OL, μογηό μα, μων ¥ eee vests bof Velemeoand | δ ας vt rhpae Ss pela ᾿ ΚΝ, ἥ roses yr wits ὟΝ ἢ ᾿ ΓΙ ΠΛ ΜΗ anreab aq Ash μένα. Hee aay abe Hig) ’ ν᾿ “ ΥἩ ἢν ob bE 9 Beier) tavey? ea. 1d wh He 7 tues ghey νὸν riris Ve i yenings-ce Hehe baa hr Ad: thier i ᾿ rites (er yaee 1 ἣ re ἢ Mo ap op wen! φῇ ores pr veda . 9 4 “4 atten ‘ et MWY od Shia Halbeek 7 ¥ re Η rie op ibaey edt Brabus Ὴ ν τι yy a iy dt if an μὰ τίς ie / 4 fe πλὴν St ‘ne eae mite area ann HAS aan Ma a ti τη sey ah τι ‘ oe th dat saved at Ge ita στα oS gals ᾿ ; a] Ss teh ἦν δὴν ἀν aa Ἢ i ΠΤ hs ‘ i pate ina) it seer oo Pita ane tee ec ΤῈ: ‘ μ " tisny ae i vie " . μὲ ν᾽ ἡ ΜΝ] eel 4 ‘ re ΜΎΕΣ ἫΝ ae ᾿ eye omnia ti Ware ; ᾽ ΦΉΣ seid Y , é web deleb ve geap ety ΜΗ i Saad ν ᾿ς dis "" Marte. } Ss poatirth) rabies, μὴν perth ae ΓΝ 1400 Lot r ἐν ΜΗ: ἥν μ᾽" ΣΌΣ ἢ πάτα γ᾽ Joh Gea ΜΝ Bee bash op par Shs 4) OE shh ΣΟΥ , nie : h ἥ wet tay ΑΣΑ ΤΑΝ Η = peng .. poles «τνῇ uate φὼ aol ge av Ἀγ ἌΝ Panaces wee sone ΠΡ ΚΣ ἤν ae 4 yh st τ αὐ bee bya giant ” Maha ἐτῶν ΔΝ epee bp ke al ry yr eee 4 bap σε ὦ ah Ὁ. γος Loans ΟῚ winds Bi veins Aga ἢ ἘΝ ᾿ ΟΝ mi ΓΩΣ Ἷ ἀρ τς die on δ: at Pe οί ἈΠ ατο ἡ μὰ τὰ Ἢ ἐδ bs Η Μ ; ain tes ΝΗῚ " δον Ma "ἢ ishe Ὶ ὍΝ ἣ : reeset im land t ’ ay Ti ewe rp ANap oa 1: ” 4 τ δ “iy tein ᾿ . eet 4 bh 6 Ἦν : Pei tela cette nei τ} Roger he ΤΑ ΜῊΝ baie peiaaiiiane anette: Ne Taran fons i ᾿ t ᾿ stat Eats Δ᾽ ᾿ 4 Υ ἐν fon, ΠῚ ne Ta Abney ἢ» *o Ὁ ἐν τ ink Bede shal ΠΟῪ rt ’ 2 hese thee ΣΉΝ Ἀ ἡγε γεν by 4 eye - ᾿ “ὦ ἊΜ ΝΗ ὁ Ἀν κΩι Stand alg | λ ᾿ any dang πε Τὰ ae ᾿ πα μὲ yong ΤῊ ee PR dee wi loadsat vole rk μῆς St rari Ὁ ΠΗ ars “δεν ει apni # omy aes Hite ΤΉΝ typ yr nb age ἡ νων Wye ΜΗ he iy Sei ous tips ‘gage yf Ah ΠΝ wn ΠΝ “᾿ Tidal? Gao lauks the 4 3! Phy) wiht er | hth teed ἡ ny ny raprse nist "4 ΜΝ v4 Hing psn 94g] men > i ; ” Lt yin gh oti HS ‘ τ ΩΝ αν Ar ΡῚ ἐν ἕνην ἯΙ mri Bag } res we ἢ hts δ Υ EAD te beh ier Σ f erga? Lidl na ie 4 wee! aah εν " ὙΦ Ν wade atc, ΠΝ penn ine sitar ἘΠ Ἔτι ¢ ‘ apho: oH oa Fie Me ae 3, i eho abt : ; bape - is AD ytd pet tt G τ ᾿ ᾿ ts, Γ ῃ ν 4 Ν ΠΡ sat bitrate eatiicphinl thee tata cit toe r : ene a tare Yeas φυλήν δε jel τάν peta οἱ wakes of ᾿ ΥΩ O44 eae ΩΝ ΣΌΝ ret sia Ἵ ids) τεὴν ites etatete aul bak Foyt ily aah) , w here) iv ΡΝ i HD pay 7 - Lobe Poon pound shee we τα veers 82, “proton i ἀρ αι; Ψ ᾧ εὐ GT eH MY aba fi twat wos ᾿ ΟΝ γα Ρ A Carte enter Motatiien y wre ΜΝ Ἐν τ ΣΦ νεῷ ; Ah) y ‘ one verbs pe pod ae ue i yore aie ane fae i ἌΝ ΠΤ tenttes δεν henbge i ΠΡ eal 2 big gia fer Saletan tices oe titted ΦΥῊΝ te ἐών: i) Hiya nated ὦ ῥα peel call ehstl τς + ΡΣ a ie rp Hasse! oa ELPA yay pH alt Lat ae eee Srosee st ype " ΗΝ Mies γον μάν σι σον ἀκ Τα ΤΙ il «ον }: bahay © holt! a pereery: ie es " , mie werk aber, te Gel Ries ere cin ΠΥ Swed 2. if . " εἶν ΠΑ ate ᾿ , | BOR, ths ta | ΝΗ un ν φϑν γ᾿ Rierg αν γυνφιμᾷι οἱ aint tal “ reir ia Pae ἔν € yl + Perbieeter zoey ‘ WF iis n8ry cf i j , “ te ὶ lipaeeel it heat og ’ i Υ “ δὰ} pine ᾿ ἰνίον ye Ν an \ Y Patines: sy ie ; ans μὴ aid ‘ Pitas ΤΣ ΝΣ i as veRIre ital bal toy A yet μὴ ΤᾺ vai as ty Ly ΝΣ a pthe Ty ety ite a oA nat sation , Mirae erie . tye wh eee τ aivgesos bam yi : ΠΛ ὌΝ ᾿ 4 i a My it rij pale ght es Ge δὲ pehane lyst vs 1964" che rte a ΟἹ Ὑ' foe fife gibt ἢ mig tek Maat ea ; ἜΣ let egy πη a ἢ ὯΝ si > ᾿ a γα εξ Cm ee te can θήν SVEN Bee Ἡ ΚΑ εν μον ¢ ‘a γ΄ ἜΡΙΣ: ἜΘ Φ 0.) ΤΙ Σ᾿ γάρ ‘ ῃ wou D ait praca πον ἰδ. τ, Hert ince NPE iter ΝΣ ae wg Vries ar vey Lads ΠΣ 1 τ ΕΣ i) γρνεϑνε ᾿ ‘ eet Rela aeetaa aan e é Ἢ ᾿ μ᾽ abil rege bs ε γῇ» ἱ 4 JW hrbvote pl! ane ΑΘ 4 rene sig ies yt eyed τ. ὙΦ sar , “ 7 Pi cape taa ἜΝ ΩΣ ΤῊΝ “ ΝΗ ite ἘΠ ovat eee eis be Thabo, bly 4 “" Pew ies ssid i { , ΤῊΝ ed eee nt) Ve ribet he ri ΚΝ wage aye “y pene slyh tite ΩΝ Peng ψηθ re ἐν seh igi H Π) ἐμ; ΣΉΜΜΤΙΝ \ ’ ee her vi whe ares dell bite iN 4197 HW δον a hid. rad te ᾽ τατον ye ΠΟΥ͂Ν i , ΤᾺ tH ἡ δ φὰς ΜΝ ts hatin here oti Prep them ἔς RRS FA Hii fond ἐόν, ΝΣ ΝΣ ΤΩΣ PEO γι να νῷ Orth eit τῷ: ἐδ γν Ὁ ΗΝ, ἡ ΡΣ ἡ νον τ ὐλμ νην ΝΑ ἡ ἷ) ΕΝ fea indepth dae ee i OATES ad Ge Hy 4 aon ph aioe cig he ay reed ' ts lO. <6 ee Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY C=) From the Library of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, D.D. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY an 1" τ, Mer foe THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TED: OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. From the German, with the Sanction of the Author. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY With as ih Ρ ΤΟ ΘΟ Dip. AND WILLIAM STEWART, D.D. PART I. THE GOSPEL-.OF Sf. MATTHEVG V Ob. ΤΊ. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXIX. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND 60. DUBLIN,. . . . . ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, . . + SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK | Peal 36 Jon fore Citlag hereg /F9 A. ζσς THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. BY ν HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, ΤΗ.Ὁ., 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. WO ΠΣ EDINBURGH: ows b CLARK 38. GEGRGE 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 (eg. “comp. on Luke xvi. 7 ; “see on Rom. vill. 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. GLascow CoLLece, February 1879. ae? ς: i ; - ᾿ ν , Ad [2 ἕ f ‘ . ; ' ᾿ Ul ’ “ er » ’ ἢ Ν Ψ = ‘ ͵ ᾿ Ω 5 by ἢ i 4 J i," ' at ta ὶ ῖ ᾿ h ἢ ᾿Ξ ᾿ “ Pit i ᾿ * Ξ, ω uy wf ; ἢ a TY, ᾿ ; Ὰ oe ὁ 4 ° ' ἀπ Ἢ, hide 2 ΕΝ. ] a. Og ee γ' : nics } a te MS, peut ᾿ Ἵ ve x : i ah μ i yy y ; - αὖ, ΠῚ] GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. CHAPTER XVIIL VER. 1. ὥρᾳ] Lachm.: ἡμέρῳ, which Fritzsche has adopted, against decisive evidence; although ancient, since both readings are found as early as the time of Origen, ἡμέρῳ 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. ταπεινώσῃ] The future ταπεινώσει 1s, with Lachm. and Tisch, to be adopted on decisive evidence. — Ver. 6. εἰς τὸν rp.] for εἰς Elz. has ἐπί, while Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read epi, Only εἰς and περί have anything like important testimony in their favour. But περί is taken from Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2.— Ver. 7. On weighty evidence we should follow Lachm. in deleting ἐστιν after γάρ, and éxef in the next clause, as words that might naturally have been inserted; Tisch. 8 has deleted ἐστὶν only.— Ver. 8. αὐτά] BDL 8, min. vss. and Fathers: αὐτόν. So Lachm. and Tisch. correctly; αὐτά is an emendation to include both—Further on Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have κυλλὸν ἢ χωλόν, following B x, Vulg. It.; a transposition to suit χείρ and ποῦς. --- Ver. 10. The evidence is too weak to warrant us in substituting ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (so Lachm. in brackets) for the first ἐν οὐρανοῖς ; 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. ἀφεὶς... πορευθείς) Lachm.: ἀφήσει... καὶ πορευθεΐς, follow- ing B D L, min. Vulg. It. (of which, however, 1), Vulg. have ἀφίησιν, MATT. IL A 2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. and D, πορευόμενος). Exegetical analysis, in order to remove ambiguity as to the connection.— Ver. 14. εἷς] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἕν, following B Ὁ L M*8, min. Altered to εἷς in accordance with ver. 10; while πατρός μου, which Lachm. sub- stitutes for carp. ὑμῶν (following B F H J, min. vss. Or.), is to be regarded in the same light.— Ver. 15. εἰς σέ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B 8, 1, 22, 234*, Sahid. Or. Cyr. Bas. This evidence is too weak, especially as the omission of EI33E might easily enough have happened from its following HH (ἁμαρτήσῃ), 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 εἰς σέ, which is here genuine, was inserted from our passage into Luke xvii. 3, Elz. — ἔλεγξον] Elz., Scholz: καὶ ἔλ., against B C δὲ and many min. vss. and Fathers. The xa/ was inserted as a connective particle. — Ver. 19. σάλιν ἀμήν] Elz. (so also Griesb. Scholz, Fritzsche, Rinck, Tisch. 8) has merely πάλιν, and Lachm., following min. only (B being erroneously quoted), has merely ἀμήν. But the attestation for πάλιν ἀμήν (Tisch. 7) is about equal in weight (incl. B) to that in favour of the simple πάλιν (incl. δὲ), and one of the words might easily enough have been omitted from the combination not occurring anywhere else.— συμφωνήσωσιν] Seeing that the future συμφωνήσουσιν is supported by the prepon- derating evidence of B DE HILV Ax, 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. προσηνέχθη] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: προσήχθη, following B D Or. Correctly; this and Luke ix. 41 are the only instances in which προσάγειν occurs in the Gospels, προσφέρειν being the form most familiar to the copyists. — Ver. 25. εἶχε] Lachm. and Tisch. 7: ἔχει, following only B, min. Or.; but it is to be preferred, since to the mecha- nical trariscribers the present would doubtless seem to be improper. — Ver, 26.] xdpse before waxp. is to be regarded as interpolated, being omitted by B 1), min. Vulg. codd. of It. Syr™ Or. Chrys. Lucif., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. — Ver. 27. ἐκείνου] omitted by Lachm., only after B, min., as is also éxeios, ver. 28, only after B.— Ver. 28. wos] not found in the more weighty witnesses; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation.— εἴ ri] Elz.: 4, τι, against decisive evidence. Erroneous emendation.— Ver. 29. αὐτοῦ] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz, Tisch. 7, insert εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ, which, however, is omitted by BC* DG Las, min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Syre CHAP. XVIII. 1, 2. 3 It. (Brix. excepted) Vulg. Or. Lucif. Gloss on the simple πεσών. In regard to εἰς, comp. John xi. 32, αἱ. --- πάντα] Deleted by Matth., Scholz, Tisch., on preponderating evidence; bracketed by Lachm. It is a mechanical interpolation from ver. 26.— Ver. 31. For the first γενόμενα Fritzsche and Tisch. substitute γινόμενα, following only D 1, &**, min. Vulg. It. Chrys. Lucif., but correctly. The transcribers failed to notice the difference of meaning. — For αὐτῶν or αὑτῶν we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἑαυτῶν, upon decisive evidence ; the reflexive refer- ence of the pronoun was overlooked, as was often the case. — Ver. 34. αὐτῷ] not found in B D 8**, min. vss. Lachm.; but it may easily enough have been left out in conformity with ver. 30.— Ver. 35. ὑμῶν] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz insert ra παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, Which is not found in B DL δὲ, min. and several vss. and Fathers. Gloss from vi. 14,15; Mark xi. 25, 26.— But ἐπουράνιος, for which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 substitute οὐράνιος (B C** Ὁ K L 118, min. Or. Damasc.), is to be retained, all the more that the expression ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐπουρ. occurs nowhere else, though we frequently find ὁ =. ὁ οὐράνιος. Ver.1. Ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ] 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: wm that hour, namely, when Jesus was holding the above conversation with Peter.— τίς 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 circumstances: 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: ἀνθρώπινόν Tt τότε πεπόνθασιν οἱ μαθηταί --- μείζων] greater than the other disciples in rank and power.—éotiv] they speak as though the approaching Messianic kingdom were already present. Comp. xx. 21. Ver. 2. Παιδίον] According to Nicephorus, ii. 35, the child in question is alleged to have been St. Ignatius. Chrysostom correctly observes that it is a litile child (σφόδρα παιδίον); τὸ yap τοιοῦτον παιδίον καὶ ἀπονοίας Kal δοξομανίας κ. βασκανίας κ. φιλονεικείας κ. πάντων τῶν τοιούτων ἀπήλλακ- ται παθῶν, καὶ πολλὰς ἔχον τὰς ἀρετὰς, ἀφέλειαν, ταπεινοφ- 4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. ροσύνην, ἀπραγμοσύνην, ἐπ᾽ οὐδενὶ τούτων ἐπαίρεται. Comp. Mark ix. 36; Luke ix. 47. Ver. 3. Εἴ τις ἀπέχεται τῶν προαιρετικῶν παθῶν, γίνεται ὡς τὰ παιδία, κτώμενος δι’ ἀσκήσεως, ἅπερ ἔχουσι τὰ παιδία ἐξ ἀφελείας, Euthymius Zigabenus. — 70 turn round (στρα- φῆτε, representing the μετάνοια 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 (οὐ μή) 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 ii. ὃ, 5 ff.; the divine agent in this moral change, in which child- like qualities assume the character of manly virtues, is the Holy Spint; 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 wnasswming character of this child, in order to be greater than others in the Messiah’s kingdom. — ὅστες] guicunque ; “de imdiwviduo, de quo quaerebant, non respondet,” Bengel. In what follows ταπεινώσει 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 ἐάν 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 ἄν marks the presupposition as conditioned. The future assumes the action as actually occurring in the future; while the subjwne- tive after the relative without dv 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 Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 13.— Moreover, the words of vv. 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. — παιδίον τοιοῦτον] such a little child, ie. 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 (παιδίον yap ἐνταῦθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοὺς οὕτως ἀφελεῖς φησὶ καὶ ταπεινοὺς καὶ ἀπεῤῥιμμένους παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς), 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] a single one. So very precious are they !— δέξηται] denotes a loving reception with a view to further care for the soul; the opposite to this is σκανδαλίζειν, ver. 6.— ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί pov] onthe ground of my name (xxiv. 5)—1e. 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 παιδίον τοιοῦτον 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).— ἐμέ] comp. x. 40, xxv. 40; John xiii. 20. Ver. 6. Comp. Mark ix. 42 ; Luke xvii. 2. — σκανδαλίσῃ] Opposite of δέξηται, meaning: will have been to him the 6 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, occasion of his fall, especially of his apostasy from the faith (v. 29, xi. 0). ---τῶν μικρῶν τούτων] not to be understood, any more than παιδίον τοιοῦτο, 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 τῶν μικρῶν τούτων, x. 42 (xxv. 40), where the expression is not borrowed from the illustration of a child. — συμφέρει αὐτῷ, ἵνα, x.7.r.] For the construction, comp. note on v. 29. “ But whoever will have offended one of those little ones,’—7t 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 συμφέρει (Jerome: “ quam aeternis servari cruciatibus ;” others: than again to commit such a sin) is a pure importation. — μύλος Ovexos| The larger mills (in contradistinction to the χειρομύλαι, xxiv. 41) were driven by an ass; Buxtorf, Lew. Talm. p. 2252. Comp. also Anth. Pal. ix. 301; Ovid, A. A. iii, 290.—The καταποντισμός (Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. xvi. 35; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 72, 26; Casaubon, ad Suct. Oct. 67) was not a Jewish method of putting to death, neither was it a practice in Galilee (Joseph. Anté. 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. Οὐαί] θρηνεῖ ὡς φιλάνθρωπος τὸν κόσμον ὡς μέλ- λοντα βλαβῆναι ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων, Theophylact. — ἀπό] indicating the causal origin of the woe for humanity (τῷ κόσμῳ). The world is not conceived of as giving the offence (in answer to Jansen, Arnoldi, Bleek), but as suffering from it. With regard to ἀπό, see Buttmann, Neut. Gramm. p. 277 [E. T. 9221. -- ἀνάγκη yap] assigns the reason for the ἀπὸ τῶν CHAP. XVIII. 8, 9. 7 σκανδάλ. 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 lability to punish- ment. Hence: πλὴν (yet) oval τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, K.T.X.— Ta σκάν- dada] temptations, as a general conception.— τὸ cxdv6.] 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 σκάνδαλα occasioned from without operate through the senses, and thereby seduce into evil.—xarov cot ἐστὶν... ἤ] a mixture, by attraction, of two constructions: Jt is 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. II. 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. — χωλόν] refers to the feet, one of which, indeed, is supposed to be awanting (comp. Hom. Jl. ii. 217: χωλὸς δ᾽ ἕτερον πόδα) ; while, according to the context, κυλλόν here (more general in xv. 30) refers to mutilation of the arm, from which the hand is supposed to be cut off. Hence: limping (χωλόν) or maimed (κυλχλόν). But the circumstance of χωλόν being put first is due to the fact that the cutting off of the foot (αὐτόν, 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. — wovddOaryu.] Herod. iii. 116, iv. 27; Strabo, II. p. 70. According to the grammarians, we should have had ἑτερόφθαλμ. in contradistinction to μονόφθαλμ., 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 gen’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 zt 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). — ἐν ovp. διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσι, 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 μικροί, but a proof which, from λέγω ὑμῖν and tod πατρός μου, receives all the weight of an emphatic testimony; while the mode of representation (comp. ὩΣ ‘25a 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 70 6 ΝΠ, 2 Kings xxv. 19; 1 Kings x. 8; Tob. xii. 15; Luke i, 19. Ver. ΠῚ 1: 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 μικροί, 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. — τύ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ) “suavis com- municatio,” Bengel. — ἐὰν γένηται, x.7.r.] if a hundred sheep have fallen to a man’s lot, if he has come into the possession of them (Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 364). The contrast to ἕν requires that we should conceive of ἑκατόν as a large number (not as a small flock, Luke xii. 32). Comp. Lightfoot. — It is preferable to connect ἐπὶ Ta ὄρη with ἀφείς (Vulgate, Luther), because the connecting of it with πορευθείς (Stephanus, Beza, Casaubon, Er. Schmid, Bengel) would impart an unmeaning emphasis to ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη. 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. — ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη] ἐπί 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 ἀφείς, which conveys the idea of being Jet out, let loose. Comp. notes on xiii. 2, xiv. 19, xv. 35. — ἐὰν γένηται εὑρεῖν αὐτό] if 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. — χαίρει, «.7.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 μικροί 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 μικρός 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 μικροί 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). — ἔμπροσθεν] coram (xi. 26; Luke xv. 10). There is not before God (before the face of God) any determination having as ts object that, etc.; consequently, no predestination to condemnation in the divine will. On the idea involved in θέλημα, comp. note on i. 19. For the ¢elic sense of ἵνα, comp. vil. 12; Mark vi 25, x. 35, al., and the ἐθέλειν ὄφρα of Homer; Niigelsbach’s note on Jliad, i. 133. — ἕν] 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 μικροί (vv. 10-14); if, however, one offends against thee, then proceed thus.” The subject changes from that of doing injury to the μικροί, 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 μικροί, who were contemplated in the previous warning, we now have the Christian brother generally, ὁ ἀδελφός cov —there-_ fore, the genus to which the μικρός as species belongs. — ἁμαρτήσῃ εἰς σέ] The emphasis is not on εἰς σέ, but on ἁμαρτήσῃ : 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 Miiller, Dogmat. Abh. p. 513 ff., reject the reading εἰς σέ, 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. 1 ἁμαρτήσῃ 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 (εἰς σέ), 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 {Π66.--- μεταξὺ cod x. αὐτοῦ μόνου] 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 μόνου after σοῦ 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. — ἐάν cov ἀκούσῃ] if he will have listened to thy admonition, will have complied with it. But Fritzsche and Olshausen connect the preceding μόνου with this clause: “δὲ 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; πρῶτον ᾿ γὰρ ἐζημιοῦ τοῦτον, διὰ τοῦ σκανδάλου ῥηγνύμενον ἀπὸ τῆς ἀδελφικῆς σου συναφείας, Euthymius Zigabenus. But what ἃ truism would such a result imply! Therefore it should much rather be explained thus: thou hast gained him for the eternal blessedness of my kingdom, to which, from not being brought to a state of repentance, he would 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 endeavowrs after an adjustment. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 1. Ver. 16. Second gradus admonitionis. The one or the two who accompany him are likewise intended to take part in the ἐλέγχειν (see αὐτῶν, ver. 17). — ἵνα ἐπὶ στόματος, «.7.r.] in order that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be duly attested ; 1.6. in order that every declaration which he makes in answer to your united ἐλέγχειν may be heard by two or three persons (according as one or two may happen to 12 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. be present besides thyself), and, on the strength of their testi- mony (ἐπὶ στόματος, "Β Sy), may be duly authenticated, so that in the event of his submitting to the édéyyewv 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. Τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ] 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 ἔλεγξις 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. — ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τ. ἐκκλ. παρακ.] but if he refuses to listen even to the church ; if he will not have submitted to its advice, exhortation, injunction. — ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ, x.T.r.] let him be for thee (ethical dative) ; let him be in thy estimation as, etc. ; Nowrov ἀνίατα ὁ τοιοῦτος νοσεῖ, Chrysostom. What is here indicated 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 argumentum 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. — ὁ ἐθνεκός] 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 ine 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 (δήσητε, κιτ.λ.) 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 /eaders (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 μικροί. But as far as the ἐκκλησία is concerned, it is to be understood as meaning the congregation of believers, 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. —madr.uv ἀμὴν dr bp.]