lillllfi

IliiluilimiMiiliiljIliHliliill^iJtillillllljiU^lliliill'iMllilli:

I  Ill,1 I11' "'  * 

iiiuninii n

III III!

: ' ri'i'iiMi|i i n-

YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
Library of The
ReY- J.H. Mbrison

CLARK'S

FOREIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

VOLUME V.

OLSHATJSEFS COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS.

VOL I.

SECOND EDITION.

EDINBURGH:
T. AND T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET ;
LONDON : SEELET AND CO. ; WAKD AND CO. ; AND JACKSON AND WALFORD ;
DUBLIN : HODGES AND SMITH ; AND JOHN ROBERTSON ;
SEW YORK : J. WILEY ; PHILADELPHIA : SMITH
AND ENGLISH ; BOSTON ! JEWITT AND CO.

MDCCCL1V.

COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS:
ADAPTED EXPRESSLY FOR PREACHERS AND STUDENTS.

HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D.,
Professor op theology in the university op eelangei*.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES,

THE EEV. H. B. CREAK, A.M.,
ATHERSTOtfE.

iECOND EDITION.

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED THE SAME AOTHOR S
PROOF OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE WRITINGS OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH NOTES,
BY f
DAVID FOSDICK, Jn.

VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:
T. AJSTD T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET;
LONDON ! HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. ; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO. ;
DOBLIN : HODGES AND SMITH ; AND JOHN ROBERTSON ;
NEW YORK : J. WILEY J PHILADELPHIA : SMITH
AND ENGLISH i BOSTON : JEWITT AND CO.

MDCCCLIV.

Yale Divinity Library

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Translator's Preface,
Author's Preface,

PAGE ix xi

INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. On the Origin of the Gospel-Collection,
§ 2. On the Character of the Gospel-Collection,
§ 3. On the Affinity of the first three Gospels,
§ 4. On the Gospel of St. Matthew, . '
§ 5. On the Gospel of St. Mark,
§ 6. On the Gospel of St. Luke,
§ 7. On the Harmony of the Gospel-History,
§ 8. On the Credibility of the Gospel-History,
§ 9. Survey of the Literature,

1
3 68
121517
2228

FIRST PART.
Of the Birth and Childhood of Jesus Christ. Matth. i., ii. ; Luke i., ii.

FIRST SECTION.
St. Matthew's Account — Chaps, i., ii.
| 1. Genealogy of Jesus. Matth. i. 1-17; Luke iii. 23-38,
§2. The Birth of Jesus. Matth. i. 18-25, ....
§ 3. Visit of the Magi— Flight into Egypt— Murder of the ChitBren-
,. Arrival at Galilee. Matth. ii. 1-23, ....

3543 N.
56

SECOND SECTION.
St. Luke's Account — Chaps, i., ii.
§ 1. Froemium. Luke i. 1-4, ...... 73
§ 2. Annunciation of the Birth of John the Baptist. Luke i. 5-26, . 80
§ 3. Annunciation of the Birth of Jesus. Mary's Visit to Elisabeth.
Luke i. 26-56, ....... 91

CONTENTS.

§ 4. John's 'Birth and Circumcision. Prophecies of Zacharias concerning
him and Christ. Luke i. 57-80, • • • 106
§ 5. Birth, Circumcision, and Presentation of Jesus in the Temple.
Luke ii. 1-40,  116
| 6. Jesus converses with the Priests in the Temple. Luke ii. 41-52, 136

SECOND PART.
Of John the Baptist. Christ's Baptism and Temptation.
Matth. iii. 1— iv. 12 ; Mark i. 2-13 ; Luke iii. 1— iv. 13.
§ 1. John's Doctrine and Baptism. Matth. iii. 1-12; Mark i. 2-9; Luke
iii. 1-20, ... . . ¦ • • 141
§ 2. The Baptism of Christ. Matth. iii. 13-17; Mark i. 9-11; Luke iii.
21-23 ; John i. 32-34, ..... 158
§ 3. Christ's Temptation. Matth. iv. 1-11 ; Mark i. 11, 12 ; Luke iv. 1-13, 165,

THIRD PART.
Of Christ's Works and Discourses, particularly in Galilee.
Matth. iv. 12 — xviii. 35 ; Compared with Mark i. 14 — ix. 50 ; and
Luke iv. 14 — ix. 50.
§ 1. Jesus appears as a Teacher. Matth. iv. 12-17 ; Mark i. 14, 15 ;
Lukeiv. 14, 15  .176
§ 2. Jesus chooses Disciples. Matth. iv. 18-22 ; Mark i. 16-20, . 179
§ 3. Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Matth. iv. 23 — vii. 29, . . 180
§ 4. Healing of a Leper. Matth. viii. 1-4 ; Mark i. 40-45 ; Luke v. 12-16, 235
§ 5. Healing of the servant of a Centurion. Matth. viii. 5-13 ; Luke
vii. 1-10, . . . . - . . . 245
§ 6. Raising of the young Man at Nain. Luke vii. 11-17, . . 251
§ 7. Healing of Peter's Mother-in-law. Matth. viii. 14-17 ; Mark i. 29-34 ;
Luke iv. 31-41, ....... 254
§ 8. Peter's Draught of Fishes. Luke iv. 42-44 ; Mark i. 35-39 ; Luke
v. 1-11, ....... 256
§9. Jesus stills the Sea. Matth. viii. 18-27; Mark iv. 35-41; Luke
viii. 22-25,  263
§ 10. Cure of the Gadarene Demoniac. Matth. viii. 28-34 ; Mark v. 1-20 ;
Luke viii. 26-39, ...... 265
§ 11. Cure of a Paralytic. Matth. ix. 1-8; Mark v. 21; ii. 1-12; Luke
v. 17-26, ....... 282

ORDEE OF THE SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS
IN VOLUME I.
ARRANGED AFTER EACH GOSPEL.

ST. MATTHEW.

Chap.

1., n. .
iii. 1—12
iii. 13—17
iv. 1—11
iv. 12—17
iv. 18—22
iv. 23—7, 29

PAGE
35—73
151—158 158—165
165—175 176—179 179—180180—235

Chap. viii. 1 — 4
viii. 5 — 13
viii. 14—17
viii. 18—27
viii. 28—34
ix. 1—8

PAGE
235—245245—251254—256 263—265 265—282282—288

ST. MARK.

Chap. i. 1
i. 2— 8
i. 9—11 .
i. 12—13
i. 14—15
i. 16—20
i. 29—34

35
141—158158—165
165—175 176—179
179—180
254—256

Chap. i. 35—39
i. 40—45
ii. 1—12
iv. 35—41
v. 1—20
v. 21 .

256—263
235—245282—288263—265265—282 282—288

ST. LUKE.

Chap.

i., ii. .-
iii. 1—20
iii. 21—23
iii 23—28
iv. 1—13
iv. 14, 15
iv. 31—41
iv. 42—44

73—136
141—158158—165 35—43
165—176176—179
254—256 256—263

Chap. v. 1—11
v. 12—16
v. 17—26
vii. 1—10
viii. 11—17
viii. 22—25
viii. 26—39

*256— 263
235—245282—288
245—251 251—254263—265
265—282

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

The work, a part of which is here presented .to the English
reader, has attained such a deserved celebrity in Germany, and
is so well known to students of German literature in our own
country, that a translation of it cannot but be welcomed by
those to whom the original is inaccessible. The portion of
Scripture also to which it relates, offers a peculiarly interesting
field for study. The difficulties we there meet with have been
turned, by the adversaries of the truth, into weapons of attack ;
and the only successful defence that can be made is derived
from a deeper study of these records ; and the very circum
stance of our possessing more than one narrative of the life and
sufferings of our blessed Lord, which, at first sight, might
appear to give room for cavil, and afford a vantage ground for
the opponents of the Gospel, does, in truth, constitute one of
the strongest props of the historical argument for Christianity.:
But there are other difficulties in the interpretation of the
Gospels still greater than these. They are the necessary result
of the form of this part of God's revelation. These records
present to us not an orderly system of truth, but a most im
pressive picture of the holy life and divine instructions of our
Saviour Jesus Christ. They belong to a transition period,
when the former things that had decayed and waxed old were
"ready to vanish away;" and we see the great principles of the
Christian economy, and the grand motives of the Christian life,
which had been only obscurely intimated under the old dispen
sation, now gradually unfolded by the teaching and example of
the Son of God, and just ready to assume that matured form, in
which it has pleased God to give them to us by the holy Apostles.
Hence the Gospel-narratives bear the impress of that period,
and the form of revelation in them is less easily reducible to
our modes of thought, requiring both - depth and spirituality of
mind to grasp the principles, as well as judgment to apply
them. The author of this Commentary has brought a large

X TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
measure of these qualifications to bear upon his work, as none
can fail to recognize the sincere piety which pervades his
investigations into the meaning and spirit of Scripture. It
will readily be seen, that the author is by no means a rigid
disciple of any school of theology. He evidently does not call
Calvin master, which is not surprising in one whose opinions
were formed in the communion of the 'Lutheran Church. This
will subject him to the charge of looseness from many, and may
induce some, perhaps, to condemn the book altogether, instead
of applying the Apostle's injunction : " Prove all things ; hold
fast that which is good."
To a translator, the work presents some special difficulties,
from the very abstract mode of thpught and expression with
which it abounds. To this tendency in the German mind, the
native tongue is as congenial as the English language is un-
suited, and a translator must be allowed some liberty in depart
ing from such a literal rendering as would leave the sense
obscure, not to say unintelligible. In the present translation, I
have endeavoured to give the sense of such passages in a form
as much adapted to the English idiom as I could cast them ;
and though I cannot expect, at all times, to have succeeded, yet
I would hope the pains have not been altogether in vain.
A few notes have been added, principally where the author
ized English version differs from the translation adopted by
Olshatjsen, and sometimes where the author's peculiar views
required some notice. The latter have been introduced very
sparingly, not from want of occasions of difference of opinion,
but from the feeling, that many, into whose hands this transla
tion will come, would not sympathize with those differences,
and that most readers would themselves notice and weigh them.
Great care has been taken to verify the references to Scripture.
It will be observed, that there are some to the apocryphal
books of the Old Testament. The views of German Theo
logians respecting these books differ from those usually enter
tained in this country ; but as none of the quotations in this
volume is adduced to establish a doctrinal point, I have not
scrupled to leave them unaltered. The references to other
works have not always been verified, as I had not all the books
at hand ; but, from the general correctness of those that have
been so compared, I expect very few errors will be found.
H. B. CREAK.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

The plan and arrangement of this work, notwithstanding many
alterations and additions in the details, remain essentially the
same in this new edition of the Commentary, since I think I
may take it- for granted that, in these points, I have met the
wants of our times. I regard it as my chief object to bring out
the inward unity of the whole New Testament, and of the
Scriptures generally, and, by the interpretation, to introduce
the reader to the unity of life and spirit in the Sacred Books.
To have been continually noticing interpretations which originate
in entirely separate views, as well as to have been constantly
opposing unchristian tendencies, would have rendered it impos
sible to enter into the spirit of the Bible, since in that way the
flow of the spirit would necessarily have been interrupted. The"
exegetical lectures have to supply what is necessary in reference
to the enumeration of different interpretations, the refutation of
errors, the grammar, archaeology, and history.
Hence it naturally follows, that, in this third edition, such
lately published works as Strauss' Life of Jesus, and De Wette's
Commentary, (who professes to agree with Strauss in the prin
ciples, but would prefer a less extensive application of them,
which is, indeed, evidently inconsistent, as Strauss has very
justly demonstrated in reply to him, see "Berliner Jahrbucher"
1837, No. 1, ff.) could not be noticed by me, inasmuch as there
is a difference of principles between their authors and myself.
In those passages where that difference was not involved, I have
not omitted to notice these works also, but have used them as
well as treatises more congenial to my own mind, among which
I mention particularly Tholuck's masterpiece of exposition on
the Sermon on the Mount, in order, by strict impartiality, to
gather with increasing purity the sense of the Word of God.
Still it was very rarely that I gained any light from the works
of Strauss and De Wette, even as to the externals of Scripture ;

xii author's preface.
while I am greatly indebted to Tholuck's labours in every
respect. Still, as the notorious work of Strauss contains a continued
series of attacks on my Commentary, I make use of this oppor
tunity to explain my silence with reference to these attacks. At
first, I determined to write a special work on the subject ; but
the composition . of it was prevented by protracted illness.
Meanwhile, such a flood of refutations is being poured forth,
that I cannot even begin to write down my thoughts, because
every moment brings some book or pamphlet, which has already
discussed first this point and then the other on which I intended
to enlarge. On the other hand, not a single work appeared
in favour of Strauss ; and even in the few critiques that were
somewhat favourable, nothing new whatsoever was brought
forward in confirmation of his view. All parties in the theo
logical world are unanimous in the rejection of his work.
This being the state of affairs, the danger to theology from
Strauss' work may, we hope, be regarded as removed ; among
the laity, indeed, it will do the more mischief. Of course,
science is not to expect thus to be freed from the conflict ; for
even though the inapplicablity of the mythical interpretation to
the New Testament has been evidently demonstrated, yet heroes
will soon arise to call our courageous and unprejudiced Strauss
a cowardly poltroon, full of superstitious assumptions, because
he did not dare to speak out plainly, but only now and then
gently hints that Christianity and the books of the New Testa
ment are to him simply the product of unbounded fanaticism, or, to
speak more decidedly, of a monstrous deception. As Dr. Paulus
at first propounded his natural explanation of the miracles amid
loud rejoicing, and now sees it turned to ridicule by Strauss, who
stands upon his shoulders, a similar result awaits the latter with
his mythical explanation. And unless we are greatly mistaken
in reading the signs of the times, Strauss will not need, like
his predecessor, to live to be eighty years old, in order to hear
with his own ears the derision of his more decided disciples.
The members of Antichrist are extending vigorously in the
bosom of society, in order soon to appear in their consummation.
The pace of the world's history is continually being accelerated.
May but the Church of Christ attain more and more to a know
ledge of itself, so as to "be able to separate itself from all anti-
christian elements ; and may Christian science vigorously guard

author's preface. xiii
itself against the dangerous error of supposing that such excres
cences of unbelief, as the hypothesis of the mythical character
of the New Testament, necessarily belong to the course of its
development ! Such phenomena, Theology ought to treat purely
apologetically, — i. e., in that department which defends the
domain of Christian science against attacks from without ; in its
inward sanctuary such inventions have no place at all.
In an apologetic point of view, I still intend to contribute
something towards a refutation of the mythical system, inasmuch
as I propose to myself a renewed comprehensive investigation
on the genuineness of the Gospels, which Dr. Theile of Leipsic
has kindly invited me to do in his work recently published
against Strauss. If it be proved that our canonical Gospels are
the productions of eye-witnesses of the facts, the applicability
of the mythical interpretation of the life of Jesus vanishes most
certainly and completely, according to Strauss' own confession.
If God grant life and health, I shall proceed to this recasting
of my earlier work on the genuineness of the Gospels, immedi
ately after the completion of the printing of the third edition
of the second volume.

THE AUTHOR.

August 19, 1837.

PROOF OF THE GENUINENESS

WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

PROOF OF THE GENUINENESS

WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT:

INTELLIGENT READERS OF ALL CLASSES.

TRANSLATED FROM THB GERMAN

DR HERMANN OLSHAUSEN,
PROFESSOR OF THF.OLOGT IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN.
WITH NOTES, BY
DAVID FOSDICK, Jr.

EDINBURGH :
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.;
SEELET AND CO.; WARD AND CO.; JACKSON AND WALFORD, ETC.
DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON.

MDCCCXLVII.

CONTENTS.

Preface by the Translator, . . ... . i
Author's Preface^ ....... iii
Introduction, ....... v
CHAP. I.
Of the New Testament in General, . . . . . xi
CHAP. II.
Of the collection of the Gospels, ..... xx
CHAP. III.
Of the Gospels individually, and the Acts of the Apostles, . xxvii
CHAP. IV.
Of the Pauline Epistles, ...... xxxix
CHAP. V.
Continuation. Of the Pauline Epistles composed during and after
Paul's imprisonment at Rome, lv
CHAP. VI.
Of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ..... lxvi
CHAP. VII.
Of the Catholic Epistles, ...... lxxvi
CHAP. VIII.
Of the Second Epistle of Peter, ..... Ixxxix
CHAP. IX.
Of the Epistles of James and Jude, .... xcv
' CHAP. X.
Of the Revelation of John, ...... civ
Conclusion, ....... cxv

PREFACE BY THE TRANSLATOR.

The author of the following treatise is known to those con
versant with the theological literature of Germany, as a writer of
considerable celebrity. He was born in 1796 at Oldeslohe in
the Duchy of Holstein, He received his University education
partly at Kiel and partly at Berlin. In 1822 he became theolo
gical professor at Konigsberg, in the remotest north-eastern part
of the Prussian dominions, where he remained till, in 1835, he
was called to occupy the same chair at Erlangen in Bavaria.
His fame has been derived mostly from his Commentaries, as
being his most extensive productions, They are characterised
by an almost utter absence of philological display, although they
are far from being deficient in learning and shrewdness. The
author prefers to exhibit, results, rather than the processes by
which they were attained. His mode of exposition is altogether
more suited to common minds than the erudite, cumbrous mode
pursued by most German commentators. To use the language
of Professor Stuart, " the course of thought, and things rather
than words, are his chief object,"
The little work herewith given to the public in an English
dress (published in German in 1832), is an attempt to present
concisely and pimply the present state of investigation concern*
ing the genuineness of the New Testament. I do not know of
a book upon the subject, in any language, which combines so
popular a cast with so much comprehensiveness and justness of
representation as are, in my opinion, manifested in this. The
unlearned but inquisitive Christian may here find sources of re
flection and conviction respecting the truth of the record on
which he relies, that are not commonly accessible without the
toil of severe study. b

11 TRANSLATOR S PREFACE.
There will of course be found in the work a tone somewhat
alien from our English views and feelings. Reference is had to
religious circumstances diifering in some important respects from
our own. This peculiarity of tone, however, does not, in my opi
nion, involve anything of a clearly mischievous tendency. Its
influence will, I think, be useful. It is well to enlarge our
minds through an acquaintance with the sentiments entertained
concerning religious things by men as fully imbued with the
spirit of piety as ourselves, who have been nurtured in circum
stances quite different from those by which we have been af
fected. By comparison and inference, in such a case, we may
be much benefited.
I would not be understood as assenting, without restriction,
to all the views which this little work presents. They may be
right, or they may be wrong. I feel content to launch them be
fore the public, knowing that if right they will swim, and if
wrong they will eventually sink. Of this, however, I am fully
convinced (as may be judged from the present version) that the
book is in the main a good one; and I believe the public will
endorse my opinion.
In proceeding with the businessof translation, Ihave been guided
by the sense rather than the letter. The- grammatical construction
of the original has been altered wheneverit was thought advisable
to alter it for the sake of rendering the sense more perspicuous
and natural in English. I have in one or two instances ventured
to qualify an expression which seemed to me too strong, but
never in any case where the change was of much importance.
For instance, I have altered inconceivable to hardly conceivable,
&c. I have also, in a few cases, given biblical references in ad
dition to those furnished by the author. Many of the figures in
the original references were (typographically or otherwise) er
roneous, and have been corrected. Biblical quotations are pre
sented in conformity with our received English version, instead
of being translated from the German.
The notes which I have subjoined are all designated by the
letters Tr.
D. F., Jr.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

Seven years ago, when I published my history of the Gospels,
it was my earnest desire to show the genuineness of all the books
of the New Testament, in a small work, designed for intelligent
readers generally. But, urgent as the necessity of such a work
appeared to me even then, the execution of my plan has been
postponed to the present time; partly because I was hindered
from entering upon it by multiplied avocations, and partly be
cause I hoped some one would present himself who was more
capable of such an undertaking than I felt myself to be. For I
knew but too well how difficult it would be for me to write sim
ply and plainly, so as to become even intelligible to those who
are not conversant with investigations of such a description as
must be noticed in this work. As, however, no one has yet
appeared to present such a work to the church of Christ, and
the necessity of it has meanwhile much increased, nothing re
mained for me but to surmount my scruples, and execute the
work as well as the Lord might permit.
The necessity of such a work will have been evident to every
one who has observed how certain positions as to the pretended
spuriousness, or at least suspicious character, of the writings of
the New Testament (positions which were formerly current only
within the circle of the clergy), are now entertained among the
common laity. It is easy to imagine the injury which is effected
by such foolish opinions. To the audacious opponents of Divine
truth they afford a fine occasion for repelling every attempt to
win their assent to it; and well-meaning persons often find in
them occasion of doubts and anxiety, which they might be spared,
did they only at least receive the antidote at the same time
with the poison. Such an antidote, to obviate, or at least lessen,
the destructive consequences of the views of many theologians
in regard to the biblical books (views which are diffused abroad

IV AUTHOR S PREFACE.
sometimes indiscreetly, and sometimes with a bad intention), I
wish this little work to be considered.
It will, at the same time, be my endeavour to correct the
views of many not very clear-sighted, though well-meaning per
sons, who appear to think that all critical investigations of the
genuineness or spuriousness of the books of the Bible are,
as such, wrong, and take their origin from unbelief. This
idea is fundamentally erroneous, and not seldom arises from
a religious conceit, to which there is a special liability on the
part of persons who, conscious of their own internal religious
life, dispense with all enlarged views of the connection of theo
logy with the whole church of God on earth, and nevertheless
are tempted to judge of things beyond the pale of their capacity.
It would have been better, therefore, had all such investigations
been confined within the circle of theologians; but, as the doubts
to which we have referred have been promulgated among the
laity, their refutation must also find a place in general literature.
I should very readily have extended my investigations to the
writings of the Old Testament; but have not, in the first place,
because the results of researches in regard to the Old Testament
are of a less stable character than in regard to the New; and,
moreover, because those who are not theologians by profession
have far less need of such information in regard to the Old Tes
tament as is here given concerning the New, inasmuch as to
Christians the testimony pf Christ and his apostles respecting
the Old Testament, the canon of which was then completed,
affords a much more certain evidence of its Divine origin (and
thus of its genuineness), than any historical reasoning could
exhibit, especially since, from the paucity of sources of informa
tion, the latter could not be so satisfactory as it is in relation to
the New Testament. As to unbelievers, it is of much greater
consequence to urge the claims of the New Testament upon
them than those of the Old, because, so long as they are opposed
to the former, they certainly will not admit the latter. In my
closing remarks, however, I have endeavoured to designate
briefly the right point of view in the determination of critical
questions concerning the Old Testament.
To conclude, I pray that the Lord may be pleased graciously
to accompany this my book with his blessing, and cause it to
serve as an admonition to many a scoffer, and to console and set
at ease the minds of such as have been perplexed with doubts.
OLSHAUSEN.

INTRODUCTION.

For fifteen hundred years the New Testament, as we now pos
sess it, has been generally current in the Christian church, and
constantly used, as well publicly in the churches as likewise in
the domestic circles of believers. This fact is admitted by the
scholars of modern times unanimously^ since it can be shown by
the most certain historical proofs. Hence all investigations
concerning the genuineness of the writings of the New Testa
ment and the manner of its formation relate only to the first
few centuries after the ascension of our Saviour and the death
of the Apostles. Indeed, it is easily seen that in reality every
thing must depend on this primitive period; for after the New
Testament was once made up and generally admitted in the
church, it could not be lost. Even before the invention of print
ing, it was spread abroad in all parts of the Christian world by
a multitude of copies, it being more frequently transcribed than
all other books together. Hence, even supposing that the New
Testament, say by war or devastation, had utterly perished in
any country, it would immediately have been introduced again
from surrounding ones. Of this, however, there is no example.
Even such churches as entirely lost connection with the great
Catholic church, and on that account sank to a very low point,
yet faithfully preserved the sacred Scriptures, as is proved by
the instance of the Ethiopian church, in which, on its discovery
after the lapse of centuries, the Bible was found still in use.
From the great importance of the New Testament to the church
and the whole civilised world, it was a very natural desire on
the part of scholars to know exactly how this momentous book
was formed. On entering" upon this inquiry, however, in the

VI INTRODUCTION.
perusal of the earliest writers of the church, accounts were met
with which were somewhat difficult of adjustment. It was found
that even before the compilation of all the writings of the New
Testament into one collection, many fathers of the church, per
fectly well disposed towards Christianity, had doubted the
genuineness of particular books of the New Testament. This
circumstance naturally arrested attention, and the next inquiry
was, what grounds such early fathers might have had for scruples
respecting these writings. In considering this question, one
thought he had discovered this reason and another that; and it
often happened that these reasons were considered weighty
enough to justify the ancient doubts as to the genuineness of the
books. It was at the Reformation, particularly, that this free
investigation of the Bible began to extend widely; and among
the Reformers Luther himself was specially remarkable for it.
From these inquiries he became fully convinced of the genuine
ness of most of the writings of the New Testament; but he sup^
posed it necessary to regard some of them, e. g. the Epistle of
James, and John's Revelation, as spurious. In this opinion he
certainly erred, particularly, as is now acknowledged by nearly all
scholars, in his rejection of the Epistle of James; but great as was,
and still is, his authority in the eyes of many millions of Christians,
his belief of the spuriousness of these two books has done no
essential harm; they have maintained their place in the New
Testament since as before, and the circumstance of his rejecting
them has only shown the church the truth of the old remark
that even God's saints may err.
From this example may be clearly seen, however, the total
groundlessness of the fear of those who imagine that such scru
tinizing inquiries must be, in and of themselves, prejudicial to
the church. Such examinations of the origin of holy writ, and
its individual books, are not only allowable, but absolutely indis
pensable; and they will injure the church, no more than gold is
injured by being carefully tried in the fire. The church, like
the gold, will but become purer for the test. In the Scriptures,
both of the Old and New Testament, the eternal revelation of
God reposes in quiet security and brightness. A wonderful
Divine ordination has preserved it to us without any essential
injury, through a succession of dark ages. It exerts at the pre
sent day, upon all minds receptive of its spirit, the same blessed,
sanctifying influence which the apostles claimed for it eighteen

INTRODUCTION. vii
centuries ago. How, then, can these sacred books suffer from
careful historical inquiry respecting their origin? Investigation
must rather serve to confirm and fully establish belief in their
purity and genuineness. That this is actually the effect of really
learned investigations is apparent, likewise, from the following
instance. When the very erudite and truly pious Professor.
Bengel of Tubingen published his New Testament with all the
various readings which he had been able to discover, many
minds were filled with anxiety, thinking that an entirely new
Testament would be the result in the end, if all the various
readings were hunted up. They thought it would be better to
leave things as they were. But mark — although 40,000 various
readings were discovered in the ancient MSS., the New Tes
tament was hardly at all altered thereby; for very few read
ings were of a nature to have any essential bearing upon a
doctrine. Most of them consisted of unimportant transpositions,
or permutations of synonymous words (such as in English also
for and, &c.) ; and though some readings were more considerable
(as e. g. the celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7: "For there are
three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the "Word, and
the Holy Ghost, and these three are one," which must certainly
be regarded as spurious), still they are really of no more conse
quence. For such is the nature of the Holy Scriptures, that
there are always many proof-passages for any important doc
trine; and hence, although these words are withdrawn from the
Bible, their purport is still eternally true, and the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity remains at the present time, as before, the doctrine
of the church. Now that all the MSS. have been read and ac
curately collated, there is no further occasion for fear that some
where or other something new may be discovered, which will
thrust the old-loved Bible aside. Moreover, the principles on
which scholars determine the right one among different readings
of the same passage are so skilfully devised, that it is almost
impossible, for a false reading to creep in; and, should one indi
vidual err in this respect, another immediately steps in and cor
rects the error.
It certainly is not to be denied that pious persons, who valued
God's word, might well for some time be anxious at heart; for
one biblical book after another was stricken from the list
of those which were genuine, and at last we seemed to have
none but spurious books in the Bible; though, on the other

Vlll INTRODUCTION.
hand, it remained inexplicable who could have taken pains
either to forge so many spurious writings himself, or to make a
collection of them after they were forged. And then, what
could have been the character of the deceitful author or authors
(for, at all events, the books must have been written by some
body), who could compose such writings,^-writings which for
many centuries have consoled millions in calamity and death.
It is now seen, however, that the reason why things were so for
a time, was, not that men inquired and investigated (for no
injury can ever accrue on that account), but that they did not
prosecute the investigation with a right spirit and disposition.
Every one can see that it is not a matter of indifference with
what feelings we engage in investigations of this kind in regard
to the sacred books. Suppose a man to see in the books of the
New Testament only monuments of antiquity, of just as little or
as much value as other ancient writings, to have felt nothing of
the saving influence of God's word upon his heart, and on that
account to be devoid of love for it; yea, even to feel vexed that
others should hold it so dear, and enviously and maliciously
study how he might destroy their delight in this treasure — such
a man, with his perverse disposition, would rake up any thing
and every thing in order to undermine the foundation of the
church. Whether such corrupt motives have really operated in
the heart of any inquirer, no man can determine. It is always
presumption to take it upon ourselves to judge respecting the
internal position or intention of any heart. We may even sup
pose one who rejects the whole New Testament to possess honesty
and sincerity, which want only the necessary light of conviction.
But the possibility that such motives may affect these investiga
tions, certainly cannot be denied; and that is fully enough for
our purpose. If, moreover, we look at the manner in which a
Voltaire among the French, and a Bahrdt among the Germans,
have treated the sacred books, we find cogent reason to fear
that they did not keep themselves free from such corrupt motives,
however heartily we wish that God's judgment may pronounce
them pure. This consideration is of importance, however, be
cause we may see from it how all depends on this interior state
of mind with which a man commences his undertakings; so that
even the noblest enterprise may by an unholy intention lead to
pernicious results. But, setting entirely aside the possibility
that a man may undertake investigations respecting the Scrip-

INTRODUCTION. ix
tures in a positively corrupt state of mind, he may also do much
injury therein from levity and frivolity. If he is not sufficiently
penetrated with a conviction of the great importance of investi
gations concerning the genuineness of the sacred Scriptures, if
he does not treat the weaknesses of the church with sufficient
tenderness (for she may feel herself wounded in her most sacred
interests by the inconsiderate expression of doubts), it may easily
happen that, at the first impulse, upon some supposed discovery,
this discovery will immediately be blazoned before the world,
without having been previously tested with soberness and care by
all the means within reach. There is little reason to doubt that
vanity is commonly at the bottom of this superficial haste; for it
is always delightful to what Paul calls the old man to be the
author of any new and striking opinion. Had all inquirers been
able properly to restrain this vain desire to shine, much offence
would without doubt have been avoided, and many a heart
would have escaped considerable suffering.
Still, in what department of life or knowledge have we not
many errors to lament ? He who knows his own heart aright
will therefore forgive learned men, if they have now and then
been governed by vanity or other wrong motives. The misuse
of a good thing should not abolish its use ; and it is still true
that all investigations respecting the sacred books, their history,
and compilation, are in themselves very useful and necessary,
as without them we must be entirely in the dark in regard to
their true character. We will only wish that henceforth the
God of truth and love may infuse truth and love into the hearts
of all inquirers, and then it will not be of any consequence that
many books have been pronounced spurious; for, fortunately,
they do not become spurious from the assertions of this or that
man, and it is always allowable for another scholar to point out
the errors of his predecessor. From this freedom of investigation
the truth will certainly come to light by degrees.
If the thoughts here presented be duly considered, it will be
readily seen, that he who has deep love for the word of God need
not take it much to heart, that this or that scholar has rejected
a particular book. After long investigation, and frequent asser
tions, that most of the books of the New Testament are spurious,
it is nevertheless now agreed among scholars generally, that all
the writings of the New Testament are genuine productions of the
apostles. As to several of them, it is true, precise certainty has

X INTRODUCTION.
not been attained, but it is to be hoped that uniformity will be.
exhibited soon in regard to these likewise; and, moreover, the
difference of opinion in this view concerning several of these
books is not so dangerous as it may appear. Concerning the
Epistle to the Hebrews, e. g., there is not uniformity of sentiment
as yet. Many very estimable divines, with whom I feel myself
constrained to coincide in opinion on this point, think that the
Epistle was not composed by the Apostle Paul, but by some
other very worthy member of the apostolic church. It is clear,
however, that even though Paul did not write the Epistle, we
cannot on this ground regard it as spurious, inasmuch as its
author is not mentioned in it. Hence, the only question in re
lation to it is, who was its author ? and on that point it is hard
to decide, from the obscurity of the accounts given by the an-:
cient fathers of the church. All, however, regard this Epistle as
genuine, i.e. it is universally believed that its author composed
it without any intention to palm it off as the production of some?
body else, for instance the Apostle Paul. Had that been his
purpose, he would have taken care that the Epistle should at
once be recognised as Paul's production, by assigning his name
to it, or in some other way. The case is certainly different as to
the second Epistle of Peter, against the genuineness of which many
doubts are prevalent. In relation to this Epistle, the first in^
quiry is not who was its author, for the apostle Peter is most
clearly designated as such, but whether Peter was really and
truly the author. If the conclusion be that the Epistle cannot
be attributed to Peter, then it must be forged or spurious. It
has been attacked with more plausibility than any other book of
the New Testament^ and yet much may be said even in behalf
of this Epistle, as we shall see hereafter. We may therefore as
sert, that by Divine Providence some good has already accrued
from the rigorous sifting to which the books of the New Testa?
ment have been subjected in our day. True, it did at first seem
as if the whole New Testament would in the course of time he
declared spurious; but when the first heat was over, and sober
perspicacity returned, it was seen by inquirers that far the
greater part of its books rested on a firmer historical foundation
than most works of profane antiquity which all the world regard
as genuine. Hence we may be of good courage in entering on
the consideration of the individual books of the New Testament,
for the result of critical investigation is by no means so much to

THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. xi
be dreaded as is sometimes thought. First, however, we desire
to premise something further respecting the New Testament gene
rally.

CHAPTER I.
THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY.
The oldest traces of the existence of the whole New Testament
as a settled collection occur so late as three centuries after the
time of the arjostles. The particular reason why so long a period
elapsed before this body of writings became definitely deter
mined was, that its individual books, which of course existed be
fore the whole collection, were at first circulated in part singly
and in part in smaller collections. For, so long as the apostles
were upon earth, and the power of the Spirit from on high was
in lively action in every member of the church, so long there
was no sensible necessity of a book to serve as the norm or rule
of faith and practice. Whenever any uncertainty arose in regard
to either, application was made to one of. the apostles, and his
advice was taken. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul owe their
origin in part to such inquiries. Now some of the apostles lived
to a very great age. Peter and Paul, it is true, died under the
emperor Nero (67 a.d.), suffering martyrdom at Rome; but the
Evangelist John, who outlived all the rest, was upwards of ninety
years of age at his death, which did not happen till the time of
the emperor Domitian, at the close of the first century. Hence,
in the lifetime of the apostles, though their writings were highly
valued, they were naturally not regarded as sacred writings,
which were to be the rule of faith; because there was a more
immediate guarantee of truth in the living discourse of the
apostles and their first companions, as also in the Holy Spirit,
which was so powerfully exerting its influence upon the church.
The apostolic writings, therefore, were indeed read in the public
assemblies, but not alone, and not regularly. The book for re*
gular public reading was still the Old Testament; and this is
always to be understood in the New Testament when the Holy

Xll THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY.
Scriptures are mentioned. Beside^ the apostolic writings, how
ever, other profitable books were used for the edification of the
church. In particular, we have still some remains of the writ
ings of immediate disciples of the apostles, commonly called
apostolic fathers, which were publicly read in the ancient churches.
These men all lived in the first century and some time in the
second. Among them are Clement, bishop of Rome, Ignatius,
bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, Hermas, who
was probably presbyter at Rome, and the well-known Barnabas.
The Epistles of Clement and Polycarp, as well as the Book of
Hermas, were read with special assiduity in the ancient churches.
On account of the great antiquity of these writings, the books of
the New Testament are very seldom quoted in them, and much
of what coincides with the contents of the New Testament, e. g.
Christ's sayings, may have been drawn by these apostolic fathers
from oral tradition as well as "from perusal of the Gospels. In
deed, the former source is perhaps most probable, since Chris
tians certainly did not then read the Gospels so assiduously as
they were read in later times, when they could no longer listen
to the living discourse of the apostles and their immediate com
panions. The reason why so few written remains of the imme
diate disciples of our Lord are now extant, is in part the long
lapse of time, which has destroyed many books once current, but
in part also that the ancient Christians laboured more than they
wrote. The preaching of the gospel, and the regulation of in
fant churches, consumed so much of their time, that little re
mained to be employed in composition. Moreover, in the first
century it was always as when Paul wrote the following declara-1
tion (1 Cor. i. 26) : " Not many wise men after the flesh, not
many noble were called." For the most part only people of in
ferior standing joined the church of Christ; and these had nei
ther the capacity nor the inclination to labour with the pen. In
these circumstances it is undoubtedly true that we find little in
formation concerning the books of the New Testament in the
first centuries. That they did, nevertheless, exist in the church
we shall prove hereafter. But it might be expected, then, that
although the most ancient Christians do not speak of their sacred
writings, still the heathen writers of Greece and Rome must
have done so, considering the multiplicity of their works on all
subjects. The heathen writers, however, who were contemporary
with the apostles and the apostolic church, make no mention of

THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. xiii
the apostolic writings, because they cared nothing at all about
the Christian church. They considered the Christians as only a
sect of the Jews, and despised them as much as they did the
latter. They therefore credited the malicious reports which
were circulated respecting the Christians, and treated them, ac
cordingly, as the offscouring of humanity. Such is the procedure
of Tacitus, a noble Roman, who relates the persecution of the
Christians under Nero. Thus, of course, nothing could induce
the Greeks and Romans to cultivate acquaintance with the writ
ings of the Christians, particularly as they were distasteful on
another account, from their not being clothed in the same ele
gant language as their productions. It was only when the num
ber of the Christians became so great as to excite apprehension,
that they began to pay attention to everything of importance
concerning this new sect, and so at last to their sacred books.
But it is not till after the middle of the second century that we
find examples like that of Celsus, who, in order to confute the
Christians, made himself acquainted with their sacred books.
The original condition of the primitive church, in which less
stress was laid on the Scriptures than on the word of the
apostles, was not indeed of long continuance. For the mighty
outpouring of the Spirit, which, on the day of Pentecost, filled
the disciples of our Saviour, had hardly been communicated to
a considerable number of other minds, and lost its first power, ere
erroneous schisms began to prevail in the churches. The germs of
these may even be discovered in the writings of the apostles. The
first of these party divisions of the ancient church was that of
the Jewish Christians. As early as in the Epistle to the Gala*
tions, Paul speaks expressly of persons who desired to bring the
Galatian Christians again under the yoke of the law. They
wished faith in Christ and his redemption to be regarded as in
sufficient for salvation, unless circumcision and the observance
of the law were added. The great preacher of the Gentiles,
however, zealously opposes this restricted idea of Christianity,
and shows that the soul must lose Christ, if it seeks to use any
other means of salvation. It was the object of the law of Moses
to lead by its injunctions to conviction of sin, and thus to a desire
for salvation; by its prophecies and types of Christ it was a
schoolmaster to guide us to him; but salvation itself could come
only from Christ. Still, Paul was by no means of opinion that
those who were Jews by birth must not observe the law when

Xiv THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY.
they 'became Christians; he rather favoured their doing so, if
the pious customs of their fathers had become dear to them, or
if their own weakness or that of the Jews around them would
be offended by the contrary course. Hence, the apostles who
remained in Jerusalem till its destruction, as did Matthew and
James, observed the law invariably, and so did Paul likewise,
when he was in Jerusalem. But the apostles, as well as their
true disciples, were far from being desirous to impose this obser
vance of the law upon the Gentiles also. The milder and really
Christian view of the observance of the law was constantly
entertained by many Jewish Christians in Palestine, who in
later times were called Nazareans. Many, on the contrary, took
the wrong course, which the Apostle Paul reproved in certain
individuals in Galatia, and these obtained the name of Ebion-
ites. They, however, fell into other heresies besides their idea
of the necessity of circumcision and observance of the law in or
der to salvation, particularly in regard to the person of Christ.
They denied the real divinity of our Lord, and regarded him as
a son of Joseph, thus seceding wholly from the true church of
Christ. In precise contrariety to this Judaising division of the church,
others entirely discarded Judaism. The instructions of the
apostle Paul had taken deep hold of their minds, and given
them a strong conviction that the gospel went far beyond the
formalities of Jewish practice, and would bring all nations under
its sway. But from this perfectly correct idea they wandered
into an opposition to the Old Testament, which was never felt
in the slightest degree by the Apostle Paul. They remarked
rightly, that in the Old Testament, the Divine justice was most
prominently exhibited, in the revelation of a rigorous law; while
the New most fully displayed the Divine mercy in the revelation
of forgiving love. But this fact, which was necessary for the edu
cation of mankind, since the need of salvation will never be felt
until the claims of justice are perceived, was employed by them
for the purpose of wholly disuniting the Old Testament from the
New, and referring it to a distinct author. This sect are termed
Marcionites, from Marcion, the man who urged this view to the
greatest extreme. In connection with their opposition to Judaism
they also held Gnostic opinions (whence they are commonly
ranked with the Gnostics), and these gave a hue to their absurd
notion that the God of the Old Testament was different from

THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. XV
that of the New. The Old Testament, they thought, presented
to view a God of justice without love; the New Testament one
bf love without justice; while in reality the only true God pos^
sesses both attributes in perfection. It is easy to see that in
these notions Paganism is mingled with Christianity. The sub
lime nature of the latter was admitted by the Marcionites; but
they could not look upon the other true form of religion, Juda
ism, as reconcilable with it. Hence, although they no longer
revered the numberless gods of the heathen, they imagined the
two attributes of God, justice and love, to centre in two distinct
divine beings. Besides this ungrounded violence against Juda
ism, the Marcionites maintained a silly error in regard to Christ's
nature, which was the precise opposite of the opinion of the
Jewish Christians. The latter denied his divinity, and the Mar
cionites asserted that he had no true humanity. The humanity
of Christ, said they, was only apparent. In their opinion, a purely
heavenly vision was presented in the person of Jesus Christ; his
life and all his acts in life were merely in appearance, designed
to exhibit him to men in a human manner.
This idea the Marcionites entertained in common with the
Gnostics, properly so called, who did indeed judge more correctly
than the former in regard to the mutual relation of Judaism
and Christianity, but on other points maintained the most
grievous errors. The seeds of their doctrine are referred to by
the Apostle Paul, e. g. in 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18, where he warns
against the heresy of Hymeneus and Philetus, who maintained
that the resurrection of the dead had already taken place. For,
as they denied the true humanity of Christ, they could not, of
course, admit the corporeal resurrection of all men; and there
fore understood it spiritually of the interior vivification of the
heart by the spirit of Christ. Undoubtedly this perversion of
doctrine on the part of the Gnostics is to be referred to their be
lief in another being besides God. While they regarded God as
a pure spirit, the fulness of all good and all beauty, they lboked
upon matter as another being, the source of everything corporeal
and visible, as also of all evil. It was from a mixture of the
spiritual and the material that this world originated, and parti
cularly man, who at one time displays so much that is lovely
and elevated, at another so much that is low and base. Thus
the only way to purify and sanctify man was, that he should be
gradually freed from every thing material, and by the divine

XVI THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY.
germs of life within him, be brought back to God. It is easy to
imagine what a distorted view of all the doctrines of salvation
must be produced by such an idea, since holy writ nowhere
countenances the opinion that evil resides in matter, but rather
expressly refers it to the will of the creature, who, by disobedi
ence to the holy will of the Creator, has destroyed in himself
and about him the harmony which originally prevailed in the
whole universe.
In this condition of things, then, when Jewish Christians,
Marcionites, and Gnostics, to say nothing of other insignificant
sects, were disturbing the unity of the church, it was seen to be
necessary that every effort should be exerted to uphold the
purity of the apostolic doctrines. But as, at the time when
these sects became very powerful, the apostles were no longer
upon earth, no direct appeal could be made to their authority,
whenever oral tradition was adduced against them, these here^
tics appealed themselves to pretended communications from the
apostles. The Gnostics, in particular, asserted that the deep
wisdom which they taught in their schools was communicated
by the apostles to only a few; very simple Christian truth alone,
they supposed, was only for the multitude. What remained,
therefore, since appeal to oral tradition from the apostles was of
no avail, but reference to written authority? This could not be
altered and falsified like oral language; it was better suited to
be a fixed, unchangeable norm and rule of faith, and could there
fore be employed with exceeding force and efficiency against all
heretics. Thus the time was now come when a sifting and se
paration of the many professedly Christian writings scattered
abroad in the church was necessary. Moreover, the different
sects of heretics had all sorts of forged writings among them, in
which their peculiar opinions were presented in the names of
celebrated prophets and apostles. Against such writings expli
cit declaration must be made, in order to preserve the true apos
tolic doctrine from mixture with erroneous and confused notions.
As of course, however, individual fathers of the church could
have but little influence against the established sects of heretics,
it was felt to be necessary that real Christians should be more
closely and intimately united, and from the endeavour conse
quently made sprang the so-called catholic, i.e. universal church.
The teachers of the church, as well as the laity, agreed together
in the avowal of certain doctrines, which afterwards formed their

THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. XV11
creed, or the so-called apostolic symbol, because in them the
true apostolic doctrines were stated in opposition to heretics.
Thus it became practicable to set firm bounds to the tide of cor
ruption ; and thus the various sects were gradually suppressed
by the preponderant influence of the universal church. Still
some of them lasted down to the fifth and sixth centuries.
This sifting of the various Christian writings demands a more
careful consideration. It has been before remarked that certain
edifying productions of estimable Fathers, e. g. Clement of
Rome, Hermas and others, were publicly read along with those
of the apostles. Still, however profitable the perusal of these
writings might be, the bishops of the Catholic church correctly
felt that they could be of no service against heretics, as these
would not allow them any weight. Since, however, they com
monly acknowledged the writings of the apostles, these and
these alone could be appealed to in confutation of them. All
such writings, therefore, as were allowed to be the compositions
of other authors were first separated from the rest. If this had
not been done, it would have remained uncertain in all subse
quent time what books were properly to be regarded as pure
sources of apostolic doctrine; and at the time of the Reforma
tion it would not have been so easy to restore the true uncOr-
rupted doctrine of Christ by means of the Scriptures, as it actu
ally was, on account of the circumstance that the genuine Scrip
tures were possessed in a separate, fixed collection. Now, in
the endeavour to gather the genuine apostolic writings together
by themselves, some of them were very easily distinguished from
the rest as the apostolic productions. These were called uni
versally-admitted writings; in Greek Homologoumena. Among
these were reckoned the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the Epistles of the apostle
Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians," Ephesians, Philip-
pians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, to Timothy, Titus, and
Philemon; and, lastly two Epistles of John and Peter, viz., only
the first and largest of both apostles. Among these writings, it
is true, there appear two which were not composed by apostles,
i. e. by members of the first circle of twelve men which our
Lord Jesus gathered about him. [It is to be observed that Paul
ranked with these in authority, partly because of his immediate
call by the Lord (Actsix.) and partly on account of his extend
ed and blessed labours in behalf of the church.] We mean the

XV111 THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY.
Gospel of Mark and the work of Luke. We say the work of Luke,
for Luke's Gospel and his Acts of the Apostles do but make
two halves of the same work, as is plain from the commence
ment of the Acts. There was no scruple on the part of the Ca
tholic church to class these two works of assistants of the apos
tles with those really apostolic, because both wrote under the
influence and approval of apostles. According to the unani
mous account of the most ancient Christian Fathers, Mark wrote
under the guidance of Peter, and Luke under that of Paul, so
that Mark's was regarded as the Petrine, and Luke's as the
Pauline Gospel..
These universally-received writings of the apostles were di
vided into two collections. First, the four Gospels by them
selves formed a collection called the Gospel. For, although this
collection contained four narratives of our Lord's life, they were
not regarded as different writings, but only as different aspects,
or, so to speak, sides of one and the same work. Hence an an
cient Father of the church, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in France,
terms the four Gospels, the one four-formed or four-sided Gospel.
The other writings constituted a second collection, which was
termed the apostle, or the preaching of the apostle. Probably
the name took its rise from the fact, that at first the Epistles of
Paul alone were collected together, and he was called the apos
tle, by way of eminence, especially in Europe, on account of his
active labours. To this collection of Pauline Epistles the Acts
of the Apostles were added subsequently, because it formed, as
it were, an introduction to the Epistles, containing an account
of Paul's travels and labours in the vineyard of our Lord. Later
still were also added the two larger Epistles of John and Peter.
Besides these generally admitted writings, there were others,
which were indeed regarded by many as apostolic, but as to
which some estimable persons entertained doubts, viz., the Second
and Third Epistles of John, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Epis
tles of James and Jude, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and John's
Apocalypse. Hence these were termed disputed writings, in
Greek, Antilegomena. About the close of the second or the com
mencement of the third century, most of the fathers of the Catholic
Church became united in believing the genuineness and apostolic
origin of all these writings excepting the Epistle to the Hebrews
and the Apocalypse. A third small collection was now formed of
these epistles, and into it were transferred the two larger Epistles

THE NEW TESTAMENT GENERALLY. xix
of John and Peter, which were at first contained in the second
collection. Consequently, the third comprised seven Epistles,
which were called the seven Catholic, i.e., universally-admitted
Epistles, in contra-distinction from the various rejected writings.
Out of these collections there now remained, therefore, only the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation of John. In regard
to the Epistle, as has been already mentioned, no doubt was en
tertained of its genuineness ; the only controversy was, whether
Paul was its author or not. At last, the opinion that it was
Pauline prevailed, and it was introduced into the collection of
Pauline Epistles; though, as the collection was already made
up, it was placed at the end, after the small Epistle to Phile
mon. In the Lutheran version of the Bible, however, the
Epistle obtained another place, viz., between the Third Epistle
of John and the Epistle of James, for reasons which will be
stated hereafter. The whole question, therefore, in regard to
the Epistle to the Hebrews was of little consequence; for, if
Paul did not write it,' it is certain that the author of it wrote
under his guidance, (as will be shown more at length in the se
quel), and the case is the same with this Epistle as with the
Gospels of Mark and Luke. It is otherwise, however, with the
history of the Apocalypse, which also will be particularly re
lated hereafter. Although it has the oldest and most trust
worthy witnesses in its behalf, indeed beyond most of the writ
ings of antiquity, it still early met with numerous assailants, on
account of its contents. True, many did not exactly regard it
as spurious; they only maintained that it was written, not by
John the Evangelist, but by another man of less note, bearing
the same name. Others, however, felt such excessive dislike
towards the book, that they declared it must have been com
posed by the worst of heretics. Yet here, too, truth fortunately
obtained the victory, and the genuine apostolic character of this
elevated production of prophetic inspiration was at last acknow
ledged. As the three smaller collections were already made
up, nothing remained but to place it at the end of them all.
This was precisely the position to which the Apocalypse be
longed ; for, considering the Gospels to be, as it were, the root
of the tree of life exhibited in the whole New Testament, and
the Epistles as the branches and blossoms, the Apocalypse may
be regarded as the fully ripened fruit. It contains a picture of
the development of God's church down to the end of time, and

XX COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS.
therefore forms the conclusion of the Bible as properly as Gene
sis forms its commencement.
In order that the various writings and small collections might
be permanently united, the smaller divisions were entirely given
up in the fourth century, and henceforward there was but one
great collection, containing all the New Testament writings.
A decisive decree on this point was issued by a council held in
the year 393, at Hippo, now Bona, in Africa. In itself consi
dered, this union of the smaller collections into a single large
one is of no consequence, and hence, too, it is of none that it
took place at so late a period; for, as early as during the third
century and the commencement of the fourth, there was entire
unanimity in regard to all essential questions concerning the
books of the New Testament, as the following particular history
of them will evince. Still there was this advantage arising
from the union of the apostolic writings into one body, viz., that
they were in a more safe and determinate form, and might now
be placed with the Old Testament as a complete second part of
holy writ.

CHAPTER II.
THE COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS.
Of the three smaller collections of the writings of the New
Testament, which, as we have before stated, were in use in the
ancient church, none can be traced further back than that of the
Gospels. We find so many and so weighty testimonies in its
behalf, that it would seem as though Providence designed that
this palladium of the church should be in a special manner se
cure against all attacks. Not only is it the case that some of
the most ancient fathers testify to its existence, as e. g., Tertul-
lian, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, (all of
whom lived in the second century after Christ, and were pre
ceded only by the so-called apostolic fathers) ; but, moreover,
the witnesses in its behalf belonged to all parts of the ancient
church. Tertullian lived in Carthage; Clement in Egypt; Ire
naeus was born in Asia Minor, and became bishop of Lyons in

COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. Xxi
France; Justin Martyr was born in Palestine (in Flavia Neapo-
lis, otherwise called Sichem), but taught in Rome. Thus the
testimonies in favour of the collection of the Gospels come from
all the chief stations in the ancient church ; and this circum
stance, of course, supposes its very general diffusion. The
greatest number of testimonies, all proceeding from one pro
vince, would not be of so much weight as these coincident de
clarations from the most various parts of the world, as to the
currency of the Gospels. A circumstance, however, still more
important than these testimonies from different parts of the an
cient church is, that not only the members of the Catholic ortho
dox church, but the heretics also, were familiar with our Gos
pels. If it be considered, what violent mutual animosity there
was between the fathers of the Catholic Church and the heretics;
that one party would not adopt or receive anything at all from
the other, but was rather disposed to reject it, for the very rea
son that it came from so detested a quarter; no one can help
seeing in' the circumstance that both the Catholic Church and
the heretics were familiar with the collection of our Gospels an
uncommonly cogent proof of its genuineness and .great antiquity.
For, had it been formed after the rise of these sects, either
within the pale of the Catholic Church, or in the midst of
this or that party of heretics, it would be wholly inexplica
ble, how it could have been introduced into these sects, from
the church, or, vice versa, into the church from these sects.
Thus the collection of our Gospels must at all events have
taken place before such sects arose; for on no other ground
can it be explained how these books, which were generally
known and used before open rupture in the church, should
have been admitted as genuine by both parties alike. Now
the sects of the Gnostics and Marcionites originated as early
as the beginning of the second century; and from this cir
cumstance we are entitled to regard the collection of the
Gospels as in existence at a period very near the times of the
apostles. Besides the heretics, moreover, we find pagans ac
quainted with the collection of the Gospels. We refer particu
larly to Celsus, a violent opponent of Christianity, against whose
attacks it was defended by Origen. It is true this man did not
live till about two hundred years after the birth of Christ (we
do not know the precise period) ; but it is, notwithstanding, a
decisive evidence of the general diffusion and acknowledgment

XX11 COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS.
of the Gospels throughout the church, that they are cited and
assailed by pagan opponents as official sources of the Christian
doctrines. For, had Celsus been aware that Christians them
selves did not acknowledge these writings, it would have been
an absurd undertaking to refute the Christians from the con
tents of the books.
Further, it is a wholly peculiar circumstance in the history of
the Gospels, and one which goes a great way to sustain their
genuineness, that we nowhere find, in any writer of any part of
the ancient world, any indication that only a single one of the
four Gospels was in use, or even known to exist separately. All
possessed the entire collection of the Gospels. It is true there is
one writer, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, concerning
whom there is no express statement that he had all the four
Gospels. But the manner in which Eusebius speaks respecting
him in his Church History is such that there is nothing question
able in this silence. Eusebius adduces from a work of Papias,
now not extant, some notices of Matthew and Mark. It is cer
tainly true that nothing is said of Luke and John; but this is
undoubtedly because the ancient bishop had not made any par
ticular observations on these two Gospels. His silence respect
ing them is the less an evidence that he was not acquainted with
them, as the theatre of the labours of Papias was in the vicinity
of Ephesus, where John lived so long, and moreover wrote his
Gospel. On this account Papias must necessarily have been ac
quainted with it. Eusebius, moreover, remarks, in the same
place, that Papias was acquainted with the first Epistle of John.
How much rather, then, with his Gospel?( Thus Eusebius says
nothing concerning Luke and John, only because it was a mat
ter of course that Papias was familiar with them, and the latter
had not said anything special in regard to their origin. There
were, moreover, some heretics who made use of but one Gospel,
e. g. Marcion used Luke, and the Ebionites Matthew; but they
had special reasons for doing so in their doctrinal opinions.
They did not, by any means, deny the three other Gospels to be
genuine; they only asserted that their authors were not true
disciples of our Lord. Marcion held the erroneous notion that
all the disciples, with the exception of Paul, still continued half
Jews. The Jewish Christians maintained that all the disciples,
except Matthew, had strayed away too far from Judaism, and
on that account did not receive their writings. In this state of

COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. xxill
the case there is clear evidence from their opinions also that the
Gospels are genuine, and were in that day generally diffused in
the church. Now, as the collection of our four Gospels existed
so very early and so universally, the inquiry occurs, how it could
have originated? Shall we say that a particular individual or
church may have formed it, and it may then have spread itself
everywhere abroad? This supposition seems to be countenanced
by the circumstance of the general uniformity as to the order of
the four Gospels. A very few MSS. place John next to Matthew,
in order that the writings of the apostles may be by themselves.
Clearly, however, this transposition arose from the fancy of some
copyist, and has no historical foundation. There is still, there
fore, positive authority for the universally received arrangement.
The most weighty circumstance against the opinion that the first
collection of the Gospels was made in a particular place, and
diffused itself abroad from thence, is, that we have no account
respecting such a process, though we should expect one, from
the fact that John lived, and moreover wrote his Gospel, at so
late a period. For this reason had the Evangelist John himself,
as some suppose, or any other man of high authority in the
church, formed the collection of the Gospels, we should, one
would think, have had an account of its formation, as it could
not have taken place before the end of the first or commence
ment of the second century, which period borders very closely
on that from which we derive so many accounts concerning the
Gospels. But this same circumstance that we read nothing at
all respecting a collector of the Gospels, that writers have been
left to conjecture in regard to the manner in which the collection
of them was made, leads to another view of its formation, which
casts the clearest light on the genuineness of the books. It is
in the highest degree probable that our Gospels all originated in
capital cities of the Roman empire. Matthew probably wrote
his in Jerusalem, the centre of Judaism, where also, as appears
from the Acts of the Apostles, a large Christian church was
early gathered. Mark and Luke undoubtedly wrote in Rome,
the political centre of the empire, to which innumerable multi
tudes of men thronged from all quarters of the world for the
transaction of business. In this city, too, a flourishing Christian
church was early formed, as is seen from the Epistle of Paul to
the Romans, which was written before Peter, or Paul, or any

XXIV COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS.
apostle, had visited Rome. Lastly, John wrote at Ephesus, a
large and thriving city of Asia Minor. It was the residence of
many learned and ingenious heathen. The large church at Ephe
sus was, according to the Acts, founded by Paul. It was fos
tered by the labours of John. Now, let it be considered how
many thousands must consequently have been most exactly
aware who wrote the Gospels, and it will be perceived that these
circumstances afford weighty evidence of their genuineness, par
ticularly as there is not to be found in a single ancient writer the
faintest trace of any doubt in regard to it; for the heretics, who,
as we have remarked, disputed the Gospels in part, did not deny
their genuineness (they rather fully admitted it), but only their
obligatory authority. Now, as very active intercourse was main
tained among the Christians of the ancient church, partly by
constant epistolary communications, and partly by frequent per
sonal visits, nothing is more natural than the supposition that
the Christians of Jerusalem very soon transmitted the Gospel of
Matthew, which was composed in the midst of them, to Rome,
Ephesus, Alexandria, and other places, and that, on the other
hand, those of Rome and Ephesus also transmitted the writings
composed among them to the other churches. In every church
there were archives, in which were deposited important docu
ments. Into these archives of the church the Gospels were put,
and as only these four Gospels were composed or vouched for by
apostles, the collection of Gospels took its rise not in this or
that place, but in every quarter simultaneously. This state
ment of the matter is, in the first place, strictly in accordance
with the circumstances known to us in regard to the ancient
church, and also the only one capable of explaining satisfactorily
the existence of the collection in everybody's hands, while no
one knew how and whence it originated. As, further, we find
no other Gospel but these in general use, it is clearly evident
that only these four were of apostolic origin. It is true we find
in circulation in individual churches Gospels which appear to
have differed from our own, e.g. the church at Rhossus in Cilicia,
a province of Asia Minor, made use of a Gospel of Peter, and in
Alexandria one called the Gospel of the Egyptians was current.
It is possible, however, that these two writings were either the
same or at least were very nearly allied, and also bore close affi
nity to our Mark ; and in that case their use is as easily ac-

COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS. XXV
counted for as the use of Matthew and Luke by the Ebionite
and Marcionite sects in Recensions somewhat altered from the
original. From this cursory view of the evidence in favour of the genu
ineness of the Gospels, it cannot but be admitted, that no work
can be adduced, out of the whole range of ancient literature,
which has so many and so decisive ancient testimonies in its
behalf as they. It is therefore, in reality, a mere laboured
effort to try to maintain and demonstrate the spuriousness of
the Gospels. Since, however, this attempt is made, it may
reasonably be inquired: Whence is derived any occasion for
doubt ? Is not every thing, without exception, in favour of their
genuineness ? We cannot but say, that no thorough, serious-
minded scholar, would ever have denied the genuineness of the
Gospels, had not the question in regard to their genuineness
been conjoined with another investigation of extreme difficulty
and intricacy. In the ardent endeavour to get rid of this diffi
culty, scholars have been seduced into the invention of hypo
theses irreconcilable with the genuineness of the Gospels. They
should, on the contrary, have set out invariably with the ad
mission of their genuineness, as an irrefragable fact, and then
have employed only such modes of solving the difficulty above
alluded to as were based on the supposition of their genuineness.
The difficulty .is this. On a close comparison of the first three
Gospels we discover a very striking coincidence between them.
This is exhibited, not merely in the facts and the style, but also
in the order of narration, in the transitions from one narrative
to another, and in the use of uncommon expressions, and other
things of the same character. Further, the coincidence is inter
rupted by just as striking a dissimilarity, in such a manner that
it is in the highest degree difficult to explain how this coincidence
and this dissimilarity, as it is exhibited in the Gospels, can
have originated. This is a purely learned investigation, which
writers should have quietly prosecuted as such, without allowing
it to influence the question respecting the genuineness of the
Gospels. Such has been its influence, however, that some
scholars suppose a so-called Protevangelion, or original Gospel,
which the apostles, before they left Jerusalem, and scattered them
selves abroad over the whole earth, prepared, in order to serve as
a guide to them in their discourses. This writing is supposed to
have contained the principal events of the life of our Lord. It

XXvi COLLECTION OF THE GOSPELS.
was carried into all lands by the apostles. Now, in these ^differ
ent countries, it is said by the defenders of this hypothesis, ad
ditions were gradually made to this original Gospel. These
were at first short, and thus arose the Gospels of the Jewish
Christians, the Marcionites, and others; afterwards they became
longer, and in this way, at last, our Gospels were produced.
Now, as it cannot be stated by whom these additions were made,
this view is really equivalent to making our Gospels spurious,
for, according to it, only the little portion of them which ex
isted in the brief original Gospel is of apostolic authority. But,
setting aside the fact that the hypothesis must be false, for this
very reason, because it opposes the genuineness of the Gospels,
which can be demonstrated by historical proof; this theory has
been, moreover, of late utterly discarded by learned men on
other grounds. In the first place, no ancient Christian writer
exhibits any acquaintance with such an original Gospel; and is
it conceivable that the knowledge of so remarkable a work
should have been totally lost? Then, too, the idea that a guide
was composed by the apostles for themselves, in order to pre
serve unity in doctrine, is not at all suited to the apostolic
period. At this period the Holy Spirit operated with its prim
eval freshness and power. This Spirit, which guided into all
truth, was the means of preserving unity among the apostles.
Not an individual of those witnesses to the truth needed any
external written guide. Besides, this supposition solves the diffi
culty in question, respecting the coincidence of the Gospels,
only in a very meagre and forced manner, while there is a much
simpler way of reaching the same result far more satisfactorily.
We must suppose more than one source of this characteristic of
the first three Gospels. Sometimes one Evangelist was certainly
made use of by another. This remark is applicable particularly
to Mark, who undoubtedly was acquainted witiT| and made use
of both Matthew and Luke. Moreover, there existed short ac
counts of particular parts of the Gospel-history, such as narra
tives of particular cases of healing, relations of journeys, and the
like. Now, when two Evangelists made use of the same brief
account, there naturally resulted a resemblance in their history.
Still, as each was independent in his use of these accounts, some
variations also occurred. Finally, much of the similarity be
tween them arose from oral narrations. It is easy to believe
that certain portions of the evangelical history, e. g. particular

THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS, ETC. XXV11
cures, parables, and discourses of our Lord, were repeated con
stantly in the very same way, because the form of the narrative
imprinted itself with very great exactness on every one's
memory. In this manner the songs of Homer /and Ossianl were
long transmitted from mouth to mouth. Uniformity nfan oral
mode of narration is not sufficient of itself alone to explain the
relation between the Gospels, because in prose it is impossible
(in poetry it is much easier) to imprint on the memory minute
traits and important forms of expression with so much exactness
as would be necessary to account for the mutual affinity of the
Gospels ; and, moreover, could their similarity be thus explained,
the variations between them would only stand out in more
troublesome relief. But that which cannot be effected by a sin
gle hypothesis, can be by that in conjunction with others. And
here, perhaps, we may see the true solution of a problem which
has so long occupied the attention of theologians. But, what
ever opinion be entertained on this point, the investigation of it
must always be kept aloof from the question of the genuineness
of the Gospels, which should first be established or denied on
historical grounds. Thus will the collection of the Gospels be
secure from all danger.

CHAPTER III.
THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS AND THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Of the four Gospels, that of Matthew holds the first place in
the canon. The author of this first Gospel bore, besides the
name of Matthew, that of Levi also (Matth. ix. 9; Mark ii. 14),
and was the son of a certain Alpheus, of whom we have no
further information. Of the history of Matthew very little is
known, in addition to the accounts in the New Testament. After
our Saviour called him from his station as receiver of the cus
toms, he followed him with fidelity, and was one of the twelve
whom Jesus sent forth to preach. His labours as an apostle,
however, seem to have been wholly confined to Palestine; for,
what is related of Matthew's travels in foreign countries is very

XXV111 THE INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS,
doubtful, resting only on the authority of rather late ecclesiasti
cal writings. But the information respecting him which is of
most importance to our purpose is given with perfect unanimity
by the oldest ecclesiastical writers, who declare that Matthew
wrote a Gospel. It is true that they likewise subjoin, equally
without exception, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, at Jerusalem,
and for believing Jews; and that this account must be correct,
we know from the fact that the Jewish Christians in Palestine,
who spoke Hebrew, all made use of a Gospel which they referred
to Matthew. This Hebrew Gospel did, indeed, differ from our
Greek Gospel of Matthew, for it contained many things wanting
in our Gospel; but still it was in general so exactly like the
latter, that a father of the fourth century, the celebrated Jerome,
felt himself entitled to treat the Hebrew Gospel expressly as
Matthew's. It is a singular circumstance, however, that, while
all the fathers of the church declare Matthew to have written in
Hebrew, they all, notwithstanding, make use of the Greek text
as of genuine apostolic origin, without remarking what relation
the Hebrew Matthew bore to our Greek Gospel; for that the
oldest fathers of the church did not possess Matthew's Gospel in
any other form than that in which we now have it, is fully
settled. That we have no definite information on this point is
undoubtedly owing to accidental causes; but, since it is so, that
we have not any certain account, we can only resort to conjec
ture in regard to the mutual relation of the Greek and Hebrew
Matthew. Existing statements and indications, however, enable
us to form conjectures which, it is in the highest degree proba
ble, are essentially correct. The idea that some unknown indi
vidual translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and that this
translation is our canonical Gospel, is, in the first place, con
tradicted by the circumstance of the universal diffusion of this
same Greek Gospel of Matthew, which makes it absolutely ne
cessary to suppose that the translation was executed by some
one of acknowledged influence in the church, indeed, of apostolic
authority. In any other case, would not objections to this Gos
pel have been urged in some quarter or other, particularly in
the country where Matthew himself laboured, and where his
writings were familiarly known? There is not, however, the
slightest trace of any such opposition to it. Besides, our Greek
Gospel of Matthew is of such a peculiar character, that it is im
possible for us to regard it as a mere version. Does a man who

AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Xxix
is translating an important work from one language into ano
ther, allow himself to make alterations in the book which he is
translating, to change the ideas it presents ? Something of the
kind must be supposed to have been done in the Greek Gospel
of Matthew with regard to the Hebrew. This is beyond denial,
if it be considered merely, how the quotations from the Old
Testament are treated. These do not coincide either with the
Hebrew text of the Old Testament, or with the version in com
mon use at the time of the apostles, viz. the Septuagint (which
was executed by some learned Jews at Alexandria, several cen
turies before the birth of Christ) ; but rather exhibit an inde
pendent text of their own. NoW, as sometimes the argument is
wholly based on this independent character of the text in the
citations from the books of the Old Testament, and could not
have accorded at all with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, it is
clear that our Greek Gospel must be something else than a
mere version. It is rather an independent work, though closely
allied to the Hebrew Gospel of the apostle. Now, since this
same work is universally regarded as an apostolic production,
and as having been written by Matthew, there is no more sim
ple and effectual mode of solving all the characteristics of the
Gospel of Matthew, than to suppose that Matthew himself, when
he had composed the Hebrew Gospel, executed likewise a free
translation or new composition of it in the Greek language. It
makes no essential difference, if we suppose that a friend of
Matthew wrote the Greek work under his direction and autho
rity ; but Matthew's authority must necessarily be supposed to
have been the means of the diffusion of the Gospel, as otherwise
it is inexplicable that there does not appear the faintest trace of
any opposition to it.
No definite objections can be made against our supposition
that Matthew wrote a Greek Gospel besides his Hebrew one. A
single circumstance, however, may appear strange, viz. that
Papias, the ancient bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, whom we
have before mentioned, a man who was conversant with persons
that had themselves seen and heard our Lord, informs us that
every one endeavoured to translate the Hebrew Gospel of Mat
thew as well as he was able. Thus, according to this passage,
our universally-received Greek transformation of the Hebrew
Gospel was not commonly known in Phrygia, so that persons
who did not very well understand Hebrew made use, as well as

XXX INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS, LUi •. ¦
they could, of the Hebrew Gospel. But the circumstance, that
the Greek Gospel of Matthew was not yet current in the imme
diate vicinity of Papias, is no proof at all that it was not yet in
existence. For, as Matthew's work was already diffused through
out the church in the Hebrew language, and the Greek Gospel
of Matthew corresponded with the Hebrew in every essential
point, it was very natural that the Greek Gospel should be cir
culated in a more dilatory manner; and by some accident, it is
probable, it was particularly tardy in reaching Phrygia. As,
however, in the west generally, very few understood Hebrew,
when the Greek Gospel of Matthew was once procured, that only
was circulated there, and thus the Hebrew Gospel was com
pletely lost in Europe. In Palestine alone, as the Hebrew was
better understood, the Gospel in that language continued in use,
though it was encumbered with divers foreign additions by the
Jewish Christians.
Thus the genuineness of the Gospel of Matthew is fully con
firmed on historical grounds, aside from its position in the col
lection of the Gospels. Recent investigators have raised doubts
in regard to its genuineness from internal considerations. They
say, in particular, that if the statements of Matthew, in the cha
racter of eye-witness (for he was one of the twelve apostles), be
compared with the descriptions of Mark, who does not write as
an eye-witness, it will be evident that the advantage is on the
side of the latter. Everything which Mark narrates is repre
sented in so graphic a manner that it is plain he derived his ac
counts from eye-witnesses; while the narrative of Matthew, whom
we are to regard as himself an eye-witness in respect to most of
his relations, is dry, and without the least vivacity. This re
mark is perfectly correct. Comparison of a few passages will at
once show how much more minute and graphic are Mark's de
scriptions than those of Luke. This is particularly the case as
to the accounts of cures. In these Mark frequently describes
the circumstances of the sick person before and after the cure in
so lively a manner as to make us imagine the scene really before
us; while Matthew, on the contrary, describes the occurrence
only in very general terms. Let a comparison be made in this
view between the following accounts which Matthew and Mark
give of the same occurrences : —

AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

XXXI

Matth. viii 28 — 34.
" And when he was come to the other
side into the country of the Gergesenes,
there met him two possessed with devils,
coming out of the tombs, exceeding
fierce, so that no man might pass by
that way. And behold they cried out
saying," &c.

Respecting their cure Matthew merely
says (ver. 32) : — " And he said unto
them, Go. And when they were come
out they went into the herd of swine, and
behold the whole herd of swine," &c.

ix. 18—26.
20. " And behold a woman which was
diseased with an issue of blood twelve
years came behind him, and plucked the
hem of his garment."

xiv. 1—12.
Account of the execution of John the
Baptist by Herod.

Mark v. 1 — 19.
" And they came over unto the other
side of the sea, into the country of the
Gadarenes. (This is another reading for
Gergesenes.) And when he was come
out of the ship, immediately there met
him out of the tombs a man with an un
clean spirit, who had his dwelling among
the tombs; and no man could bind him, no,
not with chains, because that he had been
often bound with fetters and chains, and the
chains had been plucked asunder by him,
and the fetters broken in pieces ; neither
could any man tame him. And always,
night and day, he was in the mountains,
and in the tombs, crying, and cutting him
self with stones. But when he saw Jesus
afar off, he ran and worshipped him, and
cried with a hud voice, and said," See.
Respecting his cure, Mark says (ver.
1 3 and onward) : " And forthwith Jesus
gave them leave. And the unclean
spirits went out and entered into the
swine," &c. " And they (that were in
the city and in the country) went out to
see what it was that was done. And they
come to Jesus, and see him that was pos
sessed with the devil, and had the legion,
sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind.'
and they were afraid."
v. 21—43.
25. " And a certain woman which had
an issue of blood twelve years, and had
suffered many things of many physicians,
and had spent all that she had, and was
nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
when she had heard of Jesus, came in
the press behind, and touched his gar
ment." Moreover, the whole account contained
in verses 29 — 33 is in Mark only.
vi. 14—20.
The whole narrative is given in Mark
with much more minuteness and vivacity.

Such a difference in the style of narration runs throughout
Matthew and Mark ; and it cannot well be denied that at first
view there is something surprising in it. But careful examina
tion of the object of the two Gospels plainly shows whence this
different manner of narration in Matthew and Mark takes its
rise, and thus does away with all the inferences which have been

XXXU INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS
deduced therefrom in opposition to the apostolic origin of Mat
thew. The reason why Mark describes the outward relations of
our Lord's life in so vivid and graphic a manner is, that it was
his special design to portray Christ's performance of the out/ward
functions of his office. Hence, all which related to that, he de
tails very carefully ; while whatever did not pertain thereto he
either entirely omits, as, e. g., the history of the childhood of •
Jesus, or communicates very briefly, as, e. g., many of our
Lord's larger discourses. Matthew, on the contrary, makes it
his chief object to communicate our Lord's discourses. He com
monly makes use of events only as points of support for the dis
courses; to which he, like John, directs special attention. If
it be considered, moreover, that the graphic nature of style is,
in great part, owing to peculiar talent, such as is not bestowed
alike on all men, and such as was by no means requisite in
every one of the apostles, there remains not a shadow of reason,
why the want of vivacity, which is certainly exhibited in Mat
thew's Gospel, should become a motive for denying its genuine
ness. In truth, moreover, there is no period at which a forgery
of the Gospel in Matthew's name is even conceivable. For it
is demonstrable from the book itself that it must have been
composed a few years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and
hence about sixty-six years after the birth of Christ. Now we
find Matthew in use in the church before the close of the same
century, at a time when John the Evangelist had but just died,
and many disciples of the apostles were living and labouring in
all parts of the world. , How was it possible, in such circum
stances, to introduce a work forged in the name of Matthew in
to so general currency, that not the very slightest opposition
should ever have been raised against it?
From what has been said it will have been inferred that the
genuineness of Mark is not at all disputed. His graphic, lively
manner has even been made to afford occasion for assailing
the genuineness of Matthew. Nor, in truth, was there in an
cient times the least opposition to Mark's Gospel. It was known
to Papias of Hierapolis, i.e., as early as the close of the first cen
tury, and there is an unbroken chain of evidence in its favour
since that time. It is true, Mark's work was, in all probability,
written at Rome, at that time the capital of the known world,
and therefore a fixed and sure tradition as to the author of the
work might be formed at once, and would easily diffuse itself

AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. XXxiii
everywhere abroad. Still, however, there is one thing which
appears very remarkable in regard to the rapid diffusion and re
ception of Mark, viz., that it was a production whose author
was not an apostle. John Mark, frequently called Mark only,
was the son of a certain Mary who had a house in Jerusalem,
(Acts xii. 12). Mark himself, as we are told in the Acts (xii.
25 ; xiii. 5 ; xv. 36 seq.), at first accompanied the apostle Paul in
his travels for the dissemination of Christianity. He afterwards
attached himself to his kinsman Barnabas. At a later period,
however, we find him again in Paul's company (2 Tim. iv. 11).
According to the fathers, he was also, for a considerable time,
closely connected with Peter, and was interpreter to the latter
when he preached among the Greeks. He invariably, however,
occupied a dependent situation, and on this account it is im
possible that his name alone should have procured his Gospel
an introduction into the church. But, as has been already men
tioned, Mark did not write without apostolic authority. On the
contrary, he was under the direction of the apostle Peter. This
is stated by the entire series of church-fathers during the second
and third centuries, with perfect unanimity in the main; and
the statement is corroborated by the case of Luke, which was
exactly similar. On this account, the Gospel of Mark was con
sidered as originating with Peter, and such individuals as were
particularly attached to this apostle used Mark in preference to
all others. Unfortunately, however, we have no minute accounts
as to this matter, and hence do not know whether these indivi
duals corrupted the Gospel of Mark, as the Jewish Christians
did that of Matthew, or not. It is possible, however, that the
so-called Gospel of the Egyptians was a corruption of Mark,
though the fragments we have of it are not sufficient to enable
us to form a certain opinion on this point.
As to Luke, we have more clear and certain evidence in this
respect. We know that that sect which carried the sentiments
of Paul to an erroneous extreme, the Marcionites, used only^the
Gospel of Luke, although Marcion was very well acquainted
with the other Gospels, and regarded them as genuine. They
had, however, altered Luke in conformity with their opinions,
and thus formed, as it were, a new Gospel out of it, which, not
withstanding, still retained much resemblance to the original.
The reason why the Marcionites selected Luke was, that this
Gospel was written under the direction of the apostle Paul, who
d

XXX1V INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS
alone, in their opinion, was a genuine apostle of our Lord.
Luke, as we know from the Acts of the Apostles, had travelled
about with the apostle Paul for a long time, and, in particular,
had also accompanied him to Rome. This is clear from the final
chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Connecting this fact with
the conclusion of the work, it is perfectly evident when the
Evangelist finished it. According to the last chapter, Paul was
two years in confinement at Rome. Here Luke breaks off,
without mentioning the issue of his trial. Had this been con
cluded, should we not, of course, have had an account of the
emperor's decision respecting the great apostle of the Gentiles ?
It can be made very probable, by circumstances deduced from
another quarter, that Paul was liberated from his first imprison
ment at Rome, and did not suffer as a martyr till he had been a
second time placed in bonds. Luke, however, abruptly breaks
off in the midst of his narrative. Now, as the Acts of the
Apostles are only the second part of Luke's work, the Gospel
being the first (compare Luke i. 1 with Acts i. 1), the latter
cannot have been written subsequently; and probably, when
Paul's death was apprehended, Luke wrote down the accounts
he had received from him or through him, in order to secure
them to posterity. Then the apostle, who was still living, attested
the purity and accuracy of the work, and from Rome, -the great
central point of the religious, as well as the political world, it
speedily made its way into the churches, in every province of the
vast Roman empire. Thus, it was not Luke's name which pro
cured for this Gospel its currency in the church, but the autho
rity of the apostle Paul. Without this, the work of Luke, with
its two divisions, the Gospel and the Acts, would have been
the less likely to obtain general credit, because it purports to be
a mere private production, addressed to a certain TheophUus.
It is, indeed, very probable, that this Theophilus was a man of
note, who was either already a member of the church, or at least
well-disposed towards it; but still he was only 'a private man,
whose name could have no weight with the whole church. He
had, probably, already perused divers accounts concerning Christ,
and the formation of the primitive churches, which, however,
were not duly authentic and certain; and for this reason, Luke
determined to compose for his use an authoritative history of the
important events in our Lord's life, and of the foundation of the
churches. (Comp. Luke i. 1—4.) Under these circumstances,

AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. XXXV
it is not astonishing that, in the primitive church, there was no
opposition either to Luke's Gospel, or his Acts of the Apostles.1
The many and close relations of the writer, together with the
apostolic authority in his behalf, were such evidence in favour of
the work, that not a single valid suspicion could arise respectino-
its genuineness.
Lastly, The circumstances in regard to the Gospel of John
are particularly calculated to place its genuineness beyond dis
pute; for John the Evangelist lived much longer than any of
the other apostles. So far as we know, none of the others were
alive after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Roman
emperor, in the year 70 a.d. John, however, survived it nearly
thirty years, dying about the close of the first century, under
the reign of the emperor Domitian. Hence, many Christians
who had heard of our Lord's farewell words to him (John xxi.
22, 23), believed that John would not die, an idea which the
Evangelist himself declares erroneous. This beloved disciple of
our Lord, during the latter part of his life, as we know from tes
timonies on which perfect reliance may be placed, lived at Ephe
sus, in Asia Minor, where the apostle Paul had founded a flour
ishing church. The importance of this church, about the year
64 or 75 a.d., is evinced by Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians; and
subsequently it was very much enlarged. It was in this subse
quent period that John wrote his Gospel. This is clear, first,
from a comparison of the Gospel with the Revelation. This last
work was written by John at an earlier period, before the de
struction of Jerusalem. John's style in this prophetic composi
tion is not so thoroughly easy as we find it at a later period in
the Gospel, which he must have written after longer intercourse
with native Greeks. Again, John plainly had the three other
Gospels before him when he wrote; for he omits all which they
had described with sufficient minuteness, e.g. the institution of
the holy supper, and only relates that which was new respecting
the life of his Lord and Master. Hence, these must have been
already composed, and also so generally diffused, that John
could presume them universally known in the church. Moreover,
the persons to whom John's work has special reference, viz. cer-
1 So far as the Acts of the Apostles speaks of the circumstances of
Paul, it has a perfect correspondence with Paul's Epistles, as the latter
have with the former. See this fact more fully developed in the fourth
chapter of this treatise.

XXXvi INDIVIDUAL GOSPELS
tain Gnostics, did not attain importance till Jerusalem was de
stroyed, and most of the apostles had left this world. Now, if
we duly consider all these circumstances, it will be even more
incredible in regard to John's Gospel than any other, that it
should have been forged in his name. From his being the sole
surviving apostle, innumerable eyes were upon him and his
movements. He lived and laboured in one of the chief cities of
the known world, in which was a large church, and the vicinity
of which was wholly peopled with Christians. We have ah
epistle of Pliny, a distinguished Roman officer of that region,
written only a few years after the death of John the Evangelist,
in which he describes the vast increase of the Christians in Asia
Minor, and lays before the emperor Trajan (the successor of the
emperor in whose reign John's death took place) measures for
preventing the further extension of their tenets. Now, how was
it possible that in this state of things a work could be forged in
John's name; or, supposing even that one might have been
(though history says nothing of any such imposition under the
name of John),1 how is it conceivable that no opposition should
have been made thereto, when many thousands were acquainted
with John, and must have known exactly what he wrote, and
what he did not? Of such opposition, however, there is no
where the slightest trace. Not merely all teachers of the orthodox
church, in all parts of the wide Roman empire, but also all here
tics of the most various sects, make use of the work as a sacred
valuable legacy bequeathed to the church by the beloved disci
ple; and the few heretics who make no use of it, as e. g. Marcion,
still evince acquaintance with it, and regard it as a genuine
work of John's, but are impudent enough to deny that John
himself had a correct knowledge of the Gospel, because he was
too much of a Jew. Whether, as was the case with the other
Gospels, John's also was corrupted by the heretics, who felt that
they were specially aimed at in it, is uncertain. The Gnostics,
with the exception of Marcion (who, however, as has been al
ready mentioned, is only improperly reckoned among the Gnos
tics), made most frequent use of John, as in their opinion speci
ally favouring their spiritual ideas. We do not learn, however,
1 There does exist in MS., it is true, a second apocalypse under
John's name; but this production appears to belong to a much later pe
riod. There is also an apostolic history of older date, in which, however,
John is only mentioned along with others; it is not ascribed to him.

AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. XXXvti
that there existed in ancient times any Gospel of John corrupted
by the Gnostics, as Luke's Gospel was mutilated by Marcion.
In modern times, it is true, a Gospel of John thus disfigured has
come to public knowledge; but the alterations in it originated
at a late period in the middle ages.
The doubts respecting the genuineness of John's Gospel which
have, nevertheless, been proposed in recent times, took their
rise, like those in regard to Matthew, solely from its internal
character. When once doubts were thus occasioned, endeavours
were made to sustain them on historical grounds likewise.
These, however, are of little weight,1 from the firmness of the
foundation on which the Gospel rests. It was with John much
as with Matthew, in regard to those characteristics which excited
doubt of the genuineness of the book. It was correctly remark
ed, that John gives a different representation of our Lord from
that presented by the first three Evangelists. In his Gospel,
Christ's actions and discourses appear, as it were, transfigured
and spiritualised, while in the other Evangelists they appear in
a costume more or less Jewish and national. Now, as it is not
conceivable, it is said, that the same person should be so differ
ently represented, and John, the beloved disciple of our Lord,
would certainly not have portrayed his Master as other than he
really was, while the description of the actions of Jesus (who
appeared as a Jew, among Jews, and in behalf of Jews), given
in the accounts of the first three Evangelists, is much more con
formable to probability, the Gospel which bears John's name
must be of later origin. But here, as in regard to Matthew, it
may be observed, that from a perfectly correct remark false
conclusions have been deduced. It is indeed true that John
exhibits the Saviour in a far more spiritual and glorified charac
ter than the first three Evangelists; but this proves nothing,
except that John was the most spiritual of the Evangelists. The
same individual may be regarded and described very differently
by different persons. Of this truth we have a remarkable ex
ample in a great character of Grecian antiquity. Socrates is
presented to our view in his actions and discourses by two of his
confidential pupils, Xenophon and Plato. And how entirely
1 The most weighty opponent of the genuineness of John has given
the excellent example of publicly acknowledging that he has become
convinced of the genuineness of this jewel of the church, and retracts
his doubts. May this example find numerous imitators (

XXXviii INDIVIDUAL OOSPELS AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
different is the description given of him by these two writers !
In fact, these biographers may be said to sustain very much
such a mutual relation as that of John and the first Evangelists.
While Xenophon paid attention principally to the external acts
of Socrates, Plato describes bis spiritual characteristics. Now, if
it was possible to represent a common human being of eminence
in two very different lights, without doing violence to truth,
how much rather might it be so in regard to one who was greater
than Solomon, or than Socrates and his biographers. He who
lived a purely heavenly life on earth, and spake words of eternal
truth, could not but be very variously described, according to
the characteristics of the human soul which received the rays of
light proceeding from him. Each soul reflected his image ac
cording to its own profundity and compass, and yet each might
be right. It was for this reason that more than one Gospel was
included in the collection of the sacred writings, since only the
presentation of different portraitures together could prevent a
partial view of our Saviour's character. As it is only from con
nection of the accounts of Xenophon and Plato that we can obtain
a complete picture of Socrates, so we cannot comprehend the fife of
our Lord, which affords so many different aspects, without uniting
the peculiar traits scattered in all the four Gospels into one
general portraiture. With all the difference of representation
observable in the Evangelists, there are still resemblances and
affinities enough to make it evident that they all had the same
great personage in view. As John relates narratives of cures
exactly like those in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, so the Gospels
of the latter contain passages which, in elevation, depth, and
richness of thought, are not inferior to our Lord's discourses in
John, and indeed resemble them in phraseology. Among these
is the lofty and astonishingly beautiful passage, Matth. xi.
25 — 30 : — " I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent,
and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it
seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of
my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father; nei
ther knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to
whomsoever tho Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye
that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take
my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly
in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is

PAULINE EPISTLES. XXxix
easy, and my burden is light." He from whose mouth such
language proceeded might certainly be represented in such an
aspect as John has given to Jesus, if the description were under
taken by one in some measure capable of appreciating a charac
ter of this nature; and that John was thus capable is sufficiently
clear from his Epistles.
If, therefore, we look at the Gospels as a collection, or consi
der each separately, we cannot but say that they are more
strongly accredited and sustained by external and internal
proofs than any other work of antiquity. Few writings have
such ancient testimonies in their favour, reaching back to the
time of the authors ; none have so many of them, so totally dis
tinct, so corroborative of each other. While, then, the chief
argument in behalf of the Scriptures generally, and of the Gospels
in particular, is the witness of the Holy Spirit, perceived in his
heart by every believer as he peruses the Scriptures (a point on
which we shall enlarge at the close of our treatise) ; still, the
possibility of proving on historical grounds the genuineness and
primitive character of the Gospels is a great additional cause of
gratitude, inasmuch as it removes occasions of distrust, particu
larly from weak and doubting minds, and affords motives for the
confirmation of their faith.

CHAPTER IV.
THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
Along with the collection of the Gospels, there existed at an
early period of the church, as was related above,1 a collection
of Paul's Epistles called the Apostle. In the lives of Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, who were all acquainted
with and used it, this collection contained thirteen Epistles, viz.
the Epistle to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, those to the
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, two to the
Thessalonians, two to Timothy, and those to Titus and Phile
mon. The Epistle to the Hebrews was not inserted in this col-
1 Comp. Chap. i.

Xl PAULINE EPISTLES.
lection, because opinions were not united as to its origin. (See
Chap. vi. below). Half a century before the time of the fathers
just mentioned, we find a collection of Pauline Epistles in the
hands of Marcion, that extravagant reverer of the Apostle Paul.
He was born in Asia Minor, where, as is well known, the apostle
Paul had long lived and laboured, and was highly reverenced.
Thence Marcion went to Rome, carrying with him the collection
of Pauline Epistles which he had made use of in Asia. This,
however, contained but ten Epistles; there were wanting the
three commonly termed pastoral letters, viz. the two to Timothy,
and that to Titus; called pastoral letters, because in them Paul
gives directions to spiritual pastors in regard to the suitable
performance of their official duties. The small Epistle to Phile
mon was known to him, because it stood in close connexion with
the Epistle to the Colossians; but the three pastoral letters
seem to have been diffused but slowly, as independent private
productions, and hence, also, not to have been inserted in the
original collection. How the collection of the Pauline Epistles,
in the form in which we now have it, originated, is unknown,
and has not yet been satisfactorily accounted for by any conjec
ture.1 For the supposition that, like the collection of the Gos
pels, it originated in different places at once, merely by the gra
dual transmission thither of the Epistles of Paul as fast as they
were composed, is forbidden by the circumstance that, as can be
proved, they are not arranged in the order of their composition.
The collection cannot, however, have been accidentally formed;
for it is clear that a certain plan has been followed. At the be
ginning are placed the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians,
distinguished for their length and internal importance; then fol
lows a_ letter to several churches in a whole province, the Epistle
to the Galatians; then the smaller Epistles to churches in par
ticular cities, to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and
Thessalonians ; lastly, come the Epistles to private persons.
Moreover, had the collection of them been left to accident,
sometimes one arrangement would have been adopted and some
times another, which is not the case, the order having been the
1 We find very few traces of a different arrangement of the Epistles
of Paul ; a different one, however, is followed in an old catalogue of the
books of the New Testament, probably pertaining to the church at Rome.
It is called Muratoris Catalogue, from an Italian abbot of that name who
discovered the MSS. which contained it.

PAULINE EPISTLES. xii
same that we now observe, as far back as the second century.
As, therefore, the order of the Epistles was evidently the work
of design, and its general reception throughout the church indi
cates that it proceeded from some authoritative source, the most
reasonable supposition is, that the apostle Paul himself made
the collection. During the second imprisonment at Rome,
to which, as we shall see hereafter, it is highly probable that
the apostle was subjected, he may have collected together the
ten Epistles, as being the principal ones of a doctrinal nature
which he had as yet written, in order to bequeath them as a
legacy to the church. It was in this original form that Marcion
possessed the collection.1 After the collection was made up,
near the close of his life, Paul wrote the three pastoral letters,
which were afterwards added to the original collection, and
naturally placed last. By accident Marcion had not become
acquainted with these letters, and therefore retained the most
ancient form of the collection of Paul's Epistles. A very
weighty testimony in favour of this view is presented in the
second Epistle of the Apostle Peter, who, at near the conclusion
of his letter, says : " And account that the long-suffering of our
Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul, also, accor
ding to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; as
also in all (his) Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in
which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
are unlearned and unstable wrest," &c. (2 Pet. iii. 15, 16).
According to the first Epistle of Peter (i. 1, comp. 2 Pet. iii. I),
Peter wrote to the Christians in Pontus, ' Galatia, and other
provinces of Asia Minor, to which also Paul's Epistles to the
Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians are directed. Peter, there
fore, might presume that his readers were acquainted with
these. The expression all (his) Epistles, however, clearly indi
cates a collection of Epistles. Otherwise, there is something of
indefiniteness in it. Paul, no doubt, wrote more Epistles during
his life than we now possess. But most of his Epistles were not
exactly adapted for general diffusion. The expression, all (his)
Epistles, must therefore have reference to a collection of the
1 According to the account of Epiphanius, it is true, the order of the
ten Epistles in Marcion's Canon was different from that in ours, viz.
Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians,
Philemon, and Philippians. If this statement be credited, it must be
allowed that Marcion's collection originated independently of ours.

xlii PAULINE EPISTLES.
apostle's letters, which could be read through. If it be also
considered that Peter was in Paul's company in Rome, and that
consequently he would naturally have had acquaintance with
the collection of his Epistles, it will be plain that this passage
is hardly intelligible, except on the supposition that a collection
of Paul's Epistles was already in existence.1 It is true the
genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter is now disputed, and
certainly much that is of an imposing nature can be alleged
against it. Still, however, all that can be said does not, I am
convinced, demonstrate its spuriousness, while there is certainly
much evidence of its genuineness. At any rate, this mention
of a collection of Paul's Epistles should not be urged against the
genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, as all acknowledge
that nothing certain is known in regard to the formation of this
collection. But on these points we will speak more at large
hereafter. If it be admitted, however, that Paul himself made the col
lection of his Epistles, or at least, caused it to be made at Rome
under his direction, we have then an explanation of the fact,
that in regard to the genuineness of this collection, as in regard
to that of the Gospels, not the slightest doubt was ever expressed.
Members of the Catholic church in all parts of the world, as also
of the various sects, make use of the collection and of the indi
vidual Epistles, without allowing themselves to intimate the
smallest doubt in regard to them. Now, this undeniable fact is
wholly irreconcilable with the supposition that all or any Epistles
in the collection are spurious. Indeed, the first supposition,
that all the Epistles of Paul are spurious, has never been main
tained, and never can be, except in despite of all history. But
1 Some may think that too much is inferred by the author from Peter's
expression; and, indeed, it must be admitted, that to say4that Peter's
language is hardly intelligible, except on the supposition of an existing
collection of Paul's Epistles, is somewhat extravagant. Our English
translation, by inserting the word his in the phraseology of Peter, has
somewhat modified the sense of the original, and weakened the force of
Olshausen's- remarks. The Greek expression is, h irdgaig rotfg imsro-
"kcui, i.e. perhaps, in all the Epistles. Now, though it would give an in
telligible sense to these words to suppose that Peter meant to make Ms*
observation concerning Paul's Epistles generally, of which he presumed
some might, and some might not, have come to the knowledge of those
to whom he wrote; still, it can hardly be disputed, that his phraseology
becomes much more natural, if we suppose a current collection of the
Epistles.— T.

PAULINE EPISTLES. xliii
even the idea that one or two spurious, forged Epistles may
have obtained a place in the collection, is hardly to be recon
ciled with the universal acknowledgment of all the Epistles in
the church of ancient times. Consider only, how universally
Paul was known in the early church ! From Spain (which in
all probability he visited), he had travelled about through Italy
and all Greece to the remotest countries of Asia Minor, Syria,
and Arabia ; he had resided for years in some of the large cities
of the then known world, in Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica,
Ephesus, Antioch, Csesarea, Jerusalem; he had everywhere
founded numerous Churches, and maintained the most active
intercourse with them. How, then, when he was so well
known, could a work be forged in his name, with any prospect
of its being generally acknowledged ? The impossibility of this
occurrence is the more evident, from the fact that all Paul's
Epistles are addressed to important churches, or to persons
living in well-known places. If those who received the Epistles
were not always designated, then it might be supposed that
some spurious ones obtained general circulation. No one, per
haps, could then say with certainty, whether Paul wrote such a
particular Epistle or not; for it is not conceivable that Paul
should at once have told everybody he knew how many Epistles
he had written ; and thus one might be personally acquainted
with Paul, and still be deceived by an artfully-contrived Epistle.
But take the case as it is. Were the Epistle to the Ephesians,
against which, as we shall see, objections have been raised,
really spurious, forged in Paul's name, we readily admit that it
might have been received as genuine in the whole church be
side, for it is as like Paul's Epistles as one egg is like another ;
but could it have been acknowledged as genuine in Ephesus
itself, and the Asiatic churches connected with the Ephesians ?
Can we suppose that the Ephesians had so little regard for the
great founder of their church, that they did not even know
whether their beloved preacher had or had not written them a
letter while in bonds? And can they have been so totally
wanting in sensibility to friendship and love, as not to preserve
the apostle's communication, when every man, at all susceptible
of emotions of friendship, is anxious to preserve what has been
traced by a beloved hand ? It is hence plain, that a spurious
Epistle to the Ephesians must have been known in Ephesus as

xliv PAULINE EPISTLES.
what it really was, a forged production ; and it is impossible to
suppose, that if the Epistle had been disputed by any consider
able church, and particularly by the very one to which it pur
ported to have been sent, the opposition should have been so
completely suppressed. The declaration of the Ephesian church
that they had received no such Epistle, that they had not
the original in their archives, would have been sufficient to de
stroy its credit.
To this it is added, that all the Epistles of Paul go beyond
general expressions, such as may be easily invented ; that they
exhibit a definite concrete1 purport, which has reference to the
particular wants of each church, and its manifestations as to
Christian life. Such representations of actual facts, in regard to
the ancient churches, can have proceeded only from immediate
contact with them, and consequently certify us of the genuine
ness of the Pauline Epistles. With all that is of a special
nature, however, in each particular Epistle of Paul, there is ob
servable, in all together, a uniformity of style, and a unity in
doctrinal ideas, which wholly prevents suspicion respecting the
genuineness of the epistolary collection. For the usual reason
of forging writings in the name of another is, that the forger
wishes to give currency to a favourite idea under some cele
brated name. In no Epistle, however, is there any prominent
idea which is remote from the circle of Pauline doctrine, and
seems to be a foreign idea clothed with the costume of Paul's
style. We rather find every where the same main thoughts
which actuated the life of Paul, running through the entire col
lection, and giving their stamp to the whole.
The principal evidence, however, of the genuineness of the
Pauline Epistles, regarded in a historical light, is the circum
stance, that we can assign to the Epistles their exact places in
the life of the Apostle Paul by following the Acts of the
Apostles. Thus are they most fully and firmly bound one to
another, and all to the Acts of the Apostles. This arrangement
of the individual Epistles in accordance with the thread of
1 This term, in the sense in which it is here used, is borrowed from
logic. In that science, it is known, abstract and concrete terms are
contra-distinguished. An abstract term is one signifying some attri
bute, without reference to any particular subject ; a concrete term
designates both the attribute and the subject to which it belongs. — T.

PAULINE EPISTLES. xlv
Paul's life, is effected in such a manner as to show in chrono
logical order the occasions of their composition, and their strict
relations to his known movements.
Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, who, as is well known,
was at first named Saul, was a native Jew of the tribe of Ben
jamin, and was born in Tarsus in Cilicia. In order to perfect
himself in the knowledge of the law of his native country, he
early betook himself to Jerusalem, where he was taught by the
celebrated Gamaliel. His zeal for the hereditary observances of
his countrymen caused him to persecute the Christians, as soon
as he obtained knowledge of them, with all the vehemence of
his fiery nature. At the death of Stephen, the first Christian
martyr, he was busy keeping the clothes of his murderers while
they stoned him. (Acts vii. 5 7 seq.) From Jerusalem Paul betook
himself to Damascus, to stir up the Jews there also against the
Christians ; but the Lord Jesus appeared to him before the city
in his divine glory, and showed him who it was that he perse
cuted. (Acts ix. 22 — 26). As Paul had not persecuted the
Christians from intentional wickedness, or from carnal selfish
ness, contrary to his interior conviction, but rather with the
honest idea that he was thereby doing God service, the divine
light which enlightened his dark mind by this vision at once
produced an entire change in his feelings. With the same
ardent zeal for truth and right which he had manifested in
persecuting the Gospel, he now defended it ; though his zeal
was indeed purified and made holier by the Spirit of the Lord.
After a season of quiet reflection and repose, such as he needed
to perceive the greatness of that internal change which he had
undergone, and the depth of the new principle of life within
him, Paul began to make known the conviction he had just ob
tained. It was in Antioch (about 44 a. d.) that Paul began
formally to preach; and he taught in this city, along with
Barnabas, a whole year. After a journey to Jerusalem, whither
he carried money that had been collected for the poor in that
city, the elders of the church at Antioch designated him as a
messenger to the Gentiles ; and he with Barnabas set out on
the first missionary expedition, about 45 a.d. It extended no
farther than the neighbouring countries of Asia Minor. Paul
travelled through Cyprus to Perga in Pamphylia, and Antioch
in Pisidia, and returned through Lystra, Derbe, and Attalia by

Xlvi PAULINE EPISTLES.
sea to Antioch. Consequently, on his first missionary enter
prise, the apostle did not visit any of the cities or provinces to
which he wrote Epistles. On his return to Antioch he found
that some strict Jewish Christians had come thither from
Jerusalem, and excited dissensions. Paul had begun to preach
the Gospel to the Gentiles, and in such a way as to dispense
with the observance of the Mosaic law as a necessary duty.
Many Jewish Christians could not rise to the level of this
evangelical freedom in regard to the external law. Even Peter
at first adhered so strenuously to the forms of Jewish practice,
that nothing but a vision could bring him to see, that under the
New Testament, the Mosaic law, in regard to meats, had lost its
external importance. (Acts x. 11 seq.) In order to come to a
fixed decision on this important point, the church at Antioch
determined that Paul and Barnabas, with several companions,
should proceed to Jerusalem to present this question before the
Apostles. They there declared what God had wrought by them
among the Gentiles; Peter testified the same in regard to his
labours ; and James, the brother of our Lord, showed that it
was foretold, in the prophecies of Scripture, that the Gentiles
likewise should be called into the church of God. On these
grounds the apostles, with the elders and all the church at
Jerusalem, determined to send deputies to Antioch with Paul
and Barnabas, and communicated their judgment in a letter
carried by them to the church at Antioch. This important
transaction at Jerusalem, which publicly announced the charac
ter of Christianity as an universal religion, is called the council
of the Apostles. It was held about the year 52 a.d. The de
cision of this apostolic body was of the utmost consequence to
the Apostle Paul, as in his subsequent labours he had to contend
constantly with narrow-minded Jewish Christians, who wished
to impose the Mosaic law upon the Gentiles also as essential to
salvation. Against these Paul now advanced, not only his own
personal influence, but the authority of all the apostles. This,
at least, was effected thereby — that the supporters of the cere
monial law and its perpetual validity were compelled to secede
from the universal apostolic church, and form themselves into a
distinct sect. It is true, however, that their opposition to the
apostle Paul was continued with extreme obstinacy ; and we
find in his Epistles numberless allusions to the persecutions
which he encountered at their hand.

PAULINE EPISTLES. xlvii
Soon after the apostolic council (53 a.d.) Paul undertook his
second great journey. He separated from Barnabas, who united
with his kinsman Mark in preaching the Gospel. Paul took Silas
as his companion instead of Barnabas. He directed his course
first to the churches founded on his previous journey ; and thence
onward to Galatia, and to Troas, on the western coast of Asia
Minor. Thence the Lord conducted him, by a vision in a dream,
into Macedonia, where he founded the church of Philippi; and
then went to Thessalonica. (Acts x. 10 seq. xvii, 1 seq.)
Unfortunately, Paul could remain only about three weeks in
the latter city, for, as he met with much success among the
proselytes that had connected themselves with the Jewish
synagogues, there arose an uproar against him among the Jews,
who actually compelled him to leave the city, and flee to Bersea.
(Acts xvii. 10.) As, however, the Jews in this place likewise
vented their rage against the apostle of our Lord, Paul betook
himself to Athens, where also some hearts were warmed by the
fire of his preaching. He next proceeded onward to Corinth.
Here, in one of the great cities of antiquity, where luxury and
debauchery had reached their highest pitch, but where, on that
very account, a strong desire for salvation was readily excited,
Paul laboured with remarkable success for more than a year
and a half. He found there a Jewish family from Rome,
Aquila, and his wife Priscilla, celebrated in the history of the
ancient church. As Aquila pursued the same craft with Paul,
the latter lived and wrought with him, and besides discoursed
in the house of a certain Justus. From hence Paul wrote the
first Epistles among those still preserved to us, viz. the two
Epistles to the Thessalonians. Now, if we compare the tenor of
the Epistles with the situation of the' Apostle, and their relation
to the church at Thessalonica, we shall find them throughout
conformable to the circumstances. As Paul was unable to
preach in Thessalonica more than three weeks, he must
naturally have been very anxious respecting the fate of
those who believed in that city; he feared that they might
again fall away on account of the persecutions which threatened
them. Hence his apprehensions had already induced him, as
soon as he arrived at Athens, to send Timothy from thence to
Thessalonica, in order to learn what was really the condition of
the church. Timothy rejoined him at Corinth; and his mind
being set at rest by the information which Timothy communi-

Xlviii PAULINE EPISTLES.
cated, he wrote the first Epistle, for the purpose of confirming
and establishing the Thessalonians in the faith to which they
had so faithfully adhered. (Acts xvii. 15; xviii. 5; 1 Thess. iii.
2, 5, 6.) It is a circumstance entirely consonant with what
we must suppose to have been the situation of the Chris
tians in Thessalonica, that they did not rightly comprehend
the doctrine of our Lord's resurrection. This would naturally
be the case from the shortness of the period during which they
enjoyed the apostle's instructions. (1 Thess. iv. 13 seq.) They
feared that those believers who might die before the coming of
our Lord, would be shut out from the joys attendant on the
Messiah's reign upon earth. The apostle, however, sets them
right in regard to their fear, showing them that there would be
a twofold resurrection. Those who had fallen asleep in faith re
specting the Saviour, would not rest till the general resurrection,
but would be raised up at the coming of Christ, and would be
hold the Lord with those who were alive. The same subject
also soon afterward caused the apostle Paul to write the
second Epistle to the Christians at Thessalonica, also from
Corinth. The explanation of Paul had indeed quieted the ap
prehension of the believers of that city in regard to those of
their number who met with an early death; but some expres
sions used by Paul in his first Epistle (particularly 1 Thess. iv.
17), together with false rumours respecting his view of the
proximity of our Lord's coming, had led some susceptible minds
to the idea that this important event not only might, but must,
take place very soon. Thus they openly designated the period
of our Lord's return, in total contrariety to Paul's meaning, who
did indeed, with them, hope and ardently desire that our Lord
might come in their time, and by no means stated expressly
that he would not do so, since that would have been a negative
determination of the point ; but maintained the possibility that
he would, and founded thereon, after the example of Christ
himself, an exhortation to constant watchfulness. In order,
therefore, to moderate the excessive disposition of the Christians
at Thessalonica to look upon this great event as necessarily
about to take place in their own time, Paul presented to view
certain things which must all take place before it. From the
consideration of these points, it could not but be evident to the
Thessalonians, that this event could not take place so suddenly as
they anticipated, and thus their excited minds would probably

PAULINE EPISTLES. xlix
be quieted. In these respects, as regards the state of things at
that time, the two Epistles possess entire and undeniable histo
rical keeping; and we shall not err widely from the truth if we
assign their composition to the years 54 and 55 of the Christian
era. From Corinth the apostle Paul now returned to Antioch,
whence he had been sent. (Acts xviii. 22.) Without, however,
remaining long at rest, he in the following year (57 a.d.) entered
upon his third missionary tour, going first to Galatia again,
where he had preached on his second tour, and then to the
wealthy and celebrated city of Ephesus, where he abode more
than two years. From this city Paul wrote first to the Galatians,
and subsequently to the Corinthians. The Epistle to the Gala
tians was occasioned by those same Jewish Christians, of whom
we have before remarked, that they constantly strove to cast hin
drances in the way of Paul's operations. The Galatian churches,
which Paul, on his second visit to Galatia (Gal. iv. 13), had
found walking in the true faith, had been misled by these men
in regard to the requirements of religion. Through the idea
that the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law was essential
to salvation, the Galatian Christians were led to regard circum
cision, the solemnisation of the Sabbath and of the Jewish
feasts, and other ordinances of the Old Testament, which the
New Testament valued only from their spiritual signification, as
of worth in an external view, and in this way suffered them
selves to lose sight of the interior life of faith. The object of
the apostle, therefore, in his Epistle, was to develope thoroughly
to the Galatians the relation between the law and the Gospel,
and to show that, in the spiritual freedom conferred by the lat
ter, the external rites of the former might, indeed, be observed,
but that they must be observed in a higher manner, i.e. spiri
tually. Previously, however, he makes some remarks respecting
himself personally. For, as the Jewish Christians presumed to
dispute Paul's apostolic authority, he found himself compelled to
vindicate it by a historical account of himself. He states (i. 12
seq.), that he did not receive his Gospel from man, but immedi
ately from God ; that at first he had persecuted the church of God,
but that God, who had called him from his mother's womb, had
been pleased to reveal his Son in him, that he might preach him
to the heathen, through the Gospel. This evidently refers to
the event of our Lord's appearance to Paul near Damascus, on
e

1 PAULINE EPISTLES.
which occasion the Lord said to him, " I am Jesus, whom thou
persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet : for I have ap
peared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and
a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of
those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering
thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I
send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness
to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may
receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which
are sanctified by faith that is in me." (Acts xxvi. 15 — 18.)
This reference to so peculiar occurrences in Paul's life exhibits
a sufficient security for the genuineness of this Epistle ; and, in
connection with its entire contents, as also with its style, has
sufficed to place it for ever beyond suspicion.
An occasion equally sad in respect to the apostle gave rise to
the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which was likwise written
from Ephesus. Before the first of the Epistles which are in our
possession, Paul had written another to Corinth (1 Cor. v. 9),
which, however, has perished. We have, indeed, a pretended
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, which claims to be this lost
Epistle, but a slight examination is sufficient to manifest its
spuriousness. Moreover, this Epistle of Paul was regarded as
lost by all Christian antiquity. This first Epistle, as is shown
by 1 Cor. v. 1—9, was occasioned by the circumstance, that an
individual in the Corinthian church had matrimonial intercourse
with his mother-in-law, the wife of his deceased father. Paul
pointed out to the church the necessity of excluding from among
them him who sustained this incestuous relation, that he might
be awakened to penitence. To this Epistle of Paul, the Corin
thian Christians replied in such a way, as to show plainly that
they misunderstood some parts of it, particularly what Paul had
said respecting the avoidance of lasciviousness. These misap
prehensions are corrected by Paul in the first of the two Epis
tles which have been preserved to us. He likewise speaks in
this same letter of another important circumstance in regard to
the Corinthian church, which presents considerable coincidence
with the situation of the Christians in Galatia. It is that some
of the Jewish Christians, who had excited dissensions among
the believers there, had come to Corinth also. True, some
had remained faithful to Paul; but others appealed, in contra
diction of his authority, to Peter (Cephas), although he agreed

PAULINE EPISTLES. Ii
perfectly with Paul in his views respecting the law. They pro
bably objected to the Apostle Paul, as did the Jewish Christians
in Galatia, that he had not, like Peter, known our Lord person
ally. Besides these two parties, Paul mentions two others
(1 Cor. i. 12), the distinctive characteristics of which, however,
are uncertain. There were, therefore, divisions in the Corin
thian church, and from these had proceeded manifold disorders.
Paul's first Epistle is occupied with the reconciliation of the
former, and the removal of the latter.
Our first Epistle to the Corinthians comprises such an abund
ance of peculiar circumstances entirely conformable with the
situation of the church in its earliest days, that we cannot for a
moment suppose it possible that it is a forgery. Moreover, par
ticular facts mentioned in it coincide most exactly with the
events of Paul's life, as known from the Acts of the Apostles.
Thus, according to Acts xix. 22, he sent away his two compa
nions, Timothy and Erastus, fron Ephesus, a short time before
he himself left the city; and, according to 1 Cor. iv. 17, like
wise, he had despatched Timothy to the Corinthians. Accord
ing to the same passage in the Acts, Paul purposed soon to leave
Ephesus, and travel through Achaia (this was the Greek pro
vince in which Corinth was situated) to Jerusalem, and the
same thing is indicated by 1 Cor. xvi. 5. Thus, all circumstances
unite to give a sure historical basis to the Epistle. As its com
position must be placed a little before Paul's departure from
Ephesus, it was probably written about 59 a.d., while the Epis
tle to the Galatians may have been written about the year
58 A.D.
Before the Apostle Paul left Ephesus, then he sent Titus with
a special commission to Corinth. He hoped to be able to wait
for him in Ephesus, in order to receive an account of the troubled
state of affairs in the Corinthian church, and of the reception
which his Epistle . encountered. But a sudden uproar created
by Demetrius the silver-smith (Acts xix. 24 seq.), who saw him
self injured in respect to the gains which he derived from the
sale of small silver models of the celebrated temple of Diana at
Ephesus, compelled him to leave the city earlier than he wished.
In Macedonia, however, whither Paul immediately betook him
self, he again met with Titus, who then informed him particu
larly of the condition of the church at Corinth, and the impres
sion which, his epistle had produced. This account induced the

Hi PAULINE EPISTLES.
Apostle to write the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, from Ma
cedonia. The contents of this other Epistle, which was written
a few months after the first, bear so close a relation to the con
tents of the first, that the identity of the author is, thereby
alone, made sufficiently evident. In the second chapter, e.g., we
find mention again of the incestuous person, whom Paul had en
joined it upon the church to exclude from communion with them.
As he had now been excommunicated, Paul speaks in his be
half, that he might not sink into utter despondency (2 Cor. ii.
7). Of most importance, however, are the particular expres
sions in regard to those Jewish Christians who desolated the
Corinthian church as well as others. Titus had informed the
Apostle with what an arrogant disposition they had received his
letter. Against these, therefore, he expresses himself with the
utmost severity, while he treats those who remained faithful to
the truth, with suavity and great kindness. In rebuking the per
versity of these Judaizers, he feels it necessary to speak of himself;
for these proud sectaries not only rejected the apostolic autho
rity of Paul, but also sought by their calumnies to deprive him
of the honour of being the most successful labourer in our Lord's
vineyard. With noble plainness, therefore, Paul boasts of all
that the Lord had done for him and through him ; and the fur
ther removed this plainness was from false humility, and the less
he avoided giving ground for the imputation of appearing arro
gant and self-conceited, the more likely was his account of him
self to make an impression upon all his opponents. We do not
know definitely what effect this Epistle produced upon the state
of things at Corinth ; but, from the subsequent flourishing con
dition of the Corinthian church, we may with great probability
infer that Paul's Epistle contributed essentially to the annihila
tion of divisions. At all events, the Epistle is so completely
Pauline, and harmonises so exactly with all known historical
circumstances, that its genuineness has never been contested
either in ancient or modern times.
What was not effected by the Epistle of Paul to the church of
Corinth, was undoubtedly accomplished by the Apostle's perso
nal presence in this metropolis. For, from Macedonia Paul
went to Achaia (Acts xx. 3), and abode there three months. The
greater part of this time he certainly spent in Corinth, and from
hence he wrote the Epistle to the Romans, shortly before his de
parture from Corinth for Jerusalem in order to carrv a collec-

PAULINE EPISTLES. liii
tion of alms for the poor of that city (Acts xxiv. 1 7 seq., Rom.
xv. 25, 26). This important Epistle (viz., that to the Romans)
bears the stamp of a genuine apostolic letter so completely in
both thought and language, that neither ancient nor modern
times have advanced a single doubt as to its origin. The parti
cular doctrine which Paul presented to view more frequently
and more prominently than any other apostle, viz., that man is
saved by faith in him who was crucified and rose again, and not
by the works of the law, either ceremonial or moral, forms the
central topic of the Epistle to the Romans ; and, moreover, all
the historical allusions which occur in it are entirely suitable to
the circumstances under which it was written. Paul, e.g., ac
cording to this Epistle, (Rom. i. 12, 15; xxiii. seq.) had not yet
been in Rome when he wrote it; and this agrees exactly with
the statement of the Apostle in Acts xix. 21. The many per
sons whom he salutes at the end of the Epistle, he became ac
quainted with from his numerous travels in Asia Minor and
Greece; for, as there was a general conflux to Rome from all
quarters, and also a general dispersion thence, it being the
centre of the world, there was no city in which Romans did not
reside, or of whose inhabitants many were not constrained by
circumstances to journey to Rome, or to establish themselves
there as residents. On account of this importance of the city
of Rome, which must necessarily have been communicated to
the church in that place, there is sufficient proof of the genuine
ness of this Epistle in the single circumstance that this church,
in which Paul afterwards abode some years, never contradicted
the universal opinion that Paul wrote this Epistle to them, but
rather rejoiced in being honoured with such an apostolic com
munication. Hitherto we have seen the celebrated apostle of the Gentiles
constantly labouring with freedom and boldness ; but his depar
ture from Corinth brought upon him a long and cruel imprison
ment. For Paul immediately returned from Corinth to Mace
donia, embarked there at Philippi (Acts xx. 3 seq.) and sailed
along tib.e coasts of Asia Minor. At Miletus he called to him
the elders of the church of Ephesus (Acts xx. 17 seq.) and took
pathetic leave of them ; for he was persuaded that he should never
again see these beloved brethren (xx. 38). About the year 60 a.d.
the Apostle arrived at Jerusalem, having passed through Caesarea;
but was there immediately arrested (Acts xxii.) and carried

Hv PAULINE EPISTLES.
back to Cassarea (Acts xxiii. 31 seq.) Here he was indeed ex
amined by the proconsul Felix ; but, as he could not pronounce
sentence against him and hesitated to release him, Paul re
mained two years in captivity. At the end of that time there
came another proconsul, Porcius Festus, to Csesarea. He com
menced the examination anew, but when the apostle, as a Ro
man citizen, appealed to Caesar, he sent him to Rome. This
was about 62 a.d. On the voyage thither, Paul, together with
the Roman soldiers who accompanied him, suffered shipwreok,
and they were compelled to pass the winter on the island of
Malta. Paul did not, therefore, arrive at Rome before the com
mencement of the following year, and was there again kept as
•a prisoner for two years, i. e. till 65 a.d., before his case was de
cided. Still his confinement at Rome was not so strict as that
at Csesarea. He was permitted to hire a dwelling in the city,
to go about, speak, and write as he pleased; only, he was always
accompanied by a soldier. Luke alone details all these events
in the last chapters of the Acts, with very great minuteness.
From Paul's Epistles we learn nothing respecting this period;
for Paul seems not to have written at all from Csesarea. Pro
bably the strict durance in which he was held did not permit
any communication by writing. In the providence of God, this
long confinement may have served to acquaint Paul with him
self, with the depths of his own interior being. For, the man
ner of life which Paul led and was obliged to lead, the perpetual
bustle of travel, his constant efforts in regard to others, might
have injured him by dissipation of his thoughts, and might, so
to speak, have exhausted the fulness of his spirit, had he not
possessed some quiet seasons in which, while his attention was
turned wholly upon himself, he might be spiritually replenished
and invigorated for future seasons of intense outward exertion.
But from the other of the two places where Paul was compel
led to remain a prisoner for a long period, i. e. Rome, he cer
tainly wrote several Epistles, viz. the Epistles to the Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Still, although in these
Epistles mention is made of some historical particulars, he sup
poses the occurrences in regard to himself to be generally known
among the Christians of the churches in Macedonia and Asia
Minor, and therefore does not enter into details respecting them.
Unfortunately Luke closed his book of Acts at the point when
Paul had lived two years as a prisoner at Rome; and therefore,

PAULINE EPISTLES. Iv
in further designating the historical connection of Paul's Epistles,
we are not able to state the circumstances of time and place
with so much precision and certainty as hitherto. This circum
stance, likewise, explains how, in such a state of things, the re
maining Epistles of Paul afford more room to doubt of their
genuineness than was the case in regard to those which, we see,
well and easily fall into the history of Paul as related in the
Acts. We shall therefore devote separate consideration to these
Epistles.

