[ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ] ΚΑΤΑΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ Title] [εὐαγγέλιον , in earlier Greek, signifies a present made as a return for good news (see Hom. Od. ξ . 152, 166, also 2 Kings 4:10), or a sacrifice offered in thanksgiving for the same (Aristoph. Eq. 658); in later Greek, the good news itself, as in LXX , and N.T. passim, in the appropriated sense of the good news of salvation by Christ Jesus. Hence it came to be applied to the writings themselves which contain this good news, very early: so Justin M. Apol. i. 66, p. 83, οἱἀπόστολοιἐντοῖςγενομένοιςὑπ ʼ αὐτῶνἀπομνημονεύμασιν , ἃκαλεῖταιεὐαγγέλια .] κατὰΜ . ] as delivered by Matthew— implies authorship or editorship: so ὍμηροςκατὰἈρίσταρχον . This use of the prep. denotes, generally, the relation of things to persons, of. Thuc. vi. 16, ἐντῷκατ ʼ αὐτοὺςβίῳ ,— i. 54, τὰκατὰσφᾶςναυάγια ,— and see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 241. It is not merely = a genitive— of Matthew (as τὸεὐαγγ . μου , Romans 16:25, .), which would have been used, had it been meant. Nor does it signify, that the original teaching was Matthew’ s, and the present Gospel drawn up after that teaching. See Prolegg. to Matt. Eusebius, H. E. iii. 24, says, Ματθαῖος .… γραφῇπαραδοὺςτὸκατ ʼ αὐτὸνεὐαγγέλιον . Chap. 1:1-17. Genealogy of Jesus Christ. 1. βίβλοςγενέσεως ] Not always used of a pedigree only: see reff. Here however it appears that it refers exclusively to the genealogy, by Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ being used in the enunciation, and the close being Ἰησοῦςὁλεγόμενοςχριστός . Then ver. 17 forms a conclusion to it, and ver. 18 passes on to other matter. Ἰησοῦ ] see on ver. 21. χριστοῦ ] = מ ָ ש ׁ ִ י ח ַ , anointed. In reff. it is used of kings, priests, prophets, and of the promised Deliverer. Theophylact says, λέγεταιὁκύριος , χριστός · καὶὡςβασιλεύς , ἐβασίλευσεγὰρκατὰτῆςἁμαρτίας · καὶὡςἱερεύς , προσήγαγεγὰρἑαυτὸνθῦμαὑπὲρἡμῶν · ἐχρίσθηδὲκαὶαὐτὸςκυρίωςτῷἀληθινῷἐλαίῳ , τῷἁγίῳπνεύματι . It is here used (see ver. 16) in that sense in which it became affixed to Ἰησοῦς as the name of our Lord. It does not once thus occur in the progress of the Evangelic history; only in the prefatory parts of the Gospels, here and vv. 16, 17, 18: Mark 1:1: John 1:17, and once in the mouth of our Lord himself, John 17:3 (on Pilate’ s words, ch. 27:17, 22, see note there); but passim in the Acts and Epistles. This may serve to shew that the evangelic memoirs themselves were of earlier date than their incorporation into our present Gospels. υἱοῦ both times refers to our Lord. ב ּ ֶ ן ד ּ ָ ו ִ ד (Ben-David) was an especial title of the Messiah: see reff. That He should be son of Abraham, was too solemn a subject of prophecy to be omitted here, even though implied in the other. These words serve to shew the character of the Gospel, as written for Jews: οὐδὲνγὰροὕτωςἀνέπαυετοὺςἐξἸουδαίωνπεπιστευκότας , ὡςτὸμαθεῖνὅτιἐκσπέρματοςἈβραὰμκαὶΔαυὶδἦνὁχριστός . Euthymius. Luke, ch. 3:23ff., carries his genealogy further back. 2. καὶτ . ἀδελφ .] These additions probably indicate that Matt. did not take his genealogy from any family or public documents, but constructed it himself. Cf. also Grot., ‘ Obiter Matthæ us Christum ut cognatum omnibus Israelitis commendat.’ 3. These children of Judah were not born in marriage: see Gen. 28:16-30. Both the sons are named, probably as recalling the incident connected with their birth. The reason for the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba) being mentioned, has been variously assigned: by ., ut tacitæ Judæ orum objectioni occurreretur: by Fritzsche, for the sake of minute accuracy. It most probably is that given by Maldonatus: ‘ Præ termisit Evangelista quod ordinarium erat, quod autem singulare et dubium exposuit.’ There may be something also in that suggested by Grotius: ‘ Mulieres in hoc sensu obiter paucæ nominantur, extraneo ortiaut criminibus nobiles, quarum historia ad vocationem idololatrarum et criminosorum per Christi evangelium proludit:’ as also in De Wette’ s view, that they serve as types of the mother of our Lord, and are consequently named in the course of the genealogy, as she is at the end of it. 5. Ῥαχάβ ] “ Rachab illam Hierichuntinam dici, vel articulus, τῆςῬ ., ejusque vis relativa docet.” Bengel. It has been imagined, on chronological grounds, that this Rachab must be a different person from Rahab of Jericho. But those very grounds completely tally with their identity. For Naashon (father of Salmon), prince of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:10), offered his offering at the setting up of the tabernacle (Numbers 7:12) 39 years before the taking of Jericho. So that Salmon would be of mature age at or soon after that event; at which time Rahab was probably young, as her father and mother were living (Joshua 6:23). Nor is it any objection that Achan, the fourth in descent from Judah by Zara, is contemporary with Salmon, the sixth of the other branch: since the generations in the line of Zara average 69 years, and those in the line of Phares 49, both within the limits of probability. The difficulty of the interval of 366 years between Rahab and David does not belong to this passage only, but equally to Rth 4:21, Rth 4:22; and is by no means insuperable, especially when the extreme old age of Jesse, implied in 1 Samuel 17:12, is considered. I may add that, considering Rahab’ s father and mother were alive, the house would hardly be called the house of Rahab except on account of the character commonly assigned to her. 6. τῆςτοῦΟὐ .] This construction, which is not properly elliptical, but possessive (Grotius compares ‘ Hectoris Andromache,’ Virg.,— Meyer, Luther’ s Katharina, and Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 160, ΔιὸςἌρτεμις ,— ΖηνὸςἈπόλλων Plut. de Pyth. or. p. 402,— ἹππίουἈρχεδίκην Thuc. vi. 59, &c.), occurs in the Gospels to designate various relations: see reff. 8. Ἰωρὰμ … Ὀζείαν ] Three kings, viz., Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah (1 Chronicles 3:11, 1 Chronicles 3:12), are here omitted (supplied in , lat-a, in Luke). Some (Spanheim, Lightf., Ebrard, &c.) think that they were erased on account of their connexion, by means of Athaliah, with the accursed house of Ahab. Simeon is omitted by Moses in blessing the tribes (Deu_33): the descendants of Zebulun and Dan are passed over in 1 Chron., and none of the latter tribe are sealed in Rev_7. But more probably such erasion, even if justifiable by that reason, was not made on account of it, but for convenience, in order to square the numbers of the different portions of the genealogies, as here. Compare as illustrating such omissions, 1 Chronicles 8:1 with Genesis 46:21. 11. Ἰωσείας … Ἰεχον .] Eliakim, son of Josiah and father of Jechonias, is omitted; which was objected to the Christians by Porphyry. The reading which inserts Joacim (i.e. Eliakim) rests on hardly any foundation, and would make fifteen generations in the second tesseradecade. The solution of the difficulty by supposing the name to apply to both Eliakim and his son, and to mean the former in ver. 11 and the latter in ver. 12, is unsupported by example, and contrary to the usage of the genealogy. When we notice that the ἀδελφοί of Jechonias are his uncles, and find this way of speaking sanctioned by 2 Chronicles 36:10, where Zedekiah, one of these, is called his brother, we are led to seek our solution in some recognized manner of speaking of these kings, by which Eliakim and his son were not accounted two distinct generations. If we compare 1 Chronicles 3:16 with 2 Kings 24:17, we can hardly fail to see that there is some confusion in the records of Josiah’ s family. In the latter passage, where we have “ his father’ s brother,” the LXX render τὸνυἱὸναὐτοῦ . Lord A. Hervey, in his careful work on the genealogies of our Lord, has suggested a reason for the difficulty: viz. that the text may originally have stood thus: ἸωσείαςδέἐγέννησεντὸνἸωακεὶμκαὶτοὺςἀδελφοὺςαὐτοῦ , ἸωακεὶμδὲἐγέννησεντὸνἸωαχεὶμἐπὶτῆςμετοικεσίαςΒαβυλῶνος , μετὰδὲτὴνμετ . Β . ἸωαχεὶμἐγέννησεντὸνΣαλαθιήλ , κ .τ .λ ., and a copyist may have omitted the Ἰωακ . δ . ἐγ . τὸνἸωαχ . as an accidental repetition. This view may perhaps be imagined to derive some support from the digest: but it seems to me that the objection to it is, the present occurrence of Ἰεχονίαν and -ας in all our copies. This Lord A. Hervey does not satisfactorily account for in saying “ the form Ἰεχονίας was doubtless substituted in St. Matthew’ s Gospel much later, to bring it into accordance with 1Ch_3.” ἐπὶτῆςμετ .] at the time of the migration to Babylon (on this usage of ἐπί with a gen., derived from its meaning of local juxta-, or superimposition, see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 246):— and μετὰτὴνμετ ., after the migration. For the construction, μετ . Βαβ ., see reff. 12. Ἰεχον .… Σαλαθ .] So also the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:17. When, therefore, it is denounced (Jeremiah 32:30) that Jeconiah should be ‘ childless,’ this word must be understood as explained by the rest of the verse, ‘ for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah.’ The LXX render this word ע ֲ ר ִ י ר ִ י , ἐκκήρυκτον : but the Talmudical writers explain it according to our rendering. Σαλαθ .… Ζοροβ .] There is no difficulty here which does not also exist in the O.T. Zerubbabel is there usually called the son of Shealtiel (Salathiel). Ezra 3:2, &c.: Nehemiah 12:1: Haggai 1:1, &c. In 1 Chronicles 3:19, Zerubbabel is said to have been the son of Pedaiah, brother of Salathiel. Either this may have been a different Zerubbabel, or Salathiel may, according to the law, have raised up seed to his brother. 13. Ζοροβ .… Ἀβιούδ ] Abiud is not mentioned as a son of the Zerubbabel in 1Ch_3. Lord A. Hervey, p. 122 ff., has made it probable that Abiud is identical with the Hodaiah of 1 Chronicles 3:24, and the Juda of Luk 3:26. Dr. Mill (p. 178, note) mentions this conjecture, but does not adopt it. The objection, that thus the first generation after Zerubbabel would be omitted, need not have much weight, after the omission of three generations in the last tesseradecade. I cannot but recommend to the student the perusal of Lord A. Hervey’ s work. Whether or not we may be inclined to adopt his conjectures on so intricate and uncertain a subject as the reconciling of the genealogies, too much praise cannot be given to the spirit of combined Christian reverence and enlightened critical courage in which it is treated throughout. On the comparison of this genealogy with that given in Luke, see notes, Luke 3:23-38. 17. γενεαὶδεκατέσσαρες ] If we carefully observe Matthew’ s arrangement, we shall have no difficulty in completing the three tesseradecades. For the first is from Abraham to David, of course inclusive. The second from David (again inclusive) to the migration; which gives no name, as before, to be included in both the second and third periods, but which is mentioned simultaneously with the begetting of Jechonias, leaving him for the third period. This last, then, takes in from Jechonias to Jesus Christ inclusive. So that the three stand thus, according to the words of this verse: (1) ἀπὸἈβραὰμἕωςΔαυίδ . (2) ἀπὸΔαυὶδἕωςτ . μετ . Βαβ ., i.e. about the time when Josiah begat Jechonias. (3) ἀπὸτ . μετ . Βαβ . (i.e. from Jechonias) ἕωςτοῦχριστοῦ . We may safely say, that the πᾶσαι does not, as Meyer, imply that Matthew intended to give the genealogy complete, and was not aware of the omissions. For why should this be so? May it not just as well be said, that having, for the convenience of his readers, reduced the genealogy to this form, he then says to them, “ So then you have from Abraham to David, 14 generations, &c.?” 18-25. Circumstances of his Birth. 18. τοῦδὲἸησοῦχριστοῦ ] The combined name is emphatically put first as resuming the subject of ver. 1, and the δέ takes up the δέ which has connected all the previous members of the series, introducing a reason for this inversion ἐξἧςἐγεννήθη , with which this last one had been brought in, ver. 16. γένεσις ] The ordinary reading γέννησις seems to have been taken up from ver. 16, and the γάρ , which follows, appended to account for the exception in this last case to the direct sequence of ἐγέννησεν throughout the genealogy. γένεσις must be understood in a wide sense, as nearly identical in meaning with γέννησις ; as “ = ‘ origo,’ not merely ‘ birth,’  ” . It probably is chosen by the Holy Spirit to mark a slight distinction between the γέννησις of our Lord and that of ordinary men. See schol. in digest. μνηστευθείσης ] The interval between betrothal and the consummation of marriage was sometimes considerable, during which the betrothed remained in her father’ s house, till the bridegroom came and fetched her. See Deuteronomy 20:7. [γάρ ] here is explicative; ‘ quum videlicet … ’ So Soph. Trach. 475, πᾶνσοιφράσωτἀληθὲςοὐδὲκρύψομαι . ἔστινγὰροὕτωςὥσπεροὗτοςἐννέπει . Lysias, Eratosth. § 19, εἰςτοσαύτην … αἰσχροκέρδειανἀφίκοντο , τῆςγὰρπολεμάρχουγυναικὸςκ .τ .λ . See more examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 469. We may perhaps with equal likelihood say that it is apologetic for the οὕτως : ‘ thus it took place; and an account of it is needed, for &c.’ πρὶνἤ is said to belong to the middle age of Attic. With an aor. following, it betokens the entire completion of the act indicated. See it treated in Hermann on Viger, p. 442; Klotz on Devarius, p. 726. συνελθεῖν ] Here to be understood of living together in one house as man and wife; the deductio in domum mariti: see especially Kypke, Observationes Sacræ , p. 1 ff., who remarks well, that it answers to the word παραλαβεῖν , vv. 20, 24. Chrys. Hom. iv. 2, vol. vii. p. 49, opposes this view: οὐκεἶπεπρὶνἢἀχθῆναιαὐτὴνεἰςτὴνοἰκίαντοῦνυμφίου , καὶγὰρἔνδονἦν . ἔθοςγὰρτοῖςπαλαιοῖςὡςτὰπολλὰἐνοἰκίᾳτὰςμεμνηστευμέναςἔχειν , κ .τ .λ . But it seems most agreeable to the context. His following remark is doubtless a just one: καὶτίνοςἕνεκενοὐπρὸτῆςμνηστείαςἐκύησεν ; ἵνα … συσκιασθῇτὸγινόμενοντέως , καὶἵναπᾶσανπονηρὰνδιαφύγῃἡπαρθένοςὑπόνοιαν . εὑρέθη ] not merely for ἦν , as some have said, but in its proper meaning:— she was discovered to be, no matter by whom: ἐπίτῶνπαραδόξων , καὶπαρ ʼ ἐλπίδαπᾶσανἐκβαινόντων , καὶοὐπροσδοκωμένενλέγεσθαιεἴωθε , Chrys. the words ἐκπν . ἁγ . are the addition of the Evangelist declaring the matter of fact, and do not belong to the discovery. ἐκπν . ἁγ .] by (the agency of) the Holy Ghost. See reff. and those to ver. 20: and compare by all means Chrys.’ s remarks, Hom. iv. 3, p. 50 f. The interpretation of πν . ἁγ . in this place must thus be sought: (1) Unquestionably τὸπν . τὸἅγ . is used in the N.T. as signifying the Holy Ghost. Luke 3:22: Acts 1:16: Ephesians 4:30. (2) But it is a well-known usage to omit the articles from such words under certain circumstances, e.g. when a preposition precedes, as εἰςλιμένα (Plato, Theæ t. § 1), &c. We are therefore justified in interpreting ἐκπν . ἁγ . according to this usage, and understanding τὸπν . τὸἅγ . as the agent referred to. And (3) even independently of the above usage,— when a word or an expression came to bear a technical conventional meaning, it was also common to use it without the art. as if it were a proper name: e.g. θεός , νόμος , υἱὸςθεοῦ , &c. 19. ἀνήρ ] so called, though they were as yet but betrothed: so in Genesis 29:21: Deuteronomy 22:24. δίκαιος ] just; καὶμὴθ . being, as the μή plainly shews, not the explanation of δίκαιος , but an additional particular. He was a strict observer of the law,— and (yet) not willing to expose her. The sense of ‘ kind,’ ‘ merciful,’ is inadmissible. λάθρα ] Not ‘ without any writing of divorcement,’ which would have been unlawful; but according to the form prescribed in Deuteronomy 24:1. The husband might either do this, or adopt the stronger course of bringing his wife to justice openly. The punishment in this case would have been death by stoning. Deuteronomy 22:23. Maimonides (quoted by Buxtorf de divort.) says, “ Femina ex quo desponsata est, licet nondum a viro cognita, est uxor viri, et si sponsus earn velit repudiare, oportet, ut id faciat libello repudii.” ἐβουλήθη ] intended,— was minded: θέλω expresses the mere wish, βούλομαι the wish ripened into intention: see 1 Timothy 5:14, note, and Buttmann’ s Lexilogus, i. p. 26. 20. ἰδού answers to the Hebrew ה ִ נ ּ ֵ ה , and is frequently used by Matt. and Luke to introduce a new event or change of scene: not so often by Mark, and never with this view in John. ἄγγελοςκ .] The announcement was made to Mary openly, but to Joseph in a dream; for in Mary’ s case faith and concurrence of will were necessary,— the communication was of a higher kind,— and referred to a thing future; but here it is simply an advertisement for caution’ s sake of an event which had already happened, and is altogether a communication of an inferior order: see Genesis 20:3. But see on the other hand the remarks at the close of the notes on ver. 21. κατ ʼ ὄναρ ] ὄναρ , simply, is the classical equivalent,— κατ ʼ ὄναρ belonging to later writers, Strabo, Plutarch, &c. οὐχρὴκατ ʼ ὄναρλέγειν , ὥσπεροὐδὲκαθ ʼ ὕπαρ , ἀλλὰὄναρκαὶὕπαροἷον ; ὄναρεἶδοντὸνδεῖνα , Thom. Mag. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 423. υἱὸςΔαυείδ ] These words would recall Joseph’ s mind to the promised seed, the expectation of the families of the lineage of David, and at once stamp the message as the announcement of the birth of the Messiah. May it not likewise be said, that this appellation would come with more force, if Mary also were a daughter of David? The nom. for the vocative is frequent in the Gospels: generally with an article. See Luke 8:54: ch. 11:26, al., and particularly John 20:28. τὴνγυν . σου ] Not ‘ as thy wife:’ but in apposition with Μαριάμ , Mary thy wife: see ver. 24, which decides this, as Meyer, Exo_3, now acknowledges. The addition serves to remind Joseph of that relation which she already held by betrothal, and which he was now exhorted to recognize. See above on ver. 19. τὸγὰρἐναὐ . γ .] ἐν is here not instrumental, ‘ that which is conceived by her,’ but local, that which is begotten in her. The gender here is not to be pressed as involving any doctrinal consequence, but to be regarded as the usual way of speaking of the unborn fœ tus: we have υἱόν first after τέξεται , ver. 21. See also John 3:6: 1 John 5:4. 21. Ἰησοῦν ] The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel. It is written י ְ ה ו ֹ ש ׁ ֻ ע ַ in the Law and Prophets, but י ֵ ש ׁ ו ּ ע ַ in the Hagiographa. Philo says, Ἰησοῦςἑρμηνεύεται , σωτηρίακυρίου . De mut. nom. § 21, vol. i. p. 597. αὐτός ] He, emphatically: He alone: best rendered, perhaps, ‘ it is He that.’ τὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ ] (not αὑτοῦ , any where, except when a special emphasis is intended: and there is none here, no distinction between His people, and the people of any other, being made). In the primary sense, the Jews, of whom alone Joseph could have understood the words: but in the larger sense, all who believe on Him: an explanation which the tenor of prophecy (cf. Genesis 22:18: Deuteronomy 32:21), and the subsequent admission of the Gentiles, warrant. Cf. a similar use of ‘ Israel’ by St. Peter, Acts 5:31. ἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτιῶν ] It is remarkable that in this early part of the evangelic history, in the midst of pedigrees, and the disturbances of thrones by the supposed temporal King of the Jews, we have so clear an indication of the spiritual nature of the office of Christ. One circumstance of this kind outweighs a thousand cavils against the historical reality of the narration. If I mistake not, this announcement reaches further into the deliverance to be wrought by Jesus, than any thing mentioned by the Evangelist subsequently. It thus bears the internal impress of a message from God, treasured up and related in its original formal terms. Meyer understands the words of a political emancipation and prosperity of the Jewish people, and strangely enough refers to Luke 1:68 for confirmation of this idea; adding, however, that a religious and moral reformation was considered as intimately connected with such a change. ἁμαρτία is not put for the punishment of sin, but is the sin itself— the practice of sin, in its most pregnant sense. ‘ How suggestive it is,’ remarks Bishop Ellicott, ‘ that while to the loftier spirit of Mary the name of Jesus is revealed with all the prophetic associations of more than David’ s glories— to Joseph, perchance the aged Joseph, who might have long seen and realized his own spiritual needs, and the needs of those around him, it is specially said, Thou shalt call his name Jesus: for He shall save his people from their sins.’ Historical Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 56. 22. τοῦτοδὲὃλον ] It is impossible to interpret ἵνα in any other sense than in order that. The words τοῦτοδὲὅ . γέγ . and the uniform usage of the N.T., in which ἵνα is never used except in this sense, forbid any other. Nor, if rightly viewed, does the passage require any other. Whatever may have been the partial fulfilment of the prophecy in the time of Ahaz, its reference to a different time, and a higher deliverance, is undeniable: and then, whatever causes contributed to bring about τοῦτοὅλον , might be all summed up in the fulfilment of the divine purpose, of which that prophecy was the declaration. The accomplishment of a promise formally made is often alleged as the cause of an action extending wider than the promise, and purposed long before its utterance. And of course these remarks apply to every passage where ἵνα or ὅπωςπληρωθῇ are used. Such a construction can have but one meaning. If such meaning involve us in difficulty regarding the prophecy itself, far better leave such difficulty, in so doubtful a matter as the interpretation of prophecy, unsolved, than create one in so simple a matter as the rendering of a phrase whose meaning no indifferent person could doubt. πληρωθῇ ] The immediate and literal fulfilment of the prophecy seems to be related in Isaiah 8:1-4. Yet there the child was not called Emmanuel: but in ver. 8 that name is used as applying to one of far greater dignity. Again, Isaiah 9:6 seems to be a reference to this prophecy, as also Micah 5:3. 23. ἡπαρθένος ] Such is the rendering of the LXX. The Hebrew word is the more general term ה ָ ע ַ ל ְ מ ָ ה . and is translated by Aquil., Symm., and Theodot. ἡνεᾶνις . De Wette cites the LXX rendering as a proof that the prophecy was then understood of the Messiah. But is it not much more probable that Aquila and the others rendered it νεᾶνις to avoid this application? Can it be shewn that the birth of the Messiah from a παρθένος was matter of previous expectation? Certainly Pearson (on the Creed, art. iii.) fails to substantiate this. καλέσουσιν ] This indefinite plural is surely not without meaning here. Men shall call— i.e. it shall be a name by which He shall be called— one of his appellations. The change of person from καλέσεις , which could not well have been cited here, seems to shew, both that the prophecy had a literal fulfilment at the time, and that it is here quoted in a form suited to its greater and final fulfilment. The Hebrew has ק ָ ר ָ א ת , ‘ thou shalt call’ (fem.). Ἐμμανουήλ ] = ע ִ מ ּ ָ נ ו ּ א ֵ ל , God (is) with us. In Isaiah, prophetic primarily of deliverance from the then impending war; but also of final and glorious deliverance by the manifestation of God in the flesh. ὅἐστινμεθ .] This addition is by some used to shew that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek, not in Hebrew, in which it would not be likely to occur. On the other hand, it is said, it might have been inserted by the person who translated the Gospel into Greek. See Prolegomena, and John 4:25. 24. ἀπὸτοῦὕπνου , from his sleep— the sleep which was on him when he had the dream. 25. “  ‘ non cognovit eam, doneo.’ Non sequitur, ergo post: sufficit tamen confirmari virginitatem ad partum usque: de reliquo tempore lectori æ quo relinquitur existimatio.” Bengel. And with regard to the much-controverted sense of this verse we may observe, (1) That the primâ facie impression on the reader certainly is, that οὐκἐγίνωσκεν was confined to the period of time here mentioned. (2) That there is nothing in Scripture tending to remove this impression, either by narration,— and the very use of the term, ἀδελφοὶκυρίου (on which see note at ch. 13:55), without qualification, shews that the idea was not repulsive: or by implication,— for every where in the N.T. marriage is spoken of in high and honourable terms; and the words of the angel to Joseph rather imply, than discountenance, such a supposition. (3) On the other hand, the words of this verse do not require it: the idiom being justified on the contrary hypothesis. See reff. On the whole it seems to me, that no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwise than in its primâ facie meaning, except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is characteristic, and historically instructive, that the great impugner of the view given above should be Jerome, the impugner of marriage itself: and that his opponents in its interpretation should have been branded as heretics by after-ages. See a brief notice of the controversy in Milman, Hist. of Latin Christianity, i. 72 ff. As to the expression, compare the remarkable parallel, Diog. Laert. iii. 1. 2, where he says of the father of Plato, καθαρὰνγάμουφυλάξαι , ἕωςτῆςἀποκυήσεως , with ib. 4 (said of Plato) ἔσχεδ ʼ ἀδελφοὺςἈδείμαντονκ . Γλαύκωνακ . ἀδελφὴνΠοτώνην . ἐκάλεσεν ] i.e. Joseph; see ver. 21. Chap. 2:1-12. Visit and Adoration of Magi form the East. 1. Βηθ . τῆςἸουδ .] There was another Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun, near the sea of Galilee, Joshua 19:15. The name Bethlehem-Judah is used, Judges 17:7, Judges 17:8, Judges 17:9: 1 Samuel 17:12. Another name for our Bethlehem was Ephrath, Genesis 35:19; Genesis 48:7; or Ephrata, Micah 5:2. It was six Roman miles to the south of Jerusalem, and was known as ‘ the city of David,’ the origin of his family, Rth 1:1, Rth 1:19. ἐνἡμέραιςἩρώδου ] Herod the Great, son of Antipater, an Idumean, by an Arabian mother, made king of Judæ a on occasion of his having fled to Rome, being driven from his tetrarchy by the pretender Antigonus. (Jos. Antt. xiv. 14. 4.) This title was confirmed to him after the battle of Actium by Octavianus. He sought to strengthen his throne by a series of cruelties and slaughters, putting to death even his wife Mariamne, and his sons Alexander and Aristobulus. His cruelties, and his affectation of Gentile customs, gained for him a hatred among the Jews, which neither his magnificent rebuilding of the temple, nor his liberality in other public works, nor his provident care of the people during a severe famine, could mitigate. He died miserably, five days after he had put to death his son Antipater, in the seventieth year of his age, the thirty-eighth of his reign, and the 750th year of Rome. The events here related took place a short time before his death, but necessarily more than forty days; for he spent the last forty days of his life at Jericho and the baths of Callirrhoe, and therefore would not be found by the magi at Jerusalem. The history of Herod’ s reign is contained in Josephus, Antt. books xiv.-xvii. μάγοιἀπὸἀνατολῶν ] Magi from the East; (not ἀπ . ἀνατ . παρεγ .) The absence of the art. after μάγοι is no objection to this interpretation. In fact it could not have been here expressed, because the concrete noun μάγοι is not distributed: as neither could it in such an expression as ἄνθρωποςἐνπνεύματιἀκαθάρτῳ , Mark 1:23. In the case of an anarthrous abstract noun, the art. may follow, but may also be omitted, cf. χαρὰἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳ , Romans 14:17: the distinction being, that χ . ἡἐνπν . ἁγ . would specify, among various kinds of joy, that one, which is ἐνπν . ἁγ ., whereas χ . ἐνπν . ἁγ . merely asserts the fact that the joy is ἐνπν . ἁγ ., without suggesting any comparison with other kinds. De W. remarks, that if ἀπὸἀνατ . belonged to παρεγ ., it would probably follow that verb, as ἐξὁδοῦ does, ref. Luke. I may add, that παραγίνομαι occurs with a preposition and a substantive twelve times in the N.T., and in no case are they prefixed. It would be useless to detail all the conjectures to which this history has given rise. From what has been written on the subject it would appear, (1) That ἀνατολαί may mean either Arabia, Persia, Chaldæ a, or Parthia, with the provinces adjacent. See Judges 6:3: Isaiah 41:2; Isaiah 46:11: Numbers 23:7. Philo (leg. ad Caium 34, vol. ii. p. 584) speaks of ἔθνητὰἑῷακαὶἡγεμόνεςαὐτῶνΠαρθυαῖοι . In all these countries there were magi, at least persons who in the wider sense of the word were now known by the name. The words in ver. 2 seem to point to some land not very near Judæ a, as also the result of Herod’ s enquiry as to the date, shewn in ἀπὸδιετοῦς . (2) If we place together the prophecy in Numbers 24:17, which could hardly be unknown to the Eastern astrologers,— and the assertion of Suetonius (Vesp. c. 4), ‘ Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constants opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judæ a profecti rerum potirentur,’ — and Tacitus, v. 13, ‘ Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judæ a rerum potirentur,’ — and the prophecy, also likely to be known in the East, of the seventy weeks in Daniel, 9:24;— we can, I think, be at no loss to understand how any remarkable celestial appearance at this time should have been interpreted as it was. (3) There is no ground for supposing the magi to have been three in number (as first, apparently, by Leo the Great, a.d., 450; “ tribus igitur magis in regione Orientis stella novæ claritatis apparuit,” Serm. xxxi. 1, vol. i. p. 112), or to have been kings. The first tradition appears to have arisen from the number of their gifts; the second, from the prophecy in Isaiah 60:3. (Tertullian seems to deduce it from the similar prophecy in Psalms 72:10. “ Reges Arabum et Saba munera afferent illi: nam et magos reges fere habuit Oriens.” Adv. Jude 1:9, vol. i. p. 619: adv. Marc. iii. 13, p. 339.) 2. αὐτοῦτὸνἀστέρα ] (Much has been said and written on the following note in no friendly spirit; but, for the most part, in entire misunderstanding of its drift and character. It seems to me that the preliminary question for us is, Have we here in the sacred text a miracle, or have we some natural appearance which God in His Providence used as a means of indicating to the magi the birth of His Son? Different minds may feel differently as to the answer to this question: but I submit that it is not for any man to charge another, who is as firm a believer in the facts related in the sacred text as he himself can be, with weakening that belief, because he feels an honest conviction that it is here relating, not a miracle but a natural appearance. It is, of course, the far safer way, as far as reputation is concerned, to introduce miraculous agency wherever possible: but the present Editor aims at truth, not popularity.) This expression of the magi, we have seen his star, does not seem to point to any miraculous appearance, but to something observed in the course of their watching the heavens. We know the magi to have been devoted to astrology: and on comparing the language of our text with this undoubted fact, I confess that it appears to me the most ingenuous way, fairly to take account of that fact in our exegesis, and not to shelter ourselves from an apparent difficulty by the convenient but forced hypothesis of a miracle. Wherever supernatural agency is asserted, or may be reasonably inferred, I shall ever be found foremost to insist on its recognition, and impugn every device of rationalism or semi-rationalism; but it does not therefore follow that I should consent to attempts, however well meant, to introduce miraculous interference where it does not appear to be borne out by the narrative. The principle on which this commentary is conducted, is that of honestly endeavouring to ascertain the sense of the sacred text, without regard to any preconceived systems, and fearless of any possible consequences. And if the scientific or historical researches of others seem to contribute to this, my readers will find them, as far as they have fallen within my observation, made use of for that purpose. Now we learn from astronomical calculations, that a remarkable conjunction of the planets of our system took place a short time before the birth of our Lord. (I may premise, that the whole of the statements in this note have been remarkably confirmed, except in the detail now corrected, “ that an ordinary eye would regard them (the planets) as one star of surpassing brightness,” by the Rev. C. Pritchard, in a paper read by him before the Royal Astronomical Society, containing his calculations of the times and nearnesses of the conjunctions, as verified by the Astronomer Royal at Greenwich. The exact days and hours have been inserted below from Mr. Pritchard’ s paper.) In the year of Rome 747, on the 20th of May (29th, Pritchard), there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the 20th degree of the constellation Pisces, close to the first point of Aries, which was the part of the heavens noted in astrological science as that in which the signs denoted the greatest and most noble events. On the 27th of October (29th Sept., Pritchard), in the same year, another conjunction of the same planets took place, in the 16th degree of Pisces: and on the 12th of November (5th Dec., Pritchard), a third, in the 15th degree of the same sign. (Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, ii. 329, sqq., also Winer, Realwö rterbuch, under ‘ Stern der Weisen,’ which see.) Supposing the magi to have seen the first of these conjunctions, they saw it actually in the East; for on the 29th of May it would rise 3½ hours before sunrise (Pritchard). If they then took their journey, and arrived at Jerusalem in a little more than five months (the journey from Babylon took Ezra four months, see Ezra 7:9), if they performed the route from Jerusalem to Bethlehem in the evening, as is implied, the December conjunction, in 15° of Pisces, would be before them in the direction of Bethlehem. (“ 1½ hour east of the meridian at sunset.” Pritchard.) These circumstances would seem to form a remarkable coincidence with the history in our text. They are in no way inconsistent with the word ἀστέρα , which cannot surely (see below) be pressed to its mere literal sense of one single star, but understood in its wider astrological meaning: nor is this explanation of the star directing them to Bethlehem at all repugnant to the plain words of vv. 9, 10, importing its motion from s.e. towards s.w., the direction of Bethlehem. We may further observe, that no part of the text respecting the star, asserts, or even implies, a miracle; and that the very slight apparent inconsistencies with the above explanation are no more than the report of the magi themselves, and the general belief of the age would render unavoidable. If this subservience of the superstitions of astrology to the Divine purposes be objected to, we may answer with Wetstein, ‘ Superest igitur ut illos ex regulis artis suæ hoc habuisse existimemus: quæ licet certissime futilis, vana, atque fallax esset, casu tamen aliquando in verum incidere potuit. Admirabilis hinc elucet sapientia Dei, qui hominum erroribus et sceleribus usus Josephum per scelus fratrum in Æ gyptum deduxit, regem Babelis per haruspicia et sortes Judæ is immisit, (Ezech. 21:21, 22) et magos hic per astrologiam ad Christum direxit.’ It may be remarked that Abarbanel the Jew, who knew nothing of this conjunction, relates it (Maajne haschnah, cited by Mü nter in Ebrard, Wissensch. Kritik, p. 248) as a tradition, that no conjunction could be of mightier import than that of Jupiter and Saturn, which planets were in conjunction a.m. 2365, before the birth of Moses, in the sign of Pisces; and thence remarks that that sign was the most significant one for the Jews. From this consideration he concludes that the conjunction of these planets in that sign, in his own time (a.d. 1463), betokened the near approach of the birth of the Messiah. And as the Jews did not invent astrology, but learnt it from the Chaldæ ans, this idea, that a conjunction in Pisces betokened some great event in Judæ a, must have prevailed among Chaldæ an astrologers. ἐντῇἀνατ .] Not ‘ at its rising,’ in which case we should expect to find αὐτοῦ , if not here, certainly in ver. 9,— but in the East, i.e. either in the Eastern country from which they came, or in the Eastern quarter of the heavens, as above explained. In ver. 9, ἐντ . ἀνατ . is opposed to ἐπάνωοὗἦντὸπαιδίον . προσκυνῆσαι ] To do homage to him, in the Eastern fashion of prostration. ‘ Necesse est enim, si in conspectum veneris, venerari te Regem, quod illi προσκυνεῖν vocant.’ Corn. Nep. Conon, 3. 3. ἐταράχθη ] Josephus, Antt. xvii. 2. 4, represents these troubles as raised by the Pharisees, who prophesied a revolution. ἩρώδῃμὲνκαταπαύσεωςἀρχῆςὑπὸΘεοῦἐψηφισμένηςαὐτῷτεκαὶγένειτῷἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . Herod, as a foreigner and usurper, feared one who was born King of the Jews: the people, worn away by seditions and slaughters, feared fresh tumults and wars. There may also be a trace of the popular notion that the times of the Messiah would be ushered in by great tribulations: so Schö ttgen, ii. p. 512, from the book Sohar, “ quo tempore Sol redemptionis ipsis illucescet, tribulatio post tribulationem et tenebræ post tenebras venient ipsis: dum vero in his versantur, illucescet ipsis Lux Dei S. B.” πᾶσαἹεροσόλυμα ] Here and apparently at ch. 3:5, used as a feminine singular. Joseph. Bell. Jude 1:6.10.1, uses ἑάλωἹεροσ .… ἁλοῦσα … , but none of these instances are decisive: an ellipsis of ἡπόλις being possible. 4. συναγαγών ] i.e. says Lightfoot, he assembled the Sanhedrim. For the Sanhedrim consisting of seventy-one members, and comprising Priests, Levites, and Israelites (Maimonides), under the term ἀρχιερεῖς are contained the two first of these, and under γραμ . τ . λαοῦ the third. ἀρχ . are most likely the High Priest and those of his race,— any who had served the office,— and perhaps also the presidents of the twenty-four courses (1 Chronicles 24:6). γρ . consisted of the teachers and interpreters of the Divine law, the νομικοί and νομοδιδάσκαλοι of St. Luke. But the πρεσβύτεροιτοῦλαοῦ are usually mentioned with these two classes as making up the Sanhedrim. See ch. 16:21; 26:3, 59. Possibly on this occasion the ἀρχ . and γρ . only were summoned, the question being one of Scripture learning. “ ἀρχιερεῖς ,” says Bp. Wordsworth, “ is a word suggestive of the confusion now introduced into the nomination to the office of High Priest, when the true High Priest came from heaven to ‘ purify the sons of Levi’ (Malachi 3:3).” Instead of one High Priest for life, there were many, made and unmade in rapid succession. As Spanheim says, Dub. Evan. ii. 37, “ ἀρχιερωσύνη confusa, Christo exhibito. Summum sacerdotium pessime habitum, Herodis et Romanorum licentia.” γεννᾶται ] The present tense is often used indefinitely of subjects of prophecy, e.g. ὁἐρχόμενος , ch. 11:3: Hebrews 10:37; ἔρχεται , in an expression exactly parallel to this, John 7:42. 6. καὶσύ ] This is a free paraphrase of the prophecy in Micah 5:2. It must be remembered that though the words are the answer of the Sanhedrim to Herod, and not a citation of the prophet by the Evangelist, yet they are adopted by the latter as correct. Lightfoot renders the Hebrew, ‘ parvum est ut sis inter chiliadas,’ and adds, that the Chaldee paraphrast, who may possibly have been present at this very council, renders the words ‘ intra pauxillum es ut præ ficiaris.’ γῆἸούδα ] γῆ need not be supposed to be put for πόλις : the district may be intended, as described in ver. 16. ἡγεμόσιν ] or χιλιάσιν (LXX). The tribes were divided into chiliads, and the names of the chiliads inscribed in the public records of their respective cities. In Judges 6:15 Gideon says ἰδοὺἡχιλιάςμουἠσθένησενἐνΜανασσῇ , on which R. Kimchi (cited by Lightfoot) annotates, “ Some understand Alphi to mean ‘ my father,’ as if it were Alluph, whose signification is ‘ prince or lord.’  ” And thus, it appears, did the Sanhedrim understand the word (which is the same) in Micah 5:2. The word ב א ל פ י , without points, may mean either ב ּ ְ א ַ ל ְ פ ֵ י , ἐνχιλιάσιν , or ב ּ ְ א ַ ל ּ ֻ פ ֵ י , ἐνἡγεμόσιν . ἐκσοῦγὰρἐξ .] It has been remarked that the singular Latin expression, which occurs both in Tacitus and Suetonius (see the passages above in note on μάγοιἀπ . ἀν .) ‘ Judæ a profecti,’ may have been derived from these words of the LXX. 7. ἠκρίβωσεν ] ascertained accurately. φαινομένου ] lit. the time (or, duration: perhaps as an element in his calculation of age) of the star which appeared: φ . being the part. pres., referred back to the time when they saw the star. The position of φ . between the art. and its subst. forbids such renderings as ‘ the time when the star appeared.’ 8. πορευθέντες … ἐλθών ] The pleonastic use of these words, common as a Hebraism in the N.T. (see reff.), is also idiomatic in English; and it may be remarked, that although not strictly needed in the sentences where they occur, their insertion always gives fulness and accuracy to the meaning. 9. On this see note on ver. 2. ἐπάνωοὗἦντὸπ . may mean, ‘ over that part of Bethlehem where the young child was,’ which they might have ascertained by enquiry. Or it may even mean, ‘ over the whole town of Bethlehem.’ If it is to be understood as standing over the house, and thus indicating to the magi the position of the object of their search, the whole incident must be regarded as miraculous. But this is not necessarily implied, even if the words of the text be literally understood; and in a matter like astronomy, where popular language is so universally broad, and the Scriptures so generally use popular language, it is surely not the letter, but the spirit of the narrative with which we are concerned. 11. μετὰΜαρίας ] No stress must be laid on the omission of Joseph here. In the parallel account as regarded the shepherds, in Luke 2:16, he is mentioned. I would rather regard the omission here as indicating a simple matter of fact, and contributing to shew the truthfulness of the narrative:— that Joseph happened not to be present at the time. If the meaning of τὴνοἰκίαν is to be pressed (as in a matter of detail I think it should), it will confirm the idea that Joseph and Mary, probably under the idea that the child was to be brought up at Bethlehem, dwelt there some time after the Nativity. Epiphanius supposes that Mary was at this time on a visit to her kindred at Bethlehem (possibly at a passover) as much as two years after our Lord’ s birth. (Hæ rr. xx. xxx. 29, Lev_8, vol. i. pp. 48, 154, 430.) But if Mary had kindred at Bethlehem, how could she be so ill-provided with lodging, and have (as is implied in Luke 2:7) sought accommodation at an inn? And the supposition of two years having elapsed, derived probably from the διετοῦς of ver. 16, will involve us in considerable difficulty. There seems to be no reason why the magi may not have come within the forty days before the Purification, which itself may have taken place in the interval between their departure and Herod’ s discovery that they had mocked him. No objection can be raised to this view from the ἀπὸδιετοῦς of ver. 16: see note there. The general idea is, that the Purification was previous to the visit of the magi. Being persuaded of the historic reality of these narratives of Matt. and Luke, we shall find no difficulty in also believing that, were we acquainted with all the events as they happened, their reconcilement would be an easy matter; whereas now the two independent accounts, from not being aware of, seem to exclude one another. This will often be the case in ordinary life; e.g. in the giving of evidence. And nothing can more satisfactorily shew the veracity and independence of the narrators, where their testimony to the main facts, as in the present case, is consentient. (I must caution the reader against the misunderstanding of these last remarks in Bishop Ellicott’ s Lectures on the Life of our Lord, p. 70, note 4; and indeed of my own views as regards apparently irreconcilable narrative in the Gospels, generally throughout his notes to that work.) θησαυρούς ] chests or bales, in which the gifts were carried during their journey. The ancient Fathers were fond of tracing in the gifts symbolical meanings: ὡςβασιλεῖτὸνχρυσόν , ὡςδὲτεθνηξομένῳτὴνσμύρναν , ὡςδὲθεῷτὸνλιβανωτόν . Origen, ag. Celsus, i. 60, vol. i. p. 375, and similarly Irenæ us, iii. 9. 2, p. 184:— χρυσὸναὐτῷγεννηθέντιβασιλείαςσύμβολονπροσεκόμισανοἱμάγοι . ( Pæ d. ii. 8 (63), p. 206 .) We cannot conclude from these gifts that the magi came from Arabia,— as they were common to all the East. Strabo says, xvi. p. 1129, ., that the best frankincense comes from the borders of Persia. 13-23. Flight into Egypt. 13. ἐγερθεὶςπαρ .] Arise and take with thee; not, ‘ When thou hast arisen (in the morning), take.’ The command was immediate; and Joseph made no delay. He must be understood, on account of νυκτός below, as having arisen the same night and departed forthwith. The words ἐγερθεὶςπαρέλαβεν are also used in vv. 20, 21, where no haste is necessarily implied. Egypt, as near, as a Roman province and independent of Herod, and much inhabited by Jews, was an easy and convenient refuge. τοῦἀπολ . is not a Hebraism, but pure Greek, implying the purpose. See Soph. Trach. 57, and Hermann’ s note. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 357, notices that it is rarely found in earlier Greek writers, but more common as we advance to the middle and later Attic. A few instances occur in Xenophon, more in Demosthenes, and abundance in after-writers. See on the usage, Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 4. b. 15. ἐξΑἰγύπτου ] This citation shews the almost universal application in the N.T. of the prophetic writings to the expected Messiah, as the general antitype of all the events of the typical dispensation. We shall have occasion to remark the same again and again in the course of the Gospels. It seems to have been a received axiom of interpretation (which has, by its adoption in the N.T., received the sanction of the Holy Spirit Himself, and now stands for our guidance), that the subject of all allusions, the represented in all parables and dark sayings, was He who was to come, or the circumstances attendant on His advent and reign. The words are written in Hosea of the children of Israel, and are rendered from the Hebrew. A similar expression with regard to Israel is found in Exodus 4:22, Exodus 4:23. ἵνα must not be explained away; it never denotes the event or mere result, but always the purpose. 16. Josephus makes no mention of this slaughter; nor is it likely that he would have done. Probably no great number of children perished in so small a place as Bethlehem and its neighbourhood. The modern objections to this narrative may be answered best by remembering the monstrous character of this tyrant, of whom Josephus asserts (Antt. xvii. 6. 5), μέλαιναχολὴαὐτὸνᾕρειἐπὶπᾶσινἐξαγριαίνουσα . Herod had marked the way to his throne, and his reign itself, with blood; had murdered his wife and three sons (the last just about this time); and was likely enough, in blind fury, to have made no enquiries, but given the savage order at once. Besides, there might have been a reason for not making enquiry, but rather taking the course he did, which was sure, as he thought, to answer the end, without divulging the purpose. The word λάθρα in ver. 7 seems to favour this view. Macrobius (Saturnalia, ii. 4) relates an anecdote of Augustus: ‘ Cum audisset inter pueros quos in Syria Herodes rex Judæ orum intra bimatum jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait, Melius est Herodis porcum esse (τὸνὕν) quam filium (τὸνυἱόν).’ But Macrobius wrote in the fifth century, and the words ‘ intra bimatum’ look very like a quotation from our narrative. Besides, the anecdote shews great ignorance of the chronology of Herod’ s reign. Antipater, the last put to death of his sons, was of full age at his execution. See Ellicott’ s note, Lectures, p. 78. ἐνεπαίχθη ] ‘ Loquitur Matth. ex sensu et opinione Herodis.’ (Calvin.) ἀπὸδιετοῦς ] i.e. παιδίου , not χρόνου . This expression must not be taken as any very certain indication of the time when the star did actually appear. The addition καὶκατωτέρω implies that there was uncertainty in Herod’ s mind as to the age pointed out; and if so, why might not the jealous tyrant, although he had accurately ascertained the date of the star’ s appearing, have taken a range of time extending before as well as after it, the more surely to attain his point? τοῖςὁρίοιςαὐτῆς will betoken, as Meyer, the insulated houses, and hamlets, which belonged to the territory of Bethlehem. 17. τὸῥηθ . διὰἹερ .] Apparently, an accommodation of the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:15, which was originally written of the Babylonish captivity. We must not draw any fanciful distinction between τότεἐπληρώθη and ἵναπληρωθῇ , but rather seek our explanation in the acknowledged system of prophetic interpretation among the Jews, still extant in their Rabbinical books, and now sanctioned to us by N.T. usage; at the same time remembering, for our caution, how little even now we understand of the full bearing of prophetic and typical words and acts. None of the expressions of this prophecy must be closely and literally pressed. The link of connexion seems to be Rachel’ s sepulchre, which (Genesis 35:19: see also 1 Samuel 10:2) was ‘ in the way to Bethlehem;’ and from that circumstance, perhaps, the inhabitants of that place are called her children. We must also take into account the close relation between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which had long subsisted. Ramah was six miles to the north of Jerusalem, in the tribe of Benjamin (Jeremiah 40:1: “ Er-Ram, marked by the village and green patch on its summit, the most conspicuous object from a distance in the approach to Jerusalem from the South, is certainly ‘ Ramah of Benjamin.’  ” Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 213); so that neither must this part of the prophecy be strictly taken. 20. τεθνήκασινγάρ ] The plural here is not merely idiomatic, nor, as Wordsw., “ for lenity and forbearance, in speaking of the dead;” but perhaps a citation from Exodus 4:19, where the same words are spoken to Moses : or, as Meyer, betokening, not the number, but the category. Cf. Soph. Œ d. Col. 966. Herod the Great died of a dreadful disease at Jericho, in the seventieth year of his age, and the thirty-eighth of his reign, a.u.c. 750. Jos. B. J. i. 33. 8. 22. ἀκούσαςδέ ] Archelaus was the son of Herod by Malthace, a Samaritan woman: he was brought up at Rome (Jos. B. J. i. 31. 1); succeeded his father, but never had the title of king, only that of Ethnarch, with the government of Idumæ a, Judæ a, and Samaria, the rest of his father’ s dominions being divided between his brothers Philip and Antipas. (Jos. Antt. xvii. 11. 4.) But, (1) very likely the word βασιλεύω is here used in the wider meaning:— (2) Archelaus did, in the beginning of his reign, give out and regard himself as king: τὸπλῆθος … εὐχαριστεῖ … τῆςπρὸςαὐτὸνθεραπείαςὡςπρὸςβέβαιονἤδηβασιλέα (Jos. B. J. ii. 1.1): (3) in ch. 14:9, Herod the Tetrarch is called ὁβασιλεύς . In the ninth year of his government Archelaus was dethroned, οὐμόνονἸουδαίοις , ἀλλάκαὶΣαμαρεῦσιχρησάμενοςὠμῶς , πρεσβευσαμένωνἑκατέρωνκατ ʼ αὐτοῦπρὸςΚαίσαρα , … φυγαδεύεταιμὲνεἰςΒιένναν , πόλιςτῆςΓαλατίας … i.e. Vienne, in Gaul. (ibid. ii. 7. 3.) ἀνεχώρησενεἰςτ . μ . τ . Γαλ .] This account gives rise to some difficulty as compared with St. Luke’ s history. It would certainly, on a first view, appear that this Evangelist was not aware that Nazareth had been before this the abode of Joseph and Mary. And it is no real objection to this, that he elsewhere calls Nazareth τὴνπατρίδααὐτοῦ , ch. 13:54, 57. It is perhaps just possible that St. Matthew, writing for Jews, although well aware of the previous circumstances, may not have given them a place in his history, but made the birth at Bethlehem the prominent point, seeing that his account begins at the birth (ch. 1:18), and does not localize what took place before it, which is merely inserted as subservient to that great leading event. If this view be correct, all we could expect is, that his narrative would contain nothing inconsistent with the facts related in Luke; which we find to be the case. I should prefer, however, believing, as more consistent, in foro conscientiæ , with the fair interpretation of our text, that St. Matthew himself was not aware of the events related in Luke 1:2, and wrote under the impression that Bethlehem was the original dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. Certainly, had we only his Gospel, this inference from it would universally be made. ἀνεχώρησεν must not be pressed (as Wordsw., .) into the service of reconciling the two accounts by being rendered ‘ returned;’ for the same word is used (ver. 14) of the journey to Egypt. 23. ὅπωςπληρωθῇ ] These words refer to the divine purpose in the event, not to that of Joseph in bringing it about. τὸῥηθὲνδ . τ . πρ .] These words are no where verbatim to be found, nor is this asserted by the Evangelist; but that the sense of the prophets is such. In searching for such sense, the following hypotheses have been made— none of them satisfactory:— (1) Euthymius says, ποῖοιπροφῆταιτοῦτοεἶπον , μὴζητήσῃς · οὐχεὑρήσειςγάρ · διότιπολλὰτῶνπροφητικῶνβιβλίωνἀπώλοντο , τὰμὲνἐνταῖςαἰχμαλωσίαις , τὰδὲκαὶἐξἀμελείαςτῶνἙβραίων , τινὰδὲκαὶἐκκακουργίας . So also Chrys., Theophyl., Le Clerc, &c. But the expression διὰτ . πρ . seems to have a wider bearing than is thus implied. (2) The general sense of the prophets is, that Christ should be a despised person, as the inhabitants of Nazareth were (John 1:47). So Michaelis, Paulus, Rosenm., Kuin., Olsh., &c. But surely this part of the Messiah’ s prophetic character is not general or prominent enough, in the absence of any direct verbal connexion with the word in our text, to found such an interpretation on: nor, on the other hand, does it appear that an inhabitant of Nazareth, as such, was despised; only that the obscurity of the town was, both by Nathanael and the Jews, contrasted with our Lord’ s claims. (3) The Nazarites of old were men holy and consecrated to God; e.g. Samson (Judges 13:5), Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11), and to this the words are referred by , Jerome, Erasm., Beza, Calvin, Grot., Wetst., al. But our Lord did not (like John the Baptist) lead a life in accordance with the Nazarite vow, but drank wine, &c., and set himself in marked contrast with John in this very particular (ch. 11:18, 19); and the word for Nazarite is Ναζίρ , or Ναζειραῖος (ib. and 16:18 ,— Lamentations 4:7), whereas this, denoting an inhabitant of Nazareth, is Ναζωραῖος always in the N.T., except in Mark (1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6), and Luke 4:43 (18:37; 24:19 v. r.), where it is Ναζαρηνός . (4) There may be an allusion to נ ֵ צ ֶ ר , a branch, by which name our Lord is called in Isaiah 11:1, and from which word it appears that the name Nazareth is probably derived. So ‘ eruditi Hebræ i,’ in Jerome on Isaiah 11:1, and Pisc., Casaub., Fritz., De Wette, &c. But this word is only used in the place cited; and in by far the more precise prophecies of the Branch, Zechariah 3:8; Zechariah 6:12: Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15, and Isaiah 4:2, the word צ ֶ מ ַ ח is used. I leave it, therefore, as an unsolved difficulty. Chap. 3:1-12. Preaching and baptism of John. Mark 1:1-8. Luke 3:1-17. Here the synoptic narrative begins, its extent being the same as that specified by Peter in Acts 1:22, ‘ from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us.’ For a critical comparison of the narratives in the various sections, see notes on St. Mark. In this Gospel, I have generally confined myself to the subject matter. 1. ἐνδὲταῖςἡμ . ἐκ .] The last matter mentioned was the dwelling at Nazareth: and though we must not take the connexion strictly as implying that Joseph dwelt there all the intermediate thirty years, the ἡμέραιἐκεῖναι must be understood to mean that we take up the persons of the narrative where we left them; i.e. dwelling at Nazareth. See Exodus 2:11, LXX. παραγίνεται ] Comes forward— ‘ makes his appearance.’ asks the question, πόθεν ; and answers it, ἀπὸτῆςἐνδοτέραςἐρήμου . But this can hardly be, owing to the ἐντῇἐρήμῳ following. The verb is used absolutely. The title Ἰω . ὁβαπτ . shews that St. Matthew was writing for those who well knew John the Baptist as an historical personage. Josephus, in mentioning him (Antt. xviii. 5. 2), calls him Ἰωάννηςὁἐπικαλούμενοςβαπτιστής . John was strictly speaking a prophet; belonging to the legal dispensation; a rebuker of sin, and preacher of repentance. The expression in St. Luke, ἐγένετοῥῆμαθεοῦἐπὶἸωάννην , is the usual formula for the Divine commission of the Prophets (Jeremiah 1:1: Ezekiel 6:1; Ezekiel 7:1, &c.). And the effect of the Holy Spirit on John was more in accordance with the O.T. than the N.T. inspiration; more of a sudden overpowering influence, as in the Prophets, than a gentle indwelling manifested through the individual character, as in the Apostles and Evangelists. The baptism of John was of a deeper significance than that usual among the Jews in the case of proselytes, and formed an integral part of his divinely appointed office. It was emphatically the baptism of repentance (λουτρὸνμετανοίας , says Olshausen (cf. Luke 3:3), but not λουτρὸνπαλιγγενεσίας , Titus 3:5). We find in Acts 18:24-26; Acts 19:1-7, accounts of persons who had received the baptism of John, who believed and (in Apollos’ s case) taught accurately the things (i.e. facts) concerning the Lord; but required instruction (in doctrine) and rebaptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus. Whether the baptism practised by the disciples before the Resurrection was of the same kind, and required this renewal, is uncertain. The fact of our Lord Himself having received baptism from John, is decisive against the identity of the two rites, as also against the idea (Olsh. i. 154, note) derived from Acts 19:4, that John used the formula βαπτίζωσεεἰςτὸνἐρχόμενον . His whole mission, as Olsh. well observes, was calculated, in accordance with the office of the law which gives the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), to bring men’ s minds into that state in which the Redeemer invites them (ch. 11:28), as weary and heavy laden, to come to him. ἐντῇἐρήμῳ ] where also he had been brought up, Luke 1:80. This tract was not strictly a desert, but thinly peopled, and abounding in pastures for flocks. Josephus, B. J. iii. 10. 7, says, that the Jordan διατέμνειτὴνΓεννήσαρμέσην , ἔπειταπολλὴνἀναμετρούμενοςἐρημίανεἰςτὴνἈσφαλτῖτινἔξεισιλίμνην . See Judges 1:16; 1 Kings 2:34. This ἔρημος answers to πᾶσαπερίχωροςτοῦἸορδάνου in Luke 3:3. See note on ch. 4:1. 2. μετανοεῖτε ] Used by the Baptist in the O.T. sense of turning to God as His people, from the spiritual idolatry and typical adultery in which the faithless among the Jews were involved. This, of course, included personal amendment in individuals. See Luke 3:10-14. Josephus describes John, Antt. xviii. 5. 2, as τοὺςἸουδαίουςκελεύονταἀρετὴνἐπασκοῦνταςκαὶτῇπρὸςἀλλήλουςδικαιοσύνῃκαὶπρὸςτὸνθεὸνεὐσεβείᾳχρωμένουςβαπτισμῷσυνιέναι . ἡβασιλείατῶνοὐρανῶν ] An expression peculiar in the N.T. to St. Matthew. The more usual one is ἡβασ . τοῦθεοῦ : but ἡβ . τῶνοὐρ . is common in the Rabbinical writers, who do not however, except in one or two places, mean by it the reign of the Messiah, but the Jewish religion— the theocracy. Still, from the use of it by St. Matthew here, and in ch. 4:17; 10:7, we may conclude that it was used by the Jews, and understood, to mean the advent of the Christ, probably from the prophecy in Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:14, Daniel 7:27. It has been observed by recent critics, that wherever the term βασ . τ . οὐρ . (or its equivalent) is used in the N.T., it signifies, not the Church, nor the Christian religion, but strictly the kingdom of the Messiah which is to be revealed hereafter. I should doubt this being exclusively true. The state of Christian men now is undoubtedly a part of the bringing in of the kingdom of Christ, and, as such, is included in this term. See Mark 12:34, and note on ch. 5:3. 3. οὗτοςγάρἐστιν ] Not the words of the Baptist, meaning ἐγὼγάρεἰμι , as in John 1:23, but of the Evangelist; and ἐστιν is not for ἦν , but is the prophetic present, representing to us the place which the Baptist fills in the divine purposes. Of γάρ , Bengel says well, “ Causa cur Johannes ita exoriri tum debuerit uti ver. 1, 2 describitur, quia sic præ dictum erat.” The words ἐντῇἐρήμῳ belong in the Hebrew to ἑτοιμάσατε , but in the LXX and here to βοῶντος . The primary and literal application of this prophecy to the return from captivity is very doubtful. If it ever had such an application, we may safely say that its predictions were so imperfectly and sparingly fulfilled in that return, or any thing which followed it, that we are necessarily directed onward to its greater fulfilment— the announcement of the kingdom of Christ. Euthymius remarks, ὁδὸνδὲκυρίουκαὶτρίβουςαὐτοῦκαλεῖτὰςψυχάς , ὧνἐπιβαίνεινἔμελλενὁλόγοςτοῦεὐαγγελίου , ἃςκαὶπροτρέπεταιἑτοιμάζειν , ἤγουνκαθαίρειν , τῷἐργαλείῳτῆςμετανοίαςἀνασπῶνταςμὲντὰςἀκάνθαςτῶνπαθῶν , ἐκρίπτονταςδὲτοὺςλίθουςτῆςἁμαρτίας , καὶοὕτωςεὐθείαςκαὶὁμαλὰςαὐτὰςἀπεργάζεσθαιπρὸςὑποδοχὴναὐτοῦ . 4. αὐτὸςδὲὁἸω .] αὐτὸς recalls the reader from the prophetic testimony, to the person of John: now John himself.… As John was the Elias of prophecy, so we find in his outward attire a striking similarity to Elias, who was ἀνὴρδασύς , καὶζωνὴνδερματίνηνπεριεζωσμένοςτὴνὀσφὺναὐτοῦ . 4 Kings 1:8. The garment of camel’ s hair was not the camel’ s skin with the hair on, which would be too heavy to wear, but raiment woven of camel’ s hair, such as Josephus speaks of (B. J. i. 24. 3), ἐσθῆτεςἐκτριχῶνπεποιημέναι , as a contrast to ἐσθ . βασιλικαί . From Zechariah 13:4, it seems that such a dress was known as the prophetic garb: ‘ neither shall they (the prophets) wear a rough garment (δέῤῥιντριχίνην , LXX, who, however, make it a garment of penitence for having deceived) to deceive.’ ἀκρίδες ] There is no difficulty here. The ἀκρίς , permitted to be eaten, ref. Levit., was used as food by the lower orders in Judæ a, and mentioned by Strabo and Pliny as eaten by the Æ thiopians, and by many other authors as articles of food. Jerome, adv. Jovinian. ii. 7, vol. ii. p. 334, says, “ Apud Orientales et Libyæ populos quia per desertam et calidam eremi vastitatem locustarum nubes reperiuntur, locustis vesci moris est: hoc verum esse Joannes quoque Baptista probat.” Shaw found locusts eaten by the Moors in Barbary. (Travels, p. 164) Epiphanius, Hæ r. xxx. 13, vol. i. p. 138, quotes this from the Gospel according to the Ebionites as follows: καὶτὸβρῶμααὐτοῦμέλιἄγριον , οὗἡγεῦσιςἦντοῦμάννα , ὡςἔγκριςἐνἐλαίῳ , and adds, ἵναδῆθενμεταστρέψωσιτὸντῆςἀληθείαςλόγονεἰςψεῦδος , καὶἀντὶἀκρίδωνποιήσωσινἐγκρίδαςἐνμέλιτι . μέλιἄγριον ] See 1 Samuel 14:25. Here, again, there is no need to suppose any thing else meant but honey made by wild bees; τὸἐνταῖςτῶνπετρῶνσχισμαῖςὑπὸτῶνμελισσῶνγεωργούμενον . Euthym. Schulz (cited by Winer, Realw., and De Wette) found such honey in this very wilderness in our own time. See Psalms 81:16: Judges 14:8: Deuteronomy 32:13. The passage usually cited from Diodorus Siculus (xix. 94) to shew that μέλιἄγριον exuded from trees, does not necessarily imply it; φύεταιγὰρπαρ ʼ αὐτοῖςτὸπέπεριἀπὸτῶνδένδρων , καὶμέλιπολὺτὸκαλούμενονἄγριον , ᾧχρῶνταιποτῷμεθ ʼ ὕδατος . Suidas certainly makes it a gum: μ . ἄγ . ὅπερἀπὸτῶνδένδρωνἐπισυναγόμενον , μάννατοῖςπολλοῖςπροσαγορεύεται . And Meyer prefers this view, on account of the predicate ἄγριον , which, he says, is a terminus technicus, pointing out this particular kind of honey. But he does not give any authority for this assertion: and it seems just as likely that ἄγριον might be applied to it as made by wild bees. 5. τότεἐξεπ .] The latter καί here has been supposed to mean ‘ especially,’ seeing that Judæ a was part of the περίχωρος ; as in the expression ἄλλωςτεκαί . But the former καὶπᾶσα will hardly allow this. καὶπᾶσαἡπερ . means all the neighbourhood of Jordan not included in Jerusalem and Judæ a before mentioned. Parts of Peræ a, Samaria, Galilee, and Gaulonitis come under this denomination. There need be no surprise at such multitudes going out to John. The nature of his announcement, coupled with the prevalent expectation of the time, was enough to produce this effect. See, as strictly consistent with this account, chap. 11:7-15. 6. ἐβαπτίζοντο ] When men were admitted as proselytes, three rites were performed— circumcision, baptism, and oblation; when women, two— baptism and oblation. The baptism was administered in the day-time, by immersion of the whole person; and while standing in the water the proselyte was instructed in certain portions of the law. The whole families of proselytes, including infants, were baptized. It is most probable that John’ s baptism in outward form resembled that of proselytes. See above, on ver. 1. Some (De Wette, Winer, Paulus, Meyer) deny that the proselyte baptism was in use before the time of John: but the contrary has been generally supposed, and maintained (cf. Lightfoot, Schö ttgen, Buxtorf, Wetstein, Bengel). Indeed the baptism or lustration of a proselyte on admission would follow as a matter of course, by analogy from the constant legal practice of lustration after all uncleannesses: and it is difficult to imagine a time when it would not be in use. Besides, it is highly improbable that the Jews should have borrowed the rite from the Christians, or the Jewish hierarchy from John. ἐξομολογούμενοιτ . ἁμ . αὐ .] From the form and expression this does not seem to have been merely ‘ shewing a contrite spirit,’ ‘ confessing themselves sinners,’ but a particular and individual confession; not, however, made privately to John, but before the people: see his exhortation to the various classes in Luke 3:10-15: nor in every case, but in those which required it. Josephus uses the very same expression, Antt. viii. 4. 6. The present participle carries with it a certain logical force; “ confessing, as they did,” — almost = “ on condition of confessing.” So Fritzsche, “ si peccata sua confiterentur.” 7. Φαρισ . καὶΣαδδ .] These two sects, according to Josephus, Antt. xiii. 5. 9, originated at the same period, under Jonathan the High Priest (b.c. 159-144). The Pharisees, deriving their name probably from פ ּ ָ ר ַ ש ׁ , ‘ he separated’ (διὰτὴνἐθεχοπερισσοθρησκείαν , Epiph. Hæ r. xvi. 1, vol. i. p. 34), took for their distinctive practice the strict observance of the law and all its requirements, written and oral. They had great power over the people, and are numbered by Josephus, as being, about the time of the death of Herod the Great, above 6000. (Antt. xvii. 2. 4.) We find in the Gospels the Pharisees the most constant opponents of our Lord, and His discourses frequently directed against them. The character of the sect as a whole was hypocrisy; the outside acknowledgment and honouring of God and his law, but inward and practical denial of Him: which rendered them the enemies of the simplicity and genuineness which characterized our Lord’ s teaching. Still among them were undoubtedly pious and worthy men, honourably distinguished from the mass of the sect; John 3:1: Acts 5:34. The various points of their religious and moral belief will be treated of as they occur in the text of the Gospels. Σαδδουκαίων ] Are said to have derived their name from one Sadok, about the time of Alexander the Great (b.c. 323): but more probably, as stated by Epiphanius, Hæ r. xiv. 1, vol. i. p. 31, ἐπονομάζουσινἑαυτοὺςΣαδδουκαίουςδῆθενἀπὸδικαιοσύνηςτῆςἐπικλήσεωςὁρμωμένης · σεδὲκγὰρ (whence the adjectival form, צ ַ ד ּ ִ י ק , see Genesis 6:9; 18:25 . fr.) ἑρμηνεύεταιδικαιοσύνη . They rejected all tradition, but did not, as some have supposed, confine their canon of Scripture to the Pentateuch. The denial of a future state does not appear to have been an original tenet of Sadduceism, but to have sprung from its abuse. The particular side of religionism represented by the Sadducees was bare literal moral conformity, without any higher views or hopes. They thus escaped the dangers of tradition, but fell into deadness and worldliness, and a denial of spiritual influence. While our Lord was on earth, this state of mind was very prevalent among the educated classes throughout the Roman empire; and most of the Jews of rank and station were Sadducees. The two sects, mutually hostile, are found frequently in the Gospels united in opposition to our Lord (see ch. 16:1, 6, 11; 22:23, 34: also Acts 4:1); the Pharisees representing hypocritical superstition; the Sadducees, carnal unbelief. ἐρχομένους ] as they came. It would appear here as if these Pharisees and Sadducees came with others, and because others did, without any worthy motive, and they were probably deterred by his rebuke from undergoing baptism at his hands. We know, from Luke 7:30, that the Pharisees in general ‘ were not baptized of him.’ ἐπί denotes the moral direction of their purpose, not merely motion towards: as in ΜενέλαονστἐλλεινἐπὶτὰνἙλέναν , Eur. Iph. Aul. 178,— and similar expressions; cf. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 252 f., where many examples are given. Some interpret it in a hostile sense, ‘ to oppose his baptism,’ as in ἑπτὰἐπὶΘήβας : but this is manifestly inconsistent with the context. τῆςμελλούσηςὀργῆς ] The reference of John’ s ministry to the prophecy concerning Elias, Malachi 3:1; Malachi 4:5 (Mark 1:2), would naturally suggest to men’ s minds ‘ the wrath to come’ there also foretold. It was the general expectation of the Jews that troublous times would accompany the appearance of the Messiah. John is now speaking in the true character of a prophet, foretelling the wrath soon to be poured on the Jewish nation. 8. οὖν expresses an inference from their apparent intention of fleeing from the wrath to come: q. d., ‘ if you are really so minded,’ … 9. μὴδόξητελ .] Not pleonastic: but, Do not fancy you may say, &c. In Justin Martyr’ s dialogue with Trypho the Jew, § 140, p. 230, we read: εἰσὶδὲλάκκοισυντετριμμένοικαὶὕδωρμὴσυνέχοντες , οὓςὤρυξανὑμῖνοἱδιδάσκαλοιὑμῶναὐτῶν … καὶπρὸςτούτοιςἑαυτοὺςκαὶὑμᾶςβουκολοῦσιν , ὑπολαμβάνοντεςὅτιπάντωςτοῖςἀπὸτῆςσπορᾶςτῆςκατὰσάρκατοῦἈβραὰμοὖσι , κἂνἁμαρτωλοὶὦσι , καὶἄπιστοι , καὶἀπειθεῖςπρὸςτὸνθεόν , ἡβασιλείαἡαἰώνιοςδοθήσεται . The expression λέγεινἐνἑαυτοῖς , as similar expressions in Scripture (e.g., Psalms 9:6 (27), 11 (32); 13:1: Ecclesiastes 1:16; Ecclesiastes 2:15 al. fr.), is used to signify the act by which outward circumstances are turned into thoughts of the mind. See Beck, Biblische Seelenlehre, p. 83. ἐκτῶνλ . τ .] The pebbles or shingle on the beach of the Jordan. He possibly referred to Isaiah 51:1, Isaiah 51:2. This also is prophetic, of the admission of the Gentile Church. See Romans 4:16: Galatians 3:29. Or we may take the interpretation which Chrysostom prefers, also referring to Isaiah 51:1, Isaiah 51:2: μὴνομίζετε , φησίν , ὅτιἐὰνὑμεῖςἀπόλησθε , ἄπαιδαποιήσετετὸνπατριάρχην . οὐκἔστιτοῦτο , οὐκἔστι . τῷγὰρθεῷδυνατὸνκαὶἀπὸλίθωιἀνθρώπουςαὐτῷδοῦναι , καὶεἰςσυγγένειαναὐτοῦἀγαγεῖν , ἐπεὶκαὶἐξἀρχῆςοὕτωςἐγένετο . τῷγὰρἐκλίθωνἀνθρώπουςγενέσθαιὅμοιονἦντὸἀπὸτῆςμήτραςἐκείνηςτῆςσκληρᾶςπροελθεῖνπαιδίον . 10. Of ἤδηδέ , Klotz says, Devar. p. 606, “ Respondent Latinis particulis jam vero, et habent idoneum atque alacrem transitum ab una re ad aliam.… Transitum faciunt illæ particulæ , ut nos ad rem præ sentem revocent:” Eurip. Med. 772: Rhes. 499: Herodot. vii. 35. The presents, κεῖται , ἐκκόπτεται , and βάλλεται , imply the law, or habit, which now and henceforward, in the kingdom of heaven, prevails: ‘ from this time it is so.’ 11. ἐνὕδ .] ἐν is not redundant, but signifies the vehicle of baptism, as in ἐνπν . ἁγ . κ . πυρί afterwards. ἐρχόμενος ] The present participle is used of a certain and predetermined future event; “ he that is to come.” See on ch. 2:4. τὰὑποδ . βαστάσαι ] Lightfoot (from Maimonides) shews that it was the token of a slave having become his master’ s property, to loose his shoe, to tie the same, or to carry the necessary articles for him to the bath. The expressions therefore in all the Gospels amount to the same. ἐνπν . ἁγ . κ . πυρί ] This was literally fulfilled at the day of Pentecost: but Origen and others refer the words to the baptism of the righteous by the Holy Spirit, and of the wicked by fire. I have no doubt that this (which I am surprised to see upheld by Neander, De Wette, and Meyer) is a mistake in the present case, though apparently (to the superficial reader) borne out by ver. 12. The double symbolic reference of fire, elsewhere found, e.g. Mark 9:50, as purifying the good and consuming the evil, though illustrated by these verses, is hardly to be pressed into the interpretation of πυρί in this verse, the prophecy here being solely of that higher and more perfect baptism to which that of John was a mere introduction. To separate off πν . ἁγίῳ as belonging to one set of persons, and πυρί as belonging to another, when both are united in ὑμᾶς , is in the last degree harsh, besides introducing confusion into the whole. The members of comparison in this verse are strictly parallel to one another: the baptism by water, the end of which is μετάνοια , a mere transition state, a note of preparation,— and the baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire, the end of which is (ver. 12) sanctification, the entire aim and purpose of man’ s creation and renewal. So Chrys.: τῇἐπεξηγήσειτοῦπυρὸςπάλιντὸσφοδρὸνκαὶἀκάθεκτοντῆςχάριτοςἐνδεικνύμενος . Thus the official superiority of the Redeemer (which is all that our Evangelist here deals with) is fully brought out. The superiority of nature and pre-existence is reserved for the fuller and more dogmatic account in Joh_1. 12. οὗτὸπτύον ] οὗ … αὐτοῦ , a very common redundancy. See reff. οὗ is not ‘ whose,’ which is implied in τό : it belongs (against Meyer) to χειρί , not to πτύον , and the sense is just as if it had stood, οὗἐντῇχειρὶαὐτοῦτὸπτύον . In the Rabbinical work Midrash Tehillim, on Psa_2, is found: ‘ Advenit trituratio, stramen projiciunt in iguem, paleam in ventum, sed triticum conservant in area: sic nationes mundi erunt sicut conflagratio furni: ast Israel conservabitur solus.’ (Quoted by Lightfoot on John 3:17.) τὴνἅλωνα ] The contents of the barn-floor. (De Wette, &c.) Thus in ref. Job, εἰσοίσειδέσουτὸνἅλωνα . Or perhaps owing to διακαθ . (shall cleanse from one end to the other) the floor itself, which was an open hard-trodden space in the middle of the field. See “ The Land and the Book,” p. 538 ff., where there is an illustration. “ Very little use is now made of the fan, but I have seen it employed to purge the floor of the refuse dust, which the owner throws away as useless.” p. 540. ἄχυρον ] Not only the chaff, but also the straw: see reff.: ‘ all that is not wheat.’ 13-17. Jesus Himself baptized by him. Mark 1:9-11.Luke 3:21 Luke 3:21, Luke 3:22. It does not appear exactly when the baptism of our Lord took place. If the comparative age of the Baptist is taken into account, we should suppose it to have been about six months after this latter began his ministry. But this is no sure guide. The place was Bethany (the older reading), beyond Jordan; John 1:28. 13. τοῦβαπτ .] Why should our Lord, who was without sin, have come to a baptism of repentance? Because He was made sin for us: for which reason also He suffered the curse of the law. It became Him, being in the likeness of sinful flesh, to go through those appointed rites and purifications which belonged to that flesh. There is no more strangeness in His having been baptized by John, than in His keeping the Passovers. The one rite, as the other, belonged to sinners— and among the transgressors He was numbered. The prophetic words in Psalms 40:12, spoken in the person of our Lord, indicate, in the midst of sinlessness, the most profound apprehension of the sins of that nature which He took upon him. I cannot suppose the baptism to have been sought by our Lord merely to honour John (Kuinö el), or as knowing that it would be the occasion of a divine recognition of his Messiahship (Paulus), and thus preordained by God (Meyer): but bona fide, as bearing the infirmities and carrying the sorrows of mankind, and thus beginning here the triple baptism of water, fire, and blood, two parts of which were now accomplished, and of the third of which He himself speaks, Luke 12:50, and the beloved Apostle, 1 John 5:8, where πνεῦμα = πῦρ . His baptism, as it was our Lord’ s closing act of obedience under the Law, in His hitherto concealed life of legal submission, His πληρῶσαιπᾶσ . δικ ., so was His solemn inauguration and anointing for the higher official life of mediatorial satisfaction which was now opening upon Him. See Romans 1:3, Romans 1:4. We must not forget that the working out of perfect righteousness in our flesh by the entire and spotless keeping of God’ s law (Deuteronomy 6:25), was, in the main, accomplished during the thirty years previous to our Lord’ s official ministry. 14. διεκώλυεν ] A much stronger word than κωλύω , implying the active and earnest preventing, with the gesture or hand, or voice, as here. The imperfect tense conveys, not that he endeavoured merely to hinder Him (see Hermann’ s note on Soph. Ajax, 1105), but began to hinder Him, was hindering Him. There is only an apparent inconsistency between the speech of John in this sense, and the assertion made by him in John 1:33, ‘ I knew him not.’ Let us regard the matter in this light:— John begins his ministry by a commission from God, who also admonishes him, that He, whose Forerunner he was, would be in time revealed to him by a special sign. Jesus comes to be baptized by him. From the nature of his relationship to our Lord, he could not but know those events which had accompanied his birth, and his subsequent life of holy and unblameable purity and sanctity. My impression from the words of this verse certainly is, that he regarded Him as the Messiah. Still, his belief wanted that full and entire assurance which the occurrence of the predicted sign gave him, which the word ᾔδειν implies, and which would justify him in announcing Him to his disciples as the Lamb of God. See the ancient opinions in Maldonatus’ s note. 15. ἀποκριθείς ] Bp. Wordsworth remarks, on this, the first occurrence of this very common form, that it is stigmatized by the grammarians as a solecism. The passage is in Phrynichus, Eclog. ed. Lobeck, p. 108,— ἀποκριθῆναιδιττὸνἁμάρτημα . ἔδειγὰρλέγεινἀποκρίνασθαι , καὶεἰδέναιὅτιτὸδιαχωρισθῆναισημαίνει , ὥσπεροὖνκαὶτὸἐναντίοναὐτοῦ , τὸσυγκριθῆναι , εἰςἓνκαὶταὐτὸνἐλθεῖν . εἰδὼςοὖντοῦτο , ἐπὶμὲντὸἀποδοῦναιτὴνἐπερώτησιν , ἀποκρίνεσθαιλέγε , ἐπὶδὲτοῦδιαχωρισθῆναι , τὸἀποκριθῆναι . ἄρτι ] The exact meaning is difficult. It cannot well be that which the E. V. at first sight gives, that something was to be done now, inconsistent with the actual and hereafter-to-be-manifested relation of the two persons. Rather— ‘ though what has been said (ver. 14) is true, yet the time is not come for that:— as yet, ἄρτι , now, are we in another relation (viz. our Lord as the fulfiller of the law, John as a minister of it), therefore suffer it.’ So Chrysostom: οὐδιηνεκῶςταῦταἔσται , ἀλλ ʼ ὄψειμεἐντούτοιςοἷςἐπιθυμεῖς · ἄρτιμέντοιὑπόμεινοντοῦτο (Hom. xii. 1, p. 161), ‘ This ἄρτι is spoken from the Lord’ s foreknowledge, that this relation of subjection to John was only temporary, and that hereafter their relative situations would be inverted.’ Meyer. Stier remarks (Reden Jesu, vol. i. p. 14, edn. 2), that now was fulfilled the prophetic announcement of Psa 40:7, Psalms 40:8. ἡμῖν ] not for μοί , but for μοὶκαὶσοί . I cannot help thinking that this word glances at the relationship and previous acknowledged destinations of the speakers. It has however a wider sense, as spoken by Him who is now first coming forth officially as the Son of Man, extending over all those whose baptism plants them in his likeness, Rom_6. See Stier, ibid. δικαιοσύνην ] requirements of the law. See ch. 6:1, where the sense is general, as here. 16. βαπτισθείς ] On this account I would make the following remarks. (1) The appearance and voice seem to have been manifested to our Lord and the Baptist only. They may have been alone at the time: or, if not, we have an instance in Acts 9:7, of such an appearance being confined to one person, while the others present were unconscious of it. We can hardly however, with some of the Fathers, say, that it was πνευματικὴθεωρία ,— or ὀπτασία , οὐφύσιςτὸφαινόμενον , ,— or ‘ Aperiuntur cœ li non reseratione elementorum, sed spiritualibus oculis, quibus et Ezechiel in principio voluminis sui apertos eos esse commemorat.’ Jerome in loc. (2) The Holy Spirit descended not only in the manner of a dove, but σωματικῷεἴδει ( Luke): which I cannot understand in any but the literal sense, as the bodily shape of a dove, seen by the Baptist. There can be no objection to this, the straightforward interpretation of the narrative, which does not equally apply to the Holy Spirit being visible at all, which John himself asserts Him to have been (John 1:32-34), even more expressly than is asserted here. Why the Creator Spirit may not have assumed an organized body bearing symbolical meaning, as well as any other material form, does not seem clear. This was the ancient, and is the only honest interpretation. All the modern explanations of the ὡσεὶπεριστ . as importing the manner of coming down, belong, as Meyer has rightly remarked, to the vain rationalistic attempt to reduce down that which is miraculous. The express assertion of Luke, and the fact that all four Evangelists have used the same expression, which they would not have done if it were a mere tertium comparationis, are surely a sufficient refutation of this rationalizing (and, I may add, blundering) interpretation. εὐθύς belongs to ἀνέβη , not to βαπτ ., nor to ἀνεῴχθ . It is the first member of the conjunctive clause of which καὶἰδού is the second— as we say, the moment that Jesus was gone up out of the water, behold. (3) Two circumstances may be noticed respecting the manner of the descent of the Spirit: it was, as a dove:— the Spirit as manifested in our Lord was gentle and benign. Lord Bacon (Meditationes Sacræ , cited in Trench on the Miracles, p. 37) remarks:— “ Moses edidit miracula, et profligavit Æ gyptios pestibus multis: Elias edidit, et occlusit cœ lum ne plueret super terram: Elisæ us edidit, et evocavit ursas de deserto quæ laniarent impuberes: Petrus Ananiam sacrilegum hypocritam morte, Paulus Elymam magum cæ citate percussit: sed nihil hujusmodi fecit Jesus. Descendit super eum Spiritus in forma columbæ , de quo dixit, Nescitis cujus Spiritus sitis. Spiritus Jesu, spiritus columbinus: fuerunt illi servi Dei tanquam boves Dei triturantes granum, et conculcantes paleam: sed Jesus agnus Dei sine ira et judiciis.” On the history of this symbol for the Holy Spirit, see Lü cke’ s Comm. on John, vol. i. 425. This was not a sudden and temporary descent of the Spirit, but a permanent though special anointing of the Saviour for his holy office. It ‘ abode upon Him,’ John 1:32. And from this moment His ministry and mediatorial work (in the active official sense) begins. εὐθέως , the Spirit carries Him away to the wilderness: the day of His return thence (possibly; but see notes on John 1:29) John points Him out as the Lamb of God: then follows the calling of Andrew, Peter, Philip, and Nathanael, and the third day after is the first miracle at the marriage in Cana. But we must not imagine any change in the nature or person of our Lord to have taken place at his baptism. The anointing and crowning are but signs of the official assumption of the power which the king has by a right independent of, and higher than these. (4) The whole narrative is in remarkable parallelism with that of the Transfiguration. There we have our Lord supernaturally glorified in the presence of two great prophetic personages, Moses and Elias, who speak of His decease,— on the journey to which He forthwith sets out (ch. 17:22, compared with 19:1); and accompanied by the same testimony of the voice from heaven, uttering the same words, with an addition accordant with the truth then symbolized. (5) In connexion with apocryphal additions, the following are not without interest: κατελθόντοςτοῦἸησοῦἐπὶτὸὕδωρ , καὶπῦρἀνήφθηἐντῷἸορδάνῃ · καὶἀναδύντοςαὐτοῦἀπὸτοῦὕδατοςκ .τ .λ . Justin Martyr, Dial. § 88, p. 185. The author of the tract ‘ de Rebaptismate,’ among the works of Cyprian, blames the spurious book called ‘ Petri Præ dicatio,’ for relating, among other things, of Christ, “ cum baptizaretur, ignem super aquam esse visum, quod in evangelio nullo est scriptum.” (ch. 9) The Ebionite gospel, according to Epiphanius, Hæ r. xxx. 13, vol. i. p. 138, added, after ἐνᾧεὐδόκησα ,— ἐγὼσήμερονγεγέννηκάσε . καὶεὐθὺςπεριέλαμψετὸυτόπονφῶςμέγα . ὃνἰδὼνὁἸωάννηςλέγειαὐτῷΣὺτίςεἶκύριε ; καὶπάλινφωνὴἐξοὐρανοῦπρὸςαὐτόν · οὗτόςἐστινὁυἱόςμουὁἀγαπητός , εἰςὃνηὐδόκησα . καὶτότεὁἸωάν . προσπεσὼναὐτῷἔλεγεΔέομαίσουκύριε , σύμεβάπτισον . ὁδὲἐκώλυεναὐτῷλέγωνἌφες , ὅτιοὕτωςἐστὶπρέπονπληρωθῆναιπάντα . Jerome gives the following opening of the narrative from the gospel according to the Hebrews: “ Ecce mater domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei Joannes baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum: eamus et baptizemur ab eo. Dixit autem eis Quid peccavi ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est.” 17. Φων . λ . does not require ἐγένετο or any word to be supplied, nor the participle to be understood as a past tense. Lo, a voice from heaven, saying. See similar constructions, Luke 5:12; Luke 19:20 al. fr. εὐδόκησα ] not the usitative aorist, but declarative of the definite past εὐδοκία of the Father in Him, Ephesians 1:4:— see above. On the solemn import, as regards us, of our Blessed Lord’ s baptism, cf. Athanas. Or. i., contra Arianos 47, vol. i. (ii. Migne) p. 355 f.: εἰδὲἡμῶνχάρινἑαυτὸνἁγιάζει (John 17:18, John 17:19), καὶτοῦτοποιεῖὅτεγέγονενἄνθρωπος , εὔδηλονὅτικαὶἡεἰςαὐτὸνἐντῷἸορδάνῃτοῦπνεύματοςγενομένηκάθοδος , εἰςἡμᾶςἦνγενομένηδιὰτὸφορεῖναὐτὸντὸἡμέτερονσῶμα . καὶοὐκἐπὶτῇβελτιώσειτοῦΛόγουγέγονεν , ἀλλ ʼ εἰςἡμῶνπάλινἁγιασμόν , ἵνατοῦχρίσματοςαὐτοῦμεταλάβωμεν … τοῦγὰρκυρίουὡςἀνθρώπουλουομένουεἰςτὸνἸορδάνην , ἡμεῖςἦμενοἱἐναὐτῷκαὶπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦλουόμενοι · καὶδεχομένουδὲαὐτοῦτὸπνεῦμα , ἡμεῖςἦμενοἱπαρ ʼ αὐτοῦγενόμενοιτούτουδεικτικοί . What follows is well worth reading, shewing the pre-eminence of our Lord’ s anointing over that of all others, Psalms 45:7: Isaiah 61:1: Acts 10:38. Chap. 4:1-11. Temptation of Jesus. Mark 1:12, Mark 1:13.Luke 4:1-13 Luke 4:1-13. 1. ἀνήχθηεἰςτ . ἔ .] The Spirit carried Him away, (see Acts 8:39,) αὐτὸνἐκβάλλει , Mark 1:12: compare Chrysostom’ s excellent remarks on this agency of the Holy Spirit, in the opening of his 13th homily, p. 167. Had St. Luke’ s ἤγετοἐντῷπν . been our only account, we might have supposed what took place to have been done in a vision: but the expressions in the two other Evangelists, entirely preclude this. The desert here spoken of may either be the traditional place of the Temptation near Jericho (thence called Quarantaria: it is described in “ The Land and the Book,” p. 617, as a high and precipitous mountain, with its side facing the plain perpendicular, and apparently as high as the rock of Gibraltar, and with caverns midway below, hewn in the rock), or as scripture parallelism between Moses, Elias, and our Lord, leads one to think, the Arabian desert of Sinai. πειρασθῆναι ] The express purpose of ἀνήχθη . No other rendering is even grammatical. Hence it is evident that our Lord at this time was not ‘ led up’ of his own will and design, but as a part of the conflict with the Power of Darkness, He was brought to the Temptation. As He had been subject to his earthly parents at Nazareth, so now He is subject, in the outset of His official course, to his Heavenly Parent, and is by His will thus carried up to be tempted. In reverently considering the nature and end of this temptation, we may observe, (1) That the whole is undoubtedly an objective historical narrative, recording an actual conflict between our Redeemer and the Power of Evil. (2) That it is undetermined by the letter of the sacred text, whether the Tempter appeared in a bodily shape, or, as a spirit, was permitted to exert a certain power, as in ver. 5, and ver. 8, over the person of our Lord, even as the Holy Spirit did in ver. 1. If the latter were the case, the words spoken at the various stages of the temptation, were suggested by this Evil Power to the soul of our Redeemer. But (3) such an interpretation, while it cannot justly be accused of unreality by any who do not reject belief in the spiritual world, hardly meets the expressions of the text, προσελθών ver. 3, ἐὰνπεσὼνπροσκυνήσῃςμοι ver. 9, and ἀφίησιναὐτόν ver. 11. Nor do the two members of ver. 11 correspond to one another in this case, for the ἄγγελοι must have been visible and corporeal, as in the parallel case at Gethsemane, Luke 22:43. διαβόλου ] The accuser, or adversary: Satan. Not any human tempter or foe: no example can be adduced of a man being absolutely called ὁδιάβ . In John 6:70, Judas is by our Lord called διάβ ., which is the generic substantive without the article; and in Esther 7:4 and 8:1, Haman is called ὁδιάβολος , where the art. has no such meaning as would be here required. 2. νηστεύσας ] Not in the wider ecclesiastical sense of the word, but its strict meaning, of abstaining from all food whatever; οὐκἔφαγενοὐδὲνἐνταῖςἡμέραιςἐκείναις , Luke, ver. 2. Similarly Moses, Exodus 34:28, ἦνἐναντίονκυρίουτεσσαράκονταἡμ . κ . τεσ . νύκ .· ἄρτονοὐκἔφαγε , καὶὕδωροὐκἔπιε , and Elias ἐπορεύθηἐνἰσχύϊτῆςβρώσεωςἐκείνηςτεσ . ἡ . καὶτεσ . ν ., 3 Kings 19:8. ὕστερονἐπείν .] Then probably not during the time itself. The period of the fast, as in the case of Moses, was spent in a spiritual ecstasy, during which the wants of the natural body were suspended. 3. καὶπροσελθών ] From the words of both St. Mark and St. Luke, it appears that our Lord was tempted also during the forty days. Whether the words of St. Mark, ἦνμετὰτῶνθηρίων , allude to one kind of temptation, is uncertain: see note on Mark 1:13. The word προσελθ . need not be understood of the first approach, but the first recorded— ‘ at a certain time the tempter approaching, &c.’ ὁπειράζων , ‘ the tempter.’ Here first we find the N.T. meaning of πειράζειν , to solicit to sin, which does not occur in the LXX, nor in the classics. The use of the pres. part. with the art., as denoting employ, or office, is very common. See, among other places, John 4:36, John 4:37, and ch. 13:3; 26:46, 48. Cf. Winer, § 18. 3. εἰ ] νομίζωνὑποκλέπτειναὐτὸντοῖςἐγκωμίοις , Chrys. Or, as Euthymius, ᾤετοὅτιπαρακνισθήσεταιτῷλόγῳ , καθάπερὀνειδισθεὶςἐπὶτῷμὴεἶναιυἱὸςθεοῦ . At all events, there is no doubt expressed, as Wolf and Bengel think. υἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ ] In the N.T. are found three combinations of these two substantives and the article, and all with one and the same meaning, viz. The Son of God, in the highest and Messianic sense. (1) The expression in the text, of which our Lord says, John 10:36, ὃνὁΠατὴρἡγίασενκαὶἀπέστειλενεἰςτὸνκόσμονὑμεῖςλέγετεὅτιβλασφημεῖςὅτιεἶπονΥἱὸςτοῦθεοῦεἰμι ; see also Matthew 27:40. (2) ὁυἱὸςτοῦθ . In John 9:35, we read, σὺπιστεύειςεἰςτὸυυἱὸντοῦθεοῦ ; … ὁλαλῶνμετὰσοῦἐκεῖνόςἐστιν . (3) υἱὸςθ . In Luke 1:35, τὸγεννώμενονἅγιονκληθήσεταιυἱὸςθεοῦ . See also ch. 27:54 ( Mk.), and notes there and on Luke 23:47. 4. Our Lord does not give way to the temptation, so as to meet him with an open declaration, ‘ I am the Son of God:’ thus indeed He might have asserted his Lordship over him, but not have been his Conqueror for us. The first word which He uses against him, reaches far deeper: ‘ Man shall not live, &c.’ “ This, like the other text, is taken from the history of Israel’ s temptation in the wilderness: for Israel represents, in a foreshadowing type, the Son of Man, the servant of God for Righteousness, the one ἐρχόμενος , in whom alone that nature which in all men has degenerated into sin, πληροῖπᾶσανδικαιοσύνην . Adam stood not,— Israel according to the flesh stood not,— when the Lord their God tempted them: but rather, after Satan’ s likeness, tempted their God: but now the second Adam is come, the true Israel, by whose obedience the way of life is again made known and opened— ‘ that man truly liveth on and in the eternal word of God.’  ” Stier’ s Reden Jesu, vol. i. p. 16 (edn. 2). Observe also how our Lord resists Satan in His humanity; at once here numbering Himself with men, by adducing ὁἄνθρωπος as including His own case; and not only so, but thus speaking out the mystery of his humiliation, in which He had foregone his divine Power, of his own will. By ‘ every word (or ‘ thing,’ for ῥῆμα is not expressed in the original) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,’ we must understand, every arrangement of the divine will; God, who ordinarily sustains by bread, can, if it please Him, sustain by any other means, as in the case alluded to. Compare John 4:32, John 4:34. 5. τότεπαρ .] Power being most probably given to the tempter over the person of our Lord. In St. Luke, this temptation stands third. The real order is evidently that in the text; for otherwise our Lord’ s final answer, ver. 10, would not be in its place. It may be observed, that St. Luke makes no assertion as to succession, only introducing each temptation with καί : whereas τότε and πάλιν here seem to mark succession. Bishop Ellicott, for psychological reasons, which must be most untrustworthy when opposed to the express assertion of the sacred text , follows the order in St. Luke. For ἁγ . πόλ . see reff. ἔστησεν — by the same power by which he brought Him. πτερύγιον ] Abundant instances have been produced to shew that πτέρον was applied to a pointed roof or gable. Now the LXX use πτέρυξ and πτερύγιον as synonymous with πτέρον ; why may not the same be done in the N.T.? The general opinion, that our Lord was placed on Herod’ s royal portico, described in Jos. Antt. xv. 11. 5, is probably right; and the τό is in no way inconsistent with it. That portico overhung the ravine of Kedron from a dizzy height, ὡς , εἴτιςἀπ ʼ ἄκρουτοῦταύτηςτέγους , ἄμφωσυντιθεὶςτὰβάθη , διοπτεύοι , σκοτοδινιᾷν , οὐκἐξικνουμένηςτῆςὄψεωςεἰςἀμέτρητοντὸνβυθόν . The argument that it was probably on the other side, next the court, is grounded on the perfectly gratuitous assumption, that an exhibition to the people was intended. There is no authority for this in the text; the temptation being one not of ambition, but of presumption. The inference from Eusebius, who, quoting Hegesippus, (Hist. ii. 23,) describes James the Just as set on and thrown from τὸπτερύγιοντοῦναοῦ , among the people, is not decisive: for this term might embrace either side, as ‘ the cornice,’ or ‘ the parapet’ would. 6. γέγραπται ] cited (nearly verbatim from the LXX, as almost all the texts in this narrative) as applying to all servants of God in general, and à fortiori to the Son of God: not as a prophecy of the Messiah. 7. πάλιν ] not ‘ contra,’ which it never simply means, not even in Galatians 5:3: 1 John 2:8: but ‘ rursus’ or ‘ iterum,’ as the versions rightly render it. The addition of a second Scripture qualifies and interprets the first; but does not refute it. 8. ὄροςὑψ . λί .] The enquiry where and what this mountain was, is entirely nugatory, no data being furnished by the text. δείκνυσιναὐτ . π . τ . β .] The additional words in Luke, ἐνστιγμῇχρόνου , are valuable as pointing out to us clearly the supernatural character of this vision. If it be objected, that in that case there was no need for the ascent of the mountain,— I answer, that such natural accessories are made use of frequently in supernatural revelations: see especially Revelation 21:10. The attempts to restrict τοῦκόσμου to Palestine, (which was, besides, God’ s peculiar portion and vineyard, as distinguished from the Gentile world,) or the Roman empire, are mere subterfuges: as is also the giving to δείκνυσιν the sense of ‘ points out the direction of.’ The very passage of Polybius cited to support this view, completely refutes it, when taken entire. Hannibal, from the Alps, is directing the attention of his soldiers to the view of Italy; ἐνδεικνύμενοςαὐτοῖςτὰπερὶτὸνΠάδονπεδία (in sight) … ἅμαδὲκαὶτὸντῆςῬώμηςαὐτοῖςτόπονὑποδεικνύων , where we may observe the distinction between the two compounds ἐν - and ὑπο -δείκνυμι : and further, that it is not τὴνῬ . but τὸντῆςῬ . τόπον that he pointed out to them. Euthymius, however, interprets our verse thus, … λέγων · ἐντούτῳμὲντῷμέρεικεῖταιἡβασιλείατῶνῬωμαίων , ἐντούτῳδὲἡτῶνΠερσῶν , ἐνἐκείνῳδὲἡτῶνἈσσυρίων , καὶτὰἑξῆςὁμοίως · καὶὅτιἡμὲνἔχειδόξανἐπὶτοῖσδετοῖςεἴδεσιν , ἡδὲἐπὶτοῖσδε , καὶἄλληἐπ ʼ ἄλλοις , καὶἁπλῶςπάντακαταλέγει : and even Maldonatus approves it. In this last temptation the enemy reveals himself openly, as the ἄρχωντοῦκόσμουτούτου , and as the father of lies; for though power is given him over this world and its sons, his assertion here is most untrue. 10. Our Lord at once repels him openly; not that He did not know him before,— but because he had thus openly tempted Him; but not even this of His own power or will; He adds, for it is written,— again, as Man, appealing to the Word of God. There does not appear to be sufficient ground for the distinction sometimes set up between the meanings of προσκυνεῖν with the dative and the same verb with the accusative. See, besides reff., Genesis 49:8: Exodus 11:8. From this time, our Lord is known by the devils, and casts them out by a word. Mark 1:24, Mark 1:34; Mark 3:11; Mark 5:7. 11. ἀφίησιναὐτόν ] but only for a season, see ║ Luke. The conflict, however often renewed in secret (of which we cannot speak), was certainly again waged in Gethsemane— αὕτηὑμῶνἐστινἡὥρα , καὶἡἐξουσίατοῦσκότους . (Luke 22:53, compare John 14:30.) The expression in Luke 10:18, ἐθεώρουντὸνσατανᾶνὡςἀστραπὴνἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦπεσόντα , must be otherwise understood: see note there. διηκόνουν ] viz. with food, as in the case of Elias, 1 Kings 19:6, 1 Kings 19:7. 12-22. Jesus begins his Ministry. Calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John. Mark 1:14-20. Luke 4:14, Luke 4:15. Between the last verse and this is a considerable interval of time. After returning from the temptation (see note on John 1:28, end) our Lord was pointed out by John the Baptist, (ib. vv. 29-34,) and again on the morrow to two of his disciples, Andrew and (probably) John, who followed Him, and were (on the next day? see note, John 1:44) joined by Simon Peter (35-43): then on the morrow Philip and Nathanael were called (44-51); three days after was the marriage in Cana (2:1-11); then our Lord went down to Capernaum and remained not many days (12); then followed the Passover; the cleansing of the temple (13-22); the belief of many on Jesus (23-25); the discourse with Nicodemus (3:1-21); the baptizing by Jesus (i.e. his disciples) (22-24); the question about purifying, and testimony of the Baptist (25-36); the journey through Samaria into Galilee, and discourse with the woman of Samaria (4:1-42); the return to Cana and healing of the ruler’ s son in Capernaum (43-54); and the journey to Jerusalem related in John 5:1. After that chapter St. John breaks off the first part of his narrative, and between his 5:47 and 6:1, comes in the synoptic narrative, Matthew 4:12-15: Mark 1:14-30: Luke 4:14-10. This omission is in remarkable consistency with St. Matthew’ s account of his own calling in ch. 9:9. Being employed in his business in the neighbourhood of Capernaum, he now first becomes personally acquainted with the words and actions of our Lord. From what circumstance the former miracle in Capernaum had not attracted his attention, we cannot, of course, definitely say; we can, however, easily conceive. Our Lord was not then in Capernaum; for the ruler sent to Him, and the cure was wrought by word at a distance. If Matthew’ s attention had not been called to Jesus before, he might naturally omit such a narrative, which John gives probably from personal knowledge. The synoptic narrative generally omits this whole section of our Lord’ s travels and ministry. Its sources of information, until the last visit to Jerusalem, seem to have been exclusively Galilæ an, and derived from persons who became attached to Him at a later period than any of the events recorded in that first portion of John’ s Gospel. The objections to this view are, the narrative, in the three Gospels, of the baptism and temptation; but the former of these would be abundantly testified by John’ s disciples, many of whom became disciples of Jesus; and the latter could only have been derived from the mouth of our Lord Himself. 12. ἀνεχώρ .] not ‘ returned,’ but retired, withdrew; see ch. 2:22, and note. No notice is given whence this withdrawal took place. The narrative is evidently taken up after an interval, and without any intention that it should follow closely on ver. 11. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. pp. 162 ff., sees in this a proof that St. Matthew recognized a ministry in Judæ a during the interval. I cannot quite think this, but certainly he does not exclude it. 13. καταλιπὼντ . Ν .] Not on account of the behaviour of the Nazarenes to Him after the preaching in the synagogue, Luke 4:28, Luke 4:29, as sometimes supposed; see notes, ib. ver. 31. Καφαρναούμ ] This town, on the borders of the lake of Gennesaret, was central in situation, and in the most populous and frequented part of Galilee. It besides was the residence of four at least of the Apostles, Andrew and Peter, and James and John— and probably of Matthew. The town was named from a fountain,— πρὸςγὰρτῇτῶνἀέρωνεὐκρασίῃκαὶπηγῇδιάρδεταιγονιμωτάτῃ , Καφαρναοὺμαὐτὴνοἱἐπιχώριοικαλοῦσι (Joseph. B. J. iii. 10. 8),— כ ּ ְ פ ַ ר נ ַ ח ו ּ ם , vicus consolationis. It is from this time called ‘ His own city,’ ch. 9:1, see also ch. 17:24. 15. This prophecy is spoken with direct reference to the days of the Messiah. It is here freely rendered from the Hebrew, without any regard to the LXX, which is wholly different. This, coming so immediately after a string of quotations literally from the LXX, seems to mark the beginning of a new portion of the Gospel, agreeably to what was said before. ὁδὸνθαλάσσης ] the country round the coast of the lake. All the members of this sentence are in apposition with one another: thus πέραντοῦἸορδ . is not a description of the land before spoken of, which was not thus situated, but of a different tract. The later meaning of מ ֵ ע ֵ ב ֶ ר ל ַ י ּ ַ ר ְ ד ּ ֵ ן , as signifying the tract to the west of the Jordan, and which naturally sprung up during the captivity, is not to be thought of in Isaiah, who wrote before that event. See 1 Chronicles 26:30 in the Hebrew, where, however, the E. V. renders ‘ on this side Jordan westward.’ Meyer [in edd. 1, 2; in edd. 3, 4, 5 he renders ὁδ . θαλ . ‘ seawards.’ See Moulton’ s Winer, p. 289, note 4] strangely makes ὁδὸνθαλ . the objective after εἶδεν understood, and construes ‘ the land of Zabulon and Nepthalim saw the way of the sea on the other side of the Jordan: Galilee of the Gentiles, &c. saw a great light:’ i.e. ‘ the light which went forth from Capernaum when Jesus dwelt there, is represented as sending its bright beams over the Galilæ an sea, so that Zabulon and Nephthalim by this light could see the way leading along the other side of the sea.’ Γαλ . τ . ἐθν .] Galilee superior, near to Tyre and Sidon, which was inhabited by a variety of nations. 17. ἀπὸτότε ] That is, began His ministry in Galilee. The account of Matthew, being that of an eye-witness, begins where his own experience began. It is not correct to suppose, as some of the German Commentators have done, (De Wette, Strauss,) that this preaching of repentance was of a different character from the after-teaching of our Lord; we recognize the same formula, though only partly cited, in ch. 10:7: Luke 10:10, and find our Lord still preaching repentance, Luke 13:3, after repeated declarations of His Messiahship. 18. παρὰτὴνθάλασσαντῆςΓαλιλαίας ] The lake of Gennesareth or Tiberias (John 6:1), called in the O.T. “ the sea of Chinnereth,” Numbers 34:11, or Chinneroth, Joshua 12:3: the Γεννησαρῖτιςλίμνη of Josephus, Antt. xviii. 2. 