.
 
 CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 COMMENTARY 
 
 ON 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 BY 
 
 HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE, Tn.D., 
 
 OBERCONSI8TORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 jTrom tijc frman, totti) tije Sanction of tlje 
 
 THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
 
 WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D., 
 
 AND 
 
 FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 VOL. I. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 
 MDCCCLXXX.
 
 PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, 
 
 FOR 
 T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
 
 DUBLIN, . . . . ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 NEW YORK, . a . . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD.
 
 CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 HANDBOOK 
 
 TO THE 
 
 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 BY 
 HEINEICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE, Tn.D., 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE SIXTH EDITION OF THE GEKMAN BY 
 
 EEV. PETEE CHEISTIK 
 
 THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY 
 
 FEEDEEICK CEOMBIE, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ST. MARY'S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET. 
 
 MDCCCLXXX.
 
 PBEFATOBY NOTE BY THE EDITOB. 
 
 HE translation of this first volume of the Commentary 
 on Matthew has been made from the last (sixth) 
 edition of the original, which had been carefully 
 revised by Dr. Meyer himself, and which has been 
 recently edited from his manuscript, with very slight altera- 
 tions, by Dr. Albert Ritschl, of Gottingen. The translator 
 of the portion extending from the sixth chapter to the end 
 is the Eev. Peter Christie, of Abbey St. Bathans, who has 
 performed his work with care and ability ; but the whole has 
 been revised and carried through the press by myself. As 
 in the volumes of the series already published, reference has 
 been made throughout to the English translations of Winer's 
 and Buttmann's Grammars of New Testament Greek, and 
 frequently also to translations of other German works, quoted 
 or referred to by Dr. Meyer. For the copious Bibliographical 
 list prefixed to the book, I am indebted to rny learned friend 
 and co-editor Professor Dickson, who has also translated the 
 biographical sketch of Dr. Meyer by his son, which accom- 
 panies it. 
 
 For a statement of the circumstances which have led to 
 the issue of the Commentary of Dr. Meyer in an English 
 translation, of the special grounds for preferring it to the 
 kindred work of de Wette, and of the reasons which have 
 induced the editors to undertake the work of revising the
 
 VI PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, 
 
 several portions of the translation in the interests of technical 
 accuracy and uniformity, the reader may be referred to the 
 " General Preface," prefixed by Dr. Dickson to the volume first 
 issued, viz. Romans, vol. I. 
 
 It is only necessary to say further, that the editors are not 
 to be held as concurring in Dr. Meyer's opinions on some 
 matters embraced in this volume, such as his theory of 
 the original composition of the Gospel, and his views regard- 
 ing the credibility of certain portions of the history. 
 
 FREDERICK CROMBIE. 
 
 ST. MARY'S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS, 
 Slsi October 1877.
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DE. MEYER 
 
 BY HIS SOF, DR GUSTAV MEYER, Pn.D. 
 
 |Y father, who died on the 21st June 1873, was born 
 in Gotha on the 10th January 1800. On the 
 12th January he was baptized in the St. Margaret's 
 Church, and received the names Heinrich August 
 Wilhelm. His father was shoemaker to the ducal court, and 
 was a native of Riigheim in Lower Franconia. An old family 
 document, a certificate of my grandfather's baptism, com- 
 posed with the pleasing diffuseness of the olden time, states 
 that Eiigheim was " under the dominion of the most reverend 
 Prince and Lord of the Holy Roman Empire, Lord Francis 
 Louis, Bishop of Bamberg and Wiirzburg." It is a peculiarity 
 of this document, drawn up in 1781, that the name is never 
 written Meyer, but always Majer or Mayer. My late father was 
 a tender child, and a crayon portrait which has been preserved, 
 representing him when a boy of about seven years of age, shows 
 a pale and delicate face in which, however, the large, earnest- 
 looking eye suggests an active mind. His bodily training was 
 anything but effeminate. He practised swimming and skating, 
 not merely as a schoolboy and a student, but at a much later 
 age, when such exercises had long been given up by many 
 of his companions. And it was in truth not a time for 
 rearing boys tenderly. One of his earliest recollections was 
 of the autumn of 1806, when, not quite seven years old, he 
 saw the prisoners from the battle of Jena confined in the 
 churches of his native town. Gotha lay in the line of retreat
 
 Vlii BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. 
 
 of the beaten French in the days of October 1813 ; and he was 
 an eye-witness of the way in which the Cossacks drove before 
 them and made havoc of the magnificent Imperial Guard. 
 
 He received his school training in the Gymnasium of his 
 native town, which had a reputation passing far beyond the 
 narrow bounds of the little province, and could point to pupils 
 drawn from the most remote regions. His teachers were 
 Doring, Kaltwasser, Galletti, Kries, Schulz, Eegel, Uckert, 
 Eost, and eventually also Bretschneider as religious instructor. 
 At the Gymnasium of Gotha he laid the foundations of his 
 classical culture ; there he first acquired a deep and thorough 
 familiarity with the laws of the Greek and Eoman languages, 
 a tenacious adherence to which was a characteristic feature 
 of his later labours, and not unfrequently brought on him the 
 reproach of pedantic stiffness. While he greatly lamented 
 the neglect of modern languages during his days at school, he 
 was yet far from granting that the methods of instruction pur- 
 sued in the Gymnasia of more recent times, or the require- 
 ments of the Abiturient examination, were preferable to those of 
 his youth. He conceived that in former times there were 
 greater facilities for each individual following out his own course 
 of self-development. It was not to be denied that an Abiturient 
 of the present day, after having passed a good examination, 
 could show a greater extent and wider range of knowledge ; 
 but it was to be feared that this knowledge was more of an 
 encyclopaedic nature, and excluded thoroughness and depth. 
 Be this as it may, and the question is not even now to be 
 held as decided, the grammar-schoolboy, August Meyer, who 
 had gradually been advanced to the highest class and to the 
 foremost place in it, must have been esteemed by his teachers 
 as one who had well bestowed his time and strength on fol- 
 lowing out his predominant bias bordering perhaps on one- 
 sidedness for the classical languages. 
 
 The third centenary celebration of the Eeformation was 
 duly honoured even in the Gymnasium at Gotha. To Meyer 
 was entrusted the Latin address on the occasion, which was to 
 be delivered in hexameters. There lies before me the third 
 edition of Heyne's Tibullus, which was presented to him by
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. ix 
 
 some of the citizens " in celebration of the jubilee festival of 
 the Eeformation, 1817, upon the recommendation of his 
 teachers." Half a year after this incident, important at all 
 events in the career of a grammar-schoolboy, namely, at Easter 
 1818, he passed his ^foYwrw^-examination, and entered the 
 University of Jena to study theology. " These were different 
 times," he was wont to say, " from the present. Everything was 
 much simpler and less luxurious than now, when the course of 
 study costs more than twice as much, and yet not twice as much 
 is learned." All honour to the greater simplicity of those days ; 
 but unless money had had a far greater value then than now, 
 such a course of study, moderate as it was in price, would 
 not have been possible for him even with the strictest frugality. 
 The father of the young student of theology had sustained a 
 serious loss of means by the continuance of the troubles of 
 war, the quartering of troops in large numbers, severe sickness, 
 and other misfortunes. His son cost him at Jena 80 thalers 
 (12) half-yearly. He had no exhibition, no free board; 
 only he had, of course, mostly free clothing, the renewal of 
 which was as a rule reserved for the holidays. And yet he 
 was withal no recluse. The charm of the fresh student-life, 
 which, just after the War of Liberation, burst into so fair a 
 bloom, had strong attractions for him. He was a member of 
 the great Burschenschaft. Most leaves of his note-book 
 exhibited the crossed rapiers with the G. E. F. V. of the 
 fraternity. Thoroughly simple must have been the social 
 life of that joyous academic youth of 1818 and 1819 ! 
 Should these lines perhaps meet the eyes of one or another of 
 my father's old comrades, especially in Thuringia, and some 
 are still there, he was wont to say, but not many, they will 
 possibly awaken recollections of the cheap Commerse in the 
 public market, of the drinking and guitar -playing, of the 
 rapier duels fought out in the open street, of the journeyings 
 home at vacation time, fifteen hours on foot from Jena to 
 Gotha, without putting up for the night, not seldom in bad 
 weather, in snow and rain. Many who shared these journeys 
 are doubtless no longer surviving. One who, on account of 
 his ever-ready knowledge of Greek, was called by his friends the
 
 X BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. 
 
 Couut of eVi, equally prepared for conflict with the rapier or 
 with the tongue, was especially often mentioned by him, and 
 held in sincere esteem. He was called away long before him, 
 and died universally respected as a Head-master in our pro- 
 vince. After the unhappy deed of Karl Sand in March 1819, 
 and the dissolution of the great Burschenschaft which thereupon 
 ensued, my father took no further part in student-life, but 
 applied himself all the more zealously to those studies of which 
 he had not hitherto been neglectful. His theological teachers 
 were Gabler, Schott, Danz, Baumgarten-Crusius, Kosegarten 
 the Orientalist, Eichstadt the philologist, Fries the philosopher, 
 and Luden the historian. As he was fond of recalling 
 and not without regret that their days were over the 
 lectures read in Latin, such as Schott' s, he often also, and 
 with pleasure, called to mind the discussions on theological 
 subjects, which were started by the young students even in 
 their walks and were conducted in Latin. He felt himself least 
 attracted by the prelections on philosophy; his whole bent was 
 already at that time decidedly towards the field of languages. 
 After a curriculum of two years and a half, at Michael- 
 mas 1820 he left the University ; and entered, as domestic 
 tutor, the educational institution of Pastor Oppermann, 
 who subsequently became his father-in-law, at Grone near 
 Gb'ttingen. The time for young theologians then was similar 
 to what it is now. They were wholly, or almost wholly, 
 spared that long and laborious career of domestic tutorship, 
 which led many a one, amidst the subsequent crowd press- 
 ing forward to the study of theology, to lose heart and hope. 
 At Easter 1821 he underwent his examination as candidate 
 at Gotha, and soon he had the choice between an appoint- 
 ment in the Gymnasium of his native city and a pastorate. 
 He chose the latter; and in December 1822 was nominated 
 as pastor at Osthausen in the district of Kranichfeld, which 
 subsequently (1826) was ceded, on the division of the ducal 
 inheritance, from Gotha to Meiuingen. In January of the 
 following year, when exactly twenty-three years old, he was 
 installed as pastor in Osthausen ; and in July of the same 
 year he brought home from Grone to fair Thuringia his youth-
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. XI 
 
 ful bride. How soon afterwards came a change of times ! To 
 the candidates who not long thereafter appeared in numbers 
 exceeding the demand, men, who had but finished their exa- 
 minations at the age of thirty, whose hair not . seldom began 
 to get suspiciously grey while they were still domestic tutors, 
 and who counted the duration of their affianced state at least 
 by lustres, it must have sounded almost like a fable, that a 
 young theologian had established for himself a home of his 
 own as an independent pastor at the age of twenty-three. 
 God, who bestowed on him this great favour, granted to him 
 also a duration of the married state for almost forty years. 
 
 The pleasant leisure which fell to the young pastor's lot in 
 a community of about 400 souls for which down to the close 
 of his life he cherished the utmost affection did not make his 
 mind indolent or his hands idle. It was natural that so 
 juvenile a pastor should still for a time address himself to 
 private study before corning before the public as an author, 
 and all the more so in his case, seeing that in 1827 he went 
 to Hannover for the purpose of passing a Colloquium, with a 
 view to acquire the privilege of naturalization in the then exist- 
 ing kingdom. But as early as the year 1829 there was issued 
 by Vandenhoeck arid Ruprecht the esteemed publishing-house, 
 with which he so long maintained most friendly relations 
 the first portion of his work on the New Testament, con- 
 taining the Greek text and the German translation. In the 
 year 1830 followed his Libri syrribolici Ecclesiae Lutheranae. 
 In the same year as a fruit of his Colloquium, and probably 
 also of the services already rendered by him in the field of 
 theological literature he was appointed as pastor at Harste, 
 near Gottingen. Although he had paved the way for such a 
 step by acquiring naturalization in 1827, and had by his 
 marriage with the pastor's daughter in Grone become half a 
 Hannoverian, and indeed a man of Gottingen, the breaking up 
 of the home established seven years before at Osthausen was a 
 sore trial to my parents. On the day after Christmas, amidst 
 a severe snowstorm, when they doubly missed their wonted 
 comfortable abode, they set out on their perilous journey from 
 Osthausen amidst tears shed alike by those departing and by
 
 Xii BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. 
 
 those left behind. It was not till the third day that the hard- 
 ships and perils of the winter-migration were over. Their 
 new relations were not at first of too agreeable a nature. They 
 needed to be gradually inured to their new position in life 
 before they could feel themselves at home in it. With the 
 far less perfect communication at that time between the several 
 districts of our country, and with the loose connection subsist- 
 ing between one portion of the Germanic Federation and 
 another, a journey from the Meiningen to the Gottingen dis- 
 trict was a more distant, and a transference of abode thither in 
 more than one respect a more difficult, matter than at present. 
 Yet, in spite of the many new impressions which had to be 
 formed and assimilated, the power of which did not permit 
 him in the remotest degree to anticipate that he would part 
 from this community also with deep pain, my father did not 
 allow his scientific labours to lie in abeyance. In the begin- 
 ning of the year 1832 appeared the second part of his work 
 on the New Testament, containing the Commentary. The long 
 time that elapsed between the first part (1829) and the 
 second is explained by " the change of his place of abode, and 
 the edition of the Libri symbolici, issued in the jubilee-year of 
 the Augsburg Confession" (Preface, 20th Jan. 1832). The 
 Commentary, according to the original plan, was to form two 
 divisions, the first of which was to extend to the Book of 
 Acts (inclusive), and the second was to embrace the remaining 
 books. That this idea proved a mistaken one ; that the work 
 has extended to 1 6 divisions ; that his own strength did not 
 suffice to overtake the constantly increasing labour ; that new 
 editions were continually needed ; that an English transla- 
 tion of it is in the press, all this is evidence of the rare 
 favour which the Commentary has retained for more than 
 forty years among the theological public of all schools. It 
 would be surprising, if in so long a period the standpoint of 
 the author, diligent as he was and unwearied in research, had 
 not undergone modifications ; and that in the course of years 
 his views did become more positive, is a fact well known to 
 his readers ; but to the principle of grammatico-historical 
 interpretation, on which so much stress is laid in the Preface
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DK. MEYER. xiii 
 
 of 1832, he remained unalterably faithful down to the close 
 of his life. And as a zealous representative of this school he 
 will maintain his place in the history of exegesis, whatever 
 new literary productions time may bring to light. 
 
 With a rare activity of mind, he had the skill to lay hold of 
 whatever whether from friends or from opponents could be 
 of service to him. The circumstance that he mastered without 
 difficulty the contents of the most voluminous Latin exegetes, 
 and most conscientiously consulted the old Greek expositors, 
 cannot surprise us, when we consider his preponderant leaning 
 to classical studies ; but the facts, that he used with ease com- 
 mentaries written in English and French, that he never left 
 out of view works composed in Dutch, and that he made him- 
 self master of Gothic so far as in a critical and exegetical 
 point of view he had need of it, all serve to attest alike 
 his uncommon qualifications and his iron diligence. Every- 
 thing new that made its appearance in the field of theological 
 literature, especially in the domain of exegesis, excited his 
 interest ; sparing in self-indulgence otherwise, he conceived 
 that, so far as concerned the acquisition of books, he had need 
 to put a restraint on himself; as regards edition, place of 
 publication, size, rarity, and the like, he had an astonishing 
 memory. The administration of a large and liberally supported 
 library seemed to him to be an enviable lot. The theological 
 public hardly needs to be told that studies so comprehensive 
 in range required of course years, and many years, to reach 
 maturity, and that between the Commentary on Matthew of 
 the year 1832 and the fifth edition of the same work in 1864, 
 a very considerable difference in every respect is discernible. 
 Among the MSS. left behind him I find a sixth edition of his 
 Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, which, although 
 according to his own expression not yet quite ripe for the 
 press, to judge from a superficial glance through it, deserves in 
 every respect to be pronounced an improvement on its pre- 
 decessor. He was in the habit of long polishing at a work 
 and correcting it, before he marked it " ready for the press." 
 The ninth division the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, 
 and Philemon was being printed in a fourth edition, when aii 
 
 MATT. b
 
 Xiv BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. 
 
 incurable visceral disorder threw him on his last short, but 
 painful, sickbed. 
 
 It was beyond doubt in great measure a result of the favour 
 which his Commentary enjoyed, that the author was at a com- 
 paratively early age withdrawn from the quiet work of a rural 
 pastor and called to Hoya as superintendent at Michaelmas 
 1837. In this position as Epliorus and as preacher in a 
 country town, whose inhabitants must be presumed to have 
 had other claims than those of simple villagers, two aspects 
 of his nature had opportunity to show and further develope 
 themselves that of the practical man of business, and that 
 of the pulpit orator. In the first- named relation he was 
 thoroughly exact ; his principle was " to be always ready." 
 To postpone disagreeable affairs, to put off irksome reports, 
 was just as impossible for him as to leave accounts unpaid. 
 He vied with his fellow-commissary, the no less exact von 
 Honstedt, former high-steward at Hoya, in the quick despatch 
 of the business on hand, and the art of gaining something 
 from the day namely, by early rising. As a pulpit orator he 
 strove honestly and with success to expound the word of the 
 cross in plain and simple form as the power of God unto 
 salvation, and he was listened to with pleasure so long as he 
 acted as a preacher (till Midsummer 1848). 
 
 His ministry in Hoya lasted only four years, during which 
 the publication of his Commentary went on with unabated 
 vigour. At Michaelmas 1844 he was called to Hannover as 
 Consistorialrath, Superintendent, and chief pastor of the Neu- 
 stddter St. Johanniskirche. I well remember the many attesta- 
 tions of unfeigned affection and cordial attachment, when on 
 the clear sunny autumn day, thirty-two years ago, he departed 
 from Hoya to enter upon the more stirring and more respon- 
 sible career before him in the capital None but a man in 
 the prime of his vigour could do justice at once to his position 
 in the supreme ecclesiastical court, and to the duties of super- 
 intendent and pastor in a community of more than 5000 souls. 
 He had but little ministerial help in his pastoral office. It 
 was his duty to preach every Sunday forenoon ; a scantily 
 paid court-chaplain, who was obliged to make up the deficiency
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OP 1 DR. MEYER. XV 
 
 of his income by giving private lessons, had regularly the 
 service in the afternoon, and was expected, moreover, to act for 
 him in any pastoral duties when at any time he was hindered 
 from discharging them. But how often it happened that he 
 was called away even from the sittings of the Consistory to 
 administer baptism to infants apparently dying and the com- 
 munion to the sick, because his court-chaplain was under the 
 necessity of giving private lessons somewhere ! It required, 
 in truth, a stubborn following out of his principle of " being 
 always ready" (as in fact it was his wont, almost without 
 exception, to prepare for his sermon even on the Monday), to 
 remain faithful to his vocation as an exegete amidst this 
 burden of work. It was again the early hours of the morn- 
 ing which put him in a position to do so. He obtained an 
 honourable recognition of the services thus rendered at Easter 
 1845, when he was nominated by the Faculty at Gottingen 
 Doctor of Theology, " propter eximiam eruditionem artemque 
 theologicam eainque praecipue editis excellentissimis doctissi- 
 misque in libros Novi Testamenti commentariis, quibus con- 
 sensu omnium de ornanda et amplificanda hermeneutica sacra 
 praeclarissime meruit, comprobatam." 
 
 Hitherto the lines of the son of the court-shoemaker in 
 Gotha had fallen in pleasant places ; but he was now to see 
 days in which the hand of the Lord was to be laid heavily 
 upon him. It was doubtless in part a result of the unusual 
 demands made on his strength to which was added his 
 taking part in the Church Conference at Berlin in the winter 
 of 1846 that at the end of February in that year he was 
 stretched by a severe visceral affection on a sickbed, which 
 long threatened to be his last. But the goodness of God 
 averted the danger, and preserved him still for a number of 
 years to his friends and to theological science. The strenuous 
 care of the now long departed Hofrath Holscher was success- 
 ful in putting him on the way to slow recovery, which 
 was accelerated in a most gratifying manner by a visit to the 
 mineral waters of Marienbad. But the old indomitable 
 strength was gone. This he perceived only too plainly, even 
 when he had for the second time gratefully felt the benefit
 
 XVi BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER 
 
 of the Bohemian medicinal springs. His weakened health 
 imperatively demanded a change in his manner of life, and 
 a consequent diminution of the burden of labour that lay 
 upon him. Henceforth he became what he had never 
 previously allowed himself the time for a habitual walker. 
 Every morning between 7 and 8 o'clock, after having previously 
 devoted some hours to exegesis, in wind and storm, summer 
 and winter, even on the morning of the Sundays when he 
 had to preach, he took his accustomed walk, to which he 
 ascribed in no small degree his gradual recovery of strength. 
 At the same time he became a zealous water-drinker, and he 
 called water and walking his two great physicians. The 
 lightening of his labour, that was so essentially necessary, 
 came at Midsummer 1848, when he resigned his duties as 
 Ephorus and pastor, in order to devote himself henceforth 
 solely to the Consistory, in which, however, as may readily 
 be understood, the measure of his labours became greater in 
 point both of quality and of quantity. Many of the clergy of 
 our province belonging to the days when there were still three 
 examinations to be passed and that in Latin, will recollect 
 with pleasure the time when he conducted the preliminary, 
 and regularly took part in the stricter, trials. His easily 
 intelligible Latin, and his definite and clear mode of putting 
 questions, were specially spoken of with praise. 
 
 His aged mother witnessed with just pride his enjoyment 
 of the fruit of his exertions ; she did not die till the year 
 1851, after she had had, and had conferred, the pleasure 
 of a visit to him at Hannover. On the Christmas eve of 
 1858 he stood by the bier of a son of much promise, who, 
 as a teacher of the deaf and dumb at Hildesheim, was carried 
 off by typhus, away from his parental home, in the flower of 
 his age, at twenty-three. This blow was no doubt far more 
 severe than that by which, in 1847, God took from him a boy 
 of seven years ; but under this painful trial the word of the 
 cross approved itself to him a power of God. In May 1861 
 he became OberconsistorialratJi. The constant uncertainty of 
 his health, moreover, and in particular a very annoying sleep- 
 lessness, made him even at that time entertain the idea of
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER, xvii 
 
 superannuation. In the summer of 1863 he sought and 
 found partial relief at the springs of Homburg. In January 
 1864 the hand of God dissolved the marriage-tie, which he 
 had formed in the year 1823. In the preface to the fifth 
 edition of the Commentary on St. Matthew he has penned a 
 well-deserved tribute to the memory of the faithful companion 
 of his life, who had shared with him the joys and sorrows 
 of forty years. 
 
 From the Midsummer of this year down to his death 
 exactly, therefore, nine years he lived under the same roof 
 with me, affectionately tended by my wife, the teacher, friend, 
 companion, I might almost say playmate, of his two grand- 
 daughters. 
 
 On 1st October 1865 he retired from official life, on which 
 occasion, in honourable recognition of his lengthened services, 
 he obtained a higher decoration of the Guelphic Order which 
 he had already worn since 1847 the cross of a Commander of 
 the Second Class. At first he retained some share in con- 
 ducting the examinations ; but this official employment, too, 
 he soon gave up. Twice after his superannuation he was 
 present by direction of the Government at Halle to take part 
 in the Conference, which occupied itself with the settlement 
 of a uniform text for Luther's translation of the Bible, and 
 the fruit of which was the edition of 1870, published at the 
 Canstein Bible-Institute. Now that, at the age of sixty-five, 
 he was released from professional activity in the strict sense 
 of the term, he could devote his life the more tranquilly to 
 science and to the pleasure of the society of his friends. 
 His two granddaughters accompanied him regularly on his 
 walks in the morning ; and I know several houses, the inmates 
 of which looked out every day upon the company regularly 
 making its appearance, in which hoary age, with blooming 
 youth playing around it, seemed to return to the bright 
 clays of childhood. And the kindly grandfather in the midst 
 of his granddaughters on these morning walks was not mono- 
 syllabic or mute. On these occasions jest and earnest 
 alternated with instructions and reflections of the most 
 varied character. Punctually every morning at the same
 
 xviii BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. 
 
 hour he returned home from these walks, which he continued 
 to his last day of health. But he returned not in order to be 
 idle. He was wont by way of joke, even after his super- 
 annuation, to speak of how precisely his time was meted out, 
 and how strictly he had to husband it. The earlier rapidity 
 of his writing no doubt ceased, and increasing age impera- 
 tively demanded pauses, where his more youthful vigour would 
 not have even felt the need of a break. 
 
 To all political party - proceedings he was thoroughly 
 hostile; but he followed the mighty events of the years 
 1866 and 1870 with the liveliest interest. When the 
 German question was being solved by blood and iron, when 
 old thrones tottered and fell, he had a cordial sympathy with 
 much that was disappearing irretrievably; but he did not 
 obstinately close his eyes to the gratifying fruit which sprang 
 up on the bloody soil of 1866. Difficult as it certainly 
 would have been for the old man to reconcile himself 
 to altogether new relations of allegiance, he sincerely rejoiced 
 over the increasing strength of Germany, and that with the 
 greater reason, because he knew from the experiences of his 
 youth how sad was the prospect in those days when Ger- 
 many was simply a geographical idea. And if the year 1866 
 may have kept alive some bitter recollections now and 
 then in one who had grown grey in the service of the 
 kingdom of Hannover, he well understood the language of 
 thunder, in which God spoke to the nations in 1870, and 
 he recognised the sovereign sway of the Almighty, who with 
 strong arm saved us from the house of bondage. To a man, 
 who in the years of his boyhood had so often heard the 
 French shout of victory, had seen the great Napoleon, had 
 passed through the times of the Rhenish Confederation, and 
 had grown up to manhood in the period when so many 
 political hopes were nipped in the bud, the blows of 
 Weissenburg and Worth, the united onset of all Germans, 
 appeared almost like a fable. How often he changed the 
 direction of his accustomed walks, in order to hear at the 
 telegraph-office of new victories and heroic deeds ! And 
 how grateful was he, who had shared in the times of sore
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. XIX 
 
 calamity and ignominy, for what God permitted the Germans 
 to achieve ! He was born under the last Emperor of the 
 house of Hapsburg; could anything else be expected of the 
 Protestant exegete, than- that he should cordially rejoice at 
 the mode in which the German Empire was reconstituted on 
 the 18th January 1871 at Versailles-?. 
 
 In the sphere of religion, as in that of politics, all ill- 
 temper and irritation were odious and repugnant to him. He 
 had, in the course of time, as every reader of his exegetical 
 work well enough knows, become more positive in his views ; 
 but he was far removed from any confessional narrow-minded- 
 ness or persecuting spirit. He desired that there should be 
 no stunting or spoiling of the homely, simple words of Scrip- 
 ture either from one side or another ; and he deeply lamented 
 it, wherever it occurred, let the cause of it be what it would. 
 He never concealed his conviction ; it has gone abroad every- 
 where in many thousand copies of his book ; and he carried 
 with him to the grave the hope that it would please God, in 
 His own time, to complete the work of the Eeformation. 
 
 A mere outward observer of the tranquil and regular course 
 of life of my late father might not surmise, but those who 
 were in closer intercourse with him for the last two years 
 could not conceal from themselves, that his day was verging to 
 its close. No doubt he still always rose, summer and winter, 
 immediately after four o'clock ; he was constantly to be seen 
 beginning his walks at the same time ; his interest in his 
 favourite science was still the same ; but his daily life became 
 more and more circumscribed in its range, and the pendulum 
 of his day's work vibrated more and more slowly, so that its 
 total cessation could not but be apprehended. The journeys 
 to the house of his son-in-law, Superintendent Steding at 
 Drausfeld, where he had so often found refreshment and 
 diffused joy by his visits, had long since ceased. After a fall, 
 which he met with about a year before his death, his walks 
 were curtailed. To this outward occasion he attributed what 
 was probably a consequence of gradual decline of strength and 
 advancing age. 
 
 The Lord of life and death, who had so graciously dealt
 
 XX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. 
 
 with him for seventy-three years, as he himself most gratefully 
 acknowledged, spared him also from prolonged suffering at 
 the last. On the 15th June he still followed quite his usual 
 mode of life ; he spent the afternoon with contentment and 
 cheerfulness in his garden, then took a little walk, and went 
 to rest punctually at eight o'clock, as he always did in his 
 latter years. The walk on that Sunday afternoon was to be 
 his last, and the unfolding glories of the summer were not to 
 be seen by him again with the bodily eye. During the night, 
 towards one o'clock, he awoke us, as he was suffering from vio- 
 lent iliac pains. With the calmest composure he recognised 
 the hand of the Lord, which would remove him from the scene 
 of his rich and fruitful labours. He declared that he was 
 willing and ready to depart, asking only for a speedy and not 
 too painful end. The medical aid which at once hastened to 
 his side afforded indeed momentary relief by beneficial injec- 
 tions of morphia ; but the eye of science saw the ame danger 
 as those around him had immediately felt and foreboded. 1 It 
 was an incurable visceral affection, which was conjectured to be 
 connected with the severe illness that he had happily survived 
 twenty-seven years before. On the 19th June a transient 
 gleam of hope shone once more for a short time. " Willingly," 
 he said on this day, after an uneasy night, " would I still re- 
 main with you ; but willingly am I also ready to depart, if God 
 calls me." It was but a brief gleam of the setting sun before 
 the approach of night. This we could not but soon perceive, 
 and this he himself saw with the manly Christian self- 
 possession, by means of which he had been so often in life a 
 comfort and example to us. Soon after there set in a state of 
 half-slumber, during which the most diversified images flitted 
 in chequered succession before his mind. Now he saw him- 
 self seated before a large page from the New Testament, 
 on which he was employed in commenting, while he fancied 
 
 1 1 may here be allowed, under the natural impulse of melancholy recollection 
 conscious of its indebtedness, to mention with the most sincere thanks the 
 considerate and devoted care of the physicians in attendance on him the chief- 
 physician Dr. Kollner and chief-staff-physician Dr. Hiibener. So often did 
 they afford to their dying patient the great blessing of mitigating his pain, 
 where their tried skill had limits assigned to it by a higher hand.
 
 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF DR. MEYER. XX i 
 
 that he held the pipe in his mouth. In this way had he 
 devoted many a quiet morning hour to his favourite study, 
 when his window had been the only one lighted up in the 
 street. Then, again, he busied himself with the Fatherland ; 
 " Germany, Germany above all;' we heard him distinctly say. 
 Was it that the recollections of his cheerful student-days, when 
 the Bursclienscliaft was full of fervour and enthusiasm speci- 
 ally for the Fatherland, became interwoven with the mighty 
 events of his latter years ? Soon afterwards he saw clearly the 
 cross, of which he had so often during his long life experienced 
 and diffused the blessing. On the 20th June there was 
 given the fatally significant intimation that he might be 
 allowed to partake of anything which he wished. He made 
 no further use of it than to take some beer, of which he had 
 always been fond. But it was only for a passing moment ; 
 and the beer also soon remained untouched, just as his pipe 
 and box, formerly his inseparable attendants, had since his 
 sickness lost their power of attraction. Violent vomiting 
 and the weary singultus, which hardly abated for a moment, 
 announced but too plainly that the end of that busy life was 
 closely approaching. Shortly before 10 P.M., on the 21st 
 June, he entered without struggle upon his rest. His wish, 
 often and urgently expressed during his lifetime and also on 
 his deathbed, that his body might be opened for medical 
 examination, was complied with on the following day. The 
 result was to exhibit such visceral adhesion and intussuscep- 
 tion, beyond doubt an after-effect of his earlier illness, 
 that even the daring venture of a surgical operation could 
 not have been attended with success. On Midsummer-day 
 he was buried in the Neustadter churchyard, where he had 
 so often, during the exercise of his pastoral functions, stood by 
 the open grave of members of his flock. On the cross at his 
 tomb are placed the words from Eom. xiv. 8 : " Whether we 
 live, we live unto the Lord ; whether we die, we die unto 
 the Lord. Whether we live therefore or die, we are the 
 Lord's." 
 
 HANNOVER, December 1873.
 
 PREFACE TO THE PRESENT (SIXTH) EDITION, 
 
 1HE venerable author of the Critical and Exegetical 
 Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, who was 
 called away from this life just this day two years 
 ago, left behind him a complete revision of the 
 book with a view to a sixth edition of it. He was most 
 conscientiously careful in keeping the successive editions, that 
 were ever being called for, of the several portions of his Com- 
 mentary on the New Testament thoroughly on a level with 
 the competing critical and exegetical labours of his contem- 
 poraries. Accordingly he had prepared in good time the 
 matter to be substituted for the fifth edition of the present 
 part, which appeared in 1864. The few material changes 
 and the supplementary additions, by which this edition is 
 distinguished from its predecessor, are thus wholly the work 
 of Meyer. The undersigned, out of friendship for the pub- 
 lisher, and out of dutiful affection towards the author, with 
 whom he was closely connected in his latter years, under- 
 took to look over the manuscript, and has accordingly deemed 
 himself entitled merely to make alterations of minor compass 
 in form and style. This Preface, therefore, has no other object 
 than simply to introduce the book afresh to the theological 
 public, to whom there is no need that I should descant on the 
 merits of the deceased author in order to keep alive his memory 
 and the enduring intellectual influence of his work. 
 