CHAPTER V.
continuation.  of the pauline epistles composed during and
after Paul's imprisonment at rome.
Of the Epistles composed by Paul during his imprisonment
at Rome, the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Phile
mon, can be easily shown with sufficient certainty to be genuine
writings of the Apostle. First, as to the Epistle to the Philip
pians, Paul clearly represents himself therein, not only as a pri
soner, but also as a prisoner at Rome; for he speaks of the bar
racks occupied by the imperial guards (the Praetorium: Luther
translates the word by Richt-haus, or hall of justice, Phil. i. 13),
into which the fame of his imprisonment had extended itself.
Probably Paul had won over to the gospel the soldiers set to
guard him, to whom he was wont to preach, and, through these^
others in the camp may have been converted. Even the impe
rial palace itself is mentioned by Paul (Phil. iv. 22,) as haying
been already penetrated by the seeds of the word of God.
These clear allusions leave not the slightest doubt that the
Epistle was written from Rome. Nor can any doubt remain as
to the question, whether it was really written to the inhabitants
of the Macedonian city Philippi. For, according to Acts xvi.
12 seq. the apostle's- labours in this city had been particularly
blessed. The Lord at once opened the heart of Lydia, so that
she believed the preaching of Paul. An unfortunate occurrence
respecting a damsel possessed with a spirit of divination, which
the Apostle expelled, constrained him to leave the city. The
church at Philippi, however, always preserved a particular at-

lvi PAULINE EPISTLES.
tachment to the Apostle Paul, and his acknowledgment of this
fact runs through the whole of his letter to them. The Apostle
calls them his brethren dearly beloved and longed for, his joy
and crown (Phil. iv. 1), and thanks the Philippian Christians
that they so faithfully had respect to his bodily necessities (Phil.
iv. 15, 16). These characteristics are decisive in favour of the
genuineness of the Epistle, which, moreover, has not been con
tested either in ancient or modern times.
The case is the same in regard to the Epistle to the Colossians.
This church was not founded by Paul in person ; as he himself
indicates in Col. ii. 1. He had indeed been in Phrygia, but had
not visited the city of Colosse on his journey through this pro
vince of Asia Minor. Paul nevertheless wrote to "them, as also
to the Romans, in part from universal Christian love, which
called upon him to acknowledge the members of every church of
Christ as brethren, and in part from the special reason, that the
Gospel had been carried to Colosse by disciples of his, parti
cularly Epaphras. The immediate occasion of his Epistle, how
ever, was, that heretics threatened to draw away the church
from the true faith. These individuals were not of the ordinary
Judaizing class; along with much that was Jewish, they had
some Gnostic characteristics. Now Phrygia is the precise spot
where, from the earliest times downward, we find a prevalent
tendency to a fantastic apprehension of religion. Thus the cir
cumstance that, according to Paul's representation, men of this
stamp had gained influence in Colosse, suits perfectly well with
what we know of that city. Nor is it otherwise than very natu
ral, that few particular allusions occur in the Epistle, as he was
not personally known to the church. He however mentions his
imprisonment, and sends salutations also from some persons of
their acquaintance who were in his vicinity, among others from
Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10), who, as we learn from the Acts, had
come to Rome with Paul and Luke (xxvii. 1). The latter com
panion of Paul likewise salutes the believers in Phrygia (iv. 14).
Of individuals themselves resident in Colosse, he saluted especial
ly Archippus (iv. 1 7), who occupied some ministry in the church.
Concerning this man, as also concerning Onesimus, whom Paul
mentions (Col. iv. 9), we gain more particular information from
the Epistle to Philemon. In this Epistle to the Colossians, like
wise, every thing harmonises so exactly with Paul's circumstan
ces in general, and his relation to the church which he addressed

PAULINE EPISTLES. lyii
in particular, that no one has ever been led to question its genu
ineness, either in ancient or modern days.
With the same entire unanimity has the genuinensss of Paul's
Epistle to Philemon likewise been always admitted. This de
lightful little Epistle so clearly exhibits all the characteristics of
the great Apostle, and is so utterly free from everything which
would make it probable that any person could have a motive in
forging it, that no one would ever entertain the idea of denying
that Paul was its author. Philemon, to whom the Epistle is
addressed, probably lived in Colosse, for that Archippus, who
held an office in the church at Colosse, appears here as his son,
and Appia as his wife (Phil. v. 2). Probably Philemon was an
opulent man; for he had so spacious a house, that it accommo
dated the assemblies of believers. Paul wrote this Epistle, like
wise, in confinement (v. 13), and sends salutations from all those
who, according to the Acts and the Epistle to the Colossians,
were in his vicinity (v. 23, 24). Onesimus, who had fled from
the relation of bondage which he had sustained towards Philemon
in Colosse, Paul sends back to his master, whom he informs that
his slave had been led by him to obey the Gospel, so that Phile
mon is to receive back again as a brother him whom he had lost
as a slave. The whole of this small Epistle comprises, indeed,
no important doctrinal contents ; but it is an exhibition of inte
rior, deep feeling, and delicate regard to circumstances on the
part of the Apostle, and as such has always been very dear and
valuable to the church.
In regard to the Epistle to the Ephesians, however, the case is
totally different from what it is in regard to the three other
Epistles sent from Rome. There are so many remarkable cir
cumstances in relation to this Epistle, that we can easily com
prehend how its genuineness has been often brought in question.
Still, all the doubts which may have been excited are completely
removed on a closer examination, so that it can by no means be
denied that the Epistle was written by the Apostle, even if its
actual destination to Ephesus cannot be established.
If it be considered that Paul, as we saw above in the histori
cal account of the Apostle's life, was twice in Ephesus, and that
once he even resided there for about three years, it must cer
tainly appear very strange that, in an Epistle to this church, of
the elders of which Paul had taken leave in so pathetic a man
ner (Acts xx. 17), there should be found no salutations. In

lyiii PAULINE EPISTLES.
writing to the Romans, Paul, though he had never been at
Rome, sent salutations to so many persons that their names fill
an entire chapter, while in this Epistle not a single person is
greeted. Moreover, there are no personal and confidential allu
sions in any part of the Epistle. Paul appears only in the gene
ral relation of a Christian teacher and a friend to his readers.
There is certainly something extremely strange in this charac
ter of the Epistle, particularly, moreover, as that which we
should especially expect to find in the Epistle, viz. allusion to
heretics, against which, Paul had so expressly warned the Ephe-.
sian elders, is entirely wanting (Acts xx. 29 seq.)
The difficulties are increased when we know what was the
case originally concerning the address to the readers of the
Epistle (Eph. i. 1). Instead of " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus," as it
stands in most copies, Marcion, in his MS., read: " to the saints
at Laodicea." In other MSS. there was no name at all, neither
Ephesus, nor Laodicea; and in these the inscription of the
Epistle ran thus: " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will
of God, to the saints which dwell at  ." Instead of the
name was a vacant space, which, however, was often neglected
by the copyists, who thus perplexed the matter still further.
In addition to all this, if the Epistle to the Ephesians be com
pared with that to the Colossians, we shall find the same funda
mental thought, and often even the same train of ideas, only the
first is more minute and expanded, while in the Epistle to the
Colossians the thoughts are more concisely and briefly presented.
On account of this relative character it has been declared that the
Epistle to the Ephesians is probably only an enlargement of the
Epistle to the Colossians, made with a special design by some
other hand. But though for a moment such supposition might
not appear altogether unfounded, its plausibility is completely
dissipated when the peculiar character of the Epistle is made
apparent by a right and thorough notion of its origin. The
Epistle to the Ephesians is undoubtedly what is termed a circu
lar letter, directed not to a single church but to many at once.
In such a letter, therefore, there could be no personal allusions,
because what might interest one circle of readers might be un
intelligible to another. In this Epistle, therefore, Paul adheres
exclusively to generalities, and touches only on such topics as
would be of interest to all members of the churches for whom

PAULINE EPISTLES. Hx
the Epistle was intended. Now, on the supposition that Ephe
sus and Laodicea were of the number of those churches for
which the Epistle was intended, nothing is more easy of explana
tion than the fact, that the name of the former was in the in
scription of some MSS., and the name of the latter in that of
others. The messenger who carried the apostolic letter may
have taken several copies with him, in which the space for the
name of the place was not filled out, and remained thus until
they were delivered, when the name of the church which re
ceived any particular one was added to it. The diffusion of the
Epistle abroad was mainly from the capital city Ephesus; and
hence the name Ephesus got into the inscription cf most of the
MSS. Marcion, however, came into possession of a transcript
from the copy which was delivered at Laodicea, and for this rea
son he read Laodicea instead of Ephesus in the inscription. In
some copies there may have been a total neglect to fill up the
spaces left vacant for the names; and in this way some MSS.
got into circulation in which no city was designated.
It is seen how satisfactorily and completely, on this single
supposition, that the Epistle to the Ephesians was a circular let
ter, our difficulties disappear at once. It is true the striking re
semblance of the Epistle to that to the Colossians still remains ;
and in recent times the greatest stress has been laid on this very
point. Both Epistles have essentially the same contents, only
the Epistle to the Ephesians is more full and minute, as has
been already remarked. But let it be considered that the two
Epistles were written not only about the same time, but under
entirely similar circumstances. Is it then to be wondered at,
that there is a striking similarity in contents and arrangement ?
What purpose could there have been in forging or counterfeiting
an Epistle, in which the fraudulent author said the same things
which were contained in a genuine Epistle of the man to whom
he wished that his production should be ascribed ? It is, there
fore, clear that there is nothing in this resemblance of the
Epistle to the Ephesians to that to the Colossians, which can
justify us in inferring the spuriousness of either. For, whether
we suppose that the longest (that to the Ephesians) was written
first, and that Paul afterwards repeated the same thoughts in
the shortest (that to the Colossians); or, vice versa, that he
wrote the shortest first, and afterwards felt himself called upon
to state the same ideas more at length in the other, there is not

Ix PAULINE EPISTLES.
the least harm done by their similarity to each other, particu
larly as the Epistle to the Ephesians contains many ideas wholly
peculiar to the Apostle Paul, which are wanting in the Epistle
to the Colossians, and this too in his own phraseology and style.
It is to be observed, further, that Paul in his Epistle to the
Colossians mentions a letter to the church at Laodicea, and char
ges the former to communicate their Epistle to the believers in
Laodicea, and in return to request the Epistle addressed to them.
Now, because, as we have seen, Marcion regarded the Epistle to
the Ephesians as having been directed to the Laodiceans, it
has been supposed that our Epistle to the Ephesians was the
one meant by Paul. But, plausible as this may appear at
first sight, it is still improbable, on a closer examination, that
it is correct; for, first, the great similarity between the two"
Epistles makes against it, as this must evidently have rendered
their mutual transfer of less consequence. Then, too, it is not
common to direct special salutations to be given to those to
whom we write ourselves at the same time, which is done by
Paul in relation to the Laodiceans in his letter to the Colossians
(passim). Moreover, our Epistle to the Ephesians, as a circular
letter, could not well be designated by the name, Epistle to the
Laodiceans. Thus, it is far more probable that this letter was a
separate one, which has been lost to us.
As early as the time of Jerome, there existed a separate Epis
tle to the Laodiceans, different from that to the Ephesians. But
the father just mentioned remarks, that all without exception
reject it. It is probable, therefore, that, on account of the pas
sage, Col. iv. 15, 16, some one had forged an Epistle to the Lao
diceans, just as was the case, as we have before stated, with the
first Epistle to the Corinthians which was lost.
There remain, therefore, only the three Epistles of the Apos
tle, which are usually comprehended under the title of Pastoral
Letters, viz. the two to Timothy, and that to Titus. They are all
three occupied with a consideration of the duties of a pastor of
the church of Christ, and on account of this common purport
are classed under the general designation which we have men
tioned. In a close investigation of the contents and the historical
allusions of these Epistles there arise very many difficulties, on
which account they have become subject to doubt beyond all the
other Pauline Epistles. Ancient tradition is certainly wholly in
favour of their genuineness, as in relation to the Epistle to the

PAULINE EPISTLES. Ixi
Ephesians; for the circumstance, that Marcion did not have
them in his canon, is not regarded as important, even by oppon
ents of the Epistles, who are at all impartial. It was undoubtedly
only through accident that these Epistles remained unknown to
him, and to his native city, Sinope, upon the Black Sea; for had
he possessed historical reasons against its reception, they could
not have been so completely lost at a later period. We may here
see, in fact, a very important evidence in behalf of the genuine
ness of these Epistles; for Timothy lived when Paul wrote to
him, not in a distant, unknown place, but in Ephesus, one of
the chief cities frequented by the Christians of the ancient
church. The scene of the labours of Titus was the isle of Crete,
which also, on account of its vicinity to Corinth, and to other
important churches, maintained lively intercourse with the
churches generally. Now, how Epistles directed to persons
labouring in places of sp much note, and holding so high a rank,
as being assistants of the apostle, could gain the reputation of
being genuine throughout the whole ancient church, when they
were really forged in the name' of the apostle, is indeed difficult
of comprehension, as so many must have been able to expose the
deception. Supposing, therefore, that on a close investigation of
the contents of the Epistle, there should appear much that is
strange, it must be considered as losing a great deal of its influ
ence in relation to the question of the genuineness of the Epistles,
from the fact that this is so firmly established by the tradition
of the church.
Another circumstance to be premised, which is very much in
favour of their genuineness, is, that in all the three Epistles there
occurs a multitude of personal and particular allusions. Now,
it is clear that an impostor, who was palming off his own Epistles
as another's (for such is the language which we must use con
cerning the author of these three compositions, if they are not
the work of Paul himself, since he expressly names himself as
the author, besides indicating the fact in a manner not to» be
mistaken), would avoid as much as possible all special circum
stances, because he would be too likely to betray himself in
touching upon them, since particulars cannot be very minutely
known to a stranger. Moreover, a forgery generally wants that
graphic exactness which is exhibited so manifestly in writings
that spring out of actually existing circumstances. Hence every
unprejudiced person would, in the outset, think it very unlikely

lxii PAULINE EPISTLES.
that a writing was forged in which there occurred such special
allusions as we find in 1 Tim. v. 23, where Paul says to Timothy,
" Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's
sake and thine often infirmities." Of the same nature, also, is
a passage in the second Epistle to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 13), in
which the apostle complains that he had, through forgetfulness,
left his cloak, some books, and parchments with a friend, and
desires Timothy to take care of them. Plainly, such things are
not forged; for to what end should any one give himself the
useless trouble to invent such insignificant matters, if they did
not actually happen, since they could not do either any harm or
any good. In the same Epistle (2 Tim. iv. 20, 21), Paul sends
salutations from many individuals, and gives various information
respecting persons of their mutual acquaintance. "Erastus
abode at Corinth," says Paul, " but Trophimus have I left at
Melitus sick;" and he invites Timothy himself to come to him
before winter. If any person invented all this, we must at least
call him extremely inconsiderate, for he ought not certainly to
have mentioned such noted cities, since the Christians who dwelt
in them could learn, without any great difficulty, whether any
one of the name of Trophimus was ever at Miletus with the
apostle, and was left there by him sick, and whether Erastus
abode at Corinth. The same is true of the Epistle to Titus, as
one may be convinced by examining Titus iii. 12.
Still, let us look at the reasons which are advanced against
the genuineness of these Epistles. Certain investigators have
thought that there was in all three of them something not only
in the phraseology, but in the style altogether, which cannot
but be regarded as unlike Paul. The weakness of such state
ments, however, may be clearly inferred from the fact that an
other investigator, of no less acuteness, supposes the second
Epistle to Timothy and the one to Titus to be really genuine
Epistles of Paul, while the first to Timothy is spurious, and
imitated from the other two. This second investigator, there
fore, founds his argument for the spuriousness of the first of the
three Epistles on the genuineness of the two others, thus over
throwing, by his own reasoning, the position of the former inves
tigators in regard to the necessity of supposing them all spurious.
The historical difficulties, however, which are discerned on close
examination of the Epistles, are of more consequence. It is
from these, properly, that all attacks upon these pastoral letters

PAULINE EPISTLES. lxiii
have originated, and in these they find their excuse, only writers
ought not to have so manifestly confounded difficulties with
positive arguments against the genuineness of a writing.
As to the First Epistle to Timothy, the principal difficulty is,
to point out a period in Paul's life exactly coinciding with the
statement which the Apostle makes at the outset (i. 3). He
says that when he went to Macedonia he left Timothy at Ephesus,
to protect the true faith and thwart heretics in that city. Now
we know, indeed, that when Demetrius the silver-smith drove
Paul from Ephesus, he went to Macedonia ; but it is impossible
that he should then have left Timothy behind at Ephesus, since
he sent him before himself to Macedonia with Erastus. Thus,
when Paul wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians from
Macedonia, Timothy was with him. (Comp. Acts xix. 22,
2 Cor. i. 1). Moreover, we are informed of no other journey of
Paul from Ephesus to Macedonia, when he left Timothy behind
in the city to watch over the church ; and hence arises a diffi
culty in assigning this Epistle its proper place in Paul's life.
There are similar circumstances respecting the Second Epistle.
This Epistle, too, is directed to Timothy at Ephesus. Paul
clearly writes from Rome. (Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17, with 2
Tim. i. 16, 18, iv. 19). He was in bonds (i. 16), and was ex
pecting a new examination of his cause. Now, he invites Ti
mothy to come to him, and requests him to make haste and
come before winter (iv. 13, 21). But, according to Col. i. 1,
Philemon ver. 1, and Phil. i. 1, Timothy, at the time of Paul's
imprisonment at Rome, as related by Luke in the Acts, was in
Paul's company; and hence it seems impossible that Paul could
have written to him at Ephesus. It is true Paul's imprison
ment at Rome lasted two years, and it might be supposed that
Timothy was for some time with him, and for some time away
during his imprisonment; but there are other circumstances
which make it very improbable that the Second Epistle to Ti
mothy was written during the same imprisonment in which the
Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians were com
posed. According to 2 Tim. iv. 18, Paul had left at Troas, a
cloak, books, and parchments, which Timothy was to bring with
him when he came to Paul (v. 21). Now, before Paul's imprison
ment at Rome, which lasted two years, he was also two years in
Csesarea. We should, therefore, be compelled to suppose that
he had left these things behind at Troas, four years before.

lxiv PAULINE EPISTLES.
But certainly it is probable that Paul would have made some
other disposition of them in the mean time, if they were of any
consequence to him. But even if we may suppose that Paul would
send for clothing and books which had laid at Troas for years,
it is out of the question that he should say in relation to a jour
ney made four years before : " Erastus abode at Corinth, but
Trophimus have I left at Miletus sick." (2 Tim. iv. 20). Mile
tus was in the vicinity of Ephesus, at a distance from Rome
where Paul was writing. Now, if Paul had not been in Mile
tus for four years, it is wholly impossible that he should have
mentioned the illness of one whom he had left behind at Mile
tus so long a time before, because his case must long since have
been decided. Similar difficulties present themselves, likewise,
on a close examination of the Epistle to Titus. For Paul writes
in this Epistle (i. 4, 5, iii. 12), that he himself had been in the
island of Crete, and had left Titus there behind him for the same
purpose which caused him to leave Timothy in Ephesus; and
states that he intended to spend the winter in Nicopolis, whi
ther he directs Titus to come and meet him. Now, it is true,
Paul, according to the Acts (xxvii. 8), was once in Crete, but it
was as a prisoner, and on a voyage. In these circumstances,
therefore, he could not accomplish much; nor could he leave
Titus behind, as on his voyage Titus was nowhere in his neigh
bourhood. Nothing is told us in any part of the New Testa
ment history as to Paul's residence in Nicopolis, and it is the
more difficult to come to any assurance respecting it from the
fact, that there were so many cities of that name. Thus, this
Epistle, likewise, cannot be assigned to its place in Paul's his
tory, and therefore it is perfectly true, that there are difficulties
incident to an examination of these pastoral letters; but, as we
have before observed, difficulties are not equivalent to positive
arguments against their genuineness. It is true they would be,
were we so exactly and minutely acquainted with the history
of the Apostle Paul, that such a difficulty in assigning an epistle
its place among the circumstances of his life would be the same
as an impossibility. If, for example, we knew with certainty
that the Apostle Paul never resided in any city by the name of
Nicopolis, we should be obliged to consider the Epistle to Titus,
which purports to have been written from some place called Ni
copolis, as spurious and forged.
But this is so far from being the case, that in those Epistles

PAULINE EPISTLES. lxv
of Paul which are admitted to be genuine, very many occur
rences are noticed, of which we have no further information. A
remarkable instance of this kind is the well-known passage,
2 Cor. xi. 23 seq., in which Paul states, that he had five times
received of the Jews forty stripes save one, thrice being beaten
with rods, once stoned, thrice suffered shipwreck, &c. &c. Of
very few of these sufferings of Paul do we know the particulars.
How much, therefore, of what took place in his life, may remain
unknown to us. It is to be remembered, too, that the brief general
statements given by Luke in the Acts extend over long periods
in the apostle's life. At Corinth, Ephesus, Csesarea, and Rome,
Paul abode for years. Now, as slight journeys abroad are, it is
well known, commonly comprehended by historians in a residence
at any particular place for a long period, may not this have been
frequently the case in Luke's history? Many have thought this
probable, and have therefore supposed short journeys from this
or that place, and in this way have attempted to find some situ
ation in Paul's life, which should appear suitable for the compo
sition of one or another of the pastoral letters. We will not
trouble our readers, however, with an enumeration of these dif
ferent views, which, nevertheless, show that it is not impossible
to designate some situation in which Paul might have written
these Epistles. We choose rather to confine ourselves to the
development of an important supposition by which a suitable
period of time is obtained for all the three Epistles together, and
their relation to each other is determined. This supposition is,
that Paul was set at liberty from the first imprisonment at Rome
related by Luke, (which had lasted two years when Luke finished
his book of Acts,) performed important missionary tours after
ward and was at last imprisoned a second time at Rome, and at
this time died there a martyr's death. It is very evident that if
we can in this way gain space of time for another journey to
Asia and Crete, it will be easy to imagine the situations which
gave rise to the first Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus. The
second Epistle to Timothy must then have been written in Rome
itself during the second imprisonment, and any remarkable expres
sions which it contains are then perfectly intelligible, if it be sup
posed that Paul wrote the Epistle after his arrival at Rome from Asia
Minor. The only question is, whether this supposition, that Paul
was a second time imprisoned at Rome, is a mere hypothesis, or
/

1XV1 THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
can be sustained by any historical evidence. Were it a mere
conjecture, it must be admitted, it would be of ittle importance
There are not wanting, however, some historical facts of such
a nature as to confirm the supposition. First, we find it current
among the Fathers of the fourth century. It is true, they do not
expressly present historical grounds for their opinion; they seem
rather to have inferred a second imprisonment at Rome from the
second Epistle to Timothy. But, that they at once assumed a
second imprisonment, when they might have hit upon other modes
of explanation, seems to indicate a tradition, however obscure,
in regard to the fact of its having occurred. Moreover, we are
told by a very ancient writer of the Roman church, the apostolic
Father Clemens Romanus, that Paul went to the farthest west.
This must mean Spain. In the Epistle to the Romans (chap.
xv.) Paul expresses a strong desire to visit that country. This
he cannot have done before his first imprisonment; it is not
at all improbable, therefore, that he may afterwards have jour
neyed to this country, the most western region of the then known
world. Whatever may be thought of this supposition, so much is clear
— the difficulties with which the attentive reader meets with in
the Epistles, are no arguments against their genuineness. In
deed every thing essential is in their favour. The internal simi
larity of the Epistles, however, makes it probable that they were
composed about the» same time, and the idea that they were
written during the second imprisonment, of which we have spoken,
accords very well with this supposition.

CHAPTER VI.
OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Of the investigations of learned men respecting the genuine
ness of the writings of the New Testament, we have hitherto
been able to give a very favourable account ; but the case seems
now to be different, in considering the investigations respecting
the Epistle to the Hebrews. For, he who has been accustomed
to reckon this epistle among those of Pauline origin (the Lutheran
version, such as it now is, expressly attributing it to this apostle,

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. lxvii
although Luther himself, as will be shown presently, held a dif
ferent opinion), may be surprised at hearing that the latest, ex
tremely thorough and generally impartial, investigations respect
ing this important Epistle, determine that Paul was not its
author.1 We have before remarked, that thft genuineness of the
Epistle to the Hebrews is not at all in question : the only inquiry
is, who was its author. For he has neither named nor designated
himself throughout the Epistle. Thus, even though Paul should
not be considered the author, it does not follow that the Epistle
is a forged, spurious one.
Now, that the case of this Epistle must be peculiar, is clear
from the fact, that it was not admitted into the midst of the
other Pauline Epistles. In the Greek Testament it does indeed
come directly after the Epistle to Philemon, and thus by the side
of the collection of Paul's Epistles (though Luther has placed it
after the Epistles of Peter and John) ; but it is clear that this
large and important Epistle would have been placed among the
other large Epistles of the same apostle to whole churches, per
haps after the Epistles to the Corinthians, had it been originally
regarded as a production of the apostle to the Gentiles.2 Con
sequently, its position after the Epistle to Philemon, the small
est and most inconsiderable of Paul's private letters, shows
plainly, that it was not generally reckoned as one of the Pauline
Epistles, until after the collection of them was completed. How
ever, all this is, of course, of an incidental nature ; there are far
more important reasons, which make it improbable that Paul
was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and to the consi
deration of these we will now direct our attention.
The form of the Epistle is, it is seen, entirely different from
that of Paul's letters. He opens each of his Epistles, not only
1 But see Professor Stuart's discussion of this point in his masterly
Commentary upon the Epistle. See also an able discussion of it in a
work published at London in 1830, entitled " Biblical Notes and Dis
sertations, &c." written by Joseph John Gurney, an Englishman, mem
ber of the Society of Friends. Mr Gurney's dissertation was republished
in the Biblical Repository for July 1832 (Vol. II. p. 409).— Tr.
2 According io Epiphanius, a church-father of the fourth century,
some MSS. placed the Epistle to the Hebrews before, the Epistles to
Timothy; probably only because it seemed to some copyists improper
that an Epistle to a whole church should stand after Epistles to private
individuuls.

IxVlii EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
with his name and the title of his sacred office, but also with an
apostolic salutation: "Grace be with you and peace from God
our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Nothing of this kind
is to be seen at the commencement of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
It begins like a treatise (which indeed many have been inclined
to suppose it to be), without any reference to its readers: " God,
who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past
unto the fathers by the prophets, &c." The conclusion bears
more resemblance to Paul's Epistles ; for it contains a salutation,
such as those of the apostle, and announces a visit to the readers
of the Epistle on the part of the author in company with Timothy.
The writer sends a salutation on the part of the brethren from
Italy; from whence it has been erroneously inferred that the
Epistle was written in Italy, whereas the phraseology indicates
exactly the contrary.1 For the author would not have employed
such an expression unless he was writing out of Italy in a place'
whither brethren had arrived from that country. The Epistle
contains no particular salutations from one individual to another;
but this is not strange, as it is addressed to so many. For the
Hebrews, to whom the Epistle was written, were the Jewish
Christians who lived in Palestine. Their benefit was intended
by the entire contents of this profound Epistle. It analyzes
thoroughly the relation of the Old Testament to the New.
Nevertheless, it may be said, no great stress ought to be laid
upon the external form of the Epistle; Paul might for once have
deviated from his usual custom. But the historical evidence is
very decisive in regard to this Epistle. For, in the western
church, and particularly the Roman, the Epistle to the Hebrews
was not at all acknowledged as Paul's production until some
time in the fourth century. It was through Augustine's' means,
who died so late as 430 A. d., that it first became common to
ascribe it to Paul ; and even this Father of the church some-
1 The original Greek reads, 0/ anrh r5js 'iraX/ag, which is translated in
our English version " they of Italy." Olshausen considers it necessary
to translate am from, making the whole expression to mean, those who
had come from Italy to some place where Paul was writing. Consulta
tion of a good Greek lexicon will cause any one to doubt whether there
is any such necessity as Olshausen supposes. See, for example, in Passow,
Under the word aitb, such expressions as, at'/aLu awb Tguwv, the blood of
the Trojans, oi airb TlXdruvog, they of Plato's party, &c. — Tr,

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. lxix
times speaks doubtfully of the Epistle, as do other Fathers after
his time. Plainly this is very remarkable. For, if it be con
sidered how well-known Paul was, and how deeply loved at
Rome, and that he was twice imprisoned there for years, it will
be evident that it must have been known in that city whether
Paul was its author or not. Thus the testimony of this Roman
church is of the highest importance in the question under
examination. Now, it is observable, that Clement of Rome, an
immediate disciple of Paul, makes very ample use of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, and even introduces long passages of it into his
own Epistle to the Corinthians. This is indeed a very decisive
proof of the high antiquity of the Epistle; but Clement does
not mention the author of the writing from which he quoted,
and therefore the use he has made of it has no further influence
in regard to the question, who was its author. Still, he must
certainly have liked the Epistle, and esteemed it very highly ;
otherwise he would not have been induced to embellish his own
Epistle with large passages from it, which are interwoven with
his train of thought, as though they were originaL
That in the West there was general uncertainty in regard to
the author of the Epistle, is shown by the circumstance, that an
African Father of the church, Tertullian, names Barnabas as its
author. Others, especially some orientals, ascribed it to Luke,
and some to the before-mentioned Clement, though unfortunately
without good reason. There was no uniform tradition in the
West in regard to its authorship; it was, from conjecture alone,
ascribed to various individuals.
The case was totally different with the Greek church in the
East. The predominant opinion with this was that Paul was
the author. It was the celebrated Fathers of the Alexandrian
church especially, together with the Syrians, who made great
use of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and referred it to the apostle
Paul. The old Syriac version contains it in its canon. This
circumstance is not to be overlooked, particularly as the Epis
tle is directed to the Christians in Palestine, from whom of
course it might very easily come into the hands of the neigh
bouring Syrians and Egyptians. Historical testimony, however,
in favour of any Epistle, must be sought for mainly in the place
where it was composed, and that to which it was addressed.
One of these furnishes evidence against the Pauline origin of
the Epistle, and the other in its favour; a circumstance which,

lxx EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
as we shall see hereafter, is of no slight consequence in an in
quiry respecting the canonical authority of the Epistle.
Although the Greek, and especially the Alexandrian, Fathers
were favourably disposed towards the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the learned among them admitted the great difference between
it and the other Epistles of Paul. They explained this difference
by supposing that Paul wrote the Epistle in Hebrew, and Luke
translated it into Greek. This Evangelist was fixed upon as
the translator, because, as was thought, a resemblance was dis
covered between his style and that of the Epistle. The suppo
sition, however, is not at all probable; for the style of the
Epistle to the Hebrews is so peculiarly Greek, that it cannot
have been translated from the Hebrew. We may see, merely
from the conjecture thus presented, that inquiring minds, in
perusing the Epistle, came to doubt whether it was really
Pauline in its character, even where it was commonly con
sidered as a Pauline production.
Hence it was that our Luther, when he studied the Scriptures
n a critical manner, renewed the doubts respecting the Pauline
origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, after it had been regarded
throughout the middle ages as the apostle Paul's production.
He writes on this point as follows: As yet, we have mentioned
only the principal, indubitably genuine books of the New Testa
ment. The four following books, however,1 have in times past
held a different rank. And first, that the Epistle to the
Hebrews is hot St Paul's, nor any apostle's, is proved by the
tenor of v. 3 of chap. ii. : ' How shall we escape if we neglect so
great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord,
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.' It is clear
that he speaks of the apostles as though he were a disciple, to
whom this salvation had come from the apostles, perhaps long
after." (See Walch's Ed. Luther's Works, Th. xiv. p. 146.)
The passage to which Luther refers is indeed remarkable, and
has been employed by scholars of a more recent day to prove
that Paul cannot have been the author of the Epistle. For we
know that he always maintained strongly (particularly in the
outset to the Epistle to the Galatians), in opposition to his
Jewish adversaries, who presumed to dispute his apostolic
1 He means, besides the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James
and Jude, and the Revelation of John.

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. lXxi
authority, that he was not a disciple of the apostles, but had
received everything from the immediate revelation of God.
How then is it conceivable, that in Heb. ii. 3, he should have
represented himself as a disciple of the apostle's; and this in an
Epistle to Jewish Christians, before whom it was specially im
portant for him to appear as a real apostle of our Lord? This
circumstance, moreover, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was
written to Jewish Christians, deprives of all probability that in
terpretation of the passage according to which Paul speaks
merely out of courtesy, as though he himself was a disciple of
the apostles, which in reality was the case only with his readers.
For then Paul would have expressed himself in a manner very
liable to be misapprehended; and that this should have happened
when his relation to the Jewish Christians was so peculiar, is
extremely improbable. Luther, with his free, bold disposition,
which did indeed sometimes carry him beyond the limits of
truth in his critical investigations, did not content himself with
merely disputing the Pauline origin of the Epistle; he even
ventured to institute conjectures respecting its author. He re
garded the celebrated Apollos as its author; the same of whom
mention is made in the Acts. In truth, this supposition pos
sesses extreme probability, and has therefore, of all the hypo
theses respecting the author of the Epistle, recommended itself
most even to recent investigators. The book of Acts describes
this man as having precisely that character of mind which the
author of this Epistle must have had, to judge from its contents.
He is stated (Acts xviii. 24) to have been by birth an Alex
andrian, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures. Now,
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews shows himself to
have been thoroughly acquainted with the Old Testament, and
eloquently maintains the deep and sublime ideas which it pre
sents. According to the same passage, he constantly over
came the Jews in conversation with them, and proved publicly,
by means of the Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ. Un
doubtedly, in these disputes he made use of just such forcible
expositions of the Old Testament, as those of which we find so
many in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and which were very com
monly employed by the Alexandrians in particular. The idea
that Titus, or Luke, or Clement, might have been the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews is untenable, for this reason, if there
were no other, that these men were Gentiles by birth, and the

lxxii EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
author declares himself a native Jew. There would be more
reason for fixing upon Silas or Silvanus, who were, as we know,
Paul's companions, or, likewise, upon Barnabas. For the last
we have even one historical evidence, as we have already re
marked. A Father of the church, Tertullian, expressly ascribes
the Epistle to Barnabas. But, as we have an Epistle written by
this assistant of the apostles, we are able to see from it with
perfect certainty that he cannot be author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. His whole manner of writing and thinking is different
from the course of ideas in this production. It is true there is
nothing so decisive against Silas; but, too, there is nothing
definite in his favour. His peculiar character of mind is no
where described, as the character of Apollos is in the Acts of
the Apostles.
The idea, therefore, that Silas was the author of the Epistle,
is a wholly unsupported conjecture. It is true, too, it is merely
a conjecture, that Apollos wrote it; but it is a conjecture more
probable than could be required or wished in respect to opinions
of any other nature than those in question.
But, though we could assign the name of the author, it would
be of little consequence in our investigation. It is sufficient that
we cannot suppose Paul to have been the author.
Here, however, arises the very difficult question, what we are
to think of the canonical authority of the Epistle, if its author
was not an apostle? for the primitive church would not receive
the writings of any but these into the collection of sacred books;
and those who rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, e. g. the
Roman church, did it for the very reason, that they could not ad
mit Paul to have been its author. Must we then reject the Epistle
to the Hebrews, or at least esteem it less highly than the other
writings of the New Testament, because it was not written by Paul?
This inquiry merits the more careful consideration, because
the contents of the Epistle are of a very profound and important
nature to the church generally, and the evangelical church in
particular. For the sacred doctrine of the high-priesthood of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, is, in this very Epistle to
the Hebrews, treated of more at length, and more thoroughly,
than in any other book of the New Testament. Hence, the cir
cumstance that the Epistle is not from the pen of the apostle
Paul might give rise to inferences against the validity of the
doctrine which this Epistle in particular inculcates.

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. lxxiii
It must certainly be admitted that the ruling idea in the for
mation of the canon was to admit only apostolic productions.
For although Mark and Luke, whose writings were acknowledged
by the whole church, were not apostles, they were in intimate
connection with Peter and Paul, and their works were therefore
regarded as properly the productions of those apostles. And
this principle was perfectly correct. Though it must be allowed
that the Holy Spirit might exert its power on others besides
the apostles, and might enable them to compose excellent pro
ductions, still it was wise in the ancient church to restrict the
canon of the Holy Scriptures, which was to serve as the norm or
rule of faith and practice, for the complete development of the
kingdom of God, exclusively to apostolic writings. For the
Apostles, as most immediately connected with our Saviour, had
received into their souls in the greatest abundance and purity
the Spirit of truth which flowed forth from him. The more dis
tant the relation which individuals sustained to our Lord, the
feebler the influence of the Spirit from above upon them, and
the more easily might their acts be affected by other influences.
It was therefore necessary that the church should admit as the
norm of faith, only such writings as sprang from the most lively
and purest operation of the Holy Spirit, as it was manifested in
the apostles. Otherwise there would have been ground for fear
lest errors, perhaps indeed of a slight character, might have crept
in, and then been continued from generation to generation in the
Holy Scriptures, and propagated as of sacred authority. It was
such thoughts undoubtedly which induced some learned men to
distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews and certain other books of
the New Testament, which were, not adopted with perfect una
nimity by the primitive church, from those which were properly
canonical and universally acknowledged, denominating the form
er deutero-canonical. They probably regarded it as possible that
some error had crept into these books, notwithstanding the ex
cellence of their contents generally ; and in order to obviate the
influence of such errors they were desirous of introducing an ex
ternal separation of these writings from those which were decid
edly apostolical. But, with regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews,
we must say, that this separation appears totally unfounded.
Probable as it certainly is, that Paul did not compose the Epistle,
it is still certain that its author wrote it under the influence of
Paul, and an influence indeed which exhibits itself still more

lxxiv EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
definitely than that of the same apostle over the writings of Luke,
or of Peter over the Gospel of Mark. This position is sustained
by history, as well as by the contents of the Epistle, in the
most decisive manner.
On the score of history, in the first place, we cannot, except
on the supposition that Paul had an essential share in the com
position of the Epistle to the Hebrews, explain the remarkable
circumstance that the entire oriental church attributed it to the
apostle. This view continued to prevail in the East, even after
it was very well known that the western churches, particularly
that of Rome, held a different opinion. The tradition, that
Paul .was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, cannot
have rested on mere conjecture, since there was in fact much
in the Epistle itself which constrained learned men, who
in the main shared the prevalent opinion respecting the
author of the Epistle, to resort to expedients for the purpose of
upholding the general idea that Paul wrote the Epistle, and at
the same time of solving the difficulties which this supposition
involved.' Such an expedient, for example, was the idea, of
which we have before spoken, that Paul might have written the
Epistle in Hebrew, so that we have only a translation of it. Let
it be considered, too, that this opinion of the Pauline origin of
the Epistle prevailed in the very countries to which its original
readers belonged; and then no one will doubt that the only mode
of explaining it is, to suppose Paul to have cooperated in the
composition of the Epistle, and the first readers of it to have
been aware of the fact, and on this account to have referred the
Epistle to Paul himself.
To this is to be added, the character of the Epistle itself. For,
although the ancient observation, that the style of the Epistle is
not Pauline, is perfectly well-founded, still the tenor of the ideas
bears a resemblance, which is not to be mistaken, to the writings
of the great apostle of the Gentiles. If we merely keep in mind,
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Chris
tians, while the other Pauline Epistles were all of them1 written
to churches the majority of whose members were Gentiles,
we shall not discover the least thing in the Epistle which could
1 Though the expression is thus general in the original, of course only
those Epistles which are directed to churches can be here referred to.
The phraseology is exceptionable, as some of Paul's letters are not direct
ed to churches at all, but to individuals.— Tb.

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. lxxV
not have proceeded from the mind of Paul. Indeed, the main
doctrine of the great apostle, that in the death of Jesus an offer
ing of reconciliation was made for the whole world, that with
and through it all the ceremonial observances of the Old Testa
ment first obtained their fulfilment as types of what was to come,
forms the central point of the Epistle to the Hebrews. If it be
further considered, that there was always a certain distance of
demeanor between the Apostle Paul and the Jewish Christians,
even the best of them, it will be very easy to understand why
Paul did not write to them himself; and still, it must have been
his heart's desire to exhibit clearly and in suitable detail his
views in regard to the law and its relation to Christianity, which
were of a profound nature, and drawn directly from the genuine
spirit of the Gospel. What more obvious mode of presenting
these to the Hebrews, than through the medium of a disciple or
faithful friend, who, like Apollos, had a correct apprehension of
this relation between the old and new covenant.
Supposing this to have been the state of the case, all the cir
cumstances in regard to the Epistle are explained. In the West
it was known that Paul did not write the Epistle. On this ac
count the western church denied that he was the author, without
being able, however, to designate any other individual as the
author. In the East, on the other hand, it was known that he
had an influence in the composition of the Epistle; and more
over his spirit and his ideas were recognized in it. In the East,
therefore, it was much used; in the West less. In our days we
may impartially admit that Paul was not the writer of the
Epistle, and still maintain its perfect canonical authority, since
the apostle certainly exerted an essential influence over its com
position. Thus, though this Epistle belongs to the class of those which
have not the unanimous voice of christian antiquity in favour of
their apostolic origin, still it can be shown that this want of
agreement did not arise from any really suspicious state of
things, but was occasioned merely by the peculiar circumstances
under which it was composed.

l.XXvi CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
CHAPTER VII.
OF THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
It has already been observed, in the first chapter, that in
early times the third collection of the writings of the New Tes
tament was termed that of the seven Catholic Epistles. The
Greek word Catholic means general, in opposition to particular.
Now, as the church general, in opposition to individual heretical
parties, was termed Catholic, so the same expression was used
to denote those writings which, as universally acknowledged
and used, it was designed to distinguish from those which were
current only in particular circles.
The fact that those writings, which, in addition to the collec
tions called the Gospel and the Apostle, were acknowledged to
be genuine and apostolical, were thus united into one separate
collection, produced this advantage, that it became thus more
difficult ever to confound them with the many apocryphal writ
ings which were spread abroad in the ancient church. In regard
to the origin of this third collection, however, there is an ob
scurity which can never be entirely dissipated. At the end
of the third and commencement of the fourth century, the col
lection of the seven Catholic Epistles first appears in history;
but who formed it, and where it originated, we do not know.
It is impossible, however, that it should have been accidentally
formed, as the position of the Epistles is too peculiar for us to
suppose this. The Epistle of James, which was by no means
unanimously regarded as apostolic, holds the first place in the
collection, while the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John,
which have always been regarded as of apostolic authority, come
afterward. This very order of the seven Epistles, however, sug
gests to us, by the way, a probable supposition as to the place
where the collection of these Catholic Epistles must have origi'
nated. James, the author of the Epistle of James in the canon,
nowhere possessed a higher reputation than in Palestine and
Syria; for he was a brother, i.e. according to the Hebrew mode
of speaking, a cousin of our Lord, and at the same time bishop
of the church at Jerusalem, and head of the Jewish Christians,
as we shall presently show more at length. In the same coun
tries, Peter was held in high estimation, as the one among our

CATHOLIC EPISTLES. lxxvii
Lord's apostles to whom, in particular, was committed the
preaching of the Gospel among the Jews. It is probable,
therefore, that the collection of the Catholic Epistles originated
in Palestine or Syria, and, out of veneration for the brother of
our Lord, and the first bishop of Jerusalem, the author of the
collection gave to the Epistle of James the first place, and put
those of Peter next. The Epistles of John had less interest for
him, on account of his Judaising sentiments, and the Epistle of
Jude he placed at the very end. The supposition we have made
finds confirmation in. the fact, that a father of the Palestinian
church, Eusebius, bishop of Csesarea, gives us the first certain
account of the existence of- a collection of the seven Catholic
Epistles. From the various character of the writings classed together in
the collection, we may see clearly its late origin; for it has
already been mentioned above (chap, i.), that the first Epistles
of John and that of Peter were originally, as being very ancient
and universally-admitted writings, connected with the apostle,
so called, i.e. the collection of the Pauline Epistles. At a later
period, in order to leave these latter by themselves, the two
Epistles were taken from the collection of Pauline writings and
classed with the five other apostolic Epistles. These last, how
ever, belonged to the number of those which were universally
admitted in primitive times, and thus Antilegomena and Homo-
logoumena were introduced into one and the same collection.
Still there arose from this procedure one advantage, viz. that
the Epistles of the same author were, as was proper, brought
together. Luther, with his excellent tact, correctly felt that
the collection of the Catholic Epistles unsuitably confounded
writings which were universally admitted with those which were
not, and therefore placed the Epistles of Peter and John imme
diately after those of Paul, and then at the end, after the Epistle
to the Hebrews, the letters of James and Jude, and the Revela
tion of John. Still, this did not wholly do away with the impro
priety, as the second Epistle of Peter also had been disputed
with special zeal. Had he, however, placed this Epistle like
wise at the end of the New Testament, along with the other
Antilegomena, he must have disturbed too much the old accus
tomed arrangement. He left it, therefore, and also the two
smaller Epistles of John, in connection with the first and main
Epistle of the two apostles. It is to be considered, too, that the

lxxviii CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
bearing of the arrangement of the New Testament books upon
our critical inquiries is of but secondary consideration ; the main
point is their internal character, and in reference to this no fault
can be found with the original arrangement.
In regard, therefore, to the Catholic Epistles generally, little
further can be said. Of the Epistles individually, we will con
sider first the three Epistles of John. As to the first, and main
Epistle, it, like the Gospel of John, was always regarded by the
ancient church as the production of the Evangelist of that
name. In modern times, it is true, doubts have been started in
relation to the Gospel. But the principal writer by whom they
have been suggested has himself since retracted them. Indeed,
it was nothing but the very striking similarity in style and
ideas between the Gospel and the first Epistle of John, which
made it necessary, almost, whether one would or no, to extend
the opposition against the Gospel to the Epistle likewise; for
one cannot but suppose them both to have had the same author,
from their resemblance in every peculiar characteristic. If,
therefore, the Epistle were admitted to have been written by
the Evangelist John, the Gospel also could not but be attributed
to him. But though there may have been a somewhat plausible
reason for disputing the Gospel, in the idea that the Saviour is-
represented by John very differently from the exhibition of him
in the other Gospels, in regard to the Epistle, there is no reason
which possesses the slightest plausibility for disputing it. On
the supposition that it is spurious, the error of the whole
ancient church in referring it, without contradiction, to the
Evangelist John, would be completely inexplicable, especially if
we carefully compare the history of the Epistle with that of the
Evangelist. John, as we have before remarked, lived the longest
of all the apostles, viz. till some time in the reign of Domitian,
and he resided at Ephesus, in Asia Minor. From no country
within the limits of the church, therefore, could we expeet to
receive more accurate accounts in regard to the writings of the
beloved disciple of our Lord, than from those of Asia Minor.
Now, it is from these very countries that we receive the inost
ancient testimonies in behalf of the existence and genuineness
of the Epistle. Instead of mentioning all, I will name but two
of these testimonies, which, however, are so decisive, that we
can perfectly well dispense with all the rest. The first is pre
sented by Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, whom we

CATHOLIC EPISTLES. lxxix
have already mentioned. This man lived, as has been before
said, at the end of the first century and beginning of the second,
in the immediate vicinity of Ephesus, where the Evangelist
John laboured so long and so successfully. He knew not only
the Evangelist John, but other immediate disciples of our Lord,
who were probably of the number of the seventy, particularly
a certain Aristion, and another John, surnamed the Presbyter.
Now, is to be supposed that such a man, who had at his com
mand so many means of arriving at certainty respecting John's
writings, could possibly be deceived in regard to them? We
must, indeed, renounce all historical testimony, if we deny this
witness the capacity to speak in behalf of the genuineness of
this Epistle of John.
The second testimony, however, is of equal importance. One
of the apostolic fathers, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, in Asia
Minor, makes use of the first Epistle of John, in the same way
as Papias, as though it was admitted to be a genuine production
of the Evangelist. Now Polycarp lived till after the middle
of the second century, and at the age of eighty-six died a mar
tyr's death in the flames. He had not merely become acquainted
with John in the neighbouring city of Ephesus, but had even
heard him preach the way of salvation, and was his faithful dis
ciple. The testimony of such a man, therefore, is likewise
above all cavil, and is especially confirmed by the fact, that
there never has been, in later times, any general opinion against
its genuineness, either in the catholic church, or among the ad
herents to any particular sect. Against this weight of historical
evidence, therefore, nothing can be effected by the mere con
jectures of modern times; and at present all theologians are
perfectly agreed in the acknowledgment of this precious relic of
the beloved disciple of Jesus, his first Epistle.
If, in regard to the second and third Epistles of John, such
perfect agreement of the ancient church in recognizing their
genuineness cannot be asserted, the reason of this lies entirely
in a circumstance, which also occasioned the tardy insertion of
the pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus in the collection of
Pauline Epistles, viz. that they are directed to private persons,
and moreover are of no very great extent or very important
contents, and thus awakened less interest in their diffusion.
The second Epistle of John is addressed to a Christian lady
and her family; the third to a Christian friend named Gaius.

1XXX CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Of the private circumstances of these two persons we know no
thing but what is indicated in the letters. Now, although cer
tainly these two smaller Epistles afford no important infor
mation respecting the Gospel, or the history of the ancient
church, still, as estimable legacies of the disciple who lay in
Jesus's bosom, they deserve a place in the canon as much as
Paul's Epistle to Philemon. The oldest fathers of the church
express no doubt in regard to the two Epistles. Only at a later
period do we find certain individuals entertaining doubts whe
ther these two Epistles were written by John the Evangelist. No
one regarded them as forged in the name of the Evangelist, for
we can by no means perceive for what purpose these Epistles
could, in such a case, have been written. They aim at no par
ticular object, but are merely expressive of the tenderest Chris
tian love. Many, however, believed that another John, viz.
John the Presbyter, before mentioned, with whom Papias was
acquainted, was the author of the Epistles. This view appeared
confirmed by the fact that, in the salutations of both Epistles,
John expressly terms himself Presbyter; and as, moreover, the
other John likewise lived in Ephesus, it is possible they might
have been confounded. But in modern times these doubts in
regard to the apostolic character of the two small Epistles have
been disregarded, because the style and the sentiments of both
Epistles are so entirely similar to the style and course of thought
in the Gospels and the first Epistle, that the idea of a different
author is totally untenable. Moreover, we are able to show how
John the apostle and Evangelist might also call himself Presby
ter. This expression is nearly equivalent to the Latin Senior,
or the German jElteste.1 In the Jewish synagogues, and also
among the primitive Christians, it was applied to the principal
persons in the church (comp. Acts xx. 1 7), and was at first used
in this sense as exactly synonymous with Episcopos, i.e. bishop.
In Asia Minor, as we know from the writings of Papias, there
prevailed a peculiar custom of speaking, by which the apostles
were called, as it were by way of distinction, elders. Whether
the intention was thereby to denote the great age of the apostles,
or whether all the churches were regarded as forming one gene
ral church, and the apostles as their presbyters, is doubtful. It
is sufficient that the apostles were thus termed,2 by way of emi-
1 Or the English elder, as it is translated in our version. — Tr.
2 Peter calls himself in his first Epistle, a. fellow-elder (1 Pet. v. 1).

CATHOLIC EPISTLES. lxxxi
nence, for in this fact is exhibited a sufficient explanation of
the inscriptions to the second and third Epistles of John. Thus
the case is the same with these two Epistles as with that to the
Hebrews. The primitive church adopted them, but not without
opposition, and therefore we must reckon them among the An-
tilegomena; but still the reasons which were addressed against
their apostolic origin may be so thoroughly refuted that not a
shadow of uncertainty can reasonably remain in regard to them.
The fourth of the seven Catholic Epistles is the first Epistle
of the Apostle Peter. As we have now come to the considera
tion of the Petrine writings in the canon, the question forces
itself upon us, how it is to be explained that we have so few pro
ductions of Peter, and so many of Paul, who was called latest
to be an apostle. When we consider what our Lord said to
Peter: " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my
church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," (Matth.
xvi. 18), and afterwards: "Feed my lambs," (John xxi. 15 seq.),
it must seem strange that the powers of this rock of the church
should have been exerted so little in writings for posterity. It
is true the Gospel of Mark is properly Peter's Gospel, as we
have seen; but even this falls into the back-ground by the side
of Luke (the Pauline Gospel), and the other Gospels, so that
Peter, according to the representation of himself in his writings,
constantly appears insignificant compared with Paul.
This fact finds a satisfactory explanation only in the relation
of the two apostles, Peter and Paul, to the propagation of the
Gospel in general. In reference to this, they had different des
tinations. Peter, with the twelve, was called particularly to
the dissemination of the Gospel among the Jews. Had the
Jewish nation acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah, Peter
would then have exhibited himself in all his dignity and conse
quence. But that unhappy nation hardened itself against all
the operations of the Spirit, and the Gospel was carried to the
Gentiles, because Israel rejected the grace to which it was called.
Paul was set apart for the express purpose of preaching to the
Gentiles, (Acts xxvi. 17,) and, as. Christianity first displayed it
self in a flourishing condition among them, all the other apostles,
with the exception of John alone, fell into the back-ground in
comparison with Paul, both in oral discourse, as appears from
the Acts, and in these written efforts, as i3 shown by the New
Testament canon. It is, consequently, "not at all strange that
9

lxxxii CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Peter should be represented by two Epistles of so small a size,
and that the second of these is, moreover, the most disputed book
in the whole New Testament canon. His being thrown into the
shade by Paul is rather in accordance with the facts respecting
the extension of the church of Christ on earth in the times of
the apostles.
As to the first Epistle of Peter, we have before seen that it
belongs among the Homologoumena, along with the first Epistle
of John. In all Christian antiquity there was no one who
doubted the genuineness of the Epistle, or had heard of doubts
respecting it. And yet the Epistle (1 Pet. i. 1,) is addressed to
Christian churches in Asia Minor, where Christianity early gained
great success, and where a lively intercourse was maintained
between the individual churches. Here, of necessity, must have
arisen soon an opposition to this Epistle, if it had not been known
that Peter had sent a circular letter to the churches. Now, the
oldest fathers of the church in Asia Minor, Papias and Polycarp,
both make use of the Epistle of Peter, as well as that of John,
as a genuine apostolic production. This Epistle of Peter does
not seem to have made its way to Italy till a late period. At
least it is wanting in the very ancient catalogue cited by Mura-
tori, which probably exhibits the canon of the early Roman
church. We can infer nothing, however, from this absence
against the genuineness of the first Epistle of Peter, since there
is not the slightest trace of its having been disputed in the first
three centuries. Yet, in modern times, this decided declaration
of Christian antiquity has been thought insufficient. An objec
tion has been founded on the circumstance that Peter writes
from Babylon, (1 Pet. v. 13,) while history does not relate that
he ever was in Babylon; as also upon the fact that he directs
the attention of his readers to sufferings and persecutions which
they should endure, (1 Pet. i. 6; iii. 16; iv. 12 seq.; v. 10,) re
ferring, as is supposed, to Nero's persecutions, while he himself,
it is said, died at Rome during this persecution, and therefore
could not have addressed an Epistle from Babylon to those who
suffered under it. Both these remarks, however, are easily ob
viated. As to the first, respecting the city of Babylon, we know
too little of the history of Peter to be able to determine in what
places he may have been, and in what not; particularly as there
were several cities of this name in the ancient world, and it is
not specified which is meant in the Epistle. It is to be ob-

CATHOLIC EPISTLES. Ixxxiii
served, too, that many of the fathers of the church understood
the name Babylon to mean mystically the city of Rome, which
showed itself the enemy of our Lord in the persecution of the
faithful. (Comp. Rev. xviii. 2.) If this exposition be adopted,
the second remark also is at once obviated ; for, in that case,
the Epistle was written by Peter in Rome itself during the per
secution, and he gave the believers in Asia Minor christian ex
hortations in reference to such a grievous period among them.
Yet, as this explanation cannot be proved to be correct, we set
it aside, and merely observe, that in whatever Babylon Peter
may have written his Epistle, his residence there can be easily
reconciled with the exhortations which the Epistle contains.
For, though these may be referred to the persecution of Nero,
they may be understood with equal propriety as referring to any
other persecution, since all individual characteristics, which could
suit only this first cruel persecution of the church, are entirely
wanting. Such general sufferings as these which Peter men
tions must be supposed to have been endured by the church
everywhere and at all times, as it is always comprehended in
the very idea of a believer that he should excite opposition in
those who are of a worldly inclination, and thus cause a combat.
A more important objection than these two remarks is, that the
style and ideas of the first Epistle of Peter exhibit a strong
resemblance to the style and ideas of Paul. This cannot be
denied, for it is too evident not to be observed ; but it does not
serve its intended purpose, viz. to deprive Peter of the author
ship of the Epistle. Notwithstanding all its similarity to Paul's
manner, it still maintains enough of independence and peculi
arity to stamp it as the production of a man who thought for
himself. As moreover, when Peter wrote this Epistle, he was
connected (1 Pet. v. 12,) with the old friend and companion of
Paul, Sylvanus, (or, as abbreviated, Silas,) nothing is more easy
than to suppose that Peter dictated to the latter, and in all pro
bability in the Hebrew language, which alone seems to have
been perfectly familiar to him- In translating into Greek, Syl
vanus, who, from long intimacy with Paul, had become very
much habituated to his diction, may have adopted many of its
characteristics, and thus have been the occasion of the1 somewhat
Pauline colouring which the Epistle possesses.

lxxxiv SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
In regard to the second Epistle of Peter, its case is very dif
ferent from that of the first. The former has always been so
violently attacked, and suspected on such plausible grounds
of not having been written by the apostle Peter, that criticism
is encompassed with as much difficulty in relation to it as in re
lation to any other book of the New Testament. And, more
over, such is the state of the matter, that the critical investiga
tion of this Epistle is of particular importance. For, as we re
marked in Chapter I., while, in regard to many writings of the
New Testament, e. g. the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second and
third Epistles of John,) the question is, not so much whether
they are genuine or spurious, as who was their author, in regard
to the second Epistle of Peter, the question is, in truth, whether
the apostle Peter composed it, or some other Peter, or somebody
of another name, who meant no harm, but still purposely endea
voured to deceive his readers into the belief that it was written
by Simon Peter, the apostle of our Lord. In the first place,
the author of the Epistle not only expressly appropriates Peter's
name and title, " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus
Christ," (2 Pet. i. 1,) but he also states particulars respecting his
own life, which can have been true only of Peter. He says, for
instance, " For we have not followed cunningly-devised fables,
when we made known unto you the power and coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For
he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there
came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice, which
came from heaven, we heard, when we were with him in the holy
mount," (2 Pet. i. 16 — 18. These words, it is clear, refer to the
transfiguration on the mount, (Matt. xvii. 1, seq.) But, besides
James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, no one was a specta
tor of this transfiguration except the Apostle Peter. If, there
fore, the Apostle Peter was not the author of this letter, the man
who not only presumed to take upon himself the name of an
apostle, but designedly endeavoured to make his readers think

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. lxXXV
that he was the apostle Peter, must have been a downright
shameless- impostor; and his production should by no means
retain its place in the canon, but it is necessary that it should
be at once thrust out of it.
It is for this very reason, viz. because the necessity of which
we have spoken has been sensibly felt, that the friends of the
work have so zealously prosecuted the investigation respecting
it ; though certainly not always with due impartiality and cool
ness. It has been forgotten that in truth very important objec
tions may be urged against the Petrine origin of this second
Epistle, and it has been attempted to establish its genuineness
as firmly and incontrovertibly as it is possible to establish that
of other writings. The best weapon, however, which can be used
in defence of God's word, is always truth ; and this compels us
to admit that it is impossible to attain so firm and certain proof
of the genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, as of that of
other books of the New Testament. But certainly the opponents
' of the Epistle err greatly when they assert that the spuriousness
of the Epistle can be fully established.. Such an assertion can
not but be denied with all earnestness, even though, as is often
the case, it be connected with the opinion, that the Epistle may
notwithstanding retain its place in the canon as hitherto, and be
cited by preachers of the Gospel in their pulpit instructions.
Such lax notions must be resisted with the utmost moral stern
ness. For, would it not be participating in the fraud of the
author of the Epistle, were we to treat it as the genuine pro
duction of the Apostle Peter, while we consider it as spurious !
If it be really spurious, and can be proved to have gained its
place in the canon only through mistake, then let it be removed
from the collection of the sacred writings, which from its nature
excludes every fraudulent production. Christian truth would
not at all suffer by the removal of a single work of so slight extent.
We are convinced, however, that no such step is necessary.
The most prominent error in the critical investigation of this
Epistle has been, that writers have always striven to prove beyond
objection either the genuineness or the spuriousness of the pro
duction. It has been forgotten that between these two positions
there was a medium, viz., an impossibility of satisfactorily proving
either. It cannot seem at all strange that this impossibility should
exist in investigations respecting writings of the New Testament, if
it be considered for a moment how difficult it often is to determine

lxXXvi SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
respecting the genuineness of a production even shortly after, or
at the very time of, its composition, if from any circumstance the
decisive points in the investigation have remained concealed. As
in regard to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is en
tirely impossible to come to any decided result, so it seems to
me probable, that the deficiency of historical evidence makes it
impossible to come to a fixed conclusion in regard to the second
Epistle of Peter. It is certain there are several circumstances
which give rise to reasonable doubts respecting the apostolic
origin of the Epistle ; still, so myLch may be adduced, not only
in refutation of them, but in the way of positive argument for
the Epistle, that these doubts are neutralized. Only, the favourable -
points do not amount to a complete, objectively valid proof, and
therefore a critical investigation of the Epistle does not result
exclusively to its advantage. Now this is certainly a Very un
pleasant result, and one satisfactory to neither party, for men com
monly wish every thing to be decided in an absolute manner, and
therefore would have the Epistle declared positively either genuine
or spurious. But the main object should be thetruth, and not an
agreeable result ; and faithful, impartial examination leads us to
the conclusion that in fact no perfect proof is to be obtained in
regard to the second Epistle of Peter. This conclusion affords
us the advantage, that we may with a good conscience leave the
Epistle in its place among the canonical books, since it cannot
rightfully be deprived of it until its spuriousness is decisively
proved. Now, whether it shall or shall not be used in doctrinal
argument, must be left to the judgment of each individual ; but
at any rate no one can prohibit its use so long as its spuriousness
remains unproved.
It is time, however, to consider more closely all that can be
urged against the genuineness of the Epistle, and to present
therewith the counter considerations which either invalidate the
former or argue the apostolic composition of the Epistle. Now
the most important circumstance which presents itself against
the genuineness of the book is, that it was to such a degree un_
known in christian antiquity. Not one of the fathers of the
first two centuries mentions the second Epistle of Peter ; they
all speak of but one Epistle from the hand of this apostle. Nor
are there any passages in their writings which must of necessity
be citations from it. Those passages which seem like parts of it
may be explained either on the score of accidental coincidence

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. lxxxvii
or of mutual reference to the Old Testament. It was not till
after Origen's time, in the third century, that the Epistle came
into use, and even then doubts were always current in regard to
its apostolic origin, and the learned father Jerome expressly
remarks that most denied it such an origin. It is true, this
statement cannot refer to all members of the church, but only
to such as were capable of critical investigations ; for the same
father of the church says further, that the reason why most
denied it to be Peter's was, the difference in style which was ob
servable on comparison with the first ; and clearly, uneducated
persons were incapable of judging as to such difference in style.
But still, it is extremely remarkable that even in the time of
Jerome, i.e. in the fifth century, there should be found in the
church so many opponents of the Epistle,
It is, however, to be considered, in estimating the importance"
of this fact in relation to the genuineness of the Epistle, that no
definite historical arguments are adduced against the Epistle
from any quarter. Recourse is had, not to the testimony of in
dividuals, nor to the declaration of entire churches, which denied
the Epistle to be Peter's, but merely to internal reasons, deduced
by the aid of criticism. This is the more strange, as it would
appear that this second Epistle of Peter was addressed to the
very same readers for whom the first was designed (Comp. 2
Pet. iii. 1), i.e. to the Christians in several churches of Asia
Minor. From these, one would think, there must have proceeded
a testimony which could not be misunderstood against the
Epistle, if Peter had not written to them a second time. Nor do
the fathers say, that the Epistle contains heresies or any thing
else totally unworthy of the apostle ; indeed they do not make
the slightest objection of this kind to the character of its con
tents. If, on the other hand, we look at their objections to other
evidently fictitious writings, we find them asserting that they had
an impious, detestable character, or that historical evidence was
against their pretended apostolic origin. From the manner in
which history represents the testimony of the fathers of the
church, we may suppose that their opinion respecting the ge
nuineness of the Epistle was founded in a great measure upon
the fact that its diffusion was very much delayed- Since so many
writings had been forged in Peter's name, the fathers of the
church probably at once regarded an Epistle which came so late
into circulation with some considerable suspicion, and then

lxXXVlii SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
made use of tne difference in language, or something of the
kind, to confirm this suspicion. We must therefore say,
that no decisive argument against the genuineness of the
Epistle is to be drawn from historical considerations. Although
it was but little known in the ancient church, this want of
acquaintance with it may have been founded on reasons not
at all connected with its spuriousness or genuineness. How many
Epistles of Peter and other apostles may never have been much
known ? And still the circumstance that they have not been
diffused abroad does not disprove their apostolic origin.
Thus, as the fathers of the church themselves had recourse to
the internal character of the Epistle, it remains for us likewise
to examine this, and as particular historical traditions respecting
the Epistle were as inaccessible to these fathers as to us, and
the art of criticism has not been carried to a high point of culti
vation till recently, we may lay claim to greater probability, as
to the result of our investigation, than they could.
Among the striking circumstances to which we are led by a
careful investigation concerning the second Epistle of Peter, the-
first which presents itself, is the very ancient observation, that
the style of this Epistle is quite different from that of the first.
According to the most recent examinations, the case is really
so. The style of the second Epistle is so different from that
of the first, as to make it hardly conceivable that the same
author should have written thus variously; particularly as the
two Epistles must have been Written at no great distance of time
from each other, it being necessary to refer them both to the
latter part of the apostle's life. But we have seen above, that
Peter probably employed another person to write for him when
he composed his first Epistle; now, how natural to suppose, as
Jerome has already suggested, that in writing the second Epistle
Peter only made use of a different assistant from the one em
ployed in writing the first, which supposition satisfactorily ex
plains the difference in style. If it be insisted, however, that
this supposition is a very violent one, we may then admit that
the Epistles are in reality not apostolic, but are from Sylvanus,
or some other writer. It is certainly true, that by this hypo
thesis we surrender the common opinion, that Peter either
guided the pen himself, or at least dictated to the amanuensis
word for word what he should write. But is it at all essential
to admit that the writings of the apostles originated precisely in

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. • lxxxix
this way? Is a prince's letter of less value, because his secretary
wrote it, and the prince himself only signed it ? Do we esteem
the writings of Mark and Luke any less because they were not
apostles? These last writings show best how the case is to be
considered. Say that these two Epistles were written by
Sylvanus or Mark; is their importance to us in the least di
minished, when Peter has given them the confirmation of
his apostolic authority, as presenting his ideas, his mode of
thinking ?
This hypothesis of Peter's having employed a writer in the
composition of the second Epistle, explains, moreover, another
remark which it has been usual to urge against its apostolic
origin. If the Epistle of Jude be compared with the second
chapter of this Epistle, there will appear a very striking simi
larity between them. This, as in the case of the Gospels, is so
great that it is impossible it should have arisen accidentally.
An impartial comparison of the two makes it extremely probable
that Jude is the original, and was employed in the Epistle of
Peter. Now this hardly seems suitable for the Apostle Peter,
considering him as the author of the Epistle. He, the pillar of
the church, should have been the original writer, though it
would not have been strange that Jude, who held a far lower
rank, should make use of his production. On the supposition,
however, that Peter employed an individual to write for him,
the latter might have made use of Jude's Epistle, and what
would be totally unsuitable for an apostle, would not be at all
strange in his assistant. If it be said that, as Peter must have
known the use which was made of Jude, the circumstance still
remains very strange, we may suppose that both, Peter (with
his assistant) and Jude, conferred together in regard to combat
ing the heretics, and agreed together in certain fundamental
thoughts, and that thus coincidence in details was occasioned
by their common written ground-work. Still, it may not be
concealed, that, after all attempts to explain these appearances,
there nevertheless remains in the mind something like sus
picion; and for this reason, although there are certainly not
sufficient grounds for rejecting the Epistle, we cannot regard
its genuineness as susceptible of proof.
There are other points of less moment, which are usually
brought forward by the opponents of the Epistle. Among these
is the passage 2 Peter iii. 2, in which the writer, it is said, is

XC SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
distinguished from the apostles, just as in Heb. ii. -2. But, in the
first place, the reading in the former passage is not perfectly cer
tain, since several ancient versions give it the same sense as Luther,
who translates: "that ye may be mindful of the words which
were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the command
ment of us, the apostles of our Lord and Saviour."1 But, even
though we admit that to be the correct reading, is one by which
the author is distinguished from the apostles, we may explain the
passage by supposing that the writer who was employed, instead
of speaking in the name of the Apostle, spoke in his own person.
This was certainly an oversight, but not a very great one; like
that, e. g., which occasioned the Evangelists to differ from each
other in respect to the number of the blind men whom our Lord
healed, and other points of the kind. The admission of such
trifling oversight belongs properly to God's plan in regard to the
Scriptures, since literal coincidence would, on the one hand, give
rise to strong suspicion in regard to the veracity of the writers
(as it would suggest the inference that there had been previous
concert between them), and, on the other hand, there would be
danger of confounding the letter with the spirit, to the disad
vantage of the latter.
Of as little consequence is the reference made to 2 Pet. iii.
15, 16, where Peter says of his beloved brother Paul, whose
wisdom he extols: "as also in all his Epistles, speaking in them
of these things; in which are some things hard to be under
stood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as
they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."
These words, it is said, clearly suppose a collection of Pauhne
Epistles to have been current in the church; but one cannot
have been made earlier than the commencement of the second
century, and consequently the Epistle must be regarded as a
work of later origin. But this assumption, that the collection of
the Pauline Epistles was first made at so late a period, is by no
means susceptible of proof. Indeed, in the fourth Chapter we
attempted to prove it not improbable that even Paul himself made
a collection of his Epistles. At all events, no historical fact can
be adduced against this hypothesis, and we must therefore con-
1 So, too, in the English version. The question alluded to in the text
is, whether we should translate, of us the apostles, or, of the apostles
sent to us (or to you, according to another reading)? See the original
Greek.— Tr.

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. XC1
Sider thus much as certain, that the mention of a collection of
Pauline Epistles ought not to induce us to conclude against the
apostolic origin of the Epistle whose history we are investigat
ing. Thus is confirmed the position which we laid down above, that
not one of the reasons usually adduced against the genuineness
of the second Epistle of Peter is a decisive one. Notwithstand
ing, as has been already mentioned, impartiality enjoins it upon
us to allow that, after considering these reasons, there remains a
feeling in the mind which does not permit us to place this Epis
tle in the rank of those universally admitted. We find ourselves
constrained to resort first to one expedient, then to another, in
order to invalidate the arguments which make against the ge
nuineness of the Epistle. Let us, however, cast a glance at the
other side, and consider the arguments which may be adduced
in favour of the authenticity of the Epistle. The impression
made by the genuine apostolic manner, in the first and third
chapters in particular, is so heart-stirring, the severe moral tone
which prevails throughout them is so forcible, that very estima
ble scholars have found themselves induced to regard these
two chapters, or at least the first, as truly Petrine, and the second
or the last two as, perhaps, merely subsequent additions to the
genuine Epistle. This hypothesis has indeed, at first view, this
recommendation, that we can give proper weight to the reasons
for doubt, without being obliged to regard the express statements
respecting Peter personally as having been forged. But the close
connection of all the chapters with each other, and the uniformity
of the language and ideas throughout the Epistle is too much at
variance with the supposition of an interpolation of the Epistle,
to make it right that it should be admitted.
Still, we cannot but allow the great weight of the reason from
which the hypothesis took its rise, viz., that it was an almost in
conceivable piece of impudence for an impostor to assume the per
son of the Apostle Peter, so as even to speak of his presence at
the transfiguration on Mount Tabor, and venture to invent pro
phecies of our Lord to him respecting his end. (Comp. 2 Pet. i.
14.) It is true, appeal is made, on this point, to the practice of
the ancients, according to which it was not so strange and cen
surable, it is said, to write under another's name, as it appears
to us at the present day. And it is undoubtedly true, that in
the primitive times of the church writings were much more fre-

XC11 SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
quently forged in the name of others than at the present time.
But it is a question whether this is to be referred to the custom
of the times, or does not rather arise from the fact, that in the
less methodical book-transactions of the ancient world it was
much easier to get fictitious writings into circulation than it is
at present, on account of the great publicity which now attends
such transactions. At any rate, we must say, that it was a very
culpable practice, if it ever was common, to procure currency for
one's literary productions by affixing a great name to them; and
every honourable man would have avoided it and written only
in his own name. Suppose, however, it was less offensive than
now to publish any thing under an assumed name, we must not
withstanding protest in the most earnest manner against the
idea, that a man could permit himself fraudulently to appropri
ate such points from the life of him whose name he used as could
be true only of the latter; which must be the case in regard to
this Epistle, if it was not written by Peter. Were this to be done
in any case, the use of another's name would no longer be a mere
form in writing, it would rather be a coarse piece of imposture,
such as could not occur without a decidedly wrong intention;
and this leads us to a new and important point in the investiga
tion of the origin of the second Epistle of Peter.
The alternative in which we are thus placed is as harsh as it
could possibly be. Either the Epistle is genuine and apostolical,
or it is not only spurious and forged, but was forged by a bold,
shameless impostor, and such a person must have had an evil
design in executing a forgery of the kind supposed. Now in the
whole Epistle we do not find the slightest thing which can be
regarded as erroneous or as morally bad. Its contents are en
tirely biblical, and truly evangelical. An elevated religious spi
rit animates the Epistle throughout. Is it conceivable, that a
man actuated by this spirit can be chargeable with such a de
ception? Or is it supposed that this spirit is itself feigned? But
this idea plainly contradicts itself, for he who is bad enough to
forge writings cannot entertain the design of extending a good
influence by his forgery. No forgery would be necessary for
such a purpose. The design must have been to defend what was
unholy in principle or practice under cover of a sacred name.
The only probable purpose of the forgery of the Epistle is this;
that the unknown author of the production wished to combat the
heretics described in the second chapter, and in order that he

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. Xciii
might do this with some effect, he wrote in the name of the
Apostle Peter, and made use of the Epistle of Jude in doing so.
But if a man who was honest (in other respects) could have been
induced to enter upon such a crooked path, would he not have
contented himself with placing the Apostle's name in front of his
Epistle ? Would his conscience have permitted him to appro
priate falsely from the life of the Apostle such particulars as are
narrated in the Epistle ? This is really hard to believe, and the
efforts made to preserve the genuineness of the first chapter at
least, which contains these very particulars, sufficiently prove how
universal is the feeling that the statements it contains cannot
have been forged.
It is true the case would stand otherwise, if it were a well-
founded position, that the Epistle really contains erroneous tenets.
But how truly impossible it is to establish .this, is very evident
from the nature of the points adduced as errors. In the first
place, one is supposed to be contained in the passage, 2 Peter iii.
5, in which it is said, that the earth was formed out of water and
in water by the word of God.1 It is true, there are parallels to
this view of the creation of the earth in several mythical cosmo
gonies; but is this circumstance a proof that the doctrine of the
creation of the world out of water is false? Does the Mosaic ac
count of the creation, or any other passage in the Bible, contain
any thing which in the slightest degree impugns it? Or does the
condition of the physical or geological sciences in our day prove
that the earth certainly came into existence in a different man
ner? It will suffice, in regard to this point, to remind our read
ers that the formation of the earth out of water was taught by
the celebrated De Luc, not to mention many men of less note.
At the most, then, it can only be said that in the passage refer
red to, there is something openly and definitely stated which is
not found thus stated in any other book of the Bible ; though it
is impossible to deny that the Mosaic , account of the creation
(" The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters") is sus
ceptible of such an interpretation, as to convey the idea which
is more plainly declared in 2 Pet. iii. 5. Thus there is no ground
for talking about an error in this passage of the Epistle. The
same remarks may be made respecting another position, that the
1 Our English version gives a somewhat different sense to this passage;
but probably the translation above conveys nearly, if not exactly, its true
signification. — Tr.

XC1V SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
doctrine (also presented in the third chapter of the second Epis
tle of Peter) concerning the destruction of the world by fire is
erroneous. For it can by no means be shown in regard to this
second idea, that it contradicts the common statement of the
Bible, or contains anything incorrect. Indeed, there are other
passages likewise, that contain an intimation, at least, of the
same thing which is here openly stated. (Comp. Isaiah li. 6;
Zeph. iii. 8.) And so far are the similar mythical accounts in
other religions from arguing anything wrong in this idea, that
we should rather consider the coincidence of the mythical ac
counts with the biblical doctrine as a confirmation of the real
verity of the former.
If, therefore, we put together all which has been said of the
second Epistle of Peter, thus much is certainly clear, that the
circumstances which are calculated to excite suspicion respecting
the Epistle, are by no means sufficient to constitute a formal
proof of their spuriousness. True, the suspicious points cannot
be so perfectly obviated, that every doubt will disappear. Some
uncertainty will remain in the mind. Still the positive argu
ments in behalf of its genuineness so far allay these doubts that
it is possible to obtain a satisfactory subjective conviction of the
genuineness of the Epistle. But a proof of its genuineness
which shall be of perfect validity and be generally acknowledged
can no more be attained than such a proof of its spuriousness;
and, therefore, there will always be something dubious in the
position of this Epistle. The ancient fathers of the church en
deavoured to express this uncertainty by the term Antilegomena,
and later teachers in the evangelical church by the designation
Deutero-canonical writings, among which this Epistle is reckoned.
Attempts to remove all the obscurity which envelopes the facts
in regard to this Epistle will probably always prove vain, from
the want of historical accounts respecting the use and diffusion
of it in primitive times.

EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. XCV
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE,
In investigating the Epistles of James and Jude, the question
is, as in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews, not so much
whether they are genuine or spurious, as who was their author.
This may seem strange, inasmuch as the authors of both of them
mention themselves in the salutations, whch is not the case as to
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed, Jude, for the purpose of
designating himself still more definitely, adds the circumstance
that he was the brother of James. But, as both these names
were very common among the Jews, and the relations between
the persons of this name mentioned in the New Testament are
quite involved, it is a very difficult inquiry, what James and
what Jude were the authors of the Epistles which we are consi
dering. Now, if it should be probable, on investigation, that the
authors of the two Epistles were not apostles, (i. e. among the
number of the twelve disciples), then will arise a second inquiry,
what we are to think of the canonical authority of the Epistles?
The first question is, how many persons Of the name of James
and Jude are mentioned in the Scriptures or by ancient Chris
tian writers? From the catalogues of the twelve apostles (Matt.
x. 2 seq.; Mark iii. 13 seq.; Luke vi. 12 seq. Acts i. 13 seq.) we
perceive that two individuals among them were named James.
The first was a brother of the evangelist John, a son of Zebedee
and Salome; this James is often mentioned in the evangelical
history. His brother Peter, and himself, were of all the apostles
the most intimate with our Lord. He was present at the trans
figuration and at our Lord's agony in the garden of Gethsemane.
According to Acts xii. 2, Herod killed him with the sword a few
years after our Lord's ascension. As, therefore, this James dis
appeared from the scene of events very early, he does not cause
much difficulty in the investigation. The second James is
termed the son of Alphseus, and of this apostle we have so uncer
tain accounts, that it is difficult to determine much respecting
him. As there were two individuals of the name of James among
the twelve, so there were two Judes. One, the betrayer of our

XCV1 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE.
Lord, of course is not concerned in this investigation. He can
not be confounded with any one else; especially as he had the
surname Iscariot from his birth-place Carioth. The second
Jude, it would seem, bore many names; for while Luke (in the
Gospel as well as in the Acts) calls him Jude the son of James,
Matthew, and Mark call him sometimes Thaddeus, and some
times Lebbeus. It was not at all uncommon among the Jews for
one man to bear several names; and, therefore, we may admit
the validity of the prevalent opinion that Lebbeus or Thaddeus,
and Jude, the son of James, are the same individuals. In John
xiv. 22, a second Jude among the twelve is expressly distin
guished from Jude (Judas) the traitor, who is termed Iscariot;
and hence the name Jude may have been the one by which the
former was most commonly designated.
Now did we know with perfect certainty that the authors of
the Epistles under consideration were of the number of the twelve,
it would be easy to fix upon the individuals ; James, the son of
Alpheus, must have written the Epistle of James and Jude, the
son of James, that of Jude. But as Jude (v. 1) calls himself the
brother of James, he must either mean another man of this name
known to his readers, or we must suppose the term brother to
signify step-brother or cousin, as indeed the word is often used
in Hebrew. For the opinion of some, that in the catalogues of
the apostles (see Luke's Gospel and his Acts of the Apostles),
Jude is not called the son but the brother of James, nmst be
totally rejected, because, though it is true that sometimes the
word brother is to be supplied for the genitive following a pro
per name, this is only the case when it is clear from the connec
tion what is to be supplied. In the apostolic catalogue, how
ever, son is every where else to be supplied for the genitive; and
hence it is incredible that in the case of Jude alone brother must
be added.
But that the authors of these two Epistles of James and Jude
were among the- number of the twelve is very uncertain (indeed,
as we shall show hereafter, improbable), and on that account we
have still to determine the difficult question, what persons of
these names wrote the Epistles ? The following reasons show the
uncertainty of the idea that the authors of the Epistles were
apostles. In the first place, the fathers of the church speak of
another James, the brother of our Lord, and first bishop of
Jerusalem, and another Jude, likewise the brother of our Lord,

EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. XCvii
as the authors of the Epistles; and, moreover, these were dis
puted by many,. and reckoned among the Antilegomena, clearly
for this reason alone, that it was supposed perfectly correct to
regard them as not apostolical. Thus, in the opinion of the
fathers, there were beside the two James's and Judes among the
twelve, two other persons of these names, called brothers of our
Lord. These are mentioned in the passage, Matt. xiii. 55, with
two other brothers of our Lord, Simon and Joses, and with sis
ters of his whose names are not given. They are also mentioned
in the later history of the apostolic age (Acts xv. 13 seq. ; Gal.
i. 19; ii. 19), particularly James, who is designated with Peter
and John as a pillar of the church. According to the fathers
of the church, he was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and the de
scription which the New Testament gives of his position and
operations perfectly accords with this statement. According to
the account of the Jewish writer, Josephus, and a very ancient
Christian historian, named Hegesippus, this James,' the brother.
of our Lord, died a martyr's death at Jerusalem shortly before
its destruction. He possessed such authority and such reputa
tion for piety among the Jews, that, according to Josephus, the
destruction of the city was a punishment from heaven for the
execution of this just man. James was succeeded in the bishop
ric of Jerusalem by another brother of our Lord, viz. Simon
(Matth. xiii. 55), who, as well as the third brother Jude, lived
till the reign of the Emperor Trajan, i.e. to the end of the first
century after Christ. According to the account of Hegesippus,
Simon also died a martyr's death, like his brother ; of the man
ner of Jude's end nothing definite is known. Although, how
ever, we find these brethren of our Lord labouring with ardent
Christian zeal after the resurrection of the Saviour, still, in the
lifetime of our Lord they did not believe on him. This we
are told by John expressly (vii. 5), and, therefore, we do not
observe these brethren of Jesus among the disciples until after
his resurrection from the dead. (Acts i. 13.) Probably the
vision with Which (according to 1 Cor. xv. 7), James was fa
voured, was the means of convincing them all of the Divine
dignity of our Lord, which hitherto, perhaps on the very ac
count of their close relationship to him by blood, they had been
unable to credit. It is true the expression, brothers of our Lord,
is not to be understood as meaning what the words strictly
signify; for Mary, the mother of our Lord, appears not to have
h

XCVU1 EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE.
had any other children. The passages Matth. i. 25, Luke ii. 7,
in which Jesus is called the first-born son of Mary, prove nothing
to the contrary, since, if no more children follow, the only son is
also the first-born. If the statements of Scripture respecting
these brethren of our Lord be put together, it cannot be doubted,
that the children of the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus, are
intended by the expression. This sister of Mary was likewise
named Mary, and was the wife of a certain Cleophas. She stood
with the mother of Jesus beneath the cross of our Lord, as did
also Mary Magdalene. (John xix. 25.) This same Mary is
called in the parallel passage of Mark (xv. 40) the mother of
James the Less and of Joses. Here, then, are named two of
the persons who in Matth. xiii. 55, are termed brothers of our
Lord. Nothing, therefore, is more natural, as it nowhere ap
pears that Mary had any other children, than to suppose that
these so-called brethren of our Lord were his cousins^ the sons of
his mother's sister. As it is probable that Joseph, the foster-
father of Jesus, died at an early period, (for he is not mentioned
after the journey to Jerusalem in the twelfth year of Jesus' age,)
Mary perhaps went to live with her sister, and thus Jesus grew
up with the sons of the latter, which may have been the reason
why it was so difficult for them to give credit to his divine
authority. It was very common in the Hebrew idiom to term
cousins brothers. Hence, in Gen. xiii. 8, Abraham and Lot, who
were cousins, are termed brothers. If we were to take the word
brother in its literal sense, and regard the four brothers of our
Lord mentioned in Matth. xiii. 55 as own children of Mary, the
mother of Jesus, we should have to suppose the extraordinary
circumstance that the two mothers of the same name had also
children named alike. Now, as we nowhere find mention, first
of our Lord's brethren, and then of his cousins, but the same re
lations are always referred to, this supposition cannot be ad
mitted. The same may be said of another supposition, accord
ing to which two of these so-called brethren of our Lord, viz.
Jude and James, were of the number of the twelve. For it is
said that the Hebrew name which lies at the basis of the Greek
one, Cleophas, (abbreviated Klopas), viz. Chalpai, may also in
Greek become Alpheus. Thus James the son of Alpheus would
be equivalent to James the son of Cleophas. Now, it is true,
that on the score of philology nothing can be reasonably objected
against this supposition ; but, its validity is overthrown by the

EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. Xcix
fact that one and the same writer (viz. Luke), presents both
forms. Although the name could be differently expressed in
Greek, at least the same writer would always have followed the
same mode. Moreover, as we have already remarked, it is inad
missible to supply the word brother, instead of son, after the
name Jude. Lastly, it is a decisive circumstance, that in John
vii. 5 it is most expres'sly stated that the brethren of Jesus did
not believe on him. It is, therefore, impossible that they should
have been of the number of the twelve. Consequently, the New
Testament mentions, besides the James, son of Zebedee, who was
early executed, two other persons of this name, first the apostle,
who was a son of Alpheus, and next, the brother. of our Lord,
the first bishop of Jerusalem. Thus, too, the New Testament
mentions, besides the apostle Jude, who was the son of a certain
James, of whom we know nothing, another Jude who, likewise,
was a brother of our Lord, and lived to a late period (till the
time of Trajan), in Palestine. That these two brothers of our
Lord, and not the apostles, were the authors of our Epistles, has
been already intimated and will now be more fully shown.
Of great importance, and indeed almost decisive by itself, is
the circumstance, that the fathers of the church refer the Epistle
of James to the brother of our Lord of that name ; and, too, the
fathers who lived in that very region which was the scene of the
labours of this celebrated bishop of Jerusalem, viz. the east. Here
they might and must have had the most exact accounts respect
ing this distinguished man, and information as to his writings
must have spread itself very readily from Jerusalem to the neigh
bouring countries of Syria and Egypt. This historical testimony
is confirmed very strongly by the great agreement which exists
between the contents of the Epistle and .the communications
which are made by ancient fathers of the church, and particu
larly Hegesippus, in regard to the peculiar habits of James. Ac
cording to the account of this writer, James distinguished him
self by forms of piety which were very like those inculcated in
the Old Testament. He fasted and prayed a great deal, so" that,
as Hegesippus relates, probably with some exaggeration, his
knees had become callous. According to the New Testament,
too, (comp. Acts xv. with Gal. i. 2), James, the brother of our
Lord, appears to have been the head of the Jewish Christians.
He, therefore, undoubtedly observed the Mosaic law, even after
he became a Christian, and endeavoured to obtain the sanctity

C .EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE.
enjoined in the Old Testament. That, however, this endeavour"1
was not a narrow-minded one, as among the Ebionites, but a
liberal one, as among the Nazarenes, is plainly shown by the nar
rative in the Acts, according to which he did not, along with the
obstinate Judaizers, desire to impose the observance of the law
upon the Gentiles, but only adhered to it himself, as a pious prac
tice of his fathers. Still his whole dispositi on leaned somewhat to
the side of the law, and this is clearly exhibited in the Epistle.
The same is true of Jude likewise. His very designation of
himself as brother of James can leave no doubt that he desired
to represent himself as the brother of that James who was so
celebrated, the first bishop of Jerusalem. He does not call him
self an apostle, any more than James. Both term themselves
merely servants of Jesus Christ, neglecting from modest humi
lity to make any mention of their relationship by blood to our
Lord. We have no statements on the part of the early fathers
of the church in regard to the author of the Epistle of Jude.
The later fathers, e.g. Jerome, call him an apostle, but they did
not for that reason mean a different Jude ; only, as might very
easily happen, considering the confused accounts we have of
these men, they sometimes placed Jude the brother of our Lord
among the number of the twelve, contrary to John vii. 5.
Another as important reason for believing that James the
brother of our Lord, and not the apostle James, was regarded as
the author of the Epistle, is the circumstance that it was rec
koned among the Antilegomena. Doubts did indeed arise, but
not till a pretty late day. Clement of Rome, Hermas, and Ire
naeus, make use of the Epistle without scruple. Origen first,
then Eusebius, mention doubts. Now, as before the time of Je
rome, there is no trace of the Epistle's having been regarded as
forged in James' name, the ground of doubt can have been no
other than that it was questionable whether an Epistle of any
one not an apostle could claim admission into the canon. Je
rome observes, that certain individuals believed the Epistle of
James to have been forged by some one in his name. This opi
nion, however, is entirely devoid of probability, because in such
case the author would not have neglected to ascribe the dignity
of apostle to the James whom he wished to be regarded as the
writer of the Epistle, that it might be more sure of admission
1 The original reads Schreiben, which I take to be clearly a mistake
for Streben, and translate accordingly. — Tu,

EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. CI
into the canon. Those persons, therefore, of whom Jerome
speaks, and who undoubtedly resided in the west, probably en
tertained doctrinal scruples respecting the Epistle. In the west,
and particularly in Rome, the centre of the western churches,
special regard was felt for Paul and his doctrines. Now, the
second chapter of the Epistle of James was supposed to contain
erroneous notions in contrariety to Paul, because, as was thought,
it inculcated justification by works instead of by faith. This
passage even misled Luther into a rejection of the Epistle of
James. In his preface to it he says, " This James does nothing
but urge his readers to the law and to works, and his manner is
so confused that I imagine he was some pious man who had
gathered a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles, and
put them down upon paper. . . . Hence the Epistle of James is
but a strawy Epistle ; it has by no means an evangelical tone."
In more recent times, however, it has been proved, by very
thorough and impartial investigations, that this harsh judgment
of.Luther is certainly unfounded, together with the apprehen
sions of the ancient fathers mentioned by Jerome.
James only opposed misconstructions and perversions of Paul's
real doctrine, not the great apostle of the Gentiles himself. The
two great teachers of the church are essentially one in senti
ment; only they had reference to different heresies, and thus
their language wears a different aspect. In the Epistles "to the
Romans and Galatians, Paul presents the doctrine of faith, and
justification thereby, in opposition to the reliance which the Jews
placed on works. James, on the other hand, opposes a dead
imaginary faith, which, without any renovating influence over
the heart and mind, lulls a man into the sleep of sin, instead of
making him active in works of love. If we thus consider the
language of the two apostles with reference to the positions which
they respectively opposed, we shall perceive the most perfect
unity between these two teachers of the church, notwithstanding-
all their freedom and peculiarity of manner. Though they taught
the same doctrines, their point of view was different. Paul had
a predominant leaning towards faith, not meaning by any means,
however, to deny that it must bear good works as its fruit;
James directed his attention more to the fruit, without, however,
disparaging the root of faith from which alone they could spring.1
1 See more complete discussions of the supposed discrepancy between

Cll EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE.
Thus, leaving wholly out of view the influence of doctrinal
ideas, the discrepancy between the ancient fathers of the church
was only whether the Epistle, as proceeding from the brother of
our Lord, who was not an apostle, should or should not be ad
mitted into the canon. The East, in general, maintained that
it should, because James had exerted so much influence in that
region; the Christians of the West were less favourable to it.
In reality, then, the question was not in regard to the genuine
ness of the Epistle, but in regard to the rank of James, whether
or not he should be placed on a level with the apostles in respect
to the abundance and power of the Spirit poured out upon him,
so that a writing of his might be received into the canon as a
norm of faith and practice for all future generations of Chris
tians; a question which we will soon consider further.
In regard to this second point, likewise, the case is the same
with the Epistle of Jude as with that of James; except that in
the accounts concerning this Epistle given by ancient fathers we
do not find the slightest evidence that the Epistle was ever re
garded as the production of an impostor who forged it in Jude's
name. Such a supposition respecting this Epistle is extremely
improbable. In such case, would an impostor have contented
himself with designating Jude as the "brother of James;"
Would he not at least have expressly called him an apostle of
our Lord, in order to gain a place for the Epistle in the canon?
When we are told, therefore, of opposition to the Epistle, which
caused it to be placed among the Antilegomena, we must refer
it all to a refusal to accord to the author of the Epistle, who was
not an apostle, sufficient consideration to procure its admission
into the canon. Thus in regard to the Epistle of Jude, likewise,
the point in question is, not the genuineness of the Epistle, but
only the personal standing of the author, which by some of the
fathers of the church was considered equal to that of an apos
tle, and by others inferior. The investigation of this question,
then, what we are to think of the admission of two productions
of writers who were not apostles into the canon of the New
Testament, remains for the conclusion of this chapter.
Now, whether it be said, that the church has forsaken its
principle of admitting no writing into the canon which was not
either written by an apostle or composed under his supervision
Paul and James on the subject of faith and works, in the Biblical Re
pository, vol. iii. p. 189, and vol. iv. p. 683. — Tr.

EPISTLES OF JAMES AND JUDE. 0iii
and authority, in admitting the Epistles of James and Jude; or
that they indeed adhered to their principle, but erred in regard
ing James and Jude, the brethren of our Lord, to whom they
correctly ascribed the Epistles,, as apostles, and therefore admit
ting their Epistles into the canon — either way, it would seem as
though we of the present day were entitled to charge antiquity
with mistake respecting these Epistles. As to the Epistle of
Jude the case certainly seems to be as we have here stated it.
It was written by one who was not an apostle, by a man of whose
acts and character we know nothing further; a fact which ap
pears to sustain the scruples of maD.y of the ancients in regard to
its being canonical. Moreover, it contains nothing which is not
also found in the second Epistle of Peter, so that the church
could dispense with it without suffering the slightest loss. We
might therefore be disposed to consider this Epistle as a deutero-
canonical production, which was received into the canon only at a
late period on the ground that it was more advisable to preserve
every writing of the days of the apostles than to reject any thing
which might be of apostolic origin. It is not to be forgotten,
however, that the use of Jude's Epistle in the second Epistle of
Peter must be considered as apostolic confirmation of the former,
if the latter be acknowledged genuine. Both productions, there
fore, stand or fall together. The impossibility, however, of
proving beyond doubt the genuineness .of the second Epistle of
Peter, will not permit the friends of these Epistles to entertain
any thing more than a subjective conviction in regard to the
authority of Jude.
The case is different, however, with the Epistle of James. For
this remarkable man appears, both according to the New Testa
ment and according to the fathers of the church, to have occu
pied a very influential position. It is true he was not of the
number of the twelve; but the fact that our Lord appeared to
him separately, as he did to Peter (1 Cor. xv. 7), indicates his
consequence ; as does also the circumstance that he was elected
bishop of Jerusalem, and especially his relation to the Jewish
Christians, of whom James seems to have been the real head.
Hence in Gal. ii. 9, this man, with Peter and John, is called a
pillar of the church, and Josephus represents the consideration
in which he was held among the Jews to have been so great, that
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was looked upon as
a judgment for his death. Although, therefore, James was no

CIV REVELATION OF JOHN.
apostle, and moreover, no one of the twelve, so far as we know,
afforded his confirmation to the Epistle, still the church might
well have considered itself entitled to insert the production of so
influential a man in the canon. It may be said, indeed, that
James was in a precisely parallel situation to that of Paul (who
too was not of the number of the twelve, and still enjoyed
apostolic dignity) ; except that in regard to the appearance of
our Lord which was vouchsafed to James, and the commissions
which were entrusted to him, we have not such particular infor
mation as is furnished us by the Acts respecting his appearance
to Paul. Yet passing by this, we cannot but declare, that an
apostolic confirmation of a particular book, such as we suppose
in the case of Mark and Luke, according to the testimony of his
tory, is nothing compared with the testimony which we have from
Paul's own mouth respecting James. He is designated, along
with Peter and John, as a pillar of the whole church of God up
on earth, and thus, though not one of the twelve, still placed en
tirely on a level with the proper apostles; and hence no objection
at all can be made to the reception of the Epistle by the church.
She has not, in receiving it, deviated at all from her principles;
indeed, she has thereby rather applied them in their real spirit,
not rigorously restricting the idea of apostolical estimation to the
number of the twelve, but referring it to the fulness and power
of the spirit exhibited in the life. This, however, as appears
from the Epistle itself, and from history, was possessed in its
utmost potency by James, as well as Paul, on which account the
Epistle of the former richly merits a place among the canonical
books.

CHAPTER X.
OF THE REVELATION OF JOHN.
The sublime book which concludes the New Testament, the
Revelation of St John, (6 SioXoyo;,) with its wonderful images and
visions, has met with a more extraordinary fate than any other
writing of the New Testament. The impressive and absorbing
nature of the contents of the book has seldom permitted any one
to examine it with cool impartiality, and while some have become

REVELATION OF JOHN. CV
the, enthusiastic advocates of the book, others have appeared as
its most violent opponents, not only rejecting the work as not
apostolical, or as forged, but even reviling it as the production
of an heretical spirit. Thus it has happened, that, while no pro
duction of the New Testament can exhibit more and stronger
historical evidence of its genuineness and apostolic authority than
the Revelation, none has met with more antagonists ; and, indeed,
many of its antagonists are men who have merited much grati
tude from the church for their struggles in behalf of the truth.
Among these is Luther, who shows himself a determined oppo
nent of John's Revelation. He says, in his preface to it :
" There are various and abundant reasons why I regard this
book as neither apostolical nor prophetic. First and foremost; the
apostles do not make use of visions, but prophesy in clear and
plain language (as do Peter, Paul, and Christ also, in the Gospel) ;
for it is becoming the apostolic office to speak plainly and with
out figure or vision, respecting Christ and his acts. — Moreover,
it seems to me far too arrogant for him to enjoin it upon his
readers to regard this his own work as of more importance than
any other sacred book, and to threaten that if any one shall take
aught away from it, God will take away from him his part in the
book of life (Rev. xxii. 19.) Besides, even were it a blessed thing
to believe what is contained in it, no" man knows what that is.
The book is believed in (and is really just the same to us) as
though we had it not; and many more valuable books exist for
us to believe in. But let every man think of it as his spirit
prompts him. My spirit cannot adapt itself to the production,
and this is reason enough for me why I should not esteem it very
highly." From this strong language of the great Reformer it is sufficiently
evident how repulsive the contents of the Revelation were to
him. As he termed the Epistle of James a strawy Epistle, be
cause it seemed to him to contradict Paul's doctrine in regard to
faith, so he rejected the Revelation, because the imagery of the
book was unintelligible to him. This was obscure to him from
the fact that he could not thoroughly apprehend the doctrine of
God's kingdom upon earth, which is exhibited in the Revelation,
and forms the proper centre of every thing contained in it.
The same point has at all times in the church operated very
powerfully upon the judgments of learned men in regard to the
Revelation; and therefore we must,, before any particular ex-

CV1 REVELATION OF JOHN.
amination of this production, make some general observations on
the propriety of permitting doctrinal views generally, and the
doctrine of God's kingdom upon earth particularly, to have an
influence on criticism.
In recent times, critical investigations of the sacred books have
pretty generally proceeded on the principle, that doctrinal views
ought not to exert any influence upon inquiries respecting the
genuineness of the Scriptures. It has been easy to lay down this
principle, because generally1 the binding authority of Sacred
Writ has been denied, and writers have not felt it incumbent on
them to admit as an object of faith every thing that was stated
in genuine apostolic writings. Indeed, to many an investigator
it has been very gratifying, that in genuine writings of the
apostles things should occur which to him seemed evident errors;
since in such case it became more easy to prove that the apostles
even had stated many things erroneously, and that therefore
what was true in their productions should be separated from what
was false. With Luther, however, and all the other old theolo
gians the case was different. They acknowledged the Scriptures
as binding on their faith, and therefore could by no means wholly
exclude doctrinal considerations. For, were a book proved to be
apostolical by all possible historical and internal arguments, and
yet it plainly subverted the Gospel and preached a different
Christ from the true historical Son of God and man, no faithful
teacher of the church of Christ should receive and use any such
production, notwithstanding all the evidence in its favour, any
more than listen to an angel from heaven, who should bring
another Gospel (Gal. i. 8). Such was Luther's position; and in
this view we may respect and honour his opposition to the Epistle
of James and the Revelation of John. His only error in this, in
itself commendable, endeavour boldly to distinguish what was
anti-christian was, that he decided too rashly and hastily, and
thus did not investigate with sufficient thoroughness, and, on the
ground of appearances merely, pronounced that to be not biblical
which in reality was so. That this was the case in regard to his
judgment concerning the discrepancy between James and Paul,
is at the present day universally admitted. In regard to the
Revelation, however, many still think that he judged correctly,
although, in my opinion, he erred here as much as in relation to
the Epistle of James. 1 That is, in Germany.-^-TR,

REVELATION OF JOHN. Cvii
We cannot say, therefore, that doctrinal considerations are not
of the least consequence in critical investigations ; though cer
tainly we must not permit them to have an improper influence,
so as to disturb the historical investigation, nor too hastily make
an objective rule of our present subjective views, but endeavour
to investigate more thoroughly what is at the moment obscure
and inexplicable. Such an endeavour will often educe a modi
fication of our views, and we may find that what seemed errone
ous contains profound and sublime truth.
In particular, this would undoubtedly be the case with many, if
they could determine to consider more closely the doctrine respect
ing God's kingdom upon earth, which has always been the greatest
cause of offence in the Revelation. True, it is not to be denied,
that the history of the fortune of this doctrine is by no means
calculated to favour it; for every thing which human ignorance
and human malice have been able to devise, appears to have con
centrated itself in the misapprehensions of this doctrine. If,
however, pains be taken to separate these misapprehensions and
perversions from the doctrine itself, and we are impartial enough
to consider, that often very profound truths, which take a mighty
hold of the human mind, are most exposed to abuse, and may
become most dangerous, and that hardly any other religion has
been misused to -such abominable purposes as the Christian re
ligion itself, and yet that it is not on that account the less true,
or the less divine, he will easily attain the proper fundamental
idea of the doctrine of God's kingdom upon earth ; which is so
simple, that we cannot understand how its truth could ever be
doubted, until we remember the farragos of nonsense which have
been propounded under its sanction. This simple radical idea is
merely, that as, in regard to an individual man, God, by the
Saviour, redeems not merely a particular part of him, his spirit
alone, his soul alone, or his body alone, but the whole man, his
body, soul, and spirit, so the redeeming power of Christ has for
its object the deliverance of the entire human race, and of the
creation in general, from the yoke of sin. As, therefore, the
end of salvation for the individual is the glorification of his
nature, the end of all things in the universe on the same prin
ciple is the glorification of the universe. Proceeding from this
fundamental idea, the Revelation teaches in sublime imagery,
agreeing perfectly with the statements of our Lord and the
apostles (which are less formal, and rather take the doctrine for

CV111 REVELATION OF JOHN.
granted, and thus are more incidental), that a period will come
in which not only, as had already been the case, the spirit of
Jesus Christ should prevail in secret, and guide men's minds,
but should also gain the victory externally, and found a king
dom of peace and righteousness upon earth. Now, that with
the arrival of this reign of peace there will be connected, on the
one hand, the appearance of Jesus Christ, and a resurrection of
many saints and pious men, and, on the other, a previous mighty
struggle on the part of evil, — does indeed follow very naturally
from the fundamental idea, and the supposed development of
good and evil; but these points are only incidental. The prin
cipal idea is the perfect return of the supremacy of good, the
restoration of the lost paradise to an earth which has been laid
waste by sin. Millions desire this most earnestly, hope and pray
for it even, without ever imagining that it is the very doctrine
which they think themselves bound to oppose, or at least unable
to admit, without deviating from correct belief. Even the ex
cellent Reformers had but an imperfect notion of this doctrine,
though it is as simple as it is sublime; and for this reason, in a
great measure, that they saw around them senseless fanatics who
dishonoured the Gospel, and caused unspeakable injury by the
grossest misconstructions and perversions of this doctrine.
It would not have been worth while, with our present purpose,
to say even the little we have said on this subject, were there
not so many well-meaning men, of real piety, who, notwith
standing the most striking historical proof, can never prevail
upon themselves to admit the Revelation to be a genuine apos
tolic production, and therefore entitled to a place in the canon,
and thus to become a rule of faith ; because they feel that then
they must in consequence admit the reign of God upon earth
into their circle of belief, which they suppose they neither can,
nor ought to do. May such be led to a thorough investigation
of this idea, and of all the passages of Scripture which relate
thereto, that the acknowledgment of evangelical truth in this
respect may be promoted, and its fulfilment be rendered nearer
at hand !
In passing now to the consideration of the historical evidence
in favour of the genuineness of the Revelation, we must again
call to mind the latter days of the life of John the Evangelist.
He lived, as we know with certainty, longer than any one of the
other apostles, that is, as late as to the end of the first century.