1: Strabo xvi. p. 755: Plin. v. 16: v. 15. It is of an oval shape, about 13 geographical miles long, and 6 broad: and is traversed by the Jordan from n. to s. “ Its most remarkable feature is its deep depression, being no less than 700 feet below the level of the ocean.” See the interesting article by Mr. Porter in Smith’ s Biblical Dictionary. If we give any consideration to the circumstances here related, we cannot fail to see that the account in John is admirably calculated to complete the narrative. We have there furnished to us the reason why these two brethren were so ready to arise and follow One, whom, if we had this account only, we should infer they had never before seen. Add to this, that there is every probability that one of the other pair of brethren, John the son of Zebedee, is there described as having gone with Andrew to the dwelling of our Lord. It also tends to confirm the chronological view here taken, that Philip, the only one mentioned expressly by John as having been called by Jesus, is not mentioned here as called: and that Andrew, and the other disciple of John the Baptist, clearly were not called by Jesus in John 1:35-40, or the words παρ ʼ αὐτῷἔμειναντὴνἡμέρανἐκείνην , could not have been used: that these two continued disciples of the Baptist, is not probable; but that they were henceforth, but not invariably, attached to our Lord. I believe that the disciple whom Jesus loved was in His company during the whole of the events in John 2:3 John 2:3 John 2:3, John 2:4 and 5, and on His return from Judæ a with His disciples, John having for a time returned to his business, as our Lord was now resident in Capernaum, received, as here related, this more solemn and final call. We must remember, that the disciples would naturally have gone up to Jerusalem at the Passover, John 2:23, without a call from the Lord, and by what they saw there would become more firmly attached to him. The circumstance related in Joh_21, that even after they were assured of the Resurrection, the Apostles returned to their occupation as fishermen, gives additional probability to the usual explanation of the call in our text. 20. ἀφέντεςκ .τ .λ .] i.e. from this time they were constant followers of the Lord. But when He happened to be in the neighbourhood of their homes, they resumed their fishing, cf. Luke 5:1-11, which occurrence was, in my belief, different from, and later than the one related in our text. See notes there. 23-25. He makes a Circuit of Galilee. (Mark 1:39. Luke 4:44, ordinarily: but qu.? There is no necessity for believing this circuit of Galilee to be identical with those, even if we read Γαλιλαίας in the passage in Luke. Our Lord made many such circuits.) 23. συναγωγαῖς ] These were the places of religious assembly among the Jews after the return from the captivity. Tradition, and the Targums, ascribe a very early origin to synagogues; and Deuteronomy 31:11, and Psalms 74:8, are cited as testimonies of it. But the former passage does not necessarily imply it: and it is doubtful whether that Psalm was not itself written after the captivity. They are generally supposed to have originated in Babylon, and thence to have been brought, at the return, into the mother land. See Nehemiah 8:1-8. At the Christian era there were synagogues in every town, and in some larger towns several. See Acts 9:2, Acts 9:20. In Jerusalem, according to the Rabbinical writings, there were upwards of 450. (See Acts 6:9, and note.) The people assembled in them on sabbath and festival days, and in later times also on the second and fifth days of each week, for public prayer and the hearing of portions of Scripture. τῶνἱερέωνδέτιςὁπαρὼνἢτῶνγερόντωνεἷςἀναγινώσκειτοὺςἱεροὺςνόμουςαὐτοῖςκαὶκαθ ʼ ἕκαστονἐξηγεῖταιμέχρισχεδὸνδείληςὀψίας . Philo, Fragm. vol. ii. p. 630 (Euseb. Prep. Evang. viii. 7, vol. iii. p. 359). See Luke 4:16: Acts 13:15. The officers of the synagogues were (1) the ἀρχισυναγωγός , Luke 8:49; Luke 13:14: Acts 18:8, Acts 18:17, who had the care of public order, and the arrangement of the service; (2) the Elders, πρεσβύτεροι Luke 7:3, ἀρχισυναγωγοί Mark 5:22: Acts 13:15, who seem to have formed a sort of council under the presidency of the ἀρχισυναγωγός ; (3) the legatus or angelus ecclesiæ , who was the reader of prayers, and also secretary and messenger of the synagogues; (4) the ὑπηρέτης (Luke 4:20), or chapel clerk, whose office was to prepare the books for reading, to sweep, open, and shut the synagogue. Besides these, there appear to have been alms-gatherers. The synagogue was fitted up with seats, of which the first row were an object of ambition with the scribes (ch. 23:6). A pulpit for the reader, lamps, and a chest for keeping the sacred books, appear to complete the furniture of the ancient synagogue. Punishments, e.g. scourging, were inflicted in the synagogues. (See ch. 10:17; 23:34: Luke 9:49: Acts 22:19; Acts 26:11.) The catechizing also of children seems to have taken place there (Lightfoot, xi. 281), as also disputations on religious questions. Our Lord was allowed to read and teach in the synagogues, although of mean extraction according to the flesh, because of His miracles, and His supposed character as the professed leader and teacher of a religious sect. αὐτῶν ] viz. of the Galilæ ans: the subject being taken up out of Γαλιλαίᾳ preceding. See reff., and Winer, § 22, 3. κηρύσσωντὸεὐαγ .] For the exact meaning of these words, compare the declaration in the synagogue at Nazareth, Luke 4:16-30. 24. Συρίαν ] Answering to ὅληντὴνπερίχωροντῆςΓαλιλαίας , Mark 1:28. On βάσανος , see Lexx. Our word ‘ trial’ has undergone a change of meaning very similar. On the δαιμονιζόμενοι see note on ch. 8:28. The σεληνιαζόμενοι were probably epileptics: see an instance in ch. 17:14 and ║ . 25. Δεκαπόλεως ] A district principally east of the Jordan, so called from ten cities, some of the names of which are uncertain. Pliny (Nat. Hist. v. 18) says, “ Jungitur ei lateri Syriæ Decapolitana regio, a numero oppidorum, in quo non omnes eadem observant. Plurimi tamen Damascum.… Philadelplhiam, Raphanam, omnia in Arabiam recedentia; Scythopolin … Gadara … Hippon, Dion, Pellam.… Galasam, Canatham.” Josephus appears not to include Damascus in Decapolis, for he calls Scythopolis μεγίστητῆςΔεκαπόλεως (B. J. iii. 9. 7): and Cellarius thinks Cæ sarea Philippi and Gergesa should be substituted for Damascus and Raphana. See Mark 7:31. πέραντ . Ἰορδ .] Peræ a. The country east of the Jordan, between the rivers Jabbok and Arnon. See Jos. B. J. iii. 3. 3. Chapp. 5, 6, 7. The Sermon on the Mount. In this form peculiar to Matthew. 1. ἰδὼνδέ ] Without attempting a solution of the many difficulties which beset the question of time, place, and arrangement of our Lord’ s Sermon on the Mount, I shall state the principal views of these subjects, and make some remarks upon them. One of the weightiest questions is, as to the identity or otherwise of the Sermon with that given in Luke 6:20-49 Luke 6:20-49. There is (I) the view that they are identical. This is generally taken by ordinary readers of Scripture, from their similarity in many points. It is also taken by most of the modern German Commentators, who uniformly reject every attempt at harmonizing by supposing the same or similar words to have been twice uttered. This view is, however, beset by difficulties. For the sermon in Luke is expressly said to have been delivered after the selection of the Apostles: whereas that in the text is as expressly, by continual consecutive notes of time extending to the call of Matthew, (before which the Apostles cannot have been chosen,) placed before that event. And it is wholly unlikely that St. Matthew, assuming him to be the author of our Gospel, would have made a discourse, which he must have heard immediately after his call as an Apostle, take place before that call. Then this discourse was spoken on a mountain,— that, after descending from a mountain, in the plain. Possibly this may be got over, by rendering ἐπὶτόπουπεδινοῦ “ on a level place.” See note on Luke, l. c.: and the citation from Stanley below. And again , the two discourses are, though containing much common matter, widely different. Of 107 verses in Matt., Luke contains only thirty: his four beatitudes are balanced by as many woes: and in his text, parts of the sermon are introduced by sayings, which do not precede them in Matt. (e.g. Luke 6:39 ff., Luke 6:45 ff.), but which naturally connect with them. (II) St. Luke epitomized this discourse, leaving out whatever was unsuitable for his Gentile readers, e.g. ch. 5:17-38. But this is improbable: for Luke in several verses is fuller than Matthew, and the whole discourse, as related by him, is connected and consecutive. (III) The two discourses are wholly distinct. This view is maintained by Greswell, vol. ii. Dis. xi., and principally from the arguments above noticed. But it also is not without grave difficulties, especially if we suppose, as Gres. does, that Luke had the Gospel of Matthew before him (but on this see Prolegg. ch. i. § ii.). That two discourses wholly distinct should contain so much in common, seems unlikely and unnatural. It is hardly credible that two great public special occasions should be selected by the Lord near the commencement of His ministry, and two discourses delivered to the same audience, not identical, which might have been very probable, and impressive from that very circumstance,— nor consecutive, nor explanatory the one of the other, but only coinciding in fragments, and not even as two different reports at the distance of some years might he expected to do. Add to this, that those parts of the discourses in which Luke and Matthew agree, occur in both in almost the same order, and that the beginning and conclusion of both are the same. (IV) St. Matthew gives a general compendium of the sayings of our Lord during this part of His ministry, of which St. Luke’ s discourse formed a portion, or perhaps was another shorter compendium. But the last stated objection applies with still greater force to this hypothesis, and renders it indeed quite untenable. Besides, it labours under the chronological difficulty in all its bearings. And to one who has observed throughout the close contextual connexion of the parts in this discourse, it will be quite incredible that they should be a mere collection of sayings, set down at hazard. See notes throughout. (V) The apparent discrepancies are sometimes reconciled by remembering, that there is no fixed time mentioned in any Evangelist for the special ordination of the Apostles, and that it is very doubtful whether they were at any set moment so ordained all together. Thus Matthew may have been a usual hearer of our Lord, and present with the whole of the Apostles, as related in Luke, though not yet formally summoned as related in Matthew 9:9 ff. The introduction of the discourse in Luke by the words ἐγένετοδὲἐνταῖςἡμέραιςταύταις (which I maintain to be, on Luke 6:12, not only possibly, but expressly indefinite, and to indicate that the event so introduced may have happened at any time during the current great period of our Lord’ s ministry, before, during, or after, those last narrated,) allows us great latitude in assigning Luke’ s discourse to any precise time. This, however, leaves the difficulties (above stated under I) in supposing the discourses identical, in force, except the chronological one. With regard to the many sayings of this sermon which occur, dispersed up and down, in Luke, see notes in their respective places, which will explain my view as to their connexion and original times of utterance, in each several instance. See also notes on Luke 6:20-49. τὸὄρος ] Either some hill near Capernaum well known by this name, and called by it in the reff. to Mark and Luke, (tradition, not earlier probably than the Crusades, which points out a hill between Capernaum and Tiberias as the Mount of Beatitudes, near the present Saphet, is in such a matter worthless as an authority. But the situation seems to modern travellers (see Stanley, ‘ Sinai and Palestine,’ p. 368) “ so strikingly to coincide with the intimations of the gospel narrative, as almost to force the inference that in this instance the eye of those who selected the spot was for once rightly guided. It is the only height seen in this direction from the shores of the lake of Gennesareth. The plain on which it stands is easily accessible from the lake, and from that plain to the summit is but a few minutes’ walk. The platform at the top is evidently suitable for the collection of a multitude, and corresponds precisely to the ‘ level place’ to which He would ‘ come down’ as from one of its higher horns to address the people. Its situation is central both to the peasants of the Galilæ an hills, and the fishermen of the Galilæ an lake, between which it stands, and would therefore be a natural resort both to Jesus and His disciples when they retired for solitude from the shores of the sea, and also to the crowds who assembled ‘ from Galilee, from Decapolis, from Jerusalem, from Judæ a, and from beyond Jordan.’ None of the other mountains in the neighbourhood could answer equally well to this description, inasmuch as they are merged into the uniform barrier of hills round the lake: whereas this stands separate— ‘ the mountain,’ which alone could lay claim to a distinct name, with the exception of the one height of Tabor, which is too distant to answer the requirements,” ) or the mountain district, certainly imported by the word in ch. 14:23. See a full description of the locality in Tholuck, Bergpr., Exo_3, pp. 63 ff. οἱμαθηταί ] in the wider sense: including those of the Apostles already called, and all who had, either for a long or a short time, attached themselves to him as hearers. See John 6:66. 2. ἀνοίξαςτὸστ . αὐ .] as in reff., a solemn introduction to some discourse or advice of importance. αὐτούς ] i.e. τοὺςμαθητάς . The discourse (see vv. 13, 14, 20, 48; ch. 6:9; 7:6) was spoken directly to the disciples, but (see 7:28, 29) also generally to the multitudes. It is a divine commentary on the words with which His own and the Baptist’ s preaching opened: μετανοεῖτε · ἤγγικενγὰρἡβασ . τ . οὐρανῶν . It divides itself into various great sections, which see below. 3-16. The Description of the Lord’ s Disciples, their Blessedness, and Dignity. 3. οἱπτ . τῷπν .] οὐκεἶπεν , οἱπτ . τοῖςχρήμασιν , ἀλλ ʼ , οἱπτ . τῷπνεύματι , τουτέστινοἱταπεινοὶτῇπροαιρέσει · καὶτῇψυχῇ . τίἐστιν “ οἱπτωχοὶτῷπνεύματι ;” οἱταπεινοὶκαὶσυντετριμμένοιτὴνκαρδίαν . Chrysostom, Hom. xv. in Mat_1, vol. vii. p. 185. ‘ Ne quis putaret paupertatem, quæ nonnunquam necessitate portatur, a Domino præ dicari, adjunxit, spiritu, ut humilitatem intelligeres, non penuriam. Beati pauperes spiritu, qui propter Spiritum Sanctum voluntate sunt pauperes’ (Jerome in loc.). ‘ Pauperes spiritu, humiles et timentes Deum, id est, non habentes inflantem (or, inflatum) spiritum’ (Augustine in loc.). Again: ‘ Pauper Dei in animo est, non in sæ culo’ ( Enarr. in Ps. 131:26, vol. iv. pt. ii.). τῷπν . is in opposition to τῇσαρκί : so ἀπερίτμητοιτῇκαρδίᾳ , Acts 7:51; ἁγίακ . τῷσώματικ . τῷπνεύματι , 1 Corinthians 7:34. These words cannot be joined with μακάριοι (as Olearius, ., Michaelis, Paulus): see ver. 8. The meaning of voluntary poverty, as that of the religious orders, given by many Romish interpreters, is out of the question. It seems however to have been adopted by many of the Fathers. Basil (on Psalms 33:5, vol. i. p. 147) says, οὐκἀεὶἐπαινετὴἡπτωχεία , ἀλλ ʼ ἡἐκπροαιρέσεωςκατὰτὸνεὐαγγελικὸνσκοπὸνκατορθουμένη · πολλοὶγὰρπτωχοὶμὲντῇπεριουσίᾳ , πλεονεκτικώτατοιδὲτῇπροαιρέσειτυγχάνουσιν . But the same father elsewhere explains the words, πτωχοὺςοὐτοὺςκατὰχρήματαἐνδεεῖςλέγει , ἀλλὰτοὺςτῇδιανοίᾳἠλαττωμένους (vol. i. p. 597). And Chrys. himself seems to waver: for next to the comment above cited, he says πνεῦμαγὰρἐνταῦθατὴνψυχὴνκαὶτὴνπροαίρεσινλέγει . He probably however means that the ψ . and προαίρ . are the departments of our being in which the πτωχεία takes place. See , ‘ Quis dives salvus,’ § 17, p. 934, . As little can the bare literal sense of the words, which Julian scoffed at, be understood: viz. those who are ill-furnished in mind, and uneducated. See Revelation 3:17. The idea (De Wette) is not improbable, that our Lord may have had a reference to the poor and subjugated Jewish people around him, once members of the theocracy, and now expectants of the Messiah’ s temporal kingdom; and, from their condition and hopes, taken occasion to preach to them the deeper spiritual truth. αὐτῶνἐστ . ἡβ . τ . οὐ .] See Luke 4:17-21: James 2:5. The βασιλεία must here be understood in its widest sense: as the combination of all rights of Christian citizenship in this world, and eternal blessedness in the next, ch. 6:33. But Tholuck well observes (Bergpredigt, p. 74 ff.), that all the senses of βασ . τ . θεοῦ are only different sides of the same great idea— the subjection of all things to God in Christ. He cites from Origen (περὶεὐχῆς , 25, vol. i. p. 239): τῇοὖνἐνἡμῖνβασιλείᾳτοῦθεοῦἡἀκρότηςἀδιαλείπτωςπροκόπτουσινἐνστήσεται , ὅτανπληρωθῇτὸπαρὰτῷἀποστόλῳεἰρημένον , ὅτιὁχριστός , πάντωναὐτῷτ . ἐχθρῶνὑποταγέντων , παραδώσειτ . βασιλείαντῷθεῷκ . πατρί , ἵναᾖὁθεὸςτὰπάνταἐνπᾶσι . 4. μακ . οἱπενθ .] The spiritual qualification in the former verse must be carried on to this, and the mourning understood to mean not only that on account of sin, but all such as happens to a man in the spiritual life. All such mourners are blessed: for the Father of mercies and God of all consolation being their covenant God, His comfort shall overbear all their mourning, and taste the sweeter for it. In Luke 2:25, the Messiah’ s coming is called ἡπαράκλησιςτοῦἸσραήλ . This beatitude is by many editors (Lachmann, e.g.) placed after ver. 5. But the authority is by no means decisive, and I cannot see how the logical coherence of the sentences is improved by it. In placing these two beatitudes first, the Lord follows the order in Isaiah 61:1, which He proclaimed in the synagogue at Nazareth, Luke 4:18. 5. οἱπραεῖς ] A citation from Psalms 37:11. The usual dividers and allotters of the earth being mighty and proud conquerors, and the Messiah being expected as such a conqueror, this announcement, that the meek should inherit the earth, struck at the root of the temporal expectations of power and wealth in the Messiah’ s kingdom. This meekness is not mere outward lowliness of demeanour, but that true πραΰτης of Ephesians 4:2, whose active side (Stier) is ἀγάπη , and its passive side μακροθυμία . On the promise, compare Isaiah 57:13-15; Isaiah 60:21: 1 Corinthians 3:22. That kingdom of God which begins in the hearts of the disciples of Christ, and is not ἐκτοῦκόσμουτούτου , shall work onwards till it shall become actually a kingdom over this earth, and its subjects shall inherit the earth: first in its millennial, and finally in its renewed and blessed state for ever. 6. See Psalms 107:9; Psalms 65:4; Psalms 22:26: Isaiah 41:17. This hunger and thirst is the true sign of that new life on which those born of the Spirit (John 3:3, John 3:5) have entered; and it is after δικαιος ., i.e. perfect conformity to the holy will of God. This was His meat, John 4:34. ‘ lllo cibo saturabuntur de quo ipse Dominus dicit, Meus cibus est ut faciam voluntatem Patris mei, quod est, justitia: et illa aqua, de qua quisquis biberit, ut Idem dicit, fiet in eo fons aquæ salientis in vitam æ ternam.’ Aug. in loc. (vol. iii. pt. 2, Migne). But he elsewhere says (in Ev. Joh. Tract. 26. 1 (vol. iii. pt. 2)), after quoting this verse, ‘ Justitiam vero nobis esse Christum, Paulus Apostolus dicit. Ac per hoc qui esurit Hunc Panem, esuriat Justitiam: sed justitiam quæ de cœ lo descendit, justitiam quam dat Deus, non quam sibi facit homo.’ (Chrysostom confines himself to the moral explanation, as also Euthymius.) They shall be satisfied— in the new heaven and new earth, ἐνοἷςδικαιοσύνηκατοικεῖ , 2 Peter 3:13. Cf. the remarkable parallel, Ps. 16:15 (LXX), ἐγὼδὲἐνδικαιοσύνῃὀφθήσομαιτῷπροσώπῳσου , χορτασθήσομαιἐντῷὀφθῆναιτὴνδόξανσου . This hunger and thirst after righteousness is admirably set forth in the three first petitions of the Lord’ s prayer,— ‘ Hallowed be Thy name— Thy kingdom come— Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.’ 7. ἐλεήμονες ] οὐχὶδιὰχρημάτωνμόνονἐστὶνἐλεεῖν , ἀλλὰκαὶλόγου · κἂνμηδὲνἔχῃς , διὰδακρύων . ποικίλοςγὰρὁτῆςἐλεημοσύνηςτρόπος , καὶπλατεῖααὕτηἡἐντολή . ἐλεηθήσονταιδέ , ἐνταῦθαμὲνπαρὰἀνθρώπων · ἐκεῖδὲπαρὰτοῦθεοῦ . Euthymius, expanding Chrysostom. This beatitude comprises every degree of sympathy and mutual love and help; from that fulness of it which is shed abroad in those who have been forgiven much, and therefore love much,— down to those first beginnings of the new birth, even among those who know not the Lord, which are brought out in ch. 25:37-40, where see notes. 8. καθ . τῇκαρδίᾳ ] See Psalms 24:4, Psalms 24:6. It is no Levitical cleanness, nor mere moral purity, that is here meant: but that inner purity, which (Acts 15:9) is brought about τῇπίστει , has its fruit (1 Timothy 1:5) in love; which is, as in καθαρὸνφῶς , καθαρὰχαρά , &c., opposed to all διψυχία (James 1:8), and all hypocrisy and outward colouring; so that the καθ . τῇκ . are οἱῥεραντισμένοιτὰςκαρδίαςἀπὸσυνειδήσεωςπονηρᾶς (Hebrews 10:22). ‘ Hoc est mundum cor, quod est simplex cor: et quemadmodum lumen hoc videri non potest nisi oculis mundis, ita nec Deus videtur nisi mundum sit illud quo videri potest.’ (Aug. in loc.) But there is also allusion to the nearer vision of God attained by progressive sanctification, of which St. Paul speaks, 2 Corinthians 3:18,— begun indeed in this life, but not perfected till the next, 1 Corinthians 13:12. Read the magnificent conclusion of Augustine De Civit. Dei, xxii. 29 (vol. vii. Migne), in which he enters more deeply into the meaning of this verse. 9. εἰρηνοποιοί ] More than ‘ the peaceful’ (‘ pacifici,’ Vulg.). It is doubtful whether the word ever has this meaning. Thus Euthymius, mostly after Chrysostom: οἱμὴμόνοναὐτοὶμὴστασιάζοντες , ἀλλὰκαὶἑτέρουςστασιάζονταςσυνάγοντεςεἰςεἰρήνην · υἱοὶδὲθεοῦκληθήσονται , ὡςμιμησάμενοιτὸνμονογενῆυἱὸναὐτοῦ · ᾧγέγονενἔργονσυναγαγεῖντὰδιεστῶτακαὶκαταλλάξαιτὰἐκπεπολεμωμένα . But even thus we do not seem to reach the full meaning, which probably is, “ they that work peace;” not confining the reference to the reconciliation of persons at variance: see note on James 3:18: and, for the more special meaning, Xen. in reff. κληθήσονται ] implies the reality, as in ver. 19; shall (not only be, but also) be called, i.e. recognized, in the highest sense, both generally, and by the Highest Himself, as such. Cf. Maldonatus: ‘ plus etiam quiddam mihi videtur vocari quam esse significare: nempe ita aliquid esse, ut appareat, ut omnium ore celebretur.’ Let it ever be remembered, according to the order of these beatitudes, and the assertion of Jam 3:17, that the wisdom from above is πρῶτονἁγνή , ἔπειταεἰρηνική , implying no compromise with evil. And it is in the working out of this ἁγνότης that Luke 12:51 is especially true. 10. ‘ Martyres non facit pœ na, sed causa. Nam si pœ na martyres faceret, omnia metalla martyribus plena essent, omnes catenæ martyres traherent: omnes qui gladio feriuntur, coronarentur. Nemo ergo dicat, Quia patior Justus sum. Quia ipse qui primo passus est, pro justitia passus est, ideo magnam exceptionem addidit. Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam.’ (Aug. Enarr. in Psalms 34:13, vol. iv.) See 1 Peter 3:14; 1 Peter 4:14, which probably refers to this verse. The repetition of the promise in ver. 3 is a close of the string of promises as it began. See the remarkable variation in the var. readd. 11. With the preceding verse the beatitudes end, in their general reference, and in this our Lord addresses His disciples particularly. The actions described in this verse are the expansion of δεδιωγμένοι in the last. διώξωσιν , however, still means persecute; its legal usage is unknown in the N.T. ψευδόμενοι does not belong to ἕνεκενἐμοῦ , as some recent Commentators have supposed (Tholuck, Meyer), but to εἴπωσιν . The pres. part., as usual, carries with it the logical condition. 12. ὁμισθὸςὑμ .] A reward, not of debt, but of grace, as the parable in ch. 20:1 ff. clearly represents it. ‘ An expression,’ as De Wette observes, ‘ taken from our earthly commerce, and applied to spiritual things;’ in which however we must remember, that the principal reference is to God as the giver, and not to us as the deservers: see the parable above cited, where the μισθός is not what was earned, but what was covenanted. ‘ Deus est debitor noster non ex commisso, sed ex promisso.’ Aug. (Tholuck.) These words, ἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς , must not be taken as having any bearing on the question as to the future habitation of the glorified saints. Their use in this and similar expressions is not local, but spiritual, indicating the blessed state when ἡβασιλείατῶνοὐρανῶν shall have fully come. The local question is to be decided by wholly different testimonies of Scripture;— by the general tenor of prophecy, and the analogies of the divine dealings: and all of these seem to point rather to this earth, purified and renewed, than to the heavens in any ordinary sense of the term, as the eternal habitation of the blessed. ἐδίωξαν ] For instance, Jeremiah was scourged, Jeremiah 20:2; Zechariah son of Jehoiada was stoned, 2 Chronicles 24:21; Isaiah, according to Jewish tradition, was sawn asunder by Manasseh. The reasoning implied in γάρ may be thus filled up: “ and great will be their reward in heaven.” 13. The transition from the preceding verses is easy and natural, from the δεδιωγμένοιἕνεκενδικαιοσύνης , of which vv. 11, 12, were a sort of application, and the allusion to the ancient Prophets, to ὑμεῖςἐστετὸἅλ . τ . γ . Elisha healed the unwholesome water by means of salt (2 Kings 2:20), and the ordinary use of salt for culinary purposes is to prevent putrefaction: so (see Genesis 18:23-33) are the righteous, the people of God, in this corrupt world. It hardly seems necessary to find instances of the actual occurrence of salt losing its savour, for this is merely hypothetical. Yet it is perhaps worth noticing, that Maundrell, in his travels, found salt in the Valley of Salt, near Gehul, which had the appearance, but not the taste, having lost it by exposure to the elements (see the citation below);— and that Schö ttgen maintains that a kind of bitumen from the Dead Sea was called ‘ sal Sodomiticus,’ and was used to sprinkle the sacrifices in the temple; which salt was used, when its savour was gone, to strew the temple pavement, that the priests might not slip. This, however, is but poorly made out by him, (Schö ttgen, Hor. Hebr. in loc.) Dr. Thomson, ‘ The Land and the Book,’ p. 381, mentions a case which came under his own observation: where a merchant of Sidon had stored up a quantity of salt in cottages with earthen floors, in consequence of which the salt was spoiled, and Dr. T. saw “ large quantities of it literally thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot of men and beasts.” He adds, “ It is a well-known fact that the salt of this country, 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, 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: and this is the reason why it is cast into the street.” τῆςγῆς , mankind and all creation: but with a more inward reference, as to the working of the salt, than in τοῦκόσμου , ver. 14, where the light is something outwardly shewn. μωρανθῇ = ἄναλονγένηται , Mark 9:50. ἁλισθήσεται ] i.e. the salt; not impersonal, as Luther has rendered it,— womit wird man faizen? ‘ wherewith shall salting be carried on?’ for τὸἅλας is the nom. to all three verbs, μωρανθῇ , ἁλισθ ., and ἰσχύει . The sense is: ‘ If you become untrue to your high calling, and spiritually effete and corrupted, there are no ordinary means by which you can be re-converted and brought back to your former state, inasmuch as you have no teachers and guides over you, but ought yourselves to be teachers and guides to others.’ But we must not from this suppose that our Lord denies all repentance to those who have thus fallen: the scope of His saying must be taken into account, which is not to crush the fallen, but to quicken the sense of duty, and cause His disciples to walk worthily of their calling. (See Hebrews 6:4-6, and note on Mark 9:49, Mark 9:50.) The salt in the sacrifice is the type of God’ s covenant of sanctification, whereby this earth shall be again hallowed for Him: His people are the instruments, in His hand, of this wholesome salting: all His servants in general, but the teachers and ministers of His covenant in particular. Chrysostom observes, οἱμὲνγὰρἄλλοιμυριάκιςπίπτοντεςδύνανταιτυχεῖνσυγγνώμης · ὁδὲδιδάσκαλοςἐὰντοῦτοπάθῃ , πάσηςἀπεστέρηταιἀπολογίας , καὶτὴνἐσχάτηνδώσειτιμωρίαν (Hom. xv. 7, p. 194). ἀπὸτότεἔξωῥίπτεταιτοῦδιδασκαλικοῦἀξιώματος , καὶκαταπατεῖται , τουτέστικαταφρονεῖται . Euthym. in loc. There does not appear to be any allusion to ecclesiastical excommunication. 14. τὸφῶςτοῦκός .] And yet only in a lower and derivative sense; Christ Himself being τὸφῶςτὸἀληθινόν , ὃφωτίζειπάνταἄνθρωπον , ἐρχόμενονεἰςτὸνκόσμον , John 1:9; τὸφῶςτοῦκόσμον , 8:12. His ministers are λύχνοι , John 5:35, and φωστῆρες , Philippians 2:15, receiving their light, and only burning for a time. ‘ Johannes lumen illuminatum: Christus lumen illuminans.’ Aug. Serm. ccclxxx.7 (vol. v. pt. ii.). And here too, φῶς in this verse = λύχνος in ver. 15, where the comparison is resumed. So also Ephesians 5:8: ἦτεσκότος , νῦνδὲφῶςἐνκυρίῳ — light, as partaking of His Light: for πᾶντὸφανερούμενον (see note, ib. ver. 13) φῶςἐστιν . οὐδύναται .… ] Of course it is possible that our Lord may have had some town before Him thus situated, but not Bethulia, whose very existence is probably fabulous, being only mentioned in the apocryphal book of Judith. Recent travellers, as Drs. Stanley and Thomson (‘ Sinai and Palestine,’ p. 429: ‘ The Land and the Book,’ p. 273), have thought that, notwithstanding the fact shewn by Robinson, that the actual city of Safed was not in existence at this time, some ancient portion of it, at all events its fortress, which is ‘ as aged in appearance as the most celebrated ruins in the country’ (Thomson), may have been before the eye of our Lord as He spoke. It is ‘ placed high on a bold spur of the Galilæ an Anti-Lebanon,’ and answers well to the description of a city ‘ lying on the mountain top.’ ‘ The only other in view would be the village and fortress of Tabor, distinctly visible from the mount of Beatitudes, though not from the hills on the lake side. Either or both of these would suggest the illustration, which would be more striking from the fact, that this situation of cities on the tops of the hills is as rare in Galilee, as it is common in Judæ a.’ Stanley, ubi supra. But the Church of God, the city on a hill (Isaiah 2:2: Galatians 4:26: see also Hebrews 12:22), in allusion to their present situation, on a mountain, is most probably the leading thought. 15. μόδιον ] A Latin word (the art. is by many supposed to express that the μόδιος is a vessel usually found in the house: but it is rather to be regarded as the sign of the generic singular, as in κοινοῖτὸνἄνθρωπον , ch. 15:20)— called by the more general name σκεῦος , Luke 8:16. καίουσιν , i.e. men in general: shewing, in the spiritual reference of the parable, that these lights of the world are ‘ lighted’ by Him for whose use they are. See above. 16. οὕτως ] i.e. like a candle on a candlestick— like a city on a hill; not οὕτως , ὅπως , ‘ so … that,’ as our English version seems rather to imply. By rendering οὕτως in like manner, the ambiguity will be avoided. See ref., and note there. The sense of this verse is as if it were ὅπως , ἰδόντεςὑμῶντ . κ . ἔργ . δοξάσωσιντ . π . ὑ … the latter verb, and not the former, carrying the purpose of the action. Thus the praise and glory of a well-lighted and brilliant feast would be given, not to the lights, but to the master of the house; and of a stately city on a hill, not to the buildings, but to those who built them. The whole of this division of our Lord’ s sermon is addressed to all His followers, not exclusively to the ministers of his word. All servants of Christ are the salt of the earth, the light of the world (Philippians 2:15). And all that is here said applies to us all. But à fortiori does it apply, in its highest sense, to those who are, among Christians, selected to teach and be examples; who are as it were the towers and pinnacles of the city, not only not hid, but seen far and wide above the rest. 17-48. The second part of the Sermon, in which our Lord sets forth His relation, as a lawgiver, to the law of Moses, especially as currently interpreted according to the letter only. 17. ἦλθον ] Observe how our Lord, through the whole sermon, sets forth Himself, in his proceeding forth from God, as the true ἐρχόμενος . τὸνν . ἢτοὺςπροφ ] It is a question whether our Lord includes the prophecies, properly so called, in His meaning here. I think not: for no person professing himself to be the Messiah would be thought to contradict the prophecies, but to fulfil them. Neither, it appears, does He here allude to the sacrificial and typical parts of the law, but to the moral parts of both the law and the prophets; which indeed he proceeds to cite and particularize. If however we prefer to include both ceremonial and moral in this assertion, we may understand it in its more general sense, as applying, beyond the instances here given, to His typical fulfilment of the law, which could not as yet be unfolded. Thus Augustine: ‘ Hæ c præ cepta sunt morum; illa sacramenta sunt promissorum: hæ c implentur per adjuvantem gratiam, illa per redditam veritatem, utraque per Christum, et illam semper gratiam donantem, nunc etiam revelantem, et hanc veritatem tunc promittentem, nunc exhibentem.’ Contra xix. 18, vol. viii. Much unnecessary question has been raised (see Thol. Bergpred. edn. 3, p. 132 f.) respecting the ἤ , whether or not it can have the sense of καί . It is simply the disjunctive conjunction necessary in order to apply the καταλῦσαι to each severally, which would naturally be replaced by the copulative, where an affirmative assertion respecting the same two things is made. πληρῶσαι implies more than the mere fulfilling: see reff., where the word has the sense of filling out or expanding; i.e. here, giving a deeper and holier sense to— fulfilling in the spirit, which is nobler than the letter. Theophylact compares the ancient law to a sketch, which the painter οὐκαταλύει , ἀλλ ʼ ἀναπληροῖ … τοῦνόμουγὰρτὰτέλητῶνἁμαρτημάτωνκωλύοντος , ὁχριστὸςκαὶτὰςἀρχὰςἐκώλυσεν . Euthym. in loc. ἐπεὶὁχριστὸςοὔτεἐξἱερατικῆςφυλῆςἐτύγχανενὤν , καὶἅπερἔμελλενεἰσηγεῖσθαιπροσθήκητιςἦν , οὐμὴνἐλαττοῦσαἀλλ ʼ ἐπιτείνουσατὴνἀρετήν · προειδὼςἀμφότεραταῦταμέλλοντααὐτοὺςταράττειν , πρὶνἢτοὺςθαυμαστοὺςἐκείνουςἐγγράψαινόμους , ἐκβάλλειτὸμέλλοναὐτῶνὑφορμεῖντῇδιανοίᾳ . τίδὲἦντὸὑφορμοῦνκαὶἀντικροῦον ; ἐνόμιζοναὐτὸνταῦταλέγονταἐπ ʼ ἀνχιρέσειτῶνπαλαιῶννομίμωνποιεῖν . ταύτηντοίνυνἰᾶταιτὴνὑπόνοιαν . Chrysost. Hom. xvi. 1, p. 203. See a history of the exegesis of the word in Thol. edn. 3, p. 135. The gnostic Marcion characteristically enough maintained that the Judaizing Christians had altered this verse, and that it originally stood,— τίδοκεῖτε , ὅτιἦλθονπληρῶσαιτὸννόμονἢτοὺςπροφήτας ; ἦλθονκαταλῦσαι , ἀλλ ʼ οὐπληρῶσαι . 18. ἀμήν ] = ἀληθῶς in St. Luke, 9:27; 12:44; 21:3. See reff. The double ἕωςαν renders the dependence of the members of the sentence rather difficult. The two expressions seem to be strictly parallel: ἕωςἂνπαρ . ὁοὐρ . κ . ἡγῆ , and ἕωςἂνπάνταγέν . According to this view these latter words will mean, ‘ till the end of all things.’ But the other interpretation, ‘ till all (that is written in the law) shall have been fulfilled’ (as in the English version), is no doubt admissible, in which case the sense will stand thus:— While heaven and earth last (ἕωςἂνὁκόσμοςδιαμένῃ , Euthym.) one jot or one tittle shall not pass away from the law without all being fulfilled. Tholuck remarks on παρέρχεσθαι , “ It denotes, as παραδραμεῖν , παραφέρεσθαι , παράγειν , ‘ to pass by,’ ‘ to pass out of view’ (see Wetst. in loc.): cf. Aristid. i. 216: παρῆλθονὥσπερμῦθοι , and the phrase παρέρχεταίμέτι , ‘ something escapes my memory.’ Cf. in the Heb., ע ָ ב ַ ר Psalms 37:36: Nahum 1:12: Job 34:20. Cf. the passing away of the heaven, ch. 24:39: 2 Peter 3:10: Revelation 21:1;— παράγεται , 1 John 2:17;— the intrans. παράγει , 1 Corinthians 7:31.” ἰῶτα is the Hebrew Jod, the smallest letter in the alphabet: κεραῖαι are the little turns of the strokes by which one letter differs from another similar to it. Origen on Psa_33 (cited by Wetstein) says— τῶνστοιχείωνπαρ ʼ Ἑβραίοις , λέγωδὲτοῦχὰφκαὶτοῦβήθπολλὴνὁμοιότητασωζόντων , ὡςκατὰμηδὲνἀλλήλωνδιαλλάττεινἢβραχείᾳκεραίᾳμόνῃ . The Rabbinical writings have many sayings similar in sentiment to this, but spoken of the literal written law. (See Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. in loc.) It is important to observe in these days how the Lord here includes the O.T. and all its unfolding of the divine purposes regarding Himself, in His teaching of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven. I say this, because it is always in contempt and setting aside of the O.T. that rationalism has begun. First, its historical truth— then its theocratic dispensation and the types and prophecies connected with it, are swept away; so that Christ came to fulfil nothing, and becomes only a teacher or a martyr: and thus the way is paved for a similar rejection of the N.T.;— beginning with the narratives of the birth and infancy, as theocratic myths— advancing to the denial of His miracles— then attacking the truthfulness of His own sayings which are grounded on the O.T. as a revelation from God— and so finally leaving us nothing in the Scriptures but, as a German writer of this school has expressed it, ‘ a mythology not so attractive as that of Greece.’ That this is the course which unbelief has run in Germany, should be a pregnant warning to the decriers of the O.T. among ourselves. It should be a maxim for every expositor and every student, that Scripture is a whole, and stands or falls together. That this is now beginning to be deeply felt in Germany, we have cheering testimonies in the later editions of their best Commentators, and in the valuable work of Stier on the discourses of our Lord. (Since however these words were first written, we have had lamentable proof in England, that their warnings were not unneeded. The course of unbelief which induced the publication of the volume entitled “ Essays and Reviews,” was, in character and progress, exactly that above described: and owing to the injudicious treatment which multiplied tenfold the circulation of that otherwise contemptible work, its fallacies are now in the hands and mouths of thousands, who, from the low standard of intelligent Scriptural knowledge among us, will never have the means of answering them.) 19. There is little difficulty in this verse, if we consider it in connexion with the verse preceding, to which it is bound by the οὖν and the τούτων , and with the following, to which the γάρ unites it. Bearing this in mind, we see (1) that λύσῃ , on account of what follows in ver. 20 and after, must be taken in the higher sense, as referring to the spirit and not the letter: whosoever shall break (have broken), in the sense presently to be laid down. (2) That τῶνἐντ . τούτ . τῶνἐλ . refers to ἰῶταἓνἢμίακεραία above, and means one of those minute commands which seem as insignificant, in comparison with the greater, as the ἰῶτα and κεραία in comparison with great portions of writing. (3) That ἐλάχιστοςκληθ . does not mean ‘ shall be excluded from,’ inasmuch as the question is not of keeping or not keeping the commandments of God in a legal sense, but of appreciating, and causing others to appreciate, the import and weight of even the most insignificant parts of God’ s revelation of Himself to man; and rather therefore applies to teachers than to Christians in general, though to them also through the λύσῃ and ποιήσῃ . (4) That no deduction can be drawn from these words binding the Jewish law, or any part of it, as such, upon Christians. That this is so, is plainly shewn by what follows, where our Lord proceeds to pour upon the letter of the law the fuller light of the spirit of the Gospel: thus lifting and expanding (not destroying) every jot and tittle of that precursory dispensation into its full meaning in the life and practice of the Christian; who, by the indwelling of the divine Teacher, God’ s Holy Spirit, is led into all truth and purity. (5) That these words of our Lord are decisive against such persons, whether ancient or modern, as would set aside the Old Testament as without significance, or inconsistent with the New. See the preceding note, and the Book of Common Prayer, Article vii. ἐλάχιστος is in direct allusion to ἐλαχίστων ; but it can hardly be said (De Wette, Tholuck) that, because there is no article, it means ‘ one of the least’ (ein geringster), for the article is often omitted after an appellative verb. μέγας rests on different grounds; being positive, and in its nature generic. See ch. 11:11; 18:1-4. On κληθήσεται , see note on ver. 9. Observe the conditional aorists, λύσῃ , ποιήσῃ , διδάξῃ , combined with the indic. fut. κληθήσεται ,— and thus necessitating the keeping the times distinct. The time indicated by κληθήσεται is one when the λῦσαι , ποιῆσαι , διδάξαι , shall be things of the past— belonging to a course of responsibility over and done with. 20. An expansion of the idea contained in πληρῶσαι , ver. 17, and of the difference between λύσῃ , which the Scribes and Pharisees did by enforcing the letter to the neglect of the spirit— and ποιήσῃκαὶδιδάξῃ , in which particulars Christians were to exceed the Pharisees, the punctilious observers, and the Scribes, the traditional expounders of the law. δικαιοσύνη , purity of heart and life, as set forth by example in the ποιοῦντες , and by precept in the διδάσκοντες . The whole of the rest of our Lord’ s sermon is a comment on, and illustration of, the assertion in this verse. γραμματέων ] Persons devoted to the work of reading and expounding the law , whose office seems first to have become frequent after the return from Babylon. They generally appear in the N.T. in connexion with the Pharisees: but it appears from Acts 23:9, that there were Scribes attached to the other sects also. In Matthew 21:15, they appear with the chief priests; but it is in the temple, where (see also Luke 20:1) they acted as a sort of police. In the description of the assembling of the great Sanhedrim (Matthew 26:3: Mark 14:53; Mark 15:1) we find it composed of ἀρχιερεῖς , πρεσβύτεροι , and γραμματεῖς ; and in Luke 22:66, of ἀρχιερεῖςκαὶγραμματεῖς . The Scribes uniformly opposed themselves to our Lord; watching Him to find matter of accusation, Luke 6:7; Luke 11:53, Luke 11:54; perverting His sayings, Matthew 9:3, and His actions, Luke 5:30; Luke 15:2; seeking to entangle Him by questions, Matthew 22:35 (see note there): Luke 10:25; Luke 20:21; and to embarrass Him, Matthew 12:38. Their authority as expounders of the law is recognized by our Lord Himself, Matthew 23:1, Matthew 23:2; their adherence to the oral traditionary exposition proved, Matthew 15:1 ff.; the respect in which they were held by the people shewn, Luke 20:46; their existence indicated not only in Jerusalem but also in Galilee, Luke 5:17,— and in Rome, Josephus, Antt. xviii. 3. 5. They kept schools and auditories for teaching the youth, Luke 2:46: Acts 5:34, compared with 22:3; are called by Josephus πατρίωνἐξηγηταὶνόμων , Antt. xvii. 6. 2; σοφισταί , B. J. i. 33. 2. The construction πλεῖοντῶνγραμματέωνκαὶτῶνΦαρισαίων elliptically for πλ . τῆςδικαιοσύνηςτ . γρ . κ . τ . Φ ., is illustrated in Kü hner (Gram. ii. § 749) under the name of ‘ comparatio compendiaria,’ by Hom. Il. φ . 191, κρείσσωνδ ʼ αὖτεΔιὸςγενεὴποταμοῖοτέτυκται ; Pindar, Olymp. i. init., μηδ ʼ Ὀλυμπίαςἀγῶναφέρτεροναὐδάσομεν , &c. Notice, that not only the hypocrites among the Scribes and Pharisees are here meant; but the declaration is, “ Your righteousness must be of a higher order than any yet attained, or conceived, by Scribe or Pharisee.” οὐμὴεἰσέλ .] A very usual formula (see ch. 7:21; 18:3; 19:17, 23, 24: John 3:5 .): implying exclusion from the blessings of the Christian state, and from the inheritance of eternal life. 21-48. Six examples of the true fulfilment of the law by Jesus. First example. The law of murder. (For a very full discussion of the various points of Jewish and Christian law and morality occurring in this part of the sermon, consult throughout Tholuck’ s elaborate commentary, 3rd edn.) 21. ἠκούσατε ] viz. by the reading of the law in the synagogues, and the exposition of the Scribes. τοῖςἀρχαίοις ] has been rendered, as in E. V., ‘ by the ancients;’ in which case, Moses and his traditional expounders are classed together; or, ‘ to the ancients,’ — which last interpretation seems to me to be certainly the right one. Both constructions are found (see reff.); but every instance of the former is either (as ch. 6:1) resolvable into the latter, or ambiguous, and none can be produced with ἐῤῥήθη , whereas all the latter have this very word, which is never followed in the N.T. or LXX by any other substantive but that denoting the persons to whom the words are spoken. The omission of τοῖςἀρχαίοις , vv. 27, 31, 38, 43, also favours the rendering to, which was the interpretation of the Greek fathers. Chrysostom expands it thus: τίοὖναὐτόςφησιν ; ἠκούσατεὅτιἐῤῥέθητοῖςἀρχαίοιςΟὐφονεύσεις · καίτοιὁκαὶἐκεῖναδοὺςαὐτόςἐστιν · ἀλλὰτέωςἀπροσώπωςαὐτὰτίθησιν . εἴτεγὰρεἶπενὅτιἠκούσατεὅτιεἶποντοῖςἀρχαίοις , δυσπαράδεκτοςὁλόγοςἐγίνετο , καὶπᾶσινἂνπροσέστητοῖςἀκούουσιν · εἴτεαὖπάλινεἰπὼνὅτιἠκούσατεὅτιἐῤῥέθητοῖςἀρχαίοιςπαρὰτοῦπατρόςμου , ἐπήγαγενἘγὼδὲλέγω , μείζωνἂνἒδοξενεἶναιὁαὐθαδιασμός , Hom. xvi. 5, p. 210. Meyer (Exo_2) has well observed that ἐῤῥήθητοῖςἀρχαίοις corresponds to λέγωδὲὑμῖν , and the ἐγώ to the understood subject of ἐῤῥ . He has not, however, apprehended the deeper truth which underlies the omission of the subject of ἐῤῥ ., that it was the same person who said both. It will be noticed that our Lord does not here speak against the abuse of the law by tradition, but that every instance here given is either from the law itself, or such traditional teaching as was in accordance with it (e.g. the latter part of this verse is only a formal expansion of the former). The contrasts here are not between the law misunderstood and the law rightly understood, but between the law and its ancient exposition, which in their letter, and as given, were κενά ,— and the same as spiritualized, πεπληρωμένα , by Christ: not between two lawgivers, Moses and Christ, but between οἱἀρχαῖοι and ὑμεῖς ; between (the idea is Chrysostom’ s) the children, by the same husband, of the bondwoman and of the freewoman. The above remarks comprise a brief answer to the important but somewhat misapprehended question, whether our Lord impugned the Mosaic law itself, or only its inadequate interpretation by the Jewish teachers? See this treated at great length by Tholuck, Bergp. pp. 153-165, edn. 3. There is no inconsistency in the above view with the assertion in ver. 19: the just and holy and true law was necessarily restricted in meaning and degraded in position, until He came, whose office it was to fulfil and glorify it. κρίσει ] viz. the courts in every city, ordered Deuteronomy 16:18, and explained by Josephus Antt. iv. 8. 14 to consist of seven men, and to have the power of life and death. But τῇκρίσει in the next verse (see note) is the court of judgment in the Messiah’ s kingdom. 22. The sense is: ‘ There were among the Jews three well-known degrees of guilt, coming respectively under the cognizance of the local and the supreme courts; and after these is set the γέεννατοῦπυρός , the end of the malefactor, whose corpse, thrown out into the valley of Hinnom, was devoured by the worm or the flame. Similarly, in the spiritual kingdom of Christ, shall the sins even of thought and word be brought into judgment and punished, each according to its degree of guilt, but even the least of them before no less a tribunal than the judgment-seat of Christ.’ The most important thing to keep in mind is, that there is no distinction of kind between these punishments, only of degree. In the thing compared, the κρίσις inflicted death by the sword, the συνέδριον death by stoning, and the disgrace of the γέεννατοῦπυρός followed as an intensification of the horrors of death; but the punishment is one and the same— death. So also in the subject of the similitude, all the punishments are spiritual; all result in eternal death; but with various degrees (the nature of which is as yet hidden from us), as the degrees of guilt have been. So that the distinction drawn by the Romanists between venial and mortal sins, finds not only no countenance, but direct confutation from this passage. The words here mentioned must not be superstitiously supposed to have any damning power in themselves (see below), but to represent states of anger and hostility, for which an awful account hereafter must be given. (On εἰκῆ (see var. readd.) Euthymius remarks: προσθεὶςδὲτὸεἰκῆ , οὐκἀνεῖλεπαντάπασιτὴνὀργήν , ἀλλὰμόνηντὴνἄκαιρονἐξέβαλεν · ἡγὰρεὔκαιροςὠφέλιμος . Grotius: ‘ Merito εἰκῆ additum. Neque enim iracundus est quisquis irasci solet, sed qui oh οἷςοὐδεῖ , καὶἐφ ʼ οἷςοὐδεῖ , καὶμᾶλλονἢδεῖ , ut Aristoteles loquitur.’ ) On the sense, cf. 1 John 3:15. ῥακά ] ר ַ י ק ָ א empty; a term denoting contempt, and answering to ὦἄνθρωπεκενέ , James 2:20. On the α representing the י ֵ , see Tholuck’ s note p. 172, edn. 3. μωρέ ] Two interpretations have been given of this word. Either it is (1), as usually understood, a Greek word, ‘ Thou fool,’ and used by our Lord Himself of the Scribes and Pharisees, ch. 23:17, 19,— and its equivalent ἀνόητοι of the disciples, Luke 24:25; or (2) a Hebrew word, signifying ‘ rebel,’ and the very word for uttering which Moses and Aaron were debarred from entering the land of promise: … ש ׁ ִ מ ְ ע ו ּ ־ נ ָ א ה ַ מ ּ ֹ ר ִ י ם : ‘ Hear now, ye rebels.’ Numbers 20:10. “ Others take the Greek word, according to the Hebrew usage of נ ָ ב ָ ל , in the sense of ἄθεος . So Phavorinus: εἴρηταικαὶἐπὶτοῦἀθέουκαὶἀπίστου .” Thol. p. 174. ἔνοχ . εἰς is perhaps a pregnant construction for ἔνοχοςὥστεβληθῆναιεἰς : but see reff. τ . γέενναντοῦπ .] To the s.e. of Jerusalem was a deep and fertile valley, called נ ּ ֵ י ה ִ נ ּ ו ֹ ם , ‘ the vale of Hinnom,’ and rendered Γαίεννα , Joshua 18:16, LXX. In this valley (also called Tophet, Isaiah 30:33: Jeremiah 7:31) did the idolatrous Jews burn their children to Moloch, and Josiah (2 Kings 23:10) therefore polluted it; and thenceforward it was the place for the casting out and burning all offal, and the corpses of criminals; and therefore its name, ἡγέεννατοῦπυρός , was used to signify the place of everlasting punishment. 23 f. οὖν ] an inference from the guilt and danger of all bitterness and hostility of mind towards another, declared in the preceding verse. Chrysostom remarks: καθάπερσοφὸςἰατρὸςοὐμόνοντὰπροφυλακτικὰτῶννοσημάτωντίθησιν , ἀλλὰκαὶτὰδιορθωτικά , οὕτωκαὶαὐτὸςποιεῖ . τὸμὲνγὰρκωλύεινκαλεῖνμωρόν , προφυλακτικόνἐστιτῆςἔχθρας · τὸδὲκελεύεινκαταλλαγῆναι , τῶνμετὰτήνἔχθρανγενομένωννοσημάτωνἀναιρετικόν . Hom. xvi. 10, p. 218. The whole of his comment on this verse is excellent. The δῶρον is any kind of gift— sacrificial or eucharistic. ἔχειτὶκατὰσοῦ is remarkable, as being purposely substituted for the converse. It is not what complaints we have against others that we are to consider at such a time, but what they have against us; not what ground we have given for complaint, but what complaints they, as matter of fact, make against us. See the other side dealt with, Mark 11:25. Tholuck has shewn at length (p. 187, ff.) that the distinction attempted to be set up between διαλλάσσω as implying a mutual, and καταλλάσσω , a merely one-sided reconciliation, has no foundation in fact. Our διαλλάγηθι is simply become reconciled— thyself, without being influenced by the status of the other towards thee. Remove the offence, and make friendly overtures to thy brother. πρῶτον belongs to ὕπαγε , not to διαλλάγηθι , (1) because ὕπ . πρῶτον is opposed to τότεἐλθών , the departure to the return, not διαλλάγηθι to πρόσφερε ; (2) by the analogy of the usage of such adverbs with imperatives. Compare ch. 7:5 and the similar passage, Luke 6:42: ch. 6:33; 13:30: Mark 7:27. No conclusion whatever can be drawn from this verse as to the admissibility of the term altar as applied to the Lord’ s Table under the Christian system. The whole language is Jewish, and can only be understood of Jewish rites. The command, of course, applies in full force as to reconciliation before the Christian offering of praise and thanksgiving in the Holy Communion; but further nothing can be inferred. 25. The whole of this verse is the earthly example of a spiritual duty which is understood, and runs parallel with it. The sense may be given: ‘ As in worldly affairs, it is prudent to make up a matter with an adversary before judgment is passed, which may deliver a man to a hard and rigorous imprisonment, so reconciliation with an offended brother in this life is absolutely necessary before his wrong cry against us to the Great Judge, and we be cast into eternal condemnation.’ The ἀντίδικος , in its abstract personification, is the offended law of God, which will cry against us in that day for all wrongs done to others; but in its concrete representation it is the offended brother, who is to us that law, as long as he has its claim upon us. The ὁδός , in the interpretation, is the way in which all men walk, the ὁδὸςπάσηςτῆςγῆς of 3 Kings 2:2, the ὁδὸςᾗοὐκἐπαναστραφήσομαι of Job 16:22. In the civil process, it represents the attempt at arbitration or private arrangement before coming into court: see Thol. p. 192, 3rd edit. So Chrys.: πρὸμὲνγὰρτῆςεἰσὸδουσὺκύριοςεἶτοῦπαντός · ἐὰνδὲἐπιβῇςἐκείνωντῶνπροθύρων , οὐδὲσφόδρασπουδάζωνδυνήαῃτὰκαθ ʼ ἑαυτὸνὡςβούλειδιαθεῖναι . Hom. xvi. 10, p. 219. 26. These words, which in the earthly example imply future liberation, because an earthly debt can be paid in most cases, so in the spiritual counterpart amount to a negation of it, because the debt can never be discharged. We have ἕωςἀποδῷτὸὀφειλόμενον in ch. 18:30, where the payment was clearly impossible. ὑπηρέτης = πράκτωρ in Luke 12:58, and is the officer of the court who saw the sentences executed. If we are called on to assign a meaning to ὑπηρέτης in the interpretation, it must represent the chief of those who in ch. 18:34, are hinted at by βασανισταί , viz. the great enemy, the minister of the divine wrath. κοδράντην , quadrantem, a Latin word (= λεπτόν in Luke), the fourth part of an as. See note on Luke, l. c 27-30. Second example. The law of adultery. 28. πᾶςὁβλέπων ] The precise meaning should in this verse be kept in mind, as the neglect of it may lead into error. Our Lord is speaking of the sin of adultery, and therefore, however the saying may undoubtedly apply by implication to cases where this sin is out of the question— e.g. to the impure beholding of an unmarried woman with a view to fornication (it being borne in mind that spiritually, and before God, all fornication is adultery, inasmuch as the unmarried person is bound in loyalty and chastity to Him. See Stier below)— yet the direct assertion in this verse must be understood as applying to the cases where this sin is in question. And, again, the βλέπωνπρὸςτὸἐπιθ . must not be interpreted of the casual evil thought which is checked by holy watchfulness, but the gazing with a view to feed that desire (for so πρὸςτό with an inf. must mean). And again, ἤδηἐμ . αὐτ . ἐντῇκ . αὐτ ., whatever it may undoubtedly imply respecting the guilt incurred in God’ s sight, does not directly state any thing; but, plainly understood, affirms that the man who can do this— viz. ‘ gaze with a view to feed unlawful desire’ — has already in his heart passed the barrier of criminal intention; made up his mind, stifled his conscience; in thought, committed the deed. But perhaps there is justice in Stier’ s remark, Reden Jesu, i. 129 (edn. 2), that our Lord speaks here after the O.T. usage, in which, both in the seventh commandment and elsewhere, adultery also includes fornication; for marriage is the becoming one flesh,— and therefore every such union, except that after the manner and in the state appointed by God, is a violation and contempt of that holy ordinance. 29. An admonition, arising out of the truth announced in the last verse, to withstand the first springs and occasions of evil desire, even by the sacrifice of what is most useful and dear to us. ταῦταπροσέταξενοὐπερὶμελῶνδιαλεγόμενος , ἄπαγε · οὐδαμοῦγὰρτῆςσαρκὸςτὰἐγκλήματαεἶναίφησιν , ἀλλὰπανταχοῦτῆςγνώμηςτῆςπονηρᾶςἡκατηγορία . οὐγὰρὁὀφθαλμόςἐστινὁὁρῶν , ἀλλ ʼ ὁνοῦςκαὶὁλογισμός . Chrys. Hom. xvii. 3, p. 225: and to the same effect Euthymius, who adds ἀλλ ʼ ὀφθαλμὸνμὲνδεξιὸνκαλεῖτὸνδίκηνὀφθαλμοῦστεργόμενονδεξιὸνφίλον · χεῖραδὲδεξιὰντὸνδίκηνχειρὸςχρησιμεύονταδεξιὸνὑπηρέτην , καὶεἴτεἄνδρεςεἶενεἴτεγυναῖκες . λέγειτοίνυνὅτιἐὰνοἱτοιοῦτοισκανδαλίζωσίσεπρὸςἐμπάθειαν , μηδὲτούτωνφείσῃ · ἀλλ ʼ ἔκκοψοναὐτοὺςτῆςπρόςσεσχέσεως , καὶῥίψονπόῤῥωσου . Philo Judæ us reports that he had heard ἀπὸθεσπεσίωνἀνδρῶν an interpretation of Deu 25:12, singularly agreeing with this verse: εἰκότωςοὖντὴν … χεῖρα .… ἀποκόπτεινδιείρηταισυμβολικῶς , οὐχὅπωςἀκρωτηριάζηταιτὸσῶμαστερόμενονἀναγκαιοτάτουμέρους , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπὲρτοῦπάνταςτῆςψυχῆςἀθέουςτέμνεινλογισμούς . De Spec. Legibus ad 6 Est_7 decal. cap. § 32, vol. ii. p. 329. We may observe here, that our Lord grounds His precept of the most rigid and decisive self-denial on the considerations of the truest self-interest,— συμφέρελσοι . See ch. 18:8, 9, and notes. ἵνα belongs to συμφ . σοι (see John 16:7); and not (Meyer) to the foregoing, making συμφ . γάρσοι parenthetical. 31, 32. Third example. The law of divorce. See note on ch. 19:7-9. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., gives a form of the ἀποστάσιον , which was a divorcement a vinculo matrimonii, and placed the woman absolutely in her own power, to marry whom she pleased, unless the husband inserted a special clause to bar this. In Deuteronomy 24:1, the allowable reason of divorce is ‘ some uncleanness.’ This the disciples of Shammai interpreted only of adultery; those of Hillel of any thing which amounted to uncleanness in the eyes of the husband. 32. πορνείας must be taken to mean sin, not only before marriage, but after it also, in a wider sense, as including μοιχεία likewise. In the similar places, Mark 10:11: Luke 16:18, this exception does not occur; see however our ch. 19:9. Chrysostom explains the connexion of this verse with the former to be, ἵναγὰρμὴἀκούσαςἜξελετὸνὀφθαλμόν , νομίσῃςκαὶπερὶγυναικὸςταῦταλέγεσθαι , εὐκαίρωςἐπήγαγετὴνἐπιδιόρθωσινταύτην , ἑνὶτρόπῳμόνῳσυγχωρῶνἐκβάλλειναὐτήν , ἑτέρῳδὲοὐδενί . Hom. xvii. 4, p. 228. The figurative senses of πορνεία cannot be admissible here, as the law is one having reference to a definite point in actual life; and this its aim and end restricts the meaning to that kind of πορνεία immediately applicable to the case. Otherwise this one strictly guarded exception would give indefinite and universal latitude. ποιεῖαὐτ . μοιχ .] ‘ Per alias nuptias, quarum potestatem dat divortium.’ Bengel. καὶὃςἐάν ] How far the marriage of the innocent party after separation is forbidden by this or the similar passage ch. 19:9, is a weighty and difficult question. By the Roman Church such marriage is strictly forbidden, and the authority of Augustine much cited, who strongly upholds this view, but not without misgivings later in life. ‘ Scripsi duos libros de conjugiis adulterinis, … cupiens solvere difficillimam quæ stionem. Quod utrum enodatissime fecerim nescio; immo vero non me pervenisse ad hujus rei perfectionem sentio.’ Retract. ii. 57, vol. i. On the other hand, the Protestant and Greek Churches allow such marriage. Certainly it would appear, from the literal meaning of our Lord’ s words (if ἀπολελ . be taken as perfectly general), that it should not be allowed: for if by such divorce the marriage be altogether dissolved, how can the woman be said μοιχᾶσθαι by a second marriage? or how will St. Paul’ s precept (1 Corinthians 7:11) find place, in which he says, ἐὰνδὲκαὶχωρισθῇ , μενέτωἄγαμοςἢτῷἀνδρὶκαταλλαγήτω for stating this as St. Paul does, prefaced by the words οὐκἐγώ , ἀλλ ʼ ὁκύριος , it must be understood, and has been taken, as referring to this very verse, or rather (see note in loc.) to ch. 19:6ff., and consequently can only suppose πορνεία as the cause. Besides which, the tenor of our Lord’ s teaching in other places (see above) seems to set before us the state of marriage as absolutely indissoluble as such, however he may sanction the expulsion a mensâ et thoro of an unfaithful wife. Those who defend the other view suppose the ἀπολελυμένην to mean, when unlawfully divorced, not for πορνεία : and certainly this is not improbable (see below). We may well leave a matter in doubt, of which Augustine could write thus: ‘ In ipsis divinis sententiis ita obscurum est utrum et iste, cui quidem sine dubio adulteram licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxerit, ut, quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur.’ De Fide atq. c. 19 (35), vol. vi. Meyer gives as a reason for believing ἀπολελ . to refer only to the unlawfully divorced: “ ἀπολελ . is not qualified , because the punishment of death was attached to adultery (Leviticus 20:10: Michaelis, Mos. Recht § 260 ff.), and consequently under the law the marrying a woman divorced for adultery could never happen.” Stier says in a note to his 2nd edn.: “ We hold it clear that ἀπολ . can only refer to the woman unlawfully divorced, and then there is no prohibition of the second marriage of one divorced on account of adultery; we see here nothing at all ‘ obscurum,’ as Augustine in the passage cited by Alford.” (I may remark, that ἀπολελυμένην is most naturally rendered, “ her, when divorced:” not “ a divorced woman,” as Wordsw. It is a secondary predicate, of which the subject is to be supplied out of αὐτήν above. Still less of course is it to be rendered “ the divorced woman,” τὴνἀπολελυμένην . And thus understood, the saying concerning marriage after divorce applies only, as far as this passage is concerned, to unlawful divorce, not to that after πορνεία .) 33-37. Fourth example. The law of oaths. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 6:1-18. The Third division of the Sermon, in which the disciples of Christ are warned against hypocritical display of their good deeds, by the examples of abuses of the duties of almsgiving (ver. 2), praying (ver. 5), and fasting (ver. 16). 1. The discourse of our Lord now passes from actions to motives; not that He has not spoken to the heart before, but then it was only by inference, now directly. δικαιοσύνη ] not ‘ benevolence,’ or ‘ alms,’ as צ ְ ד ָ ק ָ ה in Rabbinical usage,— for this meaning is never found in the N.T., and in the apocryphal reff. a distinction is made, though the two are coupled closely together. Besides, here we have ἐλεημοσύνη treated of as a distinct head below. It is best then to render δικ ., righteousness, as in ch. 5:20, as a general term including the three duties afterwards treated of. The words πρὸςτὸθεαθ . clearly define the course of action objected to:— not the open benevolence of the Christian who lets his light shine that men may glorify God, but the ostentation of him whose object is the praise and glory coming from man. ἔστιγὰρκαὶἔμπροσθεντῶνἀνθρώπωνποιοῦντα , μὴπρὸςτὸθεαθῆναιποιεῖν · καὶμὴποιοῦνταἔμπροσθενπἀλιν , πρὸςτὸθεαθῆναιποιεῖν . Chrysostom, Hom. xix. 1, p. 245. εἰδὲμήγε does not apply to προσέχετε , so as to mean, ‘ if ye do not take heed;’ but to μὴποιεῖν , and means, if ye do. That this is so, is clear from the reff. On the force of the γε , modifying the condition expressed in the εἰ , and concentrating it on the example given, see Klotz ad Devar., p. 527, and ante, p. 308. 2-4. First example. Almsgiving. 2. μὴσαλπίσῃς ] A proverbial expression, not implying any such custom of the hypocrites of that day, but the habit of self-laudation, and display of good works in general. οὐχὅτισάλπιγγαςεἶχονἐκεῖνοι , ἀλλὰτὴνπολλὴναὐτῶνἐπιδεῖξαιβούλεταιμανίαντῇλέξειτῆςμεταφορᾶςταύτης , κωμῳδῶνταύτῃκαὶἐκπομπεύωναὐτούς . Chrys. Hom, xix. 1, p. 245. Meyer remarks that the word σαλπίσῃς is tuba canas, not tuba cani cures, and must therefore refer to what the person himself does: but all verbs of action may surely refer to action per alterum, so that this does not decide the point. Many Commentators, among whom are Calvin and Bengel, think that the words are to be taken literally; and mentions this view: φασὶδέτινεςὅτιὑποκριταὶτότεδιὰσάλπιγγοςσυνεκάλουντοὺςδεομένους . But Lightfoot says, “ Non inveni, quæ siverim licet multum serioque, vel minimum tubæ vestigium in præ standis eleemosynis.” See his note, containing an account of the practices of the Jews in giving alms;— and many illustrative passages in Tholuck; among which may be mentioned Cic. ad diversos xvi. 21, ‘ te buccinatorem fore existimationis meæ .’ For the classical senses of ὑποκριτής , see Lexx. The N.T. sense, connected with that of “ actor,” is unknown to classic Greek, and first found in the LXX. See reff. ἔμπρ . σου ] According to the way in which the former verse is taken, these words are variously understood to apply to the trumpet being held up before the mouth in blowing (as Meyer), or to another person going before (Thol., .). συναγωγαῖς can hardly bear any sense but synagogues, see ver. 5: and if so, the literal meaning of σαλπίσῃς cannot well be maintained. The synagogues, as afterwards the Christian churches, were the regular places for the collection of alms: see Tholuck and Vitringa de Synag. vet. iii. 1. 13. ἀπέχουσιν ] have in full,— exhaust: not have their due reward: see reff. Plutarch in Solon (.) says, that he who marries for pleasure, and not for children, τὸνμισθὸνἀπέχει . 3. σοῦ , emphatic: see ch. 5:48. μὴγνώτω ] Another popular saying, not to be pressed so as to require a literal interpretation of it in the act of almsgiving, as De Wette and others have done, but implying simplicity, both of intention and act. Equally out of place are all attempts to explain the right and left hand symbolically, as was once the practice. The sound sense of Chrysostom preserves the right interpretation, where even Augustine strays into symbolism: πάλινἐνταῦθαοὐχεῖραςαἰνίττεται , ἀλλ ʼ ὑπερβολικῶςαὐτὸτέθεικεν . εἰγὰροἷόντέἐστι , φησί , σεαυτὸνἀγνοῆσαι , περισπούδαστονἔστωσοιτοῦτο , κἂναὐτὰςδυνατὸνᾖτὰςδιακονουμέναςχεῖραςλαθεῖν . Hom. xix. 2, p. 246. 4. ὁβλ . ἐντῷκρυπτῷ ] Not to be rendered as if it were τὰἐντῷκρ ., or εἰςτὸκρυπτόν , but as the Eng. Vers., seeth in secret: as we say, in the dark; ἐν introducing the element, or sphere, in which. 5-15. Second example. Prayer. 5. φιλοῦσιν ] not so well solent, as amant: they take pleasure, or love: see reff. and Winer, § 54. 4. The meaning solere for φιλεῖν is undoubtedly found: see Tholuck here. ἑστῶτες ] No stress must be laid on this word as implying ostentation; for it was the ordinary posture of prayer. See 1 Samuel 1:26. 1 Kings 8:22 is perhaps hardly a case in point, 2 Chronicles 6:13 being a more specific statement. The command in Mark (11:25) runs, ὅτανστήκετεπροσευχόμενοι .… See also Luke 18:11, Luke 18:13. Indeed, of the two positions of prayer, considering the place, kneeling would have been the more singular and savouring of ostentation. The synagogues were places of prayer; so that, as Theophyl. (Thol.), οὐβλάπτειὁτόπος , ἀλλὰὁτρόποςκαὶὁσκυπός . 6. εἴσελθεκ .τ .λ .] Both Chrysostom and Augustine caution us against taking this merely literally, τίοὖν ; ἐνἐκλησίᾳ , φησίν , οὐδεῖπροσεύχεσθαι ; καὶσφόδραμέν , ἀλλὰμετὰγνώμηςτοιαύτης . πανταχοῦγὰρὁθεὸςτὸνσκοπὸνζητεῖτῶνγιγνομένων . ἐπεὶκἂνεἰςτὸταμιεῖονεἰσέλθῃς , καὶἀποκλείσας , πρὸςἐπίδειξιναὐτὸἐργάσῃ , οὐδένσοιτῶνθυρῶνὄφελος . ὅραγοῦνκαὶἐνταῦθαπῶςἀκριβῆτὸνδιορισμὸντέθεικενεἰπὼν “ ὅπωςφανῶσιτοῖςἀνθρώποις .” ὥστεκἂντὰςθύραςἀποκλείσῃςτοῦτοπρὸτῆςτῶνθυρῶνἀποκλείσεωςκατορθῶσαίσεβούλεται , καὶτὰςτῆςδιανοίαςἀποκλείεινθύρας . Hom. xix. 3, p. 247. ‘ Parum est intrare in cubicula, si ostium pateat importunis, per quod ostium ea quæ foris sunt improbe se immergunt, et interiora nostra appetunt.’ De Serm. Dom. l. ii. c. 3 (11), vol. iii. Cf. Psalms 4:4. 7. βατταλογήσητε ] a word probably without any further derivation than an imitation of the sounds uttered by stammerers, who repeat their words often without meaning . Suidas, , and others, supposed it derived from a certain stammering Battus, Herod. iv. 155. But the name of this Battus seems to have been given from the circumstance; παῖςἰσχνόφωνοςκαὶτραυλός , τῷοὔνομαἐτέθηΒάττος . We have βατταρίζω and its derivatives with the same signification; and Æ schines called Demosthenes βάταλος (περὶστ . p. 288. 17 Bekker). Hence the sense has generally been held to be, ‘ do not make unmeaning repetitions.’ But most of the Fathers (see the passages in Thol., and in Suicer sub voce) understand by βαττ ., the praying περὶτὰἀνωφελῆτεκαὶμάταια , or λέγειντὰδιεφθαρμέναἔργα , ἢλόγους , ἢνοήματαταπεινὰτυγχάνοντα , or ὅταντὰμὴπροσήκοντααἰτῶμενπαρὰτῷθεῷδυναστείαςκ . δόξας : &c. Taking the word in its largest meaning, that of saying things irrelevant and senseless, it may well include all these. ἐθνικοί ] ‘ Prece qua fatigent virgines sanctæ minus audientem carmina Vestam?’ Hor. Od. i. 2. 26. ‘ Nisi illos (Deos) tuo ex ingenio judicas, Ut nil credas intelligere nisi idem dictum est centies.’ Ter. Heaut. v. 1. What is forbidden in this verse is not much praying, for our Lord Himself passed whole nights in prayer: not praying in the same words, for this He did in the very intensity of His agony at Gethsemane; but the making number and length a point of observance, and imagining that prayer will be heard, not because it is the genuine expression of the desire of faith, but because it is of such a length, has been such a number of times repeated. The repetitions of Paternosters and Ave Marias in the Romish Church, as practised by them, are in direct violation of this precept; the number of repetitions being prescribed, and the efficacy of the performance made to depend on it. But the repetition of the Lord’ s Prayer in the Liturgy of the Church of England is not a violation of it, nor that of the Kyrie Eleison, because it is not the number of these which is the object, but each has its appropriate place and reason in that which is preeminently a reasonable service. Our Lord was also denouncing a Jewish error. Lightfoot quotes from the Rabbinical writings, ‘ Omnis qui multiplicat orationem, auditor.’ Hor. Hebr. in loc. Augustine puts admirably the distinction between much praying and much speaking: ‘ Absit ab oratione multa locutio; sed non desit multa precatio, si fervens perseverat intentio. Nam multum loqui, est in orando rem necessariam superfluis agere verbis; multum autem precari, est ad eum quem precamur diuturna et pia cordis excitatione pulsare. Nam plerumque hoc negotium plus gemitibus quam sermonibus agitur; plus fletu, quam affatu.’ Ep. cxxx. 10 (20), vol. ii. And Chrysostom, in one of his finest strains of eloquence, comments on this verse: μὴτοίνυντῷσχήματιτοῦσώματος , μηδὲτῇκραυγῇτῆςφωνῆς , ἀλλὰτῇπροθυμίᾳτῆςγνώμηςτὰςεὐχὰςποιώμεθα · μηδὲμετὰψόφουκαὶἠχῆςκαὶπρὸςἐπίδειξιν , ὡςκαὶτοὺςπλησίονἐκκρούειν , ἀλλὰμετὰἐπιεικείαςπάσηςκαὶτῆςκατὰδιάνοιανσυντριβῆςκαὶδακρύωντῶνἔνδοθεν . Hom. xix. 3, p. 248. Those who have the opportunity should by all means read the whole passage, which is too long for insertion in a note. 8. οἶδενγάρ ] εἰοἶδε , φησίν , ὧνχρείανἔχομεν , τίνοςἕνεκενεὔχεσθαιδεῖ ; οὐχἵναδιδάξῃς , ἀλλ ʼ ἵναἐπικάμψῃς · ἵναοἰκειωθῇςτῇσυνεχείᾳτῆςἐντεύξεως , ἵναταπεινωθῇς , ἵναἀναμνησθῇςτῶνἁμαρτημάτωντῶνσῶν . Chrys. Hom. xix. 4, p. 249. ‘ Ipsa orationis intentio cor nostrum serenat et purgat, capaciusque efficit ad accipienda divina munera, quæ spiritualiter nobis infunduntur.’ August. de Serm. Dom. ii. 3 (14). 9-13. The Lord’ s Prayer. 9. There is very slender proof of what is often asserted, that our Lord took nearly the whole of this prayer from existing Jewish formulæ . Not that such a view of the matter would contain in it any thing irreverent or objectionable; for if pious Jews had framed such petitions, our Lord, who came πληρῶσαι every thing that was good under the Old Covenant, might in a higher sense and spiritual meaning, have recommended the same forms to His disciples. But such does not appear to have been the fact. Lightfoot produces only the most general common-place parallels for the petitions, from the Rabbinical books. With regard to the prayer itself we may remark, 1. The whole passage, vv. 7-15, is digressive from the subject of the first part of this chapter, which is the discouragement of the performance of religious duties to be seen of men, and is resumed at ver. 16. Neander (Leben Jesu, p. 349, note) therefore supposes that this passage has found its way in here as a sort of accompaniment to the preceding verses, but is in reality the answer of our Lord to the request in Luke 11:1, more fully detailed than by that Evangelist. But to this I cannot assent, believing our Lord’ s discourses as given by this Evangelist to be no collections of scattered sayings, but veritable reports of continuous utterances. That the request related in Luke should afterwards have been made, and similarly answered, is by no means improbable. (That he should have thus related it with this Gospel before him, is more than improbable.) 2. It has been questioned whether the prayer was regarded in the very earliest times as a set form delivered for liturgical use by our Lord. The variations in Luke have been regarded as fatal to the supposition of its being used liturgically at the time when these Gospels were written. But see notes on Luke 11:1. It must be confessed, that we find very few traces of such use in early times. Thol. remarks, “ It does not occur in the Acts, nor in any writers before the third century. In Justin Mart. we find, that the προεστώς prays ‘ according to his power’ .… Cyprian and make the first mention of the prayer as an ‘ oratio legitima et ordinaria.’  ” An allusion to it has been supposed to exist in 2 Timothy 4:18, where see note. 3. The view of some that our Lord gave this, selecting it out of forms known and in use, as a prayer ad interim, till the effusion of the Spirit of prayer, is inadmissible, as we have no traces of any such temporary purpose in our Saviour’ s discourses, and to suppose any such would amount to nothing less than to set them entirely aside. On the contrary, one work of the Holy Spirit on the disciples was, to bring to their mind all things whatsoever He had said unto them, the depth of such sayings only then first being revealed to them by Him who took of the things of Christ and shewed them to them. John 14:26. οὕτως ] παραδίδωσιτύπονεὐχῆς , οὐχἵναταύτηνμόνηντὴνεὐχὴνεὐχώμεθα , ἀλλ ʼ ἵναταύτηνἔχοντεςπηγὴνεὐχῆςἐκταύτηςἀρυώμεθατὰςἐννοίαςτῶνεὐχῶν . Euthym. Considering that other manners of praying have been spoken of above, the βατταλογία and the πολυλογία , the οὕτως , especially in its present position of primary emphasis, cannot well be otherwise understood than thus, i.e. ‘ in these words,’ as a specimen of the Christian’ s prayer (the ὑμεῖς holds the second place in emphasis), no less than its pattern. This, which would be the inference from the context here, is decided for us by Luke 11:2, ὅτανπροσεύχησθε , λέγετε . Πάτερἡμῶν ] This was a form of address almost unknown to the Old Covenant: now and then hinted at, as reminding the children of their rebellion (Isaiah 1:2: Malachi 1:6), or mentioned as a last resource of the orphan and desolate creature (Isaiah 63:16); but never brought out in its fulness, as indeed it could not be, till He was come by whom we have received the adoption of sons. ‘ Oratio fraterna est: non dicit, Pater meus, tanquam pro se tantum orans, sed Pater noster, omnes videlicet una oratione complectens, qui se in Christo fratres esse cognoscunt.’ Serm. lxiv. 4 App. vol. v. pt. ii. ἀπὸδὲτούτουκαὶἔχθρανἀναιρεῖ , καὶἀπόνοιανκαταστέλλει , καὶβασκανίανἐκβάλλει , καὶτὴνμητέρατῶνἀγαθῶνἁπάντωνἀγάπηνεἰσάγει , καὶτὴνἀνωμαλίαντῶνἀνθρωπίνωνἐξορίζειπραγμάτων , καὶπολλὴνδείκνυσιτῷβασιλεῖπρὸςτὸνπτωχὸντὴνὁμοτιμίαν , εἴγεἐντοῖςμεγίστοιςκαὶἀναγκαιοτάτοιςκοινωνοῦμενἅπαντες . Chrysost. Hom. xix. 4, p. 250. ὁἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς ] These opening words of the Lord’ s Prayer set clearly before us the status of the Christian, as believing in, depending upon, praying to, a real objective personal God, lifted above himself; to approach whom he must lift up his heart, as the eye is lifted up from earth to heaven. This strikes at the root of all pantheistic error, which regards the spirit of man as identical with the Spirit of God,— and at the root of all Deism; testifying as it does our relation to and covenant dependence on our Heavenly Father. The local heavens are no further to be thought of here, than as Scripture, by a parallelism of things natural and spiritual deeply implanted in our race , universally speaks of heaven and heavenly, as applying to the habitation and perfections of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth Eternity. ἁγιασθήτωτὸὄνομάσου ] De Wette observes: ‘ God’ s Name is not merely His appellation, which we speak with the mouth, but also and principally the idea which we attach to it,— His Being, as far as it is confessed, revealed, or known.’ The ‘ Name of God’ in Scripture is used to signify that revelation of Himself which He has made to men, which is all that we know of Him (ὄνοματοίνυνἐστὶκεφαλαιώδηςπροσηγορίατῆςἰδίαςποιότητοςτοῦὀνομαζομένουπαραστατική . Orig. (Thol.)): into the depths of His Being, as it is, no human soul can penetrate. See John 17:6: Romans 9:17. ἁγιάζω here is in the sense of keep holy, sanctify in our hearts, as in ref. 1 Pet. τὰσεραφὶμδοξάζονταοὕτωςἔλεγονἍγιοςἅγιοςἅγιος , ὥστετὸἁγιασθήτωτοῦτόἐστιδοξασθήτω . Chrys. Hom. xix. 4, p. 250. 10. ἐλθέτωἡβασιλείασου ] ‘ Ut in nobis veniat, optamus; ut in illo inveniamur, optamus.’ Aug. Serm. lvi. c. 4 (5), vol. v. pt. i. Thy kingdom here is the fulness of the accomplishment of the kingdom of God, so often spoken of in prophetic Scripture; and by implication, all that process of events which lead to that accomplishment. Meyer, in objecting to all ecclesiastical and spiritual meanings of ‘ Thy kingdom,’ forgets that the one for which he contends exclusively, the Messianic kingdom, does in fact include or imply them all. γενηθήτωτὸθ . σου ] i.e. not, ‘ may our will be absorbed into thy will;’ but may it be conformed to and subordinated to thine. The literal rendering is, Let thy will be done, as in heaven, (so) also on earth. These last words, ὡςἐνοὐρανῷκαὶἐπὶγῆς , may be regarded as applying to the whole of the three preceding petitions, as punctuated in the text. A slight objection may perhaps be found in the circumstance, that the kingdom of God cannot be said to have come in heaven, seeing that it has always been fully established there, and thus the accuracy of correspondence in the particulars will be marred. It is true, this may be escaped by understanding, May thy kingdom come on earth, so as to be as fully established, as it is already in heaven. So that I conceive we are at liberty to take the prayer either way. 11. τὸνἄρτ . κ .τ .λ .] ἡμῶν — as ‘ created for us,’ ‘ provided for our use by Thee:’ τὸνδι ʼ ἡυᾶςγενόμενον , Euthym. The word ἐπιούσιον has been very variously explained. Origen says of it, πρῶτονδὲτοῦτ ʼ ἰστέον , ὅτιἡλέξιςἡἐπιούσιοςπαρ ʼ οὐδενὶτῶνἙλλήνωνοὔτετῶνσοφῶνὠνόμασται , οὔτεἐντῇτῶνἰδιωτῶνσυνηθείᾳτέτριπται , ἀλλ ʼ ἔοικεπεπλάσθαιὑπὸτῶνεὐαγγελιστῶν . The derivations and meanings given may be thus classified (after Tholuck). I. ἐπί , εἶναι : and that, either (1) from the participle, as παρουσία , μετουσία , περιουσία , or (2) from the subst. οὐσία . Against both, an objection is brought that thus it would be ἐπούς ., not ἐπιούς .; but this is not decisive; we have ἔποπτος and ἐπίοπτος , ἐπιανδάνω , ἐπίουρα , &c. Against (2) it is alleged that adjectives from substantives in -α and -ια end in -αιος or -ώδης ,— ὡραῖος , ἀγοραῖος , βίαιος , and from οὐσία not οὔσιος but οὐσιώδης : συνούσιος , περιούσιος , not being from οὐσία but from the fem. particip. But this is not always so: we have πολυγώνιος from γωνία , ὑπεξούσιος from ἐξουσία , and ἐνούσιος and ἐξούσιος from οὐσία :— while περιούσιος itself is derived by some from οὐσία . II. ἐπί , ἰέναι : and that, either (1) from the fem. part. ἡἐπιοῦσα , understanding ἡμέρα , or (2) from ὁἐπιών , understanding χρόνος . (1) has much apparently in its favour. In the N.T., LXX, and Josephus, ἡπαροῦσα , ἡπροσιοῦσα , and this expression itself are often found in this elliptic sense. Jerome found for this word, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, “ mahar quod dicitur crastinus.” (So also crastinum .) The objection brought against it (Salmas. Suicer), that, viz., from the analogy of δευτεραῖος , τριταῖος , ποσταῖος , &c. does not seem valid to disprove the existence of the more general possessive adj. in -ιος . But the great objection to this derivation is in the sense: which would then be in direct opposition to ver. 34. Nor does it answer this to say, that by making to-morrow’ s bread the subject of prayer we divest ourselves of anxiety respecting it; since our Lord’ s command is not to feel that anxiety at all. The same objection will apply to (2) ὁἐπιὼνχρόνος , or to giving (as Grot. al.) a wider sense to ἡἐπιοῦσα , as meaning all future time, according to the Hebr. usage of מ ָ ח ָ ר . (Cf. venturum or venientem .) Nor will σήμερον bear the Hebraistic interpretation of ‘ from day to day,’ י ו ֹ ם י ו ֹ ם . Add to this that independently of the discrepancy with ver. 34, Salmasius’ s objection to this sense, ‘ quid est ineptius, quam panem crastini diei nobis quotidie postulare?’ seems to me unanswerable. Returning then to the derivation from εἶναι , which has in its favour the authority of the Greek fathers, especially of Origen, and of the Peschito , Tholuck thinks it most probable that it is formed after the analogy of περιούσιος , from the substantive οὐσία . The substantive signifies not merely existence (as alleged in the 1st edn. of this work), but also subsistence, compare Luke 15:12, where τὸἐπιβάλλονμέροςτῆςοὐσίας is a curious illustration of this word. And even were οὐσία existence only, it would still be open for us to take the meaning of the Greek fathers, ὁἐπὶτῇοὐσίᾳἡμῶνκ . συστάσειτῆςζωῆςσυμβαλλόμενος ,— Theophylact: similarly , Basil, Nyss., and Suidas, and the Etym. Mag. Thus ἐπιούσιος will be required for our subsistence— proper for our sustenance, after the analogy of ἐπίγαμος , ‘ fit for marriage,’ ἐπιδόρπιος , ‘ proper for the banquet,’ &c. So that ὁἄρτοςὁἐπιούσιος will be equivalent to St. James’ s τὰἐπιτήδειατοῦσώματος (2:16), and the expressions are rendered in . by the same word. Thus only, σήμερον has its proper meaning. The τὸκαθ ʼ ἡμέραν in Luke 11:3 is different; see there. It yet remains to enquire how far the expression may be understood spiritually— of the Bread of Life. The answer is easy: viz. that we may safely thus understand it, provided we keep in the foreground its primary physical meaning, and view the other as involved by implication in that. To explain ἐπιούσιος , ὁἐπὶτὴνοὐσίαντῆςψυχῆςκατατασσόμενος , and understand the expression of the Eucharist primarily, or even of spiritual feeding on Christ, is to miss the plain reference of the petition to our daily physical wants. But not to recognize those spiritual senses, is equally to miss the great truth, that the ἡμεῖς whose bread is prayed for, are not mere animals, but composed of body, soul, and spirit, all of which want daily nourishment by Him from whom all blessings flow. See the whole subject treated in Tholuck (pp. 353-371): from whom much of this note is taken. Augustine well says (Serm. lviii. 4 (5), vol. v. pt. 1): ‘ Quicquid animæ nostræ et carni nostræ in hac vita necessarium est, quotidiano pane concluditur.’ The Vulg. rendering, supersubstantialem (substituted for the old lat. quotidianum), tallies with a large class of patristic interpretations which understand the word to point exclusively to the spiritual food of the Word and Sacraments. 12. τὰὀφειλ .] i.e. sins, short-comings, and therefore ‘ debts’ = παραπτώματα , ver. 14. Augustine remarks (contra Epist. Parmeniani, l. ii. c. 10 (20), vol. ix.): ‘ Quod utique non de illis peccatis dicitur quæ in baptismi regeneratione dimissa sunt, sed de iis quæ quotidie de seculi amarissimis fructibus humanæ vitæ infirmitas contrahit.’ ὡςκαί ] Not ‘ for we also,’ &c. (as in Luke, καὶγὰραὐτοὶἀφ .) nor ‘ in the same measure as we also,’ &c. but like as (quippe; not exactly nam, cf. Klotz ad Devar. p. 766. Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p. 460) we also, &c.; implying similarity in the two actions, of kind, but no comparison of degree. See especially the first ref., where manifestly while the kind of act was the same, the degrees were widely different. ‘ Augustine uses the testimony of this prayer against all proud Pelagian notions of an absolutely sinless state in this life’ (Trench); and answers the various excuses and evasions by which that sect escaped from the conclusion. ἀφήκαμεν here implies that (see ch. 5:23, 24) the act of forgiveness of others is completed before we approach the throne of grace. 13. The sentiment is not in any way inconsistent with the Christian’ s joy when he πειρασμοῖςπεριπέσῃποικίλοις , James 1:2, but is a humble self-distrust and shrinking from such trial in the prospect. As Euthym. says: παιδεύειἡμᾶςὁλόγοςμὴθαῤῥεῖνἑαυτοῖς , μηδ ʼ ἐπιπηδᾷντοῖςπειρασμοῖςὑπὸθαῤῥότητος … μὴἐπαγομένωνμὲντῶνπειρασμῶνπαραιτητέοναὐτούς · ἐπαγομένωνδὲἀνδριστέον . The leading into temptation must be understood in its plain literal sense: see ποιήσεισὺντῷπειρασμῷκαὶτὴνἔκβασιν , 1 Corinthians 10:13. There is no discrepancy with James 1:13, which speaks not of the providential bringing about of, but the actual solicitation of, the temptation. Some (e.g. on ch. xxvi. 41, Thl. on Luke 22:46, Aug., Bengel, al.) have attempted to fix on εἰσενέγκῃς and εἰσελθεῖνεἰςπειρ . the meaning of bringing into the power of, and entering into, so as to be overcome by, temptation. But this surely the words will not bear. ἀλλά must not be taken as equivalent to εἰδὲμή , q. d. ‘ but if thou dost, deliver,’ &c., but is rather the opposition to the former clause, and forms in this sense, but one petition with it,— ‘ bring us not into conflict with evil, nay rather deliver (rid) us from it altogether.’ In another view, however, as expressing the deep desire of all Christian hearts to be delivered from all evil (for τοῦπονηροῦ is here certainly neuter, though taken masculine by Chrys., Thl., Erasm., Beza, al.; the introduction of the mention of ‘ the evil one’ would seem here to be incongruous. Besides, compare the words of St. Paul, 2 Timothy 4:18, which look very like a reminiscence of this prayer: see note there) these words form a seventh and most affecting petition, reaching far beyond the last. They are the expression of the yearning for redemption of the sons of God (Romans 8:23), and so are fitly placed at the end of the prayer, and as the sum and substance of the personal petitions. So Augustine very beautifully says (Ep. cxxx. c. 11 (21), vol. ii.): “ Cum dicimus libera nos a malo, nos admonemus cogitare, nondum nos esse in eo bono, ubi nullum patiemur malum. Et hoc quidem ultimum quod in dominica oratione positum est, tam late patet, ut homo Christianus in qualibet tribulatione constitutus in hoc gemitus edat, in hoc lacrymas fundat, hinc exordiatur, in hoc immoretur, ad hoc terminet orationem.” The doxology must on every ground of sound criticism be omitted. Had it formed part of the original text, it is absolutely inconceivable that all the ancient authorities should with one consent have omitted it. They could have had no reason for doing so; whereas the habit of terminating liturgical prayers with ascriptions of praise would naturally suggest some such ending, and make its insertion almost certain in course of time. And just correspondent to this is the evidence in the var. readd. We find absolutely no trace of it in early times, in any family of mss. or in any expositors. The Peschito has it, but whether it always had, is another question. Stier eloquently defends its insertion, but solely on subjective grounds: maintaining that the prayer is incomplete without it, and asserting the right of such “ innere Kritit” to over-ride all evidence whatever. It is evident that thus we should have no fixed principles at all by which to determine the sacred text: for what seems to one critic appropriate and necessary, is in the view of another an incongruous addition. It is quite open for us to regard it with Euthymius as τὸπαρὰτῶνθείωνφωστήρωνκ . τ . ἐκκλησίαςκαθηγητῶνπροστεθὲνἀκροτελεύτιονἐπιφώνημα , and to retain it as such in our liturgies; but in dealing with the sacred text we must not allow any à priori considerations, of which we are such poor judges, to outweigh the almost unanimous testimony of antiquity. The inference to be drawn from the words of St. Paul, 2 Timothy 4:18, is rather against than for the genuineness of the doxology. The fact that he there adds a doxology, different from that commonly read here, seems to testify to the practice, begun thus early, of concluding the Lord’ s prayer with a solemn ascription of glory to God. This eventually fell into one conventional form, and thus got inserted in the sacred text. 14, 15. Our Lord returns to explain the only part of the prayer which peculiarly belonged to the new law of love, and enforces it by a solemn assurance. On the sense, cf. Mark 11:25, and the remarkable parallel Sir. 28:2: ἄφεςἀδίκηματῷπλησίονσου , κ . τότεδεηθέντοςσουαἱἁμαρτίαισουλυθήσονται . See Chrysostom’ s most eloquent appeal on this verse, Hom. xix. 7, p. 255, end. 16-18. Third example. Fasting. Another department of the spiritual life, in which reality in the sight of God, and not appearance in the sight of man, must be our object. While these verses determine nothing as to the manner and extent of Christian fasting, they clearly recognize it as a solemn duty, ranking it with almsgiving and prayer; but requiring it, like them, (see ch. 9:14-17,) to spring out of reality, not mere formal prescription. 16. ἀφανίζουσιν ] “ Chrys. διαφθείρουσι , ἀπολλύουσι : Homb., Hammond, colorem auferre, comparing Antiochus, Hom. 55 de invidia, τὸπρόσωπονἐξαφανίζει , pallorem inducit: Erasm., Fritzsche, e conspectu tollere: Elsner, Meyer, to hide, cover up, viz. in mourning costume. But in later Greek the meaning is deformare, to disfigure, (which the exterminare of the . may also mean,) as is shewn in many examples cited by Le Clerc h. l., Valcknä r on Phœ niss. 373, Schä fer ad Dion, de comp. verb. p. 124. In Stobæ us, Serm. lxxiv. 62, Nicostratus uses it of women who paint: πόῤῥωδ ʼ ἂνεἴηκαὶτοῦδεηθῆναιγυνὴὑγιαίνουσακαὶψιμυθίουκαὶὑπ ʼ ὁφθαλμῷὑπογραφῆςκαὶἄλλουχρώματοςζωγραφοῦντοςκαὶἀφανίζοντοςτὰςὄψεις ‘ which be-paints and disfigures the faces.’ The allusion is therefore not to covering the face, which could only be regarded as a sign of mourning, but to the squalor of the uncleansed face and hair of the head and beard, as the contrast of washing and anointing shews.” Tholuck: and this certainly appears to be the right view, especially when we compare vv. 19, 20 below. But he seems too hastily to have assumed the meaning in the passage from Stobæ us: for there the verb may just as well signify covering, plastering over, as disfiguring. The Etym. Mag. says ἀφανίσαιοἱπαλαιοὐχὶτὸμολῦναιὡςνῦν , ἀλλὰτὸτελέωςἀφανῆποιῆσαι . Suidas, on the other hand, ἀφανίσαιοὐτὸμολῦναικαὶχρᾶναιδηλοῖ , ἀλλὰτὸἀνελεῖνκαὶἀφανὲςποιῆσαι : but it is possible that he may be speaking of its classical sense, as suggested by Le Clerc, who does not however, as Tholuck asserts, cite any examples of the other meaning. 17. i.e. ‘ appear as usual:’ ‘ seem to men the same as if thou wert not fasting.’ It has been observed that this precept applies only to voluntary and private fasts, (such as are mentioned Luke 18:12,) not to public and enjoined ones. But this distinction does not seem to be necessary; the one might afford just as much occasion for ostentation as the other. 19-34. From cautions against the hypocrisy of formalists, the discourse naturally passes to the entire dedication of the heart to God, from which all duties of the Christian should be performed. In this section this is enjoined, 1. (vv. 19-24) with regard to earthly treasures, from the impossibility of serving God and Mammon: 2. (vv. 25-34) with regard to earthly cares, from the assurance that our Father careth for us. 19, 20. It is to be observed that the qualifying clauses, ἐπὶτῆςγῆς , ἐνοὐρανῷ , belong in each case to the verb θησαυρίζετε , not to the noun θησαυρούς . βρῶσις ] more general in meaning than rust— the ‘ wear and tear’ of time, which eats into and consumes the fairest possessions. The θησαυρίζετεθησ . ἐνοὐρ . would accumulate the βαλλάντιαμὴπαλαιούμενα , θησαυρὸνἀνέκλειπτον of Luke 12:33, corresponding to the μισθός of ch. 5:12, and the ἀποδώσεισοι of vv. 4, 6, 18. Cf. 1 Timothy 6:19: Tobit 4:9. διορύσσουσιν ] usually joined with οἰκίαν , as ch. 24:43. 21. The connexion with the foregoing is plain enough to any but the shallowest reader. ‘ The heart is, where the treasure is.’ But it might be replied, ‘ I will have a treasure on earth and a treasure in heaven also: a divided affection.’ This is dealt with, and its impracticability shewn by a parable from nature. 22, 23. ὁλύχνος ] as lighting and guiding the body and its members: not as containing light in itself. Similarly the inner light, the conscience, lights the spirit and its faculties, but by light supernal to itself. ἁπλοῦς , clear, untroubled in vision, as the eye which presents a well-defined and single image to the brain. πονηρός , perverse, as the eye which dims and distorts the visual images. φωτεινὸς … σκοτεινός : in full light, as an object in the bright sunshine; in darkness, as an object in the deep shade. The comparison is found in Aristotle. Topic, i. 14 (Wetst.), ὡςὄψιςἐνὀφθαλμῷ , νοῦςἐνψυχῇ : in Galen, and Philo de Mund. Opif. εἰοὖνκ .τ .λ .] If then the light which is in thee is darkness, how dark must the darkness be! i.e. ‘ if the conscience, the eye and light of the soul, be darkened, in how much grosser darkness will all the passions and faculties be, which are of themselves naturally dark!’ The opposition is between τὸφῶς and τὸσκότος . This interpretation is borne out by the Vulgate: ‘ Ipsæ tenebræ quantæ erunt!’ by Jerome: ‘ Si sensus, qui lumen est, animæ vitio caligatur, ipsa putas caligo quantis tenebris obvolvetur!’ and by Chrysostom: ὅτανγὰρὁκυβερνήτηςὑποβρόχιοςγένηται , καὶὁλύχνοςσβεσθῇκαὶὁἡγεμὼναἰχμάλωτοςγένηται , ποίαλοιπὸνἔσταιτοῖςὑπηκόοιςἐλπίς : Hom. xx. 3, p. 264, and Euthymius: εἰοὖντὸφῶςτὸἐνσοί , ὅἐστινὁνοῦς , ὁδωρηθεὶςεἰςτὸφωτίζεινκαὶὁδηγεῖντὴνψυχήν , σκότοςἐστί , τουτέστινἐσκότισται , λοιπὸντὸσκότος , τὸἀπὸτῶνπαθῶν , πόσονἔσται , εἰςτὸσκοτίζειντὴνψυχήν , σκοτισθέντοςτοῦἀνατέλλοντοςαὐτῇφωτός . Augustine (de Serm. Dom. ii. c. 13 (46), vol. iii.) renders it similarly, but understands σκότος to refer to a different thing: ‘ Si ipsa cordis intentio, qua facis quod facis, quæ tibi nota est, sordidatur appetitu rerum terrenarum … atque cæ catur: quanto magis ipsum factum, cujus incertus est exitus, sordidum et tenebrosum est!’ So too the Syr. . versions; and Erasm.: “ Si ratio excæ cata id judicat imprimis esse expetendum, quod vel contemnendum, vel neglectui habendum, in quas tenebras totum hominem rapiet ambitio reliquæ que animi perturbationes, quæ suapte natura caliginem habent!” — Bucer, Luther. Stier expands this well, Reden Jesu, i. 208, edn. 2, “ As the body, of itself a dark mass, has its light from the eye, so we have here compared to it the sensuous, bestial life of men, their appetites, desires, and aversions, which belong to the lower creature. This dark region— human nature under the gross dominion of the flesh— shall become spiritualized, enlightened, sanctified, by the spiritual light: but if this light be darkness, how great must then the darkness of the sensuous life be!” The usual modern interpretation makes τὸσκότοςπόσον a mere expression of the greatness of the darkness thereby occasioned, and thus loses the force of the sentence. 24. And this division in man’ s being cannot take place— he is and must be one— light or dark— serving God or Mammon. δουλεύειν ] Not merely ‘ serve,’ but in that closer sense in which he who serves is the δοῦλος of, i.e. belongs to, and obeys entirely, ὁἸὼβπλούσιοςἦν · ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐδούλευετῷμαμωνᾷ , ἀλλ ʼ εἶχεναὐτὸςκαὶἐκράτει , καὶδεσπότης , οὐδοῦλοςἦν . Chrysost. Hom. xxi. 1, p. 269. See Romans 6:16, Romans 6:17. ἢγαρ … ἢ … is not a repetition; but the suppositions are the reverse of one another: as Meyer expresses it, ‘ He will either hate A and love B, or cleave to A and despise B:’ ὁεἷς and ὁἕτερος keeping their individual reference in both members. μισεῖν and ἀγαπᾷν must be given their full meaning, or the depth of the saying is not reached: the sense ‘ minus diligo, posthabeo’ (Bretschneider) for μισεῖν would not bring out the opposition and division of the nature of man by the attempt. μαμωνᾷ ] Chaldee, מ ָ מ ו ֹ נ ָ א , (from א ָ מ ַ ן , confisus est,) riches. ‘ Congruit et Punicum nomen, nam lucrum Punice mammon dicitur.’ August, in loc. Mammon does not appear to have been the name of any Syrian deity, as Schleusner asserts. Tholuck has shewn that the idea rests only on the testimony of Papias, an obscure grammarian of the eleventh century. Schl. refers to Tertullian, who, however, says nothing of the kind (see adv. Marc. iv. 33, vol. ii. pp. 439 ff., which must be the place meant, but not specified by Schl.). 25. διὰτοῦτο ] A direct inference from the foregoing verse: the plainer, since μεριμνάω is ‘ to be distracted,’ ‘ to have the mind drawn two ways.’ The E. V., ‘ Take no thought,’ does not express the sense, but gives rather an exaggeration of the command, and thus makes it unreal and nugatory. Be not anxious, would be far better. In Luke 12:29 we have μὴμετεωρίζεσθε , where see note. τῇψυχῇ = περὶτῆςψυχῆς , dat. commodi. See ver. 28. οὐχὶἡψ .] τοῦτοεἶπεδηλῶνὅτιὁτὸπλεῖονδοὺςἡμῖνκαὶτὸἔλαττονδώσει . πλεῖονδὲτὸμεῖζονλέγει . Euthymius. 26. τὰπετ .] The two examples, of the birds and the lilies, are not parallel in their application. The first is an argument from the less to the greater; that our Heavenly Father, who feeds the birds, will much more feed us: the second, besides this application, which (ver. 30) it also contains, is a reproof of the vanity of anxiety about clothing, which, in all its pomp of gorgeous colours, is vouchsafed to the inferior creatures, but not attainable by, as being unworthy of, us. Notice, it is not said, μὴσπείρετε — μὴθερίζετε — μὴσυνάγετε ;— the birds are not our example to follow in their habits, for God hath made us to differ from them— the doing all these things is part of our πόσῳμᾶλλονδιαφέρετε , (Luke 12:24,) and increases the force of the à fortiori; but it is said, μὴμεριμνᾶτε — μὴμετεωρίζεσθε . τίγοῦνὠφελήσειςοὕτωςἐπιτεταμένωςμεριμνῶν ; κἂνγὰρμυρίασπουδάσῃς , οὐδώσειςὑετὸνοὐδὲἥλιονοὐδὲπνοὰςἀνέμων , οἷςὁσπόροςκαρπογονεῖ . ταῦταγὰρὁθεὸςμόνοςδίδωσιν . Euthymius. ὁπατὴρὑμῶν , not αὐτῶν :— thus by every accessory word does our Lord wonderfully assert the truths and proprieties of creation, in which we, his sons, are His central work, and the rest for us. τοῦοὐρ ., and afterwards τοῦἀγροῦ , as Thol. remarks, are not superfluous, but serve to set forth the wild and uncaring freedom of the birds and plants. I may add,— also to set forth their lower rank in the scale of creation, as belonging to the air and the field. Who could say of mankind, οἱἄνθρωποιτοῦκόσμου Thus the à fortiori is more plainly brought out. 27. These words do not relate to the stature, the adding a cubit to which (= a foot and a half) would be a very great addition, instead of a very small one, as is implied here, and expressed in Luke 12:26, εἰοὖνοὐδὲἐλάχιστονδύνασθε , κ .τ .λ .,— but to the time of life of each hearer; as Theophylact on Luke 12:26, ζωῆςμέτραπαρὰμόνῳτῷθεῷ , καὶοὐκαὐτύςτιςἕκαστοςἑαυτῷὁριστὴςτῆςζωῆς . So Hammond, Wolf, Rosenm., Kuinoel, Olsh., De Wette, Meyer, Stier, Tholuck, &c. &c.: and the context seems imperatively to require it: for the object of food and clothing is not to enlarge the body, but to prolong life. The application of measures of space to time is not uncommon. See Psalms 39:5: Job 9:25: 2 Timothy 4:7. In Stobæ us, xcviii. 13, we have cited from Mimnermus, ἡμεῖςδ ʼ οἷάτεφύλλαφύειπολυάνθεμοςὥρη | ἔαρος , ὅτ ʼ αἶψ ʼ αὐγὴαὔξεταιἠελίου , | τοῖςἴκελοι , πήχυιονἐπὶχρόνονἄνθεσινἥβης | τερπόμεθα . Alcæ us ( x. 7) says, δάκτυλοςἁμέρα : and Diog. Laert. viii. 16 (Thol.) σπιθαμὴτοῦβίου . 28. καταμάθετε , implying more attention than ἐμβλέψατε : the birds fly by, and we can but look upon them: the flowers are ever with us, and we can watch their growth. These lilies have been supposed to be the crown imperial, (fritillaria imperialis, κρίνονβασιλικόν , Kaiserkrone,) which grows wild in Palestine, or the amaryllis lutea, (Sir J. E. Smith, cited by F. M.,) whose golden liliaceous flowers cover the autumnal fields of the Levant. Dr. Thomson, “ The Land and the Book,” p. 256, believes the Huleh lily to be meant: “ it is very large, and the three inner petals meet above, and form a gorgeous canopy, such as art never approached, and king never sat under, even in his utmost glory. And when I met this incomparable flower, in all its loveliness, among the oak woods around the northern base of Tabor, and on the hills of Nazareth, where our Lord spent His youth, I felt assured that it was this to which He referred.” Probably, however, the word here may be taken in a wider import, as signifying all wild flowers. πῶς is not interrogative, but relative: how they grow. 29. We here have the declaration of the Creator Himself concerning the relative glory and beauty of all human pomp, compared with the meanest of His own works. See 2 Chronicles 9:15-28. And the meaning hidden beneath the text should not escape the student. As the beauty of the flower is unfolded by the Divine Creator-Spirit from within, from the laws and capacities of its own individual life, so must all true adornment of man be unfolded from within by the same Almighty Spirit. See 1 Peter 3:3, 1 Peter 3:4. As nothing from without can defile a man, (ch. 15:11,) so neither can any thing from without adorn him. Our Lord introduces with λέγωὑμῖν His revelations of omniscience: see ch. 18:10, 19. 30. τὸνχόρτον ] The wild flowers which form part of the meadow-growth are counted as belonging to the grass, and are cut down with it. Cut grass, which soon withers from the heat, is still used in the East for firing. See “ The Land and the Book,” p. 341. The pres. part. denotes the habit. “ κλίβανος , or Att. κρίβ ., a covered earthen vessel, a pan, wider at the bottom than at the top, wherein bread was baked by putting hot embers round it, which produced a more equable heat than in the regular oven , Herod, ii. 92: Aristoph. Vesp. 1153.” Wilkinson and Webster’ s note. 32. οἶδενγάρ ] This 2nd γάρ brings in an additional reason: see Xen. Symp. iv. 55. 33. ζητεῖτεπρῶτον ] Not with any reference to seeking all these things after our religious duties, e.g. beginning with prayer days of avarice and worldly anxiety, but make your great object, as we say, your first care. δικαιοσύνην ] Not here the forensic righteousness of justification, but the spiritual purity inculcated in this discourse. τήνδικ . αὐτοῦ answers to ἡτελειότηςαὐτοῦ , spoken of in ch. 5:48, and is another reference to the being as our Heavenly Father is. In the Christian life which has been since unfolded, the righteousness of justification is a necessary condition of likeness to God; but it is not the δικ . αὐτ . here meant. ταῦταπάντα , these things, all of them— the emphasis being on the genus— all such things: πάνταταῦτα , all these things— ‘ the whole of the things mentioned’ — the emphasis being on πάντα ,— the fact that all without exception are included. See Winer, § 18. 4. προστεθ .] There is a traditional saying of our Lord, αἰτεῖτετὰμεγάλα , καὶτὰμικρὰὑμῖνπροστεθήσεται · καὶαἰτεῖτετὰἐπουράνια , καὶτὰἐπίγειαπροστεθήσεταιὑμῖν . Fabric. Cod. Apocr. i. 329. (Meyer.) 34. ἡγὰραὔρ .] for the morrow will care for it, viz. for ἡαὔριον mentioned above: i.e., will bring care enough about its own matters: implying,— “ after all your endeavour to avoid worldly cares, you will find quite enough, and more of them when to-morrow comes, about to-morrow itself: do not then increase those of to-day by introducing them before their time.’ A hint, as is the following κακία , that in this state of sin and infirmity the command of ver. 31 will never be completely observed. ἀρκετὸν — κακία : thus, οὐκἀγαθὸνπολυκοιρανίη , Il. β . 204. And the same construction frequently occurs, both in Greek and Latin authors. Chap. 7:1-12. Of our conduct towards other men: parenthetically illustrated, vv. 7-11, by the benignity and wisdom of God in his dealings with us. The connexion with the last chapter is immediately, the word κακία , in which a glance is given by the Saviour at the misery and sinfulness of human life at its best;— and now precepts follow, teaching us how we are to live in such a world, and among others sinful like ourselves:— mediately, and more generally, the continuing caution against hypocrisy, in ourselves and in others. 1. This does not prohibit all judgment (see ver. 20, and 1 Corinthians 5:12); but, as Augustine (de Serm. Dom. ii. c. 18 (59), vol. iii.) says, ‘ Hoc loco nihil aliud nobis præ cipi existimo, nisi ut ea facta quæ dubium est quo animo fiant, in meliorem partem interpretemur.’ κρίνειν has been taken for κατακρίνειν here (κρίσινἐνταῦθατὴνκατάκρισιννόησον . So also Theophylact, Tholuck, Olshausen); and this seems necessary, at least in so far that κρίνειν should be taken as implying an ill judgment. For if the command were merely ‘ not to form authoritative judgments of others’ (as given in edn. 1 of this work), the second member, ἵναμὴκριθῆτε , would not, in its right interpretation, as applying to God’ s judgment of us, correspond. And the μὴκαταδικάζετε , which follows in Luke 6:37, is perhaps to be taken rather as an epexegesis of κρίνετε , than as a climax after it. κριθῆτε ] i.e. ‘ by God,’ for so doing;— a parallel expression to ch. 5:7; 6:15; not ‘ by others.’ The bare passive, without the agent expressed, and without καί to refer it back to the former member of the clause, is solemn and emphatic. See note on Luke 6:38; Luke 16:9; and 12:20. The sense then is, ‘ that you have not to answer before God for your rash judgment and its consequences.’ The same remarks apply to ver. 2. 2. ἐν , not instrumental, but of the sphere in which the act takes place, i.e. in this case, the measure, according to which: as in ref. 2 Cor., ἐνἑαυτοῖςἑαυτοὺςμετροῦντες . 3-5. Lightfoot produces instances of this proverbial saying among the Jews. With them, however, it seems only to be used of a person retaliating rebuke. ‘ Dixit Rabbi Tarphon, Miror ego, an sit in hoc sæ culo, qui recipere vult correptionem; quin si dicat quis alteri, Ejice stramen ex oculo tuo, responsurus ille est, Ejice trabem ex oculo tuo:’ — whereas our Lord gives us a further application of it, viz. to the incapability of one involved in personal iniquity to form a right judgment on others, and the clearness given to the spiritual vision by conflict with and victory over evil. There is also no doubt here a lesson given us of the true relative magnitude which our own faults, and those of our brother, ought to hold in our estimation. What is a κάρφος to one looking on another, is to that other himself a δοκός : just the reverse of the ordinary estimate. τὸκάρ . and ἡδοκ ., not as referring to a known proverb, but because the mote and beam are in situ, ἐντῷὀφθαλμῷ . βλέπεις , beholdest, from without, a voluntary act: οὐκατανοεῖς , apprehendest not, from within, that which is already there, and ought to have excited attention before. The same distinction is observed in Luke. 4. πῶςἐρεῖς = πῶςδύνασαιλέγειν , Luke; wie darfst du sagen, Luther. 5. ὑποκριτά ] ὑποκριτὴντὸντοιοῦτονὠνόμασενὡςἰατροῦμὲντάξινἁρπάζοντα , νοσοῦντοςδὲτόπονἐπέχοντα · ἢὡςπροφάσειμὲνδιορθώσεωςτὸἀλλότριονσφάλμαπολυπραγμονοῦντα , σκοπῷδὲκατακρίσεωςτοῦτοποιοῦντα . Euthym. διαβλ ., as in E. V., thou shalt see clearly, with purified eye. The close is remarkable. Before, βλέπειντὸκάρφος was all— to stare at thy brother’ s faults, and as people do who stand and gaze at an object, attract others to gaze also:— but now, the object is a very different one— ἐκβαλεῖντὸκάρφος — to help thy brother to be rid of his fault, by doing him the best and most difficult office of Christian friendship. The βλέπειν was vain and idle; the διαβλέπειν is for a blessed end, viz. (ch. 18:15) κερδῆσαιτὸνἀδελφόνσου . 6. The connexion, see below. τὸἅγιον ] Some have thought this a mistranslation of the Chaldee, ק ָ ד ָ ש ׁ ָ א , an earring, or amulet; but the connexion is not at all improved by it. Pearls bear a resemblance to peas or acorns, the food of swine, but earrings none whatever to the food of dogs. The similitude is derived from τὸἅγιον , or τὰἅγια , the meat offered in sacrifice, of which no unclean person was to eat (Leviticus 22:6, Leviticus 22:7, Leviticus 22:10, Leviticus 22:14 (where τὸἅγ . is used), 15, 16). Similarly in the ancient Christian Liturgies and Fathers, τὰἅγια are the consecrated elements in the Holy Communion. The fourteenth canon of the Council of Laodicæ a orders μὴτὰἅγια … εἰςἑτεραςπαροικίαςδιαπέμπεσθαι . Again, Cyril of Jerus.: μετὰταῦταλέγειὁἱερεύςΤὰἅγιατοῖςἁγίοις . ἅγια , τὰπροκείμενα , ἐπιφοίτησινδεξάμεναἁγίουπνεύματος . (See Suicer on the word.) Thus interpreted, the saying would be one full of meaning to the Jews. As Abp. Trench observes (Serm. Mount, p. 136), “ It is not that the dogs would not eat it, for it would be welcome to them; but that it would be a profanation to give it to them, thus to make it a σκύβαλον , Exodus 22:3.” The other part of the similitude is of a different character, and belongs entirely to the swine, who having cast to them pearls, something like their natural food, whose value is inappreciable by them, in fury trample them with their feet, and turning against the donor, rend him with their tusks. The connexion with the foregoing and following verses is this: “ Judge not,” &c.; “ attempt not the correction of others, when you need it far more yourselves:” still, be not such mere children, as not to distinguish the characters of those with whom you have to do. Give not that which is holy to dogs,” &c. Then, as a humble hearer might be disposed to reply, ‘ If this last be a measure of the divine dealings, what bounties can I expect at God’ s hand?’ (This, to which Stier objects, R. Jesu, i. 233, edn. 2, I must still hold to be the immediate connexion, as shewn by the knowing how to give good gifts, and the instances adduced below.)— (ver. 7), ‘ Ask of God, and He will give to each of you: for this is His own will, that you shall obtain by asking (ver. 8),— good things, good for each in his place and degree (vv. 10, 11), not unwholesome or unfitting things. Therefore (ver. 12) do ye the same to others, as ye wish to be done, and as God does, to you: viz. give that which is good for each, to each, not judging uncharitably on the one hand, nor casting pearls before swine on the other.’ 7. The three similitudes are all to be understood of prayer, and form a climax: ἀπὸδὲτοῦκρούειντὸμετὰσφοδρὀτητοςπροσιέναικαὶμετὰθερμῆςδιανοίαςἐδήλωσε . Chrys. Hom, xxiii. 4, p. 289. 8. The only limitation to this promise, which, under various forms, is several times repeated by our Lord, is furnished in vv. 9-11, and in James 4:3, αἰτεῖτεκαὶοὐλαμβάνετε · διότικακῶςαἰτεῖσθε . 9. There are two questions here, the first of which is broken off, after an anacoluthon. See ch. 12:11. The similitude of ἄρτος and λίθος also appears in ch. 4:3. Luke (11:12) adds the egg and the scorpion. 11. πονηροί ] i.e. in comparison with God. It is not necessary to suppose a rebuke conveyed here, but only a general declaration of the corruption and infirmity of man. Augustine remarks, in accordance with this view, that the persons now addressed are the same who had been taught to say ‘ Our Father’ just now. ταῦταδὲἔλεγενοὐδιαβάλλωντὴνἀνθρωπίνηνφύσινοὐδὲκακίζωντὸγένος · ἀλλὰπρὸςἀντιδιαστολὴντῆςἀγαθότητοςτῆςαὐτοῦ . Chrys. Hom. xxiii. 4, p. 290. Stier remarks, “ This saying seems to me the strongest dictum probans for original sin in the whole of the Holy Scriptures.” R. J. i. 236. ἀγαθά ] principally, His Holy Spirit, Luke 11:13. The same argument à fortiori is used by our Lord in the parable of the unjust judge, Luke 18:6, Luke 18:7. 12. Trench (Serm. Mount, p. 143) has noticed Augustine’ s refutation of the sneer of infidels (such as Gibbon’ s against this precept), that some of our Lord’ s sayings have been before written by heathen authors. (See examples in . ad loc.) ‘ Dixit hoc Pythagoras, dixit hoc Plato.… Propterea si inventus fuerit aliquis eorum hoc dixisse quod dixit et Christus, gratulamur illi, non sequimur illum. Sed prior fuit ille quam Christus. Si quis vera loquitur, prior est quam ipsa Veritas! O homo, attende Christum, non quando ad te venerit, sed quando te fecerit.’ Enarr. in Psalms 140:6, § 19, vol. iv. pt. ii. ουν is the inference indeed from the preceding eleven verses, but immediately from the δώσειἀγαθὰτοῖςαἰτοῦσιναὐτόν just said,— and thus closes this section of the Sermon with a lesson similar to the last verse of ch. 5, which is, indeed, the ground-tone of the whole Sermon— ‘ Be ye like unto God.’ οὕτως , viz., after the pattern of ὅσαἄν : not = ταῦτα , because what might suit us, might not suit others. We are to think what we should like done to us, and then apply that rule to our dealings with others: viz., by doing to them what we have reason to suppose they would like done to them. This is a most important distinction, and one often overlooked in the interpretation of this golden maxim. 13-27. The conclusion of the discourse:— setting forth more strongly and personally the dangers of hypocrisy, both in being led aside by hypocritical teachers, and in our own inner life. The πύλη stands at the end of the ὁδός , as in the remarkable parallel in the Table of Cebes, c. 16: οὐκοῦνδρᾷςθύραντινὰμικράν , καὶὁδόντιναπρὸτῆςθύρας , ἥτιςοὐπολὺὀχλεῖται , ἀλλ ʼ ὀλίγοιπάνυπορεύονται : … αὕτηἐστὶνἡὁδὸςἡἄγουσαπρὸςτὴνἀληθινὴνπαιδείαν . 14. ὅτι gives a second reason, on which that in ver. 13 depends: strive, &c., for broad is, &c., because narrow is, &c. The reason why the way to destruction is so broad, is because so few find their way into the narrow path of life. This is not merely an arbitrary assignment of the ὅτι , but there is a deep meaning in it. The reason why so many perish is not that it is so ordained by God, who will have all to come to the knowledge of the truth,— but because so few will come to Christ, that they may have life; and the rest perish in their sins. See notes on ch. 25:41. The reading τί (adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Meyer, De Wette) will not bear the signification commonly assigned to it, ‘ How narrow is the gate?’ And the interrogative meaning (Meyer) is inconsistent with ὀλίγοιεἰσίν , which follows. τεθλιμμένη , restricted,— crushed in, in breadth: i.e. as Strom. v. 5 (31), p. 664 Ρ , … τὴνμὲν … στενὴνκ . τεθλιμμένηντὴνκατὰτὰςἐντολὰςκ . ἀπαγορεύσειςπεριεσταλμένην , τὴνδὲἐναντίαντὴνεἰςἀπώλειανφέρουσαν , πλατεῖανκ . εὐρύχωρον , ἀκώλυτονἡδοναῖςτεκαὶθυμῷ .… 15. The connexion is as Chrys. Hom. xxiii. 6, p. 292: καὶγὰρπρὸςτῷστενὴνεἶναι , πολλοὶκαὶοἱὑποσκελίζοντεςτὴνἐκεῖσεφέρουσάνεἰσινὁδόν :— strive to enter, &c.: but (δέ , not accordingly, as Webst. and Wilk.) be not misled by persons who pretend to guide you into it, but will not do so in reality. These ψευδοπρ ., directly, refer to the false prophets who were soon to arise, to deceive, if possible, even the very elect, ch. 24:24; and, indirectly, to all such false teachers in all ages. In ἐνδύμασιπροβ . there may be allusion to the prophetic dress, ch. 3:4: but most probably it only means that, in order to deceive, they put on the garb and manners of the sheep themselves. 16. The καρποί are both their corrupt doctrines and their vicious practices, as contrasted with the outward shews of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, their sheep’ s clothing to deceive. ‘ Quæ rimus fructus caritatis, invenimus spinas dissentionis.’ Enarr. in Psalms 149:1, § 2, vol. iv. pt. ii. See James 3:12: ch. 12:33, 34. 17. σαπρόν ] See also ch. 13:48. From these two verses, 17, 18, the Manichæ ans defended their heresy of the two natures, good and bad: but Augustine answers them that such cannot possibly be their meaning, as it is entirely contrary to the whole scope of the passage (see for example ver. 13), and adds, ‘ Mala ergo arbor fructus bonos facere non potest; sed ex mala fieri bona potest, ut bonos fructus ferat.’ Cont. Adimant. c. 26, vol. viii. On the other hand, these verses were his weapon against the shallow Pelagian scheme, which would look at men’ s deeds apart from the living Root in man out of which they grew, and suppose that man’ s unaided will is capable of good. Trench, Serm. on the Mount, p. 150. See also in Matt. Comm. Series, § 116, vol. iii. p. 914. ἐπιγν ., more than simply γνώσεσθε : ‘ ye shall thoroughly know them;’ see 1 Corinthians 13:12. 21. The doom of the hypocritical false prophets introduces the doom of all hypocrites, and brings on the solemn close of the whole, in which the hypocrite and the true disciple are parabolically compared. Observe that here the Lord sets Himself forth as the Judge in the great day, and at the same time speaks not of τὸθέλ . μου , but τὸθέλ . τοῦπατρόςμου : an important and invaluable doctrinal landmark in this very opening of His ministry in the first Gospel. οὐπᾶς is not here ‘ no one,’ as some (Elsner, Fritzsche) have interpreted it. That meaning would require πᾶς … οὐκεἰσελεύσεται . The context must rule the meaning of such wide words as λέγει . Here it is evidently used of mere lip homage; but in οὐδεὶςδύναταιεἰπεῖνΚύριοςἸησοῦςεἰμὴἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳ , 1 Corinthians 12:3, the “ saying” has the deeper meaning of a genuine heartfelt confession. To seek for discrepancies in passages of this kind implies a predisposition to find them: and is to treat Holy Scripture with less than that measure of candour which we give to the writings of one another. 22. ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ perhaps refers to ver. 19: or it may be the expression so common in the Prophets of the great day of the Lord: e.g. Isaiah 2:20; 25:9, . fr. So the Jews called the great day of judgment “ that day,” see Schö ttgen, Hor. i. p. 82. τῷσῷὀνόματι perhaps = ἐντ . σ . ὀν ., jussu et auctoritate tua, but better by thy Name, that name having, as Meyer, filled out our belief and been the object of our confession of faith. The dative in this case is instrumental, cf. Winer, § 31. 7. ἐπροφητ . preached, not necessarily foretold future events: 1 Corinthians 12:10, and note. On δαιμ . ἐξ . see note on ch. 8:32. 23. As the words now stand, ὅτι is merely recitative, and cannot be (Meyer) ‘ because,’ belonging to ἀποχωρ . Such an arrangement would be unprecedented. Orig., Chrys., , &c., placed ὅτιοὐδ . ἔγν . ὑμ . after ἀποχ ., &c., in which case the meaning ‘ for, because,’ would be right. See Luke 13:25-27. ὁμολογήσω is here a remarkable word, as a statement of the simple truth of facts, as opposed to the false colouring and self-deceit of the hypocrites— ‘ I will tell them the plain truth.’ οὐδέποτεἔγ . ὑμ ., i.e., in the sense in which it is said, John 10:14, γινώσκωτὰἐμὰκαὶγινώσκομαιὑπὸτῶνἐμῶν . Neither the preaching Christ, nor doing miracles in His Name, are infallible signs of being His genuine servants, but only the devotion of life to God’ s will which this knowledge brings about. 24. πᾶςοὖνὅστις is a pendent nominative, of which examples are found in the classics, especially in Plato: so Περσέφατταδέ , πολλοὶμὲνκαὶτοῦτοφοβοῦνταιτὸὄνομα . Cratyl. p. 464 c. See also ib. p. 403 a: Gorg. p. 474 e. Kü hner, Gramm. ii. § 508. Notice the ὅστις both times, not merely ὅς . ὅς identifies only: ὅστις classifies. μου may be from me, as in Acts 1:4 ref.: and the τούτους makes this perhaps more probable than the ordinary rendering “ these words of mine.” τοὺςλόγουςτούτους seems to bind together the Sermon, and preclude, as indeed does the whole structure of the Sermon, the supposition that these last chapters are merely a collection of sayings uttered at different times. ὁμοιώσωαὐτόν ] Meyer and Tholuck take this word to signify, not ‘ I will compare him,’ but ‘ I will make him like,’ viz. ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳ , as in ch. 6:8: Romans 9:29. But it is, perhaps, more in analogy with the usage of the Lord’ s discourses to understand it, I will compare him: so ὁμοιώσω , ch. 11:10: Luke 13:18, and reff. 25. This similitude must not be pressed to an allegorical or symbolical meaning in its details, e.g. so that the rain, floods, and winds should mean three distinct kinds of temptation: but the Rock, as signifying Him who spoke this, is of too frequent use in Scripture for us to overlook it here: cf. 2 Samuel 22:2 (Psalms 18:2), 32, 47; 23:3: Psalms 28:1: 31:2, al. fr.; 61:2: Isaiah 26:4 (Heb.); 32:2; 44:8 (Heb.): 1 Corinthians 10:4, &c. He founds his house on a rock, who, hearing the words of Christ, brings his heart and life into accordance with His expressed will, and is thus by faith in union with Him, founded on Him. Whereas he who merely hears His words, but does them not, has never dug down to the rock, nor become united with it, nor has any stability in the hour of trial. In τὴνπέτραν … τὴνἄμμον ,— the articles are categorical, importing that these two were usually found in the country where the discourse was delivered;— in ἡβροχή , οἱποταμοί , οἱἄνεμοι , the same, implying that such trials of the stability of a house were common. In the whole of the similitude, reference is probably made to the prophetic passage Isaiah 28:15-18. τεθεμελίωτο ] The N.T. writers usually omit the augment in the pluperfect: so πεποιήκεισαν , Mark 15:7; ἐκβεβλήκει , 16:9; μεμενήκεισαν , 1 John 2:19, al. fr. This is also done occasionally by Herodotus, and by Attic prose writers, where euphony is served by it. See Herod. i. 122; iii. 42; ix. 22: and Winer, § 12. 9. 27. μεγάλη ] All the greater, because such an one as here supposed is a professed disciple— ἀκούωντοὺςλόγους — and therefore would have the further to fall in case of apostasy. 29. ἦνδιδάσκων ] The assertion is spread more widely, by this resolved imperfect, over His whole course of teaching. Chrysostom’ s comment is, οὐγὰρεἰςἕτερονἀναφέρων , ὡςὁπροφήτηςκαὶὁΜωυσῆς , ἔλεγενἅπερἔλεγενἀλλὰπανταχοῦἑαυτὸνἐνδεικνύμενοςεἶναιτὸντὸκῦροςἔχοντα . καὶγὰρνομοθετῶνσυνεχῶςπροσετέθειἘγὼδὲλέγωὑμῖν , καὶτῆςἡμέραςἀναμιμνήσκωνἐκείνης , ἑαυτὸνἐδείκνυτὸνδικάζονταεἶναι . Hom. xxv. 1, p. 306. 8:1-4. Healing of a leper. Mark 1:40-45.Luke 5:12-14 Luke 5:12-14. We have now (in this and the following chapter), as it were a solemn procession of miracles, confirming the authority with which our Lord had spoken. ἀπὸτῆςδιδασκαλίαςἐπὶτὰθαύματαμεταβαίνει . ἐπεὶγὰρὡςἐξουσίανἔχωνἐδίδασκεν , ἵναμὴνομισθῇκομπάζεινκαὶἀλαζονεύεσθαι , δείκνυσιτὴνἐξουσίαναὐτοῦκαὶἐντοῖςἔργοις , καὶβεβαιοῖτοὺςλόγουςἀπὸτῶνπράξεων . 2. This same miracle is related by St. Luke without any mark of definiteness, either as to time or place,— καὶἐγένετο , ἐντῷεἶναιαὐτὸνἐνμιᾷτῶνπόλεων .… In this instance there is, and can be, no doubt that the transactions are identical: and this may serve us as a key-note, by which the less obvious and more intricate harmonies of these two narrations may be arranged. The plain assertion of the account in the text requires that the leper should have met our Lord on His descent from the mountain, while great multitudes were following Him. The accounts in St. Luke and St. Mark require no such fixed date. This narrative therefore fixes the occurrence. I conceive it highly probable that St. Matthew was himself a hearer of the Sermon, and one of those who followed our Lord at this time. From St. Luke’ s account, the miracle was performed in, or rather, perhaps, in the neighbourhood of, some city: what city, does not appear. As the leper is in all three accounts related to have come to Jesus (καὶἰδού implying it in Luke), he may have been outside the city, and have run into it to our Lord. λεπρός ] The limits of a note allow of only an abridgment of the most important particulars relating to this disease. Read Leviticus 13:14 Leviticus 13:14 Leviticus 13:14. for the Mosaic enactments respecting it, and its nature and symptoms. See also Exodus 4:6: Numbers 12:10: 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Kings 15:5: 2 Chronicles 26:19, 2 Chronicles 26:21. The whole ordinances relating to leprosy were symbolical and typical. The disease was not contagious: so that the view which makes them mere sanitary regulations is out of the question. The fact of its non-contagious nature has been abundantly proved by learned men, and is evident from the Scripture itself: for the priests had continually to be in close contact with lepers, even to handling and examining them. We find Naaman, a leper, commanding the armies of Syria (2 Kings 5:1); Gehazi, though a leper, is conversed with by the king of Israel (2 Kings 8:4, 2 Kings 8:5); and in the examination of a leper by the priest, if a man was entirely covered with leprosy, he was to be pronounced clean (Leviticus 13:12, Leviticus 13:13). The leper was not shut out from the synagogue (Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 513), nor from the Christian churches . Besides, the analogy of the other uncleannesses under the Mosaic law, e.g. having touched the dead, having an issue, which are joined with leprosy (Numbers 5:2), shews that sanitary caution was not the motive of these ceremonial enactments, but a far deeper reason. This disease was specially selected, as being the most loathsome and incurable of all, to represent the effect of the defilement of sin upon the once pure and holy body of man. “ Leprosy was, indeed, nothing short of a living death, a poisoning of the springs, a corrupting of all the humours, of life; a dissolution, little by little, of the whole body, so that one limb after another actually decayed and fell away.” (Trench on the Miracles, p. 213.) See Numbers 12:12. The leper was the type of one dead in sin: the same emblems are used in his misery as those of mourning for the dead: the same means of cleansing as for uncleanness through connexion with death, and which were never used except on these two occasions. Compare Numbers 19:6, Numbers 19:13, Numbers 19:18, with Leviticus 14:4-7. All this exclusion and mournful separation imported the perpetual exclusion of the abominable and polluted from the true city of God, as declared Revelation 21:27, οὐμὴεἰσέλθῃεἰςαὐτὴνπᾶνκοινὸνκαὶποιῶνβδέλυγμακαὶψεῦδος . And David, when after his deadly sin he utters his prayer of penitence, ‘ Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean,’ Psalms 51:7, doubtless saw in his own utter spiritual uncleanness, that of which the ceremonial uncleanness that was purged with hyssop was the type. Thus in the above-cited instances we find leprosy inflicted as the punishment of rebellion, lying, and presumption. ‘ I put the plague of leprosy in an house’ (Leviticus 14:34), ‘ Remember what the Lord thy God did to Miriam’ (Deuteronomy 24:9), and other passages, point out this plague as a peculiar infliction from God. “ The Jews termed it ‘ the finger of God,’ and emphatically ‘ the stroke.’ They said that it attacked first a man’ s house; and if he did not turn, his clothing; and then, if he persisted in sin, himself. So too, they said, that a man’ s true repentance was the one condition of his leprosy leaving him.” Trench, p. 216. The Jews, from the prophecy Isaiah 53:4, had a tradition that the Messiah should be a leper. προσεκύνει ] πεσὼνἐπὶπρόσωπον , Luke 5:12 (γονυπετῶν , Mark 1:40). These differences of expression are important. See beginning of note on this verse. κύριε ] Not here merely a title of respect, but an expression of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. “ This is the right utterance of κύριε , which will never be made in vain.” Stier. When Miriam was a leper, ἐβόησεΜωυσῆςπρὸςκύριον , λέγωνὉθεός , δέομαίσου , ἴασαιαὐτήν , Numbers 12:13. 3. ἥψατοαὐτοῦ ] He who just now expansively fulfilled the law by word and commands, now does the same by act and deed: the law had forbidden the touching of the leper, Leviticus 5:3. It was an act which stood on the same ground as the healing on the Sabbath, of which we have so many instances. So likewise the prophets Elijah and Elisha touched the dead in the working of a miracle on them (1 Kings 17:21: 2 Kings 4:34). The same almighty power which suspends natural laws, supersedes ceremonial laws. Here is a noble example illustrating His own precept so lately delivered, ‘ Give to him that asketh thee.’ Again, we can hardly forbear to recognize, in His touching the leper, a deed symbolic of His taking on him, touching, laying hold of, our nature. Compare Luke 14:4, καὶἐπιλαβόμενοςἰάσατοαὐτόν , with Hebrews 2:16, σπέρματοςἈβραὰμἐπιλαμβάνεται . θέλω ] ‘ Echo prompta ad fidem leprosi maturam.’ Bengel ad loc. ἐκαθ . αὐτ . ἡλέπ .] Luke’ s words (ver. 13), ἡλέπραἀπῆλθενἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ , are more strictly correct in construction. See also Mark 1:42. A curious instance of the theological littleness which has been shewn in treating our Lord’ s great acts of Divine Love, is cited here by Bp. Wordsw. from Ambrose: “ Dicit ‘ volo’ propter Photinum (who said that our Lord was a mere man): imperat propter Arium (who denied His equality with the Father): tangit propter Manichæ um (who said that Christ had not human flesh, but was only a phantom).” 4. ὅραμηδενὶεἴπῃς ] Either (1) these words were a moral admonition, having respect to the state of the man (διδάσκωντὸἀκόμπαστονκαὶἀφιλότιμον , Chrysost.), for the injunction to silence was not our Lord’ s uniform practice (see Mark 5:19, Luke), and in this case they were of lasting obligation, that the cleansed leper was not to make his healing a matter of boast hereafter; or (2) they were a cautionary admonition, only binding till he should have shewn himself to the priest, in order to avoid delay in this necessary duty, or any hindrance which might, if the matter should first be blazed abroad, arise to his being pronounced clean, through the malice of the priests; or (3), which I believe to be the true view, our Lord almost uniformly repressed the fame of His miracles, for the reason given in ch. 12:15-21, that, in accordance with prophetic truth, He might be known as the Messiah not by wonder-working power, but by the great result of his work upon earth: οὐκἐρίσει , οὐδὲκραυγάσει , οὐδὲἀκούσειτιςἐνταῖςπλατείαιςτὴνφωνὴναὐτοῦ … , ἕωςἂνἐκβάλῃεἰςνῖκοςτὴνκρίσιν . Thus the Apostles always refer primarily to the Resurrection, and only incidentally, if at all, to the wonders and signs. (Acts 2:22-24; Acts 3:13-16.) These latter were tokens of power common to our Lord and his followers; but in His great conflict, ending in His victory, He trod the winepress alone. σεαυτὸνδεῖξ . κ .τ .λ .] Read Leviticus 14:1-32. This command has been used in support of the theory of satisfaction by priestly confession and penance. But even then (Trench on the Miracles, p. 221) the advocates of it are constrained to acknowledge that Christ alone is the cleanser. ‘ Ut Dominus ostenderet, quod non sacerdotali judicio, sed largitate divinæ gratiæ peccato emundatur, leprosum tangendo mundavit, et postea sacerdoti sacrificium ex lege offerre præ cepit.’ (Gratian de Pœ nitentia, Dist. 1, c. 34, p. 1529 Migne.) ‘ Dominus leprosum sanitati prius per se restituit, deinde ad sacerdotes misit quorum judicio ostenderetur mundatus … quia etsi aliquis apud Deum sit solutus, non tamen in facie Ecclesiæ solutus habetur, nisi per judicium sacerdotis. In solvendis ergo culpis vel retinendis ita operatur sacerdos evangelicus et judicat, sicut olim legalis in illis qui contaminati erant lepra quæ peccatum signat.’ (Peter Lombard. Sent. iv. dist. 18. 6, p. 887 Migne.) It is satisfactory to observe this drawing of parallels between the Levitical and (popularly so called) Christian priesthood, thus completely shewing the fallacy and untenableness of the whole system; all those priests being types, not of future human priests, but of Him, who abideth a Priest for ever in an unchangeable priesthood, and in Whom not a class of Christians, but all Christians, are priests unto God. μαρτύριοναὐτοῖς ] A testimony both to, and against them: the dativus both commodi and incommodi. The man disobeyed the injunction, so that our Lord could no more enter the city openly: see Mark 1:45. 5-13. Healing of the centurion’ s servant. Luke 7:1-10, where we have a more detailed account of the former part of this miracle. On the chronological arrangement, see Prolegomena. The centurion did not himself come to our Lord, but sent elders of the Jews to Him, who recommended him to His notice as loving their nation, and having built them a synagogue. Such variations, the concise account making a man fecisse per se what the fuller one relates him fecisse per alterum, are common in all written and oral narrations. In such cases the fuller account is, of course, the stricter one. Augustine, answering Faustus the Manichæ an, who wished, on account of the words of our Lord in ver. 11, to set aside the whole, and used this variation for that purpose, makes the remark, so important in these days, ‘ Quid enim, nonne talibus locutionibus humana plena est consuetudo.… quid ergo, cum legimus, obliviscimur quemadmodum loqui soleamus? An Scriptura Dei aliter nobiscum fuerat, quam nostro more, locutura?’ Contra Faustum, xxxiii. 7, vol. viii. On the non-identity of this miracle with that in John 4:46 ff., see note there. 5. ἑκατόνταρχος ] He was a Gentile, see ver. 10, but one who was deeply attached to the Jews and their religion; possibly, though this is uncertain, a proselyte of the gate (no such term as σεβόμενος , φοβούμενοςτὸνθ . is used of him, as commonly of these proselytes, Acts 10:2 .). 6. ὁπαῖς ] From Luke we learn that it was δοῦλος , ὃςἦναὐτῷἔντιμος . The centurion, perhaps, had but one slave, see ver. 9. ‘ Lucas hoc modo dubitationem præ venit, quæ subire poterat lectorum animos; scimus enim non habitos fuisse servos eo in pretio, ut de ipsorum vita tum anxii essent domini, nisi qui singulari industria vel fide vel alia virtute sibi gratiam acquisierant. Significat ergo Lucas non vulgare fuisse sordidumque mancipium, sed fidelem et raris dotibus ornatum servum, qui eximia gratia apud dominum polleret: hinc tanta illius vitæ cura et tam studiosa commendatio.’ (Calvin in loc.) 8. The centurion heard that the Lord was coming, Luke 7:6, and sent friends to Him with this second and still humbler message. He knew and felt himself, as a heathen, to be out of the fold of God, a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel; and therefore unworthy to receive under his roof the Redeemer of Israel. 9. The meaning is, ‘ I know how to obey, being myself under authority: and in turn know how others obey, having soldiers under me:’ inferring, ‘ if then I, in my subordinate station of command, am obeyed, how much more Thou, who art over all, and whom diseases serve as their Master!’ That this is the right interpretation, is shewn by our Lord’ s special commendation of his faith, ver. 10, ‘ volens ostendere Dominum quoque non per adventum tantum corporis, sed per angelorum ministeria posse implere quod vellet.’ Jerome in loc. ‘ Potuisset Ratio excipere: “ Servus et miles imperium libere audiunt: morbus non item.” Sed hanc exceptionem concoquit sapientia fidelis, et ruditate militari pulchre elucens.’ Bengel ad loc. 10, 11. ‘ Amen, inquit, dico vobis, non inveni tantam fidem in Israel; propterea dico vobis quia multi ab Or. et Occ … &c. Quam late terram occupavit oleaster! Amara silva mundus hic fuit: sed propter humilitatem, propter “ Non sum dignus ut sub tectum meum intres,” multi ab Or. et Occ. venient. Et puta quia venient: quid de illis fiet? Si enim venient, jam præ cisi sunt de silva: ubi inserendi sunt, ne arescant? Et recumbent, inquit, cum Abraham et Isaac et Jacob … Ubi? In regno, inquit, cœ lorum. Et quid erit de illis qui venerunt de stirpe Abrahæ ? quid fiet de ruinis quibus arbor plena erat? quid nisi quia præ cidentur, ut isti inserantur? Doce quia præ cidentur: Filii autem regni ibunt in tenebras exteriores.’ in Johan. tract. xvi. 6, vol. iii. pt. ii. Compare a remarkable contrast in the Rabbinical books illustrating Jewish pride: ‘ Dixit Deus S. B. Israelites: “ In mundo futuro mensam ingentem vobis sternam, quod Gentiles videbunt et pudefient.”  ’ Schö ttgen, i. p. 86. ἐθαύμασεν ] to be accepted simply as a fact, as when Jesus rejoiced, wept, was sorrowful; not, as Aug. de Genes. cont. Manich. cited by Wordsw., to be rationalized away into a mere lesson to teach us what to admire. The mysteries of our Lord’ s humanity are too precious thus to be sacrificed to the timidity of theologians. 12. οἱυἱοί ] the natural heirs, but disinherited by rebellion. τὸσκ . τὸἐξ . the darkness outside, i.e. outside the lighted chamber of the feast, see ch. 22:13, and Ephesians 5:7, Ephesians 5:8. These verses are wanting in St. Luke, and occur when our Lord repeated them on a wholly different occasion, ch. 13:28, 29. ὁκλ . κ . ὁβρ .] The articles here are not possessive, as Middleton supposes, for that would give a sense the most frigid possible, and would be a rendering inadmissible after ἔσται , which generalizes the assertion; they rather import the notoriety and eminence of the κλ . κ . βρ . ‘ Articulus insignis: in hac vita dolor nondum est dolor.’ Bengel. 13. ἰάθη ] Of what precise disease does not appear. In Luke ἤμελλεντελευτᾷν — here he is παραλυτικός , δεινῶςβασανιζόμενος . But though these descriptions do not agree with the character of palsy among us, we read of a similar case in 1 Macc. 9:55, 56: ἐντῷκαιρῷἐκείνῳἐπλήγηἌλκιμοςκαὶἐνεποδίσθητὰἔργααὐτοῦ , καὶἀπεφράγητὸστόμααὐτοῦ , καὶπαρελύθη , καὶοὐκἐδύνατοἔτιλαλῆσαιλόγονκαὶἐντείλασθαιπερὶτοῦοἴκουαὐτοῦ . καὶἀπέθανενἌλκιμοςἐντῷκαιρῷἐκείνῳμετὰβασάνουμεγάλης . The disease in the text may have been an attack of tetanus, which the ancient physicians included under paralysis, and which is more common in hot countries than with us. It could hardly have been apoplexy, which usually bereaves of sensation. 14-17. Healing of Peter’ s wife’ s mother, and many others. Mark 1:29-34.Luke 4:38-41 Luke 4:38-41. From the other Evangelists it appears, that our Lord had just healed a dæ moniac in the synagogue at Capernaum: for they both state, ‘ when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, &c.’ Both Mark and Luke are fuller in their accounts than the text. The expression (of the fever) ἀφῆκεναὐτήν is common to the three, as is also the circumstance of her ministering immediately after: shewing that the fever left her, not, as it would have done if natural means had been used, weak and exhausted, but completely restored. 16. at sunset, Mark ver. 32: Luke ver. 40. From St. Mark we learn that the whole city was collected at the door; from St. Luke, that the dæ mons cried out and said, ‘ Thou art Christ the Son of God.’ And from both, that our Lord permitted them not to speak, for they knew Him. They brought the sick in the evening, either because it was cool,— or because the day’ s work was over, and men could be found to carry them,— or perhaps because it was the sabbath (see Mark 1:21, Mark 1:29, Mark 1:32), which ended at sunset. 17. This is a version of the prophecy differing from the LXX, which has οὗτοςτὰςἁμαρτίαςἡμῶνφέρει , καὶπερὶἡμῶνὀδυνᾶται . The exact sense in which these words are quoted is matter of difficulty. Some understand ἔλαβεν and ἐβάστασεν as merely ‘ took away,’ and ‘ healed.’ But besides this being a very harsh interpretation of both words, it entirely destroys the force of αὐτός , and makes it expletive. Others suppose it to refer to the personal fatigue, (or even the spiritual exhaustion, (Olshausen,) which perhaps is hardly consistent with sound doctrine,) which our Lord felt by these cures being long protracted into the evening. But I believe the true relevancy of the prophecy is to be sought by regarding the miracles generally to have been, as we know so many of them were, lesser and typical outshewings of the great work of bearing the sin of the world, which He came to accomplish; just as diseases themselves, on which those miracles operated, are all so many testimonies to the existence, and types of the effect, of sin. Moreover in these His deeds of mercy, He was ‘ touched with the feeling of our infirmities:’ witness His tears at the grave of Lazarus, and His sighing over the deaf and dumb man, Mark 7:34. The very act of compassion is (as the name imports) a suffering with its object; and if this be true between man and man, how much more strictly so in His case who had taken upon Him the whole burden of the sin of the world, with all its sad train of sorrow and suffering. 18-9:1. Jesus crosses the lake. Incidents before embarking. He stills the storm. Healing of two dæ moniacs in the land of the Gadarenes. Mark 4:35-20. Luke 9:57-60; Luke 8:22-39, on which passages compare the notes. 18. It is obviously the intention of St. Matthew to bind on the following incidents to the occurrence which he had just related. 19. Both the following incidents are placed by St. Luke long after, during our Lord’ s last journey to Jerusalem. For it is quite impossible (with Greswell, Diss. iii. p. 155, sq.) in any common fairness of interpretation, to imagine that two such incidents should have twice happened, and both times have been related together. It is one of those cases where the attempts of the Harmonists do violence to every principle of sound historical criticism. Every such difficulty, instead of being a thing to be wiped out and buried up at all hazards (I am sorry to see, e.g., that Bp. Wordsw. takes no notice, either here or in St. Luke, of the recurrence of the two narratives), is a valuable index and guide to the humble searcher after truth, and is used by him as such (see Prolegomena, ch. i. § iv. 2 f.). 20. ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου ] “ It is thought that this phrase was taken from Daniel 7:13, to which passage our Saviour seems to allude in ch. 26:64, and probably Stephen in Acts 7:56. It appears from John 12:34, that the Jews understood it to mean the Messiah: and from Luke 22:69, Luke 22:70, that they considered the Son of Man to mean the same as the Son of God.” Dr. Burton. It is the name by which the Lord ordinarily in one pregnant word designates Himself as the Messiah— the Son of God manifested in the flesh of man— the second Adam. And to it belong all those conditions, of humiliation, suffering, and exaltation, which it behoved the Son of Man to go through. 21. In St. Luke we find, that our Lord previously commanded him to follow Him. τοῦκυρίου .… λέγοντοςτῷΦιλίππῳ , ἄφεςτοὺςνεκ . κ .τ .λ . Strom. iii. 4 (25), p. 522 . But if so, He had long ago ordered Philip to follow Him, taking St. Luke’ s order of the occurrence. A tradition of this nature was hardly likely to be wrong; so that perhaps the words ἀκολούθειμοι are to be taken (as in John 21:19, John 21:22) as an admonition occasioned by some slackness or symptom of decadence on the part of the Apostle. The attempt to evade the strong words of our Lord’ s command by supposing that θάψαιτὸνπατέρα means, ‘ to reside with my father till his death’ (Theophylact), is evidently futile, since πρῶτονἀπελθεῖνκαὶθάψαι is plainly said of an act waiting to be done; and the reason of our Lord’ s rebuke was the peremptory and all-superseding nature of the command ἀκολούθειμοι . 22. νεκρούς ] First time, as Revelation 3:1, spiritually,— second, literally dead. The two meanings are similarly used in one saying by our Lord in John 11:25, John 11:26. See Hebrews 6:1; Hebrews 9:14. ἐκώλυσεναὐτόν , οὐκωλύωντὸτιμᾷντοὺςγονεῖς , ἀλλὰδιδάσκωνὅτιχρὴτὸνἐφιέμενοντῶνοὐρανίωνμὴὑποστρέφεινεἰςτὰγήϊνα , μηδ ʼ ἀπολιμπάνεινμὲντὰζωηρά , παλινδρομεῖνδὲεἰςτὰνεκρωτικά , μηδὲθεοῦπροτιμᾷνγονεῖς . ἐγίνωσκεγὰρὅτιθάψουσιτοῦτονἄλλοι , καὶοὐκεικὸςτοῦτονἀπολειφθῆναιτῶνἀναγκαιοτέρων . οἶμαιδὲὅτικαὶἄπιστοςἦνὁτελευτήσας . Euthym. 23. This journey across the lake, with its incidents, is placed by St. Mark and St. Luke after the series of parables commencing with that of the sower, and recorded in ch. 13. By Mark with a precise note of sequence: λέγειαὐτοῖςἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳὀψίαςγενομένης , Mark 4:35. 24. σεισμός , usually of an earthquake, = λαῖλαψ , Mark and Luke,— a great commotion in the sea. καλύπτεσθαι ] τὰκύμ . ἐπέβαλλενεἰςτὸπλ . ὥστεἤδηγεμίζεσθαιτὸπλοῖον , Mark 4:37. συνεπληροῦντο , Luke 8:23. By keeping to the strict imperfect sense we obviate all necessity for qualifying these words: (starker Uusdruck: die Wogen schlugen Schiff, De Wette) was becoming covered, &c. All lakes bordered by mountains, and indeed all hilly coasts, are liable to these sudden gusts of wind. 25. κύριεσῶσον , ἀπολλ . = διδάσκαλε , οὐμέλεισοιὅτιἀπολλ .; Mark 4:38 = ἐπιστάτα , ἐπιστάτα , ἀπολλ ., Luke 8:24. On these and such like variations, notice the following excellent and important remarks of Augustine (De Consensu Evv. ii. 24 (55), vol. vii.): ‘ Una eademque sententia est excitantium Dominum, volentiumque salvari; nec opus est quæ rere quid horum potius Christo dictum sit. Sive enim alliquid horum trium dixerint, sive alia verba quæ nullus Evangelistarum commemoravit, tantundem tamen valentia ad eandem sententiæ veritatem, quid ad rem interest?’ We may well exclaim, ‘ O si sic omnia!’ Much useless labour might have been spared, and men’ s minds led to the diligent enquiry into the real difficulties of the Gospels, instead of so many spending time in knitting cobwebs. But Augustine himself in the very next sentence, descends to the unsatisfactory ground of the Harmonists, when he adds, ‘ Quamquam et hoc fieri potuit, ut pluribus eum simul excitantibus, omnia hæ c, aliud ab alio, dicerentur.’ His mind however was not one to rest contented with such sophisms; and all his deeper and more earnest sayings are in the truer and freer spirit of the above extract. 26. The time of this rebuke in the text precedes, but in Mark and Luke follows, the stilling of the storm. See the last note. They were of little faith, in that they were afraid of perishing while they had on board the slumbering Saviour: they were not faithless, for they had recourse to that Saviour to help them. Therefore He acknowledges the faith which they had; answers the prayer of faith, by working a perfect calm: but rebukes them for not having the stronger, firmer faith, to trust Him even when He seemed insensible to their danger. The symbolic application of this occurrence is too striking to have escaped general notice. The Saviour with the company of His disciples in the ship tossed on the waves, seemed a typical reproduction of the Ark bearing mankind on the flood, and a foreshadowing of the Church tossed by the tempests of this world, but having Him with her always. And the personal application is one of comfort, and strengthening of faith, in danger and doubt. 27. οἱἄνθρ .] The men who were in the ship, besides our Lord and His disciples. 28. Among the difficulties attendant on this narrative, the situation and name of the place where the event happened are not the least. Origen’ s remarks are: ἡπερὶτοὺςὑπὸτῶνδαιμονίωνκατακρημνιζομένουςκαὶἐντῇθαλάσσῃσυμπνιγομένουςχοίρουςοἰκονομίαἀναγέγραπταιγεγονέναιἐντῇχώρᾳτῶνΓερασηνῶν . ΓέρασαδὲτῆςἈραβίαςἐστὶπόλις , οὔτεθάλασσανοὔτελίμνηνπλησίονἔχονσα . καὶουκἂνοὕτωςπροφανὲςψεῦδοςκαὶεὐέλεγκτονοἱεὐαγγελισταὶεἰρήκεσαν , ἄνδρεςἐπιμελῶςγινώσκοντεςτὰπερὶτὴνἸουδαίαν . ἐπεὶδὲἐνὀλίγοιςεὕρομεν “ εἰςτὴνχώραντῶνΓαδαρηνῶν ,” καὶπρὸςτοῦτολεκτέον (lit. “ we must speak also to (in reference to) this;” discuss this reading also. Dr. Bloomfield’ s conjecture, στικτέον , need only be considered by those who are not aware of this common expression). ΓάδαραγὰρπόλιςμένἐστιτῆςἸουδαίας , περὶἣντὰδιαβόηταθερμὰτυγχάνει , λίμνηδὲκρημνοῖςπαρακειμένηοὐδαμῶςἐστινἐναὐτῇἢθάλασσα . ἈλλὰΓέργεσα , ἀφ ʼ ἧςοἱΓεργεσαιοι , πόλιςἀρχαίαπερὶτὴννῦνκαλουμένηνΤιβεριάδαλίμνην , περὶἣνκρημνὸςπαρακείμενοςτῇλίμνῃ , ἀφ ʼ οὗδείκνυταιτοὺςχοίρουςὑπὸτῶνδαιμόνωνκαταβεβλῆσθαι . Comm. in Joan. tom. vi. § 24, vol. iv. p. 141. Notwithstanding this, it appears very doubtful whether there ever was a town named Gergesha near the lake. There were the Gergashites (Joseph. i. 6. 2) in former days, but their towns had been destroyed by the Israelites at their first irruption, and never, that we hear of, afterwards rebuilt (see Deuteronomy 7:1: Joshua 24:11). Gerasa (now Dscherasch) lies much too far to the East. The town of Gadara, alluded to in the text, was (Joseph. B. J. iv. 7. 3) μητρόπολιςτῆςΠεραίαςκαρτερά , and (Euseb. Onomasticon) ἀντικρὺΣκυθοπόλεωςκαὶΤιβεριάδοςπρὸςἀνατολαῖς , ἐντῷὄρει , οὗπρὸςταῖςὑπουργίαιςτὰτῶνθερμῶνὑδάτωνλουτρὰπαράκειται . It was on the river Hieromax (‘ Gaddara Hieromace præ fluente,’ Plin. v. 18), and sixty stadia from Tiberias (Joseph. Vit. § 65), πόλιςἙλληνίς (Jos. Antt. xvii. 11. 4). It was destroyed in the civil wars of the Jews, and rebuilt by Pompeius (Jos. B. J. i. 7. 7), presented by Augustus to King Herod (Jos. Antt. xv. 7. 3), and after his death united to the province of Syria (Jos. B. J. ii. 6. 3). It was one of the ten cities of Decapolis. (Pliny, ibid.) Burckhardt and others believe that they have found its ruins at Omkeis, near the ridge of the chain which divides the valley of Jordan from that of the Sea of Tiberias. The territory of this city might well extend to the shore of the lake. It may be observed, that there is nothing in any of the three accounts to imply that the city was close to the scene of the miracle, or the scene of the miracle close to the herd of swine, or the herd of swine, at the time of their possession, close to the lake. Indeed the expression μακρὰνἀπ ʼ αὐτῶν , ver. 30, implies the contrary with regard to the swine. It appears, from Burckhardt, that there are many tombs in the neighbourhood of the ruins of Gadara to this day, hewn in the rock, and thus capable of affording shelter. It may be well in fairness to observe, that Γεργεσηνῶν can hardly have arisen entirely from Origen’ s conjecture, as it pervades so many mss. and ancient (it is true, not the most ancient) versions. We cannot say that a part of the territory of Gadara may not have been known to those who, like Matthew, were locally intimate with the shores of the lake, by this ancient and generally disused name. Still however, we are, I conceive, bound in a matter of this kind to follow the most ancient extant testimony. See further on ║ Mark, Luke. The excursus of Dr. Bloomfield, Gr. Test. edn. 9, vol. i. p. 890, though containing interesting matter confirming the fact of Gergesa having been a name actually used for a town near the lake, determines nothing as to the reading here, which must be settled purely on objective evidence. δύοδαιμονιζόμενοι ] In Mark 5:2, and Luke 8:27, but one is mentioned. All three Evangelists have some particulars peculiar to themselves; but Mark the most, and the most striking, as having evidently proceeded from an eye-witness. The ὅτιπολλοίἐσμεν of Mark is worth noticing, in reference to the discrepancy of number in the two accounts, as perhaps connected with the mention of more than one by our Evangelist, who omits the circumstance connected with that speech. χαλεποὶλίαν ] See the terribly graphic account of Mark (5:3-6). The dæ moniac was without clothes, which though related only by St. Luke (8:27), yet, with remarkable consistency, appears from St. Mark’ s narrative, where he is described as sitting, clothed, and in his right mind, at Jesus’ s feet, after his cure. ὥστεμὴἰσχ .] Peculiar to this Gospel. 29. τίἡμ . κ . σοί ] מ ַ ה ־ ל ּ ָ נ ו ּ ו ָ ל ָ ך ְ . See 2 Samuel 16:10; 2 Samuel 19:22. πρὸκαιροῦ is peculiar to this Gospel: υἱὲτοῦθ . common to all. 30. μακράν ] The Vulgate rendering, ‘ non longe,’ does not seem accordant with the other accounts, both of which imply distance: ἦνδὲἐκεῖπρὸςτῷὄρει , Mark 5:11; ἦνδὲἐκεῖ .… ἐντῷὄρει , Luke 8:32. These, especially the first, would seem to imply that the swine were on the hills, and the scene of the miracle at some little distance, on the plain. 31. ἀπόστειλονἡμ .] St. Mark and St. Luke give, as the ground of this request, that they might not be sent out of the land = into the abyss, i.e. out of their permitted residence on earth to βάσανοςπρὸκαιροῦ in the ἄβυσσος . See note and reff. on Luke. 32. This remarkable narrative brings before us the whole question of dæ moniacal possessions in the Gospels, which I shall treat here once for all, and refer to this note hereafter. I would then remark in general, (I. 1) that the Gospel narratives are distinctly pledged to the historic truth of these occurrences. Either they are true, or the Gospels are false. For they do not stand in the same, or a similar position, with the discrepancies in detail, so frequent between the Evangelists: but they form part of that general groundwork in which all agree. (2) Nor can it be said that they represent the opinion of the time, and use words in accordance with it. This might have been difficult to answer, but that they not only give such expressions as δαιμονιζὀμενος , δαιμονισθείς (Mark 5:16: Luke 8:36), and other like ones, but relate to us words spoken by the Lord Jesus, in which the personality and presence of the dæ mons is distinctly implied. See especially Luke 11:17-26. Now either our Lord spoke these words, or He did not. If He did not, then we must at once set aside the concurrent testimony of the Evangelists to a plain matter of fact; in other words establish a principle which will overthrow equally every fact related in the Gospels. If He did, it is wholly at variance with any Christian idea of the perfection of truthfulness in Him who was Truth itself, to suppose Him to have used such plain and solemn words repeatedly, before His disciples and the Jews, in encouragement of, and connivance at, a lying superstition. (3) After these remarks it will be unnecessary to refute that view of dæ moniacal possession which makes it identical with mere bodily disease,— as it is included above; but we may observe, that it is every where in the Gospels distinguished from disease, and in such a way as to shew that, at all events, the two were not in that day confounded. (See ch. 9:32, 33, and compare Mark 7:32.) (4) The question then arises, Granted the plain historical truth of dæ moniacal possession, what was it? This question, in the suspension, or withdrawal, of the gift of ‘ discerning of spirits’ in the modern Church, is not easy to answer. But we may gather from the Gospel narratives some important ingredients for our description. The dæ moniac was one whose being was strangely interpenetrated (‘ possessed’ is the most exact word that could be found) by one or more of those fallen spirits, who are constantly asserted in Scripture to be the enemies and tempters of the souls of men. (See Acts 5:3: John 13:2 and passim.) He stood in a totally different position from the abandoned wicked man, who morally is given over to the devil. This latter would be a subject for punishment; but the dæ moniac for deepest compassion. There appears to have been in him a double will and double consciousness— sometimes the cruel spirit thinking and speaking in him, sometimes his poor crushed self crying out to the Saviour of men for mercy: a terrible advantage taken, and a personal realization, by the malignant powers of evil, of the fierce struggle between sense and conscience in the man of morally divided life. Hence it has been not improbably supposed, that some of these dæ moniacs may have arrived at their dreadful state through various progressive degrees of guilt and sensual abandonment. ‘ Lavish sin, and especially indulgence in sensual lusts, superinducing, as it would often, a weakness in the nervous system, which is the especial band between body and soul, may have laid open these unhappy ones to the fearful incursions of the powers of darkness.’ (Trench on the Miracles, p. 160.) (5) The frequently urged objection, How comes it that this malady is not now among us? admits of an easy answer, even if the assumption be granted. The period of our Lord’ s being on earth was certainly more than any other in the history of the world under the dominion of evil. The foundations of man’ s moral being were broken up, and the ‘ hour and power of darkness’ prevailing. Trench excellently remarks, ‘ It was exactly the crisis for such soulmaladies as these, in which the spiritual and bodily should be thus strangely interlinked, and it is nothing wonderful that they should have abounded at that time; for the predominance of certain spiritual maladies at certain epochs of the world’ s history, which were specially fitted for their generation, with their gradual decline and disappearance in others less congenial to them, is a fact itself admitting no manner of question.’ (pp. 162, 163.) Besides, as the same writer goes on to observe, there can be no doubt that the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, and the continual testimony of Jesus borne by the Church in her preaching and ordinances, have broken and kept down, in some measure, the grosser manifestations of the power of Satan. (See Luke 10:18.) But (6) the assumption contained in the objection above must not be thus unreservedly granted. We cannot tell in how many cases of insanity the malady may not even now be traced to direct dæ moniacal possession. And, finally, (7) the above view, which I am persuaded is the only one honestly consistent with any kind of belief in the truth of the Gospel narratives, will offend none but those who deny the existence of the world of spirits altogether, and who are continually striving to narrow the limits of our belief in that which is invisible; a view which at every step involves difficulties far more serious than those from which it attempts to escape. But (II.) a fresh difficulty is here found in the latter part of the narrative, in which the devils enter into the swine, and their destruction follows. (1) Of the reason of this permission, we surely are not competent judges. Of this however we are sure, that ‘ if this granting of the request of the evil spirits helped in any way the cure of the man, caused them to resign their hold on him more easily, mitigated the paroxysm of their going forth (see Mark 9:26), this would have been motive enough. Or still more probably, it may have been necessary, for the permanent healing of the man, that he should have an outward evidence and testimony that the hellish powers which held him in bondage had quitted him.’ (Trench, p. 172.) (2) The destruction of the swine is not for a moment to be thought of in the matter, as if that were an act repugnant to the merciful character of our Lord’ s miracles. It finds its parallel in the cursing of the fig-tree (ch. 21:18-22); and we may well think that, if God has appointed so many animals daily to be slaughtered for the sustenance of men’ s bodies, He may also be pleased to destroy animal life when He sees fit for the liberation or instruction of their souls. Besides, if the confessedly far greater evil of the possession of men by evil spirits, and all the misery thereupon attendant, was permitted in God’ s inscrutable purposes, surely much more this lesser one. Whether there may have been special reasons in this case, such as the contempt of the Mosaic law by the keepers of the swine, we have no means of judging: but it is at least possible. (3) The fact itself related raises a question in our minds, which, though we cannot wholly answer, we may yet approximate to the solution of. How can we imagine the bestial nature capable of the reception of dæ moniac influence? If what has been cited above be true, and the unchecked indulgence of sensual appetite afforded an inlet for the powers of evil to possess the human dæ moniac, then we have their influence joined to that part of man’ s nature which he has in common with the brutes that perish, the animal and sensual soul . We may thus conceive that the same animal and sensual soul in the brute may be receptive of similar dæ moniacal influence. But with this weighty difference: that whereas in man there is an individual, immortal spirit, to which alone belongs his personality and deliberative will and reason,— and there was ever in him, as we have seen, a struggle and a protest against this tyrant power; the oppressed soul, the real ‘ I,’ calling out against the usurper— this would not be the case with the brute, in whom this personality and reflective consciousness is wanting. And the result in the text confirms our view; for as soon as the dæ mons enter into the swine, their ferocity, having no self-conserving balance as in the case of man, impels them headlong to their own destruction. 34. This request, which is related by all three Evangelists, was probably not from humility, but for fear the miraculous powers of our Lord should work them still more worldly loss. For the additional particulars of this miracle, see Mark 5:15, Mark 5:16, Mark 5:18-20: Luke 8:35, and notes. 9:1. Certainly this verse should be the sequel of the history in the last chapter. It is not connected with the miracle following;— which is placed by St. Luke at a different time, but with the indefinite introduction of ἐγένετοἐνμιᾷτῶνἡμερῶν . [τὸ ] πλοῖον , not the ship, as applying to any particular ship previously used, or kept by our Lord and the disciples,— but simply generic,— and expressed idiomatically in English by a ship, as E. V. τὰπλοῖα , ‘ ships,’ are the whole genus, in which embarkation might have been made: τὸπλοῖον , the individual of that genus, in which embarkation actually was made: but no further defined by the article, than as being one of that genus, not as being any one previously mentioned ship, or one hired for that purpose. This import of the article has been denied by Middleton, and the generic rendering in this commentary consequently impugned by his followers. In reply, I may observe (1) that of the occurrence of the generic sense, there is no doubt, even on Middleton’ s own shewing. In ch. 10:36, ἐχθροὶτοῦἀνθρώπου , οἱοἰκιακοὶαὐτοῦ , he recognizes in substance the generic sense, by rendering τοῦἀνθρώπου , ‘ every man,’ or ‘ men generally,’ though he calls the use ‘ hypothetic.’ Compare also ἐξῆλθενὁσπείοωντοῦσπείρειν , ch. 13:3, where ὁσπ . is merely in the singular what οἱσπείροντες would be in the plural, viz. ‘ he that soweth,’ ‘ a sower,’ generic. See also ch. 15:11: Luke 11:24; ch. 19:10: 1 Corinthians 7:3; ch. 25:32 ; also ch. 10:12, 27. (2) We may say, if we please, that some πλοῖον is implied in ἐμβάς , and that the article refers to such implication. But this is in fact amounts to the generic sense. If I say, without any previous mention of a particular ship, ‘ When he had embarked in the ship;’ I imply by the word ‘ embarked,’ connexion with a genus, ships: by adding, ‘ in the ship,’ I signify elliptically, ‘ in the ship in which he did embark;’ but I no further identify the ship, than as belonging to the genus before implied. (3) The use of the English article in the expression, ‘ in the house’ (= indoors), ‘ in the field,’ &c., is a case in point: the articles here also being generic. τὴνἰδ . πόλ .] Capernaum, where our Lord now dwelt: cf. ch. 4:13. 2-8. Healing of a paralytic at Capernaum. Mark 2:1-12.Luke 5:17-26 Luke 5:17-26, in both of which the account is more particular. 2. τὴνπίστιναὐτ .] Namely, in letting him down through the roof, because the whole house and space round the door was full, Mark 2:4. αὐτῶν must be supposed to include the sick man, who was at least a consenting party to the bold step which they took. These words are common to the three Evangelists, as also ἀφέωνταίσουαἱἁμ . Neander (Leben Jesu, pp. 431, 432) has some excellent remarks on this man’ s disease. Either it was the natural consequence of sinful indulgence, or by its means the feeling of sinfulness and guilt was more strongly aroused in him, and he recognized the misery of his disease as the punishment of his sins. At all events spiritual and bodily pain seem to have been connected and interchanged within him, and the former to have received accession of strength from the presence of the latter. Schleiermacher (on St. Luke, p. 80) supposes the haste of these bearers to have originated in the prospect of our Lord’ s speedy departure thence; but, as Neander observes, we do not know enough of the paralytic’ s own state to be able to say whether there may not have been some cause for it in the man himself. ἀφέωνται ] Winer remarks (§ 14. 3),— ‘ The old grammarians themselves were divided about this word some, as Eustathius, (Il. π . 590,) treat it as identical with ἀφῶνται , as in Homer ἀφέῃ for ἀφῇ : others, more correctly, take it for the preterite , e.g. Herodian, the Etymologicon, and Suidas, with this difference however, that Suidas believes it to be a Doric, the author of the Etym. an Attic form; the former is certainly right, and this perfect-passive form is cognate with the perf.-act. ἀφέωκα .’ 4. ἰδών ] By the spiritual power indwelling in Him. See John 2:24, John 2:25. No other interpretation of such passages is admissible. St. Mark’ s expression, ἐπιγνοὺςτῷπνεύματιαὐτοῦ , is more precise and conclusive. So we have ἐνεβριμήσατοτῷπνεύματι , John 11:33, synonymous with ἐμβριμώμενοςἐνἑαυτῷ , ibid. ver. 33. ἴνατί — supply γένηται : see Klotz on Devarius, pp. 631-2: so Plut. Apol. p. 26 c, ἵνατίταῦταλέγεις ; From τίγὰρ … οἶκόνσου is common (nearly verbatim) to the three Evangelists. 5. τίγάρἐστινεὐκ .] “ In our Lord’ s argument it must be carefully noted, that He does not ask, which is easiest, to forgive sins, or to raise a sick man— for it could not be affirmed that that of forgiving was easier than this of healing— but, which is easiest, to claim this power or that, to say Thy sins be forgiven thee, or to say, Arise and walk? That (i.e. the former) is easiest, and I will now prove my right to say it, by saying with effect and with an outward consequence setting its seal to my truth, the harder word, Arise and walk. By doing that which is capable of being put to the proof, I will vindicate my right and power to do that which in its very nature is incapable of being proved. By these visible tides of God’ s grace I will give you to know in what direction the great under-currents of His love are setting, and that both are obedient to My word. From this, which I will now do openly and before you all, you may conclude that it is ‘ no robbery’ (Philippians 2:6, but see note there) upon my part to claim also the power of forgiving men their sins.” Trench on the Miracles, p. 206. 6. ὁυἱ . τ . ἀνθ .] The Messiah: an expression regarded by the Jews as equivalent to ὁχριστὸςὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ , ch. 26:63. See also John 5:27. “ The Alexandrian Fathers, in their conflict with the Nestorians, made use of this passage in proof of the entire transference which there was of all the properties of Christ’ s divine nature to His human; so that whatever one had, was so far common, that it might also be predicated of the other. It is quite true that had not the two natures been indissolubly knit together in a single Person, no such language could have been used; yet I should rather suppose that ‘ Son of Man’ being the standing title whereby the Lord was well pleased to designate Himself, bringing out by it that He was at once one with humanity, and the crown of humanity, He does not so use it that the title is every where to be pressed, but at times simply as equivalent to Messiah.” Trench, p. 208. ἐπὶτῆςγῆς ] Distinguished from ἐντῷοὐρανῷ , as in ch. 16:19; 18:18. Bengel finely remarks, “ Cœ lestem ortum hic sermo sapit.” The Son of Man, as God manifest in man’ s flesh, has on man’ s earth that power, which in its fountain and essence belongs to God in heaven. And this not by delegation, but “ because He (being God) is the Son of Man.” John 5:27. τότελέγει ] See a similar interchange of the persons in construction, Genesis 3:22, Genesis 3:23. τότελέγειτῷπ . is not parenthetic, nor is ἵναδὲεἰδῆτεκ .τ .λ . an elliptic sentence; but the speech and narrative are intermixed. A simple construction would require either ἵναδὲεἰδῆτε .… ὧδελέγωτῷπαρ … , or ἵναδὲεἰδῶσιν … τότελέγει … We have, in the text, the first member of the former construction joined with the second of the latter. 8. τοῖςἀνθρώποις ] Not plur. for sing. ‘ to a man,’ nor ‘ for the benefit of men;’ but to mankind. They regarded this wonder-working as something by God granted to men— to mankind; and without supposing that they had before them the full meaning of their words, those words were true in the very highest sense. See John 17:8. In Mark they say, ὅτιοὕτωςοὐδέποτεεἴδαμεν : in Luke, ὅτιεἴδομενπαράδοξασήμερον . 9-17. The calling of Matthew: the feast consequent on it: enquiry of John’ s disciples respecting fasting:— and our Lord’ s answer. Mark 2:13-22.Luke 5:27-39 Luke 5:27-39. Our Lord was going out to the sea to teach, Mark, ver. 13. All three Evangelists connect this calling with the preceding miracle, and the subsequent entertainment. The real difficulty of the narrative is the question as to the identity of Matthew in the text, and Levi in Mark and Luke. I shall state the arguments on both sides. (1) There can be no question that the three narratives relate to the same event. They are identical almost verbatim; inserted between narratives indisputably relating the same occurrences. (2) The almost general consent of all ages has supposed the two persons the same. On the other hand, (3) our Gospel makes not the slightest allusion to the name of Levi, either here, or in ch. 10:3, where we find Μαθθαῖοςὁτελώνης among the Apostles, clearly identified with the subject of this narrative: whereas the other two Evangelists, having in this narrative spoken of Levi, in their enumerations of the Apostles (Mark 3:18: Luke 6:5), mention Matthew without any note of identification with the Levi called on this occasion. This is almost inexplicable, on the supposition of his having borne both names. (4) Early tradition separates the two persons. Clement of Alexandria, (Stromata, iv. 9 (73), p. 595 ,) quoting from Heracleon the Gnostic, (ὁτῆςΟὐαλεντίνουσχολῆςδοκιμώτατοςκατάλέξιν ,) mentions Ματθαῖος , Φίλιππος , Θωμᾶς , Λευῒςκαὶἄλλοιπολλοί , as eminent men who had not suffered martyrdom from a public confession of the faith. (5) Again, Origen, (against Celsus, book i. § 62, vol. i. p. 376,) when Celsus has called the Apostles τελώναςκαὶναύτας , after acknowledging Μαθθαῖοςὁτελώνης adds, ἔστωδὲκαὶὁΛεβὴςτελώνηςἀκολουθήσαςτῷἸησοῦ . ἀλλ ʼ οὔτιγετοῦἀριθμοῦτῶνἀποστόλωναὐτοῦἦν , εἰμὴκατάτινατῶνἀντιγράφωντοῦκατὰΜάρκονεὐαγγελίον . It is not quite clear from this, whether the copies of Mark substituted Levi’ s (?) name for Matthew’ s, or for some other: but most probably the latter. But Λεβής and Λευΐς are hardly more nearly allied than Λεβής and Λεββαῖος , with whom Levi has sometimes been supposed identical. Λεβὴντὸντελώνην may then have been the reading for Θαδδαῖον , Mark 3:18, where we now find the reading Λεββαῖον in lat-a b ff2 i. (6) It certainly would hence appear, as if there were in ancient times an idea that the two names belonged to distinct persons. But in the very passages where it is mentioned, a confusion is evident, which prevents us from drawing any certain conclusion able to withstand the general testimony to the contrary, arising from the prima facie view of the Gospel narrative. (7) It is probable enough that St. Matthew, in his own Gospel, would mention only his apostolic name, seeing that St. Mark and St. Luke also give him this name, when they speak of him as an Apostle. (8) It is remarkable, as an indication that St. Matthew’ s frequently unprecise manner of narration did not proceed from want of information,— that in this case, when he of all men must have been best informed, his own account is the least precise of the three. (9) With regard to the narrative itself in the text, we may observe, that this solemn and peculiar call seems (see ch. 4:19, 22) hardly to belong to any but an Apostle; and that, as in the case of Peter, it here also implies a previous acquaintance and discipleship. 9. λεγόμενον , not preceded by any other appellation, must not be pressed to any closer signification than that his name was Matthew. See ch. 2:23. 10. We are told in Luke 5:29, that Levi made him a great feast in his house; and, similarly, Mark has ἐντῇοἰκ . αὐτοῦ . The narrative in our text is so closely identical with that in Mark, that it is impossible to suppose, with Greswell, that a different feast is intended. The arguments by which he supports his view are by no means weighty. From the words τῇοἰκίᾳ , he infers that the house was not that of Matthew, but that in which our Lord usually dwelt, which he supposes to be intended in several other places. But surely the article might be used without any such significance, or designating any particular house,— as would be very likely if Matthew himself is here the narrator. (A similar mistake has been made in supposing τὸπλοῖον , as in ver. 1, and elsewhere, to mean some one particular ship; whereas it is generic: see note there.) Again, Greswell presses to verbal accuracy the terms used in the accounts , and attempts to shew them to be inconsistent with one another. But surely the time is past for such dealing with the historic text of the Gospels; and, besides, he has overlooked a great inconsistency in his own explanation, viz., that of making in the second instance, according to him, Scribes and Pharisees present at the feast given by a Publican, and exclaiming against that which they themselves were doing. It was not at, but after the feast that the discourse in vv. 11-17 took place. And his whole inference, that δοχὴμεγάλη must be the great meal in the day, and consequently in the evening, hangs on too slender a thread to need refutation. The real difficulty, insuperable to a Harmonist, is the connexion here of the raising of Jaeirus’ s daughter with this feast: on which see below, ver. 18. καὶἐγέν … καὶἰδ .] a Hebraism, see reff.; it occurs, but with the omission of ἰδού , in Mark’ s account. The not very usual word, συνανέκειντο , is also common to the two. St. Mark, with his usual precision, adds ἦσανγὰρπολλοὶκαὶἠκολούθησαναὐτῷ : a clause answering to ἐλθόντες in our text. See last note. 11. ἰδόντες ] having observed this, see ver. 4. These Pharisees appear to have been the Pharisees of the place: Luke adds αὐτῶν : οἱΦ . καὶοἱγραμ . αὐτῶν . The very circumstances related shew that this remonstrance cannot have taken place at the feast. The Pharisees say the words to the disciples: our Lord hears it. This denotes an occasion when our Lord and the disciples were present, but not surely intermixed with the ὄχλοςτελωνῶνπολύς . 12. ἰσχύοντες .… κακῶςἔχ .] Both words, in the application of the saying, must be understood subjectively (‘ ironica concessio,’ Calvin, Meyer): as referring to their respective opinions of themselves; as also δικαιους and ἁμαρτωλούς , ver. 13:— not as though the Pharisees were objectively either ἰσχύοντες or δίκαιοι , however much objective truth κακῶςἔχοντες and ἁμαρτωλοί may have had as applied to the publicans and sinners. 13. πορευθέντεςμάθετε answers to an expression frequent in the Talmud, צ א ו ל מ ד . ἔλεοςθέλ .] The whole of this discourse, with the exception of the citation, is almost verbatim in Mark, and Luke also. 14. According to the detailed narrative of St. Mark (2:18) it was the disciples of John and of the Pharisees who asked this question. St. Luke continues the discourse as that of the former Pharisees and Scribes. This is one of those instances where the three accounts imply and confirm one another, and the hints incidentally dropped by one Evangelist form the prominent assertions of the other. The fasting often of the disciples of John must not be understood as done in mourning for their master’ s imprisonment, but as belonging to the asceticism which John, as a preacher of repentance, inculcated. On the fasts of the Pharisees, see Light-foot in loc. 15. πενθεῖν = νηστεύειν Mark and Luke. The difference of these two words is curiously enough one of Greswell’ s arguments for the non-identity of the narratives. Even if there were any force in such an argument, we might fairly set against it that ἀπαρθῇ is common to all three Evangelists, and occurs no where else in the N.T. ὁνυμφίος ] This appellation of Himself had from our Lord peculiar appropriateness as addressed to the disciples of John. Their master had himself said (John 3:29) ὁἔχωντὴννύμφην , νυμφίοςἐστίν · ὁδὲφίλοςτοῦνυμφίουὁἑστηκὼςκαὶἀκούωναὐτοῦ , χαρᾷχαίρειδιὰτὴνφωνὴντοῦνυμφίου . αὕτηοὖνἡχαρὰἡἐμὴπεπλήρωται . Our Lord in calling Himself the Bridegroom, announces the fulfilment in Him of a whole cycle of O.T. prophecies and figures: very probably with immediate reference to Hos_2, that prophet having been cited just before: but also to many other passages, in which the Bride is the Church of God, the Bridegroom the God of Israel. See especially Isaiah 54:5-10 Heb. and E. V. As Stier (Reden Jesu, i. 320, edn. 2) observes, the article here must not be considered as merely introduced on account of the parable, as usual elsewhere, but the parable itself to have sprung out of the emphatic name, ὁνυμφίος . The υἱοὶτοῦνυμφῶνος are more than the mere guests at the wedding: they are the bridegroom’ s friends who go and fetch the bride. ἐλεύσονταιδὲἡμ .] How sublime and peaceful is this early announcement by our Lord of the bitter passage before Him! Compare the words of our Christian poet: ‘ measuring with calm presage the infinite descent.’ (Wizenmann mag dabei wohl fragen:, Welcher Mensch hat je fo ruhig, so lieblich von einer solchen Hõ he in eine solche Jiefe geschaut?’ Stier, Reden Jesu, i. 322.) ὅτανἀπ .] when the Bridegroom shall have been taken from them: when His departure shall have taken place. καὶτότεν .] These words are not a declaration of a duty, or of an ordinance, as binding on the Church in the days of her Lord’ s absence: the whole spirit of what follows is against such a Supposition: but they declare, in accordance with the parallel word πενθεῖν , that in those days they shall have real occasion for fasting; sorrow enough; see John 16:20:— a fast of God’ s own appointing in the solemn purpose of His will respecting them, not one of their own arbitrary laying on. This view is strikingly brought out in Luke, where the question is, Can ye ποιῆσαινηστεύειν the children, &c., i.e. by your rites and ordinances? but, &c. and τότενηστεύσουσιν : there is no constraint in this latter case: they shall (or better, they will) fast. And this furnishes us with an analogous rule for the fasting of the Christian life: that it should be the genuine offspring of inward and spiritual sorrow, of the sense of the absence of the Bridegroom in the soul,— not the forced and stated fasts of the old covenant, now passed away. It is an instructive circumstance that in the Reformed Churches, while those stated fasts which were retained at their first emergence from Popery are in practice universally disregarded even by their best and holiest sons,— nothing can be more affecting and genuine than the universal and solemn observance of any real occasion of fasting placed before them by God’ s Providence. It is also remarkable how uniformly a strict attention to artificial and prescribed fasts accompanies a hankering after the hybrid ceremonial system of Rome. Meyer remarks well that τότε refers to a definite point of time, not to the whole subsequent period. 16. Our Lord in these two parables contrasts the old and the new, the legal and evangelic dispensations, with regard to the point on which He was questioned. The idea of the wedding seems to run through them: the preparation of the robe, the pouring of the new wine, are connected by this as their leading idea to one another and to the preceding verses. The old system of prescribed fasts for fasting’ s sake must not be patched with the new and sound piece; the complete and beautiful whole of Gospel light and liberty must not be engrafted as a mere addition on the worn out system of ceremonies. For the πλήρωμααὐτοῦ , the completeness of it, the new patch, by its weight and its strength pulls away the neighbouring weak and loose threads by which it holds to the old garment, and a worse rent is made. Stier notices the prophetic import of this parable: in how sad a degree the χεῖρονσχίσμαγίνεται has been fulfilled in the history of the Church, by the attempts to patch the new, the Evangelic state, upon the old worn out ceremonial system. ‘ Would,’ he adds, ‘ that we could say in the interpretation, as in the parable, No man doeth this!’ The robe must be all new, all consistent: old things, old types, old ceremonies, old burdens, sacrifices, priests, sabbaths, and holy days, all are passed away: behold all things are become new. χεῖρονσχ . γίν .] a worse rent takes place: not, as E. V., ‘ the rent is made worse’ (χ . γίν . τὸσχ .,— or χ . τὸσχ . γίν .,) a worse rent, because the old, original rent was included within the circumference of the ἐπίβλημα , whereas this is outside it. 17. This parable is not a repetition of the previous one, but a stronger and more exact setting forth of the truth in hand. As is frequently our Lord’ s practice in His parables, He advances from the immediate subject to something more spiritual and higher, and takes occasion from answering a cavil, to preach the sublimest truths. The garment was something outward; this wine is poured in, is something inward, the spirit of the system. The former parable respected the outward freedom and simple truthfulness of the New Covenant; this regards its inner spirit, its pervading principle. And admirably does the parable describe the vanity of the attempt to keep the new wine in the ἀσκὸςπαλαιός , the old ceremonial man, unrenewed in the spirit of his mind: ῥήγνυνταιοἱἀσκοί : the new wine is something too living and strong for so weak a moral frame; it shatters the fair outside of ceremonial seeming; and ὁοἶνοςἐκχεῖται , the spirit is lost, the man is neither a blameless Jew nor a faithful Christian; both are spoiled. And then the result: not merely the damaging, but the utter destruction of the vessel,— οἱἀσκοὶἀπολοῦνται . According to some expositors, the new patch and new wine denote the fasting; the old garment and old bottles, the disciples. ὃδὲλέγει , τοιοῦτόνἐστιν · οὔπωγεγόνασινἰσχυροὶοἱμαθηταί , ἀλλ ʼ ἔτιπολλῆςδἐονταισυγκαταβάσεως · οὔπωδιὰτοῦπνεύμτοςἀνεκαινίσθησαν . οὕτωδὲδιακειμένοιςοὐχρὴβάροςἐπιτιθέναιἐπιταγμάτων . Chrysostom, Hom. in Matt. xxx. 4, p. 353. This view is stated and defended at some length by Neander, Leben Jesu, p. 346, note; but I own seems to me, as to De Wette, far-fetched. For how can fasting be called ἐπίβλημαῥάκουςἀγνάφσυ , or how compared to new wine? And Neander himself, when he comes to explain the important addition in Luke (on which see Luke 5:39, and note), is obliged to change the meaning, and understand the new wine of the spirit of the Gospel. It was and is the custom in the East to carry their wine on a journey in leather bottles, generally of goats’ skin, sometimes of asses’ or camels’ skin. 18-26. Raising of Jaeirus’ s daughter, and healing of a woman with an issue of blood. Mark 5:21-43.Luke 8:41-56 Luke 8:41-56. In Luke and Mark this miracle follows immediately after the casting out of the devils at Gadara, and our Lord’ s recrossing the lake to Capernaum; but without any precise note of time as here. He may well have been by the sea (as seems implied by Mark and Luke), when the foregoing conversation with the disciples of John and the Pharisees took place. The account in the text is the most concise of the three; both Mark and Luke, but especially the latter, giving many additional particulars. The miracle forms a very instructive point of comparison between the three Gospels. 18. ἄρχων ] A ruler of the synagogue, named Jaeirus. In all except the connecting words, ταῦτααὐτοῦλαλοῦντοςαὐτοῖς , and εἰσελθ ., which seems to imply that our Lord was still in Levi’ s house, the account in the text is summary, and deficient in particularity. I have therefore reserved full annotation for the account in Luke, which see throughout. ἄρτιἐτελεύτησεν ] She was not dead, but dying: at the last extremity. St. Matthew, omitting the message from the ruler’ s house (Mark 5:35: Luke 8:49), gives the matter summarily in these words. 20. The κράσπεδον , see ref. Num., was the fringe or tassel which the Jews were commanded to wear on each corner of their outer garment, as a sign that they were to be holy unto God. The article, as in ch. 14:36, designates the particular tassel which was touched. 22. The cure was effected on her touching our Lord’ s garment, Mark 5:27-29: Luke 8:44. And our Lord enquired who touched Him (Mark, Luke), for He perceived that virtue had gone out of Him (Luke). She, knowing what had been done to her, came fearing and trembling, and told Him all. 24. No inference can be drawn from these words as to the fact of the maiden’ s actual death; for our Lord uses equivalent words respecting Lazarus (John 11:11). And if it be answered that there He explains the sleep to mean death, we answer, that this explanation is only in consequence of the disciples misunderstanding his words. In both cases the words are most probably used with reference to the speedy awakening which was to follow, as Fritzsche (cited by Trench, Miracles, p. 183): ‘ Puellam ne pro mortua habetote, sed dormire existimatote, quippe in vitam mox redituram.’ Luke appends, after κατ . αὐτ .,— εἰδότεςὅτιἀπέθανεν , in which words there is at least no recognition by the Evangelist of a mere apparent death. 25. ἐκρ . τῆςχ . αὐ . is common to the three Evangelists. From Luke we learn that our Lord said ἡπαῖς , ἔγειρε : from Mark we have the words He actually uttered, ταλιθὰκοῦμ : from both we learn that our Lord only took with him Peter, James, and John, and the father and mother of the maiden,— that she was twelve years old,— and that our Lord commanded that something should be given her to eat. She was an only daughter, Luke 8:42. 27-31. Healing of two blind men. Peculiar to Matthew. 27. παρ . ἐκεῖθεν is too vague to be taken as a fixed note of sequence; for ἐκεῖθεν may mean the house of Jaeirus, or the town itself, or even that part of the country,— as ver. 26 has generalized the locality, and implied some pause of time. υἱὸςΔαυείδ ] εἰςτιμὴναὐτοῦτοῦτοκράζουσιν · ἐντιμοτάτηγὰρπαρ ʼ Ἰουδαίοιςἦνἡτοιαύτηπροσηγορία . It is remarkable that, in all the three narratives of giving sight to the blind in this Gospel, the title Son of David appears. 28. τὴνοἰκίαν ] εἰκός , πιστοῦτινοςεἶναιτὴνοἰκίαν , εἰςἣνκατήχθη . Euthym. Or, the house which our Lord inhabited at Capernaum (De Wette and others); but I conceive that ἡοἰκία need not mean any particular house, merely, as we sometimes use the expression, the house, as opposed to the open air: see note on ver. 1. τοῦτοποιῆσαι ] i.e. the healing, implied in ἐλέησονἡμᾶς . υἱὸςΔ … κύριε ] See Psalms 110:1, and ch. 22:45; also ch. 12:23; 20:30, 31. Touching, or anointing the eyes, was the ordinary method which our Lord took of impressing on the blind the action of the divine power which healed them. Ch. 20:34: Mark 8:25: John 9:6. 29. In this miracle however we have this peculiar feature, that no direct word of power passes from our Lord, but a relative concession, making that which was done a measure of the faith of the blind men: and from the result the degree of their faith appears. Stier remarks (Reden Jesu, i. 383), “ We may already notice, in the history of this first period of our Lord’ s ministry, that from having at first yielded immediately to the request for healing, He begins, by degrees, to prove and exercise the faith of the applicants.” 30. ἐνεβριμήθη ] Suidas explains this word, μετὰἀπειλῆςἐντέλλεσθαι , μετ ʼ αὐστηρότητοςἐπιτιμᾷν . The purpose of our Lord’ s earnestness appears to have been twofold: (1) that He might not be so occupied and over-pressed with applications as to have neither time nor strength for the preaching of the Gospel: (2) to prevent the already-excited people from taking some public measure of recognition, and thus arousing the malice of the Pharisees before His hour was come. No doubt the two men were guilty of an act of disobedience in thus breaking the Lord’ s solemn injunction: for obedience is better than sacrifice; the humble observance of the word of the Lord, than the most laborious and wide-spread will-worship after man’ s own mind and invention. Trench (Miracles, p. 197) well remarks, that the fact of almost all the Romish interpreters having applauded this act, is “ very characteristic, and rests on very deep differences.” 32-34. Healing of a dumb dæ moniac. Peculiar to Matthew. The word ἐξερχομένων , being a present participle, places this miracle in direct connexion with the foregoing. This narration has a singular affinity with that in ch. 12:22, or still more with its parallel in Luke 11:14. In both, the same expression of wonder follows; the same calumny of the Pharisees; only that in ch. 12 the dæ moniac is said (not in Luk_11) to have been likewise blind. These circumstances, coupled with the immediate connexion of this miracle with the cure of the blind men, and the mention of ‘ the Son of David’ in both, have led some to suppose that the account in ch. 12 is a repetition, or slightly differing version of the account in our text, intermingled also with the preceding healing of the blind. But the supposition seems unnecessary,— as, the habit of the Pharisees once being to ascribe our Lord’ s expulsion of devils to Beelzebub, the repetition of the remark would be natural:— and the other coincidences, though considerable, are not exact enough to warrant it. This was a dumbness caused by dæ moniacal possession: for the difference between this and the natural infirmity of a deaf and dumb man, see Mark 7:31-37. 33. ἐφάνηοὕτως ] viz. the casting out of devils:— ‘ never was seen to be followed by such results as those now manifested.’ See above. οὕτως is not for τοῦτο or τοιοῦτότι (De Wette, &c.); the passages cited as bearing out this meaning in the LXX do not apply, for in all of them οὕτως is so. 1 Kings 23:17: Psalms 47:8: Judges 19:30 : Nehemiah 8:17. 35-38. Our Lord’ s compassion for the multitude. Peculiar to Matthew. In the same way as ch. 4:23-25 introduces the Sermon on the Mount, so do these verses the calling and commissioning of the Twelve. These general descriptions of our Lord’ s going about and teaching at once remove all exactness of date from the occurrence which follows— as taking place at some time during the circuit and teaching just described. Both the Sermon on the Mount and this discourse are introduced and closed with these marks of indefiniteness as to time. This being the case, we must have recourse to the other Evangelists, by whose account it appears (as indeed may be implied in ch. 10:1), that the Apostles had been called to their distinct office some time before this. (See Mark 3:16: Luke 6:13.) After their calling, and selection, they probably remained with our Lord for some time before they were sent out upon their mission. 36. τοὺςὄχλους ] Wherever He went, in all the cities. ἐσκυλμένοι ] ‘ Vexati,’ — harassed,— plagued,— viz. literally, with weariness in following Him; or spiritually, with the tyranny of the Scribes and Pharisees, their φορτίαβαρέα , ch. 23:4. ἐριμμένοι ] ‘ Temere projecti,’ ‘ abjecti,’ ‘ neglecti,’ as sheep would be who had wandered from their pasture. The context shews that our Lord’ s compassion was excited by their being without competent spiritual leaders and teachers. 37. The harvest was primarily that of the Jewish people, the multitudes of whom before Him excited the Lord’ s compassion. ὅραπάλιντὸἀκενόδοξον . ἵναμὴἅπανταςπρὸςἑαυτὸνἐπισύρηται , ἐκπέμπειτοὺςμαθητάς . οὐδιὰδὲτοῦτομόνον , ἀλλ ʼ ἵνααὐτοὺςκαὶπαιδεύσῃ , καθάπερἔντινιπαλαίστρᾳτῇΠαλαιστίνῃμελετήσαντας , οὕτωπρὸςτοὺςἀγῶναςτῆςοἰκουμένηςἀποδύσασθαι . Chrysost. Hom. xxxii. 2, p. 367. 38. … τίνοςοὖνἕνεκενἔλεγε ‘ δεήθητετοῦκυρίουτοῦθερισμοῦ , ἵναἐκβάλῃἐργάταςεἰςτὸνθερισμὸναὐτοῦ ,’ καὶοὐδένααὐτοῖςπροσέθηκεν ; ὅτικαὶδώδεκαὄνταςπολλοὺςἐποίησελοιπόν , οὐχὶτῷἀριθμῷπροσθείς , ἀλλὰδύναμινχαρισάμενος . εἶταδεικνὺςἡλίκοντὸδῶρόνἐστι , φησὶ ‘ δεήθητετοῦκυρίουτοῦθερισμοῦ · ’ καὶλανθανόντωςἑαυτὸνἐμφαίνειτὸντὸκῦροςἔχοντα . εἰπὼνγὰρ ‘ δεήθητετοῦκυρίουτοῦθερισμοῦ ,’ — οὐδὲνδεηθέντωναὐτῶν , οὐδὲεὐξαμένων , αὐτὸςαὐτοὺςεὐθὺςχειροτονεῖ , ἀναμιμνήσκωναὐτοὺςκαὶτῶνἸωάννουῥημάτων , καὶτῆςἅλω , καὶτοῦλικμῶντος , καὶτοῦἀχύρον , καὶτοῦσίτον . ὅθενδῆλονὅτιαὐτόςἐστινὁγεωργός , αὐτὸςὁτοῦθερισμοῦκύριος , αὐτὸςὁτῶνπροφητῶνδεσπότης . Chrysost. Hom. xxxii. 2, 3, p. 367. 10:1-11:1. Mission of the Twelve Apostles. Mark 6:7-13: Luke 9:1-6,— for the sending out of the Apostles: Mark 3:13-19: Luke 6:13-16,— for their names. On the characteristic differences between this discourse and that delivered to the Seventy (Luke 10:1 ff.) see notes there. Notice, that this is not the choosing, but merely the mission of the twelve. The choosing had taken place some time before, but is not any where distinctly detailed by the Evangelists. 2. We have in the N.T. four catalogues of the Apostles: the present one,— at Mark 3:16,— Luke 6:14,— Acts 1:13. All seem to follow one common outline, but fill it up very differently. The following table will shew the agreements and differences:— Matthew 10:2.Mark 3:16.Luke 6:14.Acts 1:13.1ΣίμωνΠέτρος 2ἈνδρέαςἸάκωβοςἈνδρέαςἸωάννης 3ἸάκωβοςἸωάννηςἸάκωβοςἸάκωβος 4ἸωάννηςἈνδρέαςἸωάννηςἈνδρέας 5Φίλιππος 6ΒαρθολομαῖοςΘωμᾶς 7ΘωμᾶςΜατθαῖοςΒαρθολομαῖος 8ΜαθθαῖοςΘωμᾶςΜατθαῖος 9Ἰάκωβος [ὁτοῦ ] Ἀλφαίου 10ΛεββαῖοςΘαδδαῖοςΣίμωνὁκαλ . ζηλωτήςΣίμωνὁζηλωτής 11ΣίμωνὁκαναναῖοςἸούδαςἸακώβου 12ἸούδαςἰσκαριώτηςἸούδαςἸσκαριώθ VacantFrom this it appears (1), that in all four three classes are enumerated, and that each class contains the same persons in all four, but in different order, with the following exceptions:— that (2) Peter, Philip, James the (son?) of Alphœ us, and Judas Iscariot hold the same places in all four. (3) That in the first class the two arrangements are , that of Matt. and Luke (Gospel),— Peter and Andrew, brothers; James and John, brothers;— i.e. according to their order of calling and connexion, and with reference to their being sent out in couples, Mark 6:7: Mark and Luke (Acts),— Peter, James, John, (the three principal,) and Andrew;— i.e. according to their personal pre-eminence. In the second class , that of Matt., Mark, and Luke (Gospel),— Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas (or, as given by Matthew himself, Thomas and Matthew),— i.e. in couples: Luke (Acts),— Philip, Thomas, Barth., Matthew (reason uncertain). In the third class , Matt. and Mark,— James, the (son?) of Alphœ us and (Lebb.) Thaddæ us, Simon the Cananœ an and Judas Iscariot; i.e. in couples: Luke (Gosp. and Acts) James the (son?) of Alphœ us, Simon Zelotes, Judas Ἰακώβου and Judas Iscariot (uncertain). Thus in all four, the leaders of the three classes are the same, viz. Peter, Philip, and James the (son?) of Alphœ us; and the traitor is always last. (4) It would appear then that the only difficulties are these two: the identity of Lebbæ us with Thaddæ us, and with Judas Ἰακώβου , and of Simon καναναῖος with Simon ὁκαλ . ζηλωτής . These will be discussed under the names. πρῶτος ] Not only as regards arrangement, or mere priority of calling, but as primus inter pares. This is clearly shewn from James and John and Andrew being set next, and Judas Iscariot the last, in all the catalogues. We find Simon Peter, not only in the lists of the Apostles, but also in their history, prominent on various occasions before the rest. Sometimes he speaks in their name (Matthew 19:27: Luke 12:41); sometimes answers when all are addressed ; sometimes our Lord addresses him as principal, even among the three favoured ones (Matthew 26:40: Luke 22:31); sometimes he is addressed by others as representing the whole (Matthew 17:24: Acts 2:37). He appears as the organ of the Apostles after our Lord’ s ascension (Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:29): the first speech, and apparently that which decided the Council, is spoken by him, Acts 15:7. All this accords well with the bold and energetic character of Peter, and originated in the unerring discernment and appointment of our Lord Himself, who saw in him a person adapted to take precedence of the rest in the founding of His Church, and shutting (Acts 5:3, Acts 5:9) and opening (Acts 2:14, Acts 2:41; Acts 10:5, Acts 10:46) the doors of the kingdom of Heaven. That however no such idea was current among the Apostles as that he was destined to be the Primate of the future Church is as clear as the facts above mentioned. For (1) no trace of such a pre-eminence is found in all the Epistles of the other Apostles; but when he is mentioned, it is either, as 1 Corinthians 9:5, as one of the Apostles, one example among many, but in no wise the chief;— or as in Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:8, with a distinct account of a peculiar province of duty and preaching being allotted to him, viz. the apostleship of the circumcision, (see 1 Peter 1:1,) as distinguished from Paul, to whom was given the apostleship of the uncircumcision:— or as in Galatians 2:9, as one of the principal στύλοι , together with James and John;— or as in Galatians 2:11, as subject to rebuke from Paul as from an equal. And (2) wherever by our Lord Himself the future constitution of His Church is alluded to, or by the Apostles its actual constitution, no hint of any such primacy is given, (see note on Matthew 16:18,) but the whole college of Apostles are spoken of as absolutely equal. Matthew 19:27, Matthew 19:28; Matthew 20:26, Matthew 20:28: Ephesians 2:20, and many other places. Again (3) in the two Epistles which we have from his own hand, there is nothing for, but every thing against, such a supposition. He exhorts the πρεσβύτεροι as being their συμπρεσβύτερος (1 Peter 5:1): describes himself as τῆςμελλούσηςἀποκαλύπτεσθαιδόξηςκοινωνός : addresses his second Epistle τοῖςἰσότιμονἡμῖνλαχοῦσινπίστιν (2 Peter 1:1): and makes not the slightest allusion to any pre-eminence over the other Apostles. So that πρῶτος here must be understood as signifying the prominence of Peter among the Apostles, as well as his early calling. (See John 1:42.) ὁλεγόμενοςΠέτρος ] Or Κηφᾱς , כ ּ ֵ י פ ָ א , so named by our Lord Himself (John as above) at His first meeting with him, and again more solemnly, and with a direct reference to the meaning of the name, Matthew 16:18. Ἀνδρέας ] He, in conjunction with John (see note on John 1:37-41), was a disciple of the Baptist, and both of them followed our Lord, on their Master pointing Him out as the Lamb of God. They did not however from that time constantly accompany Him, but received a more solemn calling (see Matthew 4:17-22: Luke 5:1-11)— in the narrative of which Peter is prominent, and so πρῶτος called as an Apostle, at least, of those four. Ἰάκ . ὁτ . Ζ . κ . Ἰωάν .] Partners in the fishing trade with Peter and Andrew, Luke 5:10. 3. Φίλ . κ . Βαρθ .] Philip was called by our Lord the second day after the visit of Andrew and John, and the day after the naming of Peter. He was also of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter, James and John. Ἀνδρέας and Φίλιππος are Greek names. See John 12:20-22. Βαρθολομαῖος ב ּ ַ ר ת ּ ַ ל ְ מ ַ י , son of Talmai or Tolomæ us, has been generally supposed to be the same with Nathanael of Cana in Galilee; and with reason: for (1) the name Bartholomew is not his own name, but a patronymic:— (2) He follows next in order, as Nathanael, in John 1:46, to the Apostles just mentioned, with the same formula which had just been used of Philip’ s own call (ver. 44),— εὑρίσκειΦίλιπποςτὸνΝαθ .:— (3) He is there, as here, and in Mark and Luke (Gospel), in connexion with Philip (that he was his brother, was conjectured by Dr. Donaldson; but rendered improbable by the fact that John in the case of Andrew a few verses above, expressly says εὑρίσκειτὸνἀδελφὸντὸνἴδιονΣίμωνα , whereas in ver. 46 no such specification is found):— (4) In John 21:2, at the appearance of our Lord on the shore of the sea of Tiberias, Nathanael is mentioned as present, where seven Apostles are recounted. θωμᾶςκ . Μαθθ . ὁτελ .] Thomas , in Greek Δίδυμος , John 11:16; John 20:24; John 21:2. Μαθθ . ὁτελ . is clearly by this appellation identified with the Matthew of ch. 9:9. We hear nothing of him, except in these two passages. Dr. Donaldson (Jashar. p. 10 f.) believed Matthew and Thomas to have been twin brothers. , H. E. i. 13, preserves a tradition that Thomas’ s real name was Judas: Θωμᾶς , ὁκαὶἸούδας . Ἰάκ . ὁτ . Ἀλφαίου ] From John 19:25, some infer (but see note there), that Mary the (wife?) of Κλωπᾶς was sister of Mary the mother of our Lord. From Mark 15:40, that Mary was the mother of James τοῦμικροῦ , which may be this James. Hence it would appear, if these two passages point to the same person, that Ἀλφαῖος = Κλωπᾶς . And indeed the two Greek names are but different ways of expressing the Hebrew name ח ַ ל ְ פ ַ י . If this be so, then this James the Less may possibly be the ὁἀδελφὸςτοῦκυρίου mentioned Galatians 1:19 apparently as an Apostle, and one of the ἀδελφοὶαὐτοῦ mentioned Matthew 13:55 (where see note) (?). But on the difficulties attending this view, see note on John 7:5. Λεββαῖος ] Much difficulty rests on this name, both from the various readings, and the questions arising from the other lists. The . reading appears to be a conjunction of the two ancient ones, Λεββαῖος and Θαδδαῖος : the latter of these having been introduced from Mark. (But it is noticeable, that in Mark has Λεββαῖος .) Whichever of these is the true reading, the Apostle himself has generally been supposed to be identical with ἸούδαςἸακώβου in both Luke’ s catalogues, i.e. (see note there) Judas the brother (Dr. Donaldson supposed son: see note on Luke 24:13) of James, and so son of Alphæ us, and commonly supposed to be (?) one of the ἀδελφοὶκυρίου named Matthew 13:55. In John 14:22 we have a ‘ Judas, not Iscariot,’ among the Apostles: and the catholic epistle is written by a ‘ Judas brother of James.’ What in this case the names Λεββαῖος and Θαδδαῖος are, is impossible to say. The common idea that they are cognate names, Λεβ . being from ל ֵ ב , heart, and Θαδ . from ת ּ ַ ד , breast, is disproved by De Wette, who observes that the latter signifies mamma, and not pectus. So that the whole rests on conjecture, which however does not contradict any known fact, and may be allowed as the only escape from the difficulty. 4. Σίμωνὁκαναν .] This is not a local name, but is derived from ק ַ נ ִ א ָ ן = ζηλωτής (Luke, Gosp. and Acts). We may therefore suppose that before his conversion he belonged to the sect of the Zealots, who after the example of Phinehas (Numbers 25:7, Numbers 25:8) took justice into their own hands, and punished offenders against the law. This sect eventually brought upon Jerusalem its destruction. Ἰούδαςὁἰσκ .] Son of Simon (John 6:71; (12:4 v. r.) 13:2, 26). Probably a native of Kerioth in Juda, Joshua 15:25, א ִ י ש ׁ ק ְ ר ִ י ּ ו ֹ ת , a man of Kerioth, as ἴστοβος , i.e. א ִ י ש ׁ ט ו ֹ ב , a man of Tob, Joseph. Antt. vii. 6. 1. That the name ἴσκ . cannot be a surname, as Bp. Middleton supposes, the expression ἸούδαςΣίμωνοςἰσκαριώτης , used in all the above places of John, clearly proves. Dr. Donaldson assumed it as certain that the Simon last mentioned was the father of Judas Iscariot. But surely this is very uncertain, in the case of so common a name as Simon. 5. λέγων ] If we compare this verse with ch. 11:1, there can be little doubt that this discourse of our Lord was delivered at one time, and that, the first sending of the Twelve. How often its solemn injunctions may have been repeated on similar occasions we cannot say: many of them reappear at the sending of the Seventy in Luke 10:2 ff. Its primary reference is to the then Mission of the Apostles to prepare His way; but it includes, in the germ, instructions prophetically delivered for the ministers and missionaries of the Gospel to the end of time. It may be divided into three great portions, in each of which different departments of the subject are treated, but which follow in natural sequence on one another. In the first of these (vv. 5-15), our Lord, taking up the position of the messengers whom He sends from the declaration with which the Baptist and He Himself began their ministry, ὅτιἤγγικενἡβασιλείατῶνοὐρανῶν , gives them commands, mostly literal and of present import, for their mission to the cities of Israel. This portion concludes with a denunciation of judgment against that unbelief which should reject their preaching. The second (vv. 16-23) refers to the general mission of the Apostles as developing itself, after the Lord should be taken from them, in preaching to Jews and Gentiles (vv. 17, 18), and subjecting them to persecutions (vv. 21, 22). This portion ends with the end of the apostolic period properly so called, ver. 23 referring primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem. In this portion there is a foreshadowing of what shall be the lot and duty of the teachers of the Gospel to the end, inasmuch as the ‘ coming of the Son of Man’ is ever typical of His final coming to judgment. Still the direct reference is to the Apostles and their mission, and the other only by inference. The third (vv. 24-42), the longest and weightiest portion, is spoken directly (with occasional reference only to the Apostles and their mission (ver. 40)) of all disciples of the Lord,— their position,— their encouragements,— their duties,— and finally concludes with the last great reward (ver. 42). In these first verses, 5, 6,— we have the location; in 7, 8, the purpose; in 9, 10, the fitting out; and in 11-14, the manner of proceeding,— of their mission: ver. 15 concluding with a prophetic denouncement, tending to impress them with a deep sense of the importance of the office entrusted to them. Σαμαρειτῶν ] The Samaritans were the Gentile inhabitants of the country between Judæ a and Galilee, consisting of heathens whom Shalmaneser king of Assyria brought from Babylon and other places. Their religion was a mixture of the worship of the true God with idolatry (2 Kings 17:24-41). The Jews had no dealings with them, John 4:9. They appear to have been not so unready as the Jews to receive our Lord and His mission (John 4:39-42: Luke 9:51 ff., and notes);— but this prohibition rested on judicial reasons. See Acts 13:46. In Acts 1:8 the prohibition is expressly taken off: ‘ Ye shall be witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judæ a, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.’ And in Acts 8:1, Acts 8:5, Acts 8:8, we find the result; See ch. 15:21-28. 6. τὰπρόβ . τὰἀπολ .] See besides reff., ch. 9:36: John 10:16. 7. This announcement shews the preparatory nature of this first apostolic mission. Compare, shewing the difference of their ultimate message to the world, Colossians 1:26-28. 8. δωρεὰνἐλ ., δωρεὰνδ .] See Acts 8:18-20. 9. μὴκτήσησθε ] All the words following depend on this verb, and it is explained by the parallel expressions in Mark and Luke, ἵναμηδὲναἴρωσιν and μηδὲναἴρετεεἰςτὴνὁδόν . They were to make no preparations for the journey, but to take it in dependence on Him who sent them, just as they were. This forbidden provision would be of three kinds (1) Money: in Mark (6:8) χαλκόν , in Luke (9:3) ἀργύριον : here all the three current metals in order of value, connected by the μηδέ introducing a climax— no gold, nor yet silver, nor yet brass (so again in ver. 10)— in their ζῶναι (=βαλάντια Luke 10:4). (2) Food: here πήρα (θήκητῶνἄρτων , Suidas), in Mark μὴἄρτον , μὴπήραν : similarly Luke. (3) Clothing— μηδὲδύοχιτ .: so Mark and Luke— μηδὲὑποδ .; in Mark expressed by ὑποδεδεμένουςσανδάλια : explained in Luke 10:4, by μὴβαστάζετεὑποδ ., i.e. a second pair.— μηδὲῥάβδον = εἰμὴῥάβδ . μόνον Mark, i.e., the former depending on κτήσησθε , the latter on αἴρωσινεἰςὁδόν , which has not quite the precision of the other. They were not to procure expressly for this journey even a staff: they were to take with them their usual staff only. The missing of this explanation has probably led to the reading ῥάβδους both here and in Luke. If it be genuine, it does not mean δύοῥάβδ .; for who would ever think of taking a spare staff? but a ῥάβδος each. The whole of this prohibition was temporary only; for their then journey, and no more. See Luke 22:35, Luke 22:36. 10. ἄξιοςγάρ ] This is a common truth of life— men give one who works for them his food and more; here uttered however by our Lord in its highest sense, as applied to the workmen in His vineyard. See 1 Corinthians 9:13, 1 Corinthians 9:14: 2 Corinthians 11:8: 3 John 1:8. It is (as Stier remarks, vol. i. p. 352, Exo_2) a gross perversion and foolish bondage to the letter, to imagine that ministers of congregations, or even missionaries among the heathen, at this day are bound by the literal sense of our Lord’ s commands in this passage. But we must not therefore imagine that they are not bound by the spirit of them. This literal first mission was but a foreshadowing of the spiritual subsequent sending out of the ministry over the world, which ought therefore in spirit every where to be conformed to these rules. 