceived 
of absolutely (Winer, p. 552 [E. T. 743]). The same words 
are solemnly repeated immediately after.— cai otavpo- 
oete] and among other ways of putting them to death, will 
crucify them, ve. through the Romans, for crucifixion was 
a oman punishment. As a historical case in point, one 
might quote (besides that of Peter) the crucifixion of Simeon, 
a brother of Jesus, recorded by Eusebius, H. Z. iii. 32. 
The meagreness, however, of the history of the apostolic 
age must be taken into account, though it must not be 
asserted that in otavpwoere Jesus was referring to His own 
case (Grotius, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Lange). He certainly 
speaks with reference to the third class of divine messengers, 
the class whom He is now sending (Calov.), but not from the 
standpoint of His eternal, ideal existence (Olshausen), nor in 
the name of God (Grotius), and then, again, from the stand- 
point of His personal manifestation in time (Olshausen), 
fancies for which there is no foundation either in Luke xi. 49 
or in the text itself. Jesus does not contemplate His own 
execution in what is said at ver. 32.— é€v tats cvvayoy.| 
x. 17.— amo TwoXews eis ToALY] x. 23. Comp. Xen. Anab. 
v. 4. 31: ets ti érépay &x Ths Etépas Trodews. 

Ver. 35.”Orws €NOn, k.7.A.] Teleology of the divine decree: 
in order that all the righteous (innocent) blood (Jonah i. 14; 
Joel 11.19; Ps. xciv. 21; 1 Mace. i. 37) may come upon you, 
ze. the punishment for shedding it. Comp. xxvii. 25. The 
scribes and Pharisees are regarded as the representatives of the 
people, and for whom, as their leaders, they are held vespon- 
sible. —atwa] “ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu, magna Vi,” 
3engel. And it is dtkacov, because it contains the life (see on 
Acts xv. 20). Comp. Delitzsch, Psych. p. 242. — éxyuvope- 
vov] present, conceived of as a thing going on in the present, 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 116. <A vivid picture, in which we seem 
to see the blood still actually flowing. On the later form 


CHAP, XXIII. 35. 113 


exyuve for éxyéw, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 726.— eri rHs 
ys] according to the canonical narrative (see below). — 
Zaxapiov viod Bapayxiov] refers to 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 
where Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, is said to have been stoned 
to death by order of King Joash, €v avAf oixov xupiov. Comp. 
Joseph. Antt. ix. 8. 3. The detail contained in peta€d, «.7.X., 
renders the narrative more precise, and serves to emphasize 
the atrocious character of a deed perpetrated, as this was, on 
so sacred a spot. Since, according to the arrangement of the 
books in the Hebrew Canon, Genesis stood at the beginning 
and 2 Chronicles at the end, and since the series here in- 
dicated opens with the case of Abel (Gen. iv. 10; Heb. x1. 4), 
so this (2 Chron. xxiv. 20) is regarded as the Jas¢t instance of 
the murder of a prophet, although, chronologically, that of 
Urijah (Jer. xxvi. 23) belongs to a more recent date. The 
Rabbinical writers likewise point to the murder of this 
Zacharias as one of a peculiarly deplorable nature ; see Zar- 
gum Lam. it. 20; Lightfoot on our passage. And how 
admirably appropriate to the scope of this passage are the 
words of the dying Zechariah: 17) TiN NY, 2 Chron. xxiv. 22; 
comp. with Gen. iv.10! If this latter is the Zacharias referred 
to in the text, then, inasmuch as the assumption that his 
father had two names (scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, 
Luther, Beza, Grotius, Elsner, Kanne, dib/. Unters. II. p. 198 ff.) 
is no less arbitrary than the supposition that viod Bapay. is 
a gloss (Wassenbergh, Kuinoel), there must, in any case, be 
some mistake in the quoting of the father’s name (de Wette, 
Bleek, Baumgarten-Crusius). It is probable that Jesus Him- 
self did not mention the father’s name at all (Luke xi. 51), 
and that it was introduced into the text from oral tradition, 
into which an error had crept from confounding the person 
here in question with the better known prophet of the same 
name, and whose father was called Barachias (Zech. i. 1). 
Comp. Holtzmann, p. 404. This tradition was followed by 
Matthew ; but in the Gospel of the Hebrews the wrong name 
was carefully avoided, and the correct one, viz. Jehoiada, 
inserted instead (Hilgenfeld, WV. 7. extra can. IV. p. 17, 11). 
According to others, the person referred to is that Zacharias 
MATT. IL, II 


114 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


who was murdered at the commencement of the Jewish war, 
and whose death is thus recorded by Joseph. Bell. iv. 6. 4: 
dvo 5é Tév ToApnpoTatwv (EMrwTadv) MpooTrecovTes ev perce 
TO lep@ SiaPOeipover tov Zaxaplav viov tod Bapovyov. 
So Hammond, Krebs, Hug, Credner, Hinl. I. p. 207, Gfrorer, 
Baur, Keim. It is the opinion of Hug that Jesus, as speak- 
ing prophetically, made use of the future tense, but that 
Matthew substituted a past tense instead, because when this 
Gospel was written the murder had already been committed 
(after the conquest of Gamala). Keim likewise finds in this 
a hint as to the date of the composition of Matthew. But 
apart from the fact that the names Barachias and Baruch are 
not one and the same, and that the reading in the passage 
just quoted from Josephus is doubtful (Var. Bapicxaiov), the 
alleged substitution of the aorist for the future would be so 
flagrantly preposterous, that a careful writer could scarcely 
be expected to do anything of the sort. As against this whole 
hypothesis, see besides Theile in Winer’s new. krit. Journ. II. 
p- 405 ff, Kuhn in the Jahrb. d. Theol. I. p. 350 ff. 
Finally, we may mention, only for the sake of recording them, 
the ancient opinions (in Chrysostom and Theophylact) that 
the Zacharias referred to in our passage was either the minor 
prophet of that name, or the father of the Baptist (see Prof- 
evang. Jac. 23). The latter view is that of Origen, Basil, 
Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylact, and several others among the 
Fathers (see Thilo, Praef. p. lxiv. f.); and recently of Miller. 
in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1841, p. 673 ff.—peta&d Tod vaod, 
«.7.r.| between the temple proper and the altar of burnt- 
offerings in the priests’ court. 

Ver. 36. “Hé&ev] Put first for sake of emphasis: shall come, 
shall inevitably come upon, etc. Comp. ix. 15, xxvii. 49. 
—Tayta Tavta] according to the context: all this shedding 
of blood, i.e. the punishment for it.— él 7. yeveav tavr.] 
See on xi. 16; upon this generation, which was destined to 
be overtaken by the destruction of Jerusalem and the judg- 
ments connected with the second coming (ver. 38 f.), comp. 
on xxiv. 34. 

Ver. 37 ff. After denouncing all those woes against the 


CHAP. XXIII. 38, 39. 115 


scribes and Pharisees, the departing Redeemer, looking with 
sad eye into the future, sets the holy city also—which He 
sees hastening to its destruction under the false guidance 
of those leaders—in a living connection with the tragic 
contents of ver. 34 ff, but in such a way that his parting 
words are no longer denunciations of woe, but the deep 
wail of a heart wounded, because its love has been despised. 
Thus ver. 37 ff. forms an appropriate conclusion to the whole 
drama of the discourse. Luke xiii. 34 introduces the words 
in a historical connection entirely different.— The repetition 
of the name of Jerusalem is here éwavtixos €X€os, Euthymius 
Zigabenus. — a7oKxtetvovea, «.t.r.] The present participles 
denote the wswal conduct: the murderess, the killer with stones. 
—mpos avtnv] to her; because the attributive participial 
clause from being in the nominative places the subject addressed 
under the point of view of the third person, and only then pro- 
ceeds (moodkis .. . Téxva cov) with the vocative of address in 
‘Iepovoadjp. Comp. Luke i. 45; Job xviii. 4; Isa. xxii. 16. 
With Beza and Fritzsche, ait#v might be read and taken as 
equivalent to ceavtjv; but adtyy is to be preferred, for this 
reason, that there is here no such special emphasis as to call 
for the use of the reflective pronoun (we should expect simply 
mpos ce in that case). — tocdxis, x.7.r.] The literal meaning 
of which is: “ How often I have wished to take thy citizens 
under my loving protection as Messiah!” For the metaphor, 
comp. Eurip. Here. Fur. 70 f., and the passages in Wetstein, 
Schoettgen, p. 208 (Rabbinical writers speak of the Shechinah 
as gathering the proselytes under its wings). Observe éautis : 
her own chickens. Such was the Jove that I felt toward you. 
On the form vooc. for veooc., see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 206. 
ovK eOerAnoaTeE] sc. EmicvvaxOhva ; they refused (Niigelsbach 
on Ji. iii. 289; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278), namely, to have 
faith in him as the Messiah, and consequently the blame 
rested with themselves. This refusal was their actual xpiua, 
John ix. 39. 

Ver. 38 f. “Adietas tpiv o oikos bp.] your house ts 
abandoned to your own disposal ; the time for divine help and 
protection for your city is now gone by! For the meaning, 


116 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, 


comp. Joseph. Antét. xx. 8. 5. The present implies the 
tragic and decisive ultimatum. The épyuos, which is to be 
retained on critical grounds (see critical notes), intimates 
what is to be the final result of this abandonment, viz. 
the destruction of Jerusalem (é€pyywous, xxiv. 45; Luke 
xxi. 20); on the proleptic use of the adjective, comp. on 
xii. 13, and Kiihner, II. 1, p. 236. According to the context, 
6 oikos tuo@v can only mean ‘Iepoveandijp, ver. 37 (Bleek), in 
which their children dwell ; not the city and the country at 
large (de Wette and earlier expositors, in accordance with 
Ps. lxix. 25), nor the whole body of the Jewish people (Keim), 
nor the temple (Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Calvin, Olearius, Wolf, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Neander, Baumeister 
in Klaiber’s Stud. II. p. 67 f.; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 92 ; 
Ewald). — Ver. 39 proceeds to account for this adpieras byuiv, 
x.T.X. Were your city any longer to be shielded by the divine 
protection, I would still linger among you; but I now leave 
you, and it is certain that henceforth (His presence among 
them, as He knows, being about to cease with His death, 
comp. xxvi. 64) you will not see me again until my second 
coming (not: in the destruction of Jerusalem, Wetstein), when 
I shall appear in the glory of the Messiah, and when, at my 
approach, you will have saluted (elmnre, dixeritis) me, whom 
you have been rejecting, with the Messianic confession evAoy7- 
pévos, «.T.X. (xxi. 9). This is not to be understood of the 
conversion of Israel (Rom. xi.; Rev. xi.) in its development 
down to the second coming (Bengel, Késtlin, Hofmann, Lange, 
Schegg, Auberlen, Ewald) ; for Jesus is addressing Jerusalem, 
and threatening it with the withdrawal of God’s superintend- 
ing care, and that until the second appearing of Messiah (6 
€pxopuevos), and hence He cannot have had in view an inter- 
vening perdvova and regeneration of the city. No; the 
abandonment of the city on the part of God, which Jesus here 
announces, is ultimately to lead to her destruction; and then, 
at His second appearing, which will follow immediately upon 
the ruin of the city (xxiv. 29), His obstinate enemies will be 
constrained to join in the loyal greeting with which the 
Messiah will be welcomed (xxi. 9), for the manifestation of 


CHAP. XXIII. 38, 39. Pe 


His glory will sweep away all doubt and opposition, and 
force them at last to acknowledge and confess Him to be their 
Deliverer. A truly tragic feature at the close of this moving 
address in which Jesus bids farewell to Jerusalem, not 
with a hope, but with the certainty of ultimate, though 
sorrowful, victory. Euthymius Zigabenus very justly observes 
in connection with éws ay elmnte, K.T.X.: Kal TOTE TOUTO elTHW- 
ow ; éxovtTes pev ovdeTroTe’ aKovTes SE KaTa TOV KaLpoV TIS 
Sevrépas avTod Trapovoias, dTav HEE peta Suvdpews Kal do&ns 
ToOAAHS, Stay ovdey avTois dpedos THs emvyvocews. Comp. 
Theophylact, Calvin, Gerhard, Calovius. Wieseler, p. 322, 
despairing of making sense of the passage, has gone the length 
of maintaining that some ancient reader of Matthew has 
inserted it from Luke. This view might seem, no doubt, to 
be favoured by the use, in the present instance, of “Iepovoadnp, 
ver. 37, the form in which the word regularly appears in Luke, 
and for which, on every other occasion, Matthew has ‘Iepooo- 
Avpa; but it might very easily happen that, in connection 
with an utterance by Jesus of so remarkable and special a 
nature, the form given to the name of the city in the fatal 
words addressed to her would become so stereotyped in the 
Greek version of the evangelic tradition, that here, in particular, 
the Greek translator of Matthew would make a point of not 
altering the form “‘Iepovcadnp,” which had come to acquire 
so fixed a character as part of the utterance before us. 


REMARK.—It is fair to assume that Christ’s exclamation over 
Jerusalem presupposes that the capital had repeatedly been 
the scene of His ministrations, which coincides with the visits 
on festival occasions recorded by John. Comp. Acts x. 39, 
and see Holtzmann, p. 440 f.; Weizsacker, p. 310. Those 
who deny this (among them being Hilgenfeld, Keim) must 
assume; with Eusebius in the Zheophan. (Nova bibl. patr. 
iv. 127), that by the children of Jerusalem are meant the 
Jews in general, inasmuch as the capital formed the centre of 
the nation ; comp. Gal. iv. 25. Baur himself (p. 127) cannot 
help seeing the far-fetched character of this latter supposition, 
and consequently has recourse to the unwarrantable view that 
we have before us the words of a prophet speaking in the name 
of God,—words which were first put into the mouth of Jesus 


118 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


in their present form, so that, when they were uttered, roodxi¢ 
would be intended to refer to the whole series of prophets and 
messengers, who had come in God’s name; just as Origen had 
already referred them to Moses and the prophets as well, in 
whom Christ was supposed to have been substantially present ; 
comp. Strauss in Hilgenfeld’s Zedtschr. 1863, p. 90. 


CHAP. XXIV, 119 


CHAP T HR. XL: 


VER. 2. For 6 6: "Iyoods we should read, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
6 6 droxpibeis, following important evidence. The insertion of 
the subject along with the participle led to the omission of the 
latter.— ot GAéwere] Fritzsche: Baérere, following D L X, min. 
vss. and Fathers. Ancient (It. Vulg.) correction for sake of the 
sense, after Mark xii. 2.— For zdévre raira we should read, 
with Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. 8, raira révrx, in accordance with 
a preponderance of evidence. — és 0d] Elz.: o¢ od «4, against 
decisive evidence. Mechanical repetition of the preceding od 
on. — Ver. 3. r7¢ cuvred.] The article is wanting in BC Lx, 
min. Cyr. (in the present instance), and has been correctly 
deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Superfluous addition. — Ver. 6. 
cévra] is wanting, no doubt, in B D L®&, min. vss., and has 
been deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it had been omitted 
in conformity with Mark xii. 7; while in some of the wit- 
nesses we find rai7a, in accordance with Luke xxi. 9, and in 
some others, again, révra raira (Fritzsche: raitra révra). The 
various corrections were occasioned by the unlimited character 
of révra.— Ver. 7. xa? Aosmo/| is wanting in B D E* 8, min. 
Cant. Ver. Vere. Corb. 2, Hilar. Arnob. Deleted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8. Other witnesses reverse the order of the words, 
which is strongly favoured by Luke. All the more are they to 
be regarded as inserted from Luke xxi. 11.— Ver. 9. Elz. has 
édvav. But the reading ray 2dvay has a decided preponderance of 
evidence in its favour; and then how easily might ray be 
overlooked after zévrwy! The omission of ray 26vav in C, min. 
Chrys. was with a view to conformity with Mark and Luke. 
— Ver. 15. torus] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.: éorés, follow- 
ing a preponderance of MS. authority (including B* 8), and 
correctly. The transcribers have contracted into éorws what, 
strictly speaking, should be spelt éoraés, though the spelling 
éorés is also met with in classical writers. — Ver. 16. éz/] 
Lachm.: </s, following B D A, min. Fathers. Adopted from 
Mark xiii. 14; Luke xxi. 21. Mark is likewise the source of 
the reading xaraSdrw, ver. 17,in BDLZx, min. Or. Caes. Isid. 


120 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Chrys., and which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have adopted. — 
For v é, as in Elz., read, with Lachm. and Tisch., rd éz, fol- 
lowing decisive evidence. — Ver. 18. ra iwaria] rd iwdriov, no 
doubt, has weighty evidence in its favour, and is approved by 
Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it is taken 
from Mark xiii. 16.— Ver. 20. The simple caPGdérw (Elz.: év 
ca.) 1s Supported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 23. riorebonre | 
Lachm.: siozevere, following only B* Or. Taken from Mark 
xi. 21.— Ver. 24. For rravjou: Tisch. 8 has rAavndyjves, follow- 
ing D x8, codd. of It. Or."* and several other Fathers. The 
reading of the Received text is, no doubt, supported by pre- 
ponderating evidence; but how readily might the active have 
been substituted for the passive in conformity with vv. 5, 11! 
— Ver. 27. xaé is, with Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted 
after goras, in accordance with decisive evidence. Inserted in 
conformity with the usual mode of expression; in vv. 37, 39 
we should likewise delete the xa, which Tisch. 8 retains in 
ver. 39.— Ver. 28. y&] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, follow- 
ing B DLS, min. vss. and Fathers. Correctly. A common 
insertion of the connecting particle. This is more probable than 
the supposition that a fastidious logic took exception to the 
kind of connection. — Ver. 30. rére xé-p.] The omission of rére 
by Tisch. 8 is without adequate evidence, having among the 
uncials only that of 8*. Had the words been inserted in 
accordance with Mark xiii. 26, Luke xxi. 27, they would have 
been placed before tovras.— Ver. 31. gwv%s] is not found in 
L AX, min. Copt. Syr. and several Fathers. Being awkward 
and superfluous, it was in some cases omitted altogether, in 
others (Syr.* Aeth., also Syr.”, though with an asterisk at guy.) 
placed before caav., and sometimes it was conjoined with car. 
by inserting x«/ after this latter (D, min. Vulg. It. Hilar. Aug. 
Jer.).— For the second éxpay Lachm. has ray &xp., following only 
B, 1, 13, 69.—- Ver. 34. After Aéyw iui, Lachm., in accordance 
with B D F L, min. It. Vulg. Or., inserts é7:, which, however, 
may readily have crept in from Mark xiii. 30; Luke xxi. 32. 
— Ver. 35." Griesb. and the more recent editors (with the ex- 
ception, however, of Matth. and Scholz) have adopted capered- 
cera: in preference to the raupersdoovra: of Elz., following B D L, 
min. Fathers. The plural is taken from Mark xiii. 31; Luke 
xxl 33,— Ver. 36. Before dpas Elz. has ric, which, though 
defended by Schulz, is condemned by decisive evidence. Super- 


? The omission of this whole verse by N*, an omission sanctioned neither by 
earlier nor by later evidence, is simply an error of the transcriber. 


\ 


CHAP. XXIV. LZe 


fluous addition. Comp. ver. 3.— After odpavdy Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8 have od6: 6 vids, in accordance with B D &, min. codd. of 
It. Syr. Aeth. Arm. Chrys. Or.** Hil. Ambr., etc. Fora detailed 
examination of the evidence, see Tisch. The words are an 
ancient interpolation from Mark xiii. 32. Had it been the case 
‘that they originally formed part of our passage, but were deleted 
for dogmatic reasons, it is certain that, having regard to the 
christological importance sometimes ascribed to them (“ gaudet 
Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri,” Jerome), they 
would have been expunged from Mark as well. The interpola- 
tion was all the more likely to take place in the case of Matthew, 
from its serving to explain wuéves (which latter does not occur in 
Mark). — Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7 have mov after rarjp. De- 
fended by Schulz, though deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8. 
It is likewise adopted by Fritzsche, who, however, deletes the 
following wévs, which is wanting only in Sahid. In deference 
to the ordinary usage in Matthew (vii. 21, x. 32 f, etc.), wou 
should be restored. It is wanting, no doubt,in BD LATS, 
min. vss. and Fathers, but it may readily enough have been 
omitted in consequence of the MO immediately following it, all 
the more that it is not found in Mark. — Ver. 37. 6é] Lachm. : 
yap, following B D I,vss. Fathers. An exegetical gloss.— Ver. 38. 
vrais xpo] is deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7, in accordance 
with some few, and these, too, inadequate witnesses (Origen, 
however). Coming as it does after ver. 37, it had been mechani- 
cally omitted ; it can scarcely have been inserted as the result 
of reflection. Before raig Lachm. has éxsivous, following B D 
(which latter omits rai), codd. of It.—a reading which ought to 
be adopted, all the more because in itself it is not indispensable, 
and because it was very apt to be omitted, in consequence of the 
similarity in the termination of the words. — For éxyamiZovres 
read yamiZovres, with Tisch. 8, following D 8, 33, Chrys.; comp. 
on xxii. 30.— Ver. 40. For 6 eg Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have 
simply «is in both instances, following B D I L®, min. (A and 
Chrys. leave out the article only in the first case). For sake of 
uniformity with ver. 41.— Ver. 41. wvadys] Lachm. and Tisch. : 
wirw, following preponderating evidence; the reading of the 
Received text is intended to be more precise. —- Ver. 42. wpa] 
Lachm. and Tisch.: juépg. So BDI AS, min. Ir. Cyr. Ath. 
Hilar. and vss. The reading of the Received text is by 
way of being more definite. Comp. ver. 44.— Ver. 45. airod 
after zips is wanting in important witnesses (deleted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8), but it must have been left out to 
conform with Luke xii. 42.— dspamseias| Lachm. and Tisch.: 


4 


122 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


cixereiac, following B I L A, min. Correctly; from the word 
not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, it would be 
explained by the gloss ofzxias (8, min. Ephr. Bas. Chrys.), or at 
other times by é:pax.— For the following d:ééves read dotver, with 
Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with prepon- 
derating evidence. — Ver. 46. rosodvra otrws| Lachm. and 
Tisch. : odrws rootvra, following BC DIL», min. Vulg. It. Aeth. 
Tr. Hil. The reading of the Received text is from Luke xii. 43. 
— Ver. 48. The order jou 6 xdpioe is favoured by a preponderance 
of evidence, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., ought to be preferred. 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 omit 27%, though on somewhat weaker 
evidence ; éAés# is further confirmed by the reading ¢pyeodas in 
min. Or. Bas., which is taken from Luke xii. 45. The infini- 
tive not being indispensable (comp. xxv. 5), was passed over. — 
Ver. 49. airod, which is wanting in Elz. (and Tisch. 7), has 
been restored by Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. 8, in accordance 
with preponderating evidence. Similarly with regard to éodiy 
6: xa) rivn (for todiey 6: xai sivew in Elz.), which has decisive 
evidence in its favour, and is an altered form of Luke xii. 45. 


Ver. 1. On the following discourse generally, see: Dorner, 
de orat. Chr. eschatologica, 1844; R. Hofmann, Wiederkunft 
Chr. u. Zeichen d. Menschensohnes, 1850; Hebart, d. zweite 
sichtb. Zuk. Chr. 1850; Scherer in the Strassb. Beitr. 1851, 
II. p. 83 ffi; E. J. Meyer, krit. Comment. zu d. eschatolog. 
Rede Matth. xxiv. xxv., I, 1857; Cremer, d. eschatolog. 
Rede Matth. xxiv., xxv., 1860; Luthardt, Lehre v. d. letzten 
Dingen, 1861; Hoelemann, Bibelstudien, 1861, II. p. 129 ff. ; 
Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 213 ff.; Pfleiderer in 
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1868, p. 134 ff; Kienlen, zdid. 1869, 
p. 706 ff., and Commentaire sur Vapocalypse, 1870, p. 1 f£.; 
Wittichen, [dee d. Reiches Gottes, 1872, p. 219 ff.; Weissen- 
bach, d. Wiederkunfts-gedanke Jesu, 1873, p. 69 ff, comp. 
his Jesu in regno coel. dignitas, 1868, p. 79 ff.; Colani, Jésus 
Christ et les croyances messian. de son temps, ed. 2, 1864, 
p. 204 ff—tThe parallel passages are Mark xiii., Luke xxi. 
Luke, however, in accordance with his own independent way 
of treating his narrative, does not merely omit many particulars 
and put somewhat differently many of those which he records 
(as is likewise the case with Mark), but he introduces nota 
few in a different, and that an earlier historical connection 


CHAP. XXIV. 1. EAS 


(ch. xii. 17). But this would not justify us, as Luther, 
Schleiermacher, Neander, Hase suppose, in using Luke’s nar- 
rative for correcting Matthew (Strauss, II. p. 337 f.; Holtz- 
mann, p. 200 ff.), to whom, as the author of the collection 
of our Lord’s sayings, precedence in point of authority is 
due. It must be admitted, however, that it is precisely the 
eschatological discourses, more than any others, in regard to 
which it is impossible to determine how many modifications 
of their original form may have taken place’ under the influ- 
ence of the ideas and expectations of the apostolic age, 
although the shape in which they appeared first of all was 
given to them, not by Mark (Holtzmann, p. 95; see, on the 
other hand, Weiss), but by Matthew in his collection of the 
sayings of our Lord. This is to be conceded without any 
hesitation. At the same time, however, we must as readily 
allow that the discourse is characterized by all the unity and 
consecutiveness of a skilful piece of composition, and allow it 
all the more that any attempt to distinguish accurately between 
the original elements and those that are not original (Keim) only 
leads to great uncertainty and diversity of opinion in detail. But 
the idea that portions of a Jewish (Weizsiicker) or Judaeo-Chris- 
tian (Pfleiderer, Colani, Keim, Weissenbach) apocalyptic writing 
have been mixed up with the utterances of Jesus, appears not 
only unwarrantable in itself, but irreconcilable with the early 
date of the first two Gospels, especially in their relation to the 
collection of our Lord’s sayings (Aoyia). — €€eX Pwr] from the 
temple, xxi. 23. — émopeveto ao Tod tepod] He went away 
from the temple, withdrew to some distance from it. Comp. 
xxv. 41. For this interpretation we require neither a hyper- 
baton (Fritzsche, de Wette), according to which azo Tt. tepod 


1 Although the contents of the discourse itself, as well as the earlier date of 
the first two Gospels generally, decidedly forbid the supposition that it was not 
composed till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that, consequently, it 
assumes this latter to have already taken place (Credner, Baur, Késtlin, Hilgen- 
feld, Volkmar). If this supposition were correct, the discourse would have to 
be regarded as a late product of the apostolic age, and therefore as a vaticiniwm 
post eventum. Further, the eschatological views of the apostolical Epistles, 
though they presuppose corresponding teaching on the part of Jesus, by no 
means imply any knowledge of the specific discourses in ch. xxiv., xxy. (in 
answer to E, J. Meyer, p. 50 ff.). 


124 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


would belong to éeA@av,' nor the accentuation dro (Bornemann 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 108 f.).— Tas ofkodopas Tod 
tepod| not merely Tod vaod, but the whole of the buildings 
connected with the temple, all of which, with the vads and 
the porches and the courts, constituted the ‘epdv. Comp. on 
iv 5. The magnificent structures (Joseph. Bell. v. 5. 6, vi. 
4. 6,8; Tac. Hist. v. 8. 12) were not then finished as yet, see 
on John ii. 21.—Even Chrysostom, Erasmus, and Bengel 
did not fail to perceive that what Jed the disciples to direct the 
attention of Jesus to the temple-buildings was the announce- 
ment contained in xxiii. 38, which, though it did not refer 
caclusively to the temple, necessarily included the fate of 
this latter as well. This the disciples could not but notice; 
and so, as they looked back and beheld the splendours of the 
entire sacred edifice, they could not help asking Jesus further 
to explain Himself, which He does at’once in ver. 2, and 
in terms corresponding with what He had announced in 
xxii. 38. 

Ver. 2. Ov? BrErete tadta Tava (see critical notes) 
does not mean: “ do not gaze so much at all this” (Paulus), 
in which case 7, at least, would be required; nor: “ are you 
not astonished at all this magnificence” (de Wette, following 
Chrysostom) ? which would be to import a different meaning 
into the simple SAézere; but: ye sce not all this, by which, of 
course, Jesus does not intend the mere temple-buildings ia 
themselves considered, but the doom which awaits all those 
splendid edifices,—a doom which He at once proceeds to reveal. 
Instead of having an eye to perceive all this, to them every- 
thing looked so magnificent; they were @dézovres ov BAEé- 
movtes (xiii. 13), so that they were incapable of seeing the 
true state of matters as regarded the temple; it was hid from 
their eyes. The more vividly Jesus Himself foresaw the 

1 This supposition, indeed, has likewise led to the transposition : 70 (Lachm. : 
zx, following B) rod ispov txop:vero (B D L AN, min. vss. Fathers), which order is 
adopted by Tisch. 8. 

2 Among modern critics, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, 
Bleek, have decided in favour of omitting od, as approved by Griesbach and 


Schulz. Among those belonging to an earlier date, Casaubon says distinctly, 
with regard to the negative: ‘‘ hic locum non potest habere.” 


CHAP. XXIV. 2. 182) 


coming ruin; the more distinct the terms in which He had 
just been pointing to it, xxiii. 38; the deeper the emotion 
with which He had taken that touching farewell of the 
temple; the fuller, moreover, the acquaintance which the 
disciples must have had with the prophecy in Dan. ix; 
and the greater the perplexity with which, as the Lord was 
aware, they continued to regard His utterance about the temple, 
xxiii. 38; so much the more intelligible is this introduc- 
tory passage, in which Jesus seeks to withdraw their attention 
from what presents itself to the mere outward vision, and open 
their eyes in order that as ya) BAémovres PAErwor (John ix. 39). 
Further, it is better to take this pregnant utterance in an 
affirmative rather than in an wterrogative sense, as is usually 
done, because there is no preceding assertion on the part of 
the disciples to which the question of swrprise might be said 
to correspond. Grulich (de loci Matth. xxiv. 1, 2, interpret., 
1839) places the emphasis on 7dvta: “ videtis quidem Taira, 
sed non videtis tavra wavta (nimirum templi desolationem, 
ete.).” So also Hoelemann. This is improbable, if for no 
other reason than the ordinary usage as regards tavta qavta, 
which has no such refinement of meaning anywhere else. 
Jesus would simply have said: od wdavta Brémere. Borne- 
mann, as above, after other attempts at explanation, finds it 
simplest to interpret as follows: ye see not; of all this, believe 
me, not one stone will remain upon another, etc. He thinks 
that what Jesus meant to say was: tatta mdavta KatadvOn- 
cera, but that He interrupts Himself in order to introduce 
the asseveration duv Aéyw vuiv, and so breaks the construc- 
tion. That Jesus, however, would not merely have broken 
the construction, but still more would have used the words 
ov pn adeOj without any logical reference to tadta maya, 
is Clearly indicated by @de, which therefore contradicts the 
explanation just given. — 0s od catadv9.] For ov, see Winer, 
p. 448 [E. T. 604]; Buttmann, p. 305 [E T. 355]. Not 
a stone will be left upon another without being thrown down. 
Occurring as it does in a prophetical utterance, this hyperbolical 
language should not be strained in the least, and certainly it 
ought not to be made use of for the purpose of disproving 


126 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


the genuineness of the passage; see, as against this abuse, 
Keim, III. p. 190 ff.; Weissenbach, p. 162 ff And on 
account of Rev. xi. 1 ff., comp. also Weizsicker, p. 548 f. 
Ver. 3. Kar idiav] unaccompanied by any but such as 
belonged to the number of the Twelve, because they were 
going to ask Him to favour them with a secret revelation. 
Differently Mark xiii, 3.—tadra] those disastrous events 
of ver. 2.— «al ti TO onpetor, x.7.r.] The disciples assume, 
as matter of course, that immediately after the destruction in 
question the Lord will appear, in accordance with what is said 
xxii. 39, for the purpose of setting up His kingdom, and that 
with this the current (the pre-Messianic) era of the world’s 
history will come to an end. Consequently they wish to 
know, i the second place (for there are only two questions, not 
three, as Grotius, Ebrard suppose), what is to be the sign 
which, after the destruction of the temple, is to precede this 
second coming and the end of the world, that by it they may 
be able to recognise the approach of those events. The above 
assumption, on the part of the disciples, is founded on the 
doctrine respecting the mwnn San, dolores Messiae, derived 
from Hos. xiii. 13. See Schoettgen, II. p. 550;. Bertholdt, 
Christol. p. 43 ff. — tis offs tapovoias] After his repeated 
intimations of future suffering and death, the disciples could 
not conceive of the advent of Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. 
ii. 19; in the Gospels peculiar to Matthew) to set up His 
kingdom and make a permanent stay in any other way than 
as a solemn second coming. After His resurrection they ex- 
pected the Risen One straightway to set up His kingdom (Acts 
i. 6),—a very natural expectation when we bear in mind that 
the resurrection was an unlooked-for event; but, after the 
ascension, their hopes were directed, in accordance with the 
express promises of Jesus, to the coming from heaven, 
which they believed was going to take place ere long, Acts 
i. 11, i 20 f, al, and the numerous passages in the 
New Testament Epistles. Comp. Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. 
Deutsche Theol. 1862, p. 354 ff. Observe, too, the em- 
phatic ofs coming after the general expression tadta. — kat 
cuvTer, TOD ai@vos| In the Gospels we find no trace of 


CHAP. XXIV. 4. LO 


the millenarian ideas of the Apocalypse. The Tod aldvos, 
with the article, but not further defined, is to be understood 
as referring to the existing, the then current age of the world, 
ie. to the ai@v obtos, which is brought to a close (cuvTéAea) 
with the second coming, inasmuch as, with this latter event, 
the aiwv péd\rAwy begins. See on xiii. 39. The second 
coming, the resurrection and the last judgment, fall upon 
the éoydtn juépa (John vi. 39, xi. 24), which, as it will 
be the last day of the ai@y obros in general, so of the éoyd- 
tov nuepov (Acts ii. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3; Heb. i. 2; 
2 Pet. ili. 3) in particular, or of the xaspos Eryatos (1 Pet. 
i. 5), or of the ypovos éoxyatos (Jude 18; 1 Pet. i. 20), which 
John likewise calls the éoyatn dpa (1 John ii. 18). This 
concluding period, which terminates with the last day, is to 
be characterized by abounding distress and wickedness (see 
on Gal. i. 4). The article was unnecessary before cuvtededas, 
seeing that it is followed by the genitive of specification ; 
Waner: ps dtS)f. (ET, 155]. 

Ver. 4. The reply of Jesus is directed, in the first instance, 
to the second question (ti TO onueiov, x.7.d.), Inasmuch as He 
indicates, as the discourse advances, the things that are to pre- 
cede His second coming, till, in ver. 28, He reaches the point 
which borders immediately upon the latter event (see ver. 29). 
But this answer to the second question involves, at the same 
time, an indirect answer to the first, in so far as it was possible 
to give this latter at all (for see ver. 36), and in so far as it 
was advisable to do so, if the watchfulness of the disciples was 
to be maintained. The discourse proceeds in the following 
order down to ver. 28: first there is a warning with regard 
to the appearing of false Messiahs (extending to ver. 5), then 
the announcement of the beginning and development of the 
dolores Messiae on to their termination (vv. 6-14), and finally 
the hint that these latter are to end with the destruction of 
the temple and the accompanying disasters (vv. 15-22), 
with a repetition of the warning against false Messiahs 
(vv. 23-28). Ebrard (adv. erroneam nonnull. opinion., qua 
Christus Christique apost. existumasse perhibentur, fore ut univ. 
tudiciwum ipsor. actate superveniret, 1842) finds in vy. 4-14 


128 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. - 


the reply of Jesus to the disciples’ second question. He thinks 
that in ver. 15 Jesus passes to the first, and that in ver. 29 
He comes back “ad onyetoy ths éavtod Tapovolias Kat 
€foynv, ic. ad secundae quaestionis partem priorem.” This 
supposition is simply the result of an imperious dogmatic pre- 
conception, and cannot be justified on any fair exegetical 
principle. See below. Dorner, who spiritualizes the dis- 
course, understands vv. 4-14 as setting forth the nature of 
the gospel and its necessary development, while he regards 
what follows, from ver. 15 onward, as describing the historical 
“decursum Christianae religionis;” he thinks that Jesus 
desired by this means to dispel the premature Messianic 
hopes of the disciples, and make them reflect on what they 
must bear and suffer “ut evangelium munere suo /istorico 
perfungi possit.” 

Vv. 4, 5. In the first place—and how appropriate and 
necessary, considering the eagerness of the disciples for the 
second coming !—a warning against false Messiahs, and then 
ver. 6f. the first, far off, indirect prognostics of the second 
advent, like the roll of the distant thunder. — émi rt. dvop. 
prov] on the strength of my name, so that they rest their claims 
upon the name of Messiah, which they arrogate to themselves. 
Comp. xviii. 5. The following Aéyovtes, «.7.r. is epexegetical. 
We possess no historical record of any false Messiahs having 
appeared previous to the destruction of Jerusalem (Barcochba 
did not make his appearance till the time of Hadrian); for 
Simon Magus (Acts vii. 9), Theudas (Acts v. 36), the 
Egyptian (Acts xxi. 38), Menander, Dositheus, who have been 
referred to as cases in point (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Grotius, Calovius, Bengel), did not pretend to be the Messiah. 
Comp. Joseph. Anti. xx. 5.1; 8.6; Bell. ii. 13.5. Then as 
for the period subsequent to the destruction of the capital, it is 
not here in question (in answer to Luthardt, Cremer, Lange) ; 
for see on ver. 29. And consequently it cannot have been 
intended, as yet, to point to such personages as Manes, Mon- 
tanus, and least of all Mohammed. 

Ver. 6. 4é] continuative: but to turn now from this pre- 
liminary warning to your question itself—ye will hear, ete. 


CHAP. XXIV..'6. 129 


This reply to the disciples’ question as to the events that 
were to be the precursors of the destruction of the temple 
(comp. 7rore, ver. 3),-is so framed that the prophetic outlook is 
directed first to the more general aspect of things (to what is 
to take place on the theatre of the world at large, vv. 6-8), 
and then to what is of a more special nature (to what con- 
cerns the disciples and the community of Christians, vv. 9-14). 
For the future werrjo. (you will have to), comp. 2 Pet. i. 12 ; 
Plat. Ep. vii. p. 326 C.—odrémous Kk. akoas Todepnor] 
said with reference to wars near at hand, the din and tumult 
of which are actually heard, and to wars at a distance, of which 
nothing is known except from the reports that are brought 
home. — opate, 2 Opoeicbe] take care, be not terrified. 
For OpoeicGe, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2; Song of Sol. v. 4; on 
the two imperatives, as in vill. 4, 15, ix. 30, see Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 209 [E. T. 243].— de? yap wavta yevéo8at] 
they are not to be terrified, because it is necessary that all that 
should take place. The reflection that it isa matter of necessity 
in pursuance of the divine purpose (xxvi. 54), is referred to 
as calculated to inspire a calm and reassured frame of mind. 
mavta is to be understood as meaning : everything that is then 
to happen, not specially (ta wavta, tadta tavta, comp. critical 
notes) the matters indicated by perArjoete ... mordéuar, but 
rather that: nothing, which begins to take place, can stop 
short of its full accomplishment. The emphasis, however, is on 
del. — aX ovTw é€oTl TO TéXoS] however, this will not be as 
yet the final consummation, so that you will require to preserve 
your equanimity still further. Comp. Hom. Ji. ii. 122: tédos 
& ov we Ti Tépavtat. To TédXos cannot mean the cvyTédea, 
ver. 3 (Chrysostom, Ebrard, Bleek, Lange, Cremer, Auberlen, 
Hoelemann, Gess), but, as the context proves by the correlative 
expression apy7 @divwv, ver. 8, and by 7d Tédos, ver. 14, 
comp. with ody, ver. 15, the end of the troubles at present under 
consideration. Inasmuch, then, as these troubles are to be 
straightway followed by the world’s last crisis and the signs 
of the Messiah’s advent (vv. 29, 30), ro réXos must be taken 
as referring to the end of the dolores Messiae. This end is the 
laying waste of the temple and the unparalleled desolation of 
MATT. IL. I 


130 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW 


the jand that is to accompany it. Ver. 15 ff. This is also 
substantially equivalent to de Wette’s interpretation: “the 
decisive winding up of the present state of things (and along 
with it the climax of trouble and affliction).” 

Ver. 7. I'dp] it is not quite the end as yet; for the situa- 
tion will become still more turbulent and distressing: nation 
will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, ete. 
We have here depicted in colours borrowed from ancient 
prophecy (Isa. xix. 2), not only those risings, becoming more 
and more frequent, which, after a long ferment, culminated in 
the closing scene of the Jewish war and led to the destruction 
of Jerusalem, but also those convulsions in nature by which 
they were accompanied. That this prediction was fulfilled cn 
its general aspects is amply confirmed, above all, by the well- 
known accounts of Josephus; but we are forbidden by the 
very nature of genuine prophecy, which cannot and is not 
meant to be restricted to isolated points, either to assume 
or try to prove that such and such historical events are special 
literal fulfilments in concrete of the individual features in 
the prophetic outlook before us,— although this has been 
attempted very recently, by Kostlin in particular. As for the 
Parthian wars and the risings that took place some ten years 
after in Gaul and Spain, they had no connection whatever with 
Jerusalem or Judaea. There is as little reason to refer (Wet- 
stein) the vrodeuous of ver. 6 to the war waged by Asinaeus 
and Alinaeus against the Parthians (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 9. 1), 
and the dxoas mroAéuov to the Parthian declaration of war 
against King Izates of Adiabene (Joseph. Antt. xx. 3. 3), or to 
explain the latter (axods modéuwv) of the struggles for the 
imperial throne that had broken out after the death of Nero 
(Hilgenfeld). Jesus, who sees rising before Him the horrors 
of war and other calamities connected, ver. 15, with the coming 
destruction of Jerusalem, presents a picture of them to the 
view of His hearers. Comp. 4 Esdr. xiii. 21; Sohar Chadasch, 
f. viii. 4: “Ilo tempore bella in mundo excitabuntur; gens 
erit contra gentem, et urbs contra urbem: angustiae multae 
contra hostes Israelitarum innovabuntur.”  SBeresch. Rabba, 
42 f., 41.1: “Si videris regna contra se invicem insurgentia, 


CHAP. XXIV. 8, 9. ESL 


tunc attende, et adspice pedem Messiae.” — Acpot x. cevcpol] 
see critical notes. Nor, again, is this feature in the prediction 
to be restricted to some such special famine as that which 
occurred during the reign of Claudius (Acts xi. 28), too early 
a date for our passage, and to one or two particular cases of 
earthquake which happened in remote countries, and with which 
history has made us familiar (such as that in the neighbour- 
hood of Colossae, Oros. Hist. vii. 7, Tacit. Ann. xiv. 27, and 
that at Pompeii).— «ata tomovs]| which is applicable only 
to gevopol, as in Mark xiii. 8, is to be taken distributively 
(Bernhardy, p. 240; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 414): locatim, travel- 
ling from one district to another. The equally grammatical 
interpretation: in various localities here and there (Grotius, 
Wetstein, Raphel, Kypke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Késtlin, Bleek), 
is rather too feeble to suit the extraordinary character of the 
events referred to. In vv. 6, 7, Dorner finds merely an em- 
bodiment of the thought: “ evangelium gladii instar dissecabit 
male conjuncta, ut vere jungat; naturae autem phaenomena 
concomitantia quasi depingent motus et turbines in spiritu- 
alibus orbibus orturos.” 

Ver. 8. But all this will be the beginning of woes (Euthymius 
Zigabenus: mpooiuwia Tav cvudpopev), will stand in the same 
relation to what is about to follow, as the beginning of the 
birth- pangs does to the much severer pains which come 
after. It is apparent from ver. 7 that éoraz is understood. 
The figure contained in ®@édivwv is to be traced to the popular 
way of conceiving of the troubles that were to precede the 
advent of the Messiah as mwnn San. Comp. on ver. 3. 

Ver. 9. Jesus now exhibits the seguel of this universal 
beginning of woes in its special bearing upon the disciples 
and the whole Christian community. Comp. on x. 17 ff.— 
tote] then, when what is said at ver. 7 will have begun. 
Differently in Luke xxi. 12 (apo 6é rovrwv), where, though 
Tore is not in any way further defined (Cremer), we have 
clearly a correction in order to adapt the expression to the 
persecutions that in the evangelist’s time had already begun. 
Seeing that the expressions are distinctly different from each 
other, it is not enough to appeal to the “ elasticity” of the tore 





132 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


(Hoelemann).— azroxtrevodatv tuas| spoken generally, not 
as intimating, nor even presupposing (Scholten), the death of 
all of them. After wapadwc. twas the current of prophetic 
utterance flows regularly on, leaving to the hearers themselves 
to make the necessary distinctions. —xat écecOe ptoov- 
pevot] It is a mistake to suppose that we have here a reference 
to Nero’s persecution (proceeding upon an erroneous inter- 
pretation of the well-known “ odio humani generis” in Tacit. 
Ann. xv. 44, see Orelli on the passage), because it is the 
disciples that are addressed ; and to regard them as the repre- 
sentatives of Christians in general, or as the sum total of the 
church (Cremer), would be arbitrary in the highest degree; the 
discourse does not become general in its character till ver. 10. 
Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 13. —im6 mavtov Tr. €Ovdr] by all nations. 
What a confirmation of this, in all general respects, is fur- 
nished by the history of the apostles, so far as it is known to 
us! But we are not justified in saying more, and especially 
when we take into account the prophetic colouring given to 
our discourse, must we beware of straining the wavtwy in 
order to favour the notion that the expression contains an 
allusion to the vast and long-continued efforts that would 
be made to disseminate the gospel throughout the world 
(Dorner) ; let us repeat that it is the apostles who are in 
question here. Comp. x. 17 f., 22. 

Ver. 10. Kai tore] and then, when those persecutions 
will have broken out against you.— ocxavdartcOnoorvtac 
‘moAnol| many will receive a shock, 1.e. many Christians will 
be tempted to relapse into unbelief, see on xii. 21. For the 
converse of offendentur in this sense, see ver. 13. Conse- 
quence of this falling away: cat aAXHAOUS Tapadwa.] one 
another, 2.e. the Christian who has turned apostate, him who 
has continued faithful. What a climax the troubles have 
reached, seeing that they are now springing up in the very 
heart of the Christian community itself! 

Ver. 11. Besides this ruinous apostasy in consequence of 
persecution from without, there is the propagation of error by 
false Christian teachers living in the very bosom of the church 
itself (comp. vil. 15). These latter should not be more 


CHAP, XXIV. 12, 13. 133 


precisely defined (Kostlin: “ extreme antinomian tendencies ;” 
Hilgenfeld: “those who adhere to Pauline views;” comp. 
also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 586, ed. 2). The history of the 
apostolic age has sufficiently confirmed this prediction, Acts 
m8 04. Jobe ave: lt 

Ver. 12. And in consequence of the growing prevalence of 
wickedness (as the result of what is mentioned in vv. 10, 11), 
the love of the greater number will become cold ; that pre- 
dominance of evil within the Christian community will 
have the effect of cooling the brotherly love of the majority 
of its members. The moral degeneracy within the pale of 
that community will bring about as its special result a pre- 
vailing want of charity, that specific contrast to the true 
characteristic of the Christian life (Gal. v. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 1 ff. ; 
1 John iv. 20). For avouia, the opposite of moral compliance 
with the law of God (= dwapria, 1 John iii. 4), comp. vii. 23, 
xiii. 41, xxiii. 28; 2 Cor. vi. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 7. For yoryeu 
with y, comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 318.—t@v modd@r] are 
not the 7oAAo/ mentioned in ver. 10 (Fritzsche), whose love, 
as that verse informs us, is already changed into hatred, but 
the multitude, the mass, the great body (Kihner, IT. 1, p. 548 ; 
Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 148) of Christians. In the case of those 
who were distinguished above the ordinary run of Christians, 
no such cooling was to take place; but yet, as compared with 
the latter, they were only to be regarded as oAdyot. According 
to Dorner, vv. 11, 12 apply not to the apostolic age, but 
to a subsequent stage in the history of the church. But 
such a view is inconsistent with the numerous testimonies to 
be met with in the Epistles, with the apprehensions and 
expectations regarding impending events to which they give 
expression. Comp. on Gal. i. 4. 

Ver. 13. ‘O dé brropeivas] contrast to what in the cxar- 
daricOns. moddot of ver. 10 and the wAaviyjo. wodXovs of ver. 
12 is described as apostasy, partly from the faith generally, 
and partly (ver. 12) from the ¢rwe Christian faith and life. 
Comp. x. 22. According to Fritzsche, it is only the per- 
severing in love that is meant, so that the contrast has 
reference merely to Wuyycetat, «.7.A. But according to our 


134 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


interpretation, the contrast is more thorough and_ better 
suited to the terms of the passage.—eés TédXos] not 
perpetuo (Fritzsche), which, as the connection shows (ver. 6), 
is too indefinite; but: wnto the end, till the last, until the 
troubles will have come to an end, which, as appears from 
the context (cwOyjceraz), will, in point of fact, be coincident 
with the second advent. Comp. vv. 30, 31, x. 22. The con- 
text forbids such interpretations as: wnto death (Elsner, Kuinoel, 
Ebrard), wntil the destruction of Jerusalem (Krebs, Rosenmiiller, 
R. Hofmann), cwOjcerat being referred in the latter case to 
the flight of the Christians to Pella (Eusebius, H. £. iii. 5). 
Of course ver. 13 describes the “ sanam hominis Christiani dis- 
positionem spiritualem ad eschatologiam pertinentem ” (Dorner), 
always on the understanding, however, that the second advent 
is at hand, and that the “ homo Christianus ” will live to see tt. 

Ver. 14. Having just uttered the words els 7édos, Christ 
now reveals the prospect of a most encouraging state of matters 
which is immediately to precede and usher in the consum- 
mation indicated by this e¢s réXos, namely, the preaching of 
the gospel throughout the whole world in spite of the hatred 
and apostasy previously mentioned (vv. 9,10 ff.) ; 67u ovdev Tav 
Sewav Tepryevnoetat Tov Knpvyyatos, Euthymius Zigabenus. 
The substantial fulfilment of this prediction is found in the 
missionary labours of the apostles, above all in those of Paul ; 
comp. Acts i. 9; Rom. i. 14, x: 18, xv. 19; Matt. xxviii. 19; 
Col. i. 23; Clem. 1 Cor. v.—rodro ro evayy.| According 
to de Wette, the author here (and xxvi. 13) so far forgets 
himself as to allude to the gospel which he was then in the act 
of writing. The tovro here may be accounted for by the fact 
that Christ was there and then engaged in preaching the 
gospel of the Messiah’s kingdom, inasmuch as eschatological 
prediction undoubtedly constitutes an essential part of the 
gospel. Consequently: “hoc evangelium, quod nuntio.”— év 
on TH olKkovp.] must not be limited to the Roman empire 
(Luke ii. 1), but should be taken quite generally: over the whole 
habitable globe, a sense which is alone in keeping with Jesus’ 
consciousness of His Messianic mission, and with the waou 
tots €@veot which follows.—eis waptvptoy, K.t.d.] in order that 


CHAP, XXIV. 15. bas 


testimony may be borne before all nations, namely, concerning 
me and my work, however much they may have hated you 
for my name’s sake. The interpretation of the Fathers: eis 
éreyxov, is therefore substantially in accordance with the 
context (ver. 9), though there was no need to import into the 
passage the idea of the condemnation of the heathen, which 
condemnation would follow as a consequence only in the case 
of those who might be found to reject the testimony. There 
are other though arbitrary explanations, such as. “ut nota illis 
esset pertinacia Judaeorum” (Grotius), or: “ut gentes testi- 
monium dicere possint harum calamitatum et insignis pompae, 
qua Jesus Messias in has terras reverti debeat” (Fritzsche), 
or: “ita ut crisin aut vitae aut mortis adducat” (Dorner). — 
kal TOoTE| and then, when the announcement shall have been 
made throughout the whole world. — ro téXos] the end of the 
troubles that are to precede the Messiah’s advent, correlative 
to dpyy, ver. 8. Comp. ver. 6 ; consequently not to be under- 
stood in this instance either as referring to the end of the world 
(Ebrard, Bleek, Dorner, Hofmann, Lange, Cremer), which latter 
event, however, will of course announce its approach by 
catastrophes in nature (ver. 29) immediately after the termina- 
tion of the dolores Messiae. 

Ver. 15. See Wieseler in the Gétting. Vierteljahrschr. 1846, 
p. 183 ff.; Hengstenberg, Christol. ILI. p.116 ff. More precise 
information regarding this TéAos.— odv] therefore, in conse- 
quence of what has just been stated in the Kai tote HE To 
tédos. According to Ebrard and Hoelemann, ody indicates a 
resuming of the previous subject (Baeumlein, Partek.p. 177; Winer, 
p.414 [E.T.555]): “Jesusad primam questionem revertitur, prae- 
misso secundae quaestionis responso.” But even Ebrard him- 
self admits that Jesus has not as yet made any direct reference 
to the disciples’ first question, ver. 3, accordingly he cannot 
be supposed to recur to it with a mere ody. Wieseler also 
takes a similar view of ody. He thinks that it is used by way 
of resuming the thread of the conversation, which had been 
interrupted by the preliminary warning inserted at vv. 4-14. 
But this conversation, which the disciples had introduced, and 
in which, moreover, vv. 4-14 are by no means of the nature 


136 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


-of amere warning, has not been interrupted at all. According 
to Dorner, ody marks the transition from the eschatological 
principles contained in vv. 4—14 to the applicatio ecorwm his- 
torica s. prophetica, which view is based, however, on the 
erroneous assumption that vv. 4-14 do not possess the 
character of concrete eschatological prophecy. The predic- 
tions before us respecting the Messianic woes become more 
threatening till just at this point they reach a climax.— 70 
BoérXvypa THs Epnuwacews| the abomination of desolation ; 
the genitive denotes that in which the @déAvyya specifically 
consists and manifests itself as such, so that the idea, “the 
abominable desolation,’ is expressed by the use of another 
substantive instead of the adjective, in order to bring out the 
characteristic attribute in question; comp. Ecclus. xlix. 2 ; 
Hengstenberg: the abomination, which produces the desola- 
tion. But in Daniel also the épjyuwors is the leading 
idea. The Greek expression in our passage is not exactly 
identical with the Septuagint’ rendering of DDwN D'SipY, Dan, 
ix. 27 (xi. 31, xii. 11). > Comp. 1 Mace. i 54, v7 angle 
prediction it is not to Antichrist, 2 Thess. ii. 4 (Origen, 
Luthardt, Klostermann, Ewald), that Jesus refers; nor, again, 
is it to the statue of Titus, which is supposed to have been 
erected on the site of the temple after its destruction (Chry- 
sostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus) ; nor to that of 
Caligula, which is said (but see Krebs, p. 53) to have been 


1 In the Hebrew of the passage referred to in Daniel the words are not intended 
to be taken together (Havernick, von Lengerke on Dan. ix. 27, Hengstenberg, 
Christol. III. p. 103 f.). They are, moreover, very variously interpreted ; von 
Lengerke (Hengstenberg), for example: ‘‘the destroyer comes over the pinnacles 
ofabomination ;’’ Ewald (Auberlen): ‘‘and that on account of the fearful height of 
abominations ;” Wieseler: ‘‘and that because of the destructive bird of abomina- 
tion” (referring to the eagle of Jupiter Olympius, to whom Epiphanes dedicated 
the temple at Jerusalem, 2 Mace. vi. 2); Hofmann, Weissag. u. Lrf. I. p. 309: 
‘‘and that upon an offensive idol cover” (meaning the veil with which the 
altar of the idol was covered). My interpretation of the words in the original 
( Dow DO sIpy’ HID 21) is this: the destroyer (comes) on the wing of abomi- 
nations, and that until, ete. Comp. Keil. Ewald on Matthew, p. 412, 
takes 35 as a paraphrase for +o isp. The Sept. rendering is probably from 


such passages as Ps, lvii. 2. For other explanations still, see Hengstenberg, 
Christol. III. p. 123 ff. ; Bleek in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1860, p. 98 ff. 


