]

tibvary of Ithe theological Seminary

PRINCETON

NEW JERSEY

Green Fund

3S2S15.HGI3
v.

-?

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

COMMENTARY
ON

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BY

HE1NRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER,

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

Th.D.,

ifrom

ti)e

German,

tottl)

ti)c

Sanction

of

ti)c

fhitljor.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

WILLIAM

P.

DICKSON,
AND

D.D.,

WILLIAM STEWART,

D.D.

PART
THE GOSPEL OF
VOL.

I.

ST.
II.

MATTHEW.

T.

&

T.

EDINBURGH: CI ARK, 38 GEORGE

MDCCCLXXIX.

STREET.

PRINTED

T.Y

MORRISON AND GIBE,

FOR

T.

&

T.

CLARK, EDINBURGH.
HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND
CO.

LONDON,
DUBLIN,

....
.
.

ROBERTSON AND
.

CO.

NEW

YORK,

SCRIBNER AND WELFORD.

CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL

HANDBOOK
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
BY

HEINEICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE,

OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.

Th.D.,

TRANSLATED FROM THE SIXTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY

EEV. PETEE CHEISTIE.

THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY

WILLIAM STEWAET,

D.D.,

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

VOL.

II.

EDINBUEGH:
T.

&

T.

CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET.

MDCCCLXXIX.

PREFATORY NOTE.

from continuing his co - operation with me in the revision and editing of this series of translations, I have asked

AS

Dr. Crombie has been prevented by other engagements

my

has kindly consented to do so

esteemed colleague, Dr. Stewart, to take part in it. He and he has revised, and seen through the press, the present volume, with the exception of a
;

few pages
over.

at

the beginning which I had previously looked

I learn

with care and

skill

from him that the translation has been executed by Mr. Christie.

Mr. Christie desires

me

to

mention that

at the time of pre-

paring his translation of the earlier portion of the Commentary

the

on Matthew (from chapter vi. onward) he was not aware of mode of rendering, which had been adopted in the previous
volumes, for Dr. Meyer's references to other portions of his

own Commentary
viii.

5 ")

" note "

on Rom. and he requests that, in conformity to it, the word inserted by him in such cases may be held as deleted,
{e.g.

"

comp. on Luke

xvi. 7

" " see

since the references are, in general, to the text of the

tary

itself,

and not

to the notes or

commenRemarks appended (except

when

so specified).

to have been included in the " Exegetical Literature " prefixed to vol. I.
:

The following important work ought

Weiss (Bernhard)
Parallelen.

Das

Matthausevangelium und

seine

Lukas1876.

8, Halle,

William
Glasgow College,
Febru, ry
187!).

P.

Dickson.

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
CHAPTEE
Ver.
1.

XVIII.

hfi'tpa, which Fritzsche has adopted, against although ancient, since both readings are found as early as the time of Origen, n^zpa is a gloss instead of as there appeared to be nothing in the context to which uipcf,, the latter might be supposed to refer. Ver. 4. ransivueri] The future ra^nvuan is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted Ver. 6. slg rbv rp.] for zlg Elz. has Ivi, on decisive evidence. while Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read mpl Only s/g and &spi have anything like important testimony in their favour. But iczpi is taken from Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2. Ver. 7. On weighty evidence we should follow Lachm. in deleting iern after yap, and hihw in the next clause, as words that might naturally have been inserted; Tisch. 8 has deleted ianv only. Ver. 8. aura] B L X, min. vss. and Fathers alrov. So Lachm. and Tisch. Further correctly; avrd is an emendation to include both. on Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have x-jXXov % %uhw, following B x, Vulg. It.; a transposition to suit yiip and vovg. Ver. 10. The evidence is too weak to warrant us in substituting h ru> cbpavz (so Lachm. in brackets) for the first h ovpavoTg; still weaker is the evidence in favour of omitting the words, although they are omitted at an early period (as early as the time of Ver. 11. This verse does not occur in Clem. Or. Syr. ?). B L*K, 1*, 13, 33, Copt. Sahid. SyrJ' er Aeth. (cod. 1), Eus. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. condemned Or. Hil. Jer. Juv. Already suspected by Griesb. to have been also by Einck. an interpolation from Luke xix. 10, which in fact it is, considering how much evidence there is against it, and considering, on the other hand, that, if it had been genuine, there was no Ver. obvious motive on exegetical grounds for the omission.

up a] Lachm.:

decisive evidence;

12. a<psig

nopzvQzig]

Lachm.

dtpqGsi

xai Topivfoig, followa$'tr,<siv,

ing B

D L, min. Vulg. It. (of which, however, D, Vulg. have

II.

MATT.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

and D, vopevo/Asvog). Exegetical analysis, in order to remove ambiguity as to the connection. Ver. 14. sfg] Lachm. and
K, min. Altered to sfg in accordance with ver. 10; while varpog pov, which Lachm. substitutes for marp. bjiuv (following B F J, min. vss. Or.), is to be regarded in the same light. Ver. 15. elg <r=] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B N, 1, 22, 234*, Sahid. Or. Cyr. Bas. This evidence is too weak, especially as the omission of EI22E might easily enough have happened from its following H2H (afzaprrieri), while it is further to be borne in mind that, in what goes before, it was sin in general, not merely an offence, that was in question. The sig e's, which is here genuine, was inserted from our passage into Luke xvii. 3, Elz. sXty^ov] Elz., Scholz: %al Ik., against B and many min. vss. and Fathers. The xai was inserted as a connective particle. Ver. 19. wdXiv a/Mriv] Elz. (so also Griesb. Scholz, Fritzsche, Einck, Tisch. 8) has merely irdXiv, and Lachm., following min. only (B being erroneously quoted), has merely d/^v. But the attestation for vdXiv d^v (Tisch. 7) is about equal in weight (incl. B) to that in favour of the simple tccX/v (incl. K), and one of the words might easily enough have been omitted from the combination not occurring anywhere else. avfitpuvyisiaeiv] Seeing that the future ev/Lpuvriaouaiv is supported by the preponmin., and seeing, on derating evidence of the other hand, that it might very readily have been supplanted by the subjunctive as being the mood most in accordance with the usual construction, it is, with Tisch., to be adopted Ver. 24. wpocnv'syjri] Lachm. and as the correct reading. Or. Correctly ; this and Tisch. 7 ^poc^/Pn, following B Luke ix. 41 are the only instances in which vposdyav occurs in the Gospels, Tpoappstv being the form most familiar to the

Tisch.

h, following

B D L M*

Cx

BDEHILVak,

copyists.

Ver. 25. /%s]

Lachm. and

Tisch. 7:

s%ei,

following-

only B, min. Or.; but it is to be preferred, since to the mechanical transcribers the present would doubtless seem to be Ver. 26.] xvpn before /xaxp. is to be regarded as improper. interpolated, being omitted by B D, min. Vulg. codd. of It.

gyjcnr

Q r>

(jh ry S

Lucif.,

and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.

Ver. 27. exiivou] omitted

by Lachm., only

also ezuvog, ver. 28, only after B.

Ver.
n,

after B, min., as is

28. fioi]

not found in the

more weighty witnesses

interpolation.

Tisch. An against decisive evidence. Ver. 29. avrov] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Erroneous emendation. Scholz, Tisch. 7, insert tig nus nodag avrov, which, however, is L a n', min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Syr cur omitted by B C*

deleted
6',

by Lachm. and

s7

ri]

Elz.:

DG


CHAP. XVIII.
(Brix. excepted) Vulg. Or. Lucif.
fig,
1, 2.

Gloss on the simple sretfeik comp. John xi. 32, al. vdvra] Deleted by Matth., Scholz, Tisch., on preponderating evidence; bracketed by Lachm. It is a mechanical interpolation from ver. 26. Ver. 31. For the first y$v6/xsm Fritzsche and Tisch. substitute yivopsva, following only D L X**, rnin. Vulg. It. Chrys. Lucif., but correctly. The transcribers failed to notice the difference For abruv or abrtiv we should, with Lachm. and of meaning. Tisch., read sauruv, upon decisive evidence the reflexive reference of the pronoun was overlooked, as was often the case. Ver. 34. abra] not found in B D N**, min. vss. Lachm.; but it may easily enough have been left out in conformity with ver. 30. Ver. 35. v/awii] Elz. Fritzsche, Schulz, Scholz insert rd <7ra.pa-7r7U)>j,ara civtuv, which is not found in B D L N, min. and several vss. and Fathers. Gloss from vi. 14, 15; Mark xi. 25,
It.

In regard to

26.

But

kvovpaviog, for

which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8

substitute obpdvtog (B C** L n N, min. Or. Damasc), is to be retained, all the more that the expression 6 narrip 6 Ivoup. occurs nowhere else, though we frequently find 6 v. 6 obpdvtog.

D K

Ver.
is

1.

'Ev

i/ceivrj

Ty iopa] the account of Matthew, which

throughout more original in essential matters than

ff.

Mark

ix.

33

and Luke

ix.

46
:

ff.,

bears this impress no less in this

definite note of time

in that hour, namely,

holding the above conversation with Peter.

igitur (see Klotz,
to

Tt9 a pa]
is,

when Jesus was

quis

ad Devar.
:

p.

176).

The

question, according

Matthew

(in

Mark

otherwise), is suggested by the considera-

tion of the circumstances

Who,

as things stand,

etc.

for

one of them had just been peculiarly honoured, and that for the second time, by the part he was called upon to take in a
special miracle.
tl

Euthymius Zigabenus says well

dvOpcoircvov

tot 7T67r6v6aacv ol p,aQy)Tai.

p,el^cov]

icnlv] they speak as other disciples in rank and power. though the approaching Messianic kingdom were already present.

greater than the

Comp.
Ver.
child

xx. 21.
2.

JJaihiov]
question
is

in

According to Nicephorus, ii. 35, the alleged to have been St. Ignatius.
it is

Chrysostom correctly observes that

iratBlov)
k.
;

little

child (acf)6Bpa

to <yap rocovrov iraiStov

k. (f)i\oveLKia<> k.

ical

airovoias teal Sofo/iai/i'a?

fiaGKavias

Trdvrcov rcov toiovtcov tnnjKkaica<pi\eiav, raireivo(p-

rai iradwv,

ical

iroWas e^ov ra? apzjas,


4
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

poavvnv, a7rpayfMoavvrjv,

eV
47.

ovBevl tovtcov eiraipeTai.

Comp.

Mark

ix.

36

Luke

ix.

Ver. 3.

Et

Ti? direy^erai rcov irpoaiperiKOiv iraOwv, <yLverac

Si'
acr/cijo-ecos,

to? to, iratZia, icTcbfievos

e a<eXe/a<?,
<f>riTe,

Euthymius Zigabenus.
road),

To

direp eyoviri to, irathia

turn round (<rrpa-

representing the /xerdvoia under the idea of turning

round upon a
to the

and

to

acquire a moral disposition similar

such is the condition, without complying with which you will assuredly not (ov pjj) enter, far less be able to obtain a high position in, the Messianic kingdom about to be established. The same truth is presented under a kindred figure and in a wider sense in John iii. 3, 5 ff. the divine agent in this moral change, in which childnature of
little

children

like qualities

assume the character of manly

virtues, is

the

Holy

Spirit; comp.

Luke

xi.

13,

ix.

55.

Ver. 4. Inference from the general principle of ver. 3 to

the

special child-like

quality

in which the

disciples

were

deficient, as well as to the

special subject of their question.

kingdom at all is determined by your returning again to a child-like frame of mind, then above all must you acquire, through humble self-abaseIf your entering the future Messianic

ment, the unassuming character of this child, in order to o<ttc<;] be greater than others in the Messiah's kingdom.

quicunque
Bengel.

de individuo, de quo quaerebant, non respondet," ; In what follows raireivwaei is emphatic, and accordof the sentence.

"

ingly stands near the beginning

subjunctive
critically certain,

Had

the

been borrow idv from the second part of the statement (Fritzsche),
but rather to observe the distinction in the manner of presenting the idea, according to which the insertion of dv marks
the presupposition as conditioned.

we

should not have had to

The future assumes the

;

(action as actually occurring in the future while the subjunctive after the relative without dv keeps the future realization
still

within the domain of thought, without, however, conceiving

of the realization as conditioned {dv).

For

this usage

among
13.

Attic prose writers, see Kuhner, ad Xen.

Mem.

i.

6.

Moreover, the words of vv.

3, 4,

inasmuch as they are essentially

connected with the question of the disciples, are certainly

CHAP. XVIII.

5, 6.

original, not

an anticipation of

xix.

dispose us to prefer the account of

or Luke.

13 ff. (Holtzmann), and Matthew to that of Mark

ix.

Ver.
of the

5.

Comp. Mark

ix.

37; Luke

47.

The question

been answered. But His eye having lighted upon this child who happened to be present, Jesus
disciples has

now

upon them the duty an affectionate interest in such little ones, an exhortation, of which the jealous and ambitious spirit evinced by their question in ver. 1 must have shown they stood but too much in need. iracSiov roiovrov] such a little child, i.e.
seizes the opportunity of inculcating

of taking

according to the context, not a literal child (Bengel, Paulus,

Neander, de Wette, Arnoldi, Bleek, Hilgenfeld), which would give a turn to the discourse utterly foreign to the connection,

but a
ing.

man

one who with

of such a disposition as this child-like simplicity is

(iraihiov <yap

little

child represents

humble and unassumtov<; avOpoairowi tol?

So Chrysostom

ivravOa

outco? a<pe\el<;
7roX\o4?),

(prjcrl teal

Taireivovs KaX aireppi/xfjievov^ irapa tois

Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel,

Jesus
the unassuming, child-like disposition, free

Olshausen, Kern, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Keim.

well

knew how much

from everything like self-assertion, was just that which others, animated by an opposite spirit, were in the habit of overlooking, slighting, and thrusting aside. ev\ a single one. So
very precious are they
!

with a view to further care for the soul

is

(TKavBaXi^eiv, ver. 6.

8ef

i.e.

tjtcu] denotes a loving reception

;

the opposite to this

the

e7rt ru>

ovopbarl /xov] on

ground

of

my name
is

however,
ing

on account of my name, which, not, with de Wette, to be taken subjectively, and

(xxiv. 5)

referred to the faith of the one

my

who receives (whosoever confessname, on account of his faith in me, etc.), but is to be
is to

understood as referring to the irauhlov Toiovroi/ that

received

he

(Mark

ix.

41

Matt.

x. 42), because

my name

(Jesus

the Messiah) contains the

sum of his
politicas,"

belief

and

ob causas naturales aut

40, xxv. 40
;

Bengel).

John xiii. 20. Ver. 6. Comp. Mark ix. 42 Luke xvii. 2. o-KavBa\la-jf\ Opposite of SifjrjTat, meaning will have been to him the
;
:

confession ("
i/xi]

non
x.

comp.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

occasion of his
(v.

29,

xi.

6).

fall,

especially of his apostasy from the faith

Tiov fALicpGiv tovtcov] not to be understood,

any more than iraiZiov ToiovTo,ver. 5, of literal children, (Holtzmann), and consequently not to be used as proof of the faith of little children (Baur, Delitzsch), but as meaning one of
:

those, little

ones,

a way of designating modest, simple-minded,

had just been suggested by seeing
This
is

unassuming

believers, that

in the child then present a model of such simplicity.

not quite the same as twv

fiucpcbv rovrcov,

x.

42

(xxv. 40),

where the expression

a child.

For the construction, have offended one him, with a view service to little ones," it is those of of That, which such a person may to, i.e. in hunc finem id. have come to deserve, is thus expressed in the form of a divine purpose, which his evil deed must help him to bring
av/j,<j)epei,

is

not borrowed from the illustration of

iva,
/c.t.A,]

avrS,

comp. note on

v.

29.

"But whoever

will

about;
(Tv/j,(f>ep6i

comp. John
(Jerome: "
to

xi.

50.

comparative

reference
;

of

quam

aeternis servari cruciatibus

sin) is

" others

than again

commit such a

a pure importation.

^y,v\o<; 6 ik 6s] The larger mills (in contradistinction to the XeipofivXat, xxiv. 41) were driven by an ass; Buxtorf, Lex.

iii.

Talm. p. 2252. Comp. also Anth. Pal. ix. 301 Ovid, A. A. The KaTairovTiapos (Wesseling, ad Diod. Sic. 290. Casaubon, ad Hermann, Privatalterth. 72, 26 xvi. 35

Suet. Oct. 6 7)

was not a Jewish method

of putting to death,

was it & practice in Galilee (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 15. 10), to the Greeks, Eomans, Syrians, and Phoenicians. belonged but Consequently it here expresses in a manner all the more
neither

vivid and awe-inspiring that punishment of death to which

the

man

in question has

become

liable,

and which

is

intended
o>9 p,i\-

to represent the loss of eternal life; comp. vv. 7-9.

Ver.

7.

Oval] 6 privet
airb

009 (f)i\dv0pco7ro<;

rbv Koapov

\ovra
Koapiei).

(Skafirjvat,

twv

(TKavSdXcov, Theophylact.

euro]

indicating

the

causal origin of the

is

woe

for

humanity (tS

The world

not conceived of as giving the offence

(in answer to Jansen, Arnoldi, Bleek), but as suffering from it. With regard to airo, see Buttmann, Neut. Gramm. p. 277 [E. T.

322].

dvdy/cr) yap] assigns the reason for the airh t&v

CHAP. XVIII.

8,

9.

7
offences, I say, for

o-fcavSdX.

immediately before

on account of

they cannot but come.

has
its

This necessity (necessitas conseqtientiae)

foundation in the morally abnormal condition of man-

xi. 19) is to be traced back to the divine purpose (not merely permission), which, however, does away

kind, yet (comp. 1 Cor.

neither with the moral freedom of

him who, by word

or deed,

gives offence (Bom. xiv. 13), nor with his liability to punish-

ment.

Hence:

if\.rjv (yet)

oval

ra dv0p(O7ra>,

Ba\a] temptations,
Ver. 8
f.

as a general conception.

k.t.X.

rd

cr/cdv-

to o~fcdv8.] the

temptation as conceived of in each individual case.

Comp. Mark
7, for

ix.

43

ff.

passing direction, sug-

gested by ver.

avoiding certain specified offences, and

substantially the
here,

same as in v. 29. A repetition depending no doubt, on Mark (Weiss), yet not to be regarded as out

of place, because the proverbial saying refers to one's

own

temptations as coming through the senses, while here the point

in question
Strauss,
is

the temptation of others (de Wette, Kuinoel,

Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld), but on the contrary as quite appropriate, inasmuch as the o~icdv8a\a occasioned from without operate through the senses, and thereby seduce into KaXov croi iarlv evil. a mixture, by attraction, rf\ of two constructions It is good to enter into the life (of the Messiah's kingdom at the second coming) maimed (and better) than, etc. See Fritzsche's note on this passage, and Dissert. II. ad 2 Cor. p. 85 Winer, p. 226 [E. T. 302]; Buttmann, p. 309 [E. T. 360]. Eor examples from classical Bos, Ellips., ed. Schaefer, writers, see Kypke, Obss. I. p. 8 9 See besides, the note on v. 29, 30. But in the p. 769 ff.

present passage the material representation of mortification as the condition of eternal life is somewhat more circumstantial

and graphic. is supposed

6"

to

%co\6v~\ refers to the feet, one of which, indeed,

be awanting (comp. Horn.

;

II.

ii.

217:

%&>A.os

erepov iroha)

while, according to the context, kvXKov here

(more general in xv. 30) refers to mutilation of the arm, from Hence limping which the hand is supposed to be cut off. But the circumstance of %(o\6v (%co\6v) or maimed (kvWov).
'

being put

first is

(avrov, see critical notes)

due to the fact that the cutting off of the foot had been specified, although at the

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

identical proceeding in regard to the

same time an
iv.

course, to be understood.

;
.

hand
iii.

is,

of

27

Strabo, II. p. 70.

116, According to the grammarians, we

fiov6<f>da\fi.']

Herod,

should have had erepo^daXfi. in contradistinction to [xovo^daXp,.,

which denotes the condition of one born with one eye. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 136 f Becker, Anecd. I. p. 280. Ver. 10. Jesus now proceeds with His cautions, which had been interrupted by the parenthetical exhortation in vv. 7-9. The belief that every individual has a guardian angel (see Tob. v. comp. in general, Schmidt in Ilgen's Denkschr.I. p. 24ff.) which is a post-Babylonian development of the Old Testament view, that God exercised His care over His people through

angelic instrumentality
xii.

15),

is

here

confirmed by Jesus (Acts

a point which

is to

be simply admitted, but not to

be explained symbolically, neither by an " as it were " (Bleek), as though it were intended merely to represent the great value
of the little
referring to

ones in the sight of

guardians,

God

(de Wette), nor as

human

who

are supposed to occupy a

position of pre-eminent bliss in heaven (Paulus).

iv ovp.

Sta,

ttclvto? f3\e7rovcri, /c.t.X] inasmuch as they are ever in

diate proximity to God's glory in heaven,
to the highest order of angels.

imme-

and therefore belong

not merely a way of expressing the great importance of the fjuicpol, but a proof
This
is

which, from
representation

Xe^w
an

vfiiv

and tou iraTpo^

testimony
of
is
;

/xov,

receives

all

the weight of

emphatic

while the mode of

Eabbinical writers,

(comp. d^Q ^xSd

the

Schoettgen's note on this passage)

borrowed from the court

arrangements of Oriental kings, whose most confidential servants are called J)bsn "OQ ^hn, 2 Kings xxv. 19 1 Kings
;

x.

8; Tob.
Ver.

xii.
f.

15;' Luke

i.

19.

11

Omitting

ver.

11, which

is

not genuine

(see

critical notes),
is

we come

to
it

the parable vv.

12-14, which

intended to show that

would be in

direct opposition to

God's desire for

IxiicpoL,

human
cause

salvation to lead astray one of those

to be lost, like

Luke

xv.

and 4

to
ff.

him

a strayed sheep.

records the

same beautiful

parable, though in a

different connection,

original

features.

and with much tenderer, truer, and more But the time-hallowed parable of the

CHAP. XVIII.

14.

why He

shepherd came so naturally to Jesus, that there is no reason should not have employed it more than once, in a

shorter or

more detailed form, according as

appropriate to the occasion. municatio," Bengel.

iav

it

happened

to be

ti vp.lv So/cei] " suavis com-

<yevr]Tac, k\t.\.] if a

have fallen

to

a man's

lot, if

hundred sheep he has come into the possession of

them (Kiihner,

II. 1, p.

364).

The

contrast to ev requires that

we should conceive of eicaTov as a large number (not as a small It is preferable to flock, Luke xii. 32). Comp. Lightfoot.

connect

iirl

ra
it

opt)

with

a<et? (Vulgate, Luther),

because the

connecting of

with

iropevde'is

(Stephanus, Beza, Casaubon,

would impart an unmeaning emphasis to The man is pasturing Ms sheep upon the hills, observes that one of them is amissing, therefore meanwhile leaves the flock alone upon the hills (for the one that has strayed demands immediate attention), and, going away, searches for the one sheep that is lost. The reading of Lachmann repreiirl ra oprf\ eVt is not merely sents the right connection. upon (as answering the question where ?), but expresses the idea of being scattered over the surface of anything, which corresponds exactly with what is seen in the case of a flock when it is grazing, and which is likewise in keeping with d(pel<i, which conveys the idea of being let out, let loose. Comp.
Er. Schmid, Bengel)
iirl

ra

opt].

notes on
if
it

xiii. 2, xiv.

19, xv. 35.

iav
it.

yevrjrat evpelv avro]

should happen that he finds

Comp. Hesiod, Theog.

vi.

639;
out,

in classical Greek, found mostly with, though also with-

a dative.

Xen. Mem.
Kiihner, II.

i.

9. 2,

13; Cyr.
p.

3.

11

Plato,
is

Rep. p.

397 B;

582.

This expression

unfavourable to
k.t.X.]

the notion of irresistible grace.

%alpei,

This picture, so psychologically true, of the

is

first

im-

pression

not applied to

God

in ver.

14

(otherwise in

Luke
is

xv. 7), although, from

the popular anthropopathic point of

so.

view,

it

might have been

Luke's version of the parable

characterized

by

greater freshness.

Ver. 14. Accordingly, as it is not the will of that man that one of his sheep should be lost, so it is not the will of God that one of those pbiicpoi should be lost (should fall into eternal
perdition).

The point of

the

comparison therefore

lies in

the

"

10

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in the parable this
for the
is

unwillingness to let perish

disciples that if a /M/cpos

represented

by the case of a strayed sheep,

Christian
life,

purpose of teaching the

happens to err from the faith and the

said in regard to the pMcpoi
:

they should not abandon him, but try to induce

him
fore

to

amend.
as

What

is

is

there-

put in the form of a climax

(1)

Do

not despise them,

inasmuch

you would cause them

to go astray,

and be the
if

occasion of their ruin (vv. 6-10);

(2)

On

the contrary,

one does go wrong, rescue him, just as the shepherd rescues his

wandering sheep, in order that it may not be lost (vv. 1 2-1 4). e/jLirpoo-Oev] coram (xi. 26; Luke xv. 10). There is not before God (before the face of God) any determination having as its object that, etc. consequently, no predestination to condemnation in the divine will. On the idea involved in Bekri/xa, comp. note on i. 19. For the telic sense of ha, comp. vii. 12; Mark vi. 25, x. 35, a?., and the edekeiv ofypa of Homer; Nagelsbach's note on Iliad, i. 133. ev] See critical

notes.

The idea of the sheep still lingers in the mind. Ver. 15. The connection with what precedes is as follows "Despise not one of the fiiKpot, (vv. 10-14) if, however, one The subject changes offends against thee, then proceed thus." from that of doing injury to the /Mtcpol, against which Jesus has been warning (w. 10-14), to that of suffering injury, in view of which he prescribes the proper method of brotherly However, in developing this contrast, the point visitation.
:

of view becomes

so generalized that, instead

of the p,iKpoi,

who were contemplated

in

the

previous warning,

therehave the Christian brother generally, 6 aSe\</>09 <rov fore, the genus to which the [ii/cpos as species belongs. afxaprtjarj ets <re] The emphasis is not on eh o"e, but on dfiaprrjar) but if thy brother shall have sinned against thee, which he is supposed to do not merely " scandalo dato (Bengel), but by sinful treatment in general, by any un-

we now

brotherly wrong whatsoever.

in the Stud. u. Krit.

Comp.
p.

ver. 21.

Ch.

W,

Mtiller

1857,

339

ff.,

Julius Miiller, Dogmat.

<re,

Abh.

p.

513

ff.,

reject the reading

eh

ver. 15,

internal grounds that are not conclusive,

though on and which might

be met by stronger counter-arguments against the use of

CHAP.

XVIII.

16.

11

afiapr^a-r) without modification of any sort. How can it be supposed that the procedure here inculcated was intended

to apply to every sin without

any limitation whatever

Would
?

we not have in that case a supervision The reference can only be to private which the one sins against the other such, ought to be dealt with within vira^e] do Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 1 ff.
himself come to thee.
that except

omnium
(el? ae),

contra omnes

charges, to offences in

and which, as
till

the Christian church.

not wait, then,

k.

he

fjuera^v

gov

avrov

p,6vov] so

him no one

else is to

be present along with thee,

so that the interview be strictly confined to the two of you.

We must not therefore supply a povov after aov as well. But the rebuking agency (Eph. v. 11) is regarded as intervening between the two parties. The person who reproves mediates between the two parties, of which he himself idv aov a/covcry] if he will have listened to forms one. thy admonition, will have complied with it. But Eritzsche and Olshausen connect the preceding fiovov with this clause " Si tibi soli aures praebuerit." This woidd imply an arrangement that is both harsh and foreign to New Testament usage.

eKphr)<Ta<f\
ityfiiov

usually
Bia,

explained:

as

thy friend;

Trpcorov
oltto

yap

tovtov,

rod aKavhaXov pnyvvp,evov

rfjs

But what a aov avvafyeias, Euthymius Zigabenus. truism would such a result imply Therefore it should much
dSekcpi/cf)?
!

rather be explained thus

blessedness of

my

thou hast gained him for the eternal kingdom, to which, from not being brought to a
:

he would otherwise have been lost (ver. 1 7). But the subject who gains is the party that has been aggrieved by the offence of the brother, because the successful result is understood to be brought about by his affectionate endeavours after an adjustment. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 19 1 Pet. iii. 1. The one or the two Ver. 16. Second gradus admonitionis. who accompany him are likewise intended to take part in the ikej^eiv (see avrcov, ver. 17). iva iwl arSfiaro ?, /c.t.A..] in order that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word
state of repentance,
;

may

be

duly attested

; i.e.

in order that every declaration which

he makes in answer to your united e\i^x eiV may be heard by two or three persons (according as one or two may happen to

12

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

testi-

be present besides thyself), and, on the strength of their

mony

(eVt o-TOfiaros,

">a

h]}),

may

be duly authenticated, so that

in the event of his submitting to the iXiy^eiv the possibility

of evading or denying anything afterwards will be precluded

or else, should he prove so refractory that the matter must be brought before the church, then, in the interests of this

further disciplinary process,

it

will be of consequence to

have

the declaration

made by him

in the previous attempt to deal

with him in an authentic and unquestionable shape. In order to convey His idea, Jesus has used, though somewhat
freely

(otherwise in 2 Cor.

xiii.

1),

the words of the law,

Deut. xix. 15, and

made them His own.

Comp.

1 Tim. v. 19.

Ver. 17. Tfj &Kickr)a-ia\ is not to be understood of the Jewish synagogue (Beza, Calvin, Fritzsche), which is never

name, and any reference to which would be but it is to be taken as referring to the community of believers on Jesus (comp. note on xvi. 18), which is, as yet, regarded as one body with the apostles included (ver. 18). There is here no allusion to
called

by

this

contrary to the meaning of Jesus

individual

congregations

in

different localities,
;

since

these

could come into existence only at a later period

this reason, can there be

neither, for

any allusion

to presbyters

and

bisJwps

(Chrysostom), or to those
their

whom

they

may have
is,

invested, as

representatives,

with

spiritual

jurisdiction

(Catholic

writers,

comp. besides, Dollinger).

Miiller),
;

There
the

further, nothing

to warrant the assumption of

an historical prolepsis (de Wette,

is,

Julius

for

the truth

*?np

of believers

was

actually existing
is

while, in the terms of this passage, there

to

no

direct

reference

individual

congregations.
(xvi.

But
18),

as Jesus
it

had already spoken elsewhere of His hnp

allusion.

was impossible for the disciples to misunderstand the The ivarrant for regarding the judgment of the
final

church as

in regard

to

the eXeytjis lies in the moral

power which belongs

consequently,
prayer,
etc.,

to the unity of the

Holy

Spirit, and,
effort,
is

to

true

understanding,

faith,

earnest

the existence of all which in the church

pre-

supposed.
that,

It is not inconsistent

with this passage to suppose

of

under the

more developed circumstances

a later

CHAP.

XVIII. 18,

19.

13

period,

when

local congregations

sprung up as offshoots from

representative body, composed of individuals chosen for the purpose of maintaining discipline, but the choice would necessarily be founded on such conditions and qualifications as were in keeping, so far

the

hr\p,

there

may have been some

as it

was possible

for

man

to judge,

with the original principle

of entrusting

such matters only to those

believers and had been truly regenerated.

iav

who were

actual
r.

Se /cal
;

Ktc\. irapaK^] but if he refuses to listen even to the church

if

will not

have submitted

to its advice, exhortation, injunction.

let

he

(tt(o croi (bcnrep, /c.t.X.]

let

him

be
;

for

thee (ethical dative)

him be
of all
is

in thy estimation as, etc.

Xolttov avlara 6 toiovto?

is

voaei,
off

Chrysostom.
further

What

is

here indicated

the breaking

Christian, brotherly fellowship with

one

who
to

hopelessly obdurate, " as not being a sheep, nor caring

be sought, but willing to go right to perdition," Luther. this passage Christ says nothing, as yet, about formal excommunication on the part of the church (1 Cor. v.) but the latter was such a fair and necessary deduction from what he did say, as the apostolic church, in the course of its development, " Ad earn ex hoc considered itself warranted in making. etiam loco non absurde argumentum duci posse non negaverim," Grotius. In answer to the latter, Calovius, in common with

In

the majority of the older expositors, asserts that the institution

of

excommunication

expressly declared.

is,

in the present passage, already

6 60vikos;~\ generic.

Ver.

18

f.

By way

of giving

greater confidence in the

exercise of this last stage of discipline at

is finally

disposed of

things

(1)

which the matter by the church, let me assure you of two Whatever you (in the church) declare to be un-

lawful on the one hand, or permissible on the other (see note

on xvi. 19), will be held to be so in the sight of God; your judgment in regard to complaints brought before the church is accordingly ratified by divine warrant. (2) If two of you
agree as to anything that
is

to be asked in prayer, it will be

given you by

when, therefore, your hearts are thus united in prayer, you are assured of the divine help and illumination, in order that, in every case, you may arrive at
;

God

14

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

and, in the church, give effect to decisions in accordance with the

mind

of God.

Those addressed in the

TJieol. p.

second person

(Srjo-rjTe,

the apostles (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 266 f.), but not the disciples in the more comprehensive sense of the word
k.t.X.) are

(Weiss, Bill.

103), nor the church (Bleek, Schenkel,

Keim, Ahrens), nor its leaders (Euthymius Zigabenus, de Wette), nor the parties who have been injured (Origen, Augustine, Theophylact, Grotius). In order to a clear understanding of the whole discourse from ver. 3 onwards, it should be observed
generally, that wherever the address
is

in the second person

it is

plural (therefore in vv.

3, 10,

12, 14, 18, 19),

the Twelve

who came

to Jesus, ver. 1, that are intended; but that

(as in vv. 8, 9,

Jesus uses the second person singular

where 15-17),

He

addresses every believer individually (including also the

fiifcpol).

But

as far as the iKKkrjcria is concerned, it is to be

understood as meaning the congregation of believers, including the apostles. It is the possessor and guardian of the apostolic moral
legislation,

and consequently

it is

to

it

that the offender

is

in

duty bound to yield obedience. Finally, since the power of binding and loosing, which in xvi. 19 was adjudged to Peter, is
here ascribed to the apostles generally, the power conferred

upon the former is set in of necessity a power of a

whole or in
inter pares.

its

proper

light,

and shown
it

to be

collegiate nature, so that Peter is

not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with

either in

part,

but

is

simply to be looked upon as primus

X.
u/a.]

iraXiv afirjv
the
indicative

assurance

and that
note

to the effect that, etc.

Once more a solemn Comp. xix. 24.

see
critical

For idv
notes),

with

(av^u>vrj(Tovatv,

and Buttmann, Neut. Bremi, ad Lys. Ale. 13. The Gramm. p. 192 [E. T. construction is a case of attraction irav should have been the subject of the principal clause of the sentence, but was attracted to the subordinate clause and joined to 7rpd<yp,aTo<;, so that without the attraction the passage would run thus
see

on

Luke 222]

xix.

40,

iav
ttuv

Bvo
o

vfM.

GVfA(p(ovi']crovcnv

iirl

t.

777?

irepl

TrpdyfiaTos,

iav

aiT^arovrai,

yiv^aerai avTols.

Comp. Klihner,
iirl r.
7?}?,

II. 2, p.
ix. 6.

925.

For the contrast implied in

comp.


CHAP. XVIII. 20-22.

;
.

15

Ver.

20.

Confirmation of this promise, and that not on

official

account of any special preference for them in their

tion with the Bvo
rpels)

capacity, but generally (hence the absence of vjjlwv in connectj

owing

to the fact of

His gracious
together
to
:

presence in the midst of His people

when met

for

where two or three are gathered together with reference

there

my name,
Spirit,
ii.

am I (my presence
viii.
f. ;

being represented by the Holy

xiii.

comp. Eom. Eph.

iii.

9 f

;
.

2 Cor.

1 Cor. v.

Gal.

20

16

also in general, xxviii. 2 0) in the midst of

them

so that

just promised to you,

(ver.

you need therefore have no doubt as to the yevijaerat which I, as associated with my Father will bring about. The statement is put in the form 19),
to the future, its

of

an axiom; hence, although referring

terms

The higher, spiritual object of the meeting together of the two or three lies not in <rvvr)y/j,evoi, which expresses nothing more than the simple fact of being met (in
are present.

answer to Grotius, de Wette), but in

indicates that the

etV

to e/xov ovofia, which

{i.e.

name
it,

of Jesus Christ
is

the confession,

the honouring
elvat
is

of

etc.)

that which in the avvrjyfiivov

specific

contemplated as

its

motive

(jirj

Bi

krepav

alriav,

Euthymius Zigabenus).

" Simile

dicunt Kabbini de

duobus aut tribus considentibus in medio eorum," Lightfoot.

Ver. 21.

judicio,

quod rvjDC

sit

in

from amongst and going up to Jesus, vofii&v ^avrjrav (xeya\o-^rv%6TaTo<i (Euthymius Zigabenus), proposes that forgiveness should be shown more than twice the number of times which the Eabbis had declared to be requisite. Baby I Joma, f. 86. 2, contains the following words: " Homini in
this point Peter steps forward
1),

At

the disciples (ver.

alteram peccanti semel remittunt, secundo remittunt,

remittunt, quarto

tertio

non remittunt."
to be rendered thus
the

Ver. 22.

Ov

\eyco aoi] are to be taken together (in answer

:

to Fritzsche),

and

/ do

not say to

thee, I

do not give thee

prescription; comp.
till

John

xvi. 26.
i.e. till

eftBoixrjKovTaicis kirra\ not:

seventy times seven,

the four hundred and ninetieth time (Jerome, Theophylact,

we have

Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, de Wette, Bleek) but, seeing that hiria, and not einaia<i again, the rendering should
;

16
simply be
till

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

seventy-seven times.

No

doubt, according to

the classical usage

of adverbial numerals, this

would have

been expressed by eirrd koX e/38ofir)fcovTd/ci<; or iftSofiijicovTa kirraxvi but the expression in the text is according to the LXX. Gen. iv. 24. 1 So, and that correctly, Origen, Augustine, Bengel, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Keim comp. " the Gospel of the For Hebrews" in Hilgenfeld's N. T. extra can. IV. p. 24.
; ;

the sense, comp. Theophylact

avy^coprjo-LV,

dWa

ov% iva dpt,0fxa> TrepitckeLar) rrjv to direipov ivravOa arj^aivet,' eo<? dv et,
:

eXeyev

ocrd/cis

dv irraicras

fj,eravofj

avy^oopet avru>.
to Peter's

Ver. 23.
question,

Aid rovrd] must refer to the reply for a new scene was introduced at ver. 21.
:

Therefore

to be explained thus

"

because I have enjoined such unlimited

forgiveness " (not merely a conciliatory disposition generally,

Wette and Bleek). The duty of unlimited forgiveness proves any shortcoming in regard to this matter to be but the more reprehensible, and to point this out is the 00/1010081] rj f3ao~. t. object of the parable which follows. are the king's BovXoi ovp.~\ 24. The note on xiii. See
in answer to de

ministers

who

are indebted to

him through having

or,
it is

received

money on
dvdpJyiro)

loan (Sdvetov, ver. 27),

like.

relatively, as treasurers,

land stewards, or the

is

But

not without reason that

dvrjp ftaaiXev?
settle

joined to fiacnXei, seeing that the kingdom of

heaven
of

is

likened to a

Homer.

human

king.
to

Comp. the
nowhere

avvaipe.iv Xoyov]
hiaXoyitpcrOai

hold a reckoning, to
else.

accounts, occurs again in xxv. 19, but

Classical

writers

would say:

717309 rtva,

Dem. 1230.

17.

According to Boeckh, Staatshaush. d. Athener, I. p. 15 ff., an (Attic) talent, or sixty minae, amounted to 1375 thalers [about 206 sterling]. Ten thousand talents, amountVer.
ff.

24

ing to something considerably over thirteen millions of thalers,

are
1

intended to express a
Where, indeed,
;

sum

so large as to be well-nigh
else

nj?2 1 D^jnt^ cannot possibly mean anything

than

seventy-seven, as
viii.

is clear

from the

)
}

not seventy times seven

comp. Judg.
121

14.

This in answer to Kamphausen in the Stud.

u. Krit. 1861, p.

The

(substantive) feminine form

seven).

nj?3t^ cannot be considered strange (seventy

and a
p. 198.

See Ewald, Lehrb. d. Ilebr. Spr. 267 C, and his Jahrb.

XL

CHAP. XVIII.

28.

17
(el?).

incalculable.
. . .

So great was the debt of one

to tlie
2.

i/ceXevaev
;

avrbv e%et] according iv. 1 Ex. xxii. 2 Kings 47 Saalschutz, M. B. p. 706 f.

; ;

Mosaic law

Lev. xxv. 39,

14.8
;

See Michaelis, M. E.
is

The word avrov

emphatic:

that he should be sold, etc.

(see
critical

On
is

the present indicative e%ei

notes),

which

derived from the idea of the

2,

narrative being direct, comp. Kuhner, II.

p.

1058.

fcai

a7ro8o0f)vat] and that payment

be

made.

This was the king's

command

it

must

be

paid,

viz.

the

sum

due.

The
is

fact of the

proceeds of the sale not proving sufficient for this purpose did

not in any
his

way

affect the

order

hence diroBod.

not to be

referred merely to the proceeds (Fritzsche).

The king wants

money, and therefore does the best he can in the circumit.

stances to get

iravTO,
far

crot

dTroBdoaoj] in his distress

and anguish he promises

form.

And

the king in his

(affi/cev avTcp).
;

was asked

3.

more than he can hope to percompassion goes far beyond what For Bdvetov, money lent, comp.

Deut. xxiv. 11
Yer. 28.
or

found frequently in classical writers since

the time of Demosth. 911.

hundred denarii, about forty Ehenish Gulden,

23

thalers [about

3,

9s. sterling] (a

denarius being not quite

equal to a drachma), what a 'paltry debt compared with those

which there were a hundred times a hundred ! eirvi^d] Creditors (as the Eoman law allowed them to do) often dragged their debtors before the judge, holding them by airoSos, the throat. Clericus and Wetstein on this passage.
talents of

et ri <w<etA.ei<?] el re

is

not to be taken, as

is

often done, as

though
Anab.

it

si quid, is

For where et rt, like were equivalent to o, ri. used in the sense of quicquid (see Kuhner, ad Xen.

i. 10. 18), d always has a conditional force, which would be out of place in the present instance but, with Fritzsche and Olshausen, to trace the expression to Greek urbanity, would be quite incongruous here. Neither, however, are we to affirm, with Paulus and Baumgarten-Crusius, that the conditional expression is rather more severe in its tone, from
;

representing the

man

as not being even certain in regard to the

debt

for the certainty of the debt is implied in the terms of

the passage, and, moreover, in the KpaTt]aa<i avr. eirvcye

was

MATT.

II.

18

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

No,

necessarily to be presupposed on the part of the 8ov\o$.

the

simply the expression of a pitiless logic Pay, if thou owest anything (a7roSo? being emphatic). From the latter the former follows as matter of necessity. If thou owest anything
el is
:

(and such

is

the case), then thou

must

also pay,

and therefore
that
is,

I arrest thee

Ver. 29. Ilea-cov] after that he had fallen down,

as one

who

irpoaeavvei,,

which

follows, as a matter of course,

et?

from

ver. 26,

without our requiring to insert such words as

critical notes).
t?}?

toi>9 7roSa9

avrov (see
:

Chrysostom appropriavifivrjaev avrbv

ately observes

ov to ayf\yua

l/ceTr)pia<;

t^9 tov Sea-rroTOV

Ver. 31
f.

<pi\avdp(i)7rta<;.

'EXvirrjOrja-av]

They were grieved at the hardsee

critical

heartedness and cruelty which they saw displayed in what

was going on (ja

arunt (Beza)
i.
;

<ytvop,eva,

notes).

Bieo-dcp.]
:

not simply narrarunt (Vulgate), but more precisely

Plat. Prot. p.

dcclar;

348 B

Legg. v. p.

733 B

t tcvply 4; ii. 27 3; 2 Mace. i. 18, ii. 9. kavrSiv] The reflective pronoun (see critical notes) indicates that, as befitted their position, the crvvSovXot, addressed themTheir confidence in him led them selves to their own master. iirel irdpeicaX. to turn to him rather than to any one else. And he had not gone so far fjue] because thou entreatedst me.
46.

Polyb.

as to beg for entire remission of the debt, but only for for-

bearance

Ver. 33.
see Klotz,

On

the well-known double

p.

ical

used comparatively,
p.

ad Devar

the moral oportuit.

635.

Baeumlein, Partih
to

153.

eh

t]

Tot9 /3a<ravLo-Tai<;]

the

tormentors

to cast

(Dem. 978, 11; 4 Mace. vi. 11) to torture him, not merely him into prison, which latter was only a part of their

functions (Fritzsche).

The idea involved

viii.

in /3aaavi%eiv is of

essential importance, typifying as it does the future ftaaavos

of Gehenna.

Coinp.

29; Luke

xvi.

23; Eev.

xiv.

10.

Grotius well observes, though he takes the fiaaaviaTd? as

SeafjLo<f>v\aica<;

(Kuinoel, de Wette), "utitur autem hie rex

non

solo creditoris jure, sed et judicis."

ille

e&>9

ov airohw] as

in ver.

30.

until he shall have paid.

Though not expressly

from the terms of the

asserted, it is a legitimate inference


CHAP. XVIII.
33.

1 9

passage (comp.

v.

26) to say: rovTeari

SirjveKw?,

ovre <yap

diroBtoaet irore, Chrysostom.

Doctrine, of the parable : The remission which thou hast obtained from God of thy great unpayable debt of sin, must

stimulate thee heartily to forgive thy brother the far more

trifling

debt which he has incurred as regards thee; otherwise,

when

the Messianic judgment comes, the righteousness of

God

and thou wilt be cast into Gehenna to be punished eternally; comp. v. 25 f., vi. 14 f. That motive, drawn from the forgiving mercy of God, could only be exhibited in all its significance by the light shed upon it in the atoning death of Christ (Eph. iv. 32, Col. iii. 1 2 f.), so that Jesus had to leave to the future, which was fast
will again rise
thee,

up against

approaching, what, as yet, could be but inadequately understood (so far

we have

here a varepov irporepov), and hence

28, xxvi.

our passage
satisfaction.

is

not inconsistent {Socinian objection) with the

doctrine (also expressly contained in xx.

airb

28) of

r.

/cap 8.

v/jl.)

from your

heart, therefore

out of true, inward, heartfelt sympathy, not from a stoical

indifference.

the

New
;

phrase

Comp. ver. 33. This is the only instance in Testament of diro being used in connection with this elsewhere it is e'/c that is employed. But comp. the
airb ^voip,^,

classical expressions

airb

<rirov8r}<;,
ii.

airb
3,

<$>pevo<s,

and the

like

also airb fcapBia? in

1.

Antoninus

and

airb

rrjs -tyv%fi<i.

Dem. 580,

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

CHAPTEE
;

XIX.

Ver. 3. o/ <& apt <t.] Lachm. has deleted oi, following B C L A n, min. Correctly the o) a>ap. would suggest itself mechanically to the transcribers from being in current use by them; in several manuscripts it is likewise inserted in Mark x. 2. After "kiyovng Elz. and Scholz insert avrw, which, owing to the preponderance of evidence against it, is to be regarded as a

common
Lachm. and

avdpuiwuj]

interpolation, as are also aunts, ver. 4, aurjjv, ver. 7. is wanting in B L r X* min. Aug., deleted by Correctly ; supplement from ver. 5, and for which
2).

Ver. 5. xpoezoXXrid.'] Lachm. xoWqd., following very weighty evidence. The compound form, however, is more common, and is taken from the LXX. Ver. 9. on before 5g is not, with Lachm. and Tisch. 7, to be deleted. It has the preponderance of evidence in its favour, and how readily may it have been overlooked, especially before Eg, seeing that it is not indispensable. Instead of lne\ vopvsiq Lachm. has irupiTtrbg >.6yt>-o nopveiug, following B D, min. It. Or., but clearly borrowed from v. 32 by way of a gloss. For m, Elz.

Cod. 4 has dvdpi (Mark x. Tisch., also Fritzsche

and Scholz have

addition.

si

w,

%.

avro'ksXv/&.

against decisive evidence an exegetical ya/x,. /ic/^ara/] are deleted by

;

Tisch. 8, following C** L S X, vss. Or. ? Chrys. But there is preponderating evidence in favour of the words , and the homoeoteleuton might readily enough be the occasion of their omission. Moreover, there is no parallel passage verbally identical with this. Ver. 13. irpog^vs^Ori] Lachm. and Tisch.: <rpoeriisyJnaav, following B C L N, min. Or. In presence of such weighty evidence, the singular is to be regarded as a grammatical correction. Ver. 16. dyads] is justly condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (B L N, min. codd. of It. Or. Hilar.). Inserted from Mark x. 17; Luke xviii. 18. Ver. 17. The Eeceived text (so also Fritzsche and Scholz) has ri /x? Xsysig ayadov ovdsig a.ya6og si iir\ s7g 6 Seog. But the reading ri jj,s ipurSig vepi row dyadou elg seriv 6 dyu&og, is attested by the very weighty evidence of B L K, Vulg.

CHAP. XIX.
Or.

1,

2.

21

It.

Tisch.

and other vss. and Fathers. So Griesb., Lachm., The reading of the Eeceived text is taken from Mark and Luke, and would be adopted all the more readily the more

the original reading seemed, as it might easily seem, to be The order: sic rr)v fyriv elasXd. (Lachm., Tisch.), has decisive attestation but Trips? (Lachm., Tisch. 7) for rr)pr}aov finds but inadequate support, being favoured merely by B D, Homil. CI. Ver. 20. s<pvXa%ufir}v ix veorrjrog pov] Lachm. and Tisch. etpfaa%a, following important, though not quite unanimous, witnesses (B L s* among the uncial manuscripts but has retained ix vs6r., though omitting /xov). The reading of the Eeceived text is taken from Luke and Mark. Ver. 23. Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive evidence, read nXovffiog duaxSXug. Ver. 24. Instead of the first uciXQilv, Elz. has dnXdsTv, which is defended by Fritzsche and Einck, and also adopted again by Lachm., in opposition to Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Schulz, Tisch., who read uozXfoTv. The evidence on both sides is very weighty. BuXdeTv is a correction for sake of the sense, with which siasXh/v was supposed not to agree. Comp. note on Mark x. 25 Luke xviii. 25. If the second heiX&uv were to be retained, the preponderance of evidence would be in favour of inserting it after xXovaov (Lachm.) but we must, with Tisch., following LZN, 1, 33, Syrcur Or. and other Fathers, delete it as being a supplement from the parallel passages. Ver. 28. For xul u/isTs read, with Tisch. 8, xal auroi, following L Z K, The reading of the Eeceived text is an 1, 124, Or. Ambr. exegetical gloss. Ver. 29. Song] The simple og (Elz., Griesb., Fritzsche, Scholz) is opposed by preponderating evidence; ng was omitted as unnecessary (but comp. vii. 21, x. 32). yvvarxu] after /^r is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., on the evidence of B D, 1, Or. Ir. Hil. vss. Taken from Mark and Luke. For kxaTovra^7.aa!ova Lachm. and Tisch. have voXXanXuaiova,, following B L, Syrjer Sahid. Or. Cyr. Correctly; it would be much more natural to explain the indefinite noXXaitXuis. from Mark x. 30 by means of the definite expression exaTovranXaff., than to explain the latter from Luke xviii. 30 by means of iroXXuvXaa.
inappropriate. 1
;

r)

Ver. 1
(vii.

f.

With

his usual formula,

k.

i<yev.

ore irek., k.t.X

28,

xi. 1, xiii.

53),

of the closing stage in

1

Matthew here introduces the account Christ's ministry by mentioning His

268
f.

So

also Einck,

Lucubr.
f.,

crit. p.

Differently Hilgenfeld in the Theol.

Jahrb. 1857, p. 414

but not on

critical evidence.

22
departure

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

from
(in

Galilee to Judaea.

It does

not follow (comp.

note on xvi. 21) that there

to

may

not have been previous visits

journey, above

answer to Baur), but, in order to give to this all, the prominence due to its high significance, it was necessary that the Synoptists should confine their view to the Galilaean ministry until the time came for this final

Judaea

visit to the capital.

The

conversation concerning divorce

and

marriage
in a
xvii.

is

likewise given in

more

original shape.

22, 24.

irkpav
v.

fierrjpev a-rrb tt)? TaXiA,.] Comp. rov 'IopSdvov] This expression canet<?

Mark

x. 1

ff.,

and, on the whole,

not be intended to define the locale of

for the

ra opia

t>}<?

'lovhaios,

reader knew, as matter of course, that Peraea and

(iv.

Judaea

15, 25)

meant
16.

different districts, although, accord-

towns east of the Jordan might be reckoned as included in Judaea neither can it
ing to Ptolem.
9, several
;

belong to

puerripev airo t.

Ta\. (Fritzsche

"

Movens a
'IovS. is

Galilaea

transiit fluviuni "), for k. rj\6ev

eh

r. op.

r.

not of the

nature of a parenthesis
dicating the route

rather

is

it

to

be regarded as in-

(Mark x. 1) which Jesus took, thus defining y\6ev (Mark vii. 31) somewhat more precisely, lest it should be supposed that He was on this side Jordan, and therefore approached Judaea by going through Samaria, whereas, being on the farther side of the river, He went by Peraea, and reached the borders of Judaea by crossing over to the west
side

of

the

Jordan (somewhere

in the
is

neighbourhood of

Jericho, xx. 29).

The expression

not

awkward (Volkmar)
showing that

nor, again, is it to be erroneously understood as

the Gospel was written in some

Further, the narrative of
ciled

district east of the Jordan.

Matthew and Mark cannot be recon-

with that of Luke, who represents Jesus as keeping to Jordan (ix. 51, and see note on xvii. 11); nor with the account of John, who, x. 22, says nothing about the journey to Jerusalem, but represents Jesus as
this side of the

already there, and in ver. 40 as setting out

to

make

a short sojourn in Peraea.

from
is,

that city

e/cet] that

in Peraea,

just

His way to the

mentioned, and through which He was travelling on On avrovs borders of Judaea, ver. 1. Instead of the (their sick), see Winer, p. 139 [E. T. 183].

CHAP. XIX.

3.

23

healing,
occasion.

Mark
3.

speaks of the teaching that took place on this

of an ensnaring

Ver.

Heupd^ovre^] The question was

nature, owing to the rivalry that existed between the school

of Hillel

and that of the more rigorous Samniai.

There
is

on

v.

31.

See note not the slightest foundation in the text

had in Antipas (Paulus, Kuinoel, though they wanted to involve Jesus, within that prince's domains, in a fate
for the idea that the questioners

view the matrimonial

de Wette, Ewald), as
while yet in Peraea,
similar to that of the
is

relations of

Baptist.

Moreover, the adoption of this view

altogether

unnecessary, since the whole school of

Sammai had

already

condemned that most unlawful state of matters just referred to, and therefore there was on this score nothing of a specially tempting character about the question. But they expected that Jesus in His reply would declare in favour of one of the rival schools (and that it would doubtless be that of Sammai
;

for

they suggested the answer, No), so that they might be able to stir up party feeling against Him.
k.

with

Traaav

ah lav

Falling back, however, upon the divine idea on which the

institution of marriage is founded,
either of the schools in question,

idea

He

He took higher ground than inasmuch as from this divine deduces that marriage is a union which no human
;

authority has a right to dissolve

but as for Himself,

He

avoids prescribing any law of His

own with

reference to this

matter; comp. Harless, Ehcscheidungs.fr. p. 34 ff. el] See note on xii. 10. rrjv <yvvai/ca avrov] Assuming avOpdairw to be spurious, the avrov can only refer to something in the

and that doubtless to the logical subject, to the rt? For a similar classical usage, comp. efjea-ri. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 503 D. Kara iracrav alriav] for every cause, which he has to allege against her, the view maintained by the school of Hillel, and which was precisely that which gave to this question its tempting character, though it is not so represented in Mark. As given by the latter evangelist the question is not presented in its original form as it now stands it would have been too general, and so not calculated to tempt, for it would certainly have been foolish
context,

implied in the

24
to

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

expect from Jesus any answer contrary to the law (in answer to Weiss, Keim) but, according to Matthew's version, the persons who were tempting Jesus appear to have framed their question with a view to His splitting on the casuistical After having laid down as rock implied in k. nraaav alrcav.
;

a principle the indissoluble nature of the marriage

in their query in the very decided terms of ver. 9,
says,
fit}

tie,

Jesus,

in the course of the conversation, replies to this captious point

where
fiev

He

eVl iropvela.
ovv to

Ver. 4. AvTov<f\ SrjXaSr} tovs avdpco7rov<;' rovrl

prjrbv iv

27) yeypaTTTai, Euthymius The following avrovs should be understood after Zigabenus. 6 Trobrjcras, as the object of the succeeding verb has often to
ry
/3tj3\<p tt}?

yeveaewi

(i.

be supplied after the participle (Kruger's note on Xen. Anal). For Troieiv, to create, comp. Plat. Tim. p. 76 C i. 8. 11).
Hesiod, Thcog.

110,

127

(yevos dv0pu>7ro)v).

air

ap%rj<;]

does not belong to 6 7ron]aa<i (as usually explained), in which

would be superfluous, but to what follows (Fritzsche, is laid on the expression, " since the apaev k. drjXv] as male and very beginning" (ver. 8). enrolwcev] pair consisting female, as a of one of each sex. Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. verb. See irolrjaa^ the same 6 after iv. 2. 21, and Gramm. II. 2, p. 656. Comp. note on 1 Cor. vi. 16. AlVer. 5. Elirev] God. though, no doubt, the words of Gen. ii. 24 were uttered by Adam, yet, as a rule, utterances of the Old Testament, in which God's will is declared, are looked upon as the words of God, and that altogether irrespective of the persons Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus and Eritzsche on the speaking. evenev tovtov] refers, in Gen. ii. 24, to the forpassage. But this mation of the woman out of the rib of the man. detail, which belongs to an incident assumed by Jesus to be well known, is included in the general statement of ver. 4, so that He does not hesitate to generalize, somewhat freely, the Observe, at the particular to which the eveicev tovtov refers. same time, that vv. 4 and 5 together constitute the scriptural basis, the divine premisses of what is to appear in the shape icaTaof an inference in the verse immediately following.
case
it

Bleek), where great stress

CHAP. XIX. 6-8.

27

X.ei'i/ret]

"necessitudo arctissima conjugalis, cui u fioi^araC] ol Svo] These words are with the materna cedit," Bengel. T in the Hebrew, though they occur in the Samaritan et been

they must also have done in that which was followed this the LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of m.an
distinctly emphasizing the

claims

of

monogamy.

See

nok

on 1 Cor.

vi.

16.

persons in question.

adp/ca p,lav\ Ethical union may also be represented by other ties but this cannot be said of hodily unity, which consists in such a union of the sexes, that in marriage they cease to be two, and are thenceforth constituted one person. Comp. Sir. xxv. 25 and Grimm's note. The construction is not Greek (in which elvau els
;

et?

The

article indicates

the two particular

means
Phil. p.

to refer

to

anything, or to serve for anything, Plat.

I.

39 E;
j>

Hebrew
Ver.
that
is,

Ale.

p.

(Vorst, Hebr. p.

126 A), but a rendering 680 f.).

of the

6.

OvKeri]

after this union, ver. 5.

5.

the two of ver.

elcrl] are they,

o]

quod, " ut

non tanquam de
Obseive the con-

duobus, sed tanquam de uno corpore loqueretur," Maldonatus.

6 0eo<?]

through what

trast

to avOpctiTros.

Having

is

said in ver. 5.

regard, therefore, to the specific

nature of marriage as a divine institution, Jesus utterly con-

demns divorce generally

part of
together.

as being a putting asunder on the

man

of what, in a very special way,

God has
is

joined

With

regard to the exception,

by which,

in fact,

the essential idea of marriage as a divine institution

practically destroyed, see ver. 9,

already

and comp. note on v. 32. iverelXaro] Deut. Ver. 7. Supposed counter-evidence. xxiv. 1, in which, indeed, there is no express command, though it may be said to contain Kara Bidvoiav the prescripMark and in this his account is tion of the bill of divorce. certainly more original represents the whole reply of Jesus as beginning with the question as to the law of Moses on the matter (x. 3). Moreover, the more appropriate expression enrerpe^ev, which in ver. 8 is ascribed to Jesus (not so in Mark), undoubtedly betrays the influence of riper reflection. Comp. besides, note on v. 31.

Ver.

8.

Ilpoy] out of regard

to,

with (wise) consideration

24

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

to expect frrsrt greater evil.

o-fcXripoKapBiav]
;
;

stubbornness
;

14; Eom. ii. 5 Acts vii. 51 Sir. xvi. the pers<eut. x. 16), which will not be persuaded to selfKara Ziafyotheir <iion, gentleness, patience, forbearance, etc.
answer
to l\iark
xvi.
roct"?

atria? fiiaovvTwv Ta9 yafieras,

ical fir)

/caraXXaTTOfievcov

?avral<>.

wvrai,

'EvofioOeTijae yap airoXvetv ravTas, "va fir) <fiovevEuthymius Zigabenus. ov yeyovev ovtco] non ita

factum

est,

namely, that a

man

should have permission to put

The above primitive institution of God is accordingly not abrogated by Moses, who, on account of the

away

his wife.

moral obduracy of
divorce, that the

the

people,

is

rather to be understood

as only granting a dispensation

in

the form of a letter of

woman might
v.

be protected against the rude

severity of the

man.
32.
i.e.

Ver.

9.

See note on
vinctclo

is

fir)

of fornication,

adultery.

The

(Hug, dc conjug.
1 Cor.
vii.

indissolub.

eVi iropv.] not on account deleting of those words Maier's note on p. 4 f.

;

them the correcby critical evidence, which Keim himself admits, nor by the following o aTroXeX. yafi. fioiyarai, which is in no way inconsistent with
11
;

but also Keim,

age)

who

sees in

tion

of a

subsequent

justified

neither

the exception under consideration, seeing that, as a matter of

course, the airoXeX. refers to a
arbitrarily,
fir)

woman who
note on
v.

has been divorced

32); nor by ver. 10, where the question of the disciples can be sufficiently accounted for; nor by 1 Cor. vii. 11 (see note on this passage). We are therefore as little warranted in regarding the words
iirl

iropv. (see

as an interpolation

on the part of the evangelist in accordto the "law against divorce

ance with a later tradition (Gratz, Weisse, Volkmar, Schenkel).

The exception which they contain

is

the unica

et

adaequata

exceptio,

because adultery destroys

what, according to

its original institution

by God,

constitutes

the very essence of marriage, the unilas carnis; while, on this

account

also, it furnishes

a reason not merely for separation

expositors), but for separation
insists (according to

toro et

mensa (Catholic

quoad

vinculum.

To

say, as

Keim
is

Mark), that

Jesus breaks with Moses,

narrative, but also

unwarranted, not only by Matthew's

;

by Mark's

and any indication of such a

chai\ xix. 10-12.

27

/Moi^arat] breach would betray the influence of a later age. commits adultery, because, in fact, his marriage with ths

woman whom he
disannulled.

has arbitrarily dismissed has not yet been

second fioc-^arat
is

The

justified

because this
has, in

aTrokekvfjLevr] is still

the lawful wife of

him who

an

arbitrary manner, put her away.

Ver. 10. This conversation

is

to be understood as having
x. 10), or

taken place privatim, in a house (Mark

elsewhere.
causa, but

el ovrcos

earlp
"

r)

alria, /c.t.X]

r)

atria
:

means

not in the sense of res or relation (Grotius)

" si ita res se hdbet

(Grimm), which is at variance with the Greek usage, and would be tantamount to a Latin idiom nor is it to be understood in the sense imported by Fritzsche " causa, qua aliquis cum uxore versari cogatur.'" According to the text, r) air la can only be taken as referring back to the The question concerning divorce, Kara, rraaav alriav, ver. 3. correct interpretation, therefore, must be as follows If it
;
:

hominis cum uxore

stands thus with regard

to the
to

reason in question, which the

man must
divorce).

have in relation

his wife (in order, namely, to her

The Lord had,

in fact, declared the rropveia of the

wife to be such an alria as the disciples had inquired about,

and that, moreover, the sole one. This also leads me to withdraw my former interpretation of alria in the sense of guilt, that, namely, which was understood to be expressed by the The correct view is given by Hilgenfeld in his /jboi^arai. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 24, and, in the main, by so early an expositor eav [ila fiovq icrrlv r) alria r) puecrov as Euthymius Zigabenus ov avp,<f>. yap,.] rod avSpb'i k. t/}? yvvaifcbs rj Sia^evyvvovaa.
:

because one cannot be released again, but, with the exception of

adultery alone, must put up with all the woman's other vices.

Vv. 11, 12. The disciples have just

yapurjcrai.

said:

ov avpipepet,

But

to

this saying

must

rbv \6<yov rovrov

be re-

ferred, not

to the statement concerning the indissoluble nature of

marriage, as though Jesus meant to say that this was to be

on only in the case of those who had been endowed with the donum continentiae (Hofmann, Schriftbcw. II. 2, p. 410 f.) which would be to contradict His argument in favour
insisted
;

of non-dissolution taken from the objective nature of marriage,

28
no
less

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

than His absolute declaration in
all practical
it

v.

32, as well as to

render nugatory, for

Eesides,

purposes, the primitive moral

law of non-dissolution, by making

condition.

dependent on a subjective
is

the illustration of the eunuchs

only

applicable to continence generally, not to a

from the sin of adultery.

cvpcpepei ja/jbrjaai,

No.

mere abstaining Jesus wishes to furnish His

dhciples with the necessary explanation regarding their ov

and

for this

end

He by no means
:

questions
to adopt
special

their A070?, but simply observes that

all

it is

a proposition which

do not accept,

i.e.

which

all

cannot see their

ver.

way

as a

maxim,

hut only such as

God has endowed with

12,

moral

capabilities.

Then, in

He

explains

who

are

meant by the oh BeSorai, namely, such as have become eunuchs; by these, however, He does not understand literal eunuchs, whether born such or made such by men, but those who, for the sake of the Messiah's kingdom, have made themselves such so far as their moral dispositions are concerned,

who have suppressed all sexual desire as effectually as though they were actual eunuchs, in order that they might devote themselves entirely to the (approaching) Messianic kingdom as their highest interest and aim (to labour in proFinally, He further moting it, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 32, 34).
i.e.

recommends this ethical

tity " (Luther),
(to

self-castration,
:

this " voluntary chasis able to accept

when He exclaims
which
I
:

Whosoever
stated),

adopt)

it

(that

have just

let

him

accept it!

Chrysostom well observes

TTOitav TfS
et?

He

says this, irpodv/AOTepov? re

a<piel<;

Belial vireporyicov bv to Karopdcofia, ical ovk

ic\io~dr)vaL.

avdytcvv vopuov to irpa<yp.a

ver.

Comp.
to

1 Cor.

vii.

f.

The ywp&v,

11
vii.

f.,

means simply

receive,

and to be

understood as referring to a spiritual reception, a receiving in

the heart (2 Cor.
2)
so to receive it have, in consequence of such

only the inclination to

and those endowed with the power endowment, not be continent, but at the same time the
;

moral force of will necessary to give

effect to

it,

while those

endowed " aut nolunt, aut non implent quod The more common interpretation, praestare volunt," Augustine. posse (" negat autem Jesus, te, nisi divinitus concessis viribus tarn insigni abstinentiae, qua a matrimonio abhorreas, parem

who

are not so

CHAP. XIX.

11, 12.

29

esse," Fritzsche),
it
is

might be traced
Others take
it

to

the rendering capere, but

is

precluded by the fact that the object of the verb

in the sense of
:

X0709 (a saying).

to

under-

stand, with reference, therefore, to the

power of apprehension
similarly Bengel,

on

the part

of the intellect

(Maldonatus, Calovius, Strauss,

Bretschneider, Baumgarten-Crusius,

Ewald

de Wette, Bleek, who, however, arbitrarily take top X07. tovt.

So Plut. Cat. min. 64 Ael. %pet fjbeyaXrjv BiSa^rjv 9 dSt'Sa/cro? aKoveiv avOponnvo^ XoyiaPhilo, de mundo 1151 ov But the difficulty with to what the respect fibs x<opel.
as pointing forward to ver. 12). V.
;

H.

iii.

Phocyl.
;

86

ov

disciples

have

said,

and what Jesus says in

its

ver.

12,

is

not
its

connected with the apprehension of

lutely

meaning, but with

ethical appropriation, which, moreover, Jesus does not abso-

demand,
vii.,

but

leaves

it,

as

1 Cor.

to each man's ability,

is also done by Paul, and that according as he

happens to be endowed with the

singulare.

gift of

continence as a

donum

Consequently, the celibate of the clerical order, as

such, acts in direct opposition to this utterance of the Master,

by any Comp. Apol. Conf. A., " non placet Christo immunda continentia." As p. 240 f. showing how voluntary celibacy was by no means universal, and was exceptional even among the apostles themselves, see 1 Cor. ix. 5. The metaphorical use of evvov-^iaav iavrovs to
especially as the evvov^l^eiv kavrov cannot be acted on

one with the certainty of

:

its lasting.

f.

denote entire absence from sexual indulgence, likewise occurs

in Sohar Ex.
p.

37,

c.

135

Lcvit.

f.

34,

c.

136 b

Schoettgen,

159.

It is well

known

that from a misunderstanding of the

meaning of

this passage

Origen was led to castrate himself.

On

the correctness of this tradition (in answer to Schnitzer and

Bauer), see Engelhardt in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p.

Ptedepenning, Origencs,

I.

p.

444

ff.

That

Jesus

157; was not here

contemplating any Esscnian abstinence (Strauss, Gfrorer, Philo,

II.

p.

310

i, Hilgenfeld), is
is

already manifest from the high

estimate in which marriage

His regard

for children.

always held by Him, and from The celibacy which a certain class of

Essenes observed was founded on the fact that they regarded

marriage as impure.


30
Ver. 13. Comp.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Mark

x.

13.

At

this point (after being

from ix. 51-xviii. 14) the narrative of Luke again becomes parallel, xviii. 15. Little children were brought to Jesus, as to a man of extraordinary sanctity, whose prayer was supposed to have peculiar efficacy (John ix. 31); as, in a similar way, children were also brought to the presidents of the synagogues in order that they might pray over them (Buxt. Synag. p. 138). The laying on of the hands (Gen. xlviii. 14) was desired, not as a mere symbol, but as a means of communicating the blessing prayed for (Acts vi. 6) hence, with a nearer approach to originality, Mark and Luke have simply a-tyrjTdi and aTTTETai (which, in fact, was understood to be The of itself sufficient for the communication in question). conjunctive with Xva after the preterite (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 897 Winer, p. 270 [E. T. 359]) serves to represent the action as avTot?] are those of whom the irpoimmediately present. The <T7)vex$r) is alleged, i.e. those who brought the children.
suspended
;

disciples

wished to protect Jesus from what they supposed to

;

be an unseemly intrusion and annoyance

pestiva (Bengel), as in xx. 31.

a verecundia intem-

Ver. 14.

By

roiv

toiovtwv we

are not to understand literal

children (Bengel, de Wette), for the Messianic

kingdom cannot
ff),
f.

be said to belong to children as such (see

a child-like disposition and character,

v.

but

men

of

xviii.

Jesus cannot
;

consent to see the children turned

away from Him

for,

so far

from their being too insignificant to become the objects of His blessing, He contemplates in their simplicity and innocence
that character which those who are to share in His kingdom must acquire through being converted and becoming as little
children.

If they thus appeared to the

Lord as types of the

withhold from them

subjects of His kingdom,

how

could

He

that prayer which

was

to

be the means of communicating to

their opening lives the blessing of early fellowship with

Him

Herein
Acts

lies

the warrant, but, according to 1 Cor.

;

vii.

14, not

the necessity, for infant baptism

xvi. 15.
ff.

comp. in general, note on

Ver. 16

Comp. Mark

x.

17

ff.

Luke

xviii.

18

ff.

EW]

One, a single individual out of the multitude.

According to

CHAP. XIX.

17.

Ol

Luke, the person in question was an ap-^wv, not a veavLa/co? (ver. 2 0), which is explicable (Holtzmann) on the ground of a different tradition, not from a misunderstanding on the part

Matthew founded on etc veoTt]T. fiov (Mark x. 20). djaObv 7roLrjcTG)] is not to be explained, with Fritzsche,
of

ti
as

equivalent to ri ayadov bv
for the

TroirjaGi,

quid, quod

lonum

sit , faciam ?

right, but,

young man had already made an effort to do what is not being satisfied with what he had done, and not
of eternal
:

feeling

sure

life

in

the

Messiah's

kingdom, he
?

accordingly asks

tvhich

good thing

am

I to do, etc.

He

wishes to

know what

particular thing in the category of the

in order to his obtaining

eternal good
life.

must be done by him

Ver. 17.

Thy

question concerning the good thing, which

eternal
/xe

is

necessary to be done in order to have

life

in

the
;

Messianic kingdom,
the answer

is

quite superfluous

(ti

ipo)rd<;, k.t.X.)

is self-evident, for

there

is

but one (namely, God,

is

the absolute ideal of moral

fore

life)

who

the good one, there-

good thing to which thy question refers can be one good neither more nor less than obedience to His will, But if thou (Be, Being, one good thing, altcrum non datur!
the

the continuative autem

I wished to impress

to tell thee now more precisely what upon thee by this eh earh 6 ayaOos) desirest to enter into life, keep the commandments (which are given by this One ay ados). Neander explains incorrectly thus: " Why askest thou me concerning that which is good ? One is the good one, and to Him thou must address thyself; He but since you have asked has, in fact, revealed it to thee also
:
;

me, then

let

me

inform you,"
fx,e

etc.

This view

is

already pre-

cluded by the enclitic

For the explanation of the Eeceived text, see have had ifik). note on Mark x. 1 8 the claim to originality must be decided in favour not of Matthew (in answer to Keim), but of Mark, on
;

(as otherwise

we

should necessarily

whom Luke has also drawn. The tradition followed by Matthew

seems

have already omitted the circumstance of our Lord's declining the epithet dyados. The claims of Mark and Luke are likewise favoured by Weisse, Bleek, "Weiss, Schenkel, Volkmar,
to

Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, the

last of

whom, however,

gives the

32

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in the matter of originality to the narrative of the Gospel

palm

of the

Hebrews

(iV.

T. extra can. IV. p.

d<ya6b<;, k.t.X.,

comp. Plat. Rep.

ra> ovri re Kal Xetcriov oi/to)9.

On
;
:

p.

16 f.). For ovSels 379 A: ayadbs 6 ye 0eo?

the dogmatic importance
see Koster in the

of the proposition that

Stud. u. Krit.

God alone is good, and on 1856, p. 420 ff.

el

the fundamental
.

principle of the divine retribution

diXeis

njprjaov Ta9

eWo\a<?, which impels the sinner to repentance, to a renunciation of his

own

righteousness,
iii.

Eom.

ii.

13;

Gal.

10

ff.

and to faith comp. notes on Bengel well remarks: "Jesus

;

securos ad legem remittit,

contritos

evaugelice

consolatur."

Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 83. Ver. 18 f. Agreeably to the meaning of his question, ver. 16, the young man expected to be referred to commandments of a particular kind, and therefore calls for further informahence tion respecting the evro\d\ to which Jesus referred Trow, which is not equivalent to rlvas, but is to be under;

stood as requesting a qualitative statement.

For
xiii.

the purpose
in view,
or

of indicating the kind of commandments he had Jesus simply mentions, by way of example, one

two

belonging to the
the
love
of our
it

second table

of the decalogue, but also at 9) respecting

it

the same time the fundamental one (Eom.

neighbour (Lev. xix.

also

18), because
xxii.

was

through

(for

which
to

see note

on

39)

He

washed

the young

man
;

be tested.
tact,

This latter commandment,

introduced with skilful

interpolation
cle

Origen incorrectly regards as an

;

Bleek,

Wette likewise takes exception to it comp. more original. Ver. 20. In what respect do I still come short ? what further attainment have I yet to make ? Comp. Ps. xxxix. 4 iva yvdo This 1 Cor. xii. 24; 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11. ri varepw iyoo

who

considers Luke's text to be rather

reply (Plat. Rep.

p.

484 D:

yu.^8'

iv

a\k

ixrjhevl

fxepet,

aperf}?

varepovvras) serves to show that his moral striving after the

Messianic

life is confined within the narrow limits of a decent outward behaviour, without his having felt and understood the spirit of the commandments, and especially the boundless

nature of the duties implied in the commandment of love, though, at the same time, he has a secret consciousness that

CHAP. XIX.

21,

22.

33
for

there

must be some higher moral task

its

man, and

feels

impelled towards
Ver. 21.
eternal
life,

fulfilment, only the legal tendencies of

his character prevent

him from
'perfect,

seeing where
one,

it lies.

TeA.640?]

who

for the obtaining of

ovSev eVt vcrrepel. In accordance vrith the moral and disposition which He discerned in the young man, tendencies Jesus demands from him that moral perfection to which, from not finding satisfaction in legalism, he was striving to attain. The following requirement, then, is a special test for a special 1 case, though it is founded upon the universal duty of absolute
self-denial and devotion to Christ nor is it to be regarded merely in the light of a recommendation, but as a command. Observe that the Lord does not prescribe this to him as his
;

sole duty,

but only in connection with aKo\ov9et

this to realize his

fioi.

It

was

intended, by pressing

requirement upon him, that the

young man should be led

efforts

own

shortcomings, and

so be enabled to see the necessity of putting forth far higher

than any he had hitherto made.

feel
is

It

was meant that

he should

himself weak, with a view to his being

it

made

morally strong; accordingly

upon the weak side of the young man's character that Jesus imposes so heavy a task, for with all his inward dissatisfaction he was not
precisely

aware of his actual weakness in that direction. tttco^oi^ iv ovpava>] thou wilt have (instead of thy earthly the poor. goods) a treasure in heaven, i.e. in the hands of God, where it will be securely kept till it comes to be bestowed at the setting up of the Messiah's kingdom. Comp. v. 12, vi. 20. For the whole saying, comp. Avoda Sara f. 64, 1: "Vendite omnia, quae habetis, et porro oportet, ut fiatis proselyti."

Ver.

22

f.

AvrroviJbevo<f\

because he
first

could not see his

way
life.

to

compliance with that

"

requirement, and saw himself

thereby compelled to relinquish his hope of inheriting eternal

Aurum

enervatio virtutum

est,"

Augustine.

Svcr-

acoAgx?]

because his heart usually clings too tenaciously to

(vi.

his possessions
'

19-21)

to

admit of his resigning them

at

The Catholics found upon

d. Siinde, I. p.

this passage the consilium evangelicum of poverty,

See,

as well as the opera supererogativa in general.

on the other hand, Muller,

von

69

ff.,

ed. 5.

MATT.

II.

34

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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

Ver. 24. " Difficultatem exaggerat," Melanchthon. For ttoXiv,

comp.

xviii.

19.

The point

of the comparison

is

simply the fact

reference to

of the impossibility.
1

A similar way of proverbially expressing

Talmud with
p.

the utmost difficulty occurs in the

an

elephant.

See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm.

1722, and Wetstein.

To understand the expression

in the text, not in the sense of

a camel, but of a cable (Castalio, Calvin, Huet, Drusius, Ewald),

and, in order to this, either supposing Kdp.CX.ov to be the correct

reading (as in several cursive manuscripts), or ascribing this

meaning

to

icdp,rjX.o<i

(rives in

Zigabenus),

is all

the more inadmissible that

Theophylact and Euthymius Kdp.ij\o<; never has

any other meaning than that

of a camel, while the

form

/ca/xtXo?

can only be found in Suidas and the Scholiast on Arist. Vesp. 1030, and is to be regarded as proceeding from a misunderFurther, the proverbial exstanding of the present passage. pression regarding the camel likewise occurs in xxiii. 24, and

the Eabbinical similitude of the elephant is quite analogous. elo-e\6&v after pa<f>. is universally interpreted to enter in (to
:

any
this

place).

On

the question as to whether pa<pi<;

is to

be

recognised

as classical, see

Lobeck, ad Phryn.

p. 90.

To render
(so

word by a narrow

gate, a

narrow mountain-pass

Furer

in Schenkel's Lex. III. p. 476), or anything but a needle, is

simply inadmissible.

The

danger to salvation connected with

the possession of riches does not lie in these considered in themselves, but in the difficulty experienced by sinful man in
subordinating them to the will of God. drinus
:

rts 6 ao)^6p.evo<; ifkovo-ios.

So Clemens AlexanHermas, Pastor, i. 3. 6.

Ver. 25. Tt<? a pa]

who

therefore, if the difficulty is so great

in the case of the rich,

good.

who have

the means of doing

is

much

The

inference of the disciples

a majoribus ad minores.

1 The passage in the Koran, Sur. vii. 38 " Non ingredientur paradisum, donee transeat camelus foramen acus," is to be traced to an acquaintance with our present saying but for an analogous proverb concerning the camel which
:

"

saltat in cabo," see

Jevamoth

f.

45, 1.


CHAP. XIX.
26, 27.

35

The general expression

rich

ti?

cannot be intended to
is

mean what

man (Euthymius
is

Zigabenus, Weiss), as

further evident

from what
Ver.

said

by Jesus in vv. 23, 24.

This circumstance
is

26.

\E/z./3A,e-/ra?]

also

noticed

by Mark.

The look which, during a momentary pause, preceded the following utterance was doubtless one of a telling and significant character, and calculated to impress the startled disciples (Chrysostoin, Euthymius Zigabenus: yp*ep<p fiXefAfiaTi). irapa dvOpdniroi^] so far Comp. Luke xx. 17 John i. 43.
;

as

men
is

are concerned,

i.e.

not

hominum judicio
i.

(Fritzsche, Ewald),

but serving to indicate that the impossibility

man,
the
(in

owing

to

human inability, Luke

:

37.

tovto~\ namely,

is

on the part of

(TooOrjvai, not that the rich should be saved. See ver. 2 5 answer to Fritzsche, de Wette). Jesus invites the disciples to turn from the thought of man's own inability to obtain salvation, to the omnipotence of God's converting and saving grace.

Ver. 27. Peter's question

that young

is

suggested by the behaviour of

xi.

man

(hence anronp., see note on

25),

who

left

Jesus rather than part with his wealth.

The

apostles

had

done quite the contrary

(17/iefc

placed emphatically at the be-

d<j>rjKap,ev irdvra\ employment, the custom-house, worldly things generally. It is therefore a mistake to suppose that the disciples were still

ginning, in contrast to the

young man).

pursuing their former avocations while labouring in the service

John xxi. 3 ff). See Fritzsche, tl a pa earat r/fxlv] apa: in consequence of ad Mark. p. 441. The question has reference to some special compensation this. but as to the form in which it is to or other by way of reward be given, it leaves that to be explained by Jesus in His reply. In spite of the terms of the passage and the answer of Jesus,
of Jesus (not to be proved from

Paulus incorrectly explains thus

for us
still to

what, therefore, will there be

:

what is awaiting us ? upon yet to undergo such a test (as In Mark x. 28 the young man had just been subjected to) ? and Luke xviii. 28 it is not expressly asked, ri apa earai rjp!iv but the question is tacitly implied in the words of Peter (in answer to Neander, Bleek), as reported by those evangelists, while Matthew appears to have gleaned it from Mark.
do
?

Similarly Olshausen

Are

we,

too, to

be

called


SG
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
Ver. 28. This part of the promise
is

In answer to the question concerning the reward, Jesus, in the first place, promises a special recomxxii.

comp. Luke

30.

omitted in Mark, brit

pense to His disciples, namely, that they should have the

honour of being associated with Him in judging the nation at the second coming then, in ver. 2 9 (comp. Mark x. 2 9 Luke xviii. 29), He adds the general promise of a reward to be given to those who for His sake have sacrificed their worldly interests; and finally, in ver. 30, He makes a statement calcu;

lated to rebuke everything in the shape of false pretensions,

and which is further illustrated by the parable in xx. 1 ff. There is no touch of irony throughout this reply of Jesus Comp. (in answer to Liebe in Winer's excget. Stud. I. p. 73).
Fleck, de regno div.
p.

436

ff.

iv

rfj

7ra\t<yyeveala] in

the regeneration, does not belong to aKoXovOi'iaavTes (aol (Hilary,

explaining the words by baptismal regeneration (Titus

also Calvin,

iii.

5)

who

understands by irakvyyeveaia the renovation

of the

world begun in Christ's earthly ministry), for the

disciples could only

have conceived of the renovation of the

world as something that was to take place contemporaneously with the actual setting up of the kingdom the airo/card;

aTa<n<i,

Acts

iii.

21, does not represent quite the same idea

present in
question.

as

the one

at

Neither are we, with

Paulus, to

insert a

point after Traki'yyev., and supply

eWe

("you are already in the position of those who have been regenerated," spiritually transformed), which would have the effect of introducing a somewhat feeble and irrelevant idea, besides being incompatible with the abruptness that would thus be imparted to the otuv (otherwise one should have expected orav Be). The words belong to tcaOiaeaOe, and
signify that change by which the whole world
that original state of perfection in which
it

is

to be restored to

existed before the fall,

which renewal, restitutio in integrum, is to be brought about by the coming Messiah (D^yn Tin). See Buxtorf, Lex Talm. Gfrorer, Jahrh. d. 712; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 214 f p. Jleils, II. p. 272 ff. Comp. Rom. viii. 19 ff 2 Pet. iii. 13. When the resurrection is over, and the last judgment is going
;
.

on (and

it is

to this part of the scene that the

Lord

is

here

CHAP. XIX.

28.

37

referring), this renovation will

have already begun, and will be

all

in the course of development, so that Jesus can say with

propriety

iv rfj

TraXiyy.

"

Nova

erit

genesis,

cui prseerit

Adamus
Philo, de
tine,

secundus," Bengel.
;

Comp.
;

7ra\t,yyeve<Tia -n}? irarplho^

in Joseph. Antt. xi. 3. 9

TraXvyyev. rcov

mund.

p.

1165

C.

leg.

ad

Caj. p.

okwv in Anton, xi. 1. 1037 B. Augus-

Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche, interpret

the expression of the resurrection, in favour of which such

passages might
enc.

be quoted as Long.

iii.