| Once more a solemn assurance! and that to the effect that, etc. Comp. xix. 24. For ἐάν with the indicative (συμφωνήσουσιν, see critical notes), see note on Luke xix. 40, and Buttmann, Newt. Gramm. p. 192 [E. T. 222]; Bremi, ad Lys. Ale. 18. The construction is a case of attraction; πᾶν should have been the subject of the principal clause of the sentence, but was attracted to the subordinate clause and joined to πράγματος, so that without the attraction the passage would run thus: ἐὰν δύο tp. συμφωνήσουσιν ἐπὶ τ. γῆς περὶ πράγματος, πᾶν ὃ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, γινήσεται αὐτοῖς. Comp. Kiihner, II. 2, p. 925. For the contrast implied in ἐπὶ τ. γῆς, comp. 1506; CHAP. XVIII. 20-22. ES 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 ὑμῶν in connec- tion with the δύο ἢ τρεῖς) 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. viii. 9 f.; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; 1 Cor. v. 4; Gal. i 20; Eph. iii. 16 f.; also in general, xxviii. 20) in the midst of them ; so that you need therefore have no doubt as to the γενήσεται 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 συνηγμένοι, which expresses nothing more than the simple fact of being met (in answer to Grotius, de Wette), but in εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, which indicates that the name of Jesus Christ (ae. the confession, the honouring of it, etc.) is that which in the συνηγμένον εἶναι is contemplated as its specific motive (μὴ δ ἑτέραν aitiav, Euthymius Zigabenus). “Simile dicunt Rabbini de duobus aut tribus considentibus in judicio, quod A‘sy sit in medio eorum,” Lightfoot. Ver. 21. At this point Peter steps forward from amongst the disciples (ver. 1), and going up to Jesus, νομίζων φανῆται μεγαλοψυχότατος (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. Οὐ λέγω σοι] are to be taken together (in answer to Fritzsche), and to be rendered thus: JZ do not say to thee, I do not give thee ¢he prescription; comp. John xvi. 20. ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά] not: till seventy times seven, 1.0. till the four hundred and ninetieth time (Jerome, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, de Wette, Bleek); but, seeing that we have ἑπτά, and not ἑπτάκις 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 ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομηκοντάκις or ἑβδομήκοντα ἑπτάκις ; but the expression in the text is according to the LXX. Gen. iv. 24.7 So, and that correctly, Origen, Augustine, Bengel, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Keim ; comp. “the Gospel of the Hebrews” in Hilgenfeld’s WN. 7. extra can. IV. p. 24.— For the sense, comp. Theophylact: οὐχ ἵνα ἀριθμῷ περικλείσῃ τὴν συγχώρησιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄπειρον ἐνταῦθα σημαίνει: ὡς ἂν εἰ ἔλεγεν ὁσάκις ἂν πταίσας μετανοῇ συγχώρει αὐτῷ. Ver. 23. Διὰ τοῦτο] 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 wnlimited 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. — ὡμοιώθη ἡ Bac. τ. ovp.| See note on xiii. 24.—The δοῦλοι are the king’s ministers who are indebted to him through having received money on loan (δάνειον, ver. 27), or, relatively, as treasurers, land stewards, or the like. But it is not without reason that ἀνθρώπῳ is joined to βασιλεῖ, seeing that the kingdom of heaven is likened to a human king. Comp. the ἀνὴρ βασιλεύς of Homer. — συναίρειν λόγον] to hold a reckoning, to settle accounts, occurs again in xxv. 19, but nowhere else. Classical writers would say: διαλογίζεσθαι πρός τινα, Dem. 1236. 17. Ver. 24 ff. According to Boeckh, Staatshaush. d. Athener, 1. 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, myav’y ΝΣ cannot possibly mean anything else than seventy-seven, as is clear from the Ἷ, not seventy ¢imes seven; comp. Judg. viii. 14. This in answer to Kamphausen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 121 f. The (substantive) feminine form MYA cannot be considered strange (seventy and ὦ seven). See Ewald, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. § 267 ¢., and his Jahrb. ΧΙ. p- 198, CHAP. XVIII. 28. 1 incalculable. So great was the debt of one (εἷς). ---- ἐκέλευσεν avrov ... ἔχει] according to the Mosaic law; Lev. xxv. 39, 47 ; 2 Kings iv. 1; Ex. xxii. 2. See Michaelis, MZ Δ. ὃ 148; Saalschiitz, ZR. p. 706 f. The word αὐτόν is emphatic: that he should be sold, etc. On the present indicative ἔχει (see critical notes), which is derived from the idea of the narrative being direct, comp. Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1058.— καὶ ἀποδοθῆναι) 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 ἀποδοθ. 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 ἀποδώσω] 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 (ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ). --- For δάνειον, 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 ! — ἔπνιγε] 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. — ἀπόδος, εἴ τι ὠφείλεις] εἴ te is not to be taken, as is often done, as though it were equivalent to 6, τι. For where εἴ τι, like δὲ quid, is used in the sense of quicquid (see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 10. 18), εἰ 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 κρατήσας avr. ἔπνιγε was MATT, Il. B 18 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. necessarily to be presupposed on the part of the δοῦλος. No, the εἰ is simply the expression of a pitiless logic: Pay, if thou owest anything (ἀπόδος 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. Πεσών] after that he had fallen down,—that is, as one who προσεκύνει, which follows, as a matter of course, from ver. 26, without our requiring to insert such words as εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ (see critical notes). Chrysostom appropri- ately observes: οὐ TO σχῆμα τῆς ἱκετηρίας ἀνέμνησεν αὐτὸν τῆς τοῦ δεσπότου φιλανθρωπίας. Ver. 81 f. ᾿Ἐδλυπήθησαν) They were grieved at the hard- heartedness and cruelty which they saw displayed in what was going on (τὰ γινόμενα, see critical notes), — δεεσ ἀφ. not simply narrarunt (Vulgate), but more precisely: declar- arunt (Beza) ; Plat. Prot. p. 348 B; Legg. v. p. 733 B; Polyb. i 46. 4; 1. 27. 3; 2 Macc i 18, ii 9.— τῷ Kupio ἑαυτῶν) The reflective pronoun (see critical notes) indicates that, as befitted their position, the σύνδουλοι addressed them- selves to their own master. Their confidence in him led them to turn to him rather than to any one else. — ἐπεὶ πωρεκάλ. με] 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 καί used comparatively, see Klotz, ad Devar. p.635. Baeumlein, Partik. Ὁ. 1 59. --- ἔδ ει] the moral oportwit.— tots Bacaviotats] 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 βασανίζειν is of essential importance, typifying as it does the future βάσανος of Gehenna. Comp. vill. 29; Luke xvi. 23; Rev. xiv. 10. Grotius well observes, though he takes the βασανιστάς as = δεσμοφύλακας (Kuinoel, de Wette), “utitur autem hic rex ille non solo creditoris jure, sed et judicis.’— ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ] 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: τουτέστι διηνεκῶς, οὔτε yap ἀποδώσει ποτέ, 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 £ — That motive, drawn from the forgiving mercy of God, could only be exhibited in all its significance by the light shed upon it in the atoning death of Christ (Eph. iv. 32, Col. iii. 12 f.), so that Jesus had to leave to the future, which was fast approaching, what, as yet, could be but inadequately under- stood (so far we have here a ὕστερον πρότερον), and hence our passage is not inconsistent (Socinian objection) with the doctrine (also expressly contained in xx. 28, xxvi. 28) of satisfaction. — ἀπὸ τ. καρδ. ty.) 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 ἀπό being used in connection with this phrase; elsewhere it is é« that is employed. But comp. the classical expressions ἀπὸ γνώμης, ἀπὸ σπουδῆς, ἀπὸ φρενός, and the like; also ἀπὸ καρδίας in Antoninus ii. 3, and ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς. Dem. 580, 1. 20 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. CHAPTER XIX VER. 3. οἱ Φαρισ. Lachm. has deleted οἱ, following BCLM Δ Π, min. Correctly; the οἱ up. 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 λέγοντες Elz. and Scholz insert αὐτῷ, which, owing to the preponderance of evidence against it, is to be regarded as a common interpolation, as are also αὐτοῖς, ver. 4, αὐτήν, ver. 7.— ἀνθρώπῳ] is wanting in B 1, rs* min. Aug. deleted by Lachm. Correctly; supplement from ver. 5, and for which Cod. 4 has ἀνδρί (Mark x. 2).— Ver. 5. σροσκολληθ.] Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche: κολληθ., following very weighty evidence. The compound form, however, is more common, and is taken from the LXX.—Ver. 9. ὅτι before ὅς 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 ὅς, seeing that it is not indispensable. — Instead of μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείῳ Lachm. has παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, following Β D, min. It. Or., but clearly borrowed from v. 32 by way of a gloss. For μή, Elz. and Scholz have εἰ μή, against decisive evidence; an exegetical addition. — x. 6 ἀπολελυμ. yam. μοιχᾶται) are deleted by Tisch. 8, following C** D LS 8, 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. zpoonvéy4n] Lachm. and Tisch.: προσηνέχθησαν, following BC Ὁ 1| δὲ, min. Or. In presence of such weighty evidence, the singular is to be regarded as a gram- matical correction. — Ver. 16. ἀγαθὲ] is justly condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (B D 1, δὲ, 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 τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὃ θεός. But the reading: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός, is attested by the very weighty evidence of B Ὁ 1| δὲ, Vulg. CHAP. XIX. 1, 2 21 Tt. 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: εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθ. (Lachm., Tisch.), has decisive attestation ; but rype7(Lachm., Tisch. 7) for τήρησον finds but inadequate support, being favoured merely by B D, Homil. Cl. — Ver. 20. ἐφυλαξάμην ἐκ νεότητός μου] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐφύλαξα, following important, though not quite unani- mous, witnesses (B D L 8* among the uncial manuscripts; but D has retained éx νεότ., though omitting μου). The reading of the Received text is taken from Luke and Mark. — Ver. 23. Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive evidence, read πλούσιος δυσκόλως. --- Ver. 24. Instead of the first εἰσελθεῖν, Elz. has διελθεῖν, which is defended by Fritzsche and Rinck, and also adopted again by Lachm., in opposition to Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Schulz, Tisch., who read εἰσελθεῖν. The evidence on both sides is very weighty. διελθεῖν is a correction for sake of the sense, with which εἰσελθεῖν was supposed not to agree. Comp. note on Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25. If the second ἐισελθεῖν were to be retained, the preponderance of evidence would be in favour of inserting it after πλούσιον (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 xa? ὑμεῖς read, with Tisch. 8, καὶ αὐτοί, following D LZR, 1, 124, Or. Ambr. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical gloss. — Ver. 29. ὅστις] The simple ὅς (Elz., Griesb., Fritzsche, Scholz) is opposed by preponderating evidence; τις was omitted as unnecessary (but comp. vil. 21, x. 92). --- ἢ γυναῖκα] after μητ. is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., on the evidence of Β D, 1, Or. Ir. Hil. vss. Taken from Mark and Luke. — For ἑκατονταπλασίονα Lachm. and Tisch. have σολλα- σλασίονα, following Β L, Syr® Sahid. Or. Cyr. Correctly; it would be much more natural to explain the indefinite σολλα- σλασ. from Mark x. 30 by means of the definite expression ἑχκατονταπλασ., than to explain the latter from Luke xviii. 30 by means of πολλαπλασ. Ver. 1 f. With his usual formula, κ. ἐγέν. ὅτε ἐτέλ., «.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. — μετῆρεν ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιυλ.] Comp. xvii. 22, 24. —mépav τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου] This expression can- not be intended to define the locale of εἰς τὰ ὄρια τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίος, for the reader knew, as matter of course, that Peraea and Judaea (iv. 15, 25) meant different 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 μετῆρεν ἀπὸ τ. Tad. (Fritzsche : “ Movens a Galilaea transiit fluvium”), for «. ἦλθεν εἰς τ. ὄρ. τ. ᾿Ιουδ. 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 ἦλθεν (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 xvii. 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 owt from that city to make a short sojourn in Peraea. — ἐκ εἴ] that is, in Peraea, just mentioned, and through which He was travelling on His way to the borders of Judaea, ver. 1. On αὐτούς (their sick), see Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 183]. Instead of the CHAP. XIX. 3. aa healing, Mark speaks of the teaching that took place on this occasion. Ver. 3. Πειράξοντες) 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 «. πᾶσαν αἰτίαν 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.— εἶ] See note on xii. 10. --- τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ] Assuming ἀνθρώπῳ to be spurious, the αὐτοῦ can only refer to something in the context, and that doubtless to the logical subject, to the τίς implied in the ἔξεστι. For a similar classical usage, comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 503 D.— «cata πᾶσαν αἰτίαν] 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 «. πᾶσαν αἰτίαν. 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, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ. Ver. 4. Αὐτούς]) δηλαδὴ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους" τουτὶ μὲν οὖν τὸ ῥητὸν ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς γενέσεως (i. 27) γέγραπται, Euthymius Zigabenus. The following αὐτούς should be understood after ὁ ποιήσας, 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 ποιεῖν, to create, comp. Plat. Tim. Ὁ. 76 C; Hesiod, Theog. 110, 127 (γένος ἀνθρώπων). ---- ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς] does not belong to ὁ ποιήσας (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). -- ἄρσεν «. θῆλυ] as male and female, as a pair consisting of one of each sex.— ἐποίησεν] after ὁ ποίησας the same verb. See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 21, and Gramm. II. 2, Ὁ. 656. Ver. 5. Εἶπεν] God. Comp. note on 1 Cor. vi. 16. Al- though, no doubt, the words of Gen. il. 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. — ἕνεκεν τούτου] 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 ἕνεκεν τούτου 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. — κατα- CHAP. XIX. 6--8, 25 λείψει] “necessitudo arctissima conjugalis, cui uni paterna et materna cedit,’ Bengel. — οὗ δύο] These words are not found in the Hebrew, though they occur in the Samaritan text, as they must also have done in that which was followed by the LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of more distinctly emphasizing the claims of monogamy. See note on 1 Cor. vi. 16. The article indicates the two particular persons in question.— eis σάρκα μίαν] 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 εἶναι eis means to refer to anything, or to serve for anything, Plat. Phil. p. 39 E; Ale. I. p. 126 A), but a rendering of the Hebrew ? mn (Vorst, Hebr. p. 680 f.). Ver. 6. Οὐκέτι] after this union, ver. 5.— εἰσ] are they, that is, the two of ver. 5.— 6] quod, “ut non tanquam de duobus, sed tanquam de wno corpore loqueretur,’ Maldonatus. — ὁ θεός] through what is said in ver. 5. Obseive the con- trast to ἄνθρωπος. --- 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. — ἐνετείλατο] Deut. xxiv. 1, in which, indeed, there is no express command, though it may be said to contain κατὰ διάνοιαν 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 ἐπέτρεψεν, 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. Πρός] out of regard to, with (wise) consideration 26 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. so as to avert greater evil.— σκληροκαρδίαν] stubbornness of heart (Mark xvi. 14; Rom. 11. 5; Acts vii. 51; Sir. xvi. 10; Deut. x. 16), which will not be persuaded to self- reflection, gentleness, patience, forbearance, etc.; κατὰ διαφό- ρους αἰτίας μισούντων τὰς γαμετὰς, Kal μὴ καταλλαττομένων αὐταῖς. ᾿Ενομοθέτησε γὰρ ἀπολύειν ταύτας, ἵνα μὴ φονεύ- ὠνται, Euthymius Zigabenus.— ov γέγονεν οὕτω] 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.— μὴ ἐπὶ πορν.] not on account of fornication, 1.6. adultery. The deleting of those words (Hug, de conjug. vinculo indissolub. p. 4 f.; Maier’s note on 1 Cor. vil. 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 aATONEN. yap. μουχᾶται, Which is in no way inconsistent with the exception under consideration, seeing that, as a matter of course, the ἀπολελ. refers to a woman who has been divorced arbitrarily, μὴ ἐπὶ πορν. (see note on v. 32); nor by ver. 10, where the question of the disciples can be sufficiently accounted for; nor by 1 Cor. vii. 11 (see note on this passage). We are therefore as little 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 wnica et adacquata 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. — μοιχᾶται] commits adultery, because, in fact, his marriage with tho woman whom he has arbitrarily dismissed has not yet been disannulled. The second povyaras is justified: because this ἀπολελυμένη 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. —ei οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία, K.T.r.] ἡ αἰτία means causa, but not in the sense of res or relation (Grotius) : “ si 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, gua aliquis cwm uxore versari cogatur.” According to the text, ἡ αἰτία can only be taken as referring back to the question concerning divorce, κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, 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 πορνεία of the wife to be such an αἰτία as the disciples had inquired about, and that, moreover, the sole one. This also leads me to with- draw my former interpretation of αἰτία in the sense of guilt, that, namely, which was understood to be expressed by the μουχῶται. 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: ἐὰν μία μόνη ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία ἡ μέσον τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κ. τῆς γυναικὸς ἡ διαζευγνύουσα. ---- οὐ cud. yap] because one cannot be released again, but, with the exception of adultery alone, must put up with all the woman’s other vices. Vv. 11, 12. The disciples have just said: οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι. But to this saying must τὸν λόγον τοῦτον 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 donwm continentiae (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 410 ἔν; 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 eunuwchs 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 οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι, and for this end He by no means questions their λόγος, but simply observes that: 2 is a proposition which all do not accept, 1.6. which all cannot see their way to adopt as a maxim, but only such as God has endowed with special moral capabilities. Then, in ver. 12, He explains who are meant by the ois δέδοται, namely, such as have become eunuchs ; by these, however, He does not understand literal eunuchs, whether born such or made such by men, but those who, for the sake of the Messiah’s kingdom, have made them- selves such so far as their moral dispositions are concerned, i.e. who have suppressed all sexual desire as effectually as though they were actual eunuchs, in order that they might devote themselves entirely to the (approaching) Messianic kingdom as their highest interest and aim (to 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) 2 (that which I have just stated), ἰού him accept at! Chrysostom well observes: He says this, προθυμοτέρους τε ποιῶν τῷ δεῖξαι ὑπέρογκον ὃν τὸ κατόρθωμα, Kal οὐκ ἀφιεῖς εἰς ἀνάγκην νόμου τὸ πρᾶγμα κλεισθῆναι. Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1 f. The χωρεῖν, ver. 11 ἢ, 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 go 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, pracstare 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 λόγος (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 τὸν Ady. τοῦτ. as pointing forward to ver. 12). So Plut. Cat. min. 64; Ael. V. H. iii. 9; Phocyl. 86: od χωρεῖ μεγάλην διδαχὴν ἀδίδακτος ἀκούειν ; Philo, de mundo 1151: ἀνθρώπινος λογισ- pos ov χωρεῖ. But the difficulty with respect to what the disciples have said, and what Jesus says in ver. 12, is not connected with the apprehension of its meaning, but with its ethical appropriation, which, moreover, Jesus does not abso- lutely demand, but leaves it, as is also done by Paul, 1 Cor. vii, to each man’s ability, and that according as he happens to be endowed with the gift of continence as a donwin singulare. Consequently, the celibate of the clerical order, as such, acts in direct opposition to this utterance of the Master, especially as the εὐνουχίζειν ἑαυτόν cannot be acted on by any one with the certainty of its lasting. Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 240f.: “non placet Christo wnmunda 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 εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτούς to denote entire absence from sexual indulgence, likewise occurs in Sohar Ea. f. 37, ο. 135; Levit. f. 84,0. 136 Ὁ; Schoettgen, p. 159.—It is well known that from a misunderstanding of the meaning of this passage Origen was led to castrate himself. On the correctness of this tradition (in answer to Schnitzer and Bauer), see Engelhardt in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1838, p. 157; Redepenning, Origenes, I. Ὁ. 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 marriage as impure. .30 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Ver. 13. Comp. Mark x. 13. At this point (after being suspended from ix. 51-xvilii 14) the narrative of Luke again becomes parallel, xviii. 15.—Little children were brought to Jesus, as to a man of extraordinary sanctity, whose prayer was supposed to have peculiar efficacy (John ix. 31); as, ina similar way, children were also brought to the presidents of the synagogues in order that they might pray over them (Buxt. Synag. p. 158). The laying on of the hands (Gen. xlvii. 14) was desired, not as a mere symbol, but as ὦ means of com- municating the blessing prayed for (Acts vi. 6); hence, with a nearer approach to originality, Mark and Luke have simply ἅψηται and ἅπτεται (which, in fact, was understood to be of itself sufficient for the communication in question).—The conjunctive with ἵνα after the preterite (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 897; Winer, p. 270 [E. T. 359]) serves to represent the action as immediately present. — οὐτοῖς] are those of whom the προ- σηνέχθη is alleged, 1.6. 