CHAP: XXIV. 15, 137 


set up within the temple; nor even to the equestrian statue 
of Hadrian (all which Jerome considers possible), which 
references would imply a period too early in some instances, 
and too late in others. It is better,on the whole, not to seek 
for any more special reference (as also Elsner, Hug, Bleek, 
Pfleiderer have done, who see an allusion to the sacrilegious 
acts committed by the zealots in the temple, Joseph. Bell. 
iv. 6. 3), but to be satisfied with what the words themselves 
plainly intimate : the abominable desolation on the temple square, 
which was historically realized in the doings of the heathen 
conquerors during and after the capture of the temple, though, 
at the same time, no special stress is to be laid upon the 
heathen standards detested by the Jews (Grotius, Bengel, 
Wetstein, de Wette, Ebrard, Wieseler, Lange), to which the 
words cannot refer. Fritzsche prefers to leave the Boden. T. ép. 
without any explanation whatever, in consequence of the o 
avaywook. voeitw, by which, as he thinks, Jesus meant to 
indicate that the reader was to find out the prophet’s meaning 
for himself. The above general interpretation, however, is 
founded upon the text itself; nor are we warranted by Dan. 
ix. 27 in supposing any reference of a very special kind to 
underlie what is said. The idea of a desecration of the 
temple by the Jews themselves (Hengstenberg), or of the corrwpt 
state of the Jewish hierarchy (Weisse, Hvangelienfr. p. 170 f.), 
is foreign to the whole connection. — To pndév dva Aav. Fr. 
mpog.| what has been said (expressly mentioned) by Daniel, 
not: “which is an expression of the prophet Daniel” 
(Wieseler); for the important point was not the prophetic 
expression, but the thing itself indicated by the prophet. 
Comp. xxii. 31.— On éo7Tés, see critical notes, and Kiihner, 
I. p. 677.—év trom ayl@] in the holy place; ie. not 
the town as invested by the Romans (so Hoelemann and 
many older expositors, after Luke xxi. 20), but the place 
of the temple which has been in question from the very 
first (ver. 2), and which Daniel has in view in the pas- 
sage referred to. The designation selected forms a tragic 
contrast to the BdédAvyya; comp. Mark xiii. 14: 6zrov ov Set. 
Others, and among them de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius 


138 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


(comp. Weiss on Mark), understand the words as referring 
to Palestine, especially to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem 
(Schott, Wieseler), or to the Mount of Olives (Bengel), because 
it is supposed that it would have been too late to seek to 
escape after the temple had been captured, and so the flight 
of the Christians to Pella took place as soon as the war 
began. The ground here urged, besides being an attempt to 
make use of the special form of its historical fulfilment in 
order to correct the prophetic picture itself, as though this 
latter had been of the nature of a special prediction, is irrele- 
vant, for this reason, that in ver. 16 the words used are not 
“in Jerusalem,” but év tH “Iovdaia; see on ver. 16. Jesus 
means to say: When the abomination of desolation will have 
marred and defaced the symbol of the divine guardianship of 
the people, then everything is to be given up as lost, and 
safety sought only by fleeing from Judaea to places of greater 
security among the mountains. —o dvaytvacKor voeita| 
let the reader understand ! (Eph. iii. 4). Parenthetical observa- 
tion by the evangelist, to impress upon his readers the precise 
point of time indicated by Jesus at which the flight is to 
take place upon the then impending (not already present, 
Hug, Bleek) catastrophe. Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Paulus, Fritzsche, Kaeuffer, Hengstenberg (Authent. d. Dan, p. 
258 ff.), Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, ascribe the observation 
to Jesus, from whose lips, however, one would have expected, 
in the flow of living utterance, and according to His manner 
elsewhere, an expression similar to that in xi. 15, xiii. 9, or 
at least 0 adxovwy voeitw. We may add that our explanation 
is favoured by Mark xiii. 14, where 70 pynOév to Aav. tov 
mpop. being spurious, it is consequently the reader, not of 
Daniel, but of the gospel, that is meant. Hoelemann incorrectly 
interprets: “he who has discernment, let him understand it ” 
(alluding to Dan. xii. 11); dvayweok. is never used in the 
New Testament in any other sense than that of to read. 

Ver. 16 ff. Apodosis down to ver. 18.—oi év 7. Iov6.] 
means those who may happen to be living in the country 
of Judaea (John iii. 22), in contradistinction to Jerusalem 
with its holy place, the abominations in which are to be 


CHAP. XXIV. 19, 20. 139 


the signal for flight. — 7 kataBauvéro, «.7.r.] Some have 
conceived the idea to be this: “ne per scalas interiores, sed 
exteriores descendat,” Bengel (Grotius, Wetstein) ; or: let him 
jlee over the roofs (over the lower walls, separating house from 
house, till he comes to the city wall, Michaelis, Kuinoel, 
Fritzsche, Paulus, Winer, Kaeuffer). oth views may be 
taken each according to circumstances. — ta é€x THs olKkias 
avtod] common attraction for ta €v TH olkia €x THs otKias. 
See Kiihner, I. 474, and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 11; Winer, 
p. 584 [E. T. 784].— év +@ aypo] where, being at work, 
he has no upper garment with him.— People will have to 
flee to save their lives (ver. 22); not according to the idea 
imported by Hofmann: to escape the otherwise too powerful 
temptation to deny the Lord. This again is decisively refuted 
by the fact that, im vv. 16-19, it is not merely the disciples 
or believers who are ordered to flee, but the summons to do 
so is a general one. What is said with reference to the flight 
does not assume an individualizing character till ver. 20. 

Ver. 19. Ai pév yap eyxvor od duvicovtar evyew, TO 
goptia THs yaotpos Bapvvopevar ai dé Onrafovaar Sia Tv 
Tpos Ta Téexva cuuTra0eav, Theophylact. 

Ver. 20. “Iva] Object of the command, and therefore its 
purport ; Mark xiv. 35; Col. i. 9. — dé caBBarto] with- 
out év, as in xii. 1; Winer, p. 205 [E. T. 274]. On the 
Sabbath the rest and the solemnities enjoined by the law, as 
well as the short distance allowed for a Sabbath-day’s journey 
(2000 yards, according to Ex. xvi. 29; see Lightfoot on Luke 
xxiv. 50; Acts i 12; Schoettgen, p. 406), could not but 
interfere with the necessary haste, unless one were prepared 
in the circumstances to ignore all such enactments. Taken 
by themselves, the words pndé caBBatrw seem, no doubt, to 
be inconsistent with Jesus’ own liberal views regarding the 
Sabbath (xu. 1 ff.; John v. 17, vii. 22); but he is speaking 
from the standpoint of His disciples, such a standpoint as they 
occupied at the time He addressed them, and which was destined 
to be outgrown only in the course of a later development of 
ideas (Rom. xiv. 5; Col. ii. 6). As in the case of yesuadvos, 
what is here said is simply with a view to everything being 


140 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


avoided calculated to interfere with their hasty flight. Comp. 
XD; 

Ver. 21. Those hindrances to flight are all the more to 
be deprecated that the troubles are to be unparalleled, and 
therefore a rapid flight will be a matter of the most urgent 
necessity. — €ws Tod viv] usque ad hoc tempus, Rom. viii. 22. 
Kéopov is not to be supplied here (Fritzsche). See, on the 
other hand, Mark xii. 19; 1 Mace. 1. 33; Plat. Parm. 
p- 152 C, Ep. xiii. p. 361 E. On the threefold negative ovée 
ov py, see Bornemann in the Stud. w. Krit. 1843, p. 109 f. 
For the expression generally, Plat. Tim. p. 38 A: ov8é yevéo- 
Oat tore ovdé yeyovévar viv ovd eicadbis Ecec Par; Stallbaum, 
ad Rep. p. 492 E. 

Ver. 22. And unless those days had been shortened, those, 
namely, of the OrAupis pweyadn (ver. 29), etc. This is to 
be understood of the reduction of the number of the days 
over which, but for this shortening, the @Aa/us would have ex- 
tended, not of the curtailing of the length of the day (Fritzsche), 
—a thought of which Lightfoot quotes an example from Rab- 
binical literature (comp. the converse of this, Josh. x. 13), 
which, seeing that there is a considerable number of days, 
would be to introduce an element of a very extraordinary 
character into the usual ideas connected with the acceleration 
of the advent (1 Cor. vii. 29). Rather comp. the similar idea, 
which in Barnab. iv. is ascribed to Enoch. — éo #07] used here 
with reference to the saving of the life (vill. 25, xxvii. 40, 42, 
49, and frequently); Euthymius Zigabenus: ov« av wtre&é- 
¢uye Tov Gavatov. Hofmann incorrectly explains: saved from 
denying the Lord. — 7a@oa capE] every flesh, i.e. every mortal 
man (see on Acts ii. 16), would not be rescued, 2.e. would 
have perished. Comp. for the position of the negative, Fritzsche, 
Diss. II. on 2 Cor. p. 24f. The limitation of raca capé to 
the Jews and Christians belonging to town or country who are 
found in immediate contact with the theatre of war, is justified 
by the context. The éxrexTod are included, but it is not these 
alone who are meant (Hofmann). — The aorist éxodo8. conveys 
the idea that the shortening was resolved upon in the counsels 
of the divine compassion (Mark xiii. 20), and its relation to 


CHAP. XXIV. 23-25. 141 


the aorist €o@6 in the apodosis is this. had the shortening of 
the period over which the calamities were to extend not taken 
place, this would have involved the utter destruction of all 
flesh. The future codkoBwOyjc. again conveys the idea that 
the actual shortening is being effected, and therefore that the 
case supposed, with the melancholy consequences involved in 
it, has been averted. — 61a 5€ Tovs ExreKTOVs| for sake of the 
chosen (for the Messianic kingdom), in order that they might 
be preserved for the approaching advent. That in seeking to 
save the righteous, God purposely adopts a course by which He 
may save others at the same time, is evident from Gen. xviii. 
13 ff. But the é#dexrol (see on xxii. 14) are those who, at 
the time of the destruction of the capital, are believers in 
Christ, and are found persevering in their faith in Him 
(ver. 13); not the future creditwri as well (Jahn in Bengel’s 
Archiv. I]. 1; Schott, Opuse. Il. p. 205 ff.; Lange, following 
Augustine, Calovius), which latter view is precluded by the 
evéms of ver. 29.— There is a certain solemnity in the repe- 
tition of the same words KodoB. ai tyépar éxetvar. Ebrard 
lays stress upon the fact, as he supposes, that our passage 
describes a calamity “cui finis sit imponendus, et quae ab 
aetate paulo saltem feliciore sit excipienda,” and accordingly 
infers that the idea of the immediate end of the world is 
thereby excluded. But the aetas paulo saltem felrcior, or the 
supposition that there is any interval at all between the @rafis 
peyady and ver. 29, is foreign to the text; but the end of the 
above-mentioned disaster is to take place in order that what 
is stated at ver. 29 may follow it at once. 

Ver. 23 ff. Tore] then, when the desolation of the temple 
and the great @AAfis shall have arrived, false Messiahs, and 
such as falsely represent themselves to be prophets, will again 
come forward and urge their claims with greater energy than 
ever, nay, in the most seductive ways possible. Those here 
referred to are different from the pretenders of ver. 4 f. The 
excitement and longing that will be awakened in the midst of 
such terrible distress will be taken advantage of by impostors 
with pretensions to miracle-working, and then how dangerous 
they will prove! By such early expositors as Chrysostom and 


142 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


those who come after him, ver. 23 was supposed to mark the 
transition to the subject of the advent, so that tore would 
pass over the whole period between the destruction of Jerusalem 
and the second advent; while, according to Ebrard (comp. 
Schott), the meaning intended by Jesus in vv. 23, 24 is, that 
after the destruction of the capital, the condition of the church 
and of the world, described in vv. 4-14, “in posterum quoque 
mansurum esse.” Such views would have been discarded if due 
regard had been paid to the tore by which the point of time is 
precisely defined, as well as to the circumstance that the allusion 
here is merely to the coming forward of false Christs and false 
prophets. Consequently we should also beware of saying, 
with Calovius, that at this point Christ passes to the subject 
of His adventus spiritualis per evangeliwm. He is still speaking 
of that period of distress, ver. 21 f., which is to be immediately 
followed, ver. 29, by the second advent. — pevdoyxptoToe | 
those who falsely claim to be Messiah; nothing is known 
regarding the historical fulfilment of this. Jonathan (Joseph. 
Bell. vii. 11. 3) and Barcochba (see on ver. 5) appeared 
at a later period.—wevdorpodyrac| according to the 
context, not Christian teachers (ver. 11), in the present 
instance, but such as pretended to be sent by God, and in- 
spired to speak to the people in the season of their calamity,— 
deceivers similar to those who had tried to impose upon their 
fellow-countrymen during the national misfortunes of earlier 
times (Jer. xiv. 14, v. 13, vi. 13, vill. 10). Comp. Joseph. 
Bell. ii. 13. 4: wAavow yap avOpwrot Kal aratavtes Tpoo- 
ynpate Oevacwod vewtepicpors Kat peTaBodas TparyywaTevopevor, 
Sarpovay 7d TAHG0s avéreOov, K.7.. Others suppose that the 
reference is to such as sought to pass for Elijah or some other 
prophet risen from the dead (Kuinoel), which would scarcely 
agree with the use of a term so general as the present; 
there are those also who think it is the emissaries of the false 
Messiahs who are intended (Grotius).—Séco0vcr] not: promise 
(Kypke, Krebs), but: give, so as to suit the idea involved in 
onueia, Comp. xii. 39 ; Deut. xiii. 1.— On onpeia cai tépata, 
between which there is no material difference, see on Rom. 
xv. 19. Miracles may also be performed by Satanic agency, 


CHAP. XXIV. 26-28. 143 


2 Thess. ii. 9. — wote mAavnOjvat (see critical notes): so thut 
the very elect may be led astray (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1005) if 
possible (ed Suvatov: si fieri possit ; “conatus summus, sed 
tamen irritus,” Bengel). — Ver. 25. Avawaptipetar éEachari- 
Cowevos, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. John xiv. 29. 

Ver. 26. Ody] according to the tenor of this my prediction. 
Ver. 26 does not stand to ver. 23 in the relation of a strange 
reduplication (Weiss), but as a rhetorical amplification which 
is brought to an emphatic close by a repetition of the m7 
miatevonte of ver. 23.—éatt] the Messiah, ver. 23.— év 
Tots tTapetots] the article is to be taken demonstratively, 
while the plural denotes the inner rooms of a house. Accord- 
ing to Fritzsche, we have here the categorical plural (see on 
li. 20): “en, ibi est locorum, quae conclavia appellantur.” 
That would be too vague a pretence. The phraseology here 
made use of: in the wilderness—in the inner rooms of the house 
—is simply apocalyptic imagery. “ Ultra de deserto et pene- 
tralibus quaerere non est sobrii interpretis,” Maldonatus. 

Ver. 27. Reason why they were not to listen to such asser- 
tions. The advent of the Messiah will not be of such a nature 
that you will require to be directed to look here or look there 
in order to see him ; but it will be as the lightning, which, as 
soon as it appears, suddenly announces its presence everywhere; 
oUTws EcTaL 1) Tapovalia éxelvyn, omod TavTayod pawwowervn bia 
Thy exrapapw THs So£ns, Chrysostom. Not as though the advent 
were not to be connected with some locality or other upon 
earth, or were to be invisible altogether (R. Hofmann); but 
what is meant is, that when it takes place, it will all of a 
sudden openly display itself in a glorious fashion over the whole 
world. Ebrard (comp. Schott) is wrong in supposing that the 
point of comparison lies only in the circumstance that the 
event comes suddenly and without any premonition. For 
certainly this would not tend to show, as Jesus means to do, 
that the assertion: he is in the wilderness, etc., is an wnwar- 
rantable pretence. 

Ver. 28. Confirmation of the truth that the advent will 
announce its presence everywhere, and that from the point of 
view of the retributive punishment which the coming One 


144 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


will be called upon everywhere to execute. The emphasis of 
this figurative adage is on Omou éav 7 and éxet: “ Wherever 
the carcase may happen to be, there will the eagles be gathered 
together,’—-on no spot where there is a carcase will this 
gathering fail, so that, when the Messiah shall have come, 
He will reveal Himself everywhere in this aspect also (namely, 
as an avenger). Such is the sense in which this saying was 
evidently understood as early as the time of Luke xvii. 37. 
The carcase is a metaphorical expression denoting the spiritually 
dead (viii. 22 ; Luke xvi. 24) who are doomed to the Messianic 
amowrea, while the words cuvay@joovtar (namely, at the 
advent) of aerot convey the same idea as that expressed in 
xiii. 41, and which is as follows: the angels, who are sent forth 
by the Messiah for the purpose, ovAré£ovaw éx Tijs Bacirelas 
avtod TdvTa Ta cKavoanra, Kal Badrodcw avTovs Els THY KamWoV 
tov mupos, the only difference being, that in our passage 
the prophetic imagery depicting the mode of punishment is 
not that of consuming by fire, and that for the simple reason 
that the latter would not harmonize with the idea of the carcase 
and the eagles (Bleek, Luthardt, Auberlen). Others (Light- 
foot, Hammond, Clericus, Wolf, Wetstein) have erroneously 
supposed that the carcase alludes to Jerusalem or the Jews, 
and that the eagles are intended to denote the Roman legions 
with their standards (Xen. Anab. i. 10. 12; Plut. Mar. 23). 
But it is the advent that is in question; while, according to 
vy. 23-27, drov éav 7 cannot be taken as referring to any 
one particular locality, so that Hoelemann is also in error, 
inasmuch as, though he interprets the eagles as representing 
the Messiah and His angel-hosts, he nevertheless understands 
the carcase to mean Jerusalem as intended to form the 
central scene of the advent. It is no less mistaken to 
explain the latter of “the corpses of Judaism” (Hilgenfeld), 
on the ground that, as Keim also supposes, Christ means to 
represent Himself “as Him who is to win the spoils amid the 
physical and moral ruins of Israel.” According to Cremer, 
the carcase denotes the anti-Messianic agitation previously 
described, which is destined to be suppressed and punished 
by the imperial power (the eagles). This view is erroneous ; 


CHAP, XXIV. 29. 145 


for, according to ver. 27, the cuvax@. of detot can only 
represent the mapovola tT. viod 7. avOp. Fritzsche and Fleck, 
p. 384: “ubi DMessias, ibi homines, qui ejus potestatis futuri 
sint” (of éxXexToi, ver. 31). Similarly such early expositors as 
Chrysostom (who thinks the angels and martyrs are intended 
to be included), Jerome, Theophylact (@omep émi vexpov copa 
auvayovtat o€éws of deTol, o’tTw Kai évOa adv eln 6 Xptoros, 
éXevoovTas Tavres of wyvor), Euthymius Zigabenus, Miinster, 
Luther, Erasmus (“non deerunt capiti sua membra”), Beza, 
Calvin, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, Jansen. But how inappro- 
priate and incongruous it would be to compare the Messiah 
(who is conceived of as tpog) mvevpatixy, Euthymius Ziga- 
benus) to the carcase ; which is all the more offensive when, 
with Jerome, 7T@pa is supposed to contain a reference to the 
death of Jesus—a view which Calvin rejected. Wittichen in 
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 337, reverses the subjects 
of comparison, and takes the carcase as representing the 
Israelitish é«Aexrol, and the eagles as representing the Messiah. 
But this interpretation is likewise forbidden by the incongruity 
that would result from the similitude of the carcase so sug- 
gestive of the domain of death, as well as by that universal 
character of the advent to which the context bears testi- 
mony. With astonishing disregard of the context, Kaeuffer 
observes: “py miotevonre, sc. illis, nam ubi materies ad 
praedandum, ibi praedatores avidi, h. e. nam in fraudem 
vestram erit.” On the question as to whether wT@pua without 
a qualifying genitive be good Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
p. 375. — ot derot] are the carrion-kites (vultur percnopterus, 
Linnaeus) which the ancients regarded as belonging to the 
eagle species. See Plin. V. H. x. 3; Aristot. ix. 22. . For the 
similitude, comp. Job xxxix. 30; Hos. viii. 1; Hab. viii. 1; 
Gov. xxx, 17: Ezek. xxxix. 1'7. 

Ver. 29. Here follows the second portion of the reply of 
Jesus, in which He intimates what events, following at once 
on the destruction of Jerusalem, are immediately to precede 
His second coming (vv. 29-33); mentioning at the same 
time, that however near and certain this latter may be, yet 
the day and hour of its occurrence cannot be determined, and 

MATT. II, K 


146 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


that it will break unexpectedly upon the world (vv. 54-41); 
this should certainly awaken men to watchfulness and pre- 
paredness (vv. 42—51), to which end the two parables, xxv. 
1-30, are intended to contribute. The discourse then con- 
cludes with a description of the final judgment over which 
the coming one is to preside (xxv. 31-46). — edOéws Sé peta 
tT. Oriuv TOV pep. ex.] but immediately after the distress of 
those days, immediately after the last (ro TéXos) of the series 
of Messianic woes described from ver. 15 onwards, and the 
first of which is to be coincident with the destruction of 
the temple. For rév ijwep. éxetvoy, comp. vv. 19, 22; and 
for OAApuw, ver. 21. LEhbrard’s explanation of this passage 
falls to the ground with his erroneous interpretation of vv. 
23, 24, that explanation being as follows: z«mmediately after 
the unhappy condition of the church (vv. 23-28), a condition 
which is to continue after the destruction of Jerusalem, — it 
being assumed that the ed@éws involves the meaning: “nullis 
aliis intercedentibus indiciis.” It may be observed generally, 
that a whole host of strange and fanciful interpretations have 
been given here, in consequence of its having been assumed 
that Jesus could not possibly have intended to say that His 
second advent was to follow immediately upon the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem. This assumption, however, is contrary to 
all exegetical rule, considering that Jesus repeatedly makes 
reference elsewhere (see also ver. 34) to His second coming as 
an event that is near at hand. Among those interpretations 
may also be classed that of Schott (following such earlier 
expositors as Hammond and others, who had already taken 
ev0éws in the sense of suddenly), who says that Matthew had 
written O&M, swbito, but that the translator (like the Sept. 
in the case of Job v. 3) had rendered the expression “ minus 
accurate” by ev@éws. This is certainly a wonderful supposi- 
tion, for the simple reason that the oxnp itself would be a 
wonderful expression to use if an interval of a thousand years 
was to intervene. Bengel has contributed to promote this 
view by his observation that: “ Nondum erat tempus revelandi 
totam seriem rerum futurarum a vastatione Hieros. usque ad 
consummationem seculi,” and by his paraphrase of the passage: 


CHAP. XXIV. 29. 147 


“De iis, quae post pressuram dierum illorum, delendae urbis 
Jerusalem, evenient proximum, quod in praesenti pro mea con- 
ditione commemorandum et pro vestra capacitate expectandum 
venit, hoc est, quod sol obscwrabitur,” etc. Many others, as 
Wetstein, for example, have been enabled to dispense with 
gratuitous assumptions of this sort by understanding ver. 29 ff. 
to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, which is supposed to 
be described therein in the language of prophetic imagery 
(Kuinoel), and they so understand the verse in spite of the 
destruction already introduced at ver. 15. In this, however, 
they escape Scylla only to be drawn into Charybdis, and are 
compelled to have recourse to expedients of a still more 
hazardous kind in order to explain away the literal advent, 
which is depicted in language as clear as it is sublime. And 
yet E. J. Meyer again interprets vv. 29-34 of the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, and in such a way as to make it appear 
that the prediction regarding the final advent is not intro- 
duced till ver. 35. But this view is at once precluded by 
the fact that in ver. 35 0 odpavos x. 4 yh Tapedevoeras cannot 
be regarded as the leading idea, the theme of what follows, but 
only as a subsidiary thought (v. 18) by way of background 
for the words of 5€ Adyou wou ov pi) Taper. immediately after 
(observe, Christ does not say of yap AOyou, K.T.rA., but of dé 
NOyou, x.T-A.). Hoelemann, Cremer, Auberlen are right in 
their interpretation of ev@éws, but wrong in regarding the 
time of the culmination of the heathen power —an idea im- 
ported from Luke xxi. 24 — as antecedent to the period indi- 
cated by ev@éws. Just as there are those who seek to dispose 
of the historical difficulty connected with ev@éws by twisting the 
sense of what precedes, and by an importation from Luke xxi. 
24, so Dorner seeks to dispose of it by twisting the sense of 
what comes after.—0o }dtos ckoTLG#,, K.7.r.] Description of 
the great catastrophe in the heavens which is to precede the 


? Comp. the Old Testament prophecies respecting the day of the coming of 
Jehovah, Isa. xiii. 9 ff., xxxiv. 4, xxiv. 21; Jer. iv. 23 f.; Ezek. xxxii. 7f.; Hag. 
li. 6 f. ; Joel ii. 10, iii. 3f., iv. 15; Zeph. i. 15; Hag. ii. 21; Zech. xiv. 6, etc., 
and the passages from Rabbinical writers in Bertholdt, Christol. § 12; Gfrérer, 
Gesch. d. Urchrist. I. 2, pp. 195 ff., 219 ff. 


148 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


second advent of the Messiah. According to Dorner, our pas- 
sage is intended as a prophetical delineation of the fall of 
heathenism, which would follow immediately upon the overthrow 
of Judaism; and, accordingly, he sees in the mention of the 
sun, moon, and stars an allusion to the nature-worship of the 
heathen world, an idea, however, which is refuted at once by 
ver. 34; see HE. J. Meyer, p. 125 ff; Bleek, p. 356; Hof- 
mann, p. 636; Gess, p. 136. Ewald correctly interprets: 
“While the whole world is being convulsed (ver. 29, after 
Joel i, 3 fi; Isa. xxxiv. 4, xxiv. 21), the heaven-sent 
Messiah appears in His glory (according to Dan. vu. 13) to 
judge,” etc.— ot aorépes teootvtat, x.tr.| Comp. Isa. 
xxxiv. 4. To be understood literally, but not as illustrative 
of sad times (Hengstenberg on the Revelation ; Gerlach, letzte 
Dinge, p. 102); and yet not in the sense of falling-stars 
(Fritzsche, Kuinoel), but as meaning: the whole of the stars 
together. Similarly in the passage in Isaiah just referred to, 
in accordance with the ancient idea that heaven was a firma- 
ment in which the stars were set for the purpose of giving 
light to the earth (Gen. 1. 14). The falling of the stars 
(which is not to be diluted, with Bengel, Paulus, Schott, 
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Cremer, following the Greek 
Fathers, so as to mean a mere obscuration) to the earth— 
which, in accordance with the cosmical views of the time, is 
the plain and natural sense of eds tiv yhv (see Rev. vi. 13)— 
is, no doubt, impossible as an actual fact, but it need not sur- 
prise us to see such an idea introduced into a prophetic picture 
so grandly poetical as this is,—a picture which it is scarcely 
fair to measure by the astronomical conceptions of our own 
day. —ai Suvapers Tdv ovpavav cadrev.| is usually 
explained of the starry hosts (Isa. xxxiv. 4, xl. 26; Ps. 
xxxili. 6; Deut. iv. 19; 2 Kings xvii. 16, etc.), which, 
coming as it does after of aotépes mecodvtat, would intro- 
duce a tautological feature into the picture. The words 
should therefore be taken in a general sense: the powers of the 
heavens (the powers which uphold the heavens, which stretch 
them out, and produce the phenomena which take place in 
them, ete.) will be so shaken as to lose their usual stability. 


CHAP. XXIV. 30. 149 


Comp. Job xxvi. 11. The interpretation of Olshausen, 
who follows Jerome, Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
in supposing that the trembling in the world of angels is 
referred to (Luke i. 13), is inconsistent not merely with 
carevOyo., but also with the whole connection which refers 
to the domain of physical things. For the plural tav 
ovpavev, comp. Ecclus. xvi. 16.— This convulsion in the 
heavens, previous to the Messiah’s descent therefrom, is not as 
yet to be regarded as the end of the world, but only as a pre- 
lude to it; the earth is not destroyed as yet by the celestial 
commotion referred to (ver. 30). The poetical character of 
the picture does not justify us in regarding the thing so vividly 
depicted as also belonging merely to the domain of poetry, 
—all the less that, in the present case, it is not political 
revolutions (Isa. xiii. 10, xxxiv. 4; Ezek. xxxii. 7 f.; Joel iii. 
3 f.) that are in view, but the new birth of the world, and the 
establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom. 

Ver. 30. Kat tore] and then, when what is intimated at 
ver. 29 shall have arrived. — davycertac] universally, and so 
not visible merely to the elect (Cremer), which would not be 
in keeping with what follows. — To onpetov tod viod T. 
av@p.| accordingly the sign inquired about in ver. 3, that 
phenomenon, namely, which is immediately to precede the 
coming Messiah, the Son of man of Dan. vii. 13, and which is 
to indicate that His second advent is now on the point of 
taking place, which is to be the signal of this latter event. As 
Jesus does not say what this is to be, it should be left quite in- 
definite; only this much may be inferred from what is predicted 
at ver. 29 about the darkening of the heavenly bodies, that it 
must be of the nature of a manifestation of light, the dawning 
of the Messianic éc£a which is perhaps to go on increasing in 
brilliancy and splendour until the Messiah Himself steps forth 
from the midst of it in the fulness of His glory. There is no 
foundation for supposing, with Cyril, Hilary, Chrysostom, 
Augustine, Jerome, Erasmus, that the allusion is to a cross 
appearing in the heavens; with Hebart, that it is to the 
rending of heaven or the appearing of angels; with Fleck and 
Olshausen, that it is to the star of the Messiah (Num. xxiv. 17); 


150 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


similarly Bleek, though rather more by way of conjecture. 
Following the older expositors, Fritzsche, Ewald, Hengstenberg, 
R. Hofmann understand the coming Messiah Himself: “ mira- 
culum, quod Jesus revertens Messias oculis objiciet ” (accord- 
ingly, taking tod viod 7. avOp. as a genitive of subject ; while 
Wolf, Storr, Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 56, ed. 2, assume it to be a 
genitive of apposition). This view is inconsistent not only 
with what follows, where the words cat dyrovtas Tov vio, K.T.r. 
evidently point to something still farther in the future, and 
which the onpeiov serves to introduce, but also with the 
question of the disciples, ver. 3. R. Hofmann thinks that the 
reference is to that apparition in the form of a man which is 
alleged to have stood over the holy of holies for a whole night 
while the destruction of the capital was going on. A legendary 
story (chronicled by Ben-Gorion) ; and it may be added that 
what is said, vv. 29-31, certainly does not refer to the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, after which event Hofmann supposes 
our evangelist to have written. Lastly, some (Schott, Kuinoel) 
are even of opinion that onuetov does not point to any new 
and special circumstance at all—to anything beyond what is 
contained in ver. 29 ; but the introduction of the sequel by tote 
is decidedly against this view. —«al tote] a new point 
brought forward: and then, when this onmetov has been dis- 
played. — xéyovtac] Comp. Zech. xii. 10; Rev. i. 7; with 
what a totally different order of things are they now on the 
point of being confronted, what a breaking up and subversion 
of all the previous relationships of life, what a separation of 
elements hitherto mingled together, and what a deciding of 
the final destinies of men at the judgment of the old and the 
ushering in of the new aiév! Hence, being seized with 
terror and anguish, they will mowrn (see on xi. 17). The 
sorrow of repentance (Dorner, Ewald) is not to be regarded as 
excluded from this mourning. There is no adequate reason 
to suppose, with Ewald, that, in the collection of our Lord’s 
sayings (the Aoy/a), éyrovrat probably occurred twice here, and 
that it was reserved for the last redactor of those sayings to 
make a play upon the word by substituting xdyovtav. — 
épxopmevoy, x.7.r.] as in Dan. vii. 13,— peta Suvdu. x. 808. 


CHAP. XXIV. 31. Lot 


moXX.] This great power and majesty will also be displayed in 
the accompanying angel-hosts, ver. 31. The macau ai gvaal 
THs ys are not: “ omnes familiae Judaeorum” (Kuinoel), as 
those who explain ver. 29 ff. of the destruction of Jerusalem 
must understand the words, but: all the tribes of the earth. 
Comp. Gen. xii. 3, xxviii. 14. 

Ver. 31. Kat dmocrtenect] And He will send forth, te. 
from the clouds of heaven, 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.—Tods 
ayyéXous avtod] the angels specially employed in His 
service. — meTa oarTLyyos hwvans peyar.] with (having 
as an accompaniment) a trumpet of a loud sound. The second 
genitive qualifies and is governed by the first ; see Buttmann, 
Neut. Gr. p. 295 [E. T. 343]. The idea is not that the individual 
angels blow trumpets, but what is meant (Isa. xxvii. 13) is 
the last trumpet (1 Cor. xv. 52), the trumpet of God (1 Thess. 
iv, 16), which is sounded while the Messiah is sending forth the 
angels. The resurrection of believers is also to be understood 
as taking place on the sound of this trumpet being heard 
(1 Cor. as above; 1 Thess. as above). — émucvva£tovacr] 
gather together (xxiii. 27; 2 Thess. ii. 1; 2 Macc. i. 27, ii. 18), 
namely, toward the place where He is in the act of appearing 
upon earth. This gathering together of the elect, which is to 
be a gathering from every quarter (comp. Rev. i. 7), and from 
the whole compass of the earth, is an act and accompaniment 
of the second advent (in answer to Cremer’s distinction, see 
Hoelemann, p. 171). But the dpwdfec@ar eis aépa, to meet 
the Lord as He approaches (1 Thess. iv. 17), is to be regarded 
as taking place after this gathering together has been effected. 
—Tovs éxreKT. avtod] the elect belonging to Him (chosen 
by God for the Messianic kingdom, as in ver. 22). Comp. 
Rom. i. 6.— amo akpwv ovpav.| ab extremitatibus coclorum 
usque ad extremitates corum, 1.e. from one horizon to the other 
(for ovpavey without the article, see Winer, p. 115 [E. T. 
150]), therefore from the whole earth (ver. 14), on which the 
extremities of the sky seem to rest. Deut. iv. 32, xxx. 4; 
Ps, xix. 7.—As showing the exegetical abuses to which this 
grand passage has been subjected, take the following, Light- 
foot: “emittet filius homines ministros suos cum tuba evan- 


£52 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


gelica,” ete. ; Kuinoel (comp. Wetstein): “in tanta calamitate 
Judaeis, adversariis religionis Christianae, infligenda, ubivis 
locorum Christi sectatores per dei providentiam illaesi serva- 
buntur,” etc.; Olshausen: he will send out men armed with 
the awakening power of the Spirit of God, for the purpose of 
assembling believers at a place of safety. Thisis substantially 
the view of Tholuck also.—It may be observed, moreover, that 
this passage forbids the view of Kostlin, p. 26, that our Gospel 
does not contain a specifically Christian, but merely an ethical 
universalism (as contrasted with Jewish obduracy). See, on 
the other hand, especially viii, 11, xxii. 9 f, xxv. 31 ff, 
xxvii. 19, ete; 

Ver. 32 f. Cheering prospect for the disciples in the midst 
of those final convulsions—a prospect depicted by means of 
a pleasing scene taken from nature. The understanding of 
this passage depends on the correct interpretation (1) of To 
Oépos, (2) of wavta tadra, and also (3) on our taking care not 
to supply anything we choose as the subject of éyyts éotuv 
emt Ovpais. — dé is simply petaBatixov.— ard THs cuK|AS] 
the article is generic; for amd, comp. on xi. 29. From the 
fig-tree, i.e. in the case of the fig-tree, see the parable (rH 
map.) that is intended for your instruction in the circumstances 
referred to. For the article conveys the idea of your simili- 
tude ; here, however, wapafov7 means simply a comparison, 
Tapadceryua. Comp. on xiii, 3.— Kal ta PvArAa Exgvy] 
and puts forth the leaves (the subject being 6 xKdd6os). 
Matthaei, Fritzsche, Lachmann, Bleek, on the authority of E F. 
GH KM V 4, Vulg. It, write éexpu7y, taking it as an 
aorist, 2.¢. ef folia edita fuerint (see, in general, Kiihner, I. 
p. 930f.). But in that case what would be the meaning of 
the allusion to the branches recovering their sap? Further, 
it is only by taking «. 7. $. éxpdn as present that the strictly 
definite element is brought out, namely: when the KAddos is 
in the act of budding.— 76 @épos] is usually taken in the 
sense of aestas, after the Vulgate. But, according to the cor- 
rect interpretation of wdvra tadra, summer would be too late 
in the present instance, and too indefinite; nor would it be 
sufficiently near to accord with éyyis éoru emi Ovpais. Hence 


CHAP. XXIV. 32, 33. hoe 


it is better to understand the harvest (equivalent to @epucpos, 
Photius, p. 86, 18) as referred to, as in Prov. xxvi. 1 ; Dem. 
1253. 15, and frequently in classical writers; Jacobs, ad 
Anthol. VIII. p. 357. Comp. also Ebrard, Keim. It is not, 
however, the jig-harvest (which does not occur till August) 
that is meant, but the /fruit-harvest, the formal commence- 
ment of which took place as early as the second day of the 
Passover season.— ott x. vets] so understand ye also. 
For the preceding indicative, ywooxere, expressed what was 
matter of common observation, and so, in a way corresponding 
to the observation referred to, should (yivwor. imperative) the 
disciples also on their part understand, etc.—dérav idnre 
mavTa tavtal when ye will have seen all this. It is usual 
to seek for the reference of wavta tadra in the part of 
the passage before ver. 29, namely, in what Jesus has just 
foretold as to all the things that were to precede the second 
coming. But arbitrary as this is, it is outdone by those 
who go the length of merely picking out a few from the 
phenomena in question, in order to restrict the reference of 
mTavta TavTa to them ; as, for example, the incrementa maligni- 
tatis (Ebrard), or the cooling of love among believers, the 
preaching to the Gentiles, and the overthrow of Jerusalem (Gess). 
If we are to take the words in their plain and obvious mean- 
ing (ver. 8), wavta Tatra can only be understood to refer to 
what immediately precedes, therefore to what has been predicted, 
from that epoch-making ver. 29 on to ver. 31, respecting the 
onpetov of the Son of man, and the phenomena that were to 
accompany the second coming itself. When they shall have 
seen all that has been announced, vv. 29-31, they are to 
understand from it, etc. — 67. éyyts éotiv ert Ovpacs] 
To supply a subject here is purely arbitrary; the Son of man 
has been supposed by some to be understood (Fritzsche, de 
Wette, Hofmann, Bleek, Weiss, Gess); whereas the subject is 
TO Oépos, which, there being no reason to the contrary, may 
also be extended to ver. 33. This @épos is neither the second 
coming (Cremer), nor the judgment (Ebrard), nor the kingdom 
of God generally (Olshausen, Auberlen), nor even the diffusion 
of Christianity (Schott), but simply the harvest, understanding 


154 - THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


it, however, in the higher Messianic sense symbolized by the 
natural harvest (Gal. vi. 9; 2 Cor. ix. 6), namely, the recep- 
tion in the Messianic kingdom of that eternal reward which 
awaits all true workers and patient sufferers. That is the 
joyful (Isa. ix. 2) and blessed consummation which the Lord 
encourages His disciples to expect immediately after the 
phenomena and convulsions that are to accompany His second 
advent. — On émt @vpais without the article, see Bornemann, 
ad Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 2; and for the plural, see Kiihner, II. 1, 
poly, 

Ver. 34. Declaration to the effect that all this is to take 
place before the generation then living should pass away. 
The well-nigh absurd manner in which it has been attempted 
to force into the words % yevea airy such meanings as: the 
creation (Maldonatus), or: the human race (Jerome), or: the 
Jewish nation (Jansen, Calovius, Wolf, Heumann, Storr, 
Dorner, Hebart, Auberlen; see, on the other hand, on Mark 
xiii. 30), or: “the class of men consisting of my believers” 
(Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Clarius, Paulus, Lange), resembles the unreasonable way in 
which Ebrard, following up his erroneous reference of wavta 
Tavta (see on ver. 33), imports into the saying the idea: inde ab 
ipsorum (discipulorum) aetate omnibus ecclesiae temporibus inter- 
futura, an imaginary view which passages like x. 23, xvi. 28, 
xxiii. 39, should have been sufficient to prevent. This also in 
opposition to the interpretation of Cremer: “the generation of the 
elect now in question,” and that of Klostermann : “ the (future) 
generation which is to witness those events,’ both of which are 
foreign to the sense. Comp. xxiii. 36.— The wdavra tadta 
is the same as that of ver. 35, and therefore denoting neither 
the mere prognostics of the second advent, or, to be more 
definite, “ the taking away of the kingdom from Israel” (Gess), 
nor specially the destruction of Jerusalem (Schott, E. J. 
Meyer, Hoelemann, Baumlein in Klaiber’s Stud. I. 3, p..41 ff). 
That the second advent itself is intended to be included, is 
likewise evident from ver. 36, in which the subject of the day 
and hour of the advent is introduced. 

Ver. 35. With the preceding radvta tadrta yévynrae will 


CHAP. XXIV. 36—39. A ays) 


commence the passing away of the fabric of the world as it 
now exists (2 Pet. iii. 7,8); but what I say (generally, though 
with special reference to the prophetic utterances before us) 
will certainly not pass away, will abide as imperishable truth 
(v.18). The utterance which fails of its accomplishment is 
conceived of as something that perishes (Addit. Esth. vii. 2), 
that ceases to exist. Comp. éx7imrew, Rom. ix. 6. 

Ver. 36. The affirmation of ver. 34, however, does not 
exclude the fact that no one knows the day and hour when 
the second advent, with its accompanying phenomena, is to 
take place. It is to occur during the lifetime of the genera- 
tion then existing, but no one knows on what day or at what 
hour within the period thus indicated. Accordingly it is im- 
possible to tell you anything more precise in regard to this 
than what is stated at ver. 34.— ei uw 0 wat. pov povos] 
This reservation on the part of the Father excludes even the 
incarnate Son (Mark xiii. 32). The limitation implied in our 
passage as regards the human side of our Lord’s nature is 
to be viewed in the same light as that implied in xx. 23. 
See, besides, on Mark xiii. 32. 

Vv. 37-39. But (6é, introducing an analogous case from 
an early period in sacred history) as regards the ignorance as 
to the precise moment of its occurrence, it will be with the 
second coming as it was with the flood. —joav...tpeéyovtes] 
not for the imperfect, but to make the predicate more 
strongly prominent. Comp. on vil. 29. tpeéyew means 
simply to eat (John vi. 54—58, xii. 18), not devouring like 
a beast (Beza, Grotius, Cremer), inasmuch as such an 
unfavourable construction is not warranted by any of the 
matters afterwards mentioned. — yapodvtes x. éxyap.| 
uxores in matrimonium ducentes et filias collocantes, descriptive 
of a mode of life without concern, and without any foreboding 
of an impending catastrophe. — cal ov« éyvwoay] The “it” 
(see Nagelsbach, Jdiad, p. 120, ed. 3) to be understood after 
éyveoay is the flood that is so near at hand.  Fritzsche’s 
interpretation: “quod debebant intelligere” (namely, from 
seeing Noah build the ark), is arbitrary. The time within 
which it may be affirmed with certainty that the second 


156 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


advent will suddenly burst upon the world, cannot be sup- 
posed to refer to that which intervenes between the destruction 
of Jerusalem and the advent, a view precluded by the ev@éws 
of ver. 29. That period of worldly unconcern comes in just 
before the final consummation, ver. 15 ff., whereupon the advent 
is immediately to follow (vv. 29-32). This last and most 
distressing time of all, coupled with the advent immediately 
following it, forms the terminus ante quem, and corresponds 
to the po Tod KataxAvopod of the Old Testament analogy. — 
év nwépa | without repeating the preposition before 7 
(John iv. 54). Comp. Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, and Kiihner on 
the passage; Winer, p. 393 [E. T. 524 f.]; Stallbaum, ad 
Plat. Apol. p. 27 D. Comp. ver. 50. 

Vv. 40, 41. Tore] then, when the second advent will have 
thus suddenly taken place.— 7apaXxapBavertar] is taken 
away, namely, by the angels who are gathering the elect 
together, ver. 31. The use of the present tense here pic- 
tures what is future as though it were already taking place. 
But had this referred to the being caught up in the clouds, 
mentioned 1 Thess. iv. 17 (Theophylact, Euthymius Ziga- 
benus, Jansen), dvaNapPaverar would have been used instead. 
—agletar] is left, expressing ov TapadapBdverae in its 
positive form. Comp. xxii. 38, xv. 14; Soph. 0. & 599. 
It is tantamount to saying: away! thou art not accepted. To 
understand the terms as directly the opposite of each other 
in the following sense: the one is taken captive, the other 
allowed to go free (Wetstein, Kuinoel), is grammatically 
wrong (7apadauP. cannot, when standing alone, be taken as 
equivalent to bello capere, although it is used to denote the 
receiving of places into surrender, im deditionem accipere, 
Polyb. i. 54. 12, iv. 63. 4, iv. 65. 6), and does violence 
to the context to suit the exigencies of the erroneous reference 
to the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather compare John xiv. 3. 
It is no doubt admissible to interpret the expression in the 
hostile sense: the one is seized (Polyb. ii. 69. 2; similarly 
Baumgarten-Crusius) or carried off (iv. 5, 8; Num. xxiii. 27; 
1 Mace. iii. 37, iv. 1), namely, to be punished. But the ordi- 
nary explanation harmonizes better with the reference to ver. 


CHAP. XXIV. 42. 157 


31, as well as with the subsequent parable, ver. 45 ff., where 
the muaros SodXos is first introduced.—Svo ar} Goveas, x.7.r.| 
of two who grind at the mill, one will, etc. For the con- 
struction, in which, by means of a wetaBacts amo édov eis épn, 
the plural-subject is broken up into two separate persons, 
comp. Hom. Jl. vii. 306 f.: to 5& StaxpwOevte, 0 pev peta 
Aadv "Ayaidy Hi’, 6 8 &s Tpwwv buadav Kle. Plat. Phaedr. p. 
248 A, al.; see Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. viii. 37; also ad Dem. 
de cor. p. 2837 f. If we were to adopt the wswal course 
of supplying écovras from ver. 40, we would require to 
translate as follows: two will be grinding at the mill. But 
this supplying of écovras is not at all necessary; as may 
be gathered from the annexing of the participle, we have 
in this other case, ver. 41, just a different mode of presenting 
the matter. — a@A700veas] the hard work usually performed 
by the lower order of female slaves (Ex. xi. 5; Isa. xlvii. 2; 
Job xxxi. 10; Eccles. xii. 3), and such as is still performed 
in the East by women, either singly or by two working 
together (Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. on Ex. xi. 5; and on the 
present passage, Robinson, Paldst. II. p. 405 f.). A similar 
_ practice prevailed in ancient Greece, Hermann, Privatalterth. 
§ 24. 8. Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. Tim. xxiii. On the un- 
classical aA7jOew (for aretv), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 151.— 
é€vy T® VA] which is not to be confounded (see the critical 
notes) with pvrAwve (a mill-house), is the millstone (xviii. 6) 
of the ordinary household hand-mill. It may denote the lower 
(Deut. xxiv. 6) as well as the upper stone (Isa. xlvii. 2), 
which latter would be more precisely designated by the term 
émipvdov (Deut. as above). It is the upper that is intended 
in the present instance ; the women sit or kneel (Robinson as 
above), hold the handle of the upper millstone in their hands 
(hence év 7. w.: with the millstone), and turn it round upon 
the lower, which does not move. 

Ver. 42. Moral inference from vv. 36—41. Comp. xxv. 13. 
—The following é7t «.7.Xr. (because ye, etc.) is an emphatic 
epexegesis of ody. This exhortation is likewise based on the 
assumption that the second advent is to take place in the 
lifetime of the disciples, who are called upon to wait for it 


158 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


in an attitude of spiritual watchfulness (1 Cor. xvi. 13, 22). 
The idea of watchfulness, the opposite of security, coincides 
with that implied in the constant érowacia tod evaryryediou 
(Eph. vi. 15). Comp. ver. 44. — o/a] at what (an early or 
a late). Comp. ver. 43; Rev. iii. 3; 1 Pet. 1. 11; Eur. 
Iph. A. 815; Aesch. Ag. 278. 

Ver. 43. But (that I may show you by means of a warning 
example how you may risk your salvation by allowing your- 
selves to be betrayed into a state of unpreparedness) know 
this, that if, etc. — 06 olxodecrorns] the particular one 
whom the thief has anticipated. —ei 78ev... éypnyopnoev 
av] if he had been aware at what watch in the night the thief 
comes, to break into his house, he would have watched. But 
as he does not know the hour which the thief chooses (it 
being different in different cases), he is found off his guard 
when the burglary is being committed. The rendering 
viguaret (Luther, Kuinoel, Bleek, after the Vulg.) is incorrect. 
For the illustration of the thief, comp. 1 Thess. v. 2, 4; 
2 Pet; 111,10 » Rey any 8 eavicks. 

Ver. 44. Ava todTo] in order that, as regards your salvation, 
your case may not be similar to the householder in question, 
who ought to have watched, although he did not know the 
gvraky of the thief.— «ai twets] as the householder would 
have been had he watched. — €rotmuor] spoken of their 
spiritual readiness for the second advent, which would take 
them by surprise (xxv. 10; Tit. 11.1). This preparedness 
they were to acquire for themselves (yiveo@e). 

Ver. 45 f. Tés dpa, x.7.r.] who therefore, considering the 
necessity for preparedness thus indicated. The inference 
itself is presented in the form of an allegory, the SodAos 
representing the disciples whom the Lord has appointed to be 
the guides of His church, in which they are required to show 
themselves faithful (1 Cor. iv. 1 f.) and prudent, the former 
by a disposition habitually determining their whole behaviour 
and characterized by devotion to the will of the Lord, the latter 
by the intelligent choice of ways and means, by taking proper 
advantage of circumstances, etc. The tis is not equiva- 
lent to e tus (Castalio, Grotius), which it never can be; but 


CHAP. XXIV. 47-51. 159 


ver. 45 asks: who then is the faithful slave? and ver. 46 
contains the answer ; the latter, however, being so framed that 
instead of simply saying, in accordance with the terms of 
the question, “i is he, whom his lord, on his return,” etc., 
prominence is given to the blessedness of the servant here in 
view. According to Bengel, Fritzsche, Fleck, de Wette, our 
question touchingly conveys the idea of seeking for: quis 
tandem, etc., “ hune scire pervelim.” To this, however, there is 
the logical objection, that the relative clause of ver. 45 would 
in that case have to be regarded as expressing the charac- 
teristic feature in the faithful and wise slave, whereas this 
feature is first mentioned in the relative clause of ver. 46, 
which clause therefore must contain the answer to the ques- 
tion, tis dpa éotly o motos 5. kK. $p.—oilKeteia, domestic 
servants, Lucian, Mere. cond. 15; Strabo, xiv. p. 668. Comp. 
oixetia, Symmachus, Job i. 3; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 505.— 
ovTws| thus, in accordance with duty assigned him in ver. 
45; the principal emphasis being on this word, it is put at 
the end of the sentence. 

Ver. 47. He will assign him a far higher position, set- 
ting him not merely over his domestics, but, etc. The 
cupPBacirevey in the Messiah’s kingdom is represented as 
being in accordance with that principle of gradation on which 
faithfulness and prudence are usually rewarded in the case 
of ordinary servants. Comp. xxv. 21 ff.; Luke xix. 17 ff. 

Vv. 48-51. ’"Eav 6&6, «.7.r.] the emphasis is on 6 Kaxos 
as contrasting with 6 muctos K. ppovywos, ver. 45, therefore 
0 amrLaTos K. appwv, — éxetvos] refers back to ov Katéctyaer, 
k.T.X., ver. 45, and represents the sum of its contents. Hence: 
but suppose the worthless servant who has been put in that 
position shall have said, etc. To assume that we have 
here a blending of two cases (the servant is either faith- 
ful or wicked), the second of which we are to regard as 
presupposed and pointed to by éxeivos (de Wette, Kaeuffer), 
is to burden the passage with unnecessary confusion. — 
apéntat] will have begun, does not refer to the circumstance 
that the lord surprises him in the midst of his misde- 
meanours (Fritzsche), because in that case what follows would 


160 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


also have to be regarded as depending on dp£&ntai, but on 
the contrary it brings out the fearless wickedness of the man 
abandoning himself to tyrannical behaviour and sensual grati- 
fications. — éo@in dé «. 7.] Before, we were told what his 
conduct was toward his fellow-slaves over whom he had 
been set; now, on the other hand, we are shown how he 
behaved himself apart from his relation to the oixereta, — 
Siyotounoes avTov] he will cut him in two (Plat. Polit. p. 
302 F; Polyb. vi. 28.2; x. 15..5; Ex. xxix. 17), a fommgen 
punishment according to which the criminal was sawn asunder, 
2 Sam. xii. 31; 1 Chron. xx. 3; Heb. xi. 37. Comp. Sueton. 
Calig. xvii.: “ medios serra dissecuit.” Herod. vii. 37. See, 
in general, Wetstein and Rosenmiiller, Morgenl., on our pas- 
sage. There is no force in the usual objection that, in 
what follows, the slave is assumed to be still living ; for, 
in the words cal Td pépos avdtod, x.7.r., which are imme- 
diately added, we have a statement of the thing itself, 
which the similitude of that terrible punishment was 
intended to illustrate. All other explanations are incon- 
sistent with the text, such as: he will tear him with the scourge 
(Heumann, Paulus, Kuinoel, Schott, de Wette, Olshausen), 
or: hewill cut him off from his service (Beza, Grotius, Jansen, 
Maldonatus ; comp. Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus), or: he will 
withdraw his spiritual gifts from him (Basil, Theophylact), 
or generally: he will punish him with the utmost severity 
(Chrysostom).— «al To wépos avtod, x.7.r.] and will assign 
him his proper place among the hypocrites, i.e. he will condemn 
him to have his fitting portion in common with the hypocrites, 
that thenceforth he may share their fate. Comp. on John 
xiii. 8, and the classical phrase é€v péper tuvos tiOec@ar. 
Rabbinical writers likewise regard Gehenna as the portion 
of hypocrites; see Schoettgen. But the expression tv 
vmoxpit. is made use of here because the xaxds doddos is a 
hypocrite in the inmost depths of his moral nature, inasmuch 
as he acts under the impression ypovifer wou 6 xvptos, though 
he hopes that when his lord arrives he will be able to 
assume the appearance of one who is still faithfully dis- 
charging his duty, just as he must have pretended to be 


CHAP, XXIV. 161 


good at the time when he received the trust which had been 
committed to him; but now he is suddenly unmasked. — 
éxet| namely, in hell, viii. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxv. 30. 


REMARK 1.—It is exegetically certain that from ver. 29 on- 
ward Jesus announces His second advent, after having spoken, 
in what precedes that verse, of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
and of that, too, as an event that was to take place immediately 
before His second coming. All attempts to obtain, for the 
eidéws of ver. 29, a different terminus a quo (see on ver. 29), 
and therefore to find room enough before this «iééws for an 
interval, the limits of which cannot as yet be assigned, or to fix 
upon some different point in the discourse as that at which the 
subject of the second advent is introduced (Chrysostom: ver. 
23; E. J. Meyer: ver. 35; Siisskind: ver. 36; Kuinoel: ver. 
43; Lightfoot, Wetstein, Flatt: not till xxv. 31; Hoelemann: 
as early as xxiv. 19), are not the fruits of an objective inter- 
pretation of the text, but are based on the assumption that 
every trifling detail must find its fulfilment, and lead to inter- 
pretations in which the meaning is explained away and twisted 
in the most violent way possible. The attempts of Ebrard, 
Dorner, Cremer, Hoelemann, Gess, to show that the prediction 
of Jesus is in absolute harmony with the course of history, 
are refuted by the text itself, especially by ver. 29; above all 
is it impossible to explain vv. 15-28 of some event which is 
still in the womb of the future (in opposition to Hofmann, 
Schriftbew. II. p. 630 ff.) ; nor again, in ver. 34, can we narrow 
the scope of the ravra ratra, or extend that of the yeve aura, 
or make yévyra: dencte merely the dawning of the events in 
question. 