Lucian,

Muse.

but this would be to understand

it

in too restricted a

sense, besides being contrary to regular

(dvdcrTacris).

orav

New

Testament usage

fcadlar),

k.t.\.~J

as judge.

80^779

avTov] the throne, that is, on which the Messiah shows Himself in His glory, xxv. 31. /cat avroi (see critical notes) likewise, just as the Messiah will sit on His throne. KaOlaeade] you ivill take your seats upon. Christ, then, is

understood as already sitting. Moreover, though the promise applies, in a general way, to the twelve disciples, it
to be of one of them failing, through his apostasy, to participate in the fulfilment of the promise " thronum Judae sumsit alius, Acts i. 20," Bengel.

does not preclude the possibility

/cpivovTes]
Bleek),
but,

not:
as

ruling

over

(Grotius,

Kuinoel,

Neander,

the word means and the

context requires

judging.

As
to

believers generally are to be partakers of the

viii.

glory and sovereignty of Christ (Eom.

17
it

2 Tim.

ii.

12),

and are
mised
to

be

associated with

Him

in

judging the
is

non-

Christian KoafMo<; (1

Cor. vi. 2), so here

specially pro-

the

disciples

as

such that they shall have the

part with

peculiar privilege of taking

people of Israel.

Him

in judging the
vi.

But
is
it

it is

evident from 1 Cor.

still

2 that the

people of Israel
Kocrfios,

conceived of as
will be so
far

forming part of the

unconverted,
is

therefore

still

which

coincides with the view that the second coming

x.

near at hand,
Christian

23.

It is a mistake, therefore, to take the people of Israel

as intended to represent the people of

God

in the

no less so to suppose that the judging in question is merely of an indirect character, such as that which in xii. 41 is ascribed to the queen of the
sense (de Wette, Bleek)
;

but

it is

38

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

south and the Ninevites (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus,

Erasmus, Maldonatus),

a view which does not at all correspond with the picture of the judgment given in the text,
it is

although those expositors correctly saw that

ing Israel
that
is

the unbeliev-

meant.

This sitting upon twelve thrones

belongs

to
is

the accidental, Apocalyptic

form

in which the

promise

embodied, though
itself or its

it is

not so with regard either to

latter the

the judging

special reference to the 8(o8eKd<f)v\ov

of Israel (Acts xxvi. 7), to

which
;

number

of the

apostles expressly corresponds

for the second coming, instead

of subverting the

order of things here indicated, will only

exhibiting
it

have the
to

effect of

in its perfection,

and

for the

apostles themselves in its

infer, as

glory.

It is therefore

too

rash

has been done by Hilgenfeld, that this passage

bears traces of having been based

of a strictly

upon an

original

document

Judaeo-Christian character.

Even

the Pauline

Luke
gives

(xxii.
it

30) does not omit this

promise,

although he

in

connection with a different occasion,

a circum-

by Schneckenburger, without sufficient reason, and by Volkmar, in the most arbitrary way possible, is
stance which
interpreted to the disadvantage of Matthew.
case that ver.
It is not the

28

interferes
is

with the connection (Holtzmann),

disposed to regard
it

although Weizsacker also

fest interpolation."

as " a

mani-

Ver. 29.

The promise that has

hitherto been restricted to

the apostles
(in

now becomes
Comp.

general in
etc.

general) every one who,

its

application
left,

pletely abandoned.

ver. 27.

d^TjKev] has
eve/cev
t.

and comi.e.

6v.

/a.]

because

my name
may

represents the contents of his belief and

xxi. 12.

confession.

Comp. Luke

This leaving of

all for

the

sake of Jesus

take place without persecution, simply

by
also

one's choosing to follow

Him
we
;

as a disciple

but

it

may

be forced upon one through persecution, as

such a state of matters as
find in x.

35

ff.

iroWairXa;

for instance

by

aiova
(see
ver.

(see critical notes)

X^yfrerat,

according to the context

icadiaecrOe,

ver.

30), can certainly have

the

recompense in

ver. 29 ecrovrai, no other reference but to the future kingdom of the Messiah, in which a
Kkrjpovofirjcrei,

28

CHAP. XIX.

30.

39

manifold compensation will be given for all that may have Here the view of Matthew diverges from been forsaken. that of Mark x. 38, Luke xviii. 30, both of whom represent this manifold compensation as being given during the period This divergence is founded preceding the second advent.

upon a

difference of conception, existing

from the very

first,

regarding the promise of Jesus, so that the distinction between

the Kaipb'i outo? and the aimv ip%6fAevo<; in

Mark and Luke

may

be regarded as the result of exegetical reflection on the meaning of the expressions in the original Hebrew. The

words are likewise correctly referred to the reward of the future world by de Wette, Bleek, Keim, Hilgenfeld, while Fritzsche is at a loss to decide. In opposition to the context,
the usual interpretation in the case of
refer

Matthew

as well, is to
alcov

the promise of a manifold

compensation to the

some supposing it to point to the happiness arising from Christian ties and relationships, as Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein others, to the receiving of all things in return for the few (1 Cor. Olshausen) others, again, to inward peace, hope, the iii. 2 1
ovrof,
; ; ;

fellowship of love (Kuinoel, Calvin), or generally, the spiritual

and others still, to Christ more to us than father, mother, brother, etc. (Maldonatus, Calovius). Julian mocked k. ^wrjv at. tc\r)p.~] the crown of the whole, at the promise. which perfects all by rendering it an eternal possession. Observe, further, how what is promised is represented as a recompense, no doubt, yet not for meritorious works, but for
blessings

of believers

(Bengel)
f.)

Himself, as being

(xii.

49

infinitely

tion

and to His invitaComp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 285 f. Ver. 3 0. However, the measure of rewards in the Messianic kingdom is not to be determined by the time, sooner or later, at which any one may have entered into fellowship with me.
self-denying, trustful obedience to Christ,

and

will.

No, it is not seniority of discipleship that is to be the standard of reward at the setting up of the approaching kingdom
:

Many who
versa.

were the first to enter will receive just the same treatment as those who were the last to become my folloivers, and vice

The

correct construction

and translation are not those

40
of Fritzsche,

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

who

interprets

Many

will be first

though last
last

(ea-^aioi 6We<?,

namely, before the second coming), and

is

though

first {irpwrot 6We?), but those usually adopted, accord-

ing to which irpGnoi

the subject of the

first,

and e<r^arot
not forbidden

that of the second part of the sentence.

This

is

by

xx. 16, where, on the other hand, the order seems to have

been inverted to suit the context.

. . .

Observe, further, that the

irpwroi stand so far apart arrangement by which iroXkol In multitudes, howserves to render iroWoi very emphatic
:

ever, will the first be

is

last,

and
:

vice versa.
/cat

The second clause

eaovrai,

to

be supplemented thus

iroXkol

eayaroi

irpwroi.

But

to

understand irpwroi and eayajoi as referring,

not to time, but to rank, regarded from the divine and

point
of view, as

human

though the idea were that " when the rewards come to be dispensed, many a one who considers himself among the highest will be reckoned among the lowest" (Hilgenfeld, following Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Jansen, is forbidden by the subsequent Wetstein, de Wette, Bleek), parable, the connection of which with the present passage is However, there is a little warrant in the indicated by <ydp. text for taking the words as referring specially to the Jews on the one hand, and the Gentiles (who were later in being called)

on the other (Theophylact, Grotius).

CHAP. XX.

41

CHAPTER
BDLs,

XX.

Ver. 6. upav] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a supplement, following ksrurag] Elz., Fritzsche, vss. Or. Scholz insert apyovg, which is not found in B C** L K, vss. and Fathers. Interpolation taken from vv. 3 and 7. Ver. 7. x. 1 d v blxaiov, Xjj-v^sff^s] is wanting in important codd. x), ft vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. For x^ssds, several vss. have ddbo vobis. The words are a very ancient interpolation, in conformity with ver. 4. Ver. 8. Delete avroTg, with Tisch. 8, following C L Z K, Or. supplement. Ver. 10. irXsiova] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 7 nksTov, following B C* A, min. vss. Or. The reading of the Eeceived text is of the nature of an explanation (a greater number of denarii). For dud read rb dvd, with Tisch., following C L N" Z X, 33. The article was omitted in conformity with ver. 9. Ver. 12. on] does not occur, it is true, in B C** K, 1, Vulg. It. Syr., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. but how readily may it have been overlooked before olroi Ver. 15. The first n is deleted by Lachm., following Syr cur Arm. (in accordance with which evidence, as well as that of N, the arrangement 8'sku voi^irai should be restored). Correctly an old interpolation for the purpose of marking the question. There would be no motive whatever for omitting the For the second n (in Elz.) we should, with Tisch. 7, read jj. S r, Chrys. Did. and many min. From g/, following B** not being understood, si was all the more readily replaced by Ver. 1 6. #, owing to the pronunciation being much the same. ttoXXo/ ydp siei %\riro}, bXiyoi bz exXexroi] omitted in B L Z K, 36, Copt. Sahid., and deleted by Tisch. 8, with whom Keim conBut it is not at all likely that the words would be intercurs. polated from xxii. 1 4 for, so far from there having been any occasion for so doing, they have here more the appearance of being out of place than otherwise. This apparent irrelevancy may have led to the omission of the saying, which is supported by testimony so old as that of C D, It. Syr., unless we suppose it to have been due rather to the simple homoeoteleuton i<sya.-

'6

(BDLZ

NZ

D
;

BDLZ,

'6

42
. .

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

TOT. IxXsxTOI. Ver. 17. h rSj 6dw xai] read with Lachm. and Tisch. xa/ h rfi 6Bz, following B L Z X, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. PersP. Or. (twice). At a very early period (Vulg. It. Hil.), h rfi 6dS) was omitted either accidentally, or because it is likewise awanting in the parallel passages in the other Synoptists. But, in restoring it, it would most naturally occur
:

to those

it after xar idlav. Ver. 19. dvacfollowing C* L Z X, Or. Chrys. The reading of the Beceived text is taken from the parallel xa/ (Scholz: Ver. 22. vhsiv,'] Elz., Scholz insert passages. /3aT7-/o,aa/, ^airnffd^voci, against B L Z S, 95) to jSacrr/ff^a, o iyu 1, 22, the majority of vss. and Or. Epiph. Hilar. Jer. Ambr. Ver. 23. niish] Elz., Scholz, Juv. Taken from Mark x. 38. xa/ (Scholz in opposition to the same witnesses, insert Ver. 26. tCTai o lyu fia-zTify/jjai, /SaTTisdriffisSi. 7j) to fiunrifffAa Z, Cant. h ufiTv] for sstui, Lachm. has sotiv, following B Sahid. Correctly; the reading of the Beceived text is an alteration to suit what follows in this and the 27th verse, where, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8, we ought to read term instead of strrw, in accordance with preponderating evidence; strrw (likewise derived from Mark x. 43) is a gloss. But Fritzsche was scarcely warranted in restoring d'e after ovTug, ver. 26, for it is condemned by decisive evidence, and is a connecting particle Ver. 31. sxpafyv] Lachm. Tisch. 8: borrowed from Mark. repetition min. Copt. Sahid. 'ixpa^av, following Ver. 33. dvoi^dZciv qp,. oi Iptf.] Lachm. Tisch. 8: from ver. 30. L Z K, min. Or. Chrys. To dvoiyuciv oi b<pd. rj[M., following B be adopted, inasmuch as the first aorist was the more common Ver. 34. o^kX/iw] B tense, comp. ix. 30, John ix. 10. L Z, min. Or. have bf&ft&rw. So Lachm., Kinck, Tisch. 8. Correctly; the more usual term has been adopted from the

who

did so to insert
:

rrjdiTai] Tisch.

lyspOtjffsrai,

BDLZns,

context.

and Tisch. 8 delete auTuv oi 6<p6aX/ioi after The words are not found in B D L Z N, min. vss. (also Vulg. It.) and a few Fathers, but they were left out as There was no motive being superfluous and cumbersome.
dvi^Xe-^av.

Lachm.

whatever for inserting them.

(and in codd. of ver. 28 there occurs in variations in detail) the following interpolation, apocryphal, no doubt, but akin to Luke xiv. 8 ff. ifuTg hi X^riiTi ex (i,nipo\J au'^aai x. 1% [AtiZpvog sXarTov dvai. ~Eisip^6/xsvoi h\ xa/ irrtpu.xXridsvTig hairvri6a.i //.// avaxXfasffOs sig Toug s^i^ovTag Tovovg, fi7] koti hIt.

Eemaek.
with

After

many

ho^oTipbg oov eKsXdri, xa/

vpoffiXduv

BuvvoxXqTup

i"i<zr\

aor

en xutu
tovtov

vwpa, xa/

xara/<rpui^tf?}.

'Eac

de

ava.^iC^g tig rbv ^ttovo.

xui

CHAP. XX. 1-4.

ovvays en avu, zai
.

43
'ierai coi

sTsX&ri

(fov

rjrruv, ipsT doi 6 diiftvox\?irwp'

roZro

-^priaiiMov.

Comp.

Hilar., also

Syrcnr

'yap] exThe parable is peculiar to Matthew. and confirming what has heen said in xix. 30. apa irprof] dvdp. olkoS.] See notes on xiii. 24, xviii. 23. Comp. notes on xiii. 29, Acts xxviii. 23 airb irpwt Classical writers would say dfia tt} rj^epa, a/xa opdpw, dfia ew, and such like. els rbv d/j,7re\. avTov] into his vineyard, Comp. Acts vii. 9 into which he wished to send them, ver. 2. On the whole and see, in general, Wilke, Rhetor, p. 47 f. parable, see Eupprecht in the Stud. u. Krit. 1847, p. 396 ff.

Ver.

1.

plaining

Steffensen,
Zeitschr.
ibid.
p.

ibid.

1848,
p.

1851,
728.
d.

p. 686 122; Eudel,

ff.

Besser
p.

in the

Luther.

ibid.
it is

511; Munchmeyer,
offices, see

For proof that

not to be regarded as
Kostlin,

furnishing directions for the regulation of

d.

Wesen

Kirche, 1854, p.

52

ff.

Ver. 2. 'E/c Srjvapiov ttjv rj/jLepav] After he had agreed

the condition that he was to pay them a denarius per day. eic does not denote the payment itself (which would have been expressed by the genitive, ver. 13), although i/c Srjvap. is that payment (xxvii. 7 Acts i. 18); but it is intended to indicate that this payment was the thing, on the strength of which, as terms, the agreement was

with the labourers, on

come

to; comp. Kiihner, II.

1, p.

399

f.

rrjv rj/jbipav is
:

the

accusative, as further defining the terms of the agreement

in

was to be the wages As an for the (current) day during which they might work. accusative of time (which it is usually supposed to be), it would A denarius not correspond with avp,<p(tiv. to which it belongs. was the usual wages for a day's work (Tob. v. 14). See
consideration of the day, so that a denarius

Wetstein.
third hour: somewhere about nine o'clock in In ordinal numbers the article is unnecessary. iv rfj dyopa] where they See note on 2 Cor. xii. 2. The were waiting in expectation of getting employment. men in question belonged to the class of free labourers Poll, iii. 82 i\ev9epoi fx,ev, 8ia ireviav Be eV apyvplm SovXevovres.

Ver. 3.

The

the

morning.

Ver. 4. Kd,KetvoL<s]

to

those also

he spoke.

The point

44

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

had

of assimilation {also) lies in the circumstance that, as he

now invites these also to go into the BUaiov] so that, as part of the day had vineyard. b iav y did not elapsed, he make with them any definite agreealready
invited the

first,

so he

ment

in this case

wages for the day, and therefore acted differently from what he had done in the former. Ver. 5 ff. 'EiroLrjo-ev a)aavT(o<f\ the same thing, namely, as he had done in the preceding case, ver. 4, sending them away, and promising them also only what ivas equitable. Comp.
as to
ver. 7.

ort] because.

Ver.

8.

'Otyias Be

<yev.~]

i.e.

at the close of the

hour
the

(six o'clock in the

evening).

twelfth

ra> eiriTpoiro)

avrov]
\iigQqv\

the chief of the servants {olKovofios), to

whom was

management

of the household,

Luke

viii. 3.

tov
\iujQ.,

entrusted

the wages in question.

his
all

The olicov6p,o<; had instructions from master to give the same amount of wages to all, although eco? t<wi> had not wrought the same number of hours.
connected with airoBos avr.
t.

Trp<oTG)v\ is

without

anything requiring to be understood {and continuing, and such like), as is evident from those passages in which the
terminus ad quern
vi.
is

placed first;

for

example, Plat. Legg.

BcoBeica
;

p.

771 C

irdaas Tas Biavofias e^ei fi^pi rwv

airb
viii.

/iia<s

apZafievos.

Comp. Luke

xxiii. 5

Acts

i.

21

John
who,

9.

Ver.

ff.

01

irepl rrjv evBe/c. copav] that

6,

is,

those

were sent into the vineyard about the ir\elov\ more than a denarius, plainly not eleventh hour. ava] used distributively Winer, p. 372 more denarii. The article to before ava Brjv., ver. 10 (see [E. T. 496]. the sum amounting in each case to a critical notes), denotes in analyzing 6v would require to be supplied. that denarius, so According to ver. 1 f., they do not contemptuously decline
according to ver.

to lift the

denarius (Steffensen), but begin to

murmur

after

receiving

it

(Miinchmeyer).

Ver. 12. "Oti\ recitative, not because {yoy<yv%o/j,v, oti), inasmuch as the words XeyovTe?" otl k.tX. express the contents eirotT/a-av] ovtol] spoken disdainfully. of the <yo<yyueiv. they have sjpent one hour (Acts xv. 3 3, xviii. 2 3 ; 2 Cor. xi.

CHAP. XX. 13-16.

45
Schaeffer,

25;

Eccles. vi.

12; Wetstein on
they

this passage;

Bos. p.

313

Jacobs, in Anthol. IX. p. 449, X. p. 44).

:

ad The
one

ordinary interpretation
hour,
it

have

wrought,

laboured,

is

in opposition to the terms of the passage (as little is

by an appeal to Euth ii. 19, where irov means where hast thou been occupying thyself ?) there would have been more reason to interpret thus they
to be confirmed
:

eirolr)aa<;

have been doing

specifying
of

it

(that

is,

the work) for one hour,

if

the

had not suggested our explanation as the most obvious and most natural. t. /cava cava] Those others had not entered
the
in
eVoi'^craj/

time

connection with

till

the evening.

Vv. 13-15. 'Evl] One, as representing the whole. eralpe] mild way of introducing a rebuke, similar to "good friend" among ourselves. Comp. xxii. 12, xxvi. 50.
Comrade, a

So also dyaOi, fiekriaTe.

Wetstein.

SrjvapLov] genitive of price.

2.

idea of ver.

Bengel.

ovk 6e\w
my
affairs
ii.

See Herm. ad Vig.

ere]

p.

722.

Comp.
from the
general

uSikco

From
"

the standpoint of justice.

different

Somewhat

Be]

Summa

hnjus vocis potestas,"

ev rot? efiols]

not to be taken in the

sense of: in
to the
of:

(Fritzsche, de Wette), but, according

context, to be understood in the

in disposing of
p.

my own

Plato, Legg.
critical

notes.

969 C. el The el is not

property.

more definite sense Comp. to aov, and

aov,
as
k.t.\.~]

6 6(j)6a\fi6<i

see

interrogative,

in

xii.

10,

xix. 3 (for, according to the connection, the

doubt implied in such a question would be entirely out of place), but the speaker is to be regarded as saying that, though such and

such be the case, his right to do what he pleases with his own is by no means impaired, so that el may be taken as almost equivalent to el icai (Jacobs, Bel. Epigr. p. 405

Hartung, Bartikell.
thine

II.
(i.e.

p.

212;

Klihner, II.

2,
vii.

eye

is

evil
;

envious, comp.

Mark

Prov. xxviii. 22

Ecclus. xiv. 10), because I

!

(I,

991): if 22, and jn, on my part,

p.

hence
is

iyco)

am good

The mark

of interrogation after e/xols

therefore to be deleted.

Ver. 16.

The teaching

of the parable: So,

just, as in the

case here supposed, those

who were

the last to be sent into the

46

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

first

vineyard received the same amount of wages as the

as the first,

so

in the Messiah's kingdom, the last will be on the same footing

and

the first

as the

last,

without a longer period

that
is

of service giving an advantage, or a shorter putting to a dis-

advantage.
will be

Comp.
last,

xix.

30.

eaovrai\

is,

practically,

The inasmuch as the former receive no more than the latter (in answer to de Wette's objection, as though, from the expression here used, we would require to suppose
as far as the reward they are to receive
first

concerned.

that they will receive less than a denarius).

There is nothing whatever in the text about the exclusion of the irpwroi from the kingdom, and the admission of the ea^aroi (Krehl in the Sachs. Stud. 1843); and as little to favour the view, adopted

by Steffensen and those who

:

those

who

esteem

themselves

last

shall
last,

be first,

esteem

themselves first

shall

be

for

the

labourers in the parable were in reality ecr^aroi and

:

irpoijoi.

The proposition " that, in dispensing the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, God takes no account of human merit, but that all is the result of His own free grace " (Eupprecht,
Bleek,

Holtzmann, Keini), does not constitute the leading

thought set forth in the parable, though, no doubt,

it may be iroWol yap, .t.X.] Confirmation of supposed to underlie it. what has just been said about the ea^arot being put upon an equality with the irpwroi " for although many are called to

share in the future recompense for services rendered to the

Messiah's kingdom, yet those chosen to receive rewards of a

pre-eminent

kingdom

and peculiarly distinguished character in that These iicXe/croc are not the ea%aToi (those, as Olshausen fancies, whose attitude toward the kingdom is of a more spontaneous nature, and who render their services from hearty inclination and love), but those who are
are but few."
selected from the multitude of the kXtjtoi.

We

are taught in

the parable ivhat

it is

that

God

chooses

them
is

for, namely, to

be rewarded in an extraordinary degree

the denarius).
is

(to receive

The

train of thought, then,

:

more than simply this It

:

not without reason that I say

this equalizing of the first

ical

ol irpdoroi ea^aroi, for,

last,

from
be

excepted,

namely,

with the

only a few will

selected
for

those

whom God

has

CHAP. XX.

16.

47
Thus the parable

this

from among the mass of the

called.

concludes, and that very appropriately, with language which,

no doubt, allows the Apostles

receiving
(xix. 2 8),

to contemplate the prospect of

rewards

of

peculiarly

distinguished
it,

character
it
;

but does not warrant the certainty of

nor does

recognise the existence of anything like so-called valid claims

for,

according to the idea running through the parable, the

i/ckoyrj is to
ix.

be ascribed simply to the purpose of

See ver. 15.

God (Eom.
xxii. 14.

11, 15

f.).

Comp.

also note

on

Eemark. The simple application of ver. 16 ought to warn against arbitrary attempts to trace a meaning in all the little details of the parable, many of which belong to the mere drapery of the story. The householder is God the vineyard is the Christian theocracy, in which work is to be done in the interests of the approaching kingdom of the Messiah; the
;

oUovofioc is

Christ; the twelfth hour, at which the wages

;

are

paid, is the time of the second coming the other hours the different periods at which believers begin to devote

mark
them-

selves to the service of God's

kingdom the denarius denotes the blessings of the Messianic kingdom in themselves, at the distribution of which the circumstance of an earlier entrance
;

into the service furnishes no claim to a fuller measure of reward, however little this may accord with human ideas of justice

hence the irpuroi are represented as murmuring, whereupon Calvin they are dismissed from the master's presence. " hoc murmur asserere noluit ultimo appropriately observes die futurum, sed tantum negare causam fore murmurandi." But there is nothing to warrant the view that, inasmuch as they consented to be hired only for definite wages, the crpwro/ betrayed an unworthy disposition, while those who came later exhibited a more commendable spirit in being satisfied simply with the promise of o lav ft dixaiov. It can only be of service in the way of edifying application, but it is not reconcilable with the historical sense of the passage, to explain the different hours as referring to the different stages of life, childhood, youth, manhood, and old age (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), inasmuch as they are meant to represent various periods between the time of Christ and the close of the aim oZtos, at which the second coming is to take place, and are therefore to be regarded as exhibiting the time embraced by the generation then existing (xvi. 28) under the figure of a day with its various divisions. Origen supposed that the allusion was to
:

48

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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

occasion, as

Vv. 17-19. According to the Synoptists, Jesus now takes He approaches Jerusalem (avaft. els 'Iepoo-. is the

continuation of the journey mentioned in xix. 1), to intimate to His disciples more plainly and distinctly than before (xvi.

Comp. Mark x. 32 ff. ; 21, xvii. 22) His impending fate. tear IS lav] Siori ov/c eSei ravra fiaOelv Luke xviii. 31 ff.

rovs iroWovs, %va fxrj <ncavhakio-6u><TLv, Euthymius Zigabenus. Oavdrw] There were others travelling along with them.

dative

of

direction:

even

to

death.

See Winer,

p.

197

f.

[E. T. 263].

This
;

is

in accordance with later Greek usage.

;

Comp. Wisd. ii. 20 2 Pet. ii. 6 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 475 On the prediction of the Grimm's note on Wisd. as above.
resurrection, see note

on

xvi. 21.

announcement in vv. 17-19. Salome, His mother's sister (see note on John xix. 25), was one of those women who were in the habit of accompanying Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1. She may have heard Jesus, xxvii. 56 from her sons what He, xix. 28, had promised the apostles. alrovcrd rt] making a request. It is to anticipate to suppose rt to imply aliquid magni (Maldonatus, Eritzsche). Comp. ver. 21,
Ver.

20. Tore] after the

ti Oekeis.

On

the present participle, see Kiihner, II. 2, p.

01. vii.

622

f.;

Dissen, ad Find.

Bornem. ad Xen. Anal. vii. 7. 17. the two most distinguished designates thus She Ver. 21.

14

CHAP. XX.

22, 23.

49

positions in the Messiah's kingdom.

For among Orientals the

foremost place of honour was considered to be immediately on

the right, and the next immediately on the left of the king, Joseph. Antt.
vi.

11. 9

Wetstein and Paulus on

av[ji(3a<TiXevovTe<;

this passage.

She desired

to

see her sons not merely in the position of

ordinary avy/c\rjpov6fioi and

iv a] as in iv. 3.

(Rev.

but in that of the most distinguished proceres regni.

iii.

21),
et7re

The

fact that the gentle

(for

and humble John

should also have shared this wish

both the disciples, in

whose name

also the

mother

is

speaking, are likewise to be

regarded as joining in the request, ver. 22, so that there

cannot be said to be any essential difference between the

present passage and Mark x. 35), shows how much his character Comp. Introduction must subsequently have been changed.
to John, 3.

Ver. 22. Ovtc olhare,

involved in your reauest
;

k.t.X.]

You do

not understand
to be

what

is

you do not seem

aware that
;

the highest stages of au/j,(3aart\eveLv (2 Tim.

iv.

8) in

my
in

ii. 12 1 Cor. kingdom cannot be reached without previously

sharing

such

sufferings

as

have

addresses the two disciples themselves.

reference
to

moral

ability.

to

endure.

Jesus

8vvaa-6e] said with

Di3,

to Trorrjpiov]
Isa.

figurative

description of his fate generally, and of his sufferings in particular.

See the exposition of

Ii.

17;

Jer.

xlix.

12

Martyr. Polyc. 14.

Yer. 23.

The

disciples reply:

BwdfieOa, not because they

what Jesus meant (ver. 18 f.), but because they were animated by a sincere though self-confident determination, such, too, as was afterwards sufficiently verified in the case of both, only in somewhat different ways. ovtc 6(ttiv ifiov hovvai, dAA' ot<? rjTolfi. iiirb rov irarp. /.] sc.
did not quite understand

ZoOrjcrerai

is

not

my

business (does not behove me) to give,

but

whom it has been prepared been put in readiness, xxv. 34 1 Cor. ii 9) by my Father. For ifibv io-rl with infinitive, comp. Plat. Legg. ii. Jesus thus discourages the ifibv av eirj \i<yetv. p. 664 B
it

will be given to those for

(has

questionable request

of what has just been asked

MATT.

II.

by frankly declaring that the granting is one of those things which God D

50
lias

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

reserved to Himself; that
it

is a matter with which He, For another instance of such reservation on the part of the Father, see xxiv. 36 Mark xiii. 32. This evident meaning of the words is not to be explained away or modified. The former has been clone by Chrysostom and his successors, also by Castalio, Grotius,

the Son, must not interfere.

Kuinoel,

who

took

dWd

as equivalent to el

firj

the latter

by

Augustine, Luther, according to

("

whom

who

secundum formam servi ") are to modifies ovk eanv ifibv hovvai by erroneously supplying
:

words as man be understood, and Bengel,

the

the words

till

after

my

death.

Further, the words to fiev

iroTijp. p. irleaOe

are to be regarded as expressing the Lord's

;

unfeigned trust and confidence in the Swdfieda of the disciples

He feels

confident that they will verify it by their actions.

His

words, therefore, are only indirectly tantamount to a prediction,

tainly the fate of James, Acts

and that not exactly of death by martyrdom, which was cer1 xii., though not of John, but of suffering generally in the interests of the Messiah's kingdom (Eom. viii. 17; 2 Cor! i. 5). It is probable, however, that the
apocryphal story about John swallowing a cup full of poison
(see Fabricius,

ad

Cod. Apocr.

I. p.

576

Tischendorf, Act. ap.

apocr. p.

269), and that without being anything the worse

(Mark xvi. 18), as well as the legend about the attempt to scald him to death in boiling oil (Tertullian, de praescr. 36), owe their existence and propagation to the present passage.
Origen views our Lord's words on this occasion in connection with the banishment of John to Patmos.
Ver. 24. 'Hyavd/crwo-av] Jealousy of the

who were
Sefca Tot9

thus aspiring to be
Sual fiadijTals
ff.

first.

two disciples Euthymius Zigabenus ol

:

i(f>66vr]aav, rcbv

irpwrelwv

e<pie[Aevoi<;.

Ver.

25

Those ambitious desires which prompted the

request of the sons of Zebedee have likewise a good deal to do

1 The statement of Gregorius Hamartolos (quoted l>y Nolte in the Tub. the.ol. Quartalschr. 1862, p. 466), to the effect that, in his xiyia, Papias declares that John was put to death by the Jews, cannot outweigh the testimony of the early

church to the
p.

fact that

he died a natural death.

III.

For the discussion of this

ff.
;

point, see Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 78

Overbeck,

ibid.

1867,

68

ff.

Holtzmann

in Schenkel's Lex.
If.

p.

333

Keim,

III. p.

44

f.

bteitz in the Stud. u. Kill. 1868, p. 487


CHAP. XX.
28.

51

with the displeasure of the other disciples. Accordingly, Jesus endeavours to check their ambition by insisting on the humble
spirit of the servant as the

to

of His followers.

way

to true greatness in the

ranks

oi ap-^ovre^

twv

idv.~]

the heathen rulers.

Karatcvp.] the intensive force of the compound verb serves

Comp. Diod. Sic. xiv. convey the idea of oppressive rule. 64, and the Sept. passim; see Schleusner; 1 Pet. v. 3 Acts xix. 16. Similarly with regard to the tcare^ovcr., which occurs nowhere else, and which may be rendered they practise violence
;

toward.-

avrcov]
the

refers in both instances to

xviii.

t.

edvwv.

ol

IxeyaXoC]

magnates (Horn. Od.

382, comp. fieyiaTaves,

Mark vi. 21), "ipsis saepe dominis imperiosiores," Bengel. ov% o{5to>5 i<TTiv iv v/jllv] it is not so among you. Observe
the present (see critical notes)
things

among

you.

there

is

no such order of

p,eya<5] great, not equivalent to fieyiGros,

but in the sense of: to occupy a high and distinguished place among you. In the sphere to which you belong, true greatness
doing service that is the principle on which you will Hence the future earai for, in the event of any one wishing to become great, he will aim at it by means of serving; the latter is the way to the former. 7rp&>To?] one of
lies in
act.
;

the first in point of rank, a sort of

is to SoOa.09.

climax to

fiiya*!,

as Btdtcovos

The emphasis in the consequent clauses rests on those two predicates, and hence the emphatic word is placed
Ver. 28. "flairep']
"

in each case at the close.

summum
;

exemplum," Bengel.
:

Comp.

Phil.

ii.

Bom.

xv. 3

Polyc. Phil. 5

09 iyevero Sidicovos

Trdvrcov. Observe here the consciousness, which Jesus had from the very first, that to sacrifice himself was His great divine

mission.

Comp. Dorner,
to

silndlose

Vollh.

Jesu, p.

44
are.

BiaKov7}df]vai]

be

waited upon, as grandees

act,

ko\
ff.

Bovvai\ intensive; adding on the highest

point in the 8iaKovi)<Tat
;

the culminating
of,

but

Bovvat, is

made

choice

because
is

the tyvxTi (the soid, as the principle of the life of the body)

conceived of as \vrpov (a ransom)

of the blood (xxvi.

for,

through the shedding

redemption, 1 Cor.

becomes the rip,/] of the Comp. note on John x. 11. 20, avrl iroWoov] dvri denotes substitution. That which is
;

28

Eph.

i.

7), it

vi.

vii.

23.

52

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(is

given as a ransom takes the place

given instead) of those

who

The \inpov (Plat. Legg. xi. p. 919 A, Rep. p. 393 D, Thuc. vi. 5. 4) is an dvriXvrpov (1 Tim. ii. 6), avrdWayfia (xvi. 26). Whether dvrl rroW&v should be joined to Xvrpov, which is the simpler
are to be set free in consideration thereof.
course, or connected with Sovvac, is a matter of perfect indif-

Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 300) so meaning of dvrl is concerned. In any case, that 1 meaning is strictly and specifically defined by Xurpov C ?^), according to which dvri can only be understood in the sense of substitution in the act of which the ransom is presented as an equivalent to secure the deliverance of those on whose behalf it is paid, a view which is only confirmed by the fact that in other parts of the New Testament this ransom is usually spoken of as an expiatory sacrifice, xxvi. 28 John i. 29 1 John iv. 10; Eom. iii, 25; Isa. liii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 18 f., iii. 18. That which they are redeemed from is the eternal drrcoXeca, in which, as having the wrath of God abiding upon them (John iii. 36), they would remain imprisoned (John iii. 16 Gal. iii. 13 2 Cor. v. 21 1 Pet, ii. 24; Col. i. 14, ii. 13 f.) as in a state of hopeless bondage (Heb. ii. 15), unless the guilt of their sins were expiated. ttoWqov] The vicarious
ference (in answer to
far as the
1

death of Jesus
all

may

be described as having taken place for

ii.

(Eom.

v.

18;

1 Tim.

John

ii.

2),

or for

many

1 Kitschl, in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, p. 222 ff., defines Xurpov as meaning something given hy way of equivalent in order to avert death ; this, however, is not sufficient, for, throughout the Sept. also, in which "1SD is rendered

Prov. vi. 35, xiii. 8), pretium ; Num. xxxv. 31 f. found to be the specific meaning given to the word, although the connection may sometimes admit ex adjuncto the additional idea of something given for the purpose of averting death. The Sept. likewise adheres to the same

by

Xurpov (Ex. xxi. 30, xxx. 12

is

redemtionis

meaning in
(Lev.

cases
24,

where other expressions are rendered by

51),

xirpov,

such as H?N3
"V>TJD (Isa.

xxv.

tFltin (Num.

iii.

51),

flHB (Ex.

xxi.
:

30),

xlv. 13).

Ritschl interprets our present passage as follows

life

"/ am

come

to

give

away my

to

God

in sacrifice, that

who could never hope

to succeed in finding,

I may become the substitute of those either for themselves or others, any

adequate ransom as a means of securing their exemption from death ; but the substitute only of those ivho, through faith and self-denying devotion to my person,
fulfil the condition on which, alone the

ransom furnished by me can procure

the

hoped for exemption,"

p. 238.

CHAP. XX. 29-32.

53

(so also

xxvi.

28

Heb.

ix.

28), according as
:

we

regard

it

an objective fact (that fact being Jesus has given His life a ransom for all men), or look at it in relation to the subjective appropriation of its results on the part of individuals
as

present case, where, accordingly, iroXkwv

So in the (which happens only in the case of believers). is to be understood as

all

meaning
xvii. 20).

who

believe

now and
x.

will believe hereafter

(John

Ver. 29. Comp.

K7rop.

Mark

46

ff.

Luke

xviii.

35

ff.

Kal
Bethany
This

avrwv

airb 'Iepi^co] The Synoptists

visit to
xi.

make no mention
to

whatever of the
xxi. 1
f.)

Ephraim and the journey

xii.

(mentioned in John

54,

1)

indeed, their narrative (Matt.

positively excludes at least the latter of these.

mere want of precision, should be fairly acknowledged (comp. note on xxi. 1), and not explained away by means of ingenious conjectures (Paulus, Schleiermacher, Neander, comp. also Sieffert, who suppose that Jesus may have entered Bethany along with the rest of the pilgrims in the evening, and may have left it again next morning or the morning after see, on the other hand, on John xii. 1 7 f., note).
divergence, and not a
;

further discrepancy

is

to

be found in the

fact

that

Luke

represents the healing as having taken place ev ra> ijyl^eiv

avrbv

ei<s

'lepc^.,

blind man, although the

and that Mark and Luke mention only one first mentioned divergence has been

turned to account in the

that
ing,

way

of supporting the hypothesis

distinct cases of heal-

Matthew has blended together two

one of which
is

supposed to have taken place when Jesus was entering the town, the other when He was leaving it
(Theophylact, Neander, Wieseler, Ebrard, Krafft).
culty connected with the mention of two

The

diffi-

men

is

not removed

by a supposed reminiscence of ix. 27 ff. (Strauss), nor explained by supposing that the blind man of Bethsaida, Mark
viii.

22,

may have been

included (Holtzmann, Volkmar)

but

it

proves that, in point of authenticity, Matthew's account

compares unfavourably with the characteristic narrative of Mark, which bears traces of being the original account of what
took place.
Ver. 31
f.

Comp. note on viii. 28 "Iva ariwiri']<7.] Aim

ff.

of

eVeTt/LtTycey

avrols.


54
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Euthymius Zigabenus says well iireaTo/jacrev avroix; ei9 ti/jltjv rod 'I^crov, &><? eVo^XoiWa? avrov. Comp. xix. 1 3. They probably saw that He was just then in the act of conversing on rl deXere irotrjaco b[ilv ;] The quessome topic or other. tion is intended to increase their confidence, by means of the hope which it excites. Comp. note on John v. 6. There is no need to supply Iva, but comp. note on xiii. 28. Ver. 33 f. "Iva avoi<yw<riv, k.t.XJ] answering the above question in terms of the object aimed at in the cry, iXerjaov rjyjraro] r)fjba<s, of which 'iva dvocy., k.t.X. is the continuation. different from Mark and Luke, who represent Jesus as healing merely by the power of His word. tcov dfifiaTwv (see critical notes), used for variety, being, as far as the meaning is conComp. Xen. Mem. i. 4. 1 7 cerned, the same as 6<f)6aXfioL.
:

Plat. Ale.

I. p.

133

B.

ave/SX. avr. ol o<#.] their eyes re-

covered the

we cannot
this

power of seeing ; naively told.rjnoXovd. avTa>] whether they followed him permanently, though seems probable from Mark x. 46.
tell

chap. xxi.

55

CHAPTEE XXL
Laclim. and Tisch. have tig, Correctly; rrpog is Ver. 2. Topsi^re] taken from Mark xi. 1 Lnke xix. 29. But Lachra. Tisch. 8 Kopsvso-Ss, following important evidence. the transcribers happened to be more familiar with -zopsutcdz For awhavn, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have (x. 6, xxii. 9, xxv. 9, 41). xarivavri, which, though sanctioned by important evidence, is ccydysn, for which, with borrowed from Mark and Luke. Lachm., uyirz should be read, is likewise taken from the parallel Ver. 3. With the passages (see, however, on Mark xi. 2). Received text, Lachm. and Tisch. read d-oo-rsXe?, following B K, Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Or., while Matth. Griesb.

Ver.

1.

irpbg rb opog]

Instead of
;

npoc,

following

C**

33, codd. of It. Or. (once).

HM

Important Scholz, on the other hand, have adopted ditotriXku. evidence on both sides. The connection seemed to require the future, which was acordingly introduced here and in Mark xi. 3. Ver. 4. bXov] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following C* L Z N, vss. Or. Chrys. Hil. Comp. i. 22, xxvi. K, 56. Ver. 5. nuXov] Lachm. Tisch. sni T&iXov, following B L Correctly; in the Sept. there is only one Wi. 1, 124, vss. 33 in favour of fivvsra%ev (Lachm. Ver. 6. The evidence of B C Tisch. 8, with the Eeceived text, reads Tisch. 7) is sufficient. Ver. 7. For the first tvdvu Tpoalra^iv, the more usual form. auruv, Lachm. and Tisch. 8 read sn avruv, following B L Z N*, and codd. of It., which 69, Or., with which we may class alrov. The transcriber would be apt mechanically to have l^ivA&ieav) birsxdOiGiv (Elz. anticipate the subsequent Itocvw. is supported by decisive evidence (adopted by Matth. Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.), so that instead of supposing it to be taken from Mark xi. 7 (comp. John xii. 14), we should rather regard the reading of the Eeceived text as derived from Luke xix. 35. Ver. 8. sgrpuwvov] Tisch. 8 sarpusav, following only N * Or. repetition of 'iarpusav in the earlier part of vpody. avrov, folthe verse. Ver. 9. irpodyovrsg] Lachm. Tisch. lowing B C L S, min. vss. Or. Eus. This avrov, which in itself is not indispensable, was still more apt to be omitted in con-

56
sequence of
Tf>o<p.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

K, Or.) puts 6 Ver. 11. Lachm. (B Mark xi. 9. But how current was the before 'lyieovg ; so also Tisch. 8. Ver. 12. rou sov] use of the phrase, "Jesus of Nazareth!" min. vss. and Fathers. It deleted by Lachm., following was omitted as superfluous, and from its not being found in Mark and Luke, also in consequence of its not occurring elseVer. 13. sm-or/jcaTs] Fritzsche, where in the New Testament. Lachm. Tisch. toiuts, following 124, Copt. Aeth. Or.

BLs,

BLs,

Eus. Correctly; iKo/faun is from Luke. Comp. on Mark xi. 1 7. Ver. 19. /ipsr;] Lachm. and Tisch.: ov firixsn, following, it but oh would readily be omitted, all the more is true, only B L Ver. 23. s\96vn airw] that Mark xi. 14 has simply /twjscsr/. Ver. 25. 'ludwou] Lachm. Tisch. 8: sX96vro$ uiirou. See on viii. 1.

Lachm. and Tisch.

to 'ludwov,

which

is sufficiently

B C Z

nap eavr.~\ as superfluous. Lachm. h iavr., following B L M** Z, min. Cyr. Gloss in Ver. 28. pov~\ upon important eviaccordance with xvi. 7, 8. dence, is with Fritzsche, Tisch. to be deleted as an interpolation. The Bevr'spy Ver. 30. sTspui] So also Griesb. Scholz, Tisch.
X,

Or.;

to

was omitted

attested

by

(Lachm.) of the Beceived text is opposed a n X, min. vss. and Fathers, and, coming as it does after Ver. 31. npurog] Lachm.: rrpurw, looks like an exegetical gloss. Maintained by Binck and Schweizer ! in the Stud. u. vsrspog. Comp. Ewald also, who, however, suggests Krit. 1839, p. 944. Similarly Buttm. in the Stud. u. Krit. vtsnpov, sc. /lera/xiX^&i/s. vtripog is found in B, while D, vss. (also 1860, p. 343 ff. codd. of It. and the Vulg.) and several Fathers read so^aros. Consequence of the transposition that had taken place in vv. 29, 30 (B, min. vss. and Fathers) 6 de dvo%p. sTvrev" 'Eyu, xvp., aai Kai xpossX9. rti srepoj s/V. wff. 'O ds aToxp. iiirtv Oh oh% u.irrfk9iv. But this transposition was the result of the 8i\w, varspov h\, x.r.x. ancient interpretation of the two sons as referring to the Jews Ver. 32. oh] Lachm. ohbs, following B, min. and the Gentiles. Syrcur and jer. Copt. Aeth. It. Vulg. Hilar. The compound negative, the force of which had not been observed, would be omitted

byC*DEFGHKU

Schweizer explains thus

Stripes, sc.

awixfuv (which Buttm. should not have

The answer, he says, is hesitating and reluctant, perhaps intentionally ambiguous. But coming after the question rU * rZi %vo, x.r.x., the
declared to be erroneous).

simple

Sanpos can only be taken as equivalent to

"Biunpos, as

in Xen. Hell.

i.

Lachm. was of opinion that the answer was intended to be inappropriate (comp. already Jerome), though he ultimately decided in favour of the See the 'IwroZs, which Or. omits, are spurious. view that the words Xiyovtnv Tisch., Bleek, and others have correctly upheld the latter's Praefat. II. p. v.
7. 6, al.
.

reading of the Received text.

CHAP.

XXL

I.

57

the more readily that ds occurs just before. Yer. 33. rig after Matth.) is deleted by Griesb. and more recent editors, in accordance with decisive evidence. Ver. 38. xara<rp/w//,si/] Lachm. and Tisch. L Z X, min. a^ufLiv, following B Or. Cyr. The compound form, for sake of greater precision. Ver. 44. This whole verse is wanting in D, 33, Cant. Ver. Verc. Corb. 1, 2, Or. Eus. (?) Lucif. Cyr. (?) ; condemned by Griesb., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. The external evidence is not sufficient to warrant deletion. Had the words been borrowed from Luke xx. 18, they would have been inserted after ver. 42, and the first half of the passage would have been in closer agreement with Luke (that is to say, the irag would not have been left out). The omission, again, might well be due to a mistake on the part of the copyist, whose eye might pass at once from ahr^g xai to avrbv xal. Ver. 46. ug\ Lachm. and Tisch. tig, following B L K, 1, 22, Or. ug is from ver. 26, xiv. 5.
all

av6pwiro$ (in Elz.

Ver.
et<?

1.

Comp. Mark
etq

xi.

ff.

Luke

xix.

29

ff.

Kal

r)\6ov
to

Br) defray?]] by
is,

way

of giving

greater

precision

the

foregoing rjyyiaav

'lepoa.

They had come

shows
(ver. 2),

toivards

Bdh-

phage; that
it

as the connection

they had not

actually entered the village, but were close

lay right before

them

comp. on John

iv.

upon it, so that 5. Hard by them

Jerome) was the neighbouringvillage of Bethany (ver. 17), about which, however, and its position with reference to Bethphage (Eobinson, Pal. II. p.
("

in latere montis

Oliveti,"

there

Consequently 312), nothing more precise can now be said. is no divergence from Mark and Luke, so that it is
et?, versus,

unnecessary to understand

after rjXOov

(Fritzsche),
rpjyiaav.

which is distinct from, and more Of Bethphage, V. x ? ^, house of

definite
jigs,

than,

no trace remains It is not once mentioned in the (Eobinson, as above). Old Testament, though frequently in the Talmud. Buxtorf, Hug, Einl. I. p. 18. Tore] an important juncture. p. 1691 " Non prius vectura mysterii plena," Bengel. To any one travelling from Jericho, the holy city would be in full view at And Jesus makes due arrangeBethphage (not at Bethany). ments for the entry it is not something done simply to gratify
;

the enthusiastic wishes of those about

Him
f.

(Neander,

cle

Wette,

Weizsacker)

comp. Keiro,

III. p.

85

58 Eemakk.
1
ff.),

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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

Ms

Ver. 2

f.

Els

rrjv

Kco/xrjv,

k.t.X.]

Bethphage.

eu#e<w?]

essentially appropriate to the specific character of the instruc-

tions

immediately, after you have entered.

The mention
is

of

two animals made by Matthew, though seemingly at variance

with

Mark

xi.

2,

Luke

xix. 30,

John

xii.

14, represents the

matter more correctly than the other evangelists, and

to be explained symbolically (of

neither

Martyr), nor to

Judaism and heathenism, Justin be regarded as a reduplication on the part of

to be

Matthew (Ewald, Holtzmann), nor

Strauss, Hilgenfeld),
parallel to

traced to a misap-

prehension of the words of the prophet (de Wette, Neancler,

who

intends

^btPV;

for just in the

"i^V bv) as an epexegetical same way are we to understand

ciiAr. xxi. 4-6.

59

teal

eVt ttwKov, ver. 5, so that, according to

Matthew

as wel],

Jesus rides upon the foal, though accompanied by the mother, Moreover, a detail which the other evangelists fail to notice.
it is

simply arbitrary to assign a mythical character to the

prediction of Jesus on the strength of Gen. xlix. 1 1 (Strauss

6ri\ recitative. airocneWeC] on the other hand, Bleek). The present represo far from refusing, He sends them away. sents as already taking place what will immediately and certainly be realized.
once,

Comp. Mark

iv.

29.

In

evdeco<; 8e,

but at

observe Jesus' marvellous knowledge, not merely of the fact

that the animals would undoubtedly be found awaiting

them

exactly as

He

said they

would

be,

but of the further fact that

the people of the place are so loyal to

Him

as perfectly to

understand the meaning of the 6

request.

Ki>pios, k.tX.,

those words sufficient reason for at

and to find in once complying with His

of

Comp. xxvi. 18.

;

The idea

magical virtue
to satisfy

attaching to the use of the

name Jesus
accounts

(Strauss) is foreign to
fail

the text

while,

on the other hand, we

the
a
three
of

the

by mere case of borrowing (Paulus) or The simple account of John does not requisition (Keim). affect the credibility of the synoptic narrative (also in answer See note on John xii. 14 f. to Bleek). Ver. 4 f. "Iva ir\r} p co 6 fj] not accidental, but in accordance This quotation, with the divine purpose of fulfilling, etc. original free rendering, partly of the Hebrew and which is a combines lxii. 11 {elirare Isa. partly of the Septuagint, Zech. ix. where riding of the ideal Messianic the Xlohv) and 9, simply representation, not indeed of upon an ass is king a
requirements
resolving
it

of

this

incident

into

absolute humility (Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p.

360

f.),

for

such riding

is

a sign of

irpavr7]<;,
I. p.

but of a peaceful disposi-

tion; comp. Ewald, Propheten,

256,

ed. 2.

He

does not

come upon a war-horse, not ap/xara ekavvwv &><? ol XolttoI The incident in which Jesus then ftaaCkeh, Chrysostom.
realized the recognised fulfilment of the
berg, Ewald,

prophecy (Hengsten-

the figure,

Keim) would suggest the strained interpretation of and quite properly, inasmuch as Christ's riding into

the city revealed the typical nature of the form in which the

60

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

prophet embodied his prediction (Dtisterdieck, de rei propheticae For the prophetic expression natura ethica, 1852, p. 78 f.).
daughter of Zion (the locality of the town regarded as Comp. Lam. i. 6. mother), see Knobel's note on Isa. i. 8.

its

aol] Dative of ethical reference, common likewise in classical /cal eVl iru>\ov\ See note on Greek along with ep^eaOat.
ver.
rii3nx~J2. For more frequently used in the Septuagint to designate the ass, comp. Herod, ix. 24, 39, 41 Polyb. hi. 51. 4; Xen. Anab. i. 3. 1; Lucian, Cynic, x. 3 Esdr. v. 43; 2 Pet. ii. 16. Ver. 7. They spread their outer garments upon both animals, being uncertain which of them Jesus intended to mount. The {second) iirdvoa avrwv must necessarily be referred, with Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Castalio, Beza, Homberg, Fritzsche, Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219], to the garments, in which Were case it is clear from ver. 5 that Jesus sat upon the foal. we to refer avrwv to the animals, the result would be the absurd idea (which Strauss, B. Bauer, Volkmar make use of against Matthew) that Jesus mounted both of them at once, not one

2.

kclL is

cpcxegetical.

vlbv inrov<y^\

v7roj<ycov, beast

of burden, a term

after the other (Fritzsche, Fleck), seeing that k. lireKadiaev eV.

avTwv denotes the instantaneous, finished act which followed the spreading of the garments. To suppose (Ebrard, Olshausen), by way of justifying the reference to the animals, that we have here a loose form of speech, corresponding to the German phrase: he leaps from the horses, and such like, is out of the question, for the simple reason that no such avXKrjyjrK can be assumed in the case of ver. 5, all the less so that, from this verse, it would appear that it was the dam on which Jesus rode, with the foal walking by her side. Ver. 8. Manifestations of respect, such as kings were usually greeted with on entering cities, 2 Kings ix. 13; Wetstein's 6 TrXelvros note on this passage; Kobinson, II. p. 383.

6'%Ao<?] the most of the people, the greatest part of the

multi-

tude.

Comp.

Plat.

iavrcov] states what the multitude did Anab. iii. 2. 36. with their own garments, after the disciples had spread theirs upon the two beasts.

Sep.

p.

397 D; Thuc.

vii.

78; Xen.

CHAP. XXI.
(

9-11.

Gl
.

Ver.
blessing

ff.

n<ravva\
to

addressed
the

God.

iWin, p s cxviii. 25, The dative is due

contained
in

bestow
to

the

meaning
63

of

verb

(ppitulare)

oiaavvd.

a aw a iv rots
ii.

u-^/c-t.]

Grant

blessing in the highest places

iv.

(Luke

14),

i.e.

in the highest heaven (Eph.

10),

where

Thy

throne

is

fixed,

and from which

let it

descend upon the

:

Messiah.
fetched.

The

interpretation

blessing be proclaimed (by the angels)

No

less so is

Olshausen let heaven is farthat of de Wette, Bleek let Hosanna

of Fritzsche, in
! :

be confirmed in heaven,
vyfr.

let it

be

ratified

by God

Nor

is iv r.

equivalent to 6

oov r. v-ty.

(grant blessing,

O Thou who
by God

art

in heaven), as Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Bengel, Kuinoel, are

disposed to think.

iv ovop,. tcvptov]
v.

be His representative, John

exclamation
expressing

43.

Speaking

i.e.

as sent

to

generally, the

may

be described as an outburst of enthusiasm

in a free

itself,

and impromptu manner, in language

was throivn into a
state

borrowed from the

(Succoth
iv. 5).

hymn
iv.

for the feast of Tabernacles, Ps. cxviii.

i<Ticr07f\

of comof

motion (Pind. Pyth.

484; Soph. Ant. 163), on account

the sensation created by this Messianic entry into the city.

The excitement was contagious. 6 irp o^t^?] the wellknown prophet. The crowds that accompanied Him had, in
most
explicit terms, designated

Him

the Messiah

but the less

interested people of the city wished above all to ascertain His

in which the 6

Hence the full reply, 'Iyo-ovs TaXiX, dwo Na^ap. r. TaXiX. doubtless betrays somewhat of the Galilean consciousness of the multitude, inasmuch as it was for most part composed of Galileans.
rank.
. . .

name and

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

 a
02
kind.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

because

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

Ver. 12. Different from

tive is

more precise

Mark xi. 11, 15, where the narraIn the comp. Weiss' note on Mark.

where animals, incense, oil, wine, and other requisites for sacrifice were exThe moneyLightfoot on this passage. posed for sale. changers (fcoWvft., see Phrynichus, p. 440) exchanged on commission (pahp, Maimonides, Shelcal. 3) ordinary money for the two drachmae pieces which were used in paying the This cleansing of the temple tribute (see note on xvii. 24).
court of the Gentiles were the tabernac,
nVJii,

temple
sen,

is,

with Chrysostom, Paulus, Kuinoel, Tholnck, OlshauEbrard,

Kern,

Baumgarten

Crusius,

Schleiermacher,

Hengstenberg, Wieseler, to be regarded as the second that took place, the first being that recorded in John ii. 13 ff., and

which occurred on the occasion of the first visit to Jerusalem. The abuse having been repeated, there is no reason why Jesus should not have repeated this purifying process, and that (in answer to Hofmann, Luthardt, Hengstenberg) without any The absence, in the synoptical account, essential difference.
any allusion to a previous occasion, is sufficiently explicable from the length of time that intervened, and from the fact
of

CHAP. XXI.

13.

Co
took

that the Synoptists take no notice generally of what

place during the earlier visit to Judea.

The

similarity of the

accompanying circumstances
that the cleansing took

may

similarity of the incidents themselves

he accounted for from the ; whereas the supposition one

occasion would

place only on

necessarily involve a chronological derangement extending to

almost the whole period of Christ's ministry,

a
is

derangement

which can neither he fairly imputed to the synoptical narrative

nor even conceived of as far as John
is

concerned, whose

testimony

is

that of an eye-witness.
it is

This

not " wishy-

washy

criticism " (Keim), but

based upon the authenticity

upon the weighty and unaniwhose authority for the sake of John would be both one-sided and This, however, is what Wetstein, Liicke, Neander, violent.
of the fourth Gospel, as well as

mous testimony

of the synoptical writers, to sacrifice

de Wette,
again,
as its

Bleek, Ewald, Weizsacker have done. Others, have rejected the fourth evangelist's account, so far

chronology

is

concerned, in
Theile,
Strauss,

favour of

that

of

the

Synoptists
feld,

(Ziegler,

Baur, Weisse, Hilgen-

Schenkel, Keim).
ii.

Comp., further, the remarks under

John

1 7.

Ver. 13. Free combination of Isa. lvi. 7 and Jer. vii. 11, kXtjOijo-.] how sacred the purand taken from the Sept. iroielre (see pose for which it was intended, but ye, etc.

critical

notes) censures this desecration

still

thing in which they are

persisting.

of the temple
criri'jXaiov

as a

XyaTwv]
was in The
fact

The

strong language of the prophet (otherwise in John)

keeping with the emotion that was awakened in Jesus.

use of such language
that avarice had taken
to
is

sufficiently accounted for

its

by the
:

up

abode in those sacred precincts

to <yap
cot*,

carry

on
"

its

huckstering and money-changing

Theophylact.

<fci\ofcep8e<;

Xyarpi/cbv irddo<i

Differently

Fritzsche

rere sustinetis, ut latrones

where,

Vos undequaque pecuniam, animalia hue congepraedam comportant in speluncam,"

is

however, due prominence

not given to the dis-

tinctive point of comparison, viz. the roohery.

In

vv. 12, 13,

Jesus acts with higher authority than that of a mere zealot (Num. xxv. 11) He addresses Himself to the purifying of the
:

64
temple and
according
its

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

worship with such a
iii.

reforming energy
the Messiah.

as,

to

Mai.

1-3,
;

befitted

Comp.

Bertholdt, Christol. p.

163

Ullmann,

Silndl. p.
is

177.

And the

acquiescence of the astonished multitude

telligible

all

the more inthe indignant

on the occasion of

this cleansing, that

reformer had just celebrated His triumphal march into the

city in the character of Messiah.
sion,

But even on the

first occa-

John

ii.,

their acquiescence is sufficiently explicable from

the

connection with

sudden and decided nature of the proceeding, taken in the spiritually - imposing character of the
(" divinitatis
is

Lord's person and bearing

facie,"

majestas lucebat in

Jerome), so that

it

quite needless to resort to the

hypothesis of a miracle (Origen, Jerome).

Ver.

14
is

ff.

The

insertion of vv.

tradition

peculiar to Matthew.

instance of this usage in the

New

QavyLaatd\ the only Testament, though very comThis

ra

14-16 from the

apostolic

mon

in classical Greek and the Sept.: the wonderful things, viz.

the cleansing of the temple and the miraculous cures.

combination has suggested the use of the more comprehensive Ver. 16. a/covet? k.t.\.~\ in a tone of rebuke, implying term.

that

He was
it.

ing

on]
k.

the occasion of such impropriety, and was toleratrecitative.

The reply

of Jesus, so profoundly

conversant with the true sense of Scripture, is as

much

as to

say that this shouting of the children

is

altogether befitting, as

being the praise which, according

to Ps. viii. 3, God has perfected. 6r)\aovTwv\ In explaining the words of the psalm, there is no need to have recourse to the fact that children usually received suck for two and three years (Grimm's note on 2 Mace. vii. 2 7), nor even to the idea of the

vrjTrieov

children being transformed into adidt instruments in effecting

the triumph of God's cause (Hofmann, Weiss, u. Erf.

II. p.

118), but only to bear in mind that, as a genuine poet, the

psalmist seemed to hear, in the noise and prattle of the babes
But, inand sucklings, a celebration of their Maker's praise. asmuch as those children who shouted in the temple were not
vrjirioL
{i.e.

in connection with Orfkd^.

1),

infantes,

Isa.

xi.

1 Cor.

iii.

the scriptural warrant by which Jesus here

justifies their

hosannas

may be

said to be based

upon an

in-


CHAP. XXI.
ference a minore
Ps.
viii. 3,
19.

65
to say,
if,

ad majus.

That

is

according to

of
of

God had already ordained praise from the mouths sucklings, how much more has He done so from the mouths those little ones who now shouted hosanna ! The former,
;

though unable to speak, and still at the mother's breast, are found praising God how much more the latter, with their These last are shouted in honour of the hosanna cries Messiah, who, however, is God's Son and Eepresentative, so that in His Bo^a God is glorified (John xiii. 31, xiv. 13 Phil. ii. 11), nay, God glorifies Himself (John xii. 28). k. tjvXio-Ot) e/cet] Consequently He did not pass the night in the open air (in answer to Grotius), for neither in classical Greek do we always find avXl^eadat used in the sense of
!

"bivouacking (Apollonid.
iv.

14; Diod.

Sic.
.

On Bethany, some 5; Judg. xix. 9 f 15 stadia from Jerusalem (John xi. 18), see Tobler, Topogr. Eobinson, Pal. II. p. 309 ff. v. Jems. II. p. 432 ff. Sepp, Jerus. u. d. heil. Land, I. p. 583 ff. At present it is only a
14,
vi.

10,

ix.

xiii.

6).

Comp. Tob.

miserable village,
el-Azir,
i.e.

known by the Arabic name of el-Aziriyeh (from

For the name, see note on John i. 28. Comp. Mark xi. 19 ff. Mlav] " unam illo loco," eVt t^? 6Bov] The tree, which was by the side Bengel. of the public road (not on private property), stood above the road, either projecting over it merely, or occupying an
Lazarus).
Ver. 19.

eminence close
ravine.
It

to

it,

or the road itself

may have been

in a

was a favourite practice to plant fig-trees by the roadside, because it was thought that the dust, by absorbing the exuding sap, was conducive to the better growth of the
fruit,

Plin. N.

xv.

19.

rjXdev
:

e7r'

avrrjv] not:
to
it.

con-

scendit
seeing

arbor em (Fritzsehe), but

the
tree

He

went up

From
(for it

in foliage,

Jesus expected, of course

was well known that the fig-tree put forth its fruit before coming into leaf), to find fruit upon it as well, namely, the
early
boccore,

which, as

rule,

did

not ripen

till

June,

and not the

had been on the tree all winter, and the existence of which He could not infer from seeing leaves. Comp. Tobler, Denkbl. aus Jerus. On the disappointed expectation of Jesus, Bengel p. 101 ff.
harvest-figs,

kermuse, that

MATT.

II.

66
observes
:

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

"

maxima humanitatis
est."

et deitatis indicia

uno tem-

pore edere solitus

pect to find fruit

It is a perversion of the text to say,

with Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, that

He

did not exit

upon the

tree,

but went up to

merely for

the purpose of working the miracle.

is

Moreover, the hunger

alleged to have

been only a (r^/jiari^eadai (Euthymius

Zigabenus), or an esuries sponte excitata (Cornelius a Lapide).

The account of the withering of the tree, contained in Mark xi. 12 ff., 19 f., is more precise and more original (in answer Matthew abridges. to Kostlin, Hilgenfeld, Keim). Ver. 21 f. Instead of telling the disciples, in reply to their question, by what means He (in the exercise of His divine power) caused the tree to wither, He informs them how they too might perform similar and even greater wonders (John xiv. 12), namely, through an unwavering faith in Him (xvii. 20), a faith which would likewise secure a favourable answer to all their prayers. The participation in the life of Christ, implied in the 7ti<ttl<>, would make them partakers of the divine power of which He was the organ, would be a guarantee that their prayers would always be in harmony with the will of God, and so would prevent the promise from being in any way abused. Tlie affair of the fig-tree (to t?}? ovKrjs, comp. viii. 33) should neither be explained on natural grounds (Paulus says Jesus saw that the tree was on the point of dying, and that He intimated this " in the popular phraseology " Comp. even Neander, Baumgarten - Crusius, Bleek), nor regarded as a mythical picture suggested by the parable in Luke xiii. 6 ff. (Strauss, de Wette, Weisse, Hase, Keim), but as the miraculous result of an exercise of His will on

the part of Jesus, such a result as is alone in keeping with the conception of Christ presented in the Gospel narrative.

But the purpose

of the miracle cannot have been to punish

an

inanimate object, nor, one should think, merely to make a display of miraculous power (Fritzsche, Ullmann), but to represent in

a prophetic, symbolical, visible form the punishment which follows moral barrenness (Luke xiii. 6 ff.), such a punishment as was about to overtake the Jews in particular, and the approach of which Jesus was presently to announce

CHAP. XXI.

23.

67

xxii.

with solemn earnestness on the eve of His own death (vv. 28-44, 1-14, xxiii., xxiv., xxv.). It is true He does not make
this nature, nor

any express declaration of

led the disciples
tion is

had
;

He

previously

to expect such

(Sieffert)

but this objec-

met partly by the

fact that the 7nw9 of the disciples'

question, ver. 20, did not require

Him

to

do

so,

and partly by
fig-tree.
i.

the whole of the subsequent denunciations, which form an

the

eloquent commentary on the silent withering of the

aLT7]<T7)T

iv

rfj

Trpoaev^fj] Comp. note on

what ye will have desired in your prayer.

Condition of the XifyeaOe.

Col.

9:

iricrTevovTes]

He who
.

prays in faith, prays in

iv ttolci egovcria] in virtue of what kind of authority. Comp. Acts iv. 7. The second question is intended to apply to Him who
teaching.

John xiv. 1 3. Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xi. 27 ff <tkovtl] while He was engaged
Jesus,

name of

Luke
in

xx. 1

AcSd
ff.

has given the authority

the

first is

general,
it

and has reference

to the nature of the authority (whether

ravra]
teaching

be divine or human).

these

things,

cannot point merely to the cleansing

is

of the temple (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), which

too remote
for

such

special reference.

As

little

can the

by itself be intended (Grotius, Bengel), that being a matter in connection with the ministry of Jesus about which the Sanhedrim was comparatively unconcerned, and for which

He
up

did not need a higher authority.

questioners

"We should rather say

that, in their Tavra, the

till

mean

to include all that

moment Jesus had done and was still doing in Jerusalem, and therefore refer to the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the temple, the miraculous healing and the teaching in the temple, all which, taken together, seemed to betoken the Messianic pretender. Comp. de Wette, Bleek, Weizsacker, The members of the Sanhedrim p. 532; Keim, III. p. 112. hoped either to hear Him acknowledge that the i^ovaia was divine, or presumptuously assert that it was self-derived, so
that

that in either case they might have something on which to

found judicial proceedings against Him. They seem to have been a provisional deputation of the Sanhedrim appointed to discover a pretext for excommunicating Him. Comp. John i. 1 9.


63
Ver.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

24

f.

Jesus prudently frustrates their design by pro-

posing in reply a puzzling question, which, in the circumstances,

they did not

know how

to answer.

Xoyov

eva] a single

The subject of the ques; tion itself is admirably chosen, seeing that the work of reform in which Jesus was engaged had a necessary connection with irodev both would stand and fall together. that of John r/v] ivhence did it proceed ? The following alternative is exwas it from God, who had commissioned John, or planatory
word, a single question

not more.

from men,
tion, if
v.

so that

he baptized simply on his own authority or

?

that of his fellow-mortals

The
(ver.

latter

was out of the quesComp., further, Acts

during a brief pause
decision,
ray

39.

John was a prophet

ISlav,
i.e.

26).

BieXoy. trap eat/rot?] they deliberated by themselves,

with each
other,

privately icar
for private

consultation, before giving their

which
*Ir\<xov.

was intimated in the subsequent

aTroKpiOevTes

BiaXoyl^eaOac in this instance also denotes reflection combined

Comp. xvi. 7; Mark viii. 16; with mutual consultation. eTTicn ever are avra>] \eyovn voWa Kal Luke XX. 14.

fj,eydXa Trepl ifiov,

Euthymius Zigabenus. rbv o%\ov] Those words are preceded by an aposiopesis, the import of which, however (Luke The language xx. 6), is indicated by the words themselves. " But suppose we should say From men ; of embarrassment we are afraid of the people" etc. Comp. note on Acts xxiii. Kal avros] He 9. iravTes yap, k.t.X.] See on xiv. 5. ovk oiBapev wretched for with their part as they also on His now in like manner unanswered, question of Jesus so left the ovBe iyco (neither humbling do I) His decided and with He
Ver. 26
f.

<f>o(3oi>fAeda

answer theirs. Vv. 28-32. Peculiar to Matthew, and doubtless taken from Jesus now assumes the collection of the sayings of the Lord.
refuses to

the offensive in order to convince His adversaries of their

baseness.

re/cva

and

re/cvov suggest the father's love.

elliptically,

own
Ver.

30. iyco]
at the
it 7,

is to

be taken

and that with

clue

regard

same time

to its emphatic character, in virtue of

which

forms a contrast to the negative answer of the other son The sir, will go and work in the vineyard this very day.

CHAP. XXI. 33-39.

69

Kvpie expresses the hypocritical submission of the man.

The

publicans and harlots are represented by the first mentioned son for previous to the days of John they refused to obey
;

the divine call (in answer to the

which God addressed

phets, they practically

command to serve Him, them through the law and the proov deXoo), but when John appeared said
to
:

they accorded him the faith of their hearts, so that, in conformity with his preaching, they were now amending their
ways, and devoting themselves to the service of God.

The Sanhedrim are represented by the second son for, while pretending to yield obedience to the law of God revealed in the Scriptures (by the submissive airs which they
members of
the
;

assumed, they practically uttered the insincere

in
reality disregarded
it,

e<yco,

Kvpue),

they

and, unlike the publicans and the

harlots,

the

movement

they would not allow themselves to be influenced by that followed the preaching of the Baptist, so

John nor the example of the publicans and harlots had any effect upon them in the way of producing conversion. To understand by the two sons the Gentiles and
that neither the efforts of

the

Jews,

is

entirely

against

the

context.

irpoayovo-iv
however, does

vfias] as though the future entering into the Messianic king-

dom were now

14.

taking place.

The going

before,

not necessarily imply that others are following.

of righteousness, as one whose walk and conversation are characterized

Comp.

xviii.
i.e.

iv 6$a> Si/caioavvr)*;] in the

way

by

moral integrity,
TnaTos
ii.

iv apbepbirrat /3mo (Theophylact), iva real agio-

(pavfj

(Euthymius Zigabenus).
viii.

2; Prov.

20,

xii.

righteousness (de "Wette,

Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 21, The preaching of Bleek, Keim) would have been ex28, xvii.
23.

pressed
(xxii.

by some

16).

such

terms

as

6Sbv

8i/caioa.

8iSa<7K(ov

ISovTes] the

and harlots believed Him.

feel penitent

ovBe

fact,

namely, that the publicans

fiere^eX.
vctt.']

did not even

afterwards (ver. 29), far less did you get the

length of actual conversion.

produced so

little

impression upon you.

fierep,.

on

v<TTep.,

but on

rov

The example of those others The emphasis is not

Trio-revcrac]

Object of
xx. 9

/xere/z-.

vctt., so

as to believe
ff.

Ver. 33

Him. Comp. Mark

xii.

ff.;

Luke

ff.

Jesus,


70
in ver.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

28

ff.,

having shown His adversaries

v.

how base they

ff.),

are,

now

proceeds to do this yet more circumstantially in another

1

parable (founded, no doubt, upon Isa. a lofty and solemn earnestness,

in which, with

He

lays bare to

them the

full

measure of their sin against God (even to the killing of His Son), and announces to them the punishment that awaits them.

Comp. a>pv%ev iv avra> Xrjvov] dug a wine-vat in it. This to <pvrov. hel oirocrov /3a#o? opimeiv 2 Xen. Oee. xix.
:

was a trough dug in the earth

juice of the grape as
it

for the

flowed

down from

purpose of receiving the the press through

See Winer, Realw. I. an aperture covered with a grating. the vineyard. watching -7rvpyov] tower, for a 653 f p. Such tower - shaped structures were then, and are still, in e'fecommon use for this purpose (Tobler, Denkbl. p. 113. Soto] he let it out (Pollux, i. 75 Herod, i. 68 Plat. Parm. p.

127 A

Dem. 268,

9),

namely, to be cultivated.
let for

Seeing that

the proprietor himself collects the produce (vv. 34, 41),

we
For
to

must assume that the vineyard was

nothing
is

a money rent, and

not, as is generally supposed, for a share of the fruit.

said

in this passage about

payment in kind

Otherthe proprietor, including only part of the produce. wise in Mark xii. 2 Luke xx. 10; comp. Weiss' note on

Mark.

tou?
to

KapTrov? avrov]
;

referring to the vineyard

avrov is often taken as but without reason, for there is

subject last

nothing

prevent
It

its

being referred to the

mentioned.
whole

was
to

his

have brought

him.

own The
5
;

fruit that the master wished to

of it too, belongs to

him.

iXtOo^oXrjaav]
vii.

fruit of the vineyard,

and the
Heb.
xii.

they stoned
;

him

(xxiii.

37

John

viii.

Acts

58

f.,

xiv. 5

20), forms a climax to airUr., as being a "species atrox" evrpairrja:'] a reasonable expecta(Bengel) of this latter.
tion.

elirov

iv eavrol<i\ they said one

to

another.

feat

us obtain possession of his inheritance^ namely, the vineyard to which he is the heir. In these words they state not the rcsidt of the murder (as in

aywpbev

rrjv KXiqpov.

avrov] and

let

Mark), but what

of the son,

step they 'propose to take next.

is

After the death

who

therefore to be regarded as an only one,

they intend to lay claim to the property.

igefiaXov

k.

CHAP. XXI.

40, 41.

71

aTreicT.] differently in

Mark

xii. 8,

hence also the transposition

in D, codd. of

It.

This passage contains no allusion to the took place outside of Jerusalem (comp. Heb. Euthy mius Zigabenus,

previous excommunication (Grotius), or to the crucifixion of

Christ because
xiii.

it

12

f.

so Chrysostom, Theophylact,

Olshausen), but simply describes the scene in which the son

on his

arrival is thrust out of the vineyard

illustrates

and murdered.

The parable
of

the

hostile

treatment
the

experienced

time after time by God's prophets (the SovXol) at the hands

the leaders (the husbandmen) of
(the vineyard),

Jewish theocracy
self-

an institution expressly designed for the

fruit,

production of moral

and

also

shows how their

seeking and love of power would lead them to put to death

even Jesus, the Son, the last and greatest of the messengers from God. Comp. Acts vii. 51 f. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, likewise find a meaning in the hedge (the law), the wine-vat (the altar), and the tower (the temple). So also Bengel, who sees in aireh^/jb^a-ev an allusion to the " tcmpus divinae taciturnitaiis ; " while Origen takes it as referring to the time when God ceased to manifest Himself in
a visible shape.
Ver.
replies.

40 f. According to Mark and Luke, it is Jesus who But how appropriate and how striking (comp. ver.

their

31) that the adversaries themselves are forced to pronounce own condemnation (in answer to Schneckenburger, de Wette, Bleek) /ca/covs /ca/eco? airoXeaei avr^\ as despic!

able creatures (scoundrels),

He

will miserably destroy them.

The

collocation ica/cov?

/ca/cc5?

serves to indicate in an emphatic in question

manner the correspondence between the conduct

and
2
Cycl.
its

punishment.
ii.

See Wetstein's note

;
.

Fritzsche, Diss, in

Cor.

p.
:

147
/ca/cw?

Lobeck, Paralip.

p. 58.

Comp. Eur.

270

ovroi
;

KaKol aTrokoivQ'; and, in general,

Elm si. ad Eur. Med. 787. If we apply the parable in accordance with the order of thought, and, therefore, in conformity with the meaning intended by Jesus Himself, we cannot understand the coming
Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 866
are to
of the /cvpLos

the second advent and the

and the execution of the punishment as denoting last judgment ; for, apart from the


72
fact that it
is

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

God and not

Christ

that

is

represented

by

the

icvpioq,

the words ontves airohoaaovaw,

k.t.\.,

would point

to the period

subsequent to the advent and the judgment,

a reference not in keeping with the sense of the passage.

The

true

reference

is

to

the

destruction

of Jerusalem,

the

shape in which the divine

guardians of

judgment is the theocracy, whereupon

to overtake the then

this latter

would be

entrusted to the care of other guides

(i.e.

the leaders of the

Christian church as representing the true 'IaparjX rod deov),

who
and
xxii.

as

such will be called upon to undertake the duties

vii.

responsibilities of their unfaithful predecessors.

7; John

34; Eph.

iv.

11

f.

Comp. Such are the things

"

which those hostile questioners " a/covves irpo^rjrevovai, iv rot? Katpols avrwv] avrwv (Euthymius Zigabenus).

at

refers

to
so.

the

<yecop<yoi:

the

terms 'prescribed

to

them for
correctly,

doing

Ver. 42.

The enemies of Jesus have answered

since those

but they are not aware that they have thus pronounced their

own condemnation,
was sent
this
fully
to

who

thrust out the

them

are no other than themselves.

to

Son that To bring

of

home

them

(ver.

45),

is

the purpose

the

The quotation is from the Septuagint version of Ps. cxviii. 22 f, which was composed after the captivity, and in which the stone, acconcluding words added

by our Lord.

cording to the historical sense of the psalm, represents the

people of Israel, who, though rejected

by the

Gentiles,

were

chosen by

God
;

to

form the foundation-stone of His house

(the theocracy)

while, according to the typical reference of

the passage (which the Eabbinical teachers also recognised, see Schoettgen), it denotes the ideal head of the theocracy,
viz.

the Messiah.

very frequent occurrence. used

stone

in

the

building.

\ldov
we
of

6v~\

a stone which, attraction of

as not
fit

aireSo/dp,.']
this,

for being
other.

ovro<i\

and
in

no
the
is

K(j)aXr]v
(in

7&)yia<?]

n ?Q K>xn, head
find

of the

corner,

i.e.

corner-

Hesychius
designation

/ce^aXtV^?

sense

of

corner-stone;

see Lobeck,

phorical

ad Phryn. p. 700), Him on whom the

the meta-

stability
it

development of the theocracy depend, without

whom

and would

CHAP. XXI.

43.

73

and in this respect He resembles that stone in which is indispensably necessary to the support and durability of the whole structure. The antitype here referred to is not the Gentiles (Fritzsche), but, as must be inferred from the connection of our passage with what is said about the Son being thrust out and put to death, from the further statement in ver. 44, and from the common usage throughout the New Testament (Acts iv. 11; Eph. ii. 20; iyevero avrr)] did he become so 1 Pet. ii. 7), the Messiah. Here the feminine is (viz. the corner-stone, tce(pa\r) ycoviasi). not a Hebraism for the neuter (as little is it so in 1 Sam. iv. 7; Ps. xxvii. 4), as Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 108 [E. T. 123], would have us suppose, but strictly grammatical, inasmuch as and accordingly we find that in the it refers to /ce(f>. ywv.
fall to pieces,

a building

Septuagint also DST

reference.

is

rendered according to
<ycovia<}

its

contextual
is

To

refer to

merely (Wetstein)

inad>ya>v.

missible, for this reason, that, in

was the prominent

this Ke(f)aXr) ycov.

idea.
"

kcl\

what precedes, icefyakri eart dav^aarrj, /c.t.X.]

viz.

Our eyes," as referring to believers. Ver. 43. Aia tovto] therefore, because, according to the psalm just quoted, the rejected stone is destined to become
the corner
-

stone.
is

What

is

contained

in

the

following;

announcement
ever,

the necessary consequence of the inversion

of the order of things just referred to.

like

The

\eyco

vfilv,

howinter-

the

dcp'
:

vpuwv below,

implies

the obvious

mediate thought

" for it is

you who

reject this corner-stone."

apOrjo-erat

a</>'

v/moov]

for they, along

with the whole

'Ia-parjX Kara, aapica

represented by them, were

38.

by natural
k.t.X.]

right the owners of the approaching Messianic kingdom, its

theocratic heirs;

comp.

xiii.

edvei itoiovvtl,
as,

Jesus
time,

is

not here referring to the Gentiles,

since Eusebius'

many, and in particular Schenkel, Hilgenfeld, Keim, Volkmar, have supposed, but, as the use of the singular already plainly indicates, to the whole of the future subjects
of the

kingdom

of the

Messiah, conceived of as one people,

which will therefore consist of Jews and Gentiles, that new Messianic people of God, which is to constitute the body
politic

in

the

kingdom that

is

about

to

be

established,

74
1 Pet.
fruits

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

The fruits of the Messiah's kingdom are those ii. 9. which must be produced as the condition of admission
ff,
xiii.

(v

8).

Hence, likewise, the use of the present

its

irotovvTi; for

Jesus regards the future subjects of the kingestablishment

dom
the

as

already anticipating

by producing

its fruits.

The metaphor
of

is

to

be regarded as an echo of

parable

the

vineyard.

The

fruits
9

themselves
;

are

identical with those mentioned in Eph. v.

Gal.

v.

22

Rom.

vi.

22.

Ver. 44. After having indicated the future punishment in

the merely negative form of apQ^aerai k.t.X, Jesus

ceeds to announce
it

now

pro-

by means of parallelism in which, without dropping the metaphor of the stone, the person in question is first the subject and then the object. A solemn exhausting of the whole subject of the coming And whosoever will have fallen upon this stone (whodoom. soever by rejecting the Messiah shall have incurred the judgment consequent thereon) sJiall be broken (by his fall) but on whomsoever it shall fall (whomsoever the Messiah, as an avenger, shall have overtaken), it shall winnow him, i.e. throw him off like the chaff from the winnowing-fan. avvdXacr6ai (to be crushed) and \iKfiaadat, which form a climax, are
in positive terms,

intended to portray the execution of the Messianic judgments.

Xucfidco is not equivalent to conterere, comminuere, the

meaning

usually assigned to
is

it

in accordance with the Vulgate, but

rather to be rendered
Oec. xviii.
;

by

to

winnow, ventilare

Xen.
xxv.

2.

Plut. Mor. p.
v. 10).

Ruth

iii.

Ecclus.

(II. v. 500; 701 C; Lucian, Gymnas. See likewise Job xxvii. 21,

where the

Sept.

employs

this figurative

term

for the

purpose

of rendering the idea of driving

away

Comp. Dan.

ii.

44; Wisd.

xi.

20.

Observe

as before a storm ("W).

the change which

the figure undergoes in the second division of the verse.

The

stone that previously appeared in the character of the corner-

and on which, as on a stone of stumsome one falls, is now conceived of as the latter rolling down with crushing force upon the man having reference to the whole of such coming (ver. 40) in judgment down to the second advent; the former expressing
stone, lying at rest,

bling (Isa.

viii.

14

f),

CHAP. XXI.

45, 46.

75

the same thought in a passive form, tcenai ew irrwaiv (Luke

ii.

34).

45 f. It was the hint contained in this concluding; remark that led Jesus at once to follow up what had been
Ver.

already said with another parabolic address directed against

His enemies.

ol dp^iepets

k.

ol $apio:]

identical with

the ol dpx. k. ol irpeo-fivrepot of ver. 23, so that, in the present instance, the latter are designated by the name of the eyvcoo-av] what had now party to which they belonged.

become

clear to

confident

them from what was said, vv. 42-44. The manner in which they express themselves in ver. 41

bears up to that point no trace of such knowledge, otherwise

we

should have to suppose that they consciously pronounced

their tt)v
:

own condemnation.
held
;

et<?
i.e.

(see critical remarks) Trpo<prj-

Him
on

as a prophet,
els,

in

Him

they

felt

they possessed

a prophet

which

is

met with

in later writers in the

p.

sense of the predicate, see Bernhardy,

219.

76

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTEE

XXII.

Ver. 4. jjro/'/Aatra] Following B C* D L N, 1, 22, 23, we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read nrolfiaxa because of the preponderance of manuscript authority. Ver. 5. 6 /ih ... 6 8s] B L, Ig 8's. min. Or. og fih So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. To be preferred on the strength of this external authority, particularly og 8's, cannot be regarded as counteras C* X, which have 6 /xh For sic rqv, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read eV/ rqv, evidence. following B C D X, min. Or. Correctly stg is a mechanical repetition of the one preceding. Ver. 7. The Eeceived text has

is

8s 6 f3a<f. Of the numerous readings, the simple 6 8s j3as/Xsvg the one favoured by B L N, min. Copt. Sahid., while most of the other witnesses have xai d%. 6 (3ud. (so Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7). Lachm. reads I 8\ /3aa. axolxsag, but only following min. In presence of such a multiIt. Vulg\ Arm. Ir. Chrys. Eus. plicity of readings, we ought to regard the simple 6 8s @a6. as the original one (so also Tisch. 8), to which, in conformity with Matthew's style (comp. on the reading of the Eeceived text, especially ii. 3), dzovaac was added, being inserted sometimes in one place and sometimes in another. Many important witnesses insert sxsTvog after (3aaiX. (D and codd. of It. Lucif. place it before), a reading which is also adopted by Scholz and Tisch. 7 It is not found in B L (therefore %. dxovsag 6 j3asiXsvg sxtTvog). It, too, has been X, min. Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Vulg. Ir. inserted mechanically as being in accordance with Matthew's usual manner it would scarcely have been omitted as being somewhat in the way because of the sxsnog which follows. Ver. 10. 6 yd^og] Tisch. 8: o vvppwv, following B* L S. A misVer. 1 3. taken gloss, for vvppuiv means the bride-chawiber. apurs ahrbv %at ixfidXsrs] Lachm. Tisch. 8: S7tj3dXsrs avrov, following BLs, min. vss. and Fathers. The word apurs, not being needed to complete the picture, was struck out. The reading of the Eeceived text ought to be maintained. The genuineness of the apars is likewise confirmed by the gloss apart avrbv to8uv %. x s 'pZ>v, which came to be substituted for 8r)m\irsg avrov kq8. %. ystpag (so D, Cant. Verc. Ver. Colb. Corb. 2, Clar. Ir.

axobsag


chap. xxii.