11. ἄξιος ] Inclined to receive you and your message,— worthy that you should become his guest: so ἄξιος is used with reference to the matter treated of in the context, see reff. Such persons in this case would be of the same kind as those spoken of Act 13:48 as τεταγμένοιεἰςζωὴναἰώνιον . The precept in this verse is very much more fully set forth by Luke 10:7 ff. ἕωςἂνἐξέλθητε ] Until ye depart out of the city. 12. τὴνοἰκίαν ] Not the house of the ἄξιος , for this would be sure to be worthy; but any house, as is necessary from the subsequent ἐὰνᾖἡοἰκ . ἀξ ., which on the other supposition (Meyer, &c.) would have been ascertained already. The full command as to their conduct, from arriving to departing, is given in ver. 11. Then, the subject being taken up again at their arrival in the city, the method of ἐξέτασις is prescribed to them in vv. 12, 13. When they enter into an house, (so, idiomatically, E. V.,) they are to salute it: and if on enquiry it prove worthy, then &c. See notes on ch. 9:1, 28. 13. ἡεἰρήνηὑμ .] The peace mentioned in the customary Eastern salutation ש ׁ ָ ל ו ֹ ם ל ָ ך ְ . Luke has εἰρήνητῷοἴκῳτούτῳ (10:5). Compare with the spirit of vv. 10-13,— ch. 7:6. Stier remarks (Reden Jesu, i. p. 355, Exo_2), that the spirit of these commands binds Christian ministers to all accustomed courtesies of manner in the countries and ages in which their mission may lie. So we find the Greek χαίρειν instead of the Jewish form of greeting, Acts 15:23: James 1:1. And the same spirit forbids that repelling official pride by which so many ministers lose the affections of their people. And this is to be without any respect to the worthiness or otherwise of the inhabitants of the house. In the case of unworthiness, ‘ let your peace return (see Isaiah 45:23) to you,’ i.e. ‘ be as though you had never spoken it,’ μηδὲνἐνεργησάτω , ἀλλὰταύτηνμεθ ʼ ἑαυτῶνλαβόντεςἐξέλθετε . 14. See Acts 13:51; Acts 18:6. A solemn act which might have two meanings: (1) as Luke 10:11 expresses at more length,— ‘ We take nothing of yours with us, we free ourselves from all contact and communion with you;’ or (2),— which sense probably lies beneath both this and ver. 13, ‘ We free ourselves from all participation in your condemnation: will have nothing in common with those who have rejected God’ s message.’ See 1 Kings 2:5, where the shoes on the feet are mentioned as partakers in the guilt of blood. It was a custom of the Pharisees, when they entered Judæ a from a Gentile land, to do this act, as renouncing all communion with Gentiles: those then who would not receive the apostolic message were to be treated as no longer Israelites, but Gentiles. Thus the verse forms a kind of introduction to the next portion of the discourse, where the future mission to the Gentiles is treated of. The ἢτῆςπόλεωςἐκ . brings in the alternative; “ house, if it be a house that rejects you, city, if a whole city.” 15. The first ἀμὴνλέγ . ὑμ .; with which expression our Lord closes each portion of this discourse. ἡμέρακρίσεως , the day of final judgment, = ἡμέραἐκείνη , Luke 10:12. The omission of the articles does not alter the definiteness of the meaning; as in the case also of υἱὸςθεοῦ . See note on ch. 4:3. It must be noticed that this denunciatory part, as also the command to shake off the dust, applies only to the people of Israel, who had been long prepared for the message of the Gospel by the Law and the Prophets, and recently more particularly by John the Baptist; and in this sense it may still apply to the rejection of the Gospel by professing Christians: but as it was not then applicable to the Gentiles, so neither now can it be to the heathen who know not God. 16-23. Second part of the discourse. See above on ver. 5, for the subject of this portion. 16. ἐγώ is not without meaning. It takes up again the subject of their sending, and reminds them Who sent them. (ἐγὼὁπάνταδυνάμενος . Euthymius.) ἀποστέλλω , in direct connexion with their name ἀπόστολοι . πρόβ . ἐνμ . λ .] This comparison is used of the people of Israel in the midst of the Gentiles, in a Rabbinical work cited by Stier, p. 359: see also Sir. 13:17. Clem. Ep. ad Cor. 2 § 5, vol. i. p. 336, Migne, says: λέγειγὰρὁκύριοςἜσεσθεὡςἀρνίαἐνμέσῳλύκων . ἀποκριθεὶςδὲὁΠέτροςαὐτῷλέγειἘὰνοὖνδιασπαράξωσινοἱλύκοιτὰἀρνία ; εἶπενὁἸησοῦςτῷΠέτρῳΜὴφοβείσθωσαντὰἀρνίατοὺςλύκουςμετὰτὸἀποθανεῖναὐτά , καὶὑμεῖςμὴφοβεῖσθετοὺςἀποκτείνονταςὑμᾶςκαὶμηδὲνὑμῖνδυναμένουςποιεῖν · ἀλλὰφοβεῖσθετὸνμετὰτὸἀποθανεῖνὑμᾶςἔχονταἐξουσίανψυχῆςκ . σώματος , τοῦβαλεῖνεἰςγέεννανπυρός . οἱὄφ .… αἱπερ .] The articles are generic, as is also that before ἀνθρ . in the next verse, which has been mistaken, and supposed to have a distinct meaning. It is used on account of these two, οἱὄφ … αἱπερ … having just preceded. ἀκέραιος , ὁμὴκεκραμένοςκακοῖς , ἀλλ ʼ ἁπλοῦςκαὶἀποίκιλος . Etym. Mag. (Meyer.) 17. προσέχετε ] The wisdom of the serpent is needed for this part of their course; the simplicity of the dove for the μὴμεριμνήσητε in ver. 19. The δέ turns from the internal character to behaviour in regard of outward circumstances. συνέδρια ] See Acts 4:6, Acts 4:7; Acts 5:40. They are the courts of seven (on which see Deuteronomy 16:18), appointed in every city, to take cognizance of causes both civil and criminal, ch. 5:21: here perhaps put for any courts of assembly in general. ἐντ . συν . μαστιγ . ὑ .] See Acts 22:19; Acts 26:11. Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiastes 5:16, quoting a book against the Montanists, οὐδὲμὴνοὐδὲἐνσυναγωγαῖςἸουδαίωντῶνγυναικῶντιςἐμαστιγώθηποτέ , ἢἐλιθοβολήθη · οὐδαμόσεοὐδαμῶς . The scourging in the synagogues is supposed to have been inflicted by order of the Tribunal of Three, who judged in them. 18. καὶ .… δέ implies, yea and moreover; assuming what has just been said and passing on to something more. The words are always separated, except in the Epic poets. See Viger, ed. Herm. p. 545 (note), 844: Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 181 f.: Klotz ad Devar. p. 645. ἡγεμόνας — Proconsuls, Propræ tors, Procurators, as (Pontius Pilate,) Felix, Festus, Gallio, Sergius Paulus. βασιλεῖς , as (Herod,) Agrippa. The former verse was of Jewish persecution; this, of Gentile: the concluding words shew that the scope of both, in the divine purposes, as regarded the Apostles, was the same, viz. εἰςμαρτ . αὐτ . κ . τ . ἔθν . The μαρτ . is in both senses— a testimony to, and against them (see ch. 8:4, note), and refers to both bets of persecutors: αὐτοῖς , to them, i.e. the Jews (not the ἡγ . καὶβασ . for they are in most cases Gentiles themselves), καὶτοῖςἔθν . It was a testimony in the best sense to Sergius Paulus, Acts 13:7, but against Felix, Acts 24:25; and this double power ever belongs to the word of God as preached— it is a δίστομοςῥομφαία (Revelation 1:16; Revelation 2:12). 19. μὴμεριμνήσητε — take not anxious (or distracting) thought. A spiritual prohibition, answering to the literal one in vv. 9, 10. See Exodus 4:12. 20. οὐγὰρὑμ . κ .τ .λ .] This shews the reference of the command to a future mission of the Apostles, see John 15:26, John 15:27. (1) It is to be observed that our Lord never in speaking to His disciples says our Father, but either my Father (ch. 18:10), or your Father (as here), or both conjoined (John 20:17); never leaving it to be inferred that God is in the same sense His Father and our Father. (2) It is also to be observed that in the great work of God in the world, human individuality sinks down and vanishes, and God alone, His Christ, His Spirit, is the great worker, as here οὐχὑμεῖςἐστε .… ἀλλὰτὸπν . τοῦπ . ὑμ . 21. Spoken perhaps of official information given against Christians, as there are no female relations mentioned. But the general idea is also included. 22. πάντων ] i.e. all else but yourselves; not, as De Wette so often interprets, ‘ a strong expression, intended to signify many, or the majority of mankind.’ ὁδὲὑπομ .] In order to understand these words it is necessary to enter into the character of our Lord’ s prophecies respecting His coming, as having an immediate literal, and a distant foreshadowed fulfilment. Throughout this discourse and the great prophecy in ch. 24, we find the first apostolic period used as a type of the whole ages of the Church; and the vengeance on Jerusalem, which historically put an end to the old dispensation, and was in its place with reference to that order of things, the coming of the Son of Man, as a type of the final coming of the Lord. These two subjects accompany and interpenetrate one another in a manner wholly inexplicable to those who are unaccustomed to the wide import of Scripture prophecy, which speaks very generally not so much of events themselves, points of time,— as of processions of events, all ranging under one great description. Thus in the present case there is certainly direct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem; the τέλος directly spoken of is that event, and the σωθήσεται the preservation provided by the warning afterwards given in ch. 24:15-18. And the next verse directly refers to the journeys of the Apostles over the actual cities of Israel, territorial, or where Jews were located. But as certainly do all these expressions look onwards to the great final coming of the Lord, the τέλος of all prophecy; as certainly the σωθήσεται here bears its full scripture meaning, of everlasting salvation; and the endurance to the end is the finished course of the Christian; and the precept in the next verse is to apply to the conduct of Christians of all ages with reference to persecution, and the announcement that hardly will the Gospel have been fully preached to all nations (or, to all the Jewish nation, i.e. effectually) when the Son of Man shall come. It is most important to keep in mind the great prophetic parallels which run through our Lord’ s discourses, and are sometimes separately, sometimes simultaneously, presented to us by Him. That the tracing out and applying such parallels should be called by such expositors as Meyer, ‘ lauter wortwidrige und nothgedrungene Ausflú chte’ (Com. i. 211), is just as if a man should maintain that a language unknown to him had therefore no meaning. 24-42. Third part of the discourse. See note on ver. 5. It treats of (I.) the conflicts (vv. 24-26), duties (vv. 26-28), and encouragements (vv. 28-32) of all Christ’ s disciples. (II.) The certain issue of this fight in victory; the confession by Christ of those who confess Him, set in strong light by the contrast of those who deny Him (vv. 32, 33); the necessity of conflict to victory, by the nature of Christ’ s mission (vv. 34-37), the kind of self-devotion which he requires (vv. 37-39): concluding with the solemn assurance that no reception of His messengers for His sake, nor even the smallest labour of love for Him, shall pass without its final reward. Thus we are carried on to the end of time and of the course of the Church. 24. This proverb is used in different senses in Luke 6:40 and John 13:16. The view here is, that disciples must not expect a better lot than their Master, but be well satisfied if they have no worse. The threefold relation of our Lord and His followers here brought out may thus be exemplified from Scripture: μαθητής and διδάσκαλος , Matthew 5:1; Matthew 23:8: Luke 6:20; δοῦλος and κύριος , John 13:13: Luke 12:35-48: Romans 1:1: 2 Peter 1:1: Jude 1:1; οἰκοδεσπότης and οἰκιακοί , Matthew 26:26-29 ║ : Luke 24:30: Matthew 24:45 ff. ║ . καὶὁδοῦλοςὡς … is a broken construction; it would regularly be καὶτῷδούλῳ , ἵνακ .τ .λ . 25. Βεελζεβούλ ] (Either ב ּ ַ ע ַ ל ז ֶ ב ֶ ל , ‘ lord of dung,’ — or as in 2 Kings 1:2, ב ּ ַ ע ַ ל ז ְ ב ו ּ ב , ‘ lord of flies,’ — a god worshipped at Ekron by the Philistines; there is however another derivation more probable than either of these, upheld by Meyer (referring to Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 333), from ב ּ ַ ע ַ ל and ז ְ ב ו ּ ל , a house, by which it would exactly correspond to οἰκοδεσπότης )— A name by which the prince of the devils was called by the Jews, ch. 12:24,— to which accusation, probably an usual one (see ch. 9:34), and that in John 8:48, our Lord probably refers. In those places they had not literally called Him Beelzebub, but He speaks of their mind and intention in those charges. They may however have literally done so on other unrecorded occasions. 26. μὴοὖν ] The force of this is: ‘ Notwithstanding their treatment of Me your Master, Mine will be victory and triumph; therefore ye, My disciples, in your turn, need not fear.’ Compare Romans 8:37. οὐδὲνγάρἐστιν ] This solemn truth is again and again enounced by our Lord on different occasions, and with different references. See Luke 8:17; Luke 12:2. The former part of the verse drew comfort and encouragement from the past: this from the future. ‘ All that is hidden must be revealed— (1) it is God’ s purpose in His Kingdom that the everlasting Gospel shall be freely preached, and this purpose ye serve. (2) Beware then of hypocrisy (see Luke 12:2) through fear of men, for all such will be detected and exposed hereafter: and (3) fear them not, for, under whatever aspersions ye may labour from them, the day is coming which shall clear you and condemn them, if ye are fearlessly doing the work of Him that sent you’ (ch. 13:43). τίνοςγὰρἕνεκενἀλγεῖτε ; ὅτιγόηταςὑμᾶςκαλοῦσικαὶπλάνους ; ἀναμείνατεμικρόν , καὶσωτῆραςὑμᾶςκαὶεὐεργέταςτῆςοἰκουμένηςπροσεροῦσινἅπαντες . Chrys. Hom. xxxiv. 1, p. 390. 27. An expansion of the duty of freeness and boldness of speech implied in the last verse. The words may bear two meanings: either (1) that which Chrysostom gives, taking the expressions relatively, ἐπειδὴμόνοιςαὐτοῖςδιελέγετοκαὶἐνμικρᾷγωνίᾳτῆςΠαλαιστίνης , διὰτοῦτοεἶπεν “ ἐντῇσκοτίᾳ ,” καὶ “ εἰςτὸοὖς ,” πρὸςτὴνμετὰταῦταπαῤῥησίανἐσομένην , Hom. xxxiv. 2, p. 390; or (2) as this part of the discourse relates to the future principally, the secret speaking may mean the communication which our Lord would hold with them hereafter by His Spirit, which they were to preach and proclaim. See Acts 4:20. These senses do not exclude one another, and are possibly both implied. There is no need, with Lightfoot and others, to suppose any allusion to a custom in the synagogue, in the words εἰςτὸοὖςἀκούετε . They are a common expression derived from common life: we have it in a wider sense Acts 11:22, and Genesis 50:4. ἐπὶτῶνδ .] On the flat roofs of the houses. Thus we have in Josephus, ἀναβὰςἐπὶτὸτέγοςκαὶτῇδεξιᾷκαταστείλαςτὸνθόρυβοναὐτῶν .… ἔφη … B. J. ii. 21. 5. 28. φοβεῖσθαιἀπό is a Hebraism, י ָ ר ֵ א מ ִ ן . The present indicates the habit. On the latter part of this verse much question has of late been raised, which never was, as far as I have been able to find, known to the older interpreters. Stier designates it as ‘ the only passage of Scripture whose words may equally apply to God and the enemy of souls.’ He himself is strongly in favour of the latter interpretation, and defends it at much length; but I amquite unable to assent to his opinion. It seems to me at variance with the connexion of the discourse, and with the universal tone of Scripture regarding Satan. If such a phrase as φοβεῖσθαιτὸνδιάβολον could be instanced as = φυλάξασθαιτὸνδ ., or if it could be shewn that any where power is attributed to Satan analogous to that indicated by ὁδυνάμενοςκαὶψ . κ . σ . ἀπολέσαιἐνγ ., I should then be open to the doubt whether he might not here be intended; but seeing that φοβεῖσθαιἀπό indicating terror is changed into φοβεῖσθαι so usually followed by τὸνθεόν in a higher and holier sense (there is no such contrast in ver. 26, and therefore that verse cannot be cited as ruling the meaning of this), and that God alone is throughout the Scripture the Almighty dispenser of life and death both temporal and eternal, seeing also that Satan is ever represented as the condemned of God, not ὁδυν . ἀπολ ., I must hold by the general interpretation, and believe that both here and in Luke 12:3-7 our Heavenly Father is intended as the right object of our fear. As to this being inconsistent with the character in which He is brought before us in the next verse, the very change of construction in φοβεῖσθαι would lead the mind on, out of the terror before spoken of, into that better kind of fear always indicated by that expression when applied to God, and so prepare the way for the next verse. Besides, this sense is excellently in keeping with ver. 29 in another way. ‘ Fear Him who is the only Dispenser of Death and Life: of death, as here; of life, as in the case of the sparrows for whom He cares.’ ‘ Fear Him, above men: trust Him, in spite of men.’ In preparing my 2nd edn., I carefully reconsidered the whole matter, and went over Stier’ s arguments with the connexion of the discourse before me, but found myself more than ever persuaded that it is quite impossible, for the above and every reason, to apply the words to the enemy of souls. The similar passage, James 4:12, even in the absence of other considerations, would be decisive. Full as his Epistle is of our Lord’ s words from this Gospel, it is hardly to be doubted that in εἷςἐστινὁνομοθέτηςκαὶκριτής , ὁδυνάμενοςσῶσαικαὶἀπολέσαι , he has this very verse before him. This Stier endeavours to escape, by saying that ἀπολέσαι barely, as the opposite to σῶσαι , is far from being = ψυχὴνἀπολέσαι in a context like this. But as connected with νομοθέτηςκαὶκριτής , what meaning can ἀπολέσαι bear, except that of eternal destruction? The strong things which he says, that his sense will only be doubted as long as men do not search into the depth of the context, &c. do not frighten me. The depth of this part of the discourse I take to be, the setting before Christ’ s messengers their Heavenly Father as the sole object of childlike trust and childlike fear— the former from His love,— the latter from His power,— His power to destroy, it is not said, them, but absolute, body and soul, in hell. Here is the true depth of the discourse: but if in the midst of this great subject, our Lord is to be conceived as turning aside, upholding as an object of fear the chief enemy, whose ministers and subordinates He is at the very moment commanding us not to fear, and speaking of him as ὁδυνάμενοςκ . ψ . κ . σῶ . ἀπολέσαιἐνγεέννῃ , to my mind all true and deep connexion is broken. It is remarkable how Stier, who so eloquently defends the insertion of ὅτισοῦἡδύναμις in the Lord’ s Prayer, can so interpret here. Reichel (whose works I have not seen) seems by a note in Stier, p. 380, to maintain the above view even more strongly than himself. Lange also, in the Leben Jesu, ii. 2, p. 721, maintained this view: but has now, Bibelwerk, i. p. 150, retracted it for reasons the same as those urged here. 29. στρουθία ] any small birds. ἀσσαρίου ] This word, derived from ‘ as,’ was used in Greek and Hebrew to signify the meanest, most insignificant amount: see Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. sub voce. καί , and yet: see examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 147. 6. πεσ . ἐπὶτ . γ .] which birds do when struck violently, or when frozen, wet, or starved = die, ἓνἐξαὐτῶνοὐκἔστινἐπιλελησμένονἐνώπιοντοῦθεοῦ , Luke 12:6. 30. See 1 Samuel 14:45: Luke 21:18: Acts 27:34. The ὑμῶν is emphatic, corresponding to the ὑμεῖς at the end of ver. 31. But the emphatic ὑμεῖς , spoken directly to the Apostles, is generalized immediately by the πᾶςοὖν in ver. 32. 32. ὁμολ . ἐνἐμοί ] A Hebraistic or rather perhaps Syriac mode of expression (De Wette) for, ‘ shall make me the object of His acknowledgment among and before men.’ The context shews plainly that it is a practical consistent confession which is meant, and also a practical and enduring denial. The Lord will not confess the confessing Judas, nor deny the denying Peter; the traitor who denied Him in act is denied: the Apostle who confessed Him even to death will be confessed. Cf. 2 Timothy 2:12. We may observe that both in the Sermon on the Mount (ch. 7:21-23) and here, after mention of the Father, our Lord describes Himself as the Judge and Arbiter of eternal life and death. 34. In Luke 12:51-53 this announcement, as here, is closely connected with the mention of our Lord’ s own sufferings (ver. 38). As He won His way to victory through the contradiction of sinners and strife, so must those who come after Him. The immediate reference is to the divisions in families owing to conversions to Christianity. Ver. 35 is quoted nearly literally from Micah 7:6. When we read in Commentators, e.g. De Wette, that these divisions were not the purpose, but the inevitable results only, of the Lord’ s coming, we must remember that with God, results are all purposed. 36. τοῦἀνθρ .] The article is generic, and is rightly rendered in the E. V. ‘ a man’ s foes,’ &c. See on ch. 9:1. 37. Compare Deuteronomy 33:9, and Exodus 32:26-29, to which passages this verse is a reference. Stier well remarks, that under the words ἄξιόςμου there lies an exceeding great reward which counterbalances all the seeming asperity of this saying. 38. How strange must this prophetic announcement have seemed to the Apostles! It was no Jewish proverb (for crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment), no common saying, which our Lord here and so often utters. See ch. 16:24; Mark 10:21: Luke 9:23. He does not here plainly mention His Cross; but leaves it to be understood, see ver. 25. This is one of those sayings of which John 12:16 was eminently true. Neander (Leben Jesu, p. 546, note) quotes from Plutarch, de sera numinis vindicta, c. ix., καὶτῷμὲνσώματιτῶνκολαζομένωνἕκαστοςκακούργωνἐκφέρειτὸναὑτοῦσταυρόν (meaning, as he explains it, a guilty conscience),— as a proof that our Lord used this saying without any conscious reference to His own Death. But he confesses that if the ὑψοῦν of John 12:32 is to be understood as there interpreted (ver. 33), he should be ready to allow the allusion here also. Seeing then that we do thus understand it, his inference has no value for us. Besides which, the passage of Plutarch does not even prove the expression to have been proverbial. 39. ψυχὴν … αὐτήν refer to the same thing, but in somewhat different senses. The first ψυχή is the life of this world, which we here all count so dear to us; the second, implied in αὐτήν , the real life of man in a blessed eternity. εὑρών = φιλῶν , John 12:25 = σῶσαιθέλων , Mark 8:34. The past participles are used proleptically, with reference to that day when the loss and gain shall become apparent. But εὑρών and ἀπολέσας are again somewhat different in position: the first implying earnest desire to save, but not so the second any will or voluntary act to destroy. This is brought out by the ἕνεκενἐμοῦ , which gives the ruling providential arrangement whereby the ἀπολέσας is brought about. But besides the primary meaning of this saying as regards the laying down of life literally for Christ’ s sake, we cannot fail to recognize in it a far deeper sense, in which he who loses his life shall find it. In Luke 9:23, the taking up of the cross is to be καθ ʼ ἡμέραν ; in ch. 16:24 ║ Mark ἀπαρνησάσθωἑαυτόν is joined with it. Thus we have the crucifying of the life of this world,— the death to sin spoken of Rom 6:4-11, and life unto God. And this life unto God is the real, true ψυχὴαὐτοῦ , which the self-denier shall find, and preserve unto life eternal. See John 12:25 and note. 40. Here in the conclusion of the discourse, the Lord recurs again to His Apostles whom He was sending out. From ver. 32 has been connected with πᾶςὅστις , and therefore general. δέχεται , see ver. 14; but it has here the wider sense of not only receiving to house and board,— but receiving in heart and life the message of which the Apostles were the bearers. On the sense of the verse, see John 20:21, and on τὸνἀποστείλαντάμε , ἐγὼἀποστέλλωὑμᾶς , ver. 16, and Hebrews 3:1. There is a difference between the representation of Christ by His messengers, which at most is only official, and even then broken by personal imperfection and infirmity (see Galatians 2:11; Galatians 4:13, Galatians 4:14),— and the perfect unbroken representation of the Eternal Father by His Blessed Son, John 14:9: Hebrews 1:3. 41. μισθὸνπροφήτου ] οἷονεἰκὸςτὸνπροφήτηνἢδίκαιονδεξάμενονλαβεῖν , ἢοἷονἐκεῖνοςμέλλειλαμβάνειν . Chrysost. Hom. xxxv. 2, p. 401. εἰςὄνομα , a Hebraism : because He is: i.e. ‘ for the love of Christ, whose prophet he is.’ The sense is, ‘ He who by receiving (see above) a prophet because he is a prophet, or a holy man because he is a holy man, recognizes, enters into, these states as appointed by Me, shall receive the blessedness of these states, shall derive all the spiritual benefits which these states bring with them, and share their everlasting reward.’ 42. τῶνμικρῶν ] To whom this applies is not very clear. Hardly (De Wette) to the despised and meanly-esteemed for Christ’ s sake. I should rather imagine some children may have been present; for of such does our Lord generally use this term, see ch. 18:2-6. Though perhaps the expression may be meant of lower and less advanced converts, thus keeping up the gradation from προφήτης . This however hardly seems likely: for how could a disciple be in a downward gradation from δίκαιος I may observe that Meyer denies the existence of the Rabbinical meaning of disciples commonly attributed to ק ט נ י ם , little ones. In the passage from Bereschith Rabba quoted by Wetstein to support it, the word, he maintains, from the context, means parvuli, children, not disciples. τὸνμισθ . αὐτ .] His (i.e. the doer’ s) reward: not, ‘ the reward of one of these little ones,’ as before μισθ . προφ ., μισθ . δικαίου :— the article here makes the difference: and the expression is reflective. 11:1. ἐκεῖθεν ] No fixed locality is assigned to the foregoing discourse. It was not delivered at Capernaum, but on a journey, see ch. 9:35. αὐτῶν is also indeterminate, as in ch. 4:23; 9:35. 2-30. Message of enquiry from the Baptist: our Lord’ s answer, and discourse thereon to the multitude. Luke 7:18-35. There have been several different opinions as to the reason why this enquiry was made. I will state them, and append to them my own view. (1) It has been a very generally received idea that the question was asked for the sake of the disciples themselves, with the sanction of their master, and for the purpose of confronting them, who were doubtful and jealous of our Lord, with the testimony of His own mouth. This view is ably maintained by Chrysostom; τίνοςοὖνἕνεκενἔπεμψενἐρωτῶν ; ἀπεπήδωντοῦἸησοῦοἱἸωάννουμαθηταί · καὶτοῦτοπαντίπουδῆλόνἐστι · καὶζηλοτύπωςἀεὶπρὸςαὐτὸνεἶχον . καὶδῆλονἐξὧνπρὸςτὸνδιδάσκαλονἔλεγον (John 3:26), καὶπάλιν (John 3:25), καὶαὐτῷπάλινπροσελθόντεςἔλεγον (Matthew 9:14),— οὔπωγὰρἦσανεἰδότεςτίςἦνὁχριστός , ἀλλὰτὸνμὲνἸησοῦνἄνθρωπονψιλὸνὑποπτεύοντες , τὸνδὲἸωάννηνμείζοναἢκατὰἄνθρωπον , ἐδάκνοντοεὐδοκιμοῦντατοῦτονὁρῶντες , ἐκεῖνονδέ ,· καθὼςεἶπε , λοιπὸνλήγοντα . Hom. xxxvi. 2, 3, p. 408. And similarly Euthymius and Theophylact. This view is also adopted and eloquently defended by Stier, Reden Jesu, 2nd edn., i. p. 392 sq. The objections to this view are,— that the text evidently treats the question as coming from John himself; the answer is directed to John; and the following discourse is on the character and position of John. These are answered by Stier with a supposition that John allowed the enquiry to be made in his name; but surely our Saviour would not in this case have made the answer as we have it, which clearly implies that the object of the miracles done was John’ s satisfaction. (2) The other great section of opinions on the question is that which supposes doubt to have existed, for some reason or other, in the Baptist’ s own mind. This is upheld by Tertullian (cont. Marc. iv. 18, vol. ii. p. 402, ed. Migne, not iv. 5, as Bp. Wordsworth: nor is there any ambiguity in the main features of his view, as Bp. W. implies) and others, and advocated by De Wette, who thinks that the doubt was not perhaps respecting our Lord’ s mission, but His way of manifesting Himself, which did not agree with the theocratic views of the Baptist. This he considers to be confirmed by ver. 6. Olshausen (in loc.) and Neander (Leben Jesu, p. 92) suppose the ground of the doubt to have lain partly in the Messianic idea of the Baptist, partly in the weakening and bedimming effect of imprisonment on John’ s mind. Lightfoot carries this latter still further, and imagines that the doubt arose from dissatisfaction at not being liberated from prison by some miracle of our Lord. (Hor. Hebr. in loc.) This however is refuted by Schö ttgen (Hor. Hebr. in loc.). The author of the Quæ stiones et Resp. ad Orthodoxos among the works of Justin Martyr suggests, and Benson (Hulsean Lectures for 1820, p. 58 sqq.) takes up, the following solution: ἐπειδὴδιάφοροιφῆμαιπερὶὧνἐποιήσατοθαυμάτωνὁἸησοῦςδιέτρεχον , τῶνμὲνλεγόντων , Ἡλίαςἐστὶνὁταῦταποιῶν · τῶνδέ , Ἱερεμίας · τῶνδέ , ἄλλοςτιςτῶνπροφητῶν · ταύταςτὰςφήμαςἀκούωνὁἸωάννηςἐντῇεἰρκτῇπέμπειτοὺςμαθητὰςαὐτοῦμαθεῖνεἰὁτὰσημεῖαποιῶναὐτόςἐστινὁὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦμαρτυρηθείς , ἢἕτερόςτιςὁπαρὰτῶνπολλῶνθρυλλούμενος . γνοὺςδὲὁἸησοῦςτοῦἸωάννουτὸνσκοπόν , ἐπὶτῆςπαρουσίαςτῶνμαθητῶνἸωάννουἐποίησεπολλὰθαύματα , πείθεναὐτοὺςκαὶτὸνἸωάννηυδι ʼ αὐτῶνὡςαὐτὸςεἴηὁπεποιηκὼςκαὶτὰἐπ ʼ ὀνόματιἑτέρωνφημιζόμεναθαύματα , ὁὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦμαρτυρηθείς . Resp. 38, p. 456. (3) It appears to me that there are objections against each of the above suppositions, too weighty to allow either of them to be entertained. There can be little doubt on the one hand, that our Saviour’ s answer is directed to John, and not to the disciples, who are bonâ fide messengers and nothing more:— πορευθέντεςἀπαγγείλατεἸωάννῃ can, I think, bear no other interpretation: and again the words μακάριόςἐστινὃςἐὰνμὴσκανδαλισθῇἐνἐμοί must equally apply to John in the first place, so that, in some sense, he had been offended at Christ. On the other hand, it is exceedingly difficult to suppose that there can have been in John’ s own mind any real doubt that our Lord was ὁἐρχόμενος , seeing that he himself had borne repeatedly such notable witness to Him, and that under special divine direction and manifestation (see ch. 3:16, 17: John 1:26-37). The idea of his objective faith being shaken by his imprisonment is quite inconsistent not only with John’ s character, but with our Lord’ s discourse in this place, whose description of him seems almost framed to guard against such a supposition. The last hypothesis (that of the Pseudo-Justin) is hardly probable, in the form in which it is put. We can scarcely imagine that John can have doubted who this Person was, or have been confounded by the discordant rumours which reached him about His wonderful works. But that one form of this hypothesis is the right one, I am certainly disposed to believe, until some more convincing considerations shall induce me to alter my view. (4) The form to which I allude is this: John having heard all these reports, being himself fully convinced Who this Wonderworker was, was becoming impatient under the slow and unostentatious course of our Lord’ s self-manifestation, and desired to obtain from our Lord’ s own mouth a declaration which should set such rumours at rest, and (possibly) which might serve for a public profession of His Messiahship, from which hitherto He had seemed to shrink. He thus incurs a share of the same rebuke which the mother of our Lord received (John 2:4); and the purport of the answer returned to him is, that the hour was not yet come for such an open declaration, but that there were sufficient proofs given by the works done, to render all inexcusable, who should be offended in Him, And the return message is so far from being a satisfaction designed for the disciples, that they are sent back like the messenger from Gabii to Sextus Tarquinius, with indeed a significant narrative to relate, but no direct answer; they were but the intermediate transmitters of the symbolic message, known to Him who sent it, and him who received it. It is a fact not to be neglected in connexion with this solution of the difficulty, that John is said to have heard of the works, not τοῦἸησοῦ , but τοῦχριστοῦ : the only place where that name, standing alone, is given to our Lord in this Gospel. So that it would seem as if the Evangelist had purposely avoided saying τοῦἸησοῦ , to shew that the works were reported to John not as those of the Person whom he had known as Jesus, but of the Deliverer— the Christ; and that he was thus led to desire a distinct avowal of the identity of the two. I have before said that the opening part of the ensuing discourse seems to nave been designed to prevent, in the minds of the multitude, any such unworthy estimations of John as those above cited. The message and the answer might well beget such suspicions, and could not from the nature of the case be explained to them in that deeper meaning which they really bore; but the character of John here given would effectually prevent them, after hearing it, from entertaining any such idea. 2. ἀκούσας ] From his own disciples, Luke 7:18. The place of his imprisonment was Machæ rus. ὁμὲνὑποψίᾳτοῦἩρώδουδέσμιοςεἰςτὸνΜαχαιροῦνταπεμφθείς , … .… ταύτῃκτίννυται . Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 2. 4. ἐνἐκείνῃτῇὥρᾳἐθεράπευσενπολλοὺςἀπὸνόσωνκαὶμαστίγωνκαὶπνευμάτωνπονηρῶν , καὶτυφλοῖςπολλοῖςἐχαρίσατοβλέπειν . Luke, ver. 21. From καὶἀποκριθεὶς … ἐνἐμοί , is nearly verbatim in the two Gospels. 5. The words νεκροὶἐγ . have raised some difficulty; but surely without reason. In Luke, the raising of the widow’ s son at Nain immediately precedes this message; and in this Gospel we have had the ruler’ s daughter raised. These miracles might be referred to by our Lord under the words νεκ . ἐγ .; for it is to be observed that He bade them tell John not only what things they saw, but what things they had heard, as in Luke. It must not be forgotten that the words here used by our Lord have an inner and spiritual sense, as betokening the blessings and miracles of divine grace on the souls of men, of which His outward and visible miracles were symbolical. The words are mostly cited from Isaiah 35:5, where the same spiritual meaning is conveyed by them. They are quoted here, as the words of Isa_53 are by the Evangelist in ch. 8:17, as applicable to their partial external fulfilment, which however, like themselves, pointed onward to their greater spiritual completion. εὐαγγελίζονται is passive,— see reff. and 2 Kings 18:31 in the LXX. In ref. Luke it is also passive, but with the thing preached as its subject. Stier remarks the coupling of these miracles together, and observes that with νεκ . ἐγ . is united πτωχοὶεὐαγγελίζονται , as being a thing hitherto unheard of and strange, and an especial fulfilment of Isa 61:1. 6. See note on ver. 2. 7-30. The discourse divides itself into two parts: (1) vv. 7-19, the respective characters and mutual relations of John and Christ: (2) vv. 20-30, the condemnation of the unbelief of the time— ending with the gracious invitation to all the weary and heavy laden to come to Him, as truly ὁἐρχόμενος . 7. The following verses set forth to the people the real character and position of John; identifying him who cried in the wilderness with him who now spoke from his prison, and assuring them that there was the same dignity of office and mission throughout. They are not spoken till after the departure of the disciples of John, probably because they were not meant for them or John to hear, but for the people, who on account of the question which they had heard might go away with a mistaken depreciation of John. ὁπολὺςὄχλοςἐκτῆςἐρωτήσεωςτῶνἸωάννουμαθητῶνπολλὰἂνἄτοπαὑπενόησενοὐκεἰδὼςτὴνγνώμηνμεθ ʼ ἧςἔπεμψετοὺςμαθητάς . καὶεἰκὸςἦνδιαλογίζεσθαιπρὸςἑαυτοὺςκαὶλέγεινὉτοσαῦταμαρτυρήσαςμετεπείσθηνῦν , καὶἀμφιβάλλειεἴτεοὗτοςεἴτεἕτεροςεἴηὁἐρχόμενος ; ἆραμὴστασιάζωνπρὸςτὸνἸησοῦνταῦταλέγει ; ἆραμὴδειλότεροςὑπὸτοῦδεσμωτηρίουγενόμενος ; ἆραμὴμάτηνκαὶεἰκῆτὰπρότεραεἴρηκεν ; ἐπεὶοὖνπολλὰτοιαῦταεἰκὸςἦναὐτοὺςὑποπτεύειν , ὅραπῶςαὐτῶνδιορθοῦταιτὴνἀσθένειαν , καὶταύταςἀναιρεῖτὰςὑποψίας . Chrysostom, Hom. xxxvii. 1, p. 414. And our Lord, as usual, takes occasion, from reminding them of the impression made on them by John’ s preaching of repentance, to set forth to them deep truths regarding His own Kingdom and Office. 8. ἀλλά ] If it was not that, … ; so in Demosth. Coron. p. 233, τίγὰρκαὶβουλόμενοιμετεπέμπεσθ ʼ ἂναὐτούς ; ἐπὶτὴνεἰρήνην ; ἀλλ ʼ ὑπῆρχενἅπασιν . ἀλλ ʼ ἐπὶτὸνπόλεμον : see Klotz, Devar. p. 5. τίἐξήλθατε ] The repetition of this question, and the order of the suggestive answers, are remarkable. The first sets before them the scene of their desert pilgrimage— the banks of Jordan with its reeds ;— but no such trifles were the object of the journey: this suggestion is rejected without an answer. The second reminds them that it was a man— but not one in soft clothing, for such are not found in deserts. The third brings before them the real object of their pilgrimage in his holy office, and even amplifies that office itself. So that the great Forerunner is made to rise gradually and sublimely into his personality, and thus his preaching of repentance is revived in their minds. ἐνμαλακοῖς ] Contrast this with the garb of John as described ch. 3:4. Such an one, in soft raiment, might be the forerunner of a proud earthly prince, but not the preacher of repentance before a humble and suffering Saviour; might be found as the courtly flatterer in the palaces of kings, but not as the stern rebuker of tyrants, languishing in their fortress dungeons. 9. προφήτην ] We read, ch. 21:26, that ‘ all accounted John as a prophet.’ περισσότερον is neuter (as always in N.T.), not masculine; as πλεῖον , ch. 12:41, 42. E. V. rightly, more than a prophet. John was more than a prophet, because he did not write of, but saw and pointed out, the object of his prophecy;— and because of his proximity to the Kingdom of God. He was moreover more than a prophet, because he himself was the subject as well as the vehicle of prophecy. But with deep humility, he applies to himself only that one, of two such prophetic passages, which describes him as φωνὴβοῶντος , and omits the one which gives him the title of ὁἄγγελόςμου , here cited by our Lord. 10. σου ] Our Lord here changes the person of the original prophecy, which is μου . And that He does so, making that which is said by Jehovah of Himself, to be addressed to the Messiah, is, if such were needed (compare also Luke 1:16, Luke 1:17, and 76), no mean indication of His own eternal and co-equal Godhead. It is worthy of remark that all three Evangelists quote this prophecy similarly changed, although St. Mark has it in an entirely different place. The student should compare the passage in the LXX with the three citations,— h. l., Mark 1:2, and Luke 7:27. Also, that the high dignity and honour which our Lord here predicates of the Baptist, has a further reference: He was thus great above all others, because he was the forerunner of Christ. How great then above all others and him, must HE be. 11. ἐγήγερται ] Not merely a word of course, but especially used of prophets and judges, see reff., and once of our Saviour Himself, Acts 5:30. γεννητοῖς is most likely masculine. See reff. ὁδὲμικρότερος ] This has been variously rendered and understood. Chrysostom’ s interpretation is as follows:— “ ὁδὲμικρότερος , ἐντῇβασιλείᾳτῶνοὐρανῶνμείζωναὐτοῦἐστι .” μικρότερος , κατὰτὴνἡλικίανκαὶκατὰτὴντῶνπολλῶνδόξαν , καὶγὰρἔλεγοναὐτὸνφάγονκαὶοἰνοπότην · καὶ “ οὐχοὗτόςἐστινὁτοῦτέκτονοςυἱός ;” καὶπανταχοῦαὐτὸνἐξηυτέλιζον . Hom. xxxvii. 2, p. 416. And a little afterwards:— περὶἑαυτοῦλέγωνεἰκότωςκρύπτειτὸπρόσωπονδιὰτὴνἔτικρατοῦσανὑπόνοιανκαὶτὸμὴδόξαιπερὶἑαυτοῦμέγατιλέγειν · καὶγὰρπολλαχοῦφαίνεταιτοῦτοποιῶν . τίδέἐστιν “ ἐντῇβασιλείᾳτῶνοὐρανῶν ;” ἐντοῖςπνευματικοῖςκαὶτοῖςκατὰτὸνοὐρανὸνἅπασι . καὶτὸεἰπεῖνδὲ “ οὐκἐγήγερταιἐνγεννητοῖςγυναικῶνμείζωνἸωάννου ” ἀντιδιαστέλλοντοςἦνἑαυτῷτὸνἸωάννην , καὶοὕτωςἑαυτὸνὑπεξαιροῦντος . εἰγὰρκαὶγεννητὸςγυναικὸςἦναὐτός , ἀλλ ʼ οὐχοὕτωςὡςἸωάννης · οὐγὰρψιλὸςἄνθρωποςἦν , οὐδὲὁμοίωςἀνθρώπῳἐτέχθη , ἀλλὰξένοντινὰτρόπονκαὶπαράδοξον , ib. 2, 3, p. 417. So also Euthymius and Theophylact: but such an interpretation is surely adverse to the spirit of the whole discourse. We may certainly say that our Lord in such a passage as this would not designate Himself as ὁμικρότερος compared with John, in any sense: nor again is it our Lord’ s practice to speak of Himself as one ἐντῇβασιλείᾳτῶνοὐρανῶν , or of His own attributes as belonging to or dependent on that new order of things which this expression implies, and which was in Him rather than He in it. Besides, the bare use of the comparative ὁμικρότερος , with its reference left to be inferred, is, unless I am mistaken, unprecedented. If this had been the meaning, we should surely have had αὐτοῦ after μικρότερος . Again, the analogy of such passages as Matthew 5:19; Matthew 18:1, would lead us to connect the preceding adjective μικρότερος with ἐντῇβ . τ . οὐ ., and not the following. The other, the usual interpretation, I am convinced, is the right one: but he that is least in the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he. The comparative with the article is not put for the superlative, although in English we are obliged to render it so, but signifies ‘ he that is less than all the rest’ (Winer, § 35. 4); and here is generic, of all the inferior ones. There is very likely an allusion to Zechariah 12:8: “ He that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David.” Thus the parallelism is complete: John, not inferior to any born of women— but these, even the least of them, are born of another birth (John 1:12, John 1:13; John 3:5). John, the nearest to the King and the Kingdom— standing on the threshold— but never having himself entered; these, ἐντῇβασιλείᾳ , subjects and citizens and indwellers of the realm, ὧντὸπολίτευμαἐνοὐρανοῖς . He, the friend of the Bridegroom; they, however weak and unworthy members, His Body, and His Spouse. Meyer, giving in substance the above interpretation, believes that αὐτοῦ , i.e. Ἰωάν . τοῦβ ., is to be supplied after μικρότερος . This would be unobjectionable in sense, but is it, in usage? See reff., and remember that ἐντ . βασ .… is equivalent in meaning to τῶνἐντ . βασιλείᾳ . Maldonatus (cited by Meyer) quotes the logical axiom, ‘ minimum maximi est majus maximo minimi.’ 12. The sense of this verse has been much disputed. (1) βιάζεται has been taken in a middle sense; ‘ forcibly introduces itself,’ ‘ breaks in with violence,’ as in the similar passage Luke 16:16, πᾶςεἰςαὐτὴνβιάζεται . Certainly such a sense agrees better with εὐαγγελίζεται , which we find in Luke, than the passive explanation of βιάζεται : but it seems inconsistent with the latter half of the verse to say that it breaks in by force, and then that others break by force into it. (2) βιάζεται is taken passively; so πόλεις … τὰςβεβιασμένας , Xen. Hell. v. 2. 15 (Meyer;— which is however, like many of his citations, incorrect): ‘ suffereth violence,’ E. V. And thus the construction of the verse is consistent: ‘ and the violent take it by force.’ Believing this latter interpretation to be right, we now come to the question, in what sense are these words spoken? Is βιάζεται in a good or a bad sense? Does it mean, ‘ is taken by force,’ and the following, ‘ and men violently press in for their share of it, as for plunder;’ — or does it mean, ‘ is violently resisted, and violent men (viz. its opponents, the Scribes and Pharisees) tear it to pieces?’ This latter meaning bears no sense as connected with the discourse before us. The subject is not the resistance made to the kingdom of heaven, but the difference between a prophesied and a present kingdom of heaven. The fifteenth verse closes this subject, and the complaints of the arbitrary prejudices of ‘ this generation’ begin with ver. 16. We conclude then that these words imply From the days of John the Baptist until now (i.e. inclusively, from the beginning of his preaching), the kingdom of heaven is pressed into, and violent persons— eager, ardent multitudes— seize on it. Of the truth of this, notwithstanding our Lord’ s subsequent reproaches for unbelief, we have abundant proof from the multitudes who followed, and outwent Him, and thronged the doors where He was, and would (John 6:15) take Him by force (the very word ἁρπάζω being used) to make Him a king. But our Lord does not mention this so much to commend the βιασταί , as to shew the undoubted fact that ὁἐρχόμενος was come:— that the kingdom of heaven, which before had been the subject of distant prophecy, a closed fortress, a treasure hid, was now undoubtedly upon earth (Luke 17:21 and note), laid open to the entrance of men, spread out that all might take. Thus this verse connects with ver. 28, δεῦτεπρόςμεπάντες , and with Luke 16:16, πᾶςεἰςαὐτὴνβιάζεται . Compare also with this throwing open of the kingdom of heaven for all to press into, the stern prohibition in Exodus 19:12, Exodus 19:13, and the comment on it in Hebrews 12:18-24. 13, 14. The whole body of testimony as yet has been prophetic,— the Law and Prophets, from the first till Zacharias the priest and Simeon and Anna prophesied; and according to the declaration of prophecy itself, John, in the spirit and power of Elias, was the forerunner of the great subject of all prophecy. Neither this— nor the testimony of our Lord, ch. 17:12— is inconsistent with John’ s own denial that he was Elias, John 1:21. For (1) the question there was evidently asked as assuming a re-appearance of the actual Elias upon earth: and (2) our Lord cannot be understood in either of these passages as meaning that the prophecy of Mal 4:5 received its full completion in John. For as in other prophecies, so in this, we have a partial fulfilment both of the coming of the Lord and of His forerunner, while the great and complete fulfilment is yet future— at the great day of the Lord. Malachi 4:1. ὁμέλλωνἔρχεσθαι here may not be = ὃςἔμελλενἔρχεσθαι , but is perhaps strictly future, who shall come. Compare ch. 17:11, where the future is used. The εἰθέλετεδέξασθαι must be taken as referring to the partial sense of the fulfilment implied: for it was (and is to this day) the belief of the Jews that Elias in person should come before the end. 15. These words are generally used by our Lord when there is a further and deeper meaning in His words than is expressed: as here— ‘ if John the Baptist is Elias, and Elias is the forerunner of the coming of the Lord, then know surely that the Lord is come.’ 16. δέ ] Implying ‘ the men of this generation have ears, and hear not; will not receive this saying; are arbitrary, childish, and prejudiced, not knowing their own mind.’ τίνιὁμοιώσω ;] See similar questions in Mark 4:30: Luke 13:18, Luke 13:20; and note on ch. 7:24. ὁμοίαἐστὶνπαιδίοις : as children in their games imitate the business and realities of life, so these in the great realities now before them shew all the waywardness of children. The similitude is to two bodies of children, the one inviting the other to play, first at the imitation of a wedding, secondly at that of a funeral;— to neither of which will the others respond. Stier remarks that the great condescension of the preaching of the Gospel is shewn forth in this parable, where the man sent from God, and the eternal Word Himself, are represented as children among children, speaking the language of their sports. Compare Hebrews 2:14. It must not be supposed that the two bodies of children are two divisions of the Jews, as some (e.g. Olsh.) have done: the children who call are the Jews, those called to, the two Preachers; both belonging, according to the flesh, to ἡγενεὰαὕτη ,— but neither of them corresponding to the kind of mourning (in John’ s case) with which the Jews would have them mourn, or the kind of joy (in the Lord’ s case) with which the Jews would have them rejoice. The converse application, which is commonly made, is against the ὁμοίαἐστὶνπαιδίοις , by which the first παιδία must be the children of this generation; and nothing can be more perplexed than to render ὁμοίαἐστίν ‘ may be illustrated by,’ and invert the persons in the parable. Besides which, this interpretation would lay the waywardness to the charge of the Preachers, not to that of the Jews. 18. μήτεἐσθ . μήτεπίν .] Luke 7:33 fills up this expression by inserting ἄρτον and οἶνον . See ch. 3:4. The neglect of John’ s preaching, and rejection of his message, is implied in several places of the Gospels : but hence only do we learn that they brought against him the same charge which they afterwards tried against our Lord. See John 7:20; John 10:20. 19. ἐσθίωνκαὶπίνων ] Alluding to our Lord’ s practice of frequenting entertainments and feasts, e.g. the marriage at Cana, the feast in Levi’ s house, &c. See also ch. 9:14. καί = and yet; see John 16:32. ἡσοφία , the divine wisdom which hath ordered these things. ἐδικ . was justified— the same tense as ἦλθεν both times— refers to the event, q. d., ‘ they were events in which wisdom was justified, &c.’ The force of the aorist is not to be lost by giving a present meaning to either of the verbs. The meaning seems to be, that the waywardness above described was not universal, but that the τέκνασοφίας (in allusion probably to the Book of Proverbs, which constantly uses similar expressions: see ch. 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; 4:1, &c.) were led to receive and justify (= clear of imputation) the Wisdom of God, who did these things. Cf. Luke 7:29, where in this same narrative it is said, οἱτελῶναιἐδικαίωσαντὸνθεόν , βαπτισθέντεςτὸβάπτισμαἸωάννου . The τέκνασοφίας are opposed to the wayward παιδία above, the childlike to the childish; and thus this verse serves as an introduction to the saying in ver. 25. Chrysostom understands the verse differently: τουτέστιν , εἰκαὶὑμεῖςοὐκἐπείσθητε , ἀλλ ʼ ἐμοὶλοιπὸνἐγκαλεῖνοὐκἔχετε . Thus ὑμεῖς = τὰτέκνατῆςσοφ ., as being the people of the Lord; and ἡσοφία is our Lord Himself. This seems far-fetched, and not so consistent with the context as the other interpretation. ἀπό (reff.), not exactly equivalent to ὑπό , but implying ‘ at the hands of’ the person whence the justification comes. 20-30. Second part of the discourse. See on ver. 7. 20. τότεἤρξατο ] This expression betokens a change of subject, but not of locality or time. The whole chapter stands in such close connexion, one part arising out of another (e.g. this out of ver. 16-19), and all pervaded by the same great undertone, which sounds forth in vv. 28-30, that it is quite impossible that this should be a collection of our Lord’ s sayings uttered at different times. I would rather regard the τότεἤρξατο as a token of the report of an ear-witness, and as pointing to a pause or change of manner on the part of our Lord. See note on Luke 10:13. ὅτιοὐμετ .] Connect this with the first subject of our Lord’ s preaching, ch. 4:17. The reference is to some unrecorded miracles, of which we know (Luke 4:23: John 21:25) that there were many. 21. Χοραζείν ] According to Jerome (cited by Winer, Realwö rterbuch) a town of Galilee, two (according to Eusebius twelve, but most likely an error in the transcription) miles from Capernaum. It is no where mentioned except here and in the similar place of Luke. The etymology is uncertain. Some would read χώραζίν . Βηθσαϊδάν ] Called πόλις John 1:45,— κώμη Mark 8:23,— in Galilee John 12:21;— on the western bank of the lake of Gennesaret, near the middle, not far from Capernaum; the birth-place of Simon Peter, Andrew, and Philip. Both this and Chorazin appear to be put as examples of the lesser towns in which our Lord had wrought His miracles (the κωμοπόλεις of Mark 1:38), as distinguished from Capernaum, the chief town (ver. 23) of the neighbourhood. Τύρῳκ . Σιδῶνι ] These wealthy cities, so often the subject of prophecy, had been chastised by God’ s judgment under Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander, but still existed (Acts 12:20; Acts 21:3, Acts 21:7; Acts 27:3). ἐνσάκ . κ . σποδῷμετ . is probably an allusion to Jonah 3:6, or to general Eastern custom. 23. The sense has been variously interpreted. Some suppose it to allude to the distinguished honour conferred on Capernaum by our Lord’ s residence there. So Euthymius: ἡΚαπερναοὺμἔνδοξοςγέγονεδιὰτὸκατοικεῖνἐναὐτῇτὸνχριστὸνκαὶτὰπολλὰτῶνθαυμάτωνἐναὐτῇτελέσαι . Others (as Grotius) to the rich fisheries carried on at Capernaum, by means of which the town was proud and prosperous. Jerome says, ‘ Ideo ad inferna descendes, quia contra præ dicationem meam superbissime restitisti.’ He also mentions the first interpretation. Others, as Stier (Reden Jesu, i. 491), refer the expression to the lofty situation of Capernaum, which however is very uncertain. The first interpretation appears to me the most probable, seeing that our Lord chose that place to be the principal scene of His ministry and residence, ἡἰδίαπόλις ch. 9:1. The very sites of these three places are now matter of dispute among travellers. See Robinson, vol. iii. pp. 283-300. Dr. Thomson, “ The Land and the Book,” p. 359, was sure he found Chorazin in the ruins bearing the name Khorazy, lying in a side valley of the Wady Nashif, which runs down to the lake on the East of Tell Hû m (Capernaum). And this, in spite of Dr. Robinson’ s rejection of the identification. ἐνΣοδόμοις ] The comparison between sinful Israel and Sodom is common in the O.T. See Deuteronomy 32:32: Isaiah 1:10: Lamentations 4:6: Ezekiel 16:46-57. ἔμεινενἄν ] This declaration of the Lord of all events, opens to us an important truth, that the destruction of Sodom was brought about, not by a necessity in the divine purposes— still less by a connexion of natural causes— but by the iniquity of its inhabitants, who, had they turned and repented, might have averted their doom. The same is strikingly set before us in the history of Jonah’ s preaching at Nineveh. 24, and 22. These verses are connected with those respectively preceding them thus:— ‘ If these mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon— in Sodom— they would have, &c.; but, since no such opportunity was afforded them, and ye, Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum, have had and rejected such, it shall be more tolerable, &c.’ And as to the saying of our Lord, ‘ If more warnings had been given they would have repented,’ — it is not for the infidel to say, ‘ Why then were not more given?’ — because every act of God for the rescue of a sinner from his doom is purely and entirely of free and undeserved grace, and the proportion of such means of escape dealt out to men is ruled by the counsel of His will who is holy, just, and true, and willeth not the death of the sinner; but whose ways are past our finding out. We know enough when we know that all are inexcusable, having (see Romans 1:2 Romans 1:2 Romans 1:2.) the witness of God in their consciences; and our only feeling should be overflowing thankfulness, when we find ourselves in possession of the light of the glorious Gospel, of which so many are deprived. That the reference here is to the last great day of judgment is evident, by the whole being spoken of in the future. Had our Lord been speaking of the outward judgment on the rebellious cities, the future might have been used of them, but could not of Sodom, which was already destroyed. This ἀνεκτότερονἔσται is one of those mysterious hints at the future dealings of God, into which we can penetrate no further than the actual words of our Lord reveal, nor say to what difference exactly they point in the relative states of those who are compared. See also Luke 12:47, Luke 12:48. 25, 26. This is certainly a continuation of the foregoing discourse; and the ἀποκριθείς , which seems to have nothing to refer to, does in reality refer to the words which have immediately preceded. The ἐνἐκείνῳτῷκ . is not chronological, but gives additional solemnity to what follows. There may have been a slight break in the discourse; the older interpreters, and Meyer, insert the return of the Apostles; but I do not see any necessity for it. The whole ascription of praise is an answer: an answer to the mysterious dispensations of God’ s Providence above recounted. With regard to the arrangement in Luke, see note on Luke 10:21. ἐξομολογοῦμαι ] Not merely, ‘ I praise Thee,’ but ‘ I confess to Thee,’ ‘ I recognize the justice of Thy doings;’ viz. in the words ναὶὁπατὴρὅτικ .τ .λ . Stier remarks that this is the first public mention by our Lord of His Father; the words in ch. 10:32, 33 having been addressed to the twelve (but see John 2:16). We have two more instances of such a public address to His Father, John 11:41; John 12:28; and again Luke 23:34. It is to be observed that He does not address the Father as His Lord, but as Lord of heaven and earth; as ὁτὰπάνταἐνεργῶνκατὰτὴνβουλὴντοῦθελήματοςαὐτοῦ , Ephesians 1:11. ἔκρυψας .… ἀπεκάλυψας ] didst hide, and didst reveal in the deeper and spiritual sense of the words; the time pointed at being that in the far past, when the divine decrees as to such hiding and revealing were purposed. See 1 Corinthians 2:9-12. ταῦτα , these mysterious arrangements, by which the sinner is condemned in his pride and unbelief, the humble and childlike saved, and God justified when He saves and condemns. These are ‘ revealed’ to those who can in a simple and teachable spirit, as νήπιοι , obey the invitation in vv. 28-30, but ‘ hidden’ from the wise and clever of this world, who attempt their solution by the inadequate instrumentality of the mere human understanding. See 1 Corinthians 1:26-31. 27. In two other places only in the three first Gospels (besides the similar passage, Luke 10:22) does the expression ὁυἱός occur: see reff. The spirit of this verse, and its form of expression, are quite those of the Gospel of John; and it serves to form a link of union between the three synoptic Gospels and the fourth, and to point to the vast and weighty mass of discourses of the Lord which are not related except by John. We may also observe another point of union:— this very truth (John 3:35) had been part of the testimony borne to Jesus by the Baptist— and its repetition here, in a discourse of which the character and office of the Baptist is the suggestive groundwork, is a coincidence not surely without meaning. The verse itself is in the closest connexion with the preceding and following, and is best to be understood in that connexion: πάνταμοιπαρεδόθηἀπεκάλυψαςαὐτά in ver. 25 (on the tenses, see note above, ver. 25), only ἀπεκάλυψας could not be used of the Eternal Son, but παρεδόθη , for He is Himself the Revealer;— οὐδεὶςἐπιγ . τ . υἱὸν … , none but the Almighty Father has full entire possession of the mystery of the Person and Office of the Son: it is a depth hidden from all being but His, Whose Purposes are evolved in and by it:— οὐδὲτ . πατέρα .… nor does any fully apprehend, in the depths of his being, the love and grace of the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son, by the Eternal Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, will reveal Him. See Colossians 2:2. Some (from ver. 25) understand the Father as the Revealer here also; and undoubtedly He is so, but mediately through the Son. See John 6:45, John 6:46. Then in close connexion with the ᾧἐὰνβούληται , which by itself might seem to bring in an arbitrariness into the divine counsel, follows, by the eternal Son Himself, the δεῦτεπρόςμεπάντες , the wonderful and merciful generalization of the call to wisdom unto salvation. In Luke this verse is introduced by καὶστραφεὶςπρὸςτοὺςμαθητὰςεἶπεν . The words however are of doubtful genuineness: see there. 28. This is the great and final answer to the question σὺεἶὁἐρχόμενος , ἢἕτερονπροσδοκῶμεν ; … δεῦτεπρόςμεπάντες . As before, we may observe the closest connexion between this and the preceding. As the Son is the great Revealer, and as the ᾧἐὰνβούληται is by His grace extended to all the weary— all who feel their need— so He here invites them to receive this revelation, μάθετεἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ . But the way to this heavenly wisdom is by quietness and confidence, rest unto the soul, the reception of the divine grace for the pardon of sin, and the breaking of the yoke of the corruption of our nature. No mere man could have spoken these words. They are parallel with the command in Isaiah 45:22, which is spoken by Jehovah Himself. κοπιῶντεςκαὶπεφορτισμένοι , the active and passive sides of human misery, the labouring and the burdened, are invited. Doubtless, outward and bodily misery is not shut out; but the promise, ἀνάπαυσιςταῖςψυχαῖς , is only a spiritual promise. Our Lord does not promise to those who come to Him freedom from toil or burden, but rest in the soul, which shall make all yokes easy, and all burdens light. The main invitation however is to those burdened with the yoke of sin, and of the law, which was added because of sin. All who feel that burden are invited. 29. μάθετεἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ , both ‘ from My example,’ which however is the lower sense of the words, and ‘ from My teaching,’ from which alone the ἀνάπαυσις can flow; the ἀποκάλυψις of vv. 25 and 27. εὑρήσετεἀνάπ . τ . ψ . ὑμ . quoted from Jeremiah 6:16 Heb. Thus we have it revealed here, that the rest and joy of the Christian soul is, to become like Christ; to attain by His teaching this πραότης and ταπεινότης of His. Olshausen makes an excellent distinction between ταπεινὸςτῇκαρδίᾳ , an attribute of divine Love in the Saviour, and ταπεινὸς or πτωχὸςτῷπνεύματι , ch. 5:3: Proverbs 29:23, which can only be said of sinful man, knowing his unworthiness and need of help. καρδία is only here used of Christ. (Stier on John 14:1.) 30. χρηστός , easy, ‘ not exacting;’ answering to ‘ kind,’ spoken of persons, Luke 6:35. See 1 John 5:3. Owing to the conflict with evil ever incident to our corrupt nature even under grace, the ἀνάπαυσις which Christ gives is yet to be viewed as a yoke and a burden, seen on this its painful side, of conflict and sorrow: but it is a light yoke; the inner rest in the soul giving a peace which passeth understanding, and bearing it up against all. See 2 Corinthians 4:16. 12:1-8. The disciples pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath. Our Lord’ s answer to the Pharisees thereon. Mark 2:23-28. Luke 6:1-5. In Mark and Luke this incident occurs after the discourse on fasting related Matthew 9:14 sq.; but in the former without any definite mark of time: St. Mark has ἐγένετοπαραπορεύεσθαιαὐτὸνἐντοῖςσάββασινκ .τ .λ .: St. Luke ἐγέν . δὲἐνσαββάτῳ [δευτεροπρώτῳ ] κ .τ .λ ., on which see note there. The expression ἐνἐκείνῳτῷκαιρῷ is, I conceive, a more definite mark of connexion than we find in the other Gospels, but cannot here be fixed to the meaning which it clearly has in ch. 11:25, where the context determines it. We can merely say that it seems to have occurred about the same time as the last thing mentioned— in the same journey or season. The plucking the ears was allowed Deuteronomy 23:25, but in the Talmud expressly forbidden on the Sabbath. (Lightfoot in loc.) It was also (Leviticus 23:14, apparently, but this is by no means certain: see note on Luke) forbidden until the sheaf of first-fruits had been presented to God, which was done on the second day of the feast of unleavened bread at the Passover. This incident, on that supposition, must have occurred between that day and the harvest. It is generally supposed to have been on the first Sabbath after the Passover. For a fuller discussion of the time and place, see note on Luke as before. 3. It appears from 1 Samuel 21:6, that hot bread had been put in on the day of David’ s arrival; which therefore, Leviticus 24:8, was a sabbath. The example was thus doubly appropriate. Bengel maintains, on the commonly received interpretation of σάβ . δευτερόπρωτον Luke 6:1, that 1Sa_21 was the lesson for the day. But the Jewish calendar of lessons cannot be shewn to have existed in the form which we now have, in the time of the Gospel history. 4. εἰμή , in the construction, is not for ἀλλά , but belongs to οὐκἐξὸνἦν , and retains its proper meaning of except. 5. The priests were ordered to offer double offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9, Numbers 28:10), and to place fresh (hot, and therefore baked that day) shewbread. In performing these commands they must commit many of what the Pharisees would call profanations of the Sabbath. So that, as Stier (2:4), not only does the sacred history furnish examples of exception to the law of the Sabbath from necessity, but the Law itself ordains work to be done on the Sabbath as a duty. 6. μεῖζον seems the better supported reading, and sustains the parallel better: a greater thing than the temple is here. See John 2:19. The inference is, ‘ If the priests in the temple and for the temple’ s sake, for its service and ritual, profane the Sabbath, as ye account profanation, and are blameless, how much more these disciples who have grown hungry in their appointed following of Him who is greater than the temple, the true Temple of God on earth, the Son of Man!’ I cannot agree with Stier that the neuter would represent only “ something greater, more weighty than the temple,— namely, merciful consideration of the hungry, or the like:” it seems to me, as above, to bear a more general and sublime sense than the masculine; see ver. 41, &c. 7. The law of this new Temple-service is the law of charity and love:— mercy and not sacrifice, see ch. 9:13:— all for man’ s sake and man’ s good;— and if their hearts had been ready to receive our Lord, and to take on them this service, they would not have condemned the guiltless. 8. On the important verse preceding this in Mark 2:27, see note there. The sense of it must here be supplied to complete the inference. Since the Sabbath was an ordinance instituted for the use and benefit of man,— the Son of Man, who has taken upon Him full and complete Manhood, the great representative and Head of humanity, has this institution under his own power. See this teaching of the Lord illustrated and expanded in apostolic practice and injunctions, Romans 14:4, Romans 14:5, Romans 14:17: Colossians 2:16, Colossians 2:17. 9-14. Healing of the withered hand. Mark 3:1-6. Luke 6:6-11. 9. μεταβὰςἐκεῖθεν ] This change of place is believed by Greswell to have been a journey back to Galilee after the Passover. (Diss. viii. vol. ii.) It is true that no such change is implied in Mark and Luke; but the words here point to a journey undertaken, as in ch. 11:1; 15:29, the only other places in this Gospel where the expression occurs. In John 7:3, the cognate expression μετάβηθιἐντεῦθεν is used of a journey from Galilee to Judæ a. So that certainly it is not implied here (as Meyer, ., suppose) that the incident took place on the same day as the previous one. We know from Luk_6 that it was on another (the next?) sabbath. αὐτῶν , not, of the Pharisees; but of the Jews generally, of the people of the place. 10. This narrative is found in Mark and Luke with considerable variation in details from our text, those two Evangelists agreeing however with one another. In both these accounts, they (the Scribes and Pharisees, Luke) were watching our Lord to see whether He would heal on the Sabbath:— and He (knowing their thoughts, Luke) ordered the man to stand forth in the midst, and asked them the question here given. The question about the animal does not occur in either of them, but in Luke 14:5, on a similar occasion. The additional particulars given are very interesting. By Luke,— it was the right hand; by Mark,— our Lord looked round on them μετ ʼ ὀργῆς , συνλυπούμενοςἐπὶτῇπωρώσειτῆςκαρδίαςαὐτῶν :— and the Herodians were joined with the Pharisees in their counsel against Him. See notes on Luke. ξηράν = ἐξηραμμένην Mark, of which the use had been lost and the vital powers withered. 11. The construction of this verse is involved: there is a double question, as in ch. 7:9. Our Lord evidently asks this as being a thing allowed and done at the time when He spoke: but subsequently (perhaps, suggests Stier, on account of these words of Christ), it was forbidden in the Gemara; and it was only permitted to lay planks for the beast to come out. 13. Our Lord does no outward act: the healing is performed without even a word of command. The stretching forth the hand was to prove its soundness, which the divine power wrought in the act of stretching it forth. Thus his enemies were disappointed, having no legal ground against Him. 14. This is the first mention of counsel being taken by the Pharisees (and Herodians, Mark, as above) to put our Lord to death. 15-21. Peculiar in this form to Matthew. See Mark 3:7-12.Luke 6:17-19 Luke 6:17-19. 15. αὐτοὺςπάντας : see similar expressions, ch. 19:2: Luke 6:19;— i.e. ‘ all who wanted healing.’ 16. ἐπετίμησεν ] see ch. 8:4, and note. 17. On ἵναπληρωθῇ , see note on ch. 1:22. Neither it nor ὅπωςπλ . must be understood ‘ and thus was fulfilled,’ as Webster and Wilkinson: both are used only of the purpose, not of the result, here or any where. It is strange that any should be found, at this period of the progress of exegesis, to go back to a view which is both superficial and ungrammatical. The prophecy is partly from the LXX, partly an original translation. The LXX have Ἰακὼβὁπαῖςμου … Ἰσραὴλὁἐκλεκτόςμου … , but the Rabbis generally understood it of the Messiah. 18. κρίσιντ . ἔθν . ἀπ .] He shall announce judgment to the Gentiles, viz. in his office as Messiah and Judge. In these words the majesty of his future glory is contrasted with the meekness about to be spoken of: q. d. ‘ And yet He shall not,’ &c. 20. κάλαμ . συντ . κ .τ .λ .] A proverbial expression for, ‘ He will not crush the contrite heart, nor extinguish the slightest spark of repentant feeling in the sinner.’ The form κατεάξω for the future seems to have crept in from the aor., as a convenient distinction from κατάξω from κατάγω . See Winer, § 12. 2. [Moulton, p. 82, note 6, cites κατεάξω from Psalms 47:8 Symm.] In ref. Hab. the regular future κατάξω is used. ἕωςἂνἐκβ .] Until He shall have brought out the conflict, the cause, the judgment, unto victory,— caused it, i.e., to issue in victory: ἐκβάλῃ , exire jusserit, see reff.:— i.e. such shall be his behaviour and such his gracious tenderness, during the day of grace: while the conflict is yet going on,— the judgment not yet decided. 22-45. Accusation of casting out devils by Beelzebub, and our Lord’ s discourse thereon. Demand of a sign from Him: His further discourse. Mark 3:20-30. Luke 11:14-36, where also see notes. This account is given by Luke later in our Lord’ s ministry, but without any fixed situation or time, and with less copiousness of detail. See also ch. 9:32, and notes there. St. Mark (3:23-29) gives part of the discourse which follows, but without any determinate sequence, and omitting the miracle which led to it. 23. Μήτι ] This form of question is properly a doubtful denial, involving in fact a surmise in the affirmative. ‘ Surely this is not … ?’ ὁυἱὸςΔ .] see ch. 9:27, and note. 24. οἱδὲΦ . ἀκούσ .] St. Mark states (3:22) that this accusation was brought by the γραμματεῖςοἱἀπὸἹεροσολύμωνκαταβάντες . Luke (11:15), by τινὲςἐξαὐτῶν , i.e. τῶνὄχλων . On the charge itself, Trench remarks, ‘ A rigid monotheistic religion like the Jewish, left but one way of escape from the authority of miracles, which once were acknowledged to be indeed such, and not mere collusions and sleights of hand. There remained nothing to say but that which we find in the N.T. the adversaries of our Lord continually did say, namely, that these works were works of hell.’ 25. The Pharisees said this covertly to some among the multitude; see Luke, vv. 15, 17. “ There is at first sight a difficulty in the argument which our Saviour draws from the oneness of the kingdom of Satan: viz. that it seems the very idea of this kingdom, that it should be this anarchy; blind rage and hate not only against God, but each part of it warring against every other part. And this is most deeply true, that hell is as much in arms against itself as against Heaven: neither does our Lord deny that in respect of itself that kingdom is infinite contradiction and division: only He asserts that in relation to the kingdom of goodness it is at one: there is one life in it and one soul in relation to that. Just as a nation or kingdom may embrace within itself infinite parties, divisions, discords, jealousies, and heart-burnings: yet, if it is to subsist as a nation at all, it must not, as regards other nations, have lost its sense of unity; when it does so, of necessity it falls to pieces and perishes.” Trench, Miracles, p. 58. We may observe (1) that our Lord here in the most solemn manner re-asserts and confirms the truths respecting the kingdom of evil which the Jews also held. The βασιλεῖαι are so set parallel with one another, that the denial of the reality of the one with its ἄρχων , or the supposing it founded merely in assent on the part of our Lord to Jewish notions, inevitably brings with it the same conclusions with regard to the other. They are both real, and so is the conflict between them. (2) That our Lord here appeals not to an insulated case of casting out of devils, in which answer might have been made, that the craft of Satan might sometimes put on the garb and arts of an adversary to himself, for his own purposes,— but to the general and uniform tenor of all such acts on his part, in which He was found as the continual Adversary of the kingdom of Satan. (3) That our Lord proceeds to shew that the axiom is true of all human societies, even to a family, the smallest of such. (4) That He does not state the same of an individual man, ‘ Every man divided against himself falleth,’ rests upon deeper grounds, which will be entered on in the notes on vv. 30, 31. 27. The interpretation of this verse has been much disputed; viz. as to whether the casting out by the υἱοὶΦαρισαίων (scholars,— disciples; see 2 Kings 2:3 and passim) were real or pretended exorcisms. The occurrence mentioned Luke 9:49 does not seem to apply; for there John says, ἐπιστάτα , εἴδομέντιναἐπὶτῷὀνόματίσουἐκβάλλονταδ ., which hardly could have been the case with those here referred to. Nor again can the περιερχόμενοιἸουδαῖοιἐξορκισταί of Acts 19:13 be the same as these, inasmuch as they also named over the possessed the name of the Lord Jesus: or at all events it can be no such invocation which is here referred to. In Josephus (Antt. viii. 2. 5) we read that Solomon τρόπουςἐξορκώσεωνκατέλειπεν , οἷςἐνδόμενατὰδαιμόνιαὡςμηκέτ ʼ ἐπανελθεῖνἐκδιώκουσι . καὶαὕτημέχρινῦνπαρ ʼ ἡμῖνἡθεραπείαπλεῖστονἰσχύει . It is highly necessary to institute this enquiry as to the reality of their exorcisms: for it would leave an unworthy impression on the reader, and one very open to the cavils of unbelief, were we to sanction the idea that our Lord would have solemnly compared with his own miracles, and drawn inferences from, a system of imposture, which on that supposition, these Pharisees must have known to be such. I infer then that the υἱοὶΦαρ . did really cast out devils; and I think this view is confirmed by what the multitudes said in ch. 9:33, where upon the dumb speaking after the devil was cast out they exclaimed οὐδέποτεἐφάνηοὕτωςἐντῷἸσραήλ : meaning that this was a more complete healing than they had ever seen before. The difficulty has arisen mainly from forgetting that miracles, as such, are no test of truth, but have been permitted to, and prophesied of, false religions and teachers. See Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:7: ch. 24:24, &c.: Deuteronomy 13:1-5. There is an important passage in Justin Martyr, Dial. with Trypho, § 85, p. 182, as follows:— κατὰγὰρτοῦὀνόματοςαὐτοῦτούτουτοῦυἱοῦτοῦθεοῦ … πᾶνδαιμόνιονἐξορκιζόμενοννικᾶταικαὶὑποτάσσεται . ἐὰνδὲκατὰπαντὸςὀνόματοςτῶνπαρ ʼ ὑμῖνγεγενημένωνἢβασιλέων , ἢδικαίων , ἢπροφητῶν , ἢπατριαρχῶνἐξορκίζητεὑμεῖς , οὐχὑποταγήσεταιοὐδὲντῶνδαιμονίων . ἀλλ ʼ εἰἄραἐξορκίζοιτιςὑμῶνκατὰτοῦθεοῦἈβραὰμκαὶθεοῦἸσαὰκκαὶθεοῦἸακώβ , ἴσωςὑποταγήσεται . Irenæ us (cited by Grotius) says that “ hujus invocatione etiam ante adventum Domini nostri salvabantur homines a spiritibus nequissimis, et a dæ moniis universis,” and adds, “ Judæ i usque nunc hac ipsa invocatione dæ monas fugant.” , Chrys., , understand υἱοὶὑμῶν to mean the Apostles: ὅρακἀνταῦθατὴνἐπιείκειαν · οὐγὰρεἶπενΟἱμαθηταίμου , οὐδὲΟἱἀπόστολοι , ἀλλ ʼ Οἱυἱοὶὑμῶν … ὃδὲλέγειτοιοῦτόνἐστιν · Οἱἀπόστολοιἐντίνιἐκβάλλουσι ; … θέλωνδεῖξαιὅτιφθόνουἦντοῦπρὸςαὐτὸντὰεἰρημέναμόνον .… Εἰγὰρἐγὼοὕτωςἐκβάλλω , πολλῷμᾶλλονἐκεῖνοιοἱπαρ ʼ ἐμοῦτὴνἐξουσίανλαβόντες . ἀλλ ʼ ὅμωςοὐδὲντοιοῦτονεἰρήκατεαὐτοῖς . Chrys. Hom. xli. 2, p. 446. κριταὶὑμῶν ] your judges, in the sense of convicting you of partiality. 28. ἐνπνεύματιθ . = ἐνδακτύλῳθ ., Luke; see Exodus 8:19. ἔφθασεν ] emphatic in position: but merely, has come upon you: not in the more proper sense of φθάνω , ‘ is already upon you,’ i.e. ‘ before you looked for it,’ — as Stier and Wesley. It does not seem to occur in this latter sense in the N.T. But Fritzsche’ s dictum, ad Rom. 2:356, “ Alexandrinis scriptoribus φθάνειν nihil nisi venire, pervenire, pertinere valet,” certainly is not right; for we have it indisputably in the sense of to anticipate, prevent, 1 Thessalonians 4:15. 29. Luke has the word ἰσχυρότερος applied to the spoiler in this verse; a title given to our Lord by the Baptist, ch. 3:11 , and also in prophecy, Isaiah 40:10 (μετὰἰσχύος , LXX). See also Isaiah 53:12 (LXX); 49:24, 25. See note on Luke 11:21 f., which is the fuller report of this parabolic saying. 30. These words have been variously understood. Chrysostom and Euthymius understand them to refer to the devil: Bengel, Schleiermacher, and Neander, to the Jewish exorcists named above. Grotius and others understand it as merely a general proverb, and the ἐμοῦ to mean ‘ any one,’ and here to apply to Satan, the sense being, ‘ If I do not promote Satan’ s kingdom, which I have proved that I do not, then I must be his adversary.’ But this is on all accounts improbable: see below on συνάγων and σκορπίζει . I believe Stier is right in regarding it as a saying setting forth to us generally the entire and complete disjunction of the two kingdoms, of Satan and God. There is and can be in the world no middle party: they who are not with Christ, who do not gather with Him,— are against Him and his work, and as far as in them lies are undoing it. See Romans 8:7. And thus the saying connects itself with the following verse:— this being the case, διὰτοῦτολέγωὑμῖν ,— the sin of an open belying of the present power of the Holy Spirit of God working in and for His Kingdom, assumes a character surpassingly awful. This saying is no way inconsistent with that in Mark 9:40: Luke 9:50. That is not a conversion of this, for the terms of the respective propositions are not the same. See note on Mark 9:40. As usual, this saying of our Lord reached further than the mere occasion to which it referred, and spoke forcibly to those many half-persuaded hesitating persons who flattered themselves that they could strike out a line avoiding equally the persecution of men and the rejection of Christ. He informed them (and informs us also) of the impossibility of such an endeavour. In the συνάγων there is an allusion to the idea of gathering the harvest: see ch. 13:30: John 11:52, and for σκορπίζει , John 10:12, in all which places the words exactly bear out their sense here. 31, 32. διὰτοῦτο , because this is the case: see last note. Notice again the λέγωὑμῖν , used by our Lord when He makes some revelation of things hidden from the sons of men: see ch. 6:29; 18:10, 19: and ver. 36 below. The distinction in these much-controverted verses seems to be, between (1) the sin and blasphemy which arises from culpable ignorance and sensual blindness, as that of the fool who said in his heart ‘ There is no God,’ — of those who, e.g. Saul of Tarsus, opposed Jesus as not being the Christ; which persons, to whatever degree their sin may unhappily advance, are capable of enlightenment, repentance, and pardon:— and (2) the blasphemy of those who, acknowledging God, and seeing his present power working by His Holy Spirit, openly oppose themselves to it, as did, or as were very near doing (for our Lord does not actually imply that they had incurred this dreadful charge), these Pharisees. They may as yet have been under the veil of ignorance; but this their last proceeding, in the sight of Him who knows the hearts, approximated very near to, or perhaps reached, this awful degree of guilt. The principal misunderstanding of this passage has arisen from the prejudice which possesses men’ s minds owing to the use of the words, ‘ the sin against the Holy Ghost.’ It is not a particular species of sin which is here condemned, but a definite act shewing a state of sin, and that state a wilful determined opposition to the present power of the Holy Spirit; and this as shewn by its fruit, βλασφημία . The declaration, in substance, often occurs in the N.T. See 1 John 5:16, and note on ἁμαρτία there: 2 Timothy 3:8: Jude 1:4, Jude 1:12, Jude 1:13: Hebrews 10:26-31; Hebrews 6:4-8. Euthymius expands the sense well and clearly: ὃςμὲνἂνἁμάρτῃκατὰτῆςἀνθρωπότητόςμου , φησί , τουτέστιν , ὅστιςἂνεἴπῃβλάσφημονλόγονκατ ʼ αὐτῆς , … ὁτοιοῦτοςσυγγνωσθήσεταιπάντωςὡςοὐκἐθελοκακήσας , ἀλλ ʼ ἐνἀγνοίᾳτῆςἀληθείαςβλασφημήσας · ὁδὲβλέπωντὰςθεοπρεπεῖςμουἐνεργείας , ἃςμόνοςδύναταιποιεῖνὁθεός , καὶτῷΒεελζεβοὺλταύταςἐπιγραφόμενος , ὡςκαὶὑμεῖςνῦν , καὶοὕτωβλασφημῶνκατὰτοῦπνεύματοςτοῦἁγίου , ἤτοικατὰτῆςθεότητος (ταύτηνγὰρνῦνκαλεῖπνεῦμαἅγιον (?)) οὗτοςὡςἐθελοκακήσαςπροδήλωςκαὶἐνγνώσεικαθυβρίσαςτὸνθεὸνκαὶἀναπολόγηταπλημμελήσαςοὐσυγχωρηθήσεται . No sure inference can be drawn from the words οὔτεἐντῷμέλλοντι — with regard to forgiveness of sins in a future state. Olshausen remarks that a parallel on the other side is found in ch. 10:41, 42, where the recognition of divine power in those sent from God is accompanied with promise of eternal reward. He himself however understands the passage (as many others have done) to imply forgiveness on repentance in the imperfect state of the dead before the judgment, and considers it to be cognate with 1 Peter 3:18 ff. Augustine speaks very strongly, de Civ. Dei xxi. 24, vol. vii.: ‘ Neque enim de quibusdam veraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur neque in hoc sæ culo neque in futuro, nisi essent quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen remittatur in futuro.’ See, on the whole subject, note on 1 Peter 3:18 ff. In the almost entire silence of Scripture on any such doctrine, every principle of sound interpretation requires that we should hesitate to support it by two difficult passages, in neither of which does the plain construction of the words absolutely require it. The expressions αἰὼνοὗτος (= ὁνῦναἰών , Titus 2:12: 2 Timothy 4:10; καιρὸςοὗτος , Mark 10:30; αἰὼντοῦκόσμουτούτου , Ephesians 2:2; αἰὼνἐνεστὼςπονηρός , Galatians 1:4) and αἰὼνμέλλων (= αἰὼνὁἐρχόμενος , Mark 10:30; αἰὼνἐκεῖνος , Luke 20:35; αἰῶνεςἐπερχόμενοι , Ephesians 2:7) were common among the Jews, and generally signified respectively the time before and after the coming of the Messiah. In the N.T. these significations give place to— the present life, and that to come: the present mixed state of wheat and tares, and the future completion of Messiah’ s Kingdom after the great harvest. The expression κόσμοςμέλλων is not found. αἰὼνμέλλων , &c., seem to differ from βασιλ . τ . οὐρανῶν or τ . θεοῦ , in never being spoken of, or as in, individuals, but as an age of time belonging to the universal Church. 33, 34. ποιήσατε , not, as generally understood, = ‘ ponite,’ — ‘ represent … as:’ for then the clause ἐκγὰρκ .τ .λ . loses its meaning:— but literally, make. The verse is a parable, not merely a similitude. ‘ There are but two ways open: either make the tree and its fruit both good, or both bad: for by the fruit the tree is known.’ How make, the parable does not say: but let us remember, the Creator speaks, and sets forth a law of his own creation, with which our judgments must be in accord. This verse resumes again the leading argument, and sets forth the inconsistency of the Pharisees in representing Him as in league with evil, whose works were uniformly good. But the words have a double reference: to our Lord Himself, who could not be evil, seeing that His works were good; and (which leads on to the next verse) to the Pharisees, who could not speak good things, because their works were evil. 35-37. The treasure spoken of is that inner storehouse of good and evil only seen by God and (partially) by ourselves. And on that account— because words, so lightly thought of by the world and the careless, spring from the inner fountains of good and ill, therefore they will form subjects of the judgment of the great day, when the whole life shall be unfolded and pronounced upon. See James 3:2-12. 36. ῥῆμαἀργόν is nom. pendens, as ch. 10:14, 32. αἱρετώτερόνσοιἔστωλίθονεἰκῆβάλλειν , ἢλόγονἀργόν , Pythag. in Stobæ us, xxxiv. 11. . ἀργός = ἀεργός , and is perhaps best taken here in its milder and negative sense, as not yet determined on till the judgment: so that our Lord’ s saying is a deduction “ a minori,” and if of every ῥῆμαἀργόν , then how much more of every ῥῆμαπονηρόν ! 37. The λόγος being the περίσσευματῆςκαρδίας , is a specimen of what is within; is the outward utterance of the man, and on this ground will form a subject of strict enquiry in the great day, being a considerable and weighty part of our works. 38. St. Luke (11:15, 16) places the accusation of casting out devils by Beelzebub and this request together, and then the discourse follows. It seems that the first part of the discourse gave rise, as here related, to the request for a sign (from Heaven); but, as we might naturally expect, and as we learn from St. Luke, on the part of different persons from those who made the accusation. In consequence of our Lord declaring that his miracles were wrought by the Holy Ghost, they wish to see some decisive proof of this by a sign, not from Himself, but from Heaven. The account in ch. 16:1-4 manifestly relates to a different occurrence: see notes there. Cf. John 6:30, John 6:31; John 12:28. 39. μοιχαλίς (see reff.), because they had been the peculiar people of the Lord, and so in departing from Him had broken the covenant of marriage, according to the similitude so common in the Prophets. The expression σημεῖονοὐδοθ . αὐτῇ does not, as De Wette maintains, exclude our Lord’ s miracles from being σημεῖα : but is the direct answer to their request in the sense in which we know they used σημεῖον , ‘ a sign, not wrought by Him, and so able to be suspected of magic art, but one from Heaven.’ Besides, even if this were not so, how can the refusing to work a miracle to satisfy them, affect the nature or signification of those wrought on different occasions, and with a totally different view? And yet on ground like this it is (De Wette, vol. i. p. 147) that rationalistic systems are built. τίοὖν ; οὐκἐποίησενἔκτοτεσημεῖον ; ἐποίησεν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐδι ʼ αὐτούς , πεπωρωμένοιγὰρἦσαν , ἀλλὰδιὰτὴντῶνἄλλωνὠφέλειαν . in loc. Notice ἐπιζητεῖ ; not merely quæ rit, but requirit; misses, and demands as a sine quâ non. See Palm and Rost’ s Lex. sub voce. The sign of Jonas is the most remarkable foreshadowing in the O.T. of the resurrection of our Lord. It was of course impossible that His resurrection should be represented by an actual resurrection, as his birth was by births (Isaac, Samson, Samuel, Mahershalalhashbaz), and His death by deaths (Abel; the substitute for Isaac; Zechariah the prophet; the daily and occasional sacrifices); so that we find the events symbolic of his resurrection (Joseph’ s history; Isaac’ s sacrifice; Daniel’ s and Jonah’ s deliverance), representing it in a figure . In the case before us the figure was very remarkable, and easily to be recognized in the O.T. narrative. For Jonah himself calls the belly of the sea monster ב ּ ֶ ט ֶ ן ש ׁ ְ א ו ֹ ל (Jonah 2:2), ‘ the belly of Hades,’ = καρδίᾳτῆςγῆς here. And observe, that the type is not of our Lord’ s body being deposited in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, for neither could that be called ‘ the heart of the earth,’ nor could it be said that ‘ the Son of Man’ was there during the time; but of our Lord’ s personal descent into the place of departed souls:— see Ephesians 4:9: 1 Peter 3:19, and note on Luke 23:43. 40. If it be necessary to make good the three days and nights during which our Lord was in the heart of the earth, it must be done by having recourse to the Jewish method of computing time. In the Jerusalem Talmud (cited by Lightfoot) it is said “ that a day and night together make up a ע ו ֹ נ ָ ה , and that any part of such a period is counted as the whole.” See Genesis 40:13, Genesis 40:20: 1 Samuel 30:12, 1 Samuel 30:13: 2 Chronicles 10:5, 2 Chronicles 10:12: Hosea 6:2. 41. In this verse there is no reference to the sign of Jonas spoken of above, but to a different matter, another way in which he should be a sign to this generation. See Luke 11:29 f., and note. (But the preaching of Jonas to the Ninevites was a sign after his resurrection: so shall the preaching of the Son of Man by His Spirit in His Apostles be after His resurrection. Stier.) 41, 42. πλεῖονἸωνᾶὧδε … πλεῖονΣολ . ὧδε ] On the neuter, see above, ver. 6, note. There is more than Jonas here. No matter so worthy of arousing repentance had ever been revealed or preached as the Gospel: no matter so worthy of exciting the earnest attention of all. And the Lord Himself, the Announcer of this Gospel, is greater than all the sons of men: his preaching, greater than that of Jonah: his wisdom, than that of Solomon. 42. βασίλισσανότου ] Josephus, Antt. viii. 6. 5, calls her τὴντῆςΑἰγύπτουκαὶτῆςΑἰθιοπίαςτότεβασιλεύουσανγυναῖκα , i.e. of Meroe (whose queens were usually called Candace. Plin. Hist. vi. 29). Abyssinian tradition agrees with this account, calls her Maqueda, and supposes her to have embraced the Jewish religion in Jerusalem. The Arabians on the other hand also claim her, calling her Balkis (Koran, c. xxvii., cited by Winer), which latter view is probably nearer the truth, Sheba being a tract in Arabia Felix, near the shores of the Red Sea, near the present Aden (see Plin. vi. 23), abounding in spice and gold and precious stones. 43. ὅταν , not ‘ whenever;’ the indefinite conj. does not assert universality, but is hypothetical; δέ connects strictly with what has preceded. This important parable, in the similitude itself, sets forth to us an evil spirit driven out from a man, wandering in his misery and restlessness through desert places, the abodes and haunts of evil spirits (see Isaiah 13:21, Isaiah 13:22; Isaiah 34:14), and at last determining on a return to his former victim, whom he finds so prepared for his purposes, that he associates with himself seven other fiends, by whom the wretched man being possessed, ends miserably. In its interpretation we may trace three distinct references, each full of weighty instruction. (1) The direct application of the parable is to the Jewish people, and the parallel runs thus:— The old dæ mon of idolatry brought down on the Jews the Babylonish captivity, and was cast out by it. They did not after their return fall into it again, but rather endured persecution, as under Antiochus Epiphanes. The emptying, sweeping, and garnishing may be traced in the growth of Pharisaic hypocrisy and the Rabbinical schools between the return and the coming of our Lord. The re-possession by the one, and accession of seven other spirits more malicious than the first, hardly needs explanation. The desperate infatuation of the Jews after our Lord’ s ascension, their bitter hostility to His Church, their miserable end as a people, are known to all. Chrysostom, who gives in the main this interpretation, notices their continued infatuation in his own day: and instances their joining in the impieties of Julian. (2) Strikingly parallel with this runs the history of the Christian Church. Not long after the Apostolic times, the golden calves of idolatry were set up by the Church of Rome. What the effect of the captivity was to the Jews, that of the Reformation has been to Christendom. The first evil spirit has been cast out. But by the growth of hypocrisy, secularity, and rationalism, the house has become empty, swept, and garnished: swept and garnished by the decencies of civilization and discoveries of secular knowledge, but empty of living and earnest faith. And he must read prophecy but ill, who does not see under all these seeming improvements the preparation for the final development of the man of sin, the great re-possession, when idolatry and the seven πνεύματαπονηρότερα shall bring the outward frame of so-called Christendom to a fearful end. (3) Another important fulfilment of the prophetic parable may be found in the histories of individuals. By religious education or impressions, the devil has been cast out of a man; but how often do the religious lives of men spend themselves in the sweeping and garnishing (see Luke 11:39, Luke 11:40), in formality and hypocrisy, till utter emptiness of real faith and spirituality has prepared them for that second fearful invasion of the Evil One, which is indeed worse than the first! (See Hebrews 6:4, Hebrews 6:6: 2 Peter 2:20-22.) 46-50. His Mother and Brethren seek to speak with Him. Mark 3:31-35.Luke 8:19-21 Luke 8:19-21. In Mark the incident is placed as here: in Luke, after the parable of the sower. 46. In Mark 3:21 we are told that his relations went out to lay hold on Him, for they said, He is beside Himself: and that the reason of this was his continuous labour in teaching, which had not left time so much as to eat. There is nothing in this care for his bodily health (from whatever source the act may have arisen on the part of his brethren, see John 7:5) inconsistent with the known state of his mother’ s mind (see Luke 2:19, Luke 2:51). They stood ἔξω , i.e. outside the throng of hearers around our Lord; or, perhaps, outside the house. He meets their message with a reproof, which at the same time conveys assurance to His humble hearers. He came for all men, and though He was born of a woman, He who is the second Adam, taking our entire humanity on Him, is not on that account more nearly united to her, than to all those who are united to Him by the Spirit; nor bound to regard the call of earthly relations so much as the welfare of those whom He came to teach and to save. It is to be noticed that our Lord, though He introduces the additional term ἀδελφή into his answer, does not (and indeed could not) introduce πατήρ , inasmuch as He never speaks of an earthly Father. See Luke 2:49. All these characteristics of the mother of our Lord are deeply interesting, both in themselves, and as building up, when put together, the most decisive testimony against the fearful superstition which has assigned to her the place of a goddess in the Romish mythology. Great and inconceivable as the honour of that meek and holy woman was, we find her repeatedly (see John 2:4) the object of rebuke from her divine Son, and hear Him here declaring, that the honour is one which the humblest believer in Him has in common with her. Stier remarks (Reden Jesu, ii. 57 note), that the juxtaposition of sister and mother in the mouth of our Lord makes it probable that the brethren also were his actual brothers according to the flesh: see note on ch. 13:55. Chap. 13:1-52. The seven parables. (The parallels, see under each.) 1, 2. Mark 4:1. 1. ἐντῇἡμέρᾳἐκείνῃ ] These words may mean literally in the same day, But it is not absolutely necessary. The words certainly do bear that meaning in Mark 4:35, and important consequences follow (see note there): but in Acts 8:1 they are as evidently indefinite. The instances of their occurrence in John (14:20; 16:23, 26) are not to the point, their use there being prophetical. ἀπὸτῆςοἰκ . perhaps implies that the foregoing discourse was delivered in a house, as some have thought: but the article need not (any more than τό before πλοῖον , see notes on ch. 9:1, 28) imply any particular house. 3. ἐνπαραβολαῖς ] The senses of this word in the N.T. are various, and may be found in the lexicons. My present concern with it is to explain its meaning as applied to the “ parables” of our Lord. (1) The Parable is not a Fable, inasmuch as the Fable is concerned only with the maxims of worldly prudence, whereas the Parable conveys spiritual truth. The Fable in its form rejects probability, and teaches through the fancy, introducing speaking animals, or even inanimate things; whereas the Parable adheres to probability, and teaches through the imagination, introducing only things which may possibly happen. ἔστιπαραβολὴλόγοςὡςπερὶγενομένου , μὴγενομένουμὲνκατὰτὸῥητόν , δυναμένουδὲγίνεσθαι . Origen, cited by Trench on the Parables, p. 4. (2) Nor is the Parable a Myth: inasmuch as in Mythology the course of the story is set before us as the truth, and simple minds receive it as the truth, only the reflective mind penetrating to the distinction between the Vehicle and the thing conveyed; whereas in the Parable these two stand distinct from one another to all minds, so that none but the very simplest would ever believe in the Parable as fact. (3) Nor is the Parable a Proverb: though παραβολή is used for both in the N.T. (Luke 4:23; Luke 5:36: Matthew 15:14, Matthew 15:15), and παροιμία in John for a Parable (John 10:6; John 16:25, John 16:29). It is indeed more like a Proverb than either of the former; being an expanded Proverb, and a Proverb a concentrated Parable, or Fable, or result of human experience expressed without a figure. Hence it will be seen that the Proverb ranges far wider than the Parable, which is an expansion of only one particular case of a Proverb. Thus ‘ Physician heal thyself’ would, if expanded, make a parable; ‘ ne sus Minervam,’ a fable; ‘ honesty is the best policy,’ neither of these. (4) Nor is the Parable an Allegory: inasmuch as in the Allegory the imaginary persons and actions are placed in the very places and footsteps of the real ones, and stand there instead of them, declaring all the time by their names or actions who and what they are. Thus the Allegory is self-interpreting, and the persons in it are invested with the attributes of those represented; whereas in the Parable the courses of action related and understood run indeed parallel, but the persons are strictly confined to their own natural places and actions, which are, in their relation and succession, typical of higher things. (5) It may well hence be surmised what a Parable is. It is a serious narration, within the limits of probability, of a course of action pointing to some moral or spiritual Truth (‘ Collatio per narratiunculam fictam, sed veri similem, serio illustrans rem sublimiorem.’ Unger, de Parabolis Jesu (Meyer)); and derives its force from real analogies impressed by the Creator of all things on His creatures. The great Teacher by parables therefore is He who needed not that any should testify of man; for He knew what was in man, John 2:25: moreover, He made man, and orders the course and character of human events. And this is the reason why none can, or dare, teach by parables, except Christ. We do not, as He did, see the inner springs out of which flow those laws of eternal truth and justice, which the Parable is framed to elucidate. Our parables would be in danger of perverting, instead of guiding aright. The Parable is especially adapted to different classes of hearers at once: it is understood by each according to his measure of understanding. See note on ver. 12. The seven parables related in this chapter cannot be regarded as a collection made by the Evangelist as relating to one subject, the Kingdom of Heaven and its development; they are clearly indicated by ver. 53 to have been all spoken on one and the same occasion, and form indeed a complete and glorious whole in their inner and deeper sense. The first four of these parables appear to have been spoken to the multitude from the ship (the interpretation of the parable of the sower being interposed); the last three, to the disciples in the house. From the expression ἤρξατο in Mk. compared with the question of the disciples in ver. 10,— and with ver. 34,— it appears that this was the first beginning of our Lord’ s teaching by parables, expressly so delivered, and properly so called. And the natural sequence of things here agrees with, and confirms Matthew’ s arrangement against those who would place (as Ebrard) all this chapter before the Sermon on the Mount. He there spoke without parables, or mainly so; and continued to do so till the rejection and misunderstanding of his teaching led to His judicially adopting the course here indicated, χωρὶςπαρ . οὐδὲνἐλάλειαὐτοῖς . The other order would be inconceivable: that after such parabolic teaching, and such a reason assigned for it, the Lord should, that reason remaining in full force, have deserted his parabolic teaching, and opened out his meaning as plainly as in the Sermon on the Mount. 3-9. The Sower. Mark 4:2-9. Luke 8:4-8. See note on the locality in vv. 51, 52. 3. For the explanation of the parable see on vv. 19-23. ὁσπ ., generic, singular of οἱσπείροντες — a sower; he that soweth. 4. παρὰτ . ὁδ ., by (by the side of, along the line of) the path through the field. Luke inserts καὶκατεπατήθη , and after τὰπετ .,— τοῦοὐρανοῦ . 5. τὰπετρώδη (= τὴνπέτραν Luke), stony places where the native rock is but slightly covered with earth (which abound in Palestine), and where therefore the radiation from the face of the rock would cause the seed to spring up quickly, the shallow earth being heated by the sun of the day before. 6. ῥίζαν = ἰκμάδα Luke. If the one could have struck down, it would have found the other. 7. ἐπὶτ . ἀκ . = εἰςτὰςἀκ . Mark; = ἐνμέσῳτῶνἀκ . Luke. In places where were the roots of thorns, beds of thistles, or such like. ἀνέβησαν .… καί = συμφυεῖσαι Luke; ἀπέπν . = συνέπν , Mark, who adds καὶκαρπὸνοὐκἔδωκεν . 8. ἐδίδου = φυὲνἐποίησεν Luke. After καρ . Mark inserts ἀναβαίνοντακαὶαὐξανόμενον . Luke gives only ἑκατονταπλασίονα . 9. is common to all three Evangelists . 10-17. Our Lord’ s reason for teaching in parables. Mark 4:10-12.Luke 8:9 Luke 8:9, Luke 8:10, but much abridged. 10. οἱμαθηταί = οἱπερὶαὐτὸνσὺντοῖςδώδεκα Mark. This question took place during a pause in our Lord’ s teaching, not when He had entered the house, ver. 36. The question shews the newness of this method of teaching to the disciples. It is not mentioned in Mark: only the enquiry into the meaning of the parable just spoken: nor in Luke; but the answer implies it. 11. The Kingdom of Heaven, like other Kingdoms, has its secrets and inner counsels, which strangers must not know. These are only revealed to the humble diligent hearers, ὑμῖν : to those who were immediately around the Lord with the twelve; not ἐκείνοις = τοῖςλοιποῖς Luke, = ἐκείνοιςτοῖςἔξω Mark. (1 Corinthians 5:12, 1 Corinthians 5:13.) οὐδέδοται = ἐνπαραβολαῖς Luke, and τὰπάνταγίνεται Mark. 12. In this saying of the Lord is summed up the double force— the revealing and concealing properties of the parable. By it, he who hath,— he who not only hears with the ear, but understands with the heart, has more given to him; and it is for this main purpose undoubtedly that the Lord spoke parables: to be to His Church revelations of the truth and mysteries of His Kingdom. But His present purpose in speaking them, as further explained below, was the quality possessed by them, and declared in the latter part of this verse, of hiding their meaning from the hard-hearted and sensual. By them, he who hath not, in whom there is no spark of spiritual desire nor meetness to receive the engrafted word, has taken from him even that which he hath (“ seemeth to have,” Luke); even the poor confused notions of heavenly doctrine which a sensual and careless life allow him, are further bewildered and darkened by this simple teaching, into the depths of which he cannot penetrate so far as even to ascertain that they exist. No practical comment on the latter part of this saying can be more striking, than that which is furnished to our day by the study of the German rationalistic (and, I may add, some of our English harmonistic) Commentators; while at the same time we may rejoice to see the approximate fulfilment of the former in such commentaries as those of Olshausen, Neander, Stier, and Trench. In ch. 25:29, the fuller meaning of this saying, as applied not only to hearing, but to the whole spiritual life, is brought out by our Lord. 13. ὅτιβλ . οὐβλέπουσινκ .τ .λ . = (in Mark, Luke; similarly below) ἵναβλ . μὴβλέπωσινκ .τ .