REMARK 2.—It is true that the predictions, ver. 5 ff., regard- 
ing the events that were to precede the destruction of Jerusalem 
were not fulfilled in so special and ample a way as to harmonize 
with the synoptical representations of them ; still, that they were 
so in all essential respects, is proved by what we learn from his- 
tory respecting the impostors and magicians that appeared, the 
wars that raged far and near, the numerous cases of famine and 
earthquake that occurred, the persecutions of the Christians 
that took place, the moral degeneracy that prevailed, and the 
way in which the gospel had been proclaimed throughout the 
world, and all shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (after 
the Jews had begun to rise in rebellion against the Roman 
authority in the time of Gessius Florus, who became pro- 
curator of Judea in 64). This prophecy, though in every 


MATT. II. L 


162 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


respect a genuine prediction, is not without its imaginative 
element, as may be seen from the poetical and pictorial form 
in which it is embodied. Compare on ver. 7, Remark. But it 
is just this mode of representation which shows that a vati- 
cinium post eventum (see on ver. 1) is not to be thought of. 
Comp. Holtzmann, Weizsicker, Pfleiderer. 

REMARK 3.— With regard to the difficulty arising out of the 
fact that the second advent did not take place, as Jesus had 
predicted it would, immediately after the destruction of Jeru- 
salem,—and as an explanation of which the assumption of a 
blending of type and antitype (Luther) is arbitrary in itself, 
and only leads to confusion,—let the following be remarked : 
(1) Jesus has spoken of His advent in a threefold sense; for 
He described as His second coming (a) that outpouring of 
the Holy Spirit which was shortly to take place, and which 
was actually fulfilled; see on John xiv. 18 f., xvi. 16, 20 ff, 
also on Eph. ii. 17; (6) that historical manifestation of His 
majesty and power which would be seen, immediately after His 
ascension to the Father, in the triumph of His cause upon the 
earth, of which Matt. xxvi. 64 furnishes an undoubted example; 
(c) His coming, in the strict eschatological sense, to raise the 
dead, to hold the last judgment, and to set up His kingdom, 
which is also distinctly intimated in such passages of John as 
vi. 40, 54, v. 28, xiv. 3 (Weizel in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1836, p. 
626 ff.), and in connection with which it is to be observed that 
in John the dvacrjow airiv yw rH eoxarn nutpe (vi. 39 f., 44, 54) 
does not imply any such nearness of the thing as is implied 
when the spiritual advent is in question ; but, on the contrary, 
presupposes generally that believers will have to undergo death, 
Again, in the parable contained in Matt. xxii. 1-14, the calling 
of the Gentiles is represented as coming after the destruction of 
Jerusalem; so that (comp. on xxi. 40 f.) in any case a longer 
interval is supposed to intervene between this latter event 
and the second coming than would seem to correspond with the 
eddéws Of xxiv. 29. (2) But though Jesus Himself predicted His 
second coming as an event close at hand, without understanding 
it, however, in the literal sense of the words (see above, under a 
and 6); though, in doing so, He availed Himself to some extent 
of such prophetical phraseology as had come to be the stereo- 
typed language for describing the future establishment of the 
literal kingdom of the Messiah (xxvi. 64), and in this way 
made use of the notions connected with this literal kingdom 
for the purpose of embodying his conceptions of the ideal advent, 
—it is nevertheless highly conceivable that, in the minds of the 


CHAP. XXIV. 163 


disciples, the sign of Christ’s speedy entrance into the world 
again came to be associated and ultimately identified with the 
expectation of a literal kingdom. This is all the more con- 
ceivable when we consider how difficult it was for them to 
realize anything so ideal as an invisible return, and how natural 
it was for them to apprehend literally the figurative language 
in which Jesus predicted this return, and how apt they were, 
in consequence, to take everything He said about His second 
coming, in the threefold sense above mentioned, as having 
reference to the one great object of eager expectation, viz. 
the glorious establishment of the Messiah’s kingdom. ‘The 
separating and sifting of the heterogeneous elements that were 
thus blended together in their imagination, Jesus appears to 
have left to the influence of future development, instead of 
undertaking this task Himself, by directly confuting and cor- 
recting the errors to which this confusion gave rise (Acts 1. 
7, 8), although we must not overlook the fact that any utterances 
of Jesus in this direction would be apt to be lost sight of—all 
the more, that they would not be likely to prove generally 
acceptable. It may likewise be observed, as bearing upon this ,. 
matter, that the spiritual character of the Gospel of John—in 
which the idea of the advent, though not altogether absent, 
occupies a very secondary place as compared with the decided 
prominence given to that of the coming again in a spiritual 
sense—is a phenomenon which presupposes further teaching on 
the part of Jesus, differing materially from that recorded in 
the synoptic traditions. (3) After the idea of imminence had 
once got associated in the minds of the disciples with the expec- 
tation of the second advent and the establishment of the literal 
kingdom, the next step, now that the resurrection of Jesus had 
taken place, was to connect the hope of fulfilment with the pro- 
mised baptism with the spirit which was understood to be near at 
hand (Acts i. 6); and they further expected that the fulfilment 
would take place, and that they would be witnesses of it before 
they left Judea,—an idea which is most distinctly reflected in 
Matt: x. 23. Hx eventw the horizon of this hope came to be 
gradually enlarged, without its extending, however, beyond the 
lifetime of the existing generation. It was during this interval 
that, according to Jesus, the destruction of Jerusalem was to 
take place. But if He at the same time saw, and in prophetic 
symbolism announced, what He could not fail to be aware of, 
viz. the connection that there would be between this cata- 
strophe and the triumph of His ideal kingdom, then nothing was 
more natural than to expect that, with Jerusalem still standing 


164 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


(differently in Luke xxi. 24), and the duration of the existing 
generation drawing to a close, the second advent would take 
place immediately after the destruction of the capital,—an ex- 
pectation which would be strengthened by the well-known 
descriptions furnished by the prophets of the triumphal entry 
of Jehovah and the disasters that were to precede it (Strauss, 
IL. p. 348), as well as by that form of the doctrine of the dolores 
Messiae to which the Rabbis had given currency (Langen, 
Judenth. in Paldst.p. 494 f.). The form of the expectation in- 
voluntarily modified the form of the promuse ; the ideal advent 
and establishment of the kingdom came to be identified with the 
eschatological, so that in men’s minds and in the traditions alike 
the former gradually disappeared, while the latter alone remained 
as the object of earnest longing and expectation, surrounded 
not merely with the gorgeous colouring of prophetic delinea- 
tion, but also placed in the same relation to the destruction of 
Jerusalem as that in which the ideal advent, announced in the 
language of prophetic imagery, had originally stood. Comp. 
Scherer in the Strassb. Beitr. II. 1851, p. 83 ff.; Holtzmann, 
p. 409 f.; Keim, III. p. 219 f—Certain expositors have referred, 
in this connection, to the sentiment of the modern poet, who 
says: “the world’s history is the world’s judgment,’ and have 
represented the destruction of Jerusalem as the first act in this 
judgment, which is supposed to be immediately followed (ver. 
29) by a renovation of the world through the medium of Chris- 
tianity,—a renovation which is to go on until the last revela- 
tion from heaven takes place (Kern, Dorner, Olshausen). But 
this is only to commit the absurdity of importing into the 
passage a poetical judgment, such as is quite foreign to the real 
judgment of the New Testament. No less objectionable is 
Bengel’s idea, revived by Hengstenberg and Olshausen (comp. 
also Kern, p. 56; Lange, II. p. 1258; Schmid, Bibl. Theol. I. 
p- 354), about the perspective nature of the prophetic vision— 
an idea which could only have been vindicated from the 
reproach of imputing a false vision, z.c. an optical delusion, to 
Jesus if the latter had fazled to specify a definite time by means 
of a statement so very precise as that contained in the «dééwes of 
ver. 29, or had not added the solemn declaration of ver. 34. 
Dorner, Wittichen, rightly decide against this view. As a last 
shift, Olshausen has recourse to the idea that some condition or 
other is to be understood : “ All those things will happen, wnless 
men avert the anger of God by sincere repentance,’ —a reservation 
which, in a prediction of so extremely definite a character, 
would most certainly have been expressly mentioned, even 


CHAP. XXIV. 165 


although no doubt can be said to exist as to the conditional 
nature of the Old Testament prophecies (Bertheau in the 
Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1859, p. 335 ff). If, as Olshausen thinks, 
it was the wish of the Lord that His second advent should 
always be looked upon as a possible, nay, as a probable thing, 
—and if it was for this reason that He spoke as Matthew repre- 
sents Him to have done, then it would follow that He made 
use of false means for the purpose of attaining a moral end, 
—a thing even more inconceivable in His case than theoretical 
error, which latter Strauss does not hesitate to impute. Accord- 
ing to this view, to which Wittichen also adheres, it is to the 
ethical side of the ministry of Jesus that the chief importance 
is to be attached. But it is precisely this ethical side that, in 
the case of Him who was the very depository of the intuitive 
truth of God, would necessarily be compromised by such an 
error as is here in view,—an error affecting a prediction so 
intimately connected with His whole work, and of so much 
importance in its moral consequences. Comp. John viii. 46. 
REMARK 4.—The statement of ver. 29, to the effect that the 
second advent would take place immediately after the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, and that of ver. 34, to the effect that it would 
occur during the lifetime of the generation then living, go to 
decide the date of the composition of our Greek Matthew, 
which must accordingly have been written at some time pre- 
vious to the destruction of the capital. Baur, indeed (Zvan- 
gelien, p. 605 ; Neut. Theol. p. 109), supposes the judgment that 
was immediately to precede the second advent to be represented 
by the Jewish war in the time of Hadrian, and detects the date 
of the composition of our Gospel (namely, 130-134) in the 
dcr. rig épnuwo. of ver. 15, which he explains of the statue of 
Jupiter which Hadrian had erected in the temple area (Dio 
Cass. lxix. 12). Such a view should have been felt to be 
already precluded by vv. 1-3, where, even according to Baur 
himself, it is only the first devastation under Titus that can be 
meant, as well as by the parallel passages of the other Synoptists; 
to say nothing, moreover, of the fact that a literal destruction of 
Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian, which is mentioned for the 
first time by Jerome in his comment on Ezek. v. 1, is, according 
to the older testimony of Justin, Ap. i. 47, and of Eusebius, iv. 6, 
highly questionable (Holtzmann, p. 405). But as regards the 
yeved, in whose lifetime the destruction of the capital and the 
second advent were (ver. 34) to take place, Zeller (in the Theol. 
Jahrb. 1852, p. 299 f.), following Baur and Hilgenfeld, did. d. Ev. 
Justin’s, p. 367, has sought to make the duration of the period 


166 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


in question extend over a century and more, therefore to some- 
where about the year 130 and even later, although the common 
notion of a yeveé was such that a century was understood to be 
equal to something like three of them (Herod. i. 142 ; Thue. 
1. 14. 1; Wesseling, ad Diod. i. 24). The above, however, 
is an erroneous view, which its authors have been constrained 
to adopt simply to meet the exigencies of the case. For, with 
such passages before them as x. 23, xvi. 28, neither their critical 
nor their dogmatical preconceptions should have allowed them 
to doubt that anything else was meant than the ordinary life- 
time of the existing generation, the generation living at the 
time the discourse was being delivered (the yeved 4 xar& riv 
rapivra xpovov, Dem. 1390, 25), and that, too, only the portion 
of their lifetime that was still to run. Comp. Kahnis, Dogm. 
I. p. 494; Holtzmann, p. 408; Keim, p. 206; also Kostlin, p: 
114 ff 


CHAP, XXV. 167 


CHAPTER XXV. 


Ver. 1.1 éréyrqoiv] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: irévryow, following BC 
s, 1, Method. Had this been the original reading, it would also 
have forced its way into ver. 6, in which latter, however, it is 
found only in 157, Cyr.— Ver. 2. Lachm. and Tisch. 8: zévre 
6: 2& adray joav wopai nal révre Opéviuor, following BC DL Zxk, min. 
and vss. (also Vulg. It.). Considering what a preponderance of 
evidence is here, and seeing how ready the transcribers would 
be to place the wise first in order, the reading of the Received 
text must be regarded as a subsequent transposition. — Ver. 3. 
For awirivesg there are found the readings (glosses): ai 6¢ in Z, 
Vulg. codd. of the It. Lachm., and ai yép in B C LX, Tisch. 8 ; 
likewise ai otv in D. — Ver. 4. In witnesses of importance airay 
is wanting after déyye/os, so that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it 
is to be deleted as a common interpolation. — Ver.6. pyeraz] 
is wanting in such important witnesses (B C* D L Zx, 102, 
Copt. Sahid. Ar’. Cant. Method. Ephr. Cyr.), and has so much 
the look of a supplement, that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it 
should be erased. But the airot after drdvr., which Tisch. 8 
deletes, is wanting only in B &, 102, Meth. Cyr. — Ver. 7. For 
avréy it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to read iavrav, following 
ABLZ-xS. The reflective force of the pronoun had never been 
noticed, especially with ver. 4 preceding it, in which verse éaurdv 
instead of airdy after Awur. (so Tisch. 8) is supported only by the 
evidence of B s.— Ver. 9. For odx, as in the Received text, 
there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of reading od ju7, 
which Griesb. has recommended, and which Lachm., Tisch. 7, 
and also Scholz have adopted. The 4%, which Fritzsche and 
Tisch. 8 have discarded, was omitted from its force not being 
understood. — 62 after wopedecds (in Elz., Tisch. 7) would be just 
as apt to be inserted as a connective particle, as it would 
be ready to be omitted if sopedeote, x.7.A. was taken as the 
apodosis. Accordingly, the matter must be decided by a 


1 The Codex Alex. (A) joins the list of critical authorities for the first time at 
ch. xxv. It begins at ver. 6 with the word éZépy:o#s, 


168 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


preponderance of evidence, and that is in favour of deleting 
the 6.— Ver. 11. xa/ wi] Lachm. has simply ai, but against 
decisive evidence; and then think how readily zai might 
be dropped out between TAI and AI!— Ver. 13. After apay 
Elz. inserts é 4 6 vidc rod dvdpiaov epyeros, words which, in 
accordance with a decided preponderance of evidence, are to be 
regarded as a gloss (xxiv. 44).— Ver. 16. éaoinoev] A** BC 
D L 8** min.: éxépdycev. Recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, 
adopted by Lachm. Gloss derived from what follows. — The 
omission of the second réAavra by Lachm. is without adequate 
authority, nor had the transcribers any motive for inserting it ; 
comp. ver. 17.— Ver. 17. xa? airos] is wanting in important 
witnesses, and is erased by Lachm. and Tisch. 8; but, owing 
to the circumstance of asairws xai having preceded, it may very 
readily have been left out as superfluous and clumsy. — Ver. 18. 
Lachm. inserts réAavrov after ¢, only on the authority of A, It. ; 
but éxpupey (Lachm. Tisch.) for aséxpuey is supported by such 
a preponderance of evidence that it is unnecessary to regard 
it as taken from ver. 25.— Ver. 19. It is better, with Lachm. 
and Tisch., to adopt in both cases the order woAdy xpévov and 
Adyoy wer airy, in accordance with preponderating evidence.— 
Ver. 20. éx abrozs] is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, both 
here and in ver. 22, following B D L 8, mm. and vss., while 
E G, min. read @ airot; but D, Vulg. It. Or. insert érexépdgouw 
before the é# airoz. Later variants are interpretations of 
the superfluous (and therefore sometimes omitted) é@ airots 
— Ver. 21. 6:, which Elz. inserts after 2g, has been deleted, 
in accordance with preponderating evidence, as being an inter- 
polation of the connective particle (so also Griesb., Scholz, 
Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.).— Ver. 22. AaSayv| is wanting in 
ABCLAR8, min. Syr."*; a few min. have «Angus. Deleted 
by Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly ; a supplement. — Ver. 27. 
For +d apyip. wov Tisch. 8 reads r& dpytpie mov, following B 
x* Syr.’ Correctly ; the plural would be apt to be replaced 
by the singular (comp. Luke), because it is a question of one 
talent, and because of the +d guév following. — Ver. 29. avd 6: 
zov] B DL 8, min.: 70d 62 Approved by Griesb., adopted by 
Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.; the ordinary reading is by way of 
helping the construction. — Ver. 30. 2aBaaere for éxBdarrere (in 
Elz.) is confirmed by decisive evidence. — Ver. 31. Elz. Scholz 
insert éyio before éyyeAo, in opposition to B D L m* 8, min. and 
many vss.and Fathers. An adjective borrowed from the ordinary 
ecclesiastical phraseology, and which, though it might readily 
enough be inserted, would scarcely be likely to be omitted. 


CHAP. XXV. 1, 2 169 


Comp. Zech. xiv. 5.— Ver. 40. rav a&édeApav wou] wanting 
only in B* and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. But comp. 
ver. 45. — Ver. 41. of xarnpay.] Tisch. 8 has deleted the article, 
in accordance with B L &, and that correctly ; it is taken from 
ver. 34. 


Ver. 1 f. An additional exhortation to watchfulness in 
consequence of the day and hour of the advent being un- 
known, and embodied i the parable of the ten virgins, extend- 
ing to ver. 13, which parable is peculiar to Matthew (having 
been taken from the collection of our Lord’s sayings) ; for it 
is not the echoes of the present narrative, but something essen- 
tially different, that we meet with in Mark xiii. 35-37 and 
Luke xii. 35-38. — Tore] then, i.e. on the day on which the 
master will return, and inflict condign punishment upon his 
worthless slave. Not: after inflicting this punishment 
(Fritzsche), for the parable is intended to portray the coming 
of the Messiah ; but neither, again, is it to be taken as point- 
ing back to ver. 37 and ver. 14 of the previous chapter 
(Cremer), which would be an arbitrary interruption of the 
regular sequence of the discourse as indicated by tore. — 
opotwOyncetat| will be made like, actually so ; see on vii. 26. 
—7 Baoir. Tov ovpav.] the Messianic kingdom, in respect, 
that is, of the principle of admission and exclusion that 
will be followed when that kingdom comes to be set up. — 
€EAAOov Eis atavtT. ToD vusd.] Here the marriage is not 
represented as taking place in the house of the bridegroom, 
in accordance with the usual practice (Winer, Realw. I. p. 
499; Keil, Arch. § 109), but in that of the bride (Judg. xiv. 10), 
from which the ten bridesmaids set out in the evening for the 
purpose of meeting the expected bridegroom. The reason why 
the parable transfers the scene of the marriage to the home of 
the bride, is to be found in the nature of the thing to be illus- 
trated, inasmuch as, at the time of His advent, Christ is to be 
understood as coming to the earth and as setting up His 
kingdom here below, and not in heaven. Comp. also the fol- 
lowing parable, ver. 14 ff. — é&9AGov] they went out, namely, 
from the bride’s house, which is self-evident from the context 
(ets amavtTnow Tod vuwdiov). Bornemann in the S‘ud. u. Krit. 


170 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


1843, p. 112 f,—who, like the majority of expositors, sup- 
poses that what is here in view is the ordinary practice of 
conducting the bride from her own house to that of the bride- 
groom (but see on ver. 10),—and Ewald understand é&\Oov 
of the setting out of the maids from their own homes to go 
to the house of the bride, in order to start from the latter 
for the purpose of meeting the bridegroom as he comes to 
fetch home his bride. But the meaning of the terms forbids 
us to assume different starting - points for é&@ov and eis 
aravrnow (Acts xxviii. 15); this is further precluded by 
the supposition, in itself improbable, that the foolish virgins 
could not have obtained a fresh supply of oil at the house 
of the bride—Whether ten was the wswal number for brides- 
maids cannot be determined; but generally “numero denario 
(as the base of their numeral system) gavisa plurimum est 
gens Judaica et in sacris et in civilibus,” Lightfoot. Comp. 
Luke xix. 13.—qgpovepot] Comp. xxiv. 45, vii. 24, 26. 
This second virtue belonging to a right érowacia (see on 
xxiv. 55), viz. practical wisdom, is here intended to be made 
specially prominent. The idea of a contrast between chastity 
and its opposite (Cremer) is quite foreign to the context. 
Comp. copacvov ppovipov, Tob. vi. 12. 

Ver. 3. Al’tives pwpai] sc. joav, quotquot erant stultae. — 
éxaBov]| they took, on setting out; not for the pluperfect 
(Erasmus, Vatablus).—pe? éavtody] with themselves, namely, 
besides the oil that was burning in their lamps. 

Vv. 5, 6. The virgins, who, ver. 1, have left the house of 
the bride (in opposition to Cremer and Lange, who suppose 
€&\Oov to contain a prolepsis), and therefore are no longer 
there, have betaken themselves to some house on the way 
(€£épyeoGe, observe), in order there to await the passing by of 
the bridegroom. The coming of the latter was delayed on till 
midnight ; the maids who sat waiting began to get wearied, 
they nodded (aorist), and slept (imperfect). Comp. Isa. v. 27; 
Ps. xxi. 4. Vulgate: “ dormitaverunt omnes et dormierunt.” 
—iédod 6 vupdios (without épyerai, see critical remarks): 
behold the bridegroom ! The ery of the people who see him 
coming a little way off. They are made aware of his approach 


CHAP, XXV. 7-13. ey) 


from seeing the light of the torches or lamps carried by those 
who accompanied him in the procession. 

Ver. 7f. "Exocpnoayr] they put in proper order, namely, 
by trimming the wick and such like, they dressed them. — 
éauvtov (see critical remarks) : each one her own; betokening 


the individual preparation that was now going on. — oBépv- 
vuvtat] are just on the point of going out. 
Ver. 9. Mymote... duty] Since ov py is the correct read- 


ing (see critical remarks), and seeing that the apxéon following 
cannot be regarded as dependent on pjote, but only on ov pu}, 
the punctuation should be as follows: pjrore: ob pi) apKéon, 
k.7.d.: never (shall we give you of our oil) : there will certainly 
not be enough for us and you! For the absolute negative pu, 
comp. xxvi. 5; Ex. x. 11; Matthiae, p. 1454 ; Kiihner, IT. 2, 
p. 1047. Correctly Bornemann, as above, p. 110; Bleek, 
Lange, Luthardt. Comp. Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 632]; Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. II. p. 107. 

Ver. 10 f. While they were going away, came (not: advenerat, 
Fritzsche).— eioA#AOov pet avtod] namely, into the house 
of the bride, whither the bridegroom was on his way, and to 
which the maids were conducting him, with a view to the 
celebration of the marriage. The idea of the bridegroom's 
house being that referred to (see on ver. 1) is precluded by 
the correlation in which Oey o vupdios and efo7jrAOov per’ 
avtod stand to each other.— xvpte, xvpse] expressive of 
most urgent and anxious entreaty. Comp. vu. 21. 

Ver. 12 f. Ovx« otda tpuas] because ye were not amongst 
the bridesmaids who welcomed me, ye are to me as entire 
strangers whom I do not know, and who, therefore, can have 
no part in the marriage! The knowledge of experience arising 
out of the intercourse of life (vil. 23; 1 Cor. viii. 3, xiii. 12; 
Gal. iv. 9) is the point intended to be thus <¢llustrated. 
Besides, Jesus might also have said (in opposition to Cremer) : 
ovK éyvov vm. (1 have not known you). — odv] because the 
foolish virgins were shut out, and because something corre- 
sponding to this would happen to you unless you watch.— 
According to ver. 13, the teaching of the parable is: that the 
moral preparedness that continues to maintain itself up till 


12 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


the moment of the advent, the day and hour of which do not 
admit of being determined, will lead to participation in the 
Messianic kingdom, whereas those in whom this preparedness has 
not been muintained till the end will, when surprised by the 
sudden appearing of the Lord, experience in themselves the trre- 
parable consequences of their foolish neglect, and be shut out from 
His kingdom. This latter is a negative expression of con- 
demnation, not, as Olshausen supposes notwithstanding the 
éxdeiaOn 7 Ovpa, merely a way of designating such a salvation 
as is spoken of in 1 Cor. il. 15. More specific interpreta- 
tions—of the virgins, the lamps, the oil, the xcpavy7, etc.—are 
to be found not only in Origen, Hilary, Cyrill, Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine, Jerome (see 
Cremer, p. 156 ff), but also in Olshausen, von Meyer, Cremer, 
Lange, Auberlen. In those interpretations subjective opinion 
has, in most diverse and arbitrary fashion, exceeded the limits 
indicated by Jesus in ver. 13. Calvin well remarks: “Multum 
se torquent quidam in lucernis, in vasis, in oleo. Atqui sim- 
plex et genuina summa est, non sufficere alacre exigui temporis 
studium, nisi infatigabilis constantia simul accedat.” Neither- 
is the falling asleep of the virgins intended to be specially 
significant; for, as it happened in the case of the exemplary 
wise ones as well, it cannot represent any moral shortcoming. 
Ver. 14. The parable of the talents, extending to ver. 30, 
is introduced as an additional ground for the ypnyopetre, 
and that by viewing it as a question of work and responsi- 
bility. The parable in Luke xix. 12 ff, which, notwithstanding 
the differences in regard to individual features, resembles 
the present in its leading thoughts and illustrations, is to 
be regarded as a modification, arising in the course of the 
Gospel tradition, of the more original and simpler one before 
us (in opposition to Calvin, Olshausen, Neander, Holtzmann, 
Volkmar), and which Luke also represents as having been spoken 
1 In connection with this parable, compare the following traditional sayings 
attributed to Christ: yivecbe rpareCiras Boxe (Hom. Clem. ii. 51, iii. 50, 
xviii. 20, ete. ; Clement of Alexandria, Origen ; Apostolical Constitutions) ; and 
ty ois dy tuas xaraeraBw, tv rovros xai xpvw (Justin, c. Zr. 47). Eusebius gives a 


kindred parable from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and for which see Mai’s Nova 
patrum biblioth. TV. p. 155. 


CHAP. XXV. 15. 173 


at a different time ; comp. Weizsicker, p. 181. In this latter 
Gospel we have what was originally an independent parable 
(that of the rebellious subjects) blended with that of the talents 
(Strauss, I. p. 636 f.; Ewald, p. 419 f.; Bleek, Keim, Weiss, 
1864, p.128 ff.). If it be maintained, as Kern, Lange, Cremer, 
are disposed to do, that in Matthew and Luke we have two 
distinct parables, spoken by Jesus on two different occasions, 
then there is no alternative but either to accept the wnnatural 
view that the simpler (Matthew’s) is the later form, or to 
suppose, wm opposition to what is recorded, that Jesus spoke 
the parable in Matthew, where, however, the connection is 
perfectly apposite, somewhat earlier than that in Luke 
(Schleiermacher, Neander). The one view as well as the 
other would be all the more questionable, that the interval 
during which Christ “intentionally employs the same para- 
bolic materials for the purpose of illustrating different sub- 
jects” (Auberlen) would thus comprise only a few days. 
Mark xii. 34 is extracted from what Matthew has taken 
from the collection of our Lord’s sayings.—@o7ep, «.7.r.] 
a case of anantapodosis similar to that of Mark xii. 34, 
and doubtless reproducing what already appeared in the 
collection of sayings from which the passage is taken. Comp. 
Rom. v. 12. Fritzsche on ver. 30. At the outset of the 
discourse it would be the intention to connect the whole 
parable with @o7ep, and, at the conclusion, to annex an 
apodosis by means of ovtws (probably oftw Kal 6 vids T. 
avOparrov Tounce, OY oUTwS EcTaL Kal % Tapovcia T. vIOd T. 
av@p.); but, considering the somewhat lengthened character 
of the parable, this had to be omitted. —daodnp.] on the 
point of going abroad (xxi. 33).—Tods idlouvs Sovrouvs] 
not strangers, such as exchangers, but his own servants, of 
whom, therefore, he had a right to expect that they would do 
their best to lay out for his advantage the money entrusted to 
them. 

Ver. 15. Kata ty idiav dvvapsr] not arbitrarily, there- 
fore, but according to each one’s peculiar capabilities (“ pru- 
dentia et peritia,’ Beza) for doing business. The different 
charismatic gifts are bestowed in a manner corresponding to 


L7t THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


the varying natural aptitudes of men. Those endowments 
are conferred according to an <individualizing principle. 
“Nemo urgetur ultra quam potest,” Bengel. — ev@éws] imme- 
diately, therefore without making any further arrangements 
for disposing of the money. Fritzsche, Rinck, and Tisch. 8 
agree with B and several codd. of the It. in connecting edOéws 
with what follows. In that case it would be necessary either 
to insert the 6€ of ver. 16 before zropev0. (x**), or, with Tisch., 
to delete it altogether (8*). However, the evidence in favour 
of this view is quite inadequate. And it is precisely in 
connection with diedynunoev that evOéws is seen to have a 
peculiar significance, that, namely, of showing that absolute 
independence was allowed in regard to the way in which the 
money was to be employed by those to whom it had been 
entrusted, which is admirably in keeping with cata tHv idiav 
dvvapw.— TaddavTa] see on xviii. 25. 

Ver. 16. Eipydoato] traded with them (év avrtois, in- 
strumental). Very common in classical writers (especially 
Demosthenes) with reference to commerce and matters of 
exchange, though usually with the simple dative of the 
instrument. — émrotnoev] he acquired, gained; as in German: 
er machte Geld (he made money). See instances in Wetstein 
and Kypke. So also the Latin /acere. 

Ver. 18. "AwerXOav] he went away, removed to a distance. 
How entirely different in the case of the two first, ver. 16! 
They started upon a journey (aopev@.).— @puEev év Tt. yf] 
he digged, i.e. he made a hole in the earth. The reading yj, 
which Tisch. adopts, following B L & (C*: tv yfv), but from 
which the vss. deviate, would mean: he dug up the earth (Plat. 
Euthyd. p. 288 E).— 76 apyvp. tod Kvp. adr.) brings out 
emphatically the idea of responsibility and dereliction of 
duty. 

Ver. 20 f. Em’ avrois] in addition to them; comp. on 
Col. iii, 14. The ide points the master to what had been 
gained ; the boldness of a good conscience. — ev] is generally 
taken absolutely: excellent! that is right! But this would 
have required edye (Plat. Gorg. p. 494 C; Lach. p. 181 A; 
Soph. Phil, 327), which reading (taken from Luke xix. 17, 


CHAP. XXV. 24, 25. iia 


where edrye is the original one) Fritzsche actually adopts, follow- 
ing A*, Vulg. It. Or. (once). Consequently we should connect 
ed with #5 motos: Thow wast admirably (probe) faithful in 
regard to a little. For eb when separated from the word to 
which it belongs, comp. Xen. Cyr. 1. 6.24; Mem. uu. 1. 33, 
and Kiihner thereon. "Ayaé and mioré represent the genus 
and species of an upright character. The opposite of this: 
ver. 26.—eis THY yapav Tov Kupiov cov] yapa is not 
to be understood of a feast (Clericus, Schoettgen, Wolf, 
Michelsen, Kuinoel, Schott), a sense in which the word is 
not used (LXX. Esth. ix. 17 is an inaccurate rendering), and 
which the context does not sanction any more than it 
countenances the idea of a festival in honour of the master’s 
return (in opposition to de Wette and Lange); but what is 
meant is that the slave is invited to participate in the happi- 
ness which his master is enjoying (Chrysostom admirably : 
Thy Tacav pakapLoTnTa Sia TOU prywatos TovTou Secxvds), thus 
exhibiting the thought of Rom. viii. 17. The use of the 
expression eloedGe is, in that case, to be regarded as due to 
the nature of the thing which the parable is meant to illus- 
trate (the Messianic kingdom). 

Ver. 24 f. "Eyvwv ce, 67] well-known attraction. Winer, 
p. 581 [E. T. 781]. The aorist is not used here in the sense 
of the perfect, I know thee (Kuinoel), but: I knew thee, and 
hid.—What follows characterizes, in proverbial language (by 
a figure taken from farming), a man wnconscionably hard to 
please, and demanding more than is reasonable. — cuvvadyov 
b0ev ov dtecKopT.| gathering (corn into the adoOj«n) from a 
place where you have not threshed (with reference to the thresh- 
ing-floor of another man’s farm). SdacKxopmifew, to scatter so as 
to separate from each other (for the classical character of which 
expression see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 213), is expressly used in 
the present instance, because it forms a better contrast to 
ouvvayov than AuKpay (xxi. 44). If it were to be taken 
as equivalent to o7retpew, the result would be a tautological 
parallelism (in opposition to Erasmus, Beza, de Wette).—The 
entire excuse is a false pretext invented by moral indolence, 
—a, pretext which is reduced ad absurdum in vv. 26, 27. — 


176 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


poRnGeis] namely, of losing the talent in business, or of not 
being able to satisfy thee. — 76 cov] self-righteous. 

Ver. 26 f. The master chastises the worthless and indolent 
(Rom. xii. 11) servant with his own weapons. — 76ess, «.7.A.] 
question of astonishment, which is more spirited and more in 
keeping with the surprising nature of the excuse than to under- 
stand the words in a conceding sense (Kuinoel, de Wette), or 
as an independent hypothesis (Bernhardy, p. 385), in which 
case the ody of the apodosis would be deprived of its force 
(see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 22 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
718 f.).— Baretv... tots tpare€’.] flinging down upon the 
table of the money-changers, represents the indifference of the 
proceeding, — éy@] is emphatic as related to the preceding ie, 
éyets TO cov, ver. 25. To it likewise corresponds 70 €or, to 
which, however, ody tox is now added for sake of emphasis. 

Vv. 28-30. Odv] because his conduct was so inexcusable. 
—Ver. 29. Justification of this mode of proceeding, by appeal- 
ing toa principle founded on universal experience, and which 
was to find its verification in the case before us. Comp. xiii. 
12.— rod dé wx ExovTos] see critical remarks. The genitive, 
here placed first for sake of emphasis, might be regarded as 
dependent on apOyjceras (Fritzsche), in accordance, that is, with 
the construction of verbs of depriving with tuvos te (Kiihner, 
II. 1, p. 282). Inasmuch, however, as the a7’ avtov which 
follows would thus be superfluous and clumsy, it is better to 
take the genitive as absolute: as for him who has not (the poor 
man); comp. Thuc. v.18. 8, and Kriiger thereon. We thus 
obtain “duobus membris factis ex uno oppositio nervosior” 
(Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 272). For o éywv, the rich man, 
comp. Isocr. vii. 55 and Benseler thereon.— For ver. 30, 
comp. viii. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51. The verse is 
not here out of place, but acquires a certain solemnity from 
its resemblance to the conclusion of ch. xxiv. (in opposition 
to Weiss, 1864, p.129). 

Teaching of the parable—By a faithful use, after my de- 
parture, of those varied endowments which I have bestowed on 
each of you according to his special capacity, you are to do your 
utmost to promote my cause. For when I return and reckon 


CHAP. XXV. 31-33. U7 eg 


with you (ver. 19), then those who have exerted themselves in 
a dutiful manner will receive a distinguished reward in the 
kingdom of the Messiah; but those who have allowed their 
cifts, however small, to lie unused, will be deprived of that 
which has been entrusted to them, and be cast into Gehenna. 
For more minute and specific interpretations, all of them of 
a more or less arbitrary character, see Origen, Chrysostom, 
Theophylact. The reference to all Christian endowments gene- 
vally (1 Cor. xii.), is to be regarded rather as an application 
of the parable in a more comprehensive sense. 

Ver. 31 ff. It is unnecessary to suppose that this utterance 
about the judgment—an utterance taken, like the preceding, 
from the collection of our Lord’s sayings (Aeysa)—should be 
immediately connected with xxiv. 30 f. (Fritzsche, de Wette) 
gx with xxiv. 51 (Ewald). The coming of the Messiah and 
His judicial dealing with His servants had been portrayed 
immediately before, and now the prophetic glance extends 
and takes in the judgment of all nations ——a judgment which 
is to be presided over by the Lord when He returns in 
His glory. This is the grand closing scene in which the 
eschatological predictions are all to be realized, and depicted 
too with a simplicity and beauty so original that there is 
but the less reason for imagining that this discourse about 
the judgment is the product of the apostolic period (Hilgen- 
feld, Volkmar, Scholten, Wittichen, Keim).— It is usual to 
understand those who are being judged as representing men 
generally, Christians and non-Christians alike (see, among 
modern expositors, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Lange, 
Weizel, as above, p. 603; Kaeuffer, de Swijs aiwy. not. p. 44; 
Hofmann, Schriftbew. p. 645), Bleek arbitrarily assuming 
that the evangelists have eatended the application of what 
originally referred only to Christians. On the other hand, 
Keil (Gn the Opusc., ed. Goldh. p. 136 ff, and Anal. 1813, 
III. 177 ff.) and Olshausen, as well as Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Georgii in Zeller’s Jahrb. 1845, p. 18 f.; Hilgenfeld, Weiz- 
sicker, Volkmar, Keim, Wittichen, Auberlen, Cremer, under- 
stand all who are not Christians to be referred to, some of 
them, however, expressly excluding the Jews. But non- 

MATT. II. M 


178 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Christians could not have been intended, because it would be 
improper to say that the Messianic kingdom has been prepared 
for such, to say nothing of the aro cataBodjs Kéopou, ver. 34, 
in which the idea of the éxXexroi is exclusively involved ; 
further, because it would be no less improper to suppose, 
without more ado, that non-Christians are intended by the 
of dixatot of ver. 37, which latter we are not at liberty to 
understand in a generalized sense, but only as equivalent to 
the elect; again, because those things which Jesus represents 
(vv. 35, 36, 60) as manifestations of love toward Himself 
cannot possibly be conceived of as done by those who, never- 
theless, continued to remain outside the Christian community ; 
finally, because both sides of the assemblage use such 
language (vv. 37 ff., 44) as compels us to acknowledge their 
belief in the Judge before whom they now stand. Their 
language is the expression of a consciousness of their faith in 
the Messiah, towards whom, however, they have had no oppor- 
tunity of displaying their love. If the Messianic felicity were 
here adjudged to pure heathens according to the way in which 
they may have acted toward Christians (Hilgenfeld), this would 
be to suppose.a “ remarkable toleration” (Keim) altogether at 
variance with the whole tenor of the New Testament, and 
such as even Rey. xxi. 24 (see Diisterdieck on that passage) 
does not countenance,—a humanity which does not need 
faith, because it compensates for the want of it by its love 
(Volkmar, p. 546). If, after all this, we cannot suppose 
that a judement of non-Christians is here meant, we may 
even go still further, and say that non-Christians are not 
included at all, and so we must also reject the view usually 
adopted, since Chrysostom and Augustine, that what is here 
exhibited is a judgment of all men, believers and unbelievers 
alike. For, so far from the mention of the divine é«doy7, 
ver. 34, or the idea of the d/cavor, ver. 37, or what Jesus 
says at ver. 35, or the answer of those assembled before 
the Judge, vv. 37 and 44, or the entire omission generally 
of any distinction between belief and unbelief, harmonizing 
with the notion of a mixed body consisting of Christians and 
non-Christians, they entirely exclude the latter. We should 


CHAP, XXV. 31-33. 179 


therefore return to the very old view (Lactantius, Jnstit. vii. 
20; Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus), which, though it had been 
neglected in consequence of the prevalent eschatology, was 
preserved by Grotius, the view, namely, that what Jesus is 
here depicting is the judgment of Christians: wept tov Xpic- 
tavav Sé wovev oO Noyos évtTadOa, Euthymius Zigabenus, who 
proves this, above all, from vv. 35, 36. All the points 
previously adduced as arguments against the other explana- 
tions combine to favour this view. It is confirmed by the 
whole fundamental idea on which the Judge’s sentence turns 
(the determining principle being the love manifested toward 
Jesus), by the figure of the shepherd and his sheep, and 
finally, and at the same time somewhat more definitely, by 
the fact that those who are being judged are called mavta 
ta €Ovn. For the latter words are not intended to limit the 
reference expressly to the Gentiles, but they are to be taken 
as assuming the realization of the wniversality of Christianity 
by the time of the advent when all the nations of the earth 
(€@vn, as expressing the idea of nation, does not exclude the 
Jews; comp. xxvill. 19, xxiv. 9, and see on John xi. 50) will 
have heard the gospel and (to a proportionable degree) re- 


ceived Christ (xxiv. 14; Rom. xi. 25). Jesus, then, is here) aS 


describing the universal judgment of those who have believed | 
in Him, in whom, as they will be gathered around His) 
throne, His prophetic glance beholds all the nations of the) 
world (xxviii. 19). Comp., for the judgment of Christians, 
2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10. The judgment of unbelievers 
(1 Cor. xv. 23, vi. 2; comp. on xix. 28), who are not in 
question at present, forms a distinct scene in the universal 
assize; and hence in the preceding parable also the reference 
is to His servants, therefore to believers. Neither here 
nor in the passages from Paul do those different judgment 
scenes presuppose anything in the shape of chiliastic ideas. 
The Messianic judgment is one act consisting of two scenes, not 
two acts with a chiliastic interval coming in between. See, 
on the other hand, xiii. 37 ff. — wavtes of dyyerXou] “omnes 
angeli, omnes nationes ; quanta celebritas !” Bengel. — 7a mpo- 
Bata aro tov épidwr] sheep and goats (Ecclus. xlvil. 3; 


180 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Gen. xxxvili. 17) are here represented as having been pastured 
together (comp. Gen. xxx. 33 ff). The wicked are conceived 
of under the figure of the épudor, not on account of the 
wantonness and stench of the latter (Grotius), or in conse- 
quence of their stubbornness (Lange), but generally because 
those animals were considered to be comparatively worthless 
(Luke xv. 29); and hence, in ver. 33, we have the diminutive 
ta épidia for the purpose of expressing contempt. — For the 
significance attached to the right and left side (Eccles. x. 2), 
see Schoettgen and Wetstein on our passage. Hermann, 
Gottesd. Alterth. § xxxviii. 9 f. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 614 C; 
Virg. Aen. vi. 542 f. 

Ver. 34. ‘O Bacwrevs] because Christ is understood to 
have appeared év 77 Bacthela avtod, xvi. 28, which fact is here 
self-evident from ver. 31.—oi evXAoynuévoe TOD TaTpos 
prov] the blessed of my Father (for “in Christo electi sumus,” 
Bengel), now actually so (see on Eph. 1. 3) by being admitted 
into the Messianic kingdom that has been prepared for them. 
On the use of the participial substantive with a genitive, 
see Lobeck, ad Aj. 358; Winer, p. 178 [E. T. 236].— 
HToLmacmernv]| not merely destined, but: put im readiness ; 
comp. xx. 23; 1 Cor. ii. 9; John xiv. 2. Kat ov« etme: 
AdBeTe, GAAA* KANPOVvouHcaTE, WS OlKEla, WS TaATP@A, WS 
byeTepa, Os buiv dvwbev Sspecrouweva, Chrysostom. This «Anpo- 
vouia is the fulfilment of the promise of v. 5, KAnpovoynaovar. 
Thy ynv. Comp. xix. 29.—amo kata. x] xiii. 35, not 
equivalent to mpo x. «., when the election took place (Eph. i. 4 ; 
4 Pet. i. 20). For the order of the words, comp. Kiihner, 
ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18. 

Ver. 35 f. Yuvnyayeté pe] ye have taken me along with, 
introduced me, that is, into your family circle along with the 
members of your family. Zhis meaning, but not that of 
Fritzsche: “simul convivio adhibuistis,’ is involved in the 
idea of &évos. For cuvvayw, as used with reference to a 
single individual who is gathered in along with others, comp. 
Xen. Cyrop. v. 3. 11; LXX. Deut. xxii. 2; 2 Sam. xi. 27; 
Judg. xix. 18; Ecclus. xiii. 15. For instances of Rabbinical 
promises of paradise in return for hospitality, see Schoettgen 


CHAP. XXV. 87—40. 181 


an‘l Wetstein.—yupuves] “Qui male vestitum et pannosum 
vidlit, nwdwm se vidisse dicit,” Seneca, de benef. v. 3; Jas. il. 
15{. Comp. on John xxi. 7; Acts xix. 16. 

‘Ver. 37 ff Not mere modesty (not even, according to 
Ol/shausen, unconscious modesty), but an actual declining with 
humility, on the ground that they have never rendered the 
loving services in question to Christ Himself; for they do not 
venture to estimate the moral value of those services accord- 
ipg to the lofty principle of Christ’s unity with His people, 
xviii. 5, x. 40. The Lord Himself then explains what He 
‘means, ver. 40. Hence it does not follow from this passage 
that these d/catoc “ have not as yet been consciously leading 
the New Testament life” (Auberlen, Cremer). Bengel well 
remarks: “ Fideles opera bona sua, impli mala ver. 44, non 
perinde aestimant ut judex.” — ore cé eldoper] three times, 
earnestly, honestly. — éd’ écov] in quantum, inasmuch as ; 
see on Rom. xi. 13.—— €7rotnoarte| ye have done it, namely, 
the things previously mentioned. — évi rovTwav Tay added Pav 
pov Tov eXaxloTtar] to a single one of these my brethren, and 
that of the most insignificant of them. Those.words, which are 
referred by Keil, Olshausen, Georgii, Hilgenfeld, Keim (see 
on ver. 31 f.), to Christians in general; by Cremer, to the 
elect; by Luthardt, to the Christian church ia dts distress ; 
by Auberlen, to their poor miserable fellow-men (comp. de 
Wette, Ullmann in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1847, p. 164 ff.),—do 
not admit of being also referred to the apostles (xxvii. 10 ; 
1 Cor. iv. 13), to whom, as surrounding His judgment-throne, 
Christ is supposed to point; for the amount of love shown 
to the apostles cannot be taken as the universal standard of 
judgment; and though the apostles themselves, appearing 
here, as they do, in their relation to the rest of Christians, 
may well be called the brethren of Christ (xxvii. 10; John 
xx. 17); yet they would certainly not be described by Him as 
the least of such brethren. No; as during His earthly life Christ 
is always surrounded by the obscure and despised (the poor, 
the humble, publicans and sinners, and such like), who seek 
their salvation through Him; so He also represents Himself 
as still surrounded by such as these on the occasion of the 


182 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


judgment (comp. Ewald, p. 420). In consequence of thieir 
longing after Him, and of their love for Him, and the eternal 
salvation to be found in Him (as #yamnKotes THY éripavetav 
avtod, 2 Tim. iv. 8), they here come crowding around the 
throne of His glory; and to these He now points. They are 
the rr@yoi, revOodvtes, mpacis, Sedvwypévor of the Sermon on 
the Mount, who are now on the point of receiving tlie 
promised bliss. 1 

Ver. 41. Of catnpapévot] opposite of of evdoynuévels. 
This consigning to everlasting destruction is also a realityy, 
and the doing of God. But the words tod mwatpds pov are 
omitted this time, because the idea of qatjp accords only 
with the loving act of blessing. The divine xatapa is 
the effect of holy wrath and the consequence of human guilt. 
—To HTo“macpéevor] not this time ard cataBorjs Kdopov ; 
this the hearer knew as matter of course. ‘The Rabbins are 
not agreed as to whether Gehenna, any more than paradise 
and the heavenly temple, came into existence before or 
after the first day of creation. See the passages in Wetstein. 
From our passage nothing can be determined one way or 
another, especially as it is not the aorist participle that is 
made use of. Observe, however, that, in this instance, 
Jesus does not follow up #Topacp. with wiv, as in ver. 34, 
but with 76 SiaBor, «.7.r.; because the fall of the angels 
(Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4), which Scripture everywhere pre- 
supposes in its doctrine of the devil and his kingdom (Hahn, 
Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 313 ff), took place previous to the 
introduction of sin among men (John vill. 44; 2 Cor. x1. 3), 
so that it was for the former in the first instance that the 
everlasting fire was prepared; comp. vill. 29. But as men 
became partakers in the guilt of demons, so now are they 
also condemned to share in their punishment. For ayyehou 
tod diaB., comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7; Rev. xii. 7. 

Ver. 44. Self-justification, by repelling the accusation as 
unwarranted. — «alt avdtoi] they too; for their answer is in 
exact correspondence with that of the righteous. — more... 
kal ov dunkovna. cor] when saw we Thee hungry, etc., with- 
out ministering to Thee? What was the occasion on which, 


CHAP. XXV. 46. 183 


according to Thy accusation, we saw Thee hungry, and did not 
give Thee food? Such an occasion never occurred; as we 
have never seen Thee in such circumstances, so can we never 
have refused Thee our good services. In this self-justification 
it is assumed that 7f they had seen Him, they would have 
shown their love toward Him. 

Ver. 46. Comp. Dan. xii. 2. The absolute idea of eternity, 
in regard to the punishment of hell (comp. ver. 41), is not to 
be got rid of either by a popular toning down of the force of 
aiwvos (Paulus), or by appealing (de Wette, Schleiermacher, 
Oetinger) to the figurative character of the term jive and the 
supposed incompatibility between the idea of eternity and 
such a thing as evil and its punishment, any more than by 
the theory that the whole representation is intended simply 
by way of warning (according to which view it is not meant 
thereby to throw light upon the eternal nature of things, but 
only to portray the xpiovs, ie. the cessation of the conflict 
between good and evil by the extinction of the latter) ; but is 
to be regarded as exegetically established in the present 
passage (comp. ili. 12, xviii. 8) by the opposed fw7v aiwnor, 
which denotes the everlasting Messianic life (Kaeuffer, as 
above, p. 21); comp. also Weizel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, 
p. 605 ff.; Schmid in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1870, p. 136 ff. 
—ot 6€ dikarot] “hoc ipso judicio declarati,’ Bengel. 
Comp. Rom. v. 19. 


REMARK.—Because the judgment is a judgment of Christians 
(see on ver. 31), faith is presupposed though not formally 
mentioned. The truth is, the Judge regulates His decision 
according to the way in which faith has been evidenced by love 
(1 Cor. xii. 1 ff; John xiii. 35), without which as its necessary 
fruit faith does not save (Gal. v. 6). Comp. Apol. Conf. A, 
p.138. The manifestations of love, as forming the principle of 
the Christian’s life, accordingly constitute the zp%&; by which 
he is to be judged (xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 10). Comp. v.7. But, in 
so far as, according to this concrete view of the judgment, Jesus 
bases His sentence upon the principle that love shown to or 
withheld from the least of His brethren is the same as love 
shown to or withheld from Himself, He does so in harmony 
with the view contained in xvii. 5, x. 40. Comp. John xiii. 20, 


184 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


CHa Par Ry, XX VI, 


Ver. 3. After dpysepete Elz. Scholz have zai of ypawmareie, 
which, in accordance with A B DL 8, min. vss. Or. Aug., 
has been deleted as an interpolation from Mark xiv. 1, Luke 
xxii. 2.— Ver. 4. The order dérw xparjowo: (reversed in Elz.) is 
supported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 7. Bapuriwov] Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8: woAvriwov, which, though in accordance with A D 
LM IX, min., is, nevertheless, taken from John xii. 3. Comp. 
Mark xiv. 3. From this latter passage is derived the order éyous« 
ard. wipov (Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L 8, min.).— 
rjv xeaarqv| Lachm. and Tisch. 8: r%s xeparjs, following B D 
M 8, min. Chrys. But the genitive would be suggested to the 
transcribers by a comparison with ver. 12, quite as readily as by 
Mark xiv. 3.— Ver. 8. «irot] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be 
deleted, both here and in ver. 45, as being a common interpo- 
lation ; similarly with Tisch. after Sracg., ver. 65.—Ver. 9. rotro] 
Elz. inserts 7d wipov, against decisive evidence; borrowed from 
Mark xiv. 5; John xu. 5.—The article before rrwyois, which 
may as readily have been omitted, in accordance with John 
xii. 5, as inserted, in accordance with Mark xiv. 3, 1s, with Elz. 
and Tisch. 8, to be left out. There is a good deal of evidence 
on both sides ; but the insertion might easily take place out 
of regard to ver. 11.— Ver. 11. ravrors yap rods rrwyovs] 
yee et VE a, ain. Chrys. : TOUS TTWYOUS yap TaVTOTE. Recom- 
mended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche. As this reading 
may have been taken from John xii. 8 as readily as that of 
the Received text from Mark xiv. 7, the matter must be deter- 
mined simply by the balance of evidence, and this is in 
favour of the Received text. — Ver. 17. éro:udéowmwev] The evi- 
dence of D K U, min. Or. in favour of the reading éromcéoouer 
(Fritzsche) is inadequate.—Ver. 20. Lachm. and Tisch. read 
pabnrav after dwoexx, on the authority of A L M AILS, min. 
vss. Chrys. Correctly ; the omission is due to Mark xiv. 17. 
— For xaoros airdiv, ver. 22, it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
to adopt «is ¢xaorog, In accordance with weighty evidence. Had 
cig been derived from Mark xiv. 19, we should have had «iz za? 