77

Ver. 16. Xsyovrsg] Fritzsche, Laclim. Tisch. 8: \syovfollowing B L X, 27, vss. (?). An improper emendation. Ver. 23. o/ \syovrsg] Laclim. and Tisch. 8 have deleted the S Z X, min. Or., no doubt ; but inarticle, following B correctly, for it is indispensable, and would be readily enough overlooked in consequence of the Ol which immediately precedes Ver. 25. For ya/Afaac, with Lachm. and Tisch., following it. B L X, min. Or. read y^fiag, a form which the copyists would be very apt to exchange for one of more frequent occurrence in the
Lncif.).
rag,

New

yvvq, ver. 27, read, with Tisch. 8, For xai Testament. simply yuvjj, in accordance with the preponderance of evidence. Ver. 28. Instead of sv rjj ouv dvao-T., we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ev r. amor, oh, following B D L X, min. The reading of the Eeceived text was intended to be an emendation
??

jj

Ver. 30. Ixya/i/^oira/] as regards the position of the oh. L X, min. Clem. Or. Lachm. Tisch. 8 yapifyvrai, following B The compound form, besides being obviously (twice) Ath. Isid. suggested by Luke, is intended to be more precise, so as to bring out the reference to women. Neither of the words belongs to
:

the older Greek, hence the variations are not of a grammatical rou 6 sou] wanting in B D, 1, 209, vss. and Fathers. nature. Deleted by Lachm. Left out, in accordance with Mark xii. 25. Ver. 32. obx Isnv 6 Hoc 6s6c] The second hog is deleted by Lachm., following B L A, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. (?). It is likeX, min. Eus. Chrys., which authorities drop wise wanting in the article before the first hog. Tisch. 8 follows them, simply reading ovx 'ianv &toc. The sufficiently attested reading of the Eeceived text is to be adhered to it was simplified in accordVer. 35. xal X$ycov] not lound in ance with Mark and Luke. B L X, 33, vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The omission, though opposed to Matthew's usual style (xii. 10, xvii. 10, xxii. 23, 41, xxvii. 11), is in accordance with Mark xii. 28. Ver. 37. 'irisovg] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., followitpn] ing B L X, 33, Copt. Sahid, Inserted from Mark xii. 29. having decisive evidence in its favour, is to be preferred to tSirsv Ver. 38. For vpwr^ x. (isyuX*}, read, with of the Eeceived text. (which iLiyd\y\ x. npurri, following B Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: latter, however, omits /) L (which, however, inserts the article also before irpurvi) Z X, min: vss: Hilar. ; irpwrri would be placed Ver. 40. first as being the chief predicate. Comp. dsurspa, below. L Z X, 33, Syr. Vulg. It. Tert. xa/ o/ <Kpo<pr\rai zps/uavrai] B Hil.: xpsparat %ai ot mpo<p. Eecommended by Griesb., adopted by The reading of the Eeceived text Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. G L Ver. 44. vwoTodiov'] B is an exegetical correction.

jj

78

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

min. vss. Aug.: bvoxdru. Eecommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Eeceived text is taken from the Sept. and Luke.
Ver.
full
1.

ZrAK,

Kal

cnronp. 6

'Irjcr.

ttoXlv elirev,

k.t.X.]

In the

consciousness of His mission and His

(airoicp.,

own

superiority,

Jesus replied
%qTeiv,

see

note

on

xi.

which only

fear of the people kept in check,

25) to their hostile by adding

another parabolic address (eV 7rapa/3. plural of the category).

Olshausen and

Keim

are not justified in doubting this conf.

nection on the ground that xxi. 45

is,

as they suppose, the

formal conclusion.
is

The parable

as given in

Luke

xiv.

16

ff.

not a Pauline modification of the one before us (Baur,

is

Hilgenfeld), but

rather to be regarded as representing an

imperfect version of

it which had found its way into the document consulted by Luke. Others are of opinion that the parable in Luke xiv. 16 ff. is the more original of the two, and that here it is interwoven with another (ver. 8 ff.), the introduction to which, however, has disappeared, and that, in

the process,

still

a third feature (vv.

6, 7)

has been added from

the parable which precedes (Ewald, Schneckenburger, de Wette,

Strauss, Weizsacker,
after the

remark of
is

as that before us,

Keim, Scholten). But coming as it does 45 f., a somewhat copious parable such so far from being a mere heaping of passage
xxi.

upon

passage,

intended to serve as a forcible concluding

address directed against His obdurate enemies,

an

address, too,

which does not interrupt the connection, since it was delivered before those for whom it was intended had had time to withdraw (ver. 1 5). As, in presence of such obduracy, thoughts of the divine love and of the divine wrath could not but crowd into the mind of Jesus so, on the other hand, there could not fail to
;

be something corresponding to this in their parabolic utterance. Ver. 2 f. On 'ydfiovi irocelv, to prepare a marriage feast,
comp. Wetstein and Xen. de rep. Lac. i. 6; Tob. viii. 19. Michaelis, Fischer, Kuinoel, Paulus are mistaken in supposing
that

what

is

meant

sion to the throne.

The Messiah

is

a,

feast on the occasion of his son's accesis

the bridegroom (xxv. 1

Eev. xxi.

2, 9),

His kingdom.

whose marriage represents the setting up of Comp. ix. 15, John iii. 29, and note on Eph.

CHAr. XXII. 4-9.

79

v.

i.e. to tell those who had been previously was now time to come to the marriage. Comp. Luke xiv. 1 7. For instances of such repeated invitaver. 4 avdp. /3acrtX.] as in xviii. 23 o/xoitoOr), tions, see Wetstein.

27.

KaXeaat]
it
;

invited that

as in

xiii.

24.

Ver. 4.
xiv.

12

To apiarov] not equivalent to Belirvov (see Luke Bornemann, ad Xen. Cyr. ii. 3. 21), nor a meal gene-

but in the sense of breakfast, prandium (towards mid-day, Joseph. Antt. v. 4. 2), with which the series of meals conrally,

nected with marriage was to begin.

marks) paratum habeo.

:

and everything generally. Ver. 5 ff. AfieXt]o-avre<i] having paid no attention, said with reference merely to those who went away for the others, ver. 6, conducted themselves in a manner directly hostile. This in answer to Fritzsche, who holds that Matthew would have expressed himself more precisely ol Be dfieX., ol fiev
ical ttclvto]
,
;
:

r]Toi'fia/ca

(see critical re-

dirrjXdov

ol Be Xonrol, k.t.X.
it

Instead of so expressing himself,

however, he leaves
oi represents the
Xoittol

to appear

from the context that the

first

majority of those invited, while the oi Be

limitation in oi Be Xonrol.

constitute the remainder, so that the general form of

(ot Be dfieX., k.t.X.) finds its

expression

This limitation might also have been expressed by oi Be alone,

in the sense of some, however (see Kiihner, II. 2, p. 808).

v.

els

tov IBiov dypov]

to his

own farm (Mark

v.

14,

vi.

36), so that

he preferred his own

selfish

interests to being present at the

marriage of the royal prince, as was also the case with him

who
22.

went

to his merchandise.
8.

Tor

iBcos,

comp. note on Eph.

xiii.

Ver.

Ovtc rjaav a^iot,] Comp. Acts

46.

" Prae-

teritum indignos eo magis praetermittit" Bengel.

sent the expedition against the rebels,
their city as actually taking place while the

To repreand the destruction of

supper
life,

prepared,

thing hardly conceivable in real

is

being
is

to

introduce an episode quite in accordance ivith the illustrative

character
narrative.
to a
tree ;

of the parable,

which after all is only a fictitious Comp., for example, the mustard seed which grows
is

the olive on which the wild branch

see also note on xxv. 1
f.

engrafted,

Eom.

xi., etc.;

Ver.

9.

'Etti ra? BietjoBovs tcov oBojv]

to the crossings

of

80
the roads,

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

It

where people were in the habit of congregating most. 7, according to which the city is destroyed, that what is meant is not, as Kypke and Kuinoel suppose, the squares in the city from which streets branch off, but the places where the country roads cross each other. Gloss.: "Divitibus in more Comp. Babyl. Berac. xliii. 1.
is

evident from ver.

fuit,

viatores pauperes ad convivia invitare."

Ver. 10. \E|e\0oz>Te9] from the palace of the king out

into the highways.

which was accepted.

irovqp.

a-vvtj'yayov] through their invitation,

re teal a<yad.~\ not "locutio

quasi proverbialis," Bengel, but they proceeded on the principle of not inquiring

whether the parties in question were at

time morally bad or good, provided they only accepted The separation between the bad and the good the invitation. was not to be made by them, but subsequently by the king
the
himself, and that according to a higher standard.

Accordingly,

the separation takes place in ver. 11

ff.,

where the
(i.e.

has no wedding garment represents the irovr^poi

man who
6 yd/jLOs]

not equivalent to
/east, as in ver. 8
;

vvficfxov,

but the wedding

the

marriage

491), was on eirX^a-drf. emphasis, however, is The full of guests. Ver. 11 f. "EvSvfia rydfiov] a dress suited for a marriage. Comp. )(\avU yafiitcrj, Aristoph. Av. 1693. It is true that, in

comp. Horn. Od.

iv. 3, II. xviii.

interpreting this

passage, expositors

(Michaelis,

Olshausen)

lay stress on the

caftans to those
7

Oriental

custom of presenting handsome

w ho

are admitted to the presence of royalty

p.

(Harrner, Bedbacht.

II.

117; Eosenmuller, Morgenl.

V.

and they are all the more disposed to do so, p. that such a custom is calculated to make it appear with greater prominence that righteousness is a free gift, and that, consequently, man's sin is so much the more heinous but neither can it be proved (not from Gen. xlv. 22 Judg. Esth. vi. 8, viii. 15) that 2 Kings v. 22, x. 22 xiv. 12 any such custom existed in ancient times, nor does the text make any allusion to it whatever, although it would have

75

ff.)

contributed not a

little to

bring out the idea of the parable.

That those invited, however, should appear in festive attire was a matter of course, and demanded by the rules of ordinary


CHAP. XXII.
13, 14.

81

etiquette (see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 23).

to he

represented here is the moral Si/catoavwr), which,

The only thing intended by faith

in Christ,

men

are required to

assume

after being called to the

Comp. vi. 33, v. 20. Messianic kingdom through /xerdvoia. themselves could understand adversaries So far, our Lord's
the figure of the wedding garment.
But, of course, the true

inward basis of the moral ZinaLoavvq

righteousness which, as a free
of Jesus,
gift,

was to be sought in that and in virtue of the death

would be bestowed on those who believed (comp. The knowledge of this truth, howthe Fathers in Calovius). ever, had to be reserved for a later stage in the development 7rw<? eralpe] Comp. on xx. 13. of Christian doctrine.

elafjXdes,

k.t.X.]

a question expressive of astonishment

how

has

been possible for thee to come in hither (how couldst p,r) e^wv] although thou venture to do so), without, etc.? ovtc iv8e8v/A. Comp. Differently ver. 11 thou hadst not.
it

Buttmann, Neut.
for

Gr. p.

301

[E. T. 351].

Ver. 13. Arjo-avres,

k.t.X.]

that

is,

to

make

it

impossible

him

to get loose in course of the eicftdXXeaOai, as well as

to secure against
i^corepov.

avrov

his escape
7roo\]

subsequently from the <tkoto$

his feet;

comp. on

viii.

3.

Tor
41.

the Sid/covoi of this passage

(not

SovXoc this time, for the

xiii.

servants waiting at the table are intended), see

e'/eet

ear at,

k.t.X.]

not the words of the king, but, as the

future earac indicates, a remark on the part of Jesus, having

reference to the condition hinted at in the words to gkot.
efcoT.
t.

See, further,

on

viii.

12.

Ver. 14.
For, so
far

Tap] introduces

the reason of the

e'et

earai, k.t.X.

from the mere calling availing to secure against eternal condemnation, many, on the contrary, are called to the, Messiah's kingdom, but comparatively few are chosen by God
actually to
participate in
it.

This saying has a somewhat

in both passages the
i/cXo<yri

different purport in xx.

is

16;
;

still

not, in the

first

instance, the judicial

sentence, but the

eternal decree of

God

decree,

however, which has not

selected the future subjects of the

fashion, but has destined for this

kingdom in any arbitrary honour those who, by approrequisite

hiKaiocrvvq F

priating

and
II.

faithfully maintaining the

MATT.

82
(see

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

on
ver.

11

f.),

will be found to possess the correspond-

ing disposition and character.

too, in xxiv.

Comp. xxv. 34.

7.

Similarly,

22

Luke

xviii.

It

was, however, only a

legitimate consequence of the contemplation of history from

a religious point of view, if the Christian consciousness felt

warranted in attributing even this amount of

to the agency of
satisfied,

human freedom
and had
less

God

(Eph.

i.

Phil.

ii.

13),

to

be

while maintaining the

33, Remark).

human element no

than

the divine, with leaving the problem of their unity unsolved

(see

on Rom.

ix.

Teaching of the parable : When the Messianic kingdom is about to be established, instead of those who have been*
invited to enter
it,
i.e.

instead of the people of Israel,

who

will despise the (according to the plural) repeated invitations,

nay,

who

will

behaviour
the

(for

setting

show their contempt to some extent by a violent which God will chastise them, and that before up of the kingdom, ver. 7), God will order the

Gentiles to be called to His kingdom.

When, however,

it

is

being established,

He

will single out

from among the Gentiles

who have responded

to the call such of them as turn out to be morally disqualified for admission, and condemn them to The first invitation, and which is be punished in Gehenna. referred to in the tou? KK\r]fxevov<i of ver. 3, is conveyed through Christ the successive invitations which followed were given through the apostles, who, ver. 9, likewise invite the Observe in Comp. xxviii. 19 Acts i. 8, xiii. 46. Gentiles.

connection with Tore, ver. 8, that

it

is

not intended thereby

to exclude the calling of the Gentiles before the destruction of

Jerusalem

but simultaneously with this event the work of

conversion was to be directed in quite a special manner toward

the Gentiles.
signal
for
xi.

The destruction

of Jerusalem

was

to

form the

the gathering in

of

the fulness of the Gentiles

Thus the Tore marks a grand epoch in the 25). development of events, an epoch already visible to the far-seeing glance of Jesus, though at the same time we are bound to admit the discrepancy that exists between this pas(Rom.
historical

sage and the very definite statement regarding the date of the

second advent contained in xxiv. 29.

As

is

clear

from the

/ CHAP. XXII.

15.

83

whole connection, we must not suppose (Weisse) that the man wedding garment is intended to represent Judas ; but see on ver. 12. What is meant is a Christian with the
loithout the

old
iii.

man
27
;

still

clinging to him.
iv.

Comp. on Bom.
12.

xiii.

14

Gal.

Eph.

24;

Col.

iii.

Eemaek. The part of the parable extending from ver. 11 onwards was certainly not spoken, so far as its immediate reference is concerned, with a view to the Pharisees, but was essential to the completeness of the truths that were being set forth, inasmuch as, without that part, there would be no reference to the way in which the holiness of God would assert itself at the setting up of the Messianic kingdom. And the more this latter point is brought out, the more applicable did it become to the case of the Pharisees also, who would be able to infer from it what their fate was to be on that day when, even from among those who will be found to have accepted the invitation, God will single out such as appear without the garment of dixa/oauvri, and consign them to the punishment of hell,
Ver. 15 ff. Comp. Mark xii. 13 ff. Luke xx. 20 ff. 01 $api<ralot] now no longer in their official capacity, as deputed by the Sanhedrim (xxi. 23, 45), but on their own
;

responsibility,

and

as

representing a party

adopting a
tack.

bolder policy, and proceeding

upon a new
ai'peaiv,

6V
;

still

a>?]

They

took counsel

(comp. \a/3(bv

Dem. 947,

20), ex-

pressly with

a view to. Not equivalent to 7r&)9, the reading in D, and originating in a mistaken gloss. Comp. xii. 14. For <rvjx^ov\iov, consultation, comp. xxvii. 1, 7, xxviii. 12 Mark
iii.

Dio

Cass, xxxviii.

43

classical writers

commonly use
:

crv[jbl3ovKrj, <TVfA(3ov\ia.

Others

(Keim

included), without gram-

matical warrant, render according to the Latin idiom

ccperunt.

consilium

Euthymius Zigabenus correctly renders by: aw/ceirrovrab. iv A.07&)] in an utterance, i.e. in a statement which he might happen to make. This statement is conceived of as a trap or snare (ira^is, see Jacobs ad Anthol. VII. p. 409, XI. p. 93), into which if He once fell they would hold Him fast, with a view to further proceedings against Him. Others explain 81 ipwrt^a-ew^ (Euthymius Zigabenus). But Jesus could not become involved in the snare unless He gave such


84
/

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

to elicit.
Tra^iZeveiv,
it fre-

an answer to/ their queries as they hoped

illaqueare, \& not

met with

in classical writers, though

quently occurs in the Septuagint. Ver. lip. The Herodians are not Herod's courtiers (Fritzsche,
following Luther), but the political party

among the Jews

that

uphold the dynasty of the Herods, popular royalists, opposition to the principle of a pure theocracy, though in willing also to take part with the powerful Pharisees against the unpopular Boman sway, should circumstances render such For other interpretations, some of .a movement expedient. them rather singular, see "Wolf and Kocher in loc. The passought/ to
sage in Joseph.
Antt. xiv.
15.

10, refers to

different cirGesch.
is

cumstances
p.

from

the

present.

done by Origen, Maldonatus, de Wette, Winer, Neander, Volkmar) those here referred to as supporters of the Roman sway generally (and not merely of the Herodian dynasty in particular), is certainly not in accordance with the name they bear. We may further observe that no little cunning was shown by the orthodox hierarchy in selecting some of the younger

97

ff.

Keim,

III. p.

130

ff.

Comp. Ewald, To regard (as

Chr.

members

of their order

(who as such would be

less liable to

be suspected) to co-operate with a party no less hostile than themselves to the Messianic pretender, with a view to betray
Jesus into an answer savouring of opposition to the payment This was the drift of the flattering preface to of the tribute.
their question,

accusation before the

and upon His answer they hoped to found an Boman authorities. Comp. Luke xx. 20. miscarried, owing to the answer being though the plot But Pharisees had at least succeeded in the the in affirmative, now getting the Herodians to assume a hostile attitude toward Jesus, while at the same time they would be able to turn the reply to good account in the way of rendering \eyovT6<;~\ that is, Him unpopular with the masses. through their representatives. Comp. xi. 2, xxvii. 19. Comp. with this cunning, Si&do-icaXe, ot&afiev, k.t.X.] though in itself so true an instance of captatio oenevolentiae,

the sincere one in John

iii.

2.

a\7)6r)s

el]

true,

avoiding

every sort of

-^-eySo?

in your dealings,

either simulando or

CHAP. XXII.

17, 18.

85

In what follows, and which is still connected made more precise, being put both positively rrjv 6S6v rov deov] the way prescribed by and negatively. God, i.e. the behaviour of men to each other which God requires. Comp. T7]v SiKaiocrvvTjv r. 6eov, vi. 33 ra epya t. deov, John vi. 28 and so Ps. xxvii. 11 Wisd. v. 7 Bar. iii. 13. ev aXrjdeia] truthfully, as beseems the character of this way; see on John xvii. 19. ov p,eXec aoi irepl ovhevos] Tlwu carest for no man, in Thy teaching Thou actest without regard to the persons of men. ov <yap y3\e7ret9, k.t.X.]
dissimulando.

with on, this

is

giving the reason for the statement contained in

for

o'lhapuev, k.t.X.

Thou lookest not Thee it is always

the reverse
6&6v, k.t.X.

mere external appearances in men ; to a matter of indifference in regard to a

to

man's person whether he be powerful,

;

rich,

learned, etc., or

therefore

we

are convinced,

on

aXrjOrfi el kcl\ ttjv

II poacoirov avQp. denotes the outward manifesta-

which men present themselves (comp. on xvi. 3). Comp. 6avp.o%eiv irpoo-wirov, Jude 16. The emphasis, however, is on ov fiXeireis. We have not here a " natural paraphrase " of the Hebrew idiom Xap,fiaveiv TrpoacoTrov (Luke xx. 21), which expresses another, though similar idea (in answer to de Wette see on Gal. ii. 6). In classical Greek,
tion

in

/?.

et9 trp. Tti/o? is

used in the sense of being barefaced.

p.

See

Bremi ad Aeschin.
ness, as

370.

Ver. 17. "E^ecrTi] problem founded on theocratic one-sided-

though the Jews were still the independent people of God, according to their divine title to recognise no king but God Himself. Comp. Michaelis, Mos. R. III. p. 154. It was also on this ground that Judas the Gaulonite appears to have
refused to pay the tribute.

See Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1. merely poll-tax, but land-tax as well, see on xvii. 25. Kalaapi] without the article, being used as a proper name. rj ov] " flagitant responsum rotundum,"

As

to Krjvao<i, not

Bengel.

Ver. 18. Trjv

designs

Trovqplav]
of

for

they

concealed
their

malicious

(the

reverse

cnrXoTrjs)

behind

seemingly

candid, nay, flatteringly put question, in

was

to try

(Treipd^eTe)

whether

He

which their object might not be betrayed

86

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

into returning such an answer as

might be used in further Him. Apropos of viroKpiTai, Bengel appropriately observes " verum se eis ostendit, ut dixerant, ver. 16;" but in the interrogative rl why, is involved the idea of what is your design in putting such a question ?
proceedings
against
:

Ver.

19.

To

vo^icr/Aa

t.

k.~\

"nummum

aliquem

ejus

The tribute was paid in Soman, not in Jewish money. " Ubicunque numisma regis alicujus obtinet, illic incolae regem istum pro r rrpodomino agnoscunt," Maimonides in Gezelah v. 18. a-rjve^K. aina> $r)vdp.~\ they had such current coin upon them. Ver. 21 f. " There He catches them in their own trap," The pointing to the image and inscription furnishes Luther.
monetae, in qua tributum exigi
solet," Grotius.

the questioners with ocular demonstration of the actual exist-

ence and practical recognition of Caesar's sway, and from

these Jesus infers not merely the lawfulness, but the duty
of paying to Caesar what belongs which shows, by the stamp it
existing rule)
;

to

Caesar (namely, the money,

of the

bears, the legitimacy

but

He

also

recognises at the

necessity of attending to their theocratic duties,

to

same time the which are not

be regarded as in any
:

circumstances

and

to

from

Him

in virtue of

way compromised by their political God what is God's (what you derive His dominion over you). By this is
tribute,

not meant simply the temple

nor the repentance Avhich

God may have

desired to

awaken through punishing them

;

with a foreign rule (Ebrard), nor merely the life of the soul (Tertullian, Erasmus, JSTeander) but everything, in short, of a
material, religious,

and

ethical nature,

which God,

as sovereign

of the theocratic people, is entitled to exact from

them

as

His due.
to

By

the ra Kaiaapos, on the other hand,

civil tax,

we

are not

understand merely the

but everything to which

Caesar was entitled in virtue of his legitimate rule over the

theocratic nation.

So with this reply Jesus disposes of the

it immediately with decision and and with that admirable tact which is only met with where there is a moral insight into the whole domain of duty in a quick and overpowering manner He disarmed His adversaries, and laid the foundation for the Christian doctrine which

ensnaring question, answering

clearness,

CHAP. XXII.

21, 22.

87
;

was more
ii.

fully developed afterwards

ii.

f.

1 Pet.

13

f.,

17), that

it is

(Eom. xiii. 1 ff 1 Tim. the duty of the Christian

.

not to rebel against the existing rulers, but to conjoin obedience

to their authority

with obedience to God.

At

the same time,

there cannot be a doubt that, although, in accordance with

the question, Jesus chooses to direct His reply to the

first

and

not to the second of those two departments of duty (in answer

on Mark), the second is to and absolute standard, not first of the duties here mentioned (comp. Acts v. Chrysostom observes that what is every other.
to Klostermann's note

be regarded only for the

29), but for

as the unconditional

rendered to
tcXo?.

Caesar must not be

it is

rr\v evvefieiav

TrapafSXaTrrovTa, otherwise
teal

ovk6ti Kaicrapos,

dWa

tov 8ia/3o\ov <popo$

Thus

the second part of the precept serves to dispose of

collision

among our
the
first

duties

any which accidental circumstances

might bring about (Eom.

Jesus,
in

xiii.

part

of

matter inquired about to

According to de Wette, 5). His reply, does not refer the the domain of conscience at all,
sphere of politics

but treats

it

as

belonging only to the

(Luke xii. 14), and then adds in the second part: "You can and ought to serve God, in the first place, with your moral and religious dispositions, and should not mix up with His

domain of civil authority." two is not in accordance for the answer would in that case be with the context an answer to an alternative question based on the general

what belongs But such a severance

service
;

to

the

of

the

thought

is it

lawful to be subject to Caesar, or to

:

God only
;

Whereas the reply of Jesus is you ought to do both things, you ought to be subject to God and to Caesar as well the one duty is inseparable from the other Thus our Lord rises above the alternative, which was based on theocratic notions
!

of a one-sided and degenerate character, to the higher unity of

the true theocracy,

and

also looks

civil rule as

which demands no revolutions of any kind, upon the right moral conception of the existing necessarily part and parcel of itself (John xix. 11),

and consequently a simple yes or no in reply to the question under consideration is quite impossible. diroSoTe] the ordinary expression for paying what it is one's duty to pay,

88
as in xx. 8, xxi.
"

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

conspicuo

41 Rom. xiii. 7. modo ob responsum tutum

; :

Ver.
et

22. idavfiacrav]

verum," Bengel.

Ovk

Euthymius Zigabenus. Ver. 23. Comp. Mark xii. 18 ff. Luke xx. 27 ff. Matthew condenses. 01 XeyovTe? fir) eivat dvda-r^] who assert, etc., serving to account for the question which follows. On the necessity of the article, inasmuch as the Sadducees do not
iiriarevcrav Be,

say to Jesus that there

regular
7.

is

no resurrection, but because their

ii.

confiteor is

here quoted, comp. Kiihner ad Xen.

:

13

law respecting levirate and that without following the Septuagint, which in this instance does not render D31 by the characteristic iiriyafifSp. If a married man died without male issue, his brother was required to marry the widow, and to
Ver.
free

Mark 24 ff.

xii.

18

o'vrtves

Xeyovcn.

citation of the

marriage, Deut. xxv.

5,

register the first-born son of the marriage as the son of the

deceased husband.
Alterth. p.

See Saalschlitz, M. B.
;

p.

754

ff.

Ewald,
p.

276
d.

ff.

Benary, de Hebracor. leviratu, Berl. 1835.

As

to other Oriental nations, see

Rosenmuller, Morgenl. V.
p. 8

81;
ff.

Bodenstedt,

Volker des Kaukasus,

to

Benary,

p.

31

eTTvyafifipevetv,

marry
;

as

brother-in-law

(levir.

DT).

Differently p. 599. Sam. xviii. 22. e&)? ra>v kind] until the seven, i.e. and in the same manner they continued to die until the whole seven were dead. Comp. xviii. 22 1 Mace. ii. 38. varepov Trdvrwv] later than all
xxxviii. 8
Test.
i7rcyafjLf3p. tivi

Comp. Gen.

XII. patr.

in

1 Mace.

x.

54

the husbands.
Ver. 28. Founding upon this alleged incident (which was undoubtedly a silly invention got up for the occasion, Chrysostom), as being one strictly in accordance with the law, the Sadducees now endeavour to make it appear that the doctrine
of the resurrection

a doctrine which, for the purpose of being

able to deny

sense

it,

they choose to apprehend in a gross material

with the law
;

is irreconcilable

while,

by

their fancied

acuteness, they try to involve Jesus Himself in the

of having to give

an answer either disadvantageous

or favourable to their doctrine.

to the

dilemma law

yvvrj] Predicate.

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

CHAP. XXII.

30.

89

the denial of the resurrection, which their question implies,

they are mistaken, and that in a twofold respect (1) they do not understand the Scriptures, i.e. they fail to see how
:

that

doctrine
;

actually

underlies

many

scriptural

utter-

and (2) they do not sufficiently realize the extent of the power of God, inasmuch as their conceptions of the resurrection are purely material, and because they cannot grasp the thought of a higher corporeality to be evolved from the And then comes an material body by the divine power. illustration of the latter point in ver. 30, and of the former
ance
in ver. 31.

Ver. 30. \Ei>

life,

yap
:

rf}

dvaaTaaet] not: in

the resurrection

but, as in ver. 2 8

at the resurrection (in

answer to Fritzsche),

which will be signalized not by marrying or giving in marriage, but by ushering in a state of things in which men will be like the angels, therefore a higher form of existence, from which the earthly conditions of
life

are eliminated, in

which

human human

beings will be not indeed disembodied, but endowed

with a glorified corporeality, 1 Cor. xv. 44.

propagation, not

The

cessation of

the

abolition of the distinction of

sex (Tertullian, Origen, Hilary,

Athanasius,
in

Basil,

Grotius,
of

Volkmar),

is

essentially

implied

spiritual body.

Comp. Luke xx. 36.

yapovatv]

the

a<fidapala

the

applies

to the bridegroom; yafjui^ovrat (Apoll. de Spit. p.

277, 13), on the other hand, to daughters who are given in marriage by aAA' o>? ayyeXoi, k.t.X.] hut they are as the their parents.

angels of

God in
6eov,

heaven,

iv ovpavio belongs not to elal,

but to

ayyeXoi

t.

because the partakers in the resurrection (and

2 Pet.

the Messianic kingdom) are not understood to be in heaven

(xxv. 3 1
ff.
;

1 Cor. xv. 5 2
iv.

iii.

13; not

inconsistent

with 1 Thess.

17).

It is obvious

from our passage

in

which the likeness

of the future hody
as

mere
is

spirits,

that the angels are to be conceived of not but as possessing a supramundane corporeality.

to the angels

has reference to the nature

This

necessarily

presupposed in the language before

;

us.
I. p.

Comp.

1 Cor. xv.

40

Phil.

ii.

Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 556. 267; Weiss, Bihl. Theol. p. The ho%a of the angels is essentially connected with their cor;

10 68

Hahn,

Theol. d.

N.

T.

90

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

poreality (in opposition to Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 66).

While
mode
of

a similar idea of the future body and the future

existence
is is

met with
quae

in Eabbinical writers (see Wetstein), it

also conjoined, however, with the gross materialistic

view
priori

"

Mulier
Ver.

ilia,

duobus
futuro,"

nupsit

in
f.

hoc

mundo,

restituitur in

mundo

Sohar Gen.
dvaar.

xxiv. 96.

31
is

f.

But with

reference to the
rfj
;

resurrection, set over

against the foregoing ev yap

the sequence of the

address

indicated

by the

prepositions,

should be taken along with

quotation

ovk dveyvcore.

irepl

t%

dvaar.

v/jliv]

imparts

the vivacity of individuality to the words

is

of Jesus.

The

from Ex. iii. 6. His opponents had cited a passage from the law with a passage from the law Jesus confutes them, and thus combats them with their own
;

weapons.
tative

It is

wrong

to refer to this in support of the

view

that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authoriscripture (Tertullian, Origen, Jerome,
u. Krit.

Luther, Paulus,

1830, p. 665). Yet these aristocrats regarded the law, and the mere letter of the law too, as possessing supreme authority. ovk eanv 6 0eo?, k.t.X.J This is the major proposition of a syllogism, in terms of which we are warranted in recognising in the passage here
Olshausen, Siiskind in the Stud.

quoted a scriptural testimony in favour of the resurrection.

draw the inference thus shown hence ver. 29 fir) elSore? nz? ypa(f)d<i, a fact which Jesus has now confirmed by the The point of the argument does not illustration before us. turn upon the present elfii (Chrysostom, and those who follow seeing that God calls Himself him), but is to this effect the God of the patriarchs, and as He cannot sustain

The Sadducees had

to

failed to

be deducible from the words

such a relation toward the dead,

dead,

i.e.

those

who

are absolutely

who have

ceased

to

exist

(ovk ovtcov koi KaOdira^

d(pavLa6evT(0v,

Chrysostom), but

only toward the living,

follows that the deceased patriarchs

must be

living,

it

living,

and living as dvaaTrjvai fieWovres (EuthyComp. Heb. xi. 16. The similar inference mius Zigabenus). Resurr. i. 10. 6, appears to have been de Isr. in Menasse f. passage before us. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 180. the deduced from
that
is,

in Sheol,

CHAP. XXII.

33-35.

91
aSe/cao-Tot,

Ver.

33.

01 o%\ot\

airovqpot

koa.

Euthymius

Comp. vii. 28. Ver. 34. The following conversation respecting the great commandment is given in Mark xii. 28 ff. with such characteristic detail, that Matthew's account cannot fail to have the
Zigabenus.

the incident (see note on ver. 35), to look as In Luke x. 25 ff. there a corrupt tradition.
that

appearance of being incomplete, and, considering the bias of if it represented

is

a similar con-

versation, which, however, is not given as another version of

now

before

us,

but

as

connected

incident that took place some time before.

with

different

ol Se $apta:]

They had already been baffled, and had Comp. ver. 15. withdrawn into the background (ver. 2 2) but the victory of Jesus over the Sadducees provoked them to make one more
;

attempt, not to avenge the defeat of those Sadducees (Strauss),

nor to display their own superiority over them (Ebrard, Lange), neither view being hinted at in the text, or favoured by anything analogous elsewhere,

but, as

was the

object in every

such challenge, to tempt Jesus, if that were at all possible, to give such an answer as might be used against Him, see ver. aKovaavre^ whether while present (among the 35.

multitude), or
their
spies,

when

absent, through the

cannot be determined.

avvrj^drjaav
of
ver.

medium, perhaps, of eVl to

a

clvto]
attack.

for

the purpose of concerting measures for

vo{ilk6<;

new

35 had to be put forward, and, while the conversation between Jesus and him is going on, the parties who had deputed him gather There is, accordingly, no round the speakers, ver. 41. reason to apprehend any discrepancy (Kostlin) between the eVl to uvto] locally, not present verse and ver. 41.
Consequently the

said with reference to their sentiments.

Ps.
ii.

See on Acts

i.

15

2.

Ver. 35. No/jit/cos] the only instance in

Matt;

it is

met
It

with in none of the other Gospels except that of Luke.

occurs, besides, in Tit.
iii.

13.

The word
xii.

is

used to signify

one

who

is

conversant with the law,

kiriGTy^wv
p.

twv vo/awv
L. vi. to

(Photius), Plut. Snll.

36;

Strabo,
xi.

539; Diog.

54; Epictet.

i.

13; Anthol.

382. 19.

It is impossible

92

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

show that there is any essential difference of meaning between this word and rypap,p,aTev<i (see note on ii. 4) comp. on the contrary, Luke xi. 52, 53. The term vo/m/co? is more specific (jurisconsultus), and more strictly Greek rypafAfiaTevs, on the other hand, is more general (literatus), and more Hebrew in its character (" ? D ). The latter is also of more frequent occurrence in the Apocr. while the former is met with only in 4 Mace. v. 3. In their character of

teachers they are designated vofiohihuaKaXoi,

and indicating that the question was dictated by (Augustine, Grotius). The ensnaring character of the question was to be found in the circumstance that, if Jesus had specified any particular irocorrj^ of a great commandment (see on ver. 36), His reply would have been made use of, in accordance with the casuistical hair-splitting of the schools, for the purpose of assailing or defaming Him on theological grounds. He specifies, however, those two commandments themselves, in which all the others are essentially included, thereby giving His answer indirectly, as though He had said supreme love to God, and sincerest love of our neighbour, constitute the itolott]^ about which thou This love must form the principle, spirit, life of inquirest.
ff,

37; xii. 28
v.

1 Tim.

i.

7.

ireipa^wv

Luke

v.

17; Acts

avTov]

different

from Mark

a malicious intention

all

that

we
36

do.
f.

Ver.

What hind of a commandment

is

(qualitative,

comp. xix. 1 8)
of a

great in the lata

in order to

commandment
then,

what must be the nature constitute it great ? The com;

mandment,
i^o'xfjv,

which Jesus

singles out as the great one tear

to the subsequent Sevrepa,
series
vi.
(77

He

and which, as corresponding places at the head of the whole

critical notes) in that of

peydXr)

k.

irpwTq,

see the

freely after the Sept.

5, quoted somewhat " fcvpiov top 0e6v aov\ T\y$ j rr n ^,

Deut.

in

which regular designation rbv Oeov gov

is

in apposition,

consequently not to be rendered

Fritzsche.

Love

" utpote

Dominum

tuum,"

to

God must
all

fill

the whole heart, the entire

inner sphere in which

de notionib. psych.

the workings of the personal con-

sciousness originate (Delitzsch, Psychol, p.

248

ff.

Krumm,
whole

Paid.

12), the

whole

soul,

the


CHAP. XXII.
39.

93

faculty of feeling and desire, and the whole understanding, all

the powers of thought and will, and must determine their

operation.

We

have thus an enumeration of the different

elements that go to
tovto
ecrTt,

make up

to helv arfairav rbv debv b\otyvyw<s,

rr]<;

to 8ia iravroav rcov

yjrvxfis

jxepwv

teal

Swdfiecov

aura) irpoae^eiv (Theophylact), the complete harmonious self-

dedication of the entire inner

good.

man

to

God, as to

its

highest

Comp. Weiss, Bill. TJieol. p. 81, ed. 2. Ver. 39. But a seeond is like unto it, of the same nature and character, possessing to an equal extent the iroioTrj^ (oti
avTT) i/ceivrjv irpoohoTrotei, /cal Trap
avT7]<;

avyKporecrai ttoXiv,

Chrysostom), which

is

the necessary condition of greatness,

iv.

and therefore no less radical and fundamental. Comp. 1 John Euthymius Zigabenus: 16, 20, 21; Matt. xxv. 40, 45. aWrfKo^ovvrat k. (pepdWrjXoi elcrtv at 8vo. We should not adopt the reading bp.ola avrrj, recommended by Griesbach, following many Uncials and min. (but in opposition to the vss.) nor
;

again that of Lritzsche, ojioia

aurfj, avrrj

(conjecture).
to

The

former was presumed (comp.

emendation, because from the

Mark xii. 31) commandment

be a necessary

being immediately

added, the demonstrative seemed requisite by

way

of intro-

ducing

it.

Moreover, according to the context, there would

ofiotos.

be no need for the dative in the case of

The com-

mandment

is

quoted from Lev.

xix.

18, after the Sept.

d<ya7T7](ret<i]

This, the inward, moral esteem,

sponding behaviour,
matter of feeling.
Syn.
p.

may form

the subject of a

though the same cannot be said of fyikelv, Comp. on v. 44, and see in general Tittmann,

and the correcommand, which is love as a

iv.

50

ff.

The

(ptkia

tov
;

k6<t/j,ov

(Jas.

4),
;

on the

other hand,
of one's

may

be forbidden

comp. Eom.

viii.

the (piXeiv

own

yfrv^V

(John

xii.

25),

and the

prj (piXeiv rbv /cvpiov

(1 Cor. xvi. 22),

be condemned, comp. also Matt. x. 37. a>9 creavr.'] as thou shouldst love thyself, so as to cherish

may

toward him no less than toivard thyself that love which God would have thee to feel, and to act toward him (by promotetc., comp. vii. 12) in such a manner that your conduct may be in accordance with this loving spirit. Love must do away with the distinction between I and Thou.

ing his welfare,

94
Bengel
:

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

"

Qui

Deum
v.

amat, se ipsum amabit ordinate, extra

phUautiam" Eph.

28.

Ver. 40. Those two commandments contain the fundamental principle of the whole of the commandments in the Old ravTa-is] with emphasis: these are the two Testament. commandments on which, etc. /epidural] depends thereon, so that those commandments constitute the basis and essential condition of the moral character of all the others, Bom.

xiii.

8 f. Gal. v. 14. Comp. Plat. Legg. viii. p. 831 C: e Pind. 01. vi. 125 Xen. &v Kpe/xa/xevT] iracra '^rv^q ttoXltou. teal oi Symp. viii. 19; Gen. xliv. 30; Judith viii. 24. Trpocprjrac] so far as the preceptive element in them is conThus Jesus includes more in His Comp. on v. 17. cerned. reply than was contemplated by the question (ver. 36) of the
;

VO/AIKOS.

Ver. 41. Comp.

in His turn,

Mark

xii.

35

ff
.

Luke

xx.

41

ff.

Jesus,

now

proceeds to put a question to the Pharisees

ver. 34), for the purpose, according to

(who in the meantime have gathered round Him, see on Matthew's view of the
(ver. 46), of

matter

convincing them of their

own

theological

helplessness,

and that in regard to the problem respecting the title " Son of David," to which David himself bears testimony, and with the view of thereby escaping any further molestation According to de Wette, the object was on their part. to awaken a higher idea of His (non-political) mission (Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Schenkel, Keim). This view however, is not favoured by the context, which represents Jesus as victor over His impudent and crafty foes, who are silenced and then subjected to the castigation described in
:

ch. xxiii.

Ver.

43

f.

JTa)?]

how

is it possible, that, etc.

In His quesex.,

tion Jesus

starts

with what was a universal assumption in

His day,
however,

viz.
is

that

David was the author

of Ps.

which,

was only composed in the time of this monarch, and addressed to him (see Ewald The fact that Jesus shared the opinion on this psalm). referred to, and entertained no doubt as to the accuracy of the
impossible, the fact being that it
title

of the psalm,

is

not to be questioned, though

it

should

CHAP. XXII.

45, 46.

95

not be

made use

of,

with Delitzsch and

many

others, for the

purpose of proving the Davidic authorship of the composition

for a historico-critical question of this sort could

only belong
of

to the sphere of Christ's ordinary national development, which,

as a rule,

would necessarily bear the impress

logic
is

His time.

With

ev

7rvev/j,.

before us, the idea of accommodation or of a

play upon

not to be thought

of,

although Delitzsch

himself maintains

that something of the

kind

is

possible.

Among

the

unwarrantable

and evasive

interpretations

of

certain expositors is that of Paulus,

who

thinks that the object

of the question of Jesus from beginning to end

critical

was the

historico-

one of persuading His opponents that the psalm was

1

not composed

the Messiah.

ev

by David, and that

it

contains no reference to

7rvev/jiari\ meaning, perhaps, that

He

did

not do so on His
(2 Pet.
ix. 2.
i.

own

authority, but impulsu Spiritus Sancti

21); Luke ii. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 3; Eom. viii. 15, David was regarded as a prophet, Acts ii. 30, i. 16. avrov] the Messiah; for the personage in the psalm is a
;

prophetic type of the Messiah

recognised in
dictions

as also the Eabbinical teachers

him one

of the foremost of the Messianic pre-

(Wetstein, Schoettgen), and only at a later period would they hear of any other reference (Delitzsch on Heb. i. ea)<? av dco, tc.r.\.~\ see on 1 Cor. 13, and on Ps. ex.).

xv. 25.

Ver.

45

f.

El ovv Aavelh,

k.t.A,.]
:

The emphasis
If,

rests

on

the correlative terms /cvpiov and vloq

this

then, as appears from

language of the psalm, David, whose son

still calls

He

is,

accordis this

ing to your express confession,

Him

Lord,

how

to be reconciled with the fact that

1

He

is

at the

same time the

f.

For the correct view of this matter, see Diestel in the Jakrb.
f.
;

D.
f.

Theol.

1863, p. 541
there
is

see also the pointed elucidation,

p.

as well as refutation of the

I.

other interpretations, in Keim, III.

is

154

ff.

comp. Gess,

p.

128

Then

the explanation, frecpiently offered since Strauss suggested it, and which to the effect that Jesus wished to cast discredit upon the currently received

view regarding Messiah's descent from David, and that He Himself was not descended from David, a circumstance which is supposed to have undoubtedly stood in the way of His being recognised as the Messiah (Schenkel, "Weisse, Colani, Holtzmann) all which is decidedly at variance with the whole of the New Testament, where the idea of a non-Davidic Messiah would be a contradictio

in,

adjtcto.

96
psalmist's son
?

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Surely that styling of

Lord must seem The difficulty might have been solved in this way according to His human descent He is David's son ; but, according to His divine origin as the Son of God, from whom He is sprung, and by whom He is sent (xi. 27, xvii. 26; John i. 14, 18, vi. 46, vii. 28 f Eom. i. 3 f.), in virtue of which relation He is superior to David and all that is merely human, and, by His elevation to
incompatible with the fact of such sonship
:
I

Him as

the heavenly

Bo^a (Acts

ii.

34), destined

to

share in the

divine administration of things in a

this

by David, speaking under the inThe Pharisees understood nothing of this twofold relation, and consequently could not discern the true majesty and destiny of the Messiah, Hence not so as to see in Him both David's Son and Lord. one of them w as found capable of answering the question as
superiority,
is

He

manner

in keeping with

fluence of the

Holy

Spirit, called his Lord.

to the

iari. Observe that the question does not imply a negative, as though Jesus had asked, fir) vlbs avrov iarc ; ovktl] "Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit," Bengel.
7rco9
. . .

CHAP. XXIIL

97

CHAPTER XXIIL
by Fritzsche, Laclim. and wanting in very important authorities. A gloss, for which certain authorities have kohTv. rqpsTrs x. cro/s/rs] Lachni. xorfaurs x. rqpsTre. So also Tiscll. This is the original reading (B L Z X** 124, Hilar.) for the sake of uniformity, To/^crar? was changed into rronrrs (D, 1, 209, Eus. Dam.) but the transposed order rqp. x. it. is an ancient logical correction (as old as Syr. Vulg. It.). Ver. 4. For yap Lachm. and Tisch. read 8's, following weighty attestation. Correctly; yap was meant to be more precise. xal 8vo(3acT.~\ deleted by Tisch. 8, following L X, vss. Ir. But the evidence in favour of the words is too strong, and their omission on account of the two xa/'s might so readily occur that they must not be regarded as an interpolation from Luke xi. 46. r& 8s] Lachm. Tisch. 8 aiiroi 8s r<Z, following and two min. vss. and Fathers. Exegetical amplification after Luke xi. 46. Ver. 5. For 8's after vXaruv. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have yap, in accordance with B D L X, min. vss. Chrys. Damasc. See on ver. 4. tuv i//,ar. air.] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D K, 1, 22, vss. Correctly an explanatory addition. Ver. 6. For p/X. rs we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read <piX. 8s, in accordance with decisive evidence. Ver. 7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have pa$$\ only once, following B L A X, min. vss. and Fathers. But how easily may the reduplication have been overlooked, both on its own account and in consequence of its not occurring in the instance immediately following Comp. on Mark xiv. 45. Ver. 8. xadriyriT7ji] Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch., following Grotius, Mill, and Bengel, read 8i8daxaXog, which Rinck also approves. No doubt xa9r,yr}r. has a very decided preponderance of evidence in its favour (of the uncials only B U K** ? read 8i8dox.) but, owing to ver. 10, it is so utterly inappropriate in the present instance, that it must be regarded as an old and clumsy gloss inserted from ver. 10 (namely, xa9nyrirr\$ 6 Xpicroc, according to the reading of Elz. Scholz). By this it was merely intended
Ver.
3.

Tr,psh] after

u/j,?v

is

deleted

Tisch., following Mill.

It is

BDLs,

to intimate that

it is

Christ that

is

referred to here as well as

MATT.

II.

98
in ver.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ver. 10. sTg yap 1/iZv Igtiv b xadriy.'] 10 below. The latter is Laclim. and Tisch. bn jcadjjyjjrife v/nuv eeriv slg. the best attested reading that of the Eeceived text is to conIn the Textus receptus the two verses, 13 form with ver. 8 f. eraeXfeTv and 14, stand in the following order: (1) ova! (2) r A n, vss. S xpT/ta, in opposition to E P G ova! and Fathers. On this evidence Griesbach, Scholz, Fritzsche
:

HKM UV
. .

xptpa (in Elz. have adopted the transposed order. But ova! ver. 1 4) is wanting in B D L Z K, min. vss. and Fathers (Origen as well), and is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., although defended by Binck and Keim. An interpolation from Mark Ver. 17. rig yap /ts/'^wv] Lachm. ri yap Luke xx. 47. xii. 40 The. vss. fii?Zov, but, undoubtedly, on the evidence of Z only. dyid^wv] Lachm. and (Vulg. It.) can have no weight here.
.

Tisch.
ficat.

dyidmg, following

B D Z

tf,

Cant.

Vulg. has sancti-

where there is no Ver. 19. pupo! xai\ is wanting in difference in the reading. D L Z X, 1, 209, and several vss., also Vulg. It. Bracketed by Lachm., condemned by Binck, deleted by Tisch. and justly so, because there was no motive for omitting the words, while their Ver. 21. insertion would be readily suggested by ver. 17. For xaroiHTiaavri Elz. Lachm. Tisch. 8 have xaroixovvrt, following S N*, min., the force of the aorist not being apprehended. B

The present

participle is

from

ver. 19,

Ver.

23. Elz.: ruvra Usi; but Griesb., Fritzsche, Lachm., In both cases the eviTisch. 7 have adopted raZra h\ Uti. dence is considerable ; but how readily might 6s be omitted before Uu through oversight on the part of the transcriber
!

Ver. 25. !g]

is

wanting in C D, min. Chrys.

Elz. Lachm. Tisch. It had been omitted as unnecessary. read dxpasiag, instead of which Griesb. and Scholz have adixiag. The evidence is very much divided, being strong on both sides This word, the only other instance uxpaeiae is to be preferred. of which in the N. T. is at 1 Cor. vii. 5, appeared to be inappropriate, and came to be represented by a variety of glosses Ver. 26. airw*] dd/xiug, ifov^piag). (dxaSapatag, K's.zove^iag, avrov, following B* E* min. Aeth. Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. Verc. This aOr&D is bound up with the omission of za! rng rrapo^. in D, min. Cant. Verc. Clem. Chrys. Ir. (deleted by Those words, however, are evidently an insertion from Tisch.). ver. 25, an insertion, moreover, which is inconsistent with avrov, so that the words ought to be deleted and avrov preferred to Ver. 27. vapopoid^in] Lachm. 6/toia^sre, only on the ubrSiv. evidence of B, 1. The preposition has been left out, probably because the compound form is not found elsewhere in the N. T.

Deleted by Lachm.


CHAP. XXIII.
Ver. 30. r,[itda, instead of ported by decisive evidence.
1.

99

a n K, min. codd. of It. Syr. Arm. case %ai is wanting in B but how readily may Or.(once). Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. this xai have been omitted since the next clause opens with xaJl Ver. 36. Before %%u, Griesb., followed by Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, inserted on, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have
;

Ver.

jj/tev

of the Eeceived text, is sup34. %ai l| aiir.] in the first

In has important evidence both for and against. raZra trdvra'] The order iravra raZra, (Lachm. Tisch. 7) is well attested, though there is a preponderance of evidence (C N, etc., Vulg. It.) for the reading of the Eeceived text. Ver. 37. vocsia eavrqc] Lachm. has deleted zavr., but only on the evidence of B, vss. Clem. (once) Or.(once) Cypr. Hil., and notwithstanding the probable omission of the pronoun as apparently superfluous. Had it been inserted from Luke xiii. 34, it would have been placed between rd and voaeia. For iavrr,g Tisch. reads ubrr^, following B** D, marg. A N* 33, Clem, (once) Eus. Cyr. Theodoret. The reflective might be easily
deleted again,

A common interpolation.

overlooked, as was often the case. Ver. 38. 'ipn^oi is wanting in B L Copt.* Corb. 2, Or. Deleted by Lachm.; to be maintained on account of the preponderating evidence in its favour, though in the case of Luke xiii. 35 it is inserted as a gloss from Matthew.
Ver.
1.

After the Pharisees have been thus silenced, there

now

follows the decisive and direct attack

upon the

hierarchs,

in a series of overwhelming denunciations extending to ver. 39,

and which, uttered

testify against

as they are

on the eve of His death, form

inserted at ch.
xi.

a kind of Messianic av/xeiov through which Jesus seeks to

them.

Luke has

portions of
;

this discourse in

an order different from the original

but he only a

has given in the present connection, like

Mark

xii.,

few fragments, so

that,

keeping in view that a collection of

considering the

our Lord's sayings was

terizes the

made by Matthew, and

us,

originality in respect of matter

and arrangement which characthe preference

this

grand utterances now before

to the report furnished

must be accorded

by

apostle (in

answer to Schleiermacher, Schulz, Schneckenburger, Olshausen, Volkmar). The entire discourse has so much the character of a living whole, that, although much that was spoken on other
occasions

may

perhaps be mixed up with

it,

it

is

scarcely

possible to disjoin such passages from those that are essentially

100
original.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ewald thinks
that

that the discourse

is

made up
uttered
to

of

passages

were

probably original,
;

though
has

on
the

very different

occasions

Holtzmann

recourse

hypothesis that the evangelist has derived his account from

a supposed special source, the same as that on which ch.
is

v.

based; in answer to the latter, see Weiss, 1864, p. 114. Observe that the o^Xot are mentioned first, because the first
is

part of the discourse on to ver. 7

fiaOrjrai are addressed in vv.

directed to them, then the

in ver.

812, whereupon

13

ff.

we have
present,

the withering apostrophe to the Pharisees

who were
concluding

and that
ff.,

for

the purpose of warning the 6%\oi and

;

the fiaOrjrai to beware of them

passage, ver. 3 7

and

finally, the

containing the pathetic exclamation over

The glance, the gesture, the attitude, the matter and the language, were such that there could be no doubt who were immediately aimed at in the various sections of the discourse. We may imagine the scene in the temple to have been as follows in the foreground, Jesus with His disciples ; a little farther off, the b'x^oc more in the background, the Pharisees, who in xxii. 46 are spoken of as having withdrawn. " to sit in Hoses' seat " (in the seat Ver. 2. The phrase which Moses had occupied as lawgiver), is borrowed not from
Jerusalem.
: ;
:

Ex.
tive

xviii.

13, but refers to the later practice of having chairs

for teachers (comp.

Acts

xxii. 3),

and

is

intended as a figura-

mode

of describing the functions of one

who

" acts as

public teacher of the Mosaic law," in discharging which functions the teacher may be regarded as the representative and successor

Accordingly, in Eabbinical writers, one who sucof Moses. ceeds a Eabbi as the representative of his school is described
as
iNp?"''!' 3B>V.

See Vitringa, Si/nag.

p.

165

f.

eKaQiaav\

have seated themselves, have assumed to themselves the duties In the whole of this phraseology one cannot of this office.
fail to

detect an allusion to the pretensions and self-seeking

character of the Pharisees.

Comp. 2
as

Thess.

ii.

4.

Ver.

3.

Ovv\ inasmuch

interpreters of the Mosaic law.

which lie outside the point of as by the expression " Moses' seat,"
of the sense,

irdvTa. view marked though had

. .

they speak

as

teachers

and
out
in

ocra] Limitations

Jesus


CHAI\ XXIII.
4.

101

view only the moral part of the law (Chrysostom), or contemplated merely what had reference to the theocratic polity (Lange), or meant simply to speak comparatively (Bleek), are in opposition to the text, and are of an arbitrary character, all the more so that the multitude was assumed to possess
sufficient capacity

for judging as to

how much

of the teaching

was binding upon them, and how much was not. The words are addressed to the b'x^ov, whom Jesus had neither the power
nor the wish to release from their obligations in respect to But having a regard to the glaring inconsistency between the teaching and the conduct
the manifest teachings of the law.
of their pharisaic instructors, and considering His own fundamental principle with regard to the obligatory character of the law, ver. 18 f, He could not have spoken otherwise than He

inculcated upon the people the duty of complywith the words while refusing to imitate the conduct of ing

did

when He

those instructors.

This utterance was conservative, as befitted

the needs of the people, and unsparingly outspoken, as the

but, in opposition to both guarded the holiness of the law. Observe that He is here speaking of the Pharisees in their special capacity as teachers of the Mosaic law (Augustine, Calvin,
;

conduct of the Pharisees deserved

it

Pharisees and people,

Grotius, Bengel), so that His language is at variance neither

with

xvi. 6

nor with the axiom given in xv. 13

rvpelre (see critical notes)
:

Acts

v.

29.
:

do and observe it constantly. See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 158 f. In Bea-fievovai Be (see critical Ver. 4. Comp. Luke xi. 46. notes), the Be introduces an instance of their \eyovai /ecu ov TToiova-L of a peculiarly oppressive character. The binding (tying up into a bundle portions from the various elements, comp. Judith viii. 3) of heavy burdens is an expression intended
TroitfaaTe k.
it,

aorist

and present

to represent the connecting together of a

number

of require-

ments and precepts, so that, from their accumulation, they tw Be BaKrvXo) avroov, k\t.\.] become difficult to fulfil. but are themselves indisposed to move them even with their finger, in the direction, that is, of their fulfilment. The emphasis they will not move the burdens with rests on tg> BatcTv\<a their finger, far less would they bear them upon their shoulders.

102

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

fyvkaicrrjpia, amulets, Vv. 5-7. Comp. Luke xi. 43 f. were the P??1?, the strips of parchment with passages of Scripture, viz. 'Deut. xi. 13-22, vi. 4-10, Ex. xiii. 11-17,

111, written upon them.

xi.

They were enclosed

xiii.

in

small
vi. 8,

boxes, and, in accordance with Ex.

9,

16, Deut.

worn during prayer, some on the forehead, some on the They were intended to remind the left arm next the heart. wearer that it was his duty to fulfil the law with head and heart, and, at the same time, to serve the purpose of protecting him from the influence of evil spirits. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8.13;
18,
Keil, Arch. I. Jiid. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 898 ff irXcLTvvovaC] they broaden their (frvXa/cTijpia, i.e. 342 f. they make them broader than those of others, in order that

Lund,
p.

they

may
20.

thereby become duly conspicuous.

Corresponding

to this is

on
i.e.

ix.

fMeyaXvvovai, they enlarge.

tt]v

On

the /cpdcnreSa, see

Antt. xv.

TTpcoroKXiaiav]

the foremost couch at table,

according to

Luke

xiv.

ff.

(Joseph.

2.

4),

the uppermost place

on the divan, which the Greeks

p.

also

regarded as the place of honour (Plut. Symp.

6 1 9 B).

The
is

Persians and Eomans, on the other hand, looked upon the

place in the middle as the most distinguished.

The term

met with only

Suidas
"in,
:

in the
rj

synoptical Gospels and the Fathers.

7rp(orri

irpanoKKtaia'
(SiSda-KaXe,

/cadeBpa.

pa/3/31,

pa/3/3i]

John i. 39; with yod paragogic). The reduplication serves to show how profound the reverence is. For the view that Matt. vii. 21 f. Comp. Mark xiv. 15 Rabbi (like our " Dr.") was the title used in addressing learned
*2P
;

teachers as early as the time of Jesus (especially since Hillel's

time),
p.

see Lightfoot, also Pressel in Herzog's Encyhl.

;

XII.

471

Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 305. Vv. 8-12. 'Tfieis] with which the discourse
is

is

suddenly

turned to the disciples,

placed

first

for sake of emphasis,

and forms a contrast

1

to

the Pharisees

and

scribes.

/at;

In consequence of this address to the

disciples,

Holtzmann,

p. 200, regards

the whole discourse, in the form in which it has come down to us, as an historical Observe, however, the impassioned and lively way in which the impossibility. topics are varied so as to suit exactly the different groups of which the audience

was composed

(see

on

ver. 1).


CHAP. XXIII.
K\7)6P)re] neither wish nor allow
13.

103
Trdvre<; Si] so that
his sup-

it.

no one
irarepa,

may

violate the fraternal tie

posed superiority as a teacher.

on the ground of
irarepa,
.t.X.]

teal

The word

hy being placed at the beginning, becomes emphatic, vfioiv, by being separated from warepa to which And you must not call any one father of you upon it belongs " earth, i.e. you must not apply the teacher's title " our father (2K, see Buxtorf, p. 10, 2175 Ewald as above) to any mere man. Ver. 10. Neither Comp. Winer, p. 549 [E. T. 738].
and
so also
:

are you

to

allow yourselves

to be called leaders (in

is

the scholastic

One (see critical notes), the Messiah. Tor examples of the way in which Greek philosophers were 6 Se fiel^cov addressed by their disciples, see Wetstein.
sense), for the leader of

you

But among you greatness is to be indicated quite otherwise than by high-sounding titles the greater among you, i.e. he among you who would surpass the others in true dignity, vjill be your servant. Comp. ver. 12. This is a saying of which Jesus makes very frequent use (Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14). Comp. xx. 26 f also the example of Jesus in the washing of the disciples' feet, and Phil. ii. 6 f. rcnreivaiO. vyjreod.] that is, on the occasion of the setting up of my
vfidov, /c.t.X.]
:

kingdom.

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

Ver. 13. Here begins the direct and withering apostrophe

of Jesus to
this part of the address consisting of seven woes,

to ver.

His adversaries themselves who are still present, and extending For the spurious ver. 14, Elz., concerning the 36.
critical

devouring of widows' houses, see the

characteristic feature

remarks.
is

The

in this torrent of woes

its

intense

righteous indignation, such as

we meet with

in the prophets


104
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

of old (comp. Isa. v. 8, x. 1 Hab. ii. 6 ff.), an indignation which abandons the objects of it as past all hope of amendment, and cuts down every bridge behind them. To Celsus (in Origen, ii. 76) all this sounded as mere empty threat and scolding. /cXeUre, k.t.X.] The OTt] assigns the reason of this oval. approaching kingdom of the Messiah is conceived of under the figure of a palace, the doors of which have been thrown open in order that men may enter. But such is the effect of the opposition offered to Christ by the scribes and Pharisees, that men withhold their belief from the Messiah who has appeared among them, and show themselves indifferent to the huccuoo-vvr), necessary in order to admission into the kingdom from which Comp. Luke xi. 52. TJiey they are consequently excluded. vpel<; yap, thus shut the door of the kingdom in men's faces.
;

k.t.\.~\

explanatory reason.
to

toi>9 elo-ep%op.]

who

are trying,

who are endeavouring p. 370 f.

what

obtain admission.

See Bernhardy,

Ver. 15. Instead of helping

of thinking

men

into the Messiah's kingdom,

contemptible efforts to secure proselytes to their

!

own way
is

This representation of pharisaic zeal

doubt-

less hyperbolical,

though

it is,

at the same time, based upon

actual journeyings for the purpose of

Antt. xx.
in

2. 4).

On Jewish
T. ex

proselytism generally, see

p.

making converts (Joseph. Danz

Wetstein's note on this

Meuschen, N.

orav yevrjTai] sc. nrpoarjviov yeevvr)<s\ one fit for Gehenna, condemned to Xvtos. be punished in it. Comp. on viii. 12; John xvii. 12. SnrXorepov vp,oiv\ is commonly taken in an adverbial sense (Vulg. dvplo quam), a sense in which it is consequently to
passage.
eva~\

Talm.

a single.

ill.

649.

/cal

be understood in the corresponding passage of Justin

(c.

Tr.

122)
it,

vvv Be BnrXoTepov viol yeevvrjs,

as it

a>?

avios

elire, yivecrde.

Coming
you
are.

does after

viov, it
:

is

more natural
is

to

regard

with Valla, as an
atcevrj

adjective

who

doubly more so than

For the comparative itself, comp. App. Hist, praef. BnrXorepa tovtcov. But it is still rendered doubtful whether SnrXoTepov is to be taken in an adverbial or oi he adjective sense by a passage from Justin as above

10

irpoarjXvTOi ov povov ov iriaievovcnv,

dXXa

htirXorepov

vpwv

CHAP. XXIII.

1G.

105
unfavourable
to

/3\acr<f)JiiuLovai.

This
:

passage

is

likewise

Kypke's interpretation fallaciorcm, which adjective would be of a more specific character than the context would admit of. But in how far was Jesus justifiable in using the words SnrXorepov v/jlwv? According to Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Euthymius Zigabenus in consequence of the evil example of him who made the convert, which was such that " ex malo ethnico fit pejor Judaeus " (Erasmus) according to de Wette in consequence of the high estimate in which the teachers are held by their disciples, and because superstition and error usually appear with a twofold greater intensity in
: ;
:

the taught

than in the teachers

according to Olshausen

because the
to Bleek

converted heathen had

not

the

advantage of
;

enjoying the spiritual aid to be found in Mosaism

:

according

was common also to admit as converts those who were influenced by mere external considerations. According to the context (iroieiTe) on account of the manner in which the proselytes continued to be influenced and wrought upon by those who converted them, in consequence of which they were generally found to become more bigoted, more unloving, and more extreme than their instructors, and, of course, necessarily more corrupt. Ver. 16. A new point, and one so peculiarly heinous that a somewhat larger portion of the denunciatory address is devoted to it. iv tg3 I/aw] as in the Mischna we frequently meet with such expressions as per habitacidum hoc, ntn pjftD"!. See Wetstein and Lightfoot. iv tw ^pvaoi tov vaoii] by
because
it
:

the gold

which belongs

to the temple,

the ornaments, the vessels,

perhaps also the gold in the sacred treasury (to which latter Jerome, Maldonatus, refer). We nowhere meet with any example of such swearing, and the subject of Corban (xv. 5)
is foreign to

our passage (Lightfoot), inasmuch as there

34.

is

no

question of votes in the present instance.

comp. on

v.

ovhev
xiii.

For

iv

with

ofivvetv,

icrriv]

it

(the oath)

is

nothing, is

of no consequence.
subject, but o? av

It is not the person swearing

who

is

the

op,6<Tr), k.t.X.,

in

vii.

24, x. 14,

12.

form an absolute nominative, as

is

6<f>i\ei]

indebted,

bound

to

keep the oath.


10G
Ver.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

17

ff.

Tap]

Justifies

the

preceding

epithets.

fiel^cov] of greater consequence,

and consequently more binding, The reason as being a more sacred object by which to swear. of the pei&v lies in 6 aytdaa? tov yjpvaov, according to which the consecrated relation is conceived of as one between the temple and the gold, that has been brought about (otherwise if ayid^cov be read) by the connecting of the latter with the to Swpov] the offering (v. 23), as laid upon the former.

altar, it

belongs to God.

Vv.
greater,

20-22. Ovv] inference from ver. 19; because the from which the less (the accessoriwn), as being bound
it,

up with

p.

derives
. . .

its

smctity, necessarily includes that

less.

6 6po<ra<i

opvvei] The aorist participle represents the

thing as already in the course of being clone (Ktihner, II. 1,

134, act Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18): he who has proceeded to swear by the altar, swears {present), according to the point of view indicated by ovv, not merely by the altar, but at the

same time by

all

that

is
;

upon

it

as well.

Ver.

21.

No

longer dependent on ovv

but two other examples of swearing

are adduced independently of the former, in each of

which

even the highest of all, God Himself, is understood to be inAccordingly we find the objects presented in a difcluded. Formerly the greater included ferent relation to one another. But though differing the less, now the converse is the case.
in this respect, there
is

in both instances a perfect agreement

kutolas to the sacred and binding character of the oaths. up his divelling-place, took abode made it his who Ki'icravTi] ii. Comp. iv. 5 Luke 49. was built). Jas. (after it in it x Comp. on v. 34. Ver. 22 \ In accordance with cerVer. 23. Comp. Luke xi. 39 ff.
;

tain traditional enactments (Babyl. Jo-ma,

f.

lxxxiii.

2),

the

Pharisees extended the legal prescriptions as to tithes (Lev.

xxvii.

30

to include

Num. xviii. 21 Deut. xii. 6 f., xiv. 22-27) so as even the most insignificant vegetable products, such
;

1 The opposite of ver. 22 occurs in Schecuoth, f. xxxv. Deum, coeli et terrae creatorem, datur etiam ipsum coelum

et terra,

" Quia praetor indubium

juret, qui ilia

esse debet,

quod

is,

qui per coelum et terrain jurat non per

eum

creavit, sed per illas ipsas creaturas."


chap, xxiii.
as mint, anise,
this passage.
21.

107

vo/mov] the

See Lightfoot and Wetstein on and cummin. to fiapvTepa tov Ewald, Alterth. p. 399. weightier things, i.e. the more important (graviora)

elements of the law (comp. Acts xxv.

difficult

7),

not

the things more

pretation

which interof fulfilment (difficiliora, is indeed grammatically admissible (1 John v. 3), but must be rejected, because, according to the context (see
as

Fritzsche),

ver.

24), Jesus

was comparing the important with the

(D'HIEn) et levia (Dvp) of the

less

important, and most probably had in view the analogy of the

praecepta
not

grama

(see Schoettgen, p. 183).

:

Jewish doctors
;

ttjv K.plaiv\ comp. Ps. xxxiii. 5

righteousness (the
is

usual interpretation), a sense in which

xii.

the term

never used (comp. on

is

18), but judgment,

i.e.

deciding for the right as against the rvrong.

Comp. Bengel and

;

Paulus.
ness.
v.

The Kpiais

the practical manifestation of righteous-

rr]v it la tlv] faithfulness, Jer. v. 1

5.

Eom.

iii.

Gal.

22

and see on Philem.

(Wisd.
xiv.

The opposite
in

of this is airio-Tia,
writers).

loerfidia

25,

frequent

classical

ravra] the fiapvrepa

etc. (Bengel).

just mentioned, not the tithing of mint,

eSet] oportebat.

See Kiihner,
neglected.

Those were the duties which had been

trasts

II.

1, p.

176

f.

fir)

acptivai]

scarcely so strong as the positive iroi^aat.

:

Observe the con-

What you

have neglected you ought to have done, and at

the same time not have neglected what you are in the habit of doing, the former being of paramount importance the sub-

ordinate matter, viz. your painful attention to tithes,

is

not super-

seded by the higher duties, but only kept in

Ver. 24.
(hivXi^., Plut.

its

proper place.

The Jews were in the habit of straining their wine Mor. p. 692 D), in order that there might be no possibility of their swallowing with it any unclean animal, however minute (Lev. xi. 42). Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 516. Comp. the liquare vinum of the Greeks and Eomans Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Oct. i. 11.7; Hermann, Privatalterth. xxvi. 17.
;

Figurative

representation

of the

which the law was observed.

tov
k.),

tov kcovcotto] a kind of

muscam
(that

painful

scrupulosity

with

attrac-

tion for pcrcolando removentes

found in

the wine,
is

just as in classical writers the phrase fcaOalpeiv tc

often used to express the removing of anything by cleansing

108

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Dio Cass, xxxvii. 52). Kwvwty wine (Bochart, Bleek), but, as attempt to suck the wine, it falls in
;

(Horn. U. xiv. 171, xvi.

is

667

not a

worm found

in sour

In its rrjv Be fcdfir)\. KaTcnriv.~] proverbial expression, amongst it. ra fieyiara Be airapaTrjpryTW^ afxaprdvovre^, Euthymius Zigabenus. Observe at the same time that the camel is an unclean
always, a gnat.

animal, Lev.
Ver. 25.

xi. 4.

But inwardly they (the cup and the plate) are extortion and excess (aKpaalas, see critical notes). filled from That with which they are filled, viz. the wine and the meat, has Plunder (Heb. x. "been obtained through extortion and excess. 34, common in classical writers) and exorbitance have contributed to fill them. On ye/xeiv en, see on John xii. 3. The simple genitive (ver. 2 7) would only be equivalent to they
are full of plunder, etc.
Telas.

d/cpac-ias] a later form of aicpai.e. let it be your and elsewhere), to see no longer procured by extortion

See on 1 Cor.

vii. 5.

Ver. 26.
first

Kaddptaov

irp&Tov,
33,
is

k.t.A,]

care

(irptoTov, as in vi.

vii. 5,

that the wine in the cup

and exorbitance.
the

iva

yevq-rai,

k.t.\.~\

not: " ut turn recte

etiam externae partes

possint purgari," Fritzsche, but witli

:

emphasis on yevrjTai
then
be
effected, viz.

in order that

what you aim

the

at

may

the purity of the outside as well,

in
but
in
it it

order that,

then,

the

outside

of

cup

also

may
it,

not merely appear to be clean through your washing of

may
spite

actually become
of all

so,

by

losing that impurity which,

contracts, as
is

filled

your cleansing, still adheres to it (which were, from its contents), simply because with that which is procured through immoral
it

conduct.

The external cleansing

is

not declared to be un-

necessary (de Wette), nor, again,

as

is it

intended to be regarded only be brought about

the true one, which latter can

observes
" alias

after the purifying of the contents has

fitly
:

mundities."
attended
to

been effected. Bengel enim ilia mundities externa non est That which is insisted on with TrpwTov is to be

in the first place.

f.

Ver.

27

every year on the 15th of Adar

The graves were whitewashed with lime (kovlo) (a custom which Rabbinical

CHAP. XXIII. 2D-3I.

109

writers trace to Ezek. xxxix. 15), not for the purpose of ornamenting them, but in order to render them so conspicuous as to prevent any one defiling himself (Num. xix. 16) by coming into contact with them. For the passages from Rabbinical writers, see Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein. A kind of ornamental appearance was thus imparted to the graves. In Luke xi. 44, the illustration is of a totally different character.

viroicpia.
Luke

k.

avop,.] (immorality)

both as

representing their disposition.

Thus, morally speaking, they

vi. 2.

were

Tticpot

e^v-^oi, Lucian, D. M.
ff.

The oUohofielv of the tombs of the prophets and the Koa/xelv of the sepulchres of the righteous (the Old Testament saints, eomp. ver. 35, xiii. 17; Heb. xi. 23); this preserving and ornamenting of the sacred tombs by those who pretended to be holy was accompanied
Coinp.
xi.
ff.

Ver. 29

47

with the self-righteous declaration of

ver. 30.

On

the ancient

tombs of a more notable character, see, in general, Robinson, " Pal. II. p. 1 75 ff., and on the so-called " tombs of the prophets
still

existing, p. 194.

Tobler, Topogr.

v.

Jerus. II. p.

227

ff.

el tfueda, k.t.X.] not: if

on John
k.t.X.]

xi.

but: if we were (comp. 21), if we were living in the time of our fathers,
been,

we had

certainly vjc

woidd not be, etc. ware /xaprvpetTe eavrois, Thus (inasmuch as you say rwv irarepcov rjfiwv) you,

witness against yourselves (dative of reference, Jas. v. 3), that

you
rcov

are the sons, etc.

TTarep.
j]p..,

viol contains a twofold

meaning.

From

in

which the Pharisees point

to their bodily descent,

Jesus likewise infers their kinship with their fathers in respect of character and disposition. There is a touch of sharpness in
this

pregnant force of
"

viol,

the discourse becoming more and

more impassioned.

When you

thus speak of your fathers, you

yourselves thereby testify to your

derers of the prophets."

own

kinship with the mur-

De Wette's

objection, that this inter-

pretation of viol would be incompatible with

what

is

said

by

way

of vindicating themselves at ver. 3 0, does not apply, because

Jesus feels convinced that their character entirely belies this

self-righteous utterance,

and because

He

wishes to make them

sensible of this conviction through the sting of a penetration

that fearlessly searches their hearts and reads their thoughts.

1.10

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

For

ev

tw

a'tficiTi]

i.e.

the crime of shedding their blood.

On

alfxa in the
iv.

sense of cacdes, see Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 427.

in

see on Gal. vi. 6.

Ver. 32. Quite

of this

keeping with the deepening intensity

is the bitter irony of the imperative TrX^pcoaare (comp. xxv. 45), the mere 'permissive sense of which (Grotius, "Wetstein, Kuinoel) is too feeble. 1

outburst of indignation

This filling up of the measure (of the sins) of the fathers was brought about by their sons (" haereditario jure," Calvin), when they put Jesus Himself as well as His messengers to
death.

/cal

v/iels]

ye

also.

The

force of
is

itaL

is

to be

sought in the fact that ifkTjpwaare,

k.t.X.,

intended to in-

dicate a line of conduct corresponding to

that of the fathers, and in regard to which the sons also

and supplementing must

take care not to come short.

33. 2Tw9 (pvyrjre] Conjunctive, with a deliberative how are you, judging from your present character, to escape from (see on iii. 7), etc. Comp. xxvi. 54; Mark iv. 30 Horn. //. i. 150: 7rw? t<'<? toc 7rp6(ppcov errecnv ireiOvrai 'A^acwv; The Kplcns tt}? yeevv. means the pronouncing of the sentence which condemns to Gehenna. The phrase judicium
Ver.
:
:

force

Gehennae
writers.

is

also of very

frequent occurrence in Rabbinical

measure

The judgment comes when the Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 16. Ver. 34. Ata tovtg] must be of substantially the same
See
Wetstein.
is full.

import as cVca? e\6y efi v/xas in ver. 35. Therefore, in order that ye may not escape the condemnation of hell (ver. 33),
behold,

send

to

you

and

ye will, etc.

kox

e avTcov
of

is

likewise dependent on Sia

tovto.

Awful unveiling
:

the

divine decree.
7r\r]pd)crai to

Others have interpreted as follows

Siotl

fxeWere

(Euthymius Zigabenus, Fritzsche), thus arbitrarily disregarding what immediately precedes (ver. 33). Moreover, without any hint whatttjs /caKia<; rcov 7rarepo)i> v/acov
1 The readings \vXr,(ua.n (P II, min.) and -xXvpuinri (B* mill, vss.) are nothing but traces of the difficulty felt in regard to the imperative. The former is preferred, though at the s;une time erroneously interpreted by Wilke, the latter, again, is adopted by Ewald, who regards *. bpus RJietor. p. 367 irXfiptiftTt as also dependent on en.
;

perpov

CHAP. XXIII.

34.

Ill
has

ever in the text of Matthew,

ISov,

iyco airoajeXKai, k.tX.,

sometimes been taken

prophecy,
e<f)r]

for a quotation

from some

lost

apocryphal

6 #eo?, or

stood (van Hengel, Annotatio, p. 1

Ewald, Weizsacker), xi. 49, which passage accounts for the unwarrantable inter1 The correpretation into which Olshausen has been betrayed. sponding passage in Luke has the appearance of belonging to

some such expression, being underff., and Paulus, Strauss, a view borne out, least of all, by Luke

Holtzmann and others). Comp. on iyco] is uttered not by God (Ewald, Scholten), Luke xi. 49. but by Jesus, and that under a powerful sense of His Messianic dignity, and with a boldness still more emphatically manifested by the use of ISov. Through this iyto airocneXko), k.t.X., Jesus
a later date (in answer to

gives

it to

be understood that be the

object

it is

also, is still to

of hatred

Himself who, in the future and persecution on the

ix.

part of the

Pharisees (comp. Acts

5).

irpo^rji-a^

k.

o-ocj)ov<; k. ypa/ji/u,.]

by whom He means His

11),

apostles and other

of

teachers

(Eph.

iv.

who,

in

respect

the Messianic

would be what the Old Testament prophets were, and the Piabbins (Q'prin) and scribes of a later time ought to have been, in the Jewish theocracy. For the last-mentioned
theocracy,
order,

comp.

xiii.

52.

Olshausen

is

of opinion that the Old

Testament prophets themselves must also have been intended

to

be included, and that a7roaTeX\Q> (which represents the

near and certain future as already present) must indicate

"

God's pure and eternal present."

1

The subsequent futures

;

" Jesus," he says, " is here speaking as the very impersonation of wisdom Matthew has omitted the quotation formula, because his object was to represent Jesus as the one from whom the words originally and directly emanate but the original form of the passage is that in which it is found in Luke." Strauss,
;

in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1863, p. 84 ff., also has recourse to the hypothesis of a lost book, belonging, as he thinks, to a date subsequent to the destruction of

Jerusalem, and written by a Christian, and in which the messengers in question are understood to be those whom God has been sending from the very earliest times. In this Strauss, following in the wake of Baur, is influenced by anti-

Johannine leanings. According to Ewald, a volume, written shortly after the death of the prophet Zechariah in the fifth century before Christ, but which is now lost, was entitled h trotpia. rev hoZ. The o-rKvpuo-m, he thinks, was inserted by Matthew himself. Bleek, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 334, and in Lis commentary, agrees in the main with Ewald.

112

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

ought to have prevented any such construction being put upon the passage. For ypap.fi., comp. xiii. 52. teal eg avTwv] ov Travres (Euthymius Zigabenus), but more emphatic than if we had had rivd? besides and from their

ranks ye
are

ivill

murder,

etc.,

so that the actions are

[E.

conceived

of absolutely (Winer,

p.

552

T. 743]).

solemnly repeated immediately after. teal a-ravpeoaere] and among other ways of 'putting tliem to death, will crucify them, i.e. through the Romans, for crucifixion was
a Roman punishment. As a historical case in point, one might quote (besides that of Peter) the crucifixion of Simeon, a brother of Jesus, recorded by Eusebius, H. E. iii. 32.

The same words

The meagreness, however, of the history of the apostolic age must be taken into account, though it must not be asserted that in cnavpaxreTe Jesus was referring to His own
case

(Grotius,

Fritzsche,

Olshausen, Lange).

He

certainly

speaks with reference to the third class of divine messengers,

the class

whom He
of

is

now sending

(Calov.),

but not from the

standpoint of His eternal, ideal existence (Olshausen), nor in

God (Grotius), and then, again, from the standHis personal manifestation in time (Olshausen), fancies for which there is no foundation either in Luke xi. 49 or in the text itself. Jesus does not contemplate His own execution in what is said at ver. 32. iv rals avvayayy.] x. 17. airo 7roAe&)<? et<? ttoXlv] x. 23. Comp. Xen. Anab. et? njv erepav etc t>)9 erepas 7roAe&)?. v. 4. 31
the point
of

name

Ver. 35."07rft>9 ^Xdrj, k.t.X.] Teleology of the divine decree:

i. 14; Ps. xciv. 21 19 1 Mace. i. 37) may come upon you, i.e. the punishment for shedding it. Comp. xxvii. 25. The scribes and Pharisees are regarded as the representatives of the people, and for whom, as their leaders, they are held responsible.alfxa] "ter hoc dicitur uno hoc versu, magna vi," Bengel. And it is BUacov, because it contains the life (see on Acts xv. 20). Comp. Delitzsch, Psych, p. 242. K^vvo/j,e~

in order that all the righteous (innocent) blood (Jonah

iii.
; ;

Joel

vov] present, conceived of as a tiling going on in the present,

Kiihner, II.
to see
1, p.

116.
still

vivid picture, in which

we seem

the blood

actually flowing.

On

the later form

CHAP. XXIII.

35.

113
p.

i/c^vva) for eV^e'tu, see

Lobeck, ad Phryn.
canonical
refers
is

726.
(see

eVl t^?
below).
xxiv.

7>7?]

according

to the

narrative
to

Za-^aptov vlov Bapa^lov]

to death

Chron.

20,

where Zechariah, son of Jehoiada,

said to have

King Joash, iv avXfj o'Ikov The detail contained in renders the narrative more precise, and serves
by order
of

been stoned tcvpiov. Comp.

fieTagv, k.t.X.,

Joseph. Antt.

ix. 8. 3.

to

emphasize

the atrocious character of a deed perpetrated, as this was, on

so sacred a spot.
Since, according to the arrangement of the
at

books in the Hebrew Canon, Genesis stood

the beginning

and 2 Chronicles

at the

end, and since the series here iniv.

dicated opens with the case of Abel (Gen.

10; Heb.

xi. 4),

so this (2 Chron. xxiv. 20) is regarded as the last instance of

the murder of a prophet, although, chronologically, that of

Eabbinical

The Urijah (Jer. xxvi. 23) belongs to a more recent date. writers likewise point to the murder of this
;

Zacharias as one of a peculiarly deplorable nature

see Tar-

gum Lam.

ii.

20

Lightfoot

on

our passage.

And how

admirably appropriate to the scope of this passage are the words of the dying Zechariah BhT] nirv XT, 2 Chron. xxiv. 22
:

10! If this latter is the Zacharias referred to in the text, then, inasmuch as the assumption that his father had two names [scholion in Matthaei, Chrysostom, Luther, Beza, Grotius, Eisner, Kanne, bill. Unters. II. p. 1 9 8 ft) is no less arbitrary than the supposition that vlov Bapa%. is a gloss (Wassenbergh, Kuinoel), there must, in any case, be some mistake in the quoting of the father's name (de Wette,
comp. with Gen.
iv.

Bleek, Baumgarten-Crusius).
self did not

It is probable that Jesus at all

Him51),

mention the fathers name

(Luke

xi.

and that it was introduced into the text from oral tradition, into which an error had crept from confounding the person here in question with the better known prophet of the same name, and whose father was called Barachias (Zech. i. 1). Comp. Holtzmann, p. 404. This tradition was followed by Matthew but in the Gospel of the Hebrews the wrong name was carefully avoided, and the correct one, viz. Jehoiada,
;

inserted instead (Hilgenfeld, N. T. extra can. IV. p. 17, 11).

According
MA.TT.
II.

to

others,

the person referred to

is

that Zacharias
II


114
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
at the

who was murdered

and whose death

commencement

of the

Jewish war,

is

thus recorded by Joseph.

Bell. iv. 6.

Bvo Se tcov ToXfjLTjpoTarcov (%rj\a>Ta>v) irpoaireaovra iv fieaw

tc5 leput SiacpOetpovcn

tov

Z a%apiav
Hug

vlov tov Bapov%ovI.

So Hammond,
Baur, Keim.

Krebs, Hug, Credner, Einl.

It is the opinion of

p.

207, Gfrorer,

that Jesus, as speak-

ing prophetically,

made use of the future tense, but that Matthew substituted a past tense instead, because when this Gospel was written the murder had already been committed
(after the

conquest of Gamala).

Keim

likewise finds in this

a hint as to the date of the composition of Matthew.

apart from the fact that the

But
are

names Barachias and Baruch

not one and the same, and that the reading in the passage
just quoted from Josephus is doubtful (Var. Bapiaicaiov), the

alleged substitution of the aorist for the future

flagrantly preposterous, that

would be

so

a careful writer could scarcely

be expected to do anything of the sort.

As

against this whole

hypothesis, see besides Theile in "Winer's neu. krit.

p.

Joum.

II.
ff.

405

Finally,

Kuhn in the Jahrb. d. Thcol. I. p. 350 we may mention, only for the sake of recording them,
ff.,

the ancient opinions (in Chrysostom and Theophylact) that

the Zacharias referred to in our passage was either the minor

prophet of that name, or the father of the Baptist (see Protevang. Jac.
23).

The

latter

view

is

that of Origen,

Basil,

Gregory of Nyssa, Theophylact, and several others among the and recently of Miiller Fathers (see Thilo, Praef. p. lxiv. f.)
;

in the Stud. u.
k.t.X.]

Krit.

1841,

p.