 PROFESSOK DK. A. RITSCHL. 
 GOTTINGEN, 2Ist June 1875. 
 
 xxil
 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE, 
 
 [THE following list which is not meant to be exhaustive, but is 
 intended to embrace the more important works in the several depart- 
 ments to which it applies contains commentaries, or collections of 
 notes, which relate to the New Testament as a whole, to the four 
 Gospels as such, to the three Synoptic Gospels (including the chief 
 Harmonies), or to the Gospel of Matthew in particular, alon-; 
 with the principal editions of the Greek New Testament that are 
 referred to in the critical remarks prefixed to each chapter, and 
 the more noteworthy Grammars and Lexicons of New Testament 
 Greek. It does not include (with the exception of some half-dozen 
 works that contain considerable exegetical matter) the large number 
 of treatises dealing with questions of Introduction or of historical 
 criticism in relation to the Gospels, because these are generally 
 specified by Meyer when he refers to them ; nor does it contain 
 monographs on chapters or sections, which are generally noticed by 
 Meyer in loc. Works mainly of a popular or practical character have, 
 with a few exceptions, been excluded, since, however valuable they 
 may be on their own account, they have but little affinity with the 
 strictly exegetical character of the present work. The editions 
 quoted are usually the earliest ; al. appended denotes that the book 
 has been more or less frequently reissued ; f marks the date of the 
 author's death ; c. = circa, an approximation to it. W. P. D.] 
 
 ALBERTI (Johannes), f 1762, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Observations 
 philologicae in sacros N. F. libros. 8, Lugd. Bat. 1725. 
 
 ALEXANDER (Joseph Addison), D.D., f 1860,'Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. 
 History at Princeton : The Gospel according to Matthew 
 explained. 12, New York [and Lond.] 1861. 
 
 ALFORD (Henry), D.D., f 1-871, Dean of Canterbury: The Greek 
 Testament, with a critically revised text . . . and a critical 
 and exegetical commentary. 4 vols. 8, Lond. 1849-61, al. 
 
 xxiil
 
 XXIV EXEGETICAL LITER ATUKE. 
 
 ANGER (Rudolph), f 1866, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Synopsis 
 
 Evangeliorum Matthaei, Marci, Lucae. ... 8, Lips. 1852. 
 
 ANNOTATIONS upon all the books of the O. and N. Testament .... by 
 
 the joint labour of certain learned divines thereunto appointed 
 
 . . . [by the Westminster Assembly of Divines]. 2 vols. 
 
 2, Lond. 1645, al 
 
 ANSELM, of Laon, f 1117, Teacher of Schol. Theol. at Paris: Glossa 
 
 iriterlinearis. 2, Basil. 1502, al. 
 
 AQUINAS (Thomas), f 1274, Scholastic philosopher: Catena vere aurea 
 
 in quatuor Evangelia. 2, s. 1. 1474, al. 
 
 [Translated by Dr. Pusey and others. 4 vols. in 8. 
 
 8, Oxf. 1841-45.] 
 
 ARETIUS (Benedict), f 1574, Prof. Theol. at Berne : Commentarii in 
 quatuor Evangelia. 8, Lausannae, 1577, al. 
 
 Commentarii in N. T. 2, Paris. 1607, al 
 
 ARIAS MONTANO (Benito), f 1598, Spanish monk, Editor of the Ant- 
 werp Polyglott : Elucidationes in quatuor Evangelia. 
 
 4, Antverp. 1573. 
 
 ARNAULD (Antoine), f 1694, Port Royalist. Historia et concordia 
 
 evangelica. 12, Paris. 1643, al. 
 
 ARNOLDI (Matthias) : Commentar zum Evangelium des h. Matthaus. 
 
 8, Trier, 1856. 
 
 AUGUSTINUS (Aurelius), f 430, Bishop of Hippo : Exegetica commen- 
 taria in N. T., viz. De consensu Evangelistarum libri iv. ; De 
 sermone Domini in Monte libri ii. ; Quaestionum Evangeli- 
 orum libri ii. ; Quaestionum septendecim in Evang. secundum 
 Matthaeum liber i. ; In Joannis Evangelium tractatus cxxiv. ; 
 in Epistolam Joannis ad Parthos tractatus x. ; Expositio 
 quarundam propositionum ex Epistola ad Romanos, liber i. ; 
 Epistolae ad Romanos inchoata expositio, liber i. ; Expositio 
 Epistolae ad Galatas, liber i. [Opera, torn. iii. ed. Benedict. 
 
 2, Paris. 1680, al] 
 
 [Partly translated in "Library of the Fathers" and in "Works 
 of St. Augustine."] 
 
 BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS (Ludwig Friedrich Otto), f 1843, Prof. Theol. 
 , at Jena : Commentar liber das Evang. das Matthaus [und 
 iiber die Evang. des Markus und Lukas. . . .]. 
 
 8, Jena, 1844-45. 
 
 BAXTER (Richard), f 1691, Nonconformist divine : A paraphrase on 
 the N. T., with notes. ... 4, Lond. 1685, al 
 
 BEAUSOBRE (Isaac de), f 1738, French pastor at Berlin: Remarques 
 historiques, critiques et philologiques sur le N. T. 2 tomes. 
 
 4, La Haye, 1742.
 
 EXEGETICAL LITEKATURE. XXV 
 
 And LENFANT (Jacques), f 1728, French pastor at Berlin : 
 
 Le N. T. . . . traduit en fran9ois . . . avec des notes literales, 
 
 pour e"clairir le texte. 2 tomes. 4, Amst. 1718, al. 
 
 BEDA (Venerabilis), t 735, monk at Jarrow : Commentarii in quatuor 
 
 Evangelia. [Opera.] 
 
 BEELEN (Jean-Theodore), R. C. Prof. Or. Lang, at Louvain : Gram- 
 matica Graecitatis N. T. . . . 8, Lovanii, 1857. 
 
 BENGEL (Johann Albrecht), f 1751, Prelate in Wurtemberg: N. T. 
 Graecum ita adornatum, ut textus probatarum editionum 
 medullam, margo variantium lectionum . . . delectum, appa- 
 ratus subjunctus criseos sacrae, Millianae praesertim, com- 
 pendium, limam, supplementum ac fructum exhibeat. 
 
 4, Tubing. 1734, al. 
 
 Gnomon N. T., in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, pro- 
 funditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indi- 
 catur. 4, Tubing. 1742, al [Translated by Rev. A. R. 
 Faussett. 5 vols. Edin. 1857-58, al.] 
 Richtige Harmonic der vier Evangelisten. 
 
 8, Tubing. 1736, al. 
 
 BERLEPSCH (August, Freiherr von) : Quatuor N. T. Evangelia . . . 
 
 orthodoxe explanata. . . . Ratisb. 1849. 
 
 BEZE [BEZA] (Theodore de), f 1 605, Pastor at Geneva : N. T. sive 
 
 N. Foedus, cujus Graeco textui respondent interpretationes 
 
 duae, una vetus, altera nova Theodori Bezae . . . Ejusdem 
 
 Th. Bezae annotationes ... 2, Genev. 1565, al. 
 
 BISPING (August), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Miinster: Exegetisches 
 
 Handbuch zum N. T. 9 Bande. 8, Munster, 1867-76. 
 
 BLEEK (Friedrich), f 1859, Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Synoptische Er- 
 
 klarung der drei ersten Evangelien. 2 Bande. 8, Leip. 1862. 
 
 BLOOMFIELD (Samuel Thomas), D.D., f Vicar of Bisbrooke : The 
 
 Greek Testament, accompanied with English notes, critical, 
 
 philological, and exegetical. 2 vols. 8, Lond. 1829, al. 
 
 Recensio synoptica annotationis sacrae ... 8 voll. 
 
 8, Lond. 1826-28. 
 
 Bos (Lambert), f 1717, Prof, of Greek at Frarieker : Observationes 
 
 miscellaneae ad loca quaedam . . . N. F. 8, Franek. 1707. 
 
 Exercitationes philologicae in quibus N. F. loca nonnulla 
 
 ex auctoribus Graecis illustrantur. 8, Franek. 1700, al. 
 
 BRENT (Johann), f 1570, Provost at Stuttgart : Commentarii in 
 
 Matthaeum, Marcum et Lucam. [Opera. Tom. v.] 
 
 2, Tubing. 1590. 
 
 BRETSCHNEIDER (Karl Gottlieb), t 1848, General Superintendent at 
 Gotha: Lexicon manuale Graeco-Latinum in libros N. T. 
 2 volL 8, Lips. 1824, al.
 
 XXvi EXEGETICAL LITERATUKE. . 
 
 BROWN (John), D.D., t 1858, Prof. Exeg. Theol. to United Presby- 
 terian Church, Edinburgh : Discourses and sayings of our Lord 
 illustrated in a series of expositions. 3 vols. 8, Edin. 1850. 
 
 BROWN (David), D.D., Principal of Free Church College at Aberdeen : 
 A commentary, critical, experimental, and practical, on the 
 New Testament. [Vols. V. VI. of Commentary ... by Dr. 
 Jamieson, Rev. A. R. Fausset, and Dr. Brown. 
 
 8, Glasg. 1864-74.] 
 
 BUCER (Martin), t 1551, Prof. Theol. at Cambridge : In sacra qua- 
 tuor Evangelia enarrationes perpetuae. . . . 
 
 8, Argent. 1527, al. 
 
 BULLINGER (Heinrich), t 1575, Pastor at Zurich . N. T. historia evan- 
 gelica sigillatim per quatuor Evangelistas descripta, una cum 
 Act. Apost. omnibusque Epistolis Apostolorum explicate 
 commentariis. 2, Turici, 1554, al. 
 
 BUNSEN (Christian Carl Josias von), t 1860, German statesman : 
 Vollstandiges Bibelwerk fiir die Gemeinde. ... 10 Bande. 
 
 8, Leip. 1858-70. 
 
 [Band IV. Die Biicher des N. B. Herausgegeben von Hein- 
 rich Julius Holtzmann.] 
 
 BURMAN (Franciscus), t 1719, Prof. Theol. at Utrecht: Harmonic 
 ofte overeenstemminge der vier h. Evangelisten. 
 
 4, Amst. 1713, al. 
 
 BURTON (Edward), D.D., t 1836, Prof. Theol. at Oxford: The Greek 
 Testament with English notes. 2 vols. 8, Oxf. 1831, al. 
 
 BUTTMANN (Alexander), retired Professor at Berlin : Grammatik des 
 neutest. Sprachgebrauchs, im Anschlusse an Ph. Buttmann's 
 Griechische Grammatik bearbeitet. 8, Berlin, 1859. 
 
 [Authorized translation (by J. H. Thayer), with numerous ad- 
 ditions and corrections by the author. 8, Andover, 1873.] 
 
 CAJETANUS [TOMMASO DA Vio], t 1534, Cardinal: In quatuor Evan- 
 gelia et Acta Apostolorum ... ad sensum quern vocant 
 literalem commentarii. ... 2, Venet. 1530, al. 
 
 CALIXTUS (Georg), f 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt: Quatuor Evan- 
 gelicorum scriptorum concordia, et locorum . . . difficiliorum 
 explicatio. 4, Halberstadii, 1624, al. 
 
 CALMET (Augustin), t 1757, Abbot of Senones: Commentaire 
 litteral sur tous les livres de 1'A. et du N. Testament. 23 
 tomes. 4, Paris, 1707-16, al. 
 
 CALOVIUS (Abraham), t 1676, General Superintendent at Witten- 
 berg : Biblia Testament! Veteris [et Novi] illustrata. . . . 
 
 2, Francof. ad M. 1672-76, al. 
 [Tom. IV. Cum Harmonia evangelica noviter concinnata.]
 
 EXEGETICAL LITEEATUEE. X:-:vii 
 
 CALVIN [CHAUVIN] (Jean), t 1564, Reformer : Commentarii in Har- 
 moniam ex Evangelistis tribus . . . compositam. . . . 
 
 2, Genev. 1553, al. 
 [Translated by Rev. W. Pringle. 8, Edin. 1844-45.] 
 
 CAMERARI us (Joachim), t 1574, Prof, of Greek -at Leipzig: Notatio 
 figurarum sermonis in quatuor libris Evangeliorum, indicata 
 verborum significatione et oration is sententia ... Et in 
 scriptis apostolicis. 4, Lips. 1572. 
 
 Subsequently issued under the title, " Commentarius in N. F. 
 . . ." along with Beza's N. T. and Annotations. 
 
 2, Cantab. 1642. 
 
 CAMERON (John), 1 1625, Prof. Theol. at Montauban : Praelectiones in 
 selectiora quaedam loca N. T. 3 voll. 4, Salmur. 162628, al. 
 Myrothecium evangelicum, hoc est, N.T.,locaquamplurimavel 
 illustrata, vel explicata vel vindicata. ... 4, Genev. 1632. 
 
 CAMPBELL (George), D.D., f 1796, Principal of Marischal College, 
 Aberdeen : The four Gospels translated from the Greek, 
 with preliminary dissertations and notes critical and expla- 
 natory. 2 vols. 4, Lond. 1789, al. 
 
 CAPPEL (Jacques) [CAPPELLUS], f 1624, Prof. Theol. at Sedan: 
 Observationes in N. T. . . . nunc demum ... in lucem editae, 
 procurante Ludovico Cappello [f 1658, Prof. Theol. at Saumur] 
 . . . una cum ejusdem Lud. Cappelli Spicilegio. . . . 
 
 4, Amstel. 1657. 
 
 CARPENTER (Lant), LL.D., f 1840, Unitarian Minister at Bristol: A 
 harmony or synoptical arrangement of the Gospels. 2d ed. 
 
 8, Lond. 1838. 
 
 CARTWRIGHT (Thomas), f 1603, Puritan divine : Harmonia evangelica, 
 commentario analytico, metaphrastico et practice illustrata. 
 
 4, Amstel. 1627, al. 
 
 CASTALIO [CHATEILLON] (Sebastian), f 1563, Prof, of Greek at Basel : 
 Biblia V. et N. T. ex versione Sebast. Castalionis cum ejusdem 
 annotationibus. 2, Basil. 1551, al. 
 
 CATENAE Patrum. See CRAMER, CORDEKIUS, POSSINUS. 
 
 CHAPMAN (Richard), B. A. A Greek harmony of the Gospels . . . with 
 notes. 4, Lond. 1836. 
 
 CHEMNITZ (Martin), f 1586, Teacher of Theol. at Brunswick : Har- 
 monia quatuor Evangelistarum, a . . . D. Martino Chemnitio 
 primum inchoata : D. Polycarpo Lysero post continuata, 
 atque D. Johanne Gerhardo tandem felicissime absoluta. 
 3 voll. 2, Francof. 1652, al. 
 
 [First issued separately, 1593-1627.] 
 
 CHRYSOSTOMUS ( Joannes), f 407, Archbishop of Constantinople : Homi- 
 liae in Matthaeum [Opera, ed. Bened. VII., a/.]. Homiliae
 
 XXVlii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 in Matth. Graece, textum . . . emendavit, praecipuam lec- 
 tionis varietatem adscripsit, annotationibus . . . instruxit 
 Fredericus Field. 3 voll. 8, Cantab. 1839. 
 
 [Translated in " Library of the Fathers." 8, Oxf. 1843-51.] 
 
 CHYTRAEUS [KOCHHAFF] (David), f 1600, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: 
 Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei. 8, Vitemb. 1555, al. 
 
 CLARIO [CLARIUS] (Isidore), f 1555, Bishop of Foligno : Vulgata editio 
 V. et N. T., quorum alterum ad Graecam veritatem emenda- 
 tum est . . . adjectis . . . scholiis . . . locupletibus. . . . 
 
 2, Venet. 1542, al. 
 
 CLARKE (Adam), f 1832, Wesleyan minister: The Bible . . . with 
 a commentary and critical notes. 8 vols. 4, Lond. 181026. 
 
 CLARKE (Samuel), D.D., f 1729, Rector of St. James', Westminster : 
 A paraphrase of the four Evangelists . . . with critical notes 
 on the more difficult passages. 4, Lond. 1701-02, al. 
 
 CLAUSEN (Henrik Nicolai), Prof. Theol. at Copenhagen : Quatuor 
 Evangeliorum tabulae synopticae. Juxta rationes temporum 
 . . . composuit, annotationibusque . . . instruxit H. N. Clausen. 
 
 8, Kopenh. 1829. 
 Fortolking af de synoptiske Evangelier. 2 parts. 
 
 8, Copenh. 1850. 
 
 CLERICUS [L.E CLERC] (Jean), j 1736, Prof. Eccles. Hist, at Amsterdam: 
 Harmonia evangelica Graece et Latine. . . . 
 
 2, Amstel. 1699, al. 
 [Translated. 4, Lond. 1701. See also HAMMOND.] 
 
 CONANT (Thomas J.), D.D., Prof. Heb. at New York : The Gospel of 
 Matthew . . . With a revised version, and critical and philo- 
 logical notes. [American Bible Union.] New York, 1860. 
 
 CORDERIUS [CORDIER] (Balthasar), f 1650, Jesuit: Catena Graecorum 
 patrum triginta in Matthaeum, collectore Niceta episcopo 
 Serrarum. Cum versions Latina ed. B. Corderius. 
 
 2, Tolosae, 1647. 
 
 CRAMER (John Anthony), D.D., f 1848, Principal of New Inn Hall, 
 Oxford : Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum Testa- 
 mentum. 8 voll. 8, Oxon. 1838-44. 
 
 CRELL (Johann), f 1633, Socinian teacher at Racow : Opera omnia 
 exegetica sive in plerosque libros N. T. commentarii . . . 
 [Opera. I.-IIL] 2, Eleutheropoli [Amstel.], 1656. 
 
 CREMER (Hermann), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Biblisch-theologisches 
 Wb'rterbuch der neutestamentlichen Graecitat. 
 
 8, Gotha, 1866, al 
 
 [Translated by D. W.Simon, Ph.D., and William Urwick, M.A. 
 
 8, Edin. 1872.] 
 
 CRITICI SACRI sive doctissimorum virorum in sacra Biblia annotationes
 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. Xxix 
 
 et tractatus [In N. T. : Vallae, Revii, Erasmi, Vatabli, Cas- 
 talionis, Munsteri, Clarii, Drusii, Zegeri, Grotii, Scaligeri, 
 Cameronis, Pricaei et aliorum]. 9 tomi. 2, Lond. 1660, al. 
 
 DEYLING (Salomon), f 1755, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Observationes 
 sacrae, in quibus multae Scripturae V. ac N. T. dubia vexata 
 solvuntur, loca difficiliora . . . illustrantur. ... 5 partes. 
 
 4, Lips. 1708-48, al. 
 
 DICKSON (David), f 1662, Prof. Theol. at Edinburgh : A brief exposi- 
 tion of the Gospel according to Matthew. 12, Lond. 1651. 
 DIEU (Louis de), f 1642, Prof, at Walloon College, Leyden: Anim- 
 adversiones sive commentarius in quatuor Evangelia. . . . 
 
 4, Lugd. Bat. 1631, al. 
 
 Critica sacra, seu animadversiones in loca quaedam difficiliora 
 V. et N. T. variis in locis ex auctoris manuscriptis aucta. 
 
 2, Arnstel. 1693. 
 
 DILHERR (Johann Michael), f 1669, Prof. Theol. at Niirnberg : Eclogae 
 sacrae N. T. Syriacae, Graecae et Latinae, cum observationibus 
 philologicis. 12, Jenae, 1638, al. 
 
 DIONYSIUS CARTHUSIANUS [DENYS DE EYCKEL], f 1471, Carthusian monk: 
 Commentarii in universos S. S. libros. 2, Colon. 1530-36. 
 DODDRIDGE (Philip), DvD., f 1751, Nonconformist minister at North- 
 ampton : The family expositor ; or, a paraphrase and version 
 of the N. T., with critical notes. ... 3 vols. 
 
 4, Lond. 1738-47, al. 
 
 DOUGHTY [DOUGTAEUS] (John), f 1672, Rector of Cheam, Surrey : 
 Analecta sacra, sive excursus philologici breves super diversis 
 S. S. locis. 2 voll. 8, Lond. 1658-60, al. 
 
 DRUSIUS (Joannes) [VAN DEN DRIESCHE], f 1616, Prof. Or. Lang, at 
 Franeker : Annotationum in totum Jesu Christi Testauientum ; 
 sive praeteritorum libri decem. Et pars altera. . . . 
 
 4, Franek. 1612-16. 
 Ad voces Ebraeas N. T. commentarius duplex. 
 
 4, Franek. 1606, al. 
 
 EBRARD (Johann Heinrich August), Consistorialrath at Erlangen : 
 
 Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte. . . . 
 
 8, Erlangen, 1841, al. 3 te Aunage. 8?, Frankf. 1866. 
 
 [Translated in " Foreign Theological Library."] 
 ECKERMANN (Jakob Christian Rudolph), j 1836, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: 
 
 Erklarung aller dunklen Stellen des N. T. 3 Ba'nde. 
 
 8, Kiel, 1806-08. 
 EICHTHAL (Gustave de), Les Evangiles. 1* partie : examen critique 
 
 et comparatif des trois premiers Evangiles. 8, Paris, 1863. 
 MATT. c
 
 XXX EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 ELSLEY (J.), M.A., Vicar .of Burneston : Annotations on the lour 
 Gospels; compiled and- abridged. ... 2 vols. 
 
 8 C , Lond. 1799, al. 
 
 ELSNER (Jakob), f 1750, Consistorialrath at Berlin: Observationes 
 
 sacrae in N. F. libros. . . . 2 voll. 8, Traject. 1720-28. 
 
 Commentarius critico^philologicus in Evangelium Matthaei, 
 
 edidit et notulas -quasdam adjecit Ferdinandus Stosch. 
 
 2 voll. 4, Zwollae, 1767-69. 
 
 ELZEVIR, or ELZEVIER, name of the celebrated family of printers at 
 Leyden. The abbreviation .Elz. denotes the edition of the 
 N. T. issued 'in .J.633 [N. T. Ex regiis aliisque optimis 
 editionibus cum cura impressum, 12, Lugd. 1633], and 
 frequently reprinted, which presents what is called the Textus 
 Receptus. 
 
 EPISCOFIUS (Simon), f 1643, Prof. Theol. -at Amsterdam : Notae breves 
 in xxiv. priora capita Matthaei. [Opera theol. 2, Amstel. 
 1650.] 
 
 ERASMUS (Desiderius), f 1536 : Novum Testamentum omne, diligenter 
 recognitum et emendatum. . < 2, Basil. 1516. Editio princeps 
 followed by others edited by Erasmus in 1519, 1522, 1527, 
 and 1535. Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum, 2, Basil. 
 1516, et al. Paraphrases in Novum Testamentum, 2, Basil. 
 1522, et al [Translated. 2 vols. 2, Lond. 1548, al.'} 
 
 EUTHYMIUS ZIGABENUS, "j" c. 1118, Greek monk : Commentarius in 
 quatuor Evangelia Graece et Latine. Textum Graecum . . . 
 suis animadversionibus edidit C. F. Matthaei. 3 tomi in 4. 
 
 8, Lips. 1792. 
 
 EWALD (Georg Heinrich August),! 1876, Prof. Or. Lang, at Gbttingen: 
 Die drei ersten Evangelien ubersetzt'Und erklart. 
 
 8, Gotting. 1850, al. 
 
 FABRTCIUS (Johann Albrecht), f 1736, Prof. Eloq. at Hamburg: 
 Observationes selectae in varia loca N. T. 8, Hamb. 1712. 
 
 FERUS [WILD] (Johannes), f 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz: 
 Enarrationes in Matthaeum. 2, Mogunt. 1559, al. 
 
 FISCHER (Johann Friedrich), *\ 1799, Principal of the Fursten Col- 
 legium at Leipzig : Prolusiones in quibus varii loci librorum 
 divinorum utriusque Testament! . . . explicantur atque illus- 
 trantur. ... 8, Lips. 1779. 
 
 FLACIUS lllyricus (Matthias) [FLACH], f 1575, Prof. Theol. at Jena: 
 Clavis scripturae sacrae, seu de sermone sacr. litterarum. 
 
 2, Basil. 1567, al. 
 Glossa compendiaria in Novum Testamentum. 
 
 2 Basil. 1570, al.
 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. XXXi 
 
 FRIEDLIEB (Joseph Heinrich), R. C. Prof. Theol. at Breslau : Quatuor 
 Evangelia sacra in harmoniam redacta . . . 8, Vratisl. 1847. 
 
 FRITZSCHE (Karl Friedrich August), f 1846, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: 
 Evangelium Matthaei recensuit et cum commentariis perpetuis 
 edidit D. C. F. A. Fritzsche. 8, Lips. 1826. 
 
 GAGNAEUS (Johannes) [Jean de GAGNEE], f 1549, Rector of Univ. of 
 
 Paris : In quatuor . . . Evangelia necnon Actus Apostolorum 
 
 scholia ex praecipuis Graecorum et Latinorura scriptis selecta. 
 
 2, Paris. 1552, ai 
 GEHRINGER (Joseph), R. C. : Synoptische Zusammenstellung des 
 
 griechischen Textes der vier Evangelien. 8, Tubing. 1842. 
 GERHARD (Johann), f 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Adnotationes 
 
 posthumae in Evangelium Matthaei. 2, Jenae, 1663. 
 
 Harmonia quatuor Evangelistarum. See CHEMNITZ (Martin). 
 GILL (John), t 1771, Baptist pastor in Southwark: An exposition 
 
 of the New Testament. 3 vols. 2, Lond. 1743-48, al 
 
 GLOCKLER (Conrad) : Die Evangelien des Matthaus, Markus, und 
 
 Lukas in Uebereinstimmung gebracht und erklart. 2 Ab- 
 
 theilungen. 8, Frankf. 1834. 
 
 GRATZ( Aloys): Kritisch-historischer Commentar iiber das Evangelium 
 
 Matthaei. 2 Theile. 8, Tubing. 1821-23. 
 
 GREEN (Thomas "Sheldon), M.A., Headmaster of Grammar School at 
 
 Ashby de la Zouch : Treatise on the grammar of the N. T. 
 
 dialect. ... 8, Lond. 1842, al 
 
 GRESWELL (Edward), B.D., Vice-Pres. of Corpus Christi Coll., 
 
 Oxford: Harmonia evangelica, sive quatuor Evangelia Graece, 
 
 pro temporis et rerum serie in partes quinque distributa. 
 
 8, Oxon. 1830, al. 
 
 Dissertations upon the principles and arrangement of a 
 Harmony of the Gospels. 3 vols. 8, Oxf. 1830. 
 
 An exposition of the parables and of other parts of the 
 
 Gospels. 5 vols. in 6. 8, Oxf. 1834-35. 
 
 GRIESBACH (Johann Jakob), t 1812, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Novum 
 
 Testamentum Graece. Textum ad fidem codicum, versionum 
 
 et Patrum recensuit et lectionis varietatem adjecit D. Jo. Ja. 
 
 Griesbach. Editio secunda. 8, Halis, 1796-1809, al 
 
 Synopsis Evangeliorum. ... 8, Halae, 1776, al. 
 
 GRIMM (Karl Ludwig Willibald), Prof. Theol. at Jena: Lexicon Graeco- 
 
 Latinum in libros Novi Testamenti. 8, Lips. 1868. 
 
 GRINFIELD (Edward William), M.A. : N. T. Graecum. Editio Hel- 
 
 lenistica. 2 voll. Scholia Hellenistica in N. T. . . . 2 voll. 
 
 8, Lond. 1843-48.
 
 XXXli EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 GEOTIUS (Hugo), f 1G45, Dutch statesman- Annotationes in N. T. 
 2, Paris, 1644, al Annotationes in N. T. Denuo emenda- 
 tius editae. 9 voll. 8, Groning. 1826-34. 
 
 HAHN (August), f 1863, General Superintendent in Breslau: N. T. 
 Graece, post J. A. H. Tittmannum ad fidem optimorum 
 librorum secundis curis recognovit, lectionumque varietatem 
 subjecit Augustus Hahn. 8, Lips. 1840. 
 
 HAMMOND (Henry), D.D., 1 1660, Sub-dean of Christ Church, Oxford : 
 Paraphrase and annotations upon all the books of the N. T. 
 
 2, Loud. 1653, al. 
 
 [Ex Anglica lingua in Latinum transtulit suisque animad- 
 versionibus auxit J. Clericus. 2, Amstel. 1698, a/.J 
 
 HARDOUIN (Jean), } 1729, Jesuit: Commentarius in N. T. 
 
 2, Hagae-Com. 1741. 
 
 HEINSIUS (Daniel), f 1665, Prof. Hist, at Leyden: Sacrarum exerci- 
 tationum ad N. T. libri xx. . . . 2, Lugd. Bat. 1639, al. 
 
 HENGEL (Wessel Albert van), Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Annotatio ad 
 loca nonnulla N. T. 8, Amstel. 1824. 
 
 HEUMANN (Christoph August), f 1764, Prof. Theol. at Gottingen: 
 Erklarung des N. T. 12 Bande. 8, Hannov. 1750-63. 
 
 HIERONYMUS (Eusebius Sophronius), f 420, monk at Bethlehem : Com- 
 mentarius in Matthaeum. [Opera.] 
 
 HILARIUS Pictaviensis, f 368, Bishop of Poitiers:" In Evangelium 
 Matthaei commentarius. [Opera. I. ed. Bened.] 
 
 2, Paris. 1693. 
 
 HOLTZMANN (Heinrich Johann), Prof. Theol. in Heidelberg: Die Synop- 
 
 tische Evangelien, ihr Ursprung und geschichtlicher Charak- 
 
 ter. [See also BUNSEN.] 8, Leip. 1863. 
 
 HOMBERGH zu Vach (Johann Friedrich), f 1748, Prof, of Laws at 
 
 Marburg : Parerga sacra, seu observationes quaedam ad N. T. 
 
 4, Traj. ad Rhen. 1712, al. 
 
 HUNNIUS (Aegidius), f 1603, General Superintendent at Wittenberg : 
 Thesaurus evangelicus complectens commentaries in quatuor 
 Evangelistas et Actus Apost. nunc primum hac forma editus. 
 
 2, Vitemb. 1706. 
 
 Thesaurus apostolicus, complectens commentaries in omnes 
 N. T. Epistotes et Apocalypsin Joannis . . . novis, quae antea 
 deficiebant, commentationibus auctus ... 2, Vitemb. 
 1707. [Also, Opera Latina, III., IV. 2, Vitemb. 1607.] 
 
 JANSENIUS (Cornelius), f 1 638, R. C. Bishop of Ypres : Tetrateuchus ; 
 seu commentarius in quatuor Evangelia. 
 
 4, Lovanii, 1639, al
 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. XXXlii 
 
 JANSENIUS (Cornelius), f 1576, R. C. Bishop of Gheut: Concordia 
 evangelica. ... 4, Lovanii, 1549, al. 
 
 Commentariorum in suam Concordiam ac totam historiam 
 evangelicam partes IV. 2, Lovanii, 1571, al. 
 
 JUNIUS (Franciscus) [FRANCOIS DU JON], f 1602, Prof. Theol. at Ley- 
 den : Sacra parallela, id est, comparatio locorum S. S., qui ex 
 Testamento Vetere in Novo adducuntur. . . . 
 
 8, Lond. 1588, al. 
 
 KAUFFER (Johann Ernst Rudolph), Court chaplain in Dresden : N. T. 
 
 Graece . . . edidit et . . . brevibus notis instruxit J. E. R. 
 
 Kauffer. Fasc. I. Evangelium Matthaei. 12, Lips. 1827. 
 
 KEUCHEN (Peter), f 1689, Pastor at Arnheim: Adnotata in quatuor 
 
 Evangelistas et Acta apostolorum. 4, Amstel. 1689, al. 
 
 Annotata in omnes N. T. libros. 4, Amstel. 1709. 
 
 KISTEMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), f 1834, R. C. Prof. Theol. at 
 
 Minister : Die Evangelien uebersetzt und erklart. 4 Bande. 
 
 8, Minister, 1818-20. 
 
 IVNAPP (Georg Christian), f 1825, Prof. Theol. at Halle- N. T. 
 Graece Recognovit atque insignioris lectionum varietatis et 
 argumentorum notationes subjunxit G. Ch. Knapp. 
 
 4, Hal. 1797, al. 
 
 Scripta varii argument! maximam partem exegetica atque 
 
 historica. 8, Hal. 1805, al. 
 
 KNATCHBULL (Sir Norton), Bart., f 1684: Animadversiones in libros 
 
 N. T. 8, Lond. 1659, al 
 
 KOCHER (Johann Christoph), f 1772, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Analecta 
 
 philologica et exegetica in quatuor S. S. Evangelia, quibus J. 
 
 C. Wolfii Curae philol. et crit. supplentur atque augentur. 
 
 4, Altenb. 1766. 
 
 KOSTLIN (Karl Reinhold), Prof. Theol. at Tubingen : Der Ursprung 
 und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien. 
 
 8, Stuttg. 1853. 
 
 KRAFFT (Johann Christian Gottlob Ludwig), f 1845, Prof. Theol. at 
 
 Erlangen : Chronologic und Harmonic der vier Evangelien. 
 
 Herausgegeben von Dr. Burger. 8, Erlang. 1848. 
 
 KREBS (Johann Tobias), | 1782, Rector at Grimma: Observationes in 
 
 N. T. e Flavio Josepho. 8, Lips. 1755. 
 
 KUINOEL [KUHNOL] (Christian Gottlieb), f 1841, Prof. Theol. at 
 
 Giessen : Commentarius in libros N. T. historicos. 4 voll. 
 
 8, Lips. 1807-18, al 
 Observationes ad N. T. ex libris Apocryphis V. T. 
 
 8, Lips. 1794.
 
 XXxiv EXEGETICAL LITERATUBE. 
 
 KUTTNER (Christian Gottfried), f 1789: Hypomnemata in N. T., 
 quibus Graecitas ejus explicatur et scholiis . . . illustratur. 
 
 8, Lips. 1780. 
 
 KYPKE (Georg David), f 1779, Prof. Or. Lang, at Kbnigsberg-, Ob- 
 servationes sacrae in N. F, libros ex auctoribus potissimum 
 Graecis et antiquitatibus. 2 partes. 8, Vratislav. 1755. 
 
 LACHMANN (Karl), f 1851, Prof. Philos. at Berlin : Novum Testa- 
 mentum Graece et Latine, Carolus Lachmannus recensuit, 
 Philippus Buttmannus lectionis auctoritates apposuit. 2 voll. 
 
 8, Berol. 1842-50. 
 