CHAP. XXVI. 185 


slo; aire, again, was an interpolation of extremely common 
occurrence. — Ver. 26. ebrAoyvjous] Scholz: sdiyapiorjqous, follow- 
ing AEF HKMSUVIrATI, min. vss. Fathers. Considering, 
however, the weight of evidence that still remains in favour of 
svaoy. (B C D LZ 8), and having regard to the preponderating 
influence of Luke and Paul (1 Cor. xi. 23 ff) rather than 
Mark, upon the ecclesiastical phraseology of the Lord’s Supper, 
it is better to retain 2dA0v.—For this reason we should also 
retain rév before éprov, though deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, 
and not found in BC DGLZ-X, min. Chrys. Theophyl.—For 
26/dov Lachm. reads dovs, omitting at the same time za/ before <izz, 
in accordance with B D L Z 8** min. Cant. Copt. Due to a 
desire to make the construction uniform with the preceding. 
Had 6éod¢ been changed to a tense in accordance with Mark and 
Luke, we should have had Yéuxe.— Ver. 27. ri worgjpsov] The 
article, which is deleted by Tisch., and is wanting in BEFG 
LZ AX, min., is due to the ecclesiastical phraseology to which 
Luke and Paul have given currency. — Ver. 28. r4 ry¢] Lachm. 
and Tisch. have simply ris, in accordance with B D L Z x, 33. 
rd is an exegetical addition.—xaiv7¢ before 6a. is wanting 
in B LZR, 338, 102, Sahid. Cyr., and is a liturgical addition. 
Had it been originally written, this is just the place of all 
others where it would not have been omitted. — Ver. 31. d:ac- 
nopricdjoera:] ABCGH* I L M8, min. Or. (once): é:ao- 
nopriobjoovras. SO Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received 
text is a grammatical correction. — Ver. 33. Instead of <i za/ of 
the Received text, there is decisive evidence for the simple 
ei, xai Would be written in the margin from Mark xiv. 29, 
but would not be inserted in the text as in the case of Mark. — 
éyw] The evidence in favour of inserting 6¢ (which is adopted 
by Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche) is inadequate. An addition for 
the purpose of giving prominence to the contrast.— Ver. 35. 
After 6ojw¢ important witnesses read 62, which has been 
adopted by Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche. Taken from 
Mark xiv. 31.— Ver. 36. we 04] Lachm.: és ob dv; DK L a, 
min. : we é. The reading of Lachm., though resting only on the 
authority of A, is nevertheless to be regarded as the original 
one. o% é would be omitted in conformity with Mark xiv. 32 
(C M* 8, min. have simply #ws), and then there would come a 
restoration in some instances of o4 only, and, in others, merely 
of é&y.— Ver. 38. We should not follow Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche, 
Scholz, Tisch. 7, in adopting 6 “Iyoots after airois; a reading 
which, though attested by important witnesses, is nevertheless 
contradicted by a preponderance of evidence (A B C* D J L 





186 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


s, and the majority of vss.), while, moreover, it would be in- 
serted more readily and more frequently (in this instance prob- 
ably in conformity with Mark xiv. 34) than it would be omitted. 
— Ver. 39. rpocaduv] soB M uy, It. Vulg. Hilar. Elz. Lachm. 
and Tisch. 7. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of 
xposerduy, which, indeed, has been adopted by Matth., Scholz, 
and Tisch. 8; but it is evidently a mechanical error on the part 
of the transcriber ; srpozpyecdas occurs nowhere else in Matth.— 
The wou after rarep (deleted by Tisch. 8) is suspected of being 
an addition from ver. 42; however, the evidence in favour of 
deleting it (A BC D 8, etc.) is too weighty to admit of its being 
retained. — Ver. 42. + worgpsov] is wanting in A BCI L 
NS, min. vss. and Fathers; in D it comes before rotro (as in 
ver. 39); in 157, Arm., it comes before dé», in which position it 
also occurs in A, though with a mark of erasure. Suspected 
by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch. A sup- 
plement from ver. 39. Further, the da éuct following, though 
the evidence against it is not quite so strong (B D LX, how- 
ever), and though it is defended by Fritzsche, and only bracketed 
by Lachm., is to be condemned (with Griesb., Rinck, Tisch.) 
as an interpolation from ver. 39.— Ver. 43. eipioxes adrods 
wéaiv| Lachm. and Tisch., with the approval of Griesb. also: 
sdaw evpey avrovs, following BC DIL ®, min. and the majority 
of vss.; while other important witnesses (such as A K A) also 
read. <«ipev, but adhere to the order in the Received text. 
Accordingly, eipev is decidedly to be adopted, while cipioxes is to 
be regarded as derived from ver. 40; as for sé, however, 
there is so much diversity among the authorities with refer- 
ence to its connection, and consequently with reference to its 
position, that only the preponderance of evidence must decide, 
and that is favourable to Lachm. and Tisch. — In ver. 44, again, 
«daw is variously placed ;. but, with Lachm. and Tisch., it should 
be put before areAdciv, in accordance with BC DILXS, min. 
vss. é spirov, which Lachm. brackets, is, with Tisch., to be 
maintained on the strength of preponderating evidence. Had 
it been inserted in conformity with ver. 42, it would have been 
placed after +é2.7; had it been from Mark xiv. 41, again, we 
should have had +d spiro. The omission may have been 
readily occasioned by a fear lest it should be supposed that 
Jesus prayed iv airiv réyov but once before.—After eimey 
Tisch. 8 repeats the 7éa (BL &, min. Copt.), which may easily 
have been omitted as superfluous. However, the preponder- 
ance of evidence (especially that of the vss. also) is against 
adopting it, so that there is reason to regard it rather as a 


CHAP. XXVI. 187 


mechanical repetition.— Ver. 50. The reading ¢g ¢ (instead of 
2p w, aS in Elz.) is attested by decisive evidence. — Ver. 52. 
arorotvra:] F H K MS U Vr 4, min. vss. and Fathers: 
amobavotvras. Approved by Griesb. in opposition to the principal 
mss.; a gloss, for which Sahid. must have read <zootvras.— Ver. 53. 
The placing of épr after tapacr. wor, by Tisch. 8, is in opposition 
to a preponderance of evidence, and is of the nature of an emen- 
dation ; #é< is likewise inserted by some. — rA¢/oug] Lachm. and 
Tisch.: rAciw, after B D &*. Correctly ; the reading of the 
Received text is an unskilled emendation. For the same 
reason the following 7, which Lachm. brackets, should, with 
Tisch., be deleted, in accordance with B D Ls; though we should 
not follow Tisch. 8 in reading Aeywvw (A C KL an* s*) 
for revedvas, because the genitive is connected with the reading 
wrsious. — Ver. 55. wpig tues] is, with Tisch., following B L x, 
33, 102, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Chrys., to be deleted as an interpola- 
tion from Mark xiv. 49.— Ver. 58. avs waxp6dev| dao should be 
deleted, with Tisch., in accordance with important evidence. 
Taken from Mark xiv. 54.— Ver. 59. xa? of wpeoBubrepor] is 
wanting, no doubt, in B D Ls, min. vss. and Fathers, but it was 
omitted in conformity with Mark xiv.55. Suspected by Griesb., 
deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A desire to conform with 
Mark also serves to explain the fact that, in a few of the wit- 
nesses, érov is placed before ri cuvédp. — davaruowory| davardcovory, 
as read by Lachm. and Tisch., is supported by decisive evidence, 
and had been altered to the more usual subjunctive. «irév should 
likewise be put before davar. (BC DLN x8, min. Vulg. It.). — 
Ver. 60. The reading of the Received text, which is attested by 
the important evidence of A C** EF G, etc., and likewise main- 
tained by Fritzsche and Scholz, is: xa/ ody eipov. Kal rorrdv eu- 
Somopripay rpocenbovray ovy eupov. Griesb.: xai ov eipov rorrGv ~pevd. 
xpoozdd. Lachm. and Tisch. : xa/ ody eipov word. xpooerd. evd., after 
which Lachm. gives the second ody <ipov in brackets. This second 
ovx evpov is Wanting in A C* L N* 8, min. vss. and Fathers (Or. 
twice) ; while in A B L ©! 8, min. Syr. Or. Cyr. the order of the 
words is: roAA. xpooead. evd. Further, Syr. Arr. Pers.’ Syr2* 
Slav., though omitting the second oy cipov, have retained xas 
before woAAav; and this reading (accordingly: zai ody cipov nai 
Torray Tpocerdovray ~Levdouapripay) I agree with Rinck, Lucubr. 
crit. p. 282 f., regarding as the original one. This za/, the force 
of which was missed from its not being followed by a verb, 
occasioned considerable embarrassment to the transcribers, who 
disposed of the difficulty by adding a second ody <ipor, while 
others got rid of the troublesome xa/by simply omitting it—déo 


18a. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


~Levdoucpr.] Tisch., following BL 8, min. vss. (also Syr.) and Or. 
(once), reads merely 6u0. Correctly; ~pevdoucpr. is an addition, 
which might seem all the more necessary since a saying 
of Christ's actually underlay the words. — Ver. 65. ér:] is 
wanting before ¢8aacgyu. in such important witnesses, that 
Lachm. and Tisch. are justified in deleting it as a common 
interpolation. — Ver. 70. For avray révrwy read, with Tisch. 8, 
following preponderating evidence, merely wévrwy, to which 
airay was added for sake of greater precision. — Ver. 71. 
For ro% éxe7% which Tisch. 8 has restored, Scholz and Tisch. 
7 read airo?s éxez Both readings are strongly attested; but 
the latter is to be preferred, because the current roi éxc? 
would involuntarily suggest itself and supersede the less 
definite expression adro?s exei— Ver. 74. carabewariZery] Elz., 
Fritzsche : xaravabewariZew, against decisive evidence. A cor- 
rection. 


Ver. 1 f.' For this form of transition, by which a marked 
pause is indicated at the close of a somewhat lengthened 
discourse, comp. vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1.— mavtas] re- 
ferring back, without any particular object in view (such as to 
call attention to the fact that our Lord’s functions as a teacher 
were now ended, Wichelhaus and the earlier expositors), to the 
preceding discourse, consisting, as it does, of several sections 
(xxiv. 4—-xxv. 46), not a parallel to LXX. Deut. xxxi. 1 
(Delitzsch). — peta dv0 jpépas | after the lapse of two days, 
ie. the day after neat the Passover commenced. It would 
therefore be Tuesday, if, as the Synoptists inform us (differ- 
ently in John, see on John xviii. 28), the feast began on 
Thursday evening. — To waaya]| NDB, Aram. NNDB, the pass- 
ing over (Ex. xii. 13), a Mosaic feast, in commemoration of 
the sparing of the first-born in Egypt, began after sunset on 
the 14th of Nisan, and lasted till the 21st. On its original 
meaning as a feast in connection with the consecration of the 
first-fruits of the spring harvest, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f. ; 
Dillmann in Schenkel’s Lex. IV. p. 387 f.— Kal o vids, «.7.r.] 
a definite prediction of what was to happen to Him at the Pass- 

1See on ch. xxvi. f. (Mark xiv., Luke xxii.); Wichelhaus, ausfiihrl. Kom- 


mentar iiber die Gesch. des Leidens J. Chr., Halle 1855 ; Steinmeyer, d. Leidens- 
gesch. d. Herrn in Bezug auf d. neueste Krit., Berl. 1868. 


CHAP. XXYI. 3=5. 189 


over, but represented as something already known to the dis- 
ciples (from xx. 19), and which, though forming part of the 
contents of oiéate, is at the same time introduced by a broken 
construction (not as dependent on 67«), in accordance with the 
depth of His emotion. 

Vv. 3-5. Tore] ie. at the time that Jesus was saying this 
to His disciples. Fatal coincidence.— els tv advrAny Tod 
apx.]| It is usual to understand the palace of the high priest, 
in direct opposition to the use of avAn' in the New Testament 
(not excluding Luke xi. 21). We should rather interpret it 
of the court enclosed by the various buildings belonging to the 
house (see Winer, Realw. under the word Hduser ; Friedlieb, 
Archéol. d. Leidensgesch. p. 7 f.), such courts having been regu- 
larly used as meeting-places. Comp. Vulg. (aériwn), Erasmus, 
Castalio, Calvin, Maldonatus. This meeting is not to be 
regarded as one of. the public sittings of the Sanhedrim (on the 
probable official meeting-place of this body at that time, the 
so-called taverns, see Wieseler, Beitr. p. 209 ff.), but as a private 
conference of its members. — Tod Aeyou. Kaiaga] who bore 
the name of Caiaphas. Comp. 11. 23. This was a surname ; 
the original name was Joseph (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2); but 
the surname having become his ordinary and official designa- 
tion, it was used for the name itself; hence Aeyouévou, not ém- 
KaXoupévov or emideyouévov. Caiaphas (either =5*3, depressio, 
or 85°2, rock) obtained his appointment through the procurator 
Valerius Gratus, and, after enjoying his dignity for seventeen 
years, was deposed by Vitellius, Joseph. Antt. xvii. 2. 2, 
4. 3.—cvveBovrevcarto, iva] they consulted together, in 
order that they, John xi. 53.— py év tH €optH] namely: let 
us arrest him, and put him to death! For the absolute pm, 
comp. on Gal. v. 13. The reference is to the entire period 
over which the feast extended, not to the place where it was 
celebrated (Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. p. 367). It is true 

Of course 2va% is used as equivalent to Bacidrcoy (see, for example, the pas- 
sages from Polyb. in Schweighauser’s Lex. p. 101), not only by later Greek 
writers (Athen. Deipn. iv. p. 189 D; Herodian, i. 13. 16, frequently in the 


Apodrs but also by Homer (see Duncan, Lez., ed. Rost, p. 181), Pindar, and the 


‘mond hy etc. Never, however, is it so used in the New Testament. Even 


Teltyg | teri, 15, adan cot apicisp. is undoubtedly the court of the house, 


MAI 


190 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


no scruple was felt, especially in urgent and important cases 
(comp. on Acts xu. 3 f.), about having executions (Sanhedr. 
f. 89. 1) during the feast days (although most probably never 
on the first of them, on which, according to Mischna Jom tob 
v. 2,the trial took place; comp. on John xvii. 28, and see, 
above all, Bleek’s Beitr. p. 136 ff), and that with a view to 
making the example more deterrent (Deut. xvii. 13). But the 
members of the Sanhedrim dreaded an uprismg among the 
numerous sympathizers with Jesus both within and outside 
the capital (a very natural apprehension, considering that this 
was just the season when so many strangers, and especially 
Galilaeans, were assembled in the city; comp. Joseph. Antt. 
xvi. 9. 3; Sell. i. 4. 3), though, by and by, they overcame 
this fear, and gladly availed themselves of the opportunity . 
which Judas afforded them (ver. 14). “Sic consilium divinum 
successit,” Bengel. To regard pa év 7H éopTH as meaning: 
previous to the feast! as though, during the feast itself, the 
execution were to be considered as already a thing of the past 
(Neander, p. 678; Hausrath), would be quite in keeping with 
John’s statement as to the day on which the crucifixion took 
place (comp. on Mark xiv. 2); but it would not suit the con- 
nection as found in Matthew and Mark, because, according to 
them, the consultation among the members of the Sanhedrim 
had taken place so very shortly before the Passover (ver. 2) 
that the greater part of the multitude, whose rising was appre- 
hended, must have been present by that time. 

Ver. 6 ff. This anointing, which is also recorded in Mark 
xiv. 3 ff. (followed by Matthew), is not the same as that of 
Luke vii. 36 ff, but is so essentially different from it, not only 
as to the time, place, circumstances, and person, but as to the 
whole historical and ethical connection and import, that even 
the peculiar character of the incident is not sufficient to war- 
rant the assumption that each case is but another version of 
one and the same story (in opposition to Chrysostom, Grotius, 
Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 110 ff; Strauss, Weisse, Hug, 
Ewald, Bleek, Baur, Hilgenfeld,Schenkel Oger. This, howaven, 
is not a different incident (in opposition to Origen, Chy; eee 
Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Osiander. } 


CHAP, XXVI. 6. 191 


Wolf) from that recorded in John xii. 1 ff... The deviations 
in John’s account of the affair—to the effect that the anointing 
took place not two, but six days before the feast ; that Martha 
was the entertainer, no mention being made of Simon; that it 
was not the head, but the feet of Jesus that were anointed ; 
and that the carping about extravagance is specially ascribed 
to Judas—are not to be disposed of by arbitrarily assuming 
that the accounts of the different evangelists were intended 
to supplement each other (Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Lange), but 
are to be taken as justifying the inference that in John alone 
(not in Matthew and Mark) we have the narrative of an eye- 
witness. The incident, as given in Matthew and Mark, 
appears to be an episode taken from a tradition which had 
lost its freshness and purity, and inserted without exact his- 
torical connection, although, on the whole, in its right order, 
if with less regard to precision as tothe time of its occurrence. 
Hence the loose place it.occupies in the pragmatism of the 
passage, from which one might imagine it removed altogether, 
without the connection being injured in the slightest degree. 
The tradition on which the narrative of Matthew and Mark 
is based had evidently suffered in its purity from getting 
mixed up with certain disturbing elements from the first 
version of the story of the anointing in Luke vii., among which 
elements we may include the statement that the name of the 
entertainer was Simon. 

Ver. 6. Tevoy. é€v Bynbav.] we. having come to Bethany, 
% Lim. i. 17; John vi. 25, and frequently in classical writers ; 
Cép, «0 Phil. ii. 7. To remove this visit back to a point 
of soinj previous to that indicated at ver. 2, with the effect of 
simp, /destroying the sequence (Ebrard, Lange), is to do such 


1 On the controversy in which Faber Stapul. has been involved in consequence 
of his theory that Jesus had been anointed by three different Marys, see Graf in 
Niedner’s Z-tschr. f. histor. Theol. 1852, I. p. 54 ff. This distinguishing of 
three Marys (which was also adopted by so early an expositor as Euthymius Ziga- 
ben } and by zs, to whom Theophylact refers) is, in fact, rather too much at 
vari. ‘ce with the tradition that the sister of Lazarus is identical with the woman 
whd ehs a sinner, Luke vii., and was no other than Mary Magdalene. Yet in 


nonilij the three accounts of anointing is this latter to be understood as the Mary 
Tefeyg 1 te. 
tal 


192 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


harmonistic violence to the order observed in Matthew and 
Mark as the tote of ver. 14 should have been sufficient to 
avert. — 3 iwvos Tod Netpod] In a way no less unwarrant- 
able has the person here referred to (a person who had formerly 
been a leper, and who, after his healing, effected probably by 
Jesus, had continued to be known by this epithet) been asso- 
ciated with the family of Bethany ; he has been supposed to have 
been the deceased father of this family (Theophylact, Ewald, 
Gesch. Chr. p. 481), or some other relative or friend (Grotius, 
Kuinoel, Ebrard, Lange, Bleek), or the owner of the house. 
Of the person who, according to Matthew and Mark, provided 
this entertainment, nothing further is known; whereas, accord- 
ing to John, the entertainment was given by the family 
of which Lazarus was a member; the latter is the correct 
view, the former is based upon the similar incident recorded in 
Luke vii. 

Ver. 7. I'vvy] According to John, it was Mary. — ada- 
Bactpov] Among classical writers the neuter of this word 
does not occur except in the plural ; in the singular a\aBao- 
Tpos is masculine, as also in 2 Kings xxi. 13, and feminine. 
“ Unguenta optime servantur in alabastris,” Plin. V. H, iii. 3 ; 
Herod. iu1. 20; Theocr. Jd. xv. 114; Anth.. Pol. 1x, 153ne8 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 92.—éqi t. x. avtod] A diver- 
gence from John’s account, not to be reconciled in the 
arbitrary manner in which Calvin and Ebrard have attempted, 
as though the oil had been so unsparingly poured on that it 
ran toa and was used for the feet as well (comp. Morison) 
Matthew narrates an anointing of the head ; John, of t that 
The practice of anointing the heads of guests by |, of 
showing them respect is well known (comp. Pla, , Rep. 
p- 398 A, and Stallbaum thereon). Seeing, however, that 
the anointing of the /eet was wnusual (in opposition to 
Ebrard), and betokened a special and extraordinary amount 
of respect (as is, in fact, apparent from Luke v... 46), our 
passage would have been all the less likely to “ omit, it 
(Lange), had it really formed part of the tradition. — te eth 
pévov]| while He was reclining at table, a circumstance qu bite 
ing the avzod. 


CHAP. XXVI. 8-12. 193 


Ver. 8. The feature peculiar to John, and having an essen- 
tial bearing upon the character of his narrative, to the effect 
that it was Judas who censured the proceeding, had come to 
be obliterated in the tradition represented by our present 
passage. Our narrative, then, is certainly not contradictory of 
that of John, but only less precise. Arbitrary attempts have 
been made to explain our passage by saying either that, in 
Matthew, the narrative is to be regarded as sylleptical (Jerome, 
Beza, Maldonatus), or that Judas simply gave utterance to an 
observation in which the others have innocently concurred 
(Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, Paulus, Wichelhaus), or 
that several of them betrayed symptoms of murmuring (Lange). 
— at@neva avtn] this loss,in making such a use of an 
expensive oil. This word never occurs in the New Testament 
in a transitive sense (as in Polyb. vi. 59. 5). 

Ver. 9. IJoXAX0d| put more precisely in Mark xiv. 5; 
John xii. 5. On the expensiveness of spikenard, a pound of 
which is alleged to have cost even upwards of 400 denarii, 
see Plin. W. H. xii. 26, xiii. 4. —xat d004var] the subject 
(the equivalent in money, had it been sold) may be inferred 
from the context (apa@jvat moddov). See Kiihner, II. 1, 
p. 30-f. 

Ver. 10. I'vovs] Comp. xvi. 8. We may imagine what 
precedes to have been spoken among the disciples in a low 
murmuring tone.—«omouvs tapéxewv, to give trouble, to 
cause annoyance. See Kypke, Obss. I. p. 130. Comp. 
movoyv Tapéyew (Herod. i. 177), and such like. — épyov 
yap, «.7.r.] Justification of the disapproval implied in the 
foregoing question. xadov, when used with épyor, is, accord- 
ing to ordinary usage, to be taken in an ethical sense; thus 
(comp. v. 16): an excellent deed, one that is morally beautiful, 
and not a piece of waste, as ye are niggardly enough to 
suppose. The disciples had allowed their estimate of the 
action to be determined by the principle of mere w#ility, and 
not by that of moral propriety, especially of love to Christ. 

Ver. 11 f. Justification of the «addy on the ground of the 
peculiar circumstances under which the anointing took place. 
Jesus was on the very threshold of death; they would always 

MATT. IL. N 


194 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


have opportunities of showing kindness to the poor, but by 
and by it would be no longer in their power to do a loving 
service to Him in person upon earth! Accordingly there is 
a moral propriety in making the special manifestation of love, 
which was possible only now, take precedence of that general 
one which was always possible.—ov mavtote éyete] a 
sorrowful /ztotes involving the idea: but I will soon be removed 
by death, to which idea the ydp of ver. 12 refers. — Badotica] 
inasmuch as she has poured ... she has done vz (this outpouring) 
with the view (as though I were already a corpse) of embalming 
me (Gen. 1. 2). The aorist participle represents the act as 
finished contemporaneously with émoincay. Comp. xxvii. 4; 
Eph. i. 9, al.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774; Miiller in the 
Luther. Zeitschr, 1872, p. 631 ff. For the rest, it may be said 
that, under the influence of grateful emotion, Jesus ascribes a 
special motive to the woman, though she herself simply meant 
to testify her love and reverence. Such feelings, intensified as 
they were by the thought of the approaching death of the 
beloved Master, and struggling to express themselves in this 
particular form, could not but receive the highest consecration. 

Ver. 13. To evayy. todto] comp. on xxiv. 14. In 
this instance, however, the emphasis is not on tovro (as in 
xxiv. 14), but on 76 evayyédov: this message of redemption, 
where tovro points to the subject of the message just hinted 
at, vv. 11, 12, viz. the death of Jesus; and although the 
allusion may be but slight, still it is an allusion in living 
connection with the thoughts of death that filled His soul, and 
one that naturally springs from the sorrowful emotion of His 
heart. The thing to which tovvo refers is, when put in explicit 
terms, identical with to evayy. tis yapitos 7. Oeod (Acts xx. 
24), To evayy. THs owrTnpias by. (Eph. i. 13), To evayy. THs 
eipyvns (Eph. vi. 15), 6 Adyos tod cravpod (1 Cor. i. 18). — 
é€vy 6AM TO KOopuw| is not to be connected with rar. 
(Fritzsche, Kuinoel), but with «xnpvy07. Comp. Mark xiv. 
9 ; é7rov denotes the locality in its special, év 6k@ TO Koop in 
its most comprehensive sense. — eis wvnuoc. avt.] belongs to 
rarnO. She has actwally been remembered, and her memory 
is blessed. 


CHAP. XXVI. 14-16. 195 


Vv. 14-16. On "Iovdas "Ickap., see on x. 4.—TdrTe] 
after this repast, but not because he had been so much 
offended, nay, embittered (Wichelhaus, Schenkel, following the 
older expositors), by the reply of Jesus, ver. 10 ff. (comp. 
John xii. 7 f.),—a view scarcely in keeping with the mournful 
tenderness of that reply in which, moreover, according to 
Matthew, the name of Judas was not once mentioned. 
According to John xiii. 27, the devil, after selecting Judas 
as his instrument (xiii. 2), impelled him to betray his 
Master, not, however, till the occasion of the last supper,—a 
divergence from the synoptical narrative which ought, with 
Strauss, to be recognised, especially as it becomes very marked 
when Luke xxii. 3 is compared with John xiii. 27. — eis tov 
6o@dexa] tragic contrast; found in all the evangelists, even in 
John xii. 4; Acts i. 17.—In ver. 15 the mark of interrogation 
should not be inserted after Sodvac (Lachmann), but allowed 
to remain after wapad. avtov. Expressed syntactically, the 
question would run: What will ye give me, 7f I deliver Him to 
you? In the eagerness of his haste the traitor falls into a 
broken construction (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 782 f.): What will ye 
give me, and I will, etc. Here xaé is the explicative atque, 
meaning: and so; on éye, again, there is an emphasis expressive 
of boldness. — éotnaav] they weighed for him, according to the 
ancient custom, and comp. Zech. xi. 12. No doubt coined 
shekels (Otto, Spicil. p. 60 ff; Ewald in the Nachr. v. d. Geselisch. 
d. Wiss., Gott. 1855, p. 109 ff.) were in circulation since the 
time of Simon the Maccabee (143 B.c.), but weeghing appears 
to have been still practised, especially when considerable sums 
were paid out of the temple treasury; it is, in any case, unwar- 
rantable to,understand the éotyjcay merely in the sense of: 
they paid. For tornpt, to weigh, see Wetstein on our passage; 
Schleusner, Zhes. III. p. 122; Valckenaer, ad Hurip. Fragm. p. 
288. The interpretation of certain expositors: they arranged 
with him, they promised him (Vulg. Theophylact, Castalio, 
Grotius, Elsner, Fritzsche, Kauffer, Wichelhaus, Lange), is in 
opposition not only to xxvii. 3, where the words ta apyvpia 
refer back to the shekels already paid, but also to the terms of 
the prophecy, Zech. xi.12 (comp. Matt. xxvii. 9). — tpvak. apy.] 


196 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


apyvpia, shekels, only in Matthew, not in the LXX., which, in 
Zech. xi. 12, has tpidxovta apyvpods (se. cikdous); comp. 
Jer. xxxii. 9. They were shekels of the sanctuary (WIP opy Dy 
which, as containing the standard weight, were heavier than 
the ordinary shekels; according to Joseph. Anft. ii. 8. 2, they 
were equivalent to four Attic drachmae, though, according to 
Jerome (on Mie. ili. 10), whose estimate, besides being more 
precise, is found to tally with existing specimens of this coin, 
they were equal to twenty oboli, or to 34 drachmae—te. to 
something like 26 to 27 silbergroschen (2s. 6d.). See Ber- 
theau, Gresch. d. Isr. pp. 34, 39; Keil, Arch. IL. p. 146. — 
éEnres eveatplay, iva] he sought a good opportunity (Cic. de 
off. i. 40) for the purpose of, etc. Such a evxarpia as he wanted 
would present itself whenever he saw that cvAdAndPOevtos ovdK 
Ewedre OopuBos yevéoGar, Kuthymius Zigabenus; comp. ver. 5. 


Remark 1.—As the statement regarding the thirty pieces of 
silver is peculiar to Matthew, and as one so avaricious as Judas 
was would hardly have been contented with so moderate a sum, 
it is probable that, from its not being known exactly how much 
the traitor had received, the Gospel traditions came ultimately to 
fix upon such a definite amount as was suggested by Zech. xi. 12. 
Then, as tending further to impugn the historical accuracy of 
Matthew’s statement, it is of importance to notice that it has 
been adopted neither by the earlier Gospel of Mark, nor the 
later one of Luke, nor by John. Comp. Strauss, Ewald, 
Scholten. 

REMARK 2.—As regards the idea, that what prompted Judas to 
act as he did, was a desire to bring about a rising of the people 
at the time of the feast, and to constrain “the dilatory Messiah 
to establish His kingdom by means of popular violence ” (Paulus, 
Goldhorn in Zzschirn. Memor. 1. 2; Winer, Theile, Hase, Scholl- 
meyer, Jesus u. Judas, 1836; Weisse, I. p. 450),—the traitor 

himself being now doubtful, according to Neander and Ewald, as 
- to whether Jesus was the Messiah or not,—it may be affirmed 
that it has no foundation whatever in the Gospel record, 
although it may be excused as a well-meant effort to render a 
mysterious character somewhat more comprehensible, and to 
make so strange a choice on the part of Jesus a little less 
puzzling. According to John especially, the subjective motive 
which, in conjunction with Satanic agency (Luke xxii, 3; 
John xiii. 2, 27), led to the betrayal was simply avarice, not 


CHAP. XXVI. 17. 197 


wounded ambition as well, see on ver. 14; nor love of revenge 
and such like (Schenkel); nor shipwrecked faith on the occasion 
of the anointing of Christ (Klostermann); nor melancholy, 
combined with irritation against Jesus because the kingdom He 
sought to establish was not a kingdom of this world (Lange). 
Naturally passionate at any rate (Pressensé), and destitute 
of clearness of head as well as force of character (in opposition 
to Weisse), he was now so carried away by his own dark and 
confused ideas, that though betraying Jesus he did not antici- 
pate that he would be condemned to death (xxvii. 3), and only 
began to realize what he had done when the consequences of 
his act stared him in the face. Those, accordingly, go too far 
in combating the attempts that have been made to palliate the 
deed in question, who seek to trace it to fierce anger against 
Jesus, and the profoundest wickedness (Ebrard), and who represent 
Judas as having been from the first—even at the time he was 
_ chosen—the most consummate scoundrel to be found among men 
(Daub, Judas Ischar. 1816). That fundamental vice of Judas, 
tAcoveZia, became doubtless, in the abnormal development which 
his moral nature underwent through intercourse with Jesus, the 
power which completely darkened and overmastered his inner 
life, culminating at last in betrayal and suicide. Moreover, in 
considering the crime of Judas, Scripture requires us to keep in 
view the dwine teleology, Peter already speaking of Jesus (Acts 
i. 23) as +7 wpiomévn Bovry nal xpoyvwos rod beod exdorov, IN a Way 
corresponding very much to the view taken of the conduct of 
Herod and Pilate in Acts iv. 28. Judas is thus the tragic 
instrument and organ of the divine ¢ciwapuévy, though not in 
such a sense as to extenuate in the least the enormity and 
culpability of his offence, ver. 24. Comp. John xvii. 12; Acts 
i. 25; and see, further, on John vi. 70, Remark 1. 


Ver. 17. Ty S€ rpetn Tov alip.] on the first day of 
the unleavened bread, i.e. on the first day of the feast, the 
day on which the unleavened bread (nisin) is eaten. The day 
referred to is the 14th of Nisan (Thursday, according to 
the synoptic evangelists), which, following the loose popular 
mode of reckoning, to which Josephus (Anfé. ii. 15. 1) also 
conforms when he represents the feast as extending over 
eight days, was counted as one of the feast days, although 
the Passover did not begin till the evening of that day, 
Num. xxviii. 16 ; Ex. xii. 18 (Otto, Spicil. p. 70). — mod] in 


198 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


what house. — coz] “Jesus est ut paterfamilias inter discipu- 
lorum familiam,’ Bengel.—to mdaya] the Passover lamb, 
to be eaten on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. See on 
John xviii. 28. This lamb was slain (not by the priests) in 
the fore-court of the temple in the afternoon before sunset 
(Dyn 2, see Hupfeld, de primitiva festor. ap. Hebr. ratione, 
I. p. 12).—It may seem strange that, at a season when the 
presence of such multitudes of strangers in the city was 
certain to create a scarcity of accommodation (Joseph. Bell. 
i, 1. 3, vi. 9. 3; Andtt. xvii. 9. 3), Jesus should have put off 
His arrangements for celebrating the feast till now. ‘This, 
however, may be accounted for by the fact that He must have 
had certain friends in the town, such as the one referred to 
in ver. 18, whose houses were so mueh at His disposal at all 
times that it was unnecessary to make any earlier preparation. 


RemMarK.—According to John’s account, the last meal of which 
Jesus partook was not that of the Passover; while His death is 
represented as having taken place on the day before the feast, 
the day which Matthew here calls the spwrn ray &@iuuvr. On 
this great and irreconcilable discrepancy, which even the most 
recent exhaustive inquiry, viz. that of Wieseler (Beztr. p. 230 ff.), 
has failed to dispose of, see on John xviii. 28. 


Ver. 18. Eis tyv worev] to Jerusalem. - According to ver. 
6 ff., they were still at Bethany. — mpos tov detva] as we say 
when we either cannot or will not mention the name of the 
person intended: to so and so. See Wetstein and Hermann, 
ad Vig. p. 704. But it was not Jesus Himself who omitted to 
mention the name (“ut discipulus ex diuturna consuetudine 
notissimum,” Fritzsche), for, after the question of the disciples, 
ver. 17, He could not assume that it was quite well understood 
who it was that He referred to; but it has been omitted by 
the evangelist in his narrative (comp. even Augustine, de cons. 
ev. ii. 80), either because it had not been preserved as part of 
the tradition, or for some other reason, to us unknown. — 
6 61dacx.] the Teacher xa7’ éEoynv. Doubtless the unknown 
person here referred to was also a believer. Comp. xxi. 3.— 
6 Katpos pov] ie. the time of my death (John xiii. 1), not: 
for my observing the Passover (Kuinoel), which would render 


CHAP, XXVI. 18. 199 


the words singularly meaningless; for this time was, in fact, 
the same for all. There is nothing whatever to justify the 
very old hypothesis, invented with a view to reconcile the 
synoptic writers with John, that Jesus partook of His last 
Passover meal a day earlier than that on which it was wont 
to be eaten by the Jews. See on John xvii. 28. Further, this 
preliminary preparation implies a pious regard for Jesus on the 
part of the detva, who was thus singled out; this Passover ob- 
servance, for which preparations are being made, was destined, 
in fact, to be a farewell feast! According to Ewald, 6 capéds 
pov denotes the time when the Messianic phenomena would 
appear in the heavens (comp. xxiv. 34), which, however, is at 
variance with the text, where the death of Jesus is the all- 
pervading thought (see vv. 2, 4,11 f, 21). Comp. érjAvGev 
7 @pa, John xvii. 1. — 701] is not the Attic future (Fritzsche, 
Bleek), but the present, representing what is future as now 
going on, and suited to the idea of a distinct friendly arrange- 
ment beforehand: at thy house I observe the Passover. Comp. 
Ex. xu. 48 ; Josh. v.10; Deut.xv.1; 3 Esdr.i.6. Similarly 
classical writers frequently use zrovety in the sense of to 
observe a feast.— Matthew's account presupposes nothing 
miraculous here, as Theophylact and Calvin would have us 
believe, but simply an arrangement, of which nothing further 
is known, which Jesus had come to with the person in ques- 
tion, and in consequence of which this latter not only under- 
stood what was meant by the 6 xaspds pov, but was also 
keeping a room in reserve for Jesus in which to celebrate the 
Passover. It is probable that Jesus, during His stay in 
Jerusalem after the triumphal entry, had come to some under- 
standing or other with him, so that all that now required to 
be done was to complete the preparations. It was reserved 
for the later tradition, embodied in Mark and Luke, to 
ascribe a miraculous character to these preparations, in which 
respect they seem to have shared. the fate of the incident 
mentioned at xxi. 2 f. This being the case, the claim of 
originality must be decided in favour of what is still the very 
simple narrative of Matthew (Strauss, Bleek, Keim), in pre- 
ference to that of Mark and Luke (Schulz, Schleiermacher, 


200 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Weisse, Ewald, Weiss). As represented, therefore, by Matthew 
(who, according to Ebrard and Holtzmann,. seems to have 
regarded the circumstance about the man bearing a pitcher 
of water as only “an unnecessary detail,” and whose narra- 
tive here is, according to Ewald, “somewhat winnowed”), 
this incident is a natural one, though the same cannot be 
said of the account given by Mark and Luke (in opposition to 
Olshausen and Neander)— Who that unknown person above 
referred to might be, is a point which cannot be determined. 

Ver. 20. “Avéxerro] for the enactment (Ex. xii. 11) 
requiring the Passover lamb to be eaten standing, staff in 
hand, and in travelling attire, had been subsequently super- 
seded by the necessity of reclining. See HMieros Pesachim 
f. 37. 2: “Mos servorum est, ut edant stantes, at nunc come- 
dant recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in liber- 
tatem.” See Usteri, Comment. Joh. ev. genuin. esse. 1823, p. 26 
ff—It was considered desirable that no Passover party should 
ever consist of fewer than ten guests (Joseph. Bell. vi. 9. 3), 
for the lamb had to be entirely consumed (Ex. xu. 4, 43 ff.) 

Ver. 21. "Ec@covtrwv avtaer] whilst they were eating, but 
previous to the institution of the supper, ver. 26, which is at 
variance with Luke xxii. 21. The correct version of the 
matter is unquestionably that of Matthew, with whom John 
also agrees in so far as he represents the announcement of the 
betrayer as having taken place immediately after the feet- 
washing and the accompanying discourse, xiii. 21 ff. 

Ver. 22. "Hp&avro] portrays the unfolding of one scene 
after another in the incident. Jesus did not answer till this 
question had been addressed to Him by all of them in turn. — 
PHTL Eye@ eime] surely it is not I? presupposes a reply in the 
negative. “ Cum scelus exhorreant, cupiunt ab ejus suspicione 
purgari; bona tamen conscientia freti, libere testari volunt, 
quam procul remoti sint a tanto scelere,” Calvin. The account 
in John xiii. 22 ff. does not exclude, but supplements that 
before us, particularly because it also mentions that Judas 
had retired before the supper was instituted. 

Ver. 23. ‘O éwRawas, «.7.r.] he who has dipped (not: is 
dipping, Luther, following the Vulgate). "We have here no such 


CHAP. XXVI. 24. 201 


definite allusion as John xiii. 26 represents Jesus to have 
made to Judas. For it is not probable that the dipping in 
question took place subsequent to the intimation by Jesus in 
ver. 21 and the commotion of ver. 22,—two circumstances 
calculated to interrupt for a little the progress of the meal,— 
but rather before them, when there may have been others 
besides Judas dipping into the dish from which Jesus was 
eating. The allusion can be said to point specially to Judas 
only in so far as, happening to recline near to Jesus, he must 
have been eating out of the same dish with Him (for there 
would be several of such dishes standing on the table). 
Comp. Grotius. The éuSamropevos of Mark xiv. 20 (see on 
the passage) is not a substantial variation; neither has it 
been mésunderstood by Matthew (in opposition to Weiss in 
the Stud. wu. Krit. 1861, p. 53 f.), and converted by him into 
a special means of recognition (Holtzmann). The contents of 
the dish were the broth charoset (nDIN), made out of dates, figs, 
etc., and of the colour of brick (to remind those who partook 
of it of the bricks of Egypt, Maimonides, ad Pesach. vii. 11). 
See Buxtorf, Lew. Talm. p. 831. — év r6 TpuBrio] has dipped 
in the dish, into which he has put his hand, holding a piece of 
bread. Hom. Od. ix. 392; Aesch. Prom. 863; LXX. Deut. 
xxxill, 24; Ruth u. 14. 

Ver. 24. ‘Yadyer] petaBaivee amd ths éevtadOa Cafe, 
Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. olyeoOar, amépxyecOas, 327. 
Jesus is conscious that His death will be a going away to the 
Father (John vii. 33, viii. 22).— KaXrov, «.7.r.] well would it 
have been for him, ete.; for in that case he would not have 
existed at all, and so would not have been exposed to the 
severe punishment (of Gehenna) which now awaits him. 
Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 14; Job iii. 1 ff.; Jer. xx. 14 ff, and the 
passages from Rabbinical writers in Wetstein. The expression 
is a popular one, and not to be urged with logical rigour, 
which it will not admit of. The fundamental idea embodied 
in it is: “multo melius est non subsistere quam male sub- 
sistere,’ Jerome. Observe, further, the tragic emphasis with 
which 0 dvOpwrros éxeivos is repeated; but for caddv jv with- 
out av, see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. pp. 188, 195 [E. T. 217, 


202 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


226]; and on ov as a negative, where there is only one idea 
contained ‘in the negation, consult Kiihner, II. 2, p. 748; 
Buttmann, p. 299 [E. T. 347]. Euthymius Zigabenus aptly 
observes: ov S107 mpowpicto, Sua TovTo mapédwKev’ adAXde 
du0Tt tapédaxe, Sia TodTO mpowpicTo, ToD Oeod mpoewddTos TO 
mavTws aTroBncopevov' Euerre yap dvTws aTroBivat ToLodTOS ov 
éx pioews, GAN’ €k Tpoatpécews. 

Ver. 25. This final direct intimation regarding the betrayer 
(0 mapaccdovs), and addressed to this latter himself, is at 
variance with John xiii. 26 ff., where ver. 29 presupposes that 
it had not been given. Ver. 25 is an outgrowth of tradition, 
the absence of which from the older narrative of Mark is 
unquestionably correct. — od etmas] a Rabbinical formula by 
which an emphatic affirmation is made, as in ver. 64. See 
Schoettgen. There is no such usage in the Old Testament or 
among classical writers. Aé this point in the narrative of 
Matthew, just after this declaration on the part of Jesus, we 
must suppose the withdrawal (mentioned at John xiii. 30) of 
Judas (who, notwithstanding the statement at Luke xxu. 21, 
was not present at the celebration of the last supper; see on 
John xiii. 38, Remark) to have taken place. Matthew like- 
wise, at ver. 47, presupposes the withdrawal of the betrayer, 
though he does not expressly mention it; so that his account 
of the matter is less precise. The objection, that it was not 
allowable to leave before the Passover lamb was eaten, is 
sufficiently disposed of by the eatraordinary nature of the cir- 
cumstances in which Judas found himself; but see on ver. 26. 

Ver. 26.1 The meal—having been, naturally enough, inter- 
rupted by the discussion regarding Judas—would now be 
resumed ; hence the repetition of the éc@ovrwy adtév of ver. 
21 with the continuative 6é, which latter is so often used in 
a similar way after parentheses and other digressions, especially 

1 On ver. 26 ff. and the parallel passages, see Ebrard (Dogma vom heil. 
Abendm. I. p. 97 ff.), who also (II. p. 751 ff.) mentions the earlier literature of 
the subject ; see besides, the controversy between Strébel and Rodatz in the 
Luther. Zeitschr. 1842 ff. ; Riickert, d. Abendm., Lpz. 1856, p. 58 ff.; Keim in 
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1859, p. 63 ff. ; of modern dogmatic writers, consult, in 


particular, Kahnis and Philippi. Comp. on Mark xiv. 22 f.; Luke xxii. 191. ; 
1 Cor. xi. 24 f. 


CHAP, XXVI. 26. 203 


in cases where previous expressions are repeated; comp. on 
2 Cor. v. 8; Eph. ii. 4. —AaBov 6 Ino. 7. dptov] Accord- 
ing to the Rabbis, the order of the Passover meal was as 
follows (see Tr. Pesach. c. 10; Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 448 ff. ; 
Lightfoot, p. 474 ff.; Lund, Jud. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1125 
ff.; Wichelhaus, p. 248 ff; Vaihinger in Herzog’s Hncykl. XI. 
p. 141 ff) :—(1) It began with drinking wine, before partak- 
ing of which, however, the head of the family offered up thanks 
for the wine and the return of that sacred day (according 
to the school of Sammai, for the day and for the wine). 
“Poculum ebibit, et postea benedicit de lotione manuum, et 
lavat,’ Maimonides. (2) Then bitter herbs (on 1», intended 
to represent the bitter life of their forefathers in Egypt) were 
put upon the table, some of which being dipped in a sour or 
brinish liquid, were eaten amid thanksgivings. (3) The un- 
leavened bread, the broth chavoset (see on ver. 23), the lamb 
and the flesh of the chagiga (see on John xviii. 28), were now 
presented. (4) Thereupon the head of the family, after a 
“ Benedictus, qui creavit fructum terrae,” took as much of the 
bitter herbs as might be equal to the size of an olive, dipped 
it in the broth charoset, and then ate it, all the other guests 
following his example. (5) The second cup of wine was now 
mixed, and at this stage the father, at the request of his son, 
or whether requested by him or not, was expected to explain 
to him the peculiarities of the several parts of this meal. 
(6) This did not take place till the Passover viands had been 
put a second time upon the table; then came the singing of 
the first part of the Hadllel (Ps. cxiil., cxiv.), another short 
thanksgiving by the father, and the drinking of the second 
cup. (7) The father then washed his hands, took two pieces 
of bread, broke one of them, laid the broken pieces upon that 
which remained whole, repeated the “ Benedictus sit dlle, qui 
producit panem e terra,” rolled a piece of the broken bread in 
bitter herbs, dipped this into the broth charoset, and ate, after 
having given thanks; he then took some of the chagiga, after 
another thanksgiving, and so also with regard to the lamb. 
(8) The feast was now continued by the guests partaking as 
they felt inclined, concluding, however, with the father eating 


204 TUE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


the last bit of the lamb, which was not to be less than an 
olive in size, after which no one was at liberty to eat anything 
more. The father now washed his hands, and, praise having 
been offered, the third cup (929237 8D3) was drunk. Then came 
the singing of the second part of the Hallel (Ps. exv.—cxviii.) 
and the drinking of the fourth cup, which was, in some in- 
stances, followed by a fifth, with the final singing of Ps. exx.— 
exxxvil. (Bartoloce. Bibl. Rabb. II. p. 736 ff.).— Seeing that, 
according to this order, the feasting, strictly speaking, did not 
begin till No. 8, for all that preceded had the character of a 
ceremonial introduction to it; seeing, further, that it is in itself 
improbable that Jesus would interrupt or alter the peculiarly 
ceremonial part of the feast by an act or utterance in any way 
foreign to it; and considering, in the last place, that when Judas 
retired, which he did immediately after he was announced as 
the betrayer, and therefore previous to the institution of the 
last supper,—the Passover meal had already extended pretty far 
on into the night (John xiii. 30)—we must assume that the 
éoOiovtwy avtév of ver. 21, as well as the similar expression 
in ver. 26, should come in after No. 7, and that the eating under 
No. 8 is the stage at which the Lord’s supper was instituted ; 
so that the bread which Jesus took and brake would not be 
that mentioned under No. 7 (Fritzsche), but the aptov (with 
the article, see the critical remarks), the particular bread with 
which, as they all knew, He had just instituted the supper. He 
would have violated the Passover itself if He had proclaimed 
any new and peculiar symbolism in connection with the bread 
before conforming, in the first place, to the popular ceremonial 
observed at this feast, and before the less formal and peculiarly 
festive part of the proceedings was reached. Again, had the 
breaking and distributing of the bread been that referred to 
under No. 7, one cannot see why he should not have availed 
Himself of the bitter herbs as well, furnishing, as they would 
have done, so appropriate a symbol of the sufferimg inseparable 
from His death.— xat etdXoyycas] after having repeated a 
blessing—whether the “‘Benedictus alle, qui producit panem e 
terra” (comp. No. 7 above), or some other more appropriate to 
the particular act about to be performed, it is impossible to 


CHAP. XXVI. 26. 205 


say. The latter, however, is the more probable, as it would be 
more in accordance with the very special nature of Christ’s 
feelings and intention on this occasion. Now that the meal 
was drawing to a close (before the second part of the Hallel 
was sung, ver. 30), He felt a desire to introduce at the end a 
special repast of significance so profound as never to be for- 
gotten. The idea that His evAoyeiv, as being the expression 
of His omnipotent will (Philippi, p. 467 ff.), possessed creative 
power, so that the body and blood became realized in the 
giving of bread and wine, may no doubt accord with the 
orthodox view of the sacrament, but can be as little justified, 
on exegetical grounds, as that orthodox view itself; even in 
1 Cor. x. 16 nothing more is implied than a eucharistical 
consecration prayer for the purpose of setting apart bread and 
wine to a sacred use. — It is, further, impossible to determine 
whether by cali éd/Sou tots wabnt. we are to understand the 
handing of the bread piece by piece, or simply the presenting 
of it all at once upon a plate. Considering, however, that the 
guests were reclining, the latter is the more probable view, and 
is quite in keeping with the AdBere. This AdBeTre denotes 
simply a taking with the hand, which then conveys to the 
mouth the thing so taken, not also a taking in a spiritual 
sense (Ebrard). Further, it must not be inferred from the 
words before us, nor from our Lord’s interpretation (my body) 
of the bread which He presents, that He Himself had not eaten 
of it. See on ver. 29. He must, however, be regarded as 
having done so before handing it to the disciples, and before 
uttering the following words.—Todt0 éote TO cpa pov] 
There can be no doubt that todro is the subject, and (avoiding 
the Lutheran synecdoche) can only refer to the bread that was 
being handed to them, and not to the living body of Christ 
(Carlstadt), nor to the predicate which first follows (Strobel), 
while it is equally certain that no emphasis of any kind is 
to be laid upon the enclitic wov (in opposition to Olshausen 
and Stier). But seeing, moreover, that the body of Jesus 
was still unbroken (still living), and that, as yet, His 
blood had not been shed, none of the guests can have sup- 
posed what, on the occasion of the first celebration of the 


206 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


supper, was, accordingly, a plain impossibility, viz., that they 
were in reality eating and drinking the very body and blood 
of the Lord,’ and seeing also that, for the reason just stated, 
Jesus Himself could not have intended His simple words to be 
understood in a sense which they did not then admit of,— 
for to suppose any essential difference between the first and 
every subsequent observance of the supper (Schmid, Juvdl. 
Theol. I. p. 341; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. wu. Werk, III. 2, p. 
62; Stier ; Gess, I. p. 167) is to have recourse to an expedient 
that is not only unwarrantable, but extremely questionable 
(see, on the other hand, Tholuck in the Stud. w. Krit. 1869, 
p. 126 f.), and because, so long as the idea of the xpéas is 
not taken into account, any substantial partaking of the oda 
alone and by itself, without the aiwa, appears utterly incon- 
ceivable ;? for here, again, the idea of a spiritual body, which 
it is supposed Jesus might even then have communicated 
(Olshausen ; Rodatz in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1843, 3, p. 56; 
Kahnis, Abendm. p. 453; Hofmann; Schoeberlein, db. d. heal. 
Abendm. 1869, p. 66), belongs entirely to the region of non- 
exegetical and docetic fancies, for which even the transfigura- 
tion furnishes no support whatever (see on 1 Cor. x. 16), and 
is inconsistent with the aiwa (1 Cor. xv. 50; Phil. m1. 21): 

1 Wetstein well observes: ‘‘ Non quaerebant utrum panis, quem videbant, 
panis esset, vel utrum aliud corpus inconspicuum in interstitiis, panis delitesceret, 
sed quid haec actio significaret, cujus rei esset repraesentatio aut memoriale.” 
Thomasius, however, as above, p. 61, finds no other way of disposing of the 
simple impossibility referred to, but by maintaining that this giving of Himself 
on the part of the Lord was of the nature of a miracle. Comp. Hofmann, 
Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 215, also Philippi, p. 433 f., who is at the same time dis- 
posed to assume that the Spirit illuminated the minds of the disciples as with 
lightning flash. The supposition of a miracle is certainly the last resort, and 
this on exegetical grounds is wholly unjustifiable in a case in which neither 
the narrative itself nor the thing narrated implies a miracle. 

2 In reply to the question why Jesus distributes the body and blood separately, 
Thomasius, p. 68, has no answer but this: ‘‘I do not know.” We are accord- 
ingly met on the one hand with the assertion of a miracle, on the other with 
a non liquet. This is the way difficulties are supposed to be got over, but they 
remain, and continue to assert themselves all the same. There ought to be no 
hesitation in conceding that the separate participation, namely, of the body 
without the blood, and then of the blood by itself, is not to be understood as an 


actual eating and drinking of them, but as due to the symbolism based upon 
the circumstance of the body being put to death and the blood shed. 


CHAP. XXVI. 26. 207 


it follows that éori is neither more nor less than the copula 
of the symbolic statement:' “ This, which ye are to take and 
eat, this broken bread,” is, symbolically speaking, my body,” 
—the body, namely, which is on the point of being put 
to death as a AvTpov avTi TodA@y (xx. 28). The sym- 
bolical interpretation has also been correctly adhered to 
by David Schulz, de Wette, Julius Miiller, Bleek, Riickert, 
Keim, Weizsicker ; comp. Ewald, Morison, Weiss on Mark, 
and others. According to Matthew, as also according to 
Paul (1 Cor. xi. 24, where «dpevoy is spurious), Jesus 
omits entirely the tertiwm comparationis,— an omission, 
however, which in itself is more in keeping with the 
vivid symbolism of the passage and the deep emotion of our 
Lord. The symbolical act of breaking, which cannot possibly 
have anything to do with the glorified body, but which refers 
solely to that which was about to be put to death, was 
sufficient to enable us to perceive in this breaking what the 
point of comparison was; for the breaking of the bread and 
the putting to death of the body resemble each other in so 


‘In the case of Luke and Paul, the necessity of adopting the symbolical 
interpretation of é¢7i shows itself above all (1) in the words used with refer- 
ence to the cup (4 xan diaéyxn). The new covenant has been made in and 
through the actual blood of Christ. This blood, inasmuch as it has been 
shed, is the essential objective causa effectiva of the covenant. It is so in 
virtue of the historical fact of the shedding, while it is this same fact that 
justifies its being designated a new covenant (John xi. 25). The wine poured 
into the cup can be said to be the blood of Christ as it actually was after being 
shed on the cross, only in so far as it represents that real covenant-blood as 
it was previous to its being shed, andewith the near prospect of its shedding 
fully in view ; it ts this blood, but only in the sense warranted by a profound 
vivid symbolism. (2) It is on the strength of this symbolical interpretation 
that Luke and Paul would appear to have added the expression <is 7. funy 
avéuvnow to the words of the institution. See on Luke xxii. 19 f. The 
avéuynors denotes a realizing of that as present which is no longer so in bodily 
form. 

? Not: that which I here hand to you in the form of bread (the Catholic 
view), nor: that which I here hand to you in, with, and under the covenant 
(the synecdoche of Lutheran orthodoxy). The doctrine of the omnipresence of 
Christ’s body is inconsistent with the essential idea of a body, as was pointed out 
as early as the time of the Fathers, especially by Augustine: ‘‘ Cavendum enim 
est, ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus,” 
Augustine, ep. 57, ad Dardan. ; they understood the body of Christ to be in 
heaven, where it always remained. 


208 TIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


far as the connection of the whole is violently destroyed, so 
that the bread in fragments can no longer be said to be 
the bread, nor the body when put to death to be any 
longer a living being." The eating (and the drinking), 
on the other hand, is a symbol of the reception and 
appropriation, in saving faith (John vi. 51 ff), of the 
atoning and redeeming virtue inherent in the death of the 
body (Paul as above: 70 i7rép tuov) and in the shedding of 
the blood of Jesus; so that the act of receiving the elements 
in the consciousness of this, establishes a xowwvia with the 
body and blood that is spiritually living and active, and 
therefore, in all ethical respects, genuine and real (see on 
1 Cor. x. 16),—a fellowship in which the believing communi- 
cant realizes in his inward experience that the divine-human 
life of the crucified Redeemer is being imparted to him with 
saving efficacy, and in which he acquires a full assurance of 
eternal life. With regard to the divers views that have 
prevailed upon this point in the church, and of which the 
two held by Protestants do not admit of being harmonized 
without sacrificing their distinctive peculiarities (in opposition 
to Ebrard, Lange), it may be said that those of the Catholics 
and Lutherans are exegetically at one in so far as their inter- 
pretation of the éo7é is concerned, for they agree in regarding 
it as the copula of actual being ; it is only when they attempt 
a more precise dogmatic definition of the mode of this actual 
being that the divergence begins to show itself. Similarly, 
there is no difference of an exegetical nature (Rodatz in Rudel- 
bach’s Zettschr. 1843, 4, p. 11) between the interpretation 
of Zwingli (and Oecolampadius) and that of Calvin (“ externum 
sionum dicitur id esse, quod figurat,’ Calvin). On the rela- 


1 Philippi, p. 422 ff., is wrong in refusing to admit that the point of com- 
parison lies in the breaking. The ?xaece is the circumstance above all which 
the whole four evangelists agree in recording, making it appear, too, from 
the terms they employ, that it was regarded as a special act. Moreover, the 
fact that at a very early period the spurious xAwmevav of 1 Cor. xi. 24 had 
come to be extensively adopted, may be regarded as affording evidence in 
favour of the correctness of the church’s interpretation of this symbolical 
act. The same view is implied in the reading épurrcmsvov ; comp. Constitt. 
Ap. viii. 12. 16. 


CHAP. XXVI. 27. 209 


tion of Luther’s doctrine to that of Calvin, see Julius Miiller’s 
dogmat. Abh. p. 404 ff. For éoré (which, however, Jesus 
would not express in Aramaic, His words probably being 
"oval 87) as a copula of symbolical or allegorical being, comp. 
xiii. 38 f.; Luke xii. 1; John x. 6, xiv. 6; Gal. iv. 24; Heb. 
x. 20; Rev. i. 20.—That Jesus might also have used oap& 
instead of o@pa (comp. John vi.) is clear; in that case pro- 
minence would have been given to the material of which the 
capa is composed (comp. Col. i. 22). Comp. Riickert, p. 69. 
But it would not have been proper to use «péas (dead flesh, 
the flesh of what has been slain, Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 
13; see Schulz, Abendm. p. 94). 

Ver. 27. Matthew says indefinitely: a cup, for to before 
moTnp. is spurious. Luke and Paul are somewhat more 
precise, inasmuch as they speak of the cup as having been the 
one which was presented peta 76 Secrvnoas. Accordingly, the 
cup in question here is usually understood to have been the 
poculum benedictionis, referred to above under No. 8, the third 
cup. But in that case what becomes of the fourth one, over 
which the second part of the Hallel was sung? As it is 
not likely that this latter would be omitted; as it is no less 
improbable that Jesus, after investing the cup now under con- 
sideration with the symbolism of His blood, would have sent 
round another after it with which no such symbolical signi- 
ficance was associated ; as ver. 29 expressly forbids the sup- 
position of another cup having followed; and as, in the last 
place, mention is made of the Hallel (the second portion of it) 
as coming immediately after the drinking of this one-—we are 
bound to suppose that it is the fourth cup that is here meant, 
and in regard to which Maimonides (as quoted by Lightfoot) 
observes: “ Deinde miscet poculum quartum, et super wlud 
perficit Hallel, additque insuper benedictionem cantict (Ww N33), 
quod est: Laudent te, Domine, omnia opera tua, etc., et dicit: 
Benedictus sit, qui creavit fructum vitis,—et postea non quie= 
quam gustat ista nocte.” Paul,no doubt, expressly calls the cup 
used at the supper 70 mrotypiov THs evAoyias (1 Cor. x. 16), 
which corresponds with the name of the third cup (see on 
ver. 26); but, as the epexegetical 6 evAoyotuev shows, this 

MATT. II. ie) 


210 TILE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


designation is not a terminus technicus taken from the Jewish 
ritual, but it is to be traced to the Christian standpoint, in 
fact, to the Christian act of consecration. See on 1 Cor. x. 
16.— For the size of the Passover cups, and what is said 
about the wine being red and mixed with water, consult 
Grotius and Lightfoot. In the Constitt. Ap. vill. 12. 16, 
Christ Himself is even spoken of as to motipuov Kepdoas €& 
oivov Kat OaTos. —evxyaptoT.] is substantially the same as 
evaroy., ver. 26, which latter has reference to the phraseology of 
the prayer (benedictus, etc.), comp. xiv. 19; Luke xxiv. 30; 
Acts xxvii. 35; 1 Tim. iv. 3 f.; Matt. xv.36. Thens72 was 
a thanksgiving prayer. Comp. on 1 Cor. xiv. 16. 