673

ff.

fj,era^v tov vaov,

altar

between the temple proper and the

r/

of burnt-

offerings in the priests' court.

Put first for sake of emphasis shall come, come upon, etc. Comp. ix. 15, xxvii. 49. iravra TavTa] according to the context: all this shedding eirl r. <yeveav tclut.] of blood, i.e. the punishment for it. which was destined to upon this generation, xi. on 16; See be overtaken by the destruction of Jerusalem and the judgments connected with the second coming (ver. 38 f.), comp. on xxiv. 34. Ver. 37 ff. After denouncing all those woes against the
Ver. 36.
:

Hf et]

shall inevitably

CHAP. XXIII.

38, 39.

115

scribes

and Pharisees, the departing Bedeemer, looking with which He lioly city also guidance under the false sees hastening to its destruction connection the tragic in living with a of those leaders parting a way that his ff., but in such contents of ver. 34 words are no longer denunciations of woe, but the deep wail of a heart wounded, because its love has been despised. Thus ver. 37 ff. forms an appropriate conclusion to the whole drama of the discourse. Luke xiii. 34 introduces the words The repetition in a historical connection entirely different. of the name of Jerusalem is here eiifyavTiKos eXeo?, Euthymius air o are Lvov a a, k.t.X.] The present participles Zigabenus.
sad eye into the future, sets the

denote the usual conduct

'

the murderess, the killer

with

stones.

7r/oo?

avTrjv]

to

her; because the attributive participial

clause from being in the nominative places the subject addressed under the point of view of the third person, and only then proTetcva aov) with the vocative of address in ceeds (77-ocra/a? Comp. Luke i. 45 Job xviii. 4 Isa. xxii. 16. Iepovo-aXtffi. With Beza and Fritzsche, avrrfv might be read and taken as equivalent to aeav-nqv but avTrjv is to be preferred, for this reason, that there is here no such special emphasis as to call for the use of the reflective pronoun (we should expect simply 7r/oo? <re in that case). it a k t<?, k.t.X.] The literal meaning " How often I have wished to take thy citizens of which is under my loving protection as Messiah " For the metaphor, comp. Eurip. Here. Fur. 70 f., and the passages in Wetstein, Schoettgen, p. 2 8 (Eabbinical writers speak of the Shechinah as gathering the proselytes under its wings). Observe eavTrjs her own chickens. Such was the love that I felt toward you. On the form vocra-. for veoacr., see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 206. ovk ideXrja-aTe] sc. liriavva^Qrivai; they refused (Nagelsbach on II. iii. 289 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278), namely, to have faith in him as the Messiah, and consequently the blame rested with themselcis. This refusal was their actual Kpltxa,
.

John

ix.

39.

Ver.

38

f.

'Acpterai vyJlv
your own disposal
is
;

oIkos

vfi.]

your house

is

abandoned

to

the time for divine help and

!

protection for your city

now gone by

For the meaning,

116
comp.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 5. The present implies the and decisive ultimatum. The eprffios, which is to be retained on critical grounds (see critical notes), intimates what is to be the final result of this abandonment, viz. Luke the destruction of Jerusalem (e'p^/x&xri?, xxiv. 45 comp. on xxi. 20); on the proleptic use of the adjective, the context, Kiihner, II. According to xii. 13, and 1, p. 236. 6 ol/cos vfiwv can only mean 'IepovaaXyjfi, ver. 37 (Bleek), in which their children dwell; not the city and the country at large (de Wette and earlier expositors, in accordance with Ps. lxix. 25), nor the whole body of the Jewish people (Keim), nor the temple (Jerome, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus,
tragic
;

Calvin, Olearius, Wolf, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Neander, Baumeister

in Klaiber's Stud. II. p.

Ewald).
k.t.X.

Ver. 39 proceeds
city

67

f. ;

Hofmann,
to
to

Schriftbew. II. 2, p.

92

account for this afyieTcu

iifitv,

Were your
it

any longer
linger

protection, I

would
is

still

among you

be shielded by the divine but I now leave

;

you, and

certain that henceforth (His presence

to cease

among

them, as

He
:

knows, being about

with His death,

comp. xxvi. 64) you will not see me again until my second coming (not in the destruction of Jerusalem, Wetstein), when I shall appear in the glory of the Messiah, and when, at my
approach, you will have saluted (etV^re, dixcritis) me, whom you have been rejecting, with the Messianic confession euXoyrjfievos,

k.t.\.

(xxi. 9).

This

is
;

not to be understood of the

xi.) in its development coming (Bengel, Kostlin, Hofmann, Lange, Schegg, Auberlen, Ewald) for Jesus is addressing Jerusalem, and threatening it with the withdrawal of God's superintending care, and that until the second appearing of Messiah (o ipxofievos), and hence He cannot have had in view an interNo the vening fierdvoia and regeneration of the city. here which Jesus abandonment of the city on the part of God, then, and destruction announces, is ultimately to lead to her at His second appearing, which will follow immediately upon the ruin of the city (xxiv. 29), His obstinate enemies will be constrained to join in the loyal greeting with which the

conversion of Israel (Eom.

xi.

Eev.

down

to the second

Messiah will be welcomed

(xxi. 9), for

the manifestation of

CHAP. XXIII.

38, 39.

117

force,

His glory will sweep away all doubt and opposition, and them at last to acknowledge and confess Him to be their

truly tragic feature at the close of this moving which Jesus bids farewell to Jerusalem, not with a hope, but with the certainty of ultimate, though sorrowful, victory. Euthymius Zigabenus very justly observes
Deliverer.

address

in

in connection with eco? av

elir-qre,

k.tX.
Be

/cal ttots

tovto eiirw7779

aiv

efcovres fiev

ovhiirore'

afcovres
rfeei

Kara rov Katpbv

eirvyvcaaeais.

hevrepas avrov irapovcrias, orav

7roXA,77?,

p,era Svvd/mecof
rr}?

real 86i;r)<;

oiav ovhev avrois

ocfceXos

Comp.

Theophylact, Calvin, Gerhard, Calovius.

of maintaining that
inserted
it

Wieseler, p. 322,

despairing of making sense of the passage, has gone the length

from Luke.

some ancient reader of Matthew has This view might seem, no doubt, to
'

be favoured by the use, in the present instance, of IepovcraXijfj,, ver. 3 7, the form in which the word regularly appears in Luke, and for which, on every other occasion, Matthew has 'IepocroXup,a but it might very easily happen that, in connection
;

with an utterance by Jesus of so remarkable and special a nature, the form given to the name of the city in the fatal

words addressed to her would become so stereotyped in the Greek version of the evangelic tradition, that here, in particular, the Greek translator of Matthew would make a point of not altering the form " 'IepovaaXr/p,," which had come to acquire
so fixed a character as part of the utterance before us.

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

118

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in their present form, so that, when they were uttered, wo<sax.ig would be intended to refer to the whole series of prophets and

messengers, who had come in God's name just as Origen had already referred them to Moses and the prophets as well, in whom Christ was supposed to have been substantially present comp. Strauss in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1863, p. 90.
;

CHAP. XXIV.

119

CHAPTER XXIV.
Ver.
2.

For

6 dl

'iqeoZg

we should

read, with

Lachm. and

Tisch.,

following important evidence. The insertion of the subject along with the participle led to the omission of the latter. ou jSXsVsrs] Fritzsche: (3Xi-zsTs, following L X, min. Ancient (It. Vulg.) correction for sake of the vss. and Fathers. sense, after Mark xiii. 2. For irdvra raZra we should read, with Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. 8, raZra wdvra, in accordance with a preponderance of evidence. og ob~] Elz. 2 g ov pi, against decisive evidence. Mechanical repetition of the preceding ol /X7j. Ver. 3. T7\g auvrsX.] The article is wanting in B C L X, min. Cyr. (in the present instance), and has been correctlydeleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Superfluous addition. Ver. 6. Kavra] is wanting, no doubt, in B L N, min. vss., and has been deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it had been omitted in conformity with Mark xiii. 7 while in some of the witnesses we find raZra, in accordance with Luke xxi. 9, and in some others, again, ndvra, raZra, (Fritzsche raZra rrdvra). The various corrections were occasioned by the unlimited character Ver. 7. xai Xoipo'i] is wanting in B of vdvra. E* N, min. Cant. Ver. Vera Corb. 2., Hilar. Arnob. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Other witnesses reverse the order of the words, which is strongly favoured by Luke. All the more are they to Ver. 9. Elz. has be regarded as inserted from Luke xxi. 11. eOvuv. But the reading tSjv sdvuv has a decided preponderance of evidence in its favour; and then how easily might rm be The omission of ruv sdvuv in C, min. overlooked after <?dvruv Chrys. was with a view to conformity with Mark and Luke. Ver. 15. ssrug'] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. soroc, following a preponderance of MS. authority (including B* s), and The transcribers have contracted into e<rrug what, correctly. strictly speaking, should be spelt 'i<sra6g, though the spelling Ver. 16. Jtt/] gffro's is also met with in classical writers. Adopted from A, min. Fathers. Lachm. sig, following B Mark xiii. 14; Luke xxi. 21. Mark is likewise the source of the reading zarafidru, ver. 17, in B L Z X, min. Or. Caes. Isid.
6 de avoxpidiig,

120

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Chrys., and which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have adopted. For n 1%, as in Elz., read, with Lachm. and Tisch., ra h, following decisive evidence. Ver. 18. tu //idria] to '//xdnov, no doubt, has weighty evidence in its favour, and is approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it is taken from Mark xiii. 16. Ver. 20. The simple <r/3/3arw (Elz.: h (ra/3/3.) is supported by decisive evidence. Ver. 23. k/sts veers'] Lachm.: kio-tsUts, following only B* Or. Taken from Mark xiii. 21. Ver. 24. For vXavrtoai Tisch. 8 has ifkavn^ai, following D N, codd. of It. Or. int and several other Fathers. The reading of the Eeceived text is, no doubt, supported by preponderating evidence but how readily might the active have been substituted for the passive in conformity with vv. 5, 11 Ver. 27. x; is, with Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted after hrai, in accordance with decisive evidence. Inserted in conformity with the usual mode of expression; in vv. 37, 39 we should likewise delete the %ai, which Tisch. 8 retains in ver. 39. Ver. 28. yap] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L N, min. vss. and Fathers. Correctly. A common insertion of the connecting particle. This is more probable than

the supposition that a fastidious logic took exception to the kind of connection. Ver. 30. tots jco-^.] The omission of tots by Tisch. 8 is without adequate evidence, having among the uncials only that of N*. Had the words been inserted in accordance with Mark xiii. 26, Luke xxi. 27, they would have been placed before o-^oxTai. Ver. 31. pwv?jg] is not found in Las, min. Copt. Syr. and several Fathers. Being awkward and superfluous, it was in some cases omitted altogether, in others (Syr. jer Aeth., also Syr. p though with an asterisk at <pm.) placed before caXir., and sometimes it was conjoined with aa7.K. by inserting xai after this latter (D, min. Vulg. It. Hilar. Aug. Jer.). For the second axpuv Lachm. has tm uxp., following only B, 1, 13, 69. Ver. 34. After Xsyu v/mTv, Lachm., in accordance with B F L, min. It. Vulg. Or., inserts on, wdiich, however, may readily have crept in from Mark xiii. 30 Luke xxi. 32. Ver. 35. 1 Griesb. and the more recent editors (with the exception, however, of Matth. and Scholz) have adopted vapsXivczTcu in preference to the KapsXsucovTau of Elz., following B L, min. Fathers. The plural is taken from Mark xiii. 31 Luke xxi. 33. Ver. 36. Before upag Elz. has rfc, which, though defended by Schulz, is condemned by decisive evidence. Super-

-,

The omission

of this whole verse

is

earlier

nor by later evidence,

by X*, an omission sanctioned neither by simply an error of the transcriber.

: :

CHAP. XXIV.
fluous addition. Tisch. 8 have olds
-

121

After ovpavuv Lachrn. and ver. 3. min. codd. of in accordance with int jer Hil. Ambr., etc. For a detailed It. Syr. Aeth. Arm. Chrys. Or. examination of the evidence, see Tisch. The words are an ancient interpolation from Mark xiii. 32. Had it been the case 'that they originally formed part of our passage, but were deleted

Comp.

6 viog,

BDs,

certain that, having regard to the sometimes ascribed to them (" gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri," Jerome), they would have been expunged from Mark as well. The interpolation was all the more likely to take place in the case of Matthew, from its serving to explain povog (which latter does not occur in DeMark). Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7 have /m>u after irar^p. fended by Schulz, though deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8. It is likewise adopted by Fritzsche, who, however, deletes the In deference following /Movog, which is wanting only in Sahid. to the ordinary usage in Matthew (vii. 21, x. 32 f., etc.), fiov should be restored. It is wanting, no doubt, in B D L A n N, min. vss. and Fathers, but it may readily enough have been omitted in consequence of the MO immediately following it, all Yer. 37. d'i] Lachm. the more that it is not found in Mark.
for

dogmatic reasons,

it is

christological importance

Ver. 38. deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7, in accordance with some few, and these, too, inadequate witnesses (Origen, however). Coming as it does after ver. 37, it had been mechanically omitted it can scarcely have been inserted as the result Before raTg Lachm. has sxshaig, following B of reflection. (which latter omits raTg), codd. of It., a reading which ought to be adopted, all the more because in itself it is not indispensable, and because it was very apt to be omitted, in consequence of the For ixya^ovng similarity in the termination of the words. read yapifyvng, with Tisch. 8, following Ds, 33, Chrys.; comp. on xxii. 30. Ver. 40. For 6 slg Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have I L X, min. (A and simply tig in both instances, following B For sake of Chrys. leave out the article only in the first case). Ver. 41. /auXwv/] Lachm. and Tisch. uniformity with ver. 41. jivXw, following preponderating evidence; the reading of the Ver. 42. wpa] Keceived text is intended to be more precise. I A X, min. Ir. Cyr. Ath. Lachm. and Tisch. tipepq. So B The reading of the Beceived text is by Hilar, and vss. Ver. 45. aurou way of being more definite. Comp. ver. 44. after zvpiog is wanting in important witnesses (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), but it must have been left out to dtpaxsiag] Lachm. and Tisch.: conform with Luke xii. 42.
yap, following

B D I, vss. Fathers. An exegetical gloss.

raTg np6]

is

; ;

122

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

ttSxsreias, following B I L A, min. Correctly; from the word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, it would be explained by the gloss dxiag (x, min. Ephr. Bas. Chrys.), or at other times by dspa*. For the following hhomi read boZvat, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with preponderating evidence. Ver. 46. woiovvto, ourug] Lachm. and Tisch. o'jrug voiouvra, following B C D I L S, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Ir. Hil. The reading of the Beceived text is from Luke xii. 43. Ver. 48. The order pou 6 xvpioc is favoured by a preponderance of evidence, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., ought to be preferred. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 omit IxfaTv, though on somewhat weaker evidence iXhTv is further confirmed by the reading p% <^' in min. Or. Bas., which is taken from Luke xii. 45. The infinitive not being indispensable (comp. xxv. 5), was passed over. Ver. 49. abrou, which is wanting in Elz. (and Tisch. 7), has been restored by Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. 8, in accordance with preponderating evidence. Similarly with regard to hdip ds %a) "7Tivri (for egdieiv ds xai vhsiv in Elz.), which has decisive evidence in its favour, and is an altered form of Luke xii. 45.

Ver.
de orat.

1.

On

the following discourse generally, see

eschatologica,

Dorner,

1844; E. Hofmann, Wiederkunft Chr. u. Zeichen d. Menschensdhncs, 1850 Hebart, d. zweiie sichtb. Zuh. Chr. 1850; Scherer in the Strassb. Beitr. 1851,
Chr.
;

II. p.

83

ff.

E. J. Meyer, hrit.
xxiv.,

Comment, zu
Cremer,

d.

cschatolog.

Rede Matth.

xxv.,

I.,

1857;
;

d.
v.

cschatolog.
d.

Rede Matth.
Dingen,

xxiv., xxv.,
;

1860

Luthardt, Lehre

letzten
ff.

1861

Hoelemann,

Bibelstudien,

1861,

II. p.
;

129

Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 213 ff. Pfleiderer in fheJahrb.f. D. Thcol. 1868, p. 134 ff. Kienlen, ibid. 1869, p. 706 ff., and Commentaire sur V apocalypse, 1870, p. 1 ff.
;

Wittichen, Idee
bach,
d.

d.

Reiches Gottes, 1872, p.

219
p.
ff.
;

ff.

Weissenff.,

Wiederhunfts-gedanhe Jesu, 1873,

coel.

69

comp.

his Jesu in regno

dignitas,

1868,

p.

79

Colani, Jesus
2,

Christ
p.

ct
ff.

Mark xiii., Luke xxi. Luke, however, in accordance with his own independent way of treating his narrative, does not merely omit many particulars and put somewhat differently many of those which he records
parallel

204

The

les

croyances mcssian. de son temps, ed.

1864,

passages are

(as is likewise the case

few in a

different,

with Mark), but he introduces not a and that an earlier historical connection

CHAP. XXIV.

1.

123
justify
us,

(ch.

xii.

17).

But

this

would not

as

Luther,

Schleiermacher, Neander, Hase suppose, in using Luke's narrative for correcting

mann,
of our
due.

p.

200

ff.),

to

Matthew (Strauss, II. p. 337 whom, as the author of the

Holtz-

collection
is

Lord's sayings,
It

precedence in point of authority

must be admitted, however, that it is precisely the eschatological discourses, more than any others, in regard to which it is impossible to determine how many modifications
of their original form

may have

taken place 1 under the

influ-

and expectations of the apostolic age, although the shape in which they appeared first of all was given to them, not by Mark (Holtzmann, p. 95 see, on the other hand, Weiss), but by Matthew in his collection of the sayings of our Lord. This is to be conceded without any hesitation. At the same time, however, we must as readily allow that the discourse is characterized by all the unity and consecutiveness of a skilful piece of composition, and allow it all the more that any attempt to distinguish accurately between the original elements and those that are not original (Keim) only leads to great uncertainty and diversity of opinion in detail. But the idea that portions of a Jewish (Weizsacker) or Judaeo-Christian (Pfleiderer, Colani, Keim, Weissenbach) apocalyptic writinghave been mixed up with the utterances of Jesus, appears not
ence of the ideas
;

only unwarrantable in
date of the
first

itself,

but irreconcilable with the early

two Gospels, especially in

collection of our Lord's sayings (Xoyui).

temple, xxi. 23.

their relation to the

igeXdeov'] from the

irrropevero airo tov iepov]

He

ivcnt
it.

from

the

temple,

withdrew to some distance from

away Comp.
Iepov

xxv. 41.

For

this interpretation

we

require neither a hyper t.

haton (Fritzsche, de Wette), according to which airo

1

Although the contents of the discourse itself, as well as the earlier date of two Gospels generally, decidedly forbid the supposition that it was not composed till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that, consequently, it assumes this latter to have already taken place (Credner, Baur, Kostlin, HilgenIf this supposition were correct, the discourse would have to feld, Volkmar). be regarded as a late product of the apostolic age, and therefore as a vaticinium
the
first

post eventum.

Further, the eschatological views of the apostolical Epistles,

though they presuppose corresponding teaching on the part of Jesus, by no means imply any knowledge of the specific discourses in ch. xxi v., xxv. (in answer to E. J. Meyer, p. 50 ff.).

;:

124
would belong

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

to i^e\6cov, nor the accentuation airo
1

in the Stud. u. Krit.

1843,

p.

108

f.).

Ta?

(Bornemann

olKohofxas rov

lepov] not merely rov vaov, but the whole of the buildings

connected with the temple,

iv
5.

all

of which, with the vaos

the porches and the courts, constituted the lepov.

and Comp. on
5. 6, vi.

The magnificent structures (Joseph.

8
;

Bell. v.

4. 6,

Tac. Hist. v. 8. 12) were not then finished as yet, see

ii.

on John
did not

21.

Even

Chrysostom, Erasmus, and Bengel

fail to

perceive that

what

led the disciples to direct the

attention of Jesus to the temple-buildings

was the announceit

ment contained
exclusively

in xxiii. 38, which, though

did not refer

fate

to

the

temple, necessarily included the

of

this latter as well.

This the disciples could not but notice

and

so,

as they looked back

and beheld the splendours of the

entire sacred edifice, they could not help asking Jesus further
to explain Himself,

which

He

does at 'once in ver.

2,

and
in

in

terms corresponding with what

38.
2.

He had announced
(see
all
;

xxiii.

Ver.

does not
in

Ov~ ^Xeirere ravra irdvra mean " do not gaze so much at

:

critical notes) this " (Paulus),

which case
?

p,r),

at least,

would be required
magnificence "
to

nor

" are

you

not astonished at all this

(de Wette, following

Chrysostom)
course,

which would be
;

import a different meaning

this,

into the simple fiXeireTe

but
the

ye see not all

by which,
all

of

Jesus does not intend the mere temple-buildings in

considered,

themselves

splendid

edifices,

but

doom which

aivaits

those

doom which He
;

at once proceeds to reveal.

all this, to

Instead of having an eye to perceive

thing looked so magnificent
7rovTe?
(xiii.

them everyov /3Ai-

they were

j3XeirovTe<;

13), so

that they were incapable of seeing the

;

true state of matters as regarded the temple

their
1

eyes.

it was hid from The more vividly Jesus Himself foresaw the

lx,

following B) rod

This supposition, indeed, has likewise led to the transposition wi (Lachm. lipov WopiiiTo (B D L A X, min. vss. Fathers), which order is
:

adopted by Tisch.
2

8.

Among modern
Among

critics,

Kuinoel,

Fritzsche,
oh,

Banmgarten-Crusius,

Ewald,

Bleek, have decided in favour of omitting

Schulz.

as approved

those belonging to an earlier date,

:

by Griesbach and Casaubon says distinctly,

with regard to the negative

" hie locum non potest habere."

CHAP. XXIV.

2.

125

coming ruin the more distinct the terms in which He had the deeper the emotion just been pointing to it, xxiii. 38 touching farewell of the taken that had with which He which the moreover, the acquaintance fuller, temple the disciples must have had with the prophecy in Dan. ix. and the greater the perplexity with which, as the Lord was aware, they continued to regard His utterance about the temple, xxiii. 38 so much the more intelligible is this introductory passage, in which Jesus seeks to withdraw their attention from what presents itself to the mere outward vision, and open
;

their eyes in order that as

firj

fiXkirovres ^Xeircoav

(John

ix.

39).

Further,

it

is

better to take tins pregnant utterance in an

affirmative, rather

than in an interrogative sense, as

is

is

usually

done, because there

the disciples to
to

on the part of which the question of surprise might be said

assertion

no preceding

correspond.

Grulich (de

loci Mattli.
:

xxiv. 1, 2, interpret.,

1839) places the emphasis on rrdvra " videtis quidem ravra, sed non videtis ravra rrdvra (nimirum templi desolationem, etc.)." So also Hoelemann. This is improbable, if for no
other reason than the ordinary usage as regards Tavra rrdvra,

which has no such refinement of meaning anywhere else. Jesus would simply have said ov rrdvra /SXeVere. Bornemann, as above, after other attempts at explanation, finds it
:

simplest to interpret as follows

ye

see

not

of all
etc.

this, believe

me, not one stone will remain upon another,

that

He

thinks

ravra irdvra KaraXvOi]aerat, but that He interrupts Himself in order to introduce the asseveration dfxrjv \iyco vjmv, and so breaks the construction. That Jesus, however, would not merely have broken the construction, but still more would have used the words ov fir) dfyeOfj without any logical reference to ravra irdvra, is clearly indicated by wSe, which therefore contradicts the explanation just given. 09 ov fcara\vd.~\ For ov, see Winer, Not p. 448 [E. T. 604]; Buttmann, p. 305 [E. T. 355]. a stone will be left upon another without being thrown down.
to say
:

what Jesus meant

was

Occurring as it does in a prophetical utterance, this hyperbolical language should not be strained in the least, and certainly it ought not to be made use of for the purpose of disproving


126
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
see, as
p.

the genuineness of the passage

against this abuse,

Keim,
Ver.

III.

p.

190
xi.

ff

Weissenbach,

162

ff.

And on
548
f.

account of Eev.
3.

ff.,

comp. also Weizsacker,

p.

unaccompanied by any but such as belonged to the number of the Twelve, because they were going to ask Him to favour them with a secret revelation.
IS lav]

Kar

Differently
of ver. 2.

ko\

Mark

xiii.

3.

ri to

o-rjfieiov, k.t.X]

ravra] those The

disastrous events
disciples assume,

as matter of course, that immediately after the destruction in

question the Lord will appear, in accordance with what

xxiii.

is said

39, for the purpose of setting up His kingdom, and that

this

with

the current (the pre-Messianic) era of the world's

history will

come

to

an end.

Consequently they wish to

only two questions, not
is

know, in
three,

the second place (for there are

as Grotius,

Ebrard suppose), what

to

be the sign
precede this

which, after the destruction of the temple,

is to

second coming and the end of the world, that by it they may The above be able to recognise the approach of those events. assumption, on the part of the disciples, is founded on the
doctrine

respecting the
xiii.

n^on
ai}<;

hlT\,

dolores
II. p.

Messiae,

derived

from Hos.
Christol. p.

13.

43

ff.

See Schoettgen,
tt}?

550;

Bertholdt,

7rapova[a<i] After his repeated

intimations of future suffering and death, the disciples could

1 Thess. not conceive of the advent of Jesus (1 Cor. xv. 23 in the Gospels peculiar to Matthew) to set up His ii. 19
;

stay in any other way than After His resurrection they exsolemn second coming. pected the Risen One straightway to set up His kingdom (Acts i. 6), a very natural expectation when we bear in mind that the resurrection was an unlooked-for event; but, after the ascension, their hopes were directed, in accordance with the express promises of Jesus, to the coming from heaven, which they believed was going to take place ere long, Acts i. 11, iii. 20 f., al., and the numerous passages in the New Testament Epistles. Comp. Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. Observe, too, the emDeutsche TJieol. 18G2, p. 354 ff. Tama. koi 0-779 after the general expression coming phatic

kingdom and make a permanent

as a

avvTeX. tov alwvos] In the Gospels we

find

no trace of

CHAP. XXIV.

4.

127
The rov al&vos,

the millenarian ideas of the Apocalypse.

but not further defined, is to be understood as referring to the existing, the then current age of the world, i.e. to the alcov ovro<;, which is brought to a close (avvrekeia)

with the

article,

with the second coming, inasmuch as, with this latter event, the aloov fieWcov begins. See on xiii. 39. The second coming, the resurrection and the last judgment, fall upon
the ia-^drT)
rjfiepa

(John

vi.

39,

xi.

24), which, as

it

will

be the
rcov

last

day of the
(Acts
ii.

alcov ovtos in general, so

iii.

of the eo-^d;

7]fjuepa>v
iii.

17; 2 Tim.

Jas. v. 3

Heb.
20),
18).

i.

2 Pet.
i.

3) in particular, or of the icaipos o"%aTo<;

(1 Pet.

5), or of

the %p6vo<; ca^aTo? (Jude 18

calls

1 Pet.

i.

which
This
is

John likewise

the io-^aTT} wpa (1 John

ii.

concluding period, which terminates with the last day,

to

be characterized by abounding distress and wickedness (see

on Gal.

i.

4).
it

The
is
f.

article

seeing that

followed

was unnecessary before <rvvT\eia<; by the genitive of specification

first

Winer,

p.

Ver. 4.

118 The

[E. T, 155].

reply of Jesus is directed, in the

instance,
as

to the second question (jl to arj/xelov, k.t.\.),

inasmuch

He

indicates, as the discourse advances, the things that are to pre-

cede His second coming, till, in ver. 28, He reaches the point which borders immediately upon the latter event (see ver. 29). But this answer to the second question involves, at the same time, an indirect answer to the first, in so far as it was possible to give this latter at all (for see ver. 36), and in so far as it was advisable to do so, if the watchfulness of the disciples was to be maintained. The discourse proceeds in the following order down to ver. 28 first there is a warning with regard to the appearing of false Messiahs (extending to ver. 5), then the announcement of the beginning and development of the dolorcs Messiac on to their termination (w. 614), and finally the hint that these latter are to end with the destruction of the temple and the accompanying disasters (vv. 15-22), with a repetition of the warning against false Messiahs (vv. 2328). Ebrard (adv. erroneam nonnidl. opinion., qua
:

Christus Christique apost. existumasse pcrliibcntur fore ut univ.

,

indicium

ipsor.

aetate superveniret,

1842)

finds in vv.

4-14

128

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the reply of Jesus to the disciples' second question.

that in ver.

He

thinks

15 Jesus passes to the first, and that in ver. 29 He comes back " ad armelov t?)? eavrov irapovalax /cut *ZX 7 V i- e a ^ secundae quaestionis partem priorem." This
1
>
-

supposition
conception,
principle.

is

simply the result of an imperious dogmatic preand cannot be justified on any fair exegetical
Dorner,

See below.
its

who

spiritualizes

the

dis-

course, understands vv.

4-14

as setting forth the nature of

the gospel and

necessary development, while he regards

;

what follows, from ver. 15 onward, as describing the historical " decursum Christianae religionis " he thinks that Jesus desired by this means to dispel the premature Messianic hopes of the disciples, and make them reflect on what they must bear and suffer " ut evangelium munere suo historico
perfungi possit."

Vv.

4,

5.

In the

first

place

and

how

appropriate and

necessary, considering the eagerness of the disciples for the

second coming
ver. 6
f.

warning against false Messiahs, and then

off,

the

first,

far

indirect

prognostics of the second

advent, like the roll of the distant thunder.

fiov] on the strength of

iirl

r.

ovo/n.

my

name, so that they

rest their

claims

upon the name Comp. xviii. 5.

We

which they arrogate to themselves. The following Xiyovres, k.t.X. is epexegetical. possess no historical record of any false Messiahs having
of Messiah,
to

appeared previous
did not

the destruction of Jerusalem

till

(Barcochba
;

Theudas (Acts v. 36), the Egyptian (Acts xxi. 3 8), Menander, Dositheus, who have been referred to as cases in point (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus,
(Acts
viii.

make Simon Magus

his appearance
9),

the time of Hadrian)

for

Grotius, Calovius, Bengel), did not pretend to be the Messiah.

Comp. Joseph. Antt.

xx.

5.

8.

Bell.

ii.

13.

5.

Then

as

of the capital, it is not here in question (in answer to Luthardt, Crerner, Lange)
to

for the period subsequent

the destruction

for see

on

ver.

29.

And

consequently

it

cannot have been

intended, as yet, to point to such personages as Manes,

tanus,

Mon-

and
6.

least of all

Mohammed.
:

Ver.

Ae] continuative

but to turn
itself

now from

this preetc.

liminary warning to your question

ye will hear,

CHAP. XXIV.

c.

129

This reply to the disciples' question as to the events that

were

to

be the precursors of the destruction of the temple

(camp,

irore, ver. 3), is so

first to

framed that the prophetic outlook

large, vv.

is
is

directed

the more general aspect of things (to what

to take place

on the theatre of the tvorld at

is

68),

and then

to

what

of a

cerns the disciples and the

For the future

Plat.

fieWijo-.
p.

more special nature (to what concommunity of Christians, vv. 9-14). (you ivill have to), comp. 2 Pet. 12

Up.

vii.

326

C.

i.

iroXefiovs

k.

d/codq iroXefxwv]

and tumult which are actually heard, and to wars at a distance, of which nothing is known except from the reports that are brought home. 6 pare, fii) 6 po evade] take care, be not terrified. For BpoelaQe, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2 Song of Sol. v. 4 on the two imperatives, as in viii. 4, 15, ix. 30, see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 209 [E. T. 243]. Bel <ydp irdvra ryeveadac]
said with reference to wars near at hand, the din

of

they are not to be

should take place.

terrified, because it is necessary that all that

The

reflection that

it is

a matter of necessity
is

in pursuance of the divine purpose (xxvi. 54),

referred to

as calculated to inspire a calm and reassured frame of mind.

irdvTd
to

is to

be understood as meaning

everything that

is

then

happen, not specially (rd irdvra, ravra irdvra, comp. critical

notes) the matters indicated

by fieWtfaere

TroXefuov, but

rather that

nothing, which begins to take place, can

stop
is

short of
Bel.

earl to re\o<i\ hoioever this will not be as yet the final consummation, so that you will require to preserve your equanimity still further. Comp. Horn. II. ii. 122 reko<i
ovirto
,
;

dXX"
7T(o

its full

accomplishment.

The emphasis, however,

on

ov

ti irecpavTai.

to re\o<; cannot

mean

the avvreXeia,

ver. 3

(Chrysostom, Ebrard, Bleek, Lange, Cremer, Auberlen,

but, as the context proves
ver.
8,

Hoelemann, Gess),
expression dp^rj

by the

correlative

iahivwv,

and by to

reXo?, ver.

14,

comp. with

ovv, ver. 15, the

end of

the troubles at present

under

consideration.

straightway followed by the world's last

Inasmuch, then, as these troubles are to be crisis and the signs of the Messiah's advent (vv. 29, 30), to reko<i must be taken as referring to the end of the dolores Messiac. This end is the
laying waste of the temple and the unparalleled desolation of

MATT.

II.

130
the land that
is

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

to

accompany

it.

Ver.

15

ff.

This
:

is

also
" the

substantially equivalent to de Wette's interpretation

decisive winding

up
it is

of the present state of things (and along

with

it

the climax of trouble and affliction)."

7.

Ver.

Tap]
become
here

not quite the end as yet

for the situa:

tion will
will
rise

more turbulent and distressing nation against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, etc.
still

We

have

depicted in

colours

borrowed from ancient

prophecy

(Isa. xix. 2),

not only those risings, becoming more

and more frequent, which, after a long ferment, culminated in the closing scene of the Jewish war and led to the destruction of Jerusalem, but also those convulsions in nature by which they were accompanied. That this prediction was fulfilled in its general aspects is amply confirmed, above all, by the wellknown accounts of Josephus but we are forbidden by the very nature of genuine prophecy, which cannot and is not meant to be restricted to isolated points, either to assume or try to prove that such and such historical events are special
;

literal fulfilments

in concrete of the individual features

the prophetic

outlook before us,

in

although this has been

attempted very recently, by Kostlin in particular.

after in

As

for the

Parthian wars and the risings that took place some ten years

Jerusalem or Judaea.
stein)

Gaul and Spain, they had no connection whatever with There is as little reason to refer (Wetthe TroXifiovi of ver. 6 to the war waged by Asinaeus

and Alinaeus against the Parthians (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 9. 1), and the a.fcoa<; iroXeficov to the Parthian declaration of war against King Izates of Adiabene (Joseph. Antt. xx. 3. 3), or to
explain the latter (aicoas iroXeficov) of the struggles for the

imperial throne that had broken out after the death of Nero
(Hilgenfeld).

Jesus,

who

sees rising before

Him

the horrors

war and other calamities connected, ver. 1 5, with the coming destruction of Jerusalem, presents a picture of them to the view of His hearers. Comp. 4 Esdr. xiii. 2 1 Sohar Chadasch, " Illo tempore bella in mundo excitabuntur gens f. viii. 4 angustiae multae erit contra gentem, et urbs contra urbem
of
;
:

contra

hostes

Israelitarum
" Si videris

innovabuntur."

Bercsch.

Rabin,

42

f.,

41.

regna contra se invicem insurgentia,


CHAP. XXIV.
8, 9.

131

\ifj,ol k. a-eia/jLoi] tunc attende, et adspice pedem Messiae."' Nor, again, is this feature in the prediction see critical notes. to be restricted to some such special famine as that which

occurred during the reign of Claudius (Acts

xi.

28), too early

a date for our passage, and to one or two particular cases of

earthquake which happened in remote countries, and with which history has made us familiar (such as that in the neighbour-

hood of Colossae, Oros.

that at Pompeii).
to aeia-fioi, as in

Kara
Mark
;

Hist. vii. 7,

Tacit.

Ann.
is

xiv. 27,

and

to7tov?] which
is

applicable only

xiii. 8,

to be

taken distributively
:

(Bernhardy,

p.

240
:

Kiihner, II. 1, p. 414)

locatim, travel-

ling from one district to another.

interpretation

in various

localities

The equally grammatical here and tliere (Grotius,

Wetstein, Eaphel, Kypke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Kostlin, Bleek),

is

rather too feeble to suit the extraordinary character of the

In vv. 6, 7, Dorner finds merely an emto. bodiment of the thought " evangelium gladii instar dissecabit male conjuncta. ut vere jungat; naturae autem phaenomena concomitantia quasi depingent motus et turbines in spirituevents referred
:

alibus orbibus orturos."

Ver.

8.

But
:

all this ivill be the

Zigabenus
birth
after.
-

irpoolfMia

twv
the

beginning of woes (Euthymius avfi(popv), will stand in the same

relation to

what

is

about to follow, as the beginning of the

pangs does to
It is

much

severer

pains
is

which come,
understood.

apparent from ver. 7 that earat

The

figure contained in ooSivcov is to be traced to the popular

way

of conceiving of the troubles that were to precede the

"6an.

advent of the Messiah as rr^Dn

Ver.
9.

Comp. on
sequel

ver. 3.

Jesus
of

now

exhibits
its

the

of this

universal

beginning

woes in

special bearing

and

the

whole

Christian community.

upon the disciples Comp. on x. I7ff.

when what is said at ver. 7 will have begun. Differently in Luke xxi. 12 (irpo Be tovtwv), where, though rore is not in any way further defined (Cremer), we have
rore]
then,

clearly a correction in order to adapt the

expression to the

persecutions that in the evangelist's time had already begun.

Seeing that the expressions are distinctly different from each

other, it is not

enough

to appeal to the " elasticity " of the rore

132
(Hoelemann).
all of

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

aironrevovcTiv

ifia?] spoken generally, not

as intimating, nor even presupposing (Scholten), the death of

them.

After irapaScoa. u/ia? the current of prophetic

utterance flows regularly on, leaving to the hearers themselves

to

make

the necessary

distinctions.

kuI

eaeo-de fita-ovinterTacit.
is

fjuevoi\ It is a

mistake to suppose that we have here a reference

to Nero's persecution (proceeding pretation of the well-known " odio

upon an erroneous humani generis " in

it

Ann.

xv.

44, see Orelli on the passage), because

;

the

disciples that are addressed

and

to regard

sentatives of Christians in general, or as

them as the reprethe sum total of the

;

church (Cremer), would he arbitrary in the highest degree

discourse does not

the

become general

Comp.

1 Cor. iv. 13.

in its character
t.

till

ver. 10.

virb iravraiv

idvwv] by

all nations.
is

What
us
!

a confirmation of this, in all general respects,

it is

furto

nished by the history of the apostles, so far as

known

But we are not

justified in saying more,

and especially

when we

take into account the prophetic colouring given to

our discourse, must

allusion to the vast

we beware

of straining the iravToav in

order to favour the notion that the expression contains an

and long- continued

it
f.,

efforts

that

would
world
are in

be made to disseminate the gospel throughout

(Dorner)
Ver.
will
;

the

let

us repeat that

is

the apostles

who

question here.
10.

Comp.

x.

17

22.

Kal

Tore] and then,

GKavhaXicrOrjaovTai have broken out against you. TroXXof] many will receive a shock, i.e. many Christians will be tempted to relapse into unbelief, see on xiii. 21. For the Conseconverse of offendenlur in this sense, see ver. 13. quence of this falling away: ical dWrjXovs irapaSwo:] one
another,
i.e.

when

those persecutions

the Christian
faithful.

has continued

reached, seeing that

who has turned apostate, him who What a climax the troubles have they are now springing up in the very
community
is

heart of the Christian

itself!

Ver. 11. Besides this ruinous apostasy in consequence of

persecution from without, there

the propagation of error

by

false Christian teachers living in the very bosom of the church

itself

(comp.

vii.

15).

These

latter

should

not

be

more

" ;

CHAP. XXIV.
"

12,

13.

133
;

precisely defined (Kostlin

Hilgenfeld

" those

who adhere
586,

extreme antinomian tendencies to Pauline views " comp.

;

also Weiss, Bill. Theol. p.

ed.

2).

The history

of the

apostolic age has sufficiently confirmed this prediction, Acts

xx.

30

John

iv. 1.

Ver. 12.

And
the

in consequence of the growing prevalence of

greater

wickedness (as the result of

the
love

of

what number

is

mentioned in vv. 10, 11),

become
cold; that

loill

pre-

dominance of evil within the Christian community will have the effect of cooling the brotherly love of the majority of its members. The moral degeneracy within the pale of
that
vailing

community will bring about as its special want of charity, that specific contrast
;

result a preto

the
xiii.

true
1
ff.

characteristic of the Christian life (Gal. v. 6

1

1 Cor.

John

iv.

20).

For

dvofiia, the opposite of

1
;

moral compliance
4),
7.

with the law of God (= dfiapria,

xiii.

John
318.

iii.

comp.

vii.

23,
are

41,
7,

xxiii.

28

2 Cor.

vi.

14

2 Thess.

with

comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn.

p.

rwv

ii.

For

yfrvyeiv

ttoWwv]

not the ttoWoc mentioned in ver. 10 (Fritzsche), whose love,

as that verse informs us,
is

already changed into hatred, but

II. l,p.

the multitude, the mass, the great body (Ktihner,

Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p.

548

In the case of those 148) of Christians. who were distinguished above the ordinary run of Christians, no such cooling was to take place but yet, as compared with According the latter, they were only to be regarded as oXiyoi. to Dorner, vv. 11, 12 apply not to the apostolic age, but
;

But numerous testimonies to be met with in the Epistles, with the apprehensions and expectations regarding impending events to which they give expression. Comp. on Gal. i. 4. Ver. 13. 'O Se viro/xeLvwi] contrast to what in the gkolvZa\iadrj<r. iroWol of ver. 1 and the irXavija: 7ro\\ov<; of ver. 12 is described as apostasy, partly from the faith generally, and partly (ver. 12) from the true Christian faith and life. Comp. x. 22. According to Fritzsche, it is only the perto

subsequent stage in the history of the church.

is

such a view

inconsistent with the

severing

in

love

that

is

meant, so

that

the

contrast

has

reference merely to -^rv^fjaeTat, k.t.\.

But according

to our


134
interpretation,

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the
contrast
of
is

more thorough and better

passage.

suited

to

the

terms
but

the

eh
the

TeXo?]
until

not
6),

perpetuo (Fritzsche), which, as the connection shows (ver.

is

too indefinite

unto the end,

to

till

last,

the

troubles will have

come

the context (o-wOrjaeTai),

will,

with the second advent.

an end, which, as appears from in point of fact, be coincident Corn p. vv. 30, 31, x. 22. The con-

text forbids such interpretations as: unto death (Eisner, Kuinoel,

Ebrard), until the destruction of Jerusalem (Krebs, Eosenmiiller,

E. Hofmann), acoO^a-erai being referred in the latter case to

the flight of the Christians to Pella (Eusebius, H. E.

iii.

5).

Of course

ver. 1 3 describes the "

sanam hominis Christiani

dis-

positionem spiritualem ad eschatologiampertinentem"(Dorner),

always on the understanding, however, that the second advent

is

at hand,

Ver. 14.

and that the " homo Christianus " will live to see if. Having just uttered the words eh TeXo?, Christ

now

reveals the prospect of a most encouraging state of matters

is

which

immediately to precede and usher in the consum-

mation indicated by this eh reXos, namely, the preaching of the gospel throughout the whole world in spite of the hatred and apostasy previously mentioned (vv. 9, 10 ff.) on ov&ev twv
;

heivwv Trept.yevrjcreTai tov /crjpvy/AaTos,

Euthymius Zigabenus.
all in
;

The substantial
comp. Acts
Col.
i. i.

fulfilment of this prediction is found in the

missionary labours of the apostles, above

9
;

those of Paul

Eom.

i.

14,

23; Clem.

1 Cor. v.

tovto

x.

18, xv. 19

Matt, xxviii. 19

to evayy.] According

to de Wette, the

author here (and xxvi. 13) so far forgets

himself as to allude to the gospel xvhich he was then in the act

The tovto here may be accounted for by the fact of writing. that Christ was there and then engaged in preaching the
gospel of the Messiah's kingdom, inasmuch as eschatological
prediction undoubtedly constitutes an essential part of the
gospel.

Consequently: "hoc evangelium, quod nuntio."

iv

oXrj ttj oIkov/u,.]

must not be limited

which
is

to the
:

Roman

empire

(Luke

ii.

1),

but should be taken quite generally

over the whole

Imbitable globe, a sense

alone in keeping with Jesus'

irao-i

consciousness of His Messianic mission, and with the

to4? edveai

which

follows.

eU /xapTvpiov,

.t.\.]

in order that


CHAP. XXIV.
15.

135

testimony may be borne before all nations, namely, concerning me and my work, however much they may have hated you
for

my

name's sake.
is

The

interpretation of the Fathers

in

el?

eXewo*/,

therefore

substantially

accordance with the

to

context

(ver. 9),

though there was no need

import into the

passage the idea of the condemnation of the heathen, which

condemnation would follow as a consequence only in the case who might be found to reject the testimony. There " ut nota illis are other though arbitrary explanations, such as
of those
.

esset pertinacia

monium

dicere

Judaeorum " (Grotius), or " ut gentes testipossint harum calamitatum et insignis pompae,
:

qua Jesus Messias in has

terras reverti debeat " (Fritzsche), or: " ita ut crisin aut vitae aut mortis adducat" (Dorner).

Kal Tore] and then, when the announcement shall have been to re\os] the end of the made throughout the whole world.

troubles that are to precede the Messiah's advent, correlative

to dpxv, ver 8.
-

Comp.

ver. 6

consequently not to be under-

stood in this instance either as referring to the end of the world (Ebrard, Bleek, Dorner, Hofmann, Lange, Cremer), which latter
event,

however, will of

course

announce

its

approach by

catastrophes in nature (ver. 29) immediately after the termination of the dolorcs Messiac.

Ver. 15. See Wieselerin the Gutting. Vicrtcljahrschr. 1846,

p.

183

ff.

Hengstenberg, Christol. III.

re\o<;.

information regarding this

p.

116

ff.

More

precise

ovv] therefore, in conse-

quence of what has just been stated in the Kal Tore rfeei to According to Ebrard and Hoelemann, ovv indicates a TeA-o?.
resuming of the previous subject (Baeumlein,P?^'Z;.p. 177; Winer, p. 414 [E.T. 555]): "Jesus ad primam questionem revcrtitur, ipv&emisso secundae quaestionis responso."
self

But even Ebrard him-

admits that Jesus has not as yet made any direct reference
it

to the disciples' first question, ver. 3, accordingly he cannot

be supposed to recur to
of

with a mere

ovv.

Wieseler also
it is

takes a similar view of ovv.

used by way resuming the thread of the conversation, which had been interrupted by the preliminary warning inserted at vv. 4-14. But this conversation, which the disciples had introduced, and
thinks that
in which, moreover, vv.

He

4-14

are

by no means of the nature

13G
-of

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

all.

a mere warning, has not been interrupted at

According

to Dorner, ovv

marks the
which

transition from the

eschatological

principles contained in vv.

torica
s.

4-14
view
vv.

to the applicatio
is

eorum

his-

prophctica,

based, however, on the

erroneous
tions

assumption

that

4-14 do

not

possess the

character of concrete eschatological prophecy.

The predicbefore us respecting the Messianic woes become more

till

threatening

just at this point they reach a climax.

iprjfidKreoos]
the

to

fiSeXvyfia

abomination of desolation the genitive denotes that in which the ftheXvy^a specifically consists and manifests itself as such, so that the idea, " the
t?}?
is

abominable desolation,"
characteristic

expressed by the use of another

out the
xlix.

substantive instead of the adjective, in order to bring

attribute in question
:

comp. Ecclus.

Hengstenberg
tion.

the

abomination, which produces the desola-

idea.

But in Daniel also the eprjfiwais is the leading The Greek expression in our passage is not exactly
1

identical with the Septuagint

ix.

rendering of
1

D$B>IO

0*?W, Dan.
7.

27

(xi.

31,
it

xii.
is

11).

Comp.

Mace.
2

i.

54,

vi.
ii.
;

prediction

not to Antichrist,

Thess.

In this 4 (Origen,
nor, again,

Luthardt, Klostermann, Ewald), that Jesus refers

is it to

the statue of Titus, which is supposed to have been erected on the site of the temple after its destruction (Chrysostom, Theophylact,
Caligula,
1

Euthymius Zigabenus)
p.

nor to that of

which

is

said (but see Krebs,

53) to have been

to be taken together (Havernick,

Christol. III. p.

In the Hebrew of the passage referred to in Daniel the words are not intended von Lengerke on Dan. ix. 27, Hengstenberg,

103 f.). They are, moreover, very variously interpreted; von Lengerke (Hengstenberg), for example " the destroyer comes over the pinnacles of abomination ;" Ewald (Auberlen): "and that on account of the fearful height of abominations ;" Wieseler "and that because of the destructive bird of abomination" (referring to the eagle of Jupiter Olympius, to whom Epiphanes dedicated the temple at Jerusalem, 2 Mace. vi. 2) Hofmaun, Weissag. u. Erf. I. p. 309 "and that upon an offensive idol cover" (meaning the veil with which the altar of the idol was covered). My interpretation of the words in the original
:

(DOb'Jp
nations,

D^pt?

P]33

?yi)

is

this

the destroyer (comes) Keil.

on

the

wing of abomip.

and that

until,

etc.

Comp.

Ewald on Matthew,

412,

takes f]33

as a paraphrase for *o hpiv.

lvii.
ff.
;

The

Sept. rendering is probably

from

such passages as Ps.

Christol III. p. 123

2. For other explanations still, see Hengstenberg, Bleek in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1860, p. 93 ff.

CHAP. XXIV.

15.

137

up within the temple nor even to the equestrian statue Hadrian (all which Jerome considers possible), which references would imply a period too early in some instances, It is better, on the whole, not to seek and too late in others. for any more special reference (as also Eisner, Hug, Bleek,
set
;

of

who see an allusion to the sacrilegious committed by the zealots in the temple, Joseph. Bell. iv. 6. 3), but to be satisfied with what the words themselves plainly intimate the abominable desolation on the temple square, which was historically realized in the doings of the heathen conquerors during and after the capture of the temple, though, at the same time, no special stress is to be laid upon the heathen standards detested by the Jews (Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, de Wette, Ebrard, Wieseler, Lange), to which the words cannot refer. Fritzsche prefers to leave the fihk\. r. ip. without any explanation whatever, in consequence of the o avayweoo-rc. voeiro), by which, as he thinks, Jesus meant to indicate that the reader was to find out the prophet's meaning The above general interpretation, however, is for himself. founded upon the text itself; nor are we warranted by Dan. ix. 27 in supposing any reference of a very special kind to
Pfleiderer have done,
acts
:

underlie

what
the

is

said.

The idea

of a desecration

of

the

temple by
state
is

Jews themselves (Hengstenberg), or of the corrupt

foreign to the whole connection.

ivhat has been said
"

of the Jewish hierarchy (Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. to prjOev Btd

of

170 ), Aav. r.
Daniel
"

7rpo<f>.]

(expressly mentioned)

by Daniel,

not

which
;

is

an

expression

the

prophet

(Wieseler)
expression,

for

the important point

but

Comp.
I.

xxii. 31.

p.

677.

On Ictto?, iv T07rco dylq>]

the thing itself

was not the prophetic by the prophet. see critical notes, and Kiihner,
indicated

in the

holy place;

i.e.

not

the town

by the Eomans (so Hoelemann and many older expositors, after Luke xxi. 20), but the place of the temple which has been in question from the very first (ver. 2), and which Daniel has in view in the passage referred to. The designation selected forms a tragic contrast to the fiheXvyp,a comp. Mark xiii. 1 4 oirov ov Set. Others, and among them de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius
as invested
; :


138
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

(comp. Weiss on Mark), understand the words as referring

to Palestine,

especially

to

the

neighbourhood of Jerusalem

Mount of Olives (Bengel), because it is supposed that it would have been too late to seek to escape after the temple had been captured, and so the flight of the Christians to Pella took place as soon as the war The ground here urged, besides being an attempt to began.
(Schott, Wieseler), or to the

make
latter

use of the special form of

its

historical
itself,

fulfilment in

order to correct the prophetic picture

as

though

this

had been

of the nature of a special prediction,

is irrele-

vant, for this reason, that in ver.

16 the words used are not

Jesus

"in Jerusalem," but iv

rrj

'IovBaia; see on ver. 16.

means

to say

When

the abomination of desolation will have

marred and defaced the symbol of the divine guardianship of the people, then everything is to be given up as lost, and safety sought only by fleeing from Judaea to places of greater
security
let

among

the mountains.
!

6
iii.

avayivcoaiccov voelrco]
Parenthetical observa-

the reader

understand

(Eph.

4).

tion

by the

evangelist, to

impress upon his readers the precise

is

point of time indicated by Jesus at which the flight

to

take place upon the then impending

(not already present,

Hug, Bleek) catastrophe.

Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus,

d.

Paulus, Fritzsche, Kaeuffer, Hengstenberg {Authent.

Dan.

p.

258

ff.),

Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, ascribe the observation

to Jesus, from ivhose lips, however, one

in the flow of living utterance, and according to His

would have expected, manner

xi.

elsewhere, an expression similar to that in

at least 6
is

15,

xiii. 9,

or

aKovwv

voelra).
xiii. it

favoured by

Mark

add that our explanation 14, where to pyjdev vtto Aav. rov
is

We may

7rpo(p.

being spurious,
" he

consequently the reader, not of

is

Daniel, but of the gospel, that

interprets
:

meant.

who has discernment,

let

Hoelemann incorrectly him understand it "

xii. 11); dvayivdoa/c. is never used in the Testament in any other sense than that of to read. oi iv t. 'IovS.] Ver. 16 ff. Apodosis down to ver. 18. living happen in the country who may to be means those contradistinction to Jerusalem iii. in (John of Judaea 22), in which are to be abominations place, the holy its with

(alluding to Dan.

New


CHAP. XXIV.

19, 20.

139

the signal for

flight.

fir)

KarafSaivero),
:

conceived the idea to be this

Jlee over the roofs (over

"

k.t.X.] Some have ne per scalas interiores, sed

;

exteriores descendat," Bengel (Grotius, Wetstein)

or

let

him

the lower walls, separating house from

he comes to the city wall, Michaelis, Kuinoel, Winer, Kaeuffer). Both views may he to, &k rr)<i oikiccs circumstances. taken each according to ry olicla eic Ti}<; ovular. attraction for ra iv clvtov] common
house,
till

Fritzsche,

Paulus,

See Kiihner,

I.

474, and ad Xen. Mem.

784]. p. he has no upper garment with him.

[E. T.
flee to save

584

iii.

6.

11

Winer,

iv

rw

ds/pat] where, being at work,

People will have to

their lives

(ver.

22)

not according to the idea

decisively refuted

imported by Hofmann

to

escape the otherwise too powerful

temptation to deny the Lord.

This again
it is

is

by the
so is

fact that, in vv.

1619,

not merely the disciples

or believers

who are ordered to flee, but the summons to do What is said with reference to the flight a general one. does not assume an individualizing character till ver. 20. Ver. 19. At fiev yap ey/cvot ov Bwyjcrovrac cpevyetv, ra>
tt}?

<poprl(p
7r/?o? ra,

yacrrpbs ftapvvofievaf

ai Be drfkd^ovaai Bia

rr)v

TeKva crvfiTTaOeLav, Theophylact.

Ver. 20. "Iva\ Object of the

command, and

therefore its

purport;

firjBe <raf3/3ciT(p] with35; Col. i. 9. out iv, as in xii. 1; Winer, p. 205 [E. T. 274]. On the Sabbath the rest and the solemnities enjoined by the law, as

Mark

xiv.

well as the short distance allowed for a Sabbath-day's journey

(2000
xxiv.

yards, according to Ex. xvi.

50; Acts

i.

29 see Lightfoot on Luke 12; Schoettgen, p. 406), could not but

;

interfere with the necessary haste, unless one

were prepared

in the circumstances to ignore all

such enactments.

Taken

by themselves, the words

firjSe

crafSftdrG)

seem, no doubt, to

own liberal views regarding the Sabbath (xii. Iff.; John v. 17, vii. 22); but he is speaking from the standpoint of His disciples, such a standpoint as they occupied at the time He addressed them, and which was destined to be outgrown only in the course of a later development of ideas (Rom. xiv. 5 Col. ii. 6). As in the case of ^et/iow/o?,
be inconsistent with Jesus'
;

what

is

here said

is

simply with a view to everything being

140

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

flight.

avoided calculated to interfere with their hasty

x.

Comp.

23.
Ver. 21. Those hindrances to flight are all the more to

be deprecated that the troubles are to be unparalleled, and therefore a rapid flight will be a matter of the most urgent
necessity.

ew? rod vvv\ usque ad hoc tempus, Rom.

not to be supplied here (Fritzsche).

viii.

22.

Koo-fiov is

See, on the
Plat.

other hand,
p.

Mark

xiii.

19;

Mace.

ii.

33;

Farm.

152
ixr),

C, Ep.

ov

see

361 E. Bornemann in the

xiii. p.

On
Plat.

the threefold negative ov&e

Stud. u. Krit.

1843,

p.

109

f,

For the expression generally,

Tim.

p. 3 8

ovSe ryevea;

dat Trore ovBe yejovei/ai vvv ovS' elaavdis eaeaOai

Stallbaum,

ad Rep.

p.

492

E.
unless those days
/AeryaXr)

Ver. 22.

And

had

hecn shortened, those,

etc.

namely, of the 0\A|a<?

(ver.

29),

This

is

to

be understood of the reduction of the number of the days over which, but for this shortening, the dXfyis would have extended, not of the curtailing of the length of the day (Fritzsche), a thought of which Lightfoot quotes an example from Kab-

binical literature (comp.

the converse of this, Josh. x.

is

13),

which, seeing that there

a considerable number of days,

would be

to

introduce an element of a very extraordinary

character into the usual ideas connected with the acceleration

of the advent (1 Cor.
vii.

29).

which

in Barnab. iv.

is

ascribed to Enoch.

Eather comp. the similar idea, ia-coOv] used here

with reference to the saving of the life (viii. 25, xxvii. 40, 42, 49, and frequently); Euthymius Zigabenus: ovk av vtre^eHofmann incorrectly explains saved from cjivye rov davarov.

denying the Lord. man (see on Acts

have perished.
Diss. II.

iraaa
ii.

adpj;] every

flesh,

i.e.

every mortal
i.e.

1 6),

would not be rescued,

would

Comp.

for the position of the negative, Fritzsche,

The limitation of irdaa o-ap% to on 2 Cor. p. 24f. Christians belonging to town or country who are the Jews and contact immediate with the theatre of war, is justified found in

by the

The eKXeicToi are included, but it is not these (Hofmann). meant The aorist e'/coX,o/3. conveys alone who upon in the counsels shortening was resolved the that the idea (Mark compassion xiii. divine the 20), and its relation to of
context.

are

CHAP. XXIV.

23-25.

141
had the shortening of

tlie aorist io-codr)

in the apodosis is this

the period over which the calamities were to extend not taken

would have involved the utter destruction of all The flesh. future KokoficoQyjo-. again conveys the idea that is being effected, and therefore that the shortening actual the
place, this

case supposed, with the melancholy consequences involved in

it,

has been averted.

Bia

8e roi)? eicXefCTovsi] for sake of the

might That in seeking to save the righteous, God purposely adopts a course by which He may save others at the same time, is evident from Gen. xviii. 13 ff. But the euXeicTOL (see on xxii. 14) are those who, at
chosen (for the Messianic kingdom), in order that they

be preserved for the approaching advent.

the

time of the destruction of the capital, are

believers

in

Christ,
(ver.

and are

found persevering in

their

faith

in

Him

Archiv. II. 1; Schott, Ojjusc II. p.

evdiax; of ver. 29. tition of the

13); not the future credituri as well (Jahn in Bengel's 205 ff.; Lange, following

Augustine, Calovius), which latter view

is

precluded by the

There

is

a certain solemnity in the repe-

lays stress

same words ko\o/3. al rjfiepat i/ceivai. Ebrard upon the fact, as he supposes, that our passage
sit

describes a calamity " cui finis

imponendus,

et

quae ab
is

aetate paulo saltern feliciore sit excipienda,"

infers

and accordingly

that the idea of the immediate end of the world

But the aetas patdo saltern fclicior, or the supposition that there is any interval at all between the dXtyi? /xeydXr] and ver. 29, is foreign to the text; but the end of the above-mentioned disaster is to take place in order that what is stated at ver. 29 may follow it at once. Ver. 23 ff. Tore] then, when the desolation of the temple and the great 0A.A|a? shall have arrived, false Messiahs, and
thereby excluded.

such as falsely represent themselves to be prophets, will again

their claims with greater energy than most seductive ways possible. Those here referred to are different from the pretenders of ver. 4 f. The excitement and longing that will be awakened in the midst of such terrible distress will be taken advantage of by impostors with pretensions to miracle-working, and then how dangerous they will prove By such early expositors as Chrysostom and
ever, nay, in the
!

come forward and urge


142
those

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

who come

after

him, ver. 23 was supposed to mark the

would of Jerusalem destruction period between the whole pass over the and the second advent while, according to Ebrard (comp. Schott), the meaning intended by Jesus in vv. 23, 24 is, that after the destruction of the capital, the condition of the church
transition to the subject of the advent, so that Tore
;

and of the world, described in vv. 4-14, " in postcrum quooue mansurum esse." Such views would have been discarded if due regard had been paid to the Tore by which the point of time is
precisely denned, as well as to the circumstance that the allusion

here

is

merely to the coming forward of false Christs and false

Consequently we should also beware of saying, with Calovius, that at this point Christ passes to the subject He is still speaking of His adventus spiritualis per evangelmm. of that period of distress, ver. 2 1 f., which is to be immediately
prophets.
followed, ver.

29, by the second advent.

^evZoxpia-TOi]
nothing
is

those

who
vii.

falsely

claim to be Messiah
this.

known

regarding the historical fulfilment of

Bell.

11.

3)

and Barcochba

at

later

period.

(see

Jonathan (Joseph. on ver. 5) appeared

according
the
to

^evhoirpoj>r)rat\
teachers
(ver.

the

context,

not

Christian

11), in

present

instance, but such

as pretended to

be sent

by God, and in-

spired to speak to the people in the season of their calamity,

deceivers similar to those

who had
vi.

tried to

impose upon their

fellow-countrymen during the national misfortunes of earlier

times (Jer. xiv. 14,
Bell.
ii.

v.

13,

13,

viii.

10).

Comp. Joseph.
airaTwvres
irpocr-

13. 4: ifkavoi <yap

avOpwrroi ko\

Yij/jbart deiacr/Jiov vetoTepicrfAOvs Ka\ /xeTa/SoXa? TrpajfiaTevo/jbevoi,

Satfiovav to 7r\rj6o<; aveiretOov, k.t.X.

Others suppose that the

reference

is

to such as sought to pass for Elijah or some other

prophet risen from the dead (Kuinoel), which would scarcely agree with the use of a term so general as the present
there are those also

who think
:

it is

Messiahs who

are intended (Grotius).

give, so as to
;

the emissaries of the false Su>a overt] not promise

:

(Kypke, Krebs), but

ar)p,ela.

suit the idea involved in

Comp. xii. 39 there which between

xv. 19.

Deut.

xiii. 1.

On

arjp,da koX repara,

no material difference, see on Eom. Miracles may also be performed by Satanic agency,
is

CHAP. XXIV.

26-28.

143
:

2 Thess.

ii.

9.

ware
may
:

ifKavrjdrjvat (see critical notes)

so that

the very elect

possible
(el

be led
si

astray (Kiihner, II. 2, p.

;

hvvarov

tamen

irritus," Bengel).

fieri possit

"

1005) if conatus summus, seel

xiv. 29.

Ver. 25. Aia^apTvperav egaacpaki-

6[ievo<;,

Euthymius Zigabenus.

Comp. John

Ver. 26.

Ovv]

according to the tenor of this

my prediction.

Ver. 2 6 does not stand to ver. 2 3 in the relation of a strange

reduplication (Weiss), but as a rhetorical amplification which
is

brought to an emphatic close by a repetition of the

Trcarevarire of ver. 23.

<ttI~\

the Messiah, ver.

to

23.

ev

fir)

Tot? Ta/ietot?] the

ing to Eritzsche,
ii.

article is

while the plural denotes the inner rooms of a house.

be taken demonstratively, Accord-

we have

here the categorical plural (see on

quae conclavia appellantur." The phraseology here That would be too vague a pretence. made use of: in the wilderness in the inner rooms of the house
20):
"en, ibi
est locorum,

is

simply apocalyptic imagery.

" Ultra

de deserto et pene-

tralibus quaerere

non

est sobrii interpretis," Maldonatus.

Ver. 27. Reason

tions.

why they were not

to listen to such asser-

The advent of the Messiah will not be of such a nature that you will require to be directed to look here or look there but it will be as the lightning, which, as in order to see him
;

soon as

it

appears, suddenly announces

r)

its

presence everywhere;
(pacvofievrj 8ia

ovtcos earat,

irapovaia

e/ceivr),

ofiov Travrayov

Not as though the advent were not to be connected with some locality or other upon earth, or were to be invisible altogether (E. Hofmann) but what is meant is, that when it takes place, it will all of a
rrjv e/cXafityiv rr}s Sof???,

Chrysostom.

sudden openly display itself in a glorious fashion over the whole Ebrard (comp. Schott) is wrong in supposing that the point of comparison lies only in the circumstance that the Eor event comes suddenly and without any premonition. certainly this would not tend to show, as Jesus means to do, he is in the wilderness, etc., is an unwarthat the assertion
world.
:

rantable pretence.

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

144
will be called

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

upon everywhere

to execute.

The emphasis
eicel
:

of

this figurative adage is

on oirov eav y and

to be, there

"

Wherever

the carcase
together,"

no spot where there is a carcase will this Gathering fail, so that, when the Messiah shall have come, He will reveal Himself everywhere in this aspect also (namely, Such is the sense in which this saying was as an avenger).
evidently understood as early as the time of

on

may happen

will the eagles be gathered

Luke

xvii.

37.

The carcase is a metaphorical expression denoting the spiritually dead (viii. 22 Luke xvi. 24) who are doomed to the Messianic
;

u7T(o\eia,

while the words

o-vvayQ^aovrai

(namely, at

the

advent) ol aeroi convey the same idea as that expressed in

xiii.

41, and which is as follows the angels, who are sent forth by the Messiah for the purpose, avWe^ovatv ix t?}? fiaaiXeia?
:

avTov iravTa ra a/cavSaXa, koX fiaXovcriv avrovs et? rifv tcd/uvov tov irvpos, the only difference being, that in our passage
the prophetic imagery depicting the

not that of consuming by

that the latter

mode of punishment is and that for the simple reason would not harmonize with the idea of the carcase
fire,

Others (Lightand the eagles (Bleek, Luthardt, Auberlen). foot, Hammond, Clericus, Wolf, Wetstein) have erroneously

supposed that the carcase alludes to Jerusalem or the Jews, and that the eagles are intended to denote the Eoman legions Plut. Mar. 23). with their standards (Xen. Anab. i. 10. 12
;

But
vv.

it is

the advent that

is

in question

while, according to

23-27,

oirov eav y cannot

be taken as referring to any

one particular locality, so that Hoelemann is also in error, inasmuch as, though he interprets the eagles as representing the Messiah and His angel-hosts, he nevertheless understands the carcase to mean Jerusalem as intended to form the
central

scene

of

the
"

advent.

It

is

no

less
"

mistaken to
(Hilgenfeld),

explain the latter of

the corpses of

Judaism

on the ground that, as Keim also supposes, Christ means to represent Himself " as Him who is to win the spoils amid the According to Cremer, physical and moral ruins of Israel."
the carcase denotes
described,

the

anti- Messianic

agitation

previously

which is by the imperial power

destined to be suppressed and punished

(the eagles).

This view

is

erroneous

CHAP. XXIV.

29.

1-45

for,

according to ver.

27,
t.

the
t.

awa^O.
avQp.

ol

aeroi

can only

represent the irapovala

p.

vlov

Fritzsche and Fleck,

384:

" ubi Messias,

ibi

homines, qui ejus potestatis futuri

Similarly such early expositors as Chrysostom (who thinks the angels and martyrs are intended to be included), Jerome, Theophylact (wairep iirl ve/cpbv awfxa crvvdyovrai oe&>? ol aerol, ovtoj /cal evda av ecr/ 6 Xpiaros,

sint " (ol itcXe/cTol, ver. 31).

ekevaovTat iravTes ol ytot), Euthymius Zigabenus, Miinster,

Luther, Erasmus
("

non deerunt
it

capiti sua

membra "),

Beza,

Calvin, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, Jansen.

priate

But how inapproEuthymius Ziga-

and incongruous
is
;

would be
rpo(pr)
is all

to

compare the Messiah

(who

conceived of as

7rvev/xariK'>],

benus) to the carcase

which

the more offensive when,

with Jerome,

irroofia

is

supposed to contain a reference to the

rejected.

death of Jesus

a view which Calvin

and the eagles

Wittichen in

the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 337, reverses the subjects of comparison, and takes the carcase as representing the
Israelitish eXe/crot,

as representing the Messiah.

But

this interpretation is likewise forbidden

by the incongruity

that would result from the similitude of the carcase so suggestive of the

domain

of death, as well as

by

that universal
testi-

character of the advent to

which the context bears

sc.
illis,

mony.
observes

With
:

astonishing disregard of the context, Kaeuffer

TrcaTeuarjTe,

"

firj

nam
e.

ubi materies

ad

praedandum, vestram erit."

p.

ibi

praedatores

avidi,

h.

nam

in

fraudein

On

the question as to whether irrwixa without

ad Phryn. ol dero I] are the carrion-kites (vultur percnopterus, 375. Linnaeus) which the ancients regarded as belonging to the
a qualifying genitive be good Greek, see Lobeck,

eagle species.

See Plin. N. H.

x.
;

Aristot. ix. 22.

viii.

For the
viii.

similitude, comp.

Job xxxix. 3

Hos.

Hab.

Prov. xxx. 1 7

Ezek. xxxix. 1 7.

Ver. 29. Here follows the second portion of the reply of

Jesus, in

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

;:

146
that
it

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

will break unexpectedly

upon the world (vv. 34-41) awaken men to watchfulness and preparedness (vv. 42 51), to which end the two parables, xxv. The discourse then con1-30, are intended to contribute. cludes with a description of the final judgment over which
this should certainly

the coming one

r.

is to

preside (xxv. 31-46).

eu#e&>9 Se fiera

those days,

6\i"^iv tGjv rjiiep. e/c.] but immediately after the distress of immediately after the last (to TeXo?) of the series

of Messianic woes described from ver. 15 onwards,

first

and the

of

the temple.
for

which For
ver.

is

to
rtov

be coincident with the destruction of

rifiep.

eKeivoav,

6\tytv,

21.

Ebrard's explanation of this

comp. vv. 19, 22; and passage

falls to

the ground with his erroneous interpretation of vv.

the church

23, 24, that explanation being as follows: immediately after

the

unhappy condition of
is

(vv.

23-28), a condition

vjhich

to

continue after the destruction of Jeruscdem,

:

it

being assumed that the evOews involves the meaning " nullis It may be observed generally, aliis intercedentibus indiciis.'"
that a whole host of strange and fanciful interpretations have

been given here, in consequence of its having been assumed that Jesus could not possibly have intended to say that His second advent was to follow immediately upon the destruction of Jerusalem.
all exegetical rule,

This assumption, however,

is

contrary to

considering that Jesus repeatedly

makes

reference elsewhere (see also ver. 34) to His second coming as

Among those interpretations an event that is near at hand. may also be classed that of Schott (following such earlier expositors as Hammond and others, who had already taken evdecix} in the sense of suddenly), who says that Matthew had written BNriQ, subito, but that the translator (like the Sept. in the case of Job v. 3) had rendered the expression " minus This is certainly a wonderful supposiaccurate" by evdicos. reason that the nxns itself would be a tion, for the simple use if an interval of a thousand years expression to wonderful Bengel has contributed to promote this intervene. was to " Nondum erat tempus revelandi that: observation his view by futurarum rerum a vastatione Hieros. usque ad seriem totam consummationem seculi," and by his paraphrase of the passage

CHAP. XXIV.
"

29.

147
illorum, delendae urbis

De

iis,

quae post prcssuram

durum

Jerusalem, evenient proximum, quod in praesenti pro

ditione
venit,

mea

con-

commemorandum
hoc
est,

et pro vestra capacitate

etc.

expectandum
others,

quod

sol obscurabitur,"

Many

as

Wetstein, for example, have been enabled to dispense with

gratuitous assumptions of this sort
to refer to the destruction

by understanding

ver. 2 9

ff,

be described therein in

of Jerusalem, which is supposed to the language of prophetic imagery

(Kuinoel), and they so understand the verse in spite of the

In this, however, they escape Scylla only to be drawn into Charybdis, and are
destruction already introduced at ver. 15.

compelled to have recourse

to

expedients

of a

still

more
1

hazardous kind in order to explain away the

literal advent,

which

is

depicted in language as clear as

it

is

sublime.

And
appear

yet E. J.

Meyer again

interprets vv.

29-34
to

of the destruc-

tion of Jerusalem,

and in such a way as

make
is

it

that the prediction regarding the final advent

not intro-

duced

till

ver. 35.

But

this

view
k.

is
rj

at once

precluded by

the fact that in ver. 35 o ovpavos

yr)

irapeXevaerac cannot

be regarded as the leading idea, the theme of what follows, but only as a subsidiary thought (v. 18) by way of background for the words oi Be Xoyot puov ov fir) irapekd. immediately after

yap Xoyoc, k.t.\., but oi Be Hoelemann, Cremer, Auberlen are right in their interpretation of evOem, but wrong in regarding the time of the culmination of the heathen power an idea imported from Luke xxi. 24 as antecedent to the period indicated by evOem. Just as there are those who seek to dispose of the historical difficulty connected with ev6ew<; by twisting the sense of what precedes, and by an importation from Luke xxi. 24, so Dorner seeks to dispose of it by twisting the sense of
(observe, Christ does not say oi
k.t.X,).

Xoyoi,

ivhat comes after.-

-6

rjXtos cr/eoTicrO., k.tA.] Description of

is

the great catastrophe in the heavens which

1

to precede the

Comp. the Old Testament prophecies respecting the day of the coming of
Isa. xiii.
ii.

ii.

xxiv. 21; Jer. iv. 23 f. ; Ezek. xxxii. 7f. Hag. 15; Zeph. i. 15; Hag. ii. 21; Zech. xiv. 6, etc., and the passages from Rabbinical writers in Bertholdt, Christol. 12; Gfrorer, 9
ff.,

Jehovah,
6
f.
;

xxxiv.

4,

Joel

10,

iii.

f., iv.

Gesch. d. Urchrlst.

I.

2,

pp. 195

ff.,

219

ff.


148
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

second advent of the Messiah.

sage
is

According to Dorner, our pas-

intended as a prophetical delineation of the fall of heathenism, which would follow immediately upon the overthrow

Judaism; and, accordingly, he sees in the mention of the and stars an allusion to the nature-vjorship of the heathen world, an idea, however, which is refuted at once by ver. 34; see E. J. Meyer, p. 125 ff. Bleek, p. 356; Hofmann, p. 636; Gess, p. 136. Ewald correctly interprets: " While the whole world is being convulsed (ver. 29, after Joel iii. 3 f. Isa. xxxiv. 4, xxiv. 21), the heaven-sent Messiah appears in His glory (according to Dan. vii. 13) to judge," etc. oi do-repes ireaovvrai, k.t.X.] Comp. Isa. xxxiv. 4. To be understood literally, but not as illustrative of sad times (Hengstenberg on the Revelation Gerlach, letzte Dinge, p. 102); and yet not in the sense of falling-stars (Fritzsche, Kuinoel), but as meaning the whole of the stars
of sun, moon,
;

together.

Similarly in the passage in Isaiah just referred

to,

in accordance with the ancient idea that heaven

was a firmaof the

stars

ment
light

in
to

which the
is

stars

were
i.

set for the

purpose of giving
Paulus, Schott,

the earth (Gen.

14).

The falling
Bengel,

(which
Fathers,

not to be diluted, with

Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Cremer, following the Greek

so as
to

mean

a mere obscuration) to the earth

is

which, in accordance with the cosmical views of the time,

the plain and natural sense of
is,

et? rrjv yrjv (see

Eev.

vi.

13)

no doubt, impossible as an actual fact, but it need not suran idea introduced into a prophetic picture so grandly poetical as this is, a picture which it is scarcely fair to measure by the astronomical conceptions of our own al hvvaneis rwv ovpavdv <ra\ev6J] is usually day.
prise us to see such

explained
xxxiii.

of
;

the

starry hosts
iv.

(Isa.

xxxiv.
xvii.

4,

xl.

Deut.
it

19

Kings

16,

etc.),

26; Ps. which,

coming as
duce
a

does after oi do-repes ireaovvrai, would introfeature

into the picture.

tautological

The words

should therefore be taken in a general sense: the powers of the heavens (the powers which uphold the heavens, which stretch

them
them,

out,
etc.)

and produce the phenomena which take place

will
be so

in

shaken as to lose their usual

stability.

CHAP. XXIV.

30.

149

Comp.

Job
follows

xxvi.

11.

who
in

Jerome,

Chrysostom,

The interpretation of Olshausen, Euthymins Zigabenus,

referred

supposing that the trembling in the world of angels is to (Luke ii. 13), is inconsistent not merely with
the

aaXevOijcr.,

to

but also with the whole connection which refers For the plural twv domain of physical things.

ovpavwv,

comp. Ecclus. xvi.

16.

This convulsion in
is

the

heavens, previous to the Messiah's descent therefrom,

not as

lude to

yet to be regarded as the end of the world, but only as a preit ; the earth is not destroyed as yet by the celestial

commotion referred

to (ver.

30).

The

poetical character of

the 'picture does not justify us in regarding the thing so vividly

depicted as also belonging merely to the domain of poetry,

all

the

less

that,
xiii.

in the present case,

1 0, xxxiv.

it

is

not political
f.
;

revolutions (Isa.
f.)

Ezek. xxxii. 7

Joel

iii.

that are in view, but the

new

birth of the world,

and the

establishment of the Messiah's kingdom.

Tore] and then, when what is intimated at have arrived. (fravrjo-erai] universally, and so not visible merely to the elect (Cremer), which would not be to o-^/xeiov tov vlov r. in keeping with what follows.
Ver. 30.
ver.

Kal

29

shall

avOp."]

accordingly the

sign

inquired

about in ver.

3, that

phenomenon, namely, which is immediately to precede the coming Messiah, the Son of man of Dan. vii. 13, and which is to indicate that His second advent is now on the point of taking place, which is to be the signal of this latter event. As Jesus does not say what this is to be, it should be left quite indefinite only this much may be inferred from what is predicted at ver. 29 about the darkening of the heavenly bodies, that it must be of the nature of a manifestation of light, the dawning of the Messianic Sofa which is perhaps to go on increasing in brilliancy and splendour until the Messiah Himself steps forth from the midst of it in the fulness of His glory. There is no
;

foundation

for

supposing, with

Cyril,

Hilary,
allusion

Chrysostom,
is

Augustine, Jerome, Erasmus, that the

to

a cross

with Hebart, that it is to the rending of heaven or the appearing of angels with Fleck and
appearing in the heavens
Olshausen, that
;
;

it is

to the star of the

Messiah (Num. xxiv. 17);


150
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. more by way of
conjecture.

similarly Bleek, though rather

Following the older expositors, Fritzsche, Ewald, Hengstenberg,

K.

Hofmann understand
r.

the coming Messiah Himself : " mira" (accord;

culum, quod Jesus revertens Messias oculis objiciet

ingly, taking rov vlov

av6p. as a genitive of subject

p.

while

Wolf, Storr, "Weiss, Bibl. Theol.

genitive of apposition).

56, ed. 2, assume

is

it

to be a

This view

inconsistent not only

oyjrovrai top vlov, k.tX.

with what follows, where the words koI

evidently point to something
still

farther in the future,

also

and

which the
reference
is

o-rj/jieiov

serves to
3.

introduce, but

with the
is

question of the disciples, ver.

B.

Hofmann

thinks that the

to that apparition in the

form of a

man which

alleged to have stood over the holy of holies for a whole night

while the destruction of the capital was going on.

story (chronicled
;

A legendary

by Ben-Gorion) and it may be added that what is said, vv. 29-31, certainly does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, after which event Hofmann supposes our evangelist to have written. Lastly, some (Schott, Kuinoel) are even of opinion that arj/xeiov does not point to any new and special circumstance at all to anything beyond what is contained in ver. 2 9 but the introduction of the sequel by Tore

is

decidedly against this view.

:

fcal

brought forward
played.

Ko-^rovTat]

and

then,

when

this
xii.

arjfielov

Comp. Zech.

Tore] a new point has been dis10; Bev. i. 7 with

;

what a

totally different order of things are they

now on

the

point of being confronted, what a breaking up and subversion

of all the previous relationships of
life,

what a separation

of

elements hitherto mingled together, and what a deciding of

the final destinies of

ushering in of the
terror

men new

at the

judgment of the old and the

Hence, being seized
(see

alwv
will

with

and anguish, they

mourn

on

xi.

17).

The

sorrow of repentance (Dorner, Ewald) is not to be regarded as There is no adequate reason excluded from this mourning.
to suppose, with Ewald, that, in the collection of our Lord's

sayings (the \oyia), oyfrovrai probably occurred twice here, and

that
it

was reserved
/c.t.X.]

for the last redactor of those sayings to

make a play upon

ip%6/j,evov,

the word

by substituting
13.

as in

Dan.

vii.

Ko^rovrai.
k.

fiera

Swap.

Sol;.

CHAP. XXIV.

31.

151

7toX.X.]

This great power and majesty will also be displayed in

the accompanying angel-hosts, ver. 31.

t?7?

The

iraa-ai
"

at <f>v\al

7%

are not

" omnes familiae Judaeorum

(Kuinoel), as

those

who explain ver. 29 ff. of the destruction of Jerusalem must understand the words, but all the tribes of the earth. Comp. Gen. xii. 3, xxviii. 14.
:

Ver. 31. Kal aTroareXeT] And He will send forth, i.e. rov? from the clouds of heaven, 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. a<yyi\ov<i avrov] the angels specially employed in His

service.

fiera o-aX'Trcyyof

<pcovr)<;

fieydX.] ivith

(having

an accompaniment) a trumpet of a loud sound. The second genitive qualifies and is governed by the first see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 29 5 [E. T. 343]. The idea is not that the individual angels blow trumpets, but what is meant (Isa. xxvii. 13) is the last trumpet (1 Cor. xv. 52), the trumpet of God (1 Thess. iv. 16), which is sounded while the Messiah is sending forth the
as
;

angels.

The resurrection
as

of believers is also to be understood

as
(1

taking place on the sound of this trumpet being heard

Cor.

above;
(xxiii.

Thess. as
;

above).
ii.

eTriavvd^ova-i]
i.

gather together

27

2 Thess.

2 Mace.

27,

ii.

18),

namely, toward the place where

He

is

in the act of appearing

upon

earth. This gathering together of the elect, which is to be a gathering from every quarter (comp. Eev. i. 7), and from the whole compass of the earth, is an act and accompaniment of the second advent (in answer to Cremer's distinction, see Hoelemann, p. 1 71). But the dpird^eadat eh dipa, to meet the Lord as He approaches (1 Thess. iv. 17), is to be regarded

as taking place after this gathering together has been effected.

Tou?

eVXe/cr. avrov] the elect belonging to Him (chosen by God for the Messianic kingdom, as in ver. 22). Comp. Bom. i. 6. dirb atepwv ovpav.] ab extremitatibus coelorum usque ad extremitatcs eorum, i.e. from one horizon to the other (for ovpavwv without the article, see Winer, p. 115 [E. T.

150]), therefore from the whole earth

extremities of the sky seem to
Ps. xix. 7.
rest.

(ver. 14),

on which the
32, xxx. 4;

Deut.

iv.

As showing

the exegetical abuses to which this

grand passage has been subjected, take the following, Lightfoot

:

"

emittet Alius homines ministros suos

cum tuba

evan-

152
gelica," etc.
;

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Kuinoel (comp. Wetstein)
" in tanta calamitate

Judaeis, adversariis religionis

Christianae,

infligenda, ubivis

locorum Christi sectatores per dei providentiam illaesi servaOlshausen he will send out men armed with buntur," etc. the awakening power of the Spirit of God, for the purpose of
; :

assembling believers at a place of safety.

the view of Tholuck
also.

This

is

substantially

It may be observed, moreover, that

p.

this passage forbids the

view of Kostlin,

26, that our Gospel

does not contain a specifically Christian, but merely an ethical

universalism (as contrasted with Jewish obduracy).

the
other

See,

on
ff.,

hand, especially

viii.

11,

xxii.

f.,

xxv.

31

xxviii. 19, etc.

Ver. 32

f.

Cheering prospect for the disciples in the midst

of those final convulsions

a
and

prospect depicted by means of

a pleasing scene taken from nature.

this passage
Okpos, (2) of rrdvra ravra,

The understanding

of

depends on the correct interpretation

also (3)

(1) of to

on our taking care not

to

supply anything
6vpai<$.

eVt

is

we

choose as the subject of iyyus iartv

8e

is

simply p,ra/3ariKov.

airo

rrj<i

crv/079]
the
(rrjv

the article
fig-tree,
i.e.

generic; for drro, comp.

on

xi.

29.

From

in the case of the fig-tree, see the parable

is

irap) that
referred

intended for your instruction in the circumstances

to.

For the

article

conveys the idea of your simili3.

tude

here, however, irapa^dXi]

rrapdheiyfia.

Comp. on
the

xiii.

means simply a comparison, teal ra <f)v\\a i/c^vy]

and puts forth

leaves

(the

subject

being

ickahos;).

Matthaei, Fritzsche, Lachmann, Bleek, on the authority of

F.

G H K
aorist,
p.
i.e.

M V
et

A, Vulg.

It.,

write
(see,

i/c<pvfj,

taking

it

as

an
I.

folia edita fuerint

case

in general, Kiihner,

930
is

f).