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 τῶν τοιούτων 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, xviii. 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. vil. 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. — Eis] One, a single individual out of the multitude. According to CHAP. XIX. 17, 91 Luke, the person in question was an ἄρχων, not ἃ νεανίσκος (ver. 20), which is explicable (Holtzmann) on the ground of a different tradition, not from a misunderstanding on the part of Matthew founded on ἐκ νεότητ. wou (Mark x. 20). --- τί ἀγαθὸν ποιήσω] is not to be explained, with Fritzsche, as equivalent to τί ἀγαθὸν ὃν ποιήσω, 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, οἷο. ἡ 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 (τί με ἐρωτᾶς, K.7.X.) ; 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 (δέ, the continuative autem: to tell thee now more precisely what I wished to impress upon thee by this εἷς éotly ὁ ἀγαθός) desirest to enter into life, keep the commandments (which are given by this One ἀγαθός). Neander explains incorrectly thus: “ Why askest thou me concerning that whichis 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 éué).—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 ἀγαθός. The claims of Mark and Luke are likewise favoured by Weisse, Bleek, Weiss, Schenkel, Volkmar, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, the last of whom, however, gives the ae THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. palm in the matter of originality to the narrative of the Gospel of the Hebrews (Δ 7. extra can. IV. p. 16 f.).—For οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς, «.7.r., comp. Plat. Rep. p. 379 A: ἀγαθὸς ὅ ye θεὸς τῷ ὄντι TE Kal λεκτέον 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: εἰ θέλεις... τήρησον τὰς ἐντολάς, which impels the sinner to repentance, to a renuncia- tion of his own righteousness, and to faith; comp. notes on Rom. ii. 13; Gal. i. 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 ἐντολάς to which Jesus referred; hence ποίας, Which is not equivalent to τίνας, 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 ἐξ (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 γνῶ τί ὑστερῶ ἐγώ; 1 Cor. xii. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii 11. This reply (Plat. Rep. p. 484 D: μηδ᾽ ἐν ἄλλῳ μηδενὶ μέρει ἀρετῆς ὑστεροῦντας) 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. 30 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. Τέλειος) perfect, one, who for the obtaining of eternal life, οὐδὲν ἔτι ὑστερεῖ. Ln 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 ἀκολούθει μοι. 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. — πτωχοῖς] the poor. — ἐν οὐρανῷ] thou wilt have (instead of thy earthly goods) a treasure in heaven, 1.6. 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. Δυπούμενος) 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. — δυσ- κόλως] 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, Miiller, von d. Siinde, 1. p. 69 ff., ed. 5. MATT. 11. 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 πάλιν, comp. xviil. 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, Lex. 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 κάμιλον to be the correct reading (as in several cursive manuscripts), or ascribing this meaning to κάμηλος (τινές in Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus), is all the more inadmissible that κάμηλος never has any other meaning than that of a camel, while the form κάμιλος 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. — εἰσελθεῖν after pad. is universally interpreted: to enter in (to any place). On the question as to whether padés 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 Ζῶ. 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: τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος. Hermas, Pastor, i. 3. 6. Ver, 25. Tis ἄρα] 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 “ὁ 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. Ἐμβλέψας) 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: ἡμέρῳ βλέμματι. Comp. Luke xx. 17; John i. 43. — παρὰ ἀνθρώποις] so far as men are concerned, 1.6. not hominum judicio (Fritzsche, Ewald), but serving to indicate that the impossibility is on the part of man, is owing to human inability, Luke i. 37. — τοῦτο] namely, the σωθῆναι, 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 (ἡμεῖς placed emphatically at the be- ginning, in contrast to the young τη8η).---ἀφήκαμεν πάντα] 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. --- τ-ἰ ἄρα ἔσται ἡ μῖν] 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 wpon 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, τί ἄρα ἔσται ἡμῖν; 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.— In answer to the question concerning the reward, Jesus, in the first place, promises a special 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 xviil. 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 vebuke 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 τῇ παλιγγενεσίᾳ] in the regeneration, does not belong to ἀκολουθήσαντές μοι (Hilary, explaining the words by baptismal regeneration (Titus i. 5) ; also Calvin, who understands by παλυγγενεσία 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 ἀποκατά- στασις, Acts 111. 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 παλύγγεν., and supply ἐστε (“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 ὅταν (otherwise one should have expected ὅταν δέ. The words belong to καθίσεσθε, and signify that change by which the whole world is to be restored to that original state of perfection in which rt existed before the fall, which renewal, restitutio in integrum, is to be brought about by the coming Messiah (nhyn wrtn). See Buxtorf, Lex Tal. p. 712; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 214 f.; Gfrorer, Jahrh. ἃ. Heils, Il. p. 272 ff. Comp. Rom. viii. 19 ff; 2 Pet. i. 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 CHAP. XIX. 28. 37 referring), this renovation will have already begun, and will be in the course of development, so that Jesus can say with all propriety: ἐν τῇ παλύγγ. “Nova erit genesis, cul preerit Adamus secundus,” Bengel. Comp. παλυγγενεσία τῆς πατρίδος in Joseph. Antt. xi. 3. 9; maduyyev. τῶν ὅλων 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. ili. 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 (ἀνάστασις). ---- ὅταν καθίσῃ, κι τ. as judge. -— δόξης αὐτοῦ) the throne, that is, on which the Messiah shows Himself in His glory, xxv. 31.—«al αὐτοί (see critical notes) : likewise, just as the Messiah will sit on His throne. — καθίσεσθε) you will take your seats wpon. 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 i. 20,” Bengel. — κρίνοντες] 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 κόσμος (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 κόσμος, 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 wpon 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 δωδεκάφυλον 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 (xxu. 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. Τὺ 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, οἷο. ---- ἀφῆκεν] has left, com- pletely abandoned. Comp. ver. 27. — ἕνεκεν τ. ov. μ.] 0.0. 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 ΠῚ --- πολλαπδλα- cova (see critical notes) λήψεται, according to the context (see καθίσεσθε, ver. 283; κληρονομήσει, ver. 29; ἔσονται, 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 καιρὸς οὗτος and the αἰὼν ἐρχόμενος 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 αἰὼν οὗτος, some supposing it to point to the happiness arising from Christian ties and relationships, as Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein ; others, to the receiving of all things in return for the few (1 Cor. iii. 21; Olshausen); others, again, to inward peace, hope, the fellowship of love (Kuinoel, Calvin), or generally, the spiritual blessings of believers (Bengel); and others still, to Christ Himself, as being (xii. 49 f.) infinitely more to us than father, mother, brother, etc. (Maldonatus, Calovius). Julian mocked at the promise. — κ, ζωὴν αἰ. 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 (ἔσχατοι ὄντες, namely, before the second coming), and last though first (πρῶτοι ὄντες), but those usually adopted, accord- ing to which πρῶτοι is the subject of the first, and ἔσχατοι 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 πολλοὶ... πρῶτοι stand so far apart serves to render πολλοί very emphatic: Jn multitudes, how- ever, will the first be last, and vice versd. The second clause is to be supplemented thus: καὶ πολλοὶ ἔσονται ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι. But to understand πρῶτοι and ἔσχατοι as referring, not to time, but to rank, regarded from the divine and human point of view, as though the idea were that “when the rewards come to be dispensed, many a one who considers himself among the highest will be reckoned among the lowest” (Hilgenfeld, following Kuthymius 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. 41 CHAPTER. XX, Ver. 6. ὥραν] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a sup- plement, following B D Lx, vss. Or. — ἑστῶτα ς] Elz., Fritzsche, Scholz insert ἀργούς, which is not found in Β C** D L &, vss. and Fathers. Interpolation taken from vv. 3 and 7. — Ver. 7. χ. ὃ ἐὰν ἢ δίκαιον, λήψεσθε) is wanting in important codd. (B DLZ x), vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. For λήψεσθε, several vss. have dabo vobis. The words are a very ancient interpolation, in conformity with ver. 4.— Ver. 8. Delete αὐτοῖς, with Tisch. 8, following CL Zs, Or. y ; for just in the same way are we to understand CHAP. XXI. 4-6. 59 καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον, 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). —— ὅτι] recitative. -— ἀποστέλλει] 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 εὐθέως δέ, 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 ὁ κύριος, «.7.X., 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 xii. 14 f. Ver. 4 f. Ἵνα πληρωθῇ] 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 (εἴπατε .. Σιών) 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 ἅρματα ἐλαύνων ὡς οἱ λοιποὶ βασιλεῖς, 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 ethica, 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.— σοί] Dative of ethical reference, common likewise in classical Greek along with ἔρχεσθαι. ---- καὶ ἐπὶ πῶλον] See note on ver. 2. καί is epexegetical.—vidv ὑποξυγ, Minx ja, For ὑποζύγιον, beast of burden, a term more frequently used in the Septuagint to designate the ass, comp. Herod. ix. 24,39, 41; Xen. Anad. 1 3. 1; Lucian, Cynic. x.; Polyb. m1 ὉΠ ae 3 Esdr. v. 43; 2 Pet. u. 16. Ver. 7. They spread their outer garments upon both animals, being uncertain which of them Jesus intended to mount. — The (second) ἐπάνω αὐτῶν 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 αὐτῶν 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 αὐ once, not one after the other (Fritzsche, Fleck), seeing that «. ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπ. αὐτῶν 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 oreeted with on entering cities, 2 Kings ix. 13; Wetstein’s note on this passage; Robinson, II. p. 588. --- ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος] the most of the people, the greatest part of the multi- tude. Comp. Plat. Rep. Ὁ. 397 D; Thuc. vii. 78; Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 86. --- ἑαυτῶν] states what the multitude did with their own garments, after the disciples had spread theirs upon the two beasts. CHAP. XXI. 9-11. 61 Ver. 9 ff. ‘Qoavvd] δ) 7YIN, Ps. exviii. 25, bestow blessing !—addressed to God. The dative is due to the meaning of the verb (opitulare) contained in ὥσαννά. ---- ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς biot.|] Grant blessing in the-highest places (Luke ii. 14), 1.6. 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 ἐν τ. inp. equivalent to ὁ dv τ. i. (grant blessing, O Thou who art in heaven), as Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Kuinoel, are disposed to think. — ἐν ὀνόμ. κυρίου] 1.6. 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. exviii. (Succoth iv. δ). ---- ἐσείσ θη] 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.— ὁ προφήτης] 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, “Incods... Tanun., in which the ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρ. τ. Taner. 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 vii. 5 f. Strauss asserts that there is here the possibility at least of a mythical story, though his objections are far from being to the point. See, on the other hand, Ebrard and Bleek. 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 (κολλυβ., see Phrynichus, p. 440) exchanged on commission (pap, 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 ii. 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. lvi. 7 and Jer. vii. 11, and taken from the Sept.—«Ar7@yo.] how sacred the pur- pose for which it was intended, but ye, etc.— ποιεῖτε (see critical notes) censures this desecration of the temple as a thing in which they are stzl/ persisting. — σπήλαιον λῃστῶν] 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 accownted for by the fact that avarice had taken up its abode in those sacred precincts to carry on its huckstering and money-changing: τὸ yap φιλοκερδὲς λῃστρικὸν πάθος ἐστι, Theophylact. Differently Fritzsche : “ Vos undequaque pecuniam, animalia huc 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, Stindl.p.177. And the acquiescence of the astonished multitude is all the more in- telligible on the occasion of ¢his cleansing, that the indignant reformer had just celebrated His triumphal march into the city in the character of Messiah. But even on the jirst occa- sion, John 11., 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. — τὰ θαυμάσια] 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. ἀκούεις x.7.d.] in a tone of rebuke, implying that He was the occasion of such impropriety, and was tolerat- ing it.— ὅτι] 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. vii. ὃ, God has perfected. -- - νηπίων «x. θηλαζόντων] 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 adulé instruments in effecting the triumph of God’s cause (Hofmann, Weiss. wu. Hrf. 11. 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 i the temple were not νήπιοι (1.6. in connection with θηλάξ. 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 Jatter, 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 δόξα God is glorified (John xiii. 31, xiv. 13; Phil. ii. 11), nay, God glorifies Himself (John xii. 28). — κ. ηὐλίσθη ἐκεῖ] Consequently He did not pass the night in the open air (in answer to Grotius), for neither in classical Greek do we always find αὐλίζεσθαι 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. 11. Ὁ. 432 ff.; Robinson, Pal. 11. 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, 1.6. Lazarus). For the name, see note on John 1. 28. Ver. 19. Comp. Mark xi. 19 ff Μίαν] “unam illo loco,” Bengel. — ἐπὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ] 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. WV. H. xv. 19. ---ἦλθεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν] 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. II. 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 σχηματίζεσθαι (Kuthymius Zigabenus), or an esuries sponte cucitata (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 πίστις, 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 (τὸ τῆς συκῆς, 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 7e- present in a prophetic, symbolical, visible form the punishment which follows moral barrenness (Luke xiii. 6 ff.)—such a punishment as was about to overtake the Jews in particular, and the approach of which Jesus was presently to announce CHAP. XXI. 23. 67 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 πῶς of the disciples’ question, ver. 20, did not reguive 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. ---οαἰτήσητε ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ] Comp. note on Col. 1. 9: what ye will have desired in your prayer.— πιστεύοντες] Condition of the λήψεσθε. He who prays in faith, prays in the name of Jesus, John xiv. 13. Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xi. 27 ff.; Luke xx. 1 ff. — 4ιδά- σκοντι) while He was engaged in teaching.—év ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ) 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). --- ταῦτα] 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 ταῦτα, 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 ἐξουσία was dwine, 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.—doyov ἕνα] 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. — πόθεν ἢν} whence did it proceed? The following alternative is ex- planatory : was it from G'od, 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 39.— dveXoy. παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς] they deliberated by themselves, privately κατ᾽ ἰδίαν, 1... with each other, during a brief pause for private consultation, before giving their decision, which was intimated in the subsequent ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. διαλογίζεσθαι in this instance also denotes reflection combined with mutual consultation. Comp. xvi. 7; Mark viii. 16; Luke xx. 14.- ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ] λέγοντι πολλὰ Kal μεγάλα περὶ ἐμοῦ, Euthymius Zigabenus. Ver. 26 f. Φοβούμεθα τὸν ὄχλον) 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 swppose we should say: From men ; we are afraid of the people,’ etc. Comp. note on Acts xxiii. 9. --- ππάντες yap, «.7.r.] See on xiv. 5.—x«xal αὐτός] He also on His part; for as they with their wretched οὐκ οἴδαμεν left the question of Jesus unanswered, so now in like manner He with His decided and humbling οὐδὲ ἐγώ (neither do I) refuses to answer theirs. Vy. 28-32. Peculiar to Matthew, and ἄδυ η ες taken from the collection of the sayings of the Lord—Jesus now assumes the offensive in order to convince His adversaries of their own baseness. — τέκνα and τέκνον suggest the father’s love. — Ver. 30. ἐγώ] 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: 7, sir, will go and work in the vineyard this very day. The CHAP, XXI. 33-39. 69 κύριε, 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: οὐ θέλω), 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 ἐγὼ, κύριε), 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. — προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς] 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 ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης] in the way of righteousness, 1.6. as one whose walk and conversation are characterized by moral integrity. ἐν ἀμέμπτῳ βίῳ (Theophylact), ἵνα καὶ ἀξιό- πίστος φανῇ (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 21, ii. 2; Prov. vii. 20, xii. 28, xvii. 23. The preaching of righteousness (de Wette, Bleek, Keim) would have been ex- pressed by some such terms as ὁδὸν δικαίοσ. διδάσκων (xxii. 16).— ἰδόντες] the fact, namely, that the publicans and harlots believed Him. — οὐδὲ μετεμελ. ὕστ.] did not even feel penitent afterwards (ver. 29), far less did you get the leneth of actual conversion. The example of those others produced so little impression upon you. The emphasis is not on ὕστερ., but on μετεμ. ----τοῦ πιστεῦσαι) Object of μετεμ. vort., 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 γι measure of their sin against God (even to the killing of His Son), and announces to them the punishment that awaits them. - ὠρυξεν ἐν αὐτῷ ληνόν] dug a wine-vat in it. Comp. Xen. ὦμο. xix. 2: ὁπόσον βάθος ὀρύττειν δεῖ τὸ φυτόν. 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, Realw. 1. p. 653 ἔ- - πύργον] 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. — ἐξέ- Soro] he let it out (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.—tovs καρποὺς αὐτοῦ) αὐτοῦ is often taken as referring to the vineyard ; but without reason, for there is nothing to prevent its being referred to the subjeet 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.— ἐλιθοβόλησαν] they stoned him (xxiii. 37; John viii. 5; Acts vii. 58 f,, xiv. 5; Heb. xii. 20), forms a climax to ἀπέκτ., as being a “species atrox” (Bengel) of this latter.— évtpamyo.] a reasonable expecta- tion. —elmrov ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] they said one to another.— καὶ σχῶμεν τὴν κληρον. αὐτοῦ] and let us obtain possession of his inheritance, namely, the vineyard to which he is the heir. In these words they state not the result 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.— ἐξέβαλον κ. CHAP. XXI. 40, 41. ya ἀπέκτ.] 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. xiii. 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 δοῦλοι) at the hands of the leaders (the husbandmen) of the Jewish theocracy (the vineyard), an institution expressly designed for the preduction 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 ἀπεδήμησεν 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) !— κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέσει αὐτί as despic- able creatures (scoundrels), He will miserably destroy them. The collocation κακοὺς κακῶς 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. Cyc. 270: κακῶς οὗτοι κακοὶ ἀπόλοινθ᾽. 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 κύριος and the execution of the punishment as denoting the second advent and the last judgment; for, apart from the ie THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. fact that it is God and not Christ that is represented by the κύριος, the words οἵτινες ἀποδώσουσιν, «.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 (i.e. the leaders of the Christian church as representing the true ᾿Ισραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ), 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. 11 f Such are the things which those hostile questioners “ ἄκοντες. προφητεύουσι" (Euthymius Zigabenus).— ἐν τοῖς καιροῖς αὐτῶν] αὐτῶν refers to the γεωργοί: at the terms prescribed to them for doing 80. Ver. 42. The enemies of Jests 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. ὌΧ. 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. —X{iPov ὅν] a stone which, attraction of very frequent occurrence. — a7edoxiu.] as not fit for being used in the building. — οὗτος] this, and no other. — κεφαλὴν γωνίας] ΠῸΒ US, head of the corner, i.e. corner- stone (in Hesychius we find κεφαλίτης 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. 48. Ὁ. 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. — ἐγένετο αὕτη] did he become so (viz. the corner-stone, κεφαλὴ γωνίας). Here the feminine is not a Hebraism for the neuter (as little is it so in 1 Sam. iv. 7; Ps. xxvii. 