Ver. 28. The death-symbolism is now applied to that which 
contains the life (Gen. ix. 4 ff, and comp. on Acts xv.), viz. 
the blood, which is described as sacrificial blood that is to 
be shed in order to make atonement. Neither here nor any- 
where else in the New Testament (Heb. xii. 24 not excepted) 
can there be any question of the glorified blood of Christ. 
Comp. on ver. 26, and on 1 Cor. x. 16. According to New 
Testament ideas, glorified blood is as much a contradictio in 
adjecto as glorified flesh. This also in opposition to Hofmann, 
p. 220.— tredrto] this, which ye are about to drink, the wine 
which is in this cup. Although this wine was red, it must not 
be supposed that the point of the symbolism lay in the colour 
(Wetstein, Paulus), but in the circumstance of its being powred out 
(see below: To 7. odd. exyvvou.) into the cup ; the outpouring 
is the symbolical correlative to the breaking in the case of the 
bread. — yap] justifies the qiere ...aavtes, on the ground 
of the interpretation given to that which is about to be drunk. 
— éoré] as in ver. 26.—70 aipa pov THs StaOHKns| This 
is the preferable reading ; see the critical remarks. “ This is my 
blood of the covenant,” my covenant blood (N25 D4, Ex. xxiv. 8), 
my blood which serves to ratify the covenant with God. This 
is conceived of as sacrificial blood (in opposition to Hofmann). 
See Delitzsch on Heb. ix. 20. Ina similar way Moses ratified 
the covenant with God by means of the sacrificial blood of an 
animal, Ex. xxiv. 6 ff. On the double genitive with only one 
noun, see Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 111 f.; Lobeck, ad Aj. 309; 


CHAP. XXVI. 28. 2th 


Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]. For the arrangement of the words, 
comp. Thue. iv. 85. 2: 7H Te amoxdnoes wou Tév TUA@Y. The 
connecting of the ov with aiwa corresponds to the To coud 
pou of ver. 26, as well as to the amplified form of our Lord’s 
words as given by Luke and Paul; consequently we must not, 
with Riickert, connect the pronoun with +. dvaOy«ys (the blood 
of my covenant). The covenant which Jesus has in view is 
that of grace, in accordance with Jer. xxxi. 31 ff., hence called 
the new one (by Paul and Luke) in contradistinction to the 
old one under the daw. See on 1 Cor. xi. 26.—70 zrept 
TOMNGY EkyYUY. Els ahEeoiv apapTidy]| Epexegesis of 7d 
-aipa ov Ths SvabyKns, by way of indicating who are to par- 
ticipate in the covenant (epi moAddv), the divine benefit 
conferred upon them (eis deo. duaprt.), and the means by 
which the covenant is ratified (€xyvvop.): which is shed (ex- 
pressing as present what, though future, is near and certain) 
Jor the benefit of many, inasmuch as it becomes instrwmental 
in procuring the forgiveness of sins. The last part of this state- 
ment, and consequently what is implied in it, viz. the atoning 
purpose contemplated by the shedding of blood (comp. Lev. 
xvil. 11), is to be understood as setting forth more precisely 
the idea expressed by zrepi. It must not be supposed, how- 
ever, that twép, which is used by Luke instead of zepi, is 
essentially different from the latter; but is to be distinguished 
from it only in respect of the different moral basis on which 
the idea contained in it rests (like the German wm and wer’), 
so that both the prepositions are often interchanged in cases 
where they have exactly one and the same reference, as 
in Demosthenes especially. See generally, on Gal. i. 4; 
1 Cor. i. 13, xv. 3. — The shedding of the blood is the objec- 
tive medium of the forgiveness of sins; the subjective medium, 
viz. faith, is contained by implication in the use made in 
this instance, as in xx. 28 (see on the passage), of moAAay, 
as well as in the symbolic reference of the wiere.— It is to 
be observed, further, that the genuineness of the words eis 
aec. duapt. is put beyond all suspicion by the unexceptionable 
evidence in their favour (in opposition to David Schulz), 
although, from their being omitted in every other record of the 


212 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


institution of the supper (also in Justin, Ap. i. 66, ¢. Tr. 70), 
they should not be regarded as having been originally spoken 
by Christ, but as an explanatory addition introduced into the 
tradition, and put into the mouth of Jesus. 


ReMARK 1.—That Jesus meant to institute a regular ordinance 
to be similarly observed by His church in all time coming, is not 
apparent certainly from the narrative in Matthew and Mark; 
but it is doubtless to be inferred from 1 Cor. xi. 24—26, no less 
than from the practice of the apostolic church, that the apostles 
were convineed that such was the intention of our Lord, so 
much so, that to the words of the institution themselves was 
added that express injunction to repeat the observance éic +. 
zuny aveyvgow Which Paul and Luke have recorded. As bearing 
upon this matter, Paul’s declaration: rapiAaSov ard rod xupiov, ver. 
23, is of such decisive importance that there can no longer be 
any doubt (Riickert, p. 124 ff.) as to whether Jesus intended to 
institute an ordinance for future observance. We cannot, there- 
fore, endorse the view that the repetition of the observance was 
due to the impression made upon the minds of the grateful 
disciples by the first celebration of the supper (Paulus, comp. 
also Weisse, Lvangelienfr. p. 195). 

REMARK 2.—The two most recent and exhaustive Protestant 
monographs treating of the Lord’s supper on the lines of the Con- 
fessions, but also discussing the subject exegetically, are: Ebrard, 
das Dogma vom heil. Abendm., Frankf. 1845 f., as representing the 
Reformed view, and Kahnis, d. Lehre vom Abendm., Lpz. 1851, 
as representing the Lutheran. Riickert, on the other hand, d. 
Abendm., s. Wesen u. s. Gesch. (Liz. 1856), ignores the Confessions 
altogether, and proceeds on purely excgetical principles. The 
result at which Ebrard arrives, p. 110 (comp. what he says, 
Olshausen’s Leidensgesch. 1862, p. 103), is as follows: “ The 
breaking of the bread is a memorial of the death of Jesus; the 
eating of the bread thus broken is a symbolical act denoting 
that this death is appropriated by the believer through his 
fellowship with the life of Christ. But inasmuch as Jesus 
gives the bread to be eaten and the wine to be drunk, and 
inasmuch as He declares those substances to be pledges of the 
new covenant in His blood, the bread and the wine are, there- 
fore, not mere symbols, but they assume that he who partakes 
of them is an actual shaver in the atonement brought about 
by the death of Christ. And since such a fellowship with 
Christ’s death cannot exist apart from fellowship with His life ; 


CHAP. XXVI. pA lies: 


since, in other words,” the new covenant “consists in an actual 
connection and union,—it follows that partaking of the Lord’s 
supper involves as its result a true, personal central union 
and fellowship of life with Christ.” The result at which 
Kahnis arrives in his above-cited work published in 1851? is 
the orthodox Lutheran view, and is as follows: “ The body which 
Christ gives us to feed upon in the supper is the same that was 
broken for us on the cross,—just as its substratum, the bread, 
was broken,—with a view to its being eaten. The blood which 
Christ gives us to drink in the supper is the same that was 
shed for us on the cross,—just as its substratum, the wine, was 
poured out,—with a view to its being drunk” (p. 104). He 
comes back to Luther’s synecdoche in regard to rodr0, which 
latter he takes as representing the concrete union of two 
substances, the one of which, viz. the bread, constitutes the 
embodiment and medium of the other (the body); the former 
he understands to be, logically speaking, only accidental in 
its nature, the essential substance being brought out in the 
predicate. As for the second element, he considers that it 
expresses the identity of the communion blood with the blood 
of the atoning sacrifice, and that not in respect of the function, 
but of the thing itself (for he regards it as an arbitrary dis- 
tinction to say that the former blood ratifies, and that the latter 


1In his Dogmatil:, however (1861), I. pp. 516, 616 ff., II. p. 657 ff., Kahnis 
candidly acknowledges the shortcomings of the Lutheran view, and the necessity 
of correcting them, and manifests, at the same time, a decided leaning in the 
direction of the Reformed doctrine. The supper, he says, ‘‘is the medium 
of imparting to the believing communicant, in bread and wine, the atoning 
efficacy of the body and blood of Christ that have been sacrificed for us, which 
atoning efficacy places him to whom it is imparted in mysterious fellowship with 
the body of Christ.” Kahnis now rejects, in particular, the Lutheran synecdoche, 
and approves of the symbolica] interpretation in so far as bread and wine, being 
symbols of Christ’s body and blood, constitute, in virtue of the act of insti- 
tution, that sacramental word concerning our Lord’s body and blood which 
when emitted by Christ has the effect a conveying the benefits of His death. 
He expresses himself more clearly in II. p. 557, where he says: ‘‘The Lord’s 
supper is the sacrament of the altar which, in the form of bread and wine, the 
symbols of the body and blood of Christ, which have been sacrificed for us, im- 
parts to the believing communicant the sin-forgiving efficacy of Christ’s death.” 
Those divinely-appointed symbols he regards as the visible word concerning 
Christ’s body and blood, which word, as the terms of the institution indicate, is 
the medium through which the atoning power of His death, i.e. the forgiveness 
of sins, is communicated. From the bread and wine Christ is supposed to 
create a eucharistic corporeality, which He employs as the medium for the com- 
munication of Himself. 


214 THE GOSFEL OF MATTHEW. 


propitiates) ; and that, accordingly, the reality in point of effi- 
cacy which, in the words of the institution, is ascribed to the 
latter necessarily implies a corresponding efficacy in regard to 
the former.—By adopting the kind of exegesis that has been 
employed in establishing the strictly Lutheran view, it would 
not be difficult to make out a case in favour of that doctrine of 
transubstantiation and the mass which is still keenly but 
awkwardly maintained by Schegg, and which finds an abler 
but no less arbitrary and mistaken advocate in Dollinger 
(Christenth. wu. Kirche, pp. 37 ff, 248 ff, ed. 2), because in both 
cases the results are based upon the application of the exegeti- 
cal method to dogmatic premises.— Then, in the last place, 
Rickert arrives at the conclusion that, as far as Matthew and 
Mark are concerned, the whole stress is intended to be laid 
upon the actions, that these are to be understood symbolically, 
and that the words spoken serve only as hints to enable us to 
interpret. the actions aright. He thinks that the idea of an 
actual eating of the body or drinking of the blood never crossed 
the mind either of Jesus or of the disciples ; that it was Paul 
who, in speculating as to the meaning of the material substances, 
began to attach to them a higher importance, and to entertain 
the view that in the supper worthy and unworthy alike were 
partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the supersensual 
and heavenly form in which he conceived them to exist subse- 
quent to the Lord’s ascension. In this way, according to 
Riickert, Paul entered upon a line of interpretation for which 
sufficient justification cannot be found either in what was done 
or in what was spoken by our Lord, so that his view has fur- 
nished the germs of a version of the matter which, so far at least 
asits beneficial results are concerned, does not tell in his favour 
(p. 242). in answer to Riickert in reference to Paul, see on 
1 Cor. x. 16. 

ReMARK 3.—As for the different versions of the words of the 
institution that are to be met with in the four evangelists, that 
of Mark is the most concise (Matthew’s coming next), and, con- 
sidering the situation (for when the mind is full and deeply 
moved the words are few) and the connection of this evangelist 
with Peter, it is to be regarded as the most original. Yet the 
supplementary statements furnished by the others are ser- 
viceable in the way of exposition, for they let us see what 
view was taken of the nature of the Lord’s supper in the 
apostolic age, as is pre-eminently the case with regard to the 
rouro moleire cig vr. eury avawynow Of Pauland Luke. Comp. on Luke 
xxii. 19. According to Gess, I. p. 147, the variations in question 


CIUAP. XXVI. 29. 215 


are to be accounted for by supposing that, while the elements 
were circulating, Jesus Himself made use of a variety of expres- 
sions. But there can be no doubt that on an occasion of such 
painful emotion He would utter the few thoughtful words He 
made use of only once for all. This is the only view that can 
be said to be in keeping with the sad and sacred nature of the 
situation, especially as the texts do not lead us to suppose that 
there was any further speaking; comp., in particular, Mark 
xiv. 23, 24. 


Ver. 29. The certainty and nearness of His death, which 
had just been expressed in the symbolism of the wine, impel 
Jesus to add a sorrowful but yet comforting assurance 
(introducing it with the continuative autem).— dts od py 
miow| that I will certainly not drink. According to the 
synoptic conception of the meal as being the one in connection 
with the Passover, this presupposes that the cup mentioned at 
ver. 27 f. was the last one of the meal (the fourth), and not 
the one before the last. For it may be held as certain that, 
at this feast above all, and considering His present frame of 
mind, He would take care not to give offence by omitting the 
fourth Passover-cup ; and what reason, it may be asked, would 
He have had for doing so? The cup in question was the 
concluding one, during the drinking of which the second portion 
of the Hallel was sung (ver. 30).—azapte] from this present 
occasion, on which I have just drunk of it. To suppose that 
Jesus Himself did not also partake of the cup (Olshausen, de 
Wette, Rickert, Weiss) is a gratuitous assumption, incom- 
patible with the ordinary Passover usage. We are to under- 
stand the drinking on the part of Jesus as having taken place 
after the evyapurtjoas, ver. 27, before He handed the cup to 
the disciples, and announced to them the symbolical signifi- 
cance that was to be attached to it: Comp. Chrysostom. 
Matthew does not mention this circumstance, because he did 
not regard it as forming part of the symbolism here in view. 
Euthymius Zigabenus correctly observes: e¢ 6€ Tod motTnpiov 
peTéaxe, pweTéNaPev apa Kai Tod dptov. Comp. on ver. 26.— 
€k TOVTOV TOD YEvYHp. T. awT.| TovTOV is emphatic, and 
points to the Passover-wine. Mark and Luke are less 


216 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


precise, not having to’rov. From this it must not be 
assumed that Jesus never drank any wine after His resurrec- 
tion. Acts x. 41; Ignat. Smyrn. 3. For yévynua as used 
by later Greek writers (likewise the LXX.) in the sense of 
xapmos, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 286. For the reasons for 
rejecting the reading yevruatos (Lachmann, Tischendorf), not- 
withstanding the far greater number of testimonies in its 
favour, see Fritzsche on Mark, p.619 f. The use of this term 
instead of otvos has something solemn about it, containing, 
as it does, an allusion to the form of thanksgiving for the 
Passover wine: “benedictus sit, qui creavit fructwm vitis.” 
Comp. Lightfoot on ver. 27.—x«atvov] novum, different 
in respect of quality; “novitatem dicit plane singularem,” 
Bengel ; not vecens, véov. This conception of the new Passover 
wine, which is to be the product of the coming aeon and of the 
glorified «ticts, is connected with the idea of the renewal of 
the world in view of the Messianic kingdom. Luke xxi. 16, 
comp. ver. 30. To understand the new celebration of the 
Passover in the perfected kingdom only in a figurative sense, 
corresponding somewhat to the feasts of the patriarchs, alluded 
to at vill. 11 (“ vos aliquando mecum in coelo summa laetitia 
et felicitate perfruemini,’” Kuinoel, Neander), would, in presence 
of such a characteristic allusion to the Passover, be as arbitrary 
on the one hand as the referring of the expression (Chrysos- 
tom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Miinster, Clarius) to the period 
subsequent to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts x. 41) would be 
erroneous on the other, and that on account of the tovrov and 
the words év 77 Baown. tT. 7. ., which can only be intended 
to designate the kingdom of Messiah. It is wrong to take 
‘awov, aS Kuinoel and Fritzsche have done, in the sense of 
iterum, for it isa characteristic predicate of the wine that it is 
here in question; besides, had it been otherwise, we should 
have had anew: €« xawhs, Thue. iii. 92. 5, or the ordinary 
madw of the New Testament. 

Ver. 30. ‘YL uvyocavtes] namely, the second portion of the 
Hallel (Ps. exv.—exviil.). See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 613 f. 
Jesus also took part in the singing. Comp. Justin, ¢. 77.106. 
— €EjNOov, «.7.r.]| The regulation (comp. Ex. xi. 22), which 


CHAP. XXVI. 31-35. a1 


required that this night should be spent in the city (Lightfoot, 
p. 564), appears not to have been universally complied with. 
See Tosapht in Pesach. 8 in Lightfoot, minister. templi, p. 727. 

Ver. 31. Tore] whilst they were going out, ver. 36.— 
mavTes] put first so as to be highly emphatic. — cxavdan.] 
Comp. on xi. 6. In this instance it means: instead of 
standing faithfully by me till the last, ye will be cowardly 
enough to run away and leave me to my fate, and thus show 
that your faith has not been able to bear the brunt of the 
struggle. Comp. John xvi. 32. See ver. 56. With what 
painful astonishment these words must have filled the dis- 
ciples, sincerely conscious as they were of their faithful de- 
votion to their Master! Accordingly this announcement is fol- 
lowed up with quoting the prediction in which the tragic event 
is foretold. The passage here introduced with yéyp. yap is 
from Zech. xiii. 7 (quoted with great freedom). In the shep- 
herd who, according to this passage, is to be smitten, Jesus sees 
a typical representation of Himself as devoted to death by God, 
so that the words cannot have had reference (Ewald, Hitzig) 
to the foolish shepherd (ch. xi. 15 ff), but only to the one 
appointed by God Himself (Hofmann), whose antitype is 
Jesus, and His disciples the scattered sheep; comp. Heng- 
stenberg, Christol. III. 1, p. 528. 

Ver. 32 f. IIpoe:rrav ta AvTNpa, Tporeyes Kal Ta Tapapv- 
Govpeva, Euthymius Zigabenus——They were again to gather 
around Him in Galilee, the native scene of His ministry. 
Comp. xxvii. 10. The authenticity of these words in their 
present form may be called in question, in so far as Christ 
cannot have predicted His resurrection in such explicit terms. 
See on xvi. 21. The answer of Peter, given in the bold 
self-confidence of his love, savours somewhat of self-exaltation ; 
consequently the impression made upon him by the experi- 
ence of his shortcomings was all the deeper. 

Ver. 34f. IIpiv aréxtopa davicar] before a cock crows, 
therefore before the day begins to dawn. Cock-crowing 
occurs in the third of the four night watches (see on xiv. 
24), which watch lasted from midnight till about three o’clock, 
and is called adextopopwvia in Mark xiii. 35. For the opposite 


218 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


of the zpiv ad. gav., see Plat. Symp. p. 223 C: mpos typépav 
75n Gdextpvovoy adovtwv ; Lucian, Ocyp. 670: éel 8 addéxtwp 
nuepav eoddrticev; Horace, Sat. i. 1.10. For a later modi- 
fication of the expression in conformity with the repeated 
denials, see Mark xiv. 30. On the question as to whether 
or not adé«Twp can be considered good Greek, consult Lobeck, 
-ad Phryn. p.228f. This prediction as to the time was subse- 
quently confirmed by the actual crowing of a cock, ver. 74: — 
amapyynon je] thou wilt deny me, deny that I am thy 
Lord and Master. Comp. Celsus in Origen, ii. 45: odte 
ouvaTréGavov ovte vTepaTtéBavov av’Tod, ovdé KoAdoEwY KaTA- 
ppovely érretcPncav, aArAG Kal HpvycavTo eivat waOntat. For 
avy cot avo, comp. John xi. 16.—arapvjcopac] The 
future after od un (see Hartung, Partikell. p. 157; Winer, 
p. 471 f. [E. T. 635]) is rather more expressive of a confident 
assertion than the subjunctive, the reading of A E G, ete. — 
opolws Kat TavTes, «.7.A.] Considering the sincere but as 
yet untried love of each, this is not an improbable statement, 
though it is found only in Matthew and Mark. 

Ver. 36. I'e@cnpav7y or, according to a still better attested 
form, I'e@onuavet (Lachmann, Tischendorf), is most likely 
the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew j2¥ 3, an oil-wress. It 
was a plot of ground (ywpiev, John iv. 5; Acts i. 18, iv. 
34, v. 3, xxviii. 7), perhaps a small estate with a garden 
(John xviii. 1); according to Keim, an olive-yard where 
nobody lived. If the place was not public property, Jesus, 
according to John xix. 2, must have been on friendly terms 
with the owner. On the place (the present Dschesmanye), 
which subsequent tradition has fixed upon as the site of the 
ancient Gethsemane, see Robinson, Pal. I. p. 389; Tobler, 
d. Siloahquelle wu. d. Oelberg, 1852.— avtod] here ; the only 
other instances in the New Testament are found in Acts xv. 
34, xvili, 19, xxi. 4; of frequent occurrence in classical 
writers. — €xet] pointing toward the place. 

Ver. 37 f. Anticipating the inward struggle that awaited 
Him, He retired farther into the garden, taking with Him none 
(xvii. 1) but the three most intimate disciples. — }p&aro] 
indicating the first symptoms of the condition in question, — 


CHAP, XXVI. 39. | 219 


AumetoOat x. adnpmovetv] Climax. Suidas explains adnpov. 
as meaning: Aiavy AvreioPa. See Buttmann, Lexilog. II. 
p-135 f.; Ael V. H. xiii. 3; Phil. ii, 26.— wepirurros] very 
sorrowful, Ps. xliii. 5; 3 Esdr: viii. 71 f.; Isocr. p) 11 B; 
Aristot. Zth. iv. 3; Diog. L. vu. 97. The opposite of this is 
Tepiyapns. —% ux wov] Comp. John xii. 27; Xen. Hell. 
iv. 4.3: adnpovicas tas wuyas. The soul, the intermediate 
element through which the spirit (ro mwvedua, ver. 41) is con- 
nected with the body in the unity of the individual (see 
Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. p. 11), is the seat of pleasure and pain. 
Comp. Stirm in the Twib. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 25 ff.— €ws 
Oavarov] defining the extent of the wepidumos: unto death, 
so as almost to cause death, so that I am nearly dead from 
very grief; Jonah iv. 9; Isa. xxxvin. 1; and see on 
Phil. ii. 27. The idea of the mors infernalis (Calovius), as 
though Christ had been experiencing the pains of hell, is here 
exegetically unwarrantable. Euthymius Zigabenus correctly 
observes: davepw@repoy éEayopever THy acbéveav THs Picews 
ws avOpwros. — peivate . . . €wov| “In magnis tentationi- 
bus juvat solitudo, sed tamen, ut in propinquo sint amici,” 
Bengel. 

Ver. 39. Mcexpor] belongs to mpoedOav: after He had gone 
jorward a short distance. For puxpov comp. Xen. Cyrop. iv. 
2. 6 (pixpov opevOévres); Hist. Gr. vii. 2. 13° (uexpov 
8 avtovs mpotéuapavtes).— él mpocwmov avtod] The 
article was not necessary before mpocw7. (in opposition to 
Fritzsche, who takes avtod as meaning there). Comp. xi. 10, 
xvii. 6, and elsewhere. Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 152]. Bengel 
appropriately observes: “7% faciem, non modo in genua ; 
summa demissio.” ei dvvatov éats] ethical possibility 
according to the divine purpose. Similarly the popular ex- 
pression wdvta duvatd oot is to be understood, according to 
the sense in which Jesus uses it, as implying the necessary 
condition of harmony with the divine will. — To totypuov 
tovrTo| ze. this suffering and death immediately before me. 
Comp. xx. 22. — 3rAxpv ovy, «.7.r.] The wish, to which in His 
human dread of suffering He gave utterance, that, if possible, 
He should not be called upon to endure it (€devEe to avOpemwor, 


220 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Chrysostom), at once gives place to absolute submission, John 
v. 30, vi. 38. The word to be understood after ov (OéAeus) is not 
yevéoOw, but, as corresponding with the oty (not 4%, observe), 
ryevnoetat, or éotat, in which the petitioner expresses his final 
determination. It may be observed further, that the broken 
utterance is in keeping with the deep emotion of our Lord. 
—For @s, which, so far as the essential meaning is concerned, 
is identical with the relative pronoun, comp. Hermann, ad 
Hom. h. in Cer. 172. 

Ver. 40. The fact that the disciples slept, and that these 
disciples did so in circumstances such as the present, and 
that all three gave way, and that their sleep proved to be 
of so overpowering a character, is, notwithstanding Luke’s ex- 
planation that it was aio THs AUVs (xxii. 45), a psychologi- 
cal mystery, although, after utterances of Jesus so manifestly 
authentic as those of vv. 40 and 45, the statement that they 
did sleep is not to be regarded as wnhistorical, but is to be taken 
as implying that Jesus had spent a considerable time in prayer, 
and that the disciples, in consequence of their deep mental 
exhaustion, found it impossible to keep awake. — xa] three 
times ; the narrative is characterized by a simple pathos. — 
7@ Ilétp@] to him He addressed words that were equally ap- 
plicable to them all; but then it was he who a little ago had 
surpassed all the others in so boldly declaring how much he was 
prepared to do for his Master, vv. 33, 35. — otras] siccine, 
thus, uttered with painful surprise, is to be taken in con- 
nection with what follows, without inserting a separate mark 
of interrogation (in opposition to Euthymius Zigabenus and 
Beza). Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5. 

Ver. 41.°Iva] indicating, not the object of the mpocedyeobe, 
but purpose, and that of the watching and praying. — eicéXOnte 
eis metpacpov] in order that ye may not be betrayed into 
circumstances in which ye might be led to show yourselves 
unfaithful to me (into the cxavSarigeoOar of ver. 31). Comp. 
vi. 13. By watching and praying, as a means of maintaining 
clearness of judgment, freedom, and a determination to adhere 
to Christ, they were to avoid getting into such outward cir- 
cumstances as might prove dangerous to their moral wellbeing. 


CHAP. XXVI. 42—44. 224 


The watching here is no doubt of a physical nature (ver. 40), 
but the wpocevyecGar has the effect of imparting to it the 
character and sacredness belonging to spiritual watchfulness 
(Col. iv. 2).—76 pwev mvedpa, «.7.r.] a general proposition 
(all the more telling that it is not introduced with a yap), 
intended to refer, by way of warning, to the circumstances 
in which the disciples were placed, as though it had been 
said: ye are no doubt, so far as the principle of your ethical 
life in its general aim and tendency is concerned, willing 
and ready to remain true to me; but on the individual 
side of your nature, where the influence of sense is so strong, 
you are incapable of resisting the temptations to unfaithful- 
ness by which you are beset. Comp. on John ii.6. Euthy- 
mius Zigabenus: 7 6€ cap£, dcOevns otoa, bTootéNNeTAL Kal 
ovx evtovet. In order, therefore, to avoid getting into a pre- 
dicament in which, owing to the weakness in question, you 
would not be able to withstand the overmastering power of 
influences fatal to your salvation without the special protection 
and help of God that are to be obtained through vigilance and 
prayerfulness, watch and pray ! 

Ver. 42 ff. Idnduv é« devrépov] a well-known pleonasm. 
John xxi. 15; Acts x. 15. Comp. devtepov radu, Plat. Polit. 
p. 260 D, ad&s madw (p. 282 C), and such like. We some- 
times find even a threefold form: ad@cs ad radu, Soph. Phil. 
940, O. C. 1421.— ec] not quandoquidem (Grotius), but: 7/. 
The actual feelings of Jesus are expressed in all their reality 
in the form of acquiescence in that condition of impossibility 
(ov Svvatat) as regards the divine purpose which prevents the 
thing from being otherwise.— todt0] without To mornpiov 
(see the critical remarks): ¢hzs, which I am called upon to drink. 
— éav py avTo Tia] without my having drunk tt ; if it cannot 
pass from me unless it is drunk.— y evn OnT@ TO OEANMA ToOv| 
this is the taxon wexpt Oavatov otavpod, Phil. ii. 8; Rom. 
v.19. Observe in this second prayer the climax of resignation 
and submission; His own will, as mentioned in ver. 39, is 
completely silenced. Mark’s account is here less precise. — 
Ver, 43. joav yap, «.7.r.] for their eyes (see on viii. 3) were 
heavy (weighed down with drowsiness). Comp. Eur. Alc. 385. 


222 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


— Ver. 44. é« tpitov] belongs to mpoonvé Comp. 2 Cor. 
xii. 8.—7. avr. NOy.] as is given at ver. 42. 

Ver. 45. The annoyance at finding the disciples asleep 
(ver. 40: odtws ovK icyvoaTe, x.T.r.) now deepens into an in- 
tensely painful irony: “ sleep on now, and have out your rest” 
(the emphasis is not on 76 Nourov, but on Kabevdere x. avaTr.) ! 
He had previously addressed them with a ypnyopsite, but to how 
little purpose! and, accordingly, He now turns to them with 
the sadly ironical abandonment of one who has no further 
hope, and tells them to do quite the reverse: sleep on, ete. 
Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, Miinster, Erasmus, Calvin, 
Er. Schmid, Maldonatus, Bengel, Jansen, Michaelis, Fritzsche, 
Keim, Ewald. On dourov and 76 Nourrov, for the rest of the time, 
in the sense of jam (Vulgate), henceforward (Plat. Prot. p. 321 C), 
see Schaefer, ad Long. p. 400; Jacobs, ad Philostr. p. 663. 
Comp. on Acts xxvii. 20. To object, as is frequently done, 
that the ironical view does not accord with the frame 
of mind in which Jesus must have been, is to fail to 
appreciate aright the nature of the situation. Irony is not 
inconsistent even with the deepest anguish of soul, especially 
in cases where such anguish is also accompanied with such 
clearness of judgment as we find in the present instance ; 
and consider what it was for Jesus to see such an over- 
powering tendency to sleep on the part of His disciples, and 
to find everything so different from what He needed, and 
might reasonably have expected! Winer, p. 292 [E. T. 391], 
following Chrysostom, Theophylact (who, however, admits the 
plausibility of the ironical view), and Grotius, excludes the 
idea of irony, and interprets thus: “ sleep on, then, as you are 
doing, and take your rest,” which words are supposed to be 
spoken permissively in accordance with the calm, mild, resigned 
spirit produced by the prayers in which He had just been 
engaged. This is also substantially the view of Kuinoel, 
de Wette, Morison, Weiss on Mark; and see even Augustine, 
who says: “verba indulyentis eis jam somnum.” But the 
idea that any such indulgence was seriously intended, would 
be incompatible with the danger referred to at ver. 41, and 
wuich He knew was threatening even the disciples themselves. 


CHAP. XXVI. 46. 223 


There are others, again, who are disposed to take the words 
interrogatively, thus: are ye stall asleep? Such is the view 
of Henry Stephens, Heumann, Kypke, Krebs, in spite of the 
ordinary usage with regard to To Aomov, to understand 
which in the sense of “ henceforth” (Bleek, Volkmar) would 
be entirely out of keeping with the use of the present here. 
Tf, however, the mark of interrogation be inserted after caQev- 
dere, and 7d Aourov Kai avatravecOe be then taken impera- 
tively (Klostermann), in that case «ai would have the inten- 
sive force of even ; but its logical position would have to be 
before TO Aouzrov, not before avatravecGe, where it could be 
rendered admissible at all only by an artificial twisting of the 
sense (“now you may henceforth rest on, even as long as you 
choose””).—While Jesus is in the act of uttering His cabevdere, 
k.T.., He observes the hostile band approaching ; the painful 
irony changes to a painful earnestness, and He continues in 
abrupt and disjointed words: (6ov, ijyyixev, «.7.r. The 1) dpa 
should be taken absolutely: hora fatalis, John xvii. 1. The 
next clause describes in detail the character of that hour. 
— ets xelpas aduapT.] into sinners’ hands. He refers to the 
members of the Sanhedrim, at whose disposal He would be 
placed by means of His apprehension, and not to the Romans 
(Maldonatus, Grotius, Hilgenfeld), nor to both of these together 
(Lange). The zapadidovs is not God, but Judas, acting, 
however, in pursuance of the divine purpose, Acts ii. 23. 

Ver. 46. Observe the air of quick despatch about the words 
eyelper Oe, aywopev, idov.—adyoper] is not a summons to 
take to flight, in consequence perhaps of a momentary return 
of the former shrinking from suffering (which would be incon- 
sistent with the fact of the victory that had been achieved, 
and with the clear consciousness which He had that 6 vids 
T. ad. Tapadiéotat, «.7.d. ver. 45), but: to go to meet the 
betrayer, with a view to the fulfilling of the wapadééotae of 
which He had just been speaking. Kavrteifev eréev, Ore 
éxov atroOaveirat, Euthymius Zigabenus. 


REMARK.—On the agony in the garden (see, in general, 
Ullmann, Siindlos., ed. 7, p. 127 ff.; Dettinger in the Tb. 
Zeutschr. 1837, 4, 1838, 1; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 306 ff. ; 


ee THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Keim, III. p. 306 ff.), the following points may be noted: (1) 
As to the nature of it, we must not regard it simply as bodily 
suffering (Thiess, Paulus), nor as consisting in sorrow on 
account of the disciples and the Jews (Jerome), nor as pain 
caused by seeing His hopes disappointed (Wolfenbiittel Frag- 
ments), nor as grief at the thought of parting from His friends 
(Schuster in Eichhorn’s £ib/. IX. p. 1012 ff.) ; but, as the prayer 
vv. 39, 42 proves, as consisting in fear and dread of the cruel 
suffering and death that were so near at hand, the prospect of 
which affected Christ—whose sensibilities were purely human, 
and not of the nature of a philosophical abstraction, like the 
imperturbability of Socrates or the apathy of the Stoic 
(Celsus, in Origen, 11. 24, charges Him with cowardice)—all the 
more powerfully in proportion to the greater purity, and depth, 
and genuineness of His feelings, and the increasing distinctness 
with which He foresaw the approach of the painful and, 
according to the counsel of the Father, inevitable issue. For 
having been victorious hitherto over every hostile power, 
because His hour had not yet come (John vii. 30, viii. 20), He 
realized, now that it was come (ver. 45), the whole intensity of 
horror implied in being thus inevitably abandoned, in pursuance 
of God’s redemptive purpose, to the disposal of such powers, with 
the immediate prospect before Him of a most dreadful death, 
a death in which He was expected, and in which He Himself 
desired, to manifest His perfect obedience to the Father’s will. 
The momentary disturbing of the complete harmony of His 
will with that of God, which took place in Gethsemane, is to 
be ascribed to the human doéévere incidental to His state of 
humiliation (comp. 2 Cor. xiil.4; Heb. v. 7), and should be 
regarded simply as a natural shrinking from suffering and 
death, a shrinking entirely free from sin (comp. Dorner, Jesu 
stindlose Vollkommenh. p. 6 f.). Neither was it in any way 
due to the conviction, unwarrantably ascribed to Him by 
Schenkel, that His death was not absolutely necessary for the 
redemption of the world. That touch of human weakness 
should not even be described as sin in embryo, sin not yet 
developed (Keim), because the absolute resignation to the 
Father’s will which immediately manifests itself anew pre- 
cludes the idea of any taint of sin whatever. To suppose, 
however, that this agony must be regarded (Olshausen, Gess) as 
an actual abandonment by God. i.e. as a withdrawing of the 
presence of the higher powers from Jesus, is to contradict the 
testimony of Heb. v. 7, and to suppose what is inconsistent 
with the very idea of the Son of God (Strauss, II. p. 441); and 


CHAP. XXVL 225 


to explain it on the ground of the vicarious character of the 
suffering (Olshausen, Ebrard, Steinmeyer, following Luther, 
Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, and the dogmatic writers of the 
orthodox school), as though it were to be regarded as “a 
concrete bearing of the whole concentrated force of a world’s 
sin” (Ebrard), and of the wrath of God in all its fulness 
(comp. Thomasius, III. 1, p. 69 f.; Weber, v. Zorne Gottes, p. 
266 ff.), is erroneously to take a materialistic and quantitative 
view of the iAworjpiov of Jesus ; whereas Scripture estimates His 
atoning death according to its qualitative value,—that is to say, 
it regards the painful death to which the sinless Son of God 
subjected Himself in obedience to the Father’s will as consti- 
tuting the efficient cause of the atonement, and that not 
because He required to undergo such an amount of suffering 
as might be equivalent in quantity and intensity to the whole 
sum of the punishment due to mankind, but because the 
vicarious Avrpov on behalf of humanity consisted in the volun- 
tary surrender of His own life. Comp. ver. 27 f., xx. 28; John 
pea Ae ohm 2, i. 5 51 Lim. 11.165 2) Con v, 21: ‘Gale mi, 
13, But it would be unwarrantable, on the other hand, to 
ascribe the dread which Jesus felt merely to the thought of 
death as a divine judgment, and the agonies of which He was 
supposed to be already enduring by anticipation (Kostlin in 
the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. III. p. 125). Those who adopt this 
view lay great stress upon the sinlessness of our Lord as 
tending to intensify this painful anticipation of death (Det- 
tinger, comp. Ullmann, Neander). (2) John, notwithstanding 
the fact that he was both an eye and ear witness of the 
agony in Gethsemane, makes no mention of it whatever, 
although he records something analogous to it as having 
taken place somewhat earlier, xii. 27. With the view of 
accounting for this silence, it is not enough to suppose that 
John had omitted this incident because it had been suffi- 
ciently recorded by the other evangelists, for a mere external 
reason such as this would accord neither with the spirit of 
his Gospel nor with the principle of selection according 
to which it was composed (in opposition to Liicke, Tholuck, 
Olshausen, Ebrard). We should rather seek the explanation of 
the matter in the greater freedom which characterizes the com- 
position of this Gospel, and therefore in the peculiarities of style 
and form which are due to this work of John being an inde- 
pendent reproduction of our Lord’s life. After the prayer of 
Jesus, which he records in ch. xvii., John felt that the agony could 
not well find a place in his Gospel, and that, after xii. 23 ff., there 
MATT. II, P 


226 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


was no reason why it should be inserted any more than the cry 
of anguish on the cross. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 557 f. In 
John, too, ch. xviii, the transition from acting to suffering is 
somewhat abrupt (in opposition to Hofmann) ; but after the high- 
priestly prayer, the suffering appears as one series of victories 
culminating in the triumphant issue of xix. 30; im fact, when 
Jesus offered up that prayer, He did so as though He were 
already victorious (xvi. 33). It is quite unfair to make use of 
John’s silence either for the purpose of throwing discredit 
upon the synoptic narrative (Goldhorn in Tzschirner’s Magaz. 
f. chr. Pred. 1, 2, p. 1 ff; Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 422 f.), or as 
telling against John (Bretschneider, Probab. p. 33 ff.; Weisse, IT. 
p. 268; Baur, Keim; likewise Theile in Winer’s Journ. II. p. 
353 ff., comp. however, his Biogr. Jesu, p. 62), or with a view to 
impugn the historical character of both narratives (Strauss, 
Bruno Bauer). The accounts of the two earliest evangelists 
bear the impress of living reality to such an extent that their 
character is the very reverse of that which one expects to find 
in a legend (in opposition to Gfrorer, Heil. Sage, p. 337 ; Usteri 
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 465) ; nor is there any reason why, 
even after the high-priestly prayer, such an agony as that in 
question should not find a place in the Gospel narrative; for 
who shall presume to say what changes of feeling, what eleva- 
tion and depression of spirit, may not have taken place on the 
eve of such a catastrophe in a heart so noble, so susceptible, 
and so full of the healthiest sensibilities, and that not in conse- 
quence of any moral weakness, but owing to the struggle that 
had to be waged with the natural human will (comp. Gess, p. 
175; Weizsicker, p. 563)? Comp. John, remark after ch. xvii. 
(3) The report of Jesus’ prayer should not be (unpsychologically) 
supposed to have been communicated by the Lord Himself to 
His disciples, but ought rather to be regarded as derived from 
the testimony of those who, before sleep had overpowered them, 
were still in a position to hear at least the first words of it. 


Ver. 47. Eis tév SHd5exa] precisely as in ver. 14, and 
repeated on both occasions in all three evangelists. In the 
oral and written tradition this tragic designation (katnyopia, 
Euthymius Zigabenus) had come to be so stereotyped that it 
would be unconsciously inserted without there being any 
further occasion for doing so. The same holds true with 
regard to 6 mapadidovs avtov, ver. 48, xxvii. 3.—oydos 
moXvs| Matthew makes no reference to the Roman cohort, John 


CHAP. XXVI. 48-50. 227 


xvill. 3; his account, however, does not, at the same time, 
exclude it, as it is simply less precise. Luke xxii. 52 like- 
wise represents the high priests and elders as appearing at 
this early stage among the throng; but this is an unwarrant- 
able amplification of the tradition; see on Luke. — vA av] 
cudgels, fustibus (Vulgate). Herod. 11. 63, iv. 180; Polyb. vi. 
36. 3.. Wetstein on the passage. — dao To», «.7.d.] belongs 
to 7A6e; see on Gal. ii. 12. 

Ver. 48. It is usual, though unwarrantable (see on John 
xviii. 24), to take €dwxev in the sense of the pluperfect 
(comp. Mark xiv. 44), in which case it is necessary, with 
Ewald, to make ver. 48 a parenthesis. The Vulgate correctly 
renders by: dedit. He communicated the signal to them while 
they were on the way.—dv av dtrAXoo, «.7.r.] Fritzsche 
inserts a colon after @iAjow, and supposes the following 
words to be understood: est vobis comprehendendus. It may 
be given more simply thus: Whomsoever I shall have kissed, 
He it is (just He, no other is the one in question)! This 
avtés serves to single out the person intended, from those 
about Him. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 733. 

Ver. 49. Ev@éws] is not to be taken with etre (Fritzsche), 
but with mpocedOav: immediately, as soon as he had given 
them this signal, he stepped wp, ete. No sooner said than 
done. — katediancer] embraced and kissed Him, kissed Him 
most endearingly. Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 33: 5 Tods pév Kadods 
idjcavros pov, Tors 8 ayabods katadirjnoavtos; Tob. vii. 6 ; 
Keclus. xxix. 5; 3 Mace. v. 49; Test. XII. patr. p. 730. It 
is not the case, as de Wette imagines (see Luke vii. 38, 45; 
Acts xx. 37), that in the New Testament (and the LXX.) 
the compound has lest the force here ascribed to it; but it 
is to be insisted on in our present passage as much as in 
classical Greek. The signal, as arranged, was to be simply a 
kiss; the signal actually given was kissing accompanied with 
embraces, which was entirely in keeping with the excitement 
of Judas, and the desire he felt that there should be xo mistake 
as to the person intended. 

Ver. 50. ‘Eratpe] as in xx. 13.—éd 6 wapec] As the 
relative os is never used in a direct (see Lobeck, ad Phiyn. p. 


228 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


57), but only in an indirect question (Kiihner, IT. 2, p. 942; 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 372), it follows that the ordinary 
interrogative interpretation must be wrong; and that to suppose 
(Winer, p. 157 [E. T. 207 f.]) that we have here one of those 
corrupt usages peculiar to the Greek of a less classical age, is, 
so far as 6s is concerned, without any foundation whatever. 
Fritzsche, followed by Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 217 [E. T. 253], 
understands the expression as an caclamation : “ad qualem rem 
perpetrandam ades!” But even then, Greek usage would have 
required that it should have been put in an interrogative form 
and expressed by 7/, or failing this we might have had the 
words 颒 ofoy instead (Ellendt, as above, p. 300 f.). The 
language, as might be expected from the urgent nature of the 
situation, 1s somewhat abrupt in its character: Mriend, mind 
what you are here for! attend to that. With these words He 
spurns the kisses with which the traitor was overwhelming Him. 
This suits the connection better than the supplying of ed7é 
(Morison). Instead of this hypocritical kissing, Jesus would 
prefer that Judas should at once proceed with the dark deed he 
had in view, and deliver Him to the catchpolls—John xviii. 
3 ff., it is true, makes no mention whatever of the kissing ; but 
this is not to be taken as indicating the legendary character of 
the incident, especially as there is nothing to prevent us from 
supposing that it may have taken place just before the question 
tia €nreire, John xviii. 4; see on this latter passage. 

Ver. 51. It is strange that the Synoptists have not men- 
tioned the name of Peter here (John xviii. 10, where the 
name of the high priest’s servant is also given). It may be 
that, with a view to prevent the apostle from getting into 
trouble with the authorities, his name was suppressed from 
the very first, and that, accordingly, the incident came to be 
incorporated in the primitive gospel traditions without any 
names being mentioned, it having been reserved for John 
ultimately to supply this omission. —avttobd To wriov] his 
ear (see on viii. 3). On @tiov, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 211. 
He missed the head at which the stroke was aimed. 

Ver. 52. Put back thy sword into its place (@jxnv, John xviii. 
11; «odcov, 1 Chron. xxi. 27). A pictorial representation ; 


CHAP. XXVI. 53, 54. 229 


the sword was uplifted.— mwavtes yap, «.1.r.] All, who have 
taken a sword, will perish by the sword,—an ordinary axiom 
in law (Rev. xiii. 10) adduced for the purpose of enforcing 
His disapproval of the unwarrantable conduct of Peter, not, a 
tpodynteia ths SiapOopas Tav émedOovtov ait “Iovdaiwv 
(Euthymius Zigabenus, comp. Grotius), nor “an ideal sentence 
of death” (Lange) pronounced upon Peter—all such interpre- 
tations being foreign to our passage. Luther, however, fitly 
observes : “Those take the sword who use it without proper 
authority.” 

Ver. 53. ”H] or, in case this should not be sufficient to 
induce thee to thrust back thy sword. — apt] this instant. 
See on Gal. i. 10.—The interrogation does not extend merely 
as far as pov, in which case it would lose much of its signi- 
ficance, while the language would be rendered too abrupt, but 
on to ayyéAwv ; yet not as though «ai (for that, 6c) introduced 
a broken construction, but thus: Thinkest thou that I am not 
able... and He will (not) place at my side, etc.? so that 
I can thus dispense entirely with thy protection! The force 
of the negative runs through the whole sentence. — 7reElo 
dHdexa ANeyeovas ayyérov (see the critical remarks) is a 
genuine Attic usage, according to which it is permissible to 
have the neuter mAecioy or wAeiw without a change of con- 
struction, or even without inserting 7. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 
410 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 17 D; Kiihner, II. 2, 
p. 847. The number ¢welve corresponds to the number of 
the apostles, because of these only one had shown a disposi- 
tion to defend him. 

Ver. 54. Tas otdv] How, in that case, could it be, if, that 
is, I were to be defended by thee or angel hosts, how could 
it be possible that, etc. In his comment on ody, Euthymius 
Zigabenus aptly analyses it as follows: e¢ ux ottws avaipebo. 
For mos, comp. on xxiii. 33. — 67+] states the purport of the 
ypapai, so that to complete the sense a Aéyovaas or ypddov- 
gat may be understood (Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 58 f.; 
Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 215): how shall the Scriptures be 
Sulfilled which say that it must happen thus, and not otherwise? 
Jesus here alludes to the fact of His arrest, which, according 


230 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


to Scripture, is a necessary part of the destiny assigned Him; 
comp. Acts iv. 28; Luke xxiv. 25 f. We must not expect 
to find what is here referred to in any passages of Scripture 
in particular; suffice it to know, that al/ the predictions 
relating to the sufferings of the Messiah find their necessary 
fulfilment in the historical events of our Lord’s life, the arrest 
itself not excluded. Comp. ver. 31.—The healing of the 
wounded servant is peculiar to Luke xxii. 51. It probably 
came to be engrafted upon the tradition at a later period; for 
this act of healing, in virtue of the peculiarity of its alleged 
occasion and character, as well as in virtue of its being the last 
which Jesus performed, would otherwise scarcely have been 
omitted by all the other evangelists ; see also on Luke as above. 

Ver. 55. "Ev éxeivn +h pa] in that hour, in which that 
was going on which is recorded between ver. 47 and the 
present passage, subsequently, however, to the scene with 
Peter, and while the arrest was taking place. Comp. xviii. 1, 
x. 19.— Tots dyXors] not to the high priests, ete, as Luke 
xxii. 52 would have us suppose. What is meant is the crowds 
of which the dyAos oAvs of ver. 47 was composed. 

Ver. 56. Todto ... wpodntov| It is still Jesus who 
speaks, and who with these words closes His address. Comp. 
also Mark xiv. 19. In Luke xxii. 53 we find a somewhat 
different conclusion given. Erasmus, Jansen, Bengel, Fritzsche, 
de Wette, Schegg, Bleek, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, regard 
the words in question as a remark by the evangelist (comp. 
i, 22, xxi. 4); but if that were so, we should have expected 
some specific quotation instead of such a general expression as 
ai ypapal tr. wp., and what is more, our Lord’s words would thus 
be deprived of their proper conclusion, of that which contains 
the very point of His remarks. For the gist of the whole matter 
lay in this avowal of His conviction as the God-man that all 
that was now taking place was a carrying out of the divine 
purpose with regard to the fulfilling of the Scriptures, and— 
thus the mystery of ver. 55 is solved.— rote of padnral, 
k.T.r.] Observe the wavres. Not one of them stood his ground. 
Here was the verification of the words of Jesus, ver. 31; 
comp. John xvi. 32. 


CHAP. XXVI. 57-60. wre | 


Ver. 57 f. The Synoptists make no mention of the judicial 
examination before Annas (John xviii. 13); their narrative is 
for this reason incomplete, though it does not exclude such 
examination (Luke xxii. 66). As for the trial before the 
members of the Sanhedrim, which took place at the house of 
Caiaphas, John merely alludes to it, xvill. 24, where, how- 
ever, améotetrev is not to be taken as a pluperfect.— dao 
paxpoOev] a well-known pleonasm: in later Greek the azo 
is dropped. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 93. Bengel appropriately 
observes : “ medius inter animositatem ver. 51 et timorem ver. 
70.’ —ris avrAHs] not the palace but the court, as in ver. 3. 
—eicerOwv écw] see Lobeck, ad Aj. 741; Paralip. p. 538. 
— 70 TéXos]| exitwm ret ; 3 Mace. iii. 14, common in classical 
writers. Luther renders admirably: “wo es hinaus wollte ” 
(what the upshot would be). 

Ver. 59 f. Kat to cuvédptov bdov] and the whole San- 
hedrim generally. This is a legitimate enough use of the 
words, even although certain individual members (Nicodemus 
and Joseph of Arimathea) did not concur in this proceeding. 
—wevdouaptupiayv] so called from the historian’s own 
point of view. Euthymius Zigabenus well remarks: @s pév 
éxeivous COoKel, wapTtuplav, ws Sé TH adyGeia, yrevdouaptupiav. 
— Oras Oavat. avdt.] with a view to putting Him to death, 
which could only be effected by their pronouncing in the first 
instance a capital sentence, and then having it ratified by the 
authority of the imperial procurator.— «ai ovy ebpov Kai 
NON@V TpoceXOovtay evoouaptvpwor (see the critical 
remarks): and they found no means of doing so, even though 
many false witnesses had come forward. There were many 
who presented themselves to bear witness against Jesus ; 
yet the Sanhedrim did not find what it wanted to find, 
doubtless because of the lack of that agreement between 
two of the witnesses at least which the law required (Num. 
xxxv. 30; Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15). See what imme- 
diately follows: torepov dé mpocedO. S¥0, and comp. Mark 
xiv. 56. Though there was a show of complying with the 
ordinary forms of judicial process, they were nevertheless 
shamefully violated (in opposition to Salvador, Saalschutz), 


Don THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


in that exculpatory evidence (John xviii. 20 f.) was never 
called for. 

Ver. 61. The expression John ii. 19, which Jesus had 
made use of with reference to His own body, was not only 
misunderstood by those witnesses, but also misrepresented 
(John: Avoate): whether wilfully or not, cannot be determined. 
But in any case the testimony was objectively false, and even 
in the case of the two who agreed it was in all probability 
subjectively so. Comp. Acts vi. 13 f.—6ésa tpidv jpep.] 
not: after three days (Gal. ii. 1), but: during three days. 
The work of building was to extend over this short period, and 
would then be complete. See on Gal. ii. 1, 

Ver. 62. With the sublime calm of one who is conscious 
of his own superior worth, Jesus meekly abstains from uttering 
a single word before this contemptible tribunal in the way of 
self-vindication, elds 5€ Kal, OTs waTny amoKpieita, Tapa 
tovovTos, Euthymius Zigabenus; whereas the high priest who 
finds, and that with considerable gratification, that the charge 
of being a Messianic pretender is now fully substantiated by the 
language of Jesus just deponed to (see ver. 63), quite forgets 
himself, and breaks out into a passion. — The breaking up of 
the following utterance into two questions: answerest thow not ? 
what (t.e. how heinous a matter) do these witness against thee ? 
is, so far as the latter question is concerned, neither feeble (de 
Wette) nor unnatural (Weiss), but entirely in keeping with 
the passionate haste of the speaker. This being the case, the 
two clauses should not be run into one. We should neither, 
on the one hand, following Erasmus, with Fritzsche, take té in 
the sense of cur, or (ad Marc. p. 650) the whole sentence as 
equivalent to té Todtd éotw, 6 obdTot cov KaTapaptupodow ; 
nor, on the other, with the Vulgate, Luther, de Wette, 
Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weiss, should we adopt the rendering: 
“nihil respondes ad ea, quae isti adversum te testificantur ?” 
This latter, however, would not be inconsistent with the 
strict meaning of the terms employed, for it is quite per- 
missible to use azoxpiverOai tu in the sense of: to reply to 
anything (see Ast, Lew. Plat. I. p. 239), and to take vi as 
equivalent to 6,74 (Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 216 [E. T. 


CHAP. XXVI. 68, 64. Done 


251], who supposes “hérend” (hearing) to be understood 
before 77). 

Ver. 63. The high priest answers this second refusal to 
speak by repeating a formal oath, in which Jesus is adjured 
to declare whether He be the Messiah or not. For this con- 
fession would determine how far they would be justified in 
pronouncing a capital sentence, and such as the Roman pro- 
curator would not fail to confirm. — é€opxi€w] means, like 
the earlier form é£opxow: I call upon thee to swear, Dem. 
eb 526; Polybiany 61; 10) vi. 21. Lyxvi, 31. 5y, Comp. 
yaw, Gen. xxiv. 3, al. To give an affirmative answer to this 
formula was to take the full oath usually administered in any 
court of law. Michaelis, Mos. R. § 302; Matthaei, doctr. 
Christi de jurejur. 1847, p. 8; Keil, Arch. Il. p. 256. The 
fact that Jesus took the oath has been denied, though without 
any reason whatever, by Wuttke, Dollinger, Steinmeyer. — 
Kata Tov Oeov, K.T.r.] by the living God. Comp. 1 Kings 
ii. 24; Judith i. 12; common in Greek authors, see Kiihner, 
I. 1, p. 434; also Heb. vi. 15, and Bleek thereon. The living 
God as such would not fail to punish the perjured, Heb. x. 31. 
It was the uniform practice in courts of law to swear by God. 
See Saalschutz, JZ R. p. 614. —o vids tod Oeod] ordinary, 
recognised designation of the Messiah, into which, naturally 
enough, the metaphysical conception does not enter here, 
however much it may have been present to the mind of Christ 
Himself in making the affirmation which follows. 

Ver. 64. Sv etmras] see on ver. 25. Mark xiv. 62: 
éy@ eiut. A distinguished confession on the part of the Son 
in presence of the Father, and before the highest tribunal of 
the theocratic nation. —7dv] not profecto (Olshausen), nor 
guin (Kuinoel), but: however, ie. (comp. Klotz, ad Devar. 
p. 725) apart from what I have just affirmed, ye shall hence- 
forward have reason to be satisfied, from actual observation, 
that I am the Messiah who was seen by Daniel in his vision 
(Dan. vii. 13). — a7dp7c] is not to be taken with Aéyo byiv 
(Schulz in 3d ed. of Griesbach), but—since in any other con- 
nection it would lose its forcee—with éyeobe; nor is it to be 
understood in any other sense than that of henceforth, ie. 