But in that

what would be the meaning of

?

the allusion to the branches recovering their sap

it

Further,

only by taking

k. t. <. e/ccfrvr]

as present that the strictly

:

definite

element

is

brought out, namely

in the act of budding. ro 6 epos] is usually taken in the sense of aestas, after the Vulgate. But, according to the correct interpretation of rrdvia ravra,

when

the fc\dSo<;

is

in the present instance,

sufficiently near to

summer would be too late and too indefinite nor would it be accord with iyyvs ianv iirl Ovpais. Hence
;

CHAP. XXIV.

32, 33.

153

it is

better to understand the harvest (equivalent to 6eptap,6^,

p.

Photius,

86, 18) as referred

to,

as in Prov. xxvi. 1

Dem.

1253. 15, and frequently in classical writers; Jacobs, ad Comp. also Ebrard, Keim. It is not, Anthol. VIII. p. 357.
that

however, the fig-harvest (which does not occur till August) is meant, but the /naY-harvest, the formal commenceof

ment

which took place as early as the second day of the

Passover season.

ovrco

k.

vfjbet<f\

so

understand ye

also.

For the preceding

indicative,

ycvdoa-Kere,
so,

expressed what was

matter of common observation, and

disciples also

in a

way
etc.

corresponding
iSrjre

to the observation referred to, should (yivcocrK. imperative) the

on their part understand,

the reference
of rrdvra

orav
It

rrdvra ravra] when ye will have

to

seen all this.

is

usual
of

seek for

Tama

in

the

part

the passage before ver. 29, namely, in what Jesus has just
foretold as to all the things that were to precede the second

coming.

But arbitrary
the length

as

this

is,

it

is

outdone by those
the reference of

who go

of merely

picking out a few from the

phenomena
tatis

in question, in order to restrict

rrdvra ravra to

them

as, for

example, the incrementa maligni-

(Ebrard), or
to

preaching
If

the cooling of love among believers, the the Gentiles, and the overthrow of Jerusalem (Gess).

we

are to take the

words in their plain and obvious mean-

ing (ver. 8), rrdvra ravra can only be understood to refer to

what immediately precedes, therefore to what has been predicted, from that epoch-making ver. 29 on to ver. 31, respecting the a-rjixelov of the Son of man, and the phenomena that were to accompany the second coming itself When they shall have seen all that has been announced, vv. 29-31, they are to understand from it, etc. on e'771;? iariv eVl Ovpais] To supply a subject here is purely arbitrary the Son of man has been supposed by some to be understood (Fritzsche, de Wette, Hofmann, Bleek, Weiss, Gess) whereas the subject is to Oepos, which, there being no reason to the contrary, may also be extended to ver. 33. This 6epo<s is neither the second corning (Cremer), nor the judgment (Ebrard), nor the kingdom of God generally (Olshausen, Auberlen), nor even the diffusion

of Christianity (Schott), but simply the harvest, understanding

154
it,

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

however, in the higher Messianic sense symbolized by the

vi.

natural harvest (Gal.

tion in the Messianic

2 Cor.

ix. 6),

namely, the recep-

kingdom of that eternal reward which awaits all true workers and patient sufferers. That is the joyful (Isa. ix. 2) and blessed consummation which the Lord encourages His disciples to expect immediately after the phenomena and convulsions that are to accompany His second On iirl dvpais without the article, see Bornemann, advent. ad Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 2 and for the plural, see Kiihner, II. 1,

p.

17.
Ver. 34. Declaration to the effect that all this
is

to

take

place before the

generation then

living

should pass away.

The well-nigh absurd manner in which it has been attempted to force into the words rj <yevea avrrj such meanings as the
:

creation (Maldonatus), or
Jevjish

the

human

race

(Jerome), or

the

nation

(Jansen,

Calovius,
;

Wolf,

Heumann,

Storr,

Dorner, Hebart, Auberlen

xiii.

see,

on the other hand, on Mark

consisting of

30), or:

"the

class

of

men

my

helievers"

(Origen,

Chrysostom,

Theophylact,

Euthymius

Zigabenus,

Clarius, Paulus,

Lange), resembles the unreasonable

way

in

which Ebrard, following up his erroneous reference of irdvia ravra (see on ver. 33), imports into the saying the idea: indeab
fittura,
xxiii.

ipsorum (discipulorum) aetate omnibus ecclcsiae temporibus interan imaginary view which passages like x. 23, xvi. 28,
This also in 39, should have been sufficient to prevent. opposition to the interpretation of Cremer: " the generation of the
elect

now

in question,"
is

and that of Klostermann

" the (future)

generation lohich

to

witness those events" both of

foreign to the sense.

is

Comp.

xxiii.

36.

The iravra
or,

which are

ravra

the same as that of ver. 33, and therefore denoting neither

the mere prognostics of the second

definite, " the taking

advent,

away of

the

nor specially the destruction

kingdom from of Jerusalem

to be more Israel " (Gess),

(Schott,

E.

J.

Meyer, Hoelemann, Baumlein in Klaiber's Stud. I. 3, p.' 41 ff.). That the second advent itself is intended to be included, is likewise evident from ver. 36, in which the subject of the day and hour of the advent is introduced. Ver. 35. With the preceding iravra ravra <yevnr at, will

CHAP. XXIV. 36-39.

155

commence

the passing
iii.

away
;

of the fabric of the world as it

now

but what I say (generally, though with special reference to the prophetic utterances before us) will certainly not pass away, will abide as imperishable truth
exists (2 Pet.
7, 8)
(v.

18).

The utterance which

Comp.

fails of its

accomplishment
vii.

is

conceived of as something that perishes (Addit. Esth.

that ceases to exist.
eKTrlineiv,

2),

Eom.

ix.

6.

Yer. 36. The

affirmation of ver.

34,

however, does

not
to

exclude the fact that no one knows the day and hour
the second advent, with
its

when
is

accompanying phenomena,

take place.

It is to occur

tion then existing,

during the lifetime of the generabut no one knows on what day or at what

hour within the period thus indicated.

possible to tell

Accordingly

it is

im-

you anything more

than what

is

stated at ver. 34.

precise in regard to this

el
firj

6 irar. /mov fiovos]

This reservation on the part of the Father excludes even the

incarnate Son
to be

(Mark

xiii.

32).

The

limitation implied in our

passage as regards the

See, besides,

human

side of our Lord's nature is

viewed in the same light as that implied in xx. 23. on Mark xiii. 32. Vv. 37-39. But (Be, introducing an analogous case from

an early period in sacred history) as regards the ignorance as to the precise moment of its occurrence, it will be with the rjaav second coming as it was with the flood. .rpcoyovres] not for the imperfect, but to make the predicate more

Comp. on vii. 29. rpcoyeiv means 54-58, xiii. 18), not devouring like a beast (Beza, Grotius, Cremer), inasmuch as such an unfavourable construction is not warranted by any of the matters afterwards mentioned. yafiovvres . e7a/i.] uxores in matrimonium ducentes et filias collocantes, descriptive of a mode of life without concern, and without any foreboding of an impending catastrophe. teal ov/c e<yv(o<rav] The "it"
strongly

prominent.
eat

simply

to

(John

vi.

(see Nagelsbach, Iliad, p.

120,
is

ed.

3) to be understood after

eyvwaav
seeing

is

the
:

flood that

so near at hand.
intelligere "

Fritzsche's

interpretation

"

quod debebant
ark), is

Noah
it

build the

arbitrary.

from The time within

(namely,
that the

which

may

be

affirmed with certainty

second

156

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

advent will suddenly burst upon the world, cannot be supposed to refer to that which intervenes between the destruction

and the advent, a view precluded by the evdeax; That period of worldly unconcern comes in just before the final consummation, ver. 1 5 ff., whereupon the advent This last and most is immediately to follow (vv. 2932). distressing time of all, coupled with the advent immediately following it, forms the terminus ante quern, and corresponds to the trpo rov kcltcucXvctiiov of the Old Testament analogy.
of Jerusalem

of ver. 29.

iv

rj/nepa
iv.

y\

without

repeating

the

preposition

before

Comp. Xen. Anab. v. 7. 1 7, and Kiihner on Winer, Stallbaum, ad the passage; p. 393 [E. T. 524 ] Comp. ver. 50. Apol. 27 D. Plat. p. Vv. 40, 41. Tore] then, when the second advent will have jrapaXap.^dveTai] is taken thus suddenly taken place. away, namely, by the angels who are gathering the elect The use of the present tense here pictogether, ver. 31. tures what is future as though it were already taking place. But had this referred to the being caught up in the clouds, mentioned 1 Thess. iv. 17 (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen), dvaXapftdverai would have been used instead. acpUTai] is left, expressing ov irapaXafx^dveTaL in its Comp. xxiii. 38, xv. 14; Soph. 0. B. 599. positive form. away ! thou art not accepted. To It is tantamount to saying
(John
5 4).
;

understand the terms as directly the opposite of each other the one is taken captive, the other in the following sense
:

allowed

to

go

free

(Wetstein,
cannot,

Kuinoel),

is

grammatically

wrong

{irapaXafji^.
bello

when standing
surrender,
iv.

alone, be taken as

equivalent to
receiving

caperc, although it is

used to denote the

deditionem
accipcre,

of places into

in

Polyb.

ii.

54.

12,

iv.

63. 4,

65.

6),

and does violence

to the context to suit the exigencies of the erroneous reference

Eather compare John xiv. 3. no doubt admissible to interpret the expression in the similarly hostile sense: the one is seized (Polyb. iii. 69. 2 Baumgarten-Crusius) or carried off (iv. 5, 8; Num. xxiii. 27; But the ordi1 Mace. iii. 37, iv. 1), namely, to be punished. harmonizes better with the reference to ver. nary explanation
to the destruction of Jerusalem.

It is


CHAP. XXIV.
12.

157
ff.,

31, as well as with the subsequent parable, ver. 45

the 7rto-To? SovXos
is first

where

introduced.

Bvo

a\rj9ovaai,ic.T.\.~\
etc.

of two ivho grind at the mill, one will,

struction, in which,

by means
is

of a

/jLerd(3acri<;

airo okov

For the coneh fiepr/,

6
/xev fiera

the plural-subject

broken up into two separate persons,

comp. Horn.

77. vii.
Tj't,

306

tco

Be BuncpivOevre,

\abv
de of

Ayamv
al. ;

6 8' i$ Tpoocov 6/xaBov Kie.

Plat. Phaedr. p.

248 A,
cor.

see Dissen,

ad Pind.

01. viii.

37;

also

ad Dem.
to

p.

237

f.

If

we were
from
is

to

adopt the usual course

supplying eaovrat
as follows
:

ver.
he

40,

we would
all

require

translate

two will

grinding at the mill.

necessary
;

But

this supplying of eaovrai

not at

be gathered from the annexing of

the matter.

the participle,

as may we have

in this other case, ver. 41, just a different

aXrjdovaai]
;

mode
;

of presenting

the hard

work usually performed

;

by the lower order of female slaves (Ex. xi. 5 Isa. xlvii. 2 Job xxxi. 10 Eccles. xii. 3), and such as is still performed in the East by women, either singly or by two workingand on the together (Eosenmiiller, Morgenl. on Ex. xi. 5
;

present passage, Robinson, Paldst.

II. p.

405

f.).

A
On

similar

practice prevailed in ancient Greece,

Hermann,
xxiii.

Privatalterth.

24. 8.

Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. Tim.

the un51
.

classical akrjOeiv (for akelv), see Lobeck,

ad Phryn.

p. 1

ev

/it)X&)]

which

is

not to be confounded (see the critical

notes) with [ivXcovi (a mill-house), is the millstone (xviii. 6) of the ordinary household hand-mill.
It

may

denote the lower

(Isa.
xlvii.

(Deut. xxiv.

6) as well as

the upper stone

2),

which

latter

eTTifivkiov

would be more precisely designated by the term (Deut. as above). It is the upper that is intended
;

in the present instance

the

women

sit

or kneel (Robinson as

above), hold the handle of the upper millstone in their hands

(hence iv

r.

p.

with the millstone), and turn

it

round upon

the lower, which does not move.

The

Ver. 42. Moral inference from vv.

36-41.
is is

Comp. xxv. 13.

is

following

on

k.t.X (because ye, etc.)

an emphatic

epexegesis of ovv.

This exhortation

likewise based on the

to take place in the

assumption that the second advent

lifetime of the disciples,

who

are called

upon

to wait for

it

158

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in an attitude of spiritual watchfulness (1 Cor. xvi. 13, 22).

The idea
(Eph.

of watchfulness, the opposite of security, coincides

with that implied in the constant

vi. 15).

Comp.
ver.

ver. 44.

eroifiao-la tou

evwyyeXiov

7rola\ at what (an early or

late).

Comp.
;

43; Eev.

iii.

3; 1

Pet.

i.

11; Eur.

Iph A. 815

Aesch. Ag. 278.

Ver. 43. But (that I may show you by means of a warning example how you may risk your salvation by allowing yourselves to be betrayed into a state of unpreparedness) know
this,

that

if,

etc.

olicoBecnroTr]';']

whom

the thief has anticipated.

the
.

particular
.

one

el fjSec

iyprjyoprja-ev

av\ if he had teen aware at what watch in the night the thief comes, to break into his house, he would have watched. But
as he does not

know

the hour which the thief chooses

is

(it

being different in different cases), he

found

off his

guard

when

the

burglary

is

being

committed.

The rendering
v.

vigilarct (Luther, Kuinoel, Bleek, after the Vulg.) is incorrect.

For the
2 Pet.
iii.

illustration

of the thief,
3, xvi.

comp. 1 Thess.

2,

10

Eev.

iii.

15.

Ver. 44.

Aid tovto]

in order that, as regards your salvation,

your case may not be similar to the householder in question, who ought to have watched, although he did not know the
<f)v\aK->]

of the thief.

have

been

had he watched.
(xxv.

spiritual

readiness for
surprise
to
f.

would spoken of their the second advent, which would take

teal vfiel<}]

as the householder

erot/xot]

them by
they were
Ver.

10;

Tit.

iii.

1).

This preparedness

acquire for themselves (ylveaOe).

45

Ti? a pa,

/c.t.X.]

ivho therefore, considering the

necessity for preparedness

itself
is

thus

indicated.

The inference

presented in the form of an allegory, the SovXos

representing the disciples

whom

the Lord has appointed to be

the guides of His church, in which they are required to show

themselves faithful (1 Cor. iv. 1 f.) and prudent, the former by a disposition habitually determining their whole behaviour

and characterized by devotion to the will of the Lord, the latter by the intelligent choice of ways and means, by taking proper advantage of circumstances, etc. The t/<? is not equivabut lent to el' Ti? (Castalio, Grotius), which it never can be
;


CHAP. XXIV.
47-51.

159
and
ver.

ver.

45 asks

who
;

then,

is

the faithful slave ?

46

contains the answer

the latter, however, being so framed that

in accordance with the terms of
his lord,

instead

of simply
" it

saying,
is he,

the question,

whom

on his return,"

etc.,

prominence is given to the blessedness of the servant here in According to Bengel, Fritzsche, Fleck, de Wette, our view. question touchingly conveys the idea of seeking for : quis tandem, etc., " hunc scire fervelim? To this, however, there is the logical objection, that the relative clause of ver. 45 would in that case have to be regarded as expressing the characteristic feature in the faithful and wise slave, whereas this feature is first mentioned in the relative clause of ver. 46, which clause therefore must contain the answer to the quesoliceTela, domestic tion, Tt? apa iarlv 6 7T4<tto9 B. k. <pp. servants, Lucian, Merc. cond. 15 Strabo, xiv. p. 668. Comp. oLKerla, Symmachus, Job i. 3 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 505. our cd?] thus, in accordauce with duty assigned him in ver. 45 the principal emphasis being on this word, it is put at the end of the sentence.

Ver.
ting

47.

He

will assign

him a
his

far higher position,

etc.

set-

him not merely over

in

domestics, but,

The
as

av/xfiaaikeveiv

the Messiah's

kingdom

is

represented

being in accordance with that principle of gradation on which

faithfulness

and prudence are usually rewarded in the case Comp. xxv. 21 ff Luke xix. 1 7 ff. Vv. 48-51. \Eay Be, /c.t.X,.] the emphasis is on 6 tca/co? as contrasting with 6 irtaroq k. (ppovifios, ver. 45, therefore K6tvo<;] refers back to ov Karecn^aev, 6 aiu<JTo<$ k. acppcov. k.t.X, ver. 45, and represents the sum of its contents. Hence but suppose the worthless servant who has been put in that position shall have said, etc. To assume that we have here a blending of two cases (the servant is either faithful or wicked), the second of which we are to regard as presupposed and pointed to by eKelvos (de Wette, Kaeuffer), is to burden the passage with unnecessary confusion.
of ordinary servants.
;
.

ap^rjTat,] will have begun, does not refer to the circumstance

that

the lord

surprises

him

in

the

midst of his misde-

meanours

(Fritzsche), because in that case

what follows would

160
also

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

have to be regarded as depending on apgvrai, but on
it

the contrary

brings out the fearless wickedness of the

to tyrannical

man

abandoning himself
fications.

behaviour and sensual grati-

conduct was

been set behaved himself apart from his relation to the

Bi^orofirjo-eL ai/Tov] he will cut

k. 7r.] Before, we were told what his toward his fellow-slaves over whom he had now, on the other hand, we are shown how he

iadiT] Se

olfcerela.

him in two
;

(Plat. Polit. p.

Ex. xxix. 17), a form of punishment according to which the criminal was sawn asunder,
Polyb.
vi.

302 F;
2 Sam.

28. 2

x.

15. 5

xii.
:

31
"

Calig. xvii.

1 Chron. xx. 3 Heb. medios serra dissecuit."

;

xi.

37.

Comp. Sueton.
vii.

Herod,

37.

See,

in general, Wetstein
sage.

and Eosenmiiller, Morgenl., on our pas-

no force in the usual objection that, in for, is assumed to be still living in the words koX to fxepos avrov, k.tX., which are immediately added, we have a statement of the thing itself, which the similitude of that terrible punishment was
There
is

what

follows,

the slave

intended to
sistent

illustrate.

All
:

other explanations
he
ivill

are

incon-

with the

text,

such as

tear

him with

the scourge

(Heumann, Paulus, Kuinoel, Schott, de Wette, Olshausen), he will cut him off from his service (Beza, Grotius, Jansen, Maldonatus comp. Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus), or he will withdraw his spiritual gifts from him (Basil, Theophylact), or generally: he will punish him with the utmost severity zeal to /xepo? avrov, k.t.X.] and will assign (Chrysostom). him his proper place among the hypocrites, i.e. he will condemn
or
:

him
xiii.

to

have his

fitting portion in

common with
iv
pepet,

the hypocrites,

that thenceforth he
8,

may

share their fate.

and the

classical

phrase

Comp. on John twos rlQeaQai.

Piabbinical

writers likewise regard

;

of

hypocrites

see

Schoettgen.

Gehenna as the portion But the expression twv

vTroKpiT. is

made use

of here because the /caicbs Sovkos is a

hypocrite in the inmost depths of his moral nature, inasmuch

as he acts under the impression ^povi^et, jmov 6 icvpios, though he hopes that when his lord arrives he will be able to assume the appearance of one who is still faithfully discharging his duty, just as he must have pretended to be

CHAP. XXIV.

161

good at the time when he received the trust which had been committed to him but now he is suddenly unmasked.
;

e'/cet]

namely, in
1.

hell, viii.

12,

xiii.

42, 50, xxii. 13, xxv. 30.

from ver. 29 onadvent, after having spoken, in what precedes that verse, of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of that, too, as an event that was to take place immediately All attempts to obtain, for the before His second coming. evd'sug of ver. 29, a different terminus a quo (see on ver. 29), and therefore to find room enough before this eldsug for an interval, the limits of which cannot as yet be assigned, or to fix upon some different point in the discourse as that at which the subject of the second advent is introduced (Chrysostom: ver. 23; E. J. Meyer: ver. 35; Susskind ver. 36; Kuinoel ver. 43; Lightfoot, Wetstein, Flatt: not till xxv. 31 Hoelemann: as early as xxiv. 19), are not the fruits of an objective interpretation of the text, but are based on the assumption that every trifling detail must find its fulfilment, and lead to interpretations in which the meaning is explained away and twisted in the most violent way possible. The attempts of Ebrard, Dorner, Cremer, Hoelemann, Gess, to show that the prediction of Jesus is in absolute harmony with the course of history, are refuted by the text itself, especially by ver. 29 above all is it impossible to explain vv. 15-28 of some event which is still in the womb of the future (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. p. 630 ff.) ; nor again, in ver. 34, can we narrow the SCOpe of the Kavra raura, or extend that of the ysvsa, a\)T-/\, or make yhrjrai denote merely the dawning of the events in question. Remark 2. It is true that the predictions, ver. 5 ff., regarding the events that were to precede the destruction of Jerusalem were not fulfilled in so special and ample a way as to harmonize with the synoptical representations of them ; still, that they were so in all essential respects, is proved by what we learn from history respecting the impostors and magicians that appeared, the wars that raged far and near, the numerous cases of famine and earthquake that occurred, the persecutions of the Christians that took place, the moral degeneracy that prevailed, and the way in which the gospel had been proclaimed throughout the world, and all shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (after the Jews had begun to rise in rebellion against the Roman authority in the time of Gessius Floras, who became procurator of Judea in 64). This prophecy, though in every
It is exegetically certain that

Remark

ward Jesus announces His second

MATT.

II.

1C2

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

respect a genuine prediction, is not without its imaginative element, as may be seen from the poetical and pictorial form Compare on ver. 7, Eemark. But it in which it is embodied. is just this mode of representation which shows that a vati-

cinium post eventum (see on ver. 1) is not to be thought Comp. Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Pfleiderer.

of.

to the difficulty arising out of the advent did not take place, as Jesus had predicted it would, immediately after the destruction of Jeruand as an explanation of which the assumption of a salem, blending of type and antitype (Luther) is arbitrary in itself, and only leads to confusion, let the following be remarked for (1) Jesus has spoken of His advent in a threefold sense He described as His second coming (a) that outpouring of
3.

Eemark

With regard

fact that the second

the Holy Spirit which was shortly to take place, and which was actually fulfilled; see on John xiv. 18 f., xvi. 16, 20 ff., also on Eph. ii. 17; (&) that historical manifestation of His

majesty and power which would be seen, immediately after His ascension to the Father, in the triumph of His cause upon the earth, of which Matt. xxvi. 64 furnishes an undoubted example; (c) His coming, in the strict eschatological sense, to raise the dead, to hold the last judgment, and to set up His kingdom, which is also distinctly intimated in such passages of John as vi. 40, 54, v. 28, xiv. 3 (Weizel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 626 ff.), and in connection with which it is to be observed that in John the avasrrieai avrbv lyu rfj senary ri/ispcf. (vi. 39 f., 44, 54) does not imply any such nearness of the thing as is implied when the spiritual advent is in question but, on the contrary, presupposes generally that believers will have to undergo death. Again, in the parable contained in Matt. xxii. 1-14, the calling
;

of the Gentiles is represented as coming after the destruction of so that (comp. on xxi. 40 f.) in any case a longer interval is supposed to intervene between this latter event

Jerusalem

and the second coming than would seem to correspond with the tWsui of xxiv. 29. (2) But though Jesus Himself predicted His second coming as an event close at hand, without understanding it, however, in the literal sense of the words (see above, under a and b) though, in doing so, He availed Himself to some extent of such prophetical phraseology as had come to be the stereotyped language for describing the future establishment of the literal kingdom of the Messiah (xxvi. 64), and in this way
;

made use

for the purpose of

it is

of the notions connected with this literal kingdom embodying his conceptions of the ideal advent, nevertheless highly conceivable that, in the minds of the

CHAP. XXIV.

163

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

.,


164
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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

CHAP. XXIV.

165

although no doubt can be said to exist as to the conditional nature of the Old Testament prophecies (Bertheau in the Jahrb. f. D. Thiol. 1859, p. 335 ff.). If, as Olshausen thinks, it was the wish of the Lord that His second advent should always be looked upon as a possible, nay, as a probable thing, and if it was for this reason that He spoke as Matthew represents Him to have done, then it would follow that He made use of false means for the purpose of attaining a moral end, a thing even more inconceivable in His case than theoretical error, which latter Strauss does not hesitate to impute. According to this view, to which Wittichen also adheres, it is to the ethical side of the ministry of Jesus that the chief importance

be attached. But it is precisely this ethical side that, in the case of Him who was the very depository of the intuitive truth of God, would necessarily be compromised by such an error as is here in view, an error affecting a prediction so intimately connected with His whole work, and of so much importance in its moral consequences. Comp. John viii. 46. Bemaek 4. The statement of ver. 29, to the effect that the second advent would take place immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that of ver. 34, to the effect that it would occur during the lifetime of the generation then living, go to decide the date of the composition of our Greek Matthew, which must accordingly have been written at some time previous to the destruction of the capital. Baur, indeed (Evangelien, p. 605 Neut. Theol. p. 109), supposes the judgment that was immediately to precede the second advent to be represented by the Jewish war in the time of Hadrian, and detects the date of the composition of our Gospel (namely, 130-134) in the /SdsX. rSjg sprifius. of ver. 15, which he explains of the statue of Jupiter which Hadrian had erected in the temple area (Dio Cass. lxix. 12). Such a view should have been felt to be already precluded by vv. 1-3, where, even according to Baur himself, it is only the first devastation under Titus that can be meant, as well as by the parallel passages of the other Synoptists; to say nothing, moreover, of the fact that a Literal destruction of Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian, which is mentioned for the first time by Jerome in his comment on Ezek. v. 1, is, according to the older testimony of Justin, Ap. i. 47, and of Eusebius, iv. 6, highly questionable (Holtzmann, p. 405). But as regards the y$vid, in whose lifetime the destruction of the capital and the second advent were (ver. 34) to take place, Zeller (in the Theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 299 f.), following Baur and Hilgenfeld, iib. d. Ev. Justin's, p. 367, has sought to make the duration of the period
is to

166

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in question extend over a century and more, therefore to somewhere about the year 130 and even later, although the common notion of a y%na was such that a century was understood to be equal to something like three of them (Herod, ii. 142 Thuc. 14. 1 Wesseling, ad Diod. i. 24). The above, however, i. is an erroneous view, which its authors have been constrained to adopt simply to meet the exigencies of the case. For, with such passages before them as x. 23, xvi. 28, neither their critical nor their dogmatical preconceptions should have allowed them to doubt that anything else was meant than the ordinary lifetime of the existing generation, the generation living at the time the discourse was being delivered (the ymsa xara rh napovra yjpwov, Dem. 1390, 25), and that, too, only the portion of their lifetime that was still to run. Comp. Kahnis, Dogm.
; ; jj

I. p.

494; Holtzmann,
ff.

p.

408; Keim,

p.

206; also Kostlin,

p:

114

CHAP. XXV.

167

CHAPTEE XXV.
Lachm. and Tisch. 8 'vrravrr^siv, following B C this been the original reading, it would also have forced its way into ver. 6, in which latter, however, it is Ver. 2. Lachm. and Tisch. 8: nevre found only in 157, Cyr.
Ver.
N, 1,
I.
1

airavTYietv]

Method.

Had

following B C D L Z X, niin. Considering what a preponderance of evidence is here, and seeing how ready the transcribers would be to place the wise first in order, the reading of the Eeceived Ver. 3. text must be regarded as a subsequent transposition. For air iv i there are found the readings (glosses): a) d's in Z, Vulg. codd. of the It. Lachm., and a\ yap in B C L N, Tisch. 8 ; Ver. 4. In witnesses of importance uiiruv likewise al olv in D. is wanting after dyys/oig, so that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it Ver.6. gp% sra/ ] is to be deleted as a common interpolation. is wanting in such important witnesses (B C* L Z X, 102, po Cant. Method. Ephr. Cyr.), and has so much Copt. Sahid. Ar the look of a supplement, that, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, it should be erased. But the avrov after andvr., which Tisch. 8 Ver. 7. For deletes, is wanting only in B X, 102, Meth. Cyr. auruv it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to read sauruv, following B L Z S. The reflective force of the pronoun had never been noticed, especially with ver. 4 preceding it, in which verse sauruv instead of auruv after "ha/iK. (so Tisch. 8) is supported only by the Ver. 9. For ovx, as in the Eeceived text, evidence of B K. there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of reading oh /&$, which Griesb. has recommended, and which Lachm., Tisch. 7, and also Scholz have adopted. The nn, which Fritzsche and Tisch. 8 have discarded, was omitted from its force not beinghi after vopsveads (in Elz., Tisch. 7) would be just understood. as apt to be inserted as a connective particle, as it would be ready to be omitted if noptbio-k, x.r.'k. was taken as the apodosis. Accordingly, the matter must be decided by a
hi i

abruv

v\6av /j,wpui

%al

irevrs <pp6vi/j,oi,

and

vss. (also

Vulg.

It.).

c,

The Codex Alex. (A)

joins the list of critical authorities for the

first

time at

ch. xxv.

It begins at ver. 6

with the word

i%spxirfa,

168

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

preponderance of evidence, and that is in favour of deleting the hi. Ver. 11. xai ai] Lachm. has simply a/, but against decisive evidence and then think how readily xai might be dropped out between tai and AI Ver. 13. After upav Elz. inserts sv p 6 vibe D dvQpuirov ep^srai, words which, in accordance with a decided preponderance of evidence, are to be regarded as a gloss (xxiv. 44). Ver. 16. Iiroinatv] A** B C L K** min. ixepd/iatv. Recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, adopted by Lachm. Gloss derived from what follows. The omission of the second rdXuvra by Lachm. is without adequate authority, nor had the transcribers any motive for inserting it comp. ver. 17. Ver. 17. xai avrog] is wanting in important

is erased by Lachm. and Tisch. 8 ; but, owing to the circumstance of Moavrug xai having preceded, it may very

witnesses,

and

readily have been left out as superfluous and clumsy. Ver. 18. Lachm. inserts rdXavrov after h, only on the authority of A, It.

but 'ixpv^iv (Lachm. Tisch.) for dnkxpu-^sv is supported by such a preponderance of evidence that it is unnecessary to regard it as taken from ver. 25. Ver. 19. It is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., to adopt in both cases the order <x6hi>v -fcpovov and Xoyov fur avruv, in accordance with preponderating evidence. Ver, 20. I* ahrotg] is omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, both here and in ver. 22, following B T) L N, mm. and vss., while E G, min. read h auroTg but D, Vulg. It. Or. insert svsxipdqffa

avroTg. before the Later variants are interpretations of the superfluous (and therefore sometimes omitted) lie aWo?g Ver. 21. Be, which Eiz. inserts after tipri, has been deleted, in accordance with preponderating evidence, as being an interpolation of the connective particle (so also Griesb., Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.). Ver. 22. Xa/Sw] is wanting in B C L A X, min. Syr. utr- ; a few min. have si\r)<pu>g. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly a supplement. Ver. 2 7. For to dpyup. (ton Tisch. 8 reads rd dpyvpid pay, following B X*, Syr. p Correctly the plural would be apt to be replaced by the singular (comp. Luke), because it is a question of one talent, and because of the rb i^6v following. Ver. 29. uwb de

min. rou 8i Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. the ordinary reading is by way of helping the construction. Ver. 30. lx$d\in for IxfidXhiri (in Elz.) is confirmed by decisive evidence. Ver. 31. Elz. Scholz insert dyioi before dyyiXoi, in opposition to B L n* S, min. and many vss. and Fathers. An adjective borrowed from the ordinary ecclesiastical phraseology, and which, though it might readily enough be inserted, would scarcely be likely to be omitted.
ro\j]

BDL

X,

CHAP. XXV. 1,2.

Corap. Zech. xiv.

169

40. ruv ddiXipuv poxi] wanting Bracketed by Laclim. But comp. ver. 45. Ver. 41. oi xurripap.'] Tisch. 8 has deleted the article, in accordance with BLX, and that correctly it is taken from
5.

Ver.

only in

B* and

Fathers.

ver. 34.

Ver.

f.

An

additional

exhortation

to

watchfulness

in

consequence of the day and hour of the advent being unknown, and embodied in the parable of the ten virgins, extending to ver. 13, which parable is peculiar to Matthew (having been taken from the collection of our Lord's sayings) for it is not the echoes of the present narrative, but something essentially different, that we meet with in Mark xiii. 35-37 and totc] then, i.e. on the day on which the Luke xii. 35-38. master will return, and inflict condign punishment upon his
;

worthless

slave.

Not

after

inflicting

this

punishment

(Fritzsche), for the parable is intended to portray the coming

of the Messiah

but neither, again,

is it to

be taken as pointchapter

ing back to ver. 37 and ver.

(Cremer), which would be an

14

of the previous

arbitrary interruption of the

regular sequence of the discourse as

indicated
;

by

rare.
vii.

ofioiwOrjcreTai] will be
rj

made
of

like,

actually so

see on

26.

/3ao-t\.
is,

Twv ovpav.]
when
that

the Messianic

kingdom, in respect,

that

will be followed

admission and exclusion that kingdom comes to be set up. %r}\dov els airavr. rov vvfi(p.] Here the marriage is not
of the principle

represented as taking place in the house of the bridegroom,

in

accordance with the usual practice (Winer, Eealw. I. p. 499; Keil, Arch. 109), but in that of the bride (Judg. xiv. 10), from which the ten bridesmaids set out in the evening for the purpose of meeting the expected bridegroom. The reason why
the parable transfers the scene of the marriage to the home of the bride, is to be found in the nature of the thing to be illustrated,

inasmuch

as, at

the time of His advent, Christ

is to

be

understood as coming to the earth and as setting up His

kingdom here below, and not

lowing parable,
ver. 14ff.

in heaven.

Comp.

also the folout,

igijXOov] they went

is

namely,

from the bride's house, which

(as airdvrrjaiv rov
vvfj,<j)LOv).

self-evident from the context

Bornemann

in the SUid. u. Krit.


170
1843,
p.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

112

f.,

who,
is

like the majority of expositors, supis

poses that what

here in view

the ordinary practice of

own house to that of the bridegroom (but see on ver. 10), and Ewald understand e^rjkOov of the setting out of the maids from their own homes to go
conducting the bride from her

to the house of the bride, in order to start

for the purpose of

from the latter meeting the bridegroom as he comes to

fetch

home

his bride.

But the meaning

-

of the terms forbids

us to assume different starting

airavir\criv

points for
is

OpjXdov and

et?

(Acts

xxviii.

15);

this

further precluded

by

the supposition, in itself improbable, that the foolish virgins

could not have obtained a fresh supply of

of the bride.

was the usual number for bridesmaids cannot be determined but generally " numero denario (as the base of their numeral system) gavisa plurimum est gens Judaica et in sacris et in civilibus," Lightfoot. Comp. (ppovip,oi] Comp. xxiv. 45, vii. 24, 26. Luke xix. 13. This second virtue belonging to a right eroifiaaia (see on
ten
;

Whether

oil

at the

house

xxiv. 55), viz. practical wisdom, is here intended to be

specially prominent.

made

The idea

of a contrast between chastity

and its opposite (Cremer) is quite foreign to the context. Comp. Kopdcriov (pp6vL[xov, Tob. vi. 12. Ver. 3. Airives fiwpal] sc. r)<rav, quotquot erant stultac.
e\a/3ov] they
took,

on setting out; not for the pluperfect p,ed' eavTwv] with themselves, namely, besides the oil that was burning in their lamps. Vv. 5, 6. The virgins, who, ver. 1, have left the house of the bride (in opposition to Cremer and Lange, who suppose i^rjkdov to contain a prolepsis), and therefore are no longer there, have betaken themselves to some house on the way
(Erasmus, Vatablus).
(igepXeaOe, observe), in order there to await the passing

the bridegroom.

The coming

of the latter

by of was delayed on till

midnight

the maids
(aorist),

who
"

sat waiting

began to get wearied,

they nodded

and
:

Ps. xxi. 4.

Vulgate

Comp. Isa. v. 27; dormitaverunt omnes et dormierunt."

slept (imperfect).

18 oil 6 vvp,(pios (without ep^erai, see

!

critical

remarks):

behold the bridegroom

coming a

little

way

off.

The cry of the people who see him They are made aware of his approach

CHAP. XXV.

7-13.

171

from seeing the light of the torches or lamps carried by those

who accompanied him

Ver. 7 f
.

in the procession.

'Efcoo-fnjo-av] they put in proper order, namely,

like,

by trimming the wick and such

eavrcov
(see critical remarks)
:

they dressed them.

going on.

each one her own; betokening

the individual preparation that was

now

<r/3ei/-

vvvrac] are just on the point of going out. vjaiv] Since ov fiij Ver. 9. Mi]jtot6
.
. .

is

the correct read-

ing (see critical remarks), and seeing that the aptcko-g following

cannot be regarded as dependent on

k.t.X.

firjirore,

but only on ov
ov
fir}

p,rj,

the punctuation should be as follows:

:

firjiroTe'
:

ap/ciay,

never (shall

we

For the absolute negative /jltj, comp. xxvi. 5 Ex. x. 11 Matthiae, p. 1454 Kuhner, II. 2, Correctly Bornemann, as above, p. 110 Bleek, p. 1047. Lange, Luthardt. Comp. Winer, p. 556 [E. T. 632] Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 107. Ver. 10 f. Wliile they were going away, came (not: aclvenerat, elarjXOov fier avrov] namely, into the house Eritzsche). of the bride, whither the bridegroom was on his way, and to which the maids were conducting him, with a view to the
not be enough for us
; ; ;
;

give you and you !

of our oil)

there will certainly

celebration of the

marriage.

The idea

of the bridegrooms
is

house being that referred to (see on ver. 1)

precluded by
expressive
of

the correlation in which rjXdev 6 vvfMpLos and elarjXQov fier

avrov stand to each other.

tcvpie,

/cvpie]

most urgent and anxious entreaty. Comp. vii. 21. Ver. 12 f. Ovk ol8a v/ia?] because ye were not amongst the bridesmaids who welcomed me, ye are to me as entire strangers whom I do not know, and who, therefore, can have The knowledge of experience arising no part in the marriage oat of the intercourse of life (vii. 23 1 Cor. viii. 3, xiii. 12
!

Gal.

iv.

9)

is

the

point intended to

be

thus

illustrated.

Besides, Jesus might also have said (in opposition to Cremer)

ovk eyvoov

v/jl.

(I

have not known you).

ovv\ because the

foolish virgins

were shut out, and because something corresponding to this would happen to you unless you watch. According to ver. 1 3, the teaching of the parable is : that the
moral preparedness that continues
to

maintain

itself

up

till

172
the

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

moment of the advent, the day and hour of which do not admit of being determined, will lead to participation in the Messianic kingdom, whereas those in whom this preparedness has not been maintained till the end tvill, when surprised by the sudden appearing of the Lord, experience in themselves the irre-

parable consequences of their foolish neglect, and be shut out from His kingdom. This latter is a negative expression of con-

demnation, not, as Olshausen supposes notwithstanding

eKXeurOij
r)

the

6vpa, merely a

way
iii.

of designating such a salvation

as is spoken of in 1 Cor.
tions

15.

More
oil,

specific interpretaetc.

of the virgins, the lamps, the

the Kpavyt],
Cyrill,

are

to be

found not only in Origen, Hilary,

p. 1 5 6

Chrysostom,

Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Augustine, Jerome (see

but also in Olshausen, von Meyer, Cremer, In those interpretations subjective opinion has, in most diverse and arbitrary fashion, exceeded the limits indicated by Jesus in ver. 13. Calvin well remarks: "Multum

Cremer,

ff.),

Lange, Auberlen.

se torquent

quidam in

lucernis, in vasis, in oleo.

est,

Atqui simtemporis

plex et genuina

summa

non

sufficere alacre exigui

studium, nisi infatigabilis constantia simul accedat."

is

Neither

the falling asleep of the virgins intended to be specially

it

significant; for, as

happened in the case of the exemplary

wise ones as well,

Ver. 14.

it

cannot represent any moral shortcoming.

The parable of the talents, extending to ver. 30,1 is introduced as an additional ground for the ypwyopeire, and that by viewing it as a question of work and responsibility. The parable in Luke xix. 12 ff., which, notwithstanding
the differences in regard to the
present in
its

individual features,

resembles

leading thoughts and

illustrations, is to

be regarded as a modification, arising in the course of the

Gospel tradition, of the more original and simpler one before

us (in opposition to Calvin, Olshausen, Neander, Holtzmann,

Volkmar), and which Luke also represents as having been spoken

1

In connection with this parable, compare the following traditional sayings

:

attributed to Christ
xviii. 20, etc.
i oi i
;

ylvurfa

rpa-n^iTai

lixiftoi
;

(Horn.

Clem.

ii.

51,

iii.
;

50,

Clement of Alexandria, Origen

iv

Apostolical Constitutions)
c.

and

av i/pas xa<ra\afZw,

voirois x.a)

xpnu (Justin,

Tr. 47).
for

Eusebhis gives a
see Mai's

kindred parable from the Gospel of the Hebrews, and patrum biblioth. IV. p. 155.

which

Nova

CHAP. XXV.
at a different time

15.

173
In this latter p. 1 8 1 an independent parable
.

comp. Weizsacker,
originally

Gospel

we have what was

I. p.

(that of the rebellious subjects) blended with that of the talents

(Strauss,

636
ff.).

Ewald,
it

p.

419

f.

Bleek, Keim, Weiss,

1864,

p.

128

If

be maintained, as Kern, Lange, Cremer,

are disposed to do, that in

distinct parables,

then there

is

Matthew and Luke we have two spoken by Jesus on two different occasions, no alternative but either to accept the unnatural

view that the simpler (Matthew's) is the later form, or to suppose, in opposition to what is recorded, that Jesus spoke the parable in Matthew, where, however, the connection is perfectly apposite, somewhat earlier than that in Luke (Schleiermacher, Neander). The one view as well as the other would be all the more questionable, that the interval during which Christ " intentionally employs the same parabolic materials for the purpose of illustrating different sub-

jects"

(Auberlen)
xiii.

would thus

comprise

only a few days.

Mark

34

is

extracted from what

Matthew has taken

from the collection of our Lord's sayings.

&airep,

k.t.\.]

a case of anantapodosis similar to that of

Mark

xiii.

34,

and doubtless
collection of

Eom.

v.

12.
it

discourse

parable with
apodosis by

what already appeared in the sayings from which the passage is taken. Comp. Fritzsche on ver. 30. At the outset of the would be the intention to connect the whole wairep, and, at the conclusion, to annex an means of o#t&>9 (probably ovrca koI 6 v!6<; r.
reproducing
or ovtcos corral
/cal
t)

dvdpcoTov
av6p.)
;

iroLrjaei,

irapovala

r.

vlov

r.

somewhat lengthened character of the parable, this had to be omitted. a 7roS ??//,.] on the point of going abroad (xxi. 33). rovs ISious SovXovs] not strangers, such as exchangers, but his own servants, of whom, therefore, he had a right to expect that they would do
but, considering the

their best to lay out for his advantage the

money

entrusted to

them.
Ver. 15.
fore,

Kara

rrjv
to

ihiav hvvap,iv\ not

arbitrarily, there("

but according

each one's pecidiar capabilities

pru-

dentia et peritia," Beza) for

doing business.

The

different

charismatic gifts are bestowed in a

manner corresponding

to

74

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

natural aptitudes
according
to

the varying
are
"

of men.

Those endowments

conferred

an

individualizing

Nemo

urgetur ultra

quam
money.

potest," Bengel.

ev6ewf\ immeand
Tisch. 8

principle.

diately, therefore

without making any further arrangements

Fritzsche, Rinck,
It.

for disposing of the

agree with

B and

several codd. of the

in connecting evdew?
either

with what follows.

to delete of this

In that case

it

would be necessary

to insert the Be of ver. 1 6 before iropevO. (K**), or, with Tisch.,

it altogether (K*). However, the evidence in favour view is quite inadequate. And it is precisely in connection with aTreSr/fATjaev that eu#e'&>9 is seen to have a peculiar significance, that, namely, of showing that absolute independence was allowed in regard to the way in which the money was to be employed by those to whom it had been entrusted, which is admirably in keeping with Kara rrjv ihiav

hvvafjiLv.

rdXavra]

see

on

xviii.

25.

ElpjdcraTo] traded ivith them (eV avTots, inVery common in classical writers (especially strumental). Demosthenes) with reference to commerce and matters of
Ver. 16.

exchange, though
instrument.
er machte

'

usually

with

the

simple

dative

of

the
:

iiroirjaev] he acquired, gained; as in

German

Geld (he made money). See instances in Wetstein and Kypke. So also the Latin facere. Ver. 18. Air e\6 (ov\ he went away, removed to a distance. How entirely different in the case of the two first, ver. 1 6 copv^ev iv t. 7$] They started upon a journey (7ropev6.). The reading <yrjv, he digged, i.e. he made a hole in the earth. which Tisch. adopts, following B L K (C* rrjv yrjv), but from

which the

would mean: he dug up the earth (Plat. to apyvp. rov /cvp. avr.] brings out Euthyd. p. 288 E). emphatically the idea of responsibility and dereliction of
vss. deviate,

duty.

Ver.
Col.
iii.
;

20

f.

\E7r'

av to 19] in addition
i8e

to

14.

The
:

points the master to

gained

the boldness of a good conscience.

excellent !

them; comp. on what had been

ev]
is

generally

taken absolutely

that is right

But

this

would
17,

have required e&ye (Plat. Gorg. p. 494 Soph. Phil. 327), which reading (taken from Luke

C; Lach. p.

181 A;
xix.

CHAP. XXV.

24, 25.

175

where evye

is

the original one) Fritzsche actually adopts, followIt.

ing A*, Vulg.

Or. (once).
:

Consequently we should connect

Thou wast admirably (probe) faithful in For ev when separated from the word to regard to a little. which it belongs, comp. Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 24 Mem. ii. 1. 33, 'AyaOe and 7riare represent the genus and Kiihner thereon. upright character. an The opposite of this and species of 26. %apav tov icvpiov crov] %apa is not et<? ttjp ver.
ev with ^? 7rtcrT09
;

to

be

understood

of

a feast

(Clericus,

Schoettgen,

Wolf,
is

Michelsen, Kuinoel, Schott), a sense in which the word

an inaccurate rendering), and which the context does not sanction any more than it countenances the idea of a festival in honour of the master's return (in opposition to de Wette and Lange); but what is
not used
Esth.
ix.
is

(LXX.

17

meant
ness
Trjv

is

that the slave

is

invited to participate in the happienjoying

which his master

Traaav /xaKapiorrjTa

is

(Chrysostom
rovrov
17.

admirably
thus
of the

Sea,

rod

p7)p,aro<;
viii.

&eifcvvs),

exhibiting the

thought of Eom.
is,

The use
is

expression eiaeXde

in that case, to be regarded as due to

the nature of the thing which the parable

trate (the Messianic kingdom).

meant

to illus-

Ver.
p.

24

f.

"Eyvaiv

ere,

on] well-known
aorist is not

attraction.

Winer,

581

[E. T. 781].

The

used here in the sense

but
:

of the perfect,
hid.

What

I know

thee (Kuinoel),

Jcneiv

thee,

and

follows characterizes, in proverbial language (by

a figure taken from farming), a

please,

man

unconscionably hard to

crvvdycov and demanding more than is reasonable. 69 ev ov 8teo-/cop7r.] gathering (corn into the cnrodrjicri) from a place where you have not threshed (with reference to the threshing-floor of another
to separate

man's farm).

hiaaKopivi^eiv, to scatter so as

from, each other (for the classical character of which

is

expression see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 213),

expressly used in

the present instance, because

forms a better contrast to avvdyoav than Xi/c/xav (xxi. 44). If it were to be taken as equivalent to cnreipetv, the result would be a tautological
it

parallelism (in opposition to Erasmus, Beza, de Wette).

entire excuse is a false pretext invented

a pretext which

is

The by moral indolence, reduced ad absurdum in vv. 26, 27.


176
(f>

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

namely, of losing the talent in business, or of not

o/3 r)6 els]

being able to satisfy thee.

Ver. 26
f.

to aov]
is

self-righteous.

The master

chastises the worthless

and indolent
ySeis, k.t.X.]

(Rom.

xii.

11) servant with his

own weapons.
more
spirited

question of astonishment,

which

and more in

keeping with the surprising nature of the excuse than to understand the words in a conceding sense (Kuinoel, de Wette), or
as

case the ovv of the apodosis

an independent hypothesis (Bernhardy, p. 385), in which would be deprived of its force Klotz, ad Devar. p. (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 22 f to?? rpwTre^.] flinging doivn upon the {3a\elv 718 ).
;

table of the money-changers, represents the indifference of the i<y(o] is emphatic as related to the preceding l&e, proceeding,

e^et? to aov, ver. 25.

To

it

likewise corresponds to

ifiov, to

which, however, <tvv tokw

is

now added
mode

for sake of emphasis.

Vv. 2830. Ovv] because his conduct was so inexcusable.

Ver.
was
12.

29. Justification of this

of proceeding,

by appeal-

ing to a principle founded on universal experience, and which

tov

to find its verification in the case before us.

Be

fir)

e%ovTo<;] see

critical

remarks.

Comp. xiii. The genitive,

here placed

sake of emphasis, might be regarded as dependent on apO^aeTat (Fritzsche), in accordance, that is, witli the construction of verbs of depriving with twos rt (Kiihner, Inasmuch, however, as the air ai/rov which II. 1, p. 282).
first for

follows

would thus be superfluous and clumsy,

it is

better to

take the genitive as absolute: as for him who has not (the poor

We thus man); comp. Thuc. v. 18. 8, and Kriiger thereon. obtain "duobus membris factis ex uno oppositio ncrvosior'" For %(ov, the rich man, (Dissen, ad Bern, de cor. p. 272). For ver. 30, comp. Isocr. vii. 55 and Benseler thereon.

comp.
its

viii.

12,

xiii.

42, 50,

xxii.

13, xxiv. 51.

The verse

is

not here out of place, but acquires a certain solemnity from

resemblance to the conclusion of

ch. xxiv. (in opposition

to Weiss,

1864,

p.

129).

By a faithful use, after my deTeaching of the parable. parture, of those varied endowments which I have bestowed on
:

each of you according to his special capacity, you are to do your

utmost

to

promote

my

cause.

For when I return and reckon

CHAP.

XX V.

31-33.

177
exerted themselves in

with you
a dutiful

(ver.

19), then those

who have

manner

will receive a distinguished reward in the

;

kingdom
gifts,

of the Messiah

but those who have allowed their

unused, will be deprived of that however small, to them, and be cast into Gehenna. entrusted to which has been interpretations, all of them of and specific minute For more character, arbitrary see Origen, Chrysostom, or less more a The reference to all Christian endowments geneTheophylact. rally (1 Cor. xii.), is to be regarded rather as an application of the parable in a more comprehensive sense. Ver. 31 ff. It is unnecessary to suppose that this utterance about the judgment an utterance taken, like the preceding, should be from the collection of our Lord's sayings (\6<yta) immediately connected with xxiv. 30 f. (Fritzsche, de Wette) The coming of the Messiah and gr with xxiv. 51 (Ewald). His judicial dealing with His servants had been portrayed immediately before, and now the prophetic glance extends and takes in the judgment of all nations, a judgment which
lie

is

to

be

presided

over by the Lord

the grand

when He

returns in

His

glory.

This

is

closing scene in

which the
there
is

eschatological predictions are all to be realized, and depicted

too with a simplicity and beauty so original that

but the
feld,

less

reason for imagining that this discourse about

is

the judgment

the product of the apostolic period (Hilgen-

It is usual to Volkmar, Scholten, Wittichen, Keim). understand those vvho are being judged as representing men

generally,

Christians
expositors,
p.

and

non-Christians
Fritzsche,

alike

(see,

among
Lange,

modern
Hofmann,

Ivuinoel,

de

Wette,

Weizel, as above,

603
p.

Kaeuffer, de &)%

alcov. not. p.

44

Bleek arbitrarily assuming that the evangelists have extended the application of what
Sehriftbew.

645),

originally

referred

only to
ed.

Christians.

On
ff.,

the other hand,

Keil (in the Opusc.,

III.

Goldh. p.

136

and Anal. 1813,

and Olshausen, as well as Baumgarten-Crusius, 1845, p. 18 f Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, Volkmar, Keim, Wittichen, Auberlen, Cremer, understand all who are not Christians to be referred to, some of But nonthem, however, expressly excluding the Jews.
ff.)

177

Georgii in Zeller's Jahrb.

MATT.

II.

; ;

178

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Christians could not have been intended, because it would be improper to say that the Messianic kingdom has been prepared for such, to say nothing of the airo fcaTa(3o\r)$ ko<j\iov, ver. 34,
in

which the idea

it

of the

IkK^ktoI

is

exclusively involved

further, because

would be no

less

improper to suppose,

without more ado, that non-Christians are intended by the ol Slkcuoi of ver. 37, which latter we are not at liberty to

understand in a generalized sense, but only as equivalent to the elect again, because those things which Jesus represents
;

35, 36, 60) as manifestations of love toward Himself cannot possibly be conceived of as done by those who, never(vv.
theless, continued to
finally,

because
(vv.

both

language
belief

in the
is

37 ff., Judge

remain outside the Christian community assemblage use such sides of the 44) as compels us to acknowledge their
before

whom

they

now

stand.

Their

language

the expression of a consciousness of their faith in

the Messiah, towards

whom, however, they have had no opporIf the Messianic felicity

tunity of displaying their love.

here adjudged to pure heathens according to the

way

in

they may have acted toward Christians (Hilgenfeld), this be to suppose a " remarkable toleration " (Keim) altogether at variance with the whole tenor of the New Testament, and such as even Rev. xxi. 24 (see Dusterdieck on that passage)
does not countenance,
faith,

were which would

a humanity

which

does
it

not
its

need
love

because
p.

it

compensates for the want of

If,

by

(Volkmar,

546).
further,

after

all

tins,
is

that a judgment of non- Christians

we cannot suppose here meant, we may

and say that non-Christians are not included at all, and so we must also reject the view usually adopted, since Chrysostom and Augustine, that what is here exhibited is a judgment of all men, believers and unbelievers For, so far from the mention of the divine iicXoyrj, alike. ver. 34, or the idea of the hUaioi, ver. 37, or what Jesus
even go
still

at ver. 35, or the answer of those assembled before vv. 37 and 44, or the entire omission generally Judge, the between belief and unbelief, harmonizing distinction of any

says

with the notion of a mixed body consisting of Christians and We should non-Christians, they entirely exclude the latter.

CHAP. XXV.

31-33.

179
vii.

therefore return to the very old view (Lactantins, Instit.

20; Jerome, Euthymius Zigabenus), which, though it had been neglected in consequence of the prevalent eschatology, was
preserved by Grotius, the view, namely, that what Jesus
here depicting
is the

is

judgment of Christians
all,

irepl

twv Xpia-

Tiavwv Se
proves

fiovoov 6

X070? ivravOa, Euthymius Zigabenus,

who

this,

above

from

vv.

35,

36.

All the points

previously adduced as arguments against the other explanaIt is confirmed by the tions combine to favour this view. whole fundamental idea on which the Judge's sentence turns (the determining principle being the love manifested toward Jesus), by the figure of the shepherd and his sheep, and finally, and at the same time somewhat more definitely, by the fact that those who are being judged are called iravra to, eOvr). For the latter words are not intended to limit the reference expressly to the Gentiles, but they are to be taken as assuming the realization of the universality of Christianity by the time of the advent when all the nations of the eartli
{edvq, as expressing the idea of nation, does not exclude the

Jews; comp. xxviii. 19, xxiv. 9, and see on John xi. 50) will have heard the gospel and (to a proportionable degree) received Christ (xxiv. 14; Kom. xi. 25). Jesus, then, is here^ ' describing the universal judgment of those who have believed in Him, in whom, as they will be gathered around His throne, His prophetic glance beholds all the nations of the world (xxviii. 19). Comp., for the judgment of Christians, The judgment of unbelievers 2 Cor. v. 10; Eom. xiv. 10. comp. on xix. 28), who are not in (1 Cor. xv. 23, vi. 2
\

question at present, forms a distinct scene in the

assize;

universal

and hence in the preceding parable also the reference is to His servants, therefore to believers. Neither here nor in the passages from Paul do those different judgment
scenes presuppose anything in the shape of chiliastic ideas.

The Messianic judgment is one act consisting of two scenes, not two acts with a chiliastic interval coming in between. See, on the other hand, xiii. 37 ff. iravres ol a<yye\oi] " omnes ra irpoangeli, omnes nationes quanta celebritas !" Bengel.

(3aTa airb twv epicfxav] sheep and goats (Ecclus.

xlvii.

3;

180

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

together (comp.

Gen. xxxviii. 17) are here represented as having been pastured Gen. xxx. 33 ff.). The wicked are conceived

of

under

the figure of the

eptcpoi,

not on account of the

wantonness and stench of the latter (Grotius), or in consequence of their stubbornness (Lange), but generally because
those animals were considered to be comparatively worthless

(Luke xv. 29)

to, iplcpia for

and hence, in

ver. 33,

we have

the diminutive

the purpose of expressing contempt.

For

the

significance attached to the right

and left side (Eccles. x. 2), Hermann, see Schoettgen and Wetstein on our passage. Gottesd. Alterth. xxxviii. 9 f. Comp. Plat. Rep. p. 614 C;
Virg. Aen.
vi.

542

f.

Ver. 34. '0/3aert\eu<?] because Christ

is

understood to

have appeared iv rfj fiaaiXela avrov, xvi. 28, which fact is here ol v\oyijfj,evoi tov irarpos self-evident from ver. 31. fiov] the blessed of my Father (for "in Christo electi sumus," Bengel), now actually so (see on Eph. i. 3) by being admitted into the Messianic kingdom that has been prepared for them. On the use of the participial substantive with a genitive, see Lobeck, ad Aj. 358; Winer, p. 178 [E. T. 236].

r]Toijxaap,kvT]v\ not merely destined, but: fut in readiness

comp. xx.
Xaftere,
vfjuirepa, <W9

23

1 Cor.

ii.

John
&><?

xiv.

2.
a>?

Kal ovk
This

dire&>?

d\\d'

KXrjpovo^aaTe,

ol/cela,

irarpma,

vplv dvcodev

ocpeckofjueva,

Chrysostom.
v.

tcXrjpo-

vofiia is the fulfilment of the

ttjv
>yrjv.

Comp.
20).

xix.
k. k.,

29.

promise of

5, /cXrjpovofitfooucn
k.]
xiii.

airo KarafH.

35,
i.

not

equivalent to irpo
t Pet.
i.

when

the election took place (Eph.

For the order of the words, comp. Kuhner,

/xe]

ad Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 18. Ver. 35 f. 2vvr)<yd<yTe

introduced me, that
is,

ye have taken

me

along with,

into your family circle along with the

members
Fritzsche
idea of
:

of your family.
"

This meaning, but not that of

is

simul convivio adhibuistis,"

involved in the

%evo<;.

For avvdyco,

single individual

who
3.

is
;

used with reference to a gathered in along with others, comp.

as

Xen.

Cijrop.

v.

11

LXX.

Deut. xxii. 2

2 Sam.

xi.

27;

For instances of Eabbinical Judg. xix. 18; Ecclus. xiii. 15. promises of paradise in return for hospitality, see Schoettgen


CHAP. XXV.
37-40.

181
et
v.

and Wetstein.
violit,

yv/jLvos]

"Qui male vestitum

Seneca, de bene/,
;

pannosum
3
;

nudum

se vidisse dicit,"

Jas.

ii.

Comp. on John xxi. 7 Acts xix. 16. jYer. 37 ff. Not mere modesty (not even, according to Oljshausen, unconscious modesty), but an actual declining with
15(.

hiimility,

lofving services in question to Christ Himself; for they

on the ground that they have never rendered the do not

venture to estimate the moral value of those services according to the lofty principle of Christ's unity with His people,
^iviii.

5, x.

40.

means, ver. 40.

the

The Lord Himself then explains what He Hence it does not follow from this passage
life "

that these hUaioi " have not as yet been consciously leading

New
:

Testament
" Fidelcs

(Auberlen, Cremer).

Bengel well

remarks

opera bona sua, impii mala ver. 44, non

perinde aestimant ut judex."

earnestly,

o&ov] in quantum, inasmuch as; eVoi^craTe] ye have done it, namely, see on Bom. xi. 13. kvl tovtcov tcov a8e\<fia)v the things previously mentioned.

honestly.

irore

ere

elho^iev] three times,

e<'

/aov touv i\a%i(TT(0v] to a single one of these

that of the most insignificant of them.
referred
.

my

brethren,

and
(see

Those words, which are

Hilgenfeld,
;

by
31

Keil, Olshausen,
f.),

Georgii,

Keim

on

ver.
;

to

Christians in general

by Cremer,

to the

elect by Luthardt, to the Christian church in its distress by Auberlen, to their poor miserable fellow-men (comp. de Wette, Ullmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1847, p. 164 ff.), do not admit of being also referred to the apostles (xxviii. 10 1 Cor. iv. 13), to whom, as surrounding His judgment-throne, Christ is supposed to point for the amount of love shown
; ;

to the apostles cannot be

taken as the universal standard of

apostles

judgment

and though the

themselves, appearing

here, as they do, in their relation to the rest of Christians,

may

well be called the brethren of Christ (xxviii. 10

John

xx. 1 7) ; yet they would certainly not be described by Him as the least of such brethren. No; as during His earthly life Christ
is

always surrounded by the obscure and despised (the poor,

the humble, publicans and sinners, and such like),

their salvation through as
still

who

seek

Him

so

He

also represents

Himself

surrounded by such as these on the occasion of the

'

182

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

p.

judgment (comp. Ewald, longing after Him, and of

salvation to be found in

420).

their love for

In consequence of tlveir Him, and the eter nal

rrjv

Him

(as rjycnrr) /cores

e-mcpdveXav

avrov, 2

Tim.

iv.

8),
;

they here come crowding around fche

throne of His glory

the

and

to these

He now
the
point

points.

They

fire

the TTTtoyol, irevOovvTes, irpaeh, SeBcoyypevoi, of the

Mount, who
bliss.

are

now on

of

Sermon n receiving the

1

promised

Ver. 41.

01

Karrjpafxevoc]

opposite

of

ol

ev\oyr)p,evo\t.

This consigning to everlasting destruction is also a reality^, and the doing of God. But the words rov irarpos pov arey

omitted this time, because the idea of

iraT-qp

accords

onm
is]

with the

loving

act

of

blessing.

The divine Kardpa

the effect of holy wrath and the consequence of

to

human

guilt.

7]Toip,a<rptvov] not this time diro KaTa/3o\r~)s Koapov;

this the hearer

knew

as matter of course.

The Eabbins

are

not agreed as to whether Gehenna, any more than paradise

and the heavenly temple, came into existence before or See the passages in Wetstein. after the first day of creation.

From our
made use
but with
(Jude
TJieol.

passage nothing can be

it is

determined one way or

is

another, especially as
of.

not the aorist participle that

Observe,

however,

that,

in

this

instance,
ver.

Jesus does not follow up

to)
;

rjToipao-p,.
;

with vplv, as in
fall

34,

BiafioXa),
ii.

k.t.X.
4),

because the

of the angels

2 Pet.
its

supposes in
d.

doctrine of the devil and his

I.

which Scripture everywhere prekingdom (Hahn,

place previous to the
viii.

N. T.
it

introduction of sin
so that

p. 313 ff.), took among men (John

44

2 Cor.

xi.

3),

was

for the

former in the

first

instance that the

But as men everlasting fire was prepared; comp. viii. 29. became partakers in the guilt of demons, so now are they For dyyeXoi also condemned to share in their punishment.
tov
Bia/3.,

comp. 2 Cor.

xii.

Rev.

xii.

7.

Ver. 44. Self-justification,

unwarranted.

by repelling the accusation

they too; for their

as

ical

avroi]

answer

exact correspondence with that of the righteous. Kal ov ZirjKovrja. crot] when saw we Thee hungry,
out

is
.

in
..

Trore

etc.,

with-

ministering

to

Thee

What was

the occasion on which,

CHAP. XXV.

4(5.

183

we saw Thee hungry, and did not Such an occasion never occurred as we have never seen Thee in such circumstances, so can we never have refused Thee our good services. In this self-justification it is assumed that if they had seen Him, they would have shown their love toward Him. The absolute idea of eternity, Ver. 46. Comp. Dan. xii. 2. in regard to the punishment of hell (comp. ver. 41), is not to be got rid of either by a popular toning down of the force of aloovios (Paulus), or by appealing (de Wette, Schleiermacher, Oetinger) to the figurative character of the term fire and the supposed incompatibility between the idea of eternity and such a thing as evil and its punishment, any more than by the theory that the whole representation is intended simply by way of learning (according to which view it is not meant thereby to throw light upon the eternal nature of things, but
according to

Thy

accusation,

give Thee food

only to portray the

tcpicns,

i.e.

the cessation of the conflict

latter)
;

between good and

to

evil

by the extinction of the

but

is

be regarded

as

exegetically

established in

the present

iii. 12, xviii. 8) by the opposed ^cotjv alwviov, which denotes the everlasting Messianic life (Kaeuffer, as above, p. 21); comp. also Weizel in the Stud, u, Krit. 1836,

passage (comp.

p.

605

ff.

Schnrid in the Jahrb.f. D. Theol 1870,

hlicaioi]
v.

p.

136

ff.

ol 8e

"hoc

ipso

judicio

declarati,"

Bengel.

Comp. Eom.
Eemaek.
(see

19.
is

Because the judgment

31), faith
is
;

judgment of Christians

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

on

ver.

184

THE GOSPEL OE MATTHEW.

CHAPTEE XXVI
VER. 3. After ap%iepsTc Elz. Scholz have xai ypa/JbfianTg, which, in accordance with B L N, min. vss. Or. Aug., has been deleted as an interpolation from Mark xiv. 1, Luke
o'i

xxii. 2.

Ver.
:

4.

The order 86Xw

supported by decisive evidence. Ver. 7. fiapvrifiov] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 rroXvrlpov, which, though in accordance with A L n N, min., is, nevertheless, taken from John xii. 3. Comp. Mark xiv. 3. Erom this latter passage is derived the order 'iyouaa, Xa/3. f&vpov (Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B L N, min.). rqv -/.upaX'/iv] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 rrjg xztpaXrig, following B K, min. Chrys. But the genitive would be suggested to the transcribers by a comparison with ver. 12, quite as readily as by Mark xiv. 3. Ver. 8. aurou] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, both here and in ver. 45, as being a common interpolation similarly with Tisch. after $\a<s<p., ver. 65. Ver. 9. roDro] Elz. inserts rb pvpov, against decisive evidence borrowed from

xparrieuai (reversed in Elz.) is

Mark xiv. 5; John xii. 5. may as readily have been

xii.

The

article before itruyoig, which omitted, in accordance with John

5, as inserted, in accordance with Mark xiv. 3, is, with Elz. and Tisch. 8, to be left out. There is a good deal of evidence on both sides but the insertion might easily take place out Ver. 11. trdvrors yap rove KTu^ovg] of regard to ver. 11.
;

rovg nru%ovg yap wdvTon. min. Chrys. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Eritzsche. As this reading may have been taken from John xii. 8 as readily as that of the Received text from Mark xiv. 7, the matter must be determined simply by the balance of evidence, and this is in Ver. 17. Iroipdtwpiv] The evifavour of the Received text. U, min. Or. in favour of the reading kroi/xdoo/uev dence of D Ver. 20. Lachm. and Tisch. read (Fritzsche) is inadequate. N, min. L ijua&nruv after hwfcxa, on the authority of Correctly; the omission is due to Mark xiv. 17. vss. Chrys. For exatfros alrw, ver. 22, it is better, with Lachm. and Tisch., Had to adopt tig ixutrros, in accordance with weighty evidence. tig been derived from Mark xiv. 19, we should have had tig xaf
r,
:

E F H

M An

CHAP. XXVI.

185

tTg avruv, again, was an interpolation of extremely common Ver. 26. svXoyyjgag'] Scholz iv-^apiCT-^oag, followoccurrence. r a n, min. vss. Fathers. Considering, ing S EF however, the weight of evidence that still remains in favour of t-jXoy. (B C L Z K), and having regard to the preponderating
;

H K M UV
D

influence of
it

Luke and Paul

ihy.oy.

Mark, upon the

is

(1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.) rather than ecclesiastical phraseology of the Lord's Supper,

better to retain
rov

For

this reason

we should

also

retain

before a pro*, though deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, L Z K, min. Chrys. Theophyl. For and not found in B C Zd/dov Lachm. reads dove, omitting at the same time xa/ before il^z,

DG D

L Z X** min. Cant. Copt. Due to a in accordance with B desire to make the construction uniform with the preceding. Had dovg been changed to a tense in accordance with Mark and Ver. 27. rb <xorripiov\ The Luke, we should have had Uojxs.

article,

deleted by Tisch., and is wanting in B E F L Z A X, min., is due to the ecclesiastical phraseology to which Luke and Paul have given currency. Ver. 28. rb r>jc] Lachm.

which

is

and Tisch. have simply rng, in accordance with B D L Z K, 33. zaiv^g before diad. is wanting rb is an exegetical addition. in B L Z X, 33, 102, Sahid. Cyr., and is a liturgical addition. Had it been originally written, this is just the place of all others where it would not have been omitted. Ver. 31. biaa-

min. Or. (once) biaszopvitdjiGovrui. So Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Eeceived text is a grammatical correction. Ver. 33. Instead of si %ai of the Eeceived text, there is decisive evidence for the simple /. xa; would be written in the margin from Mark xiv. 29, but would not be inserted in the text as in the case of Mark. ly6i\ The evidence in favour of inserting hs (which is adopted by Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche) is inadequate. An addition for the purpose of giving prominence to the contrast. Ver. 35. After hiJLoiug important witnesses read be, which has been adopted by Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche. Taken from Mark xiv. 31. Ver. 36. 'iug ol] Lachm. 'lag ol av; L a, min. sag av. The reading of Lachm., though resting only on the authority of A, is nevertheless to be regarded as the original one. ol av would be omitted in conformity with Mark xiv. 32 (C M* X, min. have simply tag), and then there would come a
/.opTiadyissrai]
X,
:

AB

G H*

DK

restoration in

some instances of ol only, and, in others, merely of av. Ver. 38. "We should not follow Griesb., Matth., Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7, in adopting 6 'lrisovg after avroTg a reading

which, though attested by important witnesses, is nevertheless contradicted by a preponderance of evidence (A B C* D J L


186
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

X, and the majority of vss.), while, moreover, it would be inserted more readily and more frequently (in this instance probably in conformity with Mark xiv. 34) than it would be omitted. n, It. Vulg. Hilar. Elz. Lachm. Ver. 39. vposXduv] so B and Tisch. 7. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of

which, indeed, has been adopted by Matth., Scholz, but it is evidently a mechanical error on the part of the transcriber irposp^adai occurs nowhere else in Matth. The pou after van? (deleted by Tisch. 8) is suspected of being an addition from ver. 42 however, the evidence in favour of K, etc.) is too weighty to admit of its being deleting it (A
rrposcXduiv,

and Tisch. 8

B CI L is wanting in in I) it comes he/ore rovro (as in in 157, Arm., it comes before lav, in which position it ver. 39) Suspected also occurs in a, though with a mark of erasure. supby Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., and Tisch. plement from ver. 39. Further, the air Ifiov following, though L N, howthe evidence against it is not quite so strong (B ever), and though it is defended by Fritzsche, and only bracketed by Lachm., is to be condemned (with Griesb., Einck, Tisch.) Ver. 43. eiipisxei auroug as an interpolation from ver. 39. ira'kiv] Lachm. and Tisch., with the approval of Griesb. also: I L X, min. and the majority irahiv ilpiv auroug, following B C a) also of vss. while other important witnesses (such as read ilpiv, but adhere to the order in the Beceived text. Accordingly, slpiv is decidedly to be adopted, while sbpiaxu is to
retained.

Ver.

BCD

42. rb tot-^/ov]
;

min.

vss.

and Fathers

AK

be regarded as derived from ver. 40

there
is

as for

irdXiv,

however,

the authorities with reference to its connection, and consequently with reference to its position, that only the preponderance of evidence must decide, In ver. 44, again, and that is favourable to Lachm. and Tisch. irdXiv is variously placed but, with Lachm. and Tisch., it should I L X, min. be put before drs/Juiv, in accordance with B C
so

much

diversity

among

with Tisch., to be maintained on the strength of preponderating evidence. Had it been inserted in conformity with ver. 42, it would have been placed after to?jv had it been from Mark xiv. 41, again, we The omission may have been should have had rb rplrov. readily occasioned by a fear lest it should be supposed that Jesus prayed rbv avrbv '/.lyov but once before. After elvuiv Tisch. 8 repeats the ^dy.iv (B L N, min. Copt.), which may easily have been omitted as superfluous. However, the preponderance of evidence (especially that of the vss. also) is against adopting it, so that there is reason to regard it rather as a
vss.
sx
rplro-j,

which Lachm. brackets,

is,


CHAP. XXVI.

187

mechanical repetition.
sp
w,

Ver.
S

50.

as in Elz.)

is

attested

airo\ovvrai]

H K M

by

U V

The reading ep o (instead of decisive evidence. Ver. 52. r A, min. vss. and Fathers:

amdavoZvrai. Approved by Griesb. in opposition to the principal Ver. 53. mss.; a gloss, for which Sahid. must have read <rsgovirai. The placing of apn after vapaer. [itn, by Tisch. 8, is in opposition to a preponderance of evidence, and is of the nature of an emen-

dation
Tisch.
:

uh

is

likewise inserted

by some.

srXs/ous]
;

Lachm. and

the reading of the Received text is an unskilled emendation. For the same reason the following r\, which Lachm. brackets, should, with Tisch., be deleted, in accordance with though we should not follow Tisch. '8 in reading \iyiwm (A C L An* K*) for Xsysuvag, because the genitive is connected with the reading irXskui. Ver. 55. irpog b/xag] is, with Tisch., following B Ls, 33, 102, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Chrys., to be deleted as an interpolation from Mark xiv. 49. Ver. 58. anb /iaxp6d(v\ a should be deleted, with Tisch., in accordance with important evidence. Taken from Mark xiv. 54. Ver. 59. xai o) Kpsafivrspoi] is wanting, no doubt, in B L N, min. vss. and Fathers, but it was omitted in conformity with Mark xiv. 55. Suspected by Griesb., desire to conform with deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Mark also serves to explain the fact that, in a few of the witnesses, 6'Xov is placed before rb ffvv'sdp. 6uvarw6ui6tv\ SavaruiOovo'iv, as read by Lachm. and Tisch., is supported by decisive evidence, and had been altered to the more usual subjunctive, avrfo should likewise be put before 8avar. (B C L K, min. Vulg. It.). Ver. 60. The reading of the Eeceived text, which is attested by the important evidence of G, etc., and likewise mainC** tained by Fritzsche and Scholz, is xai ovy slpov. Kal voXkuv -^svdo/AapTvpov vrpoffO.dovTUv ovy svpov. Griesb. xai ouy svpov rro7.}.ajv ^sud. rrpoosXd. Lachm. and Tisch. xai ouy slpov tgXX. irpoo-st.d. -vJ/sueS., after which Lachm. gives the second ovy slpov in brackets. This second oir slpov is wanting in C* L N* K, min. vss. and Fathers (Or. twice) while in B L 0. f tf min. Syr. Or. Cyr. the order of the words is koXX. vpoesXd. ^sud. Further, Syr. Arr. Pers. p Syr.jer Slav., though omitting the second ovy slpov, have retained xai before iroXkuv; and this reading (accordingly: xai oly slpov xai koXXojv <7Tpo6s\&6v-uv -^syhoixapTupuiv) I agree with Einck, Lucubr. crit. p. 282 f., regarding as the original one. This xai, the force of which was missed from its not being followed by a verb, occasioned considerable embarrassment to the transcribers, who disposed of the difficulty by adding a second ouy slpov, while hlo others got rid of the troublesome xai by simply omitting it.
tXj/w, after

B D

K*.

Correctly

BDLS;

A
:

EF
:

188
4".vdo[idp7.] Tisch.,

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

following B L X, min. vss. (also Syr.) and Or. -^svdopdpr. is an addition, dvo. Correctly which might seem all the more necessary since a saying of Christ's actually underlay the words. Ver. 65. on] is wanting before l^'Kas^r^. in such important witnesses, that Lachm. and Tisch. are justified in deleting it as a common interpolation. Ver. 70. For avruv vdvruv read, with Tisch. 8, following preponderating evidence, merely vdvruv, to which Ver. 71. avruv was added for sake of greater precision. For roTc Hit, which Tisch. 8 has restored, Scholz and Tisch. Both readings are strongly attested; but 7 read auroTg Us?. the latter is to be preferred, because the current ro?g Hi? would involuntarily suggest itself and supersede the less Ver. 74. ?ra^/ian'^i(] Elz., definite expression ahrotg 'i%it. xaravads/jLarl^i/v, against decisive evidence. Fritzsche cor(once), reads

merely

rection.

Ver. 1

1 f.

For

this

form of transition, by which a marked

xi.

pause

is

indicated at the close of a somewhat lengthened

vii.

discourse, comp.

28,

1, xiii.

53, xix.

1.

iravra<;~\ re-

ferring back, without

any particular object in view (such

as to

call attention to the fact that

our Lord's functions as a teacher

earlier expositors), to the

were now ended, Wichelhaus and the

preceding discourse, consisting, as
(xxiv.
it

does, of several sections

4-xxv. 46), not a parallel to LXX. Deut. xxxi. 1 (Delitzsch). fie to. Svo tj /xe pas] after the lapse of two days, commenced. It would i.e. the clay after next the Passover therefore be Tuesday, if, as the Synoptists inform us (differently in John, see on John xviii. 28), the feast began on to irda'^a'] nos, Aram. NnDS, the passThursday evening. xii. ing over (Ex. 13), a Mosaic feast, in commemoration of the first-born in Egypt, began after sunset on sparing of the Nisan, and lasted till the 21st. of On its original 14th the meaning as a feast in connection with the consecration of the first-fruits of the spring harvest, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 466 f

Dillmann in Schenkel's Lex. IV. a definite prediction of what was

1

p.

387

f.

teal 6 vios, k.t.X.]

to

happen

to

Him

at the Pass-

See on ch. xxvi.

f.

(Mark

xiv.,

Luke

xxii.); Wichelhaus, ausflxhrl.

Kom-

mentar

ilber die Ge&ch. des Leideiis J. Chr.,

Halle 1855

Steinmeyer, d. Leidens-

yexch. d.

Uerrn

in Bv:m>j

auf d.

neueste Krit., Berl. 1868.

CHAP. XXVI.
over, but represented as

3-5.

180

something already known to the disand which, though forming part of the contents of olhare, is at the same time introduced by a broken construction (not as dependent on on), in accordance with the depth of His emotion. Vv. 3-5. Tore] i.e. at the time that Jesus was saying this Fatal coincidence. et? rrjv avXijv rov to His disciples. apX-] It i s usua l to understand the palace of the high priest, 1 in direct opposition to the use of ai/Xi] in the New Testament
ciples (from xx. 19),

(not excluding

Luke

xi.

21).

We

should rather interpret

it

by the various buildings belonging to the house (see Winer, Reahv. under the word Hcluser ; Friedlieb, Archdol. d. Leiclensgeseh. p. 7 f.), such courts having been reguComp. Vulg. {atrium), Erasmus, larly used as meeting-places. This meeting is not to be Castalio, Calvin, Maldonatus. regarded as one of the public sittings of the Sanhedrim (on the probable official meeting-place of this body at that time, the
of the court enclosed
so-called taverns, see Wieseler, Beitr. p.

members. rov Xejofi. Kaid<\)a~\ who bore Comp. ii. 23. This was a surname; the name of Caiaphas. the original name was Joseph (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2) but the surname having become his ordinary and official designation, it was used for the name itself hence Xeyo/xevov, not imconference of
its
;
;

209

ff.),

but as a private

fcaXovfievov or imXeyofievov.
1

Caiaphas (either

= NS??,

depressio,

or NS' ?, rock) obtained his appointment through the procurator

Valerius Gratus, and, after enjoying his dignity for seventeen

years,
4. 3.

order that they,

avve^ovXevaavro, John
r

was deposed by

Vitellius, Joseph.
iva~\
/jurj

Antt.

xviii.

2.

2,

they

consulted

together,

in
let
fir],

xi.

53.

iv
!

rfj

us arrest him, and put him

to

death

eoprf}] namely: For the absolute

comp. on Gal. v. 13. The reference is to the entire period over which the feast extended, not to the place where it was
celebrated
1

(Wieseler, Chronol.

Synop>s.

p.

367).

It

is

true

Of course a.lxr, is used as equivalent to fcao-'tXnov (see, for example, the passages from Polyb. in Sehweighauser's Lex. p. 101), not only by later Greek
writers (Athen. Delpn. iv. p. 189

Herodian,

i.

13.

16,

frequently in the

Apocr,.\ but also by

Homer

(see

Duncan, Lex.,
is it

ed. Kost, p. 181), Pindar,

and the

no
reft

ti,

us

etc. tr '!.

Never, however,

so used in the

New

Testament.

Even

15, avxii rov apx'-p- is

undoubtedly the court of the house.

MAT

190
no scruple was (comp. on Acts
f.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

felt,

especially in urgent and important cases

xii.

f.),

about having executions (Sanhedf.

89. 1) during the feast days (although most probably never

first

on the
v.

on which, according to Mischna Join tob John xviii. 28, and see, above all, Bleek's Beitr. p. 136 ff.), and that with a view to making the example more deterrent (Deut. xvii. 1 3). But the members of the Sanhedrim dreaded an uprising among the numerous sympathizers with Jesus both within and outside the capital (a very natural apprehension, considering that this
of them,
2,

the trial took place; comp. on

was just the season when so many strangers, and especially Galilaeans, were assembled in the city comp. Joseph. Antt. Bell. i. 4. 3), though, by and by, they overcame xvii. 9. 3 this fear, and gladly availed themselves of the opportunity " Sic consilium divinum which Judas afforded them (ver. 14). To regard /a?) iv rrj eoprrj as meaning successit," Bengel.
;
;

previous

to the

feast

as though, during the feast itself, the

execution were to be considered as already a thing of the past

(iSTeander, p.

678

Hausrath), would be quite in keeping with

John's statement as to the day on which the crucifixion took

place (comp. on

Mark

xiv. 2)

but

it

would not

suit the con-

nection as found in

Matthew and Mark, because, according to among the members of the Sanhedrim consultation them, the

had taken place so very shortly before the Passover (ver. 2) that the greater part of the multitude, whose rising was apprehended, must have been present by that time. Ver. 6 ff. This anointing, which is also recorded in Mark xiv. 3 ff. (followed by Matthew), is not the same as that of Luke vii. 3 6 ff., but is so essentially different from it, not only as to the time, place, circumstances, and person, but as to the whole historical and ethical connection and import, that even
the peculiar character of the incident
rant the assumption that each case
is
is

not sufficient to war-

but another version of one and the same story (in opposition to Chrysostom, Grotius, Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 110 ff. Strauss, "VVeisse, Hug,
;

Ewald, Bleek, Baur,Hilgenfeld,Schenkel,Keim).

is

This, however,
.

not a different incident (in opposition to Origen, Chr c

Leidens-<
,

Jerome,Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Osiander.

CHAP. XXVI.

6.

191
1
1

Wolf) from that recorded in John

in John's account of the affair

xii.

ff.

The deviations
;

to the

effect that the anointing

took place not two, but six days before the feast that Martha was the entertainer, no mention being made of Simon that it
;

was not the head, but the feet of Jesus that were anointed and that the carping about extravagance is specially ascribed are not to be disposed of by arbitrarily assuming to Judas
;

that the accounts of the different evangelists were intended

to

supplement each other (Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Lange), but

are to be taken as justifying the inference that in

(not in

John alone Matthew and Mark) we have the narrative of an eyeThe incident, as given in Matthew and Mark, witness.
appears to be an episode taken from a tradition which had

lost its freshness

torical connection, although,

if

and purity, and inserted without exact hison the whole, in its right order,
the time of
its

with

less regard to precision as to

occurrence.

Hence the

loose place

it

occupies in the pragmatism of the

it

passage, from

which one might imagine

removed

altogether,

without the connection being injured in the slightest degree.

is

on which the narrative of Matthew and Mark its purity from getting mixed up with certain disturbing elements from the first version of the story of the anointing in Luke vii., among which

The

tradition

based had evidently suffered in

elements
Ver.
,

we may

include the statement that the

name

of the

entertainer
6.
i.

was Simon.
revo/j,. ev

Brj&av.^

i.e.

having come to Bethany,

this visit hack to a point

0lmi.

17

John
ii.

vi.

25, and frequently in classical writers

c *p,

.f>

Phil.

7.

To remove

of

-roinj

previous to that indicated at ver. 2, with the effect of

is to

simp^ ^destroying the sequence (Ebrard, Lange),

1

do such

On the controversy

in

of his theory that Jesus

which Faber Stapul. has been involved in consequence had been anointed by three different Marys, see Graf in
Theol. 1852,
I.

Niedner's ZtHschr. f. histor.

three

p.

54

ff.

This distinguishing of

Marys (<?vhich was also adopted by so early an expositor as Euthymius Zigaben is, and by mis, to whom Theophylact refers) is, in fact, rather too much at van *ce with the tradition that the sister of Lazarus is identical with the woman whc e] is a sinner, Luke vii. and was no other than Mary Magdalene. Yet in nonlllf the three accounts of anointing is this latter to be understood as the Mary
,

refc

us

ltc.

MAI

192

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

harmonistic violence to the order observed in

Mark
avert.

Xi^oivo'i
leper,

as the tots of ver.

Matthew and 14 should have been sufficient to

less

rov \e7rp0v] In a way no

unwarrantformerly

able has the person here referred to (a person

who had

been a
Jesus,

and who,

after his healing, effected probably

by

had continued

to be

known by
;

this

epithet) been asso-

ciated with the family of Bethany he has been supposed to have been the deceased father of this family (Theophylact, Ewald,
Gesch. Chr. p. 481), or

some other
to

relative or friend (Grotius,

Kuinoel, Ebrard, Lange, Bleek), or the owner of the house.

Of the person who, according

ing
of
to

Matthew and Mark, provided

this entertainment, nothing further is

known

whereas, accord-

John,

the

entertainment was given by the family

;

view, the former

which Lazarus was a member the latter is the correct is based upon the similar incident recorded in
vii.