4), as Buttmann, Newt. Gr. Ὁ. 108 [E. T. 123], would have us suppose, but strictly grammatical, inasmuch as it refers to xed. ywv.; and accordingly we find that in the Septuagint also nxt is rendered according to its contextual reference. To refer to γωνίας merely (Wetstein) is inad- missible, for this reason, that, in what precedes, κεφαλὴ yor. was the prominent idea.—xal ἔστε θαυμαστὴ, κ.τ.λ.] viz. this κεφαλὴ yov. “Our eyes,” as referring to believers. Ver. 43. Διὰ τοῦτο] 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 λέγω ὑμῖν, how- ever, like the ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν below, implies the obvious inter- mediate thought: “ for it is you who reject this corner-stone.” --ἀρθήσεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν} for they, along with the whole ᾿Ισραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα represented by them, were by natural right the owners of the approaching Messianic kingdom, its theocratic heirs; comp. xiii. 38.— ἔθνει ποιοῦντι, x.7.d.] 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 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 1 Pet. 11. 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 ποιοῦντι; 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 ἀρθήσεται 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), i shall winnow him, te. throw him off like the chaff from the winnowing-fan. συνθλᾶσ- Oat (to be crushed) and λικμᾶσθαι, which form a climax, are intended to portray the execution of the Messianic judgments. λικμάω 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 (Il. v. 500; Xen. Occ. xviii. 2. 6; Plut. Mor. p. 701 C; Lucian, Gymnas. xxv.; Ruth iii. 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 (yw). Comp. Dan. ii. 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. viii. 14 f.), some one falls, is now conceived of as rolling down with crushing force upon the man; the latter having reference to the whole of such coming (ver. 40) in judgment down to the second advent; the former expressing CHAP. XXI. 45, 46. "5 the same thought in a passive form, κεῖται εἰς πτῶσιν (Luke li. 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. — οὗ ἀρχιερεῖς x. οἱ Φαρισ, identical with the of apy. «. οἱ πρεσβύτεροι of ver. 23, so that, in the present instance, the latter are designated by the name of the warty to which they belonged. — ἔγνωσαν} 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. — εἰς (see critical remarks) προφή- τὴν: held Him as a prophet, 1.6. in Him they felt they possessed a prophet; on εἰς, which is met with in later writers in the sense of the predicate, see Bernhardy, p. 219. 76 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Cy As? Ty 2s XL Ver. 4. ἡτοίμασα] Following BC* DL», 1, 22, 23, we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἡτοίμακα because of the prepon- derance of manuscript authority. — Ver. 5. 6 wev...6 δέ] BL, min. Or.: ὃς wiv... ὃς 6 So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. To be preferred on the strength of this external authority, particularly as Οὗ 8, which have ὁ wiv... ὃς δέ, cannot be regarded as counter- evidence. — For εἰς τήν, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read éa/ τήν, following B C D 8, min. Or. Correctly; εἰς is a mechanical repetition of the one preceding. — Ver. 7. The Received text has ἀκούσας δὲ 6 Bac. Of the numerous readings, the simple ὁ δὲ βασιλεύς is the one favoured by B L 8, min. Copt. Sahid., while most of the other witnesses have zai ἀκ. 6 Bac. (so Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7). Lachm. reads ὁ δὲ Bac. ἀκούσας, but only following min. Tt. Vul&. Arm. Ir, Chrys. Eus. In presence of such a multi- plicity of readings, we ought to regard the simple ὁ δὲ βασ. 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 11. 3), ἀκούσας was added, being inserted sometimes in one place and sometimes in another. Many important witnesses insert ἐχεῖος after βασιλ. (D and codd. of It. Lucif. place it before), a reading which is also adopted by Scholz and Tisch. 7 (therefore: x. ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκεῖνος). It is not found in Β 1, δὲ, 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 ἐχεῦος which follows. — Ver. 10. ὁ γάμος] Tisch. 8: ὁ νυμφών, following B* Ls. A mis- taken gloss, for νυμφών means the bride-chamber. — Ver. 13. ἄρατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκβάλετε) Lachm. Tisch. 8: ἐκβάλετε αὐτόν, following ΒΤ, δὲ, min. vss. and Fathers. The word ἄρατε, 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 ἄρατε is likewise confirmed by the gloss ἄρατε αὐτὸν ποδῶν κ. χειρῶν, which came to be substituted for δήσαντες αὐτοῦ σόδ. x. χεῖρας (so D, Cant. Vere. Ver. Colb. Corb. 2, Clar. I. CHAP. XXII. 77 Lucif.). — Ver. 16. λέγοντες] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8: λέγον- rac, following B LX, 27, vss. (Ὁ. An improper emendation. Ver. 23. οἱ Aevorseg] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have deleted the article, following B Ὁ M S Ζ καὶ, 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 γαμήσας, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B Lx, min. Or. read γήμας, a form which the copyists would be very apt to exchange for one of more frequent occurrence in the New Testament.— For xai ἡ γυνή, ver. 27, read, with Tisch. 8, simply ἡ γυνή, In accordance with the preponderance of evidence. — Ver. 28. Instead of ἐν τῇ οὖν ἀναστ., we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἐν +. ἄναστ. ow, 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. ἐκγαμίζονται] Lachm. Tisch. 8: γαμίζονται, following Β 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.— τοῦ θεοῦ] wanting in Β D, 1, 209, vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Left out, in accordance with Mark xii. 25. — Ver. 32. οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς θεός] The second θεός is deleted by Lachm., following B L A, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. (?). It is like- wise wanting in D 8, min. Eus. Chrys., which authorities drop the article before the first θεός. Tisch. 8 follows them, simply reading οὐκ ἔστιν θεός. 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. zai λέγων] not found in B LS, 33, vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The omis- sion, though opposed to Matthew’s usual style (xii. 10, xvii. 10, xxil. 23, 41, xxvii. 11), is in accordance with Mark xu. 28.— Ver. 37. Ἰησοῦς] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., follow- ing B LX, 33, Copt. Sahid. Inserted from Mark xii. 29.— ἔφη] having decisive evidence in its favour, 15 to be preferred to εἶπεν of the Received text. — Ver. 38. For πρώτη x. μεγάλη, read, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: ἡ μεγάλη κ. πρώτη, following Β D (which latter, however, omits 7) L (which, however, inserts the article also before πρώτη) ZS®, min: vss: Hilar.; πρώτη would be placed first as being the chief predicate. Comp. δευτέρα below.— Ver. 40. καὶ οἱ προφῆται κρέμανται] BD LZ δὰ, 33, Syr. Vulg. It. Tert. Hil.: χρέμαται καὶ of προῷ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical correction.— Ver. 44. ὑποπόδιον] BD 6 1, 78 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. ZY AX, min. vss: Aug.: ὑποκάτω. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from the Sept. and Luke. Ver. 1. Kai ἀποκρ. ὁ "Ino. πάλιν εἶπεν, κιτ.λ.] In the full consciousness of His mission and His own superiority, Jesus replied (ἀποκρ., see note on xi. 25) to their hostile ζητεῖν, which only fear of the people kept in check, by adding another parabolic address (ἐν παραβ. 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, Weizsicker, 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 γάμους ποιεῖν, to prepare a marriage feast, comp. Wetstein and Xen. de rep. Lac. i. 6; Tob. viii. 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 ; Rey. xxi. 2, 9), whose marriage represents the setting up of His kingdom. Comp. ix. 15, John iii, 29, and note on Eph. CHAP. XXII. 4-9. 79 v. 27. —«arécar] 1... 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. — ἀνθρ. Paccd.] as in xviii. 23 ; ὁμοιώθη, as in xiii, 24. Ver. 4. Τὸ ἄριστον) not equivalent to δεῖπνον (see Luke xiv. 12; Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 21), nor a meal gene- rally, but in the sense of breakfast, prandium (towards mid-day, Joseph. Antt. v. 4. 2), with which the series of meals con- nected with marriage was to begin. — ἡτοίμακα (see critical re- marks): paratum habeo.— καὶ πάντα] and everything generally. Ver. 5 ff. "Aperjoavtes| 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 δὲ dper., of μὲν ἀπῆλθον... οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ, κτλ. Instead of so expressing himself, however, he leaves it te appear from the context that the first οἱ represents the majority of those invited, while the οἱ δὲ λοιποί constitute the remainder, so that the general form of expression (οἱ δὲ ἀμελ,, «.7.X.) finds its limitation in οὗ δὲ λοιποί. This limitation might also have been expressed by οἱ δέ alone, in the sense of some, however (see Kiihner, II. 2, p. 808). —- εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν] 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 ἴδιος, comp. note on Eph. v. 22. Ver. 8. Οὐκ ἦσαν ἄξιοι] 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, —is to introduce an episode guite in accordance with the allustrative 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 ἢ Ver. 9. "Emi τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν] 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 in the city from which streets branch off, but the places where the country roads cross each other. Comp. Babyl. Berac. xiii. 1. Gloss.: “Divitibus in more fuit, viatores pauperes ad convivia invitare.” Ver. 10. ᾿Ε ξελθόντες] from the palace of the king out into the highways.— συνήγαγον] through their invitation, which was accepted.—7ovnp. τε καὶ ἀγαθ.} 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 πονηροί. ---- ὁ γάμος] not equivalent to νυμφών, but the wedding (1.6. the marriage feast, as in ver. 8; comp. Hom. Od. iv. 3, 11. xviii. 491), was full of guests. The emphasis, however, is on ἐπλήσθη. Ver. 11 f. "Evéuvua γάμου] a dress suited for a marriage. Comp. yAavis γαμική, 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, viii. 15) that any such custom existed in ancient times, nor does the text make any allusion to it whatever, although it would have contributed not a little to bring out the idea of the parable. That those invited, however, should appear in festive attire was a matter of course, and demanded by the rules of ordinary na CHAP. XXII. 18, 14. 81 etiquette (see Dougt. Anal. 11. p. 23). The only thing intended to be represented here is the moral δικαιοσύνη, which, by faith in Christ, men are required to assume after being called to the Messianic kingdom through μετάνοια. 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 δικαιοσύνη 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. — ἑταῖρε] Comp. on xx. 13. --- πῶς εἰσῆλθες, x.T.r.| ἃ question expressive of astonishment : how has it been possible for thee to come in hither (how couldst thou venture to do so), without, etc.?— μὴ ἔχων] although thou hadst not. Differently ver. 11: οὐκ ἐνδεδυμ. Comp. Buttmann, Newt. Gr. p. 301 [E. T. 351]. Ver. 13. δήσαντες, «.7.r.] that is, to make it impossible for him to get loose in course of the ἐκβάλλεσθαι, as well as to secure against his escape subsequently from the σκότος ἐξώτερον. ----ααὐτοῦ 706.| his feet; comp. on viii. 3. — For the διάκονοι of this passage (not δοῦλοι this time, for the servants waiting at the table are intended), see xiii. 41.— ἐκεῖ ἔσται, «.7.r.| not the words of the king, but, as the future ἔσται indicates, a remark on the part of Jesus, having reference to the condition hinted at in the words τὸ oxor. τ. efor. See, further, on viii. 12. Ver. 14. Tap] introduces the reason of the ἐκεῖ ἔσται, x.7.X. For, so far from the mere calling availing to secure against eternal condemnation, many, on the contrary, are called to the Messiah’s kingdom, but comparatively few are chosen by God actually to participate in it. This saying has a somewhat different purport in xx. 16; still in both passages the ἐκλογή 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 δικαιοσύνη 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. 11. 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. 53, Remark). Teaching of the parable: When the Messianic kingdom is about to be established, instead of those who have been invited to enter it, ac. 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 /irst invitation, and which is referred to in the τοὺς κεκλημένους 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. xxviii. 19; Acts 1. 8, xiii, 46. — Observe in connection with τότε, 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 τότε 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. ; ReEMARK.—The 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 ease of the Pharisees also, who would be able to infer from it what ἐμοῦ" 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 δικαιοσύνη, and consign them to the punishment of hell, Ver. 15 ff. Comp. Mark xu. 13 ff; Luke xx. 20 ff — Οἱ Φαρισαῖοι] 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. —émws| They took counsel (comp. λαβὼν αἵρεσιν, Dem. 947, 20), ex- pressly with a view to. Not equivalent to πώς, the reading in D, and originating in a mistaken gloss. Comp. xii. 14. For συμβούλιον, consultation, comp. xxvii. 1, 7, xxviii. 12; Mark ili. 6 ; Dio Cass. xxxviil. 43; classical writers commonly use συμβουλή, συμβουλία. Others (Keim included), without gram- matical warrant, render according to the Latin idiom: consiliwm ceperunt. Euthymius Zigabenus correctly renders by: συσκέπ- τονταῖ. ---- ἐν λόγῳ] in an utterance, 1.6. in a statement which he might happen to make. This statement is conceived of as a trap or snare (παγίς, 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: δι ἐρωτήσεως (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. παγιδεύειν, illaqueare, is not met with in classical writers, though it fre- quently occurs in the Septuagint. Ver. 16. The Herodians are not Herod’s courtiers (Fritzsche, following Luther), but the political party among the Jews that sought to uphold the dynasty of the Herods, popular royalists, in opposition to the principle of a pure theocracy, though willing also to take part with the powerful Pharisees against the unpopular Roman sway, should circumstances render such a movement expedient. or 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 ἃ 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. — réyortes] that is, through their representatives. Comp. xi. 2, xxvii. 19. — διδάσκαλε, οἴδαμεν, x.7.r.] Comp. with this cunning, though in itself so true an instance of captatio benevolentiae, the sincere one in John iii. 2.— ἀληθὴς εἶ] true, avoiding every sort of ψεῦδος in your dealings, either semulando or CHAP. XXII. 17, 16. 85 dissimulando. In what follows, and which is still connected with ὅτι, this is made more precise, being put both positively and negatively.—72v ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ] the way prescribed by God, 1.6. the behaviour of men to each other which God requires. Comp. τὴν δικαιοσύνην τ. θεοῦ, vi. 33; τὰ ἔργα τ. θεοῦ, John vi, 28; and so Ps. xxvii. 11; Wisd. v. 7; Bar. iii. 13. — év ἀλη θείᾳ] truthfully, as beseems the character of this way ; see on John xvii. 19.— od μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός] Thou carest for no man, in Thy teaching Thou actest without regard to the persons of men.—ov γὰρ βλέπεις, K.7.r.] giving the reason for the statement contained in οἴδαμεν, x.7.2. : for Thow 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, ὅτε ἀληθὴς εἶ καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν, κατὰ. Πρόσωπον avOp. denotes the outward manifesta- tion in which men present themselves (comp. on xvi. 3). Comp. θαυμάζειν πρόσωπον, Jude 16. The emphasis, how- ever, is on οὐ βλέπεις. We have not here a “natural para- phrase” of the Hebrew idiom λαμβάνειν πρόσωπον (Luke xx. 21), which expresses another, though similar idea (in answer to de Wette; see on Gal. 11. 6). In classical Greek, B. εἰς mp. Twos is used in the sense of being barefaced. See Bremi ad Aeschin. p. 370. Ver. 17. ξεστι] 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. 111. 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 κῆνσος, not merely poll-tax, but land-tax as well, see on xvii. 25. — Καίσαρι) without the article, being used as a proper name.—7 ov] “ flagitant responsum rotundum,” Bengel. Ver. 18. Τὴν πονηρίαν] for they concealed malicious designs (the reverse of ἁπλότης) behind their seemingly candid, nay, flatteringly put question, in which their object was to try (πειράζετε) 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 ὑποκριταί, Bengel appropriately observes: “verwm se eis ostendit, ut dixerant, ver. 16;” but in the interrogative τί, why, is involved the idea of: what is your design in putting such a question ? Ver. 19. To νόμισμα τ. κι] “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 Gezelah v. 18.— προ- σήνεγκ. αὐτῷ Onvap.| 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 Καίσαρος, 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. xiii. 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 τὴν εὐσέβειαν παραβλάπτοντα, otherwise it is οὐκέτι Καίσαρος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ διαβόλου φόρος καὶ τέλος. Thus the second part of the precept serves to dispose of any collision among our duties which accidental circumstances might bring about (Rom. xiii. 5). According to de Wette, Jesus, in the first part of His reply, does not refer the matter inquired about to the domain of conscience at all, but treats it as belonging only to the sphere of politics (Luke 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 unity of the true theocracy, which demands no revolutions of any kind, and also looks upon the right moral conception of the existing civil rule as 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. — ἀπόδοτε] the ordinary expression for paying what it is one’s duty to pay, 88 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. as in xx. 8, xxi. 41; Rom. xiii. 7.— Ver. 22. ἐθαύμασαν] “conspicuo modo ob responsum tutum et verum,” Bengel. Οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν δέ, Euthymius Zigabenus. Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xii. 18 ff. ; Luke xx. 27 ff.; Matthew condenses. — Οἱ λέγοντες μὴ εἶναι avaot.| 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: οἵτινες λέγουσι. Ver. 24 ff. A free citation of the law respecting levirate marriage, Deut. xxv. 5, and that without following the Sep- tuagint, which in ¢his instance does not render 03° by the characteristic ἐπύγαμβρ. 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, 17. R. p. 754 ff. ; Ewald, Alterth. p. 276 ff.; Benary, de Hebracor. leviratu, Berl. 1835. As to other Oriental nations, see Rosenmiiller, MWorgenl. V. p. 81; Bodenstedt, d. Volker des Kaukasus, Ὁ. 82; Benary, p. 31 ff. — ἐπυγαμβρεύειν, to marry as brother-in-law (levir. o>). Comp. Gen. xxxviil. 8; Test. XII. patr. p. 599. Differently ἐπυγαμβρ. τινι ἴῃ 1 Macc. x. 54; 1 Sam. xviii. 22.— ἕως τῶν ἑπτά] until the seven, 1.6. and in the same manner they continued to die until the whole seven were dead. Comp. xviii. 22; 1 Macc. ii. 38. — ὕστερον πάντων] 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 — is irreconcilable with the law ; while, by their fancied acuteness, they try to involve Jesus Himself in the dilemma of having to give an answer either disadvantageous to the law or favourable to their doctrine. — γυνή] Predicate. Ver. 29. Jesus answers that, in founding upon Deut. xxv. ὃ CHAP. XXII. 30. 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, 1.6. 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 in ver. 31. Ver. 30. Ἔν yap τῇ ἀναστάσει 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 ἀφθαρσία of the spiritual body. Comp. Luke xx. 90. -- γαμοῦσιν) applies to the bridegroom ; γαμίζονται (Apoll. de Synt. p. 277, 13), on the other hand, to daughters who are given in marriage by their parents.— ἀλλ᾽ ws ἄγγελοι, K.7.r.| but they are as the angels of God in heaven. ἐν οὐρανῷ belongs not to εἰσί, but to ἄγγελοι τ. θεοῦ, 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. 1.10; Hahn, Theol. d. N. 7.1. p. 267; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 68; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 556. The δόξα 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 hoe mundo, priori restituitur in mundo futuro,” Sohar Gen. f. xxiv. 96. Ver. 31 ἢ But with reference to the resurrection, set over against the foregoing ἐν yap τῇ dvaot.; the sequence of the address is indicated by the prepositions. περὶ τῆς ἀναστ. should be taken along with οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε. -- ὑμῖν] imparts the vivacity of individuality to the words of Jesus. The quotation is from Ex. iii. 6. His opponents had cited a passage from the law; with a passage from the law Jesus eonfutes 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, Stiskind 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. — οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς, x.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: μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς, a fact which Jesus has now confirmed by the illustration before us. Zhe point of the argument does not turn upon the present εἰμί (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, 1.6. those who are absolutely dead, who have ceased to exist (οὐκ ὄντων καὶ καθάπαξ ἀφανισθέντων, Chrysostom), but only toward the living, it follows that the deceased patriarchs must be living——living, that is, in Sheol, and living as ἀναστῆναι μέλλοντες (Euthy- mius Zigabenus). Comp. Heb. xi. 16. The similar inference in Menasse f. Isr. de Resurr. i. 10. 6, appears to have been deduced from the passage before us. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 180. CUAP, XXII. 33-35. 91 Ver. 33. Of ὄχλοι] ἀπόνηροι καὶ ἀδέκαστοι, 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.— οὗ δὲ Gapis.] 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. 9. --- ἀκούσαντες] whether while present (among the multitude), or when absent, through the medium, perhaps, of their spies, cannot be determined.— συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό] for the purpose of concerting measures for a new attack. Consequently the νομικός of ver. 35 had to be put forward, and, while the conversation between Jesus and him is going on, the parties who had deputed him gather round the speakers, ver. 41. There is, accordingly, no reason to apprehend any discrepancy (Késtlin) between the present verse and ver. 41. — él τὸ αὐτό] locally, not said with reference to their sentiments. See on Acts i. 15; Pe iis 2: Ver. 35. Νομικός] 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, ἐπιστήμων τῶν νόμων (Photius), Plut. δι, 36; Strabo, xii. p. 539; Diog. L. vi. 54; Epictet. 