 LAMY (Bernard), f 1715, R. C. Teacher of Theol. at Grenoble: Historia, 
 sive concordia quatuor Evangelistarum. 12, Paris. 1689. 
 Commentarius in Harmoniam. ... 2 voll. 4, Paris. 1699. 
 LANGE (Joachim), f 1744, Prof. Theol. at Halle : Evangelisches Licht 
 und Recht ; oder richtige und erbauliche Erklarung der 
 heiligen vier Evangelisten und der Apostelgeschichte. 
 
 2, Halae, 1735. 
 
 Apostolisches Licht und Recht. ... 2, Halae, 1729. 
 
 Apocalyptisches Licht und Recht. ... 2, Halae, 1730. 
 
 Biblia parenthetica . . . darinnen der biblische Text durch 
 
 gewisse mit anderu Littern darzwischen gesezte Worte nach 
 
 dem Grundtext erlautert wird. 2 Bande. 2, Leip. 1743. 
 
 LANGE (Johann Peter), Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Das Evangelium des 
 
 Matthaeus theologisch-horniletisch bearbeitet. [Theol. -horn. 
 
 Bibelwerk.] 8, Bielefeld, 1857, al. 
 
 [Translated from the 3d German ed., with additions ... by 
 
 Philip Schaff, D.D. New York and Edin. 1865, al.] 
 
 LAPIDE (Cornelius a) [VAN DEN STEEN], f 1637, S. J., Prof. Sac. 
 
 Scrip, at Louvain : Commentaria in V. ac N. Testamentum. 
 
 10 voll. 2, Antverp. 1664, al 
 
 LEIGH (Edward), M.P., f 1671 : Annotations upon the N. T. 
 
 2, Lond. 1650, al 
 
 Critica sacra. ... 4, Lond. 1 650, al. 
 
 LIGHTFOOT (John), D.D., f 1675, Master of Catherine Hall, Cam- 
 bridge : The harmony of the four Evangelists among them- 
 selves and with the O. T., with an explanation of the chief 
 
 difficulties 4, Lond. 1644-50, al 
 
 Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae . . . issued separately first 
 
 in English and subsequently in Latin. 4, 1644-64, al 
 
 Edited by H. Gandell. 4 vols. 8, Oxf. 1859. [On the 
 
 four Gospels, Acts, part of Romans, and 1 Corinthians.] 
 
 LIVERMORE (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati : The four Gospels, 
 
 with a commentary. 12, Boston, U. S., 1850.
 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. XXXV 
 
 LOESNER (Christopli Friedrich), f 1803, Prof. Sac. Philol. at Leipzig: 
 Observationes ad N. T. e Philone Alexandrino. 
 
 8, Lips. 1777. 
 
 LUCAS (Francois), f 1619, R. C. Dean at St. Omer: Commentarius 
 in quatuor Evangelia. 2 voll. 2, Antv. 1606. 
 
 Supplementum commentarii in Lucam et in Joannem. 2 voll. 
 
 2, Antverp. 1612, al 
 LUTHER (Martin), f 1546, Reformer : Annotationes in aliquot capita 
 
 [1-18] Matthaei. . . . [Opera.] 
 
 LYRA (Nicolas de), f 1340, Franciscan monk : Postillae perpetuae ; 
 sive brevia commentaria in universa Biblia. 
 
 2, Romae, 1471, al 
 
 MACKNIGHT (James), D>D., f 1800, Minister at Edinburgh : A har- 
 mony of the Gospels, in which the natural order of each is 
 preserved. With a paraphrase and notes. 2 vols. 
 
 4, Lond. 1756, al. 
 
 MALDONATO (Juan), f 1583^ Jesuit: Commentarii in quatuor Evan- 
 gelistas. 2 voll. 2, Mussiponti, 1596, al. 
 
 MARIANA (Juan), f 1624, Jesuit: Scholia brevia in V. et N. Testa- 
 mentum. 2, Matriti, 1619, al. 
 
 MARLORAT (Augustin), f 1563, Pastor at Rouen : Novi Testament! 
 catholica expositio ecclesiastica . . . seu bibliotheca exposi- 
 tionum N. T. 2, Genev. 1561, al. 
 
 MATTHAEI (Christian Friedrich von), f 1811, Prof, of Class. Lit. at 
 Moscow : N. T. . . Graece et Latine. Varias lectiones . . . 
 ex centum codicibus Mss. vulgavit . . . scholia Graeca . . . 
 addidit animadversiones criticas adjecit et edidit C. F. 
 Matthaei. 12 voll. 8, Rigae, 1782-88. 
 
 MAYER (Ferdinand Georg), Prof, of Greek and Heb. at Vienna: 
 Beitrage zur Erklarung des Evang. Matthaei fur Sprachkun- 
 dige. " 8, Wien, 1818. 
 
 MELANCHTHON (Philipp), f 1560, Reformer: Breves commentarii in 
 Matthaeum. 8, Argentor. 1523, al. 
 
 MENOCHIO (Giovanni Stefano), f 1655, Jesuit at Rome: Brevis ex- 
 positio sensus litteralis totius Scripturae. ... 3 voll. 
 
 2, Colon. 1630, al. 
 
 MEUSCHEN (Johann Gerhard), J 1743, Prof. Theol. at Coburg: 
 Novum Testamentum ex Talmude et antiquitatibus Heb- 
 raeorum illustratum curis . . . B. Scheidii, J. H. Danzii et J. 
 Rhenferdi, editumque cum suis propriis dissertaticnibus a J 
 G. Meuschen. 4, Lips. 1736.
 
 XXXVI EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 MEYER (Johann Friedrich von), t 1849, Jurist in Frankfort: Die 
 heilige Schrift in berichtigter Uebersetzung Martin Luther's 
 mit knrzen Anmerkungen. 3 Theile. 8, Frankf. 1818, al. 
 
 MICHAELIS (Johann David), t 1791, Prof. Or. Lit. at Gb'ttingen : 
 Uebersetzung des N. T. 2 Bande. 4, Getting. 1790. 
 
 Anmerkungen fur Ungelehrte zu seiner Uebersetzung des 
 N. T. 4 Theile. 4, Getting. 1790-92. 
 
 MILL (John), D.D., t 1707, Principal of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford : 
 
 Novum Testamentum Graecum cum lectionibus variantibus 
 
 . . . et in easdem notis. ... 2, Oxon. 1707. 
 
 [ . . . Collectionem Millianam recensuit . . . suisque acces- 
 
 sionibus locupletavitLudolphusKusterus. 2, Amstel. 1710.] 
 
 MOLDENHAUER (Johann Heinrich Daniel), t 1790, Pastor at Hamburg : 
 Das N. T. ubersetzt und so erklart dass ein jeder Unge- 
 lehrter es verstehen kann. 2 Bande. 8, Quedlinb. 1787-88. 
 
 HOLLER (Sebastian Heinrich), t 1827, Pastor at Gierstadt in Gotha : 
 Neue Ansichten schwieriger Stellen aus den vier Evang. 
 
 8, Gotha, 1819. 
 
 MORISON (James), D.D., Prof. Theol. to the Evangelical Union, Glas- 
 gow : Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew. 
 
 8, Lond. 1870. 
 
 MONSTER (Sebastian), t 1552, Prof. Heb. at Heidelberg: Evangelium 
 secundum Matthaeum in lingua Hebraica, cum versione 
 Latina atque succinctis annotationibus. 2, Basil. 1537. 
 
 MUNTHE (Kaspar Fredrik), t 1763, Prof, of Greek at Copenhagen : 
 Observationes philologicae in sacros N. T. iibros, ex Diodoro 
 Siculo collectae. 8, Hafn. 1755. 
 
 MUSCULUS [MEUSSLIN] (Wolfgang), t 1 573, Prof. Theol. at Berne : 
 Commentarius in Matthaeum. 2, Basil. 1548, al. 
 
 NEWCOME (William), D.D., t 1800, Archbishop of Armagh : An 
 
 harmony of the Gospels. . . . Observations subjoined. 
 
 2, Lond. 1778, al. 
 
 NICETAS Serrariensis. See CORDERIUS. 
 NORTON (Andrews), t 1853, formerly Prof. Sac. Lit. at Harvard : A 
 
 translation of the Gospels, with notes. 2 vols. 
 
 8, Boston, U. S., 1855. 
 NOVARINO (Luigi), t 1658, Theatine monk: Matthaeus expensus, sive 
 
 notae in Evangelium Matthaei. ... 2, Venet. 1629. 
 
 Marcus expensus. ... 2, Lugd. 1642. 
 
 Lucas expensus. ... 2, Lugd. 1643. 
 
 OECOLAMPADIUS (Johann) [HAUSSCHEIN], t 1531, Pastor at Basel : 
 Enarrationes in Evangelium Matthaei. 8, Basil. 1536.
 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. XXXvii 
 
 OLEARIUS (Gottfried), t 1715, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: Observationes 
 sacrae ad Evangeliurn Matthaei. 4, Lips. 1713, al. 
 
 OLSHAUSEN (Hermann), t 1839, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen: Biblischer 
 Commentar iiber sammtliche Schriften des N. T. Fortgesetzt 
 von J. H. A. Ebrard and A. Wiesinger. 7 Bande. 
 
 8, Konigsb. 1830-62. 
 [Translated in " Foreign Theological Library." 9 vols. 
 
 8, Edin. 1847-63.] 
 
 OEIGENES, + 254, Catechist at Alexandria : Commentaria in Matthaei 
 Evangelmm; Series veteris interpretationis commentariorum 
 Origenis in Matthaeum ; Homiliae in Lucam ; Commentarii 
 in Evangeliurn Joannis ; Commentaria in Epist. ad Romanes ; 
 Fragmenta in Lucam, Acta Apostolorum, Epistolas Pauli. 
 [Opera. Ed. Bened. III., IV.] Philocalia, de obscuris S. S. 
 locis ... ex variis Origenis commentariis excerpta. . . . 
 
 4, Paris. 1609, al. 
 
 OSIANDER (Andreas), t 1552, Prof. Theol. at Kbnigsberg : Harmoniae 
 evangelicae libri quatuor, Graece et Latine . . Item elenchus 
 Harmoniae : adnotationum liber unus. 2, Basil. 1537, al. 
 
 PALAIRET (Elias), t 1765, French pastor at London : Observationes 
 philologico-criticae in sacros N. F. libros, quorum plurima 
 loca ex auctoribus potissimum Graecis exponuntur. . . . 
 
 8, Lugd. Bat. 1752. 
 Specimen exercitationum philol.-crit. in sacros N. F. libros. 
 
 8, Lond. 1755. 
 
 PAREUS (David) [WAENGLER], t 1622, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: 
 Commentarius in Matthaeum. 4, Oxon. 1631. 
 
 PAULUS (Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob), t 1851, Prof. Eccl. Hist, at 
 Heidelberg . Philologisch-kritischer und historischer Com- 
 mentar iiber das N. T. 4 Theile. 8, Leip. 1800-04. 
 Exegetisches Handbuch liber die drei ersten Evangelien. 3 
 Theile in 6 Halften. 8, Heidelb. 1830-33. 
 PEARCE (Zachary), D.D., t 1774, Bishop of Rochester : A commen- 
 tary, with notes, on the four Evangelists and Acts of the 
 Apostles. ... 2 vols. 4, Lond. 1777. 
 PELLICAN (Konrad), f 1556, Prof. Heb. at Zurich : Commentarii in 
 libros V. ac N. Testamenti. 7 voll. 2, Tiguri, 1532-37. 
 PISCATOR [FISCHER] (Johann), t 1626, Conrector at Herborn : Com- 
 mentarii in omnes libros V. et N. Testamenti. 4 voll. 
 
 2, Herbornae, 1643-45. 
 [In omnes libros N. T. 2 voll. 4, Herbornae, 1613.]
 
 XXXviii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 PLANCK (Heinrich), t 1831, Prof. Theol. at Gottingen : Entwurf 
 einen neuen synoptischen Zusammenstellung der drey ersten 
 Evangelien. ... 8. Gbtting. 1809. 
 
 POOLE [POLUS] (Matthew), t 1679, Nonconformist: Synopsis criti- 
 corum aliorumque S. S: interpretum et commentatorura. 5 
 voll. 2, Lond. 1669-74, al. 
 
 POSSINUS (Peter), tc. 1650, Jesuit at Rome : Spicilegium, seu commen- 
 taria in loca selecta quatuor Evangeliorum. 2, Romae, 1673. 
 Catena Patrum Graecorum unius et viginti in Matthaeum. 
 
 2, Tolosae, 1646. 
 
 PRICAEUS [PRICE] (John), t 1676, Prof, of Greek at Pisa : Commen- 
 tarii in varies N. T. libros. ... 2, Lond. 1660. 
 
 PRIESTLEY (Joseph), t 1804, formerly Unitarian minister : Harmony 
 of the Evangelists in Greek, to which are prefixed critical dis- 
 sertations in English. 4, Lond. 1777 [and in English, 1780]. 
 
 RABANUS MAURUS, t 856, Archbishop of Mentz : Commentarii in 
 Evangelium Matthaei. [Opera.] 
 
 RADBERTUS (Paschasius), t 865, Abbot at Corbie : Expositionis in 
 Evangelium Matthaei libri duodecim. [Opera, ed. Sirmond,!.] 
 
 RINCK (Wilhelm Friedrich), Pastor at Grenzach in Baden : Lucub- 
 ratio critica in Act. App. Epistolas catholicas et Paulinas in 
 qua . . . observationes ad plurima loca cum Apostoli turn 
 Evangeliorum dijudicanda et emendanda proponuntur. 
 
 8, Basil. 1830. 
 
 REICHEL (Vincent), Prof. N. T. Exeg. at Prague: Quatuor sacra 
 Evangelia in pericopas harmon. chronologice ordinatas dis- 
 pertita. ... 2 partes. 8, Prag. 1840. 
 
 REUSS (Edouard), Prof. Theol. at Strassburg: La Bible. Traduc- 
 tion nouvelle avec introductions et commentaires. N. T. 
 l e partie, Histoire evangelique (Synopse des trois premiers 
 Evangiles) ; 2 e partie, Histoire apostolique (Actes des Ap&tres). 
 
 8, Paris, 1874-76. 
 
 ROBINSON (Edward), D.D., t 1864, Prof. Bib. Lit. at New York: A 
 harmony of the four Gospels in Greek. 
 
 8, Boston, U. S., 1845, al 
 
 A Greek and English lexicon of the N. T. 8, Boston, 
 1836, al. [Edited by A. Negris and J. Duncan, Edin. 
 1844, al.; and by S. T. Bloomfield, Lond. 1837, al.] 
 
 ROEDIGER (Moritz), t 1837, Pastor at Halle : Synopsis Evangeliorum 
 . . . Textum ... ex ordine Griesbachiano dispertitum cum 
 varia scriptura selecta edidit M. Roediger. 8, Hal. 1829. 
 
 ROSENMULLER (Johann Georg), f 1815, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : 
 Scholia in N. T. 5 voll. 8, Nuremb. 1777, al.
 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. XXXIX 
 
 Rus (Johann Reinhard), t 1738, Prof. Theol. at Jena; Harmonia 
 Evangelistarum. ... 3 partes in 4 voll. 8, Jenae, 1727-30. 
 
 SA (Manoel), f 1596, Portuguese Jesuit : Notationes in totam sacram 
 Scriptaram. ... 4, Antverp. 1598, al. 
 
 Scholia in quatuor Evangelia. . . . 4, Antverp. 1596, al. 
 
 SALMERON (Alphonso), t 1585, Spanish Jesuit: Commentarii in Evan- 
 gelicam Historiam et in Acta Apostolorum [in omnes Epistolas 
 et Apocalypsin]. 16 voll. 2, Matriti, 1597-1602, al. 
 
 SAND [SANDIUS] (Christoph), f 1680, Socinian, residing at Amster- 
 dam : Interpretationes paradoxae quatuor Evangeliorum. . . . 
 8, Cosmopoli [Amstel.], 1669, al. 
 
 SCALIGER (Joseph Justus), t 1609, Hon. Prof, at Ley den: Notae in 
 N. T. 
 [In N. T. Graec. 8, Eond. 1622, al, and in the Critici sacri.] 
 
 SCHEGG (Peter), R. C. Prof, of N. T. Exegesis at Munich: Evangelium 
 nach Matthaus iibersetzt und erklart. 3 Bande. 
 
 8, Munch. 1856-58. 
 
 SCHIRLITZ (Samuel Christian), Prof, at Erfurt : Grundziige des neutes- 
 tamentlichen Gracitat. 8, Giessen, 1861. 
 
 SCHLEUSNER (Johann Friedrich), f 1831, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: 
 Novum lexicon Graeco-latinum in N. T. 2 voll. 
 
 8, Lips. 1792, al. 
 
 SCHLICHTING (Jonas), t 1564, Socinian teacher at Racow : Commen- 
 taria posthuma in plerosque N. T. libros. 2 partes. 
 
 2, Irenopoli [Amstel.], 1656. 
 
 SCHMID (Erasmus), t 1637, Prof, of Greek at Leipzig: Opus sacrum 
 posthumum, in quo continentur versio N. T. nova . . . et 
 notae et animadversiones in idem. 2, Norimb. 1658. 
 
 SCHMID (Sebastian), f 1696, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg : Biblia sacra; 
 sive Testamentum V. et N., ex linguis originalibus in linguam 
 Latinam translatum. . . . 4, Argent. 1696. 
 
 SCHMIDT (Johann Ernst Christian), f 1831, Prof, of Eccl. Hist, in 
 Giessen: Philologisch-kritische Clavis iiber das N. T. 
 
 8, Gissae, 1796-1805. 
 
 SCHOLZ (Johann Martin Augustin), f 1853, R. C. Prof. Theol. in Bonn : 
 Novum Testamentum Graece. Textum ad fidem testium 
 criticorum recensuit, lectionum familias subjecit ... ex Graecis 
 codd. MSS. . . . copias criticas addidit J. M. Aug. Scholz. 
 2 voll. 4, Lips. 1830-35. 
 
 Die heilige Schrift des N. T. ubersetzt, erklart und . . . 
 erlautert. 8, Frankf. 1828-30. 
 
 SCHOTT (Heinrich August), f 1835, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Novum 
 Testamentum Graece nova versione Latina illustratum .
 
 xl EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 praecipuaque lectionis et interpretationis diversitate instruc- 
 
 tum. 8, Lips. 1805, al. 
 
 SCHOTTGEN (Christian), f 1751, Rector in Dresden: Horae Hebraicae 
 
 et Talmudicae in N. T. 2 partes. 4, Dresd. et Lips. 1733-42. 
 
 Novum lexicon Graeco-Latinum in N. T. 8, Lips. 1746, al. 
 SCHULZ (David), f 1854, Prof. Theol. at Breslau? Novum Testamen- 
 
 tum Graece [Griesbachii]. Vol. I. Evangelia complectens. 
 
 Editionem tertiam emendatam et auctam curavit D. Schulz. 
 
 8, Berol. 1827 
 
 De aliquot N. T. locorum lectione et interpretatione. 
 
 8, Vratisl. 1833. 
 SCULTETUS (Abraham), f 1625, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Exer- 
 
 citationes evangelicae. ... 4, Amstel. 1624. 
 
 SEILER (Georg Friedrich), t 1807, Prof. Theol. at Erlangen : Uber- 
 
 setzung der Schriften das N. T. mit beigefiigten Erklarungen 
 
 dunkler und schwerer Stellen. 2 Theile. 8, Erlangen, 1806. 
 SEVIN (Hermann), Theol. tutor at Heidelberg ; Die drei ersten 
 
 Evangelien synoptisch zusammengestellt. 
 
 8, Wiesbaden, 1866. 
 SPANHEIM (Friedrich), -j- 1 649, Prof. Theol. at Leyden : Dubia evan- 
 
 gelica partim l^yjjr/jca, partim tXtyxrixa, discussa et vin- 
 
 dicata ... 3 partes. 4, Genev. 1639, al. 
 
 SPANHEIM (Friedrich), f 1701, Prof. Thedl. at Leyden: Evangelicae 
 
 vindiciae ; seu loca illustriora ex Evangeliis ac praecipue 
 
 illo Matthaei a falsis - . - interpretamentis vindicata . . . 
 
 Libri tres. 4, Heidelb.-Lugd. Bat. 1663-85. 
 
 STEPHANUS [ESTIENNE or STEPHENS] (Robert), f 1559, Printer at Paris : 
 
 Novum Testamentum. Ex bibliotneca regia. [Editio Regia.] 
 
 2,\ Paris. 1550, al. 
 
 Harmonia evangelica. Paris. 1553. 
 
 STIER (Rudolph Ewald), -j- 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben: Die 
 
 Reden des Herrn Jesu. Andeutungen fiir glaubiges Verstand- 
 
 niss derselben. 7 Bande. 8, Barmen, 185355. 
 
 [Translated in " Foreign Theol. Library." 8 vols. 8, Edin. 
 
 1855-58.] 
 STOLZ (Johann Jakob), f 1 821, Pastor in Bremen : Uebersetzung der 
 
 sammtlichen Schriften des N. T 8, Zurich, 1781-82, al. 
 
 Anmerkungen zu seiner Uebersetzung. . . . 
 
 8, Hannov. 1796-1802. 
 STRIGEL (Victorin), f 1569, Prof. Theol. at Heidelberg: Hypomnemata 
 
 in omnes libros N. T. . . . 8, Lips. 1565, al. 
 
 STROUD (William), M.D. : A new Greek harmony of the four 
 
 Gospels. ... 4, Lond. 1853.
 
 EXEGETICAL LITEKATURE. xli 
 
 TARNOVJUS [TARNOW] (Johannes), f 1629, Prof. Theol. at Rostock: 
 Exercitationem biblicarum libri quatuor, in quibus verus . . . 
 sensus locorum multorum . . . inquiritur. . . 
 
 4, Rostoch. 1619, al 
 
 THEILE (Karl Gottfried Wilhelm), f 1854, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : 
 Novum Testamentum Graece ex recognitione Knappii emenda- 
 tius edidit, annotationem criticam adjecit C. G. G. Theile. 
 
 12, Lips. 1841-44, al. 
 
 THEOPHYLACTUS, after 1107, Archbishop of Achrida in Bulgaria: 
 Commentarii in quatuor Evangelistas Graece. 
 
 2, Romae, 1552, al. 
 
 THIESS (Johann Otto), f 1810, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Das N. T. neu 
 Ubersetzt und mit einer durchans anwendbaren Erklarung. 
 4 Theile. 8, Hamb. 1791-1800. 
 
 Neuer kritischer Gommentar iiber das N. T.- 
 Halle, 1804-1806. 
 
 TIL (Salomon van), t 1713, Prof. Theol. atLeyden Het Evangelium 
 das h. Apostels Matthaei, na eene beknopte ontleding . . . 
 betoogt. 4, Dord. 1683. 
 
 TIRINUS (Jacques), t 1636, Jesuit at Antwerp: Commentarius in 
 sacram Scripturam. 2 voll. 2 , Antverp. 1645, al. 
 
 TISCHENDORF (Lobegott Friedrich Constantin), t 1874, Prof. Bibl. 
 Palaeogr. at Leipzig : Novum Test. Graece. Textum ad anti- 
 quorum testiura fidem recensuit, brevem apparatum criticum 
 subjunxit L. F. C. Tischendorf. ... 12, Lips. 1841, al. 
 
 N. T. Graece. Ad antiques testes denuo recensuit apparatum 
 criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem 
 isagogicam praetexuit . . . Editio septima. 2 partes. 
 
 8, Lips. 1859. 
 
 . . . Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit . . . Editio octava 
 
 critica major. 2 voll. 8, Lips. 1869-72. 
 
 Synopsis evangelica . . . Concinnavit, brevi commentario 
 
 illustravit. ... 8, Lips. 1851, al. Ed. tertia, 1871. 
 
 TOINARD (Nicolas), t 1706, Seigneur de Villan-Blin : Evangeliorum 
 
 harmonia Graeco-Latina. ... 2, Paris. 1707, al. 
 
 TREQELLES (Samuel Prideaux), LL.D., t 1872: The Greek New 
 
 Testament edited from ancient authorities, with the various 
 
 readings of all the ancient MSS. . . . together with the Latin 
 
 version of Jerome ... 4 parts. 4, Lond. 1857-70. 
 
 VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar), t 1785, Prof, of Greek at Ley den : 
 Selecta e scholis L. C. Valckenarii in libros quosdam N. T. 
 Edidit Eberhardus Wassenbergh. 2 partes. 
 
 8, Amstel. 1815-17.
 
 xlii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 VALLA (Lorenzo), t 1457, Humanist: Adnotationes in N. T. ex 
 diversorum utriusque linguae, Graecae et Latinae, codicum 
 collatione. 2, Paris. 1505, al. 
 
 VATER (Johann Severinus), t 1826, Prof. Or. Lang, at Halle: Nov. 
 Test. Textum Griesbachii et Knappii denuo recognovit, delectu 
 varietatum lectionis . . . adnotatione cum critica turn exegetica 
 . . . instruxit J. S. Vater. 8, Hal. Sax. 1824. 
 
 VOLKMAR (Gustav), Prof. Theol. in Zurich: Die Evangelien, oder 
 Marcus und die Synopsis der kanonischen und ausserkanon- 
 ischen Evangelien, nach dem altesten Text, mit historisch- 
 exegetischen Commentar. 8, Leip. 1870. 
 
 WAHL (Christian Abraham), t 1855, Gonsistorialrath at Dresden: 
 Clavis N. T. philologica. 2 partes. 8, Lips. 1822, al. 
 
 WALAEUS (Balduin), Teacher at Leyden : N. T. libri historic! Graece 
 et Latine perpetuo commentario . . . illustrati. . . . 
 
 4, Lugd. Bat. 1653, al. 
 
 WALCH (Johann Georg), t 1775, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Observationes 
 in N. T. libros. 8, Jenae, 1727. 
 
 WEBER (Michael), t 1833, Prof. Theol. at Halle: Eclogae exegetico- 
 criticae ad nonnullos librorum N. T. historicorum locos. 
 14 partes. 4, Hal. 1825-32. 
 
 WEBSTER (William), M.A., and WILKINSON (William Francis), M.A. : 
 The Greek Testament, with notes grammatical and exegetical. 
 2 vols. 8, Lond. 1855-61. 
 
 WEISS (Bernhard), Prof. Theol. at Kiel : Das Marcusevangelium, und 
 seine synoptische Parallelen. 8, Berl. 1872. 
 
 WEISSE (Christian Hermann), t 1866, retired Prof, at Leipzig: Die 
 evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet. 
 2 Bande. 8, Leip. 1838. 
 
 WEIZSACKER (Karl Heinrich), Prof. Theol. at Tubingen : Untersuch- 
 ungen liber die evangelische Geschichte. 8, Gotha, 1864. 
 
 WELLS (Edward), t 1724, Rector of Blechley: An help for the more 
 easy and clear understanding of the Holy Scriptures . . . para- 
 phrase . . . annotations. ... 8 vols. [First issued separately.] 
 
 4, Lond. 1727. 
 
 WETSTEIN (Johann Jakob), t 1754, Prof, in the Remonstrant College 
 at Amsterdam : Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis 
 receptae cum lectionibus variantibus . . . necnon commen- 
 tario pleniore . . . opera. ... J. J. Wetstenii. 2 partes. 
 
 2, Amstel. 1751-52. 
 
 WETTE (Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de), 1 1849, Prof. Theol. at Basel : 
 Kurzgefasstes exegetisches<Handbuch zum N. T. 3 Bande. 
 
 8, Leip. 1836-48, al.
 
 EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xliii 
 
 Die heilige Schrift des A. und N. Testaments uebcrsetzt. . . . 
 
 8, Heidelb. 1831-32. 
 
 [Previously translated by de Wette and Augusti, 1809-14.] 
 Synopsis Evangeliorum . . . (along with F. LUCRE). 
 
 4, Berol. 1818. 
 
 WHITBY (Daniel), D.D., t 1726, Rector of St. Edmunds, Salisbury : 
 A paraphrase and commentary on the N. T. 2 vols. 
 
 2, Lond. 1703, al 
 
 WHITE (Joseph), D.D., t 1814, Prof, of Arabic at Oxford: Diates- 
 saron. ... 8, Oxon. 1799, al. 
 
 WIESELER (Karl), Prof. Theol. at Greifswald : Chronologische Synopse 
 der Evangelien. 8, Hamb. 1843. 
 
 WILKE (Christian Gottlob), t 1856, formerly pastor at Hennanns- 
 dorf : Clavis N. T. philologica. 8, Dresd. 1840. 
 
 . . . Quern librum ita castigavit et emendavit ut novum opus 
 haberi possit C. L. W. Grimm. 8, Lips. 1868. 
 
 Der Urevangelist oder exegetisch - kritische Untersuchung 
 iiber des Verwandtschaftsverhaltniss der drei ersten Evan- 
 gelien. 8, Dresd. 1838. 
 WINER (Georg Benedict), 1 1858, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Grammatik 
 des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms als sichere Grundlage 
 der neutest. Exegese bearbeitet. 8, Leip. 1822, al. 
 . . . Siebente Auflage besorgt von .Dr. Gottlieb Liinemann. 
 
 8, Leip. 1867. 
 
 [Translated . . . with large additions and full indexes by 
 Professor W. F. Moulton, D.D., 8, Edin. 1877; and by 
 Professor J. H. Thayer, 8, Boston, 1872.] 
 
 WOLF (Johann Christoph), t 1739, Pastor in Hamburg: Curae 
 philologicae et criticae in N. T. 5 voll. 4, Basil. 1741. 
 
 [Previously issued separately, 1725-35.] 
 
 WOLZOGEN (Johann Ludwig von), t 1661, Socinian : Commentarius 
 in Evangelium Matthaei, Marci, :Lucae, Johannis. [Opera. 
 
 2, Amstel. 1668.] 
 
 ZEGER (Tacitus Nicolas), t 1559, R. C. monk at Louvain : Scholia in 
 omnes N. T. libros. 8, Colon. 1553. 
 
 ZWINGLI (Ulrich), t 1531, Reformer: Adnotatioues in Evangelistarum 
 scripta, [Opera. Vol. IV.]
 
 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SEC. I. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF MATTHEW. 
 
 EGABDING the life and ministry of the Apostle 
 Matthew, exceedingly little is known to us that is 
 historically certain. In Mark ii. 14, his father is 
 named AlpTiaeus. According to Euthymius Ziga- 
 benus, Grotius on Matt. ix. 9, Paulus, Bretschneider, Credner, 
 Ewald, and others, this individual is said to have been identical 
 with the father of James the Less. But this assumption is 
 rendered extremely improbable by the circumstance, that in 
 the lists of the apostles (Matt. x. 3 ; Mark iii. 1 8 ; Luke 
 vi. 15 ; Acts i. 13) Matthew is not grouped along with that 
 James, and that the name "sbr\ was of very frequent occurrence, 
 and it would only be admissible if in Mark ii. 1 4 the name Levi 
 designated a different person from the Apostle Matthew, in 
 which case Levi would not have been an apostle. 
 
 It was Matthew who, before he passed over to the service 
 of Jesus, was called Levi, and was a collector of taxes by the 
 lake of Tiberias, where he was called away by Jesus from the 
 receipt of custom. From Matt. ix. 9, compared with Mark 
 ii. 14 and Luke v. 27, it is sufficiently evident that the two 
 names Matthew and Levi denote the same individual ; for the 
 agreement between these passages in language and contents is 
 so obvious, that Levi, who is manifestly called to be an apostle, 
 and whose name is yet wantiny in all the lists of the apostles, 
 MATT. A
 
 2 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 must be found again in that Matthew who is named in all 
 these lists ; so that we must assume that, in conformity with 
 the custom of the Jews to adopt on the occasion of decisive 
 changes in their life a name indicative of the change, he called 
 himself, after his entrance on the apostolate, no longer ^, but 
 KFID, i.e. rnrjo (Theodore = Gift of God). This name, as in 
 the cases of Peter and Paul, so completely displaced the old 
 one, that even in the history of his call, given in our Gospel 
 of Matthew, he is, at the expense of accuracy, called, in 
 virtue of a historical varepov irporepov, by the new name 
 (ix. 9) ; while Mark, on the other hand, and after him Luke, 
 observing here greater exactness, designate the tax-gatherer, 
 in their narrative of his call, by his Jewish name, in doing 
 which they might assume that his identity with the Apostle 
 Matthew was universally known ; while in their lists of the 
 apostles (Mark iii. 18 ; Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 13), where the 
 apostolic names must stand, they rightly place the name 
 Matthew. 
 
 In this way we dispose of the view, opposed to the pre- 
 vailing tradition, that Matthew and Levi were two different 
 individuals (Heracleon in Clement of Alexandria, Strom, iv. 9, 
 p. 505, ed. Potter ; and Origen, c. Celsum, i. 13), and yet two 
 tax-gatherers (Grotius, Michaelis, and Sieffert, Ursprung d. erst, 
 kanon. Evang. p. 59, Neander, Bleek doubtfully), where 
 Sieffert supposes that in the Gospel of Matthew the similar 
 history of the call of Levi was referred through mistake by 
 the Greek editor to Matthew, because the latter also was a 
 tax-gatherer. So also, substantially, Ewald, Keim, Grimm in 
 the Stud. u. Kritik. 1870, p. 723 ff. From Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Paedag. ii. 1, p. 174, ed. Potter, we learn that the 
 Apostle Matthew was an adherent of that stricter Jewish- 
 Christian asceticism which refrained from eating animal food 
 (comp. on Eom. xiv. 1 ff.); and we have no reason to doubt 
 that statement. Eegarding his labours beyond the limits of 
 Palestine (e'<' erepovs, Euseb. H. E. iii. 24) nothing certain is 
 known, and it is only more recent writers who are able to 
 mention particular countries as the field of his labour, espe- 
 cially Ethiopia (Kufiuus, H. E. x. 9 ; Socrates, H. E. i. 19 ;
 
 INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 Nicepliorus, ii. 41), but also Macedonia and several Asiatic 
 countries. See, generally, Cave, Antiquitt. Ap. p. 5 5 3 ff. ; 
 Florini, Exercitatt. hist, philol. p. 2 3 ff. ; Credner, Einleituny, 
 I. p. 59. His death, which according to Socrates took place 
 in Ethiopia, according to Isidore of Seville, in Macedonia, 
 is already stated by Heracleon (in Clement of Alexandria, 
 Strom, iv. 9, p. 595, ed. Potter) to have been the result of 
 natural causes; which is also confirmed by Clement, Origen, and 
 Tertullian, in so far as they mention only Peter, Paul, and 
 James the Elder as martyrs among the apostles. As to his 
 alleged death by martyrdom (Nicephorus, ii. 41), see the Eoman 
 martyrology on the 21st Sept. (the Greek Church observe 
 the 18th Nov.), Acta et Martyr. Matth. iu Tischendorfs Ada 
 Apost. Apocr. p. 167 ff. 
 