Luke

Ver.

7.

rvvi]] According to John,

it

was Mary.

dXd;

fiao-rpov]

Among

classical writers
;

the neuter of this word

in the singular dXdfiaa-

does not occur except in the plural

77209
is

masculine, as also in 2 Kings xxi. 13, and feminine.

"

Unguenta optime servantur in alabastris," Plin. N. H. iii. 3 iii. 20; Theocr. Id. xv. 114; Anth. Pal. ix. 153. 3; iiri t. k. avrov] A diverJacobs, ad Anthol. XL p. 92.
Herod,

gence

from

John's account, not

in

to

be

reconciled

in

the

which Calvin and Ebrard have attempted, as though the oil had been so unsparingly poured on that it ran down and was used for the feet as well (comp. Morisorjl Matthew narrates an anointing of the head ; John, of f\-u a t t The practice of anointing the heads of guests by + f of showing them respect is well known (comp. Pla, JRe]). Seeing, however, that p. 398 A, and Stallbaum thereon). the anointing of the feet was unusual (in opposition to Ebrard), and betokened a special and extraordinary amount of respect (as is, in fact, apparent from Luke v.. 46), our j)assage would have been all the less likely to " omit^ it eidv< (Lange), had it really formed part of the tradition. fievov~\ while He was reclining at table, a circumstance qu ;-uyarbitrary
-

manner

ing the avrov.

CHAP. XXVI.

8-12.

193
and having an essen-

Ver. 8.
tial

The

feature peculiar to John,

bearing upon the character of his narrative, to the effect

that it was Judas who censured the proceeding, had come to be obliterated in the tradition represented by our present
passage.

Our

narrative, then, is certainly not contradictory of

Arbitrary attempts have less precise. been made to explain our passage by saying either that, in Matthew, the narrative is to be regarded as sylleptical (Jerome, Beza, Maldonatus), or that Judas simply gave utterance to an observation in which the others have innocently concurred (Augustine, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, Paulus, Wichelhaus), or
that of John, but only that several of them betrayed symptoms of

7)

a7T(o\ta avrrj] this

loss,

in

murmuring (Lange). making such a use of an

expensive oiL

This word never occurs in the

New

Testament

in a transitive sense (as in Polyb. vi. 59. 5).

Ver. 9. IIoXXoi)] put more precisely in Mark xiv. 5 John xii. 5. On the expensiveness of spikenard, a pound of which is alleged to have cost even upwards of 400 denarii,
see Plin.
iV".

H.

xii.

26,

xiii. 4.

it

ical SoOfjvai]

the subject

(the equivalent in

money, had

been sold)

may

be inferred
II.
1,

from the context {irpaQrpai 7ro\\ov).

p.

See Kiihner,

30

f.

Ver.

10. Tvov<i~\

Comp.
kottovs
See

xvi.

8.

We may
to
I.

imagine what
trouble,

precedes to have been spoken

murmuring
cause

tone.

among
Obss.

the disciples in a low

give
p.

irape^eiv,

to

annoyance.

Kypke,

130.

irovov irapk^eiv (Herod, i. 177), and such like. ep<yov yap, k.t.X] Justification of the disapproval implied in the foregoing question. ku\6v, when used with epyov, is, according to ordinary usage, to be taken in an ethical sense thus (comp. v. 16): an excellent deed, one that is morally beautiful, and not a piece of waste, as ye are niggardly enough to suppose. The disciples had allowed their estimate of the action to be determined by the principle of mere utility, and not by that of moral propriety, especially of love to Christ.
;

Comp.

Ver. 11

f.

Justification of the koXov

on the ground of the

they would always

peculiar circumstances under which the anointing took place.

Jesus was on the very threshold of death MATT. II.

194

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

have opportunities of showing kindness to the poor, but by and by it would be no longer in their power to do a loving Accordingly there is service to Him in person upon earth a moral propriety in making the special manifestation of love, which was possible only now, take precedence of that general ov irdvTore e^ere] a one which was always possible.
!

sorrowful

litotes

involving the idea

but

I will

soon be removed

fia\ovaa~\ inasmuch as she has poured she has done it (this outpouring) with the view (as though I were already a corpse) of embalming
refers.
. . .

by death, to which idea the yap of ver. 12

me

(Gen.

1.

2).

The

aorist participle

represents the act as

finished contemporaneously with

Eph.
that,

i.

9, al. ;

Luther. Zeitschr.

Comp. xxvii. 4 Hermann, ad Viger. p. 774; Miiller in the 1 8 7 2, p. 631 ff. For the rest, it may be said
etrolrjaav.

special motive to the

under the influence of grateful emotion, Jesus ascribes a woman, though she herself simply meant

to testify her love

and reverence.

Such

feelings, intensified as

they were by the thought of the approaching death of the

beloved Master, and struggling to express themselves in this
particular form, could not but receive the highest consecration.

Ver.

13.

To evayy. tovto]
:

comp.

this instance, however, the emphasis is not

In on xxiv. 14. on tovto (as in

xxiv. 1 4), but on to evayy ekiov

this message of redemption,

where tovto points

at,

to the subject of the

w.

11, 12,

viz.

the death of Jesus

slight,
still
it is

message just hinted and although the

an allusion in living filled His soul, and one that naturally springs from the sorrowful emotion of His heart. The thing to which tovto refers is, when put in explicit terms, identical with to evayy. tt}? %dpiTo<; r. 6eov (Acts xx.
allusion

may

be but

connection with the thoughts of death that

24), fo evayy.

t?}<?

atoTrjpLas

vfi.

(Eph.

i.

13), to evayy.
Cor.
i.

t?)<?

elprjvqs (Eph. vi. 15),

o X0709 toO crTavpov (1

is

18).

ev o\a> tc3
(Fritzsche,

offfi,ft)]

not to be connected with \aXt)9.

Kuinoel), but with Krjpv^Ofj.

oirov denotes the locality in its special, ev o\&>

its

most comprehensive sense.

Comp. Mark xiv. tw hog/aw in

et? p,vqp,oo-. avT.] belongs to

XaXrjd.
is blessed.

She has actually been remembered, and her memory

CHAP. XXVI. 14-16.

195
see

Vv. 14-16.
after this

On

'Iov8a<;

'I<ricap.,

on

x.

4.

Tore]
(comp.

but not because he had been so much offended, nay, embittered (Wichelhaus, Schenkel, following the
repast,

older expositors),

by the reply
reply in

of Jesus, ver.

10

ff.

John

xii.

f.),

a view scarcely in keeping with the mournful

which, moreover, according to

tenderness

of that

Matthew, the name of Judas was not once mentioned. According to John xiii. 27, the devil, after selecting Judas
as
his

instrument

(xiii. till

2),

impelled

him

to

betray

of the last supper, divergence from the synoptical narrative which ought, with

Master, not, however,

the occasion

his

it becomes very marked with compared John xiii. 27. when Luke xxii. 3 is eh twv found in all the evangelists, even in 8a> 8 etc a] tragic contrast; 17. In the mark interrogation i. ver. 15 of John xii. 4; Acts should not be inserted after 8ovvat (Lachmann), but allowed Expressed syntactically, the to remain after irapa8. aviov. question would run What will ye give me, if I deliver Him to yon ? In the eagerness of his haste the traitor falls into a broken construction (Kiihner, II. 2, p. 782 f.): What will ye Here xai is the explicative atque, give me, and I will, etc. meaning and so; on eyco, again, there is an emphasis expressive

Strauss, to be recognised, especially as

earrja-av] they weighed for him, according to the of No doubt coined ancient custom, and comp. Zech. xi. 12.
boldness.

shekels (Otto, Spicil.

d.

p.

ff.

Ewald in the Nachr.

v. d. Gesellsch.

1855, p. 109 ff.) were in circulation since the time of Simon the Maccabee (143 B.C.), but weighing appears to have been still practised, especially when considerable sums were paid out of the temple treasury it is, in any case, unwarWiss., Gott.
;

rantable to understand the ecrrwcrav merely in the sense of:

tfhey

paid.

For

io-tv/m, to weigh, see

Wetstein on our passage;

Schleusner,

288.

Valckenaer, ad Eurip. Fragm. p. The interpretation of certain expositors: they arranged

TJies. III. p.
;

122

with him, they promised him (Vulg.

Theophylact,

Castalio,

Grotius, Eisner, Fritzsche, Kauffer, Wichelhaus, Lange), is in

opposition not only to xxvii. 3, where the words

refer

to,

dp<yvpia

back

to the shekels already paid,

but also to the terms of

9).

the prophecy, Zech. xi. 12 (comp. Matt, xxvii.

ipiaK. a/37.]


196
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

dpyvpta, shekels, only in Matthew, not in the

LXX., which,
o-t/cXov?);

in

Zech.

xi.

12, has rpiatcovra apyvpov?

(sc.

comp.

Jer. xxxii. 9.

They were

shekels of the sanctuary (B^'pn '\$),

which, as containing the standard weight, were heavier than

the ordinary shekels; according to Joseph. Antt.m. 8. 2, they were equivalent to four Attic drachmae, though, according to Jerome (on Mic. iii. 10), whose estimate, besides being more precise, is found to tally with existing specimens of this coin, they were equal to twenty oboli, or to 3^ drachmae i.e. to something like 26 to 27 silbergroschen (2s. 6d.). See Bertheau, Gesch. d. Isr. pp. 34, 39; Keil, Arch. II. p. 146. %r)Tei evicaiplav, iva] he sought a good opportunity (Cic. de

would present

Such a evicaipia as he wanted whenever he saw that <rv\\r](f>0evTo<; ovk e/MeWe Oopvfios yeveaOai, Euthymius Zigabenus; comp. ver. 5.
off. i.

40) for

the purpose of, etc.

itself

Eemark

1.

As the statement regarding

the thirty pieces of

Matthew, and as one so avaricious as Judas was would hardly have been contented with so moderate a sum, it is probable that, from its not being known exactly how much the traitor had received, the Gospel traditions came ultimately to fix upon such a definite amount as was suggested by Zech. xi. 1 2. Then, as tending further to impugn the historical accuracy of Matthew's statement, it is of importance to notice that it has been adopted neither by the earlier Gospel of Mark, nor the later one of Luke, nor by John. Comp. Strauss, Ewald,
silver is peculiar to

Scholten.

Eemark

2.

As regards the
was a

idea, that

what prompted Judas

to

desire to bring about a rising of the people at the time of the feast, and to constrain " the dilatory Messiah to establish His kingdom by means of popular violence " (Paulus, Goldhorn in Tzschirn. Memor. i. 2 ; Winer, Theile, Hase, Scholl-

act as he did,

meyer, Jesus u. Judas, 1836 Weisse, I. p. 450), the traitor himself being now doubtful, according to Neander and Ewald, as it may be affirmed to whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, that it has no foundation whatever in the Gospel record, although it may be excused as a well-meant effort to render a mysterious character somewhat more comprehensible, and to make so strange a choice on the part of Jesus a little less According to John especially, the subjective motive puzzling. which, in conjunction with Satanic agency (Luke xxii. 3; John xiii. 2, 27), led to the betrayal was simply avarice, not
;

CHAP. XXVI.

17.

197

on ver. 14; nor love of revenge nor shipwrecked faith on the occasion of the anointing of Christ (Klostermann) nor melancholy, combined with irritation against Jesus because the kingdom He sought to establish was not a kingdom of this world (Lange). Naturally passionate at any rate (Pressense"), and destitute of clearness of head as well as force of character (in opposition to "Weisse), he was now so carried away by his own dark and confused ideas, that though betraying Jesus he did not anticipate that he would be condemned to death (xxvii. 3), and only began to realize what he had done when the consequences of his act stared him in the face. Those, accordingly, go too far in combating the attempts that have been made to palliate the deed in question, who seek to trace it to fierce anger against
as well, see

wounded ambition

and such

like (Sckenkel);

and the profoundest wickedness (Ebrard), and who represent Judas as having been from the first even at the time he was chosen the most consummate scoundrel to be found among men (Daub, Judas Ischar. 1816). That fundamental vice of Judas, vkwiZfa, became doubtless, in the abnormal development which his moral nature underwent through intercourse with Jesus, the power which completely darkened and overmastered his inner life, culminating at last in betrayal and suicide. Moreover, in considering the crime of Judas, Scripture requires us to keep in view the divine teleology, Peter already speaking of Jesus (Acts
Jesus,

ii.

23) as

rjj

ojpia/xsvrj jSov"kr\

%ai irpoyvuxfsi rov dsov

'ixdorov,

in a

way

view taken of the conduct of Herod and Pilate in Acts iv. 28. Judas is thus the tragic instrument and organ of the divine i'lfiap^hn, though not in such a sense as to extenuate in the least the enormity and culpability of his offence, ver. 24. Comp. John xvii. 12; Acts and see, further, on John vi. 70, Eemark 1. i. 25
corresponding very
to the
;

much

on the first day of day of the feast, the day on which the unleavened bread (ni^on) is eaten. The day referred to is the 14th of Msan (Thursday, according to
Ver. 17. Tfj Se irpoiTr] tg>v
bread,
i.e.

cl^v/a.]
first

the unleavened

on the

the synoptic evangelists), which, following the loose popular

mode

of reckoning, to

which Josephus {Antt.

the
feast

ii.

15. 1) also

conforms when he
eight days,

represents

as extending over

was counted
16
Ex.
xii.

as one of the feast days, although

till

the Passover did not begin

the

evening of that day,

Num.

xxviii.

18

(Otto, Spicil. p. 70).

ttov] in

198

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

<roi~\ " Jesus what house. lorum familiani," Bengel.

to

est

lit

paterfamilias inter discipu-

7rao-^;a] the Passover lamh,

to be eaten

on the evening of the 14th of Nisan.

See on

John

This lamb was slain (not by the priests) in the fore-court of the temple in the afternoon before sunset (D^injjn > 2 see Hupfeld, de jorimitiva festor. ap. Hebr. raiione,
xviii.

28.

I. p.

1 2).

It

may seem

strange that, at a season

of strangers

when

the

presence of such multitudes

certain to create a scarcity of
1.

in the city

was

accommodation (Joseph. Bell. Jesus should have put off This, His arrangements for celebrating the feast till now. however, may be accounted for by the fact that He must have
ii.

3, vi. 9.

Antt. xvii.

9. 3),

in ver. 18,

had certain friends in the town, such as the one referred to whose houses were so much at His disposal at all times that it was unnecessary to make any earlier preparation.

Eemaek. According to John's account, the last meal of which Jesus partook was not that of the Passover while His death is represented as having taken place on the day before the feast, the day which Matthew here calls the npuirn ruv uty/Awv. On this great and irreconcilable discrepancy, which even the most recent exhaustive inquiry, viz. that of "Wieseler {Beitr. p. 230 ff.), has failed to dispose of, see on John xviii. 28.
;

Ver. 18.
6
ff.,

Eh
:

rrjv iroXiv] to Jerusalem.

they were

still

at Bethany.

According to

ver.

7rp6s rov Beiva] as

we

say

mention the name of the See Wetstein and Hermann, person intended to so and so. ad Vig. p. 704. But it was not Jesus Himself who omitted to mention the name ("ut discipulus ex diuturna consuetudine

when we

either cannot or will not

notissimum," Fritzsche),
ver. 1 7,

for, after

the question of the disciples,

it

He

could not assume that

referred to
;

who
ev. ii.

it

was that He

but

was quite well understood it has been omitted by

cons.

the evangelist in his narrative (comp. even Augustine, de

80), either because
it

had not been preserved as part of the tradition, or for some other reason, to us unknown. Doubtless the unknown 6 8i&d<rK.~\ the Teacher tear i^o^v. Comp. xxi. 3. person here referred to was also a believer.

6 /caipo?
for

fxov\

i.e.

the time of

my

death (John

xiii. 1),

not:

my

observing the Passover (Kuinoel),

which would render

char

xxvi.

is.

199

the words singularly meaningless the same for

all.

for this time was, in fact,

nothing whatever to justify the very old hypothesis, invented with a view to reconcile the

There

is

synoptic writers with John, that Jesus partook of His last

Passover meal a day earlier than that on which

to be eaten

it

was wont

by the Jews.

See on John

xviii.

28.

Further, this

preliminary preparation implies a pious regard for Jesus on the

part of the Seiva,
servance, for

who was thus singled out this Passover obwhich preparations are being made, was destined,
;
!

in fact, to be a farewell feast

fiov

According to Ewald, 6 Katpos

the Messianic phenomena would

denotes the time

when

appear in the heavens (comp. xxiv. 34), which, however, is at variance with the text, where the death of Jesus is the allpervading thought (see vv.
7)

topa,

John

xvii. 1.

2, 4,

11

f.,

21).

Comp. ekrfkudev
future (Fritzsche,
is

7rot<y] is not the Attic

Bleek), but the present, representing

what

future as

now

going on, and suited to the idea of a distinct friendly arrange-

ment beforehand Ex. xii. 48 Josh.

:

at thy house
v.

observe the Passover.

6.

Comp.
Similarly
to

Deut. xv. 1 ; 3 Esdr. i. classical writers frequently use iroieiv in the

; ;

10

observe

feast.

Matthew's

sense of

account presupposes

nothing

miraculous here, as Theophylact and Calvin would have us believe, but simply an arrangement, of which nothing further
is

tion,

known, which Jesus had come to with the person in quesand in consequence of which this latter not only understood what was meant by the 6 /catpos p,ov, but was also keeping a room in reserve for Jesus in which to celebrate the Passover. It is probable that Jesus, during His stay in Jerusalem after the triumphal entry, had come to some understanding or other with him, so that
all that

now
It

required to

be done was to complete the preparations.

was reserved for the later tradition, embodied in Mark and Luke, to ascribe a miraculous character to these preparations, in which respect they seem to have shared, the fate of the incident mentioned at xxi. 2 f. This being the case, the claim of originality must be decided in favour of what is still the very
simple narrative of Matthew (Strauss, Bleek, Keim), in preference to that of

Mark and Luke

(Schulz, Schleiermacher,

200

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Weisse, Ewald, Weiss).

As

represented, therefore,

by Matthew
to

(who, according to Ebrard and Holtzmann, seems

have

regarded the circumstance about the

of water as only
is,

man
"

bearing a pitcher

and whose narrasomewhat winnowed "), this incident is a natural one, though the same cannot be said of the account given by Mark and Luke (in opposition to Wlio that unknown person above Olshausen and Neander). referred to might be, is a point which cannot be determined.
detail,"

"an unnecessary

tive here

according to Ewald,

Ver.

20.

'Ave/ceiTo]

for

the

enactment

(Ex.

xii.

11)

requiring the Passover lamb to be eaten standing, staff in

hand, and in travelling

3 7. 2
"

attire,

had been subsequently superSee Hieros Pesachim

seded by the necessity of

f.
:

reclining.

Mos servorum

est,

ut edant stantes, at nunc comegenuin. esse. 1823, p. 26 no Passover party should

Bell.
vi.

dant recumbentes, ut dignoscatur, exisse eos e servitute in libertatem."

ff.

See Usteri,

Comment

Joh.

ev.

It was considered desirable that

ever consist of fewer than ten guests (Joseph.

for the

9. 3),
ff.)

lamb had to be entirely consumed (Ex. xii. Ver. 21. 'EaOiovTcov avT<op] whilst they were

4,

43

eating,

but

previous to the institution of the supper, ver. 26, which

is at

variance with

Luke

xxii.

21.

The

correct

version of the

matter

is

unquestionably that of Matthew, with

also agrees in so far as he represents the

whom John announcement of the

xiii.

betrayer as having taken place immediately after the feet-

washing and the accompanying discourse,

Ver.
22.

21

ff.

"Hp^avro]

portrays the

after another in the incident.

unfolding of one scene Jesus did not answer till this

question had been addressed to

firjTi iya> el/xt] surely it is not

Him by
I?

all

of

them

in turn.

presupposes a reply in the

libere
testari

negative.

"

Cum

scelus exhorreant, cupiunt ab ejus suspicione

freti,

purgari

bona tamen conscientia

xiii.

volunt,

quam
in before

procul remoti sint a tanto scelere," Calvin.

The account

John

22

ff.

does not exclude, but supplements that

us, particularly

because

it

also

mentions that Judas

is

had

retired before the supper

e/i./3a-v/ra<?,

was

instituted.

Ver. 23. 'O

kt.t.X,]

he

who has dipped (not:

dipping, Luther, following the Vulgate).

We have here no such


CHAP. XXVI.
24.

201
to have

definite

allusion

as

John
it

xiii.

26 represents Jesus

made
ver.

to Judas.

For

is

not probable that the dipping in

of ver. 22,
little

question took place subsequent to the intimation by Jesus in

21 and the commotion

two

circumstances

calculated to interrupt for a

the progress of the meal,

but rather before them, when there may have been others besides Judas dipping into the dish from which Jesus was eating. The allusion can be said to point specially to Judas only in so far as, happening to recline near to Jesus, he must have been eating out of the same dish with Him (for there

would be several of such dishes standing on the Comp. Grotius. The e'/x/3a7rTOyu,ew9 of Mark xiv. 20
the passage)
is

table).

(see

on
it

not a substantial variation

neither has

been misunderstood by Matthew (in opposition to Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 53 f.), and converted by him into The contents of a special means of recognition (Holtzmann).
the dish were the broth charoset
etc.,

(riDlin),

made out

of dates,

figs,

remind those who partook of it of the bricks of Egypt, Maimonides, ad Pesach. vii. 11). See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 831. iv tS rpvfiXlq)] has dipped

and

of the colour of brick (to

in the dish, into which he has put his hand, holding a piece of
bread.
xxxiii.

Horn. Od.

ix.
ii.

392; Aesch. Prom. 863; LXX. Deut.

fieTafiabvei

24

Euth

14.
airo

Ver.

24.

'Tird'yei]

t%

ivravOa

&>%,

Euthymius Zigabenus.
Jesus
is

Comp. diyeaBai, airepyeaOai, ^?n. conscious that His death will be a going away to the
vii.

have been for him,

k.t.X.'] %vell woidd it he would not have existed at all, and so would not have been exposed to the severe punishment (of Gehenna) which now awaits him. Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 1 4 Job iii. 1 ff. Jer. xx. 1 4 ff., and the passages from Eabbinical writers in Wetstein. The expression is a popular one, and not to be urged with logical rigour, which it will not admit of. The fundamental idea embodied in it is " multo melius est non subsistere quam male subsistere," Jerome. Observe, further, the tragic emphasis with which 6 avOpcoTTo? e/ceZyo? is repeated but for icaXbv r\v without av, see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. pp. 188, 195 [E. T. 217,

Father (John

33,

viii.
;

22).

tca\ov,
case

etc.

for in that

202
226]
;

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

and on ov
p.

as a negative,

where there

is

only one idea

II.
;

contained in the negation, consult Kiihner,

Buttmann,
observes
Biori,
:

299

[E. T. 347].
rrpooapiaro,

2, p. 748 Euthymius Zigabenus aptly

ov Biori

Bia

rovro

rrapeSwicev

aWa

rrapeBcoice, Sea

rovro Trpocopiaro, rod deov irpoetB6ro<; to

rravrw^ a7ro/37)cr6[ievov efieWe yap ovrw; airofirjvai roiovros ov

k
<pvaea><;,

o\V

etc

TrpoaLpeaeoos.

Ver. 25. This final direct intimation regarding the betrayer

and addressed to this latter himself, is at xiii. 2 6 ff., where ver. 2 9 presupposes that Ver. 25 is an outgrowth of tradition, it had not been given. the absence of which from the older narrative of Mark is av elira^ a Rabbinical formula by unquestionably correct. See which an emphatic affirmation is made, as in ver. 64. There is no such usage in the Old Testament or Schoettgen.
(o

TrapaSiBovs),

variance with John

among

classical writers.

At

this

point in the narrative of

Matthew, just after this declaration on the part of Jesus, we must suppose the withdrawal (mentioned at John xiii. 30) of Judas (who, notwithstanding the statement at Luke xxii. 21, was not present at the celebration of the last supper see on John xiii. 38, Eemark) to have taken place. Matthew likewise, at ver. 47, presupposes the withdrawal of the betrayer, though he does not expressly mention it so that his account The objection, that it was not of the matter is less precise. allowable to leave before the Passover lamb was eaten, is
;

sufficiently disposed of

by the extraordinary nature

of the cir-

cumstances in which Judas found himself; but see on ver. 26. 1 having been, naturally enough, interVer. 26. The meal

rupted by the discussion regarding Judas

;

would now be resumed hence the repetition of the iadcovrcov avrwv of ver. 21 with the continuative Be, which latter is so often used in a similar way after parentheses and other digressions, especially
1

see Ebrard (Dogma vorn heil. mentions the earlier literature of see besides, the controversy between Strobel and Rodatz in the the subject Keim in Riickert, d. Abendm., Lpz. 1856, p. 58 ff. Luther. Zeitschr. 1842 ff. the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1859, p. 63 ff. of modern dogmatic writers, consult, in Comp. on Mark xiv. 22 f. ; Luke xxii. 19 particular, Kahnis and Philippi.

On

ver.

26

ff.

and the

parallel passages,
ff.)

Abendm.

I. p.
;

97

ff.),

who
;

also (II. p. 751

i'.

1 Cor. xi.

24

f.

CHAP. XXVI.

2G.

203
;

in cases where previous expressions are repeated

dprov] According to the Kabbis, the order of the Passover meal was as follows (see Tr. Pesach. c. 10; Otho, Lex. Ball. p. 448 ff
2 Cor.
v.

Eph.

ii.

4.

\a/3a>v

comp. on

6 'Irjcr.

t.

Lightfoot, p.
ff.;

474

ff.

Wichelhaus,

p.

Lund, Jud. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 1125 248 ff; Vaihinger in Herzog's Encykl. XI.
;

p.

141

ff.)

(1) It

began with drinking wine, before partak-

ing of which, however, the head of the family offered

for

up thanks
wine).
et

the wine and the return of that sacred day (according

the
school of

to
"

Sammai,
(2)

for

the

day and

for the

Poculum

ebibit, et postea benedicit

de lotione

manuum,

lavat,"

Maimonides.
table,

Then
of

bitter herbs

(D'ni-itt,

intended

to represent the bitter life of their forefathers in Egypt)

were which being dipped in a sour or brinish liquid, were eaten amid thanksgivings. (3) The unleavened bread, the broth charoset (see on ver. 23), the lamb and the flesh of the cliagiga (see on John xviii. 28), were now presented. (4) Thereupon the head of the family, after a " Benedictus, qui creavit fructum terrae" took as much of the bitter herbs as might be equal to the size of an olive, dipped it in the broth charoset, and then ate it, all the other guests following his example. (5) The second cup of wine was now mixed, and at this stage the father, at the request of his son, or whether requested by him or not, was expected to explain
put upon the

some

to
(6)

him the

peculiarities

of the
till

several parts of this meal.

This did not take place

the Passover viands had been

;

put a second time upon the table

the
first

then came the singing of

cxiv.),

part of the Hallel (Ps.

cxiii.,

another short

thanksgiving by the father, and the drinking of the second

cup.
(7)

The

father then

washed

his hands, took

two pieces
sit

of bread, broke one of them, laid the

broken pieces upon that

Me, qui

which remained whole, repeated the "Benedictus

producit

panem

e terra,"

rolled a piece of the broken bread in

bitter herbs,

having given thanks

dipped this into the broth charoset, and ate, after he then took some of the chagiga, after
;

another thanksgiving, and so also with regard to the lamb.

(8)

The

feast

was now continued by the guests partaking as

concluding, however, with the father eating

they

felt inclined,

204

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the last bit of the lamb, which was not to be less than an
olive in size, after

more.

The
offered,

father

been

which no one was at liberty to eat anything now washed his hands, and, praise having the third cup (m"on ND3) was drunk. Then came

the singing of the second part of the Hallel (Ps.

cxv cxviii.)

and the drinking of the fourth cup, which was, in some instances, followed by a fifth, with the final singing of Ps. cxx.
cxxxvii. (Bartolocc. Bill. Rdbb. II. p.

736

ff.).

Seeing that,

according to this order, the feasting, strictly speaking, did not

begin

till

No.

8, for all that

it
;

preceded had the character of a

seeing, further, that it is in itself

ceremonial introduction to

improbable that Jesus would interrupt or alter the peculiarly ceremonial part of the feast by an act or utterance in any way
foreign to
retired,
it; and considering, in the last place, that when Judas which he did immediately after he was announced as the betrayer, and therefore previous to the institution of the the Passover meal had already extended pretty far last supper, on into the night (John xiii. 30), we must assume that the iadiovTwv avrwv of ver. 21, as well as the similar expression in ver. 26, should come in after No. 7, and that the eating under No. 8 is the stage at which the Lord's supper was instituted so that the bread which Jesus took and brake would not be that mentioned under No. 7 (Fritzsche), but the dprov (with

the

article, see

the critical remarks), the particular bread with

He had just instituted the supper. He would have violated the Passover itself if He had proclaimed any new and peculiar symbolism in connection with the bread
which, as they all knew,
before conforming, in the
first place, to

the popular ceremonial

and before the less formal and peculiarly Again, had the festive part of the proceedings was reached. breaking and distributing of the bread been that referred to under No. 7, one cannot see why he should not have availed Himself of the bitter herbs as well, furnishing, as they would have done, so appropriate a symbol of the suffering inseparable /cal ev\o<y>]aa<;] after having repeated a from His death. whether the " Benedictus Me, qui producit panem e blessing terra " (comp. No. 7 above), or some other more appropriate to the particular act about to be performed, it is impossible to
observed at this
feast,

CHAP. XXVI.

26.

205

say.

The latter, however, is the more probable, as it would be more in accordance with the very special nature of Christ's Now that the meal feelings and intention on this occasion. was drawing to a close (before the second part of the Hallcl was sung, ver. 30), He felt a desire to introduce at the end a
special repast of significance so profound as never to be forgotten.

The idea that His evXoyelv, as being the expression His omnipotent will (Philippi, p. 467 ff.), possessed creative power, so that the body and blood became realized in the giving of bread and wine, may no doubt accord with the orthodox view of the sacrament, but can be as little justified, on exegetical grounds, as that orthodox view itself even in 1 Cor. x. 16 nothing more is implied than a eucharistical consecration prayer for the purpose of setting apart bread and wine to a sacred use. It is, further, impossible to determine whether by Kal eStSov tols fjiaOvT. we are to understand the handing of the bread piece by piece, or simply the presenting
of
;

of

it all

at once

upon a

plate.

Considering, however, that the

is

guests were reclining, the latter

is

the more probable view, and

This \dfiere denotes simply a taking with the hand, which then conveys to the

quite in keeping with the \df3ere.

mouth the thing

sense
(Ebrard).
us,

so taken, not also a taking in a spiritual

Further,

it

must not be

inferred from the

words before
of the bread

nor from our Lord's interpretation (my body)

which He presents, that He Himself had not eaten He must, however, be regarded as of it. See on ver. 29. having done so before handing it to the disciples, and before uttering the following words. tovto eVn to crcofid fiov~\ There can be no doubt that tovto is the subject, and (avoiding the Lutheran synecdoche) can only refer to the bread that was being handed to them, and not to the living body of Christ (Carlstadt), nor to the predicate which first follows (Strobel), while it is equally certain that no emphasis of any kind is to be laid upon the enclitic fxov (in opposition to Olshausen But seeing, moreover, that the body of Jesus and Stier). was still unbroken (still living), and that, as yet, His blood had not been shed, none of the guests can have supposed what, on the occasion of the first celebration of the


206
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
viz.,

supper, was, accordingly, a plain impossibility,

that they

were in

reality eating
1

and drinking the very body and blood

also that, for the reason just stated,

of the Lord,

and seeing

Jesus Himself could not have intended His simple words to be

understood in a sense which they did not then admit

for to

of,

suppose any essential difference between the

first

and

every subsequent observance of the

Theol.
I. p.
;

supper
u.

(Schmid, Bill.
WerJc,
III.
2, p.

341
Gess,

Thomasius, Chr. Pers.

have recourse to an expedient that is not only unwarrantable, but extremely questionable (see, on the other hand, Tholuck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 126 f.), and because, so long as the idea of the /cpea<? is not taken into account, any substantial partaking of the aw^a alone and by itself, without the alfia, appears utterly incon2 ceivable for here, again, the idea of a spiritual body, which it is supposed Jesus might even then have communicated
62
;

Stier

I. p.

16 7)

is to

(Olshausen

Eodatz in the Luther.

p.

Zeitschr.

1843,

3,
iib.

p.

56;

Kahnis, Abendm.

453

Hofmann;

Schoeberlein,

d. heil.

Abendm. 1869, p. 66), belongs entirely to the region of nonexegetical and docetic fancies, for which even the transfiguration furnishes no support whatever (see on 1 Cor. x. 16), and is inconsistent with the alfia (1 Cor. xv. 50; Phil. iii. 21):
1

Wetstein well observes:

esset, vel

panis

"Non quaerebant utrum panis, quern videbant, utrum aliud corpus inconspicuum in interstitiis, panis delitesceret,
ciijus rei esset

sed quid haec actio significaret,

repraesentatio aut memoriale."

no other way of disposing of the simple impossibility referred to, but by maintaining that this giving of Himself Comp. Hofmann, on the part of the Lord was of the nature of a miracle. Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 215, also Philippi, p. 433 f., who is at the same time disposed to assume that the Spirit illuminated the minds of the disciples as with The supposition of a miracle is certainly the last resort, and lightning flash. this on exegetical grounds is wholly unjustifiable in a case in which neither
Thomasius, however, as above,
p.

61, finds

the narrative itself nor the thing narrated implies a miracle. 2 In reply to the question why Jesus distributes the body and blood separately,

"I do not know." We are accordp. 68, has no answer but this met on the one hand with the assertion of a miracle, on the other with This is the way difficulties are supposed to be got over, but they a non liquet. There ought to be no remain, and continue to assert themselves all the same. hesitation in conceding that the separate participation, namely, of the body without the blood, and then of the blood by itself, is not to be understood as an actual eating and drinking of them, but as due to the symbolism based upon the circumstance of the body being put to death and the blood shed.
Thomasius,
ingly
:

CHAP. XXVI.

26.

207

it

follows that iarl

is

neither more nor less than the copula

!

" This, which ye are to take and 2 broken bread, is, symbolically speaking, my body," the body, namely, which is on the point of being put to death as a Xvrpov dvrl 7roWwv (xx. 28). The symbolical interpretation has also been correctly adhered to

of the symbolic statement

eat, this

by David

Schulz, de Wette, Julius Muller, Bleek, Eiickert,

;

Keim, Weizsacker comp. Ewald, Morison, Weiss on Marl; According to Matthew, as also according to and others. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 24, where /cXcofievov is spurious), Jesus omits entirely the tertium comparationis, an omission, however, which in itself is more in keeping with the vivid symbolism of the passage and the deep emotion of our Lord. The symbolical act of breaking, which cannot possibly have anything to do with the glorified body, but which refers solely to that which was about to be put to death, was sufficient to enable us to perceive in this breaking what the point of comparison was for the breaking of the bread and the putting to death of the body resemble each other in so

In the case of Luke and Paul, the necessity of adopting the symbolical

interpretation of \tri shows itself above all (1) in the words used with reference to the cup (h xaivh *ht.6nx.n). The new covenant has been made in and

This blood, inasmuch as it has been the covenant. It is so in virtue of the historical fact of the shedding, while it is this same fact that justifies its being designated a new covenant (John xi. 25). The wine poured into the cup can be said to be the blood of Christ as it actually was after being
shed,
effectiva of

through the actual blood of Christ. is the essential objective causa

shed on the cross, only in so far as it represents that real covenant- blood as it was previous to its being shed, and with the near prospect of its shedding it is this blood, but only in the sense warranted by a profound fully in view
;

vivid symbolism. that

Luke and Paul would appear

avapttitriv uvdftvvffis

on the strength of this symbolical interpretation to have added the expression s/j r. lfiv to the words of the institution. See on Luke xxii. 19 f. The denotes a realizing of that as present which is no longer so in bodily
(2) It is

form.
2

Not

that which
:

here

hand

to

you in

the

form

of bread (the Catholic

the covenant

view), nor

that which I here hand to you

in,

with,

and under

Lutheran orthodoxy). The doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ's body is inconsistent with the essential idea of a body, as was pointed out " Cavendum enim as early as the time oi the Fathers, especially by Augustine
(the synecdoche of
:

est,

ne ita divinitatem adstruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus," Augustine, ep. 57, ad Dardan. ; they understood the body of Christ to be in heaven, where it always remained.

208

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

whole is violently destroyed, so can no longer be said to be when put to death to be any
eating

far as the connection of the

that
the

the
bread,

bread
living

in fragments

nor the
hand,
in

body
1

longer

being.

The
a

(and

the

drinking),

on the

other

is

appropriation,

saving

symbol of the reception and of the faith (John vi. 51 ff.),

atoning and redeeming virtue inherent in the death of the

body (Paul

as above
;

to virep v/amv) and in the shedding of

of this, establishes a icoivoavia with the
is

the blood of Jesus

so that the act of receiving the elements

in the consciousness

body and blood that

therefore, in all

and active, and and real (see on a fellowship in which the believing communi1 Cor. x. 16), cant realizes in his inward experience that the divine-human life of the crucified Eedeemer is being imparted to him with saving efficacy, and in which he acquires a full assurance of eternal life. With regard to the divers views that have prevailed upon this point in the church, and of which the two held by Protestants do not admit of being harmonized
spiritually

living

ethical respects, genuine

without sacrificing their distinctive peculiarities (in opposition

to Ebrard, Lange),
it

may
is

be said that those of the Catholics

and Lutherans are

it

exegetically at

one in so far as their inter-

pretation of the eo-Tt

concerned, for they agree in regarding

as the copula of actual heing ; it is only when they attempt a more precise dogmatic definition of the mode of this actual

being that the divergence begins to show

there
is

itself.

Similarly,

no difference of an

exegctical

nature (Eodatz in Eudel-

bach's Zcitschr.

1843,

4, p.

of Zwingli (and Oecolampadius)

11) between the interpretation and that of Calvin (" externum

Calvin).

signum
1

dicitur id esse,

quod

figurat,"

On

the rela-

wrong in refusing to admit that the point of comThe 'Lx.\aat is the circumstance above all which the whole four evangelists agree in recording, making it appear, too, from Moreover, the the terms they employ, that it was regarded as a special act. fact that at a very early period the spurious xXu/^uov of 1 Cor. xi. 24 had come to be extensively adopted, may be regarded as affording evidence in
Philippi, p. 422
ff.,

is

parison lies in the breaking.

favour of the correctness of the church's interpretation of this symbolical

act.

The same view

viii. 12.

is

implied in the reading

fipuTTOfcmov

comp. Constat.

Ap.

16.

CHAP. XXVI.

27.

209

tion of Luther's doctrine to that of Calvin, see Julius Miiller's

For eort (which, however, Jesus p. 404 ff. would not express in Aramaic, His words probably being
dogmat. Abh.
"D^U sn) as a copula of symbolical or allegorical being,
xiii.
;
; ;

comp.
;

38 f. Luke xii. 1 John x. 6, xiv. 6 Gal. iv. 24 Heb. That Jesus might also have used adpi; x. 20 Eev. i. 20. instead of acofx,a (comp. John vi.) is clear in that case prominence would have been given to the material of which the Comp. Ruckert, p. 69. a-w/jua is composed (comp. Col. i. 22). But it would not have been proper to use icpeas (dead flesh, 1 Cor. viii. the flesh of what has been slain, Eom. xiv. 21 13 see Schulz, Abendm. p. 94).
;

Ver.
TTOTiip.

27.
is

Matthew

says indefinitely: a cup, for to before

Luke and Paul are somewhat more inasmuch as they speak of the cup as having been the Accordingly, the one which was presented fiera to Benririjtrai. cup in question here is usually understood to have been the pocxdum benedictionis, referred to above under No. 8, the third cup. But in that case what becomes of the fourth one, over which the second part of the Hallel was sung ? As it is not likely that this latter would be omitted as it is no less improbable that Jesus, after investing the cup now under consideration with the symbolism of His blood, would have sent round another after it with which no such symbolical significance was associated as ver. 2 9 expressly forbids the supposition of another cup having followed and as, in the last place, mention is made of the Hallel (the second portion of it) as coming immediately after the drinking of this one, we are bound to suppose that it is the fourth cup that is here meant, and in regard to which Maimonides (as quoted by Lightfoot) " Delude miscet pocidum quartum, et super illud observes Hallel, additque insuper benedictioncm cantici (TOT nana), perfxit quod est : Laudent te, Domine, omnia opera tua, etc., et dicit Benedictus sit, qui creavit fructum vitis, et postea non quicquam gustat ista nocte." Paul, no doubt, expressly calls the cup
spurious.
precise,
;

used at the supper to iror^piov

ver.

t?}?

evXoyla? (1

Cor. x.

16),

which corresponds with the name of the third cup

26) MATT.
;

(see

on

but,
II.

as

the epexegetical b evXoyovfMeu shows, this


210
designation
ritual,
is

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

not a terminus technicus taken from the Jewish
is

but

it

to be traced to the Christian standpoint, in

fact, to

16.

For the

the Christian act of consecration.

size of the

See on 1 Cor.
is

x.

Passover cups, and what

Constitt.

said

about the wine

Christ Himself

being red and mixed with water,

consult
12.

Grotius and Lightfoot.

is

In the

Ap.

viii.

16,

even spoken of as to iroT^piov tcepd<ra<; i% ev^apia-r.] is substantially the same as olvov koI uoWo?. evXoy., ver. 26, which latter has reference to the phraseology of

the prayer (benedictus,

etc.),
iv.

comp.
f.
;

xiv.

19

Acts xxvii. 35
Ver. 28.

1 Tim.

Matt. xv. 36.

Luke xxiv. 30 The was

;

nm

a thanksgiving prayer.

Comp. on 1 Cor. xiv. 16. The death-symbolism is now applied to that which contains the life (Gen. ix. 4 ff., and comp. on Acts xv.), viz.
the blood, which
is

described as sacrificial blood that

is

to

be shed in order to make atonement.

Neither here nor anyxii.

where

else in the

New

Testament (Heb.

24 not excepted)

can there be any question of the glorified blood of Christ. Comp. on ver. 26, and on 1 Cor. x. 16. According to New

Testament
p.

ideas, glorified blood is as

much

a contradictio in

adjecto as glorified flesh.

which ye are about to drink, the wine Although this wine was red, it must not be supposed that the point of the symbolism lay in the colour
220.
this,

tqvto]
:

This also in opposition to Hofmann,

which

is

in this cup.

(Wetstein, Paulus), but in the circumstance of its being potcred out

(see
is

below to

tt.

ttoXX. i/cxyvop.) into the

cup

the outpouring

the symbolical correlative to the breaking in the case of the

bread.

yap]

justifies

the irUre

ira.vre<;,

on the ground

of the interpretation given to that

is

earC] as in ver. 26.

the

which

is

about to be drunk.
"
}

to alp,d fiov rrj? hta6r)Kr]^\ This

This
is

is the preferable reading

see the critical remarks.

my

blood of

covenant"

my covenant

blood (JTHsn W\ Ex. xxiv. 8),

my

This blood which serves to ratify the covenant with God. conceived of as sacrificial blood (in opposition to Hofmann).
ix.

See Delitzsch on Heb.

the covenant with

20.

In a similar way Moses

ratified

God by means
ff.

of the sacrificial blood of

an

animal, Ex. xxiv. 6

On

the double genitive with only one

p.

noun, see Eritzsche, Quaest. Luc.

Ill

f.;

Lobeck, ad Aj. 309]

CHAP. XXVI.

28.

211

"Winer, p.

180
iv.

[E. T. 239].

For the arrangement of the words,

re diroKX^aei /xov tcov irvktov.

comp. Thuc.

85. 2

rfj

The

connecting of the fiov with alp,a corresponds to the to acop,d

fiov of ver. 26, as well as to the amplified
;

form of our Lord's words as given by Luke and Paul consequently we must not, with Elickert, connect the pronoun with r. htaOrjKrj^ (the blood The covenant which Jesus has in view is of my covenant). that of grace, in accordance with Jer. xxxi. 3 1 ff., hence called the new one (by Paul and Luke) in contradistinction to the old one under the law. See on 1 Cor. xi. 26. to irepl iroWwv i/c^vv. els dcpecriv dfxapriwv] Epexegesis of to alfid /xov t% BLadr/Kt]^, by way of indicating who are to par-

ticipate

in the

covenant
(et?

(rrepl

ttoWcov), the divine benefit

dfiapr.),
:

conferred

upon them
is

dcpea:

and the means by

which
is

which the covenant for

the
benefit

ratified

(eK^yvofi.)

shed (ex-

pressing as present what, though future,

is

near and certain)

of many, inasmuch as

it

becomes instrumental
last part of this stateit,

in procuring the forgiveness of sins.

The

ment, and consequently what

is

implied in

viz.

the atoning

purpose contemplated by the shedding of blood (comp. Lev. xvii. 11), is to be understood as setting forth more precisely
the idea expressed by irepi
ever, that virep,
It

must not be supposed, howirepi,

which

is

used by Luke instead of

is

is

essentially different from the latter; but

to be distinguished

from

it

only in respect of the different moral basis on which

it rests (like

the idea contained in

the

German um and

iiber),

so that both the prepositions are

often interchanged in cases

in

where they have exactly one and the same reference, as Demosthenes especially. See generally, on Gal. i. 4 1 Cor. i. 13, xv. 3. The shedding of the blood is the objec-

tive viz.

medium

of the forgiveness of sins

the subjective medium, the use

faith, is contained by implication in

made

in

this instance, as in xx.

28

(see

on the passage), of ttoWqjv,

as well as in the symbolic reference of the wlere. It is to be observed, further, that the genuineness of the words eh acpeo-. dfxapr. is put beyond all suspicion by the unexceptionable evidence in their favour (in opposition to David Schulz),

although, from their being omitted in every other record of the

;;

212

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Ap.
i.

institution of the supper (also in Justin,

GO,

c.

Tr. 70),

they should not be regarded as having been originally spoken by Christ, but as an explanatory addition introduced into the
tradition,

and put into the mouth of Jesus.

1.

Eemark

That Jesus meant

to institute a regular ordinance

to be similarly observed by His church in all time coming, is not apparent certainly from the narrative in Matthew and Mark

but it is doubtless to be inferred from 1 Cor. xi. 24-26, no less than from the practice of the apostolic church, that the apostles were convinced that such was the intention of our Lord, so much so, that to the words of the institution themselves was added that express injunction to repeat the observance sic t. As bearing i(j,i\v avdpvnsiv which Paul and Luke have recorded.

upon
23,
is

this matter, Paul's declaration: naptXafiov &irh roZ xupiou, ver.

any doubt
institute
fore,

of such decisive importance that there can no longer be (Eiickert, p. 124 ff.) as to whether Jesus intended to

cannot, therean ordinance for future observance. endorse the view that the repetition of the observance was due to the impression made upon the minds of the grateful disciples by the first celebration of the supper (Paulus, comp. also Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 195). Eemaek 2. The two most recent and exhaustive Protestant monographs treating of the Lord's supper on the lines of the Confessions, but also discussing the subject exegetically, are Ebrard, das Dogma vom heil. Abendm., Frankf. 1845 f., as representing the Reformed view, and Kahnis, d. Lehre vom Abendm., Lpz. 1851, Eiickert, on the other hand, d. as representing the Lutheran. Abendm., s. Wesen u. s. Gesch. (Lpz. 1856), ignores the Confessions The altogether, and proceeds on purely excgetical principles. result at which Ebrard arrives, p. 110 (comp. what he says, Olshausen's Leidensgesch. 1862, p. 103), is as follows: "The breaking of the bread is a memorial of the death of Jesus the eating of the bread thus broken is a symbolical act denoting that this death is appropriated by the believer through his But inasmuch as Jesus fellowship with the life of Christ. gives the bread to be eaten and the wine to be drunk, and inasmuch as He declares those substances to be pledges of the new covenant in His blood, the bread and the wine are, therefore, not mere symbols, but they assume that he who partakes of them is an actual sharer in the atonement brought about And since such a fellowship with by the death of Christ. Christ's death cannot exist apart from fellowship with His life

We

CHAP. XXVI.

213

since, in other words," the new covenant " consists in an actual it follows that partaking of the Lord's connection and union, supper involves as its result a true, personal central union The result at which and fellowship oi life with Christ."

work published in 1851 x is the orthodox Lutheran view, and is as follows " The body which Christ gives us to feed upon in the supper is the same that was
Kahnis
arrives in his above-cited
:

broken

for us

The blood which Christ gives us to drink in the supper is the same that was shed for us on the cross, just as its substratum, the wine, was poured out, with a view to its being drunk" (p. 104). He comes back to Luther's synecdoche in regard to tduto, which latter he takes as representing the concrete union of two substances, the one of which, viz. the bread, constitutes the embodiment and medium of the other (the body) ; the former he understands to be, logically speaking, only accidental in its nature, the essential substance being brought out in the predicate. As for the second element, he considers that it expresses the identity of the communion blood with the blood of the atoning sacrifice, and that not in respect of the function, but of the thing itself (for he regards it as an arbitrary distinction to say that the former blood ratifies, and that the latter
was broken,
to its being eaten.

with a view
on the
cross,

just as its substratum, the bread,

1 hi Lis Dogmatih, however (1861), I. pp. 516, 616 ff., II. p. 657 ff., Kahnis candidly acknowledges the shortcomings of the Lutheran view, and the necessity

and manifests, at the same time, a decided leaning in the Eeformed doctrine. The supper, he says, " is the medium of imparting to the believing communicant, in bread and wine, the atoning ejficacy oj the body and blood of Christ that have been sacrificed for us, which atoning efficacy places him to whom it is imparted in mysterious fellowship tvith the body of Christ. " Kahnis now rejects, in particular, the Lutheran synecdoche, and approves of the symbolical interpretation in so far as bread and wine, being symbols of Christ's body and blood, constitute, in virtue of the act of institution, that sacramental word concerning our Lord's body and blood which wben emitted by Christ has the effect of conveying the benefits of His death. He expresses himself more clearly in II. p. 557, where he says: "The Lord's supper is the sacrament of the altar which, in the form of bread and wine, the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, which have been sacrificed for us, imparts to the believing communicant the sin-forgiving efficacy of Christ's death." Those divinely-appointed symbols he regards as the visible word concerning Christ's body and blood, which word, as the terms of the institution indicate, is the medium through which the atoning power of His death, i. e. the forgiveness of sins, is communicated. From the bread and wine Christ is supposed to create a eucharistic corporeality, which He employs as the medium for the comof correcting them,

direction of the

munication of Himself.

214
propitiates)
;

THE GOSFEL OF MATTHEW.

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

1 Cor. x. 16.

Eemark

3.

As

institution that are to be

for the different versions of the words of the met with in the four evangelists, that

of Mark is the most concise (Matthew's coming next), and, considering the situation (for when the mind is full and deeply moved the words are few) and the connection of this evangelist with Peter, it is to be regarded as the most original. Yet the supplementary statements furnished by the others are serviceable in the way of exposition, for they let us see what view was taken of the nature of the Lord's supper in the apostolic age, as is pre-eminently the case with regard to the rovro vonTn ilg r. Ifir,v uvu/avrisiv of Paul and Luke. Comp. on Luke According to Gess, I. p. 147, the variations in question xxii. 19.


CHAP. XXVI.
29.

215

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

Ver. 29. The certainty and nearness of His death, which bad just been expressed in the symbolism of the wine, impel Jesus to add a sorrowful but yet comforting assurance (introducing it with the continuative autem). ore ov /xrj

7tl(o]

that

will

certainly

not

drink.

According

to

the

synoptic conception of the meal as being the one in connection

with the Passover, this presupposes that the cup mentioned at ver. 27 f. was the last one of the meal (the fourth), and not
the one before the
at this feast above

Tor it may be held as certain that, and considering His present frame of mind, He would take care not to give offence by omitting the fourth Passover-cup and what reason, it may be asked, would He have had for doing so ? The cup in question was the concluding one, during the drinking of which the second portion of the Hallel was sung (ver. 30). aira-pri] from this present occasion, on which I have just drunk of it. To suppose that Jesus Himself did not also partake of the cup (Olshausen, de Wette, Biickert, Weiss) is a gratuitous assumption, incomlast.
all,
;

patible with the ordinary Passover usage.

are to understand the drinking on the part of Jesus as having taken place after the evyapi^r^a-a^, ver. 27, before He handed the cup to

We

the disciples, and announced to

them the symbolical significance that was to be attached to it. Comp. Chrysostom. Matthew does not mention this circumstance, because he did not regard it as forming part of the symbolism here in view.
Euthymius Zigabenus correctly observes el Be tov irorriplov p,eTeo-%e, p,ere\a/3ev apa teal rod aprou. Comp. on ver. 26. K tovtov tov ryevvrjp,. t. dpLir.] tovtov is emphatic, and points to the Passover - wine. Mark and Luke are less
:


216
precise,

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

not having tovtov. From this it must not be assumed that Jesus never drank any wine after His resurrection. Acts x. 41 Ignat. Smyrn. 3. For yevvrjfia as used by later Greek writers (likewise the LXX.) in the sense of Kapiro^, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 286. For the reasons for rejecting the reading yevqixaTos (Lachmann, Teschendorf), not;

withstanding the far greater number of

favour, see Fritzsche on

testimonies in

its

Mark, p. 6 1 9 f. The use of this term instead of olvo<; has something solemn about it, containing, as it does, an allusion to the form of thanksgiving for the " benedictus sit, qui creavit fructum vitis." Passover wine Comp. Lightfoot on ver. 27. Kaivov] novum, different
:

in respect of quality

"

novitatem

dicit

plane singularem,"

Bengel

not

rccens, vkov.
is to

This conception of the

new Passover

wine, which

be the product of the coming aeon and of the

glorified ktio-is, is

connected with the idea of the renewal of

the world in view of the Messianic kingdom.

Luke xxii. 16, To understand the new celebration of the Passover in the perfected kingdom only in a figurative sense, corresponding somewhat to the feasts of the patriarchs, alluded
comp.
ver.

30.

to at

viii.

1 1 (" vos aliquando

mecum

in coelo

summa

laetitia

et felicitate perfruemini," Kuinoel, Neander), would, in presence

of such a characteristic allusion to the Passover, be as arbitrary

on the one hand as the referring of the expression (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Miinster, Clarius) to the period subsequent to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts x. 41) would be erroneous on the other, and that on account of the tovtov and the words iv tt) fiaaiX. t. it. /a., which can only be intended It is wrong to take to designate the kingdom of Messiah. Kaivov, as Kuinoel and Fritzsche have done, in the sense of
iterum, for
it is

a characteristic predicate of the urine that

;

it is

here in question
irakiv of the

besides,

had

it

been otherwise,
iii.

we

should

have had anew, Ik

Kaivfjs,

Thuc.

92.

5,

or the ordinary

New

Testament.

Ver. 30. 'T fivrjo-avTe<i\ namely, the second portion of the

Hcdlel (Ps.

cxv cxviii.).
k.t.X.']

See Buxtorf, Lex.

Talm.
c.

p.

613

f.

Jesus also took part in the singing.

Comp. Justin,
xii.

Tr.

106.

ei;r]\6ov,

The regulation (comp. Ex.

22),

which


CHAP. XXVI. 31-35.
2
1

required that this night should be spent in the city (Lightfoot,

p.

564), appears not to have been universally complied with. See Tosapht in Pesach. 8 in Lightfoot, minister, templi, p. 727. Ver. 31. Tore] whilst they were going out, ver. 36.
7rai/Te<?]

put

first

so as to be highly emphatic.

aicav$a\.]
:

Comp. on
enough
to

xi.

6.

In

this

instance

it

means
fate,

instead

of

standing faithfully by

me

till

the

last,

ye will be cowardly

run away and leave

me

to

my

and thus show

that your faith has not been able to bear

struggle.

the brunt of the

Comp. John

xvi. 32.
r

See ver. 56.

With what
filled

painful

astonishment these w ords must have

the dis-

ciples, sincerely conscious as

they were of their faithful de-

votion to their Master

Accordingly this announcement is followed up with quoting the prediction in which the tragic event The passage here introduced with yeyp. yap is is foretold. In the shepfrom Zech. xiii. 7 (quoted with great freedom). herd who, according to this passage, is to be smitten, Jesus sees a typical representation of Himself as devoted to death by God, so that the words cannot have had reference (Ewald, Hitzig) to the foolish shepherd (eh. xi. 15 ff.), but only to the one appointed by God Himself (Hofmann), whose antitype is Jesus, and His disciples the scattered sheep comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 1, p. 528. Ver. 32 f. IIpoeiTrcbv to, \v7njpa, 7rpo\eyec real ra irapapuvThey were again to gather dovfxeva, Euthymius Zigabenus. around Him in Galilee, the native scene of His ministry. Comp. xxviii. 10. The authenticity of these words in their present form may be called in question, in so far as Christ cannot have predicted His resurrection in such explicit terms. The answer of Peter, given in the bold See on xvi. 21.
!

self-confidence of his love, savours

somewhat

of self-exaltation

consequently the impression

ence of his shortcomings was
Ver.

made upon him by

all

the experi-

the deeper.

TIpXv aXe/cropa tptovrjaai] before a cock crows, Cock-crowing therefore before the day begins to dawn. occurs in the third of the four night w atches (see on xiv. 24), which watch lasted from midnight till about three o'clock, and is called aXt/cTopocpcovia in Mark xiii. 35. For the opposite
f.
T

34

218
of the irplv u\.
i']8r/

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

cpcov.,

see Plat.

Symp.
i.

p.

aXe/crpvovav ahovrayv; Lucian, Ocyp.

1.

223 C 7rpo<r i]p,kpav 670 eirel S' aXe/cTcop

: :

rjpepav eo-akinaev; Horace, Sat.

fication

10.

For a

later

modi-

of the expression in

conformity with the repeated

denials, see

Mark

xiv. 30.

On

the question as to whether

or not aXe/cTcop can be considered good Greek, consult Lobeck,

ad Phryn.

This prediction as to the time was subsep. 2 2 8 f. quently confirmed by the actual crowing of a cock, ver. 74. cnrapvijcrr) pue\ thou wilt deny me, deny that I am thy Lord and Master. Comp. Celsus in Origen, ii. 45 ovre

avvairedavov ovre vrrepairkQavov avrov, ov&e fco\dcrea>v icara(ppovelv eTTeia6r]aav,

aWa
(see

na\ rjpv^aavTo etvai fj,adr)TaL

xi.

<tvv

(toI

airoO., comp.
firj

John

16.

a7rapv>]<TOfiai]

For The

future after ov
p.

Hartung, Partikcll.

471

f.

[E. T. 635]) is rather

p. 157; Winer, more expressive of a confident

assertion

than the subjunctive, the reading of

/c.r.X,.]

AE

G,

etc.

6/xoi<w? fcai Travrei,

Considering the sincere but as

yet untried love of each, this

though

it is

is not an improbable statement, found only in Matthew and Mark. or,

Ver. 36. redarjpiavrj

according to a

still

better attested

form, TeOanpiavel

(Lachmann,

Tischendorf),

is

most likely
oil-vrcss.

the Greek equivalent of the

Hebrew 1^^ n ?, an
John
iv.

It

was a
34,

plot of ground (^atplov,

xxviii.

v. 3,

(John

xviii.

1)

Acts i. 18, iv. 7), perhaps a small estate with a garden according to Keim, an olive-yard where
5
;

nobody

lived.

If the place

was not public property, Jesus,

(the

according to John xix. 2, must have been on friendly terms

with the owner.

On

the place

present Dschcsmanije),

which subsequent tradition has fixed upon as the site of the Tobler, ancient Gethsemane, see Eobinson, Pal. I. p. 389 Oelberg, avTov\here the only Siloahquclle u. d. 1852. ; d. other instances in the New Testament are found in Acts xv.

-,

34,

xviii.

writers.

19, xxi.
e/cet]

4; of frequent

occurrence in classical

pointing toward the place.

Ver. 37 f. Anticipating the inward struggle that awaited Him, He retired farther into the garden, taking with Him none
(xvii.

1)

but the three most intimate disciples.

^p^aro']

indicating the first symptoms of the condition in question.

CHAP. XXVI.

39.

219
Suidas explains
dSrjfiov.

\virel(r8ai
as
:

k.

dBrj/jbovelv] Climax.

See Buttmann, Lcxilog. II. meaning \lav XvireiaOat. Phil. ii. 26. rrepl\v7ro<f\ very xiii. 3 H. 135 f. Ael. V. p. Isocr. p. 11 B; sorrowful, Ps. xliii. 5; 3 Esdr. viii. 71 f Diog. L. vii. 9 7. The opposite of this is Aristot. Eth. iv. 3 ^v^rj fiov] Comp. John xii. 27 Xen. Hell. Trepi^apr}^. 77 The soul, the intermediate iv. 4. 3 aStifAovrjaat rca -v/ru^a'?. element through which the spirit (to irvevfia, ver. 41) is connected with the body in the unity of the individual (see Beck, Bibl. Seelenl. p. 11), is the seat of pleasure and pain. Comp. Stirm in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1834, 3, p. 25 ff. ea><s davdrov] defining the extent of the rrepiXviros unto death,
;
;

;
.

so as almost to cause death, so that I

am

nearly
;

dead from

very

and see on Jonah iv. 9 Isa. xxxviii. 1 The idea of the mors infernalis (Calovius), as Phil. ii. 27. though Christ had been experiencing the pains of hell, is here Euthymius Zigabenus correctly exegetically unwarrantable.
grief
;

observes

(pavepcorepov i^ayopevet

to? avdpcoTros.

rrjv

acrOeveiav

rrj<?

(fivcreojs

fieivare

ifiov]

"In magnis

tentationi-

bus juvat solitudo, sed tamen, ut in propinquo sint amici,"

Bengel.
Ver. 39. Mi/cpov] belongs to irpoekOcav. after

He had

gone,
iv.

forward a
2.
8'

short distance.
7ropev6evre<;)

For

\xiicpbv

comp. Xen. Cyrop.

vii.

(p,tfcpbv

avTovs

TrpoTrepb-tyavTes).

Hist.
eirl

13 (/ju/cpbv it pocrwrrov avrov] The

Gr.
2.

was not necessary before irpdaoa-n. (in opposition to Fritzsche, who takes avrov as meaning there). Comp. xi. 10, xvii. 6, and elsewhere. Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 152]. Bengel " in facicm, non modo in genua appropriately observes
article

summa

demissio."

el

Sward" v eari\
is

ethical

possibility

according to the divine purpose.

pression irdvra

Similarly the popular ex-

Sward

(rot

to

be understood, according to
as

the sense in which Jesus uses

condition of

implying the necessary will. rb rrorr\ptov Tovro~\ i.e. this suffering and death immediately before me. ttXtjv ov^, /c.t.A,.] The wish, to which in His Comp. xx. 22. human dread of suffering He gave utterance, that, if possible,
it,

harmony with the divine

He

should not be called upon to endure

it (eSet^e

rb dvdpdoirivov,

220

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Chrysostom), at once gives place to absolute submission, John

v.

30,

vi.

38.

The word

to be understood after <rv (fltXei?) is not

firj,

yevio-dco, but, as

corresponding with the ov% (not

observe),

^evrjaeraL, or earai, in

which the petitioner

expresses his final

determination.

It

may

be observed further, that the broken

concerned,

is

utterance

is

in keeping with the deep emotion of our Lord.

is

For

a>?,

which, so far as the essential meaning

relative

identical with, the

h.

pronoun, comp. Hermann, ad

Horn.

in Cer. 172.

Ver. 40.
disciples

The

fact that the disciples slept,

and that

these

did so in circumstances such as the present,

and

that all three gave way,

and that
is,

their

sleep proved to be

of so overpowering a character,

notwithstanding Luke's ex(xxii.

planation that

it

was

airb t?}?

\vTrr,<;

45), a psychologithat they

cal mystery, although, after utterances of Jesus so manifestly

authentic as those of vv.

did sleep
is

40 and 45, the statement

not to be regarded as unhistorical, but

is to

be taken

had spent a considerable time in prayer, and that the disciples, in consequence of their deep mental exhaustion, found it impossible to keep awake. /cat] three times the narrative is characterized by a simple pathos. t& nerpa)] to him He addressed words that were equally applicable to them all ; but then it was he who a little ago had surpassed all the others in so boldly declaring how much he was oi/to)?] siccine, prepared to do for his Master, vv. 33, 35.
as implying that Jesus

thus,

uttered with painful surprise,

is

to be

taken in con-

nection with what follows, without inserting a separate

of interrogation (in opposition to
Beza).

mark

Euthymius Zigabenus and

Comp.

1 Cor. vi. 5.

Ver. 41." I v a] indicating, not the object of the irpocrev^eaOe,

hut purpose, and that of the watching and praying.

et<?

elaeXdrfre

7reipaa/ji6v] in order that ye

may

not be betrayed into

circumstances in which ye might be led to show yourselves

unfaithful to
vi.

13.

me (into the a-KavhaXi^eaOaL of ver. 31). Comp. By watching and praying, as a means of maintaining
were to avoid getting into such outward
cir-

clearness of judgment, freedom, and a determination to adhere

to Christ, they

cumstances as might prove dangerous to their moral wellbeing.


CIIAI\ XXVI. 42-44.

221
(ver. 40),

The watching here

is

no doubt of a physical nature

but the irpoaev-^ecrOaL has the effect of imparting to it the character and sacredness belonging to spiritual watchfulness
(Col. iv. 2).
(all

to

fjuev

TTvevfxa, k.t.X.]
it

a general proposition

the more telling that

is

not introduced with a yap),

refer, by way of warning, to the circumstances which the disciples were placed, as though it had been said ye are no doubt, so far as the principle of your ethical life in its general aim and tendency is concerned, willing but on the individual and ready to remain true to me side of your nature, where the influence of sense is so strong, you are incapable of resisting the temptations to unfaithfulComp. on John iii. 6. Euthyness by which you are beset. mius Zigabenus 17 &e <rdp%, d<rdevrj<; ovaa, vTrocneXkeTat zeal ovk evTovel. In order, therefore, to avoid getting into a predicament in which, owing to the weakness in question, you would not be able to withstand the overmastering power of influences fatal to your salvation without the special protection and help of God that are to be obtained through vigilance and prayerfulness, watch and pray I Ver. 42 ff. TIdXiv iic Sevripov] a well-known pleonasm. Comp. Sevrepov irdXtv, Plat. Polit. John xxi. 15 Acts x. 15. We somep. 260 D, avdis irdXtv (p. 282 C), and such like. times find even a threefold form avOa av irdXtv, Soph. Phil. el] not quandoquidem (Grotius), but: if. 940, 0. C. 1421. The actual feelings of Jesus are expressed in all their reality in the form of acquiescence in that condition of impossibility (ov hvvarai) as regards the divine purpose which prevents the thing from being otherwise. tovto] without to iroTrjpiov this, which I am called upon to drink. (see the critical remarks) idv p,r) avTo 7TiG)] without my having drunk it ; if it cannot yevrjdrjra) to deXrifid <rov] pass from me unless it is drunk. Bom. this is the viraicor) fiej^l davdrov aravpov, Phil. ii. 8 Observe in this second prayer the climax of resignation v. 19. and submission; His own will, as mentioned in ver. 39, is Mark's account is here less precise. completely silenced. Ver. 43. rjaav yap, k.t.X.] for their eyes (see on viii. 3) ivere heavy (weighed down with drowsiness). Comp. Eur. Ale. 385.

intended to
in

";

222

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

e'

Ver. 44.

xii. 8.

Tplrov] belongs
\6<y.~]

to Trpoarjv^.

Comp. 2
disciples

Cor.

t.

avr.

as

is

given at ver. 42.

at finding the

Ver.
(ver.

45.
:

The annoyance
:

asleep

40

oi/t&>?

ovk Icr^yaare, k.tX.)

" sleep)

now deepens

into an in-

tensely painful irony

(the emphasis is not

on now, and have out your rest but on tcaOevSere k. avair.) He had previously addressed them with a yprjjopelre, but to how little purpose and, accordingly, He now turns to them with the sadly ironical abandonment of one who has no further hope, and tells them to do quite the reverse sleep on, etc. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, Miinster, Erasmus, Calvin, Er. Schmid, Maldonatus, Bengel, Jansen, Michaelis, Fritzsche, Keim, Ewald. On \onrov and to Xoittov, for the rest of the time, on to
\oittop,
!
!

in the sense ofjam (Vulgate), henceforward (Plat. Trot.

p.

321
p.

C),

see Schaefer,

ad Long.

p.

400
does

Jacobs, ad Philostr.

663.

Comp. on Acts
that
of

xxvii. 20.

To

object, as is frequently done,

the

ironical

view

not

accord

with
is

the
to

frame
fail

mind

in

which

Jesus must

have

been,

to

appreciate aright the nature of the situation.

in cases where such anguish
clearness of

Irony

is

not

inconsistent even with the deepest anguish of soul, especially

is also accompanied with such judgment as we find in the present instance and consider what it was for Jesus to see such an overpowering tendency to sleep on the part of His disciples, and to find everything so different from what He needed, and might reasonably have expected Winer, p. 292 [E. T. 391],
!

following Chrysostom, Theophylact (who, however, admits the

plausibility of the ironical view),

idea of irony, and interprets thus

doing,

and take your rest," spoken permissively in accordance with the calm, mild, resigned spirit produced by the prayers in which He had just been This is also substantially the view of Kuinoel, engaged. de Wette, Morison, Weiss on Mark ; and see even Augustine,

and Grotius, excludes the " sleep on, then, as you are which words are supposed to be
:

who

says

"

verba indulgentis

eis

jam somnum."

But the

idea that any such indulgence was seriously intended, would be incompatible with the danger referred to at ver. 41, and

which He knew was threatening even

the disciples themselves.

CHAP. XXVI.

46.

223

There are
of

others, again,
:

who

are disposed to take the words

still

interrogatively, thus

asleep ? Such is the view Henry Stephens, Heumarm, Kypke, Krebs, in spite of the
are ye

ordinary

which

usage with regard to to \oltt6v, to understand in the sense of " henceforth " (Bleek, Volkmar) would

be entirely out of keeping with the use of the present here. If, however, the mark of interrogation be inserted after /cadevBere,

and to Xonrbv
;

teal

avairaveaOe be then taken imperaits logical

would have the intenwould have to be before to \oittov, not before avairaveaOe, where it could be rendered admissible at all only by an artificial twisting of the sense (" now you may henceforth rest on, even as long as you choose "). While Jesus is in the act of uttering His KadevheTe, k.t.\., He observes the hostile band approaching the painful irony changes to a painful earnestness, and He continues in abrupt and disjointed words ISov, tfyyi/cev, k.t.X. The rj &pa should be taken absolutely: hora fatalis, John xvii. 1. The
tively (Klostermann), in that case icaL
sive force of even

but

position

next clause describes in detail the character of that hour.

et<?

^elpas afxapT.]

into sinners' Jiands.

members of the Sanhedrim, at whose disposal placed by means of His apprehension, and not

He refers to the He would be

to the Romans (Maldonatus, Grotius, Hilgenfeld), nor to both of these together (Lange). The irapahihovs is not God, but Judas, acting,

however, in pursuance of the divine purpose, Acts ii. 23. Ver. 46. Observe the air of quick despatch about the words
iyeipeade,
aycofiev,

ISov.

a<yc0fj,ev]

is

not

summons

to

take to flight, in consequence perhaps of a momentary return of the former shrinking from suffering (which would be inconsistent with the fact of the victory that had been achieved,

and with the

t.

clear consciousness
k.t.X.

which
but
:

He had
to

that 6 wo?

d.

TrapahlhoTat,

ver.

45),

go

to

meet

the

with a view to the fulfilling of the irapaSlSoTai of which He had just been speaking. KavTevdev eBeigev, 6tc
betrayer,
koov dirodaveiTai,

Euthymius Zigabenus.

Eemaek. On the agony in the garden (see, in general, Ullmann, Silndlos., ed. 7, p. 127 ff.; Dettinger in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1837, 4, 183S, 1 ; Hofmann, Sehriftbew. II. l,p. 306 ff.

224
Keim,
III. p.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

30G
ff.),

As

the following points may be noted (1) not regard it simply as bodily suffering (Thiess, Paulus), nor as consisting in sorrow on account of the disciples and the Jews (Jerome), nor as pain caused by seeing His hopes disappointed ( Wolfeributtel Fragments), nor as grief at the thought of parting from His friends (Schuster in Eichhorn's Bibl. IX. p. 1012 ff.) but, as the prayer vv. 39, 42 proves, as consisting in fear and dread of the cruel suffering and death that were so near at hand, the prospect of which affected Christ whose sensibilities were purely human, and not of the nature of a philosophical abstraction, like the imperturbability of Socrates or the apathy of the Stoic (Celsus, in Origen, ii. 24, charges Him with cowardice) all the more powerfully in proportion to the greater purity, and depth, and genuineness of His feelings, and the increasing distinctness with which He foresaw the approach of the painful and, according to the counsel of the Father, inevitable issue. For having been victorious hitherto over every hostile power, because His hour had not yet come (John vii. 30, viii. 20), He realized, now that it was come (ver. 45), the whole intensity of horror implied in being thus inevitably abandoned, in pursuance of God's redemptive purpose, to the disposal of such powers, with the immediate prospect before Him of a most dreadful death, a death in which Pie was expected, and in which He Himself desired, to manifest His perfect obedience to the Father's will. The momentary disturbing of the complete harmony of His will with that of God, which took place in Gethsemane, is to be ascribed to the human ds6emia incidental to His state of humiliation (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 4 Heb. v. 7), and should be regarded simply as a natural shrinking from suffering and death, a shrinking entirely free from sin (comp. Dorner, Jem
:

to the nature of

it,

we must

silndlosc

Vollkommenh.

p.

f.).

Neither was

it

in

any way

the conviction, unwarrantably ascribed to Him by Schenkel, that His death was not absolutely necessary for the redemption of the world. That touch of human weakness should not even be described as sin in embryo, sin not yet developed (Keim), because the absolute resignation to the Father's will which immediately manifests itself anew preTo suppose, cludes the idea of any taint of sin whatever. however, that this agony must be regarded (Olshausen, Gess) as an actual abandonment by God. i.e. as a withdrawing of the presence of the higher powers from Jesus, is to contradict the testimony of Heb. v. 7, and to suppose what is inconsistent with the very idea of the Son of God (Strauss, II. p. 441) ; and

due

to

chap. xxvr.
to explain it

225

on the ground of tlie vicarious character of the (Olshausen, Ebrard, Steinmeyer, following Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, and the dogmatic writers of the orthodox school), as though it were to be regarded as "a concrete bearing of the whole concentrated force of a world's sin " (Ebrard), and of the wrath of God in all its fulness (comp. Thomasius, III. 1, p. 69 f. Weber, v. Zorne Gottes,\). 266 ff.), is erroneously to take a materialistic and quantitative view of the 'iXaerripiov of Jesus whereas Scripture estimates His atoning death according to its qualitative value, that is to say, it regards the painful death to which the sinless Son of God subjected Himself in obedience to the Father's will as constituting the efficient cause of the atonement, and that not because He required to undergo such an amount of suffering as might be equivalent in quantity and intensity to the whole sum of the punishment due to mankind, but because the vicarious Xvrpov on behalf of humanity consisted in the voluntary surrender of His own life. Comp. ver. 27 f., xx. 28 John
suffering
;
;

John ii. 2, iii. 5 1 Tim. ii. 6 2 Cor. v. 21 Gal. iii. But it would be unwarrantable, on the other hand, to 13. ascribe the dread which Jesus felt merely to the thought of death as a divine judgment, and the agonies of which He was supposed to be already enduring by anticipation (Kostlin in
i.

29

the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. III. p. 125). Those who adopt this view lay great stress upon the sinlessness of our Lord as tending to intensify this painful anticipation of death (Dettinger, comp. Ullmann, Neander). (2) John, notwithstanding the fact that he was both an eye and ear witness of the agony in Gethsemane, makes no mention of it whatever, although he records something analogous to it as having taken place somewhat earlier, xii. 27. With the view of accounting for this silence, it is not enough to suppose that John had omitted this incident because it had been sufficiently recorded by the other evangelists, for a mere external reason such as this would accord neither with the spirit of his Gospel nor with the principle of selection according to which it was composed (in opposition to Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Ebrard). should rather seek the explanation of the matter in the greater freedom which characterizes the composition of this Gospel, and therefore in the peculiarities of style and form which are due to this work of John being an independent reproduction of our Lord's life. After the prayer of Jesus, which he records in ch. xvii., John felt that the agony could not well find a place in his Gospel, and that, after xii. 23 ff., there MATT. II. 2

We

226
was no reason why

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

it should be inserted any more than the cry of anguish on the cross. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 557 f. In John, too, ch. xviii., the transition from acting to suffering is somewhat abrupt (in opposition to Hofmann) but after the highpriestly prayer, the suffering appears as one series of victories culminating in the triumphant issue of xix. 30 in fact, when Jesus offered up that prayer, He did so as though He were It is quite unfair to make use of already victorious (xvi. 33). John's silence either for the purpose of throwing discredit xipon the synoptic narrative (Goldhorn in Tzsohirner's Magaz. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 422 f.), or as f. chr. Pred. 1, 2, p. 1 ff. telling against John (Bretschneider, Probab. p. 33 ff. Weisse, II. Baur, Keim likewise Theile in Winer's Journ. II. p. p. 268 353 ff., comp. however, his Biogr. Jesu, p. 62), or with a view to impugn the historical character of both narratives (Strauss, Bruno Bauer). The accounts of the two earliest evangelists bear the impress of living reality to such an extent that their character is the very reverse of that which one expects to find in a legend (in opposition to Gfrorer, ffeil. Sage, p. 337 ; Usteri in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 465) nor is there any reason why, even after the high-priestly prayer, such an agony as that in
; ; ;
;

question should not find a place in the Gospel narrative for who shall presume to say what changes of feeling, what elevation and depression of spirit, may not have taken place on the eve of such a catastrophe in a heart so noble, so susceptible, and so full of the healthiest sensibilities, and that not in consequence of any moral weakness, but owing to the struggle that had to be waged with the natural human will (comp. Gess, p. 175 Weizsacker, p. 563) ? Comp. John, remark after ch. xvii. (3) The report of Jesus' prayer should not be (unpsychologically) supposed to have been communicated by the Lord Himself to His disciples, but ought rather to be regarded as derived from the testimony of those who, before sleep had overpowered them, were still in a position to hear at least the first words of it.
;
;

Ver. 47.

Et?

twi> SaBe/co] precisely as in ver. 14, and

all

repeated on both occasions in

oral

three evangelists.

In the

and written tradition this tragic designation (KaT-rjyopla, Euthymius Zigabenus) had come to be so stereotyped that it would be unconsciously inserted without there being any The same holds true with further occasion for doing so.
regard to
6

irapa$LSov<;

aurov, ver. 48,

xxvii.

3.

6^\o<?

ttoXvs] Matthew makes no reference to the

Boman cohort, John

CHAP. XXVI.

48-50.

227
same time, 52 like-

xviii.

his account, however, does not, at the

as it is simply less precise.

exclude

it,

Luke

xxii.

this early stage

wise represents the high priests and elders as appearing at among the throng but this is an unwarrant;

able amplification of the tradition

cudgels, fustibus (Vulgate).

see
ii.

on Luke.
iv.

%v\wv\
Polyb.
vi.

Herod,

36.

3.

Wetstein on the passage.

63,

180

airb rwv,

k.t.X.]

belongs

to r)\6e; see

on Gal.
is

ii.

12.

Ver.
xviii.

48. It
24),
to

usual, though unwarrantable (see on

John

take eSa/cev in
xiv.

the

sense
it

of
is

the pluperfect
necessary, with

(comp.

Mark
:

44),

in

which case

The Vulgate correctly renders by dedit. He communicated the signal to them ivhile ov av <f)i\i]aa), k.t.X.] Fritzsche they were on the way. inserts a colon after (pcX/jaco, and supposes the following
ver.

Ewald, to make

48 a

parenthesis.

words

to

be understood
(just

est
:

vobis comprehendendus.

It

may
This

be given more simply thus

He

it

is

Whomsoever I shall have He, no other is the one in question)

!

kissed,

civt6<;

serves to single out the person intended, from those

about Him.

Hermann, ad
is
:

Viger. p. 733.
elire (Fritzsche),

Ver. 49. Evdea><;]

not to be taken with

but with TrpoaekOcov

immediately, as soon as he had given

done.

signal, he stepped up, etc. No sooner said than KarefyiXrjaev] embraced and kissed Him, kissed Him most endearingly. Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 33 &><? tow p>ev /caXovs

them

this

(f)ik/]o-avTo<; fiov,

tou?

8'

ayadoixi Kara(j)t\.7]aavTO<;
v.

Tob.
p.

vii.

Ecclus. xxix. 5
is

3 Mace.

49

Test.

XII. pair.

730.
38,

It

not the case, as de Wette imagines (see Luke

.37), that

vii.

45

Acts xx.
the
is to

in the
lost

compound has

Testament (and the LXX.) the force here ascribed to it but it

;

New

be insisted on in our present passage as much as in The signal, as arranged, was to be simply a classical Greek.
kiss
;

the signal actually given was kissing accompanied with

embraces,

of Judas,

which was entirely in keeping with the excitement and the desire he felt that there should be no mistake

as to the person intended.

Ver. 50. 'Eratpe] as in xx. 13.

e<'

Trdpei]

relative 69 is never used in a direct (see Lobeck,

As the ad Fhryn. p.

228

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

57), but only in an indirect question (Kuhner, II. 2, p.

942

Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 372),

interrogative interpretation

it

follows that the ordinary

to

must be wrong; and that

f.])

suppose

(Winer,

p.

157

[E. T.

207

that

we have

here one of those

is,

corrupt usages peculiar to the Greek of a less classical age,

so far as o? is concerned, without

any foundation whatever.

Gr. p.
:

Fritzsche, followed

by Buttmann, Neut.

217
"

understands the expression as an exclamation

required that

[E. T. 253], ad qualem rem

perpetrandam ades !" But even then, Greek usage would have it should have been put in an interrogative form and expressed by ri, or failing this we might have had the words i(f> olov instead (Ellendt, as above, p. 300 f.). The language, as might be expected from the urgent nature of the
situation, is

somewhat abrupt in

its

character

Friend,

mind

what you are here for I attend to that. With these words He spurns the kisses with which the traitor was overwhelming Him. This suits the connection better than the supplying of elire Instead of this hypocritical kissing, Jesus would (Morison). prefer that Judas should at once proceed with the dark deed he had in view, and deliver Him to the catchpolls. John xviii. 3 ff., it is true, makes no mention whatever of the kissing but

this is not to be taken as indicating the legendary character of

the incident, especially as there

is

nothing to prevent us from

supposing that
Tiva ^TetTe,

it

may have
xviii.

taken place just before the question

see on this latter passage.

John
is

Ver. 51. It
tioned the

strange that the Synoptists have not

of Peter here (John xviii.

men-

name

10, where the

name
that,

of the high priest's servant is also given). It may be with a view to prevent the apostle from getting into

trouble with the authorities, his

name was suppressed from

came
to be

the very

first,

and

that, accordingly, the incident

incorporated in

the primitive gospel traditions without any

it

names being mentioned,

ultimately to supply this omission.

having been reserved for John avrov to cdtiov] his

On carlov, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 211. ear (see on viii. 3). at which the stroke was aimed. the head missed He Ver. 52. Put back thy sword into its place (dtf/crjv, John xviii.
11
;

icoXeov,

Chron. xxi. 2 7).

pictorial representation

CHAP. XXVI.
the sword teas uplifted.
taken a sword,
in law
toill
xiii.

53, 54.

229
/c.t.X.]

iravres yap,

All,

who

have,

perish by the stoord,

an

ordinaiy axiom

10) adduced for the purpose of enforcing His disapproval of the unwarrantable conduct of Peter, not a
(Rev.
7rpo(f)r)Tia

Bca(p6opd<; rwv eirekdovrwv avru> 'IovSaiwv Zigabenus, comp. Grotius), nor " an ideal sentence (Euthymius
777?

tations being foreign to our passage.

" (Lange) pronounced upon Peter all such interpreof death Luther, however, fitly

observes

"

Those take the sword who use

it

without proper

authority?
Ver. 53.

"H]
i.

or,

in case this should not be sufficient to

induce thee to thrust back thy sword. See on Gal.

10.

dpri]

this instant.

The interrogation

does not extend merely

as far as p,ov, in

ficance, while the

;

on to dyyeXwv a broken construction, but thus

able
.
.
.

which case it would lose much of its signilanguage would be rendered too abrupt, but yet not as though /cat (for that, otl) introduced
:

Thinkest thou that

I am
?

not

and He

will

(not) place at

my

side,

etc.
!

so that
force

I can thus dispense entirely with thy protection

of the negative runs through the whole sentence.

The

7rA,e/&>
is

SwSe/ca Xeyecova? dyyiXcov

(see the critical

remarks)

genuine Attic usage, according to which it is permissible to have the neuter ifkelov or ifkeioi without a change of conLobeck, ad Phryn. p. 17 D; Ktihner, II 2, The number twelve corresponds to the number of p. 847. the apostles, because of these only one had shown a disposistruction, or

even without inserting

rf.

410

f.

Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol.

p.

tion to defend him.

Ver. 54.
is,

Hw?

ovv] How, in that

case,

cotdd

it

be, if,

that

I
be

were

to

be defended by thee or angel hosts, how could

it

possible that, etc.

In his comment on
it

ovv,

Euthymius
dvatpeOio.

Zigabenus aptly analyses

as follows

Eor
aai

7nw<?,

comp. on

xxiii. 33.

otl]
:

el

p,r]

ovrm

states the purport of the

<ypdcf>ov-

<ypacpal, so

that to complete the sense a \iyov<rai or

may

be understood
p.

(Fritzsche,

Quacst.

Luc.
tJie

p.

58

215) fulfilled which say that it must happen thus, and not otherwise? Jesus here alludes to the fact of His arrest, which, according
liow shall

Maetzner, ad Antiph.

Scriptures be

230
to Scripture,
is
iv.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

a necessary part of the destiny assigned

Him

comp. Acts
to find

28; Luke
suffice
it

xxiv. 2 5

f.