1.13; Anthol. xi. 382.19. It is impossible to 92 TUE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. show that there is any essential difference of meaning between this word and γραμματεύς (see note on ii. 4); comp. on the contrary, Luke xi, 52, 53.—The term νομικός is more specific (jurisconsultus), and more strictly Greek ; γραμματεύς, 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 νομοδιδάσκαλοι, Luke v. 17; Acts v. 37; 1 Tim. 1. 7.— πειράζων αὐτόν] different from Mark ΧΙ, 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 ποιότης 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 ποιότης about which thou inquirest. This love must form the principle, spirit, life οἵ. all that we do. | Ver. 36 f. What kind of a commandment (qualitative, comp. xix. 18) 5 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 κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, and which, as corresponding to the subsequent δευτέρα, He places at the head of the whole series (ἡ μεγάλη κ. πρώτη, in which regular designation τὸν θεόν 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. Ὁ. 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 wnderstanding, 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 τὸ δεῖν ἀγαπᾶν τὸν θεὸν ὁλοψύχως, τοῦτό ἐστι TO διὰ πάντων τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς μερῶν Kal δυνάμεων αὐτῷ προσέχειν (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 ποιότης (ὅτι αὕτη ἐκείνην προοδοποιεῖ, καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτῆς συγκροτεῖται πάλιν, 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: ἀλληλοχοῦνται κ. φεράλληλοί εἰσιν αἱ δύο. We should not adopt the reading ὁμοία αὕτη, recommended by Griesbach, following many Uncials and min. (but in opposition to the vss.) ; nor again that of Fritzsche, ὁμοία αὐτῇ, αὕτη (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 ὅμοιος. The com- mandment is quoted from Lev. xix. 18, after the Sept. — ἀγαπήσεις] This, the inward, moral esteem, and the corre- sponding behaviour, may form the subject of a command, though the same cannot be said of φιλεῖν, which is love as a matter of feeling. Comp. on v. 44, and see in general Tittmann, Syn. p. 50 ff. The φιλία τοῦ κόσμου (Jas. iv. 4), on the other hand, may be forbidden ; comp. Rom. viii. 7; the φιλεῖν of one’s own ψυχή (John xii. 25), and the μὴ φιλεῖν τὸν κύριον (1 Cor. xvi. 22), may be condemned, comp. also Matt. x. 37. -- ὡς σεαῦτ.] 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. vil. 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. — ταύταις] with emphasis: these are the two commandments on which, ete. —«péwatac] depends thereon, so that those commandments constitute the basis and essen- tial condition of the moral character of all the others, Rom. xi. 8 ff; Gal) v. 14. Comp. Plat. Legg. σα p. 88190 ee ὧν κρεμαμένη πᾶσα ψυχὴ πολίτουι Pind. Ol. vi. 125; Xen. Symp. viii. 19; Gen. xliv. 30; Judith viii. 24. --- καὶ οἱ προφῆται] so ie as the eee : element in them is con- cerned. Comp. on v.17. Thus J esus includes more in His reply than was contemplated by the question (ver. 36) of the νομικός. 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 chxxil, Ver. 43 f. Π ὡς] 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 7mpossible, 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 ἐν πνεύμ. 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- eritical one of persuading His opponents that the psalm was not composed by David, and that it contains no reference to the Messiah.\— ἐν πνεύματι] meaning, perhaps, that He did not do so on His own authority, but inpulsu Spiritus Sancti ferent 21); κοι 27; 1 Cor. xii, ὁ Rom: vit. 15, ix. 2. David was regarded as a prophet, Acts 11. 30,1. 16. --- αὐτόν] the Messiah; for the personage in the psalm is a prophetie 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. cx.).— ἕως ἂν θῶ, κιτιλ.] see on 1 Cor. xv. 25. Ver. 45 f. Εἰ οὖν Δαυεὶδ, κιτιλ] The emphasis rests on the correlative terms κύριον 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-Davidie Messiah would be a contradictio in adjecto. 96 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. psalmist’s son? Surely that styling of Him as Zord 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, xvu. 26; John i. 14, 18, vi 46, vie 260% 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 δόξα (Acts 11. 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 Lord. The Pharisees understood nothing of this twofold relation, and consequently could not discern the true majesty and destiny of the Messiah, so as to see in Him both David’s Son and Lord. Hence not one of them was found capable of answering the question as to the πῶς... ἐστι. Observe that the question does not imply a negative, as though Jesus had asked, μὴ vids αὐτοῦ ἐστι 3; — οὐκέτι) “ Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit,” Bengel. rete y CHAP. XXIIL 97 CHAPTER XXIII. VER. 3. τηρεῖν] after vu is deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch., following Mill. It is wanting in very important autho- rities. A gloss, for which certain authorities have ποιεῖ. --- THPETTE x. ποιεῖτε] Lachm.: ποιήσατε x. τηρεῖτε. So also Tisch. This is the original reading (B L Ζ s** 124, Hilar.) ; for the sake of uniformity, ποιήσατε was changed into ποιεῖς (D, 1, 209, Eus. Dam.); but the transposed order rzp. x. x. is an ancient logical correction (as old as Syr. Vulg. It.).— Ver. 4. For γάρ Lachm. and Tisch. read δέ, following weighty attestation. Cor- rectly ; γάρ was meant to be more precise. — καὶ dusBaer.| 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 xa:’s might so readily occur that they must not be regarded as an interpolation from Luke xi. 46.— τῷ 4] Lachm. Tisch. 8: αὐτοὶ δὲ τῷ, following B D L ¥, and two min. vss. and Fathers. Exegetical amplification after Luke xi. 46.— Ver. 5. For 62 after πλατύν. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have γάρ, in accord- ance with Β D 1, δὲ, min. vss. Chrys. Damase. See on ver. 4. —rév ἱματ. αὐτί] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B Ds, 1, 22, vss. Correctly; an explanatory addition. — Ver. 6. For gia. τε we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read φιλ. δέ, in accordance with decisive evidence. — Ver. 7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ῥαββί only once, following Β 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. καθηγητής) Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., following Grotius, Mill, and Bengel, read διδάσκαλος, which Rinck also ap- proves. No doubt χαθηγητ. has a very decided preponderance of evidence in its favour (of the uncials only B U s**? read d:dcox.); 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, καθηγητὴς ὁ Χριστός, 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. IL. G 98 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. in ver. 10 below.— Ver. 10. εἷς γὰρ ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὁ καθηγ.]} Lachm. and Tisch.: ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστὶν εἷς. The latter is the best attested reading ; that of the Received text is to con- form with ver. 8 f.—In the Texztus receptus the two verses, 13 and 14, stand in the following order: (1) οὐαὶ. .. εἰσελθεῖν; (2) οὐαὶ... κρῆμα, in opposition to EFG HK MSU VIraQ, vss. and Fathers. On this evidence Griesbach, Scholz, Fritzsche | have adopted the transposed order. But oda’... xpiwe (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. τίς γὰρ μείζων] Lachm.: τή γὰρ μεῖζον, but, undoubtedly, on the evidence of Z only. The vss. (Vulg. It.) can have no weight here. —é&y:é@wv] Lachm. and Tisch. : ἁγιάσας, following B Ὁ Z 8, Cant.; Vulg. has saneti- jicat. The present participle is from ver. 19, where there is no difference in the reading. — Ver. 19. μωροὶ καί] is wanting in DLZvX8, 1, 209, and several vss., also Vulg. It. Bracketed by Lachm., condemned by Itinck, 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 κατοικήσαντι Elz. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have κατοικοῦντι, following B H Sx, min., the force of the aorist not being apprehended. — Ver. 23. Elz.: ταῦτα ἔδει; but Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. 7 have adopted ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει. In both cases the evi- dence is considerable; but how readily might 6: be omitted before ἔδει through oversight on the part of the transcriber ! — Ver. 25. ἐξ] is wanting in C 1), min. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. It had been omitted as unnecessary. — Elz. Lachm. Tisch. read ἀκρασίας, instead of which Griesb. and Scholz have ἀδικίας. The evidence is very much divided, being strong on both sides ; ἀκρασίας 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 (ἀκαθαρσίας, πλεονεξίας, ἀδικίας, πονηρίας). ---- Ver. 26. airav] Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.: αὐτοῦ, following B* D E* min. Aeth. Vere. This αὐτοῦ is bound up with the omission of zai τῆς cup. in 1), 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 αὐτοῦ, so that the words ought to be deleted and αὐτοῦ preferred to αὑτῶν. -- Ver. 27. παρομοιά ζετε] Lachm.: ὁμοιάζετε, 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. ἤμεθα, instead of ἦμεν of the Received text, is sup- ported by decisive evidence.— Ver. 34, καὶ ἐξ αὖὐτ.] in the first case καί is wanting in BM Δ Π 8, min. codd. of It. Syr. Arm. Or.(once). Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.; but how readily may this καί have been omitted since the next clause opens with καί! — Ver. 36. Before ἥξει, Griesb., followed by Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, inserted ὅτι, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted again. ὅτι has important evidence both for and against, A common interpolation—raira πάντα] The order πάντα ταῦτα (Lachm. Tisch. 7) is well attested, though there is a prepon- derance of evidence (C D8, etc., Vulg. It.) for the reading of the Received text. — Ver. 37. νοσσία ἑαυτῇ ς] Lachm. has deleted taur., 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 xiii. 34, it would have been placed between τά and νοσσία. For ἑαυτῆς Tisch. reads αὐτῆς, following B** D, marg. M Ax8* 33, Clem.(once) Eus. Cyr. Theodoret. The reflective might be easily overlooked, as was often the case. — Ver. 38. ἔρημος 15 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 σημεῖον 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 ὄχλον are mentioned first, because the first part of the discourse on to ver. 7 is directed to them, then the μαθηταί 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 ὄχλον and the μαθηταί 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 foreground, Jesus with His disciples ; a little farther off, the ὄχλου ; 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” (an 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 xxii. 3), and is intended as a figura- tive mode of describing the functions of one who “acts as a public teacher of the Mosaic law,’ in discharging which functions the teacher may be regarded as the representative and successor of Moses. Accordingly, in Rabbinical writers, one who suc- ceeds a Rabbi as the representative of his school is described as ἡ ΟΞ ον avi. See Vitringa, Synag. p. 165 t. — ἐκάθισαν) 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. 11. 4. | Ver. 3. Ovv] inasmuch as they speak as teachers and interpreters of the Mosaic ἰαιυ. ---- πάντα... ὅσα] 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. 101 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 gudging as to how much of the teaching was binding upon them, and how much was not. The words are addressed to the ὄχλου, 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. -- ποιήσατε κ. τηρεῖτε (see critical notes): aorist and present; do it, and observe it constantly. See Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 158 ἢ Ver. 4. Comp. Luke xi. 46.— In δεσμεύουσι δέ (see critical notes), the δέ introduces an instance of their λέγουσι καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσι of a peculiarly oppressive character.— The binding (tying up into a bundle portions from the various elements, comp. Judith vill. 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@ δὲ δακτύλῳ αὐτῶν, κιτιλ but are themselves indisposed to move them even with their finger, in the direction, that is, of their fulfilment. The emphasis rests on τῷ δακτύλῳ ; 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.— φυλακτήρια, amulets; were the pPDA, 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. «πὲ. iv. 8.13; Lund, Jiid. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 898 ff.; Keil, Arch. I. p- 342 ἴ.--- πλατύνουσι] they broaden their φυλακτήρια, 1.6. they make them broader than those of others, in order that they may thereby become duly conspicuous. Corresponding to this is: μεγαλύνουσι, they enlarge. On the κράσπεδα, see on ix. 20.— τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν] the foremost couch at table, 4.6. according to Luke xiv. 8 ff. (Joseph. Anti. 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: πρωτοκλισία' ἡ πρώτη καθέδρα. --- ῥαββὶὲ, paBBi] ‘27, °21 (διδάσκαλε, John i. 39; with yod paragogic). The reduplication serves to show how profownd the reverence is. Comp. Mark xiv. 15; Matt. vii. 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. Vy. 8-12. Ὑμεῖς] 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. — μὴ 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, as an 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 κλη θῆτε] neither wish nor allow 1. -- πάντες δέ] so that no one may violate the fraternal tie on the ground of his sup- posed superiority as a teacher. — καὶ πατέρα, «.7..] The word πατέρα, by being placed at the beginning, becomes emphatic, and so also ὑμῶν, by being separated from πατέρα to which it belongs: And you must not call any one father of you upon earth, 1.6. you must not apply the teacher's title “our 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.— ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν, «.7.d.| But among you greatness is to be indicated quite otherwise than by high-sounding titles: the greater among you, ie. he among you who would surpass the others in true dignity, will be your servant. Comp. ver. 12. This is ἃ 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. — ταπεινωθ. . ὑψωθ,.] that is, on the occasion of the setting up of my kingdom. ReMARK.—The prohibitions, ver. 8 ff, have reference to the hierarchical 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, Hz. 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. i. 6 ἢ), τὴ 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. — ὅτι] assigns the reason of this ova’. — «revere, «.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 δικαιοσύνη, 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. —Ujets yap, k.T.r.] explanatory reason. — τοὺς edaepyou.] who are trying, who are endeavouring to obtain admission. See Bernhardy, pes Od, Ver. 15. Instead of helping men into the Messiah’s kingdom, what contenrptible efforts to secure 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, JN. 7. ew Tal. wl. p. 649. Wetstein’s note on this passage. — ἕνα] a single. — Kai ὅταν γένηται] sc. προσή- AvTOS.—viov γεέννης] one fit for Gehenna, condemned to be punished in it. Comp. on vill. 12; John xvii. 12.— διπλότερον ὑμῶν] 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 (ὁ. 77. 122): viv δὲ διπλότερον viol γεέννης, ὡς αὐτὸς εἶπε, γίνεσθε. Coming as it does after υἱόν, 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: σκεύη διπλότερα τούτων. But it is still rendered doubt- ful whether διπλότερον is to be taken in an adverbial or adjective sense by a passage from Justin as above: οὗ δὲ προσήλυτοι οὐ μόνον οὐ πιστεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ διπλότερον ὑμῶν CHAP. XXIII. 16. 105 βλασφημοῦσι. 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 διπλότερον ὑμῶν 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 advantage of enjoying the spiritual aid to be found in Mosaism ; according to Bleek: because it was common also to admit as converts those who were influenced by mere external considerations. According to the context (ποιεῖτε) : on account of the manner in which the proselytes continued 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 10. ----ἐν τῷ ναῷ] as in the Mischna we frequently meet with such expressions as: per habitaculum hoc, mn py. See Wetstein and Lightfoot.— év τῷ χρυσῷ Tod ναοῦ] 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 ἐν with ὀμνύειν, comp. on v. 34.—-ovdév ἐστιν] it (the oath) is nothing, is of no consequence. It is not the person swearing who is the subject, but ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ, x.7.d., form an absolute nominative, as in vil. 24, x. 14, xiii, 12. --- ὀφείλει] is indebted, bound to keep the oath. 106 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Ver. 17 ff. Γάρ] Justifies the preceding epithets. — μείζων] of greater consequence, and consequently more binding, as being a more sacred object by which to swear.. The reason of the μείζων lies in ὁ ἁγιάσας τὸν χρυσόν, according to which the consecrated relation is conceived of as one between the temple and the gold, that has been brought about (otherwise if ἁγιάζων be read) by the connecting of the latter with the former.— τὸ δῶρον] the offering (v. 23), as laid upon the altar, it belongs to God. Vv. 20-22. Odv] inference from ver. 19; because the ereater, from which the less (the accessoriwm), as being bound up with it, derives its sanctity, necessarily includes that less. —0 ὀμοσας... ὀμνύει) The aorist participle represents the thing as already in the course of being done (Kiihner, 11. 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 οὖν, 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——«artou- κήσαντι] who made it his dwelling-place, took up his abode in it (after it was built). Comp. Jas. iv. 5; Luke 1]. 49,— Ver. 22"). Comp. on v. 34. Ver. 23. Comp. Luke xi. 39 ff.— In accordance with cer- tain traditional enactments (Labyl. Joma, f. 1xxxiii. 2), the Pharisees extended the legal prescriptions as to tithes (Lev. xxvii. 30; Num. xviii. 21; Deut. xii. 6f, 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 creavit, sed per illas ipsas creaturas,” CHAP. XXIII. 24. 107 as mint, anise, and cummin. See Lichtfoot and Wetstein on this passage. Ewald, Alterth. p. 599. ---τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου] the weightier things, 1.6. 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 (ann) et Jevia (Ὁ ὉΡ) of the Jewish doctors (see Schoettgen, p. 183).— τὴν κρίσεν] comp. Ps. xxxiii. 5 ; not: righteousness (the usual interpretation), a sense in which the term is never used (comp. on xii. 18), but judgment, ie. deciding for the right as against the wrong. Comp. Bengel and Paulus. The κρίσις is the practical manifestation of righteous- ness. — τὴν πίστιν] faithfulness, Jer. v. 1; Rom. iii. 3 ; Gal. v. 22; andsee on Philem. 5. The opposite of this is ἀπιστία, perfidia (Wisd. xiv. 25, frequent in classical writers), — ταῦτα] the βαρύτερα just mentioned, not the tithing of mint, etc. (Bengel). — ἔδει] oportebat. See Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 176 f. Those were the duties which had been neglected. — μὴ ἀφιέναι] scarcely so strong as the positive ποιῆσωι. 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 (Swale, Plut. Mor. p.692 Ὁ), in order that there might be no possibility of their swallowing with it any unclean animal, how- ever minute (Lev. xi. 42). Buxtorf, Lew. Talm. p.516. Comp. the liquare vinum of the Greeks and Romans; Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Od. i. 11.7; Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxvi. 17. Figurative representation of the painful scrupulosity with which the law was observed. — τὸν κώνωπα] a kind of attrac- tion for percolande removentes muscam (that found in the wine, τὸν x.), just as in classical writers the phrase καθαίρειν τι is often used to express the removing of anything by cleansing 108 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. (Hom. 77. xiv. 171, xvi. 667; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 52). κώνωψ, 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. — τὴν δὲ κάμηλ. KataTiv.] proverbial expression, τὰ μέγιστα δὲ ἀπαρατηρήτως ἁμαρτάνοντες, Euthymius Ziga- benus. Observe at the same time that the camel is an wnelean animal, Lev. xi. 4. Ver. 25. But inwardly they (the cup and the plate) are filled from extortion and excess (ἀκρασίας, see critical notes). That with which they are filled, viz. the wine and the meat, has been obtained through extortion and excess. Plunder (Heb. x. 34, common in classical writers) and exorbitance have contri- buted to fill them. On γέμειν ἐκ, see on John xii. ὃ. The simple genitive (ver. 27) would only be equivalent to: they are full of plunder, ete.—axpacias] a later form of ἀκρα- τείας. See on 1 Cor. vii. 5. Ver. 26. Καθάρισον πρῶτον, x.t.r.] «te. let it be your first care (πρῶτον, as in vi. 33, vil. 5, and elsewhere), to see that the wine in the cup is no longer procured by extortion and exorbitance.— ἵνα γένηται, «.7.r.] not: “ut tum recte etiam externae partes possint purgari,’ Fritzsche, but with the emphasis on γένηται: 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 πρῶτον is to be attended to in the first place. Ver. 27 f. The graves were whitewashed with lime (κονία) 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. — ὑποκρίσ. x. avop.| (immorality): both as representing their disposition. Thus, morally speaking, they were τάφοι ἔμψυχοι, Lucian, D. 17. vi. 2. Ver. 29 ff. Comp. Luke xi. 47 ff. —-The οἰκοδομεῖν of the tombs of the prophets and the κοσμεῖν of the sepulchres of the righteous (the Old Testament saints, eomp. 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, Topoqr. v. Jerus. 11. p. 227 ff. — εἰ ἤμεθα, «.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, etc.— ate μαρτυρεῖτε ἑαυτοῖς, «.7..] Thus (inasmuch as you say τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν) you witness against yourselves (dative of reference, Jas. v. 3), that you are the sons, ete. υἱοί contains a twofold meaning. From τῶν πατέρ. ἡμ., 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 υἱοί, 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 υἱοί 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. τ ἐν τῷ αἵματι] 1... the crime of shedding their blood. On αἷμα in the sense of caedes, see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 427. For ἐν. see on Gal. vi. 6. Ver. 32. Quite in keeping with the deepening intensity of this outburst of indignation is the bitter zvony of the imperative πληρώσατε (comp. xxv. 45), the mere permissive sense of which (Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel) is too feeble. This jilling 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 ὑμεῖς] ye also. The force of καί is to be sought in the fact that πληρώσατε, x.