REVELATION OF JOHN.

The scene of his successful labours at the close of his life was
the city of Ephesus, in the vicinity of which were situated all
those cities to which were directed the seven Epistles contained
in the first chapters of the Revelation. Ephesus, moreover, was
one of the great centres of business in the Roman empire, and
was much frequented by Christians from all countries.
It must, therefore, be admitted, that it was easy for the
Ephesian church particularly, and indeed for the whole ancient
church, to arrive at the highest degree of certainty in regard to
the writings of John. In particular, there could be no uncer
tainty whether John had composed so peculiar, so very remarkable
a production as the Revelation. We must therefore admit, that
if among the fathers of the church in that region we met with
even uncertainty in regard to its author, it would be a very sus
picious circumstance; and, on the other hand, unanimity in
their conviction of the genuineness of the book must be a very
decisive testimony in its favour. Now we meet with this last
to a surprising degree. First, we have the testimony of Papias,
bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, in behalf of the book. This
man was personally acquainted with several of the apostles, and
among them with the Evangelist John. His testimony is there
fore of the greatest consequence. It is true an attempt has been
made to invalidate it, on the ground that only a late writer,
named Andreas, attributes to Papias any knowledge of the
Revelation; but careful consideration of the principal passage
respecting Papias in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39), which cer
tainly ought to be thus examined, will show that Eusebius has
given a wrong representation concerning Papias in more than
one respect, and everything is in favour of the supposition, that
Papias was acquainted, with all John's writings. Eusebius is
one of those fathers of the church who were very much preju
diced against the doctrine concerning the millennium, and it is on
this account that he so strongly opposes Papias. Since this
ancient bishop was a principal supporter of that doctrine, his
testimony may on that account appear partial ; and yet his close
relation to John cannot have permitted him, notwithstanding all
his predilection for this doctrine, to attribute to that writer a
production which was not his. Justin Martyr, too, along with
Papias, testifies in favour of the apostolic origin of the Apoca
lypse. He was, indeed, born in Palestine, but he taught in
Ephesus, and there had opportunity to learn how things really

CX REVELATION OF JOHN.
were. Now, this father expressly declares the Revelation to
have been written by the Evangelist John, one of the twelve.
So, too, Melito, bishop of Sardis, one of the cities to which the
Epistles in the Revelation are addressed. We cannot but pre
sume that such a man would know who was the author of a
production which contained an Epistle to the church over which
he presided.
The same is true of Polycarp, the celebrated bishop of Smyrna,
to which church, likewise, an apocalyptic Epistle is addressed.
This man was an immediate disciple of the Evangelist John.
Polycarp's pupil, Irenseus, who removed from Asia Minor to the
south of France, and, as has been already observed, became bishop
of Lyons, gives us an account of Polycarp's relation to John, and
makes use of the Revelation throughout his writings, without
mentioning even the slightest opposition to it. It is also em
ployed as really apostolical by the western fathers, Tertullian,
Cyprian, Hippolytus, &c, without any mention of a doubt as to
its canonical authority. Still, it may be said, none of these were
either learned or critical ; they found in the Revelation their
favourite doctrine in regard to the kingdom of God upon earth,
and therefore they readily received the book as a production of
John's. In decided opposition to such remarks, we adduce the
Alexandrian fathers, Clement and Origen. These were not only
the most learned men of the day and the best skilled in criti
cism, but, in particular, were opponents of the doctrine of the
Millennium ; yet neither had any idea that the Revelation of
John was not composed by the Evangelist of that name. They
chose to get rid of the odious contents of the book by a forced
interpretation, rather than by opposing the tradition of the whole
church. A stronger combination of historical evidence in favour
of the apostolic origin of the book is, in fact, hardly conceivable !
The weight of this evidence is augmented by what we know re
specting those who doubted the genuineness of the book. Of this
number was a presbyter of the Roman church, whose name was
Gaius. This man made it a set purpose to oppose the doctrine
of the millennium; and because the defenders of it naturally ap
pealed first of all to the Revelation, he declared it spurious,
without, however, presenting any historical or critical reasons
for doing so. In order to degrade the Revelation, it was even
referred by him to a heretic, Cerinthus, who was said to have
written it in John's name. But in this he clearly evinced that"

REVELATION OF JOHN. Cxi
he was carried away by his feelings, for no one can by any means
attribute the Revelation to an intentional deceiver, for this
reason, that it would have been one object with such a man to
denote with precision the person of the Evangelist, so as to cause
the work to be regarded as his. This, however, has not been
done, and thus we are not permitted to take any view in opposi
tion to it, except it be that another John, and not the Evangelist,
composed it. This opinion was first stated and defended: in a
formal manner by the learned Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria,
a disciple of Origen. But, as this man lived at so late a period
that authentic oral tradition was no longer within his reach, no
more stress is to be laid upon his doubts than upon the learned
objections of more modern days. We come therefore to this re
sult: All historical tradition is unanimous in behalf of John's
composition of the Revelation.
Now, in order to invalidate this decided testimony of antiquity,
very striking arguments ought to be adduced ; but observe what
are the reasons which prevail upon modern investigators to deny
that the Evangelist John was the author of the Revelation, and
then judge whether they are strong enough to countervail such
testimony. In enumerating these reasons, I follow a distin
guished scholar of the present day, whom I very much esteem
and love as my former instructor, although I differ entirely from
his views. I do indeed believe him to be in general very impar
tial and unprejudiced ; but nevertheless I think him to be in
fluenced in his judgment of the Revelation by the force of pre
judices which were largely imbibed by the church, and have been
widely diffused.1
In the first place, it is urged by this learned man that John
never mentions himself in the Gospel and Epistles as the author
of these writings; would he act differently then in the Apocalypse?
It is true, he says only that this circumstance is worthy of atten
tion ; but as it stands as one of his arguments, it seems to have
been regarded as of considerable importance. Of what conse
quence, however, is such a difference in practice, since all we can
say is, simply, that the author chose in this case to employ a dif
ferent form from his usual one ? What writer is there who does
not act as he pleases in regard to such points ?
In the second place, the variation from his other writings in
1 I mean Prof. De Wette, in his " Einleit. ins neue Testament" (In-
trod. to the N. Testament).

CXU REVELATION OF JOHN.
point of language is adduced as an argument. The fact is indis
putable. The language of the Gospel is pure Greek, smooth
and accurate ; that of the Revelation, on the contrary, is harsh,
rugged, full of inaccuracies of expression, and real grammatical
mistakes. But it is not true that all difference in phraseology
indicates different writers. Compare, e. g., the earliest writings
of Gothe,' Schiller, Herder, with the latest productions of the
same authors. Especially take an author who attempts to write
in a foreign language; must not his first essays be of a totally
different character from his later ones? He has not complete
mastery of the language; he struggles not only with the sense,
but with the form; and this must necessarily make the phraseo
logy even of the most practised intellect somewhat cumbrous.
This is exactly the case with John's Revelation. It was his ear
liest production in the Greek language, occasioned by the fear
ful occurrences during Nero's persecution. These cast the sym
pathizing mind of the beloved disciple of Jesus into deep medi
tation, during which the spirit of propheey showed him the fu
ture fortunes of the church, and its final conquest over Judaism
and heathenism. It was, therefore, composed some twenty years
earlier than the Gospel and Epistles seem to have been written,
and in a language which to John, a native of Palestine, must
have been a foreign one. Now, the Revelation appears exactly
like the production of a man who had not yet acquired the re
quisite skill in the Greek language, and as its internal charac
teristics, likewise, show that it was written in the early part of
John's life, before Jerusalem was destroyed, it is in fact impos
sible to see how one can ascribe importance to this circumstance
of the difference of style, in opposition to the tradition that the
Evangelist John was the author of the production; the rather
as there is undeniably very much in the language which bears
close affinity to those writings that are admitted to be John's.
The same may be said of the third observation, that the style
of the Revelation is in the following respect very unlike that
which we find in the Gospel and Epistles, viz. that the former
exhibits a lively creative fancy, while, in the latter, quiet, deep
feeling predominates. In regard to this remark, which likewise
is correct, we are to consider, first, that the same individual in
different stages of mental development will make use of different
styles of expression. The earlier works of the same writer are
accordingly more ardent, more imaginative than his later. More-

REVELATION OF JOHN. Cxiii
over, the imagery in the Revelation is not by any means to be
regarded as the arbitrary production of a rich fancy, but rather
as actual appearances to John's mind from the operation of the
divine Spirit within him. I admit that John would not have
been selected as the medium of these communications of the
Spirit, had there not been in his whole organization a special
adaptation for such impressions; but still, susceptibility to them
is not the same as positive productive fancy. Finally, it is not
to be forgotten in this view, that John's other writings are of a
more historical or else purely didactic nature; while, on the
other hand, the Revelati#n is a prophetic production. It would
therefore be totally unnatural that the same style should be ob
servable in the Apocalypse as in John's other writings.
The only remaining point alleged in confirmation of the dif
ference between the Revelation and other writings of John is,
that they exhibit a totally different doctrinal aspect. In parti
cular, stress is laid on this circumstance, that in the Gospel no
thing at all is found of what forms the main topic of the Apo
calypse, viz. the expectation of a visible coming of our Lord, and
the establishment of his kingdom upon earth. Moreover, all
that is said in the Revelation respecting good and bad angels is
of a more Jewish cast, we are told, than we should expect John's
views to have been, from examining his other writings. It would
appear that, if this be really so, it is a reason of some weight
against the genuineness of the book; for we cannot suppose the
apostles to have altered their doctrinal views, and, plainly, dif
ference in the character of the writings could not affect the
doctrine, as both in historical' and prophetical productions there
must exist the same fundamental views on the part of the wri
ter. Now, the remark is indisputably correct, but the true
reason of the fact has been misapprehended. For, first, the
same difference which is exhibited between the Gospel of John
and the Apocalypse, also appears, on comparison, between the
Gospel of John and the first three Gospels. These latter, like
the Revelation, present many doctrines and views agreeable to
the Jews, particularly the visible coming of our Lord to assume
his kingdom upon earth; while nothing of all this is touched
upon by the Gospel of John, notwithstanding there was ample
occasion for doing so. It does not thence follow, however, that
either John or the others err in representing the discourses of
Jesus -Christ, since the same person may have spoken sometimes

CX1V REVELATION OF JOHN.
spiritually, as in John's discourses, and sometimes in a Judaizing
manner, as according to the other Evangelists. The correct
solution of this difficulty is to be sought solely in the special pur
pose of the Gospel of John, with which the first Epistle stands in
such intimate connection that it is not strange it should partak§
of the same character. The two other Epistles are too short to
be here taken into consideration For above (in the third chap
ter in speaking of the Gospel of John,) it was observed, that this
Evangelist had a particular class of persons in view in his work,
viz. men similar to the later Gnostics, and who in certain views
coincided with them perfectly. In particular, they, like the
Gnostics, speculated on divine things in a peculiar manner, and
sought to idealize the real facts in the history of Jesus, more
than the true apostolic doctrine permitted. These men, among
whom were many very sensible and well-meaning persons, were
those whom John had particularly in view in the composition of
his Gospel. With apostolic wisdom he avoided in this work every
thing which could offend the prejudices of these persons. Many
Jewish ideas, which had a very good and genuine foundation,
and, according to the first Gospels, were expressed by the Saviour
himself, he kept back, becoming in a manner a Gnostic to the
Gnostics, without doing the least injury, however, to the cause
of truth. He depicted Christianity, therefore, to their minds,
just as they could most easily comprehend it, convinced that
when once they had seized this idea, they would gradually learn
to understand it thoroughly.
If, now, we adhere stedfastly to this point of view, it will
appear perfectly intelligible, how {he same ohn Jwho wrote thus
in the Gospel, should appear to express himself so differently in
the Revelation, in the composition of which no such reference
existed; though still he was always governed by the same doc
trinal views at every period of his life. And thus we must de
clare, that no one of these reasons is calculated to disturb us
in regard to the correctness and truth of the tradition of the
first centuries after Christ. If the repugnance which is felt to
wards the contents of the Apocalypse be only conquered, men
will soon cease to rate so highly the reasons which are adduced
against its apostolic origin, and to think so little of the impor
tance of the unanimous tradition of antiquity. And that this
•may soon happen is the more to be wished, as the progressive
development of the church makes the Revelation more and more

CONCLUSION. CXV

important in testing what is now occurring among Christians,
and what awaits them in the immediate future !

CONCLUSION.

Having thus passed through the entire series of the writings
of the New Testament, taking notice of the critical questions in
regard to them, we will now, for the sake of convenience, pre
sent a compendious view of the results at which we have arrived.
We find then most, and the most important, of the writings
in the canon of the New Testament, so unanimously acknow
ledged in ancient times, and so universally made use of as aposto
lical in later days, that there cannot be the least doubt in regard
to them. They are on this account denominated Homologou-
mena, universally acknowledged writings, and form the main
sources of the doctrine and history of the Christian church.
Among these Homologoumena, as is stated by Eusebius so early
as the commencement of the fourth century, were the four
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline Epistles,
the first Epistle of Peter, and the first of John. If we attend
only to the voice of Christian antiquity, as Eusebius correctly
observes, the Apocalypse also does in reality belong among the
Homologoumena. But the fortune of this book has been so
peculiar, that some have not even been willing to class it among
the Antilegomena, but have ranked it with the writings which
are of a profane character, and are to be utterly rejected. Eu
sebius was therefore in great perplexity to what class he could
properly assign the Revelation. As to the Epistle to the He
brews," its author is unknown, merely; its genuineness is not
disputed. It belongs, therefore, to the class of the Antilegomena
only so far as this, that its position in the canon was disputed;
the relation of the author to the Apostle Paul not being unani
mously acknowledged in the church.
Properly, the class of the Antilegomena among the New Testa
ment writings comprehends the two smaller Epistles of John, the
Epistles of James and Jude, and the second Epistle of Peter.
These five books were never universally acknowledged and used
in the ancient church. More recent investigation has decided
in favour of the first three. The two smaller Epistles of John

CXV1 CONCLUSION.
are certainly apostolical, and from the author of the Gospel of
John; that of James was not, indeed, written by one of the
twelve, but by a brother of our Lord, who held such a prominent
rank in the ancient church as placed him, like Paul, fully on a
level with the apostles. As to the two writings last in the list,
however, it appears justly somewhat doubtful whether they are
productions of the days of the apostles. The Epistle of Jude is,
indeed, certainly genuine, but as certainly not apostolical ; and,
as history attributes to this brother of our Lord no very promi- "
nent station or agency, the Epistle seems not properly to belong
to the canon. It can be supported only by the second Epistle
of Peter, which is not itself certainly of apostolical origin. For,
in regard to the latter, a consideration of the circumstances
makes it impossible to establish its genuineness objectively
on valid grounds, although it may be made subjectively pro
bable. These results of the most careful critical investigation of the
New Testament are very satisfactory. For, if we could wish
that the genuineness and canonical character of the Antilego
mena might be established by as valid arguments as we can ad
duce in behalf of the Homologoumena, still it must be admitted
that those books upon which some suspicion rests, are the very-
books, of all the New Testament writings, with which we caii
most easily dispense. The chief and best of these writings are
the very ones whose genuineness and apostolic authority are
certified as strongly as possible.
If, now, we inquire into the relation between the external his
torical genuineness of the books of the New Testament, and
their internal efficacy and determinate power over the faith and
life of the individual, and of the whole community of Christians,
it is certainly Undeniable, that the former by itself decides
nothing in favour of the latter; but still, on account of the cir
cumstances of the church, demonstration of such genuineness is
by no means unimportant or indifferent. It is clear that we
may regard the writings of another religious system, the Zend-
Avesta of the Parsees, or the Koran of the Mahometans, as
genuine, and as having proceeded from the immediate circle of
adherents which the founder of that system of religion possessed,
without thereby attributing to it any internal efficacy and de
termining power over the heart and life. But it cannot be said
that a conviction of the genuineness of the apostolic origin of

CONCLUSION. CXV11
the writings of the New Testament, likewise, is a matter of indif
ference. It is rather of great consequence in its connection with
the church, i.e. the great community founded by our Saviour,
and actuated and sustained by his Spirit, You may prove the
genuineness of the writings of the New Testament to him who
is not within the pale of the church, or under its spiritual influ
ence, and he may even acknowledge it upon incontestible histo
rical grounds; but, as Christ, and his apostles themselves, are of
no consequence in relation to his internal life, this proof has no
more effect upon his faith or his life, than is produced upon
those of the scholar who declares the Zend-Avesta to be a
genuine work of Zoroaster. Far otherwise is it with him who
lives in the bosom of the Christian church. Here he cannot
completely withdraw himself from the influence of the Spirit of
Christ, which operates upon his heart from his earliest youth ;
he feels himself spiritually affected, and in a manner constrained
by it. It is true that sinful man very often strives against the
influence of the Holy Spirit, it being troublesome to him, be
cause it does not permit him to continue sinning so freely and
peaceably as he could wish. In such case he seeks to obtain
plausible grounds on which he may evade the force of the
Spirit's influence. One such plausible ground is often presented.
by the supposition that the writings of the New Testament are
spurious, whereby the extraordinary character of our Saviour,
with the sublime impression he made on the hearts of men, is
encompassed with doubt, and thus its effect is diminished. To
members of the church of Christ, therefore, a firm conviction
that the Scriptures are genuine, is of the highest consequence;
the opposite opinion, yea, uncertainty merely, in regard to the
character of the sacred writings, is ordinarily the natural con
comitant of sin. Such a sentiment hinders the efficacy of the
Holy Spirit, which manifests itself, in a manner not to be mis
taken, to every simple, plain mind, on perusal of the Holy
Scriptures, but exhibits its full strength only when the heart
feels a quiet faith, undisturbed by any doubt. Hence the con
version of many has taken rise from their acknowledgment
of the genuineness of the New Testament writings; and more
over, the apostacy of many from the truth has arisen out of
the circumstance that they denied the authenticity of these
books. We may therefore say, that the knowledge of the
genuineness of the writings of the New Testament is of es-

CXV1U CONCLUSION.
sential efficacy where the influence of the Spirit of God, an
a susceptibility to its operations exist in any degree. To
him who has already turned aside entirely from the truth,
and who resists it with an unfriendly mind, a conviction of the
genuineness of these books will be of little use, unless his oppo
sition be first broken by the power of grace. To him who is
converted, born again, the sure conviction of their genuineness
will always be a pleasing concomitant of grace, and will excite
his gratitude ; but, as he has experienced in his heart the divine
power which dwells in the Scriptures, the testimony of the Holy
Spirit will always be the proper foundation of his faith, which
would support him even though he had no historical proofs in be
half of the sacred books. Persons, however, who have neither ex
perienced a perfect change of heart and mind, nor are actuated by
a positively hostile spirit, but ardently desire the former, though
they are often assailed by doubts and uncertainties, will find in
the firm historical foundation of Scripture something on which
they may lean at first, and from which they may then be gra
dually led to the full knowledge of salvation. For, if it be only
admitted that such a life as that which the Scriptures represent
our Saviour's to have been was really spent, that such words as
they communicate to us from him were really spoken, the ob
vious question is, Whence came such a phenomenon ? What is
its import to the world? to me?
But, it may here be asked, if the case is thus, how happens it
that God has permitted many plausible objections to exist against
the writings of the New Testament, and that some cannot even be
freed wholly from suspicion? Would it not have been more consis
tent with the purpose of the Scriptures, had all the books been sup
ported by so numerous and so completely incontestible testimo
nies, that not even a doubt concerning them could ever have en
tered any one's mind ? It may indeed seem so to short-sighted
man. But his desires would not stop here, they would reach
still further. He would wish to have a Bible without various
readings, a biblical history free from the slightest variations, in
short, Jehovah himself embodied in the letter of the word. The
living God, who is eternal wisdom and love, has not thought any
thing of this kind suitable for mankind ; otherwise he would un
doubtedly have effected it for their benefit ; and the reasons
why he has not we may at least conjecture, even with our weak
powers. On the one hand, it would have become easier for man

CONCLUSION. CX1X
to confound the word and the Spirit dwelling in it with the letter ;
for, even, as the case now is,- this mistake has not been entirely
avoided, from the want of spirituality in many men. On the
other hand, the guilt of many persons would have been aug
mented, since they now have at least plausible reasons for their
opposition to the truth, but in the other case would have had no
such extenuation, and still would have retained their hostility to
God's word. We may therefore declare, that the character of
Scripture, in this respect likewise, corresponds most perfectly with
the necessities of human nature, as well as with the designs of God,
notwithstanding all its apparent imperfections and deficiencies.
The observations we have here made in conclusion are, more
over, such as are best suited to present the correct view concern
ing the peculiar character of the Old Testament in the light of
criticism. For this portion of God's word has so few historical
evidences in its favour, excepting those comprehended within its
own compass, that it is impossible to frame such an argument
for the genuineness of its books as we are able to exhibit in be
half of the New Testament. This want of evidence proceeds in
part from the very great antiquity of the writings of the Old
Testament, which were almost all composed before there existed
any literature among the Greeks, and before the Romans were
so much as known by name ; and in part, also, from the state of
seclusion which the nations of the old world generally, and par
ticularly the Jews, always maintained. The Persians, Syrians,
Egyptians, knew scarce anything of the literature of the He
brews ; and, had they even been acquainted with it, the circum
stance would have been of little advantage to us, as we have but
few writings of a date anterior to the time of Christ which ori
ginated with these nations. In these few, moreover, we find
hardly any mention of the Jews and their productions. Hence,
in investigating the earliest writings of the Old Testament, the
critic has no other resource than a careful examination of the
contents of the books themselves, and a comparison of them with
each other. Were this examination and comparison invariably
conducted with a believing and humble disposition, not the
slightest objection could be made, and we might quietly await
the results of such a procedure ; but, when the minds of inves
tigators deviate from the proper spirit and disposition, it is very
evident how easily such an inquiry, which is in its nature some
what uncertain and precarious, may lead to pernicious results.

CXX CONCLUSION.
Every one will, in such a case, determine the matter according
to his subjective ideas and views, without obtaining any objec
tive grounds of judgment from investigation. If we only look
at the actual state of the matter, entirely aside from the holy
character of the book, we shall be convinced that such a course
of investigation could hardly afford any useful result, even with
the best intentions. A book is presented to us, which contains
the relics of a nation's literature during a period of 1200 years.
We derive all that we can know of the history, the manners, the
special circumstances of this people, excepting a few points, from
this book alone. Thus it is at once the object and the norm of
investigation. Since, moreover, in regard to many of the writ
ings in it we have no statement as to their author and the time
of their composition, the investigation of these writings cannot
but have always a character of uncertainty. If we were only
familiarly acquainted with the history of a single nation in close
vicinity to the Jews, and found in its literature constant reference
to the Jewish writings, we might then, by drawing a parallel,
communicate more stability to the criticism of the Old Testament,
but we have no such advantage, and must content ourselves with
individual notices, which have come down to us from the most
ancient times of the nations with which the Jews came in contact.
It was not till the time of Alexander the Great, about 300 years
B. C, that the Jews, with their literature, became known to the
Greeks, through whom we have received much important infor
mation in regard to the Old Testament. For, as the Jews, after
that period, when they fell under Greek dominion, made them
selves acquainted with the Greek literature, and to some extent
themselves wrote in Greek, as e. g. the celebrated Jewish writers,
Josephus and Philo, so, on the other hand, the Greeks began to
take an interest in the Jews and their religious institutions.
From this mixture of Hebrew and Greek life proceeded the cele
brated Greek Version of the Seventy. This, according to the ac
count of the ancients, was executed under the Egyptian monarch
Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the instance of the learned Demetrius
Phalereus, about the year 270 B. C. It is true, the Old Testa
ment was not probably translated all at once, but, at any rate,
even according to the most recent opinion, the Old Testament
was entirely translated into Greek when Jesus Sirach was com
posed, i. e. about the year 130 B. C. Consequently, it is
placed beyond a .doubt that the whole Old Testament, as we

CONCLUSION. CXxi
have it, existed in Palestine in the Hebrew language long before
the time of Christ and his Apostles, and in a Greek version in
the other countries of the Roman Empire, particularly in Egypt,
where there resided so large a number of Jews, and they possessed
so great privileges, that they had even built a temple in the city
of Leontopolis in close imitation of that at Jerusalem. In Egypt,
the collection of the Apocryphal books likewise, which were con
fessedly written in Greek, was inserted in the canon of the Old
Testament, which was spread abroad by the version of the seventy
interpreters, and from this version they were introduced into the
Latin church-version, (the so-called Vulgate,) thus obtaining the
same authority as the writings of the Old Testament, which
authority they possess at the present day in the Catholic church.
As, however, they are not expressly cited in the New Testament,1
and are wholly wanting in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testa
ment, Luther rightly separated them from the rest, but appended
them to the books of the Old Testament, as " Writings not to be
equally esteemed with Holy Writ, but still profitable and excellent
for perusal." The Reformed Church, however, has gone still
farther, and dissevered them entirely from the collection of sacred
books, in order to prevent them from being confounded with the
inspired word. Hence arose this great evil, that the historical
connection between the Old and New Testament, which is so well
exhibited in the narrative writings of the Apocrypha, was totally
sundered ; and this connection is by no means a matter of indiffer
ence to believers, because it is only through it that God's pro
vidence towards his people can be regarded in the light of an
united whole. Hence it would seem best to retain the apocry
phal writings along with the Sacred Scriptures, designating, in
deed, the distinction between them and the canonical books,
Thus much, then, according to these statements, we know cer
tainly from historical testimony, that the Old Testament, as we
now have it, existed more than a century before Christ. It is
true the learned would be gratified to know a great deal more
respecting the formation of the canon of the Old Testament, re
specting the authors of the individual writings, &c. But, in
view merely of the relation of the Old Testament to the faith of
the present day, the knowledge that the Old Testament was in
1 Allusions to them are pointed out by Steir in his " Andeutungen
fur Glaubwiirdige Schrifterklarung," (or Hints towards the proper inter
pretation of the Scriptures,) p. 486, seq.

CXX11 CONCLUSION.
a complete collected form before the time of Christ, is sufficient
to afford us a firm conviction of the genuineness and importance
of its books. Now, that the existing Old Testament was generally
diffused and in use among the Jews, is attested by the Jewish
writers of the apostolic times, who employed the Greek language
in their writings. Philo, in Egypt, and Josephus, in Palestine,
make use of the Old Testament throughout their works, thereby
confirming the custom of the New Testament, which also every
where refers to the Old Testament. The manner in which the
Old Testament is cited by the New, and the definite declarations
in regard to the former which are contained in the latter, are
decisive as to the faith of Christians of the present day. These
afford us more than the mere assurance that the books of the
Old Testament are authentic; this might be admitted, without
the slightest acknowledgment of the value of the writings, since
the most wretched and even hurtful productions may be perfectly
genuine. They declare in the most precise manner the Divine
character of these books, which of course presupposes their genu
ineness, for it is very evident that no writings could be Divine
which originated in deceit and imposture.
In the first place, we find in the New Testament citations
from almost all the writings of the Old Testament.1 The prin
cipal books, as e.g., the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Prophet
Isaiah, are cited very often, and even those less important are
referred to here and there in the New Testament. A very few
are entirely neglected ;2 of this number, in particular, is Solo
mon's Song, which is nowhere cited in all the New Testament.
This circumstance is certainly not accidental. Perhaps it is not
too much to conclude, that the books of the Old Testament which
are not at all mentioned in the New, should be regarded very
much as the so-called deutero-canonical books of the New Tes
tament; though the circumstance that they are not cited in the
1 The Old Testament is expressly cited in the New more than four
hundred times, and in a much larger number of places there are allu
sions to the Old Testament.
2 The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's
Song, as also the minor Prophets, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. It
is most proper, however, to consider the twelve Prophets as one work ;
and then the fact that these three are not cited loses its force. But in
regard to other books of the Old Testament the circumstance that
they are not cited is not unimportant.

CONCLUSION. CXX111
New Testament can be nowise objected against their genuine
ness, any more than the position of a New Testament book among
the Antilegomena can be considered as a proof of its spurious
ness. These non-cited books of the Old Testament, with the ex
ception of the three minor prophets, probably present something
like a transition to the apocryphal books. At all events, the
fact that these books are nowhere mentioned in the New Testa
ment should inculcate upon us caution in making use of them.
Of more importance than the citations, are such passages of
the New Testament as contain decisive declarations respecting
the Old Testament as a whole. These occur particularly in the
discourses of our Lord himself. Jesus calls the law (Matth. v.
17 seq.) eternal, imperishable. Heaven and earth, he says, shall
pass away, but not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away
till all be fulfilled. In a similar manner, in Luke xxiv. 44, pro
phecy concerning Christ is represented as something running
through the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, and as
necessary to be fulfilled. In Luke xvi. 17, also, all created
things, (heaven and earth), it is said, will sooner and more easily
pass away than the Law and the Prophets. Thus a lofty divine
character is clearly claimed in behalf of the Old Testament. It
may, indeed, be observed on the contrary, that, in the passages
referred to, allusion is made, not to the whole Old Testament,
but only to particular books, the Mosaic law, the Prophets, and
the Psalms. But, first, it is to be noticed, that the expression,
Law, or Law and Prophets, stands frequently for the whole
Old Testament, just as Gospel stands for the whole New Tes
tament. Moreover, the Law, the Prophets, and the ¦ Psalms,
was the usual division of the books of the Old Testament
among the Jews. The first part of the Hebrew Old Testa
ment comprehends the five books of Moses, the second part
falls into two sub-divisions, first the historical writings, the
books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and, secondly, the three
larger and 12 minor Prophets. In the third part (which in Luke
xxiv. 44, is termed Psalms, from the principal book which it
contains,) belong moreover, besides the Psalms, the book of
Job, the writings of Solomon, the book of Daniel, and some later
historical books, and, lastly, the book of Chronicles. But, en
tirely aside from this Jewish division of the Old Testament, the
connection of these passages with the citations clearly shows,
that they are intended to refer to the whole Old Testament.

CXX1V CONCLUSION.
The citations in the New Testament from the Old are not ad
duced as mere confirmation, drawn from human productions of
great value, but as irrefragable proofs from sacred books. This
power of proof could have belonged to them only from the fact
that they were not bare compositions of human wisdom, but
those of men who were moved by the Holy Ghost. (Compare
2 Pet. i. 20, 21.) Now, as citations from all the principal writ
ings of the Old Testament occur in the New, the general decla
rations we have mentioned must of course refer to all the writ
ings of the Old Testament, so as to attribute to them a common
character, viz. that of a divine origin.
To this it is to be added, that throughout Scripture there runs
the doctrine of a deep, essential connection between the Old and
New Testaments. As the Old Testament is always pointing
onward to the New, so the latter is always pointing backward
to the Old, as its necessary precedent. Consequently, both alike
bear the character of a divine revelation; only, this revelation
manifests itself in a gradual development. In the Old Testa
ment it appears in its commencement as the seed of the subse
quent plant; in the New Testament the living plant itself is
exhibited. On account of this relation, there cannot be any
thing in the Old Testament specifically different from what is to
be found in the New Testament; only, the form of presenting
the same thing is at one time more or less plain and direct than
at another.
These declarations of the New Testament in regard to the Old
are, to Christians, not mere private assertions of wise, good, and
pious men, such as many in our day are in the habit of suppos
ing Jesus and his apostles to have been; they exhibit, rather,
authentic information respecting the real character of the Holy
Scriptures of the Old Testament. Christ, as the Son of the liv
ing God, as absolute truth itself, who alone knew the Father, and
as the source of all real revelation from him, can have made such
declarations concerning the writings of the Old Testament, only
with the strictest sincerity, (as is the case with every thing he
did or said,) and must have designed that they should be a rule
to his church, since his whole life on earth had but one single
aim, that of developing the heavenly and eternal to the created
world. Thus, had Jesus attributed the character of eternity to
a production to which it by no means belonged, he would have
counteracted his own sole purpose. The same is true of the

CONCLUSION. CXXV
apostles, who, in that respect to which our attention is now di
rected, are to be considered as upon a level with Christ himself;
they being pure organs of the mind of Christ; though, in them
selves considered, they were but sinful men, and desired to be
so regarded. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit they ac
knowledged the eternal character of the Old Testament, and their
declarations on this point are not (any more than those of our
Lord himself,) mere subjective, private statements, they are ra
ther authentic accounts respecting the character of this part of
Holy Writ. In considering the force of the apostolic declarations
concerning the authority of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Tes
tament, we are to regard, not merely the citations of individual
passages from it, or general statements respecting its authors,
such as their being at one time represented as moved by the
Holy Ghost (2 Pet. i. 21), and at another Holy Scripture being
called instruction unto salvation (2 Tim. iii. 1 5), which, as the
New Testament was not then collected, can refer only to the Old ;
but we are especially to observe the manner in which the cita
tions are adduced from the Old Testament. This is most re
markable in the Epistle to the Hebrews, although similar passages
also occur in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament.
In this remarkable Epistle, God or the Holy Ghost is constantly
named as the speaker, in the passages which are adduced from
the Old Testament; and this not only in regard to those which
are accompanied in the Old Testament by the expression, " God
said," but also to those in which some man speaks, — for instance
David, as author of a Psalm. Herein is clearly exhibited the
view of the author in relation to the Old Testament and the
writers of it. He considered that God was, by his Holy Spirit,
the living agent and speaker in them all, so that, consequently,
the Holy Scriptures were to him purely a work of God, although
brought forward by men. That the genuineness of these writ
ings was equally certain to him, follows of course, because that
which is divine, as has been before remarked, can never appear
in the form of a forgery.
It is true, however, that such a proof in behalf of the Old Tes
tament is valid only for him who has become convinced, by living
experience, of the truth of God in Christ and the infallibility of
the Spirit which actuated his disciples. Where this truth and in
fallibility are either flatly denied, or even merely doubted, the
observations we have made may be of no weight. For such

CXXV1 CONCLUSION.
persons we cannot frame an argument in behalf of the Old Tes
tament which shall be valid against all objections. As to us who
live according to Christ, and to whom the power of his Spirit is
accessible, every thing must radiate from the centre of the New
Testament scenes, viz. the Saviour himself. The conviction of
his eternal power and Godhead establishes the Old Testament
retrospectively, and also establishes the New Testament prospec
tively, by the promise of his Spirit, which should bring all those
things which he had said to his disciples to their remembrance.
On this conviction the assurance of the genuineness and divinity
of Scripture forever rests, and much more securely, than upon
any external historical proofs; for it wholly takes away the pos
sibility of an attack in any quarter on the part of human sophis
try, and leaves assurance safe in the unassailable sanctuary of
our interior life.

ANDREW JACK, PRINTER.

INTRODUCTION.

§ 1. ON THE ORIGIN OP THE GOSPEL-COLLECTION.*
As the revelations of God to man assume two principal forms,
— viz., the Law and the Gospel ; so, the Scriptures are divided
into two parts, — the first of which relates to God's covenant
with man in the law; the second, to the covenant in grace.
Since the living Word of God — the eternal cause of these
ever-binding covenants — lives in those writings which refer to
the covenants, the writings themselves have been denominated
Old and New Covenants, (n^Sl = S/a&jwj.t The Vulgate renders
it Testamentum. Compare 2 Cor. iii. 14.) It is upon the
writings of the New Testament that we have here to fix our
attention; these always, however, necessarily presuppose the
Old Testament. The New Testament springs from the Old, as
the tree from its root ; while the Old appears in the New in its
completion. (Matth. v. 17.) We- do not find the New Testa
ment, as a collected whole, till the end of the fourth century.
In the course of this century three smaller collections were
united into one, — viz., the Gospels, the Pauline epistles, and
the general epistles, together with some more isolated writings,
which form the transitions and the conclusion, — viz., the Acts
of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apo
calypse. The origin of the first of these smaller collections, the euayysX»-
xov, chiefly claims our attention. The collecting of our four
canonical Gospels is lost in the remotest Christian antiquity.
As far back as the historical records of the Church extend,

* [EvangeUensammlung is the word in the original, which expresses a collec
tion of the Gospels into one volume, forming a subdivision of the whole New
Testament.]— TV.
t The word SiaDrixr) occurs, however, in the New Testament, (Acts iii. 25 ;
Gal. iii. 15 ; Heh. ix. 16,) also in the sense of " Testament," " leaving an
inheritance to children." - A

2 INTRODUCTION.
we find that collection everywhere in use, not only in every
quarter of the world, but also in every division of the Church,
whether belonging to the orthodox Church or the sects ; and
even among heathen writers, as Celsus, it was known, used,
and respected.* It is true, that many heretics, as Marcion,
the Jewish Christians, and others, did not use the Gospel-col
lection, but only one or other of the Gospels ; the collection,
however, was known to them, and they did not make use of
it on the sole ground that, in accordance with their views,
they did not believe themselves justified in regarding the
writers as authorities in matters of faith.t This leads neces
sarily to the supposition of a very early origin of the Gospel-
collection, of which, however, we have no definite information.
Whether it was the work of an individual, or of a single
church, or of a council, remains uncertain. The last supposi
tion is the most unlikely, since we have no account whatever
of church assemblies before the middle of the second century.
But it is very possible that some eminent man, or an influential
church, might have formed the collection. Yet there is no
historical trace of such a fact extant ; and it seems as if the
universal dissemination of the collection, appearing, as it does,
even in the first half of the second century, pointed to another
mode of formation. For, starting with the assumption, that
the four Gospels are genuine, and with the further assumption,
(which we must do, since there is no credible account what
ever of other apostolical Gospels,) that these four alone are the
work of apostles, or enjoy apostolical sanction, we do not then
need to suppose a definite time, or a definite place, or any
special occasion, in order to explain the origin of the collection
of the Gospels ; but we may conceive that it was made in dif
ferent places at the same time. The lively intercourse among
the ancient Christian congregations led them to distribute, as
quickly as possible, those Gospel histories which had apos
tolical authority in their favour, as precious gifts bequeathed
to the Church of Christ ; and, as it was just these four only

* For a fuller discussion of this point, see the Author's work : Die Aechtheit
der Evangelien, aus der Geschichte der zwei ersten Jahrhunderte erwiesen.
KSnigsberg, 1823, 8vo, S. 267, ff.
t E, g. Marcion, the Gnostic, believed St. Matthew, and even St. John, to he
Judaizers. (See the Author's work, ut supra, S. 359, ff.)

INTRODUCTION. 3
that could shew credible evidence of being genuine apostoli
cal writings, they were consequently united into one collection.
Gradually, as they came into circulation in the Church, they
were deposited in the Church archives, which must have been
early formed by the presbyters and bishops, and were imme
diately multiplied by copying. If, then, we suppose likewise,
(and history supplies no ground of objection to the supposi
tion,) that the evangelists wrote in the order in whieh the
Gospels are arranged in the canon, not only is their general
dissemination accounted for, but also the circumstance, that
we discover only slight traces of the existence of any arrange
ment different from the present,* — a circumstance which, apart
from the supposition of the Gospels having been composed
in that order, might favour the opinion, that some particular
individual or church must have arranged the collection just
in that order ; since, otherwise, the contemporaneous formation
of the collection, in different places, would almost inevitably
have produced variations in the arrangement, especially such
variations as were so founded in the nature of the case, as the
placing of St. John and St. Matthew together.
§ 2. ON THE CHARACTER OF THE GOSPEL-COLLECTION.
The ancient Church justly regarded the Gospel-collection as
a unity, on which account they call it simply suayylX/ov, or
i\>ovyyikiy.ov,\ as containing the glad tidings of Him who had
appeared as the Saviour of the world, and as relating the life,
labours, and passion of Jesus. See Iren. adv. haer. i. 17, 29, iii.

* Cod. D. and also the Gothic translation, place, for instance, the Gospel of
St. John immediately after that of St. Matthew, evidently in order to separate
the two apostolical works from those of the helpers of the apostles. See Hug.
Introduction to the New Testament, p. 309, (Fosdick's Translation,,) and the
Postcriptsto the Gospels in Schulz' edition.
t The New Testament recognizes the proper signification only of the word
tvcvyy'iktov = ("HIES, chiefly in the special reference to the joyful tidings of
the Messiah's actual' appearance. A secondary signification, in conformity to
which the writings that sketch the actions of the Messiah are called ivovyyihta,
has been incorrectly given to the word in such passages as Rom. ii. 16 ; x. 16.
The titles of our Gospels are of later origin ; moreover, in them we should refer
the term svayyeXiov simply to the contents, not to the book. In classical use.
tliayyiKiw signifies likewise a reward for a piece of good news, a present to one
who brings good news. (See Liddell and Scott's Lex. s. v.)

4 INTRODUCTION.
11. The uniting into a whole of these four authentic writings
concerning the Saviour, they not only further regarded as not
merely accidental, but acknowledged a higher necessity in their
connexion, as well as in the formation and arrangement of the
Scriptures in general. The number of the Gospels could not
have been different any more than their arrangement, without
disturbing the harmony of the whole. Irenaeus, (ut sup. iii. 11,
p. 221, Ed. Grabe,) therefore, very appropriately calls the Gospel-
collection a tuayyiXwv Tirgafhagcpm, fourfold gospel, and describes it
as a picture, portraying the same sublime object from different
aspects. The relation of the Gospels to each other, and to the
remaining books of the New Testament, speaks for the correct
ness of this opinion. The Gospels are supplemental to each other
in their accounts of the person of the Redeemer, and in the form
of their portraiture. The life of Jesus presented such a fulness
of the most varied appearances, and His discourses breathed so
rich a stream of life upon the circle of His disciples, that single
individuals were incapable of adequately comprehending the ex
ceeding grandeur of His character. In Him there was revealed
something that surpassed the power of single human individuals
to apprehend ; and hence there was need of several minds, which,
as mirrors, caught the rays that proceeded from Him, as from
the Sun of the world of spirits, and reflected the same image in
different directions. The four Gospels contain just such entirely
different conceptions of our Lord, in His demeanour, at once
divine and human, as must be blended together, in order to form
a perfect delineation of Christ. But for God's providential ar
rangement, therefore, by which several persons, and those very
different, have narrated the life of Jesus, either His human and
natural, or His divine and supernatural, conduct would be pre
sented to us less carefully conceived, according as we were with
out the one or the other aspect of this grand fourfold picture.
But much as this view of the relation of the Gospels to each
other must approve itself to every one who feels that he cannot
ascribe the development of the Church, and especially the forma
tion of the Scriptures, to chance, it is yet difficult, in following
out that view, to define accurately the character of each ' indi
vidual Gospel — a difficulty which certainly by no means leads
to the rejection of the fundamental view, but rather invites to
deeper research into the nature of the Gospels. That St.
Matthew has seized the manifestation of Jesus more in its

INTRODUCTION. 5
human and subordinate aspect, and St. John more in its higher,
is too evident to be overlooked. In St. Matthew, we see
the human ascending to the divine exhibited in Him ; in
St. John, the descent of the divine to the human. It is
more difficult to assign a definite position to St. Mark and St.
Luke, since both stand as intermediate between the other two
Gospels, as extremes. The comparison of the Gospels with the
prevalent tendencies in the ancient Church, is our best guide.
That is to say, as St. Matthew unquestionably represents the
Judaistic, and St. John the Gnostic element, so far as both are
to some extent true, so St. Mark and St. Luke appear to represent
the peculiar tendencies of the heathen Christians, the former per
haps more in the Roman, the latter more in the Greek, form. In
St. Mark, however, the least of what is peculiar is discernible; yet,
that it is not altogether wanting, is evident from the circum
stance, that one party in the early Church attached themselves
principally to this Gospel. But on the party itself impenetrable
obscurity rests. (See the Author's Geschichte der Aechtheit der
Evang. S. 96, ff.) As, then, the Gospels, in the manner referred
to, represent different tendencies of the early Church, which,
under other names and forms, belong to every period ; so they
correspond to the progressive developments of the inner life,
which can never proceed in its growth from the understanding
of St. John, downwards to St. Matthew, but, contrariwise,
always upwards, from St. Matthew to St. John.
, Further, if we consider the Gospel-collection in its relation to
the entire New Testament, it appears plainly as the basis of the
whole. In the Pauline epistles, the Gospel is unfolded in its
separate branches — in its doctrinal and practical bearing ; the
general epistles continue the exposition of what was included in
the Gospels as a germ^ and in the Apocalypse appears lastly the
prophetic portion of the New Testament vitally connected with
the other parts — they being the root and branches, and it the
blossom crowning the whole. The whole of the New Testament,
therefore, forms a completed unity, and is like a living plant. The
beginning and the end are the most difficult to understand, be
cause there the thoughts appear in the most succinct form. Unless
inward experience be altogether wanting, it is best to begin the
deeper study of the New Testament with the Epistle to the
Romans, since that document purposely expounds at length the
peculiarities of the Gospel. After the accurate explanations of

6 INTRODUCTION.
this important epistle, much that is expressed more concisely and
darkly in other portions of the New Testament, may be easily
understood. But, as the whole of the New Testament is the sub
ject of our labours, we follow the order of the books as there given,
so as not to interfere at all with any one's wishes and views.
§ 3. ON THE AFFINITY OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
The investigation of the difficult problem of the striking affin
ity of the first three Gospels, which is seen to be interrupted
by variations just as striking, cannot, of course, be carried on in
this place, any more than we can give a history of the attempts
to solve that problem : both belong to the Introduction to the
Canonical Books of the New Testament, properly so called,
where the subjects of the preceding paragraphs also meet with
a more copious discussion. A commentator, however, owes to
his readers an account of the way in which he looks upon this
remarkable phenomenon, since the view taken of very many
passages is determined by his opinion concerning the origin of
the Gospels. I shall therefore endeavour here to give briefly
the results of my inquiries.
The two Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke appear to me
to have been composed quite independently, — St. Matthew's
principally from his own experience and oral tradition; St.
Luke's principally from shorter written memoirs (diegeses*)
which he edited. That which is found common to both Gospels
may, in great part, be accounted for on the supposition of an
affinity existing among the sources of information,! both oral
and written, which the authors used independently of each other.
In another respect, however, the supposition of their having used
kindred sources of information, does not appear sufficient to
account for the affinity subsisting between St. Matthew and St.
Luke. I do not indeed, by any means, discover similarity of
form in the general plan of the two works, and especially I do
not discover that similarity in the fact, as alleged by some, that
the scene of Christ's history, up to His last journey, is confined

* [A/!jy»i<r/£, Luke i. 1.]— TV.
t The copious narrative of the journey, contained in Luke ix. 51 — xviii. 14,
which is peculiar to him, is probably to be regarded as a diegesis of that sort,
edited by St. Luke. See on this subject, Schleiermacher, iiber die Schriften des
Lucas, S. 158, ff.

INTRODUCTION. 7
to Galilee ; for, in respect to the general plan, there is much that
is very different; and the above-mentioned limitation of our
Saviour's ministry to Galilee, in the Gospels of St. Matthew and
St. Luke, is totally destitute of proof, as it depends, not on posi
tive reasons, but merely on the omission of journeys to the feasts,
and the want of chronological and topographical notices ; — still,
there is, in many places, so close a verbal coincidence between
St. Matthew and St. Luke, that we can hardly maintain that
both, even in such places, wrote altogether independently of
each other, or that they only used kindred sources of informa
tion. Compare Matth. iii. 7-10, with Luke iii. 7-9 ; Matth. vii.
3-5, with Luke vi. 41, 42 ; Matth. vii. 7-11, with Luke xi. 9-13 ;
Matth. viii. 9, with Luke vii. 8; Matth. viii. 19-22, with Luke,
ix. 57-60 ; Matth. ix. 5, 6, with Luke v. 23, 24 ; Matth. ix. 37,
38, with Luke x. 2 ; Matth. xi. 4-11, with Luke vii. 23-28 ;
Matth. xii. 41-45, with Luke xi. 24-26, 31, 32. Yet the view,
that the one made use of the complete work of the other, is beset
with invincible difficulties, since, in that case, it remains inex
plicable for what reason the one should not have either used or
noticed the other's narrative of the history of Christ's infancy.
To solve this difficulty, I suppose that St. Matthew, who had
written his Gospel in Hebrew, himself subsequently prepared*
a Greek recension, (no other than our canonical St. Matthew ;)
and that, for this work, he made use of smaller collections of
those memoirs which St. Luke had used, particularly Luke
iii. — ix., in which section the closest coincidence is found.
• The affinity of St. Mark's Gospel with those of St. Matthew
and St. Luke, must be differently explained.-f Although he
may haye taken here and there a circumstance from tradition,
or from shorter memoirs, yet, in the main (for there is very
little in St. Mark that is peculiar to him ; with the exception of
additional circumstances in various narratives, two cures, briefly
narrated, are all that he alone has) he follows St. Matthew and
St. Luke entirely; where he leaves the one, he follows the other,
but only to return from the latter to the former. It is impos
sible for so regular a coincidence to be accidental. Still I do
not go so far as to maintain, that St. Mark had both the
Gospels before him while composing. This is not altogether
* This subject is handled more fully in § i of this Introduction.
t See Saunter, Ueber die Quellen des Marcus. Berlin, 1825. A. Knobel de
origine evang. Marci. Wratislaviae, 1831.

8 INTRODUCTION.
improbable with respect to St. Matthew's Gospel; but, with
respect to St. Luke's, it would suit better to suppose that St.
Mark also was acquainted only with the section, chaps, iii. — ix.,
where the closest agreement is found; so that St. Mark may
still have been finished earlier, and, consequently, received into
the canon earlier, than the complete Gospel of St. Luke. For,
had St. Mark had access to the whole Gospel of St. Luke, it
would remain inexplicable, why St. Mark should not have
incorporated much of the important narrative of the journey in
Luke ix. — xviii.* Respecting the early chapters of St. Matthew
and St. Luke, which contain the history of the childhood of
Jesus, it might be said that St. Mark did not make use of
them on this' ground, — that it was his purpose to describe only
. the official labours of Jesus.
§ 4. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
St. Matthew, called Levi, the son of Alphseus, (Matth. ix.
9 ; Mark ii. 14,) is mentioned in the inscription as the authorf
of the first of our four canonical Gospels ; and tradition estab
lishes the fact, that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel ; but the
question about the genuineness of St. Matthew is so intimately
connected with the inquiry into the language in which it was
composed, that the one cannot, by possibility, be answered
apart from the other. All accounts of the Fathers who give
any information about the Gospel of St. Matthew, (see the
Author's Geschichte der Ev., S. 19, ff.,) agree in this, that St.

* See, however, what is said concerning this in the remarks on Luke ix. 51.
t Although we are not, by any means, necessarily compelled to explain the
inscriptions of the Gospels, as giving the author, yet they may be so taken
grammatically ; it is the comparison of tradition that gives to this possible
explanation its probability. The xatd might be taken = secundum ; so that
the meaning of the formula would be — a Gospel of Jesus, after St. Matthew's
mode of description, or St. Mark's, which explanation would admit the supposition
of other authors of the Gospels. But universally-prevailing tradition, which
cannot have arisen out of these superscriptions, because it is too widespread
and too ancient, decides in favour of taking xard as pointing out the author, —
a usage found also 2 Mace. ii. 13. This form of expression was chosen to con
vey the genitive relation, because the simple genitive could hardly stand here,
since the Gospel is not that of the author, but of Jesus Christ. As ivayyiKim
'irieov Xg/tfroO, Gospel of Christ, was in use, it was impossible to write ivetyyiXiov
Mardaku or Mdgxov, Gospel of St. Matthew or St. Mark.

INTRODUCTION. 9
Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Syro-Chaldaic language. But
on the relation in which our Greek Gospel by St. Matthew
stands to the Aramaic, there rests an obscurity which the
investigations that have been pursued have not hitherto suc
ceeded in penetrating. The readiest suggestion is, to pro
nounce the Greek Gospel a translation of the Aramaic. On
closer consideration, however, difficulties arise in the way of
this view. First of all, — Papias (Euseb. H. E. iii. 39) might
seem to speak against the existence of a translation, as he
writes of the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, ri^nwrs b° aird,
bos ?v Swarbs ixoigng; which words are best taken to mean, that
every one had to try to explain the Hebrew book as well as he
could, (either from his own knowledge, or from that of some one
else,) because there was no translation of it. However, we must
not overlook the fact, that Papias says this, not of his own times,
but of the much earlier times of the Presbyter John. The
passage cannot, accordingly, be adduced to shew, that in the
time of Papias, there was no Greek translation of St. Matthew
in existence. Next, our Greek text of St. Matthew shews traces
of originality, which render it extremely unlikely that we have
in it a mere translation. In particular, the passages from the Old
Testament are quoted in a way so free and independent, that
no translator would have so treated them. This character of
the Greek text, taken in connexion with the universally current
tradition, that St. Matthew wrote an Aramaic Gospel, and with
the like universal reception of this very Greek text in the Church,
as the genuine Gospel, renders it probable to me, as before
observed, that St. Matthew, after the composition of the
Aramaic Gospel, himself prepared also a Greek edition of it,
or, at least, had it done under his authority. This Greek
edition may be regarded as another recension of the Gospel,
whereby the difference that subsists between our Gospel accord
ing to St. Matthew and that of the Jewish Christians, which was
a revision founded more on the Aramaic Gospel, is more easily
accounted for. The objection to this view, that scarcely any
one would have taken the trouble to read the original Aramaic
work if an authorized Greek edition of the Gospel had been
extant, (which Papias' account, mentioned above, implies was the
case,) is sufficiently refuted by the supposition, that the Greek
Gospel was less rapidly circulated in the Church than the
Aramaic and the other Gospels; it was regarded only as a

10 INTRODUCTION.
translation, and, consequently, not as a new book, and people
thought that they possessed it already in the Aramaic copy,
which was earlier in circulation. But with the growing circu
lation of the Greek, the traces of the Aramaic Gospel were
gradually lost, because to most it was inaccessible, by reason
of the language, and its contents could be read as well in the
Greek Gospel.
The view, just detailed, of the relation of the Greek Gospel
to the Aramaic, agrees best with the historical data. But, very
recently, an attempt has been made to disprove the apostolical
character of our Greek Gospel, on internal grounds.* But,
from the nature of the case, such arguments have something
most uncertain about them ; very much, if not everything,
depends on the feeling, and especially on the doctrinal views
of the critic. Hence the opinions of the learned differ greatly
from each other ; where one sees a proof against the apostolical
authorship of St. Matthew, another sees a testimony in its
favour. We cannot, therefore, ascribe any importance to the
results of internal criticism, as long as they are unsupported
by historical proofs. (For further information on this subject,
consult the Programmes mentioned in the note.)
Lastly, in reference to the place and time of the composition
of the Gospel by St. Matthew, but little can be said. Doubtless
it was written in Palestine, and even in Jerusalem itself, since
the tradition of St. Matthew's labours points thither. The
circumstance, that the Hebrew recension of the Gospel, under
the title of siayyeXiov xaff 'E/3ga/ous, was in use principally among
the Jewish Christians in Palestine, also implies that it was
composed in that country, and for its inhabitants. The Greek
recension may certainly have had its origin in a different

* Schleiermacher, Schulz, de Wette, Schulthess, were the first to utter these
doubts. Heidenreich has endeavoured to refute them in Winer's Theol. Journ.,
Bd. in., H. 2. They were followed by Sieffert, (Konigsberg, 1832.) Klener,
(Gottingen, 1832.) Schneckenburger, (Stuttgart, 1834.) Consult also Schleier-
macher's Article on the Testimony of Papias, (Stud. und. Kritiken Jahrg. 1832,
H. 4 ;) and Strauss's Review in the Berl. Jahrblicher, 1834, No. 91, ff. Kern,
(Tubingen, 1834,) defends the genuineness of St. Matthew against these attacks,
still inclining to Sieffert's and Klener's views ; he also supposes a re-touching
of the original, together with spurious additions, only allowing but few such.
I have given my opinion of these works and their arguments more at length
in the Erlangen Easter Programme for the year 1835, and the Christmas Pro
gramme for 1836. On Sieffert's Work, see the Author's Review in Tholuck's
Liter. Anz. Jahrg. 1833, No. 14, ff.

INTRODUCTION. 1 1
country; yet there are no data to enable us to decide more
accurately upon the point, and it still remains just as possible
that St. Matthew, in consequence of the very general use of
the Greek tongue in Palestine, in the time of the apostles, may
have prepared a Greek edition of his Gospel for the benefit
of the Greeks who dwelt there. The supposition of the Greek
Gospel appearing in any other country would always have this
objection against it, that there are no remarks added illustrative
of the localities and customs of Palestine, such as we find in St.
Mark and St. Luke, but which, in that case, would have been
equally necessary in St. Matthew. Respecting the time of the
composition, we are totally destitute of express authority on the
point. The statement of Irenwus, (adv. haer. iii. 1,) however,
that it was written while St. Peter and St. Paul were preach
ing at Rome, comes, probably, very near the truth. According
to St. Matthew (xxiv.,) the Gospel was certainly written before
the destruction of Jerusalem, since this event, though near at
hand, appears as still future. We can hardly,, therefore, be
wrong in placing the composition of St. Matthew somewhere
between a.d. 60-70.
And now, in conclusion, to say something on the distinctive
character of St. Matthew, it is clearly seen, as was before observed,
to be this, that St. Matthew labours to prove for Jewish readers
that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the prophets. The special
regard for Jewish readers shews itself at#once at the very com
mencement, since the genealogy of Jesus is traced up to Abraham
only ; it appears also in various express statements, (Matth. x.
6 ; xv. 24 ;) and lastly, in its being taken for granted that every
thing relative to the Mosaic law, Jewish customs and localities,
is familiar. The distinctive character of St. Matthew is further
evident in this, that external circumstances appear to him some
thing by the by and unessential in the description. St. Matthew
has conceived the life of Jesus from general points of view. At
one time, he pictures Him as a new lawgiver; at another, as a
worker of miracles ; at another, as a teacher. He presents the
character of the Saviour especially in discourses, which are in
part made up of elements of addresses that appear to have been
spoken at.different times.* These discourses, as chap. v. — vii., x.

* Schlichthorst, Ueber das "Verhaltniss der drei synoptischen Evangelien, und
iiber den Charakter des Mt. insbesondere, Gottingen, 1835, attempts to sub-

12 INTRODUCTION.
xi., xiii., xviii., xxiii., xxiv., xxv., are connected by historical
introductions, which do not seem, however, in themselves, to be
of importance to the Evangelist, (almost as in the case of St.
John;) for which reason, also, St. Matthew has bestowed less
pains on their completion, than on the construction of the dis
courses. St. Matthew's book, regarded as a whole, undeniably
presents him to us as a character thoroughly taken up with the
magnificence of Christ's manifestation ; still we perceive that he
was destitute of that abundant susceptibility and that refinement
(Feinheit) of spirit, which we admire in -St. John, although St.
Matthew far exceeds St. Mark in spiritual depth, (Innerlichkeit.)
The Christ of St. Matthew is by no means a Messiah according
to the ordinary popular Jewish conceptions. The delineation
which St. Matthew gives of Him, appears rather in opposition
to what was false in the Jews' notions of the Messiah ; still the
Son of God, whom St. Matthew, of course, in common with the
other apostles, recognized in Jesus, presents himself, according
to St. Matthew's portraiture, in a Jewish garb; while in St.
John's, a robe of heavenly light floats around Him ; so that the
form in which the disciple of love introduces the Son of love,
is as much spiritualized as is the holy person himself, who is
enveloped in it. As this cannot be said of St. Matthew, the
ancients were not wrong in denominating the Gospel of St.
Matthew, (Sbtparixov, that of St. John, «KU(iamx6v ; by which
epithet it was not intended to. mark that of St. Matthew as
unapostolic, but as, in the Saviour, the "kayos was manifested in
a ffS/tta, so, in a comprehensive delineation of the life of Jesus,
the popular and temporal element in His manifestation must
vividly appear associated with the apprehension of its spiritual
aspect. § 5. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK.
John Mark, often called simply Mark, was the son of a certain
Mary, (Acts xii. 12,) who had a house at Jerusalem, where the
apostles often assembled. He is known from the New Testament

stantiate too close a relationship Tbetween the separate parts of St. Matthew
to each other. Various of his demonstrations are not without foundation ¦ but
most of these references are undesigned, simply growing out of the spirit and
harmony of the life of Jesus, not out of the reflection of the author.

INTRODUCTION. 13
as the companion of St. Paul. (Acts xii. 25 ; xiii. 5 ; xv. 36, ff.)
Even during the Apostle's imprisonment at Rome, he is still
associated with him, (Col. iv. 10 ; Philem. 24 ;) and, if we sup
pose the Apostle to have been a second time a prisoner at Rome,
he appears in connexion with St. Paul till the close of the
Apostle's fife. (2 Tim. iv. 11.) In this there seems to be
some contradiction to the notices of the Fathers, according to
which St. Mark appears in company with St. Peter, of which
only one trace is met with in the New Testament, and that has
some uncertainty attaching to it. (1 Peter v. 13.) But the
notices of the Fathers may be reconciled with the statements
of the New Testament,' by supposing that, after the contention
with St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and St. Mark, (Acts xv. 37, ff.,)
the last-named joined St. Peter for a time. On this point the
New Testament is silent, because less is there said about St.
Peter than about St. Paul ; but afterwards, when the old rela
tion between St. Mark and St. Paul was restored, and St.
Peter, moreover, was labouring in conjunction with St. Paul at
Rome, St. Mark appears again- in connexion with St. Paul.
But, together with the account of the connexion of St. Mark
and St. Peter, which appears too unvaryingly to have its truth
questioned, the Fathers tell us (see Euseb. H. E. iii. 39 ; v. 8 ;
vi. 25. Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 5) that St. Peter authorized
the Gospel written by St. Mark, as his interpreter. That the
Fathers are not quite unanimous in their relation of secondary
circumstances, cannot be any reason for doubting the truth of the
main fact ; because nothing but such an occurrence can render
conceivable the fact, otherwise so astonishing, that the Gospel
by St. Mark was acknowledged in the Church without any con
tradiction. The authority of this companion of the apostles was
surely too insignificant, and his previous relation to our Lord too
uncertain, for them to have relied on his personal character in
receiving his narrative of the life of Jesus into the canon. If it
had been the product of a later period, the name of some more
renowned man would certainly have been put at the head of the
book ; so that, even if history did not supply any such account,
we must have conjectured something similar from the fact of
the reception of St. Mark into the canon. The authority of St.
Peter, which this Gospel enjoyed, also alone explains how any
persons in the ancient Church could have thought of using this
Gospel in preference to any other, as Irenceus (iii. 11) tells us

14 INTRODUCTION.
was the case. The character of the Gospel itself could not pos
sibly lead them to do so, since it contains too little that is dis
tinctive to gain a party to itself; but it is easily conceivable, that
partisans of St. Peter, on account of this very connexion, which,
as they knew, subsisted between St. Mark and their leader,
used this Gospel on the same principle that the partisans of
St. Paul used that of St. Luke. But whether the Gospel by
St. Mark suffered corruption in the hands of these Christians of
St. Peter's party, as that of St. Luke did among the ultras of
St. Paul's party, (the Marcionites,) and that of St. Matthew
among the Jewish Christians, is uncertain. We know too
little of the suayysXw xar Aiyvirrfavg, to be able to say anything
certain on its relationship to the Gospel of St. Peter.*
On the time and place of the composition, as little can be said
that is exact and certain as respecting that of St. Matthew's
Gospel. Here, also, we must rest content with the one circum
stance, that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
(Mark xiii. 14, ff.) From the relation it bears to St. Matthew,
we may conclude, with much probability, that it was composed
later than the Gospel of that apostle. We come nearest the
truth in supposing that St. Mark wrote his Gospel in the period
shortly before the overthrow of Jerusalem. Respecting the
place of its composition, tradition is divided between Alexandria
and Rome. The Latin words which St. Mark has admitted into
his book, speak in favour of the latter city ; and as, in any case,
it had its origin in one of the centres of the early ecclesiastical
life,f to which circumstance the rapid circulation of the Gospel
must be partially ascribed ; and as the history of St. Mark is
not opposed to the idea that he wrote in Rome, the opinion that
he did so seems to deserve the preference.

* In my History of the Gospels, (p. 97, ff.) I have too decidedly rejected the
possibility of a connexion between the Gospel of the Egyptians and St. Peter,
and that of St. Mark. According to the general analogy, it is very probable that
the Gospel of St. Mark also suffered corruptions ; and it still remains possible that
one of the writings belonging to the apocryphal books of St. Peter's partisans
was a corrupted Gospel by St. Mark. Schneckenburger, Ueber das Evangelium
der Aegyptier. Bern, 1834, takes it to be a work related to the ivayyeXiov
xaS ' E/3ga/ous, used by the Ebionites. From the Gospel of St. John, published
by Munter, (Copenhagen, 1828,) we see that it also, though not till a late period,
suffered corruption from the Gnostics. Consult Ullmann in the Studien und
Kritiken, Jahrg. I., H. iv., S. 818, ff.
t Consult the Author's Gesch. der Evangelien, S. 440.

INTRODUCTION. 15
No definite character is displayed in the Gospel by St.
Mark. We see, indeed, at once that St. Mark did not write
for Jewish readers, because Jewish manners and customs are
carefully explained by him, (compare the remarks on Mark
vii. 3, 4 ;) but what particular tendency in the ancient Church
he had in view, does not clearly appear. The Latinisms found
in St. Mark are not of themselves sufficient to stamp it with.
a Roman character. The evident pains which St. Mark has
bestowed on the vividness of the narrations, which is character
istic of his Gospel, might be regarded as a more conclusive
proof. In the popular Roman character, there appears un
questionably a practical tact, which is in some measure re
flected in St. Mark. This Evangelist knows how to represent
the progress of the actions picturesquely, and to transport his
readers to the scene. Compare particularly Mark v. 1-20,
22-43; vi. 17-29; ix. 14, ff., with the parallel passages; also
Mark vii. 32-37 ; viii. 22-26, which are peculiar to him. This
vividness manifests itself mainly in the accounts of cures, and
among these, most of all in the cures of some demoniacs.
(Mark v. 1, ff. ; ix. 14, ff.) In his conception of the inner
aspect of the life of Jesus, and especially of His discourses, he
is strikingly inferior. We cannot, therefore, regard the vivid
ness of description as such a superiority in St. Mark as should
place him far above St. Matthew. It appears, likewise, that
St. Mark intended to place before his readers a vivid picture
of only the official labours of Jesus ; on which account, he
opened his narrative with the baptism of Christ.
§ 6. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE.
The person to whom tradition refers the third Gospel, is St.
Luke, who is sufficiently known, from sacred history, as the
companion of the Apostle Paul. His name is the shortened
form of Lucanus, — as Alexas of Alexander, Cleopas of Cleopat-
ros. That he was a physician, is placed beyond doubt, by CoL
iv. 14 ; and there is nothing improbable in the statement of the
Fathers, that he was a native of Antioch. He was a heathen by
birth, as is satisfactorily proved by Col. iv. 14, compared with
verse 11, and still more by the aim of his book. As St. Matthew
evidently had the Jewish Christians, so St. Luke had the hea
then Christians in view. He might be led to write for them,

16 INTRODUCTION.
not only from his national sympathy with them, but also by the
example of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who directed the whole
of St. Luke's tendencies. According to the tradition of the
Fathers, (Euseb. H. E. iii. 4, v. 8, vi. 25 ; Tertull. adv. Marc.
iv. 5,) St. Paul is also said to have exercised a confirmatory
influence on the Gospel of St. Luke, like that of St. Peter on
St. Mark's ; which information is confirmed in a similar way by
the rapid dissemination of the book, and its universal acknow
ledgment in the ancient Church. But the internal structure
of the Gospel shews more than all, that it sprang from the
Pauline school, which it represents in ther Gospel-collection.
The universal character of this Gospel manifests itself at once
in its carrying the genealogy of Jesus up to Adam, while St.
Matthew stops at Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews ; further,
in the account of the sending forth of the seventy disciples as
the representatives of all nations, while St. Matthew speaks
only of the twelve apostles going forth as representatives of the
twelve tribes ; and equally so in the omission of every circum
stance in which anything of Jewish exclusiveness shews itself.
It may, therefore, be said, that as St. Matthew represents Jesus
as the Messiah of the Jews, so St. Luke represents Him as the
Messiah of the heathen, — i. e., as He in whom all the higher
aspirations of the heathen world were realized, and who made
the heathen themselves the object of his labours. As respects
the form of the delineation, St. Luke has the peculiarity of
exhibiting, with great vividness and truth, (especially in the
long journey narrated in ix. 51 — xviii. 14,) not so much the dis
courses, as the conversations of Jesus, with the occasions which
gave rise to them, the remarks interposed by the bystanders,
and the manner of their conclusion ; so that, according to this,
each of the Evangelists teaches us, even in the form of his
delineation, to view the Saviour from a different aspect. Ac
cordingly it was founded in the nature of the relations, that the
ultra partisans of St. Paul — and, as such, we must regard the
Marcionites — used this Gospel, in which their tendency is most
definitely embodied, in preference to the others, and only endea
voured to remove, as Jewish additions, so much as did not agree
with their exaggerated or mistaken Pauline views of the law
and the Gospel.*
* That the Gospel of Marcion is a mutilated Gospel by Luke, has been con
vincingly shewn by Halm in his well-known work : Das Evangelium Marcions

INTRODUCTION. 17
Regarding the determination of the place and time of the
composition of St. Luke's Gospel, the person of Theophilus, to
whom the Gospel is addressed, may, in some measure, guide us.
He seems to have been a man of reputation, (see note on Luke
i. 3,) and a resident in Italy. For we observe that the Evan
gelist, in speaking of Eastern subjects, everywhere adds
explanations, and particularly, exact descriptions of places, even
of the most familiar. These, however, are altogether wanting
concerning the most insignificant parts of Italy, because he
must have thought himself at liberty to take for granted a
perfect familiarity with them in his reader. Rome is, therefore,
in all probability, to be regarded as the place of composition for
this Gospel also, whither, in particular, we are led, by the close
of the Acts of the Apostles, the second part of the Evangelists
work. For, without a formal close, it breaks off with tha
second year of St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome; and as St.
Luke was in company with St. Paul during that imprison*
ment, we can assign the place of composition with much
probability. Further, as nothing is added about the issue of St.
Paul's affairs, there remains but little obscurity as to the time of
the composition of the Gospel. It must have been written shortly
before the Acts of the Apostles, during St. Paul's imprisonment
at Rome, and about sixty-four years after the birth of Christ.
For it is not likely that a great space of time should have
elapsed between the composition of the Gospel and that of the
Acts, because the two works are so closely connected. In all
probability, also, St. Luke's acquaintance with Theophilus could
only be the fruit of his stay in Rome. De Wette (Einleitung
ins. N. T., S. 182,) draws from such passages as Luke xxi. 17,
ff., the conclusion, that this Gospel must have been written after
the destruction of Jerusalem ; but our remarks on Matth. xxiv.
15, will shew that this conclusion is untenable.
§ 7. ON THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPEL-HISTORT.
The propensity to look everywhere for connexion and unity,
is too deeply seated in human nature not to have sought its

in seiner urspriinglichen Gestalt, Konigsberg, 1823. Consult the Author's
work on the Gospels, p. 106, ff. The counter-assertions of Schulz in Ullmann's
Studien (B. ii., H. 3) still remain unestablished. B

18 INTRODUCTION.
gratification in attempts to form a connected account of the
Saviour's life out of the different Gospels. Such an undertaking
is very much adapted to meet a practical want, by Tendering
easier the survey of all the circumstances in our Lord's life ; so
that it is not surprising to hear, even at a very early peiiod, of
attempts to form the different accounts of the Evangelists into a
connected whole, such as were made by Tatian* Ammonius, and
Eusebius. But the narratives of the Evangelists do not admit of
being reduced to a unity, with certainty, and in a strictly scientific
manner. The difficulties in the construction of a Gospel harmony
lie in this, that some of the Evangelists, in the composition of their
books, have not thought of any definite arrangement of events in
the order of time. They begin their histories, indeed, with the
Saviour's birth, and close them with His death, as it could hardly
be otherwise in a biography ; but the real body of the Gospel-
history — the exhibition of the official labours of Jesus — is so
treated, that the intention of preserving a definite chronological
order in the events narrated is nowhere perceptible. In St.
Matthew, first of all, no accurately defined statement of time is
found from the temptation (ch. iv.) down to the last journey to
Jerusalem, (xx. 17,) which might serve for the arrangement of
the matter. For the most part, the Evangelist passes from one
event to another, without anything to fix the time, (iv. 12, 18,
23 ; viii. 5, 18, 23, 28 ; ix. 1, 9, 35 ;) or he uses an indefinite
tots, to connect them, (iii. 13 ; iv. 1 ; ix. 14 ; xi. 20 ; xii. 22,
38 ; xv. 1 ;) or he arranges the several histories, one after
another, with the comprehensive formulas, h ratg ri/ji^aig sxiivaig,
(iii. 1 ; xiii. 1,) h hxiivuirSi xa,igSi, (xiv. 1,) h sxzfrri rrj &go}, (xviii. 1.)
Precise statements as to time (as Matth. xvii. 1, yaS ^ftkgag sg)
are extremely rare. The great collections of discourses in St.
Matthew shew that his prevailing aim was to portray the per
son of Jesus, apart from time and place, and, by a grouping
together of kindred actions and discourses, to bring Him before
the reader's mind in the different spheres of his labours. In the

* Tatian's work I have called, in my History of the Gospels, p. 335, ff., a
Harmony of the Gospels ; but the zeal with which Theodoret, in the fifth century,
caused it to be destroyed, points to grave heretical corruptions which it con
tained. There is no doubt that Tatian made a compilation from the whole
Gospel-collection, such as suited his purposes, and took the liberty of making
considerable alterations in the text, which his adherents probably further in
creased. Concerning other harmonies, consult § 9 of this Introduction.

INTRODUCTION. 19
case of St. Mark, this neglect of time and place is still more
striking ; even these general data are for the most part wanting
with him. He usually gives the narrative, without any remarks ;
he is concerned only to represent the facts themselves vividly,
without arranging them according to a certain order of subjects.
St. Luke appears, at first sight, more exact in the chronology ;
so that one might expect to discover from him an arrangement
of events according to the succession of time. At the very
commencement, in ch. i. 3, xafoZftg, (see comment, on the pas
sage,) seems to point to a chronological arrangement; there
follows then (iii. 1) a very important date for the chrono
logy of the life of Jesus ; and (iii. 23) he remarks, that the
Saviour was thirty years of age at His entrance on His ministry.
Yet, in the course of the Gospel, an indefiniteness in the arrange
ment of the events, similar to that which we find in the others, dis
covers itself. For the most part, St. Luke, too, joins one history
to another, without statement of time, (iv. 16, 31; v. 12, 33;
vii. 18, 36; viii. 26; ix. 1, 18;) sometimes the indefinite transi
tions, /jLird raDra, (v. 27,) h yicj. rZii ^/isgSi/, (v. 17 ; viii. 22,) and
others are interchanged; so that it does actually become uncertain
whether, even in St. Luke, events are always arranged according
to the succession of time ; but, at all events, even if this be still
probable, an arrangement of the events in the life of Jesus through
out cannot be accomplished by means of St. Luke, because no
fixed points of connexion with the other Gospels can be laid down
in the body of the narrative, — that is, from the baptism of Jesus
to His last journey to the feast, (Matth. xx. 17 ; Mark x. 32 ;
Luke xviii. . 31 ;) for, after this, there is less lack of chronolo
gical data. It is true it might be thought, that such a point
is to be found in the history of the transfiguration, since all
the three Evangelists (Matth. xvii. 1 ; Mark ix. 2 ; Luke ix.
28) connect it with what- precedes by /tiff ripigag eg. (The bxrii
ii/iegau, in St. Luke are the same period, but differently
reckoned.) Yet if, commencing at this point, we make the at
tempt to arrange the events backwards and onwards, the thread
is soon lost. But if there appears to be an impossibility of con
necting the statements of the Evangelists into an orderly whole
in the case of the events, it is still more so in that of the dis
courses. What appears in St. Matthew (v. — vii., x., xiii., xxiii.,
and in several other places) as spoken in connexion, St. Luke
gives scattered in the most varied places ; so that the very

20 INTRODUCTION.
first attempt to restore the different parts of the discourses
of Jesus to their chronological connexion, demonstrates the
impossibility of so doing, at least if the compilation is not
merely to serve a practical purpose, but is to claim scientific
certainty. Thus St. John alone remains, whose careful chronological
arrangement strikes the eye, and who seems, therefore, to afford
very important materials for the chronological arrangement of
the chief events, at least in the first three Gospels. For though,
now and then, an indefinite //.srci mura occurs even in St. John,
(as iii. 22; vi. 1; vii. 1, and elsewhere,) he usually states
exactly, whether one day, (i. 29, 35, 44 ; vi. 22 ; xii. 12,) or two,
(iv. 40, 43,) or three, (ii. 1,) or several days, intervened between
the events recorded. The discourses, also, are in St. John so
connected with the occurrences mentioned, and are so com
plete in themselves, that they acquire, in their full extent, a fixed
chronological place. The chief point, however, is, that St. John
gives us great divisions in the life of our Lord, between which
we can try to arrange the separate events. Besides the last
passover, (xiii. 1,) which is mentioned by the synoptical Evan
gelists also, he speaks distinctly of another passover, at which
Jesus was present, (ii. 13 ;) and between these two fixed points
at the beginning and end of the ministry of Jesus, St. John
mentions further two feasts which the Saviour celebrated at Jeru
salem, — viz., the feast of the dedication of the temple, (x. 22,)
and the feast of tabernacles, (vii. 2.) Besides these, mention is
made (v. 1) of another feast; but its character is left undeter
mined. If we possessed only the records of the first three
Gospels, we should know nothing certain of these journeys of
Jesus to the feasts ; we could only arrive at the probable con
clusion, that Jesus would certainly not have neglected the
Old Testament command (Ex. xxiii. 17) to go up to Jerusalem
at the three great feasts, since we find Him so scrupulous in
the observance of the law in other points. Yet there is no clear
evidence, even from St. John, of the number of journeys to the
feasts, which took place during the ministry of Jesus, and hence
the relation of the occurrences to the chronology of Christ's '
active ministry still remains obscure. What St. John narrates,
certainly -occurred in the order in which he narrates it ; but it is
uncertain how long a period is included, — whether he details
the events of one year, of two years, or of several. First of all,

INTRODUCTION. 21
we cannot prove that St. John has left no journey of Jesus to
the feasts unmentioned. Moreover, the indefiniteness of the
passage (v. 1*) makes the whole chronology of St. John uncer
tain ; for although much may be said in favour of the opinion,
that the festival there referred to was a passover,t yet this can
not be fully ascertained, particularly as we read so soon as
vi. 4 of another nearly approaching passover; for it is, after
all, harsh to refer tyyvg, to the passover that was gone by,
as Dr. Paulus does. (See the retrospect quoted in the note.)
Whether, therefore, according to St. John's representation,
Jesus celebrated three passovers or four at Jerusalem during His
ministry, cannot be stated, with certainty ; \ but how much more
difficult it must be to use the notices of St. John respecting the
journeys of Jesus, for the purpose of arranging the historical
materials of the other Gospels, appears sufficiently from the
one circumstance, that, as St. John gives hardly any informa
tion about the life of Jesus but such as the other Evangelists
had not given, no point of contact between them and St. John
can be assigned. The history of the feeding of the five thousand,
(John vi. 1-15,) with the walking on the sea immediately follow
ing it, (vi. 16-21,) is the only event which is parallel with St.
Matthew, (xiv. 13, ff.,) St. Mark, (vi. 30, ff.,) and St. Luke,
(ix. 10, ff. ;) and the first two Evangelists, St. Matthew and St.
Mark, like St. John, connect Christ's walking on the sea with
the feeding of the five thousand. Yet as, on the one hand, the
connexion of events cannot be pursued with certainty, and, on
the other, the exact time of the miraculous feeding is uncertain,
even in St. John, on account of the indefiniteness of v. 1 and
vi. 4, so we cannot arrive at anything conclusive for the

* Kaiser, in his Synopsis, (Niimberg, 1828,) regards it as a feast of tabernacles.
Consult the commentary on the passage.
t Consult the chronological retrospect at the end of the first volume of Dr.
Paulus' Commentary on the Gospels.
t In reference to the chronological difSculties in St. John's Gospel itself, we must
further compare the passage (x. 22) in which St. John passes on to the feast of
the dedication, in a way that leaves it altogether uncertain how the presence of
Jesus at that feast stands related to His presence at the feast of tabernacles,
(vii. 2,) since no mention is made either of His going away or remaining. It
might even be thought to be the feast of dedication in another year, were it not
that the following discourse (x. 27, 28) refers too plainly to the preceding con
text, (x. 12, 13.)

22 INTRODUCTION.
arrangement of the whole from this single point of contact.*
Whether any particular event belongs to the beginning or the
close of the public ministry of Jesus, is sufficiently shewn, it is
true, partly by its position in the Gospels, partly also by the in
ternal character of the narratives; but the mode of representation
used by the Evangehsts, who commonly leave time and place
undetermined, does not admit of our bringing all the separate
incidents recorded of the Saviour, as well as His discourses,
into precise chronological connexion. We, therefore, take the
Gospel-history as it is given to us, following the chronological
order as far as the Evangelists enable us to discover it plainly,
but nowhere bringing it out violently and artificially where it
has not been given. According to the synopsis of De Wette and
Lilcke, which we take as. the foundation of our exposition, we
shall first treat of the history of the childhood of Jesus and His
baptism ; and, last, of the narrative of His sufferings, resurrec
tion, and ascension, (combining St. John's description of these
latter circumstances;) but with respect to the intermediate
materials of the Gospel-history, we shall chiefly follow St.
Matthew, incorporating with his narrative — where they appear
to us most probably to belong — those portions which St. Mark
and St. Luke only have, or which one of them only has. The
editors of the synopsis have^ indeed, treated this part in such a
manner, as to give the whole matter three times over according
to the order of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. A
threefold exegetical discussion of this part would certainly have
secured no small advantages ; these, however, had to be sacri
ficed, as it would have required too much space.
§ 8. ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL-HISTORY.
The description given above of the origin of the Gospels from
separate memoirs, whose authors are unknown by name, —
further, the character of the Gospel-history itself, in conse
quence of which no chronological arrangement of the events

* Just so Liicke observes in his Commentar iiber den Johannes, Th. i., S. 526 :
"How that which St. John has mentioned out of the variety of events may be
chronologically harmonized with what the first three Evangelists narrate in the
above-mentioned (middle) period, is an insolvable problem of historical criti
cism." See the further remarks, S. 614, 615, of the same work.

INTRODUCTION. 23
can be recovered through a large portion of it,— and lastly,
the distinct discrepancies which discover themselves in various
events, particularly in the composition of the discourses,— are
all circumstances which seem to endanger the credibility of the
Gospel-history, especially in such events as lay beyond the field
of observation open to any one of the narrators, as, for instance,
the childhood of Jesus. The Gospels seem in this way to
acquire the appearance of an unarranged aggregate of separate
and uncertain reports, which do not precisely agree among each
other, and do not even, in each individual Gospel, stand in strict
connexion. The older theology was apprehensive, that, by such
a view as that which modern criticism has advanced, the sacred
character of the Gospel-history would be entirely taken away.
Starting from the literal inspiration* of the sacred writers, they
laboured to force a harmony, and to reconcile all discrepancies
in facts and words ; but, from the character of the Gospels, this
procedure could not but lead to the most arbitrary treatment ;
— that is to say, wherever there appeared a difference, whether
in the events or in the discourses, the event or the discourse
was always said to have been twice, and sometimes even thrice
repeated. By setting up the principle, therefore, that the
Gospel-history must agree in everything external and non
essential, they put weapons into the hands of the enemies of
God's Word; the evident non-agreement was used as an argu
ment for denying the divine origin of the Scriptures. It is best,
therefore, in this case, also to stand to the truth, plainly to
acknowledge the evident fact of discrepancies in the Gospel-
history, to seek for a reconciliation of these variations where it

* I distinguish literal inspiration from verbal, and maintain the latter, while I
deny the former. The distinction between them does not he, as I think, in the
essence and the form, (for the form, too, is necessary in one aspect,) but in the
essential and the unessential form. But the question, Where is the essential in
the form separated from the unessential 1 — what is word, what is letter f — will
never admit of being answered as respects individual cases, so that all shall be
satisfied, because the mind's subjective attitude exercises too much influence
over our views on the point. In general, however, those who are one in the
principles, will be able to unite in this canon : The form of Scripture is to be re
garded as essential, as far as it is connected with what is essential in the doctrine,
and is, consequently, also to be ascribed to inspiration ; it is only where there is no such
connexion, that the form is to be regarded as unessential. Consult, further, Tholucle's
excellent dissertation on the contradictions in the Gospels, in his GlaubwurdigReit
der Evangelischen Geschichte gegen Strauss, Hamburg, 1837, S. 429, ff., which pre
serves just the right medium.

24 INTRODUCTION.
presents itself naturally, but not to resort to anything far-fetched
or forced. The external agreement of the Gospel-history should
not be absolutely required as proof of its divinity, any more than
it ought to be in the formations of nature ; as in them exact
regularity is combined with the greatest freedom, so also, in the
Gospel-history, complete agreement in what is essential, is found
with the freest treatment of what is unessential.* The credibility
of the Gospel-history is securely based only on the identity of
that vital principle which reigned in all the individual Evangel
ists, and in which the whole new communion, of which they were
but members, shared. That vital principle was the Spirit who
guides into all truth. But this Spirit, who inspired the Evangel
ists and the whole company of the apostles, neither relieved them
from the use of the ordinary means of historical inquiry, as, for
instance, the use of family memoirs or narratives of single events ;
nor did He obliterate their peculiarities, and use them as pas
sive organs ; He rather spiritualized all the individuals in their
capacities and powers, gave them an abiding faculty (tact) of
testing everything false in matters of faith and in the essentials
of the narrative — of recognizing what was genuine and appro
priate — and of placing it in connexion, according to a deeper
principle of arrangement. Although, therefore, the Evangelists
did even combine parts of discourses out of the addresses of our
Lord differently from their original connexion, the import of
those parts, although modified, is not altered. For, as the living
Word, which the Lord himself was, wrought in the Evangelists
also-, and inspired them, it formed in each of them a new
spiritual whole, in which the members of the separated whole
appear harmoniously re-united.
This view of Scripture — of its unity in essentials, and its
diversity in non-essentials — leads as much away from the super
stitious reverence of the dead letter, as it does to the search for
the lining Spirit ; but it stands aloof from that hollow spirituality
which fancies itself able to do without the external word, and
thereby falls into the danger of taking its empty dreams for the
essential ideas of the truth. Although, therefore, Providence
intended that the external proofs of the genuineness of the

* Literal agreement in the Gospels, would have suggested to the enemies of
the truth, the charge of a concert among the authors to deceive ; as Scripture
now is, it appears at once divine and human.

INTRODUCTION. 25
Gospels should not be wanting, yet it has not permitted that
the credibility of the events reported in the Gospels can be
incontrovertibly demonstrated. Occasions are left for doubting
and suspecting; and by means of these the Gospel-history
fulfils a part of its intention, since Christ, when written of, as
well as when personally labouring on earth, is set for the fall
of many. (Luke ii. 34.) In every reader of that history, there
fore, a readiness to receive the Spirit of truth is presupposed.
Where this exists, the Gospel-history, in its peculiar character,
asserts its claims with overwhelming force. For, although the
Gospel partakes of the general character of history and bio
graphy, yet, as its subject is itself incomparable, it is, in its treat
ment of the subject, not to be compared with any other work of
that kind. The Evangelists write in a manner so childlike and
naive, and, at the same time, with a simplicity so noble, as are
not elsewhere to be met with thus united. Their individual view
(subjectivity) disappears entirely, — they narrate without making
reflections, without bursting out into expressions of praise, or
blame, or admiration, even in portraying the sublimest events.
They appear, as it were, absorbed in the contemplation of the
mighty, picture displayed before them, and, forgetting them
selves, reflect the appearance in its pure truth. The Gospel-
history, therefore, bears witness to itself and its own credibility,
in no other way than our Lord himself; He had no witness to
Him but himself and the Father, (John viii. 18 ;) so the Gospel-
history (like the Scriptures in general) bears witness to itself
only through the Divine Spirit, who reigns in it. He that is of
the truth, hears His voice.
It is only where this Spirit of God has not yet displayed His
power, that the conception of the history of Christ being on a
par with all other biographies of great men, could arise ; and
that, therefore, what is miraculous in it, as well as in them,
should be regarded as a myth. The want of inward personal
experience of the regenerating power of Christ,— the Avant of
the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which alone gives certainty as
to the divine origin of the Scriptures, has always caused offence
to be taken at the miraculous garb that invests the person of
our Lord. In ancient times this offence simply took the form
of a hostile attitude towards the Church. It is the experience
only of very recent times, to see this offence pretending to be
an advance in Christian science. It appeared first in the form of

26 INTRODUCTION.
what was called the natural explanation, the very unnaturalness
of which has, however, long since pronounced its condemnation ;
it needs, accordingly, no further refutation. Then, especially
since the time of Gabler, it appeared in the form of the mythical
explanation, which also has been pushed on to self-destruction
through its very extreme application by Strauss. The inappli
cability of the mythical exposition to the life of Jesus is incon-
trovertibly manifest : 1. From the nearness, in point of time, of
the sources of information, — namely, the four canonical Gospels,
the antiquity and genuineness of which are satisfactorily demon
strable on internal and external grounds. As long as the eye
witnesses of the miraculous events of the life of Jesus were
living, there could be no such thing as myths, — viz., formations
of involuntarily inventive rumour, — but only productions of en
thusiasm or deceit ; 2. From the acknowledged genuineness of the
Acts of the Apostles, and of the Pauline Epistles, as well as of the
other principal writings of the New Testament. Hitherto no one
has ventured to pronounce the chief Epistles of St. Paul and St.
John to be spurious, and yet they contain precisely the same
view of the person of Christ which lies at the basis of the four
Gospels. This appears, consequently, to have been the early
Christian view. If the mythical explanation is to be defended,
nothing is left but to pronounce the Apostle Paul an enthusiast
or a deceiver ; 3. The origin of the Christian Church, — the con
tinuity of feeling in it, — the purity of the Spirit that wrought in
it, with especial power, just in the first centuries, do not allow us,
in any way, to conceive of merely a beautiful romance as the
ultimate foundation of these appearances. That a Church could
be formed of Jews and heathen, who worshipped a crucified
Son of God, is, according to the mythical view of the life of
Jesus, a far greater miracle than all those which are meant to
be dispensed with by this means. It is only from the records
of the Evangelists, taken as history, that this fact becomes con
ceivable. Since, moreover, in this Church, while gradually
extending itself over the world, there was still a constant con
nexion of feeling, and a spirit of purity, never previously beheld,
inspired it, especially in the very early times, we cannot perceive
where we can find room for the pretended formation of myths.
It can be found only on the unscientific assumption, that no
existing records date from the first Christian century. The
mythical scheme appears, accordingly, a partial, indecisive

INTRODUCTION. 27
measure. The decided antichristian spirit will pronounce
Christianity, together with the whole Scripture, to be the pro
duct of enthusiasm and deception.
[The theory which Strauss, in his famous " Life of Jesus,"
attempted to apply to the history of Christ's birth, life, suffer
ings, and death, needs to be known, as to its general features,
before the remarks in the text above, and in many other parts
of this work, can be understood. Strauss is a philosopher of
the school of Hegel — an ultra-ideal school — and an avowed
Pantheist. Entertaining such philosophical views, a miracle
was, to him, impossible, and the history of Jesus could not, of
course, be literally true ; and, to account for the form of our
present Gospel-narratives, he adopted a theory something like
the following : — Jesus was a Jew, who, by early training, had
become enthusiastically desirous of seeing the fulfilment of the
prophecies, and, at length, believed himself to be the Messiah.
Filled with the loftiest ideas of purity, and of the high destiny
of man, He gathered around Him a band of devoted disciples,
who were fired with something of His own enthusiasm. The
leading idea enforced in His teaching, was the union attainable
between the human mind and the divine. At length He died
a violent death, from having incurred the hatred of the Phari
sees. A mere skeleton is all that Strauss leaves -of His life as
historically true. It is not true, he says, that Christ was born
of a virgin — that He wrought miracles — that He rose from the
dead — and ascended to heaven. Then His disciples must have
deceived us, we are ready to exclaim. No, says Strauss. The
accounts of Him contained in the Gospels were the product
of their fervid imaginations ; and, without the slightest intention
to deceive, there grew up among His followers a complete his
tory, adorned with all that they thought could render their
Master's memory glorious. The Old Testament was the prin
cipal source of the additions thus made to the simple narrative
of Christ's life. Whatever they found there of endowments
from above, was at once ascribed to the Saviour, who, in their
view, must possess all that Heaven had ever bestowed on man.
And, in particular, they sought to embody the main doctrine
of their Master's teaching, — viz., the union of our souls with
God, as the aim of fife, in His person, by uniting in that person
the divine and human natures.

28 INTRODUCTION.
Taken alOne, the theory seems too baseless to have been
seriously proposed and applied in two considerable volumes ; but
the history of religious opinion in Germany throws some light
on its origin. What Kant and his followers denominated moral
interpretation, — that is, giving a moral or spiritual meaning to
historical facts,— had been exploded some time previously, and
had been succeeded by the natural interpretation adopted by
the Rationalist school, with Paulus at their head. This scheme
had, in its turn, been exposed as utterly hollow, because it was
plain that the Evangelists meant to give a miraculous history ;
and it is dishonest to interpret their language otherwise. Driven
from these two refuges, those who would not take the Gospel-
history as a miraculous one, were bound to give some explana
tion of the fact of such a history, so attested, being in existence.
And, as it had been the fashion in Germany, to assume a mythi
cal period in the history of Greece, and Rome, and many other
nations, Strauss attempted to assign the history of Jesus to such
a period. To attain his end, he is compelled to deny the gen
uineness of every one of the Gospels, and ascribes them all to
a period subsequent to the first century of the Christian era.
The theory hardly needs refutation. The work is a repository
of all the difficulties that beset a harmony of the four Gospels ;
and, as such, may cause uneasiness to readers who are not pro
perly acquainted with the solutions of those difficulties, both in
general and in particular instances ; but it could not satisfy any
but a thoroughly infidel mind, glad to catch at any hypothesis
that gives a semblance of ground for impugning the veracity of
the witnesses of Christ's life.] — Tr.
§. 9. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE. •
As soon as the activity of the Apostles, who laboured chiefly
in the living Word, ceased in the Church, the people betook
themselves to those written legacies which they had bequeathed
to the Church, — partly to gain a deeper acquaintance with the
acknowledged truth through the contemplation of the written
Word, and partly to separate, according to it, truth and false
hood. Since the second century, many distinguished men have
devoted their powers to the exposition of the Holy Scriptures,
and of the New Testament in particular. Nevertheless, its
contents are yet unexhausted. The depth of the Word of God

INTRODUCTION. 29
is so great, that it affords full satisfaction for all times and all i
relations, for every degree of cultivation and development. It {
is founded, however, in the nature of the Church's progress,
that the ability of penetrating still more deeply and thoroughly
into the understanding of the Scriptures, should be acquired by
gradual advances. In particular, our times have made an im
mense advance in this point, that, in recognizing more and more
the comprehensive sense of Scripture, we have learnt to regard
the greatest part of the different expositions as not so much
absolutely false, as rather taking in but one phase of the thought,
whereby the labours' of centuries to understand the Scriptures
appear as connected and supplemental to one another ; while,
according to the view formerly prevalent, it was necessary to
pronounce all the various expositions, except the single true one,
a mass of errors. According to this, the Church of former ages
could not, for the most part, have at all understood the Scrip
tures, which would be to say, in other words, that the Spirit had
not been in the Church. We must rather say, that the Church
has always understood the Bible aright in essentials ; but that
we have penetrated, step by step, more deeply into its correct
comprehension. In the first place, as respects the general works which comprise
the whole New Testament, we do not possess a complete exposi
tion of the whole New Testament by any of the teachers in
the early Church; they used to apply themselves at first to
single books. It is not till the ninth century, that the Glossa
Ordinaria, by Walafrid Strabo, appears as a continuous com
mentary on the New Testament, if, indeed, it deserves the name
of a commentary at all. Subsequently to him, Nicolaus de Lyra
and Alphonsus Tostatus, Bishop of Avilla, in Spain, wrote
complete commentaries on the entire Scriptures — the latter in
twenty-three folios. At the time of the Reformation, Calvin
commented on the whole New Testament except the Revelation
of St. John ; as well as Johann Brenz, among the Lutherans,
seven folios of whose works are filled with expositions of almost
all the books in the Bible. In the seventeenth century, several
works appeared, embracing the whole New Testament. Besides
Hugo Grotius, (in his Adnotationes in N. T., 2 vols. 4to,) we
may notice particularly the collection of expositions under the
name Critici Sacri, (London, 1660, 9 vols, fol.,) of which Polus
[Pool] prepared an abridgment; and further, Calovii Biblia

30 INTRODUCTION.
lUustrata, (Francof. 1672, 4 vols, fol.,) a work which was
directed against Grotius, and includes the exegetical works of
the author. These were followed by Pfaff's edition of the
Bible, Tubingen, 1729; Wolfii Curse Philologies et Criticee,
Hamburg, 1738, 4 vols. 4to; Heumann's Erklarung des N. T.,
Hanover, 1750, 12 vols. 8vo; Moldenhauer's Erklarung der
Schriften des N. T., Leipzig, 1763, 4 vols. 4to; J. D. Michaelis'
Uebersetzung des N. T. mit Anmerkungen, Gottingen, 1789,
3 vols. 4to ; Bengelii Gnomon N. T., Tubings, 1773, 4to ; J. G.
Rosenmulleri Scholia in N. T., NorimbergEe, 1777, 5 vols. 8vo.
(The last edition [the sixth] appeared in 1825.] Henneberg
planned a complete commentary on the New Testament ; but
only the first volume, containing St. Matthew, appeared, Gotha
and Erfurt, 1829. The author died in 1831. H. A. W.
Meyer has begun to prepare a commentary on the New Testa
ment, of which four volumes have appeared up to the present
time, containing the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the
Epistle to the Romans.* Of De Wette's Exposition of the
New Testament, the Epistle to the Romans and the synoptic
Gospels have come out.f Among the general works on the
New Testament, we must also reckon the well-known Observa-
tionen-Sammlungen, by Raphelius, (out of Xenophon, Hamb.
1720 ; out of Polybius and Arrian, Hamb. 1715 ; out of Herod
otus, Liineb. 1731,) Alberti, (Leiden, 1725,) Kypke, (Breslau,
1725,) Eisner, (Utrecht, 1728,) Palairet, (Leiden, 1752.)
As regards the Gospel-collection,^ the expositions of Theophy-
lact and Euthymius Zigabenus have come down to us. The
ancient exposition which Theophilus of Antioch is said to have
composed on the four Gospels, is lost. Of the time of the
Reformation, Mart. Chemnitzii Harmonia Quatuor Evangeli-
orum, continued by Polycarpus Lyser and Johann Gerhard,
(Hamb. 1704, 3 vols, fol.,) is particularly distinguished. Cleri-
cus also composed a similar harmony. (Amsterd. 1669, fol.)
Of more recent times, the following include all the four Gospels :
Kocheri Analecta, (Altenb. 1766, 4to,) which are supplementary
to Wolf's Curae ; J. F. G. Schulz, Anmerkungen uber die vier

* [This commentary is now nearly completed.] — Tr.
t [This commentary has since been completed.] — Tr.
t For the complete literature of the Gospel harmonies, see Hase's Leben Jesu,
S. 18, ff,

INTRODUCTION. 31
Evangelien, Halle, 1794, 4to ; Ch. Th. Kuinoel Commentarius
in Libros N. T. Historicos, Lips. 1807, 4 vols. 8vo, (including
the Acts of the Apostles ;) Paulus, philologisch-kritischer Com-
mentar fiber das N. T., Liibeck, 1800-1808, 5 vols. ; also his
Exegetisches Handbuch fiber die drei ersten Evangelien, Hei
delberg, 1830, 1831, 2 vols.; Fritzsche, evangelia quatuor cum
Notis, Lips. 1825, 1830, 8vo. The first volume comprises St.
Matthew, the second St. Mark.
Lastly, as regards the single Gospels. Among the Fathers
we possess fragments of a commentary on St. Matthew by
Origen. Chrysostom wrote ninety-one homilies on the Gospel
by St. Matthew. Possin published a catena on this Evangelist,
Tolosae, 1646. In later "times Salomo van Till, Frankf. 1708,
and Jac. Eisner, Zwoll. 1769, 4to, wrote upon St. Matthew.
Also, Gotz, Erklarung des Matthaus aus dem Griechisch-
Hebraischen und dem Hebraischen, Stuttgardt, 1785, 8vo ;
Heddaus, Erklarung des Matthaus, Stuttgardt and Tubingen,
1792, 2 vols ; Der Bericht des Matthaus von Jesus dem
Messias, by Bolten, Altona, 1792, 8vo ; Kleuker's Biblische
Sympathieen, Schleswig, 1820 ; Das Evangelium Matthai,
erklart von Gratz (of Bonn,) Tubingen, 1821, 2 vols. 8vo ;
Pires, Commentarius in Evangelium Matthasi, Mogunt., 1825.
On the Gospel by St. Mark we have, likewise, a catena
edited by Possin, Rome, 1673. Jac. Eisner wrote a comment
ary upon' St. Mark, Utrecht, 1773 ; and Bolten also, Altona,
1795, 8vo ; Matthai published an Exposition of St. Mark, by
Victor, a presbyter of Antioch, and other Greek fathers, Mos
cow, 1775, 2 vols. 8vo.
Lastly, in reference to St. Luke, we have catena on it by
Corderius, Antwerpen, 1628. This Gospel was separately com
mented on by Pape, Bremen, 1777, 1781, 2 vols. 8vo ; by Bol
ten, Altona, 1796, 8vo. We have also Moras, Prtelectiones in
Lucsb Evangelium, published by C. A. Donat. Leipz» 1795,
8vo. The latest works on Luke, are Scholia in Lucam scripsit
Bornemann, Lips. 1830; and Stein's Commentar fiber den
Lucas. Halle, 1831.

SYNOPTICAL EXPOSITION

FIEST THEEE GOSPELS.

FIEST PART.

OE THE

BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF JESUS CHRIST.

FIRST SECTION -ST. MATTHEW'S ACCOUNT.
CHAPTERS I. AND II.

§ 1. GENEALOGY OF JESUS.
(Matth. i. 1-17 ; Luke iii. 23-38.)
While St. Mark at once, in the title of his Gospel, (Mark i.
1,) describes Christ as the Son of God, St. Matthew represents
Him as the Son of Man, since he first characterizes Him as the
descendant of the two great heads of the Old Testament econ
omy, — Abraham and David, — and then introduces His entire
genealogy. The character of St. Matthew's Gospel, as guyanxot,
in the nobler sense of the word, and its special adaptation for
Jewish Christians, shew themselves, in this form of beginning,
too plainly to be mistaken. Since Jesus is introduced as vibg
'Aftgadp,, He appears -as the descendant of him whose family is
blessed among the families of mankind ; but, as Son of David,
He was more definitely assigned to a branch of the Abraham^
ites, — viz., the family of him who, even in the Old Testament,
is described as the representative of the future head of the
kingdom of God. Both expressions, therefore, point out Jesus
as the promised Messiah. Yet this is more expressly conveyed
in the name 'insovs ^idrog. 'LjffoDs* denotes primarily only the

* The LXX. use 'Irjdovg for J^PP or V^, which latter form is first
found in writings after the time of the captivity. The name marks out our
Lord's spiritual character, and was given to Him by divine command, (Matth.

36 MATTI1EW I. 1.
human individual — the historical person of the Saviour; Xpg-
rog, on the other hand, is the official name for the desired deliv
erer of Israel. It corresponds to the Hebrew fT'UJO, which
word is used in the Old Testament, sometimes of kings, (1 Sam.
xxiv. 7, 11; xxvi. 16, and frequently;) sometimes of high-
priests, (Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16, and frequently;) sometimes of pro
phets, (Psalm cv. 15;) because all these persons were conse
crated to their office by the symbolical rite of anointing, (on
the anointing of prophets see 1 Kings xix. 16,) to intimate,
that for the due discharge of their office, they must be endowed
with spiritual powers. It is only rarely that the expression is
used in the Old Testament of the royal prophet and high-priest
of the kingdom of God. (Psalm ii. 2 ; Daniel ix. 25.) Out of
these passages, with which others were connected, in which the
anointing was viewed spiritually, arose the name Xpgrog, which,
even at the time of Christ, was the prevailing official designa
tion of the great desired one. (See Isaiah Ixi. 1, compared with
Luke iv. 18.) In this view, the name "Christ" expresses the
union of the divine and human natures in the person of the
Saviour, since the humanity is the anointed — the endowed ;
the divine power is the anointing — the endowing. Originally
the Saviour was called either 6 'iqgovg, with reference to His
historical individuality, or 6 Xygrbg, with reference to His dignity;
also, 'Iqgovg b Xsyofiivog Xgigrog, (Matth. i. 16, on which consult
the commentary.) It was not till afterwards that the two
terms were compounded into the united appellation 'irjgoug'
Xygrog, which, however, is always, properly speaking, to be
resolved in the manner above-mentioned.
The first verse in St. Matthew does not, in all probability,
form merely a superscription for the subsequent genealogy.
B/(SXos yivisiwg ( = Tftv^Fi ""IGD Gen. v. 1) means primarily,
" book of the descent," " genealogy." The expression cannot
possibly have reference to the whole life of Jesus, because yhieig
nowhere means " life." The meaning, " family memoirs," how
ever, which irnTlfi undoubtedly has, (see Gen. xxxvii. 2, aura/
a) ywigug 'laxuifi, where no genealogical tables whatever are men
tioned,) is quite applicable in this place, and warrants our refer-

i. 21,) to intimate His exalted calling. Just so the Old Testament names,
Abraham, Israel, and others, denote the spiritual character which those persons
were called to exhibit amongst mankind.

MATTHEW I. 1. 37
ring the expression to the history of the childhood of Jesus
contained in the first two chapters. This supposition would
agree very well. with the view, according to which the early
chapters of St. Matthew (and St. Luke) are regarded as separ
ate memoirs, which, having had their origin in the bosom of
Mary's family, afterwards came into the hands of the Evangel
ists. But the genealogy in St. Matthew, compared with that
of St. Luke, shews plainly the different character of the two
Gospels. While St. Matthew begins with Abraham, the ances
tor of the Jewish people, St. Luke ascends to Adam, the first
father of the whole human race, — pf the heathen also, — and thus
connects the Saviour with human nature as such, apart from
all national individuality. But in the particulars we find the
two genealogies at variance from David downwards, since St.
Matthew continues the line of generations through Solomon, St.
Luke through another son of David — Nathan. Two names
only — Salathiel and Zorobabel, (see Luke iii. 27, compared with
Matth. i. 12) — are the same in both, the rest -being quite differ
ent ; but these persons must be regarded as living at different
times, because in St. Matthew nine persons are enumerated
between them and Jesus, and in St. Luke seventeen.* The
difficulty, that St. Matthew and St. Luke give quite different
genealogies of Jesus, was the subject of learned investigations,
even in the earliest times of the Church ; Julius Africanus, in
particular, gave his attention to it, (Euseb. H. E. i. 7.) Three
hypotheses-)- for the solution of this difficulty have been framed
with uncommon acuteness : 1. The supposition of a levirate
marriage, (Deut. xxv. 6 ;) in which case, however, to explain
all, we must further suppose, that the two brothers, who had
the same wife, one after the other, were not properly brothers,
but step-brothers, sons of the same mother by different fathers ;
because, if they had been by one father, the genealogy would
have been the same. This hypothesis was first propounded by
Julius Africanus (ut supra.) Agreeably to it, the descent would
be as follows : —

* IThere are ten in St. Matthew, and nineteen in St. Luke, including Joseph
in both cases.] — Tr.
t Other attempts at explaining this difficulty are to be found in Wolfs Cura,
and Kocher's Analecta, but they are futile. Consult also Surenhusius' fiifiXog
xaraXXayrjg, page 322, seqq.

38

Solomon
Matthan I
Jacob

MATTHEW I. 1.
David

Nathan

Eli.

Joseph, the husband of Mary.
This hypothesis explains the difference ; yet, in the first place,
the supposition that Jacob and Eli had the same wife, one after
the other, and were, moreover, step-brothers, is rather harsh ;
further, it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that it was
the practice to take the name of the real father in the case of
obligatory marriages; and lastly, both genealogies would be
those of Joseph, which appears unsuitable on this account, that
Jesus, according to the flesh, was descended from David and
Abraham, not through Joseph, but through Mary. That step
brothers, and still more distant relations, were also bound to ful
fil the levirate marriage, is «hewn by J. D. Michaelis, in his Com
mentaries on the Laws of Moses, (Smith's translation.) 2. The
assumption that Mary was an heiress, (I^X^oj,) in which case
she would be obliged to marry within her own tribe. (Numb.
xxxvi. 5-8.) The husband of an heiress was at the same time
obliged to enter himself in the family of his wife, and so Came
to have as it were two fathers. In this way one of the genealo
gies would indeed be that of Mary; but the latter circumstance,
—viz., the being received into the wife's family, and the taking
the name of the father-in-law on the part of those who married
heiresses, which in this case is all-important, is exactly what is
uncertain ; at least Nehemiah vii. 63 is not sufficient to establish
it.f This hypothesis, however, though it does not suffice for
solving the difficulty, is very suitable for explaining Mary's
journey to Bethlehem. (Luke ii. 4.) In general it seems

* Julius Africanus omits Matthan and Levi, and appears, therefore, to have
had another reading before him, or to have transposed the names. The name,
however, make no difference to the hypothesis.
t See J. D. Mickaelis' Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, (Smith's transla
tion.)

