LIBRARY OF THE University of California. GIFT OF Class AN EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW The Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. AN EXEGETICAL COM MENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW BY THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A.. D.D. FOKMEKI.V MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM AND SOME TIME FELLOW AND TUTOR OF TKINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS NEW YORK. LONDON: F'LLIOT STOCK. 1910 Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2008 witii funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation littp://www.arcliive.org/details/exegeticalcommenOOplumricli PREFACE The attempt to write this commentary has been made under impulses given, in the one case consciously, in the other not, by two friends. For some years. Bishop Lloyd of Newcastle-on-Tyne, whose loss we are still deeply lamenting, had been urging the writer to do something of the kind ; and one of the latest letters received from him, — a letter written shortly before his death, expressed delight that this volume was progressing. And it was the writer's privilege to take a very small part in the produc- tion of the invaluable work on this Gospel by the Rev. VV. C. Allen in the International Critical Commentary published by Messrs. T. & T. Clark. To share in that work was to be inspired to continue it. This volume, therefore, has two aims over and above the desire to do something in accordance with Bishop Lloyd's earnest wishes. On the one hand, this sequel to Mr. Allen's commentary has for its object to call the attention of some who do not already know it to a book which Leaflet 31 of the Central Society of Sacred Study (July 1907) pronounces to be "the best English com- mentary on the first Gospel" (p. 5), and of which reviewers have said much the same. On the other hand, this volume aims at supplementing the earlier one. A re- viewer in the Guardian doubted whether Mr. Allen " was well advised to restrict himself so rigidly to questions of literary, as distinct from historical — not to say theological and religious — interest." How well he would have dealt VII with the historical, theological, and religious sides of his subject is shown in those places in which he somewhat transgresses his self-imposed limits. But there can be no doubt that his desire to do the critical and literary part of the work (which was the part most needed) with thorough- ness has caused him to omit a good deal that his readers would have been glad to have from him. To supply, if possible, some of the elements which he has passed by, or has treated very briefly, is another of the aims of this volume. The works to which this commentary is indebted are numerous. A list of some of them is given below, partly as an expression of gratitude, partly as some help to others who desire to labour in the same field. An asterisk indicates that the writer's debt is large, and that others may expect to find much to aid them. For further information the list of works in the writer's International Critical Commentary on St. Ltike, pp. Ixxx-lxxxviii, 577- 580, may be consulted. Abbott, E. A. . Paradosis, London, 1904. [ohaiinine Vocabulary, 1905. "^Johannine Gt-ammar, 1906. Alexander, W. M. Denio?iic Possession in the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1902. Allen, W. C. . . *.4 Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Maftltezv, Edinburgh, 1907. Briggs, C. A. . *T/ie Messiah of the Gospels, Edinburgh, 1894. New Light on the Life of Jesus, Edinburgh, 1904. The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, New York, 1904. Criticism and the Dogma of the Virgin Birth (N. Amer. Rev., June 1906).^ Bruce, A. B. . , The Synoptic Gospels (The Expositor's Greek Testament), London, 1897. Burkitt, F. C. . *Evangelion Da- Mepharresiie, Cambridge, 1904. Tlie Gospel History and its Transmission, Edinburgh, 1906. ^ This valuable essay has been published separately. Scribner, 1909. PREFACE Burton and Constructive Studies in the Life of Christy Mathews Chicago. Charles, R. H. . The Book of Enoch, Oxford, 1893. The Apocalypse of Baruch, London, 1896. The Assumption of Moses, London, 1897. The Ascension of Isaioh, London, igoo. The Book of Jubilees, London, 1902. *The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, translated from the Greek, London, 1908. *The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Oxford, 1908. Dalman, G. . . *The Words of Jesus, Edinburgh, 1902. Deissmann, G. A. * Bible Studies, Edinburgh, 1903. The Philology of the Greek Bible, London, 1908. New Light on the Neiv Testament, Edinburgh, 1907. The Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, New York, 1903, Encyclopedia Biblica, London, 1 899-1 903. Commentaire critique et moral stcr FEvangile scion Saint Luc, Pari?, 1903. Lntroduction au Nouveau Testament, Neuchatel, 1897. The Lncarnation of the Son of God (The Bampton Lectures, 189 1), London, 1891. * Dissertations on Subjects conjiected with the Lncarnation, London, 1895. The New Theology and the Old Religion, London, 1907. Gould, E. P. . . A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark, Edinburgh, 1896. Gregory, C. R. . Canon and Text of the N'ew Testament, Edinburgh, 1907. Grenfell and Sayings of our Lord from an early Greek Hunt Papyrus, London, 1897, Nezv Sayings of Jesus, London, 1904, Harnack, A. . . Die Chro7iologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, Leipzig, 1897. *The Sayings of Jesus, the Second Source of St. Mattheiv and St. Luke, London, 1908. I-Larris, J. Rendel The Newly Recovered Gospel of St. Peter, London, 1893. Hastings, J. . . * Dictionary of the Bible, Edinburgh, 1898- 1902, with Extra Volume, 1904. Donehoo, J- do :Q. Girodon, P. . Godet, F. . . Gore, C. . . PREFACE Hastings, J. . . Hawkins, Sir J. C. Herford, R. T. . Holtzmann, H. J. Holtzmann, O. . Hort, F. J. A. . Jiilicher, A. . . Kennedy, H. A. A. Klostermann, E. Knowling, R. J. Lang, C. G. . . Lock and Sanday Mackinlay, G. . Maclaren, A. Moulton, J. H. . Moulton, R. G. . Nicholson, E. B. Oxford Society of Historical Theology Plummer, A. . . Polano, H. Resch, A. * Dictionary of Christ aftd the Gospels, 1906- igoS. *Horce Synopticce, Oxford, 1899; 2nd ed. 1909 Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London, 1903. Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Freiburg i. B., 1892. The Life of Jesus, London, 1904. "^Judaistic Christianity, London, 1894. '''The Christiati Ecdesia, London, 1897. An Introduction to the New Testament, London, 1904. Sources of Netv Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 1895. Hatidbuch zum Neuen Testament ; Markus, Tiibingen, 1907. Our Lord's Virgin Birth, London, 1907. Thoughts on Some of the Parables of Jesus, London, 1906. Two Lectm-es on the Sayings of Jesus re- cently discovered at Oxyrynchus, Oxford, 1897. The Magi, How they recognised Chrisfs Star, London, 1907. *The Gospel according to St. Mattheiv, London, 1905, 1906. *^ Grammar of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 1906. The Alodern Reader's Bible, London, 1907. The Gospel according to the Hebrews, London, 1879. The Gospel according to St. Matthew, London, 1881. The Neiv Testanmit in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, 1905. A Critical and Exegetical Comnmitary on the Gospel according to St. Luke, Edinburgh, 1896. The Talmud (The Chandos Classics), London, n.d. Das Kindheits Evangelium (Texte und Untersuchungen, x. 5), Leipzig, 1897. *Agrapha, Aussercanonische Schriftfragmente (Texte und Untersuchungen, NF. xv. 3, 4), Leipzig, 1906. PREFACE Robinson, J. A. . Robinson and James Salmon, G. . . Sanday, W. . . Schiirer, E. Smith, D. . Steinbeck, J. Swete, H. B. Taylor, C. Wellhausen Wright, A. Zahn, T. . The Historical Character of Sf. John's Gospel, London, 1908. The Gospel according to Peter, London, 1892. *The Human Element in the Gospels, London, 1907. * Inspiration (The Bampton Lectures, 1893), London, 1893. Sacred Sites of the Gospel, Oxford, 1903. The Criticism of the fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1905. * Outlines of the Life of Christ, Edinburgh, 1906. *The Life of Christ in Recent Research, Oxford, 1907. * History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 18S5-1890. *Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkcs im Ze it alter Jesu Christi; dritte Auflage, Leipzig, 1898. The Gospel according to St. Mattheiv (The Westminster New Testament), London, 1908. *Das gottliche Selbstbeivusstsein Jesu nach dem Zeugnis der Synoptiker, Leipzig, 1908. The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocryphac Gospel of St. Peter, London, 1893. *The Gospel according to St. Mark, London, 1902. *The Appearances of our Lord after the Passion, London, 1907. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers comprising Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew a)id English, Cambridge, 1897. Das Evangelium Matthaei, Berlin, 1904. * Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, London, 1903. Einleitung m das Neue Testament, Leipzig, 1899. *Das Evangelium des Matthcius, Leipzig, 1903. Introduction to the New Testament, Edin- burgh, 1909. *The Journal of Theological Studies, London and Oxford, 1899-1909. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION Since this commentary was printed, several works of great importance have been published. Dr. Stanton has given us The Synoptic Gospels, being Part II. of his very valuable dis- cussion of The Gospels as Historical Docu?nents (Cambridge Press). A great many of his conclusions confirm views that are advocated in this volume. He is, however, not quite accurate in stating (p. i8) that the Oral Theory is adopted in the com- mentary on St. Luke in the International series : see p. xxiii in that volume. What was doubted there, and is doubted still by Dr. Stanton himself, is whether St. Luke can have had the Second Gospel in as full a form as that in which we possess it. Several of the Cambridge Biblical Essays, edited by Dr. Swete, contain a great deal that is most instructive to students of the first three Gospels. The same may be said in a still higher degree of the very remarkable commentary on The Synoptic Gospels by the Jewish scholar C. G. Montefiore (Macmillan). Some things in it a Christian must read with dissent, if not with distress ; but there are many generous tributes to the character and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, and also to the immense influence for good which the Gospels have had upon European society for nineteen centuries. References to all three of these works have been inserted in the present edition. Moreover, a second and enlarged edition of Sir John Hawkins' invaluable Horcz Synoptica has appeared. The references to the first edition in this commentary (pp. xxiii, 23, 89, 120, 141) may be corrected to the second edition, as follows : p. 1 3 1 = p. 163; PP- 174, i75=PP- 210, 211; p. 4i=p. 53; p. i32=p. 165; p. 174 = p. 210. Those who desire a small commentary on St. Matthew will find the recent one by E. E. Anderson (T. & T. Clark) helpful. The essay of Professor S. L. Tyson on The Teachifig of our Lord as to the Indissolubility of Marriage (University Press, Sewanee) may be read in connexion with what is urged in this commentary, pp. 81, 82, 259-261. XII CONTENTS INTRODUCTION § I. The Author .... §2. The Sources .... § 3. Plan of the Gospel . §4. The Christology of the First Gospel §5. The Date .... §6. "The Testaments of the Twelve Pat riarchs" and their Relation to the First Gospel COMMENTARY The Birth and Infancy of the Messiah The Preparation for the Ministry . The Ministry in Galilee The Ministry in or near Galilee The Journey through Per^ea to JerusalexM The Last Work in the Holy City The Passion, Death, and Resurkkction INDEXES . . ... I. General ..... II. Grkek ..... PAGB vii-xlvi Vll XI xviii XXV xxxi 1-439 I 20 45 200 258 283 352 441-451 441 449 INTRODUCTION The Author. In no case is the title to a book of the New Testament part of the original document. It was in all cases added by a copyist, and perhaps not by the first copyist. Moreover, in all cases it varies considerably in form, the simplest forms being the earliest. The "according to" neither affirms nor denies author- ship ; it implies conformity to a tyj>e, and need not mean more than " drawn up according to the teaching of." But it is certain that the Christians of the first four centuries who gave these titles to the Gospels meant more than this : they believed, and meant to express, that each Gospel was written by the person whose name it bears. They used this mode of expression, rather than/ the genitive case used of the Epistles, to intimate that the same subject had been treated of by others \ and they often emphasized the oneness of the subject by speaking of "the Gospel " rather than " the Gospels." This mode of expression is accurate ; there is only one Gospel, 'the Gospel of God' (Rom. i. i) concerning His Son. But it has been given us in four shapes (eiayye'Atoi' Terpd/wpcfyov, Iren. HI. xi. 8), and "according to" indicates the shape given to it by the writer named. Was the belief of the first Christians who adopted these titles correct? Were the Gospels written by the persons whose names they bear ? With the trifling exception of a few passages, we may believe this with regard to the Second, Third, and Fourth Gospels : but it is very difficult to believe this with regard to the First, the authorship of wliich is a complicated problem not yet adequately solved. But the following results may be accepted as probable, and some of them as very probable. Ancient testimony in favour of Matthew being the author is very strong. It begins with I'apias and Irenaeus in the second century, and is confirmed by Origcn in the third and Eusebius in the fourth,^ not to mention a number of other early writers, ' Eusebius, //. £. iii. 39, v. 8, vi. 25, iii. 24, v. 10. i i-vii viii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW whose evidence repeats, or is in harmony with, these four. Papias speaks of "the oracles " or " utterances " (raAoyia) which Matthew composed; the other three speak of his "Gospel UvayyiXiov). Assuming that the two expressions are equivalent, the testimony is uniform that the First Gospel was written in JIel>rew by Matthew, the tax-collector and Apostle. In that case the Greek Gospel which has come down to us must be a translation from this " Hebrew " original.^ _ But the First Gospel is evidently not a translation, and it is difficult to believe that it is the work of the Apostle. Whoever wrote it took the Second Gospel as a frame,2 and worked into it much material from other sources. And he took, not only the substance of the Second Gospel, but the Greek phraseology of it, showing clearly that he worked in Greek. It is mcredible that ' "he translated the Greek of Mark into Hebrew, and that then some one translated Matthew's Hebrew back into Greek that is almost the same as Clark's. The retranslation would have resulted in very different Greek.3 And it is not likely that the Apostle Matthew, with first-hand knowledge of his own, would take the Gospel of another, and that other not an Apostle, as the framework of his own Gospel. There would seem, therefore, to be some error in the early tradition about the First Gospel. Very possibly the Aoyta of Papias should not be interpreted as meaning the whole of the First Gospel, but only one of its elements, viz. a collection of facts respecting Jesus Christ, chiefly consisting of His utterances, and the circumstances in which they were spoken. The expression, rk Xoym, would fitly describe a document largely made up of discourses and parables. That such a document is one main element in both the First and the Third Gospels, may be regarded as certain, and it may have been written originally in Hebrew by S. Matthew.^ 1 The subscriptions of certain cursives state that the Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek "by John," or "by James," or "by James the brother of the Lord," or "by Bartholomew." Zahn, Etnlettung in das Nl. u. P' 2^<^ The main common source of the Synoptic Gospels was a single written document" (Burkitt, The Gosp. Hist, and its Transmisswii p. 34)- Mk contains the whole of a document which Mt. and Lk. mdependently used ^'^'s^heSder will find a good illustration of this in Duggan's translation of Tacquier's History of t lie Books of the New Testament, pp. 35 127. Jacquier tianslated passages from English into French. Duggan translates them back into English, and his English is suiprisingly unlike the originals. _ 4 "Hebrew" in this connexion must mean the Aramaic which Christ Himself spoke. It is scarcely credible that any one ^^-o^ld translate the words of Christ into the Hebrew of the O.T., which was mtelligible to none but the '^'^The collection of Utterances often spoken of as "the Logia" is now frequently denoted by the symbol " Q." THE AUTHOR ix When the unknown constructor of the First Gospel took the Second Gospel and lilted on to it the contents of this collection of Utterances, together with other material of his own gathering, he produced a work which was at once welcomed by the first Christians as much more complete than the Second Gospel, and yet not the same as the Third, // that was already in existence. What was this Gospel to be called? It was based on Mark; but to have called it "according to Mark" would have caused^ confusion, for that title was already appropriated. It would be ' better to name it after the other main element used in its con- struction, a translation of S. Matthew's collection of Utterances. In this way we get an explanation of the statement of Papias^ that " Matthew composed the Utterances in Hebrew, and each man interpreted them as he was able," a statement which seems to be quite accurate. We also get an explanation of the later and less accurate statements of Irenseus, Origen, and Eusebius, which seem to refer to our First Gospel as a whole ; viz. that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew. It was known that Matthew had written a Gospel of some kind in Hebrew : the First Gospel, as known to Iren^us, was called " according to Matthew" ; and hence the natural inference that // had been written in Hebrew. There was a Gospd according io the Hebrews, which Jerome had trans- lated into Greek and Latin, and from which he makes quotations. A Jewish Christian sect called Nazarenes used this Gospel, and said that it was by S. Matthew. It was Aramaic, written in Hebrew characters. We do not know enough of it to be certain ; but it also may have contained a good many of the Utterances collected by Matthew, and for this reason may have been attributed as a whole to him. It seems to have been very inferior to our First Gospel, and this would lead to its being allowed to perish. See Hastings' DB. extra vol. pp. 338 f. Dr. C. R. Gregory {Canon and Text of the New Testament, pp. 245 ft'.) writes thus of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. " One book that now seems to stand very near to the Gospels, and again moves further away from them, demands particular attention. But wc shall scarcely reach any very definite conclusion about it. It is like an ignis fatuiis in the literature of the Church of the first three centuries. We cannot even tell from the statements about it precisely who, of the writers who refer to it, really saw it. Yes, we are even not sure that it is not kaleidoscopic or plural. It may be that several, or at least two, different books are referred to, and that even by people who fancy that there is but one book, and that they know it. . . . Nothing would be easier for any one or every one who saw, read, or heard of that book to call it the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Hebrews' Gospel. . . . We shall doubtless some day receive a copy of it in the original, or in a translation. It may have contained much of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain, without that fact having been brought to our notice in the quotations made from it. For those who ([uoted it did so precisely in order to give that which varied from the contents of our four Gospels, or especially of the three synoptic ones." The origin of this X GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW perplexing document must be placed early. After Matthew and Luke became well known a Gospel covering much the same ground would hardly have been written. E. B. Nicholson has collected and annotated the quotations from it ; R. Handmann, in Texte iind Untersttchtuvyen, 1888, has done the same. See also Mgr. A. S. Barnes, /(7?/r. of Th. 5/.,' April 1905. The collection of Utterances made by Matthew and used by the compiler of the First Gospel, and the similar collection used by Luke, were not such as we might have expected. The selection was determined by the needs and hopes of the first Christians, who wanted moral guidance for the present and revelation as to the future. Hence the sayings of Christ pre- served in the Synoptic Gospels are largely of either a moral or an apocalyptic character.^ Utterances which seemed to teach principles of conduct, and prophecies or parables respecting the Coming and the Kingdom were specially treasured. Some of them were misunderstood at the time, and some appear to have been misreported, either from the first or in repeated transmis- sion ; but the result is a body of doctrine, of marvellous unity and adaptability, the great bulk of which must be faithfully reported, because it is inconceivable that the Evangelists or their informants can have invented such things. It is evident that these informants, in the last resort, are the memories of the first body of disciples, who, happily for us, were sometimes stronger in memory than in understanding. They remembered what per- plexed them, because it perplexed them ; and they reported it faithfully. That a collection of sayings and narratives was made during our Lord's lifetime, as Salmon {The Hui/ian Element i?i the Gos/e/s, p. 275) and Ramsay {Expositor, 1907, p. 424) suppose, is scarcely probable (Sanday, The Life of Christ in Rece7it Research, p. 172). "^ The answer, therefore, to the question. Who was the author of the First Gospel ? is a negative one. It was not S. Matthew. The writer was an early Jewish Christian, not sufficiently import- ant to give his name to a Gospel, and in no way desiring to do so. But he used a great deal of material which was probably collected by S. Matthew, whose name thus became connected with the First Gospel as we have it.^ That it is in no sense the work of S. Matthew is not probable. Some more conspicuous Apostle than the toll-collector would have been chosen, if the title had no better basis than the desire to give a distinguished name to a nameless document. Andrew, or James the son of ^ J. R. Ropes, The Apostolic Age, p. 222. There is good reason for beheving that there existed a written collection of sayings which had the definite title Kb'yoi rov Kvplov 'Itjo-ov, to which reference is made Acts xx. 35 ; also in Clem. Rom. Cor. xiii., xlvi. ; and in Polycarp, ii. See Harnack, TAe Sayings offesus, pp. 187-189. * See Briggs, The Ethical Teaching offesus, pp. 2, 3, 20. THE SOURCES xi Zebedee, or riiilip would have been preferred. And the writer has given us "a Catholic Gospel," written in " a truly Catholic temper." *' Wherever his own hand shows itself, one sees that his thought is as universalistic as it is free from the bondage of the Law. . . . The individuality of the author makes itself so strongly felt both in style and tendency, that it is impossible to think of the Gospel as a mere compilation " (Jiilicher). On the contrary, as Renan says, " the Gospel of Matthew, all things considered, is the most important book of Christianity — the most important book that has ever been written." Not without reason it received the first place in the N.T. "The compilation of the Gospels is, next to the personal action of Jesus, the leading fact in the history of the origins of Christianity ; — I will even add in the history of mankind " {Les Evangi/es, p. 212 ; Eng. trans, p. 112). The writer of this Gospel rises far above the limitations of his own Jewish Christianity. To see in it anything directed against the teaching of S. Paul is strangely to misunderstand it. So far as there is anything polemical in Mt., it is directed, not against the Apostle of the Gentiles, but against Pharisaic Judaism. This wide outlook as to the meaning and scope of Christianity is clear evidence that what he gives us as the Messiah's teaching is not the writer's own, but the teaching of Him in whom both Jew and Gentile were to find salvation. Its~\ Catholic Christianity, which is the spirit of Christ Himself, has made this Gospel, from the first century to the twentieth, a j favourite with Christians. The Sources. To some extent these have been already stated. The writer of our First Gospel used Mk. in nearly the same form as that in which it has come down to us,^ and also a collection of Utterances which was probably made either wholly or in part by S. Matthew. This second document, which quickly went out of use owing to the superiority of the Canonical Gospels, is commonly spoken of as " the Logia," or (more scientifically) as " Q," a symbol which commits us to nothing. Besides these two main sources, there were at least two others. These are (i) the O.T., the quotations from which, however, may have come from a collection of passages believed to be Messianic, rather than from the writer's knowledge of the O.T. as a whole; and (2) traditions current among the first Christians. It is also ' If ihcre were difTcrences, it is not impossible that ihc text of Mk. which Mt. usctl was inferior to that which has come down to us : curruijlion had already begun. Sec Sunlon, Synoptic Cos/>els, pj). 34 f. xii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW possible that some of the many attempts at Gospels, mentioned by S. Luke in his Preface, may have been known to our Evangelist and used by him. But the only one of his sources which we can compare with his completed work is the Second Gospel, and it is most instructive to see the way in which he treats it. This has been worked out in great detail by the Rev. W. C. Allen in his admirable work on St. Matthew in the International Critical Commentary, which ought to be consulted by all who wish to do justice to the Synoptic problem. Here it will suffice to make a selection of instances, paying attention chiefly to those which illustrate the freedom which the compiler of the First Gospel allowed himself in dealing with the Second. 1. He appropriates nearly the whole of it} The chief omissions are : Healing of a demoniac (Mk. i. 23-28) ; Prayer before preaching in Galilee (i. 35-39); Seed grow- ing secretly (iv. 26-29) ; Healing of a deaf stammerer (vii. 32-36); Healing of a blind man (viii. 22-26); The un- commissioned exorcist (ix. 38-40); Widow's mites (xii. 41- 44). And there are other smaller omissions. 2. He makes considerable changes in order, chiefly so as to group similar incidents and sayings together, and thus make the sequence more telling. Thus we have three triplets of miracles : leprosy, paralysis, fever (viii. 1-15); victory over natural powers, demonic powers, power of sin (viii. 23-ix. 8); restoration of life, sight, speech (ix. 18-34). And he omits sayings where Mark has them, and inserts them in a different connexion, generally earlier. Thus Mk. iv. 21 is inserted Mt. v. 15 instead of xiii. 23, 24; Mk. iv.. 22 is inserted Mt. x. 26 instead of xiii. 23, 24; Mk. ix. 41 is inserted Mt. x. 42 instead of xviii. 5 ; Mk. ix. 50 is inserted Mt. v. 13 instead of xviii. 9; Mk. xi. 25 is inserted Mt. vi. 14 instead of xxi. 22. 3. Although he adds a great deal to Mark, yet he frequently abbreviates, perhaps to gain space for additions. He often omits what is redundant. In the following instances, the words in brackets are found in Mark but not in the First Gospel. ' [The time is fulfilled, and] the Kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye [and believe in the gospel]' (Mk. i. 15). 'And at even, [when the sun did set]' (i. 32). 'And straightway the leprosy [departed from him, and he] was cleansed ' (i. 42). ' [And the wind ceared] and there was a great calm ' (iv. 39). ' Save in his own country, [and among his own kin,] and in his own house ' (vi. 4). Such things are very frequent. He also omits un- 1 Why did both he and S. Luke have so high an estimate of Mk. as to incorporate it in their own Gospels ? Because Mk. was believed to be the mouthpiece of S. Peter, and because his Gospel emanated (as is highly probable) from the great centre of all kinds of interests— Rome. THE SOURCES xiii essential details ; e.g. ' He was with the wild beasts' (Mk. i. 13) ; ' with the hired servants ' (i. 20) ; * with James and John ' (i. 29) ; 'upon the cushion' (iv. 38); 'about 2000' (v. 13); '200 pennyworth' (vi. 37); 'so as no fuller on earth can whiten them' (ix. 3); '300 pence' (xiv. 5); the youn;^ man who fled naked (xiv. 51); 'the father of Alexander and Rufus' (xv. 21). And he frequently omits notes about the crowds which impeded Christ (Mk. i. 33, 45, ii. 2, 4, iii. 9, 10, 20, vi. 31). 4. On the other hand he frequently expands. Compare Mk. i. 7, 8 with Mt. iii. 7-12; Mk. iii. 22-26 with Mt. xii. 24-45; ^'^- ^v- ^^'^'"' ^^^- ^"'- J ^^^- ^'- ^-^^ ^^'th Mt. x. 5-42; Mk. xii. 3S-40 with Mt. xxiii. ; Mk. xiii. with Mt. xxiv.-xxv. 5. Among the many cJian^es in lani:;i/ai:;e whicli he makes the following are conspicuous ; and in considering the numbers we must remember the different length of the two Gospels. Mark has 'again' {ttoXlv) about 26 times, Matthew about 16, of which 4 are from Mark. Mark has 'straightway' (eu^i's) about 41 times, Matthew about 7, all from Mark. Mark has the historic present about 150 times, Matthew about 93, of which 21 are from Mark. And the compiler seems to have disliked the imperfect tense. He frequently turns Mark's imperfects into aorists, or avoids them by a change of expression. Comp. Mk. vi. 7, 20, 41, 56 with Mt. x. i, xiv. 5, 19, 36; and Mk. x. 48, 52 with Mt. XX. 31, 34. Such alterations are very frequent. 6. But the compiler, besides making changes of order and language, and sometimes abbreviating and sometimes expanding Mark's narrative, occasionally makes alterations in the substiUice of Mark's statements. Some of these seem to aim at greater accuracy; as the substitution of 'tetrarch' (Mt. xiv. i) for 'king' (Mk. vi. 14), the omissions of 'when Abiathar was high priest' (Mk. ii. 26), 'coming from (work in the) field' (xv. 21), 'having bought a linen cloth' (xv. 46), and perhaps the change from 'after three days' (viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 34) to 'on the third day' (Mt. xvi. 21, xvii. 23, xx. 19). I3ut other changes involve more substantial difference ; e.g. ' Levi the son of AlphKus' (ii. 14) becomes 'a man called Matthew' (Mt. ix. 9); 'Gerasenes* (v. i) becomes 'Gadarenes' (Mt, viii. 28); 'Dalmanutha' (viii. 10) becomes 'Magadan' (Mt. xv. 39). Where Mark has one demoniac (v. 2) and one blind man (x. 46), the compiler gives two (Mt. viii. 28, xx. 30). 7. Sometimes he alters the narrative of Mark in order to make the incident a more clear case of the fulfilment of prophecy. Mark has, ' Ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat ; loose him and bring him ' (xi. 2). For this he has, ' Ye shall find an ass tied and a colt with her ; loose and bring to Me ' (Mt. xxi. 2), and then he goes on to quote the XIV GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW prophecy, ' riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.' Mark says, ' They promised to give him money' (xiv. ii) ; for which the compiler substitutes, ' They weighed to him thirty pieces of silver' (xxvi. 15), which comes from Zech. xi. 12, and a litde later he quotes Zech. xi. 13, which he erroneously attributes to Jeremiah (xxvii. 9). Mark has, 'They offered Him wine mingled with myrrh' (xv. 23). In Mt. xxvii. 34 the 'myrrh' is^ changed to 'gall,' perhaps to suggest a reference to Ps. Ixix. 21. In a similar way Justin Martyr {Apol. i. 32) says that the foal of the ass was "tied to a vine," in order to make the incident a fulfilment of 'binding his foal unto the vine' (Gen. xhx. 11). 8. The compiler tones down or otnits what seems to be un- favourable to the disciples. The rebuke, 'Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?' (Mk. iv. 13) becomes a blessing in Mt. xiii. i6ff. 'For they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened' (vi. 52) is omitted. At Mk. viii. 29 the compiler inserts ' Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona,' etc. (xvi. 17-19). He omits (xvii. 4) that Peter ' wist not what to answer ' (Mk. viii. 6) ; also that they 'questioned among themselves what the rising from the dead should mean' (ix. 10). For ' they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask Him' (Mk. ix. 32) he substitutes, 'they were exceeding sorry ' (xvii. 23). For ' they disputed one with another, who was the greatest' (Mk. ix. 34) and were rebuked for so doing, he substitutes, 'the disciples came unto Jesus, saying, Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' (xviii. i). The ambitious petition of the sons of Zebedee (Mk. X. 35) is assigned to their mother (Mt. xx. 20). 'They wist not what to answer Him' (Mk. xiv. 40) is omitted (Mt. xxvi. 43). 9. Still more instructive and interesting are the cases in which the compiler tones down or omits what might encourage a low conception of the character of Christ. Reverential feeling seems to have made him shrink from the freedom with which the earlier record attributes human emotions and human limitations to our Lord. ' And when He had looked round on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart' (Mk. iii. 5) is omitted Mt. xii. 13. 'He marvelled because of their unbelief,' and ' He could there do no mighty work ' (vi. 5, 6) is changed to 'He did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief '_ (Mt. xiii. 58). 'He sighed deeply in His Spirit' (viii. 12) is omitted Mt. xvi. 4. ' He was moved with indignation ' (x. 14) is omitted Mt. xix. 14. 'Looking upon him loved him' (x. 21) is omitted Mt. xix. 21. 'Began to be greatly amazed ' (xiv. 2>Z) is changed to 'began to be sorrowful' (Mt. xxvi. 37). THE SOURCES XT The compiler also omits questions which seem to imply ignorance on the part of Christ. 'What is thy name?' (v. 9). '"who touched My garments?' (v. 30). 'How many loaves have ye?' (vi. 38). 'Why doth this generation seek a sign?' (viii. 12). 'Seest thou aught?' (viii. 23). 'What question ye with them?' (ix. 16). 'How longtime is it since this hath come unto him?' (ix. 21). 'What were ye reasoning in the way?' (ix. ^^). 'Where is My guest-chamber?' (xiv. 14). 'J'iie compiler also omits what might imply that Christ was unable to accomplish what He willed. 'Jesus could no more openly enter into a city ' (i. 45). ' He said unto him, Come forth thou unclean spirit ' (v. 8) when the demon had not yet come forth. ' He would have passed by them ' (vi. 48). ' Would have no man know it ; and He could not be hid ' (vii. 24). ' If haply He might find anything thereon ... for it was not the season of figs' (xi. 13); as if Christ did not know till He came and looked, and as if He had expected what could not be. Perhaps the change from 'drivcth Him forih' (Mk. i. 12) to 'was led up' (Mt. iv. I ) is of a similar character. To the same feeling we may attribute the remarkable change of 'Why callest thou Me good? None is good save one, even God' (x. 18), into 'Why askest thou Me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good' (Mt. xix. 17); and the probable omission (the reading is doubtful) of ' neither the Son ' Txiii. 32) in Mt. xxiv. 36. The change of 'the carpenter' (vi. 3) into ' the carpenter's son ' (Mt. xiii. 55) is of a similar kind ; and perhaps the change of ' Master, carest Thou not that we perish?' (iv, 38) into 'Save, Lord, we perish' (Mt. viii. 25). But perhaps this last change was made to shield the disciples. Side by side with this toning down of what might lessen the majesty of Christ's person is a readiness to heighten what illustrates it. When Mark says that ' they brought to Him all that were sick and them that were possessed,' and that ' He healed many and cast out many demons' (i. 32, 34), the compiler says that ' they brought to Him many possessed,' and that 'He cast out the spirits 'ivith a word, and healed alT (.\It. viii. 16). He thrice, by inserting 'from that hour,' insists that the healing word took effect immediately (ix. 22, xv. 28, xvii. 18). He makes the fig-tree wither immediately, and states that the disciples were amazed at the sudden withering, whereas Mark indicates that they did not notice the withering till next day. He omits the two miracles in which Christ used spittle as a means of healing (Mk. vii. 31, viii. 22), and he omits the convulsioys of the demoniac boy, which might imply that Christ had difficulty in healing him (Mt. ix. 20). He also represents xvi GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW Jairus' daughter as being raised by merely taking her hand : no word is recorded (ix. 25).! These nine classes of changes, which by no means exhaust the subject, strongly confirm the generally accepted view that the Gospel according to S. Mark is the earlier. We can see in the majority of cases why the change from Mark to Matthew has been made. Assume that Matthew is primary, and the changes to what Mark gives us would be unintelligible. More- over there is the fact that some of the changes made m Matthew are found in Luke also. That again points to Mark being the CtirliGst. The consideration of the material which is common to both Matthew and Luke, but is not found in Mark, does not lead to such sure results; and a variety of hypotheses are possible, (i) Both the compiler of Matthew and 'the beloved physician may have used the same collection of Utterances, translated from the Hebrew of S. Matthew the Apostle. (2) S. Luke may have used a collection similar to the one used by the compiler, but varying somewhat from it. (3) Each may have used several such collections, having a good deal of common material ; and S Luke knew of the existence of many such documents. (4) Each may have drawn from oral traditions, which to • a large extent had become stereotyped. (5) S. Luke may have seen the Gospel according to Matthew. With our present knowledge, certainty is impossible. That S. Luke and the compiler of Matthew used Mark, pretty nearly as we have it, is certain ; that they had other and similar materials, is certain ; and that each used materials which the other did not use, and perhaps did not know, is also certain. Beyond that, all is more or less reasonable conjecture. That each of them used Mark as we have it, is a reasonable conjecture; and Burkitt agrees with Wellhausen that " Mark was known to both the other Synoptists in the same form and with the same contents as we have it now " {The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 64). But perhaps it would be more accurate to say that our Mark is derived from one copy of the autograph, and that the other two Synoptists made use ot another ; and we must remember that in those days scribes were not mere copyists whose one aim was to copy accurately ; they thought that it was their duty to edit and improve what they had before them. Again, it is a reasonable conjecture that the material used by the Synoptists existed originally in Aramaic, 1 Perhaps the two demoniacs and the two bUnd men (viii. 28, xx. 30), where Mark mentions only one, may be placed under this head 2 See an excellent article on "Ihe Larly Church and the bynopUc Gospels ■' in the Journal of Theological Studies, April 1904, PP* 330-342 , also January 1909, pp. 16S, 172. THE SOURCES Xvii and that most of it had been translated into drc'ck before tiny used it. If copyists sometimes edited what they copied, much more" did Evangelists edit the materials which they used. We see this in their grouping, in their wording, and in their insertion of editorial notes. Such notes were indispensable. A writerj who has to unite in consecutive narrative anecdotes and utter- ances of which the historical connexion has been lost, must insert editorial links to form a sequence. He may or may not have indc{)endent authority for the link, but a link of some kind he must have, whether there be authority for it or not. And in some cases the discourses or narratives which he has to piece together may be said to be the authority for what is inserted, for something of the kind must have taken place, or what is recorded could not have happened. Thus, the record of a long discourse on a mount implies that the Lord went up the mount, that He had an audience, and that, when all was over. He came down again. These details, therefore, are inserted (v. i, viii. i). After charging the Apostles, He must have gone elsewhere to teach (xi. i). The same thing would happen at the end of other discourses (xiii. 53, xix. i, xxvi. i). Where there was nothing known to the contrary, it might be assumed that the Twelve understood Him (xvii. 13), even when at first they had not done so (xvi. 12). If the Evangelist felt quite certain of the meaning of our Lord's words, he might give the supposed meaning as having been actually spoken by Him (xii. 40). If a prophecy, which the Messiah must have known, seemed to be very appropriate. He might be supposed to have quoted it (ix. 13, xii. 7, xiii. 14, 15, xxiv. 30). If, at the Supper, the Twelve said to Him, one by one, ' Is it I?' then Judas must have said so, and the Lord would answer him (xxvi. 25). If the women on Easter morning found the stone already removed from the tomb, the removal must have had a cause ; and if there was an earthquake, this must have had a cause. It was reported that an Angel had been seen : then, doubtless, he was the cause (xxviii. 2-4). There are other places where we may reasonably conjecture that we are reading editorial comment rather than the reproduction of historical tradition; e.i^. xiii. 36^, xvi. 11/^, xxii. 34 ; and there may be even more than these. Editorial additions of this kind do not look like the work of an Apostle and an eye-witness. If the First Gospel, as we have it, were the production of S. Matthew, we should, as in the Fourth Gospel, have much more important additions to what is told us by S. Mark. In the feeding of the 5000, contrast the vivid details which Jn. alone gives with the trifling inferences which are peculiar to Mt. In the story of the Passion and of xviu GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW the Resurrection, the same kind of contrast will be felt. These editorial notes, therefore, are a strong confirmation of the view that only to a very limited extent can our First Gospel be regarded as the composition of the Apostle. The existence of these notes does not interfere with the substantial trustworthiness of the Gospels. Even when we have set aside all the verses which seem to be editorial, the number of them is not large, and is almost infinitesimal in comparison with the remainder. And it must be remembered that we may be mistaken about some of them, and also that some, although editorial, may be quite true. At any rate they represent what writers in a.d. 60-100 regarded as sufficiently probable to be affirmed. Plan of the Gospel. As already intimated, the framework is that of Mk. Omitting the first two chapters respecting the Birth and Infancy of the Messiah, which have no parallel in Mk., we may exhibit the correspondence, or want of correspondence, between the two Gospels section by section. If both Gospels are analysed into five main divisions, the relations of the divisions to one another will stand thus : — Mark. Matthew. i. 1-13 i. 14-vi. 13 vi. 14-ix. 50 X. 1-52 xi. i-xvi. 8 Introduction to the Gospel Ministry in Galilee Ministry in the Neighbourhood Journey through Persea to Jerusalem Last Week in Jerusalem iii. i-iv. II iv. i2-xiii. 58 xiv. i-xviii. 35 xix. I -XX. 34 xxi, i-xxviii. 8 It is in the first two divisions that Mt. makes most changes in the order of the shorter sections of which they are composed. But from xiv. i, and still more decidedly from xv. 21, he follows the order of Mk. very closely, although he both abbreviates and expands. And it should be noted that where Mt. deviates from the order of Mk., Lk. commonly follows it. Mk. is nearly always supported by either Mt. or Lk. or both : his is the original order. When we subtract from Mt. what has been derived from Mk., we have a remainder very different from that which is produced by subtracting from Lk. what has been derived from Mk. In the latter case we have not only various discourses, especially parables, which have not been recorded elsewhere, but also a large proportion of narratives, which Lk. alone has preserved. But in the case of Mt., that which remains after Mk. has been subtracted consists almost wholly of discourses, for which the compiler evidently had a great liking. The amount PLAN OF TIIK GOSPEL xix of narrative which he alone has preserved for us is not very great ; nor, with the exception of the contents of the first twi) chapters, is it, as a rule, of first-rate importance. It consists of such stories as Peter's walking on the sea, the demand for the Temple-tax, the suicide of Judas, the message of I'ilate's wife and his washing his hands, the earthtiuake and the resurrection of the saints, the setting of a watch at the sepulchre and the subsequent bribing of the guards. What the Evangelist chiefly has at heart is to add to Mk.'s narratives of the doiti^s;s of the Messiah a representative summary of the teaching of the Messiah. 'From that time began Jesus to preach' (iv. 17). 'He opened His mouth and taught them' (v. 2). 'He departed thence to teach and preach ' (xi. i). ' He taught them in their synagogue ' (xiii. 54). 'And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom' (ix. 35). Statements such as these show clearly the writer's deep interest in all that the Messiah said; and the number of sayings which he has collected shows this still more. In this presentation of the words of Christ in this Gospel the Evangelist is fond of gathering into one discourse a number of shorter sayings, as may be seen from comparison with S. Luke, who has these same sayings scattered about, in various con- nexions, in his Gospel. The chief example of this is the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. v,-vii.). But there are other instances of what seems to be a similar process, making at least seven in all. There is the address to the Apostles (x. 5-42); the collection of parables (xiii.); the discourse on the little child and the sayings which follow it (xviii.); the three parables uf warning to the hierarchy (xxi. 28-xxii. 14); the Woes against the Pharisees (xxiii.); and the discourse on the Last Things (xxiv., xxv.). To these we may perhaps add the discourse about John the Baptist, which is grouped with other sayings (xi. 4-19; 20-30). Eive of these seven or eight discourses are clearly marked off, as we shall see, by the Evangelist himself. It is often pointed out that in this Gospel incidents and sayings are frequently arranged in numerical groups of three, five, or seven. Triplets are very common. The opening genealogy is artificially compressed into three divisions, each having two sevens in it. There are three events of the Childhood, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egy[)t, and the return (ii. 1-23); three temptations (iv. i-ii); three examples of righteousness, alms, prayer, and fasting (vi. 1-18); three prohibitions, Hoard not, Judge not. Give not what is holy to the dogs (vi. 19-vii. 6); under ' Hoard not ' there are three aims, the heavenly treasure, the single eye, and the banishment XX GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW of anxiety (vi. 19-34); threefold 'Be not anxious' (vi. 25; 3 r ; 34) ; three commands, Ask, Enter by the narrow gate, Beware of false prophets (vii. 7-20); three pairs of contrasts, the broad and narrow way, the good and bad trees, and the wise and foolish builders (vii. 13 ; 17 ; 24-27) ; threefold 'in Thy Name' (vii. 22); three miracles of healing, leprosy, palsy, fever (viii. 1-15); three miracles of power, storm, demoniacs, sin (viii. 23-ix. 8); three miracles of restoration, health, Ufe, sight (ix. 8-34); threefold 'Fear not' (x. 26; 28; 31); threefold 'is not worthy of Me' (x. 37, 38); three cavils of the Pharisees (xii. 2 ; 14 ; 24) ; three signs to the Pharisees, Jonah, Ninevites, and Queen of the South (xii. 38-42); 'empty, swept, and garnished ' (xii. 44) ; three parables from vegetation. Sower, Tares, and Mustard-seed (xiii. 1-32); three parables of warning (xxi. 28-xxii. 14); three questioners, Pharisees, Sadducees, and lawyer (xxii. 15 ; 23 ; 35) ; three powers with which God is to be loved, heart, soul, and mind (xxii. 37). In ch. xxiii. we have numerous triplets : ' Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites {passim) ; feasts, synagogues, and market-places (6) ; teacher, father, and master (8-10), Temple and gold, altar and gift, heaven and throne (16-22); tithing of mint, dill, and cummin contrasted with judgment, mercy and faith (23); tithing of trifles, straining out gnats, cleansing of cup and platter (23-26); prophets, wise men, and scribes (34). In the remaining chapters we have other examples ; three parables against negligence, the Faithful and the Unfaithful Slaves, the Ten Virgins, and the Talents (xxiv. 45- XXV. 30); three addresses to the Three in Gethsemane (xxvi. 38 ; 40, 41 j 45, 46) ; three prayers in Gethsemane (xxvi. 39 ; 42 ; 44) ; three utterances at the Arrest, to Judas, Peter, and the multitudes (xxvi. 50; 52-54); three shedders of innocent blood, Judas, Pilate, and the people (xxvii. 4; 24; 25); three signs to attest the Messiahship of the Crucified, the rending of the veil, the earthquake, the resurrection of saints (xxvii. 51-53); three groups of witnesses to the Resurrection, the women, the soldiers, and the disciples (xxviii. i-io; 11-15 ; 16-20); the last words to the Church, a claim, a charge, and a promise (xxviii. 