 SEC. II. APOSTOLIC ORIGIN AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE 
 
 GOSPEL. 
 
 (1.) In the form in which the Gospel now exists, it cannot 
 have originally proceeded from the hands of the Apostle Matthew. 
 The evidence in favour of this view consists not merely of the 
 many indefinite statements of time, place, and other things 
 which are irreconcilable with the living recollection of an 
 apostolic eye-witness and a participator in the events, even 
 upon the assumption of a plan of arrangement carried out 
 mainly in accordance with the subject-matter ; not merely in 
 the partial want of clearness and directness, which is a pro- 
 minent feature in many of the historical portions (even 
 ix. 9 ff. included), and not seldom makes itself felt to such a 
 degree that we must in this respect allow the preference to 
 the accounts of Mark and Luke ; not merely in the want of 
 historical connection in the citation and introduction of a sub- 
 stantial portion of the didactic discourses of Jesus, by which 
 the fact is disclosed that they were not originally interwoven 
 in a living connection with the history; but also and these 
 elements are, in connection with the above, decisive the re- 
 ception of narratives, the unhistorical character of which must 
 certainly have been known to an apostle (such as, even in the
 
 4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 history of the Passion, that of the watchers by the grave, and 
 of the resurrection of many dead bodies) ; the reception of the 
 preliminary history with its legendary enlargements, which far 
 oversteps the original beginning of the gospel announcement 
 (Mark i. 1, comp. John i. -19) and its original contents (Acts 
 x. 37ff.; Papias in Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39: ra VTTO rov 
 Xpia-Tov TI X?x#ei/T TJ Trpa^Oevra), and which already pre- 
 sents a later historical formation, added to the original gospel 
 history ; the reception of the enlarged narrative of the Tempta- 
 tion, the non-developed form of which in Mark is certainly 
 older ; but most strikingly of all, the many, and in part very 
 essential, corrections which our Matthew must receive from 
 the fourth Gospel, and several of which (especially those relat- 
 ing to the last Supper and the day of Jesus' death, as well as 
 to the appearances of the risen Saviour) are of such a kind 
 that the variations in question certainly exclude apostolic 
 testimony on one side, and this, considering the genuineness of 
 John which we must decidedly assume, can only affect the 
 credibility of Matthew. To this, moreover, is to be added the 
 relation of dependence (see Section iv.) which we must assume 
 of our Matthew upon Mark., which is incompatible with the 
 composition of the former by an apostle. 
 
 (2.) Nevertheless, it must be regarded as a fact, placed beyond 
 all doubt by the tradition of the church, that our Matthew is 
 the Greek translation of an original Hebrew (Aramaic) writing, 
 clothed with the apostolic autlwrity of Matthew as the author. 
 So ancient and unanimous is this tradition. For (a) Papias, 
 a pupil, not indeed (not even according to Irenaeus, v. 33. 4) 
 of the Apostle John, but certainly of the Presbyter, says, 1 
 according to the statement of Eusebius (iii. 39), in the frag- 
 
 1 Eusebius introduces the above-quoted statement regarding Matthew with 
 these words : *-tf/ Si rev tietrtaito TttvTa, tlftirai. There can be no doubt that 
 these are the words of Eusebius, and that their meaning is, " regarding Maitheic, 
 however, it is thus stated (in Papias)," since there immediately precede the 
 
 Words ruvra. ftlr tin ivrofiirati TV Utt-ria vrtpi rov Mtipxou. It may be doubted, 
 
 however, whether Eusebius, as he has just quoted with regard to Mark what 
 Papias relates concerning him from a communication received from the Pres- 
 byter, meant to quote the statement of Papias which follows respecting Matthew 
 as derived from the same source or not. As Eusebius, however, in what
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ment there preserved of his work \oytcov Kvpia/cwv efrf 
 MaT#aio< p,ev ovv 'E(3pat'8i StaXe/cra) TO, \6yia 
 (al. (Tvve^pd^aro), ^p/jujvevcre 8' aura w? r\v BvvaTos e/cacrro?. 
 An attempt has indeed been made to weaken this very ancient 
 testimony, reaching back to the very apostolic age, that 
 Matthew wrote in Hebrew, by means of the well-known 
 <r(j)68pa jap cr/jLi/cpb^ rjv rbv vovvf which Eusebius states 
 regarding Papias ; but Eusebius by that expression refers to 
 what he had stated immediately before regarding the mille- 
 narianism of the man. A simple historical remark, which 
 stood in no connection either with millenarianism or with 
 accounts of fabulous miracles (to which Papias, according to 
 Eusebius, was inclined), cannot, owing to that depreciatory 
 judgment, be & priori regarded as suspicious, especially if, as 
 in the present case, there is added the confirmation of the 
 whole subsequent tradition of the church. The supposition, 
 however, that Papias is indebted for his statement to the 
 Nazarenes and Ebionites (Wetstein, Hug), is pure imagination ; 
 since one narrative, which he had in common with the Gospel 
 
 precedes, refers to the Presbyter only the statement of Papias regarding Mark, 
 and that purposely at the very beginning (*vayx/a/j vvv -rp/>{ 'jo-opm . . . intpa^/><ri, 
 $v rtpi Ma.px.av IxrihiTai Si rouruv' xai raura o irptirfivnpos it-iyi' Jildpxo;, 
 x. r. x.) ; as he, on the other hand, introduces the statement regarding Matthew 
 with the quite simple expression tripi SE rau Mar0. TKUTK tlptirat, without again 
 making any mention of the Presbyter, we can thus discover no sufficient 
 reason for taking this statement also to be derived from a communication of the 
 Presbyter. It contains, rather, only the simple quotation of what Papias says 
 regarding Matthew. This in answer to Sieffert, Ebrard, Thiersch, Delitzsch, 
 and others. 
 
 1 See on Papias and his fragment, Holtzmann, Synopt. Evang. p. 248 ff. ; 
 Weizsacker, Untersuch. iib. d. evang. Geschichte, p. 27 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. VI. 
 p. 55 ff. ; Steitz in Herzog's Encykl. XI. p. 79 f. ; Zyro, neue Beleucht. d. 
 Papiasstelle, 1869 ; Zahn in the Stud. u. Kritih. 1866, p. 649 ff. ; Riggenbach 
 in the Jahrb. f. D. Theologie, 1868, p. 319 ff. In answer to the two last (who 
 regard Papias as a pupil of the Apostle John), see Steitz in the Stud. u. Kritik. 
 1868, p. 63 ff., and in the Jahrb. f. D. Theologie, 1869, p. 138ff. ; comp. also 
 Overbeck in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, 1867, p. 35 ff., and Hilgenfeld, ibidem, 
 p. 179 ff. [also, D. Papias-Fragment, von Wilh. "Weiffenbach, Giessen 1874; 
 and D. Papias- Fragment, von Carl L. Leimbach, Gotha 1875. ED.]. 
 
 2 The counterbalance of praise, that Papias was <n ftx^ia-ra ^yiurnns **) 
 TJjf ypa<ftis ttivput (Eusebius, iii. 36), falls to the ground, as these words are 
 spurious.
 
 6 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 according to the Hebrews (Eusebius, iii. 39 : Kre0eirai Be KO\ 
 ivropiav rrep\ >yvvaiKO<> 7rl TroXXat? duapriais 8ia/3\r)- 
 eTrl rov xvpiov, fjv TO /ea#' 'Efipatovs evayye\tov 
 ire pi %!,, where these last words belong to Eusebius, and do 
 not contain a remark of Papias), stands altogether without 
 any reference to the above statement concerning Matthew. 
 (6) Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 1. 1, relates: o fiev Brj MarOatos ev 
 TO?? 'Eftpatots rfi ISla StaXe/crw avrwv Kal <ypa<prjv e^ 
 evayyeXiov, rov Ilerpov K. rov IlavXov ev 'P(i)fj,rj 
 fjt,eva)v K. 6fj,e\iovvTcov rrjv KK\Tj<riav. Against this it has 
 been objected, that Irenaeus borrowed his judgment from 
 Papias, whom he esteemed very highly as the friend of 
 Poly carp (Haer. v. 33). But, irrespective of this, that if this 
 objection is to deprive the testimony of weight, the authority 
 of Papias must first fall to the ground, it is extremely 
 arbitrary, seeing we have now no longer any other authorities 
 contemporary with Papias, to regard him, and no one else, as 
 the author of the tradition in question, which, yet, is uncon- 
 tradicted throughout the whole of ecclesiastical antiquity. 
 And Irenaeus was not the man to repeat at random. See 
 Tertullian, de test. anim. i. ; Hieronymus, ep. ad Magn. 85. 
 (c) Of Pantaenus, Eusebius (v. 1 0) says : o Hdvraivos Kal et? 
 'I^Soi9 (probably the inhabitants of Southern Arabia) ekddv 
 \<yerai' evOa ^0705 evpeiv avrbv 7rpo<f>dd<rav rrjv avrov Trapov- 
 criav TO Kara MarOalov evayye\iov irapd ricriv avroOt, rov 
 Xpicrrov eTreyvwKocnv, ot? Bap6o\o/jiaiov r&v aTrocrToXeoy eva 
 
 auTOi? re 'E/3paifov ^/pd^acn rqv rov Mardaiov 
 <ypa^>r)V rjv Kal (Ta>ea-6ai ei? rov Sr)\ov/j,evov 
 
 This testimony, which is certainly independent of 
 the authority of Papias, records, indeed, a legend; but this 
 description refers not to the Hebrew Matthew of itself, but to 
 the statement that Pantaenus found it among the Indians, 
 and that Bartholomew had brought it thither (Thilo, Ada 
 Thomae, p. 108 ). Irrespective of this, Pantaenus, in keep- 
 ing with his whole position in life, certainly knew so much 
 Hebrew that he could recognise a Hebrew Matthew as such. 
 If, however, the objection has often been raised, that it is not 
 clear from the words whether an original Hebrew writing or
 
 INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 a translation into Hebrew is meant (see also Harless, Luculr. 
 evangelia canon, spectant. Erlangen 1841, I. p. 12), there 
 speaks in favour of the former view the tradition of the 
 entire ancient church concerning the original Hebrew writing 
 of Matthew, a tradition which is followed by Eusebius (see 
 afterwards, under e) ; he must therefore have actually desig- 
 nated it as a translation, if he did not wish to recall the fact 
 which was universally known, that the Gospel was composed 
 in Hebrew. The same holds true of the account by Jerome, 
 de vir. ilhtst. 36:" Reperit [Pantaenus in India], Bartholo- 
 maeum de duodecim apostolis adventum Domini nostri Jesu 
 Christi juxta Matthaei evangeliurn praedicasse, quod Hebraicis 
 literis scriptum revertens Alexandrian! secum detulit." (d) 
 Origen in Eusebius, vi. 25 : on Trp&Tov fj,ev ryeypcnrrai TO 
 Kara TOV TTOTG. T\o)i>r)v, varepov Se a7r6crTo\ov 'Irjaov Xpiarov 
 Mardalov, eVSeSoj/cora avro TOIS drro 'JovSai'oyiou Tncnevaaat, 
 rypdfjLuacrtv 'Efipa'iKois avvTeray/jievov. He indicates tradition, 
 indeed, as the source of his narrative (o>9 ev irapaoocrei 
 fjiadwv) ; but the witness of tradition on so thoroughly un- 
 dogmatic a point from the mouth of the critical and learned 
 investigator, who, in so doing, expresses neither doubt nor 
 disagreement, contains especial weight ; while to make Origen 
 derive this tradition from Papias and Irenaeus (Harless, I.e. 
 p. 11), is just as arbitrary as to derive it merely from the 
 Jewish Christians, and, on that account, to relegate it to the 
 sphere of error, (e) Eusebius, iii. 24 : MajOaios pev ^ap 
 TrpoTepov 'Efipalois tcripvj;a<>, &>? e'yu-eXXe /cat e<' erepovs levai, 
 Trarpiq* <y\u)TTr) rypa<j>f) vrapaSovs TO /car' avTOV evayyeXiov, TO 
 \elrrov Trj auTOV Trapovaia rovrot? d<f> wv etTTeXXero, Sia TTJS 
 7/3a<^)?7? aTreTr\ripov. Comp. ad Marin. Quaest. ii. in Mai, 
 Script vet. nov. collectio, I. p. 64 f. : Xe'Xe/mu 8e oi/re TOV 
 irapa TOV ep/J,'rjveva'avTO<; Trjv <ypa(f>ijv' o fj,ev <yap 
 Mar^aio? 'EftatSt yXcoTTij irapecwice TO evayye- 
 \LOV, K.T.\. It is already evident from the latter passage that 
 Eusebius relates that the Gospel was composed in Hebrew, 
 not merely as a matter of history, but that he himself also 
 adopted that view, against which his own remark on Ps. 
 Ixxviii. 2 has been erroneously appealed to (in Montfaucon,
 
 f 
 
 8 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Collect. Pair. Gfrec. I. p. 466): avrl rov (fr 
 fnara air up^fjf 'Efipaios wv o Mardaios ol/cela 
 Keyprjrai citron/' epevgojicu KKpvfA/j,eva CLTTO KaTa/3o\r)<t. For 
 otKeia eicBocret, cannot here be his own (Greek) translation of 
 the passage of the Hebrew psalm (Marsh, Hug, and several 
 others), but only as the reference to Efipaios wv, and the 
 antithesis to Aquila which there follows, clearly show a 
 vernacular, i.e. Hebrew edition of the original text, so that the 
 meaning is : Matthew transcribed the words of the psalm 
 from a Hebrew edition into his (Hebrew) Gospel ; the result of 
 which was, that in the Greek they now agree neither with the 
 LXX. ((/j^eyfo^flM trpofiXtfuaTa air apxns) nor with Aquila, 
 the Greek editions of which (av& ov 6 /j,ev 'A/cv\a<;' onftprjcrco 
 aivl<y/jbara e apyjjdev, e'/cSeSawcey, Eusebius continues) had no 
 influence on Matthew, who wrote in Hebrew. (/) Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, Catecliet. 1 4 : Mardalos o ypd-^ras TO cvayyeXiov 
 'EftpalSt, ryXdxra-r) rovro ejpa-^rev. (g] Epiphanius, Haer. 
 XXX. 3 : MarOalos yw/ovof 'E^palarl /cal 'EfBpaiKols <ypd/jL/jLacriv 
 ev rfj Kaivrj Bt,a6^Krj eTrot^craTO rrjv TOV evayyektov eK^ecriv r 
 Kal Kripwyfta. Comp. li. 5,. also xxx. 6, where a converted 
 Jew testifies that he discovered the Hebrew Matthew in a 
 treasure-chamber, (hj Jerome, Praef. in Matt. : " Matthaeus 
 in Judaea evangelium Hebraeo sernaone edidit ob eorum vel 
 maxime causam, qui in Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis." Comp. 
 de mr. ill. 3, where he assures us- that he discovered the 
 original Hebrew text among the Nazarenes in Beroea in 
 Syria, and that he transcribed it. Comp. also Ep. ad Damas. 
 IV. p. 148, ed. Paris ; ad Hedib. IV. p. 173 ; in Jes. III. p. 64 ; 
 in Hos. III. p. 134. The testimonies of Gregory Nazianzen, 
 Chrysostom, Augustine, and of later Fathers, may, after those 
 already mentioned, be passed over, as well as that also of the 
 Syrian Church in Assemann's Bill. Orient. III. p. 8. The 
 weight of this unanimous and ancient tradition has secured 
 acceptance down to the most recent times, notwithstanding 
 the opposition of many critics, 1 for the hypothesis also that 
 Matthew wrote in Hebrew (Eichard Simon, Mill, Michaelis, 
 
 1 See the history of this controversy in Credner, Einleitung, I. p. 78 ff. ; Neu- 
 decker, p. 195 ff.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 Marsh, Storr, Corrodi, J. E. Ch. Schmidt, Haenlein, Eichhorn, 
 Bertholdt, Ziegler, Kuinoel, Gratz, Guericke, Olshausen, Klener 
 (de authent. Ev. Matth., Gottingen 1861), Sieffert, Ebrard, 
 Baur, Weisse, Thiersch, Tholuck, Lange, Luthardt (de compos. 
 Ev. Matth., Leipsic 1871), Gilder (in Herzog's Encykl. IX. 
 p. 166), and others). The opposite view of a Greek original 
 of our Gospel, from which the polemic interest which operated 
 in the older Protestantism, in opposition to tradition and the 
 Vulgate, has long ago disappeared, is found in Erasmus, 
 Cajetan, Beza, Calvin, Flacius, Gerhard, Calov., Erasmus 
 Schmidt, Clericus, Lightfoot, Majus, Fabricius, Wetstein, 
 Masch (Grundspr. d. Ev. Matth., Halle 1755), Schubert (JDiss., 
 Gottingen 1810), Hug, Paulus, Fritzsche, Theile (in Winer's 
 and Engelhardt's krit. Journal, II. p. 181 ff. 346 ff.), Buslav 
 (Diss., 1826), Schott, Credner, Volkmar, Neudecker, Kuhn, B. 
 Crusius, Harless, Thiersch (with reference to the canonical 
 Matthew, which, according to him, is a second edition of the 
 apostle's original work in Hebrew), de Wette, Bleek, Ewald, 
 Eitschl (in the theolog: Jahrb. 1851, p. 536 ff.), Kostlin 
 (Ursprung u. Kompos. der synopt. Ev., Stuttgart 1853), Hilgen- 
 feld, Anger (Ratio, qud loci V. T. in Ev. Matth. laudantur, 
 3 Programme, Leipsic 1861 f.), Holtzmann (synopt. Ev. 
 1863), Tischendorf, Keim, and others, predominantly also by 
 Delitzsch, but is entirely destitute of any external foundation, as 
 the unanimous tradition of the church is rather insuperably 
 opposed to it; while to deduce the latter from an error 
 occasioned by the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Bleek, 
 Tischendorf, Keim, and others), is a decision of critical 
 peremptoriness which must give way especially before the 
 testimony of Jerome, who was minutely acquainted with the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews, as well as with the Hebrew 
 Matthew. The loss- of the Hebrew original is all the more 
 explicable the more early and widely the Greek Matthew 
 was circulated ; while the heretics obtained possession of the 
 Hebrew work, and caused it to lose canonical authority. The 
 internal grounds, moreover, on which stress has been laid, 
 are sufficient only to show that our Matthew might be an 
 original composition in Greek, but not that it is (actually)
 
 10 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 such. For the dissemination of the Greek language in 
 Palestine at that time (Hug) so little excludes, especially 
 considering the predilection of the people for their own 
 language (Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), the composition of a Hebrew 
 Gospel, that it only makes the early translation of such a 
 work into Greek more conceivable. If, further, it has been 
 observed (Credner, sec. 46) that to the Hebrew feminine nv 1 
 no male function (i. 18) can be ascribed without the ante- 
 cedent medium of the Greek tongue, as indeed in the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews the maternal position towards 
 Christ is actually assigned to the Holy Spirit (Credner, Beit- 
 rage, I. p. 402 f.) ; so, on the other hand, it holds good that 
 in i. 18 no male function of the Spirit is at all spoken of, but 
 a generation in which the specifically sexual meaning remains 
 out of consideration, as, moreover, the Greek Trvevfia is not 
 masculine. The unimportant play upon the word in vi. 16 
 might already have its impress in the original, but may 
 also, either from intention or accident, have originated with 
 the translator. With respect to xxvii. 46, see the remarks 
 in loc. The frequent identity of expression, moreover, in 
 Matthew with Mark and Luke, does not necessarily point to 
 an original composition of the former in Greek, but leaves 
 this question quite unaffected, as the translated Matthew might 
 either have been made use of by the later Synoptics, or 
 might even have originated also from the use of the latter, 
 or of common sources. The most plausible support for an 
 original composition in Greek is found in the circumstance 
 that a portion, although a small one, of the quotations from 
 the Old Testament, especially those which are cited as 
 Messianic predictions (comp. Jerome, de vir. HI. 3 ; and see, 
 especially, the copious dissertation by Credner, Beitrage, I. 
 p. 393 ff. ; Bleek, Beitr. p. 57 ff. ; Eitschl, in the theolog. 
 Jahrb. 1851, p. 520 ff. ; Kostlin, p. 36 ff. ; Anger, I.e. ; Holtz- 
 mann, p. 2 5 8 ff. ; Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 59 ff.), do not 
 follow the LXX., but deviate with more or less freedom from 
 it, although taking account also of the same, and follow the 
 original text as the case requires. This presents the appearance 
 of not being the work of a translator, who would have adhered
 
 INTRODUCTION. 1 1 
 
 more mechanically to the LXX. But, irrespective of the fact 
 that this observation is by no means always beyond doubt 
 with regard to the individual passages to which it is applied 
 (Delitzsch in the Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theologie, 1850, p. 463 f., 
 and Entsteh. u. Anl. d. kanon. Ev. I. p. 13 ff. ; Weiss in Stud, 
 u. Kritik. 1861, p. 91 f.), we are not at liberty to prescribe 
 limits so narrow either to the freedom and peculiarity of the 
 manner of citation which was followed in the Hebrew work, 
 or to that of the translator, who, as generally throughout 
 his work, so also in the rendering of the quotations, might go 
 to work with pragmatic independence, that the tradition of 
 a Hebrew original of the Gospel would be excluded as in- 
 correct. This conclusion no more follows, than it would be at 
 all necessary to suppose that the translator must have had as 
 the basis of his text that of a different writer, more familiar 
 with the Old Testament (Baur) ; or that this variation betrays 
 evidence of the hand of a second redactor (Hilgenfeld, 
 .Keim). 
 
 (3.) The original Hebrew writing, however, from which our 
 present Matthew proceeded through l)eing translated into Greek, 
 must, apart from the language, have been in contents and Jorm, 
 in whole and in part, substantially the same as our Greek 
 Matthew. The general evidence in favour of this view is, 
 that throughout the ancient church our Greek Matthew was 
 already used as if it had been the authentic text itself. 
 Accordingly, although the church knew that it was a text 
 which had arisen only through a translation, it cannot have 
 been aware of any essential deviation from the original. 
 Jerome, however, in particular, de vir. ill. 3, who was minutely 
 acquainted with the Hebrew original, and made a transcript 
 of it, makes mention of it in such a way that the reader can 
 only presuppose its agreement with the translation, and makes 
 (on Matt. vi. 11, ad Hedib. IV. p. 173, on o-fye, xxviii. 1) 
 exegetical remarks, which rest upon the presupposition that it 
 is a literal translation. The same holds true in reference to 
 the passages of Eusebius quoted under 2 e. On the whole, no 
 trace is anywhere found that the Greek Gospel in its relation 
 to the original Hebrew work was regarded as anything else
 
 12 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 than a translation in the proper sense ; and therefore the 
 opinion which has recently become current, that it is a free 
 redaction, extended by additions (Sieffert, Klener, Schott, uber 
 d. Authenticit. d. Ev. Matth., 1834, Delitzsch), is destitute of 
 all historical basis. If, however, our Greek Gospel of Matthew 
 is to be regarded as a simple translation, not as an altered 
 and extended revision ; if, moreover, the Hebrew work, which 
 was translated, consequently possessed, at the time when the 
 translation was made, the same substantial extent, contents, and 
 expression which are presented by our present Matthew, then 
 it follows, agreeably to what is observed under (1.), that the 
 Hebrew document cannot have been composed by the apostle in the 
 shape in which it was translated into Greek. 
 
 (4.) Notwithstanding, the Apostle Matthew must have had in 
 the Hebrew composition, of which our present Gospel is a trans- 
 lation, so substantial a part, that it could, on sufficient historical 
 grounds, vindicate its- claim to be regarded, in the ancient and 
 universal tradition of the church, as the Hebrew euayye\iov 
 Kara MarQalov. To ascertain what this part was, we must 
 go back to the oldest of the witnesses in question, which in 
 fact discloses the original relation of the apostle to the Gospel 
 which bears his name. The witness of Papias, namely, in 
 Eusebius, iii. 39 (above under 2 a), declares that Matthew, 
 and that in the Hebrew tongue, " TO. \6yia a-vveTa^aTo," where 
 the to us unknown context of the Fragment must have 
 shown the Xoyta to be those of the Lord. According to this 
 view, his own work, composed by himself, was a a-vvTagis 
 or (according to the reading Gweypd-fraro) a <rvyypa<pr) rwv 
 Xoyi'eoz/, consequently nothing else than a placing together, an 
 orderly arrangement (comp. on <7iWai9 with gen. in this 
 literary sense, Polybius, xxx. 4. 11, i. 4. ii. 8, iv. 5. 11 ; 
 Diodorus Sic. i. 3, xiv. 117), of the sayings of the Lord 
 (Acts vii. 38 ; Rom. iii. 2 ; Heb. v. 12 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11) ; as in 
 the Classics also \6<yia is always used of sentences, especially 
 divine, oracular sentences, and the like (Kriiger on Thucyd. ii. 
 8. 2). A similar undertaking was that of Papias himself, in 
 his work : Xo<y<W Kvpiaxcav % t ]'Yn<ri<s, which consisted of five 
 books (crirffpapfiara). He also gave the \6yta of Christ;
 
 IXTUODUCTION. 13 
 
 but in such a way that he explained (l&yjcraTo, comp. on 
 John i. 1 8) their divine meaning historically (Eusebius himself 
 quotes such a history), and from other sources (thus, accord- 
 ing to Eusebius, he also made use of testimonies from some 
 New Testament Epistles) ; Matthew, on the other hand, had 
 given no e'f 77 7 ; 0-19, but only a (rvvraj-is of the Lord's sayings. 
 The work of Papias was an Interpretatio (Jerome : " expla- 
 natio"} ; that of Matthew was only an orderly Collectio of the 
 same. Schleiermacher in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1832, p. 735, has 
 the merit of having brought forward and made good 1 the pre- 
 cise and proper meaning of \6yia : he has been rightly followed 
 by Schneckenburger, Ursprung des ersten kanon. Evang. 1834, 
 by Lachmann in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1835, p. 577 ff., Credner, 
 Weisse, Wieseler, B. Crusius, Ewald, Kostlin, Reuss, Weiz- 
 sacker, and others; 2 also by Holtzmann, p. 251 ff. ; Steitz in 
 
 1 Although he did not correctly hit the meaning of the second part of the 
 testimony of Papias : Jipftwoiri 5' a'wra, us 5v 2t/a<; ixtttrres. He referred this 
 tippvfivfft to the explanation furnished by the addition of the relative histories. 
 But the bearing of fippivtutrt is to be sought simply in 'Efipat'Si S(aXi*T, so that 
 the meaning which Papias wishes to convey must be this : every one translated 
 (Xen. Anab. v. 4. 4 ; Esdras iv. 7 ; additions to Esther vii. fin.) the \oyia. 
 which were arranged together in Hebrew, according to his capacity, which 
 refers to that use which, whether ecclesiastically < privately, the Greek Chris- 
 tians made of Matthew's collection of Hebrew savings, in order to render them 
 intelligible, by such a process of translation, to those who needed a translation 
 in order to understand them. They were translated (orally and in writing) by 
 every one who undertook the work, as well as he was able to do it. When 
 Papias wrote this, such a self - translation, varying always according to the 
 capacity of each individual, was no longer requisite, as our Greek Matthew had 
 already attained ecclesiastical authority, and the Xoyj, originally written in 
 Hebrew, were contained in it. It is because he was aware of this that rif^r,viu<r*. 
 is employed, and this ought not to have been called in question (Bleek, Holtz- 
 mann, and others) ; but it does not follow that the whole of our Gospel of 
 Matthew (only composed in Hebrew) was the original work written by the 
 apostle himself. 
 
 * Comp. alsoReville, Etudes crlt. svr St. Matth. 1862, p. 1 ff., who has sought 
 to determine more exactly out of our Matthew the parts of the original Xo>-<. 
 Holtzmann's view is different : he seeks to reconstruct the collection of sayings 
 chiefly out of Luke. See his synopt. Evang. p. 140 ff. ; according to him, Luke 
 made more use of it than Matthew, the 5th and 23d chapters of the latter 
 being derived from special sources. Weizsacker, Weisse (protest. Kzeit. 1863, 
 No. 23), Grau, and others, rightly defend the view, that the collection of sayinga 
 is preponderantly contained in the first Gospel, whose name already rests upcn 
 this.
 
 14 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the Stud. u. Kritik. 1868, p. 68 ; Grau, Entwickelungsgeschicht. 
 d. N. T.I. p. 173 f.; Scholten, d. dlteste Evang. ubcrs. v. Re- 
 depenning, 1869, p. 244 f. On the other hand, many others 
 have found in the \6yia even evangelic history, so that it 
 would be a designation a potiori for the entire contents of a 
 Gospel. So Lucke in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1833, p. 501 f., 
 Kern, Hug, Frommann in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1840, p. 912 ff, 
 Harless, Ebrard, Baur, Delitzsch, Guericke, Bleek, Weiss 
 (partly), Hilgerrfeld, Thierseh, Glider, Luthardt, Kahnis, Anger, 
 Keim, Zahn. This is quite untenable, because Papias shortly 
 before designates the entire contents of a Gospel (that of Mark) 
 in quite a different way, viz. : ra VTTO rov Xpiarov rj \e%6evra 
 f) Trpa^evra (comp. Acts i. 1) ; and because, in the title of his 
 work : e^T^y^crt? rwv Xoytwv KvpiaK&v, he undoubtedly under- 
 stood the \6yia in the proper sense of the word. i.e. TO, Xe^- 
 devra, effata, so that the history which his book contained 
 belonged not to the \oyui, but to the ej-rffrjcrts which he gave 
 of the \6<yta. And with a comparative glance at this his 
 literary task, he says of Peter : ov% wa-irep avvra^iv rwv 
 KvpiaK&v Troiovpevos \6ya)v (var. Xo7oi>), words which are not 
 therefore to be used to prove the identity of meaning between 
 \6yia and \e^6ivra and irpa^devra (as is still done by Keim 
 and Zahn) ; comp. 4, Eem. 1. On the other hand, our 
 Matthew contains in its present shape so much proper history, 
 so much that is not given as a mere accompaniment of the 
 discourses, or as framework for their insertion, that the entire 
 contents cannot be designated by the one-sided ra \6jia, 
 especially if we look to the title of the work of Papias itself. 
 The later Patristic usage of ra \6jia, however (in answer to 
 Hug and Ebrard), does not apply here, inasmuch as the view, 
 according to which the contents of the N. T. in general, even 
 the historical parts, were regarded as inspired, and in so far as 
 \6yca rov 6eov, did not yet exist in the time of Papias nor in 
 his writings (Credner, Eeitr. I. p. 23 f. ; Kahnis, vom hetiig. 
 Geist. p. 210 ff.; Holtzmann, p. 251), against which view the 
 &><? yejpaTrrai in Barnabas 5 can prove nothing (comp. on 
 John, Introd. 2, 2). According, then, to this opinion, the 
 Apostle Matthew, agreeably to the testimony of Papias, has
 
 INTRODUCTION. 1 5 
 
 composed a digest of the sayings of Christ? and that in the 
 Hebrew tongue, but not yet a proper gospel history, although, 
 perhaps, the \6yta might be briefly accompanied, now and 
 again, with special introductory remarks of a historical kind, 
 and a gospel history was thereby, in some measure, formed 
 beforehand. It is this collection of sayings now which 
 obtained and secured for the Gospel, which was afterwards 
 further elaborated out of it, the name of the apostle as author, 
 the name evayye\tov Kara Mardalov. The collection of 
 Hebrew sayings, namely, such as it proceeded from the apostle, 
 was, in the hands of the Hebrew Christians, for whom it was 
 intended, gradually expanded by the interweaving of the his- 
 tory into that gospel writing which, translated into Greek, 
 presents itself in the present Gospel ; and which, under the 
 name of the apostle, rightly obtained the recognition of the 
 church in so far that the avvrafys rwv \6yuav, which was 
 composed by Matthew himself, was substantially contained in 
 it, and was the kernel out of which the whole grew. This 
 apostolic kernel by itself perished ; but the name of the apostle, 
 which had passed over from it to the Hebrew Gospel work 
 which so originated, led to the latter being regarded as the 
 original composition of Matthew himself, a view which lies 
 at the foundation of the testimonies of Irenaeus, Origen, 
 Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and others. In any case, how- 
 ever, this Hebrew work, which gradually grew out 'of the 
 collection of sayings, must, before it was translated into Greek, 
 have undergone a systematic, final redaction, by means of 
 which it received the form which corresponds to our present 
 Greek Matthew, for the latter is always attested only as a 
 translation ; and it is precisely to this final redaction, before 
 the translation was made, that the recognition of the work 
 by the church as apostolic must have been appended and 
 
 1 It is arbitrary to think only of longer, actual discourses (Kostlin), and to 
 exclude shorter sayings, gnomes, and the like. Both are to be understood. So 
 also Photius, Cod. 228, p. 248, where TO. xufiaxa. ^'oyia. corresponds to the va 
 afoffr/>>.ixa Knfuyftatrtt which follow. Without any reason, Anger, III. p. 7, 
 employs the passage as a proof that xyj denotes the entire GospeL See, on 
 the other hand, also Weizsacker, p. 32.
 