MATTHEW I. 1. 39
appropriate for the development of David's family, that that
line of it out of which the Messiah was to proceed, should close
with an heiress, who ended it in giving birth to the promised
everlasting heir of the throne of David. We may, therefore,
combine the opinion, that Mary was an heiress, with (3) the
third hypothesis, according to which the genealogy of Mary is
given by St. Luke, that of Joseph by St. Matthew. Thus
Jesus is shewn, as well on the fathers as the mother's side,
to be of the house of David. On the mother's side the descent
had a real importance, on the father's an ostensible one. For,
as Jesus passed in the eyes of the world for the son of Joseph,
(see note on Matth. xiii. 55,) the Jews acknowledged Him in
this respect also to be of the house of David; and on this
account not a doubt of His descent from David is ever uttered
by His enemies. Agreeably to this hypothesis, Eli (Luke iii.
23) would be the father of Mary, (with which the Jewish
tradition coincides, see Lightfoot, ad loc. ;) and when Joseph is
called his son, " son" (ulog) is here to be taken in the sense of
" son-in-law," as Ruth i. 11, 12, and frequently. Genealogical
tables are, indeed, unusual in the case of women, but for
heiresses they must necessarily exist; besides which, the case
of Mary was altogether of an extraordinary kind. The real
descent of Jesus from David through Mary, is, moreover, by no
means to be regarded as a merely external fact, intended to
fulfil the prophecies. The prophecy that the Messiah should
descend from Abraham and David, is rather itself to be viewed
as more deeply rooted. The appearance of the Messiah among
mankind, presupposes conditions and preparations, of a kind
not merely negative, inasmuch as the need of salvation had to be
brought home to the minds of men, but also positive, inasmuch
as the coming of the Messiah, as the flower of mankind, could
not be anything separate from the root. We must look upon
the incarnation of Christ as a fact, for which preparation was
made, by a vein of nobler life flowing through the whole line of
our Lord's ancestors. The virgin chosen to be the mother of
the Messiah could not be born on a sudden in the' midst of a
sinful family. Although not without sin, she was the purest of
that generation. And that she was such, was in consequence of
her election by grace— her being born of the holiest family of
mankind. As in the development of the human race we observe
certain families growing in sin and wickedness, so we find

40 MATTHEW I. 2, 3.
families, also, in which the noblest germs of life are possessed
and cherished from generation to generation. Of course, this
is not to be interpreted as if those families which have been,
through grace, more defended from the corruption of sin, had
no need of salvation, — that need is rather to be viewed as
absolute and equally necessary for all men, — but their readiness
to receive salvation is greater, since, as being of the truth, they
more certainly hear God's call.
In the following enumeration of the links of the genealogy,
St. Matthew omits several, e. g. ver. 8, between Joram and
Josias. (Seel Chron. iii. 11; 2 Chron. xxi. 17.) St. Luke,
on the contrary, inserts Cainan in iii. 36, whom the Hebrew
text does not mention. Doubtless, this name is derived from
the LXX., which St. Luke, as a Hellenist, used for the most
part. The LXX. translators may have received it from tradi
tion. (Respecting such variations of the LXX- from the
original Hebrew, which have been admitted into the New
Testament, see the remarks on Luke iv. 18.)
Ver. 2. — Throughout the whole genealogical table, St. Luke
appears in the character of a relater merely, while St. Matthew
adds reflections ; he divides the list into certain classes, and
adds particular observations. Of Judas he remarks that he had
brothers ; probably because the patriarchs of Israel — the twelve
sons of Jacob — appeared to call for special notice. The same
remark is made of Jechonias (ver. 11;) in. which passage, how
ever, the term aBsXipoi must be taken in a wider sense, like HN
(Gen. xiii. 8.) of father's brothers, as Jedhonias had no actual
brothers. (1 Chron. iii. 15, 16.)
Ver. 3. — It is also peculiar to the genealogy in St. Matthew,
that it several times mentions women,— a circumstance which
did occur in Jewish genealogies, if anything remarkable gave
them special interest. (See . Surenhusii, /3;/3x, xaraXk. p. 110.)
Tamar, (Gen. xxxviii.) Rahab, (Josh, ii.) Ruth, Bathsheba,
are named by St. Matthew. Tamar, Rahab,* and Bathsheba,
appear scandalous in their lives ; Ruth as a heathen (Moabitess.)
That they were nevertheless counted worthy to be among the

* Whether it is Eahab ^ ffo'gw], that is meant, might seem uncertain, because
of the chronology; she comes too near to Obed and Jesse, David's ancestors;
yet the expression V 'Yaydfi (with the article) plainly points to the well-known
Eahab mentioned in Josh. ii. Perhaps St. Matthew has omitted some links.

MATTHEW I. 6, 16, 17. 41
ancestors of our Lord, could not therefore but give them a
peculiar importance. St.. Matthew makes this circumstance
still more prominent by the designation Ix rqg tou Oug/ou, in order
¦to point to the wondrous leadings of God in the arrangement
of the Messiah's lineage. As examples of the election of grace,
x>f renovation by faith and repentance, and of being received
out of heathen families among the people of God, the persons
named are noticed even by the Rabbins. (See Wetstein's New
Test., on ver. 3 compared with Heb. xi. 31.) If it had not been
St. Matthew's intention to point out these leadings of God, he
would have preferred the mention of the renowned names of
Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, in the genealogy of the Messiah.
Ver. 6. — David, as a principal" person, as it were a knot in
the genealogical tree of the Messiah, is called emphatically
o fiagiXeig, as a type of the Messianic king. (Ezek. xxxvii. 24,
and other places.) A similar break is made afterwards, (ver.
11,) by the ibiroi%t6'ia. BajSuXwvos = alyj^aXtogla.. The LXX. use
uiroixsgia for j~r*P3 (Ezek. xxxiii. 21.)
Ver. 16. — The term &vfy in this verse, answers to sponsus,
i\. 19 ;) according to Jewish law, the bridegroom was already
regarded as the possessor of the bride. (Gen. xxix. 21 ; Deut.
xxii. 23, 24.) St. Matthew expresses himself very carefully:
If ng syimlln 'l»j<roCs, in order to mark the supernatural character
of the generation of Christ; yevvav is used as equivalent to
¦rrxruv. (Luke i. 1 3.) In the phrase, 'Irigovg b Xiyo/Mvog Xpgrbg-—
Xgierbg appears evidently as the official name. With the
exception of this phrase, St. Matthew almost always uses
o 'Ijjtfous, or 6 Xg/<rro's. It was only gradually that, in the usage
of the Church, the name expressive of the human individuality
of the Saviour grew up into so close a connexion with His official
name, that the two have formed a whole, as is particularly the
case in the Apostle Paul's writings. (See Gersdorfs Beitrage
zur Sprachcharacteristik, S. 38, ff.,272, ff.) The xiyteOeu, in the
phrase under remark, like xaXiTgdai = M")J?3 (on which see com
ment, on Luke i. 32,) has, in this place, the pregnant meaning,
" to be called, and really to be." In the opposite sense, " to be
called, without being," the expression occurs in Ephes. ii. 11,
and Matth. xxvii. 17. The phrase has frequently no emphasis,
either the one way or the other, as in Matth. xxvi. 14, Mark
xv. 7.
Ver. 17. — St. Matthew closes his genealogical account with a

42 MATTHEW I. 17.
review of the different divisions which may be made in the
generations from Abraham to Christ. He notices three such,
of fourteen generations each,* which may, however, be reckoned
in more than one way. That reckoning appears the most con
venient, according to which David and Josias are reckoned
twice,f (at the close of one and the beginning of another
division,) and Jesus omitted. If the person of Jesus is to be
reckoned as forming the close of the third division, David only
ought to be reckoned twice. The former plan appears to me,
however, preferable. It is fitting not to include Jesus himself
in the generations, just as we do not ordinarily in reckoning a
person's ancestry. Besides, since St. Matthew, as was remarked,
has omitted some links, it cannot be his intention to lay stress
on the number fourteen, and as little ought this arrangement
to be regarded as a mere help for the memory. Rather it is
the Evangelist's purpose, by means of the equal number, to
point out the inward symmetry and regularity of the historical
development.^ As the whole history of the world moves forward
in its development by measured periods, and as, in general,
every greater or lesser whole, in the wide creation of God, has
its inward gradations of progress, through which it advances to
its completion, so there is a regularity in the development of
that family also, as it were the inmost life-pulse of mankind, of
which the Messiah was to come. Bengel recognized correctly
this fundamental view, (in his Gnomon on the passage ;) but

* Whether the number fourteen has a reference to the name David, the
Hebrew letters of which, reckoned according to the Jewish custom, make up
the number fourteen, it might be difficult to decide. Such a supposition might,
however, agree well enough with the complexion of St. Matthew's whole descrip
tion. The number fourteen is moreover to be regarded as twice seven, — a num
ber which the Scriptures treat as a sacred one. The three times fourteen thus
become six times seven, and the seventh seven opens with the person of Christ.
t Similar modes of reckoning are met with in other cases. A simple Nazarite
vow lasted thirty days, a double one not sixty, but only fifty-nine days, because
the day in the middle was reckoned twice. The Germans call a week eight
days, "achtTage," but two weeks, fourteen days, "vierzehnTage;" while the
French call two weeks, " quinze jours."
J The omission of some links may be ascribed to the authors of the genealogy
in Joseph's family. St. Matthew took it as he found it, without making any
alteration in it, and, of course, the remarks made upon it could only apply to
it in its present form. The want of some of the links can have no influence
on the truth of the remarks themselves, inasmuch as the fundamental thought,
that all things unfold themselves in God's world according to measure and
number, applies no less to the 'complete genealogy than to the shortened one.

MATTHEW I. 17, IS. 43
the particulars which he adds, as well as his whole chronological
system, which he brings into connexion with it, appear to me
untenable. (Compare further remarks on this subject in the
Commentary on the Revelation of St. John.)
Something unique and unexampled presents itself, too, in a
family table of three times fourteen, and seventy-five ancestors
respectively, extending through 2000 or 4000 years, with which
the Evangelists open the life of Christ. The possibility of
exhibiting such a genealogical table, always proceeding in the
directest line of descent from father to son, and that, too, of a
family long living in the deepest obscurity, would be inexplicable,
(since even the distinguished families, on whose genealogies
millions gaze, cannot trace their pedigree a thousand years, and
none of them, too, ascends in a direct line,) if there had not
been constantly given to the members of this line of ancestors,
a clue by which they were enabled to trace themselves out in
the midst of the number of families, into which each trunk and
branch was subdivided, in order to hold fast that member which
was destined to continue the succession. This clue was the
hope, that the Messiah would be born in the family of Abra
ham and David. The desire of beholding Him, and of partici
pating in His grace and glory, suffered not the attention to
weary through thousands of years.* Agreeably to divine
arrangement also, from time to time, as the member that con
tinued the succession might become doubtful, it was again
plainly marked out ; so that the hope of the final fulfilment was
anew excited and maintained in activity up to its realization.
An excellent view of the wonderful circumstances discoverable in
the construction of these genealogies, is given by Koppen in his
book : Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit, (Leipzig,
1798, 2 vols. 8vo, compare B. ii., S. 199, ff. ;)— anew edition of
this work is being prepared by Scheibel.
§ 2. THE BIBTH OF JESUS.
(Matth. i. 18-25.)
St. Matthew's account of the birth of Jesus is characterized

* That the Jews of later time also bestowed great care upon their family
registers, is shewn by Julius Africanus, as quoted by Euseb. i. 7. Herod had
them all sought out and burnt, so that no one should be able to prove that his
family was more ancient than the king's.

44 MATTHEW I. 18.
by the greatest simplicity and brevity. There is not a single
chronological or topographical reference in the narrative. The
persons are supposed to be, in general, already known to the
readers. The great fact of the supernatural birth of Jesus is
simply narrated as sober history, without any embellishment ;
the fulfilment of Old Testament prediction in it is proved ; and,
last of all, the providential guidance of Joseph, in this wondrous
event, is recorded. We readily pass by the want of circum
stantial vividness, which this part of St. Matthew's narrative, in
common with his whole Gospel, discovers, for the sake of that
sober earnestness of really historical narrative, which is pro
minent throughout ; the more so, as the poetical effusions in St.
Luke's narrative render that feature less perceptible. Those
scholars, therefore, are in error, who, while opposed to the
application of the mythical interpretation of the history of Jesus
throughout, have yet thought it necessary to admit some
mythical influences in the history of His birth and childhood.
For it is just at this part that the inadmissibility of such a
supposition most strikingly appears, since, if the events did not
take place just as the Evangelists record them, profane con
ceptions about the origin of Jesus obtrude themselves upon us.
For as Christ is undeniably a historical person, and must there
fore have been begotten and born, to affirm the mythical
character of the Gospel-history, can only favour a view that is
destructive of the notion of a Saviour, — viz., that Jesus came
into existence in an impure manner, since Mary was unmarried
at the time she conceived Him. The suggestion, resorted to as
an escape, that Jesus might have sprung from the marriage of
Mary and Joseph, is self-refuted by its unhistorical character ;
for if the circumstance, that Mary was with child before her
marriage, is to be reckoned among the myths, the circumstances
that she gave birth to Jesus, and even that Jesus lived at all,
may equally well be reckoned among them.
Besides, it appears, on closer consideration, that what ap
parently most recommends the mythical interpretation of the
history of the childhood of Jesus, is rather unfavourable to
it. This holds good particularly of the appeal that is made
to the traditions of the birth of great men from pure virgins,
(ffaghmyivtTg,) as of Buddha, Zoroaster, Plato, and others. Such
traditions are in no way opposed to the Bible history, any more
than are analogous longings for a Saviour whose coming was

MATTHEW I. 18. 4g
expected. They rather witness to the thoroughly correct feeling
of the noblest men among different nations, that, in the way of
natural generation, nothing can proceed answering to the ideal
exhibited in the human spirit. They witness to the general
longing and desire for such a fact — to the truth of it in some
one historical manifestation. Now, as we have so sober a
historical account of the supernatural generation of JeRus in a
pure virgin, as that of St. Matthew, which appears to be made
studiously dry, in order to keep everything fanciful at a distance ;
further, as the whole manifestation of Jesus during His life con
firms the opinion that He was born in a supernatural manner,
since the ideal of all ideals is realized in Him, which could never
proceed from sinful humanity and the power inherent in it;
there is perfect historical foundation for the conviction, that this
general longing is fulfilled in the person of Jesus. In addition
to this, the narrative of the generation of Christ by the Holy
Ghost, stands in necessary connexion with His whole destina
tion to be the physician and the Saviour of diseased mankind,
since it is impossible that any one who is himself descended
from lost mankind could have any power to heal the hurt from
which they suffer. It was necessary, indeed, that He should
be most closely united with men, flesh of their flesh, bone of
their bone, (Ephes. v. 36,) yet, at the same time, without sin ;
wherefore, He was not begotten by any man of sinful seed, but
Mary was touched with pure divine fire from heaven. If, then,
we see in the person of Christ not a merely human appearance,
however exalted in power, but believe in an incarnation of the
Word of God in Him, (John i. 1, 14,) not only can the nar
rative of the supernatural generation of Jesus present nothing
astonishing, but it becomes even natural to the Saviour. A
Saviour conceived in sin — sprung from the sinful race of man,
is a self-contradictory notion ; the very idea of a gurrig requires,
that in Him there should be manifested something higher,
something heavenly, that cannot be derived from what exists in
human nature itself.* But, lastly, the mythical view of the
* The opinion that we might conceive, that, as the transfer of anything sinful
from Mary to Jesus was prevented, it could just as well have been prevented if Joseph
had been His father in the ordinary 'way,- only shifts the miracle to a different
quarter, without getting rid of it. If we actually suppose such an influence of
the Holy Ghost to stay the transfer of what was sinful to Jesus, that is no less a
miracle than His generation by the Holy Spirit. But wherefore should we make
the miracles other than it has pleased the Spirit of God to present them to us ?

46 MATTHEW I. 18.
history of Christ's childhood must be seen to be untenable for
this reason, that Mary, the mother of J esus, lived until a consid
erable time after the ascension. Her statements were accessible
to each of the Apostles, — any error could immediately have
been set aside by her testimony.
With respect to the appearances of angels, the mention of
which in St. Matthew's narrative might be regarded as the most
important point in proof of its mythical character, we must, in
interpreting, chiefly keep in view, that the historian reports as
facts the appearances of angels in this, as well as in other places
of his Gospel. Quite after the manner of the Old Testament,
St. Matthew places the visions of angels, as real occurrences in
the present economy, along with the other facts to be recorded,
without the slightest hint being given that the author himself
intended them to be regarded either as a mythical expression
for internal pyschological occurrences, (tricks of thought called
up by surrounding circumstances,) or as in any other respect di£-
ferent. The business of the expositor extends beyond the ascer
taining of the author's view only in so far as he not merely
expounds, but also vindicates the result of the exposition ; a
duty which, in the position that science now takes up, cannot be
neglected. The following observations may suffice to meet the
requirements of the present case. On the testimony of the
Scriptures, we are not to conceive of the angels as separated
from men by an impassable gulf; according to it, they are, on
the contrary, actively employed around and in men, — especially
in the faithful. (Heb. i. 14.) Usually, however, their service
is an invisible one. The possibility of their becoming visible lies
in the nature of spirit itself, whose indwelling energy involves
a capacity of making itself visible. This possibility exists, how
ever, actually, by God's direction only, in those cases where it
subserves men's good, — that is, for the purpose of instruction
and guidance. For the appearances of angels, like other gypsTa,,
are intended to give to man the assurance of his being led by
God, to save him from his tendencies to error. In this consists
their importance in the divine economy; but, compared with
other forms of divine communication, they are manifestly of a
subordinate nature. The agency of angels has reference prin
cipally to the physical part of existence. They are the living
supports and springs of motion to the world, for which the
modern mechanical view of the world has substituted what are

MATTHEW I. 18. 47
called powers of nature. The religio-ethical world is the scene
of the divine Spirit's agency. On this principle we can explain
why to one, an angel appears, (sometimes in a dream, some
times waking,) and to another, the Lord. Caprice is incon
ceivable in the case ; on the contrary, the different forms of the
revelations are calculated for the condition of those to whom
they are granted. Communication by dream is plainly seen to
be the lowest grade of divine revelation ; it is, as it were, one
that takes place in an unconscious state ; it is the kind made to
Joseph, as, from the Gospel narrative, there is no decidedly spirit
ual character apparent in him. From the appearances of angels
seen in a waking state, the form of communication rises to a
revelation received through the word within, which was the
usual form of receiving the higher influences in the cases of
Moses and all the prophets. The revelation of Jehovah him
self, or of the Angel xw'^yjiv, appears to be the highest grade,
which was granted only to the princes among the saints, — an
Abraham, a Jacob, a Moses, and a Paul. The Church of Christ
needs no longer any appearances of angels, as it possesses the
very source of all truth in the Holy Ghost given to it. The
form in which angels appeared (with wings, garments, and the
like) should be regarded as quite accidental, determined solely
by the conditions under which the appearance happened to take
place. On the part of him who sees the angels, the unclosing
of the inward eye is an invariable, prerequisite. Appearances
of the heavenly world cannot, like the objects of the outward
world, be beheld by every one with the bodily eye. Even if
other persons are present, he only for whom the appearance is
appointed, sees the angel. Thusrthe angels were ascending and
descending upon Jesus at the very moment that He was speak
ing the words in John i. 51 to the Apostles ; but their inward
eye was still closed to the transactions of the world of spirits.
Every appearance of angels, accordingly, should be conceived
not merely as an outward act, but also as an inward effect in
the subject who sees it. (See Numb. xxii. 31.) Lastly, Christ,
the Lord, had no revelation,* but was, not merely a, but the

* It is in appearance only that such passages as Luke xxii. 43, which speaks
of an angel appearing to Christ in Gethsemane, are opposed to this thought.
For that angel revealed nothing to Him, but was concerned only with His
physical exhaustion ;— he appeared to Him merely for the purpose of strength
ening Him in body.

48 MATTHEW I. 18, 19.
revelation of God in human nature itself; on Him the angels of
God ascended and descended, — i. e., He is the centre and the
medium of connexion between the visible and the invisible
world ; so that the entire reciprocal action of these two portions
of existence is conducted and ordered by Him. (See note on
John i. 51.)
Ver. 18. — The first narrative after the genealogy is intro
duced with a special title, in which 'Irjgov is, in all probability,
a spurious addition. (See Gersdorf, ut sup. p. 39.) Tsvimg, as
the more Hebraizing reading, ( = JTnTI.Fl,) is preferable to
yiwqgig. Mag/a, also Mag/a/i, corresponds to the Hebrew 0^"$?.
(Exod. xv. 20; Num. xii. 1.) The anxiety of the Evangelist to
represent Mary as pure and innocent, cannot fail to be noticed.
In addition to yvngTtvkigng y«g rris wrgbg aurou, he says expressly,
¦jrg/V 5) evviXfoTv avnug. "ZuviXhfi (parallel with iraga,Xape?v, ver. 20,
25) denotes living and dwelling together as husband and wife.
JStigfoxtsBcu is not used absolutely for thai, any more than N2ft?J
is so used ; it rather expresses " being," with the additional idea
of " being recognized as such." (On Ix tnityamg dykv, see note
on Luke i. 35.)
Ver. 19. — St. Matthew's account leaves the impression, that
Mary did not make known her condition to Joseph. (On
this point, see further the remarks on Luke ii. 39.) When
he noticed it himself, he sought to put her away without a
stir, (Xd6ga, — i. e., without mentioning the cause In the writing
of divorcement.) 'AvoXvuv denotes the formal dismissal by a
written declaration. (Deut. xxiv. 1.) According to Jewish
custom, Joseph treated his betrothed just as his wife;* but
shewed himself to be dlxaiog. This term cannot here, as in Luke
i. 6, signify one who diligently fulfils the precepts of the law ;
for, according to them, he ought to have preferred an accusation
against his betrothed. (Deut. xxii. 23, ff.) But he is called kind,
mild. Chrysostom: y^grbg, limmfig. (Concerning the significations
of dlxaiog and its derivatives, compare the, remarks on Rom.
iii. 21.) nagafay/Aar/^/v, to make a taedhtiypat, contains the idea
of ipavegXigai, but with the accessory idea of disgrace. (Heb. vi.
6.) Thus, therefore, the Father left His only-begotten Son

* Maimonides apud Buxt. de divort. pag. 76. Pemina ex quo desponsata est,
licet nondum a viro cognita, est uxor viri et, si sponsus earn velit repudiare,
oportet ut id faciat libello repudii.

MATTHEW I. 19, 20, 21. 49
and His mother, just as He does His people in the Church, to
pass through evil and through good report! That God per
mitted even the appearance of having committed sin to rest
upon Mary, (for her pregnancy must, in any case, have appeared
premature,) must be regarded, in reference to Mary, as a
trial intended to perfect her faith; but in reference to Christ,
as an additional trait in the character of His humiliation :
He had to appear as sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. (Rom.
viii. 3.)
Ver. 20. — That this intention, to which he thought himself
compelled, should have caused a great commotion in Joseph's
soul, may be supposed probable. But, apart from what natu
rally passed in his mind, or from any dreams or sports of fancy
possibly arising thence, a higher influence is distinguished,
which was imparted to Joseph in a dream, and which deter
mined him in his conduct towards Mary, as narrated ver. 24,
25. There is nothing in the text to call for the supposition of
anything externally visible in the appearance of this angel;
as Joseph saw him in a dream, it is best to view the vision as
an inward one. That same God, who most expressly warns
against false dreams, (Jer. xxiii. 32, xxix. 8,) not unfrequently
directs His people by true ones, (Numb. xii. 6 ;) since, for the
sincere, who were really concerned for the truth, and for what
was well-pleasing to God, He discovers infallible criteria of gen
uine appearances by dreams, in order to distinguish them from
false ones. Yet these are modified by individual disposition,
and cannot, therefore, be reduced to any objective rules ; all
divine directions, whether by dreams or any other communica
tions, are dependent upon the inward earnestness and sincerity
of the heart; the "insincere man always hears and sees falsely,
when he is determined hastily to seize divine hints for himself. —
('Evfo/M/Sto is, to revolve in the 9v/*6g, with the exercise of the
affections. [See Matth. ix. 4 ; Acts x. 19.] KW onag occurs only
in Matth. ii. 12, 13, 19, 22 ; xxvii. 19. The phrase xaff vir&s
is its opposite, but does not occur in the New Testament. 'Ev
avrji = h rfi xoiXla aurfc, the child unborn, yet reposing in the
womb of its mother, but still already existing. The preposition
ix, denotes the Holy Spirit to be the creative cause of the child's
existence.) Ver. 21. — The indefinite neuter (ytwriisv) is more precisely
characterized as Son; the name to be given to Him is men-
D

50 MATTHEW I. 21, 22, 23.
tioned, and the meaning of His name, in relation to His
appointed work, is set forth. A significance in names is found
throughout the Scriptures. A name, according to its proper
intention, should not be arbitrary; but should express the nature
of him who bears it. By sin, this original meaning of names
is destroyed, since it extinguished the capacity of ascertaining
the inward essence ; in the principal characters, however, who
stand as the bearers of what is noble among our race, the Spirit
from above supplied this deficiency. The last words of the
verse declare the great and exalted appointment of this divinely-
begotten one ; He is described as the c-wrijg (jMtt!~P) of His
people. The expression Xabg = OJ> stands for the Jewish
people, in opposition to the s'dvjj = 0^*12, although Uvog also
sometimes denotes the Jewish people. (John xi. 51.) That
the angel, on this occasion, regards the appointment of the
Messiah only in relation to the Jewish people, is in the same
sense as Jesus himself describes it. (See note on Matth. x. 5, 6.)
The Jews had, in fact, according to the whole divine economy
and plan of salvation, the first call and appointment to the
goirngla. The relation to the heathen is by no means excluded
thereby; the Saviour's people (Xabg) is, in a wider sense, the
whole spiritual Israel, — all minds desirous of righteousness and
truth, among all people, tribes, and tongues. (John x. 16.) The
addition of dwb ruv a/j,agri£>v, is significant of the character of the
promised salvation. The moral import of the redemption to be
looked for through the Messiah, which, at the time of Christ,
was lost among the common mass of the Jews, but not among
the noble-minded of the people, is very prominent in this phrase,
and cannot be denied, except by such as are blinded by partial
ity ; for it corresponds to the expression in the parallel passage,
(Luke i. 77,) the dipigig ruv ayagnZv. 1ij)gtt dirh run afiagriaS)
denotes, as it were, their removal, — i. e., their extinction.
To refer dyagria to the punishment of sin, (and, indeed, to the
most external, the oppression of the Romans,) is incorrect, for
this reason, that d/iagria never does, and never can, signify
the punishment of sin without the sin, but only together with it.
Ver. 22, 23. — The following words are evidently not the
words of the angel, but of the Evangelist, who is referring his
Jewish readers to the Old Testament, in order to prove to
them, that what was new in the Gospel, already existed in the
sacred foundation on which their faith rested; The Lord him-

MATTHEW I. 22, 23. 51
self appears as the effective cause, (M like ix above, is used of
the source, the origin ;) the prophet appears only as the inter
mediate organ. (A/a, as distinguished from M, denotes the
instrument, by means of which something is accomplished.)
But, with respect to the formula: ha or 6Vwj vXygaUfi, which
appears to be a standing one, particularly with St. Matthew, it
is evident, in the first place, that the New Testament writers
themselves understood it, according to the natural meaning of
the words ; — that is to say, irXrigovgtlai, in the sense of something
that was promised in time past, being realized at the present
time ; so that irXngovgQai always supposes a previous promise. The
conjunction ha cannot be translated so that, denoting a result,
(ixfiarm&s,) but must always be taken as expressing an intention,
(mXtxug,) to the end that, in order that. In the whole formula it
is evident, that the event being intended, is just what is meant
to be brought into notice ; and irXygoiigOai itself necessarily leads
us to this idea. We may, therefore, supply M roD xvgfov after
rovro yeyoviv, since that which took place must not be regarded
as accidental. The formula does receive its simple grammatical
explanation in those cases where it seems to the expositors
that real prophecies from the Old Testament are implied ; but
when they are not thought to be such, a wider sense is wont to
be given to the phrase in this way : the result is such, that the
words of the Old Testament may be suitably applied to this
case. This explanation is defended on the ground, that ha is
used in the New Testament to express the event, (ixfianxag ;)*

* The question of the use of ha is of great importance doctrinally. It comes
under special notice in the subject of predestination, as well as in that of the
prophecies from the Old Testament. (See observations on Matth. xiii. 14, 15 ;
John xiij 39, 40.) But it is worth noticing, that to assert that ha is very
frequently used ixfiarixwg, tends to take away the force of many passages, no
less than is done by asserting that it is never so used. This is the case, for
instance, with John xvii. 3, where the words aurr\ igrh % aiiiwg toirt, ha yiviigxuigi
6sh, are translated by some : "vita aeterna in hoc cernitur studio, ut te cognos-
cant." Instead of the knowledge of God itself; nothing is left for us but a, mere
striving after it. It appears to me that, in this case also, the truth lies midway
between the two, and that St. John, in particular, certainly does use ha of the
event. This Evangelist has used woYe once only (John iii. 16) in all his writings ;
and in that instance it is after a preceding ourtug ; otfoig. too, occurs only in John
i. 57. But it is inconceivable that St. John should not sometimes have wished to
express the notion of mere consequence without intention. Such passages as John

52 MATTHEW I. 22, 23.
but from the fact that ha may be so used, it does not follow
that it must be so taken in some of the passages which contain
this phrase. This expression, which appears so constantly in the
New Testament, can have but one and the same sense in all the
places where it is used. To appeal to the custom universally
prevalent among the Jews, of applying passages of the Old
Testament in relations quite different from those in which they
stand according to their connexion, cannot in this case be
allowed ; because, in the first place, it is inconceivable that the
sacred writers should have accommodated themselves to a
custom so unmeaning, and so much exposed to abuse ; and then,
further, even if such were the state of the case, the meaning of
the phrase, ha ^X^uSfj, would not be altered, since, if the New
Testament writers did follow this habit, they must have held, in
connexion with it, the principle out of which it arose, — viz., that
the Scriptures contain endless references, and can, therefore, be
applied to all possible circumstances. The Rabbi imagines it
really to be so with his quotations of Scripture, (nonsensical as
they may be ;) and agreeably to this view of the multifarious
applicability of the contents of the sacred Scriptures, he believes
that he finds a real fulfilment of the Bible language where he
applies it. In my opinion, therefore, it is nothing but doctrinal
prejudice which gave occasion to an interpretation varying from
the simple grammatical explanation. Certain passages from
the Old Testament were quoted as prophecies in the New,
which it was thought impossible to regard as such, according
to their original connexion; then, in order that it might not
seem as if the New Testament writers quoted passages from
the Old which did not contain any prophecies, as if they did,
ha irXrigoiQjj, with such quotations^ was translated in the manner
above named. If this difficulty be removed, there remains no
occasion for a departure from the literal sense of the words.
' "But, the difficulty can be removed by our acknowledging in
the Old Testament prophecies a twofold reference to a present
lower subject, and to a future higher one. With this supposi-

iv. 34 ; ix. 2 ; xv. 13 ; xvi. 7 ; xvii. 3, shew that he employed ha for this purpose.
It appears to me, therefore, that Winer (Gr. of the N. T. Idioms, § 57) goes
somewhat too far when he admits the less forcible meaning of ha only after
verbs expressing command, desire, request ; but denies altogether that ha and
ugn are interchanged.

MATTHEW I. 22, 23. 53
tion, we can everywhere adhere to the immediate, simple,
grammatical sense of the words, and still recognize the quota
tions of ^the New Testament as prophecies in the full sense.
And it belongs to the peculiar adjustment and arrangement of
the Scripture, that the life and substance of the Old Testament
were intended as a mirror of the New Testament life, and that
in the person of Christ particularly, as the representative of
the New Testament, all the rays of Old Testament ideas
and institutions are concentrated as in their focusj* (Consult
the Author's dissertation: Ein Wort iiber tieferen Schriftsinn,
Konigsberg, 1824. On the opposite side : 'Steudel in Bengel's
Archiv, B. iii., St. 2. Lastly, Kleinerts observations in
Tholuck's Literarischer Anzeiger, Year 1831, No. 28.) This
general character of the Old Testament shews itself in the
passage here quoted from Isa. vii. 14. The immediate, gram
matical sense of the words of the passage, necessarily requires
a reference to something present, since the vagSivog, who was to
bring forth Immanuel, is represented by the prophet as a sign
to King Ahaz ; — a reference to the Messiah, born of a virgin
centuries after, appears to answer no end whatever for the im
mediate circumstances. It is most natural to suppose, that by
wag&hog is meant the betrothed of the prophet, called in Isa. viii.
3, nSf1!}, as being his wife, (nagdsvoj, equivalent to TTGhV,
unmarried woman, is indeed in itself different from JTTVT^l
which necessarily denotes pure virginity ; but the word TTu?y
too, may, and must, in this case, be taken for a pure virgin.)
The passage, then, affords the natural sense, that Isaiah gives
Ahaz the sign, that she who is now his betrothed, and will
soon be his wife, shall bear a son, named Immanuel ; and before
this son shall have come to knowledge, (that is, in two or three

* See Hamann, in the history of his conversion (Werke Th. i., S. 211, ff.) : " I
found the unity of the divine will in the redemption by Jesus Christ, inasmuch
as all history, all miracles, all God's commands and works, tended to this centre."
In Hamann's works, a spiritual exposition, like that which the writers of the
New Testament employ, may be seen in a modern author. Bengel also says
very truly, (Gnomon ad. h. 1,) " Saepe in N. T. allegantur vaticinia, quorum
contextum prophetarum tempore non dubium est, quin auditores eorum ex
intenlione divina interpretari debuerint de rebus jam turn praesentibus. Eadem
vero intentio divina, longius prospiciens, sic formavit orationem, ut magis propria
deinceps ea conveniret in tempora Messiae, et hanc, intentionem divinam apostoli
nos docent, nosque dociles habere debent."

54 MATTHEW I. 22, 23.
years,) his prophecies shall be fulfilled. Thus the King Ahaz
had given to him a sign (jtin) cl°8e at "Kand, and intelligible ;
but, at the same time, the birth of Immanuel had its higher
reference to the Messiah, by whom the prophecy was fulfilled
in a far higher sense, since He was born of a virgin, and as a
sign (j-nfc$) for the unbelieving world, which Ahaz represents.
This agrees well with the symbolizing manner in which Isaiah
named his sons throughout. He represented a whole chain of
ideas and facts, which were especially important to him, from
the circumstances of the times, in the names of his children,
one of whom was called Shear-jashub, (Isa. vii. 3 ;) the second,
Maher-shalal-hash-baz, (viii. 3;) and the third, Immanuel.
Thus he formed with his family, as it were, an embodied and
personified circle of ideas, in which his spirit moved. Such
a form of teaching is quite in agreement with the prophetic
agency; and, at the same time, St. Matthew was perfectly
justified in referring the event of the birth of Immanuel to
the birth of Christ, because that parallel was intended by the
Spirit of prophecy himself.* The words of St. Matthew, more-

* I have not been convinced of the untenableness of the interpretation just
given to the passage Isa. vii. 14, even by the able defence of the opposite view
— viz., that no inferior subject is intended by the prophet's words — set up by
Hengstenberg in his Christology, vol. i., p. 307, ff. It seems to me that he has
not succeeded in solving the difficulty, how the reference to the Messiah could
be a sign for Ahaz. Looking at it free from prejudice, one is necessarily led
to expect that Ahaz must have had something given him, which lie would live
to witness. It is very forced to refer the period of two or three years spoken of
to the coming of the Messiah, born centuries after. At any rate, the prophecy
could not then have any meaning for Ahaz. The reasons brought forward
against my view, seem to me unimportant ; for when Hengstenberg reminds us,
that there is no likeness between the birth of Immanuel in a natural manner,
and that of the Messiah in a supernatural manner, it is certainly true that St.
Matthew lays stress on the term itagbhog, which in the prophet has not the
emphasis; but such a free use of prophecies is not uncommon in the New
Testament, particularly in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and is quite safe, when
the passage so used is a real prophecy or a type, as in this instance. In this
passage the unity of the reference lies in the name Immanuel; Isaiah's son had
the name, but Christ the essence. He was God manifested, whom the former
merely represented. Besides, discordant features are necessarily found in every
type or symbol, for otherwise it would not be a type, but the thing itself. All
prophecies of Scripture have, therefore, points of similarity enough to be under
stood by him who needs them, and who, because of bis need, seeks for them ; but
likewise dissimilarities enough to be misunderstood by him who will not perceive/)
In the main, I agree in my view of Isaiah vii. 14, with Umbreil's Observations
in the Studien und Kritiken, Year 1830, H. iii., S. 538, ff. The late Professor
Kleinerfs hypothesis in Tholuck's Anzeiger, Year 1832, No. 25, ff., that we should

MATTHEW I. 24, 25. 55
over, do not follow the LXX. precisely, and differ from the
original, also, in translating nN"1p, (thou shalt call, 2d pers.
sing, fern.) by xaXigovgi, they shall call.
Ver. 24, 25. — Joseph was in everything obedient to the
divine command, believed in the purity of his wife, took her to
himself, and gave the child, after His birth, the appointed name.
But the Evangelist adds a remark worthy of notice, in the
words, ohx iyhwgxsv aur^i/, sag ov enxt rJv vibv ahrrjg rbv irgurotoxov. It
is unnecessary to prove, that in these words ymiexsn = in"1
is used of connubial connexion ; the only question is, whether
the meaning of the words is, that it did not take place in
Joseph's marriage at all, or merely that it did not previous to
the birth of Jesus? The words suggest, at first sight, the latter,
particularly tag o% and itgorrotoxog. The former appears to suppose
connubial intercourse after the birth of Jesus ; the latter seems
to say that Mary had several children. As, however, it is not
probable, from the Gospel-history, that Mary had other child
ren, (see note on Matth. xiii. 55, for a more particular account,)
no conclusion can be drawn from the word vguroroxog to compel
us to suppose, that afterwards connubial intercourse between
Joseph and Mary took place. The term is merely equivalent
to "Vd^ or OrTfltflS in Hebrew, which may signify either the
first among others, or the only child. (It should be particularly
noticed also, that the expression is nrgurbroxog abr^g, her first
born. The term has, of course, quite a different meaning in
the phrases, vgtarbroxog iv nig ddeX<po/g, (Rom. viii. 29,) ex ruiv vexgav,
(Rev. i. 5,) irdgfc xriasug, (Col. i. 15.) So also in Heb. i. 6,
where the term stands alone. (Concerning these passages, compare
the remarks in the Commentary.) The formula 'iug oZ = ^"l^
does not necessarily assert, that what is said not to have taken
place before a Certain time, did happen after it. In the Old
Testament, this is proved by such passages as Gen. viii. 7,
2 Sam. vi. 23. In the New Testament, indeed, there is not one
of the passages quoted as proof that it is quite conclusive, — e.g.,
Matth. xxii. 44, (compared with 1 Cor. xv. 28,) Matth. v. 26,

conceive the facts respecting the virgin and Immanuel as a vision which God
shewed to Ahaz by the prophet, would in fact explain several circumstances, if
there were but one word in the text intimating, that this was the account of
a vision. Without such an intimation, however, the supposition of a vision
remains purely gratuitous.

56 MATTHEW I. 24, 25; It. 1.
xviii. 30. But it is in the very nature of the particle, that it
does not necessarily affirm that what had not taken place up
to a certain point of time, has taken place since. All depends
on the circumstances and relations. (If we were to say, we
waited till midnight, but no one came, that does not imply, that
after midnight some one came ; it means, no one came at all.)
We must Say, therefore, that from this passage no conclusion
can be drawn either for the one view or the other ; St. Matthew
merely states as fact, — " Till the birth of Jesus he knew not
Mary." It is evident, however, that after what he had passed
through, Joseph might justly think th,at his marriage with
Mary had another purpose than that of begetting children.
Perhaps the words of the Evangelist are framed purposely
thus, in order to prevent any inference that might be drawn
from these events against the sanctity of the marriage ; but,
nevertheless, it seems, in the order of nature, that the last
female descendant of David, in the family of which the Messiah
was born, closed her family with this last and eternal scion.
(The opposite view is defended by Stier, Andeutungen fur
glaubiges Schriftverstandniss, Th. i. S. 404, ff.)

§ 3. AEEIVAL OP THE MAGI — FLIGHT INTO EGYPT — MURDEK
OF THE CHILDREN — RETURN TO GALILEE.
(Matth. ii. 1-23.)
Ver. 1. — It . is only in passing, and as a supplementary re
mark, that St. Matthew notices that Jesus was born at Beth
lehem, in the time of Herod,* (that is, the Great, the son of
Antipater,) while he gives no exact account of the dwelling-place
of Joseph and Mary ; it is hence clearly seen, that the Evan
gelist, in his description of Christ's life, intentionally disregards
the circumstances both of place and time, — a fact which is not
unimportant in the apparent contradictions between St. Matthewr

* As St. Matthew gives no more definite statement as to the person of Herod,
several princes pf which name reigned in Palestine, (see the first chronological
table before the Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles,) it is clear that he
supposes his readers to possess some knowledge of the circumstances, which
accounts for several peculiarities in his narrative.

MATTHEW II. 1. 57
arid St. Luke, which will presently come under notice. (BnDXiip.
— Onb'JT'jl lay two hours* distant from, or six Roman miles
south-west of, Jerusalem. The town was originally named
Ephrafh. [Gen. xxxv. 19, xlviii. 7.] The addition, rife 'lovbalag,
is to distinguish it from another Bethlehem in Galilee, in the
tribe of Zebulun, mentioned in Joshua xix. 15. As being
David's birthplace, it is called simply, " City of David." See
Luke ii. 4, 11.) ^
The most important circumstance in St. Matthew's eyes is,
that the new-born Messiah received at once the homage of the
Magi. (Mayo/ is well known to have been originally the name of
the learned class among the Parsees. In Jer. xxxix. 3, the term
3Krl"n is used of the head of the College of the Magi. The
Greek explanation of the word, as given in Suidas, tpiXbgotpoi,
fiXoSeoi, is not so correct as that which gives the meaning, great,
excellent, from a Persian root. In later timesj the name pdyog,
like mathematicus, Chaldaeus, was used of all who were attached
to occult science — especially of astrologers. See Acts xiii. 6.)
This narrative is most simply explained, if we regard the Magi
as adherents of the Zoroastrian worship of light, which, even
before the time of Christ, was widely spread in the western
part of Asia. Pompey found the worship of Mithras, a branch
of the Zend* religion, among the Cilician pirates. Cf. Plut. vit.
Pomp. cap. 37. The expression, &vb dvaroXuvJ will be best left
in the indefinite generality proper to it ; it applies, like D"lj?T?,
to all that is situated east of Palestine — to adjacent Arabia, as
well as to more distant Persia. Now, the hypothesis that these
Magi were Parsees, is highly probable; in the first place,
because there are remarkable germs of truth in the Zend
system itself, — e. g., the idea of a Sosiosh — an expected Saviour ;
and further, because an intermixture of Jewish ideas is more
easily conceivable in their case than in that of any other nation.
But such an intermixture must on this occasion be supposed,
since the Persians expected their Saviour from the family of
Zoroaster ; but these Magi come to seek for the King of the

* [Stunde, hour, is used in Germany as a measure of distance. It is something
less than three English miles.] — Tr.
t 'AwuroWj, used of a quarter of the world, appears, like ouo^o's, chiefly in
the plural, (see Matth. viii. 11, d«b dvaroXSv xal Svg/Moiv,) perhaps because of
the daily return of the rising and setting sun.

58 MATTHEW II. 1.
Jews, (ver. 2.*) The circumstance, too, that a star guided the
Magi, points to the pursuit of astronomy, which was not
uncommon among the Parsees. With respect to the recorded
fact, that, although about the time of the birth of Christ, the
prophecy of the appearance of a great universal monarch in the
East, was spread far and wide, even among the heathen, (Suet.
Vesp. c. 4. Tacit. Hist. V. 13. Joseph. B. J. i. 5, 5 ; vii. 31,)
which is a proof how great events, concerning the whole of man
kind, are ushered in by a sort of previous surmise ; yet this feeble
expectation can scarcely be used in explanation of the visit of
the Magi. Their faith rested clearly on firmer props than so
indefinite a rumour could supply. They recognized in the new
born one, whom they were seeking, not merely a ruler, but the
Saviour himself — their Sosiosh. But, correct as their knowledge
in the main certainly was, we must still beware of ascribing
sharply defined doctrinal ideas to these believing strangers.
The early Church, moreover, looked upon these Magi as the
representatives of the heathen world, which, in them, offered its
homage to the Lord ; — an ingenious thought, full of deep truth !
Agreeably to Old Testament hints of this fact, (Ps. lxviii. 30,
32 ; Ixxii. 10 ; Isa. xlix. 7 ; Ix. 3, 6,) the Magi were early taken
to be kings, and, in the legend, bore the names of Caspar,
Melchior, and Balthazar.
It was an easy step for the advocates of myths in the New
Testament, to view this occurrence of the appearance of the
Magi, before the new-born Redeemer, as a philosophical myth,
without any historical foundation whatever, by which tradition
intended to express the idea called forth by the passages of the
Old Testament just referred to, that the Messiah would exercise
a universal influence, extending beyond the limits of the Jewish
people.* But this view is altogether at variance with the cir
cumstance, that it is precisely in St. Matthew that this universal
character of Christ's mission is least prominent. As related
* These Magi might also be thought to be Jews, perhaps of the dispersed ten
tribes ; but the words, Batf/Xeus rav 'lovbaiw, evidently lead us to think them
not to be Jews.
t The advocates of the mythical view are quite arbitrary in using sometimes
this and sometimes that circumstance, to defend their view, without regarding
internal consistency. At one time, they make the Apostles imagine that the
mission of the Messiah was to be confined to the people of Israel ; and yet, on
the other hand, they make them invent myths, for the purpose of shewing His
universal mission.

MATTHEW II. 1, 2. 59
by contemporaries, this narrative could be nothing but gross
deception, if destitute of historical truth.
Ver. 2. — The words which the family memoirs here employed
by St. Matthew report as being used by the Magi, indicate a
knowledge of the special relation in which the new-born one
stood to the Jewish people. The " King of the Jews" is not a
king who rules over the Jews alone, — the Magi represent then-
own subjection under His (spiritual) power by a symbolical
action, — but a King, who springs from the Jews, and from
them, as His centre, extends His kingdom. Thus it expresses
properly the true idea, " salvation is of the Jews." (John iv. 22.)
As the sure sign of His birth, they mention the sight of His
star, tlde/ut abrou rbv dgrsga. They knew, therefore, that a
heavenly sign would stand connected with the earthly appear
ance of this (spiritual) king. That great events on earth had
their corresponding appearances in the heavens, which shewed
themselves principally in stars, was a very general opinion of
antiquity, (see, for instance, Justin. Hist, xxxvii. 2. Sueton. vit.
Caes. c. 88,) and is not without truth, though it commonly
served the purposes of superstition.* In the life of the Saviour,
the surmise expressed in this opinion attained to reality and
truth. In what this agrrig BagiXiug consisted, is hardly to be
ascertained with certainty. The idea that an appearance in the
air is meant, is the most improbable; it could not, find any sup
port but in ver. 9, where it is said, " the star stood over where
the young child was." Chalcidius, the Platonist, (Opp. Hip-
polyti edid. J. A. Fabriciusy pag. 325,) understood a comet to
be meant by the star. The learned Bishop Munter of Copen
hagen takes it to be a constellation, and refers to the con
junction of planets which took place in the year 1825. (See
the Dissertations of the Academy of Sciences at Copenhagen,
for the year 1820.) It is most probable to me that a particular
star is intended,* because of the parallel between this passage

* In the tract, Yalkut Eubeni, it is said : " Qua hora natus est Abrahamus,
stetit sidus quoddam in oriente, et deglutivit quatuor astra, quae erant in
quatuor coeli plagis." (See liertholdti Christol. Jud. pag. 55.) The words
evidently describe a conjunction of planets, according to the sensible impression.
Four stars united and formed a whole, so that one great star seemed to have
swallowed the four little ones.
t Ideler, who follows the Abbot Sanclemente, so celebrated as a chronologer,
has made me doubt whether the star ought not still to be regarded as a

60 MATTHEW II. 2, 3, 4.
and Matth. xxiv. 30, where, in like manner, a sign of the Son
of Man in heaven is foretold, with reference to Christ's second
coming ; just as in Numb. xxiv. 17, it is held up as a prophecy
of the first coming of our Lord. (In order to apply this passage
to himself, the well-known false Messiah, took the name of
Barkochba, — i. e., son of the star.)
Ver. 3, 4. — This intelligence was a message of terror to the
king and the city of Jerusalem, (in its representatives — the
ecclesiastical rulers of the Jews ;) partly, because in general what
is great and mighty, when it comes into our immediate neigh
bourhood, seizes us with a feeling analogous to terror, (for we
cannot suppose that all the chief priests and scribes would be
terrified at the appearance of the Messiah, on account of their
sins;) partly, because conscience announced to Herod, now
grown grey in sin, as well as to the priestly caste, from selfish
ness (at least in the majority) alive only to their own interest,
that with the appearance of the King of Righteousness, their
kingdom of iniquity was drawing near its end. From the
external character which the expectations of a Messiah had
acquired among the Jews, it is more than probable that, with
most of those who heard of the appearance of a King of the
Jews, political fears or hopes would be excited. Only we must
not forget to notice, that the correct view of the spiritual char
acter of the Messiah had maintained itself in the little circles of
true believers, (see note on Luke i. 7 6,) and that the change
in outward circumstances was regarded by them only as the
consequence of His inward influence.

conjunction of planets. The above-mentioned scholars employ their view of it
to fix the chronology of the year of Christ's birth, and shew that, six years
before the Christian era, a most remarkable conjunction of all the chief planets
in our system did take place. Now, as the planets, according to the latest and
most exact calculations, were sometimes close together, at others, farther off
from each other ; so that sometimes the star seemed to be there, and then, at
others, to disappear, — all which agrees well with St. Matthew's narrative, — I am
inclined to think this hypothesis very probable. In addition to this, according
to Jewish tradition, — e. g., of Abarbanel, (in his Commentary on Daniel,) such
conjunctions are said to have happened at the birth of Moses also, and of other
men of note in the kingdom of God. See Ideler's Handbuch der Chronologie,
Th. ii., S. 410, ff., and in the Lehrbuch, S. 428, where there is a new calculation
by .Encke. Keppler already held the same opinion, only, from his calculation not
being quite correct, he fixed the date of conjunction somewhat too late. Ignatius
(epist. ad Ephes. c. 19) describes the star as a remarkable one, surpassing all
others in the splendour of its light.

MATTHEW II. 3, 4, 5, 6. 61
(By the dgxagiTg in this place, are meant, not only the high
priests LtYtIIPT lilt] properly so called, — that is, the one in office,
and those who had before passed through it, but also the heads
of the twenty-four classes (courses) of priests. [See note on
Luke i. 5.] Since these heads, as such, were members of the
Sanhedrim, every member of the Sanhedrim was also called
HX'Hl"h [John xii. 10.] The yga/i/jLanTg, = D^DD, include all
who were skilled in the law, like vopixbg, vo/iodiSdaxaXog ; so that
every dg^iegivg was a ygup/iarelig, but not vice versa.)
Like the Magi, (ver. 2,) the king (ver. 4) inquires only for
the birth-^&ice (otu yendrai) of the new king. The birth itself
appears to all indubitably certain, which indicates a general
expectation of the Messiah. The present ywarai does not
require to be taken as a future; this tense is rather used in
relation to the prophecies of Scripture, by which the scribes
were to decide ; so that the meaning is, — Where is the King
(of whom the prophets speak) to be born, which leaves it
undecided whether He be already born, as the Magi declared,
(itoZ 'ignv b re^hlg fiagiXevg, ver. 2,) or should yet be born.
Ver. 5, 6. — The learned Jews quite correctly assign Beth
lehem as the birthplace of the Messiah, according to Micah v. 1,
in which remarkable prophecy, acknowledged as such by most
expositors, so minute, and so literally fulfilled, the insignificant
town (hence called xupri, in John vii. 42) is described as the
birthplace of the Messiah, and its spiritual glory is contrasted
with its worldly lowliness. In the quotation, the Evangelist
follows neither the Hebrew text nor the LXX.; he quotes
freely from memory.* The meiosis, which appears in the words
ovdapfig iXaylgrq if, is not contained either in the original or the
translation of the LXX. Still the variation is purely formal.
St. Matthew gives merely the thought of the prophet, which is
just this, that Bethlehem, notwithstanding its mean exterior, is
highly honoured.
(The words yn 'loOSa added by St. Matthew himself, refer prob
ably to the tribe of Judah, of which, according to Gen. xlix. 10,
the Messiah was to be born. The yn is put by synecdoche for isbXig,

* Jerome observes strangely on the passage : " Arbitror Matthaeum volentem
arguere scribarum et sacerdotum negligentiam sic etiam posuisse, (sc. verba
prophetic) uti ab eis dictum ist." But in that case St. Matthew must, in other
places, have laid himself open\to the charge of the same " negligentia."

62 MATTHEW II. 5, 6, 7.
as, e. g., in Jerem.xxix. 7 "\^V is translated y% by the LXX. [See
Matth. x. 15 ; xi. 24 ; xiv. 34.] — Instead of Iv ro?g fiyipogiv, as in St.
Matthew, the LXX. have iv -xfkidgiv, after the Hebrew ''EDN^l.
The Jewish people were divided into families, [Qip7St> Judges
vi. 15,] over which heads [O^^N "^to, yyi/Abvig, Ex. xviii. 21 ;
Numb. i. 16] presided. The heads Of families are, therefore, in
St. Matthew put for the families themselves, and these again
for the chief towns in which they were settled.)
As the characteristic mark of Him who was to be looked for
from Bethlehem, (W^, i^gyi^ai in the sense of " being born,")
the Evangelist makes His dominion over the people of Israel
prominent by the manner in which he applies the Old Testa
ment quotation. The terms in which that dominion is described,
appear chosen purposely to signify its mild and gracious
character. ('Uyovpivog— 7ttftfo expresses the idea of guiding to
, an object, rather than that of laying down law and restraining
by force ; the additional clause iroi/taviT rbv Xabv ftov, which is
wanting in the Hebrew text, is perhaps inserted from 2 Sam.
v. 2, another prophetic passage. The ideas of governing
and tending are closely related, and are often interchanged;
yet moiimhitv gives greater prominence to the ideal character of
the true ruler, who has the good of his subjects at heart, than
/3aff;Xsus;i/.) The special relation of this shepherd to Israel (Xa6g=
01^, the opposite of 0^13) is to be regarded partly as again
expressive of the view most readily suggested of the influence
of the Messiah, (see notes on Matth. i. 21 ; x. 6 ; xv. 24,) and
partly as inclusive of its further extension to the whole spiritual
Israel, scattered among all nations. (See note on Matth. viii.
11 ; Rom. ii. 28, 29.)
Ver. 7. — In order to smother all political excitement, the
suspicious tyrant kept the arrival of the Magi, and the purpose
of their journey, a secret, — using them, as he imagined, for his
own ends. After having ascertained from his doctors the place
of the birth, he tried to discover the time likewise. This he
connected with the appearance of the star, (yxglffagi rbv -^gbvov rmi
<paivofihou dg/egog,) but whether from the hints of the Magi or not,
is uncertain. From ver. 16, therefore, we might conclude that
the star had already been seen some time, — perhaps, since the
time of the conception of Jesus. (' Axg//3o'w, see ver. 16, = axg//3»s
ifyrdXja, ver. 8.)

MATTHEW II. 8, 9, 10, 11. 63
Ver. 8, 9. — By his outward smoothness Herod hoped the
more surely to deceive the simple men, and induce them to
return to him; but God preserved them and the young child
from his malice. (HogiuigSai is used certainly according to the
analogy of the Hebrew Ijbn, but is not redundant, as the
inquiry in this case involved a journey.) The position of the
wise men, while travelling, in reference to the star, as stated in
ver. 9, is not clear. First of all, with respect to nrgonyw auroug,
it is not necessary to conclude thence that the star had disap
peared, and then re-appeared. The matter may be easily
imagined thus, — the star, which they had seen rise in the east,
(iv rfi AvaroXfi, ver. 2,) they discovered, from its change of
position in the progress of its course, in the direction in which
the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem led them. It continued,
therefore, to precede them as a guiding star. (Ugodynv is
taken in its proper signification.*) But what follows is more
difficult still, — iXdiiv 'igrn lirdvu o5 (sc. rovou) yv rb naidlov, where
mention is made of the star moving and arriving at a destined
point. Now, it is not easy to see how a star in the heavens,
whether a comet or a constellation, could even apparently rest
over a house. A fiery appearance in the air would more easily
account for this, if there were any probability at all that any
thing of that sort could be designated by the term dgrng.
The whole of St. Matthew's description evidently indicates a
star that shone for some considerable time. It is simplest to
take the expression, iXDiiv 'igrn, as the natural conception of their
childlike feeling ; so that the usual mode of inquiry after the
child Jesus was not meant to be excluded, while the result, as
well as the beginning, Of the journey is still ascribed to the
heavenly guide.
Ver. 10, 11. — The remark again made, that the Magi beheld
the star, (Idbvng rbv dgriga,) is not by any means to be referred to
what precedes, so that Ihavng would be taken for a pluperfect.
It is better to refer the expression to the 'igrn before mentioned,
so that the view of the star, so to speak, terminating its office,
filled them with a peculiarly joyful surprise. ("E^agitfav %agdv is
a familiar Hebraism, [see 1 Sam. iv. 5 ;] something analogous to

* Ideler (ut sup.) explains this of the approach, or dispersion of the planets,
which seemed, while in conjunction, fo form one large star.

64 MATTHEW II. 10, 11.
which is found in all languages. The periphrasis of the super
lative with g<p6lga h^JSJj is also well known as a Hebraism.)
In the description of the visit of the Magi, Mary only, the
mother of the child, is mentioned. Joseph recedes quite into
the back-ground throughout the whole Gospel-history, and
presents no perceptible spiritual character. (The reading tliov,
is every way preferable to the tZgov of the Textus Receptus.)
Two things are distinctly noticed in the actions of the Magi ;
first, the vgogxwiiv, then the presenting of their gifts. We may
imagine both included in one in this way, that they desired to
testify their dependence in the presentation itself. The action
was to be vgogpogd, a solemn recognition of the superior cha
racter of the new-born one, as also the prophecy in Isaiah lx.
6, intimates. Tlgogxwngai, therefore, answering to the Hebrew
mrtJltprr, is no proof, so far as the words go, of the view enter
tained by the Magi of the young child's dignity. The word
often denotes nothing more than the well-known oriental form
of political homage. Still the connexion of the narrative makes
it certain, that the Magi ascribed a spiritual character to the
child ; and their irgogxwngig, combined with the ceremony of the
Tgoirpoga, acquires a more spiritual meaning. Only we must not,
as before observed, by any means ascribe to the Magi any
doctrinal ideas of the divinity of Jesus ; but merely a surmise of
the divine power accompanying and resting on Him. We may
say, they worshipped God, who had made this child for salva
tion to them also, but not the child.
Further, as regards the gifts presented to the child, (and His
mother,) we are not at liberty to conclude from the fact of their
being Arabian produce, that the Magi came exactly from
Arabia; the articles were common throughout the East, as
being necessary to their worship, for gold also was among the
gifts usually presented to the gods. The idea of many exposi
tors, that these valuable presents must needs be brought to Mary
in her poverty, on occasion of her journey into Egypt (ver. 13,)
may not be altogether inadmissible ; the Gospel-history shews
that, in after life also, the Saviour committed himself, in refer-
! ence to His bodily life, to the love of His friends. (See note
on Luke viii. 3.) (The term fygavgbg signifies, like "llhN, Deut.
xxviii. 12, "vessel," "place of keeping;" the idea of "what is
kept," — "costly" is the derived one. A//3avo«= rtfl!?, signifies
" incense," the produce of a balsamic plant of Arabia. In the

MATTHEW II. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 65
Old Testament the term is found yery frequently, because
incense is so often mentioned in connexion with the sacrifices;
in the New it occurs only once more, — viz., in Rev. xviii. 13.
S/iigna = "yo, myrrh, is a similar product, obtained from a tree
like the acacia. [Ex. xxx. 23; Psalm xlv. 9.] Incense and
myrrh were also used medicinally by the ancients ; but such a
use of the presents is here totally inadmissible. On the history
of the Magi in general, see Kleuker's Bibl. Sympathieen, S. 36,
ff. ; and Hamann's Kreuzziige des Philologen, Werke, Th. ii., S.
135, ff.)
Ver. 12. — As above, so here also, we should observe that the
thoughts of the Magi^ which arose within them on the natural
consideration of the circumstances, must not be confounded with
the higher impulse, which induced their determination not to
return to Herod. (XgnparlZiiv signifies, in profane authors, " to
manage public affairs" — "to give answers and commands;"
Xgn/Larltygdai, " to receive commands." In the Hellenistic Greek,
the term appears in the same signification, but with reference
to divine transactions ; %gn[Lar!fyiv, " to give divine commands,"
Heb. xii. 25 ; ^g^ar/^eotfa/, "to receive divine commands." Thus
it is found in the New Testament, ver. 22 of this chapter, and
frequently ; and in the Old, in Jer. xxvi. 2 ; xxix. 18. Lastly,
it means, also, merely "to call," [Acts xi. 26; Rom. vii. 3,] a
meaning which is quite common in profane writers.)
Ver. 13, 14.— As the Saviour, after He had attained to a full \
consciousness of His divinity, and of His unity with God, !
(Gottesbewusstseyn,) did and said nothing of himself, but always
at the' instance of the Father, (John viii. 28,) so the divine ''
agency prevailed among the circle surrounding Jesus during
His infancy, and before He was conscious of this unity. The
history of Jesus, even the child Jesus, is a divine history. By
divine impulse, therefore, Joseph brings the holy child with His
mother to Egypt.* (On the appearance of the anger "in a
dream," [xar mag,] see i. 20. Ver. 13, "g&i is imperative from
ti/il, and not to be confounded with a similar form from oTda.
Elvai is to be taken here, as HVt is also used in the sense
of "being continuously," — i. e., "remaining." "Ews an t'ku gol

* On the Flight into Egypt, see Schleiermacher's excellent sermon in the
Magazine edited by him, Rohr and Schuderoff, vol. vi., Madgeburg, 1829,
S. 301, ff. E

66 MATTHEW 11. 13, 14, 15.
intimates another appearance to be looked for. The whole
narrative of the flight indicates haste and secrecy [wxrog, ver.
14] in their removal. The expression, to -xaibiov xal rfy /inr'ega
auroD, delicately intimates that Joseph was only in the place of
a father.) Tradition names Matarea as the place where Jesus
is said to have remained with Mary in Egypt. The temple of
Onias (at Leontopolis) stood in the neighbourhood, — a circum
stance which made many Jews resort thither.
Ver. 15. — The observation, that Jesus remained with His
mother in Egypt till the death of Herod, is not without im
portance for the chronology, since the death of Herod, and the
beginning of Archelaus's reign, (ver. 22,) can be accurately
determined. True, the date is not void of uncertainty from
the circumstance, that the Evangelist does not remark, either
how old the child Jesus was at the time His mother fled with
Him into Egypt, or how long He was there; nor do the
passages, Luke iii. 1, 23, remove the uncertainty. Yet thus
much is certain from this passage, that Jesus must have been
born before the death of Herod ; and agreeably to this fact, the
vulgar Christian era is at least three years too late. (See
Paulus in his Commentary on the passage.) The investigations
of Sanclemente and Ideler, as was observed, place the birth of
Christ as long as six years before our era. — But with respect to
the flight into Egypt, the Evangelist refers to an Old Testament
prophecy,— viz., Hosea xi. 1. The Greek words in St. Matthew
differ from the text of the LXX. in a remarkable manner; the
latter reads, i% Alybitrov fAirixuXega rd rixva aiirov SC tov 'iggatjX.
In this form, the passage was wholly useless for the purpose of
the quotation ; St. Matthew, therefore, follows the Hebrew text,
which has the singular, (^ib ¦VlWlp.) We see, hence, that
in the Greek text of this Gospel, St. Matthew treats the
quotation independently, which we should not look for in an
ordinary translator. (See Introd. § 4.) In its connexion in
the prophecy, the passage evidently refers to the recall of the
people out of Egypt by Moses ; the people being regarded as
one man, are called God's son — God's first-born. (Ex. iv. 22 ;
Jer. xxxi. 9.) This passage, however, the Evangelist regards
as so far a prophecy, since Israel after the flesh is spiritually
represented in the person of Christ. The fortunes of the earthly
Israel are a type of the fortunes of the Messiah, in whom Israel
is first found in his true essence. (See 1 Cor. x. 1, ff. ; Gal. iii.

MATTHEW II. 15, 16. 67
28.) If, on the principle that every author is to be explained r
by himself, we view this idea as one that was familiar to the
New Testament writers, quite apart from its intrinsic and
eternal truth, we obtain at least the advantage of being able to
proceed more simply and naturally in the exposition.
Ver. 16. — The lengthened absence of the Magi now rouses
the wrath of the tyrant Herod. He perceives that he is
deceived, and hopes, by means of a revolting barbarity, to
destroy the dangerous child. To be certain of not missing his
aim, he causes all the children in Bethlehem under two years
of age to be killed.
('E/Mra/£s/v means, first, " to deride," " to jeer at ;" then, " to
deceive," " to beguile," since deceiving often involves derision.
®u/Loug6ai = mil to burn with rage, does not occur elsewhere.
The immediate neighbourhood of the town, the " coasts" [6'g/a
= D^TD.3 suburbs, precincts,] were included in Herod's cruel
order.) The relation in which this note of time stands to the account
of the Magi, (ver. 7,) makes it probable that the star appeared
-before the birth of Jesus, and that the Magi did not arrive
immediately after His birth, (see note on Luke ii. 40 ;) in which
case Herod might think it necessary, in order to be sure, to
extend the limit to within a little of two years. (Aiirrig, bimus,
two-year old; dvb dutoug stands for Siiruv, from the two-year old
children downwards.) The fact of the murder of the children
at Bethlehem has been doubted, because neither Josephus nor
any other historian makes any mention of it;* and further,
because it would have been a cruelty scarcely conceivable even
for a Herod, while the whole event seems without sufficient
motive, as simpler means for accomplishing the removal of the
child would have suggested themselves to Herod. But, in the ^ (
first place, as respects the silence of the historians on an event
so unimportant in a political point of view, (the only view taken
by all ancient historians,) as the death of some children in a
small Jewish town must have seemed to them ; this is the less
surprising, because, according to ver. 7, the whole matter was
kept secret as to its real connexion. Then, too, the murder of
* Macrobius (Saturn, ii. 4) mentions the occurrence, but mixes it up with the
murder of Herod's own son, — a confusion which might easily occur, as no other
royal offspring could be thought of, who could have been the object of Herod's
persecutions.

68 MATTHEW II. 16, 17, 18.
a few children was lost among the atrocities of a Herod, as a
drop is lost in the sea. The number of those slaughtered on
this occasion has been erroneously thought to be great, and the
deed itself a horrible massacre ; whereas, in the nature of things,
there could be but a few children under two years in a little
town like Bethlehem, and these might be put out of the way
without any stir. Lastly, the remark that the affair is without
adequate motive,' since Herod could easily have sent secret
messengers to accompany the Magi, appears to be not altogether
unfounded. Yet we must consider, that we are not to transfer
modern arrangements of police to antiquity ; and, again, that,
according to the king's intention, the birth of the King of the
Jews was to be kept a secret, and he thought he might repose
full confidence in the Magi ; and, lastly, that in the history of
all times there occur unaccountable oversights, which shew that
a higher hand overrules history.
Ver. 17, 18. — The Evangelist finds in this event also the ful
filment of a prophecy, Jer. xxxi. 15. The prophet's language
refers, in its connexion, to the carrying away of the Israelites by
way of Rama, to Babylon, by Nebuzaradan, (Jer. xl. 1 ;) and
Rachel, Jacob's beloved wife, the progenitrix of Israel, is
represented as weeping over this misfortune. This circuiri-
stance of the mother bewailing her unhappy children, was
regarded by the Evangelist as repeated in the murder of the
children at Bethlehem, and, indeed, with increased force,
because it was the Messiah, near to whom, and on whose
account, this affliction happened. While, in general, the fore
father of the people is mentioned, the mother is here brought
forward as bewailing those who fell a sacrifice in order to save
the life of the Messiah, because sympathizing sorrow for the
pains of her tender charge, shews itself more naturally in the
mother. The words of the quotation deviate again from the
translation of the LXX., yet not so as to discover an inde
pendent construction of the original; the passage is quoted
from memory.
(®(av7i = ^,p is here lamentation, cry of sorrow. The town
Rama, in the tribe of Benjamin, lay scarcely a-half day's jour
ney from Bethlehem, [Jud. xix. 2, 9, 13.] It might, therefore,
be put for Bethlehem itself, as, in specifying this place, it was
only intended to designate the land of Palestine in general.
Besides which, Rachel was buried in the neighbourhood, [Gen.

MATTHEW II. 19, 20, 21, 22. 69
xxxv. 19 ; xlviii. 7 ;] so that it seemed as if the progenitrix of
the nation was disturbed in her peaceful grave by the cruelty of
Herod.) Ver. 19, 20. — The return from Egypt is again instigated
by special divine admonition ; and the death of the tyrant is
assigned as the determining circumstance. The words Tihnxagi
ydg x. r. X. contain a reference to Exod. iv. 19, where nothing
but the formula ha wXngoitlfi is wanting to make it completely
parallel with the previous references to Old Testament passages.
What was there said of Moses and his flight from Pharaoh,
St. Matthew interprets in reference to Jesus ; so that Moses
appears here as a type of Him. The plural o\ fyirowrig, applies
to Herod as the representative of all God's enemies in general.
(The expression yn 'igganX — not yn 'Ioioo — readily suggests
Galilee, which, according to ver. 22, the parents of Jesus chose
for their dwelling. Znruv rnv -^u%^ corresponds to ttJMTlN
. Ver. 21. — The time of the return of Jesus from Egypt is not
indeed stated ; but, as it was an event consequent on Herod's
death,* his residence there cannot have been of long continuance.
This circumstance of itself, therefore, is sufficient to overthrow
the hypothesis that Jesus obtained His knowledge from Egyptian
philosophers, which stands, too, in absolute contradiction to the
idea of a Saviour. It must have been in very early childhood
that Jesus returned to Palestine, at which period the depths of
Egyptian wisdom cannot have been accessible to Him.
Ver. 22. — On their return, report represented Archelaus to
the holy family as not less cruel than his father Herod. They
chose Galilee, therefore, for their residence, where Antipas
reigned. Augustus, who confirmed the testament of Herod,
appointed Archelaus Ethnarch of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria ;
Philip obtained Batanea and Auranitis ; Antipas, Galilee and
Perea.t Archelaus held his dominion only nine years. At the
expiration of that period, Augustus deposed him, banished him
to Vienna, and made Judea a Roman province. (Josephus,
Ant. xvii. 10, 12 ; xviii. 1.)

* On the death of Herod, see Euseb. H. E. i. 6, 8 ; and, in respect of the
chronology, the detailed discussion in Dr. Paulus' Exegetisches Handbuch, Th.
i,~H. i., S. 227, ff.
t On this point, see the first chronological table to the Acts of the Apostles.

70 MATTHEW II. 22, 23.
(TaXiXaia = b^ki, !"W?} signifies, like 1|3, circuit, district.
The name in full is Q^Si! ^7?? ya^a'a dXXotpvXav, or y. ruv
ihobv. [1 Mace. v. 15; 'Matth. iv. 15; Isa. ix 1.] As in this
district heathenism was much mixed with Judaism, the strict
exclusive character of the Jewish people appeared in a milder
form; but for this very reason the inhabitants of Galilee were
despised among the rest of the Jews. [Matth. xxvi. 69 ; John
i. 46 ; vii. 52.] According to Josephus, [de Bell'. Jud. iii. 2,] the
district was divided into Upper and Lower Galilee ; the former
bordered on Tyre and Sidon, the latter on the Jordan and the
Lake of Gennesaret. Tiberias first, and afterwards Sephoris,
was the capital of Galilee. 'ExiT is put for ixsTge, like Dtt? for
i"TOUJ. It is often so in the New Testament.)
Ver. 23. — In Galilee, the parents of Jesus made the town of
Nazareth their dwelling-place. (The preposition ik is to be
connected with ixMv, and not, therefore, to be confounded with
h. When iv is joined with words of motion, or s/'s with words
denoting rest, we are not to suppose an interchange of particles,
but rather that the idea of previous or subsequent rest or motion
is to be supplied, according as the case requires. See Winer's
Grammar of the New Testament, translated by Agnew and
Ebbeke, § 51.) This little town of Galilee, of which neither the
Old Testament nor Josephus makes mention, was situated in
the tribe of Zebulun, not far from Capernaum, on a hill (Luke
iv. 29) some miles distant from Tabor. The derivation of the
name from "^2, bush, shrub, is proved by Hengstenberg
(Cbristol. vol. ii., i. 1, ff.) to be the only correct one. Bengel
derives it incorrectly from "|10, a crown. In this choice of the
town of Nazareth as the residence for the mother and the child,
the Evangelist sees also the fulfilment of the Old Testament
predictions; he connects this fact with the name Na£ajg«/of,
which was given to the Saviour from His residence at Nazareth.
But as there is no passage in the Old Testament where the
Messiah is so called, the meaning of this reference is obscure.
Some have supposed the Nazarite vow to be intended, and have
imagined in this place a paronomasia between the name of the
town and the word "TO, (Numb. vi. 1.) But, in the first place,
it does not agree with the Saviour's character to compare Him
with a Jewish Nazarite, because He did not, like John the
Baptist, appear with outward legal rigour ; and then the Nazar
ite is called in Greek Na^/gafe, less frequently Na£aga«>s, or

MATTHEW II. 23. 71
ftu£ngaii>S, while the inhabitant of Nazareth is called Xagagnvbg, or
Na^wgaffls. (See Schleusner in his Lexicon to the LXX.) It
is quite as untenable to refer to the term 123, shoot, branch, by
which the Messiah, as a descendant of David, is frequently de
nominated,*— e. g., Isa. xi. 1 . Had the Evangelist intended it so,
he would have quoted a distinct passage from the prophets, where
this term occurs, as he did in the former quotations from the Old
Testament. But he could not, in that case, have employed the
formula fanig irXnguOfj, for there is no connexion between the name
"123, shoot, and the dwelling in Nazareth. In our view of this
passage we must, therefore, be guided by the expression gnSiv
did roiv irgmpnrSjv. (The reading Sid roil <xgo<pnrov is obviously a
mere correction without critical authority.) The plural indicates
that the Evangelist had not any single quotation in view, but
meant only to adduce a collective citation ; and the article com
pels us to think of all the prophets, or of some in particular,
whom St. Matthew supposed to be known. Accordingly, the
view becomes most probable, that the Evangelist had regard to
the common usage of the language, in which Nazarene signifies
a mean, despised one. In that case he would have had those
passages in view in which the Messiah is portrayed in His
humiliation, — as, e. g., Ps. xxii. ; Isa. liii. An etymological allu
sion to 1*lT2, the despised one, (from lit,) may be combined with
this view, and is not improbable, particularly on the supposition
of a Hebrew original of the Gospel. The endeavour of St.
Matthew to represent Jesus as the Messiah, according to the
Old Testament predictions, is most plainly evidenced even in
these first chapters t As he wrote for Jews, it was his chief
aim to prove the connexion of the various events at the birth of
Jesus with the important testimonies of the Old Testament.
(On xaXeTgdai, see note on Luke i. 32.)
If now, at the close of the first two chapters of St. Matthew,
we glance at the objections which have been raised against their
genuineness, we may take it for granted that, in our day, they

* It was in this way that the learned Nazarene Jewish Christians explained
the quotation to Jerome. See Hieronymi comm. ad loc. Jes. xi. 1.
t De Wette is wrong in assuming, contrary to his other declarations, a double
sense ; — the reference, according to him, is first to the town of Nazareth, and the
residence there ; and then, further, to the word 122.

72 MATTHEW II. 23.
may be regarded as set aside. No external reasons can be
adduced for the opinion, that these chapters did not form part
of the original Gospel, since it is proved that the " Gospel xa%'
'E/3ga/oi/s" contained the history of the childhood of Jesus.
(See the Author's History of the Gospels, p. 73, 76.) The
Ebionites, indeed, had not the first chapters in their edition of
that apocryphal Gospel ; but the fact of their having omitted
them confirms their genuineness. (See Epiph. haer. xxx. 13.)
And with respect to the internal reasons, Gersdorf (Sprach-
characteristik, S. 38, ff.) has shewn convincingly the affinity of
the style which prevails in the first chapters with that of the
following parts; although it must be admitted that Fritzsche
(Excursus iii. in Matth.) has here and there refuted Gersdorf s
remarks. There is nothing left, then, to give any colour to
these doubts, except the doctrinal objections taken against the
contents ; but this reason, of all others, will never be urged by
judicious critics against the genuineness of the first two chap
ters, as, at most, it could only be brought against the authen
ticity of the history narrated, not against the genuineness of
this part of the work, since the Evangelist, in the subsequent
parts, exhibits the same fundamental views from which the
form of description prevailing in the first chapters resulted.
Moreover, as reference is made, in what follows, (see iii. 1 ; iv.
23,) to the preceding part, the first chapters are very manifestly
seen to be an integral part of the Gospel.* Precisely the same
observations apply to the arguments brought forward against
the genuineness of the first chapters of Luke. (For the Liter
ature on the subject, see Kuinoelii comm. in Luc, vol. ii., p.
232.) In this case, likewise, there is no external evidence
whatever, since the character of the Marcionite Gospel is a
testimony, not against, but for, the genuineness, because Marcion
omitted the early chapters, which he found in St. Luke's Gospel
as generally used. (Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 7.) No internal
reason can be adduced, except the miraculous character of the
history narrated in them — a character which agrees perfectly
with that of the whole. We shall presently treat particularly
of the contradictions which appear to exist between the accounts v
of St. Matthew and St. Luke, in the history of the childhood

* Compare the Dissertation of /. G. Muller, (Trier. 1830,) which defends the
genuineness of these chapters.

LUKE I. 1. 73

of Jesus ; but on the ground occupied by our opponents, even
in case they were irreconcileable, no argument could be derived
thence against the genuineness of the early chapters, because
those contradictions could be urged as evidence only against the
credibility of the history.

SECOND SECTION.-ST. LUKE'S ACCOUNT.
CHAPTERS I. AND II.

§ 1. PROEMIUM.
(Luke i. 1-4.)
The four verses with which St. Luke opens his work, consist
ing of two parts, (see Acts i. 1,) are worthy of notice in more
than one respect. As regards the style, we perceive that the
Evangelist's own style, which is pure Greek, as the first period
shews, differs from the Hebraising style apparent in the subse
quent part, where St. Luke communicates documents, whether
unaltered or worked up, with which tradition had supplied him.
His words next inform us, that, previous to the composition of
his work, other accounts of the Gospel-history were in existence,
the accuracy (dgpdXua, ver. 4) of which was, however, question
able ; lastly, St. Luke indicates the sources of information which
he had employed, the principles which he had followed in the
composition of his work, and the special object which he had
directly in view. The construction of the Proemium is subject
to a certain indefiniteness, which is the more calculated to give
room for diverse explanations, as the views entertained of the
origin of the Gospels naturally influenced them in various ways.
The sense of the whole passage depends on where ihetapodosis
is made to begin ; it may begin either with xaSiig iragi&ogav, or
with s'8o|s xd(Loi. According to the latter division, the words
xad&ig iragibogav x. r. X., which are connected with ivsidfaig itoXXoi
x. r. X., contain an observation on the quality of the earlier
Gospel records ; for to refer them to the mere existence of those
records, as if St. Luke had not personally known these older
works, but had only heard of them by iragdlogit, is evidently for
bidden by the expression &v dgxni aWonrrai, which necessarily

74 LUKE I. 1.
implies a tradition respecting the history of Jesus.* St. Luke's
opinion of the character of those older writings would, in that
case, be a favourable one, since he claims the same sources
of information for himself, (XatSwg iragedogat n/*?v;) a supposition
which would very well agree with an hypothesis, according to
which these many Gospels were shorter, and our Gospels more
lengthened, editions of the same original Gospel. But as (ver.
4") blame is plainly imputed to the iroXXoi, since St. Luke leads
Theophilus to expect historical certainty nowhere but in his
Gospel, which could not therefore possibly be found in the
accounts of the earlier narrators, f it might be thought necessary
to prefer that division of the sentence which places the begin
ning of the apodosis at xaSuz •jragedogav nfiTv x. r. X. In that way,
the tradition of the eye-witnesses would refer only to St. Luke's
narrative ; and his narrative would stand distinguished from the
earlier ones. But here, again, we are met, first, by the circum
stance that, grammatically, the apodosis is more definitely
pointed out in 'ido%s xdyol, than at xa9<Zg, since xoI/mi appears
evidently in contrast with the iroXXol; besides, too, the change
from nihiig to iyu is remarkable. It is, therefore, undoubtedly
most correct to begin the apodosis with Uo% s ; but to join the
clause, xaffiig ffagidogav x. r. X , not to dvard^agSai — SO that it would
contain the description of the quality of the sources used by the
moXXoi — but to mgdyfLara iv ny"> iriirXngopogn/iiva. In accordance
with this construction, the nySt after iragihogav would be quite
parallel with iv n/j,?t irrnXngopognyiva, and the meaning would be,
" since many have undertaken to put forth a narrative of the
events which are regarded among us (members of the Christian
Church) as historically established, just as the eye-witnesses
have reported them to us, (to myself and all members of that
communion ;) so I also have determined," &c. Thus, therefore,
the events only appear perfectly ascertained by the tradition of
the Church. The quality of the narratives is left at first unde
termined; but is afterwards represented as suspicious by the

¦" Hug (Introd. p. 387, ff., Fosdick's Translation) interprets xa&Aig itagiiosav
"as the eye-witnesses put them, — i. e., the writings of the iroXXol, into our
hands ;" an interpretation which stands or falls with the opinion of this learned
author, that the writings of the iroXXol are works of the Apostles.
t Thus Origen explains it correctly in Luc. horn. L Quod ait "conati sunt"
lateutem habet accusationem eorum, qui absque gratia spiritus sancti ad scribenda
evangelia prosilierunt.

LUKE I. 1. 75
contrast exhibited between St. Luke and the iroXXol, and par
ticularly by ver. 4. This view agrees best with the opinion
which we endeavoured to establish in the Introduction, — viz.,
that the apostolical tradition concerning the person of Jesus and
His history was concentrated in our four canonical Gospels
alone, and that all older writings of that sort bore more or less
of an apocryphal character.
Ver. 1. — The words iroXXol iiri%iign6av difiytjgiv dvard^agHai, can
hardly be understood of single documents relating to single
portions of the Gospel-history, (which from this passage are
usually, though not very appropriately, called diegeses,) since
the use of the singular suggests only connected narratives
(whether more or less full) of the whole of the Gospel-history.
Indeed dmrdgagQai leads to the supposition, that the iroXXol
themselves composed their memoirs from shorter records. But
to what writings St. Luke refers cannot be determined ; for, as
St. Luke most probably was not acquainted with our canonical
Gospels, (see Introd. § 3,) we are left to imagine the works of
the iroXXol to have been apocryphal attempts to delineate the
life of Jesus, which, however, for want of historical information, 't
cannot be more accurately characterized. The irguyaata iv niuv
ireirXngopognyeva are mentioned as the subject of the writings of
the iroXXol. As this Proemium must be viewed as introductory
to St. Luke's whole work, (the Acts of the Apostles being
regarded as a second part of the Gospel,) the expression applies
to more than the period of our Lord's earthly sojourn, — it em
braces also the growth of the Church up to the time when St.
Luke wrote. But when the Evangelist immediately adds, in
the words iriirXngotpognyeva iv npTv, a remark on the credibility of
the events, (those in the life of Jesus, as well as those which
happened afterwards in the early Church,) it is probably because
their character is such, that their miraculous form appears at
first sight to contradict their credibility,
(The signification " happen," " take place," cannot be assigned
either to irXngopogtfgdai, or to Nvft which some have thought to
resemble it. nxsjgopogf&j has, in the first instance, the same
meaning as irXngbta; then, as transferred to what is spiritual,
"to afford conviction, certainty."* So- it is found, particularly

* De Wette's assertion, that irXngo<pogi<a, in this sense, can be used of persons
only, is indefensible.

76 LUKE I. 1, 2.
in the writings of St. Paul, who uses irXngotpogia as parallel
with irlgns, iriirol6n<fis. The participle ireirXngopognfteva is therefore
equivalent to /3s/3a;a, and should be connected witfi iv n/iii.
Immediately after the notice of the firm conviction of the
members of the Church of the important events, [which the
iroXXol had made the subject of their writings,] there follows
appropriately the mention of the vouchers for them.)
Ver. 2. — As vouchers, St. Luke mentions the ol air dgyjig
ahrbvrai and the virngirai Xoyov. As the Evangelist begins with
the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus, we ought not to limit
the air dgyyg to the time of Christ's active ministry ; St. Luke
meant to delineate the whole new phenomenon from its first
commencement.* The ahrbirrai in this place are doubtless Mary
the mother of Jesus, and other members of the families of
whose private history the first chapters treat; but, for the
subsequent history of Jesus and of the Church, the Apostles
also are eye-witnesses. Iiagedogav is, accordingly, to be under
stood of oral as well as written tradition, since most probably
the family information, as conveyed to us in the early chapters,
is founded on written records. It is incorrect to take the
aurbmai to mean the Apostles, and the birngzrai Xoyou their assist
ants ;' for though birngirns is used, it is true, of apostolical assist
ants, (see Acts xiii. 5, although the reading there is not quite
certain,) yet inrngirng Xoyoo, sc. ©sou, is never so used. This name
designates the Apostles and all teachers in the Church in
common ; the expression does not therefore indicate a new class
of witnesses, but only describes the same witnesses more fully.
In reference to one portion of the events which St. Luke is
about to describe, they were merely eye-witnesses; but in
reference to the other (later) portion, they were themselves the
acting parties, so that there they bore witness of themselves.
This whole clause relates accordingly only to irgdy/iara, iv niuii
mirXngo<pognyjiva. On the manner in which the iroXXol used these
sources, St. Luke, in order to spare them, says nothing definite ;
only, the subsequent statement of the principles on which he
proceeded in the composition of his own work, quietly intimates
the insufficiency of their productions.

* De Wette asserts boldly, that the narrative of the Gospel-history usually
began with Christ's entrance on His official work. Why? Because St. Mark
(i. 1) begins so !

LUKE I. 3, 4. 77
Ver. 3. — St. Luke specifies three points, in which he ex
pounds, as it were, his historical method ; the terms dvakv,
axgiBug, and xah^ns, here come under notice. The first, two
words apply to the use made of the sources of information, the
last to the description itself. (In iragaxoXoufcTv, the mind's action
in following— living over again, as it were, — the whole train
of events [which implies inquiry and search] is intimated.)
In the works of the itoXXol, the opposites of all the three points
are tacitly implied. In the first place, as respects avukv, it
refers to air agxjqg, ver. 2 ; St. Luke meant to bring out to view
the earliest germs of this new phenomenon, and fully to detail
them ; of course, the irdvra are only to be understood as implying
all that appeared to St. Luke to claim a place in the description
of the whole ; in the choice of facts, the subjective views of each
Evangelist appeared. But by no means ought irugt to be referred
to avroirrai ; it belongs to the .irgdypara, on account of which alone
the persons are mentioned. 'AxgifiiSs, characterizes the historical
investigation as a clear and careful process — opposed to the
uncritical method of the apocryphal writings. Lastly, xahZfig ]
can apply only to the chronology, as in Acts xi. 4. (In Acts ,
xviii. 23, it is used of contiguity in space.) The plan of the
book shews that St. Luke intended to observe that order in the
main ; but this intention, it must be confessed, does not extend
to the very minute chronological details, since in them St. Luke
seems to have deviated from the order of time. (See Introd.
§ 7, and the commentary on Luke ix. 51.)
Ver. 4. — The laying down of these historical principles was
intended to give historical certainty and warrant (dgpdXeid) to
Theophilus, who, as being acquainted with classical literature,
probably made stricter demands than the uncritical apocryphal
writings could satisfy. In the first place, St. Luke wrote from
the reports of eye-witnesses, and, next, with a discriminating
use of those reports. Doubtless, he laid much stress on the
character of the persons with whom those reports originated ;
and the credibility of the whole Gospel-history rests, therefore,
.upon the Spirit, who animates a whole circle of individuals
linked together by His living communication.* Facts such as

* Justly does Osiander exclaim,' in his Apologie des Lebens Jesu, Tubingen,
1837, S. 63: "What shall be said when Strauss, instead of refuting the strong
anti-mythical argument afforded by St. Luke's preface, imagines it invalidated

78 LUKE I. i.
the agency of the Holy Ghost in the birth of Jesus, could be
attested only by Mary herself; but he who was moved by the
same Spirit that enabled her to give such testimony, received
her witness, and needed no other; he who was a stranger to
that Spirit, found no other testimonies, and accordingly left the
matter uncredited. The acknowledgment of the dgydXaa of the
Gospel-history always presupposes, therefore, faith in the Spirit
of truth ; and as in human life truth and falsehood appear side
by side indeed, but yet are at the same time opposed, being
distinguished as the kingdom of God and the World, — to him
who is conversant with the world and its spirit, which everywhere
suspects falsehood and deceit, because it carries them about in
itself — to him, as such, the Gospel-history cannot and will not be
accredited. But St. Luke's narrative afforded complete assurance
to Theophilus, because he was not out of this sphere of the
Spirit of truth, but lived within it. He was a member of the
Church, (and the early Church possessed the Spirit of truth
fully,) as indicated by the words irigl &v xarnyfihg Xoywv, and the
Spirit of the avroirrai was therefore in him also. (Kar^E/i^a/,
is the usual term for attending on instruction in religion. See
Acts xviii. 25 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 19 ; Gal. vi. 6.) Only we must not
conceive of the xarnxwn in the earliest times of the Church to
have consisted of a communication of doctrines ; it was founded
on history only, (Xbyoi, — histories, narrations.) Reflection was
not yet developed in the Church, and doctrines had not yet
been deduced from God's mighty acts by logical process. The
Apostles were content with bearing witness to the great facts
of the life of Jesus ; on this real foundation the Church was
reared. Mere opinions, doctrines, dogmas, could never have
given rise to such an appearance as the Christian Church
presents. But after its formation, there could not fail to arise
within it systematizing doctrinal activity, because the Spuit of
Christ is destined to pervade all the powers of human nature.
But though the instruction of the ancient Church was historical,
yet it was not on that account merely of a narrative nature ;
rather, the testimony of the first ministers of the word was
accompanied by a power which attracted those hearts which
received it into the new sphere of life opened by the Saviour ;
by the empty assertion, ' that St. Luke certainly might speak so, if he had no
idea that lie was narrating myths,' and degrades a historian, who begins so
discreetly, to a thoughtless collector of unconsciously framed myths?"

LUKE I. i. 79
and, by the agency of that Spirit, those who had received the
testimony of the truth, became themselves, in turn, witnesses of
those same great facts, which were not merely outwardly known
to them as things past and over, but exerted a living power
within, through the agency of the living Spirit. The Church
was thus built up purely from within itself; nothing foreign could ;
intrude into its circle : first, the testimony to the truth had to
be received and embraced with the accompanying power of the
Spirit ; then followed incorporation into this new sphere of life,
and belief in its decisions. Even so the Church is built up at
this day, and will be till the end of time ; it needs, therefore, no
further warrant for the truth of the Gospel-history than the
reports of eye-witnesses, which are open to us, and which are
still accompanied by the same power of the Spirit of truth, as
their oral narrations formerly were, causing in those hearts
which give it admission, the same assurance as was produced
by the words of the witnesses of Jesus in the apostolic age.
Who and what Theophilus was, (compare Acts i. 1,) cannot
be determined further, than that the character of St. Luke's
work leads us to conjecture it to have been addressed to one ;
who was familiar with .Rome and Italy, and, consequently, in all
probability resident there.* The opinion that the Theophilus
to whom St. Luke wrote, is the high-priest Theophilus spoken
of by Josephus, (Antiq. xviii. 6, 3 ; xix. 6, 4,) is therefore to
be rejected, since we cannot imagine him to have been so well
acquainted with Italy. Besides, the title xgdngrog, like the Latin
splendidus, intimates considerable dignity, with which this
Theophilus was invested. It was granted to proconsuls in the
provinces, (Acts xxiii. 26 ; xxiv. 3 ; xxvi. 25 ;) at a later period,
however, inferior officials also enjoyed it. (See Hug's Introd.,
p. 395, Fosdick's Translation.) Although, therefore, the Gospel
of St. Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, were, in the
first instance, addressed to a distinguished private person, yet
the Church has justly received them into the canon, like the
Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon ; because the indi
viduals for whom they were immediately intended, shared, as
members of the Church, its general wants ; and, therefore, what
was adapted to them might be given to all.

* The opinion that Theophilus should be taken as an appellative, = Friend of
God, and as including all believing readers, may be regarded as antiquated.

80 LUKE I. 5.
§ 2. ANNUNCIATION OF THE BIRTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
(Luke i. 5-25.)
St. Luke places dvuhv, in ver. 3, so far back, that he begins
the history of Christ, and of the formation of the Church, as
early as the birth of John the Baptist. This view results from
the nature of the phenomenon which he was to describe his
torically. For after the spirit of prophecy became silent, from
the time of the building of the second temple, and seemed
entirely to have vanished from among the people, a prophet, in
the person of John the Baptist, appeared again, for the first
time, in the Old Testament form. His history, therefore, could
not but be included within the limits of the description, since
it formed an integral part of the Gospel-history. There is
something striking, too, in the change of style in the body of
the work, as compared with the preface ; while in the former,
pure Greek prevails, in the latter, the strongest Hebraisms
appear. This sudden change is most naturally accounted for
on the supposition, that St. Luke, in the narration of the
history, made use of written sources of information, and that he
incorporated them into his work, often quite unchanged, or only
slightly amended. The character of the narratives, moreover,
particularly in the first two chapters, renders this conjecture
extremely probable ; for events are recorded in them, which
took place in the bosom of two families, and which must have
been preserved in them as a sacred treasure, till the hopes
expressed of the two scions of the families had been made good
by the result. But afterwards, when the Saviour's great work
was accomplished, and Mary, the mother of our Lord, was num
bered among the multitude of the first disciples, (Acts i. 14,)
nothing was more natural than that she should impart to the
community the wonders that clustered round the birth of Him
whom she herself now adored as her Saviour. The holy family
had, as it were, expanded ; and, in connexion with it, the sacred
histories also, of which it had been the scene, could be more
widely diffused.
Ver. 5. — St. Luke begins with defining the time in the
general, (see note on Matth. ii. 1,) by setting out from the

LUKE I. 5, 6. 81
reign of Herod the Great, and then portrays the family which
is to be the immediate subject of his narrative. In conformity
with his object, he could not, like St. Matthew, assume much
as already known. He rather describes all the characters fully.
Zacharias and Elisabeth were both of a priestly family, (as
Joseph and Mary were both of the lineage of David,) which
gave lustre to their offspring.* Of Zacharias we are further
told, that, as priest, he belonged to the course or class of Abia.
This was the eighth of the twenty-four classes of priests ap
pointed by David. (See 1 Chron. xxiv. 10.) Each of these
classes took the service in the temple for a week. (In Josephus
[Antiq. vii. 15, 7,] they are called ¦narglai, with reference to the
relationship which existed among them. The name Ip^sg/a,
which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, is
chosen with reference to their daily duty in the temple.) The
use which Scdliger (opus de emendatione temporum) and Bengel
(ordo temporum) have attempted to make of the definite suc
cession of the twenty-four classes of priests iii the temple ser
vice, as a chronological datum, cannot afford any results to be
at all depended upon, because the terminus a quo of the rotation
cannot be definitely fixed.
Ver. 6. — The mention of their personal standing succeeds
the description of their family relations. Both were dlxaoi, and
that not merely outwardly before men, but huiriov roD ©sou. The
idea of dixaiogbvn used of persons under the law, (as it is in Luke
ii. 25, of Simeon, and 2 Peter ii. 7, of Lot,) can of course be
understood of legal righteousness only, as is shewn by the
explanatory clause, irogtub/tivoi iv irdgaig raTg ivroXatg xal dixaiu/iagi
tou Kvgiov a/ii/nrroi. The ivroXal and the dixaiwf&ara, are the
individual declarations and statutes of the law, which they
had striven to follow with upright mind, and without pharisaical
hypocrisy. But when, in this and other passages, (Matth. x.
41 ; Luke xv. 7,) Sixaiogbvn is ascribed to certain persons, there
is no opposition or contradiction to Rom. iii. 20, according to
which passage the law causes knowledge of sin. The hxaiogwn
rou vbfiou never is an absolute righteousness, (Gal. iii. 20 ;) but,
relatively, it always implies, in those who strive for its attain-

• Josephus (vit. c. 1) remarks, ITag' n/riv n rng Segugvvns (terovgia rtxjtngifa
igri yivoug Xafttgbrnrof.

82 LUKE I. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
ment, repentance and faith ; and hence a longing for the finisher
of that which is . wanting to them. Thus, on account of their
oixaiogvvn, the desire for a goirng was lively in Zacharias and
Elisabeth. (On hmaiogbvn, and all cognate words, see the com
plete exposition in the note on Rom. iii. 21.)
Ver. 7. — But the want of a blessing in respect of offspring'
formed a contrast with their bixaiogwn, as in the case of Sarah.
Elisabeth was barren, (enTga, see Luke xxiii. 29 ; Gal. iv. 27,)
and both were no longer young.* The age of Zacharias must
be considered relatively only, — viz., with respect to his office.
According to Numb. viii. 25, no one was permitted to perform
the functions of a priest beyond the fiftieth year of his age. If
we take into account also the oriental custom of marrying early,
Zacharias and Elisabeth might well have given up the hope of
offspring on account of their long childless marriage, notwith
standing that the age of Zacharias, considered in itself, was
not so great.
(KaDort is found only in the writings of St. Luke, sometimes
with the meaning siquidem, as in this passage and xix. 9 ; Acts
ii. 24; sometimes meaning "according as," "as far as," Acts-ii.
45 ; iv. 35. The phrase irgofiifin*us « «*% nylgaig = D^p^ N^»
Gen. xviii. 11, and frequently elsewhere.)
Ver. 8, 9, 10. — After these prefatory observations, which in
form the reader of the circumstances of the family whose history
is about to be told, there follows, introduced by an iyivero 8s =
VT]% the special narration of the events connected with the
birth of John. According to the arrangement of the Jewish
service, incense was offered twice daily, — at the morning and
evening sacrifice. (Ex. xxx. 7, 8.) The ministering priest carried
the censer with incense (Svpiapa) into the holy place, (vabg =
^STf, the temple properly speaking, while hgh includes the
courts also; see Matth. xii. 5; John ii. 14,) in front of which
the courts extended, where the multitude assembled for prayer
stood, awaiting the return of the priest. The twenty-four
classes of the priests alternated according to a determinate

* It was the same with the mothers of Isaac and Samuel. The Evangelium
de nativitate Marice (Thilo. vol. i., p. 322,) remarks appropriately on this point : —
Deus cum alicujus uterum claudit, ad hoc facit, ut mirabilius demio aperiat, et
non libidinis esse quod nascitur, sed divini muneris cognoscatur.

LUKE I. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 83
cycle; but the priest who was to minister for the day was
chosen by lot (iXa%s roti tiv/udgai) from among the priests who
constituted each class. This had become the established cus
tom of the priest's office. £iegdraa differs from Ugdrivpa, priest
hood, 1 Peter ii. 5, and hgug-Lvn, priestly service, Heb. vii. lls 12,
14.) Once upon a time, then, as the turn .(rdfyg) came to his
class, it fell to Zacharias, by lot, to fill this office. (In ver. 8
'ivavti is preferable to the more common form hawlov. It is found
in the New Testament only in this passage, and corresponds
with havra used by Homer. In the Old Testament the LXX.
has huvri in the passage Job xvi. 21.)
Ver. 11. — It is possible that the lot brought Zacharias into
the temple for the first time, and the quiet sanctuary around
powerfully affected him. These possibilities cannot make a
sober expositor doubt that the narrator intends the appearance
of the angel to be regarded as a fact ; nor can they lead a
' believing critic of this narrative to require the commonness of
everyday life even in the most glorious moments of the life of
our race. At the time when the eternal Word descended to
become flesh, (John i. 1, 14,) manifestations of the spiritual world
appeared in the world of mankind, such as were not needed in
less powerfully excited seasons. (See note on Matth. i. 18 ; ii.
8.) As the result of a vivid conception, minute features are
given, which confirm the historical fact, and are unfavourable
to the mythical view. The angel appeared by the altar, on the
; right side of it. (The ivgiatrfigiov rov Dv/tidftang is described Ex.
! xxx. 1, ff. ; it stood in the holy place, and must be carefully
j distinguished from the great altar of burnt- offerings in the
court, Heb. vii. 13.)
Ver. 12-14.^Although the vision was to be a blessing to
Zacharias, yet fear seized him when he saw it, as was frequently
the case in similar circumstances. (Compare Luke i. 29 ; Rev.
i. 17 ; Dan. x. 7, 12.) In one aspect, this fear, at the immedi
ate view of appearances from the unseen world, is an expression
of the feeling of sinfulness. But for sin, man would see in what
is divine something akin to himself; and instead of fear, he
would experience ravishing delight. In another aspect, how
ever, this fear is expressive of a susceptibility to perceive this
contrast between what is pure and what is unholy ; and in this
consists its nobler character. On this account, such fear of
God is never considered as blameworthy, but as the beginning

84 LUKE I. 12, 13, 14, 15.
(Psalm cxi. 10) and the end (Isaiah xi. 2) of all wisdom. This
fear of God, which is consistent with love, (see Rev. i. 17,
where the disciple of love falls to the earth with fear at the
sight of Him whom he loves,) must not, therefore, be confounded
with the po/3<>5, which the irvtZ/jM dovX$lag engenders. The latter
implies being afraid of God, (vor Gott,) which is absolutely
culpable ; the latter might be called fear at ourselves, or fear
for God, (filr Gott.) (See note on Rom. viii. 15.) The hea
venly messenger quiets this holy fear, and then communicates
his message of joy. (The 3«j<r/s indicates that Zacharias had not
altogether given up the hope of offspring. TmoJ, v is equivalent
to rlxreiv, as Gal. iv, 24.) At the same time a name is given,
as Matth. i. 21, to the promised son, and in the name his spirit
ual importance is expressed. ('Iwdwns = t2|TT;.) Thereby he
will bring joy not only to the parents by his physical existence,
but also to all the pious by his spiritual manifestation and
agency, which are here, by anticipation, connected with his
birth. (' AyaXXlagig is a stronger term than %aga. In this pass
age, as in Matth. i. 18, the reading yevegu is preferable to the
common one ymfou.)
Ver. 15. — In the following verses the words of the angel
describe, first, the character of this promised one ; next, his
labours; and lastly, his relation to the Messiah, in whom all
the hopes and expectations of believing Israelites centred. In
reference to his character, it is first observed in general, that a
spiritual importance would attach to him. (Msyag = 7VT3, in
respect of influence, as Hosea i. 11. The additional clause ivuiriov
Kvgiou, sets aside the idea of worldly importance; he bears a
purely spiritual character.) Then the form of his piety is more
precisely described by the circumstance, that he will live the
life of a Nazarite. (See more particularly the note on Matth.
ix. 14. ilxiga. = 13© is used of all intoxicating drinks ; the
passage has reference to Numb. vi. 3, ff.) In the life of a
Nazarite there appears concentrated the strict legal character
which John, who was, as it were, the top-stone of the Old Testa
ment, was called to exhibit. This form of piety is not, therefore,
the highest, because a heavenly appearance ascribes it to John
as an excellence ; it is assigned to him rather because it agrees
with his whole calling and destination. The wisdom of God
takes up every character in its individuality and in its surround
ing circumstances, and neither requires everything from, nor

LUKE I. 15, -16. 85
gives everything to, each. The negative characteristic (ou irnTv)
is followed by the positive one, (irXneinxu irvtb/tarog dylov.) That
this does not imply furnishing with natural capacities, is suffi
ciently plain from irvev/iia ayiov, which always denotes a superior,
heavenly life-power, that does not belong to fallen man as such.
To suppose this power at work in John, (as in all Old Testa
ment prophets,) would not be attended with any further diffi
culty ; but the phrase en ix xoiXlag /wrgog is obscure. ('Ex xoiXiag
pnrgbg = "'EN ^KSP} Psalm lxxi. 6. "Er/ is not precisely equiv
alent to nh ; it is rather to be taken in its proper sense, as the
writer conceives the agency of the Holy Spirit continuing from
the mother's womb down to a later period.) Considered in
itself, the expression ix xoiXlag pnrgbg might indeed mean merely
"from early youth onward;" but, in connexion with ver. 44,
we must allow, that, without doubt, the Avriter intends us to
conceive of an active influence in the Baptist before his birth.
But this thought becomes perfectly intelligible if we consider,
first, that the irnvpa ayiov in this passage, is not to be taken as
identical with the Holy Spirit, whose outpouring is connected
with the completion of the work of Jesus. (See note on John
vii. 39.) The expression denotes here the divine power, in sO
far as it is a holy power, as Psalm li. 13 ; Isaiah Ixiii. 10. And
further, too, as the Divine Spirit influences even the xrigig,
(Rom. viii. 19,) we can have no hesitation in admitting the fact
of His influence in the elect before birth. In like manner we
must conceive of the influence of baptism on unconscious child
ren ; but not as if it should be thought identical with regenera
tion. Ver. 16. — The active influence of this prophet promised anew,
after so long a silence of the prophetic spirit, is now described
as being limited to the people of Israel, warning of destruction,
and awakening to repentance. ('Em<rrgspi/ii = ^IZJtl refers to
/ttrdvoia, which forms the centre of John's labours, Matth. iii. 2.)
A new and higher principle of life John could not impart, and
that was not his destination ; but the Spirit in him was intended
to awaken the sense of the higher end of life, — to point men
back to God. His ministry was confined to Israel, like that of
the Saviour, (Matth. xv. 24,) not as if the other nations were to
be excluded from the favours of God, but because what took
place in the central nation of mankind was for the benefit of all.
There a hearth had first to be prepared for the holy fire, and

86

LUKE I. 16, 17.

for that reason the influence of God's messengers was concen
trated on that spot. That it was not, however, the whole nation,
but only certain members of it, that would be gained, is expressed
plainly in the words ; iroXXovg rS/y uloiv roD 'iggarfX iirtgrg&\izi. Just
so when God is called &ib$ a-irSy, as in the Old Testament,
" The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,"— that does not imply
at all the exclusion of other nations (Luke ii. 31) from the bless
ing of the true God, nor a limitation of it to Israel, but the
thought that the relation of God to different nations is no more
alike than His relation to different individuals. The Bible knows
of no national God of the Hebrews ; it teaches only, that it
hath pleased the one true God, the maker of heaven and earth,
to bring Israel into special relation with himself, (Lev. xx. 26 ;
Sirach xxiv. 13,) and in Israel again, certain individuals. The
angel speaks here, certainly, in a human and Jewish manner, —
i. e,, so as men and Jews could understand ; but, at the same
time, in a divine manner, since it is purely divine determinations
to which his words refer, and with which they connect new
divine ordinances,
Ver. 17. — Lastly, The appearance of the new prophet is
shewn to be connected with the Messiah, as prophesied by
Malachi, (iii. 23*;) according to which passage, Elijah was to pre---
cede the appearance of the Messiah, exercising a preparatory
influence, (Matth. iii. 7, ff. — Tigoigx^ah involves preparation.) But
the expression : b irvsv/utri xal dwd/iu 'HX/ou, gives this passage
an explanatory character, John was not to be Elijah raised
from the dead, but his antitype ; being of a like spiritual nature,
he was to exercise a kindred influence. While irviv/ia denotes
what is more general,— his peculiar tendency, regulated by the
higher principle of life that animated him, — 8vva/iig refers more
to what is special. In Elijah, the idea of divine power, as puni
tive, is, as it were, personified; this same spiritual character
is that of John. (Comp, more particularly in note on Matth,
xi. 14,) The angel's referring to the language of Scripture, is
parallel with the quotation from Scripture in Christ's tempta
tion, ou the part of the devil. (Matth. iv. 6.) It is wrong to
make use of these passages to impugn the historical view of
the appearances of angels. Such circumstances are, evidently,
not to be viewed as if angels were quoting from the Scriptures ;
but it is in the Scriptures, because it is so determined in
the heavenly world, to which the spiritual persons speaking

LUKE I. 17. 87
belong. The attaching of the thought to the words of Scripture,
is to be viewed as merely clothing them in the form familiar and
intelligible among men. Angels do not, therefore, quote the
words of Scripture, because they wish to derive from the Bible
a proof or an illustration of what they say ; but the thoughts
expressed by them are in the Bible, because they contain a
truth, which stands good, as well in heaven as in earth. This
verse is, further, of the highest importance on account of the
expression, himov abrou, which refers grammatically to Kbgiov rbv
&ibv avrfiv, ver. 16, so that God himself is conceived as appearing
in the Messiah. Were this thought foreign or contradictory to
the doctrine of Scripture, a less natural explanation might be
attempted, (as, e. g., that abrbg = NIPT denoted the Messiah,
that well-known, that desired one ;) but as even the Old Testa
ment (Isa. xl. 3, 5 ; Jer. xxiii. 6 ; xxxiii. 16 ; Joel iii. 26 ; Mai.
iii. 1) intimates the same truth, and the New Testament (John
i. 14) expresses it clearly in doctrinal form, the expositor must
abide by the simple construction of the words. It was the
exalted destination of the Baptist to lead the hearts of men,
alienated by sin from what is divine, to the Lord of all lords,
who revealed himself in Christ visibly and near. The concluding
words of ver. 17 are a free quotation from Mai. iii. 23. The
LXX., which substantially follows the Hebrew text, translates
og diroxaragrngti xagdlav irargbg irghg v'ibv, xal x-aghlav dvSgdirou irgbg rbv '
irXnoiov abrou. In this way the words affirm only that he will
remove the alienation of men's spirit, and restore love and peace. J
But, according to the words in St. Luke, the second half of the
sentence, iirigrgtyai owrufoTg b tpgovneei hixaim, acquires, apparently,
a different meaning. But if we look on d#uk?g as correspond
ing to " the children," and the dlxami as corresponding to the
"fathers," the thought remains essentially the same; he will
produce a great moral effect on the people, restraining the fierce
outbreakings of sin ; he will awaken a salutary endeavour after
righteousness, and thus call forth a Xabg xarigxivagftevog, whose
character consists in the sense of a need of salvation. (*gowj<r/s
is here nearly related to gotpla, [fTftill,] although not identical
with it; it is TIT'S in the noblest sense; so that ungodliness
appears as the true folly, godliness as the true wisdom. [Matth.
X. 16.] 'En fgovfau in construction with lirigrgi-\ai must be viewed
as another case, where a verb of motion is joined immediately
with a preposition of rest.)

88 LUKE I. 18, 19.
Ver. 18.— The promise on the part of the angel of a son, was not
to exclude natural generation; Christ's birth happened differently
from John's. This is a parallel with Isaac's birth in the Old
Testament ; but the unbelief of Zacharias forms a striking con
trast to Abraham's faith. Of Abraham it is said, ob xarimn«t rb
lavrov gZsya n&n vivixguphou, Rom. iv. 19. Zacharias looked at his
age and his long unfruitfnl marriage in a doubting spirit. It is
not, therefore, the forethought exercised by the father that is
blamed, but his unbelief;* he was certainly convinced that the
vision in the temple beside the altar, which filled his heart with
holy fear, was a heavenly one, but, nevertheless, he allowed un
belief a place in his heart. The wrong lay not in the words of
the question, but in the disposition from which it proceeded.
(Mary's question [Luke i. 34] sounds like one that proceeded
from doubt, and yet she was really believing as a child.) The
asking for a sign (HiN, enyubv) in confirmation of the promise,
is never misinterpreted, (see Gen. xv. 8, where Abraham asks
VIN PISS = *ar" T'' yvdgo/iai roZro ;) on the contrary, under cer
tain circumstances, not to ask for one is rebuked. (Isa. vii. 13.)
Zacharias' request for a sign is therefore granted ; but, on account
of his unbelief, he receives a sign that is a punishment.
Ver. 19. — To accredit himself, as it were, (and to correct the
unbelieving Zacharias,) the heavenly messenger makes himself
known in his high dignity ; he calls himself Gabriel, (7^112,
Dan. viii. 16; ix. 21, — i. e., man of God, representing the
creative power of God.) That the angel applies a Hebrew name
to himself, loses all that might be surprising in it, if we view
rightly the meaning of names. A name is nothing else than the
term which corresponds to the inmost essence of the object
named. Inasmuch, therefore, as the beings of the spiritual
world possess definite characters, they have their names;
whether those names assume a Hebrew form or any other form
of human speech, depends on circumstances. Here we have, at
the same time, an explanation of the fafct, that the names of the
angels are not met with till the later periods of the Jewish

* Such an expression of unbelief at such an instant, is not so much to be
conceived as proceeding from reflection and intention, but should be viewed
rather as an involuntary utterance of the inward condition of the soul. In such
moments, the inmost being of the soul becomes manifest ; it is seen whether
faith or unbelief occupies the heart's core. The event had, therefore, for Zacharias
himself, a perfecting effect on his spiritual life.