18-20) ; of which three the second was threefold, to make disciples, to baptize, and to teach (19, 20); of which three the second again has a triple character : ' into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (19). Many of these thirty-eight instances have no parallel passage in Mk. or Lk. In many of the others it will be found that the parallel passage omits one or more member of the triplet or adds one to it ; e.g. Lk. (vi. 43-49) has the good and bad trees, and the wise and foolish builders, but not the broad and narrow way. Elsewhere (xiii. 24) he has the narrow door, but no broad or PLAN OK TlIK I'.OSl'EL XXl wide door. For 'judgment, mercy, and fuilh' Lk. (xi. 42) has 'judgment and the love of God.' He lias (xi. 39, 42) the cleansing of cup and dish, and the tithing of small herlis, hut he omits the straining out of the gnat. For the threefold ' He not anxious,' he has (xii. 22, 29, 32) 'Be not anxious,' 'Seek not,' ' Fear not.' On the other hand, for heart, soul, and mind he has (x. 27) heart, soul, strength, and mind. There can be no doubt that some of these triplets were in the sources which both Mt. and Lk. used, for both Gospels have them. In a few cases it is just possible that Lk. derived them from Mt. ; but it is much more reasonable to assiLi,n their origin to the sources ; e.s^. the three temptations i)robably come from some unknown source ; the three addresses to the Three in Gethsemane are in Mk., though not in Lk., and may be assigned to Mk. ; and there are other tri])lets, not included in the above list, which are in both Mt. and Lk. and may be attributed to the sources which they used; e.g. 'ask,' 'seek,' 'knock' (vii. 7; Lk. xi. 9) ; reed, man in soft clothing, prophet (xi. 7-9 ; Lk. vii. 24-26) ; Chorazin, Bethsaidn, Capernaum (xi. 20-23 ; Lk. x. 13-15). But, when all deductions are made, there remains a considerable number of triplets which Mt. has constructed either by grouping or by modifications in wording. Groups oT five are less common. Mt. has marked off for us five great discourses, each of which is closed by him with the same formula, 'It came to pass when Jesus finished' {iyeitro ore eriXeaev 6 'hj(To\<;), vii. 28, xi. I, xiii. 53, xix. i, xxvi. i. These five discourses are : the Sermon on the Mount ; the address to the Apostles ; the collection of parables ; the discourse on the little child with the sayings which follow it; and the great apocalyptic discourse. The Sermon on the Mount contains five corrections of inadequate conceptions about the Law, each of them introduced by the words, 'But I say unto you' (v. 22, 28, 34, 39, 44) ; and in the apocalyi^tic discourse there are two par.ibles in which the number five is prominent, the five wise and the five foolish virgins, and the five talents which gained other five. In chapters xxi. and xxii. there are five ciuestions ; about authority, tribute, resurrection, groat commandments, and the Son of David. Of the five great discourses, the address to the Twelve (x. 5-15 ; 16-23 > 24-33 ; 34-39 > 40-42) and the great eschatological discourse (xxiv. 5-14; 15-51 ; xxv. 1-13 ; 14-30 ; 31-46) can be divided into five paragraphs; but the latter can also be conveniently divided into seven (xxiv. 5-14; 15-28; 29-31; 32-51; xxv. 1-13; 14-30; 3i-4^>)- The discourses in ch. xi. (7-19 ; 20-24 ; 25-30) and in ch. xviii. (3-14 ; 15-20; 2 1-35) fall readily into three divisions ; but by further subdivision they can be made into five. The Sermon on the Mount can also be XXU GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW divided into five parts (v. 3-16; T7-48; vi. 1-18; 19-vii. 6, 7-27), and some of these parts can be readily subdivided into five or three paragraphs. We have seen that this Gospel can be placed side by side with Mk. and analysed into five main divisions. This means omitting the first two chapters, which have no parallel in Mk. If we add these two chapters as an Introduction, and break the last great division into two (xxi. i-xxv. 46 ; xxvi. i-xxviii. 20), thus separating the last days of work from the Passion, Death, and Resurrection, we have a Gospel in seven main divisions. But the clearest examples of grouping by seven are the seven parables in ch. xiii. and the seven woes in ch. xxiii. Some find seven Beatitudes at the opening of the Sermon, and seven petitions in the Lord's Prayer. It is also possible to find a group of seven in vi. 25-34 (see notes there); and there are some who think that the separate instructions to the Twelve have been gathered up by Mt. "into a single sevenfold com- mission." It has been already pointed out that a fivefold division seems to fit this discourse well ; but, if we are to find a seven in the Mission of the Twelve, we shall find it more securely in the seven centres of work which resulted from it, — our Lord, and six pairs of Apostles. It is plain from what has just been stated that groups of five and groups of seven are far less frequent in this Gospel than groups of three. Even if we were to count all the possible instances of five and of seven, they would hardly amount to half the number of triplets. The five great discourses, the seven parables, and the seven woes are evidently intentional groupings. Many of the others which have been suggested may be intended also ; but we cannot be certain. There is nothing fanciful or mystical in these numerical rarangements. Groups of three and of seven are frequent in the O.T., and were in use before its earliest books were written. Three is the smallest number which has beginning, middle, and end, and it is composed of the first odd number added to the first even number. The days of the week, corresponding to phases of the moon, made seven to be typical of plurality and completeness. Although seven is a sacred number often in the O.T. and sometimes in the N.T., e.g. in the Apocalypse, yet there is no clear instance of this use in the Gospels. All that the Evangelist need be supposed to imply by these numerical groupings is orderly arrangement. Everything in the Gospel history took place and was spoken €ro-xr?/AoVws /cat Kara rafiv (i Cor. xiv. 40); and everything must be narrated 'decently and in order.' PLAN OF TIIF, COSPKI. xxiii It is possible that tliLsc groupings into threes, or fives, or sevens, or tens would aid the memory of both teacliers and learners, and would in this way be usiful to catechists. It is also possible that the I'.vangelist had this end in view in making these numerical groups. Sir John Hawkins {I font Synoftiac, p. 131) favours such a theory. "This seems to have been done in Jewish fashion, and i)erhaps especially for the use of Jewish Christian catechists and catechumens. . . . When wcj think of the five books of the Pentateuch, the five books of/ Psalms, the five Megilloth, the five divisions which Dr. Edersheim and others trace in Ecclesiasticus, the five parts which Mr. Charles as well as previous scholars see in the Book of Enoch ({)p. 25-32; Hastings' DB. art. 'Enoch'), and tlie five Pereqs which make up the Pirqe Aloth, it is hard to believe that it is by accident that we find in S. Matthew the five timc« repeated formula about Jesus 'ending' His sayings (vii. 2S, xi. I, xiii. 53, xix. i, xxvi. i). Are we not reminded of the colophon which still closes the second book of Psalms, 'The prayers of David the son of Jesse arc ended' (I's. Ixxii. 20)?'" Comp. also, 'The words of Job are ended' (Job xxxi. 40). Of course the fact that Mt. consciously made five great discourses does not prove that he did so in order to assist the memory of catechists and catechumens, but some of his numerical groups may have had this aim. Other instances of the occurrences of these and other numbers in this Gospel might be cited ; but they are of less jmportance. Some of them are probably to be understood quite literally. It so happened that there were three, or five, or seven ; as in Peter's proposal for three tabernacles, or the five loaves and the five thousand, or the seven loaves and the seven l)askets. In other cases it is a round number, as in Peter's (|ucstion, 'Until seven times?' But the examjjles given above fully justify the statement that these numerical arrangements are a characteristic of the First Oospel. It is this intense desire for what is orderly that has caused the Evangelist to gather together detached sayings of the Messiah y» and group them into continuous discourses. The large pro'^ portion of di.scourses in this Oospel has often been pointed out, and it is one of the reasons which quickly made the (Jos| rl so much more popular than the earlier (Jospel of Mark. In Mk. about half consists of discourses, in Lk. about two thirds, in Mt. about three-fourths. The main portion of Mt., the ministry in Galilee and the neighbourhood (iv. 12 xviii. 35), is expanded from Mk. chiefly by the in.sertion of tliscourscs, and it seems to be arranged on a fairly symmetrical plan. I. Opening activities, giou(Kd round a prophecy of Isaiah ( XXIV GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW (Mt. iv. 15, 16), and ending with the Sermon on the Mount (iv. i2-vii. 29). 2. Ten acts of Messianic Sovereignty, grouped round a prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. viii. 17), and ending with the Charge to the Apostles (viii. i-x. 42). 3. Many utterances of Messianic Wisdom, grouped round a prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. xii. 18-21), and ending in seven illustrations of teaching by parables, which are grouped round Ps. Ixxviii. 2 (xi. i-xiii. 58). 4. Continued activities in and near Galilee, grouped round a prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. xv. 8, 9), and ending in the discourses on offences and forgiveness (xiv. i-xviii. 35). Thus, chapters v.-vii., X., xiii., and xviii. seem to be intended as conclusions to definite sections of the Gospel, and they consist almost entirely of discourses. The compiler's preference for discourses is shown, not only by his insertion of them, but by his abbreviation of mere narrative. He frequently, as we have seen, omits details. He cares little about local colour or chronological order. His aim is to produce a definite impression — the Messianic dignity of Jesus. This aim is clear from the outset. ' Book of the generation of Jesus, Messiah, Son of David, Son of Abraham' (i. i). The descent from David is emphasized (xii. 23, xxi. 9, 15, xxii. 42) as indicating that He is the Messianic King (ii. 2, xxi. 5, xxvii. II, 29, 37, 42). The book is at once Jewish and anti-Jewish. It is manifestly written by a Jew for Jews. Its Jewish tone is conspicuous throughout. Palestine is 'the Land of Israel' (ii. 20, 21); its people are 'Israel' (viii. 10) or 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel ' (x. 6, xv. 24) ; its towns are ' the cities of Israel' (x. 23); and God is 'the God of Israel' (xv. 31). Jerusalem is ' the holy city' (iv. 5, xxvii. 53), an expression found in Is. xlviii. 2, lii. i ; Dan. ix. 24 ; Tob. xiii. 9 ; but in the N.T. peculiar to this Gospel and the equally Jewish book of Revelation (xi. 2, xxi. 2, 10, xxii. 19). References to the fulfilment of Jewish prophecies abound (i. 22, ii. 6, 15, 17, 23, iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, xiii. 14, 35, xxi. 4, xxiv. 15, xxvi. 31, 54, 56, xxvii. 9). It is evidently the aim of the Evangelist to let his fellow-Christians of the house of Israel know the certainty of that in which they had been instructed, viz. that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah foretold in prophecy. And the book is antijezvish in showing that, although the Messiah was of them, and came to them first (x. 5, 6), yet by their rejection of Him they had lost their birthright of priority. The old exclusive barriers had been broken down, and the Kingdom of Israel had become a Kingdom of the Heavens, open to all nations. In order to enjoy the Messianic glory, the Jew must cease to be a THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL xxv Jew, must become a Clirisliaii, with Jesus as his Messiah, and be a subject in a Kingdom that was no longer Jewish. 'I'luis this Gospel represents a moment of transition, a passage from the peculiar people to the whole race of mankind. On the one hand, the Messiah is come, 'not to destroy but to fulfil' (v. 17, iS), and,' as regards His work on earth, is sent only to Israel (xv. 24). But, on the other hand, the Law and the Prophets find their limit in the Baptist (xi. 12, 13); the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (xii. S) ; there is no moral pollution in food (xv. II, 19); the Kingdom is about to be transferred toothers (xxi. 43, comp. viii. 11, 12); and the Gospel of the Kingdom is to be preached in all the world to all peoples (xxi v. 14). And thus the book, which opens within the narrow limits of Jewish thought, with the origin of the Messiah as ' Son of David ' and 'Son of Abraham' (i. i), ends with the great commission of the Messiah to the ' little flock ' of Jews that had not shared in the national rejection of Him, ' Go ye and make disciples of all the nations' (xxviii. 19). The Christology of the First Gospel. We have just seen that the impression which this Evangelist desires to enforce is that of the rights of sovereignty which Jesus possessed, in the first place over the ancient people of Israel, and, after their rejection of Him as the Messianic King, over all the nations of the earth. The King of Israel by right of descent becomes, as Messiah, the King of the world. For He is not only the Son of Abraham and the Son of David, but also the Son of Man and the Son of God. The Son 0/ ^fan. It is specially in the First Gospel that our Lord is set before us as the Son of Man. The ex[)ression occurs fretjuently in all four Gospels ; about 80 times in all, of which 40 or more times are distinct occasions. And the expression is invariably used by Christ, and of Himself. No Evangelist speaks of Him as the Son of Man, or represents any one as addressing Him as the Son of Man, or as mentioning Him by this designation. Our Lord, like many Jews of Palestine in His day, spoke both Aramaic and Greek, but He, no doubt, commonly s[)oke Aramaic. From this fact, and from the assumption that, so far as we know, the difference between ' son of man' in the sense of 'human being' (vlo? avOpi^irov^b avOpwTTos) and ' the Son of Man ' (o v(os mv ayOinLnov) could not be expressed in Aramaic,' it has been argued that our Lord * This is assumption, and not fact. It is more rcasonahlc to nssumr, from the use in Danii-1 and the Book of Enoch, th.-it it must have been possible to express this dilTcrcncc in Aramaic (sec Allen, .SV. Matthevj, p. Ixxiii). XXVI GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW never called Himself ' the Son of Man.' In passing, it may be urged that Christ sometimes spoke Greek, and that it is possible that He may have used the very words 6 vtos rov arOpwTrov of Himself. But, in any case, the conclusion drawn from the linguistic peculiarities of Aramaic is far short of demonstration, and it is incredible. It is contradicted by the whole of the evidence that bears directly on the subject. It assumes that, although He never used the title, all four Evangelists have insisted upon giving it to Him repeatedly : and yet in the Gospels we find that /Aej> never use it of Him, but report that Ife frequently used it. On any theory of authorship, the Gospels represent the memories of people who must have known whether Christ used this remarkable expression of Himself or not. And we may be sure that, the further we get away from the memories of the first generation of disciples, the less likelihood there would be of any such title being invented and put into Christ's mouth. Something expressing His Divinity rather than His humanity would have been chosen. We may regard the unanimous testimony of the four Gospels as decisive respecting His use of the term; and His use of it explains that of Stephen (Acts vii. 56), who would know the Gospel tradition. The compiler of Matthew found the expression used 14 times in Mark; and he has kept all these.^ Besides these cases, he uses it 19 times. That means that he found it in l>of/i his two main sources, Mark and the Logia or collection of Utterances (Q) ; for most of the additional 19 must have come from this second source. That again is strong evidence that the phrase was used by Christ; and also that our Evangelist welcomed the phrase as significant and appropriate; for his treatment of Mark shows that he did not scruple to omit, or even to alter, what he did not approve. The passage in Daniel, ' One like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days,' and received a dominion which is universal and eternal (vii. 13, 14),^ " Doubts have been thrown, on linguistic grounds, upon the use by our Lord of the title Son of Man with reference to Himself. Those doubts have receded ; and I do not think that they will ever be urged with so much insistence again. . . . Here is an expression which can only go back to our Lord Himself, and it bears speaking testimony to the fidelity with which His words ha^e been preserved " (Sanday, T/ie Ltfe of Christ in Kecent Research, pp. 123-125 ; see also pp. 65-69, 100, 159, 190). ^ There is an apparent exception in xvi. 21, which is no real exception, for the term is used by anticipation in xvi. 13. In 8 cases the phrase is common to Mt., Mk., and Lk. In 8 it is common to Mt. and Lk. In 9 it is found in Mt. alone. In 8 it is found in Lk. alone. Jn. has it 12 times. The total for the four Gospels is 81 times. * Dan. vii. 18 seems to show that this ' Son of Man,' like the ' beasts,' is TllK CIIKISTOLOGY OK TllK KIKST (JOSIKL xxvii and several passages in Enocli (xlvi., li. 4, liii. 6, cv. 2), which possibly are, but probably are not, post-Christian, show that the phrase had come to be used of a Divine Messiah. But there is nothing specially Christian in this supernatural Messiah. He is the Son of God, but He is not the Word, not (iod. That He is to live on earth, or has lived on earth, and died, and risen again, is not hinted. It is a Jewish, pre-Christian Messiah that is indicated by ' the Son of Man.' But it may be securely asserted that the term was not commonly recognized among the Jews as a name for the Messiah. In that case, our Lord, who carefully abstained from calling Himself the Messiah, would never, until He had revealed Himself as the Messiah, have used the expression of Himself. It is clear that that revelation was made very gradually. Up to the question at Crcsarea Philippi (Mt. xvi. 13-16 = Mk. viii. 2 7-29 = Lk. ix. 18-20) He had not so revealed Himself: and even then He forbade that this partial revelation should be made public (Mt. xvi. 20 = Mk. viii. 30 = Lk. ix. 2 1 ; Mt. xvii. 9 = Mk. ix. 9 ; comp. Lk. ix. 36). Yet there are passages in which ' the Son of Man ' is used by our Lord of Himself before the incident at Coesarea Philii)pi. There are nine such in Matthew. As our Evangelist so often groups things independently of chronology, we may believe that some of these nine cases, though placed before Caesarea Philippi, really took place afterwards. But that can hardly be the case with Mt. ix. 6 = Mk. ii. io = Lk. V. 24, or Mt. xii. 8 = Mk. ii. 28 = Lk. vi. 5, or Mt. xii. 32 = Lk. xii. 10. We may be confident, therefore, that as Jesus used this term of Himself so early in the Ministry, it cannot have been one which was generally known as a name for the Messiah. Our Lord seems to have chosen the expression because it had mysterious associations which were not generally known, and because it was capable of receiving additional associations of still greater importance. It was like His parables, able to conceal Divine truth from the unworthy, while it revealed more and more to those whose hearts were being prepared to receive it. It insisted upon the reality of His humanity and His unicjue position as a member of the human race. It hinted at supernatural birth. It harmonized with Messianic claims, if it did not at once suggest them. And, when it became connected with the future glories of the Second Advent, it revealed what it had previously veiled respecting the present office and eternal preexistence of Him in whom human nature found its highest and most complete expression. Thus it came to indicate the to be understood collectively. They are tyrannical dynasties ; he is the 'saints of the Most High.' but in the I'salms of Solomon (xvii, xviii) and in ihc Apoc. of Baruch (Ixxii. 2, 3), as in luK>th, we clearly have an individual, who is both King and Judge. xxviii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW meeting-point between what was hunaanly perfect with what was perfectly Divine.^ The Son of God. Apart from the Fourth Gospel (v. 25, ix. 35 [?], X. 36, xi. 4), we could not be certain that our Lord used this expression of Himself; and even with regard to those passages we must allow for the possibility that S. John is giving what he believed to be Christ's meaning rather than the words actually used. In Mt. xvi. 16, for 'the Christ, the Son of the living God,' Mk. has only 'the Christ,' and Lk. 'the Christ of God.' In Mt. xxvi. 63 we are on surer ground ; there ' the Christ, the Son of God,' is supported by Mk.'s 'the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,' and by Lk.'s 'the Son of God.' And we have it in the voice from heaven at the Baptism (iii. 17 = Mk. i. 11 = Lk. iii. 22) and at the Transfiguration (xvii. 5 = Mk. ix. 7 = Lk. ix. 35); in the devil's challenge (iv. 2)^ 6 = Lk. iv. 3, 9) ; in the cries of the demoniacs (viii. 29 = Mk. v. 7 = Lk. viii. 28; comp. Mk. iii. 11); and in the centurion's exclamation (xxvii. 54 = Mk. xv. 39). But, allowing for all critical uncertainties, we may regard it as securely established that expressions of this kind were used both by our Lord and of Him durijig His life on earth. Dispassionate study of the Gospels, even without the large support which they receive in this particular from the Epistles, will convince us that Jesus knew that He possessed, and was recognized by some of those who knew Him as possessing, a relation of Sonship to God such as was given to no other member of the human race. A merely moral relationship, in which Jesus reached a higher grade than other holy persons, is quite inadequate to explain the definite statements and general tone of the Gospels. To take a single instance ; the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen indicates clearly His own view of His relationship to God who sent Him. There had been many sent, but all the others were servants. He is the only ' son,' the sole ' heir,' the one whose rejection and murder at once produces a crisis fatal to the wrong-doers. As Dalman says, Jesus " made it indubitably clear that He was not only a but the Son of God." ^ The sovereignty of which He was the heir was the sovereignty over the world and over all its tenants. It is evident that the editor of this Gospel is fully convinced of the appropriateness of this far-reaching expression. If 'the Son of the living God ' has been added by him to Peter's con- fession (xvi. 16), it is because he felt that the addition was ^ See Hastings' DB. ii. pp. 622 ff. and iv. pp. 579 ff. ; also Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, pp. 92 ff. ; Calmes, Evatigile selon S. fea>i, pp. 159 ff.; Zahn on Mt. viii. 18; Drummond in journal of Theological. Studies, April and July 1901. - The Words of Jesus, p. 2S0. See also Hastings' DB. ii. pp. 850 f., and iv. pp. 570 ff. ; Sanday, The Life of Christ in Rdent Research, pp. 130-133; Gore, The New Theology and the Old Religion, pp. 87-95. THE CHRISTOLOGV OF THE FIRST GOSFEL xxix necessary in order to express the full meaning of what the Apostle said. >Iore often than any other Evangelist he records that the designation 'Son of God ' was applied to Him (ii. 15, iii. 17, iv. 3, 6, viii. 29, xiv. 2^, xyi. 16, xvii. 5, xx-\'i. 63, xxvii. 40, 43, 54). He records the crucial passage in which He speaks of His relation to God as one of Sonship in a unicjue sense (xi. 25-27), and also the two occasions on which God acknowledged Him as His Son, His Beloved (iii. 17, xvii. 5). And for this he prepares his readers by telling of His supernatural birth of a virgin, by conception of the Spirit of God, so that by prophetic sanction He may be called ' God-with-us ' (i. 20-23). And the Evangelist finds that this pro(ihetic sanction extends throughout the career of the Son of God ; in the chief events of His infancy (ii. 5, 15, 17, 23), in the chief scene of His Ministrj' (iv. 14), and in the chief details of it. He finds it in John's proclamation of His coming (iii. 3), in His healings (viii. 17), His retirement from public notice (xii. 17), the hardness of His hearers' hearts (xiii. 14), His consequent use of parables (xiii. 35), His riding into JerusaUm (xxi. 4), the flight of His disciples (xxvi. 31), His capture by His enemies (xxvi. 54, 56), and even in the way in which the money paid for His blood was spent (xxvii. 9). He is ministered to by Angels (iv. 11), who are at His disposal (xiii. 41, xxiv. 31), to use or not as He wills (xxvi. 53), and who will attend Him in His future glory (xvi. 27, xxv. 31). But the final purpose of the Son's mission was not simply to minister to the needs of men in body and soul, but ' to give His life a ransom for many ' (xx. 28) by shedding His blood for them (xxvi. 28). In the latter passage he adds to Mark's report that the blood is shed ' unto remission of sins.' ^ ' "Jesus felt that He stood in sutr/i closeness of communion with God Ike Father as belonged to none before or after Him. He was conscious of speaking ihe last and decisive word : He felt that what lie did was final, and that no one would come after Him. The certainty and simple force of His work, the sunshine, clearness and freshness of His whole attitude rest upon this founda- tion. We cannot eliminate from His personality, without aestroying it, the trait of superprophetic consciousness of the accotiiplisher to whose person the flight of the ages and the whole destiny of His followers is linked . . , Let us contemplate this sovereign sense of leadership by which Jesus was possessed, and the inimitable surencss with which it unfolded itself in every direction. He knew how to value the authorities of the past, but //e placed Himself above them. He was more of account than kings and prophets, than David, Solomon, and the Temple. The tradition of the elders He met with His ' But I say unto you," and even Moses was not an authority to whom He gave unqualified submission." As Sanday points out, these are extraordinary admissions to be made by a writer (Boussct) who contends that the life of our Lord did not overstep the limits of the purely human. The facts, as Housset himself states them, flatly contradict his own theory ( The Life of Christ in Recent Research^ pp. 189-191). XXX GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW The writer of this Gospel shows us very plainly what Jesus Huiiself thought of His own relations to God and to man. He sets Himself above the Law (v. 22-44, xii. 8) and the Temple (xn 6), and above all the Prophets from Moses to the Baptist, for John is greater than the Prophets (xi. 9, 11), and He is greater than John (iii. 14, 15, xi. 4-6). The revelation which He brings surpasses all that has been revealed before (xi. 27), and this revelation is to be made known, not merely to the Chosen People (x. 6, xv. 24), but to all the nations (viii. 11, xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19). He is the Source of truth and of peace (XI. 28-30) ; and although He Himself is man, He can speak of all other men as sinners (vii. 1 1, xxvi. 45). When the Baptist shrinks from admitting Him to his baptism. He does not say that He too has need of cleansing, but He quiets John's scruples by quite other means (iii. 15). He prays (xiv. 23), and prays for Himself (xxvi. 39, 42, 44), but He never prays to be forgiven. He bids others to pray for forgive- ness, and for deliverance from temptation (vi. 12, 13, xxvi. 41) but He never asks them to pray for Him. Without proof, and withont reserve, He makes enormous claims upon the devotion of His followers (viii. 22, x. 37, 38, xvi. 24), and He says that the way to save one's life is to lose it for His sake (x. 39, xvi. 25). He confers on Peter (xvi. 19) and on all the Apostles (xviii. 19) authority to prohibit and to allow in the Church which He is about to found ; and in the Kingdom which He has announced as at hand(iv. 17) He promises to His Apostles thrones (xix. 28). The Church is His Church (xvi. 18), the elect in it are His elect (xxiv. 31), the Kingdom is His Kingdom (xvi. 28), and the Angels in it are His Angels (xiii. 41, xxiv. 31). Even during His life on earth He has authority to forgive sins (ix. 6), and by His death He will reconcile the sinful race of mankind to God (xxvi. 28). And all this is httle more than the beginning. On the third day after His death He will rise again (xvi. 21, xvii. 23, XX. 19), and then He will possess God's authority in heaven and in earth, and also His power of omnipresence (xxviii, 18, 20). At a later period He will come in glory to judge the whole world, to reward righteousness and to punish unrepented sin (xvi. 27, xxiv. 30, 31, 47, 51); and the character of His judgments will depend upon the way in which men have behaved towards those who are their brethren, but in His eyes are His brethren ?nd even as Himself (xxv. 31-46).! In most of these passages Mt. is supported by Mk. (ii. 10, 28, 111. II, 12, viii. 29-31, 34-38, ix. 9, 31, 37, X. 34, 45, xii. 6, xiii. 26, 27, xiv. 35-39, 62, xv. 34, xvi. 6), to say nothing of the still stronger support to be found in the Fourth Gospel. 1 See Briggs, The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, pp. 199-206, 222. THE DATE xxxi We cannot suppose that utterances sucli as these, so numerous, so various, ami yet so harmonious, arc the invention of this or that Evangehst. Tliey are beyond the invention of any Evangehst, and few of them are anticipated in the O.T. In particular, there is no hint in the O.T. of a second coming of the Messiah ; it cannot, therefore, be maintained that either Jesus or the Evangehsts derived the idea of His coming again from type or prophecy. And what makes the hypolliesis of invention all the more incredible is the combination in Jesus of this consciousness of Divine powers with a character of deep humility, reticence, and restn^int. While uttering these amazing claims with a serenity which implies that they are indisputable. He is still meek and lowly of heart (xi. 29), always charging those who in some measure know who He is that they shall not make Him known (xii. 16, xvi. 20, xvii. 9), bidding those whom He has healed not to spread abroad His fame (viii. 4, ix. 2)0, xii. 16), declaring that He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister (xx. 28), and in His ministering quite ready to be stigmatized as the friend of tax-collectors and sinners (ix. 11, xi. 19). If, then, criticism accepts the record of His claims and of His actions as substantially true, how are we to explain them ? Was He an ecstatic dreamer, a fanatic under the influence of a gigantic delusion? This question may be answered by another. Is it credible that the limitless benefits which have blessed, and are daily blessing, those who believe that Jesus is what He claimed to be, are the outcome of a gigantic delusion ? The Incarnation explains all that is so perplexing and mysterious in the records of Christ's words and works, and in the subsequent history of the society which He founded. But nothing less than Divinity will explain the developments in the life of Jesus and of His Church. If, therefore, the Incarnation is a fiction, if it is not true that God became flesh and dwelt among us, then we must assume that flesh became God, and that hyp )thesis is, intellectually, a far greater difficulty than God's becoming man. To men of this generation the Incarnation may seem to be impossible, but with God all things are possible.^ The Date. The time at which the unknown Evangelist compiled this Gospel can be fixed, within narrow limits, with a high degree of probability. All the evidence that we have falls into {)lace, if 'Sec the notes on v. 21, 22, 48, vii. 23, 24-29, viii. 21, 22, ix. 12, X. 16-18, 32, 39, xi. 23, 24, xii. 41, XX. 28, xxii. 34, xxviii. 18; Gore, Tht New Theology and the Old Keligion, pp. 103-108. xxxii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW we suppose that be completed his work shortly before or (more probably) shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. He used Mark and a translation of the Logia which had been collected in ' Hebrew ' by Matthew. These materials cannot well have been in existence much, if at all, before a.d. 65. The parenthesis in Mk. xiii. 14, 'let him that readeth understand,' is probably not to be taken as our Lord's words, directing attention to the saying in Daniel, for in Mark Daniel is not mentioned ; the parenthetical words are those of the Evangelist, warning the reader of his Gospel that, although the time to which the sign refers has not yet come, yet it must be near. This seems to give us the time of the first march of the Romans on Jerusalem (a.d. 66) as about the date for S. Mark's Gospel.^ In xxiv. 15 our Evangelist retains the parenthesis. But we cannot use the same argument as to his date. He does mention ' Daniel the Prophet,' and may understand the parenthesis as directing attention to the prophecy ; or he may have retained Mark's warning, although the reason for it had ceased to exist. Never- theless, it is possible that both Gospels were completed before A.D. 70. ( ' But our Evangelist seems to have believed that the Second Advent would take place very soon, and would be closely con- nected with the tribulation caused by the destruction of Jerusalem (xvi. 28, xxiv. 29, 34). A belief which caused our Lord's words to be so arranged as to produce this impression, would not have long survived the events of a.d. 70, When a year or two had passed, and the Second Advent had not taken place, the belief would be found to be erroneous. Therefore, while we can hardly place this Gospel as early as a.d. 65, we can hardly place it as late as a.d. 75. And, on the whole, a little after 70 is rather more probable than a little before. The later date gives more time for the publication of Mark and of the Logia in Greek. Moreover, 'the king was wroth, and he sent his arniies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city ' (xxii. 7) may be a direct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded as a judgment on the murderers of the Messiah. ■ And there is nothing in the Gospel which requires us to place it later than a.d. 75. The famous utterance, ' on this rock I will build My church' (xvi. 18), must not be judged by the ideas which have gathered round it. ' On this rock I will build My Israel ' — the new Israel, that is to grow out of thp old one, — is the meaning, a meaning quite in accordance with thoughts 1 The statement that Eusebius in his Chronicle places the composition of the First Gospel a.d. 41= Abraham 2057, is untrue. The date of no Gospel is given in the Chronicle. For other statements see the Tournal of Theological Studies, Jan. 1905, p. 203. THK DATE xxxiii that were current in the first generation of Christians. Still less does ' tell it unto the Church : and if he refuse to hear the Church also' (xviii. 17) point to a late date. The local community, either of Jews or of Jewish Christians, such as existed in Palestine from the time of Christ onwards, is what is meant. This early date is of importance in weighing the historical value of the Gospel. At the time when the compiler was at work on it many who had known the Lord were still living. Most of His Apostles may have been still alive. Oral traditions about Him were still current. Documents embodying still earlier traditions were in existence, and some of them were used by our Evangelist. It is possible— indeed, it is highly probable —that the sayings of Christ, which the Evangelist got from the translation of S. ^Matthew's Logia, and which form such a large portion of the Gospel, are the very earliest information which we possess respecting our Lord's teaching. In them we get back nearest to Him, of whom those sent to arrest Him testified : ' Never man thus spake,' Oi-ScVotc cXoXt^o-cv outws avOpuiirQTOL 'dcreaOe €is Travra tol Wvr]) can hardly refer to the persecution under Antiochus. What follows these two verses seems to point to something much more com- prehensive and permanent. " And all who hate you shall rejoice at your destruction. And if ye were not to receive mercy through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers, not one of our seed should be left upon the earth." Comp. jDan v. 1 3. The passage looks Hke a fictitious prophecy made after the capture of Jerusalem in a.d. 70 ; but it is possible that it is an interpola- Till-: TK>TAMKNTS OK TIIK TWELVE rATRIARCIlS xxxvii lion inserted after tliat event, and not [lart of the original work. We must be content to leave the dale of the Hebrew original an open question, as also the date of the earliest translation into Greek. And there is also the question whether the dreek translator was a Jew or a Christian. If the latter, then the Chrisliani/ing of the Testaments may have begun at once ; but in any case, whether it began with the translator or with subse- quent copyists, it does not seem to have taken place all at one time. It is now admitted by every one that there has been consider- able manipulation of the Greek texts of the Testaments in order to give them a Christian tone. There have been changes ot wording, and there have been insertions. May not many of the cases in which the Testaments resemble the N.T. have come about in the same manner? May we not suppose that Chris- tians have assimilated the wording of the Testaments to the wording of the Gospels and l-^pistles? This possibility is all the more probable when the change or the insertion seems to have been made somewhat late, because it is found in the later, but not in the earlier authorities for the Greek text of the Testa- ments ; and this Dr. Charles himself points out (see note on Judah XXV. 4). Why may it not have taken place as soon as the Testaments began to be Christianized? If Christians would put their own words into the Testaments in order to make them testify of Christ, much more would they be likely to put the words of the N.T. into them. This hypothesis, that it is the N.T. which has inlluenced the Testaments rather than the Testaments which has influenced the N.T. has considerable advantages. It solves one difficulty which the other hypothesis fails to solve, and it avoids another difficulty into which the other hypothesis leads us. I. Why do the parallels with Mt. so greatly exceed in number the parallels with the other Gospels? In particular, why do the large majority of the passages in the Testaments which recall our Lord's teaching recall that teaching as recorded in Mt.? If Christ knew the Testaments, and adopted much of its moral instruction and language, why does this influence show itself so frequently in His sayings as reported in the First Gospel, and so seldom in His sayings as reported in the other three? If the Testaments did influence the form of Christ's teaching, this influence would be evident, if not in all Gospels alike, at any rate in Lk. almost as often as in Mt. Hut if it was the (Jospcls which influenced the Testaments, then at once we see why it was Mt. which exercised the most influence. The Gosik;! according to Matthew, as soon as it was published, became most popular. It caused the Gospel according to Mark, which xxxvni GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW was in the field before it, to be almost neglected; and the Third Gospel never attained to equal popularity. In the Christian literature of the first centuries, quotations from Mt. and allusions to Mt. zxq far more frequent than references to the other Gospels ; perhaps twice as frequent as references to Lk. or Jn., and six or seven times as frequent as references to Mk. This fact goes a long way towards showing that it is the Gospels that have influenced the Testaments. If they did so, then the influence of Mt. would be sure to be greater than that of the other three ; which is exactly what we find. 2. If the influence of the Testaments on the Gospels, on the Pauline Epistles, and on the Catholic Epistles was so great as to produce scores of similarities in thought and wording, this influence would not be likely to cease quite suddenly as soon as the N.T. was complete; it would probably have continued to work and to manifest itself in early Christian writings. But, as Dr. Charles himself points out, "the Testaments have not left much trace on Patristic literature " (p. Ixxv). He has col- lected seven apparent parallels between the Shepherd of Hernias and the Testaments, and he thinks that these suffice to show that Hermas knew and used the Testaments. The conclusion may be correct, but the evidence is not convincing. Three of the parallels may be mere coincidences ; and in two cases the agreement with passages in Scripture is closer than the agreement with the Testaments, so that we may be sure that Hermas is recalling the Bible and not the Testaments. Thus, " Do not partake of God's creature, in selfish festivity, but give a share to those who are in want" may come from Job xxxi. i6, Prov. xxii. 9, Ep. of Jer. 28, or Lk. iii. 11 ; and "Speak against no one" certainly comes from Prov. xii. 13 or Jas. iv. 11 rather than from Issachar iii. 4. Of the two remaining parallels one is striking: "There are two angels with man, one of righteous- ness and one of wickedness" {Mand. vi. ii. i): "Two spirits wait upon man, the spirit of truth and the spirit of error" {/udah XX. i). But the former may come from Barnabas xviii. i, and perhaps Origen thought so, for he quotes first Hermas and then Barnabas {De Prin. iii. ii. 4) ; and both in Barnabas and in Hermas we have ayyeXoi and not TrvevfxaTa. "The spirit of truth and the spirit of error " is verbattjn the same as i Jn. iv. 6, and this rather than Hermas may be the source of Judah's words. If the parallels between Hermas and the Testaments suffice to make dependence probable, it is possible that Hermas is the original. The Shepherd was written about a.d. 150 and quickly became very popular. Before a.d. 200 it was better known than 2 and 3 Jn., Jude, or 2 Peter, and was often regarded as Scripture. It is not impossible that in some of the parallels THE TKSTAMliNTS OF TllK TWKLVli rATKI ARCilS xxxix it is the Shepherd that has influenced the text of the Testaments. In any case, it remains somewhat uncertain whether Hermas knew the Testaments. There is a fragment (No. xvii.) attributed (l)ut perhaps wrongly, as Harnack thinks) to Irena;us, whicli is thought to refer to the Testaments : " But from Levi and Judah according to the flesh He was born as king and priest." This doctrine about the Messiah is found in Sif/icon vii. i, 2. But, as neither the authorship of the fragment nor the reference of the passage is certain, this is somewhat slender evidence for the hypothesis, which in itself is quite credible, that the Testaments were known to Irenxus. Not until we reach Origcn, and the later years of his life, do we get an indisputable reference to the Testaments. In his Homilies on Joshua (xv. 6), which were written about a.d. 245- 50, he mentions the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by name, as a book which, whatever its meiits, was not included in the Canon. He calls it "a certain book," as if he did not much expect his readers to know it. The fact that he nowhere else quotes it need not mean that he himself did not know it well, but only that he did not like it. Its muddling Christology, the result of Christianizing a Jewish book by frequent re-touching, would not attract him. A single passage in Origen, therefore, written in the middle of the third century, is the earliest certain evidence of a Christian writer being acquainted with a book which is supposed to have influenced, and in some cases to have influenced very strongly indeed, nearly every writer in the N.T. Let us leave Hermas and IrenKus on one side, or even admit that they knew it. How is it that we do not find clear traces of this most influential document in either Clement of Rome, or Ignatius, or Polycarp, or Barnabas, or the Letter to Diognetus, or the Didache, or Aristides, or Justin Martyr, or Athenagoras, or Tertullian, or Clement of Alexandria? The total absence of traces of influence between a.u. 95 and 150, and the very scanty signs of possible influence between 150 and 250 render it somewhat improbable that our I^rd and St. Paul, to mention no others, frefjuently adopted the thoughts and words of this apocryphal Jewish writing. What can explain the sudden and almost total cessation of influence upon Christian literature about a.d. 100? If, however, it was the writings of the N.T. which influenced the early Christians who adapted the Testaments to Christian sentiment by frequent alterations, we have an intelligible explanation of the literary facts. These adajjlalions are known to have taken place, and seem to have begun early, for it was probably a Christianized edition that was known to Origen ; d xl GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW Otherwise he would hardly have raised the question about its being included in the Canon or not. How could the Testaments exercise such enormous influence on the N.T. as Dr. Charles supposes, and yet, with the possible excep- tions of Hermas and Irenjeus, leave no trace of being known to any writer earlier than Origen? or to writers later than Origen? Dr. Charles answers this question by asking several others. " How is it that the Gospel of Mark exercised such a pre- ponderating influence on the First and Third Gospels and yet has left no certain trace in Barnabas, the Didache, i Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, 2 Clement? Or, again, how is it that the Similitudes of Enoch exercised such a great influence on the Fourth Gospel and certain passages of the Synoptics, and yet are not quoted by a single Apostolic Father? Or how is it that I Thessalonians, the earliest Pauline Epistle, has left no trace on Barnabas, the Didache, i Clement, Polycarp, 2 Clement? 1 need not further press this argument" {Expositor, Feb. 1909, pp. 117, 118). None of the three instances given by Dr. Charles is a true parallel; for two reasons. No one asserts that Mark or I Thessalonians has had such an influence upon nearly all the writers of the N.T. as Dr. Charles attributes to the Testa- ments; and perhaps he himself would not attribute as much influence to the Similitudes of Enoch as he attributes to the Testaments. Secondly, it could not be said that these three writings have left no trace of influence upon any Christian writer between S. John and Origen, with the possible exception of Hermas and Irenaeus. Mark was probably known to Hermas, Justin Martyr, and some of the early Gnostics ; certainly to "irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, TertuUian, and other writers in abundance, i Thessalonians was perhaps known to Ignatius, Hermas, and the author of the Didache ; certainly to Marcion, Irenjeus, Clement, TertuUian, and later writers. And Dr. Charles has shown that Enoch by no means passed into oblivion between a.d. too and 250, or even later. Therefore the literary history of these three writings does not explain what is supposed to have taken place respecting the Testaments. Dr. Charles supposes that some one has asked " how it is that the Testaments have so largely influenced S. Matthew and S. Luke, and have hardly, if at all, influenced S. Mark." That question is easily answered, but it is not the question which has been raised. The question is. How is it that the Testaments (according to the view of Dr. Charles) have influenced S. Matthew about twice as much as they have influenced the other three Gospels put together? That is a question which deserves an answer. Let us look at some of the facts. THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWEIAE rATRIARClIS xli Matthew. ii. 2. Where is He ihat is bom King of the Jews, for we saw His star in its rising (rby iaripa. iv rri (b-oroXj?). iii. 14. I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comcst Thou to me ? 16. Lo, the heavens were opened unto Him (^t-ft^Jx^'/"'^*'' "' ovpayol), and He saw the Spirit of God de- scending as a dove, and coming upon Him ; and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying. This is My beloved Son, in whom 1 am well pleased. iv. II. Then the devil Icaveth Him ; and behold Angels came and ministered unto Him. iv. 16. The people which sat in darkness saw a great light, and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death, to them did light spring up. V. 3. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. 4. Blessed are they that mourn, for thev shall be comforted. o. Blessed are they that hunger {ol Ttivwvret), for they shall be filled (XopreurtfijiroKTeu ). 10. Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake. 19. NS'hoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 21. Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time. Thou shalt not kill ; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment : 23. but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall l>e in danger of the judgment. TnK Tkstaments. Levi xviii. 3. His star shall arise in heaven as of a king (di-artXet itTTpoi' avTou f» oipayt^ u-s /^a(Tour out the spirit, the blessing uf the Holy Father. Levi xviii. 6. The heavens shall be opened, and from the temple of glory shall come upon him sanctihcation, with the Father's voice as from Abraham to Isaac. 7. And the glory of the Most High shall be spoken over him, and the spirit of understanding and sancti- fication shall rest on him in the water. 13. And the Lord shall rejoice in His children, and be well pleased in his beloved ones for ever. Naphtali viii. 4. The devil shall flee from you. . . . And the Angels shall cleave to you. Levi iii. 5. The hosts of the Angels are ministering. xviii. 4. He shall shine forth as the sun in the earth, and shall take away all darkness from under heaven. Judah XXV. 4. They who were poor for the Lord's sake shall bo made rich. And they who have died in grief shall arise in joy. And they who have been in want (^y TTclyrj) shall be filled (xo/)Toc great. 5. Fearing to ollend the Ix)rd, he will do no wrong to any man, even in thought. xlii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 28. Every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath com- mitted adultery with her already in his heart. 42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 44. Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you ; that ye may be sons of your Father which is in heaven. vi. 10. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. vi. 14. If ye forgive men their tres- passes, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 16. [The hypocrites] disfigure their faces {d(pavi^ov(n to, Trpoauiwa avTiJov). 19. Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon the earth ; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven. 22, 23. If thine eye be single {lav 6 6da\/x6s ffov airXovs ^) . . . But if thine eye be evil (edc 5^ 6 6(f>9a\fjL6s ffov irov-qpos y), thy whole body shall be full of darkness {aK0Teii>6v). 24. No man can be a slave (dov- "Kejueiv) to two masters. . . . Ye cannot serve God and mammon. vii. 2. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. viii. 17. Himself took our infirmi- ties, and bare our diseases. 24-27. 7'Ae Storvt on the Lake. ix. 8. WHien the multitudes saw it, they were afraid and glorified (ido^a- aap) God. X. I. He gave them authority over unclean spirits. 16. Become therefore wise {yiveade otf (ppduinoi) as serpents. 39. He that loseth his life for My sake shall find it. Benjamin viii. 2. He that hath a pure mind in love looketh not on a woman with thought of fornication. Zebulon vii. 2. Show compassion and mercy without partiality to all, and grant to every man with a good heart. Joseph xviii. 2. If any one willeth to do evil to you, do you in doing him good pray for him, and ye shall be redeemed of the Lord from all evil. Naphtali iii. 2. Sun moon and stars change not their order ; so do ye also change not the law of God in the disorderliness of your doings. Zebulon viii. i. Have compassion towards every man in mercy, that the Lord also may have compassion and mercy on you. 6. [The spirit of revenge] dis- figureth the face (rd irpScrunrov d(pav- '!-«). . Levi xiii. 5. Do righteousness upon the earth, that ye may find it in heaven. Issachar iii. 4. Walking in single- ness of eye (eu davi^€i (a e f^ A, S^) : 6 yap ftyrjaLKUKO^ Lary's word for it. Again, it has been urged that both narratives are to be distrusted, because here Joseph receives the Divine announce- ments in dreams, while in Lk. ^L^ry receives them in her waking moments. Certainly it is possible that the supernaturaTl agency is in each case due to the imagination of the writer : he knew that a revelation was made, and he conjectured the way in which the Divine message was communicated. But it is also . ' Both S. Mark and S. John confirm ihc Virgin -hirth, though they do not mention it. Mark calls Jesus the ' Son of Mary ' (vi. 3) and the ' Son of God ' (i. 1), but he nowhere calls Ilim the Son of Joseph. John sometimes corrects the earlier Gospels, but he does not correct the Virgin-birih (i. 14). 6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [l. 18-25 possible that the mode of communication was in each case suited to the character of the person who received it. Alt. does not ahvays give us dreams or object to Angels (iv. ii, xxviii. 5-7) ; nor does S. Luke do the opposite (Acts xvi. 9, xviii. 9, 10). The important question is, whether God did com- municate this gracious myster}', first to Mary and then to Joseph. The precise mode of communication is of litttle importance. And it is worth noting that, when heathens are warned in dreams, no Angel appears to them (ii. 12, xxvii. 19). Very possibly the information about all six dreams, the five in these two chapters and that of Pilate's wife, comes from the same source. In marked contrast to the similar promises to Abraham and to Zacharias (Gen. xvii. 19, 21; Lk. i. 13), the Angel here (21) does not say ' shall bear f/iee a son ' : there is no crot after reierai, although 'to thee' in ver. 21 and 'to him ' in ver. 25 are found in Syriac Versions (Burkitt, Evan^elion da-Mepharreshe, ii. pp. 199, 200). Both Syr-Sin. and Syr-Cur. have ' to thee' in ver. 21, and Syr-Sin. has 'to him' in ver. 25. But even if the o-ot were in the Greek Text, in which it probably never had a place (p. 262), it would not be of doctrinal importance, for the meaning of the Evangelist is clear. " The points which Mt. wishes to impress on his readers are the physical reality of the birth of Christ from a virgin and the legality of the descent from David. The physical reality of the descent from David was a matter of no moment so long as the legal conditions were satisfied." The o-ot, if Mt. had written it, would simply have meant. She shall bear thee a " legitimate Heir of the Divine promises made to David " (p. 260). That is the meaning of iyewrjcrev in the genealogy : e.g. ' Joram begat Uzziah ' means that Uzziah was the legitimate heir of Joram, not that he was actually Joram's son. The insertion of the names of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of Uriah indicates that the heir had sometimes been born irregularly, " as if to prepare us for greater irregu- larity at the last stage," and perhaps also to prepare us for the welcome which the Messiah will give to aliens and sinners : see above. It would be rash to say that, without the Virgin-birth, the Incarnation and Redemption would have been impossible. It is enough for us that, with it, both are more intelligible. In so mysterious a subject, dogmatism is out of place, and speculation iis more likely to become irreverent than profitable. But the question has been much discussed, and this much may be suggested. If Christ had had no human parent, He would not have taken our flesh, and would not have been of the same race as those whom He came to save. It is not easy to see how a 1.18-26] Till-: MKSSIAH'S lURTlI AND INIAXCY 7 newly created being coiikl have helix'd the human raee by death and resurrection. If Clirist had had two human parents, it is not easy to see how the hereditary contamination of tlie race could have been excluded. It miglit be urged that this difficulty remains even with only one human parent ; we must either admit the hereditary taint, or allow no connexion with the human race. But there is no such alternative. There are three possibilities: human parentage, a fresh creation, and the substitution of Divine operation for the human father. In the last case, the Divine element would exclude all possibility of taint from the human mother, for it is inconceivable that the Divine element should receive pollution. But it is safer to accept with reverent thank- fulness what has been told us in the Gospels than to raise need- less, and perhaps fruitless, questions about what has not been told.i The Messiah was born /// the flesh, not of the flesh. He was born in the flesh ; and therefore was able to vanquish sin and death in the region in which they had won their victories. He was not born of the flesh, but of the Spirit; and therefore He did not share in the innate proncness towards evil which all other human beings exhibit. It was possible for Him to pass the whole of His life without sin. In human society, it is man who represents individual initiative, while woman represents the con- tinuity of the species. The ^^essiah was not the child of this or that father, but of the race. He was not a ?on of any individual, but He wos 'the Son of Man.' It was possible for Him to be sinless, and lie was sinless. Yet it cannot be argued that the Virgin-birth was imagined in order to account for His sinlessness, for nowhere in the N.T. is the one given as the explanation of the other. But all the evidence that we have goes to show that no one ever convicted Him of sin. Some charged Him with it, but they never brought it home to His conscience so that He Himself was aware of it. He called upon others to repent; He said that they were by nature (iis-up;^oiT«s) evil (Lk. xi. 13), that ihey must be born anew, that He came to save sinners and had authority to forgive sins, that He would give His own life as a ransom for sinners, and, beyond all this. He said that He would hereafter appear as the Judge of a'l. It is not credible that one who could thus speaic of Himself and of others, should Himself have been conscious of sin. That would involve a psychological contradic- tion. All experience teaches that, the holier men become, the ' Sec Hastings' DCG.. arlt. ' Annunci.alion,' 'Birth of Christ,' ' \'irgin Birth,' and the Htcraturc there quoted. On the ditTercnt readings of i. 1 8 see Nestle, Textual Criticism of tht Ck. Ttit. p. 249; Scrivener (Miller), ii. pp. 321, 323. 8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. ^lATTHEW [l. 18-25 more convinced they are of their own sinfulness.^ This would have been the case with Jesus, if He had been only the holiest man that ever lived : and, had He been constantly advancing in consciousness of His own frailty and faultiness, some evidence of this would have found its way into the Gospels. The Gospels are not in every matter of detail historically exact ; but what they give us, with overwhelming truthfulness of testimony, is the moral impression which Jesus of Nazareth produced upon those who knew Him or were influenced by those who knew Him ; and that was, that He was one ' who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth' (i Pet. ii. 22; 2 Cor. v. 21). The quotation of Is. vii. 14 (23) is given according to the Septuagint, with the necessary change from ' thou shalt call ' to ' they shall call.' The original text, so familiar from its Christmas associations, " is in some ways one of the most difficult verses in the whole Bible " (W. E. Barnes, ad loc). The Hebrew for ' virgin ' is almah, one who is not yet a wife, not bethulah, one from whom all idea of marriage is excluded. The promised sign is in the name to be given to the child, not in the strange- ness of its birth. The prophecy, as ver. 16 shows, is connected with the Prophet's own time, and it promises deliverance within a short period. But " there are signs that the view that Isaiah was using current mythological terms, and intended the sense of supernatural birth, is rightly gaining ground. In any case the LXX translators already interpreted the passage in this sense ; and the fact that the later Greek translators substituted veSi't? for Trap^evos, and that there are no traces of the supernatural birth in the later Jewish literature, is due to anti-Christian polemic " (Allen, ad loc). Justin Martyr {Try. 43 and 67) calls attention to this change from 7rap6evoy, 1643. 14 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ll. 1-12 order to pay due reverence to the new Ruler who has been sent into the world. But the Jewish hierarchy, with the Pentateuch and Prophets in their hands, are so far from being elated at this report of the fulfilment of types and prophecies, that they do not care so much as to verify it. They are content to be ruled by the Herods rather than be roused out of their accustomed modes of life. The cause of the varying translations of the term apxiepevs in Latin texts is a problem which has yet to be solved : we have princeps sacerdotian, stiviimis sacerdos, poniifex, princeps, sacey-dos, the last being rare ior dpx'-ep€v'S, but the regular translation everywhere of lepevs. In Mt. princeps sacerdotiim prevails, and in Lk. also, in Mk. suininiis sacerdos; in Jn. pontifex, with princeps sacerdotum frequent in Old Latin texts. Miilta pati a sacerdolibiis (Mt. xvi. 2i)is found in Irenoeus (in. xviii. 4); and _/Wai- sacerdotibics et senioribiis dixit (Mt. xxvii. 3) is found in Cyprian {Test. ii. 14). See Burkitt,/(j«n of Th. St. for Jan. 1908, pp. 290 ff. Field gives an interesting parallel to ii. 4 from Dionysius Hal. ^nt. Rom, iv. 59 : cuYKaXeiTas he (Tarquinius) rous iwix^^piovs tiavreis, eirvvddveTo -na-p avrCiv, tL ^ovXerai a-i],uaiveiv to re pas ; {Otiiun Norvic. iii. p. i). In both cases the imperfect is effective : ' he kept on asking,' ' he repeatedly asked.' On the hypothesis that the Magi connected the appearance of a new star (like that which appeared in Perseus in Feb. 1901) with X^ae. fravashi or representative spirit of a new king, see J. H. Moulton in i^ye/otir. of Th. St., July 1902, p. 524. They may have heard of Jewish hopes of a Messiah. The quotation from Mic. v. 2 which is put into the mouths of the hierarchy varies greatly from the Septuagint and looks like a free translation from the Hebrew. It is rernaricable that Mt. does not quote any prophecy as pointing to the visit of the Magi. We might have expected to have Is. xlix. 12 or Ix. 3 cited as an anticipation of this reverence paid by those who ' came from far,' and of this early instance of 'nations coming to the light' of the Messiah.^ But at any rate we have in this visit of the Magi, to do homage to one whom the rulers of the Jews despise and persecute, an early instance of that truth which is again and again alluded to through this Gospel, that the Jews, who trusted in their descent from Abraham and rejected the revelation which God made through His Son, are expelled from their inheritance, while the Gentiles, who welcome that revelation, are admitted into the Kingdom (iii. 9, viii. 11, 12, xii. 18-21, xv. 28, xxi. 43, xxii. 5-10, xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19). The fact that the Magi found Mary and the Child in ' the house' tells us nothing as to the place of birth. Mt. may have believed that the Messiah was born in a house rather than in a ^ The fact that INIt. does not cite either these prophecies, or Num. xxiv. 17, or Deut. xviii. 15, is strong evidence that he has not himself invented the story as a fulfilment of O.T. predictions. Comp. also 2 Sam. v. 2. On what is here quoted from Micah, Swete remarks "The Evangelist has put into the mouth of the Scribes an interpretation rather than a version of the prophecy " [Int. to the 0. T, in Greek, p. 396). n. 1-12] THE MESSIAH'S BIRTH AND INFANXY 1 5 stable or a cave, but all that he cares to emphasize is that lift ^•as born at Bethlehem, not at Nazareth. Again, he may have believed that the star moved at first and then stood still over Bethlehem ; but all that is required for his narrative is that the Magi, as they journeyed from iheir home to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, had the star in front of them. The gifts which they bring tell us nothing respecting the home of the Magi.^ They were offerings such as were often made to princes, and they could be obtained everywhere. The mystical interpretation of them, as pointing to royally, divinity, and mortality, is as old as Origen. Gold and frankincense occur together in Is. Ix. 6. The three gifts led to the legend of three kings, each offering one. There is not one word in the narrative to indicate that the Magi did wrong in drawing inferences from what they saw in the heavens, or that their knowledge of the birth of the Messiah was obtained from evil spirits or by the practice of any black art. Yet Christian writers, while insisting that magic was over- thrown by the Advent of Christ, often connect this overthrow with the visit of the Magi, whose adoration of the Holy Child is taken as an admission of their defeat (Ign. Eph. 19; Just. M. Trypho, 7S; Orig. Con. Ccls. i. 60; Tert. Dc Idol. 9, etc.). Augustine's epigram is attractive, but it is not in harmony with the facts : Quid erit iribunal judicanlis, mm superbos re<:^is cunx terrebant {/{fanlis ? The Magi were not proud kings, and it was not terror which moved them to come. Attention may here be called to two words which are of vcrj' frequent occurrence in Mt., one of which occurs in this section for the fust time. •Then' (rArt) is a favourite way of beginning a narrative: ii. 7, 16, 17, iii. 5, 13, 15, iv. I, 5, 10, II, viii. 26, ix. 6, 14, 29, 37, xi. 20, xii. 13, 22, 3S, 44, 45, etc. etc. Somewhat similar in use is 'Lo' or 'Ik-hold' (liov) : i. 20, ii. I, 13, 19, ix. 18, 32, X. 16, xi. 8, etc. ; and /caJ lioi; ii. 9, iii. 16, 17, iv. II, vii. 4, viii. 2, 24, 29, 32, 34, ix. 2, 7., 10, etc. Comp. also a(p65pa, which occurs once each in Mk., Lk., Acts, and Kcv., but in Mt. seven times : ii. 10, xvii. 6, 23, xviii. 31, xix 25, xxvi. 22, xxvii. 54; .-ind note the re- currence of TpoffKVffif, a very favourite word with Mt., but rare in .Mk. and Lk. : ii. 2, 8, II, iv. 9, viii. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, xv. 25, xviii. 26, xx. 20, xxviii. 9, 17. We might add ToptveaOai to these, as a word which is very freuucnt in Mt. and occurs first in this panigraph : ii. 8, 9, 20, viii. 9, ix. 13, X. o, 7, xi. 4, 7, xii. I, 45, xvii, 27, xviii. 12, xix. 15, etc. ; but it is very fre({ueiit in Lk. also, and in Acts. Sec small print at the end of this chapter. Both iSou and trat ISou arc frequently used to introduce some wonderful thing, as in these (wo chapters ; but this is not always the case, as (he above references show. Nevertheless, Bcngel's f^articula si^no fxhilfnJo apiiisiina holds good. ' Arabia is nn early gue&s (Justin, Tertullian), but it is not a good one ; for Arabia is south rather than east of lud.ea. Ihc (Juecn of Sliulvi 1^ ' (in. ,1, of the South ' (xii. 42). l6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ll. 13-23 II. 13-23. T/ze Flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocejits, and the Return to Palestine. Here again we may, if we like, regard the dreams as the Evangelist's own interpretation of what took place. He knew that all that was done came to pass under Divine guidance ; and this guidance could be most easily understood as operating through dreams. The Divine ordering of the events is all that is essential; the manner in which God's will took effect is of small moment. The Magi would tell Joseph and Mary of the excitement which had been produced in Jerusalem by their visit, and Joseph would naturally think it prudent to withdraw the Child from Palestine. They could not tell of Herod's evil designs, for they did not know them ; but Joseph would know enough of Herod's character to surmise that his great interest in the birth of a King of the Jews boded no good. He had recently (b.c. 7) put his own sons by Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus, to death, believing that they were a danger to his throne ; which made Augustus (under whose eye they had been educated at Rome) remark, that it was better to be Herod's pig than his son. If Joseph decided that they must leave the dominions of such a ruler, Egypt was an obvious place of refuge. It was close at hand, and there were many Jews there. The return to Palestine would be equally natural after Herod was dead. This paragraph (13-18) is in emphatic contrast to the pre- ceding one, and the contrast is at once marked by the Angel's warning in the opening verse : ' For Herod is about to seek the young Child to destroy Him' is in simple but emphatic antithesis to the Magi, who sought Him out 'to worship Him.' Other instances of dramatic juxtaposition of incidents will be found in this Gospel, especially in the concluding chapters. There may be some reference to this in Rev. xii. 1-6. Just as in the preceding case the Evangelist's chief point is that the Messiah was born at Bethlehem and was found there by the Magi, while he tells nothing about their home or the details of their journey, so here his main point is that the Messiah took refuge in Egypt. About the route by which He was taken or brought back, or the length of time that He remained in Egypt, nothing is said. He had two reasons for insisting upon the flight into Egypt, one of which is conspicuous in his narrative, the other not. He wished to show that here again we have a fulfilment of prophecy, and also to show that the King of the Jews, like the Jewish nation itself, left Palestine and took refuge in Egypt, and then returned to Palestine again. It is possible also that Mt. had the story of the flight of Moses n. 13-23] THE MESSIAH'S niRTH AND INEANCV 1 7 from Egypt, and his return to it, in his mind ; comp. Ex. iv. 19. With regard to the prophecy in ver. 15, Mt. docs not, any more than in ver. 6, quote the Septuagint, which would not have suited his purpose in cither case : he gives an independent translation of the Hebrew, which he may or may not have made for himselt'.* In Hos, xi. i the Septuagint gives, 'Out of Egypt I called his children ' {li AiyiVrou ^'./. ii. vi. 2) tells us that, in order to show that he was a true son of that tyrant, he inaugurated his reign with a massacre of 3000 people. So Joseph is directed to Galilee, and there he himself selected Nazareth ; ' that what was spoken by the Prophets might be fulfilled.' As to the general credibility of this second chapter, and the way in which it reflects the condition of Palestine at the time, see W. C. Allen, ad loc. pp. i^, 21, 22; G. H. Pox, in the Interpreter, Jan. 1906, and Hastings' DCG., artt. 'Egypt,' ' Magi.' ' Innocents,' ' Rachel.' To what is said there may be added the fact that, respecting this period of the Messiah's childhood, the Third (jospel gives us what we might have ex- pected to find in the First, while the First gives us what we might have expected to find in the Third. Antecedently, we shouKl have looked for the account of the obedience to the Law paid by Mother and Child, and the visit of the Holy Family to the Temple, in the Jewish Gospel ; while the visit of the Gentile Magi to the Saviour of the world would have fitted admirably mto the universal Gospel of the Gentile Evangelist. Put in this matter each writer gets beyond his own special sympathies and point of view ; and this is a valuable confirmation of the trust- worthiness of what he has written. Neither of them can be justly suspected of having imagined and given as history just what suited his own peculiar standpoint.' In this second chapter wc seem to have a group of three events which are closely connected with one another : the visit of the Magi (1-12), the flight into Egypt (13-18), and the return ' That the fliKhl into Kgj'pt was providentially dcsi^jncd to form a decided break Ijclwccn the wundcrs at Bcililfhcm and the ordiii.uy life at N.-uarcth 15 maintained by W. G. Elmslie, Expositor, 1st series, vL 403. 20 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ill. 1-12 to Palestine (19-23). In what follows we have another group of three connected events: the preaching of John (iii. 1-12), the Baptism of the Messiah (13-17), and the Temptation (iv. i-ii). This chapter contains a considerable number of the expressions which are either peculiar to Mt. or are characteristic of his style : see above on ver. 12. Several of them are found in ch. i. also, and they go a long way towards proving that these first two chapters have the same author as the rest of the Gospel. The tables drawn up by Sir J. Hawkins (Hone Synioptica^ pp. 3-9) bring this result out very clearly. " If the Nativity Story be not an integral part of the First Gospel, it must be counted one of the cleverest of literary adaptations, a verdict not likely to be passed on it by a sane criti- cism" (Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mephai-reslie, ii. p. 259). Characteristic : ihov (i, 19), TrpoaKwelv (2, 8, II), (rvvdyeiv (4), rj-ye/iwi' (6), t6t€ (7, 11), (paivfuOat (7, 19), iropeueaOcK. (8, 9) /cat idov (9), ac nearer to the original source. Twice elsewlicre in Mt. (xii. ^4, xxiii. 33) the I'harisccs arc addressed as 'vipers' 1)ioreparation are buriid ; and the Messiah comes out of Jordan for the storm and stress of the work that His Father has given Him to do. We need not infer from the words ' Jesus cometh from Galilee' (Mk. 'came from Nazareth of (lalilce') that our Lord was the first who came to John from that district. More probably the expression merely calls attention to the fact that the Messiah now leaves His home and is seen in public. The attempt of John to prevent Him from being baptized by him, and Christ's reply to him, are recorded by Mt. alone ; and the reply is the first utterance attributed to the Messiah in this Gospel. But we need not suppose that they are invented by the Evangelist to get rid of the difficulty of a sinless Messiali at (V[)t- ing repentance-baptism. Could Mt. have invented the Messiah 's reply? What the imagination of Jewish Christians of the first ages could do in dealing with this difficulty is seen from a fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is preserved by Jerome {Adv. Pflng. iii. 2). " Behold the M(jther of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, John the Baptist baptizeth for the remission of sins ; let us go and be bapii/cd by him. But He said to them, What sin have I committed, that I should go and he baptized by him? Except perchance this very thing that I have said is ignorance." A similar narrative was contained in a writing called the Preaching of Paul, as is seen from the Traclalus de Rebaptismate^ 17 (Hartel, ii. p. 90), where it is said that in the Pradica/io Pauli, "in opposition to all the Scriptures, you will find Christ, the only person who was absolutely free from fault, both making confession resjn eting His own sin, and that almost against His will He was compelled by His Mother Mary to receive the baptism of John ; and also that, when He was being baptized, fire was seen upon the water, which is not written in any (jospel." But, as Klostermann remarks, the ditTiculty felt about the baptism of Jesus is strong evidence to its being an historical fact. It is here that we come on the first of the points of contact between Mt. and the Kpisilcs of Ignatius. That Ignatius knew .Mt. cannot rcasunahly he (1cakH of our Lord xs " truly born of a virgin, and l>apti/ed by John that all righteousneu might l>c fulfilled by Ilim" (Tfo rXiypwOiJ -waaa. bmo^iocivri), b reason for Mis liaptism which is given by Mt. alone. Comp. Ign. /W. I, rdi^-at ftdaraj;*, wt Kai at i Kvpun . . . wdrruif rdf rd with Mt. xviii. 19, 20 ; Eph. 6, 0VT03S Set ^/xSj avrbv 8^x^(r0ai, (L'S avrbv tov TrefiipavTa, with Mt. X. 40; Trail. 11 [Philad. 3), oProt yap oi^K- eiVtz' (j)VTeia irarpos, with Mt. XV. 13; and Smyrn. 6, 6 x'^P^^ X'^/'^'^Oj witli Mt. xix. 12. See Lightfoot's notes in each place. There are other passages, less clear than these, where Ignatius seems to recall Mt. ]\Ik. tells us that Jesus, ' straightway coming up out of the water, saw the heavens being rent asunder' {tlBev cx'-^ofxivovs tovs ovpavovs), a graphic expression, which is the more remarkable because there seems to be no other example of this verb (which all three have of tlie rending of the veil of the Temple) being used of rending the heavens. Here both Mt. and Lk. have the O.T. verb, which was evidently in common use for the opening of the heavens {dv€u)x^V<^^^ aiiT<^ 01 ovpavol) ; comp. Jn. i. 51 ; Acts x. 11 ; Rev. iv. I. So also in the Septuagint : Is. Ixiv. i, Ezek. i. i, which is perhaps the earliest example of the idea of the heavens being opened. In Gen. vii. 1 1 the windows of heaven are opened for the rain, and in Ps. Ixxviii. 23 the doors of heaven for the manna, but that is not the same idea ; nevertheless there also the same verb is used. The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs exhibit the same constant usage : Levi ii. 6, v. i, xviii. 6 ; Judah xxiv. 2. The last two passages are Messianic, and are strikingly parallel to the Gospel narrative. "The heavens shall be opened, and from the temple of glorj- shall come upon him sanctification, with the Father's voice as from Abraham to Isaac. And the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him, and the spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him [in the water]." The last three words are probably a Christian interpolation of early date. Near the end of the passage we read that "the Lord shall rejoice in Plis children, and be well pleased in His beloved ones for ever"; koI ev5oKr}(reL iwl Tois dyairriTois avTov ews alQvos (xviii. 13). The similar passage in the Testament of Judah runs thus : " And no sin shall be found in him. And the heavens shall be opened unto him, to pour out the spirit, the blessing of the Holy Father." For the combination of opened heavens with a voice from heaven, comp. the Apocalypse of Earuch xxii. i: "The heavens were opened, and I saw, and power was given to me, and a voice was heard from on high."i For the opening of the heavens without a voice comp. Cic. De Divin. i. 43 ; Livy, xxii. I. Other references in Klostermann on Mk. ]Mt. follows Mk. in stating that Jesus saw the Spirit descending; Jn. says that the Baptist saw it] Lk. that the descent took place as Jesus was pra3'ing. We need not suppose that others saw it, or even that others were present. Possibly our Lord waited till He could be alone with John. With the symbolical vision of the dove we may compare the symbolical visions of Jehovah granted to ISIoses and other Prophets ; and we have no right to say that such visions are impossible, and that those who say that they have had them are victims of a delusion. Every messenger of God must be endowed with the Spirit of God in order to fulfil his mission ; and there is nothing incredible in the statement that in the case of the Messiah, as in the case of the Apostles, this endowment was made known by a ^ Zahn compares the combination, 'opened His mouth and taught' (v. 2) ; comp. Acts viii. 35, x. 34, xviii. 14. III. 13-17] rkKPAKATlON FOR TllK MINISTKV 33 perceptible sign.^ In the case of Old 'IVstaniciU rroplitts, there was sometimes a violent cflect on boily and mind, when the Spirit of the Lord came upon them. lUit here, as at I'entcc osl, all is peaceful, and peaceful symbols are seen. The sinless Son of Man is the place where this Dove can find a rest for its fool (Gen. viii. 9) and abide upon Him (Is. xlii. i). Again, in the case of the repentant people, the baptism in water was by John, the baptism in the Spirit was to be looked for from the Messiah. In the Messiah's case, the two baptisms are simultaneous. He who is to bestow the Spirit Himself received it, and He receives it under the form of a dove. The contrast between this anointing of the Messiah, this coronation of the promised King, and the Herald's proclamation of the coming of the Kingdom is remarkable. John had foreseen that the coming of the Messiah would be accompanied by an outpouring of the Spirit ; but his mind is full of the thought that God's vineyard has become a wilderness, and that vast changes are necessary in order to make Israel in any degree ready for the coming of the Messiah. Many, perhaps most, will be found still unprepared, and 'the Coming' will be chiefly a coming of judgment. To him, therefore, the outpouring of the Spirit is a baptizing in fire. Fire to him is the most fitting symbol. But when the Messiah Himself comes to him, John sees the Spirit descending in the form of a dove (see Driver on Gen. i. 2 and Deut. x.xxii. 11). Meekness and gentleness are the qualities commonly associated with the dove. The metaphor of fire is true ; the Spirit of necessity searches and consumes ; but the attributes of the Dove are equally true. The Messiah is 'meek and lowly in heart' (xi. 29, xxi. 5); it is by meekness that His ministers prevail (x. 16), and it is the meek who inherit the earth (V. 5). Hut we are not to understand that He who was conceived by the Spirit was devoid of the Spirit until the Baptism;* nor that the gift of the Spirit then made any change in His nature. ' It is of no importance whether the eye .saw and the ear heard ; whether, if others h.id been present, they would have seen and heanl. What is of iin|X)rtancc is, th.-it there was a real nianifesiation, a communication from God to man, and no mere delusion of a disor» imply- y there had l*ecn a void. In the Kliionilc Gi>s|y| (iucd as entering; mto lliin : «W«r rh -mtvfia tA ayior i* tl8ti rtptartpas KartXOovarii tal il we have "a gnat light " accomjianying the voice, Comp. Justin M. Try. 88 ; also the Diatessaron (Butkitt, Evangtlicn da- Mefkarreshe, ii. p. 1 1 5). 34 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ill. 13-17 Some Gnostics imagined that the descent of the Spirit then was the moment of the Incarnation, and that, until the Baptism, He was a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary. That is not the teaching of Scripture ; nor is it easier to believe than what is told us in Scripture. But the new gift of the Spirit may have illumin- ated even Him, and made Him more fully aware of His relations to God and to man (Lk. ii. 52). For Him it marked the beginning of His public career as the Messiah, like the anointing of a king. For John it was the promised revelation, and he now had Divine authority for declaring that the Coming One had come. This was the last of his three functions. He had previously to predict the coming of the Messiah, and to prepare the people for His coming. When he has pointed out the Messiah, his work will be nearly complete. The voice from heaven here, and at the Transfiguration^ and before the Passion (Jn. xii. 28), follows upon our Lord's prayer, and may be regarded as the answer to it. He who on the Cross cried, ' Why hast Thou forsaken Me ? ' may have been, on each of these occasions, capable of receiving help from such testimony as this from the Father.^ Both Mk. and Lk. have ' Thou art My Son,' which some authorities have in Mt. also ; and this form implies that the voice had a special meaning for the Messiah, and was not meant for John alone. And, as addressed to John, it tells him of the Messiahship, rather than of the Divinity of Jesus. Even John was hardly ready for a revelation of the unique relation in which the Messiah stood to the Godhead ; and we can hardly suppose that the Divinity of Christ, which was only gradually revealed towards the close of the Ministry, was at the outset made known to John at the beginning of it (Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 77). There are three ways of taking the sentence : (i) This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; (2) This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased ; (3) This is My Son, the Beloved in whom I am well pleased.^ The chief point is whether ' the Beloved ' is a separate title, indicating the Messiah. In any case there seems to be a reference to the Son of God promised in Ps. ii. 7, where the Messiah quotes Jehovah as constituting His Son and giving Him the nations as His inheritance. ^ In the Messianic hymn in the Testament of Levi, of which the opening wordr were quoted on Mt. ii. 2, there is this prophecy : " The heavens shall be opened, And from the temple of glory shall come on him sanctification, With the Father's voice as from Abraham to Isaac. And the glory of the Highest shall be uttered over him, And a spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him " [Levi xviii. 6, 7). "J. Armitage Robinson, Ephesians, p. 229, and Hastings' DB. ii. p. 501, DCG., art. ' Voice' ; Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 204; Wright, .S/wo/wj, p. 9 ; Charles, Ascension of Isaiah, p. 3. rv. 1 11] TKi-rAUATioN VOW Tin: ministry 35 •This is' is doublless ihc true rc.ulinc; here; tint the olil I :iiin n, with the Curetonian and Sinaitic Sytiac and Ircnxiis, supixirts 1) in reading * Thou arl * for 'This is.' All llirce Synoplists have 'This is' of ihe vi)ice at the Tninsfipiration (xvii. 5). I-or olher variations and additions here see Resell, Agr,i,^/ia, 2nd cd. pp. 36, 222. On the introductory words to ch. iii., 'Ei* 5t* raU rjft^pan ^Kttnaii, sec Droosten in the /i>Mr. 0/ Th. Si., Oct. 1904, p. 9<) ; and comp. xi. 25, xii. i, xiii. I, xiv. I, xxii. 23. In ver. 3 read 5((i (^« 15 C D 33 157 700, Uut.), not ^6, before '\\Toi'i d^i'oit. 'I"he in.scrtion of irdcra before '\tpoch\vtia. in ver. 5 (Lal-Vet. .\elh.) is intercsiinj: : comp. the 7rd (2) ; sec Dalman, 7"/4, which occurs more often in this Cjospcl than in the rest of the N.T. : iv. 3, II, V. I, viii. 2, 5, 19, 25, ix. 14, 20, 28, xiii. 10, 27, 36, etc. etc. In the true text aiV

«r>>(arrd are descrilied, and oux delicacies." liut this is quite erroneous. T1 • , ictl to the minr), not to the senses. Cod .illows lliin n can Me l»c God's Son? Sec Wfijjht, Syiu^'^m, p. i 1 ;ig. It is rash Id sa^ that because of the fasting .ind Inn,.-, i "ilic i< tn[>i.iii..n to turn the stone into a loaf must have come last " ( It'tsiinimtfr Af. '/', p. 43). 40 GOSrEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 1-11 been meditating.^ This quotation of Deut. viii. 3 has direct reference to the manna. It may be doubted whether the comment which is sometimes made upon it is its precise meaning here. No doubt it is true that man has more important needs than that of food, and that, unless his spiritual wants are supplied, he can hardly be said to live. But that does not fit the context. The point rather is, that food will not keep a man alive, unless God says that he is to live ; and if God says that he is to live, he will live, whether he has food or not. Jesus knows that God wills that He should live, and He leaves all in God's hands. He refuses to work a miracle which God has not willed, in order to effect what God has willed. To the insinuated doubt as to His being really the Son of God He makes no reply. He gives an answer which holds good for any human being who is a loyal believer in Providence; quasi unus e nniltis loquitur (Bengel). Mt. and Lk. vary as to the order of the next two temptations, and it is idle to ask which order is more likely to be correct.'-^ To Mt. it may have seemed that the offer of all the kingdoms of the world was the most severe temptation, and therefore appropriately comes last. Lk. may have thought that the Temple was a fitting scene for Satan's last effort. Comp. xii. 39-42, where Mt. has Jonah, Ninevites, Queen of the South, while Lk. (xi. 29-32) has Jonah, Queen of the South, Ninevites. The devil once more insinuates the doubt about Christ's being the Son of God, which seems to show that this second temptation is partly a repetition of the first. If He will not prove His Messiahship by working a miracle to save Himself from being starved to death, will He not let God prove it by working a miracle to save Him from being dashed to pieces ? ^ And this second temptation is not only thus linked on to the first ; it also appears to prepare the way for the third. Like it, it is perhaps a suggestion that He should take an easy road to success. So prodigious a sign as that of falling unharmed from the top of the Temple would, even against their wills, convince 1 The "spiritual setting forth of the Law" in Deuteronomy may have given Him a special interest in the book. "When He declares the essence of the Law to inquirers, He invariably states it in the Deuteronomic form " {DCG. ii. p. 271). 2 The only reasonable form which such a question can take is, Which was the orcer in the source which both Mt. and Lk. used? Mt., as often, is likely to be nearer the original ; the temptation which he places last was not only the most severe, it was also to the deepest depth of sin. Jesus is not merely tempted to put the Divine Sonship to the test, but to renounce it and become the vassal of Satan. Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus, p. 43. 3 With ' the holy city ' comp. xxvii. 53; Rev. xi. 2, xxi. 2, 10, xxii. 19; Is. xlviii. 2, Hi. i ; Dan. ix. 24 ; Tob. xiii. 9. Lk. substitutes 'Jerusalem'; 50 also the Gospel of the Hebrews, IV. 1-11] rREPARATION FOR TMF MINISTRY 41 both priests and people lliat He was the Messiah ; and then the greater part of His work would l)e accom[)lislied. IJut this cannot he i)rcssed, for there is no nienlion of spectators. Nevertheless, what is the point of mentioning the Temple, unless those who thronged its courts are to be understood ? Any precipice in the wilderness would have served for a temptation to presumptuous rushing into needless danger. iJut, in any case, there are these dilTerences between the first temptation and the second. In the first, Jesus was to be freed by miracle from a peril which already existed, and He was to work the miracle Himself. In the second. He was to create a peril for Himself, and e.xpect God to free Him from it by miracle. It is from this temptation that the proverbial saying, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" {Merchant 0/ Vcnicf, I. iii.) has arisen. The citation is from Ps. xci. 11, 12. Mt. omits the whole of ' to keep thee in all thy ways,' and Lk. omits the last four words, which are not suitable to the temptation. But it is perhaps giving more meaning to the omission than is intended, to say that throwing oneself from a height is not going 'in one's ways,' but out of them.^ The graphic beauty of ' ii/>on their hands' or 'palms' (not '/>/ their hands,' as AV.), implying great carefulness, should not be missed. Our Lord does not stay to expose the misapplication of Scripture, any more than to answer the doubt about His Messiahship. He once more gives a quotation from Deuteronomy, perfectly simple, and such as holds good for any human being. In reply to the first temptation, He had declared His trust in God ; God would not let Him starve. The evil one then suggests that He should show His trust in God in a still stronger way. Our Lord replies that putting God to the test^ is not trusting Him. He is willing to face peril of death, when God wills that He should do so, not before. He is commissioned to teach His people that He is the Messiah ; but by winning their hearts, not by forcing; them to believe. He did not force the Jewish hierarchy to believe in His Resurrection by appearing to any of them, yet many of them eventually believed (Acts vi. 7). " He that complies against his will Is of his own opinion still." ' Yet, in any case, " under guise of an appeal to filial trust lies concealed ■ temptation to distrust " (E. D. Burton and Shailcr Mathews, Comlructive Studiti in the Life of Christ, p. 59). Hut in His rebuke Chri*t raises no olijcclion to the diKtriiic of Angelic ministry and protection. It is nr>l there that the c%il f»nc's su^;i;c.siiun is wrong. 'The verb in ihc Scptu.-igint of Dcul. vi. 16 is a klroiig c<)m|iuth Mt. and IJc. repruducc it. 42 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 1-11 The conviction that is to be permanent, and bear fruit in conduct, must be one in which the will and the reason can acquiesce with some measure of satisfaction. Man's freedom is destroyed, if he is surprised into a belief by some stupendous phenomenon ; and when the first overwhelming impression has passed away, the reality of the phenomenon is likely to be questioned. Our Lord during His Ministry worked as God works in history. Man's freedom is respected. He always refused to give a sign from heaven to His opponents. It was only to the most intimate of the Twelve that He granted the significant vision of the Transfiguration, and they were not to reveal it till the still greater sign of the Resurrection had been granted. That sign was not allowed to His enemies. He might easily have confounded them by appearing and teaching in the Temple after His Crucifixion and burial. But they had Moses and the Prophets, and they would not have been persuaded of His Messiahship even by His Resurrection. His appearances were reserved for chosen witnesses, who with full freedom of reason and will accepted them (Acts x. 40, 41).! The third temptation is the most clearly symbolical of the three. As already pointed out, all the kingdoms of the world could not be seen at once from any place.^ Moreover, a literal falling down and worshipping of Satan cannot be meant. The doubt about the Messiahship is not insinuated again : that He is the Messiah is now accepted as certain. The Messiah is to destroy the works of the devil, and at last become King of Israel and of the whole world. That means a long and painful contest, involving much suffering to the Messiah and His followers. Why not have Satan for an ally instead of an enemy ? Then sovereignty over Israel and all the nations may be quickly won, without pain or trouble. With wealth, fashion, rank, intellect, intrigue, and force on His side, all backed by mighty works, success will be rapid and certain. A triumphant progress to supreme power, and such glory as neither Jew nor Gentile ever dreamed of, is offered to Him. In other words, it is suggested to Him that, by natural and supernatural means of unholy character. He can quickly establish Himself as far greater than Solomon, with the whole world for His empire. Once more our Lord gives a swift and simple answer from Deuteronomy (vi. 13), an answer that is absolutely decisive. He anticipates His own declaration, that it is impossible to serve 1 Latham, Pastor Pastor it ?n, p. 143. - Lk. omits the place, saying nothing about the ' exceeding high mountain.' Conip. the Apocalypse of Baruch : "Go up therefore to the top of that mountain, and there will pass before thee all the regions of that land, and the figure of the inhabited world, and the top of the mountains, and the depth of the valleys, and the depths of the seas " (Ixxvi. 3). IV. 1-11] rREPARATION FOR TIIF. MINISTRY 43 fwo masters (vi. 24). The loyal scr\ant of God can make no terms with God's enemy. The evil one is dismissed, and Angels come to minister. With tlie ' Get thee hence, Satan ' (Yirayt, Haraia) here should be compared the stern rebuke to Peter in similar words (xvi. 23).* In Peter's plausible suggestion the evil one was again tempting the Messiah to abandon the path of duty and sufTering and take a short and easy course to success. The rebuke to Peter is also in Mk. (viii. 33), but the dismissal of Satan here is not in Lk. That is no sufficient reason for believing that the words are not original here, but have been impfirted by Mt. from xvi. 23. On the contrary, we may believe that Christ had already told the disciples as much as they could understand respecting His own temptations when Peter was guilty of an attempt to lead the Messiah astray. Otherwise Peter could hardly have seen the meaning of the severe words which Christ used. Lk. quite naturally omits the dismissal of the tempter, because, according to his arrangement, there is another temptation still to come. In some texts (DELMUTZ, Just. Tert.) the 'behind Mo' {dvlffu nov) of xvi. 23 h.-is l)cen imported into this passage. In the quotation from Dent, vi. 13 ^^tiOtjctj has l>ccn changed to Tpott.rjc< Mk. use 6 tupdiur (Mt. iv. 3). ' For this meaning of Jtacorcii' cump. xxv. 44 ; Lk. xxii. 27 ; jn. xii. 3 ; Acu vL 2. 44 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 1-11 human character had been strengthened by triumphant resistance of prolonged temptations. His human experience had been increased respecting the possibilities of evil (Heb. v. 8) and the dangers which His mission would have to encounter. And we may believe that He would be supplied with all the physical strength that His humanity required for the work that lay before Him. Christ's refusal to avail Himself of supernatural aid to avert the danger of perishing with hunger is parallel to His abstaining from asking for supernatural aid to avert the certainty of perish- ing on the Cross. He would not turn stones into bread, and He would not have legions of Angels (xxvi. 53), because in neither case was it His Father's will that He should do so. He knew that He was the Father's only Son, and He knew what His Father's will was. Now that throughout the strain of the temptations the Father's will has been absolutely triumphant, supernatural means of supplying physical needs are allowed Him. Angels minister to Him (comp. i Kings xix. 5-9), and He has strength for the work which lies before Him.^ This is a foretaste and an earnest of the glory which is to be His hereafter. And it resembles that glory in being a return for what He had foregone in order to do that which His Father had decreed for Him. Satan had offered Him 'all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.' ' The Prince of this world ' (Jn. xiv. 30) had placed the whole of his vast dominion and its resources at Christ's disposal, if He would enter his service. That offer had been decisively rejected and the proposer of it had been dismissed. And, in a few years, all the power and glory which the evil one had offered to Him, and ten thousand times more which it was not in his power to offer, had been bestowed upon Him by His Father, because He had refused the tempter's conditions and had accepted suffering and shame and death (xxviii. 18). 'The Stronger' than Satan, instead of sharing power with him, deprived him of it (Lk. xi. 21, 22); and 'the Kingdom of the world became our Lord's and His Anointed's, and He shall reign for ever and ever ' (Rev. xi. 15). It is in the narrative of the Temptation that we have the first instances of our Lord's quoting Scripture. In this Gospel He quotes thirteen of the ^ In the description of the sixth heaven in the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs we have a verbal parallel: "In it are the Archangels who minister and make propitiation to the Lord," or (according to other texts) "the host of the Angels are ministering," or "the Angels of the presence of the Lord who minister"' (Z^e^/ iii. 5). With the narrative in Mlc. i. 13, 14 comp. " The devil shall flee from you, and the wild beasts shall fear you, and the Angels shall cleave to you " {^Naphtali viii. 4). rv. 12-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 45 Canonical Hooks of tlic O.T. and makes clear reference to two nilur iJooks ; and iherc arc several possiMe references to O.T. passages. DeuterDnumy, I'salms, and Isaiah ore most frequently quoted, and we may believe ih.il they were often in our Lord's thoujjhts. In the following list the references are to the jiass-ages in .Mt. in which the quotation occurs. Genesis (xix. 4, 5) ; Exotlus (v. 21, 27, 33, 38, xix. 18, 19) ; but some of these lui^ht be referred to Deuteronomy : Leviticus (v. 43, xix. 19, xxii. 39) ; Numbers (v. i^) ; Deuteronomy (iv. 4, 7, 10, v. 31, xxii. 37, xxiv. 31); Psalms (xxii. 44, xxiii. 39, xxvi. 64, xxvii. 46); Isaiah (xiii. 14, 15, xv. 8, xxi. 13, xxiv. 7, 10, 29, 31) ; Jeremiah (xxi. 13) ; Daniel (xxiv. 15, 21, 30, xxvii. 64) ; Ilosea (ix. 13, xii. 7); Mic.ih (x. 35, 36) ; Zechariah (xxiv. 30, xxvi. 31); Malachi (xi. 10). The references to i Samuel (xii. 4) and Jonah (xii. 39, 41) are clear ; and there may be one to 2 Kinj^s (vi. 6). The absence of any certain quotation from the Sapiential Books is remarkable ; but con\|). xvi. 27 with I'rov. xxiv. 12, and xix. 26 with Job xiii. 2 ; also xii. 43 with the addition in the Septuagint to I'rov. ix. 12. \Vith Kcclesiasticus there are many parallels : e.ff. vi. 7, vi. 14, vi. 20, and xix. 21 with Ecdus. vii. 14, xxviii. 2, xxix. 12 ; and V. 33, 34 with Ecclus. xxiii. 9-1 1. See also Ecclus. iv. 5, v. ij, vii. 35, ix. 8, x. 6, xix. 21, xxvii. 6, xxviii. 3-5, and Wisd. ii. 18, iii. 7, iv. 4, 16, xvii. 21. IV. 12-XVni. 35. THE MINISTRY IN OAIilLEE AND THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. This is the main portion of the Gospel. To the end of xiii. the scene is cliiefly in Galilee; the scene of xiv.