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. Πῶς φύγητε] Conjunctive, with a deliberative force: how are you, judging from your present character, to escape from (see on iii. 7), etc. Comp. xxvi. 54; Mark iv. 30; Hom. Jl. i. 150: πῶς tis τοι πρόφρων ἔπεσιν πείθηται ᾿Αχαιῶν; ;—The κρίσις τῆς yeévv. means the pronouncing of the sentence which condemns to Gehenna. The phrase judiciwm Gehennae is also of very frequent occurrence in Rabbinical writers. See Wetstein. The judgment comes when the measure is full. Comp. 1 Thess. 11. 16. Ver. 34. Διὰ τοῦτο] must be of substantially the same import as ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς 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, ete.; καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν is likewise dependent on διὰ τοῦτος Awful unveiling of the divine decree. Others have interpreted as follows: διότε μέλλετε πληρῶσαι TO μέτρον τῆς κακίας τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν (Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche), thus arbitrarily disregarding what im- mediately precedes (ver. 33). Moreover, without any hint what- 1The readings ἐπληρώσασε (Ὁ) H, min.) and σπληρώσετε (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, Rhetor. p. 867; the latter, again, is adopted by Ewald, who regards x. ὑμεῖς πληρώσετε as also dependent on ὅτι, CHAP. XXIII. 34. 111 ever in the text of Matthew, ἰδού, ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω, K.7.r., has sometimes been taken for a quotation from some lost apocryphal prophecy, ἔφη ὁ θεός, or some such expression, being under- stood (van Hengel, Annotatio, p. 1 ff, and Paulus, Strauss, Ewald, Weizsicker),—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. — ἐγώ] 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 ἐδού. Through this ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω, 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).—apo¢ntas κ. σοφοὺς 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 (5°37) and scribes of a later time ought to have been, in the Jewish theocracy. For the last-mentioned order, comp. xHi. 52. Olshausen is of opinion that the Old Testament prophets themselves must also have been intended to be included, and that ἀποστέλλω (which represents the near and certain future as already present) must indicate “God’s pure and eternal present.” The subsequent futures 1 « Jesus,” 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 fe death of the prophet Zechariah in the fifth century before Christ, but which is now lost, was entitled ἡ σοφία «οὔ θεοῦ. The σταυρώσετε, he thinks, was in- serted by Matthew himself. Bleek, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 334, and in his commentary, agrees in the main with Ewald, 112 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. ought to have prevented any such construction being put upon the passage. For γραμμ., comp. xiii. 52.—«at ἐξ αὐτῶν) ov πάντες (Euthymius Zigabenus), but more em- phatic than if we had had τινώς 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.— καὶ σταυρώ- σετε] and among other ways of putting them to death, will crucify them, 1.6. through the Romans, for crucifixion was a Roman punishment. As a historical case in point, one might quote (besides that of Peter) the crucifixion of Simeon, a brother of Jesus, recorded by Eusebius, H. £. iit, 32. The meagreness, however, of the history of the apostolic age must be taken into account, though it must not be asserted that in σταυρώσετε 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.—év ταῖς cvvayoy.| x. 17.— d7o πόλεως εἰς πόλιν] x. 23. Comp.,Xen. Anab. v. 4. 31: els τὴν ἑτέραν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας πόλεως. Ver. 980. Ὅπως ἔλθῃ, κιτιλ.1 Teleology of the divine decree: in order that all the righteows (innocent) blood (Jonah i. 14; Joel iii. 19 ; Ps. xciv. 21; 1 Mace. i 37) may come upon you, 1.6. 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 respon- sible. —atwa] “ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu, magna Vi,’ Bengel. And it is δίκαιον, because it contains the /i/e (see on Acts xv. 20). Comp. Delitzsch, Psych. p. 242. --- ἐκχυνόμε- 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. 119 ἐκχύνω for ἐκχέω, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 7260. --- ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς] according to the canonical narrative (see below). — Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου) refers to 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, where Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, is said to have been stoned to death by order of King Joash, ἐν αὐλῇ οἴκου κυρίου. Comp. Joseph. Antt. ix. 8. 3. The detail contained in μεταξὺ, «.7.2., 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 Jast 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 Tar- gun Lam. ii. 20; Lightfoot on our passage. And how admirably appropriate to the scope of this passage are. the words of the dying Zechariah: ¥77"1 7171 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. Ὁ. 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. 11. 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: δύο δὲ τῶν τολμηροτάτων (ζηλωτῶν) προσπεσόντες ἐν μεσῷ τῷ ἱερῷ διαφθείρουσι τὸν Ζαχαρίαν υἱὸν τοῦ Βαρούχου: 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. Βαρισκαίου), 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. ua 405 ff, Kuhn in the Jahrb. τα. Theol. I. p. 350 ff. thrinally, we may mention, only for the sake of recording them, P%he 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 Prot- 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. Ixiv. f.); and recently of Miiller in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1841, p. 673 Εἰ -- - μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ, «.7.d.| between the temple proper and the altar of burnt- offerings in the priests’ court. Ver. 36. Ἥ ἕξει] Put first for sake of emphasis: shall come, shall inevitably come upon, etc. Comp. ix. 15, xxvii. 49. - πάντα ταῦτα] according to the context: all this shedding of blood, i.e. the punishment for it.— ἐπὶ τ. γενεὰν ταύτ.] 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. Ya 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 ἐμφαντικὸς ἐλέος, Euthymius Zigabenus. — ἀποκτείνουσα, «.7.r.] The present participles denote the wswal conduct: the murderess, the killer with stones. --- πρὸς αὐτήν] 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 (ποσάκις... τέκνα cov) with the vocative of address in “Ιερουσαλήμ. Comp. Luke i. 45; Job xviii. 4; Isa. xxii. 16. With Beza and Fritzsche, αὑτήν might be read and taken as equivalent to σεαυτήν; but αὐτήν 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 πρός σε in that case). — ποσάκις, «.7..] 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 ἑαυτῆς : her own chickens. Such was the love that I felt toward you. On the form νοσσ. for νεοσσ., see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 206. οὐκ ἐθελήσατε] se. ἐπισυναχθῆναι ; they refused (Niigelsbach on Ji. iii. 289; Baeumlein, Purtik. Ὁ. 278), namely, to have faith in him as the Messiah, and consequently the blame rested with themselves. This refusal was their actual κρῖμα, John ix. 39. Ver. 38 ἢ. ᾿Αφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμ. your house 8 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. Antt. xx. 8. 5.. The present implies the tragic and decisive wltimatwm. The ἔρημος, 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 (ἐρήμωσις, xxiv. 45; Luke xxl. 20); on the proleptic use of the adjective, comp. on xii. 13, and Kiihner, 11. 1, p. 236. According to the context, ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν can only mean ‘Iepovcadju, 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. IL. p. 67 f.; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 92 ; Ewald). — Ver. 39 proceeds to account for this ἀφίεται ὑμῖν, κτλ. 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 (εἴπητε, dixeritis) me, whom you have been rejecting, with the Messianic confession εὐλογη- μένος, κιτιλ. (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 wntil the second appearing of Messiah (ὁ ἐρχόμενος), and hence He cannot have had in view an inter- vening μετάνοια 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. EE? 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 ἕως ἂν εἴπητε, κιτιλ.: Kal πότε τοῦτο εἴπω- ow; ἑκόντες μὲν οὐδέποτε. ἄκοντες δὲ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς δευτέρας αὐτοῦ παρουσίας, ὅταν ἥξει μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς, ὅταν οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς ὄφελος τῆς ἐπυγνώσεως. 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 ἱΙερουσαλήμ, ver. 37, the form in which the word regularly appears in Luke, and for which, on every other occasion, Matthew has ‘Iepoco- Avua; 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 “ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, 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.; Weizsiicker, 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 18 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. in their present form, so that, when they were uttered, ποσάκις 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 Zedéschr. 1863, p. 90. CHAP. XXIV, 119 “CHAPTER XXIV. Ver. 2. For ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς we should read, with Lachm. and Tisch., ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθείς, following important evidence. The insertion of the subject along with the participle led to the omission of the latter. —ovd βλέπετε] Fritzsche: βλέπετε, following Ὁ L X, min. vss. and Fathers. Ancient (It. Vulg.) correction for sake of the sense, after Mark xi. 2.— For πάντα ταῦτα we should read, with Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. 8, ταῦτα πάντα, in accordance with a preponderance of evidence.—0¢ οὐ] Elz.: ὃς οὐ μή, against decisive evidence. Mechanical repetition of the preceding οὐ μή. -- Wer. 3. τῆς cuvred.] The article is wanting in BOC LR, min. Cyr. (in the present instance), and has been correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Superfluous addition. — Ver. 6. πάντα͵] is wanting, no doubt, in Β D Τ, δὲ, min. vss., and has been deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it had been omitted in conformity with Mark xui. 7; while in some of the wit- nesses we find ταῦτα, in accordance with Luke xxi. 9, and in some others, again, πάντα ταῦτα (Fritzsche: ταῦτα πάντα). The various corrections were occasioned by the unlimited character of πάντα. ---- Ver. 7. καὶ λοιμοί] is wanting in B D ἘΞ δὲ, 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 ἐθνῶν. But the reading τῶν ἐθνῶν has a decided preponderance of evidence in its favour; and then how easily might ray be overlooked after πάντων! The omission of τῶν ἐθνῶν in Οὐ, min. Chrys. was with a view to conformity with Mark and Luke. — Ver. 15. ἑστώς] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.: éorés, follow- ing a preponderance of Ms. authority (including B* 8), and correctly. The transcribers have contracted into ἑστώς what, strictly speaking, should be spelt ἑσταός, though the spelling ἑστός 15 also met with in classical writers.— Ver. 16. ἐσ] Lachm.: εἰς, following B D Δ, min. Fathers. Adopted from Mark xiii. 14; Luke xxi. 21. Mark is likewise the source of the reading καταβάτω, ver. 17,in BD LZx&, min. Or. Caes. Isid. 120 THE GOSPEL OF. MATTHEW. Chrys., and which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have adopted. — For τι é, as in Elz., read, with Lachm. and Tisch., rd éz, fol- lowing decisive evidence. — Ver. 18. τὰ ἱμάτια] τὸ ἱμάτιον, 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 σαββάτῳ (Elz.: ἐν σαββ.) 15 Supported by decisive evidence. — Ver. 23. rsorevonre |} Lachm.: πιστεύετε, following only B* Or. Taken from Mark ΧΙ]. 21.— Ver. 24. For σλανῆσαι Tisch. 8 has πλανηθῆναι, follow- ing D δὲ, 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. xai is, with Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted after ἔσται, in accordance with decisive evidence. Inserted’ in conformity with the usual mode of expression; in vv. 37, 39 we should likewise delete the x«/, which Tisch. 8 retains in ver. 39.— Ver. 28. γάρ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, follow- ing BD LS, 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. τότε nénbi] The omission of τότε by Tisch. 8 is without adequate evidence, having among the uncials only that of x*. Had the words been inserted in accordance with Mark xii. 26, Luke xxi. 27, they would have been placed before ὄψονται. ---- Ver. 31. φωνῆς] is not found in L δ δὲ, 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 φων.) placed before curr. and sometimes it was conjoined with curr. by inserting καί after this latter (D, min. Vulg. It. Hilar. Aug. Jer.).— For the second ἄκρων Lachm. has τῶν ἄκρ., following only B, 1, 13, 69.—- Ver. 34. After λέγω iui, Lachm., in accordance with B DF L, min. It. Vulg. Or., inserts ὅτι, 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 παρελεύ- σεται In preference to the παρελεύσονται of Elz., following B DL, min. Fathers. The plural is taken from Mark ‘xiii. 31; Luke xxl. 33.— Ver. 36. Before apag Elz. has τῆς, which, though defended by Schulz, is condemned by decisive evidence. Super- 1 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. BB i fluous addition. Comp. ver. 3.— After οὐρανῶν Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, in accordance with B D 8, 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 μόνος (which latter does not occur in Mark). — Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7 have mov after πατήρ. De- fended by Schulz, though deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8. It is likewise adopted by Fritzsche, who, however, deletes the following μόνος, which is wanting only in Sahid. In deference to the ordinary usage in Matthew (vii. 21, x. 32 f, etc.), μου should be restored. It is wanting, no doubt,in Β 1) 1, Δ Ππ δ᾿, 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. δὲ] Lachm.: γάρ, following B DI, vss. Fathers. An exegetical gloss.— Ver. 38. ταῖς πρό] 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 τοῖς Lachm. has ἐκείναις, following B Ὁ (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 ἐχγαμίζοντες read γαμίζοντες, with Tisch. 8, following D 8, 33, Chrys.; comp. on xxii. 30.— Ver. 40. For ὁ εἷς Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have simply εἷς in both instances, following B D I Ls, min. (A and Chrys. leave out the article only in the first case). For sake of uniformity with ver. 41.— Ver. 41. wvAdvs] Lachm. and Tisch. : μύλῳ, following preponderating evidence; the reading of the Received text is intended to be more precise. —- Ver. 42. ὥρᾳ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἡμέρῳ. So BDI AR, 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. αὐτοῦ after κύριος is wanting in important witnesses (deleted by Lachm, and Tisch. 8), but it must have been left out to conform with Luke xii. 42.— θεραπείας) Lachm. and Tisch.: ΤῸ THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. οἰκετείας, following B IL A, min. Correctly; from the word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, it would be explained by the gloss οἰκίας (8, min. Ephr. Bas. Chrys.), or at other times by é Inge prediction it is not to Antichrist, 2 Thess. 1. 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 Jn 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. 111. p. 103 f.). They are, moreover, very variously interpreted ; von Lengerke (Hengstenberg), for example: ‘‘the destroyer comes over the pinnacles of abomination ;”’ Ewald (Auberlen): ‘‘and that on account of the fearful height of abominations ;” Wieseler: ‘‘and that because of the 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. Erf. 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 (Ὁ Dsipy 413 oy) is this: the destroyer (comes) on the wing of abomi- nations, and that until, ete. Comp. Keil. Ewald on Matthew, p. 412, takes JD as a paraphrase for ro ἱερόν. The Sept. rendering is probably from such passages as Ps. Ivii. 2. For other explanations still, see Hengstenberg, Christol. 111. p. 123 ff. ; Bleek in the Jahrb. Κ D. Theol. 1860, p. 98 ff. CHAP, XXIV. 13. 139 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 βδέλ. τ. ép. without any explanation whatever, in consequence of the ὁ ἀναγινώσκ. νοείτω, 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 corrupt state of the Jewish hierarchy (Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 170 f.), is foreign to the whole connection. — To ῥηθὲν διὰ 4 αν. τ. mpod.| what has been said (expressly mentioned) by Daniel, not: “which is an expression of the prophet Daniel ” (Wieseler); for the important poivt was not the prophetic expression, but the thing itself indicated by the prophet. Comp. xxii. 31.— On ἑστός, see critical notes, and Kiihner, I. p. 677.—év τόπῳ ἁγίῳ] 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 βδέλυγμα ; comp. Mark xiii. 14: ὅπου οὐ δεῖ. 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 ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ; 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 ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω] let the reader understand ! (Eph. 111. 1). 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 ὁ ἀκούων νοείτω. We may add that our explanation is favoured by Mark xiii. 14, where τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Aav. τοῦ 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); ἀναγινώσκ. is never used in the New Testament in any other sense than that of to read. Ver. 16 ff. Apodosis down to ver. 18.—oé ἐν τ. ᾿Ιουδ.] means those who may happen to be living in the country of Judaea (John 11]. 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. — μὴ καταβαινέτω, «.7..] 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). Both views may be taken each according to circumstances.— τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ] common attraction for τὰ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας. See Kiihner, I. 474, and ad Xen. Mem. iii. 6. 11; Winer, p. 584 [E. T. 784].— ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ] where, being at work, he has no upper garment with him.— People will have to flee to save their lives (ver. 22); not aecording to the idea imported by Hofmann: to escape the otherwise too powerful temptation to deny the Lord. This again is decisively refuted by the fact that, in vv. 16-19, it is not merely the disciples or believers who are ordered to flee, but the summons to do so is a general one. What is said with reference to the flight does not assume an individualizing character till ver. 20. Ver. 19. Ai μὲν yap ἔγκυοι οὐ δυνήσονται φεύγειν, τῷ φορτίῳ τῆς γαστρὸς βαρυνόμεναι' ai δὲ θηλάζουσαι διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὰ τέκνα συμπάθειαν, Theophylact. Ver. 20. Ἵνα] Object of the command, and therefore its purport ; Mark xiv. 35; Col. i. 9.— μηδὲ σαββάτῳ] 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 1. 12; Schoettgen, p. £06), 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 μηδὲ σαββάτῳ seem, no doubt, to be inconsistent with Jesus’ own liberal views regarding the Sabbath (xii. 1 ff.; John v. 17, vii. 22); but he is speaking from the standpoint of His disciples, such a standpoint as they 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 χειμῶνος, 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. Kio. 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. — ἕως τοῦ νῦν] usque ad hoc tempus, Rom. viii. 22. Κόσμου is not to be supplied here (Fritzsche). See, on the other hand, Mark xin. 19; 1 Mace. ii. 33; Plat. Parm: Ῥ. 152 C, Zp. xiii. p. 361 E. On the threefold negative οὐδὲ ov μή, see Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 109 f. For the expression generally, Plat. Zim. p. 38 A: οὐδὲ yevéo- θαι ποτὲ οὐδὲ γεγονέναι νῦν οὐδ᾽ εἰσαῦθις ἔσεσθαι ; Stallbaum, ad Rep. p. 492 EH. Ver. 22. And unless those days had been shortened, those, namely, of the θλίψις μεγάλη (ver. 29), etc. This is to be understood of the reduction of the number of the days over which, but for this shortening, the @rAdus would have ex- tended, not of the curtadling 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. vil. 29). Rather comp. the similar idea, which in Barnab. iv. is ascribed to Enoch. — ἐσώ θη] used here with reference to the saving of the life (vill. 25, xxvii. 40, 42, 49, and frequently); Euthymius Zigabenus: οὐκ ἂν ὑπεξέ- φυγε τὸν θάνατον. Hofmann incorrectly explains: saved from denying the Lord. — πᾶσα σάρξ] every flesh, i.e. every mortal man (see on Acts 11. 16), would not be rescued, 1.6. would have perished. Comp. for the position of the negative, Fritzsche, Diss, 11. on 2 Cor. p. 24f. The limitation of πᾶσα σάρξ 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 ἐκλεκτοί are included, but it is not these alone who are meant (Hofmann). — The aorist éxodoP. 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 ἐσώθη 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 κολοβωθήσ. again conveys the idea that the actual shortening 18. being effected, and therefore that the case supposed, with the melancholy consequences involved in it, has been averted. — διὰ δὲ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς] 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 ἐκλεκτοί (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 crediturt as well (Jahn in Bengel’s Archw. 11. 1; Schott, Opuse. 11. p. 205 ff; Lange, following Augustine, Calovius), which latter view is precluded by. the εὐθέως of ver. 29.— There is a certain solemnity in the repe- tition of the same words κολοβ. ai ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι. 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 actas paulo saltem felicior, or the supposition that there is any interval at all between the θλίψις μεγάλη 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 @AApis 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 4: Ὁ, 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 1s, 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 τότε 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 evangelium. He is still speaking of that period of distress, ver. 21 f., which is to be immediately followed, ver. 29, by the second advent. — ψευδόχριστοι] 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 Ῥϑυοά.---- ψευδοπροφῆται) according to the context, not Christian teachers (ver. 11), in the present instance, but such as pretended to be sent by God, and wn- 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. 18. 