λ . In the deeper view of the purpose of the parable, both of these run into one. Taking the saying of ver. 12 for our guide we have ὅστιςοὐκἔχει = ὅτιβλέπ . οὐβλέπουσιν ,— and καὶὃἔχειἀρθ . ἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ = ἵναβλ . μὴβλέπωσιν . The difficulties raised on these variations, and on the prophecy quoted in vv. 14, 15, have arisen entirely from not keeping this in view. 14, 15. This prophecy is quoted with a similar reference John 12:40: Acts 28:26, Acts 28:27; see also Romans 11:8. ἀναπληροῦται , is being fulfilled, ‘ finds one of the stages of its fulfilment:’ a partial one having taken place in the contemporaries of the prophet. The prophecy is cited verbatim from the LXX, which changes the imperative of the Hebrew (‘ Make the heart of this people fat,’ &c., E. V.) into the indicative, as bearing the same meaning. αὐτοῖς is a dat. of relation, ‘ with regard to them:’ see Kü hner, Gramm. § 581. ἐπαχύνθη , grew fat; from prosperity:— ‘ torpens, omni sensu carens’ . βαρέωςἤκουσαν , heard heavily, sluggishly and imperfectly. ἐκάμμυσαν , closed their eyes. All this have they done: all this is increased in them by their continuing to do it, and all lest they should (and so that they cannot) hear, see, understand, and be saved. ἰάσομαιαὐτ . = ἀφεθῇαὐτοῖς Mark. This citation gives no countenance to the fatalist view of the passage, but rests the whole blame on the hard-heartedness and unreadiness of the hearers, which is of itself the cause why the very preaching of the word is a means of further darkening and condemning them (see 2 Corinthians 4:3, 2 Corinthians 4:4). On the fut. indic. after μήποτε , “ verentis ne quid futurum sit, sed indicantis simul, putare se ita futurum esse ut veretur,” see Winer, § 56. 2: Herm. ad Soph. Aj. 272. 16, 17. See ref. Prov. These verses occur again in a different connexion, and with the form of expression slightly varied, Luke 10:23, Luke 10:24. It was a saying likely to be repeated. There it is μακάρ . οἱὀφθ . οἱβλέποντεςἃβλέπετε : and for δίκαιοι we have βασιλεῖς . On the fact that prophets, &c. desired to see those things, see 2 Samuel 23:5: Job 19:23-27: also Exodus 4:13, and Luke 2:29-32. 18-23. Interpretation of the parable of the sower. Mark 4:10-20. Luke 8:9-18. Both of them incorporate with the answer of our Lord to the request of the disciples, much of our last section. 18. ἀκούσατε , in the sense of the verse before— hear the true meaning of, ‘ hear in your hearts.’ With regard to the parable itself, we may remark that its great leading idea is that μυστήριοντῆςβασιλείας , according to which the grace of God, and the receptivity of it by man, work ever together in bringing forth fruit. The seed is one and the same every where and to all: but seed does not spring up without earth, nor does earth bring forth without seed; and the success or failure of the seed is the consequence of the adaptation to its reception, or otherwise, of the spot on which it falls. But of course, on the other hand, as the enquiry, ‘ Why is this ground rich, and that barren?’ leads us up into the creative arrangements of God,— so a similar enquiry in the spiritual interpretation would lead us into the inscrutable and sovereign arrangements of Him who ‘ preventeth us that we may have a good will, and worketh with us when we have that will’ (Art. X. of the Church of England). See, on the whole, my Sermons before the University of Cambridge, February, 1858. 19. In Luke we have an important preliminary declaration, implied indeed here also: ὁσπόροςἐστὶνὁλόγοςτοῦθεοῦ . This word is in this parable especially meant of the word preached, though the word written is not excluded: nor the word unwritten— the providences and judgments, and even the creation, of God. (See Romans 10:17, Romans 10:18.) The similitude in this parable is alluded to in 1 Peter 1:23: James 1:21. The sower is first the Son of Man (ver. 37), then His ministers and servants (1 Corinthians 3:6) to the end. He sows over all the field, unlikely as well as likely places; and commands His sowers to do the same, Mark 16:15. Some, Stier says, (Reden Jesu, ii. 76, Exo_2,) have objected to the parable a want of truthful correspondence to reality, because sowers do not thus waste their seed by scattering it where it is not likely to grow; but, as he rightly answers,— the simple idea of the parable must be borne in mind, and its limits not transgressed— ‘ a sower went out to sow’ — his sowing— sowing over all places, is the idea of the parable. We see him only as a sower, not as an economist. The parable is not about Him, but about the seed and what happens to it. He is the fit representative τοῦδιδόντοςθεοῦπᾶσινἁπλῶςκαὶμὴὀνειδίζοντος , James 1:5. παντὸςκ .τ .λ .] an anacoluthon, to throw the emphasis on παντὸςκ .τ .λ ., for ὁπονηρὸς … κ . ἁρπάζειτὸἐσπ . ἐντῇκαρδ . παντὸςκ .τ .λ . καὶμὴσυνιέντος is peculiar to Matthew, and very important; as in Mark and Luke this first class of hearers are without any certain index to denote them. The reason of μὴσυνιέντος is clearly set forth by the parable: the heart is hardened, trodden down; the seed cannot penetrate. ὁπονηρὸς = ὁσατανᾶς , = ὁδιάβολος (Luke). The parable itself is here most satisfactory as to the manner in which the Evil One proceeds. By fowls of the air— passing thoughts and desires, which seem insignificant and even innocent— does Satan do his work, and rob the heart of the precious seed. Luke adds the purpose of Satan in taking away the word: ἵναμὴπιστεύσαντεςσωθῶσιν . ὁ … σπαρείς : not ‘ he that received seed by the way side,’ but he that was sown by the way side. This is not a confusion of similitudes,— no ‘ primary and secondary interpretation’ of σπόρος ,— but the deep truth, both of nature and of grace. The seed sown springing up in the earth, becomes the plant, and bears the fruit, or fails of bearing it; it is therefore the representative, when sown, of the individuals of whom the discourse is. And though in this first case it does not spring up, yet the same form of speech is kept up: throughout they are οἱσπαρέντες , as, when the question of bearing fruit comes, they must be. We are said to be ἀναγεγεννημένοιδιὰλόγουζῶντοςθεοῦ , 1 Peter 1:23. It takes us up into itself, as the seed the earth, and we become a new plant, a καινὴκτίσις : cf. also below, ver. 38, τὸδὲκαλὸνσπέρμα , οὗτοίεἰσινκ .τ .λ . 20, 21. In this second case, the surface of the mind and disposition is easily stirred, soon excited: but beneath lies a heart even harder than the trodden way. So the plant, springing up under the false heat of excitement, having no root struck down into the depths of the being, is, when the real heat from without arises which is intended to strengthen and forward the healthy-rooted plant, withered and destroyed. πρόσκαιρόςἐστιν , not only ‘ endureth for a while,’ but also ‘ is the creature of circumstances,’ changing as they change. Both ideas are included. γενομ … σκανδ . = ἐνκαιρῷπειρασμοῦἀφίστανται Luke, thus accommodating themselves to that καιρός . 22. In this third sort, all as regards the soil is well; the seed goes deep, the plant springs up; all is as in the next case, with but one exception, and that, the bearing of fruit— ἄκαρποςγίνεται = οὐτελεσφοροῦσι Luke. And this because the seeds or roots of thorns are in, and are suffered to spring up in, the heart, and to overwhelm the plant. There is a divided will, a half-service (μέριμνα from μερίζω , see on ch. 6:25) which ever ends in the prevalence of evil over good. This class is not confined to the rich: πλοῦτος in Scripture is not riches absolutely, as possessed, but riches relatively, as estimated by the desire and value for them. Mark adds καὶαἱπερὶτὰλοιπὰἐπιθυμίαι , viz. the τὰλοιπά which shall be added to us if we seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. The identity of the seeds sown with the individuals of these classes, as maintained above, is strikingly shewn in Luke here: τὸδὲεἰςτὰςἀκάνθαςπεσόν , οὗτοίεἰσινοἱἀκούσαντεςκ .τ .λ . (8:14.) We may notice: (I) That there is in these three classes a progress, and that a threefold one:— (1) in time:— the first receives a hindrance at the very outset: the seed never springs up:— the second after it has sprung up, but soon after:— the third when it has entered, sprung up, and come to maturity: or while it is so coming.— (2) in apparent degree. The climax is apparently from bad to better;— the first understand not: the second understand and feel: the third understand, feel, and practise. But also (3) in real degree, from bad to worse. Less awful is the state of those who understand not the word and lose it immediately, than that of those who feel it, receive it with joy, and in time of trial fall away: less awful again this last, than that of those who understand, feel, and practise, but are fruitless and impure. It has been noticed also that the first is more the fault of careless inattentive childhood; the second of ardent shallow youth; the third of worldly self-seeking age. (II) That these classes do not exclude one another. They are great general divisions, the outer circles of which fall into one another, as they very likely might in the field itself, in their different combinations. 23. Here also the fourth class must not be understood as a decided well-marked company, excluding all the rest. For the soil is not good by nature: the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; but every predisposition to receive them is of God:— even the shallow soil covering the rock, even the thorny soil, received its power to take in and vivify the seed, from God. So that divine grace is the enabling, vivifying, cleansing power throughout: and these sown on the good land are no naturally good, amiable, or pure class, but those prepared by divine grace— receptive, by granted receptive power. The sowing is not necessarily the first that has ever taken place: the field has been and is continually resown, so that the care of the husbandman is presupposed. Again, no irresistible grace or absolute decree of God must be dreamt of here. God working not barely upon, but with man, is, as we said above, the μυστήριοντῆςβασιλείας here declared,— see Jeremiah 4:3: Hosea 10:12: Galatians 6:7. See note on Luke 8:15. ἑκατόν , ἑξήκοντα , τριάκοντα , the different degrees of faithfulness and devotedness of life with which fruit is brought forth by different classes of persons. There is no point of comparison with the different classes in the parable of the talents: for he who had five talents yielded the same increase as he who had two. συνιῶν ] So συνιοῦσιν ver. 13, and 2 Corinthians 10:12 (.), and this word itself Romans 3:11, from συνιέω , i. q. συνίημι ,— of which the inf. συνιεῖν is found in Theognis, 565. It should be accented συνιῶν , or συνίων , not συνιών , which would be from σύνειμι . See Winer, § 14. 3. 24-30. Second parable. The tares of the field. Peculiar to Matthew. For the explanation of this parable see below, vv. 36-43. 24. ὡμοιώθη … ἀνθρώπῳ , ‘ is like the whole circumstances about to be detailed; like the case of a man,’ &c. A similar form of construction is found in ch. 18:23, and in other parables in Matthew. 25. τοὺςἀνθ . not, ‘ the men’ belonging to the owner of the field, but men generally: and the expression is used only to designate ‘ in the night time,’ not to charge the servants with any want of watchfulness. ἐπέσπ .] ‘ superseminavit,’ sowed over the first seed. ζιζάνια , apparently the darnel, or bastard wheat (lolium album), so often seen in our fields and by our hedgerows; if so, what follows will be explained, that the tares appeared when the wheat came into ear, having been previously not noticeable. It appears to be an Eastern word, expressed in the Talmud by ז ו ֹ נ ִ י ן . Our Lord was speaking of an act of malice practised in the East:— persons of revengeful disposition watch the ground of a neighbour being ploughed, and in the night following sow destructive weeds. (Roberts’ s Oriental Illustrations, p. 541, cited by Trench on the Parables, p. 68.) (The practice is not unknown even in England at present. Since the publication of the first edition of this commentary, a field belonging to the Editor, at Gaddesby in Leicestershire, was maliciously sown with charlock (sinapis arvensis) over the wheat. An action at law was brought by the tenant, and heavy damages obtained against the offender.) 29. Jerome in loc. says: ‘ Inter triticum et zizania quod nos appellamus lolium, quamdiu herba est, et nondum culmus venit ad spicam, grandis similitudo est, et in discernendo nulla aut perdifficilis distantia.’ Jerome, it must be remembered, resided in Palestine. As regards the construction, ἅμα is not a prep. governing αὐτοῖς , but merely an adv. used for elucidation; see Klotz, Devar. p. 97. Still the construction here would hardly bear its omission. 31, 32. Third parable. The grain of mustard seed. Mark 4:30-34.Luke 13:18 Luke 13:18, Luke 13:19. On the connexion of this parable with the two last, Chrysostom observes (Hom. in Matt. xlvi. 2, p. 483), ἐπειδὴγὰρεἶπενὅτιἀπὸτοῦσπόρουτρίαμέρηἀπόλλυται , καὶσώζεταιἕν , καὶἐναὐτῷπάλιντῷσωζομένῳτοσαύτηγίνεταιβλάβη , ἵναμὴλέγωσι ‘ καὶτίνεςκαὶπόσοιἔσονταιοἱπιστοί ;’ καὶτοῦτονἐξαιρεῖτὸνφόβον , διὰτῆςπαραβολῆςτοῦσινάπεωςἐνάγωνεἰςπίστιναὐτοὺςκαὶδεικνὺςὅτιπάντωςἐκταθήσεταιτὸπρᾶγμα . The comparison of kingdoms to trees was familiar to the Jews: see Daniel 4:10-12, Daniel 4:20-22: Ezekiel 31:3-9; Ezekiel 17:22-24: Psalms 80:8-11. 31. ἐντ . ἀγρῷ = εἰςτ . κήπ . Luke. 32. μικρότερονκ .τ .λ .] less than all, not for the superlative. The words are not to be pressed to their literal sense, as the mustard seed was a well-known Jewish type for any thing exceedingly small. The mustard tree attains to a large size in Judæ a. Lightfoot quotes (Hor. Hebr. in l.) Hieros. Peah. fol. 20. 2, ‘ Caulis erat sinapis in Sichin, e quo enati sunt rami tres; e quibus unus decerptus co-operuit tentoriolum figuli, produxitque tres cabos sinapis. Rabbi Simeon ben Chalaphta dixit, Caulis sinapis erat mihi in agro meo, in quam ego scandere solitus sum, ita ut scandere solent in ficum.’ This parable, like most others respecting the kingdom of God, has a double reference— general and individual. (1) In the general sense, the insignificant beginnings of the kingdom are set forth: the little babe cast in the manger at Bethlehem; the Man of sorrows with no place to lay His Head; the crucified One; or again the hundred and twenty names who were the seed of the Church after the Lord had ascended; then we have the Kingdom of God waxing onward and spreading its branches here and there, and different nations coming into it. “ He must increase,” said the great Forerunner. We must beware however of imagining that the outward Church-form is this Kingdom. It has rather reversed the parable, and is the worldly power waxed to a great tree and the Churches taking refuge under the shadow of it. It may be, where not corrupted by error and superstition, subservient to the growth of the heavenly plant: but is not itself that plant. It is at best no more than (to change the figure) the scaffolding to aid the building, not the building itself. (2) The individual application of the parable points to the small beginnings of divine grace; a word, a thought, a passing sentence, may prove to be the little seed which eventually fills and shadows the whole heart and being, and calls ‘ all thoughts, all passions, all delights’ to come and shelter under it. Jerome has a comment on this parable (in loc.) too important to be passed over: ‘ Præ dicatio Evangelii minima est omnibus disciplinis. Ad primam quippe doctrinam, fidem non habet veritatis, hominem Deum, Deum mortuum, et scandalum crucis præ dicans. Confer hujuscemodi doctrinam dogmatibus Philosophorum et libris eorum, et splendori eloquentiæ , et compositioni sermonum, et videbis quanto minor sit cæ teris seminibus sementis Evangelii. Sed illa cum creverit, nihil mordax, nihil vividum, nihil vitale demonstrat, sed totum flaccidum, marcidumque et mollitum ebullit in olera et in herbas quæ cito arescunt et corruunt. Hæ c autem præ dicatio quæ parva videbatur in principio, cum vel in anima credentis, vel in toto mundo sata fuerit, non exsurgit in olera, sed crescit in arborem.’ 33. Fourth parable. The leaven. Luke 13:20, Luke 13:21. Difficulties have been raised as to the interpretation of this parable which do not seem to belong to it. It has been questioned whether ζύμη must not be taken in the sense in which it so often occurs in Scripture, as symbolic of pollution and corruption. See Exodus 12:15, and other enactments of the kind, passim in the law; and ch. 16:6: 1 Corinthians 5:6, 1 Corinthians 5:7. And some few have taken it thus, and explained the parable of the progress of corruption and deterioration in the outward visible Church. But then, how is it said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like this leaven? For the construction is not the same as in ver. 24, where the similitude is to the whole course of things related, but answers to κόκκῳσινάπεως , ὃνλαβὼνἄνθ .: so ζύμῃ , ἣνλαβοῦσαγυνή . Again, if the progress of the Kingdom of Heaven be towards corruption, till the whole is corrupted, surely there is an end of all the blessings and healing influence of the Gospel on the world. It will be seen that such an interpretation cannot for a moment stand, on its own ground; but much less when we connect it with the parable preceding. The two are intimately related. That was of the inherent self-developing power of the Kingdom of Heaven as a seed containing in itself the principle of expansion; this, of the power which it possesses of penetrating and assimilating a foreign mass, till all be taken up into it. And the comparison is not only to the power but to the effect of leaven also, which has its good as well as its bad side, and for that good is used: viz. to make wholesome and fit for use that which would otherwise be heavy and insalubrious. Another striking point of comparison is in the fact that leaven, as used ordinarily, is a piece of the leavened loaf put amongst the new dough— (τὸζυμωθὲνἅπαξζύμηγίνεταιτῷλοιπῷπάλιν . Chrys. Hom. xlvi. 2, p. 484)— just as the Kingdom of Heaven is the renewal of humanity by the righteous Man Christ Jesus. The Parable, like the last, has its general and its individual application: (1) in the penetrating of the whole mass of humanity, by degrees, by the influence of the Spirit of God, so strikingly witnessed in the earlier ages by the dropping of heathen customs and worship:— in modern times more gradually and secretly advancing, but still to be plainly seen in the various abandonments of criminal and unholy practices (as e.g. in our own time of slavery and duelling, and the increasing abhorrence of war among Christian men), and without doubt in the end to be signally and universally manifested. But this effect again is not to be traced in the establishment or history of so-called Churches, but in the hidden advancement, without observation, of that deep leavening power which works irrespective of human forms and systems. (2) In the transforming power of the ‘ new leaven’ on the whole being of individuals. “ In fact the Parable does nothing less than set forth to us the mystery of regeneration, both in its first act, which can be but once, as the leaven is but once hidden; and also in the consequent (subsequent?) renewal by the Holy Spirit, which, as the ulterior working of the leaven, is continual and progressive.” (Trench, p. 97.) Some have contended for this as the sole application of the parable; but not, I think, rightly. As to whether the γυνή has any especial meaning, (though I am more and more convinced that such considerations are not always to be passed by as nugatory,) it will hardly be of much consequence here to enquire, seeing that γυναῖκεςσιτοποιοί would be every where a matter of course. ἐγκρύπτω has given rise to a technical word ἐγκρυφίας , signifying a leavened cake (which however, Passow, Lex. explains to be a cake baked under hot ashes, thus applying the ἐγκρύπτω differently: cf. ref. Ezek.). See reff. σάτον , ס ְ א ָ ה , = the third part of an ephah = μόδιονκαὶἥμισυἸταλικόν , Jos. Antt. ix. 4. 5. Three of these, an ephah, appears to have been the usual quantity prepared for a baking: see Genesis 18:6: Judges 6:19: 1 Samuel 1:24. This being the case, we need not perhaps seek for any symbolical interpretation: though Olsh.’ s hint that the body, soul, and spirit may perhaps be here intended can hardly but occur to us, and Stier’ s, that “ of the three sons of Noah was the whole earth overspread,” is worth recording. 34, 35. Conclusion of the parables spoken to the multitudes. Mark 4:33, Mark 4:34. 34. καὶχωρ . π . οὐδ . ἐλ .] κατὰτὸνκαιρὸνἐκεῖνονδηλαδή · πολλὰγὰρπολλάκιςἐλάλησεναὐτοῖςδίχαπαραβολῆς . 35. ὅπωςπλ .] in order that &c., not ‘ so that thus,’ or ‘ and in this way’ (?) as Webst. and Wilk.,— here, or any where else. See note on ch. 1:22. The prophet, according to the superscription of Psa_78, is Asaph, so called 2 Chronicles 29:30, LXX. The former clause of the citation is identical with the LXX; the latter = φθέγξομαιπροβλήματαἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς , LXX. When we find De Wette, &c. maintaining that the Psalm contains no parable, and that consequently these words can only be cited out of their context, we must remember that such a view is wholly inconsistent with any deep insight into the meaning of the Scripture record: for the whole Psalm consists of a recounting of events which St. Paul assures us τύποιἡμῶνἐγενήθησαν … τυπικῶςσυνέβαινονἐκείνοις , ἐγράφηδὲπρὸςνουθεσίανἡμῶν . 1 Corinthians 10:6, 1 Corinthians 10:11. 36-43. Interpretation of the parable of the tares of the field. Peculiar to Matthew. 38. This verse has been variously interpreted, notwithstanding that its statements are so plain. The consideration of it will lead us into that of the general nature and place of the parable itself. The field is the world; if understood of the Church, then the Church only as commensurate with the world, πορευθέντεςεἰςτὸνκόσμονἅπαντακηρύξατετὸεὐαγγέλιονπάσῃτῇκτίσει (Mark 16:15); the Church standing for the world, not, the world for the Church. (This latter view, Stier says, Augustine upholds against the Donatists: but I cannot find it in his Ep. contra Donatistas (vol. ix.), where he several times plainly asserts the field to be commensurate with the world, and the Church to be the ‘ triticum inter zizania.’ ) And the parable has, like the former ones, its various references to various counter-workings of the Evil One against the grace of God. Its two principal references are, (1) to the whole history of the world from beginning to end; the coming of sin into the world by the malice of the devil, the mixed state of mankind, notwithstanding the development of God’ s purposes by the dispensations of grace,— and the final separation of the good and evil at the end. The very declaration ‘ the harvest is the end of the world’ suggests the original sowing as the beginning of it. Yet this sowing is not in the fact, as in the parable, one only, but repeated again and again. In the parable the Lord gathers as it were the whole human race into one lifetime, as they will be gathered in one harvest, and sets that forth as simultaneous, which has been scattered over the ages of time. But (2) as applying principally to the βασ . τ . οὐρ . which lay in the future and began with the Lord’ s incarnation, the parable sets forth to us the universal sowing of good seed by the Gospel: it sows no bad seed: all this is done by the enemy, and further we may not enquire. Soon, even as soon as Act_5 in the history of the Church, did the tares begin to appear; and in remarkable coincidence with the wheat bringing forth fruit (see Acts 4:32-37). Again, see Acts 13:10, where Paul calls Elymas by the very name υἱὸςδιαβόλου . And ever since, the same has been the case; throughout the whole world, where the Son of Man sows good seed, the Enemy sows tares. And it is not the office, however much it may be the desire, of the servants of the householder, the labourers in His field, to collect or root up these tares, to put them out of the world literally, or of the Church spiritually (save in some few exceptional cases, such as that in Act_5); this is reserved for another time and for other hands,— for the harvest, the end; for the reapers, the angels. (3) It is also most important to notice that, as the Lord here gathers up ages into one season of seed time and harvest, so He also gathers up the various changes of human character and shiftings of human will into two distinct classes. We are not to suppose that the wheat can never become tares, or the tares wheat: this would be to contradict the purpose of Him who willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live; and this gracious purpose shines through the command ἄφετεσυναυξάνεσθαιἀμφότερα — let time be given (as above) for the leaven to work. As in the parable of the sower, the various classes were the concentrations of various dispositions, all of which are frequently found in one and the same individual, so here the line of demarcation between wheat and tares, so fixed and impassable at last, is, during the probation time, the time of συναύξησις , not yet determined by Him who will have all to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. In the very first example, that of our first parents, the good seed degenerated, but their restoration and renewal was implied in the promises made to them, and indeed in their very punishment itself; and we their progeny are by nature the children of wrath, till renewed by the same grace. The parable is delivered by the Lord as knowing all things, and describing by the final result; and gives no countenance whatever to predestinarian error. (4) The parable has an historical importance, having been much in the mouths and writings of the Donatists, who, maintaining that the Church is a perfectly holy congregation, denied the applicability of this Scripture to convict them of error, seeing that it is spoken not of the Church but of the world: missing the deeper truth which would have led them to see that, after all, the world is the Church, only overrun by these very tares. τὸδὲκαλὸνσπ ., οὗτοίεἰσιν strikingly sets forth again the identity of the seed, in its growth, with those who are the plants: see above on ver. 19. οἱυἱοὶτ . βασ .] not in the same sense as in ch. 8:12,— sons there, by covenant and external privilege: here,— by the effectual grace of adoption: the kingdom, there, in mere paradigm, on this imperfect earth: here, in its true accomplishment. in the new heavens and earth wherein dwelleth righteousness: but in their state among the tares, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. 41. τὰσκάνδ .] generally understood of those men who give cause of offence, tempters and hinderers of others: Stier would rather understand it of things, as well as men, who are afterwards designated. On ὁκλ . κ . ὁβρ ., see note at ch. 8:12. 43. ἐκλάμψουσιν ] shall shine out (their light here being enfeebled and obscured), as the sun from a cloud. τοῦπατρός , answering to οἱυἱοί , ver. 38. This sublime announcement is over and above the interpretation of the parable. 44. Fifth parable. The hidden treasure. Peculiar to Matthew. This and the following parable are closely connected, and refer to two distinct classes of persons who become possessed of the treasure of the Gospel. Notice that these, as also the seventh and last, are spoken not to the multitude but to the disciples. In this parable, a man, labouring perchance for another, or by accident in passing, finds a treasure which has been hidden in a field; from joy at having found it he goes, and selling all he has, buys the field, thus (by the Jewish law) becoming the possessor also of the treasure. Such hiding of treasure is common even now, and was much more common in the East (see Jeremiah 41:8 (cf. Hitzig in loc.): Job 3:21: Proverbs 2:4). This sets before us the case of a man who unexpectedly, without earnest seeking, finds, in some part of the outward Church, the treasure of true faith and hope and communion with God; and having found this, for joy of it he becomes possessor, not of the treasure without the field (for that the case supposes impossible) but of the field at all hazards, to secure the treasure which is in it: i.e. he possesses himself of the means of grace provided in that branch of the Church, where, to use a common expression, he has “ gotten his good:” he makes that field his own. 45, 46. Sixth parable. The pearl of great price. In this parable our Lord sets before us, that although in ordinary cases of finding ‘ the truth as it is in Jesus,’ the buying of the field is the necessary prelude to becoming duly and properly possessed of it; yet there are cases, and those of a nobler kind, where such condition is not necessary. We have here a merchantman,— one whose business it is,— on the search for goodly pearls; i.e. a man who intellectually and spiritually is a seeker of truth of the highest kind. “ He whom this pursuit occupies, is a merchantman; i.e. one trained, as well as devoted, to business. The search is therefore determinate, discriminate, unremitting. This case then corresponds to such Christians only as from youth have been trained up in the way which they should go. In these alone can be the settled habits, the effectual self-direction, the convergence to one point of all the powers and tendencies of the soul, which are indicated by the illustration.” (Knox’ s Remains, i. 460.) But as the same writer goes on to observe, even here there is a discovery, at a particular time. The person has been seeking, and finding, goodly pearls; what is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report: but at last he finds one pearl of great price— the efficacious principle of inward and spiritual life. We hear of no emotion, no great joy of heart, as before; but the same decision of conduct; he sells all and buys it. He chooses vital Christianity, at whatever cost, for his portion. But here is no field. The pearl is bought pure— by itself. It is found, not unexpectedly in the course of outward ordinances,— with which therefore it would become to the finder inseparably bound up,— but by diligent search, spiritual and immediate, in its highest and purest form. Trench instances (Parables, p. 100) Nathanael and the Samaritan woman as examples of the finders without seeking;— Augustine, as related in his Confessions (we might add St. Paul, see Philippians 3:7), of the diligent seeker and finder. Compare with this parable Proverbs 2:3-9, and to see what kind of buying is not meant, Isaiah 55:1: ch. 25:9, 10. Also see Revelation 3:18. 47-52. Seventh parable. The draw-net. Peculiar to Matthew. 47. σαγήνη is a drag, or draw-net, drawn over the bottom of the water, and permitting nothing to escape it. The leading idea of this parable is the ultimate separation of the holy and unholy in the Church, with a view to the selection of the former for the master’ s use. We may notice that the fishermen are kept out of view and never mentioned: the comparison not extending to them. A net is cast into the sea and gathers of every kind (of fish: not of things, as mud, weeds, &c., as Stier supposes); when this is full, it is drawn to shore, and the good collected into vessels, while the bad (the legally unclean, those out of season, those putrid or maimed) are cast away. This net is the Church gathering from the sea (a common Scripture similitude for nations: see Revelation 17:15: Isaiah 8:7: Psalms 65:7) of the world, all kinds (see Revelation 7:9); and when it is full, it is drawn to the bank , and the angels (not the same as the fishers, as Olshausen maintains; for in the parable of the tares the servants and reapers are clearly distinguished) shall gather out the wicked from among the just, and cast them into everlasting punishment. It is plain that the comparison must not be strained beyond its limits, as our Lord shews us that the earthly here gives but a faint outline of the heavenly. Compare the mere ἔξωἔβαλον of the one, with the fearful antitype of vv. 49, 50. On ὁκλ . κ . ὁβρ . see note on ch. 8:12. 51, 52. Solemn conclusion of the parables. When our Lord asks, ‘ Have ye understood all these things?’ and they answer, ‘ Yea, Lord,’ the reply must be taken as spoken from their then standing-point, from which but little could be seen of that inner and deeper meaning which the Holy Spirit has since unfolded. And this circumstance explains the following parabolic remark of our Lord: that every γραμματεύς (they, in their study of the Lord’ s sayings, answering to the then γραμματεῖς in their study of the Law) who is μαθητευθείς , enrolled as a disciple and taught as such, is like an householder (the Great Householder being the Lord Himself, compare ch. 24:45), who puts forth from his store new things and old; i.e. ‘ ye yourselves, scribes of the Kingdom of Heaven, instructed as ye shall fully be in the meaning of these sayings, are (shall be) like householders, from your own stores of knowledge respecting them hereafter bringing out, not only your present understanding of them, but ever new and deeper meanings.’ And this is true of πᾶςγρ . κ .τ .λ . Every real spiritually-learned scribe of the Kingdom of Heaven is able, from the increasing stores of his genuine experimental knowledge of the word , to bring forth things new and old. The διὰτοῦτο is an expression of consequence, but not a strong one: answering nearly to our Well, then. This is perhaps the fittest place to make a few general remarks on this wonderful cycle of Parables. We observe, (1) How naturally they are evolved from the objects and associations surrounding our Lord at the time . He sat in a boat in the sea, teaching the people who were on the land. His eye wandered over the rich plain of Gennesareth (where πᾶνπεφυτεύκασινοἱνεμόμενοι , Jos. B. J. iii. 10. 8, and Robinson, iii. 290):— the field-paths, the stony places, the neglected spots choked with wild vegetation (οὔτεγὰραὐτήτιφυτὸνἀρνεῖταιδιὰτὴνπιότητα , ib.), the plots of rich and deep soil, were all before him. The same imagery prevails in the parable of the tares of the field, and in that of the mustard seed; and the result of the tilling of the land is associated with the leaven in the lump. Then He quits the sea-shore and enters the house with the disciples. There the link to the former parable is the exposition of the tares of the field. From the working of the land for seed to finding a treasure in a field the transition is easy— from the finding without seeking to seeking earnestly and finding, easy again: from the seed to the buried treasure, from the treasure to the pearl,— the treasure of the deep,— again simple and natural. The pearl recalls the sea; the sea the fishermen with their net; the mixed throng lining the beach, the great day of separation on the further bank of Time. (2) The seven Parables compose in their inner depth of connexion, a great united whole, beginning with the first sowing of the Church, and ending with the consummation. We must not, as Stier well remarks, seek with Bengel, ., minutely to apportion the series prophetically, to various historical periods: those who have done so (see Trench, p. 142, edn. 4) have shewn caprice and inconsistency; and the parable, though in its manifold depths the light of prophecy sometimes glimmers, has for its main object to teach, not to foretell. More than a general outline, shewn by the prominence of those points to which the respective parables refer, in the successive periods of the Church, we can hardly expect to find. But as much we unquestionably do find. The apostolic age was (1) the greatest of all the seed times of the Church: then (2) sprang up the tares, heresies manifold, and the attempts to root them out, almost as pernicious as the heresies themselves: nay the so-called Church Catholic was for ages employed in rooting up the wheat also. Notwithstanding this (3) the little seed waxed onward— the kingdoms of the earth came gradually in— (4) the leaven was secretly penetrating and assimilating. Then is it, (5) during the period of dissensions, and sects, and denominations, that here and there by this man and that man the treasure shall be found: then is it, (6) during the increase of secular knowledge, and cultivation of the powers of the intellect, that merchantmen shall seek goodly pearls up and down the world, and many shall find, each for himself, the Pearl of Price. And thus we are carried on (7) through all the ages during which the great net has been gathering of every kind, to the solemn day of inspection and separation, which will conclude the present state. 53-58. Teaching, and rejection, at Nazareth. Mark 6:1-6. See Luke 4:16-29 and notes. 53, 54. τὴνπατ . αὐ ., viz. Nazareth. Perhaps the proceedings of ch. 8:18-9:34 are to be inserted between these two verses. In Mark 4:35, the stilling of the storm and voyage to the Gadarenes are bound to the above parables by what appears a distinct note of sequence: ἐνἐκείνῃτῇἡμέρᾳὀψίαςγενομένης : for we can hardly interpret ὀψ . γεν . on any other hypothesis than that ἐνἐκ . τ . ἡμ . means ‘ on the same day.’ The teaching was on the Sabbath (Mark). 55. οἱἀδελφοὶαὐτοῦ ] It is an enquiry of much interest and some difficulty, who these were. After long examination of the evidence on the subject, I believe that the truth will best be attained by disencumbering the mind in the first place of all à priori considerations, and traditions (which last are very inconsistent and uncertain), and fixing the attention on the simple testimony of Scripture itself. I will trace the ἀδελφοὶαὐτοῦ or ἀδ . κυρίου through the various mentions of them in the N.T., and then state the result; placing at the end of the note the principal traditions on the subject, and the difficulties attending them. (I) The expression οἱἀδ . αὐτοῦ occurs nine times in the Gospels, and once in the Acts. Of these the three first are in the narratives of the coming of His mother and brethren to speak with Him, Matthew 12:46: Mark 3:31: Luke 8:19: the two next are the present passage and its ║ in Mark 6:3, where they are mentioned in connexion with His mother and sisters; the four others are in John 2:12; John 7:3, John 7:5, John 7:10, in the first of which He and his mother and brethren and disciples are related to have gone down to Capernaum: and in the three last His brethren are introduced as urging Him to shew Himself to the world, and it is stated that they did not believe on Him. The last is in Acts 1:14, where we read that the Apostles ‘ continued in prayer and supplication with the women, and with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.’ In another place, 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul mentions οἱλοιποὶἀπόστολοι , καὶοἱἀδ . τ . κυρίου , κ . Κηφᾶς . Such are all the places where the meaning is undoubted, that persons called, and being in some usual sense, brethren of the Lord, are mentioned. (Besides these the Lord Himself uses the words οἱἀδελφοίμου Matthew 28:10: John 20:17, but apparently with a wider meaning, including at least the eleven Apostles in the term, as He does in Matthew 12:49 ║ .) Now I would observe that in all the mentions of them in the Gospels, except those in Joh_7, they are in connexion with His mother: the same being the case in Acts 1:14. That it is no where asserted or implied that any of them were of the number of the twelve; but from John 7:5, following upon 6:70 (by μετὰταῦτα 7:1), they are excluded from that number. John would certainly not have used the words οὐδὲγὰροἱἀδ . αὐτ . ἐπίστ . εἰςαὐτόν , had any of them believed on Him at that time (see this substantiated in note ad loc.):— and again in Acts 1:14, by being mentioned after the Apostles have been enumerated by name, and after the mother of Jesus, they are indicated at that time also to have been separate from the twelve, although then certainly believing on Him. Their names, as stated here and in Mark 6:3, were Jacob, Joseph (or Joses), Simon, and Judas, all of them among the commonest of Jewish names. Of Joseph (or Joses;— certainly not the Joseph Barsabas Justus of Act 1:23; see ib. ver. 21) and Simon (not Simon Cananæ us or Zelotes: see above) we know from Scripture nothing. Of the two others we have the following traces— Jacob (James) appears in the apostolic narrative as ὁἀδελφὸςτοῦκυρίου , Galatians 1:19: he is there called an apostle. This however determines nothing as to his having been among the twelve (which is a very different matter); for Paul and Barnabas are called apostles, Act_14:(4) 14, and Paul always calls himself such. See also Romans 16:7: 1 Thessalonians 2:7 compared with 1:1. That he is identical with the James of Gal 2:9, whom Paul mentions with Cephas and John as having given him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, fourteen years after the visit related ib. 1:19, does not appear for certain, but has been pretty generally assumed. (See this whole subject discussed in the prolegg. to the Epistle of James.) The Jude who has left an epistle, and was brother of James, not only does not call himself an apostle, ver. 1 (as neither does James, nor indeed John himself, so that this cannot be urged), but in ver. 17 (see note there) seems to draw a distinction between himself and the Apostles. Whether this indicate that the James and Jude, the authors of the Epistles, were two of these ἀδελφοὶτ . κυρίου , is uncertain; but it may at least be mentioned in the course of our enquiry. I shall now state the result of that enquiry, which has been based on Scripture testimony only. (1) That there were four persons known as οἱἀδ . αὐτοῦ or τ . κυρίου , not of the number of the twelve. (2) That these persons are found in all places (with the above exception) where their names occur in the Gospels, in immediate connexion with Mary, the mother of the Lord. (It is a strange phæ nomenon in argument, that it should have been maintained by an orthodox writer, that my inference from this proves too much, because Joseph is here introduced as His father: as if a mistake of the Jews with regard to a supernatural fact, which they could not know, invalidated their cognizance of a natural fact which they knew full well.) (3) That not a word is any where dropped to prevent us from inferring that the ἀδελφοί and ἀδελφαὶαὐτοῦ were His relations in the same literal sense as we know ἡμήτηραὐτοῦ to have been; but that His own saying, where He distinguishes His relations according to the flesh from His disciples , seems to sanction that inference. (4) That nothing is said from which it can be inferred whether Joseph had been married before he appears in the Gospel history;— or again, whether these ἀδ . were, according to the flesh, older or younger than our Lord. (5) That the silence of the Scripture narrative leaves it free for Christians to believe these to have been real (younger) brethren and sisters of our Lord, without incurring any imputation of unsoundness of belief as to His miraculous conception. That such an imputation has been cast, is no credit to the logical correctness of those who have made it, who set down that, because this view has been taken by impugners of the great Truth just mentioned, therefore, it eventually leads, or may fairly be used, towards the denial of it (see Dr. Mill on the Brethren of our Lord, p. 224); for no attempt is made to shew its connexion with such a conclusion. The fact is, that the two matters, the miraculous conception of the Lord Jesus by the Holy Ghost, and the subsequent virginity of His Mother, are essentially and entirely distinct; see note on Matthew 1:25: see also, respecting a supposed difficulty attending this view, note on John 19:27. (II) I will now state the principal traditionary views respecting the brethren of the Lord. (1) That they were all sons of Alphæ us (or Clopas) and Mary the sister of the mother of our Lord; and so cousins of Jesus, and called agreeably to Jewish usage His brothers. This is the view taken in the remarkable fragment of Papias, quoted in Dr. Mill, p. 238, adopted by Jerome (cont. Helvidium 13, vol. ii. p. 219), and very generally received in ancient and modern times. But it seems to me that a comparison of the Scripture testimonies cited above will prove it untenable. One at least of the sons of this Alphæ us was an apostle, of the number of the twelve, viz. ἸάκωβοςὁτοῦἈλφαίου (see all the lists, on ch. 10:3); which (see above) would exclude him from the number of the brethren of the Lord. But even if one of the four could be thus detached (which, from John 7:5, I cannot believe), it is generally assumed that ἸούδαςἸακώβου (see Luke’ s two lists as above) is Jude the brother of James; and if so, this would be another son of Alphæ us, and another subtraction from the number who did not believe on Him. Again Matthew (see note on Matthew 9:9), if identical with Levi (Mark 2:14), was another son of Alphæ us: which would make a fifth brother, and leave therefore, out of five, three believing on Him at the time when it was said οὐδὲγὰροἱἀδ .… κ .τ .λ . This view besides labours under the difficulty arising from these brethren accompanying and being found in connexion with Mary the mother of our Lord, whereas throughout that time their own mother was living. The way in which the assertors of this view explain John 7:5, is either by supposing that all the brethren are not there implied, or that all are not here mentioned; both suppositions, it seems to me, very unlikely (compare e.g. John’ s minute accuracy where an exception was to be made, ch. 6:23, 24). (2) That they were children of Joseph by a former marriage (or even by a later one with Mary wife of Clopas, to raise up seed to his dead brother,— as Clopas is said to have been: but this needs no refutation). This view was taken by several early Fathers, e.g. Hilary, Epiphanius, and mentioned by Origen, who (Winer, Realwö rterbuch, i. p. 663) says respecting it, οἱταῦταλέγοντεςτὸἀξίωματῆςΜαρίαςἐνπαρθενίᾳτηρεῖνμέχριτέλουςβούλονται . This however, while by no means impossible, and in some respects agreeing with the apparent position of these brothers as older (according to the flesh) than the Lord (John 7:3), has no countenance whatever in Scripture, either in their being called sons of any other woman, or in any distinct mention of Joseph as their father, which surely in this case would be required. (III) On the à priori considerations which have influenced opinions on this matter, see note on Matthew 1:25; and on the traditional literature, see the tract of Professor Mill on the Brethren of our Lord. See also Winer, Realwö rterbuch, Art. Jesus, § 3. Greswell, Dissertations, vol. ii. Diss. iii. Blom, Disputatio Theologica de τ . ἀδ . τ . κ . Lug. Bat. 1839. Wieseler, Stud. und Kritiken, 1842, i. 96 ff. (these two last I have not seen); also, a letter on this my note, referred to above under I. 2, in the Journal of Sacred Literature for July, 1855. This letter is too much based on à priori considerations, but contains some valuable suggestions on this confessedly difficult question. Neander, Leben J. p. 48, brings out the importance of the view which I have above, under (I), endeavoured to justify, as shewing that the account of the miraculous conception is not mythical, in which case all would have been arranged to suit the views of virginity from which it had arisen,— but strictly historical, found as it is with no such arrangements or limitations. 58. οὐκἐποίησεν = οὐκἠδύνατοποιῆσαι , Mark 6:5, where see note. On the identity, or not, of this preaching at Nazareth with that related much earlier by Luke 4:16 sq., see note there. Chap. 14:1-12. Herod hears of the fame of Jesus. Parenthetical account of the death of John the Baptist. Mark 6:14-29. Luke 9:7-9, who does not relate the death of John. 1. This Herod was Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, ἐκΜαλθάκηςτῆςΣαμαρείτιδος , and own brother of Archelaus (Jos. B. J. i. 28. 4). The portion of the kingdom allotted to him by the second will of his father (in the first he was left as king) was the tetrarchy of Galilee and Peræ a (Jos. Antt. xvii. 8. 1). He married the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas; but having during a visit to his half-brother Herod Philip (not the tetrarch of that name, but another son of Herod the Great, disinherited by his father) become enamoured of his wife Herodias, he prevailed on her to leave her husband, and live with him. (See below, on ver. 4.) This step, accompanied as it was with a stipulation of putting away the daughter of Aretas, involved him in a war with his father-in-law, which however did not break out till a year before the death of Tiberius (a.d. 37, u.c. 790; Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 1-3), and in which he was totally defeated and his army destroyed by Aretas; a divine vengeance, according to the Jews, for the death of John the Baptist (Josephus, ibid.). He and Herodias afterwards went to Rome at the beginning of Caligula’ s reign, to complain of the assumption of the title of king by Agrippa his nephew, son of Aristobulus; but Caligula having heard the claims of both, banished Antipas and Herodias to Lyons in Gaul, whence he was afterwards removed to Spain, and there died: Jos. Antt. xviii. 7. 1, 2. The following events apparently took place at Machæ rus, a frontier fortress between Peræ a and Arabia: see below on ver. 10. τὴνἀκοὴνἸησοῦ ] It was the fame of the preaching and miracles of the twelve, on their mission, of which Herod heard,— probably in conjunction with the works of Christ: see Mark. 2. παῖς = δοῦλος . αὐτός ] emphatic; equivalent in English to “ it is he, that” … In Luke 9:7 it is said that Herod διηπόρειδιὰτὸλέγεσθαιὑπότινωνὅτιἸωάνν . ἐγήγ . κ .τ .λ . There is no inconsistency in these accounts: the report originated with others: but if Herod διηπόρει concerning it, he, in the terrors of a guilty conscience, doubtless gave utterance to these words himself. There is no evidence that Herod was a Sadducee, or a disbeliever in the resurrection as then held by the Pharisees. See also note on Mark 8:14. There is no allusion here to metempsychosis, but to the veritable bodily resurrection, and supposed greater power acquired by having passed through death. This is an incidental confirmation of Joh 10:41, where we read that John wrought no miracle while living. 4. The marriage was unlawful for these three reasons: (1) The former husband of Herodias, Philip, was still living. This is expressly asserted by Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 4, Ἡρωδιάς , ἐπὶσυγχύσειφρονήσασατῶνπατρίων , Ἡρώδῃγαμεῖταιτοῦἀνδρὸςτῷὁμοπατρίῳἀδελφῷ , διαστᾶσαζῶντος . (A reply to the attempt made by some to interpret these last words, ‘ having previously been divorced from him while living,’ is hardly needed, in the presence of the two unqualified synchronous participles, φρονήσασα and διαστᾶσα . Besides, the part. is not ἀποστᾶσα , as erroneously quoted by the Bp. of Exeter [Philpotts]: see his published speech of Feb. 25, 1851, note.) The same is surely implied by the whole narrative, and the word μετοικίσασθαι , Antt. xviii. 5. 1. (2) The former wife of Antipas was still living, and fled to her father Aretas on hearing of his intention to marry Herodias: Jos. ibid. (3) Antipas and Herodias were already related to one another within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity. For θυγάτηρἦνἈριστοβούλου , καὶοὗτοςἀδελφὸςαὐτῶν (of Antipas and Philip), Jos. ib. See the Bp.’ s note, and a reply to it in substance the same as the foregoing, in the Quarterly Journal of Sacred Lit. for Oct. 1852 and Jan. 1853. I may add that the remark of Josephus (Antt. xviii. 5. 4), that Salome’ s birth had taken place previously to the infidelity of Herodias, is not given, as understood by the Bp. (after Tertullian, adv. Marcion. iv. 34, vol. ii. p. 443), as the technical reason why her conduct was ἐπὶσυγχύσειτῶνπατρίων , but as a moral aggravation of her unnatural crime. It was unlawful by Leviticus 18:16. 5. This verse is further expanded in Mark: ὁγὰρἩρ . ἐφοβεῖτοτὸνἸωάν . εἰδὼςαὐτὸνἄνδραδίκαιονκαὶἅγιον , καὶσυνετήρειαὐτόν , καὶἀκούσαςαὐτοῦπολλὰἐποίει , καὶἡδέωςαὐτοῦἤκουεν . Josephus, not being aware of any other grounds for his imprisonment, alleges purely political ones: δείσαςἩρώδηςτὸἐπὶτοσόνδεπιθανὸναὐτοῦτοῖςἀνθρώποιςμὴἐπὶἀποστάσειτινὶφέροι .… πολὺκρεῖττονἡγεῖται , πρίντινεώτερονἐξαὐτοῦγενέσθαι , προλαβὼνἀναιρεῖν .… Antt. xviii. 5. 2. εἶχον ] literally, ‘ possederunt eum tanquam prophetam;’ and thus Meyer maintains it must be rendered: but as our ‘ hold,’ so ἔχω comes to be applied to the estimate formed of a man or thing, which subjectively is our possession of him or it. 6. γενεσίοις ] the birthday. This name was given in classical Greek to an anniversary celebration of the memory of the dead. So Herod., iv. 26, having described such a celebration among the Issedones, adds, παῖςδὲπατρὶτοῦτοποιέεικατάπεροἱἝλληνεςτὰγενέσια . Phrynichus, , and Ammonius lay it down that γενέσια is not to be used for γενέθλια , a birthday. But the adj. was certainly so used in later Greek: e.g. ἄγοντεςτ . γενέσιονἡμέραντ . παιδίου , Jos. Antt. xii. 4. 7 (in Dio Cassius xlvii. 18, lvi. 46, lxvii. 2, usually cited, the γενέσια , though bearing this meaning, are in each case in honour of a dead person). See Suicer, Thes. under γενέθλια , and Lobeck’ s note, Phryn. p. 103. Heins., Grot., ., hold that the word here means the feast of Herod’ s accession: but they give no proof that it ever had such a meaning. Among the seasons kept by the Gentiles, enumerated in the Rabbinical work Avoda Sara, we have ג נ ו ס י א ש ל מ ל כ י ם : see Lightfoot in loc. [On the dative “ compare the examples quoted by Jelf, § 699.” Moulton’ s Winer, p. 276, note 1. A great feast was given to the nobility of Galilee, Mark 6:21. The damsel’ s name was Salome (Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 4), daughter of Herodias by her former husband Philip. She afterwards married her uncle Philip, tetrarch of Ituræ a and Trachonitis: and he dying childless, she became the wife of her cousin Aristobulus, son of Herod king of Chalcis, by whom he had three sons, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus. The dance was probably a pantomimic dance. 9. ὁβασιλεύς was a title which Herod never properly possessed. Subsequently to this event, Herodias prevailed on him to go to Rome to get the title, which had been granted to his nephew Agrippa. He was opposed by the emissaries of Agrippa, and was exiled to Lugdunum. See note on ver. 1, and Josephus there cited. Herod was grieved because he heard John gladly (Mark 6:20), and from policy did not wish to put him to death on so slight a cause. This is not inconsistent with his wishing to put him to death: his estimate of John was wavering and undecided, and he was annoyed at the decision being taken out of his hands by a demand, compliance with which would be irrevocable. 10. It appears from the damsel’ s expression δόςμοιὧδε and this verse, that the feast was held either at Machæ rus or at no great distance from it. Antipas had a palace near, τὰπλησίονἸορδάνουβασίλειακατὰΒηθαράμαθον , B. J. ii. 4. 2; but he was not there on account of the war with Aretas,— see above. 13-21. Feeding of the five thousand. Mark 6:30-44.Luke 9:10-17 Luke 9:10-17. John 6:1-13, where also see notes. 13. There is some difficulty here in conceiving how the narration is to proceed continuously. The death of the Baptist is evidently retrospectively and parenthetically inserted: and yet the retirement of our Lord in this verse seems to be the immediate consequence of his hearing of that occurrence. But this may well have been so: for (1) the disciples of John would be some days in bringing the news from Machæ rus to Capernaum, and the report mentioned in ver. 1 might reach Herod meantime; (2) the expression with which that report is introduced, ἐνἐκείνῳτῷκαιρῷ , extends it over a considerable space of time; and (3) the message which the disciples of John brought to our Lord might have included both particulars, the death of their Master, and the saying of Herod respecting Himself. He went across the lake (John 6:1) into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaï da (Luke 9:10). His retirement (Luke, ibid., and Mark 6:30) was connected also with the return of the twelve from their mission: compare the full and affecting account of the whole transaction in Mark 6:30-35. 14. ἐξελθών , from his place of retirement. 15. This ὀψία was the first evening, the decline of the day, about 3 p.m.; the ὀψία in ver. 23, after the miracle, was late in the night. ἡὥρα ] the time of the day is now late, ἦντῆςὥραςμικρὸνπρὸδύντοςἡλίου , Xen. Hell. vii. 2. 22. 16, 17. δότεαὐτοῖςὑμεῖςφ ., which is common to the three first Evangelists, is considerably expanded in the more detailed account of John, vv. 3-7; it was Andrew who spoke in our ver. 17, and the five loaves and two fishes were brought by a lad: John 6:8, John 6:9. They were barley loaves and (salt) fish; ibid. And we have (perhaps, but see note there) the vast concourse accounted for in John by the fact that the Passover was at hand, and so they were collected on their journey to Jerusalem. See a very similar miracle in 2 Kings 4:42-44; only then there were twenty barley loaves and an hundred men. See also Numbers 11:21, Numbers 11:22. 19. ηὐλόγησεν ] Luke supplies αὐτούς , the loaves and fishes: John has for it εὐχαριστήσας . Both are one. The thanks to heaven is the blessing on the meat. ὁΣωτὴρπρῶτονἀνέβλεψενεἰςτὸνοὐρανὸνταῖςἀκτῖσιτῶνὀφθαλμῶναὐτοῦοἱονεὶκαταβιβάζωνδύναμινἐκεῖθεντὴνἀνακραθησομένηντοῖςἄρτοιςκαὶτοῖςἰχθύσιμέλλουσιτρέφειντοὺςπεντακισχιλίους , καὶμετὰτοῦτοηὐλόγησετ . π . ἄρτουςκ . τ . δ . ἰχθ ., τῷλόγῳκ . τῇεὐλογίᾳαὔξωνκ . πληθύνωναὐτούς . in loc. This miracle was one of symbolic meaning for the twelve, who had just returned from their mission, as pointing to the δωρεὰνἐλάβετε , δωρεὰνδότε of ch. 10:8 in a higher sense than they then could have understood it:— but see the symbolic import of the miracle treated in the notes to Joh_6. Meyer well remarks that the process of the miracle is thus to be conceived:— the Lord blessed, and gave the loaves and fishes to the disciples, as they were; and then, during their distribution of them, the miraculous increase took place, so that they broke and distributed enough for all. 20. κοφίνους ] in the construction, is in apposition with τὸπερισσεῦον . The cophinus was the usual accompaniment of the Jew: see Sat. iii.14— ‘ Judæ is, quorum cophinus fœ numque supellex;’ and Sat. vi. 542. Reland, whom Schö ttgen (in loc.) follows, supposes that the basket was to carry their own meats on a journey, for fear of pollution by eating those of the Gentiles, and the hay to sleep on for the same reason. 21. χωρὶςγυν . κ . παιδ . is peculiar to Matt., although this might have been inferred from ἄνδρες being used in the other three Evangelists. See note on John 6:10. 22-33. Jesus walks on the sea. Mark 6:45-52. (Luke omits this incident.) John 6:16-21. The conviction of the people after the foregoing miracle was, that Jesus was the Messiah; and their disposition, to take Him by force, and make Him a king. See John 6:14, John 6:15. For this reason he constrained His disciples to leave Him, because they were but too anxious to second this wish of the multitude; and their dismissal was therefore an important step towards the other. 22. εἰςτὸπέραν ] Mark adds πρὸςΒηθσαϊδάν , John εἰςΚαφαρναούμ : for the Bethsaï da, the city of Philip and Andrew and Peter, was distinct from Bethsaï da Julias, in whose neighbourhood the miracle took place,— and in the direction of Capernaum. 25. The fourth watch according to the Roman calculation, which was by this time common among the Jews (who themselves divided the night into three parts or watches). This would be,— near the vernal equinox which this was,— between three and six in the morning. ἀπῆλθενπρὸςαὐτ .] a mixed construction for ἀπῆλθενἀπὸτοῦὄρουςκαὶἦλθενπρὸςαὐτ . The words περιπατ . ἐπὶτὴνθάλ . (or τῆςθαλάσσης ,— the gen. of the mere appearing on the spot, the accus. of motion,— over the sea. Webst. and Wilk. cite ἐπὶπολλὰἀλήθην Od. ξ . 120,— ἐπ ʼ ἔννεακεῖτοπέλεθρα Od. λ . 577) are common to the three Evangelists, and can have no other meaning here, than that the Lord walked bodily on the surface of the water. The passages commonly cited to shew that ἐπί with a gen. can mean ‘ on the bank of,’ are not applicable here, being all after verbs of rest, not of motion. 4 Kings 2:7: Daniel 8:2 Theod.: John 21:1. In ref. Job we read of the Almighty, ὁτανύσαςτὸνοὐρανὸνμόνοςκαὶπεριπατῶνὡςἐπ ʼ ἐδάφουςἐπὶθαλάσσης . Mark adds καὶἤθελενπαρελθεῖναὐτούς : John, καὶἐγγὺςτοῦπλοίουγινόμενον . See notes on John. 28. This narrative respecting Peter is peculiar to Matthew. It is in very strict accordance with his warm and confident character, and has been called almost a ‘ rehearsal’ of his denial afterwards. It contains one of the most pointed and striking revelations which we have of the nature and analogy of faith; and a notable example of the power of the higher spiritual state of man over the inferior laws of matter, so often brought forward by our Lord. See ch. 17:20; 21:21. 32. John (6:21) adds καὶεὐθέωςἐγένετοτὸπλοῖονἐπὶτῆςγῆςεἰςἣνὑπῆγον :— see note there. 33. These persons were probably the crew of the ship, and distinct from the disciples. On θεοῦυἱός , see note, ch. 4:3. It is the first time that our Lord is called so by men in the three synoptic Gospels. See ch. 3:17; 4:3; 8:29: and John 1:34, John 1:50. This feeling of amazement and reverence pervaded the disciples also: see the strong expression of Mar 6:52. 34-36. Mark 6:53-56. Gennesar or Gennesaret, a district from which the lake was also occasionally so called, extended along its western shore. See Josephus’ s glowing description of the beauty and fertility of this plain, B. J. iii. 10. 7. At its northern end was Capernaum, near which our Lord landed, as would appear from John 6:24, John 6:25. 36. παρεκάλ .… ἵνα ] For a discussion of the construction of verbs of entreaty, &c. with ἵνα and ὅπως , see note, 1 Corinthians 14:13. On κρασπ . see note on ch. 9:20. διεσ . as E. V., were made perfectly whole. Chap. 15:1-20. Discourse concering eating with unwashed hands. Mark 7:1-23. From Mark it appears that these Scribes and Pharisees had come expressly from Jerusalem to watch our Lord: most probably after that Passover which was nigh at the time of feeding the five thousand, John 6:4. 2. The Jews attached more importance to the traditionary exposition than to the Scripture text itself. They compared the written word to water; the traditionary exposition to the wine which must be mingled with it. The duty of washing before meat is not inculcated in the law, but only in the traditions of the Scribes. So rigidly did the Jews observe it, that Rabbi Akiba, being imprisoned, and having water scarcely sufficient to sustain life given him, preferred dying of thirst to eating without washing his hands. πρεσβύτεροι are not the elders, but the ancients. See ref. Heb. 3. καὶὑμ .] The καί implies that there was a παράβασις also on their part— acknowledging that on the part of the disciples. τὴνἐντ . τ . θ .] A remarkable testimony from our Lord to the divine origin of the Mosaic law: not merely of the Decalogue, as such, for the second command quoted is not in the Decalogue, and it is to be observed that where the text has ὁθεὸςἐνετείλατο , Mark (7:10) has Μωυσῆςεἶπεν . 4. θανάτῳτελ . is a Hebraism, מ ו ֹ ת י ו ּ מ ָ ת : see reff. LXX. 5. Lightfoot on this verse shews that the expression cited by our Lord did not always bind the utterer to consecrate his property to religious uses, but was by its mere utterance sufficient to absolve him from the duty of caring for his parents: see further on the word Corban in Mark 7:11. The construction of this and the following ver. is: But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, That from which thou mightest have been benefited by me, is an offering (consecrated to God; see above).… (understand, is free). [And] such an one will certainly not honour his father [or his mother]. So Mark, οὐκέτιἀφίετεκ .τ .λ . The joining of [καὶ ] οὐμὴκ .τ .λ . to the ὃςἄν above, and making the aposiopesis after μητ . αὐτοῦ , is inconsistent with the usage of οὐμή , which contains in itself an apodosis, being an elliptical construction for οὐδέοςμή or the like; see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 155 ff. The future ind. after οὐμή makes the certainty more apparent: so καὶτοῦτογὰρεὖεἰδέναιχρὴὅτιοὐμὴδυνήσεταιΚῦροςεὑρεῖν .… Xen. Cyr. viii. 1. 5. See more examples in Hartung, ib. Of course the apodosis is our Lord’ s saying, not that of the Pharisees. 8. The portion of Isaiah from which this citation is made (ch. 24-35) sets forth, in alternate threatenings and promises, the punishment of the mere nominal Israel, and the salvation of the true Israel of God. And, as so often in the prophetic word, its threats and promises are for all times of the Church;— the particular event then foretold being but one fulfilment of those deeper and more general declarations of God, which shall be ever having their successive illustrations in His dealings with men. The prophecy is nearly according to the LXX, which compare. The citation in Mark is (if the spurious words in the . here be cancelled) verbatim the same with that in the text. Stier however maintains (vol. ii. p. 142) that the words in question ought to be supplied in Mark, because ἐγγίζει is wanted to oppose to πόῤῥωἀπέχει , and στόματι to connect with στόμα in ver. 11. 9. LXX, ἐντάλματαἀνθ . καὶδιδασκαλίας . The two are here in apposition, as in E. V. 10. ἐκείνουςμὲνἐπιστομίσαςκαὶκαταισχύναςἀφῆκενὡςἀνιάτους · τρέπειδὲτὸνλόγονπρὸςτὸνὄχλονὡςἀξιολογώτερον . 12. This took place after our Lord had entered the house and was apart from the multitude: see Mark ver. 17. τὸνλόγον ] the saying addressed to the multitude in ver. 11. 13. The plant is the teaching of the Pharisees, altogether of human, and not of divine planting. That this is so, is clear by ἄφετεαὐτούς following, and by the analogy of our Lord’ s parabolic symbolism, in which seed, plant, &c., are compared to doctrine, which however in its growth becomes identified with, and impersonated by, its recipients and disseminators. See this illustrated in notes on the parable of the sower, ch. 13 ‘ φυτόν , naturâ : φυτεία , curâ .’ Bengel. On this verse see John 15:1, John 15:2. 15. The saying in ver. 11, which is clearly the subject of the question, was not strictly a παραβολή , but a plain declaration; so that either Peter took it for a parable,— or παραβ . must be taken in its wider sense of ‘ an hard saying.’ Stier thinks that their questioning as to the meaning of parables in ch. 13 had habituated them to asking for explanations in this form. 16. The saying in ver. 11 was spoken for the multitude, who were exhorted ἀκούετεκ . συνίετε : much more then ought the disciples to have understood it. ἀκμήν = adhuc is a later Greek word: Phrynichus (p. 123, ed. Lobeck) says that Xenophon uses it once (ref.): but this is not in the sense of ἔτι , but ἄρτι , ‘ even now,’ ‘ in articulo;’ see Lobeck’ s note, where he gives more examples. 17. στόματι , δι ʼ οὗγίνεταιθνητῶνμέν , ὡςἔφηΠλάτων , εἴσοδος , ἔξοδοςδὲἀφθάρτων . ἐπεισέρχεταιμὲνγὰραὐτῷσιτίακαὶποτά , φθαρτοῦσώματοςφθαρταὶτροφαί . λόγοιδὲἐξίασιν , ἀθανάτουψυχῆςἀθάνατοινόμοι , δι ʼ ὧνὁλογικὸςβίοςκυβερνᾶται . Philo de Opif. Mundi, 40, vol. i. p. 29. 21-28. The Canaanitish woman. Mark 7:24-30: omitted by Luke. It is not quite clear whether our Lord actually passed the frontier into the land of the heathen, or merely was on the frontier. The usage of εἰςτὰμέρη in Matthew favours the former supposition: see ch. 2:22; 16:13; also for ὅρια , ch. 2:16; 4:13; 8:34.Exodus 16:35 Exodus 16:35, εἰςμέροςτῆςΦοινίκης , ‘ to the borders of Canaan,’ has been quoted as supporting the other view; but the usage of our Evangelist himself seems to carry greater weight. And the question is not one of importance; for our Lord did not go to teach or to heal, but, as it would appear, to avoid the present indignation of the Pharisees. Mark’ s account certainly implies that the woman was in the same place where our Lord was wishing to be hid, and could not. 22. ἀπὸτ . ὁρ . ἐκ … does not belong to ἐξελθ ., but means of or from those parts. ἐξελθ .] coming out (they were going by the way, see ver. 23): i.e. from her house, or town, or village. The inhabitants of these parts are called Canaanites, Numbers 13:29: Judges 1:30, Judges 1:32, Judges 1:33; and Phœ nicians, Exodus 6:15 (LXX): Joshua 5:1 (LXX). Mark calls her Ἑλληνίς , i.e. a heathen by religion, and ΣύραΦοινίκισσατῷγένει : and describes her only as having come to our Lord in the house. But by the account in our text, she had been crying after the Lord and the disciples by the way previously; and Mark’ s account must be understood to begin at our ver. 25. From Mark 3:8, Luke 6:17, we learn that the fame of our Lord had been spread in these parts, and multitudes from thence had come to Him for healing. It was not this woman’ s dwelling-place, but her descent, which placed the bar between her and our Lord’ s ministrations. The expression υἱὸςΔαυείδ shews her acquaintance with Jewish expressions and expectations; but the whole narrative is against De Wette’ s supposition, that she may have been a proselyte of the gate. 23. The reason alleged by the disciples must be coupled with our Lord’ s unwillingness to be known, stated by Mark (7:24), and means, ‘ she will draw the attention of all upon us.’ The word ἀπόλυσον does not necessarily imply granting her request, nor the contrary; but simply dismiss her, leaving the method to our Lord Himself. 24. See ch. 10:5. Such was the purpose of our Lord’ s personal ministry; yet even this was occasionally broken by such incidents as this. The ‘ fountain sealed’ sometimes broke its banks, in token of the rich flood of grace which should follow. See Romans 15:8. 25. ἐλθοῦσα , i.e. into the house where our Lord was. See Mark 7:24. 26. κυναρίοις ] No further contempt is indicated by the diminutive, still less any allusion to the daughter of the woman: the word is commonly used of tame dogs, as diminutives frequently express familiarity. So in Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 20, εἰδὲμεγάληνγαμεῖς , ἤνποτεβούλῃαὐτὴνὀρθὴνφιλῆσαι , προσάλλεσθαίσεδεήσειὡςτὰκυνάρια . 27. The sense of καὶγάρ is not given by ‘ yet’ in the E. V. The woman, in her humility, accepts the appellation which our Lord gives her, and grounds her plea upon an inference from it. Her words also have a reference to ἄφεςπρῶτονχορτασθῆναιτὰτέκνα , expressed by Mark 7:27. The Vulgate has rightly, ‘ Etiam Domine: nam et catelli edunt.’ Yea, Lord: for even the dogs eat: or, for the dogs too eat Our Lord in the use of the familiar diminutive, has expressed not the uncleanness of the dog so much, as his attachment to and dependence on the human family: she lays hold on this favourable point and makes it her own, ‘ if we are dogs, then may we fare as such;— be fed with the crumbs of Thy mercy.’ She was, as it were, under the edge of the table— close on the confines of Israel’ s feast. Some say that the ψίχια are the pieces of bread on which the hands were wiped, εἰςὃτὰςχεῖραςἀποματτόμενοιεἶτακυσὶνἔβαλλον (Eustathius, cited by Trench on Mir. p. 342); but the πιπτόντων looks more like accidental falling, and the ψίχια like minute crumbs. 28. In Mark, διὰτοῦτοντὸνλόγον , ὕπαγε . The greatness of the woman’ s faith consisted in this, that in spite of all discouragements she continued her plea; and not only so, but accepting and laying to her account all adverse circumstances, she out of them made reasons for urging her request. St. Mark gives the additional circumstance, that on returning to her house she found the devil gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed. 29-39. Healing by the Sea of Galilee. Peculiar to Matthew (see Mark 7:31-37). Feeding of the four thousand. Mark 8:1-10. 29. τὸὄρος is the high land on the coast of the lake, not any particular mountain. From this account it is uncertain to which side of the lake our Lord came; from Mark 7:31 we learn that it was to the eastern side, ἀνὰμέσοντῶνὁρίωνΔεκαπόλεως . 30. κυλλοί are persons maimed in the hands; see Jerome in var. readd. (But it is also used of the feet, τίδεῦροπόδασὺκυλλὸνἀνὰκύκλονκυκλεῖς ; Aristoph. Av. 1379.) The meaning need not be, that a wanting member was supplied to these persons; but that a debility, such as that arising from paralysis or wound, was healed. ἔῤῥιψαν , not in neglect, but from haste and rivalry. 31. Mark (7:32-37) gives an instance of κωφοὺςλαλοῦντας . τὸνθ . Ἰσραήλ ] Perhaps this last word is added as an expression of the joy of the disciples themselves, who contrasted the fulness and abundance of the acts of mercy now before them with the instance which they had just seen of the difficulty with which the faith of a Gentile had prevailed to obtain help. 32. The modern German interpreters assume the identity of this miracle with that narrated in ch. 14:14 ff. If this be so, then our Evangelists must have forged the speech attributed to our Lord in ch. 16:9, 10. But, as Ebrard justly remarks (Evangelienkritik, p. 532), every circumstance which could vary, does vary, in the two accounts. The situation in the wilderness, the kind of food at hand, the blessing and breaking, and distributing by means of the disciples, these are common to the two accounts, and were likely to be so: but here the matter is introduced by our Lord Himself with an expression of pity for the multitudes who had continued with Him three days: here also the provision is greater, the numbers are less than on the former occasion. But there is one small token of authenticity which marks these two accounts as referring to two distinct events, even had we not such direct testimony as that of ch. 16:9, 10. It is, that whereas the baskets in which the fragments were collected on the other occasion are called by all four Evangelists κόφινοι , those used for that purpose after this miracle are in both Matt. and Mark σπυρίδες . And when our Lord refers to the two miracles, the same distinction is observed; a particularity which could not have arisen except as pointing to a matter of fact, that, whatever the distinction be, which is uncertain, different kinds of baskets were used on the two occasions. Perhaps the strangest reason for supposing the two identical (given by De Wette, Schleiermacher, and others) is an imagined difficulty in the question of the disciples, πόθενἡμῖνκ .τ .λ ., so soon after the former miracle; as if the same slowness to believe and trust in divine power were not repeatedly found among men, and instanced in Scripture itself;— compare Exodus 16:13 with Numbers 11:21, Numbers 11:22; and read in Exodus 17:1-7 the murmurings of the Israelites immediately after their deliverance at the Red Sea. And even could we recognize this as a difficulty, it is not necessarily implied in the text. Our Lord puts the matter to them as a question, without the slightest intimation of His intention to supply the want supernaturally. They make answer in the same spirit, without venturing (as indeed it would have been most unbecoming in them to do, see John 2:3, John 2:4) to suggest the working of a miracle. De Wette’ s assumption that the usage of κόφινοι and σπυρίδες shews two different traditional sources used by the author, would make it necessary to suppose that the forger of ch. 16:9, 10 has been skilful enough to preserve this distinction; an accuracy seldom found in interpolations of early Christian times. On ἡμέριατρεῖς see reff. and Winer, § 62. 2, note. 37. The σπυρίς was large enough to contain a man’ s body, as Paul was let down in one from the wall of Damascus, ref. Acts. Greswell (Diss. viii. pt. 4, vol. ii. p. 325) supposes that they may have been used to sleep in, during the stay in the desert. 39. Of Magadan nothing is known. Lightfoot (Centurio Chorograph. Marco præ missa, p. 413) shews Magdala to have been only a sabbathday’ s journey from Chamnath Gadara on the Jordan, and on the east side of the lake: but probably he is mistaken, for most travellers (see Winer, Realwö rterbuch, in v.) place it about three miles from Tiberias, on the west side of the lake, where is now a village named Madschel. Dalmanutha, mentioned by Mark (8:10), seems to have been a village in the neighbourhood. Chap. 16:1-4. Request for a sign from heaven. Mark 8:11-13, but much abridged. See also Luke 12:54 and notes. 1. σημεῖονἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦ ] see notes at ch. 12:38. There is no ground for supposing that this narrative refers to the same event as that. What can be more natural than that the adversaries of our Lord should have met His miracles again and again with this demand of a sign from heaven? For in the Jewish superstition it was held that dæ mons and false gods could give signs on earth, but only the true God signs from heaven. In the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah, ver. 67, we read of the gods of the heathen, σημεῖάτεἐνἔθνεσινἐνοὐρανῷοὐμὴδείξωσιν .… And for such a notion they alleged the bread from heaven given by Moses (see John 6:31), the staying of the sun by Joshua (Joshua 10:12), the thunder and rain by Samuel (1 Samuel 12:17, compare Jeremiah 14:22), and Elijah (James 5:17, James 5:18). And thus we find that immediately after the first miraculous feeding the same demand was made, John 6:30, and answered by the declaration of our Lord that He was the true bread from heaven. And what more natural likewise, than that our Lord should have uniformly met the demand by the same answer,— the sign of Jonas, one so calculated to baffle his enemies and hereafter to fix the attention of His disciples? Here however that answer is accompanied by other rebukes sufficiently distinctive. It was now probably the evening and our Lord was looking on the glow in the west which suggested the remark in ver. 2. On the practice of the Jews to demand a sign, see 1 Corinthians 1:22. 2. Mark 8:12 adds καὶἀναστενάξαςτῷπνεύματιαὐτοῦ … , omitting however the sentences following. The Jews were much given to prognosticating the rains, &c. of the coming season in each year. See Lightf. who cites examples. 3. Polybius iv. 21. 1, speaks of the ἠθῶναὐστηρίαν (of the Arcadians) ἥτιςαὐτοῖςπαρέπεταιδιὰτὴντοῦπεριέχοντοςψυχρότητακαὶστυγνότητα . ‘ Si circa occidentem rubescunt nubes, serenitatem futuræ diei spondent; concavus oriens pluvias præ dicit; idem ventos cum ante exorientem eum nubes rubescunt: quod si et nigræ rubentibus intervenerint et pluvias.’ Plin. Hist. Nat. xviii. 35. πρόσωπον , because στυγνός and στυγνάζω are properly used of sadness and obscurity in the visage of man. τῶνκαιρῶν , of times, generally. The Jews had been, and were, most blind to the signs of the times, at all the great crises of their history;— and also particularly to the times in which they were then living. The sceptre had departed from Judah, the lawgiver no longer came forth from between his feet, the prophetic weeks of Daniel were just at their end; yet they discerned none of these things. 4. See note on ch. 12:39. 5-12. Warning against the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. Mark 8:13-21. 5. This crossing of the lake was not the voyage to Magadan mentioned in ch. 15:39, for after the dialogue with the Pharisees, Mark adds (8:13), πάλινἐμβὰςἀπῆλθενεἰςτὸπέραν . ἐπελάθ .] not for a pluperfect: After they had come to the other side, they forgot to take bread; viz. on their land journey further. This is also to be understood in Mark (8:14), who states their having only one loaf in the ship, not to shew that they had forgotten to take bread before starting, but as a reason why they should have provided some on landing. 6. τῆςζύμης ] see beginning of note on ch. 13:33. It is from the penetrating and diffusive power of leaven that the comparison, whether for good or bad, is derived. In Luke 12:1, where the warning is given on a wholly different occasion, the leaven is explained to mean, hypocrisy; which is of all evil things the most penetrating and diffusive, and is the charge which our Lord most frequently brings against the Jewish sects. In Mark we read, καὶτῆςζύμηςἩρώδου . The Herodians were more a political than a religious sect, the dependants and supporters of the dynasty of Herod, for the most part Sadducees in religious sentiment. These, though directly opposed to the Pharisees, were yet united with them in their persecution of our Lord, see ch. 22:16: Mark 3:6. And their leaven was the same,— hypocrisy,— however it might be disguised by external difference of sentiment. They were all unbelievers at heart. 7. ἐνἑαυτοῖς = πρὸςἀλλήλους Mark 8:16. This is an important parallelism to which I may have occasion to refer again. 8-12. Not only had they forgotten these miracles, but the weighty lesson given them in ch. 15:16-20. The reproof is much fuller in Mark, where see note. On κοφίνους and σπυρίδας , see note, ch. 15:36. This voyage brought them to Bethsaï da: i.e. Bethsaï da Julias, on the North-Eastern side of the lake: see Mark 8:22, and the miracle there related. 13-20. Confession of Peter. Mark 8:27-30. Luke 9:18-21. Here St. Luke rejoins the synoptic narrative, having left it at ch. 14:22. We here begin the second great division of our Saviour’ s ministry on earth, introductory to His sufferings and death. Up to this time we have had no distinct intimation, like that in ver. 21, of these events. This intimation is brought in by the solemn question and confession now before us. And as the former period of His ministry was begun by a declaration from the Father of His Sonship, so this also, on the Mount of Transfiguration. 13. ΚαισαρείαςτῆςΦ .] A town in Gaulonitis at the foot of Mount Libanus, not far from the source of the Jordan, a day’ s journey from Sidon, once called Laish (Judges 18:7, Judges 18:29) and afterwards Dan (ibid.), but in later times Paneas, or Panias, from the mountain Panium, under which it lay (Jos. Antt. xv. 10. 3. ΦιλίππουΚαισαρείας , ἣνΠανεάδαΦοίνικεςπροσαγορεύουσι , Euseb. H. E. vii. 17). The tetrarch Philip enlarged it and gave it the name of Cæ sarea (Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 1). In after times King Agrippa further enlarged it and called it Neronias in honour of the Emperor Nero (Jos. Antt. xx. 9. 4). This must not be confounded with the Cæ sarea of the Acts, which was Cæ sarea Stratonis, on the Mediterranean. See Acts 10:1, and note. The following enquiry took place ἐντῇὁδῷ , Mark 8:27. St. Luke gives it without note of place, but states it to have been asked on the disciples joining our Lord, who was praying alone, Luke 9:18. τίναλέγουσιν ] who do men say that the Son of Man is? τὸνυἱὸντοῦἀνθρ . being equivalent to με in the corresponding sentence below, ver. 15. Of those who read με in the text, some would render as if our Lord had said, ‘ Who say men that I am? the Son of Man?’ i.e. the Messiah? (Beza, Le Clerc, and others,) but this is inadmissible, for the answer would not then have been expressed as it is, but affirmatively or negatively. Equally inadmissible is Olshausen’ s rendering ἐμὲτὸνυἱὸντοῦἀνθ . ὄντα , ‘ Me, who am, as ye are aware, the Son of Man?’ an expression, Olshausen says, by which the disciples would be led to the idea of the Son of God. But then this would destroy the simplicity of the following question, But who say ye that I am? because it would put into their mouths the answer intended to be given. The E. V. has beyond doubt the right rendering of this reading: and τὸνυἱ . τ . ἀνθ . is a pregnant expression, which we now know to imply the Messiahship in the root of our human nature, and which even then was taken by the Jews as = the Son of God, (see Luke 22:69, Luke 22:70,) which would serve as a test of the faith of the disciples, according to their understanding of it. οἱἄνθρωποι (generic: = οἱὄχλοι in Luke), i.e. the σὰρξκ . αἷμα of ver. 17, the human opinion. 14. It is no contradiction to this verdict that some called him the Son of David (ch. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22); for either these were or were about to become His disciples, or are quoted as examples of rare faith, or as in ch. 12:23, it was the passing doubt on the minds of the multitude, not their settled opinion. The same may be said of Joh 7:26, John 7:31; John 4:42. On our Lord’ s being taken for John the Baptist, see ch. 14:2, from which this would appear to be the opinion of the Herodians. ἕνατῶνπροφ . = ὅτιπροφ . τιςτῶνἀρχαίωνἀνέστη , Luke 9:19. It was not a metempsychosis, but a bodily resurrection which was believed. On Ἡλίαν , see note at ch. 11:14. Jeremiah was accounted by the Jews the first in the prophetic canon (Lightfoot on Matthew 27:9). 16. τίοὖντὸστόματῶνἀποστόλωνὁΠέτρος , ὁπανταχοῦθερμός , ὁτοῦχοροῦτῶνἀποστόλωνκορυφαῖος ; πάντωνἐρωτηθέντωναὐτὸςἀποκρίνεται , Chrysost. Hom. liv. 1, p. 546. The confession is not made in the terms of the other answer: it is not ‘ we say’ or ‘ I say,’ but Thou art. It is the expression of an inward conviction wrought by God’ s Spirit. The excellence of this confession is, that it brings out both the human and the divine nature of the Lord: ὁχριστός is the Messiah, the Son of David, the anointed King: ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦτοῦζῶντος is the Eternal Son, begotten of the Eternal Father, not ‘ Son of God’ in any inferior figurative sense, not one of the sons of God, of angelic nature, but the Son of the living God, having in Him the Sonship and the divine nature in a sense in which they could be in none else. This was a view of the Person of Christ quite distinct from the Jewish Messianic idea, which appears to have been (Justin Mart. Dial. § 48, p. 144) that he should be a man born from men, but selected by God for the office on account of his eminent virtues. This distinction accounts for the solemn blessing pronounced in the next verse. τοῦζῶντος must not for a moment be taken here as it sometimes is used, (e.g. ref. Acts,) as merely distinguishing the true God from dead idols; it is here emphatic, and imparts force and precision to υἱός . That Peter, when he uttered the words, understood by them in detail all that we now understand, is not of course here asserted: but that they were his testimony to the true Humanity and true Divinity of the Lord, in that sense of deep truth and reliance, out of which springs the Christian life of the Church. 17. μακάριος , as in ch. 5:4, &c., is a solemn expression of blessing, an inclusion of him to whom it is addressed in the kingdom of heaven, not a mere word of praise. And the reason of it is, the fact that the Father had revealed the Son to him (see ch. 11:25-27); cf. Galatians 1:15, Galatians 1:16, in which passage the occurrence of σαρκὶκαὶαἵματι seems to indicate a reference to this very saying of the Lord. The whole declaration of St. Paul in that chapter forms a remarkable parallel to the character and promise given to St. Peter in our text,— as establishing Paul’ s claim to be another such πέτρα or στύλος as Peter and the other great Apostles, because the Son had been revealed in him not of man nor by men, but by God Himself. The name Simon Bar Jonas is doubtless used as indicating his fleshly state and extraction, and forming the greater contrast to his spiritual state, name, and blessing, which follow. The same ‘ Simon son of Jonas’ is uttered when he is reminded by the thrice repeated enquiry, ‘ Lovest thou me?’ of his frailty, in his previous denial of his Lord. 18. The name Πέτρος (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on His first interview with Simon, John 1:43) or Κηφᾶς , signifying a rock, the termination being only altered to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ. He was the first of those foundation-stones (Revelation 21:14) on which the living temple of God was built: this building itself beginning on the day of Pentecost by the laying of three thousand living stones on this very foundation. That this is the simple and only interpretation of the words of our Lord the whole usage of the New Testament shews: in which not doctrines nor confessions, but men, are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building. See 1 Peter 2:4-6: 1 Timothy 3:15 (where the pillar is not Timotheus, but the congregation of the faithful) and note: Galatians 2:9: Ephesians 2:20: Revelation 3:12. And it is on Peter, as by divine revelation making this confession, as thus under the influence of the Holy Ghost, as standing out before the Apostles in the strength of this faith, as himself founded on the one foundation, Ἰησοῦςχριστός , 1 Corinthians 3:11— that the Jewish portion of the Church was built, Acts 2-5, and the Gentile, Acts 10:11 Acts 10:11 Acts 10:11. After this we hear little of him; but during this, the first building time, he is never lost sight of: see especially Acts 1:15; Acts 2:14, Acts 2:37; Acts 3:12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29; Acts 9:34, Acts 9:40; Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26. We may certainly exclaim with Bengel (Gnomon, p. 117), ‘ Tute hæ c omnia dicuntur; nam quid hæ c ad Romam?’ Nothing can be further from any legitimate interpretation of this promise, than the idea of a perpetual primacy in the successors of Peter; the very notion of succession is precluded by the form of the comparison, which concerns the person, and him only, so far as it involves a direct promise. In its other and general sense, as applying to all those living stones (Peter’ s own expression for members of Christ’ s Church) of whom the Church should be built, it implies, as Origen (in Matt. tom. xii. 11, vol. iii. p. 525) excellently comments on it, καὶεἴτιςλέγειτοῦτοπρὸςαὐτόν , οὐσαρκὸςκαὶαἵματοςἀποκαλυψάντωναὐτῷ , ἀλλὰτοῦἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖςπατρός , τεύξεταιτῶνεἰρημένων , ὡςμὲντὸγράμματοῦεὐαγγελίουλέγει , πρὸςἐκεῖνοντὸνΠέτρον , ὡςδὲτὸπνεῦμααὐτοῦδιδάσκει , πρὸςπάντατὸνγενόμενονὁποῖοςὁΠέτροςἐκεῖνος . The application of the promise to St. Peter has been elaborately impugned by Wordsw., whose note see. His zeal to appropriate πέτρα to Christ bas somewhat overshot itself. In arguing that the term can apply to none but God, he will find it difficult surely to deny all reference to a rock in the name Πέτρος . To me, it is equally difficult, nay impossible, to deny all reference, in ἐπὶταύτῃτῇπέτρᾳ , to the preceding πέτρος . Let us keep to the plain straightforward sense of Scripture, however that sense may have been misused by Rome. In this as in so many other cases we may well say, ‘ Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis.’ In the prefixing of μου to τὴνἐκκλησίαν , there is no mystic sense, nor solecism, as Wordsw. fancies : it is the very commonest arrangement. Cf. ch. 7:24, ὅστιςἀκούειμουτ . λόγους : ib. 26; ch. 8:8; 17:15: Mark 14:8: Luke 6:47; 12:18 . freq. ἐκκλησίαν ] This word occurs but in one place besides in the Gospels, ch. 18:17 bis, and there in the same sense as here, viz., the congregation of the faithful: only there it is one portion of that congregation, here the whole. πύλαιᾅδου ] The gates of Hades by a well-known oriental form of speech, = the power of the kingdom of death. The form is still preserved when the Turkish empire is known as ‘ the Ottoman Porte.’ This promise received a remarkable literal fulfilment in the person of Peter in Acts 12:6-18, see especially ver. 10. The meaning of the promise is, that over the Church so built upon him who was by the strength of that confession the Rock, no adverse power should ever prevail to extinguish it. 19. Another personal promise to Peter, remarkably fulfilled in his being the first to admit both Jews and Gentiles into the Church; thus using the power of the keys to open the door of salvation. As an instance of his shutting it also, witness his speech to Simon Magus,— οὐκἔστινσοιμερὶςοὐδὲκλῆροςἐντῷλόγῳτούτῳ , Acts 8:21. Those who deny the reference of ver. 18 to St. Peter, will find it very difficult to persuade any unbiassed Greek scholar, that the καὶδώσωσοί , with σοι thus lying unemphatically behind the verb, is not a continuation of a previous address, but a change of address altogether. ὃἂνδήσῃςκ .τ .λ .] This same promise is repeated in ch. 18:18, to all the disciples generally, and to any two or three gathered together in Christ’ s name. It was first however verified, and in a remarkable and prominent way, to Peter. Of the binding, the case of Ananias and Sapphira may serve as an eminent example: of the loosing, the ὃἔχω , τοῦτόσοιδίδωμι , to the lame man at the Beautiful gate of the Temple. But strictly considered, the binding and loosing belong to the power of legislation in the Church committed to the Apostles, in accordance with the Jewish way of using the words א ס ר and ה ת י ר for prohibuit and licitum fecit. They cannot relate to the remission and retention of sins, for (as Meyer observes) though λύεινἁμαρτίας certainly appears (reff. LXX) to mean to forgive sins, δέεινἁμαρτ . for retaining them would be altogether without example, and, I may add, would bear no meaning in the interpretation: it is not the sin, but the sinner, that is bound, ἔνοχοςαἰωνίουἁμαρτήματος (Mark 3:29). Nor can the ancient custom of fastening doors by means of cord be alluded to; for the expressions, ὃἄν , ὃἐάν , clearly indicate something bound and something loosed, and not merely the power of the keys just conferred. The meaning in John 20:23, though an expansion of this in one particular direction (see note there), is not to be confounded with this. 20. See note on ch. 8:4. 21-28. Our Lord announces His approaching Death and Resurrection. Rebuke of Peter. Mark 8:31-1.Luke 9:22-27 Luke 9:22-27. See note on ver. 13. Obscure intimations had before been given of our Lord’ s future sufferings, see ch. 10:38: John 3:14, and of His resurrection, John 2:19 (10:17, 18?), but never yet plainly, as now. With Mark’ s usual precise note of circumstances, he adds, καὶπαῤῥησίᾳτὸνλόγονἐλάλει . 21. On δεῖ , which is common to the three Evangelists, see Luke 24:26: John 3:14, and ch. 26:54. πολλὰπαθεῖν = ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι in Mark and Luke. These πολλά were afterwards explicitly mentioned, ch. 20:18: Luke 18:31, Luke 18:32. πρεσβ . κ . ἀρχ . κ . γραμ .] The various classes of members of the Sanhedrim: see note on ch. 2:4. On the prophecy of the resurrection, some have objected that the disciples and friends of our Lord appear not to have expected it (see John 20:2: Luke 24:12). But we have it directly asserted (Mark 9:10 and 32) that they did not understand the saying, and therefore were not likely to make it a ground of expectation. Certainly enough was known of such a prophecy to make the Jews set a watch over the grave (Matthew 27:63), which of itself answers the objection. Meyer in loc. reasons about the state of the disciples after the crucifixion just as if they had not suffered any remarkable overthrow of their hopes and reliances, and maintains that they must have remembered this precise prophecy if it had been given by the Lord. But on the other hand we must remember how slow despondency is to take up hope, and how many of the Lord’ s sayings must have been completely veiled from their eyes, owing to their non-apprehension of His sufferings and triumph as a whole. He Himself reproaches them with this very slowness of belief after His resurrection. It is in the highest degree improbable that the precision should have been given to this prophecy after the event, as Meyer supposes: both from the character of the Gospel History in general (see Prolegomena), and because of the carefulness and precision in the words added by Mark; see above. 22. The same Peter, who but just now had made so noble and spiritual a confession, and received so high a blessing, now shews the weak and carnal side of his character, becomes a stumbling-block in the way of his Lord, and earns the very rebuff with which the Tempter before him had been dismissed. Nor is there any thing improbable in this, as Schleiermacher would have us believe (Translation of the Essay on St. Luke, p. 153); the expression of spiritual faith may, and frequently does, precede the betraying of carnal weakness; and never is this more probable than when the mind has just been uplifted, as Peter’ s was, by commendation and lofty promise. προσλαβ . αὐτ .] by the dress or hand, or perhaps ἀντὶτοῦπαραλαβὼνκατ ʼ ἰδίαν . ἵλεώςσοι ] Supply εἴηὁθεός . ἵλεως with a dative is practically equivalent to the Hebrew ח ָ ל ִ י ל ָ ה ל ּ ְ , for which (see reff., especially 1 Chronicles 11:19 compared with the Heb.) the LXX have sometimes used it. οὐμὴἔσται ] I cannot think with Winer (§ 56. 3) that this means, ‘ absit, ne accidat;’ it is an authoritative declaration, as it were, on Peter’ s part, This shall not happen to Thee, implying that he knew better, and could ensure his Divine Master against such an event. It is this spirit of confident rejection of God’ s revealed purpose which the Lord so sharply rebukes. On οὐμή with the future, see note on ch. 15:6: and consult Winer, as above. 23. As it was Peter’ s spiritual discernment, given from above, which made him a foundation-stone of the Church, so is it his carnality, proceeding from want of unity with the divine will, which makes him an adversary now. Compare ch. 4:10, also Ephesians 6:12. σκάνδαλονεἶἐμοῦ ] Thou art my stumbling-block (not merely a stumbling-block to me; the definite article is omitted before a noun thrust forward for emphasis, but in English it must be supplied), my πέτρασκανδάλου (in Peter’ s own remarkable words, 1 Peter 2:7, 1 Peter 2:8,— joined too with the very expression, ὃνἀπεδοκίμασανοἱοἰκοδομοῦντες , which, as above noticed, occurs in this passage in Mark and Luke). Wordsw.’ s note here, “ our blessed Lord keeps up the metaphor of πέτρος , or a stone: thou who wert just now, by thy faith in confessing Me, a lively stone, art now by thy carnal weakness a stumbling stone to Christ,” seems to shew that his strong repudiation of any allusion to πέτρος in the πέτρα of ver. 18 has not carried full conviction to its writer. Before this rebuke St. Mark inserts καὶἰδὼντοὺςμαθητὰςαὐτοῦ , that the reproof might be before them all. 24. προσκαλεσάμενοςτὸνὄχλονσὺντοῖςμαθ . αὐτοῦ , Mark 8:34; ἔλεγεδὲπρὸςπάντας , Luke 9:23. This discourse is a solemn sequel to our Lord’ s announcement respecting Himself and the rebuke of Peter: teaching that not only He, but also His followers, must suffer and self-deny; that they all have a life to save, more precious than all else to them; and that the great day of account of that life’ s welfare should be ever before them. On this and the following verse, see ch. 10:38, 39. After τὸνστ . αὐτοῦ , Luke inserts καθ ʼ ἡμέραν . 26. There is apparently a reference to Psa_48 (LXX) in this verse. Compare especially the latter part with ver. 8 of that Psalm. τὴνψ . ζημιωθῇ = ἑαυτὸνδὲἀπολέσας Luke. Compare also 1 Peter 1:18. In the latter part of the verse, ἄνθρωπος and αὐτοῦ refer to the same person:— ἀντάλλαγμα = ἐξίλασμα , τὴντιμὴντῆςλυτρώσεωςτῆςψ . αὐτοῦ Psalms 48:7, Psalms 48:8. What shall a man give to purchase back his life? ψυχή , not soul, but life, in the higher sense. 27. A further revelation of this important chapter respecting the Son of Man. He is to be Judge of all— and, as in ch. 13:41, is to appear with His angels, and in the glory of His Father— the δόξαἣνδέδωκάςμοι , John 17:22. Mark and Luke place here, not this declaration, but that of our ch. 10:33. Our Lord doubtless joined the two. Compare ch. 24:30; 25:31. γάρ implies, “ And it is not without reason that I thus speak: a time will come when the truth of what I say will be shewn.” τὴνπρ .] his work, considered as a whole. 28. This declaration refers, in its full meaning, certainly not to the transfiguration which follows, for that could in no sense (except that of being a foretaste; cf. Peter’ s own allusion to it, 2 Peter 1:17, where he evidently treats it as such) be named ‘ the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom,’ and the expression, τινὲς … οὐμὴγ . θ ., indicates a distant event,— but to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the full manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity; which event, in this aspect as well as in all its terrible attendant details, was a type and earnest of the final coming of Christ. See John 21:22, and compare Deuteronomy 32:36 with Hebrews 10:30. This dreadful destruction was indeed judgment beginning at the house of God. The interpretation of Meyer, &c., that our Lord referred to His ultimate glorious παρουσία , the time of which was hidden from Himself (see Mark 13:32: Acts 1:7), is self-contradictory on his own view of the Person of Christ. That our Lord, in His humanity in the flesh, did not know the day and the hour, we have from His own lips: but that not knowing it, He should have uttered a determinate and solemn prophecy of it, is utterly impossible. His ἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν always introduces His solemn and authoritative revelations of divine truth. The fact is, there is a reference back in this discourse to that in ch. 10, and the coming here spoken of is the same as that in ver. 23 there. Stier well remarks that this cannot be the great and ultimate coming, on account of οὐμὴγεύσ . θανάτουἕωςἂνἴδωσιν , which implies that they should taste of death after they had seen it, and would therefore be inapplicable to the final coming (Reden Jesu, ii. 224). This is denied by Wordsw., who substitutes for the simple sense of οὐμὴγεύσ . θαν . the fanciful expositions, “ shall not feel its bitterness,” “ shall not taste of the death of the soul,” and then, thus interpreting, gives the prophecy the very opposite of its plain sense: “ they will not taste of death till I come: much less will they taste of it then.” It might be difficult to account for such a curious wresting of meaning, had he not added, “ the signification of ἕωςἄν here may be compared to ἕωςοὗ in Matthew 1:25.” “ Latet anguis in herba.” Chap. 17:1-13. The transfiguration. Mark 9:2-13.Luke 9:28-36 Luke 9:28-36. This weighty event forms the solemn installation of our Lord to His sufferings and their result. Those three Apostles were chosen to witness it, who had before witnessed His power over death (Mark 5:37), and who afterwards were chosen to accompany Him in His agony (ch. 26:37), and were (John 20:2: Mark 16:7) in an especial sense witnesses of His resurrection. The Two who appeared to them were the representatives of the law and the prophets: both had been removed from this world in a mysterious manner:— the one without death,— the other by death indeed, but so that his body followed not the lot of the bodies of all; both, like the Greater One with whom they spoke, had endured that supernatural fast of forty days and nights: both had been on the holy mount in the visions of God. And now they came, endowed with glorified bodies before the rest of the dead, to hold converse with the Lord on that sublime event, which had been the great central subject of all their teaching, and solemnly to consign into His hands, once and for all, in a symbolical and glorious representation, their delegated and expiring power. And then follows the Divine Voice, as at the Baptism, commanding however here in addition the sole hearing and obedience of Him whose power and glory were thus testified. There can be no doubt of the absolute historical reality of this narration. It is united by definite marks of date with what goes before; and by intimate connexion with what follows. It cannot by any unfairness be severed from its context. Nor again is there any thing mentioned which casts a doubt on the reality of the appearances (see below, on ὅραμα , ver. 9). The persons mentioned were seen by all— spoke— and were recognized. The concurrence between the three Evangelists is exact in all the circumstances, and the fourth alludes, not obscurely, to the event, which it was not part of his purpose to relate; John 1:14. Another of the three spectators distinctly makes mention of the facts here related, 2 Peter 1:16-18. (I cannot but add, having recently returned from the sight of the wonderful original at Rome, that the great last picture of Raffaelle is one of the best and noblest comments on this portion of the Gospel history. The events passing, at the same time, on, and under, the Mount of Transfiguration, are by the painter combined, to carry to the mind of the spectator the great central truth, There is none but Christ to console and to glorify our nature. It is a touching reflection, that this picture was left unfinished by the painter, and carried in his funeral procession. July, 1861.) 