-xviii. is chiefly in or near Galilee. 'I'he sources are Mark, the Logia of Matthew, and some independent traditions, written or oral. The Galilean section is in three divisions, i. Opening activities, ending with the Sermon on the Mount (iv. 12-vii. 29). 2. Ten Acts of Messianic Sovereignly, ending in the charge to the Apostles (viii. i-x. 42). 3. ^Luly utterances of Messianic Wisdom, ending in numerous illustrations of teaching by parables (xi. i-xiii. 58). The remaining section constitutes a fourth division, consisting of activities in or near Galilee, and ending in the discourses on offences and forgiveness (xiv.-xviii.). Hence chapters v.-vii., x., xiii. and xviii. are conclusions to definite divisions of the Gospel, and they consist almost entirely of discourses. The long Galilean section consists of nine subdivisions. We begin with an historical introduction, dating from John's imprisonment, and placed in surroundings which are a fulfilment of prophecy (iv. 12-16). Then the Ministry begins with the call of the first disciples (17-22). After a jireliminary statement about the Messiah's teaching and work (23-25), we have copious illustrations, both of His teaching (v.-vii.), and also of His work (viii. i-ix. 34). This is followed by the mission of the Twelve (ix. 35-xi. i), by illustrations of the opposition which His 4.6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 12-16 ministry provoked and of His consequent isolation (xi. 2-xii. 50), and by illustrations of His public teaching by parables and His private interpretations of them (xiii. 1-52). Henceforward Mt. keeps closely to the order of Mk., and the prolonged Galilean section comes to an end with the tragic rejection of the Messiah by His own people at Nazareth (xiii. 53-58). The substance of all this must, in the last resort, be carried back to the testimony of eye-witnesses : see Klostermann on Mk. i. 16. IV. 12-16. Fulfilment of Prophecy by the Messiahs Appearance ifi Galilee. It was ' ivhen He heard that John was delivered up ' by the Pharisees into the hands of Herod Antipas, that Jesus departed from the scene of John's activity and of the Pharisees' hostility, and withdrew once more to Galilee, where He made Capernaum, instead of His original home Nazareth (ii. 23), to be His head- quarters. The expression, ' when He heard ' (aKoiVas), is not in Mk., nor in Lk., who here arranges his material differently, but it is important, as illustrating a principle of our Lord's action which emerges from the narrative of the Temptation. He does not work miracles where ordinary means suffice. It is not by supernatural knowledge, but by common report, that He learns the persecution of the Baptist by the Pharisees (comp. xiv. 13). In both places the insertion of dK;oT;cra9 by Mt. is the more remarkable, because his tendency is to emphasize the supernatural powers of the Messiah. What specially interests him here, is the statement in Mk. i. 14, 21, that Christ not merely moved to these northern regions, but had Capernaum as the centre of His activity, in which fact he sees a fulfilment of prophecy. The fulfilment which he sees is partly geographical. He understands the 'sea ' in Is. ix. i, 2 to be the sea of Galilee ; and, on any hypothesis as to site,i Capernaum was on the Lake. Isaiah mentions Zebulon and Naphtali ; and Capernaum was in the territory of these two tribes. But more important than these geographical coincidences is the fact that the Prophet speaks of 'Galilee of the Gentiles' (PaA-tAata twv iOvwv),'^ and also of 'a great light ' that is to shine on the inhabitants of these darkened regions. This, like the visit of the Magi, and perhaps the warn- ing uttered by the Baptist (iii. 9), is an intimation that the salvation brought by the Messiah to the Jews does not belong to them exclusively, but is to extend to the heathen. Mt. once more shows his indifference to chronology. He ^ See Sanday, Sacred Sites, pp. 36 ff., ?^n6.Jo^tr. of Th. St., Oct. 1903. * Comp. Va.XCKa.ia, a.\\oa{^c in the Testaments illu.slra'.cs Mt.'s npplii-atinn of the prophecy to the Mtssiali's preaching of repentance : *' For trtic rciKtUance after n Rtxlly sort («oTd tf«4r, as 2 Cor. vii. 10) driveth away the darkness, ancl enli^jhtenelh the eyes, and supplicth knowlcf!ge to the soul, and guiclcih the piirix»*c to salvation" {Gad v. 7). 'Galilee of the Genliiea' may mean 'Heathenish GaUlee.' 48 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 17-22 IV. 17-22. The Messiah beghis to preach and He calls Four Disciples. ' From that time Jesus began.' ^ The formula with which the Messiah's preaching to the people is here introduced is repeated xvi. 21, and is perhaps intended to suggest a comparison between the two occasions. There Jesus has to give a very different kind of teaching, not to the people, but to the Twelve : ' From that time Jesus began' to tell His disciples about His approaching Passion and Resurrection. The quotation of our Lord's words here illustrates Mt.'s practice of abbreviating Mk. by omitting one half of his double statements. Mk. condenses the substance of Christ's preaching thus : ' The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye, and believe in the gospel' ; a very unusual phrase, in which 'gospel' means the 'good tidings' of the nearness of the Kingdom of God. As Mt. has already pointed out the fulfilment of prophecy, the first words are not needed ; and the last words are implied in what precedes. The substance of the Messiah's first preaching is the same as that of His Herald : He acts, so to speak, as His own Forerunner. And it is because He is as yet His own Herald, that, although He proclaims the approach of the Kingdom, He says nothing of the King. But it is with regal authority that He calls His first disciples.2 Without explanation. He gives what, even in form, is a command rather than an invitation : and this assumption of authority is not resented, but instantly obeyed. And His words imply that this time (contrast Jn. i. 35 ff.) it is no temporary invitation ; they are to give up their calling as catchers of fish, and pursue a new calling as fishers of men.^ From what they had learnt of Him during the preliminary Ministry in Judrea, about which Mt. and Mk. are silent, these fishermen knew to some extent what sort of work was in store for them, and under what kind of Master they would have to serve. All the patience, 1 The phrase awb rhre is rare in the N.T. (Mt. iv. 17, xvi. 21, xxvi. 16 ; Lk. xvi. 16) and in the LXX (Eccles. viii. 12; Ps. xciii. 2). The exact time cannot be determined. Colonel Mackinlay argues for a.d. 25 {The Magi, p. 63). As he accepts a.d. 29 as i\\e year of the Crucifixion, this involves a ministry of three years and a half, which has its difficulties. 2 They had previously been disciples of the Baptist, and through him had come to know Jesus. When the Baptist was put in prison, Jesus calls them to become His disciples. It is the Fourth Gospel that enlightens us on this point (Jn. i. 35-42). Here, contrary to the usage of each, Mt. has the historic present (19), and Mk. the aorist (i. 17). 3 Gould, on Mk. i. 17, points out that this is the first instance of parabolic language, so common in Christ's teaching afterwards. The Baptist had used harvest- work (iii. 12), as Jesus Himself' does later (ix. 37, 38), to signify the gathering in of souls. rV. 23-25] TIIK MINISTRY IN CAMI.KE 49 perseverance, and courage whicli they had acquired in tlicir uncerLiin and dangerous craft on the lake would be required, and they would have to sacrifice their home and their means of life. But neither jxiir of brothers hesitates, and each of the four has the happiness of taking a brother with him. Apparently, Simon and Andrew leave their net in the lake, without waiting to draw it in. Their readiness is even more marked than that of the sons of Zebedee, for they seem to have had no one to leave in charge of the nets (and boat?) which were their means of subsistence. Mt. is anxious to mark the readiness in both pairs of brothers. Very often he omits the 'straightway' (eiWoj?) which is so frequent in Mk. (iv. i, viii. 4, 14, ix. 4, 7, xii. 4; comp. Mk. i. 12, 29, 43, ii. S, 12, iii. 6, etc.). Hut here he retains it in both places, and in the second case he transfers it from the Messiah's call to the disciples' obedience ; for he desires to emphasize the fact that at the outset the Messiah's authority was at once loyally recognized. These followers are worthy subjects of the King. Mt. does not mean that Simon on this occasion received the name of Peter (18), but that Simon is the same disciple who was afterwards famous as Peter ; comp. X. 2. Of the Evangelists, John is the only one w ho gives the Aramaic original Cephas (i. 42), which S. Paul frc(|uently uses in I Cor. and Gal. NVhether the ifii^\riffTpoy which he and Andrew left differed from the ffay^rij in the parable (xiii. 47) is uncertain ; neither word occurs else- where in the N.T. In Stvre (6 times in Mt. and 6 elsewhere) and iKilOtt) (12 limes in Mt. and 15 elsewhere) we have words of which Mt. seems to be fond. The position which Mt. gives to the call of the four disciples indicates that a new stage has been cjuickly reached in the Messiah's ministry. He is surrounded, not merely, as John was, by a multitude of casual and constantly changing hearers, but by a select number of constant followers. It was with these professed disciples that He went up and down Galilee, teaching in the synagogues and healing the sick. This was part of their training for taking up and continuing His work. IV. 23 25. rreliminary Summary of the Work. The Evangelist here leaves the narrative of Mk. to give an introductor)- epitome of the Ministr)' which he is about to illus- trate in detail. He begins the description with a simple 'And' (icat), the first instance of this use in this Gospel. He tells us that, unlike the Forerunner, who recjuired the jKopIe to come to him in the wilderness, the Messiah sought them; He 'went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues.' Not many of these Galileans had been out to listen to John ; none are mentioned in iii. 5. They are still a 'people sitting in darkness' 4 50 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. S3-25 (i6). But the general result of the Messiah's first appearance among them is in harmony with the happy beginning in calUng the two pairs of brothers. There is no mention of any opposition. He brought to His fellow-countrymen much the same message as the Baptist (17, iii. 2); but it is probable that, whereas John emphasized the coming of judgment, Jesus dwelt rather upon the coming of deliverance and of joy. It is 'the Gospel of the Kingdom ' which He preaches to them, a remarkable expression,^ and peculiar to Mt. (23, ix, 35, xxiv. 14), for which Mk. has 'the Gospel of God' (i. 14). Both exhorted men to repent, and both announced that the Kingdom was at hand ; but while John said most about the forsaking of sin, the Messiah said most about *the good tidings.' As a Healer the Messiah is everywhere popular, and His fame spreads widely, even into heathen territory. ' All Syria ' and the country ' beyond Jordan ' are excited about the reports of His work, and every kind of sickness is brought to Him to be cured. The Evangelist seems to delight in enlarging upon the vast amount of the healings and the great variety of them. He strings together, from several places in Mk. (i. 28, 32, 34, iii. 7, 8, V. 24), the different items of the Messiah's success. Possibly Deut. vii. 15 is in his mind : 'The Lord will take away from thee all sickness {Traaav fxaXaKtav), and He will put none of the evil diseases (Trao-as iwovs) of Egypt upon thee.'^ Comp. the Testament of Joseph xvii. 7. But it was not the case that 'the people ' tolerated the teaching for the sake of the cures. The preaching of the good news of the Kingdom came first, and the miracles were secondary. Many followed Him who neither required healing themselves nor brought sick friends to be healed. To all, whether sick or whole, the good tidings of the Kingdom proved attractive. Even the stern preaching of John had drawn multitudes into the wilderness, although he 'did no sign' (Jn. X. 41). Comp. ix. 35, where this verse is repeated almost verbatim, but without ' among the people,' which means among the Jews in Galilee. 'The whole of Syria,' with its heathen population (24), is in manifest contrast to Galilee with its Jewish population. It is notable that 'the good tidings' (to evayyiXiov) is first used in the N.T. of the preaching of Christ. John's preaching might have been called ' good tidings,' but (with one indirect exception in Lk. iii. 18) it is not. Perhaps the note of judgment ^ It is here that the important word evayyeXLOv first appears in Mt. It originally meant the reward for good tidings (2 Sam. iv. 10), but afterwards always the good tidings themselves. See Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 102; Hastings' DCG., art. ' Gospel.' ^ In the N.T., Mt. alone uses /uLaXaKia (iv. 23, ix. 35, x. i). Of course • all Syria ' is used in a loose sense. IV. 23 25] THK MINISTRY IN GALILKE 51 — the axe, the winnowing fan, the fire — was too strong for his message to win that gnicious name. After the Messiah had encountered more and more of the hypocrisy and hostility of the hierarchy, Mis preaching became sterner even than John's ; hut here, at the outset, there is no record of any word of condemna- tion or warning. The exhortation to re|xntance seems to liave been so readily heard, and the invitation to believe the good tidings to have been so generally accepted, that He was able to do many mighty works. Even those who were brought from Syria were healed. IJut this concourse is represented as less continuous (aorists) than His own activity in Galilee (Ttpii/yty). " It may be doubted whether we have an adequate notion of the immense number of Christ's miracles. Those recorded are but a small proportion of those done. These early ones were illustrations of the nature of His Kingdom. They were His first gifts to His subjects."' "The healing ministry, judged by critical tests, stands on as firm historical ground as the best accredited parts of the teaching. In most of the reports the action of Jesus is so interwoven with unmistakable authentic words that the two elements cannot be separated. That the healing ministrj' was a great outstanding fact, is attested by the popularity of Jesus, and by the various theories which were invented to account for the remarkable phenomena."* Hamack and Professor (Gardner both admit that wonderful works of healing are too closely woven with the narrative to be torn from it : there is an irreducible minimum. Why should the Pharisees accuse Him of being the ally of Beelzebub, or Antipas suggest that He was the Haptist come to life again, or Celsus declare that He had brought charms back from Kgypt, if there were no mighty works to be accounted for ? "The healing activity of JchUS is firmly established in the tradition " (O. Holtzmann). Many critics at the present day limit the mighty works to acts of healing, and limit the acts of healing to those "which even at the present day physicians are able to effect by psychical methods, — as, more especially, cures of mental maladies" (Schmiedel). They were "acts of faith-healing on a mighty scale" (E. A. Ablxjtt). "Physicians tell us that peo{)le can be cured by suggestion ; the term describes what has often been observed precisely in a quarter in which religious enthusiasm has been stirred " (O. Holtzmann). But do the records give any intimation that Jesus Himself was conscious that His power to do mighty works was confined • A. Maclarcn, ad lot. • Ene. Bibt. ii. 2445. Sec SantUy, Out lints of tkt Lift of Christ, pp. 105-1 1 J. 52 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 23-25 to works of healing? Did His disciples notice any such limi- tation? Did His enemies ever taunt Him with the fact that, while Moses and the Prophets did all kinds of miracles, He could do nothing but heal? No evidence tending in this direction can be produced. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that He was believed to be able to do many other mighty works. Again, when we confine our attention to the acts of healing, do the records confirm the view that these acts were confined to curing neurotic patients by strong mental impressions ?i Let us suppose that our Lord worked some striking cures by means of " moral therapeutics " ; which is not improbable, for He would not use supernatural power where ordinary means would suffice. Let us suppose that all His first miracles were of this character. The result, we are told, would be that He would get the reputa- tion of being able to perform all kinds of wonders, and in time they would be attributed to Him by tradition. Very possibly ; but there would be another result much more certain. In consequence of His first successes, multitudes of sick would be brought to Him who could not be cured by "psychical methods" or "suggestions," or "moral therapeutics"; and therefore many would be sent away uncured. Where is the record of these mournful disappointments ? It is suggested that there were no actual failures to heal, because He may have known by "a kind of instinct," or by "experience and some kind of intuition," what cases He could not cure; and therefore He did not attempt to cure such. Yet such a remarkable limitation of His healing activity must have made an impression which would affect traditions respecting Him. And is "a kind of instinct " a scientific hypothesis ? Even if we omit the Fourth Gospel, the reported cases are too numerous and too varied to be explained by faith-healing. It is incredible that all the sick laid in the streets were neurotic patients ; and are leprosy, . dropsy, fever, withered hand, issue of blood, and blindness " susceptible of emotional cure " ? Just so far as a disease is due to delusion or lack of faith, is it possible to expel it by faith-healing ; and the number of maladies which admit of such treatment is comparatively small. ^ Of course, the mighty works, whether of Christ or of His disc'ples, are not violations of law. Violations of law do not 1 But " it would 1)6 rash to assert that this is the whole secret in any case " (Hastings' Z>B., art. 'Miracles,' iii. p. 390). ^ See a valuable paper on 'The Neurotic Theory of the Miracles of Healing,' by R. J. Ryle, M.A., M.D., in the Hibbert Jour^ial, Apr. 1907, pp. 572-5S6. The theory that many of the cures wrought by Christ, like many of those wrought at Lourdes, were only temporary, is entirely devoid of evidence. See Bruce, The Traming of the Twelve, p. 49. IV. 23 25] THK MINISTRY IN (.-.AI.ILKK 53 occur in God's ordered universe. lUil we do not yet know the laws by which tlicse mighty works he< oiiie possible. Siill less do we know the laws of such an uniijue Tersonality as that of the Messiah ; and we are not in a position to decide wliat was possible and what was impossible for Him in dealing with mind and matter. The evidence for the mighty works is not only strong but stringent ; and the case for them stands, until the evidence can be explained upon any other hypothesis than that the substance of the evidence is true. The chief charnclcristics in ch. iv. arc ri/rt (l, $, lo, 11), r^rtpo¥ {2), wpocipx*o9ai (3, 11), •wpocKvrtl* (9, lo), (tal Ibov (ll), iraxupi'iv (12), fra wXi;p«*5 (14), XoV^'oi («S), atf-Tf (19), iKtWtp (21), T/)oi]6i» (14), ^ pavc, the follDwinR .ire absent from the parallel }»ss,iges: TpoaipxtaOai {3, 11), tAt« (5), koI iioi> (11), draxo'peu' (I2\ \(-f6^t.^roi (i?>), iKuOtv (21). The par.-igraph 23-25 has no parallel. The word Taf>aOa.\d- >• jS, xiv. tl). 54 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 1 Mt. again omits all indications of date ; but it is obviously incorrect to say that he places the Sermon at the beginning of the Ministry. There are two proofs that he does not. First, * the multitudes ' in v. i clearly refers to the ' great multitudes ' in the previous verse ; and these great multitudes did not gather until our Lord had been at work for some time and the report of Him had spread through Syria, Peraea, Judaea, etc. Secondly, the teaching in the Sermon is not elementary ; it is evidently intended for those who had already received a good deal of instruction. The place at which the Sermon was delivered is almost as vague as the date : ' He went up into the mountain.' But no mountain has been mentioned. As in xiv. 23 and xv. 29, high ground in the neighbourhood of the lake is no doubt meant.^ The concourse was so great that the shore of the lake was no longer a convenient place for giving instruction, and our Lord goes up to one of the terraces on the hills above the lake. It is possible that there was some one spot to which He so often went up with His disciples that they commonly spoke of it as ^ the mountain ' (to opos), and that this domestic name for a particular place survives in the Gospels (Mk. iii. 13, vi. 46; Lk. vi. 12; Jn. vi, 3, 15). The mention of this going up to the high ground above the lake lets us know that we are passing from the general sketch in iv. 23-25 to a definite occasion. At the same time there is some intimation that not all of it was delivered at one and the same time, for some of it is as clearly addressed to the Apostles (13-16) as other parts are to a larger circle of disciples; and both classes of hearers are mentioned (v. i, vii. 28). That our Lord sat down ^ would intimate that He was about to give instruction for some time (xiii. 2, xxvi. 55 ; Mk. xiii. 3). The solemn introduction, "opened His mouth and taught," points in the same direction (comp. Acts viii. 35, x. 34; Job iii. i). This is the first mention of ' His disciples,' which in this Gospel commonly means disciples in the stricter sense. The critical questions connected with the form in which the Sermon has come down to us need not detain us long. They cannot be discussed without consideration of the similar, but much shorter, report of a discourse in Lk. (vi. 20-49) j ^"^^ ample materials for forming reasonable conclusions respecting them will be found in Bible Dictionaries, commentaries, and ^ It is strange that any 'simple brethren' should have supposed, as Jerome states, that the Mount of Olives is meant ; and Tabor is not very probable. - Sitting was the common attitude (Lk. iv. 20; Acts xvi. 13), standing the exception (Acts ii. 14, xiii. 16). Excitement or intense earnestness would make standing more natural at times. On the solemn introduction see Loisy, Le Discours sur la Montague, p. 13. V. 1] Tin: MIMSTKV IN CM. II. KK 55 separate treatises.* It is not of great importance to determine whether Mt, and Lk. give us divergent reports of one and the same discourse, which is the opinion held hy most scholars ; or of two similar hut dilTerent discourses, addressed to difTcrcnt audiences on diflerent occasions, wliich is a tenahle view, still advocated by some. Neither view is free from ditliculty. 'I'hat a sermon closely resembling these two reports was actually delivered by our Lord, need not be doubted for a moment : the contents are quite beyond the power of any Evangelist to invent, and the evidence for the Lord's utterance of this teach- ing is satisfactor)'. But study of the two reports will convince us that neither of them is an exact reproduction of what was actually said. This is at once evident, if they are supposed to be reports of the same discourse; and this conclusion cannot be escaped by adopting the theory of two original discourses, (i) No one, however greatly impressed, would be likely to remember every word that had been said. (2) What was re- membered was not at once written down. (3) Either before or after it was written down it was translated from Aramaic into Greek ; and translations of both kinds probably existed, some made from Aramaic oral tradition, some from Aramaic docu- ments. We may believe that both Mt. and Lk. had the sermon in Greek in a written form, but by no means the same written form. (4) It is evident that, although both reports are probably much shorter than the original sermon or sermons, yet in some particulars they have been enlarged. Lk. to some extent, and Mt. to a still greater extent, has added to the original discourse some sayings, which, although they were certainly spoken by Christ, were not spoken in that particular connexion. The most certain instance of this in Mt. is the Lord's Prayer and its immediate context (vi. 7-15). Hut v. 25, 26, 31, 32, vii. 6-1 1, 22, 23 may also be suspected of having been added by com- pilation, and this for two reasons : (<;) because there is a want of connexion with the main subject ; and {I)) because a good deal of this material is found in Lk. in quite a different setting ; e.f^. V. 25, 26 = Lk. xii. 58, 59, V. 32 = Lk. xvi. 18, vii. 7-ii = Lk. xi. 9-13, vii. 23 = Lk. xiii. 27. Neither of these reasons is con- clusive ; for the apparent want of connexion may be due to abbreviation ; and it is quite possible that our Lord may in some cases have included in a sermon what had been said on some special occasion, or may have repeated on some special occasion what had been said in a sermon. Nevertheless, the ' Sec especially Hastings' DB. v., art. 'Sennon on ihc Mount' ; Inter- national Crilical Conim. on S. Mallhctu and on S. Luke ; C. Hore, The Sermon on the A fount, 1896; Ila-sc, Geichuhte feiu, % 55; Dt'C, uiL 'Sermon on the Mounl.' 5^ GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 1 two reasons together make a strong argument.^ It is generally agreed that the Sermon on the Mount, as we have it in Mt., is to some extent the result of compilation. The theory, however, that it is entirely made up of short utterances cannot be sustained. Antecedently, the theory is not probable, and the facts do not bear it out. There is too much order in the report as a whole, and too much coherence in the parts, — especially when the less relevant sections are set aside as probable interpolations, — for the supposition that we have here nothing more than a number of pearls on a string. Could anything so orderly and coherent be constructed out of short extracts from the Epistles of St. Paul ? And what difficulty is there in the supposition that the main portion of the sermon is a substantially true report of a sustained discourse, addressed to a Galilean audience about the middle of the Galilean Ministry ? And there is nothing improbable in the theory of two similar sermons. It is a matter of no moment whether the insertion of extraneous matter, such as the Lord's Prayer, was made by the Evangelist, or had been previously made in the report which he used. It is of equally little moment whether the immense abbreviation in Lk., if he reports the same sermon, is due to himself or his source. Mt. has 107 verses, Lk. 29; and of Lk.'s 29 all but six have a parallel in Mt. But 36 verses in Mt., though they have no parallels in Lk.'s report of the sermon, have parallels in other parts of Lk. And more than 40 verses in Mt. have no parallels in Lk. Thus nearly half of the report in Mt. is peculiar to that Gospel. The parallels exhibit great variety in degrees of similarity of wording. Sometimes the two passages are almost verbatim the same ; e.g. Mt. vii. 3-5=:Lk. vi. 41-42. Sometimes the differences are very considerable, as in the parable with which each report ends. Even the Golden Rule is differently worded (Mt. vii. i2 = Lk. vi. 31). And examination of the parallels will lead us to the conclusion that the report in Mt. is closer to the original sermon, if the same sermon is the basis of both reports. The much greater fulness of Mt.'s report points in the same direction. Jewish phrases, and allusions to the Old Testament, abound in Mt., but are absent from Lk. ; and it is much more likely that Lk. , or the Gentile source which he used, omitted these topics and touches, as lacking interest for Gentile Christians, than that Mt. inserted them in order to please Jewish readers. Whether there was one sermon or two, our Lord's audience would consist mainly of Jews, and it is highly probable that the discourse delivered by Him had a great deal of the Jewish tone which pervades Mt.'s report. Critics, however, are not agreed as to the comparative accuracy of the two reports : some regard Lk.'s as nearer to the original sermon, but more prefer that of Mt. "In all these cases it is simply inconceivable that S. Matthew had before him, and has altered, the text presented in S. Luke" (Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus, p. 57). ^ Perhaps we may add to them the improbability that our Lord would have given so large an amount of instruction all at once. Even the most advanced among His hearers could hardly take in so much of such lofty teaching at one and the same time. Augustine suggests that the circum- locution, 'He opened His mouth and taught them,' is perhaps meant by the Evangelist to indicate aliqtianto longiorem futurum esse sermonem {De Serm. Dom. I. i. 2). V. S-lfl] Tin: MINISTRY IN C.AI.IM:!-: c;; There are two assumptions which are rather freciuently made, and which arc ahiiost certainly untrue and misleading: (i) that each Evangelist, as a rule, tells* us all that he knew, and that, therefore, nearly all that he omits was unknown to him ; {2) that our Lord seldom rej)eated His sayings, and that, therefore, similar but different reports of His words in different Gospels must be referred to the same occasion. All these questions, interesting as they are, sink into in- significance as compared with the supreme importance of under- standing, and appropriating, the trtfanins; of these reports of our Lord's teaching, which have been preserved for the spiritual instruction of mankind. The general plan of the Sermon in both Gospels is the same. I. The Qualifications of those who can enter the Kingdom (v. 3-16 = Lk. vi. 20-26); 2. The Duties of those who have entered the Kingdom (v. 17-vii. i2 = Lk. vi. 27-45); 3. The Judgments which await the Members of the Kingdom (vii. 13-27 = Lk. vi. 46-49). Invitation, requirement, warning ; — these are the three leading thoughts ; and, as Stier remarks, the course of all preaching is herein reflected. In somewhat different words, wc may say that the subject of the Sermon is The Ideal Christian Life, which is described in the Beatitudes (3-12) and the two metaphors which follow them (13-16).* Then the characteristics of the Christian Life are dis- cussed, first in contra'-t to the Jewish Ideal (17-4S), secondly in contrast to faulty Jewish practice (vi. i-iS), and finally in their own working (vi. 19-vii. 12), the climax being the statement of the Golden Rule (vii. 12). Lastly, there is an earnest e.xhortation to enter upon this Christian Life (vii. 13, 14), avoiding un- trustworthy guides (15-20) and profession without performance (21-23): the responsibility of rejecting this teaching will be great (24-27). The central i)ortion of the discourse (vi. 19-vii. 12) consists of three prohibitions and two commands. The prohibitions are (1) lay not up for yourselves treasures u[)on the earth ; (2) Judge not ; and (3) Give not that which is holy to the dogs. The commands are (i) Tray to your Father in Heaven ; (2) Love your neighbour as yourself. V, 3 12. The Beatii tides, a Summary of the Christian Life. Hy 'the Beatitudes' is almost always meant the declarations of blessedness made by Christ at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, — blessedness which He attached to certain virtues, or conditions, or persons. And this blessedness is not somc- ' Matlkieu a ftntf hrire un traili (omplit d* tajuUict ehrtlitMM4 (IxiUy, Le Dii(9urs %ur la Afomtapie, 2). 5 8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 thing which the persons who are thus described feel; it is a property unerringly ascribed to them in the estimate of God. Thus it comes to pass that, while the Law is represented as having been given on Mount Sinai amidst thunders and threatenings, the Magna Carta of the Gospel is introduced on * the Mountain ' in Gahlee with a series of new blessings. It is remarkable that there is wide difference of opinion as to the exact number of these beatitudes. They are differently reckoned as being seven, eight, nine, and even ten in number. In Lk. there is no question about the number : there we have four Beatitudes and four Woes.^ That is perhaps some indica- tion that the Sermon began w^ith eight aphorisms of some kind, and is in favour of the common reckoning that Mt. gives us eight Beatitudes. But the question is merely one of arrange- ment ; no one need propose to strike out one or more of the sayings as unauthentic. From different points of view Mt. might wish to have seven (the sacred number), or eight (sym- bolical of completeness), or nine (three triplets), or ten (to equal the Decalogue). All commentators agree that in verses 3-9 we have seven Beatitudes summing up the ideal of a Christian character. Then comes a declaration that those who are persecuted for possessing this character are blessed ; and it is probable that this is intended as a distinct Beatitude. It is a very blessed thing to possess the ideal character ; but he who has to suffer for his righteousness is still more blessed. That this should be regarded as an eighth Beatitude is confirmed by the fact that it is included in the four in Lk. Lk. omits those respecting the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers, but he includes this one respecting the persecuted. Nevertheless, some refuse to recognize this as an eighth Beati- tude : (i) because the blessedness does not depend upon the internal conditions which are in the Christian's own control, but upon the way in which other people treat him ; and (2) because the result is a mere repetition of what has been already pro- mised, — ' theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.' ^ There is much less to be said for reg^arding as a separate Beatitude, 'Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you . . . for My sake' (11). It is true that the word 'Blessed' is repeated; but what follows is a mere application of the pre- ^ The wide difference as to the wording of the Beatitudes, and the inser- tion of the Woes, are among the chief arguments for the hypothesis that Lk. gives a rej^ort of a different sermon. See Stanton, pp. 106, 323, 328. ^ In the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs the cheerful endurance of persecution is enjoined, because anger is so disturbing to the soul. " If ye suffer loss voluntarily or involuntarily, be not vexed, for from vexation ariseth wrath . . . and when the soul is continually disturbed, the Lord deparleth from it, and Beliar ruleth over it" {Dan iv. 7). V. 3 la] Tin-: ministuy i\ c.ai.ii-KK 59 ceding Bcalitude to the disciples who arc present, together with an amplification of the word ' |XTSccutc.' The psahii like parallelism and rhythm of the preceding eight is here wanting, and we seem to be in the region of interpretation ratlier than of text. It is true that the ecjuivalent of tliis saying is certainly counted as one of the four IJeatiludes in Lk., but that is because he puts all the Beatitudes in the second person : ' lllessed are ye^ Consequently, what is here given in two forms, one general, and one special (' Blessed are they which are persecuted,' and • Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you '), is in Lk. given only in the latter, to harmonize with the other three, which are in the special or second jx^rson form. It is altogether unreasonable to regard ' Rejoice and be exceeding glad . . . before you ' as a Beatitude in any sense. The word 'blessed' is not used, and the verse is only the complement of the one which precedes. Only when we i)ut the two verses together do we get the rii^ht correspondence of parts, a correspondence which is obscured by amplification. The foundation of the whole is, * Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you for My sake, for great is your reward in heaven.' The remainder, though probably original, is explanatory. There is, in short, no indication that Mt. intended to make ten Beatitudes. His report of the Sermon, as has been pointed out, is partly the result of compilation. Had he wished to give ten Beatitudes he might easily have included other sayings, similar in t)pe, which he records elsewhere. ' Blessed are your eyes, for they sec ; and your ears, for they hear' (xiii. 16). 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My I'ather which is in heaven' (xvi. 17). 'Blessed is he, whosoever shall find none occasion of stumbling in Me' (xi. 6). 'Blessed is that servant, whom the Lord when He cometh shall find watching' (xxiv. 46). .And there are others elsewhere, which may have been known to Mt. ' Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it ' (Lk. xi. 28). * Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have Ixlieved ' (Jn. XX- 29). The frequency of such sayings among Christ's utterances shows that, wherexs warnings of judgment were prominent in John's teaching, assurances of blessedness must have been very prominent in that of the Messiah. Here again [K-rhaps we have a reason for the fact that the First Gospel was so much more popular than the Second. Mt. contains thirteen Beatitudes; in Mk. there are none. It is the Hebrew GosikI at the Ixginning of the N.T., and the Hebrew Apocalypse at the end of it, which are so rich in such things (Rev. i. 3, xiv. 13, xvi. 15, xix. 9, xx. 6, xxii, 7, 14). It is DOt irreverent to conjecture tlut our Lord nuy have 6o GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 had the beginnuig of the Book of Psalms in His mind, when He placed these Beatitudes, whether four or eight, at the beginning of the Sermon. ' Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, but his delight is in the law of the Lord. He shall be like a tree planted by the streams of water, that bringeth forth its fruit in its season ' (Ps. i. 1-3). If so, then we have the counterpart of the Woes as well as of the Beati- tudes ; for the Psalm goes on : ' Not so are the wicked, not so ; but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.' This is perhaps some slight support to the authenticity of the Woes. The Acta Pattli et Theclce contains a large number of Beatitudes made up of scriptural language : e.g. Blessed are those who have kept their flesh pure, for they shall become temples of God. Blessed are the continent, for God will speak to them. Blessed are those who have bid farewell to this world, for they shall be well-pleasing to God. Blessed are those who have wives as not having them, for they shall become Angels of God. Blessed are those ; who have received the wisdom of Jesus Christ, for they shall be called sons of i the Highest. See Resch, Agrapha, 2nd ed. 1906, pp. 272-4. j There is yet another way of treating this portion of the Sermon : "not as ! a string of eight Beatitudes, but as a single Beatitude with a sevenfold expan- | sion. The significance of ' poor in spirit ' must be looked for in the seven I applications into which it is expanded" (Moulton, The Modem Readers 1 Bible, p. 1692). This is attractive, and it is possible to regard some of the j Beatitudes as expansions, or other sides of, the blessedness of being poor in j spirit. But can 'hungering and thirsting after righteousness,' or being j 'merciful,' or 'peacemakers,' be said to be included in the idea of being j ' poor in spirit ' ? It is better to regard ' Blessed are the poor in spirit ' as ' the leading Beatitude, marking at once the contrast between the standard to i be observed in the Kingdom of heaven and the standard commonly observed ,■ in the world, rather than as one which virtually includes all the others. If ; the number seven is to be found in the Beatitudes, we must regard the first : seven as distinct from all that follows, in that they are concerned with a { man's own character, while the rest is concerned with the way in which he is \ treated by others for being of this character. The RV. seems to favour the t view that there are seven Beatitudes, whereas the WH. text indicates that | there are nine. _ \ The attempt of Augustine (Z?v\a.TTiDv, — adopting an extravagant position for the sake of provoking argument. And they arc, as S. Ambrose says, eight paradoxes ; for, according to the Divine judgment, blessedness begins where man deems that misery begins. See Montefiore, p. 4S5. We can hardly measure the surprise with which Christ's audience listened to these Beatitudes. With some it would Ijc the surprise of admiration and sympathy ; here once more was the voice of One who taught with authority. With others it would be the surprise of incredulity ; this was indeed interesting doctrine, but it was not very likely to prove true. Whh others it would be the surprise of repugnance; teaching so subversive of ordinary ideas respecting human felicity could not be accepted, and ought to be strenuously opposed. Among the conditions of blessedness, the privileges of the children of Abraham were not so much as mentioned. It was not the form of the Beatitudes * D, 33, Old Latin, Curctonian Syriac, Tcrtullian, Ori^cn. The wish to mark the r'^n'rri^r !;rf,%r'-n * ihc Kingdom of Ilcavcn' and 'the earth' may ha%-e 1 ■ ;'.ion. ••^ • rns, try to make a natural sequence in the Beau: ■■rH-T, nnrl thf- ri""lt w.nilfj J.'' a"; true a4 this: " r NT!) . f .;. and mourninjj or < ,; after rijjhio>usncvs >: rt to the promuiton of peace ; ajuJ ihc jx u, 'Uyii uf [«:,i' c j^ituvijkci Uic li..iicd of the depraved." 62 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 which they disliked ; that was- familiar to them from the Psalms (i. I, ii. 12, xxxii. i, 2, xxxiii. 12, xl. 4, Ixv. 4, etc.); but how different was the substance ! ' Blessed is he that considereth the poor' (Ps. xli. i); this they could understand. But 'Blessed are the poor' was strange doctrine indeed. The Beatitudes may be regarded as setting forth the subject of the whole Sermon. The Sermon treats of the character and conduct of members of the Messiah's Kingdom, and at the outset we have the required character sketched in a few expressive touches. And the sketching of this character acts as a test : it turns back those who have no sympathy with such a character. It also acts as a corrective of false ideas about the Kingdom. The ideas of the multitude were for the most part vague ; and in their want of knowledge they degraded and materialized it. They thought of the Kingdom as a perpetual banquet. The ideas of the upper classes were more definite, but not more spiritual. They thought of it as a political revolution. Roman rule was to be overthrown, and a Jewish monarchy of great magnificence was to be restored. To both these conceptions of the Kingdom the Beatitudes were an emphatic contradiction.^ It is probable that our Lord, speaking in Aramaic, said simply ' Blessed are the poor.' But, inasmuch as the Aramaic word need not mean, and was not intended to mean, those who are destitute of this world's goods, the Greek translator was more than justified in rendering the single word ' poor ' by ' poor in spirit' (tttcoxoI t<3 Tn'ev/xaTi). Those who are literally poor are not necessarily poor in spirit ; and those who are wealthy can nevertheless be poor in spirit.^ Of course, being poor in spirit does not mean spiritual poverty, want of spiritual gifts. It means the character of those who feel their great needs (^//a' sentiimt se per se non habere justitiavi) and their entire depend- ence upon God for the supply of all that they require (see below on the third Beatitude). Of all such it is true that ' theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.' This is not the reward of their being poor in spirit, but the result of it. It is not so much a question of recompense as of consequence.^ It explains why the poor in spirit are blessed. ^ Dim est le Ph-e des esprits, et Pamour est la constitution du royaume eternel. On ne peut vaincre la terre qiCau nom du del; et le monde est aux pieds de celui quil ne peut pas scdiiire ( Amiel). ^ " A rich man, who is able to despise in himself whatsoever there is in him by which pride can be puffed up, is God's poor man " (Augustine, quoted by Cornelius a Lapide, ad he). Such men "confess their poverty with as great humility of spirit, and pray for grace with as great earnestness, as beggars ask alms of the rich." ■* Comp. the blessing in the Testaments : /cat 01 Trrwxoi Sta Ki'pto;' ir\ovTia9r]aovrai, /cat ol ev veivr; x°P'''°-'^Sri(Toi'Tai, Kal ol 4v dadeueig. l oXais TaFs ypacpais, Kal rals doKovaais Trepte'xff fJ-o-XV^ ""-^ evavriufiara Trpos dXXT^Xas {Philocal. vi. i). - In an earlier chapter (xlii. 6-14) are nine Beatitudes, which (like these in Mt.) have no Woes or Curses ; but there is little resemblance with these. "Blessed is he who has love upon his lips, and tenderness in his heart" comes nearest. In the Talmud, Abaygeh says : " Let him be affable and disposed to foster kindly feelings between all people ; by so doing he will gain for himself the love both of the Creator and of His creatures." Cornelius a Lapide tells of one Caspar Barzaus of Goa, who was so successful as a peacemaker that the lawyers said that they would be starved, for he put a stop to all litigation. Did they persecute him, and thus make a connexion between the seventh Beatitude and the eighth ? V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 69 the right to become children of God' (Jn. i. 12), and the Father will recognize them as such, because they have striven to make the contentious members of His family 'dwell together in unity.' And this special title of 'sons of God' indicates one of the ways in which peacemakers should work, viz. by trying to reconcile each of the contending parties to God before trying to reconcile them to one another. Men will often listen more readily to what is set before them as their duty to God than to what is urged upon them as due to those who have offended them. And if the peacemaker is to be successful in reconciling to God those who are at strife with one another, he must himself be reconciled to God, and thus be at peace with himself. Peace- making begins at home, in a man's own heart, and thence spreads to the whole circle of God's family. The first seven Beatitudes state the leading features of the ideal Christian character as it is in itself, and these features consist largely of the Christian's attitude towards God and towards men. The ei^:;hth and last Beatitude deals with men's attitude towards the Christian. That attitude will commonly be one of hostility. ' Because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hatcth you ' (Jn. xv. 19). Men commonly dislike those whose principles differ greatly from their own, and especially those whose principles are much higher than their own. The righteous man is a standing reproach to those who are not righteous, and it is exasperating to be con- stantly reminded that one's life is not what it ought to be. The true Christian is sure to be persecuted (by coldness, contempt, and ridicule, if not by actual ill-usage) ; and when he has been thus persecuted, this is another element of blessedness, in addition to the many elements which are the results of his beautiful character. Here then, as in the first three Beatitudes, we have a highly paradoxical statement.^ Granted that it may be a happy thing to long for righteousness, to be merciful, single-hearted, and strivers after peace, to be told that it is a blessed thing to be persecuted for well-doing is as startling as to be told that it is a blessed thing to be meek and poor in spirit, and to mourn. But those who have accepted the first seven Beatitudes are not likely to take offence at the eighth. Those who mourn over the lack of righteousness in themselves and in the world, — those who hunger and thirst for the righteousness that is thus lacking, will be ready to suffer persecution rather than let go, either the ' Christ purposely adopted paradoxical forms of ex|iression, to arrest attention and to stimulate thought. Thus He says that to find one's life is to lose it, and to lose one's life for His sake is to find it (x. 39 ; Mk. viii. 35 ; Lk. xvii. 33 ; Jn. xii. 25). Self-seeking is self-destruction ; self-sacrifice is self-preservation. He uses vivid, popular language, calculated to remain in the memory. 70 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 3-12 righteousness which has been attained, or the hope of attaining more ; and they may be assured that it is a blessed thing thus to suffer. They have given one more proof that they are worthy of admission to the Kingdom of Heaven. The fact that the explanation of the blessedness in the last Beatitude is the same as that in the first seems to intimate that the possession of the Kingdom sums up all the other results in the six intermediate Beatitudes.^ He who is admitted to the fulness of the Kingdom, is comforted, inherits the earth, is filled with righteousness, has obtained mercy, sees God, and is welcomed as a son of God : ' I have called thee by thy name, thou art Mine' (Is. xliii. i). It is no objection to this that the result in the first and last Beatitudes is stated in the present tense, whereas the results in the intervening six are in the future. In the first and last Beatitude the ' is ' was probably absent from the Aramaic original : * Blessed the poor, for theirs the Kingdom ' ; ' Blessed the persecuted, for theirs the Kingdom.' And seeing that the Kingdom is partly present and partly future, the differ- ence between ' is ' and * shall be ' is not great. This last Beatitude does not mean that the ideal Christian character cannot be attained without persecution. That would make the wickedness of the unrighteous to be essential to the perfection of the righteous. It means that, where the Christian character provokes persecution (as, until God's rule is fully established, it is sure to do), the Christian has an additional opportunity of proving his sonship and his fitness for the Kingdom. Jesus Himself suffered for righteousness' sake, and those who take up His work, and would share His glory, must not expect, and will not ask for, any other experience (Jn. xv. 18-20, xvii. 14, 15). It is persecution rather than prosperity that promotes the well-being and progress of the Church. See Cyprian, De Lapsis, 5-7 ; Eusebius, H. E. viii. i. 7. The Beatitudes in Lk. are addressed to the disciples through- out : 'Blessed are j'l? poor ; are r^ that weep,' etc. Only to the disciples of Christ is actual poverty and sorrow of any kind sure to be a blessing : but all men are the better for being meek, merciful, and peacemakers. Here our Lord, having stated the eight Beatitudes in their universal and more spiritual form, passes on to apply the last Beatitude to the disciples, and to explain it more fully. ' Blessed are ye when men shall reproach ^ Odava tanqiiani ad caput redit ; qina cojistimmatum pcrfectwiique ostendit, the complete and perfect man has been set forth (Aug. De Serin. Do/n. I. iv. 12). " In these separated blessings there is an implicit summons to seek to complete the Christian character in all its aspects, to polish the diamond on all its sides, that so on every side it may be capable of reflecting that light of heaven which will on that side also fall upon it" (Trench, Exp. of the Ser/n, 011 the Mount, p. I Si). V. 13-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 71 you.' 