We

must not expect

what

is
;

here referred to in any passages of Scripture

to

in particular

relating to the sufferings of the

know, that all the predictions Messiah find their necessary

31.

fulfilment in the historical events of our Lord's

itself

not excluded.

Comp.

ver.

The

life,

the arrest
of

healing

the

wounded servant is peculiar to Luke xxii. 51. It probably came to be engrafted upon the tradition at a later period for
;

this act of healing, in virtue of the peculiarity of its alleged

occasion and character, as well as in virtue of

its

being the last

which Jesus performed, would otherwise scarcely have been omitted by all the other evangelists see also on Luke as above. Ver. 55. 'Ev i ice ivy rrj &pa\ in that hour, in which that was going on which is recorded between ver. 47 and the
;

passage, subsequently, however, to the scene with and while the arrest was taking place. Comp. xviii. 1, to t9 0^X0*9] not to the high priests, etc., as Luke x. 19. What is meant is the crowds xxii. 5 2 would have us suppose. of which the 0^X09 iroXv'i of ver. 47 was composed. irpo^rjTwv] It is still Jesus who Ver. 56. Tovro Comp. speaks, and who with these words closes His address. In Luke xxii. 53 we find a somewhat also Mark xiv. 19. Erasmus, Jansen, Bengel, Fritzsche, different conclusion given. de Wette, Schegg, Bleek, Weiss, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, regard the words in question as a remark by the evangelist (comp. but if that were so, we should have expected i. 22, xxi. 4) some specific quotation instead of such a general expression as at ypacpal r. -rrp., and what is more, our Lord's words would thus be deprived of their proper conclusion, of that which contains the very point of His remarks. For the gist of the whole matter lay in this avowal of His conviction as the God-man that all that was now taking place was a carrying out of the divine purpose with regard to the fulfilling of the Scriptures, and tote 01 fiaO^ral, thus the mystery of ver. 55 is solved. k.t.\.] Observe the TrdvTes. Not one of them stood his ground. Here was the verification of the words of Jesus, ver. 31 j comp. John xvi. 32.

present
Teter,

CHAP. XXVI. 57-60.

231

Ver. 57 f. The Synoptists make no mention of the judicial examination before Annas (John xviii. 1 3) their narrative is for this reason incomplete, though it does not exclude such
;

As for the trial before the examination (Luke xxii. 66). members of the Sanhedrim, which took place at the house of
Caiaphas, John merely alludes to
ever, aireareiXev is not to
it,

xviii.

24, where, how-

be taken as a pluperfect.

airo

fxaicpodev] a well-known pleonasm: in later Greek the airo

is

dropped.
:

to tcXo?]
70."
t?}?

observes

"

Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 93. Bengel appropriately medius inter animositatem ver. 5 1 et timorem ver.
av\rj<i\ not the palace but the court, as in ver. 3.
ecr&>] see

elcreXddiv

Lobeck, ad Aj. 741

3 Mace.
iii.
:

Paralip.

p.

538.
"

cxitum

rei ;

14,
"

writers.

Luther renders admirably

common in wo es hinaus

classical

wollte

(what the upshot would be). Ver. 59 f. Kal to avveZpiov 6\ov] and the whole Sanhedrim generally. This is a legitimate enough use of the
words, even although certain individual members (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) did not concur in this proceeding. ">lrev8o/jLapTvpLav] so called from the historian's own Euthymius Zigabenus well remarks eo? fieu point of view.

i/ceivois

cSo/cet,

p,apTvpiav,

a><?

Se

tjj

akwdeiq, ^evhofiapTvplav.

7ra>5 OavaT. avT.^ with a view to putting Him to death, which could only be effected by their pronouncing in the first instance a capital sentence, and then having it ratified by the Kal ov% evpov Kal authority of the imperial procurator. 7ioWa)v TrpocreXdovTOiv tyev&ofiapTvpwv (see the critical remarks) and they found no means of doing so, even though many false 'witnesses had come forward. There were many

who
yet

presented
the

themselves to
the lack

bear witness against Jesus

it

Sanhedrim did not find what

wanted

to

find,

doubtless because of

of that agreement between

two

which the law required (Num. See what imme15). vo-Tepov Be 7rpo<re\d. Bvo, and comp. Mark diately follows Though there was a show of complying with the xiv.'56. ordinary forms of judicial process, they were nevertheless
of the witnesses at least

xxxv.

30;

Deut.
:

xvii.

6,

xix.

shamefully violated

(in

opposition

to

Salvador, Saalschutz),

232
in that

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

exculpatory evidence

(John

xviii.

20

f.)

was never
Jesus had

called for.

Ver. 61.

The expression John

ii.

19, which

made
(John

use of with reference to His own body, was not only

Xva-are):

by those witnesses, but also misrepresented whether wilfully or not, cannot be determined. But in any case the testimony was objectively false, and even in the case of the two who agreed it was in all probability subjectively so. Comp. Acts vi. 13 f. Bia rptduv rjpuep.']
misunderstood
:

not

after

three days (Gal.

ii.

1),

but

during three days.

short period,

The work of building was to extend over this would then be complete. See on Gal. ii. 1.
Ver. 62.
of his

and

With

the sublime calm of one

who

is

conscious

own

superior worth, Jesus

meekly abstains from uttering

a single word before this contemptible tribunal in the

self-vindication, el&cos
TocovTOL<i,

way

of

Se

ical,

on
;

fidrrjv

airoKpLveirai

irapa

Euthymius Zigabenus whereas the high priest who and that with considerable gratification, that the charge of being a Messianic pretender is now fully substantiated by the language of Jesus just deponed to (see ver. 63), quite forgets himself, and breaks out into a passion. The breaking up of
rinds,

the following utterance into two questions

answerest thou not

what
is,

{i.e.

how

heinous a matter) do
is

tJiese

witness against thee ?

so far as the latter question

concerned, neither feeble (de

Wette) nor unnatural (Weiss), but entirely in keeping with

the passionate haste of the speaker.

This being the case, the

two clauses should not be run into one. We should neither, on the one hand, following Erasmus, with Fritzsche, take tL in the sense of cur, or (ad Marc. p. 650) the whole sentence as
ecrriv, o ovroi aov KaTap,aprvpovacv on the other, with the Vulgate, Luther, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weiss, should we adopt the rendering " nihil respondes ad ea, quae isti adversum te testificantur ? " This latter, however, would not be inconsistent with the strict meaning of the terms employed, for it is quite per-

equivalent to rl tovto
nor,

missible to use diroKpiveo-dal tl in the sense of: to reply

to

anything (see Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 239), and to take rl as equivalent to 6,ti (Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 216 [E. T.

CHAP. XXVI.

63, 64.

233
he understood

251],
before

who supposes
ti).

"

Jwrcnd" (hearing) to
priest answers

Ver.

63.

The high

this second refusal to

speak by repeating a formal oath, in which Jesus is adjured For this conto declare whether He be the Messiah or not. fession would determine how far they would be justified in

pronouncing a capital sentence, and such as the

curator would not
fail

to confirm.
:

Roman
swear,
5.

pro-

if-op/cl^coi]

means, like

the earlier form e^opKoco

call
vi.

tipon

thee

to

1265,0; Polyb.

iii.

61. 10,

21.

1, xvi.

31.

Dem. Comp.

JPaBfy Gen. xxiv. 3, al.

To give an
full

affirmative answer to this

formula was to take the

court of law.
Christi de jurcjur.

oath usually administered in any

Michaelis,

Mos. R.
8
;

302

Matthaei, doctr.

1847,

p.

Keil, Arch. II. p. 256.

The

fact that Jesus took the oath has

been denied, though without

any reason whatever, by Wuttke, Dollinger, Steinmeyer. Kara rod 6eov, k.t.X.] by the living God. Comp. 1 Kings Judith i. 12 common in Greek authors, see Kiihner, iii. 24 also Heb. vi. 13, and Bleek thereon. I. 1, p. 434 The living God as such would not fail to punish the perjured, Heb. x. 31. It was the uniform practice in courts of law to swear by God. See Saalschutz, M. R. p. 614. 6 in 09 rov Oeovj ordinary,
;
;

recognised

designation

of the Messiah, into which, naturally

enough,

the

metaphysical

conception does not

enter

here,

however much it may have been present to the mind of Christ Himself in making the affirmation which follows. Ver. 64. 5*u et7ra<?] see on ver. 25. Mark xiv. 62 iyco el/M. A distinguished confession on the part of the Son in presence of the Father, and before the highest tribunal of
the theocratic nation.

77X771^]

not prqfecto (Olshausen), nor

i.e.

quin
p.

(comp. Klotz, ad Devar. 725) apart from what I have just affirmed, ye shall henceforward have reason to be satisfied, from actual observation, that I am the Messiah who was seen by Daniel in his vision (Dan. vii. 13). dirdpTi] is not to be taken with Xiyco vpXv (Schulz in 3d ed. of Griesbach), but since in any other connection it would lose its force with o-freade nor is it to be understood in any other sense than that of henceforth, i.e.
however,

(Kuinoel), but:

234
from the time of
to enter into

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

impending death, through which I am But seeing that dirapri forbids us to understand o-^reade as denoting only a single momentary glance (comp. on the contrary, John i. 51), we are bound to suppose that Jesus used it somewhat loosely to express

my

my

Boga.

the idea of coming

in

to perceive

in the course of experience (as

referred
to)

the passage

of

John
right

just

the fact of His

allusion
to Ps.

being seated at the

ex. 1),

hand of God

(in

and that

He

did not intend ip^ofievov,

k.t.X. to refer to

the second advent, but (Beza, Neander, Holtzmann, Schenkel,

Gess, Weissenbach) to a coining in

the figurative sense of

the word, namely, in the

which,

shape of those mighty influences

from His
up
to

place in heaven,

He

will shed

upon

the earth,

manifestations, all of them, of His sovereign sway.

We

view by the fact that the sitting cannot possibly be regarded as an object of actual sight, and that airdpTL 6^\rea6e can only be said of something that, tt}? Bvvdp,.^ The beginning now, is continued henceforth.
are

shut

this

Mighty One
crete).

is

conceived of as power (the abstract for the con-

Similarly in the

Talmud

ni^aari,

Buxtorf, Lex.

Talm.

p.

Such abstract terms (as for instance our: majesty) have somewhat of an imposing character. Comp. 2 Pet. i.
385.
17.
Ver. 65.

As may be seen from

2 Kings xviii. 17, the rending

an indication of unusual vexation was indulged in above all on hearing any utterance of a blasphemous nature. See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2146; Schoettgen, Wetstein on our passage. Maimonides, quoted by p. 234 Buxtorf as above, thus describes the usual mode of proceeding
of the garments as
;

in such cases
posterius,

" Laceratio

fit

stando, a collo

anterius,

non

neque ad fimbrias inferiores vestis. Longitudo rapturae palmus est. Laceratio non fit in interula
latus

non ad

seu indusio linteo, nee in pallio exteriori

corpori accommodatis omnibus
fit,

in rcliquis vestibvs

etiamsi decern fuer int."

The

last-mentioned particular
the plural rd l/xdrca (1

may

serve to account for the use of

That part of the law Mace. ii. 14). which forbade the high priest to rend his garments (Lev. x. 6, xxi. 10) had reference merely to ordinary mourning for the


CHAP. XXVI,
60, 67.

235

dead.

Comp.

Mace.

f3\aacf)ri/jLT)(Te] in so far as

Messiah, the Son of

71; Joseph. Bell. ii. 15. 4. by falsely pretending to be the God, and by further arrogating to Himxi.
;

self participation in divine honour and authority, ver. 64, He comp. had been guilty of insulting the majesty of God John v. 18, x. 33. The pain of the high priest no doubt represented the genuine vexation of one who was most deeply moved; but the judgment which he formed regarding Jesus was based upon the gratuitous assumption that He was not the Messiah, and indicates a predisposition to find Him guilty of the capital charge (Lev. xxiv. 16). For ri eri XP- ^X- lia P T
>

comp.
Ver.

Plat. Rep. p.

340 A.
point the high priest,
is

66.

At

this

notwithstanding

the precipitancy with which the trial

being hurried through,

and notwithstanding the candid confession just made by the accused, calls for a formal vote, the result of which is a verdict of guilty, and that of an offence deserving to be punished by death. The next thing that had to be considered was the course
to be

adopted with a view

this that

to the

carrying out of the sentence.

It

was

formed the subject of deliberation at that conclave to which reference is made at xxvii. 1. Ver. 67. Those to whom Matthew here refers are the
the

members of
65).

Sanhedrim

(as are also

the rives of
&><?

Mark

xiv.
/cal

Mera
of

<yap

rrjv a&ifcop

KaraSUrjv

arip,6v riva

rpiwftoXtfialov \afiovT6s, k.t.X.,

Euthymius Zigabenus.

Coarse

outburst

passion

somewhat
(xxii. 63),

different

on the verdict being announced. A form of the tradition is adopted by Luke

trial.

who, moreover, represents the maltreatment here

referred to as having taken place before the

The way

in which harmonists have cut and carved upon the individual

features of the narrative

in
us,

John

xviii.

but refers

is altogether arbitrary. The account 22 has no connection with that now before to an incident in the house of Annas, which

the Synoptists have entirely omitted.

blows with
tJie

e/coXa^.]

btiffetings,

Comp. the Attic expression kov&vXos. ippdirr.] slaps in the face with the palm of the hand; pcnno-fios Se to "wraUiv Kara rov irpocrunrov, Euthymius Zigabenus; comp. v. 39; Hos. xi. 5; Isa. 1. 6; Dem. 787,
fist.


236
23;
sense
Aristot.
p.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Meteor,
;

ii.

8.

9; 3 Esdr.
Anecd.
p.

iv.

30; Lobeck, ad
It
is

Phryn.

176

Becker,
is

300.
is

in

this

that

the word

usually taken.
it

Ewald, Bleek, Lange, maintain that

that
is
;

But Beza, Bengel, a blow with a rod

;

meant (Herod, viii. 59 Anacr. vii. 2 Plut. Them. xi.), the sense in which the word is commonly used by Greek authors, and which ought to be preferred here, because ol Si
(see

on

xxviii. 1 6) introduces the

of maltreatment,

mention of a different kind and because in Mark xiv. 65 the pairl^eiv is

imputed to the officers of the Sanhedrim, which, however, would not warrant us in identifying with the latter the ol Be of Matthew.
Ver. 68.

Upo$r}Tevaov
64

rj/xlv]

Differently in

Mark

xiv.

65.

But
xxii.

so far as the irpocp^r., ti? iariv, k.t.X. is concerned,

Luke mode
it to

agrees with Matthew, although the favourite

of accounting for this

would seem
applied

to be that of tracing
;

the obscuring influence of a later tradition

is

in no case,

however,

this theory to be

to

the exposition of

Matthew, for it would involve a point of essential consequence. According to Matthew, the sport lay in the demand that Jesus as Messiah, and consequently as a prophet (xxi. 11),
should
tell

who

it

was that had struck Him, though He had

of knowing.

no natural means
knowledge which
the scoffing

This conduct, of course, pro-

ceeds on the assumption that the Messiah possessed that higher

is

derived from divine revelation

hence also

Xpiaros.

which they address Him by the title of Fritzsche thinks that the prominent idea here is

way

in

that of /oretelling, as being calculated,

when thus

conjoined

But with the preterite iraiaas, to form an acerba irrisio. that would be more likely to result in an dbsurda irrisio, unmarked by the slightest touch of humour.
Ver. 69. "&>] with reference to the interior of the particular building in

which the
is

trial

of Jesus had been con-

ducted.

In ver. 58 eaco

used
into

because in that instance

the
court -yard.
fii

Peter
below.
rjv)

went from the

is

street

7rathiaKrf\ fila

here used in view of the aWnj of ver. 71

19.

Comp. on

viii.

Both of them may have seen

{rjaOa,

Peter

among

the followers of Jesus somewhere in Jeru-

CHAP. XXVI. 70-73.

salem, and

237

may have

preserved a distinct recollection of his

in the sense of a female slave, corresponds exactly to our (German) Mddchen ; see Lobeck, ad

appearance.

TraiBla/crj,

Phryn.

p.

239.

ical <rv rj<r6a, k.t.X.] categorical accusation,

as in vv.

71, 73, and not a question (Klostermann).

specific

tov
heard
is

Ta\iX.~\ which

designation

she

may have
71)

applied to the Prisoner.

The other
calls

slave (ver.

still

more

specific,

inasmuch as she
present.

Him

6 Na^copalos.

Ver. 70. "EfAirpocrOev irdvrcop (see the critical remarks):

before all

who were

ovk

olSa tL \ eye is]

evasive

denial
to

so little have I been with

Him, that

am

at a loss

Ver. 71.

know what is meant by this imputation of thine. 'EgeXdovra] from the court-yard to the

porch,

which, passing through some part of the buildings that stood

round the four sides of the former, conducted into the anterior
court outside (irpoavXiov
in this latter that
;

according to

Mark

xiv. 68, it

the present denial took place).

was Comp.

Hermann, Privatalterth. 19. 9 ff. In spite of the plain meaning of irvkoov, door, doorway (see Luke xvi. 20 Acts
;

x.

1 7,

xii.

13

f.,

xiv. 1 3

Rev.

xxi.), it

is

usually supposed
eVet]

that

it is

the outer court in front of the house, the irpoavKiov

i.

(see Poll.

77,

ix.

16), that is meant.

avrois
137
f.

e'/cet

belongs to \eyei, while avroh, in accordance with a loose

usage of frequent occurrence (Winer,

is

p.

[E. T. 181]),

to

meant to refer to the people generally whom she happened It would be wrong to connect e'/cet with ical meet with.
because
in

ovtos (Matthaei, Scholz),

such a connection

it

would be meaningless.
Ver. 72. Observe the climax in the terms of the threefold
denial.

fied'

op/cov]

is

peculiar to Matthew, and

used in the sense of an oath.

tov

is

here

dvOpcoirov] the

man

Alas, such is the language, cold and distant, (in question). which Peter uses with reference to his Master What a contrast to xvi. 16 "Ecce, columna firmissima ad unius aurae impulsum tota contremuit," Augustine. Ver. 73. The answer of Peter given at ver. 72, and in the course of which his Galilaean dialect was recognised, gave, occasion to those standing by (that they were exactly Sanhedrim
! !


238
officers,

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

apparitores,

Kuinoel,

Paulas,

does

not
to

necessarily

follow from the use of ee-TWTe?) to step

little

up

Peter after a

while,

and

maid-servant.

Jesus, ver. 71.

to corroborate (a\rj6a>5) the assertion of the

avT&v]

of those

who were

ical ^ap~\

for

even, apart

along with from circumstances

rj by which thou hast been already identified. \a\td crov] thy speech (see on John viii. 43), namely, through the coarse provincial accent. The natives of Galilee were unable to

distinguish especially the gutturals properly, pronounced the

letter
tr

like a n, etc.

See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm.

p.

Lightfoot,

Ccntur.

Chorogr.

151

ff

p. 435, 2417 Wetstein on our

;

passage; Keim,
Ver. 74.

I. p.

310.
for previously

Tore yp^aro]
(ver.

as yet to the KaTadepaTi^eiv, but

the simple opvveiv

72,

fieO'

he had not resorted had contented himself with op/cov). Whereas before he

had only sworn, he now takes to cursing as well. "Nunc gubernaculum animae plane amisit," Bengel. The imprecations were intended to fall upon himself (should he be found, that is, to be telling an untruth). For the word Karadepari^w, which was in all probability a vulgar corruption, comp. Eev. xxii. 3; Iren. Haer. i. 13. 2, 16. 3; Oecolampadius, ad Act.
xxiii.

12. otc] recitantis, as in ver. 72. a\etcTcop~\ a cock. There are Eabbinical statements (see the passages in Wetstein) to the effect that it was not allowable to keep animals of this sort
in Jerusalem
;

but as there are other Eabbinical passages again

which

assert the opposite of this (see Lightfoot, p. 483), it is

unnecessary to have recourse (Eeland, Wolf) to the supposition that the bird in question

may have

belonged to a Gentile,

may even have

side the city.

been about

Pilate's house, or

some house out-

Ver. 75. 'E%ek6. efw] namely, from the porch (ver. 71) in which the second and third denial had taken place. Finding he

could no longer repress the feeling of sorrowful penitence that

the apostle must go outside to be all alone with and shame. The fear of being detected (Chrysostom) had by this time undoubtedly become to him a very secondary elprj/coros consideration he was now himself again. aiToj] who had said to him (ver. 34), in itself a superfluous
filled his heart,

his remorse

CHAP. XXVI.

75.

239

expression, and yet "grande participium," Bengel.

TTifcpws]
!

he wept
Wetstein.

bitterly.

Comp.

Isa.

xxii.

4,
it

and the passages in

"

How

totally different

was

with Judas
Od.
iv.

Lacryaffectu

marum

physica amaritudo (comp. Horn.

y\vtcv&atcpv<;,

153) ant

dnlcedo (comp.
animi," Bengel.

Meleag. 45), congruit

cum

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

regard to details.
threefold

This tradition has for its basis of fact the not merely a denial several times repeated, and, as Strauss alleges, reduced to the number three to agree with the prediction of Jesus. It is to the narrative of John, however, as being that of the only evangelist who was an
denial,

240

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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

founding them

all.

CHAP. XXVII.

241

CHAPTEE XXVII.
Ver. 2. avrov] after ^apsd. has very important evidence both for and against it, being just as liable to be inserted as a very common supplement as to be omitted on account of its superfluous character, a character likely to be ascribed to it all the more that it is wanting also in Mark xv. 1. Deleted by Lachm. novriu ri/X.] B L K, 33, 102, vss. Or. have and Tisch. 8. simply UiXd-TOj but the full form of the name is to be preferred all the more that the parallel passages have only TliXdr. Ver. 3. vapadidov g] Lachm. irapabobg, following only B L 33,

would more readily occur to the tranVer. 4. scribers, since the betrayal had already taken place. adficv] d/xouov, although recommended by Griesb. and Schulz, has too little evidence in its favour, and should be regarded as an early exegetical correction with a view to render the exo-vj/s/] Scholz, Lachm., pression more forcible comp. xxiii. 35.
259, vss.
(?).

The

aorist

Tisch.:

Ver. 5. in accordance with decisive evidence. Instead of Jv rS vaw, Tisch. 8 has tie rbv vaov. Exegetical emendation, against which there is a preponderance of evidence. Ver. 9. 'lipipiov] The omission of the prophet's name in 33, 157, Syr. Pers.- and Codd. in Aug., as well as the reading Za^apiov in 22, Syr. p in the margin, is due to the fact that the Ver. 11. \<sti\\ B C L quotation is not found in Jeremiah. N, 1, 33, Or. ierdH So Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Exegetical
o'4tj,

Vv. 16, 17. emendation with a view to greater precision. 'lyaovv Bapa.)3(3av. So Origen int several Bapafifiav'] Eritzsche jerand early scholiasts. Advocated above all min. Aram. Syr.
:

by Eritzsche

in the Litt. Blatt z. allgem. Kirchenzeit. 1843, p. 538 f., in opposition to Lachm. ed. maj. p. xxxvii. f., with which For my own part, I look upon the latter critic Tisch. agrees. reading 'iqirovv Bupafifiav as the original one, for I am utterly at a loss to see how 'i^oSi* should have found its way into the

text (in answer to Holtzmann, who supposes that it was from Acts iv. 36 through a blunder of the transcriber, and in answer to Tisch. 8, who with Tregelles traces it to an abbreviation^ the name i?j<toUv (in), in which case it is supposed that tminin

matt.

II.


242
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

came to be substituted for tmin) and because to take away the sacred name from the robber would seem very natural and all the more justifiable that it is likewise omitted in vv. 20 f., 26, and by the other evangelists, not to mention that, from a similar feeling of reverence, it would seem to have been suppressed in the tradition current in the apostolic age. Comp. also Einck, Lucubr. crit. p. 285, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Keim, Weizsacker. The view that *lr\co\Jv has been adopted from the Gospel of the Hebrews (Tisch.) is a very questionable inference from the statement of Jerome, that instead of Ba/>a/3,3. that Gospel had substituted filium magistri eorum. It would be just as warrantable to quote the same authority in favour of the originality of the reading 'irjeouv Bapu(3(3. Ver. 22. avrQ (Elz., Scholz) after "kiyovei has been deleted in accordance with preponderating evidence. Ver. 24. The reading xar'svavn (Lachm.) is supported only by the insufficient evidence of B D; comp. xxi. 2. rov dixaiov rovrov] The words rov htxaiov are wanting in B 102, Cant. Ver. Vera Mm. Chrys. mt Or. They are placed after rovrov in A, while A reads rov rovrov biy.ahv. Lachm. inserts them after rovrov, but in brackets Tisch. deletes them, and that correctly. They are to be regarded as a gloss (suggested by the reading dixaiov, ver. 4), written on the margin at first, and afterwards, when incorporated in the text, conjoined in some instances with rov ai^aroc, (as in ver. 4) and in others with rovrov; hence so many different ways of arranging the words. Ver. 28. sxbveavrsi] B K** 157, Cant. Ver. Verc. Colb. Corb. 2, Lachm.: M6eavng. Correctly hbvs. was not understood, and was accordingly altered. 1 Comp. on 2 Cor. v. 3. In what follows we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., restore the arrangement ^Xa/x. xoxx. <xtpis9. avr/p, in accordance with important evidence. Ver. 29. svl rqv ds^idv] As the reading h ry Bzfyd (approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch.) has such important evidence as that of N, min. vss. B L Fathers in its favour, and the one in the Received text might so easily originate in a mechanical conforming with s<ri rqv xstp. (for which Tisch., in opposition to a preponderance of MS. evidence, substitutes ivi rSjg xs<paX7Jg), we cannot but regard h ry dt%ia as having the best claim to originality. Ver. 33. Elz. has '6g sen "Ktyofiivog xpecviov rows. So also Scholz. There is a multiplicity of readings here. Fritzsche, Rinck (comp. also
;

principles of criticism, still he looks

Lachm. adopts the reading bSiWurss in accordance with his fundamental upon it as an error of early date. See his
II. p. 6.

Praef. ed. maj.

chap, xxvii.

243

Griesb.) have simply o luri xpaviov tCvoc, while Lachm. and Tisch. read 5 sotiv xpaviov rowog Xsyo/itvog. The balance of evidence is decidedly in favour of regarding the neuter 5 as genuine; it was changed to the masculine to suit wov and rovog. Further, Asyopsvog is wanting only in D, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. It., where its omission may probably have been resorted to as a means of getting rid of a difficult construction, while the readings Xsyo/tzvov, fxi6sp/Mrjvsv6ft,svoc pshpfirivsuoftsvov (Mark xv. 22), za,Xo(jfj.svov (Luke xxiii. 33), are also to be regarded as exegetical variations. ought therefore to retain the Xsy6/xsvog, and in the order in which it is taken by Lachm. and Tisch., on the authority of B L K, min. Ath. Its earlier position in Elz. is probably due to sen Xtyo/jb. (comp. Uti fjufopp., Mark xv. 22) being sometimes taken together. Ver. 34 o'fos] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 oTvov, which is supported by evidence so important, viz. n* N, min. vss. and Fathers, that we must regard '6%og as derived from Ps. lxviii. 22. The word ohov was allowed to remain in Mark xv. 23 because the gall did not happen to be mentioned there and this being the case, the alteration, in conformity with Ps. lxviii. as above, would not so readily suggest itself. Ver. 35. After xXfyov Elz. inserts ha wXripudfi ro pri&h uto rou rrpopTjTov' An/jjipieavro rd i/idrid fiov lavroTg, xai eri rbv ipario-fjjov pou sXafiov xXripov. Against decisive evidence supplement from John xix. 24. Ver. 40. xardfiri&i] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: xai xardfi., following ADn, min. Syr.jer- Cant. Ver. Verc. Colp. Clar. Cyr. The xai has been added for the purpose of connecting the two clauses together. Ver. 41. After itpsefiorspav, Matth., Fritzsche insert xai api<raiuv, for which there is important though not preponderant evidence. Those chief adversaries of Jesus were by way of gloss mentioned on the margin, but subsequently the words crept into the text, being sometimes found along with, and sometimes substituted for, vpeo-fivr'zpuv (as in D, min. Cant. Ver. Verc. Colb. Clar. Corb. 2, Gat. Cassiod.). Ver. 42. si j3ae/X.~\ Fritzsche and Tisch. read simply fiaaX., following B L N, 33, 102, Sahid. Correctly si is a supplementary addition from ver. 40, its insertion in D, min. vss. Eus. before wstfoiOsv below being likewise traceable to the Trtsrsueo^ev] Lachm. same source. irusrtbofLiv, only in accordance with A, Vulg. Ver. Verc. Colb. Or. int but correctly notwithstanding. By way of gloss the present was replaced sometimes by the future (Elz.) and sometimes by the subjunctive <jiG-iu6u{tiv. Tisch. 8 adopts the latter. sV ahr<f\ The witnesses are divided between aurw (Elz., Lachm.),
)

We

BDKL

a\jTui

(Griesb., Tisch.

7),

and

!*'

avrov

(Fritzsche,

Tisch.

8).


: : ;

244

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

The reading hr" airs min.) should he preferred, inasmuch as this expression not only occurs nowhere else in Matthew, but is a somewhat rare one generally. Ver. 44. For avrov, Elz. has avra, against decisive MS. authority. Emendation in conformity with the construction IvithiZiiv nvi 7i. Ver. 46. The mss. present very considerable

(EFGHKMSUVait,

variety as regards the spelling of the Hebrew words. Lachm. H>J rfki Xti/JjO, cafiaxdavi. Tisch. 8: 'HXs/ HXs/ X//id 6afiay8avi. Ver. 49. aXXoj di Xafiuv X6y^r,v The latter is the best attested.
'

hv^sv avrov
it

rriv

irXivpav, xal srj\fav vdup xai a/Jxa,

supported though

be by

BCLU

X,

min. vss. Chrys.,

is clearly

an irrelevant

Yet this interpolation (after avrov) borrowed from John xix. 34. interpolation occasioned the error condemned by Clem. v. 1311, Ver. 52. that Christ's side was pierced before He expired.

7jyep6ri]

BD6L

S,

min. Or. Eus.

qyepDiieav.

So Fritzsche,
!

Lachm., Tisch. But how readily would the whole surroundings of the passage suggest the plural to the mechanical transcribers Ver. 54. ytv6ftsva~] Lachm. and Tisch.: yivojiem, following B D, min. Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, has ysvo/ttva as well). The aorist might have originated as readily in a failure to appreciate the difference of meaning as in a comparison of the present passage Ver. 56. For 'Iw<r5j, Tisch. 8 has 'l<jp, with Luke xxiii. 47 f. Emendation suggested by the following D*Ls, vss. Or. Eus. assumption that the mother of Jesus must have been intended (comp. on xiii. 55) hence X* enumerates the three Marys thus Map. ruv v'/uiv Zi(3. Map. 7j rov 'laxuifiov xal r\ Map. q 'lu6q<p xai Ver. 57. s/xa8r}rsvoe] Lachm. and Tisch. 8: sfiadrinvl)?}, following and two min. Altered in accordance with xiii. 52. Ver. 64. Elz. inserts vvxrog after al/rov, against decisive evidence borrowed from xxviii. 13. The hs again, which Elz. has after %<pr\, ver. 65, is an interpolation for sake of connection, and is wanting in very important witnesses (not, however, in

f]

a?

CDx

ACDs).
Ver.
1.

By

the time the Sanhedrim met, as

it

now

did, in

full sederunt (TrdvTes, comp. xxvi. 59), for the purpose of consulting as to how they were now to give effect to the verdict of
xxvi. 66,
xxvi. 74).
it

&cne\ they consulted before going further (comp.

other words,
if

was well on

in the

morning

(after

cock-crowing,

on
to

xxii.

15) as to what the consequence might be (comp. on

xxiv. 24) if they carried out their intention of putting

death, in

Him
effect

they were likewise to give

to the verdict already agreed

upon

evo%o<;

Oavdrov

eVrt.

CHAP. XXVII.

2.

245

Ver. 2. Ar\aavre.<i\

The shackles which had been put upon

Jesus at the time of His arrest (xxvi. 50, comp. with John
xviii. 12), and which He still wore when He was led away from Annas to Caiaphas (John xviii. 24), would seem, from what is here stated, to have been either wholly or partially removed during the trial. With the view of His being securely conducted to the residence of the procurator, they take the precaution to put their prisoner in chains again. It is not expressly affirmed, either by Matthew or Mark, that the aTrrjyaryov was the work of the members of the Sanhedrim in pUno (as generally supposed, Weiss and Keim also sharing in the opinion) and, indeed, it is scarcely probable that they would have so far incurred the risk of a popular tumult The statement in Luke xxiii. 1 is unques(comp. xxvi. 5).
;

tionably the product of a later tradition.

As

for

Matthew

and Mark, they seem to assume that merely a deputation

accompanied the prisoner, though doubtless it would be large enough to be in keeping with the importance of the occa7rape8(o/cav clvtov HovtIw, sion. Comp. also on ver. 3. k.t.\.] For after Judaea became a Eoman province (from the time that King Archelaus was dethroned, 759 u.c), the Comp. on John xviii. Sanhedrim had lost the jus gladii.

31.

On

Pontius Pilate, the

to

fifth

procurator of Judaea,

who

was successor

and who, after holding office for ten years (from a.d. 26 onwards), was summoned to Eome at the instance of Vitellius, then governor of Syria, to answer to certain charges made against him, and then (according to Euseb. ii. 7) banished to Vienne, where he is said to have committed suicide, see Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p.
Valerius
Gratus,

87
d.

ff.

Leyrer in Herzog's Encyhl. XI.

Statthalter in Syr. u. Jud. p.

p.
ff.

663
;

ff
.

Gerlach,

Rom.

53

Hausrath, Zcit-

gesch. I. p.

312 ff. For certain Christian legends regarding His death, consult Tischendorf's Evang. Apocr. p. 426 ff. Caesarea was the place where the procurators usually resided (Acts xxiii. 23 f., xxiv. 27, xxv. 1); but, as it was the Passover season, Pilate was in Jerusalem (to be ready, in fact, to quell any disturbance that might arise, comp. on xxvi. 5), tw where he lived in the praetorium (see on ver. 27).

246

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

rjyefiovi] principi.

The more
,

precise

have been
xviii.
3.

tu>
:

iirLTpoTrw, procuratori.
t?)?

designation would Comp. Joseph. Antt.

rjjep,(ov.

II i\dro<; Be 6

Iovhaia<;

On

the

comprehensive sense in which

Krebs,
Obss. p.
3.

rjyefxwv is

frequently used, see

61 ff. Tore] as Jesus was being led away to the procuFrom this Judas saw that his Master had been conrator. demned (xxvi. 66), for otherwise He would not have been 6 TrapahiSovs avrov] His bethus taken before Pilate.
Ver.

cannot be said view that Judas was animated by a good intention (see on xxvi. 16, Eemark 2), though it no doubt serves to show he neither contemplated nor expected so serious
trayer, xxvi. 25, 48.
fiTafjie\T]6el<i, /c.t.X.]

to favour the

a result.

It

is

possible that, looking to the

innocence of

Jesus, and remembering

in disarming

the hope that

si

He had succeeded His enemies, the traitor may have cherished the issue would prove harmless. Now " vellet,
how
often before
:

posset,

factum infectum reddere," Bengel.

it

Such was his

f.),

repentance, but

was not of a godly nature

for it led to despair.

(2 Cor. vii. 9

a7recrT/?6i/re] he returned
;

them (xxvi.

52

took

108 Xen. Anab. ii. them back (Gen. xliii. 21 Judg. xi. 13
Thuc.
n

v.

75,

viii.

6. 3, al), i.e. he
;

Heb. 3
of the

S?!?.

Jer. xxviii.
it is to

3),

Tot<?

ap%.

k.

t. Trpeafi.~\

from which

be

inferred that Matthew did not look upon this as a full meeting

Sanhedrim (ver. 2). alp,a Ver. 4. "H /xapTov rrrapahov<i\ see on xxvi. 12. Deut. Zigabenus comp. yyQrpiai, Euthymius to 4? a6a>ov] Heliod. 1 Mace. i. 37 2 Mace. i. 8 Phalar. ep. 40 xxvii. 25 tl 7rpo? 7]ixa<i\ sc. icrri ; what is it as regards viii. 10. us ? i.e. what matters it to us ? we are in no way called upon Comp. to concern ourselves about what thou hast done.

John
sense

xxi.

22 f by Greek
;

the words are also frequently used in this

authors.

av

o-^rrj]

Thou

wilt see to

it thyself,

thou wilt have to consider for thyself what is now to be 1 Sam. xxv. 17 done by thee comp. ver. 24; Acts xviii. 15 " Impii in facto consortes, post factum 4 Mace. ix. 1.
;

deserunt," Bengel.

Ver.

5.

'Ev

ia> vau>\

is to

be taken neither in the sense

CHAP. XXVII.
of near the
Gasith, in

5.

247
to the room,

temple (Kypke), nor as referring

its

which the Sanhedrim held

sittings

(Grotius),

nor as equivalent to iv t&> tepa> (Fritzsche, Olshausen, Bleek) but, in accordance with the regular use of vao<; (see on iv. 5)

and the only possible meaning of iv, we must interpret thus he flung down the money in the temple proper, i.e. in the holy place where the priests were to be found. Judas in his despair had ventured within that place which none but priests were
:

permitted to enter.
Od. xix.
vii.

(nrrj<y^aTo\ he strangled himself.

vii.

Horn.
;

230
;

Herod,

13

Aesch. Suppl.

232 Xen. Cyrop. 400; Ael. V. H. v.

;

iii.

1.

14

Hier.
is

3.

There

no
to

reason

why

the statement in Acts

i.

18 should compel us

take aTrdyxofiai as denoting, in a figurative sense, an awakening

of the conscience (Grotius, Perizonius, Hammond, Heinsius), for although a ryx t v * s sometimes so used by classical authors
'

(Dem. 406, 5 and see the expositors, ad Thorn. Mag. p. 8), such a meaning would be inadmissible here, where we have no qualifying term, and where the style is that of a plain hisWith torical narrative (comp. 2 Sam. xvii. 2 3 Tob. iii. 1 0). a view to reconcile what is here said with Acts i. 18, it is usual to assume that the traitor first hanged himself, and then fell
;
;

down headlong, Matthew being supposed to furnish the first, and Luke the second half of the statement (Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Kaeuffer, Paulus, Ebrard, Baumgarten - Crusius). But such a way of parcelling out this statement, besides being arbitrary in itself, is quite inadmissible, all the more so that it is by no means clear from Acts i. 1 8 that suicide had been comNow as suicide was regarded by the Jews with the mitted. utmost abhorrence, it would for that very reason have occupied
a prominent place in the narrative instead of being passed

over in silence.

It

has been attempted to account for the

absence of any
historian
if
is

eaypress

mention of suicide, by supposing that the

assumed

his readers to be familiar with the fact.

But

one thing forbids such an explanation more than another, it the highly rhetorical character of the passage in the Acts just
it be,

referred to, which, rhetorical though

records, for example,

the circumstance of the purchase of tJie field with all the historical fidelity of Matthew himself, the only difference being


248
that Luke's

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

mode

of representing the matter

is

almost poetical

in its character (in opposition to Strauss, Zeller, de Wette,

Ewald, Bleek, Pressense', Paret, Iveim, all of whom concur with Paulus in assuming, in opposition to Matthew, that

Judas bought the field himself). Comp. on Acts i. 18. In Matt, xxvii. 5 and Acts i. 18, we have two different accounts of the fate of the betrayer, from which nothing further is to be gathered by way of historical fact than that he came to a violent end. In the course of subsequent tradition, however, this violent death came to be represented sometimes as suicide by means of hanging (Matthew, Ignatius, ad Philip- interpol. 4),
at a later stage again as a fall resulting in the bursting of the

bowels, or at a later period

still

as the

consequence of his

having been crushed by a carriage when the body was in a fearfully swollen condition (Papias as quoted by Oecumenius,

and by Apollinaris in Eouth's reliquiae sacr. p. 9, 231; Overbeck in Hilgenfeld's Zeitsclir. Anger, Synops. p. 233). 1867, p. 39 ff. There is no other way of accounting for so many diverse traditions regarding this matter, but by supposing that nothing was known as to how the death actually took place. Be this as it may, we cannot entertain the view that Judas sunk into obscurity, and so disappeared from history, but that meanwhile the Christian legends regarding him were elaborated out of certain predictions and typical characters (Strauss, Keim, Scholten) found in Scripture (in such passages as Ps. cix. 8, lxix. 25); such a view being inadmissible, because it takes no account of what is common to all the New Testament accounts, the fact, namely, that Judas died a violent death, and that very soon after the betrayal and further, because the supposed predictions (Ps. lxix., cix., xx.) and typical characters (such as Ahithophel, 2 Sam. xv. 30 ff., xvii. 23; Antiochus, 2 Mace,
ad Act.
23
ff.
;

I.e.,

also in Cramer's Catena, p.

ix.

ff.)

did not help to create such stories regarding the

would be nearer the truth to say that taken advantage of by critics to account for the stories after they had originated. Ver. 6. Ovk efeo-rt] " argumento ducto ex Deut. xxiii.
traitor's death,

but

it

they were

subsequently

18, Sanhedr.

f.

112," Wetstein.

Tifir) ai/xaTo<;]

the price

CHAP. XXVII. 7-10.

of Mood, which

249

is

supposed to have been shed.

icop/3.]
ii.

top

lepov drjaavpov, KaXelrat Be Kopfiavas, Josephus, Bell.

9. 4.

Ver. 7 f. 7 op a cr a v\ It is not said that they did so immediately; but the purchase took place shortly after, according

tov aypbv tov fcepafi.] the field of the potter, i. 18. the field which had previously belonged to some well-known
to Acts
potter.

Whether the
it is

latter

had used the

-

field for the

of digging clay,
t.

impossible to determine.
place for
the

purpose
racprjv

et9

givoi<i]

as

burying

strangers,

namely,

such foreign Jews (proselytes included) as happened to die

when on

a visit to Jerusalem

not

Gentiles

(Paulus), who,

had they been intended, would have been indicated more specifically. 8 to] because it had been bought with the

np.rj acp,aro<i
i.

above

(ver. 6).

aypb<; aip.aTo<i] NH ?#$, Acts

is

18, where, however, the

name

traced to a different origin.

is still

On

the place which in accordance with tradition

field

pointed

out as the
Ver. 9

here referred

to, see

Robinson.

II. p.

178

ff
.

Tobler, Topogr.
f.

pieces of money.

Tore] when they bought this field for the thirty The passage here quoted is a very free

adaptation of Zech.
of the

xi.

12, 13, 'Iepeplov being simply a slip

cons. ev.
iii.

memory

(comp. Augustine, de

8,

and recently
Jer.

Keil himself, following Calvin and the Fathers), such, however,

as

might readily enough occur through a reminiscence of

Considering that in the original
close to

xviii. 2.

Hebrew

the resemis

blance of this latter passage to Zechariah, as above,

ciently

suffi-

warrant the typical mode of interpretation

(Credner, Beitr.

II. p.

152

f.),

it is

arbitrary to maintain, in the

somewhat
1

uncritical fashion

of

Rupert, Lyra,

Maldonatus,

If the evangelist

Weissag. u.

Erf

II. p.
ii.

to the analogy of

had meant to combine two different predictions (Hofmann, 128 f. Haupt, alttest. Citate, p. 286 ff.), then, according 23, we should have expected the words ^ia tv -rpotpyruv to
;

But, in short, our quotation belongs so exclusively to Zechariah, be used. that candour forbids the idea of a combination with Jer. xviii., as well as the view adopted by Hengstenberg (comp. Grotius), that Zechariah reproduces the

For a detailed enumeration of the various attempts with the inaccurate use of'ltpiftiov, consult Morison, who follows Clericus in holding that there must have been a transcriber's error in the very earliest copy of our Gospel.
prediction of Jeremiah.

that have been

made

to deal

250

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

is

Jansen, Clericus, Friedlieb, that 'Iepe/xiov

spurious

or,

on

the other hand, to resort, as Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus,

Kuinoel, Ewald have done, to the idea of some

tion of Jeremiah's, or of

lost

produc-

some

oral utterance that

had never

been committed to writing (see, above all, Calovius, who in As for the support of this view lays great stress on prjdiv). statement of Jerome, that he had seen the passage in a copy of Jeremiah belonging to some person at Nazareth, there can
be no doubt that what he saw was an interpolation, for he also is one of those who ascribe the citation in question to
Zechariah.
Bern.
ev. x.

No
;

less arbitrary is the conjecture

of Eusebius,

4, that the

Jews may have deleted the passage

it

from Jeremiah

for

though

reappears again in a certain

p. 142), and in a Sahidic and a Coptic lectionary (see Michaelis, Biol. IV. p. 208 ff Einleit. I. p. 264), it does so simply Briefweehs. III. pp. 63, 89 See Paulus, as an interpolation from our present passage. historical According to the 615 ff. cxeget. Handb. III. p.

Arabic work (Bengel, Appar.

writ.

sense of Zechariah, as above, the prophet, acting in Jehovah's

name, resigns his office of shepherd over Ephraim to Ephraim's own ruin and having requested his wages, consisting of 3 shekels of silver, to be paid him, he casts the money, as being " And they God's property, into the treasury of the temple.
;

Then Jehovah handsome (ironiSo I cally) sum of which they have thought me worthy took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury that was in God's house," Ewald, Proph. ; Bleek in the Stud. u. Eor we ought to read Krit. 1852, p. 279 ff. ^?, into tlu treasury (equivalent, as Kimchi explains, to "ltflKn ?K, and as is actually the reading of two mss. in Kennicott), and not IJrtVTTK, to the potter, as Matthew, in fact, also read and understood the words, though such a meaning is entirely foreign to the conComp. Hitzig, hi. Proph. p. 374. The text in Zechariah.
weighed
said to
for
:

my

wages thirty pieces of

it

silver.

me

Cast

into the treasury, that

^n

expositors of Zechariah,

who

take "ivrn in the sense of potter,

have had recourse to many an unfounded and sometimes singular hypothesis. For specimens of these, see also Hengstenberg's
Christol.
III. 1, p.

457

ff.;

Hofmann, Weissag.

u. Erf.

CHAP. XXVII.

9,

10.

251
Steinmeyer,
p.

II. p.

128
is

f.

Lange, L.
p.

J. II. p.

1494

f.

Haupt,

alttest. Citate,

272

ff.

e\afiov~\ in
it

105

f.;

Zechariah and

LXX.
plural.

the first person singular, here

is

the third person

The

liberty thus used with the terms of the quotation

:

may
the

tca6a avvirage

be supposed to be warranted by the concluding words jj,oi 6 Kvpcos. Neither the original Hebrew nor

LXX.

countenances the supposition that the evangelist

erroneously took ekaftov to be third person plural, like eSco/cav

immediately following (in opposition to Hilgenfeld). rpiaKovra apyvp.^ meaning, according to the typical

ra
refer-

tt)v rcfMTjv, k.t.X.] In apposition with to, rpiaic. dpy. The words correspond more with the Hebrew than with the LXX., though in this instance too a slight liberty is taken with them, inasmuch as for Wij?) "ik>K we have once more (comp. on

ence in Matthew, the thirty shekels brought back by Judas.

ekajSov) the third person plural ov iTifiijaavro,

the explanatory rendering dirb vlwv

'Io-paijX.

and for on'vyJO The passage

then
they

is

to

be rendered as follows

pieces of silver

And

they took the thirty

the value

of the highly valued One, on

whom

put

their

own
i.e.

sons of Israel,

price (middle, ircfi/ja-avro) at the instance of the price of the priceless One, whose market

upon an occasion furnished by sons The expression vla>v 'laparjX is the plural of category (ii. 20), and is regarded as finding its historical antitype in Judas, who, xxvi. 14 f., undertakes and carries through the
value they fixed for themselves

of Israel.

shameful transaction there referred

addition to

to,

he
;

a son of Israel

negotiates the sale of the Messiah of the people of Israel.

In

what has

just been observed,

:

we would

direct atten-

tion to the following details

to represent the

(1) tov rer ifiTjfievov is intended

">in (pretii)

Hebrew word
">in (cari,

but the evangelist

refers

has evidently read

aestumali),

which he
;

to

Jesus as being the highly valued

One

/car

i^o^v nor must

:

we

fail

to
i.e.

notice here the remarkable collocation

rrjv wvrjv

pretium

pretiosi,

tov iravrlp-ov Xpiarov, Euthymius Ziga-

benus

comp. Theophylact, also Ewald.

That distinguished

personage, whose worth as such cannot in fact be estimated

by

any mere money standard

{eTi[ir)<javTo)

{rifjurj),
!

they have actually valued

at

thirty shekels

To take the tov

ttijjlt)/j,.

252

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

merely in the sense of ov

ir^a.

(of the valued one,

him whom

they have valued), as the majority of expositors do (including

even yet de Wette, Lange, and Hofmann, Weissag.

u. Erf. II. p.

130), instead of expressing the idea in a more forcible manner,

redundancy.

would simply produce, especially (2) The subject of

after

r.

tl^tjv,

a tautological

eTifiijaavTo is the
;

same

as

that of e\a(3ov, namely, the high priests

nor

is

the verb to be

taken in the sense of estimating highly, as in the case of TeTLfMTifi., but in that of valuing, putting a price upon, the sense
in which
Isa. lv. 2, and very frequently by and in which the Hebrew WipJ is intended to be understood. (3) airb vlwv ^Ia-p., which is a more definite rendering of the DiT^yo of the original, must necessarily be
it

is

used in

classical writers,

connected, like
ertfirjaavTo,

its

corresponding

Hebrew

expression,

with

and not with ekafiov (Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld), nor with tov reTi/ir)/!. (which de Wette considers possible), and be
understood as denoting origin,
i.e.

as denoting, in our present

passage, the occasion brought about

by some one (comp.

also

Bleek) in connection with which the

" cLtto

irifiijaavro took place

de eo ponitur, quod praebet occasionem vel opportunifieri possit,"

tatem, ut aliquid

Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep.

;

p.

549 A;
see also

comp. Kiihner,

II.

1,

Ellendt, Lex. Soph.

I. p.

396 similarly xi. 19 They were indebted 194.

p.

to the sons

of Israel (Judas, see above) for that

to the irc/jb^aavTo.

We

which suggested and led cannot approve of the course which

:

some adopt of supplying rives equivalent to (Euthymius Zigabenus), or " qui sunt ex filiis

ol 'Icrpa-qXcTai

Israel "

(Beza,

Grotius, Maldonatus, Paulus, Kuinoel, Ewald, de Wette,

Grimm,

In Buttmann, JVeut. Gr. p. 138 [E. T. 158]) would have been used (as in xxiii. 34; John xvi. 17, al.), and instead of vlwv we should have had ro)v vloiv, inasmuch as the whole community would be intended to which the rive<s are supposed to belong. Comp. also 1 Mace. vii. 33, 3 Mace. i. 8, where, though airo is the
that
case,

Anger), thus making dirb vlu>v 'lap. the subject of eri/x^a.

the

ordinary

e/c

(comp.

preposition used, the article

following.

is

conjoined with the substantive

The absence

of the article here is likewise unII. p.

favourable to the views of Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf.

CHAP. XXVII.

9,

10.

253

131, who, taking anro to mean on the part of interprets thus What Caiaphas and Judas did (iTiprjaavTo), was done To explain airo as others have indirectly by the whole nation" done, by assuming the idea oi purchase in connection with it
"

(Castalio

" quern licitati

emerunt ab

Israelitis,"

comp. Eras-

mus, Luther, Vatablus, Jansen, Lange), is not only arbitrary, inasmuch as the idea involved in eTi/xrjo-avTo does not justify the supposed pregnant force of diro (Buttmann, p. 276 [E. T. No 322]), but is incompatible with the b])D of the original. less inconsistent with the original is the explanation of Baumgarten-Crusius
children
:

"

whom

of

Israel"

that

they had valued from among the " which they had is to say,

fixed as the price of one of the children of Israel."

case, again,

In that

we

should have required the article along with

result of such

what a poor designation of the Messiah an interpretation With an equal disregard of the terms of the passage, Linder maintains, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 513, that airo is equivalent to Twa e'/c as an Israelite (whom they treated like a slave) and to the same effect is the explanation of Steinmeyer, p. 107: whom they have valued in, the name of the nation.
vlwv
;

and, besides,

would be the

Neither the simple airo nor the anarthrous vlwv 'lap. admits of being so understood, although Hilgenfeld is also of opinion
that our passage

meant
10.

to

describe the betrayal as

the

an
be

act

for which the whole body of

responsible.

Jewish people was

to

held

Yer.

Kal
as

eBcofcav
"ttri s

avra

et9

tov a<ypbv
inis *ptotj.

tov
But,

fcepafi.']

Zech.,
as

above,

nj.T na

inasmuch
of

the

important
field,

matter

here
leaves

was the
miT TV!
1

purchase

the

potter's

Matthew

entirely out of view, takes

"W

in the sense of potter (see,

on the other hand, on ver. 9 above), and, in order that "ijfvn ?K may fully harmonize with a typical and prophetic view of the passage, he paraphrases the words thus et? tov a<ypov tov Kepap,e(o<;, where eh is intended to express the
:

destined object of the thing: for the purpose of acquiring

the

Kvpiosf] corresponds to Zechariah's

tcada, avvera^e fiot vK niiT iN ver. 13, the words employed by the prophet when he asserts that in
field

belonging to the potter.

254

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

casting the shekels into the treasury of the temple he did so

in obedience to the

command

of God.

In accordance with

the typical reference ascribed to the passage by Matthew, the

which the Lord commanded me " are so applied as to express the idea that the using of the traitor's

words

" according to that

field was simply from whom the prophet had received the command in question. That which God had commissioned the prophet (/*ot) to do with the thirty pieces of silver is done in the antitypical fulfilment of the prophecy by the high priests, who thus carry out the divine decree above Ka0d, just as (Xen. Mem. iv. 6. 5 Polyb. iii. referred to.

reward

for the

purpose of buying the potter's

giving effect to the decree of

Him

36 in classical Greek tcadcnrep is usually employed), occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is quite possible that the words used in the Hebrew original of Matthew were ISO *\WV3 or rns ISM*!, which in the LXX. are likewise rendered by /cada awera^e, Ex. ix. 12, xl. 25 Num. viii. 3. Ver. 11 f. Continuation, after the episode in vv. 3-10, of the narrative introduced at ver. 2. The accusation preferred by the Jews, though not expressly mentioned, may readily be inferred from the procurator's question. See Luke xxiii. 2. In appearing before Pilate, they craftily give prominence to
107.

10; Lucian, Cont. 24; Diod.

Sic.

i.

the political aspect of the Messianic pretensions of Jesus.

<tv

\e7et9]

There

is

nothing ambiguous in such a reply

(which was not so framed that it might be taken either as an affirmative or as equivalent to eya) fiev toxjto 01/ \eyco, <rv he \eyei<t, Theophylact), but such a decided affirmative as the Art thou, etc., were calculated to terms of the question
:

elicit,

John

xviii.

37.

Comp.

xxvi.

64.

01/Sev

aTre/cp.]

Comp. on
true king.

xxvi. 62.

The calm and

prjfia^]

dignified

silence of the

Ver. 14. IT/30? ovSe ev

intensifying the force of the

i.e.

expression

to

not even a single word,

to not

inquisitorial

interrogative.

The

silence

even a single mentioned in vv.

the examination reported in John dav^id^eiv] convinced as he was of the xviii. 37. was all he the more at a loss to underof Jesus, innocence

12,

14 comes

in after

co(tt6

CHAP. XXVII.

15, 10.

255

stand the forbearance with which

silence.
.

He

maintained such sublime

Ver. 15.

Kara

eoprrjv] on the occasion of the feast,

II. 1, p.

i.e.

during the feast-time (Ktihner,

[E.
T.

412

Winer,

p.

374

500]); that the Passover is here meant is evident As there is no allusion to this custom from the context. anywhere else (for an account of which, however, see

Bynaeus, de morte Chr.

III.

p.

known
still

as to

when
to the

it

originated.

97 ff), nothing whatever is But whether we date the

to

custom back
introduced
1

Maccabaean age or
p.
first

an
it

earlier period

(Ewald, Gesch. Chr.

for

570), or regard

as having been

the

time

by the Eomans

(Grotius,

Schleiermacher, Friedlieb) for the purpose of conciliating the

Jews,

we cannot

fail to see in

it

a reference to that which

is

intended to be set forth by the Passover (sparing mercy), and

applicable most probably
to

the 14th

of

Msan

(comp. on

John

xviii.

24, 39).

Ver. 16.

Elxov] The

subject

is to

be found in

rj<yfi(av,

ver. 15, that is to

say: the procurator and his soldiers;

for,

like Jesus,

Barabbas had also to be examined before Pilate

of.

before his case could be finally disposed

He was

lying in

the prison in the praetorium awaiting execution, after having

sentence of death. Concerning this robber and murderer Jesus Barabbas (see the critical remarks), nothing further is known. The name Barabbas occurs very frequently even in the Talmud; Lightfoot, p. 489. There is the less
received
reason,
therefore,
for

thinking,

w ith
T

Olshausen,
"13,

that

the
(i.e.

characteristic significance of the

name N2X

father's son

probably the son of a Rabbi, xxiii. 9), in close proximity with the person of Jesus, is an illustration of the saying
" Ludit in
1

humanis divina potentia

rebus!'

Still it is possible

be mentioned as tending to favour this supposition, that while no custom is met with in the Talmud, there is something to a certain modified extent analogous to it in the practice observed by the Romans at the feast of the lectisternia (Liv. v. 14). Schoettgen detects an allusion to
It

may

trace of such a

some such
for the

origin in

Pesachim

f.

91, 1,

though

this is very doubtful.

Then, as

statement of Josephus, Antt. xx. 9. 3, which is quoted by Keim, it cannot be said to imply the existence of any practice, and it refers besides to a
case iu

which ten persons were

liberated.

256

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

that the accidental similarity in the

name

Jesus (see the critical

remarks)

helped to suggest to Pilate the release of Barabbas as an alternative, though, after all, the circumstance that the latter was a most notorious criminal undoubtedly

may have

swayed him most. For the baser the criminal, the less would " But they would Pilate expect them to demand his release. liberated," Luther's be sooner have asked the devil himself to
gloss.

Ver. 17. Ovv~\ In accordance with the custom referred

to,

and

as

it

so

happened that

at

that

moment

there lay under

sentence of death (vv. 15, 16) a noted criminal called Jesus

Barabbas, Pilate got the multitude that was collected outside

gathered together, and then asked them to choose between

Jesus Barabbas and Jesus

the 0^X09, ver. 15.
Ver. 18.

who was

called the Messiah.

avTcov] refers not to the members of the Sanhedrim, but to

See

ver. 20.

Tap] Had he not been

aware,

etc.,

he would not

have thus attempted to

Sio/cav]

effect the release of Jesus.

irape-

The subject of the verb is, of course, the members of the Sanhedrim (ver. 2), whose dominant selfishness was too conspicuous in itself, as well as from the animus that They were characterized their behaviour, to escape his notice. Sid denotes jealous of the importance and influence of Jesus because of envy ; see Winer, the motive which animated them This was the causa remotior. p. 372 [E. T. 497]. Ver. 19. Before, Pilate had submitted the question of ver. 17 to the consideration of the people by way of sounding Now, he seats himself upon the tribunal (upon the them. XidoarpcoTov, John xix. 13) for the purpose of hearing the decision of the multitude, and of thereafter pronouncing But while he is sitting on the tribunal, and sentence. before he had time again to address his question to the
;
:

multitude, his wife sends,

to

etc.

This particular

is

peculiar
before
(xxiii.

Matthew; whereas the sending to Herod, and that the proposal about the release, occurs only in Luke
6
ff.)
;

and as

for

John, he omits both those circumstances

the

altogether,

though, on
is

whole, his account of the

trial

before Pilate

much more

detailed than the concise narra-


CHAP. XXVII.
of Matthew,
20, 21.

257

tive

being found between the two evangelists.

for

and that without any want of harmony i) yvvy avrov] since the time of Augustus it was customary for Eoman

governors to take their wives with them into the provinces^

33 f. According to tradition, the name of iii. was Procla, or Claudia Procula (see Evang. Nicod. In the Greek church ii., and thereon Thilo, p. 522 ff.). Xiyovea] through her messenshe has been canonised. p,rj8ev aoi k. t. Bck. e/c.] comp. gers, xxii. 16, xi. 2. viii. 29 John ii. 4. She was afraid that a judgment from the gods would be the consequence if he had anything to TroWa yap eiraOov, k.t.X.] do with the death of Jesus. This alarming dream is to be accounted for on the underTacit.

Ann.

Pilate's wife

standing that the governor's wife,

is

who

in the Evang. Nicod.

#eocre/3?;9

described,

and

it

may

be correctly, as

and
etc.

lovBat-

ov(ra (see Tischendorf, Pilati circa

Pilot.

Christum judic.

ex actis

1855, p. 16 f.), may have heard of Jesus, may even have seen Him and felt a lively interest in Him, and may have been informed of His arrest as well as of the jeopardy There is nothing to show in which His life was placed.
that

Matthew intended us

to regard this incident as a special

is

divine interposition.
it

There

the less reason for relegating

to the

Keim).
terrible

domain

of legend (Strauss, Ewald, Scholten, Volkmar,

a-tffiepov]

to the current day.

during the part of the night belonging

ko>t

ovap] see on

i.

20.

It

was a

morning-dream.

Ver. 20.

The question

of ver.

sideration of the assembled

crowd

17 is still under the conand while Pilate, who had

mounted the tribunal

is

for the purpose of hearing their decision,

occupied with the messengers from his wife, the members

of the Sanhedrim take advantage of this interruption to per-

suade the people,

etc.

iva] purpose of

'iireiaav.

"Oirwi

is

likewise used with irelOeLv by Greek authors.

See Schoem.

ad

Plut. Cleom. p. 192.

Ver.

21. 'Airo/cpiOels Be, k.t.X.]

this

from his tribunal overheard

parleying of the

the Sanhedrim with the people,

The governor, having members of now replies to it by once

view
to a final decision
Ii

more demanding
MATT.
II.

of the latter, with a


258
which of the two,
for the

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

etc.

He

thus puts a stop to the officious

conduct of the hierarchs, and resumes his attitude of waiting

Ver. 22.
a,bbas is to

answer of the crowd. Ti ovv ttoujo-co 'Irjcrovv

be released),

;]

What, then

(if

Bar-

am I

to

do with Jesus,
or evil to

how

shall I

dispose of
iroielv,

him
1,

On
p.

this use

of the double accusative with

in the sense of doing good

II.

any

one, comp.

Klihner,

277; Wunder, ad Soph.

<f>ovev6^ro), aWa

Phil.

684.
direkiy^r)

<TTavpwdr)T(d\ ov Xeyovav
Kal to
avTov,
eto9 rov

crTavpcodijTO), Iva

Oavdrov KaKovp^ov

(as

a
it

rebel)

Euthymius Zigabenus.
of

instigation
ticular

was also at the the hierarchs that they demanded this parDoubtless

form of punishment.

Ver. 23. Ti ydp~\ does not presuppose a " non faciam," or some such phrase (Grotius, Maldonatus, Fritzsche), but yap denotes an inference from the existing state of matters, and throws the whole emphasis upon ti: quid ergo. See on John ix. 30 and 1 Cor. xi. 22. Chrysostom appropriately

points out

how

dvdvhptos Kal <T<p6$pa fiaXa/cws Pilate behaved.

Ver. 24. The circumstance of Pilate's washing his hands, which Strauss and Keim regard as legendary, is also peculiar on ovBev axpeXel] that it ivas all of no to Matthew. avail, John xii. 19. "Desperatum est hoc praejudicium

practicum," Bengel.
the

dWa /xaWov '66pv^o<i ylverai]

aggravated thereby.
his

tumult

is

only

direvtyaro
that
;

that

to?

Xelpas] he washed

hands,

to

show

he was no

This ceremony party to the execution thus insisted upon. was a piece of Jewish symbolism (Deut. xxi. 6 f. Joseph. and as Pilate understood its Antt. iv. 8. 16; Sota viii. 6) significance, he would hope by having recourse to it to make It is possible that himself the more intelligible to Jews. Jewish custom this what led the governor to conform to was the analogy between it and similar practices observed by Gentiles after a murder has been committed (Herod, i. 35 Virg. Aen. ii. 719 f Soph. Aj. 654, and Schneidewin thereon Wetstein on our passage), more particularly as it was
;

also

for Gentile judges before pronouncing sentence to protest, and that " 7rpo? top rfKiov " (Constitt. Ap. ii.

customary

CHAP. XXVII.

25, 26.

259

52. 1

Evang. Nicod.

ix.),

that they were innocent of the blood

;

of the person

Apocr.
p.

I.
ff.

a.7ro tov aifiaTOf] a Greek author would have The used the genitive merely (Maetzner, ad Lycurg. 79). construction with utto is a Hebraism (DIO *p3, 2 Sam. iii. 27),

859

p.

see Thilo, ad Cod. about to be condemned 573 f. Heberle in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856,
;

Comp. Hist. founded on the idea of removing to a distance. u/iet? 6y^^\ See Susann. 46, and icadapbs diro, Acts xx. 26.

on

ver. 4.

Ver. 25.

\E</>'

^//.a?,

k.tX] Defiant and vindictive

f)

cry, in

the hurry of which (roLavrr] <yap

opfirj k.

t]

irovrjpa eirtOvfiia,
(xxiii.

Chrysostom) the verb

is

left to

be understood
6.

35).

Comp. 2 Sam.

i.

16, and see on Acts xviii.

Erom what

we know
is

of such wild outbursts of popular fanaticism, there

;

no ground for supposing (Strauss comp. also Keim, Scholten, Volkmar) that the language only represents the matter as seen from the standpoint of Christians, by whom the destruction of the Jews had come to be regarded as a judgment for putting Jesus to death. And as for their wicked imprecations on their own heads, they were only in accordance with the decrees of the divine nemesis, and therefore are to be
regarded in the light of unconscious prophecy.
a late word adopted from the and used for fiaariyovv. Comp. John ii. 15 see Wetstein. It was the practice among the Eomans to scourge
Ver. 26. $pa<ye\\(oaa<;]
Latin,
;

the culprit (with cords or thongs of leather) before crucifying

him

Joseph.

vii. 11. 28; Valer. Max. i. 7; Heyne, Opusc. III. p. 184 f. Keim, III. p. 390 f.). According to the more detailed narrative of John xix. 1 ff., Pilate, after this scourging was over, and while the soldiers were mocking Him, made a final attempt to have Jesus set at liberty. According to Luke xxiii. 1 6, the governor

(Liv.

xxxiii.

36;

Curt.

Bell. v.

11. 1,

al. ;

contemplated ultimate scourging immediately after the examination before Herod, a circumstance which neither prevents

us from supposing that he subsequently carried out his intention (in opposition to Strauss), nor justifies the interpretation
of our passage

given by Paulus

whom He had

scourged (with a view to His being liberated).

irapzhwKtv]

previously


260
namely, to the
Ver. 27.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

Eoman

soldiers, ver.

27.

These

latter

were

entrusted with the task of seeing the execution carried out.

Els to

ir pacTcoptov]

It

would appear, then, that

the scourging had taken place outside, in front of the prae-

torium, beside the tribunal.

This coincides with

Mark

xv.

16, eao)
'precisely.

ttj<{

which merely defines the locality more The irpaiTOipiov was the official residence, the palace
av\rj<;,
it

of the governor,
Gesch. Chr. p. 53,

being commonly supposed (so also Ewald,

III.
p.

and Keim,

359

ff.)

that

Herod's

was used for But, inasmuch as this latter building would this purpose. have to be reserved for the accommodation of Herod himself whenever he had occasion to go to Jerusalem, and with what is said at Luke xxiii. 7 before us, it is more likely that the palace in question was a different and special one connected with fort Antonia, in which the airelpa (comp. Acts xxi. 31 Comp. also Weiss on Mark xv. 16. 33) was quartered. ol o-TpaTiwTat tov ^7eyu..] who were on duty as the procueV avrov] about Him ; comp. Mark v. 21, rator's orderlies.
palace, situated in the higher part of the city,

not adversus
to

eum

(Fritzsche,

make

sport of

Him.

de Wette)

for

they were merely

ttjv airelpav] the cohort,

which was

quartered at Jerusalem in the garrison of the praetorium (in

Caesarea there were five cohorts stationed).

xviii. 3.

Comp. on John
;

The expression the whole

cohort, is to be understood

and not in a strictly literal sense the arpariwwhose charge Jesus had been committed, and who only formed part of the cohort, invited all their comrades to join them who happened to be in barracks at the time. Ver. 28. 'Ev&vo-avTes (see the critical remarks) is to be explained by the fact that previous to the scourging all His Dionys. Hal. ix. clothes had been pulled off (Acts xvi. 22 596). They accordingly put on His under garments again, and instead of the upper robes (ra IfiaTia, ver. 31) they
in its popular,
rai, to
;

arrayed
Sert.

Him

in a red sagum, the ordinary military cloak (Hut.

9, 11), for

14; Philop.

the purpose, however, of ridicul-

ing His pretensions to the dignity of king ; for kings and

emperors likewise wore the

that in their case the

p^Xa/iu?, the

only difference being

finer

garment was longer and of a

CHAP. XXVII. 29-32.

261
186
C,
al.

texture.

Pint. Demetr.
cloak,

military
see

41 which was

f.

Mor.

p.

On

this

first

used by the Macedonians,

Hermann, Privatalterth. xxi. 20; Friedlieb, p. 118. According to the other evangelists, the cloak made use of on this occasion was of a purple colour; but Matthew would
intend scarlet

(Heb.

ix.

19

Eev.

xvii.

Num.

iv.

Plut. Fab. xv.) to be taken as at least conveying the idea of

purple.

Ver. 29

f.

'.Ef aicavOdiv] belongs to ifke^avre^.

What
object

is

meant

is

something made by twisting together young flexible

thorns so as to represent the royal diadem.

The
;

was

not to produce suffering, but to excite ridicule

so that while

we

cannot altogether dissociate the idea of something painful

this

from
flesh.

crown of thorns, we must not conceive of

it

as

covered with prickles which were intentionally thrust into the

Michaelis adopts the rendering BarenJdau (atcavOos;);
is

but this

incompatible with the ok&vOivov of

is

Mark

xv. 17,

which adjective
mentioned.
prized (for

never used with reference to the plant just

was a plant that was highly was often used for ornamental purposes in pieces of sculpture and on the capitals of" Corinthian pillars), and therefore would be but ill suited for a caricature. It is impossible to determine what species of thorn it was (possibly the so-called spina Christi ? ; see Tobler,
Besides, this latter
it

which reason

Dcrikbl. pp.

113, 179).

teal

KaXa/juov] eOrjKav being under-

stood, the connection with iiredrjKav is zcugmatic.

Observe

the imperfects eveiraitpv and ervTrrov as indicating the continuous character of the proceeding.
Ver. 31. Kal evehvcrav avrbv ra [/u,dr. avrov] His upper garments, for which they had substituted the sagum. This is in no way at variance with evBvoavTes, ver. 28. We

crown of thorns had now served its purpose, it was also taken off at the same time. Ver. 32. 'Ei-epxofievoi] because the law required that all
are to understand that as the

executions should take place outside the

1 Kings xxi. 1 3
passage.
;

city.

Num.

xv. 3 5

f.

Acts

vii.

58

Lightfoot and Grotius on our

On the question as to whether this Simon of Cyrene, a place in Libya Pentapolitana, thickly peopled with Jews,

262

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

vi.

19), or was only there usual to compel the was on a visit (Acts ii. own cross (see on his carry to executed person who was to be 1 of Jesus was no the case this f.) to Keiin, 397 x. 38, and p. This statement of John does not exception, John xix. 17. exclude what is here said with regard to Simon and the cross, nor does it pretend to deny it (Keim), but it simply passes it over in silence, recording merely the main point in question, the fact, namely, that Jesus had to carry His own cross

resided statedly in Jerusalem (Acts

10), see below.

It

-,

is nothing to prevent the supposition that He have broken down under the burden before reaching the That with such a large crowd scene of the crucifixion). following (Luke xxiii. 2 7) they should notwithstanding compel a foreigner who happened to be going toward the city (Mark,

(though there

may

Luke) to carry the cross the

1

rest of the

way,

is

a circumstance
which the trans-

That

is to say,

the post, the upright

till

beam

of the cross, to

the scene of the execution was reached, where the instrument of torture was duly put together and then set up with the crimiHence (because vvetup&t originally meant a post) we find Greek nal nailed to it. authors making use of such expressions as araupov <pipnv, Ixtpipuv, /ZatrruZun,
verse

beam was not attached

Xap/lcLvuv,

a'l'pav,

comp.

trruupoQopuv

Latin writers, however, with rather more

regard for precision, distinguish between the uprigJd beam which the criminal was called upon to carry, and the crux as it appeared when completed and set vp at the place of execution. The upright beam which the cruciarius was

compelled to drag after him was called patibulum ; hence we never meet with the phrase crucemferre, but always patibulum (the upright post) ferre, which patibulum was placed upon the poor criminal's back, and with his outstretched hands securely tied to it, he had to balance it the best way he could upon his neck and shoulders. It is this distinction between crux and patibulum that " Patienables us adequately to explain the well-known passages of Plautus
:

bulum ferat per urbem, deinde afiigatur cruci " (ap. Non. Marcell. 221), and " Dispensis manibus quom patibulum habebis" (Mil. glor. ii. 4. 7), and similarly with regard to expressions referring to the cross (as

in

crucem

tollere, in

crucem agere (Cicero and

ii.

others), etc.

completed and set up) the comic expression

;

Ann. xiv. where the different modes of punishing by death are enumerated, beginning with those of a general nature and ending with the more specific " Caedes, patihula (beams for penal purposes generally), ignes, cruces. " From this it is manifest at once that it would be incorrect to suppose, with Keim, that all that Christ had to carry was the cross-beam. Such a view is at variance both with the language of our text tov atavph a"pu, and with the Latin phrase patibulum ferre. So much is the patibulum regarded as the main portion of the cross, that in poetry it is sometimes used as equivalent to crux, as in Prudent. Peristeph. ix. 641 "Crux ilia nostra est, nos patibulum ascendimus."
crucisalus (Plaut. Bacch.
33,
3.

128)

as also the passage in Tacit.


CHAP. XXVII.
33.

2 Go

sufficiently

accounted for by the infamy that attached to that

Possibly Simon was a slave. To suppose that he was one of Jesus' followers, and that for this reason he had been pressed into the service (Grotius, Kuinoel), is altogether arbitrary, for, according to the text, the determining circumstance lies in the fact that he was avOpwnov Kvprjvalov. A foreigner coming from Cyrene would not be considered too

odious thing.

respectable a person to be employed in such degrading work. That Simon, however, became a Christian, and that perhaps in consequence of his thus carrying the cross and being present at the crucifixion, is a legitimate inference from Mark xv. 21 compared with Eom. xvi. 13. Viy^P-] See on v. 41. iva] mentions the object for which this was done. Ver. 33. T 0X706 a, Chald. n!>a, Heb. r\%i, meaning a skull. Jerome and most other expositors (including Luther, Fritzsche, Strauss, Tholuck, Friedlieb) derive the name from the circumstance that, as this was a place for executing criminals, it abounded with skulls (which, however, are not to be conceived

of as lying unburied)

while Cyrill, Jerome, Calovius, Belaud,

Ewald, Bleek, Volkmar, Keim, Weiss, on the other hand, trace the name to the shape 1 of the hill. The latter view, which is also that of Thenius (in Ilgen's Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1842, 4, p. 1 ff.) and Purer (in
Bengel, Paulus, Liicke, de Wette,
Schenkel's Lex.
II. p.

506), ought to be preferred, because the

a skull
(not hill of

name means nothing more than simply

skulls, valley of skulls,

and such

like,

as though practice

the j/wra
to

(skulls)

had been used).

A
not

similar

of giving

places, according to their shape, such names, as Kopf, Scheitel

(comp. the hills called Ke<$>a\aL in Strabo,

Stirn,

xvii.

3, p.

835),

and the

like,

is

uncommon among

ourselves

1 In trying to account for the origin of the name, the Fathers, from Tertullian and Origen down to Euthymius Zigabenus, make reference to the tradition that Adam was buried in the place of a skull. This Judaeo-Christian legend is very old and very widely diffused (see Dillmann, " zum christl. Adambuch," in Ewald 's Jahrb. V. p. 142) but we are not warranted in confidently assuming that it was of pre-Christian origin (Dillmann) simply because Athanasius, Epiphanius, and others have characterized it as Jewish ; it would naturally find much favour,
;

as being well calculated to serve the interests of Christian typology (Augustine

" quia

ibi erectus sit

medicus, ubi jacebat aegrotus,"

etc.).

264
(Germans).

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

o i<rri

icpaviov to7to9 Xeyo/Aevo?'] which,

denotes (earl) a so-called (Xeyofi.,
skull,

i.e.

which Aramaic term

II.
1, p.

Kuhner,
hill.

232) place of a
It
it is it

Lat.

quod calvariae quern

determine,

dieunt locum significat.

was probably a round, hare

utterly impossible to

But where
although
it

stood

may

be regarded as certain (in opposition to Eaumer,

Schubert,

Krafft,

Lange, Furer)

that

it

within the city (the so-called

the impression that

Mount

Calvary),

was not the place which subse-

quently to the time of Constantine had been excavated under

it

was

so,

ff.,

a point, however, which Eitter,

Erdh. XVI.

1,

p.

427

ff.,

leaves

Eobinson, Palast.
p.

II. p.

270

somewhat doubtful. See and his neuere Forsch. 1857,

In answer to Eobinson, consult Schaffter, d. dchte Grabes, 1849. But see in general, Tobler, GolFallmerayer in the gatha, seine Kitchen und Kloster, 1851 Ewald, Jahrb. II. Alh. d. Baier. Ahad. 1852, VI. p. 641 ff
ff.

332

Lage

d. heil.

p. 1 1 8

ff.,

VI.

p.

84

ff. ff.

Arnold in Herzog's

EncyTcl.

V.

p.

ff.

Keim,

III. p.

404

Ver. 34.

The Jews were

in the habit of giving the criminal

a stupefying drink before nailing

him

to the cross.

Sanhedr.
II. p.

vi.

See Wetstein, ad Marc. xv. 23

Doughtaeus, Anal.

42.

This drink consisted of wine (see the critical remarks) mixed

with

with myrrh, according to gall, according to Matthew %oX^ admits of no other meaning than that of gall, Mark. and on no account must it be made to bear the sense of myrrh or wormwood 1 (Beza, Grotius, Paulus, Langen, SteinThe tradition about the gall, which unquesmeyer, Keim).
;

tionably belongs to a later period, originated in the

1

LXX.
v.

No
iii.

doubt

the

LXX.

translate

'""^J??,

wormicood, by x*-* (Prov.

it

Lam.

15); but in those passages they took

22,

as meaning literal "gall,"

just as in the case of Ps. lxix.

passage, they also understood gall to be meant, although the

is WiSTi (poison).

which regulates the sense of our present word in the original

;

Comp.

Jer.

viii.

14

Deut. xxix. 17.

usage so entirely

foreign to the Greek tongue certainly cannot be justified on the

ground of one

or two passages, like these from the Septuagint.

Had

"bitter spiced

wine"

(Steinmeyer) been what Matthew intended, he would have had no more difficulty
in expressing this

than Mark himself.

it.

But the idea he wished

it,

to convey

that of wine along with gall, in fact mixed with

as

and
7
:

this idea

was he expresses

plain as words can speak

Comp. Barnab.

rrxujiahis ivrorl^tro Sin

CHAP. XXVII.

35

2G5

rendering of Ps. lxix. 22

people wished to

make out
was

that

there was maltreatment in the very drink that

offered.

yevo-dfievos] According to Matthew, then, Jesus rejected

the potion because the taste of gall

later

made

it

undrinkable.

view than that embodied in Mark xv. 23, from which passage it would appear that Jesus does not even taste the drink, but declines it altogether, because He has no desire
to be stupefied before death.

Ver.

35.

2ravp<iicravT6<;~\

The

cross

consisted

of

the

upright post and the horizontal

:

by Justin and Tertullian antenna), the former usually projecting some distance beyond the latter (as was also the case, according to
(called
ff Langen, p. 3 2 1 ff.). As a rule, it was first of all set up, and then the person to be crucified was hoisted on to it with his body resting upon a peg (TrrfyiMx) that passed between his legs (i$ & eTro^ovvrat ol aTavpov/jievot, Justin, c. Tryph. 91 Iren. Haer. ii. 24. 4), after which the hands were nailed to the cross-beam. Paulus (see his Komment., exeg. Handb., and Shizzen aus m. Bildungsgesch. 1839, p. 146 ff.), following Clericus on John xx. 27 and Dathe on Ps. xxii. 7, firmly maintains that the feet were not 1 nailed as well y an opinion which is likewise held more or less decidedly by Liicke, Fritzsche, Ammon, Baumgarten-

beam

the tradition of the early church, with the cross of Jesus,

see Friedlieb, p. 1 3
.

Crusius, Winer, de

pedum

in cruce affixione,

1845

Schleier-

macher, L.

J. p.

447.

In answer to Paulus, see

Hug

in the

167 ff., and V. p. 102 ff., VII. p. 153 ff. Gutacht. II. p. 174; and especially Bahr in Heydenreich and Hiiffell's Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 308 ff., and in Tholuck's liter. Anz. 1835, Nos. 1-6. For the history of this dispute, see Tholuck's liter. Anz. 1834, Nos. 5-355, and Langen, That the feet were usually nailed, and that the p. 312 ff. case of Jesus was no exception to the general ride, may be regarded as beyond doubt, and that for the following reasons
Freib. Zeitschr. III. p.

(1) Because nothing can be more' evident than that Plautus,

This question possesses an interest not merely antiquarian it is of view held by Dr. Paulus that the death of Jesus was only apparent and not real.
;

essential importance in enabling us to judge of the

266
Mostcll.
ii.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

1.

13 ("ego dabo

ei

talentum, primus qui in

crucern excucurrerit, sed ea lege, ut offigantur bis pedes, bis brachia

"),

presupposes that to nail the feet as well as the

hands was the ordinary practice, and that he intends the bis to point to something of an exceptional character (2) because
;

Justin,

c.

Tryph. 97, expressly maintains (comp. Apol.

I.

35),

and that in a polemical treatise, at a time when crucifixion was still in vogue, that the feet of Jesus were pierced with nails, and treats the circumstance as a fulfilment of Ps. xxii. 17, without the slightest hint that in this there was any departure from the usual custom (3) because Tertullian (c. Marc. iii. 19), in whose day also crucifixion was universally practised (Constantine having been the first to abolish
;

it),

agrees with Justin in seeing Ps. xxii. 1 7 verified in Christ,

and would hardly have said, with reference to the piercing of our Lord's hands and feet i " quae proprie atrocitas crucis est," unless it had been generally understood that the feet were nailed as well (4) because Lucian, Prometh. 2 (where, moreover, it is not crucifying in the proper sense of the word that is alluded to), and Lucan, Pilars, vi. 547 (" insertum manibus chalybem"), furnish nothing but arguments a silentio, which have the less weight that these passages do not pretend to give a full account of the matter; (5) because we nowhere find in ancient literature any distinct mention of a case in which the feet hung loose or were merely tied to the cross, for Xen. Epli. iv. 2 merely informs us that the binding of the hands and the feet was a practice peculiar to the Egyptians ; (6) and lastly, because in Luke xxiv. 39 f. itself the piercing of the feet is taken for granted, for only by means of the pierced hands and feet was Christ to be identified (His corporeality was also to be proved, but that was to be done by the handling which followed). It is probable that each 1 The most plausible arguments foot was nailed separately.
;

borne out not only by the simple fact that it would be someto pierce both the feet when lying one above the other (as they usually appear in pictures, and as they are already represented by Nonnus, John xx. 19), because in order to secure the necessary firmness, the nail would
1

This view

is

what impracticable

require to be so long

and thick that there would be a danger of

dislocating,

if

CHAP. XXVII.

35.

267
view that
the
feet (see

in

addition to
nailed
II.
p.

the

above
(1)

against
is

the

were

are:

what

said in

John

xx.

25

798), where, however, the absence of any mention of the feet on the part of Thomas entirely accord He assumes the Lord, with his natural sense of propriety.
Liicke,

who had been

before

seen
so,

by

his

fellow-disciples,

to be standing

him

and

with a view to identification, he wishes

to feel the prints of the nails in his

hands and the wound in

he

His
to

side, those

being the marks that could then

;

most con-

veniently got at

and that

is

enough.

To have stooped down

examine the feet as well would have been going rather far, would have seemed somewhat indecent, somewhat undignified,
nay,

we should

say that the introduction of such a feature into

the narrative would have had an

fact that while

apocryphal air;

(2)

the

Socrates,

H. E

i.

1 7,

speaks of the Empress

toi/<?

Helena,
yrjo-av,

who found

the cross, as having also discovered

r/X-ous ot rat? Yepcrt

rov Xpicrrov Kara rbv (rravpov ipeirdfeet.

he makes no mention of the nails for the

But,

according to the

context, the nails for the hands are to be

understood as forming merely a part of what was discovered

along with the cross, as forming a portion, that
empress gave as a present
to-

is,

of

what

the

her son.

This passage, however,

has

all

the less force as an argument against the supposition

that the feet were nailed, that Ambrose, Or. de obitu Theodos.

cross

47, while also stating that two nails belonging to the that was discovered were presented to Constantine,

clearly indicates at the

the feet
(" ferro

nails

as to

same time that they were the nails for It would appear, then, that two were presented to Constantine, but opinion was divided whether they were those for the feet or those for the

pedum ").

hands, there being also a third view, to the effect that the

two pairs were presented together

(Rufinus,

H. E.

ii.

not of shattering the feet, but it is still further confirmed by the ancient tradition respecting the two pairs of nails that were used to fasten Jesus to the cross. See below under No. 2. And how is it possible to understand aright what Plautus says about feet twice-nailed, if we are to conceive of them as lying one upon the Probably they were placed alongside of each other, and then nailed other with the soles flat upon the upright beam of the cross. A board for the feet (suppedaneum) was not used, being unnecessary.
!