LUKE I. 19, 20, 21, 22. 89
state ; for the general idea of a world of spiritual beings could "
be much more easily formed, than that of a clear conception
of distinct individuals in this higher world, and not till then
could names be framed to denote such individualities. By the
adjunct : iragegrnxiig iviiiriov rou Qiov, the individual that appeared
is further associated with a certain class of angels. (See more
fully in note on Matth. xviii. 10.) The gradation of existences
everywhere prevailing throughout creation, is quite consist
ently conceived by men to exist in the world Of spirits also. In
the doctrine of the Zendavesta, likewise, there appear degrees
among the angels ; the seven Amshaspands are imagined to be
nearest to the throne of God.* That there is truth in this mode
of conceiving the matter, is proved by the Scriptures, which,
long before the Jews had any connexion with the Persians,
represent angels in the more immediate presence of God. (Isa.
vi. 1, ff.) The descriptions in Dan. vii. 9, ff. and Rev. iv. 1, ff.,
also evidently convey the idea of the existences of the spiritual
world standing at various degrees of distance from God, and of
a corresponding modification of their dignity.
Ver. 20. — Zacharias, for his unbelieving language, has in
flicted upon him the punishment of dumbness ; but, at the same
time, the period of healing is foretold as an alleviation, and for
a sign of the promise given.
(Mn dwdfiivog XaXrjgai is merely an explanatory clause of giwtrav
for xi>i<pbg, which term is used, ver. 22. ' ' Av§ £v [Luke xii. 3;
xix. 44] answers both to IttJW fin£) Deut. xxviii. 47, and to
Itjpfc* by, Jer. xxii. 9. E/'s rbv xaigbv abrw is to be taken " accord
ing to the succession of the several incidents ;" first the birth of
the child must take place, and then he would shew himself to
be the promised one.)
Ver. 21, 22. — According to the later tradition, the priests
are said not to have remained long at prayer in the temple, in
order not to excite the fear of some misfortune having happened

* Agreeably with this, we find in the Persian constitution, which was intended
as a copy of the heavenly order, seven princes of the kingdom, (or chamberlains,)
who stood first round the king's throne. (Esther i. 10, 14.) The supposition that
the Jews derived their doctrines about angels from the Parsees, is discountenanced
by the fact, that the Hebrews had only /bur throne-angels, as well as by general
reasons. (See note on Matth. viii. 28. Compare also Buxt. lex. talm., p. 46.) It
must be confessed, however, that they had the number seven as well as four.
(See more fully in note on Eev.'iv. 5, 6.)

90 LUKE I. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
to them in the temple, which, as the officiating priest was
regarded as the representative of the nation, would have
been viewed in the light of a national calamity. Hence the
continued stay of Zacharias in the temple, though not in itself
long, was already beginning to excite surprise. The observation
that they perceived he had seen a vision (birtagla= tlNItt)
does not refer to his silence, but probably to his whole appear
ance, in which violent excitement may have been expressed,
which, from his coming out of the temple, was immediately
referred to a spiritual cause. Zacharias confirmed the opinion
thus expressed, by signs, (abrbg n> diavsboiv ubroig.)
Ver. 23, 24. — After the completion of the week, during which
the class of the priests to which Zacharias belonged had ful
filled their service, he returned to his house, and his wife
became with child. During the first period of her pregnancy,
however, she kept herself retired, in order that all uncertainty
might be removed.
(In the New Testament Xsirovgyia, from Xe/t-os = hnpbgiog, never
means political service; yet it is used of external service, a3
PhiL* ii. 30 ; 2 Cor. ix. 12. The term commonly denotes holy
service, as Heb. ix. 21, and is applied also to purely spiritual
relations, as Phil. ii. 17, Xurovgyia rng irlgiriag.)
Ver. 25. — The happy mother acknowledges, with gratitude,
the divine blessing in her pregnancy. According to the Old
Testament notion, to be without children was a reproach,
(Isa. iv. 1; Hos. ix. 11, 12;) and in this the prevailing
tendency to what is external is plainly expressed. In the New
Testament, the idea of spiritual activity prevails, in comparison
with which the external is placed in the shade.
("Or/, introducing the direct sentence, often appears in the
New Testament according to the analogy of the Hebrew "O,
[See Exod. iv. 25 ; xviii. 15.] UNI and ~\p% are often used,
like iirildu, in the sense of " to direct the countenance to any
thing as a token of favour." In the opposite signification —
which "TpS also often has — iirilbu occurs in Acts iv. 29.)

LUKE I. 28, 29. 91
§ 3. ANNUNCIATION OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS — MAEY's
VISIT TO ELISABETH.
(Luke i. 26-56.)
St. Luke's record is here more specific as to time and place
than St. Matthew's. We can, therefore, by his help, render St.
Matthew's account more full and circumstantial. The words
iv *<$ (ui\vl rip ixrif), which refer to ver. 24, furnish a datum of some
importance for the age of Jesus in relation to John ; and the
observation, that the annunciation took place at Nazareth, ex
plains to us Matth. ii. 23. Doubtless Mary (or Joseph) had
property in Nazareth as well as in Bethlehem ; on which account
Nazareth is called, in Luke ii. 39, irbXig abroiv. (On Nazareth
and Galilee, see note on Matth. ii. 22, 23. MvygrthgOai =
fe?1«) see Deut. xxii. 23.)
Ver. 28, 29. — The description which follows, of a secret trans
action of the most delicate character, is conceived with such sim
plicity and tenderness, and, at the same time, with such freedom
from any uncalled for intermixture of subjective reflection, that
it confirms the fact to every mind open to truth ; and it is only by
force that it can be perverted to any impure associations. With
a heavenly salutation the messenger of the higher world intro
duces himself to the humble, child-like Mary, — XaTgs xiyagirMyfivn.
(XagirSa, to make pleasant, agreeable, is found only in Ephes. i.
6, besides in this place. It is in use also among the later
authors, — e. g., Libanius.) The expression does not mean and
self-produced holiness and excellence in Mary, but only her
election by grace. The Lord had chosen her, even in the line
of her ancestors, to be the mother of the Saviour. With child
like innocence she was not aware of her high destmation, and
thought herself not worthy of this happiness, — the highest that
a daughter of Abraham could imagine. While, therefore,
x?xugiru}i,evn applies to her whole spiritual state, the subsequent
expression, ibXoynpevn « ywai%lv, refers to the announcement of
her destination ; so that iysvnSns may be supplied.* Mary fell

* EbXoyiii like TT13., has a double sense, according as it is used of the
relation of superior to inferior, or of inferior to superior. In the former relation
it means " to bless ;" in the latter, " to praise, " to thank," which presupposes
our having been blessed.

92 LUKE I. 80, 31, 32, 83.
into meditation on the meaning of this salutation, (irorairbg de
notes as much the quantity as the quality, Matth. viii. 27 ;
1 John iii. 1;) and on the appearance of the heavenly mes
senger (on diiragdxQn, see note on i. 12,) she did not know how
to apply it to herself. (On hiaXoyigpbg, biaXoyiZfgiat from Xoyog
= voDs, see note on ii. 35.)
Ver. 30, 31. — The further execution of the commission begins
with a quieting pn <poj3ov, (see i. 13,) and an assurance of the
favour of God. The idea of "favour" (xfys = 1)1, ibgkxnv
Xdgiv = VI to'Xo) involves here the free exercise of divine love,
which does not appear determined by anything existing out
'of or in her. It is consequently an expression of the pure
choice of grace, which leaves the creature no possibility of
personal merit. The announcement, that Mary was to become
a mother, is accompanied, as in Matth. i. 21, with the mention
of the name which the child was to receive.
Ver. 32, 33. — The character of this expected child of God
is now described by infinitely more exalted traits than was that
of John above, ch. i. 16, 17.* He comes as vlbg b-^lgrou, (John
as bouXog,) and as the ruler over the house of Jacob, to which
John himself belonged.
(On ykyag, see note on ver. 15 ; and on vibg btygrov, further
remarks in note on i. 35. The term v^igrog corresponds to the
Hebrew lY?^ Gen. xiv. 18. KaXtfgdai is sometimes used of
false, empty speaking; and then the essence, as being something
superior, is opposed to it ; but, sometimes, of being named, in
as far as it is a correct denomination of the essence ; and in this
latter meaning it is (like N1j?2) synonymous with thai, but
with the accessory idea of being recognized to be such. This
meaning, which is connected with the use of ovopa, (OtZ?,)
is often found ; e. g., immediately after in ver. 35, 76 ; Matth..
v. 9, 19; and frequently. The former meaning appears ver.
36, and frequently.)
Then, with respect to the dominion assured to the promised
offspring, it is, in the first place, connected with the person of
David. The principal passage which establishes this connexion
is 2 Sam. vii. 13, ff. In its immediate literal sense, it applies

* See Theremin's incomparable Sermon on the words, "He shall be great,"
in his Kreuz Christi, Th. i., Serm. 2.

LUKE I. 32, 33, 34, 35. 93
to Solomon, who, however, is, at the same time, viewed as a \
type of the true Prince of Peace. The passage is so treated \
even by the prophets, (Psalm lxxxix. 5 ; Isaiah ix. 7 ; Jer. '
xxxiii. 15, ff.) Next, the dominion of the expected King is
described as an everlasting one. The indefinite phrase elg rovg
a/a vas (LXX. have elg rbv aluva in 2 Sam. vii. 13, 16) is defined
more accurately by obx 'igrai riXog ; so that the dominion of Jesus
is here described as an everlasting, endless one, in its proper
sense. This thought conducts to the right view of the limita
tion we here perceive of the Messiah's kingdom to the house
of Jacob. A dominion that extends beyond all time, cannot,
at the same time, be conceived as limited by political bound
aries. The particular reference to the house of Jacob is to be
viewed here in the same manner as in Luke i. 16 ; and, at the !
same time, the people of Israel is regarded (as in Matth. ii. 6)
as a type of the sanctified race of mankind brought together in
the kingdom of the Messiah. (John xi. 52.)
Ver. 34. — With child-like innocence Mary expresses her .
doubts at this wonderful language ; she does not live in I
marriage connexion with any one, (yiv&gxui = 1^1%) and cannot, \
therefore, be a mother. According to the entire form of the
answer, it might have proceeded from unbelief; at least the
words are not expressive of faith. The connexion, however,
favours the idea, that Mary believed, but wished to know how
this promise could be accomplished. Believing inquiry, directed
in a child-like spirit, is therefore not blamed.
Ver. 35. — In answer to this question, the angel discloses to
her, that the Son of God, whom she was to bear, would be con
ceived in a pure and chaste manner in her virgin womb. In
words of deep import the heavenly messenger declares this
sublime mystery to her. In the first thought, irvivpM Sywv
iireXevgerai iiri gi, the irvivpa ayiov is, as in i. 15, the divine essence
in general, which, in its nature, is holy. As the generation^
of Jesus, according to His physical existence, is here spoken
of, we cannot refer the creative agency to the Holy Spirit |
in the narrow sense, as it would not be in conformity with ,
the fundamental view of the Trinity, agreeably to which the
world of conscious moral agents is the sphere of His agency.*

* If we were to hold this to refer literally to the third person of the Godhead,
it would, moreover, follow that the Holy Ghost was the father of Jesus Christ;

94 LUKE I. 35.
The absence of the article is in favour of this view ; irviu/w,
dyiov has indeed acquired the nature of a proper name, but
Suva/nig b-^lgrou could not have been without the article, if the
third person of the Godhead had been intended. In lireXebgerai
iir/ ge there is also, most probably, an allusion to the description
of the creation of the world, (Gen. i. 2, where the LXX. tran
slate, JlQniD, iire<pigero iirdva rou ibarog,) of which the creation of
the first man is a copy, which has its antitype in the regenera
tion. (John iii. 5, 8.) The latter half of the verse explains the
former more particularly. Avvayig v^terov here corresponds to
trveufia ayiov, and indicates the correct notion of it as the creative
power of God. (Q^il'^N, Gen. i. 2.) 'T&irigxidgu got stands as
explanatory of iireXebgerai iiri ge. 'Eirigxidfyiv does not at all
involve the idea of " protecting, screening," (according to the
analogy of the Hebrew *^DD ;) the connexion leads evidently
to the idea of generation. It is best, therefore, to compare it
with the Hebrew Q^MS IBIS (Ruth iii. 9 ; Ezek. xvi. 8) in the
signification of spreading out the wings, (= skirts of a garment,)
consequently " to surround," " to overshadow,"* which is an eu-
phonistic expression for connubial intercourse. Perhaps the term
contains also a remote allusion to JlDnifcp in Gen. i. 2. The
word f]H1 is well known to have the meaning " to hover over ;"
and in Deut. xxxii. 11, it is placed in parallelism with tolB
D^QpS- The whole thought of the remarkable verse is, therefore,
no other than this, that Mary, without the intervention of a
man, would become a mother ;^the pure and chaste power of
the creative divine Spirit would be the generator. Consequently,
the appearance of the Saviour among mankind is represented
as a new, immediate, and divine act of creation, and thus the
transmission of sinfulness from the sinful race to Him is excluded.
But inasmuch as this act of creation did not altogether exclude
the substance of human nature, in consequence of Mary's rela
tion to Jesus, the Saviour, though free from sinfulness in the

a mode of speaking very rightly never sanctioned by the Church, since the Holy
Ghost does indeed proceed from the Son, but the Son has not His origin from
the Spirit. God the Father is the Father of Jesus in His divine and human
nature. * The cherubim also spreading their wings over the ark of the covenant,
denote the active presence of God. Exod. xl. 32 ; Numb. ix. 18, 22. See also
Suiceri Thes., vol. i., p. 1175.

LUKE I. 35. 95
principle of life, yet partook in common with men of the dgfeveia
rng gagxog, (2 Cor. xiii. 4.) On this depended his capacity of suf
fering, which again was a necessary condition of the whole work
of the Saviour.* In His human nature He glorified human
nature in general. The fact of the promised offspring being
referred to the irveu^a ciyiov as His origin, necessarily shews Him
to be a ayiov himself, and as such He is called ulbg &eou. (The words
ex ffoD were probably subjoined to yewupevov by the transcribers,
to whom the thought appeared imperfect; no tenable reason
can be given for their having been intentionally omitted.)
The name ulbg ©sou, like ulbg b^lgrov in ver. 32, has here unde
niably a reference to the human nature of Christ. He is called
u'ibg 0eov, because He was born, corporeally, of Mary, from the
overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. That the same physical
meaning of the word ulbg is to be assumed in ver. 32, is shewn
partly by the connexion with ver. 31, and partly by David's being
denominated varng. Passages like Mark xiii. 32 ; Heb. v. 8,
(in which, however, ulbg stands alone,) appear likewise to come
under this head. Jesus is therefore here called ulbg ®eou in the
same sense as Adam in Luke iii. 38, inasmuch as He received
His being immediately from God's hand ; — the first and second
Adam are parallel in this respect also. Both form a contrast
to the vhl rZv dv&gunniv, who, as descendants of fallen Adam, bear
in themselves the image of the fallen one, (Gen. v. 3.) On the
contrary, when Jesus is called 6 ulbg rou avUgunrou, (with the article,
which is very rarely omitted, as it is in John v. 27,) this name
is very nearly allied to the physical meaning of the name ulbg
©sou, mentioned above. It refers also to the human nature of
our Lord, but in such a manner that this nature is conceived
in its ideal existence. The term has its origin in the Old
Testament, which, in several remarkable passages, (forming the
basis of the rabbinical dogma of Adam Kadmon,) transports the

* If Jesus had come into the world by ordinary generation, He would have
shared in the necessitas moriendi, together with general depravity ; if He had not
been born of a human mother, the impossibUitas moriendi would have belonged
to Him ; accordingly, only the narrative presented in the Gospels fulfils all that
is required in the idea of a Saviour. Being born as man, the Saviour passed
a really human life ; but, like that of Adam before the fall, with a possibilitas
tentationis et mortis, which then, by His victory, become an impossibUitas. (See-
further note on Matth. iv. 1, ff.)

96 LUKE I. 35.
human nature in its ideal into the divine essence itself. (Com
pare 2 Sam. vii. 19 ; 1 Chron. xviii. 17 ; Ezek. i. 26 ; Dan. vii.
13, 10, 16, with 1 Cor. xv. 45, ff.) Hence an intimate oneness
with the Father and the heavenly world is ascribed to the Son
of man, (John iii. 13,) and all power and glory, without refer
ence to the humiliation, is ascribed to Him, (John v. 27 ;
Matth. xxvi. 64 ; Acts vii. 55.) Yet, as the apostles never use
this name of Him, (out of the Gospels it occurs only in Acts
vii. 55, and that with a special reference to the bodily appear
ance of our Lord,) and Jesus, on the contrary, chiefly uses
it when speaking of himself; it is probable that He desired
in that way to bring himself near to man, and intended, at the
same time, to set before their eyes the ideal of human perfec
tion. In recent times, some would allow the name b ulbg rou
dvDgwirou to be nothing more than a customary name of the
Messiah ; but this view is very improbable, — for this reason, that
then the people would sometimes have given Jesus that name,*
or a false Messiah would have assumed it. It is probable, that
only a very few of the enlightened among the people under
stood the name 12J2N Ii in the true sense of those prophetic
passages, agreeably to which the idea of an original man — an
ideal of mankind is embodied in it. The name for the Messiah
most usual among the people at the time of Jesus, was o ulbg
Aa/3/5. By this name our Lord was commonly addressed by
those who implored His help, and who thus acknowledged His
power to help ; and the Saviour himself presupposes this name,
as so well known and familiar, that He argues upon it, and
proves thence the superior dignity of the Messiah. (See
Matth. ix. 27 ; xii. 23 ; xv. 22 ; xx. 30, 31 ; xxi. 9, 15 ; xxii. 42,
45.) That this name became so familiar as a designation of
the Messiah, is partly because the prophecies of the Old Testa
ment declared very fully and distinctly, that the Messiah was
to come of David's descendants ; on which account the prophets
often use the name of David for that of the Messiah, (Isa. xi.
1, 10; Jer. xxiii. 5; xxxiii. 15, 21 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24;
xxxvii. 24, 25; Psalm lxxxix. 4, 21 ;) and partly, because David

* In the Apocryphal book of Enoch, the name does indeed occur ; but un
doubtedly it is only through Christian influence that the name has been put
there. John xii. 34 shews that the name was quite strange to the Jews.

LUKE I. 35. 97
was to the Jews the splendid ideal of a ruler over His people,
under whom their dominion was most widely extended. The
use of this name, therefore, was connected with the circle of the
worldly ideas of the, Messiah which were current among the
Jews. In order not to countenance these, our Lord therefore,
in speaking of himself, avoided the use of that name altogether,
and endeavoured rather, by the use of the more obscure expres
sion, ulbg rou dvQgwnou, to give another direction to the inquiries
about the Messiah's import ; for although the name was not a
familiar one, yet Jesus might assume it as understood among
the better portion, from those prophetic passages in which it
occurs. But the phrase ulbg ©sou, is commonly used in the New
Testament in a sense very different from the physical one, in
which it occurs in Luke i. 32, 35 ; and then the article is awant-
ing. The phrase" usually denotes, in a metaphysical sense, the
eternal existence of Christ, which He has with the Father, — His
relation as God to God, as the manifestation of the unseen
God. In the Old Testament, the name b ulbg rou ©so» does not
occur to express this idea ; for in passages like Psalm ii. 7 ;*
2 Sam. vii. 14, the prevailing reference is to an earthly mani
festation. But although the name is wanting, (as is the case
with the idea of the @agiXela rou &eou,) yet the idea itself is widely
diffused in the Old Testament. It appears as early as Genesis,
(see Steinwender diss. Christus Deus, in V. T. Regiom. 1829,
where the passages from the historical books are collected,) and
often subsequently in the prophetic writings, Isa. ix. 6, 7 ;
xi. 1»J?; Micah v. 1 ; Jer. xxiii. 6; xxxiii. 16, and often. In
the Apocrypha, see Wisdom vii. 25, ff. ; viii. 3 ; Sirach xxiv. 4,
ff. In the formation of the name ulbg rou ©sou, passages bike /
Psalm ii. 7, probably exercised important influence at a later
period, since the different relations in which the phrase might
be employed, were not sufficiently discriminated. Moreover,
we find it in many passages in the New Testament ; and, indeed,
while Jesus himself prefers to call himself ulbg r. d., the Apostles, ]\
for the most part, use the name ulbg r. 0. The Saviour, as
vibg r. d., brings himself near to men. Men elevate Him, as ulbg
r. ©., above themselves. Yet our Lord (in John's Gospel) often

* The words rWN "^S. (Psalm ii. 7) do not, as ver. 6 shews, refer to the
eternal generation of the Son by the Father, but to the appointment of the Son
to universal dominion in the world.

98 LUKE I. 35.
calls himself ulbg r. ©. too, or ulbg with pregnant meaning. But
of this — >that the name ulbg r. ©. was merely a name for the
Messiah common among the Jews, and without a deeper mean
ing — they will hardly be convinced, who consider, first, that the
ordinary and vulgar popular opinion among the Jews regarded
the Messiah as merely a distinguished man, who, on account of
His excellencies, was chosen by God xar ixXoynv for the office.
(Justin Martyr dial. c. Tryph., p. 266, sq.) According to this
view, names, such as Xgigrbg, fiagiXeug ruv 'loubaioiv, ulbg rou Aafilb,
and others, would be more readily suggested. Further, if the
name had been so familiar, there would not have been such
astonishment at Jesus so calling himself. (John v. 18, ff. ; x.
33, ff.) Lastly, too, we never find any false Messiah calling
himself " Son of God." The passages John x. 33, ff. ; xix. 7, ff.,
rather shew that the people regarded it as presumption, even in
the Messiah. The only plausible support to this low view of
the phrase is, that ulbg rou ©sou is found, in some few places in
the Gospels, joined to Xgigrbg ; but, on closer inspection, it is
plain that no one of them warrants the conclusion ; that, at the
time of Christ, this name was in common use, as synonymous
with that; of the Messiah ; and that, therefore, the same ideas
were attached to it which were usually associated with the
names of the Messiah. With respect to the passages in which
ulbg rou Giou is joined with Xgigrbg, we should first distinguish
carefully between those in which Xgigrbg precedes, and those in
which it follows. In the former, (e. g., Matth. xvi. 16 ; John
vi. 69; [according to the Textus Receptus, Griesbach reads,
b dywg rou kou ;] xi. 27 ; xx. 31,) the phrase ulbg rou ©sou contains
only the more precise determination of the idea of the Christ.
The disciples thought Jesus to be the Christ immediately after
they united themselves to Him, (John i. 41 ;) but it was not
till after prolonged intercourse that the idea of the Son of God,
who had appeared in Christ, was unfolded to them, through
the revelation of the Father. (Matth. xvi. 16.) Again, when
the High Priest asks (Matth. xxvi. 63 ; Mark xiv. 61) whether
He is the Christ, the Son of God, this question had reference,
not to the conceptions prevalent among the people, but to what
Christ affirmed of himself; and because of these declarations
the people cried out, " If thou be the Son of God, come down
from the cross," Matth. xxvii. 40. The words of the centurion
(Matth. xxvii. 54, and the parallel passages) refer to the heathen

LUKE I. 35. 99
mythology. But it does certainly appear to be different with
those passages, in which ulbg rou ©sou stands first, which, how
ever, are very few, as John i. 50 ; ix. 35, compared with ix. 17.
But that, even from these passages, it cannot be concluded
that ulbg rou ©sou was only a common name for the Messiah, is
shewn in the particular exposition of them in their connexion.
(See Commentary on those places.) Thus there remain only
the passages, Matth. iv. 3, 6 ; viii. 29, and the parallel passages,
in which Jesus is addressed as ulbg rou ©sou, as in other cases He
is called ulbg Aaj31b. But these passages occur only in the history
of the temptation, or in reference to demoniacs ; and it is there
fore more than probable that they are to be so understood, —
that only the superhuman demoniacal power recognized Jesus
in His divine nature and dignity. We must, therefore, say, that
ulbg rou ©sou does, indeed, designate the Messiah;* but so far only
as He was born of the essence of the Father ; that, therefore,
whoever so called Him, either acknowledged Him as such, or
blamed Him for declaring himself to be such. Lastly, with
respect to the relation of the name ulbg rou ©sou, in as far as it is
applied to Christ, and the same name so far as it is applicable
to man, we have to observe, that ulol ©sou, or rixva Oeoufi axe
used in a twofold reference, corresponding to the two mean
ings, which belong to the phrase, as applied to the Saviour.
On the one hand, it has reference to the physical existence of
men. They are called ulol rou ©sou, inasmuch as God (indirectly)
is their Creator. This meaning, however, is very rare; but

* On this construction Schleiermocher's opinion, too, is set aside, who says in
the Glaubenslehre, Th. ii., S. 707: "Son of God" denotes probably not the divine
nature alone, but the whole Christ, in His divine and human nature. Passages,
such as 1 John i. 7, certainly shew that the physical and metaphysical meanings
were conjoined, as, indeed, the Scriptures in general are far from any Nestorian
separation of the natures. Still, Son of God denotes the whole Christ, inasmuch
as He was born from eternity of the essence of the Father. Son of Man, on the
other hand, denotes the whole Christ, inasmuch as He represents the ideal of
humanity. ¦j- Texvov is not used of the person of Christ, though iralg is. (Matth. xii. 18 :
Acts iii. 13, 26 ; iv. 27, 30.) This term does not, however, so much correspond
to ulbg, as to the Hebrew Tt\TY! 1237, which is e0 often applied to the Mes
siah, especially in the second part of the book of Isaiah. (See note on Acts iii.
13.) Texvov could not be used of Christ, for this reason, that the notion of
something undeveloped predominates in the word, while ulbg denotes what has
manly force and energy.

100 LUKE I. 35, 36, 37, 38.
Ephes. iii. 15, John xi. 52, and Mai. ii. 10, come under this
head. Otherwise, even in passages of the Old Testament, as
Isa. lxiii. 16, Deut. xiv. 1, the reference to salvation pre
dominates. In the latter sense it appears also in very many
passages of the New Testament, (1 John iii. 1,2; v. 2 ; Rom.
viii. 14, 16, 17 ; ix. 8 ; Gal. iii. 26, &c.,) and denotes the
regeneration which, as a new act of creation, restores to the
condition of children those who were estranged from God by
sin. This reference corresponds to the deeper signification of
the name ulbg rou ©sou, as applied to the Saviour. In regenera
tion there is the likeness of His eternal generation from the
essence of the Father ; and in reference to the spiritual children
of the one Father, our Lord calls himself also the first-born among
many brethren. (Rom. viii. 29 ; Heb. ii. 11.) He who from
eternity was Son of God, lived as Son of Man on earth in time,
in order to raise the children of men from earth to heaven, that,
as children of God, they might be like Him, and become par
takers of the divine nature. (2 Peter i. 4 ; 1 John iii. 2.)
Ver. 36-38. — Mary, too, receives a sign, (gn/ieTov, rVlN,) like
Zacharias, (i. 20;) but it is a favourable one. As what had
happened to Elisabeth is here made known to Mary from
above, so also what had happened to Mary was made known
to Elisabeth, (ver. 41.) Such dispensations were necessary
under such extraordinary circumstances ; and, just for that
reason, we may assume similar facts for the solution of diffi
culties in those instances where they are not expressly noticed.
(See note on Luke ii. 39.) The address concludes with the
general truth, that the Divine Omnipotence accomplishes its
plans notwithstanding all apparent impossibilities. The words
are from Gen. xviii. 14, where they are used of Sarah in simi
lar circumstances. The truth thus expressed, in its widest
generality, should also be conceived as so far limited, that
everything true (gnpa = 121) is also capable of expression ; for
what is contradictory is, as such, not a gJj^a, and, consequently,
1 impossible with God, precisely because He is God. Mary,
believing with childlike humility, submits herself to God ; she
acquiesces in her destination for the fulfilment of the divine
purposes. The birth of the Saviour became thus an act of her
faith also. Mary's faith repaired Eve's unbelief. (In ver. 36,
for the common reading ynga, which form stands for yngaY, and
that again for yngan, from nominative yn^ii Griesbach reads

LUKE I. 39, 40, 41. 101
yngei for yngel) from yngog. [See Winer's Grammar of the New
Testament, translated by Agnew and Ebbeke, p. 59.]— Ver. 37.
The expression obx — irav glipa is a pure Hebraism ; it corresponds
with 121-^2 tib.)
Ver. 39. — In consequence of the suggestion of the angel,
(ver. 36,) Mary visits Elisabeth, to whom, as a relative, she
was, probably, already known. Zacharias' place of abode,
which was left undetermined in ver. 23, is now stated more
precisely. He lived in the hill country of Judah, (ogs;wj scil.
xfya>) iQ a Levitical city called Juda, more correctly spelt "ioMa
or 'Iourra. In the Old Testament it is called TWP, (Josh. xv.
55; xxi. 16,) for which the LXX. write 'lrdv in the first pass
age. The reading 'loubalag is at all events a correction ; if we
retain the form 'lovba, the name of the city must be supplied.
In that case, Josh. xxi. 11 affords an appropriate parallel,
where it is said of Hebron, Xsfigiiv b r<p ogei 'louba. (Msrd giroulng
corresponds with the more common expression giroubaiag. It is
found in the LXX. also, Exod. xii. 11 ; Ezra iv. 23 ; Dan. vi. 19.)
Ver. 40, 41. — The narrative evidently implies that there
was no previous communication between the two women about
what had happened. As Mary knew nothing of the circum
stances of Elisabeth before she was informed by the angel,
(ver. 36,) so Elisabeth also was ignorant of Mary's fortunes.
Both were led and taught by -the Spirit. Neither was there
time for such communications, according to the dates given us.
As Mary received the visit of the angel in the sixth month of
Elisabeth's being with child, (ver. 26, 36,) and stayed three
months with her, (ver. 56,) she must have repaired to Elisabeth
immediately after the annunciation. Joseph was then, undoubt
edly, altogether ignorant of the circumstances, and did not
become acquainted with them till Mary was advanced in preg
nancy. (See more fully on this point in note on Luke ii. 39.)
Being espoused, she might, therefore, without exciting atten
tion, spend some months with a distant relative, by permission
of her intended husband. The sacred emotions of soul experi
enced by the mother, are shared by the child yet unborn, and
the Spirit from above filled the happy mother, who saw the
most ardent hopes of her soul realized. Like Hannah, the
mother of Samuel, she, doubtless, often devoted her earnestly-
desired child to God. (1 Sam. i. 11.) Respecting the irveupa
dyifii, see note on i. 15.

102 LUKE I. 42, 43, 44, 45.
(Sjugraw = xivelgtSai is used particularly of the leaping motion,
to which joy incites. The LXX. translate Mai. iv. 2 : exigrngen
iig pogxagia. In Gen. xxv. 22, it is used also of the motions of
children in the womb.)
Ver. 42, 43. — Elisabeth, as the elder, here blesses Mary and
her child, (xagirbg xoiXlag = 1E2 ''IS)) as afterwards John the
Baptist, though the inferior, had to baptize our Lord. Elisa
beth, though she blesses, still makes herself inferior to Mary,
when she says, xal ^bfov poi roOVo x r. X.* (Kai in questions, is
emphatic ; see Mark x. 26.) Elisabeth's words, n pnrng rou xuglov
fiov, are very remarkable. Turn them as we may, it cannot
appear appropriate to call an unborn child xugiog,] except upon
the supposition, that Elisabeth, by the illumination of the Holy
Spirit, like the ancient prophets, recognized the divine nature
of the Messiah, as the mother of whom she greeted Mary. The
passage is_ therefore parallel with ver. 17, where, in the address
of the angel, the same idea of the incarnation of God in the
Messiah was hinted at, and xugwg is emphatic — equivalent to the
Hebrew ^31N: or fijif,.
Ver. 44, 45. — Elisabeth's language passes, towards the close,
into the third person. She speaks of Mary in prayer, and extols
her faith. By the Holy Spirit, she probably recognized this
as the fundamental disposition of Mary's heart, and as the con
dition of her happiness. The reXe'mgig has reference to the fulfil
ment of all that had been promised of her son in ver. 32, 33.
But with respect to the nature of the irlgng, it is clear, that this
word does not here mean faith in any doctrinal proposition, but
describes only the spirit of submission to the divine will, in which
Mary was found at the announcement of the heavenly message.

* The words ha eXSn, involve the idea of some previous instigation or com
mand, and might be paraphrased, " Who arranged that the mother of my Lord
must come to me ?" She regards it as a fresh proof of the favour of her God.
t Dr. Paulus is of opinion, that xugios stands simply for fiagikeug ¦ and that
Elisabeth merely expresses her faith that Mary will give birth to the Messiah.
But as not even Augustus and Tiberius ventured to use the name xugiog of
themselves, it is plain that this mode of designating kings was then very
uncommon. Least of all, then, can it be believed, that pious Jews, who called
God alone " the Lord," should have so applied the term. Certainly, if we do
not regard these accounts of the history of the childhood of Jesus as family
documents, the hypothesis is feasible, that, from a later and more matured
conviction of the dignity of Jesus, such an expression was put into Elisabeth's
mouth. But her divine illumination is sufficient evidence of her knowledge.

LUKE I. 46, 47. 103
| Faith is susceptibility to the operations of divine grace and
their reception into the heart.* (See further remarks in note
on Matth. viii. 2.)
Ver. 46, 47. — If we imagine Mary as living in close familiarity
with the Sacred Scriptures, whose promises had doubtless often
affected her soul, and drawn forth the wish, that God would at
last help His people, and send the Saviour, and even that she
might become the blessed mother of the Messiah, there is then
nothing surprising in such an expression of enthusiastic joy as
now follows. Under the consciousness of having become par
taker of the highest happiness, she gave thanks for the mercy
she had experienced, and for the fulfilment of God's promises,
which she viewed as already performed ; expressing her thanks
with prophetic intuition, and in words of Scripture familiar to
her, particularly after the pattern of Hannah's song df praise,
uttered under similar circumstances. (1 Sam. ii. 1-10.) Thus
viewed, these poetical effusions lose all that strangeness which
at first sight appears to attach to them. Even Schleiermacher
made use of them to support the opinion, that the history of the
childhood of Jesus had been cast into a mythical form. If the
poetical effusions were independent poems, they would be cal
culated to awaken some suspicion; but as they are merely
reminiscences from the Old Testament, which we must suppose
to have been quite familiar to the parties concerned, their intro
duction here is no way inconceivable or even inappropriate.
The following song of praise (ver. 46-55) is usually called the
Magnificat, from the first word in the Vulgate; we have an
excellent practical exposition of it by Luther. (MeyaXuw —
b^f^TI Acts x. 46 ; xix. 17 ; Phil. i. 20.) The combination of :
meu/ia and -\njx^ *he distinction between which will be found at
length in note on 1 Thess. v. 23, denotes the whole internal ;
being ; the powers of the soul, both high and low, were moved /
with joy. (See Psalm ciii. 1, "tCpi an(* >1^i?"^3') ^ '**' &l!?
rS eurngi /4ou, the reference to an external gurngla, should not be
altogether excluded, (see ver. 52 ;) doubtless Mary looked for
ward to the exaltation of David's family. But the deep religious

* [It is scarcely necessary to point out the defective view of faith expressed in
the text. It does not agree with the definition in Heb. xi. 1, nor with the Cal-
vinistic view of the nature of faith. Faith necessarily implies truth or facts as
its object, and whatever else is included, this reference cannot be excluded.]— Tr.

104 LlfKE I. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50.
feeling (Innigkeit) expressed in the song, does not leave us at
•liberty to assign a prominence to this reference, or even to con
ceive of it in a coarse and sensual manner, particularly as we
must certainly suppose Mary to have been illuminated by the
Holy Spirit, agreeably to ver. 41. The entire fulness of bless
ings; consummated by the appearance of the Messiah, lay spread
out before her, and she applied the general salvation (spiritual
as well as external) to herself also. God was in Christ her
Saviour also ; and as she was now about to give birth to the
Son of Man, so she was afterwards to receive the Son of God
also into her heart. (See note on Luke ii. 35.)
Ver. 48-50. — Taken in a religious point of view, the mention
of the raweivugig does not refer directly to Mary's outward
political lowliness, since she was of David's family ; it is rather
the expression of the humble consciousness of inward poverty,
which could discover no pre-eminence in herself, because of which
such happiness should have fallen to her lot. (Taireivbg = tpy,
JV^M, [see note on Matth. xi. 29,] is closely related to irrtaxk,
Matth. v. 3.) We ought not, however, entirely to exclude a
reference to what is external ; as a result of the mercy of God
bestowed upon her, Mary probably pictured external splendour,
too, for herself. This fact, also, has been used to indicate the
Saviour's training, and to intimate that we may here see what
sort of hopes of a Messiah were imbibed by Christ with His
mother's milk; but it is clear that in this way His glory is only
increased, since He spiritualized the doctrine of the Messiah in
the highest degree.* Besides, the notion that the Messiah was
to exercise a mighty influence on the outward affairs of this
world, is not a false one. The error in the popular conception
consisted in their desire for the external without the internal.
If the people of Israel had been brought to a thorough change
of heart, they would have acquired a powerful influence ex-

* [The views referred to above may not be familiar to some English readers.
It has been the great aim of the schools of theology opposed to the Gospel
truth, to account for the extraordinary character of Jesus on merely human
grounds. One of these explanations is alluded to above. Jesus Christ is sup
posed to have been trained by a mother full of ardent hopes and aspiring
ambition to conceive of himself as the Messiah. But, as our author observes,
the explanation, so far from accounting for the most extraordinary parts of the
Saviour's character — the spiritual views of His kingdom — renders these more
inexplicable] — Tr.

LUKE I. 48, 49, 50, 51, 52. 105
fternally also. Though Mary, therefore, as she was not sinless,
j may, for single moments, have been tempted by vanity, yet her
views of the Messiah were entirely those of the Bible. The
'Old Testament, as well as the New, ascribes to the active
! influence of the Messiah in the spiritual world, the entire
I transformation of the external also. Christ is the King of all
kings ; the highest earthly power is made His footstool. In the
first instance, Mary brings into notice only the idea of the after-
glory which would be her portion as the mother of the Messiah,
— a prediction which has been fulfilled in a more extensive sense
than she could have wished, (rsvsa = ifl, generation, those
who are living contemporaneously ; irdgai yeveai, the whole suc
cession of future generations.) In the light of the Spirit she
duly /estimated the importance of the Messiah's birth for all
times and circumstances. (MeyaXeTa = m 713, as in Psalm Ixxi.
19 ; o duvarbg = li2it.) From a definite reference to herself,
Mary's language, in the last words from ver. 49, xal ayiov rb owi/ta
aurou, becomes more general; but the succeeding thoughts are
always to be conceived as having their special bearing on the
present case. (Qoftoupevoi rbv Qibv, believers, in opposition to the
unbelieving world, are the constant objects of His care, not
withstanding all appearance to the contrary. "Ovopu, as the
designation of the essential character in general, is more
accurately defined by the special term eXeog.)
Ver. 51, 52, — God's rigour in the punishment of the uiregnpavoi,
is put in contrast with His grace in blessing the rairnvol, who are
equivalent to tpoftou/tevoi, and- on that account eXeog is chosen.
Mary, in the Spirit, views both — the blessing for the humble as
well as the curse for the proud — as connected with the birth of the
Messiah. The words xaSaigiTv buvagrdg dirb Sgbvoiv, compared with
ver. 32, 33, render it not improbable that Mary contemplated
external dominion also for her son. Like the prophets, she
connected, in perspective, the future manifestation of the king
dom of Christ with its first appearance. But though she did
conceive of a dominion of Christ in externals, an idea which
has a true foundation in the Bible, (see note on Matth. xxiv.,)
still her conception of it was doubtless different from the coarse
material views of the great mass of the Jewish people. (With
respect to the phrase buegnfavoi Siavola xagblas, — xagbla, in the
biblical anthropology, is the seat of life, and of the most general
and immediate manifestations of life, and therefore of sensation,

106 LUKE I. 53-56, 57-59.
and of thoughts and wishes influenced by sensation; while
girXdyx^ denotes pure sympathetic emotion. Hence we can
explain the frequent combination of bidvoia and its synonyms
Xoyig/jAg, biaXoyigftbg, vbn/ta, biavbn/JM, eirlvoia, with xagbla. This does
not imply that the bidvoiai are actions of the xagbla, — they are
rather actions of the voug or xbyog, — but that the incitement to
these actions of the voug proceeds from the xagbla. See the fuller
remarks in note on Luke ii. 35 ; Matth. ix. 3.)
Ver. 53-55. — A kindred thought is expressed in several
similar figures; poverty and hunger, wealth and fulness, are
kindred ideas. The satisfying of longing desire — the repelling
of the sated curiosity after divine things, are both included in
the notion of the Messiah. Nowhere does Mary betray anything
false in her views of the Messiah ; for the relation which, at the
close, she represents His manifestation to bear to Israel and the
predictions of its prophets, is to be explained agreeably to i. 16.
(' AvriXa/tfidvegfoti = fionkh ; see Acts xx. 35 ; Sirach ii. 6. Israel
is viewed as irafg Qeou, agreeably to Exod. iv. 22, if iratg does not
here stand equivalent to 12J7. "Ewg alSivog* is not to be con
nected with /ivngSnvai, but with giregpa, to intimate that the bless
ing of the Messiah would have a future influence on the whole
human race in its nobler members, which the seed of Abraham
represents. The datives are to be viewed as dativi commodi.
The construction imn^nvai nvbg rm' is classical.)
Ver. 56. — After three months Mary returned; as she was
probably unmarried at the time of her journey, (see note on
Luke ii. 39,) the expression olxog abrng, leads us to suppose
that she resided at Nazareth.

§ 4. John's birth and circumcision — prophecies of
zacharias concerning him and christ.
(Luke i. 57-80.)
Ver. 57-59. — Shortly after Mary's departure to Nazareth,
Elisabeth gave birth to the promised son,t who, according to

* Some editions read elg rbv u'rwva  Tr.
t The ancient Alexandrian Church celebrated John the Baptist's birthday on
the 23d April (28th Pharmouti.) Subsequently, the Greek Church, as well as

LUKE I. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65. 107
very ancient usage, was named at the time of circumcision.
(Gen. xxi. 3, 4.) This took place, agreeably to the Mosaic law,
on the eighth day. (Lev. xii. 3.) The happy mother's joy
over this son of her old age was shared by the circle of her
acquaintance. (MeyaXuveiv eXeog = Ipfl /'Hifl Gen. xix. 19.)
Ver. 60-62. — According to the wish of those present at the
circumcision, a family name was to be given to the child ; but
the mother (from the command, ver. 13) insisted on his being
named John. In this dilemma they apply to the father to
decide. The word ineueiv does not warrant us in supposing him
deaf; in the first place, the expression does not actually exclude
accompanying words, and then again we easily get into the habit
of treating dumb people as if they were deaf. ("A«>xg/W0a/ =
n3y, means not merely giving a reply to a previous question,
but beginning to speak in general, — a use of the word well-
known, and of frequent occurrence in the Gospels. In ver. 61,
instead of b rf guyyevela, Codd. A.B.C.L. read ex rrjg guyyeveiag,
which Lachmann has rightly preferred. In the question ro ri
dv 6'eXoi x. r. X., the rb stands as connecting with the verb the
whole sentence which contains the question. It is used similarly
in Mark ix. 23.)
Ver. 63-65. — The father decides for the mother, (ver. 60,)
and writes down the name John. (Aiyuv, in connexion with
ygdipeiv, has only the general meaning, " to declare,'' " to make
known one's mind," as in Luke iii. 4, and in the oft-recurring
phrase, Xeyei n yga<pn. Tlivaxlbiov = yga/t/Aarldiov, a little writing
tablet. Agreeably to the prediction, (ver. 20,) the punishment of
unbelief inflicted on Zacharias was removed after the birth of
the child. He speaks, and immediately makes use of his
tongue to proclaim the praises of God, who had so glorified
himself in the fulfilment of His promises. As dviyxfy did not
seem to agree well with yXS>gga, some Codd. of inferior value
have added iXuOri, bing$gMn, which may properly enough be sup
plied. As the sense of a higher superintendence in these
events forced itself upon those present, they were seized with
the holy awe, seen in those who fear God, when divine influence

the Latin, devoted the 24th June to that purpose, evidently from the datum
supplied by the Bible, that Elisabeth was with child six months earlier than
Mary. They reckoned six months backward from the 25th December.

108 LUKE I. 63, 64, 65.
comes perceptibly near them. (See note on Luke i. 12.) What
had happened in the family was spread by report through the
whole neighbourhood. It was confined, however, to the hill
country, (6gs/wj i. 39,) without reaching Jerusalem, the theo
cratic centre. Without the Pharisees and scribes having any
idea of it, the mightiest events of the kingdom of God were
preparing among the simple-minded. (Aia>.a?.eTgku, to be talked
or spoken of up and down, Luke vi. 11. 'Pn/aa = irgdy^a, after
the analogy of the Hebrew 121, see Luke i. 37.) He who does
not agree with . Schleiermacher, in regarding this narrative as
" a nice little invention by a Christian of the refined Judaizing
school," will have no hesitation in taking the fact of the healing
of Zacharias, as well as his dumbness, and the appearances of
angels, as historically true. In the light of Scripture we see
that all physical appearances subserve the advancement of the
spiritual world; and, if this event be thus viewed as discipline
for Zacharias, no objection can be brought against its historical
character, which does not arise from a false view of the funda
mental relation in which God stands to the world. If we do
not conceive of God as an extra-mundane being, who leaves the
phenomena of nature to roll on according to laws left to them
selves, but as sustaining the world by His breath, and as the
inherent cause of all physical phenomena, then the miracle lies
not in the single external fact, (which always has its connexion
in laws higher or lower, known or unknown ; for the Spirit of
God itself is the law,) but in the harmonious agreement of the
individual phenomenon with the highest interests of the whole.
Without this agreement the miracle would be on a par with a
magical trick. (See more fully on this subject the note on
Matth. viii. 1 .) The supposition, that we have here not a fact,
but a myth, (apart from the general reasons already mentioned,
which forbid the supposition of myths in the sacred Scriptures
at all,) is further discountenanced by the circumstance, that
such a fabrication as the infliction of dumbness for a punish
ment, is most improbable, since it is altogether destitute of
analogy.* The peculiarity of the event testifies to its truth.
Such things are not easy to invent.

* Strauss does not hesitate, notwithstanding this decisive point, to hold to his
opinion, even in the second edition of his work, (B. i., S. 141,) though the pro
duction of analogies is the only means which he has in order to give the semb
lance of support to his arbitrary views.

LUKE I. 66, 67. 109
Ver. 66. — A passing reference is made to the impression
produced in the neighbourhood by these events in the family of
Zacharias. In this way, expectations of the importance of the
infant were excited, which his progress fully justified.
(Xs;g xuglou = rrtilVTl. The hand, as the most general organ
of action, is here viewed in the light of protecting and blessing.
That this hand of the Lord was with the child in his growth, is
mentioned by anticipation, in order to intimate that men's ex
pectations were realized. The phrase nkvai iv rfi xagbla = Q>)to>
with the prepositions bv, 7SI) 2, with 27> includes, not merely
retaining in the memory, but also turning over and considering
the matter with interest.)
Ver. 67. — There is not, properly speaking,' any break here, as
ver. 66 only anticipates certain thoughts. The following pro
phetic words of Zacharias are rather in immediate connexion
with ver. 64. (On irveu^a dyiov, see note on ver. 15, 41.) It is
only to such an elevated moment, in which heavenly power
strengthened Zacharias, bodily and spiritually, and raised him
above himself, that the following words are suited, in which he
speaks prophetically of his son's relation to the Messiah, and of
the fulfilment of all the hopes which the seers of the Old
Testament had excited. Zacharias begins with the main sub
ject, (ver. 68-75,) and then places John (ver. 76-79) as exercis
ing a preparatory influence, in his proper relation to our Lord,
in whom all the promises of the prophets are fulfilled. Although
here, too, the work of the Messiah is chiefly referred to the
people of Israel, and the whole representation bears a national
colouring, yet nothing false appears anywhere ; for which reason
those special references, as they are based on a truly moral
conception of the Messiah's kingdom, (ver. 74, 75,) admit the
same transference to the general, which we have already vin
dicated above, (ver. 16, 54.) The language is, moreover, so
strongly tinctured with Hebraisms, that it may be re-translated,
word for word, into Hebrew — a circumstance which, as already
hinted, makes it extremely probable that we have here pre
sented to us family memoirs, which Luke adopted as he found
them. As such, these precious narratives have a double value,
because they throw light on the circle of ideas in which John
grew up; and there is no difficulty whatsoever in supposing,
that he would be made familiar with these by conversation
and actual instruction, as it is only in the case of the Saviour

110 LUKE I. 68, 69, 70.
that we are compelled to suppose an absolutely free develop
ment from within.
Ver. 68, 69. — In true prophetic ecstacy Zacharias contem
plates, as completed, the work of salvation, which appeared now
in its germ, in the birth of the forerunner of the Messiah, (for
which reason the Aorists are not to be confounded with
Futures.)* His unbelief (ver. 20) appears, therefore, here
transmuted into the most assured faith, which enabled him to
behold unseen things as visibly present. (On 6 Gebg rou 'igganX,
see note on ver. 16. It expresses nothing more than the true
exclusiveness displayed in the Scriptures, to which the Saviour
and the Apostles adhered. The relation of the Israelites to the
Lord was different from that of all other nations.) In the
birth of his son — whom Zacharias, however, views only in con
nexion with the appearance of Christ — he sees a rich visitation
of God's favour, after long waiting on the part of the pious.
(''KirigniirregSai is used quite like 1J7S in the Old Testament;
only that there the idea of visiting for the purpose of punishing is
the more prominent; while in the New Testament that of visiting
in order to benefit prevails, agreeably to the pervading character
of the two economies. Aurgugis = J1VTS, see more fully on the
idea in note on Matth. xx. 28. — Ver. 75 plainly forbids our
thinking of political deliverance merely; but that Zacharias
connected external blessings with the appearance of the Messiah,
is more than probable, and, regarding the' work of the Messiah
as completed, not incorrect.) In sending the Messiah, divine
grace was revealed as both saving and defending. (Ksgas
gurnglag = TOW1J? 11|j>, Psalm xviii. 3, is used here with refer
ence to passages like Psalm cxxxii. 17, where we read of "the
horn of David." The point of comparison in the figure is the
power, which is here conceived as protecting the godly, and
punishing enemies.)
Ver. 70. — The whole subject is at once connected with the
hallowed company of ancient seers, who had prophesied the
general feature, (the Xbrgugig rou Xaou,) as well as the special,
that a descendant of David should accomplish it. (KdD&s

* This description ill accords with the supposition, that the Gospels were
fabricated in the second century, and falsely ascribed to the Apostles ; for at
that time the Church had acquired so little external splendour, that no one
could have been prompted to such descriptions by its condition.

LUKE I. 70, 71, 72, 73. Ill
iXdXngt sc. 6 ©sos is to be referred to the whole previous sen
tence.) The prophets are conceived, as stretching in a con
tinuous succession through the history of the people of Israel,
and through the human race. The result of their prophecies
appeared at last realized in the present. ('Air aluvog, ix rou
aluvog, and similar forms of expression, are used with indefinite
generality, so that they must be more precisely determined by
the context. There is, however, always this included in the
idea, that what is spoken of should be carried back to the
beginning of the period [a/wn] to which it naturally belongs.
[See Luke i. 2, dir dgxng.] In this place dir aiuvos, agreeably to
the context, may be referred to the beginning of the Jewish
nation, — that is, to Abraham, [ver. 73,] if it is not preferable to
go back to the beginning of the human race itself, since the
earliest advocates of righteousness and of the fear of God are
regarded as prophets. [2 Peter ii. 5 ; Jude, ver. 14.] See
more fully on aim in note on Matth. xii. 31.)
Ver. 71. — After the intermediate thought, the idea of the
feurngla is again taken up from ver. 69, and is viewed, first of all,
I as deliverance from enemies. («xPgoi, /utob/ttvoi.) In these words
[ the political view of the Messiah's influence appears to come
/ out most distinctly, and it is certainly not to be altogether
omitted in this case. Just as in ver. 47, there was combined
with Zacharias' view of the appearance of the Messiah, the
contemplation of His completed work, in which what is without
agrees with what is within, as will be the case in the kingdom
(of God. But that very glance at the distant future,, shews that
the idea of enemies is to be taken in a deeper sense, and in-
' eludes all whose life was under the influence of hostile principles.
Then, too, this salvation is only one aspect of the Messiah's
work ; it is completed by the Xargeueiv iv bgibrnri xal bixaioguvr\,
(ver. 74,) and thus the gurngla Ig ixh™ acquires a deeper mean
ing, since the mere freeing from the dominion of the Romans
would fail to confer any true holiness and righteousness.
Ver. 72, 73. — The construction proceeds entirely after the
Hebrew mode ; (the infinitives «w5ja-a/, /i*iui<r#jwu, are put for the
common form elg rb iroinaai = 1DH filtoSf?, see Winer's Gram
mar of New Testament Idioms, p. 256;) iroirjgai eXeog, &c, is
evidently not to rank as something different from the gwrngla,
(ver. 71 ;) but this thought stands in the relation of an adjunct
to the main thought. In the words : moineai 'iXeog x. r. X., it is

112 LUKE I. 72, 73, 74, 75.
not the present that is spoken of, but the past. By the salva
tion at the present time, mercy was to be shewn also to the
fathers*in the past. (Uoielv eXeog perd corresponds with the Hebrew
D57 IpH TVDV " to be gracious to any one," — " to shew favour."
Gen. xxiv. 14.) With respect to the thought, it is peculiarly
calculated to bring out the spirituality and depth of view
expressed in the conceptions of the Messiah, which the words
of Zacharias unfold. The work of the Messiah is viewed as a
saving one to the whole body of forefathers, since in Him first
they all really received salvation and forgiveness, which they
had believed in up to the time of His manifestation. The gairngla
ix ix^goiv appears here to be such as confers benefits on the dead
also ; and this shews clearly enough, that the enmity* — salva
tion from which is celebrated — is meant to be viewed as essen
tially deeper in its character. (The reference to the covenant
and oath sworn to Abraham is put, as a part only, for the whole
of the revelations and promises of God to the forefathers. The
idea of the divine oath [ogxos] implies something inviolable, and,
consequently, now fulfilled by the faithful God. It is best to
construe ogxov also with fivn<f$rjvai, [see Is. lxiii. 7 ; Wisd. of Sol.
xviii. 22,] so that it stands parallel with biatlnxng.)
Ver. 74, 75. — Zacharias, taking up the idea of the gurngla
in the words : ix yeigbg rav iybgwv njhZv gugS'evrag, now adds a
second thought, expressive of a new effect of the appear
ance of the Messiah, which exhibits itself at the present
time, — (i. e., according to the prophetic view of Zacharias,
who beheld the kingdom of God already complete,) — viz.,
dpo'/3wg Xargebeiv ktS b bgibrnri xal bixaioguvr\. As this clause
is dependent on rou bouvai n^n, the true worship of God, described
in it, is marked out as an effect and a gift resulting from the
Messiah's appearance. It is not merely a result of the removal
of enemies, so that the emphasis should be laid on apo/3«s, but
something newly bestowed — never before realized. The words
are parallel with all those passages of the prophets in which

* To apply it merely to political enemies, as the Romans, is inadmissible. They
are riot, indeed, to be excluded altogether ; and Zacharias was not in error, if
he thought of an altered political condition of his nation ; it was nothing but
the sin of the Jews that had made them then subject to the Romans, as they
had before been to the Chaldeans, — true repentance would have made them free
again.

LUKE I. 74, 75, 76. 113
the establishment of righteousness is connected with the appear
ance of the Messiah. This view alone is in agreement with
what follows in ver. 77, where Zacharias first speaks of the gift
of the knowledge of gcurngla and of its connexion with the for
giveness of sins ; while John was to awaken the feeling of need,
the Saviour was appointed to provide the bgibrng and bixaioguvn
themselves, and the Xargela which springs from them. Aargeueiv
iv bgi&rnn xal bixatoguvy may be appropriately compared with irgogxu-
ve?v b irvebpan xal dXnkia, (John iv. 23,) which also stands con
nected with the appearing of the Messiah. ' In Ephes. iv. 24,
both terms (bgwrng and bixaioguvn) are used, just as in this place,
to mark the new man created after God. (See also 1 Thess. ii.
10 ; Tit. i. 8.) The two terms here include the whole extent
of true piety. Only, Sgwg = l^pn applies more to the pious
man's relation to God ; blxawg = p*H2} more to his relation to
those around.* Alxawguvn is here conceived more after the manner
of the Old Testament, for bixaioguvn, as St. Paul describes it in
the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, includes bgibrng. (See
more fully on this point in note on Rom. iii. 21.) In the con
cluding words of ver. 75, irdgag rdg n/i'egag i\iiZ>v, a more earthly
conception of Messiah's kingdom seems again to shew itself,
since its glory is limited to the duration of life. The words
may, however, be viewed as a simple expression of the indefinitely
protracted enjoyment of the blessings of the Messiah, whose
kingdom is most plainly designated (in ver. 33) as a lasting one.
Still I am disposed to reckon this passage among those in which,
without compromise, there may be seen a leaning towards pre
vailing popular ideas, which, in this case, appear also to be
founded on some passages of the Old Testament. (See Isa. lxv.
20.) For we are not to imagine all as being of the same stand
ing in the Messiah's kingdom ; and hence the variety in the mode
of expression which we meet with in Scripture on this subject.
(The words njs Zpng are spurious ; they were added as explana
tory of nP'Uv.)
Ver. 76. — Zacharias now, for the first time, speaks of his
eon, and of the place which he occupies in reference to the
Saviour. He views him as His prophet and forerunner. (Ugoipnrng

* See Polybius, (xxiii. 10, 8,) who thus characterizes these relations : rd fdv
rgbg roug dvDgwiroug blxaia, rd &'e irgbg roug koug bgia. H

114 LUKE I. 76, 77, 78.
u^lgrou stands in contrast with ulbg b^lgrou, ver. 32. On xaXeTgka,
see note on Luke i. 35.) HgoirogeuegSai and 'eroipdgai bboug describe
John's work according to the terms of the Old Testament. (See
Isa. xl. 3, and note on Matth. iii. 3.) That work was to awaken a
sense of need, the satisfying of which was afterwards to be accom
plished by the Saviour himself. The words : irgb irgogdirou xuglou,
contain, again, as in ver. 43, an intimation of the divine nature
of the Messiah, to which we are also led by the actions ascribed,
and the epithets applied to Him in the following words. The
degree of consciousness and of clearness on the mystery of the
manifestation of God to mankind, which Zacharias possessed,
cannot be any further defined. Probably the stream of divine
light which poured through his soul at this sacred moment,
bore him beyond the bounds of his everyday knowledge.
Ver. 77. — Zacharias proceeds to describe the labours of John,
using the same construction as above, ver. 74, ff. The yv&gig
gurnglag is specified as the object of his preparatory labours.
The Lord himself gives the" gurngla, (ver. 71,) John awakens to
an insight into its necessity. (The special connexion of this
yvooovs with the Xabg ©sou, appears here as in ver. 68.) There
can be no doubt how the following clause : b d<pigei d/mgnSv,
should be connected. The gurnglu itself consists in this, and, as
a divine act, (Psalm xlix. 8, 9,) it can proceed only from God.
(It is best, therefore, to complete the phrase : goirnglag b d<pieti
dpagnZv ougng.) The forgiveness of sin appears here, consequently,
as the great prerogative of the times of the Messiah, which was
lacking to the Old Testament economy. The sacrifices of the Old
Covenant could not effect an inward, essential aipegig, but merely
a xallagbrng rrig gagxbg, (Heb. ix. 13,) inasmuch as they restored
the interrupted relation to the Old Testament theocracy. Sin
itself remained through the forbearance of God. (See note on
Rom. iii. 25.) But in the New Testament essential forgiveness
was bestowed, on the one hand, by the actual removal of the
consequences of sin ; on the other, by the implanting in man of
a new, higher life, — that of bgibrng and bixaioguvn. The purity of
Zacharias' views of the Messiah is here strikingly evident ; and
hence we must, from this passage, gather a more precise mean
ing for the previous indefinite expressions, if we wish to interpret
the speaker by himself.
Ver. 78. — The sending of the Sin-destroyer is now set forth
as the effluence of God's mercy, (just as in John iii. 16,) and

LUKE I. 78, 79. 115
thus Zacharias is led back again to the person of the Saviour ;
so that the view of his son merges, as it were, in the wider,
grander view of the work of Christ, just as John himself
modestly withdraws behind the person of Jesus, (John iii. 30,)
like the morning star that fades before the rising sun. (lirXdyxva
= D^lT! frequently in the LXX., thence girXayx^egku. The
term is derived from the lower organs below the heart being
regarded as the seat of the purely sympathetic emotions ; but
especially the womb, [Ohi, uterus,] which, as the organ of
maternity, was put for mother's love. In some respects, there
fore, the term appears to denote the lowest grade of love, as if
it were purely physical love. But, because this shews itself to
be, at the same time, the most immediate and the strongest, it
is used also to denote the love of God, in order to express its
essential and immediate nature, of which maternal love itself is
but a faint image. The addition of ixioug defines the divine love
more precisely to be such as is directed towards the miserable
— the unfortunate.) As the effect of the divine compassion,
Zacharias now brings forward the appearance (see note on
iirigxeirregkti, ver. 68) of the avaroXrj ei~ u-\ioug. The terms eiriipavai
and xareuduvai, used in the following verse, shew that the Messiah
is called a dvaroXr\, inasmuch as He is the light of men, <pSg ruv
dvDgwirojv. In itself, the term may be appropriately compared
with the Hebrew TlftS, shoot, according to passages such as
Isa. iv. 2 ; Jer. xxiii. 5 ; Zech. iii. 8 ; vi. 12, (where the LXX.
translate it by dvaroXq,) but that the word iiripavai following it,
seems to make the former view preferable. The rising, namely,
is put for the rising sun itself, (Mai. iii. 20,) which gives light
to the wanderers, and shews them the right way. The addition
of !£ ityous marks the appearance as a heavenly one, descending
hither from a higher system. ("t-vJ/os = DilD.)
Ver. 79. — In these concluding words there is reference to
passages in the Old Testament, (particularly Isa. ix. 1 ; lx. 1,)
in which the Saviour is described as the light of a world shut
up in the night of ignorance and alienation from God. (See
Matth. iv. 16.) The expression : b gxi$ Savdrou xa^evoi, corres
ponds exactly to the Hebrew T^Tt yiN2 "nip, Isa. ix. 1.
(On np^ see note on Matth.' Iv. 16.) Lastly, restoration
to the way of peace is described as the result of the enlighten
ing of those who sit in darkness. (' obbg elgqvns denotes that walk,
that course of life, which is carried on with inward peace, and

116 LUKE I. 80; II. 1.
leads thither as its final aim. This presupposes the absence of
peace in those that sit in darkness.)
Ver. 80. — A concluding formula, which depicts, 'in grand
traits, the physical and spiritual growth of the Baptist, and
which speaks of his life up to the time of his public appearance,
concludes the family history of Zacharias. A similar formula
closes likewise the family history of Mary, (ii. 40, 52,) which
may indicate, perhaps, that both memoirs are by the same
author. The words : nv b raTg igni^oig, refer to i. 15, and denote
the Nazarite form of the Baptist's life. ("Egjjtios = 121<p, does
not mean strictly a desert, but still a comparatively uninhabited
tract of country. The solitude of his early life is' intended to
be contrasted with the dvdbsfyg, as the formal opening of his
official labours as a prophet. On dvabelxvu/ii, see note on Luke
x.l.)

§ 5. BIRTH, CIRCUMCISION, AND PRESENTATION OF JESUS
IN THE TEMPLE.
(Luke ii. 1-40.)
A few months after the birth of John, Jesus also was born.
The Evangelist here first narrates how, by the leading of Provi
dence, an external political circumstance was made the occasion
of Mary's journeying from Nazareth, her usual dwelling-place,
(Luke i. 56,) to Bethlehem, the original residence of her family,
where, agreeably to the prophecies, the Messiah was then born.
(See note on Matth. ii. 6.) A decree of the heathen emperor
Augustus brought the mother of our Lord to the city of David,
to shew that " the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord as
the rivers of water : He turneth it whithersoever He will."
(Pro v. xxi. 1.)
Ver. 1. — The previous verse gave by anticipation, and only
briefly, some notices about the Baptist. The words h ixeha/g
ni&gaig refer, therefore, to the history of John's birth detailed in
the former chapter. The passage contains some not unimport
ant historical difficulties, which have been employed by the
advocates of the mythical interpretation, to demonstrate the
unhistorical character of St. Luke's Gospel. However, Savig-
ny's investigations into the Roman taxation, contained in the
Zeitschrift fur geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, B. vi., have

LUKE II. 1, 2. 117
shewn that Augustus did, in fact, contemplate the introduction *
of a uniform system of taxation throughout the whole Roman
empire,— a fact which had long been doubted. (Liv. epit. lib. 1
134; Dio. Cass., liii. 22 ; Isidor. orig., v. 36 ; Cassidorr iii. 52 ;
Suidas, s. v., diroygaipn.) That this undertaking was extended !
to Palestine, too, though not at that time a Roman province, is )
divested of all that appears strange, if we take the diroygaipn I
to mean the mere registering of the landed estates, and not an
assessment of property, — the proper term for which is diroripws- \
The emperor might well take the liberty of making such a
register, in consideration of the Jewish kings being so depend
ent on him, that the Jews had, along with the oath of allegi
ance to Herod, to take one to the emperor. (See TholucMs
Glaubwurdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, S. 191.)
Ver. 2. — The words of ver. 2, which seem to fix the enrol
ment with greater historical precision, are still more difficult,
since the most obvious meaning does not agree with the accounts
of historians; for the Kugnviog* (Quirinus) here spoken of was
proconsul of Syria at a much later period, since, about the close
of Herod's life, Sentius Saturninus, after him; Quinctilius Varus,
and not till after both of them, Publius Sulpicius Quirinus,
were respectively invested with this dignity. (Joseph. Ant. xvi.
13 ; Tacit, annal., iii. 68.) If, therefore, the census were meant,
which, according to Joseph, xviii. i. 1, was made by Quirinus
in Syria and Palestine, the birth of Jesus would have to be
placed ten years later, — whereby the whole chronology would
be thrown into confusion.t According to both St. Matthew

* Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1, 1) says of him: Kug^wos be, ruv elg rr\v fiouXr\v
gvvayo/ievuv dvng, rdg re dXXag agp^aff iirirereXexiig, xal bid iragZiv bbeugas
iig xal utarog yev'egiai, rd re &XXa dfyu/Aan fifeyag, guv bXlyoig eisi 'Suglag
iragrjv, uirb Kaigagog bixaiodorng rou 'ifaoug diregraXfifevog, xal n^nr^g ruv
ougiSv yevngb/ievog.
t With respect to the time of Christ's birth, this passage, on account of its
internal uncertainty, cannot well be used to determine the year. Besides the
star, (see note on Matth. ii. 2,) the death of Herod, before the end of whose reign
Christ was born, contributes to the determining of this date. He died, according .
to Josephus, (Ant. xvii. 9, 3,) shortly after the insurrection of a certain Matthias.
Herod had him and forty companions burnt on a night, in which there occurred '
a total eclipse of the moon, which was soon followed by the Passover. This
eclipse took place in the night of the 12th and 13th March, A.U.C. 750 ; and
as there were no eclipses visible in Palestine for some years either before or
after, Christ must have been born before A.U.C. 750. His birth, then, falls in

118 LUKE II. 2.
(ii. 1, 19) and St. Luke, (i. 5, compared with iii. 1, 23,) the
Saviour was born during the reign of Herod ; a census, con
sequently, under this monarch could have been carried into effect
only by the proconsul Sentius Saturninus, to whom, indeed,
Tertullian (adv. Marc. iv. 19) assigns it, without any historical
confirmation, but probably by conjecture only. From this pass
age we cannot so much as conclude that there was a different
reading in the MSS. used by Tertullian. But even if there
were, it would have no value, since it must be regarded as a
correction of the original text. As the common text has been
so perfectly established by the critical authorities, none of the
conjectures that have been hazarded can obtain any sanction.
Some have wished to insert irgb rng between irguirn and nyepovebovrog
x. r. X., so that the sense would be : " this taxing took place
before that (well-known one) under the proconsul Quirinus."
It would be better to read abrn instead of aim, so that the words
would convey this thought : " the taxing itself (which was then
attempted only) did not take place till under the proconsulate
of Quirinus ;" for the change of an accent cannot be regarded
as a change in the text ; for this reason, that the oldest MSS.
are written without accents. It would perhaps be most suitable
to take ffgwrjj for irgor'ega (as John i. 30 ; xv. 18) in the sense,
" this taxing took place before the proconsulate of Quirinus."
Yet I do not deny, that the observations, by which Tholuck, in
his Glaubwurdigkeit der evang. Gesch., S. 182, endeavours to
defend this explanation, are not quite satisfactory to me ; (see
Winer's Grammar of the New Testament Idioms, p. 193 ;) in
particular, it seems to me harsh to take irgiArn nyepoveuovrog for irgb
rou nyi^oviueiv, although the LXX. have a kindred construction

a time of universal peace, on which the Fathers lay so much stress. In A.U.C.
746, the temple of Janus was shut on the return of Tiberius from Germany,
and it was not opened again till A.U.C. 752, on occasion of the war with the
Parthians. See Jo. Kepleri, liber de J. Chr. vera anno natalitio. Erancf. 1606,
4; Wurm's astron. Beitrage zur Bestimmung des Geburtsjahres Jesu in Bengel's
Archiv., B. ii., St. 1 ; and further, the dissertation on the year of the birth of
Jesus in Kleiber's Stud., B. i., H. i., S. 50, ff., (Jesus cannot have been born
later than the beginning of March 4710 of the Julian period, — i. e., the year of
Herod's death, A.U.C. 750,) and the supplement, ib., H. ii., S. 208, ff. With
respect to the day of our Lord's birth, the ancient Alexandrine Church, accord
ing to Clemens Alexandrinus, assigned it to the 20th May, (25th Pachon ;) while,
in the Western Church, the 25th December was fixed for it.

LUKE II. 2, 3, 4, 5. 119
in Jer. xxix. 2. Be that as it may, Tholuck, in his masterly
treatment of this passage, has manifestly proved, in answer to
Strauss, that, even supposing all the difficulties in it should not
be solved, we cannot draw any conclusion thence against the
credibility of St. Luke, who everywhere shews himself to be
intimately acquainted with Jewish and Roman history, and,
in particular, with this first complete census under Quirinus.
(Compare Acts v. 37 with Joseph. Ant. xviii. 1, 1.) If, on the)
most accurate historical inquiry, St. Luke's main assertion, so
long doubted, that a taxing of the whole Roman empire took
place under Augustus, is confirmed, we may be sure that the i
minor circumstance he mentions will also prove correct. But
even though there were an error in it, or ver. 2 must be regarded
as a gloss, it need excite no apprehension whatsoever in those
to whom the divine origin of the Scriptures is made certain by
the testimony of the Holy Spirit.*
Ver. 3. — That the families had to go to their own cities,
either was the result of the state policy of the Romans, who
accommodated themselves to the Jewish custom, or else the
Jewish authorities made use of the Roman arrangement of the
taxation for their own ends. In particular, according to Roman
custom, it was indispensable for Mary to accompany her hus
band. (See Dion. Halic. Antiq. Rom. iv. 15.)
Ver. 4, 5. — The fact that Mary too went to Bethlehem, is i
explained only on the supposition of her being an heiress, and |
possessing landed property in Bethlehem. (See note on Matth.
i. 1.) As in journeying to Jerusalem, so in the journey to
Bethlehem, the term dvafialveiv = JlvV has the secondary signi
fication, implying to go up to what is elevated in a moral and
religious point of view. (See Gesenius in the Lexicon, s. v.)
Mary's being called /le/ivnereuu'evn, ver. 5, is explained by Matth.
i. 25.

* ["The testimony of the Holy Spirit" was universally held among the older
Lutheran divines to be the most convincing proof of the truth of the Scriptures
to the individual Christian. The modern Rationalists discard or sneer at the
doctrine. But the operation of that conviction is not, as indicated in Olshausen's
remark in the text, to lead us to admit the possibility of the existence of errors
in the Word of God, as if they were compatible with its inspiration ; but rather
to make us feel, that whatever difficulties there may be, they are difiiculties
only, not errors, and are capable of a satisfactory explanation, whether we may
have succeeded in discovering that explanation or not.] — 2>.

120 LUKE IT. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
Ver. 6, 7. — In Bethlehem, whither the taxing had brought
them, Mary gave birth to the Saviour of the world, without
show — in the deepest seclusion. Q%irXng6no'av al npegdi rou rexeli
abrfiv, .corresponds to the Hebrew Ptlbb 0^?t ^"J^l. See
Gen. xxv. 24; Luke ii. 21.) As there was no room in the
inn, (xardXupa = %evoboxe?ov,) she laid the infant down in the
(pdrvn- (See ver. 12, 16.) This indicates that it was a stable
which the mother of our Lord was obliged to choose for her
! resting-place, as the house was occupied. Ancient tradition
speaks of a girnXaTov as the place where Jesus was born. They
were frequently used, in mountainous districts, as folds for
flocks. As it is mentioned as early as Justin Martyr, (dial. c.
Tryph. Jud., p. 304,) and Origen, (contra Cels. I., xi. 3,) and
as it is not in any way improbable in itself it may, perhaps, be
looked upon as established. (On irgurbroxog, see note on Matth.
i. 25. Jiragyavbcn, to wrap in swaddling clothes, does not occur
elsewhere, except in ver. 12.)
Ver. 8, 9. — The communication of the news of what took
place in the holy night is again limited to the humble unknown
circle of a few shepherd-families, — to whom this very cave,
which our Lord chose for His first dwelling, might belong.
The unostentatious character which adorns the whole history
of Jesus, is manifest in this feature also. The shepherds were,
doubtless, like Simeon, ver. 25, waiting for the consolation of
Israel ; the angel announced to their desire the fulfilment of all
God's promises in Christ. Although notions about the Messiah
were dispersed among the whole nation, yet the sacred Scrip
tures make a distinction between the coarse, carnal expectations
of the mass, and the hopes of the few nobler spirits, which were
founded on a deep-felt religious and moral need. ('AygauXiu, to
remain in the open field, particularly by night. In the words
ayyeXog iiregrn, the idea of something sudden and unexpected
in the appearance is conveyed. Ab\a xughu = TftiT} 1125, the
radiant light, which is imagined as floating round all heavenly
appearances.) Ver. 10, 11. — We must explain the contents of the angel's
announcement by the previous more definite passages. (See
i. 17, 32, 33, 74, 75, 78.) As the idea of the Zpeis rat
d/iagnav is associated with the o*ojr^g, (ver. 78,) so in xugmg the
divine dignity of the Sin-destroyer is implied. (On Xabg, see
note on Luke i. 68.)

LUKE II. 12, 13, 14. 121
Ver. 12. — The angel, of his own accord, gives to the believ
ing shepherds a sign, (gnpeTov, Hit*,) which is not in itself neces
sarily a miraculous one. Still we may lay the stress on sugars,
to which dveugov answers in ver. 16. In that case, we do not
need to seek any external circumstances by which the shep
herds were guided to look for the child just where he was ; a
secret spiritual influence guided them to the right place through
the darkness of the night.
Ver. 13. — This representative of the heavenly world, who
communicated the joyful intelligence, was suddenly joined
(e^aitpvng iyevero = iir'egrn, ver. 9) by a heavenly host, (grgand
obgdviog = D^Qiyil N2SJ,) transferring the employments of their
superior existence to this poor earth, which so rarely echoes
with the pure praise of God. In this appearance there is a
prefiguration of the realization of the kingdom of God, the
idea of which implies the union of things heavenly and
iearthly. Ver. 14. — It is from this import of the angel's appearance,
and its relation to the birth of the Messiah, that the words of
the angelic song of praise are to be explained. Since all that
was desired was restored by the Messiah, and His work is con
templated as complete, it is more suitable to supply lor/ than
egria, which latter gives to the words the form of a wish. On
this the division of the words depends. If we put a period
after b6%u b b^igroig &si2, it would not be suitable to supply ktrit
and 'igroi woidd be preferable, which would make the words more
evidently an expression of thankful joy ; but then, sWw must be
supplied for the latter part also ; and thus the thought would
assume the form of a kind wish to be fulfilled in the future,
while it is infinitely more significant to take it as an enthusi^
astic announcement of what is present in the Messiah. Ac
cordingly that division is undoubtedly preferable which places
a period after yng ; so that the thought is this : " God is now
glorified, as in heaven, (b bfygroig = D'ilE^ in contrast with iirl
rng yng,) so on earth." The words then prominently point out
the characteristic feature of Christ's work; He makes earth
heaven, and transplants hither a heavenly spirit, (Wesen,) thus
fulfilling His own prayer : " Thy will be done, as in heaven, so
on earth." In the language of enthusiasm, the plant of God's
kingdom is represented in its maturity. According to this
division, elgnn is connected with what follows, and we must

122 LUKE II. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.
necessarily read euboxlag, so that the whole forms but two parts.*
The thought of the second half thus connects itself very natur
ally with the subject of the first. As the true glory of God
(which results from the recovery of the lost) is restored by the
Messiah, so also is peace restored on this earth accustomed to
war, both externally and internally, and the dvUgoiiroi bgyrjg are
transformed into dv6guirol euboxlag. The critical authorities are
certainly much more in favour of the reading ebboxia, (only Codd.
A.D., some translations, and several Fathers, defend the read
ing euboxlag ;) still an erroneous punctuation of the first half might
so easily make an alteration appear necessary in the second, that
the origin of the reading ebboxia is, in that way, very easy to be
accounted for. If there existed a further misunderstanding of
the import of the words as a lively announcement of the present,
and s'oY<a was supplied, then the tripartite division appeared the
easier, inasmuch as it seemed incongruous for men to be called
avQguiroi euboxlag before the Saviour had finished His work and
exercised His influence. The song of praise is more spirited
and profound, if we take it as consisting of two parts, and not
as a wish, but as an announcement of grace bestowed. Besides,
with the threefold division, it is difficult to avoid the tautology
in iirl yng eignvnj and iv dv6gdiroig ebboxia ; in that case we must inter
pret elgnvn, very superficially, of external peace merely in the
relations of men among one another; ebboxia = fi21> of men's
relation to God.
Ver. 15-17. — The heavenly ones returned to the heavenly
place — the men went to Bethlehem, found what was foretold,
and made known what they witnessed to the circle of like-
minded friends, (ver. 18 ;) for, that the angels' words did not
appertain to the multitude, was well understood by those to
whom they were addressed. (On g^a, see note on Luke i. 37.
AiayvuiglZtii = divulgo scil. rd iregi rou gqftarog.)
Ver. 18-20. — Those who heard the glorious intelligence were
amazed ; the shepherds praised God, like the angels, (ver. 13,)
and with child-like faith viewed what they had seen as the
fulfilment of that which was foretold, trusting to the accounts
of the mother ; but Mary thankfully received this homage as

* The preponderance of reasons still seems to me to be in favour of those who
divide the angelic song into two parts. Men such as Beza, Mill, Bengel, NSsselt,
Moras, likewise viewed the passage in this light.

LUKE II. 18, 19, 20, 21. 123
a confirmation of her faith, (sumjgsft implies rather the active
exercise of memory; gupfidXXeiv b rfi xagbla intimates meditation
with pleasurable emotion and interest. In ver. 51, h rjf xagbla
is connected immediately with bierngei ; and thus both the actions
of the memory and of the heart are combined in one expres
sion.) Ver. 21. — Agreeably to the Mosaic law (Lev. xii. 3) the
circumcision of the child was performed on the eighth day,
and, at the same time, the name of Jesus was given to Him,
as the angel had commanded, (i. 31.) The Son of God — the
pure and the purifier— was in all things made under the law,
(Gal. iv. 4 ;) and as He appeared even b anonA/tan gagxbg d/iMgrlag,
(Rom. viii. 3,) the Father called Him to undergo circumcision
also, as the symbol of purification from the o-agg apagrlag. In all
respects (xard irdvra, Heb. ii. 17) He was made like His brethren,
yet without sin. (Heb. iv. 15.) This divine arrangement had, in
the first place, a relation to the work of the Saviour. In order
to save those that were under the law, (Gal. iv. 5,) He himself
descended into all the depths of human misery, and with toil
ascended the steps which the Father himself had appointed.
It had a relation to His person also. Participation in the
cleansing rites of the Old Testament on the part of the Saviour
was not an unmeaning action for appearance sake, but one of
essential import. Holy, pure, and perfect in His divine nature,
He shared the common infirmity of human nature in reference
to His body. He was Dvnrbg gagxl, (1 Peter iii. 18,) and the
temple of His body was only gradually spiritualized to dpktgglu
by the indwelling of the heavenly Spirit. (See note on Matth.
xvii. 1, ff.) The circumcision, therefore, the participation in
the purification, (ver. 22,) in the baptism of John, and in all the
sacrifices at the temple, were proofs that the Saviour declared
them to be divine institutions, and that, by taking part in them,
He placed himself on an equality with His brethren, according
to one part of His being. It is true, there was no absolute
necessity for exacting this method of bodily perfecting for the
Saviour, (see note on Matth. iii. 15, irgiirov igrh npii*,) as there
was for the other members of the Jewish nation ; in whose case
the omission of circumcision would have occasioned their
being cut off from among the people. But the harmony of
God's scheme of salvation required just this form of develop
ment in His human life ; agreeably to which, by means of the

124 LUKE II. 21, 22, 23, 24.
same sacred act, which in all Israelites united and strengthened
the bond of the covenant with God, He was received as a
member of the theocracy of the Old Testament, in order that,
after He had attained to a full consciousness of His divine
nature, He might raise the whole community, to which He was
bound by so many different ties, to share in the superiority of
His own life.
Ver. 22. — The participation in the xa6agigft.bg is explained on
a similar principle. The woman was obliged, according to the
Jewish law, (Lev. xii. 1,) to remain at home as unclean for
forty days after the birth of a boy, and for eighty after the
birth of a girl, and then to purify herself by an offering. The
period was much too long for sanatory purposes — the ordinance
had a religious and moral import. It kept alive a consciousness
of sin, which, from the first, displayed itself so prominently in
the sexual relations, (Gen. iii. 10, 16,) and directed her view,
through the offering that followed, to the coming deliverance
from all impurity.
(The reading aurou is remarkable ; for although it is certain
that abrn? is an alteration, which arose from doctrinal narrow-
mindedness, since the xaktgigpbg did not seem to be required for
the gurng; yet we cannot imagine that any one would have
altered the text to aurou. With the exception of Cod. D., it has
only some Codd. of inferior authority in its favour ; still it is a
question, whether the reading aurou is not preferable to the
common one abroiv.)
Ver. 23. — According to the law of the Old Testament, (Exod.
xiii. 2,) every first-born, (li32 = DHI IMS = biavotyov wrgav,)
if a male, was holy to the Lord, fe'ilp blyiog, sacer, signifies
primarily only what is separated from that which is profane,
and destined for sacred use.) But as, according to Numb. iii.
12, 13, the Lord had taken the tribe of Levi for himself, instead
of all the first-born, the first-born sons had indeed to be pre
sented before the Lord, (iragagrrjgai, = 2>,1|?i1}) as a symbolical
act of consecration, surrendering for His service ; but they could
be redeemed for five shekels. (Numb, xviii. 15, 16.) Jesus
was thus redeemed, according to the forms of the law, from
service in the earthly tabernacle, that He might build a greater,
a more perfect tabernacle. (Heb. ix. 11.)
Ver. 24. — The offering had immediate reference to the
woman, (Lev. xii. 8,) with whom, however, the child was

LUKE II. 24, 25. 125
regarded as one. The circumstance that Mary offered doves,
is a proof that she was poor, — the rich presented a lamb.
Nevertheless, she may have possessed some small plots of
ground at Bethlehem and Nazareth; for the regulation of
bringing a lamb of the first year, as an offering, for purification,
applied only to the rich, strictly so called. (Lev. xii. 6.)
Ver. 25. — The sojourn at Jerusalem gave occasion for a
fresh confirmation of Mary's faith, from the circumstance, that
a certain man, Simeon by name, uttered words prophetic
of the child's importance. Simeon's personal history is not
known; for the conjecture that he was father to Gamaliel,
(Acts v. 34,) and son of Hillel, is extremely improbable. The
indefinite expression aviguirbg rig, indicates rather that he be
longed to the lower ranks, where the deeper religious life
appears to have concentrated itself at the time of Christ.
Simeon, like Zacharias and Elisabeth, (i. 6,) is called blxaiog,
which denotes the external legal aspect of his life ; while ebXafing,
akin to ogiog, (i. 75,) denotes rather the internal aspect, the
disposition towards God ; but, of course, in relation to the Old
Testament form of piety, since ebxdfieia is equivalent to po/3o? rou
©sou. His religious life is characterized most definitely by the
words : irgogbexb^evog iragdxXn«iv rou 'IgganX* which are akin to the
following phrase : irgogbexb&evog xbrgugiv, (ver. 38.) The former
expression regards the deliverance from sin and misery in the
appearance of the Messiah ; while the latter specifies the con
solation afforded by it. Both are included in the phrase, irgog-
bexetidai rrjv fiagiXelav rou &eou.
(With respect to iragdxXngig, it is only in this passage that it
is used for the concrete iragdxXnrog. TiagdxXnrog = 0)131?, in
Rabbinical writers, though tO^pIS or NE^pIS is also found
in them, occurs frequently, but in the New Testament princi
pally of the Holy Ghost ; [John xiv. 16, 26 ; xv. 26 ; xvi. 7 ;] yet
of Christ also in 1 John ii. 1, although in a modified sense. The
term as here used of the Messiah, has a reference to the suffer
ing state of the people, which is conceived to be removed by
the appearance of the Messiah.) This pious man also, at the
i richly blessed season, when the greatest that earth ever saw was
being prepared in secret, had received the Holy Spirit, (see note
on Luke i. 15,) and, in His power, prophesied of the Saviour.
* The expression iXirig rou 'IgganX, in Acts xxviii. 20, is very similar.

126 LUKE II. 26, 27, 28, 29.
(The phrase h W abrbv [see ver. 40] is to be explained by sup
plying 'igxegSai, which is involved in h- " The Spirit came upon
him, and consequently wrought in him.")
Ver. 26, 27. — Simeon, waiting for the consolation of Israel,
had been assured by the Spirit, that he should not die before
being honoured with a view of the Messiah. (On ^g^ar^o-da/,
see note on Matth. ii. 12. As to the form of this x^t^rigfLbg,
whether it came to him when awake, or in a dream, the nar
rative is silent. — Instead of IbeTv kivarov, yeugag6ai Qavdrou [Matth.
xvi. 28] is also used elsewhere, since perception by the senses
is put for actual experience of every kind.) The same Spirit
who had given the promise, conducts him also at the proper
moment to its fulfilment. Such a guidance by the Spirit, which
stands in contrast with choice from reflection, is seen in the
life of all Scripture" saints, from Abraham to St. Paul. It
is the prerogative of the true children of God, who possess
innocence in the noblest sense of the word, that they know the
voice of truth, (John x. 4,) and are enabled to follow it without
falling into error, though they do not on that account neglect
the use of natural means, such as reflection and attention to
circumstances. (See e. g. Acts xvi. 6.)
Ver. 28, 29. — By the power of the same Spirit, Simeon, with
indubitable certainty, recognized the promised Saviour in the
child, without needing any information from Mary of what she
had experienced. With fervour the old man immediately pours
out his grateful heart to God, who had fulfilled His promise to
him. (The words xard ro bripd gou scil. irgbg if/,e igxbpevov, refer to
ver. 26.) This sight of the desired One he regards likewise
as the end of his earthly existence, and, with a swan-like
song concerning His glory, he takes leave of life below. (In
diroXbeiv b elgnvp, there is an allusion to the service and the
spiritual office of Simeon; he was a prophet in his day, and
doubtless maintained a lively and vigorous hope in the circle of
those who looked for redemption. [Ver. 38.] In elgnvn there is
not merely a reference to the fulfilment of the hope of still
beholding the Saviour, which inspired Simeon ; the term denotes,
further, the peaceful consciousness in general, that the people of
Israel, and himself with them, had attained the long promised
end in the Messiah who was now manifested. As<wo'r»js is used
several times of God, [Acts iv. 24; Jude, ver. 4; Rev. vi. 10;]
once only of Christ. [2 Pet. ii. l.J The term differs from xbgiog

LUKE II. 30, 31, 32. 127
in this, that it denotes more precisely the relation of a ruler with
unlimited power ; while xugiog suggests the milder idea of pos
session or property.)
Ver. 30, 31, 32. — Simeon, in prophetic rapture, follows up
this thanksgiving with a description of the influence of the Mes
siah, whom he had seen bodily. (The expression oJ btpDaXpol pou,
refers to bodily sight, for with the eye of the Spirit he had long
beheld the coming of the Saviour ; he longed for His appearance
in the flesh, John i. 14.) Although, therefore, Simeon's hopes
of the Messiah were conceived (ver. 25) with only a national
reference, as the Saviour was called the consolation of Israel,
yet here there appears most distinctly a consciousness that this
desired One would, by God's appointment, exercise an influence
over the whole human race. In the light of this plain assertion,
/ therefore, we may judge of the former passages in which such
I expectations were set forth. Their seeming limitation to Israel,
and their reference to earthly relations, form but the one aspect
I of the idea of the Messiah, which we must complete by the other,
• even where it is not expressly mentioned. The Messiah's closest
connexion is certainly with Israel, but thence the vivifying in
fluence of His Spirit extends to all nations ; and though His
agency commences in the depth of the soul, yet it thence
influences the external relations also; so that, in the most
proper sense, the human race, as such, in all its members, and
in all its external and internal relations, is the subject on which
the Messiah exercises His saving and sanctifying power. As
this connexion of the Messiah's work with the entire human
race, even with the most distant nations, is just the doctrine of
the Old Testament also, (see Gen. xii. 3 ; xviii. 18 ; xxviii. 14 ;
xlix. 10 ; Psalm lxxxvii. ; Isa. xi,, xix., xiii., and other passages,)
we are the more obliged to presuppose this correct view in the
/ pious at the time of Christ, for they appear as living in the spirit
of the Old Testament. That the connexion with their own nation,
however, and the improvement in its external condition, should
occupy .the foreground with them, is completely accounted for
by their circumstances. The same form of representing the
subject is sanctioned by the Old Testament, which never per
mits the connexion with the nation to degenerate into bigoted
exclusiveness, whilst its hopes of external good are never desti
tute of a moral and religious foundation. But the contrary was
the case as to the conceptions of the grossly sensual multitude,

128 LUKE II. SO, 31, 32, 83, 34.
who rejoiced in excluding all heathen, as such, from the blessings
of the Messiah, and who, with their carnal dispositions, and with
out true change of heart, hoped to be allowed at once to follow
the Messianic King, as their general, to the war of extermination
against the heathen. That such gross conceptions are not to
be confounded with the noble views which were preserved in
the circles of the pious at that time, is shewn by ver. 38,
where those who waited for redemption are spoken of as a
special class. But the expectations of a Messiah were as
already intimated, a common property of the nation at the time
of Christ; if, therefore, those which were current among the
multitude were acknowledged as the true ones, then the wait
ing for redemption could not have been used as characteristic
of a certain class of men. (In ver. 30, as in i. 71, the abstract
is put for the concrete person, gwrngiov = gurngla for goirng. It is
called " God's salvation," both because it springs from God, and
because it is agreeable to His nature ; and these two coincide,
since only what is godlike comes from God. — 'Eroipdfyiv =
irgoogl^eiv [Rom. viii. 29, 30] marks the relation towards the
heathen, as founded on God's gracious purpose, which Simeon
correctly perceived in the prophecies of the Old Testament. —
In xard irgbgonrov = bwiriov = ^P?, there is implied not only being
known externally, but having also an inward efficacy, since every
thing beheld externally produces kindred internal effects. The
expression reminds us of Isa. xi. 10, where the Messiah is called
D^JpJf Dj7 *^?3^, since He stands before the people as a sign of
gathering — as forming a spiritual centre. In like manner, in
ver. 32, <p&g elg diroxdXu-^/iv ikSv refers to passages, such as Isa.
xiii. 6 ; [John i. 4 ;] Isa. xxv. 7. — The being covered [i3f3
Ifli^rr Isa. xxv. 7] is opposed to diroxdXu^ig. But the blessing
of the heathen is, on the other hand, a bb%a of Israel. — Aafc and
ehog are here interchanged, as Israel is also called 4'^os, John
xi. 48, ff. It is only when used in the plural that ehn = O^S
has the meaning " heathen.")
Ver. 33, 34. — The parents of Jesus did not wonder, probably,
so much at the thoughts uttered concerning their Son's influ
ence, as that the Spirit uniformly asserted the spiritual import
ance of the child from the most different quarters. (The reading
'Iwtf^p for #ar^g is evidently the offspring of doctrinal scrupulosity.
Copyists feared that the term might be misunderstood. Simeon's
being here represented to us as blessing the Saviour, must be

LUKE II. 33, 34. 129
explained on the principle expounded in the notes on Luke ii.
21 and Matth. iii. 15. On the principle, "the less is blessed of
the greater," (Heb. vii. 7,) Simeon here appears exalted above
the Saviour, just as do John who baptizes Him, (Luke ii.
46,) and the Rabbins whom Jesus questions. In His human
development, the Saviour takes His place among men just
according to the stages of the ordinary development of life;
and, consequently, as a child He is really a child, and therefore
in subordination (ver. 51) to those more advanced in life. The
ideal that was dormant in Him, was unfolded only by degrees,
and yet, at every stage, He expressed its appropriate character
purely and truly. — In the succeeding context, Simeon specifies
more particularly Christ's work, which is viewed as separating
and discriminating according to the conditions of men, and
appears as causing ruin as well as blessing. A slight intimation
of the path of sorrow by which the end must be attained, is then
appended. (Luke xxiv. 26.) The figure employed, to which the
expression refers, is that of a stone, (Isa. xxviii. 16 ; Dan ii.
34 ; Zech. iii. 9 ; Matth. xxi. 42,) which becomes a irgbgxo/n/ia
(1 Pet. ii. 7, 8) to the proud, who stumble at it, but, to the
humble, a means of elevation from their low condition. ('Araora<r/s
is here simply the opposite of irrZigig.) In these opposite depart
ments of His work, the Saviour manifests himself according to
divine intention and arrangement. (KeTgdai is by no means
absolutely synonymous with elvai ; the term, combined with elg,
involves a reference to an intention — a purpose, Phil. i. 17.)
And it is not merely at His first appearance, but also as His
work extends through the whole of the world's history, that the
Saviour manifests himself at all times and places, quite as much
in the way of punitive justice, as in that of redeeming efficacy ;
the two are the supplementary parts of our Lord's work. (The
remark, that not all, but many individuals among the people,
were affected by it, may be thus explained, that, so far as
Christ's intention is concerned, all should be saved ; but unbelief
prevents this result ; to many He is salvation, to many ruin.)
In the concluding words, xal si g gn/ieTov dvriXeybpevov, there is an
intimation of Christ's passion. Those who stumble at Him are
the AvriXeyovreg. {^AvriXsyeiv is taken as a general expression of
hostile disposition, which involves the act also.) But even
in this dvnXoyla the Saviour appears as a gnpeTov, set before the
world by the Father, and, indeed, as much before the unbelieving

130 LUKE II. 33, 34, 35.
as the believing world, though certainly in different relations.
The expression is to be taken in the same way as Isa. viii. 18.
God speaks to the world by the Saviour and His whole appear
ance — by the Man with the cross and the crown of thorns, and
the eternal Son of God, the Judge of the quick and dead — in
the mighty language of fact, and sets Him up, in truth, as a
miraculous sign for mankind, as Isaiah and his sons, with their
symbolical names, were in their time. (See note on Matth. i.
23.) Ver. 35. — At the mention of the opposition of the world to
the Anointed, the far-seeing prophet gives a glance at the
development of the blessed mother's life. She who gave birth
to the Son of God was not as yet born of God. She was, as
all mankind are by nature, yewnrit yuvaixbg, (see note on Matth.
xi. 11,) and therefore, like them, needed regeneration, which
cannot be effected without tribulation^ Rev. vii. 14. But the
words : rnv -fyuxnv bieXeugerai gofupaia, cannot contain the idea of
unmixed trouble, without including that of consolation; this
would cast a shade over the joyful tone of the whole prophecy.
The idea of the deepest, most exquisite agony of soul, rather
includes here the idea of salvation and perfecting through it,
just as the dvnXeyeg&ai (ver. 34) comprises the victory over every
dvnXoyla. Mary's distress, which was one with her Son's, appears
at once killing and quickening. At the sight of Him she must
endure not only the struggle of a mother's love, but that of faith
also, which appeared to die in her along with Him, who was
bestowed from above. — The revealing of the secret depths of
the hearts — of the good as well as the bad — is declared to be
the end of this discriminating, judicial work. Christ appears
here as Judge of worlds, even during the progress of the human
race ; wherever He appears, His pervading agency compels to
a decision for or against. (The biaXoyigpol are here again, as was
observed in note on Luke i. 51, connected with the xagbia.
So also the less usual terms, iirlvoia, [Acts viii. 22,] uirbvoia, [1 Tim.
vi. 4,] v'onpa, [Baruch ii. 8.] All these expressions, as indeed
the etymology intimates, denote actions of the voug or Xoyog, and
correspond to the word "thoughts." Kago7a cannot therefore
denote that power to which they belong. But the Sacred
Scriptures, according to a view which is psychologically quite
correct, never conceive of the active exercise of the thinking
faculty apart from the inclination and the bent of a man's

LUKE II. 35, 36, 37, 38. 131
whole life ; they refer every rising thought to the latent inclina
tion of the heart.* As the centre of personal life, the Bible
regards the xagbla =1^ [see Prov. iv. 23; ili«|in ^QO •*?
£2^)1.] Hence 'Ex xagbiZv points out quite correctly the impulse
given to the biaXoyigpol from the heart, though they themselves
belong to the nous.)
Ver. 36, 37. — One other individual is mentioned to us by
namet out of the pious circle at Jerusalem — probably a very
narrow one, — Anna, who also had received the Spirit, (Hgo<pnng
= irveufw, ayiov 'ixouga, ver. 27.) It is remarked, as the distinc
tion of this woman, who is otherwise unknown to us, that,
although eighty-four years of age, she had been united to her
husband only seven years. It is the tender fidelity with which
she treasured up the memory of her husband, that is here meant
to be brought into notice. The description of her piety is
agreeable to her Old Testament spiritual standing. Her reli
gious life assumed an ascetic and Nazarite form. (See i. 15.)
Ver. 38. — She repaired to the temple at the same time, per
haps at the hour of prayer, (i<pigrdvat, to appear suddenly, see Luke
ii. 9,) and joined in the praise of God, when she received
the intelligence that all her hopes were fulfilled in the appear
ance of the Messiah. (The term avfa/toXoyelgdai means, in profane
Greek, " to strike a bargain," " to agree," " to make mutual con
cessions." In the Hellenistic language it is used for tTTi!1>
to praise, Psalm lxxix. 13. 'Ego/toXoyeTeOai is used in the same
sense in Gen. xxix. 35, and the simple verb, in Job xl. 9.
The term is not found anywhere else in the New Testament.)
With zealous haste the aged woman imparts the joy of her
heart to the like-spirited members of the circle of the Messiah's
friends in Jerusalem. On irgogbexenkn Xbrgugiv, see Luke i. 68 ;
ii. 25. — Aurgugig is here put for Xurgurng. — Xlegl abrou refers to the

* Old Michael Montaigne has a very beautiful remark in the Stimme der
Wahrheit, Th. i., S. 4 : " In man," he says, " we may overlook the head, though
it is always good not to do so, if it be in the right place, and gives birth to
nothing wrong; but the heart is still the main thing. We need the head for life
only, but the heart for death also."
t Even Schleiermacher has observed, that this mention of a second individual,
who reiterates Simeon's testimony, is against the mythical character of the nar
rative. • One event of that sort would have satisfied the tendency in the Church
to the formation of myths.

132 LUKE II. 39, 40.
object of praise, though not mentioned, it is true, — viz., the
Messiah who was come.
Ver. 39, 40. — After the completion of the ceremony of
purification, (ver. 22,) the mother and child returned to Nazar
eth. The mention of the end of the journey, from its being
Mary's actual place of constant abode, does not directly exclude
other journeys. (See the subsequent narrative of the history
of the childhood of Jesus.) At this point the memoirs evidently
become more general, and biregrge-^/av elg rnv YaXiXalav is not so much
a new fact intended to be recorded by the narrator, as a form
of conclusion. The more particular and accurate accounts were
wanting here, and therefore he brings back the mother and the
child to the place where he knew they constantly resided (lloXig
ab r ai v, see Luke i. 56.) — The last verse, just as it was said of
John, (i. 80,) notices our Lord's progress in body as well as in
spirit, according to the laws of human development, to which
the life of Christ, according to the human aspect of His
existence, was subject. The only peculiar feature is that which
is added in the words irXngobfi,evov goplag. But that the idea of
gotpla is to be used relatively only, is shewn partly by ii. 52,
which describes the wisdom of Jesus himself as still unfolding
itself; and partly by the idea of childhood, to which the char-
. acter of wisdom always belongs only relatively. But this is
precisely the idea of the Messiah in His human development,
that He presents each stage of fife pure and unsullied by sin ;
but in such a way, that He never obliterates the character of
the stage itself; which would be the case on the supposition
that the child Jesus possessed perfect gopia* Xagig %v iif aurb,
(see ii. 25,) not merely expresses God's being well pleased in
Jesus, but it also intimates the effective cause of the pure un
spotted development of the Saviour's life. Grace is nothing
else than love revealing itself — shewing itself actively ; and in
every moment of the life of Jesus the love of God shone forth
in active exercise in Him. He was completely a child — com
pletely a youth — completely a man ; and thus hallowed all the

* Schlsiermacher observes very justly in the Glaubenslehre, Th. ii., S. 178, — "If
we choose to deny the gradual development of the Saviour, we must either sup
pose, that His whole childhood was a mere semblance, and that in His first year,
for instance, He had entire command of language ; or we must return to the
solution of Cerinthus, and separate that in which Christ was similar to all men
from that which was archetypal in Him."

LUKE II. 39, 40. 133
stages of human development ; but nothing incongruous ever
appeared in Him, which would have been the case if utterances
of a riper age had escaped Him in childhood.
Here, at the close of the history of Jesus' infancy, we must
cast a glance at the relation of the narratives of St. Matthew
and St. Luke, of which it is maintained, that they do not
supplement, but contradict each other ; that they are the off
spring of totally different traditions, and are, as it were, lines
running parallel with each other. According to St. Luke, the
parents of Jesus live at Nazareth, and His being born at Beth
lehem appears as the result of accidental circumstances ; in St.
Matthew, on the contrary, it seems as if the parents of Jesus
lived at Bethlehem. Further, St. Luke's narrative of the
annunciation appears irreconcileable with Joseph's being ignor
ant at first of the nature of Mary's pregnancy, and his being
informed by the angel, as St. Matthew says ; and again, the
adoration of the Magi, Herod's slaughter of the children, and
the flight into Egypt, as recorded by St. Matthew, appear irre
concileable with St. Luke's account of the journey to Jerusalem
for the purification. On closer consideration, however, the first
objection, that St. Matthew appears to follow a different tradi
tion as to the residence of Jesus' parents, resolves itself into
something purely negative. For St. Matthew evidently does
I not follow any tradition whatever concerning the residence of
Jesus' parents, and gives no remarks at all as to time and place ;
he merely recounts the facts. The circumstance of his naming
Bethlehem (ii. 1) as the birthplace of Jesus, happens, as the
following verses shew, only in consequence of that place being
so assigned in a prophecy of the Old Testament. If that had
not been the case, St. Matthew would hardly have named the
place of birth at all. Just so he would have been content with
the general statement, e)g rd pegn rrjg raXiXalag, (ii. 22,) had not a
reference to the prophecies induced him (ii. 23) further to men
tion Nazareth. Besides, the passage Matth. ii. 22, 23, does not
oblige us, as Sieffert asserts, to understand it as if St. Matthew
had been Ignorant of Mary's having been at Nazareth before
the birth of Jesus ; we have only to suppose that, during the
stay in Egypt, it had appeared desirable to Joseph to establish
himself at Bethlehem, but from fear of Archelaus, he gave up
the plan, and returned to Nazareth. Accordingly, we can only
say of St. Matthew, that he passes over the particulars of place,

134 LUKE 11. 39, 40.
and notices incidentally one or two points, which must be more
precisely fixed by a reference to St. Luke, the more exact
narrator.* Next, as regards the supposed contradictions in the details of
the two narratives, no such thing as an impossibility of recon
ciling them can be talked of, if only in St. Luke ii. 39 the words
uiregrgs-^av elg rnv TaXiXalav be understood with proper latitude.
To regard this expression in its immediate connexion with ver.
40, as a form of conclusion, and, consequently, as intended only
to point out the habitual abode of Jesus, where the development
described in ver. 40 proceeded, must be called at least an avail
able escape, which no one, who feels himself called upon to
avoid the quicksands of myths, will hesitate to adopt. In point
of fact, therefore, there remains nothing in the two narratives
that necessarily appears contradictory ; for no one will seriously
urge the objection, which Schleiermacher brings against the
supposition of a return from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, after the
purification was accomplished, — viz., that the return is improb
able, because the mother would have been placed in inconvenient
circumstances there ; for these circumstances were evidently
produced only by the enrolment, which, in the nature of the
case, increased the numbers in the town but for a few days.
But should any one think it too bold to take Luke ii. 39 as the
form of conclusion, still, in this view of the case, the historical
interpretation might be defended by supposing a journey back
to Nazareth. For Matth. ii. 14 is not expressed in such a man
ner as would altogether exclude the supposition of an interven
ing journey to Nazareth. The relation of the accounts in the
two Gospels is therefore such, that both may be very well
reduced to a connected whole by supplementing the little cir
cumstances that are passed over in silence. And what histori
cal narration, composed by different historians, who give their
accounts independently of each other, and who follow different

* De Wette (in his Commentary, B. ii., S. 25) accuses me of an almost unpar
donable perversion, because I regard St. Matthew's specifications of localities as
merely incidental. I have supported this opinion at length in my two programmes
on the genuineness of St. Matthew's Gospel ; no unprejudiced person can fail to
see from them the correctness of that opinion. It is only where unbelief has
blinded sound sense, and men seek for the semblance of support, in order to give
countenance to the most false assumptions, that the opposite opinion can still be
boldly maintained.

LUKE II. 39, 40. 135
points of view in them, does not stand in need of such sup
plementing I
It must be confessed, that the reconciliation of the two Gos
pels in reference to Joseph is more difficult. Yet the difficulty
lies not so much in the reconciliation of their accounts, as in the
obscurity of the recorded event, which can be cleared away only
by a comparison of both. For it is left uncertain from Matth.
i. 18, 19, how and when Joseph became aware of Mary's being
with child. Eugstfjj, however, appears to indicate, that Mary did
not tell Joseph anything of it ; and what we read in Luke i.
36, 39, 56, increases this probability to almost a certainty ; for,
according to these passages, Mary went to Elisabeth when the
latter was six months advanced in pregnancy, stayed there the
next three months, and returned shortly before Elisabeth was
delivered. Such a visit of three months, supposes that Mary
was not yet married ; but if Mary had discovered her situation
to Joseph before her journey, and if what is told us in Matth.
i. 20, ff., followed immediately, Joseph would certainly have
taken her to himself as his wife, in order to prevent any ill
appearance, which must be the more likely to arise if he post
poned the marriage. But then the history presents the startling
fact, that Mary told her intended husband nothing about the
appearance of the angel and her expectations, but, immediately
after the annunciation, took her journey to Elisabeth, and re
mained there three months. This fact is certainly startling to
one who regards these events in the light of ordinary social
( relations ; but, in the case of events so extraordinary as those
' which are narrated in the first chapters of St. Matthew and St.
Luke, the human scale of natural probability is not applicable.
The events that had happened to Mary were of so unusual a
kind, that she could not communicate them without having any
other voucher than her word. The same childlike faith with
which she said : " Behold the handmaid of the Lord ; be it unto
me according to thy word," could not but inspire her with the
confidence, that divine compassion would find ways and means
to satisfy her intended husband that she was the pure bride of
heaven.* It is just in this, therefore, that she waited patiently

* There is an absurd attempt to explain this difiiculty in the Protev. Jac., c.
xii., xiii., in which it is supposed that Mary had forgotten that the angel had
announced her being with child of the Holy Ghost, which she then confessed to

136 LUKE ' II. 39, 40, 41-52.
for God's guidance until the secret of her pregnancy should be
known to Joseph from above; that we have an unquestionable
^ proof that we have to do, not with human history, but divine,
the peculiar beauty of which is tarnished if we suffer ourselves
/ to be seduced to interpret its uncommon occurrences by the
events of every-day life.

§ 6. JESUS CONVERSES WITH THE PEIESTS IN THE TEMPLE.
(Luke ii. 41-52.)
The import of this apparently insignificant occurrence — the
only one told us of the life of Jesus up to the time of His public
appearance — demands a few passing remarks.* Viewed in its
connexion with the whole manifestation, it presents to us un
questionably the sacred season, when the higher divine con
sciousness arose within Him. As was partially noticed . before,
the Saviour, in His human manifestation, followed the general
course of human development ; and though the child's conscious
ness in Him was a pure, holy, and glorified one, yet it was a
child's, and, consequently, not a divine one. This latter
appeared as a gradual result in the progress of the general
development, (Luke i. 80 ; ii. 40, 52,) and on occasion of His
being present for the first time in the holy city, to which the
child's desire had probably long aspired, the thought then first
presented itself distinctly to Him, as glowing embers burst into
a flame, that He was God's Son, and God His Father. The
divine nature of Jesus appears, therefore, a distinct thing from
the knowledge of that nature. To the latter He attained
gradually, as the result of the progress of His human develop
ment. The springing up of that consciousness bore Him at

Joseph with tears ; but this attempt only shews, that there was an actual fact,
which needed clearing up ; and this is no other than that reported by our Evan
gelists, — viz., that Mary had concealed from her intended husband what had
happened to her.
* That Strauss reckons even this occurrence among the mythical portions,
proves undeniably the exaggerated, wanton rage for doubt that possesses him.
A history, which might cast an imputation of disobedience on Jesus, or of a
want of care on His mother, certainly would not have been fabricated in later
times.