'For My sake' is essential; it is equivalent to 'for righteousness' sake ' in the preceding verse, and it belongs to 'reproach you' and 'persecute you,' as well as to 'say all manner of evil against you falsely.' Here we have the form which religious persecution commonly takes at the present time. The cruelties of the arena and of the scaffold are in abeyance, but reviling clamour and slanderous statements are still frequent ; and those who suffer from them should remember these verses. They may rejoice, for they will share the reward of the Prophets and of Him who is greater than the Prophets.^ From slightly different points of view the next four verses (13-16) might be grouped either with what precedes, as a con- tinuation of the statement of the qualifications of those wl;o can enter the Kingdom, or with what follows, as an introduction to the duties of those who have entered the Kingdom. The former arrangement seems better ; but in neither case is the connexion very close. We may suspect that some words of the original Sermon are omitted between verses 12 and 13, and again between 16 and 17. In these four verses the metaphors of salt and of light are used to set forth certain necessary functions of the true disciple. Lk. gives the salt-metaphor in a different connexion (xiv. 34, 35) ; and, if the saying was uttered only once, his arrangement seems more probable than that of Mt. But the wording in Mt. may be nearer the original. V. 13-16. The Christian Life as Salt and Light. "There is nothing more useful than salt and sunshine," says Pliny {N. II. xxxi. 9, 45, 102). Salt gives savour to food and preserves from corruption. It makes food both more palatable and more wholesome. The disciple whose life is shaped accord- ing to the Beatitudes will make the Gospel both acceptable and useful. But selfish and apostate disciples are worse than useless. Many substances, when they become corrupt, are useful as manure. Savourless salt is not even of this much use; it cumbers the ground. "I saw large quantities of it literally thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot of men and beasts" (Thomson, Land and Book, p. 38i).2 Ministers that ' " When Jesus comforts them by reminding them that formerly the Prophets fared no better than they, we see clearly with what class of men Me ranks Himself. He is now the I'rophet of His people — a view in no sense at variance with His secret conviction that He is the Messiah" (O. Holtzmann). And as to the rejoicing, gaudium non solum affeclus est, sed etiain offuium Christiani (Rengcl). * The fact, if it be a fact, that pure salt cannot lose its savour, need cause no difficulty. The salt in use in Palestine was not pure, and savourless salt means the sail in common use, with the sodium chloride washed out of it. 'J2 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 13-16 have lost the spirit of devotion will never rescue the world from corruption. Perhaps the connecting thought is, that Christians, like the Prophets who saved Israel from corruption, must be ready to suffer persecution. And in Jesus we have a Prophet who dares to tell the group of unknown persons around Him that they will be more than equal to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; they will be as ready as these Prophets were to suffer for pro- claiming the truth ; and they will recall, not one nation, but many, from spiritual decay. But they must beware lest, instead of preserving others, they themselves become tainted with rotten- ness. The salt must be in close contact with that which it pre- serves ; and too often, while Christians raise the morality of the world, they allow their own morality to be lowered by the world. If we assume that the sayings about salt and light (13, 14) followed immediately after the sayings respecting the blessedness of being persecuted for Christ's sake, especially in the case of the Apostles, then the connexion in thought will be : Great indeed is the blessedness, but great also is the responsibility. You can do an immense amount of good to others ; but you can also do an immense amount of harm. You can win a great reward ; but you can also incur a heavy retribution. In Lk. xiv. 34, 35 the saying about salt is addressed to the multitudes who flocked after Him as if desiring to become disciples, and He warns them to count the cost. In Mk. ix. 50 the saying is addressed to the disciples, as here. See Latham, Pastor Fastorum, p. 360. It is not probable that there is any special connexion between this saying and the fourth Beatitude. "Salt excites thirst; so the Apostles have excited a thirst for heavenly things." This is not one of the good properties of salt, and if it lost this property, it would hardly be less useful. The analogy is forced and fanciful. Comp. rather Col. iv. 6 ; and for ' earth ' in the sense of the inhabitants of the earth, ' Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?' (Gen. xviii. 25). It is obvious that there can be no thought here of salt as the cause of barrenness, an idea which is not rare in the O.T. (Deut. xxix. 23; Job xxxix. 6; Jer. xvii. 6; Ezek. xlvii. 1 1 ; Zeph. ii. 9). Sowing a city with salt (Judg. ix. 45) may mean that the place was laid under a curse, salt being used in religious rites (Lev. ii. 13 ; Ezek. xUii. 24). ' Wherewith shall the earth be salted ' (k, Luther) is of course not the meaning. This leads to the second metaphor.^ If the Christian must 1 With the pair of metaphors compare the parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven (xiii. 31-33). Abbott suspects that Jn. viii. 12 alhides to Mt. V. 14, and is meant to be a correction of it. In Mt. Christ says, ' Ye are the light of the world,' in Jn. He says, '/ am the Light of the world.' JoJiaiinine Vocabulary, 1748. V. 13-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 73 live in the world, in order to save it from moral decay, he must also live above it and aloof from it, like a light on a high place illuminating far and wide. By his own life he will show what true life is. In both metaphors the emphasis is on character ; on what men are rather than on what they accomplish. Good salt cannot help giving a wholesome savour. Unobscured light cannot help shining. So also the man whose character reflects the Beatitudes cannot help being a wholesome and illuminating influence. Such a man cannot and will not isolate liimself : his goodness will be infectious. Christian character is not individual and selfish, but social and beneficent. To attend only to his own soul is to lose savour and to obscure light. The light must shine ' before men ' ; which is not the same thing as shining ' to be seen of men.' Good influence is to be allowed free play ; not for self-glorification, but for the glory of God.^ And influence there will be, whether good or bad. Moreover, the world will measure the value of the Gospel by it. l\Ien estimate the worth of Christianity, not by the Beatitudes, not by the Sermon on the Mount, but by the lives of the Christians whom they see and know. In both metaphors there may be a reference to the last Beatitude. It may be the fear of being laughed at and persecuted that causes the disciple to cease to work against the corruption of the world and to cease to make the Gospel palatable ; and it may be the same fear that causes him to hide the light of a Christian life and in the end to allow it to become extinguished. Thus human society loses what might have preserved and illuminated it, and it is left to decay in the dark. The saying is as old as S. Chrysostom, that there would be no more heathen, if Christians took care to be what they ought to be ; or, as the same truth is sometimes expressed, if the Church were for one day what it ought to be, the world would be converted before nightfall. With the metaphor of the light is joined that of 'a city set on a hill'; and we thus have a triplet of metaphors. But the third is not parallel to the other two, for it does not set forth a duty, but states a fact. It is the duty of disciples to become as salt and as light ; but they cannot help being as a city on a hill. They may hide the goodness of their lives, or cease to have any goodness to exercise, but they cannot hide their lives. For good or for evil the life will be seen and will have influence. ^ The bushel' and Uhe lampstand' mean such as are usually found in a house; comp. Mk. iv. 21, 22; Lk. xi. 33; and contrast Lk. viii. 16, 17. ' Excepting Mk. xi. 25, the expression 'your F.-ilher which is in heaven' is peculiar to Mt. anrl characteristic. It perhaps originated in Jewisji Christianity (Dalnian, The Words of Jesus, pp. 184-19^^). 74 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 The Oxyrhynchus Logion vii. is little more than ver. 14 partly abbreviated and partly expanded, and the expansion may have been suggested by vii. 24, 25. Kiyei 'ItjctoOj, 7r6Xts oiKodofj.T]fiivr) iir' &Kpov cpovs i/^t/XoO kclI iarripiyixivT] ovre ireaelv duvarai ovre Kpv^TJvai, "Jesus saith, A city built upon the top of a high hill and stablished can neither fall nor be hid." The reading wKooofj.y]iJ.€vr] for KeifxevT) (Mt. v. 14) is supported by Syr-Sin. and Syr-Cur. , Tatian and Hilary {(Bdijicata) ; and oiKoSop.-qfj.ivq without augment is found in some MSS. and inscriptions. Grenfell and Hunt, A67ta 'l-qaov, 1897, p. 15; Lock and Sanday, Two Ledm-es on the 'Sayings of Jesus, ^ 1897, p. 26. As in many Other passages (iii. 15, v. 12, vi. 30, vii. 12, 17, etc.) the ' so ' (ourcos) in ' So let your light shine before men ' may refer to what precedes rather than to what follows. There seems to be no example elsewhere of ourojs being used to anticipate oTTws. The meaning probably is, ' In the same way as a well- placed lamp lights every one in the house let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works.' But, what- ever the construction may be, it is evident that it is conduct that is insisted upon rather than preaching. No doubt 'your good works' will cover preaching (Jn. x. 32), but it is the life that is lived rather than the words that are spoken that Christ emphasizes. Example is the best kind of teaching. Comp. Jn. xiii. 35. Here for the first time Mt. uses the expression, which is so frequent in his Gospel, ' the Father who is in heaven' (6 Trarrjpo Iv rots ohpavoh), and which occurs only once in Mk. (xi. 25). Comp. ' the heavenly Father ' (6 TrarT/p 6 oipa.vio%) which is frequent in I\It. (v. 48, vi. 14, 26, 32, xv. 13, xviii. 35, xxiii. 9), and is found nowhere else. He often represents the Messiah as saying 'your Father' (v. 16, 45, 48, vi. i, 14, 15, 26, etc.), 'thy Father' (vi. 4, 6, 18), and 'My Father' (vii. 21, x. 32, 33, xi. 27, etc.), but never ' Our Father.' The Lord's Prayer (vi. 9) is not one in which the Lord Himself joins. Even where Christ calls His disciples His brethren (xii. 49, 50), He does not say ' Our Father,' but ' My Father.' V. 17-48. The Christian Life contrasted with the Jewish Ideal. The general drift of this section is that the Christian ideal is immeasurably higher than the Jewish. It excludes all degrees of sin, even in thought and feeling, whereas the old ideal excluded only acts, and only those acts which were specified as prohibited by the Law. This higher principle is illustrated in respect to murder (21-26), adultery (27-30), divorce (31, 32), oaths (33-37), retaliation (38-42), love of others (43-47), and is summed up as a law of perfection (48). But, while the general drift is clear, it is not always easy to reconcile the particular statements with one another, or with other portions of the Sermon. That, however, need not perplex US. We have to remember that we have not got the exact words V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 75 that Christ said, nor all the words that He said. We must also remember that it was often His method to make wide-reaching statements, and leave His hearers to find out the necessary limitations and qualifications by thought and experience. Ruskin has said that in teaching the principles of art he was never satisfied until he had contradicted himself several times. If verbal contradictions cannot be avoided in expounding principles of art, is it likely that they can be avoided in setting forth for all time and all nations the principles of morality and religion ? 'Think not (comp. iii. 9, x. 34) that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.' Such an expression implies that He knew that there was danger of their thinking so, and possibly that some had actually said this of Him.^ The Pharisees would be sure to say it. He disregarded the oral tradition, which they held to be equal in authority to the written Law ; and Pie inter- preted the written Law according to its spirit, and not, as they did, according to the rigid letter. He did not keep the weekly fasts, nor observe the elaborated distinctions between clean and unclean, and He consorted with outcasts and sinners. He neglected the traditional modes of teaching, and preached in a way of His own. Above all. He spoke as if He Himself were an authority, independent of the Law. Even some of His own followers may have been perplexed, and have thought that He proposed to supersede the Law. They might suppose " that it was the purpose of His mission simply to break down restraints, to lift from men's shoulders the duties which they felt as burdens. The law was full of commandments ; the Prophets were full of rebukes and warnings. Might not the mild new Rabbi be welcomed as one come to break down the Law and the Pro- phets, and so lead the way to less exacting ways of hfe? This is the delusion which our Lord set Himself to crush. The gospel of the Kingdom was not a gospel of indulgence." 2 He was not a fanatical revolutionary, but a Divine Restorer and Reformer. This section of the Sermon is by some regarded as the theme of the whole discourse. But this is not probable : much of the Sermon has no direct relation to it. Lk., while giving so much of the same or of a similar sermon, omits this section altogether, ' This is further evidence that the Sermon could not have been delivered at the beginning of the ministry. * \iori, Judaisizc Christianity, p. 15. The 'I came' (jf\K6ov) probably implies the pre-existence of the Messiah, as also in x. 34 : compare vaptSdOr) (xi. 27). ' The Law and the Prophets ' is a Jewish expression for the Scriptures: vii. 12, xi. 13, xxii. 40; Lk. xvi. 16: comp. Lk. xvi. 29, 31, xxiv. 44 ; Jn. i. 45. Christ here says ' the Law or the Prophets,' because He might have upheld the one and rejected the other ; but He has not conig to abolish either. 76 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 as of less interest for Gentiles. Could he have done so, had it been the main subject ? The first four verses (17-20) give the general principle of the Messiah's relation to the Law: "not destruction, but fulfilment." The remainder (21-48) give the illustrations. At the outset He implies that He is the Coming One (6 ipxofievos) : ' Think not that I came ' : and throughout He speaks with a calm assertion of supreme authority, which impresses readers now, as it im- pressed hearers then.^ He is evidently conscious of possessing this supreme authority, and it manifests itself quite naturally, not in studied phrases, but as the spontaneous expression of His . habitual modes of thought. One who knew that He was the Messiah, and was conscious of His own absolute righteousness, would consistently, perhaps we may say, inevitably, speak in some such way as this.^ Could any one else speak in this quiet majestic way of ' fulfilling the Law,' or side by side with the Law place His own declarations : ' But / say to youJ It is not obvious at first sight what Christ means by ' fulfill- ing (TrXfjpwcrai) the Law.' He does not mean taking the written Law as it stands, and literally obeying it. That is what He con- demns, not as wrong, but as wholly inadequate. He means rather, starting with it as it stands, and bringing it on to completeness; working out the spirit of it; getting at the comprehensive principles which underlie the narrowness of the letter. These the Messiah sets forth as the essence of the revelation made by God through the Law and the Prophets. Through them He has revealed His will, and it is impossible that His Son should attempt to pull down or undo (KaraXvaat) this revelation of the Father's will, or that His will, in the small- est particular, should fail of fulfilment.^ Not until the whole of the Divine purpose has been accomplished (ews av -Travra yev7]TaL), can the smallest expression of the Divine will be abolished. And he who prematurely relaxes the hold (Xvay) which one of these minor enactments has on the conscience, will be the worse for it. He will not be expelled from the ^ It was a rabbinical principle that some authority must confirm the dictum of every teacher, the authority either of some previous teacher or of the Torah interpreted according to rule. No teacher must base his teaching simply on his own authority : that Jesus did this was one of the grievances against Him (Herford, Christianity in Tah)nid and Midrash, pp. 9, 151). " See Steinbeck, IDas g'dttliclie Selbsbewiisstsein Jesii nach dem Zeiigniss der Synoptilcer, Leipzig, 1908, p. 21. "There are none of our Lord's sayings which bear a stronger mark of genuineness than those in which He criticises and enlarges the Mosaic precepts" (Salmon, Htiman Element, p. 120). ^ Here for the first time the solemn ' Verily ' ( kix-qv) is used in this Gospel. With the whole verse comp. Lk. xvi. 17, which is in quite a differ- ent connexion. ' Kix.r\v \iy03 occurs 30 times in Mt., 13 in Mk,, and 6 in Lk. V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 'J'J Kingdom, but his place in it will be less glorious and less secure ; for he is unable to appreciate the relation of small parts to the whole, and, although loyal to the whole, he has, in this particular, been weakening its authority.^ But there is a niucli worse error than undervaluing this or that detail of what makes for righteous- ness. There is the error of misconceiving and misinterpreting the very nature of righteousness. This was the error of the Scribes and Pharisees, and it is fatal ; it excludes from the Kingdom. Our Lord is not here alluding to the hypocritical professions of the Scribes and Pharisees ; nor to their sophistical evasions of the Law. We are to think of them rather at their best ; as care- fully preserving in writing and in memory the words of the Law and of the oral tradition ; as scrupulously observing the exact letter of them ; and as supposing that this punctiliousness is righteousness.^ Those who can suppose that by formal obedience to definite precepts they fulfil the will of God and do all that is required of them, do not know the barest elements of what is required for admission into the Kingdom. They know nothing of that inward holiness, the chief characteristics of which have just been set forth in the Beatitudes. They have been in closest contact with the expression of God's will, and yet have never discovered, or wished to discover, the true mean- ing of the expression. It is not the Law or the Prophets that Jesus proposes to abolish, but the traditional misinterpretations of these authorities. To destroy these misinterpretations is to open the way for the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets ; and He thus substitutes free development of spiritual character for servile obedience to oppressive rules. The first illustration of the contrast between the Christian life and the Jewish ideal is taken from the sixth commandment (21-26). There are six illustrations in all, grouped in two triplets, which are marked off from one another by the 'Again' (TTaAtr) in ver. 33. Six times in succession does our Lord use the magisterial ' But / say to you ' in correction of what had been said to an earlier generation (22, 28, 32; 34, 39, 44). The first triplet refers to the Decalogue, the question of divorce * We have here another of the remarkable parallels between IMt. and the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs : llaj 5j fie oiodcrKei Ka\a Kal irpdrTei, avvdpovos iarai 8aip-Q% means, 'if thou art in the act of offering' ; comp. XV. 14. See Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 189. 80 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 We may suspect that the next two verses (25, 26) are no part of the original Sermon, but come from some other context (Lk. xii. 58). They seem to introduce a new and not wholly harmonious thought. The previous case teaches a man to be reconciled to his fellow-man, because God forbids enmity. This case teaches a man to be reconciled to his adversary, because the adversary may put him in prison. But, taking the verses as they are placed here, we may say that they contain a parable to enforce one of the lessons of the previous illustration, viz. that no time must be lost. The connecting link is 'quickly' (raxv). Enmity is hateful to God, therefore put an end to it without delay. The offended brother may die, or you may die ; and if you both live, the enmity is likely to become more intense ; in either case there is a disastrous conclusion. Possibly the parable means no more than this : one cannot be too speedy in putting an end to bad feeling. And if so, that is the whole moral of the parable. But if ' the adversary ' is to be interpreted, it would seem to mean, not the offended brother, but the offended Father, who has become hostile to one who persists in violating His law of love.^ The solemn warning, 'till thou have paid the last farthing,' points to this ; for any interpretation of it as referring to earthly penalties and the evils of litigation seems to be inadequate. Thus interpreted the parable says, " Beware of persisting in conduct which must expose you to the action of Him who is at once Prosecutor, Witness, Judge, and the Executor of the judgment." Nothing is said about the possibility or impossibility of payment being made in prison : see on iii. 12. The wise and right thing to do is to be recon- ciled before being prosecuted. The passage is highly meta- phorical, and metaphors must not be pressed. The second illustration of the contrast between the Christian life and the Jewish ideal is taken from t/ie sevetiih conwmndment (2 7-3o).2 This commandment, especially when supplemented by the tenth, protected the sanctity of marriage and the peace of married life. But the Messiah, while confirming this, again sets His own standard of purity beside the old one, and intimates that His standard is the true spirit of the old commandments. To abstain from even wishing to possess one's neighbour's wife is far from being enough. To lust after her, or any woman, is ^ "The born are to die, and the dead to revive, and the living to be judged ; that it may be known that He is the Discerner, and He the Judge, and He the Witness, and He the Adversary, and that He is about to judge with whom there is no iniquity, nor forgetfulness, nor respect of persons" {Pinje Aboth, iv. 31). - We have here another parallel (see on v. 19) with the Testaments of the Xn. Patriarchs : '0 'ix'^v hi6.voi(kv t;a9apav iv dydTrrj 01% opq. yvvaiKa eis iropvdav {Benj. viii, 2 /3). See Charles, p. Ixxix. V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 8l a breach of the commandment. Not only is social purily binding on both the married and the unmarried, whether male or female, but purity of heart (S) is absolutely indispensable for admission to the Kingdom. So indispensable is it, that no sacrifice ought to be regarded as too great, if it is the only means of securing the necessary cleanness of thought and will.i On the analogy of the right hand, the right eye was regarded as the better of the two (i Sam. xi. 2; Zech. xi. 17), and the right hand and eye are among the most valuable members that could be sacrificed without causing death ; they therefore signify what is most precious. Like the passage about the adversary (25, 26), these verses (29, 30) are highly figurative, and we must once more be cautious about drawing inferences from metaphors. The actual sacrifice of eye or hand would do little towards securing purity ; and it is not safe to argue from what is said here to the belief that there must be physical pains in Gehenna. The 'eye' and 'hand' are figurative, and therefore the 'whole body' is figurative. See notes on xviii. 8, 9. The third illustration of the superiority of the Christian ideal to the Jewish is taken from the question of divorce (31, 32). As being a subject connected with the preceding illustration it comes not inappropriately here, but we may doubt whether it was part of the original Sermon. The substance of it, partly in the same words, is found again xix. 3-9 ; but in neither place does it, according to the existing texts, show that Christ's teaching about divorce was superior to that of the stricter Jewish teachers. There is grave reason for doubting whether Christ, either in the Sermon or elsewhere, ever taught that divorce is allowable when the wife has committed adultery. That Tropveta here and xix. 9 means adultery (Hos. ii. 5 ; Amos vii. 17) is clear from the context. According to the earliest evidence (Mk. x. 1-12), which is confirmed by Lk. xvi. 18, Christ declared that Moses allowed divorce as a concession to a low condition of society. But there was an earlier marriage law, of Divine authority, according to which the marriage tie was indissoluble. To this Divine law men ought to return. Teaching such as this is entirely in harmony with the teaching about murder (21-24) and about adultery (27, 28), and is above the level of the best Jewish teaching. But what is given here (31, 32) and in xix. 9 is not above that level. The stricter Rabbis taught that the ' unseemly thing ' (aa-xrjfJiov irpayfrn — impudicuin negotium^ TertuUian) which * These verses have no parallel in Lk. "It seems to me probable that Luke the Physician preferred to leave out the metaphor of amputation" (Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 159). But Lk. also omits the paragraphs about murder and swearing. 6 83 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 justified divorce (Deut. xxiv. i) was adultery: and, according to Mt., Christ said the same thing. Nothing short of adultery justified divorce, but adultery did justify it. It is very improbable that Christ did teach this. If we want His true teaching we must go to Mk. and Lk., according to whom He declared the indis- solubility of the marriage bond. He told His disciples that the remarriage of either partner, while the other is living, is adultery.^ But it is a violent hypothesis to assume (in the face of all external evidence) that ' except on account of fornication ' is a later interpolation by early scribes (Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, p. 99). If the interpolation had not already been made in the Jewish-Christian authority which Mt. used, then we must attribute the interpolation to the Evangelist himself. It is clear from other cases that he treated his authorities with freedom, and he may have felt confident that Christ, while forbidding divorce on any other ground, did not mean to forbid it in the case of adultery. 2 Yet, even on the Evangelist's authority, we can hardly believe that our Lord, after setting aside the Mosaic enactment as an accommodation to low morality, should Himself have sanctioned what it allowed. Mark would have no motive for omitting the exception, if Christ had made it; but there would be an obvious motive for a Jewish-Christian to insert it, as meant, though not reported. The fourth illustration is on the subject oi oaths (33-37) ; and it is more Uke the passage on divorce than those on murder and adultery. In the cases of murder and adultery Christ interprets the Law, and shows how much more ground it covers than the Rabbis supposed. In the cases of divorce and oaths Christ simply opposes Jewish tradition. The Law said that promises to Jehovah, whether oaths or not, must be kept : a man ' must do according to all that goeth forth from his mouth' (Num. XXX. 2 ; see Gray, ad loc. ; also Barton on Eccles. v. 4). The Jews held that only oaths need be kept, and not all of them ; only certain forms of swearing were binding. Christ says that such distinctions are iniquitous; all oaths. are binding. But no oaths ought to be used, because a man's word ought to be enough. Oaths and other strong statements have come into use, because ^ Augustine's view is this: soUits fornicaiio)iis causa licet nxorcm aditl- teram dimittere, sed ilta vivente non licet alteram ducere ; but he is not satisfied w-th any solution of the difficult question. Yet he would use Mk. and Lk. to explain Mt. Qtiod subobscure apud Matthaitm positiim est, ex- positum est apud alios, sictU legitiir apud Marcum et apud Lucani. Tertullian is very decided for this view (Adv. Man. iv. 34). - See Allen, ad. loc, and art. on ' Divorce' in Hastings' DCG.., Driver on Deut. xxiv. I and' Marriage' in Hastings' DB. ; Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. pp. 331 ff. ; Luckock, History of Marriage; Watkins, Holy Matrijnony; Loisy, Le Discours sur La Montague, pp. 56-61 ; Wright, Synopsis, 99. V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 83 men are so often liars ; but it is a grievous error to suppose that a lie is not sinful, unless it is sworn to. The Jew went beyond even this, and held that perjury was not sinful, unless the oath was taken in a particular form (xxiii. 16-22). False swearing was specially common among the Jews of the Dispersion engaged in trade (Martial, xi. 94); and hence the charge given by S. James (v. 12), in a passage which strongly resembles this. So great had the evil become that the Talmud raises the question whether ' Yes ' and ' No ' are not as binding as oaths : and it decides that they are, if they are repeated, as here. Christ does not say that anything stronger than 'Yea, yea' is sinful, but that it is, or comes, of what is eviV viz. the prevalence of untruthful- ness. In the Kingdom God's rule prevails, and all speak the truth : oaths would be a senseless profanity. In this world, while falsehood remains so common, specially solemn statements may sometimes be necessary, and therefore are permissible. God Himself had at times recognized this necessity (Lk. i. 73; Acts ii. 30; Heb. iii. 11, 18, iv. 3, vi. 13-18, vii. 20, 21); and so did Jesus, when He responded to the adjuration of the high priest (xxvi. 63). Moreover, He frequently strengthened His utterances with ' Verily I say unto you ' ; and Origen remarks that Christ's 'A/i7;v was an oath. It would seem from passages in Philo and from the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (xlix. i) that teaching similar to what we have here was not uncommon among the Jews. The latter passage runs : " For I swear to you, my children, but I will not swear by a single oath, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God made. God said : There is no swearing in Me, nor injustice, but truth. If there is no truth in men, let them swear by a word. Yea, yea, or Nay, nay. But I swear to you, Yea, yea." Passages from Philo are quoted by Charles, ad loc. But it is not probable that Christ meant absolutely to forbid all swearing for any purpose whatever. It is provided for in the Law. It is expressly com- manded, 'Thou shalt swear by His Name' (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20). To swear by idols representing Jehovah (Am. viii. 14) or by ]jaal (Jer. xii. 16) is wrong ; but to swear truthfully iii the Name of Jehovah brings a blessing (Jer. iv. 2, xii. 16). Indeed, 'every one that sweareth by Him shall be commended' or 'shall glory' (Ps. Ixiii. 11). Christ would not forbid this. Jewish casuists sometimes taught that it was oaths in which the Divine Name, or some portion of it, was mentioned that were binding ; other oaths were less stringent or not binding at all ; and the oaths which Christ takes as examples here are such as ' ' Is of the evil one ' (RV.) makes good sense, but is less probable. Some who adopt the neuter explain the ' evil ' as meaning that an oath implies that one is not bound to speak the truth unless one swears to one's statement. 84 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 do not name God. These were, therefore, just such oaths as many Jews took and broke without scruple. This light taking of oaths, even when there is no false swearing, Christ absolutely forbids.^ Thus, as in the previous cases. He confirms the letter of the Law, but explains and expands the spirit of it. The Law said, 'Ye shall not swear by My Name falsely' (Lev. xix. 12), and Christ points out that the way to avoid false swearing is to be content with simple affirmations and negations. He cannot be admitted to the Kingdom in which truth reigns who holds that he need not speak truth, unless he confirms his word with an oath. The absence of an oath in no way lessens the obliga- tion to speak the truth. It is an interesting question whether S. James (v. 12) has not preserved our Lord's words more accurately than Mt. does here. ' But let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay, Nay' (r;Vw 5^ vi.lQiv to vai vai, Kal t6 06 01"). A number of early writers, who possibly did not know the Epistle of James, nevertheless agree with his wording in inserting the article before vai and of}. So Just. Jpol. i. 16 ; C/em. Horn. iii. 55, xix. 2 ; Epiph. Har. xix. 6. Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. 8 (a valuable commentary on the passage, showing that the true Christian is so addicted to truth that he does not need an oath) and vii. 11 (where he has the article with vat, but not with ov). The difference between the two forms of wording seems to be this. ' Let your speech be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay ; and whatsoever is more than this is of evil ' may mean, ' Be content with simply affirming and denying : oaths imply untrustworthiness on one side and distrust on the other.' ' Let your Yea be a Yea, and your Nay a Nay ; that ye fall not under judgment' appears to mean, ' Be straightforward ; do not shuffle and try to say both Yes and No, or Yes to-day and No to-morrow. Then you will have no need of an oath, and will be guiltless before God and man.' It is possible to bring Jas. v. 12 into harmony with Mt. v. 37 by translating, ' Let yours be the Yea, yea and the Nay, nay' (see \VH. text and RV. margin) ; but the usual translation is simpler and more probable. See J. B. Mayor on Jas. V. 12, p. 155, and Knowling, pp. 135, 153; also Zahn on Mt. v. 37, pp. 244-246, and Dalman, Words, pp. 206, 227. For Jewish condemnation of swearing see Ecclus. xxiii. 9-1 1, and comp. Eccles. ix. 2; but in the latter passage ' he that feareth an oath ' may mean the man who is afraid to swear to what he says, because he knows that it is false. In the other pairs in the series the good is placed first. The fifth illustration of the superiority of the Christian ideal is taken {3S-42) from the law of retaliation, which was affirmed Ex. xxi. 23-25; Lev. xxi. 17-21; Deut. xix. 18-21. Neverthe- less, the spirit of revenge was forbidden (Lev. xix. 18; Prov. XX, 22, xxiv. 29); vengeance belongs to God (Deut. xxxii. 35; Ps. xciv. i) ; and the ' meekness ' of ]\Ioses was praised (Num. xii. 3), where the meaning of not resenting injuries seems to be implied; comp. Prov. xx. 22; Lam. iii, 30, But the Jews too ^ Josephus [B. J. II, viii, 6, 7) says that the Essenes regarded their word as stronger than an oath, and that they avoided swearing as worse than perjury. Yet in the next section he says that those who became Essenes were required to take tremendous oaths \fipKov% 0/)tKw5eij). V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 85 often remembered the letter of the Law and thought little of the necessary limitations. Nevertheless such a passage as Ecclus. xxviii. 1-7 shows that some thoughtful Jews felt that the principle of retaliation was out of harmony with the other principle of loving one's neighbour as oneself (Lev. xix. iS). And there are passages in the Testaments of the XIL Patriarchs which give similar evidence {Gcid v. 5, vi. 3, 6).^ But the lex talioiiis is too much in harmony with natural feelings of vengeance and man's rough ideas of justice not to be very prevalent. And in a primitive state of society it is beneficial, as restricting the wildness of revenge. If a wrong- doer must " have as good as he gave," it is best that the law should intlict it. Ex. xxi. 24, which Christ here quotes, is thought to belong to the oldest part of Jewish law, the Book of the Covenant. And the kx talionis is found in the Code of Hammurabi. " If a man has caused the loss of a gentleman's eye, one shall cause his eye to be lost. If a man has made the tooth of a man that is his equal to fall out, one shall make his tooth fall out. If a man has struck a gentleman's daughter and ... if that woman has died, one shall put to death his daughter. If a builder has caused the son of the owner of the house to die, one shall put to death the son of that builder" (§§ 196, 200, 210, 230). See also Monier-Williams, Indian JVisdom, p. 273. Just as Christ condemned the casuistry of the Scribes as to what oaths were binding and what not, and charged His disciples to be content with simple affirmations and denials, so here He condemns a similar casuistry as to what penalties should be exacted for what injuries, and charges His disciples to be content to receive injuries without taking vengeance. But, as in the one case we need not suppose that He forbade the use of specially solemn affirmations, when (the world being what it is) something more than a man's word is necessary, so in this case we cannot suppose that He condemned the laws which (the world being what it is) are necessary for the pre- servation of society. What He condemns is, not the prosecution of those who are guilty of robbery and violence, but the spirit of revenge.2 The law of the Kingdom is not selfishness, but love. ' We may compare the well-known story of Pericles, who allowed a man to abuse him all tlay long and all the w.iy home, and then sent his serA'ant to light the man back to his house (Plutarch, Per. 5). Phocion, when he was condemned to death, was asked what message he had to send to his son Phocus, replied : "Only that he bear no grudge against the Athenians," for putting him to death. ' Posse peccatum atiiore f otitis vindicari, quam impunittim reh'nrjifi {Awg. De Servi. Dom. I. xx. 62). Plurimum interest quo aninio qiiisqtie parcat. Siiiit euim est aliquando misericordia puniens, ita el crudeiitas parcens (^A 153)- 86 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 Therefore, in causing transgressors to be punished, those who have been injured by them must have no feeHng of revenge. They ought to be fulfilling a sad duty, not gratifying angry feeling. So far as their own personal feeling is concerned, they ought to be quite ready that the injury should be repeated. "Why are we angry?" asks Epictetus {Discourses, i. i8). "Is it because we value so much the things of which these men rob us? Do not admire your clothes, and then you will not be angry with the thieves. They are mistaken about good and evil. Ought we then to be angry with them, or to pity them ? " ' Resist not evil, or the evil man,' says our Lord ; ^ and His Apostle shows why this is right; because 'love suffereth long and endureth all things' (i Cor. xiii. 4, 7). Where resistance is a duty for the sake of others and for the evil-doer himself, it must be done in the spirit of love, not of anger and revenge (see Cyprian, De botio patientice). And there are cases in which the injured person is under no obligation to prosecute, and in which the abstention from retaliation is a telling rebuke, more likely to bring the wrong- doer to repentance than any penalty would be. Resistance can only subdue, gentleness may convert; it is the spirit of the martyrs, and martyrs have often touched the hearts of their executioners (Pere X)\Aox\, Jesus Christ, p. 358).^ Our Lord gives five examples : assault, lawsuit, impressment, begging, and borrowing. They are all figurative. They do not give rules for action, but indicate temper. To interpret them as rules to be kept Hterally in the cases specified is to make our Lord's teaching a laughing-stock to the common sense of the world. Are we to surrender our property to any one who claims it, and to give to every beggar, thus encouraging fraud and idleness ? No ; but we oiight to be ready to give to all who are in need, and our reason for refusing to give must not be that we prefer to keep all that we have got. See notes on Lk. vi. 27-31 in the Int. Crit. Commentary, and Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 86. As Augustine points out, we are not told to give everything that is asked for, but to every one who asks. We may give him a wholesome word, or may pray for him. 1 ry TTovrjpu is probably neuter : if it were masculine it would mean Satan rather than an evil man. - Comp. the story of the thief bringing back Gichtel's cloak, when the latter called out to him that he might have his coat as well (Hase, Gescliichte^ Jcsii, p. 501). With ry ahovvTi ae d6s comp. Trapix'^re iravrl dz'^pwTrw iv dyady Kapoia (Testament of Zebulon, vii. 2 ; Charles, p. Ixxx) ; also, Ik^ttiv e\LJ36/j.€i>ou fjLT] aTravalvov, Kal p-T] airodTp^^ris to irp6- improvement of 'love your enemies and pray for your persecutors ' into a climax of four gradations, and (2) his chani^ing ' tax- collectors ' and 'heathen,' which would hardly be intelligible to Gentile readers, into the more general 'sinners.' In the AV. the text of vcr. 44 has been enlarged from Lk. The RV. gives the true text (^? B some cursives, some Old Latin texts, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Boh., Alhenag. Orig. Cypr.). So also in ver. 47 'the Gentiles' (N B DZ) is to be preferred to ' the toll-collectors ' (E K L M etc. ). This (ver. 46) is the first use in Mt. of the word reXCivai, which is un- fortunately rendered ' publican ' even in the RV. The publicani were those who farmed the Roman taxes, i.e. paid the Roman Government a large sum for the right to whatever such and such taxes might yield. But the reXwi/at of the Synoptists are the portitores, the people who collected the taxes for the publicani. Moreover, ' publican ' in English suggests the keeper of a public-house. See Hastings' DB., Extra vol. pp. 394-6. Both Syr-Sin. and k (Bobiensis, one of the most important of the Old Latin texts) omit ver. 47, possibly because it seemed to be out of harmony with xxiii. 7 and Lk. x. 4. The substitution of 'friends' (E K LM etc.) for ' brethren ' (l< B D Z) is less easy to understand. Possibly ' friends ' seemed to be a better antithesis to ' enemies ' (44). In ch. V. we find these characteristic expressions: irpowi> (3, lO, 19, 20), and 6 irarTjp 6 ovpauios (48), which occurs 7 times in this Gospel, and on which see Dalman, 7/te IVords of Jesus, p. 189. The latter phrase is closely akin to 6 tt. 6 iv. roh ovpavoh, which occurs 13 times in Mt. and elsewhere only Mk. xi. 25. In ver. 48, 6 ovpa.vLo% is the right reading (K B E L U Z, a f Vulg. Syr-Cur. Arm. Aeth. Clem. Orig. Cypr.)." While almost all N.T. writers use ovpavo% more often than ovpavol (Hebrews and 2 Peter being exceptions), Mt. uses the plural more than twice as often as the singular (55 to 27 times), and he uses the word much more often than any other writer. "The plural is not frequent in the LXX : it only occurs about 50 times against more than 600 occurrences of the singular. It is most common in the I'salms, where it is used about 30 times" (Hawkins, //om Synoplica:, p. 41). The following are found nowhere else in the N.T. : elprjvorrotd^ (9), Hvra (18), Sia\\i Rut it is not a form which Christ ever used, or could use. lie never asked for, or could need, forgiveness (Steinbeck, Das goltlicht Selbslbewmst- sein Jesu, p. 26). * Tertullian calls it breviaritim totiiis cvans^lii (De Oral, i); Augustine says that there is no lawful petition that is not covered by it {Ep. 130). g6 GOSPEL ACCORDINQ TO S. MATTHEW [vi. 1-18 that His will may be done in us, not that it may be changed in accordance with ours. Just as there is want of agreement as to the number of the Beatitudes, so there is want of agreement as to the number of petitions in the Prayer. Some make five, some six, and some seven. Seven is an attractive number, and it is obtained by counting ' Lead us not into temptation but deliver us ' as two separate petitions. The six petitions are reduced to five by regarding ' Hallowed be Thy Name ' as an expression of praise or reverence rather than a petition, hke ' Blessed be the Lord God of Israel.' But the prayer is best regarded as consisting of two equal parts, each containing three petitions. It will then be found that the two triplets correspond. ^ Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Our daily bread give us this day : And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors : And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. As in the case of the Decalogue and of the Two Great Commandments (xxii. 40), the first part refers to God, the second to man. In the first three petitions we seek the glory of our heavenly Father, in the last three the advantage of ourselves and our fellows. But there is no sharp line of separa- tion between these two. The glory of God is a blessing to His children, and what benefits them is a glory to their heavenly Father. Thus, while the first three petitions show the end which we should have in view — the accomplishment of God's Glory, Kingdom, and Will, the last three show the means — provision, pardon, and protection. The two triplets correspond thus. The first petition is addressed to God as our Father, the second as our King, the third as our Master. We ask our Father for sustenance, our King for pardon, our Master for guidance and guardianship. The transition from the one triplet to the other, from man's regard for God to God's care for man, is made in the third ^ Mt. is fond ol arrangements in sevens, and still more fond of arrange- ments in threes. It is as probable that he thought of two triplets as thathe thought of one sevenfold prayer. In Lk. xi. 2-4 there are five petitions, according to the true text. See Bruce, TAe Training of the Twelve, p. 53. VI. 9, 10] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE gf petition, which would raise earth to heaven by securing that God's rule should be e(iually complete in both. And in each triplet there is progression. In the fust, the hallowing of Cud's Name leads to the coming of the Kingdom, and the coming of the Kingdom to the perfect fulfilment of God's Will. In the second, the obtaining of good is followed by the removal of evil, past, present, and future. This marvellous proportion and development cannot be accidental; and, to whatever extent old material has been used in this Prayer, it was composed in the spirit of Him who said, 'Behold I make all things new' (Rev. xxi. 5). Our Father zvhich art in heaven. In the Old Testament God is the Father of the Jewish nation (Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixiii. 16; Jer. iii. 4, 19, xxxi. 9; Mal. i. 6, ii. 10). In the Apocrypha He is spoken of as the Father of individuals (Wis. ii. 16, xiv. 3; Ecclus. xxiii. i, 4, Ii. 10 ; Tob. xiii. 4). They are His offspring, made in His image, and are the objects of His loving care. I>ut the New Testament carries us further than this, to a Fatherhood which, however, as yet is not universal. 'As many as receive the Son, to them gave He the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name' (Jn. i. 12). The address, ' Our Father,' expresses our confidence that we shall be heard, and heard for others as well as for ourselves. We belong to a great family, and there must be no selfishness in our prayers ; the blessings for which we ask are blessings to be shared by others.^ 'Which art in heaven.' We need constantly to remind ourselves that heaven is not a place. We are obliged to think under conditions of space and time, yet we ought to remember that there is no portion of space in which God dwells more than in other portions. When we speak of heaven as His dwelling- place, 'heaven' is a symbol to express His remoteness from all the limitations to which human beings, and the universe in which He has placed them, are subject. ' Which art in heaven ' reminds us that between His infinite perfections and our miserable imperfections there is an immeasurable gulf, although, at the same time. He is in us and we are in Him. Halloived be Thy Name. That this petition stands first warns us against self-seeking in prayer. We are not to begin with our own wants, not even our spiritual wants ; not with ourselves at all, but with God. It is His claims which are to be thought of first. His Name represents His nature. His character. Himself, so far as all this can be known. 'Hallow' may mean 'make holy,' which is impossible with regard to God or His ^ Oratio fraterna est; non dicit. Paler mens sed. Pater uoslcr, oinnes videlicet titid oral i one coniplecteus (Aug.). 7 98 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 10 Name. But 'hallow' may also mean '■make k?iown as holy,' which is what God does when He hallows His Name. And it may also mean ' regard as holy,' which is what man does when he hallows God's Name. It is for both these that we pray in this first petition. We pray that God will reveal to us more and more of the holiness of His character ; and we also pray that He will enable us to recognize His holiness, to understand more and more of the elements of which it consists, and to pay to it all the reverence that is possible, especially that most sincere form of reverence, — conscious and humble imitation. Thus while the address, ' Our Father,' encourages us to approach God with confidence, the first petition acts as a check upon any irreverent familiarity.