Jae THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


from the time of my impending death, through which I am 
to enter into my Sofa. But seeing that amdpte forbids us 
to understand dyeoGe as denoting only a single momentary 
glance (comp. on the contrary, John i. 51), we are bound 
to suppose that Jesus used it somewhat loosely to express 
the idea of coming to perceive in the course of experience (as 
in the passage of John just referred to) the fact of His 
being seated at the right hand of God (in allusion to Ps. 
ex. 1), and that He did not intend épyopevor, x.7.r. to refer to 
the second advent, but (Beza, Neander, Holtzmann, Schenkel, 
Gess, Weissenbach) to a coming in the figurative sense of 
the word, namely, in the shape of those mighty influences 
which, from His place in heaven, He will shed upon the earth, 
—nanifestations, all of them, of His sovereign sway. We 
are shut up to this view by the fact that the sdtting 
cannct possibly be regarded as an object of actual sight, and 
that adapt. dWeoOe can only be said of something that, 
beginning now, is continued henceforth.— tis duvdp.] The 
Mighty One is conceived of as power (the abstract for the con- 
crete). Similarly in the Talmud 1239, Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. 
p. 585. Such abstract terms (as for instance our: majesty) 
have somewhat of an imposing character. Comp. 2 Pet. 1. 
Li. 

Ver. 65. As may be seen from 2 Kings xviii. 17, the rending 
of the garments as an indication of unusual vexation was 
indulged in above all on hearing any utterance of a blasphe- 
mous nature. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2146; Schoettgen, 
p. 234; Wetstein on our passage. Maimonides, quoted by 
Buxtorf as above, thus describes the usual mode of proceeding 
in such cases: “ Laceratio fit stando, a collo anterius, non 
posterius, non ad latus neque ad fimbrias inferiores vestis. 
Longitudo rapturae palmus est. Laceratio non fit in interula 
seu indusio linteo, nec in pallio exteriori: in reliquis vestibus 
corport accommodatis omnibus fit, etiamst decem fuerint.” The 
last-mentioned particular may serve to account for the use of 
the plural ra (udtva (1 Mace. ii. 14). That part of the law 
which forbade the high priest to rend his garments (Lev. x. 6, 
xxl, 10) had reference merely to ordinary mourning for the 


CHAP. XXVI. 66, 67. 235 


dead. Comp. 1 Macc. xi. 71; Joseph. Bell. ii, 15. 4.— 
éBracdnwnce] in so far as by falsely pretending to be the 
Messiah, the Son of God, and by further arrogating to Him- 
self participation in divine honour and authority, ver. 64, He 
had been guilty of insulting the majesty of God; comp. 
John v. 18, x. 33. The pain of the high priest no doubt 
represented the genuine vexation of one who was most deeply 
moved; but the judgment which he formed regarding Jesus 
was based upon the gratuitous assumption that He was not the 
Messiah, and indicates a predisposition to find Him guilty of 
the capital charge (Lev. xxiv. 16). For ti étu yp. ey. papr., 
comp. Plat. Rep. p. 340 A. 

Ver. 66. At this point the high priest, notwithstanding 
the precipitancy with which the trial is being hurried through, 
and notwithstanding the candid confession just made by the 
accused, calls for a formal vote, the result of which is a verdict 
of guilty, and that of an offence deserving to be punished by 
death. The next thing that had to be considered was the course 
to be adopted with a view to the carrying out of the sentence. It 
was this that formed the subject of deliberation at that con- 
clave to which reference is made at xxvii. 1. 

Ver. 67. Those to whom Matthew here refers are the 
members of the Sanhedrim (as are also the twés of Mark xiv. 
65). Mera ydp tv adixoy Katadixny @s atimov twa Kal 
TpiwBorwatoy NaBovTes, x.7.r., Euthymius Zigabenus. Coarse 
outburst of passion on the verdict being announced. A 
somewhat different form of the tradition is adopted by Luke 
(xxl. 63), who, moreover, represents the maltreatment here 
referred to as having taken place before the trial. The way 
in which harmonists have cut and carved upon the individual 
features of the narrative is altogether arbitrary. The account 
in John xvill. 22 has no connection with that now before 
us, but refers to an incident in the house of Annas, which 
the Synoptists have entirely omitted. — éxoradg.] buffetings, 
blows with the fist. Comp. the Attic expression xovdvros. — 
éppamt.] slaps in the face with the palm of the hand; 
pamiswos O€ TO Tralew KaT& Tod TpoowTov, Euthymius 
Zigabenus; comp. v. 39; Hos. xi. 5; Isa. 1. 6; Dem. 787, 


236 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


23; Aristot. Meteor. ii. 8. 9; 3 Esdr. iv. 30; Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 176; Becker, Anecd. p. 300. It is in this 
sense that the word is usually taken. But Beza, Bengel, 
Ewald, Bleek, Lange, maintain that it is a blow with a rod 
that is meant (Herod. viii. 59; Anacr. vii. 2; Plut. Them. 
xi.), the sense in which the word is commonly used by Greek 
authors, and which ought to be preferred here, because ot 6é 
(see on xxviii. 16) introduces the mention of a different kind 
of maltreatment, and because in Mark xiv. 65 the paifew is 
imputed to the officers of the Sanhedrim, which, however, 
would not warrant us in identifying with the latter the oi dé 
of Matthew. 

Ver. 68. IIpodyrevoov ypiv] Differently in Mark xiv. 
65. But so far as the rpodnrt., tis éotw, x.7.r. is concerned, 
Luke xxii. 64 agrees with Matthew, although the favourite 
mode of accounting for this would seem to be that of tracing 
it to the obscuring influence of a later tradition; in no case, 
however, is this theory to be applied to the exposition of 
Matthew, for it would involve a point of essential consequence. 
According to Matthew, the sport lay in the demand that 
Jesus as Messiah, and consequently as a prophet (xxi. 11), 
should tell who it was that had struck Him, though He had 
no natural means of knowing. This conduct, of course, pro- 
ceeds on the assumption that the Messiah possessed that higher 
knowledge which is derived from divine revelation ; hence also 
the scoffing way in which they address Him by the title of 
Xpuoros. Fritzsche thinks that the prominent idea here is 
that of foretelling, as being calculated, when thus conjoined 
with the preterite waicas, to form an acerba irrisio. But 
that would be more likely to result in an abswrda irrisio, 
unmarked by the slightest touch of humour. 

Ver. 69. "E&w] with reference to the interior of the par- 
ticular building in which the trial of Jesus had been con- 
ducted. In ver. 58 éow is used because in that instance 
Peter went from the street into the court - yard. — pla 
matdicxn] pia is here used in view of the dddn of ver. 71 
below. Comp. on viii.19. Both of them may have seen (jo@a, 
jv) Peter among the followers of Jesus somewhere in Jeru- 


CHAP. XXVI. 70—73. Jab 


salem, and may have preserved a distinct recollection of his 
appearance. awdicxn, in the sense of a female slave, corre- 
sponds exactly to our (German) Mddchen ; see Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 239.— kat od hoOa, «.7.X.] categorical accusation, 
as in vv. 71, 73, and not a question (Klostermann). — Tod 
Tanrtr.] which specific designation she may have heard 
applied to the Prisoner. The other slave (ver. 71) is still 
more specific, inasmuch as she calls Him 0 Nafwpaios. 

Ver. 70.”"Eurpocdev ravtwy (see the critical remarks) : 
before all who were present.—ovx otda TL réyELs] evasive 
denial: so little have I been with Him, that I am at a loss 
to know what is meant by this imputation of thine. 

Ver. 71. “E&eXOovra] from the court-yard to the porch, 
which, passing through some part of the buildings that stood 
round the four sides of the former, conducted into the anterior 
court outside (poavdov ; according to Mark xiv. 68, it was 
in this latter that the present denial took place). Comp. 
Hermann, Privatalterth. § 19. 9 ff. In spite of the plain 
meaning of mvAwy, door, doorway (see Luke xvi. 20; Acts 
x. 17, xii. 13 f., xiv. 13; Rev. xxi.), it is usually supposed 
that it is the outer court in front of the house, the zpoavrArov 
(see Poll. i. 77, ix. 16), that is meant. —avdtots éxei] éxet 
belongs to déyet, while avtozs, in accordance with a loose 
usage of frequent occurrence (Winer, p. 137 f. [E. T. 181)), 
is meant to refer to the people generally whom she happened 
to meet with. It would be wrong to connect éxe? with cai 
ovtos (Matthaei, Scholz), because in such a connection it 
would be meaningless. 

Ver. 72. Observe the climax in the terms of the threefold 
denial. —ye@ Spxov] is peculiar to Matthew, and is here 
used in the sense of an oath.— tov a&vOpwmov] the man 
(in question). Alas, such is the language, cold and distant, 
which Peter uses with reference to his Master! What a 
contrast to xvi. 16! “Ecce, columna firmissima ad unius 
aurae impulsum tota contremuit,’ Augustine. 

Ver. 73. The answer of Peter given at ver. 72, and in the 
course of which his Galilaean dialect was recognised, gave 
occasion to those standing by (that they were exactly Sanhedrim 


238 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


officers, apparitores, Kuinoel, Paulus, does not necessarily 
follow from the use of ée7ates) to step up to Peter after a 
little while, and to corroborate (a\n@@s) the assertion of the 
maid-servant.— €& avt@v] of those who were along with 
Jesus, ver. 71.— Kal yap] for even, apart from circumstances 
by which thou hast been already identified. ——7 Nada cov] 
thy speech (see on John vill. 43), namely, through the coarse 
provincial accent. The natives of Galilee were unable to 
distinguish especially the gutturals properly, pronounced the 
letter w like a n, etc. See Buxtorf, Lew. Talm. p. 435, 2417 ; 
Lightfoot, Centur. Chorogr. p. 151 ff.; Wetstein on our 
passage ; Keim, I. p. 310. 

Ver. 74. Tote p£aro] for previously he had not resorted 
as yet to the cata@euarifew, but had contented himself with 
the simple ouvtew (ver. 72, ue dpxov). Whereas before he 
had only sworn, he now takes to cursing as well. “Nune 
gubernaculum animae plane amisit,’ Bengel. The impreca- 
tions were intended to fall upon himself (should he be found, 
that is, to be telling an untruth). For the word catafeyarifa, 
which was in all probability a vulgar corruption, comp. Rev. 
xxi. 3; Iren. Haer. i. 13. 2, 16. 3; Oecolampadius, ad Aeé. 
xxiii, 12. — 670] recitantis, as in ver. 72. — aréxta@p] a cock. 
There are Rabbinical statements (see the passages in Wetstein) 
to the effect that it was not allowable to keep animals of this sort 
in Jerusalem; but as there are other Rabbinical passages again 
which assert the opposite of this (see Lightfoot, p. 483), it is 
unnecessary to have recourse (Reland, Wolf) to the supposi- 
tion that the bird in question may have belonged to a Gentile, 
may even have been about Pilate’s house, or some house out- 
side the city. 

Ver. 75. "E&eXO. €Ew] namely, from the porch (ver. 71) in 
which the second and third denial had taken place. Finding he 
could no longer repress the feeling of sorrowful penitence that 
filled his heart, the apostle must go outside to be all alone with 
his remorse andshame. The fear of being detected (Chrysostom) 
had by this time undoubtedly become to him a very secondary 
consideration; he was now himself again. — elpnKoros 
avt@| who had said to him (ver. 34), in itself a superfluous 


CHAP. XXVI. 75. 239 


expression, and yet “grande participium,” Bengel. — rixpas]| 
he wept bitterly. Comp. Isa. xxii. 4, and the passages in 
Wetstein. How totally different was it with Judas! “ Lacry- 
marum physica amaritudo (comp. Hom. Qd. iv. 153) aut 
dulcedo (comp. yAv«voaxpus, Meleag. 45), congruit cum affectu 
animi,” Bengel. 


REMARK.—Seeing that the whole four evangelists concur in 
representing Peter as having denied Jesus three times, we are 
bound to regard the threefold repetition of the denial as one 
of the essential features of the incident (in opposition to Paulus, 
who, in the discrepancies that occur in the various accounts, 
finds traces of no less than ezght different denials). The infor- 
mation regarding this circumstance can only have been derived 
from Peter himself; comp. also John xxi. 1 ff. As for the rest, 
however, it must be acknowledged—(1) that John (and Luke 
too, see on Luke xxi. 54 ff) represents the three denials as 
having taken place in a different locality altogether, namely, in 
the court of the house in which Annas lived, and not in that of 
Caiaphas; while to try to account for this by supposing that those 
two persons occupied one and the same dwelling (Euthymius 
Zigabenus, Ebrard, Lange, Lichtenstein, Riggenbach, Pressensé, 
Steinmeyer, Keim), is a harmonistic expedient that is far from 
according with the clear view of the matter presented in the 
fourth Gospel; see on John xviii. 16,25. (2) That the Synop- 
tists agree neither with John nor with one another as to 
certain points of detail connected with the three different scenes 
in question, and more particularly with reference to the localities 
in which they are alleged to have taken place, and the persons 
by whom the apostle was interrogated as to his connection with 
Jesus; while to say, in attempting to dispose of this, that 
“ Abnegatio ad plures plurium interrogationes facta wno paro- 
xysmo, pro una numeratur” (Bengel), is to make a mere assertion, 
against which all the accounts of this incident without excep- 
tion enter, so to speak, an emphatic protest. (3) It is better, 
on the whole, to allow the discrepancies to remain just as they 
stand, and to look upon them as sufficiently accounted for by 
the diverse forms which the primitive tradition assumed in 
regard to details. This tradition has for its basis of fact the 
threefold denial, not merely a denial several times repeated, 
and, as Strauss alleges, reduced to the number three to agree 
with the prediction of Jesus. It is to the narrative of John, 
however, as being that of the only evangelist who was an 


240 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


eye-witness, that we ought to trust for the most correct 
representation of this matter. Olshausen, however, gives to the 
synoptic narratives with the one hand so much of the merit 
in this respect as he takes from the Johannine with the other, 
and thus lays himself open to the charge of arbitrarily con- 
founding them all. ; 


CHAP, XXVII. 241 


CHAPTER XAVIT 


Ver. 2. airév] after rapéd. has very important evidence both 
for and against it, being just as liable to be inserted as a very 
common supplement as to be omitted on account of its super- 
fluous character, a character likely to be ascribed to it all the 
more that it is wanting also in Mark xv.1. Deleted by Lachm. 
and Tisch. 8.— Movriw 1/4.] B L 8, 33, 102, vss. Or. have 
simply IAdérw; but the full form of the name is to be pre- 
ferred all the more that the parallel passages have only TAdr. 
— Ver.3. rapadsd0ds] Lachm.: rapadods, following only B L 33, 
259, vss. (2). The aorist would more readily occur to the tran- 
scribers, since the betrayal had already taken place. — Ver. 4. 
&dGov] dixasmv, although recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, 
has too little evidence in its favour, and should be regarded as 
an early exegetical correction with a view to render the ex- 
pression more forcible ; comp. xxiii. 35.— oer] Scholz, Lachm., 
Tisch.: ¢y, in accordance with decisive evidence. — Ver. 5. 
Instead of ¢v7@ va@, Tisch. 8 has e/g riv vaév. Exegetical emen- 
dation, against which there is a preponderance of evidence. — 
Ver. 9. ‘Izpewiov] The omission of the prophet’s name in 33, 
157, Syr. Pers. and Codd. in Aug., as well as the reading 
Zuyopiov in 22, Syr.’ in the margin, is due to the fact that the 
quotation is not found in Jeremiah.— Ver. 11. gory] BC L 
&, 1, 33, Or.: éorééy. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Exegetical 
emendation with a view to greater precision.— Vv. 16, 17. 
BapaBPav] Fritzsche: “Incotv BapaSB%v. So Origen’* several 
min. Aram. Syr;*, and early scholiasts. Advocated above all 
by Fritzsche in the Litt. Blatt z. allgem. Kirchenzeit. 1848, p. 
538 f., in opposition to Lachm. ed. may. p. xxxvii. f., with which 
latter critic Tisch. agrees. For my own part, I look upon the 
reading “Ijootv BupaSGav as the original one, for I am utterly 
at a loss to see how “Inoodv should have found its way into the 
text (in answer to Holtzmann, who supposes that it was from 
Acts iv. 36 through a blunder of the transcriber, and in answer 
to Tisch. 8, who with Tregelles traces it to an abbreviation of 
the name I7ooiv (IN), in which case it is supposed that YMININ 
MATT. II. Q 


242 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


came to be substituted for rMIN); and because to take away 
the sacred name from the robber would seem very natural and 
all the more justifiable that it is likewise omitted in vv. 20 f., 
26, and by the other evangelists, not to mention that, from a 
similar feeling of reverence, it would seem to have been sup- 
pressed in the tradition current in the apostolic age. Comp. 
also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 285, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, 
Weizsiicker. The view that ’Ijooty has been adopted from the 
Gospel of the Hebrews (Tisch.) is a very questionable inference 
from the statement of Jerome, that instead of BapaG 8. that 
Gospel had substituted jiliwm magistri eorum. It would be 
just as warrantable to quote the same authority in favour of 
the originality of the reading ’Iyootv BapaBG.— Ver. 22. aire 
(Elz., Scholz) after Azyouor has been deleted in accordance 
with preponderating evidence. — Ver. 24. The reading xarévavrs 
(Lachm.) is supported only by the insufficient evidence of 
B D; comp. xxi. 2.—r0d ésxasou rodrov] The words soo 
dimaiov are wanting in B D 102, Cant. Ver. Verc. Mm. Chrys. 
Or.™* They are placed after rotrov in A, while A reads roi 
rourov Omafov. Lachm. inserts them after rotrov, but in brackets ; 
Tisch. deletes them, and that correctly. They are to be re- 
garded as a gloss (suggested by the reading d/xasv, ver. 4), 
written on the margin at first, and afterwards, when incor- 
porated in the text, conjoined in some instances with rod afwaros 
(as in ver. 4) and in others with rolrovu; hence so many 
different ways of arranging the words. — Ver. 28. éxdbcavres] 
B D s** 157, Cant. Ver. Vere. Colb. Corb. 2, Lachm.: évdu- 
cavres. Correctly; éduc. was not understood, and was accord- 
ingly altered Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 3. In what follows we 
should, with Lachm. and Tisch., restore the arrangement xray. 
noun. repiéd. avr@, in accordance with important evidence. — 
Ver. 29. ia} rjv deZsc&y] As the reading 2 ry dc: (approved 
by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.) has such 
important evidence as that of A B D L N 8, min. vss. 
Fathers in its favour, and the one in the Received text might 
so easily originate in a mechanical conforming with zai ry x9. 
(for which Tisch., in opposition to a preponderance of MS. 
evidence, substitutes éa/ rig xepadazjs), we cannot but regard 2 
ry 6e&:¢ as having the best claim to originality. — Ver. 33. Elz. 
has 65 gor: Aeyowevos xpaviov roros. So also Scholz. There is a 
multiplicity of readings here. Fritzsche, Rinck (comp. also 

1 Lachm. adopts the reading tvdicavres in accordance with his fundamental 


principles of criticism, still he looks upon it as an error of early date. See his 
Praef. ed. maj. Il. p. 6. 


CHAP. XXVII. 243 


Griesb.) have simply 6 gor: xpaviov réroc, while Lachm. and Tisch. 
read 6 ori xpaviov romog Asyéuevos. The balance of evidence is 
decidedly in favour of regarding the neuter 6 as genuine; it 
was changed to the masculine to suit rérov and réros. Further, 
Aeyouevog IS Wanting only in D, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vule. 
It., where its omission may probably have been resorted to as 
a means of getting rid of a difficult construction, while the 
readings Asyémevor, wedepunvevduevoc, wedepunvevduevoyv (Mark xv. 22), 
xarovmevoey (Luke xxiil. 33), are also to be regarded as exegetical 
variations. We ought therefore to retain the A¢cyéuevos, and in 
the order in which it is taken by Lachm. and Tisch., on the 
authority of B L 8, min. Ath. Its earlier position in Elz. is 
probably due to gor Azeyou. (comp. gor: mebepu., Mark xv. 22) 
being sometimes taken together. — Ver. 34. o&0¢] Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8: of, which is supported by evidence so important, 
viz. B D K L i* 8, min. vss. and Fathers, that we must regard 
ocos as derived from Ps. lxviii. 22. The word oivey was allowed 
to remain in Mark xv. 23 because the gal/ did not happen to 
be mentioned there; and this being the case, the alteration, 
in conformity with Ps. lxviiil. as above, would not so readily 
suggest itself. — Ver. 35. After xAjpov Elz. inserts: ha rAnpwd7 
To pybev dard rov xpopyjrov' Asewepiouvro Ta iweéri& juov EuuToIs, nal exi 
Tov imariowey wov edaPov xrjpov. Against decisive evidence ; sup- 
plement from John xix. 24.— Ver. 40. xaré@né:] Lachm. and 
Tisch. 8: xa/ xaré8., following A D &, min. Syr3* Cant. Ver. Vere. 
Colp. Clar. Cyr. The xa has been added for the purpose of 
connecting the two clauses together.— Ver. 41. After speo- 
Purépav, Matth., Fritzsche insert xa) ®apicaiwy, for which there 
is important though not preponderant evidence. Those chief 
adversaries of Jesus were by way of gloss mentioned on the 
margin, but subsequently the words crept into the text, being 
sometimes found along with, and sometimes substituted for, 
xpecPurépwy (aS in D, min. Cant. Ver. Verc. Colb. Clar. Corb. 2, 
Gat. Cassiod.). — Ver. 42. ¢? Baor.] Fritzsche and Tisch. read 
simply BaoA., following B D L 8, 33,102,Sahid. Correctly ; «is 
a supplementary addition from ver. 40, its insertion in D, min. 
vss. Eus. before zérodev below being likewise traceable to the 
same source. — wiorsicowev| Lachm.: wioredowev, only in accord- 
ance with A, Vulg. Ver. Vere. Colb. Or., but correctly not- 
withstanding. By way of gloss the present was replaced 
sometimes by the future (Elz.) and sometimes by the sub- 
junctive soreticwue. Tisch. 8 adopts the latter.—éa’ aire] 
The witnesses are divided between air@ (Elz. Lachm.), é’ 
airg (Griesb., Tisch. 7), and é’ airéy (Fritzsche, Tisch, 8). 


244 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


The reading 22’ airs (EF GH K MSU V AQ, min) should 
be preferred, inasmuch as this expression not only occurs 
nowhere else in Matthew, but is a somewhat rare one gene- 
rally. — Ver. 44. For airév, Elz. has air@, against decisive MS. 
authority. Emendation in conformity with the construction 
évesdiew ti v1. — Ver. 46. The MSS. present very considerable 
variety as regards the spelling of the Hebrew words. Lachm.: 
"HA! HAI Anud cuBanbavi. Tisch. 8: ‘Hae 'HAei Aue ouPaydavi. 
The latter is the best attested. — Ver. 49. dAdros 62 AuBav Adyany 
évucev avrov trav TAcupay, nal ERAGE VOwp xa aiua, Supported though 
it be by BC LUI 8, min. vss. Chrys., is clearly an irrelevant 
interpolation (after airéy) borrowed from John xix. 34. Yet this 
interpolation occasioned the error condemned by Clem. v. 1311, 
that Christ’s side was pierced before He expired.— Ver. 52. 
ny épon| BDGLvS, min. Or. Eus.: 7yépdnouv. So Fritzsche, 
Lachm., Tisch. But how readily would the whole surroundings of 
the passage suggest the plural to the mechanical transcribers ! — 
Ver. 54. yevéweva] Lachm. and Tisch.: yivoueva, following B D, 
min. Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, has yevéueva as well). The aorist 
might have originated as readily in a failure to appreciate the © 
difference of meaning as in a comparison of the present passage 
with Luke xxiii. 47 f.— Ver. 56. For ‘Iwo7, Tisch. 8 has “Iwong, 
following D* Lx, vss. Or. Eus. Emendation suggested by the 
assumption that the mother of Jesus must have been intended 
(comp. on xiii. 55); hence &* enumerates the three Marys thus: 
Map. 4 rod IaxwBov xal 7 Map. 4 Iwonp xai n Map. 4 rev via Zeb. —- 
Ver. 57. ¢uadyrevoe] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: guadyrevdn, follow- 
ing C D 8 and two min. Altered in accordance with xiii. 52.— 
Ver. 64. Elz. inserts vixros after airod, against decisive evidence ; 
borrowed from xxviii. 13. The 6 again, which Elz. has after 
2on, ver. 65, is an interpolation for sake of connection, and 
is wanting in very important witnesses (not, however, in 
ACD»). 


Ver. 1. By the time the Sanhedrim met, as it now did, in 
full sederunt (aavtes, comp. xxvi. 59), for the purpose of con- 
sulting as to how they were now to give effect to the verdict of 
xxvi. 66, it was well on in the morning (after cock-crowing, 
xxvi. 74).— doe] they consulted before going further (comp. 
on xxii. 15) as to what the consequence might be (comp. on 
xxiv. 24) if they carried out their intention of putting Him 
to death, in other words, if they were likewise to give effect 
to the verdict already agreed upon: évoxos Oavartou oti, 


CHAP. XXVII. 2. 245 


Ver. 2. Anoavtes] The shackles which had been put upon 
Jesus at the time of His arrest (xxvi. 50, comp. with John 
Xviii. 12), and which He still wore when He was led away 
from Annas to Caiaphas (John xvii. 24), would seem, from. 
what is here stated, to have been either wholly or partially 
removed during the trial. With the view of His being 
securely conducted to the residence of the procurator, they 
take the precaution to put their prisoner in chains again. It 
is not expressly affirmed, either by Matthew or Mark, that the 
annyayov was the work of the members of the Sanhedrim in 
pleno (as generally supposed, Weiss and Keim also sharing in 
the opinion) ; and, indeed, it is scarcely probable that they 
would have so far incurred the risk of a popular tumult 
(comp. xxvi. 5). The statement in Luke xxiii. 1 is unques- 
tionably the product of a later tradition. As for Matthew 
and Mark, they seem to assume that merely a deputation 
accompanied the prisoner, though doubtless it would be large. 
enough to be in keeping with the importance of the occa- 
sion. Comp. also on ver. 3.—Tapéd@xav avtov Iovria, 
k.T.r.] For after Judaea became a Roman province (from 
the time that King Archelaus was dethroned, 759 v.c.), the 
Sanhedrim had lost the jus gladw. Comp. on John xvii. 
31. On Pontius Pilate, the fifth procurator of Judaea, who 
was successor to Valerius Gratus, and who, after holding 
office for ten years (from A.D. 26 onwards), was summoned 
to Rome at the instance of Vitellius, then governor of Syria, 
to answer to certain charges made against him, and then 
(according to Evuseb. ii. 7) banished to Vienne, where he 
is said to have committed suicide, see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 
87 ff.; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. p. 663 ff.; Gerlach, 
d. Rom. Statthalter in Syr. u. Jud. p. 53 ff; Hausrath, Zeit- 
gesch. I. p. 312 ff. For certain Christian legends regarding 
His death, consult Tischendorf’s Lvang. Apocr. p. 426 ff. 
Caesarea was the place where the procurators usually resided 
(Acts xxiii. 23 f, xxiv. 27, xxv. 1); but, as it was the 
Passover season, Pilate was in Jerusalem (to be ready, in fact, 
to quell any disturbance that might arise, comp. on xxvi. 5), 
where he lived in the praetorium (see on ver. 27).—7To 


246 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Hyewove] principi. The more precise designation would 
have been 7 émutpoT@, procuratori. Comp. Joseph. Anit. 
xviii. 3. 1: IWiddros 8 6 THs "Iovdaias ryewov. On the 
comprehensive sense in which 7yeuav is frequently used, see 
Krebs, Obss. p. 61 ff. 

Ver. 3. Tore] as Jesus was being led away to the procu- 
rator. From this Judas saw that his Master had been con- 
demned (xxvi. 66), for otherwise He would not have been 
thus taken before Pilate. —o mapadidovs avtov] His be- 
trayer, xxvi. 25, 48. — wetapedn Gets, «.7.r.] cannot be said 
to favour the view that Judas was animated by a good inten- 
tion (see on xxvi. 16, Remark 2), though it no doubt serves 
to show he neither contemplated nor expected so serious 
a result. It is possible that, looking to the innocence of 
Jesus, and remembering how often before He had succeeded 
in disarming His enemies, the traitor may have cherished 
the hope that the issue would prove harmless. Now: “ vellet, 
si posset, factum infectum reddere,” Bengel. Such was his 
repentance, but it was not of a godly nature (2 Cor. vii. 9 f.), 
for it led to despair.—améatpewe]| he returned them (xxv. 
52+ Thue. v. 75, viii. 108; Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 3, al.), 1e. he 
took them back (Gen. xliii. 21; Judg. xi. 13; Jer. xxviii. 3), 
Heb. 2¥.— rots apy. «. Tt. tpecfP.] from which it is to be 
inferred that Matthew did not look upon this as a fwl/ meeting 
of the Sanhedrim (ver. 2). 

Ver. 4."Hpaprov mapadovs] see on xxvi. 12.—aiua 
Odor] eis TO XvORvar, Euthymius Zigabenus ; comp. Deut. 
xxvii. 25; 1 Mace. i. 37; 2 Macc.i. 8 ; Phalar. ep. 40; Heliod. 
vill. 10.—Té wpods tas] sc. €ote; what is it as regards 
us? ie. what matters it to ws? we are in no way called upon 
to concern ourselves about what thou hast done. Comp. 
John xxi. 22 f£.; the words are also frequently used in this 
sense by Greek authors. — od dary] Thou wilt see to ut thyself, 
thou wilt have to consider for thyself what is now to be 
done by thee ; comp. ver. 24; Acts xviii. 15; 1 Sam. xxv. 17; 
4 Mace. ix. 1. “Impii in facto consortes, post factum 
deserunt,” Bengel. 

Ver. 5. "Ev 7@ va@] is to be taken neither in the sense 


CHAP. XXVII. 5. 247 


of near the temple (Kypke), nor as referring to the room, 
Gasith, in which the Sanhedrim held its sittings (Grotius), 
nor as equivalent to év T@ ‘ep@ (Fritzsche, Olshausen, Bleek) ; 
but, in accordance with the regular use of vads (see on iv. 5) 
and the only possible meaning of év, we must interpret thus: 
he flung down the money in the temple proper, i.e. in the holy 
place where the priests were to be found. Judas zn his despair 
had ventured within that place which none but priests were 
permitted to enter. —amnyEato] he strangled himself, Hom. 
Od. xix. 230; Herod. vii. 232; Xen. Cyrop. 11. 1. 14; Hier. 
vil. 13; Aesch. Suppl. 400; Ael. V. H. v. 3. There is no 
reason why the statement in Acts i. 18 should compel us to 
take amrdyyowar as denoting, in a figurative sense, an awakening 
of the conscience (Grotius, Perizonius, Hammond, Heinsius), for 
although dyyew is sometimes so used by classical authors 
(Dem. 406, 5; and see the expositors, ad Thom. Mag. p. 8), 
such a meaning would be inadmissible here, where we have no 
qualifying term, and where the style is that of a plain his- 
torical narrative (comp. 2 Sam. xvii. 23; Tob. 11.10). With 
a view to reconcile what is here said with Acts 1.18, it is usual 
to assume that the traitor first hanged himself, and then fell 
down headlong, Matthew being supposed to furnish the first, 
and Luke the second half of the statement (Kuinoel, Fritzsche, 
Olshausen, Kaeuffer, Paulus, Ebrard, Baumgarten - Crusius). 
But such a way of parcelling out this statement, besides being 
arbitrary in itself, is quite inadmissible, all the more so that it 
is by no means clear from Acts i. 18 that swicide had been com- 
mitted. Now as suicide was regarded by the Jews with the 
utmost abhorrence, it would for that very reason have occupied 
a prominent place in the narrative instead of being passed 
over in silence. It has been attempted to account for the 
absence of any express mention of suicide, by supposing that the 
historian assumed his readers to be familiar with the fact. But 
if one thing forbids such an explanation more than another, 3t 
is the highly rhetorical character of the passage in the Acts just 
referred to, which, rhetorical though it be, records, for example, 
the circumstance of the purchase of the field with all the 
historical fidelity of Matthew himself, the only difference being 


248 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


that Luke’s mode of representing the matter is almost poetical 
in its character (in opposition to Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, 
Ewald, Bleek, Pressensé, Paret, Keim, all of whom concur 
with Paulus in assuming, in opposition to Matthew, that 
Judas bought the field himself). Comp. on Actsi18. In 
Matt. xxvii. 5 and Acts 1. 18, we have two different accounts 
of the fate of the betrayer, from which nothing further is to 
be gathered by way of historical fact than that he came to a 
violent end. In the course of subsequent tradition, however, 
this violent death came to be represented sometimes as suicide 
by means of hanging (Matthew, Ignatius, ad Philipp. interpol. 4), 
at a later stage again as a fall resulting in the bursting of the 
bowels, or at a later period still as the consequence of his 
having been crushed by a carriage when the body was in a 
fearfully swollen condition (Papias as quoted by Oecumenius, 
ad Act. l.c., and by Apollinaris in Routh’s reliquiae sacr. p. 9, 
23 ff.; also in Cramer’s Catena, p. 231; Overbeck in Hilgen- 
feld’s Zeitschr. 1867, p. 39 ff.; Anger, Synops. p. 233). 
There is no other way of accounting for so many diverse 
traditions regarding this matter, but by supposing that nothing 
was known as to how the death actually took place. Be 
this as it may, we cannot entertain the view that Judas 
sunk into obscurity, and so disappeared from history, but that 
meanwhile the Christian legends regarding him were elabo- 
rated out of certain predictions and typical characters (Strauss, 
Keim, Scholten) found in Scripture (in such passages as Ps. 
cix. 8, lxix. 25); such a view being inadmissible, because it 
takes no account of what is common to all the New Testament 
accounts, the fact, namely, that Judas died a violent death, and 
that very soon after the betrayal; and further, because the sup- 
posed predictions (Ps. lxix., cix., xx.) and typical characters (such 
as Ahithophel, 2 Sam. xv. 30 ff., xvii. 23; Antiochus, 2 Mace. 
ix. 5 ff.) did not help to create such stories regarding the 
traitor’s death, but it would be nearer the truth to say that 
they were subsequently taken advantage of by critics to 
account for the stories after they had originated. 

Ver. 6. Ovx« €€eorr] “argumento ducto ex Deut. xxiii. 
18, Sanhedr. f. 112,” Wetstein. — tum atwatos] the price 


CHAP. XXVII. 7—10. 249 


of blood, which is supposed to have been shed. — copf.] tov 
iepov Onoavpov, Kareirat 5é KopRavas, Josephus, Bell. ii. 9. 4. 

Ver. 7 f. "Hydpacar] It is not said that they did so 
immediately ; but the purchase took place shortly after, according 
to Acts i. 18. — Tov aypov Tod Kepap.] the field of the potter, 
the field which had previously belonged to some well-known 
potter. Whether the latter had used the field for the purpose 
of digging clay, it is impossible to determine. — els tadnyv 
t. Eévows] as a burying - place for the strangers, namely, 
such foreign Jews (proselytes included) as happened to die 
when on a visit to Jerusalem; not Gentiles (Paulus), who, 
had they been intended, would have been indicated more 
specifically. — 610] because it had been bought with the 
Tyr) aiwatos above (ver. 6). — aypos atwatos] 821 pn, Acts 
i. 18, where, however, the name is traced to a different origin. 
On the place which in accordance with tradition is still pointed 
out as the field here referred to, see Robinson, II. p. 178 ff. ; 
Tobler, Topogr. 

Ver. 9 f. Tore] when they bought this field for the thirty 
pieces of money.—The passage here quoted is a very free 
adaptation of Zech. xi. 12, 13,1 “Iepewiov being simply a slip 
of the memory (comp. Augustine, de cons. ev. iii. 8, and recently 
Keil himself, following Calvin and the Fathers), such, however, 
as might readily enough occur through a reminiscence of Jer. 
xvii. 2. Considering that in the original Hebrew the resem- 
blance of this latter passage to Zechariah, as above, is suffi- 
ciently close to warrant the typical mode of interpretation 
(Credner, Beitr. II. p. 152 f.), it is arbitrary to maintain, in the 
somewhat uncritical fashion of Rupert, Lyra, Maldonatus, 


1 If the evangelist had meant to combine two different predictions (Hofmann, 
Weissag. u. Erf. Il. p. 128 f. ; Haupt, alttest. Citate, p. 286 ff.), then, according 
to the analogy of ii. 23, we should have expected the words 3 cay xpodnray to 
be used. But, in short, our quotation belongs so exclusively to Zechariah, 
that candour forbids the idea of a combination with Jer. xviii., as well as the 
view adopted by Hengstenberg (comp. Grotius), that Zechariah reproduces the 
prediction of Jeremiah. For a detailed enumeration of the various attempts 
that have been made to deal with the inaccurate use of ‘Iepeziov, consult Morison, 
who follows Clericus in holding that there must have been a transcriber’s error 
in the very earliest copy of our Gospel. 


250 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Jansen, Clericus, Friedlieb, that ‘Iepeuiov is spurious; or, on 
the other hand, to resort, as Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, 
Kuinoel, Ewald have done, to the idea of some lost produc- 
tion of Jeremiah’s, or of some oral utterance that had never 
been committed to writing (see, above all, Calovius, who in 
support of this view lays great stress on pyOév). As for the 
statement of Jerome, that he had seen the passage in a copy 
of Jeremiah belonging to some person at Nazareth, there can 
be no doubt that what he saw was an interpolation, for he 
also is one of those who ascribe the citation in question to 
Zechariah. No less arbitrary is the conjecture of Eusebius, 
Dem. ev. x. 4, that the Jews may have deleted the passage 
from Jeremiah; for though it reappears again in a certain 
Arabic work (Bengel, Appar. crit. p. 142), and in a Sahidic 
and a Coptic lectionary (see Michaelis, Bibl. IV. p. 208 ff. ; 
Briefwechs. III. pp. 63, 89 ; Hinlect. I. p. 264), it does so simply 
as an interpolation from our present passage. See Paulus, 
exeget. Handb. IIL. p. 615 ff—According to the historical 
sense of Zechariah, as above, the prophet, acting in Jehovah’s 
name, resigns his office of shepherd over Ephraim to Ephraim’s 
own ruin; and having requested his wages, consisting of 30 
shekels of silver, to be paid him, he casts the money, as being 
God’s property, into the treasury of the temple. “And they 
weighed for my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then Jehovah 
said to me: Cast it into the treasury, that handsome (ironi- 
cally) sum of which they have thought me worthy! So I 
took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury 
that was in God’s house,” Ewald, Proph.; Bleek in the Stud. wu. 
Krit. 1852, p. 279 ff, For we ought to read iON, into the 
treasury (equivalent, as Kimchi explains, to 731Nn bs, and as is 
actually the reading of two mss. in Kennicott), and not 7$#7">8, 
to the potter, as Matthew, in fact, also read and understood the 
words, though such a meaning is entirely foreign to the con- 
text in Zechariah. Comp. Hitzig, kl. Proph. p. 374. The 
expositors of Zechariah, who take sin in the sense of potter, 
have had recourse to many an unfounded and sometimes 
singular hypothesis. For specimens of these, see also Hengsten- 
berg’s Christol. TIL. 1, p. 457 ff.; Hofmann, Weissag. u. Eryf. 


CHAP. XXVII. 9, 10. 20 


II. p. 128 f.; Lange, Z. J. II. p. 1494 f.; Steinmeyer, p. 105 f.; 
Haupt, alttest. Citate, p. 272 ff.— aor] in Zechariah and 
LXX. is the first person singular, here it is the third person 
plural. The liberty thus used with the terms of the quotation 
may be supposed to be warranted by the concluding words : 
xaba ovvéta&é pot 0 KUpios. Neither the original Hebrew nor 
the LXX. countenances the supposition that the evangelist 
erroncously took é\aS8ov to be third person plural, like «ay 
immediately following (in opposition to Hilgenfeld). — ra 
TpidxovTa apyvp.| meaning, according to the typical refer- 
ence in Matthew, the thirty shekels brought back by Judas. 
—THv TL, K.T.r.] In apposition with Ta tTpiax. dpy. The 
words correspond more with the Hebrew than with the LXX., 
though in this instance too a slight liberty is taken with them, 
inasmuch as for ‘A>. WX we have once more (comp. on 
édaBov) the third person plural Ov ériunoayto, and for amy 
the explanatory rendering a7d vidv "Icpayrd. The passage 
then is to be rendered as follows: And they took the thirty 
pieces of silver—the value of the highly valued One, on whonr 
they put their own price (middle, éryunsavto) at the instance of 
sons of Israel, i.e. the price of the priceless One, whose market 
value they fixed for themselves upon an occasion furnished by sons 
of Israel. The expression vidv "Icpana is the plural of cate- 
gory (ii. 20), and is regarded as finding its historical antitype 
in Judas, who, xxvi. 14 f., undertakes and carries through the 
shameful transaction there referred to,—he a son of Israel 
negotiates the sale of the Messiah of the people of Israel. In 
addition to what has just been observed, we would direct atten- 
tion to the following details :—(1) Tod tetinuévov is intended 
to represent the Hebrew word 1?‘ (pretiz) ; but the evangelist 
has evidently read 1P'3 (cari, aestwmatt), which he refers to 
Jesus as being the highly valued One xaz’ éfoyyy; nor must 
we fail to notice here the remarkable collocation: pretium 
pretiost, 1c. THY @v_V Tod TavTiwov Xpioctod, Euthymius Ziga- 
benus ; comp. Theophylact, also Ewald. That distinguished 
personage, whose worth as such cannot in fact be estimated by 
any mere money standard (Tow), they have actually valued 
(eryuncavto) at thirty shekels! To take the tod teripnp. 


252 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


merely in the sense of dv étiuno. (of the valued one, him whom 
they have valued), as the majority of expositors do (including 
even yet de Wette, Lange, and Hofmann, Weissag. wu. Erf. II. p. 
130), instead of expressing the idea in a more forcible manner, 
would simply produce, especially after 7. tyujv, a tautological 
redundancy. (2) The subject of étyuncavto is the same as 
that of é\aBov, namely, the high priests; nor is the verb to be 
taken in the sense of estimating highly, as in the case of 
TeTiun., but in that of valuing, putting a price wpon, the sense 
in which it is used in Isa. lv. 2, and very frequently by 
classical writers, and in which the Hebrew ‘77? is intended to 
be understood. (3) dm vidv "Icp., which is a more definite 
rendering of the amyn of the original, must necessarily be 
connected, like its corresponding Hebrew expression, with 
éTysnoavto, and not with édaBov (Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld), nor 
with tod teryunu. (which de Wette considers possible), and be 
understood as denoting origin, 1.e. as denoting, in our present 
passage, the occasion brought about by some one (comp. also 
Bleek) in connection with which the étipjcavto took place; 
“ amo de eo ponitur, quod praebet occasionem vel opportuni- 
tatem, ut aliquid fieri possit,” Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 549 A; 
comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 396; similarly xi. 19; see also 
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 194. They were indebted to the sons 
of Israel (Judas, see above) for that which suggested and led 
to the éryuncavro. We cannot approve of the course which 
some adopt of supplying tuvés: equivalent to of "Iopanniras 
(Euthymius Zigabenus), or “gui sunt ex filiis Israel” (Beza, 
Grotius, Maldonatus, Paulus, Kuinoel, Ewald, de Wette, Grimm, 
Anger), thus making azo vidv “Iap. the subject of éryuno. In 
that case, the ordinary é« (comp. Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 
138 [E. T. 158]) would have been used (as in xxiii. 34; 
Jobn xvi. 17, al.), and instead of vidy we should have 
had tv viev, inasmuch as the whole community would be 
intended to which the tuvés are supposed to belong. Comp. 
also 1 Mace. vii. 33, 3 Mace. i. 8, where, though azé is the 
preposition used, the article is conjoined with the substantive 
following. The absence of the article here is likewise un- 
favourable to the views of Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 


CHAP. XXVII. 9, 10. 253 


131, who, taking dzro to mean on the part of, interprets thus: 
“What Caiaphas and Judas did (étycavto), was done 
indirectly by the whole nation.” To explain azo as others have 
done, by assuming the idea of purchase in connection with it 
(Castalio: “quem licitati emerunt ab Israelitis,’ comp. Eras- 
mus, Luther, Vatablus, Jansen, Lange), is not only arbitrary, 
inasmuch as the idea involved in étiyyjcavto does not justify 
the supposed pregnant force of dao (Buttmann, p. 276 [E. T. 
322]), but is incompatible with the 5yn of the original. No 
less inconsistent with the original is the explanation of Baum- 
garten-Crusius: “whom they had valued from among the 
children of Israel,” that is to say, “which they had 
fixed as the price of one of the children of Israel.” In that 
case, again, we should have required the article along with 
viev ; and, besides, what a poor designation of the Messiah 
would be the result of such an interpretation! With an 
equal disregard of the terms of the passage, Linder main+ 
tains, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 513, that azo is equi- 
valent to twa é«: as an Israelite (whom they treated like a 
slave); and to the same effect is the explanation of Steinmeyer, 
p. 107: whom they have valued in, the name of the nation. 
Neither the simple azo nor the anarthrous vidv "Icp. admits 
of being so understood, although Hilgenfeld is also of opinion 
that our passage meant to describe the betrayal as an act 
jor which the whole body of the Jewish people was to be held 
responsible. Ver. 10. Kai éSwxav aita eis tov aypov 
Tod Kepap.| Zech. as above, Ti ON nin na nie pws, 
But, inasmuch as the important matter here was the 
purchase of the potter’s field, Matthew leaves mn’ m3 
entirely out of view, takes 731° in the sense of potter (see, 
on the other hand, on ver. 9 above), and, in order that 
ayia ON may fully harmonize with a typical and prophetic 
view of the passage, he paraphrases the words thus: eés tov 
aypov Tod Kepauéws, where efs is intended to express the 
destined object of the thing: for the purpose of acquiring 
the field belonging to the potter.—xa0a ouvéraké por 
xpos] corresponds to Zechariah’s *?8 nin? WN, ver. 13, the 
words employed by the prophet when he asserts that in 


254 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


casting the shekels into the treasury of the temple he did so 
in obedience to the command of God. In accordance with 
the typical reference ascribed to the passage by Matthew, the 
words “ according to that which the Lord commanded me” are 
so applied as to express the idea that the using of the traitor’s 
reward for the purpose of buying the potter’s field was simply 
giving effect to the decree of Him from whom the prophet 
had Seed the command in question. That which God had 
commissioned the prophet (ov) to do with the thirty pieces 
of silver is done in the antitypical fulfilment of the prophecy 
by the high priests, who thus carry out the divine decree above 
referred to. Ka@a, just as (Xen. Mem. iv. 6.5; Polyb. iii. 
107. 10; Lucian, Cont. 24; Diod. Sic. i. 36; in classical 
Greek xa@a7rep is usually employed), occurs nowhere else in 
the New Testament. It is quite possible that the words 
used in the Hebrew original of Matthew were 127 W832 or 
m¥ W8D, which in the LXX. are likewise rendered by Kabe 
eae Bim ili el 255) Nid) vay St 

Ver. 11 f. Continuation, aie the episode in vv. 3-10, of 
the narrative introduced at ver. 2. The accusation preferred 
by the Jews, though not expressly mentioned, may readily be 
inferred from the procurator’s question. See Luke xxiii 2. 
In appearing before Pilate, they craftily give prominence to 
the political aspect of the Messianic pretensions of Jesus. — 
av Xéyers] There is nothing ambiguous in such a reply 
(which was not so framed that it might be taken either as 
an affirmative or as equivalent to éy@ pév TodTo ov Aéyw, ov 
dé Aéyets, Theophylact), but such a decided affirmative as the 
terms of the question: Art thou, etc., were calculated to 
elicit, John xviii. 37. Comp. xxvi. 64.—ovdev azrexp.] 
Comp. on xxvi. 62. The calm and dignified silence of the 
true king. 

Ver. 14. IIpos ove Ev pHa] intensifying the force of the 
expression: to not even a single word, 1.e. to not even a single 
inquisitorial interrogative. The silence mentioned in vy. 
12, 14 comes in after the examination reported in John 
xvill. 37. — @ote Oavyalerv] convinced as he was of the 
innocence of Jesus, he was all the more at a loss to under- 


CHAP. XXVII. 15, 16. 254 


stand the forbearance with which He maintained such sublime 
silence. . 

Ver. 15. Kara éoptyv] on the occasion of the feast, ie. 
during the feast-time (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 412; Winer, p. 374 
[E. T. 500]); that the Passover is here meant is evident 
from the conteat.— As there is no allusion to this custom 
anywhere else (for an account of which, however, see 
Bynaeus, de morte Chr. III. p. 97 ff.), nothing whatever is 
known as to when it originated. But whether we date the 
custom back to the Maccabaean age or to an earlier period 
still (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 570), or regard it as having been 
introduced’ for the first time by the Romans (Grotius, 
Schleiermacher, Friedlieb) for the purpose of conciliating the 
Jews, we cannot fail to see in it a reference to that which is 
intended to be set forth by the Passover (sparing mercy), and 
applicable most probably to the 14th of Nisan (comp. on 
John xviii. 24, 39). 

Ver. 16. Eiyov] The subject is to be found in o #yepudr, 
ver. 15, that is to say: the procurator and his soldiers; for, 
like Jesus, Barabbas had also to be examined before Pilate 
before his case could be finally disposed of. He was lying in 
the prison in the praetorium awaiting execution, after having 
received sentence of death.— Concerning this robber and 
murderer Jesus Barabbas (see the critical remarks), nothing 
further is known. The name Barabbas occurs very frequently 
even in the Talmud; Lightfoot, p. 489. There is the less 
reason, therefore, for thinking, with Olshausen, that the 
characteristic significance of the name 838 13, father’s son (7. 
probably the son of a Rabbi, xxiii. 9), in close proximity 
with the person of Jesus, is an illustration of the saying: 
“ Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus.’ Still it is possible 


1 It may be mentioned as tending to favour this supposition, that while no 
trace of such a custom is met with in the Talmud, there is something to a 
certain modified extent analogous to it in the practice observed by the Romans 
at the feast of the Jectisternia (Liv. v. 14). Schoettgen detects an allusion to 
some such origin in Pesachim f. 91, 1, though this is very doubtful. Then, as 
for the statement of Josephus, Antt. xx. 9. 3, which is quoted by Keim, it 
cannot be said to imply the existence of any practice, and it refers besides to a 
case in which ten persons were liberated. 


256 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


that the accidental similarity in the name Jesus (see the critical 
remarks) may have helped to suggest to Pilate the release of 
Barabbas as an alternative, though, after all, the circumstance 
that the latter was a most notorious criminal undoubtedly 
swayed him most. For the baser the criminal, the less would 
Pilate expect them to demand his release. “ But they would 
sooner have asked the devil himself to be liberated,” Luther’s 
gloss. 

Ver. 17. Odv] In accordance with the custom referred to, 
and as it so happened that at that moment there lay under 
sentence of death (vv. 15, 16) a noted criminal called Jesus 
Barabbas, Pilate got the multitude that was collected outside 
gathered together, and then asked them to choose between 
Jesus Barabbas and Jesus who was called the Messiah. — 
avt@v] refers not to the members of the Sanhedrim, but to 
the dyAos, ver. 15. See ver. 20. 

Ver. 18. I'ap] Had he not been aware, etc., he would not 
have thus attempted to effect the release of Jesus. — rapé- 
Swxav] The subject of the verb is, of course, the members 
of the Sanhedrim (ver. 2), whose dominant selfishness was 
too conspicuous in itself, as well as from the animus that 
characterized their behaviour, to escape his notice. They were 
jealous of the importance and influence of Jesus; dua denotes 
the motive which animated them: because of envy ; see Winer, 
p. 372 [E. T. 497]. This was the causa remotior. 

Ver. 19. Before, Pilate had submitted the question of ver. 
17 to the consideration of the people by way of sounding 
them. Now, he seats himself upon the tribunal (upon the 
MOdcTpwtTov, John xix. 13) for the purpose of hearing the 
decision of the multitude, and of thereafter pronouncing 
sentence. But while he is sitting on the tribunal, and 
before he had time again to address his question to the 
multitude, his wife sends, etc. This particular is peculiar 
to Matthew; whereas the sending to Herod, and that before 
the proposal about the release, occurs only in Luke (xxiil. 
6 ff.); and as for John, he omits both those circumstances 
altogether, though, on the whole, his account of the trial 
before Pilate is much more detailed than the concise narra- 


CHAP. XXVII. 20, 21. 257 


tive of Matthew, and that without any want of harmony 
being found between the two evangelists. — 17 yuv7 avtod] 
for since the time of Augustus it was customary for Roman 
governors to take their wives with them into the provinces, 
Tacit. Ann. iii. 33 f. According to tradition, the name of 
Pilate’s wife was Procla, or Claudia Procula (see Evang. Nicod. 
ii, and thereon Thilo, p. 522 ff). In the Greek church 
she has been canonised. — réyovca] through her messen- 
gers, xxii. 16, xi. 2.—pmdév coe x. 7. Sex. éx.] comp. 
vil. 29; John ii. 4. She was afraid that a judgment from 
the gods would be the consequence if he had anything to 
do with the death of Jesus. — moda yap Exadop, x.7.r.] 
This alarming dream is to be accounted for on the under- 
standing that the governor’s wife, who in the Evang. Nicod. 
is described, and it may be correctly, as OeoaeBrj5 and lovédai- 
fouca (see Tischendorf, Pilati circa Christum judic. ete. ex actis 
Pilat. 1855, p. 16 f.), may have heard of Jesus, may even 
have seen Him and felt a lively interest in Him, and may 
have been informed of His arrest as well as of the jeopardy 
in which His life was placed. There is nothing to show 
that Matthew intended us to regard this incident as a special 
divine interposition. There is the less reason for relegating 
it to the domain of legend (Strauss, Ewald, Scholten, Volkmar, 
Keim).— o7pepor] during the part of the night belonging 
to the current day.—x«ar dvap] see on i. 20. It was a 
terrible morning-dream. 

Ver. 20. The question of ver. 17 is still under the con- 
sideration of the assembled crowd; and while Pilate, who had 
mounted the tribunal for the purpose of hearing their decision, 
is occupied with the messengers from his wife, the members 
of the Sanhedrim take advantage of this interruption to per- 
suade the people, etc. —tva] purpose of érevcav. “Oras is 
likewise used with ze/Oew by Greek authors. See Schoem. 
ad Plut. Cleom. p. 192. 

Ver. 21. "AmoxpiGeis Sé, «7.2r.] The governor, having 
from his tribunal overheard this parleying of the members of 
the Sanhedrim with the people, now replies to it by once 
more demanding of the latter, with a view to a final decision: 

MATT. II. R 


258 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


which of the two, etc. He thus puts a stop to the officious 
conduct of the hierarchs, and resumes his attitude of waiting 
for the answer of the crowd. 

Ver. 22. Ti ody troinow Incodv;] What, then (if Bar- 
abbas is to be released), am J to do with Jesus, how shall I 
dispose of him? On this use of the double accusative with 
moveiv, in the sense of doing good or evil to any one, comp. 
Kiihner, II. 1, p. 277; Wunder, ad Soph. Phil. 684.— 
otavpwOntw] ov Aéyouct hovevOnta, dAdAa cTavpwOyTo, va 
Kal TO €idos Tod Oavatov Kaxovpyov (as a rebel) dmedeyyy 
avtov, Euthymius Zigabenus. Doubtless it was also at the 
instigation of the hierarchs that they demanded this par- 
ticular form of punishment. 

Ver. 23. Ti yap] does not presuppose a “ non faciam,” or 
some such phrase (Grotius, Maldonatus, Fritzsche), but yap 
denotes an inference from the existing state of matters, and 
throws the whole emphasis upon ti: quid ergo. See on 
John ix. 30 and 1 Cor. xi. 22. — Chrysostom appropriately 
points out how dvdvipws wai cpodpa paraxas Pilate behaved. 