LUKE» II. 41-52. 137
that instant to His real home, of which the temple appeared to
Him the type, and, in spiritual rapture, He might forget the
earthly representatives of His heavenly Father. But this for
getting was not in Him an act of disobedience, but, in fact, of
superior obedience. He followed faithfully the stronger attrac
tion from above, and therefore He reunited himself to His
parents with childlike submission, when they reminded Him of
the rights of parents, while they had forgotten the duty of
parents. The mother had done wrong in having neglected her
highest duty to God — the care of the divine child — to follow
the distractions which Jerusalem offered to the senses, — a deep
. symbol of the relation of the human and the divine agencies in
the work of regeneration, in which, after a similar manner, the
new man, after his birth, is entrusted to his soul, which has to
i fulfil the duties of a mother towards him ! This occurrence
thus affords us a glance at the exalted moment of the first
kindling of this light of the Divine Spirit, and its piercing
through the human covering, but only again to let fall the vail.
But it is just in this historical purity that the divine character
of our Gospels shews itself, particularly when compared with
the apocryphal ones, which fill up this vailed period with absurd
fables. During this period the divine plant of righteousness
was invisibly unfolding within itself; and the reason that nothing
is narrated of this period doubtless is, that there was nothing
special to narrate. Jesus presented probably the ideal of a
j quiet, truly childlike child and youth ; and it was only in the
I depth of His soul that His nature was unfolding, which, at most,
' may have been betrayed by His look and bearing. The influ-
i ences from the spiritual world, which He was intended to
manifest, gradually descended into Him ; and all surrounding
; circumstances, conversations, sights, and reading the Scriptures,
must have become the occasions of one spring after another
opening in Him. For, to imagine that, according to the ordin
ary process of training, any formative power was exercised over
Him, or direction given to His mind, through Egyptian,
Essenaic, or Rabbinical wisdom, is altogether at variance with
the functions of the Messiah, whom we are to regard as of
supreme authority. His development is, therefore, purely
/ independent, and altogether internal — a continual outpouring
i from the heavenly world into the earthly tabernacle, of which
outward circumstances must be considered as merely the excit-

138 LUKE II. 41, 42, 43.
ing cause.* It is in this light that the position which Jesus
occupied towards the priests in the temple is to be viewed.
The questions He put to the priests, and their answers, were
exciting, awakening incidents for His inner life. But the idea
that Jesus taught in the temple, must be rejected as monstrous.
A child teaching, demonstrating, would be a contradiction which
it is impossible the God of order could have designed. 'Axoum
and iireguruv, hearing and asking, (ver. 46,) point plainly enough
to His capacity for receiving impressions. The Scriptures, and the
lofty hopes which they excite, formed probably the basis of His
questions. He inquired respecting himself; and we may say,
the whole endeavour and desire of the child Jesus was nothing
but a longing for a revelation of himself. The miraculous union
of opposites in the God-man, the conjoining of temporal and
eternal, of individual and universal, is here presented before the
reader's mind in its growth ; and ruling and serving, unfettered
dominion and child-like submission, are here united to form an
ineffable whole, which the parents of Jesus, like the unregene-
rate man in general, might indeed wonder at, (ver. 48,) but
were not able to understand.
Ver. 41-43. — According to the law of Moses, (Ex. xxiii. 14,
ff. ; xxxiv. 23,) the males had to go up to Jerusalem three
times yearly at the principal feasts ;f children used to accom
pany them in these journeys from their twelfth year. They
were called in that year mfalil ''32, sons of the law, and were
then under an obligation to keep the law. This time of legal
maturity coincides, therefore, very appropriately with the first
awakening of His spirit to a higher consciousness. — The feast
of the passover lasted seven days, (to which reXeiugdvrw ras

* It is not meant in this to advocate anything like the views of the Docetae,
but only to bring forward to view the specific character of the Saviour's advanc
ing development. If His human nature, as sinless, was specifically different
from fallen human nature, then the progress of His training must also have been
so ; and it must be conceived, too, in the way indicated ; because if put in any
other form, Christ is rendered subject to the sinful influences around Him. In
point of form only, we can conceive of Christ as receiving, — that is, as purely
passive, e. g., in learning language and letters. The substance of His knowledge
is, however, to be conceived as active at every stage of development, because in
that way alone it can be pure. Tholuck's remarks to the contrary in his Glaub-
wiirdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, S. 219, ff., do not appear to me decisive.
t The words ol yovetg aurou, contain an intimation, that Joseph the father
was yet living ; but from this time he does not re-appear in the Gospel-history.
He died, probably, before the public appearance of Jesus. See Matth. xiii. 55.

LUKE II. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50. 139
fosgag, ver. 43, refers,) the first and last of which ,were observed
as Sabbaths, Exod. xii. 14 ; Deut. xvi. 4.
Ver. 44-46. — The parents, accustomed to the prudence and
obedience of the child, commence their journey without Him,
supposing, doubtless, that He was among their kindred or
acquaintances. 2uvoo7a from guvobebu;. signifies one of the festal
caravans, which were common among the pilgrims journeyino-
to the feasts, to afford each other more protection and conveni
ence on the journey. (See the charming description of such a
journey of pilgrimage in Strauss' beautiful romance, " Helon's
Pilgrimage") It was not till after three days, full of anxiety
and trouble, that they found the holy child in the holy place.
The legbv, to be distinguished from vabg, (see note on Luke i. 9,)
was an extensive structure, and had many halls and separate
rooms, in which judges pronounced their decisions, or Rabbins
taught their schools. In such a school (tttlltt) we have to
imagine Jesus.
Ver. 47, 48. — In that company the child was an object of
universal astonishment ; and this again was a matter of wonder
to His parents. Though informed of the high destiny of their
child, they could not comprehend this sight. (Suwovs generally
stands in the same relation to pgo'njov?, that vous does to gorpla and
yvugig ; auvegig denotes " the understanding," = n^2. Yet this
term [Isa. xi. 2] is often applied to divine things and the com
prehension of them, — e. g., Col. i. 9 ; Eph. iii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 7.)
The mother's exclamation (r/ = hari = HSD7) contains a gentle
reproof; but its force is invalidated by the following words.
The fault was the mother's, who had forgotten the spiritual
destiny of her son.
Ver. 49, 50. — Without its being intended, the words of Jesus
convey the blame which attached to Mary, because they exactly
declare the truth. If she had had her son's spiritual character
completely present to her soul, she would herself have led Him
to those scenes, whither the higher Spirit now attracted Him.
(ZnreTv, in connexion with the following be? ehal fie, conveys the
notion of uncertainty, indecision ; this was what was wrong in
Mary's state of mind ; she might have known where alone Jesus
would naturally be found.) Ta rou irargbg refers certainly imme
diately to the temple, as the visible dwelling-place of the invis
ible God. But in the child's higher consciousness, which tended
upwards, the meaning of the words goes further. This deeper

140 LUKE II. 51, 52.
sense of the words, which respects the oneness of the Son with
the Father, was not understood by the parents, standing, as
they did, on Old Testament ground ; for they could hardly fail
to perceive, that He spoke with immediate reference to the
temple. Still the mother felt a strong impression from the
deep saying, (ver. 51,) and laid it up in her heart, (ver. 19,)
where it revived at its time, so that she could tell of it.
Ver. 51. — The words: xal n> biroraggb^evog abroTg, are evidently
intended here to guard against the possible misunderstanding,
that Jesus had manifested a will not subject to His parents ;
not so much in the sense of ordinary disobedience, which is
inconceivable in an offspring of the Spirit, as in a higher rela
tion. It might be supposed, that the spirit of Jesus would now
have assumed the appearance of ruling over the parents ; this
the Evangelist contradicts by the express observation, that the
Son of God always submitted himself to the human will of His
parents. The general idea of our Lord's voluntary humiliation
(Phil. ii. 7, ff.) appears, therefore, here again, as already pointed
out in the note on Luke ii. 21, 22.
Ver. 52. — The history of the childhood closes with a new
mention (see Luke ii. 49) of the bodily and spiritual advance
ment of the child, (jigoxbirreiv, in the sense of "to advance,"
"to grow." [See Gal. i. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 16; iii. 9.] 'HXixIa is
not to be taken in the sense of " greatness," " stature," as in
Luke xix. 3 ; it is better to take it as " age," in which the
whole physical part of life is included. Xdgig is to be taken in
a different sense from that which it has in ii. 40. It is here
represented as being in a state of development, which is not
applicable to the divine love ; for, towards the Son of God, that
was always alike and the same. The reference to God and man
shews that the idea of being pleased is prominent in XH'^ s0
that it may be taken = ebboxia. This might increase, in so far
as more and more of that glory was unfolded in the life of Jesus,
which must have been the object of God's satisfaction, and that
of all the good.

SECOND PART.

OE

JOHN THE BAPTIST-CHRIST'S BAPTISM AND
TEMPTATION.
Matth. iii. 1— iv. 12 ; Mabk i. 2-13 ; Luke iii. 1— iv. 13.

§ 1. John's doctrine and baptism.
(Matth. iii. 1-12 ; Mark i. 2-9 ; Luke iii. 1-20.)
In the second part of the Gospel-history, the reader is brought
nearer to its great cardinal events. The Evangelists tell us,
in the following paragraphs, how the public appearance of Jesus
was prepared for. First, the Baptist visibly and outwardly pre
pared the way for our Lord ; then, inwardly and in the narrow
circle of those who feared God, the outpouring of the Spirit,
and the temptation of Jesus, completed the preparations.
John appears here quite in conformity with the angel's pre
diction in Luke i. 17, repeated by Zacharias in ver. 76, as a
prophet in the spirit and power of Elias. In the whole of his
labours he represents the law, which demands holiness and
righteousness, but supplies no power. The outward form of
his appearance answers to the inward character of his person ;
he presents himself austere and stern, separated from the world,
and revealing to it the strictness of the Divine Judge. His
preaching of repentance is a commentary on Rom. iii. 20 : " By
the law is the knowledge of sin." John was appointed to
awaken the slumbering minds, to rouse to a sense of the need
of salvation, that the Saviour might find hearts prepared to
receive the fulness of blessings, which He came to bring;
whence, too, Jesus begins at once to invite to himself the poor
and the hungry. Though John, therefore, stands so near the
New Testament as to be in contact with it, yet, in his character
and work, there is no approach to the spirit of the Gospel ; he
represents the law purely, and forms only the point of contact

142 MATTHEW III. 1
between the Old and New Testaments, as the top-stone of the
former. (Here compare Matth. xi. 9, ff.) This close proximity,
and yet undeniably wide separation, of Jesus and the Baptist,
expresses very vividly the difference of the two economies ; the
law and the Gospel are two separate spheres of life, which
ought not to be mixed ; faith alone, and the mysterious act of
regeneration thence resulting, conduct us from the one to the
other. John, therefore, inasmuch as he is the top-stone of the
Old Testament economy, and perfectly expresses its character,
stands exalted among those who are born of women ; but the
least in the kingdom of God (as being born of God) is greater
than he.* But with respect to the Baptist's work, it was not
confined to the "preaching of repentance," but shewed itself
also in an external rite — namely, baptism.t As regards this
rite, we are here less concerned with its relation to proselyte-
baptism, than with its relation to the Christian sacrament of
baptism. With reference to the baptism of proselytes, it seems
probable to me, that an actual baptism, — i. e., a lustration per
formed on the proselyte by another, did not take place before
the baptism of John; subsequently, it may have arisen out of
the lustrations so long customary, which every one performed
on himself.f But had such a baptism existed, the choice of just
this rite would have been less appropriate; for it was by no

* See Hengstenberg's Christol., B. iii., S. 460, ff., where this view is opposed,
and a higher character claimed for John. But if the New Testament iS: not to
relinquish all that is specific, regeneration and the real experience of the for
giveness of sins ought not to be anticipated. Under the Old Testament there
was only the faith in the forgiveness to come; sin itself remained, under divine
forbearance, till the sacrifice was offered on Calvary. - (Rom. iii. 25.) All that
the Old Testament possessed and could give, the Baptist did possess ; but the
essence of the New Testament was not his, since he died before the completion of
Christ's work. (See 1 Pet. i. 10, ff. ; Heb. xi. 39, 40.)
t See a fuller discussion on John's baptism in note on Acts xix. 4, from which
passage it is probable that John baptized with the formula : Bairritu ge iig rot
igXb/&evov. t The preponderance of arguments seems to me to be on the side ofSchnecken-
burger: Ueber das Alter der Proselyten-Taufe, Berlin, 1828 ; the opposite opinion,
that John adapted the custom already existing to his purpose, is defended by
Bengel, in a book with the same title, Tubingen, 1814. As the Old Testament
furnishes no data for the decision of the question, and all Rabbinical writings
can be but uncertain testimonies on matters before the Christian era, it would
be difficult to arrive at any well established conclusion as to the earliest customs
at the receiving of proselytes. See also Matthies de Baptismate, Berol. 1831. 8vo.

MATTHEW III. 1 143
means John's intention to set up a new communion, into which
he intended to initiate by his baptism ; it was only that those
who were living under the Old Testament economy should be
thereby represented as provisionally cleansed, and consequently
not unworthy to receive the Messiah. Just as little does it
seem possible to prove the view of the more modern Jews
respecting the Messiah's baptism to have existed before the
time of Christ; the very circumstance, that John baptized,
seems opposed to the supposition of its existence ; for, if it had
been generally regarded as the prerogative of the Messiah to
baptize, John would not have assumed it to himself. (See this
point more fully treated in note on John i. 25.) No special
historical incident is necessary to account for the origin of
John's baptism. Since lustrations were common in the Jewish
worship, it would readily occur to him to represent, by a sym
bolical rite, the pirdvoia which he preached. Certainly this was
not done by his own arbitrary will—the Divine Spirit who
quickened him was his guide in this institution, as in all that
he did ; — he was sent to baptize with water, John i. 33. The
question, how John's baptism should be viewed in relation to
Christian baptism, is of more importance. It is evident, that
the baptism of John cannot be identical with the sacrament of
baptism, which was not ordained till after the resurrection,
(Matth. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16;) the former was wanting in
the essential power of the Spirit, (John i. 26;) it was a Xourgbt
/itravolag, but not a Xourgbv iraXiyyevegiag, (Luke iii. 3 ; Tit. iii. 5.)
The baptism of John for repentance was quite parallel with the
baptism of the disciples before the perfecting of our Lord and
the appointment of the sacrament, to which St. John refers par
ticularly, John iv. 1, 2. Since the regenerating Spirit was yet
wanting, (John vii. 39,) that baptism could only exercise a
negative effect, just as the preaching of the disciples before the
Saviour's glorification, had more of the character of John's.
(Matth. x. 7, compared with iii. 1.) Notwithstanding the
similarity in the form of the action,* the essence was very dif
ferent. In Christian baptism, according to its ideal conception,

)

* John's baptism was most probably like the Christian, not only in this, that,
in it, the baptizing party performed the immersion on the baptized, (which was
the specific difference between baptism and all other lustrations,) but that a
formula was used at the immersion, as remarked above.

144 MATTHEW HI. 1
x
(Rom. vi. 1,) the birth of the new higher being, which the Holy
Spirit alone can impart, should coincide with the extinction of
the old life. In the baptism of children, however, which the
Church, for wise reasons, introduced subsequently, the sacred
action returned, as it were, again to the lower standing of John's
baptism; for which reason a fresh act must be joined to it after
the baptized attains to actual consciousness, in order to com
plete that which can take place only in a conscious individual.
If, therefore, John's baptism was on a much inferior level to the
Christian ordinance, yet it was not an empty custom ; only, it
could not impart more than he who administered it possessed.
It completed the blessing of the law in those who received it,
since it brought perdvoia to perfection ; but then, indeed, it
pointed to another baptism, which bestowed the Spirit, — a sense
of whose need that first baptism had only excited.
Luke iii. 1, affords us an important datum for the chronology.
John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius ; as John was six months older than Jesus, (Luke i.
36,) the mention of this circumstance (compared with Luke iii.
23) i3 a hint as to the Saviour's age. True, it is not more than
a hint. For, in the first place, the age of Jesus is not given
exactly, (Luke iii, 23,) nv iig el rgidxovra iruv ; then, too, the in
terval which lay between the public appearance of John and
that of Jesus, is not mentioned. In any case, the year of
Christ's birth, as is evident from the previous remarks on that
point, is placed too late in the chronology, of Dionysius, as the
fifteenth year of Tiberius begins with the 19th August of the
year 27 after Christ.* The mention of the different princes
ruling in Palestine at that time, is another useful circumstance
for determining the date of John's public appearance.
(The term nye^oveuu, like bi'eiru, is used for different gradations
in the Roman provincial administration. Pilate was only pro
curator of Judea, which office he sustained ten years, and laid
it down about the time of Tiberius' death, being deposed by

* In this way the years of his associated rule with Augustus are not included.
It is according to this date that the calculation of the Abbot Dionysius Exiguus
is made, with whom our era had its origin. Hose, in his Leben Jesu, S. 39, ff,
whom Meyer follows in his commentary on this passage, is inclined, erroneously,
to hold to this interpretation as the correct one, as he regards the rest of the
information in the history of the childhood as mythical.

MATTHEW III. 1. 145
Vitellius, at that time pro-consul of Syria. (Tsrgag^soj meant
originally to govern the fourth part of a great territory, then in
a wider sense to rule in general, but still in an inferior capacity.
Thus Cicero calls Deiotarus a tetrarch, [Cic. ad. div. i. 15.]
Ethnarch was a higher title ; it was borne by Archelaus, Herod
the Great's eldest son. St. Luke comprises the two provinces
of Batanea and Auranitis, under the name 'Irougala.)
The only remarkable circumstance in St. Luke's enumeration
is, that the governor of Abilene, the territory of the town
Abela near Antilibanus, which lay beyond the boundaries of
Palestine, is mentioned in the words, Augavku r»js 'AftiXnvns
rtrgagxouvrog. Besides, no Lysanias is spoken of as governor of
this region in the time of Tiberius ; but thirty years earlier, a
man of that name was governor, who was slain by Antony.
If we consider, however, that the town, and the territory be
longing to it, was so insignificant, that it could not possibly be
expected that all its rulers must necessarily have been men
tioned by the historians, the silence of the authors about this
prince is not at all surprising. To remove all the uncertainty,
we need only to suppose that Augustus restored a son or a
descendant of that elder Lysanias. As Abilene was on the
borders of Galilee, the scene of Christ's ministry, this might
induce the Evangelist to mention the prince of this limited
territory.* What St. Luke has narrated so precisely, St.
Matthew gives (iii. 1) in the indefinite formula b raTg ixehaig
n/iigaig. It is not impossible that the memoirs, which St.
Matthew undoubtedly used in the first chapters, extended
further, and that in them this formula would be in . connexion
with some nearer event. It has, however, like the Hebrew
Qllil 0^2, often a more extensive reference, (seeExod.ii.il.)
After the chronological reference to the political rulers of that
period, St. Luke subjoins a notice of the heads of the ecclesias
tical government at that time. Two high priests are men
tioned, Luke iii. 2 — Annas and Caiaphas. The reading dgxiegeug
is doubtless preferable to the plural. From the circumstance of
two names following, the singular was changed, which, how
ever, in the meaning of the Evangelist, referred to the proper
high priest — the one actually in office. The latter was the

* See Tholuch, Glaubwurdigkeit der ev. Gesch., S. 198, and Schneckenburgcr's
article in the Studien und Kritiken, 1833, H. 4. K

146 MATTHEW III. 1.
officiating high priest ; but his father-in-law Annas, who had
held the office before, and was deposed, still possessed great
influence. (See this point more fully discussed in the history
of the passion in the note on Matth. xxvi. 57, ff.) At this
time, then, John came forward publicly (iragaylverai in Matth.
iii. 1, = nxkv in Luke iii. 3) and preached repentance. The
wilderness (egn/Log) is spoken of as the place where he preached,
which is not to be understood, of course, as literally void of
men, but rather as pasture ground, (l21T>) But in the fact,
that John preached in the egnpog, and not in towns, the peculiar
character of this witness to the truth may be seen. It belongs
to John's essential character to flee from man, (Luke i. 80,)
and to preach to those -who seek him ; while the Redeemer
himself seeks men. (The wilderness of Judea [Matth. iii. 1]
bordered on the Jordan and the Dead Sea. See Joseph de. bell.
Judg. i. 3, 10. St. Luke [iii. 3] calls it therefore ireglxugog rou
'logbdvou = YTffn 135 Gen. xiii. 10.) The subjoined clause,
iybero gnjia ®eou iirl ' ludwnv, is peculiar to Luke iii. 2. It cor
responds to the phrase so common in the prophets rHPF1 121 tTTT
757. This remark, in the first place, represents the public
appearance of John, not as something originating from himself,
but as an action dependent on influence from above. Then,
too, according to it, the manner in which the upper world
influenced the mind of John, was not different from the influ
ence on the prophets of the Old Testament. While in the
New Testament we find a more quiet, continually active influ
ence of the Divine Spirit in the minds of believers, as peculiar
to them, (expressed by peveiv, in St. John's language,) in the
Old Testament the influence of the Holy Spirit appears more
as a sudden, momentary one, which was then succeeded by
other dry, and, as it were, spiritless periods, such as appeared
afterwards in the fife of the Baptist. (See note on Matth.
xiv. 1, ff.) For this reason the formula hv TV\T\] ~P is fre
quently applied to the inspired moments of the prophets, to
denote the violent and sudden character of the influence. Such
formulas are, of course, not used of Jesus, because divine things
were not manifested to Him at single moments of His life ; but
He himself was the one eternal manifestation of the Divine — ¦
the Word. (On the relation of gnf^a and Xbyog, which imply
the same fundamental - idea of the relation of Xiyegkii and
elvai, see note on John i. 1.)

MATTHEW III. 1, 2. 147
The object of the Baptist's preaching, which is not specified
in Matth. iii. 1, St. Luke describes more definitely, by designat
ing it, in iii. 3, fidirngpa weravoiag. (See Matth. iii. 11, where
John says, ^airri^u elg perdvoiav.) Merdvoia denotes here the result
of the law in its effect on the mind. By its form of inflexible
requirement, it rouses to a sense of weakness, and to a longing
for a power sufficient to satisfy it. It is therefore, in fact, a
change of mind (vous) in its deepest vital principle. Considered
in itself, indeed, it is something merely negative, which stands
in need of something positive to complete it ; and that some
thing is the Spirit, whom Christ obtained, and whom men
receive by faith. This is conveyed in the additional clause in
Luke iii. 3, and Mark i. 4, elg dpegiv dfiagnuv. John's preaching was
not itself to effect the remission, but to prepare for that remission,
which was to be accomplished by Christ. It is not inappropriate
therefore to supply igxop'evnv. (On this point see note on Acts
xix. 4, where St. Paul instructs the disciples of the Baptist in
the import of their baptism.)
Matth. iii. 2. — The presence of the kingdom of God is put
forward as a motive for fi,eravoeiv, since it excluded persons in
their natural unchanged state of heart. (The perfect %y/xs, is
to be taken in a present sense; so that the meaning is, the
kingdom of God is already present, — that is, in the person of
the Messiah, who represents it, and of whom John says : fifegog
bfLuv egrnxev, ov bfieig obx o'ibare. John i. 26.)
The phrase fiagiXela ruv obgavuv does not occur except in St.
Matthew. In 2 Tim. iv. 18, we find fiagiXela ivougdviog. The
more common phrase is (3agiXela rou &eou, rou Xgigrou* or simply
PagiXeia, Qeou being left to be supplied, (Luke xii. 32, and
frequently.) In the Old Testament, the expression fluTO
D^ptfilj or O^rwSl TVDvD, does not occur, nor does it appear,
except in the later Jewish writings. In the Apocrypha we
meet with fiagiXela &eou as early as Wisdom x. 10. On the
other hand, the idea of the kingdom of God pervades the whole
of the books of the Old Testament, but appears in its most
mature form in the prophets. See Isa. ii. 1-4 ; Micah iv. 3, ff. ;
Isa. xi. 1, ff. ; Psalm lxxxv. 11, 12 ; Jer. xxiii. 5, ff. ; xxxi.
* It is very seldom that the phrase /3aigXein rou ulou rou dvOgwirou is put for
/3agiXela rou Xgigrou, as in Matth. xiii. 41. In the passage Mark xi. 10,
fiagiXeia rou Aaj3lb occurs, inasmuch as David is viewed as a type of Messiah
the King.

148 MATTHEW III.
31, ff.; xxxii. 37, ff. ; xxxiii. 14, ff.; Ezek. xxxiv. 23, ff. ;
xxxvii. 24, ff.) Daniel describes the expected holy state of
things, which all the prophets regarded as future, expressly as
a kingdom of everlasting duration. (Dan. ii. 44 ; vii. 14, 27.)
Just as the Messiah also is often described as a king, (in which
respect David is especially regarded as His type, Dan. ix. 25 ;
Psalm ii. 6 ; Zech. xiv. 9 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 24.) The funda
mental idea of the anticipated kingdom of God, as presented
in the Old Testament, is not different from what it is according
to the description in the New. The idea of a kingdom neces
sarily implies the distinction of the governor and the governed.
I ; But in the kingdom of God the divine will appears as ruling
absolutely. Inasmuch, however, as in a sinful world the will of
God is conceived of as being contemned, the period, of His
absolute rule must yet be future. The j3agiXela rou Qeou, therefore,
forms a contrast to the f3agiXela rrjg dfiagrlag, or of its representa
tive, the &gx°>v rou xbgpou robrou. The coming of the former kingdom
involves the destruction of the latter : the prevalence of the latter
limits the influence of the former. But as the Old Testament, in
its prophecies, does not usually develope the ideas, which are the
subjects of its contemplation, and especially does not present
them in their gradual unfolding in successive ages, but, as it
were, concentrated in a single picture ; so it is likewise in its
declarations respecting the kingdom of God. The prophetic
communications contain lively delineations of it, agreeably to
which the dominion of sin, both internal and external, is de
picted as overthrown, and the dominion of God, and His will,
established ; but as the external and internal are not kept
( sufficiently distinct by them, but are mixed up with one another,
so, in particular, succession in time is not distinguished, or
rather, the grand picture of the purely vital development of
the creation is drawn at once in perspective ; whence it hap
pens, that things separated by wide intervals appear to stand
together. What is included in the Old Testament as a germ,
appears in the New in its free expansion, and thus first reveals
in its fulness the fundamental idea which it includes. The king
dom of God appears, accordingly, as a kingdom always existing,
— established among fallen men contemporaneously with the
first announcement of the Gospel — typically represented in the
Mosaic theocracy — bestowed in Christ essentially complete in
its conception — since then secretly advancing among the souls

MATTHEW III. 2. 149
of men — destined to a final conquest over everything, and to
penetrate harmoniously all the forms both of outward and in
ward life throughout creation. With respect to the manner in
which the New Testament writings unfold this idea of the king
dom of God, there is in them, first, a marked separation between
the external and internal aspect. In reference to the latter, the
kingdom of God appears according to the New Testament con
ception as one really present, not merely in the person of the
Saviour himself, but also in His believing followers, who were
translated into the spirit of His life. In the spirit's inner life
and consciousness, — i. e., in faith, the absolute dominion of the
divine is realized. We find it thus viewed as the kingdom of
God in the soul, in Luke xvii. 21 : n fiagiXiiu rou ©sou brbs upuv
ianv. (See Rom. xiv. 17.) But in its external relation, the
kingdom of God appears in the New Testament also as yet
future, and the object of desire. The Spirit of Christ, as the
principle which begins by securing to itself dominion in the
depths of the inward life, strives for an unconditional supremacy
over all its concerns. But the extension of the divine dominion
in Christ, so as to include external circumstances, is gradual,
and .therefore to be looked for, even by believers, as to be
realized only step by step. In its relation to external things,
we find, however, a twofold modification of the idea in the New
Testament. First, the sphere of life in which the Christian
element prevails — that is, the Church — is conceived in its visible
form as an external communion. In this respect the kingdom
of God itself is progressive — expanding gradually in this sinful
world — still mixed, to a certain extent, with sinful elements.
(See note on Matth. xiii. 47, ff.) For it was only in the person of
the Saviour that the fiag/Xela was exhibited as complete at once,
externally and internally. But further, its external condition
also is conceived as having been made homogeneous with the
internal, and as having been likewise thoroughly subjected to
the sole authority of the will of God; and in this view the
QaeiXela appears absolutely complete, but future. That which
had first to exercise its influence in the souls of men, presents
itself in the end as ruling in the xrigig likewise. (Rom. viii
19, ff.) In this respect the pagiXela might be called iirlyewg,
(in contrast with iirougdvwg, 2 Tim. iv. 18 ;) but for wise reasons
this epithet is not applied to it; the idea itselfj however, is
everywhere to be met with in the New Testament, in the pro-

150 MATTHEW III. 2.
mise, that at the coming of Christ the kingdom of God will
become externally dominant ; (see note on Matth. xx. 21 ; xxvi.
29 ; Luke xxi. 31 ; John xviii. 36.) In very many passages,
Jhowever, the internal and external aspects are not strictly
separated, but are blended with greater generality and indefi
niteness, as in the Old Testament. The j3agiXeia is then the
ideal future world, (see Luke, xxiii. 42, the words of the thief,)
which, as being present in the souls of believers, but absent in
its completeness, may be spoken of as at once near and distant.
— There is another division in the idea of the kingdom of God
in the New Testament, which is equally unknown to the Old,
— viz., that idea being taken sometimes in relation to the indi
vidual, at others to the human race collectively. According to
these different relations, again, the kingdom is represented
sometimes as already come, at others, as to come. For in so far
as the spiritual element, which in Christ diffuses itself through
mankind, and establishes among them the kingdom of God, has
taken possession of an individual, so far the kingdom of God is
present to him, and he is in the kingdom of God ; but it is also
still to come with respect to the individual, not merely in so far
as the higher principle of life will gradually take possession of
all his faculties, but also in so far as the principle which lives in
him will be that of the entire race, and will meet his view as
manifested among them. The relation of the whole human race
— viewed as an individual — is similar ; for though the kingdom
of God (i. e., the Church) exists in the race, and the race (i. e.,
viewing believers as representatives of it) in the kingdom of
God, yet, on the other hand, the kingdom is still to come with
respect to the race also.
Thus the one idea of the kingdom of God appears in the
New Testament alone, applied to different relations ; and from
the various aspects in which it is regarded, sometimes one of
these relations is more prominent, sometimes another. Among
the great mass of the Jews held captive by the Pharisaical spirit,
the idea of an external manifestation of the Messiah's kingdom
prevailed. In opposition to this material view, the Saviour put
forward the ideal aspect of the fiagiXeia rou &eou. As early as the
apostolic times, the germs of Gnostic idealism sprung up, by
which a real outward manifestation of the divine dominion, at
any future period, was denied in the doctrine of the pag. r. 0. ;
this point had therefore to be defended in opposition to that

MATTHEW III. 2, 3. 151
heresy. On the other hand, the Alexandrine school had, at a
later period, to oppose the ideal aspect of the kingdom of God
to the gross millennarian views of the ancient Church; and
through their influence the view was again gradually forced
into the back-ground — that it is in the nature of the divine to
pursue its subduing and ruling course from within to without —
from the individual to the universal. The pure realism of the
Bible points out the medium between the two false paths of
materialism and spiritualism in the doctrine of the BagiXeia. It
is not dirb rou xbg/jjou rourou, but yet b xbgfiu, (John xviii. 36 ;) and
as, in the individual, its process of formation is from the inmost
fountain of life, on which it first seizes, up to the sanctification
and glorification of the body also ; so it proceeds gradually from
the individuals, who at first represent the kingdom of God, to the
whole, and not merely raises the earth to paradisaic purity, but
at last consummates the universe, so as to be new heavens and
a new earth. (2 Pet. iii. 13 ; Rev. xxi. 1.)
If now, in conclusion, we cast a glance on the passage under
consideration, (Matth. iii. 2,) and ask, in what sense John the
Baptist may have understood the fiagiXeia, it is most probable,
that, agreeably to his position towards the law, he conceived of
it with the generality and indeterminateness of the Old Testa
ment, perhaps even with some predominance of the external
aspect, but without incorporating anything false with the idea.
It may always be conceded, that there was some affinity
between John's notions of the Messiah's kingdom, and those
that were prevalent among the people. That they believed
that the kingdom was to appear as an external one, was not in
itself false; for that is rather its consummation. What was
false, was only that they desired the external without the true
internal part. Therefore, as the carnal man makes his God for
himself, so he makes his kingdom of God for himself. The ,
spiritual man has a spiritual God, and a spiritual kingdom of
God ; but as the true God became man, so the kingdom of
God, or of heaven, comes down to earth, that heaven and earth '
may celebrate a perfect reconciliation.
Ver. 3. — The Evangelists establish the divine appoint
ment of the Baptist's appearance by passages from the Old
Testament. All four Evangelists (see John u 23) quote the
passage Isa. xl. 3-5. St. Luke gives it most fully. In com
mon with the other two, he follows the LXX. with but

152 MATTHEW III. 3.
slight variations. St. Mark introduces Mai. iii. 1 before it.*
This passage, however, appears to have first occurred to him
as parallel, while in the act of writing ; for, on the one hand,
he quotes it (from memory) with great variations, from the
LXX., and, on the other, he has applied the formula, b 'Hgaia
-r$ irgopnrn to the passage out of Malachi also. The transcribers
have indeed given b roTg irgotpnraig as a correction ; but that this
reading is without value needs no proof. This passage of St.
Mark is an unequivocal sign that he had documents before him,
and made use of them. He took the formula of quotation from
St. Matthew and St. Luke, but inserted from memory the words
out of Malachi, without altering the formula.f The whole pro
phetic passage is founded on the figure of the triumphal entry
of a king, for whom the road is made straight. In so far as the
king, as well as his kingdom, are spiritual, the heights and
depths are also to be taken spiritually, and are to be understood
of those mental states of unbelief and despair, of pride and self-
sufficiency, which stand in the way of the Saviour's work. <3>wwj
forms an interesting contrast with Xbyos, (John i. 1.) In the
notion of " word," the idea Is likewise included, which is con
veyed by the articulate word. The " voice," as such, denotes
simply that which awakens, excites. John did not introduce any
new idea among mankind. He did not claim supremacy over
any peculiar department of life, to which he could have intro
duced men. He was a mere organ for a powerful spiritual
effect in the spiritual waste of humanity. He awakened the
sense of need, which the Redeemer satisfied.
(®dgay%, in Luke iii. 5, 6, = rd<pgog, hollow place, valley. This
is the only place where it is found in the New Testament. The
opposites to it are Bouvbg and ogos. The first of these words,
Bouvbg, is found also in Luke xxiii. 30. The LXX. use it for
nj?2il elevation, hill. On gurqgiov rou ©sou, see Luke ii. 30 ; Acts
xxviii. 28 ; gurngla is used in the same way, Luke i. 69. In the
concluding formula, 'b-\erai irdga gdg% x. r. X., the Evangelist fol-

* .On the passage, Mai. iii- 1, see further the observations on Matth. xi.
10 ; Luke vii. 27, where the same quotation is adduced with similar variations,
evidently indicating the use of the same sources of information.
t Hengstenberg's supposition, in his Christology, vol. iii., p. 398, ff., 464, ff,
that St. Mark quoted the passage out of Malachi as belonging to Isaiah, because
the former borrowed it from the latter, and Malachi is, therefore, only the auctor
secundarius, appears to me to be forced. They are still the words of Malachi.

MATTHEW III. 4, 5, 6, 7. 153
lows the LXX., contrary to the Hebrew text, where the words
gurfigiov r. 0. are wanting. On the other hand, the words bpfygerai
btiga rou xugiou, which the LXX. have, agreeably to the original,
are omitted by St. Luke. In the prophecy, the Saviour's work-
is represented, quite after the prevailing mode of Old Testament
representation, as completed at once.)
Ver. 4-6. — The Baptist's dress and manner of life quite agree
with the portrait of Elijah, (2 Kings i. 8, compared with Zech.
xiii. 4.) John lived and laboured in an austere and strictly
ascetic manner. ('Axglg is the well-known large oriental locust,
used as food by the poor; Lev. xi. 22.) It was precisely by
means of this strict form of life, and the reproving severity of
his whole course, that the prophet roused the slumberers ; an
apparition from past times seemed to have entered the spiritless
present. The <pmn~ Bouvrog echoed loudly through the wilderness ;
those who were awakened gathered round the prophet, to gain
ease for their consciences. The Bairrig/tbg and i^o/ioXbynaig are speci
fied as the forms which John's work assumed. Confession is to
be viewed as the condition of baptism, since it was intended to
be, as it were, a type of the coming forgiveness to be completed
by the Messiah, which required genuine /terdvoiu ; so that where
confession was wanting, baptism also was refused. (See ver. 7,
ff., the rejection of the Pharisees.) The confession, however, is
not necessarily a special confession of individual facts, (though
that is not to be excluded in particular cases,) but a genuine
expression and manifestation of a sense of destitution, cognizable
as such to John's searching, prophetic spirit.
Ver. 7. — Those whom St. Luke comprehends under the term
oxXoi, excluding the few sincere-minded, St. Matthew describes
more particularly as Pharisees and Sadducees. These Jewish
sects, so thoroughly known from the history of the Church, ap
pear in the New Testament as the representatives of hypocriti
cal superstition and carnal unbelief. Phariseeism, however, had
a deeper foundation ; it was based on the ground of the Divine
Word, only that traditional precepts had been associated with
it. Although, therefore, the Pharisees (taken collectively) are
constantly opposed in the New Testament, and particularly in
the Gospels, because, by confounding things external with
things internal, they had sunk into hypocrisy, and pursued
godliness as a trade ; yet there were individual believers among
them. But Sadduceeism was utterly devoid of any deeper

154

MATTHEW III. 7.

foundation, or any higher principle of life; pure worldliness
shews itself in it, often, however, as it would seem, united with
a degree of kindness of disposition. This tendency was there
fore insignificant, while Phariseeism, embodying, as it did, some
thing positive, was both more dangerous in its corruption, and,
in its nobler manifestation, was more adapted to fall in with the
Gospel. The New Testament does not speak of the Essenes,
partly because they did not come in contact with the public life of
the Jewish people in general — partly because their aim, though
noble on the whole, was, on the other hand, deformed by subtle
errors, which rendered it too dangerous to be recommended as
a pattern for imitation. Besides which, it is the nature of
the Gospel to set up nothing for imitation but the Saviour him
self) in whom the fulness of all that is desirable is included.
There was no call for anything positively polemical against the
Essenes, since their exclusiveness as a sect rendered them un
known, except in narrow circles, and because the best antidote
to the errors of the sect lay in the principles of the Christian
truth itself.*
The Baptist's exhortation to the multitude, who were under
Pharisaic or Sadduceean influence, and shared in the insincerity
of these sects, bears the stamp of the strict legal spirit which
John represents. In his spirit the Baptist contrasts the king
dom of the prince of this world with the kingdom of God,
proclaimed by him, and takes the insincere minds, who hypo
critically pretended to sincerity of heart, as types of this evil
kingdom. (The language yewr/para ixibvuv = ©PC ttJIttf, Isa. xiv.
29, generation of vipers, is certainly harsh ; but it is in the nature
of love plainly to call evil evil, and, agreeably with the truth, to
refer it to its origin. The serpent denotes what is devilish ; and

* A correct view of the Essenaic sect, which had all the faults common among
Separatists, particularly secret arrogance and dependence on good works, is a
sufficient refutation of the notion that Jesus had been brought up in their
schools. That our Lord knew them, is beyond a doubt, since Galilee was then-
stronghold ; that their existence may have had a stimulating effect on Him, is
likewise highly probable : only we must never forget that the development of
the Saviour's character was purely internal, influenced only by spiritual streams
from above; that therefore nothing can have been adopted by Him from the
Essenes. Christ brought down into the world a principle of spiritual life, dif
ferent as heaven and earth from Essenism, and every other human form of
religious life,— a principle which invariably exercised a positive influence on
what surrounded it.

MATTHEW III. 7, 8, 9. 155
that Jesus Hinself means it to be thus viewed, is seen by a
comparison of Matth. xii. 34; xxiii. 33, with John viii. 44;
Rev. xx. 2.) But their coming under the condemnation of God
is not to be regarded as absolute, (see note on Acts xiii. 10, 11 ;)
the exhortation that follows in ver. 8 shews evidently the wish,
that they may cease to be what they are. But, as such, they
necessarily come under the Divine condemnation. The passage,
therefore, involves the doctrine of the possibility of the genera
tion of vipers being transformed into children of God by repent
ance and faith. ('Ogyjj /i'eXXouga, for which bgyn Ig^o/ttswi is put in
1 Thess. i. 10, expresses the idea of God's punitive justice;
hence the diroxdXu^/ig rrjg bgyrjg = xglgig. See Rom. i. 18. In
John's exhortation, agreeably to the Old Testament form of
conception, the last judgment [s<%ar»j xglgig] is considered as
concurrent with the appearance of the Messiah, as His first and
second coming are not here separated. On bgyn r. ©., see note
on Matth. xviii. 34.)
Ver. 8. — These words of reproof in John's discourse are fol
lowed by words of exhortation, which insist upon the necessity
of the actual manifestation of true repentance in practice. Luke
iii. 11, ff., contain the comment on the egya, such as the Baptist,
from his point of view, demanded. (The phrase, xagirbg rne
/aravotag &%wg, occurs once more, with some variation, in Acts
xxvi. 20. The reading xagiroug in St. Matthew is spurious ; it
was probably derived from the parallel passage in St. Luke.
Ver. 9. — John contrasts the boasting of external advantages
with the practical evidencing of a sincerely repentant disposition
required by him. (mij oo^rs in St. Matthew is no more super
fluous than pn oigZntfe m St. Luke. The former is to be under
stood of the fancied right, which the Pharisees imagined they
possessed, to boast of their descent from Abraham ; the latter,
of their beginning with self-sufficiency and vanity to plume them
selves on that right, both aloud in the presence of men and in
their own minds.) Being a child of Abraham, is spoken of as
the centre of all the advantages belonging to the theocracy. In
its true meaning, this descent was not so much an advantage
in itself, as it was a stronger obligation to a godly life and walk.
Where this obligation was left unfulfilled, the supposed advan
tage was turned to a disadvantage. (See Rom. ii. 28, 29 ; iv.
16, on the ideal conception of being a child of Abraham, and
sharing in the advantages of the theocracy.) In order to teach

156 MATTHEW III. 9, 10.
them properly to estimate the value of natural descent, the
Baptist refers to the free grace of God. As it was purely of
grace to have been born in the bosom of the theocracy, so the
Almighty can reject those who shew themselves unworthy of
such grace, and call others who were far from His promises.
('Eys/ga;, viewed in relation to those who were born children of
Abraham, involves their rejection.) The words : buvarai b &ebg ix
ruv Xlduv rour&jv iyeigai rs%i<a rw ' ABgadfi, do certainly admit of being
understood figuratively of the heathen ; just as in the passage
before us the "trees" denote the Jews in their Pharisaical
tendency, who were going onwards to destruction. But the
word robruv being added, compels us to understand them of the
stones lying on the banks of Jordan, in which case the parallel
with the history of the creation must not be overlooked. As
God formed man out of the dust of the earth, so He can even
now form men out of stones.
Ver. 10. — In order to enforce the exhortation, the time is
represented as a decisive one. In the Old Testament, the
parallel is drawn between the moral world and the physical in
the same way as here, (Psalm i. 3 ; Isa. vi. 13 ;) in the New
Testament the same comparison is very frequent. -(Matth. vii.
19 ; Rom. xi. 17.) The time of harvest is that of xglgig,, when
the fruit is the chief concern. The fruit required here was
bixaioguvn, and genuine inward f^erdvoia. (Exxoirregkti, elg irug BdX-
XegSai, are emblems of the bgyn, ver. 7.) In Luke iii. 11-15,
there follows an expansion of John's address peculiar to that
Evangelist. It reveals plainly the Baptist's legal standing. He
recommends a faithful fulfilment of the law ; " the voice of one
crying in the wilderness" does not enter upon the domain of
faith and love. He directed to doing only, as those who asked
for instruction put only the question, What shall we do?*
(Ugdggeiv in ver. 13, = toiO exigere soil. <p6gov. — Aiagelu, to frighten,
to exact by terror. — ~2,uxo<pavreu denotes properly " to perform the
part of a petty and false informer;" then "to be greedy,"
"avaricious," see Luke xix. 8.) As a peculiar trait in the
character of the Baptist, his childlike humility is also prominent,
which is intimated in the following verses, but which St. John,
in the early chapters of his Gospel, portrays carefully for

* Compare the New Testament answer to the question, What shall we do? in
Acts ii. 37.

MATTHEW III. 10, 11. 157
special reasons. Even in John's lifetime, his disciples would
have him to be the Christ; but he himself humbly acknow
ledged his inferiority, and pointed his followers to the Saviour.
Against his own will, his later self-willed disciples (the Sabeans)
made him afterwards serve as the historical prop of their sect.
Ver. 11. — Disclaiming for himself the dignity of the Messiah,
the Baptist points to Him to whom it belongs. He calls Him :
birku (wu egxb/ievog, leaving the time of His appearance undeter
mined. The Evangelist John, who had special reason to be /
more circumstantial regarding the declarations of the Baptist
as to his relation to the Saviour, (see on this point notes on
John i. 19, ff. ; iii. 27, ff.,) mentions facts, which prove that
John had a deep and true knowledge of the Saviour and His
work. St. Matthew notices particularly this point only in the
Baptist's words, that Jesus possessed a greater power of the
Spirit, (/V^ugo'rego's' /iou earSv.) He therefore represents John's
relation to the Saviour as that of a servant to his master. (The
phrase unobiipara Xugai, or Bagrd^eiv, is put for the performance of
menial services in general.) But the Baptist gives especial
prominence to the superiority of the Messiah, in reference to
His baptism. (See note on John i. 25, ff.) He contrasts the -
b uban Bairrl^eiv with the Bairri^eiv iv irveuftari dylu xal irugl. We
might feel tempted here to join irug with irvevpa ; so that irug
should appear as a concomitant, (as if the baptism of the Spirit
would be accompanied by fiery appearances, as on the day of
Pentecost ;) or that m/eu/ia should be taken as qualifying irug,
(= irug irveu/jMnxbv,) irug, as the more powerful element, being
contrasted with ubug. But the passages, Matth. xx. 22 ; Luke
xii. 50, appear to me to favour the ancient distinction of a
threefold baptism, (fluminis, flaminis, sanguinis.)* In this the
Saviour appears as the type of believers, who, like himself, if
not outwardly, yet inwardly, must all pass through the consum
mating baptism of blood. In the triple elements of baptism, — !
viz., water, spirit, and fire, a gradation in the development of
the spiritual life, and in the element from which it results, is
intimated. While the lowest gradation, baptism with water,
implies external purification from sin, and repentance, baptism

* De Wette is altogether wrong in taking irug to denote punishment ; for the 0
idea of baptism does not admit of any reference to punishment. It is always
subservient to salvation.

158 MATTHEW III. 11, 12, 13.
with the Spirit refers to the inward cleansing in faith, (the
Holy Spirit being conceived of as the regenerating principle,
John iii. 1, ff. ; Acts i. 5 ;) and lastly, baptism with fire ex
presses the glorification of the regenerated higher life into its
own peculiar nature.
Ver. 12. — The exhortation concludes, very appropriately,
with a renewed admonition of the nearness of xglgig, (ver. 10,)
the execution of which belonged to the Messiah's office. The
act of judging is here represented under the figure of the
winnowing of chaff and wheat. The same figure occurs in
Jer. xv. 7; Luke xxii. 31. (OS iv rfi x*'P avrou = 'VT,2 ItpN.
nriiov = vannus, ventilabrum. "A^ugov = VJ3> Psalm i. 4. On
irug agBegrov, see note on Mark ix. 44.) In the concluding verses
in Luke iii. 18-20, the Evangelist calls these addresses of the
second Elijah a ebayyeXl^egka, (ver. 18,) inasmuch a3 they treated
of the coming of the Messiah, and even of His presence. (John
i. 26.) St. Luke's incidental observations on the Baptist's im
prisonment may, perhaps, have been occasioned by a document
used by St. Luke, in which the further progress of John's
fortunes was narrated. St. Luke mentions, by anticipation, in
this place, what occurred long after. (See note on Matth. xiv.
1, ff., for a fuller discussion.)

§ 2. THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST.
(Matth. iii. 13-17 ; Mark i. 9-11 ; Luke iii. 21-23 ; John i. 32-34.)
The fact of the baptism of Christ by John is somewhat sur
prising, as it is undeniable, that the less is blessed by the better,
(Heb. vii. 7 ;) but in this case the reverse takes place. As be
fore observed, the prominent distinction in baptism, in which it
differs from mere lustrations, is, that one party appears as the
baptizer, the other as the baptized; and the baptizer, so to
speak, elevates the baptized to his own element of life. Now,
it is not clear how the weaker can raise the stronger to his
standing. John himself was penetrated with a sense of the
inappropriateness of Christ's being baptized by him, (ver. 14,)
and acknowledged that he rather stood in need of a higher
baptism from Jesus. Objectively viewed, this was quite right ;
but by the divine dispensation, which assigns the limit to every-

MATTHEW III. 13. 159
thing, and thus also to each individual's course of life, (without
prejudice to liberty, which has its expansion within the assigned
limits,) John was not called for the New Testament ; he formed
the top-stone of the Old; and, like Simeon, (Luke ii. 25, ff.,)
beheld the Messiah without experiencing His regenerating effi
cacy in himself;- he was saved, like the saints of the Old Testa
ment, through faith in the coming Saviour. For though John
beheld Christ, yet redemption was still future to him, since
Christ's work was not completed till after the death of the Bap
tist. It was, therefore, part of John's humility, that, taking his
stand purely and simply, he baptized Jesus ; a formal refusal
to baptize Him would have been false humility, — that is, a want
of obedience to the divine will, which had appointed this rela
tion between John and Christ. The words of Jesus : ouru irgeirov
egrlv nfiiv irXngugai iragav bixaioguvnv, (Matth. iii. 15,) give the key to
the understanding of it. The term bixawgbvn, the meanings of
which will be treated connectedly in note on Rom. iii. 21, denotes
here blxaiov, what the law demands. The words contain, there
fore, the general principle on which the Saviour proceeded, and
which John, too, had to follow on this occasion, — viz., to observe
all legal ordinances as divine institutions. This was not, indeed,
the consequence of any inward necessity, (for which reason irgeirov
igri is used, and not biTov xgelav s^w,) but a propriety, and a pro
priety in the highest and noblest sense ; the opposite would have
been a disturbing of the harmony of life. As, therefore, Jesus
was in all things yevb/ievog uirb vb/tov, (Gal. iv. 4,) He must submit
to John's baptism, thus establishing it as divine ; by God's will
that was to be also the moment of His being anointed with the
Spirit, — His solemn inauguration as the Messiah King.* The
baptism of Jesus stands, therefore, on a level with His under
going circumcision and the purification. (See note on Luke
ii. 21, 22.) The Mediator himself took part in the sacrifices
and the other institutions of reconciliation ordained by God in
the temple service, until, by His one sacrifice on the cross, He
had made the repetition of all other sacrifices superfluous. Ac-

* It takes away the sinlessness of Christ, when De Wette says, " Sin was latent
in Him. A possibility of sinning must be carefully distinguished from the
germ of sin, such as sinful man has in himself. Christ, like Adam and the
angels before their fall, had merely the possibility of sinning, without a shadow
of disposition for it ; to maintain the latter is to make God the author of sin.

160 MATTHEW III. 13, 14, 15.
cording to God's prediction, (John i. 33,) the baptism with the
Spirit coincided with John's baptism with water, to which Jesus
submitted ; the former, of course, could not come through the
medium of John, it was rather a sign (gnpeftv, JllK) for John
himself, by which he might infallibly recognize the promised
Messiah. By this anointing of the Spirit, the gradual develop
ment of the human consciousness in Jesus attained its height,
and that fulness of power was imparted to Him which was
requisite for the fulfilment of His office as a teacher. Even the
pure offspring of the Spirit needed the anointing of the Spirit ;
it was not till His human nature (the ^uxn) was strengthened
to bear the plenitude of the Spiritj that it was abidingly filled
with power from above. The baptism, accordingly, was the
sublime season, when the character of the Xgigrbg, TX^fO, which
was dormant (as it were, potentid) in the gradually developing
child and youth, now (actu) came forth and expanded itself;
the baptism is the inauguration of the Messiah, for himself and
John in the first instance.*
Ver. 13. — According to St. Mark's account, (i. 9,) our Sav
iour appears to have continued at Nazareth till the time of His
public appearance. The inner life in Him expanded, doubtless,
quietly and without appearing. But when the hour was come,
which the Spirit within gave Him to know with indubitable
certainty,f He came to John at Jordan, (on the locality, see
note on John i. 28, 29,) in order to be introduced by this mes
senger of God.
Ver. 14, 1 5. — The important conversation between Jesus and
John, before the baptism, is narrated by St. Matthew only. It

* Compare the remarkable words in Justin, dial, cum Tryph. Jud., p. 226.
Xgigrbg be el xal yeybvnrai xal 'igri irou, dyvtagrbg sffr; xal oube aurbg iru
eaurbv iirlgrarai, oube 'iyei buvajhlv riva, fiexgig av iXSuv 'HXiag Xg'ty aurou
xal cpavegbv tragi iroingfl. (See note on Matth. xvii. 10, ff.) At the close of
Christ's ministry, (see note on John xii. 28,) a similar public approval of Him
took place by a voice from heaven ; so that the same event forms alike the com
mencement and the close of His public life.
t It is quite an erroneous notion, that Jesus made His public appearance in
consequence of an exactly calculated and carefully formed plan. His inward life
obeyed only the direction of His heavenly Father ; what He saw Him do, that
the Son also did. There was, indeed, at the same time, the clearest conscious
ness of what He did ; but all calculation and human forming of plans must be
conceived as excluded, because it trenches upon Christ's direct oneness of life
with God.

MATTHEW III. 14, 15, 16, 17. 161
is of the highest importance for an insight into John's relation
to the Saviour ; and St. Matthew gives, even in this communi
cation, a proof of the importance and originality of the accounts^
(contained particularly in the discourses,) which are peculiar to
him. Ver. 16, 17. — The form of John's baptism is not further de^
scribed ; whether the Baptist uttered any words, or what words,
over Jesus, is left unnoticed. We are told only what took place
after the baptism was over, — that is, at the emersion out of the
water, (dv'eBn awo rou DSaros.) That the outpouring of the Spirit
did not take place before the submersion, perfectly accords with
the symbolical character of the action, (see Rom. vi. 1, ff.,)
which is not indeed in itself applicable to John's baptism, but
which the Saviour typically imparted to the action by His bap
tism. The one part of the action — the submersion — represents
the negative aspect, — viz., the taking away of the old man,
(Rom. vi. 4;) in the other part — the emersion — the positive
aspect, — viz., the appearance of the new man, is denoted ; the
communication of the Holy Ghost must therefore have been
connected with the latter. St. Luke adds, (iii. 21,) that Jesus
prayed, which must naturally be understood only of being in
wardly absorbed with devotion. — After the emersion, these three
circumstances constitute the progress of the action, — the open
ing of the heavens, the descent of the Spirit, the sounding of
the voice. But that all this did not pass as a spectacle before
the assembled multitude, but was seen by Christ and John
alone, is clearly implied in Matth. iii. 16, (ai/s^&jtfan aur£ ol
ougavol,) and in John i. 32. Spiritual eyes are needful for the
contemplation of spiritual transactions ; he only who possessed
such, was in a condition to behold the working of the Spirit.
An unconscious surmise, roused by the mighty working of
the Spirit, may have crossed the minds of the multitude at the.
sublime instant, when the flower of heaven descended to earth ;
but the transaction itself was not seen by them. (Compare the
analogous case in the conversion of the Apostle Paul, Acts ix.
7.) Lf we thus transfer the occurrence into the region of the
Spirit, we do not need to have recourse either to the historical
interpretation, (which calls to its aid the Jewish notions of a
brazen vault of heaven, and the supposition of birds accidentally
directing their flight to the place of the baptism,) or to the
mythical interpretation of it. The Spirit — the invisible cause

162 MATTHEW III. 16, 17.
of all that is visible — contains in himself the ground of all
things ; the revelation and bestowment of himself is a quality
of His nature. The opening of heaven — the region of the
Spirit — is, consequently, nothing but the revealing of the world
of spirits to the spirit. Every revelation is a rending of the
heavens, — a descent Of the Spirit. (Isa. lxiv. 1 ; Ezek. i. 1 ;
Acts vii. 55.) Far as we ought to be from viewing the open
ing of the heavens materially, we should be just as far from
considering it as imaginary ; it is a real operation of the Spirit
for the spirit. For the person of the Saviour, this opening of
heaven was an abiding one ; the flow of His inner life towards
the eternal home of the Spirit, and the stream thence down to
Him, never again ceased. Gradually during their intercourse
with our Lord, the disciples had their spiritual eye opened to
this relation; they then beheld heaven constantly open, and
the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of
Man. (John i. 52.) The descent of the Spirit is therefore
nothing but His bestowment, which is His very nature. As
love, God descends, in His Spirit, into the hearts of His people.
So also the sound of the voice is a necessary operation of the
Spirit. The Spirit — the author of language — speaks for the
spirit ; His operation is nothing but word. What He speaks,
the spirit understands immediately ; not by the intervention of
the physical ear, but by the spiritual ear, — that is, by its spirit
ual susceptibility to spiritual operations.*

* It is not intended by these remarks to assert, that, in the whole occurrence,
there was not also something visible and audible to all. The Gospel according
I to the Hebrews (see the author's History of the Gospels, p. 81) mentioned an
i ' additional circumstance, — viz., the visible appearance of fire at the baptism. As
all revelations of the divine take place with light and splendour, the idea is not
incorrect ; only, it is viewed materially. Just so with the voice, (see John xii.
29,) there may have been something audible to all Only we must not fancy it
to have been what is called the 7lp J12i daughter of the voice. The Rabbins
maintain, indeed, that it has been heard from the time of the second temple ; or,
what is the same thing, since the gift of prophecy became extinct in Israel.
But, as a historical statement, we can the less pay any regard to this, as the
whole matter is so much exposed to misconception and abuse, that it is impos
sible to believe that Providence meant to bestow this as a compensation for the
silence of the prophets. The voices from heaven mentioned in the New Testa
ment are divested of the peculiarity frequently felt to attach to them, if we con
sider that the idea of divine speaking, which is equivalent to revelation, occurs
throughout the Scriptures, and the same manifestation presents itself in all divine
appearances. In the case of God's appearing, the voice is forgotten in the

MATTHEW III. 16, 17. 163
With regard to the comparison of the Holy Ghost to a dove,
the word ugel, used by all the four Evangelists^ shews that it was
meant to be regarded only as a comparison. The reality of the
appearance is, indeed, expressly signified, (gojparixw e'lbei, Luke
iii. 22 ;) but, as a real spiritual appearance, it was not visible to
physical eyes, and, consequently, the impression could only be
described by a comparison with things of a visible nature.
According to the symbolism of the Bible, certain mental
characters appear expressed in several animals, as in the lion,
the lamb, the eagle, and the ox. In this system of natural
hieroglyphics, the dove denotes purity and sincerity, and hence
the spirit of purity may be most fittingly compared with the
dove.* The coming of the Spirit like a dove denotes, conse
quently, that the fulness of the spirit of purity and sincerity
was imparted to Jesus, whereby He became the purifier of man
kind. He was therefore sealed, so to speak, as the Son of God ;
on which account the declaration of the voice from heaven is,
oSros idnv b ulbg fiou x. r. X. That the term ulbg ©sou refers here
to the divine eternal nature of the Son, is shewn by John i. 34.
In the baptism of the Spirit, the Saviour himself was assured
of His being perfected in that nature, and was manifested
first of all' to John. (^Ayairnrbg = *VTfi- ~EuboxeTv 'iv rivi =
2 (121- Nothing but His own image is well-pleasing to God,
and, consequently, only those who are in Christ, Ephes. i. 6.)
There are two other points in the account of the baptism,
according to the Evangelist John, (i. 32,) peculiar to him.
First, the words : irveufha 'i^eive eif aurbv, — i. e., riXdsv erf aurbv xal
e/ieive. In these words the Evangelist notices, in the Saviour's
case, what he usually insists upon as the peculiar aspect of the
Spirit's operations under the New Testament. While in the
Old Testament form of His operation He reveals himself at

appearance ; but when the voice alone is perceived, we do not bear in mind that
the same Being is present, though, on that occasion, invisibly. But, in the
direct operation of the Spirit, the senses penetrate each other so as to attain to a
unity of perception. The name " Daughter of the voice," is correctly explained
by Buxlorf'va. lex. talm, p. 310, in the words, fdia, — i. e., vox secundaria, cmlestis
vocis partus. The earthly words were viewed as the echo of the heavenly words,
and were, therefore, applied as prophecy to present relations.
* The comparison of the Spirit with the dove is found in the Samaritan and
Rabbinical writers also. In the tract Chagigah, it is said on Gen. i. 2 : " Spiritus
Dei ferebatur super aqua, ut columba." The Christian sectB probably derived
the comparison from the New Testament.

164 MATTHEW III. 16, 17.
particular moments, He appears, in the New, as statedly and
uniformly efficient. In the life of Jesus we find this uniformity
in His consciousness of God represented perfectly ; while, in the
developments of life in Old Testament saints, there was an
alternation of elevated, and, as it were, spiritless seasons. Be
sides this, the words : obx fibeiv aurbv, (John i. 33,) are remarkable.
They appear to be at variance, on the one hand, with the
passage Matth. iii. 14, which supposes an acquaintance between
Jesus and John ; and, on the other, with the nature of the
circumstances, which, from the intimacy of the mothers, involves
the knowledge of the one by the other. But jjds/v evidently
does not stand opposed to the supposition that John knew Jesus
; externally, and cherished anticipations of His exalted destina
tion. But to gain divine indubitable certainty, that it was in
the person of Jesus that the hopes of mankind were to be ful
filled, express confirmations were necessary, of such a kind as
to be raised above all subjective impressions, and the decep
tions to which they are exposed. Such a miraculous sign was
appointed him in the outpouring of the Spirit, and this sign he
had at the baptism. (John i. 33.)
St. Luke (iii. 23) connects with his account of the baptism,
the genealogy, in which, agreeably to the popular notion, (wv iig
ba/tiZjEro,) he commences with Joseph, Mary's husband. . With '
this transition, St. Luke connects the important observation,
that Jesus was thirty years old at the beginning of His ministry.
'Cige! being added, seems indeed to make the date uncertain;
but as the age of the Levites' entrance on office was fixed by
, Numb. iv. 3, 47, at thirty years, and as the Saviour invariably
adopted the existing ordinances of the Old Testament, we may
conclude with probability that the Saviour was not less than
thirty years of age. Yet there is no reason to suppose that He
exceeded the fixed number ; in the Saviour's life all is disposed
according to number and measure, and it is therefore best to
adhere to the age assigned. The only remaining uncertainty is,
whether His public appearance falls at the beginning or the end
of the year. (With respect to the construction of the sentence,
it is best to supply the verb bibdgxeiv with dgxb/ievog. It is not
conformable to the connexion to construe the participle with fa,
or S>v with dgxb^oi.)

matthew iv. 1-11. 165
§ 3. Christ's temptation.
(Matth. iv. 1-11 ; Mark i. 11, 12 ; Luke iv. 1-13.)
The Saviour's endowment with the fulness of the Spirit is
most appropriately followed by His stedfastness in the contest
with the evil one. It is part of the idea of the Messiah, that
He is appointed to destroy the kingdom of darkness ; His whole
life on earth, therefore, appears as a conflict with its prince.
The Gospel-history, however, particularizes two periods in the
life of Jesus, in which He opposed the full and united power
of the evil one, and overcame. These periods form the com
mencement and the close of His public labours, and each pos
sesses its peculiar character. In the first temptation, just at
the commencement of His ministry,* temptation approached
the Saviour by the avenue of desire ; in the other, at the close
of His earthly labours, by that of the fear of suffering and death. ,'
Every temptation appears in the one or the other of these forms ;
by the conquest of both alike, our Lord stands as the ideal of
perfect righteousness — as victor in the war with sin. The nar
rative before us of the temptation of Jesus through the medium
of desire, makes it approach the Saviour in the three principal
forms by which the world uniformly works, — viz., the lust of
the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. (1 John ii.
16.) This narrative, consequently, exhibits the comprehensive
ness and sufficiency of His victory over sin, and thus forms a
suitable introduction to the description of the labours of the
Saviour, who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet with
out sin. (Heb. iv. 15.) The same temptations of desire, which
on this occasion met Jesus concentrated, and were repelled by
Him in that form, followed Him individually through the whole
period of His earthly ministry, assuming various forms 'at vari
ous times. In a similar manner, temptations of aversion offered
themselves to the Saviour throughout His whole life, till, at the
close of His earthly course, they presented themselves in their
full concentration.

* Even in Jewish theology the conception had been formed from the general
idea of the Messiah, that He would have to be tempted by Satan just at the
commencement of His -office. See SchSttgen, Jesus der wahre Messias; aus der
jiidischen Theologie dargestellt. Leipzig, 1748. 8vo., S. 754, ff.

166 MATTHEW IV. 1-11.
The view taken of the evangelical narrative of the temptation
of Christ is necessarily qualified by the expositor's views regard
ing the doctrine of the devil and the bad angels in general.
Reserving fuller explanations on this point for the note on
Matth. viii. 28, we simply remark, that it is only by the most
arbitrary procedure, that exegesis can set aside the doctrine of
the existence of evil spirits, since even in the Old Testament
the doctrine, though for wise reasons veiled, is taught, that man
did not produce evil from himself, (by which the idea of salva
tion, which supposes a bondage under a foreign force, would be
destroyed,) but that he was led away by a wicked power, and
thereby exposed to its influence. (See Gen. iii. 1 ; Lev. xv. 8 ;
Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Psalm cvi. 37 ; Job i. 6 ; Isa. liv. 16 ; Zech. iii.
1.) In the New Testament, Christ confirms this doctrine, partly
by His universally taking it for granted, as appears times with
out number in His discourses, that there is a kingdom of evil in
opposition to the kingdom of good, (see Matth. xii. 26, ff.,) and
partly by express assertions respecting this doctrine, (Matth.
xiii. 39 ; John viii. 44 ; xiv. 30,) which admit no other explanation
by unprejudiced exposition. If, then, the expositor feels himself
compelled to include the doctrine of the existence of the devil
among those which Christ and the Apostles taught, he will be
the less in a situation to give his sanction to explanations of the
temptation, which understand the term bidBoXog in St. Matthew
and St. Luke (for which St. Mark has garavdg) of some kind
of human enemies or tempters, since, in the idea of Christ,
the idea of His contest with evil in its centralization is neces
sarily included. The whole doctrine of the Bible concerning
Christ's relation to the kingdom of evil, even though we did
not possess the narrative of the temptation, would lead to
the same idea which is there stated. But if we cannot adopt
these explanations, this is the case in an incomparably higher
degree with those which regard Christ's temptations spoken
of in the Gospel-history as arising from within the Saviour.
Schleiermacher is not wrong in saying : " If Jesus ever harboured
any such thoughts, (as the tempter suggested to Him,) even in
the most evanescent manner, He would no longer be Christ;
and this explanation appears to me the worst neological outrage
that has been committed against Him." (Versuch uber den
Lucas, S. 54.) The absolute purity of Jesus does not in any
way admit of an impure thought coming from himself; as the

MATTHEW IV. 1-11. 167
first Adam, according to the profound narrative in Genesis,
was tempted from without, so was the second Adam also, :
(1 Cor. xv. 47,) only, with this difference, that the latter camel
off victorious.* Schleiermacher? s own view, however, that the
temptation is merely a parabolical narrative, which was after
wards misunderstood, — which view Ullmann also (Studien, H.
1, S. 59, ff.) approves, — is sufficiently refuted by Usteri, (Studien
1832, H. 4.) Undoubtedly we possess here a pure fact, undis-
torted by any mythical elements, (Blatter fur hohere Wahrheit,
B. v., S. 247, ff. ;) but in a purely biblical point of view it may
be doubted, whether we are to conceive of an external appearance
of Satan standing, as it were corporeally, before Christ. It may
be denied for various reasons. In the first place, there is no
proof of any analogous fact either in the Old Testament or the
New ; for the narrative in Gen. iii. 1, let it be taken as it may,
cannot, at least, be called an appearance of the devil. But then
the fact would not be explained even on the supposition of an
outward appearance of the prince of darkness ; for, if it were
assumed that Jesus was physically transported through the air,
yet it would still be inconceivable how all the kingdoms of the
world could be surveyed from a mountain. Besides, the words
which the tempter uttered outwardly, must be conceived to
have been united with an inward effect, because, without this
there would have been no temptation; this would, therefore^
be the essential point, even on the supposition of an outward
appearance. It is, therefore, doubtless most fitting to lay the
scene of the occurrence, as being an internal one, in the sphere
of the soul ; all that is essential will then be preserved, as well j
as a true conception of the event obtained. The temptation
consisted in this, that the -^uxn of Jesus was exposed to the full
influence of the kingdom of darkness. This kingdom, in the per
son of its representative, first displayed to the Saviour its bright

* The hypothesis started by Meyer (in Ullmann and Umbreifs Studien, 1831,
H. 2,) does not differ essentially from this view. He supposes that the tempta
tion was a dream, and compares with it Solomon's dream, 1 Kings iii. 5, ff. Eor
if those seductive thoughts could have arisen in Christ's heart, though only in
dream, His purity would have been sullied. But if any one chose to refer the
excitement of the thoughts in a dream to a hostile power, the opinion would not
indeed be offensive ; but then, there appears no reason why the whole occur
rence should not have taken place in a waking state, as the narrative implies.

168 MATTHEW IV. 1.
side, and endeavoured thus to seduce Him from the narrow path
marked out for Him on earth.
We meet with analogous appearances in the Old Testament
as well as the New. (See Ezek. viii. 3 ; xi. 1 ; Rev. i. 10 ;
xvii. 3.) And if we are disposed to connect 2 Cor. xi. 14,
" Satan is transformed into an angel of light," with the tempta
tion, that expression does not by any means require us to
imagine an outward appearance ; but it can be taken to mean
an inward revelation of Satan, as a good angel, in order to be
more sure of success in deceiving.
Matth. iv. 1. — Immediately after the baptism, the Saviour
left the Jordan, (see Luke iv. 1,) and withdrew into solitude^
quietly to prepare for His lofty calling. That the wilderness is
here meant in its literal sense, is seen by Mark i. 13. Tradition
speaks of Quarantaria as the scene, which lies near Jericho.
(Joseph. Antiq., xvi. 1. Bell. Jud., iv, 82.) Inasmuch as this
/ quiet preparation, and the temptation connected with it, was
based on God's plan itself, it is said : dvnx^ v^ irveu/tarog elg rnv
tgnpov. That this irveupa was that good spirit who filled Jesus
at the baptism, is seen from Luke iv. 1, in the words : 'Djffous
cwsu/iaros dyhu irXngng x. r. X. But in that case it seems inexplicable
how we can speak of the Saviour, who was armed with the ful
ness of the Spirit, as being tempted, (ireigagDnvai.) (The meaning
of the word is always one and the same ; only, it is modified
according to the object or subjeot of temptation. Used of the
evil one, it denotes to test, in order to be able to destroy. In
this sense it is said of God, ireigaZei obb'eva, James i. 13. God, on
the contrary, tempts in order to purify and to perfect, Gen.
xxii. 1. Used of men in reference to God, it is always the pro
duct of unbelief and presumption, since it involves the contrary
of humble waiting for indications from God, Heb. iii. 9.) But
we must include the possibility of a fall (like Adam's posse non
peccare) in the very idea of a Saviour ; because, without this,
no merit is conceivable.* It is true, this possibility must be
viewed as purely objective ; for inasmuch as God became man
in the person of Christ, we must ascribe to Him the impossibility

* The consolation, too, that is afforded to unhappy man, struggling against
sin, in the fact that the Saviour himself tasted the bitterness of that struggle in
all its forms, (Heb. ii. 17, 18,) would be destroyed, if the objective possibility of
Christ's falling were denied.

MATTHEW IV. 1. .169
of sinning, (non posse peccare.) This blending of the possibility
of falling with the necessity of a victory over evil, is a mystery,
which is one with the idea of the God-man itself. It is only
by distinguishing between -i^uxh and irveupa that we can attain
to a clear idea of the relation. His liability to temptation was
attached to His human -\uxh \ the necessity of a victory, to the
fulness of the irveupa. By the former, He is' made like us, and
set for a pattern ; by the latter, He is above all that is human,
and assists individuals to become like himself, by the power of
the same Spirit. In His last great temptation, by the suffer
ings at the close of His life, the Saviour himself announced His
being deserted of the fulness of the divine Spirit, (Matth. xxvii.
46 ;) this destitution, in which the humanity of the Saviour
stood as it were isolated, affords a view of the nature of His
conflict at that time. In this case nothing is expressly said
about such a desertion ; but it must be supposed, particularly as ;
the Saviour does not at once recognize the Tempter. The out
ward fasting in the wilderness was an emblem, as it were, of
His inward forsaken condition ; and it is not till this is supposed,
that the temptation acquires real importance. In full possession
of the divine Spirit, temptation is inconceivable ; it is only as
divested of that fulness that the -^uyji of Jesus could humanly
fight and struggle. According to this, the scene should be
conceived in the following form : — After the effusion of the
Spirit on our Lord, He went, under the impulse of that Spirit, i
into the wilderness, in order to begin His great work in the
seclusion of His inner life. There, as in the garden of Geth-
semane, and on Golgotha, the fulness of the Spirit was with
drawn from Him, and He was left to the power of darkness,
{Luke xxii. 53 ;) pleasure, in its most seductive forms/ tempted
His soul. But, in perfect innocence, the Saviour passed through
the conflict ; and, when the temptation was repelled, the fulness
of heavenly powers returned to Him, (Matth iv. 11.) If it
were said, that John i. 32 : irveu/ia epeivev iif abrbv, is contradictory
to this view, the same might be said of Matth. xxvii. 46, where
such a state of spiritual desertion must certainly be supposed.
By whatever method the difficulty is solved in that case, the
same must be applied here. My idea of this obscure relation
is this : In the Saviour there was an alternation of states ; He i
had seasons of the richest spiritual fulness, and of desertion ; j
but, in the first place, these states were not so variable as they ,

170 MATTHEW IV. 1, 2.
are wont to be in sinful men ; and, next, they did not penetrate to
the inmost sanctuary of His being. His -\uxn itself was holy and
pure ; and, from its being most intimately pervaded by the irvtuwa,
so entirely a -^uxn irveuparixn, that even at the moments of
complete desertion, by the overflowing fulness of the Spirit, (as
we must suppose in Matth. xxvii. 46,) His soul acted in the
might of the divine Spirit. This unalterable repose in the depths
of His holy soul — this perfect freedom, in the inmost seat of
life, from the agitations of trouble, which the Redeemer bore
for our good, as He did all the other consequences of sin — are
denoted by the yfeveiv rou irveufiarog, which is contrasted with the
alternating states of Old Testament saints, which might be
immediately overpowered by sin whenever dark hours arrived.
Ver. 2. — In Christ's fasting for forty days, there is evidently
a parallel with the fasting of Moses (Deut. ix. 9, 18) and Elijah,
(1 Kings xix. 8.) We are, therefore, the less justified in taking
vn«reueiv in a wider sense, — viz., " abstaining from ordinary nour
ishment," since it is said of Moses, that he ate no bread, and
drank no water, which coincides with Luke iv. 2 : " He did eat
nothing." The intention of the Evangelists is to place Jesus
in comparison with the great prophets of earlier days, (accord
ing to Deut. xviii. 15 : "A prophet like unto me" says Moses,
" will the Lord thy God raise up ;") He could not, therefore,
do anything less than they did. The number forty was certainly
a sacred number with the Jews ; but it does not follow thence
that it is not to be taken exactly; but rather that the idea
entertained by the Jews of the sacredness of certain numbers
has itself a deeper foundation, which, taken as a general propos
ition, may be thus expressed : — " According to divine arrange
ment, which is pure harmony, every development proceeds by
definite measure and number." The forty days of the tempta
tion form an interesting parallel with Israel's forty years' jour
ney through the wilderness.* All the passages quoted in the

* Such parallels are acknowledged by the advocates of the mythical charac
ter of the Gospel-history, Strauss and De Wette ; but in such a way, that precisely
because of those parallels they deny the historical reality, both of the typical
event in the Old Testament, and of the antitype in the New. But. in this way
they are degraded into mere puerilities. Eor a serious person they can have no
import, unless they be founded on real transactions, by which God speaks to
men in the language of fact.

MATTHEW IV. 3, 4, 5. 171
history of Christ's temptation are taken from the narrative of / >
that journey.
Ver. 3, 4. — The point of the first temptation is very justly re
garded as lying in the thought of employing the higher powers
bestowed upon Him for satisfying His own wants. The principle
here established, — that, namely, of using His miraculous powers
only for the good of others, — the Saviour followed out with self-
denying love through the whole time of His ministry. Jesus
repulsed the powerful solicitation of sensual appetite by faith in
God's power, with a reference to Deut. viii. 3, where the LXX.
translate illil^ ''S N2")0"73 by gn/JM ixirogeubjjievov bid grbfiarog
Qeov. In this passage the manna, viewed as an extraordinary
heavenly aliment, (Psalm Ixxviii. 25,) is contrasted with earthly
means of subsistence, and just so Jesus contrasts the earthly
dgrog with the heavenly. According to the connexion, there
fore, another kind of earthly food cannot be meant. The gSj/ia
©sou is to be conceived of here as the effectual creative cause of
all nourishment. As everything was made by God's word, and
by the breath of His mouth, (Psalm xxxiii. 6,) so that same
word also preserves all things, since the preservation is nothing
but a continued creation. Jesus is stayed by faith in this power
of God ; so long as the Spirit did not release Him from the
wilderness, He was fed by the hidden word of God, which
strengthened soul and body, without His providing anything
for himself by the miraculous gift granted to Him. (On gnpa
Geou, see note on Matth. iii. 2.)
Ver. 5. — St. Luke has placed the second temptation last;
evidently with less propriety.* The first two thoughts the
Tempter suggests to Jesus we can, for a moment, imagine as
coming from a good being ; the temptation is more hidden, and
Satan, consequently, does not display himself as he is ; but in
the last requirement his dark origin is openly revealed, so that
it is properly followed in St. Matthew's account by uiraye. ('Ay/a
,^/s = ttjlptl l^tf, a designation of Jerusalem as the centre of
the Old Testament theocracy. Tlregvyiov = P]23, a wing of the
temple, in the shape of a tower, with a flat roof. The conduct
ing Him thither took place b irviupan, Rev. xvii. 3.)

* [See Greswell's Dissertations on the Gospels, vol. ii., p. 192, ff., second edition.}
-Tr.

172 MATTHEW. IV. 6, 7, 8, 9.
Ver. 6. — The point of the second temptation lies in the
thought of parading the gift of working miracles ; this thought,
being clothed in the words of Scripture,* is suggested to our
Lord in a dazzling form. In this respect Jesus acted constantly
on the principle here approved, — His miracles always had refer
ence to the moral and spiritual world. The quoting of the
Scripture words was intended to excite His vanity from the
consciousness of His being the Son of God, through the medium
of the raptures inspired by the miraculous powers residing in
Him. Humble obedience, laying aside all one's own will, can
alone secure the victory in such a case. The passage is quoted
from Psalm xci. 11, according to the LXX., but in an abbre
viated form. In the context, the words apply to all the pious
in general, and represent them as under God's protection. But
the pious part of mankind, conceived as a whole, has its repre
sentative in the Messiah as the second Adam ; and therefore
it is quite right to refer the passage to the Messiah, only, the
application of it to cases of our own making is wrong. The
angels appear here as " ministering spirits, sent forth to minister
for them who shall be heirs of salvation." (See note on Heb.
i. 14.) The entire fulness of the heavenly powers is present
for those that fear God, as Paul says, " All things are yours."
(1 Cor. iii. 21, 22.)
Ver. 7. — Jesus meets the Tempter, who plants himself on the
temple, and makes free use of the word of God, with that same
Word. In the words of the passage (Deut. vi. 16) this thought
is expressed, that the perverse application of a correct principle
is a tempting of God. The words are quoted according to the
LXX. ('Exireigdfyiv is used in Luke x. 25 ; 1 Cor. x. 9, in a bad
sense only ; and not, therefore, of God's temptations.)
Ver. 8, 9. — This passage, as has been already observed, is
particularly to the point, as proof that the temptation is to be
conceived as an inward fact. A view of all the kingdoms of the
world is of course impossible from any physical elevation ; even
on the hypothesis of physical changes of place, we must still
bring to our assistance a spiritual ecstacy.f The mountain from

* Concerning the use of the words of Scripture on the part of angels, see
remarks on Luke i. 17.
t According to our view, we avoid the question altogether whether the ogos
i-v^jjXof Xlav was Tabor, or some other mountain, — a question we are utterly
destitute of data for answering.

MATTHEW IV. 8, 9, 10. 173
which Jesus viewed all the kingdoms of the earth, was the in- '
ward elevation of spirit on which He stood, and in which posi- j
tion the consciousness was given that it was possible for Him
to rule over the world. But in His holy humility and self-
abasement, He chose the cross instead of the crown. But that
we are not to think of a dominion over the Jews merely, but of
universal monarchy, is evident even from the Jewish notion of
a Messiah, which maintained it to be one of His prerogatives to
rule over all nations. (See Bertholdt, Christol. jud., p. 188.)
The idea, rightly conceived, is also perfectly correct and true.
In this last temptation, proud lust of dominion appears to be the
point. Satan is here manifested as the " prince of this world,"
(John xii. 31 ; xiv. 30 ; xvi. 11,) and as desirous of making
Jesus his instrument, (that is, Christ Antichrist,) since he aims
to delude Him by the promise of dominion over the world, and
by the revelation of its glory. As payment, the Tempter de
mands worship from Him. (UgogxweTv, taken as an outward rite,
such as kneeling or prostration, is to be conceived of here merely
as a symbolical expression of the inward spiritual act, at which
the temptation was aimed, — i. e., acquiescing in Satan's will,
permitting him to rule in the soul, and submitting to become
his instrument.) It was just this which disclosed to the Saviour
the dark nature of the being that suggested to Him the thoughts
which He dismissed ; and Jesus, therefore, bids the creature of
the night depart, with the word uiraye. — St. Luke's narrative
contains some peculiar traits. On occasion of the view of the
kingdoms of the earth from the mountain, he adds : iv gnyyjft
Xgbvou, = iv giirfj b<p$aX/Aou, 1 Cor. xv. 22, which is still more in
favour of the interpretation of this scene as a spiritual vision.
St. Luke next adds in his account of this temptation the fol
lowing words to what the devil said : on i/iol iragabiborai, xal w idt
6'eXu, blbupi abrnv. Xlagabiborai conveys a hint worthy of notice,
as opposing the doctrine of an original evil principle ; the prince
of this world has received all from God, to whom alone, as the
everlasting iravroxgdrug, dominion is due. The confession of
having received all, forms the strangest contrast with the
demand of worship. What the Tempter here says of himself, is
true of the Saviour in the purest and deepest sense. (See John
xvii. 22 ; Rev. xi. 15.)
Ver. 10. — In answer to this last temptation, the Saviour put
forward the first commandment, (Deut. vi. 13,) which contains

174 MATTHEW IV. 10, 11.
all the rest in itself. Only the One, the Eternal, the True God
of heaven and of earth, ought to be the object of worship. Where
the assumption of this divine prerogative shews itself, the spirit
of the devil is displayed. (See 2 Thess. ii. 4.) Through this
maintenance of the honour of God, not only this world, but the
other also, became the possession of Jesus ; to Him all power in
heaven and earth was given. (Aargeuu = 12J7 is stronger than
irgogxuven; the latter is used also of subordination to man, the
former refers only to God.)
Ver. 11. — The temptation of Jesus stands as one of those
decisive events, such as are met with in a lower degree in com
mon life also, and which, by the determination which we take
in them, give a direction to the whole after-life. As, after
Adam's first transgression, all subsequent sin was nothing but
the unfolding of original sin ; so this, the Saviour's first victory,
appears as the foundation of all those that follow after. The
Saviour here appears as standing between the two worlds of
light and darkness. As the hostile powers fled, heavenly
powers surrounded Him, and joined in celebrating the victory
of good.* The Tempter wished Christ to serve him, instead of
which the angels minister to Jesus, and announce that He is
King of the kingdom of light. The circumstance mentioned in
Mark i. 13 : nv perd ruv tingiuv, has also, as Usteri (ut. sup.)
strikingly observes, a typical meaning, because it is meant to
represent Jesus as the restorer of Paradise. Adam fell in
Paradise, and made it a wilderness ; Jesus conquered in the
wilderness, and made it a paradise, where the beasts lost their
wildness, and angels took up their abode. But that the
Redeemer's great conflict with the kingdom of darkness was
not over for ever, is expressly noticed in Luke iv. 13, in the
words : b bidBoXog diregrn dir aurou &xgi xaigou, which close the
history of the temptation.
Since, according to the view given above, the temptation of
Jesus took place in the depth of His inward life without wit
nesses, we must regard the narration of Jesus as the only
source of information, and testimony to its reality. This, and
similar events, probably formed the subject of Jesus' discourses

* After our Lord's second great temptation in Gethsemane, there appeared to
Him an angel to strengthen Him, Luke xxii. 43.' We may suppose something
of the same sort in this case.

MATTHEW IV. 11. 175
with the disciples after the resurrection, when He spoke to
them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. (Acts
i. 3.) In order to become acquainted with the nature of that
kingdom, it was needful that they should behold it in its estab
lishment, and into that, the temptation afforded the deepest
insight. The accurate agreement in the narratives of St.
Matthew and St. Luke, though writing quite independently of
each other, both as to the event itself, and its place in the
Gospel-history, is an external testimony to the event not easily
invalidated. It carries its internal testimony within itself, and
in the close connexion in which it stands with the person and
work of the Saviour.

THIRD PART.

OE
CHRIST'S WORKS AND DISCOURSES,
PARTICULARLY IN GALILEE.
Matth. iv. 12 — xviii. 35 ; Mask i. 14 — ix. 50 ; Luke iv. 14 — ix. 50.

§ 1. JESUS APPEARS AS A TEACHER.
(Matth. iv. 12-17 ; Mark i. 14, 15 ; Luke iv. 14, 15.)
Ver. 12. — Were it not that we are accurately instructed by
the accounts of the Evangelist John as to the many events
which intervened between the public appearance of Jesus and
the imprisonment of John, (see John iii. 24,) we should have
been led to conclude from Matth. iv. 12, and Mark i. 14, that
the incarceration followed close upon the temptation of Jesus.
This fact confirms the view detailed above, (Introduction, § 7,)
that in this part of the Gospel-history, a chronological arrange
ment of the individual events is impracticable, since it is
evidently by accident only that a comparison of John's nar
rative enables us to demonstrate, that the events thus connected
in the narrative are separated in point of time.* For even
though St. Luke does not mention John in this place, (see,
however, Luke iii. 19, 20,) yet he begins his narrative (iv. 1 5)
with the general statement, that Jesus " taught in their syna
gogues, being glorified of all ;" by which this section is deprived
of its chronological character. St. Matthew (iv. 23) applies
similar general formulas, which is a prima facie evidence that
he likewise renounces all pretensions to an exact chronological
arrangement of the several events. Such of the accounts of the
first three Evangelists as may be, with a certain amount of

* That this does not warrant any conclusion unfavourable to St. Matthew as
an author, is shewn by Sieffert, ut sup., S. 72.

MATTHEW IV. 12, 13, 177
probability, incorporated in the earliest history of Christ's
public ministry, cannot be arranged except by the help of the j
Gospel of St. John. The references to place are as indefinite
as those to time; particularly in St. Matthew. At the very
beginning of this section (iv. 12) this Evangelist does indeed
lay the scene in Galilee and Capernaum ; but when the attempt
is made to infer thence, that St. Matthew knew nothing of
Christ's extending His labours beyond the limits of Galilee,
till His last journey to Jerusalem, this conclusion is unwar
ranted ; for this reason, that it cannot possibly be demonstrated
where the separate events recorded by St. Matthew took place,
since this Evangelist, paying very inferior regard to matters of
time and place, arranged them all according to certain general
features.* Though it is probable, therefore, that St. Matthew,
as a Galilean, narrates especially what took place in Galilee,
yet his narrative assumes so general a form, (see from ix. 35
onwards ; x. 1 ; xi. 1, 2, 7 ; xii. 1-9. ; xv. 22,) that it may refer
to events in Judea quite as well as in Galilee.
Ver. 13. — After having intimated, in general terms, that the
Saviour selected Galilee as the chief scene of his ministry, St,
Matthew informs us that not Nazareth, the dwelling-place of
His parents, but Capernaum, became the centre of His labours.
(Kairegvaouft,, more correctly Kaipagvaou//,, = 0*|p!2 1D3, vicus con-
solationis. It lay on the lake of Gennesaret, [hence called
iragaktXaggla, see John vi. 17,] on the border of the tribes of j
Zebulun and Naphtali, in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida, not /
far from the mouth of the river Jordan.) There is no apparent
reason assigned here for His leaving Nazareth ; but, according
to Luke iv. 16-30, it was the unbelief of its inhabitants that
constrained our Lord to withdraw His blessed influence from
these ungrateful people. The parallels to this narrative in St.
Luke do not occur till Matth. xiii. 54, ff. ; Mark vi. 1, ff. ; and
the same cure, which St. Luke places immediately subsequent
to the occurrence at Nazareth, St. Mark (i. 21) transposes
quite to the commencement. Although we think it highly
probable, therefore, that St. Luke has placed the occurrence at
Nazareth in a more correct chronological order, still we have
preferred to postpone the exposition of that passage till we

" For a more complete discussion of this subject, see the author's programmes
on the authenticity of St. Matthew. M

178 MATTHEW IV. 13, 14, 15, 16.
come to Matth. xiii. 54, ff. For we should not think ourselves
justified in departing from our plan of following St. Matthew
in this part of the Gospel-history, unless it could be proved (as it
certainly cannot) that Luke iv. 16, ff., is to be understood of a
much earlier, and Matth. xiii. 54, ff., of a second, and much
later, visit of Jesus to Nazareth.
Ver. 14-16. — The Evangelist St. Matthew does not regard
the choice of just these districts as something accidental, but
recognizes in it the fulfilment of a prophecy of Isaiah, (viii. 22,
ix. 1.) The passage quoted contains the prediction, that the
light of the Messiah will be manifested with the greatest splen
dour in the most despised regions of Palestine. (Micah v. 1
is similar.) Moreover, St. Matthew gives the passage abbre
viated, and specifies only the names of the tribes of Naphtali
and Zebulun, and the neighbourhood of the lake of Genne-
saret, which latter part experienced most richly the blessing of
our Lord's presence, and witnessed the majority of His miracles.
(The expression bbbg OaXdggng = CH 1J11 denotes, undoubtedly,
the western shore of the lake of Gennesaret, here called Q1,
as ir'egav rou 'logbdvou = IT^H "123J denotes the eastern shore of
the same lake. The two expressions, therefore, taken together,
include all its circumjacent parts; and, according to the Gos
pel-history, the Saviour is known to have visited both shores of
the lake of Gennesaret.) Of the inhabitants of these northern
border provinces, it might be said most emphatically, that they
lived in spiritual darkness ; in part, because they were far dis
tant from the theocratic centre, — Jerusalem and the temple, in
which the true knowledge of God, so far as it existed among
the people, was collected ; in part also, because they had not
kept themselves free from much that was impure, through con
tinual contact with their heathen neighbours. But, at the same
time, these very inhabitants of Galilee, whom the rigid Jews
despised as half heathen, were most fitted to receive the new
doctrine of the kingdom of God; since they were freed from
their gross exclusiveness by intercourse with people of the
neighbouring states, while, at the same time, their degraded
condition made their need of salvation very prominent. As,
therefore, the sinner (as a penitent) is nearer to the kingdom
of God than the righteous, (Matth. ix. 13,) so our Lord mani
fested himself to the poor Galileans in preference to the other
inhabitants of Palestine. (On the opposition of <pug and <rxo'ros,

MATTHEW IV. 17. 179
see further in note on John i. 3, 4. 2x;a Savdrov is after the
Hebrew ntt?7^> which is commonly used as synonymous with
"•JCfll. The LXX. derived it from b% and Dp.)
Ver. 17. — After this notice of the locality, St. Matthew
mentions briefly the matter of the Saviour's preaching. He
confines himself to the same points which he had spoken of
in John's preaching, (iii. 2) — repentance, urged by the near
approach of the kingdom of God. The Saviour's proclamation
was at first naturally connected with that of John; yet the
remark in Mark i. 15, is certainly not to be overlooked, that
wigrig was connected immediately with /ierdvoia* and that, r
not merely a general irigrig, such as formed the groundwork
even of the Old Testament, but a irigreutiv b r£> ebayyeXlu. (On
irigng, see notes on Matth. viii. 1 ; ix. 2 ; xiii. 58 ; xvii. 20.)
The ebayyeXiov implies here the BagiXeia ruv obgavuv, as actually
present and represented in the living person of the Messiah,
foretold by the prophets, and so long desired. Jesus announced
that thus all that was ever foretold and desired was fulfilled in
Him, and that the new principle of fife bestowed by Him
demands only to be received. The phrase : b xaigbg ireirXngurai,
(Mark i. 15,) evidently points, like Gal. iv. 4, to an established
order of development, and internal regularity in it. The time
of the Saviour's incarnation, as well as His public appearance
among the people, were necessary epochs fixed by divine ap
pointment. § 2. JESUS CHOOSES DISCIPLES.
(Matth. iv. 18-22 ; Mark i. 16-20.)
The calling of the brothers, Peter and Andrew, and after
wards of James and John, (of whom a fuller account will be

* Schleiermacher remarks beautifully in his Festpredigten, ii., S. 93,— "When
Christ commands repentance, He does it with a powerful word, to which the
act is not lacking. This word, which commands repentance, and which, properly
speaking, creates the new spiritual world, since every one comes into existence
there through repentance alone, is just as powerful and effectual as the com
manding word, which summoned into existence the external world around us."
Christ's preaching of repentance is, therefore, quite different from John's ; the
former was accompanied by the Spirit, who creates it : it is itself a Gospel ; the
latter, like the Old Testament 'in general, demands without giving. Even
repentance is a gift of God.

180 MATTHEW IV. 23- VII. 29.
found in note on Matth. x. 1, ff.,) is left, in this place, without
either an explanation of the motives for it, or a full description
of the circumstances. It is certain from St. John, (chap, i.,)
that these disciples became known to Christ immediately after
His baptism ; and this passage refers, therefore, only to their
being received to a more intimate companionship with the
Saviour. St. Matthew, whom St. Mark here follows, means to
make a passing allusion to the calling of the Apostles, in order
immediately to pass to the discourses of Jesus, which were, to
him, the most important subject.
(On mingu uimg dXietg dvdgiiiruv, see note on Luke v. 10, where
the thought stands in a more definite connexion. — ' A/^cplBXnffrgov,
from d/ipiBaXXu, does not occur elsewhere in the New Testa
ment. It signifies a double net of considerable size, while blxruot
means a net of smaller size, used either for hunting or fishing:
On QdXagga rrjg TaXiXalag, see note on Luke v. 1.)

§ 3. Christ's sermon on the mount.
(Matth. iv. 23— vii. 29.)
The Evangelist first sketches, in its general features, the work
of the Saviour who had appeared — the same words occur Matth;
ix. 35 — in order afterwards to portray fully His labours as a
teacher. He diffused blessings on all sides, and went about to
do good ; like the sun, quietly and majestically pursuing His
course. He did not demand like the Law, but poured blessings
on men ; He shewed by actions that the kingdom of God was
come ; teaching and healing, restoring soul and body, were His
great business. (Synagogues [gwayuyn = jlMSJl rV'2] are not
mentioned till after the captivity. See Joseph. Antiq. xix. 6, 3,
de Bell. Jud. vii. 3, 3. In the time of Jesus they were spread all
over Palestine, as well as among the dispersed Jews, [biagirogd ;]
in Jerusalem there are said to have been 480 of them. Smaller
places of meeting in villages, or for smaller congregations, were
called irgogeuxal; [Acts xvi. 13.] They served, like the syna
gogues, for the daily meetings for prayer ; doctors of the law,
even if they were not exactly priests or Levites, could speak in
them. — NoVos and jhaXaxla are related as sthenic and asthenic
disorders, while Bdgavos denotes especially such diseases as are
accompanied with excruciating pains.)

MATTHEW IV. 24, 25; V. 1. 181
Ver. 24. — The fame of Christ's healing power (the effects of
which are not particularly narrated till viii. 1*) spread through
the whole. land as far as the borders of Syria, and all the sick
people came to Him in crowds. ('Axo^ = JU^Ol) ; Luke iv.
37 has nx°s- — Sug/a denotes the regions of Palestine bordering
on Syria, and the border districts of Syria itself, which the
Saviour touched in His journeys. — St. Mark has in the parallel
passage, i. 28 : elg rnv iregixugov rng TaXiXaiag. We shall after
wards speak particularly of the different forms of disease. — On
the bai/uiviZbpevoi, see note on Matth. viii. 28. — leXnvtdZegQai is not
found elsewhere in the New Testament, except in Matth. xvii.
15. — 2uvexeiv = 1*|JJ, to bind, to fetter; the disease is conceived
as some power that restrains the free action of the organization.)
Ver. 25. — People from all parts of the Jewish land, stimu
lated by the mighty manifestations of His healing power, joined
our Lord, and accompanied Him (some distance) in His jour
neys, in order to enjoy His society the longer.
7 (AexdiroXig, Mark v. 20; vii. 31. In Plin. H. N. V. 16, regio
decapolitana, a district of ten towns, which cannot, however, be
named with certainty, on the further side of the Jordan, in the
tribe of Manasseh. See note on Matth. viii. 28.)
Chap. v. ver. 1. — After this preliminary description of the
cures wrought by Jesus, and the impression they made upon the
people, St. Matthew immediately introduces his readers to the
long discourse of Jesus, which, from the locality on which it was
delivered, is usually called The Sermon on the Mount. But before
we consider minutely this first larger division in the Gospel by
St. Matthew, we shall prefix some general observations.!
The Sermon on the Mount, in the form in which it is given
us by St. Matthew, cannot possibly have formed a whole when
delivered by Jesus. For the connexion of the sentences is such
as to make it appear extremely improbable that the Saviour
should, in speaking, have thus passed from one thought to
another ; such an arrangement cannot be justified, except for a

* Compare also the explanations on the cures by Jesus and His Apostles in
general, given in the note on Matth. viii. 1.
t This important section, the antitype of the giving of the Law on Mount
Sinai, has been frequently the subject of special treatises ; particularly by Pott,
(Helmstadt, 1789 ;) Bau, (Erlangen, 1805 ;) Grosze, (Gottingen, 1819 ;) best of all,
by Tholuch, (Hamburg, 1833. The third edition appeared in 1845.) Among the
Fathers, Augustine has left a separate work on the Sermon on the Mount.

182 MATTHEW V. 1.
written composition, and the special objects of the Evangelist.
But a comparison of St. Luke is decisive in favour of this
opinion.* We do indeed find in that Gospel (vi. 17, ff.) a dis
course of Jesus, evidently very nearly related to the Sermon on
the Mount in St. Matthew, and at the beginning and end appar
ently identical with it ; but it is much shorter than that in St.
Matthew. If it should be said, St. Luke gives an epitome of
the full discourse in St. Matthew, it is true, that in St. Luke
there are only two verses (vi. 39, 40) which St. Matthew has
in a different connexion, (xv. 14 ; x. 24 ;) as, however, these
verses are both conceived in a proverbial form, they might have
been uttered on more than one occasion. But those parts, which
St. Matthew only has in the Sermon on the Mount, are placed,
for the most part, in quite a different connexion in St. Luke,
and that connexion, too, so accurately fixed, that we are com
pelled to regard them as preserved by St. Luke in their original
connexion.! In addition to this, there evidently prevails, in
St. Luke's Gospel, an accuracy of historical combination, which
is wanting in that of St. Matthew. If, therefore, we wish to
maintain the unity of the Sermon on the Mount, we are driven
to the hypothesis, that those parts of it which stand in St.
Luke in a different and distinctly specified connexion, (e. g., the
Lord's Prayer, Luke xi. 1, ff., compared with Matth. vi. 7, ff.,)
were spoken twice. But as this hypothesis will scarcely find
supporters now, there is no alternative left but to adopt the
opinion, that the unity of the Sermon on the Mount has not
descended to us from the Saviour himself, but from St.
Matthew. St. Matthew attached parts of kindred discourses to
one actually delivered by Jesus under definite circumstances.
These circumstances, under which Jesus spake, are exactly
detailed by St. Luke. According to Luke vi. 12, ff., Jesus

* Tholuch has decided that the discourse in St. Matthew is the original, lay
ing particular stress on the circumstance, that our Lord might have repeated
many things twice. Granting this, however, the place of the Lord's Prayer in
St. Matthew cannot but be pronounced less appropriate than that which it occu
pies in St. Luke. That which Tholuck (Clark's Biblical Cabinet, No. xx., p.
134) says, — viz., that our Lord may have repeated the prayer to one of His dis
ciples, according to Luke xi. 1, is possible indeed, but not probable.
t On the connexion of the single passages in St. Luke, which are parallel with
passages in the Sermon on the Mount, see the Commentary on St. Luke, from
ix. 51, onward.

MATTHEW V. 1. 183
had gone up to a mountain* for the purpose of prayer. In the
morning after the prayer, He completed the number of the
twelve disciples, (see note on Matth. x. 2,) and, descending to
the level ground, (xaraBdg 'igrn iirl rbirou irebivou, Luke vi. 17,)
taught the people who pressed upon Him. The circumstance
that Jesus, according to St. Luke, descended from the moun
tain, while, according to St. Matthew, (v. 1,) He went up to
it, may be thus reconciled, — either St. Matthew connects the
previous ascent with the teaching, without mentioning the sub
sequent descent; or the pressure of the people, eager to be
healed, caused Jesus, after His descent, to retire up the hill, so
as to be able thence to address a greater multitude. This
appears to have been one of the first public and solemn dis
courses of Jesus addressed to vast multitudes. (Hence dvoi^as
rb grbpa aurou, [ver. 2,] which Tholuck correctly regards as
denoting the solemn and silently expected commencement of
the discourse.) As such, St. Matthew made use of it to attach
to it all those parts of other discourses, which might appear
appropriate for the purpose of giving a general view of the
peculiarities of the Gospel, in relation to the Old Testament.
Neither the oral discourse of the Saviour, nor St. Matthew's
written one, could have been intended as an initiatory discourse
for the disciples. Both were intended as much for the multi
tudes as for the disciples, (Matth. v. 1 ; Luke vi. 17, 20 ;) but it
certainly was intended to supply to all a view into the nature
of the kingdom of God. According to St. Matthew, the dis
course appears like a second giving of the law, which is
distinguished from that on Sinai, because, in the first place, it
.teaches the freest spiritual interpretation of the commandments,
and, in the second, presupposes ft,erdvoia, (as an effect of the law
of Moses, Rom. iii. 20,) and, with the law, proclaims, at the
same time, the grace which accomplishes its fulfilment. This
placing of the New Testament lawgiving! at the commence-

* On the situation of the mountain, it is impossible to come to a definite
opinion. Tabor has been thought of by some, probably incorrectly. Tradition
speaks of a hill near Saphet (Bethulia) under the name "Hill of the Beatitudes,"
as that from which our Lord pronounced this discourse.
t The assertion, that Christ was not a lawgiver, contains a truth which I by
no means wish to deny by my view of the Sermon on the Mount. The specific
end of the Saviour's work was not to bring any new law, but to deliver from the
yoke of all law. But in so far as He taught us to view the law of the Old Testa-

184 MATTHEW V. 1.
ment of the Messiah's work, is designed for the members of the
Old Testament theocracy, who, on the authority of Deuter
onomy xviii. 15, ff., looked upon the Messiah as a second
Moses. In both Evangelists, St. Matthew as well as St. Luke, a con
nexion may be traced in the discourses. It is, indeed, more
close in St. Luke, as he gives the discourse in an abbreviated
form.* For as, in the first part, four woes exactly correspond
to the four beatitudes, (ver. 21-26,) so, again, the exhortations
to pure, disinterested love (ver. 27-31) correspond to the de
scriptions of natural interested love, which does not come up to
the Gospel, (ver. 32-34,) and is followed, by way of conclusion,
(ver. 35-38,) and with a reference to ver. 27, by the renewed
exhortation to the disciples of the New Testament to live in
pure, sincere love. The whole, therefore, forms a delineation
of the nature of the Gospel, in contrast with the stern law ;
only, that this contrast is presented more at length and in a
stronger light in St. Matthew. At ver. 39, St. Luke breaks off
in the discourse with the remark, that the Saviour continued His
address in parables. (On iragaBoXn, see note on Matth. xiii. 3.)
The words : dXX' u/uii Xeyu, probably indicate an abbreviation of
the discourse, as St. Luke has omitted here the more pointed
contrast between the Old and New Testaments, furnished by
St. Matthew (v. 13-43.) The parabolical parts are also incor
porated by St. Matthew, only in quite a different order. We
may, therefore, conclude, with probability, that they formed an
integral part of Christ's address. This arrangement of the
parables, as given by St. Luke, is thoroughly natural. For in
all of them this thought is presented to the disciples, that, so
far as they desired to gain credit in the world for the new higher
principle of life, (before described,) they must first fully adopt it

ment, in its spirituality, as it had not till then been viewed, He reiterated, as
it were, the law of Sinai, and perfected it. Moreover, as Son of God, the
Sinaitic law is His also. Moses was but the ftegirng at its proclamation; and it
was not simply law for others, but for himself also. See Schleiermacher's beauti
ful explanation of this point in the Festpredigten, B. ii., S. 66.
* I cannot coincide with Schleiermacher's view of the discourse in St. Luke,
(Ueber die Schriften des Lucas, S. 89, ff.,) who thinks unfavourably of it. The
discourse is, indeed, abridged, (the "woes" only appear to be explanatory addi
tions, see note on Matth. v. 3,) but still, in the main, it is accurately and con
nectedly epitomized.

MATTHEW V. 1. 185
as their own, and live according to it. Accordingly, they must
first be cured of their spiritual blindness — have the motes re
moved out of their eyes — themselves bring forth good fruit, and
build their house on the eternal foundation of God's word, (in
opposition to pharisaical human doctrine,) and then they may
help others. The only passage which does not seem to fit in
with this course of thought, is ver. 40, on which see the remarks
on Matth. x. 24. On closer consideration of the context, how
ever, this thought also appears to be inserted in its appropriate
place. The previous expression, " Can the blind lead the blind ?"
(ver. 39,) as well as the subsequent parable of the mote, (ver.
41, ff.,) evidently points to the Pharisees, as exercising a deter
mining influence on the Old Testament life, in the form which
it had taken among the Jews at that time. For these Pharisees
were occupied with the hypocritical work of seeking to produce
in others what was lacking in themselves ; and against this our
Lord intends to warn in His parables. The thought that " the
disciple is not above his master," fits thus very properly into the
train of thought : " Break loose from all attachment to your old
teacher ; the law and Pharisees cannot guide you farther than
they themselves have reached, and the perfect scholar is only
equal to the teacher ; choose me rather as your new teacher, with
decision and earnestness ; then you will not remain blind leaders
of the blind, but will walk in the light of the living."
As in St. Luke, so also in the Sermon on the Mount, as given
by St. Matthew, a connexion may be traced.* For though we
must suppose that St. Matthew has Connected kindred thoughts
uttered by the Saviour on other occasions with those uttered at
this time, yet out of them the Spirit of God in him formed a
new connected whole. The beginning and the end, according to
St. Matthew's narrative, agree perfectly with the discourse in
St. Luke, which circumstance sufficiently proves their identity.
Only in the fifth chapter St. Matthew carries out the contrast
between the Old and New Testaments much more carefully,
since he accurately expounds the nature of both in a series of
propositions. In this form the discourse appears more expressly
as the giving of a new and more spiritual law ; but, at the same
time, with the law grace is brought into view, since the increased

* See R. Slier, in his " Andeutungen," Th. i., S. 104, f. The connexion is more
minutely considered at the individual passages.

186 MATTHEW V. 1.
strictnesss of the commandments follows on the blessing of the
poor and the sorrowing. Hence true repentance, which neces
sarily includes faith, is presupposed, in order to receive the law
of love. By means of this, really to receive the higher principle
of life into oneself, and to preserve it, and thus properly to con
ceive of the relation of Gospel and Law, is the connecting
thought between the beatitudes and our Lord's new command
ments. (See Matth. v. 13-20.) Of the new commandments,
six forms are specified by way of example, (ver. 21-47 ;) in
which, however, the spirit of the New Testament was suffi
ciently unfolded, so that the general proposition in ver. 48, " Be
ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect," might conclude this comparison. Then, in the sixth
chapter, the Evangelist, with a reference to chap. v. 20, proceeds
further in the comparison of Old and New Testament piety,
viewing the Pharisees as the representatives of the Old Testa
ment, — impure representatives indeed, but at that time exer
cising a potent influence on the popular religious character.
The sincerity and reality of the spiritual fife form a contrast to
the external show and pretence of pharisaic piety. The usual
forms in which such piety exhibited itself, — viz., alms-giving,
(ver. 2,) praying, (ver. 5,) and fasting, (ver. 16,) form the points
in which the Saviour unfolds the contrast of the New Testament
with the Old. The giving of the Lord's Prayer forms here the
centre, since, in the first half of it, the spirituality of aim in the
members of the New Testament, and, in the second half, a state
of repentance, is set forth as essential for the members of the
kingdom of God, and, at the same time, as the deficiency of the
Pharisees. The close of the chapter (ver. 19-34) is occupied
with a discussion on the relation of the children of the kingdom
to the necessities of their life on earth, particularly food (ver.
25) and clothing, (ver. 28 ;) and this concludes the contrast
between the New and the Old Testaments, which prevails
through the whole discourse. The Pharisees, in their eager
ness to gather earthly treasure, (see Luke xvi. 13, 14,) served
two masters, (Matth. vi. 24,) and thus corrupted the singleness
of their spiritual eye, (ver. 22, 23 ;) but instead of that, childlike
faith in the fatherly love of God, and consequently an entire
separation from all care for earthly things, are insisted on as the
marks of the children of God, which places our Lord's Prayer in
a more striking light, as embodying all the wishes and cares of

MATTHEW V. 1, 3. 187
the children of the kingdom. The thoughts, which are con
nected in the seventh chapter more loosely, are gathered up by
the concluding exhortation, and placed in connexion with what
precedes. After the contrast between the piety of the Old and
New Testaments, the whole is appropriately concluded by an
exhortation to the hearers, in everything to exemplify the
character of the higher life in the kingdom of God. The first
condition insisted upon is to have a constant regard to our own
sins, with true repentance, and a warning is given against that
regard to others which diverts us from the true aim, (ver. 1-5 ;)
still, a reckless casting of what is good before men unnecessarily
is forbidden, (ver. 6.) With this negative view, the positive one
(ver. 7-14) is conjoined, — viz., the exhortation to serious prayer
and striving, as necessary conditions of the perfecting of a life
in God. A call to a searching examination of all to whose
influence they resigned themselves, forms the close, (ver. 15-23,)
while the last verses (24-27) present, in figurative language, the
consequences of a faithful application of the word of God, heard
by us, as well as of a careless use of such a blessing.
In the form thus given by the Evangelist to the discourse of
Jesus from the Mount, it constitutes a magnificent porch by
which the reader of the Gospel is conducted into the temple of
Jesus' ministry. It may be said, that His whole subsequent
life, all His discourses and conversations, form a commentary
on the Sermon on the Mount, in which the quintessence of all
that is peculiar to the kingdom of our Lord is contained.
Ver. 3. — St. Matthew opens the Sermon on the Mount with
a grand collection of the main features in the character of the
children of the kingdom of God, and the children of the world.
It is true, that the features of the latter are not expressly men
tioned, but they are implied in the description by contrast;
woes not uttered on the latter, are opposed to the blessings
pronounced on the former. St. Luke, who has chosen the
second person as more appropriate to a discourse than the third,
makes this contrast distinctly prominent, (vi. 24-26 ;) but
as he abridges the number of the beatitudes, it is not im
probable that he has expressly enunciated this contrast only for
the sake of greater plainness. The discourse would have been
too long and uniform, if there were a aba! to answer to each of
St. Matthew's sentences. But if we were inclined to regard St.
Matthew's fuller record as an amplification of our Lord's shorter

188 . MATTHEW V. 3.
discourse, that opinion would be refuted by the peculiarity of
the sentences found in St. Matthew alone; a supplementary
amplification of the fundamental thought would have been of a
less profound and original character. Besides, nothing essential
is wanting in St. Luke's abridged form ; the first and last bless
ings he has preserved, and omitted nothing but the rich ampli
fication. In St. Matthew, the arrangement of the separate
sentences is such, that ver. 3 corresponds with ver. 10, where
the words, " theirs is the kingdom of heaven," with which the
discourse commenced, recur. Consequently, there are only seven
beatitudes to be reckoned, for ver. 10-12 do not add any new
thought ; they merely form the transition to what follows, since
they characterize the relation which the children of God bear
to the world, the description of their subjective character being
completed. In all the beatitudes, the one thought is expressed,
that, according to God's law of eternal recompense, he who here
thirsts for divine things shall obtain full satisfaction in the king
dom of God; but, on the contrary, he who is satisfied with
passing vanities, shall hereafter experience, as his punishment,
the longing for that which is eternal. There is, therefore, here
no contrast between virtue and vice ; even the Old Testament
punishes crime; but the sensible need of salvation is placed in
contrast with the deadness of the natural man, who, without a
deeper craving for eternal things, can find his rest in what is
transitory. Over them a woe is pronounced, because, when the
passing things in which they rest, shew their true character,
disquietude will thence arise. The position which Christ thus
takes up, is therefore one above the law; this last is seen to have
fulfilled its office, a sense of the need of salvation is awakened
(Rom. iii. 20) — the matter is now to satisfy it. The only cir
cumstance that occasions surprise is, that several of the points
particularized by the Saviour : /taxdgioi ol irgctel's, oi iXen^oveg, xaDagol,
elgnvoiroiol, appear to rise above this condition of awakened need
of salvation, inasmuch as they express an inward state of moral
excellence. But this feature is easily accounted for, if we
remember how frequently, in the language of Christ and His
Apostles, the germ of the new higher life is viewed as coincident
with its consummation. True poverty of spirit, as the necessary
condition of every development of the higher life, includes it ;
and in this very unity Christ views it here. Thus understood,
the first sentences of the Sermon on the Mount contain a

MATTHEW V. 3. 189
description of the character of God's children, which is true
for all gradations of development, for the highest as well as the
lowest. For as In the lowest, purity of heart exists in its germ,
so also in the highest, poverty of spirit is still maintained.
The first word of instruction which St. Matthew puts into the
Saviour's mouth is, /mxagwi ol irruxol, with the addition of ru
meu/ucn, which must be supplied in St. Luke, where it is want
ing.* The term irruxbg corresponds to the Hebrew *W which
so frequently occurs in the Psalms with a kindred meaning. It
comes near to raireivbg = bo® (Prov. xxix. 23, TVT\ ^DtW)
yet it is not synonymous with it, because even he who is
endowed with the fulness of the Divine Spirit may be called /
raireivbg, (Jesus calls himself so, Matth. xi. 29,) but not irruxbg. I
The word denotes here (as the hungering and thirsting in ver.
6) the state of spiritual need, the sincere repentance of the
soul. — Tlveu/Aa must not, by any means, be applied to ingenuity,
mental capacity (vous;) for the most ingenious, as well as the
weak, must become poor ; but to the whole higher, yet natural, /
vital principle in man. A sense of the insufficiency of this
principle for attaining true righteousness and holiness, and a
desire for a higher principle that can lead thither, — i. e., the
Holy Spirit, are the conditions of the BagiXeia entering the '
heart; it is even the presence of the kingdom itself; for the
strict sense of the present tense should be retained here, as in
verse 10, since the true irruxela includes the kingdom of heaven
in its germ, because it is the noblest fruit of preparatory grace
in the soul. The irXougwi form the contrast, (Luke vi. 24,) who,
filled with what is present and vain, have no longing for the
world to come. (" Ye have received your consolation," Matth.
vi. 2.) Hence the BagiXeia is not an object of their desire, and
consequently they receive it not. But the kingdom of God is
here presented to us throughout as purely inward and spiritual ;
it seeks for nothing dazzling — nothing pleasing to the eye of
man; but, on the contrary, it stoops to what is despised and

* Strauss takes the beatitudes in St. Luke in quite a different — an Ebionitic —
sense, — viz., that of outward poverty and distress. Such an idea is very foreign
to the New Testament. According to its representation, external poverty, apart
from internal, is of no value. But in so far as external wealth is wont ordinarily
to be associated with a clinging of spirit to worldly possessions, the term irruxol
may include a reference to the poor of this world.