^ Thy Kingdom come. The petition is the most Jewish of all the petitions. The Talmud says : " That prayer in which there is no mention of the Kingdom of God is not a prayer." But the petition is equally Christian. It asks that God's rule may everywhere prevail over all hearts and wills. It sums up the Messianic hopes of the Hebrews and the still more comprehensive hopes of the disciples of Christ, who began His Ministry on earth with the proclamation that this Kingdom was about to begin. He founded it, and it has been developing ever since. This petition asks that its progress may be hastened by increased knowledge of God's commands and increased obedience to them. It asks that the principles of God's government may be victorious over the principles of the w^orld and of the evil one ; victorious in the individual heart, and also in the workings of society. It is a missionary prayer ; but we unduly limit its meaning if we interpret it merely as a petition for the spread of Christianity. If the whole human race had accepted the Gospel, this petition would still stand. 'The Kingdom of God is within you,' and there is no limit to the progress which it may make in each loyal soul. There is always the Divine perfection to be realized more and more (v. 48). Thy Will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. We must know God's character before we know what He wills ; and hence the petition, 'Hallowed be Thy Name' precedes 'Thy Will be done.' We could not pray that any one's will might be done while we were in ignorance of what the will was likely to be. But when God's cha"acter has been in some degree revealed to us, and revered by us, we can with sure trust go on to ask that His Will may be done, and done in this world with all the fulness and perfection with which it is done in that spiritual region in which ^ "As in the Lord's Prayer, so in the ancient liturgies, the aoost imperative is almost exclusively used. It is the true tense for ' instant ' prayer" (J. H. Moulton, Gram, of N.T. Gr. p. 173). VI. 10] THE MINMSTRY IN GALILEli: 99 (lod's rule absolutely prevails. This petition reminds us of the part which we have to play in the realization of the Divine ideal. Clod has not reserved everything for Himself and made every- thing to depend upon His absolute decree. His Will is not the only will in the universe. He has created other wills, and left them free even to rebel against Himself. God's Name will not be rightly hallowed, His Kingdom will not fully come, until all wills are united to His in entire sympathy.- Over this each one of us has his share of control; it rests with him whether, so far as he is concerned, God's Will is done, and done with loving cheerfulness.^ 'As in heaven, so on earth.' Therefore, *in heaven' also there are wills that conform to the Will of God : the petition would scarcely have meaning, if this were not so. So that this petition is a revelation respecting the unseen world : it is tenanted by spiritual beings who are obedient to the Divine Will. To interpret ' in heaven ' of the heavenly bodies is not wrong, but it is inadequate. The sun, moon, and stars are symbols of perfect obedience to God's decrees, but they are not exam//t's of obedience, for there is no willing response to authority, no reasonable service.^ This petition does not mean that men are to be reduced to the condition of perfect machines, knowing nothing of the mind which designed them. The reference is not to creatures who are lower than man, being not made in the image of God, but to those who are higher in the order of creation, or higher in the conditions of their present life. We can hardly doubt that the reference is to the Angels, and perhaps also to 'the spirits of just men niade perfect' (Heb. xii. 23). And this leads to a further revelation. These spiritual beings do God's Will, for it is in this that we are to be like them.^ Therefore life in the unseen world is not idleness but activity ; and the end to which this petition looks is the working of all created wills in absolute unison with the ^Vill of their Creator. It is possible to take ' as in heaven, so on earth ' with the first two petitions, as well as with the third, and this makes excellent sense. ' Voluntas tua corrigatiir advoluntatem Dei, von voluntas Deidetorqueatttr oti tttam (Aug.). "Be bold as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and strong as a lion, to do the will of thy Father which is in Heaven" (Pirqe Aboth, V. 30). * "The sun, moon, and stars change not their order ; so do ye also change not the Law of God by the disorderlincss of your doings" {Naphlali iii. 2). ' Mt. gives us more of Christ's sayings respecting Angels than any other Evangelist: xiii. 39, 41, 49, xvi. 27, xviii. 10, xxii. 30, xxiv. 31, 36, XXV. 31, 41, xxvi. 53. Of these Mk. gives us four: viii. 38, xii. 25, xiii. 27, 32, and Lk. two : ix. 26, xx. 36. But Lk. adds others : xii. 8, 9, XV. 10, xvi. 22. We have therefore more than a dozen utterances of our Lord on the subject, and His belief and doctrine can hardly be doubted. 100 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 11 Our daily bread give us this day. We pass now from the Divine to the human, although (as we have seen in considering the petitions which have special reference to the former) the two are closely interwoven. After such a petition as the third, there is no bathos in coming to this request for the supply of man's temporal needs. After praying that we may be able to serve God on earth as perfectly as He is served in heaven, we may pray that He will give us all that is necessary for our continued life on earth in His service. And this petition, which is in both forms of the Prayer, is sufficient answer to the theory that the benefits to be won by prayer are purely subjective, viz. the quickening of our own spiritual life by communion with God. This petition is strangely misleading, if it does not mean that there are temporal blessings which we may obtain from God by asking for them. Granted that many of these blessings come to those who never pray : that does not prove that they are not won by the supplications of those who do pray, nor that those who do pray are not more richly endowed with them. A man really possesses only that which he enjo3's ; and the enjoyment of temporal goods is always enhanced by the recognition that they are God's gifts. There is no surer way of making this recognition constant and real than by often thanking God for His gifts and asking Him to continue them. And this petition not only allows, but commands us to pray for bodily sustenance and the supply of temporal needs. Prayer against temporal calamities is also enjoined (xxiv. 20; Mk. xiii. 18); and the prayer of the disciples for help in the storm was heard (viii. 26; Mk. iv. 39; Lk. viii. 24). God has given us a nature capable of desiring external things, and He has placed us in a world in which such desires can be gratified. In this petition Christ teaches us that it is lawful to pray for the gratification of such desires, — always in submission to the Divine Will. We may pray for them, both for ourselves and for others. And it is a great test of the rightness of our desires that we can turn them into prayers. Desire for what cannot be in accordance with the Will of God is not one that we can ask Him to grant. We cannot ask God to bless fraud and lust ; but we can ask Him to bless honest work as a means of obtaining food, and raiment, and healthful enjoyment. All which is to be shared with others : ' Give tis.' Therefore he who has received more than his share is bound to consider the needs of those who have received less. ' Give us ' becomes a mockery when those who have been entrusted with a large portion of God's bounty do nothing for the fulfilment of their own prayer in reference to others. S. James has spoken severely of all such in the famous passage on faith and works VI. 11, 12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE lOI (ii. 14-17); and his words are perhaps an echo of those of his Brother (xxv. 41-45). 'Give me' is a prayer which may easily end in selfishness : 'give 7/^,' once realized, is a safeguard against self-seeking. Publica est tiohis et commiDiis oraiio, et quando oramus, tion pro iino sed pro populo toto oramus^ quia totus popuhis unum sunius (Cyprian, Be Dom. Orat. 7). The extremely perplexing word which is translated ' daily ' (eVioi'o-tos : see below) perhaps means ' needful,' just what is required for health and strength. If so, the petition is similar to that in the prayer of Agur : ' Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me' (Prov. XXX. 8). We are not to ask for superfluities. The petition will cover what is needed for culture and refinement, but it will not cover luxury and extravagance. What we need must not be interpreted to mean all that we desire ; sufficiency and contentment will never be reached by that method. Contentment is reached by moderating wants, not by multiplying possessions. It is remarkable that iiriomio^ is in both forms of the Prayer, and the word is found nowhere else in Greek literature. It seems to have been coined for the occasion. It is part of the strong evidence that our Lord habitually spoke Aramaic rather than Greek, for lie would not have put into the pattern Prayer, otherwise so simple in its language, a word that had never been used before. It is possible that some one invented the word in order to translate an Aramaic adjective used by Christ. It is also possible that there was no adjective (elsewhere in the Prayer there is none), but that this was inserted at an early period after the Prayer had come into common use. If 'needful' is not the meaning, 'daily,' or 'for the coming day,' or ' continual ' may be right. See Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament, App. i. ; M'Clellan, 7'he New Testament, i. pp. 632-647 ; Cremer, Lexicon, sub voc. Recently discovered papyri have thrown much light on Biblical language, but not on this word : Origen's remark, that it is not found elsewhere in Greek, is still true. Jerome's statement, that in the Gospel of the Hebrews the word used was 7>iahar, would confirm the rendering ' for the coming day,' if we could be sure that iiriovs alQvas, but with the Amen : " For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen." This perplexing uncial, which is believed to be of the fifth, or possibly of the fourth century, also contains the interpolation about the weather, xvi. 2, 3. See C R. Gregory, Das Freer- Logion, Leipzig, 1908 ; E. Jacquier, Histoiredes Livres du N. T. iii. pp. 338-344, Paris, 1908. It does not follow, because the doxology is no part of the original Prayer, that it ought not to be used. It has evidently supplied a felt want. Perhaps Christians have not liked ending the prayer with ' evil ' or ' the evil one.' See Nestle, Textual Criiidsni, pp. 250, 251 ; and (for a halting defence of the interpolation) Scrivener (Miller), ii. pp. 323, 324. The source may be I Chron. xxix. 11. 104 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 13-16 It is worth while comparing the Mourner's Kaddish as it is still used in the Morning Service of the Synagogue, " Magnified and sanctified be His great Name in the world which He hath created according to His will. May He establish His Kingdom during your life and during your days, and during the life of all the house of Israel, even speedily and at a near time, and say ye, Amen. Let His great Name be blessed for ever and to all eternity. Blessed, praised and glorified, exalted, extolled and honoured, magnified and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He ; though He be high above all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations, which are uttered in the world ; and say ye. Amen " ( The Authorised Daily Pf-ayer Book of the United Hebrew Coti^regations, p. 77). A common response in the Temple-service is said to have been : " Blessed be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever." The two verses (14, 15) which follow the Prayer are inserted as a comment on 'Forgive as we have forgiven.' A similar saying is recorded Mk. xi. 25 : ' And whenever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any one ; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses ' ; where * your Father which is in heaven ' looks like a reference to the Prayer. Nowhere else does Mk. use this phrase. But our forgiveness of others is only part of what is necessary in order to obtain forgiveness for ourselves from God. By itself, our refusal to forgive others prevents our obtaining forgiveness from Him ; but our forgiving others will not, by itself, secure forgiveness from Him. There is a close parallel in Ecclus. xxviii. 2 ; and also in the Testaments : " Do you also, my children, have compassion on every man in mercy, that the Lord also may have compassion and mercy on you " {Zebulon viii. i). These two verses, which are possibly derived from Mk. xi. 25, are additional evidence that the doxology is no part of the original text. As it is, they come in somewhat awkwardly ; but after the doxology a return to a petition in the Prayer would be still more strange. And it is worth noting that Mk. xi. 25 is more suitable than Mt. v. 23, 24, which resembles it, to an audience in Galilee. The case of ' offering thy gift at the altar ' would come home to an audience in Jerusalem, accustomed to make offerings in the Temple ; but ' whensoever ye stand praying ' would suit any Jewish audience. It is not improbable that some of the material of which the Sermon as we have it in Mt. is composed comes from teaching which was originally given at Jerusalem. The third illustration of the contrast between Pharisaic practice and the Christian ideal \s fasting. As in the two other cases, the illustration is introduced with a 'when' or 'whenever' (orav), not with an 'if {idv). It is assumed that the truly religious man will fast, as it is assumed that he will give alms and pray. The Pharisees made a parade of fasting twice a week, Monday and Thursday, in addition to the annual fast prescribed for all; hence the boast in the parable (Lk. xviii. 12). And they let the world know that they were fasting by their sanctimonioijs VI. 16-19] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 105 behaviour. The unusual expression about their 'disfiguring their faces' has a parallel in the Testaments : tot'to (this evil temper) TO TTpoa-wTTov d^ui ('{ct (Zcbulon viii. 6). Loisy thinks that there is un Jt'u de viots between af^aviC^ovaiv and (jiarwa-iv, ' they dis- figure . . . that they may figure.' If it is intentional, it is the Evangelist's ; or his Greek source may have contrived it. It would not be likely to exist in the original Aramaic : comp. xxi. 41, xxiv. 30. In ver. iS \Vellhausen would omit the tw before the first cV Tw Kpv(f>aiw and connect these three words with vqa-Tivojv — 'but as fasting in secret.' This is arbitrary and without advantage. There is no real difficulty in the fact that at this time our Lord's disciples did not fast (ix. 14; Mk. ii. 18). Our Lord knew that they would n\st after His departure, and He here provides principles for this form of discipline. Moreover, He is here addressing a mixed multitude, most of whom were in religion purely Jewish, and therefore needed instruction for their daily lives. They were bound by law and custom to fast some- times, and they might be quite right in adding voluntary fasts sometimes to the fasts of obligation. Christ nowhere blames the Pharisees for fasting; it is fasting ostentatiously that is condemned. VI, 19-VII. 12. T/ie Christian Life in its owfi working. It is possible that the Evangelist has made one of his favourite triplets in having three prohibitions in succession : ' Lay not up,' etc. (19-34), 'Judge not' (vii. 1-5), 'Give not,' etc. (vii. 6). But the passages differ so greatly in length, that the arrangement may be independent of the Evangelist's predilections. The first passage (19-34) has no parallel in Lk.'s report of the Sermon; the parallel material is found in four different places in his Gospel (xii. 33, 34, xi. 34-36, xvi. 13, xii. 22-31). We are therefore in doubt whether these sixteen verses are part of the original Sermon. They fit in very well with the main theme, — the requirements for those who enter the Kingdom, or the elements of the ideal Christian character : to know where true riches can be found is essential to true holiness. On the other hand, the transition from fasting to treasures in heaven is abrupt, and something may be missed out. But the only thing that is of importance is secure ; we are here dealing with what at some time or other was uttered by our Lord. Two links of connexion with what precedes have been suggested. The warning against the worldly-mindedness of hypocritical almsgiving, prayer, and fasting is followed by a warning against the worldly-mindedness of heaping up riches; I06 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 19-23 and in the history of the Church avarice and empty rehgious profession have often gone together from the days of Hophni and Phinehas onwards. Again, the promise of a reward from the Father which seeth in secret leads to a discussion of the acquiring and storing such reward. There is yet another pos- sible connexion. Christ has been warning His hearers against Pharisaic hypocrisy. He now warns them against another vice which was common among the Pharisees, that of avarice (Lk. xvi. 14). The Pharisees were often wealthy, and believed their wealth to be a reward for their zeal in keeping the Law. They regarded themselves as conspicuous evidence of the connexion between righteousness and riches ; and Christ, having shown that their righteousness was no true righteousness, here goes on to show that their wealth is no true riches. A Christian must look elsewhere for his treasure. The passage has three marked divisions : the heavenly treasure (19-21), the single eye (22, 23), the banishment of anxiety (24-34). The warning supposes a simple state of society, in which wealth is hoarded in the house and consists partly of rich apparel. The house also has mud walls, which can be dug through by thieves. The contrast with heavenly treasure is obvious, and this is one reason for preferring heavenly treasure.^ But there is another reason, introduced by an important 'for ' : 'For where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.' We must store our wealth above, in order that our hearts may be drawn upwards. The two act and react upon one another ; where our treasure is, there will our hearts be ; and where our hearts are, there is our treasure. In the Psalms of Solomon we have 6 Troioiv SLKaiocrvvqv 6r]cravpL^€L ^wrjv eavTio Trapa Kvpiw (ix. 9).^ The metaphor of the eye in a moral sense (22) was common among the Jews, a good eye signifying a generous soul, and an evil eye a grasping and grudging one (Deut. xv. 9 ; Prov. xxiii. 6, xxviii. 22). The way to keep the eye of the soul healthy is generous almsgiving (Tob. iv. 7). To be miserly is to distort, and at last to blind, the eye of the soul, so that it can no longer see the true value of things (Hatch, Essays hi Bibl. Grk. p. 80). ^ " Truly a good man, say the Rabbis, was King Munhaz. During a famine he gave to the poor tlie treasury of his father. His relations upbraided him : What thy father saved, thou hast thrown away. Munhaz answered : My father laid up treasure on earth ; I gather it in the heavens. My father hoarded it where hands might steal ; I have placed it beyond the reach of human hands. My father saved money ; I have saved life. My father saved for others ; I save for myself. My father saved for this woild ; I save for the next " (Talmud). Comp. Tob. iv. 7-9. " In the Testaments we again have a parallel : irot^uare diKatoavvrji' fVi rrjs 7^s, IVa evprire iv tois ovpavoTs {Levi xiii. 5)- VI. 23. 24] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE lO/ Here, 'single' (uttAovs) means 'free from distortion,' and hence 'liberal' (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11, 13; Rom. xii. 8; Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22).^ But the spiritual eye may be distorted and darkened in other ways than by avarice,— by prejudice, or super- stition. Jamais on ne fait le mal si plcinetnent que quand on le fait par conscience (Pascal). ' How great is the darkness ! ' ijo ctko'tos -nocrov) possibly refers to the original condition of the soul before that which ought to have illuminated came. Some Latin texts have ipsce tenebne quantcc, which seems to imply this meaning, while others have simply ienebne quanta. If the opportunity for illumination has been without effect, how hopeless must the darkness become ! If that which ought to convey light is darkened, that which is by nature dark must be dark indeed. The next verse (24) connects the subject of the single eye with that of freedom from anxiety by pointing out the absorbing character of the vice of avarice. 'No man can be a slave (8ov/\ev€U') to two masters.' One or other will be his owner and have absolute control over him, and all other claims on his service will be entirely excluded.^ Avarice is the most exacting of all vices ; it is never off its guard, and it never relaxes its hold. Sights which make even the hardened sinner compassionate for a brief space, make the miser draw his purse-strings the tighter. The claims, not only of relations, friends, and country, but even of honour, comfort, and health, are disregarded, when money is at stake. Mammon ^ is here personified as the rival of God, and all experience shows that he who has allowed himself to become its slave can serve no one else ; least of all can he devote himself to the service of Him who claims exclusive service. Devotion to the service of money is the ' covetousness which is idolatry' (Col. iii. 5). But neither here nor elsewhere is ihe. possession of wealth condemned : it is being enslaved to riches that is fatal, and to possess great riches without being enslaved is not easy. ' Comp. iropev6iievos iv airX&rrjTi 6((>da\[iC)v : and TroptutTai iv awXSTriTi, ypvxv^ • • • M'? f'''''5fX<'M^''<'5 ^^^'i^MOi^s irov-qpovz {Issackar iii. 4, iv. 6) ; also 6 70/) ayaObs SivOpwiros ovk ^x^' (XKOTUvbv 6iri6v crov). Justin Martyr {A/>o/. i. 16 ; Tty. 76) mixes the two passages : ' Did we not eat and drink in Thy naviel' Origen {,Ceh. ii. 49) docs the same. It is clear that this passage cannot refer to tlie beginning of Christ's Ministry. There were then no people who hypocritically professed to be devoted to Him. Bcngel adds to these professions, " We have written commentaries on the Old and New Testaments ; we have preached splendid sermons." 'No other Evangelist uses d^voixia.: Mt. has it again xiii. 41, xxiii. 28, xxiv. 12 ; and in xiii. 41, as here, it is in connexion with the Day of Judgment. This revelation of Himself as Judge cannot belong to His early teaching. Il8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VII. 124-27 sensuality; but the religious professions of those who know and do not practise ; who can see, and perhaps feel, the beauty of His teaching and character, and can inspire others with a love for it which has no place in themselves. It is " the piety of sentiment" that is thus condemned (P. Girodon, S. Liic^ P- 237)- VII. 24-29. The Judgments which await the Members of the Kingdom. In both reports of the Sermon the parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders forms the impressive conclusion, and the most impressive phrase in it is the repeated and very comprehensive introduction to each half of it : '■Every one which heareth these words of Mi/ieJ ^ The well-being or ruin of every one of those who hear what has just been spoken is to depend upon whether they obey or not. The claim is tremendous, and it is made, as before, with such serene confidence, as of a Teacher who has no shade of doubt as to His own authority, or as to the supreme importance to His hearers of the message which He brings. And this enormous claim is made without argument or production of credentials : quiet assertion is the only instrument that is used : '/say to you.' The Carpenter of Nazareth stands before the whole race of mankind and tells them that He has laid down principles of conduct for the guidance of every one of them, and that they will neglect His precepts at their peril. He "stood forth as a Legislator, not as a commentator, and commanded and prohibited, and repealed, and promised, on His own bare word." And it is a remarkable thing that so many of those who would regard Him as only the best of human teachers, nevertheless admit the majestic authority of His teaching (see Maclaren, ad lac). Throughout this epilogue to the Sermon (13-27), as else- where, Jesus divides mankind into two classes and no more; either on the narrow or on the broad way ; either a good tree or a corrupt one ; either a wise or a foolish builder ; 2 in a word, either for Christ or against Him. It may be very hard, in most ^ The parable is an expansion of Prov. x. 25 : ' When the whirlwind passeth, the wicked is no more : But the righteous is an everlasting founda- tion.' Comp. Prov. i. 26-33, ^ii- 7> '^i^'- "^ > ^.nd see Toy in each place. 2 As in the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is the wisdom and folly of the agents that is insisted upon, rather than tlieir religious character. This is frequent in Christ's teaching and in Scripture generally. It is often more easy to judge of wisdom and folly ; and by many people this point of view is more readily appreciated than the moral one. In Lk. there are no adjectives applied to the builders, neither 4>pbvLixo^ nor ixwp6^, which are the epithets used of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. Both words are more common in Mt. than elsewhere in the N.T. Vn. 24-28] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 119 cases, for us to decide to which class other people belong ; there seem to be endless gradations, without a decisive line anywhere. And it is our wisdom to assume that all, about whom any doubt is possible (that is, the enormous majority), are on the right side of the line, wherever the line may be. God knows, and we leave all that flows from that knowledge to Him. But about ourselves, each one of us knows, not indeed as well as lie does (far from it), but sutificiently well to form a judgment on which to act. Do we know that we are trying to live according to the Sermon on the Mount? If not, the warning about the Foolish Builder is for us. The metaphor of building is specially appropriate. The man is not pitching a tent for a few hours, or at most for a few days, with the probability of being able to move it in case of danger, but building a house to dwell in permanently, with the certainty that danger must arise sometimes. And that is what we are employed upon here : each one is building up his character, — that character which is the one thing which he can take with him, which he must take with him, into the other world. And the choice which he has is not between building and not building (he must build some kind of character), but between building well and building foolishly. And the only way to build well is to build upon a rock, the rock of Christ's teaching and Christ's example. But Divine instruction, intended for building up, must, if neglected, result in disastrous ruin.^ ' Great was the fall thereof does not mean that the building was a large one, but that the whole edifice fell (or ' fell /«,' o-vrcTreo-cv, as Lk. says), so that the ruin was complete. The warning applies to small characters as well as great, to the humblest disciples as well as to Apostles ; and the whole audience is left with the crash of the unreal disciple's house sounding in their ears. ' ^\'hen Jesus ended these words' it was ' i/ie multitudes^ who 'were astonished at His teaching'; 2 and, according to both reports, the last word which fell upon their ears was ' great ' : ' the fall thereof was great.' The formula, ' It came lo p.iss when Jesus ended ' {iydfero ore ^rAfffe/' 6 'IrjiTovs), occurs after all the five great discourses in Mt. (vii. 28, xi. i, xiii. 53, xix. I, xxvi. i). This produces the impression that the Evangelist intends us to understand that, in each case, all the words in the preceding discourse were uttered at one and the same time ; whereas it is almost certain that in each case the discourse is a compilation. With regard to this diflTicully we may choose one of these three alternatives, (i) Mt. thought that the time at ' " Rabba said : Holy Writ does not tell us that to sOtt/y God's commands shows a good understanding, but to do them. We must learn, however, before we can perft)rm ; and he who acts contrary through life to the leaching of the Most High had better never have been born" (Talmud). ' For the meaning of f'fow/a see Abbott, Johanniuc Vocabulary, 1562 ff. 120 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VII. 28, 29 which the sayings were delivered was of no importance, and that he was quite free to assign any time that he pleased to them. They were the words of the Messiah ; that was all that was important : an Evangelist might arrange them as he found convenient, or thought most effective for his purpose. (2) Mt. had no intention of fixing any times for these five collections of sayings ; in using this formula he was merely marking the conclusion of a particular section of the Gospel. (3) The sayings had already been collected into set discourses in the sources which he used, and he himself believed that each had been uttered as a whole at the time indicated. In the last case, the formula, ' It came to pass when Jesus ended,' may not be the Evangelist's own remark, but may have come from the source. It is in favour of this that the expression ' it came to pass when ' [eyivero ore) occurs nowhere else in Mt., but only in these five passages (see Hawkins, Hora Syn. pp. 132 f.). For the great impression which Christ's teaching made upon His hearers comp. xiii. 54, xxii. 22, 33; Mk. i. 22, vi. 2, xi. 18; Lk. iv. 22, 32; Jn. vii. 15, 46. With the words, 'were astonished at His teaching,' ^ Mt. returns to the narrative of Mk. (i. 22), into which he has inserted three chapters. He follows Mk. in saying that it was the authoritative manner of teaching that so amazed them. The Rabbis were accustomed to quote some authority for what they said, either Scripture, or tradition, or the utterance of some teacher of repute. Christ spoke on His own authority, an authority which He sometimes said that He had received from the Father (xxviii. 18; Jn. v. 27, x. 18, xvii. 2), but which He seems, as a rule, to have allowed to make itself felt without support or justification. He habitually taught {rjv ^lMo-kwv) in this unusual manner ; and, while it was often resented by those who taught in the traditional way, it made the people very attentive to hear Him, they 'hung upon Him, listening' (Lk. xix. 48). But neither this nor His miracles caused Him to be commonly recognized as the Messiah. The Baptist's witness to His Messiahship had not been heard by very many, and had been perhaps forgotten. The multitudes regarded Him rather as a great Prophet, either a new one or one of the old ones risen again. Justin M. (Tfy. 35) gives as sayings of Christ two different quotations of ver. 15, in the first case mixing it with xxiv. 5, and between these quotations he gives as a saying of Christ what seems to be a reminiscence of i Cor. xi. 18, 19. "For He said: Many shall come in My name, outwardly clad in skins of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. And : T/iere shall be schisms ard heresies. And: Beware of false prophets, who shall come to j-ou, outwardly clad in skins of sheep, but within they are ravening wolves." In the Cle?iic?!tine Homilies (xvi. 21) we have a similar mixture of Matthew and Corinthians quoted as a saying of Christ. " For there will be, as the Lord said, false apostles (2 Co'r. xi. 13), false prophets, heresies (i Cor. xi. 19), lustings for rule" (^tXapx^at, frequent in Plutarch). See small print at the end of ch. xxiv. ^ The force of the imperfect, i^eirXifia-aovTo, is that they were more and more amazed, their astonishment went on and on. VIII. 1] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 121 ' Ravening wolves in sheep's clolhing ' is the first of the stern metaphors directed against the Pharisees which have been preserved by Mt. alone. Comp. 'blind guides' (xv. 14, xxiii. 16, 24), and 'whited sepulchres, outwardly beautiful, but full of all uncleanness' (xxiii. 27). Other graphic traits of these hypocrites are their 'sounding a trumpet before them' when they give alms (vi. 2), their 'laying heavy burdens' on others and not stirring a finger to remove them (xxiii. 4), and their 'straining out a gnat,' while they ' swallow a camel ' (xxiii. 24) : and all these are given by Mt. alone. Ch. vii. is not very full of expressions which are characteristic of Mt. We have Kal IdoO (4), VTroKpir^s (5), 6 ■jraTr)p 6 iv rots ovpavoh (ll, 21), (vSvyLa {\^), (TaTpbs (17, 18), (ppdvifjLos (24), fxwp6i (26). Peculiar to Mt. : i} Pacn\ela TWf ovpavuv ; peculiar to this chapter: irXarvi (13), ei;/3i/xwpos (13), Ppoxv (25, 27). VIII. 1-IX. 34. Illustrations of the Messiah's Work. Typical Miracles. Mt. omits the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mk. i. 23-28 ; Lk. iv. 33-36), and transfers to the first place the healing of a leper, which Mk. places later, but without saying when it took place (i. 40-45; Lk. v. 12-16). No doubt Mt. had reasons for this change, but they are not obvious. The leper's act of worship, and extraordinary strength of faith may have seemed to the Evangelist more suitable for a first detailed account of one of Christ's works of mercy. More- over, Christ's charge to the healed leper, to go and show himself to the priest and offer what Moses commanded, is an example of His fulfilling and not destroying the Law (v. 17). But it is clear that the leper was not cleansed in the presence of ' great multitudes' (viii. i). In that case, the charge to him to 'tell no man ' would have been out of place. But before examining any of these illustrations of Christ's miracles the following weighty words are worthy of consideration. "The historian who tries to construct a reasoned picture of the Life of Christ finds that he cannot dispense with miracles. He is confronted with the fact that no sooner had the life of Jesus ended in apparent failure and shame, than the great body of Christians passed over at once to the fixed belief that He was God. By what conceivable process could the men of that day have arrived at such a conclusion, if there had been nothing in His life to distinguish it from that of ordinary men ? He did not work the kind of miracles which they expected. But this makes it all the more necessary that there must have been something about the life which they could recognize as 122 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 1-4 supernatural and divine. Eliminate miracles from the career of Jesus, and the belief of Christians, from the first moment that we have undoubted contemporary evidence of it (say A.D. 50), becomes an insoluble enigma" (Sanday, Outlines, pp. 113, 114). "We cannot separate the wonderful life, or the wonderful teaching, from the wonderful works. They involve and inter- penetrate and presuppose each other, and form in their insoluble combination one harmonious picture " (lUingworth, Divine Iminanefice^ p. 90). To those who believe that Jesus Christ was what He claimed to be, that is, to those who believe in the Incarnation, there is no difficulty about miracles. They are the natural works of a supernatural Person. If He was not supernatural, then difficulty arises. But in that case we tear up the New Testament, and the history of the Christian Church becomes inexplicable. In the summary of Christ's wonderful works of healing given as an introduction to the account of His ministry (iv. 24) no mention is made of cleansing lepers, and we are probably to understand that this narrative (viii. 2-4) refers to X^ao, first instance of Christ cleansing a leper. In that case the man's faith was all the more remarkable. Leprosy was believed to be incurable by human means ; ^ and, if the man had never heard of a cure, his 'Thou canst make me clean' exhibits marvellous trust in Christ's potver. ' If Thou wilt ' looks as if he had less trust in Christ's goodness; but it perhaps means no more than that he thought himself unworthy of such a boon. His 'worshipping' Him perhaps meant no more than special reverence to a Prophet, or was preparatory to asking a great boon, but it may have indicated something more. All three Evangelists mention the prostration, but each in a different way. ' Worship ' {irpoo-Kwuv) is a favourite word with Mt., who first uses it of the adoration of the Magi (ii. 2, 8, 11, iv. 9, 10, viii. 2, ix. 18, xiv, 33, etc.). It is rare in Mk. and Lk., but common in Jn., who perhaps always uses it of the worship of a Divine Person. It well expresses the attitude which befits all who come to the Messiah for the blessings of His healing power; and this act of worship — so different from the behaviour of the demoniac in the synagogue — may have been another reason for Mt.'s placing this 1 It has been contended (Wright, St. Luke, p. 148) that "Biblical leprosy was a mild skin disease, never fatal," quite different from mgdern leprosy. But what we call leprosy was known then. Other diseases of the skin did not make a man ceremonially unclean ; and how could a mild skin disease be regarded as (in a very special way) a Divine visitation ? Ps. li. 7 points to leprosy as symbolical in its ravages to sin. See Hastings' DB., art. ' I^eprosy.' VIII. 1-4] TIIK MINISTRY IN C'.ALILEE 1 23 miracle first in his three triplets of specimens of the Mesbiah's mighty works,^ ■Mk. mentions that Christ was 'moved by compassion' (a-TrXayxri.txOeL';), which implies that the man's sufferings were great, and ' the beloved physician ' tells us that the man was 'full of leprosy.' All three have the Hebraistic amjjlification that Christ 'stretched out His hand' to touch him, which Weiss strangely explains as " in order to prevent the contact with the unclean and contagious disease." Is it credible that Jesus was afraid of being infected? Would any one keep the man at arm's length for fear of infection, and yet touch him ? The outstretched hand is the expression of the compassion (xiv. 31), and is the answer to the leper's timid 'if Thou wilt.' It confirms his fixith in Christ's power and assures him of His goodness, and thus completes the preparation of the sufferer's mind for the cleansing. The healing touch follows, and ^straightway his leprosy was cleansed.' All three preserve the 'straightway,' for the sudden cure of such a malady was one of the astounding features of the miracle. All three also mention that Christ touched the leper, which involved becoming ceremonially unclean. But this result is not certain. Lk. says that the man was ' full of leprosy ' ; and, by a curious provision of the Law, if 'the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague, then the priest shall pronounce him clean' (Lev. xiii. 12, 13). Yet what follows indicates that this leper was not thus exempt. We may conclude, therefore, that Jesus touched the leper on the same principle as that on which He healed on the Sabbath. The law of charity is above the ceremonial law, and the touch was necessary to assure the sufferer of Christ's absolute sympathy and readiness to help. Perhaps the touch was also necessary for the sake of the millions who were to read of this cleansing. No fiioral pollution can be so great as to make Christ shrink from contact with a sinner, who comes to Him with a desire to be freed from his plague, and with the belief that He has the power to free him. Christ's miracles are parables. That was part of their purpose when they were wrought, and it is their chief meaning to us. There seems to be nothing unreasonable in the thought that some of the details were selected, not because they were essential to the wonderful works, but because of their spiritual significance. Christ's charge to the cleansed leper : ' see thou tell no man ; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that ' Mk. (i. 41) has no 'Lord' (¥.vpu) in the leper's address; l)Ut Ijoth Mt. and Lk. (v. 12) insert it. It is common in the Kj^yiilian papyri, in the sense of ' my lord,' or ' sir' (Abbott, /ohatinitie Grammar, 26S0). 124 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 4 Moses commanded,' has been variously explained. Mk. tells us that it was given with great strictness (e/A^pt/xiyo-a/xevos), as something that Christ regarded as urgent.^ Perhaps the principal reason was to ensure that the man did not assume that his miraculous cleansing dispensed him from obedience to the law. But Christ may also have wished to preserve the man from unhealthy boasting about the wonderful cure, and the people from being excited to religious or political fanaticism (Jn. vi. 15); and both these motives were probably present in other cases in which Christ enjoined silence on those whom He healed (xii. 16; Mk. v. 43, vii. 36, comp. ix. 9 = Mt. xvii. 9). The danger of popular fanaticism is perhaps part of the reason for His silencing the demons when they would have revealed who He was (Mk. i. 25, 34). The time had not yet come for such a revelation to be made publicly, and demons were not proper apostles of it at any time. Comp. xii. 19, 39, xvii. 9. It has been urged that these injunctions to silence are proof that Jesus, during His lifetime, never claimed to be the Messiah. If He had, He would not have forbidden people to say that He was the Messiah. If He wrought mighty works as evidence that He was the Messiah, He would not have told those on whom He wrought them to say nothing about it. From this apparent inconsistency we are asked to draw the conclusion that most of the miracles and all of the injunctions to silence are fictions. After His death. His followers believed Jesus to have been God. Then of course He must have done great wonders. But (un- believers might ask) why did not the wonders cause Him to be recognized as Divine at the time? To which His followers invented the reply, that He had forbidden people to make known His wonderful works. This explanation is much less easy to believe than the plain statements of the Gospels, which are too nearly contemporaneous with the facts to be set aside in this peremptory way. The seeming inconsistency is a strong guarantee for the truth of the narratives, and invention is here very improbable. We seriously misstate the case when we say, Jesus wrought miracles to prove that He was the Messiah, and then forbade people to proclaim Him as such. Miracles did not prove that He was the Messiah ; at most they only proved that He was a Prophet : and He had other reasons for working them. Among these reasons we may securely place His desire to relieve suffering, to benefit men's ^ Mk. also says that Christ ' turned him out ' (e^^paXev) or ' dismissed him with urgency,' as if the man were not sufficiently docile. Salmon thinks that Mk. does not entirely approve of the leper's conduct {T/te Human Element, p. 149). In any case, we see how anxious Jesus was not to overtluow the existing ecclesiastical system prematurely. Where it was blameless, He strongly supported it ; comp. xxiii. 2. VIII. 4-13] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 2$ souls by first healing their bodies, to attract attention to His teaching. Many came to be healed, or to see mighty works, and then stayed to listen. The reasons suggested above for the injunctions to silence are adequate ; but there may easily have been others of a deeper nature which lie beyond our ken. See a helpful paper by Sanday in the Journal of Tluological Studies, April 1904. 'For a testimony to them' is in all three. 'Them' is primarily the priests, but it may include the people ; and it is the gift which the cleansed leper must offer that is the 'testi- mony.' It would show that Christ did not disregard the Law, as some had sujiposed that He did (v. 17), if it was known that He had ordered one whom He had healed to do all that Moses commanded (Lev. xiv.). Thus this incident illustrates in both directions Christ's treatment of the ceremonial law. When it came into collision with the moral law, He disregarded it ; the lower law must give way. He did not allow ceremonial defile- ment to stand in the way of showing sympathy with the leper by touching him. But, when there was no such collision, He upheld the ceremonial law. "He condemned neither the wash- ings nor the differences of meats, but He did strenuously condemn the confusion of such mere rules with principles of religion and morality, i.e. with the substance of the Law and the Prophets, and He defended the violation of such rules, not as a habit but when the cause was adequate " (Hort, Judaistic Christi- anity, p. 29). '\:\\Q. healing of the Centurion^ s Servant {e,-i^) at a distance is not recorded by Mk. and is placed by Lk. (vii. 2-10) immedi- ately after the Sermon. The utterances are given in almost exactly the same words by Mt. and Lk., but the narrative portion differs.^ In Lk. the centurion sends first elders and then friends to intercede for his servant ; here he comes himself. The details of the story had got changed in transmission, and each Evangelist received a different version of it. Jn. iv. 46-54 probably refers to a different incident. It has been remarked that centurions have a good character in the New Testament (xxvii. 54; Acts x. 22, xxii. 26, xxiii. 17, 23, 24, xxiv. 23, xxvii. 43). Roman organization was one of the chief instruments of good order in the world, and it produced, and was maintained by, excellent individuals, such as this ' By placing /mov before virb ttj;' eculiar to Mt. Klostermann quotes I'hilostrat. Vita Apo'lonii iv. 25 : ZixKpvovri ei^Ket t6 (fxxafia Kal 45eiTO /xrj flaaoLvi^uv avT6, fx-qoi dyayndli^eiv ofioXo- ytiy 6 Ti elr). 134 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 28-34 made against Him by the owners. It was the people of the country, not the owners in particular, who requested Him to depart from their borders ; and, although it is likely that the loss of property had something to do with the request, yet it was dread of so powerful a Wonder-worker that chiefly moved them. ML (v. 15) expressly states that 'they were afraid,' and Lk, (viii. 37) says that the Gerasenes 'asked Him to depart from them, for they were holden with great fear.' Fear in the presence of the supernatural is common in man; and dislike of the presence of great holiness is specially natural in those who know that their own Uves are quite out of harmony with heaven. This request of the inhabitants is a guarantee for the general trustworthiness of the narrative. Fiction would have made the inhabitants anxious to detain Him that He might work other wonderful cures, as was commonly the case in Galilee and Judaea, where He was regarded, not as a dangerous magician, but as a great Prophet. The name ' Legion ' (Mk., Lk.) is another strong mark of reality.^ While it is reasonable to admit the possibility of some distortion of the facts in the process of transmission, it is uncritical and arbitrary to dismiss an incident, so strongly attested, as a myth. The difficult subject of diabolical possession cannot be dis- missed as an empty superstition. Not only the EvangeUsts, including the beloved physician, distinguish clearly between possession and disease, but (according to their frequent testimony) Christ did so also. It is not untrue, but it is misleading, to say that their reports are coloured by the ideas prevalent in their age. It is equally true to say that their reports are very different from the ideas of later Judaism on the subject of demonology, — all the difference between what is silly superstition and what is sober and credible. Christ did not treat possession either as disease or as sin. He seems never to have blamed the possessed, or to have suggested that they had brought the affliction on themselves. They were great sufferers, and in His compassion He freed them from suffering. But, if the reports of His method in dealing with this special kind of suffering are to be trusted, Be went through the form of casting out defnons ; He told the evil spirits to depart. If there were no evil spirits there, He either knew this or He did not ; and one is involved in grave 1 On Mt.'s omission of the question, 'What is thy name?,' and of other questions which seem to imply ignorance on the part of Christ, see Introduc- tion, p. XV. Mt. seems also to have felt the difficulty of the statement that Christ gave the demons leave {i-n-eTpe\p€v avrols) to enter the swine. His 'Go' [virdyeTe) is not 'Go into the swine,' but 'Depart, leave the place.' It ignores their request rather than grants it; comp. iv. 10; i Cor. vii. 15, J. H. Moulton, Gram, of N.T. Gr. p. 172. Mt. also, as before the choosing of the Twelve, omits ' the mountain ' which both Mk. and Lk. mention. IX. 1-8] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 135 difficulty, whichever alternative one takes. It is rash to assume that there cannot have been any demons to be expelled. The hypothesis that they were there, and that they were expelled, is not antecedently incredible, and it is supported by evidence which cannot easily be explained away. That demoniacal possession never occurs now is another rash assumption. A medical man once told the present writer that he was confident that he had known of a case in his practice : the terrible pheno- mena seemed to admit of no other explanation. But physical maladies sometimes become extinct, and psychical maladies may do so also. Even if it be true that demoniacal possession is not found now, that is not conclusive against its taking place in other ages when the spiritual condition of society was very different. We must be content to leave the question open ; but the uniform evidence of the Synoptists is much easier to explain, if demoniacal possession was a fact.