1. μεθ ʼ ἡμέραςἕξ = μετὰτοὺςλόγουςτούτουςὡσεὶἡμ . ὀκτώ Luke 9:28. The one computation is inclusive, the other not; or perhaps, from the ὡσεί being inserted, the one is accurate, the other roughly stated. The time of the transfiguration was probably night, for the following reasons. (1) Luke informs us that the Lord had gone up to the mount to pray; which He usually did at night (Luke 6:12; Luke 21:37; Luke 22:39: Matthew 14:23, 24 .). (2) All the circumstances connected with the glorification and accompanying appearances would thus be more prominently seen. (3) The Apostles were asleep, and are described, Luke, ver. 32, as ‘ having kept awake through it’ . (4) They did not descend till the next day (Luke, ver. 37), which would be almost inexplicable had the event happened by day, but a matter of course if by night. ὄροςὑψ .] The situation of this mountain is uncertain. It was not, probably, Tabor, according to the legend; for on the top of Tabor then most likely stood a fortified town (De Wette, from Robinson). Nor is there any likelihood that it was Panium, near Cæ sarea Philippi, for the six days would probably be spent in journeying; and they appear immediately after to have come to Capernaum. It was most likely one of the mountains bordering the lake. Luke speaks of it merely as τὸὄρος . Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 399, contends for Hermon: as does, though doubtingly, Dr. Thomson, The Land and the Book, p. 231. Stanley thinks that our Lord would still be in the neighbourhood of Cæ sarea Philippi: and that “ it is impossible to look up from the plain to the towering peaks of Hermon, almost the only mountain which deserves the name in Palestine, and one of whose ancient titles was derived from this very circumstance, and not be struck with its appropriateness to the scene.… High up on its southern slopes there must be many a point where the disciples could be taken ‘ apart by themselves.’ Even the transient comparison of the celestial splendour with the snow, where alone it could be seen in Palestine, should not perhaps be wholly overlooked.” 2. μετεμορ . = ἐγένετοτὸεἶδοςτοῦπροσώπουαὐτοῦἕτερον Luke. In what way, is not stated; but we may conclude from what follows, by being lighted with radiance both from without and from within. λευκὰὡςτὸφῶς = λευκὸςἐξαστράπτων Luke; = λευκὰλίαν , οἷαγναφεὺςἐπὶτῆςγῆςοὐδύναταιοὕτωςλευκᾶναι Mark. 3. There need be no question concerning the manner of the recognition of Moses and Elias by the disciples: it may have been intuitive and immediate. We can certainly not answer with Olshausen, that it may have arisen from subsequent information derived from our Lord, for Peter’ s words in the next verse preclude this. Luke adds, οἳὀφθέντεςἐνδόξῃἔλεγοντὴνἔξοδοναὐτοῦἣνἔμελλενπληροῦνἐνἹερουσαλήμ . 4. Luke inserts, that the Apostles had been asleep, but wakened through this whole occurrence;— thereby distinguishing it from a mere vision of sleep; and that this speech was made ἐντῷδιαχωρίζεσθαιαὐτοὺςἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . Both Mark and Luke add, that Peter knew not what he said: and Mark— ἔκφοβοιγὰρἐγένοντο . The speech was probably uttered with reference to the sad announcement recently made by our Lord, and to which his attention had been recalled by the converse of Moses and Elias. A strange explanation of this verse is adopted by Meyer from Paulus, ‘ It is fortunate that we disciples are here: let us make,’ &c. Surely the words καλόνἐστινἡμᾶςὧδεεἶναι will not bear this. It is one of those remarkable coincidences of words which lead men on, in writing, to remembrances connected with those words, that in 2 Peter 1:14, 2 Peter 1:15, σκήνωμα and ἔξοδος have just been mentioned before the allusion to this event: see note there. κύριε = ῥαββεί Mark, = ἐπιστάτα Luke. 5. αὐτούς , viz. our Lord, Moses, and Elias. Luke adds, ἐφοβήθησανδὲἐντῷεἰσελθεῖναὐτοὺςεἰςτὴννεφέλην . That the Apostles did not enter the cloud, is shewn by the voice being heard ἐκτῆςνεφέλης . The ἀκούετεαὐτοῦ , and disappearance of the two heavenly attendants, are symbolically connected,— as signifying that God, who had spoken in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets, henceforth would speak by His Son. Vv. 6, 7 are peculiar to Matthew. 9. No unreality is implied in the word ὅραμα , for it = ἃεἶδον in Mark, and.… ὧνἑωράκασιν in Luke: see Numbers 24:3, Numbers 24:4. St. Luke, without mentioning the condition of time imposed on them, remarkably confirms it by saying, οὐδενὶἀπήγγειλανἐνἐκείναιςταῖςἡμέραιςοὐδὲν … 10. The occasion of this enquiry was, that they had just seen Elias withdrawn from their eyes, and were enjoined not to tell the vision. How should this be? If this was not the coming of Elias, was he yet to come? If it was, how was it so secret and so short? On ver. 12, see note on ch. 11:14. Our Lord speaks here plainly in the future, and uses the very word of the prophecy Malachi 4:6. The double allusion is only the assertion that the Elias (in spirit and power) who foreran our Lord’ s first coming, was a partial fulfilment of the great prophecy which announces the real Elias (the words of Malachi will hardly bear any other than a personal meaning), who is to forerun His greater and second coming. 14-21. Healing of a possessed lunatic. Mark 9:14-29. Luke 9:37-42. By much the fullest account of this miracle is contained in Mark, where see notes. It was the next day: see Luke 9:37, and note on our ver.1. Our Lord found the Scribes and the disciples disputing (Mark). 15. He was an only son, Luke 9:38. The dæ mon had deprived him of speech, Mark 9:17. 17. Bengel remarks, “ severo elencho discipuli accensentur turbæ .” Compare the διὰτὴνὀλιγοπιστίανὑμῶν , ver. 20, which however does not make this so certain, linked as it is to ὦγενεὰἄπιστος , as in the . text: see digest. μεθ ʼ ὑμῶν = πρὸςὑμᾶς Luke. 19. It was in the house, Mark 9:28. 22, 23. Our Lord’ s second announcement of His death and resurrection. Mark 9:30-32.Luke 9:43-45 Luke 9:43-45. This followed immediately after the miracle (Mark 9:30);— our Lord went privately through Galilee; ἐδίδασκενγὰρκ .τ .λ .:— the imparting of this knowledge more accurately to His disciples, which He had begun to do in the last chapter, was the reason for His privacy. For more particulars, see Luke, ver. 45: Mark, ver. 32. 24-27. Demand of the sacred tribute, and our Lord’ s reply. Peculiar to Matthew. The narrative connects well with the whole chapter, the aim of the events narrated in which is, to set forth Jesus as the undoubted Son of God. 24. οἱτὰδίδρ . λαμβ .] This tribute, hardly properly so called, was a sum paid annually by the Jews of twenty years old and upwards, towards the temple in Jerusalem. Exodus 30:13: 2 Kings 12:4: 2 Chronicles 24:6, 2 Chronicles 24:9. The LXX reckon according to the Alexandrian double drachma, and have therefore, as in the first of the above places, ἥμισυτοῦδιδράχμου : but Josephus and Philo reckon as here, and Aquila, Exodus 38:26, and an anonymous interpreter (see Hexapla), and apparently Jerome, Genesis 24:22, translate ב ּ ֶ ק ַ ע by δίδραχμ . Josephus (B. J. vii. 6. 6) says of Vespasian, φόρονδὲτοῖςὅπουδήποτ ʼ οὖσινἸουδαίοιςἐπέβαλε , δύοδραχμὰςἕκαστονκελεύσαςἀνὰπᾶνἔτοςεἰςτὸκαπετώλιονφέρειν , ὥσπερπρότερονεἰςτὸνἐνἹεροσολύμοιςνεὼνσυνετέλουν . See, for more particulars, Winer, RWB., art. Sekel. It does not quite appear whether this payment was compulsory or not; the question here asked would look as if it were voluntary, and therefore by some declined. Many Commentators both ancient and modern, and among them no less names than Clement Alex., Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, have entirely missed the meaning of this miracle, by interpreting the payment as a civil one, which it certainly was not. οἱτ . δ . λαμβ . are not the publicans, but they who received the didrachma, i.e. one for each person. Peter answered in the affirmative, probably because he had known it paid before. 25, 26. The whole force of this argument depends on the fact of the payment being a divine one. It rests on this: ‘ if the sons are free, then on Me, being the Son of God, has this tax no claim.’ κῆνσος , money taken according to the reckoning of the census,— a capitation tax: a Latin word. ἀλλοτρίων , all who are not their children; those out of their family. 27. In this, which has been pronounced (even by Olshausen) the most difficult miracle in the Gospels, the deeper student of our Lord’ s life and actions will find no difficulty. Our Lord’ s words amount to this:— “ that, notwithstanding this immunity, we (graciously including the Apostle in the earthly payment, and omitting the distinction between them, which was not now to be told to any), that we may not offend them, will pay what is required— and shall find it furnished by God’ s special providence for us.” In the foreknowledge and power which this miracle implies, the Lord recalls Peter to that great confession (ch. 16:16), which his hasty answer to the collectors shews him to have again in part forgotten. Of course the miracle is to be understood in its literal historic sense. The natural interpretation (of Paulus and Storr), that the fish was to be sold for the money (and a wonderful price it would be for a fish caught with a hook), is refuted by the terms of the narrative,— and the mythical one, besides the utter inapplicability of all mythical interpretation to any part of the evangelic history,— by the absence of all possible occasion, and all possible significancy, of such a myth. The stater = four drachmæ ,— the exact payment required. ἀντί , because the payment was a redemption paid for the person, Exodus 30:12— to this also refers the ἐλεύθεροι above. ἐμοῦκ . σοῦ — not ἡμῶν ,— as in John 20:17:— because the footing on which it was given was different. Chap. 18:1-35. Discourse respecting the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Mark 9:33-50. Luke 9:46-50. 1. In Mark we learn that this discourse arose out of a dispute among the disciples who should be the greatest. It took place soon after the last incident. Peter had returned from his fishing: see ver. 21. The dispute had taken place before, on the way to Capernaum. It had probably been caused by the mention of the Kingdom of God as at hand in ch. 16:19, 28, and the preference given by the Lord to the Three. In Mark it is our Lord who asks them what they were disputing about, and they are silent. ἄρα need not necessarily refer to the incident last related. As De Wette remarks, it may equally well be understood as indicating the presence in the mind of the querist of something that had passed in the preceding dispute. 2. From Mark 9:36 it appears that our Lord first placed the child in the midst, and then took it in His arms: possibly drawing a lesson for His disciples from its ready submission and trustfulness. 3. στραφῆτε = μετανοῆτε : it also conveys the idea of turning back from the course previously begun, viz. that of ambitious rivalry. Without this they should not only not be pre-eminent in, but not even admitted into, the Christian state— the Kingdom of Heaven. 4. Not ὡςτὸπαιδ . τ . ταπεινοῖἑαυτό : ‘ iste parvulus non se humilitat, sed humilis est.’ Valla (in Meyer). ‘ Quales pueri natura sunt, ab ambitu scilicet alieni, tales nos esse jubemur τῇπροαιρέσει .’ Grotius. 5. Having shewn the child as the pattern of humility, the Lord proceeds to shew the honour in which children are held in His heavenly kingdom; and not only actual, but spiritual children— for both are understood in the expression ἓνπαιδίοντοιοῦτον . The receiving in My name is the serving (ἔσταιπάντωνδιάκονος Mark 9:35) with Christian love, and as belonging to Christ (see also ch. 25:40). 6. Here St. Mark and St. Luke insert the saying of John respecting one casting out dæ mons in Jesus’ name, who followed not with the Apostles: which it appears gave rise to the remark in this verse. St. Luke however goes on no further with the discourse: St. Mark inserts also our ch. 10:42. The verbs κρεμασθῇ , καταποντισθῇ , may perhaps be understood in their strict tenses: it is better for him that a millstone should have been hanged, &c., and he drowned.… before the day when he gives this offence. But this is somewhat doubtful. The aorists more probably, as so often, denote an act complete in itself and accomplished at once: without any strict temporal reference. The punishment here mentioned, drowning, may have been practised in the sea of Galilee (‘ secundum ritum provinciæ ejus loquitur, quo majorum criminum ista apud veteres Judæ os pœ na fuerit, ut in profundum ligato saxo demergerentur.’ Jerome in loc.). De Wette however denies this, saying that it was not a Jewish punishment; but it certainly was a Roman, for Suetonius mentions it as practised by Augustus on the rapacious attendants of Caius Cæ sar ( ch. xlvii.):— and a Macedonian . Compare also Livy i. 51, where Turnus Herdonius (“ novo genere leti,” it is true) “ dejectus ad caput aquæ Ferentinæ , crate superne injecta, saxisque congestis, mergitur.” ὀνικός , as belonging to a mill turned by an ass, and therefore larger than the stones of a handmill. In the Digests, the ‘ mola jumentaria’ is distinguished from the ‘ mola manuaria;’ and in Cato, de re rustica, c. 10, we have ‘ molas asinarias duas, trusatiles unas.’ πελάγει , i.e. the deep part, in the open sea. 7. See 1 Corinthians 11:19. Stier suggests that Judas, who took offence at the anointing in Bethany, may have been on other occasions the man by whom the offence came, and so this may have been said with special reference to him. Still its general import is undeniable and plain. See also Acts 2:23. 8. The connexion is— ‘ Wilt thou avoid being the man on whom this woe is pronounced?— then cut off all occasion of offence in thyself first.’ The cautions following are used in a wider sense than in ch. 5:29, 30. In Mark, the ‘ foot’ is expanded into a separate iteration of the command. καλὸν … , ἢ … , a mixture of the two constructions, καλὸν .… καὶμὴ … , and κάλλιον … ἢ … See reff. τὸπῦρτὸαἰώνιον , which here first occurs, is more fully in Mark τὸπῦρτὸἄσβεστον , ὅπουὁσκώληξαὐτῶνοὐτελευτᾷκαὶτὸπῦροὐσβέννυται . 9. μονόφθαλμος , in classical Greek, is ‘ born blind of one eye;’ here it is used for ἑτερόφθαλμος . See Herod. iii. 116. 10. Hitherto our text has been parallel with that of Mar_9; from this, Matthew stands alone. The warning against contempt of these little ones must not be taken as only implying ‘ maxima debetur puero reverentia’ ( xiv. 47), nor indeed as relating exclusively, or even principally, to children. We must remember with what the discourse began— a contention who should be greatest among them: and the μικροί are those who are the furthest from these ‘ greatest,’ the humble and new-born babes of the spiritual kingdom. And καταφρονήσητε must be understood of that kind of contempt which ambition for superiority would induce for those who are by weakness or humility incapacitated for such a strife. There is no doubt that children are included in the word μικροί , as they are always classed with the humble and simple-minded, and their character held up for our imitation. The little children in the outward status of the Church are in fact the only disciples who are sure to be that in reality, which their Baptism has put upon them, and so exactly answer to the wider meaning here conveyed by the term: and those who would in afterlife enter into the kingdom must turn back, and become as these little children— as they were when they had just received the new life in Baptism. The whole discourse is in deep and constant reference to the covenant with infants, which was to be made and ratified by an ordinance, in the Kingdom of Heaven, just as then. On the reason assigned in the latter part of this verse (λέγωγὰρκ .τ .λ .), there have been many opinions; some of which have been broached merely to evade the plain sense of the words, which is— that to individuals (whether invariably, or under what circumstances of minor detail, we are not informed) certain angels are allotted as their especial attendants and guardians. We know elsewhere from the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament (Psalms 34:7; Psalms 91:11: Hebrews 1:14 .), that the angels do minister about the children of God: and what should forbid that in this service, a prescribed order and appointed duty should regulate their ministrations? Nay, is it not analogically certain that such would be the case? But this saying of our Lord assures us that such is the case, and that those angels whose honour is high before God are entrusted with the charge of the humble and meek,— the children in age and the children in grace. The phrase λέγωγὰρὑμῖν , or λέγωὑμῖν , as in Luke 15:7, Luke 15:10, is an introduction to a revelation of some previously unknown fact in the spiritual world. Stier has some very beautiful remarks on the guardian angels, and on the present general neglect of the doctrine of angelic tutelage, which has been doubtless a reaction from the idolatrous angel-worship of the Church of Rome (see Acts 12:15: Daniel 12:1: in the former case we have an individual, in the latter a national, guardianship). βλέπουσιντὸπρόσωπονκ .τ .λ ., i.e. are in high honour before God; not perhaps especially so, but the meaning may be, ‘ for they have angelic guardians, who always,’ &c. See Tobit 12:15. [11. The angels are the servants and messengers of the Son of Man; and they therefore (ἦλθ . γὰρκ .τ .λ .) are appointed to wait on these little ones whom He came to save: and who, in their utter helplessness, are especially examples of τὸἀπολωλός . ‘ Here,’ remarks Stier (ii. 241), ‘ is Jacob’ s ladder planted before our eyes: beneath are the little ones;— then their angels;— then the Son of Man in heaven, in whom alone man is exalted above the angels, Who, as the Great Angel of the Covenant, cometh from the Presence and Bosom of the Father;— and above Him again (ver. 14) the Father Himself, and His good pleasure.’ ] 12, 13. See notes on Luke 15:4-6, where the same parable is more expanded. Compare also Ezekiel 34:6, Ezekiel 34:11, Ezekiel 34:12. ἐπὶτὰὄρη belongs to ἀφείς , not to πορευθ . See var. read. The preposition of motion, ἐπί , gives the idea of the wandering and scattering of the flock over the mountains. If we join the words to πορευθείς , we give them an unmeaning emphasis, besides destroying the elegance of the sentence. 14. This verse sets forth to us the work of the Son as accomplishing the will of the Father;— for it is unquestionably the Son who is the Good Shepherd, searching for the lost, ver. 11. For similar declarations see Ezekiel 18:23; Ezekiel 33:11: 2 Peter 3:9. The inference from this verse is— ‘ then whoever despises or scandalizes one of these little ones, acts in opposition to the will of your Father in Heaven.’ Observe, when the dignity of the little ones was asserted, it was πατρόςμου : now that a motive directly acting on the conscience of the Christian is urged, it is πατρὸςὑμῶν . 15-20. Of the method of proceeding with an offending brother: and of the power of the Christian assembly in such cases. 15. The connexion of this with the preceding is: Our Lord has been speaking of σκάνδαλα , which subject is the ground-tone of the whole discourse. One kind is, when thou sinnest against another, vv. 7-14. A second kind, when thy brother sins against thee. The remedy for the former must be, in each individual being cautious in his own person,— that of the latter, in the exercise of brotherly love, and if that fail, the authority of the congregation, vv. 15-17. Then follows an exposition of what that authority is, vv. 18-20. On this verse see Leviticus 19:17, Leviticus 19:18. This direction is only in case of personal offence against ourselves, and then the injured person is to seek private explanation, and that by going to his injurer, not waiting till he comes to apologize. The stop must be after μόνου , as ordinarily read, and not after αὐτοῦ , as proposed by Fritzsche and Olshausen, which construction would be contrary to the usage of the N.T. An attempt has apparently been made (see var. readd.) to render the passage applicable to sin in general, and so to give the Church power over sins upon earth. ἐκέρδησας , in the higher sense, reclaimed, gained for God, see reff.: and for thyself too: πρῶτονγὰρἐζημίουτοῦτον , διὰτοῦσκανδάλουῥηγνύμενονἀπὸτῆςἀδελφικῆςσουσυναφείας . 16. παρ … ἔτι ] Go again, and take … The first attempt of brotherly love is to heal the wound, to remove the offence, in secrecy: to cover the sin: but if this cannot be done, the next step is, to take two or three, still, in case of an adjustment, preventing publicity; but in the other event, providing sufficient legal witness. See reff. and John 8:17. ῥῆμα , not thing, but word, as always. Cf. St. Paul’ s apparent reference to these words of our Lord, 2 Corinthians 13:1. 17. παρακούσῃ ] a stronger word than μὴἀκ ., implying something of obduracy. τῇἐκκλησίᾳ , by what follows, certainly not ‘ the Jewish synagogue’ (for how could vv. 18-20 be said in any sense of it?), but the congregation of Christians; i.e. in early times, such as in Acts 4:32, the one congregation,— in after times, that congregation of which thou and he are members. That it cannot mean the Church as represented by her rulers, appears by vv. 19, 20,— where any collection of believers is gifted with the power of deciding in such cases. Nothing could be further from the spirit of our Lord’ s command than proceedings in what were oddly enough called ‘ ecclesiastical’ courts. ἔστωσοὶκ .τ .λ .] ‘ let him no longer be accounted as a brother, but as one of those without,’ as the Jews accounted Gentiles and Publicans. Yet even then not with hatred, see 1 Corinthians 5:11, and compare 2 Corinthians 2:6, 2 Corinthians 2:7, and 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:15. The articles ὁἐθν ., ὁτελ ., are generic; the expressions being the singulars of οἱἐθνικοί , οἱτελῶναι . And thus the quality expressed by ἐθνικός and τελώνης , rather than the individual who may happen to bear these characters, is prominent in the sentence: the ἐθν . or the τελ ., inasmuch and as far as he is ἐθν . or τελ . But this is not, as Words., the effect of the article only; the predicate ἐθνικός conveys plainly enough, that it is as a heathen, not as a man, that he is here introduced. 18. This verse reasserts in a wider and more general sense the grant made to Peter in ch. 16:19. It is here not only to him as the first stone, but to the whole building. See note there, and on John 20:23, between which and our ch. 16:19 this is a middle point. 19. παντὸςπρ .] ‘ every thing:’ — but the construction is an instance of attraction: πᾶνπρᾶγμα , the subject of the sentence, is thrown into government after the verb: the plain construction would be ὅτιπᾶνπρ ., ἐὰνδύοὑμ . συμφ . ἐπὶτ . γ . περὶαὐτοῦ , οὗἐὰναἰτήσωνται , γενήσεταικ .τ .λ .: so that παντὸςπρ . amounts in English to any thing. This refers to that entire accordance of hearty faith, which could hardly have place except also in accordance with the divine will. It was apparently misunderstood by the Apostles James and John;— see St. Mark’ s account, ch. 10:35, in which they nearly repeat these words. Notice again the ἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν : see on ch. 16 ult. 20. A generalization of the term ἐκκλησία , and the powers conferred on it, which renders it independent of particular forms of government or ceremonies, and establishes at once a canon against pseudo-catholicism in all its forms: cf. 1 Corinthians 1:2. ἐκεῖεἰμί must be understood of the presence of the Spirit and Power of Christ, see chap. 28 ult. 21-35. Reply to Peter’ s question respecting the limit of forgiveness; and by occasion, the Parable of the forgiven but unforgiving servant. See Luke 17:3, Luke 17:4. It is possible that Peter may have asked this question in virtue of the power of the keys before (ch. 16:19) entrusted to him, to direct him in the use of them: but it seems more likely, that it was asked as in the person of any individual: that Peter wished to follow the rules just laid down, but felt a difficulty as to the limit of his exercise of forgiveness. The Rabbinical rule was, to forgive three times and no more; this they justified by Amos 1:3, &c.: Job 33:29, Job 33:30 LXX, and . E. V. The expression ‘ seven times’ is found Proverbs 24:16, in connexion with sinning and being restored: see also Leviticus 26:18-28. In our Lord’ s answer we have most likely a reference to Genesis 4:24. Seventy times seven, not ‘ seven and seventy times,’ is the rendering. οὐκἀριθμὸντιθεὶςἐνταῦθα , ἀλλὰτὸἄπειρονκαὶδιηνεκὲςκαὶἀεί . Chrys. Hom. lxi. 1, p. 611. 23. διὰτοῦτο ] ‘ because this is so,’ because unlimited forgiveness is the law of the Kingdom of Heaven. The δοῦλοι here are not slaves, but ministers or stewards. By the πραθῆναι of ver. 25 they could not be slaves in the literal sense. But in Oriental language (see Herodotus passim) all the subjects of the king, even the great ministers of state, are called δοῦλοι . The individual example is one in high trust, or his debt could never have reached the enormous sum mentioned. See Isaiah 1:18. 24. Whether these are talents of silver or of gold, the debt represented is enormous, and far beyond any private man’ s power to discharge. 10,000 talents of silver is the sum at which Haman reckons the revenue derivable from the destruction of the whole Jewish people, Esther 3:9. Trench remarks (Parables, p. 124) that we can best appreciate the sum by comparing it with other sums mentioned in Scripture. In the construction of the tabernacle, twenty-nine talents of gold were used (Exodus 38:24): David prepared for the temple 3000 talents of gold, and the princes 5000 (1 Chronicles 29:4-7): the Queen of Sheba presented to Solomon 120 talents (1 Kings 10:10): the King of Assyria laid on Hezekiah thirty talents of gold (2 Kings 18:14): and in the extreme impoverishment to which the land was brought at last, one talent of gold was laid on it, after the death of Josiah, by the King of Egypt (2 Chronicles 36:3). 25. ἐκέλευσεναὐτ .… κ .τ .λ .] See Exodus 22:3: Leviticus 25:39, Leviticus 25:47: 2 Kings 4:1. The similitude is however rather from Oriental despotism: for the selling was under the Mosaic law softened by the liberation at the year of jubilee. The imprisonment also, and the tormentors, vv. 30, 34, favour this view, forming no part of the Jewish law. ἀποδοθῆναι , impersonal, as in E. V., payment to be made. 26. Luther explains this as the voice of mistaken self-righteousness, which when bitten by sense of sin and terrified with the idea of punishment, runs hither and thither, seeking help, and imagines it can build up a righteousness before God without having yet any idea that God Himself will help the sinner. Trench remarks, “ It seems simpler to see in the words nothing more than exclamations characteristic of the extreme fear and anguish of the moment, which made him ready to promise impossible things, even mountains of gold.” p. 127. 28. Perhaps we must not lay stress on ἐξελθών , as indicating any wrong frame of mind already begun, as Theophylact does:— the sequel shews how completely he had ‘ gone out’ from the presence of his Lord. At all events the word corresponds to the time when the trial of our principle takes place: when we ‘ go out’ from the presence of God in prayer and spiritual exercises, into the world. We may observe, that forgiveness of sin does not imply a change of heart or principle in the sinner. The fellow-servant is probably not in the same station as himself, but none the less a fellow-servant. The insignificance of the sum is to shew us how trifling any offence against one another is in comparison to the vastness of our sin against God. Chrysostom finely remarks: ὁδὲοὐδὲτὰῥήματαᾐδέσθηδι ʼ ὧνἐσώθη · καὶγὰραὐτὸςταὐτὰεἰπὼνἀπηλλάγητῶνμυρίωνταλάντων · καὶοὐδὲτὸνλιμέναἐπέγνωδι ʼ οὗτὸναυάγιονδιέφυγεν · οὐτὸσχῆματῆςἱκετηρίαςἀνέμνησεναὐτὸντῆςτοῦδεσπότουφιλανθρωπίας · ἀλλὰπάνταἐκεῖναὑπὸτῆςπλεονεξίαςκαὶτῆςὠμότητοςκαὶτῆςμνησικακίαςἐκβαλών , θηρίουπαντὸςχαλεπώτεροςἦν , ἄγχωντὸνσύνδουλον . τίποιεῖς , ἄνθρωπε ; σεαυτὸνἀπαιτῶνοὐκαἰσθάνῃ , κατὰσεαυτοῦτὸξίφοςὠθῶν , καὶτὴνἀπόφασινκαὶτὴνδωρεὰνἀνακλούμενος ; Hom. lxi. 4, p. 616. ἔπνιγεν ] So ‘ obtorto collo ad præ torem trahor,’ Plaut. Pœ nul. iii. 5. 45. See other examples in Wetstein. The εἴτιὀφείλεις , which is beyond doubt the true reading, must be understood as a haughty expression of one ashamed to meet the mention of the paltry sum really owing, and by this very expression generalizing his unforgiving treatment to all who owed him aught. 31. The fellow-servants ἐλυπήθησαν , the lord ὀργίζεται . Anger is not man’ s proper mood towards sin, but sorrow (see Psalms 119:136), because all men are sinners. These fellow-servants are the praying people of God, who plead with Him against the oppression and tyranny in the world. 32. ὅτεμὲνμυρίατάλανταὤφειλεν , οὐκἐκάλεσεπονηρόν , οὐδὲὕβρισεν , ἀλλ ʼ ἠλέησεν . Chrysost. Hom. lxi. 4, p. 616. 34. τοῖςβασανισταῖς ] not merely the prison-keepers, but the torturers. Remember he was to have been sold into slavery before, and now his punishment is to be greater. The condition following would amount in the case of the sum in the parable to perpetual imprisonment. So Chrysostom, τουτέστιδιηνεκῶς · οὔτεγὰρἀποδώσειποτέ . Hom. lxi. 4, p. 617. See note on ch. 5:26. There is a difficulty made, from the punishment of this debtor for the very debt which had been forgiven, and the question has been asked, ‘ utrum peccata semel dimissa redeant.’ But it is the spiritual meaning which has here ruled the form of the parable. He who falls from a state of grace falls into a state of condemnation, and is overwhelmed with ‘ all that debt,’ not of this or that actual sin formerly remitted, but of a whole state of enmity to God. Meyer (Comm. in loc.) well remarks, that the motive held up in this parable could only have full light cast on it by the great act of Atonement which the Lord was about to accomplish. We may see from that consideration, how properly it belongs to this last period of His ministry. 35. ὁπ . μου ] not ὑμῶν , as in the similar declaration in ch. 6:14, 15. This is more solemn and denunciatory (οὐγὰρἄξιοντοῦτοιούτουπατέρακαλεῖσθαιτὸνΘεόν , τοῦοὕτωπονηροῦκ . μισανθρώπου . Chrys. Hom. lxi. 4, p. 617). ἐπουράνιος is not elsewhere used by our Evangelist. Chap. 19:1-12. Reply to the Pharisees’ question concerning divorce. Mark 10:1-12. This appears to be the journey of our Lord into the region beyond Jordan, mentioned John 10:40. If so, a considerable interval has elapsed since the discourse in ch. 15. 1. τὰὅριατῆςἸουδ . πέρ . τοῦἸορδ . form one continuous description. Bethany, where He went, was beyond Jordan, but on the confines of Judæ a. See notes on Mark 10:1, and Luke 9:51. 2. This agrees with what is said John 10:41, John 10:42. For ἐθεράπ ., St. Mark has ἐδίδασκεν . 3. This was a question of dispute between the rival Rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai; the former asserting the right of arbitrary divorce, from Deuteronomy 24:1, the other denying it except in case of adultery. It was also, says De Wette, a delicate question in the place where our Lord now was,— in the dominions of Herod Antipas. κ . πᾶσαναἰτ ., as E. V., for every cause;— i.e. is any charge which a man may choose to bring against his wife to justify him in divorcing her? So Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 23, γυναικὸςτῆςσυνοικούσηςβουλόμενοςδιαζευχθῆναικαθ ʼ ἃςδηποτοῦναἰτίας ,— πολλαὶδ ʼ ἂντοῖςἀνθρώποιςτοιαῦταιγίνοιντο ,— γράμμασιμὲνπερὶτοῦμηδέποτεσυνελθεῖνἰσχυριζέσθω . 4-6. On these verses we may remark (1) that our Lord refers to the Mosaic account of the Creation as the historical fact of the first creation of man; and grounds his argument on the literal expressions of that narrative. (2) That He cites both from the first and second chapters of Genesis, and in immediate connexion; thus shewing them to be consecutive parts of a continuous narrative, which, from their different diction, and apparent repetition, they have sometimes been supposed not to be. (3) That He quotes as spoken by the Creator the words in Genesis 2:24, which were actually said by Adam; they must therefore be understood as said in prophecy, divino afflatu, which indeed the terms made use of in them would require, since the relations alluded to by those terms did not yet exist. Augustin. de Nupt. ii. 4 (12), vol. x. pt. i., ‘ Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetande præ dixit.’ (4) That the force of the argument consists in the previous unity of male and female, not indeed organically, but by implication, in Adam. Thus it is said in Genesis 1:27, not ἄνδρακαὶγυναῖκαἐποίησεναὐτούς , but ἄρσενκαὶθῆλυἐπ . αὐ . He made them (man, as a race) male (not, a male) and female: but then the male and female were implicitly shut up in one; and therefore after the creation of woman from man, when one man and one woman were united in marriage they should be one flesh, ἕνεκεντούτου , because woman was taken out of man. The answer then is, that abstractedly, from the nature of marriage, it is indissoluble. The words οἱδύο are in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, but not in the Hebrew. 5. εἰςσάρκαμίαν ] εἶναιεἰς is not Greek, but a Hebraism, ה ָ י ָ ה ל ְ (Meyer). Stier remarks, that the essential bond of marriage consists not in unity of spirit and soul, by which indeed the marriage state should ever be hallowed and sweetened, but without which it still exists in all its binding power:— the wedded pair are one flesh, i.e. one man within the limits of their united life in the flesh, for this world: beyond this limit, the marriage is broken by the death of the flesh. And herein alone lies the justification of a second marriage, which in no way breaks off the unity of love in spirit with the former partner, now deceased. Vol. ii. p. 267, edn. 2. 7-9. In this second question, the Pharisees imagine that they have overthrown our Lord’ s decision by a permission of the law, which they call a command (compare ἐνετείλατο , ver. 7, with ἐπέτρεψεν , ver. 8). But He answers them that this was done by Moses on account of their hardness and sinfulness, as a lesser of evils, and belonged to that dispensation which παρεισῆλθεν , Romans 5:20; τῶνπαραβάσεωνχάρινπροσετέθη , Galatians 3:19. This He expresses by the ὑμῶν , ὑμῖν , ὑμῶν , as opposed to ἄνθρωπος , and to ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς . Only that πορνεία , which itself breaks marriage, can be a ground for dissolving it. The question, whether demonstrated approaches to πορνεία , short of the act itself, are to be regarded as having the same power, must be dealt with cautiously, but at the same time with full remembrance that our Lord does not confine the guilt of such sins to the outward act only: see ch. 5:28. St. Mark gives this last verse (9) as spoken to the disciples in the house; and his minute accuracy in such matters of detail is well known. This enactment by our Lord is a formal repetition of what He had said before in the Sermon on the Mount, ch. 5:32. Notice, as on ch. 5:32, ἀπολελυμένην without the art., and thus logically confined to the case of her who has been divorced μὴἐπὶπορνείᾳ . This not having been seen, expositors (e.g. of late Bp. Wordsworth) have fallen into the mistake of supposing that the dictum applies to the marrying a woman divorced ἐπὶπορνείᾳ , which grammatically would require τὴνἀπολελυμένην . The proper English way of rendering the word as it now stands, would be, a woman thus divorced, viz., μὴἐπὶπορνείᾳ . 10. αἰτία , not the cause of divorce just mentioned; nor, the condition of the man with his wife: but the account to be given, ‘ the original ground and principle,’ of the relationship of man and wife:— ἐὰντοιαύτηἐστὶνἡαἰτίατῆςσυζυγίας , , who however mentions other renderings. The disciples apprehend that the trials and temptations of marriage would prove sources of sin and misery. This question and its answer are peculiar to Matthew. Meyer refers αἰτία back to the αἰτία in ver. 3, and understands it to mean the only reason justifying divorce; but the above interpretation seems to me preferable. 11, 12. τὸνλόγοντοῦτον , this saying of yours, viz. οὐσυμφέρειγαμῆσαι . The γάρ in ver. 12 shews that the sense is carried on: see ch. 1:18. Our Lord mentions the three exceptions, the οἷςδέδοταιοὐγαμῆσαι . 1. Those who from natural incapacity, or if not that, inaptitude, have no tendencies towards marriage: 2. Those who by actual physical deprivation, or compulsion from men, are prevented from marrying: 3. Those who in order to do the work of God more effectually (as e.g. Paul), abstain from marriage, see 1 Corinthians 7:26. The εὐνοῦχοι and εὐνουχίζω in the two first cases are to be taken both literally and figuratively in the latter, figuratively only. It is to be observed that our Lord does not here utter a word from which any superiority can be attributed to the state of celibacy: the imperative in the last clause being not a command but a permission, as in Revelation 22:17. His estimate for us of the expediency of celibacy, as a general question, is to be gathered from the parable of the talents, where He visits with severe blame the burying of the talent for its safer custody. The remark is Neander’ s, and the more valuable, as he himself lived and died unmarried. See his Leben Jesu, edn. 4, p. 584. 12. χωρεῖν , as in E. V. and in ver. 11, to receive it. 13-15. The bringing of children to Jesus. Mark 10:13-16. Luke 18:15-17. After the long divergence of ch. 9:51-18:14, Luke here again falls into the synoptic narrative. This incident is more fully related in Mark, where see notes. Our Evangelist gives τὰςχ . ἐπιθ . αὐτ . κ . προσεύξ . (see Genesis 48:14: Acts 6:6), where the other two have only ‘ that He should touch them.’ The connexion in which it stands here and in Mark seems to be natural, immediately after the discourse on marriage. Some further remarks of our Lord, possibly on the fruit of marriage, may have given rise to the circumstance. 16-30. Answer to the enquiry of a rich young man, and discourse thereupon. Mark 10:17-31.Luke 18:18-30 Luke 18:18-30. 16. From Luke ver. 18 we learn that he was a ruler: from Mark ver. 17, that he ran to our Lord. The spirit in which he came,— which does not however appear here so plainly as in the other Gospels, from the omission of ἀγαθέ , and the form of our Lord’ s answer,— seems to have been that of excessive admiration for Jesus as a man of eminent virtue, and of desire to know from Him by what work of exceeding merit he might win eternal life. This spirit He reproves, by replying that there is but One Good, and that the walking by His grace in the way of holiness is the path to life. On the question and answer, as they stand in the received text,— and on their doctrinal bearing, see notes to Mark. This passage furnishes one of the most instructive and palpable cases of the smoothing down of apparent discrepancies by correcting the Gospels out of one another and thus reducing them to conformity. 18. De Wette observes well, that our Lord gives this enumeration of the commandments to bring out the self-righteous spirit of the young man, which He before saw. He only mentions those of the second table, having in ver. 17, in His declaration respecting ἀγαθός , included those of the first. Mark has the addition of μὴἀποστερήσῃς , representing probably the tenth commandment. 19. καὶἀγαπ . κ .τ .λ . is peculiar to Matthew. 20. We may remark that this young man, though self-righteous, was no hypocrite, no Pharisee: he spoke earnestly, and really strove to keep, as he really believed he had kept, all God’ s commandments. Accordingly Mark adds, that Jesus looking upon him loved him: in spite of his error there was a nobleness and openness about him, contrasted with the hypocritical bearing of the Pharisees and Scribes. 21, 22. Our Lord takes him on his own shewing. As Mark and Luke add, “ One thing is wanting to thee.” Supposing thy statement true, this topstone has yet to be laid on the fabric. But then it is to be noticed, that part of that one thing is δεῦροἀκολούθειμοι (ἄραςτὸνσταυρόν , Mark). Stier remarks, that this was a test of his observance of the first commandment of the first table: of breaking which he is by the result convicted. ἦνγὰρἔχ . κτ . π . is common to Mark, verbatim. 24. No alteration to κάμιλον is necessary or admissible. That word, as signifying a rope, or cable, seems to have been invented to escape the fancied difficulty here; see Palm and Rost’ s or Liddell and Scott’ s Lex. sub voce, and for the scholia giving the interpretation, Tischendorf’ s note here. Lightfoot brings instances from the Talmud of similar proverbial expressions regarding an elephant: we have a case in ch. 23:24, of a camel being put for any thing very large: and we must remember that the object here was to set forth the greatest human impossibility, and to magnify divine grace, which could accomplish even that. 25. τίς , not τίςπλούσιος , which would have been a far shallower and narrower enquiry, but a general question— what man? Besides the usual reason given for this question, ‘ since all are striving to be rich,’ we must remember that the disciples yet looked for a temporal Kingdom, and therefore would naturally be dismayed at hearing that it was so difficult for any rich man to enter it. 26. ἐμβλέψας ] Probably to give force to and impress what was about to be said, especially as it was a saying reaching into the spiritual doctrines of the Gospel, which they could not yet apprehend. τοῦτο , salvation in general, and even of those least likely to be saved. παρά in both cases, as in E. V., with, ‘ in the estimation of,’ ‘ penes:’ a subjective force of the preposition derived from its local meaning of close juxtaposition, in which sense we have it only once in the N.T., John 19:25. 27. The disciples, or rather Peter speaking for them, recur to the ἕξειςθησ . ἐνοὐρ . said to the young man, and enquire what their reward shall be, who have done all that was required of them. He does not ask respecting salvation, but some pre-eminent reward, as is manifest by the answer. The ‘ all’ which the Apostles had left, was not in every case contemptible. The sons of Zebedee had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Levi (Matthew?) could make a great feast in his house. But whatever it was, it was their all. 28-30. We may admire the simple truthfulness of this answer of our Lord. He does not hide from them their reward: but tells them prophetically, that in the new world, the accomplishment of that regeneration which He came to bring in (see Acts 3:21: Revelation 21:5: Matthew 26:29), when He should sit (καθίσῃ in the active) on His throne of glory (ἐπ . θρόνουτ . δ . αὐ ., the gen. expressing the simple fact of His session on His throne), then they also should sit (καθίσεσθε in the middle) on twelve thrones judging (see ref. 1 Cor.) the twelve tribes of Israel (see Revelation 20:4; Revelation 21:12, Revelation 21:14:— one throne, Judas’ s, another took, Acts 1:20). At the same time he informs them, ver. 29, that this reward should not in its most blessed particulars be theirs alone, but that of every one who should deny himself for Him (see 2 Timothy 4:8): and (ver. 30) cautions them, referring perhaps especially to Judas, but with a view to all, as appears by the following parable, that many first should be last, and last first. On ver. 29, Stier remarks that the family relations are mentioned by St. Matthew in the order in which they would be left. On the other points requiring notice, see note on Mark 10:29, Mark 10:30. Meyer’ s rendering of ver. 30, joining πρῶτοι with ἔσονται , and thus making ἔσχατοι the subject and πρῶτοι the predicate of the first clause and vice versâ in the second, is not so good as the ordinary one: for whereas the πρῶτοι in the first clause, if it belonged to πολλοί , would naturally lose its article, ἔσχατοι , if it belonged to πολλοί , being divided from it by the predicate πρῶτοι , would take its article as the subject; πολλοὶδὲἔσονταιπρῶτοιοἱἔσχατοι : and the same of πρῶτοι in the second clause: καὶἔσχατοιοἱπρῶτοι , ch. 20:16, by which Meyer defends his rendering, does not necessitate it, containing the same propositions stated in different order. Chap. 20:1-16. Parable of the labourers in the vineyard. Peculiar to Matthew. In interpreting this difficult parable, we must first carefully observe its occasion and connexion. It is bound by the γάρ to the conclusion of chap. 19, and arose out of the question of Peter in ver. 27, τίἄραἔσταιἡμῖν ; (1) Its ‘ punctum saliens’ is, that the Kingdom of God is of grace, not of debt; that they who were called first, and have laboured longest, have no more claim upon God than those who were called last: but that to all, His covenant promise shall be fulfilled in its integrity. (2) Its primary application is to the Apostles, who had asked the question. They were not to be of such a spirit, as to imagine, with the murmurers in ver. 11, that they should have something supereminent (because they were called first, and had laboured longest) above those who in their own time were to be afterward called (see 1 Corinthians 15:8-11). (3) Its secondary applications are to all those to whom such a comparison, of first and last called, will apply:— nationally, to the Jews, who were first called, and with a definite covenant, and the Heathens who came in afterwards, and on a covenant, though really made (see Jeremiah 31:33: Zechariah 8:8: Hebrews 8:10), yet not so open and prominent;— individually, to those whose call has been in early life, and who have spent their days in God’ s active service, and those who have been summoned later; and to various other classes and persons between whom comparison, not only of time, but of advantages, talents, or any other distinguishing characteristic, can be made: that none of the first of these can boast themselves over the others, nor look for higher place and greater reward, inasmuch as there is but one “ gift” of God according to the covenant of grace. And the “ first” of these are to see that they do not by pride and self-righteousness become the “ last,” or worse— be rejected, as nationally were the Jews; for among the many that are called, there are few chosen— many who will fail of the reward in the end. (4) In subordination to this leading idea and warning of the parable must the circumstances brought before us be interpreted. The day and its hours are not any fixed time, such as the duration of the world, or our Lord’ s life on earth, or the life of man, exclusively: but the natural period of earthly work as applied to the various meanings of which the parable is capable. The various times of hiring are not to be pressed as each having an exclusive meaning in each interpretation: they serve to spread the calling over the various periods, and to shew that it is again and again made. They are the quarters of the natural day, when the aliquot parts of the day’ s wages could be earned, and therefore labourers would be waiting. The last of these is inserted for a special purpose, and belongs more expressly to the instruction of the parable. (5) The μισθος bears an important part in the interpretation. I cannot with Stier (whose comment on this parable I think much inferior to his usual remarks) suppose it to mean “ the promise of this life” attached to godliness. His anxiety to escape from the danger of eternal life being matter of wages, has here misled him. But there is no such danger in the interpretation of the parable which I believe to be the true one. The μισθός is the promise of the covenant, uniformly represented by our Lord and His Apostles as a ‘ reward,’ Matthew 5:12: Luke 6:35; Luke 14:14: John 4:36: 1 Corinthians 3:14: 2 John 1:8: Hebrews 10:35; 11:6 ., reckoned indeed of free grace; but still, forensically considered, answering to, and represented by, ‘ wages,’ as claimed under God’ s covenant with man in Christ. This μισθός I believe then to be eternal life, or, in other words, God Himself (John 17:3). And this, rightly understood, will keep us from the error of supposing, that the parable involves a declaration that all who are saved will be in an absolute equality. This gift is, and will be, to each man, as he is prepared to receive it. To the envious and murmurers, it will be as the fruit that turned to ashes in the mouth; by their own unchristian spirit they will “ lose the things that they have wrought” (2 John 1:8), and their reward will be null: in other words, they will, as the spiritual verity necessitates, not enter into that life to which they were called. God’ s covenant is fulfilled to them— they have received their denarius— but, from the essential nature of the μισθός , are disqualified from enjoying its use: for as Gregory the Great remarks (Hom. 19 in Evv., p. 1512) ‘ cœ lorum regnum nullus murmurans accipit: nullus qui accipit murmurare poterit.’ To those who have known and loved God, it will be, to each as he has advanced in the spiritual life, joy unspeakable and full of glory. (In the 2nd edn. of the Reden Jesu (p. 299, note), Stier has even more emphatically declared himself in favour of his former view, and that with reference to my note; wenn auch Alford mir widerspricht und meine Eregese hier “ much inferior to his usual remarks” nennt, so muss ich erwarten, ob oielleicht die zweite Auflage mit ihren genaueren Beziehungen ihn beffer uberzeugt. But after carefully weighing the whole, I am quite unable to accede to his view; indeed I feel more repugnance to it than ever. The “ promise of the life that now is” seems to me wholly beneath the dignity of the parable, and in his explanation he appears painfully to feel it so. The text above quoted, 2 John 1:8, seems to me to furnish the key to the parable, and to have been written with reference to it: and there no one surely could interpret μισθός otherwise than of the μισθὸςἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς of our ch. 5.) 1. ἅμαπρωΐ ] see Jeremiah 35:14, and other places. ἐργάτας ] in the primary meanings of the parable, ‘ apostles, prophets, ministers:’ distinct from the vines in the vineyard. But inasmuch as every workman is himself subject to the treatment of the husbandman (see John 15:1, John 15:2), and every man in the Kingdom of God is in some sense or other a worker on the rest, the distinction is not to be pressed— the parable ranges over both comparisons. ἀμπελῶνα ]not the Jewish church only, as Greswell, Parables, iv. 355 ff., maintains. The Jewish Church was God’ s vineyard especially and typically; His Church in all ages is His true vineyard, see John 15:1. Our language admits of the idiom εἰςτὸνἀμ . αὐ . being exactly rendered— into his vineyard, E. V. 2. ἐκ seems to point, as commonly in other references, at the source or foundation of the συμφωνία : see reff. This view is more probable than that which supposes μισθώσασθαι understood. Meyer remarks that the accus. τὴνἡμέραν must not be regarded as one of time, which would not suit with συμφων . to which it belongs, but as one of secondary reference. The denarius a day was the pay of a Roman soldier in Tiberius’ time, a few years before this parable was uttered (see Tacitus, Annal. i. 17). Polybius, ii. 15. 6 (but in illustrating the exceeding fertility and cheapness of the country), mentions that the charge for a day’ s entertainment in the inns in Cisalpine Gaul was half an as, = 1/20th of the denarius. This we may therefore regard as liberal pay for the day’ s work. 3, 4. The third hour, = at the equinox, our 9 a.m., and in summer 8, was the πλήθουσαἀγορά , or ἀγορᾶςπληθώρα — when the market was fullest. “ The market-place of the world is contrasted with the vineyard of the Kingdom of God: the greatest man of business in worldly things is a mere idle gazer, if he has not yet entered on the true work which alone is worth any thing or gains any reward.” Stier, ii. p. 307. No positive stipulation is made with these second, but they are to depend on the justice of the householder. They might expect ¾ ths of a denarius. From the same dialogue being implied at the sixth and ninth hour the ὃἐὰνᾖδίκαιον is probably in each case the corresponding part of the denarius, at least in their expectation; so that it cannot be said that no covenant was made. 8. By the Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 24:15) the wages of an hired servant were to be paid him before night. This was at the twelfth hour, or sunset: see ver. 12. I do not think the ἐπίτροπος must be pressed as having a spiritual meaning. If it has, it represents Christ (see Hebrews 3:6, and ch. 11:27). ἀρξάμενος is not merely expletive, but definite, as in Luke 23:5. 9. After ὥραν supply ἀπεσταλμένοιεἰςτὸνἀμπελῶνα . 10. The precedent cited by Greswell for this method of payment, from Josephus, Antt. xx. 9. 7, does not apply. It is there said that in the rebuilding of the temple, εἰμίαντιςὥραντῆςἡμέραςἐργάσαιτο , τὸνμισθὸνὑπὲρταύτηςεὐθέωςἐλάμβανεν : the ταύτης referring to the μίανὥραν , not to τῆςἡμ ., and the fact related being that if any one worked only one hour in the day, he was immediately paid for that hour. Indeed the manifest effect of such a rule as Greswell supposes, would have been to stop the building, not to hasten it, for if a man could get his day’ s pay for an hour’ s work, why work more? 12. Some take ἐποίησαν , as in Acts 15:33, to mean “ have tarried,” — but the sense in the former reff. seems the best. 13, 14. ἑταῖρε , at first sight a friendly word merely, assumes a more solemn aspect when we recollect that it is used in ch. 22:12 to the guest who had not the wedding garment; and in ch. 26:50 by our Lord to Judas. ὕπαγε hardly denotes (as Stier in his 1st edn.) expulsion and separation from the householder and his employment: it is here only a word of course, commanding him to do what a paid labourer naturally should do. 15. ὀφθ . πον .] here envious: so ר ַ ע is used Proverbs 28:22. 16. The last were first, as equal to the first; first, in order of payment; first, as superior to the first (no others being brought into comparison), in that their reward was more in proportion to their work, and not marred by a murmuring spirit. The first were last in these same respects. The last words of the verse belong not so much to the parable, as to the first clause, and are placed to account for its being as there described; for, while multitudes are called into the vineyard, many, by murmuring and otherwise disgracing their calling, will nullify it, and so, although first by profession and standing, will not be of the number of the elect: although called, will not be chosen. In ch. 23:14 the reference is different. 17-19. Mark 10:32-34.Luke 18:31-34 Luke 18:31-34. Fuller declaration of His sufferings and death— revealing His being delivered to the Gentiles— and (but in Matthew only) His crucifixion. See the note on the more detailed account in Mark. 20-28. Ambitious request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee; our Lord’ s reply. Mark 10:35-45. Not related by Luke. This request seems to have arisen from the promise made to the twelve in ch. 19:28. In Mark’ s account, the two brethren themselves make the request. But the narration in the text is the more detailed and exact; and the two immediately coincide, by our Lord addressing His answer to the two Apostles (ver. 22). The difference is no greater than is perpetually to be found in narrations of the same fact, persons being often related to have done per se what, accurately speaking, they did per alterum. The mother’ s name was Salome;— she had followed our Lord from Galilee,— and afterwards witnessed the crucifixion, see Mark 15:40. Probably the two brethren had directed this request through their mother, because they remembered the rebuke which had followed their former contention about precedence. 21. The places close to the throne were those of honour, as in Josephus, speaking of Saul (Antt. vi. 11. 9), τοῦμὲνπαιδὸςἸωνάθουἐκδεξιῶν , Ἀβενήρουδὲτοῦἀρχιστρατήγουἐκτῶνἑτέρων … In the Rabbinical work Midrasch Tehillim, cited by Wetstein,— God, it is said, will seat the King Messiah at His right hand, and Abraham at his left. One of these brethren, John, the beloved disciple, had his usual place close to the Lord, John 13:23: the other was among the chosen Three (this request hardly can imply in their minds any idea of the rejection of Peter from his peculiar post of honour by the rebuke in ch. 16:23, for since then had happened the occurrences in ch. 17:1-8, and especially ib. vv. 24-27). Both were called Boanerges, or the sons of thunder, Mark 3:17. They thought the kingdom of God was immediately to appear, Luke 19:11. 22. One at least of these brethren saw the Lord on His Cross— on His right and left hand the crucified thieves. Bitter indeed must the remembrance of this ambitious prayer have been at that moment! Luther remarks, ‘ The flesh ever seeks to be glorified, before it is crucified: exalted, before it is abased.’ The ‘ cup’ is a frequent Scripture image for joy or sorrow: see Psalms 23:5; Psalms 116:13: Isaiah 51:22: Matthew 26:42. It here seems to signify more the inner and spiritual bitterness, resembling the agony of the Lord Himself,— and the baptism, which is an important addition in Mark, more the outer accession of persecution and trial,— through which we must pass to the Kingdom of God. On the latter image see Psalms 42:7; Psalms 69:2; Psalms 124:4. Stier rightly observes that this answer of our Lord contains in it the kernel of the doctrine of the Sacraments in the Christian Church: see Romans 6:1-11 Co 12:131 Co 12:13, and note on Luke 12:50. Some explain their answer as if they understood the Lord to speak of drinking out of the royal cup, and washing in the royal ewer: but the words δύνασθεπιεῖν , and δυνάμεθα , indicating a difficulty, preclude this. 23. The one of these brethren was the first of the Apostles to drink the cup of suffering, and be baptized with the baptism of blood, Acts 12:1, Acts 12:2; the other had the longest experience among them of a life of trouble and persecution. The last clause of the verse may be understood as in the E. V., ‘ is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father;’ so Meyer, al.; or, taking ἀλλά as = εἰμή (see reff.), ‘ is not mine to give, except to those for whom,’ &c. So Chrys. &c., Grot. al. If however we understand after ἀλλά ‘ it shall be given by Me,’ we may say with Bengel, ‘ res eodem recidit, sive oppositione, sive exceptione.’ 25. The two clauses, … κατακυρ . αὐτῶν and … κατεξ . αὐτῶν , are parallel, and αὐτῶν in both cases refers to τῶνἐθνῶν . Grotius and others would take the second αὐτῶν to refer to οἱἄρχοντες , but wrongly. Observe the κατα in composition in both verbs, signifying subjugation and oppression. 26-28. μέγας .… πρῶτος , i.e. in the next life, let him be διάκ . and δοῦλος here. Thus also the ἦλθεν , ver. 28, applies to the coming of the Son of man in the flesh only. λύτρονἀντὶπολ . is a plain declaration of the sacrificial and vicarious nature of the death of our Lord. The principal usages of λύτρον are the following:— (1) a payment as equivalent for a life destroyed, Exodus 21:30; (2) the price of redemption of a slave, Leviticus 25:51 al.; (3) ‘ propitiation for,’ as in Proverbs 13:8, where Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion have ἐξίλασμα . λύτρονἀντὶπολλῶν here = ἀντίλυτρονὑπὲρπάντων 1 Timothy 2:6. No stress is to be laid on this word πολλῶν as not being πάντων here; it is placed in opposition to the one life which is given— the one for many— and not with any distinction from πάντων . (I may observe once for all, that in the usage of these two words, as applied to our redemption by Christ, πάντων is the objective, πολλῶν the subjective designation of those for whom Christ died. He died for all, objectively; subjectively, the great multitude whom no man could number, πολλοί , will be the saved by Him in the end.) ‘ As the Son of man came to give His life for many and to serve many, so ye, being many, should be to each one the object of service and self-denial.’ Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, p. 197, argues for ἀντὶπολλῶν being taken with δοῦναι , not with λύτρον . But Meyer well remarks, 1) that the sense of ἀντί will not be altered by this, and 2) that this sense is clearly marked by λύτρον to be that of substitution, not, as Hofm., that of compensation merely. 29-34. Healing of two blind men on His departure from Jericho. Mark 10:46-52.Luke 18:35-43 Luke 18:35-43; Luke 19:1, with however some remarkable differences. In the much more detailed account of St. Mark, we have but one blind man, mentioned by name as Bartimæ us; St. Luke also relates it of only one, and besides says that it was ἐντῷἐγγίζειναὐτὸνεἰςἹεριχώ . The only fair account of such differences is, that they existed in the sources from which each Evangelist took his narrative. This later one is easily explained, from the circumstance having happened close to Jericho— in two accounts, just on leaving it— in the third, on approaching to it: but he must be indeed a slave to the letter, who would stumble at such discrepancies, and not rather see in them the corroborating coincidence of testimonies to the fact itself (see Olshausen, Comment, i. 752). Yet Mr. Greswell (as Theophylact, Neander,— and Ebrard, Evangelien-kritik, p. 572) strangely supposes our Lord to have healed one blind man (as in Luke) on entering Jericho, and another (Bartimæ us, as in Mark) on leaving it,— and Matthew to have, ‘ with his characteristic brevity in relating miracles,’ combined both these in one. But then what becomes of Matthew’ s assertion, ἐκπορευομένωναὐτῶνἀπὸἹερ .? Can we possibly imagine, that the Evangelist, having both facts before him, could combine them and preface them with what he must know to be false? It is just thus that the Harmonists utterly destroy the credibility of the Scripture narrative. Accumulate upon this the absurd improbabilities involved in two men, under the same circumstances, addressing our Lord in the same words at so very short an interval,— and we may be thankful that biblical criticism is at length being emancipated from ‘ forcing narratives into accordance.’ See notes on Mark: and a more curious and more recent example of harmonistic ingenuity, in Wordsw.’ s note here. It is highly instructive to us, that a Commentator, with the marks of sequence in time given by ἐντῷἐγγίζειναὐτὸνεἰςἹερ . and ἐκπορευομένωναὐτῶνἀπὸἹερ ., should fly for a solution to the Rabbinical canon, “ non est prius aut posterius in Scriptura.” Jericho, 150 stadia (= 18 rom. miles) n.e. of Jerusalem (Jos. B. J. iv. 8. 3), and 60 (= 7.2 rom. miles) w. from the Jordan (Jos. ibid.), in the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:21), near the borders of Ephraim (Joshua 16:7). The environs were like an oasis surrounded by high and barren limestone mountains,— well watered and fertile, rich in palmtrees (Deuteronomy 34:3: Judges 1:16; Judges 3:13), roses (Sir. 24:14), and balsam (Jos. Antt. iv. 6. 1 al.). After its destruction by Joshua, its rebuilding was prohibited under a curse (Joshua 6:26), which was incurred by Hiel the Bethelite in the days of Ahab (1 Kings 16:34): i.e. he fortified it, for it was an inhabited city before (see Judges 3:13: 2 Samuel 10:5). We find it the seat of a school of the prophets, 2 Kings 2:4 ff. After the captivity we read of it Ezra 2:34: Nehemiah 7:36: and in 1 Macc. 9:50 we read that Jonathan strengthened its fortifications. It was much embellished by Herod the Great, who had a palace there (Jos. Antt. xvi. 5. 2 al.), and at this time was one of the principal cities of Palestine, and the residence of an ἀρχιτελώνης on account of the balsam trade (Luke 19:1). At present there is on or near the site only a miserable village, Richa or Ericha. Winer, RWB. 30, 31. The multitude appear to have silenced them, lest they should be wearisome and annoying to our Lord; not because they called Him the Son of David,— for the multitudes could have no reason for repressing this cry, seeing that they themselves (being probably for the most part the same persons who entered Jerusalem with Jesus) raised it very soon after: see ch. 21:9. I have before noticed (on ch. 9:27) the singular occurrence of these words, ‘ Son of David,’ in the three narratives of healing the blind in this Gospel. 32. ἐφώνησεν = εἶπενΦωνήσατε Mark, = ἐκέλευσενἀχθῆναι Luke. 34. ἥψ . τῶνὀμμ ., not mentioned in the other Gospels. In both we have the addition of the Lord’ s saying, ἡπίστιςσουσέσωκένσε . The question preceding was to elicit their faith. Chap. 21:1-17. Triumphal entry into Jerusalem: cleansing of the temple. Mark 11:1-11, Mark 11:15.Luke 19:29-44 Luke 19:29-44.John 12:12-36 John 12:12-36. This occurrence is related by all four Evangelists, with however some differences, doubtless easily accounted for, if we knew accurately the real detail of the circumstances in chronological order. In John (12:1),— our Lord came six days before the Passover to Bethany, where the anointing (of Matthew 26:6-13) took place: and on the morrow, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was made. According to Mark 11:11,— on the day of the triumphal entry He only entered the city, went to the temple, and looked about on all things,— and then, when now it was late in the evening, returned to Bethany, and on the morrow the cleansing of the temple took place. The account in Luke, which is the fullest and most graphic of the four, agrees chronologically with that in the text. I would venture to suggest, that the supposition of the triumphal entry in Mark being related a day too soon, will bring all into unison. If this be so, our Lord’ s first entry into Jerusalem was private: probably the journey was interrupted by a short stay at Bethany, so that He did not enter the city with the multitudes. That this was the fact, seems implied in Mark 11:11. Then it was that, περιβλεψάμενοςπάντα , He noticed the abuse in the temple, which next day He corrected. Then in the evening He went back with the twelve to Bethany, and the supper there, and anointing, took place. Meantime the Jews (John 12:9) knew that He was at Bethany; and many went there that evening to see Him and Lazarus. (Query, had not Lazarus followed Him to Ephraim?) Then on the morrow multitudes came out to meet Him, and the triumphal entry took place, the weeping over the city (Luke 19:41), and the cleansing of the temple. The cursing of the fig-tree occurred early that morning, as He was leaving Bethany with the twelve, and before the multitude met Him or the asses were sent for. (On Matthew’ s narrative of this event see below on ver. 18.) According to this view, our narrative omits the supper at Bethany, and the anointing (in its right place), and passes to the events of the next day. On the day of the week when this entry happened, see note on John 12:1. Βηθφαγῆ = ב ּ ֵ י ת פ ּ ַ ג ֵ א , the house of figs: a considerable suburb, nearer to Jerusalem than Bethany, and sometimes reckoned part of the city. No trace of it now remains: see ‘ The Land and the Book,’ p. 697. 2, 3. τὴνκ . τ . ἀπ ., i.e. Bethphage. Mark and Luke mention the πῶλος only, adding “ whereon never yet man sat” (see note on Mark): John ὀνάριον . Justin Martyr (Apolog. i. 32, p. 63) connects this verse with the prophecy in Genesis 49:11, δεσμεύωνπρὸςἄμπελοντὸνπῶλοναὐτοῦ , καὶτῇἕλικιτὸνπῶλοντῆςὄνουαὐτοῦ . ὁκύριος , here, ‘ the LORD,’ Jehovah (see reff.): most probably a general intimation to the owners, that they were wanted for the service of God. I cannot see how this interpretation errs against decorum, as Stier (ii. 332, edn. 2) asserts. The meanest animals might be wanted for the service of the Lord Jehovah. And after all, what difference is there as to decorum, if we understand with him ὁκύρ . to signify “ the King Messiah” ? The two disciples were perhaps Peter and John: compare Mark 14:13 and Luke 22:8. 4. A formula of our Evangelist’ s (see ch. 1:22), spoken with reference to the divine counsels, but not to the intention of the doers of the act; for this application of prophecy is in John 12:16 distinctly said not to have occurred to the disciples at the time, but after Jesus was glorified. 6, 7. In Mark, εὗρονπῶλονδεδεμένονπρὸςθύρανἔξωἐπὶτοῦἀμφόδου . Our Lord sat on the foal (Mark, Luke), and the mother accompanied, apparently after the manner of a sumpter, as prophets so riding would be usually accompanied (but not of course doing the work of a sumpter). In the last αὐτῶν , probably the animals, not the garments, are to be understood. Thus we say, ‘ the postilion rode on the horses.’ Meyer objects to this interpretation, that no such latitude of expression is found in ver. 5. But I cannot see how this affects the matter. Even if we take ἐπάνωαὐτῶν of the garments, the former ἐπ ʼ αὐτῶν will require similar latitude of interpretation. That this riding and entry were intentional on the part of our Lord, is clear: and also that He did not thereby mean to give any countenance to the temporal ideas of His Messiahship, but solemnly to fulfil the Scriptures respecting Him, and to prepare the way for his sufferings, by a public avowal of His mission. The typical meaning also is not to be overlooked. In all probability the evening visit to the temple was on the very day when the Paschal Lamb was to be taken up— i.e. set apart for the sacrifice. 8, 9. Which was a royal honour: see 2 Kings 9:13. ὁπλεῖστοςὄχλος , the greater part of the multitude. Meyer refers to Plato, Rep. iii. p. 397 d; Thuc. vii. 78, in both which the same expression occurs; and Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 36, ὁπολὺςὄχλος . κλ . ἀπ . τ . δένδ . = τὰβάϊατῶνφοινίκων John, = στιβάδας Mark: see 1 Macc. 13:51: 2 Macc. 10:7. ὡσαννά ] from Psalms 118:25, ה ו ֹ ש ׁ ִ י ע ָ ה נ ּ ָ א , σῶσονδή LXX; a formula originally of supplication, but conventionally of gratulation, so that it is followed by a dative, and by ἐντοῖςὑψ ., meaning, ‘ may it be also ratified in heaven!’ see 1 Kings 1:36: Luke 2:14, where however it is an assertion, not a wish. This is far better than Grotius’ s interpretation, ‘ idem valere quod summè ; ut si Latinè dicas terque quaterque.’ ἐνὀν . κυρ . is to be joined with ὁἐρχ ., not with εὐλογ ., and forms a title of the Messiah. Luke adds βασιλεύς , John καὶὁβασ . τοῦἸσρ . 12. Compare the notes on John 2:13-18. The cleansing related in our text is totally distinct from that related there. It is impossible to suppose that St. Matthew and St. John, or any one but moderately acquainted with the events which he undertook to relate, should have made such a gross error in chronology, as must be laid to the charge of one or other of them, if these two occurrences were the same. I rather view the omission of the first in the synoptic accounts as in remarkable consistency with what we otherwise gather from the three Gospels— that their narrative is exclusively Galilæ an [with one exception, Luke 4:44 in our text] until this last journey to Jerusalem, and consequently the first cleansing is passed over by them (see Prolegomena, circa init.). On the difference from Mark, see note on ver. 1. Both comings of Jehovah to His temple were partial fulfilments of Mal 3:1-3,— which shall not receive its final accomplishment till His great and decisive visit at the latter day. The ἱερόν here spoken of was the court of the Gentiles. We have no traces of this market in the O.T. It appears to have first arisen after the captivity, when many would come from foreign lands to Jerusalem. This would also account for the money-changers, as it was unlawful (from Exodus 30:13) to bring foreign money for the offering of atonement. κόλλυβοςλέγεταιτὸλεπτὸννόμισμαπαρ ʼ Ἕλλησιν , ὃῬωμαῖοινοῦμμον (nummum) ὀνομάζουσι , Theophylact. τὰςπεριστ .] The poor were allowed to offer these instead of the lambs for a trespass-offering, Leviticus 5:7; also for the purification of women, Leviticus 12:8: Luke 2:24. 13. Stier remarks that the verse quoted from Jeremiah is in connexion with the charge of murder, and the shedding of innocent blood (see Jeremiah 7:6). Luther translates σπ . λῃστ ., Mardergrube. On the intention of this act of our Lord, see notes on John 2:15. It was a purely Messianic act; see Malachi 3:1-3. 15, 16. The circumstance that the children were crying ‘ Hosanna to the Son of David’ in the temple, seems to me to fix this event, as above, on the day of the triumphal entry. Psa_8 is frequently cited in the N.T. of Christ: see 1 Corinthians 15:27: Hebrews 2:6: Ephesians 1:22. In understanding such citations as this, and that in ver. 4, we must bear in mind the important truth, that the external fulfilment of a prophecy is often itself only a type and representation of that inner and deeper sense of the prophecy which belongs to the spiritual dealings of God. Those who can, should by all means consult Stier’ s admirable remarks on this truth, vol. ii. p. 340 f. edn. 2. 17. If this is to be literally understood of the village (and not of a district round it, including part of the Mount of Olives; see Luke 21:37), this will be the second night spent at Bethany. I would rather of the two understand it literally, and that the spending the nights on the Mount of Olives did not begin till the next night (Tuesday). 18-22. The curse of the barren fig-tree. Mark 11:12-14, Mark 11:20-26, where see notes. St. Luke omits the incident. The cursing of the fig-tree had in fact taken place on the day before, and the withering of it was now noticed. St. Mark separates the two accounts, which are here given together. We must remember that this miracle was wholly typical and parabolical. The fig-tree was the Jewish people— full of the leaves of an useless profession, but without fruit:— and further, all hypocrites of every kind, in every age. It is true, as De Wette observes, that no trace of a parabolic meaning appears in the narrative (and yet, strangely enough, he himself a few lines after, denying the truth of the miracle, accounts for the narrative by supposing it to have arisen out of a parable spoken by our Lord); but neither does there in that of the driving out the buyers and sellers from the temple, and in those of many other actions which we know to have been symbolic. 19. μίαν , ‘ unam illo loco:’ a solitary fig-tree. ἐπὶτ . ὁδ .] “ by the road-side: so Herod. vii. 6, αἱἐπὶΛήμνουἐπικείμεναινῆσοι : Demosth. p. 300. 16, ἡἐπὶτοῦποταμοῦμάχη . It was the practice to plant fig-trees by the road-side, because it was thought that the dust, by absorbing the exuding sap, was conducive to the production of the fruit. Plin. . . xv. 19.” Meyer. [But “ now translates ‘ over the road,’ adding that we may either suppose that the tree simply projected over the road, or that it was planted on an elevation by the road-side, or that the road here passed through a ravine.” Moulton’ s Winer, p. 468, note 4. 21, 22. This assurance has occurred before in ch. 17:20. That truest and highest faith, which implies a mind and will perfectly in unison with that of God, can, even in its least degree, have been in Him only who spoke these words. And by it, and its elevating power over the functions and laws of inferior natures, were His most notable miracles wrought. It is observable, that such a state of mind entirely precludes the idea of an arbitrary exercise of power— none such can therefore be intended in our Lord’ s assertion— but we must understand,— “ if expedient.” Though we cannot reach this faith in its fulness, yet every approach to it (ver. 21) shall be endued with some of its wonderful power,— in obtaining requests from God. See the remarkable and important addition in Mark 11:25, Mark 11:26. 23-32. Mark 11:27-33.Luke 20:1-8 Luke 20:1-8. Our Lord’ s authority questioned. His reply. Now commences that series of parables, and discourses of our Lord with His enemies, in which He developes more completely than ever before His hostility to their hypocrisy and iniquity:— and so they are stirred up to compass His death. 23. οἱἀρχ . κ . οἱπρεσ . τ . λ .] Mark and Luke add γραμματεῖς , and so make up the members of the Sanhedrim. It was an official message, sent with a view to make our Saviour declare Himself to be a prophet sent from God— in which case the Sanhedrim had power to take cognizance of His proceedings, as of a professed Teacher. Thus the Sanhedrim sent a deputation to John on his appearing as a Teacher, John 1:19. The question was the result of a combination to destroy Jesus, Luke 19:47, Luke 19:48. They do not now ask, as in John 2:18, τίσημεῖονδεικνύειςἡμῖνὅτιταῦταποιεῖς ; for they had had many signs which are now included in their ταῦτα . The second question, καὶτίςκ .τ .λ ., is an expansion of ποίᾳ . 25. τὸβἀπτ ., meaning thereby the whole office and teaching, of which the baptism was the central point and seal. If they had recognized the heavenly mission of John, they must have also acknowledged the authority by which Jesus did these things, for John expressly declared that he was sent to testify of him, and bore witness to having seen the Holy Spirit descend and rest upon Him. John 1:33, John 1:34. ἐπιστ . αὐτῷ ] believe him, ‘ give credit to his words:’ ‘ for those words were testimonies to me.’ 26. These ‘ blind leaders of the blind’ had so far made an insincere concession to the people’ s persuasion as to allow John to pass for a prophet— but they shrunk from the reproof which was sure to follow their acknowledging it now. This consultation among themselves is related almost verbatim by the three Evangelists. The intelligence of it may have been originally derived from Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea. The οὐδὲἐγὼλέγω of our Lord is an answer, not to their outward words οὐκοἴδαμεν , but to their inward thoughts, οὐθέλομενλέγειν . 28. τίδὲὑ . δ .: a formula of connexion— but doubtless here intended to help the questioners to the true answer of their difficulty about John’ s baptism. The following parable (peculiar to Matthew) refers, under the image of the two sons, to two classes of persons, both summoned by the great Father to “ work in His vineyard” (see ch. 20:1); both Jews and of His family. The first answer the summons by a direct and open refusal— these are the open sinners, the publicans and harlots, who disobey God to His face. But afterwards, when better thoughts are suggested, they repent, and go. The second class (no stress is to be laid on the order of calling— the parable merely mentions that the call was made ὡσαύτως — it is the mistaken desire to set the chronology right which has given rise to such confusion in the readings) receive the summons with a respectful assent — having however no intention of obeying (there is no mention of a change of mind in this case): but go not. These are the Scribes and Pharisees, with their shew of legal obedience, who “ said, and did not” (ch. 23:3). It will of course admit of wider applications— to Jews and Heathens, or any similar pair of classes who may thus be compared. 31. In connexion with the reading ὁὕστερος , which Tregelles has adopted without the preceding transposition, it may be mentioned, that some (not Origen, that I can find) have understood it to mean, ὁὕστερονμεταμεληθείς . προάγουσιν , either the declarative present— go before you, in the matter of God’ s arrangements,— or the assertive present, of the mere matter of fact, are going before you. I prefer this latter on account of the explanation following:— ‘ go before,’ — not entirely without hope for you, that you may follow, but not necessarily implying your following. The door of mercy was not yet shut for them: see John 12:35: Luke 23:34. προάγ . answers to ὕπαγεκ . ἐργ . in the parable. The idea of ‘ shewing the way’ by being their example, is also included. There were publicans among the disciples, and probably repentant harlots among the women who followed the Lord. 32. ὁδῷδικ ., not only in the way of God’ s commandments, so often spoken of, but in the very path of ascetic purity which you so much approve; yet perhaps it were better to let the simpler sense here be the predominant one, and take δικαιοσύνης for ‘ repentance,’ as Noah is called δικ . κήρυξ (2 Peter 2:5) in similar circumstances. μετεμελ . ὕστ . are words repeated from the parable (ver. 29), and serving to fasten the application on the hearers. τοῦπισ ., that ye might believe on Him: see reff. 33-46. Parable of the vineyard let out to husbandmen. Mark 12:1-12.Luke 20:9-19 Luke 20:9-19. This parable is in intimate connexion with Isaiah 5:1 ff., and was certainly intended by our Lord as an express application of that passage to the Jews of His time. Both Mark and Luke open it with an ἤρξατολέγειν … , as a fresh beginning, by our Lord, of a series of parables. Luke adds, that it was spoken πρὸςτὸνλαόν . Its subject is, of course, the continued rejection of God’ s prophets by the people of Israel, till at last they rejected and killed His only Son. The οἰκοδεσπότηςἐφύτευσενἀμπελῶνα : i.e. ‘ selected it out of all His world, and fenced it in, and dug a receptacle for the juice (in the rock or ground, to keep it cool, into which it flowed from the press above, through a grated opening), and built a tower (of recreation— or observation to watch the crops).’ This exactly coincides with the state of the Jewish nation, under covenant with God as His people. All these expressions are in Isa_5. The letting out to husbandmen was probably that kind of letting where the tenant pays his rent in kind, although the καρποί may be understood of money. God began about 430 years after the Exodus to send His prophets to the people of Israel, and continued even till John the Baptist; but all was in vain; they “ persecuted the prophets,” casting them out, and putting them to death. (See Nehemiah 9:26: Matthew 23:31, Matthew 23:37: Hebrews 11:36-38.) The different sendings must not be pressed; they probably imply the fulness and sufficiency of warnings given, and set forth the longsuffering of the householder; and the increasing rebellion of the husbandmen is shewn by their increasing ill-treatment of the messengers. Meyer understands αὐτοῦ after καρπούς , ver. 34, to mean His fruits; i.e. in money. 37. See Luke ver. 13: Mark ver. 6. Our Lord sets forth His heavenly Father in human wise deliberating, τίποιήσω ; (Luke) and ἴσωςἐντρ ., to signify His gracious adoption, for man’ s sake, of every means which may turn sinners to repentance. The difference here is fully made between the Son and all the other messengers; see Mark; ἔτιἕναυἱὸνεἶχενἀγαπητόν … : and, as Stier remarks, this is the real and direct answer to the question in ver. 23. The Son appears here, not in his character of Redeemer, but in that of a preacher— a messenger demanding the fruits of the vineyard. (See ch. 4:17.) 38. οὗτόςἐστιν ] So Nicodemus, John 3:2, οἴδαμενὅτιἀπὸθ . ἐλήλυθαςδιδάσκαλος , even at the beginning of His ministry; how much more then after three years spent in His divine working. The latent consciousness that Jesus was the Messiah, expressed in the prophecy of Caiaphas (John 11:49-52; cf. the σὺεἶπας of our ch. 26:64), added no doubt to the guilt of the Jewish rulers in rejecting and crucifying Him, however this consciousness may have been accompanied with ἄγνοια of one kind or other in all of them,— see Acts 3:17 and note. ὁκληρον .] This the Son is in virtue of His human nature: see Hebrews 1:1, Hebrews 1:2. δεῦ . ἀποκτ . αὐτ .] The very words of the LXX, ref. Gen., where Joseph’ s brethren express a similar resolution: and no doubt used by the Lord in reference to that history, so deeply typical of His rejection and exaltation. This resolution had actually been taken, see John 11:53: and that immediately after the manifestation of His power as the Son of God (πάτερ , εὐχαριστῶσοικ .τ .λ . John 11:41), in the raising of Lazarus, and also immediately after Caiaphas’ s prophecy. καὶσχ .] see John 11:48. As far as this, the parable is History: from this point, Prophecy. 39. This is partly to be understood of our Lord being given up to the heathen to be judged; but also literally, as related by all three Evangelists. See also John 19:17, and Hebrews 13:11, Hebrews 13:12. In Mark the order is different, ἀπέκτεινανκ . ἐξέβ . ἔξω . 40, 41. See Isaiah 5:5. All means had been tried, and nothing but judgment was now left. Mark and Luke omit the important words λέγουσιναὐτῷ , though Luke has given us the key to them, in telling us that the parable was spoken in the hearing of the people, who seem to have made the answer. Perhaps however the Pharisees (as suggested by Trench, Parables, in loco) may have made this answer, having missed, or (as Olshausen thinks, Biblisch. Comm. i. p. 793, and Stier, R. J. ii. 363) pretended to miss, the sense of the parable; but from the strong κακοὺςκακῶς , I incline to the former view. Whichever said it, it was a self-condemnation, similar to that in ch. 27:25: the last form, as Nitzsch finely remarks (cited by Stier, ib.), of the divine warnings to men, ‘ when they themselves speak of the deeds which they are about to do, and pronounce judgment upon them.’ So striking, even up to the last moment, is the mysterious union of human free-will with divine foresight (see Acts 2:23: Genesis 1:20), that after all other warnings frustrated, the conscience of the sinner himself interposes to save him from his sin. The expression κακοὺςκακῶςἀπολ . is one of the purest Greek:— ἀπόσ ʼ ὀλῶκακὸνκακῶς , Aristoph. Plut. 65, and indeed passim in the best writers. οἵτινες ] of a kind, who: οἵ would identify, οἵτινες classifies. They do not specify who, but only of what sort, the new tenants will be. The clause is peculiar to Matthew. We may observe that our Lord here makes ὅτανἔλθῃὁκύριος coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem, which is incontestably the overthrow of the wicked husbandmen. This passage forms therefore an important key to our Lord’ s prophecies, and a decisive justification for those who, like myself, firmly hold that the coming of the Lord is in many places to be identified, primarily, with that overthrow. 42. A citation from the same Psalm of triumph from which the multitudes had taken their Hosannas. This verse is quoted with the same signification in Acts 4:11: 1 Peter 2:6, 1 Peter 2:7, where also the cognate passage Isaiah 28:16 is quoted, as in Romans 9:33. The words here are those of the LXX. αὕτη … θαυμαστὴ … are feminine by a Hebraism, in which idiom the fem. is used as the neuter, there being no neuter. Meyer takes it as agreeing with κεφ . γωνίας , but surely with the examples in the reff. before us, it is simpler and better to understand the construction as above. The οἰκοδομοῦντες answer to the husbandmen, and the addition is made in this changed similitude to shew them that though they might reject and kill the Son, yet He will be victorious in the end. εἰςκεφ . γων .] The corner-stone binds together both walls of the building; so Christ unites Jews and Gentiles in Himself. See the comparison beautifully followed into detail, Ephesians 2:20-22. On θαυμαστὴἐνὀφθ . ἡμ ., cf. Acts 4:13, Acts 4:14. 43. Our Lord here returns to the parable, and more plainly than ever before announces to them their rejection by God. The ἀμπελών is now ἡβασ . τ . θ . The ἔθνος here spoken of is not the Gentiles in general, but the Church of the truly faithful,— the ἔθνοςἅγιον , λαὸςεἰςπεριποίησιν of 1 Peter 2:9: see Acts 15:14. 44. A reference to Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 8:15, and Daniel 2:44, and a plain identification of the stone there mentioned with that in Psa_118. The stone is the whole kingdom and power of the Messiah summed up in Himself. ὁπεσὼν .… he that takes offence, that makes it a stone of stumbling, shall be broken: see Luke 2:34: but on whomsoever, as its enemy, it shall come in vengeance, as prophesied in Daniel, λικμήσειαὐτόν , it shall dash him in pieces. Meyer maintains that the meaning of λικμ . is not this, but literally ‘ shall winnow him,’ throw him off as chaff (see ref. Job). But the confusion in the parable thus occasioned is quite unnecessary. The result of winnowing is complete separation and dashing away of the worthless part: and it is surely far better to understand this result as the work of the falling of the stone, than to apply the words to a part of the operation for which the falling of a stone is so singularly unsuited. 45, 46. All three Evangelists have this addition. St. Mark besides says καὶἀφέντεςαὐτὸνἀπῆλθον , answering to our ch. 22:22. Supposing Mark’ s insertion of these words to be in the right place, we have the following parable spoken to the people and disciples: see below. Chap. 22:1-14. Parable of the marriage of the King’ s Son. Peculiar to Matthew. A parable resembling this in several particulars occurs in Luke 14:15-24, yet we must not hastily set it down as the same. Many circumstances are entirely different: the locality and occasion of delivery different, and in both cases stated with precision. And the difference in the style of the parables is correspondent to the two periods of their utterance. That in Luke is delivered earlier in our Lord’ s ministry, when the enmity of the Pharisees had yet not fully manifested itself: the refusal of the guests is more courteous, their only penalty, exclusion;— here they maltreat the servants, and are utterly destroyed. This binds the parable in close connexion with that of the wicked husbandmen in the last chapter, and with this period of our Lord’ s course. 2. The householder of the former parable is the King here, who ποιεῖγάμους for his Son. γάμοι are not always necessarily ‘ a marriage,’ but any great celebration, as accession to the throne, or coming of age, &c. See Esther 1:5, LXX. Meyer (in loc.) denies this, but does not refer to the passage of Esther just cited, which to my mind is decisive. Esther 9:22 is not satisfactorily explained on his interpretation, viz. that the LXX translate freely and exegetically,— but is another instance in point. Here however the notion of a marriage is certainly included; and the interpretation is, the great marriage supper (Revelation 19:9) of the Son of God: i.e. His full and complete union to His Bride the Church in glory: which would be to the guests the ultimate result of accepting the invitation. See Ephesians 5:25-27. The difficulty, of the totality of the guests in this case constituting the Bride, may be lessened by regarding the ceremony as an enthronization, in which the people are regarded as being espoused to their prince. On the whole imagery, cf. Psa_45. 3. These δοῦλοι are not the Prophets, not the same as the servants in ch. 21:34, as generally interpreted:— the parable takes up its ground nearly from the conclusion of that former, and is altogether a New Testament parable. The office of these δοῦλοι (“ κλήτορες , δειπνοκλήτορες , vocatores, invitatores,” Webst. and Wilk.) was καλέσαιτοὺςκεκλημένους , to summon those who had been invited, as was customary (see Esther 5:8 and 6:14); these being the Jewish people, who had been before, by their prophets and covenant, invited. These first δοῦλοι are then the first messengers of the Gospel,— John the Baptist, the Twelve, and the Seventy,— who preached, saying ‘ The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ And even our Lord Himself must in some sort be here included, inasmuch as He μορφὴνδοὺλουἔλαβεν , and preached this same truth, with however the weighty addition of δεῦτεπρόςμε . 4. We now come to a different period of the Evangelic announcement. Now, all is ready: the sacrifice, or the meat for the feast, is slain. We can hardly help connecting this with the declarations of our Lord in John 6:51-59, and supposing that this second invitation is the preaching of the Apostles and Evangelists after the great sacrifice was offered. That thus the slaying of the Lord is not the doing of the invited, but is mentioned as done for the Feast, is no real difficulty. Both sides of the truth may be included in the parable, as they are in Acts 2:23, and indeed wherever it is set forth. The discourse of Peter in that chapter is the best commentary on πάνταἕτοιμα · δεῦτεεἰςτοὺςγ . Meyer well remarks that ‘ ἄριστον is not = δεῖπνον , but is the meal at noon with which the course of marriage festivities began.’ This will give even greater precision to the meaning of the parable as applying to these preparatory foretastes of the great feast, which the Church of God now enjoys. As the former parable had an O.T. foundation, so this: viz. Proverbs 9:1 ff. 5, 6. Two classes are here represented: the irreligious and careless people (notice τὸνἴδιονἀγρόν , bringing out the selfish spirit), and the rulers, who persecuted and slew God’ s messengers. Stephen,— James the brother of John, James the Just, and doubtless other of the Apostles of whose end we have no certain account, perished by the hands or instigation of the Jews: they persecuted Paul all through his life, and most probably brought him to his death at last: and the guilt of the death of the Lord abode upon them (ch. 27:25). They repeatedly insulted and scourged the Apostles (see Acts 4:3; Acts 5:18, Acts 5:40). 7. The occurrence of this verse before the opening of the Feast to the Gentiles has perplexed some interpreters: but it is strictly exact: for although the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, yet the final rejection of the Jews and the substitution of the Gentiles did not take place till that event. τὰστρατ . αὐτοῦ ] The Roman armies; a similar expression for the unconscious instruments of God’ s anger is used Isaiah 10:5; Isaiah 13:5: Jeremiah 25:9: Joe 2:25. τὴνπόλιναὐ .] no longer His, but their city. Compare ὁοἶκοςὑμῶν ch. 23:38. This is a startling introduction of the interpretation into the parable; we knew not before that they had a city. 8-10. On οὐκἄξιοι see Acts 13:46. ἦσαν , as Bengel,— “ præ teritum indignos eo magis præ termittit.” διέξοδοι are the places of resort at the meetings of streets, the squares, or confluences of ways. De Wette and Meyer are wrong in saying that they are not in the city, ‘ for that was destroyed:’ it is not the city of the murderers, but that in which the feast is supposed to be held, which is spoken of: not Jerusalem, but God’ s world. πονηρ . τεκ . ἀγαθ .] Both the open sinners and the morally good together. See ch. 13:47, where the net collects ἐκπαντὸςγένους . Stier remarks that we might expect, from ch. 21:31, to find the guest who by and by is expelled, among the ἀγαθοί . ὁγάμος is here the feast, not the place where it was held. Here, so to speak, the first act of the parable closes; and here is the situation of the Church at this day;— collected out of all the earth, and containing both bad and good. ἐπλήσθη , as Meyer well remarks, is emphatic. 11, 12. This second part of the parable is in direct reference to the word of prophecy, Zephaniah 1:7, 8: cf. especially ver. 8, καὶἔσταιἐνἡμέρᾳθυσίαςκυρίουκαὶἐκδικήσω .… ἐπὶπάνταςτοὺςἐνδεδυμένουςἐνδύματαἀλλότρια . The coming of the King to see his guests is the final and separating Judgment of the Church, see ch. 25:19,— when that distinction shall be made, which God’ s ministers have no power nor right to make in admissions into the visible Church. Yet as Trench remarks (Parables, p. 207), this coming of the King is not exclusively the final one, but every trying and sifting judgment adumbrates it in some measure. With regard to the ἔνδυμαγάμου , we must not, I think, make too much of the usually cited Oriental custom of presenting the guests with such garments at feasts. For (1) it is not distinctly proved that such a custom existed; the passages usually quoted (Genesis 45:22: Judges 14:12: 2 Kings 5:22) are nothing to the purpose; 2 Kings 10:22 shews that the worshippers of Baal were provided with vestments, and at a feast: and at the present day those who are admitted to the presence of Royalty in the East are clothed with a caftan: but all this does not make good the assumption: and (2) even granting it, it is not to be pressed, as being manifestly not the punctum saliens of this part of the parable. The guest was bound to provide himself with this proper habit, out of respect to the feast and its Author: how this was to be provided, does not here appear, but does elsewhere. The garment is the imputed and inherent righteousness of the Lord Jesus, put on symbolically in Baptism (Galatians 3:27), and really by a true and living faith (ib. ver. 26),— without which none can appear before God in His Kingdom of Glory;— Hebrews 12:14: Philippians 3:7, Philippians 3:8: Ephesians 4:24: Colossians 3:10: Romans 8:14:— which truth could not be put forward here, but at its subsequent manifestation threw its great light over this and other such similitudes and expressions. This guest imagines his own garment will be as acceptable, and therefore neglects to provide himself. See 1 John 5:10: Isaiah 64:6; Isaiah 61:10: Revelation 19:8. ἑταῖρε ] see note on ch. 20:13: and, as a curiosity of exegetical application, Wordsw.’ s note here. 13, 14. The διάκονοι are not the same as the δοῦλοι above, but the angels, see ch. 13:41, 49. The ‘ binding of his feet and hands’ has been interpreted of his being now in the night, in which no man can work; but I doubt whether this be not too fanciful. Rather should we say, with Meyer, that it is to render his escape from the outer darkness impossible. On τὸσκ . τὸἐξ . see reff. In ver. 14 our Lord shews us that this guest, thus single in the parable, is, alas, to be the representative of a numerous class in the visible Church, who, although sitting down as guests before His coming, have not on the ἔνδνμαγάμου . 15-22. Reply concerning the lawfulness of tribute to Cæ sar. Mark 12:13-17. Luke 20:20-26. On the Herodians, see above, ch. 16:6. By the union of these two hostile parties they perhaps thought that the ἐγκάθετοι (Luke), who were to feign themselves honest men, Luke 20:20, would be more likely to deceive our Lord. For this also is their flattery here designed. ‘ The devil never lies so foully, as when he speaks the truth.’ Meyer compares that other οἴδαμενὅτι , John 3:2. The application may have been as if to settle a dispute which had sprung up between the Pharisees, the strong theocratic repudiators of Roman rule, and the Herodians, the hangerson of a dynasty created by Cæ sar. In case the answer were negative, these last would be witnesses against Him to the governor (Luke 20:20); as indeed they became, with false testimony, when they could not get true, Luke 23:2; in case it were affirmative, He would be compromised with the Roman conquerors, and could not be the people’ s deliverer, their expected Messias; which would furnish them with a pretext for stirring up the multitudes against Him (see Deuteronomy 17:15). 17. κῆνσος = φόρος , Luke 20:22; = ἐπικεφάλαιον : a poll tax, which had been levied since Judæ a became a province of Rome. 18-22. Our Lord not only detects their plot, but answers their question; and in answering it, teaches them each a deep lesson. The νόμισμακήνσου was a denarius. It was a saying of the Rabbis, quoted by Lightfoot and Wetstein, that ‘ wherever any king’ s money is current, there that king is lord.’ The Lord’ s answer convicts them, by the matter of fact that this money was current among them, of subjection to (Tiberius) Cæ sar, and recognition of that subjection: Pay therefore, He says, that which is Cæ sar’ s to Cæ sar, and (not perhaps without reference to the Herodians, but with much deeper reference) that which is God’ s, to God. These weighty words, so much misunderstood, bind together, instead of separating, the political and religious duties of the followers of Christ. See Jeremiah 27:4-18: Romans 13:1: 1 Peter 2:13, 1 Peter 2:14: John 19:11. The second clause comprehends the first, and gives its true foundation: q. d. ‘ this obedience to Cæ sar is but an application of the general principle of obedience to God, of Whom is all power.’ The latter clause thus reaches infinitely deeper than the former: just as our Lord in Luke 10:41, Luke 10:42 declares a truth reaching far beyond the occasion of the meal. Man is the coinage, and bears the image, of God (Genesis 1:27): and this image is not lost by the fall . We owe then ourselves to God: and this solemn duty is implied, of giving ourselves to Him, with all that we have and are. The answer also gives them the real reason why they were now under subjection to Cæ sar: viz. because they had fallen from their allegiance to God. ‘ The question was as if an adulterer were to ask, whether it were lawful for him to pay the penalty of his adultery.’ (Claudius, cited by Stier ii. 388.) They had again and again rejected their theocratic inheritance;— they refused it in the wilderness;— they would not have God to reign over them, but a king;— therefore were they subjected to foreigners (see 2 Chronicles 12:8). 23-33. Reply to the Sadducees respecting the resurrection. Mark 12:18-27. Luke 20:27-40. From Acts 23:8, the Sadducees denied resurrection, angel, and spirit; consequently the immortality of the soul, as well as the resurrection of the body. This should be borne in mind, as our Lord’ s answer is directed against both errors. It is a mistake into which many Commentators (including Wordsw. on the authority of Jerome) have fallen, to suppose that the Sadducees recognized only the Pentateuch: they acknowledged the prophets also, and rejected tradition only (see this abundantly proved by Winer, Realwö rterbuch, Sadducä er). 23. λέγ .] In Luke, οἱἀντιλέγ . = οἵτινεςλέγουσιν Mark. Here, the art. being absent, we must understand that they came, saying that there was no resurrection: i.e. either, in pursuance of their well-known denial of that doctrine,— or, which is more probable, actually saying, maintaining it against our Lord: viz., in shape and manner following. 24. ἀναστ . σπέρ .] The first-born son of a leviratical marriage was reckoned and registered as the son of the deceased brother, Michaelis, Mos. R. ii. 98 (Meyer). 28. γυνή is the predicate. 29, 30. τὰςγρ . μ . τ . δ . τ . θ ., not = τὴνδ . τ . θ . τήνἐνταῖςγρ .,— but to be rendered literally; ye do not understand the Scriptures, which imply the resurrection (ver. 31), nor the power of God, before which all these obstacles vanish (ver. 30). See Acts 26:8: Romans 4:17; Romans 8:11:1 Corinthians 6:14. γαμοῦσιν , of males; γαμίζ ., of females. Our Lord also asserts here against them the existence of angels, and reveals to us the similarity of our glorified state to their present one. Not ἐντῷοὐρ . εἰσιν , ὡςἄγ . [θεοῦ ], but εἰσιν , ὡςἄγ . [θεοῦ ] ἐντῷοὐ . (see note on Luke 20:35, and 1 Corinthians 15:44);— the risen are not in heaven, but on earth. Wetstein quotes the Rabbinical decision of a similar question— ‘ Mulier illa quæ duobus nupsit in hoc mundo, priori restituitur in mundo futuro.’ 31-33. Our Lord does not cite the strong testimonies of the Prophets, as Isaiah 26:19: Ezekiel 37:1-14: Daniel 12:2, but says, as in Luke (20:37), ‘ even Moses has shewn,’ &c., leaving those other witnesses to be supplied. The books of Moses were the great and ultimate appeal for all doctrine: and thus the assertion of the Resurrection comes from the very source whence their difficulty had been constructed. On the passage itself, and our Lord’ s interpretation of it, much has been written. Certain it is that our Lord brings out in this answer a depth of meaning in the words, which without it we could not discover. Meyer, in reply to Strauss and Hase, finely says, “ Our Lord here testifies of the conscious intent of God in speaking the words. God uttered them, He tells us, to Moses, in the consciousness of the still enduring existence of his peculiar relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The groundwork of His argument seems to me to be this:— the words ‘ I am thy God’ imply a covenant; there is another side to them: “ Thou art Mine” follows upon “ I am thine.” When God therefore declares that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He declares their continuance, as the other parties in this covenant. It is an assertion which could not be made of an annihilated being of the past. And notice also (with Bengel), that Abraham’ s (&c.) body, having had upon it the seal of the covenant, is included in this. Stier (after Lavater) remarks that this is a weighty testimony against the so-called ‘ sleep of the soul’ in the intermediate state. Compare πάντεςγὰραὐτῷζῶσιν Luke 20:38, and ζῶσιτῷθεῷ 4 Macc. 7:19; [16:25,] spoken of the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus the burden of the Law, ‘ I am the Lord thy God,’ contains in it the seed of immortality and the hope of the resurrection. 34-40. Reply concerning the great commandment. Mark 12:28-34. In the more detailed account of Mark (Luke has a similar incident in another place, 10:25), this question does not appear as that of one maliciously tempting our Lord: and his seems to me the view to be taken,— as there could not be any evil consequences to our Lord, whichever way He had answered the question. See the notes there. 34. ἐπὶτὸαὐτό is local; not of their purpose. 35. νομικός ] These were Mosaic jurists, whose special province was the interpretation of the Law. γραμματεύς is a wider term, including them. πειράζων ] see above. 36. ποίαἐντ . μεγ .] Not, ‘ which is the great commandment,’ — but which (what kind of a) commandment is great in the law? In Mark, otherwise. 