190 MATTHEW V. 3, 4, 5, 6.
unworthy. In the view of those Jews whose senses were
dazzled with brilliant pictures of the Messiah's kingdom, this
commencement of His discourse contrasted strongly with the
whole circle of their ideas; but to those in whom the law
had fulfilled its office, and who were, broken-hearted, such
language was a balm. But that we are not to forget the out
ward, while making the inward aspect prominent, is manifest
from ver. 5.
Ver. 4. — The second sentence merely adds an additional trait
to the fundamental disposition just pronounced blessed. Mourn
ing (irevkn) joins to the feeling of poverty a consciousness of
suffering, which is to be regarded as arising from sin. (St. Luke
uses xXainv, to weep, with the same reference ; only he has placed
those who hunger before those who weep.) Hence iragaxaXetg&ai
here involves the idea of forgiveness, which is conceived only
in its beneficial result, expressed in St. Luke by yeXav, used in
a noble, sacred sense. Wherefore the Messiah, the author of
consolation, is called iragdxXnrog = DHM? comforter, (John xiv.
16.) Ver. 5, 6. — It appears as if ver. 6 must be connected imme
diately with the first two sentences, as in St. Luke, because in
it physical appetite after sustenance of the body is employed to
express spiritual appetite. (On this comparison see Psalm xiii.
1 ; Isa. lxv. 13; Amos viii. 11.) This thought differs from ver.
3, 4, only in the object of desire ; this last appears to be right
eousness, no longer regarded, as outward, but the inward New
Testament bixaioguvn ®eou, (see note on Rom. iii. 21.) The inser
tion of ver. 5 is explicable on this ground, that the desire of
the children of the kingdom is meant to be described in its
progress, ngaorjjs is to be viewed as the first fruit of the
irevkli. A sense of our own guilt — complete repentance — ren
ders us gentle in judging of others. He who has actually received
forgiveness carries a forgiving principle within. Thereby not
only is the kingdom of God in him, but he also will be in the
kingdom of God. — In this place the Future retains its full
import, because the xXngovopetv rnv ynv is not synonymous with :
n BagiXeia 'igrn abruv, (ver. 3, 10.) The phrase corresponds to
the Hebrew formula yiN tlTP, (Deut. xix. 14 ; Psalm xxv. 13 ;
xxxvii. 9,) and may be traced to the Old Testament view of
the land of Canaan, as the earthly object of the divine promises.
The possession of this land is therefore the symbol of all and

MATTHEW V. 6, 7, 8. 191
every divine blessing. That possession "is viewed ideally in
Heb. iv. In this place, in connexion with the kingdom of
heaven, which is 'viewed in the irruyoi as spiritually present, the
phrase denotes the full realization of the kingdom of God, even
in its external manifestation. Thus viewed, the land of Pales
tine stands as a symbol of the earth in general, conceived as
restored and sanctified to God. The Saviour connects parti
cipation in the kingdom of God thus realized, with irgabrng,
because that kingdom, being a fellowship of brotherly love and
union, is opposed to the disunion prevailing in the world, and
in its perfected harmony only that which is akin to itself can
find a place there.
Ver. 7. — In the following verses the consummation of the
inward life, originating from a moral craving, appears in more
distinct traits. First, with respect to the term iXenpove?, it
differs from irgaetg (ver. 5) in this, that while the latter bear
their brother's guilt with love, the former kindly assists him in
his distresses. So far as distresses and guilt are connected, the
two terms are quite identical. This declaration, therefore, fol
lows the hunger and thirst after righteousness very appropri
ately ; the sense of our own distresses awakens sympathy for
those of others. It is, however, remarkable, that mercy is pro
mised as something future, even to those who shew mercy ;
while it would appear as if, contrariwise, the experience of the
divine mercy towards ourselves would first awaken compassion.
The thought is rendered clear at once, if we consider that the
character of the iXen/iuv must always be taken relatively. Every
one in whose heart compassionate love has been stirred up by
the experience of mercy, still stands in need of divine forbear
ance, because the life of love in him is, after all, only in its'
infancy, and is mixed with all the imperfections of the old
man.* Ver. 8. — The two following declarations must also be taken
with the same restriction ; for absolute inward purity would
necessarily be one with the present seeing of God, which is
here connected with xaktgbrng as something yet future. KaOagbg
rfj xagbla = 227 12 (Psalm xxiv. 4,) forms the contrast to moral
guiragla, (James i. 21.) Kakcgbrng is not specifically different
from bixaioguvn, (ver. 6.) In the two expressions the same condi-

* See remarks on the interesting parallel passage in James ii. 13.

192 MATTHEW V. 8, 9.
tion of the soul is viewed, only in different lights. But what is
stated in ver. 6, as to be desired, is here represented to have
been (relatively) attained ; and, consequently, the fife of the
children of the kingdom is again conceived in its inward pro
gress. Although all relative purity of heart is necessarily
accompanied by an inward seeing of God, since nothing but the
presence of the Divine Spirit in the heart can produce purity,
yet that is not to be compared with the perfected vision of the
divine glory, which is, therefore, here spoken of as future.
( Oirregkti Qebv = QTf7N 'OS UNI, [Psalm xfii. 3,1 involves, of
• ' v:, ": T T* U # J
course, the idea of the highest blessedness ; but is not, by any
means, to be taken as an empty figure. The expression in
volves rather the capacity, though marred by sin, of the human
soul really to recognize its eternal source — the highest good.
This capacity presupposes close relationship to the divine,
for it is only like that can receive its like. Wherever, therefore,
a divine nature is born in the soul, from the craving for the
divine, the capacity of knowing God's eternal nature is re
vealed ; which knowledge, conceived as complete, is subsequent
to our life on earth.* On this point see notes on Matth. xi.
27 ; John xvii. 3.)
Ver. 9. — In the last stage of moral perfection, the idea of
elgnvn is put forward. It is represented as realized by the
members of the BagiXeia. 'Elgnvoiroibg is very distinct from
elgnveuuv. The latter signifies one who maintains peace already
existing ; the former, one who makes it when wanting. Hence,
in the elgnvoiroibs, a (relative) purity is supposed, because the
element of strife, sin, must be banished from his heart, and that
of peace must be active there, if his labours are to have any'
effect. That the being a child of God is viewed as connected
with the elgnvoiroibg, is explained by the fact, that in the term
ulbg ©sou, the greatest blessing is implied which can be promised
to man. For in the ulbg, the idea of spiritual relationship
appears ; agreeably with which the true son is the image of the
Father. The God of peace (2 Cor. xiii. 11) begets children of
peace, whose actions are peace. This (perfected) character of
sonship to God is represented as future, or, at most, as present
* When we read in John i. 18, " No man hath seen God at any time," where
the idea is implied, " No man can see God — He is invisible to the creature,"
(1 Tim. vi. 16.) This refers to the foundation of the divine essence — the Father
God can be seen only in the Son. See the fuller discussion in note on Johni. 18.

MATTHEW V. 9, 10, 11, 1. 193
in its germ. (KaXeTgfoa =. ehai, with the meaning of " being
essentially," see note on Luke i. 35.) The same thought is
expressed Matth. v. 45. This implies, that all the gradations
of moral perfection must be viewed relatively here on earth.
The state of perfection hereafter is identical with sonship to
God. Accordingly, men in their sinful nature are not children
of God. They need first a higher principle of life, that must
be imparted by Him who is Son of God in the full sense — a
principle which is received in the desire for the divine, (in
penitent faith,) and is gradually unfolded till it attains that
point. Ver. 10. — After having completed the description of the
inward state of the true children of God, our Lord passes on to
portray their relation to the world of dbixla. In so doing, He
connects ver. 3 by repeating in this verse the words : " Theirs
is the kingdom of heaven." The righteousness is here conceived
as complete in the children of the kingdom, as they are viewed
purely in contrast with the world.
Ver. 11, 12. — These two verses are merely an expansion
of the thought in ver. 10. Under the reign of dbixla, bixaioguvn
must necessarily suffer. The different forms of persecution by
word and by deed are then more particularly specified.* ('Oxs/-
dlfyiv is persecution by word, bmxeiv by act. Luke vi. 22 has
added dpoglteiv, to separate, to exclude from ecclesiastical and
political communion. At the head of them all is put slander,
[irovngbv gnpa eliretv ^/eubbfievog^] such as the charges of murder and
licentious habits brought against the first Christians. St.
Luke has given the thought somewhat modified : rb ovo/ut iig
trovngbv ixBdXXeiv = apogiZeiv, only a stronger expression.) But our
Lord adds, as the peculiar feature of the persecution, which is
endured because of the truth, that it is evexev i/mu. By this
weighty expression, we first learn the true import of the
doctrine of Christian patience, which is much akin to self-
denial, which also is to be exercised only evexev rou xuglou. (See
note on Matth. x. 39.) Since Jesus is himself the truth and
the righteousness, and that, too, manifested in a living person,

* According to John xvi. 4, the Saviour did not at first speak to His disciples
of the persecutions that awaited them. It is not improbable, therefore, that the
mention of them in this place is among the parts taken from later discourses.
Yet they are found mentioned as early as Luke vi. 22. N

194 MATTHEW V. 11, 12, 13.
pure suffering for what is good requires faith in Him to be
exercised by the members of the kingdom of God. Where
selfishness prevails, there cannot be such suffering as bestows
happiness. But where such suffering is incurred for the faith's
sake, and is borne in faith, it perfects the inward life, and
awakens the desire for eternity. This last circumstance is very
prominent in ver. 12, since we are there called upon even to
rejoice in opposition to the sufferings. ('AyaXXidu = yi$r It
is a stronger term than %a/gs;n.. Luke vi. 23 uses gxigrb-v.) This
joy, with respect to ourselves, does not exclude sorrow in
reference to the persecutors. In the former respect, the suffer
ing is only a testimony to the believer that He is God's. In
the " woe '' (vi. 26) St. Luke presents the other aspect. The
exciting of human applause presupposes a worldly spirit.
Where that is given, it is to be feared that the applauded one
belongs to the community of the wicked, and of the false
teachers, (^euboirgopnrai,) just as the persecuted one is thereby
numbered with the company of persecuted prophets. (The
reference to the prophets gives greater prominence to that
aspect of the discourse, which shews it to have been addressed
principally to the actual fiaSnral, ver. 1.) The mention of the
(ugObg, ver. 12, appears remarkable, as it seems to reconduct to a
legal standing. In the kingdom of God, the motive for actions
is not the reward in itself. The term was, perhaps, chosen
with immediate reference to the standing of the disciples, as
Christ's earlier discourses do often still bear a legal colouring ;
but there is, too, a reward for pure love — a reward which is
pure in proportion as the love itself is ; for the reward of love
consists in being appreciated, and in moving in its own
atmosphere. Ver. 13. — It has been already observed, in the general sur
vey of the connexion in the Sermon on the Mount, according
to St. Matthew, that the giving of a new (stricter) law is con
nected with the beatitudes, in the course of the chapter, by
the supposition of a power of the Holy Spirit being received in
true repentance, which teaches us to observe such new com
mands. But the relation which the mention of a'Xas rrjg yng
bears to what immediately precedes, and to the whole, is obscure.
The most natural connexion is undoubtedly the following: —
The idea of persecution presupposes a power of higher life in
the persecuted disciples, by which sin feels itself aroused ; but

MATTHEW V. 13, 14, 15. 195
this very power, which awakens enmity among the opponents
of what is good, is the condition under which it works effect
ually in susceptible minds. It must, therefore, be preserved
and cherished notwithstanding persecutions. First of all,
Jesus calls the disciples aXas rrjg yng. (Tn is here = xbgpog, ver.
14, and denotes mankind generally with the additional notion
of being corruptible, and requiring to be preserved by salt.)
In the general system of natural symbols, which suggested itself
in all profound research, salt always held an important place;
Pythagoras regarded it as the emblem of the blxaiov: Its use
at sacrifices was also full of meaning. (Comp. Lev. ii. 13. This
subject is more fully discussed in note on Mark ix. 50.) The
point of comparison between the disciples and the salt lies in
the power possessed by the latter of preventing corruption and
imparting life.* The intimation that, without this power, the
salt is wholly useless, was to excite the disciples to a careful
preservation of the sacred power entrusted to them. (Instead
of fnuguvQfj, some Codd. read fiMgav^, from pagaivegku, to waste
away, which is less preferable. Mugbs, used of salt, corresponds
to 7DJ1> [Job vi. 6,] insipidus, fatuus. St. Mark [ix. 50] U3es
dvaXog instead of it. St. Luke [xiv. 34] reminds us of the prac
tice of applying salt as manure, \xoirgla ;] but savourless salt is
useless even for that purpose, — nothing remains for it but the !{;«
BdXXeiv, — a figure of the spiritual dirwXeia of the backsliders. — On
the parallel passages, Mark ix. 50 ; Luke xiv. 34, 35 ; and for
what follows, Mark iv. 21 ; Luke viii. 16, see those passages in
their connexion.)
Ver. 14, 15. — The second comparison conveys the same gene
ral meaning. According to it the world appears as <rxoros, (John
i. 5,) which the children of the kingdom are to illuminate. The
disciples form the rays of Him who is himself the <pug. (John
i. 4 ; Phil. ii. 15.) In what follows, the circumstance is not
specified, that the illuminating power may be lost, as was done
with the salt ; there is only the exhortation to let the light
shine. But, indirectly, this exhortation involves the same warn
ing which was given above ; for to him who covers his light,
it is extinguished. In order to give vividness to the exhortation.

* De Wette compares 2 Kings ii. 20, according to which passage, Elisha heals I
water with salt.

196 MATTHEW V. 14, 15, 16, 17.
which He had uttered, the Saviour makes use of two more
comparisons. First, that of an elevated city, which strikes the
eyes of all. Thus divine things have a loftiness in themselves,
and, where they reveal themselves, they are seen, unless con
cealed for fear of persecution. Then comes the second compari
son of a Xux'og, the intention of which is to give light to those
who are in the house ; this intention ought not be frustrated.
(In the parallel passages the same figure is employed, only
that in Luke viii. 16, instead of pbbiog, first gxeuog, and then
xXtvn, are used. But in Luke xi. 33, we have xguirrn.)
Ver. 16. — An application of these comparisons is made; from
which it is evident, that pug has reference not merely to doc
trine and knowledge, but must be taken as the inward principle
of life generally, — as the source of xaXd egya. (These are opposed
not merely to irovngd egya, but also to vexgd, such as do not grow
from the life of faith.) As a mark of the genuineness of the
good works, it is noticed, that they must call forth praise, not
for man, but for God ; it must be visible in them, that man is
only the organ for the flowing forth of divine power from him
to others.
Ver. 17. — The more undeniable it must have been to every
one, that in Christ something entirely new appeared ; and the
more expressly our Lord himself acknowledged this, and, in
the sequel, contrasts himself as a new Lawgiver with the old
lawgiver, — the more important was it to prevent the mistake of
imagining, that the manifestation of what was new in Him was
detached from its historical foundation. Hence Christ here
declares the intimate connexion between the Old and New
Testament, in a manner which must have excluded all mistake
on the point, if preconceived opinions on the subject had not
been allowed to exercise an influence on the exposition. First
of all, the Old Testament is described as inviolable in itself ;
then the New Testament is regarded as the completion of the
Old ; and lastly, in this completion the law is declared to be of
divine and eternal authority.
The words : pA vopknre, intimate a thought very likely to
arise on the part of the disciples, that by the New, the Old
Testament was abrogated. The Saviour distinctly excludes
such an effect from His intention, (obx nXkv.) (Nb/tog xal irgopn-
rat = ffW'QSI tlliflj is a general denomination for the entire
writings of the Old Testament, and more fully still, Luke xxiv.

MATTHEW V. 17, 18. 197
44. But the writings themselves are not to be regarded in
their dead external character, but in the vital principle, from
which they proceed, and which is discovered in them.) The
opposition of xaraXugai and irXngugai, is here of greatest import
ance. Used of law, xaraXbu means "to do away with," "to
repeal." (John x. 35.) But irXngugai does not seem to be in
contrast with that meaning; scugoDV, — to establish, to confirm,
ought rather to be put. It is most appropriate to look upon it
as a figure taken from a building whose foundations have been
loosened, but which can still be completed on them. Accord
ingly, the Old Testament is the foundation on which the build
ing of the New Testament is to be placed, in order to complete
it. In this comparison the Old Testament contains the out
line, (fubgipugig, Rom. ii. 20,*) and the New its filling up ; the
two are in organic connexion, like bud and blossom. The ful
filment is therefore to be regarded as a comprehensive one;
Christ fulfils not only the prophecies and types of the Old Tes
tament, but the moral law also He fulfils perfectly in himself
and His people.
Ver. 18. — With strong emphasis the Saviour represents the
impossibility of destroying (xaraXbuv) the law from its very
nature. ('A^jjv = ftiN, is always used in our Lord's words, to
direct attention to a thought, and to give it emphasis.) The Old
Testament, as God's word, is eternal and unchangeable, (1 Peter
i. 25 ;) hence it stands in contrast to created things. Oflgavos
xal yn (Gen. i. 1) are put for the universe, creation in general.
While this latter vanishes altogether, the former remains, even
in its apparently unessential parts. ('iSra is mentioned as the
smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Kegaia. means " apex,"
" points," by which some letters, e. g., 1 and 1, are distinguished.!
Moreover, as the first eug av fixes a limit to the universe, so the
second does to the law. In the phrase eug &v irdvra yevnrai, scil.
rd iv ru voptji yeyga/ipevu, the ylvegkti is = irXngougkti. See,. Luke

* The Apostle Paul gives the same explanation about the relation of the Old
Testament to the New, as the Epistle to the Galatians, in particular, shews. In
Gal. ii. 18, the contrast of xaraXueiv and olxobo/ieTv is also found. It is only in
appearance that such passages as Ephes. ii. 15, contain a different view of the
law, t In like manner the Babbins say : Si quis Daleth in Deut. vi. 4, mutaret, con-
cuteret totum mundum. It would change ItlVi into 1HN— the true God into
an idol. See Wetslein on the passage.

198 MATTHEW V. 18, 19.
xxi. 32.) This thought involves no difficulty relatively to the
typical character of the Old Testament. In the universality in
which it is here laid down, it must, however, be applied to the
law in all points. But then it seems that what is moral In it,
must be conceived as eternal, which can have no limit set to It.
That is true ; but in the world of perfection the law will be
done away with, in so far as it will have become the inmost life
of all beings ; there is no longer need of any established law,
for every one himself ordains what is right. As, then, there is
no law for God, so there is none for the perfected world ; for,
like God, it also is law itself.
Ver. 1 9. — The following words point, perhaps, to some par
ticular occurrences ; as some of the disciples, under a false con
ception of their freedom, may have attacked the edifice of the
old theocracy.* The passage has not, at any rate, a reference
to the Jewish doctors' division of the law into great and small
commandments, since such a depreciation of the moral part, (as
the small commandments,) and over-estimation of the ceremonial
part, (as the great commandments,) being false pharisaical doc
trine, necessarily excluded from the kingdom of heaven. But
the expressions : IXa^/ffros eTvai b rfj BagiXeia, and oux eloigxegSai elg
rnv BagiXelav, cannot possibly be synonymous. Our Lord speaks
rather in general of a state influenced by Christian principle,
but in which man proceeds without proper reverence for God's
word, and teaches so to proceed, and does away with many
apparently non-essential ordinances of the law. With a false
liberty like this, a man may indeed be of the kingdom of God in

* Tholuck combats this assertion, and thinks that Xueiv and iroieTv should be
understood spiritually, so that the law may be broken precisely by an apparent
fulfilment of it. But I cannot see how the sense allowed by Tholuck to the
expression : IXa^/o*ros elvai b rfj BagiXeia, can be reconciled with it. He who
does not truly fulfil a command, — that is, without love, is a debtor to the whole
law, and cannot, therefore, enter the kingdom of God at all. Thus there are only
two ways of explaining this diflicult passage ; either we must take IXa^/ffros
elvai iv rfj BagiXeia, as synonymous with obx elg'egxegOai, and then Tholuck's
view may commend itself; or we take them as different, (and to my mind the
identity of the two phrases is utterly improbable,) and then we are shut up to
the exposition which I have adopted. That we have no definite information,
that antinomian error prevailed so early, is not a reason against the opinion,
because it is too probable, in the nature of the case, that as soon as the subordin
ate place held by the Old Testament law was understood, men would be led to
suppose they might dispense with the fulfilment of its minor commandments.

MATTHEW V. 19, 20, 21. 199
his inmost soul, but he does not belong to it with all his powers ;
and for that reason, too, he is unfit to teach. The terms ykyag
and ixdx'trog, denote, therefore, different gradations of develop
ment in the principle of the Christian life. The Scriptures often
speak of different gradations like these, especially under the
names of " children," " young men," and " men." (1 John ii.
13, 14; 1 Peter ii. 2; Ephes. iv. 13; Col. ii. 19.) The whole
passage is, therefore, a warning to the disciples not to damage
the cause of the kingdom of God and their own progress in it,
by premature interference.
Ver. 20. — In what follows, Jesus contrasts with the arbitrary
destruction of the Old Testament the equally arbitrary retention
of it in its external form ; this was seen in the Pharisees, and
totally excluded them from the kingdom. In itself, indeed, what
belongs to the Old Testament can never be unchristian ; it is only
prashristian, and, as type, includes what is Christian. It may,
however, be represented as unchristian and antichristian, if it is
retained in its germ-like form, and its free development is im
peded. Such was the standing of the Pharisees ; they confined
the commandments of the Old Testament to their literal mean
ing, without penetrating to their spiritual contents. They had,
therefore, a righteousness, but it was merely outward; they
seemed to keep the law, but this appearance was only a means
for them the more certainly to break it in its most sacred forms.
And as they had, too, the law written in their hearts, (Rom. ii.
15,) they desecrated God's sanctuary within them, and closed
the kingdom of heaven against themselves by their bixaioguvn,
which never brought them to poverty of spirit. How the
righteousness of the people of the kingdom was to stand related
to that of the Pharisees, forms the main thought in the grand
comparative view of Old and New Testament laws, to which the
discourse now passes ; only that Christ gives nothing new ;* He
merely seizes the Old Testament in its deepest root of life. The
Pharisees, on the contrary, confound the form with the essence,
and insist on the former instead of the latter.
Ver. 21. — First of all, the precept of the Mosaic law: oi
ipovsbgeig, is discussed. The words eggsdjj ro/"s ag%a/o/s, are evidently
not meant of the contemporaries of Moses, as if the meaning

* See 1 John ii. 7, 8, where what is new in the Gospel is called the' old which
was from the beginning.

200 MATTHEW V. 21.
were, " the law was given to those of old."* For the same law
was given to the contemporaries of Jesus, and to all times. If
it were taken in this way, the inappropriate meaning would be
elicited, that Jesus set himself and His doctrine (iyii be Xeyu
u/aTv, ver. 22) in opposition to the Mosaic, which He had just
(ver. 18) described as eternal, divine truth. For the same
reasons, it is not admissible to supply xgbvoig with dgx^loig ; the
Saviour is not arguing against something antiquated, but against
the active errors of the present time. The words iggeSn ro?s
dgxaloig, must, therefore, be explained by the construction of the
passive with the dative. On this construction, see Winer, Gr.
of the New Testament, p. 172, (Amer. Tr. ;) and as to the
Hebrew, Gesenius' Lehrgebaude, p. 821 — so that the meaning is,
"the ancients have said." ('Ag^a/o/ = &2p1 or D'OttJNI like
irgegBuregoi, denotes the Rabbinical and pharisaical representa
tives of the Old Testament theocracy.) The connexion thus
assumes a very appropriate form. To the external conception
of the Mosaic commandments on the part of the Pharisees, our
Lord opposes the inward one, and observes, that it is only this
which introduces to the true, full meaning of the law. The
whole argument against the Pharisees is, therefore, a defence
of Moses, whose law was only given in a form which was
adapted immediately to the wants of the inferior standing of
the people, but, at the same time, did not prevent, but promote
the highest and purest development in spiritual life. It was
only the pharisaical Rabbins that checked the development, by
retaining on principle the undeveloped form. The command ':
ou tpoveugetg, (Exod. xx. 13,) they interpreted simply of ordinary
murder, and referred crimes of that sort to the inferior courts.
All shortening of a neighbour's life by vexation, or in whatever
way it might take place, they set aside, as not included under

Tholuck has again defended this view, on the ground that in connexion with
the dative must denote the person, and that dgx^lbl is not elsewhere
used for the authors of the pharisaical tradition. But the manner in which
Tholuck endeavours to gather a reference to tradition out of iggeDn and
nxougars, is so harsh, that I prefer the other exposition, according to which the
dative is taken as an ablative, because it suggests much more readily a reference
to tradition, which is absolutely required by the connexion. Though dgp^a/6/ does
not elsewhere occur, as used of the authors of tradition, yet it may be so applied
without hesitation ; and Tholuck himself acknowledges that the dative is wont
to be used as an ablative with eignrai.

MATTHEW V. 21, 22. 201
this commandment. The Mosaic command is, therefore, here
connected with the doctrinal interpretation of the Pharisees.
From ver. 22, it is plain that xglgig = taBtO?p is not the judgr
ment of the sanhedrim. While this latter denotes the last
court of appeal in judicial affairs in Jerusalem itself, (see ob
servation on Matth. xxvi. 57,) xglgig refers to the inferior courts
in the provincial towns, which were constituted in conformity
with Deut. xvi. 18, and consisted of seven persons.
Ver. 22. — In opposition to this pharisaical explanation, in
conformity with which murder was understood only outwardly,
and reckoned among minor crimes, the Saviour unfolds the
comprehensive meaning of the commandment, " Thou shalt not
kill ;" according to which, not only the outward act, but also the
inward disposition of hatred, is forbidden. Our Lord thus con
ceives the action in its spiritual origin, and in that way attacks
sin in its source, which the Pharisees hypocritically spared.
Hatred is spiritual murder. (1 John iii. 15.) The Saviour
evidently intends, therefore, to forbid hatred in general, and
the reading, elxn = ^$7, should be regarded as nothing but a
correction, (Fritzsche on the passage justly removes it from the
text,) which arose from the idea that there may even be good
reason for anger. But^ this anger ought to be directed against
the sin only, not against our brother; against the person (in
which God's creature is ever to be honoured) there is no pure
anger. — The one main thought, that the fellow-subject of the
kingdom admits no hatred into his heart, is expressed in a three
fold gradation. As no certain data can be obtained, either by
means of history or grammar, to distinguish between these
gradations, this can only be accomplished by means of the
thought. 'OgylfygHai denotes, in general, the rising of wrath in
the soul, the admission of the murderous spirit into the mind.
In si-gift gaxd, the inward emotion is conceived in its external
manifestation against the brother ; but Jesus does not go beyond
the mental action — the word — purposely in order to make the
contrast more striking with the pharisaical spirit, which laid
stress upon the outward act only. But the words of the angry
man may attack human dignity itself: this latter is expressed
by elireft pug'e. According to Tholuck's investigations, gaxd is to
be derived from pjTj, to be thin ; whence jyi, NjTH was formed,
and used among the inhabitants of Palestine as a gentle term of
reproach. Mwgo's = 723 is linguistically not easily distinguished

202 MATTHEW V. 22, 23, 24.
from gaxd; but the thought is clear; an increase of anger is
intended to be conveyed in this utterance, such as cannot,
however, of course be measured. The parallel gradation in the
punishment, *g/'o-;s, guvebgiov, y'eevva irugbg, is further remarkable in
the passage. We should expect that Christ would oppose a
judgment altogether spiritual to the external one of the Phari
sees, (ver. 21 ;) but here human and divine judgment are mixed.
T'eewa, however, does not perhaps mean the place of punishment
in the life to come, but the severest earthly punishment — death
by burning. (See Tholuck in his commentary on the place.)
This interpretation is not, however, altogether free from ob
jection; for, in the first place, y'eevva does not occur elsewhere
with that meaning, and then xglgig and guvebgiov, as being two
tribunals, should be followed by a third, and not by a punish
ment which the sanhedrim or council itself could order. But,
in any case, the earthly transactions must be viewed here as
denoting divine punishment in its different degrees. The
' domain of the laws of Jesus is the inward world of the Spirit,
! to which the punishments for transgressors of them belong.*
The bgyiZegkii cannot in itself be a matter on which a human
tribunal would pass judgment; for this reason, that the fact can
never be proved. Hence Gehenna denotes divine punishment
in its severest form. (Yeema = dlJtl VC*i, means, primarily, the
Valley of Hinnom. [2 Kings xxiii. 10.] The prophets use
np'D for it, which is from PfiT\, a place spit uponr Jer. vii. 31 ;
xix. 6.) The place for bodily filth became the symbol of the
spiritual slough, where all that is estranged from God is
gathered together. As regards the relation of Gehenna to
Hades, see note on Luke xvi. 23.
Ver. 23, 24. — From the negative view, the not admitting
hatred and the spirit of murder into the soul, our Lord passes
on to the positive one, and -teaches that the believer should
quench the flame of wrath in his brother's heart also, as
becomes an eignwiroibg, (ver. 9.) In this the purity of love is

* That this command of our Lord's, as well as all that follow, ought not to be
understood literally, is plain from the passages, Matth. xxiii. 17, 19 ; Luke xxiv.
25, in which Jesus himself calls men "fools," (poigoi,) and in the last passage,
even the disciples. This whole interpretation of the Old Testament necessarily
requires a separating of the internal and external Church ; in the latter, the
words of Jesus do not apply literally, they are calculated only for the former.

MATTHEW V. 23, 24, 25, 26. 203
manifested in its greatest splendour. This precept does not
apply merely to those cases where the anger of our brother is
excited by injury on our part. The expression 'iXeiv n xard gou,
is intentionally kept general. Even when any one hates without
cause, we are to quench the flame in his heart, — that is, not
merely be placable, but also not allow our brother to hate.
The thought of bringing the expression of this pure love into
connexion with the act of offering sacrifice, is uncommonly pro
found. In that act man approaches the eternal love in order
to claim its compassion for himself. That is the most befitting
moment for exercising it on others. But when these words of
the Saviour are made to imply a sanction of sacrifices in the
New Testament, there is an error at bottom. Christ evidently
speaks here merely of the existing Jewish worship, which He
left untouched. (On the supposed difference between xaraX-
Xdggu and biaXXdirgu, see Tholuck.)
Ver. 25, 26. — The following verses were undoubtedly spoken
originally in a totally different connexion, as is seen from Luke
xii. 58, 59, where the question is more fully discussed. But
St. Matthew has interwoven the thought in a peculiar manner
in our Saviour's discourse. The circumstance of a debtor, who
does well to free himself from his creditor at the right time,
that he may not be cast into prison by him, is employed by the
Evangelist for a further illustration of the foregoing principle.
He conceives of our relation to an angry brother, whom we
have injured, as a relation of debt. The dvrlbixos is, therefore,
any one who can prefer legal claims.* Such an one the Saviour
advises us to satisfy by humble, childlike submission, that the
hatred may not continue, and so draw perdition upon us. In
order to strengthen the exhortation, rre^ii is subjoined, with an
admonition of the transitoriness of life, (bbbg = IJTJ.) That
which is not reduced to harmony here below, continues its
destructive course hereafter. — "Ig6i ebvouv, be gentle, ready to for
give, — i. e., "offer thou the hand." The idea of the hatred
continuing its effects, is particularly difficult, expressed, as it is,
under the figure of being accused and cast into prison. (The
*g/r)js is God, and the birngerai His angels. But the tpuXaxn is
Sheol, not to be confounded with Gehenna, [see note on Luke

* On the principle " Owe no man anything, but to love one another," each is
debtor to another in love. .

204

MATTHEW V. 25, 26. 27, 28, 29, 30.

xvi. 24.] The term has too definite an import in the New
Testament to be interpreted agreeably to Tholuck's opinion,
merely of a constrained uncomfortable condition.) As the
kingdom of love forms a united whole, and by its power extends
beyond life ; so also the accusing principle (Rev. xii. 10) con
stitutes a mighty power, which demands its right, till a recon
ciliation has been made. The debt must be cancelled according
to the jus talionis here or there. Love, such as the New
Testament teaches, gives room for the adjustment of every jar
by humiliation, a ready taking of the fault on oneself, in order
to leave no room for the accusing spirit. That we are not to
understand eternal punishment under pn i^egxegkti, eug dv dirobif
'igxarov xobgdvrnv (= quandrans ;) but only a transition state, is
shewn first by puXaxn, which never denotes the place of eternal
punishment, and also by eug dv, which points to a definite limit.
(See more fully in note on Matth. xviii. 34.) The general idea,
too, forces us to this way of understanding the passage, since
it is not unbelievers that are spoken of, as in ver. 22 ; but
believers, who will indeed be saved for their faith's sake, (1 Cor.
iii. 15,) yet are excluded from the kingdom of God on earth,
from their having been deficient in sanctification.*
Ver. 27, 28. — The command ob poixebgeig, is adduced as the
second out of the Old Testament, which Jesus teaches us to
regard more profoundly than the pharisaical teachers had been
accustomed to do. That which they, applied merely to the
external act, the Saviour extends to the spiritual act, to the
desire, (imSupla,) and the tolerating of it in the soul. The
desire in itself is an element in the sinfulness of human
nature in general. It is not to be looked upon as actual sin
when resisted with sincere earnestness ; but the tolerating of it,
and, consequently, the entering into it inwardly with the will,
(precisely what Bxiireiv irgbg rb iiriQupngai denotes,) is the act itself,
unless it may happen that external circumstances, independent
of the man's will, hinder its execution.
Ver. 29, 30. — With these thoughts St. Matthew connects
words which were uttered originally on another occasion, as
the context of Matth. xviii. 6, ff. ; Mark ix. 43, ff., shews ; but

* It seems to me inadmissible to take the expression, " till the last farthiEg
be paid," proverbially merely, as Tholuck does, to denote the extreme rigour of
the law particularly on account of Matth. xviii. 34. 35.

MATTHEW V. 29, 30, 31, 32. 205
here also the Evangelist has, with profound truth, collected
different elements into a whole.* It is most fitting that the
observation — that the command, "Thou shalt not commit
adultery," which teaches inward modesty, as well as outward,
should be followed by the exhortation to preserve that purity
by the greatest moral strictness, and by the greatest resolute
ness in self-denial, which does not spare even the most sensitive
pain and privation. Eyes and hand are regarded here as
organs of sense, which become the inlets of temptation, and, in
turn, the means by which sin displays itself outwardly. To
sacrifice these organs, in themselves useful and valuable, for the
ends of sanctification, — that is, to abstain from the use of them,
or to limit it, is the immediate lesson conveyed in this thought.
(For the critical minutiae, see note on Matth. xviii. 6, ff.)
Ver. 31, 32. — As the third example, our Lord specifies
divorce. According to Deut. xxiv. 1, it was allowable for the
husband to put away his wife, but he must give her a letter of
divorcement, dirogrdgiov = .PiWIS "IS??. (On all that respects
this subject, and particularly the Rabbinical explanations of the
Mosaic ordinances, see fully in note on Matth. xix. 3, ff.)
According to the express assertion of Jesus, (Matth. xix. 8,)
this regulation was made only on account of the Jews' hardness
of heart, tf^X^goxag3/a. The right view of marriage, as an
indissoluble union of soul, is the basis of the Old Testament
also. But the Pharisees did not regard this indulgence as
such, and considered it as belonging to the essence of marriage,
that a husband can dismiss his wife when he pleases, in order
to marry another. To this vulgar notion the Saviour opposes
the ideal conception of marriage, and sketches the evil conse
quences of divorce. First, the divorced woman, (diroXeXupbn,)
who must still be conceived as bound by the marriage-tie, is
exposed to the temptation of entering on another connexion.
He therefore occasions her to sin, iroieT abrnv poixagkti. Next,
he brings another man into the danger of forming an adulterous
connexion with the diroXeXuphn. Nothing is said of his own sin
if he marries another, because that is self-evident ; and the case
of infidelity is excepted, because then the diroXueiv, as a fact, has
preceded the outward divorce. (See note on Matth. xix. 9.)

* Considering the sententious form of the passage, it may, however, be allow
able to agree with Tholuck in regarding the words as original in both places.

206 MATTHEW V_31, 32.
(Tlagexrbg Xbyou irogveiag, where irogvila denotes "adultery" as well
as " fornication ;" and Xbyoz, like 121, denotes here alrla,
irgay/ia, cause.) The thought is in itself so easy of comprehension,
that there can be no division of opinion on that point. The
1 Saviour evidently forbids all divorces except in the case of
infidelity, where that is itself the separation, and regards fresh
connexions, formed by the divorced, as adultery. But the
question as to our Lord's intention in the application of this
principle in His Church, is more difficult. Just as in the case
of oaths,* (ver. 33, ff.,) that intention can only be gathered from
a general view of the position of the Church. The external
Church, as a visible institution, cannot possibly be regarded as
the expressed ideal of the kingdom of God. It is rather the
covering merely, in which the communion of all the faithful is
enveloped, than the kernel in the shell. Hence the regulations
of the external Church cannot answer to the ideal requirements
of the BagiXeia; but as it occupies the Old Testament standing
in the majority of its members, it must also order its regulations
in conformity to the Old Testament. As, then, in the Old
Testament, God permitted! not only divorces, but also the
re-marriage of the separate parties, (see Michaelis' Comment
aries on the laws of Moses, translated by Smith, bk. ii., and
Deut. xxiv. 2,) so the Church may admit modifications of our
Lord's law, as expressed in this passage, for the mass of its
members. Indeed, the Church must do so, because the appli
cation, of the New Testament condition to unconverted and

* Consult the decision of the theological faculty at Bonn on the re-marriage of
divorced parties, reprinted in the AUgemeine Kirchenzeitung, 1836, Nos. 148, 149,
and afterwards published separately. In the main, I agree with this decision.
The Church of the present day, grown up with the State, and filled with unbe
lieving members, cannot possibly be put on a par with the apostolical Church.
The Fathers of the Church felt it necessary early to permit modifications in
practice. (See the history of the exposition of the passage in Tholuck's Com
mentary.) Obstinate desertion and attempts to murder, early constituted valid
grounds of divorce.
t God nowhere permitted murder in the Old Testament, nowhere allowed
fornication ; but He did expressly allow divorce. Those, therefore, who insist
on Christ's command being literally applied in the Church, as it now exists,
should ponder well what they do. The subsequent commands respecting the
cloak, and the smiting on the cheek, shew plainly enough that a literal fulfil
ment cannot be intended in the external Church. The passage Matth. xix. 9,
ff, is also evidently not a precept given to be exalted to a universal external
law. The Saviour there speaks for those only who are able to receive it.

MATTHEW V. 31, 32, 33-37. 207
unregenerate persons cannot but have injurious consequences.
The Romish Church is, therefore, wrong in putting the words
of Jesus authoritatively into practice in the visible Church,
which has become subject to the authority of the law.* It is \
true, a spirit of severity must pervade the legislation of the
Church, and everywhere the effort must be made to elevate the I
members more and more to a comprehension of the New Tes- j
tament spirit. The case is quite different with those members
of the Church who belong also to the Saviour's inward spiritual
communion; because these latter are in a position both to
recognize the Saviour's requirements, and, by His power, to
satisfy them. This command is in full force for them and
among them, just like the command not to* hate, to give to
every one that asketh, &c. But since, as such, they are
under the Gospel, and not under the law, there is no con
straint on them. To their Lord they stand and fall. (On the
whole question, consult also the observations on Matth. xix. 3,
ff., and 1 Cor. vii. 15, 16.!)
Ver. 33-37. — Fourth observation — on oaths. The plain re
quirement of the Old Testament in Lev. xix. 12, obx iiriogxngeig,
was distorted by the Rabbins from a comparison of Numb. xxx.
3; Deut. xxiii. 21, (where vows, [6gxo/ = ?"HI?] which were,
for the most part, accompanied by oaths, are the subject,) so
that they taught the evasion of their fulfilment towards men

* Indeed, the Romish Church even increases the severity of the command on
its own authority, since it does not permit divorce quoad vinculum, even in case
of adultery.
t (The above discussion may seem strange to those who are unacquainted
with the opinions and practices respecting divorce prevalent in Germany.
Divorce is much more common than in England, and is granted for many other
causes than that of unfaithfulness. The question has been much debated, and
some of the pastors have felt strong scruples in solemnizing marriages, where
one or both of the parties may be persons who have been divorced The defence
offered above is very inadequate. The distinction between an external and in
ternal Church results only from laxity of discipline, conjoined with the absorp
tion of the Church in the State, which prevails in the German Governments.
The external Church is, in fact, those who have the name of Christians, and
nothing more, and are not, therefore, of Christ's Church, and would not be in
visible communion, if a right state of things, as to discipline, were restored. It
can never he admitted, that there is any power on earth that can assume
authority to relax Christ's plain command. In the Church, His command is
law, and, so far as marriage and divorce come under secular jurisdiction, the
government of a Christian country is bound to follow the precepts of Christian
morals.) — Tr.

208 MATTHEW V. 33-37.
through a hypocritical reference of them to God. To this
hypocritical behaviour the Saviour opposes that of the children
of God. The command of Moses, "Thou shalt not swear
falsely," Jesus converts into, "Thou shalt not swear at all;"
j because He sees in swearing, just as in the case of divorce
| above, nothing but a permission rendered necessary by sin,
But in order to combine the expression of this ideal principle
in the kingdom of God, with a refutation of the hypocritical
Rabbinical interpretation of the law of Moses, Jesus specifies
four forms of swearing familiar to the Jews ; and demonstrates,
first, that all of them refer to God, and that it is only in their
being referred to Him that they mean anything; next, that
they are, one and all, inadmissible in the kingdom of God.
The subjoined clauses, "For it is God's throne," &c, refer to
that Rabbinical interpretation, that a man need not perform
oaths that do not refer to God himself. For this reason, in the
case of each form of swearing, its reference to God is demon
strated by our Lord ; and it is implied, that it is only by virtue
of this reference that it can have any meaning. (See more fully
in note on Matth. xxiii. 16, ff.) — The conceiving of heaven and
earth as throne and footstool of God (Isa. lxvi. 1) is, of course,
figurative ; but the figure is founded on the true thought, that
to the Omnipresent Being heaven and earth stand in different
relations. He who is everywhere present, is yet everywhere
different. Jerusalem, as the seat of the visible theocracy, is
called God's city, (Psalm xlviii. 3 ;) and an oath by the city
acquires its meaning from this peculiar relation. The reason
subjoined to the oath : " by the head,"* is obscure. That oath
is similar to the Mohammedan swearing by the beard. It is
explained, however, if we take, in this case negatively, what, in
the other cases, was expressed positively. What impotent man
cannot accomplish, — make one hair white or black, — i. e., pro
duce the slightest change in himself, — the Almighty can accom
plish. Dost thou swear, then, by thyself? thy oath cannot
have any meaning, except as thou intendest Him who wills
that thou thyself existest. Hence every oath, if it is to have

* The construction of bjhbgai with the accusative, (James v. 12,) or with
xard and the genitive, (as in Heb. vi. 16,) is pure Greek. In the New Testa
ment it is generally construed with b or elg after the analogy of 2 SQtM
in Hebrew.

MATTHEW V. 33-37. 209
any meaning, refers to God, since He only, the Eternal, can
give surety for the security of what is transitory. — But as the
entire prohibition of all swearing is joined to this thought, it is
evident that we may not draw this conclusion : " Since all objects
of adjuration have a reference to God, by which they first acquire I
their import, we are to swear only by God;" but, on the con- ]
trary, " Since we are not to swear at all — and all oaths refer /
originally to God, the eternal and true — we are not to employ
any oath ; the simplest statement of opinion is sufficient, any
thing ftirther has sprung from the source of evil, and become
necessary only by reason of sin." The idea, that only the abuse
of oaths is forbidden, can never be defended by a true interpre
tation.* In the passage, James v. 12, a different view might,
for a moment, commend itself, on account of the different posi
tion of the words ; but even there, on a closer examination, the
connexion requires the sense of prohibiting oaths in general.
This absolute prohibition of our Lord cannot occasion any
difficulty, if the difference of position under the Law and- the
Gospel is attended to in this case. An oath is, in and of itself,
a result of sin; on the part of him who demands it, a want of
confidence in his brother is implied ; and on the part of him who
tenders it without being required, it presupposes a consciousness
that he is not to be depended on, or that sin prevails in those
for whose sake he swears. In the world of falsehood it is a
necessary requisite for attaining anything like security of inter
course. Nay, God himself condescends and swears by himself,
the Unchangeable, because changeable man is prone to imagine
the Unchangeable himself to be changeable.! But in the world
of truth, the oath has no place, nor can it have, since neither
distrust demands, nor a sense of unworthiness of. confidence
tenders, it. For this kingdom of truth the command of our

* De Wette properly interprets the passage as an unconditional prohibition
of oaths. Tholuck also confesses that the words cannot be taken grammatically,
otherwise than as an absolute prohibition ; but is of opinion, that the analogy of
the other commands (e. g., give to him that asketh) makes a restriction neces
sary in this case also. But by that means these commands, one and all, evi
dently acquire a vacillating character. In the kingdom of God all have their
full meaning without restriction ; out of that kingdom no one of them is literally
applicable. On Tholuck's shewing, Christ's command would amount to nothing
more than the old one, " Swear not falsely."
t See Gen. xxii. 16 ; xxvi. 3 ; Numb. xiv. 23, &c. In the New Testament the
Apostles use forms of swearing. See Heb. vi. 16 ; 1 Tim. ii. 7. O

210 MATTHEW V. 38-42.
Lord is valid. But as this kingdom yet only blossoms in secret
in the Christian world, — as our political institutions are still on
Old Testament principles, and, because of sin, must be so,* the
believer must still be a Jew to the Jews in this respect also.
(1 Cor. ix. 20.) The Quakers are wrong, therefore, and con
found the dispensations, in desiring the abrogation of oaths in
, the world of falsehood, since Christ himself, who uttered the
command, took an oath before the sanhedrim. (Matth. xxvi. 63.,)
But among the true children of God this command also must
be fulfilled in its strict form ; only, in the case of oaths, the
relation of the individual to the political community also enters
into the question, for which reason the believer does not find
it possible to follow perfectly the higher standard, as he can in
reference to marriage, where, in case they are believers, the rela
tion of husband and wife alone is concerned. Belonging to the
two spheres of life, he must satisfy the claims of both, according
to the necessary conditions of their existence ; he may, there
fore, with strict propriety, fulfil Christ's, command to the letter
among his brethren, and yet, at the desire of the constituted
authorities, take an oath.
Ver. 38-42. — The fifth instance comprises the nature of the
law in a general maxim, and opposes the evangelical principle
to the pharisaical conception of the former. The idea of retalia
tion, (jus talionis,) which is the foundation of the law in general,
is expressed in b<p6aXpbv dvrl bpiaXpou scil. biigeig x. ¦». X. Exod. xxi.
24. But the Pharisees made such a use of retaliation, that it
could not but become a cloak for revenge and uncharitableness.
Christ, on the contrary, conceives the idea in the spirit of the
purest love, and derives thence the command of self-denial and
resignation. " Eye for eye, tooth for tooth," is an eternal law
in the government of the world ; but love takes the brother's
fault on itself, and, by thus becoming like him, causes him to
become like it. Thus, out of the jus talionis, love procures
salvation and forgiveness, which is nothing but retaliation re
versed, and cannot, therefore, exist without the Saviour's suffer
ing. This conquering by succumbing is the essence of the

* No times can be more fitted than our own to dissipate all phUanthropic
dreams about the spiritual standing of the masses in Christian states. Eye tor
eye, tooth for tooth, is the only law by which the licentiousness can be restrained,
which rebels against all order.

MATTHEW V. 38-42. 211
Gospel ; the law is founded on the dvngrnvai r$ irovngu, repelling
force by force.* The manifestations of love' in contrast with
the coarse character of retaliation, are then presented in four
instances, arranged in an anti-climax. Outrage on the person is
the most grievous, (gairlteiv is of kindred meaning with xoXaipiZfiv,
the latter, however, denoting rather blows with the fist ;) next
to this in order comes the demanding of property, (xglvegkti, to
claim before a tribunal;) asking, as the mildest form of present
ing a request, forms the close. Between the two latter forms,
dyyageunv is placed, as partaking of both. (The term is of
Persian origin, but was adopted into the prevalent languages of
antiquity ; the Aramaic language also adopted it. See Buxtorf.
Lex. talm. s. v. rP132N.) In Luke vi. 30, the words xal difb
rou a'lgovrog rd gd pn dirairei, are added — the general thought for
the particular instances in St. Matthew. ('Airair'eu = iMS
to collect, to call in.)
The preceding observations on marriage and oaths apply like
wise to the carrying out of this command. The Saviour does
not intend by His precept for the BagiXeia to invalidate the truth
of the maxim, " An eye for an eye," for the legal standing ; he
who takes up that standing cannot, and must pot, be treated
otherwise than according to the law.! But for him who is seized
with the spirit of the Gospel, without having as yet overcome
the power of sin, the conduct indicated by the Saviour is
suitable. Where the mind is still too rough and harsh, there it
would not be love, but unkindness, to shew unappreciated love. >
What, for instance, could be more unkind than a literal use of
the precept, iravri ru alrouvri ge blbou, give TO EVERY MAN iliat
asketh of thee ? That would be to educate begging vagabonds.

* We cannot very well take irovngb} as neuter here ; for it is our duty, under
all circumstances, to oppose what is evil in itself. But here the evil is viewed
in its effects in an individual, in whom there is, at the same time, a suscepti
bility for good. In reference to this mixture of good and bad, the Saviour may
say, that the member of the kingdom of God does not resist the manifestations
of sin, in order to accomplish for the good a perfect conquest in the heart of
his brother, by the manifestation of forbearing love, which is expressed thereby.
f Thus the Saviour himself answers the rude servant who struck Him on the !
face : If I have spoken evil, prove that it is evil ; but if I have spoken right,
why smitest thou me ? John xviii. 23. To turn to him the other cheek would
have been an infraction of love, as it would have brought the man into the
temptation of increasing his sin by increased turpitude. Paul behaves similarly,
Acts xxiii. 3.

212 MATTHEW V. 43-45.
Hence the application and exercise of the laws of love cannot
be reduced to fixed rules ; love alone teaches us to apply them
properly, and enables the scribe, instructed to the kingdom of
heaven, to bring out of his treasure things new and old. For
this order of things, before the full manifestation of the kingdom
of God, the law still retains its application ; yet the Gospel has
its sphere, in which it is ever gradually unfolding its nature
more perfectly.
Ver. 43-45. — At last Jesus comes to what is highest and
final — to love itself. The command, S5H7 112(1^1 Thou shalt
P— : ¦¦: x : — t : J
love thy neighbour, (Lev. xix. 18,) applied, it is true, immediately,
as the context shews, to the nation of Israel, which, from the
undeveloped views of the people, represented the collective
whole, to which JT) in its profoundest sense referred. But the
hypocritical Pharisees drew the inference from this command,
that we were at liberty to hate our enemy. ('E^0g6s, like hostis,
primarily "one not of the same people." See the passages
quoted in Wetstein and Schottgen, ad loc.) They not only
tolerated hatred of enemies, as something at the time not quite
conquerable, but they cherished it as something allowable, nay,
included (by implication) in the command. To this outrageous
interpretation of the Old Testament, Jesus opposes His own,
which unfolds the undeveloped truth from its inward nature
and principle. The fulness of love, as Jesus teaches it, and
imparts it to His people out of His fulness, extends not only to
the narrow circle of a nation's ties, but makes what is opposite,
as well as what is akin to it, the object of its exercise. The
different manifestations of love (dyaircfv, ebXoyeft, xaXug iroieft,
irgogeuxegkn,) form a climax, and are in contrast with the forms
of hatred ; these latter, indeed, as such, cannot and ought not
to be loved ; but the individuals are, in whom they are seen,
since there is in them the latent germ of a higher existence,
which is to be stimulated by the power of love. But with
respect to the love thus enjoined, it is not any passive love,
residing merely in the region of feeling ; for that cannot pos
sibly be stimulated by the manifestations of hatred ; only some
thing akin inflames it ; but rather love as a power of the will,
which is in a condition to overcome all (opposing) feelings.
For this reason, too, assimilation to God is assigned as the end
of the manifestation of love to enemies. (In w'o's, the representa
tion of the image, existing in the Father, is expressed.) As God

MATTHEW V. 46, 47. 213
abhors evil, and commands us to abhor it, (Rom. xii. 9,) but
blesses the evil man ; so does he, too, who lives in pure, divine y
love. The Spirit of God in him teaches him to separate the
evil from the man ; and while he hates the former, to love the
latter. But such love man cannot obtain for himself by a
determination of will or by any effort, for it is divine ; he can
receive it only by spiritual communication in faith. But this
does not, by any means, exclude the effort to exercise it before
it is possessed, as it is through that very effort that the con
sciousness is first awakened how much man needs it. (^Eirngtd^en
occurs, besides in this passage, only in Luke vi. 28 ; 1 Peter iii.
16. According to Pollux, it is a law term,- meaning " to drag .
before a judge with ignominy and insult ;" then, in general, " to
injure," " to insult.") St. Luke adds another trait, bavelfyre, (tnbh
direXxlZpvrig, (vi. 35,) where, likewise, sincere, disinterested love
is expressed. St. Luke has expanded this thought afterwards,
when he comes to portray the forms in which natural love
manifests itself. On the whole, with the exception of one
unessential transposition, St. Luke has the same thoughts here,
and they must, therefore, certainly be regarded as original,-
integral parts of the Sermon on the Mount.
-¦¦ Ver. 46, 47. — As a parallel to this sacred love, which includes
even what is hostile in the sphere of its exercise, and which is
bestowed in regeneration alone, Jesus brings forward natural
love, which loves only what is akin to it, and, in that, itself
essentially. (Ephes. v. 28, " He that loveth his wife, loveth him
self.") This love is that which is seen to prevail in the Old
Testament, a few traces of love to enemies excepted, which
stand as the commencing notes of a higher gradation in religious
life to come,— e. g., David's conduct. (1 Sam. xxvi.) As such
it does not stand opposed to the higher love of Christ, but
beneath, as something subordinate, which has its analogy even
in the animal world. The reXuvai and Uvixol in St. Matthew^ the
d/iagruXol (irbgvai, Matth. xxi. 31) in St. Luke, are mentioned as
emblems, familiar to the Pharisees, of what is despised. In
the publican, in particular, the prominent characteristic is being
involved by the calls of his station in the lowest worldly con
nexions ; for which reason the taxgatherers are used as a symbol
of worldliness and its temptations. (' AgirdZpeku is a general
term for tokens of love of all kinds.) — In these verses, moreover,
the idea of iueHg appears again. (See note on ver. 12.) Natural

/

214 MATTHEW V. 46, 47, 48.
love is represented as being accompanied by a less reward than
pure love. There is evidently a condescension here to the legal
standing, for it is just the nature of sincere love to seek no
other reward than that which is in itself. But as, in fact, the
possession of it involves all that constitutes blessedness, because
God is love, (1 John iv. 8,) and no one can love but he in
whom God dwells ; it is certainly true, also, that its reward is
great. But a distinction between love and its reward, and of an
effort to attain the former for the sake of the latter, cannot
exist but in a legal point of view ; pure love seeks itself on its
own account, for it includes in itself all that can be desired.
Ver. 48. — The last words contained in this verse are, as it
were, the key-stone which completes the whole. The general
result not merely of our Lord's last commands, but of all that
precedes, is : Let perfection be your aim. ('Egsgk oux is parallel
with oirug y'evnuk above, ver. 45.) For the observation of but
one of these commands, as here laid down by our Lord, nothing
short of perfection is sufficient. It does not, therefore, alter the
thought, if, instead of r'eXeioi, as it is in St. Matthew, we read
olxrig/ioveg, as it is in Luke. vi. 36. For neither pure love nor
mercy can be conceived alone in the human soul, without the
other qualities involved in perfection ; so that all must neces
sarily be conceived as joined with the one. But to refine upon
the idea of r'eXeiog, and to understand it of a relative perfection,
is evidently forbidden by the words subjoined : using 6 irarng
upuv, which, as compared with ver. 45, cannot mean anything
else than that the image of God is to be represented in men,
as the ulol rou utygrou. Accordingly, the passage is parallel with
that in the Old Testament, UN ttttlj? U) tS^hjJ Q1T^TJ» (Lev.
xi. 44,) which St. Peter adopts : ayiai y'evegk, on iyii 'dyibg el/M,
(1 Pet. i. 16,) and is explained by it. That is, as in that pas-
sao-e the requirement of holiness on man's part is founded on
the holiness of God, so here also in relation to perfection ; so
that this passage may be interpreted, "Be ye perfect, because
God is perfect." The perfection of man, as well as his holiness,
is not separate from that of God, such as man might possibly
attain of himself, but that perfection itself; God himself designs
to be the perfect and holy One in man. In this way the pas
sage must be interpreted, on the principle that every speaker
is the expositor of his own words, even though we should regard
the notion itself as false. Jesus "teaches throughout (particularly

MATTHEW VI. 1-6. 215
in John xiv. 23; xv 5, 7; xvii. 23, 26) the doctrine of an
indwelling of the Divinity in men ; and in conformity with this
profound fundamental idea of Christianity, which annihilates all
righteousness and holiness of our own, the present passage must
be interpreted.
Matth. vi. 1-6. — After this prefatory comparison of the holy
in the doctrine of Jesus with the unholy in the teaching of the
doctors of the law, the thought of v. 20 is resumed. The
reality is opposed to the appearance; the latter has what is
visible and transitory for its object and proper end, (SiruS
do%a,gdugiv birb ruv avdguiruv ;) the former has what is invisible and
eternal ; God in heaven is placed in contrast with men on earth. I
Aixaiogbvn* conveys again, as in ver. 20, the general idea of a
proper relation to God, viewed in the light both of the Old and
the New Testament. This contrast is viewed in reference to
alms (ver. 2) and prayer (ver. 5) as the prominent manifesta
tions of the religious life. (zaXirlgeiv is not to be taken literally,
but figuratively, " to do anything with ostentation." mgQbv
direxeiv is spoken of in reference to the time of the future general
reward, when only what is eternal finds its reward, because it
was accomplished by the working of God's eternal Spirit.) The
figure in ver. 3 cannot mean total unconsciousness, which ought
not to exist in any case, but only the absence of self-appropria
tion of the act ; every good deed must be referred to its origin,
¦<— to the spiritual source from which it springs; there it has
even now its hidden reward, and hereafter its open one. To
the outward proclamation of works of love by the Pharisees, the
inward humble ignorance of one's doings is opposed. (Tapiew
= TV*by. = uiregwov, a chamber, to which they could retire for
prayer, in quiet, Acts x. 9 ; see also Isa. xxvi. 20. The term
biroxgirng occurs very frequently in the Gospels, — e. g., in this
chap., ver. 5, 16 ; vii. 5 ; xv. 7 ; xvi. 3 ; xxiii. 13, and frequently
in St. Matthew ; again in Luke vi. 42 ; xi. 44, &c. The verb
biroxgtvigkti occurs only in Luke xx. 20. It is properly originally
== dxoxglvegkti, to answer, then particularly, "to answer as a

* The reading iXen,u.ogUvn, which is supported by very many Codd., is, prob
ably, only an explanation of bix"aioguvn, which, in later Greek, is used for "alms,"
like the Hebrew ilplJ?- St. Paul uses it in 2 Cor. ix. 9, for "kindness,"
't t:

" charitableness."

216~ MATTHEW VI. 7-13.
character in a play," — i. e., " to act on the stage." Then, in
general, "to assume a form not one's own," — "to represent."
In the New Testament it is always used of religious form, with
which the inward nature does not correspond.)
Ver. 7-13. — These verses bring out the last remark in a
special manner. In Phariseeism, not only is there an air of
hypocrisy manifest in prayer, but also tho heathen notion, which
| is always reproduced from the heathenism that dwells in human
I nature, that prayer avails as opus operatum, and, consequently,
from length and copiousness of words. From the pure idea of
God, the Saviour derives the doctrine, to regard the inward
disposition and the purity of" thought resulting thence as that
which is well-pleasing to God. St. Matthew also presents, as
a pattern, a prayer given by Jesus, which is pervaded by sim
plicity, depth, and humility. St. Luke (xi. 1) records the circum
stances which occasioned our Lord to give such an injunction.
The disciples felt their spiritual poverty, and supplicated His
rich grace to teach them to pray. Hence, too, it is said, ourug
irgogeuxeik upeig ; for it is a prayer calculated for the position of
sinful men, not for Him who knew no sin. (BamXoyiTv* is not
from Nt22, effutivit ; but according to Suidas it is derived dirb
'Barrou nvbg paxgoug xal iroXugrlxous upvoug iroifjlavrog. Hence BarroXoyia
= iroXuXoyla.) Superstition places the reason of the hearing of
prayer not in the grace of God, but in its own godless work.
Unbelief deduces the uselessness of prayer from the omniscience
of God, in whom it does not itself believe. Faith rests its poor
prayer precisely on this holy, gracious, divine knowledge. Thus
our Lord teaches us to pray in faith, because God knows, before
the petition, what we need, (%gs/a taken both bodily and spirit
ually,) and, consequently, can himself prompt the acceptable
prayer, and fulfil it accordingly. The words olbe y d g, are to
be taken as the reason which prevents the Christians from pray
ing after the heathen manner. The believer does not pray for
God's sake, (to do Him a service,) but for his own sake ; that
God knows, affords to him the consolation that he cannot ask
wrong ; for he is concerned only for God's will, not for his own.
The prayer of the believer is therefore nothing less than the

* See the copious discussion on this rare term, which is nowhere used but by
Simplicius in one passage (in Epict. enchir., c. 37) in Tholuck's Comm. (Clark's
Biblical Cab., No. xx., p. 114.)

MATTHEW VI. 7-13. 217
divine will itself becoming manifest among mankind ; thus the
Lord's Prayer is conceived. It is an expression of the highest,
final, divine plans in the government of the world, both as to
the whole and the individual.
With reference, first, to the state of the text of the Lord's
Prater,* the doxology at the close is undoubtedly of later
origin, and is added for liturgical purposes. In the Const. Apost.,
vii. 24, it appears in the process of formation ; it reads, on gou
egnv n BagiXeia elg aluvag.- 'A/v!iv. But the contents are profound
and agreeable to the spirit of the prayer, and, therefore, cer
tainly belonging to. a period when pure Christian feeling pre
vailed in the Church. It is wanting in Codd., B. D. L., and in
many others, as Griesbach' s New Testament shews. Still it is
found as early as the Peshito, where, however, it may be an
interpolation. 'So also the petitions, " Thy will be done in
earth as it is in heaven ;" and, " But deliver us from evil," are
wanting in the text of St. Luke. They are wanting not only
in B. L., but also in the earliest Fathers, as in Origen, (de Orat.,
p. 226, edit, de la Rue, vol. ii.,) who expressly notices the omis
sion. But it does not follow from this that they are spurious in
the prayer ; St. Luke rather appears to have abridged here, in
the same manner as we noticed on Matth. v. 1. These petitions
do not, indeed, form an essential part of the prayer, since they
are included in those immediately preceding ; but for an unfold
ing of the meaning they are an integral part.! The question,
Whether Christ meant to lay down a stated formula in this prayer?
may be best answered to this effect, that the Saviour certainly
'had in view, as His primary object, to teach the disciples to
pray in spirit ; but in so far as there was in His view the
arising of an outward Church that should require liturgical
formulas, He might intend its permanent use also; and the
Church has done right to retain it. But that no value is to be
ascribed to the letter, is shewn by the variation with which the

* We possess separate expositions of this prayer by Origen, Tertullian, and
Cyprian. t On the form of the Lord's Prayer found in St. Luke, see the more copious
remarks in note on Luke xi. 3, ff. On the omission of the doxology, see Eodiger's
dissertation at the end of the synopsis, p. 231, ff. A transposition of the second
and third petitions in Tertullian is discussed by Nitzsch, in the " Studien und
Kritiken," published by Ullmann and Umbreit, 1830. H. 4, S. 846, ff. Meyer's
" Blatter fur hohere Wahrheit," Th. v., S. 10, ff., give an exposition of the
prayer.

218 MATTHEW VI. 7-13.
Evangelists themselves record the prayer. In Rabbinical and
Talmudical writings (according to Wetstein, Schottgen, Lightfoot,
in their notes on this passage) there are very many thoughts
akin to the individual petitions. We learn thence how much of
what is spiritual and true is contained in the Jewish writings ;
only it is generally mixed with error by the pedantic Rabbins.
But it is very perverse to infer from this relationship of the
prayer to Rabbinical passages, that Jesus compiled His prayer
by reflection from such elements of Jewish prayers. Even the
noble and true element presented in the national culture had
only a stimulating effect on His inward development ; and what
He gathered thence He reproduced, in a new form, out of the
creative power of His inner life. But the exposition has not
only to unfold the thought contained in the single sentences,
but also to regard them in their connexion. Regarded as a
whole, the Lord's Prayer contains but one thought— the desire
for the kingdom of God* — in which all the prayers of God's
children (and, as such, Christ here teaches us to pray) are con
tained. This one thought is conceived in two relations ; first,
in reference to God's relation to man^-thus in the first three
petitions, which represent the kingdom of God as advancing
to completion— the highest purpose of God expressed as a wish ;
next, in reference to man's relation to God — thus in the last four
petitions, in which the impediments to God's kingdom are noticed.
The first part commences, therefore, with speaking of the riches
of God:— Thy name be hallowed ;
Thy kingdom come to us ;
Thy will be done.
The second part, on the other hand, speaks of the poverty of
man: — To us give daily bread ;
To us forgive sins ;
Us lead not into temptation ;
Us deliver from evil.
In the significant doxology, the certain hope is expressed of

• Luther is right, therefore, in saying, " the true Christian prays an ev
.ord's Prayer," inasmuch as his whole desire centres in God ¦ kingdom.

MATTHEW VI. 7-13. 219
the prayer being heard, — a hope founded in the nature of the
unchangeable God himself, who, as the chief good, will cause
the good to be realized in a manifest form, (the kingdom of
God.) At the same time, this prayer admits of an application ^
to the individual, who is compelled, however, in the constantly
recurring plural, to regard himself in connexion with all, as well
as to the collective human race ; for this very reason, that being
uttered from the inmost soul of mankind, and seizing the rela
tion of God to the sinful race in its deepest root, it meets the
wants of the whole and of the individual equally, provided (
always that he is living in faith. Every prayer which has
not for its object transitory particulars, but eternal things, is ;
included in the Lord's Prayer.
In the invocation : llarsg n/iuv b b rolg obgavofg, there is implied,
first, an elevation above what is earthly and transitory to what
is eternal and enduring; and, next, the consciousness of our
relationship to the eternal. The name TLdreg presupposes the
consciousness of ulokgia, (Rom. viii. 15 ;) still, of an imperfect
one, since otherwise the divine would, with less strong ex
pression, have been removed to heaven. This sentiment marks
the prayer as belonging to the New Testament; for though
Isaiah exclaims, tl2>12N tliJlM ^S, (Isa. lxiii. 16,) yet that must
be viewed as a momentary illumination of the higher spirit of (
the New Testament; in general, the relation of servant to
master (in which relationship is subordinate) prevails in the
Old Testament. The first petition : dyiagdnru r6 o'voua gou, is
closely connected with the two following. ' AyidZ^gSai, used of
what is unholy, means "to be made holy;"* but, used of what
is holy, it means " to be recognized as such," = ll^lprr. The
spread of the pure worship of God is, therefore, the subject of
this petition. Only, as Augustine (de Corr. et Grat. c. 6) very
truly remarks, this is not here to be viewed as the outward
spread, but the inward ; so that the meaning is, " sanctificetur
nomen tuum in nobis." A knowledge of what is holy, (not in
idea only, but experimentally,) presupposes inward holiness;
for only kindred minds know what is akin, (Psalm xxxvi. 10.)
The meaning of dyidZfgku, in this place, is therefore much like

* Tholuck gives it the signification, " to treat as holy," " to keep holy," which
supposes, however, " a being holy," if it is to be real. It seems, therefore, more
natural to understand it in this place as denoting the cause, rather than the
consequence.

220 MATTHEW. VI. 7-13.
that of bo^dZfghti, as employed by St. John (John xiii. 31 ; xiv.
13 ; xv. 8, and frequently) in the sense of being glorified. The
divine name (ovopa == Qttj) is put for the divine essence itself,
inasmuch as it expresses and reveals the latter in its nature.
(See the locus classicus, Exod. xxiii. 21.) The divine must
therefore, first of all, glorify itself in human nature, and by that
means become known to man in its true nature ; not till then can
the kingdom of God come. The second petition : eXS'eru n BagiXeia
eou, regards the divine power exerting itself within, which is
supposed, in the first petition, as appearing outwardly ; but, in
so far as the kingdom of God appears still as displaying and
developing itself, Christ subjoins, in the third petition, yevninru
r6 6eXn/j,d gou x. t. X., in order to express the consummation of the
kingdom of God, which consists in the unlimited fulfilment of
God's will; so that the three petitions stand related to each
other as beginning, middle, and end. The words " as in heaven,
so in earth," express the unqualified fulfilment of the will, which
now appertains to the heavenly state only, but which, in the
consummation, is to extend to earthly things also.
In the second half of the Lord's Prayer, the subjective dis
tance from the kingdom of God, and the steps of approach to
it, are apprehended and described with the supplementary
thought, " That it may be so, give us daily the bread of life."
That agroc does not denote bodily food merely, is seen from
the context; it stands among purely spiritual petitions, and
supposes spiritually-disposed petitioners. It is true, he who
prays should set out from his physical existence, and ascend
to what is higher; for which reason the reference to bodily
nourishment, on which the existence of the whole man depends,
should not be excluded, nay, it may even be regarded as the
immediate one ; but the spiritual food must still be looked upon
as included, since otherwise the important petition for the
Spirit of God would be entirely wanting in the prayer. (On
agros, as spiritual food to man, as a spirit; see Matth. iv. 4;
John vi. 32, compared with 41, 48, 50, 51.— The word hriobmg,
which occurs nowhere else, is difficult.* Some derive it from

* Origen (de Orat, p. 94) regards it as a word coined by the Evangelist himself,
without giving an etymology. The derivation from the participle is admissible
after the analogy of vegiougiog, ikXougiog. But it may be derived from the
participle of eTvai as well as from that of 1'evai. See Tholuck in his coram, on
the passage.

MATTHEW VI. 7-13. 221
the participle iirwuga, which is used like sequens, [Acts vii. 26 ;
xvi. 11; xxi. 18; xxiii. 11,] particularly in the phrase niiega
eiriouga = 1J1D, which, according to Jerome, was used in this
passage in the Ev. sec. Hebr. [Comm. in Matth. ad loc] But
this interpretation, which Dr. Paulus extends even to the future
in general, is in contradiction to Matth. vi. 34, where care for
the morrow is forbidden. In that case the connexion of o-jj/isgov
with iiriougiog is inappropriate. Others more correctly derive it
from ougla, either in the sense of substantialis, — so that the term
is meant to define the bread more accurately in its nature,
nourishment for the true being of man, — or what is sufficient
for existence — what is enough. Thus Tholuck.)
In the consciousness of the dependence of spiritual and bodily
life on God and His preserving power, the consciousness of guilt
is implied, which is expressed in the fifth petition, and from
which the desire proceeds to see all hindrances arising thence
taken away by forgiving love. That the prayer is that of a
believer, is evident from iig xal npelg d<ple/j,ev ; in which words
forgiveness is again (see v. 7) made dependent on the forgiving
love in the heart, which alone permits us to believe in for
giveness, without denying that this love itself is the gift of
grace.* The idea of bpelXnpa is taken very' widely, comprehend
ing sin in general, which, even in believers, contracts new debts,
that need continual forgiveness, — i. e., blotting out. See the
similes, v. 25, and Luke vii. 41, ff. ; and in ver. 14, immediately
below. A lively perception of sin is accompanied by a sense
of weakness, such as may not only disobey God's command

* The words, " as we also forgive," must not be understood as determining the
measure of forgiveness ; for if God did not forgive men in a higher degree than
they themselves shew forgiveness, no one would be forgiven. God always for
gives completely and absolutely; while man oftentimes, even when honestly
struggling, can forgive partially only, — that is, so as that something yet remains
in the mind. The words are rather to be taken as a. proof how much God is
forgiving love, since He not only forgives the believer his own sin, but also
enables him to forgive others. Being able to forgive others, is accordingly a
token to the believer of his being in a state of grace ; and the petition may there
fore be thus paraphrased: "Eorgive us our sins,— that is, reveal the entire
fulness of Thy forgiving love unto us, as Thou givest us to taste it in this, that
in Thy power we can forgive." Moreover, we must not overlook, that forgiving
sins toward man is alone spoken of; for we cannot and ought not to forgive sins
against God. Thus David forgives Shimei's sin against himself, but on his
deathbed he retains the sin against the Lord; and thus does the Apostle Paul
also, according to 2 Tim. iv. 14-16.

222 MATTHEW VI. 7-13.

occasionally, but even fall from it altogether. This is the view
taken in the sixth petition. (On neigdleiv, " see note on Matth.
iv. 1.) The dangerous nature of temptation, from which the
children of God beg to be delivered, lies in the disproportion
between the power of the new life, and that of evil. The fear
of God, therefore, in the believer begs for the removal of the
cup. The Saviour, after having been already led into one
temptation at the beginning of His ministry, and after having
overcome it to the saving of men,* prays himself, (for He
became in all things like us, only He was without sin,) in the
second temptation, at the close of His ministry: "If it be
possible, let this cup pass from me." (Matth. xxvi. 39.) In
this petition, therefore, the assurance is not implied, that no
temptation shall happen to the believer,— rather, as our Lord
drank the cup, so every follower must drink his cup also
(Matth. xx. 23.)
As the two previous petitions referred to salvation in par
ticular points, so the seventh petition, in conclusion, takes up
salvation in its comprehensive idea.! As the whole prayer is
uttered in the spirit of the communion of all the faithful, so, at the
close, good appears in contrast with evil itself; by the overcoming
of which the consummation of the kingdom of God is attained,
and the impossibility of any temptation whatever is secured.
Hence, the dxxd is used in contrast with the previous petition.
Whether we take rou wowjgou as masculine or as neuter, is indiffer
ent, provided the neuter is regarded as including all that is
wicked and evil, according to which notion it is Satan's very
element. The masculine is, however, more agreeable to Bible
usage. (Matth. xiii. 19, compared with ver. 38 ; Ephes. vi. 16;
2 Thess. iii. 3.) The petition for the consummation of the work
of salvation connects itself with the beginning, since that is the

* See in the Epistle to the Hebrews ii. 18 : " For in that He himself hath
suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." And again,
1 Cor. x. 13, where irsigagfjbbg dvtguWnog seems to be placed in contrast with
another, — namely, ietog, in which God himself, as in the cases of Abraham, Job,
aud other distinguished believers, and particularly in that of the Saviour, led into
temptation ; at such trials nature shudders. To be led into temptation must,
however, be carefully distinguished from presumptuous, determined entering into
it, which is one with tempting God.
t Ckrysostomt. the theologians of the Reformed Church, the Arminians, the
Socinians, and others, recognize only six petitions, as they join the sixth and
seventh.

MATTHEW VI. 14, 15, 16-18. 223
kingdom of God ; and the doxology, though not uttered by our
Lord, but added by the Church in the Christian spirit, assures
the fulfilment of all that has been asked by the consciousness
that all is God's ; and, consequently, by means of this highest
and only good, all good is as certain of triumph as the evil is of
destruction. At first sight, however, it looks as if the buvapii
should have been mentioned before fflksiXela, as being the more
general idea, by the instrumentality of which that kingdom is
realized. But this order was probably chosen for this reason,
that it is not the divine omnipotence in an absolute sense that
is meant, but its manifestation in the establishment of the king
dom of God, which the whole prayer presupposes. Hence,
the doxology being, as it were, an assurance of the certain ful
filment of the prayer, declares very appropriately, first, that the
kingdom is the object of God's desire, — that is, its realization
is willed by God ; and connected with this is the idea, that He
himself completes it, and, accordingly, will assuredly bring all to
a consummation. Ver. 14, 15. — The subsequent thoughts are in St. Luke
(xi. 4, ff.) more immediately connected with tire prayer. St.
Matthew expands the thought in ver. 12, respecting the exer
cise of forgiveness, in order to the receiving of forgiveness,
with which the closing petition also stands connected, inasmuch
as salvation is just a comprehensive forgiveness, of which only
the forgiving mind is a fit subject. A similar thought occurs in
a different connexion in Matth. xi. 25, 26. There is a difficulty
in this thought, since forgiveness seems to be made dependent
on the existence of love, while it is forgiveness received that
first produces love ; see note on Luke vii. 47. But it is not the
first kindling of love proceeding from forgiveness, that is meant,
(although the very reception of forgiveness supposes receptive
love ;) but the exercise of enkindled love in particular instances.
(Hagavrufta a single manifestation of the general dpagria. It is
= d(i.d.grntia, Mark iii. 28. The expression, irarng obgdvtog, like
BagiXeia r£v obgavav, is peculiar to St. Matthew ; see Matth. vi.
26, 32 ; xv. 13.)
Ver. 16-18. — The following verses are parallel with ver. 2
and 5 — a renewed exhortation to seek for the reality instead of
the appearance. After prayer and almsgiving, fasting is taken
up as another manifestation of the religious life. ('Apavl^u
denotes primarily " to make invisible," thence " to spoil," " to

224

MATTHEW VI. 19-21, 22-24-

destroy," as ver. 19. Here, "to disfigure" — the Latin, squalere.
To mournful negligence in externals, joyful attire, denoted by
dXel^ai, and vfyai, is opposed.) In that (apparently open)
exhibition of the religious life, therefore, hypocrisy is manifest,
which might be erroneously looked for in this (apparently not
open) concealment of it ; for the essence of piety is the most
inward reference of our life to God. All stealthy glances
towards the external are the fruit of hypocrisy. ('Ek rw xguirru
is opposed to being open before men. It is, therefore,
equivalent to the inward man, to whom God reveals himself.)
/ This fundamental thought, that God himself must be the end
of man's aim, extends to the close of the chapter. It is the
thread by which the different thoughts hang, which, in St.
Luke, stand in a different relation to Christ's discourses.
Ver. 19-21. — Earthly possessions are placed in contrast with
heavenly ones in their indestructible nature, and the spirit is
directed thither — to the source of all truth, (sfc, tinea = DD,
Isa. Ii. 8. Bg&ff/s denotes "being consumed" in general, to
which all earthly things are subject. The meaning "rust"
does not suit ; for gold and silver do not rust.* In Mai. iii. 11,
it is used also for a kind of worm.) The union of the heart
with the treasure is assigned as the reason of this admonition to
store up heavenly possessions. The 6ngaugbg is regarded as the
aim of the longing and desire which proceed from the xagbla.
The concentrating of them on created things must produce
misery, since the soul is destined for what is eternal.
Ver. 22-24. — Seeking after earthly treasure (which is so very
contrary to man's inward spiritual nature) implies, therefore,
inward impurity. The connexion with the preceding context
is not altogether simple, though not to be mistaken. This cir
cumstance indicates, doubtless, a different original position of
the thought. (See Luke xi. 34, 35.) The inward relations of
spiritual life are illustrated by physical ones. It is remarkable
that the eye should be called Xux*»og. It seems to be merely
the capacity of receiving fight. But capacity to receive light
implies a partaking in the nature of light. " Were not thine
eye sunny," says Gothe, with great depth and truth, "how
could it ever behold the sun ?" (See Psalm xxxvi. 10.) Thus
the eye, with the light which flows to it, is that which itself
* See, however, note on James v. 3.

MATTHEW VI. 22-24. 225
illuminates, which makes light, — a view which is optically
true.* The condition of the bodily eye, however, modifies its
action ; airXoug — irovngk = burXoug, double-sighted, as it were, (ver.
24,) or even totally blind, to which gxoreivbv refers. Just in the
same way the Saviour views the spirit's inward eye — the
reason — the power of receiving divine things.! Its capacity for
the higher light implies the nature of light in it, whence <pag b
eo! = Xux'og, ver. 22. Jesus accordingly does not teach the
absolute moral depravity of man. That noble power destined
for divine things, when drawn away to what is sensual, becomes
blindness. The inward light is wasted, and the power of sight
destroyed. The state of spiritual darkness is then more fear
ful than that of bodily blindness. But in Luke xi. 36, the
other aspect is also brought into notice,— that is, the entire
inward illumination of our being, by which the very last traces )
of darkness (fin s^ov n fikgog gxoreivbv) vanish. (On the special
difficulties in the passage, see note on Luke xi. 36.) This is
followed immediately by the mention of two masters, in which
comparison the double-sightedness — glancing stealthily from
God to the world — is expressed in another way. The appro
priateness of the contrast lies in the strictness with which the
one excludes the other. The relation of the masters to each
other does not allow of indifference among the servants. MtgiTv,
therefore, stands opposed to dyairuv, and xaraipgoveft to avreyeegbai.
(' Avr'exenkti nvog, properly " to seize anything," " to hold it fast,"
= P^ftlDj thence "to pursue anything with diligence and
interest," 1 Thess. v. 14; Titus i. 9.) MapSlvag, or Mappuvag,
(according to Luke xvi. 9,) from IfltSO, on the authority of
Buxtorf, (lex. talm., p. 1217,) is so used in the Targums for the
Hebrew J^2, 105, that the term may be taken as equivalent to
the Greek nXourog. Augustine observes on the passage : " Con-

* Philo expresses the same thought (de vit. theor. ii. 482, edit. Mangey) when
he says : n kopiXrjg -tyuxn dOdvara ixyova rlxrei, girelgavrog elg abrnv dxrTvag
vo»jras rou irargbg, alg buvngerai kugetv roi ffop/as bby/iura. (See also Gesenius
in the Lexicon, s. v., Wttt), J°h xx. 9.)
t The Season, provided it has been made clear and pure, can receive divine
things. It has a receptive faculty; but it cannot originate anything divine out
of itself. It is carefully to be distinguished from the understanding—the faculty
of ideas. In the New Testament the former is vous, the latter <pgbvn«ig. (See
the author's Opuscula, p. 152, sq.) Philo de cond. mundi, t. i., p. 12, says:
iwrsg voug h ^uxfi, rouro bpQaXfibg iv Sui/tan.

226 MATTHEW VI. 24-26.
gruit et punicum nomen, nam lucrum punice Mammon diciturf
In opposition to God, money, when personified, appears as an
idol, after the manner of Plutus, without our being able to shew
that an idol of this name was outwardly worshipped. In the
Saviour's meaning, the name Mammon applies to the author of
evil, which consists precisely in confounding what is not divine
with what is. Evil we must hate (Rom. xii. 9) if we are to
love good. The natural man, from the fear of encountering the
world, where good and evil are found mixed, endeavours to
avoid this alternative ; but Christ compels a decision of the
heart to pure love, which gives at once sincere hatred against
sin, never against the person of the sinner.
Ver. 25-34. — The Saviour raises man, involved in the common
wants of earthly necessity, and wasting his poor existence in
the anxious satisfying of them, from subjection to the prince of
this world, who retains his hold on his slaves by such cares, to
faith in God, by which a holy care is created, which dispels
those vexations of the earthly everyday life. The passage,
Phil. iv. 6, is a commentary on these words. In it the Apostle
puts the command : f^nbh pegi/Avare, in contrast with the direction
to ask of God what is needful. Prayer is, therefore, the opposite
of anxious care, because in prayer man commits the care to God.
The natural man cares without praying. The brute, and the
man who has become as the brute, care as little as they pray. —
Ver. 25. The discourse turns on the double meaning of -Jfuxh,
= tttD?, which denotes, 1, life; 2, soul. Viewed in their
essence, the two meanings involve each other ; but the carnal
man places the principle of life in the flesh, and regards eating
and drinking as its chief requirements. For the believer, the
life of man, as such, is in the soul, and the soul alone is to
him the principle of life, (that is, the -^uxn viewed as ^uxn
meuftarixn,) and, consequently, he provides for it chiefly. The
words : ^egi^vdv rfi -\iuxfi, are not, therefore, equivalent to b rfi
¦\uxfi = xagbla ; but "\>uxh is the object of care — the psychical life.
— Ver. 26. Faith in God's fatherly care for the nourishing of
the body is awakened by a view of His procedure in nature.
(risrs;va rou obgavou = D?ft$PT tfij}» The general expression is,
in Luke xii. 24, made special : xaravongare rout x b g a x a g.)
Man stands connected with physical nature by his body, and
may, therefore, trust himself to fatherly love in reference to
that, as unreservedly as the birds of heaven. But since a

MATTHEW VI. 27-34. 227
divine principle of life reigns in his physical being, it bears him
to a higher region of life.
Ver. 27. — The helplessness of the creature in all that is
external is viewed in contrast with the fulness of the Creator's
power, who daily nourishes all beings. Man cannot make a
single blade grow, nay, he cannot make any physical change in
himself. ('HXixla is primarily, " size of body," " stature,"
[Luke xix. 3,] then " age," [John ix. 21.]) To add a cubit to
the stature would be something monstrous in proportion to the
body, which does not exceed three cubits in height. From the
connexion, something small is intended here. It is better,
therefore, to interpret it, "to add a little to the age." The
care for eating and drinking — the conditions of physical life —
is in agreement with this. — Ver. 28. The same applies to
raiment. (Kglvov = tttW Song of Sol. ii. 1, lily. N^ai, neo,
filum ducere.) — Ver. 29. The formations of nature exceed in
beauty all the formations of art. Art, therefore, can only try
to imitate nature, — a powerful motive to unreserved confidence
in the wondrous Framer of the universe, in whose kingdom
the greatest and the least appear clothed in the most splendid
dress. Ver. 30. — If God thus cares for what is most perishable, how
much more for the heirs of His eternal kingdom ! (In regions
where wood is scarce, as is mostly the case in the East, the
use of other substances, as grass and brushwood, for burning, is
the natural result of circumstances. 'OXiybirigrog = nJIDN TitOp,
Matth. viii. 26 ; xiv. 31 ; xvi. 8.) — Ver. 32. Hence is deduced
the prohibition of care for the physical necessities of life; and
that care is represented as rooted in heathenism, where, instead
of the living God who knows, (ver. 8,) we meet with a blind
fate (elf&agfievn) which compels man to be his own god. — Ver. 33
and 34 qualify the noble and freely expressed thought, that the
believing child of God is not careful, in order to prevent mis
conception, as if the prohibition of care was to destroy all
exertion for earthly things. Znreft is contrasted with pegittvav,
so that the latter signifies anxiously caring without God,* the

* St. Luke (xii. 29) subjoins the admonition : fin pereugilegk, which word
does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. In the Old Testament it is
often found, as well as per'eugog, and the derivatives, pereugigpbg, fLereugbrr\g,
in the sense of being lofty, proud. (Psalm cxxxi. 1 ; Ezek. x. 16, 17; 2 Mace.

228 MATTHEW VI. 33, 34.
former striving in faith in God and with God. St. Luke, how
ever, (xii. 29,) uses tyirtft as synonymous with pegiuvav. JlgSrov,
first, gives the first rank to striving for the kingdom of God, to
which the striving for earthly things is subordinate. For God's
fatherly care is manifested by the believer himself; he does not
expect, in a spirit of tempting God, to be supported on air.
The BagiXeia rou ©sou must be taken again, in undefined generality,
as comprehending what is external and internal, (see note on
Matth. iii. 2,) just as the bixouoguvn, which, though in itself an
essential part of the kingdom of God, (Rom. xiv. 17,) is yet
specified, in order to direct attention to the nature of the king
dom of God, whether inwardly or outwardly manifested, and to
guard against false conceptions. The term ir g 6 grefygerai, points
out the divine as the immediate and proper object of all man's
endeavours, with which bodily concerns are associated by the
USay, and necessarily, if the endeavour after God be pure. Hence
the exhortation closes with the words with which it began : p&
pegifbvngnre, ver. 25. The words elg rnv augiov, do indeed seem to
limit the universality of the exhortation, and to describe the
care for the present as well founded. But in the idea of care
a reference to the future is always included, and the present
appears as provided for, as is seen in the succeeding context ;
consequently the requirement not to care, should be maintained
to its full extent, (see 1 Peter v. 7;) but, as was observed,
without thereby excluding truly believing exertion. The words
immediately following : n yty augwv /iegif&vngei rd eaurng, confirm this
view ; for in them God is represented as He who takes thought,
since time itself, to which taking thought is ascribed, must be
viewed in its dependence on Him, by whom every need is sup
plied for every circumstance. Lastly, the Saviour notices that,
even apart from lading himself with care for the future, the life
of the believer in the present retains its burden because of the
sin of the world ; so that the taking no thought urged upon us,
cannot be exemption from suffering. (Kaxla is purposely used,
as it expresses physical ills, but in their moral origin. 'Agxerbg
occurs also Matth. x. 25 ; 1 Peter iv. 3.) As regards the critical
state of the verse, the Codd. vary in the words: n yag augiov

v. 17; vii. 34.) In the sense of suspenso esse animo, "filled with hope and fear,"
— a sense not uncommon in profane writers, — it occurs only in this passage. The
BeBaibrng of irigrig stands opposed to the fiereugigpog of pegi/tva.

MATTHEW VI. 33, 34— VII. 1, 2. 229
fi.egi/t,vngei rd eaurng, as some omit rd eaurng ; others only ra ; while
some give iregl eaurng or !aur»j.- The various readings do not alter
the meaning essentially ; but the usual construction of itegiimdv
is with the accusative ; — we might, therefore, be led to prefer
saurng as the less common. It is more important to notice a
punctuation different from the ordinary one, which Fritzsche
(comment, in Matth. p. 284) has adopted in the text : /*n ouV
pegi/Avngnre eh rnv augiov n ydg augiov (kegifuvngei. Td eaurng dgxerbv rfi
hpega, n xaxla abrng. 'h xaxia a.br%g is then taken as in opposition
with rd eaurng. This punctuation seems to me worthy of regard;
only the words : n ydg augiov pegi/tvngei, produce, perhaps, the im
pression of something defective ; the words subjoined give more
completeness to the thought. The thought, however, is not
essentially altered by this punctuation.
The series of normal sentences (Gnomes) that follows in the
Sermon on the Mount, (eh. vii.,) was manifestly not originally
uttered in connexion, since it is entirely contrary to the charac
ter of such sentences to be multiplied in a discourse; it is only
when isolated that they exert their full effect. In writing,
where the reader can reflect in quiet on the depth of the senti
ment, the matter is different ; and St. Matthew has, therefore,
done well to form this collection of aphorisms, where he wished
to present, in a connected view, the peculiar character of Christ's
teaching. The connecting thought throughout is this, — to con
trast the peculiar character of the Messiah's disciples with the
prevailing popular conceptions, in order to present vividly what
was new in the manifestation of the Gospel.
Ver. 1, 2. — This thought is expressed more fully in Luke
vi. 37, 38 ; there is something similar in Mark iv. 24. Kglvetv,
xgi/ia, in the normal sentences in St. Matthew must evidently
be taken = xaraxgiveiv, xardxgi/iq, in which sense they occur,
Rom. ii. 1 ; xiv. 3, 4 ; 1 Cor. v. 12, and frequently. This is
seen from the parallel word, xarabtxdZftv, used by St. Luke,
which defines xgtveiv, and from the contrast between diroXbetv and
bibbvai in Luke vi. 37 ; the former of which expressions denotes
"acquittal by the court," (absolvere reumf) the latter, the
"remission of what might legally be demanded." Judging,
therefore, so far as it is testing, is not here forbidden ; that is
always required by Scripture. (1 Thess. v. 21.) But the con
necting of the evil with the accusing of the individual in whom
it is seen, is entirely prohibited to compassionate love ; where

230 MATTHEW VII. 3, 4, 5, 6.
the person is attacked, love is wanting ; where love is wanting,
the rigid law, and with it the jus talionis, prevails. Hence it
is a repetition of the thought in v. 7 : " The merciful shall
obtain mercy." The phrase : " With what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again," is equivalent to : " An eye
for an eye," Matth. v. 38. The nature of overflowing, forgiving
love, which makes us in turn ready to receive forgiveness, is
described by figure in Luke vi. 38. — (Mirgov xaXbv = Ixavov,
a just measure, not falsified; iri'eZu, to press together; eaXeuu, to
shake and move to and fro, in order to force as much as possible
into the measure ; biregexxuvofiai = p^tfil, Joel ii. 24, the over
flowing of the filled-up measure, — all in contrast to giving with
out love, which is done only to avoid a direct violation of the
law. KbXirog = p^tl, sinus, the lap of the flowing dress for receiv
ing anything, — a figure frequent in the Old Testament. ' Avrait-
obouvai eig rbv xbXirov, Jer. xxxii. 18 ; Psalm Ixxix. 12, for " to
recompense.") Ver. 3-5. — The next verses carry out, in particulars, the same
thought which had just been viewed in its relation to the whole
character. Uncharitableness sees the faults of others, while
it overlooks its own ; pure love overlooks those of others, and
watches its own keenly. The same figure is found in the tract
Baba Bathra : — Cum diceret quis alicui, ejice festucam ex oculo
iuo, respondit ille : ejice et tu trabem ex oculo tuo.
Ver. 6. — These exhortations to gentleness are followed very
appropriately by the command to beware of the other extreme,
— that is, an indiscriminate pouring out of holy things from
want of judgment. He who forbids our judging, by which a
man's culpability is determined, commands us to form an opinion,
which marks only the state. This latter is absolutely necessary
for the child of God, in order to be able to distinguish the false
from the true. (Kuveg, x^i0') denote the common natural condi
tion, which shews itself in shamelessness, casnality, and lust ;
these things the Christian must know as such, and not bring
what is holy into contact with them ;* for the condition of their

. * Tholuck (Clark's Bibl. Cab., No. xx., p. 278) is of opinion that the Gospel
should be preached even to the most abandoned. This ought, certainly, to be
done in public preaching, where there cannot be a judging of the standing of
the individuals. But here personal exertions for individuals is the subject, just

MATTHEW VII. 7-12. 231
inmost nature does not admit of their receiving it, and it has
an injurious reaction on himself. "Ayiov, imgyaglrai denote the
holy doctrines of the kingdom of God. [Matth. xiii. 45.] For
such men the law alone is fit ; the Gospel they misunderstand
to the injury of those who proclaim it to them. In dog-like
natures, holy things excite rage, and swinish natures tread them
without thought in the mire, which is their element.)
Ver. 7-12 — Prayer for the Holy Ghost alone leads to the
passing of such a life of love as does not condemn, and yet
carefully judges. The general maxim: "Ask, and it shall be
given you," repeated in different circumstances, is exemplified
by a similitude, which draws its conclusion a minori ad majus.
— Ver. 8 proves ver. 7, from the general thought : " Every one
that asketh, receiveth." The demonstrative force lies in the
nature of Him to whom the prayer is addressed. Every prayer, j
which is really such, — that is, which flows from the inward i
necessity of the soul, God answers. The human relation
between the father and the supplicating child forms an argu
ment xa-f dvOguirov. St. Luke (xi. 12) adds a third case : " In
stead of an egg, a scorpion." The notion of something disgust
ing is here added to that of mere uselessness. The transition :
n rig ignv, gives emphasis to the opposition : " or does it ever
happen otherwise ?" In comparison with God, the eternal
good, men, in their sinful alienation, appear as evil, (irovngot';)
in the relation of parental love, kindness still manifests itself
in the midst of sin, how much more in the eternal God ! St. j
Luke (xi. 13) calls the gift, which includes all other gifts, ex- ';
pressly the irveupa ayiov, who must be understood there as the
creative principle of holiness in man. In this Spirit we exercise
pure love. — The maxim in ver. 12 is also based on proverbs
current among the Jewish people. In the Talmud : " Quod
exosum est tibi, alteri ne feceris," stands as one of HilleVs say
ings. Love for ourselves should give the rule of our self-sacri
ficing love for our neighbour, (Matth. xix. 19 ;) only God is to
be loved above ourselves. Instead of oZrbg ignv b vbpog, as Gries
bach reads, Fritzsche would read ourug ; but, apart from critical
reasons, ourog should be preferred on account of the deeper

as in the prohibition of judging, and then the wise householder must bring things
old or new out of the treasure of his heart, according to the standing of the
persons with whom he has to deal.

232 MATTHEW VII. 13, 14, 15-20.
thought which it expresses, that in this command of love toward
our neighbour, the essential import of the Old Testament is
included. (Mark xii. 29, ff. ; Matth. xxii. 40.)
Ver. 13, 14. — From what has been said, the difficulty of a
walk in self-denying love naturally follows, being represented
under the figure of a narrow path, which conducts through a
narrow gate into the strong citadel of eternal life. The figure is
so natural, so true, that it is repeated in every earnest attempt,
even in subordinate stages of religious life. Cebetis tab., c. 12, obxoov
bg&"g (lugav nvd ftixgdv, xal bbbv nvd irgb rrjg Obgag, tfrtg ou iroXu byX.eirai,
&XXd irdvu bXlyoi irogeuovrai, aurn egrlv n bbbg, n dyouga irgbg rnv dXnQivfy
iraibeiav. (The parallel passage, Luke xiii. 24, will subsequently
receive a special explanation. For 6V/, ver. 14, we should
undoubtedly read r/; it corresponds to the Hebrew PIO-)
Ver. 15-20. — Yet is the way of the pure life in God not
merely narrow in itself, it is rendered still more difficult by what
the false prophets teach. Here we are required to try the spirits.
The fruits are assigned as the test. In 1 John iv. 1, 2, pure
doctrine is mentioned as the criterion. Is this meant here, too,
under the term xagirol% I doubt it ; though Tholuck has defended
that view with specious reasons. The doctrines are of chief
importance; they might well be compared to the root, but not
to the fruits. The fruits are necessarily of a moral nature. It
is certainly difficult to distinguish between the real fruits, and
the counterfeits of hypocrisy and fanaticism ; but the Saviour
supposes in His people a simple sense of truth, that makes them
separate the true and the false with certainty. The sheep's
clothing is not to be understood as the actual prophetic dress,
(Matth. iii. 4,) but denotes, figuratively, the outward show, in
opposition to the true nature, — sayings and doings apparently
full of love, which are the offspring of a selfish heart. The
wolfs nature seeks its own, and soon discovers itself to child
like sense. By the physical processes in the vegetable world,
we are shewn how the fruit characterizes the nature of that
which produces it. The figure is similar in James iii. 11.
('Axavkt, thorn-bush.. Virg, Eel., iv. 29: " Incultisne rubens
pendebit sentibus uva ?" — See Matth. xii. 33 for the same figure
rather differently carried out, as also Luke vi. 45, which pass
age will be explained with the former. On ver. 19, 20, see note
on Matth. iii. 10 ; Luke iii. 9.
Ver. 21-23. — These verses make a special application of what

MATTHEW VII. 21, 22, 23. 233
was observed of all false prophets generally, to those who are
connected with Christ, among whom insincerity may creep in.
Aeyetv is opposed to iroieft, as Xoyog to egyov, or buvawig. (1 John
iii. 18 ; Col. ii. 23 ; 1 Thess. i. 5 ; James i. 22.) Aeyeiv xugie,
xbgie, signifies pretending to an attachment which is not felt in
reality. According to ver. 22, the foundation of this attachment
appears to be spiritual vanity, which was nourished by the con
spicuous exhibitions of the Spirit's power, which were imparted
even to a Judas, along with his confession of Jesus as the
Messiah. To prophesy — to cast out devils — to do wonderful
works, are the most common operations of the Spirit's power,
which, in the lifetime of Jesus, was so powerfully exerted ; —
their nature we shall afterwards consider more precisely in their
several manifestations.* By the words : rw g$ ovo/tan, we must
understand not merely a superstitious pronouncing of the name,
as was the case with the sons of Sceva, (Acts xix. 13, ff. ;) but
a receiving of the power of the Lord, — only, an insincere one.
(On ovo/mx, see note on Luke i. 49 ; and again on Matth. x. 41 ;
xxviii. 19.) By the words : b rfi npega ixelvn, the revealing of
the hypocrisy, unperceived by human eyes, is postponed to the
time of the general judgment, when every secret must be made
manifest. (Rom. ii. 16.) Hypocrisy, therefore, appears, in this
place, as self-deception at the same time, in consequence of
which a man persuades himself that he belongs to the Lord,
till the discovery of the depths of the heart brings him to feel,
that what he called his holy actions were a great violation of
God's law, (dvopla,) because his final aim in them was constantly!
his own, not God's, glory. That we are not, however, to con
ceive of any exchange of words on the day of judgment, is self-
evident. The situation here so vividly portrayed is the language
of fact; the unbeliever will stand beseeching, but will be re-1
fused. (The words : diroyu%eire, x. r. X., are from Psalm vi. 8.)
The solution of this psychological enigma — the possibility of
such self-deception, is contained in the words : obbeirore eyvuv b/i&'g,
ver. 22. Tivugxeiv, like % 1 i, is used in the Scriptures in a deep
spiritual sense, particularly in the phrases : " God or Christ
knows man or the soul." (Deut. xxxiv. 10 ; 1 Cor. viii. 3 ; xiii.
12 ; Gal. iv. 9.) Knowing God is connected with being known

* On these gifts, see the detailed remarks on 1 Cor. xii. and xiv.

234 MATTHEW VII. 21-23, 24-27.
by God as the consequence ; — no one can know, without being
known of, God. If we connect these expressions with the
Christian doctrine of regeneration, the rich import of this con
trast is evolved. The pure knowledge of God — not a merely
notional knowledge, but that essential knowledge which is eter
nal life itself, (John xvii. 3) — becomes possible only by a
revelation of the hidden God to the soul, (see note on Matth.
xi. 27 ;) God's thus revealing himself is a knowing of the soul,
, (yivdjgxnv rnv -v)/u^v.) The figure of a bridal relation of the soul to
I God, which is evident throughout the Scriptures, thus acquires
its real import ; the inward illumination of the soul is like a
visit from the heavenly bridegroom, by whose agency the know
ledge of God results in the soul, according to the Old Testament
expression : " In His light we shall see light," Psalm xxxvi. 10.
Those who say, "Lord, Lord," are, therefore, unregenerated
men, who, with a false liberty, behave themselves as children
of God, without having been born of Him. The phrase : rrbkv
egr'e, in Luke xiii. 25, is, therefore, very significant. It marks
their foreign origin ; they are not from above, (avukv, John iii.
3 ;) they are gdg% ix rr\g gagxbg, (John iii. 6.) In Luke xiii. 25-
27, the elements of this passage are found in a different con
nexion, in which they will be considered hereafter.
Ver. 24-27. — The epilogue teaches the importance of applying
a discourse like this, under the figure of a man who builds on
a rocky foundation, and sets forth as the rock of salvation, the
Word of eternal truth which was einbodied in Christ's teach
ing. (Deut. xxxii. 15 ; Psalm xviii. 3 ; xiii. 10 ; Isa. xvii. 10.)
Here the contrast is not between the bad man and the good,
but between the fool and the wise man, (as in Matth. xxv. 1 ;)
for all that hear are supposed to be well-intentioned; but in
many, spiritual prudence for their being spiritually benefited
was wanting. The similitude of a building is carried out in
1 Cor. iii. 9, ff., and there (ver. 11) Christ is called the founda
tion, on which the superstructure of the spiritual life must rest.
In Luke vi. 48, the figure of laying a foundation is further
carried out by digging deep. (Bgo^, " heavy torrent of rain,"
= DttJil. In St. Luke, irXn^uga = irXn/^fuglg is used, which
means "the flowing tide," in contrast with apirung or dvdggoia,
the ebb. Here, where it is used in its more general sense, it
denotes any overflowing, desolating flood, from streams or rain
storms.)— Ver. 26. As a contrast to the building on the rocky

MATTHEW VII. 28, 29— VIII. 1-4. 235
foundation of the eternal Word of God, which defies all tempta-\
tions and dangers, there follows the figure of a baseless building \
on the sand, to denote the founding of the inward life on
transitory human dogmas, opinions, and fancies. This building
on the sand evidently refers to a spiritual work, which has some
affinity with the real work of the Spirit, even as born of faith,
but which is destitute of the proper character of that work.
Ver. 28, 29. — The Evangelist concludes the whole with a
reference to v. 1. St. Matthew, in conclusion, notices only the
impression which Christ's words made on the hearers. 'EwXjjr-
regku is stronger than ktupdfyiv ; it expresses " being inwardly
affected." To this the words Ifouov'av 'iyeiv point, which dis
tinguished the discourses of Jesus from those of the Pharisees ;
the latter often uttered truths, but they were destitute of
spiritual power ; their discourses were pictures drawn in the air,
without essential power and vital energy. These were breathed
forth in the words of Jesus, and by them He moved the depths
of men's hearts; wheresoever, therefore, anything in unison
with these truths was latent within, it could not fail to be
awakened by such a stimulus.

§ 4. HEALING OP A LEPER.
(Matth. viii. 1-4 ; Mark i. 40-45 ; Luke v. 12-16.)
After this portraiture of Jesus as a teacher, St. Matthew
proceeds to describe Him as a worker of miracles, since the next
two chapters contain nothing but narratives of the Saviour's
wonderful works. In as far as such actions are generally
viewed as manifestations of mighty power, they are called in
the Scriptures, buvdpeig, 1111123. Regarded in their connexion
with the divine purposes in relation to individuals or the whole,
they are called gnpeta, niHiN. As events exciting astonish
ment or terror, they are called rlgara, Qaupdgia, Matth. xxi. 15 ;
JTi^7?3, O^BD. The most appropriate name for them,
when used of our Lord's miracles, is s'gya, (a word found in
Matth. xi. 2, and very frequently in the Gospel of St. John.)
In that name the miraculous character is, as it were, pointed
out as the natural form of the Saviour's agency, since He, as
possessor of divine power, must necessarily produce super
natural phenomena by means of it. He himself was the r'egag,

236 MATTHEW VIII. 1-4.
His wonderful works were but the natural egya of His being.
Hence it is evident that we cannot adopt that idea of a miracle,
by which it is regarded as a suspension of the laws of nature.
If we start from the scriptural view of the abiding presence of
God in the world, the laws of nature do not admit of being
conceived as mechanical arrangements, which would have to
be altered by interpositions from without ; but they have the
character of being based, as a whole, in God's nature. All
phenomena, therefore, which are not explicable from the
known or unknown laws of the development of earthly life,
ought not for that reason to be looked upon as violations of law
and suspensions of the laws of nature ; rather, they are them
selves comprehended under a higher general law, for what is
divine is truly according to law. That which is not divine, is
against nature; the real miracle is natural, but in a higher
sense. It is true, the cause of the miracle must not be sought
within the sphere of created things; the cause of it exists
rather in the immediate act of GodTj All God's doings are, to
the creature, miracles, although, viewed in relation to the divine
essence, they are purely law and order. To the believer, there
fore, what is apparently natural, — e. g., the preservation of the
world — the growth of all its products, — is miraculous, because he
is accustomed to refer everything to its first cause. No miracle
is therefore performed without a real power. As we see human
individuals working miracles, for the most part in the New
Testament, we are taught the possibility of higher powers being
imparted to men, which may exercise a commanding force over
surrounding objects, whether nearer or more distant ; unless we
admit the presence of such a real element of power, — the Spirit
in His gifts, (xaglg^ara, 1 Cor. xii. 10,) — there would be no
connecting link between the miracle and the worker of it, and
the former, consequently, would seem something magical or
spectre-like. Animal magnetism may, if we choose, be regarded
as something analogous to the presence of such an element of
higher power; only, we must beware of confounding that
obscure, dangerous power of the principle of sensuous life with
the pure element of light, which wrought in the holy men of
God, of whom the Bible speaks ; this latter is God's nature in
them ; the former power is of the creature, and defiled by sin.
But when fulness of spiritual might in great men of the Church
in later days was not combined with the gift of working external

MATTHEW VIII. 1-4. 237
miracles, this results from the course of mankind's development,
and the varying necessities of the times, whereby only here and
there bright seasons are ushered in, which call forth extra
ordinary phenomena of that sort, which, after surviving for a
time, are gradually lost.
It is important to observe that the Scriptures assert not
merely holy, but also evil,* power to be the cause of miracles.
Two chains of miracles extend throughout Scripture history.
As the works of the Egyptian magicians stand opposed to the
miracles of Moses, (Exod. vii. ff.,) so in the New Testament
the miracles of antichrist stand opposed to those of the Saviour.
(Matth. xxiv. 24 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; Rev. xiii. 15.) This distinction
between the divine and the satanic miracles suggests the notion,
that it cannot possibly be the end of miracles to establish the
truth of any affirmation. In the sense of Scripture, too, this is
by no means the intention of miracles. It was only the people
that so viewed them, because they allowed themselves to be
influenced in their judgment by the impression of power, or the
excitement of the senses ; for which reason they attached them
selves to false prophets as willingly, and even more so, than to
the true. The Saviour, therefore, severely rebukes this eager
ness for sensible miracles. (John iv. 48.) But when our Lord
in other places (e. g., John x. 25 ; xiv. 10, 11) calls for faith in
His works, and connects them with His dignity and His holy
office, this is not done in order to establish the truth of His
declarations; truth, as such, rather proclaims itself irresistibly
to impressible minds by its inward nature. (" Every one that is
of the truth heareth my voice," John xviii. 37.) They are in
tended rather to demonstrate His character as a divine messenger,
for those in whom the impression of the truth, conveyed by the
spirit and language of the Saviour, had wrought its effect. The
proclamation of truths may be conceived, without the person
who proclaims them bearing the character of a messenger from
God. In such a case, the truths may predominate greatly both
in word and power over what is erroneous ; but error cannot be
conceived as utterly excluded in the case of any human teacher.
God, therefore, invested particular individuals as His instruments

* In so far as evil in general is merely a product of created powers, we may
say that the satanic miracles are merely apparent miracles ; since miracles can
be performed by God's omnipotence alone.