^ Expressions characteristic of Mt. in ch. viii. : Koi l8ov (2, 24, 29, 32, 34), vpoffipx^f^Oai (2, 5, 19, 25), irpoffKVve'tv (2), irpo^peiv (4), -jropevfaOai (9 dis), 6 ^pvyp.bs tQv 6d6vTO}v (12), yefijdrjTw (13), icpa (Kelvt] (13), iVwj irXrjpudy (17), 6\iy6iriaTos (26), rore (26), fiera^alveiv {34), Spia (34). Peculiar: 17 (iaffi\eia tCjv ovpavuv (ll), t6 prjO^v (17), i^uirepos (l2, xxii. 13, xxv. 30), daifjuov (31 only). It is in this chapter that we have the first instances of what in the second half of the Gospel becomes common, — Mt.'s substitution of aorisls for the imperfects in Mk. We have irpoarji'eyKav, airiOavov (16, 32) for l(pepoi' i-rviyovTo (Mk. i. 32, v. 13). On the possibility that Mt. has arranged the paragraphs in this chaptei to correspond with paragraphs in xxvii. and xxviii,, see T. Milne in ihejotir. of Th. St., July 1904, p. 602. The third miracle of the second triplet is the healing of tht faralytt'c (\\. 1-8). Mt. is again more brief than Mk. (ii. 1-12) and Lk. (v. 17-26). 'His own city' means Capernaum, which is now His chief centre of activity (iv. 13). None of the Evan- gelists give any date, and Mk. alone mentions that the paralytic had four bearers. ' Seeing their faith ' is in all three narratives, and it is commonly interpreted as meaning the faith of the bearers, whose persistence in breaking through the roof, in order to place the sufferer near Jesus, is omitted by Mt. But we may allow some faith to the sick man himself, although it was prob- ably not so strong as that of his friends. He knew, as they did not, that his physical weakness had been produced by previous sin ; and he perhaps doubted whether the sin would not interfere with his cure. Hence Christ deals with the man's uneasy con- science first. The healing of that must precede the healing of ' W. Mcnzies Alexander, Demonic Possession in the N. T. pp. 12, 2CX>-2I2, 249- 136 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IX. 1-8 his body. If he had faith to believe in the forgiveness (and that sometimes requires a great deal), he would have faith to be healed.i The affectionate address, 'My child' {t€kvov) is in both Mt. and Mk. The gracious exhortation, ' Be of good cheer ' (Odpaei), is in Mt. alone, who on two other occasions records it as uttered by Christ (ix. 22, xiv. 27), Mk. has it once of Christ (vi. 50) ; Jn. once (xvi. 33) ; and Luke once (Acts xxiii. 11). As used by Christ, it is never a mere ex- hortation ; it is followed by an act or assurance which is sure to cheer those to whom it is addressed ; so, in a very marked way, here. The present tense (Mt., Mk.) is remarkable. 'Thy sins are receiving forgiveness' {acj>UuTai, divnttu7itiir) here and now. This was just the assurance for which the man was yearning ; ^ but the words have a very different effect on others. The Scribes are here mentioned for the first time as coming in contact with the Messiah, and their critical hostility continues to develope until it ends in compassing His death. These are local Scribes, reinforced, however, as Lk. tells us, by Pharisees and emissaries from Jerusalem. This is the first collision in Galilee between Jesus and the hierarchy. All three narratives seem to imply that the hostile criticism was not uttered, and Mk. expressly states that it was 'in His spirit' that Christ perceived their reasoning. His reply to it is almost verbally the same in all three, including the break caused by the parenthesis. The Reader-of-hearts could tell how far their questionings were the result of jealousy for God's honour, how far of enmity to a Teacher, whom they regarded as dangerous to their authority. This they hardly knew themselves, and He gives them a practical challenge, by which they can test both themselves and Him. It is easier to say, ' Thy sins are forgiven,' because no one can prove that they are not forgiven. But the claim to heal with a word can be proved true or false at once. The proof that He had received power to heal with a word was a guarantee that He had also received authority to forgive. He respects the jealousy for God's honour and claims no authority apart from Him (Jn. v. 27, 30). Once more (viii. 20) He calls Himself the Son of Man, the Son of Man ofi earth. He is no blasphemer assuming Divine prerogatives. What God does in ^ On the meaning of ' Faith ' in the N.T. see the detached note on Rom. i. 17 in the Int. Crit. Comni. ; also the note on Lk. v. 20 ; Hastings' DCG., art. 'Faith'; Illingworth, Christian Character, pp. 63 ff. ; KnowHng, St. James, pp. xlii, 53 ; Parry, St. James, pp. 43 ff. 2 The behef that sickness was caused by sin was very common: "Rabbi Ami said, No death without sin, and no pains without some transgression " ; and "Rabbi Alexander said, The sick ariseth not from his sickness until his sins be forgiven" (Talmud). IX. 8-13] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I37 heaven the Son of Man has authority to do on earth.^ ihcatrum operum Christi (Ikngel). As in the case of Simon's wife's mother, the person healed shows the completeness of the cure by immediate activity. His 'bed' would be little more than a rug or mattress, easily carried. The crowd, tlirough which he has to make his way, are, as usual, much more sympathetic than the Scribes and Pharisees. All three mention that they 'glorified God.' Mk. and Lk., who think chiefly of the miracle of healing, say that the people were 'amazed' (^i$iossible that the Aramaic original of 'son of man' w.is used in the sense of mankind in general, men. But such passages are few, and in them it is more prohahle that the meaning which prevails else- where is the right one. It is ihe title of Jesus Himself, partly veiling, partly revealing. His claim to be the Messiah. See Introduction (p. xxv) ; Dalinan, Words of Jesus, p. 261 ; Drummond, /m//-. 0/ 77i. St., April and July 1901. * The diflcrencc here is that both Matthew and Levi are Semitic, an ^ detail which Mt. omits in reference to that incident (viii. 4). Has Mt., perhaps by lapse of memory, transferred the disobedience of the leper to the blind men ? But such disobedience would be likely to be common, and after the result of the raising of Jairus' daughter (26) Mt. may have assumed a similar result here : the men healed would be sure to talk about it. After the restoration of life to the dead, and of sight to the blind, we have, as the third miracle of the third trii)let, the restoration of speeeh to the dutnb (32, 33). This, rather than the casting out of a demon (of which we have already had an illustration), is the special feature of this mighty work. But there are other reasons for introducing it here: (i) it still further increased the fame of the Messiah, and thus helped to lead to the expansion of His Ministry by the Sending out of the Twelve ; (2) it marked another stage in the increasing hostility of the' Pharisees. They now go the length of saying that the mighty ^ Zahn rejects these and similar suggestions as foolish, and it is no doubt simpler to treat this narrative as independent of Mk. But Mt. is so free in his treatment of materials, that the theory mentioned in the text cannot be set aside as mere 7'orhcit. * This is the first time that Christ is addressed as the ' Son of David ' ; comp. xii. 23, XV. 22, xx. 30, 31, xxi. 9, 15. This is in harmony with the title of the Gospel (i. l). Throughout, it is the Evangelist's aim to portray Jesus as ihe Messi.ih and the legitimate heir of the royal house of David. 144 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [iX. 34-38 works of the Messiah are done by the aid of the evil one (34). See below. The dumbness of the man is mentioned first, as being the special feature ; the possession by a demon is secondary. The people had had experience of exorcisms by Christ and by others (xii, 27) ; and it was the restoration of the man's power of speech which so astonished them ; especially as the cure from both the demon and the dumbness was done with such authority and immediate effect, whereas Jewish exorcisms were elaborate proceedings of doubtful result (See Hastings' DB., art. ' Exorcism '). And, if the verse be genuine, it was the extra- ordinary character of the cure which provoked the malignant comment of the Pharisees. But it is doubtful whether the comment of the Pharisees is part of the original text. Syr-Sin. and important Old Latin witnesses (D a d k, Juv. Hil. ) omit, and those which contain the verse differ in wording. It looks like a doublet of xii. 24, introduced here by early copyists. A more certain doublet is found in xx. 16, where ' many are called but few chosen' has been intro- duced in many texts from xxii. 14. The comment of the multitudes recalls Judg. xix. 30 : ' There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt.' IX. 33-XI. 1. The Mission of the Twelve. After the nine acts of Messianic sovereignty, the Evangelist shows how the fame excited by these and similar mighty works led to the expansion of the Ministry of the Messiah. He no longer works single-handed, but selects twelve disciples to help Him. Before giving us illustrations of the Messiah's teaching and healing, Mt. gave us a summary of the work as a whole (iv. 23- 25). He here gives us a similar summary (35), expanding half of Mk. vi, 6 (which he has already used iv. 23) for this pur- pose. In both summaries he dwells upon the great multitudes which came to Christ's teaching and healing ; but here he goes on to point out that there were multitudes whom it was impossible for Him to reach : more labourers must be found. The Messiah had compassion for these masses of people, and it is compassion which moves to action. Indifference, and even repugnance, may pass into interest, but not until compassion begins is any serious remedy taken in hand. Hence the frequency with which the moving cause of Christ's miracles is said to be compassion (ix. 36, xiv. 14, XV. 32, XX. 34; Mk. i. 41, ix. 22; Lk. vii. 13); and, excepting in parables (xviii. 27 ; Lk. x. 33, xv. 20), the word (or7rA.ay;i(i't'{e(r^at) is used of no one but Christ. He was filled with compassion for these multitudes, groping after the truth and bewildered by the formalism of the Scribes, suffering IX. 36-38] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I45 from many diseases and getting no help from the remedies of the day. A strong word (ia-Kv^fidroi) is used to express their distress.^ And when the harassed people are compared to 'sheep that have no shepherd' (Num. xxvii. 17; i Kings xxii. 17; Ezek. xxxiv. 5), we think of them as exhausted in the vain search for pasture.- They have vague cravings, and do not know whither to go to satisfy them. At last they are being directed to the Kingdom which is at hand. The Baptist had been the first to proclaim this (iii. 2). Then the Messiah Himself had delivered the same message (iv. 17). And now the Twelve are to be sent out to make more widely known the same great saving truth. The words which follow (37, 38) are given by Lk. at the sending out of the Seventy (x. 2). They are not in Mk. ; but comp. Jn. iv. 35. The change from sheep lacking a shepherd to harvest lacking reapers is abrupt, but natural. The 'few' need have no reference to the small number sent out on either occasion. The proverb-like saying is of general application, for the supply of workers is always deficient. The available material is sometimes very scanty, and there is always unwilling- ness to be overcome. Possibly the strong word used for ' send forth ' {iK/Sdkrj : comp. c/c^aAAetv in the next verse) has reference to the urgency of the need.^ In any case, the command in ver. 38 is always binding, for the deficiency is always there. It should be remarked that Mk. puts a considerable interval between the selection of the Twelve, with a view to sending them out to preach (iii. 13-15), and the actual sending of them out two and two (vi, 7) ; and we may believe that there was such a time of special training, although Mt. does not mark it. Yet he writes of ' the Twelve ' as a body already existing when the commission to minister was given. Expressions characteristic of Mt. in ch. ix. : kol ISov (2, 3, 10, 20), 7rpoa€piLV (2, 32), TOTC (6, 14, 29, 37), iKcWev (9, 27), Xtyo/ievos (9), TTOpev^dOai (13), 'jrpo(T(.p\pa Ikuvi) (22), avayiiipuv (24), rios AavetS (27), yevrjOrfTiii (29), (jiaiveaOai (33). Peculiar: ivOvfielaOai (4), TO ciayycAiov t^s ^ao-iAcia? (35), /xakaKLU (35); peculiar ' Originally it meant ' flayed ' or ' mangled,' but became equivalent to 'harassed' or 'vexed' with weariness or worry (Lk. vii. 6, viii. 49; Mk. V- 35)- ^ 'Scattered' seems to suit shepherdless sheep, but it may be doubted whether this is the exact meaning of ipinfj.ivoi. In the O.T. it is used of dead or helpless men prostrate on the ground : i Judi;. iv. 22 ; i Kings xiii. 24, 25, 28 ; Jer. xiv. 16, xxxvi. 30; Tob. i. 17 ; Judith vi. 13, xiv. 15 ; Ep. Jer. 71. ' I'rostrated ' seems to be the meaning here : the Vulg. hdisjacctiies. At xiv. 14 Mt. omits this saying, although it is there found in Mk. (vi. 34), ' But the verb is used in quite a weakened sense elsewhere : xii. 20, 35. 10 146 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 1-4 to this chapter: alfioppoeiv (ix. 20). Not one of the above examples is found in the parallels in Mt. and Lk. This again shows that, to a considerable extent, Mt. uses his own vocabu- lary in reproducing the material of his sources. We can see this with regard to what he takes from Mk. ; and it probably holds good with regard to the source which both he and Lk. frequently use, but which is no longer extant. Barnabas (v. 9) makes a curious use of ver. 13: "He then manifested Himself to be the Son of God when He chose His own Apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, for, in order that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners, they were sinners above every sin " (i-n-ep -n-acrav d/xa/jTiav dvo/xwre/jous). Comp. the apparent quotation of Mt. xxii. 14 as Scripture (ws yiy paiTTai) in Barn. iv. 14. In X. I the Evangelist returns to the narrative of Mk. (vi. 7).^ He has told us of the call of the two pairs of brothers (iv. 18-22) and of Matthew (ix. 9) to be disciples in a closer relation than Christ's ordinary followers ; but as yet nothing has been said of their working with Him or for Him. No formal commission has been recorded. These closer disciples had now received some training from Him, and some had been previously trained by the Baptist. The time is come when they are to be sent to work away from the Master, so that there may be more centres than one. There are now to be seven centres, — Himself, and six pairs of Apostles. ]\It. omits that they were sent out in pairs, but he arranges them in pairs in the list. It is remarkable how little we know of the work of these men who have been distinguished by the great name of Apostle. We know something, but not very much, about Peter, James, and John : a very little about one or two more ; but the rest are mere names. We know neither where they worked, nor in what way they did their work ; neither how long they lived, nor how they died. The traditions about them are very untrustworthy, and perhaps are mere conjectures, framed to mask unwelcome ignorance. Yet great work in various parts there must have been. We see this from the rapidity with which the Roman world was converted, a result which implies much strenuous labour in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic age. But in the New Testament it is the work and not the workers that is glorified. The Gospel is everything ; who preached it is of litde importance. ' It is no longer I that live,' says S. Paul, ' but Christ liveth in me' (Gal. ii. 20). The individual worker may or may not be remembered here ; it is He who works in him and ^ Here, as in the case of the Gerasene swhie, Mt. says nothing about 'the mountain' which both Mk. and Lk. mention. It illustrates his habit of omitting unimportant details. X. 1-4] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I47 inspires him that Scripture glorifies, — He who originates and sustains all that His human instruments effect. He Himself has told them to rejoice, not at the things, however great, which they accomplish, still less at the things which men have written about their achievements, but rather because their names are written in heaven, in the Lamb's Book of Life (Lk. x. 20 ; Rev. xxi. 27). History tells us little about the doings of the Apostles. It is more than enough to know that in the heavenly city the wall has 'twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb' (Rev. xxi. 14). This is the only place in which Mt. uses the word 'Apostle,* Before giving the names of the Twelve he tells how the Messiah equipped them : He gave them authority to cast out unclean spirits,^ and to heal all manner of disease, as He Himself had been doing (iv. 23, 24, ix. 35). This was without a precedent in Jewish history. Not even Moses or Elijah had given mir- aculous powers to their disciples. Elijah had been allowed to transmit his powers to Elisha, but only when he himself was removed from the earth. In his list of the Apostles, Mt. some- what changes the order as given in Mk. iii. 16-19. I" the first group of four he puts the brothers in pairs, instead of placing Andrew after the three chief Apostles. He might have done both ; but that would have involved placing Peter third, which Mt., who e.xhibits a special interest in S. Peter, would not do. He not only put Peter first, as all do, but he specially calls him ' first ' (TrptoTos), which would be superfluous, if it did not mean more than first on the list. It indicates the pre-eminence of Peter. In the second group, Mt. places Matthew after, instead of before, Thomas, and adds that he was 'the toll-gatherer' (ix. 9). In each of the first two groups there is one Greek name, Andrew in the one and Philip in the other. In the third group the Thaddxus of Mt. and Mk. may be safely identi- fied with the 'Judas (son) of James' of Lk. and the 'Judas not Iscariot' of Jn. The origin of the name Thaddaius, and also of that of Lebbjeus, which has got into Western texts here and in Mk., is an unsolved problem. For conjectures see Hastings' DB. art. 'ThaddKus.' For ' Cananaean ' = ' Zealot ' see DC G., art. 'Cananccan,' and Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 50.2 That 'Iscariot' means 'man of Kerioth' or 'a Kariothite' is probable, but not certain ; and the situation of Kerioth is uncertain. See DCG., art. 'Judas Iscariot,' and Expository Times, Dec. 1897, ' In the Testaments we have, "If ye do well, even the unclean spirits will flee from you" ; koX rh. dKdOapra irvivfiara (pfv^ovrai d(p' vfidv ^Benjamin, 2 ; comp. Issp6vi^oi {A'a/>/iia/i viii. 9). 2 With this emphatic «'7w comp. xii. 27, 28, .\x. 22, xxviii. 20; Lk. xxi. 15, xxiv. 49; (7w dnoariWu is peculiar to Mt. : x. 16, xi. lo, xxiii. 34. Jn. has «7w diri<}T€i\a, iv. 3S, xvii. iS. 152 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 16-23 suffer. It is precisely this fact, as He knows, that will give them courage, and will even make them welcome suffering. It is in obedience to His command, and for His Name's sake. But who is this who dares to issue such commands, and to make such claims upon His followers ? He puts before His Apostles, not the promise of rapid success, not popularity or the praise of men, but peril and persecution. * Ye shall be hated of all men for My Name's sake.' That is not the world's way of winning adherents, and it must have been a great surprise to men who were expecting the speedy triumph of the Messiah and their own share in the glories of the Kingdom. It might well alarm the bravest of these simple fishermen to be told that they would have to answer for their doings on Christ's behalf before Jewish councils ^ and heathen courts. They were ready to submit to severe sentences of scourging or imprisonment, or death ; but they might easily injure the sacred cause which they represented by their unskilfulness in replying to the questions of their judges. The Master tells them not to be anxious (vi. 25) about that: 'the Spirit of their Father' will be in them and teach them what to say. The very form of expres- sion, ' the Spirit of your Father,' is full of encouragement ; and this is the first mention in this Gospel of a promise of the assistance of the Spirit. Comp. the promise to Moses : ' I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say ' (Exod. iv. 12). As Bede puts it, Vos ad certatnen acceditis, sed ego prcelior. Vos verba edit is, sed ego sum qui loquor (on Lk. xxi. 15). The fanaticism of those who needlessly courted a martyr's death is condemned beforehand. Those who, through no fault of their own, are persecuted must endure to the end, even unto death, and they shall be saved, ' shall win their souls ' (Lk. xxi. 19). But Christ's ministers have no right to provoke destruc- tion : they must be harmless as doves. There is so much work to be done that the life of every missionary is precious. When they are persecuted in one sphere of work, they must seek another: that is the wisdom of the serpent. Christ Himself avoided His enemies, until He knew that His hour was come, There must be no wanton waste of Christian lives. It some- times happens that there is more real heroism in daring to fly from danger than in stopping to meet it. To stop and meet useless risks, because one is afraid of being called a coward, is one of the subtlest forms of cowardice ; and the desire to be thought brave is not a high motive for courageous action. ' SchUrer, y^zf zV/4 People, II. ii. pp. 59-67. Derenbourg, Hist, de la Pal. pp. 86 ff. For iiwofiovrj (22) as the link between persecution and victory see Hort on Rev. i. 9. X. 16-23] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 53 Persecution is a temptation to deny Christ, and those who meet persecution in a spirit of bravado have no right to expect to be delivered from succumbing to that temptation. The martyr's crown is not to be won, unless a man ' has contended lawfully ' (2 Tim. ii. 5). This paragraph, like the preceding one (5-15), closes with a * Verily I say unto you.' A comparison of it with Mk. xiii. 9-13 will show that it cannot have been spoken in connexion with the first mission of the Twelve. But the concluding words are not easy to explain. The persecuted disciples are to flee, ^ for ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come ' (23). At least four things are open to question. What is the meaning of ' gone through ' (rcAeo-vrc), of ' the cities of Israel,' of ' the Son of Man,' of ' come '? ' Gone through ' is often understood as meaning 'gone through in your missionary efforts ' : you will not have preached in all the cities of Israel. No lives must be needlessly sacrificed, for even all will not suffice to visit every town in Palestine in the short time at your disposal. Or again, ' gone through ' may mean ' thoroughly won over ' : you will not have completely converted all these cities. There is not very much difference between these two explana- tions ; but there is a third which is quite different. ' Gone through ' may mean * exhausted in your frequent flights ' : you will not have used as places of refuge all these cities. You need not be afraid to fly as often as you are persecuted, for there are enough cities to last you till the Son of Man comes. This makes intelligible sense, but the solemn language used seems to require one of the other interpretations. It need not be doubted, however, that ' the cities of Israel' means the towns of Palestine. The proposal to understand by it all the cities in which there were any Jews would hardly have been made, except for the purpose of avoiding the difficulty caused by the delay of Christ's coming. In the many centuries which have elapsed since the words were spoken it would have been quite easy to have preached in all the cities of Palestine. The remaining two points may be taken together. " In this Gospel the coming of the Son of Man is always a final coming after His death to inaugurate the King- dom " (Allen). It is evident that in some way Christ's words produced the impression that He would return soon. When that impression had been produced, the words themselves would be likely to undergo modification. Moreover, the coming to establish the Kingdom may have been confused with the coming to judgment. The nearness of the Kingdom may have been transferred to the other coming. We may suspect that the reports of His utterances respecting the Second Advent have become blurred in transmission. 1 54 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. !?4-26 'ooiTie important witnesses (D L, Syr-Sin. a b k Arm.) after 'flee into the next' insert 'and if they persecute you in the other flee ye to another.' If this is genuine, the third interpretation of TcX^a-qre becomes more probable. The general topic of persecution connects the utterances which follow (24-33) with those just recorded. There is nothing to show the occasion on which they were uttered.^ The first (24, 25) seems to have been spoken several times and with different meanings. Here the point is that the disciple must not expect better treatment than his master ; so also Jn. xv. 20, which was a different occasion. In Lk. vi. 40 the meaning appears to be that disciples are not likely to get nearer to the truth than their teachers do, and consequently teachers must seek knowledge, especially knowledge of self. In Lk. xxii. 27 and Jn. xiii. 16 the meaning is that disciples must not set them- selves above their master. It is difficult to believe that these different applications could have been constructed, if the saying had been uttered only once ; and the theory of repetition has no difficulty. Was it not likely that Christ would have His favourite sayings, — favourite, because fruitful and capable of various adaptations ? The thought here fits on well to what precedes. The disciples will be hated by all for Christ's sake, and they will not wonder at this ; they will even glory in it, because Christ Himself received similar treatment. Hence His claim to call upon them to suffer. ' Beelzebul ' or ' Beelzebub ' is evidently used here as a term of bitter reproach or abuse, but how it came to be so, and indeed the derivation of the word, are still unsolved problems. ^ Our knowledge of the ideas of New Testa- ment times is still sadly meagre. See Nestle in DCG., art. * Beelzebub.' Next we have sayings which contain ' Fear not ' thrice (26, 28, 31). Lk. has similar sayings (xii. 2-9); but the differences are so considerable that the Evangelists can hardly have used the same source. Once more we have a saying which Christ seems to have uttered more than once, and with different applications. Perhaps it was already proverbial before He made use of it. Comp. Mk. iv. 22 ; Lk. viii. 17, xii. 2. In Mk. the reference seems to be to teaching in parables ; the Gospel is at first a mystery, but a mystery to be made known to all the world. So also perhaps in Lk. viii. 17. In Lk. xii. 2 the meaning is that hypocrisy is foolish as well as wicked, for the truth is sure to become known. Here the application seems to be that the ^ See Briggs, T/ie Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 196-200. He gives what he considers to be the original of both Mt. and Lk., giving the preference, on the whole, to Mt. ^ "The Syriac Versions and the Latin Vulgate stand alone in ending the word with z.b" (Burkitt). X. 26-29] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 155 Aposlles are to preach publicly what Christ teaches them in private. But boih the ' therefore ' and the * for ' are somewhat obscure. The ' therefore ' refers to what precedes. Fear is caused by uncertainty. ' Fear not, therefore, for it is certain that they will persecute you as they persecute Me. You are fore- warned and fore-armed.' The 'for' refers to what follows. ' Deliver your message without reserve, for, like every other mystery, the Gospel is sure to be revealed.' ^ The second ' Fear not ' (28) tells the disciples not to fear men who can but kill the body, but to fear Him who can sentence both body and soul to destruction in Gehenna.^ That the latter means God need not be doubted. Olshausen, who interpreted it of the devil, retracted this view in later editions. The change of construction (from fiy (fiofirjOrJTe airb twv clttokt. to 4>o^fX(Tdi rov hvv., which is the regular construction for fearing God) indicates this. We are nowhere told to fear the devil. • Fear God and resist the devil ' is the doctrine of Scripture ( Jas. iv. 7 ; i Pet. v. 9). The devil tries to bring us to Gehenna, but he has no authority to send us there. It is the fear of God, not of the devil, that is to enable the disciple to overcome the fear of men. Comp. Eph. vi. 10-12; also Hermas, Aland, xii. vi. 3 ; Ascension of Isaiah, v. 10. What follows (29-31) confirms the view that it is God who is to be feared with a fear that conquers the fear of men. Men cannot harm even our bodies without God's consent ; and if God consents, there is good reason, viz. a Father's love, for our being allowed to suffer. The smallest animal does not perish, the smallest portion of fnan^s body (emphasis on vfiwv) does not fall away, without the will of God. Here again, therefore, there is room for another * Fear not.' The contrast in what follows (32, 33) is between the judgment-seat of human persecutors and the judgment-seat of God. Sometimes Christ is the final Judge of mankind (Jn. v. 22, ix. 39; 2 Cor. V. 10); here the Father is the Judge, and the Son pleads before Him. Only those whom the Son recog- ' Another possible interpretation is : ' Deliver your message without fear, for the lies and plots of your opponents will all be exposed at the last day.' Quidquid latet apparebit. Nil tnulUim rcmanebit, as we have in the Dies ira of Thomas de Celano, the friend and biographer of S. Francis of Assisi. Comp. xii. 36 ; I Cor. iv. 5. * The teaching of Eijictclus constantly insisted on the philosopher's freedom frum fear of those who can only torture or kill the body. The tyrant savs, " I will put you in chains." " Me in chains? Vou may fetter iny iig, but my will not even Zeus can overpower." " I will throw you into prison." "My poor body, you mean." "I will cut your head ofT." " When have I said that my hcail rannot be cut oft?" These are (he things on which philosoi)hcrs should niLditate, and in which they should exercise themselves {Discourses, I. L). Coiup. Eur. Bcu. 492-499. 156 (50SPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 29-38 nizes as His are safe.^ For 'deny' Mk. (ix. 38) has ' be ashamed of : comp. Rev. iii. 8. The prediction that, in the bitterness of religious hate, the nearest of kin will persecute one another (21), is now illustrated by other sayings of Christ respecting the dissensions which the Gospel will produce in society. 'Think not,' as in v. 17, implies that some were likely to think this.^ It was the general ex- pectation of the Jews that the Messiah would establish a reign of peace. But peace cannot be enforced. Open hostility can be put down by force ; but good will can come only by voluntary consent. So long as men's wills are opposed to the Gospel, there can be no peace. Sometimes the only way to peace is through war. Once more Christ guards His disciples against being under any illusions. They have entered the narrow way, and it leads to tribulation before leading to eternal life. The parallels in Lk. (xii. 51-53, xiv. 26, 27) seem to come from a different source: Lk. has no parallel to ver. 36. ^ Does 'take his cross and follow after Me' (38) imply that He who leads the way carries His cross ? It is a strange picture of the procession to the Messianic Kingdom. This is the first mention in Mt. of the cross, and it must have startled Christ's hearers ; for Jews, especially in Galilee, knew well what the cross meant. The supporters of Judas and Simon had been crucified by hundreds (Jos. Atit. xvii. x. 10). The person to be crucified carried his own cross, or at least the cross-beam, to the place of execution. It is as an instrument of death that it is used here, as ver. 39 shows. The saying is given by Mt. again xvi. 24, 25 = Mk. viii. 34, 35 = Lk. ix. 23, 24. Lk. xiv. 27 seems to be different from both : so that we have three variations of the saying, which may have been uttered more than once. Such a saying would be remembered, and might be transmitted in more than one form. In all five passages we have ''his cross' (in Lk. xiv. 27, 'his own cross'), which implies that every one has a cross to take; no one can carry it for him. And, as the next verse shows, to refuse to take one's cross does not secure one from suffering. It is impossible to reproduce the phrases for 'findeth his life' and 'loseth his life' in English, owing to the different meanings, or rather the combination of meanings, in the Greek word i^vyr]). It includes the meanings of ' life ' and ' soul,' and ^ On the remarkable construction o/j.oXoyeii' iv tlvi, which is in both Mt. and Lk., see J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, vol. i. p. 104; with the meaning comp. Rev. iii. 5. These verses (32, 33) show plainly who is to be feared in ver. 28. ^ With ' I came,' as implying the pre-existence of the Messiah, comp. v. 17 and see xi. 27. * On v\){t.^r\ see Kennedy, Sources 0/ N. T. Greek, p. 123. X. 39-42] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 57 in varying shades. The context here shows that the primary meaning of the saying is that the confessor who suffers death is far happier than the apostate who escapes ; but the words have many other appHcations. In general, those whose sole aim is to win material prosperity, lose the only life which is worth living; and those who sacrifice material prosperity in Christ's service, secure this higher life. Even as regards pleasure, to make it one's constant aim is to fail to obtain it ; devotion to something else may win it. 'For My sake' is in all four passages (no parallel in Lk. xiv.), though some Western texts omit in Mk. viii. 35. Again we have a claim which is monstrous if He who makes it is not conscious of being Divine. Who is it that is going to own us or renounce us before God's judgment-seat (32, 33)? Who is it that promises with such confidence that the man who loses his life for His sake shall find it? And these momentous utter- ances are spoken as if the Speaker had no shadow of doubt as to their truth, and as if He expected that His hearers would at once accept them.^ What is more, thousands of Christians, generation after generation, have shaped their lives by them and have proved their truth by repeated experience. Without 'for My sake ' the saying occurs Lk. xvii. 33 and Jn. xii. 25. The idea of persecution passes out of sight in the three sayings (40-42) which Mt. places at the close of the charge to the Twelve. These sayings treat of those who receive the Gospel, not of those who oppose it. The first of them is found Mk. ix. 37 of receiving little children in Christ's Name: in both there is the identification of Christ with Him who sent Him. There is also the identification of Christ with His disciples, a mystic unity which is still further developed in xxv. 31-45. It has already been stated that Christ ' came ' (v. 1 7, x. 34) ; here He says that He ' was sent.' The idea of a mission runs through- out, from the Father to the Son, from the Son to the disciples. And every messenger represents him who sent him, so that the disciples represent the Son, and therefore the Father. It will be observed that these three verses would fit on very well to vv. 14, 15. It is possible that we have now got back to words which were spoken at the first mission of the Twelve.^ Missionaries are 'prophets,' for they speak for God and carry His message; and they are 'righteous,' for they preach the righteousness which is set forth in the Sermon on the Mount, and it is assumed that they practise it. Those who > See Steinbeck, Das gbttluhe Selbslbewiisslsein Jesu, p. 32. * See Briggs, T/te Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 182-186, where he re- constructs what may be supposed to have been the original cliarge to the Twelve ; also pp. 238-249, where he reconstructs the charge to the Seventy. 158 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [X. 42, XI. 1 receive them, because they possess this sacred character, will receive the same reward as the missionaries themselves. To recognize and reverence noble traits in the characters of others is going a long way towards imitating them. To place oneself at their service, because of their noble characters, may be to equal them in merit. Or again, to support the missionaries with sympathy, prayer, and alms, is to enter into their labours and share their reward. The concluding verse (42) does not come in very well here. Mk. (ix. 41) gives the saying in a very different connexion and with two notable differences ; ' you ' for ' one of these little ones,' and ' in name that ye are Christ's ' for ' in the name of a disciple.' Here ' you ' would have been more suitable : ' one of these little ones' comes from Mk. ix. 42.1 Mt. is perhaps quoting from memory and has mixed Mk. ix. 41 and 42. But taking the saying in the form, and with the context, which Mt. gives us, the meaning will be that even the smallest service done to one of the disciples, because he is a disciple, is certain of a reward from Him whose disciple he is. Here again (see on vi. i) we have the promise of rewards for righteousness. The reward is not offered as a motive for action ; the motive in each case is love and reverence for the Prophet, or righteous man, or disciple, and therefore for Him whose servant he is. The reward is a support to this motive, an encouragement and stimulus. It assures those to whom it is promised, that those who honour God in His servants will not be forgotten by God. A person whose sole object was to get the reward would not be acting 'in the name of a Prophet, or righteous man, or disciple; his action would be purely selfish. If we take vv. 40-42 immediately after vv. 14, 15, then the charge to the Twelve ends in a manner very similar to the Sermon on the Mount. There the consequences of acting and of not acting in accordance with Christ's teaching are pointed out. Here the consequences of not receiving and of receiving Christ's messengers are pointed out. Moreover, in each case the transition to what follows is made with the formula, 'And it came to pass when Jesus ended': comp. vii. 28, xiii. 53, xix. I, xxvi. I. The Greek is the same in all five places ; yet 1 That ' little one ' was a Rabbinical expression for a disciple, is doubtful. Here it seems to mean that the disciples were people of whom the world would not take much account. In comparison with the Prophets and saints of the Old Testament, they would seem to be very insignificant. And their mission was to be short, probably only a few weeks ; so they would have no great opportunity of making a name for themselves. It is possible that every- where (xviii. 6, 10, 14; Mk. ix. 42 ; Lk. xvii. 2) 'one of these little ones' means ' one of My disciples' : DCG., art. ' Little Ones.' XI. 2, 3] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 159 even the RV. gives three different translations of eVeXeo-ci- . 'ended,' 'had made an end,' 'had finished.' See on vii. 28. Cliaractcrislic expressions in ch. x. : Xeyd/xeyos {2), iropevcaOai (6, 7), VlJ-^pa KiHcrews (15), Idov (16), i/J.os (16), inefMun (iS), wpa iKelvrj (19), oiKoSeairdTTji (25), 7^ef»'o (28), 6 iraTT]p 6 iv rots ovpavoh (32, 33), efj rG)V HiKpu'v T0VTU3V (42). Peculiar : fxaXanla (l), 7; ^aciXeia rCiv ovpavCiv (7), £70) dirocTTiWij) (16) ; peculiar to this chapter : olKiaKis (25, 36), Sixdj'et^ (35). Excepting to vv. 1-5 and a few scattered sayings between w. 5 and 15, there are no parallels in Mk. or Lk. ; but, where there are parallels, these ex- pressions do not appear in them. In the first 'Fear not' (26) there is no dispute as to the tense of the verb, (po^-qOijre, and, although there is difference of reading, almost all editors agree that in the la>t ' Fear not' (31) we should icad (po^dffOe. In the intermediate 'Fear not' and 'Fear' (28) editors are not unanimous: perhaps (po^elcxOe is right in both places. 'Cease to fear' and ' continually fear ' make excellent sense. XL 2-XII. 50. Illustrations of the Misunderstanding and Opposition provoked by the Ministry. The eleventh chapter has no parallel in Mk.^ The substance of it comes from the Logia, and a good deal of it has parallels in Lk. But the relation of Mt. to Lk. is here a difficult problem : for possible solutions see Allen. Mt., as usual, is the more brief. In narrating the message of the Baptist to the Messiah, the two agree as regards the words spoken by John and by Christ, but in the narrative portion almost every word in Mt. differs from the wording of Lk. In his prison at ^L'lch^erus, near the north-east end of the Dead Sea, John had heard of the works of the Messiah, — those works of which Mt. has given striking illustrations. Antipas had put him in prison, partly for political reasons, because of the excitement which he produced among the people (Jos. Ant. XVIII. v. 2), and partly because of the animosity with which Herodias regarded him. But having secured his person, Antipas did not ill-treat him. He sometimes conversed with him, and he allowed his disciples to visit him. It was easy for John to hear what Jesus was doing. * Art Thou He that cometh, or must we look for another ? ' There is a strong emphasis on 'Thou' in contrast to the quite different Coming One, who perhaps must be waited for. ' The Coming One' (6 lpyJi\yf.vo in Lk. is probable, yet reKVioy has the support of older authorities (D, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Lat-Vet. Vulg.). But most editors regard ^pyuv as original. See Zahn, ad loc, footnote on p. 432, and Ei)ileitung, ii. 312. Some think that the variation between reKva. and ipya. may have arisen through the confusion of two similar Aramaic words, one of which means 'servant' (Trats) and the other 'work.' In 2 Esdr. vii. 64 there is a some- what similar case : ' Longsuffering, for that He long suffereth those that have sinned, as His creatures.' Here the Latin text h2LS quasi suis operibus ; but the Ethiopic, 'as to His sons,' and the Syriac, ' because we are His servants.' Nestle, textual Criticism, p. 251 ; Salmon, Some Thoughts on Text. Crit. p. 121 ; Scrivener (Miller), ii. p. 325. It is more probable, however, that the substitution of 'ipya. for rkKvo. is due to the mention of Christ's ' mighty works' (5wd/;ieis) in vv. 20-24. It seems probable that, in the preceding paragraphs (2-19), Mt. has put together three Logia, which are quite distinct, but are all connected with the Baptist {2-11, 12-15, 16-19). Lk- places the first and third in juxtaposition (vii. 18-2S, 29-35), but he puts the intermediate one much later (xvi. 16). The refrain, 'He that hath ears, let him hear,' occurs thrice in Mt. (xi. 15, xiii. 9, 43), twice in Mk. (iv. 9, 23, not vii. 16), and twice in Lk. (viii. 8, xiv. 35), not at all in Jn. For further suggestions respecting ver. 19 see \\\t Jour, of Th. St., April 1904, p. 455 ; Bruce, T/ie Parabolic Teaching of Christ, pp. 414-426. The verses (20-27) which follow the parable of the children in the market- place, when compared with the parallels in Lk. (x. 13-15, 21, 22), show us once more that Mt. groups his material according to subject, and not accord- ing to time and place. In I>k. the reproach to the cities that had rejected Him is appended to the charge to the Seventy, and the exultation over God's preference of the disciples is placed after the return of the Seventy. These two sections come in here as illustrations of the different effects which the Ministry of the Messiah had upon those who came in contact with it. We have had its effects on John (2), and on those who criticized both Him and John (16), and now we have its effect on the arrogant cities and on the humble disciples. The 'Then' in 'Then began He ' is not a note of time : there- mark is inserted by ]\It. to form a means of transition from one saying of Christ to another. And the translation ' wherein 7nost of His mighty works were done,' is probably an exaggeration of the Greek (at TrXerurat Bwdfieis avTOv), which need not mean more than ' His many miracles' (Blass, § 44, 4), and this also is all 'Ca.z.l plurimcE virtutes ejus (Vulg. ) need mean. Mt. would be unlikely to say that 7nost of the mighty works wrought by the Messiah resulted in the impenitence of those who witnessed them. We know nothing about Chorazin, except what is told us here and in the parallel in Lk.^ The precise form of the name and its derivation, as in the case of ' Beelzebub,' are uncertain. Another illustration of the meagreness of our knowledge of Judaism in the time of Christ. And yet He was very active in Chorazin ; showing how much, not only of His life, but even of the few years of the Ministry, is unrecorded (Jn. xxi. 25). For ^ The reason why we are told nothing about our Lord's work in Chorazin may be that it took place before the call of S. Peter, which is the starting- point of the Gospel narrative of Christ's Ministry in Galilee (Salmon, The Human Element, p. 297). XI. 21-25] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 165 the probable sites of Chorazin and Bethsaida see Sanday, Sacred SiitS of the Gospels, pp. 24, 41. Of these two cities the paradox was true, that though the Kingdom of God had come nigli to them, yet tliey were far from the Kingdom of God. Tyre and Sidon are often denounced for their wickedness (Is. xxiii. ; Jer. XXV. 22, xlvii. 4; Ezek. xxvi. 3-7, xxviii. 12-22). In the denunciation of Capernaum, where Christ liad not only done many works, but lived and taught, 'Heaven' and 'Hades' (not Gehenna) symbolize the height of glory and the depth of shame (Is. xiv. 13-15). The very site of Capernaum is still a matter of dispute, and all three towns have long since been in ruins (Jos. B.J. III. X. 10; Renan, VAntechrist, p. 277; Tristram, Bible Places, p. 267 ; Sanday, Sacred Sites, p. 37). The sin of these flourishing places was not violence or sensuality, but indifference. There is no evidence that they opposed or ridiculed Christ ; but His work made no impression on them. They perhaps took a languid interest in His miracles and teaching ; but His beneficence never touched their hearts, and His doctrine produced no change in their lives. Self-satisfied complacency, whether in the form "of Pharisaic self-righteousness or in that of popular indifference, is condemned by Christ more severely than grosser sins. A life that externally is eminently respectable may be more fatally antichristian than one that is manifestly scandalous. For the comparison with Sodom comp. x. 15. The confidence with which Jesus utters His judgments as being identical with the Divine judgments is all the more impressive from its being implied and not asserted. The evidence for 'shall thou be exalted unto heaven' (KBCDL, Lat- Vet. Vulg. Syr-Cur. Arm. Aeth.) is decisive; so also in Lk. But both readings make good sense. It is not quite so certain that ' ihou shalt go down ' is right : ' thou shalt be brought down ' is well supported. The exultation of Jesus over the Divine Preference shown to the disciples is placed by Lk. (x. 21, 22) after the return of the Seventy.^ The introductory formula, 'Jesus answered and said,' do^ not indicate that the words which follow are a reply to anything. 'Answered and said ' is common in Hebrew narrative as an enlarged equivalent for ' said ' (xvii. 4, xxviii. 5). Like 'He opened His mouth and taught,' it prepares the way for a solemn utterance (Deut. xxi. 7 j Job iii. 2 ; Is. xxi. 9). Dalman, Ji'ords, p. 24. ' I thank Thee ' (i^o/jLoXoyovfiat croi) is literally ' I acknowledge openly to Thy honour' (Gen. xxix. 35; 2 Sam. xxii. 50; Ps, XXX. 4 ; and especially Ecclus. li. i, 10). See Kennedy, Sources ' Lk. expressly states that there was exultation : TiyaWidjaro ry IIi'. Tol. i. 63 ; Ircn. I. xiii. 2, iv. vi. i ; Tert. Adv. Marcion. ii. 27, iv. 25; Clem. Horn. xvii. 4, xviii. 4, li, 13, 15, 20; Recog. ii. 47 ; Clem. Strom, vii. 18. - Keim, Je!:us of Nazara, iv. pp. 54-64. He protests that "there is no more violent criticism than that which, since 15aurs time, Strauss has intro- duced " of repudiating this passage, because of its testimony to the Divine Sonship of Christ. 1 68 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XI, 27-30 accepted as genuine utterances of our Lord. " Both sayings (xi. 25-27 and 28, 29) — the second in higher degree — have a poetical rhythm, and in their construction remind us of the poetical form of sayings in the Psalms and Prophets ; but from this point of view they are not unique among the sayings of our Lord; indeed, not a few have a similar form." The form in which the second saying (28, 29) and the first half of the first saying (25, 26) have come down to us may be accepted as the most ancient attainable form ; but doubts arise as to the second half of the first saying (27). We have many early quotations with important variations, i. Some have TrapaSeSorat instead of TrapSoOrj. 2. Some have eyrw {cognovit) instead of iirLyivwa-Kei {cognoscit). 3. Some place the clause about the Son knowing the Father before the clause about the Father knowing the Son. 4. Some have ' to whomsoever the Son may reveal Him ' instead of ' to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.' There need be no doubt that TrapeSoOr] is the original reading (comp. xxviii. 18). Harnack contends that e'yvw is right in Lk., and that in Lk. the words koI tis ia-TLv 6 vtos el /x,r/ 6 TvaTrjp were wanting, and therefore were wanting in the authority which both Mt. and Lk. used. Yet he admits that the interpolation must be "very ancient ; for all our authorities for S. Matthew and all our authorities^ except one, for S. Luke have it." Indeed this inter- polation into the Lukan text ^^ must have taken place almost at once." He also admits the probability that during this later period of Christ's Ministry He spoke of Himself as ' the Son ' ; " because it is absolutely impossible to imagine how He could have arrived at the conviction that He was the future Messiah without first knowing Himself as standing in an unique relation- ship to God." Harnack thinks that a-n-oKaXvij/r] is more likely to be original than (SovX-qraL clttok. See Camb. Bibl. Ess. p. 300. O. Holtzmann would limit ' all things have been delivered to Me' (TTavra /ioi -n-apeSoOrj) to "the handing over of the doctrine^ and not the delivering over of a vicegerency in the world- sovereignty of God" (Life of Jesus, p. 284).! But the aorist points back to a moment in eternity, and implies the pre- existence of the Messiah (see on ' I came,' v. 1 7, x. 34). The common Jewish idea seems to have been that the Name of the Messiah was present to God from all eternity, but that the Messiah Himself was a human Sovereign endowed by God with supernatural powers. Sometimes, however, Jewish thought went beyond this, and the pre-existence of the Messiah was clearly stated, as in the Book of Enoch, where we read that the Son of ^ So also Wellhausen, who regards ' and no one knoweth the Son but the Father ' as an early interpolation. It must be very early to have got into all MSS. and Versions. XI. 27 30] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 169 Man "has been chosen and hidden before Him (God) before the creation of the world and for evermore" (xlviii. 