37. κύρ . τ . θ . σου ] Not, ‘ The LORD as thy God,’ — but the LORD thy God. 40. ὁν . κ . οἱπρ .] in the sense of ch. 5:17; 7:12— all the details of God’ s ancient revelation of His will, by whomsoever made. 41-46. The Pharisees baffled by a question respecting Christ and David. Mark 12:35-37. Luke 20:41-44. (See also Acts 2:34.) Our Lord now questions his adversaries (according to Matt.:— in Mark and Luke He asks the question not to, but concerning the Scribes or interpreters of the law), and again convicts them of ignorance of the Scriptures. From the universally recognized title of the Messiah as the Son of David, which by His question He elicits from them, He takes occasion to shew them, who understood this title in a mere worldly political sense, the difficulty arising from David’ s own reverence for this his Son: the solution lying in the incarnate Godhead of the Christ, of which they were ignorant. 43. ἐνπνεύμ .] by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: = ἐνπν . ἁγίῳ Mark. This is a weighty declaration by our Lord of the inspiration of the prophetic Scriptures. The expression was a Rabbinical one: see Schö ttgen in loc. Mark (ver. 37) adds to this “ the common people heard him gladly.” Here then end the endeavours of His adversaries to entrap Him by questions: they now betake themselves to other means. ‘ Nova dehinc quasi scena se pandit.’ Bengel. Chap. 23:1-39. Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees. Peculiar to Matthew. 1. Much of the matter of this discourse is to be found in Luk_11 and 13. On its appearance there, see the notes on those passages. There can, I think, be no doubt that it was delivered, as our Evangelist here relates it, all at one time, and in these the last days of our Lord’ s ministry. On the notion entertained by some recent critics, of St. Matthew having arranged the scattered sayings of the Lord into longer discourses, see Prolegomena to Matthew. A trace of this discourse is found in Mark 12:38-40: Luke 20:45-47. In the latter place it is spoken to the disciples, in hearing of the crowd: which (see ver. 8 ff.) is the exact account of the matter. It bears many resemblances to the Sermon on the Mount, and may be regarded as the solemn close, as that was the opening, of the Lord’ s public teaching. It divides itself naturally into three parts: (1) introductory description of the Scribes and Pharisees, and contrast to Christ’ s disciples (vv. 1-12): (2) solemn denunciations of their hypocrisy (vv. 14-33): (3) conclusion, and mournful farewell to the temple and Jerusalem. 2. Moses’ seat is the office of judge and lawgiver of the people: see Exodus 2:13-25: Deuteronomy 17:9-13. Our Lord says, ‘ In so far as the Pharisees and Scribes enforce the law and precepts of Moses, obey them: but imitate not their conduct.’ ἐκάθισαν must not be pressed too strongly, as conveying blame,— ‘ have seated themselves;’ — it is merely stated here as a matter of fact. Vv. 8, 10 however apply to their leadership as well as their faults; and declare that among Christians there are to be none sitting on the seat of Christ. 3. πάνταοὖνὅσαἄν ] The οὖν here is very significant:— because they sit on Moses’ seat: and this clears the meaning, and shews it to be, ‘ all things which they, as successors of Moses, out of his law, command you to observe, do;’ there being a distinction between their lawful teaching as expounders of the law, and their frivolous traditions superadded thereto, and blamed below. ποιήσατε , do, as occasion arises. τηρεῖτε , observe, having respect to them as a constant rule of conduct. The present binds on the habitual practice to the mere momentary act of the aorist. 4. The warning was, imitate them not— for they do not themselves what they enjoin on others. And this verse must be strictly connected with ver. 3. The φορτία then are not, as so often misinterpreted (even by Olshausen, i. 834), human traditions and observances, but the severity of the law, which they enforce on others, but do not observe (see Romans 2:21-23): answering to the βαρύτερατοῦνόμου of ver. 23. The irksomeness and unbearableness of these rites did not belong to the Law in itself, as rightly explained, but were created by the rigour and ritualism of these men, who followed the letter and lost the spirit: ‘ omnem operam impendebant (says Grotius) ritibus urgendis et ampliandis.’ τῷδακ . αὐτῶν , not αὑτῶν : the emphasis is not on the pronoun, but on the δακτύλῳ . As a general rule, when the pron. is simply reflexive, the smooth breathing should always be printed. 5-7. But whatever they do perform, has but one motive. φυλακ ., Heb. Totaphoth, or subsequently and more generally, Tephillin (see Gesen. Thes. Hebr., and Buxtorf, Lex. Rabbin.), were strips of parchment with certain passages of Scripture, viz. Exodus 13:11-16 and 1-10: Deuteronomy 11:13-21; Deuteronomy 6:4-9, written on them, and worn on the forehead between the eyes, on the left side next the heart, and on the left arm. The name in the text was given because they were considered as charms. They appear not to have been worn till after the captivity; and are still in use among the Rabbinical Jews. Their use appears to have arisen from a superstitious interpretation of Exo 13:9: Deuteronomy 6:8, Deuteronomy 6:9. See Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 13. The fringes were commanded to be worn for a memorial, Numbers 15:38. See note on ch. 9:20. 6, 7. See Mark 12:38, Mark 12:39: Luke 20:46, Luke 20:47. On πρωτ . ἐντοῖςδείπ . see Luke 14:7. 8-10. The prohibition is against loving, and in any religious matter, using such titles, signifying dominion over the faith of others. It must be understood in the spirit and not in the letter. Paul calls Timotheus his ‘ son’ in the faith, 1 Timothy 1:2, and exhorts the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:1) to be followers of him as he of Christ. To understand and follow such commands in the slavery of the letter, is to fall into the very Pharisaism against which our Lord is uttering the caution. See (e.g.) Barnes’ s note here. ῥαββί = ר ַ ב ּ ִ י , my master: an expression used, and reduplicated as here, by scholars to their masters, who were never called by their own name by their scholars. So the Lord says, John 13:13, ὑμεῖςφωνεῖτέμεὉδιδάσκαλοςκ . ὁκύριος , καὶκαλῶςλέγετε , εἰμὶγάρ . See Schö ttgen, Hor. Heb. ii. 900. The Teacher is probably not Christ, as supplied here in the ., but the Holy Spirit (see John 14:26: Jeremiah 31:33, Jeremiah 31:34: Ezekiel 36:26, Ezekiel 36:27), only not here named, because this promise was only given in private to the disciples. If this be so, we have God, in His Triunity, here declared to us as the only Father, Master, and Teacher of Christians; their πατήρ , καθηγητής (= ὁδηγὸςτυφλῶν Romans 2:19), and διδάσκαλος — the only One, in all these relations, on whom they can rest or depend. They are all brethren: all substantially equal— none by office or precedence nearer to God than another; none standing between his brother and God. ‘ And the duty of all Christian teachers is to bring their hearers to the confession of the Samaritans in John 4:42: οὐκέτιδιὰτὴνσὴνλαλιὰνπιστεύομεν · αὐτοὶγὰρἀκηκόαμεν , καὶοἴδαμενὅτιοὗτόςἐστινἀληθῶςὁσωτὴρτοῦκόσμου .’ (Olshausen, Shristuz der einige Meister, p. 10, cited by Stier, ii. 444.) πατέραμὴκ . ὑμ ., name not any Father of you on earth: no ‘ Abba’ or ‘ Papa’ (see the account of the funeral of John Wesley, Coke and More’ s Life, p. 441, and the opening of the Author’ s dedication of the book). 11. It may serve to shew us how little the letter of a precept has to do with its true observance, if we reflect that he who of all the Heads of sects has most notably violated this whole command, and caused others to do so, calls himself ‘ servus servorum Dei.’ 12. This often-repeated saying points here not only to the universal character of God’ s dealings, but to the speedy humiliation of the lofty Pharisees; and as such finds a most striking parallel in Ezekiel 21:26, Ezekiel 21:27. 14. In Luke 11:52 it is added ἤρατετὴνκλεῖδατῆςγνώσεως — the Key being, not the Key of, i.e. admitting to, Knowledge, but the Knowledge itself, the true simple interpretation of Scripture which would have admitted them, and caused them to admit others, into the Kingdom of Heaven by the recognition of Him of whom the Scriptures testify; whereas now by their perverse interpretations they had shut out both themselves and others from it. See a notable instance of this latter in John 9:24. They shut the door as it were in men’ s faces who were entering. On the interpolated ver. 13, see notes in Mark (12:40). 15. And with all this betrayal of your trust as οἱδιδάσκαλοιτοῦἸσραήλ (John 3:10), as if all your work at home were done, ye περιάγ . τ . θ . κ .τ .λ . This was their work of supererogation— not commanded them, nor in the spirit of their law. The Lord speaks not here of those pious Godfearing men, who were found dwelling among the Jews, favouring and often attending their worship— but of the proselytes of righteousness, so called, who by persuasion of the Pharisees, took on them the whole Jewish law and its observances. These were rare— and it was to the credit of our nature that they were. For what could such a proselyte, made by such teachers, become? A disciple of hypocrisy merely— neither a sincere heathen nor a sincere Jew— doubly the child of hell— condemned by the religion which he had left— condemned again by that which he had taken. The expression διπλότερονὑμῶν occurs in the same connexion, and probably in allusion to this passage, in Justin Martyr, Tryph. § 122, p. 215, οἱδὲπροσήλυτοιοὐμόνονοὐπιστεύουσιν , ἀλλὰδιπλότερονὑμῶνβλασφημοῦσινεἰςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ . 16-22. The Lord forbade all swearing to His own disciples, ch. 5:34; and by the very same reasoning— because every oath is really and eventually an oath by God— shews these Pharisees the validity and solemnity of every oath. “ This subterfuge became notorious at Rome. ‘ Ecce negas, jurasque mihi per templa Tonantis; Non credo: jura, verpe, per Anchialum,’ = am chai aloh (as God liveth). Martial xi. 94” (F. M.). The gold here is probably not the ornamental gold, but the Corban— the sacred treasure. (This Meyer doubts, because the question here is not of vows. But in the absence of any examples of an oath by the gold of the temple, it is just as likely as the other interpretation.) They were fools and blind, not to know and see, that no inanimate thing can witness an oath, but that all these things are called in to do so because of sanctity belonging to them, of which God is the primary source— the order likewise of the things hallowed, being, in their foolish estimate of them, reversed: for, the gold must be less than the temple which hallows it, and the gift than the altar— not as if this were of any real consequence, except to shew their folly— for, vv. 20-22, every oath is really an oath by God. But these men were servants only of the temple (ὁοἶκοςὑμῶν , ver. 38) and the altar, and had forgotten God. ὀφείλει , is bound (see Exodus 29:37). κατοικήσαντι (not κατοικοῦντι is remarkable: God did not then dwell in the Temple, nor had He done so since the Captivity. (This may perhaps be so: but grammatically it is hardly probable. Rather should I say now, with Meyer, that the aor. refers to the one definite act by which God took possession of the temple as His dwelling-place on its dedication by Solomon; without any allusion to present circumstances.) 23, 24. It was doubtful, whether Leviticus 27:30 applied to every smallest garden herb: but the Pharisees, in their over-rigidity in externals, stretched it to this, letting go the heavier, more difficult, and more important (see ver. 4) matters of the Law. In the threefold enumeration, our Lord refers to Micah 6:8 (see also Hosea 12:6)— where to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God, are described as being better than all offerings. ταῦτα , these last, are the great points on which your exertions should have (ἔδει , oportebat) been spent— and then, if for the sake of these they be observed, the others should not be neglected. Stier gives an instance of this, in (Scripture) philology, which if it be applied in subjection to a worthy appreciation of the sense and spirit of the Writer, may profitably descend to the minutest details: but if the philologian begin and end with his ‘ micrology,’ he incurs the μωρὲκαὶτυφλέ of the Pharisees (ii. 515, edn. 1). διυλίζοντεςτ . κ .] The straining the gnat is not a mere proverbial saying. The Jews (as do now the Buddhists in Ceylon and Hindostan) strained their wine, &c., carefully, that they might not violate Leviticus 11:20, Leviticus 11:23, Leviticus 11:41, Leviticus 11:42 (and, it might be added, Leviticus 17:10-14). The “ strain at a gnat” in our present auth. vers. for “ strain out a gnat” of the earlier English vss., seems not to have been a mistake, as sometimes supposed, but a deliberate alteration, meaning, “ strain (out the wine) at (the occurrence of) a gnat.” τόν and τήν indicate reference to a proverb or fable. The camel is not only opposed, as of immense size, but is also joined with the other, as being equally unclean. 25-28. This woe is founded not on a literally, but a typically denoted practice of the Pharisees. Our Lord, in the ever-deepening denunciation of His discourse, has now arrived at the delineation of their whole character and practices by a parabolic similitude. γέμουσινἐξ ] not, ‘ are filled by’ (Dr. Burton), but, are full of: מ ָ ל ֵ א מ ִ ן in Hebrew. The straining out of the gnat is a cleansing pertaining to the ἔξωθεν , as compared with the inner composition of the wine itself, of which the cup is full: see Revelation 18:3. ἵναγέν . The exterior is not in reality pure when the interior is foul: it is not ‘ a clean cup,’ unless both exterior and interior be clean: ‘ alias enim illa mundities externa non est mundities.’ Bengel. Observe, the emphasis is on γένηται : “ that its exterior also may not appear to be, but really become, pure.” τάφ . κεκον .] The Jews used once a year (on the fifteenth of the month Adar) to whitewash the spots where graves were, that persons might not be liable to uncleanness by passing over them (see Numbers 19:16). This goes to the root of the mischief at once: ‘ your heart is not a temple of the living God, but a grave of pestilent corruption: not a heaven, but a hell. And your religion is but the whitewash— hardly skin-deep.’ 29-33. The guilt resting on these present Pharisees, from being the last in a progressive series of generations of such hypocrites and persecutors, forms the matter of the last Woe. The burden of this hypocrisy is, that they, being one with their fathers, treading in their steps, but vainly disavowing their deeds, were, by the very act of building the sepulchres of the prophets, joined with their prophet-persecuting acts, convicting themselves of continuity with their fathers’ wickedness. See, as clearly setting forth this view, Luke 11:47, Luke 11:48. ‘ (Sit licet divus, dummodo non vivus). Instead of the penitent confession, “ We have sinned, we and our fathers,” this last and worst generation in vain protests against their participation in their fathers’ guilt, which they are meanwhile developing to the utmost, and filling up its measure (Acts 7:52).’ Stier (ii. 453). Again notice the emphasis, which is now markedly on νἱοί ; thus bringing out that relation in all its fulness and consequences. πληρώσατε , imper., fill ye also (as well as they) the measure (of iniquity) of your fathers. Ver. 33 repeats almost verbatim the first denunciation of the Baptist— in this, the last discourse of the Lord: thus denoting the unchanged state of these men, on whom the whole preaching of repentance had now been expended. One weighty difference however there is: then it was, τίςὑπέδειξενὑμῖνφυγεῖν ; the wonder was, how they bethought themselves of escaping— now, πῶςφύγητε ; how shall ye escape? On ὄφεις , see Revelation 12:9. 34. From the similar place in the former discourse (Luke 11:49, see notes there) it would appear that the διὰτοῦτο refers to the whole last denunciation: ‘ quæ cum ita sint’ — ‘ since ye are bent upon filling up the iniquities of your fathers, in God’ s inscrutable purposes ye shall go on rejecting His messengers.’ Notice the difference between ἡσοφίατοῦθ . in Luke 11:49, and ἐγώ , with its emphasis here. These words are no where written in Scripture, nor is it necessary to suppose that to be our Lord’ s meaning. He speaks this as Head of His Church, of those whom He was about to send: see Acts 13:1: 1 Corinthians 12:8: Ephesians 3:5. He cannot, as some (Olsh.) think, include Himself among those whom He sends— the Jews may have crucified many Christian teachers before the destruction of Jerusalem. And see Euseb. H. E. iii. 32, where he relates from Hegesippus the crucifixion of Symeon son of Clopas, in the reign of Trajan. The καί takes out the στανρώσετε , the special, from the ἀποκτενεῖτε , the general; with, of course, somewhat of emphasis. The προφῆται were the Apostles, who, in relation to the Jews, were such— the σοφοί , Stephen and such like, men full of the Holy Ghost— the γραμματεῖς , Apollos, Paul (who indeed was all of these together), and such. On μαστ . ἐντ . συν . κ .τ .λ . see Acts 5:40; Acts 22:19; Acts 26:11. 35. ὅπως , not ‘ in such a way that’ (?), as Webst. and Wilk.: but strictly ‘ in order that.’ αἷμαδίκ . or ἀθῷον is a common expression in the O.T. See 4 Kings 21:16; 24:4: Jer_33:(26) 15; and more especially Lamentations 4:13, which perhaps our Lord referred to in speaking this. πᾶναἷ .] Thus in Babylon, Revelation 18:24, is found the blood of all that were slain upon the earth. Every such signal judgment is the judgment for a series of long-crying crimes— and these judgments do not exhaust God’ s anger, Isaiah 9:12, Isaiah 9:17, Isaiah 9:21. The murder of Abel was the first in the strife between unrighteousness and holiness, and as these Jews represent, in their conduct both in former times and now, the murderer of the first, they must bear the vengeance of the whole in God’ s day of wrath. Who Zacharias son of Barachias is has been much disputed. We may conclude with certainty that it cannot be (as and Greswell suppose) a future Zacharias, mentioned by Josephus, B. J. iv. 5. 4, as son of Baruch, and slain in the temple just before the destruction of Jerusalem— for our Lord evidently speaks of an event past, and never prophesies in this manner elsewhere. Origen has preserved a tradition (in Matt. Comm. Series, 24, vol. iii. p. 846), that Zacharias father of John the Baptist was slain by them in the temple; but in the absence of all other authority, this must be suspected as having arisen from the difficulty of the allusion here. Most likely (see Lightfoot in loc. and note on Luke 11:49) it is Zacharias the son of Jehoiada, who was killed there, 2 Chronicles 24:21, and of whose blood the Jews had a saying, that it never was washed away till the temple was burnt at the captivity. υἱοῦΒαραχίου does not occur in Luke 11:51, and perhaps was not uttered by the Lord Himself, but may have been inserted by mistake, as Zacharias the prophet was son of Barachiah, see Zechariah 1:1: a circumstance suppressed by Bp. Wordsworth in his elaborate account of the mystical reason of the patronymic being used here, as “ signifying Son of the Blessed, which was a name of Christ Himself.” See his note. μετ . τ . ν . κ . τ . θ .] He was killed in the priests’ court, where the altar of burnt-offerings was. On ver. 36, see note on ch. 24:34. It is no objection to the interpretation there maintained, that the whole period of the Jewish course of crime is not filled up by it: the death of Abel can by no explanation be brought within its limits or responsibility; and our Lord’ s saying reaches far deeper than a mere announcement of their responsibility for what they themselves had done. The Jews stood in the central point of God’ s dealings with men; and as they were the chosen for the election of grace, so, rejecting God and His messengers, they became, in an especial and awful manner, vessels of wrath. Our Lord mentions this last murder, not as being the last even before His own day, but because it was connected specially with the cry of the dying man, ‘ The Lord look upon it and require it.’ Compare Genesis 4:10. This death of Zacharias was the last in the arrangement of the Hebrew Canon of the O.T., though chronologically that of Urijah, Jeremiah 26:23, was later. 37. These words were before spoken by our Lord, Luke 13:34: see notes there. On the construction of αὐτήν , see reff. Ἱερονσαλήμ , which is Luke’ s more usual form, does not occur elsewhere in Matt. This is to be accounted for by these verses being a solemn utterance of our Lord, and the sound yet dwelling on the mind of the narrator; and not by supposing the verses to be spurious and inserted out of Luke, as Wieseler has done, Chronolog. Synops. p. 322. His assertion that ver. 39 has no sense here, is implicitly refuted below. ποσάκιςἠθ . must be understood of all the messages of repentance and mercy sent by the prophets, for our Lord’ s words embrace the whole time comprised in the historic survey of ver. 35, as well as His own ministry. On the similitude, see Deuteronomy 32:11: Psalms 17:8; Psalms 36:7; Psalms 57:1; Psalms 61:4: Isaiah 31:5: Malachi 4:2, and compare ch. 24:28. οὐκἠθ .] see Isaiah 28:12; Isaiah 30:15. The tears of our Lord over the perverseness of Jerusalem are witnesses of the freedom of man’ s will to resist the grace of God. 38, 39. This is our Lord’ s last and solemn departure from the temple— the true μεταβαίνωμενἐντεῦθεν (‘ motus excedentium Deorum.’ Tacitus). οἶκοςὑμῶν ] no more God’ s, but your house— said primarily of the temple,— then of Jerusalem,— and then of the whole land in which ye dwell. οὐμήμεἴδητε ] He did not shew Himself to all the people after His resurrection, but only to chosen witnesses, Acts 10:41. ἕωςἂνεἴπ .] until that day, the subject of all prophecy, when your repentant people shall turn with true and loyal Hosannas and blessings to greet ‘ Him whom they have pierced:’ see Deuteronomy 4:30, Deuteronomy 4:31: Hosea 3:4, Hosea 3:5: Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 14:8-11. Stier well remarks, ‘ He who reads not this in the prophets, reads not yet the prophets aright.’ Chap. 24:1-51. Prophecy of His coming, and of the times of the end. Mark 13:1-37. Luke 21:5-36. Matt. omits the incident of the widow’ s mite, Mark 12:41-44.Luke 21:1-4 Luke 21:1-4. 1, 2. St. Mark expresses their remarks on the buildings; see note there:— they were probably occasioned by ver. 38 of the last chapter. Josephus writes, B. J. vii. 1. 1, κελεύειΚαῖσαρἤδητήντεπόλινἅπασανκαὶτὸννεὼνκατασκάπτειν .… τὸνδ ʼ ἄλλονἅπαντατῆςπόλεωςπερίβολονοὕτωςἐξωμάλισανοἱκατασκαπτοντες , ὡςμηδὲπώποτ ʼ οἰκισθῆναιπίστινἂνἔτιπαρασχεῖντοῖςπροσελθοῦσιν . There is no difficulty in οὐ here used interrogatively. See a similar case John 6:70. Meyer has abandoned his former view that we should read οὗ , “ where ye see, &c.,” and takes the common interpretation. He notices some curious renderings in his note: “ Do not look (so wonderingly) on.… (μὴβλ .),” Paulus; “ Do ye not wonder at … ?” Chrys. ., and De W.: “ Ye see not all this … ” viz. not the desolation that shall come. Grulich, de loci Matthew 24:1, Matthew 24:2, interp. Torg. 1839: “ Ye do not see: all this, I say to you, shall not.… ” Bornemann. 3. From Mark we learn, that it was Peter and James and John and Andrew who asked this question. With regard to the question itself, we must, I think, be careful not to press the clauses of it too much, so as to make them bear separate meanings corresponding to the arrangements of our Lord’ s discourse. As expressed in the other Evangelists, the question was concerning the time, and the sign, of these things happening, viz. the overthrow of the temple and desolation of Judæ a, with which, in the then idea of the Apostles, our Lord’ s coming and the end of the world were connected. Against this mistake He warns them, vv. 6, 14,— Luke ver. 24,— and also in the two first parables in our ch. 25. For the understanding of this necessarily difficult prophetic discourse, it must be borne in mind that the whole is spoken in the pregnant language of prophecy, in which various fulfilments are involved. (1) The view of the Jewish Church and its fortunes as representing the Christian Church and its history, is one key to the interpretation of this chapter. Two parallel interpretations run through the former part as far as ver. 28; the destruction of Jerusalem and the final judgment being both enwrapped in the words, but the former, in this part of the chapter, predominating. Even in this part, however, we cannot tell how applicable the warnings given may be to the events of the last times, in which apparently Jerusalem is again to play so distinguished a part. From ver. 28, the lesser subject begins to be swallowed up by the greater, and our Lord’ s second coming to be the predominant theme, with however certain hints thrown back as it were at the event which was immediately in question: till, in the latter part of the chapter and the whole of the next, the second advent, and, at last, the final judgment ensuing on it, are the subjects. (2) Another weighty matter for the understanding of this prophecy is, that (see Mark 13:32) any obscurity or concealment concerning the time of the Lord’ s second coming, must be attributed to the right cause, which we know from His own mouth to be, that the divine Speaker Himself, in His humiliation, did not know the day nor the hour. All that He had heard of the Father, He made known unto His disciples (John 15:15): but that which the Father kept in His own power (Acts 1:7), He did not in His abased humanity know. He told them the attendant circumstances of His coming; He gave them enough to guard them from error in supposing the day to be close at hand, and from carelessness in not expecting it as near. (Regarding Scripture prophecy as I do as a whole, and the same great process of events to be denoted by it all, it will be but waste labour to be continually at issue, in the notes of this and the succeeding chapter, with Meyer and others, who hold that the Gospel prophecies are inconsistent in their eschatology with those after the Ascension, and those again with the chiliastic ones of the Apocalypse. How untenable this view is, I hope the following notes will shew; but to be continually meeting it, is the office of polemic, not of exegetic theology.) 4, 5. Our Lord does not answer the πότε but by admonitions not to be deceived. See a question similarly answered, Luke 13:23, Luke 13:24. πολλ . γάρ ] This was the first danger awaiting them: not of being drawn away from Christ, but of imagining that these persons were Himself. Of such persons, before the destruction of Jerusalem, we have no distinct record; doubtless there were such: but (see above) I believe the prophecy and warning to have a further reference to the latter times in which its complete fulfilment must be looked for. The persons usually cited as fulfilling this (Theudas, Simon Magus, Barchochab, &c.) are all too early or too late, and not correspondent to the condition, ἐπὶτῷὀνόμ . μου , ‘ with My name as the ground of their pretences.’ See Greswell on the Parables, v. 380 note. Luke gives an addition (ver. 8) to the speech of the false Christs, ͅκαὶὁκαιρὸςἤγγικεν . 6-8. πόλεμοι and ἀκοαὶπολέμων there certainly were during this period; but the prophecy must be interpreted rather of those of which the Hebrew Christians would be most likely to hear as a cause of terror. Such undoubtedly were the three threats of war against the Jews by Caligula, Claudius, and Nero; of the first of which Josephus says, Antt. xix. 1. 2, ἔθνειτετῷἡμετέρῳοὐδὲεἰςὀλίγονἐξεγεγόνειμὴοὐκἀπολωλέναι , μὴταχείαςαὐτῷτελευτῆςπαραγενομένης . Luke couples with πολ ., ἀκαταστασίας ,— and to this ἔθνοςἐπὶἔθνος seems also to point. There were serious disturbances,— (1) at Alexandria, which gave rise to the complaint against and deposition of Flaccus, and Philo’ s work against him (a.d. 38), in which the Jews as a nation were the especial objects of persecution; (2) at Seleucia about the same time (Jos. Antt. xviii. 9. 8, 9), in which more than 50,000 Jews were killed; (3) at Jamnia, a city on the coast of Judæ a near Joppa (Philo, legat. ad Caium, § 30, vol. ii. p. 575 f.). Many other such national tumults are recorded by Josephus. See especially B. J. ii. 17. 10; 18. 1-8, in the former of which places, he calls the sedition προοίμιονἁλώσεως , and says that ἕκαστοςτῶνμετρίωνἐτετάρακτο : and adds, δεινὴδὲὅληντὴνΣυρίανἐπέσχεταραχή , καὶπᾶσαπόλιςεἰςδύοδιῄρητοστρατόπεδα . λιμός , and λοιμός , which is coupled to it in Luke, are usual companions: a proverb says, μετὰλιμὸυλοιμός . With regard to the first, Greswell (Parr. vol. v. p. 261 note) shews that the famine prophesied of in the Acts (11:28) happened in the ninth of Claudius, a.d. 49. It was great at Rome,— and therefore probably Egypt and Africa, on which the Romans depended so much for supplies, were themselves much affected by it. Suetonius (Claud. 18) speaks of assiduæ sterilitates; and Tacitus (Ann. xii. 43) of ‘ frugum egestas, et orta ex eo fames,’ about the same time. There was a famine in Judæ a in the reign of Claudius (the true date of which however Mr. Greswell believes (Diss. vol. ii. p. 5) to be the third of Nero), mentioned by Josephus, Antt. iii. 15. 3. And as to λοιμοί , though their occurrence might, as above, be inferred from the other, we have distinct accounts of a pestilence at Rome (a.d. 65) in Suetonius, Nero 39, and Tacitus, Ann. xvi. 13, which in a single autumn carried off 30,000 persons at Rome. But such matters as these are not often related by historians, unless of more than usual severity. σεισμοί ] The principal earthquakes occurring between this prophecy and the destruction of Jerusalem were, (1) a great earthquake in Crete, a.d. 46 or 47 [Philostr. Vita Apollonii iv. 34]; (2) one at Rome on the day when Nero assumed the toga virilis, a.d. 51 [Zonaras xi. 10, p. 565]; (3) one at Apamæ a in Phrygia, mentioned by Tacitus (Ann. xii. 58), a.d. 53; (4) one at Laodicea in Phrygia (Tacitus, Ann. xiv. 27), a.d. 60; (5) one in Campania (Tacitus, Ann. xv. 22). Seneca, Ep. 91, § 9, in the year a.d. 58, writes: ‘ Quoties Asiæ , quoties Achaiæ urbes uno tremore ceciderunt! quot oppida in Syria, quot in Macedonia devorata sunt! Cyprum quoties vastavit hæ c clades! quoties in se Paphus corruit; frequenter nobis nuntiati sunt totarum urbium interitus.’ The prophecy, mentioning κατὰτόπους , does not seem to imply that the earthquakes should be in Judæ a or Jerusalem. We have an account of one in Jerusalem, in Josephus, B. J. iv. 4. 5, which Mr. Greswell [Parr. v. 259 note] places about Nov. a.d. 67. On the additions in Luke 21:11, see notes there; and on this whole passage see the prophecies in 2 Chronicles 15:5-7, and Jeremiah 51:45, Jeremiah 51:46. ἀρχὴὠδίνων ] in reference to the παλιγγενεσία (ch. 19:28), which is to precede the συντέλειατοῦαἰῶνος . So Paul in Romans 8:22, πᾶσαἡκτίσις .… συνωδίνειἄχριτοῦνῦν . The death-throes of the Jewish state precede the ‘ regeneration’ of the universal Christian Church, as the death-throes of this world the new heavens and new earth. 9-13. τότε , at this time,— during this period, not ‘ after these things have happened.’ De Wette presses this latter meaning, that he may find a contradiction to Luke, ver. 12, πρὸδὲτούτωνπάντων .… These words serve only definitely to fix the time of the indefinite τότε , here and in ver. 10. The τότε in ver. 14 is, from the construction of the sentence, more definite. For ἀποκτ . ὑμ . Luke has θανατώσουσινἐξὑμῶν , viz. the Apostles. This sign was early given. James the brother of John was put to death, a.d. 44: Peter and Paul (traditionally, Euseb. H. E. ii. 25) and James the Lord’ s brother, before the destruction of Jerusalem: and possibly others. ἔσεσθεμισ .] see Acts 28:22, ἡαἵρεσιςαὕτη .… πανταχοῦἀντιλέγεται : also Tacitus, Ann. xv. 44, where Nero, for the conflagration of Rome, persecutes ‘ Christianos, genus hominum ob flagitia invisos:’ also see 1 Peter 2:12; 1 Peter 3:16; 1 Peter 4:14-16. In chap. 10:22, from which these verses are repeated, we have only ὑπὸπάντων — here τῶνἐθνῶν is added, giving particularity to the prophecy. 10. See 2 Timothy 4:16, and the repeated warnings against apostasy in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The persons spoken of in this verse are Christians. ‘ Primo conrepti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitude ingens.’ Tac. Ann. xv. 44. On μισ . ἀλλ ., compare the deadly hatred borne to Paul and his work by the Judaizers. In the Apocryphal works called the Clementines, which follow teaching similar to that of the factions adverse to Paul in the Corinthian Church, he is hinted at under the name ὁἐχθρὸςἄνθρωπος (Ep. Pet. to Jam_2, and Recognitions, i. 70, cited by Stanley, Essays on Apostolic Age, p. 377). These Judaizing teachers, among others, are meant by the ψευδοπροφῆται , as also that plentiful crop of heretical teachers which sprang up every where with the good seed of the Gospel when first sown. See especially Acts 20:30: Galatians 1:7-9: Romans 16:17, Romans 16:18: Colossians 2:17-end: 1 Timothy 1:6, 1 Timothy 1:7, 1 Timothy 1:20; 1 Timothy 6:3-5, 1 Timothy 6:20, 1 Timothy 6:21: 2 Timothy 2:18; 2 Timothy 3:6-8; 2Pe_2 (and Jude): 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 2:23, 1 John 2:26; 1 John 4:1, 1 John 4:3: 2 John 1:7; ψευδαπόστολοι , 2 Corinthians 11:13. Even De Wette, who attempts to deny the historical fulfilment of the former signs (ver. 7), confesses that this was historically fulfilled (Exeget. Handbuch in loc.). 12. It is against this ἀνομία especially that James, in his Epistle, and Jude, in more than the outward sense the brother of James, were called on to protest,— the mixture of heathen licentiousness with the profession of Christianity. But perhaps we ought to have regard to the past tense of πληθυνθῆναι , and interpret, ‘ because the iniquity is filled up,’ on account of the horrible state of morality (parallel to that described by Thucydides, iii. 82-84, as prevailing in Greece, which had destroyed all mutual confidence), the love and mutual trust of the generality of Christians shall grow cold. τῶνπολλῶν ,— thus we have ch. 25:5, ἐνύσταξανπᾶσαικαὶἐκάθευδον . Even the Church itself is leavened by the distrust of the evil days. See 2 Thessalonians 2:3. 13. The primary meaning of this seems to be, that whosoever remained faithful till the destruction of Jerusalem, should be preserved from it. No Christian, that we know of, perished in the siege or after it: see below. But it has ulterior meanings, according to which τέλος will signify, to an individual, the day of his death (see Revelation 2:10),— his martyrdom, as in the case of some of those here addressed,— to the Church, endurance in the faith to the end of all things. See Luke 21:19, and note. 14. We here again have the pregnant meaning of prophecy. The Gospel had been preached through the whole ‘ orbis terrarum,’ and every nation had received its testimony, before the destruction of Jerusalem: see Colossians 1:6, Colossians 1:23: 2 Timothy 4:17. This was necessary not only as regarded the Gentiles, but to give to God’ s people the Jews, who were scattered among all these nations, the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the preaching of Christ. But in the wider sense, the words imply that the Gospel shall be preached in all the world, literally taken, before the great and final end come. The apostasy of the latter days, and the universal dispersion of missions, are the two great signs of the end drawing near. 15. βδέλυγ . τ . ἐρημ .] The LXX rendering and that of Theod. of ש ׁ ִ ק ּ ו ּ ץ ש ׁ ֹ מ ֵ ם , Daniel 12:11. The similar expression in ch. 11:31, is rendered in the same manner by the LXX, but by Theod. βδέλ . ἠφανισμένον , and in ch. 9:27, LXX and Theod. τὸβδέλ . τῶνἐρημώσεων . To what exactly the words in Daniel apply, is not clear. Like other prophecies, it is probable that they are pregnant with several interpretations, and are not yet entirely fulfilled. They were interpreted of Antiochus Epiphanes by the Alexandrine Jews; thus 1 Macc. 1:54 we read ᾠκοδόμησανβδέλυγμαἐρημώσεωςἐπὶτὸθυσιαστήριον . Josephus refers the prophecy to the desolation by the Romans: Antt. x. 11. 7, ΔανιῆλοςκαὶπερὶτῆςτῶνῬωμαίωνἡγεμονίαςἀνέγραψε , καὶὅτιὑπ ʼ αὐτῶνἐρημωθήσεται . The principal Commentators have supposed, that the eagles of the Roman legions are meant, which were βδέλυγμα , inasmuch as they were idols worshipped by the soldiers. These, they say, stood in the holy place, or a holy place, when the Roman armies encamped round Jerusalem under Cestius Gallus first, a.d. 66, then under Vespasian, a.d. 68, then lastly under Titus, a.d. 70. Of these the first is generally taken as the sign meant. Josephus relates, B. J. ii. 20. 1, that after Cestius was defeated, πολλοὶτῶνἐπιφανῶνἸουδαίων , ὥσπερβαπτιζομένηςνέως , ἀνενήχοντοτῆςπόλεως . But, without denying that this time was that of the sign being given, I believe that all such interpretations of its meaning are wholly inapplicable. The error has mainly arisen from supposing that the parallel warning of Luke is identical in meaning with our text and that of Mark. The two first Evangelists, writing for Jews, or as Jews, give the inner or domestic sign of the approaching calamity: which was to be seen in the temple, and was to be the abomination (always used of something caused by the Jews themselves, see 2 Kings 21:2-15: Ezekiel 5:11; Ezekiel 7:8, Ezekiel 7:9; Ezekiel 8:6-16) which should cause the desolation,— the last drop in the cup of iniquity. Luke, writing for Gentiles, gives the outward state of things corresponding to this inward sign. That the Roman eagles cannot be meant, is apparent: for the sign would thus be no sign, the Roman eagles having been seen on holy ground for many years past, and at the very moment when these words were uttered. Also τόποςἃγιος must mean the temple: see reff. Now in searching for some event which may have given such alarm to the Christians, Josephus’ s unconscious admission (B. J. iv. 6. 3) is important: ἦνγὰρδήτιςπαλαιὸςλόγοςἀνδρῶν , ἕνθατότετὴνπόλινἁλώσεσθαι , καὶκαταφλεγήσεσθαιτὰἅγιανόμῳπολέμου , στάσιςἐὰνκατασκήψῃ , καὶχεῖρεςοἰκεῖαιπρομιάνωσιτὸτοῦθεοῦτέμενος · οἷςοὐκἀπιστήσαντεςοἱζηλωταὶδιακόνουςἑαυτοὺςἐπέδοσαν . The party of the Zelots, as we learn from ib. ch. 3. 6, 7, had taken possession of the temple,— τὸννεὼντοῦθ . φρούριοναὐτοῖςποιοῦνται , καὶκαταφυγὴκαὶτυραννεῖοναὐτοῖςἦντὸἅγιον . In the next section (8) he tells us that they chose one Phannius as their high-priest, an ignorant and profane fellow, brought out of the field,— ὥσπερἐπὶσκηνῆςἀλλοτρίῳκατεκόσμουνπροσωπείῳ , τήντεἐσθῆταπεριτιθέντεςἱεράν , καὶτὸτίδεῖποιεῖνἐπὶκαιροῦδιδάσκοντες ,— χλεύνδ ʼ ἦνἐκείνοιςκαὶπαιδιὰτὸτηλικοῦτονἀσέβημα ,— τοῖςδὲἄλλοιςἱερεῦσινἐπιθεωμένοιςπόῤῥωθενπαιζόμενοντὸννόμονδακρύεινἐπῄει , καὶκατέστενοντὴντῶνἱερῶντιμῶνκατάλυσιν . I own that the above-cited passages strongly incline me to think that if not this very impiety, some similar one, about or a little before this time, was the sign spoken of by the Lord. In its place in Josephus, this very event seems to stand a little too late for our purpose (a.d. 67, a year after the investment by Cestius): but the narrative occurs in a description of the atrocities of the Zelots, and without any fixed date, and they had been in possession of the temple from the very first. So that this or some similar abomination may have about this time filled up the cup of iniquity and given the sign to the Christians to depart. Whatever it was, it was a definite, well-marked event, for the flight was to be immediate, on one day , and universal from all parts of Judæ a. Putting then St. Luke’ s expression and the text together, I think that some internal desecration of the holy place by the Zelots coincided with the approach of Cestius, and thus, both from without and within, the Christians were warned to escape. See Luke 21:20: also Bp. Wordsw.’ s note here, which however introduces much mystical and irrelevant matter, though coming to what I regard as the right conclusion. ὁἀναγ . νοείτω ] This I believe to have been an ecclesiastical note, which, like the doxology in ch. 6:13, has found its way into the text. If the two first Gospels were published before the destruction of Jerusalem, such an admonition would be very intelligible. The words may be part of our Lord’ s discourse directing attention to the prophecy of Daniel (see 2 Timothy 2:7: Daniel 12:10); but this is not likely, especially as the reference to Daniel does not occur in Mark, where these words are also found. They cannot well be the words of the Evangelist, inserted to bespeak attention, as this in the three first Gospels is wholly without example. 16-18. The Christian Jews are said (Euseb. H. E. iii. 5) to have fled to Pella, a town described by Josephus (B. J. iii. 3. 3) as the northernmost boundary of Peræ a. Eusebius says they were directed thither by a certain prophetic intimation , which however cannot be this; as Pella is not on the mountains, but beyond them (but in order to reach it would not they have to fly exactly ἐπὶτὰὄρη — over, along, across them? See note on ch. 18:12):— Epiphanius (de mensuris et pond. § 15, vol. ii. p. 171) that they προεχρηματίσθησανὑπὸἀγγέλου . 17. A person might run on the flat-roofed houses in Jerusalem from one part of the city to another, and to the city gates. Perhaps however this is not meant, but that he should descend by the outer stairs instead of the inner, which would lose time. 19, 20. It will be most important that so sudden a flight should not be encumbered, by personal hindrances (τ . ἐνγ . ἐχ .), or by hindrances of accompaniment (τ . θηλ .), see 1 Corinthians 7:26; and that those things which are out of our power to arrange, should be propitious,— weather, and freedom from legal prohibition. The words μηδὲσαβ . are peculiar to Matthew, and shew the strong Jewish tint which caused him alone to preserve such portions of our Lord’ s sayings. That they were not said as any sanction of observance of the Jewish Sabbath, is most certain: but merely as referring to the positive impediments which might meet them on that day, the shutting of the gates of cities, &c., and their own scruples about travelling further than the ordinary Sabbath-day’ s journey (about a mile English); for the Jewish Christians adhered to the law and customary observances till the destruction of Jerusalem. 21, 22. In ver. 19 there is probably also an allusion to the horrors of the siege, which is here taken up by the γάρ . See Deuteronomy 28:49-57, which was literally fulfilled in the case of Mary of Peræ a, related by Josephus, B. J. vi. 3. 4. Our Lord still has in view the prophecy of Daniel (ch. 12:1), and this citation clearly shews the intermediate fulfilment, by the destruction of Jerusalem, of that which is yet future in its final fulfilment: for Daniel is speaking of the end of all things. Then only will these words be accomplished in their full sense: although Josephus (but he only in a figure of rhetoric) has expressed himself in nearly the same language (B. J. proœ m. § 4): τὰγοῦνπάντωνἀπ ʼ αἰῶνοςἀτυχήματαπρὸςτὰἸουδαίωνἡττᾶσθαίμοιδοκεῖκατὰσύγκρισιν . 22. If God had not in his mercy shortened (by His decree, to which the aor. refers) those days (ἡμέραςἐκδικήσεως , Luke 21:2), the whole nation (in the ultimate fulfilment, all flesh) would have perished: but for the sake of the chosen ones,— the believing,— or those who should believe,— or perhaps the preservation of the chosen race whom God hath not cast off, Romans 11:1,— they shall be shortened. It appears that besides the cutting short in the Divine counsels, which must be hidden from us, various causes combined to shorten the siege. (1) Herod Agrippa had begun strengthening the walls of Jerusalem in a way which if finished would have rendered them πάσηςἀνθρωπίνηςκρείττοναβίας , but was stopped by orders from Claudius, a.d. 42 or 43, Jos. Antt. xix. 7. 2. (2) The Jews, being divided into factions among themselves, had totally neglected any preparations to stand a siege. (3) The magazines of corn and provision were burnt just before the arrival of Titus; the words of Josephus are remarkable on this, κατακαῆναιδὲπλὴνὀλίγουπάντατὸνσῖτον , ὃςἂναὐτοῖςοὐκἐπ ʼ ὀλίγαδιήρκεσενἔτηπολιορκουμένοις , B. J. v. 1. 5. (4) Titus arrived suddenly, and the Jews voluntarily abandoned parts of the fortification (B. J. vi. 8. 4). (5) Titus himself confessed, (B. J. vi. 9. 1,) σὺνθεῷγ ʼ ἐπολεμήσαμεν , καὶθεὸςἦνὁτῶνδετῶνἐρυμάτωνἸουδαίουςκαθελών , ἐπεὶχεῖρέςτεἀνθρώπωνἢμηχαναὶτίπρὸςτούτουςτοὺςπύργουςδύνανται ; (The foregoing particulars are from Mr. Greswell, Par. v. 343 ff. note.) Some such providential shortening of the great days of tribulation, and hastening of God’ s glorious Kingdom, is here promised for the latter times. 23-26. These verses have but a faint reference (though an unmistakable one) to the time of the siege : their principal reference is to the latter days. In their first meaning, they would tend to correct the idea of the Christians that the Lord’ s coming was to be simultaneous with the destruction of Jerusalem: and to guard them against the impostors who led people out into the wilderness (see Acts 21:38), or invited them to consult them privately, with the promise of deliverance. In their main view, they will preserve the Church firm in her waiting for Christ, through even the awful troubles of the latter days, unmoved by enthusiasm or superstition, but seeing and looking for Him who is invisible. On the signs and wonders, see 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: Deuteronomy 13:1-3. 27, 28. The coming of the Lord in the end, even as that in the type was, shall be a plain unmistakable fact, understood of all;— and like that also, sudden and all-pervading. But here again the full meaning of the words is only to be found in the final fulfilment of them. The lightning, lighting both ends of heaven at once, seen of all beneath it, can only find its full similitude in is Personal coming, Whom every eye shall see, Revelation 1:7. 28. The stress is on ὅπουἐάν and ἐκεῖ , pointing out the universality. In the similar discourse, Luke 17:37, before this saying, the disciples ask, ‘ Where, Lord?’ The answer is,— first, at Jerusalem: where the corrupting body lies, thither shall the vultures (literally) gather themselves together, coming as they do from far on the scent of prey. Secondly, in its final fulfilment,— over the whole world;— for that is the πτῶμα now, and the ἀετοί the angels of vengeance. See Deuteronomy 28:49, which is probably here referred to; also Hosea 8:1: Habakkuk 1:8. The interpretation (Theophylact, , Calvin, Bp. Wordsw., &c) which makes the πτῶμα our Lord, and the ἀετοί the elect, is quite beside the purpose. The mystical defence of it may be seen in Wordsw.’ s notes. Neither is any allusion (Lightfoot, Ham., Wetstein, Wolf, &c.) to the Roman eagles to be for a moment thought of. The ἀετοί are the vultures (vultur percnopterus, Linn.), usually reckoned by the ancients as belonging to the eagle kind, Plin. Nat. Hist. ix. 3. 29. εὐθέως ] All the difficulty which this word has been supposed to involve has arisen from confounding the partial fulfilment of the prophecy with its ultimate one. The important insertion in Luke (21:23, 24) shews us that the θλῖψις includes ὀργὴτῷλαῷτούτῳ , which is yet being inflicted: and the treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, still going on (see note there): and immediately after that tribulation which shall happen when the cup of Gentile iniquity is full, and when the Gospel shall have been preached in all the world for a witness, and rejected by the Gentiles, (πληρωθῶσινκαιροὶἐθνῶν ,) shall the coming of the Lord Himself happen. On the indefiniteness of this assigned period in the prophecy, see note on ver. 3. (The expression in Mark is equally indicative of a considerable interval; ἐνἐκείναιςταῖςἡμέραιςμετὰτὴνθλῖψινἐκείνην .) The fact of His coming and its attendant circumstances being known to Him, but the exact time unknown, He speaks without regard to the interval, which would be employed in His waiting till all things are put under His feet: see Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6-20. In what follows, from this verse, the Lord speaks mainly and directly of His great second coming. Traces there are (as e.g. in the literal meaning of ver. 34) of slight and indirect allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem;— as there were in the former part to the great events of which that is a foreshadowing:— but no direct mention. The contents of the rest of the chapter may be set forth as follows: (ver. 29) signs which shall immediately precede (ver. 30) the coming of the Lord to judgment, and (ver. 31) to bring salvation to His elect. The certainty of the event, and its intimate connexion with its premonitory signs (vv. 32, 33); the endurance (ver. 34) of the Jewish people till the end— even till Heaven and Earth (ver. 35) pass away. But (ver. 36) of the day and hour none knoweth. Its suddenness (vv. 37-39) and decisiveness (vv. 40, 41),— and exhortation (vv. 42-44) to be ready for it. A parable setting forth the blessedness of the watching, and misery of the neglectful servant (vv. 45-end), and forming a point of transition to the parables in the next chapter. ὁἥλιοςσκοτ .] The darkening of the material lights of this world is used in prophecy as a type of the occurrence of trouble and danger in the fabric of human societies, Isaiah 5:30; Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 34:4: Jeremiah 4:28: Ezekiel 32:7, Ezekiel 32:8: Amos 8:9, Amos 8:10: Micah 3:6. But the type is not only in the words of the prophecy, but also in the events themselves. Such prophecies are to be understood literally, and indeed without such understanding would lose their truth and significance. The physical signs shall happen (see Joe 2:31: Haggai 2:6, Haggai 2:21, compared with Hebrews 12:26, Hebrews 12:27) as accompaniments and intensifications of the awful state of things which the description typifies. The Sun of this world and the church (Malachi 4:2: Luke 1:78: John 1:9: Ephesians 5:14: 2 Peter 1:19) is the Lord Jesus— the Light is the Knowledge of Him. The moon— human knowledge and science, of which it is said (Psalms 36:9), ‘ In thy light shall we see light:’ reflected from, and drinking the beams of, the Light of Christ. The stars— see Daniel 8:10— are the leaders and teachers of the Church. The Knowledge of God shall be obscured— the Truth nigh put out— worldly wisdom darkened— the Church system demolished, and her teachers cast down. And all this in the midst of the fearful signs here (and in Luke, vv. 25, 26, more at large) recounted: not setting aside, but accompanying, their literal fulfilment. αἱδυν . τ . οὐρ .] not the stars, just mentioned;— nor the angels, spoken of by and by, ver. 31: but most probably the greater heavenly bodies, which rule the day and night, Genesis 1:16, and are there also distinguished from the ἀστέρες ,— the λαμπροὶδυνασταί of Æ sch. Agam. init. See notes on 2 Peter 3:10-12, where the stars seem to be included in τὰστοιχεῖα . Typically, the influences which rule human society, which make the political weather fair or foul, bright or dark; and encourage the fruits of peace, or inflict the blight and desolation of war. 30. This τότε , so emphatically placed and repeated, is a definite declaration of time,— not a mere sign of sequence or coincidence, as e.g. in ver. 23:— when these things shall have been somewhile filling men’ s hearts with fear,— then shall, &c. It is quite uncertain what the σημεῖον shall be:— plainly, not the Son of Man Himself, as Some explain it (even Bengel, generally so valuable in his explanations, says ‘ Ipse erit signum sui,’ and quotes Luke 2:12 as confirming this view; but there the swaddling clothes and the manger were the ‘ sign,’ not the child), nor any outward marks on his body, as his wounds; for both these would confuse what the prophecy keeps distinct— the seeing of the sign of the Son of Man, and all tribes of the earth mourning, and afterwards seeing the Son of Man Himself. This is manifestly some sign in the Heavens, by which all shall know that the Son of Man is at hand The Star of the Wise Men naturally occurs to our thoughts— but a star would not be a sign which all might read. On the whole I think no sign completely answers the conditions but that of the Cross:— and accordingly we find the Fathers mostly thus explaining the passage. But as our Lord Himself does not answer the question, τίτὸσημεῖοντῆςσῆςπαρουσίας ; we may safely leave the matter. I mention, just to shew how sensible expositors can be misled by a false interpretation of the whole, Wetstein’ s strange paraphrase of τὸσημεῖοντ . υ . τ . ἀνθ .,— ‘ fumus Hierosolymorum incensorum, qui interdiu solem, nocte vero lunam et Stellas obscurat.’ πᾶσαιαἱφ . τ . γ .] see Zechariah 12:10-14, where the mourning is confined to the families of Israel:— here, it is universal: see reff. Rev.; also 6:15-17. This coming of the Son of Man is not that spoken of ch. 25:31, but that in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 4:17, and Revelation 19:11 ff.,— His coming at the commencement of the millennial reign to establish His Kingdom: see Daniel 7:13, Daniel 7:14. δύναμις is the power of this Kingdom, not, the host of heaven. 31. In 1 Thess., as above, the voice of the Archangel and the trump of God are distinguished from one another, which seems to favour the reading which inserts καί here. This is not the great Trumpet of the general Resurrection (ref. 1 Cor.), except in so far as that may be spoken of as including also the first resurrection: see on this verse the remarkable opening of Ps. 50., which is itself a prophecy of these same times. 32, 33, 34. τὴνπαρ ., not as E. V., ‘ a parable,’ but the (not, its: the fig-tree may teach many lessons besides this; cf. reff. Matt. Luke) parable,— the natural phæ nomenon which may serve as a key to the meaning. This coming of the Lord shall be as sure a sign that the Kingdom of Heaven is nigh, as the putting forth of the tender leaves of the fig-tree is a sign that summer is nigh. Observe πάνταταῦτα , every one of these things,— this coming of the Son of Man included, which will introduce the millennial Kingdom. As regards the parable,— there is a reference to the withered fig-tree which the Lord cursed: and as that, in its judicial unfruitfulness, emblematized the Jewish people, so here the putting forth of the fig-tree from its state of winter dryness, symbolizes the future reviviscence of that race, which the Lord (ver. 34) declares shall not pass away till all be fulfilled. That this is the true meaning of that verse, must appear when we recollect that it forms the conclusion of this parable, and is itself joined by παρέλθῃ to the verse following. We cannot, in seeking for its ultimate fulfilment, go back to the taking of Jerusalem and make the words apply to it. As this is one of the points on which the rationalizing interpreters (De Wette, &c.) lay most stress to shew that the prophecy has failed, it may be well to shew that γενεά has in Hellenistic Greek the meaning of a race or family of people. See Jeremiah 8:3 LXX; compare ch. 23:36 with ib. ver. 35, ἐφονεύσατε … but this generation did not slay Zacharias— so that the whole people are addressed: see also ch. 12:45, in which the meaning absolutely requires this sense (see note there): see also Luke 17:25: Matthew 17:17: Luke 16:8 : Acts 2:40: Philippians 2:15. In all these places γενεά is = γένος , or nearly so; having it is true a more pregnant meaning, implying that the character of one generation stamps itself upon the race, as here in this verse also. This meaning of γενεά is fully conceded by Dorner; ‘ omnes reor concessuros, vocem γ . si eam vertas æ tas, multas easque plane insuperabiles ciere difficultates, contextum vero et orationis progressum flagitare significationem gentis, nempe Judæ orum.’ (Stier, ii. 502.) The continued use of παρέρχομαι in vv. 34, 35, should have saved the Commentators from the blunder of imagining that the then living generation was meant, seeing that the prophecy is by the next verse carried on to the end of all things: and that, as matter of fact, the Apostles and ancient Christians did continue to expect the Lord’ s coming, after that generation had part away. But, as Stier well remarks, “ there are men foolish enough now to say, heaven and earth will never pass away, but the words of Christ pass away in course of time— ; of this, however, we wait the proof.” ii. 505. πάνταταῦτα ] all the signs hitherto recounted— so that both these words, and ὑμεῖς , have their partial, and their full meanings. ἐγγύςἐστιν ] viz. τὸτέλος . On ver. 35 see Psalms 119:89: Isaiah 40:8; Isaiah 51:6: Psalms 102:26. 36. ἡμ . ἐκ ., viz. of heaven and earth passing away; or, perhaps referring to ver. 30 ff. ἡμ . κ . ὥρ ., the exact time— as we say, ‘ the hour and minute.’ The very important addition to this verse in Mark, and in some ancient mss. here (but see digest), οὐδὲὁυἱός , is indeed included in εἰμὴὁπατήρ [μου ] μόνος , but could hardly have been inferred from it, had it not been expressly stated: ch. 20:23. All attempts to soften or explain away this weighty truth must be resisted; it will not do to say with some Commentators, ‘ nescit ea nobis,’ which, however well meant, is a mere evasion:— in the course of humiliation undertaken by the Son, in which He increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52), learned obedience (Hebrews 5:8), uttered desires in prayer (Luke 6:12, &c.),— this matter was hidden from Him: and as I have already remarked, this is carefully to be borne in mind, in explaining the prophecy before us. 37-39. This comparison also occurs in Luke 17:26, Luke 17:27, with the addition of ‘ the days of Lot’ to it: see also 2 Peter 2:4-10; 2 Peter 3:5, 2 Peter 3:6. It is important to notice the confirmation, by His mouth who is Truth itself, of the historic reality of the flood of Noah. The security here spoken of is in no wise inconsistent with the anguish and fear prophesied, Luke 21:25, Luke 21:26. They say, there is peace, and occupy themselves as if there were: but fear is at their hearts;— ‘ surgit amari aliquid, quod in ipsis floribus angit.’ The expression πίνοντες may serve to shew that it is a mistake to imagine that we have in Genesis 9:20 the account of the first wine and its effects. On the addition in Luke 21:34-36, see notes there. 40, 41. From this point (or perhaps even from ver. 37, as historic resemblance is itself parabolic) the discourse begins to assume a parabolic form, and gradually passes into a series of formal parables in the next chapter. These verses set forth that, as in the times of Noah, men and women shall be employed in their ordinary work: see Exodus 11:5 (LXX), Isaiah 47:2. They also shew us that the elect of God will to the last be mingled in companionship and partnership with the children of this world (see Mark 1:19, Mark 1:20). We may notice, that these verses do not refer to the same as vv. 16-18. Then it is a question of voluntary flight; now of being taken (by the angels, ver. 31: the present graphically sets the incident before us; or perhaps describes the rule of proceeding. See on the sense of παραλαμβ . especially ref. John), or left. Nor again do they refer to the great judgment of ch. 25:31, for then (ver. 32) all shall be summoned:— but they refer to the millennial dispensation, and the gathering of the elect to the Lord then. The “ women grinding at the mill” has been abundantly illustrated by travellers, as even now seen in the East. See especially ‘ The Land and the Book,’ pp. 526, 7. ἐν , either because the pair of stones is the element in which the act of grinding takes place,— or, more probably, because that which is ground is within, between the stones. 42-44. Our Lord here resumes the tone of direct exhortation with which He commenced. To the secure and careless He will come as a thief in the night: to His own, as their Lord. See Obadiah 1:5: Revelation 3:3; Revelation 16:15: 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10, where the idea is expanded at length. Compare ver. 7 there with our ver. 49, and on the distinction between those who are of the day, and those who are of the night, see notes, there. 45-47. Our Lord had given this parabolic exhortation before, Luke 12:42-46. Many of these His last sayings in public are solemn repetitions of, and references to, things already said by Him. That this was the case in the present instance, is almost demonstrable, from the implicit allusion in Luke 12:36, to the return from the wedding, which is here expanded into the parable of ch. 25:1 ff. How much more natural that our Lord should have preserved in his parabolic discourses the same leading ideas, and again and again gathered his precepts round them,— than that the Evangelists should have thrown into utter and inconsistent confusion, words which would have been treasured up so carefully by them that heard them;— to say nothing of the promised help of the Spirit to bring to mind all that He had said to them. τίςἄραἐστ .] a question asked that each one may put it to himself,— and to signify the high honour of such an one. πιστ . κ . φρ .] Prudence in a servant can be only the consequence of faithfulness to his master. This verse is especially addressed to the Apostles and ministers of Christ. The δοῦναιτὴντροφήν (= τὸσιτομέτριον Luke 12:42) answers to ἐργάτηνἀνεπαίσχυντον , ὀρθοτομοῦντατὸνλόγοντῆςἀληθ . in 2 Timothy 2:15. On ver. 47, compare ch. 25:21: 1 Timothy 3:13: Revelation 2:26; Revelation 3:21, which last two passages answer to the promise here, that each faithful servant shall be over all his master’ s goods. That promotion shall not be like earthly promotion, wherein the eminence of one excludes that of another,— but rather like the diffusion of love, in which, the more each has, the more there is for all. 48-51. The question is not here asked again, τίςἐστινκ .τ .λ ., but the transition made from the good to the bad servant, or even the good to the bad mind of the same servant, by the epithet κακός . On this graphic use of the demonstrative pronoun, see Kü hner, Gramm. ii. 325. χρονίζει ] then manifestly, a long delay is in the mind of the Lord: see above on ver. 29. Notice that this servant also is one set over the household— one who says ὁκύριόςμου — and began well— but now ἄρξηταιτύπ ., &c.— falls away from his truth and faithfulness;— the sign of which is that he begins (lit. shall have begun) to κατακυριεύειντῶνκλήρων 1 Peter 5:3, and to revel with the children of the world. In consequence, though he have not lost his belief , he shall be placed with those who believed not, the hypocrites. 51. διχ . refers to the punishment of cutting, or sawing asunder: see Daniel 2:5; Daniel 3:29: Sus. ver. 59; see also Hebrews 4:12; Hebrews 11:37. The expression here is perhaps not without a symbolical reference to that dreadful sundering of the conscience and practice which shall be the reflective torment of the condemned:— and by the mingling and confounding of which only is the anomalous life of the wilful sinner made in this world tolerable. Chap. 25:1-13. Parable of the Virgins. Peculiar to Matthew. 1. τότε ] at the period spoken of at the end of the last chapter, viz. the coming of the Lord to His personal reign— not His final coming to judgment. δέκαπαρθ .] The subject of this parable is not, as of the last, the distinction between the faithful and unfaithful servants; no outward distinction here exists— all are virgins— all companions of the bride— all furnished with brightly-burning lamps— all, up to a certain time, fully ready to meet the Bridegroom— the difference consists in some having made a provision for feeding the lamps in case of delay, and the others none— and the moral of the parable is the blessedness of endurance unto the end. ‘ In eo vertitur summa parabolæ , quod non satis est ad officium semel accinctos fuisse et paratos, nisi ad finem usque duremus.’ Calvin. There is no question here of apostasy, or unfaithfulness— but of the want of provision to keep the light bright against the coming of the bridegroom however delayed. Ten was a favourite number with the Jews— ten men formed a congregation in a synagogue. In a passage from Rabbi Salomo, cited by Wetstein, he mentions ten lamps or torches as the usual number in marriage processions: see also Luke 19:13. εἰςὑπ . τ . ν .] It would appear that these virgins had left their own homes, and were waiting somewhere for the bridegroom to come,— probably at the house of the bride; for the object of the marriage procession was to fetch the bride to the bridegroom’ s house. Meyer however supposes that in this case the wedding was to be held in the bride’ s house, on account of the thing signified— the coming of the Lord to his Church;— but it is better to take the ordinary custom, and interpret accordingly, where we can. In both the wedding parables (see ch. 22.) the bride does not appear— for she, being the Church, is in fact the aggregate of the guests in the one case, and of the companions in the other. We may perhaps say that she is here, in the strict interpretation, the Jewish Church, and these ten virgins Gentile congregations accompanying her. The reading καὶτῆςνύμφης is probably an interpolation, such as are of frequent occurrence in and its cognates. This ἐξῆλθον is not their final going out in ver. 6, for only half of them did so,— but their leaving their own homes: cf. λαβοῦσαι — ἔλαβον , &c. vv. 3, 4. The interpretation is— these are souls come out from the world into the Church, and there waiting for the coming of the Lord— not hypocrites, but faithful souls, bearing their lamps (τ . λ . ἑαυτῶν , cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:4)— the inner spiritual life fed with the oil of God’ s Spirit (see Zechariah 4:2-12: Acts 10:38: Hebrews 1:9). All views of this parable which represent the foolish virgins as having only a dead faith, only the lamp without the light, the body without the spirit, &c., are quite beside the purpose;— the lamps (see ver. 8) were all burning at first, and for a certain time. Whether the equal partition of wise and foolish have any deep meaning we cannot say; it may be so. 3, 4. These were not torches, nor wicks fastened on staves, as some have supposed, but properly lamps: and the oil vessels (which is most important to the parable) were separate from the lamps. The lamps being the hearts lit with the flame of heavenly love and patience, supplied with the oil of the Spirit,— now comes in the difference between the wise and foolish:— the one made no provision for the supply of this— the others did. How so? The wise ones gave all diligence to make their calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10 and 5-8), making their bodies, souls, and spirits (their vessels, 2 Corinthians 4:7) a means of supplying spiritual food for the light within, by seeking, in the appointed means of grace, more and more of God’ s Holy Spirit. The others did not this— but trusting that the light, once burning, would ever burn, made no provision for the strengthening of the inner man by watchfulness and prayer. 5-7. χρονίζ .] compare ch. 24:48. But the thought of the foolish virgins is very different from that of the wicked servant: his— ‘ there will be plenty of time, my Lord tarrieth;’ — theirs, ‘ surely He will soon be here, there is no need of a store of oil.’ This may serve to shew how altogether diverse is the ground of the two parables. ἐν . πᾶσ . κ . ἐκ .] I believe no more is meant here than that all, being weak by nature, gave way to drowsiness: as indeed the wakefulness of the holiest Christian, compared with what it should be, is a sort of slumber:— but, the while, how much difference was there between them! ἐνύστ .] dormitabant: we have Aristoph. Vesp. 12, ὕπνοςνυστακτής and Plato, Rep. p. 405 c, speaks of a νυστάζωνδικαστής . Wordsw., after Hilary, understands this verse of sleep in death. But, not to mention that this will not fit the machinery of the parable (see below on ver. 8), it would assume that none of the faithful would be living on earth when the Lord comes. κραυγὴγ .] see Isaiah 62:5-7: and the porter’ s duty, Mark 13:34. This warning cry is before the coming: see ver. 10. γέγονεν , not, was, but to be rendered present, graphically setting the reality before us: there ariseth a cry. πᾶσαι ] All now seem alike— all wanted their lamps trimmed— but for the neglectful, there is not wherewith! It is not enough to have burnt, but to be burning, when He comes. Raise the wick as they will, what avails it if the oil is spent? ἐκόσμησαν ] “ by pouring on fresh oil, and removing the fungi about the wick: for the latter purpose a sharp-pointed wire was attached to the lamp, which is still seen in the bronze lamps found in sepulchres. Virgil’ s Moretum, ‘ Et producit acu stupas humore carentes.’  ” Webst. and Wilk. 8, 9. σβ ., are going out,— not as E. V., and even recently Bp. Wordsw. to support his interpretation of ver. 5,— ‘ are gone out:’ and there is deep truth in this: the lamps of the foolish virgins are not extinguished altogether. μήπ . οὐμὴἀρ .] see Psalms 49:7: Romans 14:12. No man can have more of this provision than will supply his own wants. πορεύεσθε ] This is not said in mockery, as some (Luther, Calv.) suppose: but in earnest. οἱπωλοῦντες are the ordinary dispensers of the means of grace— ultimately of course God Himself, who alone can give his Spirit. The counsel was good, and well followed— but the time was past. (Observe that those who sell are a particular class of persons— no mean argument for a set and appointed ministry— and moreover for a paid ministry. If they sell, they receive for the thing sold: cf. our Lord’ s saying, Luke 10:7. This selling bears no analogy with the crime of Simon Magus in Acts 8: cf. our Lord’ s other saying, Matthew 10:8.) 10-12. We are not told that they could not buy— that the shops were shut— but simply that it was too late— for that time. For it is not the final coming of the Lord to judgment, when the day of grace will be past, that is spoken of,— except in so far as it is hinted at in the background, and in the individual application of the parable (virtually, not actually) coincides, to each man, with the day of his death. This feast is the marriage supper of Rev 19:7-9 (see also ib. 21:2); after which these improvident ones gone to buy their oil shall be judged in common with the rest of the dead, ibid. 20:12, 13. Observe here, οὐκοἶδαὑμ . is very different, as the whole circumstances are different, from οὐδέποτεἔγνωνὑμ . in ch. 7:23, where the ἀποχωρεῖτεἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ binds it to the πορεύεσθεἀπ ʼ ἐμοῦ in our ver. 41, and to the time of the final judgment, spoken of in that parable. (See the note at the end of the chapter.) 14-30. Parable of the talents. Peculiar to Matthew. The similar parable contained in Luke 19:11-27 is altogether distinct, and uttered on a different occasion: see notes there. 14. ὥσπ . γ .] The ellipsis is rightly supplied in the E. V., For the Kingdom of Heaven is as a man, &c. We have this parable and the preceding one alluded to in very few words by Mark, 13:34-36. In it we have the active side of the Christian life, and its danger, set before us, as in the last the contemplative side. There, the foolish virgins failed from thinking their part too easy— here the wicked servant fails from thinking his too hard. The parable is still concerned with Christians , and not the world at large. We must remember the relation of master and slave, in order to understand his delivering to them his property, and punishing them for not fructifying with it. 15. In Luke each receives the same, but the profit made by each is different: see notes there. Here, in fact, they did each receive the same, for they received according to their ability— their character and powers. There is no Pelagianism in this, for each man’ s powers are themselves the gift of God. 16-18. The increase gained by each of the two faithful servants was the full amount of their talents:— of each will be required as much as has been given. “ εἰργάσατο is the technical term, common in the classics, and especially in Demosthenes: see Reiske’ s index. ἐν is instrumental.” Meyer. ἐποίησεν is not a Latinism (conficere pecuniam), but answers to ποιεῖνκαρπόν ch. 3:10. The third servant here is not to be confounded with the wicked servant in ch. 24:48. This one is not actively an ill-doer, but a hider of the money entrusted to him— one who brings no profit: see on ver. 24. 19-23. μετὰπολὺνχρόνον ] Here again, as well as in the χρονίζ . of ver. 5 and ch. 24:48, we have an intimation that the interval would be no short one. This proceeding is not, strictly speaking, the last judgment, but still the same as that in the former parable; the beginning of judgment at the house of God— the judgment of the millennial advent. This, to the servants of Christ (τοὺςἰδίουςδούλους , ver. 14), is their final judgment— but not that of the rest of the world. We may observe that this great account differs from the coming of the bridegroom, inasmuch as this is altogether concerned with a course of action past— that with a present state of preparation. This holds, in the individual application, of the account after the resurrection: that, at the utmost (and not in the direct sense of the parable even so much), of being ready for his summons at death. 20. The faithful servant does not take the praise to himself— μοιπαρέδωκας is his confession— and ἐπ ʼ αὐτοῖς the enabling cause of his gain;— ‘ without Me, ye can do nothing,’ John 15:5. This is plainer in Luke (19:16), ἡμνᾶσουδέκαπροσηργάσατομνᾶς . See 1 Corinthians 15:10;— and on the joy and alacrity of these faithful servants in the day of reckoning, 1 Thessalonians 2:19: 2 Corinthians 1:14: Philippians 4:1. 21. In Luke ═ ὅτιἐνἐλαχίστῳπιστὸςἐγένου , ἴσθιἐξουσίανἔχωνἐπάνωδέκαπόλεων — where see note. (I cannot imagine with Meyer that εὖ is to be taken with ἐπὶὀλίγαἦςπ ., or that it will not bear the sense of ‘ Well done!’ Although εὖγε is the more usual word, we have (see Passow) in later Greek such expressions as μαλ ʼ εὖ , which is as near as possible to that meaning.) The χαρά here is not a feast, as sometimes interpreted, but that joy spoken of Heb 12:2, and Isaiah 53:11— that joy of the Lord arising from the completion of his work and labour of love, of which the first Sabbatical rest of the Creator was typical— Genesis 1:31; Genesis 2:2,— and of which his faithful ones shall in the end partake: see Hebrews 4:3-11: Revelation 3:21. Notice the identity of the praise and portion of him who had been faithful in less, with those of the first. The words are, as has been well observed, “ not, ‘ good and successful servant,’ but ‘ good and faithful servant:’  ” and faithfulness does not depend on amount. 24, 25. This sets forth the excuse which men are perpetually making of human infirmity and inability to keep God’ s commands, when they never apply to that grace which may enable them to do so— an excuse, as here, self-convicting and false at heart. θερίζ . ὅπ . οὐκἔσπ .] The connexion of thought in this our Lord’ s last parable, with His first (ch. 13:3-9), is remarkable. He looks for fruit where He has sown— this is truth: but not beyond the power of the soil by Him enabled— this is man’ s lie, to encourage himself in idleness. φοβ .] see Genesis 3:10. But that pretended fear, and this insolent speech, are inconsistent, and betray the falsehood of his answer. ἔχειςτὸσόν ] This is also false— it was not τὸσόν — for there was his lord’ s time,— and his own labour, which was his lord’ s— to be accounted for. 26, 27. Luke prefixes ἐκτοῦστόματόςσουκρινῶσε ,— viz. ‘ because, knowing the relation between us, that of absolute power on my part over thee,— if thou hadst really thought me such an hard master, ἔδεισεκ .τ .λ ., in order to avoid utter ruin. But this was not thy real thought— thou wert πονηρὸςκ . ὀκνηρός .’ The ᾔδεις , &c. is not concessive, but hypothetical;— God is not really such a Master. τοῖςτραπ .] in Luke (19:23) ἐπὶτράπεζαν . τραπεζίτης is interpreted κολλυβιστής (see ch. 21:12) by Hesychius. There was a saying very current among the early Fathers, γίνεσθεδόκιμοιτραπεζῖται , which some of them seem to attribute to the Lord, some to one of the Apostles. It is supposed by some to be taken from this place, and it is just possible it may have been: but it more likely was traditional, or from some apocryphal gospel. Suicer, Thes., under the word, discusses the question, and inclines to think that it was a way of expressing the general moral of the two parables in Matt. and Luke. But, in the interpretation, who are these τραπεζῖται The explanation (Olsh., and adopted by Trench, Parables, p. 247) of their being those stronger characters who may lead the more timid to the useful employment of gifts which they have not energy to use, is objectionable, (1) as not answering to the character addressed— he was not timid, but false and slothful;— and (2) nor to the facts of the case: for it is impossible to employ the grace given to one through another’ s means, without working one’ s self. I rather take it to mean, ‘ If thou hadst really been afraid, &c., slothful as thou art, thou mightest at least, without trouble to thyself, have provided that I should have not been defrauded of the interest of my money— but now thou art both slothful and wicked, in having done me this injustice.’ Observe there would have been no praise due to the servant— but τὸἐμόν would not have lost its τόκος . The machinery of religious and charitable societies in our day is very much in the place of the τραπεζῖται . Let the subscribers to them take heed that they be not in the degraded case of this servant, even if his excuse had been genuine. 28-31. This command is answered in Luke 19:25, by a remonstrance from those addressed, which the Master overrules by stating the great law of his Kingdom. In ch. 13:12 we have explained this as applied to the system of teaching by parables. Here it is predicated of the whole Christian life. It is the case even in nature: a limb used is strengthened; disused, becomes weak. The transference of the talent is not a matter of justice between man and man, but is done in illustration of this law, and in virtue of that sovereign power by which God does what He will with his own: see Romans 11:29, and note there. In τὸσκ . τὸἐξ . there is again an allusion to the marriage supper of the Lamb, from which the useless servant being excluded, gnashes his teeth with remorse without: see ch. 22:13. 31-46. The final judgment of all nations. Peculiar to Matthew. In the two former parables we have seen the difference between, and judgment of, Christians— in their inward readiness for their Lord, and their outward diligence in profiting by his gifts. And both these had reference to that first resurrection and millennial Kingdom, the reality of which is proved by the passages of Scripture cited in the notes above, and during which all Christians shall be judged. We now come to the great and universal judgment at the end of this period, also prophesied of distinctly in order in Revelation 20:11-15— in which all the dead, small and great, shall stand before God. This last great judgment answers to the judgment on Jerusalem, after the Christians had escaped from it: to the gathering of the eagles (ministers of vengeance) to the carcase. Notice the precision of the words in ver. 31, ὅτανδὲἔλθῃ — the ὅταν setting forth the indefiniteness of the time— the δέ the distinction from the two parables foregoing; and τότε , to mark a precise time when all this shall take place— a day of judgment. Compare for the better understanding of the distinction, and connexion, of these ‘ two comings’ of the Lord, 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 1 Thessalonians 4:17, and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. This description is not a parable, though there are in it parabolic passages, e.g. ὥσπερὁποιμ . κ .τ .λ .: and for that very reason, that which is illustrated by those likenesses is not itself parabolic. It will heighten our estimation of the wonderful sublimity of this description, when we recollect that it was spoken by the Lord only three days before His sufferings. ἐντῇδόξ . αὐτ .] This expression, repeated again at the end of the verse, is quite distinct from μετὰδυνάμ . κ . δόξ . πολλῆς ch. 24:30: see Revelation 20:11. This His glory is that also of all his saints, with whom He shall be accompanied: see Jude, ver. 14. In this his coming they are with the angels, and as the angels: see Revelation 19:14 (compare ver. 8): Zechariah 14:5. 32. The expression πάντατὰἔθνη implies all the nations of the world, as distinguished from the ἐκλεκτοί already gathered to Him, just as the Gentiles were by that name distinguished from his chosen people the Jews. Among these are “ the other sheep which He has, not of this fold,” John 10:16. ἀφοριεῖκ .τ .λ .] see Ezekiel 34:17. The sheep are those referred to in Romans 2:7, Romans 2:10; the goats in ib. vv. 8, 9, where this same judgment according to works is spoken of. 34. The King— here for the first and only time does the Lord give Himself this name: see Revelation 19:16: Romans 14:9. δεῦτεκ .τ .λ .] Whatever of good these persons had done, was all from Him from whom cometh every good gift— and the fruit of his Spirit. And this Spirit is only purchased for man by the work of the Son, in whom the Father is well pleased: and to whom all judgment is committed. And thus they are the blessed of the Father, and those for whom this kingdom is prepared. It is not to the purpose to say that those εὐλογημ .… must be the elect of God in the stricter sense — and that, because the Kingdom has been prepared for them from the foundation of the world. For evidently this would, in the divine omniscience, be true of every single man who shall come to salvation, whether belonging to those who shall be found worthy to share the first resurrection or not. The Scripture assures us of two resurrections: the first, of the dead in Christ, to meet Him and reign with Him, and hold (1 Corinthians 6:2) judgment over the world; the second, of all the dead, to be judged according to their works. And to what purpose would be a judgment, if all were to be condemned? And if any escape condemnation, to them might the words of this verse be used: so that this objection to the interpretation does not apply. Election to life is the universal doctrine of Scripture; but not the reprobation of the wicked: see below, on ver. 41, On ἀπὸκαταβολῆςκόσμου , see John 17:24: 1 Peter 1:20. 35. συνηγάγετε , sc. εἰςοἶκον , or εἰςὑμᾶς ,— a meaning confined to the LXX and N.T.— received me with hospitality— took me in; the idea is, ‘ numbered me among your own circle.’ 37-40. The answer of these δίκαιοι appears to me to shew plainly (as Olshausen and Stier interpret it) that they are not to be understood as being the covenanted servants of Christ. Such an answer it would be impossible for them to make, who had done all distinctly with reference to Christ, and for his sake, and with his declaration of ch. 10:40-42 before them. Such a supposition would remove all reality, as indeed it has generally done, from our Lord’ s description. See the remarkable difference in the answer of the faithful servants, vv. 20, 22. The saints are already in his glory— judging the world with Him (1 Corinthians 6:2)— accounted as parts of, representatives of, Himself (ver. 40)— in this judgment they are not the judged (John 5:24: 1 Corinthians 11:31). But these who are the judged, know not that all their deeds of love have been done to and for Christ— they are overwhelmed with the sight of the grace which has been working in and for them, and the glory which is now their blessed portion. And notice, that it is not the works, as such, but the love which prompted them— that love which was their faith,— which felt its way, though in darkness, to Him who is Love,— which is commended. τῶνἀδελφ .] Not necessarily the saints with Him in glory— though primarily those— but also any of the great family of man. Many of those here judged may never have had opportunity of doing these things to the saints of Christ properly so called. In this is fulfilled the covenant of God to Abraham, ἐνευλογηθήσονταιἐντῷσπέρματίσουπάντατὰἔθνητῆςγῆς . Genesis 22:18. 41-43. It is very important to observe the distinction between the blessing, ver. 34, and the curse here. ‘ Blessed— of my Father:’ — but not ‘ cursed of my Father,’ because all man’ s salvation is of God— all his condemnation from himself. ‘ The Kingdom, prepared for you;’ but ‘ the fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels’ (notice τὸπῦρτὸαἰών . τὸἡτοιμ … greater definiteness could not be given: that particular fire, that eternal fire, created for a special purpose)— not, for you: because there is election to life— but there is no reprobation to death:— a book of Life— but no book of Death; no hell for man— because the blood of Jesus hath purchased life for all: but they who will serve the devil, must share with him in the end. The repetition of all these particulars shews how exact even for every individual the judgment will be. Stier excellently remarks, that the curse shews the termination of the High Priesthood of Christ, in which office He only intercedes and blesses. Henceforth He is King and Lord— his enemies being now for ever put under his feet. 44, 45. See note on ver. 37. The sublimity of this description surpasses all imagination— Christ, as the Son of Man, the Shepherd, the King, the Judge— as the centre and end of all human love, bringing out and rewarding his latent grace in those who have lived in love— everlastingly punishing those who have quenched it in an unloving and selfish life— and in the accomplishment of his mediatorial office, causing, even from out of the iniquities of a rebellious world, his sovereign mercy to rejoice against judgment. 46. See John 5:28, John 5:29; and as taking up the prophetic history at this point, Revelation 21:1-8. Observe, the same epithet is used for κόλασις and ζωή — which are here contraries— for the ζωή here spoken of is not bare existence, which would have annihilation for its opposite; but blessedness and reward, to which punishment and misery are antagonist terms. I thought it proper to state in the 3rd edition, that I did not feel by any means that full confidence which I once did, in the exegesis, quoad prophetical interpretation, given of the three portions of this chap. 25. But I had no other system to substitute: and some of the points here dwelt on seemed to me as weighty as ever. I very much questioned whether the thorough study of Scripture prophecy would not make me more and more distrustful of all human systematizing, and less willing to hazard strong assertion on any portion of the subject. At the same time, the coincidence of these portions with the process of the great last things in Rev_20 and 21 is never to be overlooked, and should be our guide to their explanation, however distrustful we may be of its certainty. Those who set this coincidence aside, and interpret each portion by itself, without connexion with the rest, are clearly wrong. Chap. 26:1, 2. Final announcement of his sufferings, now close at hand. (Mark 14:1.Luke 22:1 Luke 22:1.) The public office of our Lord as a Teacher having been now fulfilled, His priestly office begins to be entered upon. He had not completed all his discourses, for He delivered, after this, those contained in John 14-17— but not in public; only to the inner circle of his disciples. From this point commences the narrative of his passion. 2. μετὰδύοἡμ .] This gives no certainty as to the time when the words were said: we do not know whether the current day was included or otherwise. But thus much of importance we learn from them: that the delivery of our Lord to be crucified, and the taking place of the Passover, strictly coincided. The solemn mention of them in this connexion is equivalent to a declaration from Himself, if it were needed, of the identity, both of time and meaning, of the two sacrifices; and serves as the fixed point in the difficult chronological arrangement of the history of the Passion. The latter clause, καὶὁυἱὸςκ .τ .λ . depends on οἴδατε as well as the former. Our Lord had doubtless before joined these two events together in his announcements to his disciples. To separate this clause from the former, ‘ and then’ &c. seems to me to do violence to the construction. It would require καὶτότε . 3-5. Conspiracy of the Jewish authorities. Mark 14:1.Luke 22:2 Luke 22:2. This assembling has no connexion with what has just been related, but follows rather on the end of ch. 23. ὁλεγόμενοςΚ . is in Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 2, ἸώσηποςὁκαὶΚαϊάφας . Valerius Gratus, Procurator of Judæ a, had appointed him instead of Simon ben Kamith. He continued through the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, and was displaced by the proconsul Vitellius, a.d. 37. See note on Luke 3:2, and chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts, Vol. II. τοῦλεγ . does not mean ‘ surnamed,’ but (see ver. 14) implies that some name is to follow, which is more than, or different from, the real one of the person. μὴἐντ . ἑ .] This expression must be taken as meaning the whole period of the feast— the seven days. On the feast-day, i.e. the day on which the Passover was sacrificed (E. V.), they could not lay hold of and slay any one, as it was a day of sabbatical obligation (Exodus 12:16). See note on ver. 17. 6-13. The anointing at Bethany. Mark 14:3-9. John 12:1-8. On Luke 7:36-50, see note there. This history of the anointing of our Lord is here inserted out of its place. It occurred six days before the Passover, John 12:1. It perhaps can hardly be said that in its position here, it accounts in any degree for the subsequent application of Judas to the Sanhedrim (vv. 14-16), since his name is not even mentioned in it: but I can hardly doubt that it originally was placed where it here stands by those who were aware of its connexion with that application. The paragraphs in the beginning of this chapter come in regular sequence, thus: Jesus announces his approaching Passion: the chief priests, &c. meet and plot His capture, but not during the feast: but when Jesus was in Bethany, &c. occasion was given for an offer to be made to them, which led to its being effected, after all, during the feast. On the rebuke given to Judas at this time having led to his putting into effect his intention of betraying our Lord, see note on John 12:4. The trace of what I believe to have been the original reason of the anointing being inserted in this place, is still further lost in Mark, who instead of τοῦδὲἸησ . γενομένου .… has καὶὄντοςαὐτοῦ .… just as if the narrative were continued, and at the end instead of our τότεπορευθείς .… has καὶὁἸούδας .… as if there were no connexion between the two. It certainly cannot be said of St. Matthew (De Wette, Neander, Stier) that he relates the anointing as taking place two days before the Passover: of St. Mark it may be said. It may be observed that St. Luke relates nothing of our Lord’ s visits to Bethany. 6. Σίμωνοςτοῦλ .] Not at this time a leper, or he could not be at his house receiving guests. It is at least possible, that he may have been healed by our Lord. Who he was, is wholly uncertain. From Martha serving (John 12:2), it would appear as if she were at home in the house (Luke 10:38 sqq.); and that Lazarus was one τῶνἀνακειμένων need not necessarily imply that he was a guest properly so called. He had been probably (see John 12:9) absent with Jesus at Ephraim, and on this account and naturally for other reasons would be an object of interest, and one of the ἀνακείμενοι . 7. ἀλάβαστρον ] ἄγγοςμύρουμὴἔχονλαβάς , λίθινος , ἢλίθινοςμυροθήκη . Suidas. See Herod. iii. 20. It was the usual cruse or pot for ointment, with a long narrow neck, and sealed at the top. It was thought (Plin. xiii. 3) that the ointment kept best in these cruses. On the nature of the ointment, see note on νάρδουπιστικῆς , Mark 14:3. τὴνκεφ . αὐτ .] His feet, according to John 12:3. See Luke 7:38, and note there. ἀνακειμένου is not to be taken with αὐτοῦ , but is a separate gen. absol. by itself; on His head while He was reclining at table. See on this construction, Kü hner, Gr. Gr. ii. p. 368, where many examples are given. 8. οἱμαθηταί ] Judas alone is mentioned, John 12:4. It may have been that some were found ready to second his remark, but that John, from his peculiar position at the table,— if, as is probable, the same as in John 13:23,— may not have observed it. If so, the independent origin of the two accounts is even more strikingly shewn. ἀπώλεια ] Bengel remarks, ‘ Immo tu, Juda, perditionis es (ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλείας , John 17:12).’ 9. πολλοῦ ] 300 denarii (John),— even more than that (Mark). On the singular relation which these three accounts bear to one another, see notes on Mark. δοθῆναι , viz. the πολύ for which the ointment might have been sold: the subject being supplied out of the preceding sentence. So Herod. ix. 8, τὸνἰσθμὸνἐτείχεονκαίσφιἦνπρὸςτέλεϊ , sc. τὸτεῖχος . See other examples in Kü hner, Gr. Gr. ii. pp. 36, 7. 10. ἔργ . γὰρκαλ . εἰργ .] Stier remarks that this is a stronger expression than ἔργ . ἀγαθὸνἐποίησεν would have been. See ch. 5:16. It was not only ‘ a good work,’ but a noble act of love, which should be spoken of in all the churches to the end of time. On ver. 11, see notes on Mark, where it is more fully expressed. 12. I can hardly think that our Lord would have said this, unless there had been in Mary’ s mind a distinct reference to His burial, in doing the act. All the company surely knew well that His death, and that by crucifixion, was near at hand: can we suppose one who so closely observed His words as Mary, not to have been possessed with the thought of that which was about to happen? The προέλαβενμυρίσαιμουτὸσῶμα of Mark (14:8), and the ἵναεἰςτὴνἡμ . τοῦἐνταφ . μουτηρήσῃαὐτό of John (12:7), point even more strongly to her intention. 13. The only case in which our Lord has made such a promise. We cannot but be struck with the majesty of this prophetic announcement; introduced with the peculiar and weighty ἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν ,— conveying, by implication, the whole mystery of the εὐαγγέλιον which should go forth from His Death as its source,— looking forward to the end of time, when it shall have been preached in the whole world,— and specifying the fact that this deed should be recorded wherever it is preached. We may notice (1) that this announcement is a distinct prophetic recognition by our Lord of the existence of written records, in which the deed should be related; for in no other conceivable way could the universality of mention be brought about: (2) that we have here (if indeed we needed it) a convincing argument against that view of our three first Gospels which supposes them to have been compiled from an original document: for if there had been such a document, it must have contained this narrative, and no one using such a Gospel could have failed to insert this narrative, accompanied by such a promise, in his own work; which St. Luke has failed to do: (3) that the same consideration is equally decisive against Luke having used, or even seen, our present Gospels of Matthew and Mark. (See the English translation of Schleiermacher’ s Essay on Luke, p. 121.) (4) As regards the practical use of the announcement, we see that though the honourable mention of a noble deed is thereby recognized by our Lord as a legitimate source of joy to us, yet by the very nature of the case all regard to such mention as a motive is excluded. The motive was Love alone. 14-16. Compact of Judas with the Chief Priests to betray Him. Mark 14:10, Mark 14:11.Luke 22:3-6 Luke 22:3-6. (See also ἤδη , John 13:2.) When this took place, does not appear. In all probability, immediately after the conclusion of our Lord’ s discourses, and therefore coincidently with the meeting of the Sanhedrim in ver. 3. As these verses bring before us the first overt act of Judas’ s treachery, I will give here what appears to me the true estimate of his character and motives. In the main, my view agrees with that given by Neander, in his Leben Jesu, p. 688. I believe that Judas at first became attached to our Lord with much the same view as the other Apostles. He appears to have been a man with a practical talent for this world’ s business, which gave occasion to his being appointed the Treasurer, or Bursar, of the company (John 12:6; John 13:29). But the self-seeking, sensuous element, which his character had in common with that of the other Apostles, was deeper rooted in him; and the spirit and love of Christ gained no such influence over him as over the others, who were more disposed to the reception of divine things. In proportion as he found our Lord’ s progress disappoint his greedy anticipations, did his attachment to Him give place to coldness and aversion. The exhibition of miracles alone could not keep him faithful, when once the deeper appreciation of the Lord’ s Divine Person failed. We find by implication a remarkable example of this in John 6:60-66, John 6:70, John 6:71, where the denunciation of the one unfaithful among the twelve seems to point to the (then) state of his mind, as already beginning to be scandalized at Christ. Add to this, that latterly the increasing clearness of the Lord’ s announcements of his approaching passion and death, while they gradually opened the eyes of the other Apostles to some terrible event to come, without shaking their attachment to Him, was calculated to involve in more bitter disappointment and disgust one so disposed to Him as Judas was. The actually exciting causes of the deed of treachery at this particular time may have been many. The reproof administered at Bethany (on the Saturday evening probably),— disappointment at seeing the triumphal entry followed, not by the adhesion, but by the more bitter enmity of the Jewish authorities,— the denunciations of our Lord in ch. 22:23. rendering the breach irreparable,— and perhaps his last announcement in ver. 2, making it certain that his death would soon take place, and sharpening the eagerness of the traitor to profit by it:— all these may have influenced him to apply to the chief priests as he did. With regard to his motive in general, I cannot think that he had any design but that of sordid gain, to be achieved by the darkest treachery. See further on this the note on ch. 27:3. 15. ἔστησαν may be either weighed out, or appointed. That the money was paid to Judas (ch. 27:3) is no decisive argument for the former meaning; for it may have been paid on the delivery of Jesus to the Sanhedrim. The συνέθεντο of Luke and ἐπηγγείλαντο of Mark would lead us to prefer the other. τριάκονταἀργύρια ] thirty shekels, = the price of the life of a servant, Exodus 21:32. Between three and four pounds of our money. St. Matthew is the only Evangelist who mentions the sum. De Wette and others have supposed that the mention of thirty pieces of silver with the verb ἔστησαν , has arisen from the prophecy of Zechariah (ref.), which St. Matthew clearly has in view. The others have simply ἀργύριον . It is just possible that the thirty pieces may have been merely earnest-money: but a difficulty attends the supposition; if so, Judas would have been entitled to the whole on our Lord being delivered up to the Sanhedrim (for this was all he undertook to do); whereas we find (ch. 27:3) that, after our Lord’ s condemnation, Judas brought only the thirty pieces back, and nothing more. See note there. 17-19. Preparation for celebrating the Passover. Mark 14:12-16. Luke 22:7-13. The whole narrative which follows is extremely difficult to arrange and account for chronologically. Our Evangelist is the least circumstantial, and, as will I think appear, the least exact in detail of the three. St. Mark partially fills up the outline;— but the account of St. Luke is the most detailed, and I believe the most exact. It is to be noticed that the narrative which St. Paul gives, 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, of the institution of the Lord’ s Supper, and which he states he ‘ received from the Lord,’ coincides almost verbatim with that given by Luke. But while we say this, it must not be forgotten that over all three narratives extends the great difficulty of explaining ἡπρώτητῶνἀζ . (Matt., Mark), or ἡἡμ . τ . ἀζ . (Luke), and of reconciling the impression undeniably conveyed by them, that the Lord and his disciples ate the usual Passover, with the narrative of St. John, which not only does not sanction, but I believe absolutely excludes such a supposition. I shall give in as short a compass as I can, the various solutions which have been attempted, and the objections to them; fairly confessing that none of them satisfy me, and that at present I have none of my own. I will first state the grounds of the difficulty itself. The day alluded to in all four histories as that of the supper, which is unquestionably one and identical, is Thursday, the 13th of Nisan. Now the day of the Passover being slain and eaten was the 14th of Nisan (Exodus 12:6, Exodus 12:18: Leviticus 23:5: Numbers 9:3; Numbers 28:16: Ezekiel 45:21), between the evenings , which was interpreted by the generality of the Jews to mean the interval between the first westering of the sun (3 p.m.) and his setting,— but by the Karaites and Samaritans that between sunset and darkness:— in either case, however, the day was the same. The feast of unleavened bread began at the very time of eating the Passover (Exodus 12:18), so that the first day of the feast of unleavened bread was the 15th (Numbers 28:17). All this agrees with the narrative of John, where (13:1) the last supper takes place πρὸτῆςἑορ . τοῦπάσχα — where the disciples think (ib. ver. 29) that Judas had been directed to buy the things ὧνχρείανεἶχονεἰςτὴνἑορτήν — where the Jews (18:28) would not enter into the præ torium, lest they should be defiled, ἀλλ ʼ ἵναφάγωσιντὸπάσχα (see note on John 18:28)— where at the exhibition of our Lord by Pilate (on the Friday at noon) it was (19:14) παρασκευὴτοῦπάσχα — and where it could be said (19:31) ἦνγὰρμεγάληἡἡμέραἐκείνουτοῦσαββάτου ,— being as it was a double Sabbath,— the coincidence of the first day of unleavened bread, which was sabbatically hallowed (Exodus 12:16), with an actual sabbath. But as plainly it does not agree with the view of the three other Evangelists, who not only relate the meal on the evening of the 13th of Nisan to have been a Passover, but manifestly regard it as the ordinary legal time of eating it. τῇπρ . ἡμ . τ . ἀζ ., ὅτετὸπάσχαἔθυον (Mark 14:12), ᾗἔδειθύεσθαιτὸπάσχα (Luke 22:7), and in our Gospel by implication, in the use of τὸπάσχα , &c., without any qualifying remark. The solutions which have been proposed are the following: (1) that the Passover which our Lord and his disciples ate, was not the ordinary, but an anticipatory one, seeing that He himself was about to be sacrificed as the true Passover at the legal time. To this it may be objected that such an anticipation would have been wholly unprecedented and irregular, in a matter most strictly laid down by the law: and that in the three Gospels there is no allusion to it, but rather every thing (see above) to render it improbable. (2) That our Lord and his disciples ate the Passover, but at the time observed by a certain portion of the Jews, while He himself was sacrificed at the time generally observed. This solution is objectionable, as wanting any historical testimony whereon to ground it, being in fact a pure assumption. Besides, it is clearly inconsistent with Mark 14:12: Luke 22:7, cited above. A similar objection lies against (3) the notion that our Lord ate the Passover at the strictly legal, the Jews at an inaccurate and illegal time. (4) Our Lord ate only a πάσχαμνημονευτικόν , such as the Jews now celebrate, and not a πάσχαθύσιμον (Grotius). But this is refuted by the absence of any mention of a π . μνημ . before the destruction of Jerusalem; besides its inconsistency with the above-cited passages. (5) Our Lord did not eat the Passover at all. But this is manifestly not a solution of the difficulty, but a setting aside of one of the differing accounts: for the three Gospels manifestly give the impression that He did eat it. (6) The solution offered by Chrys., on our ver. 58 (Hom. lxxxiv. 2, p. 800), is at least ingenious. The Council, he says, did not eat their Passover at the proper time, but ἐνἑτέρᾳἡμέρᾳἔφαγον , καὶτὸννόμονἔλυσαν , διὰτὴνἐπιθυμίαντὴνπερὶτὴνσφαγὴνταύτην .… εἵλοντοκαὶτὸπάσχαἀφεῖναι , ὑπὲρτοῦτὴνφονικὴναὐτῶνἐμπλῆσαιἐπιθυμίαν . This had been suggested before in a scholium of Eusebius: see Wordsw.’ s note on John 18:28, in which it is adopted. But St. John’ s habit of noticing and explaining all such exceptional circumstances, makes it very improbable. (I may state, as some solutions have been sent me by correspondents, that I have seen nothing besides the above, which justifies any extended notice.) I will conclude this note by offering a few hints which, though not pointing to any particular solution, ought I think to enter into the consideration of the question. That, on the evening of the 13th (i.e. the beginning of the 14th) of Nisan, the Lord ate a meal with his disciples, at which the announcement that one of them should betray Him was made: after which He went into the Garden of Gethsemane, and was betrayed (Matt., Mark, Luke, John):— That, in some sense or other, this meal was regarded as the eating of the Passover (Matt., Mark, Luke). (The same may be inferred even from John; for some of the disciples must have gone into the præ torium, and have heard the conversation between our Lord and Pilate (John 18:33-38): and as they were equally bound with the other Jews to eat the Passover, would equally with them have been incapacitated from so doing by having incurred defilement, had they not eaten theirs previously. It would appear too, from Joseph of Arimathea going to Pilate during the παρασκευή (Mark 15:42, Mark 15:43), that he also had eaten his passover.) That it was not the ordinary passover of the Jews: for (Exodus 12:22) when that was eaten, none might go out of the house until morning; whereas not only did Judas go out during the meal (John 13:29), but our Lord and the disciples went out when the meal was finished. Also when Judas went out, it was understood that he was gone to buy, which could not have been the case, had it been the night of eating the passover, which in all years was sabbatically hallowed. John, who omits all mention of the Paschal nature of this meal, also omits all mention of the distribution of the symbolic bread and wine. The latter act was, strictly speaking, anticipatory: the Body was not yet broken, nor the Blood shed (but see note on ver. 26 ad fin.). Is it possible that the words in Luke 22:15, Luke 22:16 may have been meant by our Lord as an express declaration of the anticipatory nature of that passover meal likewise? May they mean, ‘ I have been most anxious to eat this Paschal meal with you to-night (before I suffer), for I shall not eat it to-morrow,— I shall not eat of it any more with you?’ May a hint to the same effect be intended in ὁκαιρόςμουἐγγύςἐστιν (ver. 18), as accounting for the time of making ready— may the present tense ποιῶ itself have the same reference? I may remark that the whole of the narrative of John, as compared with the others, satisfies me that he can never have seen their accounts. It is inconceivable, that one writing for the purpose avowed in John 20:31, could have found the three accounts as we have them, and have made no more allusion to the discrepancy than the faint (and to all appearance undesigned) ones in ib. ch. 12:1; 13:1, 29; 18:28. 17. τᾖπρ . τ . ἀζ .] If this night had been the ordinary time of sacrificing the Passover, the day preceding would not indeed have been strictly the first day of unleavened bread; but there is reason to suppose that it was accounted so. The putting away leaven from the houses was part of the work of the day, and the eating of the unleavened bread actually commenced in the evening. Thus Josephus, Antt. ii. 15. 1, ἑορτὴνἄγομενἐφ ʼ ἡμέραςὀκτώ , τὴντῶνἀζύμωνλεγομένην ,— including this day in the feast. ποῦθέλεις ] The ‘ making ready’ would include the following particulars: the preparation of the guest-chamber itself (which however in this case was already done, see Mark 14:15 and note);— the lamb already kept up from the 10th (Exodus 12:3) had to be slain in the fore-court of the temple (2 Chronicles 35:5: see also Jos. B. J. vi. 9. 3);— the unleavened bread, bitter herbs, &c., prepared;— and the room arranged. This report does not represent the whole that passed: it was the Lord who sent the two disciples; and in reply this enquiry was made (Luke). 18. The person spoken of was unknown even by name, as appears from Mark and Luke, where he is to be found by the turning in of a man with a pitcher of water. The Lord spoke not from any previous arrangement, as some have thought, but in virtue of His knowledge, and command of circumstances. Compare the command ch. 21:2 sq., and that in ch. 17:27. In the words πρὸςτὸνδεῖνα here must be involved the additional circumstance mentioned by Mark and Luke, but perhaps unknown to our narrator: see note on Luke 22:10, where the fullest account is found. The words ὁδιδάσκ ., common to the three accounts, do not imply that the man was a disciple of our Lord. It was the common practice during the feast for persons to receive strangers into their houses gratuitously, for the purpose of eating the Passover: and in this description of Himself in addressing a stranger, our Lord has a deep meaning, as (perhaps, but see note) in ὁκύριος in ch. 21:3. ‘ Our Master and thine says.’ It is His form of ‘ pressing’ for the service of the King of this earth, the things that are therein. ὁκαιρόςμου is not ‘ the time of the feast,’ but my time, i.e. for suffering: see John 7:8 . freq. There is no reason for supposing from this expression that ὁδεῖνα was aware of its meaning. The bearers of the message were; and the words, to the receiver of it, bore with them a weighty subjective reason, which, with such a title as ὁδιδάσκαλος prefixed, he was bound to respect. For these words we are indebted to St. Matthew’ s narrative. 20-25. Jesus, celebrating the Passover, announces His betrayer. Mark 14:17-21. John 13:21 ff. Our Lord and the twelve were a full Paschal company; ten persons was the ordinary and minimum number. Here come in (1) the expression of our Lord’ s desire to eat this Passover before His suffering, Luke 22:15, Luke 22:16; (2) the division of this first cup, ib. vv. 17, 18:3) the washing of the disciples’ feet, John 13:1-20 (? see note, John 13:22). I mention these, not that I have any desire to reduce the four accounts to a harmonized narrative, for that I believe to be impossible, and the attempt wholly unprofitable; but because they are additional circumstances, placed by their narrators at this period of the feast. I shall similarly notice all such additional matter, but without any idea of harmonizing the apparent discrepancies of the four (as appears to me) entirely distinct and independent reports. 21. This announcement is common to Matt., Mark, and John. In the part of the events of the supper which relates to Judas, St. Luke is deficient, giving no further report of them than vv. 21-23. The whole minute detail is given by St. John, who bore a considerable part in it. 22. In the accounts of Luke and John, this enquiry is made πρὸςἑαυτούς or εἰςἀλλήλους . The real enquiry from the Lord was made by John himself, owing to a sign from Peter. This part of John’ s narrative stands in the highest position for accuracy of detail, and the facts related in it are evidently the ground of the other accounts. 23. These first words represent the answer of our Lord to John’ s question (John 13:26). The latter (ver. 24) were not said now, but (Luke, vv. 21, 22) formed part of the previous announcement in our ver. 21. 25. I cannot understand these words (which are peculiar to our Gospel) otherwise than as an imperfect report of what really happened, viz. that the Lord dipped the sop, and gave it to Judas, thereby answering the general doubt, in which the traitor had impudently presumed to feign a share. If the question μήτιἐγώεἰμι ; before, represented ἔβλεπονεἰςἀλλήλουςἀπορούμενοι , and was our author’ s impression of what was in reality not a spoken but a signified question,— why now also should not this question and answer represent that Judas took part in that ἀπορία , and was, not by word of mouth, but by a decisive sign, of which our author was not aware, declared to be the traitor? Both cannot have happened;— for (John 13:28) no one knew (not even John, see note there) why Judas went out; whereas if he had been openly (and it is out of the question to suppose a private communication between our Lord and him) declared to be the traitor, reason enough would have been furnished for his immediately leaving the chamber. (Still, consult the note on Luke, vv. 24-30, where I have left room for modifying this view.) I am aware that this explanation will give offence to those who believe that every part of each account may be tessellated into one consistent and complete whole. Stier (Reden Jesu, vi. 46) handles the above supposition very roughly, and speaks of its upholders in no measured terms. Valuable as are the researches of this Commentator into the inner sense of the Lord’ s words, and ready as I am to acknowledge continual obligation to him, I cannot but think that in the whole interpretation of this part of the Gospel-history, he and his school have fallen into the error of a too minute and letter-serving exposition. In their anxiety to retain every portion of every account in its strict literal sense, they are obliged to commit many inconsistencies. A striking instance of this is also furnished in Mr. Birks’ s Horæ Evangelicæ , p. 411: where in treating of this difficulty he says, “ If we suppose St. Matthew to express the substantial meaning of our Lord’ s reply, rather than its precise words, the two accounts are easily reconciled. The question of Judas might concur with St. John’ s private enquiry, and the same sign which revealed the traitor to the beloved disciple, would be an affirmative reply to himself, equivalent to the words in the Gospel— ‘ Thou hast said.’  ” Very true, and nearly what I have maintained above: but the literal harmonizers seem to be quite blind to the fact, that this principle of interpretation, which they use when it suits them, is the very one against which they so vehemently protest when others use it, and for the use of which they call them such hard names. On σὺεἶπας , see below, ver. 64, note. 26-29. Institution of the Lord’ s Supper. Mark 14:22-25.Luke 22:19 Luke 22:19, Luke 22:20. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. We may remark on this important part of our narrative, (1) That it was demonstrably our Lord’ s intention to found an ordinance for those who should believe on Him; (2) that this ordinance had some analogy with that which He and the Apostles were then celebrating. The first of these assertions depends on the express word of the Apostle Paul; who in giving directions for the due celebration of the rite of the Lord’ s Supper, states in relation to it that he had received from the Lord the account of its institution, which he then gives. He who can set this aside, must set aside with it all apostolic testimony whatever. The second is shewn by the fact, that what now took place was during the celebration of the Passover: that the same Paul states that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; thus identifying the body broken, and blood shed, of which the bread and wine here are symbolic, with the Paschal feast. (3) That the key to the right understanding of what took place must be found in our Lord’ s discourse after the feeding of the five thousand in Joh_6, since He there, and there only, besides this place, speaks of His flesh and blood in the connexion found here. (4) It is impossible to assign to this event its precise place in the meal. St. Luke inserts it before the announcement of the treason of Judas: St. Matt. and St. Mark after it. It is doubtful whether the accounts found in the Talmud and elsewhere of the ceremonies in the Paschal feast (see Lightfoot ad loc. De Wette) are to be depended on:— they are exceedingly complicated. Thus much seems clear,— that our Lord blessed and passed round two cups, one before, the other after the supper,— and that He distributed the unleavened cake during the meal. More than this is conjecture. The dipping of the hand in the dish, and dipping and giving the sop, may also possibly correspond to parts of the Jewish ceremonial. 26. While they were eating, during the meal,— as distinguished from the distribution of the cup, which was after it. No especial stress must be laid on the article before ἄρτον , if read; it would be the bread which lay before Him: see below. The bread would be unleavened, as the day was ἡπρώτητῶνἀζύμων (see Exodus 12:8). εὐλογήσας and εὐχαριστήσας amount to the same in practice. The looking up to heaven and giving thanks was a virtual ‘ blessing’ of the meal or the bread. εὐλογ . must be construed transitively (1 Corinthians 10:16). ἄρτον is governed by all four verbs, λαβών , εὐλογήσας , ἔκλασεν , ἐδίδου (see also Luke 9:16, and the reff. to the text here). It was customary in the Paschal meal for the Master, in breaking the bread, to give thanks for the fruit of the earth. But our Lord did more than this: “ Non pro veteri tantum creatione, sed et pro nova, cujus ergo in hunc orbem venerat, preces fudit, gratiasque Deo egit pro redemtione humani generis quasi jam peracta.” Grotius. From this giving of thanks for and blessing the offering, the Holy Communion has been from the earliest times also called εὐχαριστία , viz. by Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, , Chrysostom, &c. The passages may be seen in Suicer’ s Thesaurus, under the word. ἔκλασεν ] It was a round cake of unleavened bread, which the Lord broke and divided: signifying thereby both the breaking of his body on the Cross, and the participation in the benefits of his death by all His. Hence the act of communion was known by the name ἡκλάσιςτοῦἄρτου , Acts 2:42. See 1 Corinthians 10:16, also Isaiah 58:7: Lamentations 4:4. ἐδίδου , imperf. He gave to each, distributed. λάβετεφάγετε ] Our Gospel alone has both words. φάγετε is spurious in Mark: both words, in 1 Corinthians 11:24. Here, they are undoubted: and seem to shew us (see note on Luke, ver. 17) that the Lord did not Himself partake of the bread or wine. It is thought by some however that He did: e.g. Chrysostom, Hom. lxxxii. 1, p. 783, τὸἑαυτοῦαἷμααὐτὸςἔπιεν . But the analogy of the whole, as well as these words. and πίετεἐξαὐτοῦπάντες below, lead us to a different conclusion. Our Lord’ s non-participation is however no rule for the administrator of the rite in after times. Although in one sense he represents Christ, blessing, breaking, and distributing; in another, he is one of the disciples, examining himself, confessing, partaking. Throughout all Church ministrations this double capacity must be borne in mind. Olshausen (ii. 449) maintains the opposite view, and holds that the ministrant cannot unite in himself the two characters. But setting the inner verity of the matter for a moment aside, how, if so, should an unassisted minister ever communicate? τοῦτόἐστιντὸσῶμάμου ] τοῦτο , this, which I now offer to you, this bread. The form of expression is important, not being οὗτοςὁἄρτος , or οὗτοςὁοἶνος , but τοῦτο , in both cases, or τοῦτοτὸποτήριον , not the bread or wine itself, but the thing in each case;— precluding all idea of a substantial change. ἐστιν ] On this much controverted word itself no stress is to be laid. In the original tongue in which our Lord spoke, it would not be expressed: and as it now stands, it is merely the logical copula between the subject, this, and the predicate, my Body. The connexion of these two will require deeper consideration. First we may observe, as above of the subject, so here of the predicate, that it is not ἡσάρξμου (although that very expression is didactically used in its general sense in John 6:51, as applying to the bread), but τὸσῶμάμου . The body is made up of flesh and blood; and although analogically the bread may represent one and the wine the other, the assertion here is not to be analogically taken merely: τοῦτο , this which I give you, (is) τὸσῶμάμου . Under this is the mystery of my Body: the assertion has a literal, and has also a spiritual or symbolic meaning. And it is the literal meaning which gives to the spiritual and symbolic meaning its fitness and fulness. In the literal meaning then, this (is) my Body, we have bread, ‘ the staff of life,’ identified with the Body of the Lord: not that particular ἄρτος with that particular σάρξ which at that moment constituted the Body before them, nor any particular ἄρτος with the present Body of the Lord in heaven: but τοῦτο , the food of man, with τὸσῶμάμου . This is strikingly set forth in John 6:51, καὶὁἄρτοςδὲὃνἐγὼδώσωἡσάρξμουἐστὶνὑπὲρτῆςτοῦκόσμουζωῆς . Now the mystery of the Lord’ s Body is, that in and by it is all created being upheld: τὰπάνταἐναὐτῷσυνέστηκεν , Colossians 1:17; ἐναὐτῷζωὴἦν , John 1:4. And thus generally, and in the widest sense, is the Body of the Lord the sustenance and upholding of all living. Our very bodies are dependent upon his, and unless by his Body standing pure and accepted before the Father, could not exist nor be nourished. So that to all living things, in this largest sense, τὸζῇν , χριστός . And all our nourishment and means of upholding are Christ. In this sense his Body is the Life of the world. Thus the fitness of the symbol for the thing now to be signified is shewn, not merely by analogy, but by the deep verities of Redemption. And this general and lower sense, underlying, as it does, all the spiritual and higher senses in Joh_6, brings us to the symbolic meaning which the Lord now first and expressly attaches to this sacramental bread. Rising into the higher region of spiritual things,— in and by the same Body of the Lord, standing before the Father in accepted righteousness, is all spiritual being upheld, but by the inward and spiritual process of feeding upon Him by faith: of making that Body our own, causing it to pass into and nourish our souls, even as the substance of the bread passes into and nourishes our bodies. Of this feeding upon Christ in the spirit by faith, is the sacramental bread the symbol to us. When the faithful in the Lord’ s Supper press with their teeth that sustenance, which is, even to the animal life of their bodies, the Body of Christ, whereby alone all animated being is upheld,— they feed in their souls on that Body of righteousness and acceptance, by partaking of which alone the body and soul are nourished unto everlasting life. And as, in the more general and natural sense, all that nourishes the body is the Body of Christ given for all,— so to them, in the inner spiritual sense, is the sacramental bread symbolic of that Body given for them,— their standing in which, in the adoption of sons, is witnessed by the sending abroad of the Spirit in their hearts. This last leads us to the important addition in Luke and 1 Cor. (but omitted here and in Mark) τὸὑπὲρὑμῶν (διδόμενον , Luke,— omitted in 1 Cor.),— τοῦτοποιεῖτεεἰςτὴνἐμὴνἀνάμνησιν . On these words we may remark (1) that the participle is present: and, rendered with reference to the time when it was spoken, would be which is being given. The Passion had already begun; in fact the whole life on earth was this giving and breaking, consummated by His death: (2) that the commemorative part of the rite here enjoined strictly depends upon the symbolic meaning, and that, for its fitness, upon the literal meaning. The commemoration is of Him, in so far as He has come down into Time, and enacted the great acts of Redemption on this our world,— and shewn himself to us as living and speaking Man, an object of our personal love and affectionate remembrance:— but the other and higher parts of the Sacrament have regard to the results of those same acts of Redemption, as they are eternized in the counsels of the Father,— as the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). 27. ἔδωκεν , aor. He gave, not to each, but once for all: in remarkable coincidence with Luke 22:17, λάβετετοῦτοκ . διαμερίσατεἑαυτοῖς . This was after the meal was ended: ὡσαύτωςκαὶτὸποτήριονμετὰτὸδειπνῆσαι . (Luke and 1 Cor.) As remarked above, it is quite uncertain whether our Lord followed minutely the Jewish practices, and we cannot therefore say whether the cup was one of wine and water mixed. It hardly follows from the expression of ver. 29, ἐκτούτουτοῦγεν . τ . ἀμπ ., that it was of unmixed wine. The word ὡσαύτως (in Luke and 1 Cor.) contains our λαβὼνκαὶεὐχαρ . ἔδωκ . πίετεἐξαὐτοῦπάντες ] Peculiar to Matthew, preserved however in substance by Mark’ s καὶἔπιονἐξαὐτοῦπάντες . The πάντες is remarkable, especially with reference to the practice of the Church of Rome, which forbids the cup to the laity. Calvin remarks: “ Cur de pane simpliciter dixit ut ederent; de calice, ut omnes biberent? Ac si Satanæ calliditati ex destinato occurrere voluisset.” (Cited in Stier, vi. 115.) It is on all accounts probable, and this command confirms the probability, that Judas was present, and partook of both parts of this first communion. The expressions are such throughout as to lead us to suppose that the same persons, οἱδώδεκα , were present. On the circumstance mentioned John 13:30, which has mainly contributed to the other opinion, see note there. 28. τοῦτογάρἐστιντὸαἷμάμουτῆς [καινῆς ] διαθ .] So Mark also, omitting γάρ and καινῆς . In Luke and 1 Cor. there is an important verbal difference. τοῦτοτὸποτήριονἡκαινὴδιαθ . [ἐστὶν ] ἐντῷἐμῷαἵματι . But if we consider the matter closely, the real difference is but trifling, if any. Let us recur to the Paschal rite. The lamb being killed, the blood (τὸαἷματῆςδιαθήκης , Exodus 24:8) is sprinkled on the doorposts, and is a sign to the destroying angel to spare the house. The blood of the covenant is the blood of the lamb. So also in the new covenant. The blood of the Lamb of God, slain for us, being not only, as in the former case, sprinkled on, but actually partaken spiritually and assimilated by, the faithful soul, is the blood of the new covenant; and the sacramental cup, is, signifies, sets forth (καταγγέλλει , 1 Corinthians 11:26), this covenant in His blood, i.e. consisting in a participation in His blood. With this explanation let us recur to the words in our text. First it will be observed that there is not here that absolute assertion which τοῦτόἐστιντὸσῶμάμου conveyed. It is not τοῦτόἐστιντὸαἷμάμου absolutely. Wine, in general, does not represent by itself the effects (on the creation) of the blood of Christ; it, like every other nourishment of the body, is nourishment to us by and in Him, forasmuch as in Him all things consist: but there is no peculiar propriety whereby it is to us his Blood alone. But it is made so by a covenant office which it holds in his own declaration. Without shedding of blood was no remission of sins under the old covenant: and blood was, throughout, the covenant sign of forgiveness and acceptance. (See ref. Heb., where the Author, substituting τοῦτο for ἰδού in the LXX of Exo 24:8, seems to be alluding to this very formula.) Now all this blood of sacrifice finds its true reality and fulfilment in the blood of Christ, shed for the remission of sins. This is the very promise of the new covenant, see Hebrews 8:8-13, as distinguished from the old: the ἄφεσιςἁμαρτιῶν , once for all,— whereas the old had continual offerings, which could not do this, Hebrews 10:3, Hebrews 10:4. And of this ἄφεσις , the result of the outpouring of the blood of Christ,— first and most generally in bringing all creation into reconciliation with the Father (see Colossians 1:20),— secondly and individually, in the application by faith of that blood to the believing soul,— do the faithful in the Lord’ s Supper partake. τὸπερὶπολλῶνἐκχ .] On the present participle, see above. The situation of the words in Luke is remarkable; for τὸποτήριον is the subject of the sentence, and ἡκ . διαθήκη the predicate. See note there. πολλῶν ] see note, ch. 20:28. Cf. also Hebrews 9:28. εἰςἄφεσινἁμαρτιῶν ] Peculiar to Matthew: see above. The connexion is not πίετε .… εἰςἄφεσινἁμ . In the Sacrament, not the forgiveness of sins itself, but the refreshing and confirming assurance of that state of forgiveness is conveyed. The disciples (with one exception) were clean before the institution: John 13:10, John 13:11. St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:25, repeats the τοῦτοποιεῖτεὁσάκιςἂνπίνητεεἰςτὴνἐμὴνἀνάμνησιν . On the words ὁσάκιςἂνπίνητε , see note there. In concluding this note I will observe that it is not the office of a Commentator to enter the arena of controversy respecting transubstantiation, further than by his exegesis his opinions are made apparent. It will be seen how entirely opposed to such a dogma is the view above given of the Sacrament. Once introduce it, and it utterly destroys both the verity of Christ’ s Body, and the sacramental nature of the ordinance. That it has done so, is proved (if further need be) by the mutilation of the Sacrament, and disobedience to the divine command, in the Church of Rome. See further notices of this in notes on 1 Corinthians 10:16, and on Joh_6. 29. This declaration I believe to be distinct from that in Luke 22:18. That was spoken over the first cup— this over one of the following. In addition to what has been said on Luke, we may observe, (1) that our Lord still calls the sacramental cup τὸγέν . τῆςἀμπ ., although by Himself pronounced to be his blood: (2) that these words carry on the meaning and continuance of this eucharistic ordinance, even into the new heavens and new earth. As Thiersch excellently says, in his Lectures on Catholicism and Protestantism, ii. 276 (cited by Stier, vi. 160), “ The Lord’ s Supper points not only to the past, but to the future also. It has not only a commemorative, but also a prophetic meaning. In it we have not only to shew forth the Lord’ s death, until He come, but we have also to think of the time when He shall come to celebrate his holy Supper with His own, new, in his Kingdom of Glory. Every celebration of the Lord’ s Supper is a foretaste and prophetic anticipation of the great Marriage Supper which is prepared for the Church at the second appearing of Christ. This import of the Sacrament is declared in the words of the Lord, οὐμὴπίωἀπ ʼ ἄρτικ .τ .λ . These words ought never to be omitted in any liturgical form of administering the Communion.” 30-35. Declaration that all should forsake Him. Confidence of Peter. Mark 14:26-31. See Luke 22:31-38: John 13:36-38. Here, accurately speaking perhaps between ὑμνήσαντες and ἐξῆλθον , come in the discourses and prayer of our Lord in John 14:15. 16. 17, spoken (see note on John 14:31) without change of place, in the supper-chamber. 30. The ὕμνος was in all probability the last part of the Hallel, or great Hallel, which consisted of Psalms 115-118; the former part (Ps. 113. 114.) having been sung during the meal. It is unlikely that this took place after the solemn prayer in Joh_17. ἐξῆλθ .] Luke (ver. 39) adds κατὰτὸἔθος — namely, of every evening since his return to Jerusalem. 31. πάντες (emphatic) ὑμεῖς seems to be used as distinguishing those present from the one, who had gone out. σκανδ .] see note on ch. 11:6. The word is here used in a pregnant meaning, including what followed,— desertion, and, in one case, denial. γέγραπταιγάρ ] This is a very important citation, and has been much misunderstood; how much, may appear from Grotius’ s remark: “ Tantum abest ut Zachariæ verbis directe Christum putem respici, ut multo magis credam agi inibi de aliquo non bono pastore,” &c. But, on the contrary, if we examine Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:12 Zechariah 11:12. 13., we must I think come to the conclusion that the shepherd spoken of 11:7-14, who is rejected and sold, who is said to have been pierced (12:10), is also spoken of in ch. 13:7. Stier (Reden Jesu, vi. 176 ff.) has gone at length into the meaning of the whole prophecy, and especially that of the word ע ֲ מ ִ י ת ִ י , ‘ my fellow,’ and shewn that the reference can be to no other than the Messiah. The citation agrees verbatim with the LXX-A, except that πάταξον is changed into πατάξω — God who commands the striking, into God who Himself strikes. 32. In this announcement our Lord seems to have in mind the remainder of the verse in Zechariah: “ and I will turn (ה ֵ ש ׁ ִ י ב , reducere manum, i.e. impiis sublatis curam agere, &c. Schrö der) mine hand upon the little ones.” As this could not be cited in any intelligible connexion with present circumstances, our Lord gives the announcement of its fulfilment, in a promise to precede them (προάγ ., a pastoral office, see John 10:4) into Galilee, whither they should naturally return after the feast was over: see ch. 28:7, 10, 16. Schleiermacher thinks it “ extremely improbable that Jesus, if He foresaw so exactly the days of His resurrection, and therefore could not but know that He should see his disciples again more than once in Jerusalem, should here have said that He would lead them into Galilee” (English Translation, p. 298). I confess that I see no improbability in the case; but the three references to this promise just quoted make it surely in the highest degree improbable that it should have been subsequently foisted in. We do not find such elaborate attempts to preserve the appearance of consistency in our Gospels. The reader who sees in it the reference to prophecy, will form a very different opinion. 33. Nothing can bear a greater impress of exactitude than this reply. Peter had been before warned (see note on Luke, vv. 31-34); and still remaining in the same spirit of self-confident attachment, now that he is included among the πάντες , not specially addressed,— breaks out into this asseveration, which carries completely with it the testimony that it was not the first. Men do not bring themselves out so strongly unless their fidelity has been previously attainted. 34. The very words in their order are, I doubt not, reported by St. Mark— ἀμὴνλ . σοιὅτισήμερονταύτῃτῇνυκτὶπρὶνἢδὶςἀλέκτοραφωνῆσαιτ . μεἀπ . The contrast to Peter’ s boast, and the climax, is in these words the strongest; and the inference also comes out most clearly, that they likewise were not now said for the first time. The first cock-crowing is at midnight; but inasmuch as few hear it,— when the word is used generally, we mean the second crowing, early in the morning, before dawn. If this view be taken, the ἀλέκτ . φων . and δὶςἀλ . φ . amount to the same— only the latter is the more precise expression. It is most likely that Peter understood this expression as only a mark of time, and therefore received it, as when it was spoken before, as merely an expression of distrust on the Lord’ s part; it was this solemn and circumstantial repetition of it which afterwards struck upon his mind when the sign itself was literally fulfilled. A question has been raised whether cocks were usually kept or even allowed in Jerusalem. No such bird is mentioned in the O.T., and the Mischna states that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests every where, kept no fowls, because they scratched up unclean worms. But the Talmud is here not consistent with itself: and Lightfoot brings forward a story which proves it. And there might be many kept by the resident Romans, over whom the Jews had no power. We must not overlook the spiritual parabolic import of this warning. Peter stands here as a representative of all disciples who deny or forget Christ— and the watchful bird that cries in the night is that warning voice which ‘ speaketh once, yea twice,’ to call them to repentance: see Romans 13:11, Romans 13:12. 35. This ἂνδέῃ again appears to have the precision of a repeated asseveration. Mark has the stronger expression ἐκπερισσοῦἔλεγεν , which even more clearly indicates that the συναποθανεῖν was not now first said. The rest said it, but not so earnestly perhaps;— at all events, Peter’ s confidence cast theirs into the shade. 36-46. Our Lord’ s agony at Gethsemane. Mark 14:32-42.Luke 22:39-46 Luke 22:39-46. John 18:1. The account of the temptation, and of the agony in Gethsemane is peculiar to the three first Evangelists. But it does not therefore follow that there is, in their narratives, any inconsistency with St. John’ s setting forth of the Person of Christ. For it must be remembered, that, as we find in their accounts frequent manifestations of the divine nature, and indications of future glory, about, and during this conflict,— so in St. John’ s account, which brings out more the divine side of our Lord’ s working and speaking, we find frequent allusions to his human weakness and distress of spirit. For examples of the first, see vv. 13, 24, 29, 32, 53, and in Mark and Luke; and Luke 22:30, Luke 22:32, Luke 22:37, Luke 22:43; of the latter, John 12:27; John 13:21; John 14:30; John 16:32. The right understanding of the whole important narration must be acquired by bearing in mind the reality of the manhood of our Lord, in all its abasement and weakness:— by following out in Him the analogy which pervades the characteristics of human suffering— the strength of the resolved spirit, and calm of the resigned will, continually broken in upon by the inward giving way of human feebleness, and limited power of endurance. But as in us, so in the Lord, these seasons of dread and conflict stir not the ruling will, alter not the firm resolve. This is most manifest in His first prayer— εἰδυνατόνἐστιν — ‘ if consistent with that work which I have covenanted to do.’ Here is the reserve of the will to suffer— it is never stirred (see below). The conflict however of the Lord differs from ours in this,— that in us, the ruling will itself is but a phase of our human will, and may be and is often carried away by the excess of depression and suffering; whereas in Him it was the divine Personality in which the higher Will of the covenant purpose was eternally fixed,— struggling with the flesh now overwhelmed with an horrible dread, and striving to escape away (see the whole of Psa_55). Besides that, by that uplifting into a superhuman circle of Knowledge, with which the indwelling of the Godhead endowed his humanity, his flesh, with all its capacities and apprehensions, was brought at once into immediate and simultaneous contact with every circumstance of horror and pain that awaited Him (John 18:4), which is never the case with us. Not only are the objects of dread gradually unveiled to our minds, but hope (ἐλπὶςκινδύνῳπαραμύθιονοὖσα , Thuc. v. 103) is ever suggesting that things may not be so bad as our fears represent them. Then we must not forget, that as the flesh gave way under dread of suffering, so the human ψυχή was troubled with all the attendant circumstances of that suffering— betrayal, desertion, shame (see Psa_55 again, vv. 12-14, 20, 21; 38:11, 12; 88 al.). Nor again must we pass over the last and deepest mystery of the Passion— the consideration, that upon the holy and innocent Lamb of God rested the burden of all human sin— that to Him, death, as the punishment of sin, bore a dark and dreadful meaning, inconceivable by any of us, whose inner will is tainted by the love of Sin. See on this part of the Redeemer’ s agony, Psalms 40:12; Psalms 38:1-10 al. See also as a comment on the whole, Hebrews 5:7-10, and notes there. The three accounts do not differ in any important particulars. Luke merely gives a general summary of the Lord’ s prayers and his sayings to the disciples, but inserts (see below) two details not found in the others. Mark’ s account and Matthew’ s are very nearly related, and have evidently sprung from the same source. 36. Mark alone, besides our account, mentions the name of the place— Luke merely calls it ὁτόπος , in allusion to κατὰτὸἔθος before. John informs us that it was a garden. The name is ג ּ ִ ת ש ׂ ִ מ ָ נ ֵ א or ש ׂ ִ מ ָ נ י , ‘ an oil press.’ It was at the foot of the Mount of Olives, in the valley of the Kedron, the other side of the brook from the city (John 18:1). καθίσ .] not strictly and literally ‘ sit,’ but = μείνατε ver. 38, stay here. προσεύξωμαι ] Such is the name which our Lord gives to that which was coming upon Him, in speaking to the Eight who were not to witness it. All conflict of the holy soul is prayer: all its struggles are continued communion with God. In Genesis 22:5, when Abraham’ s faith was to be put to so sore a trial, he says, ‘ I and the lad will go yonder and worship.’ Our Lord (almost on the same spot) unites in Himself, as the priest and victim, as Stier strikingly remarks, Abraham’ s Faith and Isaac’ s Patience. ἐκεῖ ] probably some spot deeper in the garden’ s shade. At this time the gorge of the Kedron would be partly in the moonlight, partly shaded by the rocks and buildings of the opposite side. It may have been from the moonlight into the shade that our Lord retired to pray. 37. These three— Peter, the foremost in attachment, and profession of it— the two sons of Zebedee, who were to drink of the cup that He drank of— He takes with Him, not only nor principally as witnesses of his trial— this indeed, in the full sense, they were not— but as a consolation to Him in that dreadful hour— to ‘ watch with Him.’ In this too they failed— yet from his returning to them between his times of prayer, it is manifest that, in the abasement of his humanity, He regarded them as some comfort to Him. ‘ In magnis tentationibus juvat solitudo, sed tamen ut in propinquo sint amici.’ Bengel. ἤρξατο — not merely idiomatic here— He began, as He had never done before. λυπεῖσθαι = ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι Mark. ‘ Dicit incursum objecti horribilis.’ Bengel (see below on ver. 38). ἀδημονεῖν = λίανλυπεῖσθαι , ἀπορεῖν , Suidas; τὸβαρυθυμεῖννοεῖται , ; ἀγωνιᾷν , Hesychius; ἀδήμων , ὁἐξἄδου , ὅἐστικόρουτινὸςἢλύπης , ἀναπεπτωκώς . ἀδημονεῖν , τὸἀλύεινκαὶἀμηχανεῖν , Eustathius. 38. Our Lord’ s whole inmost life must have been one of continued trouble of spirit— He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief— but there was an extremity of anguish now, reaching even to the utmost limit of endurance, so that it seemed that more would be death itself. The expression is said to be proverbial (see ref. Jonah): but we must remember that though with us men, who see from below, proverbs are merely bold guesses at truth,— with Him, who sees from above, they are the truth itself, in its very purest form. So that although when used by a man, a proverbial expression is not to be pressed to literal exactitude,— when used by our Lord, it is, just because it is a proverb, to be searched into and dwelt on all the more. The expression ἡψυχήμου , in this sense, spoken by our Lord, is only found besides in John 12:27. It is the human soul, the seat of the affections and passions, which is troubled with the anguish of the body; and it is distinguished from the πνεῦμα , the higher spiritual being. Our Lord’ s soul was crushed down even to death by the weight of that anguish which lay upon Him— and that literally— so that He (as regards his humanity) would have died, had not strength (bodily strength, upholding his human frame) been ministered from on high by an angel (see note on Luke 22:43). γρηγορεῖτεμετ ʼ ἐμοῦ ] not προσεύχεσθεμετ ʼ ἐμοῦ , for in that work the Mediator must be alone; but (see above) watch with Me— just (if we may compare our weakness with His) as we derive comfort in the midst of a terrible storm, from knowing that some are awake and with us, even though their presence is no real safeguard. 39. προελθὼνμικρόν (Matt., Mark) ═ ἀπεσπάσθηἀπ ʼ αὐτῶνὡσεὶλίθουβολήν Luke, who in this description is the more precise. ἀπεσπ ., I cannot help thinking, implies something more than mere removal from them— something of the reluctance of parting. The distance would be very small, not above forty or fifty yards. Hence the disciples might well catch the leading words of our Lord’ s prayers, before drowsiness overpowered them. Luke has however only θεὶςτὰγόνατα , which is not so full as our account. προσευχ .] Stier finely remarks: ‘ This was in truth a different prayer from that which went before, which John has recorded.’ But still in the same spirit, uttered by the same Son of God and Redeemer of men. The glorifying (John 17:1) begins with suffering, as the previous words, ἐλήλυθενἡὥρα , might lead us to expect. The ‘ power over all flesh’ shews itself first as power of the conflicting and victorious spirit over his own flesh, by virtue of which He is ‘ one of us.’ Mark expresses the substance of the prayer, and interprets ποτήριον by ὥρα . Luke’ s report differs only in verbal expression from Matthew’ s. In the address, we have here and in Luke Πάτερ — in Mark ἀββᾶὁπατήρ . In all, and in the prayer itself, there is the deepest feeling and apprehension in the Redeemer’ s soul of his Sonship and the unity of the Father— the most entire and holy submission to His Will. We must not for a moment think of the Father’ s wrath abiding on Him as the cause of his suffering. Here is no fear of wrath,— but, in the depth of his human anguish, the very tenderness of filial love. The variation in Mark and Luke in the substance of the prayer, though slight, is worthy of remark. εἰδυνατόνἐστιν = πάνταδυνατάσοι , = εἰβούλει . All these three find their union in one and the same inward feeling. That in the text expresses, ‘ If, within the limits of Thy holy Will, this may be;’ — that in Mark, ‘ All things are (absolutely) possible to Thee— Thou canst therefore— but not what I will, but what Thou wilt:’ — that in Luke, ‘ If it be Thy Will to remove, &c. (Thou canst): but not my will, but Thine be done.’ The very words used by our Lord, the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to give us— shewing us, even in this solemn instance, the comparative indifference of the letter, when we have the inner spirit. That our Lord should have uttered all three forms of the prayer, is not for a moment to be thought of; and such a view could only spring out of the most petty and unworthy appreciation of the purpose of Scripture narrative. παρελθάτω ] as we should say of a threatening cloud, ‘ It has gone over.’ This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 27:1, 2. Jesus is led away to Pilate. Mark 15:1.Luke 22:66 Luke 22:66 (who probably combines with this morning meeting of the Sanhedrim some things that took place at their earlier assembly), 23:1. John 18:28. The object of this taking counsel, was ὥστεθ . αὐ .— to condemn Him formally to death, and devise the best means for the accomplishment of the sentence. 2. Ποντ . Πιλ . τ . ἡγ .] See note on Luke 3:1;— and on the reason of their taking Him to Pilate, on John 18:31. Pilate ordinarily resided at Cæ sarea, but during the feast, in Jerusalem. 3-10. Remorse and suicide of Judas. Peculiar to Matthew. This incident does not throw much light on the motives of Judas. One thing we learn for certain— that our Lord’ s being condemned, which he inferred from His being handed over to the Roman governor, worked in him remorse, and that suicide was the consequence. Whether this condemnation was expected by him or not, does not here appear; nor have we any means of ascertaining, except from the former sayings of our Lord respecting him. I cannot (see note on ch. 26:14) believe that his intent was other than sordid gain to be achieved by the darkest treachery. To suppose that the condemnation took him by surprise, seems to me to be inconsistent with the spirit of his own confession, ver. 4. There παραδοὺςαἷμαἀθῷον expresses his act— his accomplished purpose. The bitter feeling in him now is expressed by ἥμαρτον , of which he is vividly and dreadfully conscious, now that the result has been attained. 3. Observe it was τὰτρ . ἀργ . which he brought back— clearly the price of the Lord’ s betrayal,— not earnest-money merely;— for by this time, nay when he delivered his Prisoner at the house of Annas, he would have in that case received the rest. Observe also ὁπαραδιδοὺςαὐτόν , His betrayer, the part. pres. being used as a designation, as in ὁπειράζων , “ the Tempter,” ch. 4:3. 5. ἐντῷναῷ ] in the holy place, where the priests only might enter. We must conceive him as speaking to them without, and throwing the money into the ναός . ἀπήγξατο ] hanged, or strangled himself. On the account given Acts 1:18, see note there. Another account of the end of Judas was current, which I have cited there. 6. They said this probably by analogy from Deuteronomy 23:18. τιμ . αἵμ ., the price given for shedding of blood, the wages of a murderer. 7. τὸνἀγρ . τ . κερ .] the field of some well-known potter— purchased at so small a price probably from having been rendered useless for tillage by excavations for clay: see note on Acts 1:19. τοῖςξ .] not for Gentiles, but for stranger Jews who came up to the feasts. 8. ἀγρ . αἵμ .,— ח ֲ ק ַ ל ד ּ ְ מ ָ א . See Acts 1:19. ἕωςτῆςσήμ .] This expression shews that a considerable time had elapsed since the event, before Matthew’ s Gospel was published. 9. The citation is not from Jeremiah (see ref.), and is probably quoted from memory and unprecisely; we have similar instances in two places in the apology of Stephen, Acts 7:4, Acts 7:16,— and in Mark 2:26. Various means of evading this have been resorted to, which are not worth recounting. Jeremiah 18:1, Jeremiah 18:2, or perhaps Jeremiah 32:6-12, may have given rise to it: or it may have arisen from a Jewish idea (see Wordsw. h. l.), “ Zechariam habuisse spiritum Jeremiæ .” The quotation here is very different from the LXX, which see,— and not much more like the Hebrew. I put it to any faithful Christian to say, whether of the two presents the greater obstacle to his faith, the solution given above, or that in Wordsw.’ s note, that the name of one prophet is here substituted for that of another, to teach us not to regard the prophets as the authors of their prophecies, but to trace them to divine Inspiration. 11-14. He is examined by Pilate. Mark 15:2-5.Luke 23:2-5 Luke 23:2-5.John 18:29-38 John 18:29-38. Our narrative of the hearing before Pilate is the least circumstantial of the four— having however two remarkable additional particulars, vv. 19 and 24. John is the fullest in giving the words of our Lord. Compare the notes there. 11. Before this Pilate had come out and demanded the cause of his being delivered up; the Jews not entering the Præ torium. The primary accusation against Him seems to have been that He ἔλεγενἑαυτὸνχριστὸνβασιλέαεἶναι . This is presupposed in the enquiry of this verse. σὺλέγεις is not to be rendered as a doubtful answer— much less with Theophylact, as meaning, ‘ Thou sayest it, not I:’ but as a strong affirmative. See above on ch. 26:64. 12-14. This part of the narrative occurs only in Mark besides, but is explained by Luke, ver. 5. The charges were, of exciting the people from Galilee to Jerusalem. On the mention of Galilee, Pilate sent Him to Herod, Luke, vv. 6-12. 15-26. Barabbas preferred to Him. He is delivered to be crucified. Mark 15:6-15.Luke 23:17-25 Luke 23:17-25.John 18:39 John 18:39, John 18:40. In the substance of this account the Four are in remarkable agreement. John gives merely a compendium, uniting in one these three attempts of Pilate to liberate Jesus, and omitting the statement of the fact of Barabbas being liberated, and Jesus delivered to them. 15. κατὰἑορτήν ] feast by feast; i.e. at every feast. This distributive force of κατά is found both in local and temporal connexions: e.g. κατ ʼ οἶκον , house by house, κατ ʼ ἄνδρα , man by man, καθ ʼ ἡμέραν , day by day. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 240 f. We have no other historic mention of this practice. Livy (v. 13) says of the feast of the Lectisternium, ‘ vinctis quoque dempta in eos dies vincula.’ 16. The subject of εἶχον , as of ἤθελον above, is the ὄχλος . He was one of them, so they had him. The name Barabbas, ב ּ ַ ר א ַ ב ּ ָ א , ‘ son of his father,’ was not an uncommon one. The plays on this name Barabbas (e.g. τὸνυἱὸντοῦπατρὸςαὐτῶν , τοῦδιαβόλου , ἐξῃτήσαντο .… Theophylact, see also Olshausen in loc. vol. ii. p. 507) are utterly unworthy of serious exegesis. It does not appear why this man was ἐπίσημος . The murderers in the insurrection in which he was involved were many (Mark, ver. 7). 17. In John’ s narrative, the suggestion of liberating Barabbas seems to come from the Jews themselves; but not necessarily so: he may only be giving, as before, a general report of what passed. The συνηγμ . οὖναὐτ . seems to imply that a great crowd had collected outside the Præ torium while the trial was going on. It is possible that the addition τὸνλεγόμενονχριστόν , which Pilate could hardly have heard from the Jews, may have been familiar to him by his wife’ s mention of Jesus. See below. 18. The whole narrative presupposes what this verse and the next distinctly assert, that Pilate was before acquainted with the acts and character of Jesus. 19. The βῆμα was in a place called in Hebrew Gabbatha, the Pavement— John 19:13— where however Pilate is not related to have gone thither, till after the scourging and mocking of the soldiers. But he may have sat there when he came out in some of his previous interviews with the Jews. ἡγυνὴαὐτ .] It had become the custom in Augustus’ s time for the governors of provinces to take their wives with them abroad; Cæ cina attempted to pass a law forbidding it (Tacit. Ann. iii. 33 ff.), but was vehemently opposed (by Drusus among others) and put down. We know nothing more of this woman than is here related. Tradition gives her the name of Procla or Claudia Procula. In the Gospel of Nicodemus, c. 2, we read that Pilate called the Jews and said to them, οἴδατεὅτιἡγυνήμουθεοσεβήςἐστιν , καὶμᾶλλονἰουδαίζεισὺνὑμῖν . λέγουσιναὐτῷΝαί , οἴδαμεν . On the question raised by the words καθημένουδὲαὐτοῦἐπὶτοῦβήματος as to the place which this incident holds in the trial, see Tischendorf, Pilati circa Christum judicio, &c., pp. 13 ff. ὁδίκαιοςἐκεῖνος is a term which shews that she knew the character for purity and sanctity which Jesus had. In the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Jews are made to reply, μὴοὐκεἴπαμένσοιὅτιγόηςἐστίν ; ἰδοὺὀνειροπόλημαἔπεμψεπρὸςτὴνγυναῖκάσου . 20. So Mark also. Luke and John merely give, that they all cried out, &c. The exciting of the crowd seems to have taken place while Pilate was receiving the message from his wife. ἵνα conveys a mixture of the purport with the purpose of the ἔπεισαν . See note on 1 Corinthians 14:13. 21. ἀποκρ .] not necessarily to the incitements of the Sanhedrists which he overheard (Meyer), but rather to the state of confusion and indecision which prevailed. 22. They chose crucifixion as the ordinary Roman punishment for sedition, and because of their hate to Jesus. The double accusative after verbs of doing and saying of or to any one is the common construction. See Kü hner, Gr. ii. p. 225. Cf. Xen. Cyr. iii. 2. 15, οὐδεπώποτεἐπαύοντοπολλὰκακὰἡμᾶςποιοῦντες . 23. γάρ implies a sort of concession— a placing one’ s self in the situation of the person addressed, and then requiring a reason for his decision: and is generally found in this connexion, τίγάρ , in the utterance of impassioned feeling. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 479. 24. Peculiar to Matt. οὐδὲνὠφελεῖ ] rightly rendered in E. V. that he prevailed nothing— not ‘ that it prevailed nothing.’ The washing of the hands, to betoken innocence from blood-guiltiness, is prescribed Deuteronomy 21:6-9, and Pilate uses it here as intelligible to the Jews. The Greeks would have used the gen. after ἀθῷος without ἀπό : so ἀθῷοςπληγῶν , Aristoph. Nub. 1413. See Kü hner, Gram. ii. p. 164. 25. αἶμαλέγουσιτὴντοῦαἵματοςκαταδίκην , : but more probably with a much wider reference— as the adherence of blood to the hands of a murderer is an idea not bearing any necessary reference to punishment, only to guilt. 26. φραγελ . is a late word, adopted from the Latin. The custom of scourging before execution was general among the Romans. After the scourging, John 19:1-16, Pilate made a last attempt to liberate Jesus— which answers to παιδεύσαςἀπολύσω , Luke, ver. 16. παρέδωκεν ] to the Roman soldiers, whose office the execution would be. 27-30. Jesus mocked by the soldiers. Mark 15:16-19. (Omitted in Luke.) John 19:1-3. The assertion παρέδωκενἵνασταυρωθῇ in ver. 26 is not strictly correct there. Before that, the contents of this passage come in, and the last attempt of Pilate to liberate Him. 27. εἰςτὸπραιτ .] The residence of the Roman governor was the former palace of Herod, in the upper city . ὅλ . τ . σπ .] The σπεῖρα is the cohort— the tenth part of a legion. The word ὅλ . is not to be pressed. ἐπ ʼ αὐτόν ] to Him— to make sport with Him. This happened in the guard-room of the cohort: and the narrative of it we may well believe may have come from the centurion or others (see ver. 54), who were afterwards deeply impressed at the crucifixion. 28. Possibly the mantle in which he had been sent back from Herod— see note on Luke, ver. 11: or perhaps one of the ordinary soldiers’ cloaks. 29. It does not appear whether the purpose of the crown was to wound, or simply for mockery— and equally uncertain is it, of what kind of thorns it was composed. The acanthus itself, with its large succulent leaves, is singularly unfit for such a purpose: as is the plant with very long sharp thorns commonly known as spina Christi, being a brittle acacia (robinia),— and the very length of the thorns, which would meet in the middle if it were bent into a wreath, precluding it. Some flexile shrub or plant must be understood— possibly some variety of the cactus or prickly pear. ‘ Hasselquist, a Swedish naturalist, supposes a very common plant, naba or nubka of the Arabs, with many small and sharp spines; soft, round, and pliant branches; leaves much resembling ivy, of a very deep green, as if in designed mockery of a victor’ s wreath,’ Travels, 288. 1766 (cited by F. M). κάλ ., for a sceptre. ὁβασ ., nominative with art. for vocative, a Hebraism, see reff. 30. Observe the aor. ἔλαβον of the one act of taking the reed, but the imperfects ἐνέπαιζον and ἔτυπτον of the continued and repeated acts of mocking and striking. Here follows the exhibition of Jesus by Pilate, and his last attempt to release him, John 19:4-16. 31-34. He is led to crucifixion. Mark 15:20-23.Luke 23:26-33 Luke 23:26-33. John 19:16, 17. The four accounts are still essentially and remarkably distinct. Matthew’ s and Mark’ s are from the same source, but varied in expression, and in detail; Luke’ s and John’ s stand each alone; Luke’ s being the fullest, and giving us the deeply interesting address to the daughters of Jerusalem. 31. Peculiar to Matt. and Mark. ἀπήγ . = ἐξάγουσιν Mark. Executions usually took place without the camp, see Numbers 15:35, or city, 1 Kings 21:13: Acts 7:58: Hebrews 13:11-13. Grotius brings examples to shew that the same was the custom of the Romans. 32. Previously, Jesus had borne his own cross: John, ver. 17. So Plutarch, de sera numinis vindicta, ἕκαστοςτῶνκακούργωνἐκφέρειτὸναὑτοῦσταυρόν , c. ix. We have no data to ascertain any further particulars about this Simon of Cyrene. The only assumption which we are perhaps justified in making, is that he was afterwards known in the Church as a convert: see note on Mark, ver. 21. He was coming from the country, Mark, ibid.; Luke, ver. 26. Meyer suggests, to account for the selection of one out of the multitude present, that possibly he was a slave; the indignity of the service to be rendered preventing their taking any other person. On ἀγγαρεύω see note at ch. 5:41. 33. Γολγοθᾶ , in Chaldee ג ּ ֻ ל ְ ג ּ ָ ל ת ָ א , in Hebrew ג ּ ֻ ל ְ ג ּ ל ֶ ת , a skull: the name is by Jerome, and generally, explained from its being the usual place of executions and abounding with skulls— not however unburied, which was not allowed. This last consideration raises an objection to the explanation,— and as the name does not import κρανίωντόπος , but κρανίουτ . or simply κρανίον (Luke), many, among whom are Reland, Paulus, Lü cke, De Wette, Meyer, &c., understand it as applying to the shape of the hill or rock. But neither does this seem satisfactory, as we have no analogy to guide us (Meyer’ s justification of the name from κράνιον , or κρανεῖον , a wood near Corinth, does not apply: for that is so called from κράνον , the cornel tree— De Wette), and no such hill or rock is known to have existed. As regards the situation, we await some evidence which may decide between the conflicting claims of the commonly-received site of Calvary and the Holy Sepulchre, and that upheld by Mr. Ferguson, who holds that the Dome of the Rock, usually known as the Mosque of Omar, is in reality the spot of our Lord’ s entombment. See his Article “ Jerusalem” in Dr. Smith’ s Biblical Dictionary: and on the other side, Williams’ s Holy City, and Stanley’ s Sinai and Palestine, edn. 3, p. 459 ff. 34. It was customary to give a stupefying drink to criminals on their way to execution: of which our Lord would not partake, having shewn by tasting it, that he was aware of its purpose. In Mark’ s account it is ἐσμυρνισμένοςοἶνος — and though οἶνος and ὄξος might mean the same, ἐσμυρνισμένος and μετὰχολ . μεμιγ . cannot. We may observe here (and if the remark be applied with caution and reverence, it is a most useful one), how Matt. often adopts in his narrative the very words of prophecy, where one or more of the other Evangelists give the matter of fact detail: see above on ch. 26:15, and compare with this verse, Psalms 69:21. 35-38. He is crucified. Mark 15:24-28. Luke 23:32-34, Luke 23:38. John 19:18-24. The four accounts are distinct from one another, and independent of any one source in common. 35. σταυρώσαντες ] The cross was an upright pale or beam, intersected by a transverse one at right angles, generally in the shape of a ┬ . In this case, from the ‘ title’ being placed over the Head, the upright beam probably projected above the horizontal one, as usually represented ┼ . To this cross the criminal, being stripped of his clothes, was fixed by nails driven through the hands and (not always, nor perhaps generally, though certainly not seldom— see note at Luke 24:39) through the feet, separate or united. The body was not supported by the nails, but by a piece of wood which passed between the legs— ἐφ ʼ ᾧἐποχοῦνταιοἱσταυρούμενοι , Justin Mart. dial. c. Tryph. § 91, p. 188. On the rest of the verse, see notes on John. The words omitted in the text are clearly interpolated from John, ver. 24, with just the phrase τὸῥηθὲνὑπὸτοῦπροφήτου assimilated to Matthew’ s usual form of citation. 36. ἐτήρουν ] This was usual, to prevent the friends taking crucified persons down. There were four soldiers, John, ver. 23; a centurion and three others. 37. ἐπέθ . is not to be taken as a plusq. perf.— Matthew finishes relating what the soldiers did, and then goes back to the course of the narrative. ‘ The soldiers’ need not even be the nominative case to ἐπέθ . The ‘ title’ appears to have been written by Pilate (see John, ver. 19) and sent to be affixed on the cross. It is not known whether the affixing of this title was customary. In Dio Cassius (cited by Meyer, but incorrectly), we read of such a title being hung round the neck of a criminal on his way to execution. So also Suet. Domit. 10,— “ canibus objecit, cum hoc titulo, ‘ Impie locutus parmularius:’  ” and Caligula 32,— “ præ cedente titulo, qui caussam pœ næ indicaret.” On the difference in the four Gospels as to the words of the inscription itself it is hardly worth while to comment, except to remark, that the advocates for the verbal and literal exactness of each Gospel may here find an undoubted example of the absurdity of their view, which may serve to guide them in less plain and obvious cases. (See this further noticed in the Prolegg. ch. i. § vi. 18.) A title was written, containing certain words; not four titles, all different, but one, differing probably from all of these four, but certainly from three of them. Let us bear this in mind when the narratives of words spoken, or events, differ in a similar manner. Respecting the title, see further on John, vv. 20-22. 38. τότε , after the crucifixion of Jesus was accomplished. These thieves were led out with Jesus, and crucified, perhaps by the same soldiers, or perhaps as Meyer says, inferring this from the καθήμενοιἐτήρουναὐτὸνἐκεῖ , ver. 36, by another band. 39-44. He is mocked on the cross. Mark 15:29-32.Luke 23:35-37 Luke 23:35-37; 39-43. Our narrative and that of Mark are from a common source. Luke’ s is wholly distinct. The whole of these indignities are omitted by John. 39. οἱπαραπ .] These words say nothing as to its being a working-day, or as to the situation of the spot. A matter of so much public interest would be sure to attract a crowd, among whom we find, ver. 41, the chief priests, scribes, and elders. These passers-by were the multitude going in and out of the city, some coming to see, others returning. κιν . τ . κεφ .] see Psalms 22:7. The first reproach refers to ch. 26:61; the second to ibid., ver. 64. 40. ὁκαταλύων ] Notice the characterizing present participle, as ὁπειράζων , ch. 4:3: thou puller down of.… 42. Luke gives, more exactly, the second reproach in this verse as proceeding from the soldiers. 43. See Psalms 22:7, Psalms 22:8. This is not according to the LXX, which has ἤλπισενἐπὶκύριον · ῥυσάσθωαὐτόν , σωσάτωαὐτόν , ὅτιθέλειαὐτόν . This is omitted by Mark and Luke. θέλειντινά for amare aliquem, occurs in reff. Ps. We have θέλειν with an accus. of the thing in reff. and Ezekiel 18:23, 32 .: and followed by ἐν with a person, 1 Kings 18:22: 1 Chronicles 28:4 (not Colossians 2:18; see note there), al. 44. Neither Matt. nor Mark is in possession of the more particular account given by Luke, vv. 39-43, where see notes. For the other incident which happened at this time, see John, vv. 25-27, and notes. 45-50. Supernatural darkness. Last words, and death of Jesus. Mark 15:33-37. Luke 23:44-46. John 19:28-30. The three accounts are here and there very closely allied; Matthew and Mark almost verbally. Luke only, however, contains the words which the Lord uttered before he expired,— omits the incident which takes up our vv. 46-49, and inserts here the rending of the veil. John is entirely distinct. 45]. According to Mark, ver. 25, it was the third hour when they crucified Him. If so, He had been on the cross three hours, which in April would answer to about the same space of time in our day— i.e. from 9-12 a.m. On the difficulty presented by John’ s declaration ch. 19:14, see notes there and on Mark. σκότος ] This was no eclipse of the sun, for it was full moon at the time— nor any partial obscuration of the sun such as sometimes takes place before an earthquake— for it is clear that no earthquake in the ordinary sense of the word is here intended. Those whose belief leads them to reflect WHO was then suffering, will have no difficulty in accounting for these signs of sympathy in Nature, nor in seeing their applicability. The consent, in the same words, of all three Evangelists, must silence all question as to the universal belief of this darkness as a fact; and the early Fathers (Julius Africanus, in Routh, Reliq. Sacr. ii. p. 297 f.: Tertull. Apol. c. 21, vol. i. p. 401: Origen c. Cels. ii. 33, vol. i. p. 414: Euseb. in Chronicon. Cf. Wordsw. h. l.) appeal to profane testimony for its truth. The omission of it in John’ s Gospel is of no more weight than the numerous other instances of such omission. See Amos 8:9, Amos 8:10. ἐπὶπᾶσαντὴνγῆν ] Whether these words are to be taken in all their strictness is doubtful. Of course, the whole globe cannot be meant— as it would be night naturally over half of it. The question is, are we to understand that part of it over which there was day? I believe we are; but see no strong objection to any limitation, provided the fact itself, as happening at Jerusalem, is distinctly recognized. This last is matter of testimony, and the three Evangelists are pledged to its truth: the present words cannot stand on the same ground, not being matter of testimony properly so called. 46. See Psalms 22:1. The words λεμὰσαβαχθανί are Chaldee, and not Hebrew. Our Lord spoke them in the ordinary dialect, not in that of the sacred text itself. The weightiest question is, In what sense did He use them? His inner consciousness of union with God must have been complete and indestructible— but, like His higher and holy Will, liable to be obscured by human weakness and pain, which at this time was at its very highest. We must however take care not to ascribe all his suffering to bodily pain, however cruel: his soul was in immediate contact with and prospect of death— the wages of sin, which He had taken on Him, but never committed— and the conflict at Gethsemane was renewed. ‘ He himself,’ as the Berlenberg Bible remarks (Stier, vi. 442), ‘ becomes the expositor of the darkness, and shews what it imports.’ In the words however, ‘ My God’ — there speaks the same union with the Divine Will, and abiding in the everlasting covenant purpose, as in those, ‘ Not my will, but thine.’ These are the only words on the Cross related by Matt. and Mark— and they are related by none besides. The form θεέ is very seldom used,— only in Judges 16:28 , Ezra 9:6. The LXX here has the usual vocative ὁθεός : as also Mark. 47. This was not said by the Roman soldiers, who could know nothing of Elias; nor was it a misunderstanding of the Jewish spectators, who must have well understood the import of ἡλί : nor again was it said in any apprehension, from the supernatural darkness, that Elias might really come (Olsh.); but it was replied in intended mockery, as οὗτος ,— ‘ this one among the three,’ — clearly indicates. This is one of the cases where those who advocate an original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are obliged to suppose that the Greek translator has retained the original words, in order to make the reason of the reply clear. 48. This was on account of the words ‘ I thirst,’ uttered by our Lord: see John, ver. 28. Mark’ s account is somewhat different; there the same person gives the vinegar and utters the scoff which follows. This is quite intelligible— contempt mingled with pity would doubtless find a type among the bystanders. There is no need for assuming that the soldiers offering vinegar in Luke, ver. 36, is the same incident as this. Since then, the bodily state of the Redeemer had greatly changed; and what was then offered in mockery, might well be now asked for in the agony of death, and received when presented. I would not however absolutely deny that Luke may be giving a less precise detail; and may represent this incident by his ver. 36. The ὄξος is the posca, sour wine, or vinegar and water, the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers. On the other particulars, see notes on John. 49. If we take our account as the Strictly precise one, the rest— in mockery— call upon this person to desist, and wait for Elias to come to save Him: if that of Mark, the giver of the drink calls upon the rest (also in mockery) to let this suffice or to let him (the giver) alone, and wait, &c. The former seems more probable. It is remarkable that the words undeniably interpolated from John should have found their place here before the death of Jesus, and can only be attributed to carelessness, there being no other place here for the insertion of the indignity but this, and the interpolator not observing that in John it is related as inflicted after death. 50. It has been doubted whether the τετέλεσται of John (ver. 30) and πάτερ , εἰςχ . σουπαρατίθεμαιτ . πν . μου of Luke (ver. 46) are to be identified with this crying out, or to be taken as distinct from it. But a nearer examination of the case will set the doubt at rest. The παρέδωκεν of John (ib.) implies the speech in Luke; which accordingly was that uttered in this φωνὴμεγάλη . The τετέλεσται was said before: see notes on John. 51-56. Signs following his death. Mark 15:38-41.Luke 23:47-49 Luke 23:47-49. The three narratives are essentially distinct. That of Luke is more general— giving only the sense of the centurion’ s words— twice using the indefinite πάντες — and not specifying the women. The whole is omitted by John. 51. The ἰδού gives solemnity. This was the inner veil, screening off the holy of holies from the holy place, Exodus 26:33: Hebrews 9:2, Hebrews 9:3. This circumstance has given rise to much incredulous comment, and that even from men like Schleiermacher. A right and deep view of the O.T. symbolism is required to furnish the key to it; and for this we look in vain among those who set aside that symbolism entirely. That was now accomplished, which was the one and great antitype of all those sacrifices offered in the holy place, in order to gain, as on the great day of atonement (for that day may be taken as the representation of their intent), entrance into the holiest place,— the typical presence of God. What those sacrifices (ceremonially) procured for the Jews (the type of God’ s universal Church) through their High-priest, was now (really) procured for all men by the sacrifice of Him, who was at once the victim and the High-priest. When Schleiermacher and De Wette assert that no use is made of this event in the Epistle to the Hebrews, they surely cannot have remembered, or not have deeply considered, Hebrews 10:19-21. Besides, suppose it had been referred to plainly and by name— what would then have been said? Clearly, that this mention was a later insertion, to justify that reference. And almost this latter, Strauss, recognizing the allusion in Heb., actually does. Schleiermacher also asks, how could the event be known, seeing none but priests could have witnessed it, and they would not be likely to betray it? To say nothing of the almost certain spread of the rumour, has he forgotten that (Acts 6:7) “ a great company of the priests were obedient unto the faith?” Neander, who gives this last consideration its weight (but only as a possibility, that some priests may have become converts, and apparently without reference to the above fact), has an unworthy and shuffling note (L. J. p. 757), ending by quoting two testimonies, one apocryphal, the other Rabbinical, from which he concludes that ‘ some matter of fact lies at the foundation’ of this (according to him) mythical adjunct. ἡγῆἐσείσθη ] Not an ordinary earthquake, but connected with the two next clauses, and finding in them its explanation and justification. αἱπέτραιἐσχίσθησαν ] It would not be right altogether to reject the testimonies of travellers to the fact of extraordinary rents and fissures in the rocks near the spot. Of course those who know no other proof of the historical truth of the event, will not be likely to take this as one; but to us, who are firmly convinced of it, every such trace, provided it be soberly and honestly ascertained, is full of interest. 52. καὶτὰμν … to end of ver. 53. The first clause, as following on an earthquake which splits the rocks, is by the modern Commentators received as genuine, and thrown into the same probability as the earthquake itself: but the following ones meet with no mercy at their hands. Gin mythisch apokryphischer Unsass is Meyer’ s description of them— and as he cannot find any critical ground for this, the Greek Editor of Matthew has the blame of having added them. I believe on the contrary that these latter clauses contain the occasion of the former ones. The whole transaction was supernatural and symbolic: no other interpretation of it will satisfy even ordinary common sense. Was the earthquake a mere coincidence! This not even those assert, who deny all symbolism in the matter. Was it a mere sign of divine wrath at what was done— a mere prodigy, like those at the death of Cæ sar? Surely no Christian believer can think this. Then what was it? What but the opening of the tombs— the symbolic declaration ‘ mors janua vitæ ,’ — that the death which had happened had broken the bands of death for ever? These following clauses (which have no mythical nor apocryphal character— ἐνεφανίσθησανπολλοῖς , and no more, is not the way of any but authentic history: see the Gospel of Nicodemus, ch. xvii. ff. in Jones’ s Canon of the N.T. vol. ii. p. 255) require only this explanation to be fully understood. The graves were opened at the moment of the death of the Lord; but inasmuch as He is the first-fruits from the dead— the Resurrection and the Life— the bodies of the saints in them did not arise till He rose, and having appeared to many after his resurrection,— possibly during the forty days,— went up with Him into his glory. (Cf. on this Corn.-a-Lap., h. l.: who maintains that this was so, for five reasons: 1) “ quia hoc decebat Christum, ut fructum mortis et resurrectionis suæ statim ostenderet in beata hac Sanctorum resurrectione: 2) quia animæ horum jam erant beatæ , ac proinde par erat eas non uniri corporibus nisi gloriosis et immortalibus: 3) quia exigua fuisset earum felicitas, ac longe major miseria, quod mox rursum deberent mori: 4) quia congruebat, ut hi Sancti Christum resurgentem et scandentem in cœ lum, ejusque triumphum sua resurrectione decorarent: 5) quia convenit ut Christus in cœ lo habeat Beatos quorum aspectu et collocutione externa se pascat humanitas, ne alioqui solitaria sit, expersque humanæ consolationis.” On this side, he claims (in Matt. Comm. series, vol. iii. p. 928; but wrongly, for Origen gives the whole a spiritual sense, more suo), Jerome, Bede, Thos. Aquinas, Anselm, (Strom. vi. 47, p. 764 .), Euseb. (Dem. Evang. iv. 12, vol. iv. p. 284), (Hæ r. lxxv. p. 911), al. On the other side are Thl., Euthym., (Ep. 164 (99) ad Evod. 3 (2) vol. ii.), al. Augustine is moved chiefly by the fact that David’ s body appears from Acts 2:29, Acts 2:34, to have been still in his tomb after the Ascension.) Moses and Elias, who were before in glory, were not from the dead, properly speaking: see note on ch. 17:1. The explanation (Fritzsche) of μετὰτὴνἔγερσιναὐτοῦ as ‘ after He had raised them,’ is simply ridiculous. The words belong to the whole sentence, not merely to εἰσῆλθον . ἠγέρθησαν is the result— not the immediate accompaniment, of the opening of the tombs. It is to prevent this being supposed, that the qualification μετ . τ . ἔ . αὐ . is added. 54. τὸνσεισμὸνκαὶτὰγιν . = ὅτιοὕτωςἐξέπνευσεν Mark. Does the latter of these look as if compiled from the former? The circumstances of our vv. 51-53, except the rending of the veil, are not in the possession of Mark, of the minute accuracy of whose account I have no doubt. His report is that of one man— and that man, more than probably, a convert. Matthew’ s is of many, and represents their general impression. Luke’ s is also general. τὰγινόμενα points to the crying out, as indeed does the οὕτως in Mark:— but see notes there. υἱὸςθεοῦἦν — which the Centurion had heard that He gave Himself out for, John 19:7, and our ver. 43. It cannot be doubtful, I think, that he used these words in the Jewish sense— and with some idea of that which they implied. When Meyer says that he must have used them in a heathen sense, meaning a hero or demigod, we must first be shewn that υἱὸςθεοῦ was ever so used. I believe Luke’ s to be a different report: see notes there. 55, 56. ἠκολ ., the historic aorist in a relative clause, see Acts 1:2: John 11:30 al. fr.: and Winer, § 40. 5, end: where the true account of the idiom is given; viz. that in such clauses, the Greek merely states the event as a past one, where we commonly use the pluperfect. ἡΜαγδ ., from Magdala: see note on ch. 15:39. She is not to be confounded with Mary who anointed our Lord, John 12:1, nor with the woman who did the same, Luke 7:36: see Luke 8:2. Μαρ . ἡτ . Ἰακ .] The wife of Alphæ us or Clopas, John 19:25: see note on ch. 13:55. Ἰακ .] Mark adds τοῦμικροῦ , to distinguish him from the brother of our Lord (probably not from the son of Zebedee, see Prolegg. to Epistle of James, § i. 8). μήτ . τ . υἱ . Ζ . = Σαλώμη Mark. Both omit Mary the mother of Jesus:— but we must remember, that if we are to take the group as described at this moment, she was not present, having been, as I believe (see note on John, ver. 27), led away by the beloved Apostle immediately on the speaking of the words, ‘ Behold thy mother.’ And if this view be objected to, yet she could not be named here, nor in Mark, except separately from these three— for she could not well have been one of the διακονοῦσαιαὐτῷ . There must have been also another group, of His disciples, within sight;— e.g. Thomas, who said, ‘ Except I see in his hands the print of the nails,’ &c., and generally those to whom He afterwards shewed his hands and feet as a proof of his identity. 57-61. Joseph of Arimathæ a begs, and buries the body of Jesus. Mark 15:42-47. Luke 23:50-56. John 19:38-42. The four accounts, agreeing in substance, are remarkably distinct and independent, as will appear by a close comparison of them. 57. Before sunset, at which time the Sabbath, and that an high day, began: see Deuteronomy 21:23. The Roman custom was for the bodies to remain on the crosses till devoured by birds of prey:— ‘ non pasces in cruce corvos.’ Hor. Epist. 1:16. 48. On the other hand, Josephus, B. J. iv. 5. 2, says, Ἰουδαίωνπερὶτὰςταφὰςπρόνοιανποιουμένωνὥστεκαὶτοὺςἐκκαταδίκης .… ἀνασταυρωμένουςπρὸδύντοςἡλίουκαθελεῖνκαὶθάπτειν . ἦλθεν ] probably to the Præ torium. Meyer supposes, to the place of execution; which is also possible, and seems supported by the ἦλθενοὖνκαὶἦρεν John ver. 38, and ἦλθενδὲκαὶ .… ib. ver. 39, which certainly was to Golgotha. πλούσιος ] He was also a counsellor, i.e. one of the Sanhedrim: see Mark, ver. 43: Luke, ver. 51. Ἀριμαθαίας ] Opinions are divided as to whether this was Rama in Benjamin (see ch. 2:18.), or Rama (Ramathaim) in Ephraim, the birth-place of Samuel. The form of the name is more like the latter. 58. The repetition of τὸσῶμα is remarkable, and indicates a common origin, in this verse, with Mark, who after ἐδωρήσατο expresses τὸπτῶμα on account of the expression of Pilate’ s surprise, and the change of subject between. 59. John (ver. 39) mentions the arrival of Nicodemus with an hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes, in which also the Body was wrapped. The Three are not in possession of this— nor Matthew and John of the subsequent design of the women to embalm It. What wonder if, at such a time, one party of disciples should not have been aware of the doings of another? It is possible that the women, who certainly knew what had been done with the Body (see ver. 61), may have intended to bestow on it more elaborate care, as whatever was done this night was hurried,— see John, vv. 41, 42. 60. Matt. alone relates that it was Joseph’ s own tomb. John, that it was in a garden, and in the place where He was crucified. All, except Mark, notice the newness of the tomb. John does not mention that it belonged to Joseph— but the expression ἐνᾧοὐδέπωοὐδεὶςἐτέθη looks as if he knew more than he has thought it necessary to state. His reason for the Body being laid there is, that it was near, and the Preparation rendered haste necessary. But then we may well ask, How should the body of an executed person be laid in a new tomb, without the consent of the owner being first obtained? And who so likely to provide a tomb, as he whose pious care for the Body was so eminent? All that we can determine respecting the sepulchre from the data here furnished is, (1) That it was not a natural cave, but an artificial excavation in the rock. (2) That it was not cut downwards, after the manner of a grave with us, but horizontally, or nearly so, into the face of the rock— this I conceive to be implied in προσκυλίσαςλίθ . μέγ . τῇθύρᾳτοῦμν ., as also by the use of παρακύπτω John 20:5, John 20:11, and εἰσῆλθεν , ib. 5, 6. (3) That it was in the spot where the crucifixion took place. Cyr-jer. speaks of τὸμνῆματὸπλησίον , ὅπουἐτέθη , κ . ὁἐπιτεθεὶςτῇθύρᾳλίθος , ὁμέχρισήμερονπαρὰτῷμνημείῳκείμενος . Cateches. xiii. 39, p. 202. On ἐλατόμησεν , the aor. in a relative clause, see above, ver. 55 note. 61. Luke mentions more generally the women who came with Him from Galilee; and specifies that they prepared spices and ointments, and rested the sabbath-day according to the commandment. 62-66. The Jewish authorities obtain from Pilate a guard for the sepulchre. Peculiar to Matthew. 62. τῇἐπ .] not on that night, but on the next day. A difficulty has been found in its being called the day μετὰτὴνπαρασκευήν , considering that it was itself the sabbath, and the greatest sabbath in the year. But I believe the expression to be carefully and purposely used. The chief priests, &c. did not go to Pilate on the sabbath,— but in the evening, after the termination of the sabbath. Had the Evangelist said ἥτιςἐστὶτὸσάββατον , the incongruity would at once appear of such an application being made on the sabbath— and he therefore designates the day as the first after that, which, as the day of the Lord’ s death, the παρασκευή , was uppermost in his mind. The narrative following has been much impugned, and its historical accuracy very generally given up by even the best of the German Commentators (Olshausen, Meyer; also De Wette, Hase, and others). The chief difficulties found in it seem to be: (1) How should the chief priests, &c. know of His having said, ‘ in three days I will rise again,’ when the saying was hid even from His own disciples? The answer to this is easy. The meaning of the saying may have been, and was, hid from the disciples; but the fact of its having been said could be no secret. Not to lay any stress on John 2:19, we have the direct prophecy of Mat 12:40— and besides this, there would be a rumour current, through the intercourse of the Apostles with others, that He had been in the habit of so saying. As to the understanding of the words, we must remember that hatred is keener sighted than love;— that the raising of Lazarus would shew, what sort of a thing rising from the dead was to be;— and that the fulfilment of the Lord’ s announcement of his crucifixion would naturally lead them to look further, to what more he had announced. (2) How should the women, who were solicitous about the removal of the stone, not have been still more so about its being sealed, and a guard set? The answer to this has been given above— they were not aware of the circumstance, because the guard was not set till the evening before. There would be no need of the application before the approach of the third day— it is only made for a watch ἕωςτῆςτρίτηςἡμέρας , ver. 64— and it is not probable that the circumstance would transpire that night— certainly it seems not to have done so. (3) That Gamaliel was of the council, and if such a thing as this, and its sequel ch. 28:11-15, had really happened, he need not have expressed himself doubtfully, Acts 5:39, but would have been certain that this was from God. But, first, it does not necessarily follow that every member of the Sanhedrim was present and applied to Pilate, or even had they done so, that all bore a part in the act of ch. 28:12. One who, like Joseph, had not consented to their deed before— and we may safely say that there were others such— would naturally withdraw himself from further proceedings against the person of Jesus. On Gamaliel and his character, see note on Acts, l. c.) Had this been so, the three other Evangelists would not have passed over so important a testimony to the Resurrection. But surely we cannot argue in this way— for thus every important fact narrated by one Evangelist alone must be rejected— e.g. (which stands in much the same relation) the satisfaction of Thomas,— and other such narrations. Till we know much more about the circumstances under which, and the scope with which, each Gospel was compiled, all à priori arguments of this kind are good for nothing. 65. ἔχετε — either 1), indicative, Ye have:— but then the question arises, What guard had they? and if they had one, why go to Pilate? Perhaps we must understand some detachment placed at their disposal during the feast— but there does not seem to be any record of such a practice. That the guards were under the Sanhedrim is plain from ch. 28:11, where they make their report (‘ ut mos militiæ , factum esse quod imperasset,’ Tacitus, Ann. i. 6), not to Pilate, but to the chief priests:— or 2), as De Wette and Meyer take it, imperative; which doubtless it may be, see 2 Timothy 1:13 and note: and the sense here on that hypothesis would be, Take a body of men for a guard. And έο this latter I now rather incline, on account of the order of the words, in which ἔχετε seems to have an emphasis hardly satisfied on the other view. ὡςοἴδατε ] as you know how:— in the best manner you can. There is no irony in the words, as has been supposed. 66. μετά belongs to ἠσφαλ ., and implies the means whereby, as in reff. So Thucyd. viii. 73,— Ὑπέρβολον … ἀποκτείνουσιμετὰΧαρμίνουἑνὸςτῶνστρατηγῶν ,— iii. 66, οὐμετὰτοῦπλήθουςὑμῶνεἰσελθόντες ,— v. 82, ἡκατὰθάλασσανμετὰτῶνἈθηναίωνἐπαγωγὴτῶνἐπιτηδείων . Duker, on the first of these, remarks, ‘ μετάτινος fieri dicuntur, quæ alicujus voluntate, auxilio, et consilio fiunt.’ The sealing was by means of a cord or string passing across the stone at the mouth of the sepulchre, and fastened at either end to the rock by sealing-clay. Chap. 28:1-10. Jesus having risen from the dead, appears to the women. Mark 16:1-8. . The independence and distinctness of the four narratives in this part have never been questioned, and indeed herein lie its principal difficulties. With regard to them, I refer to what I have said in the Prolegomena, that supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said and done, in its order and exactness, we should doubtless be able to reconcile, or account for, the present forms of the narratives; but not having this key to the harmonizing of them, all attempts to do so in minute particulars must be full of arbitrary assumptions, and carry no certainty with them. And I may remark, that of all harmonies, those of the incidents of these chapters are to me the most unsatisfactory. Giving their compilers all credit for the best intentions, I confess they seem to me to weaken instead of strengthening the evidence, which now rests (speaking merely objectively) on the unexceptionable testimony of three independent narrators, and of one, who besides was an eye-witness of much that happened. If we are to compare the four, and ask which is to be taken as most nearly reporting the exact words and incidents, on this there can I think be no doubt. On internal as well as external ground, that of John takes the highest place: but not, of course, to the exclusion of those parts of the narrative which he does not touch. The improbability that the Evangelists had seen one another’ s accounts, becomes, in this part of their Gospels, an impossibility. Here and there we discern traces of a common narration as the ground of their reports, as e.g. Matt. vv. 5-8: Mark vv. 5-8, but even these are very few. As I have abandoned all idea of harmonizing throughout, I will beg the student to compare carefully the notes on the other Gospels. 1. ὀψὲδὲσαβ .] not, ‘ at the end of the week.’ The words σαββάτων and μίανσαββ . are opposed, both being days. At the end of the Sabbath. There is some little difficulty here, because the end of the sabbath (and of the week) was at sunset the night before. It is hardly to be supposed that St. Matthew means the evening of the sabbath, though ἐπέφωσκε is used of the day beginning at sunset (Luke 23:54, and note). It is best to interpret a doubtful expression in unison with the other testimonies, and to suppose that here both the day and the breaking of the day are taken in their natural, not their Jewish sense. μίανσαβ . is a Hebraism; the Rabbinical writings use א ה ד , ש נ י , ש ל י ש י , &c., affixing ב ש ב ת to each, for Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, &c. Μαρ . ἡΜ . κ . ἡἄλ . Μ .] In Mark, Salome also. John speaks of Mary Magdalene alone. see notes there. θεωρ . τ . τ .] It was to anoint the Body, for which purposes they had bought, since the end of the Sabbath, ointments and spices, Mark. In Mark it is after the rising of the sun; in John, while yet dark; in Luke, at dim dawn: the two last agree with our text. 2. This must not be taken as pluperfect, which would be altogether inconsistent with the text. καὶἰδοὺ … ἐγένετο must mean that the women were witnesses of the earthquake, and that which happened. σεισμός was not properly an earthquake, but was the sudden opening of the tomb by the descending Angel, as the γάρ shews. The rolling away was not done naturally, but by a shock, which = σεισμός . It must not be supposed that the Resurrection of our Lord took place at this time, as sometimes imagined, and represented in paintings. It had taken place before;— ἠγέρθηκ .τ .λ . are the words of the Angel. It was not for Him, to whom (see John 20:19, John 20:26) the stone was no hindrance, but for the women and His disciples, that it was rolled away. 3. ἡἰδέα ] not his form, but his appearance; not in shape (as some would explain it away), but in brightness. 4. αὐτοῦ , objective, of him, the angel; as John 7:13: Hebrews 2:15. 5. In Mark, a young man in a white robe was sitting in the tomb on the right hand: in Luke two men in shining raiment (see Acts 1:10) appeared to them. John relates, that Mary Magdalene looked into the tomb and saw (but this must have been afterwards) two angels in white sitting one at the head, the other at the feet where the Body had lain. All attempts to deny the angelic appearances, or ascribe them to later tradition, are dishonest and absurd. That related in John is as definite as either of the others, and he certainly had it from Mary Magdalene herself. ὑμεῖς is emphatic, addressed to the women. 6. καθὼςεἶπεν is further expanded in Luke, vv. 6, 7. See ch. 16:21; 17:23. ὁκύριος (see ref.) is emphatic;— ‘ gloriosa appellatio,’ Bengel. 7. This appearance in Galilee had been foretold before his death, see ch. 26:32. It is to be observed that Matthew records only this one appearance to the Apostles, and in Galilee. It appears strange that this should be the entire testimony of Matthew: for it seems hardly likely that he would omit those important appearances in Jerusalem when the Apostles were assembled, John 20:19, John 20:26, or that one which was closed by the Ascension. But perhaps it may be in accord with his evident design of giving the general form and summary of each series of events, rather than their characteristic details. See below on ver. 20. ὅτι is recitative. The προάγει here is not to be understood as implying the journeying on the part of our Lord himself. It is cited from His own words, ch. 26:32, and there, as here, merely implies that He would be there when they arrived. It has a reference to the collecting of the flock which had been scattered by the smiting of the Shepherd: see John 10:4. ἐκεῖαὐτὸνὄψεσθε is determined, by κἀκεῖμεὄψονται below, to be part of the message to the disciples: not spoken to the women directly, but certainly indirectly including them. The idea of their being merely messengers to the Apostles, without bearing any share in the promise, is against the spirit of the context: see further in note on ver. 17. ἰδοὺεἶπονὑμῖν is to give solemnity to the command. These words are peculiar to Matthew, and are a mark of accuracy. 8. μετὰφόβου , ἐφ ʼ οἷςεἶδονπαραδόξοις · μετὰχαρᾶςδέ , ἐφ ʼ οἷςἤκουσανεὐαγγελίοις . 9. Neither Mark nor Luke recounts, or seems to have been aware of, this appearance. Mark even says οὐδενὶοὐδὲνεἶπον · ἐφοβοῦντογάρ . But (see above) it does not therefore follow that the narratives are inconsistent. Mark’ s account (see note there) is evidently broken off suddenly; and Luke’ s (see also note there) appears to have been derived from one of those who went to Emmaus, who had evidently but an imperfect knowledge of what happened before they left the city. This being taken into account, we may fairly require that the judgment should be suspended in lack of further means of solving the difficulty. ἐκρ . τ . π .] partly in fear and as suppliants, for the Lord says μὴφοβεῖσθε ,— but shewing also the χαρά with which that fear was mixed (ver. 8),— joy at having recovered Him whom they loved. προσεκ . αὐτ .] ‘ Jesum ante passionem alii potius alieniores adorarunt quam discipuli.’ Bengel. 10. τοῖςἀδελφ .] so also to Mary Magdalene, John 20:17. The repetition of this injunction by the Lord has been thought to indicate that this is a portion of another narrative inwoven here, and may possibly belong to the same incident as that in ver. 7. But all probability is against this: the passages are distinctly consecutive, and moreover both are in the well-known style of Matthew (e.g. καὶἰδού in both). There is perhaps more probability that this may be the same appearance as that in John 20:11-18, on account of μήμουἅπτου there and τοὺςἀδελφ . μου ,— but in our present imperfect state of information, this must remain a mere probability. 11-15. The Jewish authorities bribe the guards to give a false account of the resurrection. Peculiar to Matthew. 11. πορ . δ . αὐ .] While they were going. 12. συναχθέντες , i.e. οἱἀρχιερεῖς , a change of the subject of the sentence as in Luke 19:4 . This was a meeting of the Sanhedrim, but surely hardly an official and open one; does not the form of the narrative rather imply that it was a secret compact between those (the majority) who were bitterly hostile to Jesus? The circumstance that Joseph had taken no part in their counsel before, leads us to think that others may have withdrawn themselves from the meeting, e.g. Gamaliel, who could hardly have consented to such a measure as this. 14. Not only ‘ come to the ears of the governor,’ but be borne witness of before the governor, come before him officially: i.e. ‘ if a stir be made, and you be in trouble about it:’ see reff. [πείσομεν , viz. by a bribe of money, see Trench on the A.V. p. 72. 15. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. § 108, p. 202, says, καὶοὐμόνονοὐμετενοήσατεμαθόντεςαὐτὸνἀναστάνταἐκνεκρῶν , ἀλλὰἄνδραςχειροτονήσαντεςἐκλεκτούς , εἰςπᾶσαντὴνοἰκουμένηνἐπέμψατεκηρύσσοντεςὅτιαἵρεσίςτιςἄθεοςκαὶἄνομοςἐγήγερταιἀπὸἸησοῦτινοςΓαλιλαίουπλάνου (see ch. 27:63) ὃνσταυρωσάντωνὑμῶνοἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦκλέψαντεςκ .τ .λ . ὁλόγοςοὗτος — this account of the matter. Eisenmenger (Entdecktes Judenthum, cited by Meyer and De Wette) gives an expansion of this lie of the Jews from the book called Toldoth Jeschu. 16-20. Appearance of the Lord on a mountain in Galilee. This journey into Galilee was after the termination of the feast, allowing two first days of the week, on which the Lord appeared to the assembled Apostles (John 20:19, John 20:26), to elapse. It illustrates the imperfect and fragmentary nature of the materials out of which our narrative is built, that the appointment of this mountain as a place of assembly for the eleven has not been mentioned, although τὸὄροςοὗ seems to imply that it has. Stier well remarks (Reden Jesu, vii. 209) that in this verse Matthew gives a hint of some interviews having taken place previously to this in Galilee. And it is important to bear this in mind, as suggesting, if not the solution, at least the ground of solution, of the difficulties of this passage. Ver. 17 seems to present an instance of this imperfect and fragmentary narrative. The impression given by it is that the majority of the eleven worshipped Him, but some doubted (not, whether they should worship Him; which is absurd and not implied in the word. On οἱδέ , cf. ch. 26:67. ᾧχοντοεἰςΔεκέλειαν , οἱδ ʼ ἐςΜέγαρα , Xen. Hell. i. 2. 14: see also Anab. i. 5. 13). This however would hardly be possible, after the two appearances at Jerusalem in Joh_20. We are therefore obliged to conclude that others were present. Whether these others were the ‘ 500 brethren at once’ of whom Paul speaks 1 Corinthians 15:6, or some other disciples, does not appear. Olshausen and Stier suppose, from the previous announcement of this meeting, and the repetition of that announcement by the angel, and by our Lord, that it probably included all the disciples of Jesus; at least, all who would from the nature of the case be brought together. 18. προσελθ .] They appear to have first seen Him at a distance, probably on the top of the mountain. This whole introduction, προσελθ . ἐλάλ . αὐτ . λέγ ., forbids us to suppose that the following words are a mere compendium of what was said on various occasions. Like the opening of ch. 5, it carries with it a direct assertion that what follows was spoken then, and there. ἐδόθημοικ .τ .λ .] The words are a reference to ref. Dan. (LXX), which compare. Given,— by the Father, in the fulfilment of the Eternal Covenant, in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. Now first is this covenant, in its fulness, proclaimed upon earth. The Resurrection was its last seal— the Ascension was the taking possession of the Inheritance. But the Inheritance is already won; and the Heir is only remaining on earth for a temporary purpose— the assuring His joint-heirs of the verity of his possession. ‘ All power in heaven and earth;’ see Ephesians 1:20-23: Colossians 2:10: Hebrews 1:6: Romans 14:9: Philippians 2:9-11:1 Peter 3:22. 19. οὖν (in .) is probably a gloss, but an excellent one. It is the glorification of the Son by the Father through the Spirit, which is the foundation of the Church of Christ in all the world. And when we baptize into the Name (i.e. into the fulness of the consequence of the objective covenant, and the subjective confession) of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it is this which forms the ground and cause of our power to do so— that this flesh of man, of which God hath made πάντατὰἔθνη , is glorified in the Person of our Redeemer, through whom we all have access by one Spirit to the Father. πορ . μαθ .] Demonstrably, this was not understood as spoken to the Apostles only, but to all the brethren. Thus we read, πάντεςδιεσπάρησαν … πλὴντῶνἀποστόλων (Acts 8:2): οἱμὲνοὖνδιασπαρέντεςδιῆλθονεὐαγγελιζόμενοιτὸνλόγον (ibid. ver. 4). There is peculiar meaning in μαθητεύσατε . All power is given me— go therefore and … subdue? Not so: the purpose of the Lord is to bring men to the knowledge of the truth— to work on and in their hearts, and lift them up to be partakers of the divine Nature. And therefore it is not ‘ subdue,’ but make disciples of (see below). πάντατὰἔθνη again is closely connected with πᾶσαἐξουσίαἐπὶτῆςγῆς . πάντατὰἔθνη ] all nations, including the Jews. It is absurd to imagine that in these words of the Lord there is implied a rejection of the Jews, in direct variance with his commands elsewhere, and also with the world-wide signification of ἐπὶτῆςγῆς above. Besides, the (temporary) rejection of the Jews consists in this, that they are numbered among πάντατὰἔθνη , and not a peculiar people any longer: and are become, in the providence of God, the subjects of that preaching, of which by original title they ought to have been the promulgators. We find the first preachers of the gospel, so far from excepting the Jews, uniformly bearing their testimony to them first. With regard to the difficulty which has been raised on these words,— that if they had been thus spoken by the Lord, the Apostles would never have had any doubt about the admission of the Gentiles into the Church,— I would answer, with Ebrard, Stier, De Wette, Meyer, and others, ‘ that the Apostles never had any doubt whatever about admitting Gentiles,— only whether they should not be circumcised first.’ In this command, the prohibition of ch. 10:5 is for ever removed. βαπτίζοντες ] Both these present participles are the conditioning components of the imperative aor. preceding. The μαθητεύειν consists of two parts— the initiatory, admissory rite, and the subsequent teaching. It is much to be regretted that the rendering of μαθ . ‘ teach,’ has in our Bibles clouded the meaning of these important words. It will be observed that in our Lord’ s words, as in the Church, the process of ordinary discipleship is from baptism to instruction— i.e. is, admission in infancy to the covenant, and growing up into τηρεῖςπάντακ .τ .λ .— the exception being, what circumstances rendered so frequent in the early Church, instruction before baptism, in the case of adults. On this we may also remark, that baptism as known to the Jews included, just as it does in the Acts (ch. 16:15, 33) whole households— wives and children. As regards the command itself, no unprejudiced reader can doubt that it regards the outward rite of baptism, so well known in this Gospel as having been practised by John, and received by the Lord Himself. And thus it was immediately, and has been ever since, understood by the Church. As regards all attempts to explain away this sense, we may say— even setting aside the testimony furnished by the Acts of the Apostles,— that it is in the highest degree improbable that our Lord should have given, at a time when He was summing up the duties of his Church in such weighty words, a command couched in figurative or ambiguous language— one which He must have known would be interpreted by his disciples, now long accustomed to the rite and its name, otherwise than He intended it. εἰςτὸὄν .… ] Reference is apparently made to the Baptism of the Lord Himself, where the whole Three Persons of the Godhead were in manifestation. Not τὰὀνόματα — but τὸὄνομα — setting forth the Unity of the Godhead. It is unfortunate again here that our English Bibles do not give us the force of this εἰς . It should have been into, (as in Galatians 3:27 al.,) both here and in 1 Corinthians 10:2, and wherever the expression with εἰς is used. It imports, not only a subjective recognition hereafter by the child of the truth implied in τὸὄνομακ .τ .λ ., but an objective admission into the covenant of Redemption— a putting on of Christ. Baptism is the contract of espousal (Ephesians 5:26) between Christ and his Church. Our word ‘ in’ being retained both here and in our formula of Baptism, it should always be remembered that the Sacramental declaration is contained in this word; that it answers (as Stier has well observed, vii. 268) to the τοῦτόἐστιν in the other Sacrament. On the difference between the baptism of John, and Christian baptism, see notes on ch. 3:11: Acts 18:25; Acts 19:1-5. 20. Even in the case of the adult, this teaching must, in greater part, follow his baptism; though as we have seen (on ver. 19), in his exceptional case, some of it must go before. For this teaching is nothing less than the building up of the whole man into the obedience of Christ. In these words, inasmuch as the then living disciples could not teach all nations, does the Lord found the office of Preachers in his Church, with all that belongs to it,— the duties of the minister, the school-teacher, the scripture reader. This ‘ teaching’ is not merely the κήρυγμα of the gospel— not mere proclamation of the good news— but the whole catechetical office of the Church upon and in the baptized. καὶἰδοὺ … ] These words imply and set forth the Ascension, the manner of which is not related by our Evangelist. ἐγώ , I, in the fullest sense: not the Divine Presence, as distinguished from the Humanity of Christ. His Humanity is with us likewise. The vine lives in the branches. Stier remarks (vii. 277) the contrast between this ‘ I am with you,’ and the view of Nicodemus (John 3:2) ‘ no man can do these miracles— except God be with him.’ μεθ ʼ ὑμ .] mainly, by the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49) which he has poured out on His Church. But the presence of the Spirit is the effect of the presence of Christ— and the presence of Christ is part of the ἐδόθη above— the effect of the well-pleasing of the Father. So that the mystery of His name Ἐμμανουήλ (with which, as Stier remarks, this Gospel begins and ends) is fulfilled— God is with us. And πάσαςτὰςἡμέρας — all the (appointed) days— for they are numbered by the Father, though by none but Him. ἕωςτῆςσυντ . τ . αἰ .] that time of which they had heard in so many parables, and about which they had asked, ch. 24:3— the completion of the state of time. After that, He will be no more properly speaking with us, but we with Him (John 17:24) where He is. To understand μεθ ʼ ὑμῶν only of the Apostles and their (?) successors, is to destroy the whole force of these most weighty words. Descending even into literal exactness, we may see that διδάσκοντεςαὐτοὺςτηρεῖνπάνταὅσαἐνετειλάμηνὑμῖν , makes αὐτούς into ὑμεῖς , as soon as they are μεμαθητευμένοι . The command is to the Universal Church— to be performed, in the nature of things, by her ministers and teachers, the manner of appointing which is not here prescribed, but to be learnt in the unfoldings of Providence recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, who by His special ordinance were the founders and first builders of that Church— but whose office, on that very account, precluded the idea of succession or renewal. That Matthew does not record the fact or manner of the Ascension, is not to be used as a ground for any presumptions regarding the authenticity of the records of it which we possess. The narrative here is suddenly brought to a termination; that in John ends with an express declaration of its incompleteness. What reasons there may have been for the omission, either subjective, in the mind of the author of the Gospel, or objective, in the fragmentary character of the apostolic reports which are here put together, it is wholly out of our power, in this age of the world, to determine. As before remarked, the fact itself is here and elsewhere in this Gospel (see ch. 22:44; 24:30; 25:14, 31; 26:64) clearly implied.