4: πλάνοι γὰρ ἄνθρωποι καὶ ἀπατῶντες προσ- χήματι θειασμοῦ νεωτερισμοὺς καὶ μεταβολὰς πραγματευόμενοι, δαιμονᾷν τὸ πλῆθος ἀνέπειθον, κιτιλ. 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).—6@c over] not: promise (Kypke, Krebs), but: give, so as to suit the idea involved in σημεῖα. Comp. xii. 39 ; Deut. xiii. 1. — On σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα, 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. 11. 9. --- ὥστε πλανηθῆναι (see critical notes): so that the very elect may be led astray (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1005) if possible (εἰ δυνατόν: si fiert possit ; “conatus summus, sed tamen irritus,’ Bengel).— Ver. 25. Διαμαρτύρεται ἐξασφαλι- ζόμενος, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. John xiy. 29. Ver. 26. Ody] according to the tenor of this my prediction. Ver. 26 does not stand to ver. 25 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 μὴ πιστεύσητε of ver. 29. -- ἐστί] the Messiah, ver. 29. -- ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις] 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 1, 20): “en, 101 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; οὕτως ἔσται ἡ παρουσία ἐκείνη, ὁμοῦ πανταχοῦ φαινομένη διὰ τὴν ἔκλαμψιν τῆς δόξης, 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 worid. Ebrard (comp. Schott) is wrong in supposing that the point of comparison les 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 ὅπου ἐὰν ἢ and ἐκεῖ: “ 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 ἀπώλεια, while the words συναχθήσονται (namely, at the advent) of ἀετοί convey the same idea as that expressed in xui. 41, and which is as follows: the angels, who are sent forth by the Messiah for the purpose, συλλέξουσιν ἐκ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ σκάνδαλα, Kal βαλοῦσιν αὐτοὺς εἰς THY κάμινον τοῦ πυρός, 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, ὅπου ἐὰν ἢ 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 συναχθ. οἱ ἀετοί can only ‘represent the παρουσία τ. υἱοῦ τ. avOp. Fritzsche and Fleck, p. 384: “ubi Messias, ibi homines, qui ejus potestatis futurt sint” (οἱ ἐκλεκτοί, ver. 31). Similarly such early expositors as Chrysostom (who thinks the angels and martyrs are intended to be included), Jerome, Theophylact (ὥσπερ ἐπὶ νεκρὸν σῶμα συνάγονται ὀξέως οἱ ἀετοὶ, οὕτω Kai ἔνθα ἂν εἴη ὁ Χριστός, ἐλεύσονται πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι), 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 τροφὴ πνευματική, Euthymius Ziga- benus) to the carcase ; which is all the more offensive when, with Jerome, πτῶμα 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 ἐκλεκτοί, 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: “μὴ πιστεύσητε, sc. illis, nam ubi materies ad praedandum, ibi praedatores ayidi, h. e. nam in fraudem vestram erit.” On the question as to whether πτῶμα without a qualifying genitive be good Greek, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 375.— οὗ ἀετοί] are the carrion-hites (vultur percnopterus, Linnaeus) which the ancients regarded as belonging to the eagle species. See Plin. V. ἢ. x. 3; Aristot. ix. 22. For the similitude, comp. Job xxxix. 30; Hos. viii. 1; Hab. vii. 1; Prov. xxx. 17; Ezek: xxxix. 17. 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 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. that it will break unexpectedly upon the world (vv. 34-41) ; 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). — εὐθέως δὲ μετὰ τ, θλίψιν τῶν ἡμερ. ἐκ.] but immediately after the distress of those days, immediately after the last (τὸ τέλος) 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 τῶν ἡμερ. ἐκείνων, comp. vv. 19, 22; and for θλίψιν, ver. 21. Ehbrard’s explanation of this passage falls to the ground with his erroneous interpretation of vv. 23, 24, that explanation being as follows: immediately after the unhappy condition of the church (vv. 23-28), a condition which 8 to continue after the destruction of Jerusalem, — it being assumed that the εὐθέως involves the meaning: “ nullis aliis intercedentibus indiciis.” It may be observed generaily, 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 εὐθέως in the sense of suddenly), who says that Matthew had written DNB, subito, but that the translator (like the Sept. in the case of Job v. 3) had rendered the expression “minus accurate” by εὐθέως. 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. Yay “De iis, quae post pressuram dierum illorum, delendae urbis eerusalem, evenient proximum, quod in praesenti pro mea con- ditione commemorandum et pro vestra capacitate expectandum venit, hoc est, guod sol obscurabitur,” 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 ὁ οὐρανὸς κ. ἡ γῆ παρελεύσεται 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 δὲ λόγοι μου ov μὴ παρέλθ. immediately after (observe, Christ does not say of yap λόγοι, κιτ.λ., but of δὲ λόγοι, «.7-r.). Hoelemann, Cremer, Auberlen are right in their interpretation of εὐθέως, 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 εὐθέως. Just as there are those who seek to dispose of the historical difficulty connected with εὐθέως 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 ἥλιος σκοτισθ,, κιτ.λ.] Description of the great catastrophe in the heavens which is to precede the 1 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. ii. 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. ἃ. Urchrist. 1. 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 E. 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 11. ὃ f.; Isa. xxxiv. 4, xxiv. 21), the heaven-sent Messiah appears in His glory (according to Dan. vii. 13) to judge,” etc.— οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται, x.t.r.]| 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 εἰς τὴν γῆν (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 δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν canrevO.| is usually explained of the starry hosts (Isa. xxxiv. 4, xl. 26; Ps. xxxiii. 6; Deut. iv. 19; 2 Kings xvii. 16, etc.), which, coming as it does after οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται, 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, etc.) 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 ii. 13), is inconsistent not merely with σαλευθήσ., but also with the whole connection which refers to the domain of physical things. For the plural τῶν οὐρανῶν, 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. Kai τότε] and then, when what is intimated at ver. 29 shall have arrived. — φανήσεται) universally, and so not visible merely to the elect (Cremer), which would not be in keeping with what follows.— τὸ σημεῖον tod υἱοῦ τ. 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 δόξα 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); 1δ0 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 τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. 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 καὶ ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν, K.T.A. evidently point to something still farther in the future, and which the σημεῖον 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 σημεῖον 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 τότε is decidedly against this view. —«al τότε] a new point brought forward: and then, when this σημεῖον has been dis- played. — κόψονται] 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 aidv! Hence, being seized with terror and anguish, they will mowrn (see on xi. 17). The sorrow of repentance (Dormer, 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 λογία), ὄψονται 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 κόψονται. --- ἐρχόμενον, «.7.d.] as in Dan. vii. 13.— μετὰ δυνάμ. x. δόξ. CHAP. XXIV. 31. 151 πολλ.] This great power and majesty will also be displayed in - the accompanying angel-hosts, ver. 31. The πᾶσαι ai φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς are not: “omnes familiae Judacorum” (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, xxvill. 14. Ver. 31. Kai ἀποστελεῖ] And He will send forth, 1.6. from the clouds of heaven, 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. --- τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ] the angels specially employed in His service. — μετὰ σάλπιγγος φωνῆς 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).— ἐπισυνάξουσι] gather together (xxiii. 21: 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 ἁρπάξεσθαι εἰς ἀέρα, 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 ἐκλεκτ. αὐτοῦ] the elect belonging to Him (chosen by God for the Messianic kingdom, as in ver. 22). Comp. Rom. i. 6.— ἀπὸ ἄκρων odpav.| ab extremitatibus coclorum usque ad extremitates corum, i.e. from one horizon to the other (for οὐρανῶν without the article, see Winer, p. 115 [E. T. 1507), 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- 152 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. gelica,” etc. ; Kuinoel (comp. Wetstein) : “in tanta calamitate Judaeis, adversarlis 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. This is 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, xxvill. 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 τὸ θέρος, (2) of πάντα ταῦτα, and also (3) on our taking care not to supply anything we choose as the subject of ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις. -- δέ is simply μεταβατικόν. -- ἀπὸ τῆς συκῆς] the article is generic; for ἀπό, comp. on xi. 29. From the fig-tree, i.e. in the case of the fig-tree, see the parable (τὴν map.) that is intended for your instruction in the circumstances referred to. For the article conveys the idea of your simili- tude ; here, however, παραβολή means simply a comparison, παράδειγμα. Comp. on xiii. 8. --- καὶ τὰ φύλλα ἐκφύῃ]) and puts forth the leaves (the subject being ὁ κλάδος). Matthaei, Fritzsche, Lachmann, Bleek, on the authority of E F GH KM 4, Vulg. It, write ἐκφυῇ, taking it as an aorist, 1.6. et folia edita fuerint (see, in general, Kiihner, 1. p- 9001). But in that case what would be the meaning of the allusion to the branches recovering their sap? Further, it is only by taking «. τ. φ. ἐκφύῃ as present that the strictly definite element is brought out, namely: when the κλάδος 7s in the act of budding.—76 θέρος] is usually taken in the sense of aestas, after the Vulgate. But, according to the cor- rect interpretation of πάντα ταῦτα, summer would be too late in the present instance, and too indefinite; nor would it be sufficiently near to accord with ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις. Hence CHAP. XXIV. 32, 33. 133 it is better to understand the harvest (equivalent to θερισμός, : Photius, p, 86, 18) as referred to, as in Prov. xxvi. 1 ; Dem. 1253. 15, and frequently in classical writers; Jacobs, ad Anthol. VIIL p. 357. Comp. also Ebrard, Keim. It is not, however, the fig-harvest (which does not occur till August) that is meant,. but the /ruzt-harvest, the formal commence- ment of which took place as early as the second day of the Passover season.—ottw «x. ὑμεῖς) so understand ye also, For the preceding indicative, γινώσκετε, expressed what was matter of common observation, and so, in a way corresponding to the observation referred to, should (γινώσκ. imperative) the disciples also on their part understand, etc.—<érav ἴδητε πάντα ταῦτα] when ye will have seen all this. It is usual to seek for the reference of πάντα ταῦτα 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 πάντα ταῦτα to them ; as, for example, the iacrementa 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), πάντα ταῦτα can only be understood to refer to what wmmediately precedes, therefore to what has been predicted, from that epoch-making ver. 29 on to ver. 31, respecting the σημεῖον 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. —67Tv ἐγγύς ἐστιν ἐπὶ θύραις] 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 τὸ θέρος, which, there being no reason to the contrary, may also be extended to ver. 33. This θέρος 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 ἐπὶ θύραις without the article, see Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr.i. 3. 2; and for the plural, see Kiihner, II. 1, pads 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 ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη 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 πάντα ταῦτα (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 πάντα ταῦτα is the same as that of ver. 33, 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, Biiumlein 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 πάντα ταῦτα γένηται will CHAP. XXIV. 36—39. 155 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. ἐκπίπτειν, 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.— εἩὀἰ μὴ ὁ mat. μου μόνος] 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. 29. See, besides, on Mark xii. 32. Vv. 37-39. But (δέ, 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...tTpwyortes] not for the imperfect, but to make the predicate more strongly prominent. Comp. on vii. 29. τρώγειν 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. — γαμοῦντες x. ἐκγαμ.] uxores in matrimonium ducentes et filias collocantes, descriptive of a mode of life without concern, and without any foreboding of an impending catastrophe. — καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν) The “it” (see Nigelsbach, Jliad, p. 120, ed. 3) to be understood after ἔγνωσαν 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 ¢éme within which it may be affirmed with certainty that the second 156 TIVE 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 εὐθέως 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 πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ of the Old Testament analogy. — ἐν ἡμέρᾳ | without repeating the preposition before 7 (John iv. 54). Comp. Xen. Anab. v. 7. 17, and Kihner 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. — παραλαμβάνεται) 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 im the clouds, mentioned 1 Thess. iv. 17 (Theophylact, Euthymius Ziga- benus, Jansen), ἀναλαμβάνεται would have been used instead. —3?3, Heb. note, 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 Zeitschr. 7. Theol. 1842, 4, p. 1 ff.) and Furer (in Schenkel’s Zex. I. p. 506), ought to be preferred, because the name means nothing more than simply a skull (not hill of skulls, valley ef skulls, and such like, as though the plural (skulls) had been used). A similar practice of giving to places, according to their shape, such names, as Kopf, Scheitel (comp. the hills called Κεφαλαί 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 christl. 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 toserve the interests of Christian typology (Augustine : ** quia ibi erectus sit medicus, ubi jacebat aegrotus,”’ etc.). »..... 264 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. (Germans). — 6 ἐστι κρανίου τόπος λεγόμενος which, ie. which Aramaic term denotes (ἐστί) a so-called (Neyou., Kithner, 11. 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 neuere 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. 11. p.118 ff, VI. p. 84 ff.; Arnold in Herzog’s Encykl. V. p. 307 ff. ; Keim, IIL. 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. 11. p. 42. This drink consisted of wine (see the critical remarks) mixed with gall, according to Matthew; with myrrh, according to Mark. χολή admits of no other meaning than that of gall, 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 πον, wormwood, by χολή (Prov. v. 4: Lam. iii. 15); but in those passages they took it as meaning literal sc pally just as in the case of Ps. lxix. 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: σταυρωθεὶς ἐποσίζεσο δξει καὶ χολῇ» CHAP. XXVII. 35 265 rendering of Ps. Ixix. 22; people wished to make out that there was maltreatment in the very drink that was offered. - γευσάμενος 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. Σταυρώσαντες] 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 body resting upon a peg (πῆγμα) that passed between his legs (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐποχοῦνται οἱ σταυρούμενοι, Justin, c. Tryph. 91; Tren. Haer. ii. 24. 4), after which the hands were nailed to the cross-beam. Paulus (see his Komment., exeqg. Handb., and Skizzen aus m. Bildungsgesch. 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 pedum in cruce affixione, 1845; Schleier- macher, Z. J. p. 447. In answer to Paulus, see Hug in the Freib. Zeitschr. 111. p. 167 ff., and V. p. 102 ff, VII. p. 153 ff. ; (futacht. 11. 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 MATTIIEW. Mostell. 11. 1. 13 (“ego dabo ei talentum, primus qui in crucem excucurrerit, sed ea lege, wt ofigantur 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 exceptional character ; (2) because Justin, 6. Zryph. 97, expressly maintains (comp. Apol. 1. 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; (5) because Tertullian (c. Mare. 111. 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. XXVII. 35. DOT in addition to the above against the view that the feet ‘vere nailed are: (1) what is said in John xx. 25 (see Liicke, II. p. 798), where, however, the absence of any menticn 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- ventently 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, 17. #. i. 17, speaks of the Empress Helena, who found the cross, as having also discovered tous ἥλους οἱ ταῖς χερσὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ τὸν σταυρὸν ἐνεπά- γησαν, 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 as a 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 nails 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, 7. Δ. ii. 8; not of shattering te 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 apon 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. — διεμερίσαντο Ta ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ) The criminal when affixed to the cross was absolutely naked (Artemid. ii. 58; Lipsius, de crwce, ii. 7), and his clothes fell, as ἃ perquisite, to the executioners (Wetstein on our passage). The supposition that there was a cloth for covering the loins has at least no early testimony to support it. See Thilo, ad Evang. Nicod. x. p. 582 f.— βάλλοντες κλῆρον) 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 1. 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 (τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ) 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; Cali. 32; Euseb. v. 1. 19. — ἐπέθηκαν] 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 ἐπέθηκαν (Kuinoel) in the sense of the pluperfect, or to assume some waccuracy 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. XXVII. 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. 38. Tote] then, after the crucifixion of Jesus was thus disposed of. — σταυροῦνται) spoken with reference to another band of soldiers which takes the place of καθήμενοι ἐτήρουν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ, ver. 56. The whole statement is merely of a cursory and summary nature. Ver. 39. Οἱ δὲ παραπορ.] 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 (Fritasche, 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. — κινοῦντες τὰς κεφ. αὖτ.] The shaking of the head here is not to be regarded as thet which expresses refusal or passion (Hom. J/. xvul. 200, 442; Od. v. 285, 376), but, according to Ps. xxii. 8, as indicating ὦ malicious jeering at the helplessness of one who had made such lofty pretensions, ver. 40. Comp. Job xvi. 4; Ps. cix. 25; Lam. i. 15; Isa. xxxvii. 22; Jer. xviii. 16; Buxt. Lez. Talm. p. 2039; Justin, Ap. 1. 38. Ver. 40. "Ἔλεγον δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα κωμῳδοῦντες ὡς ψεύστην, Euthymius Zigabenus. We should not fail to notice the parallelism in both the clauses (in opposition to Fritzsche, who puts a comma merely after σεαυτόν, and supposes that in both instances the imperative is conditioned by εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ), ὁ καταλύων, «.7.r. being parallel to εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τ. θ., and σῶσον σεαυτόν to κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ. ---- καταλύων, K.TA.] 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 υἱός (comp. iv. 3), while in ver. 43 it is on θεοῦ. Ver. 42. Parallelism similar to that of ver. 40. ---- καὶ πιστεύομεν (see the critical remarks) ἐπ’ αὐτῷ: and we believe on Him (at once), that is, as actually being the Messiah. ἐπί with the dative (Luke xxiv. 25) conveys the idea that the faith would rest upon Him. So also Rom. ix. 33, x. 11; 1 Tin th6: ΠΡ το: 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, aud 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. (ἤλπισεν ἐπὶ κύριον, ῥυσάσθω αὐτόν, σωσάτω αὐτόν, ὅτι θέλει αὐτόν). --- θέλει αὐτόν] is the rendering of the Heb. ἿΞ 727, and is to be interpreted in accordance with the Septuagint usage of θέλειν (see Schleusner, Zhes. 11. p. 51, and comp. on Rom. vii. 21): if He is the object of his desire, 2¢ 7. he likes Him; comp. Tob, xii. 6; Ps. xvii, 19, xli. 11 Im other instances the LXX. give the preposition as well, render- ing the Hebrew (1 Sam. xviii. 22, al.) by θέλειν ἔν τινι. Fritzsche supplies ῥύσασθαι; but in that case we should have had merely εἰ θέλει without αὐτόν ; comp. Col. ii. 18.— ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός] The emphasis is on θεοῦ, as conveying the idea: 1 am not the son of a man, but of God, who in consequence will be certain to deliver me.—Comp. Wisd. 11. 18.— Observe further the short bounding sentences in which their malicious jeering, ver. 42 f., finds vent. Ver. 44. To δ᾽ αὐτό] not: after the same manner (as generally interpreted), but expressing the object itself (comp. Soph. Oed. Col. 1006: τοσαῦτ᾽ ὀνειδίζεις με; Plat. Phaedr. Ῥ. 241: ὅσα τὸν ἕτερον λελοιδορήκαμεν), for, as is well known, such verbs as denote a particular mode of speaking or acting are often construed like λέγειν τινά Te OY ποιεῖν τινά TL. CITAP. XXVII. 45. 371 Kriiger, § xlvi. 12; Kiihner, ID 1, p. 276. Comp. on Phil. ii. 18.— οἱ χῃσταΐ) different from Luke xxiii. 39; the generic interpretation of the plural (Augustine, de cons. ev. iii. 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 jirst 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 δὲ ἕκτης ὥρας] 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. — σκότος] An ordinary eclipse of the sum 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. Ὁ. 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, Z. 