 16 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 confirmed, because in the rendering of the work into Greek, 
 the Hebrew was only translated, a view which underlies the 
 testimonies and quotations of the Fathers throughout. The 
 Hebrew original, which arose out of the apostle's collection of 
 sayings, and which corresponds to our present Matthew, fell, 
 after it was translated, into obscurity, and gradually became 
 lost, 1 although it must have been preserved for a long time as 
 an isolated work in Nazarene circles (besides and alongside of 
 the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews), where it was 
 still found in Beroea by Jerome, who made a transcript of it, 
 and who also testifies that it existed down to his own day in 
 the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea (de vir. illust. 3). That 
 the translator was one individual, is attested by the fixed style 
 of expression which runs throughout the whole (Credner, 
 Einleit. 37; Holtzmann, p. 2 9 2 ff.) ; who he was, <cannot be 
 at all determined : " quod quis postea in Graeeum transtulerit, 
 non satis certum est," Jerome. The opinions, that the trans- 
 lation was executed by Matthew himself (Bengel, Guericke, 
 Schott, Olshausen, Thierseh), or at least with his co-operation 
 (Guericke), or ~by another apostle (Casaubon, Gerhard), perhaps 
 James the Lord's brother (Synopsis S. S. Pseudo-Athanasius), 
 or even by John (Theophylact, Scholia on Matthew, Subscrip- 
 tions in the MSS.), or was prepared under the eye and commis- 
 sion of the apostles (Ebrard), or tihat two of the disciples of 
 Matthew had written down, the one in Aramaic, the other in 
 Greek, the tradition preserved by the apostle (Orelli, Selecta 
 Pair. Eccles. Capita, 1821, p. 10), easily connect themselves 
 with dogmatic presuppositions, but are destitute of all his- 
 torical foundation, and must, in consequence of the testimony 
 which Papias bears as to what Matthew wrote, altogether fall 
 to the ground. If, as the result of all that precedes, the 
 share of the apostle in the work which bears his name must 
 be referred back to his Hebrew cr<tWaft9 rwv \oyitav, and in 
 so far the book as a whole cannot be called apostolic in the 
 narrower sense, but " already a secondary narrative " (Baur), 
 
 1 The Syriac Matthew, which Cureton has edited, and which he regards as a 
 translation of the original Hebrew writing (London 1858), has been derived from 
 the Greek text. See Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 77 ff.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 1 7 
 
 the apostolic authenticity? which has been strictly defended 
 down to the most recent time, can remain only in a very 
 relative degree. If, however, the gospel history thereby loses 
 this direct guarantee, so far as in many single points it would 
 lack the weighty authority of the apostle and eye-witness as 
 a voucher, yet the gain is to be more highly estimated which 
 it derives from being completely emancipated from the con- 
 tradictory statements of two apostles on which apologetic 
 harmonists, since Augustine, Osiander, Chemnitz, Gerhard ; 
 Calovius, Bengel, Storr and others, 2 have exercised their 
 inventive ingenuity with the Sisyphus -labour of a one-sided 
 acuteness, and from seeing the decisive authority of John in 
 relation to the first Gospel altogether unshackled. To this 
 authority must also be subordinated the discourses of Jesus 
 in individual parts, which, considering the genetic development 
 under which our Matthew gradually grew up out of the col- 
 lection of sayings, cannot have remained unchanged (especially 
 those relating to the last things and to the last Supper). Yet 
 the greater portion of them, so far as they belong to the non- 
 Johannean stage of action, are independent of and unaffected 
 by the Johaniiean accounts of the discourses. If, namely, as 
 our Gospels furnish the actual proof of it, there was formed 
 earliest of all a Galilean cycle of gospel history which ex- 
 tended itself to Judea only at the last great termination of 
 
 1 See, especially, Theile in Winer's krit. Journ. II. p. 181 ff. 346 ff. ; 
 Heidenreich, das. III. p. 129 ff. 385 ff. ; Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Kern, Schott, 
 Guericke ; Olshausen, A2)ostolica Ev. Matth. or. def., Erlangen 1835-37 ; Kor- 
 dam, de fide patr. cedes, antiquiss. in iis, quae de orig. ew. can. maxime 
 Matth. tradider., Hafniae 1839 ; Harless, Ebrard, Thiersch, Delitzsch, Heng- 
 stenberg, and others. 
 
 * Even the most recent, which is set forth in the most consistent form with 
 the acuteness of comprehensive learning by Wieseler in his chronol. Synapse, 
 1843 (translated by Venables), and later, down to his Beitr. zur Wiirdlg. d. Ev. 
 1869 ; in the most bulky shape with the roughness of passionate feeling by 
 Ebrard in his vnssensch. Krit. d. evang. Gesch. ed. 3, 1868 (2d ed. translated ; 
 Clark, Edinburgh). Harmonizers have done much harm by fostering the opinion 
 that the gospel history needed their brittle support. The substance of this 
 history is altogether independent of such help, as was already correctly recognised 
 by Griesbach. The discord of harmonists, however, with each other is only the 
 process of the self-dissolution of their artificial labours, the result of which has 
 been less to the advantage of the history itself than of its opponents. 
 MATT. B
 
 18 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the history ; so it is conceivable enough, since Galilee was 
 actually the principal theatre of the ministry of Jesus, that 
 Matthew in his avvrafys TO.V \oyiwv already confined himself 
 to this cycle, while it was reserved for John first, when evan- 
 gelic historical composition had reached its culminating point, 
 to include the whole of the Judaic teaching and acting, nay, 
 by supplementing that older and defective range of narrative, 
 to place it in the foreground of the history. Delitzsch, in con- 
 nection with his fiction of a pentateuchal construction of our 
 Gospel (see afterwards, Section iv.), without any reason regards 
 Matthew as the creator of the Galilean gospel type : he only 
 connected himself with it by his collection of sayings, which 
 an apostle could also do if he did not wish to write a history 
 of Jesus. 
 
 EEMARK The Hebrew Matthew was adopted, as by the 
 Hebrew Christians in general, so by the Nazarenes and EHon- 
 ites in particular, as their Gospel, and was overlaid (by the 
 Ebionites, who omitted the two first chapters, still more than 
 by the Nazarenes) with heretical and apocryphal additions and 
 partial changes, as well by spinning out as by omitting, by 
 which process arose the slayytXiov x.atf 'Eftpafovc ; seethe frag- 
 ments of the same collected from the Fathers in Credner's Beitr. 
 I. p. 380 ff. ; by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift, 1863, p. 345 ff. ; and 
 in the N. I. extra Canon, recept. IV. According to Eusebius, 
 iii. 39, Papias had already received into his work an apocryphal 
 history, which was contained 1 in the fuayyeXiov xad' 'EjSpa/oui;, 
 and which had been already made use of by Ignatius, ad 
 Smyrn. 3 (see Jerome, de vir. illust. 16), and by Hegesippus 
 (see Eusebius, iv. 22, iii. 20; Photius, Bibl. Cod. 232). This 
 essential relationship of the suay/ix/oi/ xad' 'Ej3paiou$ the 
 
 1 The remark of Eusebius, TO xaf ' E(->pa.!ei>s ilayyixiot ripi'i^u, leaves it 
 doubtful whether he intended by the remark to note the apocryphal character of 
 this history, or at the same time to point to the source from which Papias had 
 taken it. According to the connection, since two apostolic letters had just 
 previously been mentioned as having been used by Papias ; and now, with the 
 addition of the above remark, another, t. e. a non-apostolic history is quoted, 
 which Papias is said to have narrated, it is more probable that Eusebius wished 
 to point to the, use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews by Papias (in answer 
 to Ewald and several others). The history itself (ri/>< yvmixas ) iroXXa."> aftapriai; 
 ^ia^>.nhiirm I*} rov xvpiov), moreover, is not to be regarded as that of the adulteress 
 in John.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 contents of which, according to the remains that have been pre- 
 served, must have been extensive, 1 and wrought up with skill 
 and some degree of boldness (see Ewald, Jahrb. VI. p. 37 ff.) 
 to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, makes it explicable how the 
 former might be regarded by many who did not possess an 
 exact acquaintance with it, as the Hebrew Matthew itself 
 (Jerome, contra Pelag. iii. 2, " Ut plerique autumant ;" ad Matt. 
 xii. 13, "quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum "). 
 To the number of these belonged also Epiphanius, who says 
 (Haer. xxix. 9) that the Nazarenes possessed rb Kara Mard. 
 tvayytXiov T^p'tararov (comp. Irenseus, Haer. iii. 11. 7) e{3pai'eri, 
 but who, nevertheless, does not know whether it also contained 
 the genealogy. Of the Ebionites, on the other hand, he states 
 (Haer. xxx. 3. 13) that they did not possess the Gospel of 
 Matthew in a complete form, but vsvodt-jptvov xal r^porrifiao^vov, 
 and quotes passages from the Ebionitic 'E/3pa/xoV. We must 
 suppose that he had an exact acquaintance only with the 
 Ebionite edition of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, pro- 
 bably derived from Ebionite writings. Jerome, on the other 
 hand, had a minute acquaintance with the evangelium secundum 
 Hebraeos, and, in opposition to the view which has recently 
 become current, definitely distinguished it from the Hebrew 
 Matthew. 2 Of the latter, namely, which he found in use among 
 the Nazarenes at Beroea, he made a transcript (de vir. illust. 3) ; 
 the Gospel according to the Hebrews, of which, consequently, 
 there could not have been as yet any widely diffused and recog- 
 nised translation, he translated into Greek and Latin (de vir. 
 illust. 2, ad Mick. vii. 6, ad Matt. xii. 13), which of course he 
 did not do in the case of the Hebrew Matthew, as that Matthew 
 was everywhere extant in Greek and also in Latin, Jerome 
 
 1 According to the stichometry of Nicephorns, it contained 2200 aTi^m ; the 
 Gospel of Matthew, 2500. See Credner, zur Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 120. 
 
 8 It is objected to this (see also Anger, III. p. 12), that Jerome in his epistle 
 to Hedibia (Opp. I. p. 826, ed. Vallarsi), on ch. xxviii. 1, remarks : " Mihi 
 vldetur evangelista Matthaeus, qui evangelium Hebraico sermone conscripsit, 
 non tarn vespere dixisse quam sero, et eum, qui interpretatus est, verbi am- 
 biguitate deceptum, non sero interpretatum esse, sed vespere." Because Jerome 
 employs here only a videtur, the word is said to betray on his part a non- 
 acquaintance with the original Hebrew writing. This objection is erroneous. 
 Jerome rather means that the Hebrew word, employed by Matthew, is ambiguous ; 
 that it may signify vespere and sero ; that Matthew appears to have expressed 
 by it the latter conception, while the translator took it in the former sense. 
 What Hebrew word stood in the passage Jerome does not state ; it may probably 
 have been nst?'n nil 22.
 
 20 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 consequently could not share the erroneous opinion of the 
 plerique above mentioned ; and the very precarious assumption 
 precarious because of his well-known acquaintance with the 
 Hebrew language that he held it at a former time, but 
 abandoned it afterwards (Credner, de "Wette, Holtzmann, 
 Tischendorf, and several others), or at least expressed himself 
 more cautiously regarding it (Hilgenfeld), is altogether baseless, 
 and is only still more condemned by Credner's arbitrary hypo- 
 thesis (Beitrdge, I. p. 394). It is, however, also conceivable that 
 it was precisely among the Nazarenes that he found the Hebrew 
 Matthew, as they naturally attached great value to that Gospel, 
 out of which their own Gospel, the evangelium secund. Hebraeos, 
 had grown. Of the former (de vir. ill. 3), as well as of the 
 latter (c. Pelag. iii. 2), there was a copy in the library at 
 Caesarea. As Jerome almost always names only the Nazarenes 
 as those who use the evangelium sec. Hebraeos, while he says 
 nothing of any special Elionitic Gospel ; nay, on Matt. xii. 
 13, designates the Gospel according to the Hebrews as that 
 " quo utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae," he does not appear to 
 have known any special Ebionitic edition, or to have paid any 
 attention to it ; while he simply adhered to the older, more 
 original, and more widely disseminated form of the work, in 
 which it was authoritative among the Nazarenes, and was 
 certainly also retained in use among the Ebionites side by side 
 with their still more vitiated gospel writing. The supposition 
 that the evangelium sec. Hebraeos arose out of a Greek original 
 (Credner, Bleek, de Wette, Delitzsch, Eeuss, Hilgenfeld, Holtz 
 mann; comp. also Sepp, d. Hebr. Evang. 1870), has against it 
 the statement of the Fathers (Eusebius, iv. 22 ; Epiphanius, 
 Haeres. xxx. 3. 13; and especially Jerome), who presuppose a 
 Hebrew original ; while, further, there stands in conflict with 
 it the old and widely disseminated confusion between that 
 Gospel and the original Hebrew work of Matthew. The alleged 
 wavering, moreover, between the texts of Matthew and Luke, 
 which has been found in some fragmentary portions, is so 
 unessential (see the passages in de Wette, sec. 64a), that the 
 fluidity of oral tradition is fully sufficient to explain it. Just 
 as little can that hypothesis find any support from the individual 
 passages, which are still said to betray the Greek original (of 
 Matthew), from which the evangelium sec. Hebraeos arose by 
 means of an Aramaic edition. For, as regards the tyxpit in 
 Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13, see on Matt. iii. 4. And when 
 Jerome, on ch. xxvii. 1 6, relates that in that Gospel the name 
 Barabbas was explained by filius mayislri eorum, it has been
 
 INTRODUCTION. 2 1 
 
 erroneously assumed that the Greek accusative BapaBjSav was 
 taken as an indeclinable noun (pva = ;in:n 13). So Paulus, 
 Credner, Bleek, Holtzmann. Such a degree of ignorance of 
 Greek, precisely when it is said to be a translation from that 
 language, cannot at all be assumed, especially as the Greek 
 Bapa/S/3. was written with only one p, and the name N3JO2 and 
 BapupSus was very common. " Filius magistri eorum " is rather 
 to be regarded simply as an instance of forced rabbinical inter- 
 pretation, where N2K was referred, in the improper sense of 
 magister, to the devil ; and in support of this interpretation, an 
 eorum, giving a more precise definition, was, freely enough, sub- 
 joined. 1 When, further, according to Jerome on Matt, xxiii. 
 3o,filiiis Jofadae stood in the Gospel according to the Hebrews 
 in place of u/'oD Bapa^/ov, this does not necessarily presuppose the 
 Greek text, the mistake in which was corrected by the Gospel ac- 
 cording to the Hebrews,but the jrw 13 may just as appropriately, 
 and quite independently of the Greek Matthew, have found its 
 way in, owing to a more correct statement of the tradition, in 
 room of the erroneous name already received into the original 
 Hebrew text. Just as little, finally, is any importance to be 
 attached to this, that, according to Jerome on Matt. vi. 11, 
 instead of rbv exiovaiov there stood in the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews ino, since there exists no difference of meaning 
 between these two words. See on Matt. I.e. None of these 
 data (still less that which, according to Jerome, the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, ch. xxv. 51, contained respecting the 
 breaking of the supraliminare templi ; and what was formerly 
 adduced, still especially by Delitzsch, Entsteh. u. Anl. d. kanon. 
 Evang. I. p. 21 f.) is fitted to lay a foundation for the opinion 
 that that apocryphal Gospel was derived from a Greek original, 
 and especially from our Greek Matthew, or from the (alleged) 
 Greek document which formed the foundation of the same, 
 which is said to have undergone in the Gospels of the Nazarenes 
 and Ebionites only other redactions, independently of the 
 canonical one (Hilgenfeld, Evangel, p. 117). The converse 
 view, that our Greek Matthew proceeded from a Greek trans- 
 lation of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was sub- 
 jected to modification of various kinds until it finally became 
 fixed in its present shape in our canonical Gospel of Matthew 
 
 1 Quite in the same way has even Theophylact himself explained the name 
 by TV i/i*e TOV ira.rfos alrut, mu 3;SoXai/. See on ch. xxvii. 16. The interpre- 
 tation of the name as " films patris, h. e. diaboli," was, on the whole, very 
 common. See Jerome on Ps. cviii., Opp. vii. 2, p. 206.
 
 22 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (probably about the year 130 A.D.), Schwegler, Baur, renders 
 necessary the tmhistorical supposition, which especially contra- 
 venes the testimony of Jerome, that the Hebrew writing of 
 Matthew was identical with the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews; leaves the old and universal canonical recognition 
 of our Matthew, in view of the rejection by the church of the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews, unexplained ; overlooks, 
 further, that the assumed transformations which our canonical 
 Matthew underwent prior to its being finally fixed, must since, 
 according to the unanimous testimony of the church, it is a 
 translation have related not to the Greek, but only to the 
 Hebrew work ; and it must, finally, refer the relative quotations 
 of Justin (and of the Clementines, see Uhlhorn, Homil. u. Recog. 
 d. Clemens, p. 1 1 9 ff.) to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or 
 assume as a source the Gospel of Peter and other unknown 
 apocrypha (Schliemann, Schwegler, Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, 
 after Credner's example), although it is precisely our Matthew 
 and Luke which are most largely and unmistakeably employed 
 by Justin in his quotations from the a.^o^^o^/^aTa, ruv a-ro- 
 aroXuv, although freely and from memory, and under the influence 
 of the oral tradition which had become current, and which stood 
 at his command (Semisch, d. Apost. Denkwurdigk. Justin's, 1848 
 [Eng. transl. Messrs. Clark's Cab. Libr.] ; Delitzsch, Entsteh. u. 
 Anl. d. kanon. Evang. I. p. 26 ff. ; Ritschl in the tkeolog. Jahrb. 
 1851, p. 482 ff.). See, generally, on the priority of the Gospel 
 of Matthew to that of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 
 which is most decidedly and persistently denied by Hilgenfeld ; 
 Kostlin, p. 118 ff. ; Bleek, .ffetfr. p. 60 ff., EM. p. 104 ff. ; Frank 
 in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1848, p. 369 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. VI. 
 p. 36 ff. ; Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. 29 ff. ; Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. 
 d.N. T. I. p. 265 ff. ; Volkmar, and others. 
 
 SEC. III. READERS, AND OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL TIME OF ITS 
 
 COMPOSITION. 
 
 Not merely was the collection of discourses composed by 
 Matthew himself intended for the Jewish Christians of Palestine, 
 but the Hebrew Gospel also, which gradually grew out of that 
 collection, as already appears from the language of the work 
 itself, and as is confirmed by the testimonies of the Fathers 
 (Irenaeus, Haer. lii. 1 ; Origen in Eusebius, vi. 25 ; Eusebius, 
 Jerome, and others). Hence the frequent quotations from the
 
 INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 0. T. to prove that the history of Jesus is the fulfilment of 
 Messianic prophecy, quotations, amongst which are to be 
 classed even such as, without some explanatory addition, were 
 intelligible only to those who were acquainted with the 
 Hebrew language (i. 22) and the Hebrew prophetic manner 
 of expression (ii. 23) ; and hence, also, as a rule, all in the 
 Gospel is presupposed as known which, in reference to 
 manners and customs, to religious and civil, to geographical 
 and topographical relations, could not but be known to resi- 
 dents in Palestine as such; while, on the contrary, by the 
 other evangelists (comp. Mark vii. 2-4 with Matt. xv. 2), 
 such remarks, explanations, etc. as were unnecessary for the 
 inhabitant of Palestine, are frequently added in consideration 
 of readers living out of that country. That the unknown 
 translator, however, had also in view Jewish Christians out of 
 Palestine, is clear from the very fact of his undertaking a 
 translation. It was in reference to such readers that some 
 interpretations of specially noteworthy names (i. 23, xxvii. 33), 
 and the translation of the exclamation on the cross in xxvii. 46, 
 were added by the- translator, to whose account, however, 
 pragmatical observations such as those in ch. xxii. 23, xxviii. 
 8, 15, are not to be placed. 
 
 The object which was to be attained, both by Matthew's 
 collection of discourses as well as by the Gospel, could be no 
 other than to demonstrate Jesus to be the Messiah, which demon- 
 stration is carried out in the Gospel by means of the history 
 and teaching of Jesus (in the collection of discourses by means 
 of His teaching) in such a way that Jesus is set forth as 
 He who was promised in the 0. T. Credner, Einl. I. p. 60 ; 
 Ewald, Jahrb. II. p. 211. We must regard, however, as 
 entirely alien from this view, 1 the premature thought of a 
 
 1 According to Hilgenfeld, Evangelien, p. 106 ff. (see also ZdtscJir. f. wlss. 
 Theol. 1862, p. 33 ff., 1865, p. 43 ff., 1866, p. 136 ff., and elsewhere), our Gospel 
 is the product of two opposed factors. It originated in an apostolic fundamental 
 document, which was composed from the particularistic standpoint of strict and 
 close Judaism ; the later canonical working up of which, however, was effected 
 soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, from the point of view that the Chris- 
 tianity which had been disdainfully rejected by the Jews had a universalistio 
 destination for the heathen world. According to this theory, the incongruous
 
 24 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Jewish Christian (Petrine) party writing (so the anonymous 
 work, Die, Evangelicn, ihre Geschickte, ihre Verfasser, Leipzig 
 1845), with which the universalism which pervades the Gospel 
 from iii. 9 to xxviii. 19 is in decided conflict. The chrono- 
 logical and even historical exactness, which could be in har- 
 mony only with a later period (Luke i. 3), retired into the 
 background before this didactic purpose, and the tradition 
 which dominates the Gospel found therein that quite un- 
 limited room to play which was allowed it by the belief of 
 the community, while it was not lessened on account of its 
 wanting the testimony of an eye-witness, owing to its redactor 
 not being an apostle. Considering the Palestinian destination 
 of the work, and the contents assigned it by the collection of 
 the discourses, and by the history itself and its tradition, it was 
 natural and necessary that it should set forth much that was 
 in antithesis to an unbelieving Judaism and its degenerate 
 leaders. We are not, however, to assume a special tendential 
 character referring to that (Kostlin), or the prosecution of an 
 anti-Ebonitic aim (Grau), as that antithesis has its basis in the 
 position of Christ Himself and of His historical work ; while 
 upon a Gospel intended for Palestinian Jewish Christians it 
 could not but impress itself spontaneously, without any special 
 purpose, more than on other Gospels. 1 The principal sections 
 of the Gospel are as follow : (1) History of the birth and 
 childhood, ch. i., ii. ; (2) Preparations for His appearance 
 
 portions are, with great arbitrariness, assigned by Hilgenfeld although they 
 are irreconcilable even with the scantiest systematic plan of a tendential 
 redaction to the one or the other of the factors which are supposed as the 
 determining elements, and transposed in part to places where they do not now 
 stand. With much greater caution Baur recognises the impartiality of the 
 Gospel ; declares it, however, to be at least not altogether free from a particular 
 interest, and from certain tendential leanings, and regards it, besides, as the 
 original and most credible Gospel, although he holds it to have grown up out 
 of the Gospel according to the Hebrews by a process of lengthened develop- 
 ment. See, in answer to Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, p. 378 ff. ; Keim, Geschichtl. 
 Christ, p. 54 ff. The latter, however, while laying on the whole decided 
 emphasis on the unity of the Gospel, admits that additions of very varying value 
 were made by the individual who worked up the whole (Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 68 ff.). 
 1 When the principal source of the discourses in Matthew, the collection of 
 sayings, arose, the sharp party severance of Judaism from Paulinism still 
 belonged to the future. Comp. Holtzmann, p. 377 ff. By introducing in this
 
 INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 as Messiah, ch. iii.-iv. 11; (3) Messianic ministry in Galilee, 
 until His departure from the theatre of His work up to 
 that time, xix. 1 ; (4) Setting out for Judea, and completion 
 of His Messianic ministry and destiny, ch. xix.-xxviii. 20. 
 Plans of a more complicated character (see in Luthardt, I.e. 
 p. 14ff.) are the outcome of subjective presuppositions. 
 
 As regards the time of composition, the tradition of the 
 church assigns to the Gospel of Matthew the first place amongst 
 the canonical Gospels (Origen in Eusebius, vi. 25; Epipha- 
 nius, Haer. li. 4 ; Jerome, de vir. ill. 3). Eusebius states more 
 precisely (iii. 24) that Matthew wrote when he wished to 
 take his departure from Palestine ; Irenaeus, however, iii. 1, 2 
 (comp. Eusebius, v. 8), while Peter and Paul were preaching 
 at Rome. Of these two notices, the first is very indefinite ; but 
 between the two there certainly lies a long period of time, 
 especially since, at the dates when Paul made his first apos- 
 tolic journeys to Jerusalem (Gal. i. and ii.), there is at least 
 no longer any express trace of Matthew's residence in that city. 
 This very varying tradition of the time of composition is, how- 
 ever, conceivable without any difficulty from this consideration, 
 that Matthew's collection of sayings must in reality have been 
 composed at a far earlier date than the Gospel which bears his 
 name. The time when the one originated was easily transferred 
 to the other, as at a later date, when the first was no longer 
 extant, the two writings were not, in general, separately 
 distinguished. Nothing, however, could be more natural than 
 that Matthew, when he wished to follow his vocation amongst 
 strangers, should present his Palestinian hearers with a well- 
 arranged collection of the Lord's sayings, which might remain 
 with them as a legacy in place of his oral preaching. The 
 Gospel, which then gradually grew out of this collection of 
 sayings, might have been in constant process of formation down 
 to the time indicated by Irenaeus (from 60-70), and then 
 
 way these party divisions into our Gospel, we commit a great vfripw -jcfurm. In 
 Jesus Himself, the consciousness that He was destined for the Jews, and also 
 that He was destined for all nations, lay side by side with each other ; but with 
 Him the two come into view always according to the relations of the moment. 
 the latter most decidedly at His departure in xxviii. 19.
 
 26 THE GOSPEL OF MATTIIEY7. 
 
 have received its last redaction, after which also the translation 
 soon followed, consequently shortly before the destruction of 
 Jerusalem. For as the Hebrew work is in any case to be 
 placed before the destruction of Jerusalem, so also is the Greek 
 translation ; because in xxiv. 29 ff. the Parousia is so definitely 
 predicted as commencing immediately after the desolation of 
 Palestine (comp. xvi 28, xxiv. 34), that all attempts to evade 
 this conclusion remain ineffectual On the other hand, we are 
 not to infer from xxiii. 3 5, xxiv. 1 5 (Hug, Credner), that at the 
 time when the last chapters were composed the Eomans had 
 already taken possession of Galilee, and were upon the point 
 of conquering Judea. 1 Any more precise determination of the 
 locality where it was composed is nowhere pointed to, not even 
 in xix. 1 (see on the passage), where Kostlin finds the resi- 
 dence of the writer presupposed as being in the country to the 
 east of the Jordan, to which view Holtzmann also is inclined 
 (p. 41 4 f.). 
 
 REMARK. The above notice of time given by Eusebius is 
 more precisely determined : by Eusebius of Caesarea, in the 
 Chronicon, as the year. 41 ; by Cosmas Indicopleustes, as in the 
 time of the stoning of Stephen ; by Theophylact and Euth. 
 Zigabenus, as eight years after the ascension ; by the Alexan- 
 drine Chronicon and Mcephorus, as fifteen years after the 
 ascension. All these are the outcome of a desire to place the 
 Gospel as early as possible. In modern times, the determination 
 of the time within the 60 years has been for the most part 
 rightly adhered to (Keim, 66). Still, in so doing, any alleged 
 
 1 "With regard to xxii. 35, see the commentary. The parenthesis, moreover, 
 in xxiv. 15, a.va.ywuax.uv vitiTu, only draws attention sharply to the remarkable 
 prediction, but contains nothing from which the /SStXi/y^a r. Ipvftuirtas should 
 announce itself as already begun. Baur, p. 605, deduces from the assumption 
 that the /SStXuy^a T?J ipvpa/r. in xxiv. 15 is the pillar of Jupiter which Hadrian 
 caused to be erected upon the site of the ruined temple, that the Gospel falls 
 within the years 130-140. But see remark 3, after chap. xiv. Kostlin, rightly 
 understanding the destruction in the year 70, yet deals much too freely with the 
 ivSiu; in xxiv. 29, so as to extend it to a period of about 10 years, and accord- 
 ingly places the composition of the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 about 70-80, when it originated amid the most lively expectation of the Parousia. 
 Within the same time Hilgenfeld also places the final redaction ; the fundamental 
 document, however, as early as 50-60.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 2 7 
 
 use of the Apocalypse (Hitzig, Volkmar) is to be left out of 
 consideration. 
 
 The strange mixture of agreement and divergence in the 
 Synoptics when compared with each other, in which there appears 
 an obvious communion, not merely as to the matter and extent 
 and course of the history, but also .as to the words and trans- 
 actions, extending even to- the most accidental minutiae and to 
 the most peculiar expressions, partly, again, a very varying 
 peculiarity in the manner of receiving and dealing with the 
 subject-matter, as well as in the selection of the expressions 
 and links of connection (see the more minute demonstration of 
 this relation in de Wette, Eiril. sees. 79, 80 ; Credner, sec. 67 ; 
 Wilke, neutestament. Rhetorik,^. 435 ff. ; Holtzmann, p. 10 ff.), 
 has, since the mechanical strictness of the older theory of 
 inspiration had to yield its place to the claims of scientific 
 investigation, called forth very different attempts at explana- 
 tion. Either all the three Gospels have been derived from a 
 common source, or critics have contented themselves with the 
 old hypothesis (see already Augustine, de consensu Exang. i. 4), 
 that one evangelist made use of the other, the later of the 
 earlier one or more, where, however, ancient evangelical writ- 
 ings and the oral traditions of the apostolic age have been 
 called in, and could not fail to be so, by way of aid. 
 
 I. 
 
 A. After Clericus (Hist. eccl. II. prim, saec., Amstelodami 
 1716, p. 429) had already directed attention, with a view to 
 the explanation of the affinity in question, to ancient gospel 
 
 1 On the history of the investigations bearing upon this subject, see "Weiss in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 678 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift, 1861, p. 1 ff. 
 137 f., 1862, p. 1 ff., 1865, p. 171 ff., and in his work, der Kanon u. d. Kritik 
 d. N. T. 1863 ; Holtzmann, die synopt. Evangelien, p. 15 ff. ; Weizsacker, 
 p. 10 ff. ; Keim, Oeschichte Je.su, I. p. 99 ff. ; Volkmar, Relig. Jem, p. 375 ff., 
 and Urspr. der Evangelien,l866, also die Evangelien oder Markus u. d. Synopsis, 
 etc., 1870 ; Scholten, d. alteste Evang., German transl. by Eedepenning, 1869 ; 
 Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift, 1870, 2 and 4.
 
 28 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 writings composed by eye- and ear-witnesses, while, at a later 
 date, Semler in his translation of Townson's Discourses on the 
 Four Gospels, Halle 1783, I. pp. 221, 290, had assumed one 
 or more original' Syro-Chaldaic writings, as Lessing also had 
 (theol. Naclil. 1785, p. 45 ff.) already regarded the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews as the common source, in which he 
 was followed by Niemeyer (Conjectural ad illustr. plurimor. 
 N. T. scriptor. silentium de primord. vitae J. Ch., Hal. 1790), 
 C. F. Weber (Untersuch. fib. d. Ev. d. Hebr. 1806), Paulus (In- 
 troductio in N. T. capita selectiora, Jenae 1799), Thiess, 
 (Kommentar, I. p. 18 f.), Schneckenburger, and several others, 
 it was, first, pupils from the school of Eichhorn (Halfeld and 
 Russwurm in the Gottinger Preisschriften, 1793, and see the 
 work of the latter on the origin of the first three Gospels, 
 Eatzeb. 1797), and, soon after, Eichhorn himself (ind. Bill. d. 
 libl. Literatur, 1794, p. 759 ff.), who came forward with the 
 hypothesis, which has become famous, of an original written 
 Gospel, which, with manifold modifications, was adopted by 
 Marsh (Remarks and Additions to Michaelis, Einl. aus dem 
 Engl. von Eosenmuller, Gott. I. 1795, II. 1803), Ziegler (in 
 Gabler's neuest. theol. Journ. IV. p. 417), Hanlein, Herder 
 (partly), Gratz (see afterwards), Bertholdt, Kuinoel, and several 
 others. 
 
 According to Eichhorn, an original Syro-Chaldaic Gospel, 
 composed about the time of the stoning of Stephen, contained 
 the sections common to all the three evangelists ; but in such 
 a way that four, likewise Aramaic, editions of the same served 
 as a foundation for the Synoptics, namely, edition A to 
 Matthew ; edition B to Luke ; edition C, composed of A and B, 
 to Mark ; and besides these, still an edition D to Matthew and 
 Luke alike. The less, however, that in this way the verbal 
 agreement was explained, and that too of the Greek Gospel, 
 consisting, as it does so often, of casual and unique expressions, 
 the less could more complicated attempts at explanation fail 
 to be made. Herbert Marsh, I.e. II. p. 284 ff., set up the 
 following genealogy : (1) s, an original Hebrew Gospel; (2) 
 N, a Greek version of the same ; (3) N + a + A, a transcript 
 of the original Hebrew Gospel, with smaller and larger additions;
 
 INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 (4) N -f /? + B, another transcript of the same, with other 
 smaller and larger additions ; (5) K + 7 + T, a third tran- 
 script, again with other additions ; (6) 3, a Hebrew gnomo- 
 logy in various editions. The Hebrew Matthew, according to 
 this theory, originated by means ofN + 3+a + A + 7 + P; 
 the Gospel of Luke, by means ofK + 2 + $ + B + 7+r+N; 
 the Gospel of Mark, by means ofK+a + A + jS+B + s; 
 the Greek Matthew, however, was a translation of the Hebrew 
 Matthew, with the addition of K, and of the Gospels of Luke 
 and Mark. 
 