Ver. 24. The circumstance of Pilate’s washing his hands, 
which Strauss and Keim regard as legendary, is also peculiar 
to Matthew. — érz obdév were?) that it was all of no 
avail, John xii. 19. “Desperatum est hoc praejudicium 
practicum,” Bengel. — dAXa padAov OopuBos yiverat] that 
the tumult is only aggravated thereby.—amevityato tas 
xetpas| he washed his hands, to show that he was no 
party to the execution thus insisted upon. This ceremony 
was a piece of Jewish symbolism (Deut. xxi. 6 f.; Joseph. 
Antt. iv. 8. 16; Sota viii. 6); and as Pilate understood its 
significance, he would hope by having recourse to it to make 
himself the more intelligible to Jews. It is possible that 
what led the governor to conform to this Jewish custom 
was the analogy between it and similar practices observed by 
Gentiles after a murder has been committed (Herod. i. 34; 
Virg. Aen. ii. 719 f.; Soph. Aj 654, and Schneidewin 
thereon ; Wetstein on our passage), more particularly as it was 
also customary for Gentile judges before pronouncing sen- 
tence to protest, and that “pds tov Arvov” (Constitt. Ap. 1. 


CHAP. XXVII. 25, 26. 259 


52. 1; Evang. Nicod. ix.), that they were innocent of the blood 
of the person about to be condemned; see Thilo, ad Cod. 
Apocr. I. p. 573 f.; Heberle in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856, 
p. 859 ff.— ao tod atparos] a Greek author would have 
used the genitive merely (Maetzner, ad Lycurg. 79). The 
construction with dz is a Hebraism (279 ‘p23, 2 Sam. tii. 27), 
founded on the idea of removing to a distance. Comp. Hist. 
Susann. 46, and xaOapds azo, Acts xx. 26. — ipets d.] See 
on ver. 4. 

Ver. 25. "Ed jas, «.7.r.] Defiant and vindictive cry, in 
the hurry of which (rova’tn yap 1) opp x. % Tovnpa éribupia, 
Chrysostom) the verb is left to be understood (xxi. 35). 
Comp. 2 Sam. 1.16, and see on Acts xviii. 6. From what 
we know of such wild outbursts of popular fanaticism, there 
is no ground for supposing (Strauss; comp. also Keim, 
Scholten, Volkmar) that the language only represents the 
matter as seen from the standpoint of Christians, by whom the 
destruction of the Jews had come to be regarded as a judg- 
ment for putting Jesus to death. And as for their wicked 
imprecations on their own heads, they were only in accordance 
with the decrees of the divine nemesis, and therefore are to be 
regarded in the light of unconscious prophecy. 

Ver. 26. PpayedkrA@oas] a late word adopted from the 
Latin, and used for paotiyotv. Comp. John ii. 15; see 
Wetstein. It was the practice among the Romans to scourge 
the culprit (with cords or thongs of leather) before crucifying 
him (Liv, xxxiii, 36; Curt. vii. 11. 28: Valer. Max. i 7; 
Joseph. Bell. v.11. 1, al. ; Heyne, Opusc. III. p. 184 f; Keim, 
III. p. 390 f.). According to the more detailed narrative of 
John xix. 1 ff., Pilate, after this scourging was over, and while 
the soldiers were mocking Him, made a final attempt to have 
Jesus set at liberty. According to Luke xxiii. 16, the governor 
contemplated ultimate scourging immediately after the exami- 
nation before Herod,—a circumstance which neither prevents 
us from supposing that he subsequently carried out his inten- 
tion (in opposition to Strauss), nor justifies the interpretation 
of our passage given by Paulus: whom He had previously 
scourged (with a view to His being liberated). — wapédmxev| 


260 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


namely, to the Roman soldiers, ver. 27. These latter were 
entrusted with the task of seeing the execution carried out. 

Ver. 27. Eis 70 tpattwpcov] It would appear, then, that 
the scourging had taken place outside, in front of the prae- 
torium, beside the tribunal. This coincides with Mark xv. 
16, ow tis avs, which merely defines the locality more 
precisely. The mpastwpiov was the official residence, the palace 
of the governor, it being commonly supposed (so also Ewald, 
Gesch. Chr. p. 53, and Keim, III. p. 359 ff.) that Herod’s 
palace, situated in the higher part of the city, was used for 
this purpose. But, inasmuch as this latter building would 
have to be reserved for the accommodation of Herod himself 
whenever he had occasion to go to Jerusalem, and with what 
is said at Luke xxiii. 7 before us, it is more likely that the 
palace in question was a different and special one connected 
with fort Antonia, in which the ovetpa (comp. Acts xxi. 31— 
35) was quartered. Comp. also Weiss on Mark xv. 16.— 
ol TTpaTL@TaL TOV HYEu.| Who were on duty as the procu- 
rator’s orderlies. — éx’ avtov] about Him; comp. Mark v. 21, 
not adversus ewm (Fritzsche, de Wette); for they were merely 
to make sport of Him. — t7v eretpay] the cohort, which was 
quartered at Jerusalem in the garrison of the praetorium (in 
Caesarea there were five cohorts stationed). Comp. on John 
xvill. 3. The expression: the whole cohort, is to be understood 
in its popular, and not in a strictly literal sense; the otpatia- 
rat, to whose charge Jesus had been committed, and who 
only formed part of the cohort, invited all their comrades to 
join them who happened to be in barracks at the time. 

Ver. 28. "Evdvcavrtes (see the critical remarks) is to be 
explained by the fact that previous to the scourging all His 
clothes had been pulled off (Acts xvi. 22; Dionys. Hal. ix. 
596). They accordingly put on His under garments again, 
and instead of the upper robes (ra iuatia, ver. 31) they 
arrayed Him in a zed sagum, the ordinary military cloak (Plut. 
Sert. 14; Philop. 9, 11), for the purpose, however, of ridicul- 
ing His pretensions to the dignity of king; for kings and 
emperors likewise wore the yAavs, the only difference being 
that in their case the garment was longer and of a finer 


CHAP. XXVII. 29-32. 261 


texture. Plut. Demetr. 41 f.; Mor. p. 186 C, al. On this 
military cloak, which was first used by the Macedonians, 
see Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxi. 20; Friedlieb, p. 118. 
According to the other evangelists, the cloak made use of 
on this occasion was of a purple colour; but Matthew would 
intend scarlet (Heb. ix. 19; Rev. xvii. 3; Num. iv. 8; 
Plut. Fab. xv.) to be taken as at least conveying the zdea of 
purple. 

Ver. 29 f. “E& adxavdar] belongs to wAéEavtes. What is 
meant is something made by twisting together young flexible 
thorns so as to represent.the royal diadem. The object was 
not to produce suffering, but to excite ridicule; so that while 
we cannot altogether dissociate the idea of something painful 
from this crown of thorns, we must not conceive of it as 
covered with prickles which were intentionally thrust into the 
flesh. Michaelis adopts the rendering Bérenklaw (dxav@0s); 
but this is incompatible with the axdv@woy of Mark xv. 17, 
which adjective is never used with reference to the plant just 
mentioned. Besides, this latter was a plant that was highly 
prized (for which reason it was often used for ornamental 
purposes in pieces of sculpture and on the capitals of Cor- 
inthian pillars), and therefore would be but ill suited for a 
caricature. It is impossible to determine what species of thorn 
it was (possibly the so-called spina Christi?; see Tobler, 
Denkbl. pp. 113,179). — «ai caXrapov] éOnxay being under- 
stood, the connection with éré@nxav is zeugmatic—Observe 
the imperfects évémrasfov and érumtoy as indicating the con- 
tinuous character of the proceeding. 

Ver. 31. Kai évédvcav avtov ra iat. adtod) His 
upper garments, for which they had substituted the sagwm. 
This is in no way at variance with évévcavres, ver. 28.—We 
are to understand that as the crown of thorns had now served 
its purpose, it was also taken off at the same time. 

Ver. 32. "E£€epyopevor] because the law required that all 
executions should take place outside the city. Num. xv. 35 f.; 
1 Kings xxi. 13; Acts vi. 58; Lightfoot and Grotius on our 
passage.—On the question as to whether this Simon of Cyrene, 
a place in Libya Pentapolitana, thickly peopled with Jews, 


262 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


resided statedly in Jerusalem (Acts vi. 19), or was only there 
on a visit (Acts ii. 10), see below. It was usual to compel the 
person who was to be executed to carry his own cross (see on 
x. 38, and Keim, p. 397 f.);' to this the case of Jesus was no 
exception, John xix. 17. This statement of John does not 
exclude what is here said with regard to Simon and the cross, 
nor does it pretend to deny it (Keim), but it simply passes it 
over in silence, recording merely the main point in question, 
—the fact, namely, that Jesus had to carry His own cross 
(though there is nothing to prevent the supposition that He 
may have broken down under the burden before reaching the 
scene of the crucifixion).—That with such a large crowd 
following (Luke xxiii. 27) they should notwithstanding compel 
a foreigner who happened to be going toward the city (Mark, 
Luke) to carry the cross the rest of the way, is a circumstance 


1 That is to say, the post, the upright beam of the cross, to which the trans- 
verse beam was not attached till the scene of the execution was reached, where 
the instrument of torture was duly put together and then set up with the crimi- 
nal nailed to it. Hence (because sravpés originally meant a post) we find Greek 
authors making use of such expressions as oraupdv Qépsi, exPépein, Baordew, 
Awp Beaver, aipeiv, COMP. cravpoPopeiv; Latin writers, however, with rather more 
regard for precision, distinguish between the upright beam which the criminal 
was called upon to carry, and the crux as it appeared when completed and seé 
up at the place of execution, The upright beam which the cruciarius was 
compelled to drag after him was called patibulim ; hence we never meet with 
the phrase crucem ferre, but always. patibulum (the upright post) ferre, which 
patibulum was placed upon the poor criminal’s back, and with his outstretched 
hands securely tied to it, he had to balance it the best way he could upon his 
neck and shoulders. It is this distinction between crux and patibulum that 
enables us adequately to explain the well-known passages of Plautus: ‘ Pati- 
bulum ferat per urbem, deinde affigatur cruci” (ap. Non. Marcell. 221), and 
“Dispensis manibus quom patibulum habebis” (Mil. glor. ii. 4. 7), and simi- 
larly with regard to expressions referring to the cross (as completed and set up): 
in crucem tollere, in crucem agere (Cicero and others), etc. ; the comic expression 
crucisalus (Plaut. Bacch. ii. 3. 128); as also the passage in Tacit. Ann. xiv, 
33, where the different modes of punishing by death are enumerated, beginning 
with those of a general nature and ending with the more specific: ‘‘ Caedes, pati- 
bula (beams for penal purposes generally), ignes, cruces.” From this it is mani. 
fest at once that it would be incorrect to suppose, with Keim, that all that Christ 
had to carry was the cross-beam. Such a view is at variance both with the lan. 
guage of our text: rov eravpoy aip:v, and with the Latin phrase : patibulum ferre, 
So much is the patibulum regarded as the main portion of the cross, that in poetry 
it is sometimes used as equivalent to crux, as in Prudent. Peristeph. ix. 641; 
** Crux illa nostra est, nos patibulum ascendimus,” 


2 


CHAP. XXVII. 23. 263 


sufficiently accounted for by the infamy that attached to that 
odious thing. Possibly Simon was a slave. To suppose that 
he was one of Jesus’ followers, and that for this reason he had 
been pressed into the service (Grotius, Kuinoel), is altogether 
arbitrary, for, according to the text, the determining circum- 
stance lies in the fact that he was dv@pwrov Kupnvaiov. A 
foreigner coming from Cyrene would not be considered too 
respectable a person to be employed in such degrading work. 
That Simon, however, became a Christian, and that perhaps in 
consequence of his thus carrying the cross and being present 
at the crucifixion, is a legitimate inference from Mark xv. 21 
compared with Rom. xvi. 13.—7yydp.] See on v. 41. 
iva] mentions the object for which this was done. 

Ver. 33. Fodyo04, Chald. 870373, Heb. n?3>3, meaning a skull. 
Jerome and most other expositors (including Luther, Fritzsche, 
Strauss, Tholuck, Friedlieb) derive the name from the circum- 
stance that, as this was a place for executing criminals, it 
abounded with skulls (which, however, are not to be conceived 
of as lying unburied) ; while Cyrill, Jerome, Calovius, Reland, 
Bengel, Paulus, Liicke, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Volkmar, 
Keim, Weiss, on the other hand, trace the name to the shape 
of the hill. The latter view, which is also that of Thenius 
(in Ilgen’s Zettschr. f. Theol. 1842, 4, p. 1 ff.) and Furer (in 
Schenkel’s Lew. II. p. 506), ought to be preferred, because the 
name means nothing more than simply a skull (not hill of 
skulls, valley of skulls, and such like, as though the plural 
(skulls) had been used). A similar practice of giving to 
places, according to their shape, such names, as Kopf, Schettel 
(comp. the hills called Kefadai in Strabo, xvii. 3, p. 835), 
Stirn, and the like, is not uncommon among ourselves— 


1 In trying to account for the origin of the name, the Fathers, from Tertullian 
and Origen down to Euthymius Zigabenus, make reference to the tradition that 
Adam was buried in the place of a skull, This Judaeo-Christian legend is very 
old and very widely diffused (see Dillmann, ‘‘zum christ]. Adambuch,” in Ewald’s 
Jahrb. V. p. 142); but we are not warranted in confidently assuming that it was 
of pre-Christian origin (Dillmann) simply because Athanasius, Epiphanius, and 
others have characterized it as Jewish ; it would naturally find much favour, 
as being well calculated to serve the interests of Christian typology (Augustine : 
‘* quia ibi erectus sit medicus, ubi jacebat aegrotus,”’ etc.). 


264 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


(Germans). — 6 éote xpaviov ToTos AEyouevas] which, ie. 
which Aramaic term denotes (€or) a so-called (Aeyou., Kiihner, 
Il. 1, p. 232) place of a skull, Lat.: quod calvariae: quem 
dicunt locum significat. It was probably a round, bare hill. 
But where it stood it is utterly impossible to determine, 
although it may be regarded as certain (in opposition to Raumer, 
Schubert, Krafft, Lange, Furer) that it was not the place 
within the city (the so-called Mount Calvary), which subse- 
quently to the time of Constantine had been excavated under 
the impression that it was so,—a point, however, which Ritter, 
Erdk. XVI. 1, p. 427 ff. leaves somewhat doubtful. See 
Robinson, Paldst. II. p. 270 ff, and his newere Forsch. 1857, 
p. 332 ff. In answer to Robinson, consult Schaffter, d. dchte 
Lage d. heil. Grabes, 1849. But see in general, Tobler, Gol- 
gatha, seine Kirchen und Kloster, 1851; Fallmerayer in the 
Abh. d. Baier. Akad. 1852, VI. p. 641 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb. II. 
p-118 ff., VI. p. 84 ff. ; Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. V. p. 307 ff. ; 
Keim, III. p. 404 ff. 

Ver. 34. The Jews were in the habit of giving the criminal 
a stupefying drink before nailing him to the cross. Sanhedr. vi. 
See Wetstein, ad Marc. xv. 23; Doughtaeus, Anal. II. p. 42. 
This drink consisted of wine (see the critical remarks) mixed 
with gall, according to Matthew; with myrrh, according to 
Mark. yor admits of no other meaning than that of gail, 
and-on no account must it be made to bear the sense of 
myrrh or wormwood’ (Beza, Grotius, Paulus, Langen, Stein- 
meyer, Keim). The tradition about the gall, which unques- 
tionably belongs to a later period, originated in the LXX. 


1 No doubt the LXX. translate mayd, wormwood, by oan (Prov. v. 4; 
Lam. iii. 15); but in those passages they took it as meaning literal “ gall,” 
just as in the case of Ps. Ixix. 22, which regulates the sense of our present 
passage, they also understood gall to be meant, although the word in the original 
is WN (poison). Comp. Jer. viii. 14; Deut. xxix. 17, A usage so entirely 
foreign to the Greek tongue certainly cannot be justified on the ground of one 
or two passages, like these from the Septuagint. Had ‘‘bitter spiced wine” 
(Steinmeyer) been what Matthew intended, he would have had no more difficulty 
in expressing this than Mark himself. But the idea he wished to convey was 
that of wine along with gall, in fact mixed with it, and this idea he expresses 
as plain as words can speak it. Comp. Barnab. 7: oravombsis trorilero o%es 
xaih KAN 


bd 


CHAP, XXVII. 35 69 
rendering of Ps. Ixix. 22; people wished to make out that 
there was maltreatment in the very drink that was offered. 
— yevodpevos] According to Matthew, then, Jesus rejected 
the potion because the taste of gall made it undrinkable. <A 
later view than that embodied in Mark xv. 23, from which 
passage it would appear that Jesus does not even taste the 
drink, but declines it altogether, because He has no desire 
to be stupefied before death. 
_ Ver. 35. Stavp@cavtes] The cross consisted of the 
upright post and the horizontal beam (called by Justin and 
Tertullian: antenna), the former usually projecting some dis- 
tance beyond the latter (as was also the case, according to 
the tradition of the early church, with the cross of Jesus, 
see Friedlieb, p. 130 ff.; Langen, p. 321 ff). As a rule, it 
was first of all set up, and then the person to be crucified 
was hoisted on to it with his he resting upon a peg, 
(miryua) that passed between his 1 egs (ef & emoxovvTat ot 
otavpovuevot, Justin, ec. Tryph. 91; Tren. Haer. ii. 24. 4), after 
which the hands were nailed to the cross-beam. Paulus (see 
his Komment., exeg. Handb., and Skizzen aus m. Bildwngsgesch. 
1839, p. 146 ff), following Clericus on John xx. 27 and 
Dathe on Ps. xxii. 7, firmly maintains that the feet were not 
nailed as well ;‘ an opinion which is likewise held more or 
less decidedly by Liicke, Fritzsche, Ammon, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Winer, de peduwm in eruce afizione, 1845; Schleier- 
macher, L. J. p. 447. In answer to Paulus, see Hug in the 
Freib. Zettschr. III. p. 167 ff, and V. p. 102 ff., VIL p. 153 ff. ; 
Gutacht. II. p. 174; and especially Bahr in Heydenreich and 
Hiiffell’s Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 308 ff., and in Tholuck’s 
liter. Anz. 1835, Nos. 1-6. For the history of this dispute, 
see Tholuck’s liter. Anz. 1834, Nos. 53-55, and Langen, 
p. 312 ff That the feet were usually nailed, and that the 
case of Jesus was no exception to the general rule, may be 
regarded as beyond doubt, and that for the following reasons : 
(1) Because nothing can be more evident than that Plautus, 
1 This question possesses an interest not merely antiquarian ; it is of 


essential importance in enabling us to judge of the view held by Dr. Paulus, 
that the death of Jesus was only apparent and not real. 


266 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Mostell. ii. 1. 13 (“ego dabo ei talentum, primus qui in 
crucem excucurrerit, sed ea lege, wt offigantur bis pedes, bis 
brachia”), presupposes that to nail the feet as well as the 
hands was the ordinary practice, and that he intends the bis 
to point to something of an eaceptional character ; (2) because 
Justin, c. Zryph. 97, expressly maintains (comp. Apol. I. 35), 
and that in a polemical treatise, at a time when crucifixion 
was still in vogue, that the feet of Jesus were pierced with 
nails, and treats the circumstance as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 
17, without the slightest hint that in this there was any 
departure from the usual custom; (3) because Tertullian 
(c. Mare. iii. 19), in whose day also crucifixion was univer- 
sally practised (Constantine having been the first to abolish 
it), agrees with Justin in seeing Ps. xxii. 17 verified in Christ, 
and would hardly have said, with reference to the piercing of 
our Lord’s hands and feet: “ quae proprie atrocitas crucis est,” 
unless it had been generally understood that the feet were 
nailed as well; (4) because Lucian, Prometh. 2 (where, more- 
over, it is not crucifying in the proper sense of the word that 
is alluded to), and Lucan, Phars. vi. 547 (“insertum manibus 
chalybem”), furnish nothing but arguments a silentio, which 
have the less weight that these passages do not pretend to 
give a full account of the matter; (5) because we nowhere 
find in ancient literature any distinct mention of a case in 
which the feet hung loose or were merely tied to the cross, for 
Xen. Eph. iv. 2 merely informs us that the binding of the 
hands and the feet was a practice peculiar to the Lyyptians ; 
(6) and lastly, because in Luke xxiv. 39 f. itself the piercing 
of the feet is taken for granted, for only by means of the 
pierced hands and feet was Christ to be identified (His cor- 
poreality was also to be proved, but that was to be done 
by the handling which followed). It is probable that each 
foot was nailed separately." The most plausible arguments 


1 This view is borne out not only by the simple fact that it would be some- 
what impracticable to pierce both the feet when lying one above the other (as 
they usually appear in pictures, and as they are already represented by Nonnus, 
John xx. 19), because in order to secure the necessary firmness, the nail would 
require to be so long and thick that there would be a danger of dislocating, if 


CHAP, XXVIL. 35. 267 


in addition to the above against the view that the feet 
were nailed are: (1) what is said in John xx. 25 (see 
Liicke, II. p. 798), where, however, the absence of any 
mention of the feet on the part of Thomas entirely accord 
with his natural sense of propriety. He assumes the Lord, 
who had been seen by his fellow-disciples, to be standing 
before him ; and so, with a view to identification, he wishes 
to feel the prints of the nails in his hands and the wound in 
His side, those being the marks that could then be most con- 
veniently got at; and that is enough. To have stooped down 
to examine the feet as well would have been going rather far, 
would have seemed somewhat indecent, somewhat undignified, 
nay, we should say that the introduction of such a feature into 
the narrative would have had an apocryphal air; (2) the 
fact that while Socrates, H. H.i. 17, speaks of the Empress 
Helena, who found the cross, as having also discovered Tous 
Frous of Tais yEepot Tov Xpictod Kata Tov aTavpoy éveTra- 
ynoav, he makes no mention of the nails for the feet. But, 
according to the context, the nails for the hands are to be 
understood as forming merely a part of what was discovered 
along with the cross, as forming a portion, that is, of what the 
empress gave asa present to her son. This passage, however, 
has all the less force as an argument against the supposition 
that the feet were nailed, that Ambrose, Or. de obitu Theodos. 
§ 47, while also stating that two nails belonging to the 
cross that was discovered were presented to Constantine, 
clearly indicates at the same time that they were the nazls for 
the feet (“ferro pedum”). It would appear, then, that two 
nails were presented to Constantine, but opinion was divided 
as to whether they were those for the feet or those for the 
hands, there being also a third view, to the effect that the 
two pairs were presented together (Rufinus, H LZ. u. 8; 
not of shattering the feet, but it is still further confirmed by the ancient tradi- 
tion respecting the two pairs of nails that were used to fasten Jesus to the cross. 
See below under No. 2. And how isit possible to understand aright what Plautus 
says about feet twice-nailed, if we are to conceive of them as lying one upon the 
other! Probably they were placed alongside of each other, and then nailed 


with the soles flat upon the upright beam of the cross. A board for the feet 
(suppedaneum) was not used, being unnecessary. 


268 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Theodoret, H. #. i. 17). This diversity of opinion bears, 
however, a united testimony, not against, but in favour 
of the practice of nailing the feet, and that a testimony 
belonging to a time when there were many still living who 
had a vivid recollection of the days when crucifixion was 
quite common. — dtepepicavto Ta ipatia avtovd| The 
criminal when affixed to the cross was absolutely naked 
(Artemid. ii. 58; Lipsius, de cruce, ii. 7), and his clothes fell, 
as a perquisite, to the executioners (Wetstein on our passage). 
The supposition that there was a cloth for covering the lois 
has at least no early testimony to support it. See Thilo, ad 
Evang. Nicod. x. p. 582 f.— BadXovtes KAHpov] more 
precisely in John xix. 23 f. Whether this was done by 
means of dice or by putting the lots into something or other 
(a helmet) and then shaking them out (comp. on Acts i. 26), 
it is impossible to say. 

Ver. 37. Whether it was customary to have a tablet (cavis) 
put over the cross containing a statement of the crime (rv 
aitiav avtov) for which the offender was being executed, we 
have no means of knowing. According to Dio Cass. liv. 8, 
it might be seen hanging round the neck of the criminal 
even when he was passing through the city to the place of 
execution. Comp. also Sueton. Domit. 10; Calig. 32; 
Euseb. v. 1. 19. — éwé6mxav] It was undoubtedly affixed 
to the part of the cross that projected above the horizontal 
beam. But it is inadmissible, in deference to the hypothesis 
that the “title” (John xix. 19) was affixed to the cross 
before it was set up, either to.transpose the verses in the 
text (vv. 33, 34, 37, 38, 35, 36, 39, so Wassenbergh in 
Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 31), or to take émé@nxav (Kuinoel) in — 
the sense of the pluperfect, or to assume some tmaccuracy in 
the narrative, by supposing, for example, that the various 
details are not given in chronological order, and that the 
mention of the watch being set is introduced too soon, from 
a desire to include at once all that was done (de Wette, 
Bleek) by the soldiers (who, however, are understood to have 
nailed up the “title” as well!). According to Matthew's 
statement, it would appear that when the soldiers had finished 


CHAP. XXVIL. 38-40. 269 


the work of crucifixion, and had cast lots for the clothes, and 
had mounted guard over the body, they proceed, by way of 
supplementing what had been already done, to affix the “ title” 
to the top of the cross. The terms of the inscription are 
given with diplomatic precision in John xix. 20, though 
others, including Keim, prefer the shortest version, being that 
found in Mark. 

Ver. 88. Tore] then, after the crucifixion of Jesus was 
thus disposed of. — otavpotvtar]| spoken with reference to 
another band of soldiers which takes the place of ka@revor 
étnpovy avutov éxet, ver. 36. The whole statement is merely 
of a cursory and summary nature. 

Ver. 39. Oi 6€ tapamop.| That what is here said seems 
to imply, what would ill accord with the synoptic statement 
as to the day on which our Lord was crucified, that:this 
took place on a working day (Fritzsche, de Wette), is not to be 
denied (comp. on John xviii. 28 ; Mark xv. 21), though it 
cannot be assumed with certainty that such was the case. 
But there can be no doubt that the place of execution was 
close to a public thoroughfare. — kivodvtes Tas Keg. avT.]| 
The shaking of the head here is not to be regarded as thet 
which expresses refusal or passion (Hom. J/. xvii. 200, 442; 
Od. v. 285, 376), but, according to Ps. xxii. 8, as indicating 
malicious jeering at the helplessness of one who had made 
such lofty pretensions, ver. 40. Comp. Job xvi. 4; Ps. cix. 
25; Tam, it; 15.; Isa. xxxvir 22; Jer. xvii. 165° Buxt. Lez. 
Talim. p. 2039; Justin, Ap. I. 38. 

Ver. 40. "Edeyov 6¢ Ta ToLadTa KwpwdodyTes as edorny, 
Euthymius Zigabenus. We should not fail to notice the 
parallelism in both the clauses (in opposition to Fritzsche, who 
puts a comma merely after ceavrov, and supposes that in both 
instances the imperative is conditioned by ei vids et Tod Ged), 
6 Katadvor, K.T.r. being parallel to e¢ vids ef T. @., and cacov 
ceavtov to KaTaBn% amo ToD cTavpov. —o KaTAaNUwY, K.T.r.] 
is an allusion to xxvi. 61. For the use of the present par- 
ticiple in a characterizing sense (the destroyer, etc.), comp. 
xxiii. 37. The allegation of the witnesses, xxvi. 61, had come 
to be a matter of public talk, which is scarcely to be wondered 


270 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


at considering the extraordinary nature of it. — Observe, more- 
over, that here the emphasis is on vios (comp. iv. 3), while in 
ver. 43 it is on Oeod. 

Ver. 42. Parallelism similar to that of ver. 40.—xal 
muatevomwev (see the critical remarks) éx’ atdtT@: and we 
believe on Him (at once), that is, as actually being the Messiah. 
évi with the dative (Luke xxiv. 25) conveys the idea that the 
faith would rest upon Him. So also Rom. ix. 33, x. 11; 
eine, 4.746 sd Pet, a0. 1, 

Ver. 43. In the mouth of the members of Sanhedrim, who in 
ver. 41 are introduced as joining in the blasphemies of the 
passers-by, and who, ver. 42, have likewise the inscription 
over the cross in view, the jeering assumes a more impious 
character. They now avail themselves even of the language 
of holy writ, quoting from the 22d Psalm (which, moreover, 
the Jews declared to be non-Messianic), the 5th verse of 
which is given somewhat loosely from the LXX. (#Amuwcev 
él KUplov, pucdcOw adtov, cwodTw avrov, btu Oérer adTov). — 
6éXev avtov] is the rendering of the Heb. i2 75M, and is to 
be interpreted in accordance with the Septuagint usage of 
Oérew (see Schleusner, Zhes. II. p. 51, and comp. on Rom. 
vii. 21): if He is the object of his desire, ie. if he likes 
Him ; comp. Tob. xiii. 6; Ps. xviii, 19, xli, 11. In other 
instances the LXX. give the preposition as well, render- 
ing the Hebrew (1 Sam. xviii. 22, al.) by Oérew & tu, 
Fritzsche supplies picacOar; but in that case we should have 
had merely e¢ Oée« without avtov; comp. Col. ii. 18. — 6ru 
Oeod eye vios] The emphasis is on Oeod, as conveying the idea: 
I am not the son of a man, but of God, who in consequence 
will be certain to deliver me.-—Comp. Wisd. ii. 18.— Observe 
further the short bounding sentences in which their malicious 
jeering, ver. 42 f., finds vent. 

Ver. 44. To & avdto] not: after the same manner (as 
generally interpreted), but expressing the object itself (comp. 
Soph. Oed. Col. 1006: tocadr’ ovedifers we; Plat. Phaedr. 
p. 241: 60a tov Erepoy redovdopyxapev), for, as is well known, 
such verbs as denote a particular mode of speaking or acting 
are often construed like Aéyery Teva TL OY ToLEty TWA TL. 


CHAP. XXVII. 45. he gi | 


Kricer, § xlyi. 12; Kuhner, Il. 1, p. 276: Comp. on 
Phil. ii. 18.— of Anora’] different from Luke xxiii. 39; 
the generic interpretation of the plural (Augustine, de cons. 
ev. ill. 16; Ebrard, Krafft) is precluded by the neces- 
sary reference to ver. 38. The harmonists (Origen, Cyrill, 
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Zeger, 
Lange) resorted to the expedient of supposing that at /irst 
both of them may have reviled Him, but that subsequently 
only one was found to do so, because the other had in the 
meantime been converted. Luke does not base his account 
upon a later tradition (Ewald, Schenkel, Keim), but upon 
materials of a more accurate and copious character drawn 
from a different circle of traditions. 

Ver. 45. "Amo 5é€ €xtms Spas] counting from the third 
(nine o’clock in the morning), the hour at which He had been 
nailed to the cross, Mark xv. 25. Respecting the difficulty of 
reconciling the statements of Matthew and Mark as to the 
hour in question with what is mentioned by John at xix. 14, 
and the preference that must necessarily be given to the 
latter, see on John, xix. 14. — oxotos] An ordinary eclipse of 
the sun was not possible during full moon (Origen) ; for which 
reason the eclipse of the 202d Olympiad, recorded by Phlegon 
in Syncellus, Chronogr. I. p. 614, ed. Bonn, and already referred 
to by Eusebius, is equally out of the question (Wieseler, 
chronol. Synops. p. 387 f.). But as little must we suppose 
that the reference is to that darkness in the air which precedes 
an ordinary earthquake (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Schleier- 
macher, LZ. J. p. 448, Weisse), for it is not an earthquake in 
the ordinary sense that is described in ver. 51 ff.; in fact, Mark 
and Luke, though recording the darkness and the rending of 
the veil, say nothing about. the earthquake. The darkness 
upon this occasion was of an wnusual, a supernatural character, 
being as it were the voice of God making itself heard 
through nature, the gloom over which made it appear as though 
the whole earth were bewailing the ignominious death which 
the Son of God was dying. The prodigies, to all appearance 
similar, that are alleged to have accompanied the death of 
certain heroes of antiquity (see Wetstein), and those solar 


272 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


obscurations alluded to in Rabbinical literature, were different 
in kind fron that now before us (ordinary eclipses of the 
sun, such ‘s that which took place after the death of 
Caesar, Serv ad. Virg. G. I. 466), and, even apart from this, 
would not j1stily us im relegating what is matter of history, 
John’s omision of it ‘notwithstanding, to the region of myth 
(in opposition to Strauss, Keim, Scholten), especially when 
we consider that the death in this instance was not that of a 
mere human hero, that there were those still living who could 
corroborate the evangelic narrative, and that the darkness here 
in question was associated with the extremely peculiar onetoy 
of the rending of the veil of the temple. —émi macav tiv 
yjv] Keeping in view the supernatural character of the event 
as well as the usage elsewhere with regard to the somewhat 
indefinite phraseolovy waoa or 6An % y (Luke xxi. 35, xxiii. 
44; Rom. ix. 17, x. 18; Rev. xiii. 3), it is clear that the only 
rendering in keeping with the tone of the narrative is: over 
the whole carth (koopexov 8€ hv To oKdTos, ob peprxdv, Theophy- 
lact, comp. Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus), not merely : 
over the whole land (Origen, Erasmus, Luther, Maldonatus, 
Kuinoel, Paulus, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange, Steinmeyer), 
though at the same time we are not called upon to construe 
the words in accordance with the laws of physical geography ; 
they are simply to be regarded as expressing the popular idea 
of the matter. 

Ver. 46. “AveBonoev] He cried aloud. See Winer, de 
verbor. cum praepos. convpos. usu, 1838, IIL. p. 6 f.; comp. Luke 
ix. 38 ; LXX. and Apoer., Herod., Plato.—The circumstance of 
the following exclamation being given in Hebrew is sufficiently 
and naturally enough accounted for by the jeering language of 
ver. 47, which language is understood to be suggested by the 
sound of the Hebrew words recorded in our present passage. 
—oaBayOavi] Chald.: ‘7p’ =the Heb. ‘2.77. Jesus 


gives vent to His feelings in the opening words of the twenty- 
second Psalm. We have here, however, the purely human — 
feeling that arises from a natural but momentary quailing 
before the agontes of death, and which was in every respect 
similar to that which had been experienced by the author of 


CHAP. XXVII. 46. 273 


the psalm. The combination of profound mental anguish, in 
consequence of entire abandonment by men, with t)!e well-nigh 
‘intolerable pangs of dissolution, was all the more “atural and 
inevitable in the case of One whose feelings wee so deep, 
tender, and real, whose moral consciousness was s) pure, and 
whose love was so intense. In éyxarédumes Jesus expressed, 
of course, what He felt, for His ordinary conviction that He 
was in fellowship God had for the moment given way under 
the pressure of extreme bodily and mental suffering, and a 
mere passing feeling as though He were no longer sustained 
by the power of the divine life had taken its place (comp. 
Gess, p. 196); but this subjective feeling must not be con- 
founded with actual objective desertion on the part of God (in 
opposition to Olshausen and earlier expositors), which in the 
case of Jesus would have been a metaphysical and moral im- 
possibility. The dividing of the exclamation into different parts, 
so as to correspond to the different elements in Christ’s nature,. 
merely gives rise to arbitrary and fanciful views (Lange, 
Ebrard), similar to those which have been based on the meta- 
physical deduction from the idea of necessity (Ebrard). To 
assume, as the theologians have done, that in the distressful 
cry of abandonment we have the vicarious enduring of the wrath 
of God (“ira Dei adversus nostra peccata effunditur in ipsum, 
et sic satisfit justitiae Dei,’ Melanchthon, comp. Luther on 
Ps. xxii., Calvin, Quenstedt), or the infliction of divine punish- 
ment (Kostlin in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. III. 1, p. 125, and 
Weiss himself), is, as in the case of the agony in Gethsemane, 
to go farther than we are warranted in doing by the New 
Testament view of the atoning death of Christ, the vicarious 
character of which is not to be regarded as consisting in an 
objective and actual equivalent. Comp. Remarks after xxvi. 46. 
Others, again, have assumed that Jesus, though quoting only 
the opening words of Ps. xxii, had the whole psalm in view, 
including, therefore, the comforting words with which it con- 
cludes (Paulus, Gratz, de Wette, Bleek ; comp. Schleiermacher, 
Glaubensl. II. p. 141, ed. 4, and LZ. J. p. 457). This, however, 
besides being somewhat arbitrary, gives rise to the incongruity 
of introducing the element of reflection where only pure feeling 
MATT. II. s 


Dap THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


prevailed, as we see exemplified by Hofmann, Schrifibew. II. 1, 
p. 309, who, in accordance with his view that Jesus was 
abandoned to the mercies of an ungodly world, substitutes a 
secondary thought (“request for the so long delayed deliver- 
ance through death”) for the plain and direct sense of the 
words. The authenticity of our Lord’s exclamation, which the 
author of the Wolfenbiittel Fragnents has singularly miscon- 
strued (in describing it as the cry of despair over a lost cause), 
is denied by Strauss (who speaks of Ps. xxii. as having served 
the purpose of a programme of Christ’s passion), while it is 
strongly questioned by Keim, partly on account of Ps. xxi. 
and partly because he thinks that the subsequent accompany- 
ing narrative is clearly (?) of the nature of a fictitious legend. 
But legend would hardly have put the language of despair 
into the mouth of the dying Redeemer, and certainly there 
is nothing in the witticisms that follow to warrant the idea 
that we have here one legend upon another. —ivare] the 
momentary but agonizing feeling that He is abandoned by 
God, impels Him to ask what the divine object of this may 
be. He doubtless knew this already, but the pangs of death 
had overpowered Him (2 Cor. xiii. 4)—a passing anomaly 
as regards the spirit that uniformly characterized the prayers 
of Jesus. — éyxataXeim@] means: to abandon any one to 
utter helplessness. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 9; Acts i. 27; Heb. 
xi. 5; Plat. Conv. p. 179 A; Dem. p. 158, 10, al. ; Kcelus. 
iit, AG, ii. 230) ax. 22 0, 

Ver. 47. A heartless Jewish witticism founded upon a silly 
malicious perversion of the words dé, 7Ad, and not a mis- 
understanding of their meaning on the part of the Roman 
soldiers (Euthymius Zigabenus), or illiterate Jews (Theophy- 
lact, Erasmus, Olshausen, Lange), or Hellenists (Grotius), for 
the whole context introduces us to one scene after another 
of envenomed mockery; see ver. 49.—odtos] that one 
there! pointing Him out among the three who were being 
crucified. 

Ver. 48 f. A touch of sympathy on the part of some one 
who had been moved by the painful cry of Jesus, and who 
would fain relieve Him by reaching Him a cordial. What 


CHAP. XXVII. 50. 275 


a contrast to this in ver. 49! According to John xix. 28, 
Jesus expressly intimated that He was thirsty. Mark xv. 36 
makes it appear that the person who reached the drink to 
Jesus was also one of those who were mocking Him, a dis- 
crepancy which we should make no attempt to reconcile, and 
in which we can have no difficulty in detecting traces of a 
more corrupt tradition. Luke omits this incident altogether, 
though in xxii. 36 he states that by way of mocking our 
Lord the soldiers offered Him the posca just before the darkness 
came on. Strauss takes advantage of these discrepancies so 
as to make it appear that they are but different applications 
of the prediction contained in Ps. lxix., without, however, 
disputing the fact that drink had been given to Jesus on two 
different occasions. —d£ovs] poscae, sour wine, the ordinary 
drink of the Roman soldiers. Comp. ver. 34 and Wetstein 
thereon. — ages] stop! don’t give him anything to drink! we 
want to see whether Elias whom he is invoking as his 
deliverer will come to his help, which help you would render 
unnecessary by giving him drink. — épyetac] placed first 
for sake of emphasis: whether he is coming, does not fail 
coming ! 

Ver. 50. IIdnuv] refers to ver. 46. What did Jesus cry 
in this instance? See John xix. 30, from which Luke xxiii. 
46 diverges somewhat, containing, in fact, an explanatory 
addition to the account of the great closing scene, that is 
evidently borrowed from Ps. xxxi. 6.— agfxe 70 Tvedpa] 
ie. He died. See Herod. iv. 190; Eur. Hee. 571: ddjxe 
mvedpa Oavacino opayn; Kypke, I. p. 140; Gen. xxxv. 18; 
Ecclus, xxxvil. 23; Wisd. xvi. 14. There is no question here 
of a separating of the vedua from the yuy7. See in answer 
to Strobel, Delitzsch, Psych. p. 400 f. The theory of a merely 
apparent death (Bahrdt, Venturini, Paulus) is so decidedly at 
variance with the predictions of Jesus Himself regarding His 
end, as well as with the whole testimony of the Gospel, is so 
utterly destructive of the fundamental idea of the resurrection, 
undermines so completely the whole groundwork of the redemp- 
tion brought about by Christ, is so inconsistent with the accumu- 
lated testimeny of centuries as furnished by the very existence 


276 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


of the church itself, which is based upon the facts of the death 
and the resurrection of Jesus, and requires such a remarkable 
series of other theories and assumptions of an extraordinary 
and supernatural character in order to explain duly authenti- 
cated facts regarding Christ's appearance and actings after 
His resurrection,—that, with friends and foes alike testifying 
to the actual death of Jesus, we are bound at once to dismiss 
it as an utterly abortive attempt to get rid of the physio- 
logical mystery (but see on Luke, Remarks after xxiv. 51) 
of the resurrection. It is true that though those modern 
critics (Strauss, Weisse, Ewald, Schweizer, Schenkel, Volkmar, 
Scholten, Keim) who deny the literal resurrection of Christ’s 
body, and who suggest various ways of accounting for His 
alleged reappearing again on several occasions, do not dis- 
pute the reality of His death, their view is nevertheless 
as much at variance with the whole of the New Testament 
evidence in favour of the resurrection as is the one just 
adverted to. Comp. xxviii. 10, Rem., and Luke xxiv. 51, 
Rem. ' 

Ver. 51 f. Not an ordinary earthquake, but a supernatural 
phenomenon, as was that of the darkness in’ ver. 45.— 
kat idov] “Hie wendet sich’s und wird gar ein neues 
Wesen” [at this point the history enters upon a fresh stage, 
and something entirely new appears], Luther. The style 
of the narrative here is characterized by a simple solemnity, 
among other indications of which we have the frequent 
recurrence of kat.— 70 xataTétacpa] 12757, the veil sus- 
pended before the holy of holies, Ex. xxvi. 31; Lev. xxi. 
23; 1 Mace 1 22; Ecclus. xxx, 5; Heb, vi. 195 Geis 
20. The vending in two (for eis S00, comp. Lucian, TZoz. 
54; Lapith. 44), of which mention is also made by Mark 
and Luke, was not the effect of the convulsion in nature 
(which was a subsequent occurrence), but a divine onpetor, 
accompanying the moment of decease, for the purpose of indi- 
cating that in this atoning death of Jesus the old dispensation 
of sacrifices was being done away, and free access to the 
eracious presence of God at the same time restored. Comp. 
Heb. vi. 19: £, ix.) 6 ff, x. 19 f) To. treat what as) tite 


CHAP. XXVII. 51, 52. 277 


matter of divine symbolism as though it were symbolical 
legend (Schleiermacher, Strauss, Scholten, Keim) is all the 
more unwarrantable that neither in Old Testament prophecy 
nor in the popular beliefs of the Jews do we find anything 
calculated to suggest the formation of any such legend. ‘The 
influence of legend has operated rather in the way of trans- 
forming the rending of the veil into an incident of a more 
imposing and startling nature: “ superliminare (the lintel) 
templt infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum,” 
Evang. sec. Hebr. quoted by Jerome. See Hilgenfeld, WV. 7. 
extr. can. 1V.p.17. The idea underlying this legend was that 
of the destruction of the temple——What follows is peculiar to 
Matthew. The rocks in question were those in the immediate 
neighbourhood, and so also with regard to Ta wvnpeta. The 
opening of the graves is in like manner to be regarded as 
divine symbolism, according to which the death of Jesus 
is to be understood as preparing the way for the future 
resurrection of believers to the eternal life of the Messianic 
kingdom (John i. 14 f., vi. 54). The thing thus signified by 
the divine sign—a sign sufficiently intelligible, and possess- 
ing all the characteristics of a genuine symbol (in opposition 
to Steinmeyer, p. 226)—-was so moulded and amplified in the 
course of tradition that it became ultimately transformed into 
an historical incident : ToANA copata THY KeKoww. ayiov HyépOn, 
«.7.X. For a specimen of still further and more extravagant 
amplification of the material in question—material to which 
Ignatius likewise briefly alludes, ad Magnes. 9, and which he 
expressly mentions, ad Trall. interpol. 9—see Evang. Nicod. 
17 ff. This legend respecting the rising of the Old Testa- 
ment saints (dyiwv) is based upon the assumption of the 
descensus Christi ad wmferos, in the course of which Jesus was 
understood not only to have visitsd them, but also to have 
secured their resurrection (comp. Hv. Nicod.; Ignatius, ad 
Trail. i.c.). But it is quite arbitrary to assume that in 
those who are thus alleged to have risen from their graves 
we have mere “apparitions assuring us of the continued 
existence of the departed” (Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Hug, 
Krabbe, p. 505; Steudel, Glaubensl. p. 455; Bleek). Besides, 


278 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


the legend regarding the rising of the saints on this occasion 
is, in itself considered, no more incompatible with the idea 
of Christ being the arapyi taév Keo. (1 Cor. xv. 20; 
Col. i. 18) than the raising of Lazarus and certain others. 
See on 1 Cor. xv. 20. It is true that, according to Epi- 
phanius, Origen, Ambrose, Luther, Calovius (comp. also 
Delitzsch, Psych. p. 414), the dead now in question came forth 
in spiritual bodies and ascended to heaven ‘along with Christ ; 
but with Jerome it is at the same time assumed, in opposition 
to the terms of our passage, that: “ Von antea resurrexerunt, 
guam Dominus resurgeret, ut esset primogenitus resurrectionis 
cz mortuis ;” comp. also Calvin, and Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 
1, p. 492. In the Acta Pilati as found in Thilo, p. 810, 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, and Noah, are 
expressly mentioned as being among the number of those who 
rose from the dead. The names are given somewhat differently 
in the Evang. Nicod. 

Ver. 53. Mera trnhv éyepotv avtod] is to be taken in 
an active sense (Ps. cxxxix. 2; Plat. Zim. p. 70 C; comp. 
e&éyepaots, Polyb. ix. 15. 4; dvéyepous, Plut. Mor. p. 156 B), 
yet not as though avrod were a genitive of the subject (“ post- 
quam eos Jesus in vitam restituerat,” Fritzsche, which would 
be to make the addition of avrod something like superfluous), 
but a genitive of the object, in which case it is unnecessary to 
say who it was that raised up Christ. The words are not to 
be connected with é&eA@ovtes (de Wette, following the majority 
of the earlier expositors), which would involve the absurd idea 
that those here referred to had been lying in their graves 
alive awaiting the coming of the third day; but, as Heinsius, 
with efondOov. After life was restored they left their 
eraves, but only after the resurrection of Jesus did they 
enter the holy city. Up till then they had kept themselves 
concealed. And this is by no means difficult to understand ; 
for it was only after the resurrection of Jesus that their 
appearing could be of service in the way of bearing testimony 
in favour of Him in whose death the power of Hades was 
supposed to have been vanquished, and hence it was only then 
that their rising found its appropriate explanation. — aylav 


CHAP. XXVII. 54—56. 279 


moAwv] is in keeping with the solemnity of the entire narra- 
tive; comp. iv. 5. 

Ver. 54. ‘O Sé Exarovtapxos] “ Centurio supplicio prae- 
positus,” Seneca, de ira, i. 16. He belonged to the oveipa, 
ver. 27. — ol wet avtod tnpobrtes T. Ina] is to be taken 
as one expression ; see ver. 35 f.—Kal Ta ytvomueva] Kai, 
as in xxvi. 59, and numerous instances besides, serves to con- 
join the general with the particular: and what was taking 
place (generally, that is), viz. the various incidents accompany- 
ing the death of Jesus (ver. 46 ff). The present participle (see 
the critical remarks) is used with reference to things they have 
been witnessing up till the present moment; see Kiihner, IT. 
1, pp. 117, 163.—édoByOncar] they were seized with 
terror, under the impression that all that was happening was 
a manifestation of the wrath of the gods.— @ce0d vids] in 
the mouth of heathens can only denote a son of God in the 
heathen sense of the words (hero, demi-god), the sense in which 
they certainly understood them to be used when they heard 
Jesus accused and mocked. — #v] during His life. 

Ver. 55 f. "Hrorov@ncarv] Here, as in ver. 60 and often 
elsewhere, we have the aorist in the relative clause instead of 
the usual pluperfect.—17 Mayéarnvn] from Magdala (see 
on xv. 39), comp. Luke viii. 2; she is not identical with the 
Mary of John xu. 1 ff, who again has been confounded with 
the sinner of Luke vi. 36. Comp. on xxvi. 6 ff. The 
xvo019 is likewise mentioned in Rabbinical literature (Eisen- 
menger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 277), though this must not be 
confounded with xb», a plaiter of hair, which the Talmud 
alleges the mother of Jesus to have been (Lightfoot, p. 498). 
—% Tod Iax@Bou, «.7.X.] the wife of Alphaeus. See on xiii. 
55; John xix. 25. The mother of Joses is not a different 
Mary from the mother of James (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. £01), 
otherwise we should have had kai 4 tod "Iwo pjtnp. See 
also Mark xv. 47, Remark.— 1 payjrnp tav vidv ZeBed.] 
Salome. Comp. on xx: 20. In John xix. 25 she is desig- 
nated: 1 adedgy Ths puntpos avtov. The mother of Jesus, 
whose presence on this occasion is attested by John, is 
not mentioned by the Synoptists, though at the same time 


280 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


they do not exclude her (in opposition to Schenkel, Keim), 
especially as Matthew and Mark make no express reference 
to any but the women who ministered to the Lord. For 
this reason alone we feel bound to reject the hypothesis 
of Chrysostom and Theophylact, revived by Fritzsche, but 
refuted so long ago by Euthymius Zigabenus,—the hypothesis, 
namely, that it is the mother of Jesus who is meant by Mapia 
9 tod TaxwBov cai Iwoh wyrnp (xiii. 55). So also Hesychius 
of Jerusalem in Cramer’s Catena, p. 256. 

Ver. 57. "Owias Sé yevop.] the so-called first or early 
evening, just before the close of the Jewish day. Deut. xxi. 
22 f.; Joseph. Bell.iv. 5. 2. See also Lightfoot, p. 499. — 
avd Apia.) belongs to avOpwiros wrovcos. Comp. paryot 
amo avatoNov, i. 1. The other evangelists describe him as 
a member of the Sanhedrim; an additional reason for sup- 
posing him to have resided in Jerusalem.—7A0ev] namely, 
to the place of execution, as the context shows, and not to the 
practorium (de Wette, Bleek), to which latter ver. 58 represents 
him as going only after his return from the scene of the 
crucifixion. Arimathia, 0.027 with the article, 1 Sam. i. 1, the 
birthplace of Samuel (see Eusebius, Onom., and Jerome, Hp. 86, 
ad Eustoch. epitaph. Paul. p. 673), and consequently identical 
with Rama (see on ii. 18); LXX.: ’Appabaip.— cat adros] 
et ipse, like those women and their sons, ver. 56. —pwaOnreveuv 
tuvi] to be a disciple of any one; see Kypke, II. p. 141 f. 
Comp. on xiii. 52. He was a secret follower of Jesus, John 
xix. 38. : 

Ver. 58. According to Roman usage, the bodies of criminals 
were left hanging upon the cross, where they were allowed to 
decompose and be devoured by birds of prey. Plaut. mit. glor. 
ii. 4. 9; Horace, Zp. 1.16.48. However, should the relatives 
in any case ask the body for the purpose of burying, there was 
nothing to forbid their request being complied with. Ulpian, 
xlviii. 24. 1, de cadav. punit. ; Hug in the Preyb. Zeitschr. 5, 
p. 174 ff. —poceX8@.] therefore from the place of execution 
to the praetorium. — a7 0b00fvar 76 cd pa] TO saya is due 
not merely to the simple style of the narrative, but in its 
threefold repetition expresses with involuntary emphasis the 





CHAP. XXVII. 59, 60. 281 


author’s own painful sympathy.  dzrodo@. has the force of 
reddi (Vulg.), the thing asked being regarded as the petitioner’s 
own peculiar property. Comp. xxi. 21. 

Ver. 59. “Jam initia honoris,” Bengel.—ocvdove ka- 
Gapa] with pure (unstained linen) linen, the dative of instru- 
ment. Keeping in view the ordinary practice on such 
occasions, it must not be supposed that the reference here is 
to a dress (Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but (comp. Herod. ii. 86) to 
strips or bands (John xix. 40), in which the body was swathed 
after being washed. Comp. Wetstein. Matthew makes no 
mention of spices (John xix. 40), but neither does he exclude 
their use, for he may have meant us to understand that, in 
conformity with the usual practice, they would be put in, as 
matter of course, when the body was wrapped up (in oppo- 
sition to Strauss, de Wette, Keim). Mark xvi. 1 and Luke 
xxiii. 56 represent the putting in of the spices as something 
intended to be done after the burial. This, however, is 
in no way inconsistent with the statement of John, for there 
is no reason why the women may not have supplemented 
with a subsequent and more careful dressing of the body 
(aretfpwow, Mark xvi. 1) what had been done imperfectly, 
because somewhat hurriedly, by Joseph and (see John xix. 39) 
Nicodemus. 

Ver. 60. “O éXatopunoev] Aorist, as in ver. 55.—The 
other evangelists say nothing about the grave having belonged 
to Joseph; John xix. 42 rather gives us to understand 
that, owing to the necessary despatch, it was made choice of 
from its being close at hand. We thus see that Matthew’s 
account is unsupported by the earlier testimony of Mark 
on the one hand, and the later testimony of Luke and 
John on the other. This, however, only goes to confirm the 
view that in Matthew we have a later amplification of the 
tradition which was expunged again by Luke and John, for 
this latter at least would scarcely have left unnoticed the 
devotion evinced by Joseph in thus giving up his own tomb, 
and yet it is John who distinctly alleges a different reason 
altogether for the choice of the grave. The ordinary supposi- 
tion, that Matthew’s account is intended to supplement those 


282 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


of the other evangelists, fails to meet the exigencies of the 
case, especially in regard to John, on whom so tender a feature 
in connection with the burial would doubtless have made too 
deep an impression to admit of his passing it over in silence. 
——As a new grave was calculated to do honour to Jesus 
(comp. on John as above), the circumstance that this one had 
not been previously used may have gone far to determine 
the choice, so that there is no ground for supposing that 
what is said with reference to this has been added without 
historical warrant (Strauss, Scholten).—év 79 wérpa] The 
article is to be understood as indicating a rocky place just at 
hand.— 1h Ovpa] Comp. Hom. Od. ix. 243: mérpny éréOnne 
Ovpnow. In Rabbinical phraseology the stone used for this 
purpose is called 25ia, a roller. See Paulus, exeget. Handb. 
III. p. 819. Such a mode of stopping up graves is met 
with even in the present day (Strauss, Sinai u. Golgatha, 
p. 205). 

Ver. 61. "Hv dé éxet] present at the burial. — 7) adr 
Map.] see ver. 56. The article is wanting only in A D*, 
and should be maintained, Wieseler (Chronol. Synops. p. 427) 
notwithstanding. Its omission in the case of A may be 
traced to the reading % Iwan, which this Ms. has at Mark 
xv. 47. Wieseler approves of this reading, and holds the 
Mary of our text to be the wife or daughter of Joseph of 
Arimathea. But see remark on Mark xy. 47. — xcaOnpevat, 
k.7..| unoccupied, absorbed in grief; comp. Nagelsbach on 
Hom. J. i. 154. 

Ver. 62."H tts éoti wera tHv Tapack.] which follows the 
day of preparation, i.e. on Saturday. For wapackev’n is used 
to designate the day that immediately precedes the Sabbath 
(as in the present instance) or any of the feast days. Comp. on 
John xix. 14. According to the Synoptists, the mapacxevn of 
the Sabbath happened to coincide this year with the first day 
of the feast, which might also properly enough be designated 
oaBParov (Ley. xxiii. 11, 15),—this latter circumstance being, 
according to Wieseler (Synops. p. 417), the reason why Matthew 
did not prefer the simpler and more obvious expression #r1s 
é€ott ca8Parov ; an expression which, when used in connection 


CHAP. XXVII. 63, 64. 283 


with the days of the Passover week, was liable to be misunder- 
stood. But Matthew had already spoken so definitely of 
the first day of the feast as that on which Jesus was crucified 
(see xxvi. 17-xxvii. 1), that he had no cause to apprehend 
any misunderstanding of his words had he chosen to write 
Hts éott caBRatov. But as little does that precise state- 
ment regarding the day permit us to suppose that the expres- 
sion in question has been made to turn on the divergent 
narrative of John (in opposition to de Wette). The most 
natural explanation of the peculiar phraseology: %Tus éott 
peta T. Tapack., is to be found in that Christian usage 
according to which the wapacke’n (ie. the mpocaBPBaror, 
Mark xv. 42) has come to be the recognised designation for 
the Friday of the crucifixion. Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel 
suppose that it is the part of Friday after sunset that is 
intended, by which time, therefore, the Sabbath had begun. 
This, however, is distinctly precluded by 7H ésravpuov. 

