Matthew 1:1-17 JESUS THE CHRIST BY HUMAN , (Parallel passage: Luke 3:23-38.) Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation. As St. Matthew was writing only for Jews, and they, by reason of their Old Testament prophecies, looked for the Messiah to be born of a certain family, he begins his Gospel with a pedigree of Jesus. In this he mentions, by way of introduction, the two points to which his countrymen would have special regard—the descent of Jesus from David, the founder of the royal line, him in whose descendants the Ruler of Israel must necessarily (2 Samuel 7:13-16) be looked for; and also from Abraham, who was the head of the covenant nation, and to whom the promise had been given that in his seed all the nations of the earth should bless themselves (Genesis 22:18; Genesis 12:3). After this he proceeds to fill up the intervening steps in the genealogy. The spelling of the names in the Authorized Version accords with the Greek, and so varies from the Old Testament orthography; but for the sake of the English reader it is certainly advisable to do what has been done in the Revised Version, viz. to conform the spelling to that of the Old Testament, and, where the Greek varies much, to put that form in the margin. It is better to write Rahab than Raehab, and Shealtiel than Salathiel. Those who read the Greek Gospels when these were first written read also the Old Testament in Greek, and so were in no confusion. The first verse of the Gospel is doubtless intended as a preface to what is contained in Matthew 1:2-17. It is, indeed, true that the phrase, "the book of the generation", might in itself point rather to events and works connected with the active life of him whose name it precedes (cf. the use of toledoth in Genesis 5:1; Genesis 6:9; Genesis 10:1; even Genesis 2:4, et al.) , and thus might refer to the whole of Mat 1:1-25. (Kubel), or even the whole of the First Gospel (Keil); yet the addition of the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, by summarizing the genealogy, limits the reference of Mat 1:1 to this alone. Observe (1) that the same word (γένεσις) recurs in Matthew 1:18; but being without βίβλος, has a slightly different meaning; (2) that the word translated" generation" in Matthew 1:17 is γενέα, and means a single stratum of human life. The evangelist uses the name Jesus Christ here as a proper name, customary in later Christian circles (cf. John 1:17, and especially the traces of development from 1 Corinthians 12:3 and Romans 10:9 to Philippians 2:11). "Christ" is not used in its signification of "Messiah," or "Anointed," till Matthew 1:17, where it would be better rendered "the Christ." Matthew 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac. From Abraham to David the genealogy in St. Matthew agrees with that in Luke 3:1-38. In the other two sections, from Solomon to Zerubbabel, and from Zerubbabel to Christ, there is some difficulty in accounting for the variations, which are considerable. The natural descent of each son from his father is emphasized by the repetition of the word "begat" at every stage (cf., however, Luke 3:8, note) till we come to Jesus, and then the phrase is varied, "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." Judas (Judah, Revised Version) and his brethren. The addition of these words seems very natural here, because the twelve sons of Jacob were the fathers of the tribes of Israel, and as descended from Abraham were heirs of the promises; and although Judah was the tribe from which the Messiah was to spring, he was to be the glory of the whole of Israel. The same words, "and his brethren," are, however, found in Luke 3:11, where there is no such reason to account for them. Matthew 1:3 Of Thamar (Tamar, Revised Version). In this genealogy the only women mentioned beside the Virgin Mary herself, who must of necessity be introduced, are Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba, and many explanations have been suggested why these should be specially singled out for notice. The most plausible reasons put forward have been that they are introduced because of the sins with which all but one of them were stained, and because two were not of the race of Israel. Thus, it has been thought, St. Matthew would, in the outset of his Gospel, proclaim Christ as the Friend, even the Kinsman, of sinners, and the Saviour offered to Gentiles as well as to Jews. It is probably wiser not to put so deep a meaning on the appearance of these names, but to consider that they are here because in each case the circumstances were different from the ordinary steps of the genealogy. Had they been in the same position as all the other wives and mothers who are unnamed, they also would have been left unnamed. Matthew 1:4 And Naasson (Nahshon, Revised Version) begat Salmon. This line of descent, from Nahshon to David, is also given by St. Luke (Luke 3:31, Luke 3:32), and is derived from Rth 4:18-22. But it has occasioned some difficulty, because it makes but five steps from Nahshon, who (Numbers 1:7) was one of the heads of fathers’ houses at the time of the Exodus, to the days of David. According to the chronology added in the margin of the Authorized Version, this period extended from b.c. 1490 to b.c. 1056, i.e. more than four hundred and thirty years, thus making a generation to consist in each case of more than eighty years. And even according to the more accurate computation of the date of the Exodus the period would be two hundred and forty-eight years, thus making each generation nearly fifty years. Even this seems very long, especially in the East; so that it is probable that the genealogy in Ruth, merely adopted by the evangelists, recorded only the more important names. Matthew 1:5 Salmon begat Booz (Boaz, Revised Version) of Rachab (Rahab, Revised Version). That this was Rahab of Jericho has been generally received, and it is clear from the narrative in Joshua 2:11, where Rahab declares, "The Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and on earth beneath," that, whatever this woman’s previous life and character may have been, she was then not unlikely to join herself to the Israelites. Moreover, her great services rendered to the spies, and the conspicuous way in which she and her house were singled out for preservation from all the rest of the city, may have marked her as not unfit to become the wife of a chief man in Israel. The Old Testament says nothing of this marriage, but there has been no endeavour made in the Bible to preserve every detail of the genealogies, the record of the successive fathers being all that for Jewish purposes was required. But that Rahab of Jericho was received among the people of Israel, not merely as one dwelling in their midst (Joshua 6:25), but to a place of honour among them, was an old tradition among the Jews; cf. T. B. Meg., 14 b (vide Lightfoot, ’Her. Hebr.’), where Neriah, Baruch, Seraiah, Maaseiah, Jeremiah, Hilkiah, Hanameel, and Shallum, and also Huldah, are all said to have sprung from her. Some also say that she was made a proselyte, and was married to Joshua—a tradition followed, as it seems, in the Midrash ’Koh.,’ on Ecclesiastes 8:10. Matthew 1:6 David the king. The mention of David’s royal position seems made here because at this point the line of the Messiah first becomes connected with the royal house. At the time when Saul was made king the people chose to have him in opposition to the Divine will; but giving them next as king a man after his own heart, God uses the offence of his people so that it shall become a channel of blessing, and from this king Christ himself shall be born. Of her that had been the wife of Urias. It is not easy to see why Bathsheba is spoken of thus indirectly, as her own name was certainly better known, and is more frequently mentioned in the Old Testament than Uriah’s. The phrase seems to call attention most pointedly to David’s sin. and that too in a sentence where his kingly dignity has just been markedly emphasized. The way in which God dealt with David and his sin is very parallel to that in which he dealt with the Israelites after their choice of Saul. David’s first child, like the Israelites’ first king, finds not God’s blessing; but the second child is the pledge of peace with God (Solomon)—is Jedidiah, "the beloved of the Lord," as David the second king was the man after God’s own heart. She that had been the wife of Uriah, after David’s repentance becomes Solomon’s mother. Up to this point the genealogies in St. Matthew and St. Luke have entirely accorded, but with the mention of Solomon we come upon a variation, which continues till the union of the two forms of the pedigree in Salathiel (Shealtiel, Revised Ver-zion), the father of Zerubbabel. In St. Matthew the line which is followed is the succession of the kings of Judah from Solomon to Jehoiachin (Jechonias) St. Luke mentions, after David, his son Nathan (of whom we find a notice in 1 Chronicles 3:5; 2 Samuel 5:14), and then passes on through a series of nineteen names, none of which is found in other parts of Scripture as belonging to the race of David. We have nothing, therefore, with which to compare them; but in number they correspond very nearly with the known descendants in the line of Solomon, so that, although we cannot verify the names, the list bears upon its face the appearance of being derived from some duly kept record of the pedigree of Nathan, the son of David. Matthew 1:8 And Joram begat Ozias (Uzziah, Revised Version). Between Joram and Uzziah the pedigree omits three names—Ahaziah immediately succeeded Joram (2 Kings 8:24), and was followed by his son Joash (2 Kings 12:1), and he by his son Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1). These were probably left out, that the number of generations might be reduced to fourteen. It is not likely that St. Matthew omitted them, but that they were absent from the form which he used. If we seek for a reason why these precise names are omitted, we may probably find it in the fact of their being descended from Jezebel; while the language of the second commandment would suggest that to the fourth generation the children’ of that race would suffer for the sins of their parents. To the Jewish compiler of this genealogy no argument more forcible for the removal of these names could have been suggested. It will be seen that the word "begat" in these verses does not signify always the direct succession of son to father. Matthew 1:11 Josias (Josiah, Revised Version) begat Jechonias (Jechoniah, Revised Version). Here we come upon another omission. Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim, and he the father of Jechoniah (called also Jehoiachin); see 2 Kings 23:34; 2 Kings 24:6. The omission is supplied in some few manuscripts; but it may be only the case of a marginal note in a previous copy having found its way into the text. There is, however, something to be said in favour of its acceptance. The similarity between the names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin is very great, especially in some of the Greek forms, so that they might easily be confused, and thus a verse be omitted in some very early text. Then Jehoiachin (Jechonias) apparently had no brethren (but see 1 Chronicles 3:16), whereas Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, had two or three (1 Chronicles 3:15). To make the whole pedigree agree with the Old Testament records some addition in this form would appear necessary; Josiah begat [Jehoiakim and his brethren, and Jehoiakim begat] Jechoniah about the time, etc. But manuscript evidence for this is extremely slight (vide Westcott and Hort, ’App.,’ i,). Yet the supposition that the name of Jehoiakim has been omitted removes what has seemed to many another difficulty. As the list now stands, to make up the fourteen in the third as well as in the second section of the genealogy it is necessary to count Jehoiachin—a king whose reign lasted only three mouths (2 Kings 24:8)—twice over. He closes the second fourteen and begins the third. There is nothing like this found at the other division. To substitute Jehoiakim after Josiah would avoid this repetition of the name of such a very insignificant person, especially as the reign of Jehoiakim lasted eleven years (2 Kings 23:36). And to mention Jehoiakim as the father of Jehoiachin "at the time of the carrying away to Babylon" would be very appropriate, whereas to say Josiah begat his children at that date is not so strictly correct. It seems, then, probable that we have here some clerical error, which may have existed already in the list which St. Matthew used. About the time. The preposition in the Greek means rather, "at the time." The Authorized Version, however, gives the sense, for the birth of Jehoiachin must have been some years before the commencement of the Babylonish conquest, which may be said to have begun with Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of the land in Jehoiakim’s days (2 Kings 24:1). Matthew 1:12 Jechonias begat Salathiel (Shealtiel, Revised Version). From Jeremiah 22:30 it has sometimes been thought that Jechoniah died childless, though the preceding context, which speaks of him and his seed, seems hardly to warrant the supposition; but clearly the words of the prophet there imply that none of his descendants should attain to a position such as was held by Zerubbabel, and that his family should soon come to an end. If we look at the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:17 we find Assir mentioned as the son of Jechoniah (cf., however, Revised Version, "Jeconiah the captive"), and Salathiel as his son; and in the next verse Pedaiah, a brother of Salathiel, is named as father of Zerubbabel. By St. Luke (Luke 3:27) Salathiel is called the son of Neri, and in Ezra 3:2; Ezra 5:2; and Haggai 1:1 Zerubbabel is called the son of Shealtiel. These are all the details we have, and to decide on how they are related to each other is very difficult. We.may, perhaps, be right in supposing that Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, having died, his son Zerubbabel was adopted by Shealtiel. We must then suppose that, the royal line through Solomon having ended, and Jechoniah’s only child, Assir (if he ever existed, vide supra) , having left no issue, the line of David is taken up through the family of the other son, Nathan, and that from him descended Neri, the father of Shealtiel, who takes the place of Jechoniah’s issue, which has altogether failed. Matthew 1:13 And Zorobabel (Zerubbabel, Revised Version) begat Abiad. Here the two lines of pedigree in St. Matthew and St. Luke seem tc separate, and not to converge again till we come to Matthan (or Matthat), the grandfather of Joseph, which name is common to both. The Bishop of Bath and Wells has shown some reason for supposing that Rhesa, mentioned in St. Luke as Zerubbabel’s son, is merely a title signifying "a chief," and also for identifying Hananiah, who is called a son of Zerubbabel (1 Chronicles 3:19), with Joanna, who follows Rhesa in St. Luke (Luke 3:27), and there being some relation between the Juda of St. Luke and the Abiud (i.e. father of Juda) given as Zerubbabel’s son in St. Matthew. Except in these few particulars, the two lines show no connexion of names, and it seems likely that the family of David had fallen into low estate for several generations before the birth of Christ. Matthew 1:15 Eleazar begat Matthan. St. Luke makes Matthat (or Hatthan; the names are from the same root, and in some texts are identical), to be the son of Levi. This is probably the actual fact. St. Luke seems to have traced the genealogy from Zerubbabel through a younger, son, St. Matthew through an elder. But the elder line failing, Matthan, the son of Levi, of the younger branch, becomes heir to, and is called son or, Eleazar, of the senior line. As the promise of the Messiah was to the house of David, and this was known to every Jew, we need not be surprised to find the families descended from that king preserving most careful records of every branch of the family. Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary. St. Luke calls Joseph "the son of Heli." There are two ways in which these differing statements may be made to accord. The two sons of Matthan were Jacob the elder, and Heli the younger. It may be that Mary was the only child of Jacob, and Joseph the son of Heli. Then by marriage with his cousin, Joseph would become Jacob’s son as well as Heli’s. Or it may be that Jacob died without children, and Heli, marrying his widow according to the Jewish usage, became by her the father of Joseph, who hence would be called Jacob’s son, that the elder brother’s line might not die out. The points noticed above in respect of these varying pedigrees seem to be all those on which anything needs to be said with the view of comparing them. Their variety stands as a constant evidence of the independence of the two evangelists. Had either of them been conscious of the existence of the other’s work. it is inconceivable that he would have made no effort to adjust the pedigree, for which he would possess means now lost for ever. They both design to give us the descent of Joseph from David, this being what a Sew would most regard. The descent of Mary from David is nowhere definitely mentioned in the Gospels, but that Jesus was sprung from David on the mother’s side too we are warranted in concluding from the words of the angel to Mary (Luke 1:1-80:82), "his father David" (cf. also Delitzsch, ’Hess. Proph.,’ § 17). But though we ought not to spend vain labour in attempting to reconcile these two genealogies of Joseph, we can see, from what we know of Jewish customs, grounds enough for understanding how these variations came to exist. The same Jew, we find, was often known under two names; of this we have several examples in the lists of the twelve apostles. It is possible, therefore, that in these two pedigrees there may have been more points of union than we are able to detect. Then the rule, before alluded to, by which a man took the childless widow of his deceased brother for his wife and raised seed unto his brother, may also have led to much confusion of names, which we have now no means of unravelling. The evangelists drew each his own list from some authentic source, accessible to others beside themselves, and the record of which could be verified when the Gospels were set forth. This should satisfy us that those we have received were held by the Jews soon after Christ’s time to be truthful records, and that each established from a Jewish point of view the descent of the putative father of Jesus from King David. Of whom was born Jesus. This name, which, through Jeshua, is the Greek form of Joshua (for which, indeed, it stands in the Authorized Version of Act 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8), signifies "Jehovah is help," and was not an uncommon name among the Jews, though given with marked significance at this time (see verse 21). We find, according to the best texts, that in Luke 3:29 this name occurs in the pedigree of Joseph (where the Authorized Version has Jose), and the Revised Version has adopted that reading. Who is called Christ. The evangelist here alludes merely to the well-known fact that Jesus was called by this name. The significance of the word, which is a translation of the Hebrew Messiah, is "anointed," and in the Old Testament it is given to priests (as Le Luke 4:3, Luke 4:5, Luke 4:16), to a king appointed by Jehovah (1 Samuel 24:6, 1 Samuel 24:10; 2 Samuel 19:21), also to King Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), and to some unnamed representative of Jehovah (1 Samuel 2:10). It was subsequently applied to Jesus both in the Greek form and in the Hebrew (John 1:41; John 4:25). It must, however, be noticed (vide Bishop Westcott, Add. Note on 1 John 5:1) that it was not a characteristic title of the promised Saviour in the Old Testament, and was not even specifically applied to him, unless, perhaps, in Daniel 9:25, Daniel 9:26—a passage of which the interpretation is very doubtful. Matthew 1:17 Fourteen generations. To make the list more easy to remember, the names were so ordered that there should be the same number in each of the three divisions. Thus a means was afforded of checking the correctness of the enumeration, and the list became a sort of memoria technica. Unto Christ; better here, unto the Christ. For now begins the history which tells of this Jesus as the specially Anointed One of God, the true Messiah, of which all the previously anointed messengers had been but types and figures. The history which St. Matthew is about to give demonstrates that in Jesus were fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament which the Jews had constantly referred to the Messiah, for whose appearance the pious in Israel were ever looking. Matthew 1:18-25 JESUS THE CHRIST BY DIVINE ORIGIN. Recorded by Matthew only. The frequent similarity of language found in Luke 1:26-35 (vide ’Synopticon’) is probably due to the fact that Joseph and Mary not unnaturally fell into the way of using the same words to express two messages of similar import. The object of this paragraph is to show that Messiah was in origin not of man but of God. This fact was accepted even by his reputed father Joseph, who was only convinced of it after a special communication by an angel in a dream; giving him the facts of the case, and foretelling that a son would be born, and that this Son would be the expected Saviour; and also showing from prophecy that such union of God with man was no unheard-of supposition, but the fulfilment and completion of ancient thought suggested by God. Joseph at once accepts the communication and takes Mary home, avoiding, however, all cause for the supposition that the child was, after all, of human origin. Matthew 1:18 Now the birth (Matthew 1:1, note). Γέννησις ("generation") of the received text refers to the causative act, the true reading (γένεσις) to the birth itself (cf. Luke 1:14). Of Jesus Christ was on this wise. The Revised Version margin says, "Some ancient authorities read, ’of the Christ,’" but perhaps the reading, "of Christ Jesus" (B [Origen]), is even preferable, as in no good manuscript of the New Testament is the article elsewhere prefixed to "Jesus Christ," and the easy residing, "of the Christ," would hardly provoke alteration, while it might easily arise from assimilation to the preceding "unto the Christ" of Matthew 1:17 (cf. Dr. Hort, in Westcott and Hort, ’Appendix.’ Bishop Westcott, however, seems to prefer the reading. "of the Christ," and so distinctly Irenaeus, Matthew 3:16). If the reading, "of Christ Jesus," be accepted, the evangelist purposely repeats his phrase of Mat 1:17, and then identifies him with the historic Person. When as. The Revised Version omits "as" because obsolete; cf. "what time as." His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph; had been betrothed (Revised Version), the tense clearly showing that the betrothal had already taken place. Betrothal was and is with the Semitic races a much more formal matter than with us, and as binding as marriage; of. Deuteronomy 22:23, Deuteronomy 22:24; cf. also the words of the angel, "Mary thy wife" (Deuteronomy 22:20). Before they came together; including, probably, both the home-bringing (Deuteronomy 22:24) and the consummation (Deuteronomy 22:25). She was found (εὑρώθη). Although Cureton shows that the Aramaic equivalent is used in the sense of "became," and wishes to see this weaker meaning in several passages of the Greek Testament (including, apparently, the present), the references that he gives (Romans 7:10; 2 Corinthians 5:3; 2 Corinthians 11:12) do not justify us in giving up the stronger and more usual sense. On εὑρέθη always involving more or less prominently the idea of a surprise, cf. Bishop Lightfoot on Galatians 2:17. Observe the reverent silence with which a whole stage of the history is passed over. With child of the Holy Ghost (ἐκΠνεύματοςἉγίου; cf. Galatians 2:20, without the article in both cases). According to the usual interpretation of these words, "the Holy Ghost" refers to the Third Person of the Trinity, and "of" (ἐκ) is used because the agent can be regarded as the immediate source (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:2). But the questions suggest themselves: (1) whether ΠνεῦμαἍγιον is here used in a strictly Christian or in a pre-Christian sense? and (2) if the latter, what was this pre-Christian sense? As to (1), it may be argued that the evangelist himself, writing long after Pentecost, and recording sayings taught among Christians only alter Pentecost, would naturally wish his words to be understood in a Christian sense; and hence that ΠνεῦμαἍγιον here has at least that comparatively developed doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Ghost which we find indicated in the New Testament; e.g. Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:13; John 14:1-31.-16. It may, however, be justly replied that the words are in themselves rather a record of the feelings of Joseph and Mary about the Incarnation, and are merely a translation of the phrase Ruah-hakodesh (or its Aramaic equivalent, Ruah Kudsha) , which they themselves used; and that hence its true meaning here must be rather sought in the meaning of the Semitic phrase in pre-Christian times. In other words, ΠνεῦμαἍγιον here means neither more nor less than Ruah-hakodesh meant on the lips of a godly and instructed Jew before the teaching of Christ, and especially before Pentecost. (2) What was this pre-Christian sense? What did Ruah-hakodesh mean? To answer this fully would be to compile a treatise on one of the most difficult and disputed points of Old Testament and early Jewish theology. But a cursory comparison of passages in the Old Testament and the pre-Christian writings seems to show that, though there are many places which quite fall in with the Trinitarian view, and which are often marked by strong personification of the Spirit, religious Jews did not understand by Ruah-hakodesh a permanent and distinct hypostasis in the Deity, but rather the Deity itself in relation to the world as the Source and Maintenance of its life (Job 33:4; Psalms 104:30; Job 34:14; Psalms 139:7; Isaiah 63:10; cf. Wis. 1:7; 12:1), in contrast to the Deity absolutely and as the object of worship. Pre-Christian thought, that is to say, used the term "Holy Spirit" as designating the One God in a certain relation to the world, not as designating a permanent and real distinction in the Godhead. If this be so, we must understand the phrase here to mean that Christ was conceived of God (not of any Person in the Godhead) in contrast to man. We may, perhaps, even give to ἐκ its fullest meaning of" origin" (cf John 1:13, οὐκἐξαἱμάτων … ἀλλἐκΘεοῦ). The phrase as a whole thus only insists that the Child was by origin Divine. It will be noticed that Luke 1:35 is then closely parallel, "the Holy Ghost" (ΠνεῦμαἍγιον) there apparently connoting an outpouring of life; "the power of the Most High" (δύναμιςὑψίστου), an outpouring of strength. Dorner says that the expression in our text is "the less precise ancient Christian designation of the Divine Essence generally, out of which (de quo) Christ has come. To the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian sense is only to be ascribed, according to the Scriptures, first, the internal preparation of humanity for the Divine Incarnation, and, secondly, after the Unio the animation of the humanity of Christ by the Divine power issuing from the Logos." The passage in Martensen’s ’Dogmatics,’ § 139, so well known for its latter part, apparently agrees with this: "He is born not of the will of a man, nor of the will of the flesh; but the holy will of the Creator took the place of the will of man and of the will of the flesh,—that is, the creating Spirit, who was in the beginning, fulfilled the function of the plastic principle. He was born of the Virgin Mary, the chosen woman in the chosen people. It was the task of Israel to provide, not, as has been often said, Christ himself, but the mother of the Lord; to develop the susceptibility for Christ to a point when it might be able to manifest itself as the pro-foundest unity of nature and spirit—a unity which found expression in the pure virgin. In her the pious aspirations of Israel and of mankind, their faith in the promises, are centred; she is the purest point in history and in nature, and she, therefore, becomes the appointed medium for the new creation." Observe that the Greek Creeds , by not inserting the article (contrast afterwards καὶεἰςτὸΠσεῦματὸἍγιον) , probably intended only to reproduce St. Matthew’s language. The Latin could not fail to be ambiguous (de Spiritu Sancto) If, however, we divest ourselves of considerations directly derived from exegesis, and, turning to the theological side, ask which Person of the Blessed Trinity, in fact, prepared Mary for the Incarnation of the Second Person, we must undoubtedly answer that it was the Third Person. For this is his peculiar function, uniting alike the Persons in the Godhead and also the Godhead to creation (cf. Dorner, ’System.,’ 1.425,437; 4.159, etc.). Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband; and (Revised Version). The thought is slightly adversative (δέ); though this was "of the Holy Ghost," yet Joseph was about to put her away. Being a just man; righteous (Revised Version); i.e. who strove to conform to the Divine precepts manifested for him in the Law (cf. Luke 1:6; Luke 2:25). And not willing; i.e. "and yet not wishing," though the Law, which he was striving to follow, seemed to inculcate harshness. This clause has been taken in the opposite sense equivalent to "and therefore not wishing," because the spirit of the Law, which he had learned to understand, was in reality against all unnecessary harshness. The negative used is in favour of the former interpretation. To make her a public example; rather, to proclaim her ("Wold not pupplische her, Wickliffe); αὐτὴνδειγματίσαι (cf. Colossians 2:15). The thought is of public proclamation of the fact of the divorce, not that of bringing Mary herself forward for public punishment, and so making her a public example (παραδειγματίσαι). Was minded (ἐβουλήθη). The tense indicates the resolution come to as the result of the conflict between duty and wish implied in the preceding clause. To put her away secretly. Adopting the most private form of legal divorce, and handing the letter to her privately in presence of only two witnesses, to whom he need not communicate his reasons (cf. Edersheim, ’Life,’ 1:154). Observe in this verse Joseph’s insistance on his personal and family purity, and yet his delicate thoughtfulness for her whom he loved. Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things; when (Revised Version); ταῦταδὲαὐτοῦἐνθυμηθέντος. The tense lays stress, not on the continuance of his meditation (contrast Acts 10:19), but on the fact that the determination to which he had already come (vide supra) was already in his mind at the time when the following event happened. "These things;" his determination and its causes. Behold; unexpectedly. Though common in St. Matthew, it never lacks the connotation of surprise. The angel of the Lord; an angel of the Lord (Revised Version). In Mary’s case it was the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:26); but here not defined (so in Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:19; Luke 1:11; Luke 2:9). (On angels, of especially Dorner, ’System.,’ 2.96.) Appeared unto him in a dream. Joseph received his communications by dream (Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:22); to Mary, doubtless the more holy person, the vision was vouchsafed to her bodily eyes. If Joseph, as seems probable, was old, we here have a beginning of the fulfilment of the promise concerning Messianic times, "Your old men shall dream dreams" (Joe 2:28). Saying, Joseph, thou son of David. In reminding Joseph of the greatness of his ancestry, the angel probably desired (1) to accept Joseph’s resolution as right in so far as Joseph knew the circumstances, because with the promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 there was special need to keep the line pure; (2) but, under the true circumstances, to urge him to take Mary, that so the promise might be fully carried out in his family and no other. Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife (2 Samuel 7:15, note). For that which if conceived in her ("borun," Wickliffe; quod natum est, Vulgate); "Gr. begotten", for γεννηθέν generally refers to the father rather than the mother (yet see Matthew 11:11), and here lays special stress on the Divine origin. Is of the Holy Ghost. "Of Spirit (not flesh), and that the Holy Spirit (ἐκΠνεύματόςἐστινἉγίου)" (2 Samuel 7:18, note). Matthew 1:21 The first half is almost verbally identical with the promise to Mary in Luke 1:31. It is, perhaps, hypercritical to see anything more than a coincidence when such common terms are used, but it was not unnatural that the communications of the angels to both Mary and Joseph should be purposely clothed in language similar to that used of Sarah (Genesis 17:19), and in measure to that used of Hannah. And she shall bring forth. Is the slight adversative force (δέ) to be seen in the contrast of the physical birth to the spiritual origin? A Son. In this, at least, thou shalt be able to test the accuracy of my statement. And thou shalt call. Taking the position of his father; the child being thus recognized by all as of David’s line (of. Kubel). In Luke Mary is told to give the name, but presumably the formal naming would be by Joseph. His name JESUS (cf. Ecclesiasticus 46:1, "Jesus the son of Nave … who, according to his name, was made great for the saving of the elect of God"). For he shall save; for it is he that shall save (Revised Version), equivalent to "He, and no other, is the expected Saviour." (For αὐτός in this sense of excluding others, cf. especially Colossians 1:16-20.) It may, however, here not be exclusive, but only intensive—he being what he is. The connexion will then be—the name Jesus will answer to the fact, for he himself, in his own Person (1 John 2:2), by virtue of what he is (John 2:24, John 2:25), shall save, etc. Jesus, equivalent to Jeshua (verse 16, note); he shall save, equivalent to Joshi’ a. His people. Israel after the flesh (cf. John 1:11; Luke 2:10; contrast John 1:29; John 4:42), for whom deliverance from sins must be the first step to restoration to rightful position, and yet the last stage of result from acceptance of Christ. Comparative salvation from sin, due to acceptance of Christ, must precede that restoration which Joseph then desired, and all true Jews still ardently pray for; full salvation from sin will be the final issue of that restoration. From their sins. With a greater salvation, therefore, than that which Manoah’s wife was told that her son should begin to accomplish (Judges 13:5). Observe that this promise of Christ as Saviour is given to Joseph, who had deeper experience of sin (verse 20, note), while to Mary, who is marked by promptness of personal devotion, is given the promise of Christ as King (Luke 1:32,Luke 1:33). Sate … from(σώσει … ἀπό) , not merely "out of" (ἐκ, John 12:27), but from all attacks of sin considered as coming born without (but see Matthew 6:13, note). Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23 The evidence of prophecy. ("Now all this was done .. God with us.") The Revised Version omits the marks of parenthesis. From a comparison of Mat 26:56 (and perhaps also Matthew 21:4), this is not the utterance of the evangelist, but of the previous speaker, yet formulated by the evangelist (cf. Weiss). The thought, that is to say, is still part of the angel’s encouragement to Joseph; the exact mode of expressing the record of that thought is the evangelist’s; so also Tatian’s ’Diattess.’ (or perhaps only Ephraem’s comment upon it; of. Zahn), Quod si dubitas, Isaiam audi. Matthew 1:22 All this; τοῦτοὅλον (not ταῦταπάντα). The birth of a Saviour, with the means by which it came about, by a virgin, and "of the Holy Ghost." Was done; is come to pass (Revised Version); i.e. in abiding effect (γέγονεν). It is considered as having already taken place (cf. "the prophetic perfect" of the Old Testament). That it might be fulfilled. God’s past utterance is looked at as necessitating a present action. Which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying; by the Lord through (Revised Version); i.e. the Lord is the Agent (ὑπό), the prophet the means or instrument (διά). The Lord; i.e. Jehovah, not "God," because the thought is of covenant promise. Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin (the virgin, Revised Version) shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. The difficulty of this quotation from Isaiah 7:14 is well known. (1) If the word translated "virgin" (‛almah) properly means this, and (2) if it be also implied in the promise that the virginity was to be maintained until the birth of the son, then (3) (a) the fulfilment can have been only in the case of our Lord, and (b) the promise was no real sign to Ahaz, and (c) the context of the promise (according to which Rezin and Pekah were to perish in the lad’s early childhood, Isaiah 7:15, Isaiah 7:16) has no apparent reference to the promise itself. (4) If, on ’the other hand, ‛almah means only "young woman," the promise might easily be a sign to Ahaz; but, then, how is it that St. Matthew, or rather the angel, apparently lays so much stress on "virgin "? The answer is, as it seems, that (1) ‛almah, by derivation, means "young woman" (vide Cheyne). but in ordinary usage, "virgin." (2) When the promise was uttered by Isaiah, the word suggested" virgin," but not (for who would have supposed such a thing?) maintenance of the virginity. (3) The child, thus naturally born, should be called "Immanuel," in sign of God’s presence with his people to deliver them from Rezin and Pekah, and, while he was still in childhood, this deliverance should come. The definite article prefixed to "virgin" (ha-‛almah) either designated a person who was known to the prophet and perhaps also to Ahaz, or, as "the article of species" (Cheyne), pictured the person more definitely to the mind, though in herself unknown. Thus the promise meant to Ahaz and Isaiah that a woman, at that time a virgin, should bear a son, synchronous with whose childhood should be the Lord’s deliverance of his people. It is possible that Isaiah further saw in this child’ the hoped-for Messiah, identifying it with that of Mat 9:6, the long time that was yet to intervene being hidden from him. (4) The angel sees a further meaning in the promise than either Ahaz or Isaiah saw, and perceives that, in the providence of God, the words were so chosen as to form a promise of a virgin-birth, the son being of suck origin that, in the highest sense, he could be truly called "Immanuel." "It seems not unwise to suppose that God, who designed to send his Son to be the Deliverer of mankind, so ordered the course of the world in his Divine providence that many things should tell of the coming Saviour, so that when he appeared those who had studied God’s revelation should tirol that the scheme of salvation had been one and the same throughout all time. Thus by past events, which had specific meaning in their own time, are found to have further con-rained a prefiguration of greater things in time to come; and to have been promises, ready to receive their highest accomplish-merit as soon as the fitness of time should appear" (Dr. Lumby). And they shall call. Men generally, in virtue of his true nature. His name Emmanuel (Revised Version. Immanuel, as Isaiah 7:14), which being interpreted is, God with us. St. Matthew emphasizes the interpretation in order to, bring out the fact that this Son, now to be born to Joseph, shall not only be Jesus, Saviour, but also God with us; he is the manifestation of God in our midst. The thought is parallel to that of Joh 1:14. Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25 Joseph’s threefold obedience—taking Mary, not consummating the marriage, naming the child in faith. Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised; and Joseph arose (Revised Version); for the stress of the Greek is not on "Joseph," but ἐγερθείς. Immediately on arising, Joseph obeyed. From sleep; from his sleep (Revised Version); i.e. which he was then enjoying. No stress is laid on sleep as such. Did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife. "Bidden," in modern English, too much suggests "asking;" hence the Revised Version "commanded" (προσέταξεν). Joseph’s faith was seen in immediate obedience to commands received. Matthew 1:25 And knew her not. The tense (ἐγίνωσκεν) brings out the continuance of Joseph’s obedient self-restraint. "He was dwelling in holiness with her" (Tatian’s ’Diatess.’). Till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. Thus the angel’s promise is so far fulfilled. A son (Revised Version); "her firstborn," though found as early as Tatian’s.’ Diatess.,’ having been added from Luke 2:7. Though no great stress can be laid on the word "till" (ἕως [οὖ], Basil refers to Genesis 8:7; comp. also Psalm exit. 8), nor even on "firstborn," which suggested to a Jew rather consecration (Luke 2:23) than the birth of other children; yet it is a reasonable inference from the passage as a whole that the οὐκἐγίνωσκεν was not continued after the birth of the Son. Whether, however, other children were born to Mary or not, the true text of this passage gives no hint. And he called his name JESUS (Luke 2:21, note). Observe that this name had already occurred in Joseph’s family (Luke 3:29). It is, however, now given in sign of Joseph’s faith in him and his work. The introduction. I. THE TITLE. 1. It is a book; but it is not, like other books, the product of human thought. It presents to us a life not like other lives. That life stands alone in its beauty, purity, tenderness, in the glory of its unearthly holiness, in the majesty of its Divine self-sacrifice. It stands alone in its claims; it claims to be the great example, the one pattern life, the Light of the world. It claims to be a revelation of a new life; it offers a gift of power and Divine energy—a power which can lift men out of darkness into light, out of worldliness and selfishness into the life of holy love, into the clear light of the presence of God. The conception of that life is unlike any of the ideals of perfection to be found in ancient writers; there was never anything like it before. It has changed our estimate of various moral qualities; it has raised some that the world thought little of to a very high place of dignity; it has depressed others that once stood high in the thoughts of men to their proper level. That life has affected the modes of thought and feeling even of those who will not accept it as a revelation from God. It formed a mighty epoch in the history of thought; men cannot divest themselves of its influence; they cannot think now as they might have thought had that life never been lived on earth. It is impossible for us to put ourselves back into the mental attitude of those who had never heard of that life; it has exercised an influence so widespread, so deep-reaching, over the whole field of thought and feeling. But we can see that that life could never have been conceived by any human genius, least of all at the time when the Gospels were written. Compare it with any efforts of human imagination; there is not one that can even seem to endure the comparison. This history is unique. It has the stamp of genuineness, the ring of truth. Fictitious it cannot be; there never was man that could have invented it. Compare it with other religious writings of antiquity, whether Jewish or Christian; compare it with the apocryphal Gospels, or with the books of the sub-apostolic Fathers: this book stands absolutely alone; there is no other book like it; the gulf that parts it from all other books is wide, deep, immense. It is the book, the Bible—the book that speaks to the heart of man as no other book can, because it is God’s book; it comes from him, and it speaks to the heart which is his handiwork, to the man whom he created in his own image, after his own likeness. It bears in itself the evidence of its Divine origin; we feel, as we read its sacred words, that it has a message for us, that it is God’s voice calling us, telling us all that we need to know of himself, of his will, of his redemption of the human race from sin and death. 2. The subject of the book. It is "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ," the book which tells us of his birth, of his history. It opens with a tab!e of genealogy. He is" the Son of David, the Son of Abraham." In him was fulfilled the promise made to Abraham: "In thy Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." In him was fulfilled the faithful oath which the Lord had sworn to David: "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne." The book gives us the history of a Person. Christianity presents to us not simply a code of morals, a system of theology, but a Person. The book describes his character, it relates the circumstances of his life upon earth. It is a history, but it is more than a history. "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." It sheds a light upon the way that leadeth to Christ; it shows us where to find him. For this history is not like other histories, merely a record of past facts of more or less interest. It is the revelation of a present Saviour. It has not done its work for us unless it is leading us to Christ himself, to a personal knowledge of the Lord. We may know the Gospel through and through, its language, history, geography, archeology,—that knowledge is of deep, absorbing interest; but if we advance no further, we miss the very end for which the Gospel was written. Indeed, it is no Gospel to us, no glad tidings, but only an ancient book, unless by its guidance we find Christ. The deepest biblical scholar, if he fails to find Christ, knows less of the real meaning of the Gospel than the humblest Christian who is living in the faith of the Son of God. It is not the knowledge of the facts of the Lord’s history, but the living, personal knowledge of himself, that is eternal life. We must learn to abide in him, to live in that fellowship which is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. Without this spiritual know]edge the Gospel is written in vain for our salvation: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." The mere external knowledge of the Scripture can only increase the condemnation of those who have not sought by prayer and the gracious help of God the Holy Ghost to penetrate its inner meaning. That inner meaning, revealed to our hearts by the Holy Spirit of God, and brought to bear upon our inward and outward lives, giveth life, because it brings us to him who alone is the Life of men. The promise was that all the nations of the earth should be blessed in the Seed of Abraham; not in his history, not in the record of his life and teaching, but in that holy Seed himself, in his grace, in his abiding presence, in union with him. II. THE . 1. It begins from Abraham. St. Matthew was writing for the Jews in the first instance. He proves that the Lord Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews expected, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. He was descended from the father of the faithful, born in the covenant, himself admitted by the rite of circumcision into the conditions of the ancient covenant. He fulfilled all righteousness, all the requirements of the Law. He lived as a Jew, he preached to the Jews. "I am not sent," he said," but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But even as he said those words he healed the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman; it was an earnest of the world-wide range of his redemption. He died, "not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." Therefore through him the blessing of Abraham hath come upon the Gentiles. As St. Paul teaches us in Galatians 3:1-29., "The Scripture preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." "There is neither Jew nor Greek; for if we be Christ’s, then are we Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Thus the first verse of the First Gospel preaches faith. Christ is the Son of Abraham, who "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." They which are of faith are the children of Abraham; they share the blessing of Abraham. Christ is theirs, and they are Christ’s. 2. The genealogies in Genesis descend from Adam; this ascends to Christ. God made man in the likeness of God. Adam begat sons in his own likeness, after his image. The sting of the serpent infected the race: "Original sin is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam." The Spirit of the Lord indeed strove with man from the beginning; he was not left to die in his sin and misery; the first promise of a Redeemer follows close upon the first sin. God was never without a witness; in Cain and Abel we have the first sight of the field in which the wheat and the tares grow together unto the harvest. But corruption soon spread widely among the descendants of Adam; all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. As man receded further from the Divine origin of the race, the deeper became the taint of sin; the traces of the image of God grew ever fainter, the poison of the serpent deadlier and more loathsome. It repented God that he had made man upon earth; the Flood destroyed the ungodly. Then God established his covenant, first with Noah, afterwards with Abraham. The promise became clearer and more definite. The generations had descended from God; now they begin to ascend towards God again, towards the Christ, who is the Son of God, himself God incarnate. Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ; he saw it and was glad. Generation after generation looked for the promised Saviour; Simeon was "waiting for the consolation of Israel." The Jews inquired of John the Baptist whether he was the Christ that was to come—the Christ was to restore all things. In Adam all died, in Christ shall all be made alive; for the last Adam is a quickening Spirit, even the Lord from heaven. He came to restore the almost lost image of God. "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we must also bear the image of the heavenly." God hath predestinated his elect to be conformed to the image of his Son. As they draw nearer and nearer to Christ, imitating his blessed example, looking always unto Jesus, they are being renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created them. The generations ascend towards the Christ; so must each Christian strive in his own spiritual life to rise ever nearer to the Lord. 3. The variations of rank in the genealogy. The generations begin with patriarchs; they rise to kings; they descend again to private men. From Abraham to David the king; from David the king to Joseph the carpenter. Human ancestry, however illustrious, could add nothing to the dignity of the Son of God. But both his blessed mother and Joseph, his father by adoption, were descended from David. Apparently the Lord Jesus was, according to the flesh, the representative of David, the lineal heir to David’s throne. But he lived in obscurity for the first thirty years of his earthly life. He was meek and humble in heart; he prided not himself on earthly rank. Indeed, what was rank to him? The difference between the greatest monarch and the humblest beggar is altogether inappreciable compared with the infinite descent from heaven to earth. When once he had emptied himself of his glory, and taken the form of a servant, it was as nothing that he chose the carpenter’s shop rather than the royal palace. His earthly ancestors varied in rank. There were kings, there were private men; the reputed father of the Lord, the husband of his mother, was a carpenter. Honours, like wealth, are vanity; the one highest honour, the one loftiest title, is theirs to whom he hath given power to be called the sons of God. 4. The variations in moral and spiritual character. In the genealogy there are holy men like Abraham, there are wicked men like Ahaz, Manasseh, Amen. There is a Moabitish woman, pure indeed, and lovely in character, but of heathen blood. Others there are whose lives had been defiled with sin—Tamar, Rahab, Bathsheba. The Lord indeed was born by a miraculous conception, without stain of human corruption; but sinners as well as saints are reckoned in his genealogy, lie was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, though he was without sin. His ancestry was not uniformly holy, any more than uniformly royal. The poorest have an interest in him as much as the noblest; the sinful have an interest in him as well as apostles and saints. 5. The genealogy, like all genealogies, shows the transitoriness of all things human. "Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah." Man comes, and man goes; a man is born into the world; man goeth to his long home. Each man represents a long line of ancestors, a line which each generation lengthens, a line stretching back into the remotest past. Most of us know very little of those who have gone before us, not so much as their names. They are gone, and we must follow; we shall soon be but names in the memory of posterity; soon our very names will be forgotten. But God hath said, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Then the dead of ages past are living still; we speak of them as the dead, but they live unto God. Their number is incalculable; the world of the dead is infinitely more numerous than the world of the living. But they are all known, every one of them, to the all-seeing God. We shall soon be gathered to that countless multitude. It matters little now to them what their rank, their wealth, was in life. The patriarch, the king, the carpenter, are distinguished now only by their faith, their holiness. Many that once were last are first now, and the last are first. So will it be with us who are living now. "Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven;" "Seek first the kingdom of God." 6. The genealogy shows the true manhood of Christ. According to the flesh he is descended, like ourselves, from a long line of human ancestors. His birth was miraculous; but on his mother’s side he came out of Judah, Judah from Abraham, Abraham from Adam. He represents human nature; he is bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh; he was made in all things like unto us, yet without sin. 7. The genealogy shows his Divine birth; for "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." He was born of Mary; he was not the Son of Joseph; he had no earthly father. Joseph was the husband of Mary, but not the father of Jesus; he was born of her. The first mention of his birth points at once to other than a human origin. He who is the Son of Abraham is also the Son of God. 8. The numbers. The three fourteens are probably intended to assist the memory, but they may possibly contain a mystical meaning. Seven is the signature of perfection; two, of human witness; three, of God. The history which we are approaching is the history of One who, though he appeared in the form of man, was in truth God. It is related by human witnesses; it is perfect, sufficient for all our needs. "These are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his Name." The book which we are opening is "the book of the generation of Jesus Christ," the book which relates the redeeming work of "the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." Reverence, awe, and adoring love are the tempers of mind meet for such a study. LESSONS. 1. Search the Scriptures; they testify of Christ, and Christ is our Life. 2. Receive the word as the word of God; it has a message for you. 3. Believe in him; do his will. The study of the Scriptures must not end in knowledge; it must lead to faith and to obedience; it must lead to Christ. 4. Life is short; eternity is long. Set your affections on things above. The birth of Jesus Christ. I. THE OF MARY. 1. She was betrothed to Joseph. They had loved one another with a pure and holy love; now they were betrothed. The tie of betrothal was in the eyes of the Jews as sacred as that of marriage. The bridegroom had not yet taken home his bride; she was still in her parents’ house. They were looking forward to the coming nuptials. It was the time upon which, years afterwards, men look back with such tender recollections—the time when young love was budding in all its freshness and purity; the time gilded by so many bright hopes of happiness to come; a time especially blessed when both are living in the faith and love of God, and are looking forward to live together in that holy estate of matrimony, which represents the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and the Church. 2. She was found with child. Every rose has its thorns; that bright, happy time is often, in ordinary experience, clouded with difficulties and anxieties. Never was there a greater trial for a betrothed pair than this which befell Joseph and Mary. ’They loved one another, we may be sure, deeply, sincerely. Now there was a barrier between them; it seemed an impassable hairier. Mary knew the secret: did she tell her betrothed? It may be that she thought it too sacred, too awful; she could not tell even Joseph. She had received the angel’s message in implicit faith. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord," she had said; "be it unto me according to thy word." Perhaps she kept the secret in her heart; it was a strange mixture of awful joy and very bitter anguish. Those who are nearest to the Lord are often called to drink of his cup and to be baptized with his baptism. It was so now with the blessed virgin. She was to have that highest grace for which Jewish matrons longed so earnestly—she was to be the mother of the Christ; but she had to undergo a trial most acutely painful, a shame most terrible to a pure maiden soul. She seemed unworthy of the love of him who loved her best, whom she loved with the deep affection of a tender virgin-heart. She bore it in patience, though her heart was breaking; it was the agony which she had anticipated when she yielded herself in faith to the holy will of God. Perhaps she bore it in silence; the mystery was too deep, too awful for words. Perhaps (for we cannot tell)she whispered it to Joseph. But it was too strange, too incredible. He loved her and he trusted her; there is no real love without mutual confidence. But there is a limit to the trustfulness of the most loving heart. And this story seemed altogether impossible. Joseph could not believe it. His suspicions were natural, excusable; but how cruelly they must have wounded the tender heart of Mary! 3. It was of the Holy Ghost. The evangelist relates in few and simple words the greatest fact in the world’s history; the miracle of miracles, in tile train of which lesser miracles must of necessity follow. The Incarnation is a truth above words, above the reach of human thought; it calls upon us, not for rhetorical description, but for adoration and thanksgiving. "The Spirit of God had moved [brooded] upon the face of the waters" in the day when God created the heaven and the earth. And now in the beginning of the new creation the Holy Ghost had come upon the blessed virgin, the power of the Highest had overshadowed her. She was highly favoured indeed, blessed above all other women, chosen to be the mother of the Lord. Very pure and holy she must have been; it may well be, the holiest of women, as she was the most highly favoured. But she was a creature, born in sin like ourselves, needing, like ourselves, to be cleansed by the atoning blood of her own Divine Son. And now the unique grace and dignity vouchsafed unto her brought with it a season of heart-rending anguish. II. JOSEPH. 1. He was a just man. He too was sorely tried. He had tenderly loved his betrothed; he loved her still. He was in a position of the greatest perplexity. Mary was conscious of her own innocence; the angel had announced to her the cause of her immaculate conception. Joseph had, at the most, only her word to trust in; appearances were against her; her statement, if she told him all, required a very high degree of unquestioning, trustful faith. But he was a just man; he would not do her wrong. He could not wholly believe; perhaps he did not wholly disbelieve. We may be sure that he was distracted with anxiety. He was a just man; he wished to do what was right; but he was in a great difficulty; it caused him long and anxious thought. 2. His intention. He intended to adopt a middle course; he would not expose his betrothed; he loved her still. His justice was not the strict, stern justice which considers only the letter of the Law; it was tempered with the gentler feelings, mercy and compassion. He could not bring one whom he had loved so dearly into the danger of shame and death. But under circumstances so suspicious he could not consummate the marriage. He was minded to put her away privily. III. THE DIVINE . 1. The solution of Joseph’s doubts. He thought on these things. We may be sure that he prayed. It was misery to him to mistrust his betrothed; it was misery to be doubtful about the right path to be pursued in a case of such momentous importance to them both. A holy man like Joseph, who prayed always, would pray most earnestly, most importunately under circumstances so distressing. At last the answer came. God will not leave his servants in perplexity; he will clear up their doubts; he will teach them what they ought to do. But trust in God does not remove the duty of thoughtfulness. We must think, as Joseph thought, seriously and prayerfully, when difficult questions present themselves. If we do this, God will not suffer us to be led astray; he will guide us aright. 2. The angel. The word means "messenger." The blessed angels are God’s messengers; they are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. They help us now, for they encamp round about those who fear the Lord. They bring God’s messages of love to us now, as they did then to Joseph; they guide us now, as they then guided him. The angel appeared to him in a dream; so they often whisper now the intimations of God’s holy will in the hour of quiet, in the silence of the night. 3. The message. It calmed the fears of Joseph, it removed his doubts, it enabled him to rejoice once more in the love of his betrothed. There was nothing to separate her from him. tie was to take her; her words, if she had told him, strange and mysterious as they were, were strictly true; that which was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost. She should bring forth a Son, a Son who should be the Saviour of the world, not Joseph’s son, but entrusted for a time to Joseph’s care. Mary was to be the mother of the Lord, the highest honour surely ever vouchsafed to child of Adam; Joseph was to have the great joy of watching over his infancy and youth. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ JESUS THE CHRIST BY HIS EARLY HISTORY answering to the word of God by the prophets. This is shown by four particulars, for each of which a corresponding prophecy is adduced. (1) The place of his birth; where, further, he receives homage of Gentiles, though neglected by his own people (Matthew 2:1-12). (2) His stay in Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15). (3) The slaughter of the innocents (Matthew 2:16-18). (4) His dwelling at Nazareth, and consequent appellation (Matthew 2:19-23). Of these naturally the first is the most important, and it may indeed be that the chief object of the evangelist was to show that Jesus satisfied the conditions of prophecy with respect to his birth. He was only driven from Bethlehem to Egypt and subsequently to Nazareth by the jealousy of the ruler of the Jews. While, however, the fulfilment of prophecy by Jesus the Christ was doubtless the most prominent thought in the evangelist’s mind, the typical character of the treatment received cannot but have forced itself upon him, writing as he did at a time when the contrast between the Lord’s rejection by Jews and his reception by Gentiles was becoming daily more marked. It is, further, not impossible that the spread of the gospel to other lands may in itself have proved a stumbling-block to the Jews, who made so much of the superior sanctity of Palestine, and that there may be in this chapter something of the same thought that moved St. Stephen to insist on the fact that God’s presence is not tied to one spot or country (Acts 7:1-60.). Matthew 2:1-12 Born at Bethlehem, according to prophecy, he receives there the homage of representatives of the, heathen world. Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus; who has just been identified with Christ. But in this chapter the narrative employs only those terms ("Jesus," "young Child") which bystanders might have used. They are purely annalistic, not interpretative. Contrast Matthew 1:18 and Herod’s statement of a thee-logical problem (Matthew 1:4). Was born in Bethlehem. The First Gospel, if taken alone would give the impression that Joseph had had no previous connexion with Nazareth. But about the place where Joseph and Mary lived before the birth of Jesus the evangelist did not concern himself (cf Matthew 1:23, note). Of Judaea. For the evangelist’s purpose it was most important so to define it as to exclude Bethlehem of Zebulun (Joshua 19:15). The inhabitants of Bethlehem of Judaea, a market town of a fruitful (Ephratah) district, live chiefly by agriculture, but also for several centuries have manufactured images of saints, rosaries, and fancy articles. Since 1834: it has been almost exclusively occupied by Christians. From "the House of Bread" came forth" the true Bread." In the days of Herod the king. Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa II. (Acts 25:13) alone held the legal title of "king" for any time (but cf. Matthew 14:1, note)—the former as King of the Jews (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ Matthew 1:14.4), or King "of the Idumaeans and Samaritans’’, by a decree of an express meeting of the Roman senate, b.c. 40; the latter by Claudius’s appointment, as king first of Chalcis (a.d. 48-53) and afterwards (a.d. 53-100) of the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ Matthew 2:12. 8; 13. 2), although Herod Antipas was so spoken of by courtesy (infra, Matthew 14:9). As the date of Agrippa II. is quite out of the question, we are almost compelled by this phrase alone to recognize the date of Christ’s birth as falling in the lifetime of Herod the Great. Herod the Great died in the spring of A.U.C. 750, our b.c. 4, and as our Lord was born at least forty days earlier, for the purification in the temple must have taken place before Herod’s massacre of the innocents, he cannot have been born later than the very beginning of b.c. 4, or the end of b.c. 5. Indeed, upon the most natural deduction from Matthew 1:16, he must have been born some months earlier. The Church, from the days of Justin Martyr (’Ap.,’ 1:32), has loved to see in the abolition by Rome of the kingdom of the Jews at the death of Herod, of its native dynasty by Herod’s usurnation (Origen, ’Genesis Hom.,’ Genesis 17:6), the fulfilment of Jacob’s prophecy (Genesis 49:10). Behold, there came Wise Men from the East. The true order, as given in the Revised Version, lays the emphasis on the office, and in a subordinate degree on the home of the strangers—Wise Men from the East came. This translation also hints at the full meaning of the verb (παρεγένοντο) , of which the connotation is not of the place a quo, but of the publicity of their appearance at the place in quo (cf. Matthew 3:1). Wise Men (Μάγοι); "astromyens" (Wickliffe); "rages" (Rheims). On this word see especially Schrader (’Cuneitbrm Inscriptions and the Old Testament’) on Jeremiah 39:3. He considers it to be in origin not Iranian (Medo-Persian), but Babylonian, and to have primarily meant either "one who is deep whether in power and reputation or in insight," or one who has fulness of power. It was, perhaps, at first used with special reference to astrologers and interpreters of dreams, and, passing from Babylonia to Media, it became the name of the Median priestly order. In the latter sense it is probably used here. In Acts 1:1-26 Acts 3:6-8 it, apparently by reversion, is used in its wider meaning. Of the number and rank of those who now came absolutely nothing is known. Of greater importance is Cicero’s statement (’De Div.,’ 1:41), "Nee quisquam rex Persarum potest esse, qui non ante magorum disciplinam scientiamque perceperit." These Magi spontaneously submit to the Babe. From the East. The proper home of the Magi would thus be Media, and, from the length of time employed on their journey (Acts 3:16), it is probable that by "the East" we must here understand Media or some other part of the kingdom, of Parthia, into which Media had been mostly absorbed, and in which, in fact, the Magi were now greatly honoured. Many, however (e.g. Lightfoot, ’Her. Hebr.’; and Edersheim, ’Life,’ etc., 1.203, who points out that a Jewish kingdom of Yemen then existed), think that these Magi came from Arabia; and with this the tradition, evidently received by Justin Martyr and frequently referred to by him, perhaps agrees. But Justin’s own opinion was that they came from Damascus, which "was and is a part of the land of Arabia" (§ 78). It is noticeable that Justin’s tradition is confirmed by the Jerusalem Talmud (’Ber.,’ 2.4), which makes an "Arabian" tell a Jew that Messiah is born. The whole passage is worth quoting for its illustration of several details in this chapter. "After this the children of Israel shall be converted, and shall inquire after the Lord their God, and David their king (Hosea 3:5). Our rabbins say, ’That is King Messias, if he be among the living, his name is David, or if dead, David is his name.’ Rabbi Tanchum said, ’Thus I prove it: He sheweth mercy to David his Messiah’ (Psalms 18:50). Rabbi Josua ben Levi saith, ’His name is חמץ, a Branch (Zechariah 3:8).’ Rabbi Judah bar Aibu saith, ’ His name is Menahem (that is, Παράκλητος, the Comforter).’ And that which happened to a certain Jew, as he was ploughing, agreeth with this business. A certain Arabian travelling, and hearing the ox bellow, said to the Jew at plough, ’O Jew, loose thy oxen, and loose thy ploughs, for, behold, the temple is laid waste!’ The ox bellowed the second time; the Arabian saith to him, ’O Jew, Jew, yoke thy oxen, and fit thy ploughs: for, behold, King Messiah is born!’ But saith the Jew, ’What is his name?’ ’Menahem,’saith he. ’And what is the name of his father?’ ’Hezekiah,’saith the Arabian. To whom the Jew, ’But whence is he?’ The other answered, ’ From the palace of the King of Bethlehem-Judah.’ Away he went, and sold his oxen, and his ploughs, and became a seller of infants’swaddling-clothes, going about from town to town. When he came to that city (Bethlehem) all the women bought of him, but the mother of Menahem bought nothing. He heard the voice of the women saying, ’O thou mother of Menahem, thou mother of Menahem, carry thy son the things that are here sold.’ But she replied, ’May the enemies of Israel be strandded, because on the day that he was born the temple was laid waste.’ To whom he said, ’But we hoped, that as it was laid waste at his feet, so at his feet it would be built again.’ She saith, ’I have no money.’ To whom he replied, ’But why should this be prejudicial to him? Carry him what you buy here, and if you have no money to-day, after some days I will come back and receive it.’ After some days he returns to that city, and saith to her, ’How does the little infant?’ And she said, ’From the time you saw me last, spirits [winds] and tempests came, and snatched him away out of my hands.’ Rabbi Bon saith, ’What need have we to learn from an Arabian? Is it not plainly written, "And Lebanon shall fall before the Powerful One?" (Isaiah 10:34). And what follows after? "A Branch shall come out of the root of Jesse" (Isaiah 11:1)’" (’Hor. Hebr.,’ in loc.) To Jerusalem. The capital, where this King would reign, and where information about his birth would most naturally be obtained. Matthew 2:2 Saying. The inquiry was on their lips at the moment of their appearance. Where is? Not "whether there is." The Magi show no signs of doubt. He that is born King of the Jews; i.e. he that is born to be King of the Jews. Whether he is king from the very moment of his birth is not stated. The rendering of the Revised Version margin, "Where is the King of the Jews that is born?" would imply this. With either form the bystanders could hardly help contrasting him with their then ruler, who had acquired the kingship after years of conflict, and who was of foreign extraction. King of the Jews. Notice: (1) This was, perhaps, Herod’s exact title (Matthew 2:1, note). (2) They do not say king of the world. They accept the facts that the Jews alone expected this king, and that according to the more literal interpretation of the Jewish prophecies the homage of the world would be rendered to him as the Head of the Jewish nation. (3) The title is not used of our Lord again until the Passion, where it is only used by heathen. The Magi and the Roman, learning and administration, East and West, acknowledge, at least in form, the King of the Jews. (4) The Jews themselves preferred the term, "King of Israel". The term "Jews" made them only one of the nations of the earth; "Israel" reminded them of their theocratic privileges. For. They state the reason of their certainty. We have seen (we saw, Revised Version); at home. His star. In the way of their ordinary pursuits they learned of Christ. The observation of nature led them to nature’s Bond (Colossians 1:17). What this star really was has been the subject of much consideration without any very satisfactory result. The principal theories are: (1) It was the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, which took place in May to July and again in September, b.c. 7. (2) It was the rising of Sirius on the same day in the fifth, fourth, third, and second years b.c. (3) It was some strange evanescent star such as Kepler saw in 1603-4. (4) Astronomy can suggest nothing which satisfies all the conditions, and the appearance must have been strictly miraculous. Since Professor Pritchard’s article in the ’Dictionary of the Bible,’ this last has been generally accepted in England. A further question is—How came they to identify the star as "his"? i.e. What made the Magi connect the coming of the King of the Jews with a star? and what made them consider that this particular appearance was the one they expected? The latter part of the question can hardly be answered, except on the supposition that the star that they saw was in itself so extraordinary as to convince them that no greater star could be looked for. To the former part various answers have been given. (1) Balaam’s prophecy (Numbers 24:17) was understood literally, and the knowledge of it, with its misinterpretation, had spread to the Magi. For this literal interpretation, cf. the ’Pesikta Zutarta’ (’Lekah Tob’) on Numbers 24:17, where it says that in the fifth year of the heptad before Messiah "the star" shall shine forth from the east,, and this is the star of the Messiah (cf. also Edersheim, ’Life,’ etc., 1.212). Similarly we find the false Messiah of the second century applying the term to himself—"Barcochab." (2) They had learned, by intercourse with Jews (cf. the influence of the Jewish Sibylline oracles on the fourth eclogue), that these latter expected a great King, and they had applied to his coming, as to all events, the science that they themselves practised. They believed fully in astrology, and the Divine ordering that a star should appear to them was a condescension to the then state of human knowledge. In the East (ἐντῇἀνατολῇ). Ellicott points out that to translate this "at its rising" seems to be at needless variance with the use of the same words in Numbers 24:9, where they seem to stand in a kind of local antithesis to "where the young Child was." For the phrase as referring to the Eastern part of the earth, cf. Clem. Romans, § 5. It is more definite than the plural of verse 1. And are come. "We saw … and came" (εἴδομεν … ἤλθομεν) without delay. To Worship him. Not as God, but as Lord and King (Matthew 4:9, note). The prostration of themselves bodily before him (προσκυνῆσαι; cf. also verse 11) was not a Greek or Roman, but an Eastern, and it is said especially a Persian, form of homage. Matthew 2:3 When; and when, Revised Version. There is a contrast (δέ) between the eager question of the Magi and the feelings of Herod. Herod the king. In the true text the emphasis is not on the person (as in Matthew 2:1, where the date was all-important), but on the office as then exercised. Tile king visibly regnant is contrasted with him who was born to be King. Heard. Through some of his many sources of information, for "there were spies set everywhere" (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 15.10. 4). These things; it, Revised Version. Nothing is expressed in the original. He was troubled; perplexed, agitated (ἐταράχθη). Fully in accordance with his jealous and suspicious character. For he had already slain, as actual or possible candidates for the throne, five of the Maccabean princes and princesses, including his favourite wife Mariamne (thus extirpating the direct line) and also his two sons by Mariamne. Josephus (’Ant.,’ 17.2. 4; cf. Holtzmann) mentions a prediction of the Pharisees towards the end of Herod’s life, that "God had decreed that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it." This seems to have a Messianic reference, though used at the time for an intrigue in favour of Pheroras, Herod’s brother. And all Jerusalem. The feminine (here only, πᾶσαἸεροσόλυμα) points to a Hebrew source. The reason for the inhabitants of Jerusalem feeling troubled is generally explained, by their fear, which was in fact only too well justified by experience, that the news would excite Herod to fresh crimes. It is also possible that many would shrink from the changes which the coming of Messiah could not but bring. Present ease, though only comparative, is with the unbelieving preferable to possibilities of the highest blessedness. Matthew 21:10 affords both a parallel and a contrast. With him. In this respect Jerusalem was one with Herod (John 1:11). Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered … together (καὶσυναγαγών). The Revised Version, and gathering together, suggests that there was no delay. All the chief priests and scribes of the people (πάνταςτοὺςἀρχιερεῖςκαὶγραμματεῖςτοῦλαοῦ). In the absence of the article before γραμματεῖς we must take the words, "of the people," as belonging to both terms. The addition helped to bring out the evangelist’s thought that the representatives of the chosen people (1 Peter 2:10) were fully informed of the coming of Christ. The chief priests (cf. also Matthew 16:21, note) represented the ecclesiastical and Sadducean part, the scribes the more literary and probably the Pharisaic part, of the nation. The width of the term "all," and the double classification, seem to point to this not being a meeting of the Sanhedrin as such. Herod called an informal and perhaps the more comprehensive meeting of those who could assist him. He demanded of them; Revised Version, inquired, for "demand" is, in modern English, too strong for ἐπυνθάνετο The tyrant could be courteous when it served his purpose. Does the imperfect mark his putting the question to one after another (cf. Acts 1:6; and contrast John 4:52)? Where Christ (the Christ, Revised Version) should be born (γεννᾶται). In Matthew 2:2 (ὁτεχθείς) the stress lay on his birth as an accomplished fact. Here on his birth as connected with his origin The present is chosen, not the future, because Herod is stating a theological question without reference to time. Observe, in Herod’s inquiry and subsequent action, the combination of superstition and irreligion. He was willing to accept the witness of stars and of prophecies, but not willing to allow himself to be morally influenced by it. His attempt to kill this Child was the expression of a desire to destroy the Jewish nationality so far as this was severed from himself, and perhaps with it to uproot at the same time a fundamental part of the Jewish religion. Matthew 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet. For" by" the Revised Version margin has "through" (Matthew 1:22, not,.). Matthew 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Jude, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel; and thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, which shall be shepherd of my people Israel (Revised Version). In this quotation from Micah 5:2 notice the following Variations from the Hebrew, and practically from the LXX.: (1) "Land of Judah" for "Ephratah"; an unimportant change in the terms of definition. (2) "Art in no wise least" for "which art little to be "; a verbal contradiction probably, but also unimportant, as the thought of the context in Micah is of Bethlehem’s greatness. (3) "Princes" for "thousands." This may be due (a) to a different pointing of the Hebrew, יפֵלֻאַבְּ for יפֵלְאַבְּ (cf. the rabbinic commentary, ’Metzud. Zion.’), or (b) to understanding יפֵלְאַבְּ as "families", and then concentrating the family in its head. (4) "For out of thee shall come forth a governor, which shall be shepherd of my people Israel" for "out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel." This is a paraphrase, with a paraphrastic addition from 2 Samuel 5:2 (2 Samuel 7:7), in order to distinctly identify the ruler with Messiah. Nothing is commoner in Jewish authors than the silent conjunction of quotations from separate contexts. In this case the thought of the shepherd in Micah 5:4 made the addition from Samuel the more easy. It must also be noticed that the reference of the passage in Micah to Christ is fully borne out by Jewish writers. Though they generally explain the rest of the verse as referring to the long lapse of time from David himself, they understand the ruler to be Messiah. But it is not usual with Jewish interpreters to understand the reference to Bethlehem as implying the place of Messiah’s own birth. They generally take it as referring to the home of David, Messiah’s ancestor. And this is the more natural meaning of the prophecy. The quotation, however, from the Jerusalem Talmud already given on verse 1, and the Targum of Jonathan on Genesis 35:21 ("the tower of Edar—the place whence King Messiah is about to be revealed in the end of the days"), endorse the thoroughly Jewish character of the reply given to Herod (cf. also John 7:42). If it be asked why St. Matthew does not give an exact and verbal rendering of the Hebrew, the answer may be made that he probably gives the current form of its exposition. The high priests and scribes would have doubtless quoted it accurately in the process of weighing Micah’s statement, but when, as here, they were only reproducing the result that they had arrived at, they would care for only the substance of the prophet’s teaching (cf. the paraphrastic rendering of the Targum). In the land of Judah; Revised Version omits in (ΒηθλεὲμγῆἸούδα). "Bethlehem-Judah" would have presented no difficulty, for a town was often distinguished by the apposition of the name of the district in which it was situated; e.g. Ramoth-Gilead, Kedesh-Naphtali. It seems best to explain the γῆ as a mere expansion of "Judah" (cf. 1 Macc. 5:68, ἄζωτονγῆνἀλλοφυλῶν, where probably the thought was Ashdod-Philistia). It is, however, possible that γῆ is here used in the sense of "the town and its surrounding district, over which district, it is to be observed, Herod extended his massacre (verse 16)" (Humphrey, in loc.). Matthew 2:7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the Wise Men. Secrecy was doubly necessary. He would not publicly commit himself to acknowledging the rights of the new King, and he would give no opportunity for others to warn the Child’s parents of the dangerous interest that Herod was taking in him. Duplicity was very characteristic of Herod; cf. his assassination of Aristobulus the high priest (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 15.3. 3), and his alluring his son Antipater home to death (ibid., 17.5. 1). Inquired of them diligently; learned of them carefully (Revised Version); "lerned of hem bisili" (Wickliffe); ἠκρίβωσενπαραὐτῶν. The stress is not upon Herod’s careful questioning, but on the exact information that he obtained. What time the star appeared. Although this is not the literal translation, it may, perhaps, represent the sense of the original (τὸνχρόνοντοῦφαινομένουἀστέρος) , the participle characterizing the star in its most important relation—its appearance, and the words being treated as a compound expression (cf. John 12:9, John 12:12). Herod supposed that the birth of the Babe was synchronous with the first appearance of the star. The translation, however, of the Revised Version margin, "the time of the star that appeared," better suits the exact wording (χρόνον, not καιρόν;φαινομένου, not φανέντος) , the phrase thus including both the first appearance and also the period of continuance (cf. Grotius, "non initium, sed continuitas"). But it is difficult to see What Herod would have learned from this latter particular. Some even think that the star was still visible (Plumptre; Weiss, ’Matthew’), but in this case the joy of the Magi in Matthew 2:10 is not satisfactorily explained. Matthew 2:8 And he sent them to Bethlehem. Thus answering their question (Matthew 2:2). And said, Go and search diligently for the young Child; and search out carefully concerning, Revised Version; ἐξετάσατεἀκριβῶςπερί. Herod bade them make precise inquiry as to all particulars about the Child. The more details he could obtain, the more easily he could make away with him. And when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also; the Revised Version rightly joins, I also—I as well as you; I the king. It might well be at a secret conference with the Magi that Herod said this, for no Jew would have believed him. Worship; Matthew 2:2, note. Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king. There is a slight contrast in the Greek, but they [for their part] having heard the King. They departed; went their way (Revised Version). Took their journey (ἐπορεύθησαν) And lo, the star, which they saw in the East. They would, in accordance with Eastern custom, probably travel by night. Observe that the joy they felt at seeing the star (Matthew 2:10) implies that it had not continued visible (Matthew 2:7, note). They had fully used all means; now they receive fresh Divine guidance. In the East (Matthew 2:2, note). Went before them. Continuously (τροῆγεν); "taking them by the hand and drawing them on" (Chrysostom). Not to show them the way to Bethlehem, for the road was easy, but to assure them of guidance to the Babe, over whose temporary home it stayed. The road to Bethlehem is, and from the nature of the valley must always have been, so nearly straight (until the last half-mile, when there is a sudden turn up the hill) that the star need have moved but slightly. Bethlehem itself is seen soon after passing Mar Elias, a monastery rather more than half-way from Jerusalem. Till it came and stood over where the young Child was. Does the true reading (ἐστάθη) suggest the unseen hand by which this star was itself guided and stationed (Matthew 27:11)? or is it used with a kind of reflexive force, indicating that it was by no chance that it stood still there—"took its stand" (cf. σταθείς, Luke 18:11, Luke 18:40; Luke 19:8; Acts 2:14, et al.; cf. also Revelation 8:3; 12:18)? Matthew 2:10 When (and when, Revised Version) they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy; "they were marvelously glad" (Tyndale). Its reappearance was the pledge of the full answer to their search, the full reward of their toilsome journey. Contrast the indifference of the chosen people. Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house. For after the enrolment the caravanserai would not be so crowded (Luke 2:7). But whether it was now the caravanserai or a private house, we have no evidence to show. They saw (εἶδον, with the uncials and most of the versions). The translators in this case followed the text of the Complutensian and of Colinaeus’ edition, rejecting the false εὗρον of the Vulgate and the Received Text. The young Child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him (Matthew 2:2, note). In this latter clause Mary is not mentioned. And when they had opened. Neither the Authorized Version nor the Revised Version brings out the exact correlation of the six aorists in this verse. Their treasures (so the Revised Version); perhaps, more strictly, treasuries, coffers. There is the same ambiguity about "treasure" in old English (cf. Jeremiah 10:13; Jeremiah 51:16; Eeclus. 43:14) as in the Greek. They presented unto him gifts. Thus fulfilling in germ the predictions of offerings being made to Messiah and Messiah’s people by the Gentile nations (Isaiah 60:1-22.; Haggai 2:7; Psalms 72:10). Presented; offered (Revised Version). The verb used (προσφέρω) seems to lay stress on the persons to whom and by whom the offering is made, the personal relation in which they stand to each other; ἀναφέρω (cf. Bishop Westcott, on Hebrews 7:27) and παρίστημι on the destination and use of the offering (James 2:21; Romans 6:13). Observe the three stages in this verse—vision, submission, consecration. Gifts; without which one does not approach an Eastern monarch (cf. 1 Kings 10:2). Gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Wealth and delights, the material and the aesthetic. Matthew 2:12 And being warned of God (καὶχρηματισθέντες; cf. Bishop Westcott, on Hebrews 8:5). And, not "but;" this is joined to the threefold "and" of Matthew 2:11, and is the final example of God’s mercy and grace towards them, preserving them from probable death at Herod’s hands. In a dream (Matthew 1:20, note). That they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. Perhaps eastwards by Bet Sahur and Mar Saba and Jericho. Matthew 2:13 -15 The deliverance of Jesus by flight into Egypt. Matthew 2:13 And (Revised Version, now) when they were departed. The flight was not by their advice, and they were not even entrusted with the secret. Behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream (Matthew 1:20, notes). The present tense (φαίνεται) is here more vivid. Saying, Arise (Matthew 2:14, note), and take the young Child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word; Revised Version, I tell thee (ἕωςἂνεἴπωσοι). The rendering of the Authorized Version seems to be due to a desire to express the dependence of the messenger on him who sent him. For Herod; though he spoke so fair to the Magi. Will seek. The full form (μέλλει … ζητεῖν) hints that Herod’s action will be the result of no momentary emotion, but of premeditation. The young Child to destroy him. The final motive (τοῦἀπολέσαι) of seeking him. Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took; Revised Version, and he arose and took. The ἐγερθείς here, as in Matthew 2:13, precludes delay. The young Child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt. As St. Paul in after years was able to connect himself with fellow-craftsmen, and thus maintain himself (Acts 18:3), so might Joseph reasonably expect to be able to do in Egypt, and the more so since the connexion there between those who worked at the same trade seems to have been even closer than elsewhere, for in tile great synagogue at Alexandria they sat together, "so that if a stranger came he could join himself to his fellow-craftsmen and, through their means, obtain his livelihood". Jewish reference to our Lord’s stay in Egypt are to be found in the blasphemous tables of his having brought thence his knowledge of magic. Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod. The Revised Version rightly joins this with the preceding, not with the following, clause. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying (Matthew 1:22, notes), Out of Egypt have I called (Revised Version, did I call) my Son (Hosea 11:1, "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt"). Observe here: (1) The quotation is not from the LXX. ("Out of Egypt I summoned his children"), but from the Hebrew, which Aquila also follows. (2) The expression in Hosea is based on Exodus 4:22, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, my firstborn;" of. also Wis. 18:13. "They acknowledged this people to be the son of God (ὡμολόγησανΘεοῦυἱὸνλαὸνεἶναι)." (3) The quotation is, by the context, evidently adduced, not to prove the sonship of Jesus, but to enlarge upon the treatment that he received. The fundamental thought is that the experience of Messiah was parallel to the experience of the nation. (4) The application of the term "my Son" to Messiah is justified by Jewish thought. In Exodus 4:22 the nation was so called; in Psalms 2:7 the head of the nation, the theocratic king, received the same title; much more could the great theocratic King, the Messiah, be so spoken of. That, indeed, the name, "the Son of God," was used as a title of Messiahship by the Jews lacks direct evidence, but is surely to be deduced from Matthew 26:63 (Matthew 16:16); of. also the application of Psa 2:7 to Messiah in Talm. Bab.,’ Succah,’ 52 a, in the late Midrash ’Tillim,’ in loc., which traces" the decree" there spoken of through the Law (Exodus 4:22), the prophets (e.g.. Isaiah 52:13), and the Hagiographa. It is hardly too much to say that no Jew could consistently, either in the early days of the Church or now, find any difficulty in St. Matthew’s reference of the term "my Son" to Christ. (5) Seeing that St. Matthew’s reference of tile term "my Son" is justified by Jewish thought, and that the passage in Hosea is adduced to show that the experience of Messiah was parallel to that of the nation, there seems no real need to look for further reasons for the application. St. Matthew may hays held that Messiah was the Flower of Israel, so that what was predicated of Israel could be essentially explained of Messiah; he may have considered that Messiah was so organically connected with Israel that even when the nation was in Egypt Messiah was there also (cf. Hebrews 7:10; Hebrews 11:26); he may have thought that the pro-incarnate Son of God was always with his Church, and therefore with it even in Egypt; but of none of these theories have we any hint. The application of Hos 11:1 to the early life of Christ belongs, we do not doubt, to the very earliest stage of Jewish Christian thought, and to defend it by modem subtleties of interpretation seems quite out of place. Messiah was in some sense, as all Jews granted, the Son of God; Messiah, like the nation, went down into Egypt; what was predicated of the one was, clearly in this case, true of the other, and the prophet’s words received a "fulfilment." The fulfilment was, indeed, what we should call a coincidence (of. verse 23, note), but to the pious mind, and especially to the pious mind of a Jew, coincidences are not chances, they are signs of the Divine Governor. Matthew 2:16-18 The slaughter of the innocents. Matthew 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked (ὅτιἐνεπαίχθη). The verb which in the New Testament occurs only in the synoptists, and always in the strict sense of "mock" (e.g. Matthew 20:19; Matthew 27:29, Matthew 27:31, Matthew 27:41), represents Herod’s feelings, and perhaps his language, at his treatment by the Magi. It was more than deception; they had trifled with him. Of the Wise Men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children; Revised Version, male children (τοὺςπαῖδας, not τὰτέκρα). That were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts (Revised Version, borders) thereof. Not merely the districts legally belonging to the city, but the neighbourhood generally. From two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired (Matthew 2:7, note) of the Wise Men. Had he made further inquiries, he might have aroused suspicion, so he made sure of his prey by allowing a wide margin both in time and space. "’On Augustus being informed,’says Macrobius [’Saturn.,’ 2.4], ’that among the boys under two years of age whom Herod ordered to be slain in Syria, his own son also lind been slain, "It is better," said he, "to be Herod’s pig (ὖν) than his son (υἱὸν)." Although Macrobius is a late writer [circ. 400]. and made the mistake of supposing that Herod’s son Antipater, who was put to death about the same time as the massacre of the innocents, had actually perished in that massacre, it is clear that the form in which he narrates the bon mot of Augustus points to some dim reminiscence of this cruel slaughter". Farrar (and Edersheim accepts his calculation) reckons that not more than twenty children were killed. Thus failed the first attempt to destroy Christ, Revelation 12:4 (Nosgen). Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by (διά) Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not (Jeremiah 31:15, from the Hebrew). Notice: (1) As to details. (a) The order in the Revised Version. A voice was heard in Ramah is more literal; the stress is on the cry rather than on the place. (b) Lamentation and must be omitted, with the Revised Version, as a mere addition from the LXX. (c) And would not. The Revised Version, and she would not, seems to be an attempt to express the full term, καὶοὐκἤθελενκ.τ.λ.. (cf. Genesis 37:35). (2) As to the quotation generally. St. Matthew applies Jeremiah’s picture of Rachel, the mother of Joseph, i.e. of Ephraim (and also Manasseh), which was the typical part of the northern kingdom, weeping over the destruction of her children by the Assyrians, to the weeping of the mothers in Bethlehem. This application was the more easy because, as Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19; Genesis 48:1-22.7), she might be considered the figurative ancestress of the Bethlehe-mites as well as the physical ancestress of the Ephraimites. The fulfilment spoken of is thus not to be understood as implying that Jeremiah predicted the massacre at Bethlehem, but that in it his words received a new and deeper significance. It must, however, be added that, although Rachel’s tomb is placed at Bethlehem, both by the direct statement of the present text of Genesis and by tradition, which may be traced at least as far back as a.d. 333, and is accepted by Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans, there are serious doubts whether 1 Samuel 10:2 does not definitely place it in the north of Benjamin, and whether Jeremiah 31:15 does not accept this latter view (cf. for this question Delitzsch, on Genesis, loc. cit.) In any case, St. Matthew adopts the statement of Genesis. Matthew 2:19-23 The return from Egypt and settlement in Nazareth. Matthew 2:19 But when Herod was dead. Does the repetition of the tenor of Mat 2:15 point to a different source? Behold, an angel (rightly; contrast Matthew 1:20, note) of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph (φαίνεταικατὄναρ, as in Matthew 2:13). In both cases the stress is on the fact of the appearance, not on its mode. In Egypt. The evangelist will leave no room for doubt as to where Joseph then was (cf. note at head of chapter). Matthew 2:20 Saying, Arise, and take the young Child and his mother (so far verbally equivalent to Matthew 2:13). And go into the land. of Israel; any part of the holy and promised land (1 Samuel 13:19; Ezekiel 11:17). For they are dead which sought the young Child’s life. The plural is difficult, and is perhaps best explained as an adaptation of the historic parallel of Exo 4:19. Matthew 2:21 And he arose, and took the young Child and his mother (so far verbally equivalent to Matthew 2:14), and came into the land of Israel. Implicit and immediate obedience marking all he did.’ Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus. Until his murder five days before Herod’s own death in the spring of A.U.C. 750, Antipater, Herod’s eldest son, might naturally have been regarded as the successor, though in fact Antipas had been named as such in the will. But after Antipater’s death Herod altered his will; and appointing Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, and Philip Tetrarch of Gaulonitis, Traehonitis, and Paneas, he granted the kingdom to Archelaus. Further, even after Herod’s death, the succession was far from certain until the consent of Augustus had been obtained, and this, in fact, was jeopardized by Archelaus’s massacre of three thousand cf those who, on his accession, called for justice on the agents of the barbarities of the late reign. Eventually, however, Herod’s last arrangement was practically confirmed by Augustus, save that he expressly gave Archelaus, who had hastened to Rome, but half of his father’s dominion, and appointed him only ethnarch, promising to make him king "if he governed that part virtuously" (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 17.8. 1; 11. 4; cf. ’Bell. Jud.,’ 1. 33. 8; 2.7. 3). Joseph’s fear of Archelaus quite corresponds to the character given of him by the Jewish ambassadors before Augustus. "He seemed to be afraid lest he should not be deemed Herod’s own son; and so, without any delay, he immediately Jet the nation understand his meaning," i.e. by the slaughter of the three thousand malcontents above referred to (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 17.11.2). He was in a.d. 6 deposed for his cruelty, and banished to Vienne, in Gaul. Did reign; Revised Version, was reigning; an attempt to express the vivid present of the original, which recalls the very words he heard. After Augustus’s decision, Archelaus could not legally have called himself βασιλεύς, but the title, especially as implied in the verb, would have been customary in popular speech (cf. Matthew 14:9). But it is possible that the expression was used before Archelaus went to Rome, and at the time of his first grasp of power under Herod’s will. In Judaea. The Revised Version (over Judaea, βασιλεύειτῆςἸουδαίας) rightly implies not only that he lived in Judaea, but that, unlike his father, was not king of the whole of Palestine, but emphatically of Judaea. To this Idumaea and Samaria were appendages. In the room of his father Herod. Had St. Matthew the same thought as the Jewish ambassadors above? He was afraid to go thither; and presumably he told God his fears. Notwithstanding (only δέ); Revised Version, and. Being warned of God (verse 12, note). For he does not leave his people in perplexity. In a dream. No angel is mentioned this time. He turned aside; Revised Version, he withdrew (ἀνεχώρησεν). Into the parts of Galilee; where Antipas was tetrarch. The form (cf. Matthew 15:21; Matthew 16:13) seems to imply removal from one spot to another before finally settling at Nazareth, and also the subordinate importance of the places visited, compared with the more populous towns. Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth. En-Nasira, now of from five thousand to six thousand souls, in the hills on the northern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon, not mentioned in the Old Testament or by Josephus. "Nazareth is a rose, and, like a rose, has the same rounded form, enclosed by mountains as the flower by its leaves". Observe the (:) in the Revised Version, showing that the following "fulfilment" is not to be considered as part of Joseph’s intention. Dwelt; settled down after the exile life (cf Acts 7:4). That (ὅπως). The purpose lay in the Divine overruling of Joseph’s action, ὄπως with πληρωθῇ, Matthew 8:17 and Matthew 13:35 only. In each case it is used with reference to general statements, i.e. it marks a less close connection than that implied by ἵνα. It might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. He shall be called (Revised Version, that he should be called; ὅτικληθήσεται; cf. also the Geneva) a Nazarene. The Revised Version expresses the fact that the quotation is not of words, but of substance, for although the recitative ὅτι is found in St. Matthew (Matthew 7:23; Matthew 9:18; Matthew 14:26; Matthew 27:43, Matthew 27:47) and even before verbal citations from Scripture after γέγραπται (Matthew 4:6) and ἀνέγνωετε (Matthew 21:16, contrast 42), yet it does not occur after the formula τονκ.τ.λ. By the prophets. Not "in the prophets" (Acts 13:40), which might have preferred (yet cf. Hebrews 1:1) only to the book containing their writings, and then would not in itself have implied more than one passage there. The present phrase (διὰτῶνπροφητῶν) suggests personality rather than writing, and implies either that two or more prophets were the agents by whom the words were spoken, or, better, that in some way the whole company of the prophets (cf. Acts 3:25; Hebrews 1:1) spoke the message now summarized. In this way the phrase will indicate that even if the following words are found in the utterances of only one prophet, they also represent a phase of teaching common to all. A Nazarene. Those interpretations which connect this with רזן (nzr) , (1) in the sense of "separated" (Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.’), (a) generally (cf. Psalms 69:7); (b) specifically as "Nazarite" (ריזן, Ναζηραῖος, so Tyndale to Rheims); or (2) in the sense of "diadem" (רזֶןֵ, "Zu Cronberg [תרזן] hat der Gekronte gewohnet," Bengel); are inadmissible in the light of the fact that, in Jewish writings, both "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" (ירצון) are from רצן (ntsr). Thus the reference to the prophets requires that they speak of Messiah by some term belonging to this root, and not to רזן (nzr). What this term is may be gathered from the true text of Talm. Bab., ’Sanh.,’ 43a (cf. ’Levy,’s.v. רצן, and for the passage in full, Rabbinowicz, ’Var. Leer.’), where, after enumerating five disciples of Jesus the Nazarene (ירצונה ושי), among them Netzer, a summary is given of their trial and condemnation. Of Netzer it is said, "They brought Netzer up for trial. He said to the judges, Shall Netzer be slain? It is written, ’A branch (netzer, רצן) out of his roots shall bear fruit (Isaiah 11:1).’They answered him, Yea, Netzer shall be slain. For it is written, ’But thou art cast forth away from thy sepulchre like an abominable branch’" (netzer, Isaiah 14:19). It does not now concern us to inquire which, if any, of the twelve disciples is here spoken of by the name of Netzer. But it is evident that the Jews (1) connected this name closely with Jesus the Nazarene just before mentioned, and (2) saw a connexion between it and "the Branch" of Isaiah 11:1. True that they rejected the disciple’s application of the passage, but they did not reject the identity of the expressions. The application which was made, even according to the Talmud, is fully expressed by the evangelist here. There, as we may see if we read between the lines, the disciple claimed for his Christianity that it corresponded to the promise of Isaiah; here the evangelist more definitely claims a correspondence between that promise and Jesus. He is not concerned with deeper points of similarity, though they could not fail to suggest themselves both to him and to his readers, but merely notices that the very dwelling-place of Jesus answers to the promise of Messiah. Netzer he was to be; the Divine working brought it about that this, though in adjectival form, was his common appellation. Observe that (1) to netzer in Isaiah 11:1 the word tsemah, corresponds in Jeremiah 23:5 and Zechariah 3:8; (2) the fulfilment consists, not in carrying out a definite statement to its logical issue in history, but in the existence of a strange correspondence which implies Divine foresight and arrangement. Why Joseph settled at Nazareth rather than at any other spot in Galilee, St. Matthew gives no hint. The reason is found in the fact recorded by St. Luke that Mary (Luke 1:26) and Joseph (Luke 2:4) had lived there before the Birth. It is true that St. Matthew’s account taken alone gives the impression that this was not the case, but the impression is not so strong as to warrant even the assertion that St. Matthew was ignorant of the earlier residence, much less that his account in fact contradicts St. Luke’s. The mutual independence and the general trustworthiness of the two accounts of the Birth and Infancy is shown by the fact that in their less important details they cannot always be reconciled. The Wise Men from the East. I. THEIR . 1. They were Gentiles. The first chapter represents the Lord Jesus as a Jew, the Son of David, the long-expected Messiah. The second chapter tells us that the Gentiles also have an interest in the new-born Saviour. He came to bear the sins of the world, to be the Saviour of the world; to be not only "the Glory of his people Israel," but also "a Light to lighten the Gentiles." Ancient prophecy had foretold that "the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising." They were coming now, the firstfruits of the Gentile world—coming a long journey from the far East to seek the infant Saviour who had come from highest heaven to save their souls. They were the leaders of the long procession of Gentiles who, drawn by grace, have sought the Lord. What countless millions have followed them, not from the East only, but in mightier multitudes from the West, from the North, and from the South! Their coming, thus early, to the cradle of the Lord prefigured the gradual ingathering of that great host, that multitude which no man could number. 2. They were Magians. Like Daniel and his companions, they belonged to the learned, the sacerdotal, caste; they had been instructed in the wisdom of the East. Especially they had been engaged in the study of astronomy. Their learning had not degenerated into the magic, the pretensions to supernatural power, so common in their time. It was sanctified by a longing after God; it had elevated and refined their character. They were not like the Simon of Act 8:1-40., or the Elymas of Act 13:1-52. The name, Μάγοι, was common to them all; but Simon and Elymas were impostors, seeking their own selfish ends; their learning, such as it was, was degraded by falsehood and charlatanry; the Magians of St. Matthew were sincere seekers after God. They may possibly have heard something of ancient prophecy; the prophecies of Balaam, and more especially those of Daniel, may have been known in their country; they must have been familiar with the expectations of a coming King, a Deliverer, a Messiah, so generally diffused throughout the East. They were diligent observers of the stars; in the clear atmosphere of Mesopotamia or Persia they had watched the glorious march, the marvellous order, of the heavenly bodies. Astronomy, their favourite science, was blessed to their souls’salvation—it pointed the way to the Saviour. Science is the handmaid of religion, if it is pursued in the humble, teachable spirit which becomes seekers after truth. Philosophy, it has well been said, begins in wonder, and it ends in wonder. The wonders of this vast universe awaken thought and stimulate research, but every truth, pursued as far as man can reach, results in mystery. The wider, the more accurate, our knowledge, the deeper will be our consciousness of our own ignorance. That sense of ignorance, those insoluble mysteries, should lift up the heart to God. Reverence, humility, are the tempers which true learning should produce. They who in such a spirit "follow Truth along her star-paved way" will find that that way leads to God. The learned need a Saviour as much as the ignorant; the Magians must come to Christ as well as the shepherds. The best and holiest need him as much as the most sinful, the blessed virgin as much as the publican and the sinner. 3. They were rich. They brought rich gifts—gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The rich must come as well as the poor. They must bring their free-will offerings, giving largely, gladly, with a willing mind. Almsgiving is an important part of Christian duty, an element in Christian worship. The true disciple will learn of the Lord "who, though he was rich, yet for our sake became poor," the deep and holy lesson that "it is more blessed to give than to receive." We must give, not the mere shreds and parings of our worldly substance, but in due proportion to our means. "Of all that thou shalt give me," Jacob said, when he had seen the vision of God in Bethel, the house of God, "I will surely give the tenth unto thee." 4. They came a long journey. From the far East, from Chaldea or from Persia. They shrank not from the toil, the danger, of the way. They believed the heavenly warning, they sought the Saviour. We must seek Christ in faith. God has called us; we must obey the calling. The way that leads to eternal life seems often long; it is always strait, narrow, steep. There is need of perseverance and self-denial; we must forget those things which are behind, pressing ever onwards to those things which are before. 5. Their question. "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" They had not the Scriptures, the Word of God, which is "a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path." But they had seen the wondrous star; the voice of God speaking in their hearts told them its meaning. Then they arose, and went their way, seeking the King. We shall find the Christ if, like them, we are earnest seekers. Scripture, study, the promptings of our own heart, will lead us to him. For he is seeking us. He called the Wise Men from the East by the leading of a star; he calls us now by his Word, by his works, by his Spirit. We could not find him were it not that he first loved us, and sought us in his love. He was hidden from the eyes of sinful men in the unapproachable light which no man hath seen or can see. But he loved us; he draws us to himself by the attractive power of his constraining love. Yet we must seek him. It is he who seeketh that findeth; we must not sit still in spiritual idleness and take it for granted that all will be well. We must seek him as the Wise Men sought him, coming a long journey, offering our gifts, our hearts, our selves, our earthly goods. We must come asking, "Where is he?" Every one that seeketh findeth. "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" It is a great question—a question of deep meaning and very solemn interest. He is born King of the Jews—King by birth, by Divine right; King not only of Israel after the flesh, but of the Israel of God, the Church of the Firstborn. We all owe him our allegiance, for he is our King, the King of the nations, King of kings and Lord of lords. Where is he? We must find him; for he is our Life, the Life of our souls. To know him is eternal life; we must seek until we find, seeking earnestly, like the Wise Men from the East, grudging no pains, no cost. 6. What led them to the Christ? The mysterious star. The brightest light that shone in the Gentile firmament was but as a star compared with the Sun of Righteousness. There were good men among the heathen—men who in the darkness felt after the truth, if haply they might find it; who showed the work of the law written in their hearts; men like Socrates, Plato, Epictetus, earnest seekers after God. Their knowledge was as a star, beautiful, but pale; very limited in range and power, glimmering in the darkness. Still, it was enough, we cannot doubt, for their salvation. Their conscience bore witness; if they followed its guidance it would bring them safe to their journey’s end. That guiding star, conscience, the candle of the Lord within us, tells us of sin, of judgment, of salvation. It is set in our hearts to lead us to the Saviour. God grant that we may find him! 7. The object of their coming. To worship him. The great blessedness promised to God’s saints is the beatific vision, the unveiled vision of God. "I will," the Saviour said, "that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me." That vision implies worship. Worship is the homage of the heart, the reverential submission of the whole being, adoration full of wondering awe, full of grateful love. It is the occupation of heaven: "They rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." We must learn to worship here; it is the training for the heavenly life. Worship is not merely prayer; it includes prayer, but it is more. It does not consist simply in asking for what we need to supply our own wants. It is unselfish; its. end is the glory of God. They who are learning here the true and heavenly worship are learning to approach God, to seek the presence of God, not only for their own deep necessities—they must indeed seek him for that, but not for that only—they seek his face for himself, because he is so great, so glorious, so holy, so gracious. He himself is the exceeding great Reward of his chosen. These Gentiles teach us Christians what so many of us forget, the duty of unselfish Worship—simple, heartfelt adoration. II. THEIR AT . 1. By Herod. They came to Jerusalem, the city of the great King, but they found not there the King whom they sought. Another king was reigning in Jerusalem, a stranger, an Edomite; a king in name, but a very slave of the evil one, now drawing near to the close of his wicked life, in that miserable old age which is the necessary result of a youth spent in the unbridled indulgence of sinful appetites. (1) Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. The announcement of the King’s birth was not good news to Herod. He felt that that King must be the expected Messiah, the Christ; but he thought only of his own selfish aims, he feared for his crown. Strange that even in the immediate prospect of death, men should so cling to earthly things which must ass away so very soon, and neglect the one thing needful. But it is commonly so; as a man lives, so, as a rule, he will die. The selfish and avaricious in life are selfish and avaricious still, even in the presence of death. He was troubled, and all Jerusalem. A strange awe came over people. The expectation of a Messiah was almost universal. Now, they heard, he was coming; and it may be their thoughts shaped themselves into the words of the prophet, "Who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth?" That awe soon passed away; the visit of the Magians was soon forgotten; the warning was lost. Jerusalem knew not the time of her visitation. The Lord came unto his own, and his own received him not. Men are troubled in spirit when death seems near, when the thought of the judgment is brought home to their souls. Alas] how often those solemn feelings bear no real fruit! Selfish fear is very different from conversion; fear passes away with the sense of danger; conversion is an abiding change. (2) He consults the priests and scribes. We see another strange inconsistency—strange, but very common—belief in the letter of Holy Scripture joined with practical unbelief. Herod’s religion is simply superstition; he has the Scriptures, he has the priests; he uses them as if they were heathen oracles, and priests of Jupiter or Apollo. Mere bibliolatry is little better than unbelief: "the letter killeth." The Bible is precious exceedingly to the faithful: "the Spirit giveth life;" but to men like Herod, who make use of religion merely for political or selfish purposes, it is a savour of death unto death. (3) He sends the Wise Men to Bethlehem. He goes not there himself; he will come, he says. He bids others search diligently; he remains at home. So men put off the great work of life; they do not seek Christ now; they say they will do so; but the future recedes further and further; the end comes, they have not sought, and so they have not found. He will worship him, he says. He believes in a way, he half believes; it is, at least it may be, the expected King. But he is a traitor; in his intense wickedness he talks of worship while in his heart he is plotting death; he is ready to slay the King, the Messiah, if he can, rather than endanger the crown which he can wear so short a time. There is an awful warning in Herod’s selfish hypocrisy. Be true, it says to us, be true to your convictions. While you have the light, believe in the light, and walk in the light. Be true in yourselves, true in your relations with God, true in your dealings with men. God is true; he sooth in secret. Hypocrisy is hateful in his sight; it is the death of the soul. 2. The chief priests and scribes. They knew the Scriptures; they could answer Herod’s question at once; they told him where the Christ should be born. But they were blind guides; they knew and did not. Their religion was a lifeless theology, a dead orthodoxy. They showed Others the way to Christ; they sought him not themselves. They taught the Gentile Magians; the disciples profited, the teachers were callous and unmoved. It is a sad thing when the preacher does not feel the saving power of the words which, by the grace of God, bring life to the listener. The deepest, the most accurate knowledge of the letter or Scripture is a very poor thing compared with that inner knowledge of the heart, which may be granted to the ignorant as well as to the learned; which leads learned and ignorant alike to him who is the only Saviour of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. He was to be found in Bethlehem, in seclusion and poverty. Jerusalem was grand and rich; Bethlehem was small and poor. The priests showed the way, but went not; the Gentile Magians believed. The King was not to be found in Jerusalem, in its palaces, in its glorious temple. They sought him in simple faith in the little Bethlehem, and there they found the Governor, who should be the Shepherd of the Israel of God. III. THEIR JOURNEY TO . 1. They believed the Scriptures. They had not known the Scriptures; they were Gentiles. Now they heard them, and they doubted not. They had expected to find the King at Jerusalem; the Scriptures bade them seek him at Bethlehem; they at once obeyed. There is a lesson for us here. We should search the Scriptures, not, as many seem to do, to find our own opinions there, but in the humble, teachable spirit of the true disciple, who desires only to learn the truth of God, and, when he has learned it, strives with all his heart to do the will of God. 2. The reward of their faith. The star appeared again; it went before them; it stood over where the young Child was. God will not leave us to grope our way in the darkness, when we are seeking him in faith. The kindly light of his gracious love will lead us through the encircling gloom. We may be far from home, like the Magians; but if, like them, we do not seek to choose our own path, but submit to be guided by his Word, the light will lead us on till, like them, we see a more than angel-face, the loving face of the most holy Saviour. Earnest search is the condition of the heavenly guidance; the heavenly guidance is the reward of earnest search. They rejoiced to see the star; they recognized it as the star which had first raised their hopes when they saw it in the East. It came nearer now; its guidance was more distinct, more certain; it stood over where the young Child was. The leading of God’s Holy Spirit, the intimations of his will, become clearer and more definite as the faithful Christian draws nearer to the end of his journey; the more readily they are obeyed, the plainer they become. The sons of God are led by his Spirit, led ever nearer to Christ. The fruit of the Spirit is joy; they rejoice with exceeding great joy who feel the workings of that good Spirit within them; they recognize his gentle whispers as the voice of God calling them to his great salvation. That joy is of all joys the holiest and the best, the most abiding; it is joy unspeakable and full of glory; it is the foretaste of the joy of heaven. 3. Their thankfulness. They saw the young Child with Mary his mother. It was not as they had, perhaps, expected; there were no outward signs of royalty, no pomp, no guards, no courtiers; only a manger, or now, perhaps, some poor cottage; very different from the stately palace where they had left the proud, wicked Herod. But their faith was not shaken by these mean surroundings; they recognized the little Child as the King Messiah; they paid him the worship which they had come to render; they fell down and worshipped him—him, we mark, not the virgin-mother. Worship was the end, the object, of their long journey. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 3:1-12 THE HERALD. His public appearance and proclamation (Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2), as foretold by Scripture (Matthew 3:3). His Elijah-like dress (Matthew 3:4). He is listened to by multitudes (Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6). His faithful warning to typical Jews, and his pointing not to himself, but to the Coming One (Matthew 3:7-12). The date at which he appeared is stated, in Luke 3:1, to have been "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar; i.e. between August, a.d. 28, and August, a.d. 29". Matthew 3:1 In those days; and in those days (Revised Version). Probably merely contrasting those past days of the beginning of the gospel with the present, when the evangelist wrote (cf. Matthew 24:19, Matthew 24:22, where the days yet future are contrasted with those present). In Mark 1:9 the expression is used directly of the Lord’s baptism. And (Revised Version); δέ; Hebrew usage taking up the narrative (of. Joshua 1:1; Judges 1:1; Rth 1:1; Esther 1:1). Came; cometh (Revised Version); historic present (cf. Matthew 2:19); παραγίνεται, here equivalent to "come forward publicly," make one’s public appearance (cf. especially Luke 12:51; Hebrews 9:11; also especially 1 Mace. 4:46; also infra, Hebrews 9:13 and Matthew 2:1). John; Johanan. The name occurs first as that of a high priest in, apparently, the days of Rehoboam (1 Chronicles 6:9,1 Chronicles 6:10, Authorized Version). "The Lord is gracious" was a fitting title for one born by the special grace of God, and sent to be the herald of his grace to all men (Titus 2:11). The Baptist. (1) The Jews were far from having attained the simplicity of our present system, by which each person has both a family and a Christian name, and is thus designated with sufficient exactness for all the ordinary purposes of life. Their custom of name-giving was, and still largely is, as follows: (a) A Hebrew name is given to the child at circumcision. This is the holy name, and is used at all strictly religious ceremonies; e.g. when called to read the Law in the synagogue. (b) Each person has a name whereby he is known among the Gentiles. This is, at the present time, the name used for business and social purposes, and may be either Hebrew or of some ether language. It is usually connected, either in sound or meaning, with the holy name. So Paul and Saul, Didymus and Thomas. (c) He may have, either as well as or instead of the last, a name which designates him more exactly (α) by mentioning his father or some other relation; e.g. Bartimaeus, Barsabbas (probably); (β) by mentioning some physical, mental, moral, or other peculiarity; e.g. James the Little, Simon the Zealot, Barnabas (the son of exhortation), and, from non-biblical authors, James the Just, Rabbi Judah the Holy, Samuel the Astronomer, John the Shoemaker. The title "the Baptist" belongs, of course, to this last class, and must have been given him partly because of the number of persons whom he baptized, and still more because baptism was the visible and external aim and result of his preaching. (2) What was there new in John’s baptism? In considering this it must be remembered that (a) dipping in water had been commanded in the Law as a religious rite to priests (Exodus 30:20; Exodus 40:12; of. Le Exodus 8:6) on their first consecration to their office, and on each occasion that they fulfilled the holiest parts of their duties (cf. the sprinklings of the Levites on their consecration, Numbers 8:5-22); and to all Israelites in eases of ceremonial uncleanness (Le John 14:8; Numbers 19:13). (b) It was very frequent among the Essenes. (c) It was, we can hardly doubt, already customary at the admission of proselytes. There are, indeed, no certain allusions in Josephus, Philo, and the older Targumists (cf. Leyrer, in Cremer, s.v. βαπτίζω) to the baptism of proselytes properly so called; but (α) it is distinctly mentioned in the Mishna, and in such a way as to imply that it was an ancient custom, for the schools of both Shammai and Hillel assume it as a matter of course (’Pes,’ 8.8); (β) as with books, so with customs, acceptance in two bodies originally one, as the Jewish and Christian Churches were, throws back the book or custom before the date of the separation. In other words, it is most improbable that Jews would only have begun to practise baptism at the admission of proselytes after it had been practised by a body which had separated from them. Jews would not be likely to adopt the distinguishing rite of Christians. (d) Thus already, before John’s time, baptism was largely practised as a symbol of purification from sin and of entrance on a new and holier life. Wherein, then, lay the distinguishing feature of John’s baptism? Apparently in its being extended to all Israelites, without their having any personal ceremonial hindrance, and more particularly in the special aim and purpose to which it now referred. It signified the entrance upon a new life of expectation of Messiah. As of old, the nation had accepted the offer of God’s kingdom, and, having washed their garments (Exodus 19:10, Exodus 19:14), had been sprinkled with blood (Exodus 24:8), so now, when this kingdom, was about to be more fully manifested, not the nation, indeed, considered as a whole, but (in harmony with the individualization of the gospel) those persons who responded to the invitation, came forward and publicly renounced their sins and professed their expectation of the kingdom (Edersheim, ’Life,’ etc., 1.274). It is thus easy to account for the deep and widespread impression made by John the Baptist (cf. Acts 18:25; Acts 19:3), and for the important position that he holds in summaries of the origins of Christianity. John’s baptism was treated by our Lord himself as the first stage in his earthly ministry, which culminated in the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), and naturally by the apostles as the historical introduction to the teaching and work of Messiah. Josephus’s account of John the Baptist is well known, but too interesting to be omitted. "Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army [by Aretas] came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John that was called the Baptist. For Herod had had him put to death, though he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for baptism would be acceptable to God, if they made use of it, not in order to expiate some sins, but for the purification of the body, provided that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, as many flocked to him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, fearing that the great influence John had over the people might lead to some rebellion (for the people seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it far best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of his leniency when it should he too late. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, in consequence of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. So the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and was a mark of God’s displeasure against him" (’Ant,’ 18.5. 2, Shilleto’s Whiston). Observe that (1) Josephus confirms the Gospel account of the extent of John’s influence over his countrymen; but (2) attributes his imprisonment and death to a political, not a moral, cause. It is quite possible, on the one hand, that political reasons were not altogether wanting; and, on the other, that Josephus was ignorant of the more personal and stronger motive of Herod’s action. Preaching (κηρύσσων). Unlike εὐαγγελίζομαι this word refers, not to the matter, but to the manner, the openness, of the proclamation. In contrast to the esoteric methods alike of heathen philosophers and of Jewish teachers, whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes. The herald proclaims as a herald; cf. Isaiah 40:9 (the original context of our Isaiah 40:3); Genesis 41:43 (LXX.). In the wilderness. By this term is not necessarily meant absolute desert, but "des lieux pen habites ou non cultives". The very place in which John preached was part of the symbolism of his whole life. The expectation of Messiah must lead to separation, but separation deeper than that of those who called themselves the "separated’’ (Pharisees). Of Judea. The exact expression comes elsewhere only in the title of Psa 63:1-11, and in Judges 1:16, where it is defined as "in the south of Arad." It seems that, while different parts of the rugged district from Jericho southwards (Joshua 16:1), immediately on the west and north of the Dead Sea, had their distinctive titles—the wilderness of Siph (1 Samuel 23:1-29. 14, 15), of Maon (1 Samuel 23:24), of Engedi (1 Samuel 24:1), of Jeruel (2 Chronicles 20:16), of Tekoa (2 Chronicles 20:20)—the whole district was, as belonging to the tribe and even more certainly to the kingdom and province of Judah, known by the name of "the wilderness of Judaea." According to tradition, John was now preaching near Jericho. We find him soon after this at Bethany beyond Jordan (John 1:28), and later still at tenon, near Salim, in, or on the borders of, Samaria (John 3:23)." Matthew 3:2 And (omitted by the Revised Version) saying. The parallel passages give the substance of John’s preaching—the baptism of repentance. St. Matthew takes, as it seems, a sentence that actually fell from his lips, and presents it as the kernel of his message ("preaching … saying"). This is the more interesting as nowhere else are we told any words uttered by him in this the first stage of his ministry before crowds flocked to hear him. Repent ye … at hand; said word for word by our Lord (Matthew 4:17, note). Repent ye (μετανοεῖτε) The word expresses the central thought of true repentance, in speaking, as it does, of a change of mind. Contrast μεταμέλεσθαι (Matthew 27:3; 2 Corinthians 7:8-10). As such it goes deeper than the Old Testament summons "Turn ye" (ובוש), or the rabbinic הבושת, for it points out in what part of man the alteration must be. It is noticeable that the LXX. never, as it seems, translate בוש by μετανοῖν, but often מחן (of man only in Jeremiah 8:6; Jeremiah 31:19; and possibly Joe 2:14; cf. 1 Samuel 15:29), which refers to repentance as a matter of feeling. As Messiah was coming, it was only natural that John should urge repentance. Similarly, we find late Jewish writers expounding Genesis 1:2, "’And the Spirit of God was moving [on the face of the waters].’ This is the Spirit of King Messiah, like that which is said in Isaiah 11:2, ’And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.’ By what kind of merit does it draw near and come? It says, ’upon the face of the waters.’ By the merit of repentance, which is compared to water, as it is written (Lain. Isaiah 2:19), ’Pour out thy heart like water’" (’Bresh. R.,’ § 2). But, unfortunately, they assign far too legal a meaning to the word, and their phrase, "do repentance" (הבושת השע), becomes almost identical with the "do penance" (poenitentiam agite, Vulgate) of the Roman Catholics. For the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 3:3 For. The reason for John’s appearance and proclamation lies in prophecy. This is he that was spoken of (οὗτοςγὰρἐστινὁῥηθείς). In John 1:23 the following quotation is uttered by the Baptist himself, and some commentators have supposed this to be the case also here. But (1) this is against the parallel passages in Mark and Luke. (2) The form of the expression in John arises directly from the context. (3) In the Baptist’s mouth the neuter (τοῦτο … τον) rather than the masculine would have been more natural. The expression is doubtless that of the evangelist, suggested to him by John’s own utterance, the "is" (ἐστιν) expressing John’s permanent character. Contrast εἶχενἦν, (verse 4) of his clothing and food. [He that was] spoken of. The expression means, not a mere reference found in Isaiah, but the absolute content of the prophet’s words. The utterance of God by means of the prophet is—John the:Baptist. The Prophet Esaias; Isaiah the prophet (Revised Version); the commoner Greek order (but cf. Luke 4:17). The voice, etc. (except "his" for "our God," from the LXX. of Isaiah 40:8). The Hebrew probably joins "in the wilderness" with "prepare ye," but St. Matthew with "crying" (cf verse 1, "preaching in the wilderness," as probably the LXX.) In Isaiah the original meaning of the passage was probably, "prepare for the return to Jerusalem." The figure is that of the common and necessary process in semi-civilized countries of repairing roads before a great personage comes along them. Zechariah had; years before, applied the similar expression in Malachi 3:1 to his son. (For a metaphor like in kind, but with contrasted meaning, of. Galatians 5:7, ἐκόπτειν, breaking up a road to render it impassable.) Paths (τρίβους). According to Philo, the word is equivalent to "a carriage-road" (ἱππήλατοςκαὶἁμαξήλατοςὁδός, vide in Wetstein). It is thus equivalent to the Hebrew (m’sillah, "a highway," "a made road"). Possibly the plural was employed by the LXX. rather than the singular of the original, from their interpreting the passage, not of the return of the Lord to Palestine, but his coming into many hearts. Matthew 3:4 With this verse we begin to meet with matter peculiar to Matthew and Mark. And the same John (αὐτὸςδὲὁἸωάνης). (1) If the Revised Version "Now John himself," holds good, the phrase seems to mean that not only did Isaiah speak of him in terms that implied that he was the forerunner of Messiah, the true Elijah (Mark 1:2), but also he himself had his very food and dress consistent with his office. (2) But it is safer, with Thayer’s ’Grimm’ (Isaiah 1:2, a), to take αὐτός as merely recalling the person before mentioned. "Now he, whom I spoke of, John" (cf. 2 Chronicles 32:30). Had; during all that time (εἶχεν). His habitual dress, etc., was as follows. Of (ἀπό) camel’s hair. Not, as Dgr Old Lat. a in the parallel passage in Mark, δέῤῥην, pellem, "a camel’s hide," but coarse cloth made from the hair. So probably," hairy man" (2 Kings 1:8; el. Zechariah 13:4). And a leathern girdle. Probably of sheep or goatskin, worn over the garment. Mentioned because (1) it formed another point of similarity to Elijah (2 Kings 1:8); (2) girdles were frequently very costly (cf. Smith’s ’Dict. of Bible,’ 1:701). Every part of John the Baptist’s dress was for use, not ornament. And his meat; food (Revised Version); τροφή, not βρῶμα. He cared not what he ate, but what nourished and supported him. Was. The right order of the words (ἡδὲτροφὴἦναὐτοῦ) lays slightly more stress on the continuance of this mode of life. Locusts. Used for food in the East from the remotest times until now. Four kinds are permitted in Le Mark 11:22. "The wings and legs are torn off, and the remainder is sprinkled with salt, and either boiled or eaten roasted" (Meyer). They are mentioned in Talm. Bab., ’Ab. Zar.,’ 4.0 b, as being sold after preservation in wine. The word ἀκρίδες forbids the identification of these locusts with the pods of the carob, or locust tree, such as the prodigal son would fain have eaten. It seems that Jewish Christians of Essene and therefore vegetarian tendencies read ἐγκρίδες (cakes) here. Such at least is the most natural meaning, accepted by Epiphanius, of a quotation which he gives from the Ebionite Gospel according to the Hebrews (vide Tischendorf, in loc.) And wild honey. This apparently simple phrase is, notwithstanding, of doubtful interpretation. (1) Probably the honey of wild bees. This is still to be found in trees and rocks, and must have been much more common before the greater part of the timber was cut down (cf. Judges 14:8; 1 Samuel 14:25; Psalms 81:16). Bee-keeping was a favourite pursuit of the Essenes, and the Talmud has frequent notices of hives and the methods of taking bees, etc. (vide Hamburger, ’Real-Encyc,’ 1. s.v. "Biene"). Hence the need for the addition of some such epithet as "wild," although there seems to be no independent parallel instance of the exact word used (ἄργιον); cf. Pliny’s "mel silvestre." (2) Possibly "tree-honey", a sweet vegetable juice obtained from dates (vide Josephus, infra) and grapes (as probably in Genesis 43:11; Ezekiel 27:17), and perhaps directly from wild trees, such as the manna ash and the tamarisk. So distinctly Suidas. "The forerunner ate locusts and wild honey, which is gathered together from the trees, and is commonly called manna." Diodorus Siculus (b.c. 8) seems to use the epithet "wild" (ἄγριον) to distinguish this vegetable honey from that commonly in use. Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ 4.8. 3) states that in the plain watered by the fountain of Jericho, "there are many sorts of palm trees watered by it, different from each other in taste and name; the better sort of them, when they are pressed, yield an excellent kind of honey (μέλιδαψιλὸςἀνιᾶσιν), not much inferior to other honey. This country withal produces honey from bees (καὶμελιττοτρόφοςδερα)." But the former interpretation seems the more probable. Matthew 3:5 Then. Not merely temporal, as probably in Matthew 3:13, but almost consequential, "thereupon"; so also Matthew 3:15; Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:16. John’s preaching and manner of life were not without effect. Went out; ἐξεπορεύετο (similar in the parallels). Our Lord, when referring to this (Matthew 11:7, Matthew 11:8, Matthew 11:9), uses the commoner ἐξήλθατε, merely indicating the crowds leaving for a while their present surroundings. The synoptists here point rather to the trouble involved and the distance traversed. The singular is used (as often in the Hebrew) because the writer’s first thought was of Jerusalem; the other parts were added as an afterthought. All (cf. Matthew 8:34); i.e. from all parts and in large numbers. Judaea. Strictly speaking, this would, of course, include part of the next expression, but the reference here is especially to the hill-country. And all the region round about Jordan; i.e. the inhabitants of the Ghor, the Jordan valley. They presumably came from either side of the river. "Strabo, concerning the plain bordering on Jordan, hath these words: It is a place of an hundred furlongs, all well watered, and full of dwellings" (John Lightfoot, ’Her. Heb.’). Matthew 3:6 And (they, Revised Version) were baptized. The Revised Version probably desires to call attention to the change in the verb from singular to plural. In Jordan; in the river Jordan (Revised Version, with manuscripts). So also parallel passage in Mark. By him; i.e. their baptism was not self-imposed, but an act of submission to his teaching, and of acceptance of his message. The forerunner saw results, not merely in crowds of listeners, but in external actions. By him (contrast John 4:2). Confessing their sins; i.e. in at least some detail; cf. Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 8.4. 6, "confessing their sins and their transgressions of the laws of their country (ἐξομολογουμένωντὰςἁμαρτίαςαὐτῶνκαὶτὰςτῶνπατρίωννομίμωνπαραβάσεις);" also Acts 19:18, "confessing and declaring their deeds" (cf. James 5:16). Matthew 3:7-12 The faithful warning. (Parallel passage: Luke 3:7-9, Luke 3:16, Luke 3:17.) Observe that this is before the baptism of our Lord, while the witness in John 1:19-27 is after. Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The typical Jews, considered as one class (τῶνΦαρισαίωνκαὶΣαδδουκαίων), in contrast to the multitudes. Pharisees. Their characteristic is shown in their name, "Separatists;" i.e. from anything that would hinder exact obedience to the Mosaic Law. Hence they are the strict adherents of tradition. They ultimately gained the ascendancy, and, in consequence, the standard Jewish books represent the result of their teaching, They belonged almost entirely to the middle classes. Sadducees. They were chiefly of the noblest, especially the high-priestly, families. Hence their first thought was political quiet, and with this they not unnaturally combined the love of Greek culture. They set the plain meaning of the Law far above all tradition, even that of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. Come (Obtains, Revised Version) to his baptism; ἐρχομένουςἐπὶτὸβάπτισμα (omit αὐτοῦ). They were apparently not merely coming to see what took place, but with the purpose of receiving his baptism (cf. Thayer, ἐπί c. Matthew 1:2, g. γ aa.); cf. Matthew 26:50 (ἐφδ); Luke 23:48. The marginal reading, however, proposed by the American Revisers "for baptism," does not do justice to the article. The Gospel according to the Hebrews says that they were in fact baptized, but we can hardly suppose this to have been the case after John’s words to them. Observe that the Pharisees, with their self-conscious sanctity, were hardly likely to come to confess their sins, or the Sadducees to even listen to so ascetic a teacher. He said unto them; i.e. to the Pharisees and Sadducees; Luke, less exactly, "to the multitudes that went out to be baptized of him." There is, indeed, nothing, save the opening sentence, which refers solely to the Pharisees and Sadducees; but this fact does not show (Bleek) that the words were really spoken to all, and that Matthew’s expression is wrong. John doubtless addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees primarily; but as, after all, they only formed the apex of ordinary Jewish thought, what he said to them fitted also the majority of his listeners. O generation (ye offspring, Revised Version) of vipers! The simile not only expresses the thought that, behind their smooth exterior, the outward legal strictness of the Pharisees, and the worldly decorum of the Sadducees, lay hidden malice and venom, but also that this is due to their very nature. It may have directly implied that they belonged in a true sense to the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15); of. our Lord’s words (Matthew 12:34; Matthew 23:33). Who hath (omitted by the Revised Version) warned you? The verb (ὑπέδειξεν) has elsewhere in the New Testament (St. Luke’s writings only) no thought of warning, nor of secrecy, but of teaching, of placing the matter under the eyes of others (of. especially Acts 9:16; Acts 20:35; Luke 6:47). John is making no inquiry for information, but only utters surprise at seeing them (cf. Matthew 23:33, πῶςφύγητε). Whoever can have told you of your danger? He might have saved himself the trouble, you being what you are! Yet the very violence of his expression was such as to call their attention to the depth of their sinfulness, and after all to lead them perhaps to repentance. For this reason he adds, "Bring forth therefore." To flee; aorist, not exactly indicating "the activity as momentary, setting forth the point of time when the wrath breaks forth, in which the flight also is realized" (Meyer), but the flight as one single action, without any reference to the time of the breaking forth of the wrath. From. The wrath is pictured as coming on them from without. In 1 Thessalonians 1:10 St. Paul says that Jesus delivers out of (ἐκ) it, implying that he himself and all men are naturally in and under it (but see Matthew 6:13, note). The wrath to come. Perhaps connected in John’s mind with the wrath of the Messianic age (Isaiah 63:3-6). If so, it would find its primary fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem, but its complete fulfilment only in the manifestation of the wrath at the last judgment—(Acts 24:25; of. Romans 2:5; Romans 5:9; Revelation 6:16, Revelation 6:17; Revelation 11:18). Wrath. Not merely punishment. The thought is of the feeling of anger against sin in him who punishes it. Matthew 3:8 Bring forth therefore (vide supra) fruits; fruit (Revised Version). The plural is due to a false reading taken from the parallel passage of Luke—it regards the various graces of a good life as so many different fruits (Matthew 21:43); the singular, as one product from one source (Galatians 5:22). The term used here (ποιεῖνκαρπόν), and frequently, lays more stress on the effort involved than διδόναικαρπόν, simple "yielding" (Matthew 8:8), or φέρειν, "bearing" in the course of nature. The preacher requires a repentance which produces results. Meet for (of. Acts 26:20). Though strictly meaning "suitable to", the phrase might today be understood as "suitable to produce." John really means that true repentance has fruit which belongs to its proper nature, and which is alone "worthy of" it (Revised Version). Repentance (τῆςμετανοίας). The article is either generic (Authorized Version and Revised Version; cf. Acts 11:18 and probably Acts 26:20); or equivalent to "your". If the latter, the following sentence shows that it is still said in good faith. (For repentance, of. verse 1, note.) Matthew 3:9 And. An additional warning against any false feeling of security based on natural privileges. As this feeling was common to all Jews, the reference to the larger audience (Matthew 3:7, note) was probably begun here. Think not to say. Not do not think, consider, with a view to saying; but do not think it right to say, do not be of opinion you may say . St. Luke deprecates the commencement of such an utterance in their heart; S t. Matthew denies its justice. Within yourselves; cf. Esther 4:13 (Hebrew). We have Abraham to our father. As it was recognized on all hands that the promise of blessing was made to Abraham and his seed, it is no wonder that many Jews presumed upon their descent from him, "supposing,", as Justin Martyr says, that the everlasting kingdom will assuredly be given to those who are of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, although they be sinners and unbelieving and disobedient towards God." In later times, when the doctrine of merit was more fully established, God could be represented as saying to Abraham, "If thy children were like dead bodies without sinews or bones, thy merit would avail for them" (’Ber. Rabb.,’ on Genesis 10:5:11. § 44, middle). In John’s words, on the contrary, we have the germ of the doctrine afterwards Brought out by St. Paul (e.g. Galatians 3:9, Galatians 3:29), that not natural descent, but spiritual relationship by faith, leads to inheriting the promises. The argument in John 8:39, etc., is closely akin to that presented here. In both passages the Jews lay stress on their origin from Abraham; in both the answer is that morally they are sprung from a very different source (supra, John 8:7, note). But in John 8:1-59. the Jews are thinking chiefly of their present state, of not being as sinful as Jesus makes them out to be, while here they are thinking more of the future, that they have no need to take trouble, because promises for the future belong to them. Hence, perhaps, the exact expression (contrast John 8:33), "We have Abraham as father," which brings out the protecting influence of Abraham as still available. For I say unto you (λέγωγὰρὑμῖν). The solemnity of the phrase (Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:29; Matthew 8:11; Matthew 11:9) lies in the self-consciousness which it implies. The absence of the ἐγώ shows that the speaker has no desire to bring out his own personality (contrast Matthew 5:22, etc.), but the message only. That God. Not "the LORD," because (1) the thought is of power rather than of covenant relationship; (2) he is about to speak of others than members of the covenant nation. Is able of these stones. These; apodeictic (Matthew 4:3). Some have thought that by these stones John directly means certain Gentiles who were standing near; but it is much mere likely that he points to the literal stones at his feet, and with strong hyperbole says that he who once raised up offspring as the stars for multitude from persons as good as dead (Romans 4:19), and who had originally made man of the dust of the earth, can (δύναται), with both physical power and moral right, raise out of the very rawest material a new Israel (cf. Romans 4:17; 1 Corinthians 1:28, "the things that are not"). Raise up. The verb employed (ἐγείρω) is, as it seems, not used in the LXX. with reference to natural generation, but ἀνίστημι (cf. Genesis 38:8, ἐξανίστημι; Genesis 4:25; Genesis 19:32; cf. also Matthew 22:24). It is, however, very suitable here, for while ἀνίστημι regards future worth, ἐγείρω specially contrasts a later with an earlier state (e.g. sleep)—in this case the nature of children with the insensibility of stones. Children. The new Israel would possess, not merely Abraham’s privileges, but his nature and character (τέκνα), in which you to whom I now speak are so deficient. Matthew 3:10 And now also; Revised Version, and even now. "And" (δὲ), slightly adversative. In contrast to the delay supposed in Matthew 3:9 a, preparations have already been made for your destruction. The axe is laid; Revised Version, is the axe laid; bringing out more emphatically its present position. The American Revisers propose, "the axe lieth at," avoiding the suggestion of an agent; but κεῖμαι often implies one, being used of vessels set ready for use; e.g. John 2:6; John 19:29 (cf. Revelation 4:2). Unto (πρὸς); brought near to (Thayer, s.v., 1.2, a). Therefore. The axe is lying there, therefore every useless tree is sure to be cut down (cf. Winer, 40.2, a). Every tree, etc.; even the noblest (Weiss). However good the tree ought to be, from the character of its original stock (you claim to be Abraham’s children, John 19:9), yet, if it does not bear good fruit, it is cut down (Matthew 7:19, note). Into the fire (εἰςπῦρ). Not into a fire prepared with a definite purpose, nor into any one fire pictured as burning (Matthew 17:15; cf. τὸπῦρ, John 15:6), but into fire generally, which may be in many different places. Worthless trees are only for burning. (For thought, cf. Hebrews 6:8.) Matthew 3:11 (Cf, especially John 1:27; Acts 13:25; also Acts 19:4.) After our Matthew 3:10 St. Luke inserts details of the various kinds of fruit that repentance ought to produce, suggested by the questions of different portions of the Baptist’s audience; and then, with an explanatory note that John’s words were due to a misconception having arisen that he was himself the Messiah, he adds what we have in verses 11, 12. But even if verses 10-12 were, in fact, not said consecutively, yet their juxtaposition here may be defended by the real connexion between the statements. In verse 10 John has spoken of the present danger of his audience; he therefore now urges repentance, and that in view of the coming of One who will sift them to the uttermost. With water; in, Revised Version margin (ἐν), and so in the second part of the verse. The thought is not of the instrument by which the baptism is effected, but of the element in which it takes place. "In" suggests more complete submergence of the personality. But he that cometh after me. The expression would recall the thought of" the Coming One"—a common designation of Messiah (Matthew 11:3; Matthew 21:9). Is mightier than I. Not in authority (the next clause), nor in honour (John 1:30), but in inherent strength and power. Whose shoes. Though shoes or boots were usual in the winter, at all events later, and probably also now (cf. Edersheim, ’Life,’ 1.621), yet sandals are doubtless meant. "In the LXX. and Josephus σανδάλιον (Mark 6:9; Acts 12:8) and ὑπόδημα [here] are used indiscriminately" (Thayer). Worthy. In moral sufficiency (ἱκανός) , and so in the parallels, but (ἄξιος) in moral desert in John 1:27. To bear; complementary to "loosen" in the parallel passages. The duty of slaves of the lowest rank. The distance of superiority here attributed by John to "him that cometh after me," must be reckoned even greater than it usually is; for most of the slaves then held by Jewish masters would not be Jews, but Gentiles. The thought is, "I am further removed from my successor than the meanest Gentile slave is from his Jewish master." Some have seen in this expression a reference to the practice of disciples carrying the shoes of their teachers (Edersheim, ’Life,’ 1.272), but this can hardly have been general so early. He. The emphasis is made the more evident by the absence of any connecting particle. Shall baptize you. "The transference of the image of baptism to the impartment of the Holy Spirit was prepared by such passages as Joe 2:28 (Acts 2:17)" (Bishop Westcott, on John 1:33); camp. also Ezekiel 36:25-27, where the symbol of cleansing by water and the gift of the Holy Spirit are closely connected. With the Holy Ghost, and with fire (ἐνΠνεύματιυἉγίῳκαὶπυρί). To the visible John contrasts the invisible, to the symbol of water the reality of the Spirit; adding (here and in the parallel passage in Luke) to this, which forms the main point of the contrast, the thought of Mal 3:2, purification as by fire; and, by not placing it under the government ,of another preposition (which would have necessitated the conception of it as a distinct element) implying that it is only another aspect of one and the same baptism. It has been questioned, indeed, whether "fire" here refers to the purification of the godly who truly accept the baptism of the Spirit, or to the destruction of the wicked, as in Malachi 3:10, Malachi 3:12. But the thought is one. The Divine presence will in fact, as is recognized by Isaiah (Isaiah 33:14; Isaiah 31:9), be twofold in its working, according as it is yielded to or the reverse. It burns away sin out of the godly, and it consumes the ungodly if they cleave to their sin. Matthew 3:12 Whose fan. The pronged winnowing-fork which throws up the grain against the wind. The Coming One is to put an end to the present mixture of chaff and corn. He will thoroughly purge the threshing-floor of this world, gathering the good into one safe place, and destroying the evil. The figure of winnowing comes not unseldom in the Old Testament (e.g. Jeremiah 15:7; Jeremiah 51:2), but generally with the sole idea of destruction of the ungodly, not with that of separating so as to also preserve the godly. Is in his hand. The figure is stronger than that in Matthew 3:10, where the instrument was only lying ready to be taken up. But that was an instrument of destruction alone. And he will throughly purge; cleanse (Revised Version); permundo (Vulgate); διακαθαριεῖ, the preposition is intensive, not local. His. Observe the threefold αὐτοῦ, referring to hand, flour, corn—personal agency, sphere, ownership. In the Vatican and some other manuscripts it is found also after "garner;" but this is, perhaps, introduced from the parallel in Luke. Floor; threshing-floor (Revised Version). Not the barn that English-men think of, but an open and level space (for the figure, cf. especially Micah 4:12). Here the threshing-floor is equivalent to the scene of the Lord’s operations, i.e. the world, or rather the universe (cf. Epbraem (? Tartan) in Resch, ’Agrapha,’ p. 295). The present mixture of good and evil shall be brought to an end. And gather together, from different parts of the threshing-floor, or from intimate association with the chaff, into one heap. All true believers shall finally be brought to perfect unity (cf. Matthew 13:30). His wheat. The term is adopted by Ignatius (’Ram.,’ §4): "I am the wheat of God, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread [of Christ]." Into the garner. The final home of the saints, hidden away and safe from all marauders. Garners in the East are generally subterranean vaults or eaves (but cf. Luke 12:18). But will burn up. Utterly consuming it (contrast Exodus 3:2), as the tares (Matthew 13:30, Matthew 13:40) and the books of magic (Acts 19:19). The chaff. For, as Jeremiah says (Jeremiah 23:28) when comparing a mere dream with a message from the Lord," What is the chaff to the wheat?" The Targum even interprets Jeremiah’s words of the wicked and the righteous. The chaff in Jeremiah includes the straw, for in the East everything except the actual grain is generally burnt, and is sometimes used for heating fireplaces (Mishna, ’Sabb.,’ 3.1; ’Parah,’ Jeremiah 4:3). With unquenchable fire. "Unquenchable" shows that John is here thinking not of the figure of chaff but of the persons figured by it. But what does the word mean? In itself it might mean that the fire cannot be overcome by the greatness or the nature of the mass that it has to consume; i.e., to drop the figure, by either the number or the character at’ the wicked. But from its usage it seems rather to be equivalent to not being overcome by the lapse of time. It is used, e.g., of the perpetual fire of Vesta, of the fire of the Magi, of the fire upon the Jewish altar (vide references in Thayer). The whole expression in itself says nothing about the everlasting duration of the punishment; i.e. it does not decide for "everlasting punishment" or for "annihilation," but seems rather to exclude the possibility of amelioration under it (cf. Isaiah 1:31). Matthew 3:13-17 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. Matthew 3:13 Then; temporal (Matthew 3:5, note). When John was preaching and baptizing. Cometh (verse 1, note). From Galilee. Mark adds, "from Nazareth of Galilee" (for this is his first historical mention of our Lord), thereby implying that our Lord had lived in Nazareth since our Matthew 2:22, etc. In contrast to the representative teachers from Jerusalem, and the crowds both from there and from the Jordan valley (Matthew 2:5), this Stranger came from Galilee. To Jordan. It is hard to see why the Revised Version inserts "the" here and leaves the Authorized Version unaltered in Matthew 2:5. To be baptized (τοῦβαπτισθῆναι); Matthew 2:13, note. By him; and no other. Not mere baptism, but baptism at the hands of John, was our Lord’s motive for coming. He would link his own work on to that of John (vide infra) Matthew 3:14 Matthew 3:14 and Matthew 3:15 are peculiar to St. Matthew. But John. In John 1:31, John 1:33 the Baptist says that he knew him not till the descent of the Holy Spirit; i.e. knew him not in his full Messianic character. Here, either by an involuntary and miraculous impression, psychologically due to the previous revelation he had received (cf. Meyer); or, as is on the whole more probable, from his previous knowledge, direct or indirect, of Jesus, he recognizes his superior sanctity. John’s inmost thoughts must therefore have been somewhat as follows. "I have come to announce the advent of Messiah; hero is One who is much holier than I; it may be that he is Messiah, but I have no certainty till the sign promised has been vouchsafed." Forbade; would have hindered (Revised Version), for διεκώλυεν, does not in itself imply speech. (For a similar imperfect of that which was not fully carried out, cf. Luke 1:59.) It is noticeable, though doubtless merely as a coincidence, that the strong compound word διακωλύω and βαπτίζομαι also occur together in Judith 12:7. I have need to be baptized of thee. Many see here a reference to the baptism of the Spirit and fire, mentioned in verse 11. But the following clause, "and dost thou come to me?" implies that the baptisms are identical, viz. baptism by water. The sentence is equivalent to "I John, who myself administer the baptism of repentance, need to profess repentance myself, and ought rather, therefore, to receive such a baptism at thy hands, who art so far holier than I" (cf. further Weiss, ’Life,’ 1.320). Matthew 3:15 Suffer it to be so now; suffer it now (Revised Version); "suffer me now"; ἄφεςἄρτι, only here (apparently) in the New Testament quite absolutely, but Matthew 7:4 slightly favours the Revised Version margin. Now; at this special season (ἄρτι); in contrast to the more permanent relation which shall be recognized later. Our Lord thus slightly removes the trial to John’s faith, which a mere refusal might have aggravated. Observe the implied consciousness of his Messiah-ship, even before the baptism. Several of the Fathers (vide Meyer) infer from these words that John was afterwards baptized by Jesus; but this is to completely miss the point of the expression. For thus. Not exactly "by this baptism," but" by the spirit of submission in us both, which in this case will issue in my baptism." It becometh (τρέπονἐστὶν). Not a matter of absolute necessity (δεῖ, Matthew 16:21; Matthew 26:54), nor of absolute duty (ὀφείλω, John 13:14), but of moral fitness (Hebrews 2:10). It befits us, in our respective characters, to perform this sym bolical act. Compare Melchizedek and Abraham; the representative of the cider blesses the representative of the coming age (Luke 16:16). Us; thee and me. To fulfil; here only with "righteousness" (cf. Matthew 5:17). All righteousness (πᾶσανδικαιοσύνην). Not the whole circle of righteousness (πᾶσαντὴνδικαιοσύνην), but every part of righteous ness, as each is presented to us (similarly, Acts 13:10; cf. also δικαιοσύναι in Ecclesiasticus 44:10; Tobit 2:14, where, although Neubauer and Fuller explain it as "alms." this is improbable after the preceding ἐλεημοσύναι), and that not merely every part of the righteousness included under the Mosaic, Law, but of that wider righteousness of which that was itself only a part and a type. "Let me be baptized by thee now," our Lord says to John, "for it is fitting for us, in this spirit of submission, to fill up every part of righteousness." Our Lord thus pleads for the absolute submission of John and himself to every portion of righteousness as it may be proposed to them by God to perform; his words thus somewhat resembling those to St. Peter, "If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me" (John 13:8). Thy duty is to baptize, mine to be baptized. It has generally been thought that in this verse our Lord implies that his baptism was to constitute his own formal recognition and acceptance of his distinctly Messianic duties—an act which involved the complete leaving of his past life and the giving himself up to a new and public life (cf. Weiss, ’Life,’ 1.322). But have we any evidence that our Lord came to the baptism with this self-consciousness? May he not very well have known that he was to be the Messiah, and yet not have known that his official life was to begin now? May he not have come to the baptism merely as an individual, feeling the deepest interest in this consecration to the cause of the kingdom, notwithstanding the unique position in which he knew himself to stand with regard to that kingdom? But his voluntary consecration of himself for whatever he might be guided to, was the opportunity taken by the Father for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, which had as its immediate consequence the retirement into the wilderness and the decision there come to. May not, in other words, our Lord’s descent into Jordan have been, not the first act of his public life, but the last act of his private life—the former then being the withdrawal into the wilderness, in order there to have uninterrupted communion with his Father, and to meet in his official character his great adversary (cf. especially Edersheim, ’Life,’ 1:279, etc.)? Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized. Combining the statements of the synoptists, we may conclude that Jesus went up from the water at once, praying as he went, and that, while he was going up and praying, the heavens opened. Out of; from ’(Revised Version); ἀπό; for, as it seems, he had not gone fully out of the water. The heavens were opened unto him. So also the Revised Version, but the Revised Version margin, with Westcott and Herr, rightly omits "unto him." The words were inserted because it was thought that Jesus alone saw the manifestation, as indeed we should have supposed if we had had only the account of St. Mark, who reads, "he saw" before "the heavens being rent asunder" (but of. John 1:32-34). To our Lord and to the Baptist the appearance was as though the sky really opened (cf. Ezekiel 1:1; Acts 7:56). The Spirit of God; recalling Genesis 1:2. "Messiah now enters on his public office, and for that receives, as true Man, the appropriate gifts. The Spirit by whom men are sub jectively united to God descends upon the Word made Flesh, by whom objectively God is revealed to men" (Bishop Westcott, on John 1:32). Like; as (Revised Version). The comparison is hardly to the gentleness of the descent of a dove, but to a visible appearance in bodily form, as a dove (see parallel passage in Luke). Not, of course, that the Holy Spirit was thus at all incarnate, but that either the appearance of a dove was seen by John’s eyes only (cf. especially Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Meyer), or, as is not unlikely (even though the suggestion belongs ultimately to Paulus), a dove really flew down and lighted on the Lord (Luke), and that this, to outsiders merely a curious incident (cf. John 12:29), was to our Lord and the Baptist a sign of spiritual blessing. A dove (περιστερά); any member of the pigeon tribe; chosen because a symbol of deliverance (Genesis 8:8), of purity (Le John 5:7), of harmlessness (Matthew 10:16), and of endearment (So John 6:9). There is no evidence (cf. Edersheim, ’Life,’ 1:287) that the dove was at this period interpreted by Jews as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. The Targum on So John 2:12 paraphrasing "the voice of the turtle-dove ’ by "the voice of the Holy Spirit," dates in its present form from the eighth to the tenth century. The dove mentioned (though probably by interpolation) in the account of Polycarp’s death, appears to be a symbol of the soul (cf. Bishop Lightfoot). Wichelhaus (as quoted by Kubel) says suggestively, "lamb and dove—no kingdom in the world has these emblems on its escutcheon." And; omit, with manuscripts. Lighting; coming (Revised Version), because it is needless to translate a common Greek (ἐρχόμενον) by a rare English word. Observe that it refers to the Holy Spirit, not to the dove as such. Upon him. Matthew 3:17 Lo; peculiar to St. Matthew—a reminiscence of Aramaic diction. A voice. Similarly in Matthew 17:5 (Transfiguration, cf. 2 Peter 1:17, 2 Peter 1:18); John 12:28 (like thunder); [possibly Acts 2:6, Pentecost]; Acts 9:4 (Paul’s conversion); Acts 10:13, Acts 10:15 (Peter). Talmudic and rabbinic writings often mention the Bath-Qol as speaking from heaven. The character of the occasions on which the voice is heard in the New Testament on the one hand, and in the Jewish writings on the other, shows the complete difference in the moral aspect of the two voices. The latter is at best little more than a parody of the former. From heaven; out of the heavens (Revised Version), pointing to the phrase in Acts 10:16. Saying. Western authorities add, "unto him," mostly reading the following words in the second person. This is my beloved Son. Very similar if not identical words were spoken at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5), Matthew giving precisely the same, Mark and Luke only omitting "in whom I am well pleased," and Luke also reading "chosen" instead of "beloved." It would seem more natural to suppose that the words spoken on the two occasions were really slightly different, and that therefore Matthew is the less accurate. My .. Son (cf. Psalms 2:7). My beloved Son. The expression is probably based on Isaiah 42:1 (cf. infra, Matthew 1:1-25 Matthew 2:18, note); but this does not necessitate the punctuation of the Revised Version margin, and Westcott and Herr margin: "My Son; my beloved in whom," etc.; Ephesians 1:6.) In whom I am well pleased; rather, in whom I have delight (cf. Isaiah 62:4, Authorized Version). The tense (εὐδόκησα) is equivalent to "my delight" fell on him, he became the object of my love" (Winer, 40:5, b, 2). The Spirit came, the Father bore witness. "Thus the Baptist receives through a revelation the certainty of the Messiahship of Jesus, and thus the reader learns that the Son of David, who through his birth (Ephesians 1:1-23.) and the fortunes of his childhood (Ephesians 2:1-22.) was certified as the Messiah, now also is announced to the last of the prophets as the Son of God, to whom Jehovah, in Psalms 2:7, etc., had promised the Messianic dominion of the world" (Weiss, ’Matthaus-Evang.’). Yet not only so; the words probably revealed to the Lord Jesus himself more of his exact relationship to the Father than he had before as Man realized. Such an assurance of his true nature, and of the Father’s delight in him, would be of essential service in strengthening him for his work (cf. Matthew 17:5). There are two other matters connected with our Lord’s baptism recorded by tradition -additional words spoken, and an additional sign given. The words spoken are found in "Western" authorities of Luk 3:22, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee," evidently with a desire to emphasize the application of the second psalm. The additional sign is the light or fire. The simplest form of this is (Tatian’s ’Diatessaron,’ edit. Zahn), "A light rose upon the waters;" and in the Ebionite Gospel apud Epiph., "Immediately a great light shone round about the place;" more fully in Justin Martyr (’Trypho,’ § 88), "When Jesus had gone down into the water, fire was kindled in the Jordan;" also in a now lost ’Pred. Paul,’ "When he was being baptized, fire was seen upon the water;" and in the Cod. Vercellensis of the Old Latin, "When he was being baptized, an immense light shone round from the water, so that all who had come thither were afraid." Although there is no intrinsic objection to this symbol having taken place, it is very improbable that in this case the evangelists would not have recorded it. The legend may have arisen from Luke 3:11, or, and more probably, from an endeavour to make the baptism parallel to the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:2); cf. Ephraem, in Resch, "John drew near and worshipped the Son, whose form an unwonted lustre surrounded." The forerunner. I. HIS . 1. His sudden appearance. It is the first mention of John the Baptist in St. Matthew’s Gospel. He flashes upon us suddenly, like his prototype Elijah in the Old Testament. St. Luke tells us of his birth, of his solitary life: he "was in the deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel." Now the time was come. "In those days," St. Matthew says, while the Lord was still at Nazareth, living a family life with brethren and sisters—the children, in all probability, of Joseph by a former marriage—taking his share in the family duties, labouring with his hands to support his virgin mother;—in those days, while the Lord was still unknown, unrecognized, in the world that was made by him, comes John the Baptist. 2. His preaching. (1) "Repentance." The word means properly a change of mind, an inner, spiritual change. It is the first note of warning in the New Testament, the first practical exhortation addressed generally to all men—the first sermon in the First Gospel. St. John, indeed, belonged rather to the Law than to the gospel. He was the embodiment of the Old Testament, as Christ is the embodiment of the New. But he was preparing the way of the Lord, announcing the kingdom that was coming; therefore he preached repentance. A mighty change must come over all who are to be true citizens of that kingdom, fellow-citizens with the saints. All needed that great change. The Sadducees must lay aside their false doctrine, their worldliness, their indifference; the Pharisees must be set free from their formalism, their hypocrisy, their self-righteousness. All who would receive the Christ, who would come to him for peace and for salvation, must alike repent. Old things must pass away; all things must become new; indifference must make way for devotion, selfishness for self-sacrifice, the love of the world for the holy love of God,. This is the blessed change of repentance, the great need of every human soul. (2) The kingdom of heaven. The Hebrew nation had been the kingdom of God, the theocracy. But Daniel had prophesied a kingdom’ that should fill the whole earth, that should never be destroyed an ever-lasting dominion that should not pass away. That kingdom came from heaven; its government, its laws, its modes of life and thought and worship, are those of heaven; the great commonwealth of which the saints are citizens is now (ὑπάρχει) centred in heaven (Philippians 3:20); it looks to heaven as its home, its proper country; it shall be established there when the kingdoms of this world shall have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. It is the great Church of Christ, the congregation of Christian people dispersed throughout the whole world. It was at hand, not yet come, but very near. Those who would be true citizens of that heavenly kingdom must repent; they must die unto sin, they must receive the consecration of a new and higher life. It is true still as it was then, "Except ye be converted,… ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." 3. His description. (1) By the prophet. He was a voice. John himself applied that description to himself (John 1:23). Be was not the Christ, he said, not Elias, not that prophet; he was but a voice. Humility was one of his most striking characteristics. It was scarcely to be looked for in a man of his stern, severe character. In such a one you would expect unworldliness, self-sacrifice, austere self-control; but scarcely that deep, sincere humility which marked the holy Baptist. The power of God’s Spirit can unite in one personality graces which seem almost incompatible. "He must increase, but I must decrease," he said afterwards. He had been famous while Christ was still unknown. He was willing to be forgotten so that Christ should be glorified; nay, in his Utter self-forgetfulness, he rejoiced with joy in the overshadowing glory of the greater Prophet. He is an example to all Christian preachers. He was only a voice—the voice of one crying. His preaching was powerful, aggressive, energetic; the voice was loud and strong. His self-forgetfulness, the intensity of his conviction, gave strength to his preaching. It was the voice of one crying in the wilderness, not in great cities, not in the crowded haunts of men. God sets his ministers sometimes in what seems to them a wilderness; they must work there, where he has placed them; each must do his best in that station to which God has called him. The voice must sound everywhere—in the quiet country and in the great city, in the cottage and in the palace. God sends his ministers where it pleases him; they must accept the leadings of his providence. "Here am I; send me," is the trustful answer of the obedient Christian. But what was the cry? "Prepare ye the way of the Lord." Isaiah’s words, it may be, referred in their primary sense to the return from the Captivity. The Lord of hosts was about to lead his people back; he goeth before them. A high way through the desert must be made for the great King; every valley must be exalted, every mountain and hill made low. But they had a deeper meaning, a more august fulfilment. The Lord, the incarnate God, was coming now. The proud heart must be abased; the hands that hang down, the feeble knees, must be lifted up; the path must be made straight;. there must be no wavering, no inconsistency, no crooked designs, but a simple, straightforward, decided readiness to receive the coming Saviour. He was at hand; soon he would knock at the door; the gates must be lifted up; the hearts of men must be prepared to welcome and to admit the Lord of glory. (2) By the evangelist. He was an ascetic; he wore the rough garment of the prophet; like Elijah, he was a hairy man. He was a Nazarite; his unshorn locks waved rough and long in the wind; he drank neither wine nor strong drink; his food was of the commonest, that which the desert supplied—locusts and wild honey, the food of the very poor. He was a very high saint of God, but a saint of the Old Testament type rather than of the New; suited for the times, as Elijah had been; greater than any who had preceded him. But, our Lord has told us, "he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." II. HIS BAPTISM. 1. The multitudes. There was great excitement. It was a time of eager expectation. John’s character, his asceticism, his strange, solitary life, his stern, awful, heart-stirring preaching, commanded attention. Multitudes went out to listen to him—"Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan." The wilderness was lonely no more; it was filled with thronging crowds. There was an attraction not to be resisted in his preaching. Men could not but come; they could not but listen. Alas! they did not, most of them, repent. To the many he was what Ezekiel had been in his time, "a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument;" for they heard his words, but they did them not. 2. They were baptized of him in Jordan. He preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. John baptized with water; Christ, with the Holy Ghost and with fire. John’s baptism was a preparatory rite; Christ’s baptism was a sacrament of regeneration, the one baptism (Ephesians 4:5). John’s baptism was unto repentance; Christ’s baptism was into Christ. John’s baptism was incomplete; it was not baptism with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13); it did not remove the necessity of Christian baptism (Acts 19:5). But it was a holy rite, performed in accordance with the Divine command (John 1:33), symbolical, like the purifications under the Law, of that spiritual cleansing which the sinful heart needs, and consecrated at last by the example of the Lord Jesus himself. 3. Their confession. The Greek word seems to imply that the confession was complete, not a mere general acknowledgment of sinfulness, but a special confession of definite sins. John’s baptism was unto repentance; confession was the preliminary, the pledge of that repentance without which the baptism was an empty sign. God requires confession of us, not necessarily to man, but to himself. There is no word of Holy Scripture more precious than that gracious promise, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." III. HIS OF THE AND . 1. They came to his baptism. It was strange—the Pharisees came with their intense sectarianism, their hollow formalism; the Sadducees with their indifference, their unbelief. But they came; the power of John’s preaching, the attraction of his character and ascetic life, the widespread excitement, drew them with the multitudes who flocked to the banks of Jordan. So people come now in crowds to hear a great preacher; but, alas! often their hearts are not touched. They listen, but they are not converted. Did they seek to be baptized? We might have thought that they were drawn to John only by curiosity, but the Greek preposition seems to imply that they sought baptism at his hands. We cannot tell their motive. Perhaps it was simply the strong current of public opinion; they came because others came; as, alas! many come to church nowadays. Perhaps it was the desire to stand well in the sight of the people, who all regarded John as a prophet. Certainly it was not the right motive. John was unwilling to receive them; they were unfit for his baptism; they wanted the baptism only, not the repentance; the putting away of the filth of the flesh, not the inquiry of a good conscience after God; they did not feel the need of that change of heart which was the necessary preparation for the coming kingdom. Probably John refused to receive them. St. Luke tells us (Luke 7:30) that the Pharisees generally were not baptized of him. 2. His address. (1) He rebukes them. Mark his unsparing severity. He was no flatterer. The high places in the Church were then in the hands of the Sadducees. The Pharisees had great influence; men revered them for their supposed sanctity; they were the recognized guides of public opinion. But John had no soft words for them. It is painful to Christians to speak sternly; but sometimes holy sternness is necessary, sometimes it is a bounden duty. It is never more necessary than in the case of those who have deluded themselves into the belief that they are righteous men, while their religion is mere formalism, hypocrisy, outside pretence. John called them a generation of vipers, offspring of vipers; our Lord used the same strong words afterwards. They were like the serpent in Genesis-cunning, deceitful; dangerous; all the more so, because they hid their venom under the appearance of godliness. The Baptist distrusted them: "Who hath warned you?" he said. He had not expected that such as they would seek his baptism. He knew the hardness of their hearts, the hollowness of the formalism to which they had enslaved themselves, their pride and confidence in their exclusive privileges. Nothing short of a miracle, he thought, could arouse them. They knew, indeed, that there was wrath to come; but they supposed it was reserved for the Gentiles, and that they, the seed of Abraham, were safe. Could it be that God’s Holy Spirit had touched even those proud zealots, and softened even those stony hearts? Nothing is impossible with God. If he bears with hardened sinners, his ministers may well bear with them. Therefore (2) he counsels them. They must show the sincerity of their repentance by bringing forth the fruit of a holy life—fruit worthy of the repentance which they professed. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. Repentance is a change of heart and thought; such a change must manifest itself in a renewed, a consecrated life. They must not trust in their descent from Abraham. God could raise up children to Abraham from the very pebbles that lay in the bed of Jordan. He would gather Gentile believers in crowds into his Church. They would become heirs of the faith of Abraham, true children of that father of many nations, in whose seed all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. We must always be on our guard against putting our trust in external privileges. Those privileges may be very great, very precious helps; but they are only helps toward the spiritual life; they are not the life itself. We must not dare to despise others who seem destitute of our privileges, but rather strive always to show, by increasing holiness of life, that we value and use the blessings which have been conferred upon us. And This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 4:1-11 THE . The Father’s acceptance of the Lord’s consecration of himself for the work of the kingdom does not exclude temptation, but rather necessitates it. Psychologically, the reaction from the ecstasy of joy in hearing the announcement of Mat 3:17 was certain; ethically, such testing as would accompany the reaction was desirable. Even the Baptist was, as it seems, not without a special temptation during this period (cf. John 1:19; and Bishop Westcott’s note). At the very commencement of his official life the Lord is led consciously to realize that he has entered on a path of complete trust (even as his brethren in the flesh, Hebrews 2:13) for all personal needs, a path which required great calmness and common sense, and along which he must take his orders for final victory, not from worldly principles, but direct from God. In Luke the order of the second and third temptations is reversed. Against the supposition of Godet and Ellicott, that St. Luke is historically correct, the "Get thee hence Satan!" (verse 10) seems conclusive. At any rate, for St. Matthew’s aim in this Gospel the temptation that he places third is the crucial one; the true King will not take an irregular method of acquiring sovereignty. Matthew 4:1 Then; temporal. Mark, "and straightway." Immediately after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon him. Was led up . into the wilderness. Up (Matthew only); from the Jordan valley into the higher country round (cf. Joshua 16:1), in this case into the desert (Matthew 3:1). There is nothing told us by which we may identify the place, but as the scene of the temptation must have been near the scene of the baptism, namely, on the west side of Jordan (Matthew 3:1, note), it may be presumed that the temptation was on the west side also. The sharp limestone peak (Godet) known since the Crusades as Quarantana, "from the quarantain, or forty days of fasting", may, perhaps, have been the actual spot. The only important objection to this is that directly after the temptation (as seems most probable) he comes to John in "Bethany beyond Jordan," John 1:28 (not necessarily to be identified with "Bethabara" of the Received Text; its locality is quite unknown). If he went east of Jordan after the temptation, he would still be on one of the great roads to Galilee (Luke 9:52, etc.). The conjecture that the fasting and temptation took place on Sinai is suggested by the analogy of Moses and Elijah, but by absolutely nothing in the Gospels. Led up of the Spirit into the wilderness; Mark, "the Spirit driveth him forth;" Luke, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led in the Spirit in the wilderness" (with a leading that lasted throughout the temptation, ἤγετο … ἐν... ἐν … πειραζόμενος). He was no doubt himself inclined to go apart into the desert that he might meditate uninterruptedly upon the assurance just given, and the momentous issues involved in his baptism; but the Holy Spirit had also his own purposes with him. The Holy Spirit cannot, indeed, tempt, but he can and does lead us into circumstances where temptation is permitted, that we may thereby be proved and disciplined for future work. In Christ’s case the temptation was an important part of that moral suffering by which he learned full obedience (Hebrews 5:8). Notice that even if the expression in Matthew 3:16, "the Spirit of God descending," does not in itself go beyond the expressions of Jewish teachers who deny his Personality, it would be hard to find so personal an action as is implied by the words, "Jesus was led up of the Spirit," attributed to the Spirit in non-Christian writings. For Isaiah 63:10, Isaiah 63:11, Isaiah 63:14 is much less definite, and passages, e.g. in Ezekiel 3:12-14, interpret themselves by Ezekiel 1:21. To St. Matthew himself the Personality of the Holy Ghost must, in the light of Mat 28:19, have been an assured fact. To be tempted of the devil. So Luke; i.e. the great calumniator, him whose characteristic is false accusation; e.g. against men (Revelation 12:10-12); against God (Genesis 3:1-5). Here chiefly in the latter aspect. Each of the three temptations, and they are typical of all temptations; is primarily a calumniation of God and his methods. Mark has "of Satan," a Hebrew word equivalent to "adversary," which the LXX. nearly always renders by διαβάλλω, (compare also Numbers 22:22, Numbers 22:32). Probably by the time of the LXX. the idea of the evil spirit accusing as in a law-court, was more prominent than the earlier thought of him as an adversary. Spiritual resistance by the evil spirit to all good is a less-developed thought than his traducing God to man, and, after some success obtained, traducing man to God. Evil may resist good; it may also accuse both God and those made after the likeness of God. Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted … he was afterwards an hungred. He was so absorbed in prayer that it was only after his six weeks meditation that he felt the need of food. But though his humanity had been elevated and his spiritual sense quickened by this at the time almost unconscious fast, it left him physically prostrate and completely exposed to attack. "In certain morbid conditions, which involve a more or less entire abstinence from food, a period of six weeks generally brings about a crisis, after which the demand for nourishment is renewed with extreme urgency. The exhausted body becomes a prey to a deathly sinking. Such, doubtless, was the condition of Jesus; he felt himself dying. It was the moment the tempter had waited for to make his decisive assault" (Godet). Luke probably (though not in the Revised Version) represents the temptation as continuous during the whole period. Of this Matthew says nothing, but only describes the final scenes, when the might of the tempter was felt to the uttermost, and his defeat was most crucial. Forty. Trench’s remark is well worth study: "On a close examination we note it to be everywhere there [i.e. in Holy Scripture] the number or signature of penalty, of affliction, of the confession, or the punishment, of sin. Nights. The mention of nights as well as days brings out more vividly the continuance and the completeness of the abstinence (cf Genesis 7:4, Genesis 7:12 [17, LXX.]; Exodus 24:18; Deuteronomy 9:1-29, especially Deuteronomy 9:18; 1 Kings 19:8). Matthew 4:3 The tempter (1 Thessalonians 3:5 only; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3). Came; came up to him (προσελθών). The word expresses local nearness, and suggests, though we cannot affirm it as certain, that he appeared visibly. The thought of physical nearness is continued in "taketh him" (Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:8), and "the devil leaveth him" and "angels came near" (Matthew 4:11; cf. Matthew 4:5, note). On the other hand, such expressions may be parabolic, and intended to express the closeness of the spiritual combat. To him; not after "came," but after "said" (Revised Version, with manuscripts). If thou be; art (Revised Version) (ει) … εἶ)—the "if" of assumption (cf. Colossians 3:1). The devil does not attempt to throw doubt on the truth of the utterance in Matthew 3:17. His words rather mean, "Thou knowest what was said, thou bast been gradually realizing that assurance of Sonship; use, then, that privilege which thou undoubtedly hast" (comp. Matthew 27:40, where, in mockery, the same truth is assumed). Wetstein, following Origen and pseudo-Ignatius,’ Philipp.,’ § 9, says that the tempter did not know, or at least doubted, whether Jesus was really God, for otherwise he would never have tempted him. This is, surely, to miss the meaning of the temptation for our Lord himself; for he was tempted as Man. Satan might well haw known that he was God incarnate, and yet not have known whether as Man he might not yield. Weiss (’Life,’ 1:343) mistakenly thinks that the object of this first temptation was to insinuate doubt in the mind of Jesus as to his Messiahship. "Command that these stones become bread, and if thou canst not do so, then thou art not the Son of God." Command that; εἰπὸνἵνα (cf. Matthew 20:21, and Winer,§ 44:8). These stones, ie. lying about. Farrar suggests that there is a special reference to the "loaf-shaped fossils," septaria, which are found in Palestine—as, indeed, in most other countries. But though these "flattened nodules of calcareous clay, ironstone, or other matter" often assume fantastic shapes, perhaps even distantly resembling either an English loaf or a fiat Jewish cake (vide infra) , it seems quite unnecessary to see any allusion to them here. (For the comparison of bread and a stone, cf. Matthew 7:9.) Be made; Revised Version, become; rightly, because there is no thought of the process of manufacture in γένωνται, Bread; Revised Version margin, "Greek, loaves" (ἄρτοι). "The Israelites made bread in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one’s thumb, and as large as a plate or Platter; hence it was not cut, but [e.g. Matthew 1:1-25 Matthew 4:19] broken" (Thayer). In Luke the devil points to one stone only, and tempts him to bid it become a loaf. Matthew 4:4 It is written. Our Lord’s three quotations are from Deuteronomy 8:3; Deuteronomy 6:16, Deuteronomy 6:13. Some portion of Deuteronomy (Matthew 6:4-9; Matthew 11:13-21, because included in the Sh’ma) was the first part of Scripture taught a Jewish child. Possibly, though there is no evidence upon the subject, the neighbouring portions were often added. If they had been in our Lord’s case, such a recurrence of them to his mind in his present state of exhaustion is in complete accord with psychological probability. Man … God (Deuteronomy 8:3, LXX.). As we could not accept Weiss’s interpretation of the object of the devil’s temptation, so neither can we accept his interpretation of our Lord’s reply, that it is equivalent to "Not by means either natural or supernatural, is man’s life really sustained, but by exact obedience to God’s command." Our Lord quotes the passage in its primary meaning, which was fully applicable to the present occasion. It is equivalent to "Man lives, not necessarily by natural means, but by even supernatural means, if God so wishes." "The creative word, the ῥῆμαΘεοῦ, which alone imparts to the bread its sustaining power, can sustain, even as he is confident that in the present need it will sustain, apart from the bread". The words of Deuteronomy are paraphrased in Wis. 16:26, where the author, in a thoroughly Jewish exposition, enumerates the lessons taught by the giving of the manna. "It was altered … that thy children, O Lord, whom thou lovest, might know that it is not the growing of fruits that nourisheth man; but that it is thy Word, which preserveth them that put their trust in thee." By every word. Ἐπί (Textus Receptus; Westcott and Hort) is doubtless right. The alteration to ἐν (Lathmann, Tregelles) is probably due to a tendency towards the simple expression of means, but perhaps to the feeling that life, especially spiritual life, is maintained rather in a sphere than on a basis (cf. Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12). Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up. Revised Version omits "up." Matthew (παραλαμβάνει, here and verse 8) lays stress on the companionship, and, in a sense, compulsion; Luke (ἤγαγεν, verse 9; ἀναγαγὼν, verse 5), on guidance and locality. Into the holy city (Luke, "into Jerusalem"). From Isaiah 52:1, the end of which verse, "There shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean," heightens the implied contrast of the devil’s presence there. (For the expression, cf. also Matthew 27:53; Revelation 11:2; Revelation 21:2,Revelation 21:10; also Hebrews 11:1-40.,12.) The name has remained down to the present day (El-Kuds). And setteth; and he set (Revised Version, with manuscripts). The right reading (ἔστησεν, as in Luke) is probably a trace of the basis common to the two records. Possibly, however, it may here be a merely accidental similarity with Luke (who employs the aorist throughout the section), caused by Matthew’s desire to emphasize the momentariness of the devil’s act. Some think that, as at the end of the temptation Christ is in the wilderness, this removal to Jerusalem is solely mental, without any motion of his body. Improbable; for to make such a temptation real, our Lord’s mind must have suffered complete illusion. He must have thought that he was "on the pinnacle." On a (the, Revised Version) pinnacle of the temple (ἐπὶτογιοντοῦἱεροῦ) What is exactly meant by this definite and evidently well-known term is not easy now to determine. "Some understand this of the top or apex of the sanctuary (τοῦναοῦ) [cf. Hegesippus, in Eusebius, ’Hist. Eccl.,’ Ecclesiastes 2:23:11, 12 (Heinichen), where the Jews bid James stand, ἐπὶτογιοντοῦἱεροῦ, and it is afterwards said that they set him ἐπὶτογιοντοῦναοῦ]; others of the top of Solomon’s porch; and others of the top of the Royal Portico" (Thayer). Of this last Josephus (’Ant.,’ 15.11. 5) makes special mention, saying, in his exaggerated style, that human sight could not reach from the top of it to the bottom of the ravine on whose edge it stood. Edersheim (’Life,’ etc., 1:303) thinks that possibly the term means "the extreme corner of the ’wing-like’ porch, or ulam, which led into the Sanctuary." This last would suit a possible interpretation of Dan 9:27, as referring to a part of the temple under the name of "the pinnacle," which had been used for heathen sacrifices, probably in the worship of the sun. Cf. Revised Version margin there, with the ἐπὶτον of Theodotion’s version, and also the LXX. itself (vide Field’s ’Hexapla’). Matthew 4:6 If thou be the Son of God (Matthew 4:3, note). For it is written. Psalms 91:11,Psalms 91:12, verbally from the LXX., but omitting the clause, "to keep thee in all thy ways." Luke omits only "in all thy ways." The clause, according to either record, was omitted possibly because the devil shrank from reminding Jesus of "ways" which he need not take; more probably because ’ ways" hardly fitted this case (cf. Weiss). Trench, following St. Bernard, says that the omission of the clause alters the whole character of the quotation, considering that "ways" implies ways appointed by God. But this appears to be strained. The devil, appealing to Jesus’ consciousness of abiding communion with God (Psalms 91:1), bids him enjoy to the full the promise of God’s protection. There is no thought here of a "miracle of display" to the multitudes who were assembled, "as a matter of course," on the temple area (Meyer; cf. even Trench). Neither the devil’s solicitation nor our Lord’s reply hint at anything else than Divine protection. If it be urged that for this any one of the many precipices by the Dead Sea, e.g. those of the Quamntana (verse 1, note) itself, would have been sufficient, the answer may be found in the fact that at the temple, the seat of God’s special manifestation, God’s special protection might be looked for. There is a slight doubt whether the ὅτι after γέγραπται is recitative (Westcott and Hort, and most) or part of the quotation (Rheims, Meyer, Weiss). In favour of the latter view is the fact that the recitative ὅτι is not used elsewhere in this section (verses 4, 7, 10), but as in Luke 4:10 it can hardly be other than recitative (for another ὅτι is inserted before "on their hands"), the probability is that it was recitative in the oral source, and therefore recitative here. In their hands; Revised Version, on; ἐπὶχειρῶν. The thought is not so much of surrounding care as of physical support through space. Lest at any time; Revised Version, lest haply; and so always, for "in the New Testament use of rids particle (μήποτέ) the notion of time usual to ποτέ seems to recede before that of contingency" (Thayer). Matthew 4:7 It is written again; i.e. in addition, not to our Lord’s previous quotation (Matthew 4:4), in which case we should expect to lind πάλιν in Matthew 4:10, but to the devil’s appeal to Scripture. Bengel, "Scriptura per Scripturam interpretanda et concilianda". Thou shalt not tempt (Deuteronomy 6:16, verbally from the LXX., and equivalent to the Hebrew, except that the Hebrew verb is in the plural). In Deuteronomy the sentence continues, "as ye tempted him in Massah;" i.e. ye shall not test the reality of his presence and the greatness of his power as ye did (Exodus 17:1-7) at Rephidim. The act proposed to our Lord would have been precisely parallel to that sin of old (cf. Judith’s words to the people of Bethulia that, by fixing a limit of days for God to deliver them, they in reality tempted God [ἐπειράσατετὸνΘεόν] Judith 8:12: cf. also Psalms 78:41). "In this refusal of Christ’s are implicitly condemned all who run before they are sent, who thrust themselves into perils to which they are not called; all who would fain be reformers, but whom God has not raised up and equipped for the work of reformation; and who therefore for the most part bring themselves and their cause together to shame, dishonour, and defeat; with all those who presumptuously draw drafts on the faithfulness of God, which they have no scriptural warrant to justify them in believing that He will honour". Matthew 4:8 Into an exceeding high mountain (εἰςὄροςὑψηλὸνλίαν; cf. Ezekiel 40:2; Revelation 21:10). Not in Luke. While no material mountain would have enabled our Lord to see all the kingdoms, etc., with his bodily eyes, it is probable that the physical elevation and distance of landscape would psychologically help such a vision. The Quarantana, which "commands a noble prospect", may have been the spot. In the case of Ezekiel it is expressly said that his being "brought into the land of Israel, and set upon a very high mountain," was only "in the visions of God." All the kingdoms of the world (τοῦκόσμου; but Luke, τῆςρἰκουμένηςs, i.e. of the whole world as occupied by man, cf. Bishop Westcott on Hebrews 2:5). Cyrus says (Ezra 1:2), "All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord, the God of heaven, given me." And the glory of them’; "i.e. their resources, wealth, the magnificence and greatness of their cities, their fertile lands, their thronging population" (Thayer); cf. Matthew 6:29; Revelation 21:24, Revelation 21:26. The kingdoms themselves and their outward show. Contrast the words of the seraphim, "The whole earth is full of his glory" (Isaiah 6:3). In Luke this expression does not occur at this point, but in the tempter’s words. As it there comes more abruptly, that is perhaps the more original position. St. Luke adds, "In a moment of time." Matthew 4:9 All these things will I give thee (ταῦτάσοιπάνταδώσω). The devil puts "these things" and "thee" in the sharpest contrast. In Luke the devil says, "To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it [i.e. the authority] hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it;" i.e. there the devil speaks of giving, not actual possession of the things themselves (Matthew), but the authority that this implied, "and the glory of them." According to St. Luke, he does not attempt to conceal the fact that he has not absolute possession, but he claims authority as delegated to him, and as capable of being delegated by him to another. His claim was false as absolutely stated, but is true relatively in so far that even his usurpation of power must have been permitted (of. our Lord’s term for him, "The prince of this world"). If thou wilt fall down and worship me; i.e. prostrate thyself in obeisance before me—the Eastern method of acknowledging the superiority of a person (cf. Genesis 23:7; 1 Samuel 20:41; 2 Samuel 1:2; 2 Samuel 9:6). The expression does not mean "worship me as God" (for this surely was far too coarse a temptation to overcome any even ordinarily pious Israelite; cf. Weiss), but "acknowledge my rights as over-lord." It is not a question of apostasy (1 Kings 18:21; cf. Joshua 24:15), but of submission to the methods inculcated by Satan, which placed the immediate and the visible above the future and the unseen (Genesis 3:5; Exodus 32:4). Matthew 4:10 Get thee hence, Satan. "Avaunt, Satan" (Rheims). Christ does not address him.directly till this climax. The two previous temptations were, comparatively speaking, ordinary and limited. This temptation calls out a passionate utterance of a personality stirred, because touched, in its depths. Only once again do we find our Lord so moved, in Matthew 16:23 (the "Western" and "Syrian" addition here of ὀπίσωμου from that passage emphasizes the feeling common to the two cases), when a similar representation is made to him that he ought to escape the troubles which his Messianic position, in fact, brought upon him. For it is written (Deuteronomy 6:13); from the LXX., which differs from the Hebrew by (1) translating ארית, "fear," by προσκυνήσεις (but B has φοβηθήσῃ); and (2) the paraphrastic insertion of "only." Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Worship; προσκυνέω) , as in Matthew 16:9. Serve; λατρεύω, "in perfect subjection to a sovereign power" (Bishop Westcott on Hebrews 8:2, Add. Note). Our Lord’s reply cuts up the devil’s solicitation by the root. "I do not enter," he means, "into the question of thy authority over these things, and of thy power concerning them. I acknowledge thee not. The command which I willingly obey excludes all homage and service to any other over-lord than God alone. I accept not thy orders and thy methods. I take my commands direct from God." Observe that our Lord does not say how he is to gain the kingdoms for his own; this would be the care of him whose command he follows. But before ascending, the Lord proclaimed (Matthew 28:18) that he had received (i.e. gained through suffering, Hebrews 2:10: Philippians 2:9) more than (note "in heaven") what the devil would have given him as a reward of obedience to false principles. Matthew 4:11 The devil leaveth him; Luke, "departed from him for a season." For though there are crises of temptation, the devil never finally gives up his attack while the object of it is still on earth. May not even direct assaults be included in the remarkable epitome of Messianic life found in Luke 22:28? And, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. Kept back before both by the presence of the evil one, and by the need for the God-Man to contend alone, they now came up to him and ministered to him so long as they could be helpful (for the change of tenses, cf. Matthew 8:15). Mark however (Mark 1:13) implies that they had been present at other times than after this last crisis. Ministered; possibly supplying his bodily need (cf. Matthew 8:15; Luke 10:40); but as, after all, bodily sustenance is but secondary to spiritual, the latter must at least be included (cf. Hebrews 1:14). In Luke 22:43 the "strengthening" would appear to be of his whole nature within and without, through the medium of his spirit. Matthew 4:12-16 JESUS’ INTO GALILEE. According to some commentators, a new section begins here; but probably these verses are still preliminary. Our Lord’s activity does not begin till Matthew 4:17. But now he withdraws to Galilee, settling in Capernaum, thus fulfilling prophecy. Matthew 4:12 Now when Jesus had heard. If we had the synoptic Gospels alone, we should have supposed that the Baptist was imprisoned immediately after the end of our Lord’s temptation (cf. this verse with Luke 4:14); but St. John (John 3:24) expressly states that he had not been cast into prison when the events recorded in John 1:43-3:23 took place. "For a time Christ and the Baptist worked side by side, preaching ’ repentance’ (Mark 1:15 [also Matthew 4:17]) and baptizing [John 3:22]. The Messiah took up the position of a prophet in Judaea, as afterwards in Galilee" (Bishop Westcott, on John 3:22-24). The events in Galilee related in John 2:1-12 were "preparatory to the manifestation at Jerusalem which was the real commencement of Christ’s Messianic work. St. John records the course and issue of this manifestation: the other Evangelists start with the record of the Galilaean ministry, which dates from the imprisonment of the Baptist" (Bishop Westcott, on John 3:24). He adds, on John 4:43, "It seems probable that the earlier part of the synoptic narratives (Mark 1:14—2:14, and parallels) must be placed in the interval which extended from John 4:43-5:1." Matthew alone states directly that the news of the Baptist having been taken by Herod was the motive of our Lord’s withdrawal into Galilee. He says nothing to show whether our Lord withdrew because he would avoid a like treatment himself, or, as is on the whole more likely, because he did not wish to be mixed up in the tumults to which John’s capture appears to have given rise (cf. Matthew 14:5). Was cast into prison; "was delivered up"; παρεδόθη, absolutely. If the more proper meaning of the word may be insisted on, the thought is of the person to whom John was committed rather than of the place; John being delivered up, that is to say, by Herod to his officials. But in usage it appears rather to mean only compulsory removal, loss of liberty. Mark points out the temporary protection that the imprisonment gave to John against the resentment of Herodias. He departed; Revised Version, he withdrew; ἀνεχώρησεν,. A favourite word of St. Matthew’s. It always implies some motive for the change of place, and is frequently used of departure directly consequent upon knowledge acquired. Hence it often implies a feeling of danger. Into Galilee; whence he had come (Matthew 3:13). Hence "returned" (Luke). In Galilee he would still be in Herod’s dominions; but, as being in his own home, he would not attract so much attention. N.B.