238 MATTHEW VIII. 1-4.
with higher powers, in order to distinguish them from humanly
excellent teachers, and to accredit them before mankind as infalli
ble instruments of the Holy Spirit — as teachers of absolute truth.
Hence the gift of miracles is one of the necessary characteristics
i of true prophets, and serves to witness their superior character
; — to prove that they are to be regarded as leaders and guides of
the people, and freed from all error. For this reason, faith —
that is, susceptibility to divine operations — is supposed in the
case of miracles; and it is only the truth, combined with the
testimony from miracles, that constitutes the character of a
divine messenger; by virtue of which, things may also be
established as true and certain, which cannot be known to be
such by the indwelling susceptibility . for truth. The reverse
relation obtains with the representatives of the kingdom of
darkness, whom the Scriptures call ^euboirgopnrai, ^eubbxgisroi,
because, notwithstanding a total inward diversity, they have
an external similarity in appearance to the true messengers of
God. Though these representatives of falsehood mix up much
that is true in word and deed, and would fain appear as the
messengers of the kingdom of light ; yet to the sincere soul,
fitted to receive the truth, the entire spirit of their doings dis
covers itself as unholy, and therefore all the miracles conceivable
fail to induce that soul to surrender itself to them ; the very
association of miraculous powers with an unholy spirit is rather
a proof to such a soul of their close connexion with the kingdom
of darkness. When, therefore, the Saviour condemns the thirst
for miracles, He rebukes the regard to externals involved in it,
which is a sign of deadness for spiritual things, and exposes to
the danger of doing homage to the operations of evil, when they
are conjoined with miraculous appearances. But, on the other
hand, our Lord commends the desire for miracles, as a confirm
ation of the inward certainty, that He, whose truth and purity
of action at first touched the soul, is more than a human
teacher — that He is a heavenly accredited messenger of God.
Miraculous power in itself, and every separate manifestation of
it, is accordingly without meaning ; the main point is the con
nexion of that power with the general disposition of the person
in whom it is seen. The association of miracles with what is
holy, is the sublime testimony of God to His servants; the
association of miracles with what is unholy, is a warning, meant
to awaken horror at the emissaries of the abyss of woe ; the

MATTHEW VIII. 1-4. 239
knowledge of what is holy and what is unholy in itself, and
in its true nature, is presupposed, in order to be capable of
discriminating the nature of miracles; and this knowledge
depends on sincerity and purity of heart. The insincere man
persuades himself that God's true miracles might have been
wrought by the evil spirit, and the false ones he regards as
true ; the sincere man views both in their true form, because
he carries in himself the rule and criterion of truth.
If now we glance at the history of miracles, we do not find
any miracles wrought by the intervention of human individuals
before the time of Moses ; for God's miracles, His revelations in
the Son, and in angels, and so forth, are to be carefully distin
guished from those in which miraculous gifts are attached to a
human individual. It seems as if a ripeness of human nature
were requisite; in order to be fit to serve as the vehicle of
mighty spiritual energies. For this reason, Jesus wrought no
miracles as a child; and the apocryphal books of the New
Testament betray their senseless character in this, among other
things, that they describe the child Jesus as working miracles,
Again, after the time of Moses, we notice a difference between
the miracles of the Old and New Testament. The miracles of
the Old Testament bear not only a more colossal, but also a
more external, character. They are more calculated to move
the inferior powers of the soul, particularly the imagination.
The miracles of the New Testament exhibit a more spiritual
character. In them the reference to the moral world appears
much more distinct. In particular, we find the Saviour, in His
miraculous agency, following the maxims established in the
temptation. He never wrought miracles to amaze — never for
himself. The Father only wrought miracles in Him for His
disciples, either in a narrower sphere, as at the transfiguration,
or in a wider one, as at the resurrection, for the confirmation of
their faith. In humble quiet Jesus employed the fulness of
divine power and life dwelling in Him, to console the unhappy,
and deliver them from the source of their sorrows ; in this sense
also to destroy the works of the devil, and to lay the founda
tions of the kingdom of God ; since our Lord always knew how
to apply outward, help as a spiritual remedy. For the miracu
lous cures wrought by Jesus should be regarded as both
physical and moral transactions, in which the fulness of divine
life passed over to susceptible individuals, in order to evince

240 MATTHEW VIII. 1.
the possibility of a spiritual harmonious life, together with the
organic harmony of the vital processes. The cures effected by
Jesu3 were also distinguished from those of His disciples in this,
that the Redeemer performed them in His own name, by
the perfection of His indwelling power. The disciples, on the
other hand, wrought them only in the name of Jesus, by His
power, as His instruments. Faith was, therefore, to them as
much the medium of appropriating miraculous powers, as it
was to others the means of healing ; and, in this appropriation
through the intervention of faith, we find them in a state of
gradual progression. (Matth. x. 1, 8 ; xvii. 19, ff.) For a time
the gift of miracles continued to be exercised after the removal
of the Apostles, till, after the complete establishment of the
Church in the world, it gradually disappeared. But, together
with the Holy Spirit, there remained behind the inward miracle
of regeneration, sanctification, hearing of prayer, which are
greater than the outward ones. These outward miraculous
gifts will not again appear till the last times, when the situa
tion of the Church shall render necessary the sending of new
prophets. The view held by the Romish Church of the
necessity of an unbroken continuance of miraculous gifts,
results from a confounding of external and internal miracles.
It is only the latter of which a church cannot be conceived
to be destitute ; for the God whose every act is a miracle,
dwells in it.
Matth. viii. 1. — With respect to the first of the cures nar
rated by St. Matthew, the connexion in which it stands, with
reference to the chronology, is undetermined. (See Matth.
viii. 1, 5, compared with Luke v. 11, 16, 17.) Still as, accord
ing to St. Luke, (vii. 1,) Christ heals the centurion's servant
at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, as St. Matthew
likewise relates, (viii. 5, ff.,) the position given to this event by
St. Matthew may be chronologically correct, and the healing of
the leper may have happened immediately after the Sermon on
the Mount, on the road to Capernaum. (St. Luke [v. 12] says,
iv (u# ruv irbXeuv.) The narrative begins with the observation,
that, immediately on the Saviour's descending from the moun
tain, crowds gathered around Him. Among them a leper
approached. (KaraBalveiv dirb rou ogoug refers to ver. 1. The
construction is remarkable for the repetition of abr^S — a con
struction which occurs in this same chapter, verses 5, 23, 28,

MATTHEW VIII. 1, 2. 241
and frequently in St. Matthew. The first abrf looks like a
datiye absolute with xaraBdvn. From this feeling, the various
reading xraxBdvrog aurou may be accounted for as a correction
for the less usual dative.)
^ Ver. 2. — With respect to the xiirga, it shewed itself in several
forms, — some dangerous, others milder. The regulations of
Moses respecting the H5712 leave no doubt on that point.
(Lev. xiii. ; xiv.) The persons afflicted with the dangerous
leprosy (see on the subject Winer's " Realworterbuch," s. v.)
were considered unclean according to the Mosaic law, and
could not be received into the congregation again till their cure
was ascertained. This leper, of whom St. Matthew tells us,
might already have heard of Christ's cures, or have seen some
of them. At any rate, he displays his faith in the person of
Christ by prostrating himself, and by the express petition for
healing, which he supposes Jesus able to accomplish for him
also. (The word irgogxuviTv = yovuireruv in St. Mark = iregiiv iirl
irgbguirov in St. Luke, corresponds to the Hebrew mFtfUKn It
is the general form of expressing respect in the East, and has
not in itself any religious reference.) But, with respect to the
nature of the faith* which we must suppose to exist in the
persons cured in this as in all similar cases, (see note on Matth.
xiii. 58,) we must first of all lay it down that irigng, viewed in
its religious bearing, in every case retains but one and the same
fundamental signification. This is modified only by the differ
ent objects of faith, which again are determined by the different
degrees of its development. Now we must not make the essence
of faith to consist in knowledge either of the divine in general in
the Old Testament, or of the divine in Christ in particular in
the New. For such knowledge, be it notionally confused or
clear, may be conceived united with a state of the soul, which
we must regard as the opposite of believing. Faith is rather
rooted in a spiritual susceptibility to the divine, which has its
seat in the heart, xagbla, (see Rom. x. 9, 10,) while knowledge
(yvugis) depends upon the susceptibility to the divine in the/
understanding, (voug.) Faith is also capable of inward gradation,
according to the degree in which the divine is revealed. Par
ticularly in the cures, where faith is made the negative
requisite, which determines the ability to receive the Spirit's
* See remarks on Eom. iii. 21.

242 MATTHEW VIII. 2, 3.
powers emanating from Christ, the faith demanded or exercised
must not be looked upon as a holding certain doctrinal posi
tions to be true, but a susceptibility, both spiritual and bodily,
to the Saviour's agency. This susceptibility was undoubtedly
uniformly accompanied by the notions that Christ was the
Messiah, and that, as Messiah, He could work miracles.
But we might also conceive these notions as existing apart
from that fundamental disposition of the xagbla, which we have
designated as susceptibility of the heart, and of the whole
nature, for what is heavenly ; and with such a separation they
would not satisfy any condition of miraculous healing.* This
is the view suggested by the description of all the cures
wrought by Jesus. In no case does He ask after doctrinal
positions as the objects of faith. In no case does He mention
them as a necessary quality of faith. The Saviour leaves
the mere profession of faith to speak for its quality, because
demeanour and language at once proclaimed the general dis
position of the soul, as being either open or closed to divine
influences. Hence it is evident also, that the outward bodily
healing was meant to be only a symbol of the inward spiritual
healing really intended. (See note on John vii. 23.) For
those same vital powers, by communicating which the bodily
disorganization was removed, exercised an influence, in con
formity with their nature, on the spiritual character of the
person cured. They brought him into a real connexion with
the world of good in general, and took possession of him on the
position to which he had just attained, in order to raise him still
higher. Ver. 3. — At the sick man's request, our Lord lays His hand
upon him, and heals him. In most cures wrought by Jesus
there was a similar immediate touching ; and there can be no
hesitation in acknowledging a conducting medium of healing
power (only not a necessary one) in the putting forth of the
hand, just as in blessing with the solemn iirikgig ruv yeiguv. The
analogy of animal magnetism strongly suggests itself, and it is
certainly not accidental; only, as was hinted above, it must
never be forgotten, that the power of Jesus Christ was divine,

* The ingenious mystic Gerhard Tersteegen calls faith, very appropriately,
" the inwardly hungering desire of the spirit, which lays hold of not only
the form, but also the essence of what is divine." (JVeg der Wahrheit, S. 366.)

MATTHEW VIII. 3, 4. 243
and magnetism cannot, therefore, be referred to, except to indi
cate a power presenting similar manifestations in an inferior
region of existence. (KaBu^m = irnp may signify "to pro
nounce clean," inasmuch as the priest who pronounced the dis
eased man clean, restored him to society from which he had
been cut off. [See Lev. xiii. 13, 17, in the LXX. translation.]
But that an actual and instantaneous removal of the disease is
intended in this case, is evident from the words ebkug dnnUe\ n
Xeirga, [Mark i. 42,] which are explanatory of ixatSaglg&n. In
St. Matthew, too, the connecting of ixaktgigSn with n Xeirga
aurou, requires that the verb should convey the idea of remov
ing.) Ver. 4. — All the narratives agree in recording, that the cure
was followed by the command of our Lord to tell no one of the
event. Similar prohibitions are often found in the Evangelical
history. (See Matth. ix. 30; xii. 16; xvi. 20; xvii. 9; Mark
iii. 12 ; v. 43 ; vii. 36; viii. 26, 30; ix. 9 ; Luke viii. 56 ; ix.
21.) The causes which induced the Saviour to give such com
mands, were certainly of various kinds. Sometimes He, doubt
less, meant, in that way, to guard against popular tumults to
make Him, the Messiah, king ; at others, to abstract the people's
attention from the transactions, and prevent their rendering
Him external homage ; or, as Luther observes, to give an
example of humility. But often the Saviour may have for-*
bidden the publishing abroad for the sake of those who were
cured. If these persons were in danger of distraction by out
ward occupation, it might be the intention of Jesus to lead them
thus to try themselves, and to turn their attention within. That
this was sometimes the motive which influenced Him, is espe
cially probable from the circumstance, that we meet with in
stances of an opposite character, where our Lord encourages
them to declare what God had done by Him. (See Mark v.
19.) This appears to have been His practice towards those
individuals who, being by nature reserved and lost in undue
self-contemplation, needed prompting to outward activity for
the prosperity of their inward life. The circumstance last
noticed affords a glance into the profound wisdom of our Lord
as a teacher, who understood how to treat every one according
to his wants. In the present case, it appears, from St. Matthew's
representation, most suitable to look for the reason of this pro
hibition in the person cured, since the cure was wrought in the

244 MATTHEW VIII. 4.
presence of many, and yet the command to tell nothing of it
was directed to the leper alone. It is true, St. Mark had not
said anything of the multitudes ; and from his representation, it
is more probable that the command was intended to prevent
popular tumults. His account is, (i. 45,) that the leper, not
withstanding the prohibition, published the miracle diligently,
(iroXXd often used in Mark — e. g., iii. 12 ; v. 23 ; xv. 3 — in the
sense of " greatly," "zealously,") and that, by that means, such
a commotion arose, " that Jesus could no more openly enter
into the city," — viz., without giving encouragement to the carnal
hopes of the Messiah among the multitude. Perhaps St. Mark
has also subjoined the words : xal ipBgipntdpevog aurw eukug e%e$aXev
aurbv, to make the command more stringent. (^E^Bgi/ido/iai has
here the meaning of " to command with solemnity and empha
sis," as in Matth. ix. 30. "ExBdxXetv = K^in. See Matth.
ix. 25.)
Not less important than this prohibition is the command to
go to the priests and present the appointed offering. (See
Lev. xiv. 2, ff.) In this command not only is there a wise care
expressed not to interfere, in any respect, with the theocratic
institutions, but also a tender cautiousness not to remove the
subject of the cure from the standing he had attained, but to
confirm him in a faithful discharge of the duties incumbent on
him. We do not, by any means, find that Jesus sought, by
awakening a higher feeling, to transport each individual He
healed into the New Testament life by means of regeneration ;
very frequently He leaves the individuals, as happened in the
case of John the Baptist, quietly to keep their legal standing,
if they were called to be perfected in it, and only seeks to guide
them to the true bixaioguvn, which, regarded in the Old Testa
ment point of view, involved jierdvoia. All the Evangelists
concur in specially subjoining the words : elg fiagrugtov auroTg.
They intimate, that the command had reference to the priests
also, — that is, by pronouncing the leper clean they were to
testify to the reality of the cure, and thus, at the same time,
condemn their own unbelief. (The antecedent lege?, must be
taken collectively on account of the auro?s, which follows. The
word biroxoig'eu, used in Luke v. 16, does not occur anywhere
else, except in Luke ix. 10, with the meaning, clam me sub-
duco.)

MATTHEW VIII. 5-13. 245
§ 5. HEALING OP THE SERVANT OP A CENTURION.
(Matth. viii. 5-13 ; Luke vii. 1-10.)
This narrative is one of the pearls among the many little N
episodes, complete in themselves, with which the Evangelical
history is adorned. It exhibits to us a pious heart in the most
amiable, childlike form, openly manifesting its life of faith with
out any doctrinal tinge whatsoever. The centurion, probably
in the Roman garrison at Capernaum, having grown up in the
principles of heathen life, was, from residing among the Jews,
favourably disposed towards the Old Testament life. The
miracles of the patriarchal times, of which he heard, he might
often have longed after, without knowing that he was to see
infinitely more than these. But his humility was as profound
and sincere, as his faith was deep ; he esteemed himself not
worthy that the commander over spiritual powers should enter
his house. In this character he recognized Jesus; but what
was the precise view he entertained of Christ, it would be hard
to determine, since it was, probably, as usually happens in child
like dispositions, undeveloped, though, in the main, correct.
There was no effort oh the part of the Saviour to extend his
notions ; only his desire is satisfied, and thereby his faith in
the gracious manifestation of the divine, that had come near
him, was strengthened, and an advance made towards perfec
tion in his present standing. — With respect to the two accounts
of St. Matthew and St. Luke, the latter undoubtedly possesses
the superiority in point of vividness and exactness in external
circumstances. Only St. Matthew gives greater prominence to
that part (ver. 11, 12) in the address of Jesus, which refers to
the Jews, whom that Evangelist everywhere chiefly regards.
The circumstance that St. Luke makes t,he centurion send his
friends to Jesus ; while, according to St. Matthew, he goes
himself to Jesus, cannot be regarded as a contradiction ; for the
latter representation" is nothing but a shorter mode of expres
sion, since, in the words of his friends, his own faith was made
evident to our Lord. The occurrence mentioned in John iv.
46-53, Semler and others were inclined to regard as identical
with this ; but Lucke and Tholuck have convincingly proved
the opposite. As the narrative of a cure, this transaction is so
far remarkable, that, in this case, Christ, without personal con-

246 MATTHEW VIII. 5, 6, 7, 8.
tact, merely by the magic power of His will, (if I may use the
expression,) exercises an active power at a distance, — a fact
which again has its analogies in magnetism. On the circum
stance of the centurion believing, while his servant is being
healed, see note on Luke xvii. 14, ff.
Ver. 5, 6. — The locality of the occurrence is fully pointed
out by both narrators. It took place as Christ was entering
Capernaum. St. Matthew makes the centurion present the
request for his sick servant in his own person. According to
St. Luke, he presented it through the intervention of others, —
viz., the presidents of the synagogue, to the erection of which he
had contributed. This fact shews that the Roman warrior had
been subdued by the power of the truth in the Old Testament
life, and had united himself to the synagogue as one who feared
God, (geBbjhevog rbv kbv,) probably only as a proselyte of the gate.
As a heathen, the centurion might not dare to approach the Mes
siah at all, and would, therefore, seek His interposition through
those representatives of the Old Covenant with whom he was in
timate. (Hatg = bouXog, Luke vii. 2, just as IM — *l2if. He was
afflicted with paralysis, [iragaXunxbg,] which is generally under
stood to imply a partial affection only ; but as it had brought
the sick man near to death, [npeXXe reXeurcJv, Luke vii* 2,] it is
probable the term is used for apoplexy. The Jewish irgeg-
Bbregoi made use of the centurion's good disposition towards the
Jews as a motive to induce Christ, in whom they supposed
the power of healing to exist, to exercise it in this case.
Some Codd. read irage%n for iragefyt, which, besides in this
passage, is found also in Luke xxii. 42 ; Matth. xxii. 4 ; John
xi. 40.)
Ver. 7, 8. — After Christ had expressed His willingness, and
as He was approaching the centurion's house, (ob /taxgdv
direxovrog dirb rng olxiag, Luke vii. 6,) the latter, according to St.
Luke's more circumstantial account, sent some friends to meet
our Lord, to prevent Him from giving himself personal trouble.
(ZxuXXu occurs also Luke viii. 49 ; Mark v. 35, always with the
meaning, " to trouble," " to put to inconvenience.") The idea,
that the personal presence of the Saviour was not necessary for
the healing of his servant, which he so much desired, but that
the Saviour, as the Lord of spiritual powers, could help with a
word, (xbyu,) is the expression of a faith both bold and free
from what is sensible. But in the wish, that Jesus should not

MATTHEW VIII. 9, 10. 247
come under his roof, various emotions are involved. In the
first place, it is certainly an expression of the deepest humility,
which does not esteem itself worthy of a visit from a heavenly
guest, (oube i/iaurbv tfgiuga irgbg ge iXkli, Luke vii. 7 ; obx s/'/x; Ixavbg,
compare Matth. iii. 11.) Further, this humility may have been
combined with fear of the presence of what is holy, as involving
danger to what is unholy. (See note on Luke v. 8.)
Ver. 9. — The words in which the centurion assigns his reason
for thinking, that it was not needful for the Saviour to trouble
himself personally to come to the sick man, give us a deeper
insight, than anything else, into his views of the person of
Jesus. He compared Christ's relation to the world of spirits
with his own military position. He derived thence, notwith
standing his subordinate rank, (elju M> i^ouglav raggbpevog,) absolute
command over his inferiors. In like manner he imagined Christ
commanding in the world of spiritual powers, which he probably
conceived of as a host of angels, (grgand ougdvtog — fc$2!£.) But
whether he conceived of Christ only as one of the superior
princes among the angels, or as Lord of the entire host, cannot
be determined. In any case his conceptions were probably dim.
Heathenish ideas about sons of God (as in the case of the
centurion at the cross, Matth. xxvii. 54) may have been mixed
in his mind with notions which he had heafd uttered about the
Messiah. Notwithstanding this indefiniteness in his concep
tions, he possessed in his heart a deep religious life, which
excited the astonishment of the Son of God himself.
Ver. 10. — The Saviour's ktvpdfyiv of the humble faith of
the centurion (see note on Matth. xv. 21, ff., respecting the
Canaanitish woman) points to a peculiar relation between
divine and human things, intimated even in the Old Testa
ment, (Gen. xxxii. 24, sq.) While what is lofty in man is
abomination to the Lord, the lowly find favour before Him,
so that He, the lofty One, dwells in the depths with the lowly,
Psalm xxxiv. 19. The Saviour here makes use of the mani
festation of that state of the soul, which is the main condition
of the indwelling of the divine glory in man, as existing in a
heathen individual, in order to arouse a sense of their proper
destination in the Jews who accompanied Him. Israel was
called not only to give birth to the Saviour from among them,
but also to preserve a thorough susceptibility to His operations ;
and by means of those operations to erect the kingdom of God

248 MATTHEW VIII. 10, II, 12.
among themselves first. Jesus here censures the want of that
spiritual susceptibility, and hints at the mystery of the transfer
of the Gospel to the heathen, intimations of which even the
Old Testament contains, (Isa. xix. 21, 22 ; lvi. 6, 7 ; Psalm
Ixxxvii. 4, ff.,) without, however, connecting the diffusion of
the knowledge of the true God to the heathen with the rejection
of Israel.
Ver. 11, 12. — The pious centurion stands in the sequel as the
representative of those heathens in general, who, by their deep
inward longing for what is divine, surpass the Jews, who were
wedded with the stiffness of death to the mere form. Such
spiritual members of Israel (Rom. ii. 14, 15 ; xi. 17, ff.) are
conceived as scattered among all people and regions, but in
Christ gathered together and united in the kingdom of God,
John x. 16. ('AvaroXal, bugpiol, to which in the parallel passage
[Luke xiii. 29] jSoggSs and voVos are added, denote all the dimen
sions of the earth's extent, according to the sensible impression,
— implying the whole of it. See Isa. xliii. 6.) The Jews, as viol
BagtXelag, are contrasted with the Heathen, so that the latter are
viewed only in a more general relation to the divine kingdom.
(In like manner, Rom. ix. 25: xaX'egu rbv ob Xabv /&ou, Xabv fiow
xal rijv obx nyairn/Mvnv, nyairnt&evrjv, after Hos. ii. 23.) The abuse
of their privileges on the part of the Jews, caused this relation
to be exactly reversed. The privileges in which the Jews
trusted, became the possession of the believing Heathen ; the
punishments they desired for the Heathen fell on their own
heads. These privileges are comprised in the phrase : dvaxXlvegfou
b rfi BagiXeia; only we are not at all warranted in regarding
the expression as an empty picture of happiness. Jesus was
addressing Jews, who had adopted into the circle of their
Messianic conceptions the idea of a social meal, as a general
expression for being and living together with the saints of
old, raised from the dead, as the representatives of whom,
"Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," (and in Luke xiii. 28, "all the
prophets,") are mentioned. (See Bertholdt, Christol. jud., p.
196, seq.) Passages in the Old Testament (such as Isa. xxv.
6) might have contributed to the formation of this notion.
Accordingly, the readiest supposition would be to regard the
expressions in this passage as an accommodation to the Jewish
conception of the opening of the kingdom of God with a
banquet, if we could persuade ourselves to incorporate such a

MATTHEW VIII. 11, 12. 249
feature into our idea of the Saviour, as accommodation to
popular superstition (which was just what He came to destroy)
would add to His portrait. Moreover, as this one particular
feature appears elsewhere in the New Testament, (see Luke
xiv. 14, 15 ; Rev. xix. 9,) another interpretation of this passage
offers itself, less at variance with the general tenor of Scripture
doctrine on the closing events of the world, and with the idea
of the Saviour. For the doctrine of a restoration of the world
defiled by sin extends through the whole New Testament ; and
it is acknowledged in other passages — e. g., Rom. viii. 19, ff. —
by many expositors, who do not acknowledge it in the passage
under discussion, — which doctrine is necessarily connected with
the resurrection of the body, viewed, according to 1 Cor. xv.,
as a real restitution, not indeed of the corruptible body of death,
but of the incorruptible one, growing up out of the elements of
the former. To this restoration of the paradisaical condition of
the earth, in which the acm6 of Christ's power to overcome the
power of sin will be manifested, the present passage refers, so
that the kingdom is here the state of righteousness, outwardly
and visibly attaining to power. The commencement of that
state, combined with the resurrection of the Old Testament
saints, is conceived as being celebrated by the Saviour visibly
presenting himself in company with His people at a new
covenant-banquet. As the Saviour, when about to depart, was
united with His disciples for the last time at the Lord's Supper,
so in the kingdom of God He will (according to Matth. xxvi.
29) again gather them, as the great family of God, at the
supper of the Lamb. (Rev. xix. 9.) Hence the Jews' funda
mental idea of a feast in the kingdom of God is undoubtedly
correct, and likewise expressed in Christ's words in the New
Testament, only that their carnal sense had, on the one hand,
given it a gross material form, and on the other, viewed it
isolated and without its spiritual conditions.* An external
participation in the kingdom of God, realized outwardly and

* On account of such aberrations, Chiliasm has been condemned by the
Church ever since the third century. But that the fundamental ideas of that
system, apart from their materialized form, have their root in the Scriptures,
has been acknowledged by many expositors in recent times, though with the
intention of deriving arguments against the Bible. These fundamental ideas are
no other than— victory of good over evil, even in outward things, and restoration
of the original harmony in the visible creation also.

250 MATTHEW VIII. 11, 12, 13.
visibly, necessarily presupposes its inward establishment in the
spirit. Not less erroneous than this Jewish materialism is Gnostic
idealism, which, in the place of a real resurrection of the body,
which necessarily implies a glorified world, teaches a so-called
pure life of the spirit, known, indeed, to Scripture, but only to
be condemned as a worthless conception. (2 Tim. ii. 18.) The
Bible teaches that the soul necessarily needs an organ ; and that,
consequently, the state after the dissolution of this terrestrial
body till the resurrection is an imperfect, intermediate state.
With the dvdgrdgig, the kingdom commences in its complete form,
and to this the passage before us points.
While, then, the heathen are represented as being received into
it, (the kingdom,) the Jews appear as excluded from it. ("E|»
points to an egu, since the kingdom is conceived as a limited
region of existence into which nothing extraneous can make its
way. On this point, see Matth. xxv. 10.) <£5s is viewed as
the element of the kingdom, to which gxbrog forms the contrast.
In the epithet i%uregov, the idea of distance from the element of
life and joy is expressed. (Wisdom of Solomon xvii. 21 ; xviii.
1.) The xXau&/j,bg xal Bguy//,bg ruv bbovruv in the kingdom of
gxbrog, is parallel with the happy enjoyment of the feast in the
kingdom of God, in which former expression the idea of the
most exquisite sense of pain, arising from a consciousness of
having missed the end of life, is the eternal truth. More-.
over, as little as the kingdom is here in itself identical with
eternal happiness, so little is the "weeping and gnashing
of teeth" identical with eternal punishment ; but it must be
granted, that kindred circumstances nearer at hand are fre
quently used to designate more distant analogous ones, and in
so far it is correct to refer these contrasts to the final decision.
We can only regard the state of suffering in Sheol, (a fuller dis
cussion of which is found in note on Luke xvi. 24,) which the
Scripture distinguishes from Gehenna, as the immediate refer
ence in the description of the " weeping and gnashing of teeth."
That every possibility of return ought not here to be denied to
the rejected Israelites, is indicated, above all, by Rom. xi. 26,
where the promise of salvation is given to all Israel.
Ver. 13. — In conclusion, both historians then relate that the
Saviour, overcome by the bold faith of the warrior, immediately
healed the sick man. ('Exarei/rag^s is another form for ixarbv-

LUKE VII. 11-17. 251
ragx^i the one used in ver. 1. 'Tyialvu, Luke vii. 10, means
" to be well ;" so that, according to. his narrative also, the cure
appears to have been wrought suddenly.)

§ 6. RAISING OF THE YOUNG MAN AT NAIN.
(Luke vii. 11-17.)
This transaction, which St. Luke alone mentions, is dis
tinctly connected with the foregoing context by the words h rfi
'e%ns, ver. 11 ; we, therefore, proceed here with this paragraph,
and the more so, because verses 16, 17, where we read of the
fame of Jesus beginning to extend, assign it plainly to the
earlier period.
But with respect to the fact of a raising from the dead in
general, it is difficult of apprehension, on account of the un
certainty of the fact of death, and of its nature. For the
separation of the soul from the body is not to be viewed as
absolute, even where corruption is evidently going forward,
because then the resurrection of the body (as described 1 Cor.
xv.) would be impossible, and, at most, it could only be called
a new creation of it. But if there remains, even in death, a
bond between the higher vital principle and the elements of
the body to be raised, and if medical men confess, that, even
to go no farther than ordinary experience, the determination of
the actual occurrence of death is, in the highest degree, difficult,
we can see that no other assurance against the supposition of
a trance in this and the other cases of raising from the dead
recorded in the New Testament is possible, than that which the
word of Christ and the Apostles affords. Where death is really
in appearance only, as in the case of the daughter of Jairus,
(Matth. ix. 24,) the mouth of truth expressly declared it, though
she was thought by all to be dead ; but, where death is actually
present, it declares the fact with equal plainness. What the
short-sighted eye of man can perceive but imperfectly, the Lord
of the world of spirits saw through with indubitable certainty. -
The reality of His miraculous raisings from the dead rests upon
the veracity of His person. But, at the same time, the view
of death just given renders it easier to picture to ourselves the
awakening. For, as at the resurrection it will take place in all
through the Saviour's life-giving power ; so, in the individual

252 LUKE VII. 11, 12.
awakenings, He revived activity in the organ that was dead,
but not destroyed ; so that the -^uxn which had escaped might
again make use of it. Hence every raising from the dead is,
so to speak, a full restoration of the entire relation between soul
and body, which had been interrupted ; while, in partial restora
tions, it is the removal of only the disturbance in this or that
function, with which the organism of soul and body was affected.
But the same heavenly power, which is the life itself, (John
i. 4,) effects the latter as well as the former. As the source of
all individualized life, it can just as well recal to its organ that
which had departed, and restore to harmony what was dis
ordered, as it creates what did not exist. On questions such as
these — where the departed soul of the person raised up dwelt
in the meantime, and whether, in the meanwhile, it had con
sciousness or not — the Scriptures, for wise reasons, give no
information; and it is sufficient for us to know, that, in this
respect, as in general, the state of the dying influences their
future condition. But it is the more important to conceive of
the raising up of the dead as not unconnected with what is moral.
The corporeal resurrection was to be a means of spiritual vivi-
fication, not merely for the relatives and for all who saw or
heard of the event, but particularly for the person who was him
self raised up.* So extraordinary an event could not but affect
his inward life decisively, and render the man so raised up a
living witness to our Lord's miraculous power.!
Ver. 11, 12. — The town where Jesus restored the son to his
afflicted mother, was called Nain, (perhaps from 0^2, pleasant,)
a small town of Galilee not far from Capernaum. (On ixavbg
and iroXug, see Matth. viii. 30, compared with Luke viii. 32.)
As He approached the town gate, (iruXn.) the Saviour saw a
dead person carried out ; it was the only son of a widow. (Mown

* Strauss thinks a reference to the persons raised up improbable, (B. ii., S.
157, second ed.,) because it is not anywhere specially noticed. But this refer
ence did not need to be particularly mentioned, because it was a matter of
course. Jesus always wrought for the salvation of men, in every word, and in
His most casual intercourse with them ; how much more, then, in an awakening
from the dead !
t According to John xi. 41, 42, Lazarus was raised for the glory of God ;
but that does not exclude a view to his own perfecting by his death and resur
rection ; it includes it ; for a vivification of the whole man is precisely the high
est glory of God.

LUKE VII. 13-17. 253
yevfig, as in Luke viii. 42 ; ix. 38 ; Heb. xi. 17, in the sense of
"only." But in the idea of "only," as in the Hebrew Tn^,
there is included also that of " dear," " valued.")
Ver. 13, 14. — The feeling of sympathy for the mother (on
girXoyyxv'Xfe^ah see note' on Luke i. 78) is specified as that from
which the determination of Jesus to waken the dead man lying
in the coffin arose. But that does not exclude a regard for the
man himself in the transaction. Man, as a conscious being, can
never be merely a means, as would be the case here, if we were
to regard the mother's joy as the sole purpose of the raising of
the young man. It is rather the immediate result of the action,
noticeable by the bystanders, but the less essential ; its concealed
result was the spiritual awakening of the youth to a higher exist
ence, by means of which the mother's joy first became true and
lasting. (By (Togo's is not meant a closed receptacle, but an open
bier. The Hebrews called it TWO, lectulus.)
Ver. 15, 16. — The Saviour raised the dead man, without con
tact, by His mere word, (compare Elisha's raising the dead,
2 Kings iv. 34,) which should be viewed as the audible expres
sion of the invisible agency of His Spirit, by which the «\>uxn
and gu/ta were restored to their true relation in the young man.
In the neighbourhood, the bodily raising produced a beneficial
spiritual excitement, and that, in the first instance, as was
natural, under the form of pbBog rou ©sou. Penetrated by the
holiness of Christ's work, they rightly conclude that such holi
ness, united to such power, indicated a definite mission of Christ
from a higher world. They view the miracles quite agreeably
to their appointment as an evidence of His prophetic dignity.
(The expression : irgotpfrne i&yag, refers to the greatness of the
miracle ; raising from the dead was known to be peculiar to the
princes of the prophetic order. On iirigxeirregkti, see Luke i. 68.)
Ver. 17. — By individual flashes of His divine power like this,
darting hither and thither, the Saviour aroused in the*, whole
nation the consciousness that great things were before them.
From the ardent anticipation connected with that consciousness,
there arose a deep sense of misery and present distress, and
a confident courage for the future, — spiritual elements which
our Saviour understood how to guide and to employ for His
purposes.

254 MATTHEW VIII. 14, 15, 16.
§ 7. HEALING OF PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW.
(Matth. viii. 14-17 ; Mark i. 29-34 ; Luke iv. 31-41.)
After having narrated (Luke iv. 31-37) the history of the
cure of a demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, which, as
it contains nothing peculiar, we passed over, referring the
reader to Matth. viii. 28, ff., St. Luke immediately subjoins the
healing of Peter's mother-in law with the words : avagrdg ex r5js
guvayuyng. St. Mark also (i. 29) introduces this narrative with
the same words, while St. Matthew connects it loosely with the
account of the cure of the centurion's servant. It is surprising
that St. Luke here mentions Simon Peter as a well-known
person, without having spoken of him before ; this fact might
be accounted for on the ground of St. Luke's being entitled
to suppose Peter known to Theophilus. Still it can hardly be
denied, that this circumstance does also suggest a consideration
not unimportant in favour of the view, that St. Luke incor
porated memoirs in his Gospel ; and as Peter was mentioned J
in them, St. Luke also named him, without noticing that no
allusion had been yet made to His connexion with Jesus. St.
Matthew and St. Mark had already prefixed a short mention of
Peter, Matth. iv. 18, ff. ; Mark i. 16, ff. The fact itself does
not contain anything particular; the general observations on
the cures wrought by Jesus are applicable to this case also.
(See note on Matth. viii. 1.)
Ver. 14, 15. — The mention of irevkgd nlrgou, implies that that
apostle was married. According to 1 Cor. ix. 5, Peter did not
forsake his wife in the exercise of his apostolical calling, but had
her to accompany him in his missionary journeys. (To attempt
to explain the form of the disease from St. Luke's expression :
irugeru peydXu guvixeg6ai, cannot but be unsatisfactory.) In this
case, our Lord again wrought by immediate contact, (n-^aro rng
%eigbg,) and restored her so perfectly that she was at once able to
employ herself. The biaxoveft abroig must be viewed only as the
result of the cure ; the proper intention of the cure we must in
this case also regard as a moral one.
Ver. 16. — The news of the miraculous cures wrought by
Jesus, attracted multitudes to Him, supplicating help. They
came after sunset, because the heat of day would have been
too distressing to the sick. The Saviour, surrounded by crowds

MATTHEW VIII. 16, 17. 255
of such unfortunate individuals, who were bowed down by bodily
pains, presents, in the healing agency by which He relieves
external necessities, an emblem of the spiritual agency which
He incessantly exercises within the hearts of men by the power
of His salvation. Only we must suppose, that, even in the
corporeal deliverance which He granted, He would constantly-
lead their minds beyond the crowd of earthly wants, to the
malady of the soul and its cure. On the baiuovigbpevoi, as well
as on the prohibition to the demons not to speak of Him,
(Mark i. 34 ; Luke iv. 41,) see more fully in note on Matth.
viii. 28, ff.
Ver. 17. — St. Matthew, who, as writing for Jews, takes pains
to connect the manifestations in the life of Jesus with the Old
Testament delineations of the Messiah, here quotes Isa. liii. 4,
with the formula so familiar to him, Sirug irXngug^. (See note
on Matth. i. 22.) The Evangelist, moreover, again departs from
the text of the LXX., who thus translate the Hebrew text :
ouros robs dfjMgrlag nftuv <pegei, xal iregl n^uv bbuvarai, in which form the
words were altogether unsuitable for his purpose. He follows
the original precisely, and translates vpp] by agkveia, and 2iN2£
by vbgog; the verbs NtoJ and T2D, used by the prophet, St.
Matthew renders by XapBdveiv and BagrdZeiv. This independent
treatment of the quotations from the Old Testament forbids us
to regard the Greek text of St. Matthew in the light of an
ordinary translation, — i. e., one in which the translator does not
allow himself any free action. But the bringing forward of just
this passage does not seem agreeable to the purpose designed
by the context, particularly as in 1 Peter ii. 24, the same pas
sage is explained of the vicarious satisfaction of our Saviour,
and the whole 53d chapter of Isaiah is a description of the
Messiah as suffering for sinful mankind. But the apparent
difference in the exposition of the same passage by two writers
in the New Testament disappears, if we keep in view, that
physical sufferings (as the acme" of which we are to regard
death, see Rom. vi. 23) are only the other aspect of the con
sequences of sin. The Saviour, who was called to restore the
original state of mankind, removed external suffering no less
than internal ; and, indeed, ordinarily, the former first, because
deliverance from it is wont to be a means of arousing a desire
for deliverance from the miseries of the soul, and quickening
the faith in the possibility of that deliverance. The referring

256 LUKE IV. 42-44.
of Christ's saving efficacy to bodily sufferings no more excludes
the extending of it to spiritual sufferings, than, on the other
hand, the referring of it to spiritual sufferings excludes its
extension to such as are bodily. The whole man is the object
of salvation, body as well as soul. The only point of difficulty
is, that XapBdveiv and Bagrdfyiv are used of Christ's relation to
the dgkvuat and vbgoi, as well as of His relation to the inward
sufferings of mankind. (See John i. 29, where our Lord is
called, d/iivbg rou Geou b a'iguv rnv dfiagriav rou xbg/jjou.) It seems as if
the exercise of healing energy were by no means anything so
difficult and productive of suffering, as that BairdZeiv would be
an appropriate term to apply to it. Hence we are tempted to
interpret XapBdveiv and BagrdZeiv as simply = dpaigeft, which,
however, is not at all in accordance with the context of the
passage Isa. liii., where the Saviour appears in the character of
a sufferer. This difficulty is solved, however, if we conceive
the healing energy of the Saviour more in its essential char
acter. Viewing the person of the Saviour, as we must, as truly
human, as well as truly divine, we cannot but think, that the
healing energy of our Lord consisted in a pouring and breath
ing forth of His vital fulness — that, moreover, His whole soul
entered, with heartfelt sympathy, into the necessities of the
sufferers — that He really suffered with them. As, therefore,
physical exertion produced physical weariness, (John iv. 6,) so
also spiritual exertion would exhaust Him spiritually. Hence
we may say, that in respect to the dgkveiai and vbgoi also, Jesus
laboured in His soul, and bore the sin of the world.

§ 8. PETER'S DRAUGHT OP PISHES.
(Luke iv. 42-44 ; [Mark i. 35-39 ;] Luke v. 1-11.)
The idea just suggested receives confirmation from the suc
ceeding verses in St. Luke and St. Mark. For early next
morning the Saviour retired into solitude (s/'s 'ignpov rbirov) for
prayer. St. Mark uses 'iwuxov Xiav instead of the more usual
expression npegag yevofihns in St. Luke. "Ewu^ov, for which some
Codd. read ewuxa, occurs only in this passage. We are fre
quently told that Jesus spent the night in silent prayer. (See
Luke v. 16 ; vi. 12 ; ix. 28.) We must believe that this
retirement for solitary prayer proceeded from a real necessity,

LUKE IV. 42, 43. 257
unless our Lord is believed to have done something unmeaning,
or merely apparent, — which would favour Docetic notions.
According to the Scriptures, Jesus was in all things (xara
irdvra) like men, excepting in sin, that He might be merciful,
(iXeii/iuv, Heb. ii. 17.) And it is just in this view of our Lord
that rich consolation is afforded, and the possibility is provided
of taking Christ for our example. Regarded in His character
as man, the prayers of Jesus (which must, indeed, be conceived
as uninterrupted, agreeably to His own command to us, [Luke
xviii. 1,] but still a.s having their points of elevation in peculiarly
consecrated moments) were, so to speak, seasons of heavenly
refreshment and strengthening from above, in order, to over
come the powers of darkness that incessantly bore down
upon Him. But, at the same time, our Lord's moments of
prayer are to be viewed as seasons when the Saviour was
absorbed in the contemplation of the high purposes of the
Father with Him, and in the depths of the divine love, in order
to consecrate himself more and more to the completion of His
work. Ver. 43. — The people, however, touched with the impression
which the demeanour of Jesus produced, hastened after Him
into the wilderness ; and St. Peter, who always appears the
most energetic among the Apostles, goes to Jesus to inform
Him that the multitude was seeking for Him. But our Lord
withdraws, with the observation, that He must extend His
ministry over the whole of Israel. The ministry of the
Saviour, according to its entire constitution, was not calculated
to be exercised continually at the same place, but to arouse the
mass of the nation from the slumber of death. For this reason
He never stayed long in a place, but journeyed hither and
thither. Jesus limited His more special oversight of souls to
the narrower and wider circles of His disciples, who so yielded
themselves to His sanctifying influence, that they forsook all —
came out from their previous connexions, and followed Him.
(St. Mark [i. 38] uses the expression fyo/ww xu/toirbXeig, which
occurs only in this passage. By xu/MirbXeig, he means villages of
some size, approaching towns in extent. The participle I^o/asvos
is to be taken as in np'ega i%^n, [Luke xiii. 33 ; Acts xiii. 44,]
in the. sense of "near," "neighbouring." The words in St.
Mark : elg rouro i%eXnXukt, which correspond to St. Luke's expres
sion : elg rouro diregraXpai, are also remarkable. It is true, there
R

258 LUKE V. 1.
is the various reading in St. Mark, iXnXukt, which, as being the
more common phrase, pg^sotfa/ sc. elg rbv xbgpov,] must be regarded
as inferior in value to the less common. 'Egsg^so-daf refers to
the formula used by St. John : egegxegkct ix rou ©sou, ix rou irargbg,
with which ix ruv obgavuv would be synonymous. [See John
viii, 42 ; xiii. 3 ; xvi. 27, 28 ; xvii. 8.] In i^eXnXuda, a distinct
reference is implied to the original relation of the Son to the
Father ; while diregraXimi refers only to the appearance of Jesus
as determined by God.)
Luke v. 1. — With an indefinite transition, the narrative of St.
Peter's draught of fishes is appended ; for the multitude, whose
inconvenient proximity is here spoken of, (iirixeTgkti, to crowd, to
press upon, a sign of eagerness indeed, but still an annoyance
to Jesus,) is not the same as that mentioned in ver. 42, because
the clause interposed, %v xngiigguv iv ra?g guvayuyaii rng TaXtXaiag,
resumes the indefinite character. It is, therefore, uncertain
whether this narrative should be connected immediately with
the preceding.
With respect to the narrative itself of St. Peter's draught of
fishes, it has been already remarked, in the note on Matth. iv.
18, that in the mere outline there given of the calling of St.
Peter, (on which event St. John alone sheds adequate light,) the
mention of the circumstance, that St. Peter was called to become
a fisher of men, was introduced into the picture merely as an
individual feature, without our being able to maintain that this
expression of our Lord's was uttered just at His first meeting
with St. Peter. In this place St. Luke gives the more circum
stantial historical narrative of the occurrence, in connexion with
which our Lord designated St. Peter a fisher of men ; but he takes
for granted that Jesus had, on a former occasion, become
acquainted with St. Peter, and only shews how, on this occasion,
the exalted greatness of Jesus opened upon him with unsus
pected splendour, and thus powerfully attached him to the
person of Jesus. (The Lake of Gennesaret, on the shore of
which Christ here appears as teaching, derives its name from
the district Tewngdg. Josephus says, [B. J. iii. 10, 7 :] 'H bs
Xifhvn Tevvngdg dirb rng irgogexoug %wgas xaXurai. The lake is also
called kiXagga rrjg TaXiXalag, Matth. iv. 18. In the Old Testa
ment it is called 11123 0\ Sea of Chinnereth, Josh. xiii. 27.
The Chaldee spelling of the name has the various forms,
1D2i, 1D2U 1Di25. [See Winer's " Realworterbuch," s. «.]

LUKE V. 2-7. 259
The extent of the lake is given by Josephus (ut sup.) as 120
stadia in length, and 40 in breadth.
Ver. 2, 3. — The pressure of the people caused Jesus to leave
the land and enter one of the boats. This was drawn up on
land, as was usually the case with small vessels ; Jesus desired
St. Peter, to whom the boat belonged, to push it off from the land
into deep water, (dirb rng yng iiravayovyeTv,) and then taught from
the ship, unmolested by the crowding of the multitude. This
setting of the boat afloat is to be distinguished from the bring
ing it out into the midst of the sea, (iiravayayeft elg rb Bdhg =
altum., ver. 4,) which was done for the purpose of fishing.
Ver. 4, 5. — -After His discourse was finished, and the people,
consequently, dismissed, our Lord orders St. Peter to cast out
the net for a draught. (xaXdfy, properly "to slacken," " let go,"
— e. g., a bow, then " to sink," " let down.") St. Peter, disheart
ened by a whole night's unsuccessful toil — a circumstance which
shews, that at that time the Apostles still pursued their busi
ness, at times at least — complies, more out of deference to the
dignity of Jesus, than from faith in a successful result. (St.
• Luke alone uses 'Eirigrdrng. See viii. 24, 45 ; ix. 33, 49 ; xvii.
13. He calls Jesus by that name, instead of the Hebrew
" Rabbi," which he could not assume, as being known to his
Greek readers. But he uses bibdgxaXog for it also, — e. g., vii.
40.) Ver. 6, 7. — St. Peter complies with the Saviour's desire, and
they enclose a multitude of fishes in their net, so that it broke, and
their companions were obliged to bring the other boat along
side, in order to take in the abundance bestowed. (Bud/£s<r0ai
occurs only in this passage with the signification of " sinking
deeper," " sinking." The word is used figuratively in 1 Tim.
vi. 9.)
According to the intention of the historian, the abundant
produce of this draught, which forms a contrast with the unsuc
cessful fishing through the night, when St. Peter toiled alone, are
to be viewed as the result of Christ's presence, and the effect^ of
His power. Christ is, therefore, here set forth as the Sovereign
of nature, who, by the secret magic of His will, had power to
direct even what is unconscious, according to His purposes;
just as the same power of the unsearchable God, who governs
the universe, year by year conducts the fish of the sea and the
birds of the air in the courses of their migrations by invisible

260 LUKE V. 8, 9, 10.
clues.* Phenomena, analogous to the great miracles of nature,
appear around the person of our Lord, as if clustered around
their centre ; He rules in the extended kingdom of existences
as a God visible, personally near ; by invisible, mysterious ties,
all is connected with the word of His mouth, — the expression
of His holy will. And what are apparently unconscious move
ments and stirrings of nature, appear, when controlled by His
will, as directed to the highest ends of the moral world.
Ver. 8, 9. — The feeling of a special divine energy, which pro
claimed itself to them as emanating from Jesus, seized them all
with astonishment (kipBog) mixed with fear ; but St. Peter, from
his excitable temperament, at once gave expression to this feel
ing in act and word. His sinfulness appeared to him in such
glaring contrast to the heavenly power displayed before him in
the Saviour, that he fell down, partly adoring and partly pray
ing : 'e\eXk air ip.ou. In all this the idea is evidently involved,
that what is divine, and what is not so, are incompatible with
each other. He who beholds God must die, (Judges vi. 23 ; xiii.
22 ; Dan. x. 17,) — an idea which Is perfectly true of the revela
tion of the divine character according to the legal point of view
— which we must conceive as being still that of Peter — in the
thunders of Sinai, Exod. xix. 12. But in God's gracious revela
tion in the Saviour, God's nearness to sinful man is not only
endurable, but even animating and refreshing ; since, not on
a sudden, but gradually, it makes old things pass away, and
dreates things that are new. For this reason also our Lord
quiets his anxiety, and calls upon him to be a fellow-worker for
the kingdom which He had come to establish.
Ver. 10. — The words : dirb rou vuv %gn tpiyguv dvigdiiroug, express
the main point in the whole transaction, to which not only the
draught of fishes, but also the strengthening of the Apostles in
faith, were subordinate. We observe here, for the first time, a

* The conception of what are called instincts, by which the brutes are said to
be guided to such orderly movements, is destructive of the profounder view of
the life of nature. The same may be said of the instincts, which brutes are
supposed to possess as something detached from the general life of nature, as
must be said of the so-called faculties of the soul, or powers of nature, in so far
as they are imagined to be complete organs, existing and acting of themselves.
Just as the latter are functions of the one life of the soul, so the former are
functions of the one great life of nature, which must be viewed, not as, out of
God, but in God.

LUKE V. 10. 261
characteristic of Christ's actions, which we shall have frequent
occasion to notice in future. The Saviour teaches by actions, —
He speaks by deeds to those around ; penetrating with deep
spiritual glance into the essence of things, He is enabled to deal
with the formations of nature in such a manner as to use them
as a rich system of symbols or hieroglyphics.* Something
analogous may be observed even in the conduct of noble and
exalted personages on earth. The ideas which inspire them
are shadowed forth in their doings ; and under their influence
the most insignificant relations become ennobled. A system of
symbolical actions of this kind is expressly seen in the ministry
of the ancient prophets. (See Jerem. xiii. 1, ff. ; Ezek. xii. 1,
ff. ; xxiv. 1, ff.) Of all the actions of Jesus, none presents this
characteristic so undeniably as the cursing of the fig-tree, (Matth.
xxi. 18, ff.,) which, without such a theory, involves inexplicable
difficulties. The advantages of a language of fact like this, are
self-evident ; where fancy and feeling predominate, as is always
the case wherever the mind has not risen above that state which
is marked by the absence of reflection, a lively, concrete fact
always produces infinitely more effect than an abstract argument.
In reference to the question in what the import of this transac
tion consists, we are met by the circumstance, that an occur
rence similar to this, which introduces the more intimate connex
ion of St. Peter with the Saviour, concludes it also. (John xxi.)
A symbolical intimation of the subsequent spiritual ministry of
St. Peter, who is regarded as the representative of the apostolical
body, meets us at the beginning and the close of St. Peter's con
nexion with his Lord on e'arth. In the expression : sV»i itayguv
dvdguiroug — instead of which we find in Matth. iv. 19, and Mark i.
17, iroir\gu upag dXieig dvSguiruv — that they are to gain over others to
themselves, is not the only point of comparison with the spiritual

* Augustine observes appropriately on this point : — Interrogemus ipsa miracula,
quid nobis loquantur de Christo; habent enim, si intdligantwr, linguam suam. Nam
quia ipse Christus verbum est, etiam factum verbi verbum nobis est. (Tract xxiv. in
Joann. Opp., vol. iii., p. 349, edit. Bened.) With these words a beautiful pass
age out of Hamann's works (pt. i , p. 50) may be compared, who, instructed by
that Spirit, who always teaches the same truth in all places and at all times,
writes quite independently of that Father, as follows :— " Every Bible-narrative
bears the image of man,— a body, which is ashes and worthless,— that is, the
outward letter; but besides that a soul,— the breath of God, the life and the
light, which shines in the dark, and cannot be comprehended by the darkness."

262 LUKE V. 10, 11.
work of the Apostles ; other and more minute relations evidently
present themselves. In the first place, the idea of catching in
cludes the relation of the conscious agent to an unconscious sub
ject, and the latter's being overcome by the former. This is pre
cisely the relation that subsisted between the Apostles — as the
representatives of the BagiXeia — and the xbg/iog. While the for
mer represent the higher principle of life, those who are in the
xbgfiog are in a state of ignorance as to the nature of the higher
life. Next, the figure of catching fish refers to the transference
of the convert from the old element of life, to the pure, holy
element of the Gospel, on which import of the figure the hymn,
ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, dwells in the following
strain : — 2ureg 'ingou Saviour Jesus !
' AXieu fiegbiruv Fisher of men,
Tuv guZpyJevuv Even the saved !
lleXdyous xaxlag From the ocean of sin
'lyjug ayvoug Winning pure fish,
KtWros l^gou From the hostile wave
TXuxegfj Zur beXedZuv By a sweet life.
Allusions to this passing from the old element of life into the
new one of Christianity, are often found in the early ages of
Christianity in the use of the name Ix^ug of Christians. (See
Suiceri thes. eccl., s. v., dXiebg.) Even in the Old Testament
there exist the elements of this comparison. See Jerem. xvi.
16, where the first hemistich runs thus in the LXX. : 'Ibou, iyii
dirogr'eXXu roug dXieig roug noXXovg, Xeyei xug;os, xal dXieugougtv abroug.
Parallel with this the second hemistich has — ' Aitogr'eXXu rous iroX-
Xoug 8n geur d g xal Qngeugougiv abroug.
' Ver. 11. — This miraculous event united the bond between
the disciples and the Saviour more closely ; they left their
worldly employment, and, following Cbrist, espoused that spirit
ual calling which He pointed out to them in its analogy with
their former external one. The dpi'evai and dxoXouktv are not, how
ever, to be viewed as an outward act merely, but pre-eminently
as an inward transaction, of which the external was but a
visible expression. The power of the higher life in Christ,
which seized them, liberated them spiritually from those earthly
fetters, and joined them to their Lord by invisible bonds.

MATTHEW VIII. 18-27. 263

Externally they did, even at a later period, return to their craft.
(See note on John xxi. 3, ff.)

§ 9. JESUS STILLS THE SEA.
(Matth. viii. 18-27 ; Mark iv. 35-41 ; Luke viii. 22-25.)
According to St. Matthew and St. Mark, the following event
is placed immediately after the healing of St. Peter's mother-in-
law (b ixeivp rfi npigq ;) in St. Luke, on the contrary, it stands
in a totally different connexion, and is connected with the
preceding context merely by the loose expression, b iu$ ruv
fipeguv. The first verses of this section in St. Matthew (viii.
19-22) are, moreover, parallel with a passage . in St. Luke,
(ix. 57, ff.,) separated from the first passage (viii. 22, ff.) by
a great intervening space. Now, as we have seen above, (Luke
iv. 42, ff. ; v. 1, ff.,) that in St. Luke the several sections of his
Gospel, which have just been explained, are connected with the
healing of St. Peter's mother-in-law, as immediately as this narra
tive of the stilling of the sea is in St. Matthew and St. Mark ;
but that according to all the three Evangelists the healing of
the Gergesene follows the stilling of the sea, the time being
accurately noted, we have here another striking example of the
uncertainty which attends every attempt to dispose the separate
details of this section, as found in the different narratives of the
Evangelists, in a complete chronological arrangement. The
words Matth. viii. 19-22, are, moreover, rather an introduction,
than an integral part of the narrative. St. Luke introduces
them at a later period (ix. 57, ff.) in a more precise connexion,
and in a more complete form. For the interpretation of them
we refer, therefore, to that passage. St. Matthew seems to
have inserted them here in the Section which treats of the
miracles of Jesus, to bring out the contrast with the all-
commanding will of Jesus ; and to make apparent, that the
greatness of the requirement to follow Him who had not where
to lay His head, is, on the other hand, modified by the fact,
that He governs the elements. With respect to the fact itself,
it exhibits Christ as the Lord of nature in a new aspect, and as
calming and pacifying its throes and convulsions. Sin, which,
in its fearful effects, disturbed even the physical part of ex
istence, is thus represented as overcome by the Prince of

264 MATTHEW VIII. 23, 24, 25, 26.
Peace in the most various forms of its manifestation. (Isa.
ix. 6.) In so far as what is external is always a mirror of what
is internal, this, and similar events in the evangelical history,
express the analogous influence of the Saviour in the agitated
region of the inward life. (See note on Matth. xiv. 21, 22.)
The Saviour in a ship, accompanied by His disciples, tossed on
the waves of the sea, is a natural antitype to the ark contain
ing the representatives of the incipient human race, and a
prefiguration of the Church in its relation to the ir'eXayog xaxlag
in the xbgpog.
Ver. 23, 24. — Our Lord, intending to pass over to the
eastern shore of the lake, (ver. 18,) entered the ship, and fell
asleep. St. Mark, with his usual care, finishes the picture more
minutely. On the one hand he observes, that in company with
that one ship other smaller ones crossed, (iv. 36,) and on the
other, he describes precisely the Saviour's position. (He was
lying in the hinder part of the vessel, [irgb/ava, Acts xxvii. 29,
41,] resting His head. UgogxepdXatov is probably a support to
lean against; in other cases, generally a "pillow.") While
J esus slept, a sudden hurricane arose. (Instead of XaTXa-^, which
St. Mark and St. Luke use, St. Matthew has geigfibg, which
denotes properly " earthquakes," then " violent agitations " in
general. The LXX. use it for 1J7D.)
Ver. 25, 26. — Though of little faith, because they feared
being swallowed up together with the sleeping Saviour, (on
bXiybirigrog, see note on Matth. vi. 30,) yet the disciples are
believing, since they ask deliverance from the Lord ; and the
Saviour, not to put their faith to shame, produced a perfect
calm. (vaXnvn = J1DD1, Psalm cvii. 29, in Svmmachus.) It
is remarkable, that Jesus' word appears not merely as checking
the lawless course of the elements, and reducing the scattered
powers to oneness and harmony, but that, according to St.
Mark, He quiets the waves of the sea by a direct address- to
it : giuira, iripi/iugo. There is undoubtedly more implied in this
than a mere oratorical personification. It indicates a view of
nature, as of something living, which is affected by divine, as
well as by hostile, influences. Our Lord, by viewing the com
motions of nature as the echo of the general interruption of
harmony, refers them to their original source. (On iirtri/tcfv,
expressing a command of divine power, see note on Matth. viii.
29. — Qipbu, to close the mouth, 1 Tim. v. 18 ; ptpougQai, to be dumb,

MATTHEW VIII. 28-34. 265
silent, xoirdtu = nsuxat^u, used of the wind, Matth. xiv. 32 ;
Mark vi. 51.)
Ver. 27. — The more colossal and externally striking the
effects of the Saviour's power are, the more they impress the
natural man. In themselves the hidden spiritual effects are
infinitely mightier and more exalted ; they go to the root of sin,
while in the former, it is only its distant echoes that are affected.

§ 10. CURE OP THE GADARENE DEMONIAC.
(Matth. viii. 28-34 ; Mark v. 1-20 ; Luke viii. 26-39.)
We avail ourselves of this most important and difficult of the
miraculous cures — the first, according to St. Matthew's arrange
ment, among the narratives of the treatment of what are called
dai/iovifyftevoi — to develope in a connected way, agreeably to the
intimations contained in the Scriptures, the view which we
entertain on the condition of such persons, and on the several
phenomena which the Scriptures mention in connexion with
them. The entire Scriptures are undeniably pervaded with
this idea,* that what is holy and, what is unholy in mankind,

* The vigorous opposition offered to the doctrine of the existence of the devil
and bad angels, may, in part, arise from a pure intention, — viz., the desire to
prevent the great abuses which have been made of the doctrine ; but, in part,
motives of a totally different kind prompt to this opposition, — viz., a laxity of
morals, and an unwillingness to acknowledge to themselves, in all its deformity,
the nature of that evil which men detect plainly enough in themselves. They
ought to separate the abuses from the thing itself, and then it would be seen
how, in this information respecting the relations of the world of spirits also, the
Scriptures are perfectly adapted to the wants of men. Many a soul despairs in
the conflict with evil thoughts, or yields itself up to them, which might be well
able to overcome them, were it taught to distinguish itself from the Evil One,
and to ascribe the fiery darts by which it is assailed, to the wicked being who
directs them against it. (Ephes. v. 16.) If we carefully banish the devil and 1
his angels, we retain a world full of devilish men, and for ourselves a heart full ji
of devilish thoughts, as Gothe appositely remarks: "They got rid of the wicked '
one, but the wicked ones remain ;" for evil itself, with its frightful manifestations, I
cannot possibly be removed ; it stands engraved in history with indelible lines.
Hence the doctrine, that the source of evil is in a higher region of life, is a
blessing to mankind ; it contains the key to the doctrine of redemption. On this
account also, it is so deeply based in the teaching of Scripture, that it will never
be possible to overthrow it in the Church, except, indeed, the Church should ever
so far forget itself as to 'admit accommodation to evident errors into the idea of
its Saviour, which would be equivalent to self-destruction. But, as truth in

266 MATTHEW VIII. 28-34.
has not its root in themselves, but in a higher region of exist
ence, whence arise those influences of good and evil, which may
be received or rejected on the part of men, according to the
standing and the faithfulness of the individual. With a com
prehensive glance, the doctrine of Scripture conceives the good
as well as the evil in the universe as a connected whole, — only
with this difference, that the good, being the divine itself,
always appears likewise as the absolute; the unholy, on the
contrary, is indeed represented as a real interruption of the
harmony, but still only as something dependent on the will of
the creature. The Scriptures know of no second principle,
and the Church has invariably condemned the doctrine of
Manicheism as incompatible with the idea of God. By re-
| moving the source of evil out of human nature, redemption is
, recognized as possible. For it is only the germ of good in man,
1 i viewed in its state of bondage under a hostile power, that can
be redeemed ; but the hostile power, as well as man himself, if
.' he has consciously resigned himself to it altogether, and is,
therefore, absorbed in it, is not an object of redeeming power.
The kingdom of evil, then, regarded in its individuality, and

general will remain unconquered, so will also the truth respecting evil, which
consists precisely in our knowing that it exists, and how it exists. Por it is the
real victory of evil not to be known. But with regard to the use to be made of
the doctrine, great care is certainly commendable in this respect, as all deeply
impressive ideas, like edge tools, must be applied prudently. The use made of
the doctrine in Scripture supplies most excellent hints on this subject. First,
we find that, in the earlier periods of the Old Testament, the doctrine appears
only in obscure intimations ; it is not till the times of the captivity, when the
worship of the true God was firmly established among the people, that the germs
were further unfolded. In this fact, we have a plain hint not to propound the
doctrine either before children, or before minds so immature that they may be
regarded as childish; before such, it is better, after the example of the Old
Testament, to refer the manifestations of evil to the permission of God, without
entering more minutely on the subject. The Saviour teaches concerning the
devil only in the presence of His disciples. Next, the doctrine of the kingdom
of darkness and its agency ought never to be brought forward in any other way
than in connexion with the doctrine of redemption. The consciousness of grace
which overcomes all, is the surest means to prevent all misconception of the
doctrine. Lastly, the doctrine, in general, is not so much included among the
subjects of the formal xnguypa rng dXnkiag, just as it does not appear so in
the New Testament, and in the Confessions of Faith ; it is more particularly im
portant in the private cure of souls. In the manifold enigmas of self-examination,
we shall find that this doctrine has not only a deep psychological root, but that
a beneficial effect may be expected from its being wisely employed.

MATTHEW VIIT. 28-34. 267
conceived as the opposite (though only relatively) of the king
dom of good, is called in the Scriptures, biABoXog xal dyyeXoi
airou, (Matth. xxv. 41; Rev. xii. 9;) also, the BagiXeia rou
garavd, (Matth. xii. 26.) The terms, bidBoXog, and garavag,
(— ]Eto = xarnyug ruv dbeXtpuv, Rev. xii. 10,) are used only
in the singular for the central power of evil, who is conceived
as carrying in himself potentially the power of his kingdom.
In one passage, (Matth. xii. 26,) it is true, Satan seems to
be used as equivalent to bai/ibviov ; but even there, it is only
in appearance. The subordinate spirits, corresponding to the
ayytXoi rou 0sou, are called baifjj,via, less frequently, balfj.oveg ;
(Matth. viii. 31 ; Mark v. 12 ; Luke viii. 29 ;) more frequently,
irveupara dxdSagra ; and, (in Ephes. vi. 12,) irveupanxd rng irovngiag.
The signification of the word balpuv = bafouv, is, among ancient
writers, more comprehensive; it denotes "one who is well
informed, knows ;" and because knowledge manifests itself as
the essence of the spirit, it denotes spiritual existences in
general. (The character of the knowledge is more accurately
specified by adjuncts, as dyakbal^uv, xaxobai/iuv.) In the same
way as good is viewed in its different modifications in the
angels of light, evil is individualized in the angels of darkness
in its modifications. (On the classes among the demons, see
note on Ephes. vi. 12.) The germs of this mode of viewing the ,
subject are found in the very earliest writings of the Old Testa-
ment, and we may imagine a development of these germs in the
popular mind by continued enlightenment through the spirit of
truth, without calling to our aid the foreign influence, which
some have thought to have been exercised over the Jews during
the Babylonish captivity.* But then if we start from the mag-

* This view, which has become so current, is involved in considerable histori
cal difficulties. Por since those regions, to which Nebuchadnezzar removed
the Jews, were under the dominion of the Chaldeans, by whose popular worship
such an effect cannot be supposed to have been wrought upon the Jews, since
they had no doctrine of evil spirits, {Munter's conjecture in his " Religion der
Babylonier," S. 87, ff., that there was some instruction on the subject of demons
in the Chaldean esoteric doctrines, is mere hypothesis ;) the question arises, —
Whether the system of the Zendavesta, to the influence of which it is ascribed
that the Jews became acquainted with the doctrine of demons during the cap
tivity, ever was prevalent in the Chaldee kingdom ? There were Magi in Babylon,
it is true, even before the capture of that city by Cyrus, (see Bertholdfs third
Excursus to his commentary on Daniel;) but whether these Magi were wor
shippers of Ormuzd, and acquainted with Ahriman, is very doubtful, because

268 MATTHEW VIII. 28-34.
nificent conception of the unity of the kingdom of darkness,
the question occurs, — What peculiar form of the influence of
the powers of darkness do the Scriptures denote by the name
baiiioviZbpevoi ? For although it likewise connects what is spiritually
evil in mankind with the influence of the devil, (e. g., St. John
says of Judas Iscariot : b garavag elgnXkv elg aurbv, chap. xiii. 27,)
yet the representatives of evil among mankind (false prophets
and antichrists) are never called bai/^ovi^b^evoi. In the case of
the latter, on the contrary, we always perceive appearances of
sickness, generally convulsions of an epileptic nature, and a
derangement or loss of personal consciousness. But still this
state of sickness does not appear as the characteristic of
demoniacs; for it is evident that the same maladies may, in
one case, be of demoniacal origin, in another, not ; for instance,
one who is dumb in consequence of organic defect, perhaps' an
injury to the tongue, would never be called a demoniac, though
we read in Luke xi. 14 of a demoniac who was dumb. Many
demoniacs shew themselves to be maniacs, (e. g., the Gadarene,
whose history we are discussing;) but it does not, therefore,
follow, that every madman, even such as were disordered by
organic injuries of the brain, was considered by the Jews a
demoniac* All the descriptions of demoniacs indicate a

(see Gesenius' second appendix to his commentary on Isaiah) none of the Chaldee
names of gods have the least similarity to the Persian. But if the religion of the
Zendavesta had been esoteric only in the Chaldee empire, then, again, it is not
easily conceivable how the poor Jewish exiles should have become acquainted
with it, and that so far as to have received thence new doctrines into the circle
of their ideas. The whole subject needs, as before observed, a more thorough
historical investigation. But that idea is not less to be rejected, that the belief
of the existence of evil spirits is a notion belonging to the infancy of mankind.
The history of the development of demonology in the Scriptures, as well as the
nature of the case, proves the contrary. The purer, the deeper, and the truer
the conception of the divine, as the good, the more thoroughly does man know
evil in its nature, and comprehend it in. its development. The Scriptures
represent the false prophets and false Christs as its most perfect forms, and
place them at the end of the world's course. The fact that our most modern
systematic theology, even since its restoration after its self-destruction, has been
still so little able to adopt the doctrine of the kingdom of darkness, (as is seen
in Schleiermacher's System, for instance,) proves, that the Christian consciousness
has not allowed itself to be thoroughly penetrated with the light of Christian
principle. * Josephus (Ant. vii. 6, 3) pronounces the demons to be the souls of wicked
men, and, on the same supposition, Justin Martyr explains the nature of the
demoniacs. (Apol. I. c. 16, p. 14, edit. Braun.) This view must, however, be

MATTHEW VIII. 28-34. 269
strange mixture of psychical and physical occurrences. In the
first place, the condition of the demoniacs appears always to i
suppose a certain degree of moral delinquency; but yet so, that)
the sin which they practised manifests itself; not so much as
wickedness, properly speaking, but more as predominant sensu
ality, (probably lasciviousness in particular,) which was indulged
in opposition to their better self. In this manner, in such per
sons, the noble, deep-seated germ of life might be preserved,
and out of it the desire for deliverance might be developed, if
the consciousness of the frightful condition of knowing them
selves to be bound under the power of sin was awakened within
them. Next, in the demoniacs there appears, as a characteristic,
a weakening of the bodily organization, particularly the nervous
system, occasioned by the sin in which they indulged ; and from
the very intimate connexion of the nervous life with all mental
activity, the enfeebling of the former must very easily produce
derangement in the whole internal life. This derangement
appears the more striking in such unfortunate beings, the more
excitable their conscience seems to have been ; testifying to
them that their misery was the result of their own fault, with
out their being in a condition, by their own power, to extricate
themselves from the fetters of sin and the kingdom of darkness,
to the influence of which they had resigned themselves. On the
other hand, one who, in his inmost life, had resigned himself to
sin, and that more of a refined than a sensual kind, might be a
irovngog, but not a bai^ovilb^evog. For in such persons there is still
a kind of inward unity, which may in the end become despair,
(as in the case of Judas,) but not madness, which presupposes a
violent inward conflict between the better self and the power of
darkness, by which it feels itself enthralled. It coincides with
our view, first, that in all the descriptions of demoniacs we find
mention made of physical sufferings. Convulsions, epilepsy,
raving, and lunacy, (according to Matth. xvii. 14, ff.,) are par
ticularly noticed — the kind of maladies which agree well with
our hypothesis. This agreement appears to be less, where
demoniacs are called dumb or deaf; but even such forms of

regarded merely as the private opinion of a few, and is not to be taken as the
prevailing popular sentiment. Josephus (Ant. viii. 2, 3) narrates the cure of a
demoniac. Philostralus (iv. 20, 25) records of Apollonius Tyaneus also that he
exorcised evil spirits. Compare Barn's " Leben des Apollonius," S. 144.

270 MATTHEW VIII. 28-34.
physical suffering may be easily brought to harmonize with
our general view, if only, as just observed, we do not conceive
of organic destruction of hearing and speech in the case of
demoniacal deafness and dumbness, but rather nervous paralysis,
ascribed by the troubled conscience of the sufferers to the influ
ence of the kingdom of darkness, which they were conscious
they had permitted to enter their souls. Hence the common
opinion, which pronounces the demoniacs to be sick people, is
true in one aspect ; but it takes a partial view, embracing only
what is outward, while the representation of Scripture regards
the phenomena in their moral origin. Next, it is equally in
I accordance with our view, that a desire for deliverance, a hope
of being cured, is expressed by all the demoniacs. And though
this longing is, as it were, but a spark of hope and faith, which
yet glows within ; still even this implies a susceptibility to the
powers of the higher life which the Saviour presented to them.
Accordingly, the demoniacs do not appear by any means as the
most wicked, but only as very miserable men. The decidedly
wicked man, who has admitted the hostile influence, undisturbed
and unopposed, into the inmost recesses of his heart, cannot be
healed. Faith — susceptibility for a higher principle of life — is
wanting in the most secret depths of the soul. In the demoniacs,
the contest against evil presents apparently a more hideous form ;
but that there is still a contest against it remaining, is just what
speaks for the existence of a germ of noble life ; so that in the
case of the demoniacs also, faith is the necessary condition of
their being healed. But again, our view is in accordance with
the circumstance, that, in the descriptions of the demoniacs, we
often find an absorption of the human individual consciousness
in the influence of the hostile power of darkness. They speak
in its character, or rather it speaks through them, but always
in such a way, that, for a moment, the consciousness of their
individuality again rises to the surface. This state is quite
parallel with sxoraoVs, or b irveupari eJvai, and yXuggaig XaXeft ; that is,
the effect produced in these latter states by the holy element of
the irveupa or pug — see 1 Cor. xiv., where the suppression of the
consciousness (nous) by the overpowering holy force manifestly
appears — is, in the former case, produced by the unholy element
of darkness (gxbrog.) We are not, therefore, by any means, to
¦ conceive of the inward state of the demoniac, as if two or more
persons were contained in the individual ; but the suffering per-

MATTHEW VIII. 28-34. 271
son appears with his own human consciousness suppressed, and
a foreign (spiritual) life in vigorous action; but as there are
alternating seasons in which the hostile power is ascendant, and
in which it retreats, so, after a paroxysm, even in lucid intervals, i
the human self again shews itself with all the sense of its misery )
in a condition of such bondage. And, lastly, we discover also ,
in the demoniacs an enhanced faculty of foreseeing, a kind of !
somnambulic clairvoyance, by which, in particular, they recog
nize the significance of the Saviour's person for the entire
kingdom of spirits. This very circumstance agrees perfectly
with the hypothesis, that nervous affections form the basis of /
such states, so far as they are corporeal ; and how easily un
naturally increased nervous action is united with the gift of
clairvoyance, is sufficiently familiar from the history of animal
magnetism. It is thus that the contradictory language of the
demoniacs is to be explained; at one time they manifest a deep ,
insight into the truth ; at another, coarse popular notions are
mixed up in their words, so that the whole of their conversation
has the fearfully vivid character of the mistaken and confused
talk of madmen, who not unfrequently give utterance to strik
ing thoughts, but put them in such a connexion with other
elements, that the splendour of the thought is only a more
melancholy testimony to the greatness of the derangement in
the seat of life whence it issued.
On these grounds, we have still to explain why demoniacs are
no longer to be found.* First, it is certainly undeniable, that
the spirit of the Gospel has had a beneficial influence on man
kind even in this respect, and that thus various of the manifest
ations of evil (particularly in its coarse forms) have been miti
gated. It is a mistake when some have gone so far as to main
tain, on the authority of 1 John iii. 8, that the devil has no
more opportunity to exert his influence in the Church of Christ,

* I assume here, according to the prevalent opinion, that such is the fact,
and that no demoniacs are now to be met with. But it must not be forgotten,
that eminent medical men are of a different opinion,— e. g., Esquirol in Paris,
(compare the " Magazin fur auslandische Heilkunde, von Gerson und Julius."
Sept. 1828, S. 317.) Kerner's views on the subject are well known. The mis
sionary Rhenius gives an account of a remarkable demoniac in the East Indies,
in the year 1817. (In Meyer's " Blatter fur hohere Wahrheit," B. 7, S. 199, ff.)
Were the Apostles to visit our madhouses, it is questionable how they would
designate many of the sufferers in them.

272 MATTHEW VIII. 28-34.
(least of all can the passage referred to supply any proof of that
opinion.) It might be allowed of the ideal, invisible Church
— the communion of saints ; but the external Church evidently
forms a mixed communion, in which the power of Christ's
redeeming work is, indeed, in a state of advancing development,
but has not yet, by any means, sanctified the whole ; for which
reason, the influences emanating from the kingdom of darkness
must not be conceived as destroyed, but only as modified. Next,
the fact in question may be accounted for from this, that the
knowledge of evil spirits and their influence is not now so pre
valent. In many maniacs or epileptic persons there may be a
state very similar to that of the demoniacs, only the sufferer
himself (as medical men commonly do) looks upon his state in
a different light.* But it is evident that the circumstance of
the unhappy being's knowing or not knowing of his state, is
something purely accidental ; it is but a reflection of the time
in which it may happen to take place, just as the name is which
the madman applies to his demon. At most, therefore, we can
only say, that the cases have become much more rare ; and this
shews how the restorative power of the Saviour will, at some
future period, harmonize all discords in the fife of man, both of
his body and of his soul.

* On the same grounds it is accounted for, that there is no mention made of
demoniacs in the Old Testament. The doctrine of demons and their influence
had but little currency among the people before the captivity ; even if, therefore,
the kingdom of darkness did produce similar manifestations, (as at the present
day,) yet they were not recognized as such. After the captivity, forms quite
analogous to those of the New Testament may have existed ; but the prophetic
writings of that period contain little historical matter, and hence it is easily
explained how we meet with no references to the subject in them. At the time
when the Apocryphal books were written, spiritual life in general was at a low
ebb among the Israelitish people ; and for that very reason the opposing prin-
, ciples were but little developed. Por that such frequent manifestations of the
hideous power of darkness appear in the New Testament side by side with the
noblest manifestations of the divine, is, doubtless, to be accounted for from the
excited character of the whole period, which caused all the opposing principles
to come out more distinctly. But with respect to the cause of the Evangelist
St. John's silence about demoniacs, that cause is to be sought only in his relation
to the synoptic Evangelists ; the latter had narrated a sufficient number of the
cures of demoniacs ; and for that reason St. John (to whom, in general, the
actions of Jesus serve only as points of connexion for the discourses to be com
municated) thought he might pass them over in silence. At least the view
which St. John entertained of the devil (according to viii. 44 ; xiii. 27) was not,
in any respect, different.

MATTHEW VIII. 28. 273
If, after these remarks, we turn to the history of the Gadarene
demoniac before us, which has, moreover, special difficulties, we
have to observe, in. general, that St. Matthew speaks of two
sufferers, while the other two Evangelists know of only one. A
similar case of the number being doubled occurs in Matth. xx.
30, where he speaks of two blind men, though St. Mark (x. 46)
and St. Luke (xviii. 35) make mention of one only. This
difference belongs to the class discussed in the Introduction,
(§ 8,) which we must take to be such as they manifestly are —
as discrepancies — without seeking for explanations ; as, for
instance, that one carried on the conversation, and is, therefore,
alone mentioned, and so forth. In this case it is extremely
improbable that there should have been two persons afflicted in
this manner. Probably St. Matthew has combined this occur
rence with a kindred one, which might happen all the more
easily, because he is wont uniformly to treat of the mere frame
work in the general outlines only. Furtlier, there is an uncer
tainty about the spelling of the name of the place, after
which the demoniac, of whom our narrative speaks, was .called.
In all the three Gospels there are the various readings, Vegyegn-
vuv, TabagnvZv, Tegagnvuv ; from which we may conclude, that they
did not originally agree in the reading. The difference of the
reading arose from the effor^ to establish uniformity. Then,
too, it must be allowed, that the possibility of such a variation
in the name of the place results from the character of the
locality itself. In Decapolis, (see note on Matth. iv. 25,)
where, according to Mark v. 20, the occurrence took place^ lay
the well-known town of Gadara, the capital of Perea, sixty
stadia distant from Tiberias, and renowned for its warm baths.
Farther to the north lay Gerasa, a place on the eastern bound
ary of Perea; at some distance from the sea indeed, but yet so
that the territory of the town extended down to it ; and hence
the " countries " (%wga<) of the two towns might easily be con
founded. (On the two places, see Winer's " Reallexicon,"
s. v.) Origen (Opp. vol. iv., p. 140) does indeed report, that
in his day the precipice was shewn down which the swine were
said to have cast themselves, and calls the neighbouring town
Gero-esa.* But the entire account speaks only of a tradition, and,

* Oriqen speaks of the reading Yegagnvuv as the common one in the Codd. of
his day. He says, that the reading Tabagnvuv is found in only a few Copies,
S

274 MATTHEW VIII. 28.
for that reason, the existence of any town of that name is ren
dered doubtful, since there are not any other traces of its exist
ence at the time of Jesus that can be relied on. (On the ancient
Gergesa, see Deut. vii. 1 ; Joshua xxiv. 11 ; Joseph. Ant. I.
6, 2.) In the text of St. Mark and St. Luke, .the reading
Tabagnvuv is undoubtedly the correct one. In St. Matthew, on
the other hand, that reading is certainly only taken from the
other two Evangelists. But whether Vegyeen^v or Tegagnvuv is
preferable in St. Matthew, it would be difficult to decide. In
the edition of Griesbach-Schulz, the former reading is adopted
on the authority of the Codd.; but yet it may be questionable,
whether this reading was not introduced into the Codd. simply
on the authority of Origen, and whether the original reading in
St. Matthew was not Vegagnvuv. Fritzsche is also against
rsgyso-jjvwV, but decides in favour of Yabagnvuv, in which case the
original reading must have been the same in all the three
Gospels, which is not probable on account of the many varia
tions in the name.
Ver. 28. — The description of the demoniac, in the present
narrative, is evidently of such a kind, that we must regard him
as a maniac. The madness seized the unhappy man convul-
. sively at separate moments ; then, after such paroxysms, a period
l \ of quiet supervened. St. Mark^depicts the poor man's state
< \ most vividly in his description, (v. 3-5.) He shewed tremen
dous muscular power, as is usual in cases of mania. In order to
restrain him they had chained him, (ir'ebn = iregigxeXlg, fetter for
the foot, is a species of the general term aXugig ;) but he broke
the bonds, and would not even endure clothes on his body.
The hostile power, to which he had allowed an entrance into
his soul, drove him to solitary places, where he lived in the
tombs, and his appearance terrified the passers-by. We are to
imagine the ihvn^ara to have been at a distance from the town,
as well as hewn in the rocks ; for which reason St. Mark
(v. 5) connects b roTg (hvnihagi xal b roTg ogegtv. But, from time to
time, his better self awoke up within, and gave vent to itself in

and decides in favour of TegyegnvSv, on the ground of the traditional report.
The passage about Gergesa is as follows : — Tegyega, dp' ns "' Ttgyegnvol, irbXig
dgxaia, iregl rnv vuv xaXoupAvnv TtBegtdbog Xi/ivnv, dp' ob hixvurai roug
X»'goug birb ruv baipbvuv xaraBeBXngku.

MATTHEW VIII. 28, 29. 275
a doleful cry of anguish, and in self-inflicted torments, to which
the consciousness of guilt drove him, (xgdZuv Xat xaraxbirruv eaurbv
Xikig, Mark v. 5.) The narratives of St. Mark and St. Luke
only, supply a vivid picture of Jesus' meeting with this unhappy /
man, and the way in which the Saviour dealt with him. St.
Matthew (ver. 29) begins at once with the exclamation : ri n/ift
xal gol, which renders the picture of the action obscure. Accord
ing to St. Mark and St. Luke, there was first a salutary emotion,
which came over the poor man, who. experienced the tumult of
wild powers within, at the sight of the Prince of Peace. He
hastened up to Jesus, and fell at His feet, — evidencing, in this
act of homage, the obscure confession, that he expected help
from Him. We should, indeed, utterly disarrange the connex
ion if we were to take the words xgd%ag peydXri-puvfi, which St.
Mark and St. Luke connect with the irgogexuvnge, as being con
temporaneous with it. Then the worshipping could only be
an action proceeding from the dominion of demoniacal power,
and the object of the humble petition could not have been to be
healed, but yA ^ Bagavigps* But it is evident, that in that case
the demoniac would not have hastened to meet Jesus ; but
would have fled from Him. And, moreover, this view does not
accord with Mark v. 8 : eXeye ydg x.r.X. (Luke viii. 29 has
iragnyyeiXe ydg x.r.X.) The ydg is evidently intended to mark
the reason of the exclamation : ri ipoi xal gol ; and the aorist is,
therefore, to be construed as a pluperfect. See Winer's Gram
mar, § 41, 5.
Ver. 29. — The whole is then conceivable in the following
form : — With a presentiment of help, the unhappy man, when
he came within view of the Saviour, hastened towards Him,
and fell at His feet; Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to
depart from Him, and in an instant his condition was reversed.
A violent paroxysm seized him, and, under its influence, he
spake, with a suppression of the human consciousness, in the
character of the demoniacal power, and cried, ri s>o/ xal gol,
although he had just before sought the Lord with purely human
feelings. (The common term for the command to the demons
to come out, is iirm^v = lift, in which the idea of severe reproof

* Similar expressions from demoniacs occur also in the exorcising of a devil
by Apollonius of Tyana; but Philostratus probably had reference in them to the
narratives of the New Testament. See Baur ut sup. S. 145.

276 MATTHEW VIII. 29.
is implied.) This change in the temper of the demoniac in
connexion with the fact, that his healing was not contemporane
ous with the command of Jesus to the spirit, is a very import
ant circumstance for the comprehension of this narrative, and
of the state of demoniacs in general. According to our general
view detailed above, it is most simple to conceive of the matter
thus. By the contraction of deep guilt, and long continuance
in the practice of sin, the situation of this pitiable being had,
probably, become so dangerous, that a forcible penetration of
the holy power of Jesus into him might, indeed, have availed
to repulse the power of darkness, but would, perhaps, have
destroyed the bodily organization of the demoniac. Even
Christ's first effort, expressed in the words, 'i%eXk ix rou dv6gu-
irou, was followed by a violent paroxysm, (although we must
conceive of the Saviour's ^power as moderated,) and, under its
influence, the unhappy man spoke in the character of the domi
nant power of darkness, absorbed in it as to his consciousness.
To bring him out, again, from this state, and recover him to a
consciousness of himself, Jesus, diverting him from the inven
tions of his fancy, inquired his name, which must necessarily
bring him to reflections on himself. In the words of the demon
iac, r; n/AXi (ifiol) xal gol, (corresponding to Tpi U7 HQ, Joshua
xxii. 24 ; 2 Sam. xvi. 10,) which are here intended to denote
the consciousness of complete distinction of nature, as well as in
the invocation " Son of God," we have a plain instance of the gift
of clairvoyance common with .persons of this kind. For although
we are not to conceive of any doctrinal notion connected with
the use of this name, yet it denotes a holy character, in whom
the better self, in its enlightened seasons, surmised a helper, but
in whom the hostile power, when it gained the predominance, saw
the judge. Just because of this character of the confession, the
Saviour often forbids it, — e. g., Mark i. 34 ; Luke iv. 41, obx 'e<pie
XaXeiv rd baifibvia, or; pbeigav aurbv. (See also Acts xvi. 17.) Be
lieving confidence alone, and not knowledge associated with ter
ror, makes the confession of His name desirable. That it was
not forbidden in this case, was on account of the state of the
unhappy man, who had to be treated with great care. Accord
ing to two of the Evangelists, this confession was immediately
followed by the petition, ^n pe Bagavtgrig. If we were to regard
the man as the subject speaking, fear of suffering, which he
imagines coming upon him from Jesus, would not agree with

MATTHEW VIII. 29. 277
his previous approach to our Lord ; from which it must be sup
posed that he expected good from Him. But if we suppose
that it is the demon speaking through the man, the singular
does not agree with the subsequent statement, that many evil
spirits have possession of him. But that the latter view is the
more correct, is shewn by irgb xaigou, Matth. viii. 29. For this
suggests the idea, that a period of the victory of light is at hand,
in which all the powers belonging to the kingdom of darkness
shall be consigned to the dBuggog. (See note on Luke x. 18.)
But this idea, correct in itself, appears, in the language of the v
demoniac, in an insane connexion. First, confounding himself
with the hostile power that ruled in him, he utters in behalf of
it a prayer, which stands in contradiction with the inmost long
ing of his real self; then again, in the conversation carried on,
for the most part, in the character of the kingdom of evil, there
is a mixture of various things derived from the habits of the
sufferer as a man, particularly the phrase bgxitu ge rbv Qebv, (Mark
v. 7,) which, of course, suits only his character as a man. But
this very confusion in the talk of the demoniac evidences the
truth of the narrative ; just as evil is in itself contradictory,
so the talk of the unfortunate subject of evil likewise appears
self-contradictory. As was hinted above, the Saviour did not desire to dispel the
power of darkness suddenly, because, from the man's depressed
state, that would not have cured him, but would have annihi
lated his organization by the too mighty conflict of powers ; for
this reason He wisely prepared for the complete cure. After
the first paroxysm, therefore, Jesus asks, as was observed,
(according to Mark v. 9 ; Luke viii. 30,) in order to recover
him to a consciousness of his individuality, T/' got wo/tal But the
insane man, persisting in his confusion of himself with the power
which ruled over him, cries out, Aeyeuv ; and the Evangelists
add, that this name was suggested by the impression, that more
than one evil power was exerting its influence over him. In
this trait, error and truth are combined with fearful vividness,
just as they were interwoven in the unhappy man's mind. The
impression was true, that not merely one part of his being was
given over to the influence of the demoniacal world, but that
his whole inner man was laid open to them, (see Matth. xiv. 9,
where it is said of Mary Magdalene, that she had seven devils,
— i. e., was become the possession of the kingdom of sin in all

278 MATTHEW VIII. 29.
the departments of her being.) But this correct idea the sufferer
expresses in the form of calling himself Aeyeuv ; St. Mark (v. 9)
adds, or/ iroXXol igpev, — very expressively choosing the first person.
This name was evidently derived from the immediate experience
of his senses. The view — which he might at some time have
had the opportunity of taking of a compact Roman legion — that
terrible instrument of the Roman dominion over the world, at
the sight of which the Jew especially trembled — gives him the
idea, that a compact host of Satanic powers was come down
upon him. In his present state of mental aberration, he con
founds himself with this host, conceives of it as a unity divided
into many, and gives himself the name Aeyem* The utterance
of this name is then followed (Mark v. 10 ; Luke viii. 31) by
the repeated (see Matth. viii. 29) petition, in which the afflicted
man again speaks in the character of the power that controlled
him, not to deprive the devils of their power, and send them
to the aBuggog. (This term is used also in Rom. x. 7, and fre
quently in the Apocalypse, ix, 1, 2, 11 ; xi. 7 ; xvii. 8 ; xx. 1,
3. It is used like rdgragog [2 Peter ii. 4] and y'eevva, and cor
responds to the Hebrew DiMPl, which, by the by, is not used
in the Old Testament for the dwelling-place of evil spirits. In
the Old Testament TIN© comprehends, in its more general
signification, what we find distinguished in the New. The fybng
or the puXaxn of the New Testament, as the assembling place
of the dead, must be conceived as strictly separate from the a/3u<r-
iros. See note on Luke xvi. 28.) But again, popular notions
are mingled in this petition, as the additional clause in St. Mark,
'i\u rng %ugag, shews. These words are, doubtless, connected with
the popular Jewish opinion, that certain spheres of operation
were assigned to the bad angels, as well as to the good. The
demon desires not to be removed out of his. If a removal out
of one xtya m^° another was regarded as impossible, their being
driven out of the %uga assigned would be precisely equivalent
to being sent down into the aBuggog.

* A similar instance of diversity regarded as a divided unity, may be found
in the Rabbinical language, in which ti>,37 denotes " the commander of a
legion." (See Buxtorf, Lex-. Talmud., p. 1123.) We might imagine, that the
pooif man had an indistinct idea of being possessed by an archfiend, (dgx<w
ruv bai/jjbvuv,) so that potentid, the power also of the angels subject to him, was
exercised upon him.

MATTHEW VIII. -30-32. 279
Ver. 30-32. — Thus far the evangelical narrative affords a
most vivid picture of this occurrence, which, up to this point,
presents a kindred appearance to all other narratives of this
sort. But now a circumstance is subjoined, which is the more
difficult, because the New Testament supplies nothing analo
gous to it ; and for that reason it is a tempting subject for the
mythical interpretation.* But it must be confessed, that, in
dependently of the general reasons against that interpretation,
it is opposed, in this case, by the exact accordance of all the three
narratives, which is rarely demonstrable in mythical subjects.
It is recorded that a great herd of swine (Mark v. 13, states
the number as 2000) presented itself to the view of the de
moniac,! who, speaking in the character of the hostile power,
begged that the demons might be allowed to enter the animals.
Jesus permits it, the demons enter the swine, and they pre
cipitate themselves from the cliff (xgnpvog) into the lake. The
fact of the devils' passing into brute creatures, is here quite
as difficult as the subsequent circumstances.^ For although an
influence of what is spiritual over what is physical, both on the
part of righteousness and of sin, is recognized throughout the
Scriptures, (see Gen. iii. 17, ff. compared with Rom. viii. 18, ff.,)
yet the expression, eig'egxegbai elg roug %o/gous, is particularly diffi
cult ; for this reason, because it stands contrasted with elgigxegOai
elg avdguirov, in such a way as too much to identify what is human

* As in the New Testament the swine of the Gadarenes, so in the Old,
Balaam's ass, (Numb. xxii. 28, ff.) forms an offence and a stumbling-block.
In both events spiritual effects are seen in connexion with the brute
creation. t The Evangelists seem not to agree exactly here, since St. Matthew says,
the herd was jiaxgdv ewr abruv ; but the other two, that they were ixei. The
idea of fiaxgdv must be taken relatively; the herd was on the same plain,
which extended down to the lake, (ixeT,) but at a considerable distance
(fjMXgdv) from the scene of the dialogue.
% Dr. Strauss here, as everywhere, settles the matter at once, and cries,
'.Myths, nothing but myths ! He smiles when he sees any one taking pains to
/ Isoive the difficulties which the case presents. And yet' this great master of
' j negation, in his review of Kerner's work on similar phenomena of the present
| I day, is compelled to acknowledge that he is unable to devise any solution of
them at all plausible. What presumption to deny that similar phenomena may
have "existed in the apostolic times, which his wisdom may not be able to
understand ! for he has no other reason whatever for his assertion, that these
narratives of the New Testament are myths, than their extraordinary character.
rSee " Jabrh,v.her fur wissenschaftliche Kritik." 1836, Dec. S. Ill, ff.)

280 MATTHEW VIII. 30-32.
with the brute. Besides, it seems unaccountable why the
Saviour should yield to a passing whim of the sufferer, as one
might be inclined to regard his request, to which the Evangel
ists ascribe such real consequences ; first, the entering into the
animals, then, their destruction. To suppose the latter occa
sioned by a violent assault of the unhappy man, is as inappro
priate, as it is contradictory to the narrative, to view the
destruction of the animals as accidentally coinciding with the
request of the afflicted man. But if we assume that, agreeably
to the meaning of the narrators, the destruction of the animals
was occasioned by the spirits, we do not see what reason can be
conceived why the demons should have entered the swine in
order themselves immediately to destroy these subjects of their
power. On this obscure passage I beg leave only to offer a few
hints and conjectures, which may lead to farther inquiry. The
expression, elg'egxegka elg roug %o/gous, must, in any case, be taken
to imply merely an influence on the crowd of animals ; but this
must have been immediately intended for their destruction, and
that on account of their possessors. On the part of evil, the
intention of their destruction might then have been to limit the
Saviour's power in its salutary influence, just as the effect of it
actually was (Matth. viii. 34) to prepossess the minds of the
people against our Lord. On the part of Christ, the permission
might appear sufficiently prompted, in the first place, relatively
to the sufferer, because, by that acquiescence, the subsequent
paroxysm was alleviated, and the cure made possible; next,
relatively to the owners of the animals, since the worldly loss
would be a trial for them, and might consequently lead them to
a decision for or against God and His cause ; or, if we suppose
that the animals belonged to Jews, (which would not be im
possible, since there was often a mixture of heathenism and
Judaism in the border provinces,) it must have been a warn
ing visitation, because a culpable love of gain led them to keep
animals which, according to the law, were unclean. By such
an interpretation, the moral aspect in this fact would be kept
in view, which is no small advantage, since we thus avoid
questions such as these : — How could Christ be so unjust as
, to destroy 2000 swine? Such a question is exactly parallel
with the absurd remark, how God can be so unjust as to allow
: a murrain to take place in this or the other spot. The simple
I answer to the question is, that where cattle die, men are to be

MATTHEW VIII. 33, 34. 281
quickened, in order to learn that there is a God, and that all
that He does is right.
Ver. 33, 34.— St. Matthew follows up the account of the de
struction of the herd with a notice of the flight of the herdsmen,
and the crowds of inhabitants coming out of the city. Of the-
state of the patient he gives no further account. But St. Mark
and St. Luke describe him most vividly in his totally altered
condition after his complete recovery, which was doubtless
preceded by another violent paroxysm. He sat quietly and
clothed at the feet of Jesus, and was an object of surprise
and admiration to the inhabitants. They acknowledged, that
nothing but supernatural holy power could -have accomplished
the cure of one so shattered. St. Matthew, in common with
the other two Evangelists, records, that the inhabitants be
sought Jesus to leave that region.* This might have been an
expression of the fear of God, (as in Luke v. 8 ;) but as the Sav
iour immediately leaves them, the anxiety lest they should suffer
further loss of property from the Deliverer of souls, may have ;
mingled in this request, — a meanness of disposition which must ,
have taken from our Lord all hope of being able to sow the
seed of eternal life, with profit in hearts so overgrown with
thorns and thistles. St. Mark, (v. 18-20,) and St. Luke,
(viii. 38, 39,) give some particulars of the man's future course,
which St. Matthew does not touch upon. He desired to
accompany the Saviour ; but the latter discouraged him, and I
sent him back to his friends, charging him to tell what God had I
done for him. The reason of this charge (see note on Matth.
viii. 4) must be sought in the man himself who was healed.
The deeper the malady had been rooted in him, the more
advantageous it would be for him to take an active part in the
duties of life, since being much occupied with himself might
have drawn him back to his old sins. Moreover, such employ
ments would form a salutary check on his undue partiality for
solitude, which was, in all probability, closely connected with
the vices that had laid the foundation of such a surrender to
the evil powers. And, lastly, the telling of his being healed by
the Messiah of Nazareth, naturally confirmed his faith in the
person of his deliverer.
* The phrase iVegyegkti elg guvdvrnglv nvi, is not found anywhere else in the
New Testament, except in Matth. viii. 34. In the Old Testament the LXX. use
it several times,— e. g., Gen. xiv. 17 ; Deut. i. 44.

282 MATTHEW IX. 1-8.
§ 11. CURE OF A PARALYTIC.
(Matth. ix. 1-8 ; Mark v. 21 ; ii. 1-12 ; Luke v. 17-26.)
St. Matthew proceeds in his delineation of Jesus as a worker
of miracles, without reflections and eulogies, merely by the
simple narration of mighty acts that fill the soul with holy aston
ishment. His call by our Lord (ver. 9, ff.) does, indeed, seem
interposed as something foreign to the subject ; but it is
manifestly narrated not on its own account, but for the sake of
what stands connected with it, (ver. 11-13). The Evangelist
means to exhibit the contradiction which existed between the
judgment of the Pharisees, uttered at the feast in St. Matthew's
house, and that of the people, as to the person of Christ, and,
at the same time, to shew how our Lord fulfilled His high
calling in such miraculous cures. It must be confessed, that
the verses 14-17 have a less direct reference to the context of
the ninth chapter. They seem to have been occasioned by the
previous narrative of the feast, and to serve merely to complete
the narrative of a day so important to St. Matthew.
If, too, we compare the place of the first event of this chapter
in St. Matthew, with that which it occupies in St. Mark and
St. Luke, we here again meet with a most surprising variation.
According to Matth. ix. 1, 2, the cure of the paralytic is in
immediate connexion with the account of the demoniac, as
having taken place directly after arriving at the other side of
the lake. . St. Mark and St. Luke, on the other hand, assign
this event to an earlier period. The former connects it with
the history of the cure of the leper, (Mark i. 40, ff.). St. Luke
does, indeed, likewise connect it with this event, (ver. 17 ;) but
with the loose expression : iyevero b iu& ruv npeguv. The account
of his call, and the circumstances connected with it, which, in
St. Matthew, follow the cure of the paralytic, are, indeed,
placed in the same sequence in St. Mark and St. Luke ; but the
narrative of the woman with the issue of blood, which comes
next in St. Matthew, (ix. 18, ff.,) is recorded by St. Mark,
(v. 22, ff.,) and St. Luke, (viii. 41, ff.,) much later. The
difficulties arising hence as to the chronological arrangements
of the several sections of the Gospels appear to us insuperable.

MATTHEW IX. 1, 2. 283
Matth. ix. 1. — St. Mark does indeed also mention the cir
cumstance, that Jesus returned to the west coast of the lake
after the cure of the demoniac; but his narrative becomes
indefinite in the words : xal nv iragd rnv kiXaggav, and he then
introduces the narrative of Jairus' daughter with the phrase :
xal Ibou. St. Matthew makes Him go immediately to Caper
naum, (Ibla irbXig,) which St. Mark (ii. 1) also mentions as the
place where the paralytic was. St. Mark and St. Luke care
fully describe the scene in the house where Jesus was. People
filled the porch of the house, (ra irgbg rnv Dugav scil. /t'egn = vesti-
bulum,) so that the entrance was closed up. Among those
present, St. Luke enumerates learned Jews, (vopobibdgxaXoi =
ygappareig, D^ISb,) some of whom were even from Judea and
Jerusalem ; but that they were come to Capernaum purposely
on account of Jesus, is a gratuitous conjecture. Our Lord
is represented as being employed partly in teaching, (iXdXu
abroTg rbv Xbyov scil. iregl rng BagiXeiag, Mark ii. 2,) and partly in
healing. The words in Luke V. 17, buva/Aig xuglou nv elg ri l&gku airous, are
very obscure. There is no previous substantive to which the
word aOrous refers ; we might take it as an indication that St.
Luke, in the narrative of this event, had incorporated a document
with his gospel, without taking care to alter what in it had refer
ence to some antecedent. But the words blvapig xugku nv, are still
more difficult. To refer xvgwg to God, so that we should have
to supply j(isra 'ingou, in the sense of the power of God being
with Him, so that he could heal, is unsuitable for this reason,
that the ellipsis is too harsh. But as referred to Christ, the
thought can be no other than this, that the power of healing
that dwelt in Him manifested itself; so that nv would have to be
interpreted with a pregnant meaning, perhaps with Igya^sMj
supplied. Ver 2. — On this occasion, among other sick people, they
brought a paralytic (see note on Matth. viii. 6) to Christ, who
could not, however, as he was laid upon a bed, be brought to
Him in the usual way, because of the crowd. St. Mark and
St. Luke relate in detail the manner in which those who carried
the sick man made their way to Jesus. The whole description
can be understood only. from the oriental construction of houses,
in consequence of which the flat roof might be reached either
by a ladder from the outside, or from a neighbouring house.

284 MATTHEW IX. 2.
Still the breaking up of the top-floor, which was generally laid
with tiles, (bid ruv xegd/iuv, in St. Luke,) appears rather strange ;
but perhaps the description is to be understood of their some
what enlarging the entrance into the house from above.
(' Airogreyd^u, Mark ii. 4, is a strong term to express the under
taking of the people, so strong in faith. XaXdu = yaXdZu, used
by St. Mark, is several times found in St. Luke also, v. 4, 5 ;
Acts ix. 25 ; xxvii. 17. KgdBBarog = grabatus, corresponds to
xXtvibtov in St. Luke.) In this proceeding, though extraordinary,
and in some measure even inconvenient, the compassionate
Saviour saw only the faith of the parties concerned. (The
faith of the sick man is viewed as one with that of the friends
who assisted him ; he doubtless encouraged them, and imparted
to them his own lively emotions.) In this case, again, (see
note on Matth. viii. 1,) definite doctrinal ideas do not form the
substance of this faith, which consists rather in the inward need
of help, that feels itself powerfully attracted to that quarter
whence it expects help. That this sense of need was, in some
of the cases of cures, only of an external kind, is seen from
narratives such as that in Luke xvii. 12, ff., of the ten lepers.
Usually, however, the external need was associated with the
internal, and, in every instance, the latter was intended to be
aroused by the former ; and where that did not happen, reproof
was administered. The words immediately addressed to the
sick man by our Lord : dpeuvrai got al d/iagriai gou, shew that in
this case there was no want of inward susceptibility. Perhaps
this address was occasioned by penitential expressions on the
part of the paralytic, which the words (in St. Matthew) Sdggu
rixvov might suggest. His peculiar sin might have brought on
the illness under which he was suffering, and thus have excited
a sense of his sinfulness. But even if that was not the case,
still Christ might have felt himself called to pass at once from
the outward phenomenon to its moral source, in order to prepare
for the inward cure by the outward one. The connexion of
sin and disease, or suffering of any kind, is a necessary one.
The Jews, like the unspiritual man in general, (see John ix. 2,
34,) erred only in this, that, from a case of affliction, theyielt
themselves warranted to criminate the patient personally, which
could not but necessarily give rise to false and unrighteous
judgments. The just conclusion is to regard the suffering of
the individual as proof of the guilt of the whole race, and con-

MATTHEW IX. 2, 3. 285
sequently of himself; that produces humility and meekness.
(See note on Luke xiii. 4.) But in what light soever the con- \
dition of the patient may be viewed, Jesus announces to him
the forgiveness of sins. This is to be viewed as the root of the
new life that was to be awakened in the soul of the penitent, ,
and, for that very reason, the expression implies not merely the
annulling of the punishment of sin, but the removal of sin itself
by the communication of a higher, holier power of life, which,
however, could only gradually (as we see in the case of the
apostles) transform the whole inner man ; so that dp'euvrai (the
Doric form) is to be taken not as a wish, but as creative and
effective : " Thy sins are forgiven ; I forgive them thee even
now." But in those words, the Saviour had regard not only to
the good of the sufferer, but also to the spiritual excitement of
the people, and even of the Pharisees, as the sequel of the con
versation shews.
Ver. 3. — The Pharisees had a correct insight into the nature
of forgiveness of sins ; they recognized in it a prerogative of
God ; — that is, so far as it is intended to be not merely a kind
wish or an empty declaration, but a living effect, it presupposes
a knowledge of the, secrets of the heart, and a divine power of
life, which is capable of overcoming the sinful power, and of
translating into the element of the spirit. Hence, so far as the
Church forgives sins, (John xx. 23,) God is in it, and the per
sons who pronounce the forgiveness are only the organs of the
forgiving power of God. But as Jesus here forgives sin, not in
the name of another, but in His own, and in full inward power,
their accusation would have been true, if, as they imagined,
Jesus were a mere man. They regarded the forgiveness of sins
as a sacred act of- God, which no one could perform without
robbing God of His honour ; and in that they were perfectly
right. (The profound sense which the Scriptures attach to
BljagpniMu, Bxagpnp'a, is unknown to the profane writers of
antiquity ; it there denotes primarily only " to speak injuriously
of any one," then " to utter something of evil omen," the op
posite of ebcpniteft. It is monotheism only that leads to the
notion of blasphemy, [corresponding to the phrase TtjTf\ QttJ 2p3
in the Old Testament,] which denotes not only cursing and
blaspheming God, but also, in particular, the assumption of
the honour of the Creator on the part of the creature, John
x. 33.) But as the Redeemer is the only-begotten Son of the

286 MATTHEW IX. 3, 4, 5.
Father, He exercised even this prerogative; and blessed was
the man who believed in Him, for he experienced the saving
power of the Lord in his heart. But we must allow, that
thoughts like those of the Pharisees might have occurred to
a mind, not indeed decidedly irreligious, but more prone to
speculation; for faith in the revelation of God in Christ is
something very great. Such genuine doubt, or, rather, such an
uncertainty, would have exhibited itself very differently from
what it did in the Pharisees; in them the Saviour reproves
such thoughts severely, as sinful. The reason was probably
the following : — The conspicuous elevation of Jesus, which was
reflected purely in childlike minds, reached their hearts also ;
but they opposed themselves to these sacred impressions, from
, the feeling that, if they gave entrance to them, they must re
nounce altogether their principles and their practices. Standing
thus in inward opposition to God, they were glad to make use
of circumstances, which might be perplexing even to sincere
minds, as a welcome means of enabling them to justify their con
duct in their own eyes. (E/Vs/v b eaurw, b xagbla = "l^lyS, 1DN.
St. Luke uses diaXoylfygHai, by which the activity of the Xbyog =
voug is expressed. But the biaXoyig^ol, according to the invariable
use in Scripture, are referred to the xagbla, i7, See note on
Luke ii. 35.)
Ver. 4, 5. — Jesus, penetrating their thoughts, (Mark ii. 8
rightly assigns the spirit as the principle of knowledge in Him,)
reproves their sin, but does not deal with them as incorrigible
persons. Knowing the insincerity of their hearts, and the diffi
culty of believing, our Lord endeavours, by an external fact, to
aid in overcoming these difficulties. Accordingly, the miracle
,' (see note on Matth. viii. 1) appears here in its proper intention
/ of deepening the impression on the heart, presupposed by it, in
order to bring to the conviction that the worker of miracles
does not teach what is true in his ovfn name, but the truth by
commission from above. ('lEvOuftsTgku, Matth. i. 20; Acts x. 19,
and bthpngsig, Matth. xii. 25; Heb. iv. 12, are nearly related to
diaXoyiZegtui and biaXoyigpog, like 6u/hbg to xagbla. But the former
terms have generally a bad meaning associated with them.
We might denominate Hupbg the disturbed xgabla, and the
sv6vftn<tog the impure actions thence proceeding. The question
of our Lord, ri ignv ebxoiruregov ; is accommodated to the external
manner of conception, which the miracle was intended to

MATTHEW IX. 6, 7, 8. 287
assist. According to it, what is external is called greater,
more difficult, than what is internal, — that is, the forgiveness
of sins; the spiritual eye, indeed, takes the opposite view of
them.) Ver. 6, 7. — As Son of Man, Jesus expressly claims the
Igouff/a to forgive sins, in which the declaration of His higher
nature is involved. In the expression: ulbg rou dvQgdiirou iirl rng
yng, there is the implied contrast with Qebg b ru obgavu; so that
the Messiah appears as the representative of God upon earth.
The idea of the Jews, that the forgiveness of sins would be
among the prerogatives of the Messiah, (Schottgen, " Jesus, der
wahre Messias," Leipzig, 1744, S. 307. Bertholdt Christol. Jud.,
p. 159, seqq.,) evidently expressed the recognition of His
higher nature ; hence Jesus desires to rouse to a conviction of
the true nature of ulbg rou dvQguirou. (Fritzsche removes the diffi
culties in the construction of the clause, ro'rs X'eyei rw iragaXurixu,
[Matth. ix. 6,] by the ingenious conjecture robe ; but, as the
Codd. exhibit no various reading, he has properly refrained
from introducing it into the text. According to the common
reading, we must take the words as parenthetical, and inter
posed by the Evangelist.)
Ver. 8. — The narrative is silent as to the effect of the miracle
on the Pharisees, because there was nothing pleasing to report ;
but it is observed of the simple people who were open to divine
influence, that they proclaimed God's praise with wonder, quite
in agreement with the Saviour's intention, blessing the Author
of all good for the revelation of His glory in Him. (See Matth.,
v. 16.) The concluding clause in St. Matthew, rbv bbvra igovgiav
roiabrnv nTg dvllguiroig, is not to be interpreted as if (i^ouoia being
taken as the cause for the effect) it was in praise of the bless
ings flowing from God to men through Jesus ; avSguirot = ybog
ruv dvSguiruv rather includes Jesus himself, in whose gift of miracles
the divine power was so gloriously manifested. Without being
able to define doctrinally the view held by the multitude regard
ing the person of Jesus, we may say, that this thought has its
full eternal truth. For, as certainly as the Word of the Father
was revealed in the person of our Lord, so certainly was Jesus
also truly man ; and what of divine fulness was manifested in
Him had been imparted to the human race in general in His
humanity. (Instead of Qavu&Zeiv, used in St. Matthew, St. Mark
has sEigragbai, and St. Luke 'ixgragig sXaBev diravrag. The latter

i ¦ i ¦

I I '(

288 MATTHEW IX. 8.
expression is the stronger ; it denotes being in transports.
[See Mark v. 42 ; Acts iii. 10.] In other places this expression
has a qualified signification, [see note on Acts x. 10,] and is
used, like b irveupan ehai, of a state of prophetic rapture. In
Luke v. 26, iragdbo^a = ktupagrd, corresponds to the Hebrew
ni^Qi)

END OP VOL. I.

PATON AND EITCBIE, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH

.;.. uiBSSBSltttilto

... ;';

H.'if' 'ut I

111 iii ill
¦111

Hi!

 iniilhiiiiHiilflll