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, TIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. obscurations alluded to in Rabbinical literature, were different in kind from that now before us (ordinary eclipses of the sun, such as that which took place after the death of Caesar, Serv. ad. Virg. G. I. 466), and, even apart from this, would not justify us in relegating what is matter of history, John’s omission of it notwithstanding, to the region of myth (in opposition to Strauss, Keim, Scholten), especially when we consider that the death in this instance was not that of a mere human hero, that there were those still living who could corroborate the evangelic narrative, and that the darkness here in question was associated with the extremely peculiar σημεῖον of the rending of the veil of the temple. —éwi πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν] Keeping in view the supernatural character of the event as well as the usage elsewhere with regard to the somewhat indefinite phraseology πᾶσα or ὅλη ἡ γῇ (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 earth (κοσμικὸν δὲ ἣν τὸ σκότος, οὐ μερικόν, 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. compos. usu, 1838, III. p. 6 f.; comp. Luke ix. 38 ; LXX. and Apocr., 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. -- σαβαχθανί Chald.: API’ =the Heb. 272. Jesus gives vent to His feelings in the opening words of the twenty- second Psalm. We have here, however, the purely human feeling that arises from a natural but momentary quailing before the agonies of death, and which was in every respect similar to that which had been experienced by the author of CHAP. XXVII. 46. 273 the psalm. The combination of profound mental anguish, in consequence of entire abandonment by men, with the well-nigh intolerable pangs of dissolution, was all the more natural and inevitable in the case of One whose feelings were so deep, tender, and real, whose moral consciousness was so pure, and whose love was so intense. In ἐγκατέλιπες 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 ery 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 tv 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, theretore, the comforting words with which it con- cludes (Paulus, Gratz,de Wette, Bleek ; comp. Schleiermacher, Glaubensl. 11. Ὁ. 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. 5 274 ( THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. prevailed, as we see exemplified by Hofmann, Schriftbew. 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 Woljfenbiittel 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. xxii. 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. —tvare] the momentary but agonizing feeling that He is abandoned by God, impels Him to ask what the dwine olyject 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. — ἐγκαταλείπω]] means: to abandon any one to utter helplessness. Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 9; Acts ii. 27; Heb. xi. 5; Plat. Conv. p. 179 A; Dem. p. 158, 10, al. ; Ecclus. i Opry 0; 1x3 10, Ver. 47. A heartless Jewish witticism founded upon a silly malicious perversion of the words ἠλέ, 7A/, 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. -- οὗτος] 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 xxiii. 36 he states that by way of mocking our Lord the soldiers offered Him the posca just before the darkness came on. Strauss takes 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. —é£ovs] poscae, sour wine, the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers. Comp. ver. 34 and Wetstein thereon. — ἄφες] 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. —épyerac] placed first for sake of emphasis: whether he 15 coming, does not fail coming ! Ver. 50. Πάλιν] 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.— ἀφῆκε τὸ πνεῦμα) ie. He died. See Herod. iv. 190; Eur. Hee. 571: ἀφῆκε πνεῦμα θανασίμῳ σφαγῇ , Kypke, I. p. 140; Gen. xxxv. 18; Ecclus. xxxvili. 23; Wisd. xvi. 14. There is no question here of a separating of the πνεῦμα from the ψυχή. See in answer to Strobel, Delitzsch, Psych. Ὁ. 400 f. The theory of a merely apparent death (Bahrdt, Venturini, Paulus) is so decidedly at variance withthe 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 testimony 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.— καὶ ἰδού] “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 καί. --- τὸ καταπέτασμα] 12557, the veil sus- pended before the holy of holies, Ex. xxvii 31; Lev. xxi. Zoe 1 Μοῦ, i. 22. ΠΟΙ, xxx. 5; Heb. vi. 19)cueioree 20. The rending in two (for εἰς δύο, comp. Lucian, Toz. 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. σημεῖον, 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 gracious presence of God at the same time restored. Comp. Heb. vi. 19 δ᾿ ax. Ὁ; ff,,'x. JO 2; » To: treat what as tthe CHAP. XXVII. 51, 52. 210 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) fempli infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum,” Evang. sec. Hebr. quoted by Jerome. See Hilgenfeld, NW. 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 7a μνημεῖα. 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 ii. 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 : πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμ. ἁγίων ἠγέρθη, κτλ. For ἃ specimen of still farther 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 Trail. interpol. 9—see Evang. Nicod. 17 ff. This legend respecting the rising of the Old Testa- ment saints (ἁγίων) is based upon the assumption of the descensus Christi ad inferos, in the course of which Jesus was understood not only to have visitsd them, but also to have secured their resurrection (comp. Lv. Nicod.; Ignatius, ad Trall. lc.). But it is quite azbitrary 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 ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμ. (1 Cor. xv. 20; Col. 1. 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: “ Won antea resurrexerunt, quam Dominus resurgeret, ut esset primogenitus resurrectionis ex mortuis ;” comp. also Calvin, and Hofmann, Schriftbew. 11. 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 Lvang. Nicod. Ver. 53. Μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ) is to be taken in an active sense (Ps. cxxxix. 2; Plat. Tim. p. 70 C; comp. ἐξέγερσις, Polyb. ix. 15. 4; avéyepous, Plut. Mor. p. 156 B), yet not as though αὐτοῦ were a genitive of the subject (“ post- quam eos Jesus in vitam restituerat,” Fritzsche, which would be to make the addition of αὐτοῦ 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 ἐξελθόντες (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 εἰσῆλθον. 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. — ayiav CHAP. XXVII. 54—56. 279 πόλιν] is in keeping with the solemnity of the entire narra- tive; comp. iv. 5. Ver. 54. Ὁ δὲ ἑκατόνταρχος] “ Centurio supplicio prae- positus,” Seneca, de ira, i. 16. He belonged to the σπεῖρα, ver. 27. — of wer αὐτοῦ τηροῦντες τ. ᾽Ιησ.] is to be taken as one expression ; see ver. 35 ἢ ----καὶ τὰ γινόμενα] καί, 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 ἢ). The present participle (see the critical remarks) is used with reference to things they have been witnessing up till the present moment; see Kiihner, 11. 1, pp. 117, 168.--- ἐφοβήθησαν] they were seized with terror, under the impression that all that was happening was a manifestation of the wrath of the gods. — θεοῦ vids] in the mouth of heathens can only denote a scn 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. — ἢν] during His life. Ver. 55 f. Ἦ κολούθησαν] Here, as in ver. 60 and often elsewhere, we have the aorist in the relative clause instead of the usual pluperfect.— ἡ Μαγδαληνή] from Magdala (see on xv. 39), comp. Luke viii. 2; she is not identical with the Mary of John xii. 1 ff, who again has been confounded with the sinner of Luke vii. 36. Comp. on xxvi. 6 ff. The xv5t19 is likewise mentioned in Rabbinical literature (Eisen- menger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 277), though this must not be confounded with x>019, a plaiter of hair, which the Talmud alleges the mother of Jesus to have been (Lightfoot, p. 498). - ἡ τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβου, κ.τ.λ.1 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. 401), otherwise we-should have had καὶ ἡ τοῦ ᾿Ιωσῆ μήτηρ. See also Mark xv. 47, Remark.— ἡ μήτηρ τῶν vidv ZeBed.] Salome. Comp. on xx. 20. In John xix. 25 she is desig- nated: ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ. 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 Μαρία ἡ τοῦ ᾿Ιακώβου καὶ ᾿Ιωσῆ μήτηρ (xiii. 55). So also Hesychius of Jerusalem in Cramer’s Catena, p. 256. Ver. 57. Ὀψίας δὲ yevou.] 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. — ἀπὸ "Apipaé.] belongs to ἄνθρωπος πλούσιος. Comp. μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, 11. 1. The other evangelists describe him as a member of the Sanhedrim; an additional reason for sup- posing him to have resided in Jerusalem.— ἦλ θεν] 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, 0M with the article, 1 Sam. i. 1, the birthplace of Samuel (see Eusebius, Onom., and Jerome, Ep. 86, ad Eustoch. epitaph. Paul. p. 673), and consequently identical with Rama (see on ii. 18); LXX.: "Apyabaip.— καὶ αὐτός] et ipse, like those women and their sons, ver. 56. ---μαθητεύειν τινι] to be a disciple of any one; see Kypke, 11. p. 141 ἢ 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, xlvili. 24. 1, de cadav. punit. ; Hug in the Freyb. Zeitschr. 5, Ῥ. 174 ff. -- -προσελθ.] therefore from the place of execution to the praetorium. — ἀποδοθῆναι τὸ σῶμα] τὸ σῶμα 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. ἀποδοθ. has the force of reddi (Vulg.), the thing asked being regarded as the petitioner’s own peculiar property. Comp. xxii. 21. Ver. 59. “Jam initia honoris,” Bengel.—ovvdove κα- Gapa] with pwre (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. 11. 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 (ἀλείψωσιν, Mark xvi. 1) what had been done imperfectly, because somewhat hurriedly, by Joseph and (see John xix. 39) Nicodemus. Ver. 60. Ὃ ἐλατόμησεν) 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).—éyv τῇ πέτρᾳ] The article is to be understood as indicating a rocky place just at hand.— τῇ θύρᾳ] Comp. Hom. Od. ix. 243: πέτρην ἐπέθηκε θύρησιν. In Rabbinical phraseology the stone used for this purpose is called 713, α 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 wu. Golgatha, p. 205). Ver. 61. Ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ] present at the burial. — ἡ ἄλλη Map.] see ver. 56. The article is wanting only in A D*, and should be maintained, Wieseler (Chronol. Synops. p. 42 7) notwithstanding. Its omission in the case of A may be traced to the reading ἡ ᾿Ιωσήφ, 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 xv. 47. — καθήμεναι, k.t..| unoccupied, absorbed in grief; comp. Nagelsbach on Hom. 171. 1. 154. Ver. 62. Ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν mapack.| which follows the day of preparation, 1.6. on Saturday. For παρασκεύη 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 παρασκεύη of the Sabbath happened to coincide this year with the first day of the feast, which might also properly enough be designated σάββατον (Lev. 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 ἥτις ἐστὶ σάββατον ; 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 ἥτις ἐστὶ σάββατον. 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: ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τ. Tapack., is to be found in that Christian usage according to which the παρασκεύη (ie. the προσάββατον, 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 Wriday after sunset that is intended, by which time, therefore, the Sabbath had begun. This, however, is distinctly precluded by τῇ ἐπαύριον. Ver. 63. ᾿Ε μνήσθη μεν] 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).— ἐκεῖνος ὁ πλάνος] that deceiver (2 Cor. vi. 8), impostor; Justin, 6. Tr. 69: λαοπλάνος. Without once mentioning His name, they contemptuously allude to Him as one now removed to ὦ distance, as got rid of by death. This is a sense in which ἐκεῖνος is frequently used by Greek authors (Schoem. ad Js. p- 177; Ellendt, Len. Soph. I. p. 559).— éyeipopac] present ; marking the confidence with which he affirmed it. Ver. 64. Kai ἔσται] is more lively and natural when not taken as dependent on pore. The Vulgate renders cor- rectly: et erit.— ἐσχάτη πλάνη] 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. ---τῆς πρώτης] which found acceptance with the multitude through giving out and encouraging others to give out that He was the Messiah.—-ye/pwv] worse, ie. more fatal to public order and security, etc. For the use of this expression, comp. xil. 45; 2 Sam. xiii. 15. 284 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. Ver. 65 ἢ Pilate’s reply is sharp and peremptory. — ἔχετε κουστωδίαν) with Luther, Vatablus, Wolf, Paulus, de Wette, Keim, Steinmeyer, ἔχετε 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 XXvili. 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. — ὡς οἴδατε] as, by such means as, ye know how to prevent it, a.e.in the best way you can. The idea: “ vereor autem, ut satis communire illud possitis” (Fritzsche), is foreign to the text.— μετὰ τῆς κουστωδίέας] belongs to ἠσφαλίσ. τ. τάφ. ; 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 σφραγίσ. τ. λίθ. is to be understood as having preceded the ἠσφαλ. τ. τ. μετὰ τ. κουστ. : after they had sealed the stone. To connect μετὰ τ. κουστωδ. with σφραγίσ. (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 μετὰ τοῦ προσθεῖναι τὴν κουστωδίαν (Fritzsche). — ogpayic.] 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. 11. 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 wnd 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 οἵ 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 aileged 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. ILI. p. 837 ff.; Strauss, II. p. 562 ff. ; Schleiermacher, ZL. 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 capac:ty, 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 Ltepert. 1X. p. 141)—an interpolation, too, that would have had to be introduced into three different passages (xxvii. 62, 66, xxvill. 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 Hv. Nicod. 14. CHAP. XXVIII, 287 CHAPTER. XX VatL VER. 2. ἀπὸ τ. θύρας] is wanting in B DX, 60, 84, Vulg. It. Or. Dion. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Exegetical addition, which many witnesses have supplemented still further by adding τοῦ μνημείου (Mark xvi. 3).— Ver. 6. ὁ κύριος] 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. ἐξελθ.] Tisch.: ἀπελθ., following BC Lx, 33, 69, 124. Correctly ; the more significant reading of the Received text is derived from Mark. — Ver. 9. Before καὶ dod the Received text inserts: ὡς δὲ ἐπορεύοντο ἀπαγγεΐλοωι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ. No such clause is found in B D8, min. Syr. Ar?” Perss. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Sax. It. Or. Eus. Jer. Aug. Defended by Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, Scholz, Bornem. (Schol. in Luc. p. xxx1x.); 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 ὡς 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 ἀπήγγ. read, with Tisch. 8, ἀνήγγ., though only in accordance with D x, Or. Chrys. The Received reading is taken from ver. 10, while ἀναγγέλλειν Occurs nowhere else in Matthew. — Ver. 14. ἐπὶ τοῦ ny.| Lachm. : ὑπὸ τοῦ ny., following B D, 59, Vulg. It. But this is an explanatory correction in consequence of not catching the sense. — Ver. 15. Lachm. inserts ἡμέρας after σήμερον, in accord- ance with B DL. Correctly; as Matth. does not add ἡμέρ. in any other instance (xi. 23, xxvii. 8), it was more natural for the transcriber to omit than to insert it.— Ver. 17. αὐτῷ] 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 ropevé. Elz. inserts οὖν, 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. — ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων] 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 ὀψέ, sero, with a defining genitive (withpewt[ which it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament) always denotes the lateness of the period thus specified and still current (τὰ τελευταῖα τούτων, Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. in general, Kriiger, ὃ xlvii. 10. 4; Kiithner, II. 1, p. 292. Take the following as examples of this usage from classical authors: Xen. Hist. 11. 1. 14; Thue. ᾿ iv. 93. 1: τῆς ἡμέρας ὀψέ; Dem. p. 541, wlt.: ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας ἐγίγνετο; Luc. Dem. enc. 14, and de morte Peregr. 21: ὀψὲ τῆς ἡλικίας. 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 ὀψίας γενομένης (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 Nw ΒΞ, aptly observes: “ ὀψέ 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: τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ὄρθρου βαθέος, and in John xx. 1: τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββ. πρωὶ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης ; while, on the other hand, Mark xvi. 2 represents the sun as already risen. For ὀψέ, comp. Ammonius: ἑσπέρα μὲν yap ἐστιν ἡ μετὰ τὴν δύσιν τοῦ CHAP. XXVIII. 1. 289 ἡλίου wpa’ ὀψέ δὲ ἡ μετὰ πολὺ τῆς δύσεως. ---- τῇ ἐπιῴφωσκ. εἰς μίαν σαββάτων] when it was dawning toward Sunday, 1.6. as the light was beginning to appear on the morning of Sunday. Understand ἡμέρα after ἐπιφωσκ.; and for ἐπιφώσκει ἡ ἡμέρα, comp. Herod. iii. 86: dy’ ἡμέρῃ διαφωσκούσῃ, also ix, 45. The participial expression without the ἡμέρα is similar to ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, and the like (Kiihner, 11. 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: τῇ pla σαββάτων: ἐπιφωσκούσῃ ; comp. σαββάτον ἐπιφώσκει, 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 τῇ ἐπιφωσκ. Ewald, Apost. Zeit. p. 82, unwarrantably supplies ἑσπέρᾳ, 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: διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, λίαν πρωὶ τῆς 1 This idea οἵ Keim’s about the twinkling of the stars is an importation; for the expression ἐσιφώσκει, as applied to the evening, has reference only to the ordinary domestic lighting of the iamps. See in particular, Lightfoot on Luke xxiii. 54, MATT. IL. tT 290 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. μιᾶς σαββάτων. But so far from that, he has proceeded in entire independence of Mark. — The expression μία σαββάτων corresponds exactly to the Rabbinical mode of designating the days of the week: naw. ἽΠΝ, Sunday; nawa Ὁ, Monday; navi wy, Tuesday, and so on. See Lightfoot, p. 500. Observe that σάββατα denotes, in the first instance, Sabbath, and then week; and similarly, that the ἡμέρᾳ to be understood with ἐπιῴφωσκ. is to be taken in the sense of day light (John ix. 4, xi. 9; Rom. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 5).— 17 ἄλλη Μαρία] 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 jirst of all to the grave, and then hastened back to the city to inform Peter of what had taken place, and that during her absence Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and the other women arrived (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. 11. p. 241 ff.; Strauss, 11. p. 570 ff; Wieseler, p. 425 ff. — θεωρῆσαι tov τάφον] 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 ἦλθε as not yet completed (de Wette). Matthew repre- CHAP. XXVIII. 3-6. 291 -sents what is here recorded as taking place in presence of the women (ἦλθε... θεωρῆσαι... καὶ ἰδού), 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. — γάρ] assigning the reason for the violent earthquake which, as a divine σημεῖον, formed an appropriate acccmpaniment to this miraculous angelic manifestation. — x. ἐκαθήτο, x.7.X.] as the heaven-sent guardian and interpreter of the empty tomb. Ver. 3 ἢ ‘H ἰδέα αὐτοῦ] his appearance, his outward aspect, found nowhere else in the New Testament, though occurring in Dan. i115, 2 Macc. 11. 16, and frequently in classical authors. On the relation of this term to εἶδος, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 596 A, and Parmen. p. 128 E; and comp. Ameis on Hom. Θά. ix. 508, Appendix. The appearance of the countenance is meant; see what fol- lows. Comp. xvii. 2, --- ὡς ἀστῥαπή] not: as having the form, but as shining with the brightness of lightning. Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 254 B: εἶδον τὴν ὄψιν ἀστράπτουσαν. For the white raiment, comp. 2 Macc. xi. 8; Acts 1. 10. The sentinels were convulsed (ἐσείσθησαν, 3 Esdr. iv. 36) with error at the sight of the angel (αὐτοῦ), 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 weak the connection of Matthew’s narrative. Ver. 5 ἢ Αποκριθείς] said in view of the terrifying effect 2 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. which he saw was being produced upon the women by what was taking place. Comp. on xi. 25.— μὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑμεῖς] ὑμεῖς 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, ὑμεῖς 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).— οἷδα yap, «.7.2.] Ground of the reassuring terms in which the angel addresses them; he knows the loving purpose for which they are come, and what joyful news he has to tell them ! Ver. 7. Προάγει] he is in the act of going before you to Galilee ; ὅτι is recitative. Bengel correctly observes: “ Verba discipulis dicenda se porrigunt usque ad widebitis.” Accord- ingly ὑμᾶς and ὄψεσθε 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. — ἐκεῖ] 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. wu. 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 προάγει and ὄψ. Observe, moreover, the ὄψεσθε; on no earlier occasion than that of their meeting in Galilee were they to be favoured with a sight of Him. — εἶπον ὑμῖν] I have told you τέ, 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 εἶπον we should read εἶπεν, after Mark xvi. 7 (Maldonatus, Michaelis), in which case some assume an error in translation (Bolten, Eichhorn, Buslav, de ling. orig. ev. 77. 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 ἐδού, εἶπον ὑμῖν is here peculiar to Matthew. Ver. 8. Μετὰ φόβου, ἐφ᾽ οἷς εἶδον παραδόξοις" μετὰ χαρᾶς δὲ, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἤκουσαν εὐαγγελίοις, Euthymius Zigabenus— μεγάλης] applying to both substantives. For similar in- stances of the mingling of fear with joy (Virg. Aen. 1. 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 (μὴ φοβεῖσθε, ver. 10) that they take hold of His feet in a suppliant attitude (ἐκράτ. αὐτοῦ τ. πόδας), and testify their submission and reverence by the act of προσκύνη- σις. Bengel says correctly: “Jesum ante passionem alii potius alieniores adorarunt quam discipult.” Ver. 10. Μὴ φοβεῖσθε: ὑπάγετε, ἀπαγγ.] Asyndeton, the matter being pressing, urgent. —- τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου] He thus designates His disciples (comp. on John xx. 17; Justin, 6. Tr. 106), not πρὸς τιμὴν αὐτῶν (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 azayy. (de Wette; there is nothing whatever of the nature of an order about dmay.), 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. 92. ----κἀκεῖ we ὄψονται) 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. Stemmeyer. With the exception 294 TIIE 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 1. 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