 In order to remove the objections which were raised against 
 him, Eichhorn (Einl. I. p. 353 ff.) expanded his view in the 
 following way : (1) An original Hebrew Gospel ; (2) a Greek 
 version of this ; (3) a peculiar recension of number 1 ; (4) a 
 Greek version of number 3, with the use of number 2 ; (5) 
 another recension of number 1 ; (6) a third recension, derived 
 from numbers 3 and 5 ; (7) a fourth recension from number 
 1, with larger additions ; (8) Greek version of number 7, with 
 the use of number 2 ; (9) a Hebrew Matthew, derived from 
 numbers 3 and 7 ; (10) a Greek Matthew, from number 9, with 
 the assistance of numbers 4 and 8 ; (11) Mark, derived from 
 number 6, with the use of numbers 4 and 5 ; (12) Luke, 
 from numbers 5 and 8. The hypothesis of an original written 
 gospel received a somewhat more simple shape from Gratz 
 (neuer Versuch der Entstehung der drei ersten Evang. zu erk- 
 Idren. Tub. 1812) as follows: (1) An original Hebrew 
 Gospel; (2) an original Greek Gospel, derived from former, 
 with many additions ; (3) shorter evangelic documents ; (4) 
 Mark and Luke arose out of number 2, with the help of 
 number 3 ; (5) a Hebrew Matthew, derived from number 1, 
 with additions, partly its own, partly borrowed from a docu- 
 ment which here and there agreed with the gnomology em- 
 ployed by Luke ; (6) a Greek version of the Hebrew Matthew, 
 in making which the Gospel of Mark was consulted, and ad- 
 ditions derived from it ; (7) interpolations from the Gospels 
 of Matthew and Luke, by means of mutual transpositions of 
 many sections from the one to the other. 
 
 Considering the entire want of any historical basis for the
 
 30 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 existence of an original written Gospel of the kind in question, 
 although it could not but have been regarded as of very high 
 authority ; considering the meagre and defective materials of 
 which it must needs have been composed ; considering the con- 
 tradictions which the testimonies of Luke in his preface, and 
 of the fragment of Papias, carry in themselves to an original 
 written Gospel ; considering the artificial nature of the struc- 
 ture which is raised up upon a presupposed basis by the 
 arbitrary calling in of materials at will ; considering the 
 accumulated and strangely trivial cultivation of authorship, 
 which is presupposed, in opposition to the spirit, the wants, 
 and the hope of the apostolic age ; considering the dead 
 mechanical way especially in which the evangelists would have 
 gone to work, altogether without that independent idiosyncrasy 
 which, in the case of apostles and apostolic men, cannot, even 
 in respect to their written activity in the service of the church. 
 be conceived of as wanting without doing injury to the his- 
 torical character and spirit of the original Christian age ; con- 
 sidering the high authority, finally, which the Synoptics have 
 attained, but which they could scarcely have reached by a 
 style of writing history so spiritless, so laboriously fettered, 
 and of so compilatory a character : it can only be regarded as 
 an advance and a gain, that these artificial hypotheses have 
 again disappeared, and are worthy of note only as evidences 
 of an inventive conjectural criticism, which, when we consider 
 the theological character of its time, cannot astonish us even 
 in respect of the approval which it received. A beneficial 
 recoil from this approval was brought about first by Hug 
 (EM. 1808, 4te Aufi. 1847), who simply went back to the 
 critical use to which Mark subjected Matthew, and Luke both 
 his predecessors, consequently in harmony with the order of 
 succession in the Canon, a view which, at the present day, 
 is held most decidedly by Hilgenfeld. 
 
 The assumption also of many kinds of original gospel 
 writings and essays as sources of the Synoptics (after Clericus, 
 I.e., Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, and others ; first, in reference to 
 the third Gospel, by Schleiermacher, tib. d. Schriften des Luk. 
 Berlin 1817 [Eng. transl. by late Bishop of -St. David's]), is
 
 INTRODUCTION. 3 1 
 
 by no means sufficient to solve the riddle, especially if we 
 keep in view the harmony of the three in respect of their 
 plan and design as a whole ; for if we were to explain all the 
 peculiarities of the relation in this way, we would be entangled 
 in a mosaic work of multitudinous combinations and separa- 
 tions, in which there would again fall to the share of the 
 evangelists themselves nothing but a curiously mechanical skill 
 as their undeserved fate. 
 
 B. Far greater reputation, nay, even permanent approval 
 down to the most recent time (Guericke, Ebrard, Thiersch, 
 and many others ; also Schleiermacher, Einl., ed. Wolde, 1845), 
 has been attained by the hypothesis of an original oral Gospel, 
 which, after Eckermann (theol. Beitr. V. 2, p. 148), Herder 
 (Reg el d. Zusammenstimm. unserer Evangel, in : von Gottes Sohn, 
 der Welt Heiland, 1797), has found its most thoroughgoing 
 representative 1 in Gieseler's celebrated Versuch iiber die Entste- 
 liung und friihesten Scliicksale der schriftl. Evang., Leipzig 
 1818. According to this hypothesis, which may be compared 
 with that of Wolf regarding the origin of Homer, the doctrines, 
 acts, and destinies of Christ were, among the apostles and first 
 Christians at Jerusalem, the oft-repeated subject of their con- 
 versation, in a greater or less degree, always in proportion as 
 they appeared more or less as witnesses for the Messiah ship. 
 The memory of one disciple thus aided that of another in the 
 way of correction and arrangement, so that the facts and dis- 
 courses were apprehended in a firm living recollection. By 
 this process, however, through which men who were destined 
 to be fellow-labourers with the apostles were prepared for 
 their vocation, instruction being imparted by one apostle in 
 the presence of the others, these aTrojutvTj^ovevf^ara attained 
 a continuous historical shape ; and in order to prevent any 
 
 1 See, besides, Sartorius, drei Abh. iib. wiclitig. Geyenst. d. exeg. u. system. 
 Theol. 1820 ; Kettig, Ephemerid. exeg. Theol. I., Giessen 1824 ; Schulz in the 
 Stud. if. Kritik. 1829 ; Schwarz, ilber das Verwandtschaftsverhaltn. d. Evan- 
 gelien, 1844. In reference to Mark, Knobel, de ev. Marci orig. 1831. Here 
 belongs also Kalchreuter in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1861, p. 507 ff., 
 who refers the harmony, without any written medium, to the original Gospel of 
 Christian recollection.
 
 32 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 disfiguration, the expression also, and therewith, at the same 
 time, the thought, became fixed, 1 which might take place all 
 the more easily, considering that the state of culture among 
 the first narrators was pretty much the same. There was 
 thus formed a standing, as it were stereotype, narrative, which 
 comprised the sections common to the three Synoptics. As, 
 however, some portions of the history formed more the topic 
 of conversation and of narration to the converts, and others 
 less, always according to their greater or less importance, 
 which determined, also, a more or less free form of address ; 
 and as, in addition, special recollections of the apostles flowed 
 into their addresses, there are explained in this way the 
 divergencies which are found in some parts of the historical 
 narrative. This oral narrative was impressed upon the memory 
 of those who were intended for the vocation of teaching 
 by frequent repetition. The language of this original type 
 of oral Gospel, the Aramaic, was with all care translated 
 into Greek, when Hellenists in increasing numbers were 
 received into the community. Finally, the word became 
 fettered by the letter, whereby, the individual author, in select- 
 ing and setting forth his material, fell in with the wants of his 
 readers ; so that Matthew handed on a purely Palestinian ; 
 Mark, a Palestinian Gospel, modified abroad, and for strangers 
 out of Palestine ; Luke, a Pauline GospeL 
 
 The want, however, of all historical testimony for a standing 
 apostolic tradition of that kind ; the mechanical method, op- 
 posed to the living spirit of the apostolic age and activity, 
 which is presupposed in order to its origination and establish- 
 ment ; the mechanical literary manner in which the evangelists 
 are said to have continued the oral account which pre-existed ; 
 the incompleteness and limitation, beyond which a narrative 
 of that kind could not have risen ; the want of agreement 
 precisely in the all-important histories of the passion and 
 resurrection of Christ ; the circumstance that, as already 
 appears from the Acts of the Apostles and the New Testament 
 
 1 Compare the Rabbinical rule in Schabb. f. 15. 1 : " Verba praeceptoris sine 
 ulla immutatioue, ut prolata ab illo fuerant, erant recitauda, ne diversa illi 
 affingeretur sententia." See, generally, Gieseler, p. 105 ff.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 33 
 
 Epistles, the preachers of the apostolic age (see on Acts xxi. 8) 
 had to deal chiefly with the whole redemptive work of Christ, and 
 that therefore they, by preference, announced His incarnation, 
 His manifestation and ministry, in brief, condensed summary 
 (see, e.g., Acts x. 37-42), His doctrine as a fact viewed as a 
 whole, the testimony to His miracles, His sacrificial death, 
 His resurrection, glorification, and second advent, in doing 
 which they possessed, in their own recollection, and relatively 
 in the living tradition, material and warrant enough for the 
 preaching also of the individual doctrines, discourses, acts, and 
 destinies of the Lord, which they certainly had likewise to do 
 in the discharge of this great chief vocation of theirs (comp. 
 1 Cor. xi. 23, ch. xv. 1 ff. ; see also what Papias says of 
 Mark, as the hearer of Peter, in Eusebius, iii. 39), and did 
 not need a previous stereotype didactic preparation ; the want 
 of every trace of such a standing type in the New Testament 
 Epistles ; finally, the testimonies of Luke and Papias, which 
 are exactly opposed to an original Gospel tradition in the sense 
 assumed ; the complete breaking through of such already by 
 Luke, and its annulling by John : all these are just so many 
 reasons why any explanation of the synoptic Gospels upon 
 that hypothesis of an original oral Gospel (without prejudice, 
 however, to the necessary and great influence of oral tradition 
 in general) must be renounced, even apart from this, that the 
 formation of such an original Gospel, by means of the designed 
 co-operation of the apostles, would be simply irreconcilable with 
 the contradictions which are presented by the Gospel of John. 
 
 II. 
 
 The view, according to which one evangelist made use of the 
 other, where, however, the gospel tradition, as it existed in a 
 living form long before it was recorded in writing (Luke i 2), 
 as well as old written documents, composed before our Gospels 
 (Luke, I.e.}, come also essentially into consideration, is the 
 only one which is fitted to enable us to conceive of the synoptic 
 relationship in a natural manner, and in agreement with the 
 history. 
 
 The order in which the three originated has, according 
 MATT. C
 
 34 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 to this view, been very variously determined. Namely, 
 (1.) according to the order of the canon, Matthew wrote first, 
 Mark made use of him, and Luike, of both. So Grotius, Mill, 
 Wetstein, Bengel, Townson (Abhandlungen iiber d. vier Evangel., 
 aus dem Engl. von Semler, Leipzig 1783, I. p. 275, II. 
 p. 1 ff.), Seiler (de temp, et ord., quo tria ev. pr. can. scripta 
 sunt, Erlangen 1805, 1806), Hug, Credner, 1 Hengstenberg, 
 Grau, and several others ; of the Tubingen school, Hilgenfeld 
 (d. Markus-JEvangel., Lpz. '1850, krit. Untersuck. iib. d. Evangel. 
 Justin's, etc., Halle 1850, also in the theolog. Jahrb. 1852, 
 p. 102 ff., 158 ff., 1857, p. 381 ff., 408 ff., and die Evan- 
 gelien nach ihrer Entstehung, and 1854, d. Urchristenthum, 
 1855, and in his wiss. Zeitschrift, 1859, 1861, 1862, 1863, 
 1865, 1867, 1870; also in his Kanon u. Kritik. d. N. T. 
 1863), who refers our canonical Matthew to an apostolic 
 documentary work of a strictly Judeo- Christian character 
 between the years 60 and 70, which, however, received, imme- 
 diately after the destruction of Jerusalem, a freer treatment, 
 and in this way attained its present shape, as he also places, 
 as an intermediate link, between Matthew and Mark, not 
 merely the Petrine-Eoman tradition, but also a Petrine edition 
 of Matthew, a Gospel of Peter, which was also made use of by 
 the author of our Mark, while he makes the Gospel of Luke 
 to arise out of a Pauline working up of the two first Gospels, 
 and other sources about 100 years after Christ. Augustine's 
 
 1 According to Credner, Einleit. , it was not long after the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, " on the border of the transition period from historical tradition to 
 legend," that attempts at a written record of the gospel history were first made. 
 There were found in existence about that time both the Hebrew collection ot 
 sayings by the Apostle Matthew, and also those observations which Mark, the 
 companion of Peter, had set down accurately, indeed, but without reference to 
 arrangement, probably after the apostle's death. A Palestinian writer made 
 that work of Matthew, with the aid of Mark's memoranda, as well as of oral 
 tradition, the basis of a written redaction of the gospel history, and there thus 
 originated "our first canonical Gospel, rightly entitled *T MartaTe*." 
 Another took those memoranda of Mark as the foundation of his work, and, 
 arranging and supplementing, worked up the history in agreement with them, 
 and thus arose the eiayyx. *ar M^xv. Luke, along with oral tradition, 
 already made use of ^inyrnrtu of the gospel history, and amongst these probably 
 of our Matthew and Mark, but more certainly of the Xoy/a, which Matthew him- 
 self had written, and of the observations which Mark himself had recorded.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 35 
 
 opinion (de consen. em. i. 4) already was : " Marcus Matthaeum 
 subsequutus tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur," 
 which Koppe (Marcus non epitomator Matthaei, 1782) rightly 
 controverts, as is done afterwards also by Herder and others, 
 proceeding from other principles ; and especially by those 
 who assign to Mark the priority among the three (see sub- 
 sequently). (2.) Matthew, Luke, Mark, the so-called hypothesis 
 of Griesbach. So Owen, Observations on the Four Gospels, 
 London 1764 ; Stroth in Eichhorn's Repert. IX. p. 144; and 
 especially Griesbach, Commentat. qua Marci ev. totum e 
 Matthaei et Lucae eommentariis decerpt. esse monstratur, Jen. 
 1789, 1790 (also in his Opsuc., ed. Gabler, II. p. 385ff.); 
 Amrnon, de Luca emendatore Matthaei, Erl. 1805; Saunier, ub. 
 cl. Quellen des Ev. Mark., Berlin 1825 ; Theile, de trium prior, 
 ev. necessitud., Leipzig 1825, and in Winer's and Engelhardt's 
 krit. Journ. V. 4, p. 400 f., Sieffert, Fritzsche, Xeudecker, 
 Kern, de Wette, Gfrorer, heil. Sage, p. 212 ff., Strauss, 
 Schwarz, neue Untersuch. ub. d. Verwandtschaftsverhdltniss d. 
 synop. Evang., Tubingen 1844, p. 277 ff., Bleek, Schwegler 
 in the theolog. Jahrb. 1843, p. 203 ff., and in the nachapost. 
 Zeitalter, I. p. 457 ff., Baur, p. 548 ff., and d. Markus- Evangel., 
 Tiib. 1851, also in the theolog. Jahrb. 1853, p. 54 ff . ; and 
 frequently Strauss, Zeller, Dolling, Kostlin, 1 Kahnis, Keim. 
 
 1 According to Kostlin, our Matthew, which first arose between the years 70- 
 80, was composed with the use of the Apostle Matthew's collection of discourses, 
 as well as of the Petrine Gospel, which is intended in Papias' testimony regarding 
 Mark, and of other sources, and experienced its last catholic redaction about 
 the years 90-100. Luke made use of Matthew, although not as a principal 
 source, but chiefly of South-Palestinian, Judeo-Christian sources, and wrote still 
 in the first century, in Asia Minor, where the Gospel long circulated as a private 
 writing, until it became known in Rome also, where ecclesiastical use was not 
 made of it probably till after the middle of the second century. Our Mark, 
 finally, an epitomized, neutral, and irenic work, is dependent upon Matthew 
 and Luke, as well as on the older written source of Mark, is a product of the 
 idea of catholicity upon an originally Judeo-Christian basis, and originated in 
 the Roman Church in the first decennium of the second century. Generally the 
 consideration of the Gospels as tendential writings, in which the development 
 of early Christianity into the Old Catholic Church is said to disclose itself, is 
 peculiar to the school of Baur, where, however, Hilgenfeld claims for his method 
 of apprehending the subject the character of the literary -historical, a name 
 which does not change the nature of the tendential view.
 
 36 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Among these defenders of the priority of Matthew, Delitzsch, 
 in a manner which is peculiar to himself, believes that he has 
 demonstrated the same (see his neue Unters. lib. Entstehung und 
 Anlage d. kanon. Evangelien, I p. 59), namely, by means of a 
 presumed pentateucliic plan of the Gospel in harmony with the 
 setting forth of Christianity as a new, not less divine z/o/io?, 
 raised above that of Moses. This discovery, however, is 
 nothing else than a playing of the Rabbinical mind with a 
 fanciful typology (see especially Lucke : de eo, quod nimium 
 artis acuminisque est \in ea, quae nunc praecipue factitatur 
 sacrae scripturae . . . interpretatione, Gb'tt. 1853 ; Baur in the 
 theolog. Jahrb. 1854, p. 235 ff . ; Weiss in the deutsch. Zeitsckr. 
 Beibl. 1854, 3), for the sake of laying a foundation for the 
 confident assertion of the author, that to think of the priority 
 of Mark will be henceforth quite impossible, a remark which 
 has been already abundantly refuted by experience. 
 
 (3.) Mark, Matthew, Luke. So Storr, ub. d. Zweck d. evang. 
 Gesch. u. d. Brief e des Johannes, p. 2,74 ff., and de fontibus 
 evang. Matt, et Lucae, Tub. 1794 (also in Velthusen, Com- 
 mentatt. III. p. 140 ff.) ; from Mark, namely, the Hebrew 
 Matthew, and partly, also, Luke were derived, and that the 
 Greek translator of Matthew then made use of Mark and 
 Luke. 
 
 The order, Mark, Matthew, Zuke, 1 is maintained also by 
 Lachmann in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1835, p. 570 ff. ; Weisse, 
 evang. Gesch. 1838, and Evangelienfr. 1856, Ewald, Reuss, 
 Thiersch ; Tobler, Evangelienfr. 1858; Eitschl in the theolog. 
 Jahrb. 1851, p. 480 ff. ;,Plitt, de compos, evang. synopt. 1860 ; 
 Weiss in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1861, p. 29 ff., 646 ff., and 
 in the Jahrb. f. D. Theolog. 1864, p. 49 ff., 1865, p. 319 ff. ; 
 
 1 Against this reputed "pet child of the most recent criticism," Keim, in par- 
 ticular (Inaugural Address, d. menschl. Entwick. J. Ch., Zurich 1861, and in 
 his Oesch. Jesu), has come forward in support of Matthew, and to the prejudice 
 of John. Hilgenfeld continues most zealously to contend against the priority of 
 Mark ; Kahnis, Dogmatik, I. p. 409, classes the same among the " hardiest 
 aberrations of modern criticism. " Klostermann (d. Markus Evang. nach s. 
 Quellenwerthe, 1867) rejects the hypothesis of an original Mark ; finds, however, 
 in our Mark the traces of an earlier and more original representation of the 
 history, which may again be recognised in our first Gospel.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 3 7 
 
 compare his Marcus- Evangel. 1871; Eichthal, Us evangiles, 
 1863; Schenkel; Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, 
 p. 314 ff., 1866, p. 427 ff. ; Holtzmann, d. synopt. Evangelien, 
 1863 ; Weizsacker, who assumes a written source common to 
 the three, the extent and arrangement of which may be 
 recognised substantially in the representation of Mark ; 
 Scholten, d. dlteste Evang., krit. Unters., aus d. Holland, v. 
 Redepenuing, 1869. Amongst these, Ewald and Scholten 
 especially have laid down, in very dissimilar ways, a most 
 complicated order of origination. This, according to Ewald, 
 is as follows : (1) The oldest Gospel, describing the most 
 prominent events in the life of Jesus, made use of by the 
 Apostle Paul, probably composed by the Evangelist Philip in 
 the Greek language, but with a Hebrew colouring ; (2) the 
 Hebrew collection of sayings by Matthew, containing chiefly 
 large portions of discourses, but also narrative introductions ; 
 (3) the Gospel of Mark, for which 1 and 2 were used, yet of 
 independent origin, although no longer preserved quite in its 
 original form ; (4) the book of the higher history, which under- 
 took to depict in a new fashion the very heights of the gospel 
 history, and from which proceeds, e.g., the copious narrative 
 of the temptation in Matthew and Luke; (5) our present 
 Gospel of Mattlicio, written in Greek, with the use of 1-4, 
 especially, however, of Mark, and the collection of sayings, 
 probably also of a writing upon the preliminary history ; 
 (6, 7, 8) three different books, which may still be pointed out 
 from the Gospel of Luke ; (9) the Gospel of Luke, in which all 
 the hitherto enumerated writings, with the exception, however, 
 of Matthew, were used. According to Scholten, however, a 
 sketch by John Mark, after undergoing a first revision (Proto- 
 Markus}, was united with Matthew's collection of sayings 
 (Proto - Matthaeus), through which process arose a Deutero- 
 MattJiaeus, a second recension of which (Trito- Matthaeus] 
 produced our first canonical Gospel ; the latter, however, must 
 also have been already known to a second redactor of the 
 Proto-Markus, i.e. to our canonical Mark (Deutero-Markiis), as 
 is shown by its putting aside the history of the birth. The 
 view of Holtzmann is simpler, who regards an original Mark
 
 38 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (-4) as the sole basis of our present Mark, which, however, 
 was also used, after the collection of sayings (.4), by Matthew 
 and Luke, yet in such a way that these two, along with A 
 and A, made use also of other smaller written sources and 
 oral traditions. Weiss, again, supposes the \6jia to be the 
 original Gospel, with which portions of the history, of the 
 nature of sketches, yet without the history of the birth and 
 passion, were already combined, and then makes our Mark 
 follow at once, as a working up of the original Gospel with 
 the recollections of Peter. The question, whether Luke made 
 use of our Matthew, is denied, not merely by Ewald, but 
 also by Weisse, Beuss, Thiersch, Plitt, Weiss, Holtzmanu, 
 Weizsacker. 
 
 (4.) Mark, Luke, Mattheiv. So Wilke (der Ur evangelist, 
 1838), B. Bauer. Comp. also Hitzig, iib. Johann. Markus 
 und seine Schriften, 1843 ; and especially Volkmar, die 
 Evangelien od. Markus u. d. Synopsis, etc., 1870, according 
 to whom the Gospel of Mark is said to be a self-conscious 
 didactic poem upon a historical basis ; the Gospel of Luke a 
 Pauline renewal of the original didactic writing against a 
 Jewish- Christian reaction ; while the Gospel of Matthew is a 
 combination of both in the universalistic Jewish - Christian 
 sense. See also Volkmar, Urspr. uns. Evangelien nach d. 
 Urkunden, 1866. 
 
 (5.) Luke, Matthew,. Mark. So Biisching, die vier Evan- 
 gelisten mit ihren eigenen Wortenzusammengesetzt, Hamb. 1766 ; 
 Evanson, The Dissonance of the Four generally received Evan- 
 gelists, 1792. 
 
 (6.) Luke, Mark, Matthew. So Vogel (in Gabler's Journ. 
 fur auserl. theol. Lit. I. p. 1 ff.). A more minute statement 
 and criticism of these various views belongs to the science of 
 Historico-Critical Introduction. It may here suffice to note 
 the following points. 
 
 Since the testimony of Papias regarding the work of Mark 
 furnishes no reason (see afterwards, note 1) for regarding this 
 work as different from our second canonical Gospel ; and since 
 our present Gospel of Matthew is not identical with the <rvv- 
 Ta*s TCOV \oyiav which the apostle composed, but is a nou-
 
 INTRODUCTION. 39 
 
 apostolic historic product which gradually grew up out of 
 this apostolic writing ; since, finally, Luke, who already pre- 
 supposes a manifold evangelic literature, and who wrote after 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, must be regarded in any case 
 as the last of the Synoptists, while the tradition, which 
 assigns the first place to Matthew, may be fully conceived and 
 explained from the very early existence of that apostolic avv- 
 rat5 TWV \oyl(ov, the Gospel of Mark thus most naturally 
 presents itself, on a historical consideration of the origin of 
 the three synoptic Gospels and that without the assumption, 
 which is devoid of historical testimony, and throws everything 
 back into uncertainty, of an original writing, 1 differing from 
 its present form as the one which is the oldest amongst the 
 three, and which alongside of oral tradition and other original 
 evangelic written sources, exercised a dominant influence upon 
 the others. With this assumption that Mark is the oldest of 
 the Synoptics, the distinctive internal character of this Gospel 
 is quite in harmony, the omission of all preliminary histories 
 which cannot be explained as resulting from design (according 
 to Baur, from neutrality), the beginning [of the history] with 
 the appearance of the Baptist, the as yet altogether unde- 
 veloped narrative of the temptation, the circumstantial treat- 
 ment of the history of the miracles, the freedom from legendary- 
 insertions in the history of the Passion which are found in 
 Matthew, the objective character which, nevertheless, indi- 
 
 1 Weisse, Ewald, Kostlin, Eeuss, Scholten, and several others. It has been 
 sought to determine the unknown magnitude of an original Mark, against which 
 Weiss and Klostermann have also decidedly declared themselves, partly by means 
 of a multitude of interpolations (comp. also Wilke and Volkmar) which our 
 Mark contains, partly by means of many large omissions which it is said to have 
 experienced, partly by the assumption of many variations in expression, and in 
 the setting forth of individual details. Holtzmann reduces the literary treat- 
 ment which this original writing received through Mark (1) to abbreviations 
 of the discourses, and to the passing over of minutiae in the narratives ; (2) to 
 an important abbreviation at the beginning, and a great gap, occasioned by the 
 Sermon on the Mount, with which, at the same time, two miracles have fallen 
 out ; (3) to brief explanatory additions and insertions. Weizsacker goes further 
 in comparing the evangelic fundamental document, which he assumes, with the 
 present Mark. Wittichen, too, finds in the latter a. redaction of the fundamental 
 document ; while Scholten brings out the original Mark only after many arbi- 
 trary excisions.
 
 40 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 cates the theological design and method, and especially the 
 original stamp of direct liveliness and picturesque clearness of 
 style and description. " This enamel of the fresh flower, this 
 full pure life of the materials" (Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 204), can- 
 not be explained from the " tendency towards what is drastic 
 and striking " (Kahnis), or from a purely " subjective manner 
 on the part of the author " (Kostlin), and is not reconcilable 
 with the assumption of a compilatory treatment ; while the 
 peculiar omission, moreover, and abbreviation on the one side, 
 and the numerous, more circumstantial narratives and indi- 
 vidual features on the other, which Mark exhibits, when 
 compared with Matthew, would be conceivable neither psycho- 
 logically nor historically, if Mark were the copyist and 
 extractor of Matthew (or even of Matthew and Luke). See 
 especially Weiss, Holtzmann, Weizsacker, Klostermann. The 
 Gospel of Mark, which, agreeably to its extent, arrangement, 
 and presentation of the gospel material, flowed most directly 
 from the early Christian tradition, must have preceded our 
 present Gospel of Matthew, and it is only the actual composi- 
 tion of the Apostle, Matthew's collection of sayings, which can 
 be regarded as the source which Mark, and that with the inde- 
 pendence of his peculiar object, which did not go in quest of 
 copious accounts of discourses, made use of from Matthew. His 
 Gospel, moreover, had the authority of Peter in its favour (see 
 the fragment of Papias) ; and it is all the more explicable, when 
 the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew gradually formed itself amongst 
 the Christians of Palestine out of the Apostle Matthew's col- 
 lection of sayings, that it obtained a very substantial influ- 
 ence not only upon the shaping of this itself as to contents 
 and form, but was also, at its final redaction and subsequent 
 translation into the Greek language, made use of in such a way 
 that the community even of expressions, which appears so often 
 in the portions that are common, is thereby explained, exactly as 
 at a later time again Luke had the Gospel of Mark also as one 
 of his sources, and by the manner in which he made use of 
 it, might make it appear as if it occupied a middle position 
 between the first and third Gospels, borrowing in a dependent 
 manner from both ; a view by which a crying injustice is done
 
 INTRODUCTION. 41 
 
 to Mark under the domination of the Griesbachian hypothesis l 
 (especially, also, by de Wette, Baur, Kostlin, Bleek, Keim). 
 If accordingly, besides oral tradition, the avvrafys T&V 
 \oylc0v of the Apostle Matthew, and our Gospel of Mark, are 
 to be regarded as the chief Christian sources of our first 
 Gospel, to the latter of which sources the relation of our 
 Matthew is often directly that of omission and extraction, 
 there yet must also have been other original evangelic writings 
 in existence, which were worked up along with these when 
 the Gospel was moulding itself into shape. Such individual 
 writings are certainly to be recognised in the genealogy and 
 in the preliminary history, and though less certainly deter- 
 minable, yet also not to be denied in the further course of the 
 history. The uniformity of the linguistic stamp, which exists 
 in general, finds its sufficient explanation partly in the final 
 redaction which preceded the translation, partly in the unity 
 of the translator. 
 
 EEMARK 1. The testimony of the Presbyter John (not of the 
 Evangelist John, as Zahn, Biggenbach, and Klostermann think), 
 in Papias, regarding Mark, as quoted in Eusebius iii. 39, is as 
 follows: "Mdpxog fjt,iv,'tpfjc l ^vsvrftg Tlsrpov ysvoftevog, oaa C/AVTJ- 
 p6riu<ft1 dxpi(3ug e y p a. -^/ f v, ov f&evroi rdt*t/, TO, I/TO rov Xpierov 
 ra % Kpa^divra- ovrs yap yxov-Gi rov xvpiov o'vre irapr)- 
 f V avrGJ, var'epov dt, ug tpyv, Herpw, og irpog rag y^pfiag 
 rag diftaffxa'kiag, dXX' ou^ uairtp ffuvra^iv ruv xvp/a- 
 Xoywv (al. "koyiuv, as Laemmer reads), "flare 
 ovSfv jjfAaprt Md.px.og ovrug svia, ypd-^ug ug dirtfAvrifAovtuo'sv 
 tvbg yap eiroiriaaro vpovoiav, rov fj,qdtv uv qxouffe ffapaXiire/'v ?j 
 v^suffaff^a/ n iv aitroTg- TaDra [Atv ovv ieropr^ra.1 rOj IlaT/a 
 nip} rov Mdpxou." This statement, now, in the opinion of Cred- 
 ner (compare also Schleiermaeher in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1832, 
 p. 758 ff.), Schneckenburger, Weisse, Schwegler, Baur, Kostlin, 
 
 1 Lachmann, N. T., ed. maj. Praef. p. xvi., appropriately says that this hypo- 
 thesis represents Mark as " ineptissimum desultorem, qui nunc taedio, modo 
 cupiditate, turn negligentia, denique vecordi studio, inter evangelia Matthaei et 
 Lucae incertus feratur atque oberret. " The most thorough demonstration of its 
 inaccuracy, see in Holtzmann, p. 113 ff. Compare also the whole of his excellent 
 section upon the linguistic character of the Synoptists (p. 271 ff.). The correct 
 recognition of the linguistic peculiarities of the three decidedly excludes any 
 mechanical compilation.
 
 42 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 and others, is said not to be appropriate to our Gospel of Mark, 
 because */?. in general, is a feature that is applicable to it. 
 According to Baur, the work meant by Papias is to be conceived 
 of as after the fashion of the Clementine Homilies ; according to 
 Kostlin, as a Petrine gospel, containing for the most part dis- 
 courses of Jesus ; according to Ewald and Hilgenfeld, its con- 
 tents were at least of greater extent than our Mark. But the 
 meaning of the above passage is as follows : After Mark had 
 become the interpreter, i.e. not the translator (Grimm in the 
 Stud. u. Kritik. 1872, p. 686), but the secretary of Peter, he 
 committed to writing so much of what had either been spoken or 
 done by Christ as his memory enabled him to recall, although not 
 in the order of historical succession. He could not have adopted 
 the latter plan, because he had been neither a hearer nor a 
 follower of the Lord ; but at a later date, as mentioned (ut dixi, 
 namely, in the words tpwv. Tlsrpov yw6/u,.\ he became a follower 
 of Peter, " who regulated his doctrinal teaching according to the 
 retirements of the occasion, though not in such a way as if he 
 had intended to set forth the discourses of the Lord in an orderly 
 combination. Mark therefore committed no error in having 
 written down some things in the shape that his recollection 
 presented * them to him ; for one thing he made of importance, 
 to omit nothing of what he had heard (from Peter), and to 
 falsify none of tlie statements." The eypa-^tv, mentioned at the 
 beginning of the statement, refers then to the writing down 
 which immediately followed the hearing of the addresses of Peter, 
 which might take place ou rd%si, not according to historical 
 order, but only in the form of notices, in the fashion of Adver- 
 saria. The ypa-^ai;, on the other hand, that follows, refers to 
 the later composition of the Gospel, as clearly appears from the 
 ".MIO, which stands beside it (in opposition to the preceding c<ra). 
 This tvia, however, brings into prominence some things, out of 
 the entire contents of his Gospel, which might, indeed, have 
 been expected to be given in a different way from that in which 
 Mark's memory recalled them, i.e. in a better pragmatic arrange- 
 
 1 Namely, without bringing this ? into the historically connected arrange- 
 ment. "We might also explain ui *-tpvtif*,. : as he has related it in his treatise 
 (comp. Plato, Theag. p. 121 D, Tim. p. 20 E, Crit. 110 B ; Xenophon, 
 Cyr. viii. 2. 13 ; Demosthenes, 345. 10. al.), i.e. in no better order. But the 
 above view is to be preferred on account of the correlation with ifiiti{*.iviv<r<i. 
 Observe, moreover, that it is not said that Mark wrote only *, and that 
 therefore he in general wrote incompletely (so still Weizsacker, p. 29) ; but that 
 he wrote some things in such way, etc. Kostlin, Weiss, Klostennann, have taken 
 the right view.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 43 
 
 ment and connection ; but in reference to which the presbyter 
 justifies the evangelist on the ground of the accidental, frag- 
 mentary style and fashion in which his notices regarding the 
 matter of the Gospel originated. It is not, then, to the gospel 
 writing of Mark as a whole, but only to a few individual 
 portions of it (tvia), that the presbyter denies the property of 
 rd^ig ; and he explains this defect, and offers an excuse for it. 1 
 If, then, there is no ground stated in the words of Papias for 
 any intention to point out in the Gospel of Mark generally a 
 deficiency in definite arrangement (Ebrard, Reuss), or at least 
 a deficiency in closeness of succession, perhaps also in chrono- 
 logical certainty (Zahn), these words cannot, on the other 
 side, serve also to prove that our present Gospel is not intended. 
 The ou 7-d^si, seeing it is limited only to some things, is to be left 
 entirely in its objective accuracy, as an attested defect in the 
 Gospel of Mark, without our having to refer this attestation to 
 a comparison lying at its basis with another Gospel, espe- 
 cially with John (Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 206) or with Matthew 
 (Ebrard, Hilgenfeld, Weiss, Bleek, Holtzmann, and several 
 others), or even with the work of Papias (Weisse). The in- 
 ference, moreover, is not to be drawn from the present passage, 
 that the alleged original Mark contained chiefly discourses of 
 
 Christ (Kostlin), since oup vamp avvrct iv T % y xvptaxuv KoiovfLivog 
 Aoy wv characterizes apotiori the instructions of Peter, and that 
 in a negative manner in comparison with Papias' own work, 
 which had the Xoyia, as its contents. Peter, in his di&aaxaMai, 
 certainly communicated the Lord's sayings, but in a sporadic 
 manner, according to the measure of the varying needs [of his 
 
 1 Compare also Klostermann, d. Markusevang. p. 327, who, however, mis- 
 understands the introduction to the passage of Papias, in interpreting, in a way 
 which is linguistically incorrect, o<ra, which is quantitative, as qualitative (con- 
 sequently, as if ola. stood in the passage), and ippv*. n. ye*ip. as a modal defini- 
 tion of oaa. . . . typx^'r (so also Grau, I. p. 178), where ipftwturvs is said to be 
 & figurative expression, in so far as Mark presented to his hearers the addresses 
 of Peter, which they themselves could not hear ; and thereby was, as it were, 
 an interpreter of the apostle. Apart from this extension of the meaning of Ipptit- 
 turris, which is forced and artificial, and more appropriate to a poetic context 
 than to one of so simple a nature, and which is opposed, moreover, to the -testi- 
 monies of the Fathers, such as Irenaeus, iii. 10. 6, Tertullian, c. Marc. iv. 5, al., 
 Klostermann explains the passage as if the words were : Mapxos p\v ipfwuwrii; 
 
 Uirpou iyimro, ola. ipttiponvfiv axpifica; ypai^as, or : M. pi* ola. tpinp. axpifius typaij'tr, 
 
 ouTUf ipptiviurris uirpau y.epiva s . Klostermann also errs in this, that he ex- 
 punges the comma after ov pi* T|/, and, again, supplies axpifius sypa-^n after 
 x-pa.%0i*'ra.. "Or* lju.ytip.ov. is, rather, an intermediate clause : and the TO, * 
 TO Xpurrou, etc. , is that which Mark wrote axpifius, v pivroi ra%u.
 