268
Theodoret, H. E.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

i.

17).

This diversity of opinion

not against,

"bears,

however, a
of the

united testimony,
of

but
still

in favour

practice

nailing the feet, and that

a testimony
living

"belonging to a time

when

there were

had a vivid recollection of the Sie/JueplaavTO quite common.

many days when

to,

who

crucifixion

Ifidrta

was avrov] The

criminal

when
ii.

affixed to

the

cross
ii.

(Artemid.

58

Lipsius, dc cruce,

7),

was absolutely naked and his clothes fell,

on our passage).

as a perquisite, to the executioners (Wetstein

The supposition that there was a cloth for covering the loins See Thilo, ad has at least no early testimony to support it. Evang. Nicod. x. p. 582 f. fidWovTe? K\r)pov\ more Whether this was done by precisely in John xix. 23 f. means of dice or by putting the lots into something or other (a helmet) and then shaking them out (comp. on Acts i. 26),

it is

impossible to say.

Whether it was customary to have a tablet (<rawV) put over the cross containing a statement of the crime (ttjv alrlav avrov) for which the offender was being executed, we
Ver. 3 7.

have no means of knowing. According to Dio Cass. liv. 8, it might be seen hanging round the neck of the criminal even when he was passing through the city to the place of Calig. 32 execution. Comp. also Sueton. Domit. 10 i^re6v]Kav] It was undoubtedly affixed Euseb. v. 1. 19. to the part of the cross that projected above the horizontal

beam.
that
before it

But
the

it is

inadmissible, in deference to the hypothesis

"title" (John xix.

19) was affixed to the cross

.

was
33,

set up,

either to transpose the

verses in the

text (vv.

34, 37, 38, 35, 36, 39, so Wassenbergh in

II. p. 31), or to

Valckenaer, Sohol.

take eirk6r\Kav (Kuinoel) in

the sense of the pluperfect, or to assume some inaccuracy in the narrative, by supposing, for example, that
details are

the various
that

not given in chronological

set
all
is

order,

and

the

mention of the watch being

a desire to include at

introduced too soon, from

once

that

was done (de Wette,

Bleek) by
nailed

the soldiers

(who, however, are understood to have

up the
it

statement,

" title " as well !). According to Matthew's would appear that when the soldiers had finished

CHAP. XXVII.

38-40.

269

the work of crucifixion, and had cast lots for the clothes, and

had mounted guard over the body, they proceed, by way of

supplementing what had been already done, to affix the " title The terms of the inscription are to the top of the cross.
"

given with diplomatic precision

others, including

in John xix. 20, though Keim, prefer the shortest version, being that

found in Mark. Ver. 38. Tore] then, after the crucifixion of Jesus was aravpovvrac] spoken with reference to thus disposed of.

another band of soldiers which takes the place of The whole statement err\povv avrov e/cet, ver. 36.
of a cursory

ica6r\fxevoi

is merely and summary nature. Ver. 39. 01 8e irapairop7\ That what is here said seems to imply, what would ill accord with the synoptic statement as to the day on which our Lord was crucified, that' this took place on a working day (Fritzsche, de Wette), is not to be Mark xv. 21), though it denied (comp. on John xviii. 28 that such was the case. cannot be assumed with certainty place of execution was But there can be no doubt that the tci? /ce</>. ai>T.~\ thoroughfare. Kivovvres close to a public here is not to regarded as that the head be The shaking of passion (Horn. II. xvii. or 200, 442; expresses which refusal a Ps. xxii. indicating but, according to as Od. v. 285, 376), 8, malicious jeering at the helplessness of one who had made Comp. Job xvi. 4 Ps. cix. such lofty pretensions, ver. 40. Buxt. Lex. xxxvii. Isa. 22 Jer. xviii. 16 ii. 15 Lam. 25; Talm. p. 2039 Justin, Ap. I. 38. Ver. 40. "EXeyov Be ra roiavra KcofxwBouvre^ a>? tyevo~Tr]v,
;

Euthymius Zigabenus.
puts a

We

should not

fail

to notice

the

parallelism in both the clauses (in opposition to Fritzsche,

who
both

comma merely

after creavrov,
is

and supposes that in

el vios el

instances the imperative

o

conditioned by

rod

deov).,

KaraXvwv, k.tX. being parallel to

el vibs el r. 6.,

6 KaraXvwv, /c.t.X.] aeavTov to Kard^r]0i airb rov cnavpov. For the use of the present paris an allusion to xxvi. 61.
ticiple
xxiii.

and awaov

in a characterizing sense

{the

destroyer,

37.

The

allegation of the witnesses, xxvi. 61,

to be a matter of puhlic talk,

which

is

scarcely to

comp. had come be wondered

etc.),

270

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

it.

at considering the extraordinary nature of

Observe, moreiv.

over, that here the

ver.

emphasis

is

on

uto?

(comp.

3),

while in

43

it is

on

6eov.

Ver.

42. Parallelism

similar to

that

of ver.

40.
:

/cal

7ri<TTevoiAv (see the critical remarks)

believe

eV avrw

and we

on

Him

(at once), that

is,

as actually being the Messiah.

with the dative (Luke xxiv. 25) conveys the idea that the faith would rest upon Him. So also Rom. ix. 33, x. 11
1 Tim.
i.

eW

16;

1 Pet.

ii.

6.

ver.

mouth of the members of Sanhedrim, who in 41 are introduced as joining in the blasphemies of the passers-by, and who, ver. 42, have likewise the inscription over the cross in view, the jeering assumes a more impious They now avail themselves even of the language character. of holy writ, quoting from the 2 2d Psalm (which, moreover,
Ver. 43. In the

the Jews declared to be

now- Messianic), the

5th verse of
(rpwiaev

which
iirl

is

given somewhat loosely from the

LXX.
ta }'??>

Kvptov, pvadcr&oo avrov, acoadrco avrov,

is

on

OeXei avrov).

6e\ei avrov]

the rendering of the Heb.

an ^

is to

be interpreted in accordance
vii.

with the Septuagint

p.

usage of

deXeiv (see Schleusner, Thes. II.

51, and comp. on

Eom.

21): if He is the object of his desire, i.e. if he likes Him; comp. Tob. xiii. 6; Ps. xviii. 19, xli. 11. In other
instances

the

LXX.
(1

give

the

preposition

as

well,

render-

ing the

Hebrew

Sam.

xviii.
;

22,

al.)

by

OeXeiv ev rivi.

Fritzsche supplies pvaacrdai

but in that case

we

should have

on had merely el deXec without avrov; comp. Col. ii. 18. Oeov elfii in 09] The emphasis is on deov, as conveying the idea: I am not the son of a man, but of God, who in consequence Comp. Wisd. ii. 18. Observe will be certain to deliver me. further the short bounding sentences in which their malicious jeering, ver. 42 f., finds vent. Ver. 44. To 8' auro] not: after the same manner (as

generally interpreted), but expressing the object itself (comp.

Soph.
p.

Oed.
:

Col.

1006: Toaavr

ovethi&is fie;

Plat.

Phaedr.

241

oaa top erepov

construed

XeXoiSoptf/cafxev), for, as is well

known,
ti.

such verbs as denote a particular mode of speaking or acting

are
often
like

Xeyeiv

rivd rt or iroielv tlvcl

CHAP. XXVII.

45.

271
276. Comp. on p. from Luke xxiii. 39;
cle

Tvriiger,

xlvi.

Phil
ev.

ii.

18.

12

Kiihner,

II.

1,

ol Xfja-rat]

different

the generic interpretation of the plural (Augustine,

iii.

cons.

16

Ebrard,

Krafft)

is

precluded

by the necesCyrill,

sary reference to ver.

38.

Chrysostom,

Theophylact,

The harmonists (Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus,

Zeger,

Lange) resorted to the expedient of supposing that at first both of them may have reviled Him, but that subsequently
only one was found to do
so, because the other had in the meantime been converted. Luke does not base his account upon a later tradition (Ewald, Schenkel, Keim), but upon materials of a more accurate and copious character drawn

from a different

circle of traditions.

Ver. 45. 'Air-b Be ckta/? wpas]

counting from the third

(nine o'clock in the morning), the hour at which

nailed to the cross,

He had

been

Mark

xv. 25.

Respecting the difficulty of

as to the

reconciling the statements

of
is

Matthew and Mark

hour in question with what

mentioned by John at xix. 14, and the preference that must necessarily be given to the o~ kotos] An ordinary eclipse of latter, see on John, xix. 14. the sun was not possible during full moon (Origen) for which reason the eclipse of the 20 2d Olympiad, recorded by Phlegon in Syncellus, Chronogr. I. p. 614, ed. Bonn, and already referred

to

by Eusebius,
Synops. p.

is

equally out of the question (Wieseler,

f.).

chronol.

387
is

But

as little

that the reference

to that darkness in the air

must we suppose which precedes

an ordinary earthquake (Paulus, Kuinoel, de Wette, Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 448, Weisse), for it is not an earthquake in
the ordinary sense that
is described in ver. 51 ff. in fact, Mark and Luke, though recording the darkness and the rending of
;

The darkness was of an unusual, a supernatural character, being as it were the voice of God making itself heard through nature, the gloom over which made it appear as though the whole earth were bewailing the ignominious death which the Son of God was dying. The prodigies, to all appearance similar, that are alleged to have accompanied the death of certain heroes of antiquity (see Wetstein), and those solar
the
veil,

say nothing about the earthquake.

upon

this occasion

272

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

obscurations alluded to iu Rabbinical literature, were different

in kind fro
sun,

such

n that now before us (ordinary eclipses of the s that winch took place after the death of

Sen ad. Virg. 67. I. 466), and, even apart from this, would not j istify us in, relegating what is matter of history, John's omis^on of it Aotwithstanding, to the region of myth (in oppoL ioi to Strauss, Keim, Scholten), especially when we consider that the death in this instance was not that of a mere human hero, that there were those still living who could corroborate the evangelic narrative, and that the darkness here in question was associated with the extremely peculiar (rrj/xelov of the rending of the veil of the temple. eVt iraaav r-qv yr)v] Keeping in view the supernatural character of the event as well as the usage elsewhere with regard to the somewhat indefinite phraseology iraaa or oXrj i\ yfj (Luke xxi. 35, xxiii. 44 Eom. ix. 1 7, x. 18; Rev. xiii. 3), it is clear that the only
Caesar,

rendering in keeping with the tone of the narrative

the whole earth (/eoer/uKoi> Be r\v to c/coto?, ov \xepiKov,

is

over

Theophylact, comp. Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus), not merely over the whole land (Origen, Erasmus, Luther, Maldonatus,
:

Kuinoel,

Paulus,

Olshausen,

Ebrard,

Lange,

Steinmeyer),

though at the same time we are not called upon to construe the words in accordance with the laws of physical geography they are simply to be regarded as expressing the popular idea
of the matter.

Ver.
rcrbor.
ix.

46. 'Avefiorjaev]

lie

coned aloud.

See "Winer, de
f.
;

cum praepos.
;

compos, usu,

1838,

III. p. 6

38

LXX. and Apocr.,

Herod., Plato.

The circumstance
is

comp. Luke
of
sufficiently

the following exclamation being given in Hebrew

and naturally enough accounted for by the jeering language of ver. 47, which language is understood to be suggested by the sound of the Hebrew words recorded in our present passage. aafiaxOavi] Chald. "^2f = the Heb. 'JFOTg. Jesus gives vent to His feelings in the opening words of the twentyWe have here, however, the purely human second Psalm. feeling that arises from a natural but momentary quailing before the agonies of death, and which was in every respect similar to that which had been experienced by the author of

CHAP. XXVII.
the psalm.

46.

273

The combination

of profound mental anguish, in

t) .e

consequence of entire abandonment by men, with

intolerable pangs of dissolution,

well-nigh

was all the more Natural and inevitable in the case of One whose feelings we e so deep, tender, and real, whose moral consciousness was si pure, and whose love was so intense. In eyicaTeXnTes Jesus expressed, of course, what He felt, for His ordinary conviction that He was in fellowship God had for the moment given way under the pressure of extreme bodily and mental suffering, and a mere passing feeling as though He were no longer sustained by the power of the divine life had taken its place (comp. Gess, p. 196); but this subjective feeling must not be confounded with actual objective desertion on the part of God (in opposition to Olshausen and earlier expositors), which in the case of Jesus would have been a metaphysical and moral impossibility. The dividing of the exclamation into different parts,
so as to correspond to the different elements in Christ's nature^

merely gives

rise

to

arbitrary

and fanciful

views (Lange,

Ebrard), similar to those which have been based on the metaphysical deduction from the idea of necessity (Ebrard).

To

assume, as the theologians have done, that in the distressful

cry of abandonment

of God
et sic

we have the vicarious enduring of the wratlv Dei ad versus nostra peccata effunditur in ipsum, satisfit justitiae Dei," Melanchthon, comp. Luther on
(" ira

Ps. xxii., Calvin, Quenstedt), or the infliction of divine punish-

ment (Kostlin in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. III. 1, p. 125, and Weiss himself), is, as in the case of the agony in Gethsemane, to go farther than we are warranted in doing by the New Testament view of the atoning death of Christ, the vicarious character of which is not to be regarded as consisting in an objective and actual equivalent. Comp. Eemarks after xxvi. 46. Others, again, have assumed that Jesus, though quoting only the opening words of Ps. xxii., had the whole psalm in view, including, therefore, the comforting words with which it concludes (Paulus, Gratz, de Wette, Bleek comp. Schleiermacher, Glaubensl. II. p. 141, ed. 4, and L. J. p. 457). This, however, besides being somewhat arbitrary, gives rise to the incongruity of introducing the element of reflection where only pure feeling
;

MATT.

II.


274
prevailed, as

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

we

see exemplified

by Hofmann,

Schriftbew. II. 1,

p. 309, who, in accordance with his view that Jesus was abandoned to the mercies of an ungodly world, substitutes a secondary thought ("request for the so long delayed deliver-

ance through death

words.

")

for the plain

and

direct sense of the

The

authenticity of our Lord's exclamation,

which the

author of the Wolfenbiittel Fragnents has singularly misconstrued (in describing

is
it

as the cry of despair over a lost cause),

xxii. as

denied by Strauss (who speaks of Ps.

having served
it

the purpose of a programme of Christ's passion), while

strongly questioned

is

by Keim, partly on account

(?)

of Ps. xxii.

and partly because he thinks that the subsequent accompanying narrative

is

clearly

of the nature of a fictitious legend.

But legend would hardly have put the language of despair into the mouth of the dying Eedeemer, and certainly there
is

nothing in the witticisms that follow to warrant the idea

that

we have

here one legend upon another.

feeling that

ivart] the

momentary but agonizing

God, impels
be.

He

is

abandoned by
of this

Him

to

ask what the divine

(2
Cor.

object

may

He

doubtless knew this already, but the pangs of death

had overpowered
of Jesus.

Him

xiii.

4),

a passing anomaly

as regards the spirit that uniformly characterized the prayers

iyKaraXeLTrco] means: to abandon anyone to

utter helplessness.
xiii.
iii.

Plat. Conv. p.
vii.

Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 9 Acts ii. 27 Heb. 179 A; Dem. p. 158, 10, al. ; Ecclus.
;

16,

30,

ix.

10.

Jewish witticism founded upon a silly rfkl, rfki, and not a misunderstanding of their meaning on the part of the Eoman soldiers (Euthymius Zigabenus), or illiterate Jews (Theophylact, Erasmus, Olshausen, Lange), or Hellenists (Grotius), for the whole context introduces us to one scene after another outo?] that one of envenomed mockery; see ver. 49. there ! pointing Him out among the three who were being
Ver. 47.
heartless

malicious perversion of the words

crucified.

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


CHAP. XXVII.
a contrast to this in ver.
50.

275
xix.

49

According to John

28,

Jesus expressly intimated that

He was

thirsty.

Mark

xv.

36

who reached the drink to Jesus was also one of those who were mocking Him, a discrepancy which we should make no attempt to reconcile, and in which we can have no difficulty in detecting traces of a
makes
it

appear that the person

more corrupt

tradition.

Luke omits

this incident altogether,

though in xxiii. 36 he states that by way of mocking our Lord the soldiers offered Him the posca just before the darkness came on. Strauss takes advantage of these discrepancies so as to make it appear that they are but different applications
of the

prediction

contained in Ps.

lxix.,

without, however,

disputing the fact that drink had been given to Jesus on two
different occasions.

drink of the
thereon.

Eoman
$69] stop

ogovs] poscae, sour wine, the ordinary soldiers. Comp. ver. 34 and Wetstein
!

don't give

him anything
he
is

to

drink

we

want

to

see whether

Elias

whom
drink.

invoking

as his

deliverer will

come

to his help,

which help you would render

unnecessary by giving
for sake

him

is

e/a^erat] placed

first

of emphasis

whether he

coming, does not fail

coming
Ver. 50. IldXiv] refers to ver. 46.

What

did Jesus cry

See John xix. 3 0, from which Luke xxiii. in this instance ? 46 diverges somewhat, containing, in fact, an explanatory
the account of the great closing scene, that is borrowed from Ps. xxxi. 6. evidently a(f>fj/c to irvevfia] Eur. Hec. 571: a<f)f)/ce iv. died. Herod, i.e. He See 190; Kypke, I. p. 140 Gen. xxxv. 18 7rvev[Aa 8avaai/jLa) acpayy There is no question here Ecclus. xxxviii. 23 Wisd. xvi. 14.
addition to

of a separating of the nrvev^a from the

to Strobel, Delitzsch, Psych, p.

"tyvyr).

See in answer
of a merely
so decidedly at

400

f.

The theory
is

apparent death (Bahrdt, Venturini, Paulus)

variance with the predictions of Jesus Himself regarding His

end, as well as with the whole testimony of the Gospel,
is

so

utterly destructive of the fundamental idea of the resurrection,

undermines so completely the whole groundwork of the redemption brought about by Christ, is so inconsistent with the accumulated testimony of centuries as furnished by the very existence


276
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.
which
is

of the church itself,

based upon the facts of the death

and the resurrection

of Jesus,

series of other theories

and requires such a remarkable and assumptions of an extraordinary

to

and supernatural character in order

cated facts regarding
Christ's

explain duly authenti-

appearance and actings after

are

His resurrection,
it

that,

with friends and foes alike testifying

to the actual death of Jesus,

we

bound

at once to dismiss

as an utterly abortive attempt to get rid of the physio-

logical

mystery (but see on Luke, Eemarks after xxiv. 51) It is true that though those modern critics (Strauss, Weisse, Ewald, Schweizer, Schenkel, Volkmar, Scholten, Keim) who deny the literal resurrection of Christ's body, and who suggest various ways of accounting for His alleged reappearing again on several occasions, do not dispute the reality of His death, their view is nevertheless as much at variance with the whole of the New Testament evidence in favour of the resurrection as is the one just Comp. xxviii. 10, Eem., and Luke xxiv. 51, adverted to.
of the resurrection.

Eem.
Ver. 51 f. Not an ordinary earthquake, but a supernatural phenomenon, as was that of the darkness in ver. 45. kcl\ l&ov] "Hie wendet sich's und wird gar ein neues Wesen " [at this point the history enters upon a fresh stage, The style and something entirely new appears], Luther. of the narrative here is characterized by a simple solemnity, among other indications of which we have the frequent to KaraTreraa pa] nahan, the veil susrecurrence of nai. Lev. xxi. pended before the holy of holies, Ex. xxvi. 31 23; 1 Mace. i. 22 Ecclus. xxx. 5 Heb. vi. 19, ix. 3, x. The rending in two (for el? Svo, comp. Lucian, Tox. 20. 54 Lapith. 44), of which mention is also made by Mark and Luke, was not the effect of the convulsion in nature (which was a subsequent occurrence), but a divine at]jjudov accompanying the moment of decease, for the purpose of indi'

cating that in this atoning death of Jesus the old dispensation

of sacrifices

gracious presence of

Heb.

vi.

was being done away, and free access to the God at the same time restored. Comp. ff., x. 19 f. f., ix. 6 To treat what is thus a 19

CHAP. XXVII.

51, 52.

277
it

matter
legend

of

divine symbolism as though

were symbolical

(Schleiermacher, Strauss, Scholten,

Keim)

is

all

the

more unwarrantable that neither in Old Testament prophecy nor in the popular beliefs of the Jews do we find anything The calculated to suggest the formation of any such legend.
influence of legend has operated rather in the way of transforming the rending of the veil into an incident of a more

imposing
templi

and

startling

nature

"

superliminare

(the

lintel)

infinitae
sec.

magnitudinis fractum esse

atque divisum,"

Evang.

Heir, quoted by Jerome.

p. 1 7.

See Hilgenfeld, N. T.
this legend

extr. can.

IV.

The idea underlying

of the destruction of the temple.

What

was that

follows

is

peculiar to

Matthew.

Tlie rocks in

question were those in the immediate

to, fivij/ieta.

neighbourhood, and so also with regard to

The

opening of the graves is in like manner to be regarded as divine symbolism, according to which the death of Jesus
is

to

be understood as preparing the

way
life

for

the

future

resurrection of believers to the eternal

of the Messianic

kingdom (John

The thing thus signified by and possessing all the characteristics of a genuine symbol (in opposition to Steinmeyer, p. 226) was so moulded and amplified in the course of tradition that it became ultimately transformed into an historical incident : 7ro\\a acofiaia rcov /cefcoifx,. dylwv rjyepOr], k.t.\. For a specimen of still further and more extravagant amplification of the material in question material to which Ignatius likewise briefly alludes, ad Magncs. 9, and which he expressly mentions, ad Trail. Interpol. 9 see Evang. Nicod. 17 ff. This legend respecting the rising of the Old Testament saints (ayieov) is based upon the assumption of the descensus Christi ad inferos, in the course of winch Jesus was
iii.
f.,

14

vi.

54).

the divine sign

sign sufficiently intelligible,

understood not only to have visitsd them, but also to have

secured
Trail.

their resurrection (comp.

I.e.).

But

it

is

quite

arbitrary

those

who are we have mere

Krabbe,
p.

thus alleged to
" apparitions

; Ignatius, ad assume that in have risen from their graves

Ev. Nicod.
to

assuring

us

of the

continued
Besides,

existence of the departed" (Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Hug,

505; SteudeL

Glaubensl. p.

455;

Bleek).

; ;

278

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

the legend regarding the rising of the saints on this occasion

is,

in itself considered, no

of Christ being the airapyji twv

Col.
i.

more incompatible with the idea /ceicotp,. (1 Cor. xv. 20 18) than the raising of Lazarus and certain others.
;

See on 1
phanius,

Cor.

xv.

20.

It is true that, according to Epi-

Origen,

Ambrose,

Luther,

Calovius

(comp.

also

Delitzsch, Psych, p. 414), the dead

now

in question

came

forth

in spiritual bodies

and ascended

to

heaven along with Christ

but with Jerome it is at the same time assumed, in opposition " Non antea resurrexerunt, to the terms of our passage, that
:

quam Dominus
ex mortuis
1, p.
;

resurgeret, ut

essct

primogenitus resurrectionis

"

492.

comp. also Calvin, and Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. In the Acta Pilati as found in Thilo, p. 810,

Abraham,

Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs,

and Noah, are

those

expressly mentioned as being

rose from the dead.

among the number of The names are given somewhat

eyepacv avrov]
;

who

differently

in the Evang. Nicod.

Ver. 53.

Mera

ttjv

is to

be taken in

an

active sense

(Ps.
ix.

cxxxix. 2

Plat.

Tim.

p.

70 C
p.

comp.
B),

igeyepcris,

Polyb.

15. 4; aveyepais, Plut. Mor.

156

yet not as though avrov were a genitive of the subject

(" post-

quam

eos Jesus in vitam restituerat," Fritzsche, which would be to make the addition of avrov something like superfluous), but a genitive of the object, in which case it is unnecessary to

The words are not to say who it was that raised up Christ. be connected with i^eX66vre<i (de Wette, following the majority of the earlier expositors), which would involve the absurd idea
that those here referred to
alive awaiting the

with

elo-?j\,dov.

had been lying in their graves coming of the third day but, as Heinsius, After life was restored they left their
;

graves,

but only after

the resurrection
till

of

Jesus did they

to understand

enter the holy city.

concealed.
for
it

Up

then they had kept themselves

difficult

And

this is

by no means

was only

after the resurrection

of Jesus

that

their

appearing could be of service in the

in favour of

way

of bearing testimony

Him

supposed to have been vanquished, and hence

that their rising

whose death the power of Hades was it was only then its appropriate explanation. dytav found
in


CHAP. XXVII. 54-56.
tt6\lv]
tive
;

279

is

in keeping with the solemnity of the entire narraiv.

comp.

5.

Ver. 54. 'O &e efcaTovrapxos] " Centurio supplicio praepositus," Seneca, de ira,
ver. 27.

i.

16.

He

belonged to the
r.

crireipa,

ol fxer

avrov rrjpovvre?

ical ra yiv6/j,eva] icai, 35 f. and numerous instances besides, serves to conand what was taking/ join the general with the particular (generally, is), viz. the various incidents accompanythat ylace ing the death of Jesus (ver. 46 ff.). The present participle (see the critical remarks) is used with reference to things they have been witnessing up till the present moment see Kiihner, II. i^ofirjdrjo-av] they were seized with 1, pp. 117, 163. terror, under the impression that all that was happening was deov v 16 $] in a manifestation of the wrath of the gods.

as one expression; see ver.

'I^cr.] is to

be taken

as in xxvi. 59,

the

mouth

of heathens can only denote a son of

God

in the

heathen sense of the words (hero, demi-god), the sense in which

they certainly understood them to be used when they heard

Jesus accused and mocked.
Ver. 55
f.

rjv]

during His

life.

'H/coXovdrjo-av] Here, as in ver. 60 and often

the aorist in the relative clause instead of
r/

elsewhere,

we have

the usual pluperfect.

MayBaxrjvi]] from Magdala

2
;

(see

on xv. 39), comp. Luke

viii.

she

is

not identical with the

Mary

of

John

xii.

ff.,

who

again has been confounded with

the sinner of

Luke

vii.

36.

Comp. on xxvi. 6

ff.

The

W^IJO

is

likewise mentioned in Eabbinical literature (Eisen-

entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 277), though this must not be confounded with NTIJO, a platter of hair, which the Talmud alleges the mother of Jesus to have been (Lightfoot, p. 498).

menger,

7} rov 'Ia/ccofiov, k.t.X.] the wife of Alphaeus. See on xiii. 55; John xix. 25. The mother of Joses is not a different Mary from the mother of James (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 401), otherwise we should have had koX r) rov 'Icoo-rj ftrfrrjp. See also Mark xv. 47, Eemark. fM^rrjp twv vla>v Zefteh^\ 77 Salome. Comp. on xx. 20. In John xix. 25 she is designated rj a8e\(f)r) t?}? fnjrpbs avrov. The mother of Jesus, whose presence on this occasion is attested by John, is not mentioned by the Synoptists, though at the same time

280

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

they do not exclude her (in opposition to Schenkel, Keim),

to

Matthew and Mark make no express reference For any but the women who ministered to the Lord. this reason alone we feel bound to reject the hypothesis of Chrysostom and Theophylact, revived by Fritzsche, but the hypothesis, refuted so long ago by Euthymius Zigabenus, namely, that it is the mother of Jesus who is meant by Mapia So also Hesychius 7] rod 'Icucdifiov Kal 'Iwaf) /jl^ttjp (xiii. 55). of Jerusalem in Cramer's Catena, p. 256.
especially as

Ver.

57.

'O^uz? 8e
5.

yevop,.] the so-called first or early

evening, just before the close of the Jewish day.

Deut. xxi.
p.

22

f.
'

Joseph. BelLiv.

2.

See also Lightfoot,

499.

airo 'Apipuad.] belongs to avQpwnros 7r\ovaio$.

airo

avarokwv,

posing

member of him to have

Comp. fidyoi The other evangelists describe him as the Sanhedrim an additional reason for supii.

1.

resided in Jerusalem.

rj\6ev\

namely,
to

to the place of execution, as the

context shows, and not

the

praetorium (de Wette, Bleek), to which latter ver. 58 represents him as going only after his return from the scene of the crucifixion. Arimathia, ^riD"i with the article, 1 Sam. i. l,the
birthplace of

Samuel
on

(see Eusebius, Onom.,

ad Eustoch.
with

epitaph. Paul. p. 673),

(see
ii.

Rama

18)

and Jerome, Ep. 86, and consequently identical Kal auro?] LXX. 'Ap/xaOaip,.
:

et ipse,

like those

women and their

sons, ver. 56.

/jua8r]Teveiv

tivl] to be a disciple of

Comp. on
xix. 38.

xiii.

52.

He

any one; see Kypke, II. p. 141 f. was a secret follower of Jesus, John

Ver. 58. According to Roman usage, the bodies of criminals were left hanging upon the cross, where they were allowed to decompose and be devoured by birds of prey. Plaut. mil. glor. However, should the relatives Horace, Ep. i. 16. 48. ii. 4. 9 in any case ask the body for the purpose of burying, there was Ulpian, nothing to forbid their request being complied with.
;

xlviii.

24.
ff.

p.

174

1, de cadav. punit. ;

Hug

in the Freyb. Zeitschr. 5,

TrpoaeXd.] therefore from the place of execution

to the praetorium.

airohodi)vai

to ad,p,a] to

<r<fia is

due
its

not merely to the simple style of the narrative, but in

threefold repetition expresses with involuntary emphasis the

CHAP. XXVII.
author's

59, CO.

281
has the force of

own

painful sympathy.

airohoO.

reddi (Vulg.), the thing asked being regarded as the petitioner's

own

peculiar property.
59.

Comp.

xxii. 21.

Bengel. acvhovi kclOapa\ with -pure (unstained linen) linen, the dative of instrument. Keeping in view the ordinary practice on such occasions, it must not he supposed that the reference here is
Ver.
initia

"Jam

honoris,"

ii. 86) to lands (John xix. 40), in which the body was swathed after being washed. Comp. Wetstein. Matthew makes no

to a dress (Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but (comp. Herod,

strips or

(John xix. 40), but neither does he exclude he may have meant us to understand that, in conformity with the usual practice, they would be put in, as matter of course, when the body was wrapped up (in opposition to Strauss, de Wette, Keim). Mark xvi. 1 and Luke

mention of

spices

their use, for

xxiii. 5 6

represent the putting in of the spices as something

intended to
in no
is

be done

after

the

burial.

This,

however,

is

way

inconsistent with the statement of John, for there

no reason why the women may not have supplemented with a subsequent and more careful dressing of the body
(aXetycoaiv,

Mark

xvi.

1)

what had been done imperfectly,

because somewhat hurriedly, by Joseph and (see John xix. 39)

Nicodemus.
Ver.
60.

*0 iXarofnjcrev]
John
xix.

Aorist, as in

ver.

55.

The

other evangelists say nothing about the grave having belonged

to

Joseph

42

rather gives

us

to

understand

that,

owing
its
is

to the necessary despatch, it

from

being close at hand.

We

was made choice of thus see that Matthew's

account

on the John on the other. This, however, only goes to confirm the view that in Matthew we have a later amplification of the tradition which was expunged again by Luke and John, for this latter at least would scarcely have left unnoticed the devotion evinced by Joseph in thus giving up his own tomb, and yet it is John who distinctly alleges a different reason
altogether for the choice of the grave.
tion, that

unsupported by the earlier testimony of Mark one hand, and the later testimony of Luke and

The ordinary supposi-

Matthew's account

is

intended to supplement those

282

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

meet the exigencies of the

of the other evangelists, fails to

case, especially in regard to

John, on

whom so tender a feature

made
to

in connection with the burial would doubtless have

too

As
the

deep an impression to admit of his passing

a new grave was
calculated to do

it

over in silence.

honour

Jesus

(comp. on John as above), the circumstance that this one had

not been previously used

choice,

gone far to determine no ground for supposing that what is said with reference to this has been added without historical warrant (Strauss, Scholten). ev rrj irerpa] The article is to be understood as indicating a rocky place just at
so

may have
is

that

there

hand.

rfj

6vpa\ Comp. Horn.

Od. ix.

243

irerprjv iredr)ice

In Eabbinical phraseology the stone used for this purpose is called *vi3 a roller. See Paulus, exeget. Handb. Such a mode of stopping up graves is met III. p. 819. with even in the present day (Strauss, Sinai u. Golgatha,
Ovpyaiv.
}

p.

205).
Ver.
61.

*Hv

Be
56.

i/cec]

present at the burial.

article is

17

aWrj

Map.]

see ver.

The

wanting only in
of

and should be maintained, Wieseler (Chronol. Synops.

notwithstanding.
Its

p.

D*, 427)
be

omission in the case

17

A may

traced to the reading

xv. 47.

'lo)cr^0,

which

this MS. has at

Mark

Wieseler approves of this reading, and holds the

Mary
k.t\.~\

of our text to be the wife or daughter of Joseph of

Arimathea.
Horn.

But
134.

see

remark on Mark xv. 47.

Kadrjp,evai,

unoccupied, absorbed in grief; comp. Nagelsbach on

27.
i.

Ver. 62.

"Htc;

icrrl fiera rrjv 7rapacrK.~\ which follows the

day of preparation, i.e. on Saturday. For irapaaKevn is used to designate the day that immediately precedes the Sabbath (as in the present instance) or any of the feast days. Comp. on

John

xix. 1 4.

According to the Synoptists, the

Trapacncewt) of
first

the Sabbath happened to coincide this year with the

(Lev. xxiii. 11, 15),

day

of the feast, which might also properly enough be designated

era/3 ftarov

p.

this latter circumstance being,

417), the reason why Matthew did not prefer the simpler and more obvious expression tfTi? icrrl crdfifiarov ; an expression which, when used in connection
according to Wieseler (Synops.


CHAP. XXVII.
63, 64.

283

with the days of the Passover week, was liable to be misunder-

But Matthew had already spoken so definitely of day of the feast as that on which Jesus was crucified (see xxvi. 17-xxvii. 1), that he had no cause to apprehend any misunderstanding of his words had he chosen to write ^rt? iart crdfifiaTov. But as little does that precise statement regarding the day permit us to suppose that the expression in question has been made to turn on the divergent narrative of John (in opposition to de Wette). The most
stood.

the

first

natural
fiera
r.

explanation of the peculiar phraseology

irapaaK.,
is

r/Tt?

ecn-l

to

be found in that Christian usage

(i.e.

according to which

the irapaaicevr}
to

the

7rpoo-d/3f3aTov,

Mark
the

xv. 42) has

come

be the recognised designation for

Michaelis,

Friday of the crucifixion.

it

Paulus,

Kuinoel
is

suppose that

is

the part of Friday after sunset that

intended, by which time, therefore, the Sabbath had begun.

This, however, is distinctly precluded

by ry

irravpiov.
it

Ver. 63. ^p.v^aOtjp.ev] we have remembered,

has just
e/celvos

occurred to us, the sense being purely that of the aorist and

not of the perfect (in opposition to de Wette).

6

irXavos] that deceiver (2 Cor. vi. 8), impostor; Justin, c. Tr. 69 XaoirXdvos. Without once mentioning His name, they contemptuously allude to Him as one now removed to a
:

distance, as got rid of

i/ceivos
is
;

by

death.

This
559).

is

a sense in which
Is.

frequently used by Greek authors (Schoem. ad

I. p.

p.

177

Ellendt, Lex. Soph.

iyeipo/xai] present

marking the confidence with which he affirmed it. Ver. 64. Kai earai] is more lively and natural when not taken as dependent on (irjiroTe. The Vulgate renders corrj rectly: et erit. ia^drrj ir\dvr]\ the last error (see on Eph. iv. 14), that, namely, which would gain ground among the credulous masses, through those who might steal away the body of Jesus pretending that He had risen from the dead. t?}<? 77-/306x779] which found acceptance with the multitude through giving out and encouraging others to give out that He was the Messiah. j^elpmv] worse, i.e. more fatal to public order and security, etc. For the use of this expression, comp. xii. 45; 2 Sam. xiii. 15.

284

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

e^ere Ver. 65 f. Pilate's reply is sharp and peremptory. icovcnwhiav] with Luther, Vatablus, Wolf, Paulus, de Wette, Keim, Steinmeyer, e%ere is to be taken as an imperative, Mark ix. 50, xi. 22 hdbetote (comp. Xen. Cyrop. viii. 7. 11 For if it be taken Soph. Phil. 778) ye shall have a watch ! as an indicative, as is generally done in conformity with the
;

Vulgate,

we must

not suppose that the reference

the

is

to

Roman

soldiers (Grotius, Fritzsche), for the

Sanhedrim had not any

detachment that

such placed at their disposal, not even to

guarded
xxviii.

the

cross (Kuinoel), for its

duties were

now

over,

but

simply to the ordinary temple guards.

But

it is

evident from
set to

14 that

it

was not these

latter

who were

watch

the grave.

This duty was assigned to a company of

Roman

which company the Acta Pil. magnifies into a cohort. by such means as, ye know how to prevent it, The idea " vereor autem, ut i.e. in the best way you can. satis communire illud possitis " (Fritzsche), is foreign to the
soldiers,
&>9 ot'SaTe] as,
:

text.

fjuera

t?}? KovcrTcoBla<i] belongs to rjcrcpaXicr. r. Tticp.;

they secured the grave by means of (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. The p. 530 D) the watch, which they posted in front of it. intervening acppayia. r. \i6. is to be understood as having
preceded the
the stone.
rjafyaX. t. t. fierce t. kovgt.
:

after they

had

sealed

To connect
result

fiera t. koucttcoS.

with
feeble

a-^pa^icr.

(Chry-

and somewhat them with the sealing (Bleek), or in the harsh and unnecessary assumption that our expression is an abbreviation for /j,era rod irpoadelvai a<ppa<yio-.] Comp. Dan. vi. 17. tt]v KovarcoSiav (Fritzsche). The sealing was effected by stretching a cord across the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, and then fastening it to the rock at either end by means of sealing-clay (Paulsen, Regier. d. Morgenl. p. 298 Harmar, Beobacht. II. p. 467) or if the stone at the door happened to be fastened with a cross-beam, this latter was sealed to the rock (Strauss, Sinai und Golgotha,
sostom) would
either

in

the

inappropriate idea that the watch had helped

p.

205).

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


CHAP. XXVII.

285

that the women who visited the grave on the resurrection morning could have contemplated embalming the body, or would have concerned themselves merely about how the stone was to be rolled away, if they had been aware that a watch had been set, and that the grave had been sealed and finally, as
;

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

286

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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

chap, xxviii.

287

CHAPTEE XXVIII.
Vee. 2. d-irb r. Oupag] is wanting in B D K, 60, 84, Vulg. It. Or. Dion. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Exegetical addition, which many witnesses have supplemented still further by adding roD fivn^n'ov (Mark xvi. 3). Ver. 6. 6 xvpiog] is wanting, no doubt, only in Bs, 33, 102, Copt. Aeth. Arm. Ar. "1 one Cod. of the It. Or."" Chrys. but, with Tisch., it is to be condemned. This designation is foreign to Matth., while as " gloriosa appellatio " (Bengel) it was more liable to be inserted than omitted.

8. ifsX0.] Tisch. &vt\0., following B C L K, 33, 69, 124. Correctly the more significant reading of the Eeceived text is derived from Mark. Ver. 9. Before xai Jdov the Eeceived text inserts No such us ds Inopibovro atayyiYkai ro?g fiadrjTaTg avTov. po1N, min. Syr. Ar. clause is found in B Perss. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Sax. It. Or. Eus. Jer. Aug. Defended by Griesb. Matth. Fritzsche, Scholz, Bornem. (Schol. in Luc. p. xxxix.) condemned by Mill, Bengel, Gersd., Schulz, Einck, Lachm., Tisch. There would be nothing feeble or awkward about the words if thus inserted, on the contrary, the effect would be somewhat solemn (see Bornem.) but seeing that they are wanting in witnesses so ancient and so important, and seeing that us is not found in this sense anywhere else in Matth. (other grammatical grounds mentioned by Gersd. are untenable), there is reason to suspect that they are an early addition for the sake of greater precision. Ver. 11. Eor cUrjj/y. read, with Tisch. 8, avqyy., though only in accordance with x, The Eeceived reading is taken from ver. 10, while Or. Chrys. dmyysXXnv occurs nowhere else in Matthew. Ver. 14. It/ row vvb rov r\y., following B D, 59, Vulg. It. But this 537.] Lachm. is an explanatory correction in consequence of not catching the sense. Ver. 15. Lachm. inserts ri^ipas after e^spov, in accordL. Correctly as Matth. does not add rip'sp. in ance with B any other instance (xi. 23, xxvii. 8), it was more natural for the transcriber to omit than to insert it. Ver. 17. aurffl] is wanting in B X, 33, 102, Vulg. It. Chrys. Aug. Deleted by
: ;

Ver.

Lachm. and

Tisch.

8.

somewhat common

addition, for

which

283

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

aurov. Ver. 19. After vopsv6. Elz. inserts bracketed by Lachm. and deleted by Matth. and Tisch. Added as a connecting particle, but wanting in very important witnesses, while other and less important ones have vvv.
ouv,

other mss. (min.) have

which

is

Ver.

1.

On

the various

ways

of viewing

and interpreting

the story of the resurrection, see, as regards their critical aspect, Keim, III. p. 527 ff ; and on the apologetic side, consult
.

Steinmeyer, Apolog. Beitr. III. 1871.

but late on the Sabbath,
the

oyjre
.
.

Be o-afifidrayv]
after the close of

means neither
close

Sabbath (Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald,

:

Bleek), nor

after the

of the week (Severus of Antioch,

;

Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Wieseler, p. 425) for oyfre, sero, with a defining genitive (without which it occurs nowhere
else in the

New

the period thus specified

Testament) always denotes the lateness of and still current (to. TeXevrala tovtcov,

Euthymius Zigabenus).
;

Comp. in general, Kriiger, xlvii. 10. Take the following as examples of 4 this usage from classical authors: Xen. Hist. ii. 1. 14; Thuc. Trj<i rjpLepas oyp-e Dem. p. 541, tilt. 6-^re t% wpa? iv. 93. 1 Luc. Bern. enc. 14, and de morte Peregr. 21: iylyvero o-v/re Tf;<? fjXiKia?. Hence by late on the Sabbath, we are not any such misto suppose Saturday evening to be intended, understanding being precluded both by the nature of the expression made use of, an expression hy no means synonymous with the usual oyfrla^ ryevofAevrjs (in opposition to Keim), and by what is still further specified immediately after, but far on in the Saturday night, after midnight, toward daybreak on SunKlihner, II. 1, p. 292.
:

day, in conformity with the civil

to

mode

of reckoning, according

which the ordinary day was understood to extend from Lightfoot, comparing the Eabbinical sunrise till sunrise again.
expression
&aiK>
*j?3,

aptly observes

"

6-\jre

totam

noctem
ev.

denotat."

Comp.

so early a writer as Augustine, de cons.

24.

Consequently

the

point

of

time

mentioned

here
1
:

is
rfj

substantially identical with that given in Luke xxiv. fxia Tuiv aafiBcvTwv opQpov ftaOeos, and in John xx. 1
:

rfj fxia

tcov <ra/3/3. irpan cr/coTta<? kri ovarj<;

while, on the other hand,

Mark
comp.

xvi.

2 represents the sun as already risen.

:

For

oyjre,

Ammonius

ecrrrepa p,ev <yup ecniv

rj

fiera rijv Buaiv rou

chap, xxviii.
ij\iov wpa'
o-tye Be

i.

289

r\

fxera tto\v -n}? Bvcrewi.

rrj

eirL^uxrK.

was dawning toward Sunday, i.e. as the light was beginning to appear on the morning of Sunday. Understand r^fiepa after iirv^KoaK. and for eTrifycocncei r) rjfiepa, comp. Herod, hi. 86 a/x' v^epy Biafycocncovcrr), also ix. 45. The participial expression without the rj^epa is similar to 77 eiriovaa, and the like (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 228).
et? filav cra/3/3aT6>i/]
it
;
:

when

Keim

supposes the evening to be intended, since, according tu

the Jewish

day began with the rising meaning of our passage would be as follows " In the evening after six d clock, just when the stars were beginning to twinlde!' l But to say nothing of the startling discrepancy that would thus arise between Matthew and the other evangelists, we would be under the necessity, according to Luke xxiii. 54 (see on the passage), of understanding the words immediately following as simply equivalent to 777 /xla aafiftdreov eTridx^a-Kovarj comp. o-aftftdrov eTrMpwo-fcei, Ev. Nicod. 12, p. 600, Thilo's edition. Nor, if we adopt Keim's interpretation, is it at all clear what substantive should be understood along with rfj eirKfxocrK. Ewald, Apost. Zeit. p. 82, unwarrantably supplies kairkpa, and, like Keim, supposes the reference to be to the evening lighting of the lamps, though he is inclined to think that Matthew intended summarily to include in his statement what the women did on Saturday evening and early on Sunday, a view which
of reckoning, the

mode

of the stars or the lighting of lamps, so that the

:

finds

no support whatever in the text as for the intention to embalm the body, there is no trace of such a thing in Matthew.
;

that in framing his statement as to the time here in question, the author of our revised Gospel has
Lastly, to suppose

had recourse to a combination of Mark xvi. 1 and 2 (Weiss), for instead is to give him but little credit for literary skill he had combination, of taking the trouble to form any such only to take Mark's two statements and place the one after
;

the other, thus

1

Scayevofievov tov a-afifiarov, Xlav irpan

tt} ?
1

This idea of Keim's about the twinkling of the stars is an importation; for l-riQutrxu, as applied to the evening, has reference only o the ordinary domestic lighting of the lamps. See in particular, Lightfoot on Luka
the expression
xxiii. 54.

MATT.

II.

290
fiias aaftfiaTwv.

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

But

so far

entire independence of

Mark.

The
on.

from

that,

he has proceeded in
fiia aafifia'rwv

expression

corresponds exactly to the Kabbinical

mode
;

of designating the

days of the week

r\2V2

naBQ ins, Sunday

so

TQM1

w, Monday
p.

whv, Tuesday, and

See

Lightfoot,

500.

Observe that <rd/3/3ara denotes, in the

first

instance, Sabbath,

and then Week ; and similarly, that the ypepa to be understood with 7rt,(f)a)(TK. is to be taken in the sense of day light (John rj aWrj Mapia] ix. 4, xi. 9 Eom. xiii. 12 1 Thess. v. 5). In John xx. 1 only Mary Magdalene is as in xxvii. 56. mentioned, whereas in the Synoptists we have an amplified
;

version of the tradition as regards the

number of the women, Matthew mentioning two, Mark three (Salome), while Luke (xxiv. 10) gives us to understand that, in addition to the two Marys and Joanna, whom he specially names,
In dealing with such discrepancies
of seeking to coerce the

there were several others.

in the tradition
different

we should beware

narratives into

harmony with one

another,

which

can never be done without prejudice to their respective authors. We see an illustration of this in the supposition that Mary

Magdalene came first of all to the grave, and then hastened back to the city to inform Peter of what had taken place, and that during her absence Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and the other women arrived (Olshausen, Ebrard). Comp. on John xx. 1. The same thing is exemplified by the other view, that Mary Magdalene went to the grave along with the rest of the women, but that on the way back For the various attempts to she outran the others, etc. harmonize the divergent narratives, see Griesbach, Opnsc. II.
p.

241

ff.;

Strauss,

II.

p.
to

570

ff.

Wieseler,

p.

425

ff.

6ea>py)aai tov rafyov)

look at

the

grave; according to
This latter statement

Mark and Luke,

is

to anoint the body.

the more original and more correct of the two, though

consistently adopt
it after what he had and watching of the grave.

Matthew could not

Ver.
2.

said about the sealing

It is

wrong

to take the aorists in a pluperfect sense

(Castalio, Kuinoel,

Kern, Ebrard), or to conceive of the action of

the rfkde as not yet completed (de Wette).

Matthew

repre-

CHAP. XXVIII.

3-6.

291

sents

what

is
.

here recorded as taking place in presence of the

.
. .

/cat ISov), whose attention, however, decoprjaai women (ffkOe had been so much occupied with the accompanying phenomena,

that they did not observe (vv. 5, 6) the circumstance itself of

our Lord's emerging from the grave (which, besides, must have been invisible to the outward eye owing to the nature of The other the body He had now assumed, comp. on ver. 17). evangelists make no mention of this (legendary) supernatural and visible rolling away of the stone and, though
;

differing

as

to

the

number

of

the

angels,

they agree in
Here,
supernatural,

representing
if

them

as having appeared inside the grave.

anywhere, however, amid so

all

much

that

is

must we be prepared
took place, above

to expect divergent accounts of

what

in regard to the angelic manifestations,

which are matters depending on individual observation and experience (comp. on John xx. 12), and not the objective perceptions of impartial and disinterested spectators. 7p]

assigning the reason for the violent earthquake which, as a

divine atjfiehv, formed an appropriate accompaniment to this

miraculous angelic manifestation.

Ver.
3

tc.

ifcadrJTo, k.t.X.] as the

heaven-sent guardian and interpreter of the empty tomb.

his appearance, his outward nowhere else in the New Testament, though occurring in Dan. i. 15, 2 Mace. iii. 16, and frequently in On the relation of this term to elSos, see classical authors. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 5 9 6 A, and Parmen. p. 128 E and comp. Ameis on Horn. Od. ix. 508, Appendix. The see what folappearance of the countenance is meant
f.

'H l&ea avTov]

aspect, found

lows.

Comp.

xvii. 2,

eo?

darpairrj] not: as having the

Comp. form, but as shining with the brightness of lightning. For el&ov rrjv 6-^nv daipcnnovaav. Plat. Phaedr. p. 254 B i. xi. Acts 10. The 2 Mace. raiment, comp. white the 8;
sentinels
error at the sight of the angel (avrov),

were convulsed (iaeiadrjaav, 3 Esdr. iv. 36) with and became as powerless

as though they
latter

had been dead. The circumstance of these mentioned again at this point is in strict keeping with the connection of Matthew's narrative. Ver. 5 f. A7roKpideL<i\ said in view of the terrifying effect
being

292

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

which he saw was being produced upon the women by what pr) (pofielade vfiei?] was taking place. Comp. on xi. 25. vfiel<i is neither to be understood as a vocative (0 vos !), nor to be referred to what follows (both of which Fritzsche has suggested) but, as the simplicity of the address and a due regard to the sense require, is to be taken thus ye should not be

afraid, vp,el?
sentinels,

being thus regarded as forming a contrast to the

ticular

who are paralyzed with terror. To say that no paremphasis ever rests upon the personal pronoun (de
is to
is

Wette)
tament,

say what, as regards the whole of the

New

Tes;

Acts

viii.

simply not the case (instance also Mark xiii. 9 o28a <yap, k.t.\.] Ground of the reassuring 24).

purpose

terms in which the angel addresses them he knows the loving for which they are come, and what joyful news he
;

has

to tell
7.

them

in the act of going before you to Bengel correctly observes " Verba Galilee Accorddiscipulis dicenda se porrigunt usque ad videbitis." ingly y/*a? and otyecrde refer to the disciples (comp. xxvi. 32), not to the women as well, who, in fact, savj Jesus forthFor the meeting itself, which is with; and see ver. 10.

Ver.

npodyeb] he

is

ore is recitative.

here promised, see ver. 16

in Jerusalem or

ff.

e'/ceZJ

therefore not previously

is

anywhere

else in Judaea.

here stated and the narratives of

Between what Luke and John there is

manifest and irreconcilable difference. In the Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 532 ff., Graf still tries in vain to make out a case in

favour of assuming, as matter of course, the expiry of the Observe, moreover, festival period before the trpowyeL and 6S/r.
the
6'i/reo-#e
;

on no earlier occasion than that of their meeting

in Galilee were they to be favoured ivith a sight of Him.

vp.lv]

elirov
my

have told

you

it,

in the sense of: take this as

36), thus conjoining hint carefully note how certainly a to announcement the with wrong, therefore, to the result. It is by verified will be it

intimation of the fact

(see

on John

vi.

suppose that for ehrov

we should

read

elirev, after

Mark

xvi.

(Maldonatus, Michaelis), in which case some assume an error in translation (Bolten, Eichhorn, Buslav, de ling. orig. ev. M.
p.

67); others, an error on the part of the transcriber (Schol-


chap, xxviii. 8-10.

293

ten)

and

others, again,

burger, Holtzmann).

an erroneous use of Mark (SchneckenThe l8ov, elirov vpXv is here peculiar to

Matthew.
Ver.
Be,
/j,

8.

Merit

(pofSov, e<'

oh

elBov 7rapa86t;oi$' fierd ^apcis

e</>'

oh

rjicovcrav

euoyyeTuW,
to

670X779] applying

both substantives.

Euthymius Zigabenus. For similar ini.

stances of the mingling of fear with joy (Virg. Acn.

xi.

514,
u.

807, al),

consult

Wetstein

Koster in

the

Stud.

Krit.

1862,
9.

p.

351.
seeing the strange and superhuman appearance

Ver.

On

presented by the risen Lord, the

consternation
(p,rj

women are so filled with 10) that they take hold of His feet in a suppliant attitude (etcpar. avrov t. 770609), and
<po/3eia0e,

ver.

testify their
cri?.

submission and reverence by the act of irpoaKvvr)correctly

:

Bengel says
10.

"

Jesum

ante

passionem

alii

potius alieniores adorarunt

quam

discipuli."

Ver.

Mrj

(poftelcrde' uirdjere, 077-077]

the matter being pressing, urgent.

Tr. 106), not

Asyndeton,

rots a$e\(poi<; /xov]

;

He
c.

thus designates His disciples (comp. on John xx. 1 7

777509 Tip.r]v

Justin,

avra>v (Euthymius Zigabenus), for

which there was no occasion, but in view of that conception of Him as a superhuman being which had so profoundly impressed the women prostrate at His feet. ha] does not state the purport of the order involved in dirayy. (de Wette there is nothing whatever of the nature of an order about 0.7707.), take word to my brethren (namely, about but the idea is my resurrection, about your having seen me, about my having spoken to you, and what I said), in order that (as soon as they receive these tidings from you) they may
;
:

proceed to Galilee, xxvi. 32.

to

/cd/cei fie
tva,

o^ovrai]

is

not

be

regarded
me.

as

dependent on

but: and there they

shyill see

Galilee (ver.
siderable
(ver.

7),

This repetition of the directions about going to to which latter our evangelist gives con-

prominence as the scene of the new reunion 16 ff.), cannot be characterized as superfluous (de Wette, Bruno Bauer), or even as poor and meaningless (Keim), betraying the hand of a later editor, but is intended to be With the exception express and emplxatic ; comp. Steinmeyer.

;;

294
of

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

xxi.,

John

the other canonical Gospels, in which, however,

we

mention

make no any appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee according to John xx., Jesus remained at least eight days in Jerusalem, as did also His disciples, to whom He there manifested Himself on two occasions, though it would appear from John xxi. that the third manifestation took place in Acts i. 4, Galilee, while Luke, on the other hand (xxi v. 49
cannot include the spurious conclusion of Mark,
of
;

xiii.

31), excludes Galilee altogether, just as

Matthew excludes
is

Judaea.
(Strauss,

To harmonize these divergent accounts II. p. 558 ff Holtzmann, p. 500

;
.

impossible
.

Keim)

and, with regard to the account

it

of Mattliew so
far

in

particular,

may

be observed that

it

is

from assuming the

manifestations to the disciples in Judaea as having previously

occurred

(in

opposition
it

to

Augustine, Olshausen, Krabbe,

Ebrard, Lange), that

eleven, ver. 16
as the one that
ff,

clearly intends the meeting with the

as the first appearance to those latter,

had been promised by the

Jesus Himself, ver. 10.

ever, it

and and by From those divergent accounts, howangel, ver. 7,

may

be fairly inferred that the tradition regarding the

risen
(1) the purely Galilaean,

appearances of the
threefold shape
;
:

Lord to His disciples assumed a which is that adopted by Matthew (2) the purely Judaean, which is that of Luke, and also of John with the supplementary ch. xxi. left out; (3) the combined form in which the appearances both in Galilee and Judaea are embraced, which is that of John supplementary chapter in question included. with the That Jesus appeared to the disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee as well might be already deduced as a legitimate historical inference from the fact of a distinct

Judaean and Galilaean

the matter
is

placed

tradition having been current but beyond a doubt by John, if, as we

;

are entitled to assume, the apostle

is

to be

regarded as the

author of ch. xxi.

The next

step, of course, is to regard it

as an ascertained historical fact that the appearances in

Judaea
should

preceded those in Galilee

though, at the same time,

is

it

not be forgotten that Matthew's account

not merely vague

and concise (Bleek), but that

it,

in fact, ignores the ajipcarances

chap, xxviii.

10.

295
as being unsuited
L.
J.
p. 465 f. Matthew the

in Judaea altogether} entirely excludes

to

them

the connection; comp.

as this
is

Schleiermacher,

Now,

inconceivable in the case of

to infer

apostle,

we

are

bound

from our narrative that

See Introd.
2.

this is

another of those passages in our Gospel which show traces of

other than apostolic authorship.

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

Rud. Hofmann (de Berg

Galilcia, 1856), following certain early expositors,

has attempted to explain the discrepancies between the various narratives by maintaining that h TocXiXaia, JLatt. xxviii., is not the country, but a. mountain of this name, namely, the northmost of the three peaks of the Mount of Olives.

But nowhere in the New Testament do we find such a designation applied to any locality but the well-known province of that name nor, if we interpret fairly the passages epioted by Hofmann from Tertullian (Apol. 21), Lactantius (iv. 19), and Chrysostom, are we able to find in them any allusion to a mountain called Galilee and surely it is not to be presumed that anything of a trustworthy nature can be learnt as to the existence of such a mountain from the
; ;

confusions of a certain corrupt part of the text in the Evany. Kicod. 14 already, Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 620 f.

see

296
though

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

it were based merely on mental phenomena are in opposition in general to the explicit and unhesitating view of all the evangelists and apostles as well as in particular to the uniform reference to the empty grave, and no less uniform use of the expression third day, all classical testimonies which can never be silenced. If, in addition to all this, it be borne in mind that the apostles found in the resurrection of their Lord a living and unfailing source of courage and hope, and of that cheerfulness with which they bore suffering and death, that the apostolic church generally saw in it the foundation on which its own existence was based, that Paul, in particular, insists upon it as incontrovertible evidence for, and as an atapyji of the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. xv. 23 Eom viii. 11), and as constituting an

is

(Rom. iv. 25 Phil. hi. 10), fond of speaking of being buried and raised up with Christ as descriptive of what is essential to the moral standing of the Christian (Rom. vi. 4 Col. ii. 12), and can only conceive of the glorified body of the Lord, to which those of believers will one day be conformed (Phil. iii. 21), as no other than that which came forth from the grave and was taken up to heaven, if, we say, this be borne in mind, not the shadow of an exegetical pretext will be left for construing the resurrection from the grave of one whose body was exempted from corruption (Acts ii. 31, x. 41) into something or other which might be more appropriately described as a resurrection from the cross, and which would therefore require us to suppose that all the apostles and the whole church from the very beginning had been the victims of a delusion. See, in answer to Keim, Schmidt in the Jahrb. f D. Theol. 1872, p. 413 ff. If this view of the resurrection were adopted, then, in opposition once more to New Testament authority, we should have to identify it with the ascension (comp. on Luke xxiv. 51, Remark); while, on the other hand, it would be necessary to give up the Descensus Christi ad inferos as a second error arising out of that which has just been referred to.
essential factor in man's justification
;

though he

Ver. 11. Ilopevofi. Se avT.] but while they were going away,
to

convey the intelligence

to the disciples, ver.

still

10.

While,

therefore, the

women

are

on their way, the

soldiers in

question repair to the city and report to the high priests what

had happened. Ver. 12 ff. Xwa^6evTe<i\ Change of

586

[E. T. 787].

subject.

Winer,

p.

o-u/xfiovX. re Xafiovres] after consulting

chap, xxviii.

ic.

297

The conjunctive and occurs nowhere else in Matthew found so much the more frequently in Luke's writings, especially in the Acts. dpyvpia] as in Silver pieces, a sufficient number of xxvi. 15, xxvii. 3, 5, 9.
together, as in xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. 1, 7.

particle re has the

same
;

force as in xxvii. 48,

shekels.

eXirare,

k.t.\.~\

an infelix astutia (Augustine), seeing

that they could not possibly

they were sleeping.

procuratore.

is

know what had taken

14. eVl

place while

Ver.

rov yyefiovos] coram

to

olkovuv

not to be understood, with the majority

:

of expositors, merely in the sense of

come
(for

to

the

ears

of,

which
rjy.,

is

inadmissible on account

of
:

eVt

in

that case

Matthew would have simply written

sense (Johnvii. 51
;

koX iav

dicovcrr)

tovto 6

or used the passive with the dative), but in the judicial

Xen. Cyrop.

i.

2.

14, and frequently): if

this comes to be inquired into, if

an

investigation into this matter

:

Erasmus " si res apud ilium judicem agatur." Comp. Vatablus and Bleek. 17^49] with a self-important emphasis. Comp. vp,d<; in the next clause. irelao^ev avTov~\ we will persuaxle him, i.e. satisfy, appease him (see on Gal. i. 10), in order, that is, that he may not punish you; see what follows. dfiepiftvovs] free from
should take place before the procurator.

all concern (1 Cor.

vii.
:

32j, and, in the present instance, in

the objective sense

free
ii.

from danger and

3).

sequences (Herodian,

4.

all

unpleasant conas

Ver.

15. &>? iBiSd^d.^

had been instructed, Herod, iii. 134. 6 A.6709 ovtos~\ not: "the whole narrative" (Paulus), but, as the context
they

requires (ver. 13), this story of the alleged stecding of the body. The industrious circulation of this falsehood is also mentioned

by
of

Justin,
it,

c.

Tr.

as quoted

xvii. 108. For an abominable expansion from the Toledoth Jeschu, see Eisenmenger's

cntdeckt. Judenth. I. p.

190

ff.

For

r)

atffiepov rjpbepa, see

Lobeck, Pared,
Ver.
16.

p.

534.
disciples,

The eleven

in

accordance

with

the

directions given them, ver.

mountain,

k.t.X.] an additional particular which the women received, ver. 10, and had subsequently communicated to the disciples. The ov, ubi, is to be regarded as also including the preceding
etc.

10, proceeded to Galilee, to the

ov

erd^aro,

as to the locality in question,

;>

298

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

whither (to go and abide there),

Luke

x. 1, xxii. II. 1, p.

10, xxiv.

28

473. p. Ver. 17. 'iBovres, k.t.X.] According to the account now before us, evidently the first occasion of meeting again since the resurrection, and the first impression produced by it See, besides, on corresponding to the o^eo-Oe of vv. 7, 10. ol Be eBlo-Taaav] It was previously said in a ver. 10. general way that the eleven fell prostrate before Him, though
Winer,
f.

439

[E. T.

592]

Kiilmer,

all

did not do so

some doubted whether He,

which, however,
is

whom

they saw
is

before them, could really be Jesus.

This particular

added

by means

of ol Be,

not preceded by a

corresponding

ol puev before irpoareKvvrjcrav,

because this latter

applied to the majority, whereas the doubters,

prostrate themselves, were only the exception.
:

who did not Had Matthew's

words been ol pev Trpoo-etcvvrjcrav, ol Be eBlaraaav, he would thus have represented the eleven as divided into two coordinate parts, into as nearly as possible two halves, and so have stated something different from what was intended.
This
is

a case precisely similar to that of the ol Be eppdiriaav

represents
locis

of xxvi. 67, where, in like manner, the preceding e/co\d<picrav

avrov (without
majority.
"

ol

fiev)

what was done by

universa

the

Quibus

in

primum

res ponitur,

deinde partitio nascitur, quae ostendit, priora quoque verba non de universa causa jam accipi posse," Klotz, ad Devar. p.

358.
e?

Comp. Xen.
;

Hell.
iv. 5.

i.

2.
:

14: wypvTo
'lttttov^,

e? AeiceXeiav, ol B'

Meyapa

Cyrop.

46

opdre

oaoc rjpuv irdpeicnv.

ol Be irpoo-dyovrai,

1160; Kuhner,
preceding ol
p,ev

and the passages in Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. According to Fritzsche, a 2, p. 808. This, ovk eBio-rao-av should be understood.
II.
its

however,
priate

is

purely arbitrary, for the iBlaTaaav has

already
in

appro-

correlative

the

preceding irpoaeKuvrjo-av.

Again, as matter of course, we must not think of predicating the irpoaeKvvqo-av of the doubters as well, which would be

were overcome pov k. 6 6e6s pov !). Fritzsche (comp. Theophylact, Grotius, and Markland in Eur. Suppl. p. 326) attempts to obviate this objection by understanding iBiarao-av in a pluperfect sense (they had doubted before they
psychologically absurd (only
after his doubts

did

Thomas exclaim

o icvpios

CHAP. XXVIII.

17.

299

saw Jesus); an expedient, however, of the same arbitrary xviii. 24), and such as no reader of our passage (with irpoaeKvvva-av before him) would Others, in spite of the have suspected to be at all necessary. plain and explicit statements of Matthew, and in order to free the
nature as before (comp. on John
eleven

from the imputation of doubt, have here turned to account

Cor. xv.

the five hundred, brethren, 1

(Calovius, Michaelis,
attri-

Ebrard, Lange), or the seventy disciples (Kuinoel), and

Others, again, have buted the iBlarraaav to certain of these ! resorted to conjecture ; Beza, for example, thinks that for ol
Si

we might read ov&e Bornemann, in the Stud. u. Krit. p. 126 (comp. Schleusner), suggests: ol 8e SceaTaaav (some fell prostrate, the others started back from each other
;

1843,

with astonishment).
disciples
is

The doubting

itself

on the part of the

not

(comp. Luke xxiv. 31, 37, 41; John xx. 19, 26) to be explained by the supposition of an already

glorified state

Glockler,

Krabbe,
;

of the body (following the Fathers, Olshausen, Ktihn, wie ging Chr. durch d. Grdbes

Thilr?

1838

comp. Kinkel's unscriptural idea of a repeated

u. Krit.

ascension to heaven, in the Stud.

after

1841,

p.

597

ff.),

for

His resurrection Christ

still

retained His material bodily

organism, as the evangelists are at some pains to remind us

Acts

(Luke xxiv. 39-43; John xx. 20, 27, xxi. 5; comp. also i. 21 f., x. 41). At the same time, it is not enough to appeal to the fact that " nothing that was subject to death any longer adhered forthe living One " (Hase), but, in accordance with the evangelic accounts of the appearing and sudden vanishing of the risen Lord; and of the whole relation in which He stood to His disciples and His disciples to Him, we must assume some clmnge in the bodily organism and outward aspect of Jesus, a mysterious transformation of His whole person, an intermediate phase of existence between the bodily nature as formerly existing and the glorified state into which

He

passed at the

moment
which
fail
it

of the ascension,
is

a phase of exist-

ence, however, of
distinct

impossible for us to form any

is a case where analogy and His body did not retain, as did those of Jairus' daughter, the young man of Nairn, and Lazarus,

conception, for

this

experience alike

us.


300
exactly the
death, but

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

same

essential nature as belonged to

1

it

before

was not as yet the aoofia tt}9 86i;r}<; avrov (Phil. iii. 21), though it was certainly immortal, a fact which of itself would necessarily involve the very essential change which came over it comp. also Bleek. 1 Ver. 18. IlpoaeXOwv] From feelings of modesty and reverence, the eleven had not ventured to go quite close to ih60T)] with all the emphasis of the conviction that Him. He was triumphant at last ivas given to me, etc., was practically given, that is, when the Father awoke me out of death. Thereby His state of humiliation came to an end, and the resurrection was the turning-point at which Christ entered into the heavenly glory, in which He is to reign as /cvpios iravjwv till the time of the final surrender of His sway into the hands of the Father (1 Cor. xv. 28). It is true, no doubt, that when first sent forth by God He was invested with the i^ovala over all things (xi. 27 John xiii. 3) but in His state of /civcto-i? it would, of necessity, come to be limited by the conditions of that human life into which He had descended. With His resurrection, however, this limitation was removed, and His e^ovaia fully and absolutely restored, so that He once more came into complete possession of His premundane &6i;a (John xvii. 5 Luke xxiv. 2 6 Phil. ii. 9 f. Eom. xiv. 9 Eph. i. 20 if., iv. 10 1 Cor. xv. 25 ft), the Soga in which He had existed as the Xo'709 aaapicos, and to which He was again exalted as the glorified Son of man. Comp. on John i. 14.
still it
;

Trcicra

e'f over la] all

authority, nothing being excepted either

heaven or earth which can be referred to the category of igouaia. Some, unwarrantably interpreting in a rationalistic sense, have understood this to mean the "potestas animis hominura per doctrinam imperandi " (Kuinoel), or, as Keim expresses it, the handing over to Him of all spirits to be His
in

instruments in carrying out His purposes in the world,

absolute power to

or

make

all

necessary arrangements for the estab-

lishment of the Messianic theocracy (Paulus), or power over the

whole world of humanity with a view

mar), and such like.
1

to its

redemption (Volkis
p. 1

What

is

really meant, however,

the
2".

Comp.

for ver. 18

ff.,

Theod. Schott in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1871,


CHAP. XXVIII.
19.

301
limitation,

munus regium
of the Father;

of Christ, free

from

all

without,

however, compromising in any

;

way

the absolute supremacy

xi. 3.

Ver.

19.
is

John xiv. 28 1 Cor. xv. 27, The ovv of the Beceived text
fact stated in ver.

(see the

critical

remarks)
thoughts.

a gloss correctly representing the connection of the

The

18

is itself

the reason

why

should be brought under His government, and made subject to His sway by means of the fjuadrjTeveiv, etc. fxa0r)all nations

reixrare] make them

my

fxadrjrai

(John

iv.

1)

comp.
is

xiii.

52

Acts

xiv. 21.

This transitive use of the verb

not met

with in classical Greek.

Observe how here every one who

becomes a believer

conceived of as standing to Christ in the personal relation of a fjbaOrjTijs, in accordance with which
is

view the term came to be applied to Christians generally. irdvra rd eOvrj] all nations without exception, xxv. 32, xxiv. With these words and this is the new 14, xxvi. 13.
feature
tion,
x.

in the
5,

present instructions
cancelled,

the previous prohibi-

was

and the apostolic mission declared

to

be

a mission to

the whole world.

On

this

occasion

Jesus makes no mention of any particular condition on which Gentiles were to be admitted into the church, says nothing

about whether
in the
Gal.
ii.

it

was

or

was not necessary that they should

;

first

instance become Jewish proselytes (Acts xv. 1

was not necessary and hence, because of this omission, the difficulty which the apostles had at first about directly and unconditionally admitting the Gentiles. If this latter circumstance had been
1),

though

He

certainly

meant that

it

borne in mind,

it

could hardly have been asserted, as

in question, Acts

it

has

been, that the special revelation from heaven, for the purpose
of removing the scruples
x.,

tells

against

the authenticity of the commission recorded in our passage

I. p. 203; Strauss, Keim). which the fiaO^reveip is to be consummated, not something that must be done after the fiadijTevaare (Hofmann, Schrifthew. II. 2, p. 164 comp. also, on the other hand, Theod. Schott, p. 18), as though our passage ran

(in

answer to Credner,
k.t.X.]

Einleit.

^a7TTL^ovT<i,

in

thus, fx,a6t]revaavr'i

/3a7rrl^Te.

Besides, that the phrase

fia7TTiovTe<i k.t.X. did not require in every case the performance


302
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

to

of the ceremony by the apostles themselves, was distinctly manifest them in the discharge of their functions even from the first
(Actsii. 41).
to baptize

Comp.

also 1 Cor.
to.

i.

17.

^airTi^etv

el<f\

with reference

The

particular object to

means which the

See baptism has reference is to be gathered from the context. comp. also on on Rom. vi. 3, and thereon Fritzsche, I. p. 359 Here, where the (Baini^eLv eh to ovofxa is regarded 1 Cor. x. 2. as that through which the fiadrjreveiv is operated, and through
;

which, accordingly, the introduction into

with, and ethical dependence

spiritual fellowship

upon Christ is brought about, it must be understood as denoting that by baptism the believer passes into that new phase of life in which he accepts the name of the Father (of Christ) and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit to ovofia, because it as the sum of his creed and confession, is precisely the name of him who is confessed that expresses his whole specific relation considered by itself, and with reference to him who confesses, and accordingly the three names, " Father, Son, and Spirit," are to be understood as expressing the sum-total of the distinctive confession which the individual to be baptized is to accept as his both now and
for all
1 time coming.

Consequently the Corinthians were not

i.

baptized ew to ovo/xa IlavXov (1 Cor.

13), because

not the

name

" Paul,"

but the name

" Christ," that

constitute the

similar reason,
so DTia in

they did db6 (see Schottgen on the passage), because the

sum of when

their creed

and their confession.

it was was to For a

the Samaritans circumcised,

1 Had Jesus used the words Wopan*, instead of to i'veftet, then, however much He may have intended the names of three distinct persons to be understood, He would still have been liable to be misapprehended, for it might have

been supposed that the plural was meant to refer to the various names of each
separate person.
to

The singular points

vlov

to the specific
lis

name

assigned in the text

to ovoua, avrou

each of the three respectively, so that

to ovt/tx

is,

of course, to be understood
xiv.
1
:

both before rod

xa.1

and

rod ky'iov

-rtivfjca.ro;

comp. Eev.

to ovopx. rod vrxrpoc aurou.

use of the singular as to Jerome, Theophylact) or against (the Sabellians) the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. We should be equally on our guard against the view of Gess, who

must beware of making any such dogmatic employ it as an argument either for (Basilides,

We

holds that Christ abstained from using the words " of

God

the Father," etc.,

because he considers the designation

Spirit as well.

God

to belong to the
at all likely

Such a dogmatic idea was not

Son and the Holy to be present to His


303

CHAP. XXVIII.

19.

name

"

Gerizim

"

represented the specific point in their distin(their shibboleth).

tive creed

and confession

the believer to the Father, etc., is of course to

The dedication of he regarded as

practically taking place in the course of the ^a-mi^etv et? to

ovojxa k.t.X
;

for

though

this is

not directly intimated by the

words themselves (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbnv. II. 2, Thomasius, Chr. Pcrs. to. Werk, III. 2, p. 12), it is imp. 163 plied in the act of baptism, and could have been expressed by
;

the simple use of

et'9
iii.

(without to ovo/xa), as in 1 Cor. x. 2

Further, ets to
ovofjoa is

Eom.
Stud.

vi.

Gal.

27.
eiq

not to be

taken as equivalent to

to ovo/jod^eov (Francke in the Sachs.

1846, p. 11 ff.), as though the meaning of the baptism consisted merely in calling God the Father, Christ the Son, Such a view certainly could and the Spirit the Holy Spirit. not apply in the last-mentioned case, for, like Father and Son,
to Trvevua ayioi> must be understood to be a specifically Christo 6vo/j,a is rather intended tian designation of the Spirit,
to indicate

the essential nature of the Persons or Beings to

whom

the baptism has reference, that nature being revealed in the gospel, then expressed in the name of each Person respectively, and finally made the subject of the Christian's

confession and

creed.

Finally, in opposition to the

(in

utterly erroneous

view of Bindseil
that fiairTi^eiv

the Stud.
ovofxa

u.

Krit.
to

1832,
lead

p.

410

ff.),

eU to
call

means:
i.e.

to the adoption of the

name through

baptism,

to

get the person

who

is to

be baptized to

himself after the

mind upon an

occasion of leave-taking like the present, any more than was the

thing itself on which the idea is supposed to be based, for He was never known Still the New to claim the name 610$ either for Himself or for the Holy Spirit. Testament, i.e. theSubordinatian,viewofthe Trinity as constituting the summary of the Christian creed and confession lies at the root of this whole phraseology.
Observe, further,

name,"

rests entirely

so that there is

"in nomine," and: " in the on a mistranslation on the part of the Itala and Vulgate, accordingly no ground for the idea, adopted from the older
that the baptismal formula:

expositors, that the person

who

baptizes acts as Christ's representative (Sengel-

mann

in the Zeitschr. f. Protestantism. 1856, p. 341 ff.), neither is this view countenanced by Acts x. 48. Tertullian (de bapt. 13) gives the correct render-

ing in nomen, though as early as the time of Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii. 5) in nomine The practice of dipping three times dates very far back (being is met with. vouched for even by Tertullian), but cannot be traced to the apostolic age.

304
particular

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

or names in question, see Fritzsclie as aLove. view of Weisse {Evangelienfr. p. 186 f.) and of Volkmar, p. 629, as well, that Christ's commission to baptize is entirely unhistorical, it is only of a piece with their denial of Ewald, too (Gesch. d. the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus.

name

But

as for the

Apost. Zeit. p.

180),

is

disposed to trace the origin of the

commission to the inner world of a later apostolic consciousness. It is a mistake to speak of our passage as the formula x of "baptism ; for Jesus is not to be understood as merely repeating the words that were to be employed on baptismal

occasions (and accordingly no trace

of
;

any such use of the

vi.

words
Gal.

is

found in the apostolic age

:

comp. on the contrary,

Xpiarov, Rom.
viii.

the simple expression

iii.

fiaTTTi^eiv

et?

27;

fiairrl&iv

ek to ovofm X., Acts

16, and

tw ovofi. X., Acts ii. 38), but as indicating the particular aim and meaning of the act of baptism. See Eeiche, de The formula of baptism baptism, orig., etc., 1816, p. 141 ff. (for it was so styled as early as the time of Tertullian, de bapt. 13), which in its strictly literal sense has no bearing whatever upon the essence of the sacrament (Hofling, I. p. 40 ff.), was constructed out of the words of the text at a subsequent period (see already Justin, Ap. 61), as was also the case, at
hri
i.

a
1

still

later period,
no

with regard to the baptismal confession of

suppose that our passage represents the
first insti-

It is

loss erroneous to

For long before this the disciples had been baptizing in obedience to the instructions of Jesus, as may be seen from John iv. 1 f. where baptism by the disciples is spoken of as tantamount to baptism by Jesus Himself, and where again there is as little reason to suppose the mere continuation of the baptism of John to be meant as there is in the case of our present passage (John In the passage before us we have the same commission as that just iii. 5). referred to, only with this difference, that it is now extended so as to apply to all This at once disposes of the question as to whether baptism should nation*. not occupy merely a secondary place as a sacrament (Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. Comp. also, on the other hand, 1 Cor. x. 1-3, where there is 1858, p. 215 ff.). an unmistakeable reference to baptism and the Lord's Supper as the two great and equally important sacraments of the Christian church. Of these two, however, it is clearly not the Lord's Supper, but baptism, on which the greatest stress is laid as forming the divine constituent factor in the work of redemption, and that above all in the Epistles of Paul, in which the only instance of anything like a full treatment of the subject of the Lord's Supper is that of First Corintution of baptism.
,

thians,

and even then

it is

of a

somewhat incidental

character.


CHAP. XXVIII.
20.

305
d.

the three articles (see Kbllner, Symbol,

Luth. K. p.

14

ff.).

There

is

therefore nothing here to justify those

2,

who

question

the genuineness of our passage (Teller, Exc.

ct cfficiis

Christianorum, 1786,
d.
its
s.

p.

262

see,

ad Burnet de fide on the other hand,

late
it

Beckhaus, Aechth. have doubted

has come

g.

Taufformel,

originality, at least in the

1794), or those who of form in which

down

to us (Strauss,

Bruno Bauer, de Wette,

;

Wittichen in the Jahrb.f. D. Tlieol. 1862, p. 336 Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Scholten, Keim), and that because, forsooth, they

Excephave professed to see in it a varepov irporepov. tion has been taken, again, partly to the 7rdvra ra Wvt], though it is just in these wdrds that we find the broader and more comprehensive spirit that characterized, as might be expected, our Lord's farewell commission, and partly to the "studied summary" (de Wette) of the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity. But surely if there was one time more than

when careful reflection was called for, it was now, when, in the course of this calm and solemn address, the risen Redeemer was endeavouring to seize the whole essence of the
another
Christian faith in
its

three great leading elements as represented

by the three substantially co-equal persons of the Godhead

with a view to its being adopted as a constant crr)p,dov to be used by the disciples when they went forth to proclaim the gospel (Chrysostom iracrav avvropbov StSacr/caXiav i'y^elprjcra';
:

Tr]v

hia rov /SaTTTio-yLtaro?).

III. p.

The conjecture put forward by

all

Keim,

286

f.,

that Jesus instituted baptism

without any specific reference to

the last supper, to serve the

nations

though on the night of

purpose of a second visible sign of

His continued fellowship with the church after His departure from the world, is inadmissible, because there is no trace of this in the text, and because, had such a contemporaneous institution of the two sacraments taken place, it would have made so deep an impression that it could never have been
forgotten, to say nothing of the impossibility of reconciling such a view with John iv. 1 f.

Ver. 20. AiSdaKovra avrov?, k.t.\.~\ without being conjoined by Kai, therefore not co-ordinate with, but subordinate to the /3aTTT%ovT<;, intimating that a certain ethical teaching

MATT.

II.

TJ

30G

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

in every case the administration
observe

must necessarily accompany

of baptism
:

ivhile

ye teach them to

everything,

etc.

moral instruction must not be omitted 1 when you baptize, but it must be regarded as an essential part of the ordinance. That being the case, infant baptism cannot possibly have been contemplated in fiaTnit,., nor, of course, in
This
irdvra
t.

edvq either.

/cal ISov, /f.T.X.]

Encouragement

execute the commission entrusted to them, ver. 19.

to

iyco]

with strong emphasis

1 who am invested with that high i^ovala to which I have just referred. /*#' v/xav etyu-t]

namely, through the working of that power which has been

committed
xviii.

to

me,

ver.

18,

and

with
u/iet?

which
etc.

will

con-

tinue to protect, support, strengthen you,

Comp. Acts

10

2 Cor.
is

xii.

9, 10.

The

are the disciples to

;

whom

the Lord

speaking, not the church

the present tense

His having now entered, and that permanently, into His estate of exaltation. The promised
(not eaofiat) points to the fact of

help

itself,

however,

is

that

vouchsafed

by the

glorified

His own work (Phil, iii. 21, iv. 13 Col. i. 29 2 Cor. xii. 9), imparted through the medium of the Spirit (John xiv.-xvi.), which is regarded as the Spirit of Christ (see on Eom. viii. 9), and sometimes manifesting itself also in signs and wonders (Mark xvi. 20 Eom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Heb. ii. 14), in visions and revelations (2 Cor. xii. 1 Acts xxii. 1 7). But in connection with this matter (comp. on xviii. 2 0) we must discard entirely the unscrip-

Redeemer

in order to the carrying out of

; ;

Ovx apxsT yap

to fiarnrfta xa)

to.

oayf&ara

itpos

aoiTrtp'iai,

fA/n

xa) ToXiTtia

is meant by Itilao-xovTis, x.t.x., is not the teaching of the gospel with a view to conversion. The axoh vriertu; (Gal. iii. 2) and the trims \\ axons (Rom. x. 17) are understood, as a matter of course, to have preceded the baptism. Comp. Theodor Schott, who, however, without being justified by anything in the text, is disposed to

-xpoaun,

Euthymius Zigabenus, who thus admirably points out that what

restrict the oo-a hsvtiXAp. ipTv, on the one hand, to the instructions contained in the farewell addresses (from the night before the crucifixion on to the ascension),

and TtipiTv, on the other, to a faithful observance on the part of the convert of what he already knew. Comp., on the contrary, xix. 17; John xiv. 15, 21, 1 John ii. 3 f., iii. 22 , v. 2 I; Rev. xii. 17, xiv. 12 xv. 10 1 Tim. vi. 14 Ecclns. xxix. 1, in all which passages r*pt~ rai ivroxd; means observe, i.e. to obey, Admirable, however, is the comment of Bengel "tit the commandments.
;
;

baptizatis convenit, fidtl virtute."

CHAP. XXVIII.

307

tural idea of a substantial ubiquity (in opposition to Luther, Beza well observes " Ut qui corpore est Calovius, Philippi).
:

absens, virtute
77 //,/>.]

tamen

sit

totus praesentissimus."
still

irao-as

t.

all the

days that were

to elapse eo>?

t.

avvreX. rov

i.e. until the close of the current age (see on xxiv. 3), which would be coincident with the second advent, and after the gospel had been proclaimed throughout the whole world

aloovos,

(xxiv. 14)

" continua praesentia," Bengel.

Eemark
at the

1.

According

to

John

xxi. 14, the Lord's

appearance

sea of Tiberias, John xxi., which Matthew not only omits, but which he does not seem to have been aware of (see on ver. 10), must have preceded that referred to in our passage. Eemark 2. Matthew makes no mention of the return of Jesus and His disciples to Judaea, or of the ascension from the Mount of Olives ; he follows a tradition in which those two
facts

had not yet found a place, just as they appear to have been likewise omitted in the lost conclusion of Mark then it so happened that the apostolic \6yia terminated with our Lord's parting address, ver. 1 9 f. We must beware of imputing to the evangelist any subjective motive for making no mention of any other appearance but that which took place on the mountain in Galilee for had he omitted and recorded events in this arbitrary fashion, and merely as he thought fit, and that, too, when dealing with the sublimest and most marvellous portion of the gospel narrative, he would have been acting a most unjustifiable part, and only ruining his own credit for historical fidelity. By the apostles -the ascension, the actual bodily mounting up into heaven, was regarded as a fact about which there could not be any possible doubt, and without which they would have felt the second advent to be simply inconceivable (Phil. ii. 9, iii. 20 Eph. iv. 10 1 Pet. iii. 22 John xx. 17), and accordingly it is presupposed in the concluding words of our Gospel but the embodying of it in an outward incident, supposed to have occurred in presence of the apostles, is to be attributed to a tradition which Luke, it is true, has adopted (as regards the author of the appendix to Mark, see on Mark xvi. 19 f.), but which has been rejected by our evangelist and John, notwithstanding that in any case this latter would have been an eyewitness. But yet the fact itself that the Lord, shortly after His resurrection, ascended into heaven, and that not merely in spirit (which, and that in entire opposition to Scripture, would either exclude the resurrection of the actual body, or presuppose a
; ; ; ; ; ;

308

THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW.

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

On

the ascension, see

Luke

xxiv. 51,

Kem.

(J/\A/V^UjV

Date Due

-^ +!*iSL

k^,^

Art

TFTT^