—Between verses 12 and 13 some place the incident of his preaching at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30); but verse 23 of that passage assumes much previous work at Capernaum, and can therefore hardly be as early as this. Matthew 4:13 And leaving Nazareth. Finally as a place of residence. The form Ναζαρά occurs only here and Luke 4:16, which in itself well suits the opinion that Luke 4:16-30 is only a fuller account of this sojourn at Nazareth (cf. Weiss, ’ Matthaus-Evang.’). He came and dwelt; i.e. made his home in (cf. Matthew 2:23). Not as having a house of his own there, so that he could take shelter in it as of right (cf. Matthew 8:20, "The foxes have holes," etc.); but probably settling his mother there, and being himself generally admitted to some one’s house (perhaps Peter’s, cf. Matthew 8:14, Matthew 8:16) when he came to the town. In Capernaum. Most probably the modern Tell-hum, upon the north-western shore, two miles from where the Jordan enters the lake. On the interesting relic of the synagogue, presumably that built by the centurion (Luke 7:5), vide especially Bishop Westcott on John 6:59. The identification with Tell-Hum can, however, hardly be considered as absolutely settled. "Some of the narratives of pilgrims of the sixth and seventh centuries appear to place Capernaum here. Jewish authors mention a place called Karat Tankhum, or Nakhum; and as the Arabic Tell ("hill") might easily be substituted for the word Kaphar ("village"), and Nakhum corrupted to Hum, Capernaum and Tell-Hum may be identical. On the other hand, Sepp supposes that the name of the Minim (Jewish Christians), who are known to have been numerous at Capernaum down to the time of Constantine, has been preserved in the Khan Minyeh". Which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim. The details are mentioned to show the accordance with the following prophecy. Neubauer points out that, according to Joshua 19:33, Joshua 19:34, and the notices in the Talmud, the whole western side of the lake was in Naphtali, and that hence Capernaum could not, strictly speaking, be "in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim." He himself explains the discrepancy by saying that St. Matthew imitates the Haggadistic methods in accommodating the geography to the text he quotes. But it is clear that the expression is satisfied by the fact that Zebulun was really near Capernaum, and that numbers of those who frequented the town must have come from Zebulun. The position of Capernaum thus formed quite a sufficient reason for quoting the prophecy in Isaiah. Our evangelist, who (Isaiah 2:1-22.) had noticed the coining of distant heathen to worship Messiah, though he was persecuted by the then ruler of the nation, found it very significant that his public activity should begin at a distance from the home of the hierarchy, and in a district which had been the first to suffer from heathen attacks in the past, and had at the present moment a population in which there was a great mixture of the heathen element (cf. Weiss, ’Matthiaus-Evang.’). Matthew 4:15 The land of Zabulon, etc. From Isaiah 9:1, Isaiah 9:2, spoiled in the Authorized Version, but rendered correctly in the Revised Version. Isaiah says that those parts of the land which had borne the first brunt of the Assyrian invasions under Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings 15:29; el. Zechariah 10:10), shall be proportionately glorified by the advent of Messiah. Wetstein gives a tradition from the ’Pesikt. Zut.,’ of Messiah ben Joseph first appearing in Galilee; hut the whole passage clearly points to a knowledge of the New Testament. As to the form of the quotation, observe: (1) Matthew disregards the Hebrew construction, and gives merely the general sense. (2) He takes it from the Hebrew, not the LXX. (3) This last point is doubtless to be connected with the fact that the quotation does not occur in the other Gospels, i.e. that it did not belong to the Petrine cycle of teaching, and if it did belong to the "Matthean" cycle, not to that form which was current among Gentile Christians. Zabulon and … Nephthalim, equivalent to the later Upper and Lower Galilee. By the way of the sea; toward the sea (Revised Version); cf. Jeremiah 2:18; "i.e. the district on the W. of the Sea of Galilee, as opposed to ’the other side of Jordan,’ and ’the circle of the nations,’ i.e. the frontier districts nearest to Phoenicia, including ’the land of Cabul’ (1 Kings 9:11-13), which formed part of the later Upper Galilee. Via Marls, M. Renan observes, was the name of the high road from Acre to Damascus, as late as the Crusades. ’Way,’ however, here means ’region’ (cf. Isaiah 58:12; Job 24:4)" (Cheyne, on Isaiah 9:1). Yet hardly so; ὁδόν, is adverbial, 1 Kings 8:48 (equivalent to 2 Chronicles 6:38), and designates the stretching of the districts of Zebulun and Naphtali towards the sea. The sea is the Sea of Galilee. The close union of this clause in the Authorized Version with the following words, "beyond Jordan," misses its true meaning as explanatory of the position of Zebulun and Naphtali, and rather takes it as describing some special locality east of Jordan. Beyond Jordan; i.e. the eastern side, mentioned in 2 Kings 15:29 as having suffered with Naphtali under the Assyrian invasion; see further 2 Kings 15:25. Galilee of the Gentiles (vide supra, "by the way of the sea"). Matthew 4:16 The people which sat; "who walk" (Hebrew). Saw great light; saw a great light (Revised Version); unnecessarily except as a matter of English, for it can hardly mean a definite light, Messiah. Φῶς both here and in the next clause means light as such. And to them which sat. So the Hebrew, but the LXX. generally οἱκατοικοῦντες. In the region and shadow of death. The region where death abides, and where it casts its thickest shade. The Hebrew is simply "in the land of the shadow of death" (תומלץ צראב, according to the traditional interpretation), which the present LXX. (Vatican) probably represents (ἐνχώρᾳσκιᾷθανάτου) , the ς of σκιᾶς having been misread before θ. But copyists, not understanding this, inserted καὶ between χώρᾳ and σκιᾷ (as in A), and this reading became popularly known, and was used by the evangelist. That the reading of A was derived from the evangelist is unlikely, for the reading σκιᾷ must, at all events, have been before his time. Light is sprung up; to them, did light spring up (Revised Version); ἀνέτειλεν. The tense emphasizes not the abiding effect (e.g. in the fact that so many of the disciples were Galilaeans), but the moment of his appearance. The father of the Baptist also remembered this passage of Isaiah (Luke 1:78, Luke 1:79, where cf. Godet). Matthew 16:17-20 THE FIRST STAGE OF CHRIST’S WORK AND . Matthew 4:17 The proclamation. From that time; ἀπὸτότε (elsewhere in the New Testament only Matthew 16:21; Matthew 26:16; Luke 16:16); i.e. from the time of his residence in Capernaum (Matthew 4:13). Apparently our Lord, after the baptism, went to John (vide supra, verse 1), then retired to Galilee, going first to Nazareth, then finally leaving it as his home for Capernaum. At Caper-nauru his public activity begins. From that time; the phrase expresses not merely "at that time," but "from that time," as the starting-point. Henceforth this was to be his message, even though its form might be altered. The phrase marks, as in Matthew 16:21, the commencement of a new stage in his life. His earlier work with John the Baptist is not included in the oral Gospel, probably because the twelve were not yet joined to him in formal and continuous adhesion. Repent, etc. His words are exactly the same as the Baptist’s (Matthew 3:2), with whom, indeed, he had been very lately associated. There is no evidence that he meant by them anything else than the Baptist meant. It is very intelligible that quite early (Old Syriac) an attempt should be made to harmonize this summary of his preaching rather with that of his disciples (Matthew 10:7). Matthew 4:18-22 The summons to help in his work: his first formal adherents. On the relation of this call to the meeting with Andrew and Peter, recorded in John 1:40-42, vide especially Bishop Westcott there. That was "the establishment of a personal relationship;" this "a call to an official work." Matthew 4:18 And Jesus, walking. Revised Version rightly omits "Jesus," and inserts "he" before "saw." The right reading does not detract so much from the emphatic statement of Mat 4:17. By the Sea of Galilee. His walk lay along the lake. Socin speaks of "the probability that there was a frequented road from the mouth of the Jordan skirting the bank of the lake." Two brethren, Simon … and Andrew his brother; the addition, "his brother," emphasizing the relationship. Christ’s coming would divide households (Matthew 10:21). He would, therefore, be the more glad when members of one family united in following him. Simon, etc. (vide Matthew 10:2, note). Called; Revised Version, who is called; i.e. not specially by Christ, but in common usage among Christians (Matthew 10:2). Casting a net; βάλλονταςἀμφίβληστρον (no var. lect.). Probably later than and explanatory of the form found in the parallel passage, Mark 1:16, ἀμφιβάλλοντας (alone). A net; i.e. a casting-net of circular, bell-like shape, "which, when skilfully cast from over the shoulder by one standing on the shore or in a boat, spreads out into a circle (ἀμφιβάλλεται) as it falls upon the water, and then, sinking swiftly by the weight of the leads attached to it, encloses whatever is below it" (Trench, ’Syn.,’ § 64.). It specializes δίκτυον, and differs from σαγήνη (the long draw-net, Matthew 13:47). Matthew 4:19 Follow me; come ye after me (Revised Version); δεῦτεὀπίσωμου. There is no thought of continuous following from place to place (ἀκολουθεῖν) , but of immediate detachment from the present sphere of their interest and of attachment to Jesus as their leader. And I will make you fishers of men; Mark, "to become fishers of men," laying more stress on the change in their character necessary for success in this new kind of fishing. Luke 5:10 brings out the change in the nature of the work(ἀπὸτοῦνῦν). Fishers. The word suggests care, patience, skill, besides habits of life fitted for endurance of privation and fatigue. The same promise is, as it seems, related in Luke 5:10, where notice: (1) It is connected with the miracle of the draught of fishes. (2) It is not verbally identical with this: Μὴφοβοῦἀπὸτοῦνῦνἀνθρώπουςἔσῃζωγρῶν. (3) The words are addressed individually to Simon. Matthew 4:20 And they straightway left their nets. (For their leaving everything Wetstein, on Matthew 4:19, compares Epictetus, 12, Ἐάνδὲκυβερνήτηςκαλέσῃτρέχεἐπὶτὸπλοῖονἀφεὶςἐκεῖναπάνταμηδὲνἐπιστρεφόμενος, "If the steersman call, run to the ship, leaving all those things, without regarding anything.") The Rheims Version, with its love of archaisms, has, "But they incontinent, leaving the nettes, followed him." Matthew 4:21 Other two brethren (cf. Matthew 4:18, note); in Matthew only. James the son of Zebedee. Why is the father of Peter and Andrew never mentioned, save incidentally, and by our Lord (Matthew 16:17; John 1:42; John 21:15-17)? Probably Zebedee and his wife Salome became, unlike Peter’s parents, well-known believerses It may be that Peter was the eldest of the Twelve, and that his father was already dead or, though perhaps believing on Jesus, was too old to take any special part in the work. Luke (Luke 5:10) adds, "Who were partners with Simon"—an item of information perhaps obtained from the same source as his first and second chapters. In a ship; in the boot (Revised Version), and so always in the Gospels. The word (πλοῖον) may be used of any sized vessel (equivalent to "large ship ’ in Acts 27:1-44.), but here, as managed by so few men, it is equivalent to "boat." Other words translated "boat" in the New Testament are πλοιάριον, "little boat" (Mark once, John four times), and σκάφη, "small ship’s boat" (Acts 27:16, Acts 27:30, Acts 27:32). Josephus says (’Bell. Jud.,’ Luke 2:21.8) that when he gathered all the boats on the lake to attack Tiberius, there were "not more than four sailors in each;" by which he probably means, not the number of men wherewith he was able to equip them, but the number he found already managing them. With Zebedee their father. In Matthew only. Mending their nets. The first pair of brothers were in the excitement of catching; the second had perhaps caught, and were mending their nets with a view to a fresh attempt; in neither case was there a moment’s delay. And he called them. This time his words are not given. Matthew 4:22 Left the ship and their father, and followed him (ἠκολούθησαναὐτῷ) St. Matthew emphasizes the facts that they left both natural relations and means of livelihood, and that here their continuous following of Christ began. St. Mark rather lay stress on their leaving the old life (ἀπῆλθονὀπίσωαὐτοῦ) Matthew 4:23-25 The firstfruits of popular enthusiasm. As on Christ’s call a few followed him (Matthew 4:20-22), so after his circuit in Galilee did crowds, from all parts of the Holy Land, also follow him (Matthew 4:25), though less immediately and devotedly. As to these verses (23-25), notice— (1) Nearly all Matthew 4:23 recurs in Matthew 9:35. (2) Matthew 9:24, Matthew 9:25 occur in the parallels in different connexions. St. Mark places them in Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, after he has recorded details of many miracles which are found later in Matthew. St. Luke places them in Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, immediately before the sermon on the mount (as in Matthew), but after the call of the Twelve. (3) St. Matthew, therefore, did not arrange his Gospel with a sole regard to chronology. (4) The verses are clearly a summary of our Lord’s work and influence in the early part of his ministry. (5) Weiss (’Manual,’ 2.277, etc.) considers that verses 23 and 24 are a heading to the description of the teaching and healing activity of Jesus (Matthew 4:25—9:34), and that the repetition of verse 23 in Matthew 9:35 marks the heading of the next section (Matthew 9:36-14:12). It is, indeed, remarkable that in Matthew 9:35 it occurs just before the definite setting apart of the twelve, and again that the phrase, "And seeing the multitudes," is found both in Matthew 5:1 and in Matthew 9:36. Possibly the saying was part of the original setting of the two discourses, ch. 5-7 and Matthew 10:1-42. Matthew 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee; in all Galilee (Revised Version, with the manuscripts). This indicates, not so much systematic itineration round the cities in order (contrast the simple accusative in Matthew 9:35 [Mark 6:6]; 23. 15), as going hither and thither among them (cf. Acts 13:11). All (Matthew 8:34, note). Teaching … preaching … healing. Our Lord, unlike the Baptist, takes men as and where he can find them; the religious, by teaching in the synagogues; the mass of people, by preaching, presumably in public places; the sick, by healing them wherever they are brought to him. Notice the threefold cord of all Christ-like ministry—teaching, especially those who have desires heavenwards; preaching, especially to the unconverted; healing, which cares for all physical life. Synagogues. "The synagogues were places of assembly for public worship, where on sabbaths and feast-days (at a later period, also on the second and fifth days of the week) the people met together for prayer, and to listen to the reading of portions of the Old Testament, which were translated and explained in the vernacular dialect. With the permission of the president, any one who was fitted might deliver addresses" (Meyer). The gospel. The first time it occurs in the text of St. Matthew. Of the kingdom. The phrase is used thus absolutely only elsewhere in Matthew 9:35 and Matthew 24:14 (Mark 1:15 is a false reading). This expression (with Matthew 24:17, "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand") is the earliest form of the message. The good news centred in the kingdom, i.e. the realization of the position accepted by the nation at Sinai, with all that that involved,. The phrase, "the gospel of the kingdom," refers only to the blessedness of its approach, and says nothing (unlike Matthew 24:17)of the preparation for it. Healing (θεραπεύων). As compared with ἰάομαι (rare in Matthew, in the active only Matthew 13:15, which is from the LXX., but frequent in Luke) θεραπεύω thinks rather of the healer, who renders the service; ἰάομαι, rather of the healed, the completeness of the cure (cf. Matthew 8:7, Matthew 8:8), Sickness; disease, Revised Version; νόσον, laying stress on the pain and disorder. Disease; sickness, Revised Version; μαλακίαν, laying stress on the weakness. (For the two words in combination, cf. Deuteronomy 7:15.) Among the people (ἐντῷλαῷ). These words are wanting in the true text of Mat 9:35. The people; i.e. the Jews, as contrasted with those included in Matthew 9:24. Not that St. Matthew means to exclude any sick Gentile who happened to be living among the Jews; but in this verse he is thinking only of those who lived near, and he naturally uses the word which connotes the Jewish people. If others came, it was only because they lived ἐντῷλαῷ. Matthew 4:24 And his fame; Revised Version, and the report of him (ἡἀκοὴαὐτοῦ). Our use of the word "fame" implies reputation and honour, which are not included under ἀκοή. Went throughout all (Matthew 4:23) Syria; Revised Version, went forth into; ἀπῆλθενεἰς. The expression not merely means that the report spread far and wide, but that it went beyond the expected limits of the Holy Land into the whole of Syria, i.e., probably, the Roman province with which Palestine was in some degree (Schurer, 1.2.46) incorporated. All sick people that were taken with divers diseases; Revised Version, grammatically, all that were sick, holden with, etc. Possibly, "all that were sick" is the genus of which the following expressions represent species; but Matthew 8:16 and Mark 1:32-34 suggest that the words all to diseases refer to bodily diseases only. The arrangement would then be (1) bodily diseases, (a) ordinary (ποικίλαιςνόσοις), (b) violent and painful eases (βασάνοις); (2) mental diseases, (a) supernatural, (b) natural; (3) incurable, affecting the body also. And those which were possessed with devils. Weiss, ’Life,’ 2. pp. 76-88 (especially against Meyer), points out that our Lord shared the belief in the reality of possession by evil spirits, and that therefore, though some of the current ideas may have been superstitious, there must have been a basis of truth in the belief. See by all means Trench on the healing of the Gadarene demoniacs (Matthew 8:28). And those which were lunatick; Revised Version, and epileptic —"epilepsy being supposed to return and increase with the increase of the moon" (Thayer, s.v. σεληνιάζεσθαι which occurs in the New Testament only here and in Matthew 17:15). Matthew 4:25 The mention of the multitudes here serves as a transition to the sermon on the mount. The description of the con stituent paris of the multitudes is very similar to that found in Mark 3:7, Mark 3:8, and is probably derived from the same source, Mark preserving in most respects the fuller form. Great multitudes; ὄχλοιπολλοί (not "many multitudes," but as plural of ὄχλοςπολύς, Matthew 20:29); almost (Luke 5:15) peculiar to this Gospel (Matthew 8:1, where see note [18, Received Text; Matthew 12:15, Received Text]; Matthew 13:2; Matthew 15:30; Matthew 19:2). Decapolis. A kind of confederacy, originally of ten towns, the organization being apparently the work of Pompey. All were east of Jordan except Bethshan (Scythopolis). The names, as given in Pliny, are—Damascus, Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippus, Dium, Pella, Galasa (read Gerasa) , Kanatha. Schurer adds, Abila (not Abila of Lysanias) and Kanata (distinct from Kanatha) These towns, like the great maritime cities, e.g. Joppa, and Caesarea Stratonis, were independent political communities, which—at least, after the time of Pompey—were never internally blended into an organic unity with the Jewish region, but were at most externally united with it under the same ruler". The population in them was chiefly heathen. Across Jordan; equivalent to Peraea, as in verse 15 and Matthew 19:1, i.e. from Mount Hermon to the river Arnon (Weiss-Meyer); but according to Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ Matthew 3:3. 3), between the rivers Jabbok and Amen (Alford). "The country east of Jordan was known as Peraea (the country beyond) in the wider sense, but Peraea proper was the small district extending from the river Amen (Mojib) to the Zerka, and now called Belka". To the places mentioned here as those whence people came, Mark adds Idumaea; Mark and Luke add Tyre and Sidon. The temptation of Christ. I. THE , 1. The Spirit. He was "full of the Holy Ghost" (Luke 4:1). The Spirit had descended from heaven like a dove, and abode upon him. He was now in the full consciousness of his Divine mission. His sacred human nature was filled through and through with the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost: "God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him" (John 3:34). His holy soul must have glowed with a deep, heavenly joy in ineffable communion with the Father, in the calm contemplation of the blessed work which lay before him. He had hitherto led a quiet life; he had wrought no mighty works; he had not taught, save by the silent influence of the beauty of holiness. We know not what deep, unutterable thoughts had stirred his heart; we cannot penetrate the inscrutable mystery of the union of the Divine and human natures. We know that in his early youth he was continually advancing in wisdom. His mind unfolded itself gradually; perhaps the conception of the mystery of his Being, the wondrous memories of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, the knowledge of his sacred mission, of his blessed office, dawned little by little on his holy human soul. Now he had reached his thirtieth year; he was in the full strength of manhood, bodily and intellectual; he had received an august consecration. He was declared by the heavenly voice to be the beloved Son of God; the holy Dove had revealed him to the Baptist as the Christ, descending upon him with a message of peace from God to man, as, ages before, the dove had brought to the ark the welcome token that the wrath of God had passed away. He was "full of the Holy Ghost," strengthened for his work by that sacred Presence, as afterwards he was strengthened by the angel in his awful agony. But great joy is often followed by great sorrow; very high spiritual experiences are often succeeded by seasons of peculiar temptation. It was so with Christ the Lord; it is so with advanced Christians now. The abundant grace vouchsafed unto them, the felt presence of the Holy Spirit, is granted to prepare them for the coming trials. They are strengthened with all might by his Spirit in the inner man, that they may be able to bear themselves manfully in the dread conflict, and to win the victory through his assisting grace. 2. The wilderness. The Spirit led him thither; it may be, to the dreary solitudes of Quarantana; it may be, to the rocks of Sinai. There was need of lonely meditation, of sustained prayer, of solitary preparation for his momentous task. Such an episode of solemn calm occurred in the lives of Moses, of Elijah, of St. Paul. Such an episode was interposed now between the wondrous manifestations of the Divine Presence and the hurry of hard, wearying labour that was to follow. The Lord was made like unto us. In his perfect humanity he needed, as we do, time for quiet thought, time to collect himself, to brace himself for the coming trials, to realize the great change that was at hand, the strange contrast between the life that was coming, crowded with works of power and labours of love, and the peaceful seclusion of Nazareth which was now for ever past. We need our quiet days, time for recollection, self-examination, and solemn thought. We must find time for meditation, if we are to advance far in the spiritual life. The Spirit led our Lord into the wilderness; the Spirit leads us from time to time to retirement for solitary devotional exercises. 3. The tempter. (1) The tempter found our Lord in the wilderness. Solitude has its dangers, as well as busy life. The hermits, who in old times used to retire from the busy haunts of men, had their own peculiar trials. They could in some degree escape from outward temptations; they could not escape from their own thoughts, their own sinful hearts, the power and allurements of the evil one. Their temptations were different, but to the full as great as those of active life. Probably the danger was greater; for God did not create us for the wilderness, for solitude; he has given us work to do for him. That work commonly lies in the world, among men. Work is a necessity for us. It was a curse; it becomes a blessing if it is performed in faith and loving obedience. Work is a great safeguard against temptation. Without work the thoughts run wild; often they wander into sinful fancies; often, turned always inward, they become morbid and unnatural. Solitude is good sometimes, for a while; but it should be an episode in a life of active work for God. (2) The Lord was absolutely pure and holy. No sinful thought ever arose in his sacred heart; in his case there could be no temptation from within. But Satan tempted him. The temptations came from without, from the direct agency of the evil spirit. They did not harm him; they glanced off from the clear surface of his holy, soul. But they were real temptations. He hungered, as we do; he had all our natural longings for food, for rest, for other objects of human desire. The suggestions of the wicked spirit solicited him, harassed him; he felt the appetite, the rising desire. But he crushed it down by the strength of a holy will. He set us an example; he overcame Satan for us. (3) The Spirit led him into the wilderness to be tempted. It was part of his humiliation, part of his suffering, part of his redeeming work. It was necessary that he should learn, by his own experience in his sinless human nature, the bitter trials of temptation; that, having himself suffered being tempted, he might be able to succour them that are tempted; that we might have the help of his Divine sympathy in our temptations. It was necessary for our salvation that he should in our flesh overcome the devil; that as Man, in our human nature, he might conquer that sin by which death came into the world; that as in Adam all died, even so in Christ might all be made alive. He hath given us an example, teaching us that by self-denial, prayer, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, we too may resist temptation. But, more than this, if we are his, he abiding in us and we in him, then his victory is ours; in the strength of his victory we overcome the same dreadful enemy: "God giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." Therefore he was led by the Spirit to be tempted. We sometimes seem to be led into temptation; the temptation may be necessary for us, to try our faith, to brace our energies, to make us approved soldiers of the cross. He cannot be a conqueror who has never fought a battle; that virtue is not the highest which is pure simply because it has never met with temptation. But "God will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able." He who suffered being tempted is with his people in their hour of trial; his sympathy is their comfort; his strength their victory. It’ need be, they are in heaviness through manifold temptations; but the trial of their faith is precious; it will be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. (4) The temptation was necessary, but it must have caused the Lord exceeding anguish. We have admitted sin into our hearts; we have loved it in our madness; we cannot tell the intense loathing and horror which the presence of sin must cause in a pure and holy soul. The Lord Jesus, the most Holy One, endured for our salvation’s sake to be confronted with that hateful being whose home is in the darkness and the burning flame, whose heart is filled with malice and cruelty, thirsting to destroy those precious souls whom the Lord loved so dearly, for whom he gave himself to die. The close presence of evil, that loathsome thing which God hates, the wicked suggestions of Satan, must have been intensely horrible to the blessed Saviour. He endured all this for us; he loved us with so great a love. 4. The fasting. The Lord was absorbed in high thoughts and spiritual communion with the Father; this lifted him up for a time above the ordinary needs of humanity. His fast was miraculous, like the fast of Moses, of Elijah. But it is our example also in a measure; we too must fast and pray if we would conquer as the Saviour conquered. Our Father will reward those who fast after the pattern of the Lord, in the like spirit, in faith and in humility. We must practise self-denial in little things, if we would gain strength to support us in the dread conflict with the tempter. Bodily exercise profiteth little in comparison with the inner spirit of self-mortification; but we cannot afford to despise those outward helps; and certainly we cannot do wrong in following the example of our Lord and. his apostles (Acts 13:3; Acts 14:23; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 2 Corinthians 6:5). II. THE FIRST . 1. The suggestion of the tempter. (1) The doubt. "If thou be the Son of God." So he tempted Eve, "Hath God said?" So he tempts us now with his evil whispers, breathing doubts into our souls—doubts of the truth of God’s revelation, doubts of his power and love, doubts of our own conversion: "If thou be a child of God." He suggests again and again that terrible "if," harassing our souls with miserable fears and awful perplexities. He knew probably that Jesus was the Son of God; Jesus knew it certainly with a full, Divine consciousness. God grants the peace of God sooner or later to all who come to him in humility and faith. They may be sorely tried for a time with anxious doubts; but they shall find rest for their souls in Christ their Saviour. Only let them trust even amid fears; and in his good time the saddening doubt, "If thou be a child of God," will make room for the blessed assurance, "I know that my Redeemer liveth;" "I know whom I have believed." (2) The tempter’s bidding. "Command that these stones be made bread." It was an appeal to the bodily appetite, the lust of the flesh; the temptation once addressed to Eve—"the tree was good for food." The Lord hungered. It was not meet, the tempter whispered, that the Son of God should be so distressed; it needed only to put forth his power. That power was his for the good of souls; the devil would have him use it to supply his own wants. So he tempts men now to use for worldly advancement, worldly glory, means that were given them to work out their own salvation, to help on the work of God in the world. 2. The Lord’s answer. (1) "It is written." This was the first word, as far as we are told, spoken by our Lord after his baptism. He was the Son of God; he was full of the Holy Ghost; but he begins his ministry with the simple words, "It is written." He meets the tempter with the sword of the Spirit. So must the Christian now. The memory should be stored through and through with the sacred words; they should be wrought into the heart by holy thought and diligent obedience, written there by the Holy Spirit of God. Then they will be at hand ready for use in the hour of trial, in the deadly struggle. Then search the Scriptures; be not content with the knowledge of the letter; but pray for grace to realize and to know by personal experience that inner spiritual meaning without which "the letter killeth." (2) "Man shall not live by bread alone." "Man," the Lord says. He meets the evil one as a Man, in our human flesh, and as a Man he conquers. He conquers for us, in our humanity; he sets us an example that, through spiritual union with the one holiest Man, we men may share his victory, and overcome, even as he overcame. And this is his lesson: "A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." Life conies from God; he breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life. He fed the Israelites in the wilderness with manna, the bread of heaven; he sustained his blessed Son in the wilderness throughout that lengthened fast; he can in his own way support the life which he gave. The soul that trusts in God will not mean only common food by the "daily bread" for which we pray. Life is too great a thing, too Divine a gift, to be supported wholly by things outward. The true life, life worthy of the name, life worth living, needs a Diviner food—the Bread that came down from heaven, the Lord Christ himself. Man doth not live by bread alone; he will lose his life who seeks only that earthly bread. Christ is the Life—the Life of the world; they live indeed, in the full meaning of life, who have that Life abiding in them; they live in the faith of God, trusting in him. The words which proceed out of his mouth are the food of their souls, the stay of their hearts; for the Word of God is living and powerful; it liveth and abideth for ever. III. THE SECOND . 1. The suggestion. Again the doubt; the tempting, or perhaps the sarcastic, "if." But this time pride was the weak point in human nature which the tempter sought to find in the Lord—the pride of life. The tree, he had once whispered to Eve, was a tree to be desired to make one wise. He took him to the holy city, to the temple. Alas! the devil can find an entrance there, into the very Church of Christ; sometimes he has found an entrance into the highest places in the visible Church. Pride has been the ruin of many who are set over their brethren; spiritual pride has ruined many a Christian who once seemed not far from the kingdom of God. He set him on the pinnacle of the temple, perhaps the pinnacle from which, years afterwards, James, the Lord’s brother, was cast down to meet the martyr’s death. He set the Lord there on high as the Lord of the temple, the Messiah, the great King, the royal Priest. He bade him cast himself down. It would display his power, his dignity, his Divine majesty. Such a miracle, in such a place, before the eyes of assembled priests and people, would at once establish his claims; he would be recognized at once as the Lord that was to come, the Priest after the order of Melchizedek; and that without difficulty, without painful self-denials, without the cross. 2. The scriptural quotation. The words were true, but there was an important omission. "He shall give his angels charge over thee," said the psalmist, "to keep thee in all thy ways." "In all thy ways"—in all the ways marked out for us by his providence, not in self-chosen ways, which he had not appointed. The holy words of Scripture may be misapplied; they may be used to suggest a meaning which they were never intended to convey; they may be bandied about in controversy, and employed simply as means to gain a theological victory. Such a use of the Bible tends to produce pride. "Knowledge puffeth up." Pride perverts the sacred words; holy and humble men of heart, led by the Spirit of God, enter into their deep and blessed meaning. The devil might have misled some vain man; to such the Scripture quoted might have seemed apposite, and so he might have been beguiled to his ruin. But the Lord was meek and lowly in heart; he sought not honour from men; there was no thought of display, no ostentation in his holy soul. He knew what the Scripture really meant. The blessed angels are charged with the care of God’s saints; they do keep them in all their ways; they do bear them in their hands; but not if they cease to be saints, not "when the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity;" not when he becomes presumptuous and self-willed. Misquoted texts, misapplied Scripture, did not ensnare the Lord; they will not ensnare the humble Christian who trusts not in his own knowledge or his own strength, but in the living God. 3. The Lord’s answer. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes; i.e. those spoken of in Matthew 4:25—the multitudes who were at that point of time following him. He went up. From the lower ground by the lake. Into a mountain; Revised Version, into the mountain (εἰςτὸὄρος); i.e. not any special mountain, but "the mountain nearest the place spoken of—the mountain near by" (Thayer); in contrast to any lower place, whether that was itself fairly high ground (as probably Luke 9:28) or the shore of the lake. The actual spot here referred to may have been far from, or, and more probably (Matthew 4:18), near to, the Lake of Gennesareth. It cannot now be identified. The traditional "Mount of Beatitudes" is Karn-Hattin, "a round, rocky hill", "a square-shaped hill with two tops", about five miles north-west of Tiberias. This tradition, dating only from the time of the Crusades, is accepted by Stanley, especially for the reasons that (1) τὸὄρος is equivalent to "the mountain" as a distinct name, and this mountain alone, with the exception of Tabor which is too distant, stands separate from the uniform barrier of hills round the lake; (2) "the platform at the top is evidently suitable for the collection of a multitude, and corresponds precisely to the ’level place’ (τόπουπεδινοῦ, Luke 6:17) to which our Lord would ’come down,’ as from one of its higher horns, to address the people." But these reasons seem insufficient. And when he was set; Revised Version, had sat down; as his custom was when preaching. His disciples; i.e. the twelve, and also those others out of whom they had, as it seems, just been chosen (Luke 6:12, Luke 6:20). The word is used of all those personal followers who, as still more distinctly indicated in the Fourth Gospel, attached themselves to him to learn of him, at least until the time of the crisis in John 6:66, when many withdrew (cf. also infra, Matthew 8:21, and for an example in the end of his ministry, Luke 19:37). In English we unavoidably miss some of the meaning of μαθητής, to our loss, as may be seen from the saying of Ignatius, ’Magn.,’ § 10, ΜαθηταὶαὐτοῦγενόμενοιμάθωμενκατὰΧριστιανισμὸνζῇν Came unto him (προσῆλθαναὐτῷ). Came up to him, and, presumably, sat down in front of him to listen. Matthew 5:2 And he opened his mouth. Frequent in the Old Testament; e.g. Job 3:1. A Hebraism, indicating that the words spoken are not the utterance of chance, but of set will and purpose. In the Gospels (in this sense) only Matthew 13:35 (from Psalms 78:2, LXX.); also in Acts 8:35 (Philip); Acts 10:34 (Peter); Acts 18:14 (Paul); Revelation 13:6 (the beast); cf. 2 Corinthians 6:11, of perfect frankness of expression, and Ephesians 6:19, perhaps of courage in the utterance of the Divine message. And taught them. (ἐδίδασκεναὐτοὺς). That which follows is represented, not as a proclamation, but as teaching, given to those who in some measure desired to follow and serve him. Some progress already made by the listeners, if only in a relation of respect and reverence, is implied in "teaching." The discourse was therefore spoken, not simply to the multitudes, a chance audience, but with primary and special reference to those who had already made some advance in relation to him. The multitudes, however, were standing by, and were amazed at the unique character of his teaching (cf. Matthew 7:28, Matthew 7:29; cf. also Luke 6:20 with Luke 7:1). Matthew 7:3-27 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. The following may serve as a brief summary. 1. The ideal character of his disciples (Matthew 5:3-10), which must be allowed to appear (Matthew 5:11-16). 2. The relation that they ought to hold towards the religion of the day, of which the Law was the accepted standard (Matthew 5:17—6:18). (1) The fundamental principle of this relation is found in the relation which Christ himself holds towards the Law (Matthew 5:17-20). (2) Their relation further defined by illustrations taken from the religion of the day, as this is seen in— (a) Cases deduced directly from the Law (Matthew 5:21-48). (b) Cases not so deduced (Matthew 6:1-18). 3. General principles regarding— (1) Their relation to wealth. They must remember that only the single eye receives the light (Matthew 6:19-31). (2) Their relation to men. They must remember the dangers of differentiating others. They must treat them as they would themselves be treated (Matthew 7:1-12). 4. Epilogue (Matthew 7:13-27). A call to decision and independence of walk (Matthew 7:13-23). Assent is useless if it becomes not action (Matthew 7:24-27). There is little doubt that the two accounts (here and Luke 6:1-49.) represent one and the same discourse, the main arguments for this belief being thus given by Ellicott: "That the beginning and end of the Sermon are nearly identical in both Gospels; that the precepts, as recited by St. Luke, are in the same general order as those in St. Matthew, and that they are often expressed in nearly the same words; and lastly, that each Evangelist specifies the same miracle, viz. the healing of the centurion’s servant, as having taken place shortly after the Sermon, on our Lord’s entry into Capernaum." Matthew 5:3-16 1. The ideal character of his disciples. Matthew 5:3 Blessed (μακάριοι); Vulgate, beati; hence "Beatitudes." The word describes "the poor in spirit," etc., not as recipients of blessing (εὐλογημένοι) from God, or even from men, but as possessors of "happiness" (cf. the Authorized Version of Joh 13:17, and frequently). It describes them in reference to their inherent state, not to the gifts or the rewards that they receive. It thus answers in thought to the common ירשׁ) of the Old Testament; e.g. 1 Kings 10:8; Psalms 1:1; Psalms 32:1; Psalms 84:5. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs, is the kingdom of heaven. The first Beatitude is the sum and substance of the whole sermon. Poverty of spirit stands in contrast to self sufficiency (Revelation 3:17) and as such is perhaps the quality which is most of all opposed to the Jewish temper in all ages (cf. Romans 2:17-20). For in this, as in much else, the Jewish nation is the type of the human race since the Fall. Observe that Psalms 84:3, Psalms 84:4 (οἱπτωχοίοἱπενθοῦντες, possibly also Psalms 84:5, vide infra) recall Isaiah 61:1, Isaiah 61:2. As recently in the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:18, Luke 4:19), so also here, he bases the explanation of his work on the prophecy of that work in the Book of Isaiah. The poor (οἱπτωχοί). Πτωχός, in classical and philosophical usage, implies a lower degree of poverty than πένης (2 Corinthians 9:9 and LXX.). "The πένης may be so poor that he earns his bread by daily labour; but the πτωχός is so poor that he only obtains his living by begging The τένης has nothing superfluous, the πτωχός nothing at all" (Trench, ’Syn.,’ § 36.). Hence Tertullian purposely altered Beati pauperes of the Old Latin to Beati mendici, and elsewhere (’De Idol.,’ 12) rendered it by egeni. But in Hellenistic Greek, so far as the usage of the LXX. and the Hexapla goes, the distinction seems hardly to hold good. Hatch even infers—on, we think, very insufficient premisses—that these two words, with τακεινός and πραύς (but vide infra), designate the poor of an oppressed country, i.e. the peasantry, the fellahin of Palestine as a class, and he considers it probable that this special meaning underlies the use of the words in these verses. Whether this be the case or not, the addition of τῷπνεύματι completely excludes the supposition that our Lord meant to refer to any merely external circumstances. In spirit; Matthew only (τῷπνεύματι). Dative of sphere (cf. Matthew 11:29; 1 Corinthians 7:34; 1 Corinthians 14:20; Romans 12:11). James 2:5 (τοὺςπτωχοὺςτῷκόσμω) forms an apparent rather than a real contrast; for the dative there marks, not the sphere in which, but the object with reference to which, the poverty is felt ("the poor as to the world," Revised Version; Wiesinger in Huther), or possibly the object which is the standard of comparison, i.e. in the judgment of the world (Winer, § 31.4, a). Christ here affirms the blessedness of those who are in their spirit absolutely devoid of wealth. It cannot mean that they are this in God’s opinion, for in God’s opinion all are so. It means, therefore, that they are this in their own opinion. While many feel in themselves a wealth of soul-satisfaction, these do not, but realize their insufficiency. Christ says that they realize this "in (their) spirit;" for the spirit is that part of us which specially craves for satisfaction, and which is the means by which we lay hold of true satisfaction. The actual craving for spiritual wealth is not mentioned in this verse. It is implied, but direct mention of it comes partly in James 2:4, and especially in James 2:6. For theirs. Emphatic, as in all the Beatitudes (αὐτῶναὐτοί,). Is. Not hereafter (Meyer), but even already. The kingdom of heaven. The poor in spirit already belong to and have a share in that realm of God which now is realized chiefly in relation to our spirit, but ultimately will be realized in relation to every element of our nature, and to all other persons, and to every part, animate and inanimate, of the whole world. Matthew 5:4 In some, especially "Western" authorities, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 are transposed (vide Westcott and Hort, ’Appendix’), possibly because the terms of Mat 5:5 seemed to be more closely parallel to Matthew 5:3 (cf. Meyer, Weiss), and also those of Mat 5:4 fitted excellently with Matthew 5:6. But far the greater balance of evidence is in favour of the usual order, which also, though not on the surface, is in the deepest connexion with the preceding and the following verses. They that mourn (cf. Isaiah 61:2). Our Lord does not define that which causes the mourning, but as the preceding and the following verses all refer to the religious or at least the ethical sphere, merely carnal and worldly mourning is excluded. The mourning referred to must, therefore, be produced by religious or moral causes. Mourners for the state of Israel, so far as they mourned not for its political but for its spiritual condition (cf. similar mourning in the Christian Church, 2 Corinthians 7:9,2 Corinthians 7:10), would be included (cf. Weiss, ’Life,’ 2:142); but our Lord’s primary thought must have been of mourning over one’s personal state, not exactly, perhaps, over one’s sins, but over the realized poverty in spirit just spoken of (cf. Weiss-Meyer). As the deepest poverty lies in the sphere of the spirit, so the deepest mourning lies there also. All other mourning is but partial and slight compared with this (Proverbs 18:14). For they shall be comforted. When? On having the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:3); i.e. during this life in measure (cf. Luke 2:25), but fully only hereafter. The mourning over one’s personal poverty in spirit is removed in proportion as Christ is received and appropriated; but during this life such appropriation can be only partial. Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek. In this Beatitude our Lord still quotes Old Testament expressions. The phrase, "shah inherit the earth," comes even in Isaiah 60:21, only two verses before Isaiah 61:1, Isaiah 61:2, to which he has already referred. In the present copies of the LXX. it is found also in Isaiah 61:7, but there it is evidently a corruption. It occurs also in Psalms 37:9, Psalms 37:11, Psalms 37:22, Psalms 37:29, Psalms 37:34; and since in the eleventh verse of the psalm it is directly said of the meek: "But the meek shall inherit the land (LXX., οἱδὲπραεῖςκληρονομήσουσινγῆν)," it is, doubtless, from this latter passage that our Lord borrows the phrase. The meaning attributed by our Lord to the word meek is not clear. The ordinary use of the words πραΰ́ς, πραΰ́της, in the New Testament refers solely to the relation of men to men, and this is the sense in which οἱπραεῖς is taken by most commentators here. But with this sense, taken barely and solely, there seems to be no satisfactory explanation of the position of the Beatitude. Psalms 37:3 and Psalms 37:4 refer to men in their relation to God; Psalms 37:6, to say the least, includes the relation of men to God; what has Psalms 37:5 to do here if it refers solely to the relation of men to men? It would have come very naturally either before or after Psalms 37:9 ("the peacemakers"); but why here? The reason, however, for the position of the Beatitude lies in the true conception of meekness. While the thought is here primarily that of meekness exhibited towards men (as is evident from the implied contrast in they shall inherit the earth), yet meekness towards men is closely connected with, and is the result of, meekness towards God. This is not exactly humility (ταπεινοφροσύνη, which, as regards God, is equivalent to a sense of creatureliness or dependence; cf. Trench, ’Syn.,’ § 42.). Meekness is rather the attitude of the soul towards another when that other is in a state of activity towards it. It is the attitude of the disciple to the teacher when teaching; of the son to the father when exercising his paternal authority; of the servant to the master when giving him orders. It is therefore essentially as applicable to the relation of man to God as to that of man to man. It is for this reason that we find ונעהונעvery frequently used of man’s relation to God, in fact, more often than of man’s relation to man; and this common meaning of ונעmust be specially remembered here, where the phrase is taken directly from the Old Testament. Weiss (’Matthaus-ev.’) objects to Tholuck adducing the evidence of the Hebrew words, on the ground that the Greek terms are used solely of the relation to man, and that this usage is kept to throughout the New Testament. But the latter statement is hardly true. For, not to mention Matthew 11:29, in which the reference is doubtful, James 1:21 certainly refers to the meekness shown towards God in receiving his word. "The Scriptural πραότης," says Trench, loc. cit.," is not in a man’s outward behaviour only; nor yet in his relations to his fellow-men; as little in his mere natural disposition. Rather is it an inwrought grace of the soul; and the exercises of it are first and chiefly towards God (Matthew 11:29; James 1:21). It is that temper of spirit in which we accept his dealings with us as good, and therefore without disputing or resisting; and it is closely linked with the ταπεωοφροσύνη, and follows directly upon it (Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:12; of. Zephaniah 3:12), because it is only the humble heart which is also the meek; and which, as such, does not fight against God, and more or less struggle and contend with him." Yet, as this meekness must be felt towards God not only in his direct dealings with the soul, but also in his indirect dealings (i.e. by secondary means and agents), it must also be exhibited towards men. Meekness towards God necessarily issues in meekness towards men. Our Lord’s concise teaching seizes, therefore, on this furthest expression of meekness. Thus it is not meekness in the relation of man to man barely staled, of which Christ here speaks, but meekness in the relation of man to man, with its prior and presupposed fact of meekness in the relation of man to God. Shall inherit the earth. In the Psalm this is equivalent to the land of Palestine, and the psalmist means that, though the wicked may have temporary power, yet God’s true servants shall really and finally have dominion in the land. But what is intended here? Probably our Lord’s audience understood the phrase on his lips as a Messianic adaptation of the original meaning, and as therefore implying that those who manifested a meek reception of his will would obtain that full possession of the land of Palestine which was now denied to the Israelites through the conquest of the Romans. But to our Lord, and to the evangelist who, years after, recorded them, the meaning of the words must have been much fuller, corresponding, in fact, to the true meaning of the "kingdom of heaven," viz. that the meek shall inherit—shall receive, as their rightful possession from their Father, the whole earth; renewed, it may be (Isaiah 11:6-9; Isaiah 65:25; Revelation 21:1), but still the earth (Romans 8:21), with all the powers of nature therein implied. Of this the conquest of nature already gained through the civilization produced under Christianity is at once the promise and, though but in a small degree, the firstfruits. Matthew 5:6 They which do hunger and thirst. The application of the figure of eating and drinking to spiritual things (cf. Luke 22:30) is not infrequent in the Old Testament; e.g. Isaiah 55:1. Yet the thought here is not the actual participation, but the craving. The Benediction marks a distinct stage in our Lord’s argument. He spoke first of the consciously poor in their spirit; next of those who mourned over their poverty; then of those who were ready to receive whatever teaching or chastisement might be given them; here of those who had an earnest longing for that right relation to God in which they were so lacking. This is the positive stage. Intense longing, such as can only be compared to that of a starving man for food, is sure of satisfaction. After righteousness (τὴνδικαιοσύνην). Observe: (1) The accusative. In Greek writers πεινάω and διψάω are regularly followed by the genitive. Here by the accusative; for the desire is after the whole object, and not after a part of it (cf. Weiss; also Bishop Westcott, on Hebrews 6:4, Hebrews 6:5). (2) The article. It idealizes. There is but one righteousness worthy of the name, and for this and all that it includes, both in standing before God and in relation to men, the soul longs. How it is to be obtained Christ does not here say. For they. Emphatic, as always (Isaiah 55:3, note). Shall be filled (χορτασθήσονται); vide Bishop Lightfoot on Philippians 4:12. Properly of animals being fed with fodder (χόρτος); cf. Revelation 19:21, "All the birds were filled (ἐχορτάσθησαν) with their flesh." At first only used of men depreciatingly, afterwards readily. Rare in the sense of moral and spiritual satisfaction (cf. Psalms 17:15). When shall they be filled? As in the case of Rev 19:3, Revelation 19:4, now in part, fully hereafter. "St. Austin, wondering at the overflowing measure of God’s Spirit in the Apostles’ hearts, observes that the reason why they were so full of God was because they were so empty of his creatures. ’They were very full,’ he says, ’because they were very empty’" (Anon., in Ford). That on earth, but in heaven with all the saints— ’’Ever filled and ever seeking, what they have they still desire, Hunger there shall fret them never, nor satiety shall tire,— Still enjoying whilst aspiring, in their joy they still aspire." Matthew 5:7 Our Lord here turns more directly to the character of his followers in relation to men; and in the next three Beatitudes mentions particulars which might be suggested by the sixth, seventh, and ninth commandments. The merciful (οἱἐλεήμονες). The mercy referred to here is not so much the almost negative quality which the word usually suggests to us (not dealing harshly, not inflicting punishment when due, sparing an animal or a fellow-man some unnecessary labour), as active kindness to the destitute and to any who are in trouble. As compared with οἰκτίρμονες (Luke 6:36), it seems to lay more stress on the feeling of pity showing itself in action and not only existing in thought. To this statement of our Lord’s, that they who show mercy to those in need shall themselves be the objects of mercy (i.e. from God) in their time of need, many parallels have been adduced, e.g., by Wetstein. Rabbi Gamaliel, as reported by Rabbi Judah, says, on Deuteronomy 13:18, "Every one that showeth mercy to others, they show mercy to him from heaven, and every one that showeth not mercy to others, they show him not mercy from heaven;" cf. also ’ Test. XII. Patr.:’ Zab., § 8, "In proportion as a man has compassion (σπλαγχνίζεται) on his neighbour, so has the Lord upon him;" and, probably with reference to this passage, Clem. Rom., § 13, ἐλεᾶτεἵναἐλεηθῆτε. (For the converse, cf. James 2:13.) Calvin remarks, "Hoc etiam paradoxon cum humano judicio pugnat. Mundus reputat beatos, qui malorum alienorum securi quieti suae consulunt: Christus autem hic beatos dicit, qui non modo ferendis propriis malis parati sunt, sed aliena etiam in se suscipiunt, ut miseris succurrant." Matthew 5:8 The pure in heart. Our Lord naturally passes in thought from the sixth to the seventh commandment (cf. Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:27), finding the basis of his phraseology in Psalms 24:3, Psalms 24:4, "Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?… He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart (LXX. ἀθῶοςχερσὶνκαὶκαθαρὸςτῇκαρδίᾳ) (cf. also Psalms 72:1). Καθαρός (besides speaking of mere physical cleanness, Psalms 27:1-14:59) specially refers to freedom from pollution, judged by God’s standard of what pollution is, whether it be a matter of ceremonial enactment or of ethical relation (John 13:10, John 13:11; John 15:3); cf. Origen.’Hem. in Joh.,’ 73:2 (Meyer), "Every sin soils the soul (Πᾶσαἁμαρτίαῥύπονἐντίθησιτῇψυχῇ)". In heart. The seat of the affections (Matthew 6:21; Matthew 22:37) and the understanding (Matthew 13:15), also the central spring of all human words and actions (Matthew 15:19); cf. καθαραα (1 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:22), which implies something deeper than καθαραδησις (1 Timothy 3:9; 2 Timothy 1:3). Shall see God. Not in his courts (Psalms 24:1-10.) on Mount Moriah, but above; and in one complete vision fully grasped (ὄψονται). The thought of present spiritual sight of God, though, perhaps, hardly to be excluded (contrast Weiss, ’Matthausev.’), is at least swallowed up in the thought of the full and final revelation. Those who are pure in heart, and care not for such sights as lead men into sin, are unconsciously preparing themselves for the great spiritual sight—the beatific vision (Revelation 22:4; cf. 1 John 3:2). In Hebrews 12:14 holiness (ἁγιασμός) is an indispensable quality for such a vision of "the Lord." Matthew 5:9 The peacemakers (οἱεἰρηνοποιοί). More than "peaceable". This is the peaceable character consciously exerted outside itself. The same compound in the New Testament in Colossians 1:20 only: Εἰρηνοποιήσαςδιὰτοῦαἵματοςτοῦσταυροῦαὐτοῦ (cf. Ephesians] Ephesians 2:14, Ephesians 2:15). Christians, in their measure, share in Christ’s work, and, we may add, can attain it generally as he did, only by personal suffering. Observe that this Beatitude must have been specially distasteful to the warlike Galilaeans. Mishna, ’Ab.,’ Colossians 1:13 (Taylor), "Hillel said, Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace," hardly refers to peacemaking, but in Mishna, ’Peah,’ Colossians 1:1, "These are the things whose fruit a man eats in this world, but which have their capital reward in the world to come: honouring one’s father and mother, showing kindness, and bringing about peace between a man and his neighbour, but study of the Law is equivalent to them all." For they; αὐτοί, omitted by à, C, D, 13, 124, Latt., Peshito. Possibly it is an addition inserted from a desire to make this Beatitude harmonize with the others. But more probably it is genuine, and was omitted by accident, either by homoiot, of υἱοὶ (Meyer), or (better) because the scribe forgot the abbot in the emphatic υἱοὶΘεοῦ, the form of the second clause being peculiar to this Beatitude. Shall be called; by God and angels and men. The children of God; Revised Version, sons of God; to show that the word used here is υἱοὶ, not τέκνα Christ’s reference is, that is to say, not so much to the nature as to the privileges involved in sonship. The earthly privileges which peacemakers give up rather than disturb their peaceful relations with others, and in order that they may bring about peace between others, shall be much more than made up to them, and that with the approving verdict of all. They shall, with general approval, enter on the full privileges of their relation to God, who is "the God of peace" (Romans 15:33). Dr. Taylor (’Ab.,’ 1.19) has an increasing note on "Peace" as a Talmudic name of God. For language similar to our Lord’s, cf. Hosea 1:10 [LXX.], equivalent to Romans 9:26. Here, as often in this Gospel, there may be a tacit contradiction to the assumption that natural birth as Israelites involves the full blessings of sons of God; cf. ’Ab.,’ 3.22 (Taylor). Matthew 5:10 Which are persecuted; which have been persecuted (Revised Version); οἱδεδιωγμένοι. "Those who are harassed, hunted, spoiled. The term is properly used of wild beasts pursued by hunters, or of an enemy or malefactor in flight" (Wetstein). Our Lord, by the use of the perfect, wishes to indicate (1) the fact that they have endured persecution, and still stand firm; and probably (2) the condition of temporal loss to which they have been reduced by such persecution. They have "suffered the loss," possibly, "of all things," but they are "blessed." For righteouness’sake (ἕνεκενδικαιοσύνης). No article (contrast Matthew 5:6), either as indicating that for even a part of righteousness persecution can be undergone, or, and more probably, simply dwelling on the cause of persecution without idealizing it. St. Peter also says, perhaps with a reference to our Lord’s words, that they who suffer διὰδικαιοσύνην are μακάριοι (1 Peter 3:14). For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The same promise that was given to "the poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3) is here given to the persecuted for righteousness’sake. In the former case, poverty in the sphere of the spirit obtains the fullest possessions; here the same promise is given to temporal loss produced by faithfulness to the cause of righteousness. In Matthew 5:3 our Lord removed all occasion for intellectual and spiritual pride. Here he comforts for temporal and social losses (cf. especially 2 Corinthians 6:10; further see 2 Corinthians 6:3, note). Clement of Alexandria, ’Strom.,’ 4.6 (1) confuses this and the preceding Beatitude; (2) gives a curious reading of some who alter the Gospels: "Blessed are they who have been persecuted through righteousness (ὑπὸτῆςδικαιοσύνης), for they shall be perfect; and blessed are they who have been persecuted for my sake, for they shall have a place where they shall not be persecuted" (cf. Westcott, ’Introd. Gospp.,’ Appendix C). Matthew 5:11-16 Some critics (e.g. Godet, Weiss) think that Matthew 5:13-16 are no part of the original sermon, but only an interweaving of sayings which were originally spoken at other times. This is possible, but external evidence exists only in the case of Mat 5:13 and Matthew 5:15 (for Matthew 5:14 and Matthew 5:16 are peculiar to Matthew); and even in the ease of these verses it is by no means clear (vide infra) that the occasions on which, according to the other Gospels, the sayings were uttered are the more original. Weiss’s assertion (’Life,’ 2.144), "The remarks in Matthew 5:13-16, bearing on the calling of discipleship,.., cannot belong to the sermon on the mount, carefully as they are there introduced, for the prophesied sufferings of his followers might have made them disloyal," is wholly gratuitous. In fact, the sufferings have been much more strongly spoken of in Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12. The disciples are now addressed directly, and are urged to "walk worthily of the vocation wherewith they are called." The mention of those who have endured persecution leads our Lord to warn his disciples not to faint under persecution in any of its forms; they are but entering on the succession of the prophets; their work is that of purifying and preserving and of illuminating; they must therefore allow their character as disciples to appear, as appear it must if they arc true to their position. There is a purpose in this, namely, that men may see their actions, and glorify their Father which is in heaven. Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12 Parallel passage: Luke 6:22, Luke 6:23. Matthew 5:11 As Matthew 5:10 spoke of the blessedness of those who had suffered persecution and had endured it, so this verse speaks of the blessedness of those who are suffering from it at the moment, whether it be in act or word. Whilst Christ still keeps up the form of the Beatitudes, he speaks now in the second person, this and the following terse thus forming the transition to his directly addressing those immediately before him. His present audience was not yet among οἱδεδιωγμένοι, but might already be enduring something of the reproach and suffering now referred to. Revile (ὀνειδίσωσιν); Revised Version, reproach; as also the Authorized Version in Luke 6:22. "Revile" in itself implies moral error in the person that reviles. Not so ὀνειδίζειν. Our Lord purposely uses a word which includes, not only mere abuse, but also stern, and occasionally loving, rebuke. Falsely, for my sake. The comma in both the Authorized (Scrivener) and the Revised Versions after "falsely" is opposed to that interpretation (Meyer) which-closely connects ψευδόμενοι with both καθὑμῶν and ἕνεκενἐμοῦ. Ψευδόμενοι is really a modal definition of εἴπωσιν (Sevin, Weiss), and ἔνεκενἐμοῦ goes with the whole sentence "when men," etc. for my sake. In Luke 6:10 he had said ἕνεκενδικαιοσύνης; here he directly speaks of himself. In Luke 6:1-49. the phrase is transitional, "for the Son of man’s sake." In Matthew 4:19 he had claimed to be tile Source of power for service; here he claims to be the Object of devotion. His "Messianic consciousness" (Meyer) is, at even this early stage of his ministry, fully developed (cf. also Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:22). It is possible that Hebrews 11:26 (vide Rendall, in loc.) and 1 Peter 4:14 refer to this expression. Matthew 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad (χαίρετεκαὶἀγαλλιᾶσθε). Our Lord uses no weaker expressions than those which describe the joy of the saints over the marriage of the Lamb (Revelation 19:7). The first word expresses joy as such, the second its effect in stirring the emotions; this thought St. Luke carries still further in σκιρτήσατε. (For joy felt under persecution, cf. Acts 5:41.) For great. The order of the Greek, ὅτιὀμισθὸςὑμῶνπολύς, does not bear out the emphatic position assigned to "great" in the English Versions from Tyndale downwards (except Rheims), including Revised Version. Is your reward. The doctrine of recompense, which has so large a place in Jewish thought (for a not often-sire example, cf. ’Ab.,’ 2.19, Taylor) comes also in Christ’s teaching. In Matthew 20:1-16 reward is expressly divested of its merely legal side, and exhibited as ultimately dependent on the will of the great Householder. But here it is mentioned without reference to the difficulties involved in the conception. These difficulties centre round the thought of obligation from God to man. But it may be doubted whether these difficulties are not caused by too exclusively regarding the metaphor of contracting, instead of considering the fact indicated by the metaphor. In God’s kingdom every action has a corresponding effect, and this effect is the more certain in proportion as the action is in the sphere of morality. The idea of "quantity" hardly enters into the relation of such cause and effect. It is a question of moral correspondence. But such effect may not unfitly be called by the metaphors "hire," "reward," because, on the one hand, it is the result of conditions of moral service, and, on the other, such terms imply a Personal Will at the back of the effect, as well as a will on the part of the human "servant." (For the subject in other connexions, cf. Weiss, ’Bibl. Theol.,’ § 32; cf. also verse 46; Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6.) In heaven. Our Lord says, "your reward is great," because the effect of your exercise of moral powers will be received in a sphere where the accidents of the surroundings will entirely correspond to moral influences. The effect of your present faithfulness, etc., will be seen in the reception Of powers of work and usefulness and enjoyment, beside which those possessed on earth will appear small. On earth the opportunities, etc., are but "few things;" hereafter they will be "many things" (Matthew 25:21). For. Not as giving a reason for the assurance of reward (apparently Meyer and Weiss), but for the command, "rejoice," and be exceeding glad, and perhaps also for the predicate "blessed." Rejoice if persecuted, for such persecutions prove you to be the true successors of the prophets, your predecessors in like faithfulness (cf. James 5:10). So. By reproach, e.g. Elijah (1 Kings 18:17), Amos (Amos 7:12, Amos 7:13); by persecution, e.g. Hanani (2 Chronicles 16:10), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 37:15); by saying all manner of evil, e.g. Amos (Amos 7:10), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 37:13), Daniel (Daniel 6:13). Which were before you. Added, surely, not as a mere temporal fact, but to indicate spiritual relationship (vide supra). Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt, etc.. Weiss thinks that St. Luke gives it in its original context; that St. Matthew is right in interpreting it as of special reference to the disciples; and that St. Mark applies it the most freely. It may, indeed, be that its position here is only the result of the inspired guidance of the evangelist; but, on the whole, it seems more probable that so natural a figure was used more than once by our Lord, and that he really spoke these words in his sermon on the mount, as well as on the later occasion indicated by St. Luke. Ye; i.e. the μαθηταί of verse 1. Are, in fact (ἐστέ); therefore recognize the responsibility. The salt of the earth. It has been disputed whether allusion is here made to the preservative properties of salt or to the flavour it imparts; i.e. whether Christ is thinking of his disciples as preserving the world from decay, or as giving it a good flavour to the Divine taste. Surely a useless question; forgetful of the fact that spiritual realities are being dealt with, and that it is therefore impossible for the one effect to be really separated from the other. Our Lord is thinking of the moral tone which his disciples are to give to humanity. The connexion with verses 11, 12 is—Persecution must be borne unless you are to lose your moral tone, which is to be to the earth what salt is to its surroundings, preserving from corruption and fitting for (in your case Divine) appreciation. What χάρις is to be to the Christian λόγος (Colossians 4:6), that the Christian himself is to be to the world. If … have lost its savour (μωρανθῇ); so elsewhere in Luke 14:34 only. Salt that has lost its distinctive qualities is here said to lack its proper mind or sense. Salt without sharpness is like an ἄνθρωποςἄλογος; for man is a ζῶονλογικόν. On the fact of salt losing its virtue, cf. Thomson, "It is a well-known fact that the salt of this country [i.e. Palestine] when in contact with the ground, or exposed to rain and sun, does become insipid and useless. From the manner in which it is gathered [vide infra], much earth and other impurities are necessarily collected with it. Not a little of it is so impure that it cannot be used at all; and such salt soon effloresces and turns to dust—not to fruitful soil, however. It is not only good for nothing itself, but it actually destroys all fertility wherever it is thrown.… No man will allow it to be thrown on to his field, and the only place for it is the street; and there it is cast, to be trodden under foot of men." It should be observed that the salt used in Palestine is not manufactured by boiling clean salt water, nor quarried from mines, but is obtained from marshes along the seashore, as in Cyprus, or from salt lakes in the interior, which dry up in summer, as the one in the desert north of Palmyra, and the great Lake of Jebbul, south-east of Aleppo. Further, rock-salt is found in abundance at the south end of the Dead Sea (cf. Thomson, loc. cit). Wherewith shall it be salted? i.e. not if you will not act as salt, wherewith shall the earth be salted? (apparently Luther and Erasmus); but what quality can take the place of moral tone to produce in you the same result? You are as salt. If you lose your distinctive qualities, where, can you find that which answers to them? It is thenceforth good for nothing. Our Lord here lays stress, not on want of fitness (εὔθετον, Luke), but on want of inherent power. "It is only useful for that purpose to which one applies what is absolutely useless" (Weiss-Meyer). Matthew 5:14 Matthew only. Ye are the light of the world. After speaking of the moral tone that the disciples were to give to the world, in contrast to sin in its corrupting power, Christ refers to them as enlightening, in contrast to sin as darkness and ignorance. Our Lord further naturally exchanges the term "the earth" (which from its strong materialism had suited the figure of the salt) for "the world"—a phrase which must, indeed, as regards the disciples, be limited to this earth, but as regards the light, need not be limited to less than the solar system. In other words, the simple reason why he exchanges "earth" for "world" is that they are respectively the best suited to the figure employed. Notice that Christ never applies the former figure, of salt, to himself; but the latter, of light, once or twice, especially John 8:12, where, since he is speaking of himself, and not of others, he adds the thought of life being connected with light, a city, etc.; literally, a city cannot be hid when set on a mountain. It seems at first slightly awkward to introduce the figure of a city between those of the sun and the lamp, both these having to do with light. The reason is that the city is not considered as such, but only as an object which can be teen, and which cannot (οὐδύναται, emphatic) from its physical conditions avoid being seen. There is a true gradation in the thought of influence. The sun must be seen by all; the city, by the whole neighbourhood; the lamp, by the family. Our Lord comes from the general to the particular; from what is almost theory, at best a matter of hope and faith, to hard fact and practice. The influence you are to have—if it is to be for the whole world, as indeed it is, must be felt in the neighbourhood in which you live, and a fortiori in the immediate circle of your own home. Conjectures have been made whether any one city can reasonably be mentioned as being in sight, and so having suggested this image to our Lord. If the exact spot where he was then sitting were itself certain, such conjectures might be worth considering. But, in fact, so many "cities" in Palestine were set on hills that the inquiry seems vain. Safed, some twelve miles north-west of Capernaum, the view from which extends to Tiberias, has been accepted by many, but evidence is lacking for it having been a city at that time. Tabor, at the south-west of the lake, has also been thought of, and at all events seems to have been then a fortified town. The view from it is even more extensive than from Safed. Matthew 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, etc. The same illustration comes in Luke 8:16 (Mark 4:21), immediately after the parable of the sower, and again in Luke 11:33, immediately after the reference to the repentance of the men of Nineveh at the preaching of Jonah. All four passages have too much verbal similarity to admit of any of them being absolutely independent. Mark 4:21 has the greatest number of peculiarities. The two passages in Luke agree very closely with each other, but of the two, Luke 11:33 most resembles Matthew. The close agreement here with the context seems to point to this being an original position of the utterance. Of the other two contexts Luke 11:33, if we must choose, seems the more natural. Godet, however, says, "This passage has been placed in the sermon on the mount, like so many others, rather because of the association of ideas than from historical reminiscence" (similarly Weiss). Neither. The inherent position, so to speak, of Christ’s disciples, as of a city set on a mountain, is not accidental. It answers to the purpose of their being disciples, as is explained further by the illustration of a lamp. A candle; Revised Version, a lamp (λύχνον); i.e. the flat, saucer-like Eastern lamp, in which sometimes the wick merely floats on the oil A bushel … a candlestick; Revised Version, the bushel … the stand (τὸνμόδιον … τὴνλυχνίαν). Probably rightly, for if the article had been generic]. and put it under, a [literally, ’the’] pillow, or under a [literally, the] bolster [on the sabbath in order to take the chill off it]," W.H. Lowe, ’Fragment of Pesachim,’ 1879, p. 95; cf. also Driver on 1 Samuel 19:13) it would have been found also before λύχνον. "The description applies to the common houses of the people. In each there was one principal room, in which they ate and slept; the lampstand, with its single light, the flour-bin, and the bed, with a few seats, were all its furniture". A bushel (τὸνμόδιον). This is probably equivalent to the seah (so Peshito), which was "the ordinary measure for domestic purposes," and, as slated in the margins of the Authorized and the Revised Versions on Matthew 13:33, held "nearly a peck and a half" dry measure. The Latin modius, here used to render scab, itself held nearly a peck. In Luke 8:16 the vaguer term δκεῦος is used. "Bushel" is retained in the Revised Version probably because it can be used of the vessel apart from all thought of measure; cf. "The Sense represents the Sun no bigger than a Bushel". But on a candlestick; Revised Version, but on the stand (ἐπὶτὴνλυχνίαν); Vulgate, from Old Latin, Neque accendunt lucernam et possunt cam sub modio sed super candelabrum. Candelabrum (cf. "chandelier") meant a stand for either candles or lamps; hence Wickliffe, translating from the Vulgate, could say, "Ne me[n] teendith not a lanterne a puttith it vndir a buyschel: but on a candilstik." We still use "candlestick" in the rarer sense when we speak of the seven-branched "candlestick" of the tabernacle, which was lighted by lamps, not candies (cf. Humphry, on Revised Version, in loc.). It giveth Light; Revised Version, it shineth (λάμπει). The Rheims alone of the older English versions renders" shine," thus showing that the same Greek word is used as in the next verse. The Vulgate (followed by Wickliffe and Rheims) renders it in the subjunctive, ut lucent, possibly originally a copyist’s error from the luceat of Luk 8:16. If so, it was apparently made before the time of Tertullian (’De Prescript.,’ § 26). The thought is stir primarily of the light itself being necessarily seen rather than of its benefiting others (φωτίζω, Luke 11:36; cf. John 1:9). To all. For in a room none can help noticing it, even though the lamp and the light itself be but small. The negative of this verse is given in Pseudo-Cyprian, ’De Aleat.,’ 3., "Monet dominus et dicit: nolite contris tare Spiritum Sanctum, qui in vobis est, et nolite exstinguere lumen, quod in vobis efful sit". Matthew 5:16 Matthew only. Let your light so shine; even so let your light shine (Revised Version); οὕτωςλαμψὰτωτὸφῶςὑμῶν. The Revised Version (cf. Rheims) does away with the misinterpretation suggested by the Authorized Version, "so that," for οὕτως refers solely to the method of shining spoken of in verse 15, "like a burning lamp upon its stand" (Meyer). Our Lord has here no thought of effort in shining, such as may improve the brightness of the light given, or of illuminating others, but of not concealing what light the disciples have. (For a similar οὕτως, cf. 1 Corinthians 9:24.) Yet remember, "A lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred" and "Adam was the lamp of the world" (Talm. Jeremiah, ’Sabb.,’ 2.4—a play on Proverbs 20:27). Your light. Either genitive of apposition, the light which you are (Achelis), of. verse 14; or genitive of possession, the light of which you are the trusted possessors (Meyer, Weiss). The latter is preferable, as the disciples have, in verse 15, been compared to the lamp, i.e. the light-bearer. Before men (ἔμπροσθεντῶνἀνθρώπων). More than ἐνώπιον, "in presence of," for the position of the lamp "in front of" the people is what our Lord is here emphasizing (cf. John 12:37). That they may see your good works (ὑμῶντὰκαλὰἔργα). Your. Three times in this verse. Our Lord lays stress on personal possession of light, personal action, personal relationship and origin. Good works; i.e. of your lives generally (Weiss-Meyer), not ministerially (Mever). "Noble works, works which by their generous and attractive character win the natural admiration of men" (Bishop Westcott, on Hebrews 10:24). And glorify. This is actually done in Matthew 9:8; Matthew 15:31. St. Peter’s language (1 Peter 2:12) is probably due to a reminiscence of our Lord’s words. Your Father which is in heaven. The Fatherhood of God is here predicated in a special sense of the disciples, in the same way as the Fatherhood of God is, in the Old Testament, always connected with his covenant relation to his people as a nation (cf. Isaiah 63:16; Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 3:4; Deuteronomy 32:6). Our Lord here is not thinking of the original relation of God to being and especially to humanity, in virtue of man’s creation in the Divine image (ὁπατήρ), but of the relation into which the disciples have entered through the revelation of God in Christ; cf. further Bishop Westcott, on John 4:21 (Add. Note) and on 1 John 1:2 (Add. Note); also Weiss, ’Life,’ 2:348. The phrase, which occurs here for the first time in St. Matthew (but cf. verse 9, note), henceforth occurs frequently, becoming of great importance for this Gospel (cf. verses 45, 48; Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:9, etc.). Matthew 5:17 Matthew 6:18 Having spoken of the ideal character of his disciples (Matthew 6:3-10), and of their need of allowing that character to appear (Matthew 6:11-16), our Lord turns to speak of the position that they should hold towards the religion of the day (Matthew 6:17 - Matthew 6:18), of which the Law was the accepted standard. Matthew 5:17-20 (1) With this aim he first states summarily and in nucleus the position that he himself holds towards the Law—a statement which was the more necessary as he had already (Matthew 5:11) claimed to be the object of his disciples’ devotion. Matthew only. Think not. Probably the tendency of his teaching was even already seen to be so different from that of the recognized authorities, that some had in consequence formed this opinion (νομίζω) of him which he now repudiates, and which was near akin to the basis of the charge formulated afterwards against St. Stephen (Acts 6:14). In both cases the tendency of the new teaching (Mark 1:27) to abolish temporary forms was perceived by at least those whose powers of perception were quickened through their opposition. That I am come; Revised Version, that I came (ὅτιἦλθον). Our Lord, both here and in the next clause, lays stress on his coming as an historic fact. The primary reference is probably to his coming forth from private life (cf. John 1:31). Yet in his own mind there may have been a further allusion to his coming from above (cf. John 8:14; and further, Matthew 10:34). To destroy. The connexion between καταλῦσαι here and λύσῃ verse 19 (vide note) is lost in the English. The Law or the Prophets. The Phrase,’" the law and the prophets," is sometimes used as practically equivalent to the whole of the Old Testament (Matthew 7:12; John 1:45; Romans 3:21; cf. Matthew 11:13; Matthew 22:40; Acts 24:14),and our Lord means probably much the same here, the "or" distributing the καταλῦσαι (cf. Alford), and being used because of the negative. Such a distribution, however, though it could not have been expressed in an affirmative sentence, has for its background the consciousness of a difference in the nature of these two chief components of the Old Testament. Observe that the third part of the Hebrew Scriptures, "the (Holy) Writings"—of which ’Psalms’ (Luke 24:44) form the most characteristic portion—is omitted in this summary reference to the Old Testament. The reason may be either that of the three parts it was used less than the other two as a basis for doctrine and for rule of life, or that it was practically included in the Prophets (Acts 2:30). The essential teaching of the Law may be distinguished from that of the Prophets by saying that, while the Law was the direct revelation of God’s will as law for the people’s daily life—personal, social, and national—the Prophets (including the historical books and the prophets proper) were rather the indirect revelation of his will for them under the fresh circumstances into which they came; this indirect revelation being seen more especially in God’s providential guidance of the nation, and in his explanation of principles of worship, as well as in occasional predictions of the future. It is to his relation to the Prophets in this connexion, as an indirect revelation of God’s will under changing circumstances (cf. Weiss) that our Lord here chiefly refers. For he is led to speak of his own relation to them from the bearing that this has on the conduct of his disciples. Many, however (e.g. Chrysostom), consider that he is thinking of his relation to them as containing predictions concerning himself. In answer to this it is not sufficient to say (Meyer, Weiss, Alford) that it was impossible that Messiah could be thought to abrogate the Prophets; for, in fact, to many Jews during his ministry (even if not at this early stage of it), and much more to Jews at the time when the evangelist recorded the words, our Lord must have seemed to contradict the predictions about himself as they were then understood. It is indeed true that the prima facie ground that existed for thinking that our Lord’s teaching was opposed, not merely to the religion of the day as dependent on the Law and the Prophets, but also to the predictions of Messiah contained in them, is enough to give a certain plausibility to this interpretation. But that is all. The absence in the context of any hint that he refers to his relation to predictions as such quite forbids our accepting it. It was probably derived solely from a misinterpretation of "fulfil" (vide infra), no regard being paid to the train of thought by which our Lord was led to speak of the subject at all. Our Lord says that he is not come to "destroy" the Prophets as exponents of the will of God. I am not come to destroy; emphasizing his statement by repetition. But to fulfil. By establishing the absolute and final meaning of the Law and the Prophets. Christ came not to abrogate the Law or the Prophets, but to satisfy them—to bring about in his own Person, and ultimately in the persons of his followers, that righteousness of life which, however limited by the historical conditions under which the Divine oracles had been delivered, was the sum and substance of their teaching. The fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets "is the perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, in which the same is historically apprehended and limited" (Meyer). Martensen puts the matter thus: "How can he say that not a tittle shall pass from the Law, since the development of the Church shows us that the ceremonial law, that the whole Mosaic dispensation, has been annihilated by the influences proceeding from Christ? We answer: He has fulfilled the Law, whilst he has released it from the temporary forms in which its eternal validity was confined; he has unfolded its spiritual essence, its inward perfection. Not even a tittle of the ceremonial law has passed away, if we regard the Mosaic Law as a whole; for the ideas which form its basis, as the distinction between the unclean and the clean, are confirmed by Christ, and contained in the law of holiness which he teaches men"; cf. verse 18, notes, "till heaven and earth pass," "till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 Cf. Luke 16:17, "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the Law to fail" (Revised Version). The words are so similar that the two evangelists probably record the same utterance, the difference in the form of the sentence pointing rather to an oral than a written common source. St. Luke places it in an attack on the Pharisees, who had scoffed at our Lord for his parable of the dishonest steward. Verily; ἀμήν (נם), literally, "established," "sure"). It has hardly been sufficiently noticed by commentators that the New Testament usage of the word "Amen" often slightly differs from that found in the Old Testament. "Amen" in the Old Testament always involves the personal acceptance of the statement to which it refers ("so be it"), whether this be a statement upon oath (Numbers 5:22, perhaps), or a statement of penalties incurred under certain circumstances (Numbers 5:22, probably; Deuteronomy 27:15-26; Nehemiah 5:13); or a statement expressing a pious hope uttered either by another (1 Kings 1:36; Jeremiah 28:6; Jeremiah 11:5 (?); of. Nehemiah 8:6; cf. also 1 Corinthians 14:16); or by one’s self (Psalms 41:13). Hence the LXX. either leaves it untranslated or, with but one exception, translates it by γένοιτο. In Hellenistic Greek, however, it became often used as little more than a mere asseveration ("verily"). The earliest trace of this usage is found in Jeremiah 28:6, where the LXX. renders נם)by ἀληθῶς (Aquila much better πιστθήτω, though generally elsewhere πεπιστωμένως), and it is frequent in the New Testament, cf. especially Luke 9:27, λέγωδὲὑμῖνἀληθῶς, with parallels, ἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν. Yet this usage of "Amen" in Hellenistic Greek does not seem to have ever spread into Hebrew or Aramaic. W. H. Lowe says, and apparently truly, "The Jews never used ’amēn in the sense of ’verily.’ They say תמאב, be’emeth, ’in truth,’ אתונמיה, hemānuthā, ’Faith!’ or מנם), ’omnām, ’verily.’" If so, the fact is interesting, for it implies that, notwithstanding the usage of "Amen" in Greek, our Lord himself, as speaking Aramaic, probably did not use it in the mere sense of strong asseveration, but rather always with its connotation of his entire concurrence in the statement he was making. In his mouth, that is to say, it always emphasized the thought of his personal acceptance of the statement with its legitimate issue. Observe that it makes no difference (cf. Jeremiah 28:6) whether the "Amen" comes at the beginning or at the end of his utterance. N.B.—Ναί (Luke 11:51; cf. Matthew 23:36) may be taken as intermediate between ἀληθῶς and ἀμήν. Ἀληθῶς states a truth; ναί assents with the intellect; ἀμήν, in at least Hebrew and Aramaic usage, accepts it with all its consequences (cf 2 Corinthians 1:19, 2 Corinthians 1:20). Till heaven and earth pass; Revised Version, pass away (παρέλθῃ); and so in the next clause. The same almost archaic sense of "pass" recurs in Psalms 148:6, Authorized Version (Revised Version, "pass away"). Observe that our Lord does not say that the Law will then pass away. He says, not till then; i.e. he affirms, as in Luke 16:17, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the Law. For, in fact, as being constantly fulfilled in its ideal and therefore permanent character, it must necessarily remain in the new world; cf. 1 Peter 1:25 (the everlasting duration of the word of the Lord); 1 Corinthians 13:13 (love); 2 Peter 3:13 (righteousness); cf. Meyer. The belief in the permanence of the Law which the Jews had (vide references in Meyer, and especially Weber, ’Altsynag. Theol.,’ §§ 5, 84) here finds its true satisfaction. "The least element of holiness which the Law contains has more reality and durability than the whole visible universe" (Godet on Luke). Comp. also Mark 13:31, "My words shall not pass away"—a claim only seen in its full three when put beside these words about the Law. One jot. The permanence of even every yod (y, j), though the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, is not infrequently referred to by Jewish writers (cf. e.g. in Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.;’ Edersheim, ’Life,’ 1.537). Observe: (1) The mention of yod, evidently because of its small size, is one proof of the fact that the Hebrew characters in use in our Lord’s time were much more similar to the usual form under which we know them (Quadrate schrift) than to the form found on the Moabite Stone (Phoenician), where the god is no smaller than other letters We may, perhaps, see in our Lord’s reference to yod and a "tittle" an indication that even already scrupulous care was taken of the text. The objection to this, derived from the non-literal quotations in the New Testament is due to a misunderstanding of Jewish methods of quotation. Or one tittle. So Wickliffe and Tyndale downwards; "apparently a diminutive of tit, small" (Aid. Wright, ’Bible WordBook’); κεραία, probably "a horn," then anything projecting like a horn. Used by the early Greek grammarians, like apex by the Latin, to designate: (1) A little projection in a letter, especially the top, the apex; Nicander, "the top and bottom are each called κεραία" (κεραίαλέγεταιτὸἄκρονκαὶἔσχατον; gloss, κεραίαγράμματοςἄκρον); cf. Plutarch, "disputing about syllables and κεραιῶν (λογομαχεῖνπερὶσυλλαβῶνκαὶκεραιῶν); " vide Wetstein. (2) Accents. So Thayer’s Grimm; cf. Sophocles’ ’Lex.’ s.v. κεραία, "Apex, a mark over a letter, as in 5 (Philon., 2:536. 27);" but Philo in this passage only refers to κεραίανἑκάστην, without defining it. This double use of the Greek word forbids absolute certainty as to what our Lord was referring to, especially as the Hebrew word (צוק, literally, "thorn") of which κεραία is a translation has itself a double sense, viz.: (1) The end of a letter, especially the "thorn-like’’small upward stroke of yod. So most interpreters since Origen (in Wetstein), who says that the Hebrew letters caph (ë) and beth (á) differ only by a short κεραία. They also quote the well-known Jewish examples (e.g. in Wetstein) of the effect of negligence in writing similar letters; e.g. if one writes resh (ø) for daleth (ã), "one" (Deuteronomy 6:4) becomes "another;" if heth (ç) for he (ä), "praise" (Psalms 150:1-6.) becomes "profane." It must be noticed that the extremities of such Hebrew letters as we possess, which were actually written in our Lord’s time on earth, are much more "thorn" "horn"-like than those of our printed texts. I cannot, however, find צוק actually used in this sense of other letters than yod. (2) Some distinguishing mark over a letter to indicate care in writing and reading it, or to remind readers of some interpretation or rule attached as a peg to it or to the word of which it forms a part. It was much later, indeed, that such marks became very elaborate, but it is probable that the rudiments of them were known in our Lord’s time (for such מיצוק, cf. Weber, ’Altsynag. Theol.,’ § 27, 2 a, and the article on Akiba in ’Dict. of Christian Biogr.’). If it be objected that our Lord could hardly refer to these marks of traditional explanation as of such permanence, the answer is that in so far as these expressed legitimate issues (vide infra, verse 21) of the Mosaic Law, he could place them on the same level as that Law itself. Till all; Revised Version, till all things; i.e. all things in the Law—all the requirements of the Law, in contrast to the one "jot" or "tittle" just mentioned. Till all be fulfilled; Revised Version, be accomplished (γένηται). The clause is probably epexegetical of "till heaven and earth pass away." Nothing in the Law shall pass away till heaven and earth pass away, when, with a new heaven and earth, all the contents of the Law will be completely realized (cf. Nosgen) so that even then nothing in the Law shall pass away (vide infra). On the contrary, every part of it, moral or ceremonial (Weiss), shall then, by being fully understood and obeyed in its true meaning, enter on its full and complete existence (γένητα). Matthew 5:19 Matthew only. As Christ honoured the Law (verse 17) so are his disciples to honour it. Whosoever therefore. Seeing that every part of the Law is of permanent value. In this verse our Lord once for all declares his opposition to antinomianism. Every one of the commands in the Law is, in its true and ideal meaning, still binding. Shall break (λύσῃ). Not merely in contrast to "do" (ποιήσῃ vide infra) in the sense of "transgress" (Fritzsche), but "abrogate" (cf. Bishop Westcott, on John 5:18, "Not the violation of the sanctity of the day in a special case, but the abrogation of the duty of observance;" cf. also Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; 1 John 3:8). It expresses, indeed, a less complete abrogation than καταλῦσαι (verse 17), because, while speaking of himself, the Lord could use the strongest word possible, and that with reference to the whole Law or the Prophets; but here his expression is limited by the inability of any individual disciple to carry out an abrogation even of one command. One of these least commandments. Not necessarily such as the Pharisees reckoned least, in their enumeration of small and great, but such as our Lord himself symbolized by "jot" or "tittle;" those precepts which in reality are the least important (Meyer). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 6:1-18 The relation of our Lord and his disciples to the religion of the day (continued); vide Matthew 5:17, note. (b) Our Lord turns from cases which could be directly deduced from the Law to those which belonged only to recognized religious duty. Of these he instances three: alms (Matthew 5:2-4), prayer (Matthew 5:5-8, Matthew 5:9-15), fasting (Matthew 5:16-18). It is, indeed, true that the performance of these duties on special occasions was implied in the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy 26:12-15); but there are no regulations concerning their observance in ordinary and daily life. These were matters of custom and tradition; to this the Law, in its original aim and method, did not extend. There was therefore the more need for the Law to be supplemented by the instructions of the Jewish leaders. These our Lord does not reject, but only corrects. Matthew 6:1 Matthew only. Take heed; προσέχετε [δέ] (Westcott and Hort). If "but" is genuine, as is on the whole more probable, our Lord places this warning in close relation to the preceding charge. Aim at "perfection," but beware of mere show. Rather you must consider the estimate that will be formed of you by your Father which is in heaven. That ye do not your alms; Revised Version, your righteousness (so the manuscripts). Although one of the Hebrew words for "righteousness" (ä÷øõ) was used especially for the righteousness of almsgiving (cf. Deuteronomy 6:25, LXX.; and ’Psalms of Solomon,’ 9.6, where see Professor Ryle’s and Mr. James’s note), yet it is improbable that τὴν δικαιοσύνην should here be rendered "alms," because (1) it has this meaning nowhere else in the New Testament; (2) the word for "alms" (ἐλεημοσύνη) comes in the next verse; (3) the emphatic position of τὴν δικαιοσύνην (μὴ ποιεῖν), in contrast to ποιῇς ἐλεημοσύνην (verse 2), points to it being a collective expression of which the various parts are mentioned in the following verses. The form also of the sentence, "when," etc., at the head of each of the other subjects, (verses 5,16) shows that these are co-ordinated with verse 2. Your; in contrast to that of the typical Jews. The limitation implied in ὑμῶν, gives a more partial and probably more external meaning to "righteousness" (cf. Ezekiel 18:22, Ezekiel 18:24) than is to be seen in the corresponding phrase in 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:7. To be seen of them (πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς. Having for your final purpose (cf. Ellicott on 1 Corinthians 9:18) to be gazed at by them (cf. Matthew 23:1-39. 5; Acts 1:11; and T.R. of Acts 8:18; at. supra, Matthew 5:28). Otherwise (Winer, § 65:3. c). Ye have no reward (Matthew 5:12, note). Of your Father; Authorized Version margin and Revised Version, with; the thought being not that it is given by him, but that it is laid up with him (παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ ὑμῶν). Perhaps, however, the preposition rather means "in the judgment of" (cf. 1 Peter 2:4). Your Father (Matthew 5:16. note). Notice the frequent repetition of the phrase in this context (Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:15, Matthew 6:18 bis). Matthew 6:2-4 Almsgiving. Matthew only. Matthew 6:2 Therefore. A deduction from the general principle laid down in Matthew 6:1. When thou doest alms (ποιῇς ἐλεημοσύνην). The exact phrase comes here and Matthew 6:3 only. In Luke 11:41 and Luke 12:33 (δότε) alms are con-sidereal rather as a gift; in Acts 9:36; Acts 10:2; Acts 24:17 (ἐλεημοσύνας), rather as to their separate occasions and materials; here quite generally but rather as an action, a work. Do not sound a trumpet (μησῃς). Probably a purely metaphorical expression (cf. our "He is his own trumpeter"). Edersheim, ’Temple,’ etc., p. 27 (cf. Schottgen) sees rather in it an ironical allusion to the form and name of the treasure-chests in the court of the women. "The Lord, making use of the word ’trumpet,’ describes the conduct of those who, in their almsgiving, sought glory from men as ’sounding a trumpet’ before them—that is, carrying before them, as it were, in full display one of these trumpet-shaped alms-boxes (literally called in the Talmud, ’trumpets’), and, as it were, sounding it." This interpretation would have been less fanciful if the substantive had been used instead of the verb. Others (e.g. Calvin, Bengel) have taken it of a literal trumpet; but of this practice there is no evidence whatever. "I have not found, although I have sought for it much and seriously, even the least mention of a trumpet in almsgiving" (J. Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.’). Before thee; part of the metaphor, since one holds a trumpet up to one’s mouth. As the hypocrites do. The comma after "do" in the ordinary text of the Authorized Version (not in Scrivener) connects "do not sound a trumpet before thee" with "in the synagogues," etc., and more readily suggests the literal interpretation of "trumpet" to the English reader. The hypocrites (οἱὑποκριταί). In Attic usage the word means those who play a part upon the stage. Hence, by an easy transition to the moral sphere," hypocrisy" became used in later Greek of "the assumption of a part which masked [men’s] genuine feelings, and made them appear otherwise than they were" (cf. Bishop Lightfoot, on Galatians 2:13). Persons who assumed this part would indeed often be identical with ὁἀσεβεῖς οἱπαράνομοι, and the term ὑποκριταί may sometimes be used as synonymous with these (an extension of language which would be the more easy as the Hebrew word for "hypocrite" (ôðç) implies not so much hypocrisy as pollution by sin); but there seems no need to see any other connotation in the New Testament than "hypocrite." To wilfully and continuously attempt to produce a false impression—especially in religion—is, after all, a mark of extreme distance from the truth-loving God. In the synagogues and in the streets (Acts 24:5, note). That they may have glory of men (ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν); instead of this glory being given to God (Acts 5:16). The thought, however, of the word is rather of the glory given than of their welcome reception of it (δόξαν λαμβάνειν, John 5:44; contrast Luke 4:15). Verily (Acts 5:18, note). They have; Revised Version, they have received (ἀπέχουσιν). The force of the preposition is "correspondence, i.e. of the contents to the capacity, of the possession to the desire, etc., so that it denotes the full complement" (Bishop Lightfoot, on Philippians 4:18). That which fully corresponds to their desires and their rightful expectation they have to the full. They therefore have (ἔχουσι) no other reward left for them to receive (Acts 24:1). Schottgen gives several examples of Jewish sayings about men receiving their reward in this life only (cf. Ign., ’Polyc.,’ § 5, "If a man boast [of his chastity], he is lost"). Matthew 6:3 But when thou; "thou" emphatic. Let not thy left hand know, etc. So little effect should thy kind action have upon thy memory. There should be no self-consciousness in it. Matthew 6:4 And thy Father which seeth in secret (comp. Matthew 6:6, note). Himself. Revised ’Version omits, with the manuscripts. Shall reward thee; Revised Version, shall recompense thee (ἀποδώσει σοι). Shall give to thee in full measure corresponding to the contents of that which is really due (cf. Isaiah 65:6, Isaiah 65:7, LXX.). When this" recompense" shall be given is not stated. If, as is probable, our Lord is thinking of the" reward" of Matthew 6:1 and Matthew 5:12, it would naturally be given at the judgment-day. Openly. Revised Version omits, with the manuscripts; similarly Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:18. The interpolation was probably made not only because of the contrast suggested by "in secret," but also to indicate more precisely the time when God would do this. Matthew 6:5-15 Prayer. Matthew 6:5-8 Matthew only. Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be, etc.; Revised Version, plural. Matthew 6:5 is addressed to the disciples generally, Matthew 6:6 to them individually. (For the future, cf. Matthew 5:48, note.) As the hypocrites are (Matthew 6:2, note). The ’Didache,’ § 8., following this passage, says, "Neither pray ye as the hypocrites," referring, like our Lord, to practices affected chiefly by the Pharisees. For they love (ὅτι φιλοῦσι). Not to be translated "they are wont." Our Lord points out the cause of this their custom. It was not that the synagogue was more convenient (he is, of course, thinking of their private prayers), or that they were accidentally overtaken by the prayer-hour when in the street, but their innate love of display made them choose these places "that they may be seen of men" (cf. Matthew 6:16, and contrast Matthew 6:2). To pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets; to stand and pray, etc. (Revised Version), giving, however, slightly more emphasis on "stand" than its position warrants. The emphasis is really on the place, not on the posture, which was only what was usual among Jews. There is no thought of taking up their position, standing still (σταθέντες, Acts 5:20; cf. Luke 18:11, Luke 18:40). They have, etc. (Matthew 6:2, note). Matthew 6:6 But thou (emphatic) when thou prayset, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray, etc. An adaptation of Isa 26:20 (cf. also 2 Kings 4:33). The prophet’s language describing the action befitting a time of terror is used by our Lord to express what ought to be the normal practice of each of his followers. Observe that the widow of one of the sons of the prophets so acted when she was about to receive the miraculous supply of oil (2 Kings 4:4, 2 Kings 4:5). Closet; Revised Version, inner chamber, more readily suggesting the passage in Isaiah to the English reader. To thy Father which is in secret. Not "which seeth in secret," as in the next clause. The thought here may be partly that to be unseen of men is a help to communion with him who is also unseen by them, but especially that the manner of your actions ought to resemble that of your Father’s, who is himself unseen and works unseen. And thy Father which seeth in secret. You will be no loser, since his eyes pass by nothing, however well concealed it be from the eyes of men. Shall reward thee openly (verse 4, notes). Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray (προσευχόμενοι δέ). The Revised Version, and in praying, shows that our Lord is only continuing the subject, and not turning to a new one, as in Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:16. But while he has thus far thought of prayer as an external act, he now speaks of the substance of the prayers offered, the δέ indicating a transition to another aspect of the same subject. Use not vain repetitions; "Babble not much" (Tyndale). The word used (μὴβατταλογήσητε) is probably onomatopoeic of stuttering. The Peshito employs here the same root (see Arabic word) as for μογιλάλος, Mark 7:32 (Arabic word). But from the primary sense of stuttering, βατταλογεῖν, naturally passed to that of babbling in senseless repetitions. As the heathen do (οἱἐθνεικοί, Gentiles, Revised Version; Matthew 5:47, note). Thinking that the virtue lies in the mere utterance of the words. Even the Jews came perilously near this in their abundant use of synonyms and synonymous expressions in their prayers (cf. Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.’). Perhaps it was this fact that assisted the introduction of the reading "hypocrites" in B and the Old Syriac. For they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. In the continuance (ἐν) of their external action lies their hope of being fully heard (εισακουσθήσονται). Matthew 6:8 Be not ye therefore like. Revised Version omits "ye," as the emphatic personal pronoun is not expressed. The connexion of thought is—Seeing you are expected to shun heathen error (Meyer), do not allow yourselves to reproduce heathen practices. By observing these you would be taking a definite way of becoming like (passive, or rather middle, ὁμοιωθῆτε) those who ordinarily practise them. For; i.e. you stand on a different footing altogether from the heathen; you are intimately related to One above, who knows your wants, even before you express them to him. Your Father; Revised Version margin, "some ancient authorities read God your Father." So ), B, sah. (ὁΘεός is bracketed by Westcott and Hort). The insertion is at first sight suspicious, but as there is no trace of such an addition in Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:14. 18 (in Matthew 6:32 only )), it is hard to see why it should have been interpolated here. Its omission, on the other hand, is easily accounted for by its absence in those passages. The internal evidence, therefore, corroborates the strong external evidence of )*, B. Our Lord here said "God" to emphasize the majesty and power of "your Father." Knoweth; i.e. intuitively (οἶδεν); el. Matthew 6:32. Matthew 6:9-13 The pattern of prayer. Parallel passage: Luke 11:2-4. For most suggestive remarks on the Lord’s Prayer, both generally and in its greater difficulties of detail, compare by all means Chase, ’The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church:’ (Cambridge Texts and Studies). Observe: (1) If the prayer had already been given by the Lord in the sermon on the mount, "one of his disciples" would hardly afterwards have asked him to teach them to pray, as John also taught his disciples (Luke 11:1-54. l). It is much more easy, therefore, to consider that the original occasion of its utterance is recorded by St. Luke, and that it therefore did not belong to the sermon on the mount as that discourse was originally delivered. (2) A question that admits of a more doubtful answer is whether the more original form of the prayer is found in Matthew or in Luke. It will be remembered that in the true text of his Gospel, the latter does not record the words, "Which art in heaven," "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth," "But deliver us from evil," besides reading "day by day" instead of "this day," "sins" instead of "debts," and "for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us" instead of" as we also have forgiven our debtors." Most writers suppose St. Matthew’s form to be the original, and St. Luke’s to be only a shortened form. In favour of this are the considerations that (a) St. Matthew’s words, "Forgive us our debts," represent an older, because parabolic, form of expression than the apparently interpretative "Forgive us our sins" in St. Luke. (b) St. Matthew’s words, "as we also," seem to be expanded into "for we ourselves also," in St. Luke. (c) St. Luke’s "day by day" occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in his writings (Luke 19:47; Acts 17:11), so that it is likely to be his own phrase, and therefore less original than St. Matthew’s "this day" (cf. Weiss, ’Matthiaus-Ev.,’ and Page, Expositor, III. 7.436). On the ether hand, the words, "Which art in heaven," are so characteristic of St. Matthew (Matthew 10:32, Matthew 10:33; cf. Matthew 12:50; Matthew 15:13; Matthew 18:10, Matthew 18:14, Matthew 18:19, Matthew 18:35; Matthew 23:1-39. 9), and especially of the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:16; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 7:11, Matthew 7:21; cf. Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:48; Matthew 6:14, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:32), that it seems more natural to suppose that this clause at least was added by him or by the authors of his sources to the original form, rather than that it was omitted by St. Luke. In connexion with this it may be pointed out how easy it was for our Lord to say only "Father" (Luke 11:2) immediately after his own prayer to him (Luke 11:1). Taking everything into consideration, it seems reasonable to arrive at two conclusions. First, that the form in Luke presents, as a whole, the more primitive and original instruction of the Lord, and that that given in Matthew presents the Lord’s words as fully developed, partly perhaps by himself directly, partly by his indirect guidance of Christian usage. St. Matthew’s Gospel would thus at once both show the effect and be the cause of the preference for the longer form in liturgical use. Secondly, and more exactly, that both the evangelists record the prayer after it had passed through some development in different parts of the Church, St. Matthew giving it a generally later stage, but preserving one or two clauses in an earlier and better form. Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore. Therefore; in contrast to the heathen practice, and in the full confidence which you have in your almighty Father’s intuitive knowledge of your needs. After this manner (οὕτως). Not "in these words;" but he will most closely imitate the manner who most often reminds himself of it by using the words. Pray ye. "Ye" emphatic—ye my disciples; ye the children of such a Father. Our Father. In English we just lack the power to keep, with a plural possessive pronoun (contrast "father mine"), the order of Christ’s words (Πάτερ ἡμῶν) which other languages possess (Pater noster; Vater unser). Christ places in the very forefront the primary importance of the recognition of spiritual relationship to God. There is no direct thought here of God as the All-Father in the modern and often deistic sense. Yet it is affirmed elsewhere in Scripture (Acts 17:28; cf. Luke 15:21), and spiritual relationship is perhaps only possible because of the natural relationship (cf. Matthew 5:16, note). Our. Though the prayer is here given with special reference to praying alone (Matthew 6:6), the believer is to be reminded at once that he is joined by spiritual relationship to many others who have the same needs, etc., as himself. Which art in heaven (ὁἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). Added in this fuller form of the prayer (vide supra), on the one hand to definitely exclude the application of the words however mediately to any human teacher (cf. Matthew 23:1-39. 9), and on the other to remind those who pray of the awful majesty of him whom they address. "They are a Sursum corda; they remind us that now we have lifted up our hearts from earth and things earthly to another and a higher world" (Trench, ’Sermon on the Mount’). Hallowed be thy name. The first of the three prayers for the furtherance of God’s cause. Their parallelism is seen much more clearly in the Greek than in the English order of the words. Thy name. We look on a name almost as an accidental appendage by which a person is designated, but in its true idea it is the designation of a person which exactly answers to his nature and qualities. Hence the full Name of God is properly that description of him which embraces all that he really is. As, however, the term "name" implies that it is expressed, it must, when it is used of God, be limited to that portion of his nature and qualities which can be expressed in human terms, because it has been already made known to us. The "name" of God, here and elsewhere in the Bible, therefore, does not mean God in his essence, but rather that manifestation of himself which he has been pleased to give, whether partial and preparatory as under the old covenant (cf. Genesis 4:26 [Genesis 16:13]; Genesis 32:29; Exodus 6:3; Exodus 34:5), or final as under the new (cf. John 17:6); or again (to take another division found in Exell’s ’Biblical Illustrator,’ in loc.) the manifestation of himself through nature, through inspired words, through the Incarnation. Compared with the Glory (δόξα) "the Name expresses the revelation as it is apprehended and used by man. Man is called by the Name, and employs it. The Glory expresses rather the manifestation of the Divine as Divine, as a partial disclosure of the Divine Majesty not directly intelligble by man (comp. Exodus 33:18, ft.)" (Bishop Westcott,’ Add. Note’ on 3 John 1:7). Hallowed be. Ἁγιασθήτω cannot here, as sometimes (Revelation 22:11; cf. John 17:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:23), mean "be made holy," for this God’s manifestation of himself already is; but "be counted holy," i.e. in human judgment. The prayer is that God’s manifestation of himself may be acknowledged and revered as the one supreme standard of truth and the one means of knowing God and approaching him; of 1 Peter 3:15, where "ἁγιάζω obviously means ’set apart, enshrined as the object of supreme, absolute reverence, as free from all defilement and possessed of all excellence’" (Johnstone, in lee.); cf. also Isaiah 29:23. The same thought appears to have been the basis of the early Western alternative petition for the gift of the Holy Spirit; i.e. the address to the Father was followed by a prayer for purification by the Holy Spirit preparatory to the prayer, "Thy kingdom come." A man must accept God’s manifestation of himself before he can take part in the spread of the kingdom. Gregory of Nyssa says distinctly, "Let thy Holy Spirit come upon us and purify us;" but he substitutes this prayer for the words, "Thy kingdom come." (For the support afforded by this to the theory that the Lord’s Prayer circulated in a varying form, cf. Chase, loc. cit.) Gregory’s petition, as affecting only humanity, is less comprehensive than that found m o r Gospels. Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Let there come the full establishment of thy realm. The prayer passes from the personal acceptance in the heart of God’s revelation of himself to the consequent result. The clause has a much wider meaning than the development and spread of the Church, or even the personal return of Christ at the second advent. It speaks of that which shall be the issue of both this and that, the final and perfect establishment of God’s realm, in which all men will do him willing service, and all habits and customs, individual and social, will be such as he approves of. Dr. C. Taylor (’Sayings,’ etc., Exc. 5.) points out that the coming of the kingdom and the sanctifying of the Name are brought together in Zechariah 14:9; Weiss, ’ Life,’ 2:349, with many others, says that our Lord probably adapted the frequent Jewish prayer for the coming of the kingdom of Messiah. Thy will be done. Let thy will come into complete existence (γενηθήτω; of. "Let there be light," Genesis 1:3, LXX.). The thought is not merely God’s will realized in this or that action, whether performed or endured by us (cf. Matthew 26:42; Acts 21:14), but God’s will as a whole coming into full being. God’s will is always in ideal until it is accomplished in act. The connexion of the clause with what has gone before is therefore this—the acceptance of God’s manifestation of himself leads to the establishment of his realm, and this to the realization of his will, which until then is only ideal (cf. Matthew 5:18, note, end). If this be all the meaning of the words, they express, in fact, only the ultimate result of the consummation prayed for in the preceding clause (hence this portion of the prayer was in itself complete without our present words; cf. Luke 11:2); but since it is so far a distinct thought that it would not immediately suggest itself, it has a worthy place in the fuller form of the prayer. Possibly, however, more may be intended. The full establishment of the kingdom may be only a part of his loving will, which may, for all we know, have countless other things in view. The highest prayer that we can make in the furtherance of God’s cause is that his gracious purpose, his will may be fully brought about. In earth, as it is in heaven; as in heaven, so on earth (Revised Version). Probably the words are to be joined to only the immediately preceding clause. In heaven God’s will is already realized; not yet on earth, where sin has entered. Matthew 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον Here begin the petitions for our personal needs. The first is for earthly food, the means of maintaining our earthly life. For "in order to serve God it is first of all necessary that we live" (Godet, on Luke). Give us. The order in the Greek emphasizes not God’s grace in giving, but the thing asked for. This day. Parallel passage: Luke 11:3, "day by day (τὸ καθ ἡμέραν)." The thought suggested there, of continuance in the supply, is seen also in the verb (δίδου). Daily (ἐπιούσιον); and so Luke. It will be sufficient to do little more than indicate the chief lines of proposed derivations and interpretations of this ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. (1) Ἐπια (a) physical, "for subsistence,"" sufficient or necessary to sustain us;" (b) spiritual, "for our essential being" (cf. Jerome’s rendering with a literalism that recalls the rabbis, super-substantially. (2) Ἐπι "to be," "bread which is ready at hand or suffices" (similarly Delitzsch, in Thayer, s.v.). The chief and fatal objection to both (1) and (2) is that the form would be ἐπούσιος. (3) Ἐπι εἶμι, "to come;" (a) with direct reference to "bread"—our "successive," "continual," "ever-coming" bread (so the Old Syriac, and partly the Egyptian versions), that which comes as each supply is required; the prayer then meaning, "Our bread as it is needed give us to-day"; (b)derived mediately from ἐπιοῦσα sc. ἡμέρα (cf. Acts 16:11; Acts 20:15; Acts 21:18), "bread for the coming day," i.e. the same day, if the prayer be said in the morning; the next day if it be said in the evening (so Bishop Lightfoot). Between (3) (a) and (3) (b) it is very difficult to decide. Against (a) is the fact that it is hard to say why the common form ἐπίοντα would not have served; against (b), while the use of the word is perfectly consistent with casting all care upon God for to-morrow (Matthew 6:34), there still remains the fact that there is some tautology in saying, "Our bread for the coming day give us to-day," or even the formula in the parallel passage in Luke, "Our bread for the coming day give us day by day." On the whole, perhaps (3) (a) presents the least difficulties. Bread. It is very doubtful if to use this petition of spiritual food is anything more than a legitimate application (made, indeed, as early as the ’Didache,’ § 10.) of words which in themselves refer only to material food (see further Chase, loc. cit.). Matthew 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Forgive; a change in God’s relation to us and our sins. No plea is urged, for the atonement had not yet been made. Our debts (τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν) parallel passage in Luke, τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν). It is probable that Matthew took one meaning, perhaps the more primary, and Luke another, perhaps the more secondary, of the original Aramaic word (àáåç); but, as "debtors" comes in the next clause, it seems reasonable to suppose that Matthew represents the sense in which our Lord intended the word to be understood. Luke may have avoided it as too strongly Hebraic a metaphor, even though he does use ὀφειλέται of men in relation to God (Luke 13:4). The ’Didache,’ 8., gives the singular, ὀφειλήν (cf. infra, Matthew 18:32), which Dr. Taylor thinks is preferable. The singular, especially with "debtors" following, would very naturally be corrupted to the plural. Sins are termed "debts," as not rendering to God his due (Matthew 22:21; cf. Matthew 25:27). As we; Revised Version, as we also (ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς). In the same way as we have—a comparison of fact, not of proportion (cf. Matthew 8:13; Matthew 18:33). (For the thought, cf. Ecclesiasticus 28:2.) Luke’s "for we ourselves also" (καὶ γὰρ αὐτοί) lays more stress on our forgiving others being a reason for God forgiving us. Forgive; Revised Version, have forgiven, in the past (aorist). Luke’s present is of the habit. Our debtors. Luke individualizes (παντιλοντι ἡμῖν Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Luke omits the second half. And lead us not (καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς); and bring us not (Revised Version), for εἰσφέρω thinks rather of the issue (cf. Luke 5:18, Luke 5:19: Luke 12:11) than of the personal guidance. This first clause is a prayer against being brought into the fulness and awfulness of temptation. As such it cannot, indeed, always be granted, since in exceptional cases this may be part of the permission given to the prince of this world. So it was in our Lord’s case (cf. Matthew 26:41, and context). The words are a cry issuing from a deep sense of our personal weakness against the powers of evil. Into temptation; i.e. spiritual. External trials, e.g. persecution, may be included, but only in so far as they are the occasion of real temptation to the soul. But. Do not bring us into the full force of temptation, but, instead, rescue us now and at any other time from the attack of the evil one (vide infra). Thus this clause is more than a merely positive form of the preceding. It is a prayer against even the slightest attacks of the enemy when they are made. Deliver us (ῥῦσαι ἡμὰς). The thought is not merely preserve (σώζειν τηρεῖν) or even guard (φρουρεῖν, φυλάσσειν) from possible or impending danger, but "rescue" from it when it confronts us. From. If we may press the contrast to Colossians 1:13 (ἐρύσατο … ἐκ), ἀπὸ suggests that the child of God is no longer actually in the power (1 John 5:19) of the evil one. but has been already delivered thence. The peril is, as it were, something outside him (compare, however, Chase, loc. cit.). Evil. So also the Revised Version margin; but the evil one (Revised Version). In itself τοῦ πονηροῦ might, of course, be either neuter or masculine, but in view of (a) Matthew 13:19, (b) the many passages in the New Testament where the expression is either certainly or probably masculine; e.g. 1 John 2:13, 1 John 2:14; 1 John 5:18, 1 John 5:19; John 17:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; (c) the many allusions to the masculine reference of this petition shown by Bishop Lightfoot and Mr. Chase (lot. cit.) to exist in early Christian literature—there seems little doubt that the Revised Version is right. Chase (loc. cit.) shows that the primary notion of both πονηρός, and its Hebrew equivalent òø, is not malignity (Trench), but worthless ness, essential badness. For thine is the kingdom, etc. Omitted in the Revised Ver sion on overwhelming authority (e.g. à, B, D, Z, Old Latin, Memphitic, "all Greek commentators on the Lord’s Prayer except Chrysostom and his followers," Westcott and Hort, ’App., q.v.). In the ’Didache,’ §§ 8., 9., 10., however, we find our doxology with very little other variation than the omission of "the kingdom," this itself being explained in the two latter sections by the immediately preceding mention of the kingdom. Similar omissions of one or more of the three terms, "kingdom, power, glory," are found in the Old Syriac, an "African" text of the Old Latin, and the Thebaic. "It was probably derived ultimately from 1 Chronicles 29:11 (Hebrews), but, it may be, through the medium of some contemporary Jewish usage: the people’s response to prayers in the temple is said to have been ’Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever’" (Westcott and Hort, loc. cit.). Indeed, it was so usual for doxologies of one kind or another to be added by the Jews to prayers, that, though we cannot for one moment accept the words here as genuine, we must consider it very doubtful in the Lord’s Prayer was ever used in Jewish circles without a doxology, or that our Lord, as Man, ever intended it to be so used. At all events, the feeling of the Christian Church in using the doxology is fully justified by its contents; for it places us more emphatically than ever in a right relation to God. By our praise to him it induces in us the remembrance that it is to God’s kingdom that we belong, having him for King and Source of law; that it is by God’s power that we live on earth and stand freed from Satan’s grasp; that it is for the furtherance of God’s glory that all has been done for us, all wrought in us, all these petitions are now made and all our hopes and aims are directed. Hereafter, as Bengel says. the whole prayer will be doxology: "Hallowed be the Name of our God. His kingdom has come; his will is done. He has forgiven us our sins. He has brought our temptation to an end; He has delivered us from the evil one. His is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." Matthew 6:14, Matthew 6:15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, etc. Matthew only. To insert the reason for having said, in the Lord’s Prayer, "as we forgive our debtors," emphasizes the necessity of such forgiveness. Trespasses; παραπτώματα, not ὀφειλήματα (verse 12). Our Lord uses a word which would forbid any limitation to pecuniary matters. Their trespasses. Omitted by Tischendorf, and bracketed by Westcott and Hort. The omission more sharply contrasts "men" and "your Father." Matthew 6:16-18 Matthew only. Matthew 6:16 Fasting. The third in the series of recognized religious duties (Matthew 6:1, note). (On the prominence given to fasting, see ’Psalms of Solomon,’ 3:9, with Ryle’s and James’s note, and Schurer, II. 2:118; cf. Matthew 9:14.) Observe (1) Christ does not abolish it, but regulates it; (2) yet fasting is mentioned much less often in the true text of the New Testament than in that which, developed contemporaneously with eccle-siasticism, became the Received Text. Be not as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance. The Revised Version, by inserting a comma between "not" and "as," shows that the true emphasis of the warning lies, not on resemblance to the hypocrites themselves, but on being of a sad countenance, as in fact also the hypocrites were. The hypocrites (Matthew 6:2, note; cf. also ’Didache,’ § 8., "But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites," where, however, the thought is rather of hypocrites as representing the Pharisaic, the typically Jewish party). The early Jewish Christians are bidden in the ’Didache’ to avoid the fasting-days chosen by the Jews. Be not. Our Lord does not forbid even this sad countenance if it be, so to speak, natural; but do not, because you fast, therefore purposely become so (μὴ γίνεσθε), i.e. in sign of your supposed sorrow for sin (cf. Ecclesiasticus 19:26). Of a sad countenance (σκυθρωποί); gloomy, especially- in knitting the brows. In Daniel 1:10 (Thee-dotion) used of merely physically bad looks (cf. ’Test. XII. Patr.,’ § 4, of the look of a man whose liver is out of order). In the New Testament elsewhere only Luke 24:17, "And they stood still, looking sad," Revised Version (cf. Genesis 40:7; Ecclesiasticus 25:23). For they disfigure. The play on the words points to the ’Gospel having been originally composed in Greek. It is curious that ἀφανίζω comes elsewhere in Matthew only in verses 19, 20, while in the whole of the New Testament it only comes twice besides: Acts 13:41 (from the LXX.) and James 4:14 (ἀφανισμός, Hebrews 8:13). As verse 19 is peculiar to Matthew, and verse 20 is a corollary to it though in part found also in Luke 12:33, the whole passage Luke 12:16-20 is probably either due to the author of the First Gospel or else derived by him from some one source. In this connexion it may be noticed that κρυφαῖος comes in the New Testament only in Luke 12:18 (twice). Physical disfigurement, common in many nations as a sign of grief, such as tearing or marking the flesh, is not to be thought of, since this was forbidden (Le Luke 19:28; Deuteronomy 14:1). Ἀφανίζειν, too, has no such connotation, but rather hiding out of sight, hence causing to vanish, destroy (Luke 12:19); here, in the sense of giving a strange, unpleasant appearance, e.g. by ashes, or by not washing, or even by covering part of the face or the head (cf. Ezekiel 24:17; 2 Samuel 15:30; Esther 6:12). That they may appear unto men to fast; Revised Version, that they may be seen, etc.; i.e. not the mere appearance, as though there were appearance only, but the being seen as fasting—conspicuousness, not mere semblance. Hence νηστεύοντες is expressed (contrast Luke 12:5), since while in Luke 12:5 not the praying but the piety that induced it is to be made apparent, here it is the very fact itself of fasting, which, except for these external signs, might escape human notice. They have (Luke 12:2, note). Matthew 6:17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face. If both these were, among the Jews, done daily, Christ’s command would mean—make no external sign of fasting; dress and appear as usual. But as anointing, at least, cannot be proved to have been a daily habit (though expressly forbidden during the stricter kinds of fasts, see Schurer, II. 2.212), especially with the mixed classes whom our Lord was addressing, and as it was with the ancients rather a symbol of special joy, it is safer to take it in this sense here. Thus our Lord will mean—so far from appearing sad, let your appearance be that of special joy and gladness. "By the symbols of joy and gladness he bade us be joyful and glad when we fast" (Photius, in Suicer, 1:186). Matthew 6:18 Which is in secret (τῷ ἐν τῷ κρυφαίῳ); Matthew 6:6, note. Shall reward thee openly (Matthew 6:4, note). Matthew 6:19 Matthew 7:12 (3) General principles regarding the relation of the disciples to wealth and to men. Matthew 6:19-34 (1) The principle of regarding God alone in our religious actions is also to be maintained in the relation that we hold to wealth in the broadest sense. Matthew 6:19-21: seek true wealth, because earthly wealth, though gathered, may be rendered useless by earth’s chances. Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23: further, because it is the single eye that receives the light. Matthew 6:24: in fact divided service is impossible. Matthew 6:25-34: place God first, and he will provide. Matthew 6:19-21 Matthew 6:19 comes here only, but Matthew 6:20, Matthew 6:21 have much in common with Luke 12:33, Luke 12:34. They are there in the middle of a long discourse (Luke 12:22-53), which immediately follows the parable of the rich fool, itself spoken on the occasion when a man wished his brother to divide the inheritance with him. There seems no reason to believe that that discourse is at all necessarily in historical position, and that our verses belong originally to it and to its occasion rather than to the present place in Matthew. Matthew 6:19 Lay not up … but lay up (Matthew 6:20). Lay up treasure indeed, but in the right place (cf. a still more striking case in John 6:27); observe that in both cases it is "for yourselves." Lightfoot (’Hor. Hebr.,’ on verse 1) quotes an interesting Haggada from Talm. Jeremiah,’ Peah,’ 15b (equivalent to Talm. Bob., ’Baba Bathra,’ 11a), in which "Monobazes, the king," when blamed for giving so much to the poor, defends himself at length: "My fathers laid up their wealth on earth; I lay up mine in heaven," etc. But our Lord here does not mean to limit his reference to almsgiving. He thinks of all that has been mentioned since Matthew 5:3 (cf. Weiss) as affording means of heavenly wealth. Upon earth; upon the earth (Revised Version). Our Lord here wishes to emphasize the locality as such (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς): in Matthew 5:20 rather the nature and quality of the locality (ἐν οὐρανῷ). Where moth (cf. James 5:2, James 5:3; Isaiah 51:8, especially LXX.). Either directly or by its larvae, whether the treasure be clothes or food. Or rust. Any power that eats, or corrodes, or wastes (βρῶσις). Doth corrupt; Revised Version, doth consume. "Corrupt" "has now a moral significance, which does not in any degree appertain to the Greek" (Humphry). Ἀφανίζει (Matthew 5:16, note) is here used of the complete change in the appearance or even of the complete destruction caused by these slow but sure enemies of earthly wealth. And where thieves. Before, physical or non-responsible agents; here, human beings. Break through (διορούσουσιν); "dig through" (cf. Matthew 24:43; Luke 12:39; cf. Job 24:16, LXX.). Where the houses are so frequently made of mud or sun-burnt bricks, this would be comparatively easy. Matthew 6:20 But lay up (Matthew 6:19, note). Matthew 6:21 For where. A further reason for laying up treasures in heaven: wherever they are they have a positive effect on the soul. Your treasure; thy (Revised Version). The singular was altered by the copyists so as to correspond with the plural found in the earlier part of the utterance and in the undisputed text of Luke. But our Lord loves to speak to each soul individually. Your heart (Matthew 5:8, note). Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23 The light of the body is the eye, etc. Parallel passage: Luke 11:34-36, where it immediately follows the illustration of putting a lamp under the bushel (Matthew 5:15). The excessive difficulty of Luke’s verse 36 points to Luke having preserved on the whole the more original form of the saying; but it seems quite impossible to say which is its more original position. It suits the context quite as well in Matthew as in Luke, while the mere verbal similarity of λύχνος may have caused it to be placed in Luke after his verse 33 (cf. verse 24, infra, note). The light of the body; the lamp (Revised Version); ὁλύχνος (Matthew 5:15, note). The thought of the power which treasure has of attracting the heart forms the transition to the need of a pure and steady "eye" heavenwards. The bodily eye is taken as the symbol of the outlooking power of the soul, not the soul—the inner man—itself, but its outlooking power. As the body is illuminated by the eye, i.e. as by the eye the bodily constitution learns its environment, and naturally, almost automatically, tends to accommodate itself to it, so is it with the gaze of the soul. If this be upon the things of this world, the soul perceives, and tends to accommodate itself to the things of this world; if upon things in heaven, it perceives, and tends to accommodate itself to, the things in heaven. The Authorized Version "light" is, therefore, imperfect, for the gaze of the soul is not "light" (φῶς), but a "lamp" (λύχνος). As the bodily eye is not itself light, but only an instrument for receiving and imparting light, so in the mere gaze of the soul there is no inherent light, but it is the means of receiving and imparting light to the soul. If therefore thine eye be single. The word "single" (ἁπλοῦς) presents some difficulty. (1) If it meant "undivided," it would doubtless continue the illustration of the lamp, with an undivided as contrasted with a divided wick, but it has no such meaning. (2) It states the opposite, not to divisions, but to folds (vide Trench, ’Syn.,’ § 56.); it is "single" as opposed to "plicate," and therefore can hardly contain any direct reference to the lamp. Its meaning rather appears to be purely metaphorical, and the word seems to be applied ’directly to the functions of the eye in relation to the body. If the eye be "single" and (to use another but related metaphor) straightforward in its working, then the body receives through it the light that it ought to receive. So is it with the gaze of the soul in its effect on the inner man. (3) Perhaps, however, ἁπλοῦση is here used in the sense of non-compound; in this case free from any foreign substance to bar the light from passing through it (cf. Matthew 7:3, and Basil, ’De Spiritu Sancto,’ 9. § 23, sqq.). Thy whole body shall be full of light (φωτινὸν ἔσται). Well-lighted in itself, and bright in appearance to others (cf. s, νεφέλη φωτινή, Matthew 17:5). The word chosen seems to indicate, not merely that the body is, through the eye, lighted, but also that it itself becomes in measure, like the eye, full of light for others. All one’s powers become illumined with the Divine light, and the illumination shines through. But if thine eye be evil, etc. Evil (πονηρός); verse 13, note. Vitiated, worthless. As an eye that does not fulfil its natural function, so is that gaze of the soul which is directed only earthward. To limit tiffs, with Lightfoot (’Hor. Hebr.’), to covetousness, is far too partial an interpretation. Such an earthward and selfish gaze of the soul may often issue in selfishness as regards money (cf. Matthew 20:15), but the full meaning of the phrase includes very much more. Thy whole body shall be full of darkness. What the heart craves to see it sees; but in this case, not light makes its entrance, but darkness, which, as in the case of the light, permeates the frame. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness; rather, is darkness; the change here to the indicative (ει)... ἐστίν) indicating that the last preceding clause is assumed as fact. The light that is in thee. Our Lord does not say, "the light that comes through the eye," for he means more than this, viz. that the very information, so to speak, brought first by the outlook of the soul, comes into us and remains in us. He assumes that this, which ought to be light, is darkness. How great is that darkness! i.e. the darkness (Revised Version)just spoken of, which comes through the eye. So, probably, Luke 11:35. If’ the gaze which should bring light brings only darkness, how terrible in its nature and effects must that darkness be! It is, however, possible to understand our Lord to refer in this verse to the natural darkness of the soul before it looks out of itself. In this case the thought is—you need a fixed gaze heavenwards; if your gaze is not heavenwards, it brings darkness instead of light; how black, then, must be the natural darkness! (cf. especially Trench, ’ Sermon on the Mount’). It will be noticed that in these verses darkness, though scientifically only negative—the absence of light—is here represented as positive, because it is the symbol of sin and evil. Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters, etc. In Luke 16:13 the saying is found almost word for word immediately after the parable of the unjust steward. As the word "mammon" comes twice in that parable, but nowhere else in the New Testament, it is probable that its occurrence caused the insertion of this saying in that place (cf. Luke 16:22, note). No man can serve two masters. The thought is still of earnestness of purpose and singleness of heart. Our Lord here speaks of the impossibility of such divided service as he has been warning his disciples against attempting. No man can give due service to two masters. For, apart from the extent of the claim of each master—total bond-service (δουλεύειν)—thorough service of two masters is incompatible with the effects produced upon the servant himself. The result of service is to incline him towards the one master and against the other. Notice how our Lord continues his plan of setting forth the moral effect of modes of thought or action upon the agents themselves (cf. Romans 6:16). For either he will hate the one (τὸν ἕνα), and love the other. Because human nature is such that it must attach itself to one of two principles. "Cor hominis neque its vacuum esse potest, ut non serviat ant Dee aut creaturae: neque simul duobus servire" (Bengel). Or else he will hold to the one (ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται). The Revised Version omits "the." The stress here is on "one—not both." Hold to; in steadfast application (cf. Ellicott, on Titus 1:9). Ye cannot serve God and mammon; "Ye moun not serve god and ricchesse" (Wickliffe). A repetition of the statement of the impossibility of serving two masters, but more than a repetition, for it is enforced by defining who the masters are. Mammon. The change in the Revised Version from a capital to a small m has probably been made to prevent "mammon" being understood as the proper name of some god. The derivation of the word (μαμωνᾶς, àðåîí) is very doubtful. The most probable suggestion is that it is formed from the stem of äðí, and is equivalent to that which is apportioned or counted. Hence its well-known meaning of property, wealth, especially money. Observe that our Lord does not here contrast God and Satan; he is emphasizing the thought which he has been adducing since Luke 16:19, viz., the relation that his disciples must hold to things of earth, which are summed up by him under the term "mammon" as with us under the term "wealth." Observe also that it is not the possession of wealth that he condemns, but the serving it, making it an object of thought and pursuit. Gathering it and using it in the service of and according to the will of God is not serving mammon (cf. Weiss, ’Matthaus-Ev.’). Matthew 6:25-34 These verses, with the exception of the last, which should perhaps hardly be included, are very similar to the parallel passage, Luke 12:22-32. It seems probable that in the differences Luke preserves the more original form. What their original position was is another question. Their immediate sequence in Luke to the parable of the rich fool is no doubt perfectly natural, and is accepted by most commentators as original; but the connexion with the context here is so close that, especially with the probabilities of the case in verses 22, 23, and verse 24, St. Matthew may, after all, have recorded them in their original place. Our Lord says in these verses, "Dare to follow out this warning that I have given you about double service into your daily life. Do not give way to anxiety about the things of life, but look up to God in steady gaze of faith; he will provide." ’Or, more in detail—If God has given you life, shall he not add the food and the clothing (verse 25)? Anxiety about the support of your life is needless (witness the birds, verse 26) and powerless (witness the limit of a man’s life, verse 27); while as for clothing, it is equally needless (witness the flowers, verse 28) and comparatively powerless (witness Solomon’s own case, verse 29). Remember your relation to God (verse 30). Therefore do not give way to the least anxiety about these things (verse 31), because this is to fall to the level of the Gentiles, and also because God, whose children you are, knows your needs (verse 32). But make his cause, without and within, your great object, and all your needs shall be supplied (verse 33). Therefore be not at all anxious, bear the burden of each day only as each day comes round (verse 34). Matthew 6:25 Therefore (διὰ τοῦτο). Because of this fact last mentioned, the impossibility of dividing your service. Cease to be anxious about things of this life, for anxiety about these is a mark of your attempting this impossibility. I say unto you. Though the absence of the personal pronoun (unlike Matthew 5:22, etc.) shows that he is not here contrasting himself with them or with others, yet he still emphasizes his authority. Take no thought; Revised Version, be not anxious (μὴ μεριμνᾶτε). The translation of the Authorized Version, which was quite correct in its day (cf. also 1 Samuel 9:5), is now archaic, and therefore often misunderstood. For the popular derivation of μεριμνάω ("division," "distraction"), of. 1 Corinthians 7:33, "But he that is married is anxious for (μεριμνᾷ) the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided (μεμέρισται)." Observe that forethought in earthly matters was practised by our Lord himself (John 12:6). For your life (τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν). In the Gospels ψυχή is the immaterial part of man, his personality as we should say, which survives death (Matthew 10:28), and is the chief object of a man’s care (Matthew 10:39, where see note). What ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink. Although the second clause is omitted by à and a few chiefly "Western" authorities, it is probably genuine, especially as there is no trace of it in Luke. Is not the life more than meat? i.e. you possess the greater, shall there not be given to you the less? Humphry compares Matthew 23:17. Meat; Revised Version, the food (τῆς τροφῆς); i.e. the Revised Version (1) changes "meat" to its modern equivalent, (2) defines with the Greek the food as that which is necessary for the body. Similarly before "raiment." Matthew 6:26 Parallel passage: Luke 12:24. The less general term, "ravens", and the change of construction apparent in "which have no store-chamber nor barn," point to St. Luke having preserved the more original form of the saying. So also does the presence in Matthew of the Matthean phrase "heavenly." On the other hand, Matthew’s "consider" (verse 28, vide next note) is perhaps more original. Behold (ἐμβλέψατε). Look on, use your natural eyes. In verse 28 "consider" (καταμάθετε), learn thoroughly. Our Lord, in the present verse, bids us use the powers we possess; in verse 28 he bids us learn the lessons that we can find round us. Luke has in both places the vaguer term κατανοήσατε, "fix your mind on." The fowls of the air; Revised Version, the birds of the heaven (so Matthew 8:20; Matthew 13:32); a Hebraism. For the thought, of. Job 38:41; Psalms 147:9; of. also Mishna, ’Kidd.,’ 4.14, "Rabbi Simeon ben Eliezer used to say, Hast thou ever seen beast or bird that had a trade? Yet are they fed without anxiety." For; that (Revised Version); what you will see if you will look. They sow not, etc. They carry out as regards their food nolle of those operations which imply forethought in the past or for the future. Yet; and (Revised Version). Also what you will see. Your heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16, note). Are ye not much better than they? of much more value (Revised Version). The thought is of value in God’s eyes (cf. Matthew 10:31; Matthew 12:12), as men and as his children, not of any superiority in moral attainment. Matthew 6:27 Luke 12:25 almost verbally. While Luke 12:26 insisted on the needlessness of anxiety, since, though birds show it not, they are provided for, Luke 12:27 insists on its uselessness, since after all it can effect so little. You wish to lengthen your life by it if only to a trifling extent; but you cannot do so. Which of you by taking thought (Luke 12:25, note) can add one cubit? "Hic videtur similitude petita esse a studio, quod erat trecentorum cubitorum: ἡλικία est cursus vitae" (Wetstein). Unto his stature. So even the Revised Version; but the Revised Version margin "age," and so most modern commentators (cf. the rendering preferred by the American Committee, "the measure of his life"). "Age" (1) is so much nearer the immediate subject, preservation of life, (2) is so much more frequent an object of anxious care, (3) gives so much more suitable a meaning to "cubit," a most trifling addition (Luke 12:26), that it is, without any doubt, the true meaning of ἡλικία (cf. John 9:21-23; Hebrews 11:11; cf. Psalms 39:5). Matthew 6:28 Parallel passage: Luke 12:26, Luke 12:27. Luke’s is longer and seemingly more original. But in the absence of external evidence, it must always be a matter of opinion whether Matthew has compressed the longer form of the words, or vice versa. And why take ye thought for raiment? In verses 25-27 our Lord had spoken of food; in verses 28-30 he speaks of dress. He insists on the needlessness (verse 28) and on the comparative uselessness (verse 29) of anxiety about it, since even the king who had the greatest opportunities could not vie in clothing with a single lily. Flowers have this glorious clothing (verse 30), though they are so perishable: much more shall you be clothed. Consider (verse 26, note). The lilies (τὰ κρίνα). Though there are many kinds of lilies in Palestine, and some of brilliant colouring (particularly the purple and white Huleh lily found round Nazareth), yet none of them grows in such abundance as to give the tone to the colouring of the flowers generally. It seems, therefore, probable that the word is employed loosely. So, perhaps, in the LXX. of Exodus 25:31, Exodus 25:33, Exodus 25:34, and other passages, where it represents the "flowers" (çøÇóÌÆ) on the candlestick. It appears, too, that ðùÑÆåÉùÑ ("lily," Authorized Version in Canticles) is also used by the Arabs of any bright flower. If a single species is to be thought of, Canon Tristram would prefer the Anemone coronaria of our gardens, which is "the most gorgeously painted, the most conspicuous in spring, and the most universally spread of all the floral treasures of the Holy Land". Of the field. Matthew only in this phrase (but cf. verse 30, note). Its insertion emphasizes the spontaneity of origin, the absence of cultivation, the "waste" as not grown for the comfort or pleasure of man. How they grow. Professor Drummond’s beautiful remarks upon this verse (’Natural Law,’ etc.) do not belong to exegesis, but to homily, for the stress of our Lord’s words lies on "grow," not on "how;" he is thinking of the fact, net the manner of their growth. They toil not; to produce the raw material. Neither do they spin; to manufacture it when produced. "Illud virorum est, qui agrum colunt; hoc mulierum domisedarum" (Wetstein). Matthew 6:29 Luke 12:27 almost verbally. Even Solomon … was not. The Greek lays still more stress: "not even Solomon." Arrayed. The idea of splendour, which in modern usage is often attached to "array," is wanting in περιεβάλετο. The simple rendering in Wickliffe, "was covered" (Vulgate, coopertus est), is less misleading. And so in Luke 12:31. Perhaps (vide Cart) the middle voice has its full reflexive meaning: Solomon with all his efforts failed. Like one of these. Even one, much less like all taken together. "Horum, demonstrativum" (Bengel). Matthew 6:30 Luke 12:28 with slight differences. Luke’s rather harder phraseology is in Savour of it being the more original form. Wherefore; but (Revised Version). The Authorized Version is too strong for the simple δέ. If God so clothe. The insertion by the Revised Version of "doth" brings out the thought of the indicative mood and of the ever-presence of the action. Observe with the processes and the agencies in the development of these colours our Lord’s advice has nothing to do; origin, develop-merit, and result are all Divine. The grass (τὸν χόρτον). Possibly literally the grass among which the lilies grow (Weiss, ’Matthaus. Ev.’), but probably the herbage (Genesis 1:11; cf. also probably Isaiah 40:6, Isaiah 40:7; 1 Peter 1:24), including that of which special mention has been made—the lilies. Of the field (verse 28, note). Luke’s ἐν ἀγρῷ lays even more stress on the place in which it receives this glory. Which to-day is; rather, though to-day it is (σήμερον ὄντα). And to-morrow is cast; before our very eyes (βαλλόμενον). Into the oven. Not the fixed but the portable oven (εἰς κλίβανον), "a large jar made of clay, about three feet high, and widening towards the bottom... heated with dry twigs and grass" (Smith’s ’Dict.’); cf. also Carr for a description of the Indian method of making chupatties. Shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? ’Ὀλιγόπιστοι, except in the parallel passage of Luke, comes in Matthew alone in the New Testament (Matthew 8:26; Matthew 14:31; Matthew 16:8), in each case referring to want of faith under the pressure of earthly trials. It is the New Testament expression of Pro 24:10. Matthew 6:31 Luke 12:29 has the difficult phrase, "Neither be ye of doubtful mind." Therefore take no thought (μὴ οὖν μεριμνήσητε). The shade of difference here and Luke 12:34 from Luke 12:25 cannot be expressed in an English translation. In Luke 12:25 a state of anxiety, here and Luke 12:34: one anxious thought, is forbidden. Matthew 6:32 Parallel passage: Luke 12:30. Save in reading "but" instead of the second "for," Luke’s seems the more original. (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek;) for your heavenly Father knoweth, etc. The Revised Version removes the marks of parenthesis. For...for; these are probably co-ordinate, and adduce two reasons for our not being for one moment anxious about earthly things: (1) it is like the heathen (cf. the thought of Mat 5:47); (2) your Father knows your need of them. Heavenly (Matthew 5:16, note). Knoweth (verse 8, note). Matthew 6:33 Parallel passage: Luke 12:31, which is shorter. But; i.e. in contrast to such seeking as he has just spoken of. Our Lord at length gives a distinct promise that if God’s cause is made the first aim, all the necessaries of life shall be provided. Seek ye first. The difference between ζητεῖν here and ἐπιζητεῖν in Luke 12:32 seems to be only that the latter points out more clearly the direction of the search. First. If the search for earthly things be put into a secondary place, it may be allowable. The kingdom of God, and his righteousness; his kingdom and his righteousness (Revised Version). "Of God" must almost certainly be omitted with à (B); of. Westcott and Hort, ’App.’ The first phrase represents rather the external, the second the internal aim. Seek ye the spread and accomplishment of God’s kingdom; seek ye personal conformity to his standard of righteousness. Both thoughts are of fundamental importance for this "sermon" (kingdom, of. Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20; Matthew 6:10; righteousness, especially Matthew 5:17-20), which treats essentially of the way in which the subjects of the Divine kingdom should regard the Divine righteousness and conform to it. And all these things shall be added unto you; of. the apocryphal saying of our Lord, repeated by Origen (Clem. Alex.), "Jesus said to his disciples, Ask great things, and the small shall be added to you; and ask heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added to you". Matthew 6:34 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 7:1-12 (2) As anxiety about the things of this life hinders us Godwards (Matthew 6:19-34), so does censoriousness manwards (Matthew 7:1-12), our Lord thus tacitly opposing two typically Jewish faults. Censoriousness—the personal danger of having it (Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:2), its seriousness as a sign of ignorance and as a hindrance to spiritual vision (Matthew 7:3-5), even though there must be a recognition of great moral differences (Matthew 7:6). Grace to overcome it and to exercise judgment rightly can be obtained by prayer (Matthew 7:7-11), the secret of overcoming being found in treating others as one would like to be treated one’s self (Matthew 7:12). Matthew 7:1 Parallel passage: Luke 6:37. Judge not. Not merely "do not condemn," for this would leave too much latitude; nor, on the other hand, "do not ever judge," for this is sometimes our duty; but "do not be always judging" (μὴκρίνετε). Our Lord opposes the censorious spirit. "Let us therefore be lowly minded, brethren, laying aside all arrogance, and conceit, and folly, and anger, and let us do that which is written … most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which he spake, teaching forbearance and brag-suffering; for thus he spake … ’As ye judge, so shall ye be judged,’" Clem. Romans, § 13; cf. ’Ab.,’ 1.7 (Taylor), "Judge every man in the scale of merit;" i.e. let the scale incline towards the side of merit or acquittal. That ye be not judged; i.e. by God, with special reference to the last day (cf. James 2:12, James 2:13; James 5:9; Romans 2:3). Hardly of judgment by men, as Barrow (serm. 20.): "Men take it for allowable to retaliate in this way to the height, and stoutly to load the censorious man with censure." Matthew 7:2 Parallels to the second clause in Luke 6:38 and Mark 4:24, For. Explanatory of" that ye be not judged." The principle of your own judgment will be applied in turn to yourselves. With what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. The judgment (κρίμα) is the verdict; the measure is the severity or otherwise of the verdict. In both clauses the passives refer to judgment by God, as is even more clear in Mark 4:24. The saying, "with what measure," etc., is found in Mishua, ’Sotah,’ Mark 1:7 ("With the measure with which a man measures do they measure to him"), where it is applied to the jus talionis in the case of a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:11-31). Again. Omitted by the Revised Version, with the manuscripts. It was naturally inserted by the copyists, either as an unconscious deduction or from the parallel passage in Luke; but it is absent in the characteristically Jewish form of the saying found in the Mishna. Matthew 7:3-5 The heinousness of censoriousness as a hindrance to one’s self and to one’s work for others. Matthew 7:3 Parallel passage: Luke 6:41. And why—when it is so contrary to common sense—beholdest thou the mote, etc.? A Jewish proverbial saying, e.g. Talm. Bab., ’Bab. Bathra,’ 15b, Rabbi Jochanan (third century A.D.),expounding Rth 1:1, says, "A generation which when under judgment (טפשנש) judgeth its judges. When one saith to a man, Cast out the mote out of thine eyes, he saith (in answer), Cast out the beam out of thine eyes." In Talm. Bab., ’Erach.,’ 16b, "Out of thy teeth" seems to be the right reading. In these verses the "eye" is usually taken as belonging solely to the illustration, and as not itself representing any one object. It may be so, but it has been used so recently (Matthew 6:22) of the spiritual sense that it is more natural to take it so here. In this case the thought of the passage is of faults existing in a man’s spiritual sense hindering his spiritual vision. The censorious man sees any fault, however small, readily enough in others, but does not see the much greater fault which he himself as a matter of fact has—his own censoriousness. This censoriousness is not a slight, but a great hindrance to his own spiritual vision, much more to his being of use in removing hindrances from the eye of another. The mote; τὸκάρδος; Latt. festucam; any small vegetable body. The English word is from the Anglo-Saxon mot, "a small particle" (cf. further Luke 6:41, note). Observe that our Lord allows that there is something wrong with the brother’s spiritual vision, just as he allows that the unmerciful servant had a real debt owing to him. That is in thy brother’s eye (Matthew 5:22, note). Our Lord is here speaking of the relation of believers to fellow-believers. He tacitly contrasts the censoriousness of the Pharisees towards fellow-Jews (John 7:49). But considerest not (οὐκατανοεῖς). With any attention of mind; contrast Romans 4:19 (Abraham gave earnest consideration to his own age, and yet believed). The beam. So huge a piece of wood is there in thine own eye. That is in thine own eye. The order of the Greek lays still more emphasis on the fact that, though in thy very own eye there is a beam, thou payest no regard to that (cf. Romans 4:5, note). Matthew 7:4 Parallel passage: Luke 6:42. Or. A second case is supposed. You may only see the mote or you may offer to remove it. How; with any conscience. Wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out? Let me (ἄφες, Luke 3:15). There is nothing here of the rudeness that so often accompanies censeriousness. Pull out; Revised Version, cast out (ἐκβάλω). The thought is of the completeness, not the method, of the removal (of. Matthew 9:38). A beam; the beam (Revised Version); i.e. the beam already mentioned. Matthew 7:5 Parallel passage: Luke 6:42. Thou hypocrite (Matthew 6:2, note). The thought here is of the personation of a part (a man free from impediment in his vision)which does not belong to you. First cast out the beam out of thine own eye, In Luke 6:3 the order of the words lays the emphasis on "thine;" here, on the eye. It is in thine eye, of all places, that the beam now is. And then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. Surely a promise as well as a statement. See clearly (διαβλέψεις, δια- discriminatingly); as in the right text of Mar 8:25, itself after the recovery of full power of sight. See clearly. Not the mote (Mark 8:3), but to cast out the mote. The verse seems to imply that if the spirit of censoriousness be absent, it will be possible for us to remove "motes" from the eyes of our brothers. Thus the passage as a whole does not say that we never ought to try to remove such "motes," but that this is monstrous and almost impossible so long as we ourselves have a fault of so much magnitude as censoriousness. Matthew 7:6 Matthew only. Give not that which is holy, etc. While you are not to be censorious towards brethren (verses 1-5), you must recognize the great and fundamental differences that there are between men. You must not treat those who are mere dogs and swine as if they were able to appreciate either the holiness or the beauty and wealth of spiritual truth. Give Observe that "give," "cast," are naturally used of feeding dogs and swine respectively. That which is holy (τὸἅγιον). The metaphor is taken from the law that the things offered in sacrifice were no longer to be treated as common food (Le Matthew 22:1-16, especially Matthew 22:14, τὸἅγιον). Unto the dogs. The scavengers of Eastern cities, which by nature and habit love and greedily devour the most unholy of things (cf. Exodus 22:31). Neither cast ye your pearls, Pearls. Only here and Matthew 13:45, Matthew 13:46 in the Gospels. In form not so very unlike swine’s food of beans or nuts, they here represent the beauty and precious wealth of the various parts of the Gospel, in which Christ’s disciples are accustomed to delight (ὑμῶν). Ignatius (’Ephesians,’ § 11) calls his bonds his "spiritual pearls." Before swine; before the swine (Revised Version). Probably in both cases the article is used with the object of bringing the particular dogs and swine to whom these are given more vividly before us. Swine. Which have no care for such things, but rather wallow in filth (2 Peter 2:22). Dogs... swine. The terms seem to so far indicate different classes of men, or more truly different characters in men, as that the one term points to the greedy participation of the wicked in open profanation, the ether to the sottish indifference of sinners to that which is most attractive. Lest they; i.e. the swine. Dogs, even though wild in the East, would not "tread down" the food. Trample them under their feet (Matthew 5:13). In ignorance of their real worth and in disappointment that they do not afford them satisfaction (For the future, καταπατήσουσιν, cf. Matthew 5:25, note.) It here expresses the greater certainty of the trampling than of the rending (aorist subjective). And turn again—Revised Version omits "again"—and rend you. In rage at the disappointment experienced. The clause expresses the personal enmity which those who wilfully reject the gospel often feel towards those that have offered it to them. It might be thought difficult to carry out this command, as it is evident that we cannot know beforehand who will accept the gospel or not. But in cases where the character of the person is not known (e.g. as when St. Paul preached at Athens, etc.), the command does not apply. Our Lord supposes the case where the character is apparent (cf. 1 Timothy 5:24). Theodoret, in quoting this verse, adds, "My mysteries are tot me and mine," which, clearly an adaptation of Symmachus and Theodotion’s rendering of Isa 24:16, יל יזר (cf. also Targ. Jon.), seems to have become almost an authorized, and certainly a true, interpretation of our verse. Matthew 7:7-11 Ask, and it shall be given you, etc. Parallel passage: Luke 11:9-13. Nearly verbally identical, but in the son’s request, reads "egg" and "scorpion" for "bread" and "stone," and reverses the order of the sentences. In Luke the verses are closely connected ("and I say unto you") with the parable of the friend at midnight, which itself immediately follows the Lord’s Prayer. It seems probable that, as with the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 6:9-13, note), so with these verses, the original position is given in Luke; yet, as also with the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew’s form of the individual clauses may be the more original (cf. verse 11, note). With the general promise contained in these verses, cf. Mark 11:24. The connexion with the preceding verse is probably not (1) pray for others who have no apparent capacity for receiving the truths of the gospel (Weiss); nor (2) in answer to the question suggested by Mark 11:6, if this be the measure of the Divine dealings, what bounties can sinners expect at God’s hands? Let them, nevertheless, ask of God, and it shall be given them (cf. Alford); but (3) in close connexion with the whole subject from Mark 11:1-6, you feel conscious of want of wisdom for the true and loving judgment of others without censoriousness—ask for this special grace. With this connexion Mark 11:12 follows on naturally; i.e. the key to the right treatment of others may be found in one’s own feelings and wishes; from the perception of what we desire to receive from others we may learn what others ought to receive from us. Matthew 7:7 Ask … seek … knock. Gradation in urgency. Further, the three clauses think of the Giver, the sphere in which the gift lies, the obstacles in the way of obtaining it. Matthew 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth. Every one that asketh of God receiveth, for he is not the censorious Judge that you are inclined to be in your dealings with others. Therefore ask expectantly. He "giveth to all liberally, and upbraideth not" (James 1:5). Matthew 7:9, Matthew 7:10 Or what man is there of you, etc.? Or. Is not what I say true? or—if you think not—what man of you yourselves would act otherwise towards his own son? Our Lord appeals to the experience and natural feelings of his hearers themselves to emphasize the readiness of the Father—"your Father," whose nature you share, and from whom you derive your feelings of fatherhood (Ephesians 3:15)—to grant the prayers of his children. Observe: (1) Our Lord assumes that our natural feelings are of the same kind as God’s. (2) Our Lord speaks of God’s children asking him for gifts (cf. Matthew 5:16, note). (3) Our Lord does not suggest, "Will he absolutely refuse him?" but "Will he give him something which is an answer in appearance only (a stone for bread, a serpent for a fish)?" i.e. our Lord implies that God’s gifts, like an earthly father’s to his son, are such as really and completely to satisfy the need which is expressing itself. A blessed encouragement, for he will thus answer the underlying desire, though not necessarily the verbal expression of the prayer. So when Monica prayed that her son might not sail to Rome, God did not grant this, but gave her "the hinge of her desire," for it was Augustine’s journey to Italy that was the means of his conversion. Bread … fish. The most usual food on the Lake of Galilee (cf. Matthew 14:17; John 6:9; cf. Matthew 4:3, note). Matthew 7:11 Parallel passage: Luke 11:13. If ye then being evil. Application of the thought of Luk 11:9, Luke 11:10, with further emphasis on the evil of human nature. If you with your moral worthlessness (Matthew 6:13, note), etc. (cf. also Matthew 12:34). Being (οντες). The presence here in the parallel passage of Luke of his common word ὑπάρχοντες points to St. Matthew’s form of the sentence being the more original. Know; intuitively (οἴδατε). Notwithstanding, then, the evil bent of fallen human nature, there is some good still remaining. How much more shall your Father which is in heaven. "In quo nulla est malitia" (Bengel). Give good things. Observe: (1) In the parallel passage in Luke, "the Holy Spirit," or, more strictly, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit (ΠνεῦμαΑγιον). The historian of the early Church not unnaturally singles out that gift which ultimately produces all others; but St. Matthew, keeping to the general subject of wisdom, etc., in the treatment of our brethren, uses a more distributive expression which yet includes the particular gift asked for. (2) Is the omission of the word "gifts" in this clause to be accounted for by our Lord not wishing to suggest that the grace asked for is so given as that it can afterwards be possessed apart from the Giver? Matthew 7:12 Matthew 7:12, parallel passage: Luke 6:31; 12b, Matthew only. All things therefore. Therefore. Summing up the lesson of verses 1-11 (cf. verse 7, note). In consequence of all that I have said about censoriousness and the means of overcoming it, let the very opposite feeling rule your conduct towards others. Let all (emphatic) your dealings with men be conducted in the same spirit in which you would desire them to deal with you. Even so. Not "these things" do ye to them; for our Lord carefully avoids any expression that might lead to a legal enumeration of different details, but "thus" (οὕτως), referring to the character of your own wishes. (For this "golden rule," cf. Tobit 4:15 (negative form); cf. also patristic references in Resch, ’Agrapha,’ pp. 95, 135.) On the occasional similarity of pre-Christian writings to the teaching of our Lord, Augustine (vide Trench, ’Serm.,’ in loc.) well says it is "the glory of the written and spoken law, that it is the transcript of that which was from the first, and not merely as old as this man or that, but as the Creation itself, a reproduction of that obscured and forgotten law written at the beginning by the finger of God on the hearts of all men. When, therefore, heathen sages or poets proclaimed any part of this, they had not thereby anticipated Christ; they had only deciphered some fragment of that law, which he gave from the first, and which, when men, exiles and fugitives from themselves and from the knowledge of their own hearts, had lost the power of reading, tie came in the flesh to read to them anew, and to bring out the well-nigh obliterated characters afresh." (Compare also Bishop Lightfoot’s essay on "St. Paul and Seneca," in his ’Philippians.’) For this is the law and the prophets. For this. This principle of action and mode of life is, in fact, the sum of all Bible teaching (cf. Leviticus 19:18). Observe: (1) Our Lord brings out the same thought, but with its necessary limitation to the second table, in Matthew 22:40 (cf. Romans 13:10). (2) Our Lord thus returns to the main subject of his sermon, the relation in which he and his must stand to the Law (Matthew 5:17). Matthew 7:13-27 (4) Epilogue (cf. Matthew 5:3, note). Dare to take up this position, which has been laid down in Matthew 5:21-7:12, involving though it must separation from the majority of men (Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:14); and this notwithstanding the claim of others to reveal the Lord’s mind, whose true nature, however, you shall perceive from their actions (Matthew 7:15-20); they that work iniquity have neither present nor future union with me (Matthew 7:21-23). Finally a solemn warning (Matthew 7:24-27). Matthew 7:13 For Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:14, cf. Luke 13:23, Luke 13:24, which, however (notwithstanding the similarity of Luk 13:25-27 to our Luke 13:21-23), were probably spoken later, and were perhaps suggested to both the disciples and the Master by this earlier saying. On the other hand, our Luke 13:14 seems so direct an answer to Luke 13:23 that it is not unlikely that this is one of the many passages placed by St. Matthew, or the authors of his sources, out of chronological order. Enter ye in. Show immediate energy and determination. Observe: (1) In Luke, "strive (ἀγωνίζεσθε) to enter in"; here, "enter at once." (2) In Luke, "through the narrow door" into, apparently, the final abiding-place; here, "through the narrow gate" into apparently the (perhaps long) road which takes us at last to full salvation. Thus in Luke our Lord speaks of continued striving; here, of immediate decision, in which, however, lies the assurance of ultimate success (cf. verse 14, end; also 1 John 2:13). At the strait gate; Revised Version, by the narrow gate—the entrance resembling the road (verse 14, note). Chrysostom (in lot.), contrasting present trials with future happiness, says, "straitened is the way and narrow is the gate, but not the city." For wide is the gate, and Broad is the way. So also the Revised Version, but the Revised Version margin has, "some ancient authorities omit is the gate." (For a full discussion on the difficult question of the genuineness of ἡπύλη here, vide Westcott and Hort, ’App.’) Westcott and Hort omit it, with à, Old Latin, and many Greek and Latin Fathers, and say that, though ἡπύλη is probably genuine in verse 14, "till the latter part of the fourth century the first ἡπύλῃ has no Greek or Latin patristic evidence in its favour, much against it." They think this is "one of those rare readings in which the true text has been preserved by à without extant uncial support … It was natural to scribes to set verse 13 in precisely antithetic contrast to verse 14; but the sense gains in force if there is no mention of two gates, and if the contrast in verse 13 is between the narrow gate and the broad and spacious way." There must be a definite entering upon the right way; no entrance upon the wrong way is necessary, men find themselves upon it only too easily, and it is "made level with stones" (Ecclesiasticus 21:10). Wide … broad. The second epithet (εὐρύχωρος) lays stress on there being plenty of space to walk in (Latt., spatiosa). That leadeth to destruction (εἰςτηλειαν); that "perishing" in which "the sons of perishing" perish (John 17:12). And many there be which; Revised Version, more exactly, and many be they that (καὶπολλοίεἰσινοἱεἰσερχόμενοι). Our Lord says that they that are perishing are many (cf. verse 14, note). Go in; Revised Version, enter in; keeping up the allusion to "enter ye in." Observe, however, that if ἡπύλη (vide supra) is false, the thought here is of entrance into the final issue of the way—ἡἀπώλεια. Thereat; Revised Version, thereby; i.e. by the way. Matthew 7:14 Because (ὅτι); for (Revised Version); "many ancient authorities read, How narrow is the gate, etc.". The reading, "how" (τί) is much easier, as avoiding the difficulty of the connexion of this verse with the preceding, but probably ὅτι is right. The connexion is either that it is parallel to the first ὅτι, and thus gives a second reason for decision in entering through the narrow gate; or, and better, that it gives the reason for the statement in Matthew 7:13—many pass along the wrong way because the right way requires at the very outset so much determination and afterwards so much self denial. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way; narrow is the gate, and straitened the way (Revised Version). Not only is the gate narrow, but the way itself seems compressed (τεθλιμμένη) by rocks, etc., on either side. That leadeth unto life (εἰςτὴνζωήν). Observe, Christ does not say, "life eternal." He only cares to emphasize the thought of life in the fullest nature of life—life as "the fulfilment of the highest idea of being: perfect truth in perfect action" (Bishop Westcott, on 1 John 3:14). And few there be that; Revised Version, and few be they that (Matthew 7:13, note). Our Lord here affirms more than the disciples ask in Luke 13:23; for there the question deals with those in a state of salvation (οἱσωζόμενοι), here those finally saved. Find it; i.e. the gate and all it leads to. The narrow gate is here looked at as involving life. Find. It needs a search (contrast Luke 13:13). But there is the promise of Luk 13:7, "Seek, and ye shall find." Matthew 7:15-23 Matthew only in this form, though most of the separate verses have much matter common to other passages; viz.: verses 16, 18, parallel with Luke 6:43, Luke 6:44, cf. also infra, Matthew 12:33; Matthew 12:19, cf. Matthew 3:10; verse 21, cf. Luke 6:46; Luke 6:22, cf. Luke 13:26; Luke 13:23, parallel with Luke 13:27. (For the connexion of these verses, cf. Luke 13:13, note.) Matthew 7:15 Matthew only. Beware. The warning against being led from the right entrance and the right way is all the more emphatic for there being no adversative particle in the true text. Beware of false prophets. The whole class of them (τῶν). Not, observe, "false teachers" (2 Peter 2:1), as though these persons only falsely interpreted fundamental truths, but "false prophets,’’ as falsely claiming to bring messages from God. They claim to bring from God the true message of salvation, but their claim is false. These were doubtless found, at the time that our Lord spoke the words, especially among the Pharisees; but when St. Matthew recorded them, chiefly among Christians, either on the Jewish or on the Gnostic side (Colossians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:20, 1 Timothy 6:21; cf. also 1 John 4:1 and ’Did.,’ § 12.). Which; qualitative (οἵτινες); seeing that they. Come unto you in sheep’s clothing. In, as it were, the skins of sheep (ἐνἐνδύμασιπροβάτων), professing simplicity and gentleness, and (for, perhaps, this thought is also included) claiming to be members of God’s true flock. Externally they are all this, but at heart they are something very different. But inwardly they are ravening wolves. The thought of "ravening" (ἅρπαγες) is of both violence and greed. These false prophets are not merely wicked at heart and opposed to the truth, but they wish to injure you, and that for their own gain (cf Galatians 6:13). "Of the ravenousness of wolves among the Jewes, take these two examples besides others. The elders proclaimed a fast in their cities upon this occasion, because the wolves had devoured two little children beyond Jordan. More than three hundred sheep of the sons of Judah ben Shamoe were torn by wolves" (Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.;’ cf. Ezekiel 34:4, on false shepherds). Matthew 7:16 Parallel passage: Luke 6:44. (For the first clause, cf also Luke 6:20 and Matthew 12:33.) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Their appearance and their claims are no proof of their true character. It may seem difficult to recognize this, yet there is a sure way of doing so, by their life. The emphasis of the sentence is on "by their fruits." Ye shall know. Ye shall come to know them to the full (ἐπιγνώσεσθε). (On the greater strength of the compound, vide Ellicott, 1 Corinthians 13:12.) Fruits. All considered separately (cf. Luke 6:17, Luke 6:18, Luke 6:20), but in Luke 6:19 as one whole (cf. Matthew 3:8, note). It is, however, just possible that here and in Luke 6:20 the plural points to fruit growing on different trees. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? The visible outgrowth reveals the nature of that which is within. Those who "profess to combine fellowship with God with the choice of darkness as their sphere of life "(Bishop Westcott, on the suggestive parallel 1 John 1:6) only show that within they are destitute of fellowship with God. Observe, Christ does not say, "Do thorns produce grapes," etc.? (cf. James 3:12), but "Do men gather?" i.e. he desires to bring out the way in which men ordinarily deal with productions external to themselves. You, my followers, ought to use that common sense in spiritual matters which men show in matters of everyday life. Thistles; apparently Centaurea calcitrapa, the common thistle of Palestine; in the plains the only fuel. Matthew 7:17 Matthew only. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. The similarity between the fruit and the nature of the tree extends not only to the species, but also to the specimen. Good tree (δένδρονἀγαθόν); intrinsically sound. Good fruit (καρποὺςκαλούς); attractive in the eyes of men. As is the inner character of the tree, so is the obvious nature of the fruit. But a corrupt tree (τὸδὲσαπρὸνδένδρον); "the" picturing it. Corrupt; unsound, rotten, worthless (cf. Matthew 13:48); also in the moral world (Ephesians 4:29). Matthew 7:18 Parallel passage: Luke 6:43 (cf. also infra, Matthew 12:33). A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. This correspondence of external product to internal character is necessary. It cannot (emphatic) be otherwise. It’ the heart is good, good results follow; therefore, he implies, if good results are not seen in these "false prophets," it is because of their real character. A bad life cannot but spring from a worthless heart. Of course, our Lord deals only with the general rule. There are apparent anomalies in the world of spirit as of nature. Bring forth … bring forth; ἐνεγκεῖν (Westcott and Herr)… ποιεῖν. A good tree cannot have bad fruit hanging on it; a rotten or worthless tree cannot, with all its efforts, produce good fruit. Matthew 7:19 Matthew only (cf. Matthew 3:10, vide infra). Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. A parenthesis expressing the terrible fate of those the general product (verse 16, note) of whose life is not good. Christ will warn his followers plainly against listening to them. Observe that the form of the sentence (πᾶνδένδρονμὴποιοῦνκαρπόν, κ.τ.λ.) implies that all trees will be cut down unless there is a reason for the contrary; that the normal event (the natural result of universal sin, apart, of course, from Christ’s atonement) is that men are condemned and perish. In Matthew 3:10 this general statement is applied (οὖν) to a definite time of impending judgment. Matthew 7:20 (Matthew 7:16, note.) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Wherefore (ἄραγε). Matthew 7:16 is restated, but now in "rigorous logical inference" (Winer, § 53:8. a) from Matthew 7:16-18. Since it is a certainty that fruit is the result of inner nature, you shall from these men’s fruits fully learn their true character. Matthew 7:21-23 These verses stand in close connexion with Matthew 7:15-20. Seeing that external actions are the result of internal life, it is they, not words nor even miracles, by which the true followers of Christ will be finally distinguished from others, and which therefore will alone secure admission to abiding with Christ in the kingdom of heaven. To these verses Luke 13:23-28 have many resemblances (cf. also Luke 13:13, Luke 13:14, supra). St. Luke thus omits the warning against false teachers. (For verse 21, cf. also Luke 6:46.) Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord. Professing obedience (Matthew 6:24). Observe the indirect claim to this title of reverential submission and the implied expectation that it will be given him by many. Shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. The final goal of our hopes. But he that doeth the will of my Father. Not "of me," but of him whom I represent, and to whom I stand in a unique relation (observe the claim). This man also says, "Lord, Lord" (Winer, § Matthew 26:1), but not merely says it. Such a man enters into family relationship to Christ (Matthew 12:50). Which is in heaven. Since you desire to enter the kingdom of heaven, be now obeying the will of him who dwells in heaven. (For the thought of the verse, cf 1 John 2:4.) Matthew 7:22 Matthew only; but cf Luke 13:26, from which the "Western" addition of eating and drinking is probably derived. Many will say to me in that day. The great day. Notice Christ’s claim, so early as this, to be the future Judge of the world. Lord, Lord (cf. Hosea 8:2). In Luke 13:21 profession of service, i.e. as regards work; here, as regards wages. Have we not prophesied. Revised Version did, etc.? The thought is not of abiding effect, but merely of historical facts (οὐτῷσῷὀνόματιἐπροφητεύσαμεν). In thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? Revised Version, by thy name. An important difference, for "in" implies some vital connexion. But in this case the revelation (Matthew 6:9, note) of Christ was merely the instrument by which these men proclaimed Divine truths, cast out; demons, and wrought miracles. With him, or even with it, they had no real union. The connexion of "prophesied" with the two other words seems to forbid this being only false prophesying (Luke 13:15; cf. especially Jeremiah 27:15 [Jeremiah 34:12, LXX.]; Jeremiah 14:14). Rather does the verse teach that spiritual results can be effected by unspiritual men. "Suggested by this and like passages. Augustine has many instructive words and warnings on the nothingness of all gifts, even up to the greatest gift of working nil miracles, if charity be wanting" (Trench, ’ Sermon on the Mount’). Matthew 7:23 (Cf. Luke 13:27.) And then will I profess unto them. Openly in the face of all men (cf. Matthew 10:32). I never knew you. Even when you did all these miracles. etc., I had not that personal knowledge of you which is only the result of heart-sympathy. There was never anything in common between you and me. Although this is, perhaps, the only example of this sense of ἔγνων in the synoptic Gospels, it is common in John. Depart from me. The absence of recognition by Christ, though not represented as the cause, yet will involve departure from his presence (cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:9). This clause reproduces verbally the LXX. of Psalms 6:8, except in St. Matthew’s word used for "depart" (ἀποχωρεῖτε), which gives more idea of distance in the removal than the word used in the psalm and in Luke (ἀπόστητε). Ye that work. In full purpose and energy (οἱἐργαζόμενοι, cf. Colossians 3:23), and that till this very moment. Iniquity. The assurance of the psalmist becomes the verdict of the Judge. Observe that at this, the end of his discourse, our Lord speaks not of sin generally (τὴνἁμαρτίαν), but of lawlessness (τὴνἀνομίαν). He has throughout been insisting upon obedience to the Law in its final meaning as essentially necessary for his followers (most recently verse 12). So that instead of saying, "ye that work sin," he uses the correlative (1 John 3:4), for sin is neglect of or opposition to the perfect Law of God in the three spheres that this regards—self, the world, God (of. Bishop Westcott, on 1 John 3:4). It is, perhaps, more than a coincidence that in 2 Timothy 2:19 we have again the collocation of the Lord knowing and of man’s departing, i.e. either from him or from sin (of. especially the parallel Luke 13:27); vide Resch, ’Agrapha,’ p. 207. Matthew 7:24-27 Parallel passage: Luke 6:47-49 (cf. also Ezekiel 13:10-16). A solemn close to the sermon. By the similitude of two builders our Lord warns his followers that to have heard his words will have been useless unless they put them into practice. Observe that although the word "hear’ in these verses cannot indicate that full "hearing" which it sometimes connotes (Matthew 10:14), yet it seems to mean more than merely listening, and to imply both a grasp of what is intended by the statements made and at least some acquiescence in their truth (Acts 2:22; Revelation 1:3; John 5:24). According to the above explanation, it will be seen that in the imagery the rock represents practice; the sand, mere sentiment. There is thus a partial correspondence with the works insisted on by St. James in contrast to a bare orthodox faith (James 2:24). Assent is insufficient; there must be action. Not uncommonly, indeed, the rock is considered to refer to the Lord himself, and the sand to human effort. Cf. Ford: "The parallel passage (Luke 6:48), where the words, ’cometh unto Me,’ are inserted, indicates clearly the foundation of faith, the receiving the Lord Jesus as our Prophet, Priest, and King, which is the only basis on which good works can be built" (cf. even Allord). This, however, is hardly exegesis, but application, for the "coming to Christ" is in Luke only introductory to the hearing and doing, and is altogether omitted here. Although the statement is true in itself, it is only so far proper to this passage in that, apart from practice, there is (verse 23) no heart-union with Christ. Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever hoareth; Revised Version, every one therefore which heareth (πᾶςοὖνὅστις , Matthew 10:32). The relative used lays stress on the quality implied in the verb: every one who is of the kind that hears (contrast Matthew 7:26). These sayings (Revised Version, words) of mine, and doeth them. Not the individual utterances (ῥήματα, John 6:63), nor the substance of my message considered as a whole (λόγον, Matthew 13:1-58:[19] 20), but the substance of its parts, the various truths that I announce (λόγους). I will liken him; Revised Version, shall be likened, with the manuscripts. Not shall, in fact, be made like, Matthew 6:8 (Weiss), but shall be likened in figure and parable. Unto a wise man. Prudent, sensible (φρόνιμος). Which built his house upon a rock; Revised Version, the rock. Which in not a few cases may be found at no great distance from the surface. Matthew 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a (Revised Version, the) rock. The stages of the tempest are expressed more vividly than in St. Luke. Matthew 7:26, Matthew 7:27 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell; and great was the fall of it. In the Plain of Sharon the clay seems to have been so interior that not only were the jars made of it often worthless, but the bricks could offer so little resistance to the weather that the houses were hardly safe. Hence a special prayer was offered by the high priest on the Day of Atonement that the Lord would grant that their houses might not become their tombs. In the parable, however, it is not the structure, but the foundation, that is wrong. The sand may refer, as Stanley suggests, to one locality, in which case it is probably "the long sandy strip of land which bounds the eastern plain of Acre, and through which the Kishon flows into the sea;" or, as would seem more probable, to the sand which would naturally be found on the edges of such a torrent as is here described. Beat upon; smote upon (Revised Version). In Matthew 7:25 the thought is more of the swoop of the tempest (προσέπεσαν); here, of its impact on the house (προσέκοψαν). It is possible that there is here less indication of force necessary for the destruction. "It needed only the first blow, and the house fell" (Weiss, ’Matthaus-ev.’). And great was the fall of it. Our Lord’s solemn verdict of the utter ruin awaiting him who does not put his assent into action. The clause conveys an impression even stronger than Matthew 7:23. There the positive worker of lawlessness is banished from Christ’s presence; here, on the mere non-worker of Divine messages received is pronounced ruin and (for such, at least, seems suggested) that irremediable. Matthew 7:28, Matthew 7:29 The impression produced on the multitudes. With the exception of the formula, "It came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings" (cf. Matthew 11:1, note), the words are almost identical with Mark 1:22 (Luke 4:31, Luke 4:32), but the time is, as it seems, later. The oral statement of an impression which was probably often produced is affirmed of slightly different times. Matthew 7:28 Sayings; Revised Version, words (Matthew 7:24, note). The people; Revised Version, the multitudes (οἱὄχλοι). In contrust to the scribes and ruling classes. Were astonished (cf. Acts 13:12). At his doctrine; at his teaching (Revised Version). Matthew 7:29 For he taught them. Such was his constant habit (ἦν... διδάσκων). As one having authority, and not as the scribes. Who, indeed, never claimed personal authority. Jewish teachers lean on the fact of their having received that which they expound. They professed]y sink their own personality in that of those of old time, to whom the teaching was first given (Matthew 5:21). To this our Lord’s personal claims stand in sharp contrast. The scribes; Revised Version, their scribes, with the manuscripts; i.e. the scribes to which they were accustomed to listen. Whether the reference is primarily to scribes of the nation generally or only to those of the neighbouring district, is hardly material, for these were representatives of the one class. A few authorities add, "and the Pharisees," which may either be derived from Luke 5:30 or be an independent gloss due to the fact that the Pharisees were looked upon as the typical Jewish teachers. Matthew 7:1-20 Various practical rules issuing out of the central duty of self-consecration. I. CONDUCT TOWARDS OTHERS. 1. Gentleness in our estimate of the lives of others. The hypocrites trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others; they made an ostentatious display of their own supposed good deeds, and passed stern judgments on their neighbours. The righteousness of Christ’s disciples must exceed that of the Pharisees in both respects. Indeed, Christ’s words must not be understood in that literalness which was one of the characteristic errors of the Pharisees. The judge must pass sentence upon criminals; it is his duty to God, to society. The minister of God must "reprove, rebuke, exhort,": when God saith unto the wicked, "Thou wicked man, thou shalt surely die," he must warn the wicked of his sin; for otherwise (God himself hath said it) "that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thy hand." All Christians must hate sin, and show that they hate it. "Woe unto them," saith the Prophet Isaiah, "that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Sometimes it is our duty to judge others. When it is our duty, we are safe, if we do it with pity for the sinner and with grief for the dishonour done to God (see Psalms 119:136). It is a duty full of danger and temptation; there is need of prayer and self-examination and careful scrutiny of our own thoughts and motives. When it is not our duty, it is never free from the danger of sin against the law of love. Censoriousness is one of the great blots of social intercourse. People who have nothing else to talk about, talk about their neighbours; they discuss their conduct; they impute unworthy motives; they repeat slanders, they exaggerate them; they take a sinful pleasure in condemning others; they often sin against the ninth, continually against the new, commandment. And these unchristian judgments imply self-righteousness, pride, hypocrisy; they usurp the prerogative of the great Judge, who alone can search the thoughts of the heart; they bring the uncharitable into exceeding great danger, for the commandment of the Judge is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;" and surely those who judge their brethren harshly take part (awful as it seems) rather with Satan, the accuser of the brethren, who accuses them before our God night and day, than with the Lord Jesus Christ, the most loving Saviour, who dearly loved the souls of men, who wept over impenitent Jerusalem, and said, "Father, forgive them," as they nailed him on the cross. Therefore "judge not, that ye be not judged." Men will judge harshly those who judge others harshly, and the human judgment passed upon the censorious is but a shadow of the more dreadful judgment that is to come. 2. Strictness in judging ourselves. We extenuate our own faults; we always have excuses ready. We magnify the faults of others; we have no excuse for them. Our faults seem to us as motes, theirs as beams; our judgment is often reversed by the just judgment of God. Consider your own faults, concentrate your attention upon them—that is your duty; not, as a rule, to pass judgment upon your neighbours. "Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Of himself; then let him take heed to his own soul, let him look into its state narrowly and jealously, let him carefully remove every mote and every defilement, let him wash it white in the blood of the Lamb. This diligent self-examination will prepare us for the difficult and delicate task of helping others. He who would take heed to the flock must take heed first unto himself (Acts 20:28); it needs a clean heart, and a close fellowship with Christ, and a purified spiritual vision, to see clearly to cast out the mote out of our brother’s eye. There is need of true humility and heavenly wisdom and deep spiritual experience, if we are to deal successfully with the souls of others. If we are to restore others, it must be in the spirit of meekness, by the help of the good Spirit of God, always considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted. 3. Holy caution in dealing with the worldly and the wicked. "Holy things for the holy," is a well-known direction in the ancient liturgies; it expresses the lesson which the Lord would teach us here. Judge not, but yet be careful. The deep things of spiritual experience are not for all men. The mysteries of the soul’s converse with God are not to be lightly divulged in common talk. "My Beloved is mine, and I am his." The intercourse of the converted soul with the heavenly Bridegroom is a thing too sacred for ordinary conversation. "The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him … They that feared the Lord spake often one to another." The Christian can tell what God hath done for his soul only to the like-minded—the holy with the holy; and there are hidden things of which he speaks only to God in the silence of his heart. The deepest thoughts of that life which is hid with Christ in God, the blessed truths on which the soul leeds in loving faith, are far too sacred to be offered to the contentious, the unbelieving, the mere controversialist; far too precious to be thrown down to the gross and sensual, who despise the pearl of great price in comparison with their low and coarse enjoyments, who will turn angrily and scornfully upon him who introduces such subjects. Confessions of past sin, histories of conversions, spiritual experiences, are very sacred; but they are not for all men. They will do harm to the worldly; they wilt provoke them to scorn and derision. II. OUR WITH GOD. 1. The duty and blessedness of prayer. "Ask … seek … knock." He bids us pray through whom all prayer is offered, in whose Name every knee must bow; he will hear us, we know. He has just taught us the blessed words of his own most holy prayer; he bids us use them, not as mere words uttered by the lips, but as true prayer prayed out of the depths of the heart. "Ask," he says, "and it shall be given you;… everyone that asketh receiveth." It is not asking, to repeat a few words without real desire. The heart must ask; the heart asks by its longings, yearning after God with groanings that cannot be uttered. Ask thus, and surely ye shall have. "Seek," he says, "and ye shall find." You ask for that which you need; you seek that which has been lost, that which is hidden. Original innocence has been lost; the true treasure of the soul is a hidden treasure. Seek after righteousness, seek the kingdom of God, seek Christ. Seeking implies perseverance, careful, watchful effort. The Lord came to seek and to save that which was lost. He sought on and fainted not through the thirty years of his quiet life at Nazareth, through the three years of his ministry—those years of unwearying labour, self-forgetting love. He sought on even as he hung dying in agony on the cross: "Father, forgive." He sought and he found: "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." He sought, and we must seek; we must seek him who is seeking us. If we seek as he sought, in patience, perseverance, in love, we shall surely find him; for he is still seeking, still calling, "Come unto me." "Knock," he says, "and it shall be opened unto you." But knock now, while it is the day of grace. There are some who will stand without, and knock at the door, saying, "Lord, Lord, open unto us;" and he shall answer,"I know you not." Knock now. Knocking implies importunity. It is not enough to be "not far from the kingdom of God;" we need to enter in, into the presence of the most holy One. He will open if we knock in faith and strong desire; for he himself, in the wondrous condescension of his infinite love, deigns to knock at the door of our poor unworthy heart. "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof." But he desires to enter, in his gracious mercy. "If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Then we know that he will open if we continue knocking; he will not keep the door shut against those souls of men whom he loved so very dearly. He will admit us, if we persevere in faithful prayer, into his most gracious presence now, into the joy of our Lord hereafter. 2. Our Father hears the prayer of his children. Earthly fathers give their children what they need; they will not give a stone for bread, a scorpion for fish. They are sinful; the inherited corruption of sin cleaves to them all; yet they love their children and care for them. How much more does our Father which is in heaven, our Father who is Love, care for us, his children! Our Father listens to our voice, but he listens in wisdom and true holy love. We ask him sometimes for stones or scorpions, for earthly things which will only be a weight and hindrance in our heavenward journey, or perhaps may even tempt us to fall into sin, which is the sting of death. He will not give the evil things which we blindly ask; but it is in love that he refuses. "My grace is sufficient for thee." He gives the true bread—the bread which, if a man take, he shall live for ever. He gives good things to them that ask him; not always the good things of this world, which are not reckoned good in the world to come—" Son, thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things"—but things really good, things that the souls of the blessed can take with them when the world passeth away. He gives, in answer to the prayer of the heart, the best of all good things—the Holy Spirit of God. 3. We must imitate him. "Be perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." To be like unto God is not to be strong and beautiful and brave, like Homer’s godlike heroes, but to imitate God in that which, his apostle tells us, enters into his very nature. "God is Love." If we would have him give good things to us, we must give good things to our neighbours according to our power. Our Lord lays down a plain, simple rule to guide us in our daily walk: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." We must ask ourselves how we would have our neighbour act towards us if our circumstances were reversed. Thus our own heart becomes our guide; it tells us just how we ought to act. Only let us be sincere, truthful with ourselves, and we cannot he deceived. The rule is wide in its range. It is not, "Do not to others what you would not they should do to you;" others before our Lord had said that much. The Lord’s rule is far wider, far more stringent. It strikes hard at that selfishness which is the parent of so many sins; it extends over all the circumstances of life; it substitutes for the minute rules of the Pharisees one comprehensive principle; it implies the energy of holy love in the heart, for only true Christian love can enable a man to apply this commandment of the Lord to the government of his own life and actions. This is the Law and the Prophets. All the commandments of the second table are briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." And it implies the commandments of the first table; for Christian love, that charity which is the greatest of all graces, flows out of the love of God. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his command-merits." Then this is the Law and the Prophets. All the practical teaching of Holy Scripture is contained in the one law of love; and one Teacher only can write that law upon our selfish hearts, and teach us to apply it to the details of our daily lives—the Holy Spirit of God, whom our Father which is in heaven will give (his blessed Son has promised it) to them that ask him. III. THE WHICH IMPEDE OUR OF THE SAVIOUR’S RULES. 1. Their difficulty. (1) The Lord does not hide from us the difficulty of persevering obedience. Our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. They seek the praise of men; they please themselves. There are many forms of the self-pleasing life, varying with the character, the surroundings, the early influences; they all meet in one way. That way is broad, the Lord says. There is no difficulty in finding it; "many there be which go in thereat;" you have but to go with the multitude, to live as others live, to swim with the stream. There is no need of a guide to find the broad way; we have but to follow the devices and desires of our own hearts, to live without self-denial, without the fear of God, without the restraining, solemnizing thoughts of death and judgment, and the awful world beyond the grave. The way is broad, the Lord says—spacious in its wide extent; it covers the whole world, the whole range of human life, save only one narrow path. Many ways converge into it—ways coming from many different quarters, far apart at their outset, very unlike in their circumstances, in the country through which they pass; but all meeting in the one broad way. Many travellers pass along it, differing widely from one another—old and young, rich and poor, learned and ignorant; but all alike in this: they have forgotten the prayer which the Lord himself had taught them. They never say, "Thy will be Therefore the Lord bids us enter in at the strait gate; in his tender love for our souls he condescends to show us the way, entering there himself. Few find it, but the Lord Jesus is with those few. He is their Guide; his cross goeth before them; they follow him in trustful faith, though often with much fear and trembling, sometimes with many anxious doubts. For the path is very narrow; it is hemmed in on each side with difficulties and dangers. Many side-paths open out from it; they seem sometimes to follow the same general direction, but a slight divergence at first often leads very far astray. They are sometimes very tempting; they look smoother, easier, pleasanter, than the one narrow way. There is need of much careful thought, much self-restraint, to keep the right path; it is steep, sometimes very rugged, leading ever upwards. Few find it. Sometimes, in moments of depression, they seem to us very few indeed; but we remember that when Elijah thought himself alone, God could tell him that there were seven thousand faithful men in Israel. And if they are but few, they are the followers of the Lamb, "called, chosen, faithful." He himself is with them, cheering, comforting, strengthening them. The narrow path is often a vale of weeping—there is much sorrow, many trials; but there is much comfort. The Lord is with his followers; therefore "they go on from strength to strength, and at the last unto the God of gods appeareth every one of them in Zion." For at the end of the narrow path lies the strait gate. It is strait; there is need of self-denial, diligence, holy thoughtfulness, even to the last. It is strait; but there is room for all to enter in who have chosen the service of Christ; for he has passed through that strait gate himself, and he will open it wide to his followers. It is strait; but it leadeth unto life—to that life which is indeed worth living; the everlasting life with God in heaven. For the strait gate of the parable is, indeed, the pearly gate of the golden city; there shall enter the saints of God, ten thousand times ten thousand, when the fight with sin and death is over, and the redeemed of the Lord, more than conquerors through the precious blood, go up with singing to Zion into the city of the living God. 2. The influence of false teachers. (1) Their description. Few find the narrow way. There is one true Guide; there are many false guides; there is need of thought and prayer. We must not be led about by divers and strange doctrines; we must not believe every spirit; we must try the spirits. False teachers come in sheep’s clothing; they put on the prophet’s dress; they are fair-speaking; they ensnare simple souls. There have been false teachers in every age; blind guides, like the scribes and Pharisees in our Lord’s time. There was one false apostle among the chosen twelve—one who was a thief; who cared not for the poor, but only for his own selfish gains. There are false teachers now, who care not for the sheep, but only for themselves; they are wolves in heart, "grievous wolves, not sparing the flock." (2) How to distinguish between the false teachers and the true. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Grapes and figs are among the good gifts of God; thorns and thistles tell of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:18). The good fruit springeth not from the evil tree; a tree is known by its fruit. The outward life is the evidence of the inward. Indeed, the hypocrite acts the part of the righteous, and sometimes succeeds in deceiving the world; his almsgivings, his prayers, his seeming self-denials, impose upon men for a time. But in the long run even the world can discern the difference between the real and the unreal; there is an undefinable something, in look, voice, and manner, which betrays unreality—a something which is felt even by the irreligious. And he that is spiritual judgeth all things. A man who knows what it is to deny himself for Christ’s sake, to pray out of the depths of his heart, who knows something of the deep experiences of the spiritual life, its sorrows and its joys,—such a man will distinguish by intuition, by a feeling which is rarely wrong, between the real and the unreal, the Christian and the hypocrite. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit; it may have a show of goodness, but when you test it, it is worthless. An unbeliever cannot live a holy life; he may assume the appearance of piety, but there will be something forced, something unnatural, which betrays him; he will fail in the distinctive Christian grace of humility—that grace which our Lord puts in the forefront of the Beatitudes. His actions may seem good, but the goodness is only outward; the root is evil; the inner life of thought and motive is corrupt in the sight of him who searcheth the heart. The corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit, but it may by the grace of God become a good tree; the wild olive may be grafted in upon the good olive tree, and partake of its root and fatness. Thus only can it bring forth good fruit by union with the root of the good tree. This change is possible as long as the tree remains in life; it is necessary, if it is to be saved from death; for "every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." The fruit of the Spirit is the test of reality, the evidence of spiritual life, the earnest of a blessed immortality. Without it there is no salvation. The Lord who died for us warns us in the plain words of that true love which will not gloss over sin or hide the danger that is impending. He tells us of that hell which threatens the unloving and the hypocrite, of the prison from which there is no escape, of the destruction to which the broad way inevitably leadeth, of the fire into which the corrupt tree must be cast. Let the awful thought sink deep into our souls. Enter in at the strait gate; beware of false prophets; a tremendous alternative awaits us. The loving words of Christ our Lord call us to the way of holiness; may he give us ears to hear! LESSONS. 1. The Lord teaches the great danger of idle and slanderous gossip; take heed, listen, and obey. 2. Pray earnestly for grace to see your own faults, examine yourselves; be real, hate unreality, and hypocrisy. 3. Pray always, in trustful faith, m persevering earnestness. 4. Deny yourselves; only the way of the cross leadeth to the crown of life. 5. Seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit; beware of false teachers. Matthew 7:21-29 Conclusion of the sermon. I. THE OF . 1. Not all disciples will be saved. They all say, "Lord, Lord;" they all call themselves by the holy name of Christians; but not all can enter into the kingdom of glory at the last. For our Father which is in heaven is the King of heaven; and none can enter into his kingdom but those who do his will. They all pray, "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." It is mere hypocrisy, it is mocking God, to say that holy prayer and not to try to do the will of God ourselves. It is done in heaven. There is room for no other will there; all wills in heaven are one with the blessed will of God. We must learn to do our Father’s will in earth, that our will may by his grace be more and more conformed to his most holy will; so may we one day enter into that blessed place where all do his will lovingly and perfectly. 2. Not all teachers. In the great day men will call Jesus Lord. Could he say that, were he not what we know he was, the Lord God Almighty? He accepts the title, for it is his by right; he himself called no man lord. They will call him Lord then, some of them in terror and fearful anticipations; alas! he says there will be many such. They will plead, in deprecation of the dreadful judgment, their works done outwardly for him, and, as it seemed, by his help. "Did we not prophesy by thy Name?" But the gift of prophecy is nothing worth without the grace of love; there have been great preachers gifted with the mighty power of spiritual eloquence who yet knew not the Lord themselves, whose own hearts were cold while they kindled the love of others. "Did we not by thy Name cast out devils?" But so did Judas, who was the son of perdition, into whom the devil entered. "Did we not by thy Name do many mighty works?" But Holy Scripture tells us that though we had all faith, so that we could remove mountains, yet we should be nothing if charity were wanting. It seemed a great thing to have the gift of prophecy and the power of working miracles, but these great gifts will not save the soul; there is need of something deeper—the hidden life of holiness which the Father only sooth, the submission of the human will in love and faith to the holy will of God. 3. "The Lord knoweth them that are his." "I know mine own," he saith, "and mine own know me." "I never knew you," he will say to the false prophets; to many, alas! who once seemed to be doing great things for him, but yet in their hearts loved him not. "Depart from me." For they were really working iniquity when in the eyes of men they were working for Christ; their life was a lie, untrue, unreal; it was a piece of acting, nothing more. And now the mask is torn away, and the miserable truth is seen. He never knew them as he knoweth his sheep, his chosen. Oh that he may know us as the Father knoweth him (John 10:14, John 10:15), with the knowledge of holy, heavenly love; and that we by his grace may learn to know the good Shepherd with that blessed knowledge which is life eternal (John 17:3)! II. PARABLE OF HEARING AND DOING. 1. The obedient hearer. He receives the Word with joy; he recognizes it as the Word of God. But he is not content with hearing. Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God ought to be listened to with solemn reverence. But there needs something more than solemn reverence, something more than intent listening. The Lord could look into the hearts and thoughts of the vast multitude gathered round the Mount of the Beatitudes. They were astonished at his doctrine; they had listened with interest, with admiration, and with wonder. They would go away. Sometimes they would remember the great Teacher; they would call to mind that look of Divine majesty, those holy eyes beaming with tender love, those tones of touching persuasion and more than human authority; they would tell their friends of the great audience, of the hushed silence, of the strange originality of the Lord’s teaching, so utterly different from that of the scribes. But would their lives be changed? Would they live as many, most of them perhaps, had half intended to live while the sound of the holy words was yet falling on their ears? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 8:1-34 MESSIAH’S WORK AS TO HIS . We return in this section to matter which resembles that of Mark and Luke, and undoubtedly belongs to the Framework (vide Introduction). St. Matthew has given a lengthy summary of the teaching of the Christ, and he now supplements it by a summary of his daily work. He is not concerned with the chronological connexion of the incidents here narrated, for this is evidently to him a matter of but secondary importance. He only desires to bring out different aspects of the Lord’s life. Thus he notices— 1. Christ’s miracles of healing, and the secret of his ability to perform them (verses 1-17). 2. The personal trials that Christ incurred in his work (verse 18- Matthew 9:8). 3. The liberty of the gospel as shown by Christ’s treatment of the outcast, and his answer to those who insisted on fasting (Matthew 9:9-17). 