 44 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 hearers], but not in such a way as if he had wished to produce 
 a tfy-ag/j of them ; and he connected them in so far with the 
 relative historical instructions, that his companion Mark might 
 write down from the addresses of the apostle to which he had 
 listened, not merely rot. virb ro\j Xpmrov ^i^dsvrct, but ret 
 divra % 
 
 KEMARK 2. With regard to the order of the synoptic 
 Gospels in respect of their origin, the tradition of the church is 
 unanimous for the priority of Matthew, and almost unanimous 
 for assigning a middle position to Mark, in opposition to which 
 there is only the isolated notice in Eusebius vi. 1 4, by Clement 
 of Alexandria, in favour of the hypothesis of Griesbach : vpoys- 
 ypdipda,! sXfyev ruv svayystJuv TO. ^ipts^ovra. rcej ymaXoy/. That 
 unanimous tradition, however, is reconcilable also with our 
 view regarding the origin of the Gospels, in so far, namely, that 
 Matthew in reality wrote before Mark, i.e. his evvrafys ruv 
 hoyicuv, out of which our present Gospel then grew up. To this 
 relation to the first written source of the Gospel is the origin 
 of that tradition to be referred:- Altogether without reason has 
 Baur, in the theol. Jahrb. 1853, p. 93, with the approval of 
 Volkinar, interpreted the predicate of Mark, 6 xoXo/SoSaxruXoj 
 (with the mutilated finger), in the Philosophumena Origenis, 
 which cannot, without arbitrariness, be understood otherwise 
 than quite in its proper sense (see Ewaldi Jahrb. VII. p. 197), 
 of the epitomatory character of the Gospel 
 
 KEMARK 3. Although the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the 
 Synoptics, and has apparently preserved in part purer and more 
 original traditions than the Gospel of Matthew, it may still be 
 partially inferior in point of originality to the tradition which 
 has stamped its impress upon the latter, since Mark could mainly 
 work up his notices, gathered from his connection with Peter, 
 only by help of tradition ; and since, on the other side, the Gospel 
 of Matthew was moulded into shape gradually, and in Palestine 
 itself, so that in any case, even apart from the apostolic collec- 
 tion of sayings, which passed over substantially into this Gospel, 
 many older elements of tradition, and older documentary 
 portions than any in Mark, may have been preserved in it. To 
 the critical comparison of the narratives given in Matthew 
 with those of Mark, no hindrance can then be interposed by 
 the placing of the latter first; as in Mark in comparison with 
 Matthew, so also in Matthew in comparison with Mark, we 
 may recognise more original elements, and thus, in so far, 
 partly assign to the first also a primary position.
 
 SUPERSCRIPTION. 
 
 Evay<ye\iov Kara Mardalov. 
 
 THIS superscription has the oldest and best witnesses in its 
 favour. Kara Mar&a?ov (B K, Codd. Lat.) is in conformity with 
 this, because whole volumes bore the title of EuayyfX/oi/. All 
 longer superscriptions are of later date, as : rb.x. M. suayyix/ov ; 
 TO x. M. cLyiov fjayy'eXiov ; tvayyiXiov sx rou x. M. ; sx ro\J x. M. 
 
 f-uayyeA/ov. Both the latter are derived from Lectionaries. 
 Instead of MardaTog, Lachmann and Tischendorf write MaddaToc, 
 after B D K. 
 
 EvayyeXtov signifies in the old language a present given in 
 return for joyful news (Horn. Od. 152, 166; Plut. Ages. 33 ; 
 2 Sam. iv. 10 ; Cic. Att. ii. 12), or a, sacrifice, offered up for 
 the same (Xen. Hell. i. 6. 26, iv. 3. 7; Aristoph. Eq. 656 ; 
 Diod. Sic. xv. 74; Pollux, v. 129). First in later Greek only 
 does it also mean the good news itself (Plut. Serf. 1 1 ; Lucian. 
 Asin. 26 ; Appian, B. G. iv. 20 ; LXX. 2 Sam. xviii. 25). 
 So throughout the N. T. (corresponding to the Hebrew TjVK'a), 
 where it signifies /car' e^o^u, the joyful news of the Messiah's 
 kingdom (Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; Acts xx. 24), 
 which news preached Jesus as the Messiah. So also in the 
 superscriptions of the Gospels, which present the know- 
 ledge of salvation by Jesus as the Messiah in historical form, 
 in the form of a historical demonstration of the Messiah- 
 ship of Jesus. The designation of our writings as news of 
 salvation ty the Messiah (eva<yye\ia) is derived from the most 
 remote ecclesiastical antiquity. See Justin. Apol. i. 66, Dial, 
 c. Tryph. 100. Kara Mardalov] The knowledge of Messianic 
 
 45
 
 46 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 salvation, as it was shaped (in writing) ty Mattheiv. In Vil- 
 loison's Scholia on Homer we have the expressions : "0/477/309 
 Kara ^Apiarap^ov, Kara ZrjvoSorov, Kara 'Apiarrotydv'rjv. There 
 is thus also a evaryyeXiov Kara Mardatov, Kara Mdptcov, and 
 so on. Comp. Euseb. iii. 24 : Mardaios . . . ypa<j>f) TrapaSov? 
 TO /car avrov evayy. Matthew is in this way designated as 
 the author of this written form of the Gospel, which in itself 
 is one (Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 87). It is incorrect, 
 however, to maintain, as do others, and even Kuinoel, after 
 older writers, that Kara denotes simply the genitive. For if 
 so, then, firstly, this case, which certainly most obviously 
 suggested itself, and which would also have been analogous to 
 Paul's expression, TO evayyekiov (MOV (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25), 
 would have been employed ; secondly, the Hebrew *? of author- 
 ship, which is to be viewed as the dative of connection, is not 
 applicable here, because the LXX. does not express it by 
 Kara ; thirdly, even in the passages which are quoted from 
 Greek writers, the genitival relation is not contained directly, 
 but is only derived in the relation of the thing to the persons, 
 as in the numerous passages in Polybius (Schweighauser's 
 Lex. p. 323); comp. already, Thuc. vi. 16. 5 : eV T&> Kar 
 avrovs fii(p ; Bernhardy, p. 241 ; Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 4 ; 
 Buttmann, N. T. Gramm. p. 137 [E. T. pp. 156, 157]. See 
 also 2 Mace. ii. 13 : ev TO*? virofjivr) Barter pots TOI? Kara rov 
 NeefjLidv, and Grimm on the passage. It is quite opposed to 
 history (Introduction, sec. 2) when others (Eckermann in the 
 theolog. Beitr. 5 Bd. 2 St. p. 106 ff.) fall into the opposite 
 extreme, and draw the inference from Kara that the com- 
 position is not here ascribed to the evangelists, but that all 
 that is said is, that the writings are composed after them, i.e. 
 after their manner. So Faustus the Manichaean in Augustine, 
 c. Faust, xvii. 2, xxvii. 2, xxxiii. 3 ; Credner's Einleit. 88- 
 90 ; Jachmann in Illgen's Zeitschr. 1842, 2, p. 13 ; Volkinar, 
 who sees himself driven, by the fact that Luke and John were 
 the authors of the third and fourth Gospels, to the arbitrary 
 assumption that the superscriptions of the two first Gospels 
 are to be regarded as original, while those of the third and 
 fourth were intentionally added by a third hand for the sake
 
 CHAP. I. 47 
 
 of uniformity, after the proper meaning of the Kara in the 
 two first had come to be lost. Even in the titles of the 
 apocryphal gospels (evayyeX. KaO' 'JE/Spatou?) Kara designates 
 not the readers, for whom they were intended, but the gospel, 
 as it had shaped itself under the hands of the Hebrews, etc., 
 the gospel as redacted ~by the, Hebrews, in this sense also shortly 
 termed 'Efipa'ifcov (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13). 
 
 CHAPTEE L 
 
 Vv. 1-17. In the writing of the names there are manifold 
 variations in MSS., verss., and Fathers. Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have in vv. 1, 6, 17 Aaug/3, which is attested throughout as the 
 manner of writing the word by the oldest and best MSS. ; ver. 5. 
 'lujStf, after B C A K, verss. Fathers ; ver. 8 f. 'ofyiav, 'ofyla.;, 
 after B A K ; ver. 10. 'A/AW?, after B C M A K, verss. Epiph. ; 
 ver. 10 f. 'lusetav, 'luatlag, after B A tf, Sahid. ; ver. 15. Uadddv, 
 after B*. Lachmann has, besides, in ver. 5, Boos, after C, and 
 Tischendorf (8th ed.) Boss, after B K ; Lachm. and Tisch. (8th 
 ed.) in ver. 7 f. 'A<td<p, after B C K, verss. Ver. 6. 6 ^asiXsvg, 
 which B r K, 1, 71, Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arm. al omit (deleted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch.), has the preponderance of voices in its 
 favour ; its emphasis being overlooked on account of what 
 precedes, it was regarded as superfluous, and was easily passed 
 over. Ver. 11. After fyewqffi, M U Curss. have rlv 'iwaxs/X 
 'iwaxg/> ds ty'&wnffs. A later interpolation (yet already before 
 Irenaeus), but put in circulation after Porphyry had already 
 reproached the church with a defective genealogy. Ver. 1 8. 
 B C P S Z A K, Curss. Eus. Ath. Max. have ysviaig. So also 
 Lachm. and Tisch. Others : ytw^aic, which has been adopted 
 by Elz. Scholz, and Rinck. The former is to" be preferred, 
 because the latter might very easily arise from the frequently 
 preceding lym^ and lyfwjjtoj, and might also appear more 
 appropriate to the connection (partus modus). Comp. ii. 1, 
 Luke i. 14. Ver. 19. vapad&iy^aTisai] Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 diiypariffui, only, indeed, after B Z X ** I, Schol. on Orig., and 
 Euseb., but correctly, as fo/y/iar/^w is preserved only in Col. 
 ii. 15, while Kapaduy(j,a.Ti > u (Heb. vi. 6) is common in the LXX. 
 and elsewhere, and suggested itself, therefore, as the better 
 known and stronger expression (comp. Scholion in Tisch.). 
 Ver. 24. dtc/epdsif] Lachm. and Tisch. (8th ed.) have typOst:, after
 
 48 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 B C * Z K, Curss. Epiph. The less current compound verb gave 
 place to the very common (comp. ii. 14) simple form. Ver. 25. 
 riv uiov avrrj$ rbv npuroroKov] Lachm. and Tisch. have simply 
 u/o'v, after B Z N, 1, 33, Copt. Sahid. Syr cu - Codd. It. Ambr. al. 
 Certainly (comp. especially Bengel) the Eeceived reading lias 
 the appearance of having originated from Luke ii. 7 (where 
 there is no various reading). The witnesses, however, in favour 
 of the Recepta greatly preponderate-; the virginity of Mary, 
 also (against which, according to the testimony of Jerome, 
 doubts were raised in consequence of the ^rpwroVoxov), certainly 
 more probably suggested the removal of the -rpwroroxov than its 
 insertion. Comp. Mill and Wetstein. Finally, had v!6v merely 
 been the original reading in the present passage, the npuToroxov 
 in Luke ii. 7 could scarcely have remained unassailed. 
 
 Ver. 1. jBt/3\o9 ^eveo-eeo?] .Book of origin ; Trinpin nap, Gen. 
 ii. 4, v. 1, LXX. ; comp. Gen. vi. 9, xi. 10. The first verse 
 contains the title, of the, genealogy which follows in w. 2-16, 
 which contains the origin of Christ from the Messianic line 
 that runs on from the time of Abraham (genitive of contents). 
 So Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Paulus, Kuinoel, 
 Gratz, de Wette, Baumgarten - Crusius, and others. The 
 evangelist adopted the genealogical piece of writing (/3//3Xo<?), 
 and which " velut extra corpus historiae prominet " (Grotius), 
 without alteration, as .he found it, and with its title also. 
 Others (Bede, Maldonatus, Schleussner) take -<yeve<ri<i as mean- 
 ing life, and regard the words as a superscription to the 
 entire Gospel : commentarius de vita Jesu. Contrary to the 
 usage of the language ; for in Judith xii. 1 8, and Wisdom 
 vii. 5, 7ez/e(7K? denotes the. origin, the commencing point of 
 life ; in Plato, Phaedr. p. .2 52 D, it means existence ; in 
 Hierocles, p. 298, the creation, or that which is created ; and 
 in Jas. iii. 6, rpo^o? rr}? <yevicrew<> is the T/JO^O? which begins 
 with birth. And if we were to suppose, with Olearius (comp. 
 Hammond and Vitringa, also Euthym. Zigabenus), that the 
 superscription liber de originibus Jesu Christi was selected first 
 with reference to the commencement of the history, to which 
 the further history was then appended with a distinctive 
 designation (comp. Catonis Censorii Origines), as ninTin also 
 confessedly does not always announce a mere genealogy (Gen.
 
 CHAP. I. L 49 
 
 v. 1 ff., xi. 27 if.), nay, may even stand without any genea- 
 logical list following it (Gen. ii. 4, xxxvii. 2 ff.), so the 
 immediate connection in which /8t/3\o<? . . . Xpiarov stands 
 with viou Aav., viov 'A (3 p., here necessitates us to think from 
 the very beginning, in harmony with the context, of the 
 genealogy merely ; and the commencement of ver. 18, where 
 the yevea-ix in the narrower sense, the actual origination, is 
 now related, separates the section vv. 1825 distinctly from 
 the preceding genealogical list, so that the first words of 
 chap, ii., roy Be 'Iija-ov yevvydevTos, connect themselves, as 
 carrying on the narrative, with vv. 1825, where the origin 
 of Jesus, down to His actual birth, is related. This is, at the 
 same time, in answer to Fritzsche, who translates it as volumen 
 de J. Christi originibus, and, appealing to the words in the 
 beginning of ch. ii., regards /3//3\o? yevecrea)*;, K.T.\., as the super- 
 scription of the first chapter (so also Delitzsch), as well as to 
 Olshausen (see also Ewald and Bleek), who takes it as the super- 
 scription of the two first chapters. If the Israelite set a high 
 value, in his own individual instance, upon a series of ancestors 
 of unexceptionable pedigree (Rom. xi. 1 ; Phil. iiL 5 ; Josephus, 
 c. Ap. ii. 7; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 178), how much more 
 must such be found to be the case on the side of the Messiah ! 
 'IT/CTOU Xptarov] The name JWirP (Ex. xxiv. 13 ; Num. xiii. 16), 
 
 or, after the exile, &W (Neh. vii. 7), ^OJLJ, was very common, 1 
 
 and denotes Jehovah is helper. This meaning, contained in 
 the name Jesus (cornp. Sir. xlvi. 1), came to full personal 
 manifestation in Christ, see ver. 21. Xpunos corresponds to 
 the Hebrew T^D, anointed, which was used partly of priests, 
 Lev. iv. 3, v. 16, vi. 15, Ps. cv. 15 ; partly of kings, 1 Sam. 
 xxiv. 7, 11, Ps. ii 2, Isa. xlv. 1, cornp. Dan. ix. 25, 26; as 
 a prophet also, according to 1 Kings xix. 16, might be an 
 anointed person. From the time of the Book of Daniel for 
 throughout the whole later period also, down to the time of 
 Christ, the Messianic idea was a living one amongst the people 2 
 
 1 Seethe different persons who bear this name in Keim, Gescht. J. I. p. 384 ff. 
 
 2 Comp. Langen, d. Judenthum in Palaestind zur Zeit Christi, 1866. "Weis- 
 senbach, Jesu in regno cod. diynitas, 1868, p. 47 ff. . 
 
 MATT. D
 
 50 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 this theocratic name, and that as a king's name, was 
 applied, according to the Messianic explanation of the second 
 Psalm, to the king of David's race, whose coming, according to 
 the predictions of the prophets, was ever more ardently looked 
 for, but with hopes that became ever purer, ivho was to raise the 
 nation to its theocratic consummation, to restore the kingdom to 
 its highest power and glory, and extend his blessings to the 
 heathen as well, while, as a necessary condition to all this, He 
 was, in a religious and moral respect, to work out the true spiritual 
 government of God, and bring it to a victorious termination. 
 See on the development of the idea and hope of the Messiah, 
 especially Ewald, Gesch. Christ, p. 133 ff., ed. 3 [E. T. by 
 Glover, p. 140 ff.] ; Bertheau in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th. IV. p. 
 595 ff., V. p. 486 ff.; Riehm in d. Stud. u. Kritik. 1865, 
 I. and III. [E. T., Clark, Edinburgh, 1876]. According to 
 B. Bauer (comp. Volkmar, Rel. Jesu, p. 113), Jesus is said to 
 have first developed the Messianic idea out of His own con- 
 sciousness, the community to have clothed it in figures, and 
 then to have found these figures also in the Old Testament, 
 while the Jews first received the idea from the Christians ! 
 In answer to this view, which frivolously inverts the historical 
 relation, see Ebrard, Kritik. d. evang. Gesch., ed. 3, | 120 ff. 
 [E. T. 2d ed., Clark, Edinburgh, p. 485 f.] ; and on the 
 Messianic ideas of the Jews at the time of Christ, especially 
 Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum libris eorum paulo ante et paulo 
 post Christum natum conscriptis illustratus, 1869 ; also Holtz- 
 mann in d. Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, p. 389 ff., according to 
 whom, however, the original self-consciousness of the Lord 
 had been matured at an earlier date, before He found * for it, 
 in His confession of Himself as the Messiah, a name that 
 might be uttered before His contemporaries, and an objective 
 representation that was conceivable for Himself. The official 
 name X/JKTTO?, for Jesus, soon passed over in the language of 
 
 1 In connection with this view, we would be obliged to acquiesce in the belief 
 of a very radical misunderstanding, which would permeate the gospel history 
 from the baptism and the witness of John, namely, that the evangelists " appre- 
 hended as a beginnina what was rather a result." On exegetical grounds this 
 cannot be justified.
 
 CHAP. I. 1. 51 
 
 the Christians into a nomcn proprium, in which shape it 
 appears almost universally in the Epistles and in the Acts 
 of the Apostles, with or without the article, after the nature of 
 proper names in general. In the Gospels, X/Jto-ro? stands as a 
 proper name only in Matt. i. 1, 16, 17, 18; Mark i. 1; Johni. 
 1 7 ; and appropriately, because not congruous to the develop- 
 ment of the history and its connection, but spoken from the 
 standpoint of the much later period of its composition, in 
 which 'iT/croO? X/3to-ro<? had been already long established as 
 a customary name in the language of Christians ; as here also 
 (comp. Mark i. 1) in the superscription, the whole of the great 
 name 'Ir/croO? Xpiaros is highly appropriate, nay, necessary. 
 Further, Jesus could be the bearer of the idea of Messiah, for 
 the realization of which He knew from the beginning that He 
 was sent, in no other way than in its national definiteness, 
 therefore also without the exclusion of its political element, 
 the thought of which, however, and this appears most fully 
 in John, was transfigured by Him into the idea of the highest 
 and universal spiritual government of God, so that the religious 
 and moral task of the Messiah was His clear aim from the 
 very outset, in striving after and attaining which He had to 
 prepare the way for the Messiah's kingdom, and finally had 
 to lay its indestructible, necessary foundation (founding of the 
 new covenant) by His atoning death, while He pointed to the 
 future, which, according to all the evangelists, was viewed by 
 Himself as near at hand, for the final establishment, glory, 
 and power of the kingdom, when He will solemnly appear 
 (Parousia) as the Messiah who is Judge and Ruler. viov 
 AaveiS] for, according to prophetic promise, He must be a 
 descendant of David, otherwise He would not have been the 
 Messiah, John vii. 42 ; Rom. i. 3 ; Acts xiii. 22 f . ; the 
 Messiah is called pre-eminently "JTn |3, Matt. xii. 23, xxi. 9, 
 xxii. 42 ; Luke xviii. 38. Comp. Wetstein, and Babylon. 
 Sanhedr. fol. 97. David is designated as Abraham's de- 
 scendant, because the genealogical table must begin nationally 
 with Abraham, who, according to the promise, is the original 
 ancestor of the series of generations (GaL iii. 16), so that 
 consequently the venerable chiefs of this genealogy immediately
 
 52 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 appear in the superscription. Luke's point of view (iii. 23) 
 goes beyond the sphere of the nation, while Mark (I.e.} 
 sets out from the theocratico- dogmatic conception of the 
 Messiah. 
 
 Vv. 2, 3. K. T. dSeXijboi/? avr.] " Promissiones fuere in familia 
 Israelis," Bengel. Ver. 3. These twin sons of Judah were 
 illegitimate, Gen. xxxviii. 16-30. The Jews were inclined 
 to find a good side to the transgressions of their ancestors, and 
 alleged here, e.g., that Thamar entertained the idea of becom- 
 ing an ancestress of kings and prophets. See Wetstein and 
 Fritzsche. The reason why Thamar is here brought forward, 
 as well as Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba in vv. 5, 6 (for OVK 
 rjv e#o9 ryeveaXoyeiadat yvvaiKa^, Euth. Zigabenus), is not " ut 
 tacilae Jtidaeorum objectioni occurreretur," Wetstein ; for the 
 reproach of illegitimate birth was not raised against Jesus in 
 the apostolic age, nor probably before the second century 
 (see Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 526 f.), and would be very 
 indelicately referred to by the naming of these women; nor 
 the point of view of exactness (Fritzsche), which would not 
 explain why these women and no others were mentioned; least 
 of all the tendency to cast into the shade the Jewish genea- 
 logical tree (Hilgenfeld). In keeping with the whole design 
 of the genealogical register, which must terminate in the 
 wonderful one who is born of woman, that reason cannot, with- 
 out arbitrariness, be found save in this, that the women named 
 entered in an extraordinary manner into the mission of con- 
 tinuing the genealogy onwards to the future Messiah, and 
 might thereby appear to the genealogist and the evangelist 
 as typi Mariae (Paulus, de Wette, Ebrard ; comp. Grotius on 
 ver. 3), and in so doing the historical stains which cleaved to 
 them (to Ruth also, in so far as she was a Moabitess) were 
 not merely fully compensated by the glorious approval which 
 they found precisely in the light in which their history was 
 regarded by the nation (Heb. xi. 31; Jas. ii. 25), but far 
 outweighed and even exalted to extraordinary honours. See 
 the numerous Rabbinical passages, relating especially to Thamar, 
 Rahab, and Ruth, in Wetstein in loc., and on Heb. xi. 31. 
 Olshausen is too indefinite : " in order to point to the mar-
 
 CHAP. I. 5, 6. 53 
 
 vellons gracious leading of God in the ordering of the line of 
 the Messiah." Luther and some of the Fathers drag in here 
 what lies very remote : because Christ interested Himself in 
 sinners ; Lange, more remote still, " in order to point to the 
 righteousness which comes, not from external holiness, but 
 from faith ; " and Delitzsch (in Eudelbach and Guericke's 
 Zeitschrift, 1850, p. 575 f.), " because the sinless birth of Mary 
 was prepared throughout by sin" 
 
 Ver. 5. Boaz is also called, in Euth iv. 21 and 1 Chron. 
 ii. 11, son of Salma; but his mother Eahab is not mentioned. 
 The author without doubt drew from a tradition which was 
 then current, and presupposed as known (according to Ewald 
 it was apocryphal), which gave Salma as a wife to her who 
 had risen to honour by her conduct in Jericho (Heb. xi. 31 ; 
 Jas. ii. 25). The difficulties which, according to Eosenmiiller, 
 Kuinoel, and Gratz, arise from the chronology, namely, that 
 Eahab must have become a mother at seventy or eighty years 
 of age, are, considering the uncertainty of the genealogical 
 tradition, which already appears in Euth iv. 2 0, as well as the 
 freedom of Orientals in general with regard to genealogies, not 
 sufficient to justify here the assumption of some other Eahab. 
 According to Megill. f. 14, 2, and KoheletTi E. 8, 10, Joshua 
 married Eahab, a tradition which is not followed by our 
 genealogy. 
 
 Ver. 6. Tov AavelB rov fiaaiXea] Although an apposition 
 with the article follows the proper name, yet AaveiS also takes 
 the article, not for the sake of uniformity with the preceding 
 name (de Wette), but in order to designate David demonstra- 
 tively, as already marked out in ver. 1. In ver. 16, also, the 
 article before 'Iwo-r)<f>, which is accompanied by an apposition, 
 has, in keeping with the deep significance of his paternal 
 relation to Jesus, demonstrative power (Kiihner, II. p. 520). 
 The rov /Sao-tXea also, and the subsequent emphatic repetition 
 of 6 /Sao-tXew, are a distinction for David, with whom the 
 Messiah's genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity. rrj? 
 rov Ovpiov] Such methods of expression by the simple 
 genitive suppose the nature of the relationship in question 
 to be known, as here it is that of wife. Comp. Hectoris
 
 54 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Andromache, Luther's Katharina, and the like. See Kiihner, 
 II. p. 285 f. Winer, p. 178 [E. T. p. 237]. 
 
 Ver. 8. 'lopa/j, . . . 'O&av] Three kings, Ahaziah, Joaz, and 
 Amazia, are wanting between these (2 Kings viii. 24 ; 1 Chron. 
 iii. 11; 2 Chron. xxii. 1, 11, xxiv. 27). The common opinion 
 is that of Jerome, that the omission was made for the sake 
 of obtaining an equal division of the names, in order not to 
 go beyond the three Tesseradeeades. Such omissions were 
 nothing unusual: 1 Chron. viii. 1; Gen. xlvi. 21. See 
 Surenhusius, /3t/3A,. /cara\\. p. 97. Lightfoot, Hor. p. 181. 
 On the same phenomenon in the Book of Enoch, see Ewakl 
 in the Kieler Monatschrift, 1852, p. 520 f. The evangelist 
 accepted the genealogical list without alteration, just as he 
 found it; and the cause of that omission cannot be pointed out, 
 but probably was only, and that without special design, the 
 similarity of those names, in which way the omission also 
 which occurs in ver. 11 is to be explained. Ebrard and 
 Eiggenbach, erroneously introducing the point of view of 
 theocratic illegality (comp. Lange), are of opinion that 
 Matthew omitted the three kings for this reason, that Joram, 
 on account of his marriage with the daughter of Jezebel, and 
 of his conduct, had deserved that his posterity should be ex- 
 terminated down to the fourth generation (so already some of 
 the Fathers, Maldonatus, Spanheim, Lightfoot) ; that Matthew 
 accordingly declared the descendants of the heathen Jezebel, 
 down to the fourth generation, unworthy of succeeding to the 
 theocratic throne. This breaks down at once before the simple 
 eyevvyo-e. The omissions are generally not to be regarded as 
 consciously made, otherwise they would conflict with ver. 17 
 (Trda-ai), and would amount to a falsification. 
 
 Ver. 11. The son of Josiah was Joakim, and his son was 
 Jechoniah. Here, consequently, a link is wanting, and accord- 
 ingly several uncials, curss., and a few versions 1 contain the 
 supplement : 'leuerta? 8e e<yevvr}cre TOV 'laaxelfA' 'Ja>a/cei//, 
 
 1 Amongst the editions this interpolation has been received into the text by 
 Colinaeus, H. Stephens, and Er. Schmidt, also by Beza (1st and 2d) ; by Cas- 
 talio in his translation. It has been defended by Rinck, Lucub. crit. p. 245 f. ; 
 Ewald assumes that ver. 11 originally ran : 'la/<n'aj 5$ lym. T. 'luaxi/* *ai miit
 
 CHAP. I. 12. 55 
 
 8e eyevvrja-e TOV 'Ie%oviav (1 Chron. iii. 15, 16). The 
 omission is not, with Ebrard, to be explained from the circum- 
 stance that under Joakim the land passed under the sway of 
 a foreign power (2 Kings xxiv. 4), and that consequently the 
 theocratic regal right became extinct (against this arbitrary 
 view, see on ver. 8) ; but merely from a confusion between the 
 two similar names, which, at the same time, contributed to 
 the omission of one of them. This clearly appears from the 
 circumstance that, indeed, several brothers of Joakim are 
 mentioned (three, see 1 Chron. iii. 15), but not of Jechoniah. 
 Zedekiah is, indeed, designated in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1 as the 
 brother of the latter (and in 1 Chron. iii. 16 as his son), but 
 was his uncle (2 Kings xxiv. 1 7 ; Jer. xxxvii. 1). That our 
 genealogy, however, followed the (erroneous, see Bertheau, p. 
 430) statement in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, is not to be assumed 
 on account of the plural TOU? aSe\<oy<?, which rather points to 
 1 Chron. iii. 1 5 and the interchange with Joiakim. It is quite 
 in an arbitrary manner, finally, that Kuinoel has assigned to 
 the words ical . . . avrov their place only after 2a\a6lr)\, and 
 Fritzsche has even entirely deleted them as spurious. eVt 
 T?7<? perotfc. Ba/3v\d)vo<;] during (not about the time, Luther and 
 others) the migration. See Bemhardy, p. 246 ; Kiihner, II. 
 p. 430. The statement, however, is inexact, as Jechoniah was 
 carried away along with others (2 Kings xxiv. 15). The 
 genitive Ba/3v\. is used in the sense of et? BafivXwva. Comp. 
 Eurip. Ipli. T. 1073: 7% 7raTpc5a9 vo<rros. Matt. x. 5 : 
 6805 Mvuv; iv. 15, al. Winer, p/176 [E. T. p. 234]. 
 
 Ver. 12. Mera . . . /ieroi/c.] After the migration had taken 
 place. 1 Chron. iii. 16 ; 2 Kings xiv. 8 ; Joseph. Antt. x. 9. 
 Not to be translated " during the exile" (Krebs, Kypke), which 
 is quite opposed to the language. fjieroiKeala] change of abode, 
 migration ; consequently here, " the being carried away to 
 Babylon" not the sojourn in the exile itself, which would lead 
 to an erroneous view of the /uera. The above meaning is 
 yielded by the Hebrew npia, 1 Chron. v. 22 ; Ezek. xii. 11 ; 
 
 aSsX^ouy aurov- 'lua.Kifj. Si ly'iii. <rv 'li%ovtai> i<ri T?; f&'roix. Ba/3. The present 
 
 form of the text may be an old error of the copyists, occasioned by the similarity 
 of the two names.
 
 56 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 2 Kings xxiv. 16; Nah. iii. 10. Comp. the LXX. Anihol. 
 7. 731 (Leon. Tar. 79). The usual word in the classics is 
 /teTot/ofo-t? (Plato, Legg. 8. p. 850 A), also /ierot/cicr/xo? 
 (Plutarch. Popl. 22). 2a\adtij\] he is called in Luke iii. 27 
 a son of Neri and a grandson of Melchi ; a variation which, 
 like many others in both genealogies, is to be acknowledged, 
 and not put aside by the assumption of several individuals of the 
 same name, by the presupposing of levirate relationships (Hug, 
 Ebrard), or arbitrary attempts of any other kind. 1 Chron. 
 iii. 17. When, however, in Jer. xxii. 30 the father of Seal- 
 thiel is prophetically designated as "'TIS, the prophet himself 
 explains this in the sense that none of his descendants will sit 
 upon the throne of David. Comp. Paulus in loc., Hitzig on 
 Jerem. I.e. The Talmudists are more subtle, see Lightfoot in 
 loc. Moreover, according to 1 Chron. iii. 19, Pedaiah is want- 
 ing here between Salathiel and Zerubbabel. Yet Zerubbabel is 
 elsewhere also called the son of Salathiel (Ezra iii. 2, v. 2 ; 
 Hag. i. 1 ; Luke iii. 2 7), where, however, 1 Chron. iii. 1 9 
 is to be regarded as a more exact statement. See Bertheau. 
 Observe, moreover, that also according to 1 Chron. iii. both 
 men belong to the Solomonic line. 
 