Ver. 63. “EpvyjcOnpev] we have remembered, it has just 
occurred to us, the sense being purely that of the aorist and 
not of the perfect (in opposition to de Wette).— éxetvos 
6 wAdvos] that deceiver (2 Cor. vi. 8), impostor; Justin, c. Tr. 
69: AaowAavos. Without once mentioning His name, they 
contemptuously allude to Him as one now removed to a 
distance, as got rid of by death. This is a sense in which 
exeivos is frequently used by Greek authors (Schoem. ad Js. 
p- 177 ; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 559). — éyelpopac] present ; 
marking the confidence with which he affirmed it. 

Ver. 64. Kat €orac] is more lively and natural when not 
taken as dependent on pote. The Vulgate renders cor- 
rectly: et erit.—1 éoxyatn wavy] the last error (see on 
Eph. iv. 14), that, namely, which would gain ground among the 
credulous masses, through those who might steal away the 
body of Jesus pretending that He had risen from the dead. 
—Ths mpwotns| which found acceptance with the multitude 
through giving out and encouraging others to give out that 
He was the Messiah. —ye/pwv] worse, i.e. more fatal to 
public order and security, etc. For the use of this expression, 
comp. x1°45; 2 Sam. xiii. 15. 


I84t THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


Ver. 65 f. Pilate’s reply is sharp and peremptory. — éyete 
xkovoT@odtav]| with Luther, Vatablus, Wolf, Paulus, de Wette, 
Keim, Steinmeyer, éyeve is to be taken as an imperative, 
habetote (comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7.11; Mark ix. 50, xi. 22; 
Soph. Phil. 778): ye shall have a watch! For if it be taken 
as an indicative, as is generally done in conformity with the 
Vulgate, we must not suppose that the reference is to Roman 
soldiers (Grotius, Fritzsche), for the Sanhedrim had not any 
such placed at their disposal, not even to the detachment that 
guarded the cross (Kuinoel), for its duties were now over, but 
simply to the ordinary temple guards. But it is evident from 
xxvii. 14 that it was not these latter who were set to watch 
the grave. This duty was assigned to a company of Roman 
soldiers, which company the Acta Pil. magnifies into a cohort. 
— os oldaTe] as, by such means as, ye know how to prevent vt, 
Z.e.in the best way you can. The idea: “vereor autem, ut 
satis communire illud possitis” (Fritzsche), is foreign to the 
text.— peta ths KoveTwdias] belongs to jogadric. tr. Tad. ; 
they secured the grave by means of (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. 
p. 530 D) the watch, which they posted in front of it. The 
intervening odpayic. Tt. lO. is to be understood as having 
preceded the jodanr. 7. T. peta Tt. Kovot.: after they had sealed 
the stone. To connect peta tT. koveTwd. with oppayic. (Chry- 
sostom) would result either in the feeble and somewhat 
inappropriate idea that the watch had helped them with the 
sealing (Bleek), or in the harsh and unnecessary assumption 
that our expression is an abbreviation for peta Tod mpocOetvas 
THv KoveTwolav (Fritzsche). — odpayic.] Comp. Dan. vi. 17. 
The sealing was effected by stretching a cord across the stone 
at the mouth of the sepulchre, and then fastening it to the rock 
at either cnd by means of sealing-clay (Paulsen, Regier. d. 
Morgenl. p. 298 ; Harmar, Beobacht. II. p. 467); or if the stone 
at the door happened to be fastened with a cross-beam, this 
latter was sealed to the rock (Strauss, Sinai wand Golgatha, 
p. 205). 


REMARK.—As it is certain that Jesus cannot have predicted 
His resurrection in any explicit or intelligible manner even to 
His own disciples; as, moreover, it is impossible to suppose 


CHAP, XXVII. 285 


that the women who visited the grave’on the resurrection 
morning could have contemplated embalming the body, or 
would have concerned themselves merely about how the stone 
was to be rolled away, if they had been aware that a watch had 
been set, and that the grave had been sealed; and finally, as 
the supposition that Pilate complied with the request for a 
guard, or at all events, that the members of the Sanhedrim so 
little understood their own interest as both to leave the body of 
Jesus in the hands of His followers instead of taking possession 
of it themselves, and to bribe the soldiers to give false testimony 
instead of duly calling them to account, as they might have 
done, for their culpable neglect, is in the highest degree im- 
probable, just as much so as the idea that the procurator would 
be likely to take no notice of a dereliction of duty on the part 
of his own soldiers, who, by maintaining the truth of a very 
stupid fabrication, would only be proclaiming how much they 
themselves were to blame in the matter: it follows that the 
story about the watching of the grave—a story which is further 
disproved by the fact that nowhere in the discussions belonging 
to the apostolic age do we find any reference confirmatory or 
otherwise to the alleged stealing of the body—must be referred 
to the category of unhistorical legend. And a clue to the origin 
of this legend is furnished by the evangelist himself in mention- 
ing the rumour about the stealing of the body,—a rumour 
emanating to all appearance from a Jewish source, and circu- 
lated with the hostile intention of disproving the resurrection of 
Jesus (Paulus, exeg. Handb. 111. p. 837 ff.; Strauss, II. p, 562 ff. ; 
Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 458 ff.; Weisse, Ewald, Hase, Bleek, 
Keim, Scholten, Hilgenfeld). The arguments advanced by Hug 
in the Freyburg. Zeitschr. 1831, 3, p. 184 ff. ; 5, p. 80 ff.; Kuinoel, 
Hofmann, Krabbe, Ebrard, Lange, Riggenbach, Steinmeyer, 
against the supposition of a legend, resolve themselves into 
arbitrary assumptions and foreign importations which simply 
leave the matter as historically incomprehensible as ever. The 
same thing may be said with regard to the emendation which 
Olshausen takes the liberty of introducing, according to which 
it is made to appear that the Sanhedrim did not act in their 
corporate capacity, but that the affair was managed simply 
on the authority of Caiaphas alone. Still the unhistorical 
character of the story by no means justifies the assumption 
of an interpolation (in opposition to Stroth in Eichhorn’s 
ftepert. 1X. p. 141),—an interpolation, too, that would have 
had to be introduced into three different passages (xxvii. 62, 66, 
xxvii. 4, 11 ff); yet one can understand how this apocryphal 


286 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


story should have most readily engrafted itself specially and 
exclusively upon the Gospel of Matthew, a Gospel originating in 
Judaeo-Christian circles, and having, by this time, the more 
developed form in which it has come down to us. For a further 
amplification of the legend, see Lv. Nicod. 14. 


CHAP, XXVIII. 287 


CHAPTER XXVIII 


VER. 2. dri 7. dbpas]| is wanting in B DR, 60, 84, Vulg. It. Or. 
Dion. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Exegetical addition, 
which many witnesses have supplemented still further by 
adding rod wvnueiou (Mark xvi. 3). — Ver. 6. 6 xdpso¢] is wanting, 
no doubt, only in Bx, 33, 102, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Ar.’ one Cod. 
of the It. Or.** Chrys. ; but, with Tisch. it is to be condemned. 
This designation is foreign to Matth., while as “gloriosa appel- 
latio” (Bengel) it was more liable to be inserted than omitted. 
— Ver. 8. 2&A9.] Tisch.: dazed, following BC Lx, 33, 69, 124. 
Correctly ; the more significant reading of the Received text is 
derived from Mark. — Ver. 9. Before xa idod the Received text 
Inserts: ws 62 éropebovro dwuyysirAas rors madras airod. No such 
clause is found in B D 8, min. Syr. Ar.” Perss. Copt. Arm. Vulg. 
Sax. It. Or. Eus. Jer. Aug. Defended by Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, 
Scholz, Bornem. (Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix.); condemned by Mill, 
Bengel, Gersd., Schulz, Rinck, Lachm., Tisch. There would be 
nothing feeble or awkward about the words if thus inserted, on the 
contrary, the effect would be somewhat solemn (see Bornem.) ; 
but seeing that they are wanting in witnesses so ancient and so 
important, and seeing that #< is not found in this sense anywhere 
else in Matth. (other grammatical grounds mentioned by Gersd. 
are untenable), there is reason to suspect that they are an early 
addition for the sake of greater precision. — Ver. 11. For azjyy. 
read, with Tisch. 8, dvjyy., though only in accordance with D x, 
Or. Chrys. The Received reading is taken from ver. 10, while 
dvayyérArzw occurs nowhere else in Matthew. — Ver. 14. éai rod 
ny.| Lachm.: iv rod 7y., following B D, 59, Vulg. It. But this 
is an explanatory correction in consequence of not catching the 
sense. — Ver. 15. Lachm. inserts jyuépas after ofmepov, in accord- 
ance with BD L. Correctly; as Matth. does not add jmép. in 
any other instance (xi. 25, xxvil. 8), it was more natural for the 
transcriber to omit than to insert it.— Ver. 17. air@] is 
wanting in B DX, 33, 102, Vulg. It. Chrys. Aug. Deleted by 
Lachm. and Tisch. 8. A somewhat common addition, for which 








288 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


other Mss. (min.) have airév.— Ver. 19. After ropevd. Elz. inserts 
ody, Which is bracketed by Lachm. and deleted by Matth. and 
Tisch. Added as a connecting particle, but wanting in very im- 
portant witnesses, while other and less important ones have viv. 


Ver. 1. On the various ways of viewing and interpreting 
the story of the resurrection, see, as regards their critical aspect, 
Keim, III. p. 527 ff.; and on the apologetic side, consult 
Steinmeyer, Apolog. Beitr. III. 1871. — owé 6€ caBBartor| 
but late on the Sabbath, means neither . . . after the close of 
the Sabbath (Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, 
Bleek), nor: after the close of the week (Severus of Antioch, 
Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Wieseler, p. 425) ; for dwé, sero, 
with a defining genitive (without which it occurs nowhere 
else in the New Testament) always denotes the lateness of 
the period thus specified and still current (Ta TedXevTaia TovTaY, 
Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. in general, Kriiger, § xlvu. 10. 
4; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 292. Take the following as examples of 
this usage from classical authors: Xen. Hist. ii. 1. 14; Thue. 
iv. 93. 1: Ths jpepas owe; Dem. p. 541, ult.: dé tis dpas 
éylyveto; Luc. Dem. enc. 14, and de morte Peregr. 21: 
owe Tis HAtKias. Hence by: late on the Sabbath, we are not 
to suppose Saturday evening to be intended,—any such mis- 
understanding being precluded both by the nature of the ex- 
pression made use of, an expression by no means synonymous 
with the usual dydas yevopeévys (in opposition to Keim), and by 
what is still further specified immediately after,—but far on 
in the Saturday night, after midnight, toward daybreak on Sun- 
day, in conformity with the civil mode of reckoning, according 
to which the ordinary day was understood to extend from 
sunrise till sunrise again. Lightfoot, comparing the Rabbinical 
expression Nl’ ‘p'b2, aptly observes: “ oye totam noctem 
denotat.’ Comp. so early a writer as Augustine, de cons. ev. 
24. Consequently the point of time mentioned here is 
substantially identical with that given in Luke xxiv. 1: 77 
pia THY caBRatwv dpOpov Babéos, and in John xx. 1: 7H wa 
Tov caBB. Tpwt cKoTias Ett ovens; while, on the other hand, 
Mark xvi. 2 represents the sun as already risen. For owé, 
comp. Ammonius: éomépa pév yap éotw 1 peta THY SvoW TOD 


CHAP. XXVIII. 1. 289 


Hriov Opa’ dé SE  pweTa TOV Ths dUVcEWsS.— TH eTLpwcK. 
els plav caBBatwrv| when it was dawning toward Sunday, 
ze. as the light was beginning to appear on the morning of 
Sunday. Understand 7épa after erupwor.; and for émupockes 
% nwépa, comp. Herod. iii. 86: dw’ nuépn Scadwcxovcn, also 
ix. 45. The participial expression without the mpépa is 
similar to 7 émvca, and the like (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 228). 
Keim supposes the evening to be intended, since, according to 
the Jewish mode of reckoning, the day began with the rising 
of the stars or the lighting of lamps, so that the meaning of 
our passage would be as follows: “Jn the evening after six 
o'clock, just when the stars were beginning to twinkle.”* But to 
say nothing of the startling discrepancy that would thus arise 
between Matthew and the other evangelists, we would be 
under the necessity, according to Luke xxiii. 54 (see on the 
passage), of understanding the words immediately following as 
simply equivalent to: 7) ula caBBdtav éeridwokovcn ; comp. 
caBBatov éeripwoxer, Ev. Nicod. 12, p. 600, Thilo’s edition. 
Nor, if we adopt Keim’s interpretation, is it at all clear what 
substantive should be understood along with 77 émiwor. 
Ewald, Apost. Zeit. p. 82, unwarrantably supplies éovépg, and, 
like Keim, supposes the reference to be to the evening lighting 
of the lamps, though he is inclined to think that Matthew in- 
tended summarily to include in his statement what the women 
did on Saturday evening and early on Sunday, a view which 
finds no support whatever in the text; as for the intention to 
embalm the body, there is no trace of such a thing in Matthew. 
Lastly, to suppose that in framing his statement as to the 
time here in question, the author of our revised Gospel has 
had recourse to a combination of Mark xvi. 1 and 2 (Weiss), 
is to give him but little credit for literary skill; for instead 
of taking the trouble to form any such combination, he had 
only to take Mark’s two statements and place the one after 
the other, thus: Ssayevouevov tod caBBatov, Mav Tpwl Tis 


‘1 This idea of Keim’s about the twinkling of the stars is an importation; for 
the expression ixi¢ocxer, as applied to the evening, has reference only ¢o tho 
ordinary domestic lighting of the lamps. See in particular, Lightfoot on Luke 
xxiii. 54, 

MATT. IL, T 


290 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


pias caBBatwv. But so far from that, he has proceeded in 
entire independence of Mark. — The expression pia caBBatov 
corresponds exactly to the Rabbinical mode of designating the 
days of the week: nawa Jnx, Sunday; nawa uw, Monday; 
naw. -wsy, Tuesday, and so on. See Lightfoot, p. 500. 
Observe that ca8Bata denotes, in the first instance, Sabbath, 
and then week ; and similarly, that the juépa to be understood 
with éidwor. is to be taken in the sense of day light (John 
ix. 4, xi. 9; Rom. xiii, 12; 1 Thess. v. 5).— 7 &dAn Mapia] 
as in xxvii. 56.—In John xx. 1 only Mary Magdalene is 
mentioned, whereas in the Synoptists we have an amplified 
version of the tradition as regards the number of the women, 
Matthew mentioning two, Mark three (Salome), while 
Luke (xxiv. 10) gives us to understand that, in addition 
to the two Marys and Joanna, whom he specially names, 
there were several others. In dealing with such discrepancies 
in the tradition we should beware of seeking to coerce the 
different narratives into harmony with one another, which 
can never be done without prejudice to their respective authors. 
We see an illustration of this in the supposition that Mary 
Magdalene came /irst of all to the grave, and then hastened 
back to the city to inform Peter of what had taken place, and 
that during her absence Mary the mother of James, Joanna, 
Salome, and the other women arrived (Olshausen, Ebrard). 
Comp. on John xx. 1. The same thing is exemplified by 
the other view, that Mary Magdalene went to the grave 
along with the rest of the women, but that on the way back 
she outran the others, etc. For the various attempts to 
harmonize the divergent narratives, see Griesbach, Opuse. II. 
p. 241 ff.; Strauss, II. p. 570 ff; Wieseler, p. 425 ff. — 
Oewphnoat tov tagor] to look at the grave; according to 
Mark and Luke, to anoint the body. This latter statement 
is the more original and more correct of the two, though 
Matthew could not consistently adopt it after what he had 
said about the sealing and watching of the grave. 

Ver. 2. It is wrong to take the aorists in a pluperfect sense 
(Castalio, Kuinoel, Kern, Ebrard), or to conceive of the action of 
the 7A0e as not yet completed (de Wette). Matthew repre- 


CIIAP., XXVIII. 3-6. 291 


sents what is here recorded as taking place in presence of the 
women (nrOe... Oewpfoat... Kai iSov), whose attention, however, 
had been so much occupied with the accompanying phenomena, 
that they did not observe (vv. 5, 6) the circumstance itself of 
our Lord’s emerging from the grave (which, besides, must have 
been invisible to the outward eye owing to the nature of 
the body He had now assumed, comp. on ver. 17). The other 
evangelists make no mention of this (legendary) super- 
natural and visible rolling away of the stone; and, though 
differing as to the number of the angels, they agree in 
representing them as having appeared inside the grave. Here, 
if anywhere, however, amid so much that is supernatural, 
must we be prepared to expect divergent accounts of what 
took place, above all in regard to the angelic manifestations, 
which are matters depending on individual observation and 
experience (comp. on John xx. 12), and not the objective 
perceptions of impartial and disinterested spectators. — yap] 
assigning the reason for the violent earthquake which, as a 
divine onpetov, formed an appropriate accompaniment to this 
miraculous angelic manifestation. — «. éxaO7TO9, K.7.A.] as the 
heaven-sent guardian and interpreter of the empty tomb. 

Ver. 3 f. ‘H idéa avtod] his appearance, his outward 
aspect, found nowhere else in the New Testament, though 
occurring in Dan. i.15, 2 Mace. ii. 16, and frequently in 
classical authors. On the relation of this term to eiéos, see 
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 596 A, and Parmen. p. 128 E; 
and comp. Ameis on Hom. Qd. ix. 508, Appendix. The 
appearance of the countenance is meant; see what fol- 
lows. Comp. xvii. 2.—@s dotpamy7] not: as having the 
form, but as shining with the brightness of lightning. Comp. 
Plat. Phaedr. p. 254 B: eidov thy ow aotparrovoay, For 
the white raiment, comp. 2 Macc. xi 8; Acts 1.10. The 
sentinels were convulsed (éce(c@ncav, 3 Esdr. iv. 36) with 
error at the sight of the angel (avrod), and became as powerless 
as though they had been dead. The circumstance of these 
latter being mentioned again at this point is in strict 
keeping with the connection of Matthew’s narrative. 

Ver. 5 f. AcroxptOeis] said in view of the terrifying effect 


292 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


‘which he saw was being produced upon the women by what 
was taking place. Comp. on xi. 25.— p17 poBeiobe bpeis]. 
Umeis is neither to be understood as a vocative (0 vos /), nor to 
be referred to what follows (both of which Fritzsche has sug- 
gested) ; but, as the simplicity of the address and a due regard 
to the sense require, is to be taken thus: ye should not be 
afraid, duets being thus regarded as forming a contrast to the 
sentinels, who are paralyzed with terror. To say that no par- 
ticular emphasis ever rests upon the personal pronoun (de 
Wette) is to say what, as regards the whole of the New Tes- 
tament, is simply not the case (instance also Mark xiii. 9; 
Acts viii. 24).— ofSa yap, «.7.r.] Ground of the reassuring 
terms in which the angel addresses them; he knows the loving 
purpose for which they are come, and what joyful news he 
has to tell then! 

Ver. 7. IIpodyes] he is im the act of going before you to 
Galilee ; 67e is recitative. Bengel correctly observes: “ Verba 
discipulis dicenda se porrigunt usque ad videbitis.” Accord- 
ingly buds and éyeoGe refer to the disciples (comp. xxvi. 32), 
not to the women as well, who, in fact, saw Jesus forth- 
with; and see ver. 10. For the meeting itself, which is 
here promised, see ver. 16 ff. — éxei] therefore not previously 
in Jerusalem or anywhere else in Judaea. Between what is 
here stated and the narratives of Luke and John there is a 
manifest and irreconcilable difference. In the Stud. u. Krit. 
1869, p. 532 ff, Graf still tries in vain to make out a case in 
favour of assuming, as matter of course, the expiry of the 
festival period before the mpodyes and 6. Observe, moreover, 
the dyeoGe; on no earlier occasion than that of their meeting 
in Galilee were they to be favoured with a sight of Him. — etrov 
tpiv] I have told you it, in the sense of: take this as my 
intimation of the fact (see on John vi. 36), thus conjoining 
with the announcement a hint carefully to note how certainly 
it will be verified by the result. It is wrong, therefore, to 
suppose that for ei7rov we should read efzrev, after Mark xvi. 7 
(Maldonatus, Michaelis), in which case some assume an error 
in translation (Bolten, Eichhorn, Buslav, de ling. orig. ev. M. 
p. 67); others, an error on the part of the transcriber (Schol- 


CHAP. XXVIII. 8-10. 293 


ten); and others, again, an erroneous use of Mark (Schnecken- 
burger, Holtzmann). The (Sov, etzroy iptv is here peculiar to 
Matthew. 

Ver. 8. Mera PoBou, éd’ ois cidov rapadofous peta yapas 
dé, éf ois yKovoav evayyedtous, Euthymius Zigabenus.— 
feyaAns] applying to both substantives. For similar in- 
stances of the mingling of fear with joy (Virg. Aen. i. 514, 
xi. 807, al.), consult Wetstein; Koster in the Stud. u. 
Krit. 1862, p. 351. 

Ver. 9. On seeing the strange and superhuman appearance 
presented by the risen Lord, the women are so filled with 
consternation (u poPetcGe, ver. 10) that they take hold of 
His feet in a suppliant attitude (€xpdar. avtod tr. modas), and 
testify their submission and reverence by the act of rpooKxtvy- 
ots. Bengel says correctly: “Jesum ante passionem alii 
potius alieniores adorarunt quam descipuli.” 

Ver. 10. My) hoBeicbe: timadyete, amayy.| Asyndeton, 
the matter being pressing, urgent. —- Tot’s adeXgois wov] He 
thus designates His disciples (comp. on John xx. 17; Justin, c¢. 
Tr. 106), not mpos tyunv aitav (Euthymius Zigabenus), for 
which there was no occasion, but in view of that conception 
of Him as a superhuman being which had so profoundly im- 
pressed the women prostrate at His feet.—iva] does not state 
the purport of the order involved in azrayy. (de Wette; there 
is nothing whatever of the nature of an order about dzray.), 
but the idea is: take word to my brethren (namely, about 
my resurrection, about your having seen me, about my 
having spoken to you, and what I said), in order that 
(as soon as they receive these tidings from you) they may 
proceed to Galilee, xxvi. 32.—kaxet we Govrac] is not 
to| be regarded as dependent on wa, but: and there they 
shall see me. This repetition of the directions about going to 
Galilee (ver. 7), to which latter our evangelist gives con- 
siderable prominence as the scene of the new reunion 
(ver. 16 ff.), cannot be characterized as superfluous (de Wette, 
Bruno Bauer), or even as poor and meaningless (Keim), 
betraying the hand of a later editor, but is intended to be 
express and emphatic ; comp. Steinmeyer. With the exception 


294 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


of John xxi., the other canonical Gospels, in which, however, 
we cannot include the spurious conclusion of Mark, make no 
mention of any appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee; 
according to John xx., Jesus remained at least eight days 
in Jerusalem, as did also His disciples, to whom He there 
manifested Himself on two occasions, though it would appear 
from John xxi. that the third manifestation took place in 
Galilee, while Luke, on the other hand (xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4, 
xiii. 31), excludes Galilee altogether, just as Matthew excludes 
Judaea. To harmonize these divergent accounts is impossible 
(Strauss, II. p. 558 ff.; Holtzmann, p. 500 f.; Keim); 
and, with regard to the account of Matthew in particular, 
it may be observed that it is so far from assuming the 
manifestations to the disciples in Judaea as having previously 
occurred (in opposition to Augustine, Olshausen, Krabbe, 
Ebrard, Lange), that it clearly intends the meeting with the 
eleven, ver. 16 ff, as the jirst appearance to those latter, and 
as the one that had been promised by the angel, ver. 7,and by 
Jesus Himself, ver. 10. From those divergent accounts, how- 
ever, it may be fairly inferred that the tradition regarding the 
appearances of the. risen Lord to His disciples assumed a 
threefold shape: (1) the purely Galilaean, which is that adopted 
by Matthew ; (2) the purely Judaean, which is that of Luke, 
and also of John with the supplementary ch. xxi. left out; 
(3) the combined form in which the appearances both in 
Galilee and Judaea are embraced, which is that of John 
with the supplementary chapter in question included, 
That Jesus appeared to the disciples both in Jerusalem 
and in Galilee as well might be already deduced as a 
legitimate historical inference from the fact of a distinct 
Judaean and Galilaean tradition having been current; but 
the matter is placed beyond a doubt by John, if, as we 
are entitled to assume, the apostle is to be regarded as the 
author of ch. xxi. The next step, of course, is to regard it 
as an ascertained historical fact that the appearances in Judaea 
preceded those in Galilee; though, at the same time, it should 
not ‘be forgotten that Matthew's account is not merely vague 
and concise (Bleek), but that it, in fact, ignores the appearances 


CHAP. XXVIII. 10. 295 


in Judaea altogether, entirely excludes them as being unsuited 
to the connection; comp. Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 465 f. 
Now, as this is inconceivable in the case of Matthew the 
apostle, we are bound to infer from our narrative that this is 
another of those passages in our Gospel which show traces of 
other than apostolic authorship. See Introd. § 2. 


ReMARK.—It is evident from 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff. that, even taking 
the narratives of all the evangelists together, we would have but 
an imperfect enumeration of the appearances of Jesus subsequent 
to His resurrection, Matthew’s account being the most deficient 
of any. With regard to the appearances themselves, modern 
criticism, discarding the idea that the death was only apparent 
(see on xxvii. 50), has treated them partly as subjective creations, 
either of the intellect (Strauss, Scholten), in its efforts to 
reconcile the Messianic prophecies and the belief in the 
Messiah with the fact of His death, or of ecstatic vision (Baur, 
Strauss, 1864; Holsten, Ewald), and therefore as mere mental 
phenomena which came to be embodied in certain objective 
incidents. There are those again who, attributing the appear- 
ances in question to some oljective influence emanating from 
Christ Himself, have felt constrained to regard them as real 
manifestations of His person in the glorified form (Schenkel) in 
which it emerged from out of death (not from the grave),—a 
view in which Weisse, Keim, Schweizer substantially concur, 
inasmuch as Keim, in particular, lays stress on the necessity of 
“such a telegram from heaven” after the extinction of Christ’s 
earthly nature, though he considers the question as to whether 
our Lord also communicated the form of the vision directly or 
only indirectly, as of but secondary consequence. But all these 
attempts to treat what has been recorded as an actual fact as 


‘Rud. Hofmann (de Berg Galiléa, 1856), following certain early expositors, 
has attempted to explain the discrepancies between the various narratives by 
maintaining that 4 Teaiaeia, Matt. xxviil., is not the country, but a mountain 
of this name, namely, the northmost of the three peaks of the Mount of Olives. 
But nowhere in the New Testament do we find such a designation applied to 
any locality but the well-known province of that name ; nor, if we interpret 
fairly the passages quoted by Hofmann from Tertullian (Apol. 21), Lactantius 
(iv. 19), and Chrysostom, are we able to find in them any allusion to a mountain 
called Galilee; and surely it is not to be presumed that anything of a trust- 
worthy nature can be learnt as to the existence of such a mountain from the 
confusions of a certain corrupt part of the text in the Hvang. Nicod. 14; sea 
already, Thilo, ad Cod, Apocr. I. p. 620 f, 


296 TUE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


though it were based merely on mental phenomena are in 
opposition in general to the explicit and wnhesitating view of all 
the evangelists and apostles as well as in particular to the uniform 
reference to the empty grave, and no less uniform use of the 
expression third day, all classical testimonies which can never be 
silenced. If,in addition to all this, it be borne in mind that the 
apostles found in the resurrection of their Lord a living and un- 
failing source of courage and hope, and of that cheerfulness with 
which they bore suffering and death,—that the apostolic church 
generally saw in it the foundation on which its own existence 
was based,—that Paul, in particular, insists upon it as incon- 
trovertible evidence for, and as an d&rapy7 of the resurrection of 
the body (1 Cor. xv. 23; Rom viii. 11), and as constituting an 
essential factor in man’s justification (Rom. iv. 25; Phil. 11. 10), 
though he is fond of speaking of being buried and raised up 
with Christ as descriptive of what is essential to the moral 
standing of the Christian (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12), and can only 
conceive of the glorified body of the Lord, to which those of 
believers will one day be conformed (Phil. ii. 21), as no other 
than that which came forth from the grave and was taken up to 
heaven,—if, we say, this be borne in mind, not the shadow of 
an exegetical pretext will be left for construing the resurrection 
from the grave of one whose body was exempted from corrup- 
tion (Acts ii. 31, x. 41) into something or other which might 
be more appropriately described as a resurrection from the cross, 
and which would therefore require us to suppose that all the 
apostles and the whole church from the very beginning had 
been the victims of a delusion. See, in answer to Keim, 
Schmidt in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1872, p. 413 ff If this 
view of the resurrection were adopted, then, in opposition once 
more to New Testament authority, we should have to identify it 
with the ascension (comp. on Luke xxiv. 51, Remark); while, 
on the other hand, it would be necessary to give up the Des- 
census Christi ad inferos as a second error arising out of that 
which has just been referred to. 


Ver. 11. ITopevop. dé adt.] but while they were going away, 
to convey the intelligence to the disciples, ver. 10. While, 
therefore, the women are still on their way, the soldiers in 
question repair to the city and report to the high priests what 
had happened. 

Ver. 12 ff. SuvayOévres] Change of subject. Winer, p. 
586 [E. T. 787]. — cupBovr. te AaBovtes] after consulting 


CHAP, XXVIII. 16. 297 


together, as in xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. 1, 7. The conjunctive 
particle te has the same force as in xxvii. 48, and occurs no- 
where else in Matthew; found so much the more frequently 
in Luke’s writings, especially in the Acts. — adpyvpza] as in 
xxvi. 15, xxvil. 3, 5, 9. Silver pieces, a sufficient number of 
shekels. — etvrare, x... | an infelix astutia (Augustine), seeing 
that they could not possibly know what had taken place while 
they were sleeping. — Ver. 14. él tod iyepovos] coram 
procuratore. axovevv is not to be understood, with the majority 
of expositors, merely in the sense of: to come to the ears of, 
which is inadmissible on account of ézé (for in that case 
Matthew would have simply written: kai éav axovon TodTo o 
ny., or used the passive with the dative), but in the judicial 
sense (John vii. 51; Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 14, and frequently): if 
this comes to be inquired into, if an investigation into this matter 
should take place before the procurator. Erasmus: “sires apud 
illum judicem agatur.” Comp. Vatablus and Bleek—ypets] 
with a self-important emphasis. Comp. tas in the next clause. 
—Telcopev avtov] we will persuade him, ie. satisfy, appease 
him (see on Gal. i. 10), in order, that is, that he may not 
punish you; see what follows. — dwepiuvous] free from 
all concern (1 Cor. vil. 32), and, in the present instance, in 
the objective sense: free from danger and all unpleasant con- 
sequences (Herodian, ii. 4. 3).— Ver. 15. ws éd:day0.] as 
they had been instructed, Herod. iii. 134.—o Aoyos odTos | 
not: “the whole narrative” (Paulus), but, as the context 
requires (ver. 13), this story of the alleged stealing of the body. 
The industrious circulation of this falsehood is also mentioned 
by Justin, ¢«. 7r. xvi. 108. For an abominable expansion 
of it, as quoted from the Toledoth Jeschu, see Eisenmenger’s 
entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 190 ff. For 7) onpepov jpépa, see 
Lobeck, Paral. p. 534. 

Ver. 16. The eleven disciples, in accordance with the 
directions given them, ver. 10, proceeded to Galilee, to the 
mountain, ete. — ob éta£ato, x.7.X.] an additional particular 
as to the locality in question, which the women received, ver. 
10, and had subsequently communicated to the disciples. 
The od, wbi, is to be regarded as also including the preceding 


298 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


whither (to go and abide there), Luke x. 1, xxii. 10, xxiv. 28; 
Winer, p. 439 f. [E. T. 592]; Kiihner, IT. 1, p. 473. 

Ver. 17. "Idovrtes, «.7.A.] According to the account now 
before us, evidently the first occasion of meeting again since 
the resurrection, and the jirst impression produced by it— 
corresponding to the odeoGe of vv. 7,10. See, besides, on 
ver. 10.—oi d€ édictacav] It was previously said in a 
general way that the eleven fell prostrate before Him, though 
all did not do so: some doubted whether He, whom they saw 
before them, could really be Jesus. This particular is added 
by means of of 6é, which, however, is not preceded by a 
corresponding of wév before tpocex’vncav, because this latter 
applied to the majority, whereas the doubters, who did not 
prostrate themselves, were only the exception. Had Matthew's 
words been: of wev Tpocexvvncar, ot O€ edictacay, he would 
thus have represented the eleven as divided into two co- 
ordinate parts, into as nearly as possible two halves, and so 
have stated something different from what was intended. 
This is a case precisely similar to that of the of 6€ éppamioav 
of xxvi. 67, where, in like manner, the preceding éxoraguoav 
avtov (without of wév) represents what was done by the 
majority. “Quibus in locis primum wniversa res ponitur, 
deinde partitio nascitur, quae ostendit, priora quoque verba 
non de universa causa jam accipi posse,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 
358. Comp. Xen. Hell. i. 2.14: @yovto és Aexérevay, ot 8 
és Méyapa; Cyrop. iv. 5.46: opate tous, bc00 juiv mapeow. 
oi 5é mpoodyovrat, and the passages in Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 
1160; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 808. According to Fritzsche, a 
preceding of pev ov« édictacayv should be understood. This, 
however, is purely arbitrary, for the édictacay has its appro- 
priate correlative already in the preceding mpocexvvnoar. 
Again, as matter of course, we must not think of predicating 
the mpocextvncav of the doubters as well, which would be 
psychologically absurd (only after his doubts were overcome 
did Thomas exclaim: o kupids pou x. 6 Geds pov!). Fritzsche 
(comp. Theophylact, Grotius, and Markland in Eur. Suppl. 
p. 326) attempts to obviate this objection by understanding 
éSicrasav in a pluperfect sense (they had doubted before they 


CHAP. XXVIII. 17, 299 


saw Jesus); an expedient, however, of the same arbitrary 
nature as before (comp. on John xvill. 24), and such as no 
reader of our passage (with mpocex’ynoav before him) would 
have suspected to be at all necessary. Others, in spite of the 
plain and explicit statements of Matthew,and inorder to free the 
eleven from the imputation of doubt, have here turned to account 
the jive hundred brethren, 1 Cor. xv. 6 (Calovius, Michaelis, 
Ebrard, Lange), or the seventy disciples (Kuinoel), and attri- 
buted the éd/ctacav to certain of these! Others, again, have 
resorted to conjecture ; Beza, for example, thinks that for o/ 
dé we might read ovdé; Bornemann, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 
1843, p. 126 (comp. Schleusner), suggests: of 5€ diéotacay 
(some fell prostrate, the others started back from each other 
with astonishment). Zhe doubting itself on the part of the 
disciples (comp. Luke xxiv. 31, 37, 41; John xx. 19, 26) 
is not to be explained by the supposition of an already 
glorified state of the body (following the Fathers, Olshausen, 
Glockler, Krabbe, Kiihn, wie ging Chr. durch d. Grdbes 
Thir ? 1838; comp. Kinkel’s unscriptural idea of a repeated 
ascension to heaven, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1841, p. 597 ff.), for 
after His resurrection Christ still retained His material bodily 
organism, as the evangelists are at some pains to remind us 
(Luke xxiv. 39-43; John xx. 20, 27, xxi. 5; comp. also 
Acts i. 21 f, x. 41). At the same time, it is not enough to 
appeal to the fact that “nothing that was subject to death any 
longer adhered to-the living One” (Hase), but, in accordance 
with the evangelic accounts of the appearing and sudden 
vanishing of the risen Lord; and of the whole relation in which 
He stood to His disciples and His disciples to Him, we must 
assume some change in the bodily organism and outward 
aspect of Jesus, a mysterious transformation of His whole 
person, an intermediate phase of existence between the bodily 
nature as formerly existing and the glorified state into which 
He passed at the moment of the ascension,—a phase of exist- 
ence, however, of which it is impossible for us to form any 
distinct conception, for this is a case where analogy and 
experience alike fail us. His body did not retain, as did 
those of Jairus’ daughter, the young man of Nain, and Lazarus, 


300 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


exactly the same essential nature as belonged to it before 
death, but still it was not as yet the capa tis SdEns adtod 
(Phil. iii. 21), though it was certainly immortal, a fact which 
of itself would necessarily involve the very essential change 
which came over it; comp. also Bleek. 

Ver. 18.’ IIpoceX wv] From feelings of modesty and 
reverence, the eleven had not ventured to go quite close to 
Him. — €660n] with all the emphasis of the conviction that 
He was triumphant at last: was given to me, etc., was practi- 
cally given, that is, when the Father awoke me out of death. 
Thereby His state of humiliation came to an end, and the resur- 
rection was the turning-point at which Christ entered into the 
heavenly glory, in which He is to reign as xvpvos mravrov till the 
time of the final surrender of His sway into the hands of the 
Father (1 Cor. xv. 28). It is true, no doubt, that when first 
sent forth by God He was invested with the é£ouvc/a over 
all things (xi. 27; John xiii. 3); but in His state of xévwors 
it would, of necessity, come to be limited by the conditions of 
that human life into which He had descended. With His 
resurrection, however, this limitation was removed, and His 
é£ovoia fully and absolutely restored, so that He once more 
came into complete possession of His premundane de€a (John 
xvi. 5 ;: Luke xxiv. 26; Phil. ii. 9 f.; Rom. xiv. 95 Eph 
20 ff, iv. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 25 ff), the d0&@ in which He had 
existed as the Adyos doapxos, and to which He was again 
exalted as the glorified Son of man. Comp. on John i. 14.— 
maaa €€ovcia] all authority, nothing being excepted either 
in heaven or earth which can be referred to the category of 
€£ovoia, Some, unwarrantably interpreting in a rationalistic 
sense, have understood this to mean the “potestas animis homi- 
num per doctrinam imperandi” (Kuinoel),—or, as Keim ex- 
presses it, the handing over to Him of all spirits to be His 
instruments in carrying out His purposes in the world,—or 
absolute power to make all necessary arrangements for the estab- 
lishment of the Messianic theocracy (Paulus), or power over the 
whole world of humanity with a view to its redemption (Volk- 
mar), and such like. What is really meant, however, is the 

1 Comp. for ver. 18 ff., Theod. Schott in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871, p. 1 ff. 


CHAP. XXVIII. 19. 301 


munus regium of Christ, free from all limitation, without, 
however, compromising in any way the absolute supremacy 
of the Father; John xiv. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 27, xi. 3. 

Ver. 19. The ovy of the Received text (see the critical 
remarks) is a gloss correctly representing the connection of the 
thoughts. The fact stated in ver. 18 is itself the reason why 
all nations should be brought under His government, and made 
subject to His sway by means of the pa@nreveuv, etc. — wabn- 
vevoate] make them my paOntai (John iv. 1); comp. xiii. 
52; Acts xiv. 21. This ¢ransitive use of the verb is not met 
with in classical Greek. Observe how here every one who 
becomes a believer is conceived of as standing to Christ in 
the personal relation of a wa@nrys, in accordance with which 
view the term came to be applied to Christians generally. — 
mavtTa Ta €0vn| all nations without exception, xxv. 32, xxiv. 
14, xxvi. 13. With these words—and this is the new 
feature in the present instructions—the previous prohibi- 
tion, x. 5, was cancelled, and the apostolic mission declared 
to be a mission to the whole world. On this occasion 
Jesus makes no mention of any particular condition on which 
Gentiles were to be admitted into the church, says nothing 
about whether it was or was not necessary that they should 
in the first instance become Jewish proselytes (Acts xv. 1; 
Gal. ii. 1), though He certainly meant that it was not neces- 
sary ; and hence, because of this omission, the difficulty which 
the apostles had at first about directly and unconditionally 
admitting the Gentiles. If this latter circumstance had been 
borne in mind, it could hardly have been asserted, as it has 
been, that the special revelation from heaven, for the purpose 
of removing the scruples in question, Acts x., tells against 
the authenticity of the commission recorded in our passage 
(in answer to Credner, Hinleit. I. p. 203; Strauss, Keim). — 
Bamrifovtes, x.7.X.] in which the pabnredew is to be con- 
summated, not something that must be done after the waOnrev- 
cate (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 164; comp. also, on the 
other hand, Theod. Schott, p. 18), as though our passage ran 
thus, waOnrevoavtes . . . Bamtifere. Besides, that the phrase 
Barrifovtes x.7.r. did not require in every case the performance 


pay be THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, 


of the ceremony by the apostles themselves, was distinctly manifest 
to them in the discharge of their functions even from the first 
(Acts ii. 41). Comp. also 1 Cor. i. 17.—famrifecv eis] means 
to baptize with reference to. The particular object to which the 
baptism has reference is to be gathered from the context. See 
on Rom. vi. 3, and thereon Fritzsche, I. p. 359 ; comp. also on 
1 Cor. x. 2. Here, where the Bamrifeuv eis To dvowa is regarded 
as that through which the pa@yteve is operated, and through 
which, accordingly, the introduction into spiritual fellowship 
with, and ethical dependence upon Christ is brought about, 
it must be understood as denoting that by baptism the believer 
passes into that new phase of life in which he accepts the name 
of the Futher (of Christ) and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 
as the sum of his creed and confession. To dvowa,- because it 
is precisely the name of him who is confessed that expresses 
his whole specific relation considered by itself, and with 
reference to him who confesses, and accordingly the three 
names, “ Father, Son, and Spirit,’ are to be understood as 
expressing the sum-total of the distinctive confession which 
the individual to be baptized is to accept as his both now and 
for all time coming.’ Consequently the Corinthians were not 
baptized e’s to dvopa IIavdov (1 Cor. i. 13), because it was 
not the name “ Paul,” but the name “ Christ,” that was to 
constitute the sum of their creed and their confession. For a 
similar reason, when the Samaritans circumcised, they did 
so ow an ow (see Schéttgen on the passage), because the 


1 Had Jesus used the words r& dxsuzara instead of +d dveu«, then, however 
much He may have intended the names of three distinct persons to be under- 
stood, He would still have been liable to be misapprehended, for it might have 
been supposed that the plural was meant to refer to the various names of each 
separate person. The singular points to the specific name assigned in the text 
to each of the three respectively, so that tis ré cveza is, of course, to be understood 
both before rod viod and rot dyiov wveduaros ; comp. Rey. xiv. 1: +d dvoua aired 
zal To von Tod warpos avrov. We must beware of making any such dogmatic 
use of the singular as to employ it as an argument either for (Basilides, 
Jerome, Theophylact) or against (the Sabellians) the orthodox doctrine of the 
Trinity. We should be equally on our guard against the view of Gess, who 
holds that Christ abstained from using the words ‘‘ of God the Father,” ete., 
because he considers the designation God to belong to the Son and the Holy 
Spirit as well, Such a dogmatic idea was not at all likely to be present to His 


CIIAP. XXVIII. 19. 303 


name “ Gerizim ” represented the specific point in their distin- 
tive creed and confession (their shibboleth). The dedication of 
the believer to the Father, ete., is of course to be regarded as 
practically taking place in the course of the Bamrifew eis to 
dvona «.7.X.; for though this is not directly intimated by the 
words themselves (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. 2, 
p. 163; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, II. 2, p. 12), it is im- 
plied in the act of baptism, and could have been expressed by 
the simple use of es (without to dvowa), as in 1 Cor. x. 2; 
Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27. Further, eds To dvowa is not to be 
taken as equivalent to ef To dvowafew (Francke in the Séchs. 
Stud. 1846, p. 11 ff.), as though the meaning of the baptism 
consisted merely in calling God the Father, Christ the Son, 
and the Spirit the Holy Spirit. Such a view certainly could 
not apply in the last-mentioned case, for, like Father and Son, 
To Tvedua ayvov must be understood to be a specifically Chris- 
tian designation of the Spirit. 7d dvowa is rather intended 
to indicate the essential nature of the Persons or Beings to 
whom the baptism has reference, that nature being revealed 
in the gospel, then expressed in the name of each Person 
respectively, and finally made the subject of the Chris- 
tian’s confession and creed. Finally, in opposition to the 
utterly erroneous view of Bindseil (in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1832, p. 410 ff), that Bamrifew eis TO dvoua means: to 
lead to the adoption of the name through baptism, 7c. to 
get the person who is to be baptized to call himself after the 


mind upon an occasion of leave-taking like the present, any more than was the 
thing itself on which the idea is supposed to be based, for He was never known 
to claim the name 4:0: either for Himself or for the Holy Spirit. Still the New 
Testament, i.e. the Subordinatian, view of the Trinity as constituting the summary 
of the Christian creed and confession lies at the root of this whole phraseology. — 
Observe, further, that the baptismal formula: ‘‘in nomine,” and: ‘‘ in the 
name,” rests entirely on a mistranslation on the part of the Itala and Vulgate, 
so that there is accordingly no ground for the idea, adopted from the older 
expositors, that the person who baptizes acts as Christ’s representative (Sengel- 
mann in the Zeitschr. f. Protestantism. 1856, p. 341 ff.), neither is this view 
countenanced by Acts x. 48. Tertullian (de bapt. 13) gives the correct render- 
ing in nomen, though as early as the time of Cyprian (Hp. lxxiii. 5) im nomine 
is met with. The practice of dipping ¢hree times dates very far back (being 
vouched for even by Tertullian), but cannot be traced to the apostolic age. 


9 


304 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


particular name or names in question, see Fritzsche as above. 
But as for the view of Weisse (Zvangelienfr. p. 186 f.) and of 
Volkmar, p. 629, as well, that Christ’s commission to baptize is 
entirely unhistorical, it is only of a piece with their denial of 
the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus. Ewald, too (Gesch. d. 
Apost. Zeit. p. 180), is disposed to trace the origin of the 
commission to the inner world of a later apostolic conscious- 
ness.—It is a mistake to speak of our passage as the formula 
of baptism ;' for Jesus is not to be understood as merely 
repeating the words that were to be employed on baptismal 
occasions (and accordingly no trace of any such use of the 
words is found in the apostolic age; comp. on the contrary, 
the simple expression: PBamtitew eis Xpiotov, Rom. vi. 3; 
Gal. iii. 27; Bamrifew eis to dvowa X., Acts viii. 16, and 
emi T® vow. X., Acts ii. 38), but as indicating the particular 
aim and meaning of the act of baptism. See Reiche, de 
baptism. orig., etc., 1816, p. 141 ff. The formula of baptism 
(for it was so styled as early as the time of Tertullian, de bapt. 
13), which in its strictly literal sense has no bearing what- 
ever upon the essence of the sacrament (Hofling, I. p. 40 ff), 
was constructed out of the words of the text at a subsequent 
period (see already Justin, Ap. i. 61), as was also the case, at 
a still later period, with regard to the baptismal confession of 


1 Tt is no less erroneous to suppose that our passage represents the first insti- 
tution of baptism. For long before this the disciples had been baptizing in 
obedience to the instructions of Jesus, as may be seen from John iv. 1 f., where 
baptism by the disciples is spoken of as tantamount to baptism by Jesus Himself, 
and where again there is as little reason to suppose the mere continuation of the 
baptism of John to be meant as there is in the case of our present passage (John 
iii. 5). Inthe passage before us we have the same commission as that just 
referred to, only with this difference, that it is now extended so as to apply to al/ 
nations. This at once disposes of the question as to whether baptism should 
not occupy merely a secondary place as a sacrament (Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. 
1858, p. 215 ff.). Comp. also, on the other hand, 1 Cor. x. 1-3, where there is 
an unmistakeable reference to baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the two great 
and equally important sacraments of the Christian church. Of these two, how- 
ever, it isclearly not the Lord’s Supper, but baptism, on which the greatest stress 
is laid as forming the divine constituent factor in the work of redemption, and 
that above all in the Epistles of Paul, in which the only instance of anything 
like a full treatment of the subject of the Lord’s Supper is that of First Corin- 
thians, and even then it is of a somewhat incidental character. 


CHAP. XXVIII. 20. 305 


the three articles (see Kollner, Symbol. d. Luth. K. p. 14 ff.). 
There is therefore nothing here to justify those who question 
the genuineness of our passage (Teller, Hue. 2, ad Burnet de fide 
et officiis Christianorwm, 1786, p. 262; see, on the other hand, 
Beckhaus, Aechth. d. s. g. Taufformel, 1794), or those who of 
late have doubted its originality, at least in the form in which 
it has come down to us (Strauss, Bruno Bauer, de Wette, 
Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 336 ; Hilgenfeld, 
Volkmar, Scholten, Keim), and that because, forsooth, they 
have professed to see in it a torepov mpotepov. Excep- 
tion has been taken, again, partly to the wdvta ta éOvn, 
though it is just in these words that we find the broader and 
more comprehensive spirit that characterized, as might be 
expected, our Lord’s farewell commission, and partly to the 
“studied summary” (de Wette) of the New Testament doctrine 
of the Trinity. But surely if there was one time more than 
another when careful reflection was called for, it was now, 
when, in the course of this calm and solemn address, the risen 
Redeemer was endeavouring to seize the whole essence of the 
Christian faith in its three great leading elements as represented 
by the three substantially co-equal persons of the Godhead 
with a view to its being adopted as a constant onuetoy to be 
used by the disciples when they went forth to proclaim the 
gospel (Chrysostom : tacav ovvtopor Sidackariay éeyyeipnoas 
my Sia tov Barticpatos). The conjecture put forward by 
Keim, III. p. 286 f, that Jesus instituted baptism—though 
without any specific reference to all nations—on the night of 
the last supper, to serve the purpose of a second visible sign of 
His continued fellowship with the church after His departure 
from the world, is inadmissible, because there is no trace of 
this in the text, and because, had such a contemporaneous 
institution of the two sacraments taken place, it would have 
made so deep an impression that it could never have been 
forgotten, to say nothing of the impossibility of reconciling 
such a view with John iv. 1 f. ; 

Ver. 20. Avddoxovtes adtovs, x.7.r.] without being con- 
joined by «ai, therefore not co-ordinate with, but subordinate 
to the Bamrifovres, intimating that a certain ethical teaching 

MATY, IL U 


306 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, 


must necessarily accompany in every case the administration 
of baptism: while ye teach them to observe everything, ete. 
This moral instruction must not be omitted’? when you 
baptize, but it must be regarded as an essential part of the 
ordinance. That being the case, infant baptism cannot pos- 
sibly have been contemplated in Samrié., nor, of course, in 
mavta tT. €0vn either.—xat idod, «.7.r.| Encouragement to 
execute the commission entrusted to them, ver. 19.— éy@] 
with strong emphasis: J who am invested with that high 
e€ovola to which I have just referred. — pe? twav etme] 
namely, through the working of that power which has been 
committed to me, ver. 18, and with which I will con- 
tinue to protect, support, strengthen you, etc. Comp. Acts 
xvill. 10; 2 Cor. xii 9,10. The dpets are the disciples to 
whom the Lord is speaking, not the church ; the present tense 
(not écowaz) points to the fact of His having now entered, and 
that permanently, into His estate of exaltation. The promised 
help itself, however, is that vouchsafed by the glorified 
Redeemer in order to the carrying out of His own work (Phil. 
iii. 21, iv. 13; Col. i 29; 2 Cor. xii. 9), imparted through 
the medium of the Spirit (John xiv.—xvi.), which is regarded 
as the Spirit of Christ (see on Rom. vii. 9), and sometimes 
manifesting itself also in signs and wonders (Mark xvi. 20 ; 
Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 14), in visions and revela- 
tions (2 Cor. xii. 1; Acts xxii. 17). But in connection with this 
matter (comp. on xviii. 20) we must discard entirely the unscrip- 


1 Odx dpxsi yap 70 Bdwricowe nal re doypura pds cwrnpiny, ci om xa) TorITEiE 
xpoozin, Kuthymius Zigabenus, who thus admirably points out that what is meant 
by dddexorres, x.7.A., is not the teaching of the gospel with a view to conversion. 
The axon riorews (Gal. iii. 2) and the rioris 22 &xons (Rom. x. 17) are understood, 
as a matter of course, to have preceded the baptism. Comp. Theodor Schott, 
who, however, without being justified by anything in the text, is disposed to 
restrict the dca tvereiAdu. duiv, on the one hand, to the instructions contained in 
the farewell addresses (from the night before the crucifixion on to the ascension), 
and rapeiv, on the other, to a faithful observance on the part of the convert of 
what he already knew. Comp., on the contrary, xix. 17; John xiy. 15, 21, 
xv. 10; 1 Tim. vi 14-1 John ii. 3f., ii, 22 f., v. 21.5) Reve ct. aif anv ee 
Ecclus. xxix. 1, in all which passages rapeiv ras tvroAcds means observe, 2.€. to obey, 
the commandments. Admirable, however, is the comment of Bengel: ‘‘ Ut 
baptizatis convenit, fidei virtute.” 


CHAP, XXVIII. oO 


tural idea of a substantial ubiquity (in opposition to Luther, 
Calovius, Philippi). Beza well observes : “ Ut qui corpore est 
absens, virtute tamen sit totus praesentissimus.” —7doas T. 
nwép.| all the days that were still to elapse éws tT. cuvTed. Tod 
aidvos, i.e. until the close of the current age (see on xxiv. 3), 
which would be coincident with the second advent, and after 
the gospel had been proclaimed throughout the whole world 
(xxiv. 14); “ continua praesentia,” Bengel. 


REMARK 1.—According to John xxi. 14, the Lord’s appearance 
at the sea of Tiberias, John xxi. which Matthew not only 
omits, but which he does not seem to have been aware of (see 
on ver. 10), must have preceded that referred to in our passage. 

REMARK 2.—Matthew makes no mention of the return of 
Jesus and His disciples to Judaea, or of the ascension from the 
Mount of Olives; he follows a tradition in which those two 
facts had not yet found a place, just as they appear to have 
been likewise omitted in the lost conclusion of Mark; then it 
so happened that the apostolic Aéyia terminated with our Lord’s 
parting address, ver. 19f. We must beware of imputing to the 
evangelist any subjective motive for making no mention of any 
other appearance but that which took place on the mountain in 
Galilee ; for had he omitted and recorded events in this arbitrary 
fashion, and merely as he thought fit, and that, too, when 
dealing with the sublimest and most marvellous portion of the 
gospel narrative, he would have been acting a most unjustifiable 
part, and only ruining his own credit for historical fidelity. By 
the apostles the ascension, the actual bodily mounting up into 
heaven, was regarded as a fact about which there could not be 
any possible doubt, and without which they would have felt 
the second advent to be simply inconceivable (Phil. ii. 9, iii. 20 ; 
Eph. iv. 10; 1 Pet. i. 22; John xx. 17), and accordingly it is 
presupposed in the concluding words of our Gospel; but the 
embodying of it in an outward incident, supposed to have 
occurred in presence of the apostles, is to be attributed to a 
tradition which Luke, it is true, has adopted (as regards the 
author of the appendix to Mark, see on Mark xvi. 19 f.), but 
which has been rejected by our evangelist and John, notwith- 
standing that in any case this latter would have been an eye- 
witness. But yet the fact wiself that the Lord, shortly after His 
resurrection, ascended into heaven, and that not merely in spirit 
(which, and that in entire opposition to Scripture, would either 
exclude the resurrection of the actual body, or presuppose a 


308 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 


second death), but in the body as perfectly transformed and 
glorified at the moment of the ascension, is one of the truths of 
which we are also fully convinced, confirmed as it is by the 
whole New Testament, and furnishing, as it does, an indispens- 
able basis for anything like certainty in regard to Christian 
eschatology. On the ascension, see Luke xxiv, 51, Rem. 











ia) } . 
citi 















































i}. RADU BRS RS AERA OD TRE RR EE TPIS SIT DIDO A AOD ET a IT CET FTE