6); "the Elect One standeth before the Lord of Spirits, and His glory is for ever and ever" (xlix. 2) ; and Enoch's "name was carried aloft during his lifetime to the Son of Man and to the Lord of Spirits from amongst those who dwell on the earth" (Ixx. i). So also in the Fourth Book of Esdras : "This is the Anointed One, whom the most High hath kept unto the end"(xii. 32); "the same is He whom the Most High hath kept a great season " (xiii. 26) ; and " no man upon earth can see My Son " (xiii. 52). The gracious words which follow (2S-30) are not in Lk. ; they are among the special treasures of the First Gospel. Their want of other attestation and their resemblance to Ecclus. li. 23, 26, 27 have caused some to conjecture that Mt. has invented them, with Sirach as a basis. But could Mt. have invented them, even with that help ? " It is not so easy to make new Sayings and new Parables like those in the Gospels of IVLatthew and Luke ; at least, that kind of speech does not make itself heard in the extant remains of what the first four generations of Christians wrote" (Burkitt, The Gosp. Hist, and its Transmissiofi, p. 199). "The important thing is to recognise that this is the kind of teaching which the Evangelist thought worthy to put in his Lord's mouth, and which the Church accepted as worthy. . . . Again and again we find ourselves in the presence of some- thing which may or may not be authentic historical reminiscence, but is in any case totally unlike the other remains of early Christian literature . . . and we take knowledge of the Evangelists that they have been with Jesus" {il>id. pp. 206, 207). When we ask what connexion these gracious words have with the context, we must remember that this question need mean no more than that the Evangelist must have had some reason for placing the words here. We cannot be certain that w. 21-30, or even vv. 25-30, were spoken as one continuous utterance. Lk's omission of 28-30 points to this being a separate saying.^ If it was such, why did Mt. insert it at this point? The last words of ver. 27 give a good connexion. Although the Son alone knows the Father, yet He is willing to impart some of His knowledge to those who are worthy; and forthwith He invites those who are in need of guidance to come and leain of Him. A more general connexion lies in the 'The words which Lk. places immediately after 'the Son willoth to reveal llim' are a better sequence than ' Come imto Me,' etc. Lk. has: 'Blessed arc the eyes which see the things that ye see,' etc. (x. 23, 24), which Mt. has xiii. 16. lyo GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XI. 28-30 contrast between the wise and understanding Scribes and Pharisees who rejected Christ's teaching, and the childhke disciples who accepted it, and thus proved themselves children of the Divine Wisdom. The Scribes professed to expound the Law as the expression of the will of God ; but Christ has received authority to reveal God Himself to those who feel their need of Him, The Scribes could not give the rest to souls which He can promise (note the emphatic Kdyw). ' They bind heavy burdens {4>opTia) and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders ' (xxiii. 4) ; but His burden is light. This shows that ' heavy laden ' (7re<^opTiT/xeVoi) does not refer primarily to the load of sin, but to the burdens which Pharisaic interpre- tations of the Law imposed, and which, after all, gave no relief to men's consciences. From Christ's teaching and life men could learn the nature of the righteousness which is in accord- ance with God's will. It is the righteousness of a meek and lowly heart, not of external observances. Exalted as Christ is through His relation to the Father, He is also related to us through His perfect humanity, and from His human life and character we can learn by imitation.^ And it is the possibility of imitating Him that makes His yoke easy and His burden light, for He has borne both Himself. Moreover, He has not only set us an example of bearing. He helps us to follow it. There must be a yoke and a burden, for a lofty ideal, such as He sets before us, is exacting ; but a lofty ideal is also inspiring, and that makes the yoke easy and the burden light. There are two pairs of expressions in this invitation which seem to balance one another ; ' all ye that labour and are heavy laden,' and 'Come unto Me; take My yoke upon you.' ' labouring ' (KOTrtwvTcs) is not the same as being ' heavy laden (irecfiopTiaixivoi). The one implies toil, the other endurance. The one refers to the weary search for truth and for relief for a troubled conscience ; the other refers to the heavy load of observances that give no relief, and perhaps also to the sorrows of life, which, apart from the consolations of a true faith, are so crushing.2 To those who are worn out with resultless seeking Christ says: 'Come unto Me, and /will refresh you.' To those ^ We ought probably to translate * and learn from Me ihai I am meek * (fiadere dv ifiov 6ti npavi elfii). In the Testaments we have a similar combina- tion of terms : iarl yap dXrjdrjs Kai fiaKp69vfjLos, irpaos Kal Taireivds {Dan vi. 9) ; but the passage looks like a Christian interpolation, of which there are many. 2 The word for 'easy' (xpT?(rr6s) is applied to God (Lk. vi. 35 ; Rom. ii. 4 ; I Pet. ii. 3) to express His gracious goodness and longsuffering. Here the Latin Versions have sttavis, but in other places they vary between benigmis, siiavis, and dulcis. 'My yoke is good to bear,' is the meaning; it brings a blessing to those who accept it, XI. 29. 30] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 171 who arc weighed down with unprofitable burdens He says : 'Take My yoke upon you.' In using the metaphor of a yoke, Christ was probably employ- ing an expression which was already proverbial. In the Psalms of Solomon, which are a little earlier than the time of Christ, we have: "We are beneath Thy yoke for evermore, and beneath the rod of Thy chastening " (vii. S) ; and " He shall possess the peoples of the heathen to serve Him beneath His yoke " (xvii. 32). "The yoke" was a common Jewish metaphor for discipline or obligation, especially in reference to the service of the Law. Thus, in the Apocalypse of Baruch : " For lo ! I see many of Thy people who have withdrawn from Thy covenant, and cast from them the yoke of Thy Law" (xli. 3). Comp. Lam. iii. 27 ; Ecclus. li. 26; Acts XV. 10; Gal. v. i ; Pirqe Aboth, iii. 8. In the Didache (vi. 2) we have "the whole yoke of the Lord," which probably means the Law in addition to the Gospel. Mackinlay thinks that the easy yoke and light burden point to a sabbath year as the time of utterance. At that time there would be no tilling, and the oxen would have little to do. This may have suggested the metaphor {The Magi, p. 113). But so obvious a metaphor hardly needs such suggestion. This triplet of sayings (25, 26; 27; 28-30) is beyond the invention of any Evangelist. The words are their own authentica- tion. At what time and in whose presence they were uttered, are questions of little moment. They are addressed to the whole human race throughout all time, and he who understands them "has found his way to the heart of Christianity" (Sanday). Coming immediately after the Woes on the unrepenting cities, they are all the more impressive. Within the compass of eleven verses we have striking exami)les of both the severity and the gentleness of Christ in His dealings with men. And side by side with these we have a revelation of that which explains this strange combination of sternness and compassion in the Son of Man — His unique relation to the God who is both Judge of all and Father of all. The third saying (28, 29) has various points of contact with theO.T., especi- ally with Isaiah and Jeremiah: comp. Is. xiv. 3, 25, xxviii. 12, xxxii. 17, xlii. 2, 3 ; Iv. I ; Jer. vi. 16, xxxi. 25. In Jer. vi. 16 we have Kal evpyjatre ayviafibv rai^ \fvxcui vfiwv. If Avdirava-LV is not an independent translation from the Hebrew of Jer. vi. 16, and if we are to seek a source for it in previous writings, then Ecclus. li. 27 may have suggested it. Comp. the Homily attributed to Clement of Rome (2 Clem. 5) : " 'I'he promise of Christ is great and marvellous, even the rest (dvAiravffis) of the Kingdom that shall be." In ch. xi. we have the following expressions, which arc characteristic of Mt. and are not found in the parallels in Lk. : nfrafiali'dv {i), iKttOfv {i), ropeveffOat (7), ISou (19), rire (20), -iifUpa Kplatwi (22, 24), JePrc (28). Peculiar to ^It. : ij fiaaiXfla tu)v ovpavC]v (11, 12), iv iKtlvi^ t(j? Kaip(^ (25), (Ta'ipot (16) ; picuTTTis (12) is not found elsewhere in the N.T. 172 GOSPEL ACCORDINCx TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 1 In the twelfth chapter the EvangeUst continues his illustra- tions of the misconceptions and hostility to which the Ministry of the Messiah was exposed. We have had the Baptist's mis- understanding of the Messiah's work, and the persistent disregard and indifference with which it was treated in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. Here we have three illustrations of Pharisaic antagonism, exhibited with increasing vehemence, and culmin- ating in a charge of working in league with Beelzebub. The two first illustrations have reference to Christ's attitude towards the sabbath. We now return to the Gospel of Mk. (ii. 23). Thrice just in this part of his work does Mt. exchange his characteristic ' Then ' at the beginning of a narrative for ' At that season ' (xi. 25, xii. I, xiv. i), a phrase not found in any other Gospel.^ The ' season ' in this case must have been shortly before harvest, and about a year before the last Passover. Our Lord was walking in front of His disciples, who plucked and ate the corn as they followed. This was allowed (Deut. xxiii. 25), and the Pliarisees do not accuse the disciples of stealing. But plucking and rubbing the ears was accounted by the Scribes as reaping, threshing, and winnowing, and thus was of the nature of work or business such as was forbidden on the sabbath (Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. pp. 56, 780; Klostermann on Mk. ii. 23; Driver on Deut. xxiii. 25). On this the Pharisees fasten. In Mt. and Mk. they attack the disciples through the Master, just as in ix. 11 ( = Mk. ii, 26) they attacked the Master through the disciples.2 Our Lord does not deny that rest on the sabbath is com- manded, and He does not stay to protest against the rigour which would make plucking and eating corn a violation of the command. He points out that every rule has its limitations, and that ceremonial regulations must yield to the higher claims of charity and necessity. This the Old Testament itself showed, by the analogous case of David and the shewbread,^ and the still stronger case of the Priests and the sabbatical sacrifices. In the latter case violation of the rule of resting on the sabbath was not merely allowed but commanded ; indeed on the sabbath the sacrifices and consequent labour were increased. See Gray, Numbers, p. 406. In the incident about David, Mt. corrects 1 'Then,' however, remains frequent : vv. 13, 22, 38, 44, 45, xiii. 36. ^ In both places Lk. (v. 30, vi. 2) represents them as attacking the disciples only. Here all three have ' and they that were with him,' which has special point in reference to the disciples. 2 The analogy was closer than they could see, — the analogy between David and his followers in need of food and the Son of David and His followers in need of food. Christ could have fed His disciples miraculously, but He does not use supernatural means, when natural means are available. XII. 1-8] THE MINISTRY IN CALILEE \yt, the slip of Mk. by omitting 'When Abiatliar was liigh [jricst'; for Ahimelech was high priest when it took place (i Sam. xxi. i). See Gould, ad loc. p. 49. The second argument aljout the priests in the Temple is not in Mk. or Lk., and it may be a saying that was uttered on a different occasion, but which Mt. introduces here because it has reference to the sabbath.^ Its point here is that, if the sabbath-rest may every week give way to the ceremonial requirements of sacrifices, still more may it in exceptional cases give way to the moral requirements of charity. People need not faint for want of food in order to abstain from working on the sabbath. The quotation of Hos. vi. 6, ' I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' has already been made, ix. 13, and it is very suitable in both places. We may believe that such words were often cited by our Lord. ' The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath ' is in all three. The secjuence of thought is plainest in Mk. The sabbath was made for man, and therefore is subject to the ideal Man, who represents the race and has authority to determine the way in which the principle of the sabbath can best be carried out for man's benefit. Christ is not claiming authority to abolish the sabbath. The sabbath was the ordinance of God for the good, not merely of Israel, but of all mankind. But the traditional methods of observing it were of man's devising, and these must yield to circumstances. By connecting the sabbath with bene- volence, Christ was fulfilling its fundamental purpose. See Hort, Jiidaistic Christianity, p. 33; also Gould, p. 50. The Pharisees had made the sabbath an institution so burdensome that its Divine character was lost sight of: this could best be restored by showing that it was a blessing and not a burden. The Son of Man vindicates man's freedom. In ver. 6 the neuter, 'a greater thing,^ ^something greater,' ^ more than the Temple is here ' is certainly the true reading ; not the mascuhiie, ' one greater than the Temple." Perhaps the meaning is the same, viz. the Messiah. Bnt the masculine would liave revealed Jesus as the Messiah in a more definite way than He is likely to have employed. The neuter might mean the Ministry of proclaiming the Kingdom of God. The work of Christ and Ilis disciples was of more account than the Temple. For fxei^ov (comp. xi. 9) K B D, etc., for fiel^wv (an obvious correction) L A, Vulg. This passage (1-8) is one of those in which Mt. and Lk. agree in notable particulars against Mk. (see on ix. 17, 20). Here both omit the ambiguous dSbf noiuv and the inaccurate ^nVAjiidOap apxifpius, and both insert that the ' Both arguments are introduced with the question, 'Did ye not read}' or, ' Have ye not rt-fli/ ? ' When Christ addressed illiterate multitudes, Ilesaid, 'Ye have heard' (v. 21, 27, 33, 38, 43). When He addresses the Pharisees or other educated persons who made a study of the Law, He speaks of their reading : xix. 4, xxi. 16, 42, xxii. 31. On oJ &pToi ttjs vpoOtctw^ see Deiss- mann, Bible Studies, p. 157. For the rigour of the rules about the sabbath see the Book of Jubilees, 1. 9-13 ; Edcrsheim, Life and 'Jimes, ii. pp. 777 ff. 174 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 9-14 disciples ate the grain, an addition which is remarkable in Mt., who often omits redundant statements. Both omit ' the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.' Mt. seems to regard the second incident (9-14) as taking place on the same sabbath. Jesus leaves His critics, goes into their synagogue, and finds them there ready to oppose Him again. Lk. makes it another sabbath and perhaps a different place; he also says that Christ taught before healing.^ Mk. and Lk. say that they watched Him whether He would heal on the sabbath, and that He asked them whether it was lawful to do good on the sabbath. Mt. omits the watching, and says that they asked Him whether it is lawful to heal on the sabbath, to which He replied that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath. The argument about the animal in a pit is not in Mk., and is given in Lk. in a different connexion (xiv. 1-6), the healing of a dropsical man. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in omitting Christ's anger and His grief at the hardening of their hearts; also in omitting that the Herodians took part in the conspiracy against Jesus.^ The former omission is characteristic of Mt., who avoids attributing human emotions to the Messiah. Comp. viii. 2, 4 with Mk. i. 41, 43, and xiii. 58 with Mk. vi. 6. See Catnb. Bib/. Ess. pp. 429 f. Mt. certainly weakens Christ's argument by substituting ' It is lawful to do good on the sabbath ' for ' Is it lawful to do good or to do harm ? to save a life or to kill ? ' To refuse to do good is to do evil ; and that cannot be right on the sabbath or any other day. And while they condemn Him for restoring, without any labour, a man's hand on the sabbath, they have no scruple about plotting on the sabbath to kill Him. All this is lost in Mt. The whole incident is a striking example of the power which formalism has to blind men to the proportion of things. Because Christ disregarded, not the Divine Law about the sabbath, but their unreasonable regulations as to the method of observing the law, they thought it right to try to destroy Him. Christ's method of meeting their casuistry is to be noted. He might have urged that there was no breach of sabbatical rest in telling a man to stretch out his hand, or in the man's trying to do so. But He puts the matter on the broad principle that to heal is to do good, and doing good is a very proper way of observing the sabbath. Yet this has no good effect upon ^ In the Gospels the man with the withered hand does not speak. Jerome says that in the Gospel which was used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites the man took the initiative saying : " I was a mason, earning my bread with my hands. I pray Thee, Jesu, restore my health, that I may not in shame beg for food." 2 In xxii. 16= Mk. xii. 13, Mt. retains the mention of the Herodians. Lk. omits in both places. This miracle took place in Herod's country. XII. 17-21] TIIK MINISTRY IN GALILEE 175 the prejudiced formalists. They cannot refute Him ; but they are sure that one who teaches men to disregard their traditions must be a dangerous heretic, and they resohe to destroy Ilini.^ His hour was not yet come, and therefore Jesus withdrew from the dangerous neighbourhood, and continued His bene- ficent works of heahng elsewhere (15). The charge that 'they should not make Him known' (16) is given by Mk. (iii. 12) in reference to the unclean spirits who proclaimed Him as the Son of God. The time was not yet ripe for a general announce- ment that He was the Messiah, and demons were not suitable preachers. Here Mt. mentions the charge in order to introduce a fulfilment of Is. xlii. 1-4, where the Servant of Jehovah is spoken of as the special object of the Divine love, and as anointed with the Spirit to judge the heathen. Yet this servant does not enter into controversies, nor promote public excitement. He is careful not to extinguish any spark of good in men's hearts, but endeavours to lead them on to better things, till truth shall prevail ; so that even the heathen may be brought to trust in Him. This prophecy of the second Isaiah has a very different meaning in reference to Cyrus, who is to conquer without warlike threatenings, and will not trample on the weak in the hour of victory. But the Evangelist sees how much of it is true of the Messiah in His bloodless conquest of mankind, and he quotes it accordingly.^ It is perhaps specially for the sake of the concluding words about the Gentiles that Mt. quotes the prophecy. For the details of the wording in reference to the Hebrew and the Septuagint, see Allen's note ; also for the details of the relation of what follows (22-50) to Mk. iii. 22-35 and to Lk. xi. i4ff. The malign'ty of the Pharisees is now exhibited in the charge that Jesus casts out demons with the aid of Beelzebub the chief of the demons. Both Mt. and Lk. make the introduction to this charge to be Christ's casting out the demon from a dumb demoniac, Mt. adding that he was blind also.^ All the sufferer's ^ The phrase 'to take counsel' [(ninftovXiov Xan^dveiv) is peculiar to Ml. (xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. i, 7, xxviii. 12). It does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. nor in the Septuagint, and in Greek literature the word (TVfi(iov\ioi> is rare ; Deissmann, Bid/e Siiidies, p. 238. The phrase means to come to a conclusion, rather than to deliberate whether or not. ' Zahn shows in detail how the prophecy fits the narrative of the Evan^je- list. This is one of many places in which the A.V. mistranslates i\vi^(iy 'trust' : xii. 21 ; Lk. xxiv. 21 ; Jn. v. 45 ; Rom. xv. 12, 24, etc. ' Mt. has already recorded llie healini^ of a duml>-demoniac (ix. 32, 33) in words rather similar to those used in Lk. xi. 14 of this miracle. ' Dumb' {Kua(jl balfxovi. Heahng the deaf and dumb seems to have inspired the multitude with special admiration for the Healer (Mk. vii. 37) ; DCG. L p. 427- Xn. 27-29] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I77 missioned by Christ to cast out demons. 'Your sons' may mean the disciples of the Pharisees, for great Rabbis sometimes called their pupils their 'sons' (Ecclus. vii. 3; Prov. i. 8, where see Toy's note, p. 13). But more probably it is to be taken literally. See Acts xix. 13 and Jos. Ant. viii. ii. 5 for instances of Jewish exorcisms, and comp. Tob. viii. 1-3. The argument is ad hominem. There were Jewish exorcists, and the Pharisees did not accuse them of employing diabolical agency. Why then did they accuse Christ of this ? There is no need to raise the question whether the exorcists were successful : it is enough that they were allowed to work unmolested. This they could not deny, and thereby they would convict the Pharisees of prejudice and injustice, in bringing a charge against Christ which they did not bring against their own people. The charge of diabolical agency having been proved to be both absurd and unjust, the alternative of Divine agency is adopted (28) ; and here again there is no parallel in Mk., and Mt. and Lk. agree verbatim, except that for 'by the Spirit of God' Lk. has the Old Testament expression 'by the finger of God.' But if God is the cause of the marvellous healing of mind and body, then is the Kingdom of God come upon them. The Pharisees are in the same case as Chorazin and Bethsaida and Capernaum. The Kingdom of God is come near them, and yet they are far from the Kingdom of God.^ Indeed they are worse than those impenitent cities, the inhabitants of which treated Christ's mighty works with indifference. The Pharisees treat His miracles with something worse than indifference : they blasphemously attribute them to the evil one. See W. M. Alexander, Demonic Possession in the N,T. pp. 177-190. In the saying about spoiling the strong man of his goods, Mt., Mk., and Lk. differ considerably as regards the wording, Lk. being much more elaborate than the other two. The saying was probably proverbial. In Is. xlix. 24-26 the Chaldean asks, 'Shall prey be taken from a mighty one?' and Jehovah replies, 'The captives of the strong one shall be taken away, for the stronger than he has come.' This passage is apparently repro- duced in the Psalms of Solomon v. 4 : " No man shall take prey from a mighty man," unless he has first conquered him. The Messiah had taken prey from Satan by freeing demoniacs from his power ; which is evidence that, so far from being the ally of Satan, He has begun to conquer him.^ Perhaps there is here a ^ This is one of the places in wiiich Mt. has ' Kinj^doni of God ' instead of his usual ' Kingdom of the Heavens' (xix. 24, xxi. 31, 43). The latter with him means the Kingdom which the Son of Man will come in the heavens to inaugurate, and that meaning would not be filling here. " With the almost superlluous 'and then he will spoil his house' comp. V. 24, vii. 5. Comp. also the Ascension of Isaiah, ix. 16. 12 178 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 30, 31 reference to the Temptation. 'Get thee hence, Satan' (iv. 10) was repeated every time that a demon was driven out ; and every time that a demon was driven out the Kingdom of God was brought nearer. In reference to the sovereignty of God there are only two sides, for and against. By refusing to take part in the work of Christ for the promotion of that sovereignty the Pharisees had joined the forces of the enemy. They were not on God's side ; therefore they were against Him. It was not Jesus, but they, who had entered into aUiance with Satan. This saying about the impossibility of neutrality (30) is worded exactly the same in Mt. and Lk., and has no parallel in Mk. The 'gathering' and ' scattering' probably refer to a flock or followers rather than to fruit or seeds : comp. Jn. x. 12. This is the test which each man is to apply to himself: if he cannot see that he is on Christ's side, he is against Him. The other saying about the impossibiUty of neutrality, *He that is not against us is for us ' (Mk. ix. 40 ; Lk. ix. 50), is the test by which to judge others; if we cannot see that they are against Christ, we must give them credit for being on His side. Both Mk. and Lk. have both forms of the saying. Because the Pharisees had placed themselves on the side of Satan, Christ gives them a solemn warning : ' Therefore I say to you' (31). By accusing Him of being in league with Satan when He was acting in the power of the Holy Spirit, they had blasphemed the Holy Spirit, hardening their hearts against the Spirit's influence. This is an unpardonable sin. " To identify the Source of good with the impersonation of evil implies a moral disease for which the Incarnation itself provides no remedy" (Swete). The repetition of this solemn warning in ver. 32 is given in a form which is not easy to explain.^ That any sin may be forgiven, except blasphemy against the Spirit, is simple. That speaking against the Son of Man may be forgiven, but speaking against the Holy Spirit shall never be forgiven, is not simple. Let us take the first form (31) and apply it to the Pharisees. Freeing men from the dominion of evil spirits must be good work ; it is the work of God's Holy Spirit. The Pharisees had said that it was Satan's work. This is blasphemy against the Spirit, and it will not be forgiven. This is a terrible thought, but it is intelligible. In order to discredit beneficent work which told against their cherished prejudices, they had maliciously and deliberately attributed the Spirit's action to Satan. This revealed a determined opposition to Divine influence which was hopeless. Now let us take the second form (32) and apply it in a similar way. How was it possible for the Pharisees to distinguish 1 Lk. (xii. 10) gives only the more difficult form, and that in a diffevent setting. XII. 31. 32] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 79 between speaking against the Son of Man and speaking against the Holy Spirit? It was in speaking against the Son of Man that they had been proved guilty of speaking against the Spirit. It is worth considering whether Mt. xii. 32 and Lk. xii. 10 are not less accurate reproductions of the saying which is given in ivik. iii. 28, 29 and ^it. xii. 31 ; and whether there is not some confusion between 'the sons of men' in Mk. iii. 28 and 'the Son of Man' in Mt. xii. 32 and Lk. xii. 10: see Allen's note. But we must endeavour to explain ver. 32 as it stands. 'The Son of Mail' means Christ in His life on earth, ministering to the phyjical and spiritual needs of mankind. In that Ministry there was much that was open to misconstruction. He, like other teachers and philanthropists, could be misunderstood and misjudged. There were gross misconceptions of His words and work. All this was deplorable, and by no means always innocent; but it was pardonable (Lk. xxiii. 34). Men could repent of their careless neglect of His work or their mistaken opposition to it, and they did repent, and were forgiven. But there is such a thing as opposition to Divine influence, so persistent and deliberate, because of constant preference of darkness to light, that repentance, and therefore forgiveness, becomes impossible. The efifiracy of Divine grace remains undiminished, but the sinner has brought himself to such a condition that its operation on himself is excluded. Grace, like bodily food, may be rejected until the power to receive it is lost. Christ warns the Pharisees that they are perilously near to this condition. Against the dictates of reason and justice, they had deliberately treated as diabolical a work of the most surprising mercy and goodness.^ But we must not infer from this that 'speaking against the Holy Spirit' is necessarily a sin of the tongue. Blasphemy, like lying, may be all the worse for being acted and not spoken. The sin of the Pharisees was not confined to the words ' He cast out demons by Beelzebub' or ' He has an unclean spirit.' The mere utterance of an atrocious calumny, perhaps hastily, does lYoi lonstitute an 'eternal sin' (Mk. iii. 29). It would be more in harmony with legalism than with the Spirit of Christ to attach terrific penalties to a single external act. It was the character revealed by the Pharisees' calumny that was deserving of such condemnation. Their disposition must be * desperately wicked ' ' Sec on I Jn. v. 16 in the Camd. Grk. Test., and Wcstcott on Hcb. vi. 1-8, p. 165 ; DCG., art. ' Blasphemy' ; Dalman, IVonis 0/ Jesus, p. 255. So I•/• v. x. 5, xiii. 6; vii. viii. i). There is no doubt that ver. 40 is part of the original text of this Gospel ; it is absent from no MS. or version. lUit there is good reason for believing that it was no part of Christ's reply on tliis occasion, i. It is not in Lk. xi. 29-32. 2. It does not fit the context, which speaks of preaching producing repentance and is in no way concerned with the Resurrection. 3. It would not be intelligible to Christ's hearers, who knew nothing of His future Resur- rection. 4. The parallel drawn between Jonah and Christ is not true. Jesus was in the grave one whole day and part of two others ; i.e. He rose on the next d.ay but one after His death, and tliis is expressed in Greek, in both sacred and profane writers, by ' on the third day ' (r^ rpir-^, with or without rj/JL^pgi). Comp. xvi. 21, xx. 19. The less accurate expression, ' after three days' (fieTo. rpeh -ntxipas) mccins the same thing (Mk. viii. 31, x. 34). In Gen. xlii. 17, 18, Joseph put his brethren 'into ward three days. And Joseph said unto them the third day.' But the facts will not justify the statement that Christ's body was ' three days and i/iree nighls ' in tlie grave. Comp. Lk. xiii. 32; Acts xxvii. 18, 19; Exod. xix. 10, 11 ; passages which make it quite clear that ' on the third day ' means ' on the next day but one,' and not 'on the next day but two.' See Field, Odum Non'ic. iii. p. 8. The saying is repeated without explanation xvi. 4, and probably our Lord gave no explanation here. The verse may be a gloss which has got into the authority which Mt. used ; or it may be an insertion made by ^it. himself on the supposition that Christ's mention of Jonah referred to him as a type of the Resurrection. Tlie latter is more probable, and in that case we have a parallel to i. 22, 23, where Mt.'s reflexion about the fulfilment of prophecy is given as part of the message of the Angel. Justin Martyr {T)y. 107) says that Jonah was "cast up from the belly of the fish on the third day'''' [ttj Tpirri T)[j.ipq.), thereby making the correspondence exact. See Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1S93, P- 432; Salmon, The Human Element, p. 217; DCG. ii. p. 269; Moulton, Modern Reader's Bible, p. 1696 ; Allen on Mt. xii. 40. Our Lord's mention of Jonah as preaching to the Ninevites does not require us to believe that the story of Jonah is history. In His own parables He made use of fiction for instruction. Why should He not use an O.T. parable for the same purpose ? If He were on earth now, might He not quote Dante? If our Lord had said, 'As the rich man killed the poor man's ewe- lamb, so ye rob the fatherless and the widow,' would that have proved that Nathan's parable was literally true ? S. Paul's mention of Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. iii. 8), and S. Jude's mention of Michael's dispute with Satan for the body of Moses, arc similar cases. See Briggs, The Messiah of the Gospels., p. 189 note; Gore, Bampto7i Lectures, 1891, pp. 195-200; Sanday, Bampton Lectures, pp. 414-419; with the literature there (juoted. If we regard the saying about the three days and three nights as part of our Lord's reply to the demand for a sign, the meaning will be that the only sign which will be given is the sign of His Resurrection. When they have carried into effect tiieir plans to 1 84 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XII. 41-43 destroy Him (14), God will deliver Him from the grave as He delivered Jonah from the belly of the sea-monster, and that sign may possibly convince them. If not, they will be more im- penitent than the Ninevites. But here the reference to Jonah's deliverance from the fish seems to be superfluous. The argument runs smoothly when the preaching of Jonah is compared with the preaching of Christ, and the penitence of the Ninevites is contrasted with the impenitence of the unbelieving Jews. But, in order to bring in Jonah's miraculous deliverance, we must assume that he told the Ninevites of this (as to which nothing is said in the O.T.), and that it was this wonderful sign, rather than the threat of Divine judgment, which converted them. With improved chronology, and also with better rhetorical effect, Lk. places the case of the Ninevites after that of the Queen of the South.^ In the day of judgment both she and the Ninevites will be able to condemn the unbelieving Jews, for they made a much better use of smaller opportunities than the Jews did of greater ones. What was Solomon as a teacher of wisdom, and what was Jonah as a denouncer of wickedness, compared with Him whose wisdom and warnings were alike rejected by those who said that He was in league with the evil one ? What painful egotism there is in these sayings if He who uttered them was merely a human teacher 1 And yet, with what quiet serenity, as being beyond question, they are uttered ! ^ The parable about the demoniac who is cured and then allows himself to be repossessed by demons (43-45) is placed by Lk. (xi. 24-26) immediately after the saying that he who is not with Christ is against Him. Such a demoniac illustrates the impossibility of being neutral. He flees from the evil one without seeking Christ, and thus falls more hopelessly into the power of the evil one again. Here the parable illustrates the condition of the Jewish nation, which had gone through a temporary repentance, and then had fallen into far worse sins than before. The worship of idols had been given up, but had been followed by a worship of the letter, which had been fatal to the spirit of religion. The temporary repentance may refer to this abandonment of idolatry, or possibly to the religious excite- ment produced by the preaching of the Baptist. That revival had in many cases been very superficial; few of those who experienced it had become followers of the Messiah, and 1 This is the earliest example of ' Jemen '=' South ' being used for South- West Arabia. 2 " He declares Himself possessed of virtues which, if a man said he had them, it would be the best proof that he did not possess them and did not know himself. It is either the most insane arrogance of self-assertion, or it is sober truth" (Maclaren). XII. 44, 45] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 85 they who had not done so would end in putting Him to death. 1 The ' waterless places ' mean the wilderness, in which evil spirits are supposed to dwell. Azazel lives in the wilderness (Lev. xvi. 10). Comp. Bar. iv. 35 ; the Septuagint of Is. xiii. 21 ; the Vulgate of Tob. viii. 3; Rev. xviii. 2. Allen quotes a remarkable incantation illustrating the same thought. The demon is exorcised with the words: "O evil spirit — to the desert. O evil demon — to the desert, etc." But this does not seem to be a case of exorcism ; the demon says : ' I will return to my house whence I came out.' He does not say : ' whence 1 was driven out,' and he still calls it ' my house,' for no one else has taken it, God has not been asked to occupy it. It is ' standing idle ' (o-xoAa^ovra) — placed first as the chief error.^ It is 'swept, and garnished' — with sham virtues and hypocritical graces, the " darling sins " of the evil one, and therefore likely to attract any of his ministers. It is garnished, as whited sepulchres are garnished ; but it is not guarded by the presence of God's Holy Spirit, and hence the fatal result. The former demon returns with seven others worse than himself, and ' they enter in and settle there {KaToiKu e'Kei), making it their permanent abode ' (xxiii. 2i).3 'So shall it be also to this evil generation.' They have not reached this desperate condition yet, but they are in danger of it, and some of them will reach it. The warning is similar to that about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which He does not say that they have committed, although they are near it. ' Worse than the first ' is a proverbial expression (xxvii. 64; comp. 2 Pet. ii. 20; Heb. x. 29; Jn. v. 14); but the Speaker does not, like the writer to the Hebrews (x. 26), include Himself as possibly within its sweep. The visit of Christ's Mother and brethren (46-50) is by Mt. expressly connected with the previous utterance: 'While He was still speaking to the multitudes.' Neither Mk. (iii. 31) nor Lk. (viii, 19) give any note of time; comp. ix. 18: also xvii, 5, where Lk. agrees with Mt., and xxvi. 47, where all three agree. In Mt. and Lk, * without ' (l^w) means outside the crowd : in ^ In Mk, ix. 25 Christ commands a demon to come out from a man and enter no more into him, which seems to imply that the return sometimes took place. Here dUpxtrai perhaps means ' wanders about' ; comp. Acts viii. 4, 40, X. 38, XX. 25 ; 2 Chron. xvii. 9. See also the enlargement in the LXX, of Prov. xxviii. 10. * There is no r]s) in the Testaments {/\'eu6en ii. i, 2), and what is said of the man that refuses to do good : oSid^oXos oiKeioiTai aOrbv wstdiov aKtvos, "dwells in him, as his own peculiar vessel" [,Nathtali viii, 6), l86 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIl. 46-50 Mk. it seems to mean outside the house (iii. 19). On the 'Brethren of the Lord' see on i. 25 and the Uterature there quoted; to which add Lightfoot, Galatiatis, pp. 253-291; Encyclopcedia Biblica, artt. 'Clopas'and 'James'; J. B. INIayor, Expositor, July and August 190S (a thorough reinvestigation of the question). There is nothing in Scripture to forbid the antecedently natural view that these ' brethren ' are the children of Joseph and Mary, born after the birth of Jesus, and (apart from prejudgments as to what seems to be fitting) i. 25 may be regarded as decisive. Our Lord's reply here is not a censure on His relatives for seeking Him, nor does He deny the claim of family ties. He uses their appeal as an opportunity for pointing out that there are ties which are far stronger and claims that are far higher (x. 35, xix. 29). The closest blood-relationship to the Messiah does not, any more than descent from Abraham, constitute any right to admission to the Kingdom, and human parentage does not make any one a child of God (Jn. i. 13). It is spiritual conditions which avail. But Christ does not say that any disciple, however loyal, is His father. In the spiritual sphere His Father is God. Mt. alone specially mentions that it was the disciples who were pointed out by Christ as His nearest relations, and he alone inserts 'which is in heaven' after 'My Father.' The mention of 'sister' (Mt., Mk.) with ' brother ' and ' mother ' (50) is no proof that His sisters were present on this occasion, although many authorities insert 'and Thy sisters' in Mk. iii. 32. It is possible that Mt. regarded the incident as a fit conclusion to this section, which treats of misunderstanding of the Messiah's teaching and opposition to His work. His devotion to His mission involved separation from even His Mother and His brethren. Of the latter we know that they did not believe on Him (Jn. vii. 5), a fact which is conclusive against any of them having been among the Twelve Apostles. The whole of ver. 47 is probably an interpolation from Mk. and Lk. It is wanting in our best and oldest authorities (K B L F, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. and some Old Latin texts). Mt. has rendered the statement imnecessary by •seeking to speak to Him' in ver. 46 ; and he much more often reduces the redundant statements of Mk. than enlarges what Mk. gives. With vv. 48-50 comp. Hom. //. vi. 429 : "EsTop, drdp (jv fiol iaai ivaTr)p koL irbTvia iJ-iiT-qp 'B.U KaalyvTiTOS. " The silence of the Synoptists respecting her (the Mother of our Lord) throughout His ministry is astounding, and it is continued in Acts, where she is named (i. 14) and then disappears from history. Nor do the epistles give any information" (Wright, Sy7wpsis, p. 35). Characteristic expressions in ch. xii. : TOre (13,. 22, 38, 44), nera^alveiv (9), iropeveadai (l), /cat ioov (lo), oVws TrXijpw^s (l?), Trpo 67](Tavp6s (35), rifiipa Kpiaeus (36), d irarTjp d iv roh ovpavoh (50). None of these occur in the parallel passages. Peculiar : iv iKdvi^ 1 XIII. 1-9] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 87 Tuj Kaipcf) (i), avfi^ovXiov Xafi^dfeiv (14), t6 fiijO^v (17). None of the follow- ing are found elsewhere in the N.T. : dmirios (5, 7), alperl^ew (18), ^/jij'eii' (19), Tl'IpflV (20). The insertion 'of the heart' (r?)? Ka/>S/os) after 'the good treasure' (L, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. some Old Latin texts, Arm. Acth.) is followed in AV. but abandoned in RV. It comes from Lk. vi. 45, where it is genuine. Xni 1-52. Illustrations of the Messiah's Use of Parables. 'On that day' and 'went out of the house' (i) are additions made by Mt. to the narrative of Mk., and the reason for them is not obvious : no house has been mentioned. As regards the rest he follows Mk. ; but he omits 'in the sea' after 'sat,' probably because he saw that it was ambiguous. In xxii. 23 there is a similar insertion of ' on that day.' .^ The central idea of the parable of the Sower (3-8) is that, the seed being uniformly good, the difference of crop depends upon the character of the soil which receives the seed. Soil may be bad in a variety of ways, and there may be various degrees of goodness in the crop. Lk. is much more brief than ^Mt. or Mk. in describing the seed on the rocky ground, and he gives only the hundredfold crop. Mk. alone has the intro- ductory ' Hearken ' : all three have the concluding ' let him hear ' ; comp. xi. 15, xiii. 43. As it is the same Greek verb in both places, we desiderate the same English verb in both : but ' He that hath ears to hear, let him hear' is too familiar now to be changed. We have had various parables already in the examples of Christ's teaching which have thus far been recorded ; the salt and the light (v. 13-16), the fowls and the lilies (vi. 26-30), the two gates (vii. 13, 14), the wise and the foolish builders (vii. 24-27), the garments and the wine-skins (ix. 16, 17), the,- children in the market-places (xi. 16, 17); but they have been_ sliort and incidental. Henceforward they become more elaborate, and they form a large proportion of Christ's teaching. This was probably caused by the decreasing enthusiasm in many of Christ's followers and the increasing animosity of His opponents. Parables would instruct disciples whose minds were still in harmony with the Teacher and yet would give little opening to His enemies. Parables, while they revealed the truth to those who could profit by it, concealed the mysteries of the, Kingdom from the unworthy, who could not understand them, or would be injured by them if they did understand.^ This * It is rash to say that Christ neither did nor could adopt a policy of con- cealment, and that the Ev.mgelists have confounded intention with result, and have thus imputed an " inhuman purpose " to Christ. The quotation in ver. 13 is in all four Gospels (Mk. iv. 12 ; Lk. viii. 10; Jn. xii. 40). 1 88 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIII. 3-10 concealment of the truth was a judgment on the unworthy, but a judgment full of mercy. They were saved from the guilt of rejecting the truth, for they were not allowed to recognize it. And they were also saved from profaning it, for by parabolic teaching Christ carried out His own maxim of not casting pearls before swine (vii. 6). And the parable was a mercy to the unworthy in yet another way. A parable not only arrests attention at the time, it impresses the memory ; and, if the hearer's heart afterwards becomes receptive, he understands the lesson which he missed when he heard. Christ's parables were taken from fagoiliar,. objects, and His hearers, when they saw the objects afterwards, would be reminded of His words.. And although they were primarily intended for Jews of Palestine in His own time — a fact which must be borne in mind in interpreting them, yet there is little that is specially Jewish or Palestinian in them. Only one or two have Jewish features, and hardly one has anything which is decidedly Palestinian (Stanley, Sin. a?id Pal. p. 432). They were intended for the Jew first, but also for the Gentile ; and all sorts and conditions of men of all races and generations have been instructed by them. The parable of the Sower is ajgadiftg and^testing^ parable (Mk. iv. 13). It is one of the three (all dealing witTTTSgetation) which are in all three Gospels, the other two being the Mustard- seed and the Wicked Husbandmen.^ And it is one of which we have Christ's own interpretation. In that interpretation it is specially remarkable that the 'birds,' which we should probably have explained as impersonal temptations, are ex- pressly, in spite of the plural number, said to mean 'Satan' (Mk.), 'the evil one' (Mt.), 'the devil' (Lk.). Among the things which choke the word Mk. alone mentions ' the lusts of other things,' and Lk. alone has 'pleasures of this life.' Mt. by having neither spoils a triplet, which is unusual with him. The disciples' question is given differently by the Evan- gelists. Mk. says that they 'asked Him the parables.' Lk. understands this as signifying that they asked the meaning of this particular parable. Mt. gives it the much wider significa- tion of a question as to the purpose of parables generally.^ 1 In this chapter we have two of these, together with a third on a similar subject, viz. the Tares. Mackinlay thinks that these repeated references to sowing were made at the time of the first sowing after the year of Sabbath, which he dates A.D. 26-27. 'Upon the thorns,' iirl ras aKavOas (7) means upon places where the roots of these plants were concealed. In ver. 8 note the change from aorist to imperfect. - This involves a change in Christ's reply from Hva fi-f) to Srt oi. Christ could not be said to aim at preventing all His hearers from understanding. Mt. inserts ver. 12 before the explanation of the parable : both Mk. (iv. 25) and Lk. (viii. 18) place it after the explanation. Xin. 14] TITF. MINISTRY IN GALILEE 1 89 Christ replies that the purpose is educational to disciples, and ^disciplinary to those Nvho refuse to become disciples. Instruc- tion is given in a form which the unreceptive, through their own fault, cannot understand. It is easy to see how this illustrates the law that to him that hath more shall be given ; the hearer that has sympathy with the truth is instructed. It Isless easy to see how he that hath not loses even that which he hath, or thinketh he hath (Lk. viii. 18). Perhaps the meaning is that the unworthy hearers become less and less ableto receive the truth, the moje often they listen to parables" .with out understanding them.. For 'understanding' in Scripture is a matter of the heart rather than of the head, and the organ which is never used at last loses its power ; the ears that never . hear bec ome deaf. Comp. xxv. 29 and Lk. xix. 26. The quota- ttCnlrom Is. viT^, 10, which Mk. gives in an indirect form (iv. 12), is given by Mt. in the words of the Septuagint directly. And the way in which Mt. introduces the quotation (14) is remarkable. He does not use the phrases, 'that it might be fulfilled' {iva or ottojs TrXrjpwdrj), or 'then was fulfilled' (totc €T7kyjpwOr)), which he usually employs when he himself points out that something is a fulfilment of prophecy. Here it is Christ who points out the fulfilment, and Mt. reports Him as doing so with the very unusual formula, 'there is being filled up to them ' (avaTrXrjpovraL aurots), i.e. in their case the prophecy is being fully satisfied.^ It is also to be remarked that this is one of the passages in which Mt. omits what is unfavourable to the disciples. Mk. iv. 13 has : ' Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?' For this rebuke Mt. substitutes, 'Do you, therefore, hear the parable of the sower.' Comp. xiv. 33 with Mk. vi. 52 ; xvi. 9 with Mk. viii. 17 ; xvii. 23 with Mk. ix. 32 ; and see Allen, pp. xxxiii f. Both here and elsewhere Lk. exhibits a similar tenderness for the Twelve. It is in harmony with this feeling that Mt. and Lk. give the special Beatitude of the disciples, ' Blessed are your eyes,' etc. which Mk. omits. Lk. has this Beatitude after the return of the Seventy (x. 23, 24) and words it differently. And his arrangement is to be pre- ferred, if the Beatitude was uttered only once ; but it may have been spoken both to the Twelve and to the Seventy. Projjhets, such as Balaam, Moses, Isaiah, Micah, and righteous men, such as the Psalmists, had desired to see what the Twelve had seen. * The compound ii'air\r]p6u is found nowhere else in the Gospels, and it is used nowhere else in the Bible of the fulfilment of prophecy. Here it seems to imply that there has been partial fulfilment in the past, and that this is now made complete. The word fj.v