4. The completeness of his healing power (Matthew 9:18-34). Matthew 8:1-17 1. Christ’s miracles of healing, and the secret of his ability to perform them. Observe: (1) The variety in the patients. (a) One of the chosen people, who had lost all social and religious privileges; (b) a Gentile, an outsider by birth; (c) the near relation of a personal follower; (d) multitudes. (2) The variety in the requests for his aid. (a) The request by the sufferer; (b) the request by another; (c) apparently no request, yet the personal follower has Christ with him; (d) the sufferers are brought to him. Matthew 8:1-4 Healing the leper. Parallel passages: Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16. Observe in this miracle (1) the Lord’s sympathy, running counter to popular prejudice (vide Edersheim, ’ Life,’ 1.495); (2) his full acceptance of the Law (Matthew 5:17); cf. Luke 5:4, note. Matthew 8:1 Matthew only. When he was come down from the mountain (Matthew 5:1, note), great multitudes followed him, A transitional verse. It carries on the thought of the ὄχλοι in the last verse of the preceding chapter, and serves to introduce the following examples of sick folk; or, perhaps, it may be connected with the "great multitudes" (ὄχλοιπολλοί) of Matthew 4:25, coming, as the plural suggests (cf. also Matthew 12:23) from the various places there enumerated. If we must combine this verse with Luke 5:12, we must suppose our Lord to have descended the mountain, and to be passing through "one of the cities," coming (our Luke 5:5) afterwards to Capernaum, the "great multitudes" (cf. Luke 5:15)being drawn from the various cities through which he passed. The verse reminds us that the two sides of the Lord’s life, preaching and work, were intimately connected. Men not only wondered at what they heard (Matthew 7:28, Matthew 7:29), they also followed him, and this led to occasions for the exercise of his practical activity. The result was that they wondered at his work (Matthew 9:33), as they wondered at his preaching. Matthew 8:2 And, behold. In this case the unexpected (Matthew 1:20, note) was the near approach (προσελθών), the "worship," and the prayer of an outcast. There came a leper. Loathsome physically and typically. The other passages which speak of the healing of lepers by our Lord or the apostles are (1) Matthew 10:8; (2) Matthew 11:5; parallel passage, Luke 7:22; (3) Luke 17:12; (4) perhaps Matthew 26:6; parallel passage, Mark 14:3. And worshipped him (Matthew 4:9, note). From the parallel passages we may see that the word here refers more to the posture of his body than to the nature of his thoughts. Saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Leprosy stood in so peculiar and solemn a relation to the Israelites that it would hardly be included under the terms, "all manner of disease, and all manner of sickness," in Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24; we have therefore no evidence that up to this time any leper had been healed by our Lord. The man’s utterance marks, therefore, a distinct advance in faith. None like him, the object of the Divine "stroke," had been healed; but from lesser examples of Jesus’ power he argues to the greater. Sure of Jesus’ power, he appeals to his heart. Make me clean (καθαρίσαι). Not merely "heal me;" for a leper could not but think of healing and its consequences—restoration to social and religious privileges (vide infra). Matthew 8:3 And Jesus put forth (and he stretched forth, Revised Version) his hand, and touched him. The careful record of the twofold action may be either a trace of the increasing astonishment of the bystanders or a means of indicating that this was no accidental touch, but the result of deliberate will (cf. Matthew 14:31). According to the Law (Le Matthew 13:46 with 11:40), our Lord by this action would become unclean until the evening. But of this there is no hint. That indeed he could not by it contract any real impurity, or even any ceremonial impurity in the eyes of God, is self-evident. But how could he himself justify his exemption from the Law? and how could the people justify it? Probably both he and they felt that as "the priests, in their contact with the leper to be adjudged, were exempted from the law of defilement," much more was the One who "cleansed" him. "He says, I will,’ to meet the heresy of Photinus. He commands, because of Afius. He touches, because of Manichseus" (Ambrose, in Ford). Saying, I will (θέλω). Synchronous with the action. Be thou clean; be thou made clean (Revised Version); καθαρίσθητι. The external power which the man had himself acknowledged was now applied to him, and he was made clean by it, physically and therefore ceremonially. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.. Matthew 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; i.e. of those who were not present (Bengel). The command may have been given (1) to save the man from temptation to self-importance; or (2) to prevent any rumour of the miracle coming to the ears of the recognized authorities, and thus prejudicing them in their verdict upon his case; or, and more probably, (3) for the Lord’s sake, for this seems to be the reason for the command in all the other occasions when it is given. The Lord did not desire to be thronged with multitudes who came only to see his miracles; he would work in quiet (cf. the quotation from Isaiah in Matthew 12:18-21). But go thy way, show thyself to the priest. The latter clause belongs verbally to Le Matthew 13:49, but the thought is that of Le Matthew 14:2, sqq. Without the official verdict, the man could not be restored to communal privileges (so also Luke 17:14). And offer the gift that Moses commanded. Including (1) "two living clean birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop" (Le Matthew 14:4); (2) "two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth parts of an epbah of fine flour for a meal offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil" (Le Matthew 14:10), unless he he poor, in which case lesser sacrifices may be substituted. For a testimony unto them (εἰςμαρτύριοναὐτοῖς). Although a fair sense might be extracted by connecting this clause with. the words, "Moses commanded," it would, especially in the parallel passages, be a very awkward addition to them. Rather it must represent the man’s "offering" in its ultimate purpose, and this not necessarily in the man’s own mind. So more clearly the "Western" reading in the parallel passage in Luke, ἵναεἰςμαρτύριονἦὑμῖντοῦτο. Whether "them" refers to the priests or to the nation generally is not of grave importance, for the priests themselves, in act and feeling, represented the nation (cf. Matthew 7:29, note). Of more interest is the question—What is that which is here testified of? (1) Prima facie the man’s own state. The performance of the rites would be legal evidence that he was clean. (2) Yet this interpretation is hardly borne out by the usage of the phrase. Εἰςμαρτύριον in the LXX. (never closely with the dative as here) seems to always refer to that which is both permanent and important (cf. Genesis 21:30; Genesis 31:44; Deuteronomy 31:26; Joshua 24:27; Hosea 2:12). And in the New Testament with the dative it elsewhere refers either to work for the Lord or to a solemn judgment (James 5:3). So probably here. The man’s offering is to be a permanent testimony to the nation of our Lord’s relation to the Law. His miracles confirmed his profession (Matthew 5:17). (3) Some, however, accepting the above view in the main, translate, "for a testimony against them"; but it is unlikely that so harsh a thought towards the nation would be expressed by our Lord at this early stage of his ministry. In Mark 6:11 there is a definite reason for its use. Matthew 8:5-13 The healing of the centurion’s servant. (Matthew 8:5-10; parallel passage Luke 7:1-3, Luke 7:6-10. Luke 7:11, Luke 7:12, equivalent to Luke 13:28, Luke 13:29.) According to St. Luke, the centurion sent first elders of the Jews to plead for him, and afterwards friends, and expressly said by them that he did not think himself worthy to come to Jesus. Their return in verse 10 seems to forbid the supposition that he eventually came. This detailed narrative seems more likely than St. Matthew’s, which is not only compressed, but, if taken by itself, gives a wrong idea of what appears to have actually taken place. But quod tacit per alium facit per se, and as Trench points out, this is "an exchange of persons, of which all historical narrative and all the language of our common life is full. A comparison of Mar 10:35 with Matthew 20:20 will furnish another example of the same." The fact is that St. Matthew (or, perhaps, the original framer of the source that he used, or those through whose hands it passed) seizes on the Gentilic origin of the centurion, without troubling himself to record his previous kind and generous attitude towards the Jews, and the interest that they now show on his behalf. This led to the omission of the second group of messengers also, and, of course, to the modification of the language where necessary, e.g. verse 13. For the same reason, St. Matthew records verses 11, 12 in this place. For the contrast between this and the superficially similar miracle recorded in John 4:46, sqq., cf. Trench on that miracle. Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus (Revised Version, he) was entered into Capernaum. (On Capernaum, see Matthew 4:1-25. 13.) There came unto him; i.e. by messengers, as we learn from St. Luke (vide supra). A centurion, beseeching him. The centurion probably belonged to the soldiers of Antipas, in whose district Capernaum lay. They would naturally be organized after the Roman manner; of the forces of the Indian native states and our own. It should be observed, by the way, that even the imperial troops stationed in Palestine were drawn, not from distant lands, but from the non-Jewish inhabitants of the country, perhaps especially from Samaritans. Matthew 8:6 Matthew only. And saying, Lord, my servant; Revised Version margin, "boy" (ὁπαῖςμου), just as in some English-speaking communities "boy" is commonly used for "manservant." In the parallel passage of Luke, the narrative speaks of him as δοῦλος, the message as παῖς. Lieth. Perforce (βέβληται). At home; Revised Version, in the house; i.e. of the centurion. Sick of the palsy, grievously tormented (cf. 1 Macc. 9:55, 56). "Paralysis with contraction of the joints is accompanied with intense suffering, and, when united, as it much oftener is in the hot climates of the East and of Africa than among us, with tetanus, both ’grievously torments,’ and rapidly brings on dissolution". Observe that the statement of the case is itself a petition. Matthew 8:7 Matthew only. And Jesus (Revised Version, be) saith unto him, I Will come and heal him. The emphasis is not on the coming, but on the person who comes (ἐγων). Observe Christ’s perfect self-consciousness. Heal (θεραπεύσω) ; contrast verse 8. Matthew 8:8 The (Revised Version, and the) centurion answered and said. His reply as reported in Matthew is almost verbally the same as his second message in Luke, save for the important addition there of his unworthiness to come. Lord, I am not worthy (ἱκανός); Matthew 3:11, note. That thou shouldest come under my roof. "My," probably emphatic: however thou mayest honour others. But speak the word only; but only say the word (Revised Version); ἀλλὰμόνονεἰπὲλόγῳ. Only say with a single word what is to be done, and it shall be done (cf. Matthew 3:16). And my servant shall be healed (ἰαθήσεται); Matthew 4:23, note. Matthew 8:9 For I am (for I also am, Revised Version) a man under authority, having soldiers under me (under myself soldiers, Revised Version): and I say to this man (this one, Revised Version), Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. The centurion says that he knows the power of a command when given by one in authority, through the obedience that he himself shows and through that which he himself receives. Observe, he naturally orders his soldiers movement, and his slave work. Further, may not "and to my slave" represent the climax of his faith? He felt that the powers of nature (at least those concerned in this illness) were not only subordinate to Jesus, but were completely under his power. At his command they would act and the man be healed. Matthew 8:10 When (Revised Version, add when) Jesus heard it, he marvelled. Contrast "and he marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark 6:6). We read in John 2:24, John 2:25, "But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men, and because he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man." Yet here our Lord marvels at the character of the centurion. How can we reconcile these two statements? As yet not fully, for the question takes us to the centre of our Lord’s personality. But we must remember: (1) That Augustine’s solution—Christ did not so much actually wonder, as commend to us that which was worthy of our admiration—"brings an unreality into parts of our Lord’s conduct, as though he did some things for show and the effect which they would have on others, instead of all his actions having their deepest root in his own nature, being the truthful exponents of his own inmost being" (Trench). (2) That St. John was referring, as it seems, to persons with whom our Lord was brought into contact, while here the centurion is probably absent (vide supra). Our Lord’s powers of perception (ἐγίνωσκεν, John) have here had no opportunity of action. (3) That, in any case, even our Lord’s mental powers did not act in any unnatural method. In his grasping the true character of each man’s mind, the same processes (however rapid in his case) must have taken place as take place in men generally, and among these processes is wonder at some fresh trait. (4) That unless we are prepared to accept a subtle A polhnarianism, we must suppose that Christ came to know human hearts by his human rather than by his Divine powers. This, of course, will not exclude his receiving special communications in the Holy Spirit, by whose agency we may suppose that he "saw" Nathanael (John 1:48). and said to them that followed. The multitudes (verse 1). Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. So also the Revised Version (similarly Luke), but Revised Version margin and Westcott and Hort read, "With no man in Israel have I found so great faith," in which there is more distinct reference to the individuals whom he had actually met. A Gentile surpassed them all. Notice that the centurion is put above the apostles; and rightly, especially if even Peter had not as yet thought of the cure of his mother-in-law (verse 14, note). Yet the centurion was not called to apostleship. Found. "Quaerens, cum veni" (Bengel). Matthew 8:11, Matthew 8:12 In Luke (Luke 13:28, Luke 13:29) not joined to this miracle, but placed after the warning about mere professors (our Matthew 7:23). Also they are there given in the reverse order. Taking the other facts (verse 5, note) about this miracle into consideration, there can be little doubt but that St. Matthew does not place these verses in their historical connexion. He wishes to emphasize the teaching of the miracle, that Gentiles accept Christ, though Jews reject him. For this reason also he gives the two verses in the reverse order. And. In contrast (δέ) to this comparative absence of belief in Israel. Many. Not in the parallel passage in Luke, but it agrees with the aim of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Shall come. Though not emphatic, as it is in the parallel passage in Luke, yet expressive of purpose and decision. From the east and (Revised Version. the) west. Not only residents in Palestine, like this centurion, but from the furthest limits of the earth. The thought was well known; e.g. Malachi 1:11; Isaiah 59:19.; also Jeremiah 16:19; Zechariah 8:22. And shall sit down; i.e. at a feast. The image, taken from Isaiah 25:6, is exceedingly common in Jewish Haggadic (i.e. mostly parabolic) teaching. With Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. An early" Western" reading is, "in the bosom of Abraham," etc. (cf. Luke 16:23). Probably a traditional form current among Jewish Christians. But the children; sons (Revised Version). Those who ought rightfully to enjoy its privileges (Matthew 5:9, note). In Matthew 13:38 those so called answer fully to the appellation. Of the kingdom. "Rather than of the king; since many are in the kingdom, whom notwithstanding the king rejects as traitors; whereas all the children of the king are adopted as co-heirs with his only begotten Son" (Beza, in Ford). This interpretation is attractive, but doubtless false. The Hebrew idiom enables the writer to suggest the idea of the Jews, who are by nature heirs of the Divine kingdom, being notwithstanding excluded (cf Acts 13:46). Shall be cast out (Revised Version, forth); ἐκβκηθήσονται (Matthew 7:4, note). The "Western" reading, ἐξελεύσονται, suggests that they shall go out by their own present act of refusing blessing. Into (Revised Version, the) outer darkness. The form of the expression, which comes only in Matthew (Matthew 22:13; Matthew 25:30), points to a double conception; they shall be cast into the darkness, and cast outside the palace within which the feast is going on. Such is the loss in its personal (εἰςτὸσκότος) and in its social (τὸἐξώτερον) aspect. There shall be (Revised Version, the) weeping and gnashing of teeth. The article, which should strictly be repeated before gnashing, points to a recognized conception. The phrase occurs (except in the parallel passage, Luke 13:28) only in St. Matthew (Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50; Matthew 22:13; Matthew 24:51; Matthew 25:30), in each case contrasting the place into which the wicked are sent with that which they might have enjoyed. Observe the description of "hell"—absence of spiritual light; separation from the company of the saved; lamentation; impotent rage. The second couplet corresponds to the first. Matthew 8:13 Matthew only. The parallel passage, Luke 7:10, gives the result found by the messengers on their return. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and (omitted by the Revised Version) as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. As. Not strictly proportionate, but in the same way as (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 18:33) thou hast now believed, be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame (Revised Version, in that) hour. Matthew 8:14, Matthew 8:15 The healing of St. Peter’s wife’s mother. Parallel passages: Mark 1:29-31; Luke 4:38, Luke 4:39. Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house. Straight from the synagogue (parallel passages), for food, Matthew 8:15 (Chrysostom). It seems clear, from the parallel passages, that St. Peter had not previously told our Lord about his mother-in-law’s illness, but that he, with others, now asked (ἠρώτησαν, Luke) him to heal her. Among these others were probably Andrew, who also lived in the house, and James and John, who accompanied our Lord (Mark). Whether or not it was Peter’s own house, we have no means of telling (but see next verse). He saw. Presumably on entering, before they asked him about her. His wife’s mother (1 Corinthians 9:5). As St. Peter lived for some forty years more, he can hardly have been now very long married (cf. Bengel). Laid (βεβλημένην); verse 6. And sick of a fever. Matthew 8:15 And he touched her hand. Perhaps with her, as with the leper (Matthew 8:3), the word alone would not have been enough. In both cases the faith seems to have been below that of the centurion. And the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them; Revised Version. him, with manuscripts. Serving them all (parallel passages), and him in particular. If it were her own house this would be doubly natural (cf Luke 10:40). The change of tense (aorist to imperfect) contrasts the single act of arising from her bed and her continued ministry at the meal (cf. Matthew 4:11). Matthew 8:16, Matthew 8:17 The great number of his miracles, and the secret of his performing them. Matthew 8:16 Parallel passages: Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40. When the even was come; Revised Version, and when even-According to the original connexion, preserved, as it seems, in Mark and Luke, this was the evening of the day in which our Lord had healed the man with the withered hand in the synagogue. Probably, therefore, the day had been a sabbath. But with the setting sun (parallel passage in Luke), or rather, according to Talmudic teaching, when three stars were visible after sunset (vide Lightfoot, ’ Her. Hebr.,’ in loc.), the sabbath was over (Leviticus 23:1-44. 32), and people were free to carry out their sick. Should the day not have been a sabbath, we may presume that the evening was chosen as cooler for the sick to be moved, and as more convenient to those who carried them, the day’s work being done. They brought unto him many that were possessed with devils (Matthew 4:24, note): and he cast out the spirits with his (Revised Version, a) word (verse 8). In contrast to saying over them the long formulas of exorcism used by others. And healed all that were sick. The stress is on all. None were so ill as to be beyond his power, and no kind of disease too great for him to subdue. Matthew 8:17 Matthew only. A summary statement of Christ’s relation to diseases. That it might be fulfilled (ὅπωςπληρωθῇ); Matthew 2:23, note. Which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses; diseases (Revised Version); Isaiah lilt. 4, from the Hebrew. Took (ἔλαβεν) regards the transference, the assumption; bare (ἐβάστασεν), the oppressiveness; infirmities, negative; diseases, positive. St. Matthew in this verse calls attention to two points. First, that prophecy had foretold that Christ would heal the sick. For this he might have adduced Isaiah 35:5, Isaiah 35:6, and similar passages; but as one verse will serve his double purpose, he prefers it. Secondly, that the method by which Christ did this was specially noteworthy. He did not perform miracles by magic,nor by the power of God exerted as it were externally on his behalf, nor by his own inherent Divine power, but by himself bearing the sicknesses that he removed. He wrought his miracles at his own expense,and that expense the greatest. The thought is far-reaching, and implies both that he bore the ultimate cause of sickness, the sin of the world (John 1:29), and also that each miracle of healing meant for him a fresh realization of what bearing the sin of the world included. In other words, the passage in Isaiah, as interpreted by St. Matthew, refers, not only to the Passion as such, but also to Christ’s suffering an earnest and a foretaste of it at each miracle. May not this have been in part the cause of his sigh at one miracle (Mark 7:34), and his deep emotion at another (John 11:33)? Observe that this may be the complementary side of his experience recorded in Mark 5:30 (parallel passage: Luke 8:46), that "power" went out of him. A miracle of healing, though performed in momentary unconsciousness of what was taking place, still necessitated personal contact with sin, which to Christ’s whole nature meant moral effort. The utterance recorded by Origen, "For those that are sick! was sick, and’ for those that hunger I suffered hunger, and for those that thirst I suffered thirst" (Bishop Westcott, ’Introd.,’ Appendix C; Resch, ’Agmpha,’ Log. 47), probably expresses the same thought as our verse, though in the language of Mat 25:35, Matthew 25:36. A similar idea seems to underlie the well-known saying of Talm. Bab., ’Sanh.,’ 98b, with reference to Messiah, "The Leper of the house of Rabbi is his name; for it is said, ’Surely he hath berne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.’" On this and on Raymund Martini’s false reading, "the Sick One," vide Dalman. Verse 8:18-9:8 2. Incidents grouped round the thought of the external trials endured by Christ in his work. (1) No settled home (Matthew 9:19-22). (2) His exposure to the elements (Matthew 9:23-27). (3) His rejection by Gadarenes (Matthew 9:28-34). (4) And by scribes (Matthew 9:1-8). Yet there was also recognition of him by (1) a scribe (Matthew 9:19); (2) another of the disciples (Matthew 9:21); (3) the winds and the sea (Matthew 9:26); (3) demoniacs (probably Jews, vide infra) and demons (Matthew 9:29, Matthew 9:31); (4) a paralytic and those who brought him (Matthew 9:2); (5) the multitudes (Matthew 9:8). Matthew 8:18 Parallel passages: Mark 4:35; Luke 8:22. Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him. So also the Revised Version and Westcott and Hort margin; but Westcott and Hort text, "a multitude," with B. Probably the received text is derived from Luke 8:1. From the parallel passages it is natural to infer that this crossing was some little time subsequent to the evening of the day on which he had healed Peter’s wife’s mother, etc. (Luke 8:14-16), and that it was on the day in which he had spoken the parable of the sower. He gave commandment to depart unto the other side. It was good for the multitude that he should leave them, for they were wont to take too carnal a view of his mission (cf. John 6:15), and would now have time to consider its true nature; and it was an opportunity of blessing to all who were on that further shore. Matthew 8:19-22 Parallel passage: Luke 9:57-62. The would-be followers. Notice that St. Luke (1) places it almost at the beginning of the Great Episode, calling attention by it to the qualifications required of those who would follow the Lord Up to Jerusalem; (2) adds a third example. So far as we have materials for deciding, the chronological position found in St. Matthew seems more probable. Matthew 8:19 And a certain scribe came; Revised Version, and there came a scribe. Contrast the order in Matthew 8:2. There the leper was recognized as such before ever he came near, an emphasis being laid on him and his actions by the addition of "Behold;" here the official position is of but secondary importance. A certain; a (Revised Version); εἶς. The Hebrew numeral not uncommonly stands for an indefinite article (cf. Matthew 9:18. [Westcott and Hort]; Matthew 26:69). Trench’s "’one scribe’… with, perhaps, an emphasis on the ’one’ to mark how unfrequent such offers were," is tempting, but improbable. Scribe. St. Matthew alone records his profession. Perhaps because the distinction of Jewish classes presented itself more vividly to his mind than to St. Luke’s. And said unto him; Master; better, with the Revised Version margin, teacher (διδάσκαλε). It may be that he recognized one who was superior in an important branch of his own occupation, or, less probably, that he willingly accorded to him a title due to his occupation (cf. John 3:2; and infra, Matthew 12:38). I will follow thee; ἀκολουθήσω (not ἐγὼἀκολουθήσωσοι). Self is placed in the background; he is wholly taken up with that which he proposes doing. Whithersoever thou goest. Though, as a scribe, he would naturally prefer quiet. Contrast John 6:66 (περιεπάτουν). But the discomforts would be greater than he expected. Observe, however, that there is no sign in him of that φιλαργυρία of which he has been accused (Cram. Cat.). Trench strangely favours the suggestion that he was Judas. Is Revelation 14:4 a reminiscence of this offer? Matthew 8:20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes. The Asiatic fox (Vulpes corsac) is decidedly smaller than our European species, but has the same habits. And the birds of the air (Revised Version, heaven) have nests. So the Old Latin and the common text of the Vulgate (nidos), but birds do not generally live in nests, nor is "nests" so natural a meaning for κατασκηνώσεις as" shelters" (cf. Trench, loc. cit.). The renderings in the true text of the Vulgate (tabernacula), and in Old Latin k, and Cyprian (devorsoria) are interesting. Revised Version margin has, "Gk. lodging places" (cf. Matthew 13:32 and parallel pas sages). But the Son of man. The original phrase, "one like unto a son of man," was used in Daniel 7:13, apparently as a symbol of the Jewish nation, to which was to be given supreme power. There is no evidence that it was understood of Messiah before our Lord employed it, but rather the re verse. Our Lord uses it here for the sake of the contrast it suggested to the lower creation. Man, the head of creation (as none would acknowledge more fully than this student of the Law), has in the person of the ideal Man not even the luxuries which correspond to those enjoyed by beasts and birds. Such was the love and self-abasement of the Restorer of creation (Romans 8:21). Hath not where to lay his head. He has no home to call his own. Matthew 8:21 And another of his (Revised Version, the) disciples said unto him. Disciples in the wider sense (Matthew 5:1, note),whether the twelve had or had not been chosen. In the latter case, the man may have been Thomas (Trench, loc. cit.), but hardly Philip (Clem. Alex.) after John 1:43. Yet it is precarious to see in him the despondency of Thomas (John 11:6; John 20:24, John 20:25) merely because his father is dead, and he has scruples about immediately following Christ. Lord, suffer me first. The man’s words imply a consciousness of a call. His heart told him that he ought to go, but he asks for a delay, and, in fact, a real difficulty seems to hinder him from going. St. Luke places the Lord’s "Follow me" before the man’s request; but here, as in textual criticism, proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua. To go and bury my father. Then lying dead. Of all filial duties perhaps the most bind-ins (cf. Tobit 4:3; 14:10, 11). Observe (1) that the burial would take place much sooner than is usual with us, and would seldom be more than twenty-four hours after death; (2) that, however, according to Jewish law, the ceremonial observances connected with the burial and consequent purifications would have taken many days (Edersheim, ’Life,’ 2.133). Matthew 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me, and let; Revised Version, leave. Yet the thought of leaving seems here merged in that of permitting. The dead (Revised Version, to) bury their (Revised Version, own) dead (τοὺςἑαυτῶννεκρούς). The paradox was self-interpreting. Let the spiritually dead have to do with death; dead men belong in a special sense to them. Observe that there was no danger of his father remaining unburied. Christ means that there are times when his service admits of no postponement, however sacred the conflicting duty. His followers must on such occasions be very Nazarites (Numbers 6:7) or high priests (Le Matthew 21:11). St. Luke adds, "But go thou, and publish abroad the kingdom of God," and adds a third similar case. Matthew 8:23-27 The storm on the lake. Parallel passages: Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25. Matthew, as usual, is both shorter and less precise. Nosgen and others see in this an "undesigned coincidence" with his still being at "the receipt of custom" (Matthew 9:9). Matthew 8:23 And when he was entered into a ship (Revised Version, boat), his disciples followed him. Did St. Matthew see in the very order of embarking a symbol of the Christian life? It may be so, but a more probable reason for mentioning the order is that our Lord was, perhaps, on this occasion not using a beat that belonged to any of the disciples. Passage may have been given to him at his request, and of course the disciples went where he went. Matthew 8:24 And, behold (Matthew 1:20, note). Perhaps when with Jesus they hardly expected a storm. There arose a great tempest in the sea. St. Matthew records only the effect of the sudden rush (λαῖλαψ in the parallel passages) of the wind down the gorges. Insomuch that the ship (Revised Version, boat) was covered with the waves. The waves swept again and again clean over the boat. Slowly but surely the boat was filling(parallel passages). But he was asleep. All the time (ἑκάθευδεν). Yet what a contrast to Jonah (Jonah 1:5). Matthew 8:25 And his disciples (Revised Version, they) came to him (καὶπροσελθόντες). The insertion of the words, "his disciples," distracts the mind from the fact of their coming. Their skill and their long experience of those waters now failed them. And awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish (Κύριεσῶσονἀπολλύμεθα). The last and most emphatic word comes in all the narratives. They had no hope of escape from the death that was already overtaking them except through him. Matthew 8:26 And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? (Matthew 6:30, note). The winds and waves were mastering their souls as well as their bodies. Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea. Rebuked (ἐπετίμησε); cf. Psalms 104:7. The words spoken are recorded by St. Mark. And there was a great calm. Corresponding to the "great tempest" (verse 24). Matthew 8:27 But (Revised Version, and) the men. Perhaps the disciples ("Sic als Menschen staunch," Nosgen), but probably those to whom the boat belonged (Matthew 8:23, note), the crew. It seems very far-fetched to explain it of all men who heard of the miracle. Marvelled. As the multitudes (Matthew 9:33; but contrast Matthew 14:33). Saying, What manner of man is this? (Ποταπόςἐστινοὖτος). Parallel passages, "Who then?" (τίςἄρα;). The term indicates the slightness of their knowledge of his character. They seem, with Nicodemus, to have recognized that holiness was an essential condition of performing miracles (John 3:2), but not to have realized that this condition was satisfied in Jesus. That even the winds and the sea obey him. "Him," emphatic (αὐτῷὑπακούουσιν). The miracle! has been seen to be a parable of the security of the ship of the Church since at least the days of Tertullian (’De Bapt.,’ § 12). (For the comparison generally of the Church to a ship, compare especially Bishop Lightfoot on Ignatius, ’Polyc.,’ § it.) Matthew 8:28-34 The Gadarene demoniacs. Parallel passages: Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39, where see full notes. Matthew is much less detailed. Matthew mentions two demoniacs; the parallel passages, one; the reason may be either that one was less fierce than the other, or that only one came from Gerasa (Nosgen). But in our present knowledge of the extent of inspiration, we cannot confidently affirm that the evangelists were kept from errors in numbers, and that the addition of the second demoniac is not due’ to some misunderstanding, perhaps of the use of the plural in the demoniac’s answer in the parallel passage, Mark 5:9. (For a similar difficulty, cf. the note on Matthew 9:27-31.) With regard to this mysterious narrative generally, the explanation of its details can be little more than empirical in our present knowledge of psychology and of spiritual influences. Matthew 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes; Revised Version, Gadarenes, which is certainly right here, as is "Gerasenes" in the parallel passages (cf. Westcott and Hort, it. ’App.’). Gergesa (Textus Receptus here, and Alexandrian authorities in parallel passages) and Gerasa (unless, with Origen on John 1:28, we understand by this the Arabian Gerasa fifty miles away)are probably forms of the same name now represented by Khersa, a village discovered by Thomson on the eastern side of the lake, and lying "within a few rods of the shore," with "an immense mountain" rising directly above it, "in which are ancient tombs, out of some of which the two men possessed of the devils may have issued to meet Jesus. The lake is so near the base of the mountain that the swine, rushing madly down it, could not stop, but would be hurried on into the water and drowned." To this Origen’s description (loc. cit.) corresponds: "Gergesa, to which the Gergesenes belong, is an ancient city by what is now called the Lake of Tiberias, by which is a steep place adjacent to the lake, and down this, as is pointed out, the swine were cast headlong by the demons." Gadara, in some sense the capital of Peraea (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ Matthew 4:7. 3), and one of the towns of the Decapolis confederacy (Matthew 4:25), was some twelve miles distant from Khersa, and six miles from the nearest part of the lake, to which, in fact (as the stamp of a ship on its coins shows), its territory extended. St. Matthew describes the locality, not by the little-known village, but by the well-known city of the district, to which the news of the miracle afterwards spread. But since he leaves the expression, "the city," in verses 33, 34 as he fontal it in his sources, i.e. Khersa, the result is at first misleading There met him (ὑπήντησαν; occurrerunt, Vulgate). St. Matthew (contrast verses 2, 5, 19) omits the nearer approach recorded in the parallel passages, Mark 5:6 and Luke 8:28. Two (vide supra). Possessed with devils (Matthew 4:24, note), coming out of the tombs; Revised Version, coming forth out. The Greek shows that they did not merely come from among the tombs, but actually out of them (cf. the experience of Warburton, as quoted in Trench on this miracle). Exceeding fierce, so that no man might (Revised Version, could) pass by that way. Matthew only. It deepens the contrast to their present behaviour. Perhaps "that way" refers to the Roman road by the side of the lake. Matthew 8:29 And, behold. This probably seemed to the evangelist not the least of the many strange things that he introduced by this phrase. They cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee? (Τίἡμῖνκαὶσοί; דלו ונל הם, frequent in the Old Testament, e.g. 2 Samuel 16:10). What community either of interest or of character? The deepest realization of personal sinfulness may coexist with absolute ignorance of the Divine love. Jesus. Omitted by the Revised Version here, yet genuine in the parallel passages, Matthew omitted from their utterance the name which (Matthew 1:21) indicated the bridging of the chasm between the sinner and God. Thou Son of God? Their sense of sin, their belief in a future torment, and their use of this phrase, alike point to their being Jews. Observe how great a contrast is implied by this term on the lips of demoniacs. As in 1 John 3:8 (cf. Bishop Westcott there), it brings out the nature of the conflict ("the spiritual adversary of man has a mightier spiritual antagonist"), so here. Art thou come hither—had they felt themselves safe in that distant spot and its gloomy surroundings, far away from all religious influence?—to torment us before the time? Their abject terror is still more evident in the parallel passages. Observe (1) the words are not given as those of the demons, hut as the men’s own; (2) a future torment is assumed; (3) they have no doubt as to their own share in it. Matthew 8:30, Matthew 8:31 And there was a good way off from them a herd of many swine feeding. So (and, Revised Version) the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out (Matthew only), suffer us to go away (send us away, Revised Version). This is distinguished from Matthew 8:29 as expressly the utterance of the evil spirits. In the true text there is no thought of permission, but only of command (ἀπόστειλον). They recognize his mastery. Into the herd of swine; and not into the place of torment—"the abyss" of the parallel passage, Luke 8:31. If he did not send them there, they might hope for a long respite, and one perhaps spent in various tenements. Further notice: (1) The unclean chose the unclean (2) Though we cannot attribute to the evil spirits absolute foreknowledge of what would happen in this case, their past experience may have enabled them to feel sure that they would have their love of destroying fully gratified. (3) it is also not impossible that they may have considered that their entering the swine would be likely to prejudice the Gerasenes against Jesus. Matthew 8:32, Matthew 8:33 And he said unto them, Go. As they asked; for he was not yet come to send them to their final home. He would not employ his inherent Divine power even against the kingdom of Satan, or forcibly disturb the conditions under which evil existed in the world. Notice further: (1) That as regards the right to destroy the swine when they were the property of others, our Lord in no way destroyed them himself, but only did not interfere with the powers of the evil spirits in giving them permission to work out their own purposes. It is possible, too, though far from certain, that the owners of the swine were acting illegally in owning them (though even then our Lord was not constituted as judge, Luke 12:14); but this supposes first that they were Jews, and secondly that it was illegal for Jews to keep swine, of which suppositions not even the latter can be clearly proved either by Scripture or by early forms of tradition. (2) The destruction of the swine might well be beneficial to the complete recovery of the men. (3) It would fully arouse the Gerasenes, and bring home to them the holiness of the Lord from whom evil spirits fled, and the call to personal holiness that such a Presence demanded. The result of their being thus amused lay with themselves (John 3:19; 2 Corinthians 2:16). (4) It would also prove an important element in attracting the attention both of the neighbouring district and of all places to which the news would come. And when they were come out, they (Revised Version, and they came out and) went into the herd of (Revised Version omits "herd of") swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine (Revised Version omits "of swine") ran violently (Revised Version, rushed; emphatic; in the Greek it follows "behold") down a steep place (Revised Version, down the steep, κατὰτοῦκρημνοῦ) ; tide supra, Matthew 8:28, note. Into the sea, and perished in the waters. And they that kept them (fed them, revised version; οἱδὲβόσκοντες. Those whose duty it was to drive the swine from place to place, that they might find food. Observe that the swine were "far" (Matthew 8:30) from Jesus and the demoniacs, so that the swineherds need not have passed near the demoniacs’ dwelling. Also they were on the mountain, and the demoniacs dwelt, as it seems, near the road at the bottom (Matthew 8:28, end). Fled. Doubtless in terror. And went their ways; and went away (Revised Version); ἀπελθόντες. "Ways" is in this passage probably the old genitive singular (cf. ’Bible Word Book,’s.v.). Into the city. Khersa (Matthew 8:28, note). The addition in the parallel passages of "and in the country (ἀπήγγειλανεἰςτὴν, πόλινκαὶεἰςτοὺςἀγρούς) " seems to primarily refer to the news being carried also to those men of the city who were at their daily labour outside it. And told everything, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils; Revised Version, them that were possessed with devils. Matthew repeats the plural (verse 28, note). Observe: business first, philanthropy second. Matthew 8:34 And, behold. The third of the stages (Matthew 8:29, Matthew 8:32) in this incident that were apparent to all. The whole city; i.e. Khersa, from the parallel passages (Matthew 8:28, note); all the city (Revised Version, though a similar phrase is not altered in Matthew 8:32); πᾶσαἡπόλις. Not really less comprehensive, but giving a less vivid representation of one united body than ὅληἡπόλις (Mark 1:33, and especially Luke 8:39); cf. Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, ἐνὅλῃτῇΓαλιλαίαεἰςὅληντὴνΣυριάν. Came out to meet Jesus. A distance of half a mile or so would satisfy the expression. The true reading, ὑπάντησιν (also Matthew 25:1; John 12:13), would seem to suggest the closest proximity (cf. Bishop Lightfoot on ὑπεναντίος Colossians 2:14), while ἀπάντησιν (Matthew 25:6; Acts 28:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:17) connotes a, contrast to the place left. Συνάντησιν, again (Textus Receptus here, and John 12:13, D, el.), emphasizes the thought of companionship. And when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts; from their borders (Revised Version). These Gerasenes, vexed at the loss of wealth, felt, like the demoniacs, that there was nothing in common between themselves and Jesus, but, unlike them, showed no consciousness of sin. Without this he could do nothing for them, so he granted their request (Matthew 9:1). St. Peter also once bade Jesus depart (Luke 5:8), but his reason, "for I am a sinful man, O Lord," showed a heartfelt desire after the deepest union with him. With the ungranted request of the man to remain with Jesus, and his subsequent preaching to these Gerasenes and others (parallel passages), St. Matthew does not concern himself. Departure from the mount of the Beatitudes. I. THE . 1. They followed him. The Lord came down from the mount; the great sermon was ended. The attraction of his presence continued; great multitudes followed him. He had taught them as One having authority; there was a strange, startling originality about his teaching; it was totally unlike anything that they had ever heard before. It appealed to their hearts; it seemed to fill a want of which they had been more or less conscious; it satisfied the cravings of their souls. And so they followed him, anxious to hear more from his lips, to see more of his life, to know more of himself. There was a difference of character, a variety of motives; some were more deeply impressed than others, some were more persevering in their attachment to Christ than others were. But they all followed him. 2. It is an example to us. We have all heard his words, we have read them in the Scriptures; we have! heard his voice, if we are his indeed, speaking to us in the depths of our heart. We must not forget what we have read and heard; we must not allow our interest in his holy teaching to die away; we must follow him. He confirmed his Word with signs following, He manifested forth his glory by his miracles. He does so still. If we follow him with persevering steadfastness, we shall see that he still worketh miracles of grace. His blood cleanseth from all sin; he heals the dying soul; he casts out the evil spirit; he calms the tempest of distracting doubts and anxious fears; he is mightier than all the hosts of the wicked one. II. THE LEPER. 1. His prayer. He was in great misery, full of leprosy. He felt the fatal power of that terrible disease; it was disfiguring his person with a loathsome deformity, eating out the very life; it was separating him from the society of men; he was unclean, avoided by his nearest relatives; he was cut off from all that could give him consolation; nothing remained for him but death—a slow, lingering death. Its hand was upon him now; there was no help in man. But he heard of the Lord Jesus; perhaps he had hovered on the outskirts of the crowd, listening to the Saviour’s words in the distance; perhaps he had been told of the wonders which he had already wrought. He had not yet healed a leper. Leprosy was regarded as a visitation, a stroke, from the hand of God. "Am I God," said the King of Israel (2 Kings 5:7), "to kill and to make alive, that this man doth scud unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?" It was God who sent it; it was God alone who could remove it. But, in spite of this fixed belief of the Jews, the leper had faith in the Lord Jesus; there was something about him, something in his look, manner, words, which told of the heaven whence he came. The leper doubted not; he came, he kneeled down, he fell on his face, he worshipped him, and said in words so striking that they have been recorded by the three evangelists, notwithstanding various differences of detail in the narration of the miracle, "Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." He was conscious of unworthiness; perhaps he knew that sin had brought this misery upon him. He dared not presume upon, the mercy of the Lord. He felt his own degradation; he knew not whether Christ would be willing to help one so unworthy, so guilty; but he had no doubt of his power. As he came to Christ, so we must come. He came with reverence; he kneeled down. Humble reverence, reverence in gesture and in heart, becomes us sinful men when we draw near to the Most Holy One. He came with intense earnestness of supplication ;his felt his misery, his danger. So must we come if we would be saved from the leprosy of sin; we must feel our guilt, our awful danger, the greatness of our need; we must come with strong desire, hungering and thirsting for forgiveness, longing to be made clean from the defilement of our sin. And we must come in full assurance of faith, confessing our unworthiness of the Saviour’s mercy, but doubting not his love and power. 2. The Lord’s answer. He "put forth his hand, and touched him." He feared not the danger of Levitical defilement; his perfect holiness cleansed all who came to him in faith, whom he deigned to touch with that gracious purifying hand. He spoke the word of power, "I will; be thou clean." As he taught with authority, so he heals with authority. It is his act; he heals in his own Name, by his own authority. "His touch hath still its ancient power;" his blood cleanseth from all sin; still he speaks that gracious word, "I will." He was moved with compassion then; he is the same compassionate Redeemer now; he is ready, willing, to cleanse us. There is no lack of power or of love in him; the fault is in ourselves. Only let us come with the faith, the earnest longing, the reverent prayer of the leper, and we shall hear that gracious "I will," and the leprosy of sin will depart before the saving touch of the Lord. 3. The Lord’s direction. The leper was cleansed, but he must show himself to the priest; he must go to the temple and offer the appointed gift. He was to tell no man till he had gone to Jerusalem. Silence was best, perhaps, for himself; the Lord knew his spiritual condition; it was best, perhaps, for the success of the Lord’s ministry. He was to go to the temple to give thanks to God in the sanctuary for his wonderful recovery; he was to observe the ordinances of the Mosaic ritual, and to show his gratitude by his offerings. So should we do when God has been merciful to us; we should give thanks in the church; we should bring our thank-offerings to Almighty God. LESSONS. 1. It is not enough to have heard Christ once; follow him; we need him, always, all our life. 2. Sin is a loathsome, fatal sickness; only One can heal, the Lord Jesus Christ. 3. Come to him; doubt him not; he is "the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever." Matthew 8:5-17 Miracles at Capernaum. I. HEALING OF THE ’S SERVANT. 1. The centurion. He was a soldier and a Gentile; he had been brought up in heathenism, and had lived among the temptations inseparable from a military life. His example and that of Cornelius show us that there were devout men among Gentile soldiers, as there are many good Christian men among soldiers now. Temptations may be great, but the grace of God is greater; we can serve him acceptably in any lawful calling. This centurion had seen the vanity of heathenism; he felt drawn towards God’s ancient people; he loved the nation, and had himself built the synagogue at Capernaum—perhaps that of which the white marble ruins may still be seen at Tell Hum. (1) His humility. He showed a singular humility, a grace hardly to be expected in a Gentile soldier; he recognized the dignity of Jesus, he felt his own unworthiness. He sent the elders of the Jews, St. Luke tells us in his longer narrative, as if he felt that he was not worthy even to draw near to the great Teacher. Again he sent friends. At last in his anxiety he came himself, still owning his unworthiness: "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof." Many say unto him, "Lord, Lord," of whom he will say in the last day, "I never knew you." He knows with the knowledge of Divine love and mercy all who come to him as this centurion came, in humility, in faith and love. "He that abaseth himself shall be exalted." The centurion thought himself unworthy of the Saviour’s presence in his house; the Lord deigned to mark him for his own, to enter into his heart, and to abide evermore with him. More than once he accepted the invitations of Pharisees; he entered into their houses, and sat down with them; but that outward presence, great honour though it was, was nothing compared with the grace granted to the humble centurion. (2) His faith. Like the leper, he believed that Christ had power to heal; but his faith was more spiritual, in that he recognized the Lord’s independence of any outward means as the channels of his saving power. There was no need, he felt, of the outstretched hand, the healing touch; no need of the Lord’s bodily presence; the will was enough; the word of power, spoken at a distance, would heal his servant. He himself, he said, was a man under authority, a subaltern; yet he was obeyed by his soldiers, by his servant. The Lord, he felt, was very great and high and holy; the disease would pass away at his word; demons would flee at his command; angels would do his bidding; his simple word was all that was needed. It was wonderful faith indeed, at that time, and in a Gentile soldier. That centurion is a model for us. We need a faith like his, simple, spiritual, undoubting. Such a faith can remove mountains. (3) His charity. He cared for his slave. It was a rare thing in those days. A slave was treated just as a piece of property—a "living tool," in the words of Aristotle; he was scarcely regarded as a man, and received just so much attention as was sufficient to enable him to perform his work. This centurion was a good master; his servant had returned his kindness with ready obedience; he was dear to him. It is an example of the relations that ought to exist between a master and his servants. Again, although a Gentile, he had shown his love for the people of God and his reverence for the God of Israel by building at his own expense a house for the worship of God. He had won the affection of his Hebrew neighbours; they undertook to plead for him; they besought Christ earnestly (St. Luke says), saying, "He is worthy that thou shouldest do this for him." They thought him worthy; he felt his own unworthiness. His example shows us how a loving heart conciliates the love of others; it shows with what prevailing power the prayer of humility, faith, and love pleads with the great King. 2. The Lord’s answer to prayer. Again the gracious "I will:" "I will come and heal him." The Lord will not work miracles to display his power or to satisfy curiosity; but the answer to faithful prayer is ever the same, "I will." It is full of gracious encouragement to those who come to Christ in earnest supplication, whether for themselves or for others. 3. The Lord’s wonder. It seems strange that he should wonder to whom nothing was wonderful; for all things were made by him, and all the depths of the human heart were known to him. But he was man as well as God; he increased in wisdom, he wept, he rejoiced in spirit; once he "looked round about him with anger." The mystery of the union of the human and the Divine in the Person of Christ is one of the deepest of all mysteries. "He marvelled." It can scarcely be, as some have said, that his admiration was merely intended to teach us what we ought to admire; such an explanation seems to introduce an element of unreality into the conduct of him who is the Truth. "He marvelled." We must accept the fact as belonging to the truth of the Lord’s human nature, while we learn of him to admire above all things humility and charity and trustful faith. 4. His prophecy of the gathering in of the Gentiles. This centurion was probably the first Gentile, except the Wise Men from the East, who had sought the presence of the Lord. The Lord contrasts his great faith with the unbelief which, he knew, would be prevalent in Israel. He saw in the clearness of his foreknowledge the Gentiles flocking into the Christian Church. The Jews would not eat with men uncircumcised (Acts 11:3), but in the kingdom of heaven a great multitude from the east and from the west, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, would sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob at the marriage-supper of the Lamb. But side by side with this bright prospect came a sorrowful foreboding; the children of the kingdom would be cast out; Israelites, who were heirs of the promises, but had forfeited their inheritance by disobedience and unbelief, would, alas! find no place but the great outer darkness, where are weeping and gnashing of teeth. These are stern words, but it is the sternness of love. The Lord Jesus Christ, the most compassionate One, does not hide from us the awful doom of the disobedient. He warns us that outward privileges, whether those of the Jewish or those of the Christian Church, will not save us in themselves. There is need of faith, humble, trustful, loving faith; without that, ordinances, sacraments, means of grace however precious, will not avail to the saving of the soul. The children of the kingdom will be cast out, if they are only in the outward kingdom, and have not the kingdom of grace within their souls. 5. The promise to the centurion. "As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee." His faith brought him nearer to God than unbelieving Israel. At Nazareth, his own city, the Lord found very little faith. He marvelled at the unbelief of the Nazarenes (Mark 6:6), as he marvelled at the faith of this centurion. He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. He healed at once the servant of the centurion. Faith is better than privileges. Faith saves the Gentile; privileges cannot save the Israelite. We mark the prevailing power of faith; we mark the value of intercessory prayer. "His servant was healed in the selfsame hour." Let us pray, "Lord, increase our faith." Let us learn to pray for others, for the sick and suffering, for the ignorant, for all Christian people, for all mankind. II. HEALING OF PETER’S WIFE’S MOTHER. 1. Her illness. She was sick of a fever, very ill; she lay helpless on her bed. The Lord entered into the house; it was his home when he sojourned at Capernaum. Doubtless it was a holy household—St. Peter, his wife, and her mother. The Lord was welcomed there; he was an honoured member of the family circle. That family is blessed where Christ dwells, where husband and wife, united in holy wedlock, are united also in the love of Christ. Such families are not exempt from sorrow and suffering, but Christ’s presence softens the sorrow. There was sorrow now in that humble home. They told the Lord, as we should tell him in prayer, of all our troubles; they besought him for the sick woman (she could not, it seems, pray for herself), as we should commend our suffering friends to his mercy. 2. Her recovery. The Lord felt for his afflicted friends; he listened to the voice of their prayer. He touched her hand, he rebuked the fever, he lifted her up. Immediately the fever left her. The Lord listens to his people’s voice; he always answers prayer. Not always as we wish; he knows, we do not know, whether a longer life or an early death is best for ourselves or for our friends. We must ever add to our prayers the utterance of faith, "Thy will be done." "He doeth all things well." 3. Her gratitude. She arose at once; she ministered to Christ and his apostles; she attended to their wants. So should we work for Christ. Every blessing received, every prayer answered, should lead us to give ourselves more entirely to his service, to minister to him by ministering to his poor, to give freely and generously for the work of his Church. III. MANY CURES. 1. The sick brought to Christ. There was great excitement at Capernaum. But (we gather from the other evangelists, who relate the last miracle in a different connection) it was the sabbath day. They might not carry burdens, they might not walk beyond the traditional two thousand paces; but when the even was come, and the sabbath rest was over, the enthusiasm of the people was not to be restrained. All the city was gathered together at the door of Peter’s humble dwelling. All the sick of Capernaum and the surrounding district were brought to the great Physician. A strange, confused mass of helpless suffering, of bodily agony, of that worst of all afflictions, the demoniacal possession, which was characteristic of those sad despairing times, lay before the door in the sight of Jesus. The sight of suffering always touched the Lord’s compassionate heart; he moved among them in his gracious mercy; he laid his hands on every one of them; he healed them all. We must trust our sick to his mercy; we must ourselves care for the sick and suffering, for so did Jesus Christ. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 9:1-8 The paralytic forgiven and healed. Parallel passages: Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26. (For connexion of thought, cf. Matthew 8:18, note.) In the parallel passages this narrative follows our Matthew 8:1-4. Matthew’s account is shorter, as usual. Matthew 9:1 And he entered into a ship; boat (Revised Version). So completely did he grant the request of the Gadarenes. Observe that this expression is not an original phrase of the writer of the First Gospel, but is a reminiscence of the source that he has just used. And passed over; crossed over (Revised Version); διεπέρασεν, also in the source. And came into his own city; i.e. Capernaum, where Mark says that the following miracle took place. The thought is that of Joh 1:11. Yet observe the contrast with Matthew 8:34. There "all the city" rejected him; here some of the leaders reject him, but the multitudes fear and glorify God (Matthew 8:8). Matthew 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him (προσέφεροναὐτῷ). Bengel’s remark, "Offerebant—Tales oblationes factae sunt Salvatori plurimae, gratae," though very beautiful, is, from its undue insistence on the sacrificial use of προσφέρω, hardly exegesis. Matthew omits the difficulty that was experienced in bringing him to our Lord (see parallel passages), yet this alone accounts for the special commendation of their faith. A man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed. Probably a mat or quilt (verse 6). Professor Marshall, in the Expositor for March, 1891, p. 215, has a most interesting note showing that the differences between "lying on a bed" (Matthew)and "carried by four" (Mark), and even "they sought to bring him in, and to place him before him" , may be explained by being different translations of an original Aramaic sentence. And Jesus seeing their faith. Including that of the paralytic, who, as we may gather from the obedience he afterwards shows, had agreed to and had encouraged the special efforts of his bearers. Said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer (Θάρσειτέκνον). Son. So Mark, but Luke has "man" (ἄνθρωπε), which, though more usual in Greek (though still Hebraic, for ἀνέρ would have been in accordance with classical usage), is much more colourless. Τέκνον, as a term of address, is elsewhere in the New Testament used only where there is relationship physical (Matthew 21:28; Luke 2:48; Luke 15:31; even Luke 16:25) or moral, especially that of pupil and teacher (Mark 10:24; cf 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 2:1). It therefore implies that there is both sympathy and much common ground between the speaker and him whom he addresses. It is the antithesis of Mat 8:29 (cf. further, infra, Matthew 8:22). Thus it here served affectionately to encourage the sufferer in soul and body, preparing him to receive the announcement following. Matthew emphasizes its purpose by prefixing θάρσει. Thy sins be; Revised Version, are; expressing clearly that the words are the statement of a fact, not merely the expression of a command. Forgiven thee; Revised Version omits "thee" (genuine in Luke), with manuscripts (ἀφίενταίσουαἱἁμαρτίαι). Matthew and Mark use the present of general statement, Luke the perfect (ἀφέωνται, Doric; Winer, Luke 14:3. a), to express a past fact of permanent significance. Observe the order of the Lord’s assurance, as recorded in the true text. Courage, sympathy, forgiveness, and, only after all else, recalling individual sins. As the assurance of forgiveness is delightful to the soul, so is it often helpful to the body. Hence possibly our Lord’s method in this case, for the man "inter spem metumque dubius pendebat" (Wetstein). Compare for the conjunction of the two, James 5:15, and, as a still closer parallel to our passage, Talm. Bab., ’Nedarim,’ 41a. "R. Hija bar Abba said, The sick doth not recover from his sickness until all his sins be forgiven him, for it is said, ’Who pardoneth all thy iniquities, who healeth all thy diseases.’" So also Qimbi : "He does not say, Heal my body," for it is his sins that are the cause of his sickness, but if God heal his soul from its sickness, viz. by making atonement for his sins, then his body is healed." Matthew 9:3 And certain of the scribes. From St. Luke’s account (verse 17) we learn that the miracle took place before a large assembly of "Pharisees and teachers of the Law, who had come out of every village of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem." ’Yet even among these there was a division (τινές). Said within themselves. So Mark, "reasoning in their hearts." This man (οὗτος). The word seems to convey a notion of contempt and of vindictive joy that they have caught him. Blasphemeth (βλασφημεῖ). In its fullest meaning; through assumption of Divine authority (so also Matthew 26:65; John 10:33, John 10:36). "No passage of the Old Testament affirms that the Messiah himself will forgive sins. Thus Jesus ascribes to himself what even the highest Old Testament prophecies of the Messianic time had reserved to God; e.g. Jeremiah 31:34; Isaiah 43:25" (Kubel). Observe that Mark lays more stress upon the process of their thoughts, Matthew and Luke on the conclusion at which they arrived, Luke also indicating that the supposed sin had many parts (λαλεῖβλασφημίας)—they thought, "Every word he has uttered is blasphemy." Matthew 9:4 And Jesus knowing; εἰδώς; parallel passages, ἐπιγνούς. The difference of form with agreement in sense points to varying translations of עדי (so Peshito, in each place). Perhaps the same cause may also account for the difference in the next words, ἐνθυμήσειςἐνθυμεῖσθε, but in the parallel passages, διαλογίζονται, διαλογισμούςδιαλογίζεσθε (cf. also Matthew 9:8). (For similar instances of our Lord’s knowledge, cf. Matthew 12:25; Luke 6:8; 9:47-John 2:25; cf. further, supra, Matthew 8:10, note.) Their thoughts, said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? Evil (πονηρά). Does the plural point to stages in their reasoning? or is it merely used because he was addressing more than one person? Matthew 9:5 For. The expansion of his rebuke of their accusation, by his question and the command connected with it. Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee (Revised Version, are forgiven, omitting "thee"); or to say, Arise, and walk? The former, because the truth or otherwise of the latter is at once visible. Observe that the two alternatives cover the two realms of influence, the spiritual and the physical. Men will not believe profession in the former realm if it be unaccompanied by visible results in the latter. Matthew 9:6 But that ye may know. From his authority in the physical world they may have direct knowledge (εἰδῆτε) of his authority in the spiritual world. Observe that the claim is even in the so-called "Triple Tradition." That the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins (ὅτιἐξουσίανἔχειὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπουἐπὶτῆςγῆςἀφιέναιἁμαρτίας). Observe (1) that our Lord does not say "I," but "the Son of man" ; (2) that the emphatic words in the sentence are "hath authority," and "on earth." It would therefore appear as though our Lord wished to call the attention of those present to a phrase which they already knew, but did not rightly understand. He seems to point them to Daniel 7:13, and reminding them that even there "one like unto a son of man" (cf. supra, Matthew 8:20, note) receives authority (ἡἐξουσίααὐτοῦἐξουσίααἰώνιος, Daniel 7:14), tells them that this authority includes forgiving sins, and that this may be exercised not only in the future and in "the clouds of heaven," but now (ἔχει) and "on earth." Further, if, as seems likely,. the phrase was understood to symbolize the nation, he desired them to see in himself the great means whereby the nation should rise to its ideal. If, as is possible, though hardly probable, this saying of our Lord’s is chronologically earlier than Matthew 8:20, and there,-fore the earliest occasion on which he used the phrase, the almost direct reference to Daniel 7:13 makes it the more interesting. (Then saith he to the sick of the palsy). The thought of the sentence is continued, but as he now turns directly to the sick man, its form is altered. Arise, take up. The Revised Version, retaining the wrong reading, ἐγερθείς, inserts "and." Thy bed (Daniel 7:9, note), and go unto thine house. Thus avoiding publicity. Matthew 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house. Three stages, rising, leaving the crowded court, home-coming. Healed in soul as in body, he is fully obedient. Matthew 9:8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled; were afraid (Revised Version); ἐφοβήθησαν. A more solely physical effect than the ἐθαύμασαν of the Textus Receptus. Resch’s supposition, that the difference of words here and in the parallel passages is due to various translations of the Aramaic, or rather of the Hebrew according to his theory, is in this ease not improbable. And glorified God (cf Matthew 15:31), which had given such power (authority, as Matthew 9:6) unto men (τοῖςἀνθρώποις); i.e. the human race. Observe that though the phrase recalls Matthew 9:6, there is here no mention of forgiving sins: the multitudes appear to have thought only of authority to perform the miracle; further, that although the multitudes seem to have heard Christ’s words, they did not understand his expression to refer to Messiah. Matthew 9:9-17 3. THE LIBERTY OF THE GOSPEL AS SHOWN BY CHRIST’S OF THE OUTCAST, AND HIS ANSWER TO THOSE WHO ON FASTING. (cf. Matthew 8:1-34. l, note.) (1) The call of a publican to be a personal follower (Matthew 9:9). (2) His kindly treatment of publicans and sinners, and his apology for showing it (Matthew 9:10-13). (3) His care for the freedom of his disciples from ceremonial bondage (Matthew 9:14-17). Observe in this section the signs of opposition (1) from the high-Judaic party, on a question of moral defilement (Matthew 9:11); (2) from those who were professedly waiting for Messiah, on a question of ceremonial observance (Matthew 9:14). Matthew 9:9 The call of Matthew. Parallel passages: Mark 2:13, Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27, Luke 5:28. All three evangelists connect this with the preceding miracle, but in the parallel passages the name is given as" Levi," St. Mark adding, "the son of Alphaeus." If the First Gospel were not written, in either Greek or Aramaic, by St. Matthew himself, but by a catechist of the Matthean cycle, it is possible that "Levi," as found in the source, may have seemed to the catechist disrespectful, anti that he altered it to the title by which he had been accustomed to hear his master called. If, on the other hand, and as seems more probable, this Gospel was written by St. Matthew, his preference for "Matthew" rather than "Levi" may be due to its meaning. And as Jesus passed forth (Revised Version, by) from thence. Mark 2:13 says that our Lord went out along the seaside, where "the receipt of custom" (vide infra) would naturally be. He saw a man, named (Revised Version, called) Matthew. In the Greek "a man" is closely joined to "sitting at the receipt of custom," the words Μαθθαῖονλεγόμενον appearing to be almost an afterthought. Not the name, but the man’s occupation, was the important thing. Sitting. Still plying his irreligious trade. At the receipt of custom; at the place of toll (Revised Version). Perhaps a mere booth by the roadside for collecting the octroi-duty on food, etc., carried past. At the present day in Palestine" a booth of branches, or a more substantial hut, is erected at every entrance into the city or village, and there, both day and night, sits a man at ’ the receipt of custom.’ He taxes all the produce, piercing with a long, sharp iron rod the large camel-bags of wheat or cotton, in order to discover concealed copper wire, or other contraband" (Van Lennep, in Exell, in loc.). Schurer (1. 2. p, 67) shows that the customs raised at Capernaum in the time of Christ undoubtedly went, not into the imperial fiscus, but into the treasury of Herod Antipas. On the other band, in Judaea at that time the customs were raised in the interests of the imperial fiscus. And he saith unto him, Follow me. No promise is given corresponding to that in Matthew 4:19. And he arose, and followed him. Perhaps the day’s work was just over, or he may have left some assistant there. Matthew 9:10-13 The feast with publicans and sinners, and Christ’s apology. Parallel passages: Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32. All three evangelists give the essential features of the section, but Mark and Luke show more clearly that the feast was in the house of the new disciple, and Matthew alone gives the reference to Hosea. Matthew 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus (he, Revised Version) sat at meat; "Gr. reclined: and so always"; of. Matthew 26:20. In the house; Luke, "And Levi made him a great feast in his house." Whether or not this was the same as the τελώνιον, we have no means of knowing, but presumably it was not. Behold, many publicans (Matthew 5:46, note) and sinners. The second term seems to include all who openly impugned or neglected the Law. It is, therefore, sometimes used with special reference to Gentiles (Matthew 26:45; cf Galatians 2:15). Came and sat down with him (Revised Version, Jesus, emphatic) and his disciples. Matthew 9:11 And when the Pharisees. Mentioned thus far only in Matthew 3:7 and Matthew 5:20. This is, therefore, the first time that Matthew speaks of them as coming into direct contact with Jesus. Although Mark (cf. Luke) says that the objection was raised by those among the Pharisees who were also scribes (οἱγραμματεῖςτῶνΦαρισαίων), yet the difference of expression from that in verse 3 must not be overlooked. There the fact that they were scribes, accustomed to weigh the statements of the Law about blasphemy, etc., was prominent in the mind of the narrator; here it is rather the fact that they were Pharisees, men who by their very name professed to hold aloof from those who neglected the Law. Saw it. They could freely come into the court of the house, and when there could both see and hear what was passing in the rooms that opened into it. They said; ἔλεγον: dieebaat (Vulgate); "were saying." Their eager talk is brought vividly before us. Unto his disciples. Probably these were nearer to the Pharisees than Jesus himself was, or perhaps the Pharisees thought it easier to attack Jesus through them. On the naturalness of this remark in the mouth of Pharisees, vide Schurer, II. 2. p. 25. Why eateth your Master (διδάσκαλος); Teacher is preferable, for both Pharisees and disciples realized that even Jesus’ actions were intended to instruct his followers. But the reason for this action (why, cf. also verse 14) they did not understand. It is possible that the order of the Greek points to irony on the part of the Pharisees. The man who presumes to be called Teacher, and whom the disciples accept as such, sets at defiance the primary rules of right and wrong. Professor Marshall explains the variants "teacher" (here) and "drink" (parallel passages) by the original Aramaic word for "drink" (אור) having been written here with the peculiar spelling of the Samaritan Targum (אבר). With (the, Revised Version) publicans and sinners? Who form but one class (τῶντελωνῶνκαὶἁμαρτωλῶν). (For the thought, cf. Matthew 11:19; Luke 15:2; also Psalms 101:5 [LXX.]) Matthew 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole. Οἱἰσχύοντες may include an arriere-pensee of moral self-assertion which St. Luke entirely loses by his alteration to οἱὑγιαίνοντες: cf. 1 Corinthians 4:10. Need not; have no need of (Revised Version). These are the emphatic words in the sentence. Christ takes the Pharisees at their own estimate of themselves, and, without entering into the question of whether this was right or wrong, shows them that on their own showing he would be useless to them. A physician, but they that are sick. "Sed ubi dolores sunt, air, illic festinat medicns," Ephr. Syr., in his exposition of Tatian’s ’Diatess.’. Matthew 9:13 The first half of the verse comes in Matthew only. But go ye and learn. A common rabbinic phrase based on the fact that the disputants would not always have the cumbrous rolls of Scripture actually with them. These Pharisees pro-reseed to be students of Scripture, but had not yet learned the principle taught in this passage. What that meaneth, I will have (I desire, Revised Version) mercy, and not sacrifice. Mercy (ἔλεος). In the original connexion of this quotation (Hosea 6:6) the words are without doubt an expression of God’s desire that his people should show mercy rather than only perform external sacrifices, and this meaning is probably intended by our Lord here also. The connexion will then be either (1) "I wish you to show mercy rather than perform external actions, for only thus will you resemble me in my coming to call sinners;" or (2) "I wish you to show this mercy, and therefore I practise it myself." The former seems the more natural. It is, however, possible that our Lord disregards the original context of the words, and uses them only as a summary of an important truth, that God prefers to show mercy rather than to insist on sacrifice. This would make excellent sense here, viz. "Learn the true principle by which God acts, free grace, for it is on this that I have acted in coming to call sinners." The sentence is quoted again in Matthew 12:7, where the original thought of the words seems more certainly applicable. For I am not come; for I came not (Revised Version). Christ refers to his historic coming in the Incarnation rather than to his abiding presence (cf. also Matthew 5:17). To call the righteous, but sinners (καλέσαιδικαίουςἀλλἁμαρτωλούς). The English generic article in the first term spoils the anarthrous expression of the Greek by lessening the contrast between the two classes. Dr. Taylor suggests the rendering, "not saints, but sinners". To repentance. Omitted by the Revised Version and Westcott and Herr. From the parallel passage in Luke. Matthew 9:14-17 Christ’s care for the free-dora of his disciples from ceremonial bondage. He teaches that the standpoint of the Baptist was preparatory (Matthew 3:1-17.), and was not intended to be a permanent resting-place. Observe that of the three accounts St. Matthew’s points out the most clearly that the objection originated with the disciples of John the Baptist. Perhaps St. Matthew found these possessing special influence in the part for which his Gospel was primarily intended. So also St. John thought it desirable to recall the teaching of the Master, that while he himself was the Bridegroom, the Baptist was only subordinate (John 3:29). On the survival of the teaching of John the Baptist, and the greater importance of its professed adherents during the apostolic age than is usually supposed, vide Bishop Lightfoot, ’Colossians,’ p. 163, edit. 1875. Matthew 9:14 Then (τότε). In this case the close chronological connexion with the preceding incident is confirmed by the parallel passages (especially Luke). Came (come, Revised Version) to him. They move forward among the crowd, and draw near to him (προσέρχονταιαὐτῷ). The disciples of John (vide supra), saying, Why (of. verse 11) do we and the Pharisees fast?. Oft (πολλά); Textus Receptus, and Westcott and Hort margin, with all the versions and the great mass of the authorities. Yet probably to be omitted, with Westcott and Host, on the evidence of the Vatican manuscript, and the original hand of the Sinaitic. It may have arisen from a gloss on the πυκνά of Luke. But thy disciples fast not. The feast given by St. Matthew was evidently at the time of some fast observed by the stricter Jews. Matthew 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can. It is a moral impossibility (Matthew 6:24). The children (sons, Revised Version) of the bride-chamber (οἱυἱοὶτοῦνυμφῶνος). Edersheim (’Life,’ etc., 1:663) points out that these are not the shoshbenim, the friends of the bridegroom, who conducted the bride with music, etc., to the house of her parents-in-law, and to the bride-chamber, and who naturally remained to take part in the wedding feast; for (1) the custom of having shoshbenim prevailed in Judaea, but not in Galilee; (2) Talm. Jeremiah, ’Succah,’ § 2.5, expressly distinguishes between the two terms: "Those who are shoshbenim, and all the sons of the bride-chamber, are free from the obligation of booths (ינב לכו נניבשוש הכוס נס נירוטף הפוח)." They appear to be those, invited by either party, who come to take part in the wedding festivities. They are, therefore, in full sympathy with bridegroom and bride, and, like them, cannot but rejoice. Mourn; parallel passages, "fast," but Matthew’s word, as less closely connected with the cause of the objection raised, seems the more original. As long as the bridegroom is with them? Nosgen sees in this a claim to be the expected Bridegroom of Israel (Hosea 2:19, Hosea 2:20; Jeremiah 3:1-14; Ezekiel 16:8). But the days will come. Christ speaks with prophetic assurance of the coming of such a time (ἐλεύσονταιδὲἡμέραι). Observe his consciousness alike of his position and of what is coming upon him. When the bridegroom shall be taken (away, Revised Version) from them. His removal shall be effected, not by his own action, but by external agents (ἀπαρθῇ). In these unsettled times, with their frequent though mostly unimportant popular risings, it cannot have been a very unusual thing for the bridegroom to be carried off, not indeed before the consummation of the marriage, but before the end of the week of festivities. And then shall (will, Revised Version; there is no trace of a command, Christ is but stating a fact) they fast. Christ here endorses the principle of Christian fasts (cf. Matthew 6:16), but regards them as springing; not from any legal obligation, but flora personal grief, in this case at his absence (cf. John 16:20). The only later passages in the New Testament where Christian fasting is mentioned, are Acts 13:2, Acts 13:3; Acts 14:23; 2 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:27. In the ’Didache,’ § 8, we have the earliest formal recognition or’ it as a practice. It is there forbidden to fast on the same days as the Pharisees. Observe that this verse was understood in Tertullian’s time as expressly commanding a fast during the forty hours in which our Lord was in the grave, and that, from Irenseus’s expression in Eusebius (’Ch. Hist.,’ 5.24), this fast had been kept almost from apostolic times. Matthew 9:16 No man; and no man (Revised Version); οὐδεὶςδέ. "And" is slightly adversative. They will indeed fast then, yet fasting does not belong to the essence of my teaching. To insist on fasting would only be right if my teaching came merely into mechanical connexion with the religion of the day. But this is not the case. (1) Treated as an addition, it injures the religion of the day (Matthew 9:16). (2) Treated as something to be accepted by all Jews, regardless of their moral fitness for it, it is itself wasted, and also ruins those who so accept it (Matthew 9:17). The verses thus (1) answer the disciples of John the Baptist, that fasting must not be made compulsory for Christ’s disciples; and (2) warn them solemnly that they themselves must become morally fitted to receive Christ’s teaching. No man; emphatic. Christ wants to show them the irrationality of what they want him to do—enjoin fasting on his disciples. Putteth a piece—patcheth a patch (ἐπιβάλλειἐπίβλημα)—of new (undressed, Revised Version) cloth unto (upon, Revised Version) an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up (that which should fill it up, Revised Version; τὸπλήρωμααὐτοῦ) taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse (and a worse rent is made, Revised Version). My teaching is intended to be more than a patch (however good a patch) sewn on to the religion of the day. Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles; wine-skins (Revised Version); cf. Job 32:19. (For rabbinic comparisons of the Law to wine, cf. Dr. Taylor, ’Aboth,’ 4:29.) Else (Matthew 6:1, note) the bottles (skins, Revised Version) burst. The stress is on "burst;" the thought is therefore not yet of the bottles, but of the fate of the wine. And the wine runneth out (is spilled, Revised Version; ἐκχεῖται), and the bottles (skins, Revised Version) perish. It ruins the vessels in which it is placed (Job 32:16, note). But they put new wins into new; fresh (Revised Version); καινούς. The change from νέος of the wine to καινός of the skins is maintained in all three accounts, νέος suggesting the latest vintage, καινός that the skins are absolutely unimpaired (cf. Trench, ’Syn.,’ § 60.). Bottles (wine-skins, Revised Version), and both are preserved. Matthew 9:18-34 4. THE OF HIS HEALING POWER. (Cf. Matthew 8:1, note.) (1) As regards restoration to life and life-strength generally (Matthew 9:18-26). (2) As regards the restoration of separate bodily powers (Matthew 9:27-34): (a) sight (Matthew 9:27-31); (b) speech, though, in this case, the dumbness was the work of an evil spirit (Matthew 9:32-34). Observe also in this section the reference to the effect of his work upon outsiders. (1) The spread of the fame of his work and himself (Matthew 9:26, Matthew 9:31). (2) The wonder of the multitudes (Matthew 9:33) [and the accusation of the Pharisees (Matthew 9:34)]. Matthew 9:18-26 The raising of the daughter of a ruler (Jairus, in the parallel passages), and the healing of the woman with an issue. Parallel passages: Mark 5:21-43; Luke 8:40-56. Matthew’s account is much the shortest. Matthew 9:18 While he spake these things unto them. Matthew only. All the accounts represent our Lord as teaching when Jairus came to him; but in the parallel passages he was on the seashore (equivalent to our Matthew 8:34; Matthew 9:1). Matthew alone places his coming just after the question of the Baptist’s disciples. Probably the words, "while he spake these things unto them," are not in their original connexion. Behold, there came a certain; a (Revised Version); ἄρχων [εἷς] προσελθών (for εἷς, cf. Matthew 8:19, note). Ruler (ἄρχων). From this expression alone we should understand Jairus to have been head of the board of elders for the general affairs of the congregation; but Mark’s expression, εἷςτῶνἀρχισυναγώγων (cf. Luke, ἄρχωντῆςσυναγωγῆς), compels us to regard him as that elder who was appointed to care specially for the public worship, Mark’s language probably meaning that he was one of the class of those who held this appointment. Sometimes the offices of ἄρχων and ἀρχισυνάγωγος were held by the same person, and this may, perhaps, have been the case with Jairus. and worshipped him (Matthew 8:2, note). Saying, My daughter is even now dead. Matthew, by compression, indicates what had happened before the interview was over. But come and lay thy hand upon her; in sign of personal relation and life-communication. Kubel (in loc.) has an interesting note on the laying-on of hands in the New Testament (cf. also Bishop Westcott, on Hebrews 6:2). And she shall live. Matthew 9:19 And Jesus arose, Matthew only. From the table, if Matthew’s connexion is to be followed; from his seat by the seashore, if Mark’s. And followed him. As he led the way to his house. The tense (ἠκολούθει) shows that our Lord had already started when the next incident took place. And so did his disciples. Mark substitutes "a great multitude," and adds that "they thronged him" (cf. also Luke). Matthew 9:20 (And, behold,… that hour). The Revised Version and the ordinary editions of the Authorized Version omit the brackets, as unnecessary. And, behold, a woman which was diseased with (who had, Revised Version) an issue of blood (αἱμοῤῥοοῦσα). Physically and (Le Matthew 15:25) ceremonially unclean. Twelve years. The age of Jairus’ daughter as recorded in the parallel passages. The coincidence led to its being remembered, and the number itself was the more noticeable as it seems to have symbolized the presence of God in nature (3 x 4). Came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment. Hem; border (Revised Version); τοῦκρασπέδου: fimbriam (Vulgate). The zizith," tassels or fringes of hyacinth blue m-white Wool, which every Israelite, by reason of the prescription (Numbers 15:37, sqq.; Deuteronomy 22:12), had to wear at the four corners of his upper garment," Schurer, who adds in a note, "The colour of the zizith is now white, while originally it was to be of hyacinth blue. The Mishna, Menachoth, Matthew 4:1, already presupposes that both are allowed. They are also not now worn, as the Pentateuch directs, and as was still the custom in the time of Christ, on the upper garment (תילִּטַ ἱμάτιον), but on the two square woollen shawls, one of which is always worn on the body, while the other is only wound round the head during prayer Both these shawls are also called Tallith." Matthew 9:21 For she said within herself, If I may; do (Revised Version). There is no thought of permission (ἐὰνμόνονἅψωμαι). But touch his garment, I shall be whole; saved. The threefold σώζειν is suggestive. Observe that she is "saved" in spite of her superstition; God "pitieth the blind that would gladly see" (Hooker, ’Serm.,’ 2. § 38). Matthew 9:22 But Jesus turned him about. The order of the words shows that the thought centres, not on the action, but on the Person. It marks the transition of the narrative from the woman to Christ. Further, "to understand the greatness of Jesus’ love, consider how a Pharisee might have treated one ceremonially so unclean’’ (Kubel). And when he saw her. The parallel passages show that this was after his inquiry who it was, etc. He said, Daughter, be of good comfort; good cheer (Revised Version); Θάρσειθύγατερ. Daughter contains the same thought as "son" in Matthew 9:2. St. Matthew alone, as there, expands its purpose by prefixing θάρει. Θυγατέραδὲαὐτὴνκαλεῖἐπειδηστιςαὐτῆςθυγατέρααὐτὴνἐποίησεν (Chrysostom, in loc.). Thy faith hath made thee whole; hath saved thee (Revised Version). It is possible that the additional words recorded in the parallel passages, "Go in peace," point to more than only physical restoration. And the woman was made whole from that hour. Matthew 9:23 And. During the incident of the healing of the woman news had come (parallel passages) to the ruler that his daughter was actually dead, and that it was useless to trouble the Teacher any more. But man’s extremity is ever Christ’s opportunity. When Jesus came into the ruler’s house. Accompanied by only Peter, James, and John (parallel passages), and the parents (Luke). And saw. Apparently from outside the room (of. verse 25). The minstrels; flute-players (Revised Version); τοὺςαὐλητάς. For musicians as mourners, cf. 2 Chronicles 35:25. The Mishna (’Kethub.,’ 4.4: vide Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.,’ in loc.) says, "Even the poorest among the Israelites [his wife being dead] will afford her not less than two pipes, and one woman to make lamentation." And the people—a mere crowd (Revised Version); ὄχλος—making a noise; tumult (Revised Version). There was confusion as well as sound, as Mark indicates still more dearly. Matthew 9:24 He said unto them, Give place; withdraw (ἀναχωρεῖτε). This is no room for mourners (cf. Acts 9:40). For the maid; damsel (Revised Version). to assimilate this and Matthew 9:25 to the other passages where κοράσιον is found. Is not dead, but sleepeth. Our Lord looks forward to the result of his coming. So also probably Acts 20:10. To take our Lord’s words here as a literal statement of a present fact, meaning that she was only in a trance, is to contradict the words of the messenger (parallel passages), our next succeeding clause, and Luke’s addition to it, "knowing that she was dead." And they laughed him to scorn. Bengel suggests that they were afraid of losing the payment for their work. Matthew 9:25 But when the people (crowd, Revised Version; cf. Matthew 9:23) were put forth, he went in. Till they were cast out he would not enter. They with their hired sorrow would disturb the reverential feelings essential to the performance of such a miracle. And took her by the hand, and the maid (Matthew 9:24, note) arose. Matthew omits all mention of Christ’s words to her, but his ἠγέρθη is, perhaps, a reminiscence of the command ἔγειρε. Verse 26.—Matthew only. And the fame hereof (ἡφήμηαὕτη) went abroad into all that land. Of no one miracle is this elsewhere affirmed. That land. Doubtless Northern Palestine. It marks the Jerusalem standpoint of the writer (Nosgen); vide Introduction, p. 19. Matthew 9:27-31 Two blind men restored to sight. Matthew only. (For the connexion, vide verse 18, note.) Weiss compares the incident at Jericho, Matthew 20:29-34. The points of similarity are: (1) The number, two, but in the parallel passages only one; (2) the expression that Jesus was passing by (Matthew 20:27; Matthew 20:30); (3) they cry out and say, "Have mercy on us, O Son of David;" (4) our Lord, in his question, asks about what he should do; (5) lays stress on their faith (Mark and Luke); (6) and touches their eyes (Matthew 20:34). The points of difference: (1) The place, here in Galilee, there by Jericho; (2) here in the house, there in the road, but even here they begin to address him in the road; (3) no mention here that he stopped when addressed, as there (Matthew 20:32); (4) our Lord here asks about their faith, there about their wish. (5) Observe also that both his charge, "See that no man know it" (Matthew 20:30), and the statement that they spread abroad the fame of him, would be quite inconsistent with the late date of the miracle recorded in Matthew 20:1-34. From a consideration of these details, the conclusion seems inevitable that we have, in fact, narratives of two distinct occurrences, but it is quite consistent with tiffs conclusion to suppose that during the oral transmission of the narratives a certain amount of assimilation took place. Upon this supposition, it further appears probable that, as the narrative in Matthew 20:1-34. was the better known, for it was in the Petrine cycle, our narrative became assimilated to it rather than the reverse. On the other hand, the number recorded in Matthew 20:1-34. looks much like an assimilation to that of our incident (cf. the notes on the section Matthew 8:28-34, Matthew 8:31, and the section Matthew 8:32-34). Matthew 9:27 And when Jesus departed thence. As he was passing along on his way thence, i.e. from the house of Jairus, if the context be pressed. It should be noticed that "thence" (ἐκεῖθεν) is found also in Mark 6:1, immediately after the healing of Jairus’ daughter. There it refers to the neighbourhood generally. Possibly its presence in Matthew is ultimately due to his remembering it in the next succeeding section of the oral framework. Two blind men followed him, crying (out, Revised Version; κράζοντες, so also Matthew 20:30), and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us. The Revised Version rightly reverses the order of the two last clauses; the stress is on their own needs, not on their faith in giving him such a title. The words are identical in Matthew 20:30. Thou Son of David. The thought has been brought out in the genealogy (Matthew 1:17), and our Lord lays stress upon it in Matthew 22:42, sqq. Observe that although the excited multitudes at Jerusalem shout out the title at the triumphal entry (Matthew 21:9; cf. also Matthew 21:15), yet the multitudes in Galilee only suggest the possibility of his having a right to it (Matthew 12:23), and the only persons who use it when directly addressing him are a heathen woman (Matthew 15:22), and three, or perhaps four, blind men (here and Matthew 20:30, Matthew 20:31). With the remembrance of what was promised to take place in Messianic days (Isaiah 35:5), the blind would be especially likely to accord him a Messianic title (cf. also Matthew 11:5, note). Have mercy (Matthew 5:9, note). Matthew 9:28 And when he was come into the house. Where he would be undisturbed (cf. Matthew 13:36). On the later occasion (Matthew 20:32) Jesus stood still in the road. The blind men came to him. Close (προσῆλθαναὐτῷ). And Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They had professed faith in him, yet their after-conduct (Matthew 9:31) shows that it was none too perfect. They said unto him, Yea, Lord. Said; say (Revised Version); λέγουσιν. The evangelist uses the more vivid present whenever he can. So in Matthew 20:33 (though not in the parallel passages). Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes. So also Matthew 20:34, showing his sympathy and helping their faith (Matthew 8:3); cf. also John 9:6, and supra, John 9:18, note. Saying, According to your faith (Matthew 8:13, note) be it (done, Revised Version; γενηθήτω) unto you. Matthew 9:30 And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them (ἐνεβριμήθηαὐτοῖς). The notion is of "coercion springing out of displeasure. The feeling is called out by something seen in another which moves to anger rather than to sorrow" (Bishop Westcott, on John 11:33). Saying, See that no man know it. Partly to avoid publicity for himself, partly for their own sake, for even the recital of the Lord’s mercies towards us often becomes an occasion of spiritual harm, since it is apt to degenerate into "display" with its attendant evils. ̔ημᾶςδιδάσκειφεύγειντὸἐπιδεικτικὸνὡςαἴτιοντῶνκακῶν (Origen, in Cromer’s ’Catena’). The other occasions (vide Matthew 8:4, note) on which a similar command was given seem all to belong, with this, to the earlier part of his ministry. Matthew 9:31 But they, when they were departed; but they went forth and (Revised Version). The very moment that they left the house (cf, Matthew 9:32) they disobeyed him. Observe that the phrases used in this verso are possibly due to a reminiscence of the similar phrases found in Mark 1:45 of the leper. Spread abroad his fame in all that country; land (Revised Version); Mark 1:26, note. Matthew 9:32-34 The demon cast out of the dumb man. The astonishment of the multitudes and their confession. [The accusation by the Pharisees.] The whole narrative greatly resembles the cure of the blind and dumb man possessed with a devil (Matthew 12:22-24; Luke 11:14, Luke 11:15), as may be seen from the fact that the following words are common to both passages, the brackets indicating a want of exact correspondence in the original. "They brought to him one possessed with a devil, dumb, and the [dumb spake]. And the multitudes [said.]… But the Pharisees, He casteth out the devils by … the prince of the devils." One explanation is that the two narratives are taken kern different sources, but represent the same incident; another, that as in Matthew 9:27-31, so also here, the narratives of two similar incidents have become assimilated. At any rate, in the case of Mat 9:34 there has probably been assimilation, and that since the writing of the Gospel. For: (1) Matthew 9:34 is wanting in D, the Old Latin manuscripts a and k, Hilary and Juvencns, and is therefore rightly bracketed by Westcott and Hort as perhaps "a Western non-interpolation". (2) The verse seems to be hardly in complete accordance with the aim of the whole section, which ends much more suitably with the effect on the multitudes. In Matthew 12:24 the verse forms a climax (cf. Matthew 12:2, Matthew 12:10, Matthew 12:14). But here there has been no opposition mentioned since the very beginning of the chapter (for the disobedience of the blind men cannot be so called), so that the monstrous accusation comes in quite unexpectedly. Observe that this is not a ease in which subjective difficulties are in themselves a prima facie argument for the genuineness of a phrase, for the early copyists troubled themselves very little about questions of the internal arrangement and the general aim of the sections. Matthew 9:32 (And, Revised Version) as they went out (forth, Revised Version; Matthew 9:31). They were still on the threshold (αὐτὼνδὲἐξερχομένων). Behold, they brought to him. The rendering of the Revised Version, "there was brought to him," is awkward, but avoids the implication that the blind men brought him this fresh case. A dumb man possessed with a devil. In Matthew 12:22 the man was blind also. Matthew 9:33 And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel. In Matthew 12:23 they have advanced a stage further, and suggest that Jesus is Messiah (" the Son of David;" cf. supra, Matthew 12:27). Matthew 9:34 But the Pharisees said (vide supra). If the verse be genuine here, the thought, of course, is that the only effect of Christ’s miracles upon the Pharisees was to drive them to open blasphemy and wanton opposition to the evidence of plain facts, as is brought out at length in Matthew 12:24-32. He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils; by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils (Revised Version); which indicates the true order of the words in the Greek. Through. The Revised Version margin, in, is more literal. The Pharisees assert not only that Jesus effected this cure by the instrumentality of Satan, but by means of union with him. Verse 35- Matthew 11:1 THE AGENCY THAT CHRIST TO AND GUIDE THE SPIRIT OF INQUIRY THAT HAD BEEN EVOKED, AND HIS TO HIS AGENTS. He spares no pains himself (verse 35). Yet his work is insufficient, and he sends forth others (verse 36- Matthew 10:1). A parenthesis, the names of the agents (Matthew 10:2-4). The commission to the agents (Matthew 10:5-42). He still teaches and preaches (Matthew 11:1). Observe that in this section we have not, properly speaking, an account of the call or choosing of the twelve, but of their appointment as missioners. For (1) the call is placed much earlier, chronologically, in Mark and Luke; (2) Matthew 9:35 is equivalent to Mark 6:6, long after the call of the twelve; (3) Matthew 9:36 (end) is equivalent to Mark 6:34, where it refers to what took place immediately after the return from the mission; (4) the parallel passages agree that the charge was given at the mission itself, not at the call. Further, it may even be doubted whether the twelve received the name of apostles at the call, whether, in fact, they did not rather receive it only after the commission related here. We find, indeed, that Mark (Mark 3:14; cf. Luke 6:13) says, "whom he also named apostles," adding, "that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach;" but the title there may be entirely proleptic, and the description of their office partially so. Parts of the section, e.g. Matthew 9:37, Matthew 9:38 and much of Mat 10:1-42., are recorded in Luke as belonging to the mission of the seventy, but which is their original connexion can hardly be decided. Other parts seem to have been spoken originally on quite other occasions (Matthew 10:17-22, [23], [34, 35?], 37, 38, 39, 40, 42). It would, therefore, appear that St. Matthew wished to lay stress on the appointment of agents and the kind of instruction that our Lord gave them, rather than to distinguish critically between the various agents employed and the particular instructions that Christ gave on each occasion when they were sent forth (see further on Matthew 10:5). Matthew 9:35 Parallel passages: Mark 6:6 (Luke 13:22). And Jesus went about all the cities and (the, Revised Version) villages. The Revised Version rightly restricts the "all" to the cities (τὰςπόλειςπάσαςκαὶτὰςκώμας). It would have been impossible to visit all the villages. A village was distinguished from a city by being (1) unwalled (though occasionally towns were themselves unwalled); (2) dependent on the cities. Teaching, etc. From this point the verse is identical with Matthew 4:23 (where see notes), except that the end of that verse, "among the people," is not found in the true text of our passage, but has been inserted thence. Its omission here and the alteration of the words," in all Galilee," to "all the cities and the villages," are both due to the wider scope of what follows. Observe that in Matthew 4:23 our Lord’s circuit is the occasion of crowds resorting to him, and serves as an introduction to a full account of his personal teaching, while here it is the occasion of his sending representatives, and serves as an introduction to his commission to them. As to the phrase, "healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness," notice that the recurrence of terminology (Matthew 4:23; Matthew 10:1) falls in with the oral theory, especially in its catechetical form. Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes. The substance of this verse is found in Mark 6:34 on the return of the apostles, equivalent to our Matthew 14:13, seq. (cf. supra). According to the context, the multitudes here spoken of are those of the various cities and villages through which he had passed. He was moved with compassion on (for, Revised Version) them (ἐσπλαγχνίσθηπερὶαὐτῶν). After the vivid Hebrew metaphor (Genesis 43:30), which the LXX. seldom ventured to translate literally, but which is common in the New Testament writings. Because they fainted. So the Received Text (ἐκλελυμένοι, cf. Matthew 15:32), but the Revised Version, with manuscripts, "were distressed" (ἐσκυλμένοι). Σκύλλω, which in the classics is equivalent, to (1) "flay," (2) "mangle," is found only in the sense of (3) "trouble or harass," in the New Testament (Mark 5:35 [parallel passage: Luke 8:49]; Luke 7:6). And were scattered abroad; Revised Version simply, and scattered. (For the thought, cf. Ezekiel 34:5; also Numbers 27:17; 2 Chronicles 18:16; and its parallel passage, 1 Kings 22:17.) The two participles express different aspects of their now normal and continuous state (ἦσανἐσκυλμένοικαὶἐριμμένοι). Yet the Authorized Version margin, "and lay down," is probably nearer the meaning of ἐριμμένοι here than the Authorized Version and Revised Version; cf. 1 Macc. 11:4 ; Jeremiah 14:16 (" The people … shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem … and they shall have none to bury them" ), whine the thought is hardly "scattered," but "cast out and lying prostrate." So here the people are pictured as sheep harassed and prostrated by fatigue, etc.; cf. Vulgate, vexati et jacentes. As sheep having no shepherd; not having a shepherd (Revised Version); cf. the Old Testament passages just referred to. Matthew 9:37, Matthew 9:38 The utterance is given word for word (except one transposition) at the beginning of the address to the seventy in Luke 10:2. But while serving there as an introduction to the rest of the speech, the reason for it is so much more self-evident here that St. Matthew seems to have recorded it in its original connexion. Our Lord himself, feeling the shepherdless condition of the people, desires to call out the interest of his disciples in it. He wants them to realize both the need of the people and the possibility that lay before the workmen. Changing the metaphor, he bids them pray him, who alone has the right and power, to send more workmen to reap these fields. Matthew 9:37 Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest—of human souls (John 4:35-38). Truly. So also the Revised Version; too strong a rendering of μέν. Is plenteous (cf. Matthew 10:23; Bengel), but the labourers are few. Who besides himself? John the Baptist, some who had been healed, e.g. the Gadarene demoniac, and perhaps a few unknown true believers. Not the twelve, for these are evidently distinguished, and only to be included under the labourers spoken of in the end of the next verse. If, however, the utterance was originally spoken to the seventy (vide supra), the reference would be to the twelve. Matthew 9:38 Pray ye. Express it as your personal need (δεήθητε, here only in the New Testament outside the writings of St. Luke and St. Paul). Therefore. Since more workers are so greatly needed. The Lord of the harvest; cf. Clem. Romans, § 34, who illustrates the thought by a most interesting composite quotation of Isa 40:10 (Isaiah 62:11; Proverbs 24:12)and Revelation 22:12. That he will (omit with the Revised Version) send forth. (Ὅπωςἐκβάλῃ; ut ejieiat, Vulgate [Wordsworth and White], ut mittat, Vulgate [ordinary edition].) The verb suggests alike his constraining power and their separation from their previous position (cf. Matthew 7:4). Mr. J. A. Robinson’s note, however, in the Cambridge ’Texts and Studies,’ I. 3:124, shows that one must not lay much stress on the thought of constraint. Labourers into his harvest. The cure of the paralytic. I. THE SICK MAN BROUGHT TO CHRIST. 1. His own city. It had been Nazareth; now it was Capernaum. The Nazarenes had rejected him. He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief; he marvelled at their want of faith. Now he was in Capernaum; he was well known there, but not as he had been known at Nazareth. The Nazarenes had known him from childhood—all through those thirty years of quiet, humble holiness; he had lived among them like one of themselves, distinguished only by his goodness; he wrought no miracles then. But that quiet life was in one sense the greatest of miracles; it was stranger that the Son of God should live like ordinary men than that his path on earth should be surrounded with glory, marked by startling wonders. In Capernaum he was known as the great Preacher, the Wonder-worker, the loving, the compassionate Healer. All there believed in his power, not all had yielded their hearts to his love, It was now his own city, blessed with his presence, the highest of all conceivable privileges. 2. The sick man. He was paralyzed, quite helpless; apparently he had lost the power of speech. He could not come to Christ himself; he had to be carried. Four men brought him as he lay helpless on his bed. Probably he was still young: "child," the Lord calls him. It was a pitiable case, and he seems to have brought it upon himself; it was, we gather from Christ’s words, the punishment of sin. How often sin brings chastisement now! We suffer justly; we receive the due reward of our deeds. Happy they whom suffering brings to Christ! 3. The bearers. The poor man had kind friends; they brought him. They had great difficulties; they could not come nigh to Christ for the press. They drew the sick man up to the roof; they uncovered it; they let him down into the midst before Jesus. It is a blessed task to tend the sick and suffering; it is a holy, Christ-like work. It is more blessed still to bring sinful souls to Jesus Christ, the great Physician. The Lord saw their faith. They must believe in Christ themselves who would bring others to him; we cannot help penitent sinners unless we ourselves have learned to hate sin, to overcome it by the power of faith, to live in the holy presence of Christ, breathing the atmosphere of his love. The Lord listens to intercessory prayer. Faith brings blessings not only on the believer, but on those for whom he prays. The centurion’s faith brought healing to his servant; the faith of friends to the paralytic. But he too, it seems, believed. He could not come; he was willing, desirous, to be brought; he would not have been healed had he been brought by force. Jesus saw their faith—the faith of all, the sick man and his friends. Christians may help others; they may influence them by word, by holy example; but he that would be saved must himself believe. Each soul must know Christ itself: each soul must be brought into spiritual contact with the Saviour; each individual soul mast have access unto God through him. 4. The Saviour. The Lord read the hearts of the bearers; he saw their faith. He read the heart of the paralytic; he saw his trembling fearfulness, his consciousness of sin. (1) "Child," he said, "be of good cheer." The poor man sadly needed encouragement; the Lord gave it at once; he had come to heal the broken-hearted. The poor man was humbled to the very dust; the Lord looked on him with a great pity. So he pities us in our sufferings now with the same quick, tender compassion; his sympathy comforts, helps, encourages, the trembling penitent. (2) But there was behind the physical sickness its moral cause. The man had greatly sinned. The punishment had done its work; it had softened his heart; it had brought him to the feet of Jesus. The Lord knew the truth of his repentance. He waited not for the confession of the lips; perhaps the poor man could not speak. He pronounced at once the most blessed absolution, "Thy sins be forgiven thee." He is the same gracious Saviour now; he came to save his people from their sins. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." II. THE SCRIBES. 1. Their silent accusations. There were many Pharisees and doctors of the Law sitting there; they had been drawn by the fame of Jesus not only from Galilee, but even from Judaea and Jerusalem. They were watching our Lord, listening to him. He had spoken a great and awful word. They dared not condemn him openly; they saw his power, they feared the people; but they reproached him in their thoughts. He was guilty of blasphemy, they murmured in their hearts; he had dared to pronounce the forgiveness of the paralytic; he had assumed to himself the prerogative of God. Certainly God, and God alone, could forgive sins. 2. The Lord’s answer. There were no spoken words, but he knew their thoughts. "He saw their thoughts," some ancient manuscripts read; their thoughts lay open to his all-seeing eye; he read them. He reads our thoughts now; he sees all the low, carnal, uncharitable thoughts which defile our souls, as he saw their thoughts then. They were thinking evil things in their hearts, accusing him of blasphemy, when they ought to have seen in the power of his works, in the perfect holiness of his life, the proof of his Divine origin; they were thinking in their unworthy jealousy, "It is easy to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee;" none can tell whether those great words truly convey forgiveness. Let him prove his authority; let him heal the paralytic. III. THE MIRACLE. 1. The word of power. "Forgive us our trespasses," we say to our Father which is in heaven. "The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." "Coelestem ortum hic sermo sapit," says Bengel very beautifully. He had power on earth to forgive sins, because he came from heaven; the Son of man could forgive, because he was in truth the Son of God. None could test that power; only the forgiven penitent could know in the depth of his heart the reality of his forgiveness; he could tell, and he only, in his inmost experience the blessed sweetness of that holy absolution. But the Lord would deign to reply to the unworthy questionings of the scribes; he would illustrate his spiritual authority by his power over outward things. He saith unto the man, "Arise!" It was a bold word, a strange thing to say to a helpless paralytic. But he had faith to be healed; his will exerted itself in obedience to the Lord’s command. The muscles, so long useless, obeyed the mandate of the will. He arose before them all; he took up his bed, and departed to his house. So it is now in the history of conversions. Many souls have lost all spiritual energy; they are without spiritual force, spiritual activity; they have a vague wish for holiness, but it is only a weak, irresolute desire; an emotion rather than a resolve. But they feel at last the danger of sloth; Christian friends help them; they come, they are brought to Christ. He saith the word, "Arise!" A new strength flows in upon their weakened will—the strength which he giveth. In that strength they arise; they need no longer the help of others; they obey the Lord’s life-giving command; they go forth, glorifying God. 2. The wonder of the multitude. They might well wonder; they had seen strange things that day. Their wonder, or their fear (according to the more ancient manuscripts), led them to glorify God. We see strange things now—sinners saved, souls drawn by the power of the cross to the Saviour’s love. The miracles of grace are more wonderful than the miracles of power; they should lead us to glorify God, to glorify him in our praises, to glorify him in our lives. LESSONS. 1. It was sin that brought suffering into the world. Suffering should show us the guilt of sin, and should lead us to Christ. 2. Christ is our Hope, our only Hope. We must come to him ourselves; we must help others to come. 3. Christ is full of compassion. He pities our sorrows; he forgives the sins of the penitent. 4. Praise him for his mercies; glorify God. St. Matthew. I. HIS CALL. 1. His occupation. He was a publican, a tax-gatherer. The whole class was hated by the Jews as symbols and instruments of a foreign rule; they returned the hatred and contempt with which they were regarded; they exacted more than was appointed them; they were guilty, most of them perhaps, of oppression, of fraud, of unjust accusation. But if all were hated, Hebrew publicans must have been looked upon with an especial hatred. They had sold themselves for gain to the detested Romans; they oppressed their own flesh and blood; they were regarded as traitors, almost as apostates. Such was Matthew, perhaps a Levite, certainly an Israelite, but a publican. 2. The summons. He was sitting at the receipt of custom, in the actual exercise of his hated calling, as the Lord was passing by. The Lord seeth not as man seeth. He had rejected the scribe who offered to follow him; now he called the publican. His calls are not determined by class, or occupation, or race; the accidents of the outward life do not influence the choice. He searches the hearts. He said unto Matthew, "Follow me." He himself is the Pattern for his apostles, his evangelists, his ministers. They must follow him, living in his presence; that Divine presence is the one source of strength and wisdom. They must imitate his holy example, his humility, his unselfishness, his constraining love. They who follow nearest to him in the path of holiness can best teach the lessons which he taught; for they learn of him deep lessons of spiritual experience; and, learning themselves from the great Teacher, they can teach others the same holy lessons. The publican felt that Divine call in the depths of his soul. He arose; he left all, St. Luke tells us—his old occupation, his old associations and companions. He followed Christ, to be from that time wholly his, to do his will, to preach his gospel; to write, led by the Spirit, the blessed history of his most holy life, his precious death. The publican became an apostle; he reached the highest rank in the Church of Christ. The last shall be first, and the first last. II. THE FEAST IN HIS HOUSE. 1. The company. Matthew gave a farewell feast to his old companions. He was about to leave them now to devote himself wholly to the Saviour’s service. He had known them long; he would not leave them without a token of good will, and he wished them to share, if it might be, in the great blessing which had changed the course of his life. He made a great feast; the Lord was the honoured Guest. He came in his condescending love, and sat down to meat in the publican’s house. It was a strange gathering. Doubtless all the publicans of Capernaum were invited, and with them came many persons of doubtful reputation—many whom "the religious world" stigmatized with more or less reason as "sinners." The Lord Christ, the most Holy One, sat down among this motley throng, not counting the time wasted which was spent in social intercourse with them. It shocked all the prejudices of the time. He was recognized as a Rabbi, a great Teacher; and now he was hazarding his reputation by mixing with these common people. He was incurring the danger of Levitical defilement; he was countenancing by his presence hated occupations, unsatisfactory lives. 2. The Pharisees. They were offended. They could not have been at the feast; nothing would have induced them to eat with publicans and sinners; but they saw the company coming or going They had not yet openly broken with our Lord; they regarded him doubtfully. He was a great Teacher, a Wonder-worker—that could not be denied; but he had said strange, bold things from time to time. He had not always followed the traditions so sacred in their eyes; and now he was outraging all their prejudices, violating all the accepted rules of religious society, They murmured against his disciples; they had not the courage, it seems, to rebuke the Lord himself, but they asked the disciples the meaning of this strange conduct. How can he do such things? He is bringing discredit on the whole class of rabbis. Why eateth your Teacher with publicans and sinners? Your Teacher, they said. He was not theirs; they could not, listen to the teaching of One who’set such an example. 3. The Lord’s reply. He heard the controversy; he answered for his disciples. Perhaps they were perplexed; their old habits still had a strong hold over them. Years afterwards Peter incurred the rebuke of St. Paul for yielding to these Jewish prejudices. They knew not what to say, but the Lord answered for them. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ For introductory notes to this chapter, see Matthew 9:35. Matthew 10:1 Parallel passages: Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1. The prayer (Matthew 9:38) is answered in the persons of those who were taught to pray. Christ establishes his new agency. And when he had called unto him. From the circle of the bystanders. His twelve disciples. Who had already been chosen to be specially with him (cf. Matthew 9:35, note; and Matthew 5:1). Twelve. To be heads of the tribes of the new Israel (Revelation 21:14; cf. James 1:1; Matthew 19:28). Observe that the office of the tribes of the covenant nation corresponded to the symbolism of the number 12 (3, Deity, x 4, world = Church). He gave them power; authority (Revised Version); ἐξουσίαν: the greater including the less. So Mark, but Luke expands to δύναμινκαὶἐξουσίαν. Against; over (Revised Version); simple genitive. Unclean spirits (Matthew 4:24. note). Unclean. As belonging to the unholy, non-theocratic kingdom, the realm of darkness. "Hence also unclean animals (Matthew 8:31, sqq.; Revelation 18:2) and places (Matthew 12:43, sqq.) have a kind of natural relationship with such spirits" (Kubel). To cast them out. Their authority was to ex-send to this. And to heal. Probably connected, not with ὥστε, but with ἐξουσίαν (cf. Luke). Observe that nothing is said of their receiving authority to convert. This God himself keeps. But they can remove all hindrances other than those purely subjective and spiritual, whether the objective hindrances be intruding evil spirits affecting body and mind or only bodily diseases. All manner, etc. (Matthew 9:35, note). Matthew 10:2-4 THE NAMES OF THE AGENTS. Parallel passages: Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16 (cf. Acts 1:13). This Commentary upon St. Luke deals so fully both with the list as a whole and with the separate names that it will not be necessary to say much here. Observe that the general agreement in arrangement points to some common basis underlying all four accounts; also that of these the one found in the Acts is the briefest, giving little more than the bare names; and that that found in our Gospel, on the contrary, is the fullest, containing, with two exceptions (vide infra), the details mentioned in one or other of the parallels, and adding two of its own. It mentions, in one instance or more, the parentage (Zebedee, Alphaeus), the relationship ("his brother … his brother"), the birthplace (Kerioth), the earlier occupation and religious standpoint ("publican … Zealot"), and, with a bare hint at the beginning (vide infra), but a clear statement at the end, the after-history ("first... who also betrayed him") of the apostles. The two omissions are the fact that our Lord added the names of Peter (parallels, but really given earlier, John 1:42) and Boanerges (Mark). Matthew 10:2 Now the names, In the parallels part of the word "names" is found as a verb, "whom also he named apostles;" i.e. the naming there refers, not to the individuals, but to their office. Is the form found in our Gospel an "accidental" rearrangement due to a reminiscence that the word "name" occurred in the earliest source, or is it possible that the two facts are connected, and that the individuals received a new name when they definitely entered on a new office? That they should have received a new name seems a priori not improbable, but the evidence is very slight. "Peter" is a clear case, for though the name was given earlier, it would receive a new application now, and perhaps was now again expressly given (cf. parallel passages); and other cases may be St. Matthew and possibly St. Bartholomew and St. Thaddaeus. Mark expressly says that the term "Boanerges" was given to the sons of Zebedee; but as there is no evidence that either St. James or St. John was afterwards known by this name, it need not have been a name in the same sense in which the others were. Observe the formal order of the first words of this verse (τῶνδὲδώδεκαἀποστόλωντὰὀνόματαἐστινταῦτα). Did the author of the Gospel take them from the heading of a section that already contained the names in order? If so the δέ would probably not have existed there, and it is worth noting that the original hand of D, the manuscript that is of special value for Palestinian tradition, omits it. Of the twelve (verse 1, note) apostles (verse 5, note) are these: The first. This, perhaps, refers to the order of call, Luke 5:1 (Nosgen), but more probably to the leading position that St. Peter held among the twelve. On this leadership, cf. the fragmentary excursus by Bishop Lightfoot, printed in ’Clement of Rome,’ 2. 487. Simon. His Hebrew name was Simeon, but his Gentile name (Matthew 3:1, note) was Simon, this good Greek name being chosen as almost identical in sound. It occurs frequently in the Palestinian Talmud (נומיס). Who is called Peter. In common Christian parlance (Matthew 4:18; cf. Matthew 16:18). Matthew 10:3 Bartholomew. Nathanael (John 1:45, equivalent to Theodore) was so common a name (cf. Numbers 1:8; 1 Chronicles 2:14; 1 Chronicles 15:24; 1 Chronicles 26:4; 2 Chronicles 17:7; 2 Chronicles 35:9; Ezra 10:22; Nehemiah 12:21, Nehemiah 12:36), that for further identification a patronymic ("son of Tolmai," Ptolemy) was used, which in this case, superseded the proper name. Thomas. "As Thomas (Δίδυμος), ’ the Twin,’ is properly a surname, and this apostle must have had some other name, there seems no reason for doubting this very early tradition [Eusebius, ’Hist. Eccl.,’ Ecclesiastes 1:13, and probably the Old Syriac of Joh 14:22, et al.] that he also was a Jude". The ’ Clem. Hem.,’ 2.1, give Eliezer as the name of the other brother. Matthew the publican, James the son of Alphseus. And Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; and Thaddaeus (Revised Version); as also Mark, while Luke and Acts 1:13 read "Jude [the brother, Authorized Version, but better the son, Revised Version] of James," which was doubtless his proper name. If the word "Thaddaeus" (יאדּתּ) was as seems likely (for Edersheim’s connexion of it with todah, "praise," is based on what is apparently a mere play of words in Talm. Bob., ’Sanh.,’ 43a), originally a pet-name (Sehosskind, "Bosom-child," Weiss, Nosgen) from ידֵּתַּ, "the female breasts," it is intelligible that he or others would prefer the somewhat synonymous "Lebbseus" (בלֵ, "heart"), which might mean "child of one’s heart," but more probably "courageous," found in the "Western" text. The similarity of sound would help towards this, even if another derivation that seems possible, "the Fiery" (from הבָּלִ, "kindle"), be the true one. In the latter case the appellation, "Jude the Zealot" (Old Latin), may rest on something more than a mistaken interpretation of the parallel passage in Luke. In Westcott and Herr, ’App.,’ it is said that "this name [Lebbaeus] is apparently due to an early attempt to bring Levi (Δευείς) the publican (Luke 5:27) within the Twelve, it being assumed that his call was to apostleship just as in Mark 2:14 Δευείς is changed in Western texts to Ἰάκωβος, because τὸντοῦἉλφαίου follows, and it was assumed that the son of Halphseus elsewhere named as one of the Twelve must be meant. The difference between the two forms of the name would be inconsiderable in Aramaic, Lewi and Levi or Lebi or Lebbi; and Βεββαῖος might as easily represent Lebbi as Θαδδαῖος Thaddi." Matthew 10:4 Simon the Canaanite. Simon the Cananaean (Revised Version); ὁΚαναναῖος representing Kann’an or Kan-’an (נאנק), the Aramaic for "Zealot" (parallel passage in Luke; Acts 1:13), the name given to members of the extreme nationalist party founded about a.d. 7 by Judas of Gamala, a city that appears to have lain near the east coast of the sea of Galilee (vide Schurer, 1. 2.225). And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him; delivered him up, which seems more in accordance with παραδίδωμι, for, unlike "betray," and usually πμοδίδωμι, this does not in itself connote treachery. Matthew 10:5 Parallel passages: Mark 6:7, Mark 6:8; Luke 9:2. These twelve Jesus sent forth; ἀπέστειλεν (cf. John 17:18). Till now they had formed an inner circle of μαθηταί (Matthew 9:35, note), but now they begin their work of carrying Christ’s message to others. "Ἀποστέλλω corresponds with the idea of our own words ’despatch’ and ’ envoy,’ and conveys the accessory notions of a special commission, and so far of a delegated authority in the person sent" (Bishop Westcott, on John 20:21, Add. Note). Bengel suggests (on Luke 9:1) that the twelve were not all absent at once, but were sent out in relays; but Mark 6:30 is against this opinion (cf. also Luke 22:35). On the New Testament conception of the name and office of an apostle, cf. Bishop Lightfoot’s classical note in ’Galatians’. And commanded them, saying; charged them (Revised Version). Important as the charge is, its necessary subordination to the fact that they were sent is expressed by the very form of the sentence (ἀπέστειλεν … (παραγγείλας). Matthew 10:5 - 42 CHRIST’S TO HIS AGENTS. The connexion and development of thought in this important charge is exceedingly difficult to perceive, and has been understood in many ways. Perhaps that most generally accepted in this country is Alford’s, according to which the charge is divided into three sections—the first (Matthew 10:5-15) referring to the mission to the cities of Israel; the second (Matthew 10:16-23) to the general mission of the apostles as developing itself, after the Lord should be taken from them, in preaching to Jews and Gentiles, ending with the close of the apostolic period in the narrower sense (Matthew 10:23 referring primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem); the third (Matthew 10:24-42) spoken directly of all the disciples of the Lord, concluding with the last great reward. But this threefold historical arrangement seems to be little more than fanciful, the basis of truth Underlying it probably being that the charge in its present form is due to the writer of the Gospel (nor to our Lord directly), who desired not only to record what our Lord said at the time of this mission, but also to incorporate other sayings of his that bore upon similar work, and thus to give such a summary of our Lord’s utterances as would be of special use to preachers of the gospel, irrespective of place or time. Observe that ch. 5-7, referred to believers in their private capacity—laying stress on the relation that they were to hold to the religion of the day—while this chapter refers to them as representing Christ to the world. The original basis of the commission was addressed to men called to give their whole time to this work, but as the chapter stands it applies to all believers in their capacity of witnesses for Christ. The ministerial function of preaching committed to men selected for it is only an accentuation of one of the duties expected from all Christ’s followers. The development of thought in the chapter appears to be as follows:— 1. The external conditions of conveying Christ’s message, with special reference to the immediate occasion (Matthew 7:5-15). 2. The internal conditions (Matthew 7:16 -39). (1) Matthew 7:16-23: Though surrounded by enemies, you must conduct yourselves with calmness (Matthew 7:19); with endurance (Matthew 7:22); with wisdom (Matthew 7:23). (2) Matthew 7:24 -33: Remembering that fellowship with me in suffering is essential to fellowship with me in glory. (3) Verses 34-39: Such fellowship with me will cost separation from the dearest on earth, yet its reward is great. 3. Final encouragement (verses 40-42). Matthew 10:5-15 The external conditions of conveying Christ’s message, with special reference to the immediate occasion. Our Lord points out (a) the sphere of their work (Matthew 10:5, Matthew 10:6); (b) the substance of their message (Matthew 10:7); (c) its accompanying signs (Matthew 10:8); (d) the external means and methods that they should employ (Matthew 10:9-15). Matthew only. The sphere of their work. The reasons for the limitation here expressly enforced are: (1) That it was only right that the proclamation of the coming of Messiah should be thoroughly made to the Jews first. Had they accepted it, they would have become the great factors in the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Romans 11:12, Romans 11:15); as they rejected it, it was necessary that the offer should, apart from them, be made to others (Acts 28:28). (2) The apostles were as yet in no fit state spiritually to carry the message beyond their own nation, and the facts which they were in a position to proclaim might, when proclaimed alone, have proved a stumbling-block to the after-acceptance by Gentiles and Samaritaus of a fuller and therefore truer message (cf. Matthew 28:18, sqq.; Acts 1:8). Therefore they are now bid perform their present duty without turning away from it, and, as we may add, will-out anticipating their entrance upon a wider sphere. Saying, Go not. This would be outside your course (ἀπέλθητε). In the Greek, however, the following words receive the emphasis. Into the (any, Revised Version) way of the Gentiles (εἰςὁδὸνἐθνῶν). (1) These words are generally understood to mean "into any road that would lead to Gentile lands or districts." So Tyndale, "Go not into the wayes that leade to the gentyls." (For this genitive of direction, cf. Matthew 4:15; Jeremiah 2:18, and perhaps, Judith 5:14.) (2) Weiss, ’Matthaus-ev.,’ takes them as equivalent to "into any street in a heathen land," making the genitives, ἐθνῶν and Σαμαρειτῶν, both possessive. There are serious objections to these two interpretations; to the first, that the genitives are then used in different senses; to the second, that it suggests something altogether outside the Israelitish border. (3) Is not a third interpretation possible—to consider flint our Lord had in his mind the parts of towns, otherwise Jewish, which were inhabited by heathen, just as, in the days of Omri and Ahab, such parts were assigned to Syrians in Samaria, and to Israelites in Damascus, or in modern times to Jews in Christian towns? We have not, indeed, direct evidence of Gentiles, during the time of our Lord, thus living in separate streets, but with the Jewish aversion to even letting them houses and to having more to do with them than possible (cf. Schurer, II. 1:51-56), it would seem probable that, without any formal arrangement being made, the result would be separation of this kind. It is true that ὁδός is not used elsewhere in this sense in the New Testament, but a comparison of passages in the LXX. seems to justify our so interpreting it. For תוֹצוּח, in 1 Kings 20:34, means such streets, and the LXX. for this is ἐξόδους (ἔξοδον, Luke), yet תוֹצוּח, in the sense of "streets," is often elsewhere rendered by ὁδοί (Jeremiah 5:1; Jeremiah 7:17; Ezekiel 11:6; Nahum 2:4; Nahum 3:10). Compare especially 2 Samuel 1:20, "in the streets of Ascalon," where, for the common text, ἐνταῖςἐξόδοιςΑσκάλωνος, Lucian’s reads, ἐνταῖςὁδοῖςἈσκάλωνος. The expression thus means—Go not off into any quarter inhabited by Gentiles, and (both in complete parallelism and with perfect accuracy, for Samaritans dwelt alone) into any city of Samaritans enter ye not. And into any city. In the Greek both clauses are in the same order, the verb coming last. It will be noticed that the Revised Version has transposed both for the sake of uniformity. Of the Samaritans. By descent, a mixed race, from the intermingling of the remnants of the Israelitish population more especially with the heathen colonists introduced by the Assyrians (2 Kings 17:24, sqq.); by religion, so far Israelite as to have accepted the Pentateuch, and to have maintained the observance of circumcision, the sabbath, and the annual festivals. Both sides of their connexion with Israel seem to have contributed to their being placed by the Mishna between Jews and Gentiles (cf. further, Schurer, II. 1.5, sqq.). Enter ye not. A slight turning away would sometimes bring them to Gentile quarters; but into a Samaritan town they would have definitely and purposely to enter. Observe that our Lord himself so far extended his own practice as not to refuse to take the opportunity of preaching to a Samaritan woman when it presented itself, and further followed up the work thus begun by continuing two days in her village (John 4:40). But the nature of the exception proves the rule. Matthew 10:6 But go. On your daily journeying (πορέεσθε, present). Rather. With conscious preference. To the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Thus also he describes his own mission (Matthew 15:24). The words recall Jeremiah 50:6 (Jeremiah 27:6, LXX.), "My people hath been lost sheep." Observe that our Lord implies a special relation of Israel to God (for the house has its owner) which was lacking in the case of all other nations. Yet, their proper teachers having proved faithless, they were now as shepherdless as these (Matthew 9:36). Lost. Notice here the basis of the parable related in Luke 15:4-7; cf. Matthew 18:12, Matthew 18:13 (Matthew 18:11 of the Received Text is a gloss), where the term "wandering" is not so strong (Bengel). Matthew 10:7 Parallel passages: Luke 9:2 (the twelve); Luke 10:9 (the seventy; observe that the substance of the proclamation was to be the same). And as ye go. For your journey is not to one place, but many. Preach. Aloud and publicly. Saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. That which men had so long been desiring (vide Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17) was now near. But had it not come (Matthew 12:28; Matthew 11:12)? Not in full realization. But its near realization was then a possibility, and was only not brought about because, as a nation, they rejected him who introduced it. Matthew 10:8 We have here the details of the orders summarized in Matthew 10:1. The details are not given in Luke 9:1, Luke 9:2 or Luke 10:9. Heal the sick, etc. According to the true order of these commands, solely physical ills are mentioned first in their partial (sick) and in their final effect (dead); then physical and ceremonial pollution (lepers), which forms a transition to the mention of ills primarily spiritual, even though they ultimately affect the body (devils). On the good that might be expected from their performing these miracles, cf. Thomas Scott (in Ford), "Men will never believe that we really intend the good of their souls, if they do not find that we endeavour to do them good, disinterestedly, in temporal things (John 4:15)." Freely (vide infra) ye have (omit "have," with Revised Version) received. Blessings of the kingdom, but especially authority and power for this work (Luke 10:1). Freely give. All that is needed to carry that authority into effect—whatever toil and energy in soul and body the occasion may demand. The clause comes in Matthew only, but comp. Acts 20:35. Observe, Christ’s recognition of the tendency of human nature to traffic in the holiest things. Did Judas take the warning at all to heart? (For the thought, cf. Wis. 7:13; Leviticus 25:37, 38.) Freely. Gratuitously (δωρεάν); comp. Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:17; Romans 3:24 (on God’s side); 2 Corinthians 11:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:8 (on man’s side). Matthew 10:9, Matthew 10:10 Parallel passages: Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3 (the twelve); Luke 10:4 (the seventy); cf. also our Lord’s reference in Luke 22:35 to the mission of the twelve. Provide; get you. There is no connotation of foresight in the word itself, but only of acquisition. Observe that the apostles are not forbidden to take what they already have. Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.,’shows that travellers ordinarily took with them a staff, a purse, shoes, a wallet, and sometimes a book of the Law. Neither gold, nor silver, nor brass. The brass would be the copper coinage of the Herods, which alone might be struck by them; or some of the Greek imperial coins, especially those struck at Antioch. The silver, either Greek imperial tetradrachms or Roman denarii of a quarter their weight, didrachms having fallen into disuse; only certain free cities were allowed to coin silver. The gold, as Palestine was a subject province, must have been coined at Rome, for she retained the coining of gold entirely in her own hands. In your purses; literally, girdles, which in the East often serve as purses. This prohibition may have been suggested by the last words of verse 8, but can hardly refer to them. It seems to regard the journey only (cf. parallel passages). Nor scrip; no wallet (Revised Version). At the present time, "all shepherds have them, and they are the farmer’s universal vade-mecum. They are merely the skins of kids stripped off whole, and tanned by a very simple process". But they might be made even of fish-skin (Mishna, ’Kelim,’ 24.11). Because of 1 Samuel 17:40, an haggada says that David’s money was stamped with a staff and wallet on one side, and a tower on the other (’B’resh..R.,’ § 39, in Levy, s.v. לימרת). For your journey. The clause is to be joined with "scrip" only. Neither two coats. A second for sabbaths and festivals. For the rabbinic rule insisted upon a different coat for these days from that ordinarily worn. To the objection of poor disciples, that they had but one garment for sabbath and week-day alike, R. Samlai said that they must at least change the way in which they wore it. Neither shoes. The parallel passage, Mark 6:9, has. "but to go shod with sandals" (Revised Version). This is, perhaps, a case of verbal inaccuracy, but as it is impossible to suppose that our Lord can have wished his disciples to go without the ordinary protection to the feet, or that the author of this Gospel, accustomed, on any theory, to Eastern modes of life, can have intended to credit him with such a wish, some other explanation of the verbal discrepancy must be looked for. The true explanation is probably this—The rabbis insisted so strongly on a man never appearing barefooted: "Let a man sell the beams of his house and buy shoes for his feet", that it is very possible that a second pair was often carried in ease of need. it is this that our Lord forbids. On the other hand, Jews did not carry one pair for sabbath and another for week-days (Talm. Jeremiah, ’Sabb.,’ 6.2). Some commentators escape the difficulty by distinguishing between "shoes" and "sandals;" but it is very doubtful if the usage of the words is always so exact that one term excludes the other. Nor yet staves; nor staff (Revised Version). The plural, both here (Stephen) and in Luke 9:3 (Received Text), is a clumsy attempt to harmonize with Mark 6:1-56.8, where our Lord bids the twelve take nothing "save a staff only." The difference between the two reports of our Lord’s words has been magnified by many commentators into a contradiction. But this is not the true state of the case. For it would be so extraordinary and apparently so useless an order to forbid their having a staff, that it is hard to suppose this to have been the meaning of his words as reported here. His thought in Mark 6:9, Mark 6:10 is rather that they were to make no preparation, for their wants should be supplied, and that even if they had not a staff they were not to take the trouble to procure one. St. Mark’s account only so far differs that he assumes that they will st least have a staff already. Observe, however, that no stress can be placed on the difference of the verbs here and in Mark, for in this respect Mark and Luke agree. Matthew 10:10 For the workman; labourer (Revised Version); thus connecting the utterance closely with Matthew 9:37, Matthew 9:38. Is worthy of his meat. The disciples may therefore expect that it will be provided for them by those to whom they minister (Luke 10:7, of the seventy), and indirectly by the Master whom they serve (Matthew 9:38). Meat; food (Revised Version). In all but most highly organized systems of society, this is an important (frequently the most important) part of the day labourer’s wages. Hence not unnaturally "wages" is found in the form of the sayings given by St. Luke (Luke 10:7) and St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18). Probably our Lord’s words became a current proverb in Christian circles, the original word "food" being modified to suit the more general circumstances of life. Clem. Romans, § 31, recalls the Matthaean form, "The good workman receiveth the bread of his work with boldness.’’ Epiphanius gives a kind of confla-tion, containing the further thought that if the workman receives his food he must be content: "The workman is worthy of his hire, and sufficient to him that works is his food." Resch connects this form of the saying with the practice of giving only food to the travelling "apostles" and prophets of the sub-apostolic age (’Did.,’ § 11.). Professor Marshall (Expositor, IV. 2.76) suggests that if our Lord’s original word was הדָיץֵ, it would explain the origin of both Matthew and Luke; but it seems very doubtful it’ it really ever means "wages.’’ Two patristic remarks are worth quoting: the first from Origen (’Cram. Cat.’), "In saying τροφήν, (’food’) he forbade τρυφήν (’luxury’);" the second from St. Gregory the Great (in Ford), "Priests ought to consider how criminal and punishable a thing it is to receive the fruit of labour, without labour." Matthew 10:11 Parallel passages: Mark 6:10; Luke 9:4 (the twelve); Luke 10:5-8 (the seventy). Matthew alone mentions the command to inquire who is worthy. And into whatsoever city or town; village (Revised Version); cf. Matthew 9:35, note. Ye shall enter, inquire; search out (Revised Version). Much more is implied than merely asking some chance passer-by (cf. Matthew 2:8). Who in it is worthy; i.e. equivalent by moral rate (ἄξιος)—in this case to the privilege of your lodging with him; elsewhere to the offer of peace (Matthew 9:13), to the favour of an invitation (Matthew 22:8), to walking with Christ clothed in white (Revelation 3:1-22:47, to punishment (Revelation 16:6). And there abide till ye go thence; go forth (Revised Version); i.e. finally (Revelation 3:14). The object of this command, which was reckoned so important as to be recorded in all three parallel passages (vide supra), is to prevent; partly favouritism and rivalry, partly waste of time. For "when a stranger arrives in a village or an encampment, the neighbours, one after another, must invite him to eat with them. There is a strict etiquette about it, involving much ostentation and hypocrisy; and a failure in the due observance of this system of hospitality is violently resented, and often leads to alienations and feuds among neighbours. It also consumes much time, causes unusual distraction of mind, leads to levity, and every way counteracts the success of a spiritual mission"; cf. St. Luke’s "Go not from house to house" (Luke 10:7). It is, on the other hand, quite unnecessary to see here, with Meyer and Weiss, a prohibition to go to the synagogues or indeed to anywhere else where they could gain a hearing during their stay. Our Lord is referring only to lodging and food (Luke 10:7). Matthew 10:12, Matthew 10:13 Parallel passage: Luke 10:5, Luke 10:6 (the seventy). Your very entrance is to be an occasion of imparting spiritual blessing if the house be receptive of it. Matthew 10:12 And when ye come; and as ye enter (Revised Version), synchronous with the moment of your entrance (cf. Luke 17:12). Into an house; the house (Revised Version); i.e. of him who is worthy. Salute it. With the usual greeting of "Peace" (Judges 18:15; 1 Samuel 25:5, 1 Samuel 25:6). Observe that Christ practised what he preached (John 20:19 [Luke 24:3]). Matthew 10:13 And if the house. Not the householder alone (Matthew 10:11), but he and his family as a whole. Be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. It is tempting to see in these words a promise that your activity shall at least issue in increased blessing on yourselves, but it can hardly be pressed so far. It rather means that failure to impart blessing shall not bring spiritual loss to yourselves. "The dove returned to the ark again when it found the earth under water" (cf. Gurnall, in Ford). Matthew 10:14, Matthew 10:15 If rejected, bear your solemn witness to the fact, for to reject you brings awful consequences. Matthew 10:14 Parallel passages: Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5 (the twelve); Luke 10:10, Luke 10:11 (the seventy). And whosoever shall not receive you—on your formal request as heralds of the kingdom—nor hear your words (Matthew 7:24, note), when (as, Revised Version, Luke 10:12, note) ye depart (go forth, Revised Version) out of. At the moment of going out (cf. Luke 10:12), ἐξερχόμενοιἔξω (Matthew 21:17; Acts 16:13), in this case finally. That house or (that, Revised Version) city. "The house," rightly further defined by "that" in English, comes in Matthew only; "that city" comes also in the parallel passage, Luke 9:5, and therefore belongs to the source used by St. Matthew. Shake off the dust of your feet. Treating it as a heathen place, whose pollution must be shaken off. For the very dust from a heathen land was to be reckoned as polluting, since, as Rashi says on Talm. Bab., ’Sabb.,’ 15b (cf. Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.,’ in loc.), "It may be doubted, of all the dust of a heathen land, whether it were not from the sepulchre of the dead." (For the apostolic fulfilment of our Lord’s injunction cf. Acts 13:51 and Acts 18:6; see also Nehemiah 5:13.) Matthew 10:15 Parallel passage: Luke 10:12 (the seventy). Similar words are used by our Lord in his apostrophe of Capernaum (Matthew 11:24, where see note). The combination in Luke 10:11, Luke 10:12-15 of both the contexts is an instructive warning against accepting the present position of our Lord’s sayings as the final indication of the occasion upon which they were delivered. Verily. (For the idea of acquiescence that always underlies this word—even in the case of so solemn a matter as the present—comp. Matthew 5:18, note.) I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha. Whose inhabitants were the typical example of the worst of sinners (Deuteronomy 32:32; Isaiah 1:10; Ezekiel 16:46; Revelation 11:8). "The men of Sodom have no part in the world to come" (Mishna, ’Sanh.,’ 10.3). In the day of judgment. Luke has "in that day;" cf, Matthew 7:22. In the only two passages in the LXX. (Proverbs 6:34; Isaiah 34:8) where, as it seems, our phrase occurs, it refers, not to the judgment of all, good and bad alike, but to that of the wicked alone. So also in 2 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:7; and possibly also in Matthew 12:36, but not in 1 John 4:17 (the only passage where it is not anarthrous). Than for that city. Observe that this verse implies that the wicked dead are still in existence, and are waiting for their final judgment; also that in the judgment of the wicked there will be degrees of punishment. Matthew 10:16-39 The internal conditions of conveying Christ’s message. The subdivisions of this section are after Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 10:33 (cf. Matthew 10:5, note). Matthew 10:16-23 You will be in the midst; of foes, and simplicity must be accompanied by prudence (Matthew 10:16, a summary of all); you will be ill-treated publicly (Matthew 10:17, Matthew 10:18), but must conduct yourselves with calm faith that you will be guided in your defence (Matthew 10:19, Matthew 10:20), with endurance of family and universal enmity. (Matthew 10:21, Matthew 10:22), with common sense in avoiding unnecessary danger, for wherever you go you will find work to be done (Matthew 10:23). Matthew 10:16 Parallel passage: Luke 10:3 (the seventy); 16b, Matthew only. Behold. He calls their attention. I send you forth. I (ἐγω), with the full consciousness of all that will befall you; I, whose message you will carry, whose character you will represent. In this I lies the germ of verses 40-42. As sheep in the midst of wolves. The ’Midrash’ on Esther 8:2 uses the same phrase of the position of Israel amidst a hostile world (cf. Edersheim, ’Life,’ 1.645), adding, "How great is that Shepherd who delivers them and vanquishes the wolves?" ’Clem. Romans,’ it. § 5, has an interesting addition, "The Lord saith, Ye shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves. But Peter answered and said unto him, What then, if the wolves should tear the lambs? Jesus saith unto Peter, Let not the lambs fear the wolves after they [the lambs] are dead." Be ye therefore. Prove yourselves to he (γίνεσθε). Wise. Prudent (φρόνιμοι). As serpents. )*,with Ignat., ’Polyc.,’ § 2, has the singular, perhaps taking it generically, or perhaps not without reference to the phrase in Genesis 3:1, "The serpent was more subtle," etc. (ὁδὲὄφιςἦνφρονιμώτατοςκ.τ.λ.). The prudence of the serpent is specially apparent in the quickness of its perception of danger and the rapidity with which it escapes from it. Kubel gives Matthew 22:23, sqq., 34, sqq.; John 2:24; John 11:9, John 11:10, as examples of this proper prudence in the ease of our Lord. And harmless as doves. Harmless; rather, simple, with Revised Version margin, for ἀκέραιος is literally "unmixed, unadulterated’’ (cf Bishop Lightfoot, on Philippians 2:15), and emphasizes the idea of simplicity of character. It is thus not active, but passive. Comp. ’Shir. R.’ (Son 2:14), "With me they [Israel] are simple [מימימת; of the (Etz Ya‛akob, which refers to Hosea 7:11 as doves, but among the nations of the world they are subtle as serpents" (cf. Matthew 3:16, note). Matthew 10:17 Matthew 10:17-22 are remarkable as being practically identical with Mark 13:9-13, to which the parallels are Luke 21:12-19 and Matthew 24:9-14. It is hard to resist the conclusion that St. Matthew (1) has incorporated into the present address of our Lord’s on missionary work warnings actually given in his great address at Jerusalem on the fall of the city and the end of the world; and (2) to some extent repeats these warnings in their proper place. But beware. Apparently in contrast to being only "dove-like"; but it is no wonder that the connexion with verse 16 should be rather harsh if the passage be really taken from a later speech. Of men. Generically (τῶνἀνθρώπων), regarded.as one hostile body (cf. Meyer). The culminating point of that opposition to God which is innate in fallen humanity is found in the deification of the Roman emperors (cf. Bishop Westcott’s essay on the Two Empires, § 3, in his Epistles of St. John). For they will deliver you up to the (omit "the," with the Revised Version) councils (εἰςσυνέδρια, Matthew 5:22, note); "Synedria, uhi proceres conveniunt; synagogae, ubi etiam populus" (Bengel). And they will scourge you in their synagogues (the order of the words is reversed in the Revised Version). With this compare Matthew 23:34, where our Lord says, "Therefore, behold, I send [ἰδοὺἐγὼἀποστέλλω: cf. Matthew 23:16, note] unto you prophets.., and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues, and (cf. Matthew 23:23, infra) persecute from city to city." Is our present passage a reminiscence of this also? For the fulfilment of this prophecy of. Acts 22:19 (Acts 26:11). Farrar thus summarizes the enactments on Jewish scourging as recorded in the Mishna (’Makkoth’): "Even a single Jewish scourging might well entitle any man to be regarded as a martyr. Thirty-nine blows were inflicted, unless, indeed, it was found that the strength of the patient was too much exhausted to admit of his receiving the full number. Both of his bands were tied to what is sometimes called a column. but which was in reality a stake a cubit and a half high. The public officer then tore down his robe until his breast was laid bare. The executioner stood on a stone behind the criminal. The scourge consisted of two thongs, one of which was composed of four strands of calf’s skin, and one or two strands of ass’s skin, which passed through a hole in a handle. The executioner, who was ordinarily the Chazzan of the synagogue, could thus shorten or lengthen them at will, so as not to strike too low. The prisoner bent to receive the blows, which were inflicted with one hand, but with all the force of the striker, thirteen on the breast, thirteen on the right and thirteen on the left shoulder. While the punishment was going on, the chief judge read aloud Deuteronomy 28:58, Deuteronomy 28:59, ’If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord thy God; then the Lord will make thy plagues ["strokes"] wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed.’ He then read Deuteronomy 29:9, ’Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all ye do;’ and lastly, Psalms 78:38, Psalms 78:39, ’But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away. and did not stir up all his wrath.’ If the punishment was not over by the time that these three passages were read, they were again repeated, and so timed as to end exactly with the punishment itself Meanwhile a second judge numbered the blows, and a third before each blow exclaimed, ’Hakkehu’ (’strike him’) The severity of the pain may best.be estimated by the brief addition, ’ If the criminal die under the infliction, the executioner is not accounted guilty unless he gives by mistake a single blow too many, in which case he is banished.’" Matthew 10:18 And; yea and (Revised Version); καὶ … δέ. Ye shall be brought. Transposed in the Revised Version with the following words, because the stress of Christ’s saying lies, not on his followers being brought to trial, but on the high position of their judges. This marks both the extreme importance that their enemies will attach to them, and the lengths to which these will go. Before governors; i.e., probably, representatives of others in supreme power. Such were Felix and Festus, the praetors at Philippi (hardly the politarchs at Thessalonica, for this was a free city), and Gallio at Corinth. But perhaps ἡγεμών is here used in the narrower sense of procurator, in which case of the above names only the first two ought to be mentioned, for Gallio was a proconsul (ἀνθύπατος). And kings. The supreme authorities themselves. So especially Nero (2 Timothy 4:16), and even Herod Agrippa II. (Acts 25:13, sqq.), for he was autocratic in his kingdom, save that he owed allegiance to the power that gave it to him. For my sake (Matthew 5:11, note). St. Peter ("for the Lord’s sake … king … governors," 1 Peter 2:13, 1 Peter 2:14) possibly refers to this utterance, but by using the singular, "king," recalls more definitely the one political organization with which his readers would be brought into contact in Asia Minor, the Roman emperor and his representatives. For a testimony against (to, Revised Version) them and (to, Revised Version) the Gentiles. Them. Not the Jews (Bengel, Meyer, and perhaps also the Revised Version), but the governors and kings. For (a) the parallel passage, Mark 13:9, omits "the Gentiles;" (b) the parallel passage, ch. 24:14 (vide supra), runs, "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world [possibly, too, the word employed, οἰκουμένη, has special reference to the Roman empire] for a testimony unto all the Gentiles." Both passages show that the Lord is not here thinking of the Jews, but only of the Gentiles and rulers from among them. Against; to. A witness to these Gentile rulers of what the gospel really does for men, and of their consequent responsibility; cf. Matthew 8:4, note; also the parallel passage, Luke 21:13. Eusebius, referring to out’ Lord’s words, gives a striking illustration in his ’Mart. Pal.,’ 6. Matthew 10:19, Matthew 10:20 For these two verses, compare Luke 12:11, Luke 12:12, with which there is doubtless a common basis. As the two verses do not seem to have in Luke 12:1-59. a very close connexion with their context, it is probable that there also, as here, they are taken from a speech of later date. But when they deliver you up, take no thought; be not anxious (Revised Version); Matthew 6:25, note. So also Luke 12:2; but Luke 21:14 goes further, and forbids the disciples to "meditate beforehand how to answer." Bengel says here, Usa, non curandi, cura sit. How or what. The general direction or the actual matter. Ye shall speak—i.e. in defence, as defined in Luke 12:11; Luke 21:14—for it shall be given you in that same (omit "same," with the Revised Version) hour what ye shall speak. And if in similar extraordinary circumstances, the Christian may expect similar extraordinary help. The omission of this clause by some Western authorities is probably due to the fact that the next verse also begins with "for," and contains a promise that much resembles this. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you (cf. Genesis 41:38). Observe: (1) The thoughtful reminder, "your Father," whose children you have become (Matthew 5:16, note), and whose protection you may look for. (2) It is not said that the Father, but that the Spirit speaks (cf. Acts 4:8; Acts 13:9; and, for Christ speaking, 2 Corinthians 13:3). (3) The phrase is quite compatible with, but would hardly have then been understood as expressing, the personality of the Holy Spirit. (4) Though the promise would doubtless hold good, and that in a special degree, for the most important of all "defences," the writing of Holy Scripture, yet even there it did not preclude the use of human means (Luke 1:3). Matthew 10:21 The persecutors shall be found among those most closely connected with you by blood and natural affection. Observe that our Lord does not mention this until he has reminded them that they are connected by still deeper family ties with One above. The thought and partly the language of Mat 10:21, Matthew 10:22 comes in 4 Esdr. 6:24, 25, "Et erit in illo tempore debellabunt amici amicos ut inimici … et erit, omnis qui dcrelictus fuerit ex omnibus istis quibus praedixi tibi, ipse salvabitur et videbit salutare meum et finem saeculi mei. [5. 1. vestri]." The author is speaking of the signs of the cud of the world. It seems probable that he was acquainted with some form of the original discourse of our Lord in Mark 13:12, Mark 13:13. (For other references somewhat similar of. Schurer, II. 2:155.) And (δέ). In contrast to the preceding encouragement (Kubel). The brother. The omission of the article by the Revised Version throughout this verse is justified, not only by grammar, but also by the consideration that it thus becomes less possible to interpret the phrase of a false "brother" in the Church. And the father the child. Philip It. of Spain is reported to have said of the Protestants, "If it were my own son, I would bring the faggot." And the children shall rise up against their parents. The verb (ἐπαναστήσονται) is perhaps a reminiscence of Mic 7:6, other words of which arc quoted below (verse 35). The plural suggests the plurality of cases. And cause them to be put to death; put them to death; but perhaps through the agency of others. Observe that more direct cruelty is predicated of the children than of the brothers and fathers. Past kindness received will go for nothing. Matthew 10:22 And ye shall be hated. For no little time (ἔσεσθεμισούμενοι). "Suffering sometimes becomes as a reward for doing. You read of the heifers which brought home the ark out of the Philistines’ country, that, when they brought the ark home, the Israelites took the heifers and offered them up to God, as a sacrifice (1 Samuel 6:14). ’Why so?’saith one. ’It is an ill requital to the heifers.’ No; the heifers could not have so high an honour put upon them (Philippians 1:29; Acts 9:16; Acts 21:13)" (Wm. Bridge, in Ford). Of all men (Matthew 10:17, note). As with the old Israel, so also with the new (cf. Kubel). For my name’s sake (Matthew 6:9, note). But he that endureth to the end (Revised Version adds, the same) shall be saved (so Matthew 24:13). The emphatic insertion of οὗτος points out both the absolute necessity of endurance and the certainty of blessing to him who shows it (of. 2 Timothy 2:11). To the end (εἰςτέλος); i.e. not to the end of the time during which persecution shall last (εἰςτὸτέλος), but to completeness in the endurance required (of. John 13:1 [Bishop Westcott’s note]; 1 Thessalonians 2:16). Shall be saved. In the fullest sense (cf. the parallel passage, Luke 21:19). Matthew 10:23 Matthew only; but even this verse is not free from what appear to be reminiscences of the words recorded in Matthew 24:14, Matthew 24:16). But when they persecute you in this city. Act wisely (Matthew 24:16); flee to another city; you will find work there. Flee ye (cf. Matthew 23:34, and supra, Matthew 23:17, note) into another; into the next (Revised Version); εἰςτηραν. There are occasions when the duty is rather to spread the message than to seal it with death or to have one’s lips closed by imprisonment. But only "he that is spiritual" (1 Corinthians 2:15) will be able to understand which course of action the special circumstances require. Our Lord’s example (Matthew 12:15) was followed by Christians in the earliest (Acts 8:1; Acts 9:25, Acts 9:30; Acts 14:6; Acts 17:10, Acts 17:14) and in later times. Codex Bezae and some Western authorities, including Tatian’s ’Diatess.,’ add, "And if out of this they persecute you, flee into another;" but this is a not unnatural gloss upon the true text. For verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over; through (Revised Version); οὐμὴτετέσητε: literally, hare completed, like the harvest (Rth 2:23). The cities of Israel (cf. Matthew 24:6) till the Son of man (Matthew 8:20, note) be come. The mere fact that there was no persecution of the kind just spoken of until after our Lord’s death in itself refutes the opinion that these words refer to his rejoining his disciples on their mission (Matthew 11:1; cf. Luke 10:1). They may, perhaps, refer to his coming in the fall of Jerusalem, but rather look forward to h is complete return in his second advent, as apparently Agathangelus, in Resch, loc. cit., understands them. The cities of Israel are named because work among the Jews lay at the basis of the commission. If an exact fulfilment of the words is demanded, it is perhaps to be seen in tile fact that there will be some Jews unconverted until the Lord’s return. Matthew 10:24-33 Fellowship with me in suffering is essential to fellowship with me in glory. (1) Fellowship in suffering (Matthew 10:21-31). (2) The result of confessing or of denying Christ (Matthew 10:32, Matthew 10:33). (1) Fellowship in suffering (Matthew 10:24-31). (a) You must not expect better treatment than your Master (Matthew 10:21, Matthew 10:25). (b) But opponents are not to be feared (Matthew 10:26-28), because (α) they are powerless to really injure (Matthew 10:26-28); (β) there is a greater Object of fear (Matthew 10:28). (γ) Who cares minutely for all his creatures, and much more for you (Matthew 10:29-31). Matthew 10:24, Matthew 10:25 Matthew only; but comp. John 13:16 and John 15:18-21; the latter passage is a commentary. In Luke 6:40 there is close verbal similarity, but the thought is completely different. For there our Lord means that a disciple shall not escape the moral loss that his teacher incurs; on the contrary, when fully instructed, he shall be as his teacher is, in the same evil state. But here he is giving encouragement—whatever treatment a disciple receives he is, if his Teacher received it also, not to count it a strange thing (1 Peter 4:12). Matthew 10:24 The (a, Revised Version) disciple. The absence of the article lays more stress on the man’s position as disciple. Is not above. The emphasis of the sentence is upon the denial of such a possibility (οὐκἔστινὁμαθητής). His master; teacher; διδάσκαλον. Nor the (a, Revised Version) servant above his lord. Matthew 10:25 It is enough (ἀρκετόν); Matthew 6:34, note. It will quite content him; it is sufficient for his aims and wishes (Hebrews 13:5: John 14:8). So Talm. Bab., ’Berach.,’ 58b, R. Ula comforts Rub Hisda for the desolation of a friend’s house which he formerly knew in its prosperity, by reminding him that the temple too is in ruins, and "It is sufficient for the servant that he be as his master (וברך אהיש דבעל ויד)." For the disciple. Here (unlike Matthew 6:24) pictured before the mind. That he be. Eventually (ἵναγένηται). (For the weakened relic force of ἵνα here, cf. Ellicott on 1 Corinthians 4:3.) As his master, and the servant as his lord. That the pronoun was added to "lord" in Matthew 6:24 was perhaps due to the unconscious desire on the part of the reporter to, avoid any possible ambiguity arising from the familiar phrase ὁκύριος: in these two clauses the insertion of the pronoun is rather due to the fact that "disciple" and "servant" are both defined by the article. If they have called. A typical example of the treatment his disciples will sometimes receive—complete rejection of their message, with deliberate accusation of the worst of crimes. Observe that it is implied that the opprobrious term had already been used of our Lord, although St. Matthew has not yet related it (Matthew 12:24). (On Matthew 9:34, cf. note there.) Called. By no mere chance expression, but by purposely giving him the title (ἐπεκάλεσαν); cf. Hebrews 11:16. The master of the house. Hebrews 3:2-6 may be compared, even though not Christ but God is there probably spoken of as the owner of the house. Beelzebub; "Gr. Beel-zebul; and so elsewhere". The original meaning of the title was probably "Lord of flies" (zebub, 2 Kings 1:3), or possibly "of bees"; but there cannot but be here a play upon the sense, "Lord of the dwelling" (zebul, e.g. Isaiah 63:15), and probably a further reference to the similar sound zebel, Neo-Hebr. for "dung" (cf 2 Kings 17:12, and Wetstein’s curious note in Delitzsch, on Job 30:12). Matthew 10:26-33 Parallel passage: Luke 12:2-9, where it follows the warning against the leaven of the Pharisees. A similar saying to Luke 12:26 (parallel passage: Luke 12:2) is also found in Mark 4:22 (parallel passage: Luke 8:17). Though the two sayings are probably distinct, yet it is very possible that one may have been modified from the other in being reported. Fear them not therefore. These words are in Matthew only. Therefore. Since the Master bore such treatment. For. Hardly—Fear them not, for your secret disloyalty wilt one day be known; but—Fear them not so as to conceal your faith and principles, for these are of supreme importance; inner character is everything. This connexion seems to be more close than to read into the words a reference to the ultimate success of the gospel or to the unreality of those things that now terrify you. There is nothing. Even your own relation to me (cf. verse 32). Covered, that shall not be revealed; uncovered. The cloak over it shall be drawn back. And hid, that shall not be known. It shall not only be stripped of its disguise, but also itself be brought out to light and its true character perceived. Matthew 10:27 The parallel passage, Luke 12:3, is verbally similar, but of reverse meaning. In Matthew it is a charge to the disciples to proclaim publicly what Christ tells them privately; in Luke it is a statement that what they say privately shall be proclaimed publicly. St. Luke gives only another side of the preceding verse; St. Matthew, a fresh point. The connexion with verse 26 is—Do not cover up your relation to me, but say out bravely the message that I give you. What I tell you. There is no limitation to the time. Those who believe in the present life of Christ and in the reality of present communications from him cannot fail to see here both the true source of their messages as preachers and the necessity of faithfulness to those messages. Observe that the stress is not upon the personality of the Speaker, but upon the communication (λέγω, not ἐγὼλέγω). In (the, Revised Version) darkness … in (the, Revised Version) light. Both are pictured to the mind. And what ye hear in the ear (εἰςτὸοὖς). Possibly a reference to the habit of Jewish rabbis sometimes whispering their teaching in the ear of an "interpreter," who repeated it aloud for all to hear (cf. Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.’), but more probably only the common figure of speech for secret instruction; cf. Talm. Bab., ’Berach.,’ 22a, "Nahum of Gamzo, whispered it to. R. Akiba, and R. Akiba whispered it to Ben Azai, and Ben Azai went out and taught it to his disciples in the street." Compare also the Old Testament phrase, "uncover the ear" (1 Samuel 9:15, used of God; 1 Samuel 20:2,1 Samuel 20:12, 1 Samuel 20:13, used of man). That preach ye; proclaim (Revised Version); κηρύξατε. Upon the house-tops. Lightfoot (’Hor. Hebr.’) thinks that this is an allusion to the minister of a synagogue blowing a trumpet on the roof of a high house to announce the sabbath; but that was a mere signal of a fact (σαλπίζω), not the articulate expression of a communication (κηρύσσω). The phrase much more probably alludes to the fact that the roofs in Eastern cities are the common place for conversation, and to the rapidity with which an announcement there made spreads throughout the town. Matthew 10:28 And. Restating Matthew 10:26 from a different point of view. Fear not; be not afraid of (Revised Version); μὴφοβηθῆτεἀπό. So Westcott and Herr, with B (sic) and two or three other authorities. The Revised Version (cf. Authorized Version parallel passage, Luke 12:4) expresses the greater difference from Matthew 10:26 and Matthew 10:28 (φοβηθῆτεἀπό with genitive, a Hebraism expressing avoidance, shrinking, cowardly dreas; φοβηθῆτε with accusative, concentration of regard) at the expense of the lesser (φοβηθῆτε, general command, or perhaps "never once fear;" φοβεῖσθε, "ever fear," habit). Them which kill the body. So R. Akiba refused to give up studying and teaching the Law when it was forbidden on pain of death (Talm. Bab., ’Berach.,’ 61b). But are not able to kill the soul (Matthew 6:25, note). But rather fear. Always (φοβεῖσθε). Fear; yes, but the right object (φοβεῖσθεδὲμᾶλλον, not μᾶλλονδὲφοβεῖσθε), and that intensely (vide supra). Him which is able (τομενον). Mere power; but in the parallel passage in Luke, authority. The reference is, of course, to God (cf. James 4:12). To destroy (ἀπολέσαι). The class of words to which this belongs denotes "utter and hopeless ruin; but they convey no idea whether the ruined object ceases to exist or continues a worthless existence" (Professor Agar Beet, in Expositor, IV. 1.28). Professor Marshall, in Expositor, IV. 3:283, thinks Luke’s variant, "to cast," indicates that our Lord originally used an Aramaic word that properly meant "to set on fire." Both soul and body in hell (Matthew 5:22, note). Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? The form of the saying in Luke 12:6 is practically equivalent ("Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings?"); for sparrows are so common and cheap that if a man buys two farthings’ worth he gets one thrown in. "At the present day the markets of Jerusalem and Jaffa are attended by many ’f owlets,’ who offer for sale long strings of little birds of various species, chiefly sparrows, wagtails, and larks. These are also frequently sold ready plucked, trussed in rows of about a dozen on slender wooden skewers, and are cooked and eaten like kabobs". A farthing (ἀσσαρίου). This might either be one of the coins of the Herods (Luke 12:9, note), or, as it seems, a "second brass" Antiochene as. And one of them shall not fall—and not one of them shall fall (Revised Version, more idiomatically)—on the ground. Dead. In the parallel passage in Luke, more generally, "Not one of them is forgotten in the sight of God," even in life. Origen and Chrysostom read, "fall into the snare" (cf. Ames Luke 3:5). Without (ἄνευ). Χωρίς would deny merely physical connexion (cf. John 15:5), and the sentence would then imply that God causes their death; ἄνευ is only negative, and the sentence implies that their death is not outside of his knowledge and care. In Amos 3:5 the thought is that for every event there is a cause; here that every event is taken notice of by God. Sennacherib’s boast (Isaiah 36:10) contained a truth other than he intended. Your Father. For this and nothing less is God’s relation to you. There is a Talmudic tale told in various forms, of which the earliest seems to be that R. Simon ben Jochai, after hiding thirteen years in a cave, saw from the entrance of it a fowler snaring birds, but that these could not be taken if the Divine voice (Bath Qol) said, "Released" (dimus, dimissus). "A bird," said the rabbi, "perishes not without God, much less a man," and he returned to the city (Talm. Jeremiah, ’Shebiith,’ 9.1). Matthew 10:30 But the very hairs of your head. "Your" emphatic, in contrast to the care bestowed on sparrows. (For the thought, compare not only the parallel passage, Luke 12:7, but also Luke 21:18; Acts 27:34.) Are all numbered. Perhaps long since (ἠριθμημέναιεἰσίν). When Job complained the Lord answered him, "Many hairs have! made on man, and for every single hair its own pit, that not two hairs should draw their sustenance from one pit … shall I make no mistake about this, and vet make a mistake in thy name and spell it not Ijob (Job, בוי)), but Ojeb (enemy, ביו))?" (Talm. Bab., ’Baba Bathra,’ 16a). Matthew 10:31 The minuteness of this care forbids you to fear; it is clear from it that you are worth more than even many sparrows. Fear ye (the Revised Version omits ye) not. The absence of ὑμεῖς lays all the more stress on the verb. Therefore. As the hairs of your head are all numbered; the following words are thus epexegetic. Ye. Emphatic here; ye who are God’s sons. The thought is stronger than even that of the "faithful Creator," in 1 Peter 4:19. Are of more value than many sparrows. So, too, any man than a sheep (Matthew 12:12). Matthew 10:32, Matthew 10:33 (2) The result of confessing and of denying Christ. (Cf. Matthew 10:24, note.) Matthew 10:32 Whosoever; every one … who (Revised Version); Matthew 7:24, note. Therefore. Summing up the thought of Mat 7:24 -31, that he who suffers with Christ is only receiving such treatment as he ought to expect, and is never forgotten. Shall confess me (ὁμολογήσειἐνἐμοί). Ὁμολογεῖνἐν occurs only in this verse (twice) and in the parallel passage, Luke 12:8 (cf. Bishop Westcott, on 1 John 2:23). Though the exact phrase is doubtless due to Hebrew influence, yet its choice here is determined by an instinctive feeling that it expresses the union of him who confesses with him who is confessed, while the plain accusative makes no such implication, but only sums up the confession. Bishop Westcott quotes Heracleon’s comment on Luke 12:8. "With good reason Christ says of those who confess him in me (ὁμολογήσειἐνἐμοί), but of those who deny him me (ἀρνήσηταίμε) only. For these even it’ they confess him with their voice deny him, since they confess him not in their action. But they alone make confession in him who live in the confession and action that accords with him; in whom also he makes confession, having himself embraced them, and being held first by them". Before men (τῶνἀνθρώπων); Luke 12:17, note, and Matthew 6:1, note. Him. Not in any position of emphasis in the Greek. Will I confess also (cf. Revelation 3:5) before my Father. Not merely "the Father," but him who is in the closest relationship to me; the thought is of salvation as well as of creation. Which is in heaven. In nature, love; in position, majesty and omnipotence. Matthew 10:33 Besides the parallel passage, Luke 12:9, cf. the similar thought in Mark 8:38 (parallel passages: Luke 9:26; Matthew 16:27). But whosoever shall deny me before men. Kubel compares St. Peter’s words, "I know not the man" (Matthew 26:74). Him will I also deny. The emphasis is on "deny" (cf. 2 Timothy 2:12; Ign., ’Smyrn.,’ § 5). Before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:34-39 Fellowship with me will involve separation from the dearest upon earth, yet the reward is great. (Cf. Matthew 10:5, note.) The progress of thought in these verses seems to be as follows: Do not be surprised at the contradiction that appears between my teaching and the immediate result; I allowed for this when I began my work (Matthew 10:34). There will, indeed, be separation in the closest earthly ties (Matthew 10:35, Matthew 10:36). But my claims are paramount (Matthew 10:37, Matthew 10:38). And on your relation to them depends everything hereafter (Matthew 10:39). Matthew 10:34 Parallel passage: Luke 12:51. Think not. Christ here removes another mistaken opinion (Matthew 5:17, note). There the mistake was about his relation to the Law; here about the immediate result of his coming. The Prince of Peace did not come to cast in peace as something from outside. It would show itself eventually, but from within outwards. That which he cast from without was fire (Luke 12:49), a sword (infra). Chrysostom (’Hem.,’ 35.) points out, among other illustrations, that the confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel was better than the peace which preceded it, and itself produced a better peace. That I am come; that I came (Revised Version); cf. further, Matthew 5:17, note. To send peace (βαλεῖνεἰρήνην). The verb was probably chosen because in the other form of the utterance Christ had already said πῦρβαλεῖν, where the figure is of throwing a firebrand (Luke 12:49). By a natural transition, that phrase led to the thought of "throwing" peace or a sword. St. Luke, on the contrary, softened the metaphor to δοῦναι. On (the, Revised Version) earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:35 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 11:1 Matthew only. And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end. The same formula recurs in Matthew 7:28; Matthew 13:53; Matthew 19:1; Matthew 26:1. In all five cases it marks the end of important speeches. (1) The sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7:27); (2) the charge to the disciples (Matthew 10:5-42); (3) the parables (Matthew 13:1-52); (4) discourses to the disciples (Matthew 18:1-35.); (5) prophecies about the end of the world, etc. (Matthew 24:1-51., 25.).. for the bearing that this has upon the sources of the Gospel. Of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence. Whence? We have no knowledge. Perhaps the place had been named in the original context, from which the discourse was derived. Matthew 9:35 suggests that it was some place on his journey (cf. Alford), hut our verse in itself implies rather some fixed centre of work, e.g. Capernaum. To teach and to preach in their cities. If he ceases to speak at length, it is that he may begin more aggressive work (cf. Matthew 7:28, Matthew 7:29; Matthew 13:53, Matthew 13:54). Their. It is hardly by accident that the word recurs, with the same reference, as it seems, to the Jews generally, in the passages just quoted (cf. Matthew 12:9, note). Matthew 11:2-24 JESUS THE ONE THAT SHOULD COME. (1) Matthew 11:2-6: The Baptist’s question, and its answer: the Coming One has come. (2) Matthew 11:7-15: Jesus’ recognition of the greatness of John as herald. (3) Verses 16-19: Yet both John and he himself are rejected. (4) Verses 20-24: Woe on those who disregard the signs of God’s work. Matthew 11:2-6 The Baptist’s question, and its answer. Parallel passage: Luke 7:18-23. Matthew 11:2 Now when John had (omit, with the Revised Version) heard in the prison; i.e. Machaerus (Schurer, 1. 2:27; comp. Matthew 3:1, note; Matthew 14:1, note). Matthew alone tells us that he was already in prison. The works of Christ; of the Christ (Revised Version); τοῦΧριστοῦ. Not the proper name, but the official title (Matthew 1:16,Matthew 1:17, notes). The title may be merely due to the evangelist’s narrative, or may represent the actual terms in which the message was brought to John. It brings out the pathos of the situation. John had prepared the way of the Christ, and had at the baptism taken part in his anointing. Yet of all the works that the Christ now did there was none to set his kinsman and herald free. He sent two of his disciples; by his disciples (Revised Version). Possibly the slight difference between διά, the true reading here, and δύο, which is genuine in Luke, points to the common source (observe here a Greek source) having been written, but with the close similarity in sound this need not have been the case. Observe that the true reading lays slightly more emphasis on the fact of the inquiry coming from John himself (vide infra). "Sent by" is the equivalent of the Hebrew דיב חלש (Exodus 4:13; 1 Samuel 16:20; 1 Kings 2:25; comp. also Revelation 1:1). Matthew 11:3 And said unto him. The question was brought from John; the answer is sent back to him (verse 4). This points to the cause of the question lying ultimately, not with his disciples, but with himself. Although John might justly fear that they would follow him rather than Jesus (cf. Matthew 9:14, note), yet he seems to have made this inquiry for his own sake. He who stood on the Jewish side of the threshold of the kingdom (verse 11) did not understand the methods by which the King was acting, and thus his faith was tried. In this he recalls his great prototype, whose plans seemed to have failed and his boldness to have done no good (1 Kings 19:13, 1 Kings 19:14). To both the answer implied that success was assured to quiet spiritual work. Art thou (emphatic) he that should come? he that cometh (Revised Version); ὁἐρχόμενος (comp. Matthew 3:11, note). The title was probably derived from Psalms 118:26, and would become the more known from the LXX. of Habakkuk 2:3 (comp. Hebrews 10:37), and perhaps also from a directly Messianic interpretation of Gen 49:10. Or do we look for. The word (προσδοκῶμεν) contains no thought of looking about for, but only of earnest expectation. Another? Ἕτερον, and so in Luke 7:19; but ἄλλον in Luke 7:20. Observe that in both records the evangelist’s own summary of John’s message speaks of a difference in kind, but that in the form given by the messengers (Luke 7:20) it is only a matter of a second person coming (comp. Galatians 1:6, Galatians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 12:8, etc.; 1 Corinthians 15:39, etc.). John’s disciples, that is to say, are represented as failing to catch the point of their master’s question whether he must look, after all, for a Messiah who acts differently from the way in which Jesus acts. Matthew 11:4 Jesus; and Jesus (Revised Version, with even the Received Text). Answered and said unto them. He makes no verbal self-defence, but appeals to the effects of his work. Observe that a similar appeal to effects of the same character as those mentioned here—restoration to normal powers and bringing spiritual truths home to the poorest—is still the great argument for the Messiahship of Jesus. Go; go your way (Revised Version); πορευθέντες (cf. Matthew 11:7). And show John again; and tell John (Revised Version); for ἀπαγγέλλω does not in itself contain the idea of bringing word in answer to an inquiry, but merely emphasizes the source or place from which the message comes (Matthew 8:33; cf. Bishop Westcott on 1 John 1:2, 1 John 1:5). Those (the, Revised Version) things which ye do hear and see. Observe that in Luke (1) the order of the verbs is reversed; (2) the tense is not the present, as here, but the aorist, the miracles being regarded from the point of time when the disciples had returned to John. The present tense in Matthew brings out what St. Luke had already indicated by his preceding explanatory verse that the messengers arrived when the Lord was actually performing miracles. Matthew 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear (and, Revised Version), the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. The first and the last of the examples selected by our Lord are fulfilments or’ prophecy (Isaiah 61:1). Observe that (1) the words are taken from the LXX. (εὐαγγελίσασθαιπτωχοις … τυφλοῖςἀνάβλεψιν), which, perhaps, represents a different reading from the Massoretic text (cf. Cheyne, in loc., ’Critical Note’). (2) Our Lord reverses the order of the expressions, taking the restoration of sight to the blind as the commencement of a series of physical miracles, and thus making spiritual work the climax. (3) He does not quote Isaiah’s phrase, "liberty to the captives," although the quotation of its context could not but suggest it to John, the reason being, it would seem, that he desired to call John’s attention away from the more political part of Messiah’s work to that which alone forms the basis of permanent political improvement—the restoration of the individual. (4) In accordance with this is the fact that when he was laying stress on the character of his adherents as the one qualification for sharing in his kingdom, he alluded to the same passage of Isaiah (vide Matthew 5:3-5). John was not wholly emancipated from the Jewish tendency to regard the external results of the kingdom; our Lord’s mind dwelt rather on the internal results. Although John’s difficulty had been felt when he heard of the works (verse 2, note), our Lord only said in reply, "Tell him of my works." It was an old message, and yet a new one. In the nature of those works, when fully understood, lay the true solution of his difficulty. Observe that here also Christ adds a Beatitude (verse 6). The blind (Matthew 9:27, note), (and the lame. The "and" is doubtless genuine here, its omission in some manuscripts being due to the parallel passage in Luke. Observe the rhythm, "blind and lame," "lepers and deaf," "and dead and poor." Perhaps this is the result of oral transmission. The lame walk (Isaiah 35:6). The dead are raised up. "Quod novissime factum erat juveni Nainitico". The gospel; good tidings. Matthew 11:6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended (Matthew 5:29, note) in me; shall find none occasion of stumbling in me (Revised Version). But exhibits perfect trust under delay and disappointment (James 1:12). Matthew 11:7-15 Jesus’ recognition of the greatness of John as herald. Verses 7-11: parallel passage: Luke 7:24-28. Matthew 11:7 And as they departed; and as these went their way (Revised Version). Fulfilling his command (Matthew 11:4). It’ we may combine the language of St. Matthew and St. Luke ("when the messengers of John were departed"), we may say that they had left the circle immediately round our Lord, but were hardly further than the outskirts of the crowd. What went ye out into the wilderness to see? to behold (Revised Version); θεάσασθαι (cf. θέατρον,). It almost suggests that they went out as though to see a spectacle. They were stirred by no deeper motive. Bengel compares John 5:35. A reed shaken with the wind? If the reed referred to by our Lord was the papyrus, which still grows freely in certain parts of the Jordan valley, the description of this plant in ’Rob Roy on the Jordan,’ John 17:1-26., is specially interesting: "There is first a lateral trunk, lying on the water and half-submerged. This is sometimes as thick as a man’s body, and from its lower side hang innumerable string-like roots from three to five feet long, and of a deep purple colour .. These pendent roots … retard much of the surface-current where the papyrus grows On the upper surface of the trunks the stems grow alternately in oblique rows;, their thickness at the junction is often four inches, and their height fifteen feet, gracefully tapering until at the top is a little round knob, with long, thin brown, wire-like hairs eighteen inches long, which rise and then, recurving, hang about it in a thyrsus-shaped head." He also says, "The whole jungle of papyrus was floating upon the water, and so the waves raised by the breeze were rocking the green curtain to and fro." This explained "a most curious hissing, grinding, bustling sound, that was heard like waves upon a shingly beach," as "the papyrus stems were rubbing against each other as they nodded out and in." It is, however, much more probable that the reed referred to was "the Arundo donax, a very tall cane, growing twelve feet high, with a magnificent panicle of blossom at the top, and so slender and yielding that it will lie perfectly fiat under a gust of wind, and immediately resume its upright position." It grows especially on the western side of the Dead Sea. To our Lord’s question no answer was needed. John had rejected the overtures of the nationalists (John 1:19-21), and had not feared to rebuke a king (Matthew 14:4). Matthew 11:8 Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. Menahem the Essene was by the wish of Herod the Great made deputy to Hillel in the Sanhedrin, but afterwards left his office. "Whither did he go out? Abai said. He went out to destruction. Rabba said, He went out for the service of the king. There is also a Baraitha [i.e. an ’uncanonical’ Mishna] to this effect, that Menahem went out for the service of the king, and there went out with him eighty pairs of disciples clothed in Syrian robes" (Talm. Bab., ’Chagigah,’ 16b, edit. Streane). It has been conjectured, though hardly on sufficient evidence, that our Lord was thinking of this ease; but the Talmudic passage at least illustrates the gorgeousness of the apparel of the courtiers, and suggests the luxury of living that St. Luke speaks of ("They which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts"). It is, however, only fair to Menahem to say that Gratz is able to suppose that he merely went back again to his solitude. Matthew 11:9 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? But wherefore went ye out? To see a prophet? (Revised Version). Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. Our Lord accepts their estimate of John, but says that it is insufficient. He thus passes on to show the relation in which John stood to himself. John was more than a prophet such as they thought of, for he was "the subject as well as the vehicle of prophecy" (Alford), and was the immediate forerunner of the great King. More than; much more than (Revised Version). Περισσότερομν is probably neuter, for this not only agrees with τι, but emphasizes the thought more than the masculine (cf. Matthew 12:6, note). Matthew 11:10 For. Omitted in the Revised Version. It is here an explanatory gloss, though genuine in Matthew 3:3. This is he, of whom it is written. Our Lord justifies his assertion of John’s unique position. Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Malachi 3:1, not from the LXX., but freely from the Hebrew, which runs, "Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me." Observe in Matthew (1) "thy way" (2) "before thee," instead of "before me;" (3) the first clause is made to end with nearly the same phrase as the second, Matthew’s form is the more rhythmical, perhaps because of oral repetition. Luke (Luke 7:27), save for the omission of ἐγώ, is the same; Mark (Mark 1:2) only omits ἐγώ and "before thee." Christ does not hesitate to apply to himself a prophecy of the coming of God, nor did the early Church shrink from recording this of him. Such an application of an Old Testament passage Bengel calls "luclentissimum argumentum Deitatis Christi." (On this subject, of. Bishop Westcott, Add. Note on Hebrews 3:7.) Matthew 11:11 Verily. Matthew only. This solemn asseveration (Matthew 5:18, nine) would the more remind them of their duty towards John; and, if its force may be extended to the next clause, call their attention the more forcibly to his being only the herald of better things. I say unto you, Among them that are born of women (Job 14:1) there hath not risen. These last words have the emphasis in the Greek, οὐκἐγήγερται, i.e. to work and energy as a prophet (Luke 7:16; Matthew 24:11, Matthew 24:24). A greater than John the Baptist. This seems almost less praise than verse 9. But our Lord probably intended to tacitly meet the objection that Moses or Abraham was to be listened to rather than John (cf. Matthew 3:9, note). Notwithstanding (yet, Revised Version) he that is least (but little, Revised Version, ὁδὲμικότερος: cf. μείζων, Matthew 18:1) in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. The weakest Christian is greater in privileges than the greatest of the Old Testament saints. John could preach repentance, but the joys of redemption he knew nothing of. He is therefore judged according to the rule, "Minimum maximi mains est maximo minimi". Matthew 11:12 It is curious that in St. Luke’s account of this speech of our Lord’s he should omit our verses 12-14 (on verse 15, see note there), thus leaving out all Christ’s plainer and more direct teaching about the relation of John to himself. St. Luke places (Luke 16:16) our verses 12 and 13 in what appears to be merely a cento of sayings. Possibly the original occasion has been recorded by neither evangelist, but in Matthew the passage certainly brings out the thought upon which our Lord was insisting on this occasion. And. Slightly adversative (δέ), for there is a change of subject. Christ urges his hearers to more definitely range themselves under his banner. From the days of John the Baptist until now. Yet this was not more than a few months! Possibly the sentence had become modified in oral teaching, so as to include many years, say up to a.d. 50 or 60. St. Luke’s ἀπὸτότε is easy enough. Observe the implied success of John’s work as herald. He so prepared the way that men were eager to enter the kingdom which he had said was at hand. The kingdom of heaven. The realm ruled over by Messiah, of which the then community of believers was the earnest. Suffereth violence (βιάζεται). In Luke it is middle, "Every man entereth violently into it;" and though it is certainly passive here, St. Luke’s phrase compels us to understand the reason of the violence to be entrance into the kingdom. The kingdom is not ill treated, but it is as it were taken by storm (Meyer). Nosgen strangely understands the phrase to mean that the kingdom is set forward with power, and he would apparently see in "the violent" a special reference to our Lord and John. And the violent; and men of violence (Revised Version); καὶβιασταί: only they; men whose mind is made up and who care not what force and power they employ to attain their object. Take it by force; ἁρπάζζουσιναὐτήν, "grasp it for themselves," like rough and violent bandits seizing their prey. Weiss sees in this verse blame of the politico-Messianic endeavours to hasten the completion of the kingdom. This explanation is good in itself (cf. John 6:15), but disconnects the verse from its context. Our Lord is describing the energy with which some souls are pressing in, and urging the need of such energy if salvation is to be obtained. Matthew 11:13 For. It is only right that there should be such a seizing of the kingdom of heaven, for in a certain sense the function of the prophets and the Law ceased with John. All. Not one alone, but all, however various their teaching. The prophets and the law. In Luke (Luke 16:16) the Law is mentioned first, because the context is there dealing chiefly with the Law. Here our Lord has said that John was more than a prophet, and he naturally continues to speak of prophets first. The mention of the Law comes in almost as an afterthought, and yet without it the Jews might have fallen back on the Law when the prophets failed them (cf. verse 11, note). Prophesied. Including the ideas both of predicting Messiah and of making known the will of God (cf. Matthew 5:19, note). Until John. The message of the written Word was considered as active—the prophets and the Law still spoke—until, in tact, he came who was the close of that epoch. Matthew 11:14 In Matthew only. And if ye will receive it. Our Lord gives the information plainly, but doubts if it will be of any use to them. Will (θέλετε). For the reception of a truth depends upon the attitude of the will In this case to acknowledge John as Elijah would mean to accept the present consequences of that reformation which Elijah was to bring about (Malachi 4:6). But "the human will has a natural disinclination to cultivate and sharpen the conscience in combination with the knowledge of the law, has no desire to look into this mirror, and men as a rule desire to have quite a different picture of themselves from that which conscience shows them". It. My statement. Not him, i.e. John, with Revised Version margin. This (αὐτός). He and no other (John 1:21). Is Elias. In spiritual work, not in identity of person (John 1:21). (On the Jewish expectation of the return of Elijah, see Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.,’ on Matthew 17:10.) Which was for to come; which is to come (Revised Version). The phrase ὁμέλλωνἔρχεσθαι) is perhaps best understood, not as an independent remark by our Lord about Elijah, but as a current saying, representing the popular expectation of him, and adopted by our Lord, who gave it his own interpretation. It can hardly point also to a yet future coming of the prophet. But compare Bishop Westcott, on John 1:21, and Schurer, II. 2:156. Matthew 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. A solemn exhortation, often spoken by our Lord at the close of an utterance. See Matthew 13:9, 43; Mark 4:23; Luke 14:35. It means—You are all formed by nature to learn God’s commands; answer, therefore, to your powers, and obey him. See Psalms 40:6 (cf. Hebrews 10:5). Matthew 11:16-19 Yet both John and he himself are rejected, though the results of their efforts were such as to fully justify the apparent difference of their methods. Parallel passage. Luke 7:31-35. Matthew 11:16, Matthew 11:17 But. In contrast to the obedience asked for in Matthew 11:15, this generation closes its ears. Whereunto shall I liken. A common rabbinic phrase, which is often found in the fuller form recorded in Luke, "Whereunto shall I liken … and to what are they like?" (see Matthew 7:24, note). This generation?. It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. There are two ways of understanding the illustration which our Lord here uses. (1) Many modern commentators insist on the grammar and on the historical order in which the complaints are made, and believe that the Jews correspond to the pipers and the mourners, while it is John that refuses to rejoice, and our Lord that will not be sad. (2) But the more usual interpretation is preferable. For (a) in an illustrative saying one has chiefly to regard its general sense; (b) in verses 18, 19 the action of John and of our Lord in "coming" corresponds to the activity of the children; (c) this interpretation seems much more in accordance with the context. The verses are therefore to be understood as meaning- John mourned in urging repentance, our Lord rejoiced in gospel liberty and preaching, but both alike were only ridiculed by the Jews. Markets; marketplaces (Revised Version); for there is no thought of the children helping their elders in traffic. And calling (which call, Revised Version) unto their fellows. Addressing them, but not necessarily noisily (Luke 6:13; Luke 13:12). Matthew 11:18 For John came neither eating (Matthew 3:4) nor drinking (Luke 1:15), and they say, He hath a devil; i.e. he is possessed of strange and melancholy fancies (see Bishop Westcott on John 7:20). Matthew 11:19 The Son of man (Matthew 8:20, note) came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold (ἰδού, simply demonstrative, as in the LXX. of 1 Samuel 24:12; 2 Samuel 24:22) a man gluttonous (a gluttonous man, Revised Version, for the Greek, ἄνθρωποςφάγος, merely reproduced the original Semitic order), and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners (Matthew 9:10, note). A friend. The idea of affection, which through common use of the words has fallen so much into the background both in the Greek φίλος and our English "friend," is brought out clearly in the Syriac roh’mo, which is, perhaps, the very word that our Lord spoke. But; and (Revised Version); καί: i.e. and yet, whatever you may say. Wisdom; i.e. the Divine wisdom, by which all creation was made (Proverbs 8:22-31; Wis. 7:22), and which is the source of all true understanding (Proverbs 8:12-16), particularly of the will of God (Wis. 7:27, 28; comp. Luke 11:49, "The Wisdom of God" speaking in Scripture). Is justified (ἐδικαιώθη). The aorist is used either as expressing what is wont to happen, or perhaps as expressing the completeness of the justi fication, (cf. ἐβλήθη, John 15:6). Nosgen, contrary to New Testament usage, under stands ἐδικαιώθη as meaning "is condemned because of her works" ("So haben sie die Weisheit... um ihrer Werke willen ve rurtheilt"), but the ordinary interpreta tion holds good that she is acquitted of any error or wrong. Of her children; works (Revised Version); ἀπὸτῶνἔργωναὐτῆς, with the Sinaitic manuscript and the original hand of the Vatican, besides some of the versions. The common reading, τέκνων, has come from Luke. In these words lie the chief difficulty of this difficult sentence. Of (ἀπό) may be used of agents (comp. James 1:13; James 5:4: Luke 6:18, almost as though it were ὑπό), but it is more natural to understand it here of the causes or reasons for the verdict. And ἀπό thus gives au excellent sense. Our Lord says that the Divine Wisdom is justified in the minds of men from the results she brings about. Of what is he thinking? Doubtless moral results, and probably those found in the change that might be seen in the publicans and sinners of which he has just been speaking. The Divine Wisdom, which appeared to the careless and unsympathetic so strange and changeable in her methods, is, notwithstanding, pronounced to be in the right, because of the results of her activity, the men and the women brought under her influence. These κανιναὶκτίσεις (2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15) are always the best justification of misunderstood plans. While, however, this seems the best interpretation of the sentence as recorded in Matthew, it must be confessed that in Luke it appears more natural to understand "her children" as those who justify her; and further, this was probably St. Luke’s own interpretation. For he seems to purposely give an explanation of the apothegm in the verses (Luke 7:29, Luke 7:30) by which he joins the equivalent of our verses 16-19 to the equivalent of our verse 11. He there tells us that all the people and the publicans "justified God," having been baptized with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s plan towards them, not having been baptized by him. Wisdom’s children justified her; others did not. Anyhow, ἔργων would appear to be the more original of the two terms, for with the explanation preferred above, τέκνων would be very easily derived from it. It may, indeed, be due to a more primitive confusion between אהָדָבָעֹ ("her works," cf. Ecclesiastes 9:1) and אהָדָּבְעַ ("her servants," Hebrew דבֶעֶ), this last word being commonly rendered δοῦλοι, and, perhaps through παῖδες, even υἱοί and τέκνα, but even then it is unlikely that the former and harder reading should be only due to a mistake for the latter. That the harder and metaphorical should be changed into the easier and more literal, even as early as St. Luke’s time, appears much more probable. Matthew 11:20-24 Woe on those who reject him. The parallel passage, Luke 10:12-15, comes almost at the close of the commission to the seventy. It is represented in the commission reported by St. Matthew by Matthew 10:15 alone, which is almost verbally identical with Matthew 10:24. It is possible that St. Matthew or the author of the source used by him did not care to interrupt the subject of Mat 10:1-42. by inserting more of these verses there, even though that place more nearly represented their original position. Observe that here they are connected with the rejection of John and of our Lord; in Luke, with the rejection of his disciples and of himself in them. Matthew 11:20 In Matthew only. It seems to be a kind of introduction, like verse 7a, perhaps marking verses 20-24 as a fresh section in the discourses. It serves more particularly as an explanation why our Lord especially mentioned these cities. Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works (Matthew 7:22, note) were done, because they repented not. "Quilibet auditor Nov. Test. est nut multo beetler (verse 11) ant multo miserior antiquis" (Bengel). Matthew 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin. The modern Kerazeh, two miles from the northwest bank of the sea of Galilee. Among its ruins are the remains of a synagogue. The corn of both it and Kephar Ahim (probably Capernaum)was so excellent as to make R. Jose say that, had they been nearer Jerusalem, it would have been used for the temple offerings. Woe unto thee, Bethsaida. Schurer (I. Matthew 2:14; compare, however, II. 1:136) thinks that this is probably not identical with the large town Bethsaida Julias on the east bank of the Jordan as it enters the sea of Galilee. It is, perhaps, Khan Minyeh (Nosgen), and if so was a little south-west of Capernaum. For if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon. The transposition of parts of these clauses in the Revised Version approaches more closely the order of the Greek, and better Dreserves the double emphasis there given. Tyro and Sidon (Ezekiel 28:1-26.). They would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Jonah 3:6; Daniel 9:3; Esther 4:1; comp. also Job 2:8; 2 Samuel 3:31; and Ezekiel’s description of the effect of Tyre’s punishment upon her princes, Ezekiel 26:16). Matthew 11:22 But; πλήν: howbeit (Revised Version). Setting this aside (comp. Bishop Lightfoot, on Philippians 3:16); whatever might have been does not matter; this shall be. I say unto yon, It shall be more tolerable for Tyro and Sidon at the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15, note) than for you. "Pessimis pejores event et insanabiliores" (Wetstein). Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum (Matthew 4:13, note), which art exalted unto heaven; Shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? (Revised Version); Μὴἕωςοὐρανοῦὑψωθήσῃ; i.e. Shalt thou be raised high in public estimation, as thou thinkest, who art so proud of thy share in the busy and gay life on the lakeside? Shalt be brought down to hell; thou shalt go down unto Hades (Revised Version). The change of voice in the two clauses (ὑψωθήση … καταβήσῃ) may imply that if thou ’art indeed raised, it will be by Another; but if thou fallest, it will be by thyself. Observe that our Lord’s words are an adaptation of Isaiah’s address to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:13-15). For if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom (transposed in the Revised Version, as in verse 21), it would have remained until this day. In this verso the stress lies on the effect of the moral attitude; in verse 21, on the moral attitude itself. Matthew 11:24 (see notes supra, Matthew 11:20-24 and Matthew 10:15). Matthew 11:25-30 In close connexion with the preceding. Matthew 11:25, Matthew 11:26 Christ professes his full acceptance of his Father’s plan, on both its sides. Matthew 11:27 And says that all his work is due to and conditioned by the Father. Matthew 11:28-30 Yet freely invites all to him. Observe that, whether by "accident" or "design," Matthew 11:25-30 are a statement of the good news contained in the expression, "Jesus the Son of God," while Matthew 12:1-8 leads us to regard him as the Son of man. Matthew 11:25-27 Parallel passage: Luke 10:21, Luke 10:22, where the verses are recorded immediately after the return of the seventy. We know no other occasion which would be so likely to evoke this utterance. Although it is just possible that the seventy returned when our Lord was addressing the people in the manner related in the preceding verses of this chapter, it seems much more likely that a sense of a moral and not of a temporal connexion guided St. Matthew in his arrangement. What is true in a time of success (Luke 10:17, Luke 10:18) is equally true in a time of failure (verses 20-24). Observe the difference in the style of verse 27 (Luke 10:22) from that of verses 25, 26, suggesting the use of another, apparently Johannine, source. But this must have been added before either St. Matthew or St. Luke incorporated the passage. Observe that the comparatively early date thus indicated for Johannine phraseology suggests that the language and form of the Fourth Gospel underwent a long process of development before St. John completed his work. Matthew 11:25 At that time; season (Revised Version); ἐνἐκείνῳτῷκαιρῷ. St. Luke’s phrase ("in that very hour," ἐναὐτῇτῇὥρᾳ) is more precise, definitely connecting the utterance with the return of the seventy. St. Matthew’s refers rather to that stage or period in his ministry (cf. Matthew 12:1; Matthew 14:1). Jesus answered. Only in Matthew. If we could suppose this to be the original context of the passage, the" answer" would probably refer to some expression of astonishment or complaint at his solemn statement in verses 20-24. Professor Marshall’s derivation of both "answered" and "rejoiced" (Luke) from a common Aramaic original appears very strained. And said, I thank thee; better, as the Revised Version margin, praise (ἐξομολογοῦμαίσοι). There is no thought of gratitude, but of publicity in assent (Luke 22:6), in confession (Matthew 3:6) and in acknowledgment (Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:11), and thus of praise (Joshua 7:19; Ezra 10:11 (Lucian); 2 Chronicles 30:22; Romans 15:9). It implies a profession of personal acceptance by Christ of God’s methods. "I profess to thee my entire and joyful acquiescence in what thou doest." Hence St. Luke introduces the utterance by ἠγαλλάσατο, adding τῷπνεύματιτῷἁγίῳ, thus giving us a glimpse of the unity of purpose and feeling inherent in the Trinity, even during the time that the Word "tabernacled among us." O Father. Father occurs in Matthew 6:9; Matthew 26:39; Luke 23:1-56. 34, 46: John 11:41; John 12:27; John 17:1; in fact, in all the recorded prayers of our Lord except Matthew 27:46, which is a quotation, and where the phrase, "My God, my God," emphasizes his sense of desolation. The word expresses perfect relationship and intimate communion. It points to the trust, the love, and the obedience of Christ, and to the depth of natural affection and confidence between him and the First Person of the Trinity. It suggests mercies in the past, care in the present, and provision for the future. Lord of heaven and earth. Acts 17:24, by St. Paul, who may have derived it from these words of our Lord, or perhaps from Psalms 146:6 or Isaiah 42:5. As "Father" was the note of personal relationship, so is this of sovereign majesty. Christ unites the thought of God’s love to himself with that of his ownership of all creation, thus paving the way for the main subject of the prayer—his Father’s method of dealing with men of various kinds and tempers. Because; that (Revised Version), perhaps as more idiomatic with "thank." But ὅτι here gives, not the contents of the "thanksgiving," but the reason for it. Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. The laws by which religious impressions are received, whether ultimately for good or for evil (2 Corinthians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 2:16; John 9:39), are here attributed to God. Observe that the sentence is not a kind of hendiadys, but that Christ accepts his Father’s action in both directions. The one is the subject of his entire acquiescence as much as the other. Hast hid … hast revealed. The aorists (cf. Isaiah 42:19, note) may be understood here as either (1) describing what took place in each case, or (2) regarding God’s action as a whole from the standpoint of the hereafter (cf. Romans 8:29, Romans 8:30). These things. The truths respecting Christ’s teaching and work. In this context the reference would be to the general contents of Isa 42:2-24. From the wise and prudent; i.e. as such (there is no article). For mental excellence and intelligence (vide infra)in themselves cannot grasp spiritual truths, but are, on the contrary, often means by which the veil between man and God is made thicker. On the difference between "wise" (σοφοί) and "prudent" (συνετοί, understanding, Revised Version), see Bishop Lightfoot, on Colossians 1:9. (For the general truth, cf. Job 37:24; 1 Corinthians 1:19-27.) And hast revealed them (Matthew 13:11, note); for even the most guileless heart has no power to see spiritual truths unless God draws back the veil. Unto babes (νηπίοις). The thought is of their helplessness and dependence. In comparison with the Pharisees and scribes, all our Lord’s disciples were little more (cf. Matthew 11:16). Matthew 11:26 Even so; yea (Revised Version); ναί. A renewed acceptance of the immediately preceding facts. Father. In Matthew 11:25, Πάτερ: here, ὁΠατήρ. There the term referred more directly to God as his own Father; here to him as Father of all, notwithstanding the methods he used. For. Giving the reason of Christ’s acceptance. That would make this clause closely dependent on the preceding. But this seems unnatural. So; i.e. in this double method. It seemed good (it was well-pleasing, Revised Version) in thy sight (εὐδοκίαἐγένετο); literally, it was good pleasure before thee—an Aramaism equivalent to "it was thy will" (compare the Targum of Jdg 13:23; 1 Samuel 12:22 [וי מדק אוער]; see also Matthew 18:14). The phrase implies, not merely that it seemed good to God, but that, in a sense, it was his pleasure. For the workings out of the laws of truth must give pleasure to the God of truth. (On the aorist ἐγένετο, see Matthew 11:25, note.) All things. Not in the widest sense, for this would forestall Matthew 28:18 but all things that are required for my work of manifesting the truth. The utterance is thus both closely parallel to John 8:28, and also in most intimate connexion with the preceding verses. God’s twofold action in hiding the truth from some and revealing it to others is, our Lord says, all of a piece with my whole work. This is all arranged by my Father, and the knowledge of God by any man is no chance matter. Are delivered unto me; have been delivered (Revised Version); rather, were delivered (παρεδόθη). Here also it is possible to interpret the aorist from the standpoint of the hereafter (John 8:25, note); but, as it is immediately followed by the present tense, it more probably refers to some time earlier than that at which our Lord was speaking. The time of his entrance on the world naturally suggests itself. Observe when bringing out his dependence upon his Father, our Lord lays stress on the notion of transmission (παρεδόθη); but in Matthew 28:18, where he is bringing out his post-resurrection greatness (Philippians 2:9), he merely mentions his authority as an absolute gift (ἐδόθη). Notice the contrast implied in παρεδόθη to the Jewish παράδοσις. The Pharisees boasted that their tradition came from God, though through many hands; Christ claimed to have received his from God himself. Of (ὑπό). For the transmission was immediate; there were no links between the Giver and the Receiver (cf. Bishop Lightfoot, on Galatians 1:12). My Father; me … my. Observe the double claim; his unique position as Teacher is due to his unique relation by nature. And no man knoweth; i.e. with a gradual, but at last complete, perception (ἐπιγινώσκει). In the Gospels this word is used of the knowledge of God and of Christ in this verse alone, though such a reference is especially suited to its meaning of perfection of know. ledge (cf. Bishop Lightfoot, Colossians 1:9). The Son. Not "me," because Christ wished to bring out more clearly his unique relation to God, and thus to emphasize the impossibility of any one, even an advanced disciple, fully knowing him. But the Father. Not "his Father." It may be that Christ wishes to include the suggestion that after all there is a sense in which his Father is the Father of all men, but more probably, by making ὁπατήρ completely parallel to ὁυἱός, he wishes to suggest that the full idea of Sonship and Fatherhood is nowhere else so fully satisfied. Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. The connexion is—You may think this (i.e. verse 25) strange, but I alone have that knowledge of God which enables me to understand his ways; I alone, yet others also, if I reveal him to them. As St. Luke expressed it in his form of our verse 19, "Wisdom is justified of her children" (comp. also John 14:9). To whomsoever. Though but a babe (verse 25). Will reveal; willeth to reveal (Revised Version); βούληται … ἀποκαλύψαι. Not "is commanded," for Christ claims equality (see Chrysostom). Notice the idea of plan and deliberation, and not that of mere desire, unable, perhaps, to assign a reason for its existence (θέλω); cf. Philemon 1:13, Philemon 1:14. In Matthew only. Verse 28: An invitation to all who need him, and an unconditioned promise of welcome. Verse 29: A summons to submit to his teaching, and a promise that those who do so shall find rest in it. Verse 30: For his "service is perfect freedom." Notice the sharp contrast between the width of this invitation and the apparent limitation of the preceding statement (verse 27). The truths of prevenient grace and man’s free-will may not be separated. Matthew 11:28 Come (δεῦτε); Matthew 4:19, note. There is less thought of the process of coming than in the very similar invitation in John 7:37. Unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden. The toilers and burdened (οἱκοπιῶντεςκαὶπεφορτισμένοι). Our Lord purposely did not define in what the toil and burden consisted; for he would include all, from whatever quarter their toil and burden came. But since the spiritual is the central part of man (Matthew 5:3, note), the more that the toil or burden is felt there so much the stronger would our Lord’s reference to it be. He would therefore be inviting most especially those that toil in legal ways of righteousness (Romans 10:2, Romans 10:3), and are burdened under Pharisaic enactments (Luke 11:46). And I. Emphatic (κἀγώ). However others may treat you. Will give you rest (ἀναπαύσωὑμᾶς). Not to be identified with the phrase in John 7:29 (see there). As contrasted with παύω (see Bishop Lightfoot, on Philemon 1:7 and on Ignat., ’Ephesians,’ § 2), ἀναπαύω refers to temporary rather than permanent cessation from work, and it thus especially connotes refreshment of body and soul obtained through such rest. In confortuity with this we find ἀνάπαυσις regularly used in the LXX. as a translation of sabbathon ("sabbath-keeping," e.g. Exodus 16:23, for which σαββατισμός comes in Hebrews 4:9 as an equivalent). The thought, therefore, here is not that those who come to Christ will have no more work, but that Christ will give them at once such rest and refreshment of soul that they may be fit for work, should God have any in store for them. Matthew 11:29 Matthew 11:29, Matthew 11:30 have so much in common with both the language and the thought of Ec 51:26, 27, that probably this passage was in our Lord’s mind. It is noteworthy that most of the other signs of acquaintance with Ecclesiasticus are found in the Epistle of St. James. Take my yoke upon you. For there is work to be done, therefore enter on it. The yoke is the service that Christ gives us to do, and therefore implies more than his teaching. This, however, is so important a part of his service, both in itself and as being the means of knowing what he wishes done, that Christ speaks of it as though almost identical with his yoke. And learn of me. The figure of the oxen passes into that of the scholars. The "of" is slightly ambiguous, and may refer to Christ as the Example from which they may draw the lesson for themselves (Matthew 24:32), or as the Teacher who will himself instruct them (Colossians 1:7). The second meaning is more suitable here. (For the thought, comp. John 8:31.) For. The reason why they should learn from him and no other teacher. He alone was what he claimed to teach, therefore he alone could teach it properly, and therefore from him alone could they learn that type of character which they ought to develop. I am. Observe the claim. It is almost greater than that of verse 27. Meek. Primarily, as regards God (Matthew 5:5, note). Receiving in my degree whatever yoke my Father puts on me. And lowly in heart. As regards men. Observe that meek and lowly correspond, though the order is reversed, to "He humbled himself and became obedient" (Philippians 2:8, where ἐταπείνωσενἑαυτόν does not refer to the Incarnation (ἐκένωσενἑαυτόν), but to his relation to others in this world). In heart (Matthew 5:8, note). "Lowly in heart" very nearly corresponds to "he that is of a lowly spirit." Such a person as Christ’s experience shows (Philippians 2:9) "shall obtain honour" (Proverbs 29:23). And ye shall find rest unto your souls. In this learning and service. The words are taken from Jeremiah 6:16 (not the LXX.; cf. also Ecclesiasticus 6:28), where they form the promise given to those that ask for the old paths and walk in the good way of the Divine commandments. But these roads were now more clearly made known in Christ. Observe the full force of the two expressions, I will give you rest (Jeremiah 6:28), and Ye shall find rest. The tired comers are at once refreshed by Christ; these accept his service and teaching, and in performing it find further rest. The first rest may be termed the peace of justification; the second, that of sanctification. Both are obtained through Christ alone, yet they are not to be confused, much less identified, with one another. Matthew 11:30 For. The fact of my giving work will not prevent this rest, but the contrary. My yoke is easy (χρηστός); suave, Latin; "sore" (Wickliffe); "sweete" (Rheims). And so are God’s judgments (Psalms 119:39, ’ Psalms of Solomon,’ 8:38). Contrast Ecclesiasticus 28:19, 20. And my burden is light. For "his commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:3). "Omnia levis suut caritati". Matthew 11:1-6 The message of John. I. His . 1. Its cause. He had heard the works of Christ. He was in prison, in the gloomy fortress of Machaerus. He had been there six months at least, perhaps much longer. But he was not kept wholly without knowledge of the outer world; his disciples were allowed access to him; they related to him the mighty works of the great Prophet of Galilee. Nothing could interest John more deeply. The works were the works of the Christ, the Messiah; such as were attributed to him by the prophets, They would naturally fill the thoughts of the Baptist, and form the great subject of conversation between him and his disciples. 2. Its meaning. "Art thou he that should come, or are we to look for another?" What could the Baptist mean? He had witnessed the descent of the Holy Spirit upon our Lord; he had borne witness that he was the Son of God, the heavenly Bridegroom; he had pointed him out to his own disciples as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world: how could he have any doubt about his Messiahship? Probably he was not the man he had been. The long imprisonment had told upon him. It must have been especially irksome to one who had been so long accustomed to the tree open life of the wilderness. Confinement, enforced inactivity, with no work, no employment for his ardent energies, tamed the spirit that had been so strong. Perhaps he sank at times into seasons of melancholy like Elijah his prototype. It may well have been so: he was a high saint of God, very bold and full of strength, but he was human; and human nature has, and must have, its inconsistencies and weaknesses. No man lives at all times up to his highest level; and it has been often noticed that God’s saints fail sometimes in that very grace which is their most striking characteristic; Elijah, for instance, in courage, Moses in meekness, Peter in steadfastness. John had heard in the prison the works of Christ; but he had heard also from his disciples how he sat at meat with publicans and sinners; he had heard that his apostles had not adopted the ascetic life; he had heard that he had not publicly announced himself as the Messiah. It may be that he was somewhat; disappointed. He longed for something decisive; he longed, perhaps, to see the wrath of God manifested against the profligacy of Herod, against the hollow hypocrisy of the Pharisees. He wished, perhaps, to urge Jesus to declare himself openly, to use his Divine power to put down sin and to introduce the reign of righteousness; he wished to accelerate the march of the Divine purpose, tie had waited long; and now he had been a whole winter, perhaps more, cooped up in prison. It is no wonder if he became sometimes impatient; no wonder if the reports which he heard of the teaching and actions of Jesus, so holy, and yet in some respects so unlike his own, disappointed and perplexed him. He would have been more than human if, under such circumstances, his faith had never failed him. Holy Scripture presents to us men as they really were. It does not draw ideal pictures; it exhibits the imperfections as well as the graces of holy men. We should be very thankful for this. It is one of the secondary evidences of the simple truthfulness of God’s Word, and it offers to us a more interesting study, a more encouraging lesson. An ideal character has far less human interest than the actual portrait of a real man; and the thought that the saints of the Bible, who conquered in the fight and won the crown of life, were partakers of our sins and weaknesses is full of encouragement and help to us. Doubtless the result of the message tended to strengthen the Faith of the messengers; but to suppose that this was the one object of the message seems to introduce an element of unreality into the Baptist’s conduct. "Art thou he that should come?" There is a wavering sometimes, an agonizing doubt in the hearts of the best of God’s servants. It comes from the temptations of the evil one; it arises sometimes, as perhaps in the case of the Baptist, partly from physical causes. The mortal body weigheth down the mind; it is to good men the most distressing of trials. The Baptist sent to the Lord in his difficulties; he put the question to him clearly and plainly. So we must come direct to Christ when we are troubled with the like perplexities. He will be gracious unto us, as he was to John, as he was to Thomas. He will give us peace in believing, helping us to persevere, like the Baptist, steadfast unto the end. "Are we to look for another?" No; there is none other Saviour, no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. We look only for him, for fuller manifestations of his grace; we look for his coming, when he shall make this body of our humiliation like unto the body of his glory. II. THE LORD’S ANSWER. 1. He directs the messengers to his works. He does not affirm his Messiahship in words; he did so to the woman of Samaria; he did so to the man born blind; now he points to his works. The Lord adapts his teaching to the circumstances of each case, to the different characters, the varying spiritual needs of his disciples. Deeds are more convincing than words. If we would convince others of the deep reality of the experiences of personal religion, we must show its power in our lives. Words, glowing descriptions, will not convince; we must exhibit in the quiet, humble life of holiness the power of the Lord working in our hearts. The lives of God’s saints are the best evidence to unbelievers of the strength of Christian motives, and of the reality of the promised help of the Holy Spirit; they are the facts which prove the presence and the energy of the great Cause. 2. What those works were. (1) they were the works of the Christ, his proper works, the works attributed to him by the prophets. They proved that Jesus was the Christ; they were signs, evidences of his Divine origin, of his sacred office. John’s disciples had now seen some of these great works with their own eyes; they were to report to their master the things which riley had seen and heard. There is no evidence like that of an eye-witness. Such is the evidence of the apostles: "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." It is the best evidence which we can give to others of the power of the Christ now: "We know it, we have felt it;" but only those whose lives are pure and holy can give that most convincing proof. (2) They were works of mercy; they were wonders, such as might be expected from the Son of God. The presence of God in the world could not be without some attestation; it must bring with it accompanying miracles. The Incarnation, the most mysterious of miracles, seems to necessitate a train of lesser miracles; it could not stand alone; an event of such overwhelming magnitude must imply momentous issues, and must be surrounded by stupendous circumstances. (3) But among these miracles of power there is one miracle of grace. "The poor have the gospel preached to them." It was a strange thing then—a thing unheard of. The Gentile teachers despised the poor and ignorant; so did the Jewish rabbis (John 7:49). It was Christianity that first taught men to care for the poor, Christ who first set the holy example. It was a change, a miraculous change wrought among the nations by the power of Christ’s religion. Isaiah had mentioned it as one of the works of the Christ (Isaiah 61:1). And still to care really for the poor, to teach them, to preach Christ to them, is one of the marks of genuine piety and love of Christ. These were the appointed works of the Christ. They had been wrought by the Lord Jesus. He was the Christ: there was no room for doubt. 3. The blessedness of simple faith. Some were offended. They found stumbling-blocks in our Lord’s humility, in the lowliness of his earthly surroundings, in his tenderness to outcasts and sinners, in his long-suffering patience, in his delay to execute judgment. Perhaps John the Baptist himself found for a time a stumbling-block in some of these things. Blessed is he who is not offended in Christ; who recognizes Christ’s spiritual greatness, Christ’s infinite goodness, Christ’s deep and holy love. Blessed is he who sees nothing in Christ to repel, but everything to attract and to convince. He is blessed, for he will find in Christ all that he needs—peace, comfort, hope, rest for his soul. Such blessedness, we may be sure, the holy Baptist found, even if he wavered for a moment through that human frailty which belonged even to his exalted character. LESSONS. 1. God’s saints are not perfect; follow them, but as they followed Christ. 2. Trials of faith will come; be steadfast, looking unto Jesus. 3. Go straight to him in all your difficulties. 4. Meditate much on his holy life; it is one of the greatest helps to faith. Matthew 11:7-19 The Lord’s testimony to John the Baptist. I. HIS . 1. He was no reed shaken by the wind. The multitudes who had now heard John’s message and the Lord’s answer had once gone into the wilderness to see the Baptist, drawn thither by the powerful attraction of his preaching and character. What had they found there? Were they disappointed? Was he unlike the report which they had heard of him? Was he weak, vacillating, wavering hither and thither like the reeds that grew on the banks of Jordan? No; he was one of the strongest of men. They must not misunderstand him; they must not judge him harshly. He had shown some disappointment, it may be, some impatience. The Christ, whom he had so gladly welcomed, had not in all respects fulfilled his expectations; some doubts had perplexed his soul. But who was there born of women who was always steadfast, absolutely independent of outward circumstances and mental depression? John was a great and holy man, an example of firm and constant courage. We must honour good men; we must not magnify the occasional weaknesses which must appear even in the noblest lives. Envious men exaggerate these little blemishes; the world loves to dwell upon the faults of God’s people. Christ teaches us to admire the beauty of holiness, and not to talk about the imperfections which must be found even in real saints. 2. He was no self-indulgent man. He was not clothed in soft raiment, like those courtiers of Herod Antipas who were persecuting him. They lived in kings’ houses; he chose the wilderness for his abode. He was wholly unworldly, a very hero of self-denial. 3. He was a prophet. He was commissioned by God, he spoke for God. But he was more than a prophet, for he himself was the subject of prophecy, and he was (what no other prophet had been) the immediate forerunner of the Christ. He was the messenger of whom that prophet, whose name signifies "My messenger," had spoken. He was the messenger of God, and he prepared the way of God. It is worthy of notice that the words, "Thy way before thee," of the Gospel answer to the words, "The way before me," in the prophecy. In the unity of the Godhead there is a distinction of Personality. The Father sends the Son; the Lord of hosts comes himself; for "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Therefore John was more than a prophet, standing as he did in such very close relations with the Lord of whom the prophets spoke. II. HIS . 1. There had been no greater man than he. From the beginning, through the long years of the world’s history, no one had surpassed John in all that constitutes real greatness. In loftiness of soul, in singleness of purpose, in disinterestedness, in heroic self-denial, he stands almost alone, seldom equalled, never surpassed. Such was the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ. It throws a light from heaven upon the confusion of the world, and shows where real greatness is to be found; not always in king’s houses, not always among the rich, the high born, the luxurious. The greatest of men is he who is nearest to Christ, who humbles himself the most, who most denies himself, who is the most steadfast, the most decided in the cause of religion. True greatness is measured by self-denial, by humility, by devotion, by purity of heart and life. 2. Yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater. What encouragement there is in these words! There had been none greater than John; but the humblest Christian is in some sense greater yet—greater, that is, in privileges, in advantages, in gifts of grace. The kingdom of heaven is the Church of Christ, and all the members of that Church have very high and holy privileges—that fellowship which is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ, the gift of the Spirit, the Word of God, the holy sacraments, all the precious means of grace. "Many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them." John had not seen what the Lord’s disciples saw, he had not heard what we have heard; he knew not the blessed story of the cross. He had not our privileges; he had not the helps which we have. He was not himself a member of the Church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven upon earth. He announced it. Those who are in that kingdom are higher in spiritual privileges than the herald of the kingdom. If they used those precious means of grace as they ought, they might be higher in sanctity even than the holy Baptist. Then to be a Christian, to have those sacred privileges, involves an awful responsibility—a very high and holy hope. III. HIS HAD DONE ITS WORK. 1. The kingdom of heaven was come. John had announced its coming; it was at hand, he said. Now it was come; it was manifested in the world. The preaching and miracles of Christ had excited a wide and deep interest throughout Palestine. He was followed everywhere by eager multitudes. The enthusiasm for a time was boundless, the excitement intense. They sought to take him by force to make him a King. The kingdom of heaven was suffering violence. There may have been something of undisciplined zeal, of unchastened enthusiasm. It may be that many of these violent ones did not continue steadfast when the days of trial came. But now they crowded into the ranks of Christ’s disciples; they offered to follow him whithersoever he went. There was a mighty movement. The kingdom of God was preached, and every man was pressing into it. There is a holy violence, a sacred zeal; but it must be zeal according to know]edge—the zeal of St. Paul or St. John, not a troubled wave of popular excitement. However, this enthusiasm, even if not lasting in all men, was better far than indifference; it showed a real interest in Divine things; it showed that the kingdom was come. 2. Prophecy was being fulfilled. The prophets had foretold the coming kingdom; the Law, too, had prophesied through its institutions, its ritual, its sacrifices. All was type and prophecy until John; John was the last of the Old Testament prophets. There was no need of types now that the antitype had appeared. Prophets were no longer raised up to predict the salvation of the Messiah; for he was in the world. 3. It was fulfilled in John the Baptist. John himself was the Elijah of whom the Prophet Malachi had spoken; he had gone before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah. He was not, indeed, the Elijah whom the Jews expected, in their literal interpretation of the prophecy—the actual Elijah of the Old Testament, whom Elisha beheld as he went up by a whirlwind into heaven. But he was the Elijah of whom Malachi had spoken; Elijah’s second self, his representative; a reproduction of his character, filled and animated with his spirit. 4. The importance of this warning. Not all would receive it. People expected a literal Elijah; they would not believe that John was the Elijah of prophecy. They expected a Messiah very different from Jesus, a kingdom very different from that kingdom which was not of this world. But let them listen who had ears to hear, whose spiritual senses were not blunted by the tradition and formalism of the Pharisees. The Lord called for fixed, earnest attention. It was a solemn truth which he proclaimed. The kingdom of heaven was in the world; it was come near to his hearers. It was a momentous announcement. To enter into that kingdom was a blessing unutterable; to reject it involved a tremendous condemnation. For that kingdom was from heaven, and its lead was the heavenly King himself. Listen, and come. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." IV. BUT THE JEWS WOULD NEITHER LISTEN TO THE NOR TO THE KING HIMSELF. 1. Their opposition to the Baptist. The Jews in our Lord’s time were perverse; they were like wilful children who will not be amused. They reproached John with his asceticism; they said it was severe and unsocial. John (they said) separated himself from society; he would not share in its amusements; his austerity was unnatural, ungenial; he had no sympathy with human life. "We have piped unto you," they said, "and ye have not danced." They did not understand his lofty character. He was not of the world; he had higher aspirations, holier joys; he did not need the pleasures which so many seek; he had no taste for these things, for his whole heart was given to God and to the world to come. That sensuality which he condemned, those festivities which he shunned, brought him to the martyr’s death. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 12:1-50 The opposition that our Lord met with (1) from his enemies (Matthew 12:1-45); (2) from his relations (Matthew 12:46-50); ,and the manner in which he dealt with it. Matthew 12:1-45 (1) Opposition from his enemies. (a) Conscious and wilful opposition (Matthew 12:1-37). (α) As regards the sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14). (β) An interlude. The evangelist sees in our Lord’s behaviour the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy (verses 15-21). (γ) The opposition carried to the extreme of accusing him of alliance with Beelzebub. Christ shows the monstrous character of such an accusation, and the absence which it discloses of all spirituality of mind (verses 22-37). (b) Opposition due to lack of energy in spiritual things. Christ contrasts the behaviour of heathen mentioned in the Old Testament, and warns the Jews of the result of their present apathy (verses 38-45). Matthew 12:1-8 The sabbath in relation to the preparation of food. Parallel passages: Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5. St. Matthew here returns to the Framework, which he left at Matthew 9:26 or 34. Matthew 12:1 At that time (Matthew 11:25, note) Jesus went (ἐπορεύθη). It has been suggested that he was now on his way to the synagogue spoken of in Matthew 12:9 (but see note there). Wherever he was going, it must have been within about three quarters of a mile distance (two thousand cubits; see Dr. Lumby, on Acts 1:12, "a sabbath day’s journey;" and Schurer, II. 2:102). On the sabbath day. Defined in the Received Text of Luke by the anomalous term "second-first," for the genesis of which see especially Westcott and Hort, ’App.’ Through the corn; the corn-fields (Revised Version, as also Authorized Version in the parallel passages). If it was barley harvest, the time would be probably the beginning of May; if wheat harvest, as seems more likely, about the beginning of June. And his disciples were a hungred. So that it was not for his own sake that our Lord acted as he did. And began. They could therefore hardly have eaten much when the complaint was made. To pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. It was legal to pluck corn from a field through which one passed (Deuteronomy 23:25), and it is said to be allowed still; but as it was held by the scribes to be a form of reaping, and perhaps of threshing also, it was considered illegal on the sabbath (cf. Edersheim, ’Life,’ 2.56). Matthew 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him. The Revised Version (but the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him) retains the simple order of the Greek, which more vividly represents the Pharisees as a party opposed to him. Behold. They suggest that he had not noticed it. Were the disciples behind him (cf. Matthew 8:23)? Thy disciples. Notice that all the accusations brought against the disciples in this Gospel concern food: Matthew 9:14, as regards abstaining from it upon fixed days; Matthew 15:2, as regards eating it without taking extreme precautions against ceremonial pollution; in the present passage, as regards avoiding any profanation of the sabbath for its sake. Do. At this moment. That which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day (Matthew 15:1, note). Matthew 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read. Our Lord answers them by showing that the principle of the action of his disciples was sanctioned in the Scriptures to which they implicitly appealed. He calls their attention first (more Rabbinico; cf. on Matthew 12:5) to the Prophets (i.e. the former prophets, according to the Hebrew division), as teaching by example that holy things are of secondary importance compared with the benefit of God’s people; and afterwards to the Law, which implies that the sabbath itself is of secondary importance compared with work necessary for the sanctuary. He then affirms that in the present case there is One present who is even greater than the sanctuary. He goes on to say that their complaint, however, was really due to the lack, not so much of intellectual as of spiritual knowledge; they had no rapprochement with the God of love, or they would not have condemned those who, both because they were men and because they were disciples of the Son of man, stood above the sabbath. What David did, when he was a hungred, and they that were with him (1 Samuel 21:1-7). Matthew 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat; rather, and they did eat, with Revised Version margin (ἔφαγον), the simple plural verb laying the action less at David’s door than does the phrase in the parallel passages—"and he gave" them to eat. Observe that the mention of ordinary people, like David’s attendants, adds to the force of our Lord’s illustration. The shew-bread (Exodus 25:30; Le Exodus 24:5-7). Which. Which kind of food (ὅ). Was not lawful (οὐκἔξονἦν). Reminding the Pharisees of their own words in Matthew 12:2. For him to eat, neither for them which were with him, bat only for the priests? (Le Matthew 24:9). Matthew 12:5 Matthew only. Or. A second example, if the first does not convince you. Have ye not read in the Law. Beyond which there is no appeal. Jewish authors often appeal to Scripture in the order of Hagio-graphs, Prophets, and, last of all, Law. He here refers to Le Matthew 24:8 (cf. also 1 Chronicles 9:32), but Bengel’s suggestive remark that Leviticus was read in the services at that very time of year is vitiated by the double uncertainty, first, what time of year it really was; and secondly, what is the antiquity of the present custom of reading the whole Law every year (cf. Dr. Lumby on Acts 13:1-52., ’Add. Note’). According to the express orders of the Law, the priests put in fresh shewbread on the sabbath day. How that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple. The word of wider import is used (ἱερόν, not σκηνή), because the Law still holds good. Profane the sabbath. If their work is regarded in itself, as the action of my disciples is now regarded. And are blameless? (guiltless, Revised Version, as also the Authorized Version in verse 7); i.e. in the eyes of the Law. This you will all grant (cf. Schurer, II. 2.103). Lightfoot’s (’Her. Hebr.’) attractive quotation from Maimonides in ’ Pesachim,’ 1. (i.e. ’Hilkoth Korban Pesach,’ § 1.), "There is no sabbatism at all in the temple," appears to rest on a misunderstanding. Matthew 12:6 Matthew only. But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple (τοῦἱεροῦμειζόνἐστινὧδε); "Gr. a greater thing". A similarly difficult neuter is found in verses 41, 45. If the neuter be insisted upon, we must understand Christ to refer to his cause, the work in which the disciples were engaged. This was greater than the temple; lunch more, therefore, was it greater than the sabbath. Probably, however, our Lord is referring to himself, to his own Person and character, but uses the neuter, either as forming a more decided contrast to ἱερόν, or as being more weighty than the masculine (of. Matthew 11:9, note). Also it was less defined and more mysterious. He could not reveal to them the secret of his presence. Observe the use, even at this stage in his ministry, of words implying the decadence of the temple service (cf. John 4:21; Acts 6:14). In this place; here (Revised Version), as in verses 41, 42. Matthew 12:7 Matthew only. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I wilt have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless (on the quotation, see Matthew 9:13, note). Had you learned the simple Bible truth that God places the exercise of your moral faculties, particularly those of kindness, above merely external observances, you would not have committed this sin of taking up the position of wrong judges. He traces their error up to its true source, ignorance of the first principles of religion, ignorance of what God really desires. Condemned. Formally and officially (καταδικάζω). The guiltless. As were the very priests (verse 5). Matthew 12:8 Parallel passages: Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5. For. With immediate refer-once to guiltless. The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day; is Lord of the sabbath (Revised Version); ere, being added in the Received Text from Mark and Luke. Christ clinches the argument, and at the same time explains his phrase in verse 6. The temple is greater than the sabbath; I am greater than the temple; these my disciples are therefore guiltless; for, to put it briefly, I, whom they are following, am greater than the sabbath and rule over it. Observe, however, that Christ does not directly say "I," but the Son of man. The reason is seen in Mark, where a connecting link is given: "The sabbath was made for man. and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath." Christ there implies that the sabbath is inferior to man, not only because it exists for his sake (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:9),but also because it falls under the lordship referred to in Genesis 1:28; and therefore that he himself is really superior to it as man, anti much more as the ideal Man (Matthew 8:20, note). Our saying is very condensed, but includes the name thought, omitting even as unnecessary, after having definitely pronounced the innocence of his disciples. Matthew 12:9-14 The healing of the man with the withered hand. Parallel passages: Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11. In Luke 6:10, Luke 6:11 there are reminiscences of a narrative, presumably belonging to the Framework, which is essentially preserved in Luke 14:2-5 (cf. Weiss). In this section the opposition of the Pharisees is turned directly against our Lord himself for breaking the sabbath. Observe, however, that he did not do this for his own benefit. It was his kindness to another that brought about the determination to kill him. Matthew 12:9 And when he was departed thence (καὶμεταβὰςἐκεῖθεν). The phrase implies more than removal from that place in the corn-fields where he had been accused by the Pharisees, and is to be understood of removal from one town to another, the words that originally preceded this narrative not being recorded (cf. infra, and Matthew 11:1, note). When. therefore, it took place we have absolutely no means of knowing, save that it was not on the same day as the event recorded in Matthew 12:1-8 (cf. Luke, "on another sabbath"), anti that it was later on in his ministry. He went into their synagogue. Whose? Hardly the Pharisees mentioned in Matthew 12:2, as this was a different occasion. Possibly the Galilaeans, among whom he then was (of. Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35), or probably the Jews generally (cf. Matthew 11:1, note). In the two last eases the subject of "they asked," in Matthew 12:10, would be the same as that of "they watched." in Mark (Mark 3:2), namely, the frequenters of the synagogue. among whom the Pharisees naturally took a prominent place. But it is quite possible that we have here a trace of the use of a fresh source, the αὐτῶν being quite intelligible in its original context. Matthew 12:10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered; and behold a man having a withered hand (Revised Version, with Westcott and Hort). For the quotation by Jerome from "the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use", in which this man tells our Lord, "Coementarius (a mason) eram, manibus vietum quaeritans," see especially Resch, ’Agrapha,’ p. 379. And they asked him, saying. In the narrative of healing the man with the dropsy, found in Luke 14:1-6 (vide supra), a similar question is asked by our Lord. Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? The Tahnudic answer is that it is unlawful except in cases of actual danger to life (cf. Schurer, II. 2.104). but whether this distinction was really drawn as early as the time of our Lord (s not known in the present backward state of all critical investigations of Jewish literature. That they might accuse him; i.e. before the local court, Matthew 5:21 (Meyer). Observe that, recognizing his readiness to help others, they desire (according to Matthew) to get a clear statement from him whether he would follow the traditional law or net, intending to base their accusation on his reply. Verbally, however, Christ avoids the dilemma, as in the more famous case of the tribute to Caesar (Matthew 22:21). Matthew 12:11 Matthew alone on this occasion, but comp. Luke 14:5. And he said unto them. Christ’s answer appeals from intellectual and theoretical difficulties to the practical common sense of ordinary morality (cf. Romans 3:5-7). Their own feelings would guide them to help a brute, much more a man. According to the parallel passages, our Lord first set the man in the midst of them, wishing, perhaps, to draw out their sympathy, and only afterwards spoke this verse of censure (see Chrysostom). What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep. One only, and therefore so much the dearer (Meyer). He would feel an interest in it as an animal that he had learned to love; and he would care for it as his property. In Christ’s case also there was the love of man as man, and of man as belonging to him (John 10:14; John 1:11). In Luke 14:5 ("a son or an ox") the double thought is distributed over two objects; the man Would love his son, and care for his property in the ox. And if it (this, Revised Version) fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? Lightfoot (’Hor. Hebr.’) confirms this from the Jerusalem Talmud and Maimonides. Matthew 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? (Matthew 6:26; Matthew 10:31). Wherefore it is lawful to do well (to do good, Revised Version) on the sabbath days. He answers their question about healing (Matthew 12:10) by enunciating a general principle which would cover more. "Doing good" (perhaps merely "well-doing," Acts 10:33; 1 Corinthians 7:37; but probably "doing good to" another, cf. Luke 6:26, Luke 6:27; and the parallel passages here, ἀγαθοποιῆσαιἢκακοποιῆσαι) is to be one test by which the duty of resting or of working on the sabbath is to be determined. Matthew 12:13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. He is bid use his strength before he is told that it is given. The intellectual difficulties that might have occurred to him lose themselves fir the action. In the somewhat similar ease in Matthew 9:5, Matthew 9:6 there had been the preparation of forgiveness of sins. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Power is linked to obedience. Whole; i.e. sound, in complete health and vigour. The word comes more often in the account of the man healed at the pool of Bethesda than in all the rest of the New Testament. Matthew 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out (ἐξελθόντεςδὲοἱΦαρισαῖοι). Probably at once, before the service was over. Note the emphatic position of ἐξελθόντες. They will no longer stay in the same building with one who does such a thing, and held a council; and tool: counsel; cf. Matthew 22:15; Matthew 27:1, Matthew 27:7; Matthew 28:12. Against him, how they might destroy him. We learn from Mark that the Herodians also took part in the deliberation. Professor Marshall suggests a too ingenious reconciliation of this verse and its parallels, in three details, by suggesting an Aramaic original which would explain the divergences. Matthew 12:15-21 Jesus withdraws, and although many follow him and are healed by him, he charges them not to make him known, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the Ideal Israelite, who is the object of God’s love and delight, and will receive his Spirit and declare the revelation of him to the Gentiles; he will not strive or exalt himself, or use harshness towards the weak; and his meekness shall last until he has succeeded in his purpose of revealing God to men; for he shall succeed, and he shall be the object of the Gentiles’ hope. Matthew 12:15 Matthew 12:15, Matthew 12:16 are found essentially in Mark 3:7, Mark 3:12; the remainder of this section, the application of prophecy. here only. But when Jesus knew it; and Jesus perceiving it (Revised Version). Whether by his own unaided powers, or by intelligence brought him, is not stated. He withdrew himself (cf. Matthew 4:12, he departed, note) from thence. We see from the next clause that this withdrawal was not into any very retired spot, but rather away front the town in which he had been. His motives may have been partly to carry on his work more quietly elsewhere (fulfilling his own injunction, Matthew 10:23), and partly to avoid stirring up the excitement of partisans like those who a little later wished to seize him by force and make him king (John 6:15, where observe "withdrew"). And great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all. Almost verbally in Matthew 19:2. Matthew 12:16 And charged them that they should not make him known. Publicity as such was rather hindering to his work than otherwise. Only those who had no spiritual affinity with him (John 7:3-5), or at most but little (Matthew 9:31), desired him to have it. Matthew 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying (Isaiah 42:1-4). The following quotation is not taken from the LXX., but from the Hebrew, and this it largely paraphrases. Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant. Primarily, as would appear, Israel in its ideal, up to which true Israelites came in measure, but only One came fully. Whom I have chosen (ὃνᾑρέτισα). The Hebrew denotes "lay hold of" (דמת)), i.e. for myself. Bengel has a beautiful note on the εἰςὅν of the Received Text, "Εἰς, in, denotat perpeluam mentis paternae tendentiam erga dilectum, 2 Peter 1:17." According to the LXX. of 1 Chronicles 29:1, David’s expression about Solomon affords a curious parallel, ὉυἱόςμουεἰςὃνᾑρέτικενἐναὐτῷΚύριος (edit. Dr. Swete). But Lagarde’s edition of the Lucianic text punctuates and accents differently, Ὁυἱόςμουεἶςὃνᾑρέτικενἐναὐτῷκύριος, and this is much nearer to the Hebrew. My beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased (Matthew 3:17, note): I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall show (declare, Revised Version) judgment to the Gentiles (καὶκρίσιντοῖςἔθνεσινἀπαγγελεῖ). Although κρίσις usually represents in the New Testament God’s decision as to the character and life of men, it here must be understood, like mishpat in the original, of the Divine right as made known to them for their acceptance and imitation. It is "the true religion viewed on its practical side as a norm and standard for life in all its relations" (Delitzsch). The thought here, therefore, is not of Christ’s power to punish and avenge (though he refused to use it as yet), but of his bringing a revelation which should eventually spread, not only to the Jews who now rejected him, but to the Gentiles whom they despised. Matthew 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry. In Isaiah the clause is, "He shall not cry aloud nor lift up his voice (אשי אלו קעצי אל);" and so the LXX. But "strive" would represent one very frequent connotation of "cry aloud" and its synonyms, for in Eastern lands disputants use their voice much more loudly than we do. This close connexion between the two ideas is seen also in the Syriac Version of Isaiah,. where "lift up his voice" is translated narib, a word meaning primarily "he shall strive," and only secondarily "he shall lift up his voice." It is possible, but not probable, that Matthew’s "strive" is taken directly from narib, adopting its primary and commoner meaning, and transposed. Neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A slight paraphrase of the original, "nor cause his voice to he heard in the street," perhaps due to different vocalization of the Hebrew. Matthew 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and-smoking flax shall he not quench. Though what more feeble than a cracked reed or a wick just flickering? Yet he reckons neither as useless; he allows for possibilities of improvement. His treatment of the believer who is weakest, and, so to speak, least alive, is marked by long-suffering and gentleness. Observe that (1) Matthew omits the words, "He shall not burn dimly nor be discouraged," because he is not concerned with anything else than Christ’s relation to others; (2) he combines into one the two clauses of Isaiah, "He shall bring forth judgment in truth" and "Till he have set judgment in the earth." Till he send forth (ἕωςἂνἐκβάλῃ). This being the supreme object of Messiah’s life and energy—bringing out, as from his own plans and resources, judgment unto victory; i.e. the revelation of the Divine Law (verse 18, note) to a successful issue in human hearts. Unto victory. Apparently only a paraphrase of the thought in Isaiah. Matthew 12:21 And in his Name shall the Gentiles trust; hope (Revised Version). The evangelist thus completes the parallelism with the end of the first stanza (Matthew 12:18) However Jews treat Messiah, Gentiles shall place their hope in his Name, which, in fact, sums up for man all that can be known of God (Matthew 6:9, note). In his Name. So even the LXX. But the Hebrew, "in his Law." Ὀνόματι is possibly due to a confusion with νόμῳ, but is more probably merely a paraphrase bringing out more clearly the fact that the Christian religion is emphatically trust in a Person. The Gentiles; rather, Gentiles, as such. This paraphrase for "isles" in the original is also found in the LXX. (For the whole verse, cf. Matthew 28:19, an utterance never lost sight of by the evangelist.) Matthew 12:22-32 The healing of a man blind and dumb, and the consequent blasphemy of the Pharisees. The miracle leads them to the extreme of spiritual opposition. (On the assimilation to our Matthew 12:22-24, found in Matthew 9:32-34, see notes there.) The parallel passages are Luke 11:14-23 and, for the blasphemy and our Lord’s consequent defence only, Mark 3:22-30. Matthew 12:22 Then was brought. So Westcott and Herr margin, but text, "then they brought," as in Matthew 9:32. Unto him one possessed with a devil, blind (this fact is not mentioned by Luke), and dumb. "The devil had shut up each entrance by which be might come to faith, his sight and his hearing, yet Christ opened each" (Chrysostom). And he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. The case was worse than even that of Mat 9:32, where the man was not blind. Matthew 12:23 And all the people; the multitudes (Revised Version); i.e. the various concourses of people that formed themselves at different times of the day and in different parts of the town (cf. Matthew 8:1; Matthew 14:15, notes). Were amazed (ἐξίσταντο); here only in Matthew, but cf. Mark 2:12. And said, Is this (μήτιοὗτόςἐστιν). The form of the question suggests that it seemed altogether too wonderful to allow of an affirmative answer being returned. The American Committee of Revision wished to translate, "Can this be," etc.? The Son of David? (Matthew 9:27, note). Matthew 12:24 (On the relation of this verse to Matthew 9:34, see notes there.) But when the Pharisees. Not further defined here, but in Mark 3:22 spoken of as "the scribes that had come down from Jerusalem." Heard it, they said, This fellow; man (Revised Version); οὗτος (cf. Matthew 9:3, note). Observe that οὗτος (in Matthew only) here answers to the οὗτος of Mark 3:23. "This man" is at once the object of hope in the minds of the multitudes, and of the deepest opposition on the part of the Pharisees. Doth not cast out devils, but. In the parallel passages there is merely a direct assertion that he does it by Beelzebub; here there is a denial of his power to do it by any other agency. Does Matthew’s version express rather the process of their deliberation, and that of Mark and Luke the final result? (On the Jewish tradition that our Lord performed miracles by magic, see Matthew 2:14, note, and Lightfoot, ’Hor. Hebr.,’ here.) By; in, Revised Version, margin (Matthew 9:34, note). Beelzebub (Matthew 10:25, note). The prince. Better omit the article, ἄρχοντι giving, so to speak, his official title. Of the devils. Matthew 12:25-37 Our Lord shows the monstrous character of their accusation, and urges the need of a complete change at heart. (1) An a priori argument that such an action on Satan’s part, as they suppose, would be self-destructive (Matthew 12:25, Matthew 12:26). (2) An argumentum ad hominem. The Pharisees cannot logically and morally acknowledge that their disciples’ miracles are performed by Divine help without acknowledging that Jesus’ miracles are also. But then they ought to recognize what this implies-that the kingdom of God has come (Matthew 12:27, Matthew 12:28). (3) This last alternative is true; for how otherwise can they explain the fact of Satan’s captives being released (Matthew 12:29)? (4) An appeal to them and to the bystanders to be decided (Matthew 12:30). (5) Therefore he warns them solemnly against committing the sin for which there is no forgiveness (Matthew 12:31, Matthew 12:32). (6) Why be surprised at this language? Their words show that they need a complete change at heart (Matthew 12:33-35). (7) Is this to make too much of words? It is by words that men will be judged (Matthew 12:36, Matthew 12:37). Matthew 12:25 Matthew 12:25, Matthew 12:26, parallel passages: Mark 3:24, Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17, Luke 11:18. And Jesus knew their thoughts (Matthew 9:4, note), and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation. According to Mark 3:23, our Lord begins with the direct retort, "How can Satan cast out Satan?" But while that gives, of course, our Lord’s thought, it is very unlike his method, which is to begin his reply with a parabolic saying. And every city. Matthew only. Or house divided against itself. It is worth noticing that, apart from all metaphor, the peasants’ houses in some districts of Palestine are built of such poor material as to easily give way and burst in half. Shall not stand. Neither kingdom, town, nor family can endure such self-destruction; no, nor an individual. There is, too, the further thought that Satan is more than a mere individual; that he is bound up with his kingdom, and his kingdom with him. Matthew 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then. The transposition in the Revised Version to how then shall brings out more distinctly the fact that then is not temporal, but argumentative (οὖν.). His kingdom stand? To De Wette’s objection that Satan might perhaps do such a thing once so as to gain in other ways, Meyer answers that our Lord is referring to the practice of casting out devils, which, as such, is certainly directed against Satan. Matthew 12:27, Matthew 12:28 Parallel passage: Luke 11:19, Luke 11:20, almost verbally identical. Matthew 12:27 And (καί). Another stage in his argument. There is a further reason why they should hesitate before making such an accusation; their own disciples claimed to be able to cast out devils. If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children; sons (Revised Version); i.e. your pupils, who will carry on your work (cf. "sons of the prophets"). Cast them out? (cf. Matthew 4:24, note). For examples of such cases by others than professed followers of Christ, see Luke 9:49; Acts 19:13. Josephus also mentions some, but they are mere impostures; he says (’Ant.,’ 8.2. 5), "Solomon left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return, and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for! have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the sure was this: he put a ring that had a root of one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon to the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he abjured him to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed" (of. also Dr. Cheatham’s article on "Exorcism," in ’Dict. of Christian Antiq.’). Therefore they. Emphatic (αὐτοί), and hence, presumably, the transposition in the Revised Version, shall they. Shall be your judges. Our Lord asks the preceding question, neither denying nor affirming for himself the fact that their disciples cast out devils, but only by way of argument. He implies, "You will answer that they do so by God’s help. If so, then your sons shall be your judges, convicting you of insincerity. You acknowledge that they work miracles by God’s help, and you do not acknowledge that I do. But you cannot stop short there. You must acknowledge that I also cast out devils by God’s help." Matthew 12:28 The argument continues: "But if this be so (I say nothing about your disciples, but speak only of my own works)—if I really cast out devils by God’s help, this shows such a strange putting forth of God’s strength that it can mean nothing else but the coming of the Messianic kingdom." Observe that this could not be affirmed from the success of the Pharisees’ disciples, for with them expulsion of devils, even if it were real, was, as it were, accidental, standing in no close connexion with their work (cf. Matthew 7:22, note). Besides, they did not, as our Lord did, claim to be the Messiah, and to inaugurate the kingdom. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God; but if I by the Spirit of God, etc. (Revised Version). The chief emphasis lies on by the Spirit of God, and there is a secondary emphasis on J, as compared with "your sons." Observe the absence of the article in ἐνπνεύματιΘεοῦ; contrast Matthew 12:31, Matthew 12:32, and comp. Matthew 1:18, note. Luke has, "by the finger of God," a term used to designate God’s power as put forth upon nature (Exodus 8:19; Exodus 31:18; cf. Psalms 8:3). Then. Little as you think it (ἄρα); cf. Luke 11:48. The kingdom of God. In contrast to Satan’s kingdom (Luke 11:26). Is come (ἔφθασαεν: praevenit, Codex Brixianus; cf. Wordsworth and White’s Vulgate). This may mean (1) it has come sooner than you expected, it has got the start of you (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:15); or (2) it has actually come as far as you, it has arrived. This latter sense seems to be more in accordance with Hellenistic usage (cf. Philippians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:16). Unto you; upon you (Revised Version), ἐφὑμᾶς. Matthew 12:29 Parallel passages: Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21, Luke 11:22. Mark is practically identical with Matthew. Luke ("the strong man armed," etc.) is more detailed and vivid, and is perhaps the original form of the saying. Or else; or (Revised Version); i.e. if this be not the case, that the kingdom of God is come upon you, how else do you explain what has happened, the fact of Satan’s instruments being taken from him? How can one enter into a strong man’s house; the house of the strong man (Revised Version). (For the article, cf. Matthew 1:23, note.) And spoil (ἁρπάσαι) his goods. Carry off his household tools and utensils (τὰσκεύηαὐτοῦ). Except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. This is more than merely the conclusion. It is an emphatic statement that tie will do this, yes, utterly plunder (διαρπάσει) the whole house. The interpretation of the parable is self-evident: the strong man is Satan; his vessels are those afflicted by him; the one who binds, etc., is Christ. For Christ’s appearance and work, even before the Crucifixion and Resurrection, bound Satan in this respect. Observe that there is probably a tacit reference to Isaiah 49:25, which at any rate now received a fulfilment. Matthew 12:30 Parallel passage: Luke 11:23, omitted in Mark. The aim of this verse is doubtful. (1) It may be addressed to the Pharisees, with the object of showing them what their words really implied. They were not due, as some might think, to mere indifferentism or to a judicial neutrality; such a relation to him was impossible. They were due to opposition of inner life and of outward energy. Thus their words denoted complete separation from him. This he brings out more clearly in the two following verses. (2) This interpretation, however, would attribute to the Pharisees too great an ignorance of their own feelings of opposition to Christ, and it is therefore best to understand the verse as addressed to the many bystanders. Christ has do-fended himself from the accusation brought against him, and now urges these waverers not to be content with only not opposing him, but to take sides—for, in fact, they cannot help doing so. Indifference in this case is only another name for opposition; not actively to help is really to hinder. Thus understood, the lesson of this verse finds its parallel in verses 43-45, by which, indeed, it is immediately followed in Luke. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. The first clause speaks of the inner disposition, that which forms the real being of the man; the second, of his energy. Observe that the figure of the second clause appears to be connected with that of verse 29. If Christ’s property is not collected, it is driven further from him. Christ and Christians must gather (John 11:52; of. Bengel). For gathereth (συνάγων), cf. also Matthew 3:12; Matthew 13:30. In scattereth abroad (σκορπίζει) the thought almost leaves the simile of the σκεύη, and regards the persons signified. Notice that in John 11:52, referred to above, the two verbs συνάγειν and (δια) σκορπίζειν, also occur; the figure there, however, appears to be taken from sheep (cf. John 10:12). Further, Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50 record the saying, "He that is not against us is for us," which was addressed to our Lord’s disciples. Both sayings are necessary; earnest Christians need to remember that when outsiders do anything in Christ’s name, it must, on the whole, forward his cause (Philippians 1:18); the undecided must face the fact that neutrality is impossible. Matthew 12:31, Matthew 12:32 Parallel passages: Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:10 (where the context is not the same, he having passed straight from our Luke 12:30 to our Luke 12:43, vide infra). It is to be observed that all three accounts differ a good deal in form, though but slightly in substance. The Apostolical Constitutions contain what is probably a mixture of these verses with 2 Peter 2:1 and other passages of the New Testament. Resch, in accordance with his theory, thinks that the Constitutions have preserved a genuine utterance of the Lord, of which only different fragments are presented in various parts of the New Testament. A few words of introduction to these difficult verses. It has been strangely forgotten, in their interpretation, that our Lord spoke in language that he intended his hearers to understand, and that probably not a single one of those who stood by would understand by the expressions, ,, the Spirit" (verse 31), "the Holy Spirit" (verse 32), a Person in the Godhead distinct from the First Person or the Second (cf. Matthew 1:18, note). At most they would understand them to refer to an influence by God upon men (Psalms 51:11; cf. Luke 11:13), such as Christ had claimed to possess in a special degree (Luke 4:18). In inquiring, therefore, for an explanation of our Lord’s sayings, we must not begin at the Trinitarian standpoint, and see in the words a contrast between "blasphemy" against one Person of the Trinity, and "blasphemy" against another. The contrast is between "blasphemy" against Christ as Son of man, Christ in his earthly work and under earthly conditions, the Christ whom they saw and whom they did not understand, and "blasphemy" against God as such working upon earth. "Blasphemy" against the former might be due to ignorance and prejudice, but "blasphemy" against the latter was to speak against God’s work recognized as such, against God manifesting himself to their consciences (cf. verses 27, 28); it was to reject the counsel of God towards them, to set themselves up in opposition to God, and thus to exclude from themselves forgiveness. Just as under the Law there were sacrifices for sins of ignorance and minor offences, but none for wilful disregard of and opposition to God, so must it be at all times even under the gospel itself. Observe that the "blasphemy" is understood by our Lord as showing the state of the heart (cf. Acts 7:51). What the effect of a change of heart, i.e. of repentance, would be does not enter into our Lord’s utterance. All other sin is venial, but for heart-opposition there is no forgiveness. As Tyndale says, "Sin against the Holy Ghost is despising of the gospel and his working. Where that bideth is no remedy of sin: for it fighteth against faith, which is the forgiveness of sin. If that be put away, faith may enter in, and all sins depart." (Cf. also Dorner, ’ System,’ 3.73; 4.91.) Matthew 12:31 Wherefore (διὰτοῦτο). Referring primarily to Matthew 12:30, and to be joined closely to "I say unto you." Because such is the terrible effect of what you think mere indifferentism, I say this solemnly, Beware of committing the great sin. Luke’s connexion of our verse 43 with verse 30 gives a good but a weaker sense—Become fully decided, lest the devil return to you stronger than ever. Matthew’s connexion is—Become fully decided, for the legitimate outcome of want of decision is the sin that will not be forgiven. I say unto you (Matthew 6:25, note), All manner of; every (Revised Version); πᾶσα. Sin and blasphemy. Genus and species (Meyer). Blasphemy passes in this verse from its wider meaning of open slander and detraction in the first clause to its now commoner but restricted meaning of speech against God in the second clause. Shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; the Spirit (Revised Version), thus making it more possible for the English reader to see the connexion of thought with the phrase in verse 28. Shall not be forgiven unto men. The words, unto men, must be omitted, with the Revised Version. They weaken a statement which in itself may apply to other beings than those that are on earth. Matthew 12:32 Our Lord applies the general principle of Mat 12:31 to "blasphemy" against himself. This might be, comparatively speaking, innocuous if it was merely defamation or detraction of him as man; but if, on the other hand, it referred to his work in such a way as to mean a real detraction of God’s actions considered as Divine, it indicated a state of feeling which did not admit of forgiveness (vide supra). If it be asked whether the individual Pharisees referred to in Matthew 12:24-28 had committed this sin, the answer depends upon whether they had recognized the hand of God as such, and had, notwithstanding, wilfully rejected it. If they had—as our Lord’s tone seems to imply—then they had in fact committed it. Yet they may afterwards have repented, and so have come under a different category. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man (Matthew 8:20, note); e.g. his birth, the circumstances of his life on earth, or his decisions respecting the sabbath or meats, or his disregard of the conventionalities of his time in his treatment of "sinners" anti publicans. All such things must have been included in those which St. Paul once blasphemed (1 Timothy 1:13). It shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh (such a word) against the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit, Revised Version), it shall not be forgiven him (οὐκἀφεθήσεται). The margin of Westcott and Hort, with the Vatican manuscript, represents it still more strongly (οὐμὴἀφεθῇ). Neither in this world, neither in the world to come. "The age to come" (אבה מלועה) included all that followed the coming of Messiah. Sometimes it was restricted to, or practically identified with, the reign of Messiah upon earth, but usually it included much more—eternity as well as time. It is in its widest sense that our Lord here uses it—contrasting the present order of things with that which will be the final result of his coming, his thoughts travelling far beyond the present course of this world to that which is to be hereafter. Matthew 12:33-37 You wonder that I make so much of words; words are not trivialities, but are really the legitimate and normal fruit of the heart, and therefore by them each man will be judged. (1) Take your choice; half-heartedness is not enough (cf. Matthew 12:30); the fruit tells the nature of the tree (Matthew 12:33). (2) Our Lord addresses the Pharisees directly, showing them their true character. They only speak according to their spiritual condition (Matthew 12:34). (3) Man can only bring out what is already in his heart (Matthew 12:35). (4) A solemn close, in which he applies the principle generally; for every idle word an account shall be given, since words are always the source of the verdict upon each man’s case (Matthew 12:36, Matthew 12:37). Matthew 12:33-35 Parallel passage: Luke 6:43-45 (cf. Matthew 7:16-18, notes). Matthew 12:33 Either make (ἢποιήσατε). Not "suppose" (fac, pone), still less "declare," but "make." The Lord is speaking in a parable. You would not, surely, make a tree in any other way; it would be against nature; how then imagine it can be so in your own persons? Matthew 7:18 and Luke 6:43 state as a fact that the reverse case does not take place in nature. The tree good, and his fruit good (i.e. one if the other); or else make the tree corrupt (Matthew 7:17, note), and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. "By his own fruit" (Luke). Matthew 12:34 The first clause is in Matthew only. O generation (ye offspring, Revised Version) of vipers (Matthew 3:7, note). Observe that the figure of the tree had also been used by the Baptist (Matthew 3:10). How can ye. It is against nature. Being evil; i.e. inherently worthless (Matthew 6:13, note); cf. πονηροὶὄντες, Matthew 7:11. Speak good things. For out of the abundance; i.e. even to overflowing. Of the heart the mouth speaketh. In Ephesians 4:29 there is apparently a reminiscence of this saying in connexion with our verse 33 (cf. also James 3:10-12). Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart; out of his good treasure (Revised Version), of the heart being added in the Received Text from Luke 6:45. Treasure (Matthew 2:11, note). "Vere thesaurus est in quovis heroine, et copia latens" (Bengel); of. also Matthew 13:52. Bringeth forth good things: and an (the, Revised Version) evil man out of the (his, Revised Version) evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. Bringeth forth (ἐκβάλλει, but Luke προφέρει). Matthew regards the receptacle from which, Luke the outer world into which, the things are brought. Matthew 12:36, Matthew 12:37 Matthew only. Matthew 12:36 But (δέ); and (Revised Version). The adversative particle hints at the contrast of Mat 12:35 to their ordinary ideas about the importance of words. I say unto you, That every idle (ἀργόν); i.e. effecting nothing, morally useless; 2 Peter 1:8 (cf. καταργεῖ, Luke 13:7). Word (ῥῆμα); see verse 37, note. That men shall speak, they shall give account thereof (ἀποδώσουσιλόγον: cf. 1 Peter 4:5) in the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15, note). Matthew 12:37 For by (ἐκ)—referring to, as it were, the source of the verdict—thy words (τῶνλόγοισου); thy, individualizing. Ob-nerve the change from ῥῆμα (Matthew 12:36), which might in itself refer to the utterance of a madman, or to a parrot-like quotation. But by here using λόγοι our Lord shows that he is thinking of utterances of the reason. sentences spoken with a knowledge of their meaning, and forming parts of what are virtually, though not literally, discourses. A ῥῆμα may be the merely mechanical utterance of the lips, λόγοι imply consciousness. The presence of λόγον in the preceding clause is probably entirely accidental. Thou shalt be justified (Matthew 11:19, note)—’Quid enim aliud sermones sancti quam tides sonans" (Calovius, in Meyer)—and by thy words thou shalt be condemned (Matthew 12:7, note). Matthew 12:38-42 Before entering on this difficult passage, it seems necessary to make some preliminary observations. (1) Luke 11:29-32 is the recognized parallel. (2) According to Luke 11:16, our Lord had been already asked for a sign, in what would be the middle of our preceding discussion, i.e. between the accusation by the Pharisees (our Luke 11:24) and the Lord’s answer to it (our Luke 11:25, sqq.). This shows that either the demand was in fact made at some time during this discussion, or at least that it was such a demand as our Lord’s opponents were likely to make when they were hard pressed, and such as they did in fact make on a somewhat similar occasion. Notice that in Luke 11:16 it is expressly attributed to others than those who had brought the accusation. (3) Very similar verses are found in Matthew 16:1-4; Luke 11:16 agrees more verbally with the demand as described there than with our Luke 11:38. (4) Thus Mark and Luke relate such an incident once, but Matthew twice. (5) The four passages contain so much similarity of language that we cannot suppose them to be absolutely independent of each other. (6) Hence two hypotheses present themselves: (a) The demand was made twice (in itself exceedingly probable), and our Lord’s answers were to a great extent identical in substance (in itself not very probable), and when identical in substance were closely identical in language (distinctly less probable). Or perhaps we might suppose that this identity of language was rather due to the narrator than to our Lord himself; familiarity with one answer may in the curly Church have moulded the record of the other. (b) The demand and tile answer, as recorded, refer to one and the same occasion. But the account existed in more than one of the sources used by St. Matthew, and as each form of it had its own peculiarities, he retained them both. Anyhow, Matthew 16:1-4 seems to have belonged to the Framework, and our passage to the Discourses. (7) It will be noticed that all the passages except Mark 8:11-13 speak of "the sign of Jonah." How was Jonah a sign? Our verse 40 seems to answer the question, and to say that it was by being in the whale’s belly three days and three nights. But there are serious difficulties in accepting this view as finally and alone right. For in Matthew 16:4 no explanation at all is recorded (though, indeed, it might be urged that the evangelist might fairly expect his readers to remember our verse 40), and in Luke 11:30 apparently a different explanation is found, "for even as Jonah became a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation"—words which, taken alone, would seem to refer to Jonah being a sign by the mere fact of his preaching. Thus our Lord would mean—As Jonah preached, so I preach. The future is used in Luke 11:30 (ἔσται), as bringing out more clearly than the present would have done the final relation in which Christ should stand to his contemporaries. Godet, indeed, urges that the future excludes any present reference to Christ’s work as preaching, and that the demand for a sign from heaven (Luke 11:16) can only be fully satisfied by Christ’s resurrection, "in which no human agency intervenes, and in which Divine power appears alone." He, therefore, makes Luke’s meaning identical with that of our verse 40, and paraphrases thus: "It was as one who had miraculously escaped from death that Jonas presented himself before the Ninevites, summoning them to anticipate the danger which threatened them; it is as the Risen One that I (by my messengers) shall proclaim salvation to the men of this generation." But this would almost assume that Jonah told the Ninevites of his miraculous escape, though there is not a hint of his having done so. On the contrary, Jonah 3:4, sqq., implies that the call to repentance on the basis of punishment threatened was the sole and only means employed by the prophet to accomplish his mission. Jonah the preacher became, by virtue of his preaching, a sign to the Ninevites (for, quite apart from his miraculous preservation, his appearance in Nineveh and his preaching there were no small portent and sign of Divine interest in the Ninevites’ affairs), and they accepted him. Matthew’s addition, "the prophet," emphasizes this thought, even though he passes on to give what appears to have been the Lord’s secondary interpretation of the sign of Jonah. Christ’s primary object, then, in his reply was to show to his opponents that heathen Ninevites and a heathen queen accepted the truth without any such sign as that which they were now demanding, and, if possible, to shame them into doing so. Thus verse 40 is to be considered as parenthetical rather than as the main subject. It has, indeed, been suggested that verse 40 was in fact not spoken at all by the Lord himself, but is only the result of a very early interpretation by the Hebrew Christians of our Lord’s phrase, added before the formation of our Gospel. The explanation is tempting, but, in the entire absence of corroboration, cannot be accepted (cf. note there). So far as our present evidence goes, we must attribute verse 40 to Christ, and consider that as he was mentioning the reception of Jonah by the Ninevites, the thought occurred to him that in Jonah’s history lay as it were a prefigurement of what he himself would be. Just as on another occasion he illustrated his death and resurrection by the figure of destroying and building the temple (John 2:18, John 2:19), so now he uses the figure of Jonah in the whale’s belly. (8) This is not the place to enter upon a discussion of the question whether the event here referred to literally happened or not, much less to examine the deep and mysterious subject of the Lord’s kenosis (Philippians 2:7). But it should be observed that some at least of those critics who do not believe that the narrative of Jonah being in the whale’s belly is to be understood literally, consider that his preaching to the Ninevites at all is equally metaphorical, so that not only verse 40 but verse 41 and Luke 11:32 are affected, and that indeed more seriously, since the Lord says that the Ninevites will stand up as witnesses. The reasons for taking the narrative as only metaphorical are far from convincing, yet even if they were overwhelming, the illustration in Luke 11:40 (though not Luke 11:41) would still remain valid, just as (with all reverence be it spoken) any one to-day might illustrate his action from that of one of Shakespeare’s characters whose historical existence is more than doubtful. While, however, the frequency of the allegorical and pictorial in Hebrew poetry and prophecy must be fully allowed for, there seems to be no strong reason (apart from the miracle) to doubt the historical character of the narrative. Further, as to the miracle, Jonah 1:17; Jonah 2:10 are so closely connected with Jonah 1:1-17., 3., and 4., that it is best to understand the writer as intending to represent it (marvellous though it is) as literal history. Matthew 12:38-45 Some of our Lord’s opponents try to defend themselves by asking for a sign of his authority to claim so much; e.g. Matthew 12:30 (Matthew 12:38). In his reply he refers them to their own histories for proof that such a demand is inexcusable. The Ninevites did not require one when Jonah became a sign to them—and in mentioning Jonah he refers to his being in the whale’s belly three days and three nights as a symbol of what should happen to himself—and "the queen of the south" took immense trouble to satisfy her craving after wisdom (verss 39-42). Therefore let them beware; their present state was one of extreme danger; the improvement that they showed was only negative, and if they did not take care worse would happen to them in the future than in the past (verses 43-45). Matthew 12:38 Then certain. The demand is only made by a portion of those present, who, according to Luke 11:16, were not the same as those who spoke our Luke 11:24. Of the scribes and of the (Revised Version omits the) Pharisees. They are represented as forming but one party (Matthew 5:20, note). Answered (him, Revised Version, with the manuscripts). It is worth noticing that the insertion of the pronoun makes the passage more like Matthew 16:1 and parallels. Saying, Master (διδάσκαλε); Matthew 8:19, note. Only in this place is their request given verbally. We would see (Θέλομεν... ἰδεῖν). Observe that their language is rather brusque; they express their own wish regardless of him. But they may have intended it only as a plain statement of the difficulty they felt in believing him. They wished to see a sign first. A sign. More than a miracle of healing, however wonderful; they desired, as expressly said in Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16, a sign from heaven, presumably some portent in the sky, which should be a sign of his mission (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:22; John 4:48). From thee; i.e. happening, not accidentally, but at thy command. Matthew 12:39 Of the passages mentioned in the introductory note on Matthew 12:38-42, Matthew 16:4 is verbally identical with the answer of our present verse, except the omission of the words, "the prophet," which occur nowhere else but in this passage. But he answered and said to them, An evil (πονηρά, Matthew 6:13, note) and adulterous generation. However frequent the sin of adultery may then have been, the common metaphorical sense of spiritual unfaithfulness to God and the practical worship of some other than Jehovah seems the more probable here (cf. James 4:4; Revelation 2:20-23). Seeketh after (ἐπιζητεῖ); Matthew 6:32. A sign; but there shall no sign be given to it. In Mark 8:12 our Lord’s reply ends here. But the sign of the Prophet Jonas; Jonah the prophet (Revised Version). In Matthew 16:4 and Luke 11:29 "the prophet" has been added in the Received Text. Matthew 12:40 Matthew only. For as Jonas (Jonah, Revised Version) was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly. Verbally from the LXX. of Jonah 1:17 (Jonah 2:1). So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Since, so far as the balance of evidence goes, the Crucifixion was on Friday and the Resurrection on Sunday, the actual time between them was only one clear day and two parts of days (which might fairly be called three days) and two whole nights. The reckoning, therefore, here is, strictly speaking, inaccurate. The words are perhaps a mere adaptation of the phrase in Jonah, and are here used only to roughly mark the time of our Lord’s stay in the grave. Observe, however, that the addition of" nights" tends to emphasize the reality of our Lord’s stay there. It was a matter of days and nights; he spent both kinds of earthly time "in the heart of the earth" (cf. Matthew 4:2, note). It will be noticed that the inaccuracy of the wording would, if modern Western habits were alone to be considered, make it most unlikely that the phrase is a later addition; but in view of the early Christian and Jewish method of illustrating events by passages of Scripture which do not apply in all respects, the improbability is not so great as would at first sight appear. However, upon our present information, we must say that the phrase was spoken by our Lord himself, and that although the exact time of his stay in the grave was well known to the early believers, they continued to repeat the saying in the form in which the Lord left it. In the heart of the earth. The form of the expression is derived from Jonah 2:3 (4), "in the heart of the seas" (cf. Exodus 15:8), and would therefore appear to mean some deeper place than the rock-hewn sepulchre. Hence many commentators, beginning with Irenaeus (’Adv. Haer.,’ V. 31.) and Tertullian (’De Anima,’ IV.), understand it as directly denoting the place of departed spirits. Ephesians 4:9 ("the lower parts of the earth"), on the contrary, probably refers to the earth as such in contrast to heaven. Matthew 12:41 Verbally identical with Luke 11:32. The men of Nineveh (ἄνδρεςΝινευῖται). No article, because the evangelist desired to call attention to the character of the Ninevites. The men of Nineveh, heathen though they were, shall do this. Ἄνδρες (not ἄνθρωποι); hardly because of the approaching mention of a woman (cf. Luke 11:31), but because the men in the city would naturally take the lead, and not the women. So also in the LXX. of Jonah 3:5 (contrast Jonah 3:7, of the population generally). Shall rise in judgment; shall stand up in the judgment (Revised Version); i.e. shall stand up as witnesses in the final judgment (Luke 10:14). With this generation; i.e. present before the judgment-seat with them, for what purpose is shown by the following words (cf. Winer, § 47, h). And shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas (Jonah 3:5, sqq.). Observe that this was without miracles or signs being wrought. At (εἰς). Marking the direction of their faith (Romans 4:20). And, behold, a greater than—"Gr. more than"—Jonas is here (Jonah 3:6, note). Matthew 12:42 Almost verbally identical with Luke 11:31. The queen of the south (βασίλισσανότου, anarthrous; Luke 11:41, note). The south here doubtless represents part of Arabia Felix (see Dr. Lumby, on 1 Kings 10:1). Shall rise up. Does ἐγερθήσεται here imply more effort than ἀναστήσονται (Luke 11:41)? This would at least be consistent with the energy which the mention of the Queen of Sheba always suggests. In the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts (the ends, Revised Version) of the earth. Observe the contrast; the message was brought to the Ninevites in their own homes. She marks a higher stage of inquiry and faith. To hear the wisdom of Solomon; i.e. not out of mere curiosity to see him. And, behold, a greater than Solomon is here (Luke 11:41, note). Observe that Christ claims for himself superiority to the one prophet that was listened to by a Gentile nation, and to the one king whose wisdom drew an inquirer from "the ends of the earth." Rightly; for the claim is confirmed by history; the Gospels have had greater influence than all the Prophets, both "former" and "later," and than all the Hekmah literature. Jesus of Nazareth has drawn all men unto him (John 12:32; cf. 19). Matthew 12:43-45 Parallel passage: Luke 11:24-26, almost verbally, but omitting the application at the end of our Luke 11:45. A solemn warning against a merely negative improvement. External preparation, mechanical religion, is insufficient; a definite acceptance of my teaching is required. Our Lord’s primary thought Would appear to be the relation in which those to whom he was speaking stood to himself. But he frames his words so as to include the whole of that generation of Jews (Luke 11:39, Luke 11:45) For his present hearers truly represented their contemporaries. Observe (1) the close of this discourse resembles that of the sermon on the mount; (2) the connexion of thought is the same in Luke, though there the passage comes immediately after our verse 30; i.e. if you are not with me you are really against me; you are only swept and garnished, and the evil spirit returns. Matthew 12:43 When; but … when (Revised Version); ὅτανδέ. St. Matthew does not bring this forward as a separate utterance; he wishes the connexion between it and the preceding to be seen. There is a contrast between the behaviour of the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba, and that of the Jews. The unclean spirit (Matthew 10:1, note) is gone out of a (the, Revised Version) man (τὸπνεῦμα … τοῦἀνθρώπου). The first article is inserted for the sake of vividness; the second points back to the spirit; he leaves the man in whom he had dwelt. The two together make the saying parabolic instead of abstract. He walketh; passeth (Revised Version); διέρχεται. Perhaps merely "goes through," with the connotation of distance traversed (John 4:15; Acts 9:38), but probably "goes about," i.e. to different spots (cf. Luke 9:6; Acts 8:4, Acts 8:40; Acts 20:25, and so of a rumour being spread abroad, Luke 5:15), in restless wandering. Through dry (waterless, Revised Version; διἀνύδρων) places. Which supplied nothing wherewith he might refresh himself (Psalms 63:1), and which would, of course, have no houses (Psalms 107:4-7, Psalms 107:33-36). Seeking rest (Matthew 11:28, Matthew 11:29, notes), and findeth none; and findeth it not (Revised Version). Matthew 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out. In the true text the emphasis lies on the words, "into my house;" i.e. the place that I have found so comfortable before, where I was so thoroughly at home; which, in fact, is still mine. Observe the curious parallel to Matthew 10:25. The Jews had called Christ Beelzebub absolutely without reason, but in their own ease it was only too possible that they had an unclean spirit as "master of the house." And when he is come, he findeth it empty, unoccupied (σχολάζοντα). Swept; "cleansed with besoms" (Wickliffe); σεσαρωμένον. And garnished; "made fair" (Wickliffe); καὶκεκοσμημένον. It had no tenant, but it was fully prepared for one; all the rubbish had been removed, and suitable preparations been made. Matthew 12:45 Then. On seeing that this is the case (cf Matthew 3:5, note). Goeth he (πορεύεται). Part of the figure; the others would not be far off. And taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked (evil, πονηρότερα) than himself. Christ emphasizes the force and the malignity of a spiritual relapse. And they enter in. Into the heart, and thence into the whole body and soul. And dwell there. Permanently. And the last state of that man is worse than the first. Our Lord’s words are apparently quoted in 2 Peter 2:20. Observe that the idea of pollution is found there as well as here. (For the form of the expression, comp. also Matthew 27:64.) Is; becometh (Revised Version), as the result. Even so shall it be, This is more than a warning; it is a verdict. Also unto this wicked generation. Observe Christ’s solemn addition of "wicked" This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ A few remarks by way of introduction to the characteristic portion of this chapter (Matthew 13:1-52). (1) We have here a collection of the Lord’s parables, all spoken, as it would appear, at an early period in his ministry, descriptive of the principles of the kingdom of heaven as they make themselves felt in history, and of the way in which those who are brought into contact with the kingdom ought to act. As the chapter stands, it consists of three chief parts, which probably roughly correspond to three stages of development in its composition. (a) Matthew 13:1-23, also in Mark and Luke, except some characteristic enlargements in verses 10-17. The section contains the parable of the sower and its interpretation, together with a statement of our Lord’s reasons for teaching by parables. This is so nearly akin to the fundamental lesson of the first parable, that we cannot be surprised that the two should be recorded together. They seem, indeed, to have formed the nucleus of the whole collection. (b) Verses 24-35, of which verses 31, 32 alone are found both in Mark and Luke. Verses 34, 35 also are represented in Mark, besides some expressions occurring in verses 24-30. This part contains the parables of the tares, the mustard seed, and the leaven, and a statement flint our Lord spoke in parables to the multitudes, together with a passage from the Old Testament illustrating his doing so. (c) Verses 36-52. A series wholly peculiar to our Gospel, containing matter addressed to the disciples alone (the explanation of the parable of the tares, and the three parables of the treasure, the pearl, and the dragnet), ending with a special promise to disciples as such. (2) But although this chapter is apparently the result of growth and development, this does not exclude the probability that it is no chance collection of fragmentary parables, but rather a mosaic of which the several parts stand in artistic relation to each other and are intended to form one whole. According to Bengel, and his opinion has been essentially adopted by many writers, the seven parables form a prophecy of seven ages of the Church: the first and second parables describing the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods; the third and fourth, the spread of the kingdom among princes and amongst the whole human race (referring more especially to the fourth and the ninth centuries); the fifth, the more hidden condition of the Church ("the reign of the beast, and the Reformation"); the sixth, the time when the kingdom of heaven shall be valued above all else, and Satan be bound; the seventh, the last confusion. But this is singularly imaginative, and at the very most can only be so far true that the tendencies described under each parable may possibly, one cannot say more, be stronger at the several times referred to than at others. It is far more natural to see in the parables a summary by our Lord of certain principles which are always at work, i.e. "the ideas and laws, not the actual facts, of the Church’s history". Thus we have the leading thoughts of the dissemination and reception of the kingdom of God (the sower), the obstacles to its success that exist even within its borders (the tares), its external and internal influence (the mustard seed and the leaven), the need for making it a personal possession, cost what it may, especially as it is worth all else (the treasure and the pearl), and the necessity of personal holiness if the benefit of being within it is not to be lost. (3) It will have been noticed that our Lord did not use parables in the earlier part of his ministry (even Matthew 7:24, sqq., is hardly more than an illustration), and that when he began to use them it was a matter of surprise to his disciples, who asked him his reason for doing so (verse 10). This was, as appears from verse 12, because of the value of parables as a means of κρίσις. Just as his coming was in itself to test men’s hearts, and to act upon them according to their moral state (John 9:39; cf. John 3:19; Luke 2:35), so in measure were all his sayings. But if "the primary end [of a parable] everywhere is to place the doctrine, as yet unknown to the hearers, so directly before their eyes that they shall intuitively recognize its truth", it is evident that a parable was especially calculated to form a test of the moral state of those to whom it was spoken. If they did not really care for spiritual things, they would, either from sheer moral inability or from a lazy unwillingness to apply their attention or make further inquiries, fail to catch the lesson which the parable was intended to convey; while if they were in a favourable state for its reception, they would learn fresh truth from it. But if parables were so valuable why did not our Lord employ them from the beginning of his ministry? Just because they were so decisive in their effects, he wished at first to be as plain spoken as possible, but when he saw that in the majority of his hearers his words produced no spiritual result, he then employed a method of teaching which should bring out their characters more clearly (cf. farther verses 10-17, and notes). Matthew 13:1-9 The parable of the sower. Parallel passages: Mark 4:1-9; Luke 8:4-8. Matthew 13:1 The same day; on that day (Revised Version). Although day is sometimes used in a metaphorical sense, so as to include what is, in fact, a long period of time, yet we are not justified in assigning this sense to it unless the context clearly requires us to do so. This is not the case here, so that we must assume that a literal day is intended. But which day? Naturally, the day that has just before been mentioned, either in the original source from which our narrative is taken or in the narrative as it now stands. Since, however, Matthew 12:46-50 and our Matthew 12:1-23 appear to have been already connected in the framework, these supposed alternatives really represent the same thing, the phrase probably referring to the day on which our Lord’s mother and brethren sought to speak to him (Matthew 12:46). Went Jesus out of the house. Where he had been when his mother came (Matthew 12:46, note), and presumably the one to which he returned in Matthew 12:36. Possibly it was St. Peter’s house at Capernaum (Matthew 8:14). And sat (Matthew 5:1, note). By the seaside. Until the crowds compelled him to enter the boat. Matthew 13:2 And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship. The article wrongly inserted in the Received Text (τὸπλοῖον) suggests that it was the boat which, as some think, waited upon him. (For another occasion when he taught from a boat, cf. Luke 5:3.) And sat; and the whole multitude stood; was standing. The position of ἱστήκει at the end of the sentence in the Greek emphasizes their attitude. Their numbers compelled it, and they disregarded the fatigue. Further, the tense (pluperf., equivalent to imperf.) pictures them as patiently standing there. On the shore; beach (Revised Version); ἐπὶτὸναἰγιαλόν: i.e. this part at least of the shore was covered with sand or pebbles. Possibly we have signs of an eyewitness, both in the exact description of the spot, and in the vividness of the ἱστήκει. Matthew 13:3 And he spake many things. Of which but a few are here recorded (cf. Matthew 13:34, Matthew 13:51). Unto them in parables. Taking the expression in the widest sense, "speaking in parables" began in the very earliest ages, when natural or spiritual truths were described under figures taken from everyday life, and continues until the present time, more especially among Eastern nations. Interesting examples of such a method of instruction are to be seen in the Haggadoth (which are frequently parabolic narratives) of the Talmuds and other Jewish works. But both myth (cf. Alford) and parabolic Haggada share the common danger of being misunderstood as narratives which are intended to be taken literally, while in the parable, in the narrower sense of the word, such a confusion is hardly possible. For the narrative then suggests, either by its introduction or its structure, that it is only the mirror by which a truth can be seen, and is not the truth itself. Such parables also, though seldom even approaching in beauty to our Lord’s, are very frequent in Jewish writings, though they come but seldom in the Old Testament (Isaiah 28:23-29; 2 Samuel 12:1-6; 2 Samuel 14:6-11; 1 Kings 20:35-40; comp. also Isaiah 5:1-7 and Ezekiel 17:1-10, which are rather allegories; and Judges 9:7-15 and 2 Kings 14:9, which are fables). (On the distinction of parable in the narrower sense from fable, myth, proverb, allegory, see Alford and Trench.) Weiss (’Life,’ 2.115) thinks that the most profound reason of all which the Lord had for employing parables was that he wished to show that the same regulations which hold good for the world round us and ourselves in relation to the world and each other, hold good also in the higher ethical and religious life. But at the most this can have been a very subsidiary motive with him. Saying, Behold, a sower. Observe that our Lord enters upon his parable at once (contrast Matthew 13:24). He will attract attention. Mark’s "Hear ye" would have forwarded this. A sower; literally, the sower, as the Revised Version; i.e. the sower of whom I am about to speak (cf. Driver on 1 Samuel 19:13; also Matthew 1:23; Matthew 12:43). Went forth. In the Greek this verb comes first, as though our Lord wished to call attention, not so much to the sower himself as to his action. To sow. Matthew 13:4 And when (as, Revised Version) he sowed, some seeds (ἂμέν). Here (cf. Matthew 13:5, Matthew 13:7, Matthew 13:8) the seeds are, so to speak, each singled out. But in the parallel passages they are viewed as one whole (ὃμέν). Fell by the wayside. Along the road (παρὰτην), which evidently was at no mere corner of the field, but ran for some distance by or through it. And the fowls (birds, Revised Version, as in modern English) came and devoured them up. Matthew 13:5 Some (and others, Revised Version) fell upon stony places; the rocky places (Revised Version). Where the underlying rock was hardly, if at all, covered by soil. Such spots would be common in the fields of Palestine, as in those of all mountainous countries. Where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprang up (ἐξανέτειλεν). They shot up quicker than the thorns in Matthew 13:7 (ἀνέβησαν). Because they had no deepness of earth. Matthew 13:6 And when the sun was up (ἀνατείλαντος). It can hardly be accidental that the Greek suggests the contrast between the springing up of the seeds and of the sun’s rays. They were scorched; and because they had not root, they withered away (cf. John 15:6). Matthew 13:7 And some fell among thorns; upon the thorns (Revised Version); which were sure to be close by (cf. Jeremiah 4:3). And the thorns sprang up (grew up, Revised Version, ἀνέβησαν), and choked them. Whether brambles or merely spinous weeds are here referred to is not certain. Even the former might be comparatively low in sowing time, and only as they "grew up" cause serious injury to the wheat. Matthew 13:8 But other fell into (upon the, Revised Version) good ground, and brought forth (yielded, Revised Version, ἐδίδου); for effort is not implied. Contrast ἐποίησεν in Luke and Matthew 7:18, note. Fruit, some an hundred fold, some sixty fold, some thirty fold. In Mark the numbers increase. Is this due to a desire to avoid even the semblance of a contradiction to αὐξανόμενα, that there precedes? In Luke "hundredfold" alone comes, the difference that exists even in the good ground not being mentioned. (For hundredfold, comp. Genesis 26:12. Compare also the note on Luke 8:8 in this Commentary for instances of still greater production, and for the beautiful parabolic saying recorded by Papias’ Elders (Iren., Luke 5:33. 3).) Matthew 13:9 Who hath ears to hear (Revised Version omits to hear), let him hear. So in all the accounts. Observe that it is not only a call to understand the parable, but is in itself a summary of the chief lesson of the parable. (On the phrase, see Matthew 11:15, note.) Matthew 13:10-17 The reason why Christ spoke to the multitudes in parables. The question of the disciples (Matthew 13:10). Christ’s antithesis—You are the recipients of God’s gift; they are not (Matthew 13:11). This is not arbitrary, but in accordance with a universal law (Matthew 13:12). They have not been using their faculties, and therefore they are thus judged, in accordance with the words of Isaiah (verses 13-15). The privilege of the disciples further insisted upon (verses 16, 17). Matthew 13:10 Matthew alone in this form. In Luke the disciples asked our Lord what the parable was; in Mark, more generally, they "asked of him the parables." Whether the question as given by St. Matthew was actually spoken by the disciples or not, the Lord’s answer, the substance of which is the same in all three accounts, suggests that it at least represents their thoughts. St. Matthew probably wishes to bring out with special clearness, by his version of their words, the point of our Lord’s reply. And the disciples. Including more than the twelve; so Mark, "They that were about him with the twelve" (cf. Matthew 5:1, note) Came. Presumably some little time afterwards, for he must have left the boat (verse 2). And said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? Them; i.e. those outside the circle of Christ’s followers. For the general meaning of our Lord’s reply to this question, see the remarks at the beginning of this chapter. Other questions about our Lord’s reasons for what he did are to be found in Matthew 9:11, Matthew 9:14; Matthew 15:2; Matthew 17:19; Matthew 26:8 (cf. also Matthew 12:2 with Luke 6:2). Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because. Omit because, with the Revised Version. The ὅτι is merely recitative. In this verse our Lord does not directly reply to their question, but only states God’s ways of dealing with the two different classes of people (cf. Matthew 11:25, note). It is given unto you (unto you it is given, Revised Version); which better represents the sharpness of the antithesis in the Greek. It is given; already (δέδοται), i.e. in the counsel of God, though now given in possession, so far as regards this parable, by the explanation that I will add. To know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. The secrets about the establishment and development of God’s realm, which cannot be discovered by human reason, but which are made known to the initiated. Under the term "mystery," St. Paul refers to such revealed secrets as the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:3, Ephesians 3:4, Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:26), the conversion of the Jews (Romans 11:25), the relation of Christ to the Church being like that of husband and wife (Ephesians 5:32), and the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:51). (Cf. Matthew 11:25, note, "revealed;" and infra, verse 35, note, and especially Bishop Lightfoot on the passage in Colossians.) But to them it is not given. Professor Marshall suggests that the variation "the rest" (Luke), points to a slight difference in one word of the original Aramaic text, the phrase in Mark ("them that are without") combining both readings (see Expositor IV. 4.446). The suggestion is ingenious, but seems hardly necessary. Matthew 13:12 Matthew only in this context, but found in the parallel passages shortly after the explanation of this parable—Mark 4:25; Luke 8:18. The same saying is found in Matthew 25:29 (the talents) and Luke 19:26 (the pounds). For. The reason of God’s action spoken of in the preceding verse. It is based on the following principle. Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance. The last phrase (Matthew only) is probably dub to a reminiscence of the form in which the saying was uttered at a much later period in our Lord’s ministry, where it arises naturally out of the parable (Matthew 25:29). But whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. A paradox. What he already possesses, if it is so small as to be not worth speaking of, shall be lost to him. Luke’s "thinketh he hath" calls attention to the superficial character of the man’s mind. The unfit ground loses the seed it receives (cf. the remarks at the beginning of this chapter). Matthew 13:13 Therefore (διὰτοῦτο). To carry out the principle of the whole preceding verse, but with special reference to the second half of it. Because, in this case, they "have not," therefore I speak to them thus. Speak I to them in parables because. In the parallel passages Christ says that he speaks in parables "in order that seeing," etc.; but here, "because seeing,’’ etc. The difference of the thought, which is more formal than real, is that (1) in the parallel passages their moral blindness and deafness are represented as the effect of what he says, parables being used to bring about the punishment for what was presumably earlier sloth. (2) In Matthew their present moral blindness and deafness are represented as the reason for the use of parables. Parables are themselves the punishment; the people are fit for nothing else (thus laying stress on the "has not" of verse 12); therefore Christ speaks to them in parables. They seeing see not (seeing they see not, Revised Version, keeping the order of the Greek, as even the Authorized Version in the next clause); and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. The participles "seeing," "hearing," in Matthew and Luke, probably do not represent the Hebrew infinitive in its common usage of giving intensity or continuance to the idea of the finite verb to which it is joined, but are to be taken separately, i.e." Though they have powers of seeing and of hearing, they nevertheless do not so use these powers as to see and hear" (for the thought, cf. Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2). Thus in meaning, though not in form, as compared with the next verse, seeing is equivalent to "seeing ye shall see;" they see not, to "and shall in no wise perceive;" hearing, to "hearing ye shall hear;" they hear not, to "and shall in no wise understand." Matthew 13:14 And in them; and unto them (Revised Version); i.e. with reference to them (cf. Jude 1:14). Is fulfilled. Completely (ἀναπληροῦται; cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:16). The present, because the process is still going on. The prophecy of Esaias, which saith (Isaiah 6:9, Isaiah 6:10). Not quoted in this form in the parallel passages; for Mark 4:12 and Luke 8:10 are really nearer our Luke 8:13. The quotation is taken verbally from the LXX., and so in Acts 28:26, Acts 28:27. But John 12:40, on the contrary, is nearer the Hebrew. By hearing ye shall hear (ἀκοῇἀκούσετε). A too literal translation of the Greek attempt to reproduce the Hebrew idiom, which is rather "hear ye indeed" as a continued action (עומש ועמש). And shall not understand (Matthew 11:25, note); and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive. You may gaze at the object, but you shall not really see it. So with the bodily eye, an image may be formed in the retina, yet no impression conveyed to the brain. Matthew 13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross. There are two ways of understanding this verse as it comes here. (1) It states the reason why God pronounced the judgment of Mat 13:14. The people’s heart had already become fat, lest (μήποτε will then express the effect from the Divine point of view) they should see, etc. (2) It merely enlarges the statement of Mat 13:14, expanding its meaning: their heart is waxed fat (by God’s judgment for preceding sins), lest they should see, etc. This second explanation is preferable, for it alone suits the imperative found in the Hebrew (cf. the transitive verbs in John 12:40), and is strictly parallel to the introductory Matthew 13:11-13, which do not dwell upon the causes of God’s judgment. And their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest at any time (Matthew 4:6, note) they should see; perceive (Revised Version)—to recall the same word in Matthew 13:14. With their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart. Bengel calls attention to the order; first came heart, ears, eyes; here, eyes, ears, heart. "A corde corruptio manat in aures et oculos: per oculos et aures sanitas pervenit ad cor." And should be converted; and should turn again (Revised Version, ἐπιστρέψωσι); for "to be converted" has acquired too technical a meaning. And I should heal them (καὶἰάσομαιαὐτούς). The verb is still dependent on the lest (cf. Matthew 5:25; Matthew 7:6), but the future brings out the certainty of God’s healing them on their turning, etc. Matthew 13:16, Matthew 13:17 Parallel passage: Luke 10:23, Luke 10:24, after the return of the seventy, and immediately following our Matthew 11:25, Matthew 11:27. The verses stand there, that is to say, in close connexion with the other great utterance contrasting God’s revelation of spiritual things to some and his hiding them from others. Possibly he spoke the verses only once (cf. the repetitions in the Prophets), but, in view of the frequency with which Christ’s utterances are placed out of their original connexion, the assumption should be the other way. If he really only spoke them once, we cannot be sure which the occasion was, but the possibility that they do not properly belong here is increased by the doubt whether also Matthew 11:12 was originally spoken now. Matthew 13:16 But blessed (Matthew 5:3, note) are your eyes. Christ now returns to emphasize Matthew 13:11. For they see (ὅτιβλέπουσιν). This may refer to the disciples being able to see spiritual truths before God’s special grace given them by way of reward to this effect, but this hardly suits the context from the phrase, "it is given" (Matthew 13:12). It is, therefore, better to understand the verse to refer to their seeing and hearing things by virtue of grace given in reward for earlier faithfulness. Edersheim (’Life,’ 1:594) gives a striking illustration of the thought of this verse from the ’Pesiqta’. Matthew 13:17 For verily (Matthew 5:18, note). Not in the parallel passage; it is much more common in Matthew than Luke. Our Lord contrasts his disciples’ "blessedness" not only with the state of their contemporaries, but with that of their predecessors in faith. I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men. Those who were specially favoured with insight into God’s methods, and those who approached most closely to his standard of righteousness. Righteous men; "kings" in Luke. St. Luke’s readers would probably not appreciate the force of the term, "righteous men." to the same degree that St. Matthew’s would. Have desired (ἐπεθύμησαν). By reading ἐπεθύμησα, this saying has been attributed to Christ. To see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them (cf. Hebrews 11:13; 1 Peter 1:10-12). Matthew 13:18-23 The explanation of the parable of the sower. Parallel passages: Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:11-15. Observe that after the preceding verses St. Matthew’s readers would the more easily catch the lesson of the parable. Matthew 13:18 Matthew only. Hear ye therefore; Revised Version, hear ye then, which leaves more room for the rightful emphasis on ye (ὑμεῖς) than the Authorized Version, but hardly gives the full force of οὖν (therefore), i.e. in accordance with the privileges that have been given you. The parable of the sower. Matthew 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not. Understandeth. The form of the explanation here is influenced by the language of Mat 13:14, Matthew 13:15. Then (not in the Greek) cometh the wicked one; the evil one (Revised Version); Matthew 6:13, note. And catcheth (snatcheth, Revised Version) away—seizeth for himself (ἁρπάζει, Matthew 11:12, note)—that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed. That was sown (Revised Version, ὁσπαρείς). And so throughout. The masculine is not merely concise, but also expresses the fact that, as even with land, the man who receives the seed does not put forth in turn merely the seed as something alien, but rather himself so far as he is influenced by the seed; or (regarding the subject from another point of view) he puts forth the new life and energy of the seed as conditioned by that which makes up himself. Matthew 13:20 And anon; and straightway (Revised Version, καις). Matthew 13:21 But dureth for a while (ἀλλὰπρόσκαιρόςἐστιν). Luke’s οἱπρὸςκαιρὸνπιστεύουσιν, is an evidently later form. (For the thought, cf. John 5:35.) By and by; straightway (Revised Version, εὐθύς). He is offended (Matthew 5:29, note). Matthew 13:22 And the care (ἡμέριμνα); Matthew 6:25, note. Of this world (of the world, Revised Version, τοῦαἰῶνος, omitting the τούτου of the Received Text). Choke the word. Which is no unchanging thing, but is always affected for good or evil, however great progress it has made. Matthew 13:23 Which also; who verily (Revised Version, ὃςδή), the particle giving exactness, to the relative (see Dr. Moulton’s note at the end of Winer, § 53). Some; ὃμεν (Westcott and Hort). Neuter, and so the Vulgate. Nominative, the thought refers to the seed as such (cf. Matthew 13:8). An hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty. "100 longius absunt a 60, quam 60 a 30. Habenti dabitur" (Bengel). The reason of the difference in the produce of the good ground is not stated, but, according to the tenor of the whole passage since Matthew 13:3. this lay in a difference already existing within this good ground. Into the question of the ultimate cause of some men being in a better state of preparedness to receive Divine truths than others, our Lord does not enter. Prevenient grace is not always to be insisted upon in practical exhortation. Matthew 13:24-30 The parable of the tares. Matthew only. The parable of the sower dealt with the first reception of the gospel; this deals with the after-development. The aim of this parable is to prevent over-sanguine expectations as to the purity of the society of believers, and to hinder rash attempts to purify it by merely external processes. Archbishop Benson (’Dict. of Christian Biogr.,’ 1:745) calls attention to the fact that the first extant exposition of this parable is in Cyprian’s successful appeal to the Novatianists not to separate from the Church. The aim of the somewhat similar parable in Mark 4:26-29 is to show the slowness and gradualness of the growth of the kingdom of heaven, and also the certainty of its consummation. So many words and phrases in the two parables are identical, that the possibility of one being derived from the other, either by omission or addition, must be acknowledged, but the definiteness of the aim in each points rather to their being originally two distinct parables. The divisions of the parable are— (1) The fact of tares being present as well as good seed, and its cause (Mark 4:24-28). (2) Although there is the natural desire to gather out the tares at once, yet, on account of the impossibility of doing so without destroying some of the good seed, this must not be attempted. At the proper time full separation shall be made by the proper agents (Mark 4:28-30). Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them; set he before them (Revised Version, παρέθηκεναὐτοῖς); so also Matthew 13:31. (cf. also Exodus 19:7; Acts 17:3). Elsewhere it is often used of setting food before any one; e.g. Mark 6:41; Mark 8:6; Luke 11:6; Acts 16:34. Them. The people (Acts 16:3, Acts 16:10, Acts 16:34). Saying, The kingdom of heaven. The principles of its establishment and full development. Is likened unto (ὡμοιώθη). The aorist regards the moment in our Lord’s mind in which he made the comparison. Observe that the verb is transitional; in Acts 16:3 our Lord began his parable without any introduction, so that he might attract attention; here he says that he gives an illustration of the kingdom of heaven; but in the later parables of this discourse (Acts 16:31, Acts 16:33, 44, 45, 47; cf. 52) he is able merely to say that the kingdom of heaven is, in its principles, etc., absolutely like (ὁμοῖαἐστίν). A man which sowed. Explained as "the Son of man" in Acts 16:37. Good seed; "the sons of the kingdom" (Acts 16:38); i.e. the seed represents, not good or bad doctrine as such, but persons. In his field; "the world" (Acts 16:37). Not exactly the Church, i.e. the Church upon earth, but the world so far as it is the sphere of the Church’s missionary activity, even the physical world so far as it becomes the scene of Divine sowing of the gospel. Matthew 13:25 But while men slept. Not in the explanation. If more than merely a part of the necessary framework of the story, it points to the secrecy with which the devil works. His enemy came. This form of malice is still well known in the East (cf. Exell’s ’Biblical Illustrator,’ in loc.). And sowed. Sowed over or in (ἐπέσπειρεν). Tares; i.e. bearded darnel, Lolium temulentum, "a kind of rye grass, and the only species of the grass family the seeds of which are poisonous. The derivation of zawan [ζιζάνια] is from zan, ’vomiting,’ the effect of eating darnel being to produce violent nausea, convulsions, and diarrhoea, which frequently ends in death". Among the wheat, and went his way; went away (Revised Version, ἀπῆλθεν). Matthew 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit. Observe that there is no thought of the tares injuring the wheat (contrast Matthew 13:7, Matthew 13:22). Then appeared the tares also. Matthew 13:27 So; and (Revised Version, δέ). The servants of the householder came. The explanation (Matthew 13:38) does not say who are represented by these; they must be really identical with some of the wheat, yet since they are spoken of as though they are also the agents of the Sower, they must represent the more active, and especially the ministerial, members of the kingdom. Is it a mere coincidence that historically the clergy have shown themselves always the most eager advocates of the policy of rooting up the tares? And said unto him: Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? Thy. For the knowledge that the world belongs to God, and is under his governance and care, makes the question so much the more serious to the servants. Matthew 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. An enemy (ἔχθροςἄνθρωπος). Not "my enemy," referring to some one person, for in real life a man can seldom be at once sure, without inquiry, who it is that has injured him secretly. There are so many coincidences in this verse and Matthew 13:39 (ἔχθροςἄνθρωποςτοῦτοἐποίησεν, [Ἁμάν] πονηρὸς [οὗτος], ὁδιάβολος) with the LXX. of Esther 7:4-6, that it would almost seem as though the evangelist remembered that passage. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? Omit up (συλλέξωμεν); the servants, in their zeal to separate the tares from the wheat, forget the difficulty connected with pulling them up. Matthew 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Wetstein, on Matthew 13:39, quotes an interesting parallel spoken by R. Joshua ben Korcha (Talm. Bah., ’Baba Metzia,’ 83b). Matthew 13:30 To the reapers. Not all my servants, but they to whom such work belongs (cf. Goebel); i.e. the angels (Matthew 13:39). Gather ye together; gather up (Revised Version), because the same word (συλλέγειν) is employed as in Matthew 13:28. This command belongs to the time after the field is reaped. First the tares. The tares are to be separated and gathered together before the wheat is garnered. And hind them in bundles to burn them: but gather (συνάγετε). This word regards rather the destination, συλλέγειν the operation. The wheat into my barn (Matthew 3:12, notes). Matthew 13:31, Matthew 13:32 The parable of the mustard seed. Parallel passages: Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18, Luke 13:19. The central thought of the parable is the growth of the kingdom of heaven considered externally. Although it has small beginnings, it is to have a marvellous expansion, so that even those who naturally are outside it are glad to avail themselves of its protection. Observe that we have no right to limit its growth either to the reputation of its principles alone or to the power of its organization; both are included. Regarded as a prophecy, the parable is partially fulfilled every time that a heathen nation places itself under the protection of a Christian nation, and more truly fulfilled whenever a nation accepts Christianity as its own religion. It is parodied when a nation or a collection of nations submits its political freedom to the dictates of claimants to spiritual superiority, whether these claim to have received such superiority as an inheritance from the past, or to have acquired it in the present. Matthew 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them (Matthew 13:24, note), saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto (Matthew 13:24, note; also Matthew 11:16, note) a grain of mustard seed. "The Common Mustard of Palestine is Sinapis nigra, of the order Cruciferae, the Black Mustard, which is found abundantly in a wild state, and is also cultivated in the gardens for its seed. It is the same as our own Mustard, but grows especially in the richer soils of the Jordan valley to a much greater size than in this country. We noticed its great height on the banks of the Jordan, as have several other travellers; and Dr. Thomson remarks that in the Plain of Acre he has seen it as tall as a horse and its rider". Which a man took. The insertion of λαβών is probably to exclude the idea of a chance sowing. True that the seed might, under certain circumstances, then grow as well, but the reality which is being described was the result of long and deliberate purpose (Titus 1:3; 1 Peter 1:20). And sowed in his field. "His garden" (Luke) suggests a piece of ground that was at once smaller and more cared for. Matthew 13:32 Which indeed is the least of (is less than, Revised Version) all seeds; i.e. all those ordinarily sown in Palestine then. Instances of the proverbial use in the Talmuds of the size of a grain of mustard to express something very small, may be seen in Levy, s.v. לדרח. But when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs; it is greater than the herbs (Revised Version); i.e. than those which are usually called λάχανα. And becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air. There is not necessarily any connotation of evil about these (cf. Matthew 13:4, Matthew 13:19); the thought is simply that those who are naturally outsiders are glad to come under cover of this tree. Compare, for both thought and language, Daniel’s description of the empire of Babylon (Daniel 4:12, Daniel 4:21), and Ezekiel’s prophecy of the kingdom of Judah (Ezekiel 17:23). Come and lodge in the branches thereof. Lodge (κατασκηνοῖν); Matthew 8:20, note. In Palestine the goldfinches and linnets settle on the mustard in flocks. Matthew 13:33 The parable of the leaven. Parallel passage: Luke 13:20, Luke 13:21. The growth of the kingdom regarded in its quiet and secret influence. This is to be ultimately complete and universal. The prophecy is partially fulfilled with every fresh recognition of Christian principles in public opinion, or customs, or laws. For "every thought" shall be brought "captive unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven. This is the only passage where leaven is spoken of with reference to its permeating qualities alone, without any trace of the notion of defilement, which the Paschal and other regulations (Exodus 12:15, Exodus 12:18; Exodus 23:15, Exodus 23:18; Le Exodus 2:11) so readily suggested. Even in 1 Corinthians 5:6 and Galatians 5:9 this connotation of evil is not altogether absent. In Talm. Bab., ’Berach.,’ 17a, it is used as a figure of the "evil impulse" within us. Hence some have interpreted it in a similar sense here, and have understood our Lord to be referring to the spread of worldliness in the Church (especially after the conversion of Constantine); but (1) this is opposed to the prima facie meaning; (2) it is unreasonable to insist that a symbol must always have the same connotation; (3) it is opposed to the idea of deliberate purpose underlying the action of the woman; (4) the closing words would cast too awful a shadow—they would mean that Christianity fails. Which a woman took (verse 31, note), and hid. The woman probably belongs entirely to the framework of the parable (cf. Luke 15:4, Luke 15:8). For the work described is always, in normal societies, performed by women. Of other interpretations that which sees in her the Church as the agent by whom the kingdom of God is wrought into the world is the best. In three measures of meal; i.e. an ephah. This appears to have been a convenient quantity (about a peck) for kneading at one time (Genesis 18:6; Judges 6:19). Until the whole was leavened; literally, until it was leavened, even the whole of it (ἕωςοὗἐζυμώθηὅλον). While our Lord thus promises that the permeating influence of the kingdom of heaven shall at last be entirely successful, it is unfair to so press the parable as to deduce from it that the world as such will continue to be gradually and continuously improved up to the Lord’s return. It may be so (contrast, however, Luke 18:8), but even direct prophecy, and still more parable, frequently regards the ultimate result, and passes over the intermediate stages. Matthew 13:34, Matthew 13:35 The parallel passage in Mark 4:33, Mark 4:34 is as follows: "And with many such parables spoke he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it; and without a parable spoke he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things." The same general idea underlies our present verses, but although each evangelist appears to have used the same words as a basis, he has worked them out in his own characteristic way. For while both writers contrast our Lord’s treatment of the multitudes and his treatment of the disciples in the matter of parables, St. Mark barely alludes to his using them as a judicial punishment upon the people, and St. Matthew merely hints here at the fact that Christ explained them to his disciples (see further, verse 35b, note). It will be noticed that our verses have much in common with the thought of verse 10, sqq. It seems just possible that both paragraphs had one common nucleus from which they were each developed. But according to existing evidence, verse 10, sqq., and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke serve to introduce explanatory matter to the disciples, and our present verses with the parallel in Mark to close a series of parables. Matthew 13:34 All these things (ταῦταπάντα). All seems to imply that the four preceding parables are but a few typical ones taken from a larger collection. Spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; in parables unto the multitudes (Revised Version); for the order of the Greek is the same as in the next clause. Observe the "parallelism" of the two clauses. Is it due to the influence of Hebrew Christians? And without a parable spake he not (nothing, Revised Version, ebony) unto them, As happens often in Semitic writers (cf. St. John’s Gospel), the thought of the preceding clause is now expressed negatively, and yet a fresh thought is added, namely, that he spake in parables alone. Nothing (Revised Version); i.e. under these circumstances, when large crowds of Galilaeans were listening to him. Spake (ἐλάλει: contrast ἐλάλησεν before); i.e. during this period. Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled (Matthew 1:22, note) which was spoken by (through, Revised Version; Matthew 1:22, note) the prophet; rather, Isaiah the prophet, according to the margin of Westcott and Hort, on the evidence of the original hand of the Sinaitic and a few cursive manuscripts, the Rushworth Latin Gospels, a manuscript of the AEthiopic Version, the Clementine Homilies, Porphyry as quoted by Jerome, and remarks by Eusebius. Dr. Herr (’Appendix’) writes, "It is difficult not to think Ἠσαίου genuine. There was a strong temptation to omit it (cf. Isaiah 27:9; Micah 1:2); and, though its insertion might be accounted for by an impulse to supply the name of the best known prophet, the evidence of the actual operation of such an impulse is much more trifling than might have been anticipated .. The erroneous introduction of Isaiah’s name is limited to two passages, and in each case to a single Latin manuscript." If it be genuine, it is a parallel case to the reading "Jeremiah" instead of "Zechariah" in Matthew 27:9, for which no satisfactory explanation has yet been suggested. A simple error of memory (cf. Alford) on the part of one who shows himself so well acquainted with Hebrew customs and modes of thought as our evangelist does, is perhaps the most improbable of all solutions. Possibly, just as there were summaries of legal maxims current in our Lord’s time (cf. Matthew 5:21, note), so there were in Hebrew-Christian circles well known sets of quotations from the Old Testament, which were not expressly divided one from another (cf. Romans 3:10-18), and which were ferreted to under the name of the author of the best known passage. (Observe that this would distinguish these summaries from liturgical quotations.) Thus Zechariah’s mention of the potter (Zechariah 11:13) was placed in connexion with Jeremiah’s visit to the potter’s house, and with his warning of the possible rejection of Israel (Jeremiah 18:1-6; cf. Jeremiah 19:1-11); cf. further Pusey’s remarks on the passage in Zechariah, and Psalms 78:2 (or perhaps Psalms 78:1-3), where Israel is bid listen to the lessons derived from their ancestors’ behaviour, with the warning in Isaiah 6:9, Isaiah 6:10. We have an example of a similar connexion of passages in Mark 1:2, Mark 1:3, where Malachi 3:1 is closely joined to Isaiah 40:3. Observe that if St. Mark had copied his source (ex hypothesi) to the end of the quotation from Malachi, and for some reason omitted the next quotation, he might very easily have still retained the name "Isaiah" with which he introduces his double quotation. Had he done so, we should have had another parallel to our present verse and Matthew 27:9. The prophet. If "Isaiah" be not genuine, this refers to "Asaph the seer" (2 Chronicles 29:30), who was the recognized author of the psalm. So David is called "a prophet" in Acts 2:30. Saying, I will open my mouth (Matthew 5:2, note) in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. From Psalms 78:1, Psalms 78:2. The first clause of the quotation is verbally the same as the LXX., and fairly represents the meaning of the original (יף לשמב החתף)). The second clause is different from the LXX., the first verb being a literal translation from the Hebrew, and the rest a paraphrase. I will utter (ἐρεύξομαι: העיב)): so the LXX. in Psalms 19:2; and cf. Psalms 119:171; Psalms 145:7. Things which have been kept secret (κεκρυμμένα); but the Hebrew is תודיח, i.e. "enigmatical sayings." From the foundation of the world. Ἀπὸκαταβολῆς, for κόσμου of the Received Text must be omitted. But the Hebrew מדק ינם (i.e. "from of old") hardly, in the context of the psalm, refers further back than the be ginning of the national history of Israel, when the Israelites came out of Egypt. "Asaph … here recounts to the people their history from that Egyptaeo-Sinaitic age of yore to which Israel’s national indepen dence and specific position in relation to the rest of the world goes back He will set forth the history of the fathers after the manner of a parable and riddle, so that it may become as a parable, i.e. a didactic history, and its events as marks of interrogation and nota benes to the present age" (Delitzsch). What, however, is the exact connexion of thought in the gospel between the passage as it stands, and its context? The first clause evidently corresponds in meaning to verse 34; Christ fulfils in a fresh sense the expression of the psalmist by speaking in parables (vide infra). But the second clause brings in a different thought, not found, save very indirectly, in verse 34, namely, that Christ utters things that be fore were always hidden. What does the evangelist mean by this second clause? (1) Truths never before revealed have now been revealed by Christ’s parables, especially by those two which have just been related. For in these it has been affirmed that outsiders, i.e. those belonging to other nations than the Jewish nation, shall seek the protection of the kingdom of heaven, and also that the whole world, including, therefore, these Gentile nations, shall become permeated with its principles. It may well be thought that the clause refers to the announcement of these great truths. (2) This interpretation, however, if taken alone, is not enough. For the evangelist is not speaking of Christ revealing truths to men generally. On the contrary, he says that Christ does not reveal them to the multi tudes, but to his disciples (cf. Psalms 145:10, sqq.)—a contrast which the emphatic language of verse 34 (τοῖςὄχλοιςαὐτοῖς) would probably suggest, even though it is not expressly mentioned. It is, therefore, likely that it was this latter fact to which the evangelist specially wished to refer by his quotation of the second clause. Hence, to make his meaning clearer, he has modified its language. As he quotes it, not merely "enigmatical sayings," but "things hidden" (and that from the foundation of the world) are uttered by Christ; but these are now no longer "hidden" to those to whom he speaks them. This complete meaning of the clause—revelation to his disciples of truths before hidden—corresponds to the idea of μυστήριον in Psalms 145:11 (where see note) and in St. Paul (cf. especially Romans 16:25), and is merely another side of St. Mark’s phrase, "Privately to his own disciples he expounded all things" (cf. supra, verses 16, 17). It is also possible that κεκρυμμένα, which is not merely negative, so as to mean "unrevealed," but implies a positive concealment, includes a reference to the thought of ἔκρυψας in Matthew 11:25, that God purposely hid these truths from those who were morally unfit to receive them. These, indeed, belonged in general to the times before Christ came, but also "the multitudes’’ came under this category. If it be asked—What is the relation of the quotation in its context here to the verse in its original context? the easiest answer is that it is only superficial, that the "accidental" employment by the psalmist of the word "parable" was the only reason why the evangelist made the quotation. Yet it may not be quite so; for there was a real similarity between the psalmist teaching his contemporaries by history and Christ teaching his contemporaries by truths couched in narrative form. May we not go even further, and say that in both cases the message was, generally speaking, refused, though in both a remnant of those who heard it were saved (cf also Isaiah 6:9-13; vide supra)? Matthew 13:36-52 Christ alone with his disciples. He explains to them at their request the parable of the tares (Matthew 13:36-43), and adds three parables—the treasure, the pearl, the dragnet—the first two calculated to urge them to full renunciation of everything for Christ, the third to save them from presumption (Matthew 13:44-50). Upon their acknowledging progress in spiritual understanding, he shows them further possibilities (Matthew 13:51, Matthew 13:52). Matthew 13:36-43 The explanation of the parable of the tares of the field. Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away; then he left the multitudes (Revised Version, ἀφείς); cf. Matthew 26:44. And went into the house (Matthew 26:1, note): and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare; explain (Revised Version, διασάφησον); i.e. make it thoroughly clear. The verb is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matthew 18:31, where the thought is that the man’s fellow servants brought his behaviour fully before their lord’s knowledge (cf. also 2 Macc. 1:18). As compared with φράσον (Received Text, and Matthew 15:15), it leaves room for the disciples having already partially understood it. Unto us the parable of the tares of the field. The addition, "of the field," indicates the point of the parable, considered even as a mere story, that the tares grew in no chance place, but in a piece of cultivated ground already allotted to other produce. Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them. In the following reply of our Lord (Matthew 13:37-43) observe the change of style at Matthew 13:40. Until then we have pithy, concise sentences all joined by the simple copula δέ, which can hardly be anything else than literal translations of the Lord’s own phrases. But Matthew 13:40-43 are in the usual style of this Gospel. The Son of man (Matthew 8:20, note). Matthew 13:38 The children of the kingdom; the sons, etc. (Revised Version); Matthew 5:9, note. The tares are the children of the wicked one; of the evil one (Revised Version); cf. Matthew 6:13, note. Matthew 13:39 The enemy that sowed them (ὁσπείρας); contrast Matthew 13:37 (ὁσπείρωντὸκαλὸνσπέρμα). Matthew 13:37 states what is ever true; Matthew 13:39 merely refers back to the enemy spoken of in the parable. Is the devil (Matthew 4:1, note). (For the thought of this and the preceding clause, see John 8:44; 1 John 3:8, 1 John 3:10.) The harvest is the end of the world; literally, as the margin of the Revised Version, the consummation of the age (συντέλειααἰῶνος); when the present age shall have received its completion, and the more glorious one be ushered in (cf. Matthew 12:32, note). And the reapers are the angels; are angels (Revised Version). But it is exactly parallel to the preceding predicate, and if the insertion of our English idiomatic "the" fails to lay the stress which the Greek has on the fact that the reapers are such beings as angels (as contrasted with human workers, Matthew 9:37, Matthew 9:38), its omission adds a thought which the Greek was probably not intended to convey—that the reapers would be only some among the angels. Matthew 13:40 As therefore. Observe that in Matthew 13:40-43 our Lord dwells at much greater length on the details of the reapers’ work than on the preceding stages of the parable. lie wishes to draw special attention to the fact that the tares will, without any doubt, be one day separated, and the wheat appear in full splendour. The tares are gathered and burned in the fire—burned with fire (Revised Version); cf. Matthew 3:10, note—so shall it be in the end of this world (verse 39, note). Matthew 13:41 The Son of man. Observe how expressly Christ identifies the Sower with the Lord of the angels. Shall send forth (ἀποστελεῖ)—as his representatives (Matthew 10:2, note)—his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom—though they are now there—all things that offend, and them which do iniquity (πάντατὰσκάνδαλακαὶτοῦςποιοῦνταςτὴνἀνομιάν); all things that offend (that cause stumbling, Revised Version); Matthew 5:29, note. In itself it would naturally be understood of persons, in accordance with the meaning of "tares." But what is its relation to the following clause, for this latter cannot be merely tautological? There are two answers: (a) The two phrases bring out different aspects under which the persons are regarded. They, as "sons of the evil one," are both stumbling blocks to others ("the sons of the kingdom"), and also active workers of lawlessness (vide infra). They sin against men (cf. Matthew 24:24) and against God. (b) The first term regards not so much them as their actions—their scandalous acts (Goebel); the second, the persons themselves. The former of the two answers seems preferable, as keeping closer to the parable. It also agrees with the personal use of σκάνδαλον in Matthew 16:23, and the use of αὐτούς alone in the next clause. With respect to the whole phrase, observe: (1) It is taken partly from Zephaniah 1:3 (Hebrew), "I will consume [the verb פסֵאָ would readily lend itself to the interpretation ’gather’]... the stumbling blocks with the wicked (מיעשרה־תא תולשכמה … פס))." (2) Yet, as it stands, it is taken partly also from Psalms 37:1, for the Greek of them that do iniquity is the same as in the LXX. there. Besides, the context (comp. Kirkpatrick) is not dissimilar; it is that the righteous should not be envious at the prosperity of the wicked, for it is only transitory, "They shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb." (3) The phrase, them which do iniquity (rather, lawlessness; Matthew 7:23, note), looks as though St. Paul’s teaching of "the man of sin" (ὁἄνθρωποςτῆςἀνομίας: Westcott and Hort, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3; cf. 7, 8) might have some basis in the direct teaching of the Lord. (4) Ephraem Syrus, evidently quoting this passage, but in the form in which, presumably, it existed in the ’Diatessaron,’ deduces from it that the earth will be the abode of the glorified saints: "Quod autem dicit: Mandabit domum regni sui ab omni scandalo, intellige de terra et rebus creatis, quas renovabit, ibique justos suos collocabit". Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a (the, Revised Version) furnace of fire: there shall be (the, Revised Version) wailing and gnashing of teeth. Judging by the analogy of Mat 13:50, even the first clause is not necessarily due to the image of the tares. The furnace of fire was no unknown expression for the punishment of the wicked (cf. also Matthew 8:12, note). Matthew 13:43 Then shall the righteous. For with these also their character is seen in their lives (Matthew 5:45, note). Shine forth as the sun. An undoubted reference to the substance of Dan 12:3. Observe that according to the thought of the parable, it is suggested that the likeness consists not only in the brightness of the sun in itself, but also in its being alone in the sky, with nothing round it to prevent its full glory being seen. Then. The chief lesson of the parable; not before, but at, that time. In the kingdom of their Father. In verse 38 they were spoken of as "the sons of the kingdom;" here their Father is expressly mentioned, not "the Son of man" (verses 37, 41). The same reference to his Father rather than to himself is found in Matthew 26:29. Did our Lord wish already to hint that "then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father" (1 Corinthians 15:24)? Had St. Paul’s teaching also here a direct connexion with that of our Lord (Matthew 26:41, note)? Who hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 26:9, note). Matthew 13:44 The parable of the hidden treasure found. Matthew only. It seems probable, from verse 51, that this and the next two parables were spoken to the disciples in private. They alone would appreciate the value of what they had found; to them alone could the warning be as yet given, that it is not sufficient to have been gathered within the gospel net. Observe in this parable that the treasure was found by chance, and it was near to the man without his knowing it. Again. To be omitted, with the Revised Version and Westcott and Hort. Its absence (contrast verses 45, 47) suggests that this parable is the first of a group, marked as such either by our Lord beginning with it after he had made a pause, or by merely coming first in one of the sources that the evangelist used. The kingdom of heaven (verse 24, note) is like unto treasure hid in a field (cf. Proverbs 2:4). Hid (hidden, Revised Version, κεκρυμμένῳ). It was not there by accident; it had been purposely placed there, hid by its former possessor for safety (Matthew 25:18, Matthew 25:25). Observe that, doubtless unintentionally on the part of the evangelist, the parable forms in this respect the complement to verse 35b. In a field (ἐντῷἀγρῷ); in the field (Revised Version); cf. Matthew 1:23, note. The which when a man hath found, he hideth; which a man found, and hid (Revised Version). For fear some one else should take it. Premature assertion would lose the man the treasure. (For a similar truth in spiritual things, cf. Galatians 1:17.) And for joy thereof. So also the margin of the Revised Version; but and in his joy (Revised Version) is better (καὶἀπὸτῆςχαρᾶςαὐτοῦ). Goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Goeth … selleth … buyeth. All in the present tense. Our Lord in this parable (contrast verse 46) brings the man vividly before us in each separate stage of his action. For the self-denial that is a necessary of acquiring gospel privileges, comp. Matthew 19:21 (where contrast the young man’s grief with the joy spoken of here). Field. Observe that, though the figure is the same as in Matthew 19:24, the thing signified is very different. Here field represents merely that which contains the treasure, perhaps the outward profession of Christianity. All. Westcott and Hort omit, chiefly on the authority of the Vatican manuscript (cf. verse 46, note). And buyeth that field. Into the morality of the action our Lord does not enter; he only illustrates his teaching by an incident that must have happened not un-frequently in a country like Palestine, which had already been the scene of so many wars. But the transaction "was, at least, in entire accordance with Jewish law. If a man had found a treasure in loose coins among the corn, it would certainly be his, if he bought the corn. If he had found it on the ground, or in the soil, it would equally certainly belong to him, if he could claim ownership of the soil, and even if the field were not his own, unless others could prove their right to it. The law went so far as to adjudge to the purchaser of fruits anything found among these fruits" (Edersheim, ’Life,’ 1.595). Matthew 13:45, Matthew 13:46 The parable of the pearl merchant, Matthew only. Observe in this parable that the merchant is accustomed to deal in pearls, and is searching for good ones, when he meets with one worth more than the others he possesses all put together. If the former parable described one who finds the gospel as it were by chance (e.g. the woman of Samaria), this speaks of one who has long been searching for truth (e.g. Andrew and John, the Ethiopian eunuch). Matthew 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man. Evidently no poor man, but a rich wholesale dealer (ἔμπορος: cf. Revelation 18:23; not κάπηλος, "a retailer;" cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17). Seeking. According to the usual manner of his life. Goodly pearls. He eared nothing about the inferior kinds or specimens. The man aimed high; he got more than he can have thought possible (Matthew 7:7, Matthew 7:8). Origen has much curious matter about the different kinds of pearls. Matthew 13:46 Who, when he had found (and having found, Revised Version? εὑρὼνδέ) one pearl of great price; hardly the indefinite article (cf. Matthew 8:19, note). Chrysostom’s comment is, Μίαγάρἐστινἡἀλήθειακαὶοὐπολυσχισής. Went (ἀπελθών); i.e. some distance, for he might well have to go much further than the man in the preceding parable (ὑπάγει). Went (aorist)… sold (perfect) . bought (aorist). He starts without delay; he sells irrevocably; he purchases at once (cf. Matthew 13:44). And sold all that he had, and bought it. All. Genuine here. It may have been a great deal as worldly wealth is reckoned. Thus Saul of Tarsus acted (Philippians 3:7, Philippians 3:8), and Moses (Hebrews 11:26). Matthew 13:47-50 The parable of the dragnet. This parable at once recalls that of the tares, but it will be noticed that there our Lord’s aim is to inculcate patience and hopefulness on tile part of his servants when they realize the close proximity of the ungodly even in districts won over to the faith, while here his aim is rather to warn. To be in the kingdom is not enough; some of those now within it may nevertheless be cast out. It thus greatly resembles the parable of the ten virgins; save that in that parable greater stress is laid on personal preparation and continued watchfulness; in this, on personal worth. Matthew 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net (σαγήνῃ: Matthew 4:18, note), that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind. (For the thought, cf. Matthew 22:10; and for the word, συνάγειν, Matthew 22:30, note.) Matthew 13:48 Which, when it was full; filled (Revised Version, ἐπληρώθη); i.e. not as a matter of course, but by those that came or were brought in. They drew to shore. The Revised Version reproduces the local touch, they drew up on the beach (Matthew 13:2, note). In the parable those who cast the net also separate the fish, but this identification of two distinct sets of persons (Matthew 13:24, Matthew 13:30, Matthew 13:37, Matthew 13:41) is merely part of the machinery of the story (cf. Matthew 13:25). And sat down. How true to life. Perhaps it "intimates the thoughtful care with which the work of separation is performed" (Goebel). And gathered (συνέλεξαν); Matthew 13:30, note. The good. Corresponding to their proper nature also in appearance (τὰκαλά: cf. Matthew 7:17, note). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 14:1-36 CHRIST’S POWER TO SUPPLY AND PROTECT AND HEAL, BY A OF HEROD’S TO HIM. Matthew 14:1-12 Herod’s opinion of Jesus, and a parenthetical account of his murder of John the Baptist. Parallel passages: Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9; Luke 3:19, Luke 3:20. Matthew 14:1 At that time; season (Revised Version); Matthew 11:25, note. Herod the tetrarch; i.e. Antipas, youngest son of Herod the Great, and by one of his father’s wills named his successor on the throne, but by the last will appointed only tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. Though not legally king, he sometimes received the title by courtesy. "In point of character, Antipas was a genuine son of old Herod—sly, ambitious, and luxurious, only not so able as his father." He was deposed by Caligula, A.D. 39, when, at the instance of Herodias, he had gone to Rome to try to obtain the same title of king that had been granted to her brother Agrippa I. (Schurer, I. Matthew 2:18, 36). Heard of the fame—heard the report (Revised Version); Matthew 4:24, note—of Jesus. Matthew 14:2 And said unto his servants. According to Luke, the following assertion was brought forward by some, but was, it would seem, summarily rejected by Herod (Luke 9:7, Luke 9:9); according to Mark (ἔλεγον, Westcott and Hort, text) it was common talk, and agreed to by Herod. If a reconciliation of so unimportant a verbal disagreement be sought for, it may perhaps lie in Luke representing Herod’s first exclamation, and Matthew, with Mark, his settled belief. Clearly Herod did not originate it, as the summary account in our Gospel would lead us to suppose. This is John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1 and Matthew 4:12, notes). (For this opinion about our Lord, compare, besides the parallel passages referred to in the last note, also Matthew 16:14.) He (αὐτός, Matthew 1:21, note) is risen from the dead. The other dead still lie in Hades (ἀπὸτῶννεκρῶν). Plumptre, on Mark, adduces a curious passage from Persius, 5:180-188, which he thinks is based on a story that when Herod celebrated another of his birthdays (cf. verse 6) in Rome, in A.D. 39, he was terrified by a Banquo-like appearance of the murdered prophet. The superstition that already suggested to Herod the resurrection of John might well act more strongly on the anniversary of the murder, and after he had connived at the death of the One who, by his miracles, showed that he possessed greater power than John. And therefore; "because he is no ordinary man, but one risen from the dead" (Meyer). Mighty works do show forth themselves in him (αἱδυνάμειςἐνεργοῦσινἐναἰτῷ) do these powers work in him (Revised Version). "These" (αἱ, the article of reference), i.e. these which are spoken of in the report (verse 1). Αἱδυνάμεις may be (1) specifically miracles (cf. Matthew 13:58), in which case they are regarded as potentially active in John before their completion in history; or (2) the powers of working miracles, as perhaps in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Observe that this passage confirms the statement of Joh 10:41, that John performed no miracle. Observe that it is also an indirect witness to the fact of our Lord performing miracles. For Herod’s utterance is not such as a forger would have imagined. Matthew 14:3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him. Although had simplifies the meaning to the English reader, as definitely marking what must have been the case, that John’s imprisonment began some time before, yet in the Greek only the aorist is used to commence a vivid narrative. And put him in prison; "put him away in prison (ἐνφυλακῇἀπέθετο)." So of Micaiah by Ahab (2 Chronicles 18:26, LXX., but not Lucian’s text). Probably here in allusion to the distance of Machaerus from Herod’s usual residence at Tiberius. Possibly, also, a reference to John being safer there from the designs of Herodias. Anyhow, notice the stages in Herod’s action—capture, binding, imprisonment in a place where he was quite out of the way. For Herodias’sake. John was imprisoned, according to the New Testament, (1) as a punishment for his rebuke of Herod; (2) to protect him from Herodias’ vengeance. (On the statement by Josephus, that it was for political reasons, see Matthew 3:1, note.) His brother Philip’s wife. According to Josephus (’Ant.,’ 18.5. 4), the first husband of Herodias was "Herod," son of Herod the Great by Mariamne the high priest’s daughter, and the daughter of Herodias, Salome, married Philip the tetrarch, who was also the son of Herod the Great by Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Hence many critics (e.g. Ewald; Schurer, I. 2.22) suppose the account in Matthew and Mark to be mistaken, and due to a confusion of Herodias with her daughter. But, although it is curious that two sons of Herod the Great should have been called Philip, yet, in view of their being by different mothers, it cannot be pronounced impossible ("Antipas" and "Antipater" are not precisely identical). Besides, Herod the son of Mariamne would probably have had some other name than that of his father alone. It is noticeable that, in the same context, Josephus speaks also of Antipas by the name Herod only. Matthew 14:4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful (οὐκἔξεστιν, Matthew 12:2) for thee to have her. Herod Philip being still alive. Bengel remarks, "Causas matrimoniales non possunt plane abdicare theologi." Was he thinking of Luther’s unfortunate advice to Philip of Hesse? Matthew 14:5 And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude (cf. Luke 20:6). Mark has, "And Herodias set herself against him, and would have put him to death; and she could not; for Herod feared John." The more detailed account in Mark is doubtless the more exact. Perhaps the facts of the case were that, in the first heat of his resentment, Herod wished to kill John, but feared the anger of the people, and that afterwards, when he him in his power and Herodias still urged his death, Herod had himself learned to respect him. Observe (1) that it is quite impossible to suppose that either evangelist had the words of the other in front of him. The difference does not consist merely of addition or explanation; (2) that these are exactly the kind of verbal coincidences which might be expected to be found in two oral traditions starting from a common basis. For they counted him as a prophet (ὡςπροφήτηναὐτὸνεἶχον); so Matthew 21:26. Matthew 14:6 But when Herod’s birthday was kept; came (Revised Version); γενεσίοιςδὲγενομένοιςτοῦἩρῴδου, dative of time (Winer, § 31:9), with the addition of a participle. Birthday. So "Pharaoh’s birthday" (Genesis 40:20, ἡμέραγενέσεως). Thayer’s Grimm refers to "Alciphr. Epp. 3, 18, and 55; Dio Cass., 47, 18, etc.," for γενέσια being used in the same sense. The Talmudic איסיניג (see Levy, s.v.) apparently represents the same word, and (preceded by מוי) has the same meaning (cf. Schurer, I. 2:27). Possibly Jews found γενέσια an easier word to pronounce than the more classical γενέσλια. The daughter of Herodias; i.e. Salome, daughter of Herod Philip and Herodias; she afterwards married her half uncle, Philip the tetrarch (Matthew 14:3, note). She could not now be less than seventeen or eighteen years old (cf. Gutschmid, in Schurer, I. 2:28), so, in the East, could only just be still called a κοράσιον (Matthew 14:11). Mark’s text (like the Greek of Codex Bezae here) speaks of her as though she herself was called Herodias, and was the daughter of Antipas and Herodias; but the issue of this union could not then have been more than two years old (Schurer, loc. cit.). Besides, the trait mentioned by Mark (Mark 6:25), that she came back with haste to the king, asking for the head of the Baptist, implies that she was more than a child. Rendel Harris suggests that the confusion is due to an early Latinization of the Greek from an ambiguous ejus. Danced. Probably with the same kind of voluptuous dance as that of the Egyptian almd described by Warburton. But that a member of the royal family should so dance before a company must have been almost unheard of. Before them; in the midst (Revised Version). Matthew only. Such a dance with men sitting round would be specially abhorrent to the Jewish mind. And pleased Herod. And of course, as St. Mark adds, "them that sat with him" (cf. verse 9). Matthew 14:7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. Matthew 14:8 And she, being before instructed; being put forward (Revised Version); προβιβασθεῖσα (Acts 19:33, Received Text; Deuteronomy 6:7, LXX.). The word implies that the girl herself would not have thought of it, and perhaps that she had at first some little reluctance. But if so, it was soon over, for she came back "in haste" (Mark). Of her mother. St. Mark explains that she left the room to ask her mother. Said, Give me. This is the gift I want. Here. And evidently at once. The word excludes the possibility of the feast being in Tiberias, if John was slain at Machaerus, as the passage in Josephus states (cf. Matthew 3:1, note). There is no very great difficulty in supposing the chief men of Galilee, etc. (Mark), to have gone as far as Machaerus to pay their respects to Herod and to partake of the feast, but whether the statement in Josephus is accurate, and how, if it be so, it is to be reconciled with the preceding statement that Machaerus belonged to Aretas, are questions not easily answered (see Schurer, I. 2.26). John Baptist’s head in a charger; in a charger the head of John the Baptist (Revised Version). She defines here still more closely (ὧδεἐπὶπίνακι), and then states her request. On the form of her demand for John’s death, Chrysostom says that she wished to see his tongue lying there silent, for she did not merely long to be freed from his reproaches, but to insult and jeer him (ἐπιβῆναικαὶἐπιτωθάσαικειμένᾳ). Charger. A wooden trencher. Matthew 14:9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake; better, and though the king was grieved, yet for the sake of his oaths (καὶλυπηθεὶςὁβασιλεὺςδιὰτὺοςὅρκουςκ.τ.λ.). That he was grieved at John’s death is a verbal contradiction to verse 5, but after some weeks’ or months’ delay psychologically quite possible (cf. note there). Kubel attributes the change to his conscience recoiling when his wish had a sudden chance of being accomplished; or it may be that he still fearest the multitude (cf. verse 5), and felt anxious lest he should bring about some political disturbance. Oaths; for in making the promise of verse 7 he would certainly take more than one. And them which sat with him at meat. Had he uttered the promise and the oaths in private, it would have been different, but now there were so many witnesses. Observe that these said nothing to stop him. They were no friends of the enthusiast who was now a prisoner. He commanded it to be given her. Matthew 14:10, Matthew 14:11 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison, and his head was brought in a charger (verse 8, note), and given (the fourth time that the word "give" has come in five verses; the head of the herald of the kingdom becomes a royal gift) to the damsel—(τῷκορασίῳ, verse 6, note)—and she brought it to her mother. But a few minutes after she had first spoken her request (verse 8, note). Matthew 14:12 And his disciples came. "And when his disciples heard thereof, they came" (Mark). Perhaps they were not permitted to be so much with him as at an earlier period in his imprisonment (Matthew 11:2). But if the murder was in the evening, as would appear probable from the circumstances of it, they would naturally not be in the castle at the time. And took up the body; the corpse (Revised Version, τὸπτῶμα). And buried it; him, (Revised Version, αὐτόν). It is right in Mark, but St. Matthew has preserved the more popular form of expression. And (Revised Version adds they) went and told Jesus. Matthew only. In Mark (Mark 6:30; cf. also Luke 9:10) this expression dearly belongs to the next paragraph, and is predicated of the twelve apostles on their return from their mission (Mark 6:7-12; our Matthew 10:5). It looks as though some confusion had arisen in the source before St. Matthew used it. As the words stand here they show the kindly feelings which both John and his disciples felt towards our Lord Matthew 14:13-21 The feeding of the five thousand. Parallel passages: Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-13. The miracle was deemed so characteristic of our Lord’s work, in his care for men and his power to sustain them, and more especially in its being a parable of his readiness to supply spiritual food, that it was recorded not only by each of the three evangelists who used the framework, but also by the one who depended entirely upon his own materials. But though St. John’s account of it is on the whole independent, yet even this has expressions which are certainly due to the influence of the source used by the synoptists, or, less probably, of one or other of our present Gospels. The evangelist relates (1) the occasion of the miracle the preparation of the disciples (verses 15-18); (3) the miracle itself (verses 19, 20); (4) a summary statement of the numbers fed (verse 21). Matthew 14:13 When Jesus heard of it (cf. Matthew 14:12, note), he departed. (For the form of the sentence, see Matthew 4:12; Matthew 12:15.) Thence by ship; in a boat (Revised Version); Matthew 8:23. Into a desert place apart. Defined in John 6:3 as "the mountain;" in Luke 9:10 as "a city called Bethsaida." The spot appears to have been in part of the plain El-Batiha, which is at the northcast corner of the Sea of Galilee on the Gaulonitis side of the Jordan, and in which stood Bethsaida-Julias. Mark 6:45 implies that there was a second Bethsaida on the western side of the lake, which, though not alluded to by Josephus, is expressly spoken of in John 12:21, and is probably referred to in all the other passages of the New Testament where the name Bethsaida occurs. And when the people (the multitudes, Revised Version) had heard thereof, they followed him on foot out of the cities. The fact that it was near a feast time (John 6:4, the Passover, if the text be right; and cf. infra, John 6:19, note) perhaps accounts for the multitudes being so large. Some at least would be on their way up to Jerusalem. Matthew 14:14 The first half of this verse is found verbally in Mark (Mark 6:34); comp. also Matthew 9:36, note. And Jesus went forth; came forth (Revised Version); i.e. from the more retired place where he had been conversing with his disciples. And saw a great multitude. "The multitudes" of Matthew 9:13 have now become one body. And was moved with compassion toward them; and he had compassion on them (Revised Version). The true reading, ἐπαὐτοῖς, regards the Lord’s pity at, so to say, a later stage than the common reading, ἐπαὐτούς. It was not only directed towards them, but actually resting on them. And he healed (ἐθεράπευσεν, Matthew 4:23, note) their sick (τοὺςἀῤῥώστουςαὐτῶν). Αῤῥωστος here only in Matthew, elsewhere in the New Testament in Mark 6:5,Mark 6:13 [Mark 16:18]; 1 Corinthians 11:30. As compared with ἀσθενής, it "seems to point to diseases predominantly marked by loss of bodily power (’diuturno languore teneri,’ Calvin), while the more common ἀσθενής is simply used to denote sickness generally" (Bishop Ellicott, on 1 Corinthians, loc. cit.). But in our passage it is used without any such limitation (cf. Luke, "And he healed them that had need of healing"). Mark and John do not speak of miracles of healing on this occasion. Matthew 14:15 And when it was evening. But not as late as the "evening" of Matthew 14:23. It appears that the first evening was from the ninth to the twelfth hour (our 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. at the equinoxes), and the second evening was for a short time, perhaps forty minutes, after sunset (cf. Matthew 8:16, note). His (the, Revised Version) disciples came to him, saying. St. John alone has recorded our Lord’s previous conversation with Philip (John 6:5-7). This is a desert place; the place is desert (Revised Version), which better marks the parallelism with the next clause. And the time is now (already, Revised Version) past (ἡὥραἤδηπαρῆλθεν); i.e. probably the hour at which he was accustomed to dismiss his audience. For he would often have to consider their wish to get home before nightfall. Send the multitude away; the multitudes (Revised Version); for now again they are regarded separately as having to go in different directions. That they may go (go away) into the villages, and buy themselves victuals; food (Revised Version). One at least of the disciples would have a keen eye for the amount of the contents of the common purse. Matthew 14:16 But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; they have no need to go away (Revised Version). Matthew only. The Lord takes up the expression. There is no need for them to move from this place, desert though it is. Give ye them to eat. Ye; emphatic, he throws upon his disciples the duty of feeding them, and, strange though the command seemed to them (cf. 2 Kings 4:43), they carried it out. Matthew 14:17 And they say unto him, We have here (ὧδε) but five loaves (Matthew 4:3, note), and two fishes (Matthew 7:9, note). St. Matthew omits the question, "Shall we go and buy?" etc., which comes in Mark and Luke, and essentially in John (verse 5). Matthew 14:18 Matthew only. He said, Bring them hither to me (φέρετεμοιὧδεαὐτούς). This gives the sense, but still more is implied. He takes up their ὧδε. "Yes," he says, "it is possible to feed them where we are, and especially where I am. For there is not the poverty of supply here that you think there is." Observe that for the disciples to bring them "here" was in itself an act of faith. Matthew 14:19 And he commanded the multitude; the multitudes (Revised Version). Here also the plural (Matthew 14:15), because they are thought of as grouped over the ground. To sit down; i.e. to recline as at a meal (ἀνακλιθῆναι). On the grass (ἐπὶτοῦχόρτου). The addition of "green" (χλωρός) in Mark suits the time of the Passover (verse 13, note), but hardly of any later feast, for the grass would have been dried up. And took the five loaves, and the two fishes. He used all the means there were. And looking up to heaven. So also Mark 7:34; John 17:1. He blessed. He may well have used the blessing that is still used over bread ("Blessed art thou, Jehovah our God, King of the world, that causest bread to come forth from the earth"); for this can be apparently traced to the second or third century A.D., and is probably much older still. (For the habit of saying grace before meals, cf. Matthew 15:36; Matthew 26:26; Romans 14:6; 1 Corinthians 10:30; 1 Timothy 4:5; see also 1 Samuel 9:13.) And brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. That the people received the bread at the hands of the disciples is not mentioned by St. John. Perhaps because his chapter dwells so much on the need of direct contact with Christ. But Christ’s work through his agents, both before and after his time on earth, is an important point with the synoptists. Matthew 14:20 And they did all eat, and were filled (ἐχορτάσθησαν, Matthew 5:6, note). And they. Undefined, but seen from Matthew 16:9; John 6:12, to have been the disciples. Took up of the fragments that remained; that which remained over of the broken pieces (Revised Version); i.e. of the pieces broken by our Lord for distribution (John 6:19). Twelve baskets full. The disciples personally lost nothing by the miracle (John 6:15, note), the provision basket that each always carried was now replenished. Baskets; "cofyns" (Wickliffe); κοφίνους (cf. Luke 9:17, note; and the Talmudic saying, "He that has bread in his basket is not like him that has not bread in his basket," Talm. Bab., ’Yoma,’ 74b). Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children. Only Matthew mentions the presence of other than men. We may assume that no great number of women and children were there; and this, considering the distance that most had been obliged to go (verse 13), is what we should expect. "Observe here the diminutive παιδίων, little children, whom their mothers either carried in their arms or led by the hand" (Meyer). Matthew 14:22-33 Christ’s power over the elements. He walks on the water and stays the storm. St. Peter’s attempt to walk on the water is successful so long as he exercises faith on Christ. Jesus receives homage as Messiah. Parallel passages: Mark 6:45-52; John 6:15-21. It is strange that the incident of St. Peter is recorded in Matthew only, and not in Mark, for it serves to emphasize what is a leading thought of the preceding narrative, even in Mark, viz. the power that believers receive by virtue of faith on Christ (verses 16, 19). With Christ in the boat, difficulties cease (verse 32); they that believe on him can triumph as he did (verses 28-31; cf. the thought of Joh 14:19, end). For St. John’s purpose the mention of St. Peter was not necessary; since, by way of introduction to the following discourse, be desired rather to familiarize his readers with the idea of Christ’s body being triumphant over earthly limitations (cf. verse 19, note). Matthew 14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples. It was not their wish to leave him, especially when the multitudes seemed likely to elect him king (John 6:15). But from the temptation to side with the multitudes our Lord desired now to shield them. Separation and physical work (Matthew 14:24) would calm their excitement, and the object lesson that their Master already ruled over wind and sea would lead them to more perfect trust in his methods. Another reason for his sending them forward may have been that they should use the failing light; and yet another, that he himself desired time for prayer. To get into a ship; a boat (ἐμβῆναιεἰςπλοῖον); cf. Matthew 8:23 (the boat, Revised Version, reading εἰςτὸπλοῖον). And to go before him (προάγειναὐτόν: Matthew 2:9; Matthew 21:9). For he would follow. He fulfilled his promise much more literally than they anticipated. Unto the other side. "Unto Bethsaida" (Mark); "unto Capernaum" (John). Probably they landed at the western Bethsaida (Matthew 8:13, note), in Gennesaret (Matthew 8:34), and went on to Capernaum, where our Lord again addressed the people (John 6:24-26). While he sent—till he should send (Revised Version); ἕωςοὗἀπολύσῃ, Matthew 13:33—the multitudes away. Why should this take up time? Why did he not dismiss them then and there? Possibly they were too eager to carry out their own plans on his behalf to attend to only one expression of his wish. Matthew 14:23 And when he had sent the multitudes away. Matthew speaks merely of the dismissal as such (ἀπολύσαςτοὺςὄχλους); Mark refers to his parting words (ἀποταξάμενοςαὐτοῖς, i.e. probably to the multitude). He went up into a mountain—the mountain (Revised Version); Matthew 5:1, note—apart. Κατἰδίαν is to be joined with the preceding, and not to the following words (cf. Matthew 5:13; Matthew 17:19). And when the evening was come (Matthew 5:15, note), he was there alone. For some eight hours, if it was spring or autumn (Matthew 5:25). Matthew 14:24 But the ship; boat (Revised Version); Matthew 14:22. Was now; rather, already, when the following incident happened. In the midst of the sea. So also the text of the Revised Version, but its margin, "was many furlongs distant from the land." Westcott and Hort prefer the latter, with Codex B and the Old Syriac. It somewhat resembles John 6:19. Tossed; distressed (Revised Version). For βασανιζόμενον suggests not physical motion, but pain and anguish, the idea being transferred in figure to the boat. In Mark it is applied more strictly to the disciples. With waves; by the waves (Revised Version). The agents of the torture (ὑπὸτῶνκυμάτων). For the wind was contrary. Yet he came not at once, for he would teach us to bear troubles bravely (cf. Chrysostom). Matthew 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night. Therefore some nine hours after sunset (Matthew 14:23, note). They had been battling for hours, and had only gone about three miles and a half (John 6:19). Jesus went; came (Revised Version); ἦλθε, not ἀπῆλθε, with Received Text. Unto them, walking on the sea (ἐπὶτὴνθάλθασσαν); contrast Matthew 14:26 (ἐπὶτῆςθαλάσσης). Here there is more thought of motion (cf. Matthew 14:29), but in the next verse the advance is almost forgotten, and the fact of Christ being on the water is all-important; "they saw him on the sea, walking." Matthew 14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit—an apparition (Revised Version, φάντασμάἐστιν)—and they cried out for fear. Matthew 14:27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them (ἐλάλησεν, not ἔκραξεν). He was evidently near them. Saying, Be of good cheer (θαρσεῖτε, Matthew 9:2); it is I; be not afraid. Encouragement, self-manifestation, recall from present terror. But the absence of θαρσεῖτε in John 6:20 suggests that it is, perhaps, a duplicate rendering of the Aramaic for μὴφοβεῖσθε. For the LXX. commonly translates "fear ye not" by θαρσεῖτε (e.g. Exodus 14:13; Exodus 20:20). One or two second-rate manuscripts omit θαρσεῖτε in Mark, but this may be only due to a reminiscence of John. It is also omitted in Tatian’s ’Diatessaron’ (edit. Hemphill). Matthew 14:28-31 St. Peter’s venture. Matthew only. Matthew 14:28 And; δέ, slightly adversative, because St. Peter’s words were so contrary to what might have been expected. Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou (εἰσὺεἷ). No doubt is implied (Matthew 4:3, note). Bid me (κέλευσόνμε); jube me (Vulgate). He will only come at Christ’s command. In this lies the difference—and it is a decisive difference—from the second temptation (Matthew 4:6). Come unto thee on the water. Not "bid me walk on the water;" for he does not want to perform a miracle, but to come to Jesus. His request is not due to the hope of making a show, but to impulsive love. Observe, too, that he seems to have realized that the Lord would enable his followers to do as he himself did (cf. Chrysostom). On the water; the waters (Revised Version); rough though they were. Had we any ether account of this incident, it would be interesting to see if it contained these words. They read very like an explanatory addition by the narrator. Matthew 14:29 And he said, Come. Our Lord takes him at his word, and gives the command. It is not merely a permission. Observe that our Lord never blames him for having made the request. His venture of faith would have been altogether successful had his faith continued. And when Peter was come down out of the ship. The Revised Version has more simply, And Peter went down from the boat, and. He walked on the water. For the narrator was chiefly interested in his walking there (contrast Matthew 14:28). To go to Jesus; rather, and came to Jesus. The true text states what did, in fact, happen, notwithstanding Peter’s lack of faith (cf. Matthew 14:31). Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boysterous (ἰσχυρόν is clearly a gloss, and therefore omitted by the Revised Version). He was afraid; and beginning to sink. The natural tendency to sink, which he had had all the time, was counteracted before by his faith, which enabled him to receive Christ’s power. But now that his doubt made him incapable of receiving this, he sank (cf. Meyer). He cried (ἔκραξεν), saying, Lord, save me (Matthew 8:25). Aphraates quotes an apocryphal saying of our Lord’s, "Doubt not; lest ye are engulfed in the world, as Simon; for he doubled, and began to sink in the sea." Matthew 14:31 And immediately. Without any waste of time, just as in Matthew 14:27. Jesus stretched forth his hand. So that St. Peter had come up to him (Matthew 14:29). And caught him; and took hold of him (Revised Version, ἐπελάβετοαὐτοῦ: cf. Hebrews 2:16; Hebrews 8:9). And said; saith (Revised Version). The writer passes to more vivid narration. Unto him, O thou of little faith (ὀλιγόπιστε); Matthew 6:30, note. But in Matthew 17:20 (Westcott and Hort) the substantive is used of faith in a more active sense. Wherefore (εἰςτί); "המל, literally rendered" (Dr. Guillemard). Didst thou doubt? (ἐδίστασας). In the New Testament, Matthew 28:17 only. Christ saves first, and rebukes afterwards. Perhaps the need for help was more immediate than in Matthew 8:26, or possibly the fervency of St. Peter’s love deserved gentler treatment. Matthew 14:32 And when they were come—gone up (Revised Version)—into the ship, the wind ceased. Apparently not before, so that Peter may still have walked a little further on the water in the midst of the storm, but upheld by the Lord’s hand. Matthew 14:33 Matthew only. Then—and (Revised Version, δέ)—they that were in the ship; boat (Revised Version). If there were others than the disciples in the boat, as is probable, these also would be included; but the disciples would naturally take the lead (cf. the notes on Matthew 8:23, Matthew 8:27). Came and. The Revised Version omits these two words, with the manuscripts. They are due to the analogy of Mat 8:2; Matthew 9:18. Worshipped him (Matthew 4:9, note). In Matthew 8:27 we read of wonder; here, of homage. Saying, Of a truth (ἀληθῶς); cf. Matthew 5:18, s.v. "verily." The word seems to imply that the suggestion did not enter their minds now for the first time. Two had, perhaps, heard the words spoken at the baptism (Matthew 3:17), and most of them, if not all, the utterance by the demons in Matthew 8:29. Yet these utterances in reality far surpassed what they even nosy imagined (vide infra). Thou art the Son of God (Θεοῦυἱὸςεἶ). Although the phrase is not of the definite form found in Matthew 26:63 and Matthew 16:16, where it is used with express reference to the Messiahship of Jesus (cf. for the intermediate form, Matthew 27:40 with 43), yet it is impossible to take it here as merely referring to a moral relation between Jesus and God. In Matthew 27:54 this might be sufficient (Luke has "righteous’’); but here there is no question of coming up to a standard of moral uprightness, but rather of manifestation of power, and this is connected with Messiah. His authority over the elements leads to the homage of those who witness its exercise, and forces from them the expression that he is the promised Representative of God on earth (Psalms 2:7; cf. Matthew 2:15, note). Observe, however, that not even so is it a profession of faith in his absolute Divinity. (Kubel’s note on this subject in Matthew 8:29 is very good.) Matthew 14:34-36 On landing at Gennesaret numbers come to him and are healed. Parallel passage: Mark 6:53-56, which is fuller. Matthew 14:34 And when they were gone over—had crossed over (Revised Version); διαπεράσαντες Matthew 9:1—they came into the land of Gennesaret—to the land, unto Gennesaret (Revised Version, with the true text). The plain El-Ruwer, part of the northwest side of the lake, and some three miles long by one broad, extending, roughly, from Chorazin (perhaps Khan Minyeh; but comp. Matthew 11:21, note) to Magdala. (For its fertility, see Josephus, ’Wars,’ 3.10.8.) Matthew 14:35 And when the men of that place had knowledge of him, they sent out into all that country round about (cf. Matthew 3:5). Matthew alone states definitely that this zeal was shown by the inhabitants of the Plain of Gennesaret. Mark’s words (Mark 6:55) are vaguer. And brought unto him all that were diseased; sick (Revised Version); cf. Matthew 4:24; Matthew 8:16. Matthew 14:36 And besought; and they besought (Revised Version); i.e. the sick, for probably the change of person takes place here and not at" that they might touch." Him that they might only touch the hem of his garment (Matthew 9:20, Matthew 9:21, notes): and as many as touched were made perfectly whole (διεσώθησαν); were made whole (Revised Version). For διά here is probably not intensive, but rather gives the thought of being brought out safe through the danger. In the LXX. διασώζεσθαι is a common rendering of טלמן, "escape." The death of John the Baptist. I. HEROD THE . 1. He heard of the fame of Jesus. Herod Antipas was a weak, cruel, voluptuous tyrant; he resembled his father in his vices, not in his capacity and energy of character. He heard of Christ’s miracles; it seems strange if, as the words appear to imply, he now heard of Christ for the first time. For Christ had long been preaching in Galilee; about a year, perhaps more. Great multitudes had flocked to hear him; his mighty works had excited a far spread interest and wonder. Herod may have been absent from Galilee during much of the time, possibly at the distant fortress of Machaerus, where John the Baptist, was imprisoned. But his life was spent in ostentatious display and sensual excesses. He would take no interest in a religious movement unless his fears were aroused by the popular excitement which it caused. His courtiers would not listen themselves to the preaching of Jesus; or if any did, such as the nobleman whose son was healed by the Lord at Capernaum, or Chuza, Herod’s steward (possibly identical with that nobleman), whose wife Joanna ministered to our Lord, they would not relate to the hardhearted selfish tyrant teaching so uncongenial to his character. The miracles, it is true, would excite more interest; they would stir up his curiosity. Some account of them reached him at last. Thus the ruler of Galilee was perhaps one of the last men in the province to hear of the Saviour. The great in this world are not always great in the kingdom of heaven. The tumult of political cares and the glitter of earthly pomp often prevent them from hearing the fame of Jesus. His blessed work goes on among the lowly. Souls are healed, the eyes of the blind are opened. The good news does not, reach those who dwell in kings’ houses. Thank God, it is not always so; there are men high in rank who are also living near to Christ. 2. His superstitious fears. Herod is thought to have been a Sadducee. Probably he had no real religious convictions. But inconsistencies are common in human nature; the unbelieving are not unfrequently superstitious. Herod was haunted by a guilty conscience. The spectres of those whom he had foully murdered troubled his dreams. Christ’s mighty works excited his attention. No ordinary man, he knew, could do such things. It must be some one more than mortal; some one in whom the powers of the unseen world were active and energetic. And conscience whispered, and an awful shudder thrilled through the despot’s soul, "It is John—John, whom I beheaded." Better to be the most miserable prisoner perishing in the gloomy dungeons of Machaerus than that tyrant, whom the world called happy, terror-stricken in his gilded palace. 3. He desired to see Christ. The Lord would not come; he departed into a desert place. "I will come and heal him," he said, when the centurion sent for him. He would not go to Herod. For what were Herod’s motives? Partly mere curiosity; partly that awful power of conscience which seems sometimes to draw the criminal to the scene of his crime or the murdered body of his victim; partly, perhaps, malice and fear; he would have slain the Lord as he had slain the prophet. The Lord Christ doth not manifest himself to those who seek him from motives such as these. Herod saw him at last. The sight did him no good; it increased his condemnation. He set Christ at nought, and shared with Pilate the guilt of his death. II. THE OF JOHN. 1. The sin of Herod. He had married Herodias. That wicked woman had ensnared him with her deceitful beauty. She was not contented with the quiet life of her husband Philip; she sought rank, wealth, magnificence. Antipas was the greatest prince of the family. She lured him to his ruin. She heeded not sin and shame and scandal, so that she might compass her wicked purpose. Now she was the tetrarch’s queen, but her soul was stained with the double guilt of incest and adultery. What is beauty of person when it hides a black and loathsome soul? Herod was weak and self-indulgent. He fell into the snares of Herodias. He took her from her husband. The stronger will of that wicked woman led him on from sin to sin; she became a second Jezebel to a second Ahab. 2. The rebuke of John. John had had considerable influence with Herod. "Herod feared John," St. Mark tells us, "knowing that he was a just man and a holy, and observed him [or rather, ’kept him in safety’]; and when he heard him, he did many things [or rather, ’he was much perplexed’], and heard him gladly." Herod had paid some attention to John; partly, perhaps, from political reasons, for John had been for some time a great power in the land; partly from curiosity and some sort of languid interest in John’s mission and character. He was struck, too, with the intense earnestness of his preaching; he felt the power of his commanding personality. Worldly men sometimes take a sort of interest in religious matters. Statesmen are forced to do so from the widespread influence of religious motives. Men are attracted by a strong character or great spiritual eloquence. But this external interest in religion may coexist with irreligious habits and a hatred of religious restraints. John the Baptist knew this. He did not care to retain Herod’s favour at the cost of condoning his sin. He wanted Herod’s soul; his spiritual good, not his patronage. So he rebuked him boldly for his sin: "It is not lawful for thee to have her." John possessed in a high degree that holy courage which is so often necessary in dealing with souls. It is easy to speak to the humble and the timid of their faults; but when the sinner is great and powerful, stern, perhaps, and masterful, it needs a brave man then to set his sin before him, and to urge him to repentance. John did so plainly. The guilty pair must be separated. Nothing else could avail Herod; no affectation of religion, no costly gifts, no patronage of John’s cause. He could not be saved in his sin—that was impossible; he must at any cost tear himself from it. 3. Herod’s answer. He cast John into prison. Wicked men will do the like now as far as lies in their power; they will do all they can to injure the faithful Christian who reproves them for their souls’ good. So it was with Herod. John might reprove the Pharisees and Sadducees, the publicans and soldiers; but when he came to reprove Herod himself, then he shut up John in prison. It was a hard lot for one like John, accustomed to the free open life of the desert, to be penned up in some wretched dungeon. Herod would have put him to death at once; his own anger prompted him, Herodias urged him in her unfeminine malice. But he feared the people; and, as St. Mark tells us, he feared and respected John himself. Herod feared John, he feared the people; he did not fear God. John feared God, and that holy fear raised him above all other fears; he feared nothing else, but only God. Oh for that brave and holy faith to keep the fear of God in our hearts, and in that fear always to obey him! Worldly men are restrained from crime by some lower motive; it was selfish fear that kept Herod for a time from the awful guilt of murder. III. THE FEAST. 1. The dance of Salome. There were high festivities at Machaerus to celebrate Herod’s birthday or perhaps his accession to the crown. He had gathered a great company round him—his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee. We may be sure that his guests were entertained with all the costly luxury of the time. Even the Roman Persius had heard of the sumptuousness of these Herodian banquets (5:180). But there was one show which could not have been expected. Salome, Herod’s own niece, the great-granddaughter of Mariamne, the descendant of the long line of Asmonaean princes, so utterly forgot the delicacy of a Hebrew maiden and the decorum of a princess as to dance alone in the midst of Herod’s nobles when excited with feasting and heated with wine. Vashti, the Persian queen, had forfeited the crown rather than even appear at such a banquet. Salome, it seems, came unbidden, and in all the bright beauty of her early youth danced before the assembled guests. It was unbecoming, indecent. But the guests were delighted; and, strange to say, Herod too was pleased, though it was his own niece, and now his stepdaughter, who was thus transgressing the accepted rules of society. Feasting and wine often lead to sin. A simple life is safest for a Christian. 2. Herod’s rash oath. In his excitement and folly he promised her with an oath whatever she would ask. He invoked the holy Name of God at this wild, dissolute feast. He swore to what he knew not. Wine and luxury help the devil in his work of slaying souls. The plot had been laid. The princess was instructed by her wicked mother. The malice of hell lurked under the girlish beauty of Salome. That fatal oath was to bring the most awful guilt upon the soul of Herod. For Salome claimed his promise. "I will that thou forthwith give me in a charger the head of John the Baptist." She would have it immediately. The tetrarch was weak and vacillating; she would hold him to his wicked oath. She would have it there and then on a charger—on one of the great dishes, perhaps of silver or gold, which had been used at that gorgeous banquet; a thing ghastly and horrible exceedingly. The king was sorry. He had hated John; once he wished to kill him. But not now. He feared the people; his old reverence for John returned; he shrank from the fearful deed. But he had sworn; all his courtiers had heard him. He had not cared for the shame of his niece; but he thought it shame that a prince should break his word, should be false to his oath. He thought much more of those half-drunken guests who sat around than he thought of God. For, had he thought of God’s honour, his conscience would have told him that to break such an oath was far less insulting to the honour of God than to keep it. It was sinful exceedingly to swear as Herod had done, and so to expose himself to the snare of the devil. But it was beyond all comparison more wicked to keep that wicked oath than to break it. Herod’s grief did not save him; it was only the sorrow of the world; not godly sorrow, not repentance. 3. The martyrdom. The wicked woman gave him no time for thought; she forced him to send an executioner immediately. John was beheaded in the prison. It was a noble death, the death of a hero, the death of a high saint of God. Salome might bear the bleeding head upon the golden charger—a strange burden for a young and beautiful princess; Herodias might exult over it in her gratified malice. The holy martyr’s soul was safe in the Paradise of God. Herod might wear his blood stained diadem; John had received the crown of glory that fadeth not away. He has left behind him a glorious example. Let us ask God to give us his grace that we may truly repent according to the Baptist’s teaching; and after his example constantly speak the truth, boldly rebuke vice, and patiently suffer for the truth’s sake. 4. The burial. The disciples of John cared for his decent burial. Herod, conscience-stricken, perhaps, already, did not hinder them. They laid his body in the grave, and then went and told Jesus. It was as he would have wished. He himself while living had sent his own followers to Christ. "Behold the Lamb of God!" he said to them; and now that he was dead, to whom should his disciples go but to the Lord whom he had honoured, before whose face he had been sent? We should go to Christ in all our troubles; we should tell him. He will listen; he will give us his loving sympathy. He will be a Father to the fatherless, and a Husband to the widow. In our great and in our little troubles, in the bitter sorrow of bereavement, in the petty vexations of daily life, let us tell Jesus. If we come to him in faith and love, we shall never come in vain. LESSONS. 1. Christians are sometimes called to rebuke vice; let them do it fearlessly when it is their duty. 2. Much feasting often leads to sin; the Christian must be temperate in all things. 3. Rash oaths are full of guilt; take not God’s holy Name in vain. 4. One sin leads to another; hate the beginnings of sin. 5. Bring all your troubles to Christ; he will help you to bear them. The feeding effective thousand. I. THE LORD’S FROM GALILEE. 1. He went by ship into a desert place. His apostles had returned from their mission (Luke 9:10); they needed rest, "for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat." He had also heard of Herod’s superstitious fears, and that he was desirous to see him. The Lord would not meet the tyrant; he departed out of his tetrarchy. He crossed the lake to a place near Bethsaida Julius, in the dominions of Herod Philip. His hour was not yet come; he would not expose himself to the cruelty of Antipas, nor would he satisfy his curiosity. 2. The people followed him. It seems to have been long before Herod heard of the fame of Jesus. The humble inhabitants of Galilee heard of all his movements; they followed him on foot out of the cities. The poor Galilaeans were better instructed than the wealthy, wicked prince. They followed Christ whithersoever he went; so should we. They went with him into the desert, trusting in him; so should we always trust. While he is with us, we are safe. 3. His compassion. (1) He went forth, perhaps from the ship. He found, not the quiet which the apostles needed so much, but a great multitude. They had looked for retirement, and they found crowds of people; they had looked for rest, and they found more work awaiting them. (2) His forgetfulness of self. He had compassion on the multitude. Wearied as he was, he healed their sick. The Lord is an Example to us here as always. We are apt to repine if work is thrust upon us when we need rest. We must learn of Christ; we must imitate his compassion for the needy and suffering, and take, as he did, every opportunity of doing good to the souls or bodies of our neighbours. He began to teach them many things, the other evangelists tell us; he spake unto them of the kingdom of God. II. THE MIRACLE. 1. The conversation with the apostles. The multitude was great; the place was desert; the hour was late; there were no ordinary means of providing for their wants. The disciples were burdened with a deep sense of responsibility. The Lord had himself, earlier in the afternoon, put the question to Philip, "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" (John 6:5). Then the difficulty was only suggested; it was not removed; it became more pressing as the day wore on. Later in the evening the disciples came to Christ, not to ask advice, but to give it; it was late, they said, too late already. "Send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals." There was something of presumption, perhaps, in this advice; certainly there was a want of faith. They did not understand the Lord’s majesty, his power, his love. We too often wish to dictate to Almighty God what we think he should do for us. It is best to trust ourselves absolutely to his providence, he doeth all things well. He himself knoweth what he will do. "They need not depart," the Lord replied. It can never be necessary for any needs of ours to depart from Christ. In the greatest tumult of business, in the utmost poverty, in the most imminent danger, faithful souls will not depart; they will draw nearer to the Lord, as temptations thicken round them. He who has learned to know and love the Lord Jesus will cling closest to him in want, in peril, in distress. "Give ye them to eat," he added. There is an emphasis on the pronoun. It was good that they should feel their helplessness. They had but five loaves and two small fishes. It was nothing for that great multitude. How often we feel our ability, our strength, our means, utterly inadequate to fulfil the work which the Lord has given us to do! If we offer them to him in simple trustfulness, he will multiply them. "Bring them hither to me," he said. He asks us for what we can give him, what is in our power. Let us bring our offerings in faith, he will accept them, if only we bring that offering which he most desires—our hearts, ourselves, if we give him that, then those little offerings which we thought unworthy of his acceptance shall be honoured, and will, it may be, by his grace become the means of working great results. 2. The feast in the wilderness. He bade them sit down in companies. He would have order, not confusion. They must sit in their ranks; they must not press rudely round him; they must not try to anticipate one another; they must so sit that the apostles could move freely among them; each must wait till his turn came. Mark how, even in these smaller matters of courtesy and order, the Lord gives us an example for the regulation of our daily life. He looked up to heaven, teaching us to recognize the great truth that it is our Father in heaven who gives us day by day our daily bread, and that we should always look to him in every time of need. Then he blessed; he blessed God, the Giver of all; he blessed the food. As God in the beginning blessed his creatures, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply," so now God the Son, by whom all things were made, blessed this little store of food, that through the power of that Divine blessing it might be multiplied to the satisfaction of the hunger of that great multitude. He gave thanks, St. John tells us. Our food is blessed to our use. It is sanctified by the word of God and prayer when it is received with thanksgiving. We learn of Christ to ask a blessing on our food. To eat bread with unwashen hands, the Pharisees said, was against the tradition of the elders; to eat without asking a blessing is against the example of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us follow that example, recognizing at every meal the bounty of our heavenly Father; let us look up to heaven, as Christ did, and make the grace before and after meat a real act of worship. "Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." Then the Lord brake the bread, as he brake it a year afterwards at the institution of the Holy Eucharist; as he brake it on the resurrection day, when be was made known to the two at Emmaus in the breaking of bread. He gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And lo! "they did all eat, and were filled." It was a mighty miracle, beyond our comprehension, but no wonder to him who filleth all things living with plenteousness. "He was in the world, and the world was made by him." It was only to be expected that the presence of the Son of God should be marked by wonderful works. His presence in the form of man was of all wonders the greatest—a mystery of almighty power, a mystery of ineffable love. 3. The twelve baskets full. The Lord had provided largely for his guests. There was enough and to spare. That which remained over and above was more than the five loaves and the two fishes, the little store which they had at first. He bade his disciples, "Gather up the fragments which remain, that nothing be lost." He is an Example at once of generous bounty and of carefulness. He would have nothing wasted. The Christian should guard against waste, that he may have to give to the needy. 4. The number. There were five thousand men, beside women and children. The men were arranged in companies of fifty; they were easily numbered. The women and children seem to have sat apart. Probably there were not many. The multitude seems to have been gathered together for the Passover (John 6:4), which only men were commanded to attend; though religious women, like the virgin Mary, went sometimes with their husbands. The Lord cared for all alike—men, women, and children. So should his servants do. 5. Lessons of the miracle. Herod feasted in his palace with his nobles, Christ in the wilderness with his disciples; Herod’s feast was costly and luxurious, Christ’s very simple. The sumptuous banquet of Herod ended in guilt and murder. It was a godless feast, profaned by wicked oaths. The Christian should never be present at any festivities, any amusements, on which he cannot ask the blessing of God. The simplest food, when Christ is present, when we feel that it is he who gives and he who blesses, satisfies the Christian’s wants. The presence of Christ gives peace and blessedness in the wilderness. Without Christ the gorgeous palace is a desert. Christ can prepare a table in the wilderness; he can provide for his people wherever they are. The multitude had followed him into this desert place. He had compassion on them; he would not send them away fasting. So he hath compassion now on all who seek first the kingdom of God; he knows that we have need of food and raiment; he will give them. Let us trust in him. but let us pray with the deepest earnestness not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life. He who on that day fed the five thousand with earthly food, feeds now the ten thousand times ten thousand of his saints with the bread which came down from heaven. He himself is the spiritual Food of believers. "He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." They need nothing more whom he feedeth with that heavenly food. All the cravings of their souls are stilled; all the yearnings of their hearts are satisfied with his gracious presence who is the Bread of life. Let us feed on him in the daily life of faith; let us ask him to feed us with the spiritual food of his own most precious body and blood in the holy sacrament which he himself ordained. 1. Try, like Christ, to forget self and to care for others. 2. Trust him always; he will multiply the five loaves if we are following him. 3. Feast with Christ, not with Herod; with Christians in a Christian home, not with the wicked in unholy revelry. Matthew 14:22-36 The walking on the sea. I. JESUS LEFT ALONE. 1. He sends the disciples across the lake. He "constrained his disciples to get into a ship." It is a strong word. He compelled, he forced them; evidently they were very unwilling to leave him. St. John’s narrative throws a light upon this. The miracle had produced a great impression; it was in accordance with the hopes of the Jews; it was what they looked for in the expected Messiah. It must be he, the multitude thought; he is come indeed. This great Wonder worker is surely the Christ of God. They were right; but their conception of the work of the Christ was not the true one. He was to reign at Jerusalem, they thought; to set them free from the tyranny of Herod, from the detested Roman yoke. They wanted to "take him by force, to make him a King" (John 6:15). The Lord was not blinded by popular excitement. He was a King indeed, but his kingdom was not of this world. His kingdom was to come, but in the way appointed by God; and that was the way of the cross. He would not attempt to seize it prematurely, whether at the prompting of the evil one (Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9) or at the clamour of the multitude. The apostles shared the enthusiasm of the crowd. They had been prominent in the distribution of the miraculous food; doubtless the people magnified them. They were great men now; they hoped to sit near to the Lord, on his right hand and on his left, in his kingdom. They had a right above all other men, they may well have thought, to be with their Master in this day of triumph, as they had been faithful to him in his tribulations. They were very unwilling to leave him. But he forced them to go. This excitement was not good either for the multitude or for the disciples. Ambition is an evil thing, especially the ambition of reaching the high places of the Church. The best of men have their faults; the apostles had theirs. Christ forced them to leave him for a time when their hearts were set on earthly triumphs. Religion loses all its beauty when men try to make it a means for self-exaltation. 2. He dismisses the multitude. He could do it more easily and quietly now that the apostles were gone. They were probably the most enthusiastic. They had to be forced; the others were dismissed. Doubtless that enthusiasm was mainly honest zeal for their Master’s glory; though selfish motives, such as those just mentioned, were perhaps unconsciously mingled with it. But even that honest enthusiasm was mistaken. It could do only harm; it would excite the suspicions of Herod ("that fox," Luke 13:32), and the hostility of the Roman governor. Christ’s hour was not yet come. He would not anticipate the time appointed in the counsels of God. He sent the multitude away. Their disappointment, we may be sure, was great. The apostles, perhaps, were more than disappointed; perhaps they were vexed and even angry; he had to force them to leave him. How often it is so now! Success, popularity, excites us. We hope for great things; perhaps our hopes for spiritual victories include (though we scarcely know it) hopes for our own advancement. Then we are disappointed. He teaches us the holy lesson of patience. We must wait for him, for his time. The Lord reigneth; but it doth not always please him to manifest his power when we expect and wish it. 3. He retires to a mountain for prayer. He had retired to a mountain; he had prayed there all night long, before he called his apostles. Now he does the like. This great Popularity did not dazzle him. He knew that that excited multitude did not understand his mission or his purpose. He himself would the very next day turn that popularity into suspicion or even active opposition. He would offer them the bread of life, and they would not receive it; many of his disciples would go back and walk no more with him. It was a crisis in his earthly life. He retired to collect his thoughts, to hold communion in solitude with his heavenly Father. It is what we should do in times of excitement and difficulty. The hours spent in earnest prayer are the best spent hours of our lives; they give strength, calmness, perseverance. The Lord prayed long. When the evening was come, he was there alone; he prayed on into the late night. A few hours before he had more than five thousand zealous adherents round him. Now they had left him; he himself had sent them away. He was alone, with only God. He was preparing himself, we may reverently believe, for the struggle which lay before him—the controversies, the desertions, the bitter opposition. He was holding communion with the Father. He never sought counsel of men; for in some sense he was always alone. His Divine nature isolated him, not from human sympathy and love—that was precious even to him (Matthew 26:40)—but from human advice, human help. He could receive strength only from heaven (Luke 22:43). 1. The disciples. They were in peril now, and the Lord was not with them in the ship, as he had been once before. There was a great wind; the ship was tossed with waves; they were in distress, toiling in rowing. But the Lord saw them in their danger; he saw them from the lonely mountain where he was kneeling in prayer; he saw and came. So he sees us now from heaven, where he ever liveth to make intercession for us. He sees all our trials; and he comes, as then he came, to help and to save. He sent them from him when they would have made him a King; he comes to them now they need his help. 2. They see him coming. It was dark—three or four in the morning; they were struggling still with wind and wave. They see suddenly an august Form moving over the surface of the water, coming towards them, seeming as though it would pass by. It was a strange sight in the darkness of that tempestuous night. It increased their terror. It must be an apparition, they thought. It boded ill. Danger, death, was at hand. They cried out for fear. Then in that moment of agony there came a well known voice, sweet and clear, amid the din of the storm, "Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid." So the good Lord cheers his people now, in sickness, sorrow, in the hour of death. "It is I," he saith. He comes to his people in the hour of need. He sees them in their distress from afar off, from the heaven where he is making intercession for them. He comes, manifesting himself in all his love and mercy to those who cry to him in fear and peril. He cometh; it seems sometimes as though he would pass by and leave us in our anguish. But it is only a trial of our faith, to make us feel our need of him—that without him we can do nothing. Faithful, earnest prayer always brings him to our side. When he is with us, we can fear no more. "It is I; be not afraid." He is not afraid who hath the blessed presence of the Saviour. Wind and wave may roar; but when the Lord moves over the tossing billows there is peace and hope for the fearful trembling soul even in the immediate nearness of the king of terrors. "It is I; be not afraid." May we hear that gracious word, rosy we feel that gracious presence, in the hour of our death! 3. Peter. Peter, ever impulsive, ever impetuous, was not willing to wait for the coming of the Lord; he would go to him, and that upon the water. So ardent souls think to do great things and expose themselves sometimes to great perils, over-estimating their own faith, under-estimating the danger, thinking perhaps too much of self, too little of others. "Bid me come unto thee," Peter said, as if he had a special interest in the Lord above his brother apostles, as if he indeed loved him more than these (John 21:15). He would not come, indeed he dared not, without the Lord’s bidding; but he asked for that bidding, instead of waiting, as the Christian should wait, to hear his Master’s will. Balaam, with baser motives, sought permission to expose himself to danger; he obtained his request, and it ended in his ruin. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 15:1-20 Discourse concerning ceremonial pollution. (Mark 7:1-23.) Matthew 15:1 Then. This is after the third Passover, which whether our Lord attended or not, has been a matter of some dispute. Moral considerations would make us infer that he was present, fulfilling all righteousness, though there is no direct statement in our narratives on the subject. Came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying. The Sinaitic, B, and some other manuscripts read, Came to Jesus from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees. This, which is virtually the reading of the Revised Version, whether original or not, seems to represent the fact correctly. The bigoted rabbis of the capital, aroused to fresh action by the news of Christ’s success in Galilee, send emissaries from Jerusalem to see if they cannot find some cause of offence in the words or actions of this rash Innovator which may give the desired opportunity of crushing him. An occasion offered itself, and was immediately seized. Matthew 15:2 Thy disciples. They had watched our Lord and his followers partaking of some meal, and doubtless Christ had acted in the same manner as his disciples. Open houses and food partaken of in public allowed this close observation without any infringement of Eastern courtesy. They come to Christ with the insidious question, because they consider him answerable for his disciples’ doings (comp. Matthew 9:14; Matthew 12:2). They imply that his teaching has led to thee transgression on which they animadvert. Doubtless the apostles, from Christ’s instruction and example, were learning to free themselves from the endless rules and restrictions which were no help to religion, and to attend more to the great realities of vital piety and holiness. The omission of the outward acts, rabbinically enjoined, was readily marked and censured. The tradition. This formed a vast collection of additions, explanations, etc., of the original Law, partly, as was affirmed, delivered orally by Moses, and handed down from generation to generation; and partly accumulated by successive expounders. St. Paul refers to this when he speaks of himself before his conversion as being "exceedingly jealous for the tradition or my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). From it, in the course of time. was formed the Talmud, with its text (Mishna) and its commentary (Gemara). It was not put into writing till after our Lord’s time (hence called ἄγραφοςδιδασκαλία), but was taught authoritatively by accredited teachers who, while retaining the letter of the Law abrogated its spirit, nullifying the broad line of God’s commandments by enforcing minute observances and puerile restrictions which were a burden and impediment to purity and devotion, rather than an aid and encouragement. The elders (τῶνπρεσβυτέρων); the ancients. The older expositors and rabbis, whose commentaries had been orally handed down.. Such traditions were regarded with more respect than the letter of Scripture, and the latter had to give way when it seemed to be antagonistic to the former. Wash not their hands when they eat bread. To eat bread means to take food of any kind. The fear of legal defilement led to a multitude of rabbinical rules of the most vexatious and troublesome nature, the infringement of any of which endangered a man’s ceremonial purity. These frivolous regulations had been built upon the plain Mosaical enactments of Lev 11:1-47., etc. St. Matthew, writing for those who were well acquainted with these glosses, enters into no details; St. Mark is more explicit. It is to be remarked that the Pharisees were extending and enforcing these traditions just when the Law was to be superseded by something more spiritual and doing so in spite of the interdiction "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2). Matthew 15:3 He answered. Christ does not formally defend his disciples, nor condemn the Pharisees for their ceremonial ablutions, but he turns to a matter of more importance, even a plain breach or evasion of a plain commandment. Ye also. If my disciples transgress a tradition of the ancients, ye too transgress, and that the commandment of God—an error of far graver character. His non-observance of these minutiae showed their unimportance, and called attention to the inward purity which they typified, and which could be maintained without these external ceremonies. At the same time, Jesus does not condemn such symbolical acts, even as he himself washed the disciples’ feet before the last Supper. The evil in rabbinical teachings was that it superseded the spiritual view, and placed outward cleansing on a higher level than inward holiness. By (διὰ with accusative); on account of, in order to maintain. Your tradition. Tradition which is emphatically yours and not God’s, a human gloss, not a revealed command. Jesus does not accept the assertion that these traditions are derived from the ancients; he gives them a more modern origin. Matthew 15:4 Christ proceeds to give an instance of the evacuation of the Law by means of tradition. God commanded. Mark, in the parallel passage, has, "Moses said," which may be taken, in conjunction with our text, as conveying our Lord’s testimony to the Divine origin of the Mosaic code. Christ cites the fifth commandment, because it more especially appealed to the conscience of every one, and was emphasized by the solemn enactment of death as the penalty of its infringement (Exodus 20:12; Exodus 21:17). Honour (τίμα). This term includes the idea of succor and support, as in 1 Timothy 5:3, "Honour widows that are widows indeed;" and in 1 Timothy 5:17, where τιμὴ means "stipend." In Ecclesiasticus 38:1, "Honour a physician with the honours due unto him," the expression has reference to his proper fees, the honorarium paid for his services. In God’s view honour to parents is not shown only in outward salutations, obedience, and respect, but also in material assistance, help provided for their needs, alms freely bestowed when necessary. This well known signification makes the tradition next given more inexcusable. Die the death. An Hebraism, equivalent to "shall surely be put to death". If words against parents are thus punished, shall not deeds be visited? Matthew 15:5 But ye say. In direct contradiction to what "God commanded" It is a gift, etc. This is better rendered, That wherewith, thou mightest have been benefited by me is Corban; i.e. is given, dedicated to God. The vow to consecrate his savings, even at death, to the temple absolved a man from the duty of succouring his parents. It was further ruled that if a son, from any motive whatever, pronounced any aid to his parents to be corban, he was thenceforward precluded from affording them help, the claims of the commandment and of natural affection and charity being superseded by the vow. He seems to have been allowed to expend the money thus saved on himself or any other object except his father and mother. So gross an evasion of a common duty could not be placed in the same category as the omission of unnecessary washings. Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. The last clause is not in the Greek; it is supplied by our translators, as it was in Coverdale’s version, to complete the apodosis. There are various methods of translating the passage. Retaining καὶ at the beginning of the sentence, some make these words the continuation of the gloss, "Whosoever shall say," etc., the apodosis being found in the sentence following. Others conceive an aposiopesis after "be profited by me," as if Christ refrained from pronouncing the hypocritical and indeed blasphemous words which completed the gloss. In this case the apodosis follows in Matthew 15:6, καὶ, then such a one will not honour (τιμήαει, not τιμήσῃ), etc. The words are best taken as put into the Pharisees’ mouth in the sense, "The man under those circumstances shall not honour," etc.; he is free from the obligation of helping his parents. The form of the sentence (οὐμὴ with the future verb) is prohibitory rather than predictive, and implies, "he is forbidden to honour." Christ thus sharply emphasizes the contradiction between God’s Law and man’s perversion thereof. St. Mark has, "Ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father." Thus; καὶ in the apodosis, removing the full stop before it in the Authorized Version. This is our Lord’s own saying. Made … of none effect. Evacuated its real force and spirit. By; owing to, for the sake of, as St. Mark says, "that ye may keep your tradition." Our translators often mistake the meaning of the preposition διὰ with the accusative, which never signifies "by means of." Matthew 15:7 Ye hypocrites. He called them by this name because, while they pretended that zeal for God’s glory led them to these explanations and amplifications of the Law, they were really influenced by covetousness and avarice, and virtually despised that which they professed to uphold. A Jewish proverb said that if hypocrites were divided into ten parties, nine of them would be found in Jerusalem, and one in the rest of the world. Well did Esaias prophesy of you (Isaiah 29:13). That is, their conduct fulfilled the saying of the prophet, as Matthew 13:14. Such "prophecies" were for all time, and were suitable for various circumstances, characters, and events. Christ is wont to fortify his arguments by the authority of Scripture, often rather explaining the mind of the Spirit than quoting the exact words. Matthew 15:8 The quotation is from the Septuagint Version, with a slight variation from the text at the end. The Hebrew also differs a little; but the general meaning is not affected. With their mouth. They use the prescribed forms of worship, guard with much care the letter of Scripture, observe its legal and ceremonial enactments, are strict in the practice of all outward formalities. But their heart. This is what the prophets so constantly object. Prayers, sacrifices, etc., are altogether unacceptable unless inspired by inward devotion, and accompanied by purity of heart. Matthew 15:9 But in vain, etc. The Hebrew gives, "And their fear of me is a commandment of men which hath been taught them," or "learned by rote" (Revised Version). Septuagint, "In vain do they worship me, teaching men’s commandments and doctrines." Their worship is vitiated at its very root. Commandments of men. This is Christ’s designation of rabbinical traditions (comp. Colossians 2:22). Matthew 15:10 He called the multitude. Jesus had now finally broken with the Pharisaical party; he had carried the war into their camp. It was necessary that those who had followed these false teachers should know, on the one hand, to what irreligion, immorality, and profanity their doctrines led, and, on the other, should learn the unadulterated truth, "pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father." So he calls around him the crowd of common people, who from respect had stood aloof during the previous controversy, and teaches them a great moral truth which concerns every human being. Hear, and understand. The distinction which he was about to enunciate was difficult for persons trained in Pharisaical dogmas to receive and understand; he therefore calls special attention to his coming words. The depreciation of ceremonial cleansings might easily be misunderstood. Jesus would say—There is indeed cleansing necessary for all men; but it does not consist in outward washings, but in inward holiness. In what follows, our Lord says nothing definitely about the distinction between clean and unclean meats laid down in the Mosaic Law; he would only show that impurity in the moral sense came from within. This is leading up to the principle enunciated by the apostle, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the Word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:4, 1 Timothy 4:5). Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man. The word rendered "defileth" (κοινοῖ) means "renders common," in opposition to ἁγιάζειν, "to separate" for God’s use; hence the verb, ethically applied, signifies "to contract guilt." The rabbis taught that certain meats of themselves polluted the soul, made it abominable in God’s sight. This was a perversion of the law respecting clean and unclean food. The pollution or guilt arose, not from the nature of the meat, but from the eating of it in contravention of a positive command. It was the disobedience, not the food, which affected the soul. It is remarkable that these distinctions of meats still obtain among half the civilized inhabitants of the world—Buddhists, Hindoos, Mohammedans—and that one of the hardest tasks of Christian missionaries is to make men understand the non-importance of these differences. We do not see that Christ here abrogated the Levitical Law, but he certainly prepared the way for its supersession and transformation. But he made no sudden and violent change in the constituted order of things. Indeed, some distinctions were maintained in apostolical times, as we read in Acts 10:14; Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29; and it was only gradually, and as circumstances made their observation impossible, that such ceremonial obligations were regarded as obsolete. It is, perhaps, with the view of not shocking inveterate prejudice, that he does not say, "No food whatever defileth," but "That which goeth into the mouth" defileth not, referring especially to the notion adore reprehended, that eating with unwashen hands polluted the food taken and the soul of the person who con sumed it. Our Lord says nothing of excess, e.g. gluttony and drunkenness, which, of course, has a polluting and deteriorating effect on the moral nature (see Luke 21:34). But that which cometh out of the mouth. In the former sentence the mouth is regarded simply as the instrument for receiving food and preparing it for digestion; in this sentence it is considered as the organ of the heart, that which gives outward expression to inward thoughts and conceptions. Fillion distinguishes them as "la bouche physique, et la bouche morale." Philo has well said, "The mouth is that by which, as Plato puts it, mortal things enter, and whence immortal things issue. For therein pass meat and drink, the perishable food of a perishable body; but from it proceed words, immortal laws of an immortal soul, by which the rational life is directed and governed" (’De Mundi Opif.,’ § 40). Defileth a man. Pollutes his soul, not with merely ceremonial defilement, but intrinsically and morally. Of course, our Lord is referring to evil words, etc., as he explains in Acts 15:19. For the mouth may give utterance to God’s praise, words of love, sympathy, edification. But the evil in a man’s heart will show itself in his mouth; and the open expression will react on the wicked thought, and make it more substantial, deadly, and operative. Matthew 15:12 Then came his disciples. Jesus had been speaking in some open spot; he now leaves the crowd, and, entering a house with his disciples, instructs them further in private (Mark 7:17). These had been greatly alarmed at their Master’s antagonism to the popular party, and, on the first occasion that presented itself, expostulated with him on the danger incurred by this hostile attitude. This saying (τὸνλόγον); the word. What he had said to the multitude (Matthew 15:11). The Pharisees had cared less for the denunciation addressed to themselves (Matthew 15:3-9), but when he interfered with their doctrinal supremacy over the people, they were offended, they took exception to p the teaching, believing that they detected therein an insidious attack on the Law. In their view, spiritualization of any of its enactments was equivalent to its subversion. But, as St. Gregory observes, "If offence arises from the statement of the truth, it is more expedient that offence be permitted to arise than that the truth should be abandoned" (’Hom. 7. in Ezek.’). Matthew 15:13 Every plant, etc. The answer of Christ signifies—Do not be alarmed by the displeasure of the Pharisees, and at my opposition to their teaching; the system which they support is ungodly and shall be soon destroyed. Christ, as often, puts the statement in a parabolic form, using two images, one derived from the vegetable kingdom in this verse, and one from human life in Matthew 15:14. Plant (φυτεία); plantation. The act of planting, and then by metonymy the thing planted. It here signifies the sect and doctrine of the Pharisees, the persons themselves, and that which they taught. The comparison of men and trees, plant and doctrine, is a common biblical metaphor (comp. Psalms 1:1-6.; Isaiah 5:7; Matthew 7:16-20; Luke 6:43, Luke 6:44, etc.). The traditions of the rabbis were plants which my heavenly Father hath not planted. They were of human, not Divine, growth; and the men themselves, even though originally planted in holy soil, had degenerated, and become not only unfruitful, but pernicious. So the Lord speaks by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 2:21), "I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?" Shall be rooted up. Our Lord is not referring to the judgment of the last day (Matthew 3:10), nor to any forcible destruction effected by human agency; he means that the system must pass away entirely to make room for a better growth, even the gospel. The Jews would not see that the Law was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ; they deemed that their ceremonies and rites were to be permanent and universal; and this, more than anything, impeded the reception of Christ’s claims, and made men utterly averse from his teaching. It was in vain that Jesus proclaimed, "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me" (John 5:46). The very Law, as handled and obscured by the Pharisees, was made an obstacle to the truth. Matthew 15:14 Let them alone. Do not trouble yourselves about them; let them be offended, if they will. Blind leaders of the blind. Both teachers and taught are alike ignorant of the truth. The people had no spiritual light, and, applying to their appointed pastors, they learned nothing profitable from them; for these were as much in the dark as themselves. It was evident, then, that the rabbis ought not to be followed unreservedly. If the blind. A proverbial saying. Comp. Horat., ’Epp.,’ I, Matthew 17:3— "... ut si Caecus iter monstrare velit." And the Greek adage, Μήτετυφλὸνὁδηγόν, μήτεἐκνόητονσύμβουλον. Nosgen calls attention to the order of the words, Τυφλὸςδὲτυφλὸνἐὰνὁδηγῇ, "Blind blind if he lead," which, while it substantiates the advice, "Let them alone," forcibly expresses the fatal result of this guidance. The ditch (βόθυνον); a pitfall. The "ditch" in one sense is unbelief in Christ, to which rabbinical teaching undoubtedly led. In another sense it adumbrates the ruin in which these false principles would involve the Jewish polity and people. It is obvious that the rejection of the Messiah drew down the punishment which has made the Hebrew nation an astonishment to all the world. Matthew 15:15 Then answered Peter. The disciples could not understand the apparent depreciation of the external in religion; they did not see the meaning of what Christ had said. Peter, as their mouthpiece, asked for further explanation. Declare; φράσον: edissere. Explain. Parable. The word in an extended sense is used of any hard, enigmatical saying or figurative expression. The term here is applied to the statement in Matthew 15:11. The apostles did not comprehend the minimizing of the rules concerning purification, and the possibility of a man being defiled by what proceeded from his mouth. Inveterate prejudices die hard, and it is difficult to emancipate one’s self from old modes of thought. Matthew 15:16 Are ye also yet without understanding? Even yet; ἀκμήν: adhuc. In spite of all that has passed—my teaching, my life, my miracles—do you not understand in what real purity consists? Often had Jesus to complain of the dulness of his disciples’ intelligence, the slow appreciation of his meaning, the indifference to the spiritual side of his acts and doctrine. Up to the very last they failed to apprehend his mission; nor was it till the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured upon them, that they really and in fulness understood the Lord’s teaching and their own duties and powers. Matthew 15:17 Whatsoever entereth in at the mouth, etc. Food taken into the mouth goes into the stomach, is assimilated into the bodily system, and its refuse passes away to the draught (ἀφεδρῶνα), the necessary house. It has nothing to do with the heart or the moral being; it affects only the material organization, and has no connection with the spiritual. Christ does not concern himself with questions, which modern philosophers would attempt to solve, concerning the mutual influence of soul and body, the animal and spiritual nature; he puts forth an argument which every one could receive, plain even to those "without understanding." This is the elucidation of the first part of Mat 15:11. The further explanation follows in Matthew 15:18, Matthew 15:19. Matthew 15:18 Those things. He does not assert that everything which issues from a man’s mouth defiles him; for, as was said above on Matthew 15:11, many good things may come from a man’s mouth; but he means that the evil to which he gives utterance is fraught with pollution to his moral nature. From the heart. The heart stands for soul, mind, spirit, will, the whole inner man, that which makes him what he is, a conscious, intelligent, responsible being. Hence are attributed to it not only words, but acts, conceptions which issue in external actions, and the consequences which these involve. Matthew 15:19 Out of the heart proceed. The shameful catalogue which follows is less full than that in St. Mark, which contains thirteen items, while this consists of seven only. These are produced or created by the human will, of which the heart is the symbol. Evil thoughts (διαλογισμοὶπονηροί). Some would translate the words, "evil machinations." But there is no need to change the usual rendering, which is very appropriate here. Evil thoughts are the preparation of all other sins, and have a pernicious influence on the character. We are very much what we think. That on which our minds are fixed, that which is the chief object presented to our inward sight, shapes our disposition and life. High and noble thoughts elevate and purify; low and mean thoughts debase and pollute. The wickedness in a man springs from within; he is guilty of it. If he admits the tempter, succumbs to his seductions, it is his own will that is in fault, encouraging the evil imagination, and not at once resisting, abhorring, and repelling it. Well may we pray, "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me" (Psalms 51:10); and remember the wise man’s injunction, "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (Proverbs 4:23). The enumeration follows more or less closely the second table of the Decalogue. Matthew 15:20 Thus Jesus sums up what has been said, and recalls the circumstance which led to the discourse, emphatically repeating his judgment on the Pharisaical gloss. Matthew 15:21-28 Healing of the daughter of the Canaanitish woman. (Mark 7:24-30.) Matthew 15:21 Went thence. Jesus left the place, probably Capernaum, where the above discourse had been held, and where it was no longer safe for him to remain. He had grievously offended the dominant party by his outspoken words concerning purity and defilement; therefore, to escape any premature violence, he departed to a more secure quarter. Into the coasts (τὰμέρη, "the parts") of Tyre and Sidon. The word "coasts" here, Matthew 15:22, and elsewhere, does not mean "seacoasts," but "borders." The Authorized Version conveys a wrong impression by its use of the word. These two cities lay on the coast of Galilee, and had never been really conquered by the Israelites, though allotted to the tribe of Asher. There was no very exact limitation of territory between Phoenician (of which they were the capitals) and Jewish land, but there was a great moral distinction. The Phoenicians were sunk in the grossest idolatry; the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth reigned among them with all its depravity and pollution. Whether our Lord actually entered this district, or only approached its confines, is a matter of dispute. The language in the two extant accounts is ambiguous, and might be taken to imply either proceeding. But we cannot suppose that Christ betook himself to the close neighbourhood of those evil towns. His injunction to the apostles, when he sent them on their missionary tour, to abstain from going into any way of the Gentiles or entering any Samaritan city (Matthew 10:5), and his own declaration which shortly follows, that he was sent to the house of Israel, alike preclude the idea that he ever passed beyond the boundaries of the Holy Land. The woman, too, who appealed to him is said to have "come out away from those borders"—an expression which could hardly have been used if Christ had at this time been within them. And that he did no mighty work in these Phoenician cities may be gathered from his denunciation of Chorazin and Bethsaida for not showing the appreciation of his power and mercy which these centres of heathendom would have exhibited had they been equally favoured (see Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13). If, as Chrysostom suggests, Jesus, by going to these partly Gentile districts, wished to give a practical commentary on the abrogation of the distinction between clean and unclean (breaking down the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile), this lesson was given equally well by the acceptance and commendation of the Gentile woman’s faith, even though Christ himself was outside of pagan territory. Matthew 15:22 Behold. The word marks the sudden and unexpected character of the incident. A woman of Canaan. She belonged to the accursed race of Canaan, the ancient inhabitants of the land, doomed, indeed, to destruction, but never thoroughly extirpated. St. Mark calls her "a Greek," i.e. a Gentile, and "a Syro-Phoenician," which explains her proper nationality. Out of the same coasts. Some join these words with "a woman;" but came out would still imply that she left her own territory to meet Christ. Have mercy on me. She speaks as though she herself were the one that needed healing, identifying herself with her diseased daughter, as though the horrible incubus lay upon her own spirit and could not be relieved without the cure of the suffering girl. O Lord, thou Son of David. Living among a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles, she had heard this title applied to Jesus; she knew something of the hopes of the Hebrew nation, that they were expecting a Messiah, son of the great King David, who should preach to the poor and heal the sick, as she heard that Jesus had done. We know that the reputation of Jesus had spread into these parts, and that persons from this country had come to him to be healed (Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17). There is no reason to suppose that the woman was a proselyte; but evidently she was of a humble and religious spirit, open to conviction, and of an enlightened understanding, which needed only grace and instruction to ripen into faith. At present she saw in Christ only a merciful Wonder-worker—an error which he often combated, and which now by his conduct he corrected. My daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. She must have learned from her Hebrew neighbours to attribute her child’s malady to demoniacal influence, as such an idea would not have naturally occurred to a heathen Greek. The power of the devil was shown more openly in heathen localities. We do not read of many bad cases of possession in strictly Jewish districts. It is in Gentile or semi-Gentile regions that the worst instances occur; and while the pagan inhabitants attributed the mysterious maladies to natural causes, the truer insight of believers assigned them, and often most justly, to spiritual agencies. In the present case, the possession must have been unconnected with any ethical relations. It was not that the child, by any act of her own, had put herself into the demon’s power. We must regard it, like the sufferings of innocent infants, as a providential arrangement which God for wise purposes allows. Matthew 15:23 Answered her not a word. The woman made no specific request; she had not brought the sufferer with her, and entreated Christ to exorcise the evil influence; she did not urge him to go to her house, and by his gracious presence work a cure. Simply she tells her affliction, and lets the woeful tale plead for itself. But there was no response. The Merciful is obdurate; the Physician withholds his aid; in the face of misery, to the voice of entreaty, the Lord is silent. It is the discipline of love; he acts as though he hears not, that he may bring forth perseverance and faith. Send her away. There is some doubt concerning the feeling of the apostles in thus addressing Christ. Did they wish him to grant her virtual petition or not? On the one hand, it is urged that they were thoroughly annoyed at her importunity. They had sought for quiet’ and privacy, and now this woman was bringing a crowd around them, and occasioning the very notoriety which they wished to avoid. Their Jewish prejudices, too, were aroused by this appeal from a Canaanite; they could not endure the idea that favour should be extended to this Gentile of an abhorred race; hence they desire Christ to dismiss her at once, give her a decided rejection. On the other hand, the answer of Christ to their request leads to another explanation, as if he understood them to be asking him to grant her prayer. And this is undoubtedly what they did want, though they did not presume to prescribe the manner or to beg for a miracle. They range themselves on the woman’s side, not from any genuine compassion, but from mere selfishness. The ground of their appeal is, She crieth after us. The appeal had been first made in the open street, and the Canaanite had followed them, as they moved, continuing her piteous cry, and thus attracting attention to them and defeating their hope of retirement and rest. So they, for their own peace and comfort, ask Christ to grant the prayer of this obstinate suppliant: "Give her what she wants, and have done with her." Matthew 15:24 I am (was) not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Doubtless the woman had listened to the apostles’ intercession, and thought her cause won; but the repulse is only repeated; this Gentile is beyond the sphere of his mission; he cannot help her without departing from the rule which he had set himself. Jesus says nothing here about the rejection of the Jews and the future ingathering of the Gentiles; he states merely that his personal mission while he was on earth was confined to the Hebrew nation. He was, as St. Paul calls him (Romans 15:8), "a Minister of the circumcision." Later, he would send others to evangelize those who were now aliens from the chosen commonwealth; at present he has come unto his own possessions. Lost sheep. There is a tenderness in this expression natural from the mouth of the good Shepherd. He had used it when he sent forth the twelve on their apostolical journey (Matthew 10:6); the metaphor is found in the Old Testament (see Jeremiah 50:6, etc.) It is appropriate here, where he is emphasizing his attitude towards the chosen people, and teaching the Canaanitish woman the relative position of Jew and Gentile. Matthew 15:25 Came she and worshipped him. Meantime, as we learn from St. Mark, Jesus had left the street and entered into a house. The woman, nothing daunted by her rebuff and the disregard with which her appeal was received, followed him persistently, and, growing bolder in her importunity, fell as a suppliant at his feet. While he still seemed to repulse her, she was learning fresh faith and hope. Lord, help me. She does not now call him "Son of David." She begins to feel that she has little claim upon him as the Jewish Messiah; she appeals rather to his mercy and his power. Still, she identifies herself, as at first, with her daughter; the only boon she wants for herself is her child’s relief. "For she indeed (my daughter) is insensible of her disease, but it is I that suffer her innumerable woes; my disease is with consciousness, my madness with perception of itself". Matthew 15:26 But he answered and said. At length Jesus spoke directly to her; but his words were rough in sound, still enforcing the previous repulse. It is not meet; οὐκἔστικαλόν: non est bonum (Vulgate). Another reading of less authority is oboe ἔξεστιν, "it is not lawful." The question is rather of fairness and expediency than of lawfulness. To take the children’s bread. "The children" are the chosen people, "the children of the kingdom" (Matthew 8:12), who held this high position by election, however individuals might forfeit it by an unworthy use of privileges. "Bread" is meant to signify the graces and favours bestowed by God in Christ. To cast it. An humiliating term; not to give it, as you would to your children, but to throw it away as valueless, fit only for animals. Dogs (κυναρίοις). A contemptuous diminutive, rendered by Wickliffe, "whelpies," or, as we might say, "curs." This was the term applied by the Jews to the Gentiles, even as Turks nowadays talk of "dogs of Christians,’’ and as in later times, by a curious inversion, the Jews themselves were generally saluted with the opprobrious name of"dogs." Some have seen a term of endearment in the diminutive "little dogs," as though Christ desired to soften the harshness of the expression by referring, not to the prowling, unowned animals that act as scavengers in Oriental towns, but to the petted inmates of the master’s house. But Scripture gives no warrant for thinking that the Hebrews ever kept dogs as friends and companions, in our modern fashion; and our Lord adopts the language of his countrymen, to put the woman in her right position, as one with whom Jews could have no fellowship. To take the blessings from the Church of Israel in order to give them to aliens was to throw them away on unworthy recipients. Matthew 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord; or better, but she said, Yea, Lord (Revised Version). Christ’s answer might have seemed the climax of rejection, and to have at once closed the matter forever. But her love for her daughter, and her growing faith in Jesus, overcame all seeming hindrances. With a woman’s ready wit, quickened by urgency and affection, she seizes the opportunity, and turns Christ’s own words against himself. Thou sayest truth, she means; the Jews are the children; we are the dogs; and as dogs we claim our portion. This we can receive without defrauding the children of any of their food. Yet; καὶ, or καὶγὰρ, for even; nam et (Vulgate). The Authorized Version injures the significance of the mother’s reply, as if there were something adversative in the particles, which really introduce the confirmation of her assent. The dogs eat of the crumbs, etc. Dogs in the East have access to the rooms, and live on what they can pick up or on what is thrown to them. The fragments at meals were naturally numerous, the abundance being occasioned by the nature of the food, the use of fingers instead of spoons and forks, and the employment of pieces of bread as platters and napkins. We may paraphrase the Canaanite’s reply thus: By calling us dogs, you virtually grant what I desire. You can do what I wish without infringing your rule, in the justice of which I humbly acquiesce. I claim nothing as a daughter of Abraham; I look only for uncovenanted mercies; I ask only for that portion which falls to the lot of the creatures which hold the lowest place in the household, and the loss of which will never be felt. Truly by humbling her Jesus educated her, taught her that her real plea was her unworthiness, that in acknowledgment of her degradation lay the force of her appeal. And in asking for this one act of mercy she is doing no wrong to the sons of the house. Matthew 15:28 O woman, great is thy faith. Jesus had often to complain of unbelief in his hearers; at no man’s faith did he ever express surprise, except in the case of another Gentile, the centurion of Capernaum (Matthew 8:10). Be it unto thee even as thou wilt. She had conquered; she gained her wish. But we must not think that Christ consented because his human feelings were overcome by her importunity, like the unjust judge in the parable, though the principle and teaching of that parable were here beautifully illustrated. He acted all the time as God, who foreknew what he would do. He had been leading her up to this climax; he had willed to give her an opportunity of exhibiting this trust and sell-command and unfailing confidence, and now he crowns her with his mighty eulogium, and grants her request, rewarding her great faith by a great mercy. Her daughter was made whole. St. Mark reports the words of Christ, "For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter." He does not say, "I will come and heal her;" he tells her that the cure is already effected. Without personal contact with the sufferer, without any command uttered to the possessing demon, by his silent will alone the wonder comes to pass. This blessing for the child was won by the mother’s faith. The two points to be remarked in this marvellous history are—Christ’s abnormal treatment of a suppliant, and that suppliant’s astonishing faith and perseverance. Both of these subjects have been noticed in the course of the Exposition. Matthew 15:29-39 Healing of the sick, and feeding of the four thousand. Matthew 15:29 From thence. From the borders of Tyre and Sidon. We learn from St. Mark that Jesus, making a considerable circuit, traversed the territory of the ten free cities called Decapolis, situated chiefly on the east and south of the Sea of Galilee. A mountain (τὸὄρος); the mountain (as Matthew 14:23). The range of hills by which the lake is bounded on the east and northeast. No particular hill seems to be indicated. Sat down there. Rested awhile after his journeyings and labours. Matthew 15:30 The incidents in this and the following verse are mentioned only by St. Matthew. Great multitudes. The fame of Jesus attracted the Jews settled in this semi-Gentile district, and cut short the privacy which he had lately been enjoying in his apostles’ company. The people seized the opportunity of listening to his teaching and profiting by his superhuman power. Having with them. The catalogue of sufferers that follows represents accurately the sight that meets one in Oriental towns and villages, where the absence of medical appliances and the general want of surgical treatment render slight maladies or injuries chronic and inveterate, and fill the streets with persons in all stages of disease. Maimed; κυλλούς: debiles (Vulgate). In Matthew 18:8 the word means "deprived of a member;" but it has been doubted whether our Lord ever exerted his creative power to replace an absent limb. In the case of Malchus the ear probably was not wholly severed from the skull, but was still attached thereto by a fragment of flesh or skin, and no fresh creation was needed. We may well understand the word to signify "deformed," or deprived of the use of hand or foot. The Arabic Version renders it "dried up," or "withered." Cast them down. The expression implies the precipitancy With which their friends offered the sufferers to Christ’s notice, appealing to his mercy and relying on his power—not with careless abandonment, but with an earnest rivalry to be first attended to. Matthew 15:31 The maimed to be whole. This clause is omitted by à and some other manuscripts, the Vulgate and other versions, and some modern editors. Probably the difficulty mentioned above led to its being first obelized and then rejected. The God of Israel. Jehovah, whose covenanted mercies they were enjoying. St. Matthew is careful on all occasions to exhibit Jesus as the Messenger and Representative of the God of the Old Testament. The apostles, as Alford suggests, might joyfully contrast this abundance of acts of mercy with the great difficulty with which a Gentile’s faith had lately obtained help. "Seest thou," says St. Chrysostom, "how the woman indeed he healed with so much delay, but these immediately? not because these are better than she is, but because she is more faithful than they. Therefore, while in her case he defers and delays, to manifest her constancy, on these he bestows the gift immediately, stopping the mouths of the unbelieving Jews, and cutting away from them every plea. For the greater favour one hath received, so much more is he liable to punishment, if he be insensible, and the very honour makes him no better." Matthew 15:32 Called his disciples unto him. Seeing the necessities of the multitude, Jesus, as it were, takes his disciples into council, treating them not as servants, but as friends. They were doubtless dispersed among the crowd, and Jesus summons them around him, and puts before them the special point to which his attention is turned. Thus he tries their faith, and shows that there were no human means available for feeding these famishing people. Thus God, so to speak, takes Abraham into his confidence before visiting the iniquity of Sodom: "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" (Genesis 18:17). I have compassion (σπαλαγχνίζομαι) on the multitude. The human heart of Jesus felt for these distressed followers; his perfect sympathy was aroused in their behalf. We observe references to this tender feeling in many other instances. They continue with me now three days. The verb used here (προσμένειν) implies close attendance persevered in against obstacles; it is used in Acts 11:23 in a spiritual sense, "He exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave (προσμένειν) unto the Lord." The three days, according to the Hebrew formula of computation, would consist of one whole day and parts of two others. Thus constantly employed in healing and teaching, Jesus thinks not of himself; his whole care is centred on the people who, in their anxiety to see and hear him, forget their own necessities. There would be nothing strange in the people camping out for a night in Palestine. Men and women ordinarily lie down to rest in the clothes which they have worn during the day, and need no special preparation for sleeping. Thus a man covers himself with his heavy outer garment, lies on the dry ground, like Jacob at Bethel, with a stone or his arm for a pillow, and sleeps comfortably and safely till awakened by the morning sun. I wilt not send them away fasting. Like a good master of a household, in his tender pity, Christ takes the circumstances of the multitude into consideration, and cannot endure the idea of dismissing them wearied and unfed to find their way to their own homes, which, as St. Mark adds, were, in the case of many of them, at a long distance. Faint. Travellers tell us that out of the motley crowd of pilgrims that flock to Jerusalem at Easter-tide, many run short of provisions and perish on the road. Christ’s thoughtful care regards the possibility of such disaster, and prepares the remedy. He had treated the sicknesses of the multitude; he had instructed their ignorance; now he will feed their bodies. They had sought nothing from him, nor begged for food; probably they had no idea of looking to him to supply their want. But they who follow Jesus shall never lack. They were seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and temporal blessings were added to them. Matthew 15:33 Whence should we have so much bread, etc.? Christ had said nothing to his disciples concerning his design of feeding the people, but his remarks pointed to the possibility of such a design, and the apostles at once throw cold water upon the project. They do not indeed, as they did before urge him to send the multitude away, that they may supply their own needs, but they emphasize the impossibility of carrying out the idea of feeding them. Their answer bristles with objections. The place is uninhabited; the multitude is numerous; the quantity of food required is enormous; and how can we, poor and needy as we are, help them? It seems to us incredible that they could return this answer, after having, net very long before, experienced the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand. They seemed now to have forgotten the earlier marvel, and to be in utter doubt how the necessary food was to be provided on the present occasion. That Christ would display his miraculous powers appears not to have crossed their minds. Such surprising forgetfulness and slowness of faith have seemed to some critics so unlikely and unusual, that they have regarded the apostles’ attitude as confirming their assumption of the identity of the two miracles of feeding. But really such conduct is true to human nature. Calvin, while he condemns in vehement terms the disciples’ dulness—"nimis brutum produnt stuporem"—is careful to add that men are always liable to a similar insensibility, prone to forget past deliverance in the face of present difficulty. Immediately after the passage of the Red Sea, the people feared that they would perish of thirst in the wilderness; and when God promised to give them flesh to eat, even Moses doubted the possibility of the supply, and asked whence it could be provided (Exodus 17:1, etc.; Numbers 11:21, etc.). How often did Jesus speak of his sufferings, death, and resurrection! And yet these events came upon believers as a surprise for which they were altogether unprepared. Continually the disciples forgot what they ought to have remembered, drew no proper inferences from what they had seen and experienced, and had to be taught the same lessons repeatedly under different circumstances. Since the first miraculous meal many events had happened; often possibly they had been in want of food, as when on the sabbath day they appeased their hunger with ears of corn plucked by the way, and Christ had worked no miracle for their relief. It did not immediately suggest itself to them to have recourse to their Master in the emergency; they were very far from expecting Divine interposition at every turn. If they thought at all of the former miracle, they may have looked upon it as the outcome of an intermittent power, not always at command, or at any rate not likely to be exercised on the present occasion. They were slow to apprehend Christ’s Divine mission and character. The acknowledgment of his Messiahship did net necessarily connote the realization of his Godhead. In the writings of this and the immediately preceding period we see that the great Prophet, Prince, Conqueror, who is to appear, is not God, but one commissioned by God, and at most a God-inspired man or angel. So the apostles were only in unison with the best of their contemporaries when at present they hesitated to believe in, and were incapable of apprehending, the Divine nature of Christ. Matthew 15:34 How many loaves have ye? Jesus gives no formal answer to the apostles’ hesitating question, but by a new interrogation leads them to expect his interposition. This was the prelude to the miracle. Seven, and a few little fishes. They de not add, as on the former occasion, "But what are they among so many?" They have learned something from what had previously occurred. Whether this little store was what remained of their own supplies, or whether it was all they could find among the multitude, does not appear. From the indeterminate mention of the fish, we should suppose the latter to have been the case, as they would probably have mentioned the number of the fishes had they been their own. There may have been some contempt implied in the diminutive ἰχθύδια, "little fishes," as though these were scarcely worthy of notice. Dried fish was a staple commodity in the region. Matthew 15:35 To sit down (ἀναπεσεῖν) on the ground. At this time there was not "much grass in the place," the season being no longer early spring. Their seat was the bare ground, their meal of the plainest character. He who as man had pitied them was now feeding them as God, yet not with luxuries or dainties, but with food sufficient for their needs. Matthew 15:36 He took. The account differs little from that on the former occasion. Gave thanks (εὐχαριστήσας). This represents the blessing of the viands. Thanksgiving was a specially enjoined accompaniment of meals. The Talmud said, "He that enjoys anything without an act of thanksgiving is as one that robs the Almighty." The blessing here was the efficient cause of the multiplication of the food. Without any fresh creation Jesus used the materials ready to his hands, and only increased them by his Almighty power. Brake them, and gave (ἔκλασεκαὶἐδίδου). Looking to the tenses used, we should say that Jesus brake the viands once, and then kept continually giving of them to the twelve for the purpose of distribution. We do not read how the multitude was arranged in the present case. Possibly the locality did not admit of methodical division into ranks and companies, or, on the other hand, its natural terraces may have obviated the necessity for any such formal arrangement, the company falling naturally into convenient sections. Matthew 15:37 Baskets (σπεύρδας); panniers. Large wicker receptacles, which were sometimes of such size as to hold a man. It was in such a basket that St. Paul was let down from the walls of Damascus (Acts 9:25). The number of the basketfuls corresponded to the original number of loaves; the increase of substance must therefore have been enormous. Matthew 15:38 The computation is made in the same way as in Matthew 14:21, the greatness of the miracle being thus enhanced. Matthew 15:39 Sent away the multitude. Having supplied their spiritual and material wants. He wished to avoid all disturbance or collision with constituted authorities; and the people dispersed quietly, being less excitable than the inhabitants of Bethsaida, and not so well acquainted with the Messianic claims. The number thus dismissed was less than on the previous occasion, though the provision was greater—a difference which distinguishes one incident from the other, and which no forger would have introduced, it being much more natural to make the second wonder transcend, instead of falling short of, the previous one. We mention this here, because some critics have assumed that the present is only an imperfectly remembered account of the feeding of the five thousand already narrated. There are, of course, many points of similarity in the two incidents. Being of identical character, they must naturally present the same general features. But careful survey of the two narratives discloses many differences, which quite preclude the notion that the latter is a traditional reproduction of the former. To one who believes in the honesty and good faith of the evangelists, the allusion which Christ makes to the two miracles is a sufficient argument for their separation. Our Lord pointedly calls to mind the two occasions when he multiplied food, and rebukes the apostles for their lack of apprehension in the face of these marvels. "Do ye not yet perceive, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets (κοφίνους) ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets (σπυρίδας) ye took up?". Many of the essential points of difference between the two accounts are noticed in the Exposition, and they will be seen to dispart wherever divergence was possible, in time, scene, and detail. Magdala. The right reading is most probably Magadan, or Magedan (Vulgate), the better known Magdala having at an early date been substituted for it. Conder identifies one of the two with a mud and stone village called El Mejdel, a little north of Tiberius, a poor place without any gardens, situated in a plain of partially arable soil. Unwashen hands. I. WITH SCRIBES AND . 1. They were of Jerusalem. It seems that a deputation had been sent by the leading inert in Jerusalem. The great discourse related in John 6:1-71. had probably been reported to them; they had heard that the scribes and Pharisees of Galilee were unable to cope with our Lord; and they now sent some of their own body to watch him and to find opportunity for accusing him. Mark the reception which he met with on his return from the eastern side of the lake. The people of Gennesaret knew his power and mercy. They brought their sick; they besought him that they might touch the hem of his garment. The poor and simple came in their simplicity, seeking help; the zealots, the learned students of the Scriptures, came, with malice and envy in their hearts, seeking to compass the ruin of the Saviour. The outward show of sanctity will not deceive God, will not save our souls. Let us see that we come to Christ in single-hearted earnestness, seeking only to know him who is the Saviour of the world. 2. Their question. They busied themselves, as formalists do, about the infinitely little. The Lord’s holiness, wisdom, power, were of no interest to them in comparison with the small matters of ceremonial observance enjoined in their traditions. They thought that it was enough to secure salvation if a man lived in the land of Israel, if he ate his food with duly washed bands, and spoke the holy language, and recited his phylacteries morning and evening. They regarded these traditions of theirs as more sacred than the written Law. The Lord’s disciples had, it seems, neglected these frequent washings. The Pharisees wished to fix the responsibility on him: "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?" Strange perversity, to insist on these trivialities in the presence of that unearthly holiness; to ask these petty ensnaring questions of him who could teach them the way to heaven! 3. The Lord’s answer. (1) He answers as at other times, by another question, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" His disciples had, indeed, transgressed the traditions of men; but their accusers had transgressed the commandments of God, and that, because of these traditions. They had dared to bring these traditions into direct opposition to the holy Law of God. (2) The instance. They had contrived to evade the force of the fifth commandment. A man had only (they wickedly said) to pronounce the words, "It is a gift," to be freed from the duty of supporting his parents. It was good to give, and to give freely, for the service of the temple—the Lord commended the poor widow for doing so—but it was not right to neglect the nearer duty of caring for father or mother even for the temple’s sake. And these hypocrites, it seems, held that the pronunciation of the word "corban" absolved a man from the duty of supporting his nearest relatives, even if he did not really give the property so dedicated to the service of God. Thus they made the commandment of God of none effect. They put these miserable traditions above the eternal laws of morality, above the written Word of God. Well might the Lord denounce them as hypocrites.; they were acting the part of religious men, but they knew not what religion was; they had no love for God, no care for his glory; they loved the praise of men. 4. His quotation from Isaiah. The Lord applies to the Pharisees what the prophet had said of his contemporaries. Prophecy is for all time; it is fulfilled again and again in the history of the Church. God’s words spoken by Isaiah extended, in their prophetic range, to the scribes and Pharisees of our Lord’s days. They honoured God with their lips, but their heart was far from him. Such worship is in vain. It is no true worship; it is false, counterfeit. Worship is the adoration of the heart when it loses sight of self in the contemplation of the glory of God. The worship of the Pharisees was full of self; they sought not the glory of God; they put the commandments of men above his holy Word. In truth, they worshipped themselves, and not God; for it was their own profit, their own advancement, their own honour, which they loved with all their heart. And that which we love with the whole heart is the object of our worship. Let us take heed to ourselves. II. THE . 1. The Lord called them. Perhaps they had stood aloof. They honoured the Lord; they had been taught to reverence the Pharisees; they were in perplexity. But now the Lord turned away from the Pharisees in holy indignation at their hypocrisy, their perversion of the truth of God. He called the multitude to come nearer; he would not have them lose the lesson. "Hear, and understand," he said. He bespoke their attention; for he was about to enunciate a great principle—a principle which seems simple enough to us; but it was new and startling then; it was contrary to accepted doctrines. It struck at the minute observances of the scribes and Pharisees; it swept them away by the application of one wide-reaching rule. And it did more than this; it pointed to the coming abrogation of the ceremonial law. 2. His teaching. "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." The words might be understood, according to the well known Hebrew idiom, as meaning only that moral defilement was far more serious and important than ceremonial defilement (compare the twice-quoted passage of Hosea, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice;" or our Lord’s words in John 6:27, "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life"). But probably the Lord’s meaning went further. It was an anticipation of the coming change. According to the reading of the most ancient manuscripts, as explained by Chrysostom and several modern commentators, St. Mark represents our Lord as saying this, "cleansing all meats" (Mark 7:19). If this be correct, the Lord anticipates here the Divine announcement made afterwards to St. peter, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts 10:15). The Lord’s utterance was not so decided now. The Jews were not yet able to bear a peremptory declaration of the abolition of the laws respecting meats. The distinction between clean and unclean was to them of immense importance and significance, one of the marked characteristics of their religious life, one of the barriers between them and the Gentiles. They could not have endured to see all this elaborate system swept away at once; the disciples themselves were not ripe for such a change. Long afterwards St. Paul found it necessary to deal very tenderly with consciences that might be troubled by similar scruples. The Lord now indicates the coming abolition of the Levitical rules; he does not insist upon it; he returns to the original topic of discussion, "To eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." It was one of those sayings which the apostles could not receive in their full meaning at once, but which remained in their memory, and afterwards were understood and brought forth fruit. III. THE . 1. Their fears. The Pharisees were offended. The Lord’s words were a stumbling block to them; he had struck so hard at their prejudices, their traditions—those traditions which were so deeply interwoven with their whole life; he had called them hypocrites, too; he had said that they were no better than actors of a part, and had applied to them the strong condemnation of Isaiah. Again, in his address to the multitude, reported doubtless to the Pharisees, perhaps heard by them, he seemed to set aside the plain teaching of the written Law. At all this the Pharisees stumbled; it was an offence to them; such teaching was in direct opposition to all that they esteemed most sacred. They thought it dangerous, heretical. They were offended, irritated, alienated. And evidently the Lord’s disciples had not wholly divested themselves of their old reverence for the rabbinical system, and for the received. teachers of the nation, the Pharisees. They were troubled at their increasing hostility; perhaps they were in their hearts somewhat vexed with the Lord himself; his words, it may be, seemed to them so stern, so needlessly strong. They apprehended difficulties, dangers; they feared for their Master and for themselves. And now they came to him privately, into the house (Mark 7:17); they hinted at their anxieties; they sought to know what he would do. We must always come to Christ in our troubles; but we must trust him and yield up our wills to him; he doeth all things well. 2. The answer. (1) The teaching of the Pharisees was not of God; it came from human tradition or from their own evil hearts. And all that is not of God must perish. The whole system of rabbinical teaching must pass away. It had wrought itself into the very nature of the Pharisees, as the good seed in the parable had filled the heart and determined the character of the true disciples. That system must perish, and its professors, alas! with it, if they would not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (2) "Let them alone," the Lord said. They stood high in popular estimation; they sat in Moses’seat; but they were blind guides. "Let them alone." Christ is the one Master; we must follow him. They are blind who see not Christ, for Christ is the Light of the world. They who see not the light walk in darkness; the darkness hath blinded their eyes. Guides who see not the Christ and follow not; the Christ themselves are no guides for the Christian; he must let them alone. Such men may sometimes be set in places of authority; Judas was an apostle. We may not speak of them as the Lord spoke of the Pharisees; we have not the right; we have not his knowledge, his holiness; we must not speak evil of dignities. But let them alone; be not dazzled by their rank, their popularity, their intellectual power. They are blind, and those who follow them are blind also. This blindness is wilful; it is the result of spiritual sloth, or pride, or indulged sin of some sort. The blind who follow the blind must fall into the ditch; spiritual blindness must lead to spiritual ruin. Come to Christ with the prayer, "Lord, that I might receive my sight!" Follow those who follow him the closest; who, seeing him themselves with the vision of faith, are enabled by his grace to lead others nearer to the true Light that shineth upon them. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 16:1-4 The Pharisees and Sadducees desire a sign. (Mark 8:11-13.) Matthew 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Saddueees; rather, and the Pharisees and Sadducees. The scribes and Pharisees are often mentioned together as watching or attacking Jesus; but this is the first time that we hear of Pharisees combining with Sadducees for this purpose. The two sects were directly opposed to each other, the traditional belief of the former being antagonistic to the scepticism and materialism of the latter. But both were hostile to Christ, whose teaching, on the one hand interfered with rabbinism, and on the other maintained the existence of the supernatural and the certainty of the resurrection. The Sadducees alone seem to have attacked Christ only on two occasions. They were probably Herodians (comp. Matthew 22:16), and on this account also disliked by the Pharisees; but they were powerful, and held most of the highest offices in the state, and their alliance was sought or allowed in order more effectually to compromise Jesus. Even theological hatred and political opposition sank into indifference in the face of what was regarded as a common danger. Strauss and his school regard this combination as so unnatural that they throw discredit on the whole account. This is shallow criticism. Nothing is more common than for persons opposed on all other subjects to coalesce for an unholy purpose in which they are jointly interested. The most violent political opponents will join forces in order to gain some desired point, and. when an attack on the Church is meditated, even unbelievers are gladly welcomed. Tertullian says forcibly, "Christ is always being crucified between two thieves." Tempting. Trying him with captious questions, to bring him into a difficulty, or to give them an opportunity of accusing him of heterodoxy, or disloyalty, or insubordination, and of discrediting him with the people. A sign from heaven. The rabbis held that demons and. false gods could perform certain miracles on earth, but God alone could give signs from heaven, such as, e.g., the manna of Moses’ time, the staying of the sun and moon by Joshua, the lightning and thunder that came at Samuel’s word, the stroke of death on the captains who tried to arrest Elijah. They had heard of the miraculous meal just before, and saw how deeply the people were moved by it, and they would imply that such a miracle was no proof of a Divine mission, as it might have been wrought by magical or Satanic agency. Let Christ give a sign from heaven, and they would acknowledge his claims. They knew what Christ’s answer would be, as they had already attacked him with the same demand (Matthew 12:38); and they hoped that he would either refuse to gratify them, as before, or else make an attempt and fail. In either case they thought they might turn the circumstance to his disadvantage. The Sadducees joined in the request, because they disbelieved in all such occurrences, and were fully persuaded that they were impossible, and any one who attempted to produce them must prove himself a miserable impostor. The word translated desired. (ἐπηρώτησαν) is emphatic; the verb is used classically in the sense of "to put a question for decision;" so the interrogation here would signify that this was to be a final test of the claims of Christ; on his answer depended their adhesion or opposition. Matthew 16:2 The paragraph consisting of this and Matthew 16:3 is omitted by many good manuscripts, probably owing to its similarity to the passage in Matthew 12:38. These verses are most probably genuine; and they certainly could not have been foisted into the text from Luke 12:54-56. The circumstances are too different, and the variations too marked, to make such interpolation probable. When it is evening. The Pharisees had demanded a sign from heaven; Jesus points to the western glow in the sky, and taunts them with being ready enough to read the signs of the weather, but slow to interpret proofs of more important circumstances. He does not, in the case of these mixed cavillers, argue from Scripture, but from the natural world, and he points out that, had they eyes to see and a mind to discern, they might mark tokens in historical events, in the moral and spiritual world, which attested his Messiahship as clearly as any specially given sign from heaven. Ye say, It will be fair weather (εὐδία). Probably an exclamation, Ye say, Fair weather! Rabbinical schools made a point of teaching weather lore; prognostications on this subject were greatly in vogue, and the rains of the coming year were annually foretold. On such meteorological observations, we may refer to Virgil, ’Georg,’ 1.425, etc.; and Pliny, ’Nat. Hist.,’ 18.35 and 78. Matthew 16:3 It will be foul weather today more tersely in the Greek, Today a storm! Such prognostications are found among all peoples. Many examples are collected by Wetstein. Lowring (στυγνάζων); a word applied to the expression of the countenance, and therefore applicable, by prosopopceia, to the look of the sky. Fillion quotes Aulus Gellius, Matthew 13:29, "Non solum in hominum corporibus, sed etiam in rerum cujusquemodi aliarum facies dicitur. Nam montis et coeli et maris facies, si tompestive dicatur, probe dicitur." O ye hypocrites (ὑποκριταί). The word is omitted by some uncial manuscripts, the Vulgate, etc., and many modern editors. If it is genuine, we must consider that Christ thus calls them, because their pretence of being satisfied with sufficient proof of Christ’s claims was a mere fiction, as they were obstinately determined never to acknowledge him. It would be casting pearls before swine to give further external proofs to people without sympathy and not open to conviction. The signs of the times (τῶνκαιρῶν). Critical times, the age foretold for the appearance of the Messiah. These signs, which all who were candid and unbiassed might read, were such as the following: the sceptre had departed from Judah, and the lawgiver from between his feet; the fourth great empire was established; the prophetic weeks of Daniel were at their close; the Baptist had come in the spirit and power of Elias; all the world was expecting the advent of some great personage; the best and holiest Jews were looking for the Redeemer; Christ’s own miracles and teaching proved his Divinity and the fulfilment of many obscure prophecies; these and such like signs were set for all to see and ponder, and the Lord, as he marked the obstinate unbelief of his countrymen, might well be grieved, and "sigh deeply in his spirit" (Mark 8:12). Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation … Jonas. These words our Lord had already uttered on a former occasion (Matthew 12:39), but he does not here explain them, as he did before (see Introduction, § 7). Under similar circumstances he repeats himself, but he wastes not time in useless discussions with perverse opponents who will not see the truth. Of his death and resurrection, whereof Jonah was a type, they knew and understood nothing. Perhaps they thought of Jonah only as a prophet against the heathen city Nineveh, and a preacher of repentance, and were disposed to resent the allusion as an affront to their vaunted righteousness. He left them. Took ship for Magedan, and crossed the lake to the northeast shore, in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida Julias. He, as it were, despaired of their improvement, and left them in righteous anger at their obduracy. "A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition refuse; knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10, Titus 3:11). Jesus never taught publicly or worked miracles again on this spot. Matthew 16:5-12 Warning against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. (Mark 8:14-21.) Matthew 16:5 They had forgotten (ἐπελάθοντο, not pluperfect); came to the other side, and forgot; obliti sunt (Vulgate); i.e. they perceived that they had forgotten to take sufficient bread for the journey before them. The district which they were about to traverse was but sparsely inhabited, and offered no hope of supplying this want. It is doubted whether the ensuing conversation took place during the voyage or after they had landed. The language of St. Mark inclines one to believe that the deficiency was discovered during the transit, and the remarks now narrated were made then. As it would take some hours to cross, there was ample time to feel and expatiate upon the need; and if Christ had told them of his future movements, they would naturally feel regret for their carelessness and want of forethought. Or it might be that Christ’s observation concerning the leaven was made in the beat, and his reproof of their thoughts was given on landing. Matthew 16:6 The leaven. Christ’s thoughts were still fixed on the late disputants, whose powerful influence on popular opinion called for forcible warning. By "leaven" he does not here refer specially to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, as in Luke 12:1, but to the evil influence which they exercised, which was diffused far and wide, and penetrated to all ranks and classes. Their unsound opinions, their inability or disinclination to enter into the spiritual sense of Scripture, vitiated their whole system, and made them dangerous teachers directly they attempted to explain or amplify the letter of Holy Writ. It was this same perverse blindness that led them to refuse to accept Jesus as Messiah in spite of all the proofs which had been brought before them. That leaven, in one aspect, was regarded as a sign of impurity and corruption, we learn from the strict rules which banished it from Divine service, and especially during the Passover season. Says St. Paul, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Galatians 5:9); and, "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened" (1 Corinthians 5:7). Elsewhere Christ makes a distinction between what these teachers taught ex cathedra, and what they put forth on their own authority or what they practised themselves (Matthew 23:2, Matthew 23:3, where see note). Matthew 16:7 They reasoned among themselves. With a crass literalness, the apostles utterly misunderstood the drift of their Master’s warning, and thought that he alluded to their forgetfulness in coming without bread. They were always slow to apprehend the metaphorical and spiritual signification of their Master’s language. Thus at the synagogue in Capernaum they failed to grasp his meaning when he spoke of himself as the Bread of life (John 6:1-71.), and at Jacob’s well they interpreted of material food his Divine words concerning the nourishment of the soul (John 4:1-54.). It is well remarked by Sadler (in loc.) that "it is no small proof of the good faith and consequent truth of the gospel, that the apostles should have recorded things so against themselves as this account. If they had written for any purpose except the simple exhibition of the truth, they could easily have suppressed facts such as this, so very discreditable to their spiritual, indeed to their mental, perception. But if we had lost accounts such as these, we should have lost the proof of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, miracle of its kind; for no miraculous change in the spirit of man which God has wrought can be accounted greater than this—that men who, before the resurrection and the Day of Pentecost, should have exhibited such utter want of the lowest spiritual discernment, should, after the descent of the Spirit, have written such searching spiritual documents as the catholic Epistles of Peter and John." In the present case some commentators take it that the apostles fancied Christ was warning them against procuring any leavened bread from Pharisees and Sadducees, whom Jesus so sternly denounced; but it is more probable that their anxiety arose simply from the want of provisions, not from the consideration that they were debarred from obtaining them at the hands of certain parties. These doubts they seem to have whispered one to another. Matthew 16:8 When Jesus perceived (γνούς). He knew their thoughts, if he did not overhear their words, and he reproved them severely on two accounts—first, for want of faith in his care; and secondly, for not understanding the mystical allusion in the word "leaven." Ye of little faith. They showed lack of faith by being solicitous concerning bodily wants, thinking that Christ was regardless of, or unable to provide for them under all circumstances. He applied the same term to them elsewhere, as when they apprehended not the lesson of the grass of the field (Matthew 6:30), and when they were fearful in the storm on the lake (Matthew 8:26). Matthew 16:9, Matthew 16:10 Christ, in support of his reproof, refers to the two miracles of the multiplication of food, which ought to have assured them of his care and power. Do ye not yet understand? So he asked in Matthew 15:16, "Are ye also yet without understanding?" Their heart was hardened, and they failed to apprehend the spiritual bearing of the incidents. Neither remember? This was an additional ground for censure, that they even forgot the facts at the very time when they ought to have been recalled to their memory. Jesus reminds them of the distinctive differences between the two miracles, mentioning even the receptacles in which the fragments were collected—in the one case κόφινοι, small baskets, and in the other σπυρίδες, large panniers. It is surely wilful perversity that has deemed these two incidents, thus pointedly disjoined by our Lord, as versions of one story; and yet this is what some modern critics have suggested and upheld. Matthew 16:11 That I spake it not to you, etc. The Revised Version, following many modern editors, divides the clause into two, thus: that I spake not to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven, etc. This is the second ground for the Lord’s reproof administered to the apostles. They had taken in a carnal, literal sense a word which he had used in a symbolical or mystical meaning. It is the want of spiritual discernment which he censures. They had had frequent opportunities of hearing and appreciating his mode of teaching: miracles, parables, discourses, had an inner signification, which it was their duty to apprehend. The want of understanding was a moral fault for which they were answerable. We may say it would have been easier for our Lord to have spoken of doctrine without using the misunderstood figure of leaven. But it is in the way of his providence to speak words which need thought and grace to make them fully comprehended. They are thus more impressed upon the heart and memory, and bring forth better fruit. A well instructed Hebrew ought to have no difficulty in understanding metaphorical allusions. His Scriptures were full of them, and could not be intelligently read without the light thus cast upon them. Matthew 16:12 Then understood they. Jesus did not explain his meaning further; but his reproof roused their intellect, made them reflect, set them on the road to the truth. The doctrine. This was what Jesus meant by "the leaven." In a wider sense it might include practice as well as precept, manner of life as well as teaching. The same spirit permeated all. "See," says St. Chrysostom, "how much good his reproof wrought. For it both led them away from the Jewish observances, and, when they were remiss. made them more heedful, and delivered them from want of faith; so that they were not afraid nor in alarm, if at any time they seemed to have few loaves; nor were they careful about famine, but despised all these things." Matthew 16:13-20 The climax of recognition of Christ’s true nature declared in the great confession of Peter. (Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21.) Matthew 16:13 Coasts (μέρη); parts, as Matthew 15:21, etc. Caesarea Philippi. The addition to the name Caesarea is intended to commemorate its restorer and beautifier, the tetrarch Philip, and to distinguish it from the city of the same name on the coast between Joppa and Carmel (Acts 8:40, etc.). Our Lord had landed at Bethsaida, where the Jordan enters the Lake of Gennesaret, turned northwards, and, following the course of the river, had now arrived in the vicinity of one of its chief sources at Caesarea Philippi, the most northerly city of the Holy Land. It was, if not identical with, in close proximity to, the Dan of the Old Testament, whence arose the saying, "From Dan to Beersheba," to denote the whole extent of country from north to south. Later it was called Paneas, and now Banias. Philip altered the name to Caesarea in honour of Tiberius Caesar, his patron. Christ seems not to have visited the city itself, but only the outlying villages in the district. We may conjecture why at this Lime he moved to this remote region. It was probably, partly, a measure of precaution. He had excited the fiercest animosity of the dominant party, and even of the sceptical Sadducees; he was pertinaciously followed by their emissaries, always on the watch to lay hold of his words and actions, and to found upon them dangerous charges; and now, knowing it was time to announce to his followers in plain terms his claim to be Messiah, he would not do this in Judaea, where it might cause commotion, and embroil him with the authorities, but preferred to teach this great truth where he might speak freely without fear of immediate consequences, out of the reach of his persevering opponents. Virtually, also, his public work in Judaea and Galilee had reached its end. He had no chance of a hearing if he had made further attempts at teaching. The calumnies of the rabbis had affected the fickle populace, who would willingly have followed a military pretender, but had no heart to set at nought their national teachers in favour of One whom they were persuaded to regard as a dangerous innovator, not improbably upheld by Satanic agency. He asked his disciples. It was after a time of solitary prayer (Luke 9:18) that he put this question to his followers. Determined now to reveal himself, he desired to make them express the mistaken views which were rife concerning his Person and office, and to lead them to the more important inquiry—what opinion they themselves held touching this momentous mystery (verse 15). Whom (who) do men say that I the Son of man am? Quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis (Vulgate); Who do men say that the Son of man is? (Revised Version). The versions represent the variation of manuscripts between τίναμελέγουσινκ.τ.λ., and τίναλέγουσιν, omitting με. The pronoun is probably genuine and emphatic. In the other case, "the Son of man" is equivalent to με in verse 15. I call myself the Son of man: what do the multitudes say of me? Who do they consider the Son of man to be? This was the term he used to show the truth of the Incarnation—"perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting." To Jewish ears it connoted Divinity (see Luke 22:69, Luke 22:70; John 3:13). Matthew 16:14 John the Baptist. This was the opinion of Herod Antipas (Matthew 14:1, Matthew 14:2), who fancied that Christ was animated by the spirit of John the Baptist, or was actually that personage’ revived; though it was noticed by others that John did no miracle (John 10:41), and lived a life in contrast to that of Christ (Matthew 11:18, Matthew 11:19). Elias; Elijah, who was taken up to heaven without dying, and was announced by Malachi (Malachi 4:5) as destined to return before the appearance of Messiah. Jeremias. Some opined that he was Jeremiah, who was expected to come as a precursor of Messiah (2 Esdras 2:18), and reveal the tabernacle, ark, and the altar of incense, which, according to the legend of 2 Macc. 2:4-7, he had hidden in Mount Nebo, "until the time that God gather his people again together, and receive them unto mercy." One of the prophets. One of the celebrated prophets of antiquity revived, restored to life again to prepare the way for the great consummation. The well known prediction of Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15) may have given rise to this idea. The four popular opinions here mentioned showed two facts—that Jesus had a high reputation among his contemporaries, and that he was by none at this time regarded as the Messiah. Even those who, after certain of his marvellous works, had been ready to honour him with that title, soon cooled in their ardour, and, checked by his reserve and the slanders of the Pharisees, learned to see in him only a wonder-worker or a precursor of the expected Prince and Liberator. Matthew 16:15 But whom (who) say ye that I am? More emphatic in the Greek, Υμεῖςδὲτίναμελέγετεεἶναι; But ye, who do ye say that I am? This was the important question to which the previous one led. Ye, who have shared my life and received my teaching, witnessed my miracles and have been endued by me with supernatural powers, ye know better than the people, whose crude opinions you have heard and recounted; so tell plainly what you believe of me: who you think and say that I am? A momentous inquiry! upon which hung the foundation of the Christian Church. Their knowledge of the real nature of Jesus was now to be tested. Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said. The ardent Peter, when all were asked, replies in the name of the rest, giving, however, his own personal sentiment and belief, as we see from Christ’s answer (Matthew 16:17). Some of the others probably would have been less ready to make the same confession; but in his vehement loyalty, Peter silences all hesitation, and declares boldly what must be the conviction of all his comrades. He speaks out the persuasion wrought in his soul by Divine grace. Thou art the Christ (ὁΧριστὸς), the Son of the living God. The Christ; the Anointed, the Messiah. The Son of God; of the same substance, one with the Father. Living; as alone "having life in himself," "the living and true God" (John 5:26; 1 Thessalonians 1:9). The same (or nearly the same) confession was made by Peter in the name of all the apostles at Capernaum (John 6:69); but the sense of the expression was different, and sprang from very different conviction. It referred rather to the subjective view of Christ’s character, as it influenced the believer’s inward assurance of the source of eternal life. Here the acknowledgment concerns the nature, office, and Person of our Lord. That there was some special distinction between the two enunciations is evident from Christ’s unique commendation of Peter on this occasion compared with his silence on the former. The present confession is indeed a noble one, containing itself a compendium of the Catholic faith concerning the Person and work of Christ. Herein Peter acknowledges Jesus to be the true Messiah, commissioned and sent by God to reveal his will to man, and accomplishing all that the prophets had foretold concerning him; no mere man, not even the most exalted of men (which common opinion held Messiah to be) but the Son of God, of the substance of the Father, begotten from everlasting, God of God, perfect God and perfect man, Son of God and Son of man. Such was Peter’s faith. The Church has added nothing to it, though she has amplified and explained and illustrated it in her Creeds; for it comprises belief in Christ’s Messiahship, Divinity, Incarnation, personality, and the momentous issues depending thereon. We need not suppose that Peter understood all this or speculated on the question how these several attributes were united in Christ. He was content to accept and acknowledge the truth, waiting patiently for further light. This is the attitude which Christ approves. Matthew 16:17 Jesus answered and said unto him. This weighty and momentous answer is given alone by St. Matthew. St. Mark, who wrote under the instruction of Peter, and for Roman Christians, mentions it not; the other two evangelists are equally silent, having evidently not understood the special importance attached to it. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona. "Blessed," as in the sermon on the mount (Mark 5:1-43.), expressing a solemn benediction, not a mere encomium. Peter was highly favoured by a special revelation from God. Christ calls him "son of Jona," to intimate that Peter’s confession is true—that he himself is as naturally and truly Son of God as Peter is son of Jona. So Christ addresses him when he restores the fallen apostle at the Sea of Galilee after the second miraculous draught of fishes, reminding him of his frail human nature in the face of great spiritual privileges (John 21:15, etc.; comp. Matthew 1:1-25:42). Simon would be the name given at his circumcision; Bar-jona, a patronymic to distinguish him from others of the same name. For (ὅτι). This introduces the reason why Christ calls him "Blessed." Flesh and blood. This is a phrase to express the idea of the natural man, with his natural endowments and faculties. So St. Paul says (Galatians 1:16), "I conferred not with flesh and blood;" and "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood" (Ephesians 6:12). The Son of Sirach speaks of "the generation of flesh and blood" (Ecclesiasticus 14:18). No natural sagacity, study, or discernment had revealed the great truth. None of these had overcome slowness of apprehension, prejudices of education, slackness of faith. No unregenerate mortal man had taught him the gospel mystery. My Father which is in heaven. Christ thus accepts Peter’s definition of him as "the Son of the living God." None but the Father could have revealed to thee the Son. Matthew 16:18 And I say also (I also say) unto thee. As thou hast said unto me, "Thou art the Christ," so I say unto thee, etc. Thou art Peter (Πέτρος, Petrus), and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my Church. In classical Greek, the distinction between πέτρα and πέτρος is well known—the former meaning "a rock," the latter "a piece of rock," or "a stone." But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia here in the Greek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha. When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (John 1:42). The name was bestowed in anticipation of Peter’s great confession: "Thou shalt be called." This preannouncement was here fulfilled and confirmed. Upon this passage chiefly the claims of the Roman Church, which for fifteen centuries have been the subject of acrimonious controversy, are founded. It is hence assumed that the Christian Church is founded upon Peter and his successors, and that these successors are the Bishops of Rome. The latter assertion may be left to the decision of history, which fails to prove that Peter was ever at Rome, or that he transmitted his supposed supremacy to the episcopate of that city. We have in this place to deal with the former assertion. Who or what is the rock on which Christ says that he will hereafter build his Church? French Romanists consider it a providential coincidence that they can translate the passage, "Je te disque, Tu es Pierre; et sur cette pierre je batirai," etc.; but persons outside the papal communion are not satisfied to hang their faith on a play of words. The early Fathers are by no means at one in their explanations of the paragraph. Living before Rome had laid claim to the tremendous privileges which it afterwards affected, they did not regard the statement in the light of later controversies; and even those who held Peter to be the rock would have indignantly repelled the assumptions which have been built on that interpretation. The apostolic Fathers seem to have mentioned the passage in none of their writings; and they could scarcely have failed to refer to it had they been aware of the tremendous issues dependent thereon. It was embodied in no Catholic Creed, and never made an article of the Christian faith. We may remark also that of the evangelists St. Matthew alone records the promise to Peter; Mark and Luke give his confession, which was the one point which Christ desired to elicit, and omit that which is considered to concern his privileges. This looks as though, in their view, the chief aim of the passage was not Peter, but Christ; not Peter’s pre-eminence, but Christ’s nature and office. At the same time, to deny all allusion to Peter in the "rock" is quite contrary to the genius of the language and to New Testament usage, and would not have been so pressed in modern times except for polemical purposes. Three views have been held on the interpretation of this passage. (1) That Christ himself is the Rock on which the Church should be built. (2) That Peter’s confession of Jesus Christ as Son of God, or God incarnate, is the Rock. (3) That St. Peter is the rock. (1) The first explanation is supported by passages where in Christ speaks of himself in the third person, e.g. "Destroy this temple;" "If any man eat of this bread; Whoso falleth on this stone," etc. In the same sense are cited the words of Isaiah (Isaiah 28:16), "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious comerstone, a sure foundation." Almighty God is continually called "a Rock" in the Old Testament (see 2 Samuel 22:32; Psalms 18:31; Psalms 57:2, Psalms 57:6, Psalms 57:7, etc.), so that it might be deemed natural and intelligible for Christ to call himself "this Rock," in accordance, with the words of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3:11), "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid (κεῖται), which is Jesus Christ." But then the reference to Peter becomes unmeaning: "Thou art Peter, and upon myself I will build my Church." It is true that some few eminent authorities have taken this view. Thus St. Augustine writes, "It was not said to him, ’Thou art a rock (petra),’ but, ’Thou art Peter,’ and the Rock was Christ" (’Retract.,’ 1.21). And commentators have imagined that Christ pointed to himself as he spoke. In such surmises there is an inherent improbability, and they do not explain the commencement of the address. In saying, "Thou art Peter," Christ, if he made any gesture at all, would have touched or turned to that apostle. Immediately after this to have directed attention to himself would have been most unnatural and contradictory. We may safely surrender the interpretation which regards Christ himself as the Rock. (2) The explanation which finds the rock in Peter’s great confession has been widely adopted by commentators ancient and modern. Thus St. Chrysostom, "Upon this rock, that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby he signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd." To the same purport might be quoted Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory Nyss., Cyril, and others. It is remarkable that in the Collect from the Gregorian Sacramentary and in the Roman Missal on the Vigil of St. Peter and St. Paul are found the words, "Grant that thou wouldst not suffer us, whom thou hast established on the rock of the apostolic confession (quos in apostolicae confessionis petra solidasti) to be shaken by any commotions." Bishop Wordsworth, as many exegetes virtually do, combines the two interpretations, and we cite his exposition as a specimen of the view thus held: "What he says is this, ’I myself, now confessed by thee to be both God and Man, am the Rock of the Church. This is the foundation on which it is built.’ And because St. Peter had confessed him as such, he says to St. Peter, ’Thou hast confessed me, and I will now confess thee; thou hast owned me, I will now own thee. Thou art Peter,’ i.e. thou art a lively stone, hewn out of and built upon me, the living Rock. Thou art a genuine Petros of me, the Divine Petra. And whosoever would be a lively stone, a Peter, mast imitate thee in this thy true confession of me, the living Rock; for upon this Rock, that is, on myself, believed and confessed to be both God and Man, I will build my Church." As the opinion that Christ means himself by "this rock" is untenable, so we consider that Peter’s confession is equally debarred from being the foundation intended. Who does not see that the Church is to be built, not on confessions or dogmas, but on men—men inspired by God to teach the great truth? A confession implies a confessor; it was the person who made the confession that is meant, not the mere statement itself, however momentous and true. Thus elsewhere the Church is said to have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), "Ye," says St. Peter (1 Peter 2:5), "as living stones are built up a spiritual house." "James and Cephas who were reputed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9). In Revelation (Revelation 21:14) the foundationstones of the heavenly temple are "the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Hence we gather that the rock is a person. (3) So we come to the explanation of the difficulty which naturally is deduced from the language if considered without regard to prejudice or the pernicious use to which it has been put. Looking at the matter in a straightforward way, we come to the conclusion that Christ is wishing to reward Peter for his outspoken profession of faith; and his commendation is couched in a form which was usual in Oriental addresses, and intelligible to his hearers. "Thou hast said to me, ’Thou art the Son of God;’ I say to thee, ’Thou art Peter,’ a rock man, ’and on thee,’ as a rock, ’I will build my Church.’ "As he was the first to acknowledge Christ’s nature and office, so he was rewarded by being appointed as the apostle who should inaugurate the Christian Church and lay its first foundation. His name and his work were to coincide. This promise was fulfilled in Peter’s acts. He it was who took the lead on the Day of Pentecost, when at his preaching, to the hundred and twenty disciples there were added three thousand souls (Acts 2:41); he it was who admitted the Gentiles to the Christian community (Acts 10:1-48.); he it was who in these early days stood forth prominently as a master builder, and was the first to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews and Gentiles. It is objected that, if Peter was a builder, he could not be the rock on which the building was raised. The expression, of course, is metaphorical. Christ builds the Church by employing Peter as the foundation of the spiritual house; Peter’s zeal and activity and stable faith are indeed the living rock which forms the material element, so to speak, of this erection; he, as labouring in the holy cause beyond all others, at any rate in the early days of the gospel, is regarded as that solid basis on which the Church was raised. Christ, in one sense, builds on Peter; Peter builds on Christ. The Church, in so far as it was visible, had Peter for its rocky foundation; in so far as it was spiritual, it was founded on Christ. The distinction thus accorded in the future to Peter was personal, and carried with it none of the consequences which human ambition or mistaken pursuit of unity have elicited therefrom. There was no promise of present supremacy; there was no promise of the privilege being handed down to successors. The other apostles had no conception of any superiority being now conferred on Peter. It was not long after this that there was a strife among them who should be the greatest; James and John claimed the highest places in the heavenly kingdom; Paul resisted Peter to the face "because he stood condemned" (Galatians 2:11); the president of the first council was James, the Bishop of Jerusalem. It is plain that neither Peter himself nor his fellow apostles understood or acknowledged his supremacy; and that he transmitted, or was intended to transmit, such authority to successors, is a figment unknown to primitive Christianity, and which was gradually erected, to serve ambitious designs, on forged decretals and spurious writings. This is not the place for polemics, and these few apologetic hints are introduced merely with the view of showing that no one need be afraid of the obvious and straightforward interpretation of Christ’s words, or suppose that papal claims are necessarily supported thereby. I will build my Church (μουτὴνἐκκλησίαν). My Church, not thine. Plainly, therefore, the Church was not yet builded. Christ speaks of it as a house, temple, or palace, perhaps at the moment gazing on some castle founded securely on a rock, safe from flood and storm and hostile attack. We know how commonly he took his illustrations from objects and scenes around him; and the rocky base of the great castle of Caesarea Philippi may well have supplied the material for the metaphor here introduced. The word translated "church" (ἐκκλησία), is found here for the first time in the New Testament. It is derived from a verb meaning "to call out," and in classical Greek denotes the regular legislative assembly of a people. In the Septuagint it represents the Hebrew kahal, the congregation united into one society and forming one polity (see Trench, ’Synonyms’). The name kehila in modern times is applied to every Jewish community which has its own synagogue and ministers. From the use of the metaphor of a house, and the word employed to designate the Church, we see that it was not to be a mere loose collection of items, but an organized whole, united, officered, and permanent. Hence the word Ecclesia has been that which designated the Christian society, and has been handed down and recognized in all ages and in all countries. It may be regarded as the personal part of that kingdom of heaven which was to embrace the whole world, when "the kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ" (Revelation 11:15; see Introduction, § 10.). The gates of hell (ᾅδου) shall not prevail against it. Hades, which our version calls "hell," is the region of the dead, a gloomy and desolate place, according to Jewish tradition, situated in the centre of the earth, a citadel with walls and gates, which admitted the souls of men, but opened not for their egress. There are two ways of explaining these words, though they both come to much the same idea. The gates of Hades represent the entrance thereto; and the Lord affirms that death shall have no power over the members of the Church; they shall be able to rise superior to its attacks, even if for a time they seem to succumb; their triumphant cry shall he, "O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55). Through the grave and gate of death they shall pass to a joyful resurrection. The other interpretation is derived from the fact that in Oriental cities the gate is the scene of deliberation and counsel. Hence "the gates" here may represent the evil designs planned by the powers of hell to overthrow the Church, the wiles and machinations of the devil and his angels, Hades being taken, not as the abode of the dead, but as the realm of Satan. Neither malignant spirits nor their allies, such as sin, persecution, heresy, shall be able to wreck the eternal building which Christ was founding. Combining the two expositions, we may say that Christ herein promises that neither the power of death nor the power of the devil shall prevail against it (κατισχύσουσιναὐτῆς), shall overpower it, keep it in subjection. The pronoun refers doubtless to Church, not rock, the verb being more applicable to the former than the latter, and the pronoun being nearer in position to ἐκκλησίαν. To see here an assurance of the infallibility of the pope, as Romanists do, is to force the words of Scripture most unwarrantably in order to support a modern figment which has done infinite harm to the cause of Christ. As Erasmus says, "Proinde miror esse, qui locum hunc detorqueant ad Romanum Pontificem." Matthew 16:19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The metaphor of a house or castle, with its gates that must be opened with keys, is still maintained; or else the idea is of the exercise of a stewardship in a household. But the latter seems unnecessarily to introduce a new notion, and to mar the concinnity of the passage. In Isaiah 22:22 we read, "The key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open"—where the figure is similar. The delivery of the keys of a city, etc., to a person, symbolizes the handing over of the authority to that person. "The kingdom of heaven" means here the visible Church of Christ in its most extended form. In this Church, hereafter to be constituted, Peter personally is promised a certain authority. This is a personal reward for his good confession, and a prediction of the way in which he was to exercise it. At the same time, there is a change in the figure used. He who was the foundation of the Church is now its overseer, and may open or shut its doors, may admit or exclude whomsoever he will, always following the guidance of the inspiring Spirit. This promise was fulfilled after the Day of Pentecost. It seems to have been at this time only promised, not conferred upon Peter. The actual gift of the power to him and his brother apostles took place after the Resurrection, as we read in John 20:22. The "power of the keys," as it is called, is considered to have two branches—a legislative pewee and an absolving power. The former Peter exercised when he took the lead after the effusion of the Spirit, and opened the door to the Jews. It was his action that admitted the Gentiles, without compliance with the distinctive rites of Judaism, to all the privileges of the gospel (see Acts 15:7). This most momentous precedent he established and made good for all time. These were legislative acts which he had the honour of introducing, and which, thus inaugurated, upheld, and defended by him, tended to advance that unity which the Lord held so dear. As an instance of his shutting the door of the kingdom in the face of an impious intruder, we may notice his rebuke to Simon Magus (Acts 8:21), "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter." The absolving power, supposed to be contained in the gift of the keys, seems rather to belong to the terms of the succeeding promise. We conceive that this power was first given to St. Peter in acknowledgment of his good confession, and as an emblem of unity, and was afterwards bestowed on all the apostles. That the Fathers did not regard it as limited exclusively to Peter, may he seen by quotations gathered by Wordsworth and other commentators. Thus Tertullian, ’Scorpiac.,’ 10, "Memento claves hic Dominum Petro, et per illum Ecclesiae reliquisse;" St. Cyprian, ’De Unit.,’ p. 107, "Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit;" St. Augustine, ’Serm.,’ 295, "Has claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclcsiae." Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. "Binding" and "loosing" has been explained in various ways. Some say the terms mean admitting or debarring from the Church, which would make them identical with the power of the keys, and would give no additional privilege; whereas it is plain that further honour is intended to be bestowed. Others affirm that the expression is to be understood of absolution from sin. They take the metaphor to be derived from a prisoner and his chain. Sinners are tied and bound with the chain of their sins; they are released on repentance by the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:19); they are bound, when the means of grace are withheld from them, owing to the absence of tokens of’sincerity and faith. This is the view taken in the Anglican Ordinal, where to the priest it is solemnly said, "Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sips thou dost retain, they are retained." But this was no special gift to Peter; it was bestowed not long after upon all the apostolic body in the very same terms (Matthew 18:18), and was indeed inherent in the ministry. This interpretation also introduces a new element into the promise, which does not agree with the context. There is nothing to lead one to expect such an item, and to supply "sins" to the general term "whatsoever" twice repeated, is harsh and unnatural. A more reasonable explanation of the phrase is derived from the use of the terms among the Jews themselves. In their Talmudic glosses we find equivalent expressions. "To bind" is to forbid, to pronounce unlawful; "to loose" is to allow, to declare lawful. And the Lord here promises Peter a certain pre-eminence in the government and organization of the Church, and that the rules which he ordained and the sentences which he should pass in the due exercise of his apostolical authority, should be ratified and confirmed in heaven (Burgon). The phrase is found in Josephus, expressive of the possession, of unrestricted authority. Thus he speaks of the Pharisees as having power to loose and bind (λύειντεκαὶδεῖν) whom they would (’Bell. Jud.,’ 1.5. 2). And it is noted that an inscription upon a statue of Isis reads, "I am the queen of the country, and whatsoever I bind no man can loose" (Diod. Sic., 1.27). This is a personal distinction conferred on St. Peter in the exercise of an office common to all the apostles, it was needful, in the early Church, that one should be chosen, primus inter pares, to be the chief office bearer and leader of the body of believers. Not that he conceived himself to be, or was recognized by others as, infallible, or as an irresponsible despot; many events before and after Pentecost forbid such an assumption; but his faith, character, and zeal pointed him out as well constituted to regulate and order the infant community, and to take the first part in maintaining that unity which was essential to the new kingdom. This personal primacy may justly be conceded, even by those who are most inimical to the arrogant claims of the papacy; for it carries not with it the consequences which have been appended. Precedence in rank does not of necessity involve supreme or even superior authority. A duke has no authority over a baron, though he has precedence. The fuller consideration of this sphere of the subject belongs rather to the historian and the polemist than to the expositor, and to such we leave it, only adding that, in his peculiar privilege, Peter stands alone, and that in his extraordinary power he had, and was intended to have, no successors. Matthew 16:20 Then charged he his disciples. Immediately after Peter’s confession and Jesus’ promise. St. Matthew’s word "charged" (διεστείλατο) becomes more emphatic in the other synoptists (ἐπετίμησεν), implying a command with a rebuke attached to it on its infringement; Vulgate, comminatus est (Mark 8:30). That they should tell no man that he (αὐτὸς)was [Jesus] the Christ. The received text inserts the word "Jesus," but very many good manuscripts omit it; and it seems to have been received by inadvertence, the point being that he was Messiah. The injunction to tell no man (with which comp. Matthew 8:4) was necessary at this time for many reasons. The time was not ripe for the declaration which might have led to tumult and disorder among an excited populace. Any ambitious ideas which the apostles might have formed from what had just passed were here nipped in the bud. They were not sufficiently familiar with the true notion of the Messiah, especially a suffering Messiah, to be competent to preach him to others. This we see by Peter’s inconsiderate remonstrance in verse 22. Till they received the Holy Ghost after Christ’s ascension, they could not rightly and profitably preach of Christ’s nature, office, and kingdom. Jesus may have looked forward to their desertion of him in his hour of trial, and prevented them from proclaiming his real character, which, in the face of such desertion, would have proved a stumbling block to the faith of believers. Some of these reasons we may reverently believe were those which led Christ to lay this severe restriction on the enthusiasm of his followers (see on Matthew 17:9). Matthew 25:21-46 : JESUS ACCEPTS AND DOES NOT SHUN IT. Matthew 16:21-28 Jesus announces plainly his death and resurrection. Rebukes Peter. (Mark 8:31-9:1; Luke 9:22-27.) Matthew 16:21 From that time. Henceforward Christ changes his teaching and his behaviour. He tells of his sufferings, and of their necessity in the order of things, so that any one who opposes this design is fighting against God; and shows how self-denial and pain must be the lot of his followers. Began to show unto his disciples. No longer obscurely, but plainly and without reserve. He had already intimated his future sufferings, though his disciples had been slow to receive these dark hints, so opposed to all their preconceived opinions of Messiah’s glory and victorious career. Such sayings as, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19); and, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up" (John 3:14), had fallen unheeded on the disciples’ ears, and had not guided them to forecast the future. Even the allusions to their own trials, in the warnings about bearing the cross and following him (Matthew 10:38), were not understood. The great point of his real nature had become clear to them; they had now to learn that the way to glory, both for him and them, led through suffering and death. Conscious of Christ’s Divinity, they could now more patiently endure the mystery of his cross and Passion. Unto Jerusalem. The appointed scene of these events (see Matthew 20:17). He must (δεῖ) go thither to meet and endure these sufferings, because it was so ordained in the counsels of God and announced by the prophets (comp. Matthew 26:54; Luke 24:26, Luke 24:46). Many things. These are detailed in Matthew 20:18, Matthew 20:19; Luke 18:31-33. Elders, chief priests, and scribes. The various members of the Sanhedrin (see Matthew 2:4). The three classes are, in Nosgen’s opinion, intentionally named here—the elders, as the most aged and venerated members, or such as were distinguished by rank and character; the chief priests, heads of the twenty-four courses, as office bearers of the theocracy; and scribes, at that time occupying almost the position of the prophets. The whole religious world would thus be combined against Christ. Be killed. He does not here say "crucified," as he did afterwards (Matthew 20:19), only gradually revealing the whole awful truth. Be raised again the third day. This announcement was intended to support the disciples in view of Christ’s sufferings and death. And "the third day" is mentioned, not only for typical reasons, but to assure them that his death should be speedily followed by his return to life from the grave. It is obvious to us that Jesus prophesied plainly concerning his resurrection; but such an event, so unprecedented, so unexperienced, was not understood; and though the prediction was so far known as to cause his grave to be watched, it was only a vague kind of expectation, without form or definiteness, that was cherished, and the actual fact came as a surprise. Matthew 16:22 Peter took him (προσλαβόμενος). Either taking him aside, or taking him by the hand or dress—a reverent familiarity permitted by the Lord to his loving apostle. And now this same Peter, who had just before made his noble confession, and had been rewarded with unique commendation, unable to shake off the prejudices of his age and his education, began to rebuke (ἐπιτιμᾶν) his Master. He presumed to chide Jesus for speaking of suffering and death. He, the Son of God most High, what had he to do with such things? How could he name them in connection with himself? Peter, while accepting the idea of Messiah as Divine and triumphant, could not receive the notion of his death and Passion. That the same person should be so humiliated and yet so glorious, was beyond his conception. He was as much in the dark as his fellow apostles; of that which was not specially revealed to him he knew nothing. It was the carnal mind that here influenced him, not the spiritually enlightened soul. By writing "began," the historian intimates that he had not time to say much before the Lord mercifully interposed and cut him short. Be it far from thee; ἵλεώςσοι: Vulgate, absit a te. The Greek phrase is elliptical, εἴηὁΘεός being understood; "God be merciful to thee," equivalent to "God forbid." The complete expression occurs in the Septuagint of 1 Chronicles 11:19. It is used in deprecation of a disastrous event. This shall not be unto thee; οὐμὴἔσταισοιτοῦτο. This is a very strong assertion, not a prayer or wish, as some would make it; the use of language is quite against that, as the phrase is predictive, never prohibitory, in his mistaken zeal and his ignorant affection, Peter would be wiser than his Lord. The cross and Passion shall never be thy lot; Messiah cannot suffer, the Son of God cannot die. Such merely human asseveration, even prompted by undoubted love, had to be checked and rebuked. Matthew 16:23 He turned. Peter and the rest were following Christ, as he walked onward. Now Jesus stops, turns, and faces them. Get thee behind me, Satan. Jesus uses nearly the same words in rebuking Peter that he had used to the devil in his temptation (Matthew 4:10); and justly, because the apostle was acting the adversary’s part, by opposing the Divine economy, and endeavouring to persuade Jesus that the way he proposed was wholly unnecessary. The lively stone has became a very Satan in opposing the Divine will; hence the sharpness of the rebuke administered to him. An offence unto me (σκάνδαλονἐμοῦ); my stumbling block. Petros, the stone, to maintain the metaphor, is now "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence" (1 Peter 2:8). He stood in the Saviour’s way, and impeded his onward progress in the course ordained. He who would turn him aside from Calvary is the enemy of man’s salvation, which was to be won there. Thou savourest (φρονεῖς) not; mindest not (as Romans 8:5); thy taste is not for the Divine plans, but for human considerations; thou art not promoting the great purpose of God, but worldliness and self-pleasing. "Peter," says St. Chrysostom, "examining the matter by human and earthly reasoning, accounted it disgraceful to him [Christ] and an unmeet thing. Touching him therefore sharply, he saith, ’My Passion is not an unmeet thing, but thou givest this sentence with a carnal mind; whereas if thou hadst hearkened to my sayings in a godly manner, disengaging thyself from thy carnal understanding, thou wouldst know that this of all things most becometh me. For thou indeed supposest that to suffer is unworthy of me; but I say unto thee, that for me not to suffer is of the devil’s mind;’ by the contrary statements repressing his alarm" (Oxford transl.). Matthew 16:24 St. Mark tells us that Jesus called the multitude unto him together with the disciples, as about to say something of universal application. The connection between this paragraph and what has preceded is well put by St. Chrysostom. Then. "When? when St. Peter said, ’Be it far from thee: this shall not be unto thee,’ and was told, ’Get thee behind me, Satan.’ For Christ was by no means satisfied with the mere rebuke of Peter, but, willing more abundantly to show both the extravagance of Peter’s words and the future benefit of his Passion, he saith, ’Thy word to me is, "Be it far from thee: this shall not be unto thee;" but my word to thee is, "Not only is it hurtful to thee to impede me and to be displeased at my Passion, but it will be impossible for thee even to be saved, unless thou thyself too be continually prepared for death."’ Thus, lest they should think his suffering unworthy of him, not by the former words only, but by those that were coming, he teaches them the gain thereof." If any man will (θέλει, wills to) come after me. To come after Christ is to be his follower and disciple, and the Lord here declares what will be the life of such a one (see a parallel passage, Matthew 10:38, Matthew 10:39). Jesus mentions three points which belong to the character of a true disciple. The first is self-denial. Let him deny himself. There is no better test of reality and earnestness in the religious life than this. (See a sermon of Newman’s on this subject, vol. 1. serm. 5.) If a man follows Jesus, it must be by his own free will, and he must voluntarily renounce everything that might hinder his discipleship, denying himself even in things lawful that he may approach the likeness of his Master. Take up his cross. This is the second point. St. Luke adds, "daily." He must not only be resigned to bear what is brought upon him—suffering, shame, and death, which he cannot escape, but be eager to endure it, meet it with a solemn joy, be glad that he is counted worthy of it. Follow me. The third point. He must be energetic and active, not passive only and resigned, but with all zeal tracking his Master’s footsteps, which lead on the way of sorrows. Here too is comfort; he is not called to a task as yet untried; Christ has gone before, and in his strength he may be strong. Matthew 16:25 (Comp. Matthew 10:39; John 12:25.) Whosoever will (ὃςγὰρἂνθέλῃ, whosoever wills to) save his life (ψυχήν). Here are set forth the highest motives for courage, endurance, and perseverance in the way of righteousness. The word translated "life" is used four times in this and the following verse, though in the latter it is rendered "soul" in the Anglican Version. The fact is the word is used in two senses: for the life which now is—the bodily life: and the life which is to come—the spiritual, the everlasting life. These are indeed two stages of the same life—that which is bounded by earth and that which is to be passed with the glorified body in heaven; but they are for the moment regarded as distinct, though intimately connected by belonging to the same personality. And the Lord intimates that any one who avoids bodily death and suffering by compromise of duty, by denying Christ and disowning the truth, shall lose everlasting life. On the other hand, whosoever sacrifices his life for the sake of Christ, to promote his cause, shall save his soul and be eternally rewarded. Shall find it. "Find," as the opposite of "lose," is here equivalent to "save." There may, too, be in it a notion of something great and unexpected, a treasure discovered, "salvation far beyond all that they looked for" (Wis. 5:2). Says St. Gregory, "If you keep your seed, you lose it; if you sow it, you will find it again" (’Hom. in Evang.,’ 32.). Matthew 16:26 For what is a man (shall a man be) profited? This verse explains the paradox concerning loss and gain in the previous verse. It is probably intended as a reminiscence of Psa 49:7, Psalms 49:8. Wordsworth notes that it is quoted by Ignatius, ’Ep. ad Romans,’ 6.; but it is probably an early interpolation there. The whole world. It is but a trifle of the whole world, with its riches, honours, pleasures, which the most successful man can obtain; but granted it all lay at his feet, how would it repay him for the loss of everlasting life? Lose his own soul (life) (τὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦζημιωθῇ). The phrase means "suffer loss in respect of," equivalent to "forfeit," as in Luke 9:25. "Life" here is the higher life, the life in God. The Vulgate renders, Animae vero suae detrimentum patiatur. In exchange; ἀνταλλαγμα: Vulgate, commutationem; as an equivalent for his life. Or, it may be, to purchase back his life. "Again, he dwells upon the same point. ’What? hast thou another soul to give for this soul?’saith he. ’Why, shouldst thou lose money, thou wilt be able to give other money;or be it house, or slaves, or any other kinds of possession; but for thy soul, if thou lose it, thou wilt have no other soul to give: yea, though thou hadst the world, though thou wast king of the whole earth, thou wouldst not be able, by paying down all earthly goods, together wits the earth itself, to redeem even one soul" (Chrys.,’ Hom.,’ 55). The value of the soul is often expressed in classical adages. Ψυχῆςγὰροὐδένἐστιτιμιώρερον. "Naught is of higher value than the soul." Οὑγὰρτιψυχῆςπέλειἄνδρασιφίλτερονἄλλο. "Naught unto men is dearer than the life." So Homer, ’Iliad,’ 9.401— "For not the stores which Troy, they say, contained In peaceful times, ere came the sons of Greece, Nor all the treasures which Apollo’s shrine, The archer-god, in rock built Pythos holds, May weigh with life … But when the breath of man hath passed his lips, Nor strength nor foray can the loss repair." (Lord Derby.) Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come. The final judgment would put things in their true light—would show the value of self-sacrifice, would reveal the punishment of self-pleasing. Our Lord seems to refer to Daniel 7:13, as it were, in testimony to the truth of what he had just said. Shall come; μέλλειἔρχεσθαι: venturus est (Vulgate), is more than the bare announcement, and implies that it is in accordance with the eternal counsels of God that he should appear this second time. In the glory of his Father. As one with the Father, and his Representative. So he speaks of "the glory which thou hast given me" (John 17:22). Reward; ἀποδώσει: render, reddet (Vulgate). The term includes punishment as well as recompense. Works (πρᾶξιν); doing, work. The word does not signify isolated acts, but general course of conduct, practice as a whole. Matthew 16:28 This verse has always been a crux to commentators, who cannot decide what is the event to which it refers. Many, taking it in connection with the preceding announcement, refer it exclusively to the day of judgment; but this idea is not compatible with Christ’s assertion that some present shall see it ere they die. Nor can it refer to Christ’s resurrection and ascension, and the mission of the Holy Ghost, which took place only half a year after this time, and the prediction of which so short a time before could not have been introduced in the terms here used. Other expositors, and some of great name, agree that the event to which Christ alludes is his transfiguration narrated in the next chapter. But there are insuperable objections to this view. How could Christ assert in the most solemn manner, Verily, I say unto you, that some of his hearers would tire to witness an event which was to occur only a week hence? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 17:1-13 The Transfiguration of Jesus. (Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36.) This mysterious event was intended primarily to confirm the faith of the three apostles who were to have the chief hand in founding the Church. The Lord had just announced his future sufferings and death. This prediction had been a grievous blow to Peter, and doubtless to the others also. He had stumbled at the cross, and had brought on himself a stern rebuke for his slowness and worldliness. So to comfort the chosen three under the thought of what awaited their Master, they were shown a glimpse of the glory which he has in heaven; they saw the Law and the prophets yielding subjection to him; they heard the voice of the Father announcing his Sonship. Henceforward they might take courage under all circumstances; the cross would be no infamy or disgrace—would open the way to victory and glory. Here was a foretaste of the blessedness of heaven—to be with Christ and his saints in his kingdom. Such was the Transfiguration to the three witnesses. To the world, when in due time it was made known, it taught lessons of the Incarnation, the resurrection of the body, the glory that shall be the portion of the righteous. For Christ himself it was the culminating point of his earthly life, "the solemn installation of our Lord to his sufferings and their result" (Alford). Matthew 17:1 After six days. St. Luke says, "about an eight days after these sayings," either speaking indefinitely, or using the inclusive method of reckoning which we find in the recounts of our Lord’s resurrection. The days are counted from the time of Peter’s confession and Christ’s subsequent announcement. The little company were still in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi, though we know not exactly in what place, and nothing is told of the events of this week. The memorable day may be specially noticed as being the same day of the week as that on which the great confession was made in the previous se’nnight; or, if we regard the typical bearing of numbers in Scripture, the six days signify the world and daily labour, the seventh, "after six days," typifies heaven and rest. Peter, James, and John. These three, the chosen of the chosen, had already witnessed Christ’s power over death in the chamber of Jairus’s daughter; later they were present at the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. They who had seen his glory were strengthened to behold his sweat of blood. These men formed the inner circle of his friends; to them he gave the privilege of knowing more of his inner life and nature. They were selected for various reasons—Peter, for his energy, zeal, and love, and the part he was to play in the founding of the Church; John, because he was beloved by Christ, and was to be the recipient of Divine revelation; James, because he was to be the head of the Church of Jerusalem, and soon to drink of Christ’s cup and war a good warfare. The James here named is the son of Zebedee, and brother of John, and was put to death by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-25.). An high mountain. The only tradition concerning the locality of the Transfiguration (which none of the inspired narratives further identifies) affixes it to Mount Tabor, the beautiful isolated mountain, which rises some eighteen hundred feet on the northeast of the Plain of Esdraelon. This tradition, as far as we know, was first published in the fourth century A.D, by St. Cyril of Jerusalem (’Catech.,’ 12.16) and St. Jerome, and thence was generally adopted and upheld till the sixteenth century, both by commentators and travellers. Since then more accurate examination and historical criticism have thrown grave doubts on this identification. The summit of Tabor has from a very early age been occupied by habitations. It is spoken of in 1 Chronicles 6:77 as including in its limits a city and its suburbs. Later it was strongly fortified, and the whole area was surrounded with a wall, of which the ruins can still be traced. In our Lord’s time the town and the fortress covered the level portion of the hill, and there would have been no place of retirement where he could have withdrawn apart for the purpose of the vision. There is another reason that makes Tabor unlikely to have been the scene of the Transfiguration. The last geographical notice left our Lord and his disciples outside Galilee in the neighbourhood of Paneas. It was about a three days’ journey thence to Esdraelon; but no mention is made of any such movement during this week, and it is after the Transfiguration that the synoptists intimate that the return to Galilee took place. We must therefore surrender the old tradition, and look in the vicinity of Caesarea for the high mountain of our narrative. There was no lack of such in that region, and it was doubtless on one of the offshoots of Hermon that the glorious vision was vouchsafed, though more precise identification is impossible. Hermon itself is called by the Arabs Jebel-esh-Sheikh, "The Chief Mountain," and the way in which the locality is introduced in the narrative, without further specification, seems to point to some eminence of the most obvious and best known hill of the district. St. Peter, when in after years he alluded to it, called it merely "the holy mount" (2 Peter 1:18); and we may conclude that we are not intended to know more about it, lest we should be tempted to make more of the material circumstances than of the great reality. St. Luke notifies that the Lord retired to this place in order to pray. It may have been that he prayed for the enlightemnent of the apostles—that they might receive the teaching of the Transfiguration and the subsequent sayings. Matthew 17:2 Was transfigured (μετεμορφωθη); Vulgate, transfiguratus est. The verb is used in classical Greek of transformation, as of a man into an animal. Here it refers to a change of countenance, which is the chief index of any change exterior or interior. St. Luke explains the matter with the words, "The fashion of his countenance was altered." The Word of God allows for a brief space his essential glory to irradiate and shine through the form of a servant which he wore. Not that he showed his Divine nature, or laid aside his human body; his bodily nature remained in its entirety, but permeating it was an effulgence which indicated the Godhead. Perhaps it might be said, as an old writer puts it, that the Transfiguration was less a new miracle than the temporary cessation of an habitual miracle; for the veiling of his glory was the real marvel, the Divine restraint which prohibited the illumination of his sacred humanity. Before them. In their presence. Jesus probably had withdrawn in order to pray in secret, but returned to the waiting three, that they might behold his glory—be "eyewitnesses of his majesty," as St. Peter says (2 Peter 1:16). These, indeed, had been heavy with sleep (Luke), but had awoke at his appearance, and beheld the vision in full possession of their senses. St. Matthew mentions specially two points in this transfiguration. His face did shine as the sun. This recalls the appearance of the Son of man in Revelation 1:16, "His countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength." And his raiment was white as the light. The light which emanated from his body shone through and glorified his very garments. The Vulgate has sicut nix, and χιων is read in some few manuscripts in place of φῶς: but the word is doubtless introduced here from St. Mark (where, however, it is of doubtful genuineness). If this second evangelist received his account from St. Peter, we recognize the simile in the apostle’s remembrance of the snow clad peak of Hermon, in whose vicinity the event transpired. No candid reader can fail to acknowledge that it is no subjective vision that is here narrated, no merely inward impression on brain or nerve with nothing external to correspond, but a real, objective occurrence, which was beheld by mortal eyes endued with no supernatural or abnormal powers, except in so far as they were enabled to look on this partial emanation of the Divine effulgence. Matthew 17:3 And, behold. The exclamation, thrice repeated (Matthew 17:5), marks the suddenness and unexpectedness of the occurrence. They who now appeared were no delusive, imaginary figures, but real personages, objectively presented to the spectators, in such bodies as appertained to their condition. Moses and Elias. St. Luke adds, "who appeared in glory," radiant with the light which always accompanies heavenly visitors. Why these two saints were chosen to be present on this momentous occasion may be explained by various considerations. Both these worthies experienced something unparalleled in their departure from this life. Elijah was taken up to heaven without dying; Moses died, indeed, but he was buried by God in an unknown grave, and his body was under the especial care of Michael the archangel (see Jud Luke 1:9), and we know not that it saw corruption. From the unseen world these were brought to do homage to the Messiah—Moses, a type of those blessed spirits who in Paradise await the final consummation, Elijah, a type of the saints who, after the resurrection, perfect in soul and body, shall enter into glory. Here were the representatives of the Law and the prophets, the principal supporters of the old covenant, honouring him who was introducing the new covenant, which was to fulfil and supersede the previous one. Spurious, degraded Judaism rejected Christ’s claims; real, orthodox Judaism acknowledged him and reverenced him as the Christ foretold and fort, shadowed, "of whom Moses and the prophets did write" (John 1:45). Now, too, it was made manifest that Jesus was not Elias or one of the prophets, as some erroneously had supposed, but different from and superior to all; that he had power over life and death, and could bring whom he would from the unseen World; that the cross and Passion were not degrading, or proofs of weakness, but glorious and triumphant accomplishments of the will or God. The question is asked—How did Peter and the rest recognize the two heavenly visitants? There may have been something conventional in their garb or appearance, which at once identified them; or the apostles may have known them by spiritual intuition or special revelation; or they may have gathered their knowledge from the conversation which they overheard. Anyhow, it was necessary that the two should be recognized, otherwise their appearance would have lost its significance, and the confirmation which they were intended to afford would fail to be given. Is there here an intimation that in heaven the blessed will know each other, though they never met in the flesh—shall know even as they have been known? Talking with him. St. Luke tells us the subject of this mysterious dialogue—they "spoke of his decease (ἐìξοδον, exodus, departure) which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." They conversed, not of the glory which was his before the world began, nor of the kingdom which he came to establish, but of his coming suffering and death, with their tremendous issues. At the very moment of this revelation of Divinity, the discourse is of humiliation and the cross. The apostles had been slow to understand the future that awaited their Master; here the great saints of the covenant bore their testimony to Christ’s fulfilment of what had been prophesied and shadowed aforehand, how by the sufferings of his sacred humanity eternal glory should be won. So might the apostles be strengthened to look forward without apprehension or weak shrinking; for through the grave and gate of death lay the road to a joyful resurrection and celestial happiness. Matthew 17:4 Then answered Peter. According to St. Luke, it was when the two Divine prophets were disappearing, or were being withdrawn from sight, that Peter spoke. Bewildered, overcome with joy and astonishment, not knowing what to say (Mark), yet in his excitement and ardour unable to keep silence, he cries to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here; perhaps equivalent to to remain here. He includes Moses and Elias in his eager exclamation. Some commentators confine the reference to the three apostles, as if Peter meant that it was "good" that they were present in order to prepare the necessary habitations. This seems meagre and insufficient. Here were peace, seclusion, safety: might they not last? Was there any need to quit this hallowed spot at once, and lose the heavenly company with which it was blessed? If thou wilt. Even at this supreme moment, he will not set his will in opposition to his Master’s. Let us make (I will make, Revised Version) here three tabernacles (σκηνας). Booths, of branches and grass, such as were used by travellers camping out, or such as the people erected when celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles. He speaks of but three shelters, regarding only Jesus and the two prophets, and considering himself and his fellow disciples as mere servitors and attendants, for whom no such provision was needed. In his confusion he thinks that if these three remain, they must have some kind of habitation. Like a child, he would fain prolong indefinitely the joy of this great vision; and with a Jew’s hankering for a conquering Messiah and the permanence of the old covenant, he desired that from that secure mountain top the laws of the kingdom might be issued, and all men might acknowledge the Christ attended and supported by the great lawgiver and prophet. Was there not also a latent hope that thus might be deferred or laid aside that departure to Jerusalem, with its calamitous consequences? But this was not to be. No answer was vouchsafed to Peter’s thoughtless request. Matthew 17:5 A bright cloud overshadowed them. The cloud spread over and around, not Jesus only and the other two, but in some degree over the apostles also, as St. Luke adds, "They feared as they entered into the cloud." It was the Shechinah, the token of the presence of the Most High, who dwelleth in the unapproachable light. It enshrouded Jesus and his two companions, so that mortal eye could not pierce it or even look upon it; but the apostles, who were outside its immediate contact, were in some sort included in its influence, so that it could be said to overshadow them. St. Peter calls it "the excellent glory (τῆςμεγαλοπρεποῦςδοξης)" (2 Peter 1:17). The cloud from which on Sinai the old Law was given, was dark and threatening (Exodus 19:18; Exodus 20:21); this was bright, coming not to terrify, but to teach and to bless. Here is seen the contrast between the two dispensations, the Law and the gospel (comp. Hebrews 12:18-24). A voice out of the cloud. It was the voice of God the Father, for he called Jesus, My beloved Son. The same voice, saying the same words, had been heard over the waters of Jordan when Jesus was baptized (Matthew 3:17); it spake once again just before his Passion (John 12:28); at all times witnessing the Father’s love and the perfect Divinity of Christ. Now, as before, the Holy Trinity was revealed, the Father speaking with audible voice, the Son standing in radiant light, the Holy Spirit present with the intense brightness of the enveloping cloud. The words heard are fontal in the earlier Scriptures. Thus in Isaiah 42:1 we read, "Behold my Servant, whom I uphold, my Chosen in whom my soul delighteth;" and in Psalms 2:7, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Hear ye him. Not Moses and Elias, but Jesus, the Mediator of a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6). "This voice," St. Peter testifies, "we ourselves heard come out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount" (2 Peter 1:18). As Edersheim remarks, even if this Epistle is not St. Peter’s, it still would represent the most ancient tradition. "God, having of old spoken unto the fathers in the prophets, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son" (Hebrews 1:1). The command to hear him recalls the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15), that in good time God would raise up from Israel a Prophet like unto himself, and that unto him they shall hearken. Matthew 17:6 Were sore afraid. The vision and the voice overcame them with awe and terror. They fell on their face. They tried to shut out the awful radiance that blinded them. Man’s weakness could endure no more; prostrate, paralyzed with fear, they lay on the ground. Who could see God, and live? Had they not seen his glory, and heard his voice? What could they do but crouch in abject terror? Thus they knew not that the scene was over, that the tremendous glimpse of unseen realities vouchsafed to them had passed away. Matthew 17:7 Came and touched them. Jesus gently and lovingly aroused them from their stupor, showing that he was near, and that they had nothing to dread (comp. Isaiah 6:5-7; Daniel 10:8-10; Revelation 1:17). He adds the assurance of his own beloved and well known voice, Arise, and be not afraid. Such comfort he gave to the affrighted disciples when he came to them treading on the waters of the storm-tossed sea (Matthew 14:27). Matthew 17:8 No man, save Jesus only. Moses and Elias had vanished, Jesus was left alone, and the voice Divine said, "Hear him." When at Christ’s touch and word the awestruck apostles dared once more to look around and to bethink themselves of what had passed, those were the facts of which they were conscious. The Law and the prophets, types and predictions, are fulfilled in Christ, and are so far superseded. The former were temporary, introductory to the gospel, which is to last forever. Many have seen in the Transfiguration an image and earnest of the future glory of the dead in Christ, when the vile body shall be changed into the likeness of Christ’s glorious body, and they shall shine as the sun, and bear the image of the heavenly. So St. Gregory, "He is clothed with light as with a garment, because in that eternal glory he will be clothed with all the saints, to whom it is said, ’Ye are the light of the world.’ Whence also it is said by the evangelist, that when the Lord was transfigured in the mountain, his raiment became as snow. In which Transfiguration what else is announced but the glory of the final resurrection? For in the mountain his raiment became as snow, because in the height of heavenly brightness all saints will be joined to him, refulgent with the light of righteousness" (’Moral.,’ 32.6). Unbelief has endeavoured to throw discredit on the historical accuracy of the accounts of this great event. It was a dream, an atmospheric disturbance, an unusual play of light and shade, a myth, an allegory; the two heavenly visitants were two unknown disciples with whom Jesus conversed; the three apostles were rapt in a trance, and the vision was purely subjective; these and such like theories have been started by rationalists and enemies of the supernatural, and even by the partially orthodox, as Tertullian. There can be no doubt that the evangelists and the Apostle Peter regarded the event as an objective reality, upon which hung momentous truths; and we are content to let it stand or fall with the rest of the facts of the gospel narrative. There is no reason to separate it from the other items of the story. When once the stupendous miracle of the Incarnation is allowed, other wonders follow in natural sequence. Matthew 17:9 As they came down from the mountain. The Transfiguration is supposed to have taken place at night, and the following conversation to have passed in the early morning of the next day. Tell the vision (τοὁìραμα, what bad been seen) to no man. This was a strict and formal command. The chosen three were at present not to mention the occurrence to anyone, not even to their fellow disciples. Possibly these would hardly have believed the marvellous tale, and their unbelief would have hardened their heart; or, if they fully credited it, they might have been jealous of the preference shown to some of their company. At any rate, neither they nor others were prepared to receive the great lesson of the scene—that the old covenant had done its work, that the Law and the prophets were superseded and must make way for the new dispensation. Had the story been divulged to the people generally, they would have stumbled at the cross and Passion, which would seem no fitting sequel to this glory (see on Matthew 16:20). Until the Son of man be risen again (ἀναστῇ) from the dead. When this great event happened and was known to be the fact, there could be no doubt that Christ was God, and the tale of the Transfiguration would no longer be incredible. Thomas’s confession, "My Lord and my God," would be echoed in the heart and conscience of all disciples. St. Luke, though he does not mention Christ’s injunction, notifies that it was carefully observed, "They kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen." (These last words, οὐδενὦνἑωρακαν, explain what St. Matthew above calls "the vision," τοὁìραμα, the objective spectacle.) The compliance with the injunction shows that they understood something of the spiritual nature of the transaction. We may also note that the prohibition itself is presumptive evidence against the supposed mythical character of the vision. Matthew 17:10 Why then (οὖν) say the scribes that Elias must first come? The illative particle "then" shows that the apostles’ question arose from something immediately preceding. The connection seems to be this: Elias had just appeared and then had vanished again; how could this visitation be reconciled with the scribes’ interpretation of Malachi’s prophecy? If Elias was to come before the advent of Messiah, and Jesus is the Messiah, how is it that he has only now shown himself? If he has a work to do on earth, how could he do that when his sojourn was limited to a few minutes’ duration, and to the view of so few witnesses? Malachi had spoken of the Messenger who was to precede and prepare the way for Messiah; he had said, "Before the great day of the Lord, I will send you Elijah the prophet" (Malachi 3:1; Malachi 4:5); and the learned among the Jews interpreted these two passages of his appearance in person to herald the approach of Messiah. Hence the perplexity of the apostles, they, like the scribes, not distinguishing the two advents of Christ, and the double allusion in the prophet’s announcement—the "Messenger" in Matthew 3:1 being a different personage from "Elias" in Matthew 4:5, though of the same power and spirit. Christ explains the difficulty in the two next verses. Matthew 17:11 Elias truly shall first come (ἐìρχεται, cometh). Many of the best manuscripts and editions omit "first." The Vulgate has merely, Elias quidem venturus est. It is probably inserted in our text from the parallel passage in Mark, where it is certainly genuine. Christ is here alluding to his own second coming, which shall be preceded by the appearance of Elijah in person. This seems to be the plain meaning of the prophecy in Malachi, and of Christ’s announcement, and is confirmed by St. John’s statement concerning the two witnesses (Revelation 11:3, Revelation 11:6). That the paragraph cannot refer to John the Baptist is plain from the tenses used in this verse contrasted with those in the following. To regard verse 12 as simply a correction of verse 10 is to do violence to language, and to leave one half of Malachi’s prediction unexplained. Restore (ἀποκατασησει) all things. The event is still future, and was not fulfilled in the Baptist’s preaching, however deep and extensive may have been its influence. Of course, John in a partial degree reproduced the character and acts of Elijah, directing the people to the eternal principles of justice and righteousness, to a reformation of religion and morals; but he could not be said to have reconstituted, re-established all things; though it is possible that, had his message been received and acted upon, some such effects would have been produced. How and in what degree Elijah, again appearing and living on earth, will effect this great achievement, we know not. We can only fall back on the ancient prophecy, which affirms that "he shall turn the heart of the fathers to [or, ’with’] the children, and the heart of the children to [or, ’and’] their fathers" (Malachi 4:6), and expect that in some way, known unto God, he shall convert one and all, young and old, unto the Lord; or unite the Jews who are the fathers in the faith to Christians who are their children, and thus embrace Jew and Gentile in one fold under one Shepherd. Matthew 17:12 Elias is come already. The mystical, not the real, Elias, even John the Baptist, who came in the spirit and power of Elias (Luke 1:17). Christ is here speaking of the past, as in the preceding verse he spake of the future. The common Jewish interpretation confused the two events and the two personages, reducing them to one. And this mistake has been committed by many modern expositors. They knew him not. They did not recognize his true character and the import of his mission. Though they gathered round him and listened to his preaching and denunciations, very few saw in him the precursor of the Messiah, and many, misunderstanding his austere, self-denying life, deemed him to be possessed by a devil (Matthew 11:18). They have done unto him. John suffered a long imprisonment, and was eventually murdered; and though Herod was primarily answerable for these doings, the people were virtually guilty, in that they consented to the injurious treatment and made no effort in his favour. Likewise … also. Taking occasion from the mention of the Baptist’s fate, Jesus foretells his own sufferings and death, endeavouring to make the apostles familiar with the idea of a dying as well as a conquering Messiah. Matthew 17:13 Then the disciples understood. Though Jesus had said publicly concerning John, "This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face," and, "This is Elias which was for to come" (Matthew 11:10, Matthew 11:14); and though the angel Gabriel, in announcing his birth, had avowed that he should "go before the Christ in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17), the apostles hitherto had not taken to heart the truth thus conveyed. Indeed, it was something quite new that they should thus at once apprehend Christ’s meaning, so slow were they of faith, so unintelligent in appreciating the full signification of their Master’s instructions. Matthew 17:14-21 Healing of the demoniac boy. (Mark 9:16-29; Luke 9:37-42.) The account of the miracle is much curtailed in our Gospel; the fullest narrative is given by St. Mark, to whom we must refer for the complete details. Matthew 17:14 When they were come to the multitude. St. Luke says this arrival was on "the next day" after the Transfiguration. If this event took place at night, the following morning will be meant. The contrast between the scene on the mountain and that presented by the demoniac below has been seized by Raphael, in his picture of the Transfiguration, at Rome—the last great work that he painted. The upper part of this picture represents Jesus radiant in glory with the heavenly visitants, while the lower panel shows the agonized father, surrounded by the unbelieving crowd, bringing his tortured son to the apostles, who stand helpless and discredited. The painter has, indeed, sacrificed fact to dramatic effect (as the two events were not synchronous); but the lesson enforced thereby is most impressive, and lays holds of the imagination, showing different phases of the life of Christ, and the realms of light and darkness. There came to him a certain man. Things had not gone well while Jesus and the three chief apostles were away on the mount. As during the absence of Moses at Sinai the people had fallen into idolatry (Exodus 32:1-35.), so now, when their Master and their leaders were withdrawn, the nine apostles bad faltered in faith and failed in exercising the miraculous powers bestowed upon them. Kneeling down to him. Directly the father saw Christ coming, he disengaged himself from the crowd and ran to meet him. Matthew 17:15 This verse in the Vulgate is contained in Matthew 17:14. Have mercy on my son. According to St. Luke, the father makes his plea more touching by adding that he was his only son—an appeal to which the Saviour’s tender heart was always open, as when he stopped the bier at Nain, and said to the childless widow, "Weep not." He is lunatic (σεληνιαξεται). The Revised Version most unnecessarily renders the verb, he is epileptic. Doubtless the case in many respects simulated epilepsy, and might have been so described; but it seems inexpedient to conceal the actual word used, which gave the popular and probably correct view of one phase of the complaint. Surely a real fact well known to medical science underlies the term lunacy, in the catalogue of the diseased persons who were brought to Christ to be healed (Matthew 4:24), we find a class called lunatics, distinct from the paralytic and possessed. It is by no means an exploded fallacy that the moon has some mysterious influence on certain constitutions, and produces an aggravation of symptoms in accordance with some of its changes. It was from observation of this phenomenon that this form of insanity was termed seleniasmus or lunacy. In the present instance the disease was complicated and of no ordinary nature. The other synoptists state that the child was possessed by a demon. This was the fact which differentiated the malady from any merely organic sickness. It was in truth epilepsy accompanied by or occasioned by demoniacal possession. St. Matthew does not mention the possession in his introductory account, but he afterwards (verse 18) speaks of the demon departing. Sore vexed (κακῶςπασχει); is in evil case; suffers grievously. He was affected with terrible paroxysms, which are detailed more at length by Mark and Luke. Matthew narrates some of the effects of the mania upon the victim. Ofttimes he falleth into the fire. The fits, coming on suddenly and without warning, brought the sufferer into imminent dangers, perhaps produced suicidal tendencies, which urged him to destroy himself. Matthew 17:16 I brought him to thy disciples. He had come with the multitude, hoping to find Jesus, and, being disappointed, he had applied to the nine to relieve his misery. When the apostles were sent forth with commission to heal the sick, they returned with joy to report the success of their tour: they cast forth many devils; they noted with glad surprise that the very demons were subject to them in the Name of Jesus (Matthew 10:1; Luke 10:17). It was different now. They could not cure him. What means they used we know not; at any rate, they were ineffectual. The writers who record the failure must be allowed to be truthful and honest. There had been much to depress these disciples. Their Master was absent, gone they knew not whither; how long he would be away they could not tell; the boldest and most trusted of their company were no longer present to cheer them with sympathy, to repel attacks, to stand forth as champions. The scribes’ uncompromising disbelief (Mark 9:16) had for the moment obscured their own perfect trust; the atmosphere of infidelity had affected their own breathing; the memory of Christ’s words concerning his Passion and death recurred again with dispiriting effect, infusing doubt and disquiet; they bad for the time lost the ardour and confidence which had animated them in their first mission; retaining belief in Christ’s claims, they felt a hesitation concerning their own ability; and the conscious weakness in their exorcism nullified its power, and they could do no mighty work. Matthew 17:17 Jesus answered. Jesus did not directly respond to the father’s appeal, nor repel the Pharisees’scoffs. In sorrow and indignation he goes at once to the root of the evil. O faithless and perverse generation! He seems to include in this denunciation all who were present—the father, scribes, people, apostles, especially the nine. Want of faith appertained to all. He often refers to the general body of his bearers by the term generation (comp. Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:29, etc.). Perverse. The word is used by Moses in his great song in reference to those who dealt corruptly; here it applies to persons who took a distorted view of Christ’s work and teaching, and against light and knowledge obstinately persisted in their infidelity. How long shall I be with you?… suffer you? The sad question is not that of one who wants his work finished and his time of departure hastened; rather, it shows his sorrow and regret at the slowness of faith, the hardness of heart, which yet, notwithstanding all his teaching and his miracles, had not been overcome. How much longer was this to continue? Was this forgetfulness of the past, this dulness of comprehension, to last forever? Did they wish to wear out his long suffering, to exhaust his condescension? With Divine impatience at man’s obduracy, he makes this mournful inquiry. Bring (φερετε, bring ye) him hither to me. He speaks to the attendants or the crowd, and bids them bring the boy to him, not to the disciples. The prophet’s staff in Gehazi’s hand could not awake the dead; Elisha himself must undertake the work (2 Kings 4:31); so if the desired miracle had to he performed, Christ himself must do it. In spite of his grief and disappointment, he does not withhold relief, in the midst of wrath he remembers mercy. Matthew 17:18 Jesus rebuked the devil (αὐτῷ, him). Some take the pronoun as masculine, and refer it to the diseased boy; but it is more natural that the rebuke should be addressed to the possessing demon. This is the first place where St. Matthew mentions the spiritual aspect of the malady. As the child was being brought to Jesus, a terrible scene ensued, which is described with its horrific details by St. Mark, who also gives Christ’s conversation with the father, whereby he desired to arouse faith in his heart, and to draw that assurance from him which could not be obtained from the irresponsible sufferer. He departed out of him. In contrast to the faltering exorcism of the apostles, which the devil had disregarded, Jesus orders with the calmness of assured authority, and is at once obeyed. After a final act of defeated malice, the demon quitted his hold of the child. Was cured from that very hour. Never more to fall under the devil’s influence, restored wholly in body and mind. There is something very mysterious in the sufferings of this poor boy, as there is in those of infants. It is plain that the description, "epileptic mania," will not connote all the features of this case. The evangelists’ narrative and Christ’s words and actions conclusively prove that it had a demoniacal element, and that this was miraculously eliminated. For epilepsy, I believe, no cure is known. The suddenness and the permanence (Mark 9:25) of the relief further demonstrate the reality of the miracle. We learn also from this incident that all possessed persons were not morally evil, that often the possession appertained to the physical and psychical nature, and had no ethical relation. Matthew 17:19 Apart (κατἰδιαν). Jesus had retired to a house (Mark) when the disciples came to him. The question which they desired to ask was one that could not he investigated in the presence of the sneering, unbelieving crowd. Why could not we (ἡμεῖς, emphatic) cast him (αὐρο, it) out? They had keenly felt their impotence and failure, so publicly and distressingly displayed, especially as they had received power to eject demons, and had successfully exercised this authority (Luke 10:17). The Lord’s rebuke (Matthew 17:17) had passed over their heads, and not been understood as applicable to themselves. So it was with some bitterness that they asked the question. The nine had not been permitted to witness the Transfiguration; they were not even to be made acquainted with this wondrous transaction at present. More preparation, greater receptivity, was required, before they were fit to be admitted to the full mysteries of the kingdom. They had still much to learn, were still only pupils, and their late failure was permitted in order to help them to attain to self-knowledge and more entire self-surrender. Matthew 17:20 Because of your unbelief. The Revised Version adopts the reading, little faith, in accordance with the best authorities; but it looks like a softening of the original term "unbelief," which corresponds better with Christ’s own censure, "faithless generation." Jesus gives two reasons for the apostles’ failure, one connected with their own moral condition, and one (Matthew 17:21) derived from the nature of the demons exorcised. They had, indeed, shown some faith by making even the attempt at the expulsion of the devil, and were not to be classed with the unbelieving scribes; but they had acted in a half-hearted manner, and had not displayed that perfect confidence and trust which alone can win success and make all things possible. Verily I say unto you. The Lord proceeds to give that lesson concerning perfect faith and its results, which he afterwards repeated in connection with the withered fig tree (Matthew 21:21, where see note) and elsewhere (Luke 17:6). If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, which, as he says (Matthew 13:32), "is less than all seeds." He means a faith real and trustful, though it be small and weak. The phrase is proverbial, expressive of littleness and insignificance. The mustard seed is quite little, but, grown in favourable soil and under sunny skies, it becomes, as it were, a tree among herbs, so that birds may nestle in its branches. To it faith is compared, because, small at first, it contains within itself power of large development and increase; from minute grains copious results are produced. Ye shall say unto this mountain. He points to the hill of Hermon, where the Transfiguration had taken place. Remove hence. It is usual to consider the expression here as an Eastern hyperbole, not to be taken literally, but meaning merely that the greatest difficulties may be overcome by faith. This may be true, but it seems hardly adequate to the explanation of our Lord’s emphatic words. St. Paul writes in a similar strain (1 Corinthians 13:2), "If I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains;" where there is nothing necessarily hyperbolical in the supposition. It seems rather that Jesus meant his words to be received literally, implying that if such a removal as he mentioned was ever expedient and in accordance with God’s will, it would be effected by the power of faith; not that he hereby sanctioned an arbitrary and wanton display of miraculous power, but he gives an assurance that, were such a measure rendered necessary for the cause of religion, it would be performable at the call of one whose whole trust was centred on God, and whose will was one with God’s will. Mediaeval writers, followed by later Roman Catholic commentators, give instances of such stupendous effects of faith. The evidence of such miracles is, of course, defective, and would not satisfy modern criticism, but the existence of such legends proves that a literal view was taken of our Lord’s saying. Nothing shall be impossible unto you. The man of faith is practically omnipotent; moral and material difficulties vanish before him. Matthew 17:21 This verse is omitted in many good manuscripts and by the Revised Version, it being considered to have been introduced from the parallel passage of St. Mark. It gives the second reason for the failure of the nine. This kind … fasting. Though all things are possible to faith, some works are more difficult of accomplishment than others. This kind can mean only this kind of evil spirit, or demons generally. But the latter interpretation is excluded by the fact that the apostles had already exercised successfully their power over devils without special prayer or fasting. The words point to a truth in the spiritual world, that there are different degrees in the Satanic hierarchy (comp. Matthew 12:45); some demons are more malignant than others, and have greater power over the souls of men. In the present case the possession was of long standing; it revolved a terrible bodily malady; it was of an intense and unusual character. The mere word of exorcism, or the name of Jesus, spoken with little spiritual faith, could net overcome the mighty enemy. The exorcist needed special preparation; he must inspire and augment his faith by prayer and self-discipline. Prayer invokes the aid of God, and puts one’s self unreservedly in his hands; fasting subdues the flesh, arouses the soul’s energies, brings into exercise the higher parts of man’s nature. Thus equipped, a man is open to receive power from on high, and can quell the assaults of the evil one. Matthew 17:22, Matthew 17:23 Second official announcement of the Passion and Resurrection. (Mark 9:30-32; Luke 9:43-45.) Matthew 17:22 While they abode (ἀναστρεφομενων, went to and fro; conversantibus, Vulgate) in Galilee. After some weeks spent in the extreme north, Jesus and his disciples had returned secretly to Galilee (Mark 9:30), and were approaching the neighborhood of Capernaum. The privacy was connected with the special instruction which he was now giving to his disciples. The Son of man shall be betrayed … men. There is a reference to the preparation thus mercifully afforded to the twelve in the angel’s address to the women at the sepulchre, "Remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee" (Luke 24:6). Jesus reiterates the prediction continually in order to familiarize his followers with the unwelcome, the incredible, reality. But the Messiah’s Passion, death, and resurrection were ideas that they could not at once receive; so impossible they seemed in the very nature of things, so contrary to all their hopes and expectations. Shall be betrayed (μελλειπαραδιδοσθαι). Is ordained, in the counsels of God, to be betrayed. Tradendus est (Vulgate). Men. He had before named the chief priests (Matthew 16:21), afterwards he mentions the Gentiles (Matthew 20:19), as the agents in his death. So St. Peter, in his great sermon (Acts 2:1-47), says to the Jews, "Ye have taken him, and by wicked hands [’by the hand of lawless men,’ Revised Version] have crucified and slain." Matthew 17:23 Shall be raised again (ἐγερθησεται); be wakened. This was always a subject of perplexity; and indeed, according to the other synoptists, "they understood not the saying; it was hid from them, and they perceived it not, and were afraid to ask him." Were exceeding sorry. They no longer rebuke him, as Peter had done (Matthew 16:22), or try to divert him from his purpose; they begin to realize the position, and to anticipate with poignant sorrow the overthrow of their hopes. Matthew 17:24-27 The coin in the fish’s mouth. This is one of the three miracles of our Lord which are peculiar to this Gospel St. Matthew seems to concern himself particularly with matters which present Jesus as King-Messiah; and this occurrence was in his view specially notable, as herein Christ claimed for himself a royal position—Son in his Father’s house. Matthew 17:24 Capernaum. Once more before the final scene he visited the spot so dear to his human heart—"his own city." They that received tribute money (οἱταδιδραχμαλαμβανοντες). This is an unfortunate rendering, as it may be taken to countenance an erroneous view of the demanded impost, found in many ancient and some modern commentaries, which vitiates their whole interpretation. According to this opinion, the tribute was a civil payment, like the denarius of Mat 22:19, levied by the Roman government, or a capitation tax imposed by Herod, the Tetrarch of Galilee (of which tax, however, we have no historical proof). That this is a misunderstanding is plain from many considerations. In the first place, the collectors are not τελῶναι, publicans, but quite another set of people, called they that received the didrachmas. Again, the officers of government would not have made their demand mildly in an interrogative form, "Doth not your Master," etc.? but would have exhibited that violent and offensive behaviour which made them so hated among the Jews. The political tax is never termed didrachma, but always census, as in Matthew 22:17, Matthew 22:19; nor could Jesus have given the answer which is reported below, if the tax had been one levied in the interest of any earthly monarch, be it Caesar or Herod. The didrachma is a term denoting a well known rate, concerning which we have full information from many sources—biblical, Talmudic, and traditional. The didrachma was a silver coin equal to two Attic drachms, or, in Jewish money, to one half shekel of the sanctuary—something under our florin in weight. It was the amount of an ecclesiastical rate levied for religious purposes. Originally (Exodus 30:13, etc.) exacted as an acknowledgment and a thank offering, a ransom, as it were, for the lives rescued from Egypt, it had been used in the wilderness in providing the framework of the tabernacle and the ornamentation of its pillars. Based on this practice arose a custom that every male Israelite of twenty years old and upwards should annually contribute to the temple treasury the sum of a half shekel. Dr. Edersheim reckons the tribute in our Lord’s time to have been equivalent to £75,000 per annum. The money was stored in the temple treasury, and was expended partly in the purchase of the daily sacrifices, victims, incense, etc., in the payment of rabbis and other officials connected with the temple, in maintaining the efficiency of the water supply, and in keeping in repair the vast and magnificent buildings in the temple area. After all this outlay, there was always a large sum in hand, which proved a strong temptation to the greed of conquerors, and the sacred coffers were often plundered; and even after many previous spoliations, we read that Crassus (B.C. 54) carried off no less than two and a half millions sterling. The tax was due by the twenty-fifth of the month Adar, and the collectors who were appointed to or took upon themselves the office, opened stalls in; every country town for the reception of the money. For many centuries the rate was of a voluntary nature, considered, indeed, a religious duty, and to be evaded by no one, Pharisee or Sadducee, who wished to be regarded as an orthodox believer, but its payment had not been secured by any legal process. Lately, indeed, the penalty of distraint had been enacted in order to obtain the tax from defaulters; but it is doubtful whether this was generally enforced. Possibly the appointed day had now arrived, and the collectors thought right to stir in the matter. Came to Peter. They applied to Peter instead of directly to Christ, perhaps out of respect for the latter, and from a certain awe with which he inspired them. Besides, Peter was their fellow townsman, and they doubtless knew him well His natural impulsiveness might have induced him to answer the call. It may also have been his own house, the other eleven being apparently staying with other friends, and Jesus with him ("me and thee," Matthew 22:27). We may suppose that Jesus had complied with the demand on former occasions, when sojourning in his Galilaean home, so that the present application was only natural. Doth not your Master (ὁΔιδασκαλοςὑμῶν, your Teacher) pay tribute (the didrachma)? Perhaps the form of the question might be better rendered, "Your Teacher pays the two drachms, does he not?" The pronoun "your" is plural, because they recognized that Jesus was at the head of a band of disciples, who would be influenced by his example. We may in this inquiry see other motives besides the obvious one. If Jesus paid the rate now without question, he would prove that he was nothing more than an ordinary Jew, with no claim to a higher origin or a Divine mission. Though not a priest or Levite, Jesus might have claimed exemption as a recognized rabbi, and the collectors may have desired to ascertain whether he would do this. There was, too, at this time a sect which, in its furious patriotism, refused to contribute aught to the temple so long as the holy city was profaned by the presence of the heathen. Did Christ belong to this body? And would he carry out their programme? If from any cause he declined the contribution, this abstention would give a handle to those who were not prepared to endorse his claims: the breach of such a generally recognized obligation would raise a prejudice against him, and weaken the effect of his acts and teaching. Some such motives may have contributed to inspire the question now asked. Matthew 17:25 He saith, Yes. Without consulting his Master, or even letting him know of the demand, Peter answered affirmatively, he knew that Christ never withdrew from conscientious obligations; Jesus may have paid the rate in former years, and might be confidently supposed to be ready to do so again. But was there not another feeling that dictated the quick reply, and made him pledge Jesus to the payment? He had a fear at his heart, caused by Christ’s late warning and prophecy, that made him morbidly anxious to live at peace with all men at this conjuncture. As far as in him lay he would shield his beloved Master from the dread result which he anticipated; at any rate, he would endeavour to postpone the fatal day; no offence that he could obviate should be given. So, thinking only of present safety, forgetting or wilfully ignoring Christ’s true position, he answered hastily, "Yes." When he (Peter) was come into the house. The collectors had addressed Peter in the street or at the door, and the apostle, having given his reply, hastened into the house where Jesus was, either to obtain the necessary coins or to make the demand known. Prevented him. The Revised Version paraphrases, spake first to him, which gives the meaning (though the Greek does not warrant such translation)—Jesus anticipated what Peter was going to say by showing that he knew the apostle’s thoughts and all that had passed outside the house, he takes the opportunity of enforcing a needful lesson, making the listener, in the Socratic method, teach himself. What thinkest thou, Simon? By such familiar address he claims his attention. The kings of the earth. He contrasts these with the King of heaven, to whom a reference is implied in the Lord’s subsequent words. Custom (τελη) or tribute (κῆνσον). The former of these words (which would be better rendered tolls) signifies the customs laid on goods and merchandise and other such payments—vectigalia, as the Romans called them; the tribute (not the same word as that so translated in verse 24) is the census, the capitation tax (ἐπικεφαλαιον) imposed upon every citizen of the empire. Strangers (ἀλλοτριων). The contrast is between the family of the monarch and those who are not connected with him by any relationship. Matthew 17:26 Of strangers. Peter is brought to the desired point. He answers, as any one would, that in earthly kingdoms the children of the ruling monarch are exempt from taxes, which are exacted from all other subjects. Then are the children free. The comparison required the use of the plural, though the reference is properly confined to himself. The deduction leads naturally to the lesson of Christ’s immunity, he virtually implies (though the inference is not developed in words), "I am the Son of God, as you, Peter, have acknowledged; this tax is levied for the house and service of God, whose Son I am; therefore I am free from the obligation of paying it; it cannot be required that I should pay tribute to my Father." Looked at in its original nature, the impost could not with propriety be demanded from him. It was an offering of atonement, a ransom of souls. How could he give money in expiation of himself—he who had come to give his life a ransom for others? Why should he ransom himself from sin and death, who had come to take away sin and destroy death and open everlasting life to all men? There was need to make the point clear now that Christ had openly asserted his Messiahship and his Divine nature. To pay the demamt without explanation, after the statement of his Divinity, might occasion serious misapprehension in the minds of his followers. So he gently but convincingly shows that his claim of Sonship exempted him from all liability of the impost. Matthew 17:27 Lest we should offend them; cause them to stumble. In his large charity he would not take the advantage of his position to avoid the tax. Though above the Law, he would place himself under the Law. Offence would be given by the nonpayment. His motive would be unknown and misunderstood (see on Matthew 17:24). The people would attribute it to caprice, sectarianism, contempt of religion; they would see in it dishonour to the temple. Suspicion and animosity would be aroused; ill feeling, injurious both to themselves who encouraged it and to the cause of Christ, would weaken the effects of his acts and doctrine. Further offence would supervene if he did not confirm Peter’s engagement and execute the promise which the foremost disciple had virtually made in his name; since it might thus appear that he and his followers were not of one mind in this important matter. For such considerations he was content to waive his prerogative, and to provide for the payment by a miracle, which should at once vindicate his royal character and demonstrate that, while he was obedient to the Law, he was superior to it, was the Lord of heaven and earth and sea. Go thou to the sea. The Sea of Galilee, on whose shore Capernaum stood, and with which Peter had been all his life familiar. Cast an hook. The fisherman was to ply his trade, yet not to use his customary net; he was to fish with line and hook, that the miracle might be more striking. Take up the fish that first cometh up. From the deep waters to the bait. Thou shalt find a piece of money; a stater. This Greek coin, circulating throughout the East, was about equal in value to the shekel, or two didrachms, and therefore sufficient to pay the half shekel for two persons. That fish should seize a bright object which might drop into the sea is nothing uncommon. A cod has been found with a watch in its stomach, still going. The miracle is shown in the omniscience which knew what the fish carried in its maw, and in the omnipotence which drew it to the hook. As far as we know, and regarding the present age as the sabbath of creation (see John 5:17), Christ in his miracles created nothing absolutely, always using a natural and existing basis as the support of the wonder. So here he does not create the fish or the skater, but by marvellous coincidences makes them subserve his purpose. Tradition has stereotyped the miracle by assigning to a certain tribe of fish a permanent mark of the occurrence. The johndory. whose name is corrupted either from jaune dore, "gold colour," or adore, "worshipped," is called in some countries Peter’s fish, and is supposed to retain the impression of the apostle’s fingers on its sides. Others assert that it is the haddock which presents this memorial of the miracle. But neither of these fish is found in the Lake of Gennesareth. Give … for me and thee (ἀντιἐμοῦκαισοῦ). The form of expression recalls the original design of the institution, as a ransom of souls (comp. Matthew 20:28 in the Greek). He does not say, "for us;" for, though he submitted to the tax, it was not on the same ground as his servant. He himself paid, though exempt; Peter paid because he was liable. In the one ease it was from humility, in the other from legal obligation. The account ends somewhat abruptly, nothing being said of the result of the Lord’s command, what action Peter took, and what ensued thereon. But we need no assurance that all came to pass as Christ directed. The very silence is significant; it is the sublimest language. Neologian criticism has endeavoured to explain away or to throw discredit on the miraculous nature of this "transaction." We are asked to believe that Christ by his command meant only that Peter was to go and catch a fish and sell it for a skater. If this was the case, why did not the evangelist say so? Why did he introduce a story which he must have known to be untrue? Is there any ground for supposing that St. Matthew was a writer of myths and legends, or one who intentionally falsified the records on which he framed his history? Surely no unprejudiced person could judge thus of the writer of the First Gospel; to those who believe in inspiration the notion is sacrilegious. The incident is no embellishment of a natural fact, no mere sailor’s anecdote, but the true account of a real occurrence, which the narrator credited and probably witnessed. Another allegation equally unfounded is that Christ was rebuking Peter for precipitancy in promising payment when they had no funds in their possession, as though Jesus was saying ironically, "You had better go and catch a fish, and look for the money in its mouth!" Such attempted evasions of the miraculous are puerile and saddening. And if it be objected, as indeed it is, that the miracle was unnecessary and unworthy of Jesus, who never exerted his supernatural power for his own benefit, it is easy to show that the wonder was required in order to give and enforce a lesson to Peter and his companions. In what better way could Jesus have conveyed to them the truth that, although for the nonce he consented to the Law, he was superior to it and exempt from the obligation, and that if he paid the tax he did so by an exercise of power which proved him to be the Son of God? The Transfiguration. I. THE GLORY. 1. The attendant circumstances. Six days had elapsed since the memorable conversation in the parts of Casarea Philippi. That conversation must have filled the hearts of the apostles with strange, awful thoughts. He with whom they had lived so long in the intercourse of familiar friendship was indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God. They had marked the dignity of his Person, the authority of his words, the power of his miracles; and they had felt that there was something in their Master that was more than human, very holy and majestic. Now he had accepted the homage of Peter, and had asserted the truth of that great confession—he was the Son of God. Very solemn it must have been to be with him those six days, looking into his face, hearing Ms words, and to know, as the disciples were beginning to know, who he really was. It must have been like the first moments of a true conversion, when the soul first realizes in its depth and blessedness the presence and the love of God. But other also and very different thoughts must have agitated the apostles’ minds during those six days. Doubtless they all shared the feelings of Peter; their soul recoiled in unspeakable horror from the prospect which the Lord had set before them; they could not associate the thought of failure and shame and death with the Messiahship; they could scarcely believe that the Christ, the Son of the living God, could suffer such things at the hand of mortal men; they could not bear to think that the Master whom they loved so very dearly was destined to drink the bitter cup of suffering. He had told them so very plainly; but they could not take into their hearts the full meaning of his words. They only half believed them; probably they did not wholly believe till the event proved their truth. But yet those solemn words, even if only half believed, must have caused them exceeding great distress, and must have filled them with restless, torturing anxiety. The Lord, in his thoughtful love, would comfort them, would confirm their faith, would prepare them to face the tremendous shock which awaited them. 2. The retirement. The six days were over. We long to know the secrets of those days; they must have been days of deep thought, of intense prayer, of close communion with the Lord. Now they were over; and the Lord took with him Peter, James, and John, the chosen three, who alone had seen the raising of the daughter of Jairus, who alone were to witness the mysterious agony. He carried them up—it is a remarkable word, the same word which is used (Luke 24:51) in describing the Ascension—into a high mountain apart. The locality, the height, the snow alluded to in Mark 9:3, the simple title used by St. Luke, "the mountain," all seem to suggest Hermon, the most conspicuous mountain in Palestine, the snow-clad mountain which, with its towering heights, closed the prospect to the north of Caesarea Philippi. Thither the Lord carried up the highly favoured three; he took them apart. The holiest manifestations of God’s grace and presence are made in secret to those chosen ones who live nearest to God; they are very sweet and precious, but very, very sacred—too sacred to be talked about save in Christian communion with like minded servants of the Lord. Christian men do well to retire from time to time to the high mountain apart from the world, there to hold close communion with the Lord in companionship with a few proved and humble hearted disciples. 3. The glorious change. The Lord was praying, St. Luke tells us; it was for prayer that he had sought retirement; and "as he prayed" he was transfigured. The effulgent splendour of the Godhead poured itself through the earthly tabernacle in which it dwelt, as in ancient times the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand there to minister (1 Kings 8:11). The sacred body of the Lord Jesus Christ was the truest temple; "for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9). That splendour had hitherto been concealed; he had laid his glory by in the tender condescension of his ineffable love; but now, for the more confirmation of the faith of the apostles and, through them, of the Christian Church, he allowed it to appear for a brief space in such measure as the human eye could bear. "None can see my face and live," God had said to Moses when he prayed, "I beseech thee, show me thy glory;" but, hidden in a cleft of the rock, he saw the goodness of the Lord as his glory passed by (Exodus 33:18-23). Such a glorious vision was now vouchsafed to the three chosen witnesses. Their Master’s face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light, glistering, exceeding white as snow. He is the Light of the world, he is the Sun of Righteousness; night is not night to the Christian when that Sun shineth upon him. The darkness of that night was dispelled by the radiant glory that issued from the Person of the Saviour. The vivid recollection of that glory never passed away; the two apostles who remained (St. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 18:1-35 Discourse concerning the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and the mutual duties of Christians. (Mark 9:33-50; Luke 9:46-50.) Matthew 18:1-4 The greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:1 At the same time; literally, in that hour. The narrator connects the following important discourse with the circumstances just previously related. Peter had completed the business of the didrachma, and had rejoined the body of disciples. These, according to St. Mark, had disputed about precedency on the way to Capernaum. Fired with the notion that their Master would ere long publicly assert his Messianic claims, which, in their view, implied temporal sovereignty and secular power, they looked forward to becoming dignitaries in this new kingdom. Three of them had been honoured with special marks of favour; one of them had been pre-eminently distinguished: how would it be when the coming empire was established? This had been the subject of conversation, and had given rise to some contention among them. Christ had marked the dispute, but had said nothing at the time. Now he gives them a lesson in humility, and teaches the spiritual nature of his kingdom, in which earthly pride and ambition find no place. From St. Mark we learn that Jesus himself took the initiative in the discourse, asking the disciples concerning their disputation on the road; and, when they were ashamed to answer, he added, "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." Our Gospel here takes up the story. The paradox seemed incomprehensible; so they put the question, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? The Greek is, Τιςἀìραμαιζωνἐστινκ.τ.λ.; who then is greater? Vulgate, Quis, putas, major est? The illative particle "then" refers to what is recorded in St. Mark (Mark 9:34), or to some such difficulty in the querists’ mind. They make the inquiry in the present tense, as though Christ had already selected the one who was to preside; and by the kingdom of heaven they mean the Messianic kingdom on earth, concerning which their notions did not yet rise above those of their contemporaries (comp. Acts 1:6). The comparative in the original, "greater," is virtually equivalent to the superlative, as it is translated in the Authorized Version. Such a question as the above could not have been asked had the apostles at this time recognized any absolute pre-eminence in Peter or acknowledged his supremacy. Matthew 18:2 A little child. Our Lord teaches, not only by spoken parables, but by symbolical actions also. This was not a mere infant, as Christ is said to have called him unto him. A tradition, mentioned by Nicephorus (’Hist. Eccl.,’ 2.35), asserts that this child was the famous martyr Ignatius. Set him in the midst of them. Taking him in his arms, as St. Mark tells. What a picture of Christ’s tenderness and human love! From the boy’s trustfulness and submission he draws a needed lesson for the ambitious apostles. Matthew 18:3 Except ye be converted στραφῆτε); i.e. turned from proud, ambitious thoughts of worldly dignity. There is no question here about what is popularly known as conversion—the change from habitual sin to holiness. The conversion here spoken of is confined to a change in the present state of mind—to a new direction given to the thoughts and wishes. The apostles had shown rivalry, jealousy, ambition: they must turn away from such failings, and learn a different lesson. Become as little children. Christ points to little children as the model to which the members of his kingdom must assimilate themselves. The special attributes of children which he would recommend are humility, unworldliness, simplicity, teachableness,—the direct contraries of self-seeking, worldliness, distrust, conceit. Ye shall not enter. In the sermon on the mount Christ had said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3). To all who are not such the gate opens not. That virtue which was unknown to pagan antiquity, the opposite character to which was upholden as the acme of excellence, Christ here asserts to be the only passport to his ideal Church on earth or its eternal development in heaven. Not the self-esteeming, proud man (μεγαλοψυχος) of Aristotle’s worship (’Eth. Nic.,’ 4.3), but the humble (ταπεινος), the lowly, the self-depreciating, is the man who can realize his position in the spiritual world, and shall be admitted to its blessings and benefits. St. Paul has summarized the ideal character of the members of the kingdom in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, especially 1 Corinthians 13:4, 1 Corinthians 13:5, and 1 Corinthians 13:7. Matthew 18:4 Whosoever therefore. This verse gives a direct application of the principle just enunciated, and supplies an answer to the apostles’ question. Shall humble himself. Not that a child consciously humbles itself, but is humble by nature. The disciple must become that by deliberate choice which the child is by reason of his constitution and natural disposition. The same is greatest; rather, greater (μειζων), Christ using the same term as the questioners in Matthew 18:1. The more a man annihilates self and casts away pride, conceit, obstinacy, the fitter is he to become a living member of Christ’s kingdom. "Quanto humilior, tanto altior," says Thomas Aquinas. But this is a joint work. St. Gregory says well, "The good which a man doeth is both the work of God and the work of man: of God, as being the Author, in giving grace; of man, as being actor, in using grace, yet so that he cooperate with grace by grace" (quoted by Ford, in loc.). Matthew 18:5-14 The treatment due to such. Matthew 18:5 Shall receive (ὁÌςἐανδεξηται). The word is pregnant with meaning. It includes not only the showing of tender affection and the giving of material succour, such as hospitality, shelter, etc., but also the bestowal of help and support in spiritual things, encouragement in holiness, instruction in Divine lore. One such little child. Primarily, Jesus refers to children, pure and confiding as the one he had placed in the midst; but his words are applicable to all who have the childlike spirit and character, the graces which he specially loves and rewards. The expressions here and in the next verse must be understood to belong in some cases to the symbol, and in others to the symbolized. In my Name (ἐπιτῷὀνοματιμου); for the sake of my Name; because he belongs to me; not merely from natural affection and pity, but from a higher motive, because the child has in him somewhat of Christ—is the child of God, and a member of Christ. Receiveth me. That which is done to his little ones Christ regards as done to himself (comp. Matthew 10:40-42). What a blessing waits on those who teach the young, working laboriously in schools, and training souls for heaven! This "receiving" Christ is a far higher and better thing than being "greatest" in an earthly kingdom. Matthew 18:6 There is an opposite side to this picture. Shall offend; cause to stumble—give occasion for a fall, i.e. either in faith or morals. This is done by evil example, by teaching to sin, by sneers at piety, by giving soft names to gross offences. One of these little ones. Whether child or adult, a pure, simple soul, which has a certain faith it be not strong enough to resist all attack. Even the heathen recognized the respect due to the young: "Maxima debetur puero reverentia" (Juvenal, ’Sat.,’ 14:47); and guilelessness and purity, wherever found, win some regard, even from worthless and careless observers. To wilfully lead one such astray is a deadly sin, which the Lord denounces in solemn terms. Christ affectionately calls his disciples "little ones" (Matthew 10:42). Believe in (εἰς) me. We must always distinguish between "believe in" (πιστευεινεἰς, or ἐν: credo in) and "believe" with the simple dative; the former is applied to faith in God alone. Says St. Augustine, "Credimus Paulo, sed non credimus in Paulum." In the present passage the phrase implies the Divinity of Christ. It were better; literally, it is profitable. The crime specified is so heinous that a man had better incur the most certain death, if by this means he may avoid the sin and save the soul of his possible victim. A millstone; a great millstone—such a one as required an ass to inure. The upper, or movable, stone is meant, which was usually turned by the hand. Drowned. We do not know that the Jews punished criminals by drowning (καταποντισμος), though it is probable that it was practised in some cases; but by other nations this penalty was commonly exacted. Among the Romans, Greeks, and Syrians, it was certainly the practice. Commentators quote Suetonius, ’Aug.,’ 67.; Diod. Sic., 16.35; Livy, 1.51; Aristophanes, ’Schol. ad Equit.,’ 1360. The punishment seems to have been reserved for the greatest criminals; and the size of the stone would prevent any chance of the body rising again to the surface and being buried by friends—a consideration which, in the minds of heathens, greatly increased the horror of this kind of death. Matthew 18:7 This and the preceding verse occur in St. Luke (Luke 17:1, Luke 17:2) in an inverted order. Woe unto the world! The Lord thinks of the deadly evil brought into the world by offences given, such as bad example, unholy lives of Christians, persecutions, scoffs, thoughtlessness—things which lead so many astray. For it must needs be. While men are what they are, such consequences must be expected. This is not an absolute, but a relative, necessity. Man’s heart is evil, his tendencies are evil, temptation is strong. Satan is active; all these forces combine to bring about a fatal result. Thus St. Paul says (1 Corinthians 11:19), "There must be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." So these offences of which Christ speaks are overruled and permitted for wise purposes, that by them the righteous may be proved and purified, and the chaff separated from the wheat. But woe to that man! Because of this evil principle which is rife in the world, no man is exonerated from the guilt of giving offence. He has free will; he can choose good; he can use the means of grace; he can strengthen his natural weakness, control his perverseness, overcome corruption, by the help of God always ready to be given to them who seek. The first "woe" is a cry of pity for a world in danger; the second "woe" is a denunciation of the sinner as being responsible for the evil which he introduces. We are all in some sort our brothers’ keepers, and are bound to help forward their salvation, and to do nothing which may tend to endanger their souls’ health. Matthew 18:8 Wherefore. The Lord teaches how to avoid this sin of giving offence, repeating the solemn words already delivered in the sermon on the mount, though with some variation and a different context (Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30). The reference on the former occasion was especially to breaches of the seventh commandment; here the Lord speaks of offences in general, of that external corruption among mankind which is the fruitful source of temptation and sin. The only remedy for this is the sternest self-denial, the strictest watchfulness. Or thy foot. Christ did not name this member in his previous discourse. Literally, the hand or foot leads into sin, when it is directed to forbidden objects, moves towards the acquisition of things contrary to the Law of God. Metaphorically, the expression signifies all that is as dear and as necessary as these important members. Such occasions of sin we must at once and absolutely cast aside. It includes also persons as well as things. Friends the dearest must be parted from if their presence, or conversation, or habits cause evil thoughts or encourage evil acts. In the presence of such offences, ties the nearest must be snapped asunder. Loneliness, isolation, is better than companionship in wickedness. It has been well said by Olshausen that the hand and the foot may denote mental powers and dispositions; and the warning is given that their over-cultivation may prove an obstacle to the spiritual life, and must be accordingly checked. We may also descry in the paragraph an admonition against making too much of skill, dexterity, and adroitness in business and occupation. There is a subtle snare in them; they may draw the heart away from God, and must be restrained and modified, so as not to interfere with the cultivation of religion and the care of the soul. Enter into life. This is an addition not found in the sermon on the mount; it refers to the eternal life which, beginning on earth, is consummated in heaven. Everlasting fire (τοπῦρτοαἰωνιον). This is the first time that this phrase occurs. Whatever these words may mean, there can be no doubt that they signify, and are intended to signify, some awful kind and extent of punishment, the fear of which may deter from such sins as incur it. It is not morally expedient to minimize the force of such terms by disputing about the exact connotation of "aeonian." When we remember that the words are spoken by the loving and pitiful Saviour, we must allow that they point to some dreadful reality, the import of which he knew, and which he thus mercifully veiled from us as not able to bear the full revelation (see on Matthew 25:46). Matthew 18:9 Hell fire. A synonym for the "everlasting fire" of the previous verse, and the "unquenchable fire" of the Baptist’s warning (Matthew 3:12), and to be understood in the same sense. It is good to be saved even with the loss of all that makes earthly life happy and precious. Matthew 18:10 From this verse to the end of the chapter we find no parallel in the other evangelists. The Saviour here returns to the subject of children, whether literally or metaphorically so called, and proclaims the high appreciation which is their due. Take heed (ὁρᾶτε, see) that ye despise not one (ἑνος) of these little ones. God’s care is minute; it extends to each individual of the class. The contempt denounced might arise in various ways and from various considerations. The advanced believer might despise children as hot competent to enter into covenant with God or fit to receive Church privileges, whereas circumcision under the old dispensation and infant baptism under the gospel afford a very different view. Again, to say or do unseemly things in the presence of children is a mode of" despising" which may prove a deadly offence. Or the contempt may be on the side of the ambitious and self-seeking, who cannot understand the simple and childlike spirit which seeketh not its own. The Lord gives two proofs of the high consideration due to his little ones. The first proof is that which follows; the second is given in Matthew 18:11-14. Their angels. Not "their spirits after death," as some commentators erroneously interpret (for the term "angel" is not so used, and Christ speaks in the present tense, do always behold), but the angels especially appointed to watch and protect them—their guardian angels. This doctrine (which, as of very solemn import, the Lord introduces with his usual formula, I say unto you), that each soul has assigned to it by God a special angel is grounded on this, and supported by many other passages of Scripture (comp. Hebrews 1:14; Psalms 34:7; Psalms 91:11; Luke 15:7, Luke 15:10). It has been questioned how angels can be said to succour us on earth, while in heaven they are always looking on the face of the Father. The difficulty has been answered, among others, by St. Gregory, who writes, "They never so go forth apart from the vision of God, as to be deprived of the joys of interior contemplation. They are both sent from him, and stand by him too, since both in that they are circumscribed, they go forth, and in this that they are also entirely present, they never go away. Thus they at the same time always behold the Father’s face, and yet come to us; because they both go forth to us in a spiritual presence, and yet keep themselves there, whence they had gone out, by virtue of interior contemplation" (’Moral.,’ 2.3). It is probable that the highest order of angels is here signified, such as among the Jews was called, "the angels of the presence, or of the face." To behold the king’s face means, in Eastern parlance, to be admitted to his immediate presence—to enjoy his special favour and confidence (see 2 Kings 25:19; Esther 1:14; Jeremiah 52:25). It is to these supreme beings, who draw their knowledge and love directly from Almighty God, and receive their commands from his mouth, that the tender lambs of Christ’s flock are committed. This fact demonstrates their dignity and the great heinousness of setting a stumbling block in their way. Matthew 18:11 This verse is omitted by the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts, and many modern editors, e.g. Lachmann, Tischendort, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revised Version; but is retained in many good uncials, nearly all the cursives, the Vulgate, Syriac, etc. It is supposed to be an interpolation from Luke 19:10; but one does not see why, if this is the case, the inter-polater should have left out the striking verb "to seek," which would naturally have coincided with "seeketh" in Luke 19:12. For expository use, at any rate, we may consider the verse as genuine, and take it as the commencement of the second argument for the dignity of the little ones—the simple and humble, whether children or others. This proof is derived from the action of God towards them. The Son of man is come to save that which was lost (τοἀπολωλος). How can ye despise those whom Christ hath so loved and deemed so precious that he emptied himself of his glory and became man in order to save them? The general term, " that which was lost," is expressed by the neuter participle, to show that there is no exception to the wide scope of Christ’s mercy. The race of man is lost; infants are born in sin; all need redemption. Everybody, poor, helpless, ignorant, tempted, comes under this category, and to save such Christ came down from heaven. Therefore their souls are very precious in his sight. Matthew 18:12 The parable that follows teaches the same lesson as the preceding verse. It is found in Luke 15:1-7, with some variations, delivered to a different audience and under different circumstances, as Jesus often repeated his instructions and teaching according to the occasion. How think ye? What say ye to the following case? Thus the Lord engages the disciples’ attention. An hundred sheep. A round number, representing a considerable flock. If but one of these stray, the good Shepherd regards only the danger and possible destruction of this wanderer, and puts aside every other care in order to secure its safety. The ninety and nine. These must be left for a time, if he is to conduct the search in person. It may he that some idea of probation is here intended, as when Jesus let the disciples embark on the lake while he himself remained on the shore. Many of the Fathers interpret the ninety-nine as representing the sinless angels, the lost sheep as man, to seek and save whom Christ left heaven, i.e. became incarnate. This, indeed, may be a legitimate application of the parable, but is inexact as an exposition of the passage, which regards the whole flock as figuring the human race. The sheep that remained safe and true to their Master are the righteous; the errant are the sinners, which, however few, are the special care of the merciful Lord. Into the mountains (ἐπιταὐìρη). There is much doubt whether these words are to be joined with goeth (πορευθεις), as in both our versions, or with leave (ἀφεις), as in the Vulgate, Nonne relinquit nonaginta novem in montibus? In the former case we have a picture of the toil of the shepherd traversing the mountains in search of the lost. But this does not seem to be the particular point contemplated, nor is any special emphasis assigned to this part of the transaction. In the parable as recounted by St. Luke (Luke 15:4), we read, "Doth he not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go?" So here it is best to render, Doth he not leave the ninety and nine upon the mountains? The shepherd is not regardless of the safety and comfort of the flock during his temporary absence; he leaves them where they are sure to find pasture, as they roam over (ἐπι with accusative) the hill tops, which, catching clouds and dew, are never without fresh grass. So Psalms 147:8, "Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains." Seeketh. The lost sheep would not return of itself. Such erring souls Jesus seeks by the inspiration of his Spirit, by allowing distress and sorrow, by awakening conscience and memory, by ways manifold which may lead the sinner to "come to himself." Matthew 18:13 If so be that he find it. The quest is not sure to he rewarded. Man’s perversity makes the result uncertain. No one may safely go on sinning, or living in careless unconcern, with the expectation of being finally found and saved. There is a limit to the patience of the Lord. If a man will not open his heart to good inspirations and cooperate with preventing grace, he will not be found and brought home. God forces no one to be saved against his will. Rejoiceth more. A natural feeling. Thus a mother loves better an afflicted child whom she has nursed through a long malady, than the strong and healthy children who have caused her no trouble and anxiety. The joy at the recovery of the strayed sheep is proportional to the sorrow occasioned by its loss and the pains and trouble expended in the search; and this pleasure would at the moment be greater than the satisfaction with which the other members of the flock are regarded. Matthew 18:14 Even so. The teaching of the parable is summed up; the conduct of the earthly shepherd is a figure of that of the heavenly Shepherd. The will of your Father … perish. To scandalize one of these little ones, or lead him into sin (which is to cause to perish), is to fight against God’s will, who would have all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). "When the dignity of the little ones was asserted, it was Πατροςμου, ’my Father;’ now that a motive directly acting on the conscience of the Christian is urged, it is Πατροςὑμῶν, your Father" (Alford). St. Paul teaches that Christ died for the weak brethren (Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 8:11). With this text (Matthew 18:14) before him, it is inconceivable that any one can hold the doctrine of the eternal reprobation of certain souls. The whole passage is opposed to the theory of irrespective predestination and irresistible grace. Matthew 18:15-20 Correction of an offending brother. Matthew 18:15 Hitherto the discourse has warned against offending the young and weak; it now teaches how to behave when the offence is directed against one’s self. Moreover (δε, "now," introducing a new subject) if thy brother shall trespass against thee (εἰςσε). The brother is a brother in the faith, a fellow Christian. The words, "against thee," are omitted in the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts, and by some modern editors, on the ground that it is a gloss derived from Peter’s question (Matthew 18:21). The words are retained by the Vulgate and other high authorities. Without them, the passage becomes one of a general nature, applying to all offences. Retaining them, we find a direction how to treat one who offers personal offence to ourselves—which seems to suit the context best. In the case of private quarrels between individual Christians, with the view of reconciliation, there are four steps to be taken. First, private remonstrance: Go. Do not wait for him to come to you; make the first advances yourself. This, as being the more difficult course, is expressly enjoined on one who is learning the lesson of humility. Tell him his fault; ἐìλεγξοναὐτον,: corripe eum. Put the fault plainly before him, show him how he has wronged you, and how he has offended God. This must be done in private, gently, mercifully. Such treatment may win the heart, while public rebuke, open denunciation, might only incense and harden. Plainly, the Lord primarily contemplates quarrels between individual Christians; though, indeed, the advice here and in the sequel is applicable to a wider sphere and to more important occasions. Thou hast gained thy brother. If he shall own his fault, and ask for pardon, thou hast won him for God and thyself. A quarrel is a loss to both parties; a reconciliation is a gain for both. The verb "to gain" (κερδαινω) is used elsewhere in this high sense (see 1 Corinthians 9:19; 1 Peter 3:1). Matthew 18:16 This gives the second step or stage in discipline. Take with thee one or two more. If the offender is obdurate to secret remonstrance, do not yet resort to public measures, but make a fresh effort accompanied by a friend or two, who will support your view and confirm your expostulation, which might otherwise be considered partial or self-interested. In the mouth of two or three witnesses. The idea is derived from the requirement of the Jewish Law in a case of litigation (see Deuteronomy 19:15; John 8:17; 2 Corinthians 13:1). By the testimony of these witnesses, every word that has passed between you may be fully certified. There will be forthcoming, if necessary, the regular legal evidence, should the matter come to other ears. Matthew 18:17 Tell it unto the Church (τῇἐκκλησιᾳ). This is the third step to take. Our Lord is contemplating a visible society, possessed of certain powers of discipline and correction, such as we find in the history of the apostolic Church (see 1 Corinthians 5:1, etc.; 1 Corinthians 6:1, etc.; 1 Timothy 1:20). Christ had already spoken of his Ecclesia in his commendation of Peter’s great confession (Matthew 16:18); so the twelve were prepared for this use of the word, and would not confound the body here signified with the Jewish synagogue. To the latter the expressions in Matthew 18:18-20 could not apply. The custom and order of procedure in the synagogue would afford an idea of what the Lord meant; but the congregation intended was to be composed of Christians. the followers of Christ, who were delivered from the narrowness of rabbinical rules and definitions. The institution of ecclesiastical tribunals has been referred to this passage, but, as understood by the apostles, it would denote, not so much ecclesiastical rulers as the particular congregation to which the delinquent belonged; and the offence for which he is denounced is some private scandal or quarrel. The course of proceeding enjoined would be impracticable in a large and widely extended community, and could not be applied under our present circumstances. If he neglect to hear the Church. Now comes the final stage in corrective discipline. An heathen man (ὁἐθνικος, the Gentile) and a publican (ὁτελωνης, the publican). The class, not the individual, is meant. If he turns a deaf ear to the authoritative reproof of the Church, let him be regarded no longer as a brother, but as a heathen and an outcast. Christ, without endorsing the Jews’ treatment of Gentiles and publicans, acknowledges the fact, and uses it as an illustration. The obdurate offender must be deprived of Church membership, and treated as those without the Jewish pale were commonly treated. The traditional law enjoined that a Hebrew might not associate, eat, or travel with a heathen, and that if any Jew took the office of publicans, he was to be virtually excommunicated. In later times, there naturally arose in the Christian Church the punishment of offenders by means of exclusion from holy communion, and excommunication. But even in this extreme case charity will not regard the sinner as hopelessly lost; it will seek his salvation by prayer and entreaty. Matthew 18:18 The following words are addressed, not, as the preceding verse, to the offended Christian, but to the apostles, as possessed of some superior powers above those of any individual congregation. Verily I say unto you. The Lord solemnly confers the grant made to Peter (Matthew 16:19) on the whole apostolate. The binding and loosing, in a restricted sense, and in logical connection with what precedes, refer to the confirmation and authorization of the sentence of the Ecclesia, which is not valid, so to speak, in the heavenly court till endorsed by Christ’s representatives—the apostles. Whether the verdict was the excommunication of the offender ("bind") or his pardon and restoration ("loose"), the ratification of the apostles was required, and would be made good in heaven. The treatment of the incestuous Christian by St. Paul is a practical comment on this passage. The congregation decides on the man’s guilt, but St. Paul "binds" him, retains his sins, and delivers him to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:1-5); and when on his repentance he is forgiven, it is the apostle who "looses" him, acting as the representative of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:10). In a general sense, the judicial and disciplinary powers of the Christian priesthood have been founded on this passage, which from early times has been used in the service of ordination. Each body of Christians has its own way of interpreting the promise. While some opine that, speaking in Christ’s name and with his authority, the priest can pronounce or withhold pardon; others believe that external discipline is all that is intended; others again think that the terms are satisfied by the ministration of the Word and sacraments, as a physician gives health by prescribing remedies. Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you. The following paragraph has been thought by many to be addressed especially to the apostles in confirmation of the powers conferred on them above; but from Matthew 18:20 we should judge the promise to be general. Herein is set forth the privilege of united prayer. God confirms the sentence of his authorized ambassadors; he gives special heed to the joint intercessions of all Christians. Two of you. Two of my followers, even the smallest number that could form an association. Shall agree (συμφωνησωσιν). Be in complete accord, like the notes of a perfect strain of music. Here one man’s infirmity is upheld by another’s strength; one man’s short-sightedness compensated by another’s wider view; this man’s little faith overpowered by that man’s firm confidence. Anything. Of course, this is to be understood with some restriction. The thing asked must be reasonable, good in itself, expedient for the petitioner; the prayer must be earnest, faithful, persevering. If such conditions are satisfied, the desire will be granted in some form, though, perhaps, not in the way or at the time expected. Thus the Lord sanctions guilds or bodies of Christians united together to offer up supplications for special objects or with some definite intention in which all ere agreed. Matthew 18:20 The promise is applied to the public prayer of the congregation, as we see in what is called "the prayer of St. Chrysostom" in the English Prayer book. Are gathered together. For the purpose of worship. It is a simpler form of the word used in Hebrews 10:25, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together." In my Name (εἰςτοἐμονὀìνομα); literally, into my Name; i.e. with love to me, yearning for union with me, and acting for my glory. This would imply decent and orderly meeting for the highest ends. There am I in the midst of them. Christ promises a real, actual presence, though invisible, as true as when he appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, as true as when the Shechinah shone in tabernacle or temple. The rabbis had a saying that if two sat at table and conversed about the Law of God, the Shechinah rested upon them. The promise in the text, of course, implies Christ’s omnipresence and omniscience. This is his blessing on united, congregational prayer. Matthew 18:21-35 The pardon of injuries, and the parable of the unmerciful servant. Matthew 18:21 Peter was greatly struck with what Christ had just said about reconciliation of enemies; and he wanted to know what limits were to be imposed on his generosity, especially, it might be, if the offender made no reparation for his offence, and acknowledged not his wrong doing. My brother. As Matthew 18:15, fellow disciple, neighbour. Till seven times? Peter doubtless thought that he was unusually liberal and generous in proposing such a measure of forgiveness. Seven is the number of completeness and plurality, and our Lord had used it in giving his sentence about forgiveness: "If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn to thee again," etc. (Luke 17:4). Some rabbis had fixed this limit from an erroneous interpretation of Amo 1:3; Amos 2:1. "For three transgressions, and for four," etc.; but the usual precept enjoined forgiveness of three offences only, drawing the line here, and having no pity for a fourth offence. Ben-Sira bids a man admonish an offending neighbour twice, but is silent as to any further forgiveness (Ecclesiasticus 19:13-17). The Jews were very fond of defining and limiting moral obligations, as if they could be accurately prescribed by number. Christ demolishes this attempt to define by law the measure of grace. Matthew 18:22 I say not unto thee. Jesus gives the full weight of his authority to his precept, in distinction from Peter’s suggestion and rabbinical glosses. Seventy times seven. No specific number, but practically unlimited. There is no measure to forgiveness; it must be practised whenever occasion arises. Some translate, "seventy-seven times," making an allusion to the retribution exacted from Lamech: "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold" (Genesis 4:24). Christian forgiveness must be extended as far as old-world vengeance. Mercy rejoices against judgment. But the genius of the language supports the rendering of the Authorized Version. St. Paul has caught the spirit of his Master when he writes, "Forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:32). In the Mosaic dispensation there was some foreshadowing of the doctrine of forgiveness in the enactments which enjoined tender treatment of debtors, and in the terms of the jubilee law; but there were no rules concerning the pardon of personal injuries; the tendency of many prominent injunctions was to encourage retaliation. Herein is seen an important distinction between the Law and the gospel, the institutions antecedent to the death and atonement of Christ, and those subsequent thereto. Matthew 18:23-35 Christ illustrates his precept by the parable of the unmerciful servant, and the stern lesson which he himself enunciates at its close. Matthew 18:23 Therefore; i.e. because such is the infinite nature of the pardon to be meted out to an offending brother. The kingdom of heaven. The rule observed in the government of Christ’s kingdom with regard to forgiveness is represented by the procedure of a certain earthly king. The picture supposes some great Oriental potentate, with numerous viceroys or satraps, who have to render to him an account of revenues received. These are called servants in the sense that, though they are high officials, they are the monarch’s subordinates and dependents. Both Herodotus and Xenophon apply the term "slave" (δοῦλος) to the great officers of state. Immense sums of money would pass through their hands. This accounts for the enormous debt of the officer in the parable. Webster and Wilkinson compare the East India Company’s collectors, who are high civil servants of the company, that is, now, of the government. If we regard the parable in a general light, as illustrating God’s dealings with sinful man, we must see in the "taking account of his servants," not the judgment of the last day, but those many occasions when God makes a man turn his eyes inward and learn how he stands in the sight of his Lord. Such occasions are sickness, misfortune, great change of circumstances, a new year, reproach of conscience, however aroused,—these and such like incidents awaken a man to his true position, show him his delinquencies and misery. Matthew 18:24 When he had begun to reckon. This is the same word which is rendered "take account" in the previous verse, and means to compare receipts, expenditure, and balance. One was brought unto him. The defaulter did not come of himself and own his delinquency, but was brought into his lord’s presence, probably by some who had discovered his defalcations, and desired to see him punished. Otherwise the phrase may refer merely to Oriental etiquette, according to which no one can cuter the royal presence without being formally allowed the interview, and ceremoniously introduced. Ten thousand talents. It is uncertain what is here meant by a talent, whether of silver or gold, of Jewish, or Attic, or Syriac standard; and, of course, the amount intended is variously understood. We must refer to the Bible dictionaries for an explanation of the term "talent," merely remarking here that the highest estimate would give six millions of our pounds, and the lowest more than half that amount. This huge stun must represent the total revenues of a province, and the debtor must have been a high and much-trusted official. It is used by our Lord to signify the infinite debt the sinner owes to God. Thus in the Lord’s Prayer we have, "Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). Matthew 18:25 He had not to pay. He was absolutely bankrupt, and had no means whatever of meeting the deficit. To be sold. The Jewish Law ordered such process in the case of an impecunious debtor (see Exodus 22:3; Le Exodus 25:39, 41; and the concrete case in 2 Kings 4:1; comp. also Isaiah 50:1; Psalms 44:12). But this law was mitigated by the enactment of the jubilee, which in the course of time restored the bondman to liberty. The instance in the parable appertains rather to Oriental depotism than to the proceedings under Mosaic legislation (see Matthew 18:34, which is not in accordance with Jewish practice). The king, by this severity, may have desired to make the defaulter feel the weight of his debt, and to bring him to repentance, as we see that he was ready to accept the submission of the debtor, and to grant him forgiveness (St. Chrysostom). Payment to be made. The verb is put impersonally. Of course, the sale of himself, wife, family, possessions, would not produce enough to satisfy the debt; but the command is to the effect that the proceeds should be taken on account of the debt. The parable; must not be pressed in all its details; a false impression is often produced by fixing spiritual or allegorical meaning upon the unimportant accessories, which, in fact, merely give vividness to the offered picture. The sale of wife and children is of this character, though it may be said generally and experimentally that a man’s sins react on his family in some sort, lowering position and reputation, and reducing to poverty etc.; but this result has no bearing on the lessening of the original debt. Matthew 18:26 Worshipped him. Prostrated himself before the monarch, and in this abject attitude sued for mercy. Have patience with me. Be long suffering in my case; give me time. And I will pay thee all. In his terror and anguish, he promises impossible things; even the revenues of a province would not in any convenient time supply this deficiency. The scene is very true to life. To save himself from a present difficulty, a debtor will make any promise that occurs to him, without considering whether he will ever be in a position to fulfil it. The defaulter in the parable must have thought well of the king’s generosity and tenderheartedness to make such a proposition at this extreme moment. If we take the spiritual sense of the parable, we see that no sinner could offer to pay, much less pay, the debt due from him to his Lord, "so that must be let alone forever" (Psalms 49:8). Matthew 18:27 Was moved with compassion. The earthly circumstance has its counterpart in God’s dealings with sinners. Humility, confession, prayer, are accepted by him as payment of the debt. Loosed him from arrest, from being sold as a slave. This was the first favour accorded. The second was even greater. Forgave him the debt. The servant had asked only for time; he receives acquittance of the enormous sum which he owed. The king’s severity had brought home to the debtor his full guilt did its consequences; when he realizes these, and throws himself on his lord’s mercy, he receives more than he had asked or hoped for. But (to revert to the spiritual interpretation) the pardoned sinner must not forget the past; he must live as one forgiven. Says the penitent psalmist, "I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me" (Psalms 51:3). Matthew 18:28 Went out—straightway from his lord’s presence, where he had been so mercifully treated, while the remembrance of his free and undeserved forgiveness must have been still fresh. Found. Lighted upon by chance, as it were. Here, rather, was providentially offered an opportunity of showing that his lord’s goodness was not thrown away, but had entered his heart and controlled his conduct towards others. One of his fellow servants. An official of the king, but probably in an inferior position to that which he himself occupied. Seeing this man, he is reminded of a paltry debt which this person owed him. He remembers this fact; he forgets his late experience. An hundred pence (denarii; see on Matthew 20:2); equivalent to some £3 of our money, and a sum not a millionth part of his own debt to his master; the proportion, as some say, may be stated more accurately as 1 to 1,250,000. The enormous difference between these two amounts represents the disproportion between the offences of our neighbours against us and those of which we are guilty towards God; and how small is the forgiveness on our side compared with that which God freely accords to our infinite debt to him! We must consider also the parties to whom these debts are owing—on one side, the worm man; on the other, Almighty God. Took him by the throat (ἐìπνιγε); was throttling him. Thus precluding all prayer and remonstrance. Such brutal treatment was not what he himself had experienced. Pay me that thou owest; ὁìτιὀφειλεις: quod debes. Many manuscripts and late editors (e.g. Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort) soften the demand by reading εἰì τιὀφειλεις, si quid debes, "if thou owest aught," as though the creditor were ashamed of mentioning the paltry sum due; or else it is simply a fashion of speaking, not to be pressed as if any doubt was intimated concerning the debt. It might almost be rendered, "Pay, since thou owest something." Not thus had his lord addressed him in the first instance. Matthew 18:29 Fell down at his feet. The fellow servant repeated the action and the very plea which he himself had but now used so successfully. Besought. Not "worshipped," as in the former case, where the superiority was more marked. Matthew 18:30 And he would not. The piteous appeal made no impression on his hard heart. "He did not even regard the words by which he himself had been saved (for on saying these same words he had been delivered from the ten thousand talents), nor recognize the port by which he had escaped shipwreck; neither did the attitude of supplication remind him of his master’s kindness; but putting aside all such considerations by reason of covetousness, cruelty, and revenge, he was fiercer than any wild beast" (St. Chrysostom, in loc.). He went and cast him into prison. He either himself dragged the wretched debtor to prison, or was not satisfied till he had seen the door of the gaol close upon him. Far from forgiving the debt, he would not even grant an extension of time; he must have payment immediately, or he will exact the utmost punishment till the debt is fully discharged. Matthew 18:31 Fellow servants. Those in the same condition of life as the incarcerated debtor. Mystically, they would be the angels, who, like those in the parable of the tares, tell the Lord what was done; or the saints who plead with God against oppression and injustice. They were very sorry. It is well remarked that anger against sin is God’s attribute (Matthew 18:34), sorrow appertains to men. These have a fellow feeling for the sinner, in that they are conscious that in their own heart there are germs of evil which, unchecked, may develop into similar wickedness. Told (διεσαφησαν); told clearly. They took the part of their comrade, and, not in revenge or malice, but as an act of justice, gave their lord full information of what had happened. The just cannot hold their peace at the sight of oppression and wrong, and God confirms their judgment. Matthew 18:32 After that he had called him. A second time he is brought before his lord, not now to receive forgiveness, but to have the enormity of his guilt exhibited to him, and to suffer well deserved punishment. In a mystical sense this call is the summons of death, which is virtually judgment. O thou wicked servant. The lord had not so addressed him when he had come cringing into his presence on the former occasion; he had spoken no words of reproach, but simply left him in the hands of justice. Now he calls him "wicked," because he is unmerciful; he deserves the epithet, because he has been guilty of a crime as heinous as theft or murder. Then the lord places in strong contrast the mercy which he had received and the unmercifulness which he had shown. All that debt. Great as it was. Thou desiredst me (παρεκαλεσας); besoughtest me; calledst on me for aid. The debtor had not asked or hoped for remission of his debt, and had been largely and most unexpectedly blessed. Matthew 18:33 Compassion...pity. The same verb is used in both places. Shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow servant, even as I had mercy on thee? (Revised Version). The man’s guilt lies in his unmercifulness in the face of mercy received. The fact is patent; it stands for itself; it needs no amplification or enforcement. The king says no more, and the delinquent is equally silent; he has no excuse to offer. Convicted by his own conscience, he knows it is useless to sue for pardon or to expect further leniency. So in the day of judgment no excuse can be admitted; it is too late to plead or argue when the sentence is past. Matthew 18:34 Was wroth. This, as we said above, is the prerogative of God. Man is pained and grieved at sin; God is angry. Tormentors; βασανισταῖς: tortoribus. These are not the gaolers, prison keepers, but persons who put prisoners to the torture. Neither Jewish nor Roman law at that time recognized any such officials; neither were those in confinement treated thus in either community. The idea is taken from the practice of Oriental despotism, which might thus punish an offence considered supremely detestable. In a mystical sense these are the ministers of Divine vengeance who carry out the behests of the King. Till he should pay; until he should have paid (ἑìωςοὗἀποδῷ). Some editors omit or bracket οὗ, but the sense is the same with or without the relative. The debt never could be paid, so practically the punishment would last forever. Commentators, mediaeval and modern, see here an argument for the eternity of future punishment; others see in the clause an intimation that sin may be forgiven in the other world, though not repented of or pardoned in this present life. The words give no support to the latter interpretation. Until, etc., does not necessarily signify that the condition specified is certain to be fulfilled. As Bengel says, on Matthew 1:25, "Non sequitur ergo post." And in the present case there could be no possibility of payment. A criminal delivered to the tormentors would have no opportunity or means of raising the necessary funds. If this is a picture of the final judgment, it is parallel to our Lord’s statement in Matthew 5:26, "Thou shalt by no means come out thence till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing;" for, as the Preacher says, "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest" (Ecclesiastes 9:10). All that was due [unto him] (πᾶντοὀφειλομενοναὐτῷ). Modern editors reject αὐτῷ: Vulgate, universum debitum. This is more general than "all that debt" in Matthew 5:32. It is usually taken to refer to the old debt now redemanded. But a difficulty has been found in the fact that this old debt had been freely forgiven and utterly done away, and therefore could not, in equity, be again exacted. Hence some commentators have explained the clause as referring not at all to the former debt, but to a new debt incurred by a new offence, viz. ingratitude and unmercifulness. But the spiritual truth seems to be that, although sins once absolutely forgiven are not again imputed, they make subsequent sins more heinous, as in a human law court previous conviction increases the penalty of a fresh transgression. Falling from grace, a man passes into enmity with God, and so far cancels his pardon, and is in a state of condemnation (see Ezekiel 18:24, Ezekiel 18:26). Matthew 18:35 So likewise. This points to the moral of the parable intended by Christ. It is not a lesson against ingratitude, but against unmercifulness. "Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy." But want of charity makes a man incapable of retaining God’s pardon; the Holy Spirit cannot abide in an unforgiving soul. My heavenly Father. He says, not "your" (Matthew 6:14, Matthew 6:26), nor "our," but "my heavenly Father," the Father of Christ, the God of all mercies. He cannot join himself in mention with such as are not children of God. From your hearts. Forgiveness must be real, sincere, not pretended, nor merely outward. There must not only be no outward act of revenge, but no malice in tile heart, no storing up of evil passions for future outlet, as occasion may arise. The heart must be in harmony with the conduct, and both must evidence a true spirit of charity. This alone enables one to continue in a state of grace and in reconciliation with God; this alone makes prayer acceptable; and we are assured that, as our heavenly Father requires us to forgive without limit, so his mercy is infinite and will be extended to us in measure unbounded. Their trespasses. These words are omitted by many manuscripts, the Vulgate, and most modern editors; and they are not required by the sense. They have been, perhaps, added to obviate a certain abruptness in the conclusion of the parable. Matthew 18:1-14 The little ones. I. THEIR EXAMPLE. 1. The question of the apostles. They had not yet learned the great lesson of humility. Perhaps the favour shown to Peter, James, and John had excited jealousies among them. On their way to Capernaum they had disputed who should be the greatest. After all the Lord’s teaching they did not yet understand the spiritual nature of his kingdom. There are rivalries and animosities in earthly states; there should be none in that kingdom where the lowliest are the highest. But this is a hard lesson to learn, and the apostles were long in learning it. At Capernaum they asked Christ, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" Who should be greater (the words literally mean) than others? Who should stand above others in the hierarchy of the Church that should be built upon the Rock? Who should be nearer than others to the King in the kingdom which Christ had come to establish? 2. The little child. The Lord’s estimate of greatness differed wholly from that current among men. He had said once before that of all that had been born of women there had never risen a greater than John the Baptist. He put the holy martyr above all the monarchs, warriors, and statesmen of ancient times. But he had then said, "He that is the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." And now, in answer to the question who should be greater than others in that kingdom, he called a little child unto him. The little one came willingly, drawn by the gentle words, the loving looks, of the Master. The Lord set him in the midst, in the place of honour; he took him in his arms, St. Mark tells us. The Lord always loved the little children; he bade them come to him; he watched their innocent play with kindly interest, and drew spiritual lessons from it (Matthew 11:16, Matthew 11:17). Now the little one lay, restful and happy, in the Lord’s embrace, Thither we would lead our children—to the Lord, to share his love and tenderness. And, ah! if he should call them away from our sight, we must learn to trust them in faith, though it cannot be without tears, to those everlasting arms. "He shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom." Happy child! we know not whether he grew up, as a late and doubtful tradition says, to be the famous Bishop Ignatius. That holy martyr bore God in his heart, as the name Theophorus imports; doubtless he was borne up in his sufferings by the gracious help of God. We know not whether in his infancy he was borne in the arms of Christ. That child was greatly blessed. He would never forget, one thinks, the encircling arms of Christ. But doth not the Scripture say to us, "The eternal God is thy Refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms"? and, alas! how often we forget the gracious presence of God in our unbelief and selfish fears! Now, the Lord called the attention of the apostles to the little one. 3. The Lord’s answer: the lowliest are the greatest. (1) The necessity of conversion. The deep and awful question which we ought to put, each one to his own soul, is not—Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? but—Are we ourselves true loyal members of that kingdom? We cannot be in the kingdom at all except in the sense in which the withered fruitless branches still for a short time hang on to the vine; we cannot be in the kingdom in any holy and blessed sense unless we are converted; we cannot enter into the kingdom of glory at the last unless we are converted. The word "conversion" occurs only once in the New Testament; the verb, in its various forms, nine times; but four of those passages are quotations of Isa 6:10. Sometimes the passive form of the verb is used, sometimes the active. And it is to be noted that in the four quotations of Isa 6:10, the active ἐπιστρεψωσιν is used three times, the passive στραφῶσιν once. God sometimes commands his people, "Turn ye even to me with all your hearts;" and sometimes we pray to God, "Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." There are two aspects of the great change—the human and the Divine. Both are real and true; neither excludes the other. What we need is the actual knowledge of that blessed change from our own inward experience; if we have that, we need not distress ourselves about the deep things of God, the relations between the human and the Divine, between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man. We must turn with all our hearts unto the Lord, praying earnestly and humbly, "Turn thou us, O Lord." The apostles must turn, the Lord said, from their earthly ambition, from their rivalries and jealousies. We must turn, each one, from his besetting sin, or we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. We must all turn away from the world to God, away from self to Christ. We must look, not to the things which are seen, but to the things which are not seen; the line of vision, so to speak, must be changed; the eye of the soul must be directed, not to the earth, but to heaven. The circumstances of this great change vary in different individuals; in some it is sudden, in others slow and gradual. Some, like St. Paul, can point to a great startling crisis in their spiritual life; some few, like Samuel, have lived from childhood in the felt presence of God, growing continually in grace,—not without many sins, not without continual repentance, but without any strong boundary line marking the decisive change from evil to good. But in some form or other, in some way or other, that change must take place in every true Christian life. We may not be able to describe it exactly, to fix its exact moment, its circumstances. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." But the change must be felt in its results ("thou hearest the sound thereof"), if we cannot define its action. We must be conscious that our heart is turned towards God, that our thoughts, desires, motives, hopes, point towards heavenly things. If we have that happy consciousness, we may humbly hope that he which hath begun a good work in us will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. If we have it not, let us not rest until by God’s grace we gain it; for, except we be converted, we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven; and oh! what must be the misery of those who lose that great reward! (2) The necessity of childlike humility. There is no true conversion without humility; a man whose thoughts are filled with self cannot turn to Christ. Pride concentrates the regards of the soul on self; and while the soul is occupied with self it cannot see the surpassing beauty of the Lord, it cannot turn to him. Those who would follow Christ must become as little children; they must be like the little ones in their simplicity, their trustfulness, their humility. The little child is simple; it shows its true nature; it has no hypocrisy, no desire to seem other than it is; it is humble and modest; it does not aim at display and show; it is full of affectionate trustfulness in those whom it loves. And, the Lord Jesus says, they shall be greater than others, they shall have the higher places in the kingdom of heaven, who humble themselves as that little child who then lay in his arms was humble; that is, with an unaffected humility, with a simple and genuine lowliness. Then the Christian must not set his heart upon gaining the high places of life; if God puts him there he must do his duty simply and humbly; if others are set above him he must be willing to take the lowest place, content and happy, remembering the blessed Master’s words. II. THE DIGNITY OF CHRIST’S LITTLE ONES. 1. The blessing of receiving them. Christ loved the little children; he proposes their character to his followers as a model for imitation. His words shed a new dignity, a new glory, on innocent childhood. He was thinking probably not only of children in years, but also of the childlike in heart and mind. He deigns to regard such as, in some sense, representatives of himself. Those who care for little children because Christ cared for them, in his name and for his sake, care for Christ. These words give a very holy meaning to single-hearted work in Sunday schools; they shed a blessing upon orphanages, upon all Christian work done for children’s sake, all Christian love and thought for little children. And they pronounce a blessing upon all those who in Christ’s name receive into their affections or into their homes true Christian men who have learned of Christ the childlike simplicity and lowliness which he exalts so highly. These who receive such receive Christ, as Abraham received angels unawares. Let us love and cherish Christian-minded friends; they bring a precious blessing to our houses, for they bring the gracious presence of Christ. 2. The guilt of causing them to stumble. A heathen poet tells us that the greatest reverence is due to childhood; he bids us exclude carefully from the sight of children everything that is coarse and evil. The Lord enforces the same duty under more awful sanctions. The simplicity, the receptivity, of little children expose them to evil influences. In Christian homes they are taught to believe in Christ. Among their companions, in their schools, they are sometimes exposed to manifold temptations. But woe to those who purposely set stumbling blocks in their way! Woe to those, schoolfellows or others, who try to entrap the innocent and simple hearted into profanity and neglect of their souls! Such are acting the part of the devil; they are doing his work; they are the enemies of Christ, the murderers of souls for which Christ died. Better that they had died before they came to this pitch of guilt. For souls are very precious in the sight of Christ; he shed his precious blood for them. How must he regard those who entice them to ruin and death? 3. There must be offences. Human nature being what it is, the power of the devil being what it is, there must be always in the world men who set an evil example, who are as stumbling blocks, as snares. It is a necessity, part of the great mystery of the existence of evil. This necessity is not absolute; it follows from the existence of sin; and sin is voluntary, or it would not be sin. Sin is voluntary in individuals; but while the world remains as it is, there must, as a fact, be sin in the world, as there must be heresies (1 Corinthians 11:19); and where there is sin there must be offences. But woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! The guilt of sin is increased by its contagious character. The sinner sins against his own soul; he sins also against the souls of others; for his sin becomes a centre of evil influence, spreading its foul attractions among hearts rendered only too susceptible by the inherited corruption of human nature. None can tell the mass of moral disease which may spring from one source of infection. Then woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! He knows not what fearful mischief may follow from his wicked or thoughtless act. He may repent, thank God; but his repentance must be deep, his sorrow great; he may be saved, yet so as by fire. "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin." 4. They must be avoided at all costs. Those who ensnare others, who cause them to stumble, have first been ensnared, have stumbled themselves. The first occasion of stumbling must be avoided. The danger is great, the consequences are fearful; better any sacrifice, any self-denial. Self-denial leads to heaven, self-indulgence to hell. We must cut off the causes, the occasions of sin, though they be as closely bound up with our life as the hand, or foot, or eye. The Lord repeats the lesson which he had already given in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30). There are some cautions which must be given again and again—enforced with all manner of illustrations, "precept upon precept, line upon line." And surely this warning of the deep necessity of real self-denial is one which needs the most constant repetition, one which must be urged again and again, even unto weariness. And it must be urged very strongly and forcibly. The hand, the foot, the eye, are very valuable to us. The loss of one such member would be very serious. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 19:1-12 The beginning of the last journey to Jerusalem. The question concerning divorce. (Mark 10:1-12.) Matthew 19:1 When Jesus had finished these sayings. This is the beginning of a new section of the history, commencing, as usual, with the formulary, And it came to pass. "These sayings" must refer to what was recorded in Matthew 18:1-35. But St. Matthew’s narrative omits many events that happened in the interval between the account of the Galilaean ministry and the history of these last days, that is, from the autumn of one year to the spring of the next. The transactions of this time, which are omitted also by St. Mark, are given by St. Luke (Lu 9:51-17:11) and St. John (John 7:2-11:54), comprising many things that occurred at Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles and on other occlusions. He departed from Galilee. Not visiting it again till he appeared there after his resurrection. There was no part of the Holy Land in which he did not at some time sojourn, and now, as the final consummation drew nigh, he resolutely set his face towards Jerusalem. Came into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan. Coasts should be borders. Judaea was bounded by the river, and there was no part of it beyond, that is, on the east of Jordan. The words, "beyond Jordan," belong to the verb "came," and the clause signifies that the object of Christ’s journey was the vicinity of Judaea, and that, instead of entering the province by the direct road through Samaria, he took the more lengthy but safer route through Peraea. This was the name of the region on the east of the Jordan (περαν, beyond), extending at this time from the river Hieromax, or Jarmouk, on the north, to the Arnon on the south, i.e. to the middle of the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. The ruler of this district was Herod Antipas, and it was at this era in a most flourishing condition, notably fertile, and containing many fine towns ornamented with magnificent buildings. Here the simple, pastoral country people were less influenced by the narrow bigotry of the Pharisaic party, and in the towns the ban which excluded Jesus from the synagogues of Galilee and Judaea was either not recognized or not enforced. A quiet opportunity for preaching the gospel was thus offered. This may possibly be the sojourn in Peraea mentioned by St. John (John 10:40-42). Matthew 19:2 Great multitudes followed him. He was favourably received by the unprejudiced Peraeans. Healed them. Those of the multitude who had need of healing (Luke 9:11). There. In the "beyond Jordan" region. St. Mark observes that he taught them. Thus, "at one time teaching, at another working miracles, he varied his means of salvation, that from the miracles faith might be given him as a Teacher; and by his teaching he might urge to edification the miracles which he wrought" (St. Chrysostom, ap. I. Williams). Matthew 19:3 We have now to listen to our Lord’s teaching respecting divorce and marriage. The Pharisees. The article is better omitted. Our Lord was not long left in peace by these inveterate enemies, who, if they could not openly persecute him, might hope to extract something from his words and sentiments which might be used to his disadvantage. They were probably envoys sent from Jerusalem to entrap and annoy him. Tempting him. Trying to get him to give an answer which would in any case afford a handle for malicious misrepresentation. The question proposed concerned divorce. To put away his wife forevery cause; καταπᾶσαναἰτιαν: quacumque ex causa; for any cause whatever. This was a delicate question to raise in the domains of Herod Antipas (see Matthew 14:3, Matthew 14:4), and one greatly debated in the rabbinical schools. Our Lord had already twice pronounced upon the subject, once in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:32), and again when reasoning with the Pharisees on the due observance of the Law (Luke 16:18). Two opposite opinions were held by the followers of Hillel and Schammai, the heads of antagonistic schools. The school of Hillel contended that a man might divorce his wife for various causes quite unconnected with infringement of the marriage vow, e.g. because he had ceased to love her, or had seen some one whom he liked better, or even because she cooked his dinner badly. The school of Schammai was more strict, and permitted divorce only in case of fornication, adultery, or some offence against chastity. Between these contending parties the Pharisees desired to make our Lord give a decision, thinking that they had fixed him in a dilemma. If he took the popular lax view, they could deride his claims as a Teacher of superior morality; if he upheld the stricter side, he would rouse the enmity of the majority, and possibly, like John the Baptist, involve himself in trouble with the licentious tetrarch. There was a chance also that the high tone which he had already taken might prove to be at variance with Mosaic enactments. The easiness with which divorce was obtained may be seen in Josephus, Who thus writes: "He who for any reason whatsoever (and many such causes happen to men) wishes to be separated from a wife who lives with him, must give it to her in writing that he will cohabit with her no longer, and by this means she shall have liberty to marry another man; but before this is done it is not permitted her to do so" (’Ant.,’ Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:23). Josephus himself repudiated his own wife because he was not pleased with her behaviour (’Vita,’ § 76). And Ben-Sira gives the curt injunction, "If she go not as thou wouldest have her (καταχεῖρασου), cut her off from thy flesh,… and let her go" (Ecclesiasticus 25:26). Matthew 19:4 He answered and said. Our Lord does not directly reply in the negative, but refers to the original institution of marriage. All his auditors agreed in holding the legality of divorce, though they differed in their estimation of the causes that warranted separation. It was quite a new idea to find the propriety of divorce questioned, and to have their captious question met by an appeal to Scripture which they could not gainsay, and an enunciation of a high ideal of matrimony which their glosses and laxity had miserably perverted or obscured. He which made them. Manuscripts vary between ὁποιησας and ὁκτισας. The latter is approved by Westcott and Hort. It is best translated, the Creator. The Vulgate gives, qui fecit hominem. At the beginning (ἀπἀρχῆς). These words should be joined to the following verb made (ἐποιησεν), and not with the preceding participle, as it is intended to show the primordial design in the creation of man and woman. God made the first members of the human family a male and a female, not a male and females. The lower animals were created separately, male and female; "mankind was created in one person in Adam, and when there was found no help meet for Adam, no companion in body, soul, or spirit, fit for him, then God, instead of creating a wholly new thing, made Eve out of Adam" (Sadler). Two individuals of opposite sexes were thus formed for each other; one was the complement of the other, and the union was perfect and lasted, as long as life. There was in this original institution no room for polygamy, no room for divorce. It was a concrete example of the way in which God unites man and wife. Matthew 19:5 And said. The words that follow are assigned to Adam in Genesis 2:23, Genesis 2:24, but he spake by inspiration of God, as he knew nothing of "father and mother" by personal experience, and therefore they can be rightly attributed to the Creator. It was, in fact, a prophetic utterance of which Adam was the mouthpiece; as St. Augustine says, "Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetando praedixit." For this cause. Because of this Divine appointment, and especially of the peculiar creation of Eve. She was not formed separately of the dust of the earth, but directly from the substance of Adam; so she was one with her husband, nearer than all other human relations, superior to the tenderest ties of nature and birth. Shall cleave (προσκολληθησεται, or κολληθησεται); literally, shall be glued to; adhaerebit. The word expresses the closest possible union, stronger and higher than that towards parents. They twain shall be one flesh; the two shall become one flesh (ἐìσονταιοἱδιοεἰςσαρκαμιαν). The Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch insert "the two," which is not in the present Hebrew text. Our Lord adopts the addition as conveying the correct sense. In marriage there is a moral and physical union, so that two persons become virtually one being. Originally, man contained woman in himself before she was separated from him; she was a corporeal unity with man; or, as others put it, man, as a race, was created male and female, the latter being implicitly contained in the former; the previous unity is thus asserted. In marriage this unity is acknowledged and continued. St. Paul quotes this text in Ephesians 5:31; and in 1 Corinthians 6:16 uses it as an argument against fornication, Matthew 19:6 Wherefore (ὡìστε); so that. This follows from the quotation just given. Our Lord explains and confirms the original dictum by an assertion of his own and a general law. What God hath joined together. The institution of marriage is God’s appointment. Christ says ὁÌ, what, neuter singular, not "those whom," plural and concrete, that he may make it clear that he is here speaking in the abstract, not specially of Adam and Eve. What he enunciates is true of all wedlock, not simply of the case of our first parents. Let not man put asunder. Man does thus infringe the primitive rule when he divorces his with. Herein he opposes God and acts against nature. He and his wife are one; they can no more separate from one another than they can from themselves. If we regard our Lord’s language in this passage without prejudice, and not reading into it modem notions, we must consider that he here decrees the indissolubility of the marriage tie. His hearers plainly understood him so to speak, as we see from the objection which they urged. Matthew 19:7 Why did Moses then command? If, as you assert, God ordained that marriage should be indissoluble, how comes it that Moses commanded (ἐνετειλατο) us to practise divorce, and prescribed rules as to its conduct? They are referring to Deuteronomy 24:1, Deuteronomy 24:2. Jesus had escaped the trap which was laid for him, and foiled them by the very words of Scripture and the plain intention of the first institution. But they see their way to opposing the authority of the great lawgiver to the dictum and interpretation of this new Teacher. It cannot be supposed, they argue, that Moses would enjoin a practice condemned by the Word of God; therefore, if you abide by your exposition, you contradict Moses. A writing of divorcement. The man who desired to divorce his wife could not effect this separation by mere word of mouth or by violent ejectment; he must have a written document formally prepared and witnessed, necessitating certain delay and publicity. In regulating the method of divorce and giving rules which prevented it from being undertaken rashly and lightly, Moses could not justly be said to have commanded it. There were also two cases in which he absolutely forbade divorce (see Deuteronomy 22:13-19; Deuteronomy 22:28, Deuteronomy 22:29). Matthew 19:8 Moses because of (προς, with a view to, to meet) the hardness of your hearts; your obstinacy, perverseness. You were not honest and pure enough to obey the primitive law. There was danger that you would ill treat your wives in order to get rid of them, or even murder them. The lesser evil was regular divorce. But the enactment is really a shame and reproach to you, and was occasioned by grave defects in your character and conduct. And it is not true to say that Moses commanded; he only suffered you to put away your wives. This was a temporary permission to meet your then circumstances. Divorce had been practised commonly and long; it was traditional; it was seen among all other Oriental peoples. Moses could not hope at once to eradicate the inveterate evil; he could only modify, mitigate, and regulate its practice. The rules which he introduced were intended, not to facilitate divorce, but to lead men better to realize the proper idea of marriage. And Christ was introducing a better law, a higher morality, for which Mosaic legislation paved the way (comp. Romans 5:20; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 9:10). From the beginning. The original institution of marriage contained no idea of divorce; it was no mere civil contract, made by man and dissoluble by man, but a union of God’s own formation, with which no human power could interfere. However novel this view might seem, it was God’s own design from the first. The first instance of polygamy occurs in Genesis 4:19, and is connected with murder and revenge. Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you. Our Lord here enunciates the law which was to obtain in his kingdom, which, indeed, was simply the reintroduction and enforcement of the primitive and natural ordinance. Except it be for fornication; εἰμηἐπιπορνειᾳ: nisi ob fornicationem (Vulgate). This is the received reading. Tregelles, Tischendort; Westcott and Hort omit ει). The parallel passage in St. Mark (where Christ is stated to have made the remark to his disciples "in the house") omits the clause altogether. Lachmann, following some few manuscripts, has introduced παρεκτοςλογουπορνειας, "saving for the cause of fornication," from Matthew 5:32. The interpretation of this verse has given occasion to acute controversy. There are some questions that have to be considered in expounding this matter. (1) What is here meant by πορνεια? Does it bear its usual meaning, or is it equivalent to μοιχεια, "adultery"? These who affirm that the sin of married persons is never expressed by the word porneia, hold that it here signifies ante-nuptial unchastity, which would make the marriage void ab initio; post-nuptial transgression would be punished by death, not by divorce. In this view, our Lord would say that no divorce is allowable except where the wife is proved to have been unchaste before marriage. In such a ease, the union being void from the first, the man is free to marry again. But there are difficulties in this interpretation. Why, at the end of the verse, is it called adultery to marry the divorced woman, if she was never really and lawfully married? Again, it is not correct to say that porneia denotes solely the sin of unmarried people. All illicit connection is described by this term, and it cannot be limited to one particular kind of transgression. In Ecclesiasticus 23:23 it is used expressly of the sin of an adulteress. We may also remark that metaphorically idolatry is often called by this name, whereas, since Israel is supposed to be married to the Lord, the breaking of this bend by the worship of false gods might more strictly be named adultery. And yet again, there is no proof that the discovery of previous immorality in a wife did ipso facto vitiate the marriage (see Hosea 1:2, etc.). The passages that are thought to bear on this matter are Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In the former there is no question of divorce,—the offender is to be stoned; in the second passage the ground of divorce is "some uncleanness," or some unseemly thing, whether immorality or personal defect is meant cannot be decided, the rival schools taking different sides. But it is quite certain that adultery is not intended, and ante-nuptial unchastity is not even hinted. The interpretation, therefore, given above cannot be maintained. (2) Omitting for the moment the limiting clause, may we say that the general teaching of Christ makes for the indissolubility of the marriage bond? The majority of the Fathers from Hermas and Justin Martyr downwards affirm this. Those who admit that divorce is permissible in the case of the wife’s adultery are unanimous in asserting that, by Christ’s ordinance, remarriage is prohibited to the husband during the culprit’s life; so that, practically, if divorce a mensa et toro is allowed, divorce a vinculo is refused. All Christ’s utterances on the subject, saving the apparently restrictive clause (Matthew 5:32) and here, absolutely and plainly forbid divorce, on the ground of law and nature. The words in Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 are given without any limitation whatever. St. Paul draws from such his conclusion of the indissolubility of the marriage tie, as may be seen in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 1 Corinthians 7:11, 1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2, Romans 7:3. There could never have been a doubt about this subject had it not been for the difficulty in interpreting the parenthetical clause. (3) Are we, then, to suppose that Christ, by those words, modifies his general statement, and allows absolute divorce in the case of a wife’s misconduct? Such is the view taken by many theologians, and practically endorsed by the civil law of many countries. Neither the Roman nor the Anglican Churches support this laxity. Ecclesiastical and civil laws are here antagonistic. It is said that Christ allows the wronged party to marry again. If so, if the oneness of the parties is wholly destroyed by the sin of the woman, why is it not permitted to a man to marry a divorced woman? This cannot be called adultery unless she is still one flesh with her husband, although separated. We must argue from this that divorce in such a ease does not destroy the vinculum matrimonii, the marriage bond. and if not under this circumstance, surely under no other; for any other ground must be always less serious than adultery. If the clause in question enunciated an exception to the absolute rule elsewhere given, Christ would seem to stultify himself, to give two opposite decisions, and to introduce uncertainty in a most important verdict. The principle on which he based his dictum would be overthrown, and his hearers might have accused him of inconsistency. The solution offered for this difficulty is this—that Christ is contemplating merely what we call judicial separation; he considers that no trivial cause justifies this, in fact, nothing but fornication, and that this modified divorce does not free the man so that he may marry again; he is bound by the Law as long as his wife lives. Our Lord seems to have introduced the exceptional clause in order to answer what were virtually two questions of the Pharisees, viz. whether it was lawful to "put away a wife for every cause," and whether, when a man had legally divorced his wife, he might marry again. To the former Christ replies that separation was allowable only in the case of fornication; in response to the second, he rules that even in that case remarriage was wholly barred. And whosoever marrieth her which is put away (ἀπολελυμενην, without the article); her, when she is put away (Revised Version); or, a divorced woman. The clause is wholly omitted by à and some other manuscripts, and some modern editors, as Westcott and Hort. But it has very high authority in its favour. Alford renders, "her, when divorced," and restricts the application to a woman unlawfully divorced, not extending it to one separated for porneia. But the language is too indefinite to admit of this interpretation as certain (see Luke 16:18, and the note on Matthew 5:32, where the popular view is expressed). The clause, pondered without regard to foregone conclusions, surely contains an argument for the indissolubility of the marriage tie, as we have said above. Marriage with a divorced wife can be rightly termed adultery only in consideration of the continuance of the vinculum. Doth commit adultery. The binding nature of marriage does not depend on the will or the acts of the persons, but on its primal character and institution. By the repeal of the Mosaic relaxation and the restoration of marriage to its original principle, Christ not only enforces the high dignity of this ordinance, but obviates many opportunities of wickedness, such, for instance, as collusion between husband and wife with a view to obtain freedom for marriage with others. Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him. Our Lord appears to have repeated privately to the disciples what he had said publicly to the Pharisees. If the case (ἡαἰτια) of the man be so with his wife. Some commentators take αἰτια to signify guilt: "if such guilt appertains to the married state." But the meaning is plain enough anyway, and the word, as here used, corresponds to the Latin causa, and the Hebrew dibrah, which may denote "case," "condition," etc. The disciples reflect the feeling of their day. Marriage without any possibility of essential release (for they see that this is Christ’s law) seems to them a severe and unbearable connection. It were better never to marry at all than to fetter one’s self with such an inexorable obligation. Such a doctrine was entirely novel in that age, and most unpalatable; and even the apostles receive it with wonder and hesitation. They have not yet leaned that in Messiah’s kingdom grace conquers natural inclination, and strengthens the weak will so that it rises superior to custom, prejudice, and the promptings of the flesh. Matthew 19:11 Our Lord makes a gentle reply to this observation of the disciples concerning the inexpediency of marriage under some circumstances. You say true, he seems to mean, but all men cannot receive this saying; i.e. their words, "It is not good to marry." But he endorses these words in a different signification from theirs. Their objection to marry arose from the impossibility of putting away a wife for any cause. Christ passes over these ignoble scruples, and enunciates the only principle which should lead a man to abstain from marriage. They to whom it is given. They to whom are given the call and the grace to abstain from marriage. These persons’ practice forms an exception to the general view of the propriety and blessedness of the marriage state. Matthew 19:12 Our Lord proceeds to note three classes of men to whom it is given to abstain from marriage. There are some eunuchs, which were so born. The first class consists of those who are physically unable to contract matrimony, or, having the power, lack the inclination. They are compulsorily continent, and are not voluntary abstainers. Neither is the second class: those which were made eunuchs of men. Such were common enough in the harems and courts of Orientals. The cruel and infamous treatment which such persons underwent was practised against their will, and consequently their continence had no sort of merit. The third is the only class which of choice and for high reasons lived a celibate life: which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. This is not to be understood of excision; for this would be a contravention of the order of nature and the good work of creation. Origen, who took the passage literally, and with his own hands mutilated himself, was justly condemned by the verdict of the Church. The verb is to be understood in a metaphorical sense of the mortification of the natural desires and impulses at the cost of much pain and trouble, the spirit conquering the flesh by the special grace of God. The motive of such self-denial is high and pure. It is practised "for the kingdom of heaven’s sake," that is, to be free from distraction and the cares and dangers involved in a married life. St. Paul carries forward the Lord’s teaching when he writes (1 Corinthians 7:32, 1 Corinthians 7:33), "He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife" (comp. Isaiah 56:3, Isaiah 56:4). The celibate life, deliberately embraced for religion’s sake, is here approved by Christ, not to the disparagement of matrimony, but as a counsel which some are enabled to follow to their soul’s great benefit. It may be added that the counsel applies also to married persons who sacrifice conjugal endearments for spiritual reasons—"have wives as though they had none" (1 Corinthians 7:29). Let him receive it. This is not an injunction, but a permission; it is no universal rule, prescribed to all or to the many; it is a special grace allowed to the few, and by few attained. "Each man," says St. Paul, "hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that" (1 Corinthians 7:7, 1 Corinthians 7:26). Some think the Essenes are here referred to; but it is not likely that our Lord would endorse the practices of a sect which in some of its tenets was by no means commendable. Rather he is laying down a limitation that, while self-sacrifice and self-dedication to God are acceptable and fraught with peculiar blessings, none should attempt to win heaven in this way, unless they are specially prepared for such a life by the grace of God mastering the human will and controlling every earthly desire. The pre-eminent value set on celibacy by the early Church was learned from this and similar passages; but Christ institutes no comparison between the single and married states; and it would have been wiser to imitate his reserve in estimating the spiritual merits of the two conditions. Matthew 19:13-15 Benediction of little children. (Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17.) Matthew 19:13 Christ, having laid his blessing on marriage, now blesses its fruit. Then. This happened directly after the preceding conversation. Mothers were won to his side by his elevation of woman to her true position, and his marked tenderness to children. Little children (παιδια). St. Luke calls them ταβρεφη, "their infants." These were babes whom the mothers carried in their arms, and who were too young to understand the meaning and importance of the act of Christ in blessing them. It was a custom to take infants to the synagogues, that they might receive the prayers and blessings of the rabbis, or holy men. For this reason they were brought to Christ as a holy and revered Teacher. That he should put his hands on them, and pray. The laying on of hands was symbolical of blessing (see Genesis 48:14; Numbers 27:23). From the Jewish it passed into the Christian Church (Acts 6:5), and continues unto this day to be used on various solemn occasions. The disciples rebuked them. More definitely in St. Mark, "rebuked those that brought them." Why they did so is not quite obvious. Either they thought that it was beneath Christ’s dignity, and a waste of his precious time to attend to these babes; or, being still of imperfect faith, they did not realize that any spiritual good could proceed from the imposition of Christ’s hands upon unconscious and irresponsive infants. They had seen him cure bodily diseases with a touch, and they would have welcomed these little ones it’ they had been brought to be healed of some obvious maladies; what they could not understand was that these irrational creatures, not possessed of faith, could be the recipients of Divine blessing. Christ, by word and action, teaches another lesson. St. Mark adds that Jesus was "much displeased" at the disciples’ faithless interference. St. Luke tells us that he "called them [the babes] unto him," making Iris followers desist from their officious remonstrance, and said the memorable words which are given almost without variation by the three synoptists. Matthew 19:14 Suffer [the] little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me. He speaks as though the infants were ready and eager to come to him, if they were not prevented. He thus intimates the truth that, though incompetent to undo, stand God’s blessing, children were not incompetent to receive it. There was no natural impediment to bar the way. Unconscious intents, under the Mosaic dispensation, were admitted to the privileges of the Jewish Church by the rite of circumcision; in Christ’s kingdom analogous mercies were to be extended to them. From this passage has been derived a cogent argument for infant baptism, because Christ herein showed, not only that tender age and immaturity of reason put no obstacle in the way of his blessing, but that children were the standard by which fitness for his kingdom was to be tested. For of such is the kingdom of heaven. They who would enter Christ’s kingdom must be pure, simple, obedient, as little children (comp. Matthew 18:3). That is why he says, "of such," not "of these," intimating that it is not to the age, but to the disposition and character, that he refers. Some, not so suitably, confine the saying to such as are dedicated to God in baptism. It is well said that what children now are is God’s work; what they shall be hereafter is their own. Matthew 19:15 He laid his hands on them. He was not influenced by the captious objections of the disciples. St. Mark tells us that "he took them up in his arms, put his bands upon them, and blessed them." Thus far he complied with the wishes of the parents who brought the babes to him. But we do not read that he prayed, as they had asked. Doubtless there was meaning in this omission. In conferring blessing he was acting in his Divine nature, and had no need of prayer. Sometimes, indeed, he prayed for the sake of bystanders (see John 11:42; John 12:30); here he prays not, that he may teach a lesson of his Divinity. Departed thence. Set out from Peraea, journeying towards Jerusalem. Matthew 19:16-22 Answer to the inquiry of the rich young ruler concerning eternal life. (Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23.) Matthew 19:16 And, behold. The exclamation, as usual, denotes the suddenness and unexpected nature of the occurrence. It took place probably on the next day after the blessing of the children. One came (εἶςπροσελθων). This is more emphatic than the enclitic τις, and we learn from St. Luke that he was "a ruler," i.e. of the synagogue, and he must have been of noted piety and worth to have arrived at this dignity while still a youth (verse 22). St. Mark gives more details—he "came running, and kneeled to him." He was eager for an answer to his question, and recognized in Jesus a Rabbi worthy of all honour and veneration, though he saw in him nothing more. lie comes with no sinister intention, as the Pharisees did, but in all good faith, hoping to have a religious difficulty solved. Good Master. Thus the received text in the three synoptists. The epithet "good" is omitted by many excellent manuscripts, and has been expunged by most modern editors. It is required if the received text of the next verse is retained. It occurs in Mark and Luke without variation. The young man may have used the expression with the view of winning Christ’s favour, or, at any rate, with the idea of showing the light in which he regarded him. What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? His notion was that eternal happiness was obtained by the performance of certain acts, and he is not sure that he has done enough for the reward, and wishes to know particularly what further good work will secure it. The other synoptists have merely, "What shall I do? but of course, good work is implied, if not expressed. This was a question much mooted in the rabbinical schools, and one to which the answers were as various as they were puerile. Some taught that the commandments were not equally important, and that what they deemed the lesser might be violated with impunity, if the others were observed. Some made the gift of perfection to depend on the daily recitation of certain prayers or psalms, others on giving due honour to the aged. Amid such perplexing rules, the youth desires an authoritative decision, which he may put in practice, and thus be sure of a happy place in Messiah’s kingdom—be, as the Jews termed it, "a son of the age to come." Matthew 19:17 Why callest thou me good? Such is the reading of the received text here, and without any variation in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke. Our Lord takes the ruler to task for applying this epithet to him. unless the youth believed in his Divinity. You think of me only as a learned Teacher: how, then, can you speak of me in a term which can really be predicated of no child of man? Christ answers the ruler’s address before he touches the subject of his interrogation, reproving him for using a form of words without realizing its full import. This is all plain enough; but many good manuscripts, including à B, D, etc., Vulgate, and other versions, read, Why askest thou me concerning the good? Most modern editors and the Revised Version have adopted this reading, which they hold to be genuine, and to have been altered subsequently in order to conform it to the other synoptists. If this is so, it is difficult to see whence Mark and Luke obtained their wording, unless—which is improbable—our Lord used both interrogations on the same occasion. The revised reading expresses Christ’s astonishment at having this question asked; and it may be taken, as Bengel suggests, "He who is good ought to be interrogated about the good;" or, "What is right to do, you ought to know; it can only be obedience to the Author of all goodness." There is none good but one, that is, God. Here again the reading varies. The other synoptists agree with the received text of Matthew, except that Luke has εἷςΘεος instead of εἷςΘεος. Late editors, following à, B, D, etc., have printed, εἷςἐστινὁἀγαθος: one there is who is good, or one is the good. God alone is the absolutely good; he alone can instruct you and put you certainly in the right way. Persons have been found to argue from this sentence that Christ renounces all claim to be God Almighty. But it is not so. He replies to what was in the young man’s mind. The ruler regarded Jesus as man only; Jesus intimates that, in comparison with God, no man is good. He does not deny the applicability of the epithet to himself, but turns the questioner’s thoughts to the Source of all good. He will not have himself regarded simply as a pre-eminently good man, but as Son of God, one with the Father. If thou wilt (θελεις, willest to) enter into life; i.e. enjoy eternal life. Christ uses a term equivalent to that of the ruler in verse 16. So Christ said on another occasion to a lawyer who tempted him. "This do, and thou shalt live" (Luke 10:28). There is no real life without obedience. Keep the commandments of him who is good. The Law was given to prepare men to receive Christianity, and in proportion as they carefully observed it, so were they made ready to inherit the life which Christ gives. No mere external compliance without faith is here approved, but it is laid down that, in order to win eternal life, there must be strict observance of God’s laws—not some one extraordinary performance, but constant attention to known duties from the highest motive. Faith, indeed, is belief in action, and is dead and profitless if inoperative; so that true obedience is the outcome of true faith. Matthew 19:18 Which (ποιας)? Christ’s answer was disappointing to the inquirer; it was too vague and general to satisfy his thought. He expected to hear (as the rabbis taught) of some special precept or precepts, difficult of accomplishment, and not usually regarded, by observance of which he could obtain his great reward. So he asks with laudable persistence, "Of what sort are these commandments which I have to obey?" He is far from thinking of the common duties of the Decalogue, though doubtless he had been taught that these varied greatly in meritoriousness. Christ, in reply, notifies, as examples, the chief enactments of what we call the second table of the Decalogue, quoting the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and fifth. He enunciates nothing uncommon, nothing new; and, by prefixing the definite article το to the enumeration, he makes the whole a substantial unity, comprising the moral law of duty to one’s neighbour. Perhaps Christ confines his list to the second table in order to make the man feel his imperfection in these ordinary matters, or to bring out his self-righteous spirit. There could be no doubt that infringement of the first table involved the loss of eternal life. Matthew 19:17 virtually includes the spirit of this table. It was round these last six commandments chiefly that rabbinical traditions and interpretations had gathered, so that their plain meaning was obscured or depraved. Whoever observed the second table in spirit and truth, kept also the first (Romans 13:9, Romans 13:10); and it is easier to love one’s neighbour than to love God, as the apostle witnesses (see 1 John 4:20); and without love of our neighbour there cannot be true love of God. Matthew 19:19 Honour, etc. Lange considers that in this verse we have a summary of the two tables, "Honour thy father and mother," summing up the commandments of the first; and "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," those of the second (Le Matthew 19:18). Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. St. Mark and St. Luke omit this clause; the latter adds, "Defraud not." According to our text, Christ gives four negative and two positive commands: the last being a summary taken from Le Luke 19:18 (comp. Romans 13:9, Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:14). It has been questioned why our Lord omits the tenth commandment (as we call it) from the catalogue. Virtually he introduces it in Luke 19:21; but he may have refrained from formally mentioning it because covetousness was the ruler’s besetting sin, and the marked omission of this precept might force the man to reflect upon this failing, which would wreck his spiritual life. On the other hand, it may be that Christ is not intending to give an epitome of man’s duty; but affording merely an outline of the same, he naturally passes over some portion without special mention. Matthew 19:20 All these things have I kept [from my youth up]. The bracketed words are omitted in some good manuscripts, and by most modern editors; but they have high authority, and are found in most versions, and in the parallel passages of Mark and Luke. They accurately express the ruler’s view of his conduct. He could say without hesitation or mental reservation that he had scrupulously observed the duties of the Decalogue from the time that he knew right from wrong. Of course, we accuse one who could make such a statement of self-righteousness, of ignorance of the spirit of the Law which he claimed to have obeyed; and if one of us spoke thus presumptuously, we should rightly condemn him; we should say that outward service and legal notions of duty were of little worth, and could not secure eternal life. But our Lord treated the young man differently. He did not blame him as boastful and self-deceiving; he had no reproof for his seemingly presumptuous assertion; he recognized his simplicity, honesty, and sincerity, and St. Mark tells us that "Jesus beholding [looking upon, or into] him, loved him." He read the youth’s heart, saw how pure and guileless it was, recognized in him the possibility of great things, and that he was worthy of the saintly life. The ruler felt that there was more to come; hence he asks, What lack I yet? Τιἐìτιὑστερῶ; In what respect am I still deficient? How do I come short of eternal life? He had still a sense of want. All that he had done had not given him peace of mind. Hence his inquiry. From a Christian the question would savour of ignorance and unspirituality; but this man asked it in all sincerity, desiring earnestly to know what more was required of him, and being ready, as he thought, to undergo any pain, make any, even the most painful effort, if by so doing he might win the prize on which his soul was set. Matthew 19:21 If thou wilt (θελεις) be perfect. I believe what you tell me. You have led a religious life in the ordinary way; now yon aspire to higher things; you have a noble ambition to serve God more completely; yon have the power, if you have the will, to do so; I will tell you how. To be "perfect" is to be lacking in nothing that is required for life eternal. It is spoken of Noah and Job; it is required of Christ’s disciples (Matthew 5:48). Christ is here giving a counsel of perfection, as it is called, not of obligation on all men, but suited to the idiosyncrasy of this particular inquirer, and of others who are capable of such absolute self-surrender and trustfulness. Go and sell that thou hast. Go back to thy home, and sell all thy substance, all thy possessions. This was the counsel which Jesus gave, denoting the stumbling block which lay in the way of the ruler’s endeavours after perfection. He was voluntarily to deprive himself of the earthly thing to which he fondly clung, his wealth, and to embrace a life of poverty and hardship. Give to the poor. The money obtained by the sale of his possessions he was to distribute, not to relations and friends, who might make some return, but to the poor, from whom he could expect no recompense. And thou shalt have treasure in heaven (Matthew 5:12; Matthew 6:20). Thou shalt obtain that which thou desirest, eternal life. Not that stripping one’s self of goods and giving to the poor does necessarily ensure the great reward, but, in this youth’s case, such a sacrifice, such a victory over the besetting sin, would be the turning point in his character, and enable him to conquer all lesser temptations, and win the prize of his high calling. Here was to be proved love of man. But there was one more element in the required perfection, viz. love of God. Come and follow me. St Mark adds, "take up the cross." If he would have apostolic perfection, he must embrace the apostolic life. He must give up wealth, position, earthly ties, earthly occupations, must cast in his lot with the despised Jesus, suffer with him, and, if necessary, die with him. The twelve apostles had accepted Christ’s call on these terms; from him was demanded the same sacrifice the same test of sincerity. He had wished to be exceptionally good; exceptional conduct was required from him in order to reach this high standard. The condition imposed, severe as it undoubtedly was, exactly suited the case, showed the weak spot in the ruler’s character, and, if accepted fully and heartily, would have led him to perfection. Reading these words of our Lord, St. Anthony was so stricken in heart and conscience that he obeyed them literally, stripped himself of everything that he had, distributed to the needy, and went forth poor and naked, trusting to God to provide for him. Many in all ages, inspired by ardent love of life eternal, have done the same. We shall do well to recognize that there are two ways of serving God acceptably—there is the good life required from all religious Christians, and there is the life of perfection to which some, by God’s special grace, are called, and which they embrace and fulfil. It was the latter life that Christ put before this young man. Matthew 19:22 When the young man heard that saying. Such an injunction was wholly unexpected; it completely staggered him; it appealed to the one point in his character which was weak and imperfect. He would have endured any amount of legal requirements or of vexatious and painful observances; he would gladly have become a disciple of Christ; but the previous sacrifice was too great; he could not make it; not that he was specially covetous or avaricious, but his heart was set on his riches; he had a wealthy man’s tastes and position and self-confidence, and he could not bring himself to cast away these even at Christ’s word. Such supreme self-denial, such absolute devotion, he would not embrace. So he went away sorrowful. He saw the right road, but he turned away from it. Without any further word, casting aside all hope of the saintly life, yet grieved and dejected at the thought of what he was losing, he returned to his home. It was hard to disobey the wise and loving Teacher who had endeavoured to lead him to the noblest aims and the highest ambition; but it was harder to follow his severe counsels. The evangelist gives the reason of this unhappy decision. For he had great possessions; ἦνγαρἐìχωνκτηματαπολλα: erat enim habens multas possessiones; he was one that had many possessions, or had and continued to have, implying possession and retention (comp. Luke 5:18, "he continued in retirement"). This fact was the snare that trapped him, the stumbling block over which he fell. The possession of riches proved fatal to saintliness. It is this truth that our Lord emphasizes in the following discourse. They who tare unconscious of having been tried as this young man was tried may condemn him as worldly, covetous, and insincere. A true Christian, who knows his own heart, may well feel that he can throw no stone at this defaulter; that he, any more than the Jew, could not give up all that he held dear for Christ’s sake; that, bad the alternative been set before him in this blunt, palpable fashion, he too would have gone away sorrowful. Matthew 19:23-30 The dangers of riches and the blessings of self-denied. (Mark 10:23-31; Luke 18:24-30.) Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus. He derives an important lesson from the sad result of the above incident. St Luke connects it with what had just preceded: "When Jesus saw that he [the ruler] was very sorrowful, he said." It was a strange and most emphatic assertion, quite alien from general opinion and sentiment. A rich man shall hardly (δυσκολως, with difficulty) enter into the kingdom of heaven. Remembering that Christ had just invited the young ruler to range himself on his side and become his disciple, we see that the primary meaning of the term, "kingdom of heaven," here is the Christian Church, the society which Jesus came to establish. It was indeed difficult for a man wealthy, honoured, dignified, to strip himself of his riches and rank, and openly cast in his lot with the despised Jesus and his followers, voluntarily surrendering all that hitherto had made life beautiful and worth living. It is difficult for a rich man in any case to serve God acceptably, as Christ shows with reiterated emphasis. Matthew 19:24 Again I say unto you. The disciples, St. Mark notes, "were astonished at his words," so he proceeds to state the startling proposition more unreservedly and energetically. It is easier for a camel, etc. This is a proverbial expression for an impossibility. A similar proverb is found in many countries, only substituting another great animal instead of the camel, e.g. the elephant. From taking a too literal view of the passage, some commentators have invented a gate at Jerusalem, low and narrow, designed only for foot passengers, which was called "the needle’s eye." Others have remedied the supposed absurdity by reading καμιλος (if, indeed, there is such a word) "rope," for καμηλος, as if we were to say cable instead of camel. But there is no difficulty in the expression. Such hyperboles and paradoxes are common in all languages (comp. Matthew 23:24). The impossibility, indeed, is relative, but the warning is none the less real and terrible. The Lord says that the possession of riches prevents the owner from following him, and endangers his eternal salvation; for that is what it comes to. In St. Mark (whether the words are genuine or not is uncertain) we find a limitation introduced: "How hard it is for them that trust in riches!" Now, this is the effect of riches; men learn to trust in them, to deem that their earthly state is secure, that change and chance will not affect them, that they are, so to speak, independent of Providence; they love the world which is so good to them and so pleasant in their eyes, and they have no earnest longing for a better home. Such is the natural consequence of the possession of wealth, and that which makes the impossibility of entrance into the kingdom. Matthew 19:25 Exceedingly amazed. The stern teaching of Mat 19:23 and Matthew 19:24 thoroughly dismayed and perhaps offended them. Temporal prosperity had in their Law been held forth as the reward of righteousness and obedience, a foretaste of future happiness. They must unlearn this principle. Here, as they understood it, was a doctrine novel, unheard of, unnatural! Fancy the astonishment that would be displayed nowadays if such a sentiment were solemnly propounded in the Stock Exchange, the bank, the market! The apostles could not minimize its import, or say that it might suit other days and other states of society, but was inapplicable to their age and nation. We can do this in the case of many seemingly stringent requirements of the gospel; but they accepted the announcement in its full and simple meaning, and asked in sorrowful wonder, Who then can be saved? If the way to heaven is barred to the rich man, how shall the poor pass therein? The difficulty seemed to apply to everybody. All who are not rich are hoping and struggling to become rich, and therefore fall under the same category. If the apostles thought not of themselves in this question, they were grieved at the reflection that, under the circumstances, the majority of mankind were recklessly endangering their eternal salvation. With their views of a temporal kingdom, the apostles probably were thinking of their own prospects. Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them (ἐμβλεψας, looking upon them). He turned on his disciples a look full of earnestness, sympathy, and love, soothing their fears and claiming their full attention for a spiritual truth. With men (παραἀνθρωποις) this is impossible. Men in their own strength, relying on their own natural powers, cannot save their souls or rise superior to the snare of riches. From the entanglements occasioned by wealth, and the lowering effects of its pursuit and enjoyment, the natural man is wholly unable to extricate himself. With God all things are possible. Here is the only solution of the difficulty. With the grace of God, and embracing the calls of his providence, the rich man may be delivered from his dangers, may keep a heart unspotted, may use his wealth to God’s glory and his own eternal good. So the impossibility is a conditional one, to be overcome by due recourse to the help of God and the strong hope of the future life. How a rich man may be disciplined and elevated we see in the ease of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:8). Many such instances have occurred in our own days, as in all Christian times. Matthew 19:27 Then answered Peter. This was not so much a reply to any direct word of Jesus, as to the general purport of his late utterances. He had intimated that self-renunciation was the passport to eternal life; that a just reward awaited those who gave up all for Jesus’sake. This, Peter says, is exactly what the apostles had done. We have forsaken all, and followed thee. It was not much that they had left, but it was all they had, their whole means of subsistence, old habits, old associations, to which the poor cling as tenaciously as the wealthy. All this, at a simple word of Christ, they had relinquished unreservedly, without regret or complaint. They had reduced themselves to the condition which Christ had enjoined. What shall we have therefore? The question showed the usual ignorance of the nature of the kingdom of Messiah. Peter is thinking chiefly of temporal advancement and promotion, of success and dignity in an earthly realm. Even after their Master’s crucifixion and resurrection they had asked, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). It was not till after the effusion of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost that their imperfect view was corrected, and they understood what Christ meant when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world." But what a revulsion of feeling must have taken place in those who a few minutes before had despairingly thought that salvation was unattainable, and now asked what their reward would be for the sacrifices which they had made! The older commentators have regarded Peter’s inquiry as referring to eternal life after death, to which their acts had given them a claim. But it must be remembered that the Jews had very vague ideas about the beatified state in the other world, which, as many thought, was to be inaugurated at the close of the Messianic era, and which others put off indefinitely to the unknown day of judgment. It was never generally and popularly anything more than an uncertain hope, and was not regarded as a stimulant to life and action on earth. While, on the other hand, the terrestrial proceedings of the Messiah were a subject of the keenest expectation, and the ground of national aspirations. It is not probable that the apostles’ notions had at this time risen superior to the popular view. Peter’s question, therefore, was doubtless prompted by the national conception of Messiah’s reign. Matthew 19:28 Verily I say unto you. Christ does not reprove the apostle for his seemingly bold self-assertion, but, replying to Peter’s question, he gives a grand promise to him and his fellow disciples. Ye which have followed me, excluding all the half-hearted, the self-seeking, the Judaizers. In the regeneration (τῇπαλιγγενεσιᾳ). The word means "new birth," or "renovation, renewal." It occurs in Titus 3:15 in reference to baptism," through the washing [laver] of regeneration." It has been variously interpreted in the present passage. Some have connected it with the participle preceding, "ye who have followed me in the regeneration," and explained it to mean the reformation and spiritual renovation commencing with the preaching of John the Baptist, and carried on by the ministry of Christ. But more generally and correctly it is taken with what follows, Ye shall sit, etc. The meaning, however, is still disputed. Some say that the Christian dispensation is intended, and an intimation is given of the work of the apostles in the unseen world in directing and guarding the Church. But this seems hardly to satisfy the language of the promise. Others regard the term as signifying the resurrection, when the mortal shall put on immortality, and we shall be changed, remade, reconstituted. This is true; but it seems more suitable to refer the term to the new creation, the new heaven and the new earth spoken of by Isaiah (Isaiah 65:17) and by St. John (Revelation 21:12; cf. 2 Peter 3:10, 2 Peter 3:13); This is the reparation of the whole creation described by St. Paul (Romans 8:19, etc.), which is to take place at the great consummation, and which, remedying all the evils which sin has impressed on the material and spiritual world, on man and his habitation, may well be called new birth. This is the mysterious period when Christ’s promise shall be accomplished. Shall sit. It is not "when he shall come," but when he shall have taken his seat (ἐπι, with genitive) as Judge upon his glorious throne. Ye also (ὑμεῖς … καιὑμεῖς). The pronoun is repeated to give greater emphasis to the amazing assertion. Shall sit upon (καθισεσθεἐπι, with accusative); shall be promoted to, taken and placed upon. Twelve thrones. Judas forfeited his position; Matthias and Paul and Barnabas were afterwards added to the apostolic band; so that the number twelve must not be pressed as defining and limiting. Rather it expresses the completeness of the judicial body, regarding not so much the persons as the position of its members. With reference to papal claims, it may be observed that Peter has no pre-eminence here, no throne to himself; he merely shares with his colleagues in the session. The apostles and those who have been proved to be of like mind with them (for the number is not limited) shall be assessors with Christ, as in an earthly court, where the judge or the prince sits in the centre, and on either side of him are posted his councillors and ministers. Judging. So in Daniel we hear of thrones being placed, and judgment given to the saints (Daniel 7:9, Daniel 7:22); "Know ye not," says St. Paul (1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 6:3), "that the saints shall judge the world … that we shall judge angels?" (comp. Revelation 20:4). Of course, the great Judge is Christ himself. What part his assessors shall take is not revealed. The verb "judge" sometimes signifies "govern or direct," and perhaps may be here used to denote that the saints shall, in the new Messianic kingdom, be Christ’s vicegerents and exercise his authority. The twelve tribes of Israel. There is considerable difficulty in interpreting this portion of the promise. If it means that the beatified apostles shall judge the actual descendants of Abraham, then we must believe that the distinction between Jew and Gentile will be maintained in this regeneration—an opinion which seems to be opposed to other texts of Scripture (see 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:28, etc.). The judging in this case would be condemnation of them for not receiving the gospel. One does not see how this can be held forth as a great and happy reward, however high a position it may imply. More probably Israel means the spiritual Israel, or the whole body of the Church; and the number twelve (as above) imports the complete number of those who are to be judged. They who have followed Christ devotedly and sincerely, as his disciples, shall be placed next to him in his glory, shall have pre-eminence over all others, and be associated with him in assigning their due portion to all believers, or in governing the Church. Nothing is here said about the final judgment of unbelievers and heathen. Matthew 19:29 Every one that hath forsaken. The Lord extends the promise. Even those who have not risen to the utter self-sacrifice of apostles, who have not surrendered so much as they, shall have their reward, though nothing to be compared to the unspeakable recompense of the twelve. Houses … lands. Some manuscripts, followed by some modern editors, omit or wife, the omission being probably first made by some critical scribe, who deemed that a wife should never be left. The Lord enumerates the persons and objects upon which men’s hearts are most commonly and firmly fixed. He begins and ends the list with material possessions—houses and lands, and between them introduces in gradation the most cherished members of the family circle. "Forsaking wife and children" may be understood as abstaining from marriage in order the better to serve God. For my Name’s sake. In consequence of belief in Christ, rather than do despite to his grace, or in order to confess and follow him more completely. In times of persecution, under many different cases of pressure, or where his friends were heathens or infidels, a Christian might feel himself constrained to relinquish the dearest ties, to east off all old associations, to put himself wholly in God’s hands, freed from all worldly things; such a one should receive ample reward in the present life. An hundredfold. Some read "manifold," as in Luke 18:30. The spiritual relationship into which religion would introduce him largely compensates for the loss of earthly connections. He shall have brothers and sisters in the faith—hundreds who will show him the affection of father and mother, hundreds who will love him as well a s wife and children. And if he suffer temporal loss, this shall be made up by the charity of the Christian society, all whose resources are at his command, and he shall enjoy that peace and comfort of heart which no worldly possessions can give, and which are superior to all changes of fortune. And it may well be that the relief from the cares and distractions caused by wealth brings a hundredfold more real happiness than its possession ever supplied. "Godliness is profitable for all things, having the promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come" (1 Timothy 4:8). Everlasting life. The hope of future happiness is in itself sufficient to lighten and dissipate all earthly troubles, and to stimulate severest sacrifices. Matthew 19:30 Many that are first. This proverbial saying, which Christ uses more than once (see Matthew 20:16; Luke 13:30), is illustrated by the parable in the next chapter, and would be better placed at its commencement Here it conveys a warning that man’s estimation is liable to error, and it must not be thought that those who are first in privilege are therefore highest in God’s favour. The Lord may have had in view the case of Judas, who was an early apostle, and had the care of the bag, and fell by reason of covetousness; and that of one like St. Paul, who was called late, and yet laboured more abundantly than all that were before him. The application may be made with perfect truth to many professors of religion. The sanctity of marriage. I. WITH THE . 1. Work in Peraea. The Lord hath now finally left Galilee; the restless hostility of the Pharisees had driven him from the province in which at first he had met with such great success, and which was regarded as his own country. Judaea, too, was now unsafe for him. His hour was almost come; he would work while it was day; but he would not expose himself to unnecessary danger before the time appointed. Peraea was for a short season open to him; it was less overspread by Pharisaic influence than Galilee or Judaea. He would work there while he might. Multitudes followed him, and he healed them there. The Lord is an example of patience and perseverance; he would not throw up his work in weariness and disgust, as men too often do when they meet with failure and opposition. He neglected no opening for work, no opportunity of preaching the blessed gospel. Oh that we might imitate him in this as in all things’! 2. The question of the Pharisees. They found him, even in Peraea; they followed him everywhere during the latter part of his ministry with their ensnaring questions and malicious persecutions. And now they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife forevery, cause?" It was common to consult great teachers on points of controversy; but this question was not asked honestly; they were tempting him, seeking to entangle him in his talk, to bring him into collision with one or other of the two great schools, or with Herod Antipas himself, the ruler of the country in which they were. The famous Hillel had taught that divorce was allowable for any cause; Shammai, that it was lawful only in the case of adultery. Herod was guilty of shameful violations of the law of marriage, and had murdered the holy Baptist, who rebuked him for his sin. The Lord had taught the strict view of marriage in his sermon on the mount; would he dare to maintain the same doctrine in the dominions of Herod? The Pharisees seemed to ask for information; they had malice and envy in their hearts. Controversy is full of danger to the soul; those who are called to engage in it ought to look most carefully into their own consciences to see that their motives are pure and good. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 20:1-16 Parable of the labourers in the vineyard. (Peculiar to St. Matthew.) Matthew 20:1 For. The following parable is intended to illustrate the apophthegm at the end of the last chapter, which is repeated almost in the same words at the close, "Many that are first," etc., and "The last shall be first," etc. It taught the apostles a lesson in answer to Peter’s question (Matthew 19:27), "What shall we have therefore?" and the primary lesson was that the reward of the kingdom is not of debt, but of grace. There are many difficulties in the parable, which may be better noticed after we have expounded its literal bearing and details. The kingdom of heaven is like. That is, what happens in the kingdom of heaven is parallel to the case of a householder, etc. The kingdom of heaven is the Church of Christ, whether militant on earth (when the labourers are hired) or triumphant in heaven (when the reward is bestowed). We may refer to Matthew 13:24, Matthew 13:45, where an analogous comparison is found. Early in the morning (ἁìμαπρωι); i.e. at the end of the last night watch (see on Matthew 13:3), wishing to secure labourers, who at vintage time were probably in great request. Vineyard. The Church is elsewhere so called by our Lord (Matthew 21:28, Matthew 21:33, etc.), and in the Old Testament (see Psalms 80:8; Isaiah 5:1; Jeremiah 12:10). Matthew 20:2 When he had agreed with the labourers. With those first hired he makes a special agreement for the pay of the day’s work; with the others he acts differently. For a penny a day (ἐκηηναριουτηραν). The denarius (always translated "a penny" in our version) was a silver coin about equal in value to the French franc, but of course in its buying capacities worth in those days a great deal more. We learn from Tacitus (’Annal.,’ 1.17) that it was the usual pay of a Roman soldier. It was equivalent to the Greek drachma, which Tobit (5:14) offered to Azarias as daily wages. Our rendering of "a penny" conveys a very erroneous impression to unlearned hearers, both in this passage and in other places where it occurs. Matthew 20:3 The third hour. It seems that at this time the Jews divided the day, reckoned between sunrise and sunset, into twelve equal parts, the length of these divisions varying according to the season. The day in Palestine at longest consisted of fourteen European hours twelve minutes, and at shortest of nine hours forty-eight minutes, so that the difference between the longest and shortest division of the so called Jewish "hour" was twenty-two minutes. It is usual to consider the Hebrew day as lasting from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., the sixth hour corresponding to our noon, the first hour being 7 o’clock and the third 9 a.m. This estimate, though not absolutely correct, is near enough to the fact to serve all expository purposes. The four periods mentioned in the parable are quarters of the working day, in which a proportional part of the day’s wages might be earned. Standing idle in the marketplace. The Greek agora, the Roman forum, and the Eastern marketplace, was the usual place where idlers and expectant labourers gathered together. Such a scene may often nowadays be witnessed in Oriental cities, and indeed at our own docks, and in many of our small country towns. It must be supposed that the labourers now hired either were not present when the householder first went forth, or that they had then rejected his offer, but now thought better of it. And so, in the case of the others later on. Matthew 20:4 Ye also; implying that he had already set some to work at fixed wages. Whatsoever is right (δικαιον); just and fair. He offers these no definite sum as remuneration, assuring them only that he will deal equitably with them; i.e. doubtless, according to their view, that he will give them three quarters of a day’s wages, paying them pro rata. But at the end he treats them much more generously. Lightfoot notes that the Talmudists had tracts on the payment and regulation of labourers, and in their canons distinguished between being hired for a day and for some hours. They went their way, quite satisfied to leave their remuneration to the householder, with whom probably they were acquainted. Matthew 20:5 Sixth and ninth hour. At midday and 3 p.m., which would give respectively about half a day’s and a quarter of a day’s work. Matthew 20:6 The eleventh hour; the hour before sunset, say about 5 p.m., leaving only one hour for work, when it would be most unusual to engage labourers. Idle. The word is omitted in some manuscripts. There is some reproach in the master’s question. Where were they earlier in the day, when he was hiring labourers for his vineyard? Why were they not in the marketplace, like their comrades, looking out for employment? Such questions, like many, others in the parable, are left unanswered. We see from the universal use of the term, "the eleventh hour," to express the close of the day of grace, how widely has prevailed the interpretation of the parable which applies it to the various stages of the life of the individual. (See on this below.) Matthew 20:7 No man hath hired us. A poor excuse, because, had they been at their post earlier, work would have been offered them. Go ye also into the vineyard. The householder accepts the excuse, and, now that they are desiring to labour, engages them as the others, promising to give them what is fair. Their present willingness seems to compensate for their previous tardiness. The clause, "whatsoever is right," etc., is omitted by some good manuscripts, the Vulgate, and other versions. Thus no mention of reward is made to these—they were satisfied by being employed at all. Matthew 20:8 When even was come. According to Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 24:15), a hired labourer was to be paid his wages at sunset, i.e. at the twelfth hour. Steward. The lord himself is said to have hired the labourers, but he commits the payment of them to his steward, as his representative, to whom such matters of detail were entrusted. From the last. Those last hired were first to receive their hire (τονμισθον), that which it had been agreed to pay them, in one case "a penny," in the others "that which was just." Why the last are rewarded first is one of the difficulties of the parable. To say that this is done because in their one hour’s work they did more than all the rest, is a solution which is supported by nothing in the story itself. It should, in the primary interpretation, rather be conceived as depending on the lord’s good pleasure. Matthew 20:9 They received every man a penny. The steward, of course, was acting according to his master’s instructions (though nothing is said of any previous orders on the subject) when he thus bounteously remunerated those that had been hired at the eleventh hour. Some commentators have endeavoured to show that the "penny" allotted to each set differed greatly in value; but this is an unwarrantable conjecture, and it is indispensable to the purport of the parable that the wages should be alike to all. Matthew 20:10 They supposed that they should have received more. The text varies between πλεῖον (plus, Vulgate) and πλειονα, the former implying "a greater sum" than the stated hire, the latter hinting indefinitely at "more" things, more in number. Seeing the liberal payment given to the others, they expected some increase in the wages offered to themselves, or an additional remuneration of some kind. Matthew 20:11 They murmured. They complained aloud of the injustice to which, as they thought, they were subjected. This is one of those traits in the parable which, whatever its spiritual meaning may be, is most natural and life like. Matthew 20:12 These last have wrought but one hour; μιανὡìρανἐπσιησαν: una hora fecerunt (Vulgate); have spent but one hour (Revised Version). The verb ποιεῖν is used with nouns of time in the sense of "spend," "pass," as in Rth 2:19; Acts 15:33, etc. They speak of the late workers contemptuously (οὑτοιοἱἐìσχατοι), "these fellows who are last." They do not allow that they laboured—they "made" one hour nominally. Equal unto us. Bengel notes, "Envy does not demand more for itself, but wishes that others should have less." Their complaint is that others who have worked less are not docked of their wages in due proportion. Burden and heat of the day; τοβαροςτῆςἡμεραςκαιτονκαυσωνα: the burden of the day and the scorching heat (Revised Version). The latter word is used for the hot dry wind which, blowing from the east, was fatal to vegetation and prejudicial to human comfort, if not to life. The remonstrance of these men may be compared with that of the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:29, Luke 15:30). They how somewhat of the spirit of the apostles when they asked, "What shall we have therefore?" (Matthew 19:27). Matthew 20:13 He answered one of them. The Lord condescended to show, not to all the labourers, but to one of them—the ringleader probably—the futility of the ground of his murmur. Christ often explains himself to his friends, while he refuses further elucidation to enemies and the hardened. Friend (ἑταῖρε). Not a term of affection, or special good will, but one of indifference, addressed to an inferior. It was the word used to Judas (Matthew 26:50) when he came to betray his Lord, "Friend, wherefore art thou come?" I do thee no wrong. The labourer had really nothing to complain of in strict justice; he had received the full amount of the stipulated wages. But he very naturally felt that he had not been fairly dealt with. He would say to himself, "If one hour’s work, and that in the cool of the evening, is deemed worth a penny, surely a whole day’s labour, in the full heat of the sun, ought to deserve a higher remuneration." The difficulty here must be felt by every one. Nor is the master’s solution perfect; it would scarcely commend itself to the dissatisfied murmurer. And doubtless it is not intended to be complete. Matthew 20:14 Take that thine is; thine own. Take your agreed wages, and go; there is nothing more to be said. I will (θελωδε) give; but it is my will to give. The lord defends his conduct on the ground that such is his will and pleasure. By it he injures nobody, he benefits many; who should presume to censure him? Matthew 20:15 With mine own; ἐντοῖςἐμοῖς: in the case of what is mine own. These words are omitted by the Vulgate, which has, Aut (ἠÌ) non licet mihi quod volo facere? Is thine eye evil? The evil eye is here expressive of envy, as Proverbs 28:22. The Latin word invidia, Cicero informs us (’Tusc. Disp..’ Proverbs 3:9), "ductum est a nimis intuendo fortunam alterius." For nimis Bentley conjectures limis, "with sidelong glances." The idea is the same, envy being indicated by the look of the eye. Good; generous. Why should you view with disfavour my liberality? The master says no more; he gives no further account of his determination. Matthew 20:16 So the last, etc. The parable concludes with the saying with which it began (Matthew 19:30), but with some inversion in the order of the words. There it was, "Many first shall be last; and last first;" here it is, The last shall be first, and the first last. The circumstances of the parable necessitate this change. The last called were first paid, and were equal to the first in recompense; the first were behind the others in time of payment, and in the spirit with which they received their wages; they were also treated with less generosity than the others. For many be called … chosen (Matthew 22:14). This clause is omitted by à, B, and other manuscripts; but it has good authority, and is most probably genuine. It is added in explanation or justification of the preceding statement. From not seeing its applicability, and regarding it as opposing the intention of the parable, some transcribers and some editors have expunged it from the text. But it would seem that Christ takes occasion from the particular case in the parable to make a general statement, that not all who are called would receive reward; because many would not answer the call, or would nullify it by their conduct; not, as Theophylact says, that salvation is limited, but men’s efforts to obtain it are feeble or negative. In other words, many outwardly members of the kingdom of God are unworthy of, and shall not share in, its spiritual blessings. Chosen. Many, that is virtually all, are chosen; but there is an election within the election, and they only who are of this inner circle shall be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. The interpretation of the parable.—As in all parables, so here, we are to regard the general scope, and not lay too much stress on details, which often, while adding to the vividness of the picture, contribute nothing to its spiritual side. The explanation of this difficult parable has greatly exercised the minds of commentators in all ages of the Church, and various have been the views with which its bearing has been regarded. We may, however, select two expositions which seem to embody most of the suggestions advanced, and are in themselves most reasonable. The first considers it as of individual application—the call of God coming to the soul at different ages of life. Thus the householder is God, the marketplace the world, the vineyard the visible Church, the labourers are men who have to do their work therein, the steward is Christ, who superintends and rewards the faithful workers. The hours of the day represent the various periods of men’s life at which they hear and answer God’s call to a closer walk with him, when, as modern theology terms it, they are converted. Some, at the first hour, from their very infancy, live a pure and holy life; some at the third hour, in early youth, begin to serve God effectually; others at midday, in full maturity; others at the ninth hour, when old age is creeping on them; and lastly others obey the call only at the eleventh hour, at the very approach of death. And all who have laboured at all, without regard to the length of service, receive the "penny," i.e. not some indefinite temporal benefit, but eternal life, which in a general sense (without considering the difference of degrees which shall exist) is the same for all. The apparent unfairness of this recompense, if we take a merely human view of the transaction, is obvious. They who have lived a life of holiness, and they who have given to God only the dregs of their ill-spent days, receive the same salvation. The difficulty is removed in two ways. We may say that the capacity for receiving and enjoying the reward depends ca the recipient, and that what to one would be infinite bliss and satisfaction, to another would offer far inferior enjoyment. Or we may take refuge in the mysteriousness of God’s arrangements, and hold that the considerations in accordance with which God apportions his rewards are known only to him, and are truly, and are intended to be, beyond human understanding. Further, if the hours represent the stages of human life at which Christians are called, surely, to make the parable concinnous, they ought to be the same persons who are invited on each occasion, not different ones. We should be told, not that the householder found others wanting work, and sent all thus found into the vineyard; but that some of those called at the various hours refused the work and scoffed at his offer, while others after a time accepted it, and at the approach of the night all the idle remnant consented to labour, thankful at last to win wages for little trouble. But the parable says nothing of all this, and would need much alteration to make it speak so. There is another difficulty which has to be met, if the above interpretation is adopted. How are we to explain the murmuring of the discontented labourers? There can be no envy and displeasure in heaven. It is not conceivable that any who have obtained the gift of eternal life should be dissatisfied with their reward or jealous of others. This is not a mere accessory which is outside the spirit of the story, and adds no item to its mystical signification; it is really the leading feature, and the householder’s own interference and reproof are based entirely on this behaviour of the first called. If the "penny" signifies eternal life, and the labourers are all the called, there is no satisfactory explanation of this part of the parable. The murmur is heard after the reception of the reward, and is censured accordingly; these things could not be found in the Church triumphant; none can murmur there; if they did feel envy and discontent, they would not be worthy of a place in the kingdom. Therefore another interpretation must be advanced which will allow the proper importance to this detail of the parable. The only one that does this is that which gives a national, not simply an individual, bearing to the story. According to this exposition, it applies to the calling of the Jews and the Gentiles, though there are still particulars which do not entirely or without some violence suit the application. The "penny" which all receive is the favour of God, the privileges that crown and reward the members of his kingdom. God’s ancient people were first called to work in his vineyard. The various hours of the day cannot be accurately explained. Many interpreters follow St. Gregory in defining the first hour as extending from Adam to Noah, the third from Noah to Abraham, the sixth from Abraham to Moses, the ninth from Moses to the coming of Christ, the eleventh from the coming of Christ to the end of the world. During all the day, up to the eleventh hour, the call was confined to the Jews and their progenitors; in the eleventh hour the Gentiles are called, and, accepting the call, receive the same privileges as the Jews. It is better to forego any attempt to interpret the various hours and the various sets of labourers definitely, except to observe that the first called, with whom a covenant was made, plainly represent the Jews, the people called under the covenant of works, who were to be rewarded according to their service; the other workers are not paid stipulated wages; they receive ("I will give") reward of free grace in accordance with God’s inscrutable appointment. That the Jews murmured at the admission of the Gentiles to the kingdom of God and the Father’s favour, we are taught in many places. The discontent of the elder brother in the parable of the prodigal son is a case in point. So in Acts 13:45, Acts 13:46, the Jews are filled with envy that the Word should be spoken to and accepted by heathens, and St. Paul (1 Thessalonians 2:16) complains that the Jews forbade him and his fellow apostles "to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved." Our Lord looks forward to and prepares his disciples for this envious and ungenerous behaviour, as he continually teaches that the gospel is for all men everywhere, confined to no people or country, but free as the air of heaven or the light of the all-fostering sun. These Gentiles are the last in time, but by their willing service and obedience in the faith are made first; while God’s ancient people, once the first, become by their jealousy and hatred of others the last. "There (ἐκεῖ) shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God" (Luke 13:28, Luke 13:29). This momentous change in the relation of the peculiar people to the rest of the world was thus foretold and prepared for. And the lesson ends with the mournful fact, read by the eye of the Omniscient, that though virtually all the Jews were called, yet but a small remnant will accept the gospel—the elect of grace, a little flock. By this parable, regarded in its primary application as a reply to Peter’s question (Matthew 19:27), "What shall we have therefore?" the apostles are warned that they are not to expect as their due something supereminent over those called later than themselves; that the reward is not of merit, but of free grace. This last thought pervades the whole similitude, and must be borne carefully in mind, whether we take the individual, or the national, or any other mixed interpretation. Matthew 20:17-19 Third and fuller prediction of Jesus’sufferings and death. (Mark 10:32-34; Luke 18:31-34.) Matthew 20:17 Going up. This is the usual expression for travelling to the capital, and was particularly appropriate to a journey to Jerusalem, which was set among hills. This last journey of the Redeemer was indeed a steep ascent, the end of which was Calvary. Took (παρελαβε, took to himself)… apart (κατἰδιαν). He was accompanied by many followers, but what he had now to impart was not intended to be divulged to all, but was reserved for the chosen twelve. The mass could not have heard it without offence. In the way. The Vulgate omits these words. The Revised Version, on good authority, alters the received order, reading, and in the way he said unto them. Thus Christ prepared the apostles for the coming time of trial, after they had shown fuller faith in his Godhead. Matthew 20:18 Behold. This exclamation would seem to indicate that the events predicted were very near at hand, as it were, already in sight. Shall be betrayed; παραδοθησεται: shall be delivered; the same word as in the next verse. God "spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all" (Romans 8:32). The special agent of this betrayal is not here named. Of his future crime, Judas, one of the twelve, had probably no thought, the devil not having yet put it into his heart. The chief priests (see on Matthew 16:21). Shall condemn him. This was the act of the Sanhedrin, who could doom, but could not execute (John 18:31). The announcement of his death and resurrection had already been made at least twice before—once after Peter’s great confession (Matthew 16:21), and again at the Transfiguration. Matthew 20:19 The Gentiles. Pilate and the Romans (Matthew 27:2). This fact would show the treatment he was to expect, and the death he was to die. To mock, and to scourge (see Matthew 27:26, Matthew 27:28-30). To crucify. This is the first time that Jesus distinctly announced his death by crucifixion. The fact of his death he had impressed upon his apostles, but the mode had. not been mentioned; such an unexpected, awful, and ignomiuious close was incredible. and needed special preparation ere it could be received as true. Intimations, indeed, of such a death had been given darkly, when his disciples were told that they must take up the cross and follow him, or when he spoke of being "lifted up" like the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14); but his words were not understood; they fell upon ears prejudiced to a certain erroneous conviction, which events alone could eradicate. He shall rise again (see on Matthew 16:21). It seems to us almost incredible that, after all that Christ said here and elsewhere, his resurrection should have come upon his followers as a surprise which they could not believe without tangible proof. But when we read of their dulness and unbelief; we are constrained to admire the candour and sincerity of narrators, who record such facts to their discredit without evasion or apology. As St. Luke says, "They understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Matthew 20:20-28 Ambitious request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Mark 10:35-45.) Matthew 20:20 Then. The incident seems to have arisen from the promise of the twelve thrones in Matthew 19:28, and is significant as showing how utterly misunderstood was the true nature of the Messianic kingdom. The mother of Zebedee’s children. The mother of James and John was named Salome; she had left her husband Zebedee (Mark 1:20) in Galilee (unless, as is more probable from the terms in which she is introduced, he was now dead), and followed Jesus in the band of holy women who attended on him and ministered to him of their substance. Some have thought that she was the sister of the Virgin Mary, so interpreting John 19:25. St. Mark makes the two apostles present their own request; and doubtless they put their mother forward, coming with her to the presence of Jesus, and using her agency in this somewhat delicate matter. Our evangelist was present on the occasion, and his precision may be relied on in this detail. Worshipping him. Making the customary prostration before a superior. A certain thing (τι). She did not at first make any definite request, but endeavoured to get Jesus to promise to grant her what she asked. According to St. Mark, the sons say plainly, "We would that thou shouldest do for us whatever we shall desire." Thus Bathsheba addressed David. "I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay" (1 Kings 2:20). Salome is plainly intending to ask some great thing. Matthew 20:21 What wilt thou. Jesus will make no unconditional promise; he compels her to formulate her petition. Grant; εἰπε: command. These my two sons. She points to them, as they stood or knelt behind her. May sit … in thy kingdom. The right and left hand would be the places occupied by those next to the sovereign in dignity and consideration. There is here no thought of St. Peter’s pre-eminence. The petition was urged at this moment, because it was felt that a great crisis was at hand. This visit to Jerusalem must have momentous results; here Jesus was about to set up his throne; now was the moment to secure the highest places in his court. He had announced his death; he had also announced his glory; they balanced one declaration against the other, and seized on that which was most consonant to their national prejudices and their own ambitious views. Probably they interpreted the unintelligible resurrection to mean the establishment of the kingdom of Messiah (Luke 19:11). If this was imminent, no time was to be lost in making their claims known. So thought the "sons of thunder," and acted with energy and haste. Matthew 20:22 Ye know not what ye ask. Jesus addresses, not the mother, but the two brothers who had prompted and virtually made the request. They indeed merited a rebuke for their preposterous demand; but the Saviour deals mildly with them. They had spoken ignorantly, perhaps fancying that some favour might be shown to them on the ground of their relationship to the Virgin Mary, or because of their nearness to Jesus, and certainly not in the least realizing the nature of the kingdom, the qualifications of its inheritors, or the difficulties that have to be surmounted by those who would win eminent positions therein. Things that we deem most desirable would often be the very worst for our spiritual progress; and in praying for really good things, we are apt to forget to count the cost we must pay for their attainment. Jesus sets before the ambitious brethren the obstacles that would meet them. Are ye able to drink of the cup? Joy and sorrow, blessing and affliction, in Holy Scripture are often denoted under the metaphor of a cup (comp. Psalms 11:6; Psalms 23:5; Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15). Here the cup signifies the internal, mental, and spiritual sufferings which Christ endured (Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42). That I shall drink of; ὁÌ ἐγωμελλωπινειν: which I am about to drink; or am purposing to drink. Christ expresses his voluntary intention of suffering bitterly, and asks if they are prepared to do the same. To he baptized, etc. The baptism is significant of the external pains and persecutions, in the sea of which he was to be sunk (comp. Psalms 69:2, Psalms 69:15). The cup and the baptism adumbrate the two sacraments by which we are made one with Christ. Many of the best manuscripts, the Vulgate and other versions, omit this last clause, and the corresponding one in the following verse; and many modern editors, with the Revised Version, expunge it also. It is supposed to have been introduced from the parallel passage in St. Mark. There it is undoubtedly genuine; so we have good warrant to believe that our Lord spoke the words, whether St. Matthew really reported them or not. We are able. They came forward now and answered in simplicity, not understanding that to which they pledged themselves. They loved their Master, they knew that trials awaited him, and they were willing to share his lot. Ere long they were put to the proof, and in the end came out victorious. Matthew 20:23 Ye shall indeed drink, etc. Jesus accepts their venture of faith, and prophesies its fulfilment. St. James first shared in Christ’s baptism of blood, being murdered by Herod (Acts 12:2). He was a martyr in will and deed. St. John did not, indeed, undergo a violent death, but he stood by the cross and felt his Master’s sufferings; he lived a long life of persecution, banishment, and distress; he saw all his companions drop off one by one, till in extreme old age he was left solitary, with nothing to comfort him but the memory of vanished years, and the hope of an eternal future. Truly he was a martyr in will, if not in deed. The story that he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil by Nero’s command, and that, coming forth unhurt, he was afterwards banished to Patmos, is one which, except as regards the banishment, has not. been accepted by modern criticism. The event is mentioned by Tertullian (’De Praescript.,’ 36.), Jerome (’Adv. Jovin.,’ 1.26; and ’Comm. in Matthew’ Matthew 20:27), and is commemorated in the Church Calendar on May 6, under the title of "S. Joh. ante Port. Lat.;" but it appears to have been a legend that first appeared in Tertullian’s work, and was copied from him by other writers without examination. Is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom (ἀλλοἶς) it is prepared. The Authorized Version inserts δοθησεται; the Revised," But it is for them for whom it hath been prepared." The Vulgate has, Non est meum dare vobis, sed quibus paratum est a Patre meo. Probably ἀλλα here is equivalent to εἰμη, as in Matthew 17:8 and Mark 9:8, and means "except," "unless." The Lord does not mean that he was not able to give it, if so he thought fit, or that the boon was solely at his Father’s bestowal, not his (which he might have said, speaking in his human nature). What he affirms is this: The prize is awarded, not by favour or on any earthly considerations, but by absolute justice, and only to those who prove themselves worthy to receive it. Christ assigns to the Father the revelation of mysteries and the election to eternal life (see Matthew 11:26; Matthew 16:17). It is prepared; it hath been prepared (Matthew 25:34), according to certain impartial laws ordained by God, who is no respecter of persons. "The throne," says St. Bernard, "is the price of toils, not a grace granted to ambition; a reward of righteousness, not the concession of a request." Matthew 20:24 Were moved with indignation against (περι); concerning. "The ambition of one creates envy in others who partake of the same feeling" (I. Williams). The displeasure of the ten arose from their sharing in the ambitious desires which had prompted the request of the brothers. Peter does not appear prominently here, as guarding the position which Romanists assign to him. Matthew 20:25 Called them unto him. The two had stood apart when they made their request, but the ten had overheard it, or judged of its nature from Christ’s answer and their own feelings. Jesus now gathers them all round him, and gives them a lesson which they all needed, first, concerning worldly greatness and pre-eminence, and secondly (Matthew 20:26), concerning Christian greatness and pre-eminence. Ye know. He appeals to common experience. Exercise dominion over them; i.e. over the Gentiles. Κατακυριευουσιν, lord it over—significant of an absolute and oppressive domination. Exercise authority upon them; i.e. over the Gentiles (κατεξουσιαξουσιν); use authority harshly and severely. The heathen, when they are raised to pre-eminence, employ their power cruelly and in order to gain their own ends and purposes, and aspire to superiority only with such objects in view. Such ambition is essentially a heathen passion, and wholly alien from the spirit of Christ. Matthew 20:26 It shall not be so among you. There is good authority for reading "is" instead of "shall be." The new order of things was already prepared. In Messiah’s kingdom a contrary rule holds good. There the governors rule solely for the good of the flock, with no self-seeking, and serving no private interests. Whosoever will be (ὁÌςἐανθελη … γενεσθαι: whosoever would fain become) great among you … minister (διακονος). Taking for granted that there will be ranks and gradations of office in the Church, Christ lays down the rule that men become governors therein in order that they may serve their brethren, be the ministers of those who are subject to them. So the pope, in his official documents, with a verbally proper humility, terms himself, "Servus servorum Dei." Matthew 20:27 Whosoever will be (θελῃ … εἶναι) chief (first, πρῶτος)… servant (bondservant, δοῦλος). The characteristic of the Christian ruler should be humility. Christ enforces the teaching of the previous verse more emphatically by altering the terms in which it was stated. "Great" now becomes "first;" "minister," "slave." Of these two last words the former would imply rather occasional service, to meet some temporary call; the latter, the regular business of a slave bound to his master at all times. We do not gather from this passage that the Christian minister, called by God, is to take his doctrine from his congregation, or to be directed by them in his labours; but he is to devote time, talents, faculties, to the good of his flock, to spend and be spent in their service, to let no private interests or pursuits interfere with his manifold duties to those whom he oversees. The same sentiment is found in Matthew 23:11. Matthew 20:28 Even as. Christ adduces his own example as a pattern of profound humility. To minister. By his incarnation Christ assumed the lowliest life of man. He took upon himself the form of a servant, and was ever active in ministering to others’ wants, going about doing good, healing the sick, cleansing lepers, casting out demons; always accessible, sympathetic, merciful; never weary of teaching, however fatigued in body; a servant to the race which he came to save. A ransom for many; λυτρονἀντιπολλῶν: instead of many. The crowning example of his humility is that he gave his life as a ransom for the souls of men. This is the atonement, the sacrificial act, which (as the Mosaic sacrifices did in a partial and temporary manner) reconciled God and man. Whatever may be the way in which this atonement acts on the Divine mind, the expression here shows that it was vicarious and propitiatory, energizing, not by example, as an effort of superhuman self-denial, courage, and patience, but by an inherent power, as mysterious as it is efficacious. We can only say that, being the act of one who is God, its effects must necessarily be incomprehensible and infinite. The difficulties that beset this doctrine are increased by the fact that Jesus himself says little about the atoning nature of his sufferings and death—a topic which would not at this time have been properly received by friends or enemies, the former refusing to credit his approaching death, the latter being totally unable to conceive how such death could supersede Jewish sacrifices and reconcile the whole world to God (Sadler). Christ certainly died for all, as St. Paul says, "He gave himself a ransom for all (ἀντιλυτρονὑπερπαντων)" (1 Timothy 2:6), but all do not accept the offered salvation; hence arise the two expressions, "all" and "many," referring to the same object; "not," as an old Father says, "that salvation is limited, but men’s efforts to obtain it are limited." The same expression was used by our Lord at the Last Supper, when he said, "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28). A comparison of the passages in which the death of Christ is connected with the salvation of men would show a similar interchange of terms, depending on the view which the writer is taking of the doctrine, whether an objective one or a subjective. In the former case we may cite Romans 5:15; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:2; in the latter, Romans 3:25, Romans 3:26; Ephesians 5:2. Matthew 20:29-34 Healing of two blind men at Jericho. (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43.) The miracle narrated in this passage is common to the three synoptists, but with some remarkable differences, not one of them agreeing altogether in details. St. Matthew speaks of two blind men, St. Luke and St. Mark of one only, and the latter mentions this one by name as Bartimaeus. St. Matthew and St. Mark make the miracle performed as Jesus quitted Jericho; St. Luke assigns it to the approach to the city. Thus the number of the cured and the locality of the miracle are alike variously stated. It is an easy solution to say, with St. Augustine, Lightfoot, and Greswell, that two, or perhaps three, distinct facts are here related; and it is not absolutely impossible. though altogether improbable, that in the same locality, under identical circumstances, like sufferers made the same request, and received the same relief in the same manner. But we are not driven to this extravagant hypothesis; and the unity of the narrative can be preserved without doing violence to the language of the writers. As to the number of the blind men, we have seen the same discrepancy in the case of the demoniacs at Gadara solved by supposing that one of the two was the more remarkable and better known than the other. Hence, in this incident, the tradition followed by some of the synoptists preserved the memory of this one alone, who may have become known in the Christian community as a devoted follower of Jesus, the other passing into obscurity and being heard of no more. Another hypothesis is that a single blind man first addressed Christ as he entered Jericho, but was not cured at that time. Jesus passed that night in the city at the house of Zacchreus (Luke 19:1-10); and on the morrow, when leaving Jericho, was again entreated by the blind man, who meantime had been joined by a companion, and healed them both. There are other solutions offered, e.g. that there were two Jerichos—an old and a new town—and that one blind man was healed as they entered one city, dud the other as they left the other; or that the term rendered "was come nigh" (Luke 18:35) might mean "was nigh," and might therefore apply to one who was leaving as well as to one entering the city. But we weary ourselves in vain in seeking to harmonize every little detail in the Gospel narratives. No two, much less three, independent witnesses would give an identical account of an incident, especially one which reached some of them only by hearsay. Inspiration extends not to petty circumstances, and the credibility of the gospel depends not on the rectification of such minutiae. Matthew 20:29 Jericho. The Lord was on his way to Jerusalem to meet the death which he was willing to undergo, and to win the victory which he was by this path to accomplish. His route lay through Jericho, as the march of his forerunner Joshua had led. Joshua had set forth to conquer the promised land; Jesus sets forth to win his promised inheritance by the sword of the Spirit. "The upland pastures of Peraea were now behind them," says Dr. Geikie, speaking of the approach to Jericho (’The Life of Christ,’ 2.384), "and the road led down to the sunken channel of the Jordan, and the ’divine district’ of Jericho. This small but rich plain was the most luxuriant spot in Palestine. Sloping gently upwards from the level of the Dead Sea, 1350 feet under the Mediterranean, to the stern background of the hills of Quarantana, it had the climate of Lower Egypt, and displayed the vegetation of the tropics. Its fig trees were pre-eminently famous; it was unique in its growth of palms of various kinds: its crops of dates were a proverb; the balsam plant, which grew principally here, furnished a costly perfume, and was in great repute for healing wounds; maize yielded a double harvest; wheat ripened a whole month earlier than in Galilee, and innumerable bees found a paradise in the many aromatic flowers and plants, not a few unknown elsewhere, which filled the air with odours and the landscape with beauty. Rising like an amphitheatre from amidst this luxuriant scene, lay Jericho, the chief place east of Jerusalem, at seven or eight miles distant from the Jordan, on swelling slopes, seven hundred feet above the bed of the river, from which its gardens and groves, thickly interspersed with mansions, and covering seventy furlongs from north to south, and twenty from east to west, were divided by a strip of wilderness. The town had had an eventful history. Once the stronghold of the Canaanites, it was still, in the days of Christ, surrounded by towers and castles. A great stone aqueduct of eleven arches brought a copious supply of water to the city, and the Roman military road ran through it. The houses themselves, however, though showy, were not substantial, but were built mostly of sun-dried bricks, like those of Egypt; so that now, as in the similar case of Babylon, Nineveh, or Egypt, after long desolation, hardly a trace of them remains." A great multitude. A vast crowd of pilgrims, bound for Jerusalem to keep the Passover, accompanied Jesus and his disciples. The number of people that this great festival attracted to the central place of worship seems to us incredibly large. Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ 6.9. 3) reckons them at three millions. Doubtless our Lord was followed by many of those whom he had benefited, and others whom he had won by his teaching; and these, at any rate, would witness the ensuing miracle. Matthew 20:30 Two blind men. St. Matthew is doubtless accurate in this statement. Tradition might easily drop one of the sufferers in the course of time, but it is not likely to have multiplied one into two. These sufferers had heard of the miracles of healing performed by Jesus in his various circuits, and especially of the late cure at Jerusalem of one born blind, and they were ready to believe in his power and to profit by his mercy. Heard. The beggars (Mark 10:46), debarred from sight, had their attention aroused by the tread of numerous feet, and the voices of the excited crowd, and naturally asked the bystanders to tell them what it all meant. When they heard that Jesus was there, the hope of relief immediately rushed into their mind. Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David! "O Lord" is only the usual respectful address of an inferior to one in higher station; but to call on Jesus as "Son of David" was virtually to acknowledge him to be the Messiah, who, as old prophets foretold, was to open the eyes of the blind (Isaiah 29:18; Isaiah 35:5). The same cry had been raised by the blind men who were cured earlier in the ministry (Matthew 9:27), and by the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15:22, where see note), How these men had learned the truth we know not; they could not see or read for themselves; their faith must have come by hearing, and the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 20:31 Rebuked them, because (ἱìνα, in order that) they should hold their peace. The motive of the crowd, in thus silencing the blind men, has been explained in two ways—either they grudged that Christ should be addressed by the high title of "Son of David;" or they desired to spare him unseemly importunity and unreasonable interruption in his journey. As the multitude show no signs of hostility at this time, the latter suggestion seems most probable. They cried the more. The attempted check only made them more earnest in their entreaty. The opportunity now offered might never present itself again. The officious interference of unsympathizing bystanders was at once brushed aside. They could attract Christ’s attention only by their passionate cry, and this they continued to utter with renewed energy. Faith resists opposition and triumphs over all impediments. Matthew 20:32 Jesus stood still. He acknowledged the title of "Son of David," and, as the blind men could not follow him, he stopped his progress; their perseverance won his acceptance; he was ready to listen to their appeal and to grant their request. Called them. The gracious summons left them in no doubt as to the happy issue of their prayer. St. Mark speaks of the joyful alacrity with which the blind man obeyed the call; how he "cast away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus." What will ye that I shall do unto you? The Lord knew the desire of their hearts, but he wished to draw forth the public confession of their needs, and the distinct blessing which they craved, that all the bystanders might acknowledge the miracle, and the sufferers themselves might be incited more vehemently to urge their plea, and thus become more worthy of relief. So God knows all our necessities before we ask, but he will have our prayers, that we may cooperate with him in the work which he purposes to accomplish. Matthew 20:33 That our eyes may be opened. So another blind man said, when asked the same question (Mark 10:51). They had at first asked vaguely for mercy, now they prayed definitely for sight—an example to all to make their supplications for particular graces and mercies, and not to be content with general terms which do not describe their special wants. Matthew 20:34 Touched their eyes. Only St. Matthew mentions this action of our Lord; but in all other cases of the cure of blindness the healing touch of the Man accompanied the word of the God, and Christ did not now depart from his usual practice. Thus, as we have noticed before, he connected the cure with himself. He proved that his flesh taken unto the Godhead was life-giving, remedial, efficacious; and he confirmed the faith of the sufferers and bystanders by showing that there was no deceit or collusion. The other synoptists give Christ’s assurance to the men, that the restoration of their sight was the reward of faith—a faith exhibited by the invocation of Jesus as "Son of David," by continued importunity amid surrounding difficulties, by confidence in his power and willingness to heal brought to a point by Christ’s question, "What will ye that I shall do unto you?" They followed him. A fact only less remarkable than the miracle that led to it. The impulse of a grateful heart drew them along the road which the Saviour travelled. They may have accompanied him to Jerusalem, and joined the applauding multitude which escorted him to the holy city, and employed their new power of sight in observing that wonderful spectacle which the next few days afforded. One, at any rate, of these men, Bartimaeus, seems to have become known in the early Church as a devoted follower of Christ, and hence his name is recorded for all time in the sacred narrative. Parable of the labourers in the vineyard. I. THE HIRING. 1. The connection. The parable is very closely connected with the last four verses of Mat 19:1-30. It is plainly intended to illustrate our Lord’s saying in Matthew 19:30, "Many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first." St. Peter’s question in Matthew 19:27 contained an element of error. The Lord had promised a great reward to his faithful servants, and he would give it. It was their due, in a sense; but not as a debt, not as of merit ("the gift of God is eternal life"), but only of promise, because God, in the free bounty of his sovereign grace, has given unto us "exceeding great and precious promises." God will remember his holy promise; he is faithful. But his people must understand that the rewards of his kingdom are his to give—to give according to his own will. His will is not arbitrary; it is holy and just and good. He cannot deny himself; the determinations of his wilt must always be in accordance with his own infinite goodness, love, wisdom, justice. His people must learn to say, "Thy will be done." They must trust absolutely and wholly in his love and bounty. They must not prescribe their own reward. They must not venture to estimate it upon the basis of so much reward for so much work. They must not make jealous comparisons of themselves with others. Each Christian man must do his duty, not grudgingly, nor of necessity, but out of love, in simple trustfulness. God is faithful. 2. The first hiring. The householder went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. The Householder is God; the vineyard is his kingdom; the labourers are men called by him to do his work. The parable was addressed to the apostles, and was part of the answer to St. Peter’s question; so it would seem that, in the first and strictest meaning, the labourers first called must be the apostles themselves. The householder went out early in the morning; the Lord came forth from heaven; it was to hire labourers, to send forth men to carry on the great work which he himself began. He agreed with them for a penny a day. The penny must mean the prize of the high calling—that treasure in heaven which the Lord had offered to the young ruler, that eternal life which he promised to all who deny themselves for his Name’s sake. The labourers hired later in the day must, on this theory, be the holy men (such as St. Stephen, St. Paul, and others) who were called to the work after the twelve, but still in the apostolic times. Those called at the eleventh hour will be Gentile Christians called later yet to the work, such as the fellow labourers of St. Paul. The context seems to suggest this explanation as the first and most obvious meaning of the parable. But it may be fairly understood also of the Jews, God’s ancient people, who were first called into covenant with God; and of the Gentiles, called in the last times into a covenant of grace. And, again, the parable illustrates in a touching and striking manner the dealings of God with individual souls; some are called in childhood like Samuel, some in middle life, some in advanced age. They differ indefinitely from one another in early training, in talents, in opportunities. But all have their appointed work; all have the like blessed hope to cheer them on in their daily task. Each must do his best according to his powers, according to the time allowed him. All must trust in God. He is gracious and merciful, just and large in his generous bounty. But he is sovereign in the exercise of his goodness. None may presume to murmur; envies and jealousies are excluded from the kingdom of heaven. The last shall be first. St. Paul, the last of all, the least of the apostles in his own sight, laboured more abundantly than they all. "Yet not I," he says, "but the grace of God which was with me." That is the true Christian temper, which ascribes all its energy and all its labours to the assisting grace of God, which never murmurs, which gladly recognizes the goodness, the work of others, which rejoices with them that do rejoice, in the successes of others, in the praises, the honours, the rewards bestowed upon them. 3. The intermediate hirings. Again the householder went out when nearly a quarter of the working day was gone; there were others standing idle in the marketplace; he bade them go and work in his vineyard. Me made no definite agreement with them, as he bad done with the first hired labourers; they were satisfied with his promise to give whatever was right, and they went their way. Again at noon, and again when only a quarter of the working hours remained, he did the like. All went, none refused; none tried to bargain with the householder; none asked, "What shall we have therefore?" We must not stand idle when God calls us to work for him. We must go at once whenever we hear that gracious call, whether it be early or late, whatever be our circumstances and employments; all other work is but idleness in his sight, compared with the great work, the work which God has given us to do. We must trust him implicitly. We have the blessed word of Holy Scripture, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." It is enough for us. 4. The last hiring. The day was now nearly ended; only one hour remained. For the last time the householder went into the marketplace. God, in his long suffering mercy, calls us again and again, at different periods of our lives, in different ways. He is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." The marketplace is the world; it is a bustling, noisy scene; yet, alas! many stand there all the day idle. Their idleness may be laborious idleness. There was one who said on his death bed, "Heu! vitam perdidi laboriose nihil agendo." Their life may be restless, eager in the pursuit of pleasure or riches, filled every hour with this or that engagement, this or that amusement. Yet, if the great end of life be neglected, all is but a laborious doing nothing; for nothing real is gained. "Man walketh in a vain shadow," if he is not working for God; this life, with all its varied occupations, is no better than idle play’, if it has no conscious relation to the life beyond the grave. Men think that they are working hard when, in the eye of God, they are standing idle all the day, for they are not working out their own salvation, the only work that is real, earnest, abiding. God doth not leave such idlers to perish. He calls them again and again, by his Word, by his ministers, by his providence. He calls then at the eleventh hour, "Why stand ye here all the day idle?" "The night cometh, wherein no man can work," and the work to be done before nightfall is of momentous importance. They that then stood idle gave a reason for their idleness, "Because no man hath hired us." The excuse was true in the mouth of those Gentile fellow labourers who were gathered into the Church late in the apostolic times. God "in times past," said St. Paul (Acts 14:16), "suffered all nations to walk in their own ways" (comp. also Acts 17:30 and Romans 11:1-36.). They had not been called into the Church, the kingdom of heaven. It can be true only in a very partial sense of Christians now. Men do not heed the call; the loud noise and bustle of the world drown the still small voice of the blessed Spirit. Their deafness is wilful; the voice comes again and again; they will not listen, and it becomes fainter and less distinct. Sometimes it is unheeded to the end; sometimes at last it swells into a trumpet note, and rouses the thoughtless to repentance. Yet, alas! even in Christian countries there are many, brought up among evil surroundings, in all the misery of godless training and wicked examples, without instruction, without the means of grace; of whom (it sometimes seems to us, when we face sadly and helplessly these perplexing problems of life) those words may still be said, "No man hath hired us." But God, we know, is not willing that any should perish; we may not doubt but that in some way his voice makes itself heard even to such as these, if not earlier, yet at the eleventh hour, as life is drawing near to its close. "Go ye also into the vineyard," the householder, said, though so short a time for work was left. No stipulation was made; perhaps, in this case, the reward was not even mentioned; the promise of giving whatsoever was right is omitted here in some of the most ancient manuscripts, which the Revised Version follows. The men trusted the householder implicitly; they went even at that late hour into the vineyard. There was yet work to be done; and, if there was work, there was hope. They went, they worked; and, we shall find, their trust was not in vain. II. THE RESULT. 1. The reward. When even was come, the lord of the vineyard said unto his steward, "Call the labourers, and give them their hire." Christ himself is the Steward, as a Son over his own house (Hebrews 3:6). All power is given unto him; it is he who will say to the redeemed, "Come, ye blessed of my Father; inherit the kingdom prepared for you." The steward called the labourers; he began, as his lord had bidden him, with the last hired. They had wrought but one hour, and that without any definite agreement. They knew not what to expect; they had done their best, it seems; but the time was short, very short. What could they look for? They came in doubt and anxiety. But they received every man a penny—the full day’s wages. They were, we may be sure, full of joy and gratitude; it was far more than they had expected. They had not earned it, they knew; it was of grace, a free gift, a proof of the generous bounty of the lord of the vineyard. The rewards of heaven are not calculated by the methods of earth. Men called late into Christ’s service might rank with the first chosen twelve. Paul the persecutor would sit on one of the twelve thrones; Judas the apostle would forfeit his place in the apostolic hierarchy. Gentiles would be called into the kingdom on an equal footing with God’s ancient people. Throughout the history of the Church it would happen again and again that men called late in life, sometimes on the very bed of death, would receive the full reward. Work is not always measured by time; life itself is not measured by time. A short life has sometimes far more of real living, more of deep spiritual energy, and even sometimes of outward work, than a very long life spent without earnest purpose ("He being made perfect in a short time, fulfilled a long time," Wis. 4:13). We may well believe that in the dying hours of the penitent thief there was concentrated a depth of repentance, an intensity of love, an energy of victorious faith, which he marked and rewarded who measures life, not by time, not by outward work, but by faith and love. The labourers were called in order from the last unto the first. All received the like reward—the penny, covenanted to the first called, given, it seems, without covenant to those sent later into the vineyard. The parable contemplates a portion only of God’s dealings with mankind; its point of view does not extend to the disobedient, mentioned elsewhere, who went not to the vineyard. Here all the labourers had worked, and all received their hire. But that reward, though in itself the same, varies according to the spiritual capacity of the receiver. Eternal life is promised to all the blessed; God himself is their Portion. Yet we read of ten cities and of five (Luke 19:17, Luke 19:19). There will be first and last, greatest and leash in the kingdom of God; all the stars shine in the heavens, but one star differeth from another star in glory. All the blessed will, by the grace of God, be admitted into the exceeding great rapture of the beatific vision. That vision of love and glory will fill every heart with unutterable gladness; the saints will be changed into the same image from glory to glory, drawn ever nearer, received into an ever-closer nearness, an ever-deepening blessedness, increasing in proportion to the powers, the love, the fervour, the devotion of each glorified spirit. All will receive the blessed promise, eternal life; the realization of that promise will depend in some measure on the capacities of the receiver. All will be blessed. Holy Scripture seems to teach that there will be degrees of blessedness in heaven, as there are degrees of holiness on earth. 2. The murmurs. The first-hired labourers had borne the burden and heat of the day; they now received the covenanted reward. It was their just due according to the original agreement. But they murmured, not because they had received too little, but because others, as they thought, had received too much. These last had wrought but one hour, and yet the good man of the house had made them equal to those who had worked from morning until evening. The Jews showed this narrow spirit of unworthy jealousy towards the Gentiles; we see it throughout the New Testament. It was this that caused the rejection of our Lord at Nazareth (Luke 4:25-29). It was this that excited the fierce wrath of the Jews against St. Paul (Acts 22:21, Acts 22:22). They were God’s chosen people; the adoption was theirs, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises (Romans 9:4). They could not endure the thought that the despised Gentiles were to be admitted to an equality of privileges. St. Peter had just showed something of this spirit in his question, "Behold, we have left all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?" The primary intention of the parable was, it seems, to teach him and his brother apostles that the rewards of God’s kingdom are not of debt, but of grace; and to rebuke that desire of pre-eminence, those jealousies and rivalries, which we meet with so often in the history of the apostles, and, alas! in the whole history of the Church. There must be no jealousies in the kingdom of God. Each Christian must learn of him "who is meek and lowly in heart" the great grace of humility; we must all learn "in lowliness of mind to esteem others better than ourselves." We must learn this great lesson now; for murmurers have no place in the kingdom of glory. Heaven is the home of love; no jarring notes of envy or discontent may disturb its Divine harmonies. It is the home of blessedness; there can be no complaints in heaven; for, if there are degrees of blessedness, yet each redeemed soul is blessed to the full extent of its capacities, and is disturbed by no unsatisfied longings. Then if we apply the parable to the circumstances of individual Christians, and understand the penny as meaning the unspeakable gift—Christ now, eternal life hereafter—we must regard this portion as belonging to the scenery, so to speak, of the parable, to its setting, as conveying a warning of what might happen on earth, not a prophecy of what will happen hereafter. On earth the murmurers receive the penny; they have worked for it. There is no intimation in the parable that they worked less strenuously than those called later; it would not be just to withhold it, though they marred their industry by their envy and ill temper. In the world to come such men would lose their reward; in this world they knew not how to value it. The reward offered was the gift of Christ, Christ himself, Christ present to his people’s hearts; but, alas! though they seemed to begin well, they envied others who afterwards outstripped them in the Christian race; and that envy of the progress, of the successes, of the rewards of others marred their own religious service, destroyed the value of their work, poisoned and killed out of their hearts the holy life of faith and love. To such heaven would be no heaven if they were allowed to enter there, for to the unloving there can be no joy in the love of heaven. "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 21:1-11 Triumphal entry into Jerusalem. (Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-44; John 12:12-19.) Matthew 21:1 We have come to the last week of our Lord’s earthly life, when he made his appearance in Jerusalem as Messiah, and suffered the penalty of death. If, as is believed, his crucifixion took place on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, the triumphal entry must be assigned to the ninth, which day was reckoned to commence at one sunset and to continue till the follow-lug evening. This is regarded as the first day of the Holy Week, and is called by Christians from very early times Palm Sunday (see on Matthew 21:10). He had probably gone straight from Jericho to Bethany. and spent the sabbath there with his friends (Matthew 26:6; John 12:1). Bethphage. The name means House of figs, and was appropriate to a locality where such trees grew luxuriantly. The village has not been identified with certainty, though it is considered with great probability to be represented by Kefr-et-Tur, on a summit of Olivet, within the bounds of Jerusalem, i.e. two thousand cubits’ distance from the city walls. Bethany is below the summit, in a nook on the western slope and somewhat further from the city. The Mount of Olives is separated from Jerusalem by the valley of the Kedron, and has three summits, the centre one being the highest; but though it is of no great elevation in itself, it stands nearly four thousand feet above the Dead Sea, from which it is distant some thirteen miles. Then sent Jesus two disciples. Their names are not given, and it is useless to conjecture who they were, though probably Peter was one of them. Alford suggests that the triumphal entry in Mark 11:1-33. is related a day too soon, and that our Lord made two entries into Jerusalem—the first a private one (Mark 11:11), and the second, public, on the morrow But there is no sufficient reason to discredit the common tradition, and St. Mark’s language can be otherwise explained. The deliberate preparation for t. he procession, and the intentional publicity, so contrary to Christ’s usual habits, are very remarkable, and can be explained only by the fact that he was now assuming the character and claims of Messiah, and putting himself forward in his true dignity and office as "King of the Jews." By this display he made manifest that in him prophecy was fulfilled, and that the seeing eye and the believing heart might now find all that righteous men had long and wearily desired. This was the great opportunity which his mercy offered to Jerusalem, if only she would accept it and turn it to account. In fact, she acknowledged him as King one day, and then rejected and crucified him. Matthew 21:2 The village over against you. Bethphage, to which he points as he speaks. He gives their commission to the two disciples, mentioning even some minute details. Straightway. "As soon as ye be entered into it" (Mark). Ye shall find an ass (a she ass) tied, and a colt with her. St. Matthew alone mentions the ass, the mother of the foal. This doubtless he does with exact reference to the prophecy, which, writing for Jews, he afterwards cites (verse 4). St. Jerome gives a mystical reason: the ass represents the Jewish people, which had long borne the yoke of the Law; the colt adumbrates the Gentiles, as yet unbroken," whereon never man sat." Christ called them both, Jew and Gentile, by his apostles. Loose them, and bring them unto me. He speaks with authority, as One able to make a requisition and command obedience. Matthew 21:3 Say aught unto you. This might naturally be expected. Christ foresaw the opposition, and instructed the disciples how to overcome it with a word. The Lord; Κυριος, equivalent to "Jehovah," or the King Messiah. Doubtless the owner of the animals was a disciple, and acknowledged the claims of Jesus. His presence here was a providentially guided coincidence. If he was a stranger; as others suppose, be must have been divinely prompted to acquiesce in the appropriation of his beasts. He will send them. Some manuscripts read, "he sends them," here, as in St. Mark. The present is more forcible, but the future is well attested. The simple announcement that the asses were needed for God’s service would silence all refusal. The disciples, indeed, were to act at once, as executing the orders of the supreme Lord, and were to use the given answer only in case of any objection. Throughout the transaction Christ assumes the character of the Divine Messiah, King of his people, the real Owner of all that they possess. Matthew 21:4 All this was done; now (δε) all this hath come to pass. Many manuscripts omit "all," but it is probably genuine, as in other similar passages; e.g. Matthew 1:22; Matthew 26:56. This observation of the evangelist is intended to convey the truth that Christ was acting consciously on the lines of old prophecy, working out the will of God declared beforehand by divinely inspired seers. The disciples acted in blind obedience to Christ’s command, not knowing that they were thus fulfilling prophecy, or having any such purpose in mind. The knowledge came afterwards (see John 12:16). That it might be fulfilled (ἱìναπληρωθῇ). The conjuction in this phrase is certainly used in its final, not in a consecutive or ecbatie sense; it denotes the purpose or design of the action of Christ, not the result. Not only the will of the Father, but the words of Scripture, had delineated the life of Christ, and in obeying that will he purposed to show that he fulfilled the prophecies which spake of him. Thus any who knew the Scriptures, and were open to conviction, might see that it was he alone to whom these ancient oracles pointed, and in him alone were their words accomplished. By (through, δια) the prophet. Zechariah 9:9, with a hint of Isa 62:11, a quotation being often woven from two or more passages (see on Matthew 27:9). Matthew 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Zion. This is from Isaiah (comp. Zephaniah 3:14). The passage in Zechariah begins, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem." The "daughter of Zion" is Jerusalem herself, named from the chief of the hills on which the city was built. Of course, the term includes all the inhabitants. Behold; marking the suddenness and unexpected nature of the event. Thy King. A King of thine own race, no stranger, one predestined for thee, foretold by all the prophets, who was to occupy the throne of David and to reign forever. Unto thee. For thy special good, to make his abode with thee (comp. Isaiah 9:6). Meek. As Christ himself says, "I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matthew 11:29), far removed from pomp and warlike greatness; and yet, according to his own Beatitude, the meek shall inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5), win victories which material forces can never obtain, triumph through humiliation. The original in Zechariah gives other characteristics of Messiah: "He is just, and having salvation;" i.e. endowed with salvation, either as being protected by God, or victorious and so able to save his people. Sitting upon an ass. Coming as King, he could not walk undistinguished among the crowd; he must ride. But to mount a war horse would denote that he was leader of an army or a worldly potentate; so he rides upon an ass, an animal used by the judges of Israel, and chieftains on peaceful errands (Judges 5:10; Judges 10:4); one, too, greatly valued, and often of stately appearance in Palestine. And (και) a colt the foal of an ass; such as she asses bear, and one not trained. It is questioned whether the conjunction here expresses addition, implying that Christ mounted both animals in succession, or is merely explanatory, equivalent to videlicet, an ass, yea, even the foal of an ass. It seems unlikely that, in accomplishing the short distance between Bethphage and Jerusalem (only a mile or two), our Lord should have changed from one beast to the other; and the other three evangelists say expressly that Christ rode the colt, omitting all mention of the mother. The she ass doubtless kept close to its foal, so the prophecy was exactly fulfilled, but the animal that bore the Saviour was the colt. If the two animals represent respectively the Jews and Gentiles (see on verse 2), it seems hardly necessary for typical reasons that Jesus should thus symbolize his triumph over the disciplined Jews, while it is obvious that the lesson of his supremacy over the untaught Gentiles needed exemplification. The prophet certainly contemplates the two animals in the procession. "The old theocracy runs idly and instinctively by the side of the young Church, which has become the true bearer of the Divinity of Christ" (Lange). No king had ever thus come to Jerusalem; such a circumstance was predicted of Messiah alone, and Christ alone fulfilled it to the letter, showing of what nature his kingdom was. Matthew 21:6 As Jesus commanded them. They simply obeyed the order, not yet knowing what it portended, or how it carried out the will of God declared by his prophets. Matthew 21:7 Brought the ass. The unbroken foal would be more easily subdued and guided when its mother was with it; such an addition to the ridden animal would usually be employed to carry the rider’s luggage. They put on them (ἐπανωαὐτῶν) their clothes (ἱματια). The two disciples, stripping off their heavy outer garments, abbas, or burnouses, put them as trappings on the two beasts, not knowing on which their Master meant to ride. They set him thereon (ἐπανωαὐτῶν). Thus the received text, and the Vulgate, Et eum desuper sedere fecerunt. But most modern editors, with great manuscriptural authority, read, "he sat thereon." Some have taken the pronoun αὐτῶν to refer to the beasts, and Alford supports the opinion by the common saying, "The postilion rode on the horses," when, in fact, he rode only one of the pair. But the analogy is erroneous. The postilion really guides and controls both; but no one contends that Christ kept the mother ass in hand while mounted on the colt. The pronoun is more suitably referred to the garments, which formed a saddle for the Saviour, or housings and ornamental appendages. He came invested with a certain dignity and pomp, yet in such humble guise as to discountenance all idea of temporal sovereignty. Matthew 21:8 A very great multitude; ὁδεπλεῖστοςὀìχλος: Revised Version, the most part of the multitude. This interpretation has classical authority (see Alford), but the words may well mean," the very great multitude;" Vulgate, plurima autem turba. This crowd was composed of pilgrims who were coming to the festival at Jerusalem, and "the whole multitude of the disciples" (Luke 19:37). Spread their garments (ἱματια) in the way. Fired with enthusiasm, they stripped off their abbas, as the two disciples had done, and with them made a carpet over which the Saviour should ride. Such honours were often paid to great men, and indeed, as we well know, are offered now on state occasions. Branches from the trees. St. John (John 12:13) particularizes palm trees as having been used on this occasion; but there was abundance of olive and other trees, from which branches and leaves could be cut or plucked to adorn the Saviour’s road. The people appear to have behaved on this occasion as if at the Feast of Tabernacles, roused by enthusiasm to unpremeditated action. Of the three routes which lay before him, Jesus is supposed to have taken the southern and most frequented, between the Mount of Olives and the Hill of Offence. Matthew 21:9 The multitudes that went before, and that followed. These expressions point to two separate bodies, which combined in escorting Jesus at a certain portion of the route. We learn from St. John (John 12:18) that much people, greatly excited by the news of the raising of Lazarus, when they heard that he was in the neighbourhood, hurried forth from Jerusalem to meet and do him honour. These, when they met the other procession with Jesus riding in the midst, turned back again and preceded him into the city. St. Luke identifies the spot as "at the descent of the Mount of Olives." "As they approached the shoulder of the hill," says Dr. Geikie (’The Life of Christ,’ 2.397), "where the road bends downwards to the north, the sparse vegetation of the eastern slope changed, as in a moment, to the rich green of garden and trees, and Jerusalem in its glory rose before them. It is hard for us to imagine now the splendour of the view. The city of God, seated on her hills, shone at the moment in the morning sun. Straight before stretched the vast white walls and buildings of the temple, its courts glittering with gold, rising one above the other; the steep sides of the hill of David crowned with lofty walls; the mighty castles towering above them; the sumptuous palace of Herod in its green parks; and the picturesque outlines of the streets." Hosanna to the Son of David! "Hosanna!" is compounded of two words meaning "save" and "now," or, "I pray," and is written in full Hoshia-na, translated by the Septuagint, Σῶσονδη. The expressions uttered by the people are mostly derived from Psalms 118:1-29., which formed part of the great Hallel sung at the Feast of Tabernacles. "Hosanna!" was originally a formula of prayer and supplication, but later became a term of joy and congratulation. So here the cry signifies "Blessings on [or, ’Jehovah bless’] the Son of David!" i.e. the Messiah, acknowledging Jesus to be he, the promised Prince of David’s line. Thus we say, "God save the king!" This, which Ewald calls the first Christian hymn, gave to Palm Sunday, in some parts of the Church, the name of the "day of Hosannas," and was incorporated into the liturgical service both in East and West. Blessed … of the Lord: (Psalms 118:26). The formula is taken in two ways, the words, "ill the Name of the Lord," being connected either with "blessed" or with "cometh." In the former case the cry signifies, "The blessing of Jehovah rest on him who cometh!" i.e., Messiah (Matthew 11:3; Revelation 1:8); in the latter, the meaning is, "Blessing on him who cometh with Divine mission, sent with the authority of Jehovah!" The second interpretation seems to be correct. In the highest (comp. Luke 2:14). The people cry to God to ratify in heaven the blessing which they invoke on earth. This homage and the title of Messiah Jesus now accepts as his due, openly asserting his claims, and by his acquiescence encouraging the excitement. St. Matthew omits the touching scene of Christ’s lamentations over Jerusalem, as he passed the spot where Roman legions would, a generation hence, encamp against the doomed city. Matthew 21:10 Was come into Jerusalem. Those who consider that the day of this event was the tenth of Nisan see a peculiar fitness in the entry occurring on this day. On the tenth of this month the Paschal lamb was selected and taken up preparatory to its sacrifice four days after (Exodus 12:3, Exodus 12:6). So the true Paschal Lamb now is escorted to the place where alone the Passover could be sacrificed. Taking A.D. 30 to be the date of the Crucifixion, astronomers inform us that in that year the first day of Nisan fell on March 24. Consequently, the tenth would be on Sunday, April 2, and the fourteenth was reckoned item sunset of Thursday, April 6, to the sunset of Friday, April 7 (see on Matthew 21:1, and preliminary note Matthew 26:1-75.). Was moved (ἐσεισθη); was shaken, as by an earthquake. St. Matthew alone mentions this commotion, though St. John (John 12:19) makes allusion to it, when he reports the vindictive exclamation of the Pharisees, "Behold, the world is gone after him!" Jerusalem had been stirred and troubled once before, when the Wise Men walked through the streets, inquiring, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" (Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3). But the excitement was far greater now, more general, composed of many different elements. The Romans expected some public rising; the Pharisaical party was aroused to new envy and malice; the Herodians dreaded a possible usurper; but the populace entertained for the moment the idea that their hopes were now fulfilled, that the long desired Messiah had at last appeared, and would lead them to victory. Who is this? The question may have been put by the strangers who came from all parts of the world to celebrate the Passover at Jerusalem, or by the crowds in the streets, when they beheld the unusual procession that was advancing. Matthew 21:11 The multitude; οἱὀìχλοι: the multitudes. These were the people who took part in the procession; they kept repeating (ἐìλεγον, imperfect) to all inquiries, This is Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth. They give his name, title, and dwelling place. They call him "the Prophet," either as being the One that was foretold (John 1:21; John 6:14), or as being inspired and commissioned by God (John 9:1-41.17). The appellation, "of Nazareth," clung to our Lord through all his earthly life. St. Matthew (Matthew 2:23) notes that the prophets had foretold that he was to be called a Nazarene, and that this prediction was in some sort fulfilled by his dwelling at Nazareth. We know not who were the prophets to whom the evangelist refers, and in this obscurity the attempted explanations of exegetes are far from satisfactory; so it is safer to fall back upon the inspired historian’s verdict, and to mark the providential accomplishment of the prediction in the title by which Jesus was generally known. Says Isaac Williams, "Friends and foes, chief priests in hate, Pilate in mockery, angels in adoration, disciples in love, Christ himself in lowliness (Acts 22:8), and now the multitudes in simplicity, all proclaim him ’of Nazareth.’" Matthew 21:12-17 The second cleansing of the temple. (Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48.) Matthew 21:12 Went into the temple. The event here narrated seems to have taken place on the day following the triumphal entry; i.e. on the Monday of the Holy Week. This can be gathered from St. Mark’s narrative, where it is stated that, on the day of triumph, Jesus was escorted to the temple, but merely "looked round about on all things," and then returned for the night to Bethany, visiting the temple again on the following morning, and driving out those who profaned it. St. Matthew often groups events, not in their proper chronological order, but in a certain logical sequence which corresponded with his design. Thus he connects the cleansing with the triumphal entry, in order to display another example of Christ’s self-manifestation at this time, and his purpose to show who he was and to put forth his claims publicly. In this visit of Christ we see the King coming to his palace, the place where his honour dwelleth, the fitting termination of his glorious march. This cleansing of the temple must not be confounded with the earlier incident narrated by St. John (John 2:13, etc.). The two acts marked respectively the beginning and close of Christ’s earthly ministry, and denote the reverence which he taught for the house and the worshiper God. The part of the temple which he now visited, and which was profaned to secular use, was the court of the Gentiles, separated from the sanctuary by a stone partition, and considered of lesser sanctity, though really an integral part of the temple. Cast out all them that sold and bought. In this large open space a market had been established, with the connivance, and much to the pecuniary emolument, of the priests. These let out the sacred area, of which they were the appointed guardians, to greedy and irreligious traders, who made a gain of others’ piety. We find no trace of this market in the Old Testament; it probably was established after the Captivity, whence the Jews brought back that taste for commercial business and skill in financial matters for which they have ever since been celebrated. In the eyes of worldly-minded men the sanctity of a building and its appendages was no impediment to traffic and trade, hence they were glad to utilize the temple court, under the sanction of the priests, for the convenience of those who came from all regions to celebrate the great festivals. Here was sold all that was required for the sacrifices which worshippers were minded to offer—animals for victims, meal, incense, salt, etc. The scandalous abuse of the holy precincts, or the plain traces of it (if, as it was late in the day, the traffickers themselves had departed for a time), Christ had observed at his previous visit, when he "looked round about upon all things" (Mark 11:11), and now he proceeded to remedy the crying evil The details of the expulsion are not given. On the first occasion, we are told, he used "a scourge of small cords;" as far as we know, at this time he effected the purification unarmed and alone. It was a marvellous impulse that forced the greedy crew to obey the order of this unknown Man; their own consciences made them timid; they fled in dismay before the stern indignation of his eye, deserted their gainful trade to escape the reproach of that invincible zeal. Money changers. These persons exchanged (for a certain percentage) foreign money or other coins for the half shekel demanded from all adults for the service of the temple (see on Matthew 17:24). They may have lent money to the needy. The sellers also probably played into their bands by refusing to receive any but current Jewish money in exchange for their wares. It is also certain that no coins stamped with a heathen symbol, or bearing a heathen monarch’s image, could be paid into the temple treasury. The seats of them that sold (the) doves. These birds were used by the poor in the place of costlier victims (see Le John 12:6; John 14:22; Luke 2:24). The sellers were often women, who sat with tables before them on which were set cages containing the doves. Matthew 21:13 It is written. Jesus confirms his action by the word of Scripture. He combines in one severe sentence a passage from Isaiah 56:7 ("Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all peoples"), and one from Jeremiah 7:11 ("Is this house, which is called by my Name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?"). He brings out in strong contrast the high design and use of the house of God (an allusion specially appropriate at the coming festival), and the vile and profane purposes to which the greed and impiety of men had subjected it. Ye have made it; Revised Version, ye make it; and so many modern editors on good manuscript authority. These base traffickers had turned the hallowed courts into a cavern where robbers stored their ill-gotten plunder. It may also be said that to make the place of prayer for all the nations a market for boasts was a robbery of the rights of the Gentiles (Lange). And Christ here vindicated the sanctity of the house of God: the Lord, according to the prophecy of Malachi (Malachi 3:1-3), had suddenly come to his temple to refine and purify, to show that none can profane what is dedicated to the service of God without most certain loss and punishment. Matthew 21:14 The blind and the lame came to him in the temple. This notice is peculiar to St. Matthew, though St. Luke (Luke 19:47) mentions that "he taught daily in the temple." An old expositor has remarked that Christ first as King purified his palace, and then took his seat therein, and of his royal bounty distributed gilts to his people. It was a new fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 35:4-6), which spake of Messiah coming to open the eyes of the blind, to unstop the ears of the deaf, to make the lame man leap as an hart. For acts of sacrilege which profaned the temple precincts, he substituted acts of mercy which hallowed them; the good Physician takes the place of the greedy trafficker; the den of thieves becomes a beneficent hospital. How many were the acts of healing, we are not told; but the words point to the relief of numberless sufferers, none of whom were sent empty away. Matthew 21:15 The chief priests. This term is generally applied to the high priest’s deputies and the heads of the twenty-four courses, but it seems here to mean certain sacerdotal members of the Sanhedrin, to whom supreme authority was delegated by the Romans or Herodians (see Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 20.10, 5). They formed a wealthy, aristocratical body, and were many of them Sadducees. They joined with the scribes in expressing their outraged feeling, whether simulated or real. The wonderful things (τασια); an expression found nowhere else in the New Testament. It refers to the cleansing of the temple and the cures lately performed there. Children crying in the temple. This fact is mentioned only by St. Matthew. Jesus loved children, and they loved and followed him, taking up the cry which they had heard the day before from the multitude, and in simple faith applying it again to Christ. While grown men are silent or blaspheming, little children boldly sing his praises. Were sore displeased. Their envious hearts could not bear to see Jesus honoured, elevated in men’s eyes by his own beneficent actions, and now glorified by the spontaneous acclamations of these little ones. Matthew 21:16 Hearest thou what these say? They profess a great zeal for God’s honour. They recognize that these cries implied high homage, if not actual worship, and appeal to Jesus to put a stop to such unseemly behaviour, approaching, as they would pretend, to formal blasphemy. Yea. Jesus replies that he hears what the children say, but sees no reason for silencing them; rather he proves that they were only fulfilling an old prophecy, originally, indeed, applied to Jehovah, but one which he claims as addressed to himself. Have ye never read? (Matthew 12:5). The quotation is from the confessedly Messianic psalm (Psalms 8:1-9.), a psalm very often quoted in the New Testament, and as speaking of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 1:27; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 1:22; Hebrews 2:6, etc.). Sucklings. This term was applied to children up to the age of three years (see 2 Macc. 7:27), but might be used metaphorically of those of tender age, though long weaned. Thou hast perfected praise. The words are from the Septuagint, which seems to have preserved the original reading. The present Hebrew text gives, "Thou hast ordained strength," or "established a power." In the Lord’s mouth the citation signifies that God is praised acceptably by the weak and ignorant when, following the impulse of their simple nature, they do him homage. Some expositors combine the force of the Hebrew and Greek by explaining that "the strength of the weak is praise, and that worship of Christ is strength" (Wordsworth). It is more simple to say, with Nosgen, that for the Hebrew "strength," "praise" is substituted, in order to give the idea that the children’s acclamation was that which would still the enemy, as it certainly put to shame the captious objections of the Pharisees. Matthew 21:17 He left them. The chief priests had nothing to say in reply to this testimony of Scripture. They feared to arrest him in the face of the enthusiastic multitude; they bided their time, for the present apparently silenced. Jesus, wasting no further argument on these wilfully unbelieving people, turned and left them. The King had no home in his royal city; he sought one in lowly Bethany, where he was always sure of a welcome in the house of Martha and Mary. It is somewhat doubtful whether he availed himself of his friends’ hospitality at this time. The term "Bethany" would include the district so called in the vicinity of the town, as in the description of the scene of the Ascension (Luke 24:50). Lodged (ηὐλισθη). This word, if its strict classical use is pressed, would imply that Jesus passed the night in the open air; but it may mean merely "lodge," or "pass the night," without any further connotation; so no certain inference can be drawn from its employment in this passage. This withdrawal of Jesus obviated all danger of a rising in his favour, which, supported by the vast resources of the temple, might have had momentous consequences at this time of popular concourse and excitement. Matthew 21:18-22 The cursing of the barren fig tree. (Mark 11:12-14:, 20-26.) Matthew 21:18 In the morning. St. Matthew has combined in one view a transaction which had two separate stages, as we gather from the narrative of St. Mark. The curse was uttered on the Monday morning, before the cleansing of the temple; the effect was beheld and the lesson given on the Tuesday, when Jesus was visiting Jerusalem for the third time (verses 20-22). Strauss and his followers, resenting the miraculous in the incident, have imagined that the whole story is merely an embodiment and development of the parable of the fruitless fig tree recorded by St. Luke (Luke 13:6, etc.), which in course of time assumed this historical form. There is no ground whatever for this idea. It claims to be, and doubtless is, the account of a real fact, naturally connected with the circumstances of the time, and of great practical importance. He hungered. True Man, he showed the weakness of his human nature, even when about to exert his power in the Divine. There is no need, rather it is unseemly to suppose (as many old commentators have done), that this hunger was miraculous or assumed, in order to give occasion for the coming miracle. Christ had either passed the night on the mountain-side in prayer and fasting, or had started from his lodging without breaking his fast. His followers do not seem to have suffered in the same way; and it was doubtless owing to his mental preoccupation and self-forgetfulness that the Lord had not attended to bodily wants. Matthew 21:19 When he saw a (μιαν, a single) fig tree in the way. The tree stood all alone in a conspicuous situation by the roadside, as if courting observation. It was allowable to pluck and eat fruit in an orchard (Deuteronomy 23:24, Deuteronomy 23:25); but this tree, placed where it was, seemed to be common property, belonging to no private owner. The sight of the leaves thereon, as St. Mark tells us, attracted the notice of Christ, who beheld with pleasure the prospect of relieving his long abstinence with the refreshment of cool and juicy fruit. He came to it. Knowing the nature of the tree, and that under some circumstances the fruit ripens before the leaves are fully out, Jesus naturally expected to find on it some figs fit to eat. Further, besides the fruit which comes to maturity in the usual way during the summer, there are often late figs produced in autumn which hang on the tree during winter, and ripen at the reawakening of vegetation in the spring. The vigour of this particular tree was apparently proved by the luxuriance of its foliage, and it might reasonably be expected to retain some of its winter produce. Found nothing thereon, but leaves only. It was all outward show, promise without performance, seeming precocity with no adequate results. There is no question here of Christ’s omniscience being at fault. He acted as a man would act; he was not deceived himself nor did he deceive the apostles, though they at first misapprehended his purpose. The whole action was symbolical, and was meant so to appear. In strict propriety of conduct, as a man led by the appearance of the tree might act, he carried out the figure, at the same time showing, by his treatment of this inanimate object, that he had something higher in view, and that he does not mean that which his outward conduct seemed to imply. He is enacting a parable where all the parts are in due keeping, and all have their twofold signification in the world of nature and the world of grace. The hunger is real, the tree is real, the expectation of fruit legitimate, the barrenness disappointing and criminal; the spiritual side, however, is left to be inferred, and, as we shall see, only one of many possible lessons is drawn from the result of the incident. Let no fruit grow on thee (let there be no fruit from thee) henceforward forever. Such is the sentence passed on this ostentations tree. Christ addresses it as if replying to the profession made by its show of leaves. It had the sap of life, it had power to produce luxuriant leaves; therefore it might and ought to have borne fruit. It vaunted itself as being superior to its neighbours, and the boast was utterly empty. Presently (παραχρῆμα) the fig tree withered away. The process was doubtless gradual, commencing at Christ’s word, and continuing till the tree died; but St. Matthew completes the account at once, giving in one picture the event, with its surroundings and results. It was a moral necessity that what had incurred Christ’s censure should perish; the spiritual controlled the material; the higher overbore the lower. Thus the designed teaching was placed in visible shape before the eyes, and silently uttered its important lesson. It has been remarked (by Neander) that we are not to suppose that the tree thus handled was previously altogether sound and healthy. Its show of leaves at an unusual period without fruit may point to some abnormal development of activity which was consequent upon some radical defect. Had it been in vigorous health, it would not have been a fitting symbol of the Jewish Church; nor would it have corresponded with the idea which Christ designed to bring to the notice of his apostles. There was already some process at work which would have issued in decay, and Christ’s curse merely accelerated this natural result. This is considered to be the only instance in which our Lord exerted his miraculous power in destruction; all his other actions were beneficent, saving, gracious. The drowning of the swine at Gadara was only permitted for a wise purpose; it was not commanded or inflicted by him. The whole transaction in our text is mysterious. That the Son of man should show wrath against a senseless tree, as tree, is, of course, not conceivable. Them was an apparent unfitness, if not injustice, in the proceeding, which at once demonstrated that the tree was not the real object of the action—that something more important was in view. Christ does not treat trees as moral agents, responsible for life and action. He uses inanimate objects to convey lessons to men, dealing with them according to his good pleasure, even his supreme will, which is the law by which they are controlled. In themselves they have no fault and incur no punishment, but they are treated in such a way as to profit the nobler creatures of God’s hand. There may have been two reasons for Christ’s conduct which were not set prominently forward at the time. First, he desired to show his power, his absolute control, over material forces, so that, in what was about to happen to him, his apostles might be sure that he suffered not through weakness or compulsion, but because he willed to have it so. This would prepare his followers for his own and their coming trials. Then there was another great lesson taught by the sign. The fig tree is a symbol of the Jewish Church. The prophets had used both it. and the vine in this connection (comp. Hosea 9:10), and our Lord himself makes an unmistakable allusion in his parable of the fig tree planted in the vineyard, from which the owner for three years sought fruit in vain (Luke 13:6, etc.). Many of his subsequent discourses are, as it were, commentaries upon this incident (see verses 28-44; Matthew 22:1-14; 23-25.). Here was a parable enacted. The Saviour had seen this tree, the Jewish Church, afar off, looking down upon it from heaven; it was one, single, standing conspicuous among all nations as that whereon the Lord had lavished most care, that which ought to have shown the effect of this culture in abundant produce of holiness and righteousness. But what was the result? Boasting to be children of Abraham, the special heritage of Jehovah, gifted with highest privileges, the sole possessors of the knowledge of God, the Israelites professed to have what no other people had, and were in reality empty and bare. There was plenty of outward show—rites, ceremonies, scrupulous observances, much speaking—but no real devotion, no righteousness, no heart worship, no good works. Other nations, indeed, were equally fruitless, but they did not profess to be holy; they were sinners, and offered no cloak for their sinfulness. The Jews were no less unrighteous; but they were hypocrites, and boasted of the good which they had not. Other nations were unproductive, for their time had not come; but for Israel the season had arrived; she ought to have been the first to accept the Messiah, to unite the new with the old fruit, to pass from the Law to the gospel, and to learn and practise the lesson of faith. Perfect fruit was not yet to be expected; but Israel’s sin was that she vaunted her perfection, counted herself sound and whole, while rotten at the very core, and barren of all good results. Her falsehood, hypocrisy, and arrogant complacency were fearfully punished. The terms of the curse pronounced by the Judge are very emphatic. It denounces perpetual barrenness on the Jewish Church and people. From Judaea was to have gone forth the healing of the nations; from it all peoples of the earth were to be blessed. The complete fulfilment of this promise is no longer in the literal Israel; she is nothing in the world; no one resorts to her for food and refreshment; she has none to offer the wayfarer. For eighteen centuries has that fruitlessness continued; the withered tree still stands, a monument of unbelief and its punishment. The Lord’s sentence, "forever," must be understood with some limitation. In his parable of the fig tree, which adumbrates the last days, he intimates that it shall some day bud and blossom, and be clothed once more with leaf and fruit; and St. Paul looks forward to the conversion of Israel, when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Romans 11:23-26). Matthew 21:20 They marvelled, saying. The apostles’ remark on the incident was made on the Tuesday, as we learn from St. Mark’s more accurate account. After Christ had spoken his malediction, the little band went on their way to Jerusalem, where was performed the cleansing of the temple. On their return to Bethany, if they passed the tree, it was doubtless too dark to observe its present condition, and it was not till the next morning that they noticed what had happened. St. Matthew does not name the apostle who was the mouthpiece of the others in expressing astonishment at the miracle; he is satisfied with speaking generally of "the disciples" (comp. Matthew 26:8 with John 12:4). We learn from St. Mark that it was Peter who made the observation recorded, deeply affected by the sight of this instance of Christ’s power, and awestruck by the speedy and complete accomplishment of the curse. How soon is the fig tree withered away! better, How did the fig tree immediately wither away? Vulgate, Quomodo continue aruit? They saw, but could not comprehend, the effect of Christ’s word, and wonderingly inquired how it came to pass. They did not at present realize the teaching of this parabolic act—how it gave solemn warning of the certainty of judgment on the unfruitful Jewish Church, which, hopelessly barren, must no longer cumber the earth. Christ did not help them to understand the typical nature of the transaction. He is not wont to explain in words the spiritual significance of his miracles; the connection between miracle and teaching is left to be inferred, to be brought out by meditation, prayer, faith, and subsequent circumstances. The total rejection of the Jews was a doctrine for which the apostles were not yet prepared; so the Lord, in wisdom and mercy, withheld its express enunciation at this moment. In mercy too he exemplified the sternness and severity of God’s judgment by inflicting punishment on an inanimate object, and not on a sentient being; he withered a tree, not a sinful man, by the breath of his mouth. Matthew 21:21 Jesus answered. To the apostles’ question the Lord makes reply, drawing a lesson, not such as we should have expected, but one of quite a different nature, yet one which was naturally deduced from the transaction which had excited such astonishment. They marvelled at this incident; let them have and exercise faith. and they should do greater things than this. Christ had already made a similar answer after the cure of the demoniac boy (Matthew 17:20, where see note). If ye have faith, and doubt not (μηδιακριθῆτε). The whole phrase expresses the perfection of the grace. The latter verb means "to discriminate," to see a difference in things, hence to debate in one’s mind. The Vulgate gives, Si habueritis fidem, et non haesitaveritis. What is here enjoined is that temper of mind which does not stop hesitatingly to consider whether a thing can be done or not, but believes that all is possible—that one can do all things through Christ who strengthens him. So the apostles are assured by Christ that they should not only be able to wither a tree with a word, but should accomplish far more difficult undertakings. This which is done to the fig tree (τοτῆςσυκῆς); as, "what was befallen to them that were possessed with devils (τατῶνδαιμονιζομενων)" (Matthew 8:33). The promise may intimate that it was to be through the preaching of the apostles, and the Jews’ rejection of the salvation offered by them, that the judgment should fall on the chosen people. Thus they would do what was done to the fig tree. And in the following words we may see a prophecy of the destruction of the mountain of paganism. Or it may mean that theocratic Judaism must be cast into the sea of nations before the Church of Christ should reach its full development (Lange). This mountain. As he speaks, he points to the Mount of Olivet, on which they were standing, or to Moriah crowned by the glorious temple. Be thou removed; be thou taken up; ἀìρθητι, not the same word as in Matthew 17:20. The sea. The Mediterranean (see a similar promise, Luke 17:6). It shall be done. It was not likely that any such material miracle would literally be needed, and no one would ever pray for such a sign; but the expression is hyperbolically used to denote the performance of things most difficult and apparently impossible (see Zechariah 4:7; 1 Corinthians 13:2). Matthew 21:22 All things. The promise is extended beyond the sphere of extraordinary miracles. In prayer; ἐντῇπροσευχῇ: in the prayer; or, in your prayer. The use of the article may point to the prayer given by our Lord to his disciples, or to some definite form used from the earliest times in public worship (comp. Acts 1:14; Romans 12:12; 1 Corinthians 7:5; Colossians 4:2). Believing, ye shall receive. The condition for the success of prayer is stringent. A man must have no latent doubt in his heart; he must not debate whether the thing desired can be done or not; he must have absolute trust in the power and good will of God; and he must believe that "what he saith cometh to pass" (Mark 11:23). The faith required is the assurance of things hoped for, such as gives substance and being to them while yet out of sight. The words had their special application to the apostles, instructing them that they were not to expect to be able, like their Master, to work the wonders needed for the confirmation of the gospel by their own power. Such effects could be achieved only by prayer and faith. (On the general promise to faithful prayer, see Matthew 7:7-11.) Verse 21:23-22:14 Our Lord’s authority questioned: he replies by uttering three parables. (Mark 11:27-12:12; Luke 20:1-18.) Matthew 21:23-27 First attack, referring to his late actions: and Christ’s answer. Matthew 21:23 When he was come into the temple. The conversation recorded here belongs to the Tuesday of the Holy Week, and took place in the courts of the temple, at this time filled with pilgrims from all parts of the world, who hung upon Christ’s words, and beheld his doings with wonder and awe. This sight roused to fury the envy and anger of the authorities, and they sent forth sections of their cleverest men to undermine his authority in the eyes of the people, or to force from him statements on which they might found criminal accusation against him. The chief priests and the elders of the people. According to the other evangelists, there were also scribes, teachers of the Law, united with them in this deputation, which thus comprised all the elements of the Sanhedrin. This seems to have been the first time that the council took formal notice of Jesus’ claims and actions, and demanded from him personally an account of himself. They had been quick enough in inquiring into the Baptist’s credentials, when he suddenly appeared on the banks of Jordan (see John 1:19, etc.); but they had studiously, till quite lately, avoided any regular investigation of the pretensions of Jesus. In the thee of late proceedings, this could no longer be delayed. A crisis had arrived; their own peculiar province was publicly invaded, and their authority attacked; the opponent must be withstood by the action of the constituted court. As he was teaching. Jesus did not confine himself to beneficent acts; he used the opportunity of the gathering of crowds around him to preach unto them the gospel (Luke 20:1), to teach truths which came with double force from One who bad done such marvellous things. By what authority doest thou these things? They refer to the triumphal entry, the reception of the homage offered, the healing of the blind and lame, the teaching as with the authority of a rabbi, and especially to the cleansing of the temple. No one could presume to teach without a proper commission: where was his authorization? They were the guardians and rulers of the temple: what right had he to interfere with their management, and to use the sacred precincts for his own purposes? These and such like questions were in their mind when they addressed him thus. Wilfully ignoring the many proofs they had of Christ’s Divine mission (which one of them, Nicodemus, had long before been constrained to own, John 3:2), they raised the question now as a novel and unanswered one. Who gave thee this authority? They resolve the general inquiry into the personal one—Who was it that conferred upon you this authority which you presume to exercise? Was it some earthly ruler, or was it God himself? Perhaps they mean to insinuate that Satan was the master whose power he wielded—an accusation already often made. They thought thus to place Christ in an embarrassing position, from which he could not emerge without affording the opportunity which they desired. The trap was cleverly set, and, as they deemed, unavoidable. If he was forced to confess that he spoke and acted without any proper authorization, he would be humiliated in the eyes of the people, and might be officially silenced by the strong hand. If he asserted himself to be the Messiah and the bearer of a Divine commission, they would at once bring against him a charge of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65). Matthew 21:24 I also will ask you one thing; λογονἑìνα: one word, question. Jesus does not reply directly to their insidious demand. He might have asserted his Divine mission, and appealed to his miracles in confirmation of such claim, which would have been in strict conformity with the old, established rule for discriminating false and true prophets (see Deuteronomy 18:22; Jeremiah 28:9); but he knew too well their scepticism and malice and inveterate prejudice to lay stress on this allegation at the present moment. Before he satisfied their inquiry, he must have their opinion concerning one whom they had received as a prophet a few years ago, and whose memory was still held in the highest respect, John the Baptist. The manner in which they regarded him and his testimony would enable them to answer their own interrogation. Matthew 21:25 The baptism of John (τοβαπτισματοἸωαννου). By "the baptism which was of John" Christ means his whole ministry, doctrine, preaching, etc.; as by circumcision is implied the whole Mosaic Law, and the doctrine of the cross comprises all the teaching of the gospel, the chief characteristic connoting all particulars. From heaven, or of men? Did they regard John as one inspired and commissioned by God, or as a fanatic and impostor, who was self-sent and had received no external authorization? Now, two facts were plain and could not be denied. The rulers and the people with them had allowed John to be a prophet, and had never questioned his claims hitherto. This was one fact; the other was that John had borne unmistakable evidence to Christ. "Behold the Lamb of God!" etc. (John 1:32-36), he had said. He came and asserted that he came as Christ’s forerunner; his mission was to prepare Christ’s way, and had no meaning or intention but this. Here was a dilemma. They had asked for Jesus’ credentials; the prophet, whose mission they had virtually endorsed testified that Jesus was the Messiah; if they believed that John spoke by inspiration, they must accept Christ; if now they discredited John, they would stultify themselves and endanger their influence with the people. They reasoned with themselves (παρἑαυτοῖς). The somewhat unusual introduction of this preposition instead of the more common ἐν implies that the reflection was not confined to their own breast, but passed in consultation from one to another. They saw the difficulty, and deliberated how they could meet it without compromising themselves, seeking, not truth, but evasion. Why did ye not then (διατιοὖν: why then did ye not) believe him? i.e. when he bore such plain testimony to me. This appeal could be silenced only by denying John’s mission, or asserting that he was mistaken in what he said, Matthew 21:26 We fear the people. They dared not, as they would gladly have done, affirm that John was a false prophet and impostor; for then, as according to St. Luke they said, "All the people will stone us." Public opinion was too strong for them. Whatever view they really took of John’s position, they were forced, for the sake of retaining popularity, to uphold its Divine character. All hold John as a prophet. Even Herod, for the same reason, long hesitated to put the Baptist to death (Matthew 14:5); and many of the Jews believed that Herod’s defeat by Aretas was a judgment upon him for this murder (Josephus,’ Ant.,’ 18.5. 2); comp. Luke 7:29, which shows how extensive was the influence of this holy teacher, who indeed did no miracle, but persuaded men by pure doctrine, holy life, genuine love of souls, courageous reproof of sin wherever found. Others had drawn the very inference which Christ now demanded (see John 10:41, John 10:42). Matthew 21:27 We cannot tell; οὐκοἰìδαμεν: we know not; Vulgate, nescimus. The Authorized Version seems, at first sight, to be intended to give a false emphasis to "tell" in Christ’s answer; but our translators often render the verb οἰìδα in this way (see John 3:8; John 8:14; John 16:18; 2 Corinthians 12:2). The questioners could find no way out of the dilemma in which Christ’s unerring wisdom had placed them. Their evasive answer was a confession of defeat, and that in the presence of the gaping crowd who stood around listening to the conversation. They had every opportunity of judging the character of John’s mission and that of Christ; it was their duty to form an opinion and to pronounce a verdict on such claims; and yet they, the leaders and teachers of Israel, for fear of compromising themselves, evade the obligation, refuse to solve or even to entertain the question, and, like a modern agnostic, content themselves with a profession of ignorance. Many people, to avoid looking a disagreeable truth in the face, respond to all appeals with the stereotyped phrase, "We cannot tell." F.M. appositely quotes the comment of Donatus on Terent., ’Eunuch.,’ 5.4, 31, "Perturbatur Parmeno; nec negare potuit, nec consentire volebat; sed quasi defensionis loco dixit, Nescio." And he said unto them; ἐìφηαὐτοῖςκαις: he also said unto them. The Lord answers the thought which had dictated their words to him. Neither tell I you, etc. With such double-minded men, who could give no clear decision concerning the mission of such a one as John the Baptist, it would be mere waste of words to argue further. They would not accept his testimony, and recognizing their malice and perversity, he declined to instruct them further. "Christ shows," says Jerome, "that they knew and were unwilling to answer; and that he knew, but held his peace, because they refused to utter what they well knew." Matthew 21:28-32 The parable of the two sons. (Peculiar to St. Matthew.) Matthew 21:28 But what think ye? A formula connecting what follows with what has preceded, and making the hearers themselves the judges. By this and the succeeding parables, Jesus shows his interlocutors their true guilty position and the punishment that awaited them. He himself explains the present parable in reference to his hearers, though, of course, it has, and is meant to have, a much wider application. A certain man (ἀìνθρωπος, a man) had two sons. The man represents God; the two sons symbolize two classes of Jews—the Pharisees, with their followers and imitators; and the lawless and sinful, who made no pretence of religion. The former are those who profess to keep the Law strictly, to the very letter, though they care nothing for its spirit, and virtually divorce religion from morality The latter are careless and profane persons, whom the Lord calls "publicans and harlots" (Matthew 21:31). The first. Westcott and Hort, relying on no very weighty authority, reverse the order of the sons’ answers, altering Matthew 21:31 in agreement with this arrangement. Christ’s reply countenances the received text, setting the repentant before the professing son. It is a matter of small importance (see Tischendorf, in loc.). "The first son "here typifies the evil and immoral among the Jewish people. Go, work today. Two emphatic imperatives. Immediate obedience is required. "Today, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts" (Psalms 95:7, Psalms 95:8). God called his sons to serve in his vineyard—the Church. He called them by the prophets, and more especially by John the Baptist, to turn from evil ways, and to do works meet for repentance (Matthew 3:8). Christ gives two examples, showing how this call was received. Matthew 21:29 I will not. The answer is rude, curt, and disrespectful, such a one as would naturally issue from the lips of a person who was selfishly wrapped in his own pleasures, and cared nothing for the Law of God, the claims of relationship, the decencies of society. Repented, and went; i.e. into the vineyard to work. The worst sinners, when converted, often make great saints. There is more hope of their repentance than of the self-righteous or hypocrites, who profess the form of religion without the reality, and in their own view need no repentance. Matthew 21:30 The second. He typifies the Pharisees, the scrupulous observers of outward form, while neglectful of the weightier matters—judgment, mercy, and faith (Matthew 23:23). I go, sir, Ἐγωκυριε: Eo, domine. This son is outwardly respectful and dutiful; his answer is in marked contrast to the rough "I will not" of his brother. He professes zeal for the Law, and ready obedience. And went not. Such men did no real work for God, honouring him with their lips and outward observances, while their heart was far from him, and their morality was unprincipled and impure. Matthew 21:31 Whether of them (the) twain! Christ forces from the unwilling hearers an answer which, at the moment, they do not see will condemn themselves. Unaccustomed to be criticized and put to the question, wrapped in a self-complacent righteousness, which was generally undisturbed, they missed the bearing of the parable on their own case, and answered without hesitation, as any unprejudiced person would have decided. The first; i.e. the son who first refused, but afterwards repented and went. Verily I say unto you. Jesus drives the moral home to the hearts of these hypocrites. The publicans and the harlots. He specifies these excommunicated sinners as examples of those represented by the first son. Go into the kingdom of God before you; προαγουσινὑμας: are preceding you. This was the fact which Jesus saw and declared, he does not cut off all hope that the Pharisees might follow, if they willed to do so; he only shows that they have lost the position which they ought to have occupied, and that those whom they despised and spurned have accepted the offered salvation, and shall have their reward. We must remark that the Lord has no censure for those who sometime were disobedient, but afterwards repented; his rebuke falls on the professors and self-righteous, who ought to have been leaders and guides, and were in truth impious and irreligious. Matthew 21:32 For John came unto you. This gives the reason for Christ’s assertion at the end of the last verse. John came with a special call to the rulers of the people, and they made some show of interest, by sending a deputation to demand his credentials, and by coming to his baptism; but that was all. They did not alter their lives or change their faulty opinions at his preaching, though they "were willing for a season to rejoice in his light" (John 5:35). In the way of righteousness. In that path of strict obedience to law, and of ascetic holiness, which you profess to regard so highly. If they had followed the path which John indicated, they would have attained to righteousness and salvation. John preached Christ who is "the Way" (John 14:6). (For "way," meaning doctrine, religious tenet and practice, see Matthew 22:16; Acts 9:2; Acts 19:9, Acts 19:23; 2 Peter 2:21.) Ye believed him not, to any practical purpose, even as it is said elsewhere (Luke 7:30), "The Pharisees and the lawyers rejected for themselves the counsel of God, not having been baptized of him." Those who did receive his baptism were the exception; the great majority stood aloof. Believed him. Though these sinners may have first rejected him, yet his preaching softened their hearts; they repented, confessed their sins, and were baptized (see for examples, Luke 3:10, etc.; Luke 7:29). This was another call to the Pharisees to go and do likewise. When ye had seen it; i.e. the fruits of true repentance in these sinners, which conversion was indeed a loud appeal to the rulers to consider their own ways, and to bow to God’s hand. Repented not (see verse 29). They profited not by this miracle of grace. That ye might believe him. The end and result of repentance would be to believe in John’s mission, and to attend to his teaching. Christ offers the above explanation of the parable (verses 31, 32) in view of the purpose for which he uttered it. It has been, and may be, taken in different senses, and in wider application. "What is set forth in individual cases is but a sample of what takes place in whole classes of persons, and even nations" (I. Williams). Many expositors consider the two sons to represent Gentiles and Jews; the former making no profession of serving God, and yet in time being converted and turning to him; the latter making much outward show of obedience, yet in reality denying him and rejecting salvation. It is obvious that such explanation is allowable, and coincides with the letter of the parable; but it does not satisfy the context, and fails in not answering to Christ’s intention in uttering this similitude. Others see herein a picture of what happens in Christian lands, and is the experience of every Christian minister—how the irreligious and apparently irreclaimable are by God’s grace brought, to repentance unto life; how the seemingly pious often make much show, but fall away, or bring no fruit unto perfection. And as the parable involves a general principle, so it may be applied universally to those who make great professions of religion, and are for a time full of good resolutions, but in practice fall very short; and to those who have been the slaves of lust, covetousness, or some other wickedness, but have been recovered from the snares of the devil, and have learned to lead a godly, righteous, and sober life. Matthew 21:33-46 Parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen. (Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19.) Matthew 21:33 Hear another parable. The domineering and lately imperious party are reduced to the position of pupils; they have to listen to teaching, not to give it; to answer, not to put questions. This parable sets forth, under the guise of history, the Pharisaical party in its official character, and as the representative of the nation. It also denounces the punishment that surely awaited these rejecters of the offered salvation; thus exemplifying the teaching of the withered fig tree (Matthew 21:17-20). As applicable to the Jewish nation generally, it represents the long suffering of God and the various means which, in the course of their history, he had used to urge them to do their duty as his servants; and it ends with a prophecy of the coming events, and the terrible issue of impenitence. We must take the parable as partly retrospective, and partly predictive. There was a certain householder; a man (ἀìνθρωπος) that was an householder. Christ in his parables often, as here, introduces God in his dealings with mankind as a man. His house is the house of Israel in particular, and in general the whole human family. A vineyard. God’s kingdom upon earth, and particularly the Jewish Church. The figure is common throughout Scripture (see on Matthew 20:1). It was planted when God gave Israel a law, and put them in possession of the promised land. The parable itself is founded on Isaiah 5:1-7, where, however, the vineyard is tended by the Lord himself, not by husbandmen, and it bears wild grapes, not good grapes. By these differences different developments of declension are indicated. In the earlier times it was the nation that apostatized, fell into idolatry and rebellion against God, the theocratical Head of their race and polity. In later days it is the teachers, rabbis, priests, false prophets, who neglect the paths of righteousness, and lead people astray. In the parable these last come into painful prominence as criminally guilty of opposing God’s messengers. Hedged it round; put a hedge around it. The fence would be a stone wall—a necessary defence against the incursions of wild animals. This fence has been regarded in two senses—first, as referring to the physical peculiarities of the position of the Holy Land, separated from alien nations by deserts, seas, rivers, and so isolated from evil contagion; second, as intimating the peculiar laws and minute restrictions of the Jewish polity, which differentiated Judaism from all other systems of religion, and tended to preserve purity and incorruption. Probably the "hedge" is meant to adumbrate both senses. Many, however, see in it the protection of angels, or the righteousness of saints, which seem hardly to be sufficiently precise for the context. Digged a winepress. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 22:1-14 Parable of the marriage of the king’s son. (Peculiar to St. Matthew.) Matthew 22:1 Jesus answered and spake unto them. After they had heard our Lord’s words at the end of the last chapter, the Pharisees, according to St. Mark, "left him, and went their way," so that this parable was spoken in the audience of the disciples and the attendant multitude alone, without the former disturbing element. This fact may account for its exhibiting certain merciful and gracious features, setting forth the privilege rather than the duty of obeying the gospel call. The term "answered" often does not signify a reply given to some distinct question, but is equivalent to "took occasion to observe" (comp. Matthew 11:25, etc.). Here the occasion was the insidious schemes of his enemies. Again. With reference to the two parables in the preceding chapter. Parables. The plural denotes the class to which the discourse belongs; or it may refer to the many parabolic details contained herein. Only one parable follows. This bears great resemblance to the parable of the great supper (Luke 14:1-35.), which, however, was spoken at an earlier period, in another locality, and with a different object, and disagrees in many details, especially in the absence of the wedding garment. Christ, doubtless, often repeated his parables with variations in particulars to suit time, audiences, and circumstances. Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like (comp. Matthew 20:1. This parable supplements that of the wicked husbandmen. As that referred to Jewish times, so this refers to gospel times. The householder in the one becomes the king in the other; one demands work and duty, the other bestows gifts and blessings; one is angered at ingratitude for favours received, the other punishes for contempt of offered bounty. A certain king; ἀνθρωπῳβασιλεῖ: a man a king, even God the Father, the expression denoting "the Almighty’s wonderful condescension, as assimilating himself to our infirmities in his dispensations towards us" (I. Williams). Made a marriage; γαμους: marriage festivities; the plural perhaps denoting the days consumed in the celebration (see Genesis 29:27; Judges 14:12; Tobit 8:19, 20). Morison compares our English word "nuptials." In the Old Testament, Jehovah is the Husband of his Church; in the New, Christ is represented as married to the spiritual Israel, which takes the place of the older dispensation. For his son. Jesus Christ, whose intimate union with his Church is often represented under the figure of a marriage (see Matthew 9:15; John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:23, Ephesians 5:32; Revelation 19:7). Matthew 22:3 Sent forth his servants. In the East, the original invitation to a solemn festivity is followed by reminders as the day approaches (comp. Esther 5:8; Esther 6:14). The servants here are John the Baptist, the twelve apostles, the seventy, who first preached the gospel to the Jewish people. Them that were bidden. The Jews had already been invited to come in; to them already belonged "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants … and the promises" (Romans 9:1). These early missionaries were sent to bring such things to their remembrance, and to bid them obey the call. They would not (οὐκἠìθελον) come. Their reasons for refusal are not given here—a fact which differentiates this parable from that of the great supper. A general disinclination or aversion is denoted; no actual outrage is perpetrated as yet, but the invited guests are ripening for this stage, in that they despise the King’s Son, and believe not in his Divine mission. This backwardness and obduracy recall Christ’s lamentation, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem!" (Luke 13:34, Luke 13:35). Matthew 22:4 Other servants. The apostles and their immediate followers after the death and resurrection of Christ, and the effusion of the Holy Ghost. A fresh call was mercifully given with new graces and new degrees of revelation. My dinner (τοἀìριστονμου). This is the lighter midday meal, which was the commencement of the festivities, and was followed by the supper (δεῖπνον) in the evening. Are killed. The great Sacrifice has been offered, the Victim slain (John 6:51-59), the Holy Spirit has made all things ready. Here are grace, health, abundance, to be had for acceptance. We may compare the invitation of Wisdom in the Old Testament (Proverbs 9:1, etc.) with this of Christ. In Jewish minds the blessings of Messiah’s kingdom are constantly connected with the idea of a sumptuous feast, as in Luke 14:15; and our Lord himself uses the same image (Matthew 8:11; Luke 22:30). Matthew 22:5 They made light of it, and went their ways. They who refused the invitation are divided into two classes—the first mentioned in this verse, the second in the following. These are simply careless, indifferent scorners, who are too busy with their worldly concerns to attend to the claims of the gospel. So we read, "The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him" (Luke 16:14; comp. Matthew 19:23, Matthew 19:24). His farm; τονἰìδιονἀγρον: his own farm, or estate. This is the landed proprietor, who goes to the selfish enjoyment of his possessions. His merchandise. This is the busy trader, who is engrossed in the pursuit of wealth (compare the excuses in Luke 14:18, Luke 14:19). Matthew 22:6 The remnant. These form the second class of recalcitrant guests. They are actively hostile to the King and his messengers, rejecting them not merely for worldly or interested motives, but from intense hatred to the doctrines which they taught. Such were the scribes and Pharisees, who could not endure to see the Law superseded, and the Gentiles raised to their level; such were the Sadducees, who scoffed at a faith founded on the resurrection, and refused credit to the miraculous with which the gospel was interwoven. Took his servants. The narratives in the Acts give many instances of the seizure and imprisonment of apostles and believers (see Acts 4:3; Acts 9:2; Acts 12:4, etc.). Entreated (treated) them spitefully (see Acts 5:40; Acts 14:19; Acts 16:23, etc.; 2 Corinthians 11:23-25). Slew them; e.g. Stephen (Acts 7:58), James (Acts 12:2). All but one of the apostles died violent deaths at the hands of those who rejected the gospel; and there must have been numbers of martyrs of whom history has preserved no record, though their names are written in heaven, which is far better. Matthew 22:7 When the king heard thereof. The text varies here. Some manuscripts have "that king," to whom the rejection of his messengers was a personal insult. The Sinaitic, Vatican, and other authorities omit ἀκουσας, "heard thereof," and it may well be a gloss from the human view that the king, not being personally present, must have been informed of the incidents. At the same time, the King, regarded as God, needs no report to acquaint him with what is going on. He was wroth. The injury was done to him, and he resents it (comp. Luke 10:16; John 12:48). His armies. The Romans, under Vespasian and Titus, the unconscious instruments of his vengeance. So the Assyrians are called "the rod of God’s anger" (Isaiah 10:5; Isaiah 13:5; comp. Jeremiah 25:9; Jeremiah 51:20). Some regard the "armies" as angels, the ministers of God’s punishment, especially in war, famine, and pestilence, the three scourges which accomplished the ruin of the Jews. Probably both angels and men are included in the term. Destroyed … burned up their city. No longer his city, but theirs, the murderers’ city, Jerusalem. So a little later foretelling the same fate, Jesus speaks of "your house" (Matthew 23:38). The Romans, in fact, some forty years after, put to the sword the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and burned the city to ashes. Matthew 22:8 Then saith he. This is supposed to take place after the destruction of the murderers and their city; and, indeed, the final rejection of the Jews and the substitution of the Gentiles were consummated by the overthrow of Jerusalem and the Hebrew polity. The wedding is ready. God’s great design is not frustrated by the neglect of those first invited, only the guests are changed. Not worthy. Their unworthiness was proved by their rejection of the gracious call, as the worthiness of those subsequently called consisted in their acceptance thereof. The passage is well illustrated by the language of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:46, Acts 13:47). Matthew 22:9 The highways; ταςδιεξοδουςτῶνὁδῶν: exitus viarum; the partings, or outlets of the ways. The places where roads meet, beyond the city bounds in the country, which would naturally be a centre of concourse. The city where the marriage feast was now held is not named, because it is no longer Jerusalem, but somewhere, anywhere, in the Gentile world; for the call of the Gentiles is here set forth. As many as ye shall find. The invitation is no longer confined to the Jews; the whole human race is called to the marriage of the Lamb, to participate in the fruits of the Incarnation. This general evangelization was begun in apostolic times (see Acts 8:5, Acts 8:38; Acts 10:28, Acts 10:48; Acts 13:46), and has been carried on ever since. The apostles’special ministrations to the Jews seemed to have ended at the martyrdom of St. James the Less, A.D. 62 (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 20.9, l). Matthew 22:10 Highways; ὁδους: the roads. Not "the partings of the ways," whither they had been ordered to go. Some see here an intimation of the imperfection of the work of human agents; but it is very doubtful if any such allusion is intended. More probably ταςὁδους is only a synonym for ταςδιεξοδουςτῶνὁδῶν. Both bad and good. The visible Church contains a mixed company, as Christ indicated by more than one parable; e.g. the draw net, the tares, etc. (Matthew 13:1-58.). The bad are named first, in order to show the infinite graciousness of the king. In the earliest times converts were baptized with very little preparation and without any probation, as we see in the case of the eunuch, the jailor, and many more mentioned in the Acts; and doubtless many were insincere and soon lapsed. When we read of whole households being baptized, and in later times of whole nations receiving Christian initiation, there must have been little individual preparation of heart or cleansing of conscience, and the missioner had to take for granted much which more careful examination would have proved to be fallacious. The mention of this mixture of bad and good in the company introduces the final scene. The wedding. The Sinaitic, Vatican, and other manuscripts read "marriage chamber" (νυμφων). So Tischendorf and Westcott and Herr. But the received text is well founded, and seems more natural. Guests; ἀνακειμενων: literally, recliners; Vulgate, discumbentium; so called from the customary attitude at meals. Matthew 22:11 The king came in to see the guests, who by this time had taken their appointed places at table. This second portion of the parable teaches that admission to the visible Church is not all that is required; there is also a scrutiny to be undergone and an award to be made. And that this investigation is keen and searching is denoted by the verb used, θεασασθαι, which means not merely, to see casually, but to gaze upon with the intent of seeing the real nature and character of an object. The king makes his appearance in the banqueting hall, not to feast with the guests, but to welcome them, and to examine if they are properly ordered, served, and fitted for the high honour accorded to them. How close and personal is this inquiry is shown by the immediate detection of one unseemly guest among the multitude. The time when he thus comes is, in one view, the day of judgment; but such visitation and scrutiny are always recurring, as at solemn seasons, in days of trial, sacred services, holy communion, when he searches men’s hearts, and sees if they are prepared for his presence. Which had not on a wedding garment; οὐκἐνδεδυμενονἐìνδυμαγαμου: not garbed in wedding garment, the genitive expressing the peculiar character or quality of the garment. Wordsworth compares similar phrases: Luke 16:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 2 Thessalonians 2:9; James 1:25; 2 Peter 2:1, etc. It is said to have been an Oriental custom to present each guest invited to a royal feast with a festive robe to be worn on the occasion, as nowadays persons admitted to the royal presence are clothed with a caftan. Traces of the custom have been found in Genesis 45:22; Judges 14:12; 2 Kings 5:22; 2 Kings 10:22; but they are not very convincing. The Romans seem to have had such a custom, the robes being called "cenatoria." Thus Martial, 10:87, 11, writes— "Pugnorum reus ebriaeque noctis, Cenatoria mittat advocato." But the fact remains that this guest had not presented himself in attire befitting the solemnity; in his everyday garb, and with no proper preparation, he had dared to come to this great festival. What is the spiritual meaning of the wedding garment is much disputed. It is evidently some virtue, or quality, or mark which conditions admission to the enjoyment of the kingdom of God. On the one hand, it is said that both bad and good guests wear it, and its possession does not alter the character of the wearer. Dress is something external and visible, therefore the garment cannot represent an inward grace or feeling, but some outward token by which Christians are distinguished, such as open reception of baptism and sacraments, and public profession of the faith. On the other hand, it is contended that the whole matter is spiritual, though veiled in material forms, and is concerned with man’s moral and spiritual nature. Hence it by no means follows that the wedding garment is not intended to have a spiritual signification. Ancient commentators universally look upon it in this light. Some regard it as an emblem of faith in Christ; others, of faith and love combined. "Habete fidem cum dilectione," writes St. Augustine, ’Serm.,’ 90., "ista est vestis nuptialis." But it must be observed that faith of some sort was shown by accepting the invitation; so this could not be represented by the special garb which was absent. Others, again, see in it good works, or humility, or the purity effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Some moderns take it of "imputed," others of imparted, righteousness, bringing their controversies into the King’s presence. chamber. The English Church, taking the marriage feast as a figure of the Holy Communion, applies the wedding garment to that cleansing of the conscience which enables persons to come holy and clean to that heavenly feast (see the first Exhortation to Holy Communion). This is legitimate, but too restricted in its reference. The feast denotes the present and future kingdom of God; the entrance to this is a matter of free grace; the garment is moral fitness, the life and conduct dependent on the due use of God’s grace. This is in the power of all who have received the call; they have to act up to the high calling, to be wholly, heartily, really what they profess to be. The scrutiny, whether made in this life or in the life to come, shows how grace has been used, if we have put on Christ, if we have kept our soul pure and white, unsullied by sin, or washed clean by penitential tears and the blood of Christ (see Revelation 19:8). The metaphor concerning this robe of righteousness is found in Isaiah 61:10, "He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with a garland, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels." Commentators compare (but with doubtful appositeness) Zephaniah 1:7, Zephaniah 1:8. Matthew 22:12 Friend; ἑταῖρε, as Matthew 20:13. It was thus that Christ addressed Judas in the garden (Matthew 26:50). The term here has in it something of distrust and disapprobation. How camest thou in hither? The question may mean—How couldst thou presume to approach this solemn festival without the indispensable requisite? Or, how couldst thou elude the vigilance of the servants, and enter in this unseemly garb? The former is doubtless the signification of the inquiry. The contemptuous rejection of propriety is an outrage offered to the majesty of the king, and one worthy of severest punishment. He was speechless; ἐφιμωθη: literally, he was muzzled, tongue tied, as if his mouth were closed with a muzzle (comp. Matthew 20:34; and Luke 4:35). He could make no reply; he had no excuse to offer. His silence condemned him. It is observed that gags were used for rebellious slaves or criminals on their way to execution (Webst. and Wilk.). Matthew 22:13 The servants; τοῖςδιακονοις: ministers, or attendants—not the same as the servants (δοῦλοι) who originally carried out the invitations. They are not preachers, but the guards of the throne, meaning probably the ministering angels who execute the King’s commands (see Matthew 13:41.49). Bind him hand and foot. By hand and foot men sin, by these they are punished. All hope of escape is thus removed. There is no trial; the offence is too gross and evident to need any further examination; the sentence is at once passed and carried out. He who Strives against God is helpless, and immediately condemned. Take him away. The offender is thus deprived of all good. This clause is omitted by most authorities, and has probably been introduced into the received text with the view of explaining the stages and progress of the ejectment. (The) outer darkness. Far away from the glory and brightness of the banquet into the gloom and blackness of the outer world, which represents the misery of lost souls (see Matthew 8:12, where the same expressions occur). "There are no longer feet to run to God’s mercy or to flee from his justice; no longer hands to do good or make amends for evil; no longer saving light, whereby to know God or one’s own duties. Nothing but darkness, pain, grief, tears, rage, fury, and despair, for him who is not in the wedding hall. This is the fruit of sin, and especially of the abuse of faith and grace" (Quesnel). Matthew 22:14 Many are called … chosen. The rejected guest is a type of a numerous class (see Matthew 20:6). All the Jews had first been called; then all the Gentiles; many were they who obeyed not the call; and of those who did come in, many were not of the inner election, of those, that is, whose life and character were worthy of the Christian name, showing the graces of faith, holiness, and love. Applying the parable generally, Origen (ap. I. Williams) says, "If any one will observe the populous congregations, and inquire how many there are who live a better kind of life, and are being transformed in the renewing of their mind; and how many who are careless in their conversation and conformed to this world, he will perceive the use of this voice of our Saviour’s, ’Many are called, but few chosen;’ and in another place it has been said, ’Many will seek to enter in, and shall not be able’ (Luke 13:24); and, ’Strive earnestly to enter in by the narrow gate; for few there be that find it’ (Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:14)." Matthew 22:15-22 Second attack: The question concerning the tribute to Caesar. (Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26.) Matthew 22:15 Then went the Pharisees. After they had heard the parables, and were for the time silenced, they departed from the public courts of the temple, and betook themselves to the hall of the Sanhedrin, that they might plot some stratagem against Jesus. How they might entangle (παγιδευσωσιν) him in his talk. The verb (not elsewhere found in the New Testament) means "to lay a snare for" an object. The Pharisees did not dare to use open violence, but they now endeavoured by insidious questions to make him compromise himself either with the Romans, their political masters, or with the national and patriotic party. Matthew 22:16 Their disciples. Men of their own party, or students in the rabbinical schools, like Paul, "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel" and such like teachers. They sent these unknown and apparently simpleminded persons, that they themselves, who were open and bitter enemies of Christ, might not appear in the matter. With the Herodians. The two bodies hated one another, but made now an unholy alliance for the purpose of attacking Jesus. Hatred, like poverty, makes men acquainted with strange companions. The Herodians were a political sect which supported the dynasty of Herod, and were more or less favourable to the dominion of Rome, as that which preserved their authority in the country. In religious opinions they were mostly Sadducees. The Pharisees, on the other hand, in their nominal zeal for God, were violently opposed to the claims of Rome, and ready to rebel at the first favourable opportunity. They regarded the Herodians as little better than the heathen whom they favoured, but sunk their differences in the face of a general peril. Between these antagonistic elements an impious league had been formed earlier in Christ’s ministry. Master; Διδασκαλε: Teacher, equivalent to "Rabbi;" owning him for the nonce as one possessed of teaching authority, though they willed not to be his disciples. True; truthful. Thoroughly misapprehending the character of Jesus, they began by flattery. Nicodemus had spoken in sincerity when he said (John 3:2), "Rabbi, we know that thou art a Teacher come from God;" but these make the admission in hypocrisy; it was a captatio benevolentiae, prompted by the spirit of evil. The way of God. The precepts and rules which men must follow if they would please God. The phrase is common in the Old Testament (Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 10:12; Psalms 18:21, etc.). Neither carest thou. What men think or say of thee is no concern to thee. They cannot influence thy actions or disturb thy serenity. The person of men. Thou art thoroughly impartial; no considerations of rank, station, power, bias thy judgment, words, or actions. This is said with the view of encouraging him to answer without fear of offending the Roman authorities. Matthew 22:17 Tell us therefore. Because you are so truthful and impartial, give us your unprejudiced opinion about the following much-disputed question. These people assume to be simple-minded inquirers, who came to Jesus to have a perplexity resolved. St. Luke gives their real character, "They sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words." Is it lawful (ἐìξεστι) to give tribute (κῆνσον, censure) unto Caesar, or not? The tribute is the poll tax levied by the Romans. Caesar at this time was Tiberius; the title was now applied to the emperors, though its subsequent use was different. By asking concerning the lawfulness of the payment, they do not inquire whether it was expedient or advisable to make it, but whether it was morally and religiously right, consistent with their obligation as subjects of the theocratic kingdom. Some, as Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37; Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 18.1. 1, 6), had resorted to violence in their opposition to the tax; and indeed, the question here put was much debated between opposite parties. The Pharisees were strongly opposed to foreign domination, and thought it derogatory and sacrilegious for the people of Jehovah to pay impost to a foreign and heathen authority. The Herodians, on the other hand, submitted without reserve to the supremacy of Rome, and, for political reasons, silenced all nationalist and ultra-patriotic feeling. By putting this question, the disputants thought to force Christ into a dilemma, where he must answer directly "Yes" or "No," and where, whichever reply he made, he would equally offend one or other of the parties into which the state was divided. If he affirmed the lawfulness of the tax, he would lose his popularity with the mass of the people, as one who disowned the sovereignty of Jehovah, and would give the death blow to his own claims as Messiah-King. If he garb a negative reply, he would be deemed an enemy of Rome and a promoter of seditious views, and be liable to be handed over to the civil power for the punishment of disaffection and treason (see Luke 20:20). They falsely brought this charge against him before Pilate (Luke 23:2). Matthew 22:18 Wickedness. The malice and hypocrisy which prompted the inquiry. Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? They were hypocrites because they falsely assumed the guise of conscientious men, who had no sinister motive, and desired merely to hear the decision of a much-esteemed Rabbi. Christ’s words proved in a moment that he saw through them, understood the meaning of the temptation to which they had subjected him—how they were trying to involve him in a political difficulty, from which they deemed no escape was possible. The character which they had fiatteringly. given to Jesus (Matthew 22:16) he here fully responds to. Matthew 22:19 The tribute money; τονομισματοῦκηνσου: the coin of the tribute; that is, the coin in which the tribute was paid. The reply to the question was wholly unexpected. The Pharisaic "disciples" had hoped that Christ would have taken part against the Herodians; but he gives no decision about the matter in dispute, such as they desired. He virtually rebukes their dissimulation, and makes their own action supply the verdict which they demanded. Not seeing the drift of his request, they brought unto him a penny; a denarius (see on Matthew 18:28). This was the amount of the capitation tax, and it was paid in Roman, not Jewish, coinage. Just at this period the Jews had no mintage of their own, and were forced to use Roman coins, which might well be called "tribute money." Matthew 22:20 Image and superscription. The figure and inscription on the denarius. Jesus takes the coin, and points to it as he speaks. It must have borne a likeness of the emperor, and,therefore, as Edersheim remarks, must have been either a foreign one (Roman) or possibly one of the Tetrareh Philip, who on some of his coins introduced the image of Tiberius. The coins struck by the Romans in or for Palestine had, in accommodation to Jewish prejudices, no representation of any personage upon them. The Roman denarius at this date had on the obverse side the head of Tiberius, crowned with laurel leaves, and bore the legend, "TI CAESAR DIVI AVG ," and on the reverse, a seated female figure, with the inscription, "PONTIF MAXIM." Matthew 22:21 Caesar’s. They are constrained to answer that the coin bears the effigy of the Roman emperor. Render (ἀποδοτε, give back, as a due) therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s (ταΚαισαρος). Rabbinism ruled that the right of coinage appertained to the ruler of a state, and was a proof of de facto government, which it was unlawful to resist. The current coin, which they used in their daily transactions, showed that the Jews were no longer independent, but set under and acquiescing in a foreign domination. Being subjects of Caesar, it was their duty to submit to his demands, and to pay the taxes which he had a right to levy. This was an answer to the insidious question propounded. Christ does not take either side in the controversy; he makes no question of the mutual rights of conquered and conquerors; he utters no aspiration for the recovery of independence; he uses facts as they are, and points to habitual practice as a sufficient solution of the difficulty. No reply could be wiser or simpler. Herein he gives a lesson for all time. No plea of religion can hold good against obedience to lawful authority. "Render to all their dues," says St. Paul (Romans 13:7): "tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." The things that are God’s; τατοῦΘεοῦ. The things of God arc ourselves—our life, powers, faculties, means; to use these in God’s service is our duty and our privilege. There need be no conflict between religion and politics, Church and state. Let a citizen do his duty to God, and he will find his obligations to the civil power are coincident and harmonious. Let the state respect the rights of God and of conscience, and there will he no collision between itself and the Church, but both will peaceably cooperate for the good of the community. Had the Jews rendered to God his dues, they would never have been reduced to their present state of subjection and debasement; would never have had to pay tribute to a foreign nation. Matthew 22:22 They marvelled. Well might they marvel. Their carefully laid plot, which had seemed so irresistible, was utterly frustrated. The view of the relations of Church and state set forth by Christ was novel and incomprehensible. Hitherto the two provinces had been considered identical. The emperor, as we see impressed on his coins, was Pontifex Maximus; the Jewish priesthood had a political character, and the civil power was its instrument. In Christ’s theory the spheres were distinct and not to be confounded. The state compelled obedience to its enactments; the Church left the conscience free, and obedience was voluntary and enforced by no external powers. The new society stood aloof from all political interests, and was responsible alone to God, while it performed its duties. Left him. They had no answer to give. There was nothing in Christ’s words that they could lay hold of; nothing treasonable, nothing unpatriotic. Baffled, though not convinced, the questioners sullenly withdrew; but they or their comrades afterwards had the effrontery to accuse Jesus of forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar (Luke 23:2). Matthew 22:23-33 Third attack: The Sadducees and the resurrection. (Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40.) Matthew 22:23 The same day; on that day. This is still the Tuesday in the Holy Week. The Sadducees. There is no definite article here in the original. Which say; οἱλεγοντες. Many good manuscripts and some modern editors (Laehmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort) read λεγοντες, "saying." The received reading historically describes the Sadducees’ opinions; the other makes them come boldly stating their sentiments. Where authorities are pretty evenly balanced, we must decide the wording of a passage by other than literary considerations; and there can be no doubt that the reading which denotes the characteristic of the sect is more appropriate than that which represents them offensively parading their views as a preparation for the coming question. We have had notice of the Saddueees before (Matthew 3:7; Matthew 16:1). The popular account of their religious belief is given in Acts 23:8, "The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit." They were rationalists and sceptics, who denied many old-established truths, and scorned many prevalent observances. They acknowledged most of the Old Testament, though, curiously enough, they, like our modern neologians, stumbled at the supernatural upon which the Scriptures were built. Tradition and traditional interpretations found no favour with them. The future life of the soul they utterly repudiated, and the resurrection of the body, when it was brought before them, met with contemptuous ridicule. The claims and doctrine of Christ were, in their eyes, puerile and unworthy of philosophic consideration. At the same time, they recognized that the people were with him for the moment, and that it was expedient that his teaching, so utterly opposed to their own opinions, should be discredited and repressed. So they came forward asking an imaginary question, which, as they thought, would reduce to an absurdity the doctrine of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the flesh. Doubtless they were members of the Sanhedrin, and it was at the instigation of this body that they proposed the presumed case of conscience. Matthew 22:24 Moses said. They quote the substance of the law of the levirate (i.e. the brother-in-law) in Deuteronomy 25:5, Deuteronomy 25:6, by which it was enacted that if a married man died without a son, his brother or the next of kin should marry the widow, and the firstborn son of this union should be regarded and registered as the son of the deceased. This was a law not peculiar to the Hebrews, but prevalent from immemorial times among many ancient peoples, e.g. Persians, Egyptians, and found in force among some nations in modern times, as Arabians, Druses, Cireassians, etc. It seems not to have been enforced in any case, but to have been left to the good will of the survivor, who might escape the obligation by submitting to a certain social obloquy (Deuteronomy 25:7-10). The motive of the regulation was the maintenance of a family and the non-alienation of property. Many authorities assert that the law did not apply in the case of a man who left daughters (Numbers 27:8), but only in that of a childless widow. Later rabbinism limited the obligation to a betrothed woman, not yet actually married. But whatever may have been the limitations allowed in these days, the question of the Sadducees took its stand on the old legal basis, and endeavoured to draw therefrom a ridiculous inference. Shall marry; ἐπιγαμβρευσει. The verb, found in the Septuagint, is used properly signifying "to take a woman to wife as the husband’s kinsman" (γαμβρος), and generally, "to contract affinity by marriage." Raise up seed. The firstborn son of such a marriage was the legal heir of the deceased brother, and bore his name. The natural and the legal paternities are seen in the genealogies of our Lord, and occasion some difficulties in adjustment. Matthew 22:25 Seven brethren. If the word "brethren" is to be taken in the strictest sense, and not as equivalent to "kinsmen," the case is indeed conceivable, though extremely improbable, especially as at this time the custom had fallen into abeyance, and its rigorous fulfilment was neither practised nor expected. There is a levity and a coarseness in the question which is simply revolting. Matthew 22:26 Unto the seventh; ἑìωςτῶνἑπτα, unto the seven—to the end of the seven. Matthew 22:27 The woman died also. This last word is omitted by Alford, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort, and seemingly with good reason. Then, according to these Sadducees, arose the difficulty which they deemed insurmountable. Matthew 22:28 In the resurrection; i.e. in the life beyond the grave, to which the resurrection is supposed to lead. Whose wife shall she be of the seven? Of which of the seven shall she be wife (γυνη, without the article, predicate)? The evil question stands in its naked absurdity. Had the woman a son by either of the husbands, the difficulty would have been less pronounced. In their coarse materialism, these persons carry their conceptions of the present visible world into the future spiritual world; they confuse the conditions and relations of one with those of the other, and would argue that if such insoluble complications arise in the new life, the resurrection must be an unfounded figment. Had her. All were lawfully married to her, and therefore all had equal rights. When a woman was twice married, the rabbinical gloss declared that in the other world she would belong to her first husband; but this opinion was not generally received, and the present supposititious case had never been contemplated and fell under no allowed rule. Matthew 22:29 Ye do err. Jesus does not condescend to answer directly to the contemptuous question proposed. He goes to the root of the matter, and shows the great error in which it originated. These disputants are treated with patience and calm argument, because they are not hypocrites like the Pharisees, but have the courage of their opinions, and do not seek to appear other than they are. They erred, said Christ, for two reasons: first, not knowing the Scriptures. Whatever might be the lax opinions which they held respecting the prophets, there was no dispute about the supreme authority of the Pentateuch, and these Scriptures (as Christ proceeded to prove) plainly implied the doctrine of the resurrection. Secondly, they ignored the power of God, to whom nothing is impossible, and who, in the resurrection, would perform a work very different from what they supposed—changing the natural into the spiritual, and transforming the characteristics of the life that now is into a different and higher sphere, yet preserving identity. Matthew 22:30 For. The Lord proceeds first to show the power of God as displayed in the resurrection. The Sadducees would limit and control this power by conceiving that it could not change the qualities of the body or alter the conditions and relations of the human consciousness. In the resurrection (see on Matthew 22:28). Marry; as men. Are given in marriage; as women. Marriage is an earthly relationship, and can have no place in a spiritual condition. All that is of the earth, all that is carnal and gross, all human passions, all that is connected with sin and corruption, shall pass away. The risen life is no mere reproduction of the present, but a regeneration, new life added to the old, with new powers, acting under new laws, ranged in a new community. On earth men are mortal, and marriage is necessary to perpetuate the race; no such necessity obtains in the other life, where men are immortal. As an old Father says, "Where the law of death is abolished, the cause of birth is abolished likewise." Are as the angels of God in heaven; i.e. as the angels who dwell in heaven. The words, τοῦΘεοῦ, of God, are omitted by some manuscripts and editors. The Vulgate has, angeli Dei in coelo. Thus Christ, in opposition to the Saddueces’ creed, admits the existence of angels. Glorified men are like the angels in these characteristics especially. They are immortal, no longer subject to human wants, passions, failings, or temptations; they serve God perfectly without weariness or distraction; they have no conflict between flesh and spirit, between the old nature and the new; their life is peaceful, harmonious, satisfying. Our Lord says nothing here concerning mutual recognition in the future state; nothing about the continuance of those tender relations which he sanctions and blesses on earth, and in the absence of which we cannot imagine perfect happiness existing. Analogy supplies some answer to such questions, but they are foreign to Christ’s statement, and need not be here discussed. Matthew 22:31 As touching (περι) the resurrection of the dead. Christ, in the second place, shows how these disputants were, ignorant of Scripture. They may have known the letter, they certainly knew nothing of the spirit of the Word of God, its depth and fulness. The key to the interpretation of the Scripture is faith. It is not enough to be acquainted with the literal signification; this is always inadequate, and denotes not the chief matter intended. To know the Scripture, in the sense of Christ, is to have a clear apprehension of its spiritual aspect, to feel and own the moral and mystical bearing of facts and statements, and to recognize that herein lies the real significance of the inspired record. The want of this discernment vitiated the Sadducees’ treatment and reception of Holy Writ, and involved them in lamentable error. Christ proceeds to demonstrate how the very Pentateuch (reverenced unquestionably by their party), which they deemed to be entirely silent on the subject of the life of the soul, spoke plainly on this matter to all who had faith to understand and appreciate the words of Divine wisdom. That which was spoken unto you by God. To our minds Jesus might have adduced stronger arguments from other books of Scripture, e.g. Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; but the Sadducees had drawn their objection from the Pentateuch, therefore from that section of the Bible he refutes them. To the books of Moses was always made the ultimate appeal in confirmation of doctrine; in the supreme authority of these writings all sects agreed. The utterances of the prophets were explained away as allegorical, poetical, and rhetorical; the plain, historical statements of the Law could not at that time be thus treated. Christ endorses unreservedly the Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch; he intimates that it was the voice of God to all time, and providentially directed to disperse such errors as those now produced. Matthew 22:32 I am (ἐγωεἰμι). The quotation is from Exodus 3:6, where God gives himself this name, as the Eternal, Self-existent One. The God of Abraham … Jacob. These patriarchs had long been dead when this revelation was made; had they been annihilated, the Lord could not have called himself still their God. By this utterance he implied that he had still to do with them—had a blessing and a reward which they were to receive, and which they must be alive to enjoy. How can they who are his cease to exist? They who are in personal relation and covenant with God cannot perish. There were personal promises to Abraham, distinguished from those made to his seed (see Genesis 13:15; Genesis 15:7; Genesis 17:8, etc.), which were never fulfilled during his earthly life, and await realization in a future existence. God was the patriarchs’ Father, Saviour, Redeemer, Judge, Rewarder; he could not hold these relations to mere dust and ashes, but only to con-scions and responsible beings, existing, though in another condition, and in another portion of God’s creation. Thus was proved the continued existence and personality of the soul; and the resurrection of the body follows consequentially from this. Man is a complex being; he has body and soul, neither of which is complete without the other. The soul is not perfect man without the body, which is its organ; the body is not perfect man without the soul, which animates it. In giving eternal life to man, God gives it to the creature as originally made, not to one portion only of his nature. Of the living. "For," as St. Luke adds, "all live unto him." The so called dead are alive in God’s view; they have an abiding relation to him, live in his world, which comprises the seen and unseen, the present and the future. Titus St. Paul says (Romans 14:8, Romans 14:9), "Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ both died and rose and revived, that he might be the Lord both of the dead and living." Matthew 22:33 They were astonished at his doctrine. The multitudes were amazed, not only at an interpretation which was entirely new to them, and which opened to them some of the depths of that Scripture of which they had been taught and knew only the letter; but because Christ showed that he looked into men’s hearts, saw what was the motive and cause of their opinions, and, in explaining difficulties, unfolded eternal truths. The Sadducees, thus answered in the presence of the listening crowds, attempted no reply, slunk away confounded, utterly foiled in their hope of casting ridicule on the teaching of Christ. St. Luke notes that some scribes present, doubtless of the Pharisaic faction, were highly delighted with this public defeat of their adversaries, and cried, in enforced admiration, "Master, thou hast well said!" Matthew 22:34-40 Fourth attack: The Pharisees’ question concerning the great, commandment. (Mark 12:28-34.) Matthew 22:34 He had put the Sadducees to silence (ἐφιμωσεν, as Matthew 22:12). The Pharisees were informed of, and some of them had witnessed, the discomfiture of the Sadducees (see Luke 20:40); hence they deemed it necessary again to attack Jesus by asking a question which specially appertained to their own teaching. They felt that, if they were ever to compass his overthrow, they must first lower his credit with the people, so that these might no longer care to support or defend him. To succeed in entangling Jesus in a difficulty would not only effect this, but would also gain them a triumph over their adversaries, who had been so completely defeated. Were gathered together; ἐπιτοαὐτο, Which may mean, "to the same place," as perhaps Acts 2:1; or "on the same ground, for the same purpose." The former is probably correct. The English versions omit the words (see the rendering of Act 2:41, where ἐπιτοαὐτο does not occur). They grouped themselves around Christ, or else gathered in a council chamber, taking combined action against him. Matthew 22:35 A lawyer; νομικος, called by St. Mark "a scribe"—a term of wider signification, which would include "lawyers." Vulgate, legis doctor, which gives the right sense; for such were teachers and expounders of the Mosaic Law. This man was put forth by the Pharisees as an expert, who would not be so easily discomfited as the Sadducees had been. Tempting him. Trying him; putting him to the test, not altogether maliciously, but partly from curiosity, and partly from a desire to hear Christ’s opinion on a much disputed point. It is evident, from St. Mark’s account, that Christ was pleased with him personally, for he said to him, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." Those who put this lawyer forward had, of course, sinister motives, and hoped to make capital from Christ’s answer; but the man himself seems to have been straightforward and honest. We have had the terra "tempting" used in a hostile sense (Matthew 16:1; Matthew 19:3), hut there is no necessity for so taking it; and it seems to imply here merely the renewal of the attack on Christ. Matthew 22:36 Which is the great commandment in the Law? Ποιαἐντολημεγαληἐντῷνομῳ; What sort of commandment is great in the Law? According to rabbinical teaching, there were more than six hundred precepts in the Law; of this considerable number all could not be observed. Which were of absolute obligation? which were not? The schools made a distinction between heavy and light commandments, as though some were of less importance than others, and might be neglected with impunity; and some of such exceeding dignity that fulfilment of them would condone imperfect obedience in the case of others. Some taught that if a man rightly selected some great precept to observe, he might safely disregard the rest of the Law (see Matthew 19:16, etc.). This was the kind of doctrine against which St. James (James 2:10) expostulates: "Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all." The Pharisees may have desired to discover whether Jesus knew and sanctioned these rabbinical distinctions. He had proved himself intimately acquainted with the inner meaning of Scripture, and able to evolve doctrines and to trace analogies which their dull minds had never comprehended; the question now was whether he entered into their subtle divisions and could decide this dispute for them. Such is the view usually taken of the scribe’s question; but it may well be doubted, if regard is had to the character of the man, whether he had any intention of entangling Christ in these subtleties, but rather asked for a solution of the general problem—Of what nature was the precept which should be regarded as "first" (Mark) in the Law? We may compare the somewhat similar question and answer in Luke 10:25-28. Lange’s idea, that the scribe wished to force Christ to make some answer which, by implying his own claim to be Son of God, would trench upon the doctrine of monotheism, seems wholly unwarranted. This theory is based on the supposition that the Pharisee took it for granted that Jesus would answer, "Thou shalt love God above all," and intended to found upon that reply a condemnation for having made himself equal with God by his assertion of Sonship. But the text gives no countenance to such intention, and it has been suggested chiefly for the purpose of accounting for Christ’s subsequent question (Luke 10:41 -45), which, however, needs no such foundation, as we shall see. Matthew 22:37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God; ΚυριοντονΘεονσου. Christ enunciates the two great moral precepts of God’s Law, not, indeed, stated in these words in the Decalogue, but implied throughout, and forming the basis of true religion. Heart … soul … mind. The Septuagint has "mind, soul, strength." The expressions mean generally that God is to be loved with all our powers and faculties, and that nothing is to be preferred to him. It is difficult to define with any precision the signification of each term used, and much unprofitable labour has been expended in the endeavour to limit their exact sense. "Quum," as Grotius says, "vocum multarum cumulatio nihil quam intensius studium designet." It is usual to explain thus: Heart; which among the Hebrews was considered to be the seat of the understanding, is here considered as the home of the affections and the seat of the will. Soul; the living powers, the animal life. Mind; διαμοιᾳ, intellectual powers. These are to be the seat and abode of the love enjoined. Matthew 22:38 The first and great commandment; or better, the great and first commandment; Vulgate, Hoc est maximum et primum mandatum. Here was a plain answer to the question of the scribe, which no one could gainsay (comp. Luke 10:27). They who repeated daily in their devotions, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord", could not help acknowledging that love of him whom they thus confessed was the chief duty of man—one which was superior to every other obligation. Matthew 22:39 The second. The scribe had not asked any question about a second commandment: but Christ is not satisfied with propounding an abstract proposition; he shows how this great precept is to be made practical, how one command involves and leads to the other. Like unto it; ὁμοιααὐτῇ: in nature and extent, of universal obligation, pure and unselfish. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. From Le Matthew 19:18. The verb, both here and verse 37, is ἀγαπησεις, which implies, not mere animal or worldly affection (φιλεω), but love from the highest moral considerations, without self-interest, holy. The Latins indicated this difference by amo and diligo. Our "neighbour" is every one with whom we are concerned, i.e. virtually all men. He is to be loved because he is God’s image and likeness, heir of the same hope as we ourselves, and presented to us as the object on and by which we are to show the reality of our love to God. "This commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also" (1 John 4:21). And for the measure of our love to man, we have Christ’s word in another place (Matthew 7:12), "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matthew 22:40 Hang all the Law and the prophets; i.e. all Scripture, which is comprised in these terms (comp. Matthew 5:17; Matthew 7:12); in other words, all the revelations which God has made to man in every age. The clause is peculiar to St. Matthew. It signifies that on love of God and love of man depend all the moral and religious, ceremonial and judicial precepts contained in the Law, all the utterances of the prophets, all the voices of history. Scripture enunciates the duty to God and our neighbour, shows the right method of fulfilling it, warns against the breach of it, gives examples of punishment and reward consequent upon the way in which the obligation has been treated. Thus the unity and integrity of revelation is demonstrated. Its Author is one; its design is uniform; it teaches one path, leading to one great end. Matthew 22:41-46 Christ’s question to the Pharisees concerning the Messiah. (Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44.) Matthew 22:41 Jesus asked them. He spake generally to the assembled crowd in the temple (Mark), addressing no one in particular. The questioned becomes the questioner, and this with a great purpose. He had silenced his opponents, and opened profundities in Scripture hitherto unfathomed; he would now raise them to a higher theology; he would place before them a truth concerning the nature of the Messiah, which, if they received it, would lead them to accept him. It was as it were a last hope. He and the Pharisees had some common ground, which was wanting in the case of the Sadducees and Herodians (comp Acts 23:6); he would use this to support a last appeal. Let us observe the Divine patience and tenderness of Christ. Not to gain a victory over inveterate enemies, not to expose the ignorance of scribe and Pharisee, not to exhibit his own profound knowledge of the inner harmonies of God’s Word, does he now put this question. He desires to win acceptance of his claims by the unanswerable argument of the Scripture which they revered; let them consider the exact meaning of a text often quoted, let them weigh each word with reverent care, and they would see that the predicted Messiah was not merely Son of David according to earthly descent, but was Jehovah himself; and that when he claimed to be Son of God, when he asserted, "I and my Father are one," he was vindicating for himself only what the prophet had affirmed of the nature of the Christ. He had, so to speak, hope that some among his hearers would accept this teaching, and save themselves amid that untoward generation. It was when this last hope failed, when he saw nothing but hardened hearts and wilful prejudice, that he uttered the woes and predictions in the following chapter. Matthew 22:42 What think ye of Christ? τοῦΧριστοῦ, the Christ, the Messiah. What is your belief? What do you, the teachers of the people and the careful interpreters of Scripture, opine concerning the Messiah? Whose Son is he? This was a question the full bearing of which they did not comprehend, thinking that it referred only to his earthly descent. In their partial knowledge, perhaps half contemptuously, as to an inquiry familiar to all, they say unto him, The Son of David. So all prophecy had said, as they very well knew (Matthew 1:1). Matthew 22:43 He saith. They had answered glibly enough, not knowing what was to come of their natural admission; now Christ puts a difficulty before them which might have led them to pause and reflect upon what that assertion might connote. How then? Πῶςοὖν; If Christ is David’s Son, how is it then, in what sense can it be said, etc.? Doth David in spirit can him Lord. "In spirit" means speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—an argument surely for the Divine authority of the Old Testament, when "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). Christ proceeds to quote a passage from Psalms 110:1-7., acknowledged by the Jews to be Davidic and Messianic. Both these positions have been called in question in modem days, and sceptical critics have hence presumed to infer ignorance or deceit on the part of Christ; i.e. either that he did not know that the authorship was wrongly attributed to David, and that the psalm really referred to Maccabean times, or that, knowing these facts, he deliberately ignored them and endorsed a popular error in order to give colour to his argument. The statement of such a charge against our Lord is a sufficient refutation. Universal tradition, extending to this very time, which gave to the psalm a Messianic interpretation, is surely more worthy of credit than a theory elaborated in the present century, which in no respect regards the natural signification of the language, and can be made to support the novel idea only by forced and unreal accommodations. By speaking of David as having uttered the quoted words, Christ does not formally state that this king wrote the psalm; he merely gives the accepted view which classed it as Davidic. The authorship did not matter in his application; his argument was equally sound, whoever was the writer. Matthew 22:44 The Lord said unto my Lord (Psalms 110:1). The quotation is from the Septuagint. But neither this nor our English Version is an adequate rendering of the original, where the word translated "Lord" is not the same in both parts of the clause, More accurately, the solemn beginning of the psalm is thus given: "Utterance [or, ’oracle’] of Jehovah to my Lord (Adonai)." The psalmist acknowledges the recipient of the utterance as his sovereign Lord; this could be no earthly potentate, for on earth he had no such superior; Jewish tradition always applied the term unto the Messiah, or the Word. The prediction repeats the promise made by Nathan to David (2 Samuel 7:12), which had no fulfilment in his natural progeny, and could be regarded as looking forward only to the Messiah. Sit thou on my right hand. Thus Messiah is exalted to the highest dignity in heaven. Sitting at God’s right hand does not necessarily imply complete Divine majesty (as Hengstenberg remarks), for the sons of Zebedee had asked for such a position in Messiah’s earthly kingdom (Matthew 20:21); but it denotes supreme honour, association in government, authority second only to that of Monarch. This is said of Christ in his human nature. He is "equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood." In his Divine nature he could receive nothing; in his human nature all "power was given unto him in heaven and earth" (Matthew 28:18). Till I make (ἑìωςἀÌνθῷ) thine enemies thy footstool; ὑποποδιοντῶνποδῶνσου. This is the Septuagint reading. Many manuscripts here give ὑποκατωτῶνποδῶνσου Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet. Some few have both ὑποποδιον and ὑποκατω. Vulgate, Donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. The complete subjection of all adversaries is denoted; and they are subjected not merely for punishment and destruction, but, it may be, for salvation and glory. The relative particle "till" must not be pressed, as if Christ’s session was to cease when his victory was completed. We have before had occasion to observe that the phrase, ἑìωςοὗ, or ἑìωςἀÌν, asserts nothing of the future beyond the event specified. As St. Jerome says of such negative phrases, "Ita negant praeteritum ut non ponant futurum" (comp. Matthew 1:25; Matthew 5:26; Matthew 18:34). Of Christ’s kingdom there is no end. Matthew 22:45 If David … Son? The argument is this: David speaks with highest reverence of Messiah, calling him his Lord: how is this attitude consistent with the fact that Messiah is David’s Son? How can Messiah be both Son and Lord of David? We, who have learned the truth concerning the two natures of Christ, can readily answer the question. He is both "the Root and the Offspring of David" (Revelation 22:16). The Athanasian Creed offers the required solution of the seeming paradox: "God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect Man … who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ." Here was an explanation (if the Pharisees took his words to heart) of much that had excited their indignation, and caused cavil and carping. He claimed to be the Messiah; and Messiah, as Scripture presented him, had a twofold nature. When, therefore, he asserted equality with the Father when he, "being man, made himself God" (John 10:33), he was vindicating that Divine nature which he as Messiah possessed. Jesus did not further elucidate this mystery. He had given food for reflection; he had unfolded the hidden meaning of Scripture; he had shown the shallowness of the popular exegesis; the knowledge was here; there was wanting only the will to raise the flower of faith in the heart of these obdurate hearers. Matthew 22:46 No man was able to answer him a word. They could not confute Christ’s arguments; they would not receive and ponder them; so they held their peace. Had they had a real desire to be instructed, they would have profited by the present occasion; coming to the light with honest and good hearts, they would have been enlightened. But this was far from their wish, so they went away empty. Neither durst any man. They perceived that they could gain no advantage over Christ by such methods of attack. Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees, had ignominiously succumbed; to make a fresh assault was to court a fresh defeat, Seeing this, they dared no longer tempt him in this way. Henceforward they would use other tactics. Treachery and violence must now play their part. These weapons would be more successful in compassing the destruction of the innocent Victim. The parable of the marriage feast. I. THE FIRST . 1. The King. This parable resembles the parable of the great supper in Luke 14:1-35.; but it was delivered at a different time, under different circumstances. It differs also in its ending and in many of its details. It cannot possibly be, as some have thought, a mere variation of that parable. The King is God the Father, the Lord God omnipotent. He made a marriage for his Son. The marriage is the union between Christ and his Church—the union described by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians 5:23-27); the union which is to reach its perfect consummation and bliss in God’s eternal and everlasting glory (Revelation 19:7-9; Revelation 21:9, Revelation 21:10). The bride is the Church, regarded in its ideal character, as one, holy, catholic, apostolic. The invited. guests are those who have been called into the Church, taken individually. So in Revelation 21:1-27., the holy city, regarded as a whole, is the bride, the Lamb’s wife; while in Revelation 21:27, individual saints, they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life, are described as entering into it. The King made the marriage. The choice of the Church lies in the eternal purpose of God, the election of God the Father. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son." He determined, in his gracious love, to sanctify our human nature, by uniting it to the Divine nature in the Person of his only begotten Son. The Son of God loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church. The parable describes the preparations for the marriage; not the glorious marriage supper of the Lamb, when the bride shall have made herself ready, arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. For that marriage supper is the blissful consummation of the mystical union of the bride with the heavenly Bridegroom; all who are admitted there are blessed. The marriage feast of the parable is the kingdom of heaven which the Lord came to establish upon earth; the Church, his bride, is not yet in the full sense ready; she has not yet been transfigured by his grace into the likeness of the heavenly Bridegroom; her robes are not yet whiter than snow, made white in the blood of the Lamb. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 23:1-39 Denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, and lamentation over Jerusalem which followed their guidance to her own destruction. (Peculiar to St. Matthew.) Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus. Some small portion of this discourse, the close of our Lord’s public teaching, is found in Mark 12:38-40 and Luke 20:45-47 (comp. also Luke 11:1-54., 13.). It is here addressed to the multitude, and to his disciples, and seems to have been designed to comfort the former under the difficulty of having accredited teachers who were proved to have misunderstood Scripture, and were incapable of interpreting it aright. He willed to show how far they were to follow these instructors, and where it was necessary to draw a line beyond which they were not to be obeyed. Some modern critics have suggested that this discourse was not spoken at this time, but that St. Matthew has here collected into one body certain sayings of our Lord uttered at different times and places. It is far more natural to suppose that St. Matthew’s statement of the occasion of this discourse is historically true, and that Christ here repeated some parts of the censure he had already, in the course of his ministry, found it necessary to pronounce. The unity of this utterance in form and essence, its logical sequence and climactic character, prove that it was delivered at one time, and was intended to form the Lord’s farewell address to the wayward people who would not come unto him that they might have life. The discourse may be divided into three parts. Matthew 23:2-12 The moral character of the scribes and Pharisees, and warning to Christ’s disciples. Matthew 23:2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’seat. In the seat of the great judge and lawgiver. This is stated as an undoubted fact (ἐκαθισαν), with no idea of blame attached. Literally, sat on the seat of Moses from time immemorial. These (meaning not individuals, but the collective body) are the authorized expounders and teachers of the Law; their position is assured; they are not to be displaced. The scribes were the party chiefly denoted; they were of the Pharisaical sect; hence the addition, "and the Pharisees," by which is intimated, not that these latter, qua Pharisees, had any teaching office, but that the former shared their religious opinions. The Sadducees seem to have had no popular influence, and were never recognized as leaders. The Levitical priests never appear in the Gospels as teachers or expositors of the Mosaic system; this function of theirs had devolved upon scribes and lawyers. Matthew 23:3 All therefore. It is because of their official authority as appointed teachers and expositors of the Law that Christ gives the following injunction. That observe and do. Many manuscripts and versions invert the order of the verbs, reading, do and observe. The received text seems most logical. Observe; τηρεῖτε, present imperative, continue to observe as a rule of conduct. Do; ποιησατε, aorist, do immediately, whenever the occasion arises. All that they taught or commanded out of the Law, or in due accordance therewith, was to be observed and obeyed. The statement is made in general terms, but was conditional and restricted by other considerations. It was only their official injunctions, derived immediately from Scripture, not their glosses, evasions, and interpretations, that were to be regarded with respect. The Lord had already taken occasion to warn against these errors (see Matthew 16:6, Matthew 16:11, Matthew 16:12, etc.). As inheritors of the authority of Moses, and speaking ex cathedra, they were so far worthy of respect. This principle laid down, Christ proceeds to denounce their evil practices. After their works. You must distinguish between their preaching and their practice; the latter is to be shunned with all care. The scribes are never accused of corrupting the sacred text, which, indeed, was scrupulously guarded, and kept pure and unaltered. It was their treatment of the doctrines thereof that was censured. Our Lord shows their evil example in two particulars—their principle was "words, not deeds" (Matthew 23:4), and ostentation in religion (Matthew 23:5-7). They say, and do not. They enunciated the Law, they enjoined obedience to it in the minutest particulars, and yet they themselves continually, in the most important points (Matthew 23:23), infringed, neglected, evaded it. St. Paul, himself a strict Pharisee, denounces in stern language such inconsistent professors (Romans 2:21-23). Matthew 23:4 Bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne; δυσβαστακτα: importabilia (Vulgate). The last epithet, which is very uncommon (Luke 11:46), is omitted by some manuscripts and versions, but it is probably genuine here. The burdens are the minute regulations and prescriptions, the vexatious restrictions, the innumerable traditional observances with which these teachers had garbled and defaced the written Law. We have noticed some of these glosses in the matter of the sabbath and ceremonial purification; and these are only specimens of a system which extended to every relation of life, and to all details of religious practice, binding one rule to another, enforcing useless and absurd minutiae, till the burden became insupportable. Alford considers that not human traditions and observances are signified by the "burdens," but the severity of the Law, the weighty duties inculcated therein, which they enforce on others, but do not observe. It may, however, well be doubted whether Christ would ever have termed the legitimate rites and ceremonies of the Law unbearable burdens, though their rigorous enforcement by men who regarded only the letter, while they had lost the spirit, would naturally deserve censure. (If the epithet is not genuine, of course this remark does not apply.) What Christ denounced was not the Law itself, however severe and grievous to human nature, or even immemorial tradition, but the false inferences and deductions therefrom, leading to injunctions insupportable and impracticable. Will not move them with one of their fingers; with their finger. This does not imply (and it would not be true) that the rabbis themselves were all hypocrites, and broke or evaded the Law with impunity. We know that they scrupulously attended to all outward observances. What is meant is that they take no trouble to lighten (κινῆσαι, "to move away"), to make these burdens easier by explanation or relaxation, or to proportion them to the strength of the disciple. They impose them with all their crushing weight and severity upon others, and uncompromisingly demand obedience to these unscriptural regulations, putting "a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10; Galatians 5:1). Contrast with this the Christian’s service: "My yoke is easy," says Christ, "and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:1-30:33). Matthew 23:5 For to be seen of men. The second bad principle in their religion was ostentation and vanity. Acts done professedly in the honour of God were animated by self-seeking and ambition. They never penetrated beyond externalism. See this spirit reproved in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, etc.). "They loved the glory of men more than the glory of God" (John 12:43). Christ then gives proofs of this spirit of ostentation in religion and in private life. Phylacteries; φυλακτηρια: literally, preservatives; equivalent to "amulets;" the translation of the Hebrew word tephillin, "prayer fillets." These were either strips of parchment or small cubes covered with leather, on or in which were written four sections of the Law, viz. Exodus 13:1-10; 11-16; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Deuteronomy 11:13-21. They were worn fastened either to the forehead, or inside the left arm, so as to be near the heart. Their use arose from a literal and superstitious interpretation of Exo 13:9; Deuteronomy 6:8; Deuteronomy 11:18. Their dimensions were defined by rabbinical rules, but the extra pious formalists of the day set these at naught, and increased the breadth of the strips or of the bands by which they were fastened, in order to draw attention to their religiousness and their strict attention to the least observances of the Law. These phylacteries are still in use among the Jews. Thus in a ’Class Book for Jewish Youth’ we read, "Every boy, three months before he attains the age of thirteen, commences to make use of the tephillin, which must be worn at least during the time of the morning prayers. The ordinance of the tephillin is one of the signs of the covenant existing between the Almighty and ourselves, that we may continually bear in mind the miracles God wrought for our forefathers." Enlarge the borders of their garments; τακρασπεδατῶνἱματιωναὐτῶν, the fringes of their outer garments. The best manuscripts have merely their fringes. So the Vulgate, magnificant fimbrias. These fringes or tassels (zizith, zizijoth) were fastened to the corners of the garments, in accordance with Numbers 15:38-41, and were composed of white and blue threads. They were intended to remind the wearers of the commandments of the Lord, and were regarded as peculiarly sacred (see Matthew 9:20). Christ condemns the ostentatious enlargement of these fringes as a badge of extraordinary piety and obedience. We quote again from the Jewish ’Class. Book:’ "Every male of the Jewish nation must wear a garment [not usually an undergarment] made with four corners, having fringes fixed at each corner. These fringes are called tsetsis, or, memorial fringes. In the synagogue, during the morning prayers, a scarf with fringes attached to it is worn, which is called tollece, ’scarf or veil.’ These memorial fringes typically point out the six hundred and thirteen precepts contained in the volume of the sacred Law. They are also intended to remind us of the goodness of the Almighty in having delivered our forefathers from the slavery in Egypt." Matthew 23:6 The uppermost rooms; τηνπρωτοκλισιαν: primos recubitus; chief place (Luke 14:7). The custom of reclining on cushions set in horseshoe fashion at three sides of the table was now prevalent, the old custom of squatting round a low table, as at present practised in the East, having been long abandoned. The place of honour is said to have been at the upper end of the right side, the president being placed, not in the centre of that end of the table which faced the opening, but at the side. The most honoured guest would be at his right hand (but see on Matthew 26:23). There was often much manoeuvring to obtain this post, and many petty squabbles about precedence arose on every festal occasion (see Luke 14:1, Luke 14:7, etc.). The chief seats in the synagogues. The usual arrangement of the synagogue is given by Dr. Edersheim. It was built of stone, with an entrance generally on the south, and so arranged that the worshippers might direct their prayers towards Jerusalem. In the centre was placed the lectern of the reader; the women’s gallery was at the north end. "The inside plan is generally that of two double colonnades, which seem to have formed the body of the synagogue, the aisles east and west being probably used as passages. At the south end, facing north, is a movable ark, containing the sacred rolls of the Law and the prophets. Right before the ark, and facing the people, are the seats of honour, for the rulers of the synagogue and the honourable." These were the places for which the Pharisees contended, thinking more of gaining these, where they could sit enthroned in the sight of the congregation, than of the Divine worship which nominally they came to offer (comp. James 2:2, James 2:3). Matthew 23:7 Greetings in the markets. They loved to be denoted as superiors by respectful salutations in public places. To be called Rabbi, Rabbi; "My Master" (compare the French Monsieur, used not only vocatively, but absolutely); the term addressed by scholars to their teacher, and repeated for ostentation’s sake, of course implying superiority in those thus called. Christ himself was thus addressed by those who desired to denote his authority and preeminence (Matthew 22:16, Matthew 22:24, Matthew 22:36; comp. John 1:38). These greetings and salutations were enjoined on scholars and inferiors, under pain of ecclesiastical censure and loss of salvation. Matthew 23:8 Be not ye called Rabbi. After stating the customs of the Pharisees, Christ proceeds (Matthew 23:8-12) to give his own disciples a lesson in humility. The pronoun is emphatic, "But ye, be not ye called." They are not to be eager for such distinctions, indicative of spiritual superiority. The prohibition must be understood in the spirit, and not in the letter. Our Lord does not forbid respect for teachers or different grades in his Church (see 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11-13); that which he censures is the inordinate grasping at such personal distinctions, the greedy ambition which loves the empty title, and takes any means to obtain it. One is your Master, even Christ. The received text gives εἷςγαρἐστινὑμῶνὁΚαθηγητηςὁΧριστος. Many good manuscripts read Διδασκαλος, Teacher (so Revised Version) instead of Καθηγητης, Leader, [and omit ὁΧριστος. Both these variations seem reasonable and warranted. "Leader" has probably been introduced from Matthew 23:10, where it occurs naturally; it is out of place here, where, for the sake of concinnity, "Teacher" is required in both parts of the sentence. And it is unlikely that Jesus should hero expressly mention himself. He is speaking now of their heavenly Father; to himself he refers in Matthew 23:10. In support of the allusion to the Father, Bengel cites Matthew 16:17; John 6:45; Acts 10:28, etc. The Vulgate has, Unus est enim Magister vester; and yet Roman Catholic commentators interpret the clause of Christ, in spite of the purposed indefiniteness of the expression. Jesus points to the inspiration of the Father or the Holy Spirit as that which teaches his disciples. They were to follow no earthly rabbi, but the heavenly Teacher. All ye are brethren. And therefore, so far, equal. They were disciples of our Lord, and to them appertained equality and fraternity. Matthew 23:9 Your father. This was the title given to eminent teachers and founders of schools, to whom the people were taught to look up rather than to God. It was also addressed to prophets (2 Kings 2:12; 2 Kings 6:21). In Matthew 23:8 Christ said, "be not called;" here he uses the active, "call not," as if he would intimate that his followers must not give this honoured title to any doctor out of complaisance, or flattery, or affectation. Upon the earth. In contradistinction to heaven, where our true Father dwells. They were to follow no earthly school. They had natural lathers and spiritual fathers, but the authority of all comes from God; it is delegated, not essential; and good teachers would make men look to God, and not to themselves, as the source of power and truth. Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters; καθηγηται: leaders, guides. This is just what the Pharisees claimed to be (see Matthew 23:16 and Romans 2:19, Romans 2:20). One is your master (Καθηγητης, Leader), even [the] Christ. Hero Jesus announces himself, not only as their Teacher, but as the Messiah, their Ruler and Guide. He is censuring that sectarian spirit which began in the primitive Church, when one said," I am of Paul; another, I of Apollos," etc. (1 Corinthians 1:12), and has continued to this day in the division of the one body into innumerable sects and, parties, ranged under various leaders, and generally bearing their founder’s name. "What then is Apollos? and what is Paul? Ministers through whom ye believed; and each as the Lord gave to him" (1 Corinthians 3:5). How mournful to think that Christ’s great prayer for unity (John 17:1-26.) is still unfulfilled, frustrated or delayed by man’s self-will! Matthew 23:11 But he that is greatest … your servant; διακονος: minister (see Matthew 20:26, Matthew 20:27). It was there said to the apostles alone; here it is spoken more publicly to emphasize the contrast between Christian humility and Pharisaical pride and vanity. Matthew 23:12 Whosever shall exalt himself shall be abased (ταπεινωθησεται, shall be humbled); and he that shall humble (ταπεινωσει) himself shall be exalted. It is not clear why the rendering of the verb is not uniform in this verse. The antithesis certainly requires it. The gnome, so often repeated (see references), seems to be, as it has been called, "an axiom in the kingdom of God." It is indeed a universal law in God’s dealings with men. Olshausen quotes a saying! of Hillel to the same purport, "My humility is my exaltation, and my exaltation is my humility." The first clause was prophetic of the speedy overthrow of the haughty Pharisees; the second is grandly illustrated in the example of Christ, who humbled himself to the death of the cross, and is now highly exalted; who "for the joy that was set before him, endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God" (Hebrews 12:2). St. Peter draws the lesson, "Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time" (1 Peter 5:5, 1 Peter 5:6). Matthew 23:13-32 Eight woes pronounced on the Pharisees for their conduct and teaching. (Comp. Luke 11:42-52.) Matthew 23:13 Some authorities transpose Matthew 23:13 and Matthew 23:14—a variation attributable to the circumstance that the commencing clauses are the same. As Christ inaugurated his public teaching by pronouncing eight benedictions in the sermon on the mount, so here he closes his ministry by imprecating or prophesying eight woes on the perverse and unbelieving Pharisees. In Lange’s commentary there is proposed a scheme of antithesis between the benedictions and the woes, but it is not very successful, being often forced and unnatural; and it is better to regard the contrast in a general view, and not to attempt to press it in particulars. Jesus here pours forth his righteous anger on those whose obstinate infidelity was about to bring ruin on the Jewish city and nation. Woe unto you! (Matthew 11:21). These terrible "woes" are not only evoked by indignation, and pronounced as a solemn judgment, they are also expressive of the profoundest pity, and are prophetic of the future. They have, indeed, a twofold reference—they refer first to temporal judgments and visitations, now ready to fall; and secondly to the retribution in the eternal world. That the meek and lowly Jesus should utter such awful denunciations shows how greatly he was moved how he left nothing untried to turn these hard hearts to introspection and repentance. Scribes and Pharisees (see on Matthew 23:2), hypocrites (Matthew 6:2). Christ uses this word seven times in these denunciations. It is applied to the Pharisees as deceiving themselves and others, under the mask of godliness hiding polluted hearts, persuading themselves that formal externalism was real piety and devotion, and practically teaching this fatal delusion. Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; ἐìμπροσθεντῶνἀνθρωπων: before men; ante homines (Vulgate. This is the first woe—against perverse obstructiveness. They prevent men from accepting Christ, and so entering God’s kingdom, by their false interpretation of Scripture, by not allowing that it testified of Christ, and by making the path impassable for the poor and ignorant. And this is done "in the face of men," when they are, as it were, thronging round and wishing to enter. "Ye have taken away the key of knowledge," he says, in another place (Luke 11:52). Neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. The kingdom of heaven is here metaphorically regarded as a banqueting hall, where are celebrated the espousals of Christ and his Church. The Pharisees watched the access thereto. They stood at the door to bar all entrance. If any showed signs of yielding to honest conviction, they sternly forbade them to proceed; they repelled them with violence, as by excommunication (John 9:22, John 9:34), or by calumniating the Teacher (Matthew 9:34, etc.). There was many a time when 34, people were ready to acknowledge Christ and to follow him as Messiah. A word from their authorized leaders would have turned the scale in his favour; but that word was never spoken. The weight of authority was always placed on the opposite side, and naught but prejudice, animosity, and slander befell the cause of Jesus. Matthew 23:14 Second woe—against rapacity and hypocrisy. There is some doubt about the genuineness of this verse, and our Revisers have expunged it from their text, relegating it to the margin. It is omitted by à, B, D, L, Z, some copies of the Vulgate and some versions; on the other hand, it is found in E, F, G, H, K, M, and other later uncials, and in the received Vulgate and Syriac Versions. Critics reject it as a supposed interpolation from Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47. At any rate, whether spoken now or at another time, it is undoubtedly an utterance of Christ, and to be received with all reverence. Ye devour widows’ houses. Women who have lost their natural protector become their prey. To these they attach themselves, winning them over by flattery and fraud, and persuading them to assist them with their substance to the ruin of their fortunes. God had always defended the cause of widows, and had urged his people to deal gently and mercifully with them (see Deuteronomy 10:18; Deuteronomy 27:19; Psalms 68:5; Isaiah 1:17; Luke 18:3-7). This woe is followed in St. Luke by the episode of the widow’s mite (Luke 20:47; Luke 21:1-4). And for a pretence make long prayer; or, and that, making long prayers for a pretence. They put on an appearance of extraordinary devotion, that they might more easily secure the favour of the widows; or else they exacted large sums of money, engaging to offer continual prayers for the donors (compare St. Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 3:6). Thus these hypocrites made a gain of godliness at the expense of the most helpless members of the community. Greater (περισσοτερον, more abundant) damnation. No condemnation in this world or the next can be more justly awarded than to him who adds hypocrisy to covetousness, and makes religion a cloke for cruel rapacity. The comparative may refer to "the lengthened hypocritical prayers which went before" (Lange). Matthew 23:15 Third woe—against evil proselytizing. Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte. The word προσηλυτος is used in the Septuagint to signify "a stranger" or "sojourner" (Exodus 12:48, Exodus 12:49, etc.), and at this time was applied to a convert to Judaism (Acts 2:10; Acts 6:5), whether circumcised, "a proselyte of righteousness;" or uncircumcised, "a proselyte of the gate." To compass sea and land is a proverbial expression, denoting the employment of every means, the exercise of the utmost effort. One might have thought that, in its proud isolation and exclusiveness, Judaism would not have exposed itself to this reproach. But what says Josephus? In more than one passage of his histories he testifies to the zealous propagation of the Jewish religion, and in some cases the enforcement of circumcision on vanquished enemies (see ’Ant.,’ Matthew 18:3. 5; Matthew 20:2. 4; ’Bell. Jud.,’ Matthew 2:17. 10; ’Vita,’ § 23). Tacitus (’Hist.,’ Matthew 5:5) gives a most unfavourable account of the numerous converts which Hebrews made throughout the Roman provinces; and St. Augustine (’De Civit.,’ Hebrews 6:11) quotes Seneca saying, "Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimae gentis consuetudo convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit, victi victoribus leges dederunt" (Edersheim). For similar testimony, we may refer to Horace, ’Sat.,’ 1.4. 142, 143; and Juvenal, ’Sat.,’ 6.541, etc. But it was not proselytizing in itself that the Lord censured. As possessing revelation and the only true religion in the world, the Jews might well have deemed it their business to enlighten the gross darkness of heathenism, and to endeavour to shed abroad the pure light which was confided to their care to tend and cherish. That they were not expressly commanded to do this, and that little blessing attended their efforts in this direction, was dependent upon the transitory and imperfect character of the old covenant, and the many evils which would be consequent upon association with alien peoples. In making converts, the Pharisees sought rather to secure outward conformity than inward piety, change of external religion than change of heart. There was no love of souls, no burning zeal for the honour of God, in their proselytism. They were prompted only by selfish and base motives—vain glory, party spirit, covetousness; and if they converted men to their own opinions, with their false tenets, gross externalism, and practical immorality, they had far better have left them in their irresponsible ignorance. When he is made; when he is become a proselyte. Twofold more the child of hell; a son of Gehenna; i.e. worthy of hell fire. So we have 2 Samuel 12:5, "a son of death;" John 17:12, "the son of perdition". The converts became doubly the children of hell because, seeing the iniquities of their teachers, they learned an evil lesson from them, "engrafted the vices of the Jews on the vices of the heathen," distrusted all goodness, discarded their old religion and disbelieved the new, making utter shipwreck of their moral life. "Ita natura comparati sumus," says an old commentator, "ut vitia potius quam virtutes imitemur, et in rebus malis a discipulis magistri facile superentur." Matthew 23:16 Fourth woe—against evasive distinctions in oaths. Ye blind guides. They were by profession leaders and guides, and yet by their literalism and externalism they lost the true significance of the Scriptures which they taught, and the ritual of which they were the exponents. The Lord repeats the epithet "blind "(Matthew 23:17, Matthew 23:19, Matthew 23:24). Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing. Our Lord seems to refer more especially to oaths connected with vows, of which he had already spoken (Matthew 15:5, Matthew 15:6). The arbitrary distinction between oaths was indeed an instance of moral blindness. An oath by the temple was not binding; it might be broken or evaded with impunity. By the gold of the temple—i.e. by the sacred treasure and ornaments therein—he is a debtor (ὀφειλει); he is bound by his oath. The casuistry employed by the Jews in this matter was well known, and had become proverbial among the heathen. F.M. quotes Martial, 11:94— "Ecce negas, jurasque mihi per templa Tonantis, ’Non credo: jura, verpe, per Anchialum.’" "Anchialum" is equivalent to am chai aloh, "as God liveth," the Jew (verpus, "circumcised") being bound by no oath but one that contained some letters of the Divine name or some attribute of God. Matthew 23:17 Ye fools. Jesus adds to "blind" the epithet "fools," which implies not only the irrationality and absurdity of their practice, but also its moral delinquency, the fool in sapiential language being the sinner. The temple that sanctifieth the gold. Our Lord shows the absurdity of this sophistical distinction. It was because the temple was the place of God’s presence that what was therein was consecrated. The gold was nothing without the temple; the temple, the originally holy, is superior to the gold, the derivatively holy, and an oath that calls the temple to witness is surely obligatory. Matthew 23:18 By the altar. The great altar of burnt offerings, according to the Mosaic ritual, was consecrated and dedicated with most remarkable solemnities, as the centre of sacrificial worship (see Exodus 29:36, etc.; Exodus 30:28,Exodus 30:29; Numbers 7:10, etc.). The gift that is upon it. The victim, which, as being offered by themselves, was counted more worthy than the altar of God which sanctified the gift. This is, indeed, an instance of sight blinded by self-righteousness. He is guilty; ὀφειλει: he is a debtor, as Matthew 23:16. Others see here the principle that the validity of oaths was differentiated by the nearness to the Person of God of the things by which they were taken. This, too, opened up large opportunities of evasion. Matthew 23:19 Our Lord repeats the unanswerable argument of Mat 23:17. That sanctifieth the gift. Exodus 29:37. "It shall be an altar most holy; whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy" (comp. Ezekiel 41:22). The offering is one with the altar. Matthew 23:20 Sweareth by it, etc. One can see what an inveterate evil our Lord was denouncing, when he takes such pains to point out its absurdities, which seem to us self-evident. The oath by the altar involves the notion of the victim as well as the altar; one cannot be separated from the other; and, of course, implies him to whom the offering is made. Matthew 23:21 By him that dwelleth therein. In fact, it comes to this: to swear by temple or altar is to swear by God—an oath most solemn, which may not be evaded. "That dwelleth" is in some manuscripts the aorist participle, κατοικησαντι, implying that God once for all took up his abode in the temple, and filled it with his ineffable presence (see Kings Matthew 8:13; Psalms 132:14). From such passages we learn that God sanctifies things and places to be devoted to his service, and to be accounted by men holy and separated from all common uses. The Authorized Version translates the received text, κατοικοῦντι, which has good authority, the past participle being, perhaps, a correction by some scribe who thought that the day of Judaism was past when Christ spoke. Matthew 23:22 By heaven. The Talmndists affirm that an oath "by heaven" or "by earth" was not binding, on the ground, probably, that these were mere creatures. Christ again dissipates such sophistries. To swear by the creature is virtually to swear by the Creator. A brute, inanimate thing cannot be witness to an oath; he alone can be appealed to who owns all. Thus we "kiss the book," calling God to witness our words. Christ had already given a lesson to his followers on this subject in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:34-37). He inculcates true reverence, that fear and awe of God’s dignity and God’s presence which constrains a man to avoid all profaneness and carelessness in regard to things that are concerned with God. Matthew 23:23, Matthew 23:24 Fifth woe—against scrupulosity in trifles and neglect of weighty duties (Luke 11:42). Ye pay tithe of (ἀποδεκατοῦτε, ye tithe) mint and anise and cummin. Practically, the law of tithe was enforced only in the case of the produce mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:23—corn, wine, and oil—but the Pharisees, in their overstrained scrupulosity, applied the law of Le 27:30 ("all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s") to the smallest pot herbs, even to their leaves and stalks. "Mint" (ἡδυοσμον). Of this well known plant several species grow in Palestine; it was one of the ingredients of the sauce of bitter herbs eaten at the Paschal feast (Exodus 12:8), and was hung up in the synagogue for its fragrance. "Anise" (ἀìνηθον) is known to us as "dill," and is much used in medicine and for seasoning. "Cummin" (κυμινον) (Isaiah 28:25, Isaiah 28:27), an umbelliferous plant, with seeds something like caraways, and used, like them, as a condiment and medicine. Have emitted the weightier matters of the Law. The Pharisees were very far from treating important duties with the same scrupulosity which they observed in little matters. Christ particularizes these weighty duties: Judgment, (and) mercy, and faith. Three are named, in contrast to the three petty observances mentioned above. Christ seems to refer to the words of Mic 6:8, "What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" (see also Hosea 12:6; Zechariah 7:9, Zechariah 7:10). Worthless are all outward observances when the moral precepts are neglected. "Judgment" (τηνκρισιν) means acting equitably to one’s neighbour, hurting nobody by word or deed; as in Jeremiah 5:1 a man is sought "that exerciseth justice.’" Such impartiality is specially enjoined in the Law (Deuteronomy 16:19, etc.). "Mercy," loving kindness in conduct, often taught in the Pentateuch, as in the case of the widow, the stranger, and the debtor, and very different from the feeling of those who "devour widows’ houses." "Faith" may mean fidelity to promises: "He that sweareth unto his neighbour and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hindrance" (Psalms 15:4); but it is more probably taken as that belief in God without which it is not possible to please him, and which should underlie and influence all moral action (Hebrews 11:6). These (ταῦτα)… the other (ἐκεῖνα). "These last" are judgment, mercy, and faith; these it was your duty to have done. "The other" refers to the tithing mentioned above. Christ does not censure this attention to minutiae. He would teach conformity to regulations made by competent authority, or conscientiously felt to be binding, even though not distinctly enjoined in Scripture (see Jeremiah 5:2, Jeremiah 5:3); his blame is reserved for that expenditure of zeal on trifles which stood in the place of, or left no strength for, higher duties. It was a very elastic conscience which tithed a pot herb and neglected judgment. Strain at a gnat; διαλιζοντεςτονκωνωπα. "At" is supposed to be a misprint for "out." Thus Revised Version, and early English versions, which strain out the gnat; Vulgate, excolantes culicem. Alford thinks the present reading was an intentional alteration, meaning "strain (out the wine) at (the occurrence of) a gnat"—which seems more ingenious than probable. If "at" be retained, it must be taken as expressive of the fastidiousness which had to make a strong effort to overcome its distaste at this little insect. The wine, before drinking, was carefully strained through linen to avoid the accidental violation of Le Jeremiah 11:20, Jeremiah 11:23, etc.; Jeremiah 17:10-14, by swallowing an unclean insect. The practice, which was in some sense a religious act, is found among the Buddhists in Hindostan and Ceylon, either to avoid pollution or to obviate the danger of taking life, which their code forbids. A (the) camel. The gnat and the camel, which were alike unclean, stand at the extremities of the scale of comparative size. Our Lord uses a proverbial expression to denote the inconsistency which would avoid the smallest ceremonial defilement, but would take no account of the gravest moral pollution. Matthew 23:25 The sixth woe—against merely external purification (Mark 7:4; Luke 11:39). Ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter. Thus the Lord typically denotes the Pharisees’ external ceremonialism, their legal purity. They looked, so to speak, to the cleanliness of the outside of the cup that contained their drink, and the platter that held their food. Such cleansing would, of course, have no effect on the drink or meat itself. They are full of (γεμουσινἐξ, are full from) extortion and excess (ἀκρασιας). For this last word the manuscripts offer many variations, arising, probably, from its uucommoness. It seems, however, to be genuine. But we find it altered into "unrighteousness," "impurity," Vulgate, immunditia, "intemperance," "covetousness," "wickedness." The vessels are conceived as filled with contents acquired by violence and used without self-control. Matthew 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee. The address is in the singular number, to give vividness and personal effect, and the epithet accentuates the absurdity censured. Cleanse first that which is within. They must learn to reverse their practice. If you wanted to have your food pure, you would clean the inside of your vessel more carefully than the outside. The external purity should proceed from and be a token of the internal. So in the case of the moral agent, the ceremonial purity is a mockery and hypocrisy unless it be accompanied by holiness of the heart. That the outside of them may be clean also. However fair to see, the man is not pure unless his soul is clean; he cannot be called pure while the higher part of his being is soiled and foul with sin. And inward saintliness cannot be hidden; it shines forth in the countenance; it is known by speech and action; it sheds sunshine wherever it gees. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (Proverbs 4:23). Matthew 23:27, Matthew 23:28 Seventh woe—against another form of the same hypocrisy (Luke 11:44). Whited (κεκονιαμενοις) sepulchres. Once a year, about the fifteenth of the month Adar, the Jews used to whitewash the tombs and the places where corpses were buried, partly out of respect for the dead, but chiefly in order to make them conspicuous, and thus to obviate the risk of persons incautiously contracting ceremonial defilement by touching or walking over them (Numbers 19:16). To such sepulchres our Lord compares these Pharisees, because their outwardly fair show concealed rottenness within (comp. Acts 23:3). Indeed, it might be said that their seeming exceptional purity was a warning of internal corruption, a sign post to point to hidden defilement. Obtrusive religiousness, emphatic scrupulosity, are marks of pride and self-righteousness, utterly alien from real devotion and holiness. Matthew 23:29-32 Eighth woe—against hypocritical honour paid to departed worthies (Luke 11:47). Matthew 23:29 Ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous; or, adorn the monuments of the just. In the last woe Christ had spoken of sepulchres; he speaks of them here again, giving an unexpected view of the seeming honours paid to departed saints. The sumptuous mausoleums and tombs found e.g. round Jerusalem, and bearing the names of celebrated men (such as Zechariah, Absalom, Jehoshaphat), sufficiently attest the practice of the Jews in this matter. But the Pharisees’ motives in acting thus were not pure; they were not influenced by respect for the prophets or repentance for national sins, but by pride, hypocrisy, and self-sufficiency. The present was a great age for building; witness Herod’s magnificent undertakings; and probably many gorgeous tombs in honour of ancient worthies were now erected or renovated. Matthew 23:30 And say. They boasted that they were better than their fathers; they disavowed their crimes, and endeavoured, by honouring the prophets’ graves, to deliver themselves from the guilt of those who persecuted them. Fair show, with no reality! They professed to venerate the dead, but would not receive the living; they reverenced Abraham and Moses, but were about to murder the Christ to whom patriarch and prophet bore witness. Commentators quote the old adage, herein exemplified, "Sit licet divus, dummodo non vivus." The only practical way of delivering themselves from the guilt of their forefathers was by hearkening to those who now preached the gospel of salvation—the very last thing which they were purposed to do. Matthew 23:31 Ye be witnesses unto yourselves. By busying yourselves about adorning the tombs of the prophets slain by your ancestors, you show your descent and the spirit which animates you. Ye are the children; ye are sons. They were true sons of their fathers, inheriting their murderous instincts, following their steps. Like father, like son. They inherited and put in practice the same false principles which led their ancestors astray. Matthew 23:32 Fill ye up then; καιὑμεῖςπληρωσατε: do ye also (as well as they) fill up. An imperative, expressive of Divine irony, containing virtually a prophecy. Complete your evil work, finish that which your fathers began (comp. John 13:27). The measure. There is a certain limit to iniquity; when this is reached, punishment falls. The metaphor is derived from a full cup, which a single drop more will make overflow. This added drop would be the death of Christ and the persecution of his followers. Then vengeance must follow (comp. Genesis 15:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:16). Matthew 23:33-39 Declaration of the sentence on these Pharisees and their generation. Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers; γεννηματαἐχιδνῶν: offspring of vipers. Our Lord repeats the Baptist’s denunciation (Matthew 3:7). They were of devilish nature, inherited from their very birth the disposition and character of Satan. So Christ said on another occasion, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stood not in the truth" (John 8:44). How can ye escape? Πῶςφυγητε; the deliberative conjunctive, How shall ye escape? Quo mode fugietis? (Vulgate). There is no emphasis on "can" in the Authorized Version. What hope is there now of your repentance? Can anything soften the hardness of your hearts? The Baptist had spoken more hopefully, "Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" But now the day of grace is past; the sin against the Holy Ghost is committed; there remaineth only the fearful looking for of judgment. The damnation of hell; literally, the judgment of Gehenna; judicio Gehennae (Vulgate); i.e. the sentence that condemns to eternal death (Matthew 5:22). The phrase is common in the rabbinical writings (see Lightfoot). "Before sinning, we ought to fear lest it be the filling up; after sinning, we should trust in a truly Christian hope that it is not, and repent. This is the only means to escape the damnation of hell; but how rare is this grace after a pharisaical life!" (Quesnel). Hypocrisy is a bar to repentance. Matthew 23:34 Wherefore; διατοῦτο. Because ye are resolved on imitating your forefathers’ iniquities, you will also reject the messengers that are sent to you, and shall suffer righteous condemnation. I send (ἐγωἀποστελλω) unto you. The sending had already begun. In the parallel passage of St. Luke (Luke 11:49) we read, "Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send." Christ is the Wisdom of God, and by his own authority gives mission to his messengers. "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (John 20:21), he says to his apostles; and to such he is referring in the words which follow. Prophets. The apostles were of like character, inspiration, and influence as the prophets under the old dispensation, and succeeded in their place as exponents of God’s will and heralds of the covenant. Wise men. Men full of the Holy Ghost and heavenly wisdom. Scribes. Not in the then Jewish sense, but instructors in the new law of life, the law of Christ’s religion (Matthew 13:52). All the means of teaching and edification employed aforetime were abundantly and more effectually supplied under the gospel. St. Luke has, "prophets and apostles." Kill; as Stephen (Acts 7:59), James (Acts 12:2). Crucify; as Peter (John 21:18, John 21:19; 2 Peter 1:14); Simeon (Eusebius, ’Hist. Eccl.,’ 3:32); and probably Andrew. Scourge (see Acts 5:40; Acts 22:19 Acts 26:11; 2 Corinthians 11:24, 2 Corinthians 11:25). Persecuted (see Acts 13:50; Acts 14:5, Acts 14:6, Acts 14:19, Acts 14:20; Acts 26:11; and compare Christ’s prediction, Matthew 10:17, Matthew 10:18). The passage in the Second (Fourth) Book of Esdras 1:32, which is strikingly parallel to our Lord’s denunciation, may possibly be a Christian interpolation, "I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord." Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come (ὁìπωςἐìλθῃ). This phrase does not express a simple consequence, neither can it mean "in such a way that"—explanations which have been given by some commentators to avoid a seeming difficulty in the final sense; but it is to be translated, as usually, in order that, ut veniat. God, foreseeing the issues of their evil heart, puts in their way occasions which will aid his vengeance and accelerate the time of their punishment. He lets them work out their own destruction by committing an unpardonable sin. He does not force them into this course of conduct; they can resist the opportunity if they will; but he knows they will not do so, and the visitation becomes judgment. To have a man’s blood upon one’s head is to be held guilty of the crime of murder, and to be liable to make the required atonement for it. So in their blind fury, taking the punishment on themselves, the Jews a little later cried, "His blood been us, and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). Righteous blood. So in the Old Testament we often find such expressions as "innocent blood" (2 Kings 21:16; 2 Kings 24:4; Jeremiah 26:15); "blood of the just" (Lamentations 4:13); comp. Revelation 6:10 and Revelation 18:24, where it is written that in Babylon "was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all them that were slain upon the earth." Righteous Abel. The first of the murdered, the prototype of the death of Christ and of all good men who have died for truth, religion, and justice (Genesis 4:8; 1 John 3:12). The catalogue of such is long and terrible. Our Lord assigns a period to its dimensions, commencing with the first death mentioned in the Bible, and ending with the murder of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple (τοῦναοῦ, the sanctuary) and the altar. Our Lord is speaking of a past event well known to his hearers; but who this Zacharias was is much disputed. Origen mentions a tradition, otherwise entirely unsupported, that Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, was the son of Barachiah, and was murdered in the temple. But the story looks as if it was made to relieve the difficulty of identification; neither, as far as we know, was he a prophet. Zechariah, the minor prophet, was the son of Berechiah; but we read nothing of his being slain in the temple or elsewhere. It is true that Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ 4.5. 4) tells how a "Zacharias, son of Baruch," an honourable man, was slain by the zealots in the temple. But this murder took place A.D. 68, and our Lord could not number it among past crimes, or speak of it as an event familiar to those who heard him. The only other prophet of this name in the Bible is one mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22, as stoned by the people at the command of Joash, in the court of the house of the Lord. "And when he died," it is added, "he said, The Lord look upon it, and require it." This makes his case correspond to that of Abel, the voice of whose blood cried unto God from the ground. He is also the last prophet whose death is recorded in the Old Testament, and the guilt of whose murder, the Jews say, was not purged till the temple was burned under Nebuchadnezzar. It seems to be a kind of proverbial saying which the Lord here uses, equivalent to "from the first murdered saint to the last," taking the arrangement of the Hebrew canon of Scripture, and regarding the Books of Chronicles as the conclusion of Jewish history. This (though it would exclude the murder of other prophets, e.g. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.) would all be plain enough and quite appropriate to the context were it not that the Zechariah thus referred to was the son of Jehoiada, not of Barachias. But there are two solutions of this difficulty suggested; and, allowing either of these, we may confidently assert that the above-named prophet is the personage intended. (1) The words, "son of Barachias" may be an early interpolation, introduced by a copyist who was thinking of the minor prophet. They are omitted by the first correcter of the Sinaitic Manuscript, are not found in the parallel passage of St. Luke (Luke 11:51), and Jerome remarks that in the ’Gospel of the Nazarenes’ was read "son of Joiada." (2) There may have been family reasons, unknown to us, why Zechariah was thus designated (see the commentators on our Lord’s genealogy in St. Luke 3:1-38., especially on Luke 3:23, "son of Hell," Luke 3:27, "son of Salathiel," and Luke 3:36, "son of Cainan"). Or Jehoiada may have had two names, as so many Jews had. Indeed, the two appellations are not altogether dissimilar in meaning, Jehoiada signifying "Jehovah knoweth," and Barachiah, "Jehovah blesseth." Or again, Barachiah may have been the father of Zechariah, and Jehoiada the more famous grandfather. It has been suggested (by Morison, in loc.) that one of the monuments recently erected in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem was dedicated to Zacharias. Such a one still bears his name. Hence Christ’s allusion is very natural after his statement in verse 29. The scene of the murder was the open space in the priests’ court, between the holy place and the great altar of sacrifice. The sanctity of this spot made the crime abnormally atrocious. Matthew 23:36 An these things. All the crimes committed by their forefathers shall be visited upon this generation by the destruction of the Jewish city and polity, which took place within forty years from this time. The blood of the past was required from the Jews of the present time, because they and their evil ancestors were of one family, and were to be dealt with as a whole. In spite of the teaching of history and example, in spite of the warnings of Christ and his apostles, they were bent on repeating the acts of their forefathers, and that in an aggravated form and against increased light and knowledge. The punishment here announced is the temporal award. Christ here says nothing of the final judgment. Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! Pathetic iteration! As he approached the city on another occasion Christ had used the same words (Luke 13:34, Luke 13:35); he repeats them now as he takes his final farewell He speaks with Divine tenderness, yet with poignant sorrow, knowing that this last appeal will be in vain. It has been remarked that, whereas St. Matthew elsewhere names the capital city, the theocratic centre, Hierosolyma, which is the Greek equivalent, he here calls it Hierousalem, which is Hebrew, as though, while recording the words used by Jesus, he desired to reproduce the actual sound of the Saviour’s affecting address. Killest...stonest. Such is thy wont, thy evil practice. So Christ says elsewhere, "It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33). "Stonest" was particularly appropriate after the reference to Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20). Sent unto thee. The received Greek is, sent unto it or her (προςαὐτην), though some manuscripts and the Vulgate give "thee." But the change of persons is not uncommon. Alford quotes Luke 1:45; Luke 13:34; Revelation 18:24. How often! Some would confine Christ’s allusion to his own mission in Judaea, and the efforts made by him to win disciples; but it surely applies to all the doings and visitations of God towards Israel during the whole course of their history, which showed his gracious desire that all should be saved, if they only had willed with him. He hereby asserts himself as one with the God of the Old Testament. Christ’s ministry in Jerusalem and Judaea is mentioned by St. John. Gathered … wings. A tender similitude, which is found in the Old Testament and in classic authors. It implies love, care, and protection. Thus the psalmist prays, "Hide me under the shadow of thy wings;" "In the shadow of thy wings will I take refuge, until these calamities be overpast" (Psalms 17:8; Psalms 57:1); comp. Deuteronomy 32:11; Isaiah 31:5, etc. So Euripides, ’Herc. Fur.,’ 72— "The children whom I cherish ’neath my wings, As a bird cowering o’er her youthful brood." The metaphor is peculiarly appropriate at the time, when, as Lange puts it, the Roman eagles were hovering near, and there was no hope of safety but under the Lord’s wings. And ye would not. Unmoved by warning and chastisement, impenetrable to long suffering love, ungrateful for mercies, the Jews repulsed all efforts for their amendment, and blindly pursued the course of ruin. It was always in their power to turn if they willed, but they wilfully resisted grace, and must suffer accordingly (comp. Isaiah 30:15). Matthew 23:38 Your house. The temple or Jerusalem, no longer God’s habitation. This betokens not only Christ’s solemn departure from the sacred precincts; but the withdrawal of God’s Spirit from the Jewish Church and nation. Unto you. Henceforward ye shall have it all to yourselves; my Father and I forsake it; we give it up altogether to you. Desolate. The word is omitted by some few uncials, but retained by à, C, D, etc., most cursives, the Vulgate, etc. The protecting wing is withdrawn, the Divine presence removed, and the house is indeed deserted (ἐìρημος); (comp. Psalms 59:1-17:25; Jeremiah 12:7). Matthew 23:39 Ye shall not see me henceforth. Christ explains the denunciation just given. In a few days he will be separated from them by death and burial; and, though he appeared to certain chosen witnesses after his resurrection, he was seen no more by the people (Acts 10:41); their house was deserted. Some take the word "see" in the sense of know, recognize; but it seems rather weak to say, "Ye shall not know me till ye acknowledge me as Messiah," as the knowing and acknowledging are practically identical or simultaneous. Till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord! The words which had greeted his triumphal entry a few days before (Matthew 21:9). The clause, "till ye shall say," does not shut the door of hope forever; it looks forward to a happier prospect. The time intended is that when Israel shall repent of its rejection of the Messiah, and in bitter contrition look on him whom it pierced, owning and receiving Jesus with glad "Hosannahs!" Then shall they behold him coming in power and glory, and shall regain their old position as beloved of God (see Hosea 3:4, Hosea 3:5; Zechariah 12:10). Then "all Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11:26). Thus this terrible chapter, so dark and menacing, closes with a glow of hope and a promise, indefinite but certain, of final restoration. Matthew 23:1-12 The scribes and Pharisees. I. THEIR . 1. Their position. "They sit in Moses’seat." The scribes were the recognized teachers of the Law. The Pharisees exercised the greatest influence in the council and among the nation at large. Moses sat to judge the people (Exodus 18:18); now the scribes taught and expounded the Law. Therefore the Lord enjoined obedience to their precepts. But we must mark the word "therefore." They were to be obeyed because they sat in Moses’seat—as the successors, in some sense, to his authority, as the expounders of his Law. So far they were to be obeyed; but not, the Lord himself elsewhere cautions us, in their misinterpretations, in their contrivances for evading the plain meaning of the Law, in their many quibbles and their endless distinctions. We see here that the Lord bids us obey constituted authorities in all things lawful. Those who are set over us may not always be orthodox in their opinions; their characters may not always command our respect; but the very fact that they are set over us makes it our duty to treat them with respect and to obey their directions, whenever such obedience is not inconsistent with our duty to God. Submission to our superiors, even if they are unworthy of their position, is an exercise of humility, and agreeable to the will of God; for "the powers that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisted the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." We observe that the Lord does not here condemn the priests. They do not seem, as a body, to have taken a prominent place in the opposition to his teaching. The chief priests, who were Sadducees, did so. But we are told, early in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, that "a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." "The priests’ lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth." But in our Lord’s time a separation had been made between the duties of the teacher and the priest. The scribes taught the people; the priests ministered in the temple. The scribes, puffed up with their minute knowledge of the letter of the Law, were intensely antagonistic to the holy Teacher who brought out its spiritual meaning. The priests, excepting always their Sadducean leaders, do not seem to have been so hostile. They were occupied with their temple ministrations; they were, as a body, not recognized as public teachers, and were probably not so influential as the scribes, not brought so prominently before the eyes of the people. The Lord came to fulfil the Law. He attended the great festivals; he bade the leper whom he healed to show himself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses commanded. He did not interfere with the ministrations of the priests, nor does he here censure their life and conduct. The chief priests were hostile to him, probably because he exercised authority in the temple which they regarded as their own domain, and diminished their revenues by expelling the traffickers from the sacred precincts. The scribes opposed the Lord, so did the chief priests; in both cases from selfish motives. Let us beware of selfishness, and fight against it. It poisons the very life of the soul; it sets men against the Lord; it leads them to say in their hearts, "Not thy will, but mine be done." 2. Their conduct. (1) "They say, and do not," the Lord said. They made the Law a heavy burden, a yoke which men were not able to bear, by their practice of "making a fence round the Law." Such were their rigid and wearisome regulations about the observance of the sabbath, and the minute rules concerning the washing of vessels mentioned by St. Mark (Mark 7:4). But they themselves would not help to move that burden with one of their fingers. The teacher who lives a holy, self-denying life helps men by his example to bear the burden which he lays upon them. His conduct proves the reality of his convictions; it shows the strength of the motives which he enforces, the power of that grace which he preaches. Preaching, without practice, as in the case of the scribes, has little sanctifying influence, cannot much help men to deny themselves and lead a godly life. A life of real self-denial is the most convincing sermon. (2) All their works they did "for to be seen of men." They did not care for that inward purity of heart which does not win human praise. They strove to catch the eyes of men by the outward show of devotion. They delighted in phylacteries larger than usual, in borders and fringes more conspicuous than those commonly worn. There was no harm in wearing the phylactery or the fringe; the one was certainly ordered by the Law, probably also the other. The harm lay in the desire to attract attention, in the craving for display, in the tendency to exalt these outward things above inner spiritual religion. (3) They coveted pre-eminence; they eagerly desired the chief places at feast or at synagogue; they liked to hear themselves called "Rabbi, Rabbi." Their religion was outside show; they had no real love for God, no desire for spiritual holiness. II. THE . 1. The disciples of Christ must not seek for titles of honour. "Be not ye called Rabbi," the Lord said. There is one Teacher, one Father, one Master. The Lord’s people must not seek for distinctions, for pre-eminence; they are all brethren. We are not to take the words literally. To do so would be to follow the Pharisees. They were slaves of the letter; the Lord’s lessons are spiritual. St. Peter speaks of Mark as his son; so does St. Paul of Timothy and Titus; he describes himself as the spiritual father of his Corinthian converts (1 Corinthians 4:15). St. John addresses some to whom he writes as "fathers" (1 John 2:13). In the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17) we are bidden to obey them that have the rule over us, where the Greek verb is that from which the word rendered "master" in verse 10 is derived. But Christian men are not to seek after these and such-like titles; they are not to set store by them. If they come to us in the course of God’s providence, we may accept them. To reject them might be no true humility, but only the affectation of it. The difficult lesson is to be humble in heart, in lowliness of mind to esteem others better than ourselves. 2. They must be truly humble. The greatest, the most advanced Christians, will readily consent to be last of all and servants of all; forevery advance in holiness brings us nearer to him who took upon him the form of a servant, and came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. It is a first principle in Christ’s religion that "whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased, and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." The Lord uses these words again and again (Luke 14:11; Luke 18:14). His apostles echo them (James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5). The Lord Jesus had taught the blessedness of humility in the first of the Beatitudes. He illustrated his lesson in his own holy character, in the meekness and lowliness of his life. But the lesson is very high and difficult, hard for human nature to learn. Therefore it is enforced constantly in Holy Scripture, that this frequent repetition may help us to feel its deep importance, and urge us to cultivate that precious grace of lowliness without which we can make no real progress in the narrow way that leadeth unto life. The Pharisees exalted themselves. They loved sounding titles, high place, the praise of men. The Christian must learn of Christ to abase himself. Self-exaltation leads to spiritual ruin; for "God resisteth the proud." LESSONS. 1. Obey in all things lawful those who are set over you, not only the good and gentle, but also the froward. 2. Better to do and say not, than, like the Pharisees, to say and do not. 3. Flee from the love of display; it poisons the life of the soul. 4. Pray earnestly for constant growth in humility. Matthew 23:13-31 Condemnation of their hypocrisy. I. THE EIGHT WOES. 1. The first. The reiterated "Woe unto you!" is an expression of holy indignation. Christ, the righteous Judge, denounces the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. He knew the hardness, the impenitence of their hearts, and in his awful justice he pronounces their condemnation. Yet those very woes are also utterances of holy sorrow. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 24:1-51 OF THE OF , AND OF THE TIMES OF THE END. (Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36.) There is no reason to think, with Olshauson, that St. Matthew or his editor has considerably amplified the original discourse of our Lord by introducing details and expressions from other quarters. The discourse, as we now have it (Matthew 24:1-51. and 25.), forms a distinct whole, divided into certain portions closely related to each other and it would have been unnatural in St. Matthew, and opposed to his simple and veracious style, to have put words into our Lord’s mouth at this moment, which were not actually uttered by him on this solemn occasion. Matthew 24:1-3 Occasion of the discourse. (Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7.) Matthew 24:1 From the temple; Revised Version, went out froth the temple, and was going on his way (ἐπορευετο). So the best manuscripts and versions. It was while he was proceeding on the route to Bethany that the disciples interrupted him with their remarks about the temple. He had now taken his final leave of the hallowed courts; the prophecy of the desolation of the house was beginning to be fulfilled (see on Matthew 23:38). His disciples came to him. They were disquieted by Christ’s words recorded at the end of the last chapter, which spoke of a terrible retribution about to fall, of the desolation of the temple, of Christ’s own departure for a time. St. Mark (Mark 13:3) tells us that Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately when these things should be, and what signs should forewarn of their approach, as in verse 3. St. Matthew records here that his disciples came to him for to show (ἐπιδεῖξαι, to display) him the buildings of the temple (ἱεροῦ, the whole sacred enclosure). They had gathered from his words that destruction awaited this edifice, but as they gazed upon it they could scarcely bring themselves to believe in its coming overthrow. So as they gained some commanding point of view, they drew Christ’s attention to its beauty, magnificence, and unequalled solidity, desiring him to explain further the mode and time of the catastrophe. It was popularly said, "He who never saw the temple of Herod has never seen a fine building." Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said. The best manuscripts and the Revised Version give, but he answered and said. See ye not all these things? Vulgate, Videtis haec omnia? Our Lord, in turn, calls attention to the glorious structure in order to give added emphasis to his weighty denunciation. Not be left here one stone upon another. This prophecy was most literally fulfilled. Recent explorations have shown that not a stone of Herod’s temple remains in situ. The orders of Titus, given with regret, for the total demolition of the walls of temple and city, were carried out with cruel exactness, so that, as Josephus testifies (’Bell. Jud.,’ 7.1. 1), passers by would not have supposed that the place had ever been inhabited. When the apostate Julian, in the fourth Christian century, endeavoured to cast a slur upon prophecy by rebuilding the city and temple, his design proved to be an ignominious failure, and the sacred shrine has continued to this day a monument of Divine vengeance. Matthew 24:3 As he eat upon the Mount of Olives. On his way to Bethany towards the close of this day, he rested for a while and communed with the disciples, uttering the wonderful eschatological discourse which follows in this and the next chapter. It is noted that the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans began on the very spot where this prophecy of its destruction was delivered, strategical reasons compelling them to make their attack from this quarter. "A sudden turn in the road," writes Dr. Edersheim (2.431), "and the sacred building was once more in full view. Just then the western sun was pouring his golden beams on tops of marble cloisters and on the terraced courts, and glittering on the golden spikes on the roof of the holy place. In the setting, even more than in the rising sun, must the vast proportions, the symmetry, and the sparkling sheen of this mass of snowy marble and gold have stood out gloriously. And across the black valley, and up the slopes of Olivet, lay the dark shadows of those gigantic walls built of massive stones, some of them nearly twenty-four feet long. Even the rabbis, despite their hatred of Herod, grow enthusiastic, and dream that the very temple walls would have been covered with gold had not the variegated marble, resembling the waves of the sea, seemed more beauteous. It was probably, as they [the disciples] now gazed on all this grandeur and strength, that they broke the silence imposed on them by gloomy thoughts of the near desolateness of that house which the Lord predicted." Privately. Such questions were not to be asked openly in the hearing of any who might have followed him from the city. There was nothing more resented by the average Jew than any intimation of the destruction of the temple. It was one of the charges against Stephen that he had said that Jesus would destroy the temple (Acts 6:14). When, therefore, some of the apostles wished for more definite information on this subject, they took care to make their inquiry in private. Their questions were twofold—they desired to know the time of the events, and the signs which should precede Christ’s coming and the end of the world. When shall these things be? "These things" refer to the destruction of the temple, and the course of events which, as they conceive, are dependent thereupon (comp. Matthew 23:36). To their minds, this catastrophe could only occur contemporaneously with the coming of Christ in glory and the end of the world. They saw in it a great revolution which should usher in the final consummation. But when should this come to pass?—in their own day, or after many ages? in the lifetime of this generation, or at some far-distant period? It was not mere wanton curiosity to know the future which prompted the question, but rather a reverent desire to prepare for these great events, of the certainty of which they were now fully assured. So the next question shows no doubt concerning the facts, and asks, not the mode of the accomplishment, but only what anticipatory warning and indication were to be given. Sign of thy coming (τῆςσῆςπαρουσιας), and of the end of the world (συντελειαςτοῦαἰῶνος). They look upon these two events as synchronous, or very closely connected. The word parousia, which in classical Greek means "presence," or "arrival," is used in the New Testament specially for the second advent of Christ to set up his eternal kingdom in full power and glory. Referring to the same event, we find in some places the term "epiphany" used (see 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1), and in others "revelation" (ἀποκαλυψις, 1 Corinthians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:7); but the three expressions denote simply the open establishment of Messiah’s kingdom, indefnitely as to time and manner. The phrase translated "the end of the world "means literally the consummation of the age (cf. Matthew 13:39; Hebrews 9:26); consummationis saeculi (Vulgate); i.e. the close of this present seen, in contradistinction from the future aeon, or the world to come. This is "the last time," "the last days," spoken of elsewhere (see 1 Peter 1:5; 1 John 2:18; and comp. Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1). Matthew 24:4-41 The first portion of the great prophecy. Matthew 24:4 Jesus answered and said. The succeeding prophecy has much exercised the minds of commentators from the earliest times unto the present. It is, indeed, full of mysteries, dark sayings, profundities, which our minds cannot fathom. Many of these are and must be inherent in the subject; but some difficulties have been created by the imperfect views taken by those who have applied themselves to explain the Lord’s utterances. It is seen by all that we have here predictions concerning the fate of Jerusalem, concerning the parousia of Christ, and concerning the last times; it is the attempt to assign to these events separately certain definite portions of the address that has led to confusion and perplexity. Over-refinement and over-wisdom have marred the exposition of many critics. They have limited to one event that which was spoken of more than that one; confining their view to one point, they have excluded other points which were equally in the mind of the Revealer. It has been usual to divide the prophecy in this chapter into two sections, of which the first, extending to the twenty-ninth verse, is supposed to relate to the fate of Jerusalem itself; the second, comprising the rest of the chapter, to the parousia and the coming to judgment. But such definite partition will not stand investigation, and can be maintained only by doing violence to language or ignoring more natural explanations. The prophecy announces analogous events, the description of which has more than one application, and often passes from one to another with nothing to closely mark the transition. The combination of facts thus woven together cannot be coarsely unravelled. The same words, the same expressions, are used to denote the arrival or fulfilment of distinct occurrences. To limit these to one event only is to set bounds to the Omniscient. So it seems to be not only most expedient, but most reverent, to look on our Lord’s eschatological address as one whole, of which the several parts are in full harmony and sequence (if we were only able to understand them), and to acknowledge that insuperable difficulties in the interpretation do exist and are meant to exist. The Lord had to prepare his followers for the overthrow of their city, and the dangers to life and faith which would accompany that judgment. He desired also to raise in them a constant expectation of his advent, so that Christians then and thenceforward might ever live in hope and watch for a great future. Herein will be found the key to the perplexities of the address; not that even this unlocks all the mysteries, but, it opens the drift of these wonderful utterances, and enables us to see light amid the gloom. This will appear more fully as we examine the details. Take heed that no man deceive you; πλανησῃ: lead you astray (so Matthew 24:5). Jesus does not answer the disciples’ question as to the time when "these things" shall occur; that is purposely left uncertain. He proceeds to warn them against the dangers which would beset them in the coming crisis. He withdraws them from the speculative to the practical (see Matthew 24:23-25). Matthew 24:5 Here begins what has been called the first strophe of the oracle (Matthew 24:5-14), which indicates certain prognostics common to the close of the Jewish theocracy and to the end of the world. Many shall come in my Name (ἐπιτῷὀνοματιμου), resting on my Name, grounding their pretensions thereon. Saying, I am Christ (the Christ). They who really desired to follow Christ should be tried by the temptation to see in other persons the Messiah. The warning could scarcely have been needed by the apostles themselves; it must have been meant primarily for their converts and the early Christians. And though we have no account in apostolic Church history of any such pretenders, yet in the age succeeding our Lord’s death we read of many impostors who asserted themselves to be inspired prophets, if not the Messiah, and led astray many credulous persons (see Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 20.5. 1; 8. 6, etc.). There were doubtless many false Messiahs whose names are little known, and critics have enumerated twenty-nine such. The pretensions of these persons were not generally admitted, and their adherents were commonly few and uninfluential. Our Lord probably did not allude to these in his monition. But we may observe that the warning may include such deceivers as Simon Magus and those many false teachers who vexed the early Church, and, without assuming the name of Christ, did Satan’s work by undermining the faith. St. John speaks of there being "many antichrists" in his day (1 John 2:18), and St. Paul had occasion to warn his converts against "heretical seducers" (see 2 Corinthians 11:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17.; 1 Timothy 6:3, etc.). Since then the prophecy has been fulfilled in the heretics who, professing to come in the Name of Christ and to enunciate his doctrine, or, like Mohammed, to assume his place, have taught lies. These shall abound in the latter days, and shall be a sign of the approaching end. Matthew 24:6 Ye shall hear (μελλησετεἀκουειν). Ye are about, ye are destined, to hear. "Futurum complicatum, audituri eritis" (Bengel). He addresses the apostles as representatives of the whole body of believers. Wars and rumours of wars; i.e. wars near at hand, and distant wars of which the rumour only reaches you, but which threaten to approach and menace your peace (cf. Jeremiah 4:19). The peace which reigned at Christ’s birth was rudely shattered after his death, though the wars before the destruction of Jerusalem were of no great importance. We hear of an in. tended expedition against Aretas (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 18.5. 3), of one of Caligula against the Jews (ibid., 18.8. 2), both of which, however, came to nothing. Then there were certain insurrections in the reigns of Claudius (ibid., 20.5, 3) and Nero (ibid., 20.8. 6-10). The Roman empire was disturbed; four emperors—Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius—died by violence within a short space of time; the restless Parthians were a continual source of trouble. But these and such-like occurrences do little to exhaust the meaning of Christ’s prediction. He is looking forward to a distant future, and sees with prophetic eye the state of warfare which has prevailed from the disruption of the Roman empire, and which shall continue unto the end. See that ye be not troubled; rather, see, be ye not troubled, Look on it all, and yet be not affrighted. All these things (παντα) must come to pass. All that I announce is sure to occur, not from any absolute necessity, but because of men’s passions and perverseness, which will bring it to pass (see on Matthew 18:7; and James 4:1). The end is not yet. These signs might lead men to think that the final consummation was close at hand. Our Lord warns against such a conclusion. St. Paul speaks of "the end" as occurring in Christ’s second advent (1 Corinthians 15:24). Matthew 24:7 Nation shall rise against nation, etc. This part of the prediction is inapplicable to the era preceding the ruin of Jerusalem, the disturbances that occurred then (e.g. at Alexandria, Seleucia, Jamnia, and other localities mentioned by Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 18.9. 8, 9; ’Bell. Jud.,’ 2.17. 10; 18.1-8; 4.3. 2; and by Philo, ’Legat. ad Caium,’ § 30) could hardly have been indicated in such grand terms. More to the purpose is the sketch of the period given by Tacitus, at the opening of his history, though it embraces also details belonging to a somewhat later age: "I enter upon a work fertile in vicissitudes, stained with the blood of battles, embroiled with dissensions, horrible even in the intervals of peace. Four princes slain by the sword; three civil wars, more with foreign enemies, and sometimes both at once; prosperity in the East, disasters in the West; Illyricum disturbed; the Gauls ready to revolt; Britain conquered, and again lost; Sarmatians end Suevians conspiring against us; the Dacians renowned for defeats given and sustained; the Parthians almost aroused to arms by a counterfeit Nero. Italy afflicted with calamities unheard of, or recurring only after a long interval; cities overwhelmed or swallowed up in the fertile region of Campania; Rome itself laid waste by fire, the most ancient temples destroyed, the very capitol burned by its own citizens," etc. (’Hist.,’ I. 2). But the Lord’s words seem to refer to times when Rome’s dominion had ceased, and nation warred against nation, as in later and modem days in Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa So again the prediction must be extended far beyond events in the Jewish cycle. Famines. Besides the famine mentioned in Acts 11:28, there were others in Jerusalem and Judaea (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 3.15. 3; 20.2.6; 4. 2; ’Bell. Jud.,’ yd. 3. 3). Suetonius (’Claud.,’ 18) speaks of "assiduas sterilitates;" and Tacitus (’Ann.,’ 12.43) records as happening at the same period, "frugum egestas, et orta ex eo fames." And pestilences; as consequent on famine. Hence the Greek paronomasia, λιμοικαι, in our text. But many editors expunge λιμοι, considering it, with some reason, to have been introduced from the parallel passage in St. Luke, where it is certainly genuine. Of pestilences we have notice in Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ 4.6, 1), in Tacitus (’Ann.,’ 14.16), and Suetonius (’Nero,’ 39), where we read that at Rome in a single autumn thirty thousand persons perished. Wordsworth refers to Tertullian (’Apol.,’ 20.), Who sees in these predictions infallible proof of the inspiration of Scripture. "Hence it is that we come to be so certain of many things not yet come to pass, from the experience we have of those that are; because those were presignified by the same Spirit with these which we see fulfilling every day" (Reeve). Earthquakes. Commentators relate the occurrence of such commotions at Rome, in Crete, Laodicea, Campania, etc., and at Jerusalem (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 4.4. 5; Tacitus, ’Ann.,’ 12.43, 58; 14.27; 15.22; Seneca, ’Ep.,’ 91. 9; Philostraius, ’Vit. Apollon.,’ 4.34; Zonaras, ’Ann.,’ 11.10). Nosgen takes the term "earthquakes" in a metaphorical sense as equivalent to ταραχαι, and implying mental perturbations; but it seems incongruous to admit a metaphysical prognostication in the midst of a notice of a series of material phenomena. In divers places; κατατοπους: per loca (Vulgate). Some render the words, "in all places," ubivis locorum, as in Luke 2:41, κατἐìτος, "every year." But it is better to take the preposition distributively, "place by place," like κατἀìνδρα: so equivalent to "here and there." Matthew 24:8 Beginning of sorrows; ὠδινων: labour pangs, travailings. The metaphor often occurs (see Isaiah 26:17; Jeremiah 13:21; Hosea 13:13, etc). These great events are called "labour pangs" because they usher in the new creation, "the regeneration" spoken of in Matthew 19:28 (see note there). St. Paul writes (Romans 8:22), "The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." The tribulations and calamities which preceded and accompanied the overthrow of the Jewish polity are a sign and warning of the great and universal woes Which shall herald the day of judgment. Jewish writings speak of "the sorrows of Messiah," distresses, wars, famine, dissension, etc., which should herald his advent, and Christ may have used the popular opinion, true as far as it went, as a vehicle for conveying the further truth, that the coming age would be produced amid terrible agonies of men, peoples, and nature. Matthew 24:9 The Lord passes to the fate of his followers, or the corporate Church. Then. St Mark does not note the time; St. Luke writes, "before all these things." Hence we gather that the calamities now announced will precede, accompany, and follow those before mentioned. That which befell the apostles and early believers is an emblem of what Christianity will undergo at the hands of an antagonistic world. St. John, in the Revelation, has shadowed forth these things as doomed to fall upon the Church in the latter days. Shall they deliver you up to be afflicted (comp. Matthew 10:17, Matthew 10:18). Christ is speaking, not only of the apostles, but of disciples generally. They shall deliver you over to the authorities, civil and religious, to be punished. The Book of the Acts contains numerous examples of such afflictions (see Acts 4:3; Acts 8:1; Acts 12:4; Acts 13:50: Acts 14:19, etc.). Kill. As Stephen (Acts 7:59), James the brother of John (Acts 12:2), Peter and Paul (Eusebius, ’Hist. Eccl.,’ Ecclesiastes 2:25), and many others. Hated of all [the] nations (Acts 28:22, "As concerning this sect, it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against"). Tacitus speaks of those "quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat" (’Ann.,’ 15.44). The Romans seem to have placed Jews and Christians in the same category, and to have bestowed on the latter the hatred felt for the former. But the Lord’s words point to some feeling more universal and permanent than this temporary animosity, even to the hatred which occasioned the death of martyrs in all ages, the warfare between good end evil, faith and unbelief, which shall continue and increase in virulence unto the end (John 15:20; John 16:2). Matthew 24:10 Shall many be offended. The persecutions directed against the disciples in general shall in many cases result in overcoming their steadfastness and sapping their faith. Shall betray one another. To curry favour with enemies and to secure their own safety in troublous times, Christians were found to inform against friends, and to deliver them up to the civil authorities. Tacitus notes instances of this degrading cowardice. "First those were seized who confessed that they were Christians; and then on their information a vast multitude was convicted" (’Ann.,’ 15.44). Shall hate one another. Dissensions in religion cause the most bitter hatred, the very opposite of that love which is the essence of Christianity (John 15:17). Where one of a pagan family embraced Christianity, the convert was regarded as an outcast, and cut adrift from the nearest domestic ties. The same treatment obtains even now in India. The reference in the text chiefly concerns contentions among professing Christians; we see such effects every day; they appear in every page of ecclesiastical history; they have stained the annals of our own and every nation. Matthew 24:11 False prophets (Matthew 24:24). These were not necessarily predictors or soothsayers, but teachers having, as they said, a message from God. Such pretenders have arisen in every great crisis; but the Jews a few years later were deceived continually by fanatics or impostors, who professed to be inspired, and premised the infatuated people deliverance, urging them to resist the Romans, in expectation of the coming of Messiah to lead them to immediate victory (comp. Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 6.5. 2). The designation "false prophets" applies also to those heretical teachers who vexed the peace of the early Church, and of whom St. John expressly speaks, "Many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). These were Judaizing and Gnostic teachers, who tried to mar the good work of the apostles (see Acts 20:30; Romans 16:17, Romans 16:18; 2 Corinthians 11:13; Galatians 1:7-9; Colossians 2:18-23, etc.). Throughout the Christian ages heresiarchs have always raised their evil voices, and the history of the Church is very much composed of accounts of such teachers, and of the efforts made to suppress them and to correct their pernicious doctrines. Matthew 24:12 Because iniquity shall abound (πληθυνθῆναι, is multiplied). The word rendered "iniquity" is ἀνομια, "lawlessness," general immorality and licence. Impatience of rule and discipline, connivance at and imitation of heathen practices, reacted upon the faith of believers, undermined steadfast adherence to principle. Then was the power of "that wicked one" (ὁἀìνομος, 2 Thessalonians 2:8) exercised and seen in the lapse of the unstable. The love of many (τῶνπολλῶν, the many, the majority) shall wax cold. "Love" (ἀγαπη) here is used in its general and comprehensive sense, as having God as its chief object and man in subordination thereto. The troubles and persecutions that shall beset believers, the spirit of worldliness and self-seeking that a timid faith encourages, will issue in loosening dependence upon God and trust in his providential care; and internal dissensions will destroy that brotherly love which ought to be characteristic of Christians. Of this lack of energetic love the Lord speaks in his warnings to the Church of Laodicea (Revelation 3:16), "Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Matthew 24:13 He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (Matthew 10:22). Here is a note of consolation amid the refrain of woe. Patience and perseverance shall be crowned at the last. "The end" means primarily the destruction of Jerusalem, and the salvation promised is safety in that day of peril. It is believed that no Christians perished in the siege or after it (see Matthew 24:16). But τελος, being here used without the article (differently from Matthew 24:6 and, 14), must not be restricted to one allusion, but must be taken more generally, as indeed a universal axiom, equivalent to "finally," as long as endurance is needed. And the salvation must refer to the soul’s sentence at the last day, not to any mere safety of body and life. What the maxim says is this: patient continuance in well doing, resignation under persecutions and afflictions, holding fast the one faith even though it lead to the martyr’s death,—this shall win the crown of eternal blessedness. The Christian must not be led astray by false teachers nor offended by the prevalence of scandals, nor let his love be chilled, if he would gain the reward, share in Messiah’s glory, and save his soul. Matthew 24:14 This gospel of the kingdom. The good news of the coming of Messiah’s kingdom—what we call in short, "the gospel"—"that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). He calls it "this" (Matthew 26:13), because it is that which he preached, which it was the object of his incarnation to set forth. In all the world (ἐνὁìλῃτῇοἰκουμενῃ, in all the inhabited earth). Before the taking of Jerusalem, the gospel had been carried into all parts of the then known world. We have very uncertain information about the labours of most of the apostles, but if we may judge of their extent from what we know of St. Paul’s, we should say that very few quarters of the Roman world were left unvisited. "Their sound went out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the inhabited world" (Romans 10:18). St. Paul testifies that the gospel was preached to every kingdom under heaven (Colossians 1:6, Colossians 1:23). He himself carried it to Arabia, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Illyricum, Rome, Spain (see Romans 15:19, Romans 15:24, Romans 15:28; Galatians 1:17; Philippians 1:13, etc.). A witness unto all [the] nations. That both Jews and Gentiles might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting Christ. The witness should be for or against them according to the use made of this opportunity. If the gospel thus delivered contained this utterance of our Lord’s, the fulfilment of the predictions would lead to belief in him, and could fail to win acceptance only by reason of invincible prejudice or wilful perversity. Shortly, the truth is that the gospel will be everywhere offered, but not everywhere received. And then, when all these signs, especially the one last named, shall have appeared, shall the end come, primarily of Jerusalem, secondarily of this world or this age. Nothing is said of the effect of missionary efforts in early days or in time to come. We know that there was no national conversion in the primitive era, however common individual conversion may have been. So in the present age we are not to expect more than that Christian missions shall reach the uttermost parts of the earth, and that all nations shall have the offer of salvation, before the final appearance of Christ. The success of these efforts at universal evangelization is a mournful problem. "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find the faith upon the earth?" (Luke 18:8). Matthew 24:15 In this second strain of the prophecy contained in Matthew 24:15-22, our Lord confines himself almost entirely to the fate of Jerusalem. Therefore. The illative particle carries us back to the signs given in the previous section (Matthew 24:5-14). By saying when ye shall see, he implies that some of his hearers shall behold this mysterious sign, and have the opportunity of profiting by the knowledge thereof. The abomination of desolation (τοβδελυγματῆςἐρημωσεως). The term is from the Septuagint Version (with which Theodotion’s agrees) of Daniel 12:11; in Daniel 9:27 we find βδελυγματῶνἐρημωσεων, where the Hebrew gives, Upon the wing [or, ’pinnacle’] of abominations shall come the desolater." Also in Daniel 11:31 we have the simple βδελυγμα. What is meant by the term in our text is a matter of unsettled dispute. The prophecy in Daniel 11:31 has been generally referred to the doings of Antiochus Epiphanes (see 1 Macc. 1:54), and the present is considered to relate to something analogous. "Abomination" in the Old Testament is generally connected with idolatry or sacrilege; "of desolation" is equivalent to "that causes desolation." Among the many explanation; of this passage which have been offered, two only seem worthy of consideration. (1) The desolating abomination is referred to the Roman armies encamped around Jerusalem (Luke 21:20), of which the symbol was the legionaries’ eagles, regarded with reverence by the soldiers. But in opposition to this view it may be said, if the holy place, without the article, signifies the Holy Land, then the presence of the Latin forces would be no new sign to the Jewish people, as they had been familiar with such a sight for many years. If the temple itself is meant, it is plain that it would be too late to fly from that doomed city when the Roman eagles were already in the hallowed courts. (2) The alternative interpretation, which has seemed to many more probable, explains it of the sanguinary deeds of the Zealots, who, after the war had been carried on for some years, seized the temple, put a stop to the daily sacrifice, deluged the sacred courts with blood, and were guilty of most hideous crimes and excesses, which, as Josephus testifies, were the immediate cause of the city’s, ruin (see Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 4.3, 7, etc.; 5.1, 2; 6.3; 5.9, 4; 6.2; and Wordsworth’s note on this Daniel 11:15). The presence and acts of these ruffians were to be the signal for the escape of the Christians. I must confess that neither of these explanations satisfies me. The primal fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy is found in the erection of the statue of Jupiter in the temple by the order of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the pollution of the altar by the sacrifice of swine thereon. Our Lord would seem to refer to something analogous which should give the Christians a signal for escape before the complete investiture of the city. The deeds of Zealots and assassins, however atrocious, could not with any propriety be described as "abomination that maketh desolate standing in the holy place." The term, according to scriptural analogy, must refer to some sacrilege and pollution connected with idolatry, of which certainly the Zealots were not guilty. The Fathers, recognizing this, have seen the fulfilment in the erection of images of the Roman emperors in the temple or its precincts. But we have no account of any such act preceding the final siege. Pilate’s attempted introduction of the Roman ensigns was defeated by the threatening attitude of the people (Josephus, ’Ant.,’ 18.3. 1), and the actual setting up of these ensigns in the sanctuary, and the erection of the statue of Titus, were subsequent to the capture of the city and temple (’Bell. Jud.,’ 6.6. 1). Our Lord is plainly referring to something that transpired before the conclusion of the siege, otherwise we might recognize an allusion to the insurrection of Bar-cochebas, which ended in the destruction of the partially rebuilt city, the abolition of its old name, the erection of a temple to Jupiter on the site of the holy place, and the placing of a statue of the emperor upon the altar, A.D. 135. What the "abomination" was cannot now be accurately determined, though its character may be divined from what has been said, and it was probably some anticipation of the antichrist who is to appear before the final consummation, who "exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:8). Spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in three passages (Daniel 9:27; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11), all obscure and difficult, and not necessarily referring to the same events. Christ takes it for granted that his auditors understand the allusion. Stand [standing] in the holy place. Those who take "the abomination" to be the Roman army, explain this clause to mean "posted on the holy soil." But τοποςἁìγιος, with or without the article, is never used but in reference to the temple and its adjuncts. Whatever the sign may be, it is to be seen within the temple. (Whoso readeth, let him understand.) There are three ways of regarding this parenthetical clause. (1) Alford takes it as "an ecclesiastical note, which, like the doxology in Daniel 6:13, has found its way into the text" This is a mere conjecture which has nothing to support it. (2) Others consider it to be a remark of St. Matthew, intended to call special attention to the warning; but such an observation is entirely without precedent in the synoptic Gospels, and it is found also in the parallel passage of St. Mark. It is scarcely probable that both these evangelists would have given the identical caution, if it arose from their own motion in respect of those who should read their words before the siege. (3) It seems more natural to take the clause as uttered by Christ himself with a silent reference to the words of the angel to Daniel, "Know therefore and understand" (Daniel 9:25; comp. Daniel 12:10). The Lord would point emphatically to the prophecy of Daniel, and his own interpretation thereof (2 Timothy 2:7). He seems also to imply that the application is not at once obvious, and needs spiritual insight to discern it. Matthew 24:16 Then; i.e. when they shall see "the abomination of desolation," etc. Them which be in Judaea. Not only in Jerusalem, but in its vicinity, as most exposed to danger from the invading army. Flee into (ἐπι, over) the mountains. The Christians seem to have taken this advice when the city was attacked by Costius Gallus, about A.D. 66, some three or more years before the siege under Vespasian. Gallus had appeared before the walls, and apparently had every hope of taking the city, when, for some reason not certainly known (either owing to a supposed defeat, or ignorance of his own success, or the advice of his generals), he suddenly withdrew his forces (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 2.19, 6, 7). The Christians, bearing Christ’s warning in mind, and having, as we may conjecture, seen the predicted sign, took the opportunity of flight from the doomed city, and made their escape to Pella, a town of Decapotis, southeast of Bethshean, and the ruins of which are known now by the name of Fahil. Euschius probably refers to this migration (’Hist. Eccl.,’ 3.5), narrating that, owing to a certain revelation given to holy men among them, the whole body of the Church, before the war, removed across the Jordan to Pella, and dwelt there in safety during those troublous times. We probably, however, do not know the exact time of the flight, as we are ignorant of what was the warning of imminent danger which rendered this hurried proceeding necessary. Matthew 24:17 Housetop. This was fiat, and used as a place of rest, meditation, and familiar concourse (Matthew 10:27). Come down … house. The roof was accessible by two staircases, one external leading from the street or the country, the other mounting from the apartments. The householder was not to descend by this latter to carry off anything from his chambers within, but to escape at once by the outer staircase (setup. Luke 5:19). The flight was to be precipitate, like that of Lot from Sodom (cf. Luke 17:32). The warning was necessary, as, when the Zealots and assassins bad the upper hand, they allowed no one to leave the city. The warning, however, applied to dwellers in any part of Judaea. Matthew 24:18 In the field. People in the open country would be in as great danger as those in the city, the hostile troops doubtless being dispersed on all sides, plundering, burning, and slaying. Return back. He who was working in the fields only partially clad was not to go to his house to fetch the rest of his garments, but to make good his flight just as he was. He would naturally lay aside his heavy burnous while engaged in work, but all considerations of propriety and comfort were to be put aside at the present emergency. The warning was to be regarded equally by those in doors or out of doors, at home or abroad. Matthew 24:19 Woe unto them that are with child! The Lord, while he counsels flight, has a word of compassion for those poor mothers who are forced to have recourse thereto. The circumstances mentioned would impede flight and greatly increase danger and distress. The sufferings of mothers and children in the siege are narrated by the historian, and even such horrors as are indicated in Deuteronomy 28:53-56 were not unknown (see Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 5.10, 3; 6.3, 4; Eusobius, ’Hist. Eccl.,’ 3.6, 7). Matthew 24:20 Pray ye that, etc. (προσευχεσθεἱìνα). He bids them pray to and worship God, in order that he may give them a favourable time for flight. The clause introduced with the final particle does not directly denote the subject of the petition, as our version gives the impression, but rather the aim of the petitioners (Morison). Not in the winter. He spake of personal hindrances in the last verse; here he speaks of external circumstances over which man has no control, except by prayer. The weather in winter, which means the rainy season, might render the roads impassable, and would, of course, prevent any hope of obtaining food by the wayside from cornfield or fruit tree. The sabbath day, which precluded any work or the use of beast of burden, and restricted a journey to something less than a mile. We must remember that until the final catastrophe the Christians observed such Mosaic restrictions (see Exodus 16:29; Acts 1:12). A flight for such a short distance would have been of no avail under the imperious circumstances which rendered escape advisable. Matthew 24:21 Nor then. Jesus gives the reason why this precipitate flight (Matthew 24:16-20) was rendered necessary at the moment spoken of in Matthew 24:15. Great tribulation. The miseries suffered in the siege of Jerusalem were stupendous To the skilful and fierce attacks of the Romans from without were added from within dire famine and pestilence, dissensions, violence, and continual bloodshed and murder. Josephus estimates the number of those who fell in the siege and capture of Jerusalem at 1,000,000, the usual population being largely increased by the influx of pilgrims attending the Feast of the Passover, and by thousands of fugitives who had flocked in from the country (Josephus. ’Bell. Jud.,’ 6.9, 3). He adds that 97,000 were carried away captive during and after the war. Such as was not … nor ever shall be (Daniel 12:1). This is not mere hyperbole, but sober fact. Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ Proœm. 4) himself bears similar testimony: "Of all the cities under the dominion of Rome, ours was once the most happy, and afterwards the most utterly miserable. For the misfortunes of all the nations upon earth that have ever happened, if they are compared with the calamities to which the Jews were exposed, will, in my opinion, fall far short." Chrysostom sums up the matter thus: "Whence came there thus upon them wrath from God intolerable, and more sore than all that had befallen aforetime, not in Judaea only, but in any part of the world? Is it not quite clear that it was for the deed of the cross and for this rejection? Mark, I pray thee, the exceeding greatness of the ills, when not only compared with the time before, they appear more grievous, but also with all the time to come. For not in all the world, neither in all time that is past, and that is to come, shall any one be able to say such ills have been. And very naturally; for neither had any man perpetrated, not of these that ever have been, nor those to come hereafter, a deed so wicked and horrible" (’Hom.,’ in loc.). The "affliction" spoken of refers not only to bodily sufferings, but to that anguish of mind occasioned by acute apprehension and. expectation of danger, such as was felt in the days before the Flood, and at the time of the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes. Matthew 24:22 Except these days should be shortened (ἐκολοβωθησαν, had been shortened). In the midst of wrath God thinks on mercy. He providentially ordained that the days of vengeance should not be indefinitely prolonged; the siege was practically of short duration, the country was not wholly overrun and desolated. The natural causes that combined to produce this shortening of the siege have been recounted by commentators. These were—the divided counsels of the Jews themselves, the voluntary surrender of parts of the fortifications, the fierce factions in the city, the destruction of magazines of provisions by calamitous fire, the suddenness of the arrival of Titus, and the fact that the walls had never been strengthened, as Herod Agrippa had intended. There should no flesh be saved; i.e. the whole Jewish nation would have been annihilated. For the elect’s sake. At the intercession of the escaped Christians, who offered up unceasing prayer for their brethren and countrymen, God lessened the duration of the calamities. "The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working" (James 5:16). Ten righteous would have saved Sodom; Lot’s intercession did preserve Zoar (comp. Isaiah 6:13; Jeremiah 5:1; Acts 27:24). Some, not so suitably, explain "the elect" to be those Jews who should hereafter turn to the Lord; or the elect seed, "beloved for the fathers’sake" (Romans 11:28). We may well believe that the local tribulations, such as are intimated by Daniel and Christ, and their limitation in time, are a picture of what shall happen in the last days, the intermediate fulfilment being the prelude of the final accomplishment. Matthew 24:28 And then. The third section of the prophecy, contained in Matthew 24:23-35, passes from the fortunes of Jerusalem to the end of the world. To the Lord’s hearers was conveyed the truth that the signs and events now indicated were to be subsequent to the destruction of the city. No further note of chronology was given. The uncertainty of the future caused a state of constant expectation and hope. And this is the feeling which we Christians are intended to embrace and cultivate. "The word ’then’ relates not to the connection in the order of time with the things just mentioned,… not meaning what should follow straightway after these things, but what should be in the time when these things were to be done of which he was about to speak" (St. Chrysostom, ’Horn.,’ in loc.). Lo, here is Christ! This refers to something different from the announcement in Matthew 24:5. Some analogous deceptions doubtless occurred at the siege of Jerusalem, but the Lord is predicting the remote events of the latter days, of which previous occurrences were types and anticipations. Believe it not. When Christ does come the second time, there shall be no doubt or ignorance of his appearance (see Matthew 24:27, and compare the warning in Deuteronomy 13:1-3). Matthew 24:24 False Christs. He shows the nature of the dangers to which believers will be subject. He does not confine his view to Jewish history; he foretells the appearance of pretenders who shall assume the part of Christ, and blasphemously assert that they are Messiah. False prophets. Without assuming the name of Christ, many impostors shall be found who, professing to be inspired or lawful teachers, shall lead hearers into false doctrine, or claim to possess a new revelation, or something additional and supplemental to the eternal gospel. Such was Mohammed; such were the founders of Buddhism, Mormonism, and other so called religions, who based their views on special revelation given from heaven for the purpose of improving the existing faith or introducing a new one. Shall show (δωσουσι, shall give, as Acts 2:19) great signs and wonders. Two usual terms for miracles, the former regarding rather the evidence afforded by them, the latter the element of the marvellous inherent in them (comp John 4:48; Acts 2:22; Acts 7:36 etc.). That such men did work actual miracles, or what were regarded as such, cannot be reasonably doubted. Satan was on their side, and, as far as he was permitted, confirmed their teaching by supernatural assistance. St. Paul testifies that such should be the action of the antichrist, "whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9; comp. Revelation 13:13, Revelation 13:14). Many of these wonders may have been effectuated by natural forces unknown to the majority of men, and therefore considered as superhuman; others may have been derived from the spiritual world, but necessarily from that realm thereof which is under the control of evil demons. Whatever may have been their source, they were displayed in support of lies and errors, and had a certain success. Insomuch that if it were possible, they shall deceive (ὠìστεπλανῆσαιεἰδυνατον) the very (και, even) elect. The Authorized Version seems to make our Lord imply that such seduction was absolutely impossible. The translation ought to run, as in the Revised Version, so as to lead astray, if possible even the elect, signifying the difficulty, not the impossibility, of drawing them away from the truth. "The elect" are Christians, true followers of Jesus, and members of his Church. These may fall from the faith, for they are not yet finally safe, and on that chance Satan builds; but as long as they rest on Christ, looking to him for guidance and protection, trying the spirits by the Word of God and by the truths which they have learned in creed and worship, they stand firm against the strongest temptations. Matthew 24:25 I have told you before (see John 16:1-4). The warning was needed in the first age; it will be needed in the last. The prediction was known before the ruin of Jerusalem, and doubtless preserved many from falling victims to the seducers at that period; it must be used now and till the end to preserve Christians from the errors of infidelity, false philosophy, agnosticism. That such attacks on their faith shall be made is a proof of Christ’s omniscience; that he gives here and in the next verses premonitions of danger, with counsel how to avoid it, is evidence of his love and care for his elect. Matthew 24:26 Wherefore if (ἐανοὖν, if therefore). The Lord proceeds to make the matter more plain by entering into details which the "here" and "there" of Matthew 24:23 had not sufficiently denoted. He (Christ) is in the desert. If there was a partial fulfilment of this warning at the siege of Jerusalem, when some impostors tried to persuade the people that Messiah was in the wilderness, preparing to march to their relief, it is to have its chief accomplishment just before the final consummation. Go not forth. Be not deluded into following any local deceiver. The definite place of appearance proves its falsity (see Matthew 24:27). The secret chambers; in penetralibus (Vulgate). When Christ comes the second time, he will not come as at Bethlehem, in secret, in a corner. If any pretender should be announced under such conditions, they were to put no belief in him. These were simple tests which all could apply. To limit the Lord’s appearance to particular persons or to a particular place, was to incur fatal error. Matthew 24:27 As the lightning … east … west. That is, shines from one end of heaven to the other. St. Chrysostom’s comment explains the similitude: "How, then, shineth the lightning? It needs not one to talk of it, it needs not a herald, but even to them in chambers it shows itself in an instant of time throughout the whole world. So shall that coming be, showing itself at once everywhere by reason of the shining forth of his glory." We are told, "every eye shall see him." His advent shall be sudden, universal, unmistakable; in a moment he shall be present, visible in all his power and glory. From the language of this verse probably has been derived the orientation of churches, and the mode adopted of depositing the bodies of deceased Christians, so that they may at the resurrection face the Lord when he comes from the east. For. The particle seems to be spurious, and is omitted by late editors. Christ applies a proverbial saying in confirmation of the certainty and universality of is appearance. He had used the same under other circumstances (Luke 17:1-37:87); and analogous expressions are found in Job 39:30; Hosea 8:1; Habakkuk 1:8, etc. Wheresoever the carcase (πτῶμα) is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Eagles (ἀετοι) do not live on carrion, so that here probably vultures are meant. The Hebrew word nesher, translated "eagle" in our version, often signifies "the vulture," as in Micah 1:16. This bird’s keenness of sight is almost incredible; it will discern a prey at an enormous distance, and its movements being watched by others, all eager to secure food, a carcase is very quickly surrounded by a multitude of these rapacious birds, flocking from all quarters. What our Lord meant by this proverb has occasioned great disputation. If Christ were referring primarily and chiefly to Jerusalem, it would be easy to explain "the carcase" to be the corrupt city, "the eagles" the ministers of God’s vengeance, especially the Roman armies, whose standards bore the image of this bird of prey. Or if it were a mere general truth, and to be taken entirely in a spiritual sense, the gnome would imply that moral corruption calls for heavenly chastisement. But neither of these interpretations would satisfy the context, which speaks of Christ’s second advent. Hence many regard the sentence as altogether parallel to the preceding verse, expressing in metaphor that which was there set forth in more direct terms, viz. that all men shall assemble to the place where Christ shall summon them to be judged, as vultures congregate round a carcase. In this case the carcase is Christ, the eagles or vultures are the men to be judged. This exposition has satisfied commentators of reputation, but it has its weak points. One fails to see the propriety of describing men coming to the great assize as vultures gathering to devour a dead body, or how in this case the body can be Christ or the place of his appearance. More probable is the interpretation which regards the carcase as antichrist or the world power, and the eagles as the saints and angels who shall attend Christ when he comes in judgment (Revelation 19:17, Revelation 19:18). Others expound the clause entirely in a mystical sense. The carcase is Christ, or the body of Christ; the eagles are the saints, or true Christians; these, whatever happens, will, with keen spiritual sight, always be able to discern Christ and his body, and to flock thereto. He calls himself πτῶμα, because he saves us by his death, and feeds us by his body, in his Church, Word, and sacraments (see Wordsworth, in loc.). Such is the interpretation of many of the Fathers, and it has many analogies in other places of Scripture. Far be it from us to restrict the sphere of Divine prediction, or to assert that any legitimate reference which we may discover was not in the Lord’s mind when he spake the words. But it is more simple to regard the proverbial saying in itself, without looking for abstruse or mystical meanings. As a carcase, fall where it may, is immediately observed by the vultures and attracts them, so Christ’s coming shall at once be discerned by all men and draw them into it. Matthew 24:29 Immediately (εὐθεωςδε, but immediately) after the tribulation of those days. The particle must not be disregarded, as it implies a caution with respect to the parousia. The Lord proceeds to announce some details of the final advent. Taking the tribulation to be the single fact of the ruin of Jerusalem, with its accompanying horrors, some have explained the Lord’s word "immediately after" by the foreshortening process of prophecy, which makes the distant future seem close to the obtruding present, or by the consideration that in God’s view time does not exist: "One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). But the truth is, the tribulation (Matthew 24:21) only began with the fall of Jerusalem; that was its first and partial fulfilment; and, am St. Luke implies (Luke 21:23, Luke 21:24), it has been going on ever since, and is not yet finished. The punishment of the Jews is still proceeding, Jerusalem is still trodden down by the Gentiles, wrath still lies upon the people, they are still dispersed over the world, and have been and are more or leas persecuted in many countries. This state of things is to continue "till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled;" it is, then, "immediately after" this that the signs announced by the Lord shall be seen. He is, as we said above (see on verse 4), purposely indefinite, that the Church may learn to wait and watch for the return of the Saviour and Judge. This state of expectatation is to be its normal condition. It had its effect on the primitive Church before she Jewish catastrophe. St. Peter (Acts 3:19-21) tells of the times of refreshing, when Jesus shall come, as possibly close at hand; St. Paul more than once speaks in the same strain (1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 1:6, etc.), though he warns his converts not to omit ordinary duties in immediate expectation of the end (2 Thessalonians 2:2); St. James (James 5:9) tells of the Judge standing before the door. And since then often has this belief cropped up at various stages of the world’s history, showing that Christ’s warning has sunk deep into Christian hearts, and produced the temper of mind which he purposed to raise. Shall the sun be darkened, etc. There is no valid reason why the physical phenomena mentioned in this verso are not to be taken literally, even if we see also in them a spiritual significance. It is only reasonable to expect that the end of this world should be accompanied by stupendous changes in the realm of nature. The sun was miraculously darkened when Jesus hung on the cross. What wonder if similar catastrophes signal his coming to judgment? The apostle’s words point to a literal fulfilment (2 Peter 3:10, 2 Peter 3:12). Our Lord’s prediction echoes announcements often found in the Old Testament, which are not always to be considered metaphorical (see Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Joe 2:30, Joe 2:31; Joe 3:15, Joe 3:16; Amos 8:9). Anticipations of some of these terrible latter day signs occurred at Jerusalem, according to Josephus (’Bell. Jud.,’ 6.5.3,4). Darkened … not give light. This is in accordance with Hebrew parallelism. The next clause is constructed in the same way. Fall from heaven. The Lord may be speaking of the apparent effect of these convulsions of nature, in accordance with popular ideas, as we talk of the sun rising and setting; or he may thus term the obscuration or extinction of the light of the stars. The powers of the heavens mean probably the heavenly bodies independent of the solar system, called elsewhere "the host of heaven" (Deuteronomy 4:19. etc.); or the phrase may signify (though the parallelism would not be so perfect) the forces and laws which control these bodies. An interruption in the action of these powers would occasion the most awful catastrophes (see Haggai 3:6, which makes a similar announcement). We must notice the spiritual application of this prediction, as it has obtained a wide acceptance. The words are sometimes taken in a bad sense. The sun is Satan, or Lucifer, who fell as lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18); "the powers of the heavens" are the hosts of the prince of the power of the air, "the spiritual wickednesses in high places;" the stars are all that exalt themselves, who shall be consumed and vanish at the brightness of the cross. But more generally the luminaries are explained in a good sense. The sun is Christ or his truth, which shall be obscured in the last days; the moon is the Church, darkened by heresy and unbelief, and borrowing no light from its sun; the stars are they who once were foremost in the faith, but now shall fall from their steadfastness, or be unable to diffuse light, owing to the gross darkness and mistiness of those evil days. Matthew 24:30 And then; i.e. after the great physical changes mentioned in the last verse. The sign of the Son of man. This has been differently interpreted (1) as the appearance of Christ himself in the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64; Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:14), when the glory and majesty of his advent will prove that he is Saviour and Judge. But this explanation seems to confuse the sign and that which it represents, the token of Messiah and Messiah himself who cometh afterward. And the definite article, "the sign," seems to imply something already well known to denote him, whereas his appearance could not be known beforehand. (2) A star, which shall herald his second coming, as a star announced his birth. This, which is Olshausen’s suggestion, is entirely arbitrary, and has nothing to support it, especially as the meaning of the star would not be directly intelligible to all men. (3) Meyer and De Wette suppose a bright light, or a kind of Shechinah. This, which doubtless will be manifested, was indeed a token of the presence of God, but could not be recognized at once as the sign of the Son of man. (4) We come to what has been the almost universal interpretation of the Fathers and early commentators, who saw in the sign the cross of Christ, which is indeed the ensign and standard of the gospel. Nothing, equally with this, can characterize the Son of man, the emblem of his humiliation and his triumph. Then. When they behold this sign in the sky, and know unmistakably that Christ in person is about to appear. Shall all the tribes of the earth mourn (κοψονται, shall beat the breast). Not alone the Jews, looking on him whom they pierced, shall bewail their blindness and impenitence (Zechariah 12:10-14; Isaiah 53:1-12), but all the nations, the races and peoples who have rejected him whom they ought to have received. The cross shows that he died for them, though they profited not by his sacrifice (comp. Revelation 1:7; Revelation 6:15-17). They shall see (ὁìψονται,, an echo of the preceding κοψονται). The sign is followed by the advent of Christ in person. Coming in the clouds of heaven. Some have taken "clouds" to mean angels, comparing Matthew 16:27; but them is no need for considering the term here to be metaphorical. The accompaniments of the theophanies are always thus announced (see Psalms 18:10-12; Isaiah 19:1; Daniel 7:13, etc.; Matthew 26:64). He thus claims to be the God of whom these words are continually used, and he leaves his hearers to gather that he will come visibly, not spiritually to individual souls or Churches, but manifestly to the whole of mankind, whether quick or risen. With power. In his full omnipotence. Cum virtute multa (Vulgate). The expression must not be taken as denoting the attendant angels; they are named in the next verse. It denotes that he who on earth met with naught but pain and humiliation should be displayed to the same earth with that splendour and majesty which essentially belonged to him. Matthew 24:31 His angels. As the executors of his will, to bring before his throne all who have to be judged. They have the same office in the parable of the tares and the wheat (Matthew 13:41). With a great sound of a trumpet. Some manuscripts, with the Vulgate, read, "with a trumpet and a great voice;" others, "with a great trumpet," omitting "voice." All, however, agree in asserting the employment of the trumpet on this momentous occasion. The term may be metaphorical for a voice exceeding loud (comp. Revelation 1:10; Revelation 4:1); but it is more probably to be taken in the obvious sense, with a reference to its use among the Jews in calling the assembly and giving the alarm. Of course, the occurrence is supernatural. It is, indeed, as great a miracle for a sound to be heard simultaneously in both hemispheres as it is for Christ to be seen at the same moment by all dwellers on the globe. This is a matter to be believed, not explained. Shall gather together his elect. The angels will infallibly select these from the mass of men, either by spiritual insight or Divine direction. The elect are not Israelites alone, but true believers of all nations (see Matthew 24:14 and John 17:20, John 17:21). These are first collected, and then the reprobate are summoned, according to Matthew 25:41. From the four winds. The four cardinal points, i.e. from every quarter of the earth. Four is the number of the world or the universe. From one end … the other; literally, from the ends of the heavens unto their end, as Deuteronomy 4:32—a parallel to the preceding clause. From horizon to horizon, though this expression, taken literally, is not extensive enough. Matthew 24:32 Learn a parable (τηνπαραβαλην) of (ἀπο) the fig tree; bettor, from the fig tree learns its parable. Learn ye the lesson which this tree can teach you; though, indeed, it might teach other lessons than the one which Christ would enforce. When his (its), branch is yet tender (ἠìδη . γενηταιἁπαλος, is now become tender). This refers to the new shoots of unripened wood. Putteth forth leaves (τεφυλλα, its leaves). Copyists and editors vary between ἐκφυῇ, subj. aor. passive, and ἐκφυῃ, active. The Vulgate has the passive, et folia nata. Summer is nigh. The fruit of the fig tree appears before the leaves, as we learned in the story of the withered fig tree (Matthew 21:19), which the Lord may have had in mind when he gave this illustration. Did he intend to symbolize the revival of the life of the withered Jewish race in the time of the end? Matthew 24:33 So likewise ye (οὑìτωκαιὑμεῖς, so also ye, emphatic). As surely as buds and leaves prove the coming of summer, so ye, who have been taught, may gather from the fulfilment of the signs mentioned (Matthew 24:15-22, etc.) the approach of the end. Know that it is near (ὁìτιἐγγυςἐστιν). The subject is not expressed, but it must be the Son of man (Matthew 24:30), so that the rendering ought to be, he is near. Many, however, take the understood nominative to be the judgment, or the kingdom of God, or the occurrences last spoken of. At the doors; as James 5:9, on the very threshold, and therefore about to enter. Matthew 24:34 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 25:1-13 Parable of the ten virgins. (Peculiar to St. Matthew.) This parable, as a continuation of the teaching of the last chapter, sets forth the necessity of having and retaining grace unto the end, in order to be able to welcome the advent of Christ. The duty of watchfulness and preparation for the great day is, of course, implied and set forth (Matthew 25:13); but the point is that the oil of God’s grace alone enables the soul to meet the bridegroom joyfully, without dismay. The usual marriage customs of the Jews are well known. On the appointed day, the bridegroom, accompanied by his friends, proceeded to the bride’s house, and thence escorted her, with her attendant maidens and friends, to his own or his parents’ home. In the parable, however, the proceedings are somewhat different. Here the bridegroom is not in the town, but somewhere at a distance, so that, though the day is settled, the exact hour of his arrival is uncertain. He will come in the course of the night, and the virgins who are to meet him have assembled in the house where the wedding is to take place. They wait for the summons to go forth and meet the bridegroom and conduct him to the bridal place; and when the signal is given that he is approaching, they set forth on the road, each bearing her lamp (Edersheim). Matthew 25:1 Then. The time refers to the hour of the Lord’s advent (Matthew 24:50, Matthew 24:51), and the parousia of the Son of man (Matthew 24:36, etc.). Shall the kingdom of heaven be likened. At the time named something analogous to the coming story shall happen in the Church, in the gospel dispensation. Ten virgins. Ten is the number of perfection; such a number of persons was required to form a synagogue, and to be present at any office, ceremony, or formal benediction. Talmudic authorities affirm that the lamps used in bridal processions were usually ten. The "virgins" here are the friends of the bride, who are arranged to sally forth to meet the bridegroom as soon as his approach is signalled. "The Church, in her aggregate and ideal unity, is the bride; the members of the Church, as individually called, are guests; in their separation from the world, and expectation of the Lord’s coming, they are his virgins" (Lange). The bride herself is not named in the parable, as she is not needed for illustration, and the virgins occupy her place. These virgins represent believers divided into two sections; evidently they are all supposed to hold the true faith, and to be pure and undefiled followers of the Lord (2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 14:4), to be waiting for his coming, and to love his appearing; but some fail for lack of grace or of perseverance, as is shown further on. Their lamps (ταςλαμπαδαςαὐτῶν, better ἑαυτῶν, their own lamps). They all made separate and personal, independent preparation for the meeting. These lamps (for they were not torches) were, as Dr. Edersheim notes, hollow cups or saucers, with a round receptacle for the wick, which was fed with pitch or oil. They were on these occasions fastened to a long wooden pole, and borne aloft in the procession. Went forth. This does not refer to the final going forth to meet the bridegroom on the road (Matthew 25:6), as it is absurd to suppose that they all fell asleep by the wayside, with their lamps in their hands (Matthew 25:5), and, as a fact, only five went out at last; but it doubtless intimates that they left their own homes to unite in duly celebrating the wedding. To meet the bridegroom. An evident interpolation adds, "and the bride," which the authorized Vulgate unhappily confirms, reading, exierunt obviam sponso et sponsae. In this case the scene refers to the bridegroom’s return in company with his bride. But this is a misconception, as no mention is made of the bride anywhere in the genuine text. The bridegroom comes to fetch home the bride; and these maidens, her friends, assembled in her house to be ready to escort him thither (cf. 1 Macc. 9:37). The wedding seems to take place at the bride’e house, as Judges 14:10. Matthew 25:2 Five of them were wise (φρονιμοι, Matthew 24:45), and five were foolish. The best uncials (à, B, C, D, L) invert the clauses, in agreement with the order in Matthew 25:3, Matthew 25:4. So the Vulgate. In this case the idea would be that the foolish were a more prominent and noticeable class than the others. All the virgins were outwardly the same, were provided with the same lamps, prepared to perform the same office; the difference in their characters is proved by the result. Their folly is seen in the fact that at the time of action they were unable to do the part which a little care and forethought would have enabled them to perform successfully. Matthew 25:3 They that were foolish (αἱìτινεςμωραι)… took no oil with them. It has been doubted whether they brought no oil of their own at all, trusting to get their lamps filled by others, or whether they neglected to bring an additional supply to replenish them when exhausted. The latter seems most likely to be the sense intended; as the spiritual aspect of the parable places both classes in exactly the same position at starting, and we know from other sources that, the oil reservoirs being very small, it was the custom to carry another vessel from which to refill them. Some good manuscripts commence the verse with "for," thus making the verse justify the epithets applied to the virgins. Matthew 25:4 In their vessels. These were the flasks or vases carried by the maidens to replenish the oil in the lamps as occasion demanded. The contrast between the two classes seems to lie in the foresight of the one and the negligent carelessness of the other. It has been common from early times to find in the lamps the symbol of faith, in the oil the good works that proceed therefrom. The wise virgins exercise their faith in charity and good works; the foolish profess, indeed, the faith of Christ but carry it not out to the production of the good works in which God ordained that they should walk (Ephesians 2:10). But this exposition, time honored though it is, surely does not meet the requirements of the parable. What one wants is an interpretation which shall show how it is that the want of oil and its sudden failure debar one from meeting the bridegroom. If the oil be good works, and the believer has gone on doing these until the Lord’s advent is signalled, why should he fail at the last? How comes it that in a moment he leaves off doing his duty, and making his calling and election sure? These are questions which the patristic and mediaeval explanation leaves unsolved. I doubt not that the right solution is to be found in regarding the oil as symbolical of the Holy Spirit, or the graces of God. This is a truly scriptural notion, as declared by the use of this substance in holy rites. Accepting this view, we should say that the ten virgins had so far alike taken and used the grace of God, but that they differed in this—that, while the wise maintained the supply of grace by constant recourse to the means thereof, the foolish were satisfied with their spiritual state once for all, and took no pains to keep their spiritual life healthful and active by the renewal of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. They retained the outward show and form of faith, but neglected the true inward life of faith; they had the appearance without the reality. Matthew 25:5 While the bridegroom tarried (Matthew 24:48). We may suppose that all had lighted their lamps at first, in expectation of being immediately called to meet the bridegroom. But he came not. The advent of Christ was not to be as speedy as the disciples imagined. No one could divine when it would take place. As St. Augustine says, "Latet ultimus dies, ut observetur omnis dies." See here a figure of each Christian’s probation. They all slumbered (ἐνυσταξαν) and slept (ἐκαθευδον) The first verb implies the nodding and napping of persons sitting up at night; the second means "they began to sleep," actually. All, wise and foolish, did this; so in itself it was not sinful, it was only natural. To such drowsiness the best of Christians are liable. The bow cannot be kept always strung; "Neque semper arcum tendit Apollo." Having made all preparations, the virgins ceased for a while to think of the bridegroom’s coming. The Fathers take this sleep to be an image of death, the awaking to be the resurrection, when the difference between the two classes is known and displayed. But this would imply that all the faithful will be dead when the Lord comes, which is contrary to 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Nor, on the other hand, is it conceivable that they whose lamps are kept burning till the day of death will be unprovided when the Lord comes. Matthew 25:6 At midnight. When sleep is deepest and awaking most unwelcome. The Lord will come "as a thief in the night" (Matthew 24:42-44; 1 Thessalonians 5:2). There was a cry made (γεγονεν, hath been made). The cry comes either from the watchers or from the advancing company. We are told by the apostle (1 Thessalonians 4:16) that "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God." The suddenness of the event is indicated by the tense of the verb—"there hath been," "there is," a cry. The bridegroom cometh! The best manuscripts omit the verb, which omission makes the expression more graphic. The bridegroom is Christ; he comes now to judge, to punish and reward; and Christians have to meet him, and show how their duties have been performed, and how their personal preparation has been made. Matthew 25:7 Trimmed their lamps. The trimming consisted in removing the charred portion of the wick, and raising the wick itself by means of a pointed wire which was fastened by a chain to each lamp. These operations would be followed by the replenishment of the vase with oil from the vessel carried for what purpose. In a spiritual sense the dormant grace has to be revived at the awful summons. It had, indeed, come upon all unexpectedly at the moment; but while one party was ready to meet the emergency, the other was wholly unprepared. The foolish, indeed, got their wicks ready to light, when they suddenly discovered that they had no oil in their lamps, and remembered that they had brought no further supply with them. Matthew 25:8 The foolish said unto the wise. They apply to their prudent companions for aid at this crisis. They recognize now the superior wisdom of the others, and would fain have their assistance to hide their own deficiencies. Are gone out (σβενυνται, are going out). The lamps, fresh trimmed, had burned for a few moments, and then, having no oil, soon waned and died out. Spiritually speaking, the idea of these people seems to have been that the merits of others could supply their lack, or that there was a general store of grace to which they could have recourse, and which would serve instead of individual personal preparation. See here a terrible warning against delay in the matter of the soul, or against trusting to a death bed repentance. Matthew 25:9 Not so; lest there be not enough (μηποτεοὐμησῃ, haply it will not suffice). Edersheim renders, "Not at all—it will never suffice for us and you," in order to give the force of the double negation. In Aristotle, μηποτε is often equivalent to "perhaps," e.g. ’Eth. Nic.,’ 10.1. 3. "Even so they failed," says St. Chrysostom, "and neither the humanity of those of whom they begged, nor the easiness of their request, nor their necessity and want, made them obtain their petition. And what do we learn from hence? That no man can protect us there if we are betrayed by our works; not because he will not, but because he cannot. For these, too, take refuge in the impossibility. This the blessed Abraham also indicated, saying, ’Between us and you there is a great gulf,’so that not even when willing is it permitted them to pass it." But (probably spurious) go ye rather to them that sell. The answer is not harsh, and the advice is not ironical or unkind. The wise cannot of themselves supply the lack. They have no superabundant store of grace to communicate to others; at best even they are unprofitable servants; the righteous shall scarcely be saved; so they direct their companions to the only source where effectual grace may be obtained. They that sell are the ministers and stewards of Christ’s mysteries, who dispense the means of grace. These are said to be bought, as the treasure hid in the field or the pearl of great price is bought (Matthew 13:44-46). Divine grace can always be procured by those who will pay the price thereof; and the price is faith and prayer and earnestness,—nothing more, nothing less (Isaiah 55:1; Revelation 3:18). But the time is short; delay is fatal; hence the counsel so urgently given, "Go ye," etc. Buy for yourselves. This is important. Every one must bear his own burden. The grace must be their own; what is required of those who would meet the Bridegroom without shame and fear is personal preparation, personal faith and holiness. We shall be judged individually; our Christian virtues must be entirely our own, wrought in us by the grace of God, with which we have humbly and thankfully cooperated. It is curious that some ancient and modern commentators see in this part of the parable, only an ornamental detail without special signification. Matthew 25:10 While they went to buy. They followed the advice given them. Whether they were successful or not is left untold; the issue would have been the same in either case; their return would have been too late. The opportunity they had had was not properly used; when preparation was comparatively easy they had neglected to make it; they had been once converted, so to speak, and rested in that fact, and thought it sufficient for all time, omitting to seek for daily supplies of grace, and now they find themselves miserably deceived. There is a certain wilful forgetfulness and negligence which can never be remedied on this side the grave. They that were ready. The five wise virgins who had made provision for the meeting, had renewed the grace of God in their hearts, and kept it alive by diligence and perseverance, according to the apostle’s counsel (2 Peter 1:4-8). Went in with him to the marriage. They not only duly met the bridegroom on his way, but accompanied him into the joyful scene, the bridal feast, the type of all spiritual happiness (Revelation 19:9). "This world," says ’Pirke Aboth,’ "is like the vestibule, the world to come is like the dining chamber: prepare thyself in the vestibule, that thou mayest be able to enter into the dining chamber." Well says the Son of Sirach, "Let nothing hinder thee to pay thy vow in due time, and defer not until death to be justified" (Ecclesiasticus 18:22). The door was shut (Luke 13:25). It is customary in the East, at great entertainments, to close the doors when all the guests are assembled. So at our universities, during the dinner hour, the gates of the colleges are always shut. Scott, in ’Old Mortality’ (ch. 8. note), remarks that this custom was rigorously observed in Scotland. When the door is shut in the parable, there is no more entrance for any one. Trench quotes St. Augustine’s saying, "Non inimicus intrat, nec amicus exit." Christ is the door by which our prayers reach God; through him alone they prevail; when this is closed the access to the heavenly throne is barred. Matthew 25:11 Lord, Lord, open to us. They apply to the bridegroom himself as now taking the direction of affairs. So when Christ the spiritual Bridegroom comes, he rules over all. Here, as elsewhere in the parable, the great spiritual reality shines through the earthly delineation. Whether the five foolish ones obtained oil or not at this late hour matters nothing; they were too late to do that which they had to do, too late to join in the bridal procession, and thus procure admission to the festival. Their piteous cry is not answered as they hoped. It is too late to ask for mercy when it is the time of vengeance. In this present state of grace we have the comforting injunction, "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you;" in the day of retribution the door is shut, and no knocking will unclose its barred portal. True it is that "not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father." Matthew 25:12 I know you not. They had not been in the bridal company, nor joined in the festive procession, so the bridegroom could only answer from within that he had no knowledge of them. What is meant spiritually by this rejection is doubtful. This is not a solitary instance of the use of the expression. In the sermon on the mount Christ declared that his sentence on those that professed, but practised not, would be, "I never knew you: depart from me!" (Matthew 7:23). He is said to know those whom he approves and acknowledges to be his (see John 10:14). God says of Abraham, "I know him" (Genesis 18:19) and of Moses, "I know thee by name" (Exodus 33:12). To be known of God is a higher blessing than to know God (Galatians 4:9). Many think that the words of our text imply utter reprobation. So Nosgen; and Chrysostom writes, "When he hath said this, nothing else but hell is left, and that intolerable punishment; or rather, this word is more grievous even than hell. This word he speaks also to them that work iniquity." But we must observe that in the present ease we have not the terrible addition, "Depart from me!" The sentence of exclusion from Christ’s presence is not equivalent to that in Matthew 25:41, which dooms souls to the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. These five virgins had received the grace of God, and used it well for a time, and only failed at the last for lack of care and watchfulness. They had still some love for the Lord, still desired to serve him; it is not conceivable that they should suffer the same punishment as the utterly godless and profane, whose wickedness was perfect and Satanic. Doubtless they were punished; but as there are degrees of happiness in heaven, so there may be gradation of pains and penalties for those debarred from its blessings (see 1 Corinthians 3:15). But it is not improbable that the exclusion in the first place refers to the deprivation of participation in Messiah’s future kingdom, whatever that may be, according to the vision in Revelation 20:1-15., and that the proceedings at the final judgment are not here intended. Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore. This is the lesson which the Lord draws from the parable, as elsewhere he gives the same warning, e.g. Luke 12:35, repeated by the apostle (1 Thessalonians 5:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:6). Ye know neither the day nor the hour [wherein the Son of man cometh]. The words in brackets are omitted by the earlier uncials, the Vulgate, Syriac, etc., and are to be regarded as an exegetical interpolation (comp. Matthew 24:42). Tertullian well says, "Ut pendula expectatione solicitude fidei probetur, semper diem observans, dum semper ignorat, quotidie timens quod quotidie sperat" (’De Anima,’ 33). It remains to observe that, mystically, Christ is the Bridegroom, who celebrates his nuptials with his bride the Church, and comes to conduct her to heaven; those who are ready will accompany him and enter into the joy of their Lord; those who have not made their calling sure will be shut out. Matthew 25:14-30 Parable of the talents. (Peculiar to St. Matthew.) Following on the lesson of watchfulness and inward personal preparation just given, this parable enforces the necessity of external work and man’s accountability to God for the due use of the special endowments which he has received. The former was concerned chiefly with the contemplative life, the waiting virgins; this chiefly with the active, the working servant; though, in fact, both states combine more or less in the good Christian, and the perfect disciple will unite in himself the characteristics of John and Peter, Mary and Martha. St. Luke (Luke 19:11-27) has recorded a somewhat analogous parable spoken by Christ on leaving the house of Zacchaeus, known as the parable of the pounds; and some critics have deemed that the two accounts relate to the same saying altered in some details, which are to be accounted for on the hypothesis that St. Luke has combined with our parable another on the rebellious citizens. That there are great resemblances between the two cannot be disputed, but the discrepancies are too marked to allow us to assume the unity of the two utterances. Christ often repeats himself, using the same figure, or illustration, or expression to enforce different truths or different phases of the same truth, as hero he may have desired more emphatically to impress on the disciples their special responsibilities. The variations in the two parables are briefly these: The scene and occasion are different; this was spoken to the disciples, that to the multitude; in one the lord is a noble who was to receive a kingdom, in the other he is simply a landowner; here his absence is a matter of local space, there it is a matter of time; the servants are ten in the one case, and three in the other; ill one we have pounds spoken of, in the other talents; in St. Luke each servant has the same sum delivered to him, in St. Matthew the amount is divided into talents, five, two, and one; in the "pounds" the servants show differing faithfulness with the same gifts, in the "talents" two of them display the same faithfulness with differing gifts; here the idle servant hides his money in a napkin, there he buries it in the earth; the conclusions also of the parables vary. Their object is not identical: the parable in our text illustrates the truth that we shall be judged according to that which we have received; the parable in St. Luke shows, to use Trench’s words, that "as men differ in fidelity, in zeal, in labour, so will they differ in the amount of their spiritual gain." The latter treats of the use of gifts common to all, whether bodily, mental, or spiritual, such as one faith, one baptism, reason, conscience, sacraments, the Word of God; the former is concerned with the exercise of endowments which have been bestowed according to the recipient’s capacity and his ability to make use of them,—the question being, how he has employed his powers, opportunities, and circumstances, the particular advantages, examples, and means of grace given to him. Matthew 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man The opening sentence in the original is anacoluthic, and our translators have supplied what they supposed to be wanting. The Greek has only, For just as a man, etc.; Vulgate, sicut enim homo. The other member of the comparison is not expressed. The Revised Version gives," It is as when a man." They who receive the possible interpolation at the end of Mat 25:13 would simply render, "For he (the Son of man) is as a man." The Authorized Version plainly affords the intended meaning in the words of the usual preface to such parables (Matthew 25:1; Matthew 13:24, Matthew 13:31, etc.). The conjunction "for" carries us back to the Lord’s solemn injunction, introducing a new illustration of the necessity of watchfulness. Travelling into a far country (ἀποδημῶν, leaving home). Here our Lord, being about to withdraw his bodily presence from the earth and to ascend into heaven, represents himself as a man going into another country, and first putting his affairs in order and issuing instructions to his servants (comp. Matthew 21:3;Matthew 5:1-48). Who called his own (τουους) servants. The sentence literally is, As a man … called his own bond servants. Those who specially belonged to him—a figure of all Christians, members of Christ, doing him service as their Master. Delivered unto them his goods (ταὑπαρχοντααὐτοῦ, his possessions). This was not an absolute gift, as we see from subsequent proceedings, and from the well known relation of master and slave. The latter, generally speaking, could possess no property, but he was often employed to administer his master’s property for his lord’s advantage, or was set up in business on capital advanced by his owner, paying him all or a certain share of the profits. The money still was not the slave’s, and legally all that a slave acquired by whatsoever means belonged to his master, though custom had sanctioned a more equitable distribution. The "goods" delivered unto the lord’s servants represent the special privileges accorded to them—differences of character, opportunities, education, etc., which they do not share in common with all men. This is one point, as above remarked, in which this parable varies from that of the "pounds." In both cases the gifts are figured by money—a medium current and intelligible everywhere on earth. Matthew 25:15 Unto one he gave five talents. The talent of silver (taking silver as worth a little over 5s. an ounce) was nearly equivalent to £400 of our money. It is from the use of the word "talents" in this parable that we moderns have derived its common meaning of natural gifts and endowments. The three principal slaves receive a certain amount of property to use for their master’s profit. To every man. To all is given some grace or faculty which they have to employ to the glory of God. "Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ "(Ephesians 4:7). No one can justly say he is neglected in this distribution. Whatever natural powers, etc., we possess, and the opportunities of exercising and improving them, are the gift of God, and are delivered to us to be put out to interest. According to his several ability (κατατηανδυναμιν). The master apportioned his gifts in accordance with his knowledge of the slaves’ capacity for business, and the probability of their rightly employing much or little capital. So God distributes his endowments, not to all alike, but in such proportions as men are able to bear and to profit by. The infinite variety in men’s dispositions, intellects, will. opportunities, position, and so on, are all taken into account, and modify and condition their responsibility. Straightway took his journey (ἀπεδημησενεὐθεως). Immediately after the distribution he departed, leaving each slave, uncontrolled and undirected, to use the property assigned to him. So God gives us free will at the same time that he sets before us opportunities of showing our faithfulness. The Lord may be referring primarily to the apostles whom he left immediately after he had bestowed upon them authority and commission. The Revised Version, Westcott and Hort, Nosgen, and others transfer the adverb "straightway" to the beginning of the next verse (omitting δε in that verse). It is supposed to be superfluous here. The Vulgate accords with the Received Text; and there seems to be no sufficient reason for accentuating the first slave’s activity above that of the second, who was equally faithful. Matthew 25:16 Went. The one who had received the five talents, the mark of the greatest trust, lost no time, but betook himself to business with zeal and energy. Traded with the same (εἰργασατοἐναὐτοῖς, made gain with them). The verb is applied to husbandry or any work by which profit is obtained. A special method of increasing the allotted sum is mentioned in Matthew 25:27; but here the term is general, and implies only that the slave used the money in some business which would prove to his master’s advantage. In other words, he exercised his faculties and powers in his master’s service and with a view to his master’s interests. Made [them] other five talents. The addition "them" is unnecessary. He doubled his principal—"made" being equivalent to "gained." In the parable of the "pounds" we find the same sum increased in different proportions; here we have different sums multiplied in the same proportion. Matthew 25:17 Likewise, etc. The second servant made an equally good use of his smaller capital. It matters not whether our endowments are large or little, we have to use them all in the Lord’s service. "To whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48); and vice versa, to whomsoever less is committed, of him less shall be required. The burden is proportioned to the shoulder. We continually observe what to us seem anomalies in the distribution of gifts, but faith sees the hand of God dividing to each severally as he will, and we are confident that God will take account at last not only of the man’s ability, but also of his opportunities of exercising the same. "He also" is omitted by Tischendorf, Westcott and Herr, and others. Matthew 25:18 He that had received one (τοἑìν, the one talent). Limited opportunities do not condone neglect. This third servant was as much bound to put out to interest his little capital as the first was his larger means. Went; went away. He too was not altogether idle; he in some sort exerted himself, not indeed actually in evil (as the servant in Matthew 24:48, Matthew 24:49), but yet not practically in his lord’s service. Hid his lord’s money. He thought the amount so small, or his master so rich, that it was of no consequence what was done with it; it was not worth the trouble of traffic. So, like all Easterns, he buried the little treasure in the ground, to keep it safe till his lord should ask tot it. recognizing that it was not his own to treat as he liked, but that it still belonged to him who had entrusted it to his care. The man had some special grace, but he never exercised it, never let it shine before men, or bring forth the fruit of good works. Matthew 25:19 After a long time. The interval between Christ’s ascension and his second advent (Matthew 25:5) is long in men’s view, though Christ can say, "Lo, I come quickly" (Revelation 3:11, etc.). And reckoneth with them (Matthew 18:23). The opportunity of labouring for Christ in the earthly life is ended at death; but the reckoning is reserved for the parousia—the coming of the Lord. The matter in the parable is concerned with the past actions of the servants of Christ (Matthew 25:14); about the final judgment of the rest of the world nothing is here expressly said, though certain inferences must be drawn from analogous proceedings. Matthew 25:20 He that had received [the] five talents. The slaves appear in the same order as they had come to receive the deposits. The first comes joyfully, showing boldness in his day of judgment (1 John 2:17), because he has dealt faithfully and diligently, and prospered in his labours. Thou deliveredst unto me. He rightly acknowledges that all he had came from his lord, and that it was his duty and his pleasure to increase the deposit for his master’s benefit. The long delay had not made him careless and negligent; rather, he had used the time profitably, and thereby added greatly to his gains. I have gained beside them (ἐπαὐτοῖς). The two last words are omitted by Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and the Revised Version. If they are not genuine, they are, at any rate, implied in the account of the transaction. The Vulgate has, Alia quinque superlucratus sum. The good servant says, Behold, as if he pointed with joy to the augmented wealth of his master. He does not speak boastfully; he does not praise himself for his success; he had simply done his best with the means entrusted to him, and he can speak of the result with real pleasure. So in a religious sense the obligation to improve talents is even more imperative. "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one to profit withal" (1 Corinthians 12:7). The grace which he receives he must employ for his own sanctification, as a member of Christ, for the edification of others, for the interests of God’s Church; such work will show that he is worthy of his Lord’s trust and faithful in his stewardship. Matthew 25:21 Well done (εὖ), thou good and faithful servant. He is praised, not for success, but for being "good," i.e. kind and merciful and honest in exercising the trust for others’ benefit; and "faithful," true to his master’s interests, not idle or inactive, but keeping one object always before him, steadily aiming at fidelity. Some regard the words as a commendation of the servant’s works and faith, but this is not the primary meaning according to the context. Over a few things. The sum entrusted to him was considerable in itself, but little compared with the riches of his lord, and little in comparison of the reward bestowed upon him. The Greek here is ἐπιὀλιγα, the accusative case denoting "extending over," or "as regards." I will make thee ruler (σεκαταστησω, I will set thee, Matthew 24:45) over many things; ἐπιπολλῶν, the genitive implying fixed authority over. From being a slave he is raised to the position of master. He is treated according to the principle in Luke 16:10, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much." The spiritual import of this reward is hard to understand, if it is wished to assign to it a definite meaning. It seems to intimate that in the other world Christ’s most honoured and faithful followers will have some special work to do for him in guiding and ruling the Church (see on Matthew 19:28; and comp. Luke 19:17, etc.). Enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Here is seen a marked contrast between the hard life of the slave and the happiness of the master. Literalists find here only a suggestion that the lord invites the servant to attend the feast by which his return home was celebrated. Certainly, the word translated "joy" (χαρα) may possibly be rendered "feast," as the LXX. translate mishteh in Esther 9:17, and a slave’s elevation to his master’s table would imply or involve his manumission. On the earthly side of the transaction, this and his extended and more dignified office would be sufficient reward for his fidelity. The spiritual signification of the sentence has been variously interpreted. Some find in it only an explanation of the former part of the award, "I will make thee ruler over many things," conveying no further accession of beatitude. But surely this is an inadequate conception of the guerdon. There are plainly two parts to this. One is advancement to more important position; the second is participation in the fulness of joy which the Lord’s presence ensures (Psalms 16:11; Psalms 21:6), which, possessed entirely by himself, he communicates to his faithful. This comprises all blessedness. And it is noted that the joy is not said to enter into us. That indeed, though a blessing unspeakable, would be an inferior boon, as Augustine says; but we enter into the joy, when it is not measured by our capacity for receiving it, but absorbs us, envelops us, becomes our atmosphere, our life. Commentators quote Leighton’s beautiful remark, "It is but little that we can receive here, some drops of joy that enter into us; but there we shall enter into joy, as vessels put into a sea of happiness." Matthew 25:22 That had received [the] two talents. This man, who had received a less sum, had been as faithful as the first, and comes with equal confidence and joyfulness to render his account, because he had been true and diligent in furthering his lord’s interests to the best of his means and faculties. He had, it seems, less capacity, but had used it to the full. Matthew 25:23 Enter thou, etc. Both these servants had doubled their capital, and the lord commends and rewards them both in the same terms. The point is that each had done his best according to his ability. Their different talents, greater or less, had been profitably employed, and so far the two were equal. Fidelity in a smaller sphere of labour may be of greater importance than in a larger area; and seemingly insignificant duties well performed may be of incalculable spiritual advantage to one’s self and to others. Differences in talents make no distinctions in rewards, if the utmost is made of them. "If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not" (2 Corinthians 8:12). Matthew 25:24 He which had received the one talent. The rest of the parable is concerned with the case of this unprofitable servant. Usually, those who have most privileges neglect or misuse them or some of them; here the man apparently least favoured is taken as the type of the useless and wicked disciple, because his task was easiest, his responsibility less, his neglect most inexcusable. He has heard the words of his two fellow servants, and the great reward which their faithful service has received; he comes with no joy and confidence to render his account; he feels fully how unsatisfactory it is, and beans at once to defend his conduct by proclaiming his view of his lord’s character. I know thee that thou art an hard (σκληρος) man. He chooses to conceive of his lord as harsh, stern, churlish in nature, one without love, who taxes men above their powers, and makes no allowance for imperfect service, however honest. He dares to call this impudent fiction knowledge. Thus men regard God, not as he is, but according to their own perverted views; they read their own character into their conception of him; as the Lord says, in Psalms 50:21, "Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself." Reaping where thou hast not sown (thou sowedst not), and gathering where thou hast not strawed (ὁìθενοὐδιεσκορπισας, whence thou scatteredst not). This is a proverbial saying, implying a desire of obtaining results without sufficient means. The last verb is interpreted either of sowing or winnowing; the latter seems to be correct here, thus avoiding tautology. It is used by the Septuagint in this sense in Ezekiel 5:2, as the rendering of the Hebrew verb zarah (Edersheim). So the phrase here signifies gathering corn from a floor where thou didst not winnow. The slave virtually brings a twofold charge against his master, viz. that he enriched himself by others’ toil; and that he expected gain from quarters where he had bestowed no labour. Matthew 25:25 I was afraid. He took as certain the conception which he had formed of his master’s character, as harsh, exacting, and unsympathizing, and therefore feared to speculate with his money, or to put it to any use whereby it might be lost or diminished. This is his excuse for negligence. He endeavours to cast the fault from his own shoulders to those of his superior. So evil men persuade themselves that God asks from them more than they can perform, and content themselves by doing nothing; or they consider that their powers and means are their own, to use or not as they like, and that no one can call them to account for the way in which they treat them. Hid thy talent in the earth (see on Matthew 25:18). Put it away for safety, that it might come to no harm, and not be employed for evil purposes. He recognizes not any duty owed to the giver in the possession of the money, nor the responsibility for work which it imposed. Lo, there thou hast that is thine; lo! thou hast thy own. This is sheer insolence; as if he had said, "You cannot complain; I have not stolen or lost your precious money; here it is intact, just as I received it." What a perverse mistaken view of his own position and of God’s nature! The talent was given to him, not to bury, but to use and improve for his lord’s profit. Hidden away, it was wasted. The time, too, during which he had the talent in his possession was wasted; he had not honestly used it in his master’s service, or laboured, as he was bound to do. He ought to have had much more to show than the original endowment. To vaunt that, if he had done no good, at least he had done no harm, is condemnation. He might not thus shirk his responsibility. His answer only aggravated his fault. Matthew 25:26 Thou wicked and slothful servant. In marked contrast with the commendation, "good and faithful," its Matthew 25:21, Matthew 25:23. He was "wicked," in that he calumniated his master, who really seems to have been ready to acknowledge the least service done to him, and never looked for results beyond a man’s ability and opportunities; and he was "slothful," in that he made no effort to improve the one talent entrusted to him. Thou knewest (ἠìδεις), etc. Out of his own mouth he judges him (Luke 19:22). He repeats the slave’s words, in which he expressed his notion of his lord’s character and practice, and deduces therefrom the inconsistency of his action, without deigning to defend himself from the calumny, except, perhaps, by the use of ἠìδεις, which gives a hypothetical notion to the assumed knowledge. "You knew, you say." Some editors place a mark of interrogation at the end of the clause, which seems unnecessary. Matthew 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore, etc. Your conception of my character ought to have made you more diligent and scrupulous; and if you were really afraid to rust any risks with my money or invest it in any hazardous speculation, there were many ordinary and safe methods of employing it which would have yielded some profit, and some of these you would have adopted had you been faithful and earnest. The return might have been trifling in amount, but the lord shows that he is not grasping and harsh by being willing to accept even this in token of the servant’s labour. To have put (βαλειν). The term means to have thrown the money, as it were, on the banker’s table. This would have been less trouble than digging a hole to bury it. Exchangers; τραπεζιταις: numulariis; bankers. In St. Luke (Luke 19:23) we find ἐπιτραπεζαν, with the same meaning. These money changers or bankers (for the business seems always to have combined the two branches) were a numerous class in Palestine, and wherever the Jewish community was established. They received deposits at interest, and engaged in transactions such as are usual in modern times. With usury (συντοκῳ, with interest). At one time, law had forbidden usurious transactions between Israelites, though the Gentile was left to the mercy of his creditor (Deuteronomy 23:19, Deuteronomy 23:20); but later such limitations were not observed. The rate of interest varied from four to forty per cent. The spiritual interpretation of this feature of the parable has most unnecessarily exercised the ingenuity of commentators. Some see in the bankers an adumbration of the religious societies and charitable institutions, by means of which persons can indirectly do some work for Christ, though unable personally to undertake such enterprises. Olshausen and Trench regard them as the stronger characters who, by example and guidance, lead the timid and hesitating to employ their gifts aright. But it is more reasonable to consider this detail of the parable as supplementary to its chief purpose, and not to be pressed in the interpretation. The Lord is simply concerned to show that all talents, great or small, must be used in his service according to opportunities; and that, whether the return be large or little, it is equally acceptable, if it show a willing mind and real fidelity in the agent. In illustration he uses two cases which yield most pro.fit, and one which produces the least. Nothing can he inferred hence concerning the morality of usury. Christ draws his picture from the world as he finds it, pronouncing no opinion on its ethical bearing. Matthew 25:28 The sentence on the unprofitable servant follows. It is to be observed that he is punished, not for fraud, theft, malversation, but for omission. He had left undone that which he ought to have done. Take therefore the talent from him. The forfeiture of the talent was just and natural. It was given to him for a special purpose; he had not carried this out; therefore it could be his no longer. A limb unused loses its powers; grace unemployed is withdrawn. God’s Spirit will not always strive with man. There comes a time when, if wilfully resisted and not exercised, it ceases to inspire and to influence. Well may we pray, "Take not thy Holy Spirit from us!" Give it, etc. This is done on the principle stated in the next verse and Matthew 13:12. God’s work must be done; his gifts are not lost; they are transferred to another who has proved himself worthy of such a charge. As the servant who had the ten talents lied already brought in his account and had received his reward, it seems, at first, difficult to understand how additional work and responsibility should be given to him. But it is the blessedness of Christ’s servants that they rejoice in a new trust received, in added opportunities of serving him, whether in this life or in the life to come, and all the increase which they make is their own eternally and augments their joy. Matthew 25:29 Unto every one that hath … abundance (Matthew 13:12). So we have seen in the first part of the parable. The proverb says, "Money makes money;" a man who has capital finds various means of increasing it; it grows as it is judiciously employed. Thus the grace of God, duly stirred up and exercised, receives continual accession, "grace for grace" (John 1:16). The Christian’s spiritual forces are developed by being properly directed; Providence puts in his way added opportunities, and as he uses these he is more and more strengthened and replenished. From him that hath not (ἀποδετοῦμηἐìχοντος). So the Received Text, probably from Luke 19:26; the best manuscripts and editions read, τοῦδεμηἐìχοντος, but as to him that hath nat; this, followed by ἀπαὐτοῦ at the end of the verse, is less tautological than the other reading. To "have not," in accordance with the context, signifies to possess nothing of any consequence, to be comparatively destitute, in the world’s estimate of riches. Shall be taken away even that which he hath; even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. The Vulgate, following some few manuscripts, has, Et quod videtur habere auferetur ab eo, from Luke 8:18. The poor unpractical man shall lose even the little which he possessed. So the spiritually unprofitable shall be punished by utter deprivation of the grace which was given for his advancement in holiness. If applied to the special circumstances of the time and of the persons to whom it was addressed, the parable would teach that the disciples who recognized and duly employed the riches of the doctrine and powers delivered unto them would receive further revelations; but that the people who spurned the offered salvation and neglected the gracious opportunity would forfeit the blessing, and be condemned. Matthew 25:30 Cast ye the unprofitable servant into [the] outer darkness (Matthew 8:12). The parable merges into the real. The ’matter represented bursts through the veil under which it was delivered, and stands forth plainly and awfully. The command is issued to the ministers of the Lord’s vengeance, whether earthly or angelic. The slave was truly unprofitable, as he advanced neither his master’s interests nor his own, which were bound up with the other. While the faithful servants enter into the joy of the Lord, he is rejected from his presence, expelled from the kingdom of heaven, banished we know not whither. And why? Not for great ill doing, sacrilege, crime, offence against the common laws of God and man; but for neglect, idleness, omission of duty. This is a very fearful thought. Men endeavour to screen themselves from blame by minimizing their talents, ability, opportunities; this parable unveils the flimsiness of this pretence, shows that all have responsibilities, and are answerable for the use they make of the graces and faculties, be they never so small, which they possess. Spiritual indolence is as serious a sin as active wickedness, and meets with similar punishment, Our Lord’s account of the last judgment terribly confirms this truth (Matthew 25:42-45). There shall be [the] weeping and [the] gnashing of teeth (Matthew 24:51). "There," viz. in the outer darkness. The remembrance of lost opportunities, wasted graces, bartered privileges, will fill the mind of the banished with terrible remorse, and make existence a very hell; and what more shall be added? Some of the Fathers have recorded a gnomic saying derived from this parable, if not an utterance of our Lord himself, "Be ye approved bankers." Matthew 25:31-46 The final judgment on all the nations. (Peculiar to St. Matthew.) Before entering upon the exposition of this majestic section, which is a prophecy, not a parable, we have to settle the preliminary question as to who are the subjects of the judgment here so graphically and fearfully delineated. Are they only the heathen, or Christians, or all mankind without exception? The Lord’s present utterance is plainly the development of the account of the parousia in Matthew 24:30, Matthew 24:3. There those that are gathered are "the elect," nothing being said concerning the rest of mankind; here we have the forecast completed, both righteous and unrighteous receiving their sentence. "All the nations" usually represent all Gentiles distinguished from the Jews. But there is nothing to indicate separate judgment for the Jew and Gentile. Equally unlikely is the notion that the transaction is confined to the heathen, whether the opinion is grounded on a supposed extension of the mercies of Christ to those ignorant of him, but having lived according to the laws of natural religion; or whether it assumes as certain that believers will not be judged at all (an erroneous deduction from John 5:24). It seems, on the one hand, incongruous that persons who have never heard of Christ should be addressed as "blessed of my Father," etc., Matthew 24:34: and it seems, on the other hand, monstrous that such, having failed through ignorance and lack of teaching, should be condemned to awful punishment. That Christians alone are the persons who are thus assembled for judgment is not likely. Is there, then, to be no inquisition held on the life and Character of non-Christians? Are they wholly to escape the great assize? If not, where else does Christ refer to their case? What reason can be given for the exclusion of this great majority from the account of the proceedings at the last day? It appears, on the whole, to be safest to consider "all the nations" as meaning the whole race of men, who, dead and living, small and great, Jew and Gentile, shall stand before God to be judged according to their works (Revelation 20:11-13). This is not a parable, but a statement of future proceedings by him who himself shall conduct them. It is not a full account of details, but an indication of the kind of criteria which shall govern the verdicts given. Matthew 25:31 When (ὁìτανδε, but when). The particle, unnoticed in the Authorized Version, indicates the distinction between this section and the preceding parables, the latter exemplifying the judgment specially on Christians, this setting forth the judgment on the whole world. Son of man. With his glorified body, such as he was seen at his Transfiguration (Acts 1:11). In his glory. The term occurs twice in this verse, as elsewhere (Matthew 16:27; Matthew 19:28; Matthew 24:30, where see notes) denoting that then his humiliation will have passed away, and he will appear as he is. All the holy angels with him. "Holy" is probably a transcriber’s addition, which has crept into the later text. The Vulgate omits it. At this time all the family of heaven and earth shall be assembled (Matthew 16:27; Deuteronomy 33:2). Of angels and men none shall be wanting. "Omnes angeli, omnes nationes. Quanta celebritas!" (Bengel). Then shall he sit, etc. He shall take his seat as Judge on his glorious throne trey. Matthew 20:11), surrounded by the angels and the saints (Jud Matthew 1:14; Revelation 19:14). Observe, this was spoken three days before his death (comp. Matthew 26:53, Matthew 26:64). Matthew 25:32 Shall be gathered (Matthew 24:31). The angels shall gather them, the dead being first raised to life. All (τα, the) nations. Not the heathen only, but all mankind (see preliminary note). The criteria upon which the judgment proceeds, in the following verses, seem to imply that all men have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the gospel. How this can apply to those who died before the incarnation of Christ and the consequent evangelization of the world, we know not, though we may believe that, ere the end comes, Christ will have been preached in every quarter of the globe. That some process of enlightenment goes on in the unseen world we learn from the mysterious passage, 1 Peter 3:18-20; but we have no reason to suppose that probation is extended to the other life, or that souls will there have the offer of accepting or repelling the claims of Jesus (but see Philippians 2:10; 1 Peter 4:6). By describing mankind as "all the nations," Christ shows the minute particularity of the judgment, which will enter into distinctions of country, race, etc., and while it is universal will be strictly impartial. He is the Shepherd of all mankind, whether considered as sheep or goats, and can therefore distinguish and class them perfectly. Those who have never heard of Christ (if such there shall be) can be tried only by the standard of natural religion (Romans 1:20). Shall separate them (αὐτους). Individuals of all the nations. Hitherto good and bad had been mingled together, often indistinguishable by man’s eye or judgment; now an eternal distinction is made by an unerring hand (Matthew 13:49). The ideals already found in Ezekiel 34:17, "Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats." As a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. The flocks of sheep and goats generally keep together during the day (Genesis 30:33), but are separated at night or when being driven. The Syrian goat is usually black. The Lord delights in employing simple pastoral illustrations in his teaching. Matthew 25:33 The sheep on his right hand. The sheep are the type of the docile, the profitable, the innocent, the good (see Romans 2:7, Romans 2:10). The right hand is the place of favour and honour. The goats (ἐριφια, kids) on the left. The diminutive is here used for the goats, to convey an impression of their worthlessness. Compare κυναρια, "whelps," in the conversation of our Lord with the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15:26, Matthew 15:27). They are the type of the unruly, the proud (Isaiah 14:9, Hebrew), the unprofitable, the evil (see Romans 2:8, Romans 2:9). This judicial distinction between the right and left hands is found in classical writers. Thus Plato, ’De Republica,’ 10.13, tells of what a certain man, who revived after a cataleptic attack, saw when his soul left his body. he came to a mysterious place, where were two chasms in the earth, and two openings in the heavens opposite to them, and the judges of the dead sat between these. And when they gave judgment, they commanded the just to go on the right hand, and upwards through the heavens; but the unjust they sent to the left, and downwards; and both the just and unjust had upon them the marks of what they had done in the body. So Virgil makes the Elysian Fields to lie on the right of the palace of Dis, and the penal Tartarus on the left (’AEn.,’ 6.540, etc.). Matthew 25:34 Then. When the division is made, the sentences are pronounced. At death a separation between good and evil is in some sort made, as we learn by the parable of Dives and Lazarus; but the final award is not given till the great day. The King. He who had called himself the Son of man, here for the first and only time in Scripture names himself the King (comp. Matthew 27:11). He, the Messiah, takes his throne and reigns, King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:16), Lord of both the dead and the living (Romans 14:9). Unto them on his right hand. He speaks first to them, as more worthy than the others, and as he loves to reward better than to punish. How the sight and hearing of this first sentence must awake the remorse of the reprobate! Come. He calls them to be by his side, to share his kingdom and glory (John 12:26). Ancient commentators have tenderly expanded this invitation, conceiving it addressed individually to patriarch, prophet, apostle, martyr, saint; others have paraphrased it in affecting terms: "Come from darkness to light, from bondage to the liberty of God’s children, from about to perpetual rest, from war to peace, from death to life, from the company of the evil to the fellowship of angels, from conflict to triumph, from daily temptation and trial to stable and eternal felicity." Ye blessed of (equivalent to by) my Father. So διδακτοιτοῦΘεοῦ, "taught of [i.e. by] God" (John 6:45). They were beloved by God, and were to be rewarded by the gift of eternal life. This was their blessing (Ephesians 1:3). Nothing is said about election or predestination, as if they were saved because they were blessed by the Father. There is a sense in which this is true; but they were rewarded, not because of their election, but because they used the grace given to them, and cooperated with the Holy Spirit which they received. Inherit (κληρονομησατε, receive as your lot). "Of what honour, of what blessedness, are these words I lie said not—Take, but Inherit, as one’s own, as your Father’s, as yours, as due to you from the first. ’For, before you were,’saith he, ’these things had been prepared, and made ready for you, forasmuch as I knew you would be such as you are ’" (St. Chrysostom, in loc.). Christians are by baptism made in heritors of the kingdom of heaven, gifted with heavenly citizenship, which, duly used, leads to eternal glory. "If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). From the foundation of the world (ἀποκαταβολῆςκοσμου, a constitutione mundi). In other passages we have, "before (προ) the foundation of the world" (John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4). The two expressions virtually correspond, implying God’s eternal purpose, "who willeth that all men should be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). Matthew 25:35 For. Jesus here gives the reason which influences him in conferring this great boon on "the sheep" of his flock. He instances certain works of mercy which they performed during their earthly pilgrimage, as examples of the kind of acts which he deems worthy of eternal reward. It is not that he regards no other with favour, but these six works, as they show the temper and virtue of the door, are taken as the type of those which are approved. They are proofs of self-denial, pity, sympathy, charity; they demonstrate that the doer has something of God in him, that according to his lights he possesses and has exercised the supreme grace of love. The Lord confined himself to one detail; he does not disparage other requirements necessary for salvation, as faith, prayer, sacraments, chastity, truth, honesty; but he looks on one particular class of works as the great result of all the aids and provocatives offered by his Spirit, and herein sets forth the principle by which judgment is guided, and which can be applied universally. The Judge asks not what we have felt or thought, but what we have done or left undone in our dealings with others. "It is plain," says Bishop Bull (’Harm. Ap.,’ diss. 1.5. 4), "that our works are considered as the very things on account of which (by the merciful covenant of God through Christ) eternal lifo is given us." He quotes Vossius (’De Bon. Op.,’ 10): "It is asked whether a reward is promised to works as signs of faith? Now, we conceive they say too much who suppose it promised to works as deserving it, and that they say too little who think it promised to them only as signs of faith. For there are many passages of Scripture where it is shown that our works, in the business of salvation, are regarded as indispensably requisite, or as a primary condition, to which the reward of eternal life is inseparably connected." I was an hungred, equivalent to "very hungry" (Matthew 12:1). Christ enumerates the chief of what are called the corporal works of mercy, omitting burial of the dead (see on Matthew 25:36). We may note here an argument a fortiori: if such simple acts (comp. Matthew 10:42) meet with so great a reward, what shall he the portion of those who are enabled to rise to more perfect obedience and higher degrees of devotion and self-sacrifice? Ye took me in (συνηγαγεσεμε) i.e. into your houses, received me with hospitality, or as one of your own family. We have instances of such hospitality in Genesis 18:3; Judges 19:20, Judges 19:21; and of this use of the verb συναγειν in 2 Samuel 11:27, Septuagint. Why Christ speaks of himself as receiving these ministrations is explained in verse 40. Matthew 25:36 Ye visited me. The visitation of the sick has become a common term among us. It implies properly going to see, though other ideas are connoted. Ye came unto me. It was easier in those days to visit friends in prison than it is at the present time. Good men, if they could not obtain release of prisoners, might comfort and sympathize with them. The seven corporal works of mercy which antiquity has endorsed have been preserved in the mnemonic line, "Visito, poto, cibo, redimo, tego, colligo, condo. All these might be performed by non-Christians who professed the fear of God and followed the guidance of conscience. God never leaves himself without witness; his Spirit strives with man, and in the absence of higher and completer revelation, to be wholly guided by these inner motions is to work out salvation, as far as circumstances allow, and in a certain restricted sense. In a universal judgment regard is had to this consideration. "In return for what do they receive such things? For the covering of a roof, for a garment, for bread, for cold water, for visiting, for going into the prison. For indeed in every case it is for what is needed; and sometimes not even for that. For surely the sick and he that is in bonds seek not for this only, but the one to be loosed, the other to be delivered from his infirmity. But he, being gracious, requires only what is within our power, or rather even less than what is within our power, leaving to us to exert our generosity in doing more" (St. Chrysostom, in loc.). Matthew 25:37-39 Shall the righteous answer him. The righteous are those on the right hand, those who have passed through earthly probation, and have come forth holy and pure. Their reply (which is given before the Lord’s explanation) is contained in three verses, which recapitulate the deeds specified by the Lord, with some slight variation in the wording. When saw we thee, etc.? If this reply is conceived as spoken by the followers of Christ, who most be supposed to know what he had said (Matthew 10:40-42, "He that receiveth you receiveth me," etc.), it must be considered as expressive, not so much of surprise, as profound humility, which had never hitherto realized the grand idea. They had done so little, they had rendered him no service personally, they were unworthy so to do—how could they merit such a reward? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Ch. 26-28:20 THUS JESUS ENTERS UPON HIS KINGDOM. Before attempting to expound this most momentous section of the gospel history, we must make up our minds concerning the solution of the difficulties which are involved in some details in the account of the Supper. The supposed discrepancy between the narrative of the synoptists and that of St. John has exercised the minds of commentators from the earliest times unto the present, and enormous ingenuity has been expended in endeavouring to harmonize what are regarded as conflicting statements. The two chief difficulties are these: According to the synoptists, as generally understood, our Lord and his apostles ate the Passover, i.e. the Paschal lamb, when he instituted the Holy Communion; according to St. John, the death of Christ took place before the Passover was celebrated. Hence arise the questions—Was the last Supper the regular Paschal meal? Was Christ crucified on the 14th of Nisan or on the 15th? In the time of our Lord, the festival commenced on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, originally the day of preparation, but now considered part of the feast. "Between the evenings" of this day—i.e. from the time of the sun’s decline to its setting—the lambs were killed in the temple courts. The 15th, commencing on the evening of the 14th, and lasting till the evening of the 15th, was the great day of the feast. All the accounts agree in stating that our Lord was crucified on Friday, the day before the sabbath, but the day of the month is not so clearly defined. The year seems to be settled as A.U.C. 783, A.D. 30, the sixteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius. In this year, astronomers tell us, the 14th of Nisan fell on a Friday; and as for typical reasons at least we should expect that Christ would die at the hour when the Paschal lamb was slain, we at once see the fitness of this date and day, if they can be safely maintained It is incredible that the events immediately preceding and accompanying the execution of Christ should have occurred on the actual feast day; it is also incredible that, as some critics suppose, the Pharisees altered the legal day in order that they might be free to accomplish their wicked design. These considerations lead us unhesitatingly to adopt the account given by St. John (himself an eyewitness, and certain to have noted and remembered the exact date of this stupendous event), and to assume that Christ was crucified on the 14th of Nisan, dying at the hour when the lambs were legally slain. The notes of time afforded by St. John are found in John 13:1, John 13:29; John 18:28; John 19:14, John 19:31. Attention to these passages will show that, according to the Fourth Gospel, the Passover had not been eaten when our Lord was crucified, and that in that year the Passover coincided with the sabbath. To meet the difficulty of the synoptists’ assertion, that Jesus ate the Passover at the last Supper, two suggestions are put forth. It is said that he anticipated the legal time by some few hours, being greater than the Law, as he had often shown himself greater than the sabbath. If this were so, how was the lamb procured? The Paschal victims were not legally slain till the afternoon of the next day, the 14th; how could the twelve have obtained one of these on the 13th? This question is met by the assertion that the lambs could not have been sacrificed in the time appointed, and that a large proportion of the animals were killed and eaten both before and after the strictly legal time. There is no evidence whatever to support this notion, nor can we imagine that Christ, who came to fulfil the Law, would have connived at such a manifest infringement of its provisions. Another solution is that the meal of which he partook with his disciples was a solemn supper in anticipation of the Feast of the Passover, but without the lamb. He himself was the true Passover, the Lamb of God, and in instituting at that time the Holy Eucharist, he gave himself as the spiritual food of his followers. This new festival superseded the Jewish solemnity, and it is possible that, in oral tradition, the two were confused and were counted as occurring together. This solution seems more probable than the former, and would doubtless be confirmed if we were better acquainted with many details well known in the apostolic ages, now unhappily obscured. Some of the difficulties will, we hope, be seen to be reconcilable, as we proceed in our Exposition. How the perplexity concerning the enormous number of lambs required for the teeming population gathered together was met, we know not. Doubtless time and circumstances had modified the rigorous adherence to the prescribed ritual, and possibly many householders (all being in this matter priests unto God, Exodus 19:6 and Revelation 1:6) slew and prepared their Passover at their own houses or outside the sacred precincts on the legal day and hour. But there is no tradition of any unauthorized alteration of these points in the ordained ceremonial, and we cannot doubt that the Lord would not by his own practice endorse such laxity. Matthew 26:1, Matthew 26:2 Final announcement of the approaching Passion. (Mark 14:1; Luke 22:1.) Matthew 26:1 When Jesus had finished all these sayings; i.e. those comprised in chs. 22-25. This was the close of his public teaching. The other discourses which are preserved by St. John (John 13:31-17:26) were addressed to the chosen apostles Henceforward the narrative sets him forth as Priest, Victim, Redeemer; and Christ himself now distinctly states the day of his death and the person who was to betray him. Matthew 26:2 Ye know. He speaks of a fact well known to his hearers—the day of the Passover Feast. And they had been forewarned of his death (see Matthew 20:17-19). After two days; μεταδυοἡμερας: post biduum. These words are ambiguous, as it is not certain how the time is reckoned—whether the current day is included or not. If, as is most probable, they were spoken on Wednesday, the phrase means the next day but one, which commenced on the afternoon of Friday. Jesus appears to have passed this day in peaceful seclusion, either in Bethany or its neighbourhood. Is the Feast of the Passover; τοΠασχαγινεται: the Passover cometh; Pascha fiet. The lambs were slain during the first evening of the 14th of Nisan, and were eaten within twelve hours. The word Pascha is the Greek form of the Hebrew Pasach, denoting "the passing over" of the destroying angel, when he destroyed the Egyptians, but left untouched the houses of the Israelites, on whose door posts was sprinkled the blood of the lamb (Exodus 12:1-51.). Etymologically, it has nothing to do with ποσχω, and the Latin patior, passio, etc, though pious writers have seen a providential arrangement in the apparent similarity of the words (see the possible paronomasia in Luke 22:15). Pascha (Pasach) is used in three senses: (1) the transit of the angel; (2) the Paschal lamb; (3) the Feast of the Passover. It is in this last signification that it is here employed And (equivalent to when) the Son of man is betrayed (delivered up, Revised Version) to be crucified. Christ connects his own death with the Passover, not only as indicating the day and hour, but to mark the typical meaning and importance of this solemnity, when he, our Passover, should be sacrificed for us. The present tense, "is betrayed," denotes the imminence and certainty of the event. He sees the event as actually present. Matthew 26:3-5 Conspiracy of the Jewish rulers. (Mark 14:1; Luke 22:2.) Matthew 26:3 Then. While Christ was announcing his approaching death, the rulers were plotting its accomplishment. He was certain; they were in doubt and perplexity about it. The chief priests (see on Matthew 16:21). The office of high priest had originally been held for life; but of late the civil power had often deposed one and appointed another, so that there were at times many who had held the post, and who, as well as their deputies, and the heads of the courses, claimed the title of chief priest. These were all members of the Sanhedrim And the scribes, These words are omitted on very good authority by many modern editors. They are not found in the Vulgate, though they occur in the parallel passages in the other synoptists. If genuine, they, in connection with "elders" and "priests," would signify that all the elements of the Sanhedrin were present at this council. The palace (αὐλην) of the high priest. This, then, was not a formal meeting, or it would have been held in the hall Gazith, "the hall of hewn stones," on the south side of the court of the priests. It was assembled in the court of the high priest’s house, because it comprised persons who were not Sanhedrists, such as temple officials, and connections of the high priest, forming what was known as the priestly council, which was the official medium between the Roman authorities and the people. Who was called Caiaphas. Josephus (’Ant.,’ 18.2. 2) speaks of him as "Joseph, who is also Caiaphas;" hence the way in which he is introduced in the present passage. He had been elevated to his high post by the Romans, who found in him a submissive tool. His father-in-law. Annas had been appointed by Quirinius, but after nine years had been deposed; he was succeeded in turn by Ismael, Eleazar son of Annas, Simon, and fourthly by Caiaphas, who superseded his immediate predecessor by the favour of the procurator Valerius Gratus, the tenant of the office before Pontius Pilate. The ex-high priest, Annas, was counted still by some rigorists as holding the office, and he appears to have possessed high authority (see John 18:13; Acts 4:6). Matthew 26:4 By subtilty. They had decided to put Jesus to death; the question was how to get possession of his Person when there would be no attempt at a rescue, nor any tumult in his favour. The original is literally, They took counsel in order that they might take, etc. They seem scarcely to have reckoned on any legal trial; once they had him quietly in their hands, they would find means to dispose of him. Matthew 26:5 Not on the feast day; ἐντῇἑορτῇ: during the feast; i.e. during the eight days of the Passover celebration. The assembled multitudes did not leave the city until the close of the octave, so the danger of a rising was not removed till then. The rulers well knew the stern temper of Pilate the procurator, who was prepared to crush any popular movement with the strong hand, and at festival times had always his soldiers ready to hurl upon the mob at the slightest provication, and to deal indiscriminate slaughter. Hence arose the plan of a clandestine apprehension. It was, indeed, the custom to execute great criminals at the time of the chief festivals, in order to impress the spectacle of retribution upon the greatest number; but in the case of Jesus, after what had occurred during the last few days, and when Jerusalem was filled with Galilaeans, who might naturally favour their countryman’s pretensions, it was deemed dangerous to make any open attack. Their fears were relieved in the most unexpected manner by the appearance of Judas among them (Matthew 26:14). Matthew 26:6-13 The anointing at Bethany. (Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8.) This parenthetical episode is introduced by the two synoptists out of its chronological order, with the view of indicating the immediate cause of Judas’s resolution to betray his Master, the issue of which they proceed to narrate (see on Matthew 26:14). This anointing must not be confounded with that related by St. Luke (Luke 7:37, etc.), where the scene, the time, and the actor were different, and the significance was of a very inferior nature. Matthew 26:6 When Jesus was in Bethany. St. John tells us that the incident took place six days before the Passover, i.e. on the Saturday preceding Palm Sunday. It is St. Matthew’s custom to describe events not always in their historical sequence, but according to some logical or spiritual connection which in his mind overrides considerations of time or place. (For Bethany, see on Matthew 21:1.) Simon the leper. Not that he was a leper now, but either the appellation was hereditary, in reference to some such malady inflicted on his family, or he himself, having been cured by Christ, retained the name in memory of his cleansing. So St. Matthew is called "the publican" after he had relinquished his obnoxious business (Matthew 10:3), and the revived man is termed "the dead" (Luke 7:15). The frequency of the name Simon among the Jews rendered the addition of a surname expedient; thus we have Simon the Cananite, Simon the tanner, Simon Bar-john, etc. Nothing certain is known about this person. Tradition makes him father of Lazarus or husband of Martha. That he was connected with the holy family of Bethany, either by relationship or close friendship, seems to be well established. Matthew 26:7 A woman. St. John identifies her as Mary the sister of Lazarus and Martha. Why the synoptists omit her name is not known; it is equally uncertain why St. John makes no mention of Simon. None of the synoptists notice Lazarus, though St. Luke names Martha and Mary (Luke 10:38, Luke 10:39). It may have been at the time a matter of prudence or delicacy not to draw attention to them by name. But there is no discrepancy. One narrative supplements the other, and it is best to be thankful for what we have, and not to be over curious concerning points not explained. An alabaster box (ἀλαβαστρον). A cruse or flask made of alabaster, which is a white calcareous spar resembling marble, but setter and more easily worked. These cruses were generally round shaped, with a long narrow neck, the orifice of which was sealed. It may be the breaking of this seal to which St. Mark refers in his account (Mark 14:3), when he says that "she brake the box." Very precious ointment (μυρου). St. Mark calls it "pistic nard," rendered in our version "spikenard." The word in our text seems to be used for any salve or ointment which contained myrrh as one of its ingredients. Nard is found in Syria, the Himalayas, and other parts of India. From its root a strong scented unguent was made, which, being imported from a long distance, was very costly. Poured it on his head. It is to be noted that in the original there is no "it" after "poured;" so there is nothing to imply that the whole was poured upon his head. This helps to reconcile this account with that of the fourth evangelist (Morison). St. John tells that she anointed his feet, which was unusual; she first anointed his head, and then his feet, wiping the latter with her long flowing hair. Anointing the head was not an uncommon way of honouring distinguished guests; but Mary had another thought in her mind which the Lord discerned (verse 12). As he sat at meat; as he reclined at table. The Jews had adopted the Roman mode of eating (comp. Matthew 22:10, where the word rendered "guests" is "the recumbent"). St. Matthew does not mention that a special supper was arranged for him (John 12:1), as if to do him honour. Matthew 26:8 When his disciples saw it. St. John states that the objection came originally from Judas. Doubtless, when it was once made, many concurred in it, not, indeed, from Judas’s selfish motive (John 12:6), but because they did not clearly apprehend the Divinity of Christ, nor the unspeakable sacredness of that body which was about to be the instrument of man’s redemption. To what purpose is this waste (ἀπωλεια)? Wordsworth notes that Judas is called υἱοςἀπωλειας (John 17:12). A fitting question truly for him to ask! The objectors saw no practical usefulness in the expenditure of this costly substance. If it was thought proper to show respect to their Master, a much inferior oil would have equally effected this purpose, or a few drops of the more precious unguent would have sufficed. So nowadays one hears complaints of money being expended in the rich decoration of churches, etc., when there are starving multitudes whom it would have relieved. But God himself has sanctioned the use of precious materials and of exquisite workmanship in temples built in his honour, and in the accessories of his public worship; the interests of the poor are not overlooked in such expenditure; they who give of their substance for such purposes are just those who feel all their responsibilities, and know that they serve Christ in ministering to his needy members. Matthew 26:9 Might have been sold for much. According to St. John, Judas had accurately estimated the value of the ointment at 300 denarii, equal to about £9 of our money. When we remember that one denarius represented the daily wages of a labouring man (Matthew 20:2), we see that the cost was very large. Given to the poor. And this "much" given to the poor. But piety is not shown only in giving alms; the honour of God has a superior claim. And Mary was rich, and quite able to afford this offering without neglecting her almsgiving. "How often does charity serve as a cloak for covetousness! We must not neglect what we owe to Jesus Christ under pretence of what we owe his members. Men count as wasted what is expended in the outer worship of God, when they love neither God nor his worship. Jesus Christ authorizes it by accepting it at the very instant in which he was establishing religion by a worship the most spiritual and inward" (Quesnel). Matthew 26:10 Understood it. Either their murmurs reached Christ’s ears, or he divined their thoughts, and proceeded to defend Mary’s action and to give a new lesson. Why trouble ye the woman? The disciples, observed Bengel, were really acting offensively to Jesus in thus censuring Mary; but he passes over this, and blames them only in respect of their conduct towards her. Doubtless, their remarks had reached Mary’s ears, and annoyed and embarrassed her. For she hath wrought a good work upon (εἰς) me. A work that proved her zeal, reverence, and faith. Mary had always been devout, contemplative, loving. She had learned much at the grave of Lazarus; she was full of gratitude at the wonderful restoration of her brother’s life; she had often heard Christ speak of his decease, and knew that it was close at ham], realizing that which the chosen apostles were still slow to believe; so she was minded to make this costly offering. And Christ saw her motive, and graciously accepted it. Matthew 26:11 Ye have the poor always with you. St. Mark adds, "and whensoever ye will ye may do them good." This was in strict accordance with the old Law: "The poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy in thy land" (Deuteronomy 15:11). The existence of poor gives scope for the exercise of the graces of charity, benevolence, and self-denial; and such opportunities will never be wanting while the world lasts. Me ye have not always; i.e. in bodily presence. When he speaks of being with his Church always to the end, he is speaking of his Divine presence. His human body, his body of humiliation, was removed from the sight and touch of men, and he could no longer be received and welcomed and succoured as heretofore. In a different and far more effectual mode he would visit his faithful servants by a spiritual presence which should never fail or be withdrawn. To the objectors he would say, "You will no longer have opportunity of honouring me in my human form; why, then, do you grudge the homage now paid me for the last time?" Matthew 26:12 On my body, she did it for my burial (προςτοἐνταφιασαιμε, to prepare me for burial). This doubtless was in some sort her intention (see on Matthew 26:10). She desired to offer what she could (Mark 14:8) of the offices and attentions due to the corpse of a beloved and revered Friend. Christ interpreted her act, and gave it a solemn significance. By this effusion of the precious unguent site anticipated the embalming of the Lord’s body; she showed her reverence for that body which was to be given for the life of the world not many days hence. The full meaning of the mystery of which she was the instrument Mary did not comprehend, but what she had consciously done received a wonderful commendation from the Lord, which has no parallel in the Gospel history. Matthew 26:13 Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached. This weighty promise and prediction is introduced by the emphasizing formula, Verily I say unto you. The gospel is the story of the incarnation of Jesus—his life, teaching, death, resurrection, which implies written documents as well as oral exposition. Our Lord had already (Matthew 24:14) intimated that the gospel of the kingdom should be published throughout the world; he here affirms that Mary’s deed shall be enshrined therein for all time. There shall also this, that this woman hath done (λαληθησεταικαιὁÌ ἐποιησεναὑìτη, that also which this woman did) be told for a memorial of her. The history which records the grudging remonstrance of the disciples contains this remarkable approval of Mary’s act, associating her forever with the Passion of the Lord. We may here quote the eloquent comment of Chrysostom, who, however, unreasonably identifies Mary with the sinner who previously anointed Jesus. "Who then proclaimed if, and caused it to be spread abroad? It was the power of him who is speaking these words. And while of countless kings and generals the noble exploits, even of those whose memorials remain, have sunk into silence; and having overthrown cities, and encompassed them with walls, and set up trophies, and enslaved many nations, they are not known so much as by hearsay, nor by name, though they have both set up statues, and established laws; yet that a woman who was a harlot poured out oil in the house of some leper, in the presence of ten men,—this all men celebrate throughout the world; and so great a time has passed, and yet the memory of that which was done hath not faded away, but alike Persians and Indians, Scythians and Thracians, and Sarmatians, and the race or the Moors, and they that inhabit the British Islands, spread abroad that which was done secretly in a house by a woman" (’Ham. 80. in Matthew’). Matthew 26:14-16 Compact of Judas with the Jewish authorities to betray Jesus. Matthew 26:14 Then. The time referred to is the close of Christ’s addresses, and the assembling of the Jewish authorities mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, Matthew 26:6-13 being parenthetical. It is reasonable to suppose that the loss of the three hundred denarii, at which he would have had the handling, and the reproof then administered, gave the final impulse to the treachery of Judas. This seems to be signified by the synoptists’ introduction of the transaction at Bethany immediately before the account of Judas’s infamous bargain (see preliminary note on Matthew 26:6-13). One of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot. That he was one of the twelve, the chosen companions of Christ, emphasizes his crime, makes it more amazing and more heinous. To witness the daily life of Christ, to behold his miracles of mercy, to listen to his heavenly teaching, to hear his stern denunciations of such sins as covetousness and hypocrisy, and in spite of all to bargain with his bitterest enemies for his betrayal, reveals a depth of perverse wickedness which is simply appalling. Well may the evangelist say that Satan entered into Judas (Luke 22:3); it was the devil’s work he was doing; he followed this evil inspiration, and thought not whither it would lead him. Went unto the chief priests. Their hostility was no secret. Judas and everybody knew of their hatred of Jesus, and of their attempts to get him into their power; he saw his way to carrying out his purpose, and making of it some pecuniary gain. We are not to suppose that this miserable man sank all at once to this depth of iniquity. Nemo repente fit turpissimus. Though the descent to Avernus be easy, it is gradual; it has its steps and pauses, its allurements and checks. Modern criticism has endeavoured to minimize the crime of Judas, or even to regard him as a hero misunderstood; but the facts are entirely in favour of the traditional view. We can trace the path by which the apostle developed into the traitor, by studying the hints which the Gospels afford. He was probably at first fairly sincere in attaching himself to Christ’s company. Being a man of business capacity and skill in the management of money matters, he was appointed treasurer of the little funds at the disposal of Christ and his followers. Half-hearted and self-seeking, his undertaking this office was a snare to which he easily fell a victim. He began by petty peculations, which were not discovered by his comrades (John 12:6), though he must often have felt an uneasy apprehension that his Master saw through him, and that many of his warnings were directed at him (see John 6:64, John 6:70, John 6:71). This feeling lessened the love for Jesus, though it did not drive him to open apostasy. He had admitted the demon of covetousness to his breast, and he now adhered to Christ for the hope of satisfying greed and worldly ambition. The teaching and miracles of Christ had no marked influence on such a disposition, softened not his hard heart, effected no change in his evil and selfish desires. And when he saw his hopes disappointed, when he heard Christ’s announcement of his speedy death, which his knowledge of the rulers’ animosity rendered only too certain, his only feeling was hatred and disgust. The transient expectations raised by the triumphal entry were not fulfilled; there was no assumption of the earthly conqueror’s part, there were no rewards for Christ’s followers, nothing but enmity and threatening danger on every side. Judas, seeing all this, perceiving that no worldly advantage would be gained by fidelity to the losing side, determined to make what profit he could under present circumstances. Not with the mistaken idea of forcing Christ to declare himself, and to put himself at the head of a popular movement, nor with any notion of Christ miraculously saving himself from his enemies’ hands, but simply from sordid love of gain, he made his infamous offer to the chief priests. It was just when they were in perplexity, and had determined on nothing except that the arrest and the condemnation were not to take place during the feast, that Judas was introduced into the assembly. No wonder "they were glad" (Mark 14:11); here was a solution of the contemplated difficulty; they need have no fear of a rising in favour of Christ; if among his chosen followers some were disaffected, and one was ready to betray him, they might work their will, when he was once quietly apprehended, without any danger of rescue and disturbance (see on Matthew 27:3). Matthew 26:15 What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? There is no disguise in this vile question. Judas unblushingly reveals his base motive in offering such a bargain; and to enhance its value he, as it were, forces his personality into prominence; as if he had said, "I who am his trusted adherent, I who know all his haunts and habits, will do this thing." They covenanted with him; ἐìστησαναὐτῷ: they weighed unto him. The verb might mean "appointed;" constituerunt ei (Vulgate); and St. Mark has "promised," St. Luke "covenanted;" but there is no doubt that some money was at once paid to Judas, as he seems to have returned it (Matthew 27:3) without any further interview with the Sanhedrin, though they may have given him a portion at once, and sent him the balance on the success of his attempt. Thirty pieces of silver; τριακονταἀργυρια. Thirty shekels of the sanctuary, equivalent to £3 15s. of our money. This was the legal price of a slave gored by an ox (Exodus 21:32), and must have been considered by the traitor but a poor reward for his crime. He found the rulers as covetous as himself, and disposed to treat both him and his Master with the utmost contempt. Christ had taken upon him the form of a bondservant, and was here reckoned as such. The transaction had been typically shadowed forth when another Judas sold his brother Joseph for twenty pieces of silver (Genesis 37:27, Genesis 37:28); when Ahithophel gave counsel against David, his familiar friend (2 Samuel 16:1-23.); and when Zechariah wrote, "I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed [ἐìστησαν, Septuagint] for my price thirty pieces of silver" (Zechariah 11:12). St. Matthew alone of the evangelists mentions the exact price agreed upon. It may have come naturally to the "publican" to observe the pecuniary aspect of the transaction. Matthew 26:16 From that time. As soon as he had made his bargain. Opportunity. "In the absence of the multitude," St. Luke adds. The Sanhedrin no longer thought it necessary to wait for the termination of the festival (verse 5). Judas would enable them to seize Christ in his most secret retirement, and at the most opportune moment. Matthew 26:17-19 Preparation for the Paschal Sapper. (Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13.) Matthew 26:17 The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread; literally, on the first day of Unleavened Bread. We have arrived at the Thursday in the Holy Week, Nisan 13. Wednesday had been spent in retirement at Bethany, and no acts or sayings of Christ on that day are recorded. The festival actually began at sunset of the 14th which was called the day of preparation, because the lambs for the feast were slain in the afternoon of that day, preparatory to their being eaten before the morning of the 15th. Domestic preparation, involving the removal of all leaven from houses and the use of unleavened bread, began on the 13th; hence this was considered at this era "the first day of the Unleavened." Came to Jesus. As the Master of the family, who had the ordering of all the details of the Paschal celebration. They did not know the mind of Jesus on the subject, and desired his directions as in former years. Bethany was considered as Jerusalem for the purposes of the solemn meal, and the apostles thought that preparation was to be made at some house in that village. Prepare for thee to eat the Passover. The preparations were numerous: a proper room had to be found and swept and carefully cleansed from every particle of leaven; tables and couches had to be arranged, lights to be supplied, the lamb and all other necessaries (e.g. bread, wine, bitter herbs) provided. All these preparations took much time, so it was doubtless in the early morning that the disciples applied to our Lord. When they spoke of eating the Passover, they doubtless supposed that Christ meant in due course to celebrate the regular Paschal supper on the appointed day, i.e. on the evening of Friday. But his intentions were different from what they expected. Matthew 26:18 The city. Jerusalem. Jesus was at Bethany. St. Luke says that he sent Peter and John, now first joined together without James. To such a man (προςτονδεῖνα). The other synoptists mention certain signs by which they were to recognize the man. At the entrance of the city they would meet a man bearing a pitcher of water; they were to follow him to the house whither he went, and then give their message to the master of the house. There is a great similarity between this mission and that concerning the ass before the triumphal entry. The foreknowledge and the precision in directions are quite analogous. The "good man" was doubtless a disciple, though at this festival all strangers were freely received by any householder who had accommodation. Dr. Edersheim supposes that he was father of Mark, who was the "young man" arrested by the company that took Jesus (Mark 14:51). The secrecy observed in the above-mentioned arrangement was intended to keep the knowledge from Judas, and thus to secure immunity from interruption at the solemn meal. The traitor seems to have sneaked out from the last Supper, and disclosed Christ’s retreat to the Jewish authorities, and conducted them to the house; but, finding that Jesus had left the room, he led them to Gethsemane, whither he knew that Jesus often resorted (John 18:1, John 18:2). The Master. A disciple would know who was meant by this title (comp. Matthew 23:8, Matthew 23:10; John 11:28). Whether any previous arrangement had been made with him, we cannot tell; most probably Christ speaks from prevision and his providential ordering of events. My time is at hand. The time of my suffering and death. This fact would make the request more imperative. But the expression was mysterious and indefinite. I will keep (ποιῶ, I keep) the Passover at thy house. The Passover which the Lord was to keep was not the usual Paschal meal, as the lamb could not be legally killed till the 14th, but a commemorative anticipatory feast in which he himself was the Lamb—"the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." Of that Lamb the apostles did mystically eat when Christ gave them the bread and wine with the words, "This is my body;" "This is my blood." This Supper, which was virtually the new Passover, seems traditionally to have become confounded with the usual Paschal solemnity; hence the language of the synoptists assumes a form which is applicable to the regular Jewish feast. This explanation, if it seems to derogate somewhat from the precise verbal accuracy of the evangelists, would probably be confirmed if we were better acquainted with the customs then prevalent, and with the current meaning of the language employed. The ambiguity in the accounts may be divinely intended to call attention to the fact that the last Supper was not the Jewish Passover, but the Christian Passover—not the sacrifice on the cross, but an anticipation thereof. We may observe in passing that there is no mention of the lamb in the celebration; Peter and John were not enjoined to provide one, nor are they said to have visited the temple—which, indeed, on the 13th would have been useless: and yet to obtain the lamb in any other way would have been a breach of the Law, which we cannot suppose Christ would sanction. We may also notice that the word "feast" (ἑορτη) is nowhere applied to the last Supper, though it is always employed in reference to the Jewish solemnity. St. Paul, in his account of the institution of the Holy Communion (1 Corinthians 11:1-34.) makes no mention of any Paschal solemnities or associations, but merely states that it was appointed on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. With my disciples; i.e. the twelve apostles; none but these, not even the master of the house, were present at this solemn scene. Matthew 26:19 Made ready the Passover (see on Matthew 26:17). They got the room ready, provided unfermented bread, wine, bitter herbs, sauce, and some dishes necessary for the feast. They would not eat the Paschal lamb at the legal time tomorrow, so the Lord ordained a commemorative and anticipatory solemnity, in which he appointed a rite which should take the place of the Jewish ceremony. We learn from the other synoptists that the householder was not satisfied with offering Christ and his friends the use of the common hall, which they would have had to share probably with other guests; but he assigned to them his best and most honourable chamber, "a large upper room," already properly arranged and furnished for the feast. Tradition has maintained that this apartment was that afterwards used by the apostles as a place of assembling, and where they received the effusion of the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost. Matthew 26:20-25 The last Supper. Jesus announces his betrayer. (Mark 14:17-21 Luke 22:14, Luke 22:21-23; John 13:21-30.) Matthew 26:20 When the even was come; i.e. according to Jewish reckoning, the beginning of the 14th of Nisan; with us, the Thursday evening—the eve of Good Friday. He sat down; he was reclining at table. Originally, the Passover was ordered to be eaten standing, in reference to the circumstances of its first institution (Exodus 12:11); but after the settlement in Canaan the posture had been changed to that of reclining in token of rest alter a weary pilgrimage. The rule that obtained concerning the number in one company of partakers of the Paschal feast was that it never should be less than ten, nor more than the lamb would suffice to feed, though a morsel of the flesh was considered to satisfy all requirements. Matthew 26:21 As they did eat. The details of the Paschal feast are expounded by rabbinical authors, though there is little in St. Matthew’s account to lead us to conclude that our Lord observed them on this occasion. The ceremonial usually practised was as follows: The head of the family, sitting in the place of honour, took a cup of wine and water mixed ("the first cup"), pronounced a thanksgiving over it, and, having tasted it, passed it round to the guests; the master washed his hands, the others performing their ablutions at a later part of the service; the dishes were placed on the table; after a special benediction had been spoken over the bitter herbs, the master and the rest of the company took a bunch of these, dipped it in the appointed sauce, and ate it; an unleavened cake was broken and elevated with a prescribed formula; the second cup was filled, the history of the festival was proclaimed, Psalms 113-118, were recited, and the cup was drunk. Now began the proper Paschal meal with a general washing of hands; the lamb was cut into pieces, anda portion given to each, with a bit of the unleavened bread and bitter herbs dipped in the sauce, called by St. John (John 13:26) "the sop." At the end of the meal, which was supplemented by other viands (which, however, were probably eaten before the lamb), the third cup, named by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 10:16) "the cup of blessing," was drunk, and the solemn grace after meat was uttered. It would be necessary to examine St. John’s Gospel to see how the ritual fitted into the actual details of the last Supper; we have to deal with St. Matthew’s account. Verily I say unto you. Christ thus prepares the apostles for the incredible statement which he is about to make. One of you; εἶςἐξὑμῶν. One out of your number, my chosen companions. He had before spoken vaguely of his betrayal (see Matthew 17:22; Matthew 20:18; Matthew 26:2). By thus showing his knowledge of the coming treachery, and yet declining to denounce the traitor by name, he may have given Judas a last chance of repentance before the final act. St. Matthew omits the washing of the disciples’ feet, and the strife about pre-eminence. Matthew 26:22 Exceeding sorrowful. Such an announcement filled them with amazement and grief; they scarcely dared suspect one another, but began to doubt their own constancy, though at the time conscious of their integrity. Is it I? Μητιἐγωεἰμι; Numquid ego sum? It is not I, is it? where the negative answer is expected. It is remarkable that the real character of Judas had never been discovered by the fellow disciples who for three years had mixed with him in closest companionship. Either he was a consummate hypocrite, or the other apostles were too simple-minded, good, and charitable to think evil of any one. Thus his peculations passed unnoticed, and the greed and. avarice which wrecked his spiritual life were entirely unsuspected. Matthew 26:23 He that dippeth (dipped) his hand with me in the dish. Even now Jesus does not identify the traitor. Many had put their hands into the dish along with Christ. Judas was one of those who had done so. The fact of eating together made in the Easterns’ view, the treachery more monstrous. "Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalms 41:9). The dish was one of large dimensions, from which each guest took his portion with his fingers. It was truly a common meal in which all shared. Our Lord’s words were spoken in answer to John’s question, "Lord, who is it?" (John 13:25). The beloved apostle’s position at table, "lying on Jesus’ breast," enabled him to ask this without being overheard. There is a mistake commonly made concerning the shape of the table used on such occasions. It was not of a horseshoe form, but oblong. The couches were arranged round three of its sides, and it extended a little way beyond the divans. The Master’s seat was not at the top or middle couch, but at the side; and from what occurred we should infer that John sat on the right of Jesus at the end of the couch, and Judas on the left of Jesus, the strife about precedency having been thus settled. Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth (ὑπαγει departeth). It is thus that Christ alludes to his approaching death (John 7:33; John 8:21, John 8:22; John 13:3, etc.), declaring thus the voluntary nature of his sufferings. As it is written of him. Every minute detail of Christ’s Passion enunciated by the prophets was fulfilled. "The prescience of God," says Chrysostom, "is not the cause of men’s wickedness, nor does it involve any necessity of it; Judas was not a traitor because God foresaw it, but he foresaw it because Judas would be so." Woe unto that man by (through) whom the Son of man is betrayed! παραδιδοται is being betrayed. Judas could hear this and the following sentence, and yet retain his iniquitous purpose! It had been good for that man if he had not been born; literally, it were good for him if that man had not been born. Jesus says this, knowing what the fate of Judas would be in the other world. There is no hope here held out of alleviation or end of suffering, or of ultimate restoration. It is a rayless darkness of despair. Had there been any expectation of relief or of recovery of God’s favour, existence would be a blessing even to the worst of sinners; for they would have eternity still before them in which to enjoy their pardon and purification; and in such case it could not be said of them that it were better for them never to have been born. On one side of the mysterious problem connected with Judas and such-like sinners we may again quote St. Chrysostom (’Hom. 81, in Matthew’), "’What, then,’ one may say, ’though Judas had not betrayed him, would not another have betrayed him?… Because if Christ must needs be crucified, it must be by the means of some one, and if by some one, surely by such a person as this. But if all had been good, the dispensation in our behalf had been impeded.’ Not so. For the All wise knows how he shall bring about our benefits, even had this happened. For his wisdom is rich in contrivance, and incomprehensible. So for this reason, that no one might suppose that Judas had become a minister of the dispensation, he declares the wretchedness of that man. But some one will say again, ’And if it had been good if he had never been born, wherefore did he suffer both this man and all the wicked to come into the world?’ When thou oughtest to blame the wicked, for that, having the power not to become such as they are, they have become wicked, thou leavest this, and busiest thyself and art curious about the things of God, although knowing that it is not by necessity that any one is wicked." Matthew 26:25 Answered and said, Master, is it I? Μητιἐγωεἰμι; It is not I, is it? as Matthew 26:22. Judas probably had not been one of those who put this question before, and now, availing himself of his proximity to Jesus (see on Matthew 26:23), he has the inconceivable effrontery to make this inquiry privately, as if to assure himself whether Christ was conscious of his treachery or not. It is remarked that he does not call Jesus "Lord," as the other apostles, but "Rabbi," a coldly ceremonious title (so in the garden, Matthew 26:49) The gentle Jeans reproaches him not, but answers him in low tones unheard by the rest (John 13:28, John 13:29). Thou hast said. A common formula, equivalent to "yes." So Matthew 26:64. Matthew 26:26-29 The institution of the Lord’s Supper. (Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.) The endless controversies which have gathered round the Holy Eucharist, for opposite views of the meaning and purpose of which men have fearlessly met death, render it a difficult matter to expound the text succinctly and yet with due regard to clearness and precision. If I do not expatiate upon the diverse opinions which have been held on this momentous subject, it is not because I have neglected to weigh and examine them, but because it is more conducive to edification to have a plain statement of what appears to the writer to be the truth, than to confuse a reader with a multitude of interpretations which in the end have virtually to be surrendered. The points to be specially remembered before trying to expound the section are these: 1. He who institutes the ordinance is Almighty God made man, who is able to set aside one observance and to substitute another in its place. 2. The new ordinance had an analogy with that which it superseded. 3. It was intended to be the one great service and means of grace for all Christians. 4. The interpretation is to he connected with the great discourse of Jesus in the sixth chapter of St. John, where Christ speaks of himself as the Bread of life that came down from heaven, and his flesh and blood as the nourishment of his people. Matthew 26:26 As they were eating. Before the supper was quite ended, and before the third cup of wine (see on Matthew 26:21) was drunk. Jesus took bread (τονἀìρτον, the bread, according to the Received Text). The special unleavened cake prepared for the Paschal meal. The four accounts agree in this detail, and seem to indicate a formal action or elevation, like the wave offering in the old Law. We see here the "High Priest after the order of Melchizedek" bringing forth bread and wine like his great prototype (Psalms 110:4), and by anticipation offering himself as victim. And blessed it. The Received Text here and in St. Mark has εὐλογησας, which in some manuscripts has been altered to εὐχασιστησας, in conformity with the wording in St. Luke’s and St. Paul’s accounts. We find a similar interchange of the words in the miracles of the loaves. Virtually, the two expressions are identical; the thanksgiving is a blessing, the blessing is a thanksgiving. The usual blessing uttered by the master over the unleavened cake is said to have been, "Blessed be he who giveth the bread of earth." From this benediction on the elements, and the thankful remembrance of Christ’s death and the benefits thereof herein connoted, the Holy Communion has from the earliest times been called the Holy Eucharist. And brake it. The fraction of the bread was so important and essential a part of the institution, that it gave its name to the whole rite, and "breaking of bread" represented the cele bration of the Holy Eucharist, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (see Acts 2:42, Acts 2:46; 1 Corinthians 10:16, etc.). Under the old Law the fraction represented the sufferings endured by the chosen people; in Christ’s new institution it symbolized his death, when his feet and hands were pierced with the nails and his side with the spear. Gave it (ἐδιδου, was giving) to the disciples. He gave to each of them a portion of the cake in their hand. If they had risen from their couches at the solemn benediction, as we may well suppose they did, they were still standing when the Lord distributed the consecrated bread. That they received it reclining in an easy posture seems unlikely. Take (ye), eat (ye). The two words are given only in our Gospel; St. Mark has "take ye" (φαγετε being there an interpolation). St. Luke and St. Paul omit them altogether. We should infer that Christ did not himself partake of the bread or wine (which would have confused the deep significance of the ordinance), but gave it to his apostles, that by such participation they might be identified with the sacrifice represented by the broken bread, thus transforming the Levitical rite into a new sacrament which did not merely commemorate his death, but conveyed its benefits to faithful receivers. This is my body. "This" in the Greek is neuter (τοῦτο), and therefore is not in agreement with "bread" (ἀìρτος), which is masculine. It is to be explained as "This which I give you, this which ye receive." The copula "is" would not be expressed in the Aramaic, which Christ spoke; and yet what a world of controversy has hung on this ἐστι! Some take it as absolutely identifying subject and predicate; others regard it as equivalent to "represents;" others, again, would modify it in some manner, so that it should not logically express the agreement of the two terms of the proposition. It was doubtless a startling statement to those who then heard it for the first time, but it came upon them not wholly unprepared. In his momentous discourse on the Bread of life, after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus had spoken of himself as the Food of his people, and then proceeded to make the amazing assertion, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53). The meaning of this mysterious warning was not further explained. Now as the Lord distributed to the apostles the blessed morsels with those solemn words, they learned what he meant by eating his flesh and drinking his blood, how he put it in his servants’ power to fulfil the injunction. In what sense could "this" be his body? He was there before their eyes in human form, perfect Man; and yet he gives something else, not that which was standing before them, as his body. Stupendous mystery, past finding out! There is no room here for metaphor or figure. He is not figuratively describing himself or his office or his work, as when he calls himself the good Shepherd, the Door, the Vine, the Way: he directs attention to one part of his nature, his body, and that as toed to be eaten. He shows the mode by which we may be participators of this his lower nature, that as, joined to Adam, we die, so thus united to Christ, we live. We must, as before observed, remember that he who said these words was God incarnate, and that he designed to give his Church a means of realizing and receiving those stupendous blessings set forth in his Eucharistic discourse as depending upon due reception of his body and blood. It is obvious that the apostles could not understand the terms literally, but, believing in his Godhead, believing that he could bring to pass that which he said, they apprehended them in a supernatural, mystical sense; they had faith to know that in these holy elements, blessed by their Lord, they received him, ate his flesh and blood, to their soul’s health. This was no mere commemorative rite, not simply a way of remembering Christ’s death and Passion, but it was a sacrament, an outward sign of an inward reality, something from without entering the recipients and imparting to them that which before they had not. How the outward and inward are joined together we cannot tell. It is, and will always remain, an unfathomable mystery. The presence of Christ’s humanity in the Holy Communion is beyond, above, the ordinary conditions of man’s nature; it is supernatural, miraculous, even as was his incarnation, which joined manhood and Deity. The substance, indeed, of the elements remains as before, their nature is not changed, but they have a new relation and use and office; they serve as a means of communicating Christ’s body and blood, and they are so called before reception, so that the receiver’s faith does not make them to. be such, but Christ’s own word with power. Attempts to explain this Divine matter hopelessly fail. Hence the Romanist with his transubstantiation, or change of substance; the Lutheran with his consubstantiation, or confusion of substance; the Zuinglian with his irreverent virtualism, alike fall into error and depart from pure doctrine. The only right attitude is to leave all such efforts alone, to believe Christ’s word simply but wholly, and to use the sacrament in full faith, that by and through it to the faithful recipient are imparted incalculable benefits. To the words, "This is my body," St. Luke adds, "which is being given (διδομενον) for you;" and St. Paul, "which is [broken;? genuine] for you." Thus the Lord, before he actually suffered, offered himself as a Victim voluntarily undergoing death, and showed it forth by the broken bread and the poured wine. We are told that the master of the household, when he distributed the pieces of the lamb, said solemnly, "This is the body of the Paschal lamb." Christ transformed this formula to a new use, but in neither case did it introduce a mere symbol of something absent. Matthew 26:27 He took the cup. Many good manuscripts have "a cup," and some modern editors omit the article; but this cup was the only one on the table at the time; so the reading matters not. This was probably the third cup at the close of the Paschal meal (see on Matthew 26:21). The wine of the country is what we call a red wine (compare "the blood of grapes," Genesis 49:11); it was mixed with a little water when used at the table. This third cup was termed "the cup of blessing" (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16), because over it was spoken a special benediction, and it was regarded as the principal cup, following, as it did, the eating of the lamb. Gave thanks (εὐχαριστησας). The thanksgiving was a blessing (see on Matthew 26:26). The celebration of Christ’s death and the remembrance of the incalculable blessings obtained thereby may well be termed the Holy Eucharist, the great sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Gave (ἐìδωκεν) it to them. The aorist here used would imply strictly that he gave the cup once for all, herein differentiating the action from that employed in distributing the bread. St. Luke’s expression, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves," refers to an earlier stage of the supper. In the present connection he nearly agrees with the other synoptists. It is possible that the cup was passed from hand to hand after it had been blessed by Christ. Drink ye all of it. St Mark adds, "And they all drank of it." Strange it is that, with these words written in the Scripture, any Church should have the hardihood to deny the cup to any qualified Christian. The Romanist’s assertion that the cup is for priests alone, as it was given to the apostles only, and was destined for them and their sacerdotal successors, would apply equally to the consecrated bread, and then what becomes of the general use of the ordinance? If we would have life in us, we must not only eat Christ’s flesh, but drink his blood. We need to be refreshed as well as strengthened in the battle of life, and it may well be that the mutilation of the sacrament carries with it spiritual effects that impede the soul’s health. Matthew 26:28 For. Yes, drink ye all hereof, for it is unspeakably precious. This (τοῦτο, as before, Matthew 26:26) is my blood. This which I here give you. The blood separated from the body represents Christ’s death by violence; it was also the sign of the ratification of a covenant. Of the new testament; διαθηκης: covenant. The adjective"new" is omitted by some good manuscripts and modern editors, but it gives the sense intended. The Vulgate has, novi testamenti. The old covenant between God and his people had been ratified at Sinai by the blood of many victims (Exodus 24:5-8; Hebrews 8:8-13; Hebrews 9:15, etc.); the blood of Christ shed upon the cross ratifies "the new or Christian covenant to the world and the Church, and the same blood sacramentally applied ratifies the covenant individually to each Christian" (Sadler). The evangelical covenant supersedes the Judaic, even as the sacrifice of Christ fulfils and supersedes the Levitical sacrifices. Which is shed (is being shed) for many. The Vulgate has effundetur, in reference to the crucifixion of the morrow; but this is tampering with the text. Rather, by using the present tense, the Lord signifies that his death is certain—that the sacrifice has already begun, that the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8) was now offering the eternal sacrifice. The whole ordinance is significant of the completion of the atonement. "Many" here is equivalent to "all." Redemption is universal, though all men do not accept the offer (see on Matthew 20:28). Even Calvin says, "Non partem mundi tantum designat, sed totum humanum genus." For the remission of sins. "For without shedding of blood is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22); "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin (1 John 1:7). The sacrifices of the Law, the blood of bulls and goats, could not take away sin; at most they gave a ritual and ceremonial purification. But what the Mosaic Law could not effect was accomplished by the precious blood of Christ, who offered himself a spotless and perfect Victim unto God. This is our Lord’s most complete announcement of the propitiatory nature of his sacrifice, which is appropriated by faith in the reception of his precious blood. St. Paul adds, "This do ye (τοῦτοποιεῖτε), as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me [εἰςτηνἐμημνησιν, ’for my commemoration’]." These were, of course, Christ’s words spoken at the time, and are of most important bearing on what is called the sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist. Matthew 26:29 I will not drink henceforth (ἀπ’ ἀìρτι) of this fruit (γεννηματος) of the vine. He is about to die. From this moment forward he tastes not the cup. It does not follow that he had partaken of the consecrated wine which he gave his apostles. Probability is against his having done so (see on Matthew 26:26). He used the same words with the first cup at the commencement of the supper (Luke 22:18). Of this he probably partook, but not of the latter. The offspring of the vine is a poetical way of describing wine (cf. Deuteronomy 22:9; Isaiah 32:12, etc.). It is absurd to find in this term an argument for unalcoholic grape juice. Wine, to be wine, must undergo fermentation, and if it is not to putrefy or to become vinegar, it must develop alcohol. When I drink it new (καινον) with you in my Father’s kingdom. This mysterious announcement has been variously interpreted, and its meaning must remain uncertain. Some refer it to Christ’s intercourse with his disciples after he rose from the dead, when e.g. he partook of food with them (Luke 24:30, Luke 24:42, Luke 24:43; John 21:12; Acts 1:4; Acts 10:41). But this seems hardly to meet the requirements of the text, though it has the support of Chrysostom, who writes, "Because he had discoursed with them concerning Passion and cross, he again introduces what he has to say of his resurrection, having made mention of a kingdom before them, and by this term calling his own resurrection. And wherefore did be drink after he was risen again? Lest the grosser sort might suppose that the resurrection was a phantasy To show, therefore, that they should see him manifestly risen again, and that he should be with them once more, and that they themselves shall be witness to the things that are done, both by sight and by act, he saith, ’until I drink it new with you,’ you bearing witness. But what is ’new’? In a new, that is, in a strange manner, not having a passible body, but now immortal and incorruptible, and not needing food." Some explain it of the Pass. over, of which he then partook for the last time, the type being fulfilled in him. The solution does not explain the new participation in the kingdom of God. It seems, on the whole, best to understand it as a prophecy of the great marriage supper of the Lamb, and the joys that await the faithful in the new heavens and the new earth. The wine is (he token of the felicities of this dispensation, and it is called "new" in contrast with the obsolete character of that which it superseded. "Novitatem dicit plane eingularem" (Bengel). Matthew 26:30-35 Jesus announces the desertion of the apostles, and the denial of Peter. (Mark 14:26-31; Luke 22:34; John 13:36-38.) Matthew 26:30 When they had sung an hymn. This was probably the second portion of the Hallel. Before this, however, the Lord spake the discourses and the prayer recorded so lovingly and carefully by St. John (John 14-17.). They went out. Which they could not lawfully have done had they been celebrating the usual Jewish Passover (see Exodus 12:22). Though it is possible that many modifications of the original ritual had been gradually introduced, yet Christ so strictly observed the Law that he would doubtless have obeyed its injunction in this particular if he had been keeping the legal solemnity. The Mount of Olives. Hither he had resorted every night during the week (Luke 21:37; Luke 22:39). Matthew 26:31 Then saith Jesus. The warning, according to the other evangelists, was given in the upper chamber, unless, as is very unlikely, it was twice repeated (see Luke 22:31-34; John 13:36-38). The "then" of St. Matthew must not be taken strictly as denoting exact chronological sequence, but as marking a change of scene or a new incident. All ye shall be offended because of me (ἐνἐμοι, in me). There is an emphasis on "all ye;" even ye eleven, who have been steadfast hitherto. One, Judas, had already departed; but Christ warns the eleven that they too shall for a time lose their faith in him, and sin by forsaking their Lord. His apprehension and trial would prove a rock of offence to them. It is written. In Zechariah 13:7, where the prophet’s words are, "Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the Man that is my Fellow, saith the Lord of hosts; smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." It is here shown that all that happened took place according to "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." That Christ may be the Saviour he must be a sacrifice. In Zechariah the Lord gives the command to the sword; hence Christ can say, I will smite. The Shepherd is Christ, the sheep are the disciples, who, at the sight of the officers coming to seize him, "all forsook him, and fled" (verse 56). The prophecy in Zechariah is remarkably full of references to Christ, his nature and his position. Matthew 26:32 After I am risen again. He comforts his followers now, as always, with the announcement that after his Passion and death he would rise again and meet them. So in the prophet’s words succeeding the quotation there is a similar encouragement, "I will turn mine hand upon the little ones;" i.e. I will cover and protect the humble and meek, even after they fled and were scattered. I will go before you (προαξωὑμᾶς) into Galilee (Matthew 28:7). The verb is of pastoral signification, as in the East the shepherd does not drive his sheep, but leads them (John 10:4). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 27:1, Matthew 27:2 Jesus brought to Pilate. (Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66; Luke 23:1; John 18:28.) Matthew 27:1 When the morning was come. This is the early morning of Good Friday, the 14th of Nisan. If the rulers had had special regard to legality, they could not have condemned Christ to death at night, as they had done at the late informal assembly; but their respect for conventional rules was overborne by passion and hatred. They had decreed his death by general consent, and then retired for a few hours’ necessary rest. Now they again met together, still in the palace of Caiaphas (John 18:28), in order to complete their evil work, to endorse the previous sentence, and, under some pretence, hand their Victim over to the Roman governor, who alone could execute their murderous purpose. The particle δε (πρωΐìαςδεγενομενης), omitted by the Authorized Version, takes us back to the conclusion of the council (Matthew 26:66), the account of its further proceedings being interrupted by the episode of Peter. All the chief priests and elders of the people. It was a large assembly of the Sanhedrin, many members, doubtless, taking part in these proceedings, now that the capital sentence was past, who would not have deliberately planned a judicial murder. Such was the course of Jewish casuistry. To (ὡìστε) put him to death. The council had merely to determine how to formulate such a political charge against Jesus as would compel the Romans to punish the offender with death. They were determined that he should die by an ignominious and cursed death, that his pretensions, as being sent by God, might be disposed of forever. Hence arose the persistent cry, "Crucify him!" (verses 22, 23). The Jewish view of crucifixion is seen in Deuteronomy 21:23 and Galatians 3:13. They possibly feared some outbreak if they delayed the execution, and kept him prisoner till the conclusion of the feast. Matthew 27:2 When they had bound him. With his hands tied by a rope behind his back. This was the treatment inflicted on condemned malefactors. During the actual official proceedings it was customary to release the accused person from bonds; hence this new binding was necessary. What passed in the council before this indignity was inflicted is, perhaps, told by St. Luke: the Sanhedrists satisfied themselves that they had a case against Jesus sufficient for their purpose, and they proceeded in a body to lay it before the governor. Pontius Pilate the governor (τῷἡγεμονι). Some good manuscripts omit "Pontius," as in Mark and Luke; but there seems to be no doubt that he bore this nomen gentilicium (see e.g. Tacitus, ’Ann.,’ 15:44), which connected him with the Samnite gens of the Pontii. He was the sixth Roman Procurator of Judaea, and his title in Greek was ἐπιτροπος rather than ἡγεμων, which was a more general term for a commander or chief possessing more extensive powers. He held the office under the Prefect of Syria for ten years, at the end of which time he was removed for cruelty and extortion, and banished to Vienne, in Gaul, where he put an end to his own life. The turbulence and national animosity of the Jews had rendered it necessary to invest the procurator with the power of life and death, which he used in the most unscrupulous manner, so that he was universally hated and feared. The quarters of the Roman governor were called the Praetorium, and to this Christ was led. Pilate usually resided at Caesarea, but came to Jerusalem at the great festival, to be ready to quell any fanatical outbreak that might occur. So nowadays the Turks keep a body of troops in the same city to preserve the peace between Christian worshippers at Easter(!). Whether Pilate occupied the barracks at the fortress Antonia, or the magnificent palace of Herod, situated at the northwest angle of the upper city, is uncertain; but as we know that the Roman procurators did reside in Herod’s palace, and as on this occasion Pilate was accompanied by his wife (verse 19), it is most probable that he took up his abode in the latter, and that Jesus was brought before him there. Herod had a house of his own on the east of Zion, opposite the castle, which he seems to have occupied more often than his father’s palace, thus leaving the latter at the pleasure of the Roman governors. Assuming this to be the case, Dr. Edersheim writes, "From the slope of the eastern angle, opposite the temple mount, where the palace of Caiaphas stood, up the narrow streets of the upper city, the melancholy procession wound to the portals of the grand palace of Herod. It is recorded that they who brought him would not themselves enter the portals of the palace, ’that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover’" (’Life and Times of Jesus,’ 2:505). Matthew 27:3-10 Remorse and suicide of Judas, and the use made of the blood money. (Peculiar to St. Matthew; cf. Acts 1:18, Acts 1:19.) Matthew 27:3 Then. This transaction took place either when Jesus was being conducted to the Praetorium, or during the interview with Herod (Luke 23:7-11). A great number of the Sanhedrists had now withdrawn to the temple, and were sitting in conclave there. When he saw that he was condemned. He evidently had not contemplated the full consequences of his crime; he never expected that the Jewish rulers would proceed to such extremities. It is probable that, in his lust for gain and his loss of love for his Master, he had. thought of nothing but his own sordid interests, and now was appalled at the share which he had had in bringing to pass this awful result. The excuse made in modern days for Judas, that he wished only to force our Lord to exert his Divine power, and to declare himself Messiah, is refuted by one out of many considerations (see on Matthew 26:14). His remorse at this moment has to be accounted for. If he still believed in Christ’s Divine commission, he would not have despaired of a happy result even after his condemnation, nay, even when he was hanging on the cross. Christ’s power to deliver himself and to assume his Messianic position remained unimpaired by these seemingly adverse circumstances, and a believer would have waited for the end before he surrendered all hope. Judas’s character is not bettered by considering that he did evil that good might come, or that he was led to his base course by the hope that his worldly interests would be improved by the establishment of Messiah’s temporal kingdom. That he had now any desire or ambition for a place in a spiritual kingdom cannot be conceived, for he had evidently lost all faith in Jesus, and followed him only for the most sordid motives. Repented himself (μεταμεληθεις). This word (differing from μετανοεω, which expresses change of heart) denotes only a change of feeling, a desire that what has been done could be undone; this is not repentance in the Scripture sense; it springs not from love of God, it has not that character which calls for pardon. "Mark," says St. Chrysostom, "when it is that he feels remorse. When his sin was completed, and had received an accomplishment. For the devil is like this; he suffers not those who are careless to see the evil before this, lest he whom he has taken should repent. At least, when Jesus was saying so many things, he was not influenced, but when his offence was completed, then repentance came upon him, and not then profitably." Only now did he fully realize what he had done; in the light of his crime his conscience awoke and confounded him with vehement re-preaches: the object for which he had sinned seemed utterly unworthy and base; its attraction vanished when no longer pursued. Brought again (returned) the thirty pieces of silver. He had received the whole price for which he had bargained, but he could not retain the money now; it was a silent witness which he could not endure. He may have thought that he would throw away the guilt of his crime as he deprived himself of its wages, or that he could repair its consequences by this tardy restitution. Matthew 27:4 I have sinned. He confesses his sin, indeed, yet not to God, but to the partners and instigators of his crime, and this, not with godly sorrow, but in self-disgust and vexation of spirit that could not be repressed. His was the sorrow that worketh death (2 Corinthians 7:10). In that I have betrayed [the] innocent blood (αἷμαἀθῷον, or, according to some manuscripts, αἷμαδικαιον, but in either case without the article). By speaking of "blood," he showed that he knew the murder was certain. Judas seems to have had no faith in Christ’s Divinity, but he had perfect assurance of his holiness and innocence, and felt, and endeavoured to make the rulers feel, that an iniquitous sentence had been passed, and that a guiltless person was condemned to death. This consideration added to the bitterness of his regret. But he obtained no comfort from the hardened and unfeeling priests. They had gotten what they had desired. The question of Christ’s moral guilt or innocence was nothing to them; equally indifferent to them was the fierce remorse of Judas. What is that to us? Τιπροςἡμᾶς; See thou to that (συὀìψει, tu videris, equivalent to "that is your concern," as in Matthew 27:24). A more unfeeling, nay, fiendish answer could not have been given. It threw the wretched man back on himself, left him alone with his remorse, the blackness of his night unrelieved by any ray of human sympathy. In their own obduracy and impenitence they scorn the weakness of their miserable tool. As Bengel well moralizes, "Impii in facto consortes, post factum deserunt; pii, in facto non consortes, postea medentur." To sympathize with repentance is the duty and the privilege of the Christian; to deride and scoff at the returning sinner is devilish. It is profitable to contrast the sincere repentance of Peter after his fall with the remorse of the despairing Judas. Matthew 27:5 He cast down the pieces of silver in the temple (ἐντᾷναῷ, in the sanctuary, or, as good manuscripts read, εἰςτονναον, into the sanctuary). The priests were in the priests’ court (which would be included in the term ναος), separated by a stone partition from the court of the Gentiles. Into the latter area Judas had pressed; and, hurrying to the wall of division, he flung the cursed shekels with all his force into the inner place, as if to rescind the iniquitous contract and to cast away its pollution. He departed. He rushed away from the temple and the city into solitude, down into and across the valley of Hinnom, up the steep sides of the overhanging mountain—anywhere to escape human eyes, and, if it might be, to flee from himself. Vain endeavour! The memory of his useless crime haunts him; he has no hope in earth or heaven; life under this burden is no longer supportable. Went and hanged himself (ἀπηγξατο, he strangled himself; laqueo se suspendit, Vulgate). He mounted some precipitous rock, and unwinding the girdle (for it was unnecessary to find and take a rope with him) which he wore, and in which he had doubtless carried the pieces of silver, fastened it round his neck, and securing it to some tree or projecting stone, flung himself from the height. The horrible result is told by St. Peter in his first address to the disciples (Acts 1:1-26:48), "Falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." This may have resulted from the breaking of the girdle. A fragment of Papias gives another explanation, recounting that he was crushed and disembowelled by a passing waggon. Thus Judas, the only man concerning whom the terrible expression is used, went "to his own place" (Acts 1:25). he is the Ahithophel of the New Testament (2 Samuel 17:23: Psalms 41:9; Psalms 55:12-14). Matthew 27:6 Took the silver pieces. They picked up the coins which Judas had flung away on the marble pavement of the court, but were perplexed to determine what they should do with them. It is not lawful. These men, who had felt no doubt or hesitation in compassing the death of an innocent Man by the foulest treachery and perversion of justice, have, or hypocritically professed to have, religious scruples about the disposal of this blood money thus thrown on their hands. While they calmly outraged all moral feeling, they punctiliously observed certain outward ceremonial decencies. "They strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The treasury (τονκορβανᾶν). The temple treasury, supplied by the offerings (corbans) of the pious for the expenses of Divine worship. It is most probable that these scrupulous priests had taken from this treasury the silver which they now deemed it sinful to replace. The price of blood. The wages of murder. It was inferred from Deuteronomy 23:18 that no money unlawfully gained, or derived from an impure source, might be used in purchasing things for God’s service. Under Jewish Law such money must be restored to the donor; if circumstances rendered this impossible, or the offerer insisted on giving it, it was to be expended for some public object, the original owner being considered, by a legal fiction, to be its possessor still, and that which was paid for by the money being deemed as his gift to the community (comp. Acts 1:18, "This man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity"). Matthew 27:7 They took counsel. They deliberated how to dispose of this blood money. This deliberation may have taken place after the Crucifixion. The potter’s field. The spot was well known at the time. It is traditionally said to have lain on the south of Jerusalem—on the hillside across the valley of Hinnom, on what is called the Hill of Evil Counsel. Here is found a tract of clay, which is still used by the potters of the city. In the time of our Lord. the clay probably was considered to be exhausted, and the area, excavated in all directions, and useless for agricultural purposes, was sold for a trifling price. To bury strangers in. The "strangers" are probably not pagans, but foreign Jews and Gentile proselytes, who came to Jerusalem to attend the festival, and died there. Others think that foreigners (Greeks and Romans, etc.) exclusively are meant, the Jews regarding their very presence in the holy city as defilement, and a cemetery purchased by unclean money a fitting spot for their interment. The "field" was set apart in the Crusaders’ times as a burial place for pilgrims, and to this day contains a charnel house wherein are deposited the poor and unhonoured dead of Jerusalem. Matthew 27:8 The field of blood. Aceldama (Acts 1:19), the Syriac name. It was so called (διο) from the circumstances attending its purchase, which gave it an evil notoriety, and which the priests must have divulged. "This also," says Chrysostom, taking the blood to be that of Jesus, "became a witness against them, and a proof of their treason. For the name of the place more clearly than a trumpet proclaimed their blood guiltiness." Unto this day. Until the time when this Gospel was published, the new appellation obtained. It is implied that a considerable interval had elapsed. Such chronological hints are often found in the Old Testament (cf. Genesis 19:37, Genesis 19:38; Joshua 4:9, etc.). Matthew 27:9 Spoken by Jeremy the prophet. The prophecy, which St. Matthew says was fulfilled by the use made of Judas’s pieces of silver, is found, not in Jeremiah, as we now possess his text, but, with some variations, in Zechariah 11:12, Zechariah 11:13. It must be noted, however, that, though the passage in Zechariah has many remarkable affinities to the quotation in our evangelist’s history, it is not. identical with it. In the prophet’s vision there is no mention of the field, and the money is to be "cast to the potter in the house of the Lord." The Septuagint Version gives a very different reading, "Lay them in the foundry [or, ’furnace’], and I will see if it is approved, as I was approved for their sakes." And the last part of our quotation is hardly a representation of the Hebrew, "Cast it unto the potter, the goodly price that I was prised at of them." In the face of these discrepancies, it is supposed by many that St. Matthew had in his mind some utterance of Jeremiah not now extant; but if, as most expositors affirm, he was citing, more or less accurately, the words of Zechariah, we have to account for their being attributed to a wrong author. Of this difficulty, as it is considered, many solutions are offered. For instance: (1) The evangelist added no name to "the prophet;" and a scribe, hazily remembering the transaction in Jeremiah 32:6, etc., interpolated the word "Jeremiah." It is true that the Syriac omits "Jeremiah," hut all other versions, and nearly all the Greek manuscripts, insert it; so there can be no reasonable doubt that it existed in the original text. (2) The two words written abbreviated thus, Ζριου, Ιμιου, might be easily mistaken. (3) The evangelist fell into error, by oversight or lapse of memory, as is supposed to be the ease in Mark 2:26 and Acts 7:4, Acts 7:16. (4) The last chapters of Zechariah were really the composition of Jeremiah. (5) Jeremiah, being set at the head of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures, gave his name to all the writings following, which were cited indiscriminately as the utterances of Jeremiah. (6) St. Matthew has made a cento of passages derived from Jeremiah 18:2, etc.; Jeremiah 19:1, Jeremiah 19:2; Jeremiah 32:8-14, combined with the prediction in Zechariah, and attributed the passage thus formed to the most celebrated prophet. Plainly the evangelist has not confined himself to the actual words of his author or authors, but has written a Targum thereon, being divinely guided to see in the present transaction a fulfilment of an obscure announcement and prefiguration in olden days There are many other solutions proposed, with which we need not concern ourselves; the one last stated is reasonable, and may be adopted safely by those simple Christians who believe that the writers of the Bible were supernaturally preserved from errors, not only in doctrine and precept and fact, but also in chronology, grammar, geography, citation, etc. The whole difficulty is of little importance, and too much has been made of what, alter all, may be simply an erratum perpetuated from an ancient copy. They took (ἐìλαβον, which might mean, "I took," as in Zechariah). In the prophecy it is the despised Shepherd who casts the money to the potter; but "gave" in the next clause is plural. The price of him that was valued (priced), whom they of the children of Israel did value (price) (ὁÌνἐτιμησαντοἀπουἱῶν, Ἰσραηλ). The Authorized Version supplies οἱbefore ἀπουἱῶνἸσραηλ. The Revised Version supplies τινες, "whom certain of the children of Israel did price." The words are ironical, answering to the prophet’s expression, "the goodly price that I was prised at of them"! The preposition ἀπο may be rendered "on the part of;" so the evangelist means that the priests offered this mean price for the Shepherd at the instigation of, at the instance of, the children of Israel, who thus shared in and authorized the iniquitous transaction. Matthew 27:10 Gave them for the potter’s field. This part of the citation is borrowed from Jeremiah’s purchase of the field of Hanamel (Jeremiah 32:1-44.). The Christian writer introduces a second fulfilment of the ancient word. As the Lord appointed me. This must be the equivalent of Zechariah’s "the Lord said unto me" (Zechariah 11:13). The destination of these wages of iniquity was foreordained. They could not be used by the Shepherd, nor stored in the temple treasury, nor kept by Judas or the priests; they were to be employed for another purpose. Matthew 27:11-14 Jesus examined by Pilate. (Mark 15:2-5; Luke 23:2-5; John 18:29-38.) Matthew 27:11 Jesus stood before the governor. St. Matthew omits here many details which the other evangelists, and especially St. John, supply. Pilate from the first had shown much reluctance to proceed, not being satisfied with the vague accusation that Jesus was a malefactor, and proposing that the Sanhedrists should try him according to Jewish Law, as if the question was merely a religious one. This treatment forced the priests to formulate a charge of which the roman authorities must take cognizance. They therefore stated unblushingly that Jesus had said that he was himself Christ a King (Luke 23:2). At this point St. Matthew’s account steps in. Art thou (συεἶ) the King of the Jews? This examination took place within the Praetorium, where Christ was detained in the custody of some guards. The accusation of the Jews had been made outside, as they had scruples about entering the building. Jesus had never actually (so far as recorded) called himself King, though the appellation had been applied to him by Nathanael (John 1:49), and the hosannahs of the multitudes had virtually so greeted him. His accusers had added the charge that he perverted the nation, and forbade to give tribute to Caesar. There is scorn and surprise, mingled with some awe, in Pilate’s interrogation, "Thou—such a one as thou—art the King of the Jews?" Thou sayest. What thou sayest is true. A strong affirmation. Christ accepts in its fullest sense that which the governor puts as a question (comp. Matthew 26:25, Matthew 26:64). St. Paul alludes to this scene in 1 Timothy 6:13, "Christ Jesus, who before Pilate witnessed the good confession." Matthew 27:12 When Pilate went forth again to the door of the judgment hall, he was met by a storm of accusations from the chief priests and elders, who, seeing the impression produced on him by Christ’s bearing, vied with each other in vociferating charges against the meek Prisoner. He answered nothing. With Divine patience he bore it all; he would not defend himself before people who cared nothing for truth and justice, and wanted only to secure condemnation and death. As for Pilate, he had told him expressly that his kingdom was spiritual and not of this world, and therefore his claims did not interfere with the sovereignty of Rome. To him and to the rest there was nothing more to be said. Matthew 27:13 Hearest thou not how many things (ποσα, quanta, what great things) they witness against thee? Among the charges was one that Jesus stirred up the people to revolt, both in Galilee and Judaea. The mention of Galilee offered to Pilate a chance of escaping the responsibility of the trial, and led to his sending Christ to Herod, as St. Luke relates (Luke 23:6-12). It was on the return from Herod that the final scene took place. Pilate evidently did not believe that this dignified, meek, inoffensive Man was guilty of sedition, and he desired to hear his defence, which he was willing to receive favourably (Acts 3:13). Matthew 27:14 To never a word (προςοὐδεἑìνῥῆμα, not even to one word). He made no reply to a single one of the accusations die; he was a willing sacrifice; so he acted as his prophet had foretold, "He opened not his mouth" (Isaiah 53:7). Marvelled greatly. The Roman governor in all his experience had never beheld such calm resigntion, such unshaken equanimity, such intrepid resolution in the face of death. Matthew 27:15-26 Barabbas preferred to Jesus. (Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:17-25; John 18:39, John 18:40.) Matthew 27:15 Pilate now tries another expedient for delivering himself from the responsibility of condemning Jesus. At that feast (καταἑορτην, at a feast, at feast time). Doubtless the Passover is meant, which was the feast especially of the Jews, and it is very improbable that the practice mentioned in the clause was allowed at any other of the feasts. The governor was wont to release unto the people (τῷὀìχλῳ, the multitude), etc. St. Luke says, "Of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast." The custom is not elsewhere mentioned. It was, however, most probably an institution established of old time in memory of the Exodus (John 18:39), and continued by the Romans when they became masters of the country. A similar custom obtained at Rome and in Greece on certain great festivals. Whom they would. The governor usually left the priests and people unfettered in their choice; on the present occasion he desired Jesus to be selected. Matthew 27:16 They had then a notable prisoner. The plural verb must refer to the multitude, to whose class the man belonged. The Vulgate, with Origen, reads, "he had," habebat, referring to Pilate, whose prisoner he was. The man was notorious; as St. Mark tells us, "He lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, men who had committed murder in the insurrection." We have no account elsewhere of this particular rising, nor of its leader, but such commotions were very common, and under the guise of political aims were utilized for purposes of robbery and assassination. Called Barabbas. The word means "Son of the father," which some explain "Son of a rabbi," which is improbable; and it is a question whether this was his real name, or one applied to him with reference to his pretensions to being "a political anti-Christ"—"a hideous caricature of the true Jesus, the Son of the eternal Father." It is a strange fact that in some (not very trustworthy) manuscripts the name is given as Jesus Barabbas, which affords a remarkable antithesis in Pilate’s question in the following verse, "Wilt ye that I release Jesus Barabbas or Jesus called Christ?" There can be no reasonable doubt that the prefix is not genuine, but has crept into some texts inadvertently. Matthew 27:17 Therefore when (when then, οὖν) they were gathered together. The illative particle refers to the fact just mentioned that the notorious Barabbas was at that time in prison. The multitude, together with the Sanhedrists summoned from their meeting in the temple, were gathered at the doors of the Praetorium, when Pilate came out and spoke to them. Whom will ye that I release unto you? He had great hope that their answer would favour Jesus. When it came to choosing between a vile robber and murderer and a beneficent, moral teacher, common sense would guide the choice aright. Which is called Christ (Matthew 27:22). In Mark Pilate terms him, "the King of the Jews." He puts before them these two names as the limit of their choice, minor offenders being not worthy of consideration in the lace of these celebrated prisoners. And he names Christ’s claims, as if he would remind the people that in Jesus they possibly had the Messiah whom they desired. Matthew 27:18 For he knew. He had recourse to this expedient because he was well acquainted with the motives which led the Sanhedrists to desire his death. They had shown their envy of Christ’s influence with the people; they were jealous of his reputation and success; grudged him his marvellous powers; were embittered by his attacks on rabbinism, and the undermining of their popularity. Pilate saw much of this; he penetrated behind their flimsy pretence of averting some possible danger from the Roman dominion, and he laboured in this indirect way to save the victim of this vindictive plot. Of course, Pilate could not fully appreciate Christ’s character, nor enter into the question of his supernatural claims; he saw only that he was brought before him from the basest motives, that no real offence was proved against him, and that no fear could be entertained of his heading a popular tumult. Matthew 27:19 When he was set down (was sitting) on the judgment seat. This was a curule chair placed on a raised stone platform in front of the Praetorium, where the Roman governors sat to give judgment in cases brought before them (see John 19:13). It was while he was waiting to hear the decision of the multitude with respect to the selection of the prisoners that the episode that follows (mentioned alone by St. Matthew) occurs. His wife. Her name, according to ecclesiastical tradition, was Claudia, the addition of Procula being probably a mistake. In the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus (Matthew 2:1-23) she is said to have been a convert to Judaism. Other accounts affirm that she ultimately became a Christian; and the Greek Church has canonized her, and inserted her in the Menology on October 27. It is probable that she was well acquainted with, and favourably disposed towards, the claims of Christ; and if she had impressed her husband in some degree with her own views, this fact may have influenced him to make some effort to save Jesus. Doubtless she had thought much upon the subject, and talked it over with Pilate; hence her dream was the natural sequence of that with which her mind had been filled in her waking moments, though providentially ordered. It speaks for the accuracy of the evangelist’s account, that lately the governors had been allowed to take their wives with them into their official districts, a law previously having forbidden this indulgence (see Tacitus, ’Annul.,’ 3.33, 34). Have thou nothing to do with that just Man. Wordsworth well remarks, "In the whole history of the Passion of Christ no one pleads for him but a woman, the wife of a heathen governor, the deputy of the emperor of the world." This was another wanting given to Pilate to arrest him in his criminal cowardice. The expression used means literally, "Let there be nothing to thee and that Righteous One," which is equivalent to "Do nothing to him for which you will be hereafter sorry." I have suffered (ἐìπαθον, I suffered) many things this day in a dream because of him. It is useless to inquire the nature of her dream. From the way in which it is here introduced, and from what we know of God’s employment of dreams in other cases to communicate his will to men, we may reasonably conclude that this was divinely sent to convey a lesson to Pilate through his wife, who alone, perhaps, was able to arouse the better feelings of his heart. The mention of her suffering shows that she had some dreadful experiences to relate in connection with the fate of the righteous Jesus. As at the beginning of Christ’s life, so at its close, such communications were addressed to strangers. Pilate’s superstitious fears would be excited by this mysterious dream, but they were not able to overpower counteracting influences. Matthew 27:20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude. For a short time the people appear to have wavered in their choice, and Pilate had hopes that his stratagem worked well. But the Sanhedrists were at hand with their insidious suggestions; not a voice was raised for Christ; all his friends were scattered or silenced; and his enemies easily swayed the fickle crowd. That they should ask (ask for) Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. By directing popular favour to Barabbas, they could make the condemnation of Jesus more certain. The expression in the Greek implies that they used their persuasive powers in order that (ἱìνα) the people should demand the release of Barabbas, and compass the death of Jesus. Matthew 27:21 Answered, to the various cries which reached him. Whether of the twain? Which of the two? He repeats the question before asked (Matthew 27:17), having given the multitude time for deliberation, and offering them no alternative but to choose one of these two prisoners. Barabbas. They prefer a murderer to the Prince of life—a selection on their part guilty and malevolent, but on the part of God necessary for our salvation (Quesnel). Truly, Jesus "was despised and rejected of men." If he had been released now, his liberation would not have been, as it ought to have been, an act of simple justice, but an imperial concession, an act of grace, in which the character of the prisoner was not regarded. Matthew 27:22 It was with disappointment and indignation that Pilate heard the rabble’s decision. He could not refuse to release the robber and murderer; but he still entertained some hope of a better feeling in the crowd which would allow him to acquit Jesus. What shall I do then with Jesus? ΤιοὖνποιησωἸησοῦν; What then shall I do to Jesus? As you demand the release of Barabbas, what am I to do with the other prisoner? He dared not act boldly, as his conscience and the justice of the ease dictated; if the popular voice was not with him, he would take no open step. He added, which is called Christ, or, according to Mark, "whom ye call the King of the Jews," in scorn of the title itself, and of the fickleness which honoured him one day and now clamored for his destruction. Let him be crucified! They have their dreadful answer ready. He is a political offender; he is a mover of sedition against the Roman supremacy; let him meet the punishment to which Rome dooms her lowest criminals and runagates. This was the death which Christ had foretold for himself (ch. 20:19), the most painful, barbarous, and ignominious punishment which the cruelty of man ever invented. Matthew 27:23 Why, what evil hath he done? Τιγαρκακονἐποιησεν; The particle γαρ implies a certain reasoning in the question, the speaker for the nonce putting himself in the people’s position, and demanding the ground of their decision. The authorized translation is adequate. Pilate thus showed his pusillanimity and irresolution, while exercising no control over the feelings of the excited mob. But they cried out the more (περισσῶςἐìκραζον, they kept shouting out exceedingly). The very sight of the governor’s predilection, combined with his indecision, excited them to more vehement clamour; they saw that he would end by yielding to their violence. Jerome refers, in illustration, to Isaiah 5:7, "He looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." Matthew 27:24 He could prevail nothing (οὐδεν, ὠφελεῖ, he prevailed nothing). Naught that he did altered the determination of the multitude. But that rather a tumult was made (γινεται, is arising). The present tense gives a graphic touch to the narrative. The delay and hesitation of the governor exasperated the people, and there were ominous signs of a riot, which must be suppressed at any sacrifice of principle or equity. He feared that a report might reach Rome of his having occasioned dangerous excitement at the Passover by refusing to punish a pretender to the Jewish throne, he submits to the popular will, but endeavours to save himself from the guilt of an accomplice in a most atrocious murder. Took water, and washed his hands before the multitude. This symbolical action would appeal to the Jewish sentiment, as it was a mode of asserting innocence prescribed in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 21:6; Psalms 26:6). Pilate thus publicly, in the sight of all the multitude who might not have been able to hear his words, attested his opinion of the innocence of Christ, and weakly cast the guilt upon the people, as if the administration of justice lay with them and not with him. Such lustrations were not exclusively Jewish, but were practised both among Greeks and Romans in expiation of guilt. I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. Some manuscripts, followed by Alford, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort, omit "just Person (δικαιου)." If the word is genuine, it must be regarded as an echo of the wife’s message to Pilate (verse 19). The cowardly governor thus shakes off the responsibility of the perversion of justice which he allows. See ye to it (ὑμεῖςὀìψεσθε, vos videritis, as verse 4). You will take all the responsibility of the act; the blame will not be mine. Vain hope! Pilate may wash his hands, he cannot purify heart or conscience from the stain of this foul murder. As long as the Church lasts so long will the Creed announce that Jesus "suffered under Pontius Pilate." Matthew 27:25 Then answered all the people. Instigated by the Sanhedrists working insidiously among them, the multitude, now very numerous, respond with fiendish alacrity to Pilate’s deprecation. It was a unanimous, a national assumption of guilt, lightly undertaken, terribly vindicated. His blood be on us, and on our children. The consequences of this condemnation, be they what they may, we are willing to suffer. Let God visit it, if he will. upon us and our children; we and they will cheerfully bear the penalty. A mad and impious imprecation. the fulfilment of which quickly commenced, and has continued unto this day. The terrible events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, the overthrow of the theocracy, and the eighteen centuries of exile and dispersion, bear witness to the reality of the vengeance thus wantonly invoked. "As for the head of those that compass me about, let the mischief of their own lips cover them" (Psalms 140:9). Matthew 27:26 Released he Barabbas—"him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired" (Luke). When he had scourged Jesus. This was the usual preliminary to crucifixion, especially in the case of shires, and was a punishment of a most severe and cruel nature. The verb here used, φραγελλοω, is formed from the Latin flagellum, and denotes the employment of that terrible implement the Roman scourge. This was no ordinary whip, but commonly a number of leather thongs loaded with lead or armed with sharp bones and spikes, so that every blow cut deeply into the flesh, causing intense pain. The culprit was stripped of his clothes, pinioned, and bound to a stake or pillar, and thus on his bare back suffered this inhuman chastisement. To think that the blessed Son of God was subject to such torture and indignity is indeed a lesson for us written in blood. When "he gave his back to the smiters" (Isaiah 50:6), he was taking the punishment of our sin upon his sacred shoulders. "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). Possibly Pilate thought that the sight of Christ’s suffering might arouse at this last moment the pity of the Jews (John 19:1-16). But he was mistaken. The appetite of the bloodthirsty crowd was only whetted by this anticipatory taste; they insisted on the whole programme being canted out, and Pilate yielded to the demand, giving up the useless struggle. He delivered him to be crucified. Pilate delivered Jesus to the will of the people, directing the soldiers to carry out the ordered execution. On the view taken by the Romans themselves of crucifixion, commentators quote Cicero, ’In Verr.,’ Romans 2:5. 66, "It is a crime to bind a Roman citizen; to scourge him is an act of wickedness; to put him to death is almost parricide: what shall I say of crucifying him? An act so abominable it is impossible to find any word adequately to express." Matthew 27:27-30 Jesus mocked by the soldiers. (Mark 15:16-19; John 19:2, John 19:3.) Matthew 27:27 The soldiers of the governor. The brutal soldiers, far from feeling compassion for the meek Sufferer, take a fiendish pleasure in torturing and insulting him. They fling upon his bleeding body his upper garments, and take him into the common hall (πραιτωριον, the Praetorium). This name was applied to the dwelling house of the provincial governor, and here refers to the open court of the building, outside which the preceding events had taken place (see on Matthew 27:2). The whole band (σπεῖραν), which usually signifies "a cohort" (Acts 10:1), but sometimes only a maniple, which was a third part of the same (Polybius, 11.23.1). This is probably what is meant here, as they would not denude the barracks of all its occupants, who consisted of one cohort of about six hundred men (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 2.15. 6). The soldiers summoned their comrades on guard at the palace or in the Tower of Antonia to come and join in the cruel sport. "The devil was then entering in fury into the hearts of all. For indeed they made a pleasure of their insults against him, being a savage and a worthless set" (Chrysostom, in loc.). Matthew 27:28 They stripped him (ἐκδυσαντες). Some manuscripts read ἐνδυσαντες, "when they had clothed him;" but this seems to have been derived from St. Mark, and to be here somewhat tautological. They had heard of his claim to be a King, so they determined to deride him with the mockery of royal honours. They tore his garments from his mangled form, thus opening afresh his half-dried wounds. Put on him a scarlet robe (χλαμυδακοκκινην). This was probably the short military woollen cloak worn by officers, in colour either scarlet or purple, and fastened by a buckle on the right shoulder. Some think it was a cast-off garment from the wardrobe of King Herod, which they found and appropriated to this purpose. Whatever it was, its bright hue was suitable for this mockery of regal splendour. Matthew 27:29 Platted a crown of thorns. In carrying out their mockery, the soldiers next supply a regal crown. Palestine was a country thickly set with brambles and thorn-growing bushes. They would have no difficulty in finding plants to suit their cruel purpose, and in plucking with their gauntlet-covered bands sprays sufficient to weave into a rude coronet. What was the particular shrub employed cannot be known for certainty. The zizyphus, Spina Christi, a kind of acacia with long reflex thorns, is of too brittle a nature to be used in this way. Some variety of the cactus or prickly pear may be meant. "Hasselquist, a Swedish naturalist, supposes a very common plant, naba or nabka of the Arabs, with many small and sharp spines, soft, round, and pliant bushes, leaves much resembling those of ivy, being of a very deep green, as if in designed mockery of a victor’s wreath, ’Travels,’ 288" (F.M.). Thorns were the fruits of the primal curse, which Christ, the second Adam, was now bearing, and by bearing removed. A reed in his right hand. By way of sceptre. This must have been a reed or cane of a thick and solid character (see Matthew 27:30, and note on Matthew 27:48). Bowed the knee before him. Doing mock obeisance to him as King. Thus these wretched heathens did that in derision which sonic day all Gentiles shall do in solemn earnest, when "all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before him" (Psalms 22:27). Hail, King of the Jews! Doubtless they cried, "Ave, Rex Judaeorum!" in imitation of the "Ave, Imperator!" addressed to the Emperor ot Rome. Matthew 27:30 They spit upon him. Repeating the atrocious outrage already offered (Matthew 26:67). Smote him (ἐìτυπτον, imperf., kept smiting him) on the head. They tore the mock sceptre from his trembling hands, and one after the other, as they passed, struck him with it on the head, at every blow driving the thorns deeper into his flesh. Here must be introduced some other attempts of Pilate to save him, narrated by St. John (John 19:4-16), especially the episode of "Ecce Homo!" Matthew 27:31-33 Jesus is led to crucifixion. Via dolorosa. (Mark 15:20-23; Luke 23:26-33; John 19:16, John 19:17.) In these accounts, those of Matthew and Mark are most alike, though varied in expression and in some details; that of Luke is the fullest; that of John distinct from the rest. Matthew 27:31 St. Matthew, omitting some details, hurries to the final scene. Took the robe off from him; i.e. the scarlet robe with which they had arrayed him (verse 28). Whether they removed the crown of thorns is uncertain. The Lord is always depicted wearing it upon the cross. His own raiment (ταἱματιααὐττοῦ, his garments). The term would include the outer and inner garments, especially the seamless tunic for which the soldiers cast lots (John 19:23; Psalms 22:18). Thus unknowingly they were preparing to fulfil prophecy. Led him away to crucify him. This must have been about 9 a.m. Executions took place outside the city walls (see Numbers 15:35, Numbers 15:36; Acts 7:58). "The bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate" (Hebrews 13:11, Hebrews 13:12). Lange describes the procession: "Instead of being led forth by litters, the command of whom Pilate, as sub-governor, did not enjoy, Jesus is conducted to the cross by the soldiery. A centurion on horseback, called by Tacitus ’Exactor mortis,’ by Seneca ’Centurio supplicio praepositus,’ headed the company. A herald, going in front of the condemned, proclaimed his sentence." Behind him walked the prisoner, bearing the instrument of his punishment; a small company of soldiers completed the cavalcade. Matthew 27:32 As they came out; i.e. from the city gate which led to the place of execution. They found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. He was, as the other synoptists mention, coming out of the country to Jerusalem, where probably he lived. Cyrene was a district in the north of Africa, under Roman rule, and colonized by a large number of Jews (Josephus, ’Cont. Apion.,’ 2.4; ’Ant.,’ 14.7. 2), who had a synagogue of their own at Jerusalem (Acts 6:9). Simon doubtless became a follower of Christ, and St. Mark mentions his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, as well known believers (see Romans 16:13). Probably the guards saw in him some tokens of sympathy with Christ and compassion for his sufferings; or they used his services simply as being a foreigner, and not likely to resent being put to a task which a Hebrew would deem the lowest degradation. Him they compelled (ἠγγαρευσαν, impressed) to bear his cross. The verb translated "compelled" is derived from the Persian, and implies the compulsory power possessed by couriers of requisitioning horses and carriages in forwarding despatches (see Matthew 5:41). The cross was probably the ordinary Latin cross, crux immissa, of which, however, the lower limb below the transom was longer than the upper; and this latter afforded a place where could be affixed the board containing the inscription. It was not as tall as usually represented; we are told that beasts of prey were able to gnaw the bodies hung thereon. In fact, the culprit’s feet were only just raised above the ground, being drawn up till the soles lay flat on the upright beam. Nails were driven through the hands and feet, and the body was supported partly by these, and partly by a projecting pin of wood called the seat. The rest for the feet, often seen in pictures, was never used. A slight covering was allowed for decency’s sake, the rest of the body being stripped of clothing; and thus the condemned, exposed to scorching sun, bleeding from the cruel scourge, suffering untold agonies, was left to die. Whether Jesus carried the whole cross or only the transom is uncertain. It is possible that the two were tied together by a rope at one end, so as to form an inverted V, and fastened in the proper position at the place of execution. However this may he, it proved too heavy a burden for him to bear. Spent with his long vigil and lack of food, his spirit afflicted by the agony in the garden and the unknown sufferings then and afterwards, his body tortured with open wounds and weakened with loss of blood, he sank beneath the weight, as he staggered weariedly along the rough and hilly streets, Either from a momentary compunction, or more probably flora impatience at the slowness of the poor Sufferer’s movements, the soldiers gladly seized on Simon to relieve the Prisoner of the cross, or to share its weight, and thus enable them sooner to complete their cruel task. Matthew 27:33 A place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull; quod est Calvariae locus (Vulgate). Hence the Latinized name Calvary. The word means "a skull;" but why the spot was so called is a doubtful question. That it was the usual place of execution is a suggestion with no proof, and one would expect the designation in this case to be "the place of skulls." Tradition (authorized by Origen) pointed to it as the spot where Adam was buried, and where his skull was found—a story that seems to have arisen from the typical reason that it was congruous that the first Adam and the second Adam should meet in death, the latter winning the victory there where the former showed his defeat. Most probably the name was given to it as descriptive of its appearance, a bare space of rock (not a hill) denuded of verdure, and bearing a distant resemblance to a human skull wanting hair. The actual situation of Calvary is hotly contested by exegetes and travellers, and is still far from being determined. The only criterion offered by our accounts in the Gospels is that it was without the then walls of the city, not far from one or the gates, and by the side of one of the principal roads leading from the city to the country. A certain knoll on the hill Gareb towards the northwest, by which the Damascus road led, and to which Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:39) refers, is supposed, not very happily, to answer these requirements, If the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre, on the northwest of Jerusalem, really contains the actual Golgotha and the tomb of our Lord, the course of the second wall as usually drawn cannot be correct, as it embraces this site completely. Opinion, always altering, has lately been inclined to endorse the authenticity of many of the traditional sites in the holy city and its neighbourhood. Further discoveries will set this and other matters at rest. Meantime, judgment must be suspended (see on verse 51). Matthew 27:34-44 The Crucifixion and the mockery. (Mark 15:23-32; Luke 23:32-43; John 19:18-24.) Matthew 27:34 Vinegar...mingled with gall (χολῆς). Instead of "vinegar" (ὀìξος) very many manuscripts, followed by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and others, read here, as in Mark, "wine" (οἶνον). Dederunt ei viaum bibere (Vulgate). Doubtless the two words represent the same fluid, a wine of a sharp and acrid taste. The received reading in our text is supposed to be derived from Psalms 69:21, "They gave me gall for my meats, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." "Gall" here signifies some bitter ingredient, which was infused in the wine to impart a narcotic quality. It was the custom to offer this draught to criminals about to undergo crucifixion, either as an anodyne or to give them adventitious strength to bear their sufferings. The beverage is said to have been prepared by some benevolent ladies in Jerusalem, and to have been owed to a gloss on Proverbs 31:6, Proverbs 31:7, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul; let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." This was not an additional insult offered to Jesus, as some have opined, but a usual act of kindliness. When he had tasted thereof, he would not (οὐκἠìθελε) drink. He accepted the kindly offer so far as to put his lips to the cup, but, recognizing its stupefying qualities, he refused to drink it. He willed to endure all the coming pains without mitigation; he would meet all with the powers of mind and body undarkened; he would have his senses and his self-consciousness unimpaired to the end. Matthew 27:35 They crucified him. We should try to realize the utter degradation as well as the anguish of such a death. No modern form of punishment carries with it the abhorred ignominy with which crucifixion was regarded, and we must put ourselves back eighteen centuries, and enter into the feelings of Jews and Romans, if we would view it in its genuine aspect. The narrative of this harrowing scene could not be simpler. The writer leaves it reverently to speak for itself, without any attempt at sensational adjuncts or rhetorical amplification. There is no indignation at the outrage, no compassion for the Sufferer, no commendation of the Divine patience. These are suppressed, because they needed no words; the unvarnished details are more than sufficient to place the reader by the Saviour’s side, and make him feel every pang, sympathize with the grief, the shame, the horror, that rent the heart of Jesus. The sacred authors have said little about the mode of crucifixion, and have left untold many particulars which we should have liked to hear. This horrid punishment was too well known at that time to need description, and they saw no necessity for dwelling on its revolting details. (For some of these, see on verse 32.) Whether in the present case the upright beam of the cross was fixed in its position before the Prisoner was fastened to it, or whether it was laid flat on the ground, set in order, and the Sufferer was nailed thereto before it was raised and settled in its place, we are not informed. The former was the method commonly employed. To carry out the execution a quaternion of soldiers (Acts 12:4) was appointed under the command of a centurion (verse 54) Parted his garments, casting lots. The clothes of criminals were the perquisite of the soldiers charged with the execution. They divided these amongst the four, casting lots to determine what each should take. Further details are supplied by St. John (John 19:23, John 19:24). That it might be fulfilled … they cast lots. These words are retained in the Clementine Vulgate and a few cursives, but omitted by the best uncials and most other manuscripts. Modern editors almost universally have rejected them as an interpolation from the parallel passage in St. John. There can be no doubt, however, that, whether genuine or not in this place, they represent the truth. The soldiers’ act did fulfil in marvellous fashion the psalmist’s enunciation (Psalms 22:18), where the stripping of the Lord’s Anointed and the disposal of his raiment are prophetically stated. Matthew 27:36 They watched him there. The soldiers, in relays, had to guard the criminal from any attempt of his friends to remove him from the cross—a long and tedious duty, during the performance of which they were allowed to sit. Crucifixion was not accompanied by immediate death. It was one of its greatest horrors that the tortured sufferer sometimes lived for days before death relieved him from his agony. Till this supervened, the guard had to keep watch. That this caution was not superfluous, we have intimations in ancient history, which tells of crucified persons being sometimes removed by their friends and restored to the use of their limbs and faculties. Josephus (’Vita,’ 75) relates that he thus took down three criminals after a lengthened suspension, one of whom completely recovered, though the others succumbed to their injuries. This vigilance of the soldiers was providentially ordered as one of the means of proving the reality of Christ’s death. Matthew 27:37 Set up over his head his accusation written. This was the titulus. A wooden tablet smeared with gypsum, had on it, written in black letters, the charge on which the prisoner was condemned. This, which had been hung round the criminal’s neck or carried before him on the way to execution, was now affixed to the upper portion of the cross over his head. THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. The title had been prepared by Pilate (John 19:19, John 19:22), and was conceived in terms studiously offensive to the Jews, with whom he was deeply indignant. It was written in three languages, so that all of whatever nationality might read it—in Hebrew and in Latin and in Greek (for the order, see Westcott on John 19:20); i.e. the national Aramaic, familiar to all Jews; the official Latin,understood by the soldiers and Romans; the current Greek, the dialect of Hellenistic Jews, and largely used by all classes. "These three languages gathered up the results of the religious, the social, the intellectual preparation for Christ, and in each witness was given to his office" (Westcott). The title is given by the four evangelists with some verbal variations, which are owing in part to the actual differences existing in the three versions of the inscription. They run thus: "’This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matthew); "The King of the Jews" (Mark); "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke); "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (John). Of these titles, those given by Mark and Luke probably represent the Latin; that of Matthew, the Greek; while that of John was intended for the national population, who alone would understand the veiled sneer contained in the addition, "of Nazareth." The legend of the finding of the cross and its inscription is given by Butler, ’Lives of the Saints,’ on ’The Invention of the Holy Cross.’ A supposed fragment of the title is preserved at Rome, in the Church of the Holy Cross, and declared by a papal bull to be authentic. In this case infallibility has rather overstepped its limits. Matthew 27:38 Then. St. Matthew does not give the exact sequence of events, generally grouping them together for ethical and other kindred reasons. Probably these two malefactors were crucified immediately after cur Lord. Thieves; λῃσται: robbers, brigands (Matthew 21:13). Thus was Christ "numbered with the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:12). St. Luke alone relates the acceptance of the penitent thief. If he was the one set on the right hand, possibly the careful mention of the position of the two robbers, which is found in the ether evangelists, may have a silent reference to this episode. We know from Josephus (’Ant.,’ 16.10, 8; 20.8, 10; ’Belt. Jud.,’ 2.12, 2, etc.) that Palestine was infested with banditti, who were rigorously pursued by the Romans, and were commonly crucified when captured. Doubtless these two criminals had been taken red-handed in some act of robbery and murder, and it was an exquisite malice that treated Jesus as their comrade and accomplice, and placed him in the position of their leader. But Augustine sees a spiritual signification in this scene: "The very cross was the tribunal of Christ; for the Judge was placed in the middle; one thief, who believed, was set free; the other, who reviled, was condemned; which signified what he was already about to do with the quick and dead; being about to set some on his right hand, but ethers on his left." Matthew 27:39 They that passed by. Golgotha being near a great high road and a much-frequented city gate (John 19:20), passersby were numerous, even without counting those who were attracted by the woeful sight. Many of them knew nothing of Christ’s case, but seeing him punished in company with the two malefactors, thought that he was doubtless guilty of the same crimes as they; others, perhaps, who had seen his miracles and heard something of his teaching, conceived the notion that one whom the priests and rulers condemned must be a dangerous impostor, and deserved the cruelest of deaths. Reviled him; ἐβλασφημουν: railed on him; blasphemabant (Vulgate). The expression, indeed, is true in its worse sense, for they who could thus revile the Son of God were guilty, however ignorantly, of gross impiety and irreverence. Wagging their heads. In mockery and contempt, thus fulfilling the psalmist’s words, "All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head;" and, "I am become a reproach unto them; when they see me, they shake their heads" (Psalms 22:7; Psalms 109:25). Matthew 27:40 Saying. Some manuscripts (but not the best) insert οὐα after "saying." So the Vulgate (vah!) and other versions. But it seems to he derived from the parallel passage in Mark. What the evangelist gives is only a specimen of the insults hurled at the meek Sufferer, who looked for some to take pity, but there was none, and for comforters, but found none (Psalms 69:20). Thou that destroyest the temple, etc. They shamelessly revive the old accusation (Matthew 26:61; John 2:19), doubtless at the instigation of the Sanhedrists who mingled with the crowd (verse 41). The saying rankled in the rulers’ mind, and we see it playing a part later in the condemnation of Stephen (Acts 6:13, Acts 6:14). Save thyself. Thou who boastest of thy power to destroy and rebuild this magnificent and solid temple, employ that power in delivering thyself from thy well deserved death. Little they knew that Christ was then fulfilling his own prediction, which would ere long be fully accomplished. As little did they understand that by his words ("I am able to destroy," instead of, "Destroy ye") they were bearing witness to the truth that he was voluntarily laying down his life, and that but for this surrender they could have had no power over him. If thou be the Son of God, etc. Some manuscripts and versions read the passage thus: "Save thyself, if thou be the Son of God, and come down from the cross." But the Received Text is most probably correct. These revilers are doing the devil’s work, and are quoting his words (Matthew 4:6), in thus taunting Jesus. They refer to our Lord’s own statement before Pilate (Matthew 26:64), thinking it expedient to keep this claim before the people’s mind. He might, indeed, have answered the jibe by coming down from the cross; but then, as Bishop Pearson says, in saving himself he would not have saved us. Matthew 27:41 Likewise also. All classes that composed the Sanhedrin were present at the execution, and took part in the reviling; but, unlike the soldiers (Luke 23:36) and the mob, they did not address him personally, either from supreme contempt, or because they stood aloof from the herd, and spake among themselves. Some few authorities of no great weight, after "elders" add "and Pharisees;" but the words are an interpolation, though they are without doubt true in fact. That these leaders should presume thus to revile One whom they knew to be innocent is unspeakably iniquitous. Matthew 27:42 He saved others. They knew something of his many miracles of healing; many among them had witnessed the cure of the man blind from his birth (John 9:1-41.); most must have heard of the raising of Lazarus;—they made these very works of mercy a reproach against him. He had proved himself a beneficent Saviour; he had shown superhuman power, and yet they say, Himself he cannot save. There was indeed a sense, not their sense, in which this was true. Christ willed to die; it was his purpose thus to redeem mankind; in adhering to this steadfast determination he could not deliver himself from suffering and death. Some read the clause interrogatively, "Cannot he save himself?" It is then parallel to the expression used at the grave of Lazarus (John 11:37). If he be the King of Israel. "If" (ει)) is omitted by à, B, D, L, etc., and many modern editors. Its omission is more concinnons to the other taunts, e.g. "He saved others;" "He trusted in God." His claim to be Messiah would involve the Kingship of Israel (Matthew 2:6), which the title over his head asserted. We will believe him (πιστευσομεναὐτῷ). We will believe (not subj., "let us believe") what he says. The Sinaitic, Vatican, and other good manuscripts read ἐπαὐτον, "on him." So Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, etc. This form of expression would imply that they would put their trust in him, become his followers. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Matthew 28:1-10 Jesus rises from the dead, and appears to the holy women. (Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-12; John 20:1-10.) It is to be noted that there are great and important variations in the four (or, with St. Paul’s, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58., the five) accounts of the events of the Resurrection, which have given welcome occasion to the sceptic to cast doubts upon the whole transaction. The divergences in the narratives are plainly to be ascribed to the facts that the writers did not depend upon one another, nor draw their accounts from one source; that each gives only an incomplete history, introducing those details with which he was familiar, or which it suited his plan to recount. On all main points the agreement is perfect, and every difference could be easily reconciled, if we knew the whole of the circumstances and the exact sequence of each word and act during this momentous period. Attempts at harmonizing the various accounts have been made with more or less success by writers from St. Augustine to the present time; but as they vary in many particulars, and have no authoritative basis, dependence cannot be placed upon them. The narrative in St. Matthew is brief and imperfect, and we shall chiefly confine our remarks to the exposition of the actual text before us, without importing much matter from the other evangelists. Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath; ὀψετων: late on the sabbath; Vulgate, vespere sabbati. The expression is obscure. In the parallel passage of St. Mark we read, "When the sabbath was past." We must take it that St. Matthew is thinking of the sabbath as extending, not from evening to evening, but till the following morning. "So that it is not the accurate Jewish division of time, according to which the sabbath ended at six on Saturday evening, but the ordinary civil idea of a day, which extended from sunrise to sunrise (or at least adds the night to the preceding day)" (Lange). We have, then, now arrived at the commencement of the first Christian Easter Day. As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week; εἰςμιανσαββατων: in prima sabbati (Vulgate); literally, unto one day of sabbath; i.e. one day after the sabbath, the Jews reckoning their days in sequence from the sabbath, and Christians at first carrying on the same practice, as we see in Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2. Later Christians named the days of the week in sequence from the Sunday, which was the first day, Monday being the second day, feria secunda, and so on. Came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (see on Matthew 27:61) to see the sepulchre. Love cannot abandon its object, living or dead. There were probably other women with these two, or perhaps there were two separate bands of women who in this early morning visited the sepulchre. Among these Mary Magdalene stands prominently forward, first in love and first in care. She and the rest evidently knew nothing of the sealing of the stone or the posting of the guards. St. Matthew’s expression, "to see (θεωρῆσαι, "to gaze upon," "contemplate") the sepulchre," conveys only a partial notice of the object of their visit. They came not only to take a view of the tomb, but also to embalm the Lord’s body, for which necessary preparations had been made, the approach of the sabbath on the evening of the Crucifixion having cut short the arrangements. We know from St. Mark that they were perplexed about the difficulty of removing the stone, and St. Matthew may be referring to a preliminary inspection made in regard of this impediment. Our Gospel omits mention of the intention of embalming the corpse, as the Resurrection rendered it impracticable; and, indeed, the Lord’s body had already been anointed for his burial by Mary of Bethany. Matthew 28:2 And, behold. A wonderful sight met their eyes. The following event took place before their arrival; they saw only the result. No mortal eye beheld, and no pen has recorded, the actual issuing of the Lord from the closed tomb. There was a great earthquake. St. Matthew does not attempt to give the exact sequence of events. Probably the shock, caused by the sudden advent and action of the angel, befell as the women were approaching the cemetery. Christ had risen before this occurrence, nothing being a barrier to his spiritual body. For the angel of the Lord … from the door. The narrator accounts for the phenomenon just mentioned. The words, "from the door," are omitted by the best manuscripts, the Vulgate, and modern editors, and seem to be a marginal interpolation. The angel rolled away the stone which Joseph had rolled up (Matthew 27:60), not in order to afford passage to the body of the Lord, who had already raised himself, but to give the women and others entrance to the empty tomb, and to strike terror into the heart of the soldiers. In the case of Lazarus the stone had to be removed to give exit to the resuscitated body—a natural body (John 11:39, John 11:41); in the case of Jesus such removal was not necessary, as his was a spiritual body, possessed of supernatural powers and qualities (John 20:19). And sat upon it. In triumph, and to show that it was not to be replaced; death had done its work, and now was vanquished. Angels’ appearances had always accompanied the great events in the history of the chosen people; angels had shown themselves at Christ’s birth, at his temptation, at his agony; now they guard his tomb, proving that he was well pleasing unto the Lord, and was raised from the grave by him. The narration of this awful incident was probably given by the soldiers, who alone witnessed it. Matthew 28:3 His countenance (ἰδεα, appearance) was like lightning. The angel’s aspect was as bright and startling as the flash of lightning (comp. Ezekiel 1:14; Daniel 10:6). His raiment white as snow. Pure and glistening, like the effect of the Transfiguration on the Lord (Matthew 18:2; comp. Acts 1:10; Revelation 10:1). Matthew 28:4 And for fear of him; but from the fear of him. From the fear inspired by this awful angel. It would seem, from this expression, that the soldiers were sensible, not only of the earthquake and the movement of the stone, but also of the presence of the heavenly messenger, in this respect differing from the companions of Daniel and St. Paul, who were only partially conscious of the visions beheld by the two saints (see Daniel 10:7; Acts 22:9). Did shake. The verb is cognate with the noun "earthquake;" they were shaken, convulsed with terror. If these were some of the company that had watched the Crucifixion, they were already possessed of some feeling respecting the unearthly nature of the Occupant of the tomb which they were guarding, and had a vague expectation of something that might happen. At any rate, they must have heard the late events discussed by their comrades, and were not without apprehension of a catastrophe. Became as dead men. They fell to the ground in deathlike faintness, and, when they recovered from the trance, fled in terror from the tomb into the city (verse 11). Matthew 28:5 The angel answered and said. The women arrived probably while the guards were lying unconscious on the ground. They saw them, and they saw the angel rotting on the stone, or, according to St. Mark, "a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe;" St. Luke says that "two men stood by them in dazzling apparel," i.e. first one had shown himself, and then another. Doubtless innumerable angels were thronging around, and one or more became visible to certain persons as they were capable of receiving spiritual impressions, or as these spirits were directed to show themselves. The women spake not, were too affrighted to ask questions; hut their amazed look, their blank surprise, were themselves interrogative, and the angel replied to their inward emotion. Fear not ye (ὑμεῖς, emphatic). The soldiers have cause to fear; they are the enemies of the Lord; but ye are his friends, and need feel no alarm. Ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. Ye are seeking him, to do honour to his body; I know your pious intention, but it is useless. The angel shrinks not from the mention of Christ’s shameful death, which is now his glory, "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 1:24). "It was the good pleasure of the Father through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross … whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens" (Colossians 1:19, Colossians 1:20). The crucifixion "was not simply a temporary incident in the life of Christ. It is an eternal principle in his kingdom" (Milligan). Matthew 28:6 He is not here. He is not in this tomb; his bodily presence is removed from this his whilom resting place. St. Matthew’s account is greatly condensed, and omits many details which harmonists try to fit into our text. The attempt is not to be commended, for it really involves greater confusion, and, after all, is forced and only conjectural. For he is risen, as he said. If they had believed Christ’s often-repeated announcement, they would not have come seeking the living among the dead. (For Christ’s predictions concerning his resurrection, see Matthew 12:40; Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 20:19.) On this simple, but pregnant sentence, "He is risen," depends the phenomenon of Christianity, in its origin, existence, continuance, extension, and moral power. "Death began with woman; and to women the first announcement is made of resurrection" (Hilary, quoted by Wordsworth, in loc.). Come, see the place where the Lord lay. The angel invites them to satisfy themselves that Christ’s body was no longer in its resting place. That Jesus was designated as "the Lord," ὁΚυριος, by the disciples is obvious (see John 20:18; John 21:7, etc.), but it is doubtful whether the words are genuine here, though they are found in many good manuscripts and in the Vulgate. They are omitted by à, B, 33, etc., and by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort in their editions. Regarding them as genuine, Bengel calls them "gloriosa appellatio," which indeed it is, for it is equivalent to "Jehovah." Harmonists suppose that the angel was at first not seen by the women; that Mary Magdalene, observing the stone removed, at once hurried to the city to tell Peter and John; that, the rest of the women remaining, the angel made himself visible to them and bade them enter the sepulchre; and that, doing so, they beheld another angel sitting on the right side of the recess. Thus, it is conjectured, the accounts in Mark and John may be harmonized with that in our text. (See also Westcott on John 20:1-31., where is given a provisional arrangement of the facts of the first Easter Day.) Matthew 28:7 Go quickly, and tell his disciples. St. Mark significantly adds, "and Peter." The disciples were to believe without seeing. They had deserted Christ in his hour of need, had not stood by the cross, nor aided in his burial; so they were not to be honoured with the vision of angels or the first sight of the risen Lord. This was reserved for the faithful women, who thus received their mission to carry a message to the messengers—a foretaste of the ministry which they should perform in the Church of Christ. He goeth before you (προαγειὑμᾶς) into Galilee. The verb is noticeable. It is that used by our Lord himself on his way to the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:32), and it implies the act of a shepherd at the head of his flock, leading them to new pastures (comp. John 10:4). The good Shepherd had been smitten, and the sheep scattered; now under his guidance they were to be reunited. The apostolic band had been temporarily dissolved and disintegrated; the college was again to be reformed, and was to receive its renewed commission in seclusion and peace, that it might return to Jerusalem with unimpaired strength to commence its arduous labours. The place of meeting is in Galilee, where most of his mighty works were done, and where it was safer for the disciples to assemble than at Jerusalem. The majority of them came from this region, and thither they returned some ten days (John 20:26; John 21:1-4) after the Resurrection, to resume their ordinary occupations (verse 16). Thus they would realize that it was the same Jesus who met them there with whom, these three past years, they had held familiar intercourse. It was ordained, for some reason not expressly stated, that from Galilee should proceed Christ’s spiritual kingdom which he came to establish—that "word which," as Peter said (Acts 10:37), "was published throughout all Judaea, beginning from Galilee." We read of only two appearances of Christ in Galilee—once at the lake, mentioned in the last chapter of St. John, and again in verse 17 of this chapter of St. Matthew. It is, however, possible that the appearance named by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:6), when he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at one time, may have occurred in Galilee. If this is the ease, it would be remarkable as the only public revelation of Christ after his resurrection, and the comparative seclusion of the northern district may have been one reason for its selection as the scene for this great demonstration. There was doubtless some moral fitness in the humble and despised Galilee being made the starting point of his Church who was despised and rejected of men whom it was contemptuously said, "Doth the Christ come out of Galilee?" (John 7:41). "As in all things God sets at naught the pride of mankind, and chooses persons, instruments, and places mean in the eves of the world, teaching us that in humbler and more retired abodes, secret from the world, we are to seek for the strength of God, who hideth himself" (I. Williams). Lo, I have told you. The angel thus solemnly confirms what he had just said. The Authorized Vulgate gives, Ecce, praedixi vobis, which is warranted by no existing Greek manuscripts, the uniform reading of the original being εἶπον or εἶμα Matthew 28:8 They departed (ἐξελθοῦσαι, better ἀπελθοῦσαι) quickly from the sepulchre. At the angel’s invitation (Matthew 28:6), they, or some of them, had entered into the inner chamber of the tomb (Luke 24:3), and now came hurrying out. With fear and great joy. With a mixture of emotions—fear at the sight of the heavenly visitant, the supernatural presence, and joy at the assurance that their beloved Master had risen again, having burst the bonds of death. Did run. They did as they were bidden with all possible speed, acting as heralds of good tidings to the disconsolate disciples. Matthew 28:9 As they went to tell his disciples. This clause is omitted by the best manuscripts, and the Vulgate and other versions, and is rejected by modern editors. It is not quite in St. Matthew’s style, and seems to be rightly regarded as a gloss There is. one advantage in its omission, in that the actual moment of this appearance of our Lord is left undecided, and we are at liberty to harmonize it, if so minded, with other details. Now the women, according to our history, receive the reward of their faith and love. Behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail! Χαιρετε: literally, Rejoice ye! This is not the usual Eastern salutation, "Peace be unto you!" but one that came with peculiar significance on their lately sorrow-stricken hearts. So he had said to his apostles, "Your sorrow shall be turned into joy" (John 16:20), and now he made good his word. This is the only one of Christ’s appearances in Jerusalem or its neighbourhood. that St. Matthew relates. They came and held him by the feet (took hold of his feet). As soon as they saw him, they went to him with glad surprise, and yet with such awe, that they could only fall down before him and tenderly clasp his feet. He had appeared before this to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9), but had not permitted her to touch him because he had not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17), implying thereby either that she would have other opportunities of holding converse with him, as he was not going to leave the earth immediately, and she must not detain him now; or, more probably, that the spiritual body demanded, not the touch of earthly affection, but the attitude of awe and reverence, and that all future contact would be supernatural and spiritual, realizing his presence after a heavenly and supersensuous manner by faith. But these women clung to Christ with something higher than natural, earthly affection, acknowledging his superhumanity, and he allowed them, like Thomas, to assure themselves of his corporeity by touch as well as sight. Worshipped him. They remained at his feet in profound adoration. Matthew 28:10 Be not afraid. So he spake on other occasions when his acts had caused terror and amazement (comp. Matthew 14:27; Matthew 17:7). With all their joy and love, the women could not help feeling fear at his sudden appearance and at the nearness of this unearthly yet familiar form. Go, tell my brethren. He here for the first time calls his disciples his brethren, intending thereby to assure them of his love and good will in spite of their cowardly desertion, and to signify that he was in very truth the Man Christ Jesus, their Lord and their Master, whom they had known so long and so well. He had called them friends before his Passion (John 15:14, John 15:15); now he gives them a tenderer title; he is not ashamed to call them brethren (Hebrews 2:11). That they go into Galilee. The message is the same as that given by the angel (Matthew 28:7). It was meant to comfort them in the absence of daily intercourse with him. But they were not to set out immediately; some other incidents were first to befall them. And there shall they see me. Galilee was to be the scene of the most important revelation, though the Lord vouchsafed to individuals many proofs of his risen life before the promised great announcement. Why St. Matthew mentions none of these we may form conjectures, but we cannot determine (see on verse 16). Matthew 28:11-15 The Roman soldiers bribed by the Jewish rulers to give a false account of the Resurrection. (Peculiar to St. Matthew.) Matthew 28:11 When (while) they were going. Into the city, in order to find the disciples and to deliver to them their Lord’s message. This account takes up the narrative of Mat 27:63-66 and Matthew 27:4 of this chapter. As soon as they recovered from their swoon and had assured themselves that the tomb was empty, the soldiers hurried in affright to the Jewish rulers, under whose orders they had temporarily been placed, and told them all the things that were done. They could speak of the earthquake, of the appearing of the angel, of the removal of the stone, of the absence of the body which they were appointed to watch. Their task was done; the corpse was gone, they knew not how taken; they could not be expected to contend with supernatural visitants, or to guard against supernatural occurrences. St. Matthew seems to have introduced this incident in order to account for the prevalence of the lying rumour which he proceeds to mention, and which had been widely disseminated among his countrymen. Matthew 28:12 When they (i.e. the chief priests) were assembled with the elders. On hearing the report of the soldiers, the Sanhedrists held a hurried and informal meeting, to consult about this alarming matter. It would be fatal to their policy to let the real truth get wind. Such testimony from unprejudiced heathens would infallibly convince the people of the validity of Christ’s claims, and produce the very effect which their unusual precautions had been intended to obviate. One course alone remained, and that was to prepare a circumstantial lie concerning one part of the story, and to deny or ignore utterly the supernatural details. The plainest evidence will not persuade against wilful blindness. These rulers acted according to Christ’s sad foreboding on another occasion, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31). They gave large money (money enough) unto the soldiers. They bribed the soldiers with a sum of money sufficient to satisfy their cupidity. This they did personally, or more probably through some trusty agent. They never doubted the facts to which the guards bore witness; they never attempted to discredit their story by suggestion of error or superstitious invention. They accepted the tale, and took most dishonourable means to make it innocuous. They had bought the aid of the traitor Judas; they now buy the silence of these soldiers. It. is suggested by St. Jerome that in both cases they made use of the temple funds, thus employing against the cause of God that which was devoted to his service. Matthew 28:13 Say ye, etc. They put the lie into the soldiers’ mouth, directing them to answer inquiries in this way. The last resource of an infatuated obstinacy! If they were asleep, how could they know that the disciples stole the body? St. Chrysostom comments well on the infamous transaction, "How did they steal him? O most foolish of all men! For because of the clearness and conspicuousness of the truth, they are not even able to make up a falsehood. For indeed, what they said was highly incredible, and the falsehood had not even speciousness. For how, I ask, did the disciples steal him, men poor and unlearned, and not venturing so much as to show themselves? What? was not a seal put upon it? What? were there not many watchmen and soldiers and Jews stationed round it? What? did not those men suspect this very thing, and take thought, and break their rest, and are in anxiety about it? And wherefore, moreover, did they steal it? That they might feign the doctrine of the resurrection? And how should it enter their minds to feign such a thing—men who were well content to be hidden and to live? And how could they remove the stone that was made sure? How could they have escaped the observation of so many? Nay, though they had despised death, they would not have attempted without purpose and fruitlessly to venture in defiance of so many who were on the watch. And that moreover they were timorous, what they had done before showed clearly: at least, when they saw him seized, all rushed away from him. If, then, at that time they did not dare so much as to stand their ground when they saw him alive, how when he was dead could they but have feared such a number of soldiers?" (’Hem.,’ 90.). Matthew 28:14 And if this come to the governor’s ears; if this be heard before the governor; i.e. if the matter be brought officially before the procurator. For a Roman soldier to sleep on his post was to incur the penalty of death. Pilate would not be likely to hear of what had taken place, as vulgar rumours were not encouraged by his stern and unsympathizing attitude towards the Jewish people, but it was just possible that some officious person might bring the report before him, and ask him to take measures to ascertain the truth, and, if necessary, to punish the delinquents. We (ἡμεῖς, emphatic) will persuade him. Such persuasion usually took the form of bribery, Roman officials being notoriously venal (comp. Acts 24:26); but perhaps the rulers intended to make him believe that the story was not true, but merely a ruse to keep the populace quiet. The soldiers must have fully believed in the Sanhedrists’ assertion, or they would never have imperilled their lives by promulgating such a condemnatory tale. Secure you; rid you of care. They promise the guard indemnity and freedom from all penal consequences. Pilate, however, later learned the great fact of Christ’s resurrection, and though, as far as we know, he took no steps towards punishing the guard (being probably convinced of its supernatural occurrence), yet, according to a fragment of Hegesippus, and Eusebius, ’Chronic.,’ Matthew 2:2, he sent an account of the matter to Tiberius, who, in consequence, endeavoured to make the senate pass a decree enrolling Jesus in the list of Roman gods. This fact is attested by Tertullian (’Apolog.,’ 5.). Matthew 28:15 This saying; viz. the theft of the body by the disciples. Is commonly reported (was spread abroad) among the Jews until this day; i.e. and continues to be reported until this day. This was true when St. Matthew wrote, and it is true at the present time, though thoughtful Jews of late years have adopted the idea that the apostles, in their excited state, were deceived by visions of Christ which they took for substantial realities (see on Matthew 27:64). In the passage of Justin Martyr we are told that the Jews sent emissaries in all directions to spread this false report. The evangelist shows the origin of this most improbable tale, and virtually challenges any other explanation of the miracle than the authentic one. Matthew 28:16-20 Our Lord appears to the disciples in Galilee, and gives them a commission to teach and baptize. Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples. There is no note of time in the original, which gives merely, But the eleven, etc. The meeting here narrated took place on some day after the first Easter week. The number "eleven" shows the loss of one of the sacred college, whose complement was not filled up till just before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-26). Went away into Galilee. St. Matthew takes pains to show the exact fulfilment of Christ’s very special injunction and promise concerning Galilee (see verses 7, 10, and notes there, and Matthew 26:32). The evangelist’s object being to set forth Christ in his character as King and Lawgiver, he puts aside all other incidents in order to give prominence to this appearance, where Jesus announces his supreme authority (verse 18), gives the commission to his apostles, and promises his perpetual presence (verses 19, 20). Into a mountain (τοὀìρος, the mountain), where (οὗ instead of οἷ) Jesus had appointed them. We do not know the locality intended, though it must have been some spot familiar to the disciples, and was probably plainly designated at the time when Christ appointed the meeting. Some have fixed on Tabor as the scene of this revelation, others on the Mount of Beatitudes; but where nothing is stated it is best to lay aside conjecture and accept the designed indefiniteness. Many commentators have determined that this appearance on the Galilaean mountain was that mentioned by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 15:6), as manifested to five hundred brethren at once. This is a mere conjecture, probable, but not certain. If it was the case, we must consider that St. Matthew singles out the eleven apostles as the most eminent among the company, and those to whom the Lord specially addressed the commission which he mentions. Of the five hundred brethren, St. Paul, writing some twenty years or more after this time, testifies that the greater number were still alive, only some having "fallen asleep." There never was, indeed, any historical fact the authenticity of which was more remarkably and irrefragably certified than the resurrection of Christ. Matthew 28:17 They worshipped him. Evidently here they, or the majority of those present (for it is plain that others beside the apostles were there), adored him as God and Lord. This is the first time that this action of supreme worship is mentioned in connection with the disciples, though the women had offered the same homage to him (Matthew 28:9). But some doubted (οἱδεÌ—without οἱμεν—ἐδιστασαν). (For the verb, comp. Matthew 14:31.) The doubters could not have been any of the eleven, for they had seen the Lord more than once at Jerusalem, and had had indubitable proofs that he had risen from the dead, and was no mere spirit or spiritual appearance, but possessed of his former body, with new powers, faculties, and laws. Those who for the moment doubted did not hesitate to acknowledge his resurrection, but his identity. They were, perhaps, at a distance. Christ may have appeared surrounded with heavenly glory; at any rate, in a shape, or vesture, or with an aspect with which they were not familiar; hence in this majestic form, they failed to recognize the "despised and rejected of men," the lowly Jesus whom they had known (cf. John 21:4). Matthew 28:18 Jesus came. Some medieval exegetes have deemed that this verse refers to the time of the ascension; but there is no valid reason for dissociating this portion from the rest of the account. If we do this, we lose the great reason for the oft-enjoined meeting on the Galilaean mountain, which seems to have been expressly and with much care arranged to notify at large the fact of Christ’s Resurrection and of his supreme authority, and to convey the Lord’s commission to the apostles in the presence of many witnesses. We may suppose that Jesus, who had been standing apart, now drew near to the company, so that all, especially the doubting, might see him closely and hear his familiar voice. Spake unto them (ἐλαλησεναὐτοῖς, talked unto them). Doubtless he said much more than is here recorded, resolving doubts, confirming faith, infusing comfort. "Thus it is even now; we worship him, and then he draws near, and, by his nearer approaches and secret manifestation of himself to our hearts, we are confirmed in the faith, and see in him God and man" (I. Williams). All power (ἐξιυσια) is given (ἐδοθη, was given) unto me in heaven and in earth. Jesus here asserts that he, as Son of man, has received from the Father supreme authority in heaven and earth, over the whole kingdom of God in its fullest extent. This is net given to him as Son o! God; for, as God, naught can be added to him or taken from him; it is a power which he has merited by his incarnation, death, and Passion (Philippians 2:8-10), which was foretold in the Old Testament, by psalmist (Psalms 2:8; Psalms 8:5-8) and prophet (Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:14), and with which he was indued on the day that he rose victorious from the grave. So the verb "was given" is in the past tense, because it refers to the dotation arranged in God’s eternal purpose, and to the actual investiture at the Resurrection. The power is exercised in his mediatorial kingdom, and will continue to be exercised till he hath put all enemies under his feet, and destroyed death itself (1 Corinthians 15:24-27); but his absolute kingdom is everlasting; as God and Man he reigns forever and ever. This mediatorial authority extends not only over men, so that he governs and protects the Church, disposes bureau events, controls hearts and opinions; but the forces of heaven also are at his command, the Holy Spirit is bestowed by him, the angels are in his employ as ministering to the members of his body. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore (οὖν). The illative particle is perhaps spurious, but it is implied by what has preceded. It is because Jesus has plenary authority, and can delegate power to whom he will, that he confers the following commission. He is addressing the eleven apostles, of whom alone St. Matthew makes mention (verse 16); but as they personally could not execute the grand commission in all its extent and duration, he lays his commands upon their representatives and successors in all ages. They were to go forth, and carry the gospel throughout the world. Doubtless herein is implied the duty of all Christians to be in some sense missionaries, to use their utmost efforts to spread abroad the knowledge of Christ, and to make men obedient to his Law. The propagation of the gospel is a work for all in their several spheres. Teach; docete (Vulgate). These are unfortunate renderings of the verb μαθητευσατε, which means, "make disciples." Teaching is expressed in verse 20, as one of the elements or components of full discipleship. The imperative aorist μαθητευσατε is, as it were, decomposed by the two following present participles, "baptizing" and "teaching." In the case of infants the process is exactly what is here represented; they are admitted into the Christian society by baptism, and then instructed in faith and duty. Adults have to be instructed before baptism; but they form a small minority in most Christian communities, where, generally, infant baptism is the rule, and would be regarded rather as exceptions. Teaching alone is not stated by the Lord to be the only thing necessary to convert an unbeliever into a Christian; this is effected by the grace of God applied as Christ proceeds to explain. All nations (πανταταἐìθνη all the nations). The apostles were no longer to go only to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:6); they were to Christianize all the nations of the world, Jew and Gentile alike. The gospel is adapted to all the varying minds and habits of men, barbarous and civilized, near and remote, ignorant or cultivated; and it is the duty and privilege of Christ’s ministers to make it known and acceptable in all quarters of the globe. Baptizing them; i.e. individuals of all the nations. The present participle denotes the mode of initiation into discipleship. Make them disciples by baptizing them. Christ thus explains his mysterious announcement to Nicodemus (John 3:5), "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To the disciples the notion of baptism was no new thing. As a rite typifying the cleansing of the heart and the purpose of leading a new life, it had been long practised in the case of proselytes to the Jewish faith; they had seen it employed by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:6), and had used it themselves (John 4:1, John 4:2). Christ adopts the old rite, gives it a new solemnity, a most sacred formula of administration, a new meaning, new spiritual effects. The persons to whom and in whose presence he spoke would understand his injunction as applicable to all who were capable of its reception, children and adults, the subjects of the initiatory ceremony of proselytism. There was no need of closer specification. Or, if any such instruction was needed, the rules concerning circumcision would be a sufficient guide. In (εἰς, into) the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Our version follows the Vulgate, in nomine, which does not give the right force to the expression. The phrase does not mean merely invoking the Name, under the sanction of the great Name, but something more than this. It signifies into the power and influence of the Holy Trinity, into faith in the three Persons of God, and the duties and privileges consequent on that faith, into the family of God and obedience unto its Head. The "into" shows the end and aim of the consecration of baptism. The "Name" of God is that by which he is known to us—that which connotes his being and his attributes, that by which there exists a conscious connection between God and ourselves (comp. Matthew 18:20). So being baptized into the Name of God implies being placed in subjection to and communion with God himself, admitted into covenant with him. It is to be observed that the term is "name," not "names," thus denoting the unity of the Godhead in the trinity of Persons. The Lord’s words have always been taken as the formula of baptism, and have in all ages been used in its administration. The three Divine Persons were revealed at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17); they are invoked at every Christian baptism. It is true that we read, in the early Church, of persons being baptized "in the Name of the Lord Jesus," and "in the Name of the Lord" (Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48); but this expression by no means assumes that the names of the other Divine Persons were not used; it denotes that the converts were admitted into the religion which Jesus instituted, in fact, were made Christians. The above formula has from primitive times been considered indispensable for the valid administration of this sacrament. "From this sacred form of baptism," says Bishop Pearson, "did the Church derive the rule of faith, requiring the profession of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, before they could be baptized in their Name" (’On the Creed,’ art. 1.). Matthew 28:20 Teaching (διδασκοντες) them (i.e. all the nations) to observe all things, etc. The word for "teaching" is quite different from that used in Matthew 28:19, and there wrongly translated. Instruction is the second necessary condition for discipleship. In the case of adults, as was said above, some teaching must precede the initiation; but this has to be supplemented subsequently in order to build up the convert in the faith and make him perfect; while infants must be taught "as soon as they are able to learn, what a solemn vow, promise, and profession they have here made." All must be taught the Christian faith and duty, and how to obtain God’s help to enable them to please him, and to continue in the way of salvation, so that they may "die from sin, and rise again unto righteousness; continually mortifying all their evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceeding in all virtue and godliness of living" (’Public Baptism of Infants’). "He gives," says St. Chrysostom, "the one charge with a view to doctrine [i.e. the form of baptism], the other concerning commandments" (’Horn.,’ 90.). All that Christ commanded, both in doctrine and morals, all that he had taught and enjoined during the three past years, they were henceforward to take as their textbook, and enforce on all who were admitted into the Church by baptism. As the Greek is, "I commanded," being aorist and not perfect, it may be rightly opined that Christ here alludes also to various details which he set forth and enjoined during these great forty days, between his resurrection and ascension, when he gave commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen, and spake to them of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God (Acts 1:2, Acts 1:3). And, lo. "After that, because he had enjoined on them great things, to raise their courage, he says. Lo! "etc. (Chrysostom). I am with you alway (ἐγωμεθὑμῶνεἰμιπασαςταρας). Every word is emphatic. The Ascension was at hand; this implied an absence of his visible presence, to be replaced by a spiritual presence, more perfect, potent, effectual, infinite. It is I myself, I, God and Man,who am (not "will be") henceforward ever present among you, with you as Companion, Friend, Guide, Saviour, God. I am with you in all your ministrations, prayers public and private, baptisms, communions, exhortations, doctrine, discipline And this, not now and then, not at certain times only, but "all the days" of your pilgrimage, all the dark days of trial and persecution and affliction; all the days when you, my apostles, are gathered to your rest, and have committed your work to other hands; my presence shall never be withdrawn for a single moment. Often had God made an analogous promise to his servants under the old dispensation—to Moses (Exodus 3:12), to Joshua (Deuteronomy 31:23), to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:8); but this spiritual presence of Christ is something unknown to previous history, a nearness unspeakable, in the Church at large and in the Christian’s heart. Even unto the end of the world; the consummation of the age, as Matthew 24:3 (where see note). When the new era is ushered in, evangelizing work will cease; God shall be all in all; all shall know him from the least unto the greatest. And they shall ever be with the Lord; "wherefore comfort one another with these words" (1 Thessalonians 4:18). Amen. The word is here an interpolation, but it expresses what every pious reader must say in his heart, "So be it, O Lord; be with us unto the end; guide and strengthen us in life, and bring us safely through the valley of the shadow of death, to thy blessed presence, where is the fulness of joy forevermore!" The Resurrection. I. THE ANGEL AT THE . 1. The holy women. The great sabbath was over. It had been a busy day in the temple; all had been done as usual. The priests little thought, while performing their elaborate ritual, that the one great Sacrifice, Oblation, and Satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, the Sacrifice of which all their sacrifices were but figures, had been offered up on Calvary. Yet the great darkness and the portents which had marked the moment of the Saviour’s death must have excited attention at Jerusalem, must have harrowed the consciences of many, and filled the whole city with uneasiness and doubt and awe. Strange anxieties must have disturbed the rest of that sabbath. Men went about asking strange questions of one another. Strange forebodings filled the air. The priests especially must have been full of excitement and anxiety. Their chiefs had been foremost in urging the Crucifixion; and the rent veil must have filled them with wonder and terror. What could it mean? The holy of holies lay exposed—the awful place, which no human being might behold, save only the high priest, and that but once a year, with solemn rites of expiation. It must have seemed to them a tremendous portent, foreboding some great change, some stupendous event. Even the cold indifferent Sadducees must have been stirred into anxious expectation by a prodigy so significant, so startling, so plainly preternatural. This feeling had constrained them to apply to the hated Gentiles even on the sabbath. Herod had employed his soldiers to slay, if it were possible, the infant King of the Jews. The chief priests employed the Roman soldiers to prevent, if it were possible, the resurrection of him whose cross had borne the title which the Wise Men from the East had attributed to the holy Child Jesus. But if that sabbath had been a disturbed and anxious day to the enemies of our Lord, what must it have been to his disciples? They had watched, some few of them, the awful scene on Calvary. Most of them had fled in terror. The Lord had put forth no supernatural powers, as perhaps they had hoped; there had been no armies of angels coming to his help, no display of Divine glory to crush his foes. He was dead, buried out of their sight. They forgot all that the prophets had spoken, all that the Lord himself had said about his resurrection on the third day. Even the circumstances of his death, its calm majesty, its attendant wonders, did not restore their lost faith. "We were hoping," they said, "that it was he which should redeem Israel." But now their hopes were crushed, their faith was gone. The one terrible fact of his death had overwhelmed them in utter despair. They had expected an earthly kingdom in spite of all his many warnings. That Jewish notion of the Messiah’s reign had taken entire possession of their hearts. And now that hope had vanished altogether. The Lord had not taken the throne of David; he had died upon the cross, the death of extremest ignominy. They were sunk in misery and disappointment and despondency. The chief priests called to remembrance that they had been told of his predicted resurrection. Hatred is sometimes more keen sighted than love. The disciples seem to have had no hope at all. That sad sabbath day must have been clouded by many remorseful memories of broken promises and selfish fears—how all, save one, had left him at the last, and forsaken him in his agony who had loved them with so great a love. But the long hours of that sorrowful sabbath were over at last; the first day of the week was dawning—that day which was to be the first day of a new life, which was to be consecrated throughout the great Christian Church as the beginning of new hopes, new aspirations; the first great Easter Day was shedding its faint glimmering light through the surrounding darkness; and the holy women came—Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, and afterwards, it seems from St. Mark and St. Luke, Salome and Joanna. They had watched the burial—some of them, at least. Perhaps they were not allowed to approach at the time; perhaps only Joseph, who had obtained the governor’s leave, and Nicodemus, a man of rank and authority like Joseph, were permitted on that Friday afternoon to touch the body of the Lord. But the women followed after, and beheld where he was laid. They were last at the sepulchre on the first Good Friday; they were the first to see the empty tomb on the first great Easter Day. They came to see the sepulchre—"to anoint," St. Mark says, the body of him whom they had regarded with a Jove so deep and reverent. They had prepared spices and ointments before the sabbath; they came as soon as the sabbath rest permitted to fulfil their work of love. But that very love, deep and true as it was, expressed itself in preparations which showed that they understood not the Saviour’s words, or at least that the awful events of Friday had shaken their belief and destroyed their hopes. Neither Joseph and Nicodemus nor the holy women seem to have had any thought of seeing the Lord in life again. Joseph willingly gave his own new tomb to receive the dear remains. Perhaps he thought that one day his own bones might rest with the honoured body of him whom he so loved and reverenced. None of the followers of the Lord, not even those apostles who had been nearest to him, seem to have remembered those words of his which ought to have been their greatest comfort in the hour of darkness. The shock had been so great; they were so horrified, terror-stricken, bewildered. So it is with us sometimes in great pain, in overwhelming sorrow. We cannot collect our thoughts; we can scarcely pray; there seems to be no hope, nothing but darkness. It may give us some comfort to think that even saints, even apostles, shared this human weakness. But let us remember that in their despair they still loved the Lord; if they had lost hope, they still came to the sepulchre; if they thought that he could give them no help, that they had a living Lord no more, at least they clung to his sacred memory, and came to watch over and to care for his lifeless body. Let us in our sufferings try to keep the thought of the suffering Lord close to our very hearts. If there are times when we cannot find joy in the thought of his glory and majesty, let us try to find peace in the thought of his cross, his death, his burial. Let us pray that our anguish may be made the means of bringing us into closer sympathy with the suffering Lord, into "the fellowship of his sufferings; for if we have become united with him by the likeness of his death, we shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection." 2. The descent of the angel. The women had said among themselves, "Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?" It was a task beyond their strength, and they were troubled. There was no need for their anxiety. So we often trouble ourselves about the future; we wonder how this or that difficulty shall be overcome; who shall save us from this or that threatening calamity. "Let not your heart be troubled," saith the Lord; "ye believe in God, believe also in me." "In quietness and confidence shall be your strength." Those fears of ours, those anxious thoughts which almost wear us out, come from want of faith. How often the event proves that there was no ground for them! We fretted ourselves vainly, we made needless vexations for ourselves; for after all the threatened trouble never came; or, if it did come, it was not so terrible; God gave us strength to bear it. It was so now. One stronger than they had rolled away the stone. There was a great earthquake. A mighty angel had come down from heaven; his appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow. What could the Roman soldiers do in the presence of that effulgent, blinding radiance? For fear of him the watchers did quake (the very earth had quaked at his approach), and became as dead men. The mere sight of one angel of the Lord affrighted them into utter helplessness. How would it have fared with the presumptuous multitude who seized the Saviour in Gethsemane, had he, who is the Lord God of hosts, summoned those heavenly legions? Then he meekly yielded himself; for he willed to suffer and to die that we might live forever. Now his humiliation was over, the hour of his triumph was come; one angel of the Lord scattered the Roman guard. The strength of man is helpless to withstand the will of God. 3. His address to the women. He had done what the women knew was beyond their strength; he had rolled away the stone; they found him sitting on it in his glorious beauty. The blessed angels terrify the enemies of the Lord; they bring joy and gladness to his chosen. The soldiers lay on the ground prostrate, like dead men. The holy women started at the glorious vision, but the heavenly music of the angel’s voice soon gave them peace and joy. "Fear not ye," the angel said. The pronoun is emphatic. The guards had cause to fear; not so those faithful women. The angel knew what had brought them there—their love and devotion for the crucified Saviour. But there was no need of their ointments and spices; there was no use for them; for the angel said, "He is not here; he is risen, as he said." There was something, perhaps, of gentle reproof in those words. The Lord had said again and again that he would rise again the third day; his disciples should have remembered his words; they should not have been thus hopeless and despairing; they should have looked forward, despite the agonies of the cross, despite the sealing of the tomb, to the glory of the Resurrection. That prophecy was now fulfilled; they might see the empty tomb: "Come, see the place where the Lord lay." They entered into the sepulchre, St. Mark tells us; they saw that the Lord was gone. The angel sent them to bear the great Easter tidings to the apostles. The apostles had not shown the courage, the affectionate devotion, of these holy women. St. John alone had stood beside the cross; no apostle, as far as we are told, had witnessed the burial. The women, too, were the first to visit the sepulchre; their devotion was rewarded; they first heard the glad tidings; they had the privilege of bearing the blessed news to the apostles, who were to be the witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection and to preach his glorious gospel throughout the world. Holy women have often been the means of bringing to the faith of Christ those who have afterwards laboured most abundantly in the Saviour’s cause. The angel repeated his charge: "Lo, I have told you," he said. They might not doubt; they had heard the great truth from an angel’s lips. II. THE RISEN LORD. 1. The women on their way. They went at once, they ran. Their hearts were filled with mingled feelings. There was fear,—they could not look upon that form, bright as the lightning flash, without something of dread; but there was a great joy which overcame their fear. The Lord was risen. The thought was too great for them; it thrilled their hearts with strange, unwonted throbbings. But they went as they were bidden; and as they went a holier than an angel’s voice fell upon their ears. The Lord manifests himself to those who work for him, who in obedience and faith carry to others the blessed story of his cross and his resurrection. 2. The meeting with the Lord. Jesus met them on their way. Suddenly, in a moment, they saw the gracious form of their beloved Master; they looked once more upon that holy face, no longer stained with blood or fixed in death, but gazing on them with his wonted look of heavenly love in the full majesty of manifest Deity. "All hail!" he said; "rejoice!" Fear and joy were struggling in their hearts; but joy was the right feeling; there was no need to fear. "All hail! rejoice!" it was an ordinary formula of salutation; often a mere conventional greeting, but coming from those lips it spoke volumes; it was full of meaning, deep, holy, blessed meaning. It was the fulfilment of those precious words of his, "Ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." The presence of the Lord bringeth joy. There is no joy so full and so holy, so sweet and so abiding, as that joy in the Lord which is granted to those who in patience and humility have taken up the cross, denying themselves daily for Christ’s sake, recognizing in their hearts and lives the great truth that, since the Lord died for all, they which live should live no longer unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again. These women loved the Lord; they had ministered to him; now they were going to tell the glad tidings of his resurrection. He met them himself; he bade them "Rejoice!" There, and there only, is true joy to be found, in the love of Christ, in work for Christ, in communion with Christ. They came and held him by the feet and worshipped him. They bowed themselves to the ground be[ore him in lowliest adoration. They felt something of that great awe mixed with exceeding joy which the next Sunday forced from the lips of the once unbelieving Thomas the exclamation of adoring faith, "My Lord and my God!" Their joy was too great for words; they could only offer him the worship of their hearts, prostrating themselves, holding those holy feet which three days before had been nailed to the cruel cross, scarcely able to look into his face for awe and wonder and overpowering joy. So the Christian falls down in adoring worship when the Lord reveals himself to the longing soul. When we see him by faith, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, when he manifesteth himself to his chosen as he doth not unto the world, when he saith, "Rejoice!" then they feel the truth of that most precious beatitude, "Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed;" then, though they see him not as the Marys saw his gracious face, yet, believing, they rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory. In such moments his people offer up to him a holy worship—worship in spirit and in truth, such as, in his condescending love, he seeketh; a worship not selfish, not prayer for our own sakes, for the supply of our own needs, but higher than prayer; a worship which thinks not of self, but only of the Lord, which loses sight of self in the contemplation of his love, his holiness, his majesty, his glory. Such is the worship of his saints in heaven; so we must seek to worship in our poor way on earth. 3. The message. The Lord calmed their agitation. "Be not afraid!" The angel had said the same, but the Lord’s words were sweeter music even than the angelic voice. Fear was mingled even now with their great joy; human nature cannot but fear in the awful presence of God. But the Lord in his tender mercy taught them that, though risen now from the dead, he was still, not only very God, but also very Man. He sent them with the first Easter greetings to the apostles—to his brethren, as for the first time he deigned to call them. It was a message of love, a message of forgiveness. They had not acted as brethren should; they had forsaken the Lord in the hour of danger. But he recognized the truth of their love; he forgave their weakness, their terrors; he was "not ashamed to call them brethren." It was a gracious message indeed, full of sweetness to the sorrowing, conscience-stricken apostles. They were to meet the Lord in Galilee; there he would announce to them his assumption of Divine power and majesty; there they should receive the full apostolic commission and the promise of his continual presence unto the end. There were other meetings during the great forty days; but St. Matthew, who was led to dwell mainly upon the majesty and glory of the risen Lord, hastens to that great meeting, so full of momentous consequences, when the Lord in his royal power gave authority to his apostles to baptize all nations into the most holy Name. LESSONS. 1. The holy women loved the Lord. Let us imitate that affectionate reverent love. 2. They said, "Who shall roll us away the stone?" Let us trust in God; the Lord will provide. 3. The angel said, "Fear not ye." The holy angels minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation. 4. The Lord met the holy women; he said, "Rejoice!" May we share that holy joy! 5. They worshipped him. Let us learn to worship here, that we may one day worship in heaven. The watch and the chief priests. I. THE REPORT OF THE . 1. Their flight. They were all aghast with terror; they knew not well what had happened. The earthquake had terrified them at first; then there came a vision dazzling like the lightning. From that moment they were as dead men; they knew nothing more. When they recovered from that deathlike swoon the angel had vanished; all was still and quiet. Perhaps they examined the sepulchre. The stone was rolled away; the tomb was open; it was empty. What could they do? They had been posted there to guard it; they were in danger of death. Some fled away in terror; some, bolder than the others, or deeming perhaps that to tell the truth was the safest course, came into the city. 2. Their account. If they were, as it seems most probable, Roman soldiers, they were responsible to the governor; but they felt sure that he would disbelieve their story, and punish them for neglect of duty. It seemed safer to go to the chief priests, who were the persons most interested in the safety of the tomb, who might advise them what to do under the circumstances. They told them all the things that were done; they told them the facts of the case; the earthquake, the vision which they had seen, their own prostration, the empty tomb; they left the chief priests to draw their own conclusions. II. THE ACTION OF THE CHIEF PRIESTS. 1. The council. A meeting of the Sanhedrin was hastily called. The chief priests were Sadducees; they believed that there was no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit. Now they must have been in a difficulty. The great darkness of Friday, the earthquake, the rent veil, had appalled many hearts. The very thing had happened which they had anxiously tried to prevent; the sacred body had disappeared, and the soldiers brought strange stories of awful apparitions, of earthquakes and lightning, and the supernatural removal of the great stone from the door of the sepulchre. But men can always discover reasons for disbelieving truths which they wish to repudiate; they can always invent difficulties, discrepancies, explanations. The chief priests probably affected to believe that the guards, worn out by long watching, had been so bewildered by the earthquake as to see in the lightning flashes the fancied form of an angel. The Pharisees in the council did not share in the Sadducean heresies; but they had joined with the chief priests in the application to Pilate for a guard (Matthew 27:62). They were, equally with the Sadducees, hostile to the Lord, equally interested in preventing the people from believing his resurrection. Doubtless those few counsellors, such as Joseph and Nicodemus, who had taken no part in compassing the Saviour’s death, were not summoned to the meeting. To the rest the Resurrection involved awful consequences. It threw them into such an abyss of tremendous guilt and terrible condemnation, that we are not surprised if men who were evidently selfish, cruel, hypocritical, obstinately refused to admit the evidence of its truth. So, in the face of all testimony, in spite of the fact that the holy body was gone, and the certain knowledge that foe would not, and friend could not, have borne it away, they deceived themselves, or forced themselves into a disbelief of the Lord’s resurrection. 2. Their decision. They pretended that what they had feared had really taken place. They made an arrangement with the soldiers; they were to say that while they slept his disciples came by night and stole him away. It was a dangerous thing for the soldiers; they might be punished with death for sleeping at their post, as Herod afterwards treated the keepers of the prison from which St. Peter was released by the angel. So the chief priests undertook to secure them; they promised to persuade the governor if he should hear of the matter. They meant probably to bribe him; and so they would set the soldiers free from anxiety. It was a wicked falsehood, an awful sin; for they were fighting against God; but the only alternative was an open acknowledgment of the truth, and that would have brought upon them a tremendous disgrace. It would have been a confession of guilt—a confession that they had been in the wrong throughout, that they had been selfish, hollow, hypocritical, and that the Prophet of Galilee whom they so utterly hated, whom they had murdered, was indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God. They could not bring themselves to this. They were the rulers of the people, the chiefs of the hierarchy; they could not humble themselves. They chose the alternative of falsehood. Thus it is that sin leads on to sin. One sin forces a man (or seems to force him) to commit another; each wilful sin strengthens the grasp of Satan upon his soul, and brings him nearer to that awful state when repentance becomes impossible. Let us beware, and take heed to ourselves. 3. The conduct of the soldiers. They did as they were taught. Interest and fear combined to make them the willing tools of the chief priests. The priests bribed them largely, and the soldiers were absolutely in their power. If the priests accused them of neglect of duty, they must have been condemned; their only chance of escape seemed to coincide with their interest; so they took the money offered them, and repeated the falsehood which the chief priests put into their mouths. 4. The acceptance of the story. It was commonly reported among the Jews. But it is a manifest falsehood; it is encompassed with all manner of improbabilities. The soldiers, if they had slept, could not have known what had happened. The disciples, terror-stricken as they were, could not have dared to attempt to break open the tomb. They did not wish to remove the sacred body; it had been laid in an honoured grave. Their only wish was to render the last offices of love and reverence. If they had removed it, what would have been the value of a dead body to them? Could a dead body have kindled that zeal, that intense enthusiasm, which urged them to forsake home and all earthly comforts for the love of Christ? Would they have embraced a life of hardship and constant danger, with the almost certain prospect of violent death, for the sake of preaching a lie? It is impossible that zealous, self-denying men like the apostles, could have been impostors; it is impossible that men who wrote what they wrote—simple, artless records, full of indications of truthfulness, full also of little differences which show that there could have been no concert, no collusion; or letters of Christian counsel beautiful in their transparent simplicity, full of high, holy, heavenly teaching, such as the world had never heard before—it is simply inconceivable that such men should have invented a lie, should have suffered, should have died, for what they knew to be false. But perhaps no one maintains this incredible hypothesis now. Then could they have been deceived by others? Who could have deceived them? Whose interest was it? Who could have wished to deceive them? Could they have deceived themselves as to the Lord’s resurrection? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/