 Ver. 13. None of the members of the genealogy after 
 Zerubbabel, whose son Abiud is not named in 1 Chron. iii. 1 9 f. 
 along with the others, occurs in the 0. T. The family of 
 David had already fallen into a humble position. But even 
 after the exile, the preservation and, relatively, the restoration 
 of the genealogies remained a subject of national, especially 
 priestly, concern ; comp. Joseph, c. Apion. This concern could 
 not but be only all the more lively and active in reference to 
 the house of David, with which the expectation of the Messiah 
 was always connected. 
 
 Ver. 16. 'Ia/ea>/3 . . . 'Iwo-^] In Luke iii. 24, Joseph is 
 called a son of Eli. This variation, also, cannot be set aside. 
 As in the case of most great men who have sprung from an 
 obscure origin, so also in the case of Jesus, the ancestors of 
 no reputation were forgotten, and were given by tradition in 
 varying form. The view, however (Epiphanius, Luther, 
 Calovius in answer to Grotius, Bengel, Eosenmiiller, Paulus,
 
 CHAP. I. 16. 57 
 
 Gratz, Hofmann, Olshausen, Ebrard, Lauge, Arnoldi, Bisping, 
 Auberlen), that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, and conse- 
 quently that in Luke iii. 24 Joseph is entered as son-in-law of 
 Eli, or Eli as maternal grandfather of Jesus (Spanheim, Wieseler, 
 Riggenbach in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1855, p. 585 ff., Krafft), 
 is just as baseless and harmonistically forced an invention 
 as that of Augustine, de consen. ev. ii. 3 ; or of Wetstein, 
 Delitzsch, that Joseph was the adopted son of Eli ; or that of 
 Julius Africanus in Eusebius t 7, that Matthew gives the 
 proper father of Joseph, while Luke gives his legal father 
 according to the law of Levirate marriage (Hug), or conversely 
 (Schleiermacher, after Ambrose and others). The contradic- 
 tions which our genealogy presents to that of Luke are to be 
 impartially recognised. See a more minute consideration of 
 this in Luke after ch. iii It is well known that the Jews 
 (the Talmud, and in Origen, c. Celsum, i. 32) call Jesus the 
 son of Pandira 1 or Panthera. See Paulus, exeget. Handb. 
 I. p. 290; Mtzsch in the Slud. u. Kritik 1840, 1; Keim, 
 Leben Jesu, I. p. 368; Ewald, Gesch. Christi, p. 187, ed. 3. 
 avSpa] is to be rendered husband, and not (Olshausen, 
 after Theophylact, Grotius) betrothed. For when the genealo- 
 gist wrote, Joseph had been long ago the husband of Mary ; 
 and the signification of avqp is never that of sponsu,s. ef 779] 
 see on Gal. iv. 4. 6 \eyo/j,evo<i Xpi<rTo<i] if the assumption 
 of Storr (Zweck d. evangel. Gesch. u. A. Brief e, Joh. p. 273), 
 that this addition expresses the doubt of the genealogist, an 
 unbelieving relative of Jesus, is a pure imagination, and 
 completely opposed to the standpoint of the evangelist, who 
 adopted the genealogy, still we are not to say, with Olshausen 
 (comp. Gersdorf, and already Er. Schmidt), that \eyea-0ai 
 here means to be called, and also actually to be. This would 
 be to confuse it improperly with Ka\eio-0ai. See Winer, p. 
 571 [E. T. 769]. The genealogical source, which found a 
 
 Epiphanius, Haeres. 78. 7, thus (Tiadtip) terms the father of 
 Joseph. John of Damascus, de fide Orthodox, iv. 15, removes this name still 
 further back in the roll of ancestors. The Jewish book, Toledoth Jeschu, calls 
 the father of Jesus, Joseph Pandira. See Eisenmenger, p. 105 ; Paulus, exeget. 
 Handb. I. p. 156 f. ; Thilo, Cod. apocr. I. p. 526 f.
 
 C8 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 reception in our Matthew, narrates in a purely historical 
 manner : who bears the name of Christ (iv. 18, x. 2, xxvii. 17) ; 
 for this name, which became His from the official designation, 
 was the distinctive name of this Jesus. Comp., besides, 
 Remark 3, after ver. 17. 
 
 Ver. 17. This contains the remark of the evangelist in 
 accordance with (ovv) this genealogical tree, contained in 
 vv. 216. The key to the calculation, according to which 
 the thrice-recurring fourteen links are to be enumerated, 
 lies in vv. 11, 12. According to ver. 11, Josiah begat 
 Jechoniah at the time of the migration to Babylon; con- 
 sequently Jechoniah must be included in the terminus ad 
 quern, which is designated by eto? T^<? /xeroi/ceo-ta? BafivXwvos 
 in ver. 17. The same" Jechoniah, however, must just as 
 necessarily again begin the third division, as the same begins 
 with OTTO 7779 ytterot/ceo-ta? Baj3v\a>vos. Jechoniah, however, 
 who was himself begotten at the time of the migration, did not 
 become a father until after the migration (ver. 12), so that he 
 therefore belonged as begotten to the period liw? TT}? fieroi/c. 
 Baj3v\., but as a, father to the period airo rrjs peToiK. Ba/3v\., 
 standing in his relation to the epoch of the ^erot/cecrta as a 
 twofold person. It is not so with David, as the latter, like 
 every other except Jechoniah, is only named, but not brought 
 into connection with an epoch-making event in the history, 
 in relation to which he might appear as son and father in a 
 twofold personality. He has therefore no right to be counted 
 twice. According to this view, the three tesseradecades are to 
 be thus divided, 1 
 
 I. 1. Abraham; 2. Isaac; 3. Jacob; 4. Judah ; 5. Perez; 
 G.Nezron; 7. Ram; 8. Aminadab ; S.Naasson; 10. Salma ; 
 11. Boaz; 12. Obed ; 13. Jesse; 14. David. 
 
 II. 1. Solomon; 2. Eehoboam ; 3. Abijah ; 4. Asa; 5. 
 
 1 Comp. Strauss, 2d ed. ; Hug, Outachten ; Wieseler in the Stud. u. Kritlk. 
 1845, p. 377 ; Kostlin, Urspr. d. synopt. Evang. p. 30 ; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 
 46 ; also Riggenbach in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1856, p. 580 f., Leb. Jes. p. 261. 
 So early as Augustine, and at a later date, Jaiisen and several others, count 
 Jechoniah twice ; so also Schegg ; substantially also Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Euth. Zigabenus, who only express themselves awkwardly in saying that the 
 time of the Exile is placed T|S< ysna,-. .. ^
 
 CHAP. I. 17. 59 
 
 Jehoshaphat ; 6. Joram ; 7. Ifzziah ; 8. Jotham ; 9. Aliaz; 
 10. Hezekiah ; 11. Manasseh ; 12. Ammon ; 13. JosiaJi ; 
 14. Jechoniah (eVt TT)? /u,eTOi/eecrta9, ver. 11). 
 
 III. 1. Jechoniah (pera rrjv /j.eTot,K<7iav, ver. 12); 2. /Sa/a- 
 thiel ; 3. Zerubbabel ; 4. Abiud ; 5. Eliakim ; 6. Azor ; 7. 
 Zadok ; 8. Achim ; 9. Eliud ; 10. Eleazar ; 11. Matthan ; 
 12. Jacob; 13. Joseph; 14. Jes^s. 
 
 In the third division we have to notice that m awy case 
 .Tesws a/so rawstf &e counted, because ver. 17 says elw? roO 
 Xpia-Tov, in keeping with ver. 1, where 'lycrovs Xpiaros is 
 announced as the subject of the genealogy, and consequently 
 as the last of the entire list. If Jesus were not included in 
 the enumeration, we should then have a genealogy of Joseph, 
 and the final terminus must have been said to be &09 'loxr?^. 
 Certainly, according to our Gospel, no proper yeved existed 
 between Joseph and Jesus, a circumstance which in reality 
 takes away from the entire genealogical tree its character as a 
 genealogy of Jesus in the proper sense. The genealogist him- 
 self, however, guards so definitely against every misinterpreta- 
 tion by the words rov avBpa Mapias, e 779 e'yevvijdr) 'Irjaovs, 
 that we distinctly see that he means to carry the descent of 
 Jesus beyond Joseph back to David and Abraham, only in so far 
 as Joseph, being husband of the mother of Jesus, was His father, 
 merely putatively so indeed, but by the marriage his father in 
 the eye of the law, although not his real parent. After all this, 
 we are neither, with Olearius, Bengel, Fritzsche, de Wette (who 
 is followed by Strauss, 4th ed., I. p. 13 9), Delitzsch, Bleek, and 
 others, to divide thus : (1) Abraham to David, (2) David to 
 Josiah, (3) Jechoniah to Christ; nor, with Storr (Diss. in 
 libror. hist. N. T. loca, p. 1 ff.), Kosemniiller, Kuinoel, 
 Olshausen : (1) Abraham to David, (2) David to Josiah, 
 (3) Josiah to Joseph ; nor are we to say, with Paulus, that 
 among the unknown links, vv. 1316, one has fallen out 
 owing to the copyists ; nor, with Jerome, Gusset, Wolf, Gratz, 
 to make Jechoniah in ver. 11 into Joiakim, by the insertion 
 of which Ewald completes (see on ver. 11) the second tessera- 
 decade, without counting David twice ; nor, with Ebrard, 
 Lange, Krafft, to insert Mary as an intermediate link between
 
 CO THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Joseph and Jesus, by whose marriage with Joseph, Jesus 
 became heir to the theocratic throne. The latter is erroneous 
 on this account, that it contradicts the text, which does not 
 speak of succession to the theocratic throne, but of yeveat, the 
 condition of which is eyevwrjo-e and tyevvydrj. We must 
 assume that the reason for the division into three tessera- 
 decades was not merely to aid the memory (Michaelis, Eichhorn, 
 Kuinoel, Fritzsche), which is not sufficient to explain the 
 emphatic and solemn prominence given to the equal number 
 of links in the three periods, ver. 1 7 ; nor even the Cabbalistic 
 number of the name David (in, i.e. 14 ; so Surenhusius, Ammon, 
 Leben Jesu, I. p. 173), as it is not David, but Jesus, that is in 
 question ; nor a reminiscence of the forty-two encampments in 
 the wilderness (Origen, Luther, Gfrorer, Philo, II. p. 429, after 
 Num. xxxiii.), which would be quite arbitrary and foreign to 
 the subject ; nor a requirement to the reader to seek out the 
 theocratic references concealed in the genealogy (Ebrard), in 
 doing which Matthew would, without any reason, have proposed 
 the proper design of his genealogical tree as a mere riddle, 
 and by his use of eyevvycre would have made the solution itself 
 impossible : but that precisely from Abraham to David fourteen 
 links appeared, which led the author to find fourteen links for 
 the two other periods also, in which, according to Jewish 
 idiosyncrasy, he saw something special, which contained a 
 mystic allusion to the sytematic course of divine leading in 
 the Messiah's genealogy, where perhaps also the attraction 
 of holiness in the number seven (the double of which was 
 yielded by the first period) came into play. Comp. Synops. 
 Soh. p. 132. 18: " Ab Abraliamo usque ad Salom. quindecim 
 sunt generationes, atque tune luna fuit in plenilunio, a Salomone 
 usque ad Zedekiam iterum sunt quindecim generationes, et tune 
 luna defecit, et Zedekiae effossi sunt oculi" See also Gen. v. 3 ff., 
 xi. 10 ff., where, from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to 
 Abraham, ten links in each case are counted. It is altogether 
 arbitrary, however, because there is no allusion to it in 
 Matthew, when Delitzsch (in Eudelbach and Guericke's 
 Zeitschrift, 1850, p. 587 ff.) explains the symmetry of the 
 three tesseradecades from this, that Matthew always makes a
 
 CHAP. L 17. 61 
 
 generation from Abraham to David amount to eighty years, but 
 each of the following to forty, and consequently has calculated 
 1120 + 560 + 560 years. To do so is incorrect, because 
 7ei/eai receives its designation from eyevvija-e, it being pre- 
 supposed that yeved denotes a generation. 
 
 EEMARK 1. It is clear from vasai that the evangelist sup- 
 posed that he had the genealogical tree complete, and conse- 
 quently was not aware of the important omissions. 
 
 REMARK 2. Whether Mary also was descended from David, 
 as Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. xxiii. 45. 100, Irenaeus, iii. 21. 5, 
 Julius Africanus, ap. Eusebium, i. 7, Tertullian, and other 
 Fathers, as well as the Apocrypha of the N. T., e.g. Protev. Jacobi 
 10, de nativ. Mariae, already teach, 1 is a point upon which any 
 evidence from the N. T. is entirely wanting, as the genealogical 
 tree in Luke is not that of Mary. Nor can a conclusion be 
 drawn to that effect, as is done by the Greek Fathers, from the 
 Davidic descent of Joseph ; for even if Mary had been an 
 heiress, which, however, cannot at all be established (comp. on 
 Luke ii. 5), this would be quite a matter of indifference so far 
 as her descent is concerned, since the law in Num. xxxvi. 6 
 only forbade such daughters to marry into another tribe, Ewald, 
 Alterth. p. 239 f. [E. T. p. 208], Saalschutz, M. R p. 829 f., 
 and in later times was no longer observed ; see Delitzsch, I.e. p. 
 582. The Davidic descent of Mary would follow from passages 
 such as those in Acts ii. 30, Rom. i. 3, 4, 2 Tim. ii. 8, comp. 
 Heb. vii. 14, if we were certain that the view of the super- 
 natural generation of Jesus lay at the basis of these ; Luke i. 
 27, 32, 69 prove nothing, and Luke ii. 4 just as little (in answer 
 to Wieseler, Beitr. z. Wurdig. der Evang. p. 144); we might 
 rather infer from Luke i. 36 that Mary belonged to the tribe of 
 Levi. The Davidic descent of Jesus, however, is established as 
 certain by the predictions of the prophets, which, in reference to 
 so essential a mark of the Messiah, could not remain without 
 fulfilment, as well as by the unanimous testimony of the N. T. 
 (Rom. i. 3 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Heb. vii. 14 ; John vii. 41 ; Rev. v. 5, 
 xxii. 16), and is also confirmed by Hegesippus (in Eusebius 
 
 1 In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, on the other hand, the tribe of 
 Levi is definitely alluded to as that to which Mary belonged. See pp. 542, 546, 
 654, 689. In another passage, p. 724, she is represented as a descendant of 
 Judah. Comp. on Luke i. 36, and see Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. p. 375. Ewald's 
 remark, that the Prolemng. Jacobi leaves the tribe of Mary undetermined, is 
 incorrect, ch. x. b. In Thilo, p. 212, it is said : S-n Ma./a/t * puir,; Az/3/S im.
 
 62 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 ill 20), according to whom, grandsons of Jude, the Lord's 
 brother, were brought, as descendants of David (us Jx yevou; 
 ovra$ Aau/5), before Domitian. To doubt this descent of Jesus, 
 and to regard it rather as a hypothesis which, as an abstraction 
 deduced from the conception of Messiah, had attached itself 
 to the Messianic predicate Son of David (comp. Schleier- 
 macher, Strauss, B. Bauer, Weiss, Schenkel, Holtzmann, 
 Eichthal), is the more unhistorical, that Jesus Himself lays 
 down that descent as a necessary condition of Messiahship ; see 
 on Matt. xxii. 42 ff. ; besides Keim, Gesch. Jesu, I. p. 326 ff., also 
 Weiss, bibl. Theolog. 18, and Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 242 ff. 
 ed. 3. 
 
 REMARK 3. As the evangelist relates the divine generation 
 of Jesus, he was therefore far removed from the need of con- 
 structing a genealogy of Joseph, and accordingly we must 
 suppose that the genealogy was found and adopted by him 
 (Harduin, Paulus, Olshausen, and most moderns), but was not 
 his own composition (older view, de Wette, Delitzsch). Add 
 to this that, as clearly appears from Luke, various genealogical 
 trees must have been in existence, at the foundation of which, 
 however, had originally * lain the view of a natural ysvt<sic, of 
 Jesus, although the expression of such a view had already dis- 
 appeared from them, so that Matt. i. 16 no longer ran 'lucr^ ot 
 sy'cwqafv 'ir,ffovv, and in Luke iii. 23, wg ivopifyro was already inter- 
 polated. Such anti-Ebionitic alterations in the last link of the 
 current genealogical registers of Jesus are not to be ascribed, 
 first, to the evangelists themselves (Strauss, Schenkel) ; nor is 
 the alteration in question which occurs in Matthew to be 
 derived from a supposed redactor who dealt freely with a 
 fundamental gospel document of a Judaistic kind (Hilgenfeld). 
 
 1 It must be admitted that the genealogies owe their origin to the view that 
 Joseph's paternal relation was real, and that their original purpose bore that 
 Joseph was the actual, and not merely the putative, father of Jesus, because 
 otherwise the composition of a genealogical tree of Joseph would have been 
 without any motive of faith. But we must also grant that the evangelists, so 
 early as the time when they composed their works, found the genealogies with 
 the definite statements announcing the putative paternal relationship, and by 
 that very circumstance saw it adapted for reception without any contradiction to 
 their belief in the divine generation of Jesus. They saw in it a demonstration 
 of the Davidic descent of Jesus according to the male line of succession, so far as 
 it was possible and allowable to give such in the deficiency of a human father, 
 that is, back beyond the reputed father. The circumstance, however, that 
 Joseph recognised Jesus as a lawful son, presented to him in a miraculous 
 manner, although he was not his flesh and blood (Delitzsch and others), assuredly 
 leads, in like manner, only to a yma which is not real.
 
 CHAP. I. 18. 63 
 
 The ' expression 6 Xeyo/tevo; xpiarof in ver. 16 rather betrays 
 that the genealogical written source pacsad over into the Gospel 
 in the shape in which it already existed ; neither the author nor 
 an editor would have written 6 Xsyo/ttvot (comp. vv. 1, 18), or, 
 had they made an alteration in ver. 1G, they would not have 
 allowed it to remain. 
 
 Ver. 18. Tov 'Irj&ov Xpia-Tov] provided with the article, 
 and placed first with reference to ver. 16. "The origin of 
 Jesus Christ, however, was as follows." fAvrja-TevOeia-ijs] 
 On the construction, see Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 270 f. 
 [E. T. 315]. On the betrothal, after which the bride still 
 remained in the house of her parents without any closer 
 intercourse with the bridegroom until she was brought home, 
 see Maimonides, Tract. ni^K ; Saalschiitz, M. R. p. 728 ff. ; 
 Keil, Archaeol. 109. yap] explicative, namely, see Klotz, 
 ad Devar. p. 234 ff. ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 86 ff. -n-plv rf\ 
 belongs as much as the simple Trpiv to the Ionic, and to the 
 middle age of the Attic dialect ; see Elmsley, ad Eur. Med. 
 179 ; Eeisig, ad Soph. Oed. Colm. 36 ; it is, however, already 
 found alone in Xenophon (Ktihner, ad Anab. iv. 5. 1), as also 
 in Thucydides, v. 61. 1, according to our texts (see, however, 
 Kriiger in loc.\ but is foreign to the Attic poets. With the 
 aorist infinitive, it denotes that the act is fully accomplished. 
 Klotz, ad Devar. p. 726. Comp. Acts ii. 20, vii. 2 ; Mark 
 xiv. 30; John iv. 49 ; Tob. xiv. 15. a-vve\6elv] Chrysos- 
 tom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Maldonatus, 
 Jansen, Bengel, Eisner, Loesner, and others understand it of 
 cohabitation in marriage. The usage of the language is not 
 opposed to this. See the passages of Philo in Loesner, Obss. 
 p. 2; Joseph. Antt. vii. 9. 5; Diodorus' Siculus, iii. 57, 
 Test. XII. Pair. pp. 600, 701. Just as correct, however, in 
 a linguistic point of view (Kypke, Obss. p. 1 f.), and at the 
 same time more appropriate to the reference to vv. 20, 24, 
 is the explanation of others (Luther, Beza, Er. Schmid, Light- 
 foot, Grotius, Kypke, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Arnoldi, 
 Bleek) of the bringing home and of domestic intercourse. Others 
 (Calvin, Wetstein, Rosenmuller, Olshausen) combine both ex- 
 planations. But the author in the present case did not con-
 
 64 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 ceive the cohabitation in marriage to be connected with the 
 bringing home, see ver. 25. evpeOri] Euth. Zigabenus (comp. 
 Clnysostom and Theophylact) appropriately renders it : tydvr). 
 EvpeOrj Be etTre :a TO cnrpoaSoKijTov. Eupedijvai is nowhere 
 equivalent to emu. See Winer, p. 572 [E. T. 769]. ev 
 ryaa-rpl %etv or <J>epeiv, to be pregnant, very often in the LXX., 
 also in Greek writers, Herodotus, iii. 32, Vit. Horn, ii; Plato, 
 Lcgg. vii. p. 792 E. eic irv. ayj] without the article, see 
 Winer, p. 116 [E. T. 151]. nin? rm or rfn; enp rm, irvevpa, 
 TTV. ayiov, TTV. TOV eov, is the personal divine principle of the 
 higher, religious-moral, and eternal life, which works effectually 
 for the true reign of God, and especially for Christianity, which 
 rules in believers, and sanctifies them for the Messiah's 
 kingdom, and which, in reference to the intellect, is the 
 knowledge of divine truth, revelation, prophecy, etc., in refer- 
 ence to morals is the consecration of holiness and power in 
 the moral life of the new birth with its virtues and world- 
 subduing dispositions, bringing about, in particular, the truth 
 and fervour of prayer, the pledge of everlasting life. Here 
 the TTvevfj-a ayiov is that which produces the human existence 
 of Christ, through whose action which so appeared only in 
 this, the single case of its kind the origin of the embryo in 
 the womb of Mary was causally produced (e/c) in opposition 
 to human generation, so that the latter is thereby excluded. 
 It is not, however, that divine power of the Spirit (Luke i. 3 5), 
 which only concurs in the action of human generation and 
 makes it effectual, as in the generation of Isaac and of the 
 Baptist, and, as the idea is expressed in the Sohar Gen. (comp. 
 Schmidt in the fl>l. f, Krit. v. Exeg. d. N. T. I. p. 101): 
 " Omnes illi, qui sciunt se sanctiftcare in hoc mundo, ut par est 
 (ubi generant), attrahunt super id Spiritum sanctitatis et exeuntes 
 db eo illi vocantur filii JeJwvae." Theodore of Mopsuestia 
 (apud Fred. Fritzsche, Theodori Mops, in N. T. Commentar. 
 p. 2) : &cnrep yap (TO vrvevfjM TO ayiov) KOWWVOV ecrTt, Trarpi 
 re Kal VIM et? TTJV TOV Travro? Brj/juovpyiav, ovrfo ical TO e/c 
 T?}? TrapOevov TOV a"(arrjpo<i <reo/ia Kareo-icevao'e. e/c 
 TTvevfj,. ay., moreover, is added, not as an object to vpe07), but 
 from the historical standpoint, to secure at once a correct
 
 CHAP. I. 18. 65 
 
 judgment upon the eV jaarrpl e^outra (eOepaTrevve rov \6yov, 
 Euth. Zigabenus). 
 
 EEMARK. As regards the conception of Jesus by a virgin, we 
 have to notice the following points in their exegetical bearing : 
 (1) Mary was either a daughter of David (the common view), 
 or she was not. See on ver. 1 7, Remark 2. In the first case, 
 Jesus, whose divine generation is assumed, was, as Matthew and 
 Luke relate, a descendant of David, although not through an 
 unbroken line of male succession, but in such a way that His 
 mother alone conveyed to Him the Davidic descent. But if 
 Mary were not a daughter of David, then, by the divine concep- 
 tion, the possibility of Jesus being a descendant of David is 
 simply excluded; because, on that view, the Davidite Joseph 
 remains out of consideration, and this would be in contradiction 
 not only with the statements of prophecy, but also with the 
 unanimous testimony of the N. T. (2) As it is nowhere said 
 or hinted in the N. T. that Mary was a descendant of David, 
 we must assume that this is tacitly presupposed in the narratives 
 of Matthew and Luke. But as a consequence of this supposi- 
 tion, the genealogical trees would lose all their importance, in 
 so far as they are said to prove that Jesus was vibg Aai^/3 (ver. 1). 
 Joseph's descent from David, upon which in reality nothing would 
 turn, would be particularly pointed out ; while Mary's similar 
 descent, upon which everything would depend, would remain 
 unmentioned as being a matter of course, and would not be, 
 even once, incidentally alluded to in what follows, say 
 Acm/5, as Joseph is at once addressed in ver. 20 as vio$ 
 (3) Paul and Peter (Eom. i. 3, 4 ; Acts ii. 30 : ex aKepparos, IK 
 xupvoZ r%$ offpuo;; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 8) designate the descent of 
 Jesus from David in such a way, that without calling in the 
 histories of the birth in the first and third Gospels, there is no 
 occasion for deriving the Davidic descent from the mother, to 
 the interruption of the male line of succession, for which Gal. 
 iv. 4 1 also affords neither cause nor justification. Nowhere, 
 moreover, where Paul speaks of the sending of the Son of God, 
 
 1 Certainly, in Rom. i. 4, Paul expressly refers Christ's relation to God as His 
 Son to His x-viufta ayiuffutns, not to His <rapZ. See on Eom. i. 3. The super- 
 natural generation is not a logical consequence of his system, as Weiss, bibl. 
 Theol. p. 315, thinks. If Paul had conceived the propagation of sin as taking 
 place by means of generation (which is probable, although he has not declared 
 himself upon the point), he cannot, in so thinking, after the history of the 
 fall (2 Cor. xi. 3), and after Ps. Ii. 7, have regarded the woman's share as a 
 matter of indifference. 
 
 MATT. E
 
 66 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 and of His human yet sinless nature (2 Cor. v. 21 ; Rom. viii. 3; 
 Phil. ii. 6 f.), does he betray any indication that he presupposes 
 that divine conception. 1 (4) Just as little does John, whose 
 expression 6 Xo'yo? eap% eleven, although he was so intimate with 
 Jesus and His mother, leaves the question as to the how of this 
 tyivsro without a direct answer, indeed ; but also, where Jesus 
 is definitely designated by others as Joseph's son, contributes no 
 word of correction (i. 46, vi. 42; comp. vii. 27), nay, relates 
 the self-designation " Son of a man " from Jesus' own mouth 
 (see on John v. 27), where the context does not allow us to 
 refer avdpuvou to His mother. (5) It is certain, further, that 
 neither in Nazareth (Matt. xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3 ; Luke iv. 22), 
 nor in Capernaum (John vi. 42), nor elsewhere in the neigh- 
 bourhood (John i. 46), do we meet with such expressions, in 
 which a knowledge of anything extraordinary in the descent of 
 Jesus might be recognised ; and in keeping with this also is the 
 unbelief of His own brethren (John vii. 3), nay, even the 
 behaviour and bearing of Mary (Mark iii. 21, 31 ; comp. on 
 Matt. xii. 46-50 ; see also Luke ii. 50 f.). (6) We have "still to 
 observe, that what is related in ver. 1 8 would obviously have 
 greatly helped to support the suspicion and reproach of illegiti- 
 mate birth, and yet nowhere throughout the N. T. is there found 
 the slightest whisper of so hostile a report. 2 If, moreover, in 
 the narratives of the first and third evangelists, angelic appear- 
 ances occur, which, according to the connection of the history, 
 mutually exclude each other (Strauss, I. p. 165 ff. ; Keim, Gesch. 
 Jesu, I. p. 362 ff.), namely, in Matthew, after the conception, 
 in order to give an explanation to Joseph ; in Luke, before the 
 conception, to make a disclosure to Mary, nevertheless that 
 divine conception itself might remain, and in and of itself be 
 consistent therewith, if it were elsewhere certainly attested in 
 
 1 We should all the more have expected this origin to have been stated by 
 Paul, that he, on the one side, everywhere ascribes to Christ true and perfect 
 humanity (Rom. v. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 21, al.), and, on the other, so often gives 
 prominence to His elevation above sinful humanity ; for which reason he also 
 designates the aafe of Christ which was human, and yet was not, as in other 
 men, the seat of sin as ofieiaf&a <ra.px.oi aftaprias (Rom. viii. 3), with which 
 Heb. ii. 14, 17 also agrees. 
 
 2 The generation (nay, according to Luke ii. 5, the birth also) before the 
 marriage was concluded is necessarily connected with faith in the divine genera- 
 tion. The reproach of illegitimate birth was not raised by the Jews until a later 
 time (Origen, c. Celsum, i. 28), as a hostile and base inference from the narra- 
 tives of Matthew and Luke. Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 526 f. They called 
 Jesus a Mamser [i.e. one born in incest} See Eisenmenger, Entdeckt. Judenth. 
 I p. 105 ff.
 
 CHAP. I. 18. 67 
 
 the N. T., or if it could be demonstrated as being an undoubted 
 presupposition, belonging to the conception of Christ as the 
 Son of God. 
 
 Taking into account all that precedes, it is clear, in the first 
 place, that the doctrine which became dominant in the church, 
 in opposition to all Ebionitism, of the birth of Jesus Christ 
 from a virgin, is indeed fully justified on exegetical grounds 
 by the preliminary history in Matthew and Luke; but that, 
 secondly, apart from the preliminary history, no glimpse of this 
 doctrine appears anywhere in the N. T,, nay, that elsewhere 
 in the N. T. it has to encounter considerable difficulties of an 
 exegetical kind, without, however, breaking down before physio- 
 logical or theological impossibilities (in answer to Strauss). 
 Exegetically, therefore, the proposition of faith, that in Jesus 
 the only-begotten Son of God entered as man into humanity, 
 cannot be made to depend upon the conception, which is recorded 
 only in Matthew and Luke, 1 but must also, irrespective of the 
 latter, remain fast and immutable in its full and real meaning 
 of the incarnation of the divine Logos, which took place, and 
 takes place, in no other ; so that that belief cannot be made to 
 depend on the manner in which Jesus was conceived, and in 
 which the Spirit of God acted at the very commencement of 
 His human existence. And this not merely for exegetical, but 
 also for dogmatical reasons, since the incarnation of the Son of 
 God is by no means to be subjected to the rule of universal 
 sinful origin (John iii. 6) in fallen humanity (by which His whole 
 redemptive work would be reduced to nothing) ; and which in- 
 deed must also considering the supernatural conception be 
 conceived as exempted on the mother s side from this rule of 
 traducianism. 2 
 
 1 The comparison with heathen jrapfao'yiKTs, called Tfa.fi'iiioi in Homer, such 
 as Buddha, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Plato, Romulus (see the literature in Hase, 
 Leb. Jesu, 27 a), should have been here left entirely out of consideration, 
 partly because they belong, for the most part, to an entirely foreign sphere of 
 life, have no analogies in the N. T., and amount to apotheoses ex eventu (Origen, 
 c. Celsum, i. 37) ; partly because so many of the xttp6i\>u>i are only the fruits of 
 the lust of the gods (see Homer, Ilias, xvi. 180ff.). Far too much weight has 
 been attached to them, and far too much has been transferred to them from the 
 Christian idea of the Son of God, when the thought is found expressed in them 
 that nothing can come forth by the way of natural generation which would cor- 
 respond to the ideal of the human mind, Olshausen, Neander, Krabbe, Schmid, 
 bibl. Theol. I. p. 43 ; Dollinger, Heidenth. u. Judenth. p. 256. 
 
 Comp. Schleiermacher, Christl. Glaube, 97, p. 64 ff., and Leben Jesu, 
 p. 60 fF. Too much is asserted, when (see also Gess, Pers. Christ, p. 218 f.) the 
 limitation is imposed upon the divine counsel and will, that the freedom of
 
 68 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Ver. 19. *Av>'ip] Although only her betrothed, yet, from the 
 standpoint of the writers, designated as her husband. The 
 common assumption of a proleptic designation (Gen. xxix. 21) 
 is therefore unfounded. It is different with rrjv ryvvat/cd <rov 
 in ver. 20. Si/eat 09] not: aequus et benignus. So (after 
 Chrysostom and Jerome) Euth. Zigabenus (Sid rrjv irpaori^ra 
 Kal dyadwa'vvrjv), Luther, Grotius, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, B.- 
 Crusius, Bleek. For Sticaios, like P^V, means generally, he 
 who is as he ought to be (Hermann, ad Soph. Ajac. 543 ; 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Memor. iv. 4. 5 ; Gesen. Thes. III. p. 1151); 
 therefore rightly constituted, and, in a narrower sense, just, but 
 never kind, although kindness, compassion, and the like may 
 be in given cases the concrete form in which the StKaiocrvvr) 
 expresses itself. Here, according to the context, it denotes 
 the man who acts in a strictly legal manner. Ai/caios down 
 to SeiypaTia-ai contains two concurring motives. Joseph was 
 an upright man according to the law, and could not therefore 
 make up his mind to retain Mary, as she was pregnant with- 
 out him ; at the same time he could not bring himself to 
 abandon her publicly ; he therefore resolved to adopt the 
 middle way, and dismiss her secretly. Observe the emphasis 
 of \d6pa. Beiyfiaria-ai] to expose; see on Col. ii. 15. Here 
 the meaning is : to expose to public shame. This, however, 
 does not refer to the punishment of stoning (Deut. xxii. 2 3), 
 which was to be inflicted ; nor to a judicial accusation gener- 
 ally (the common view), because Seiry/jiaTi<rai must mean a 
 kind of dismissal opposed to that denoted by \d6pa ; com p. 
 de Wette. Therefore : he did not wish to compromise her, 
 which would have been the result had he given her a letter of 
 divorce, and thus dismissed her </><we/3<w<?. \ddpd] secretly, in 
 
 Jesus from original sin must necessarily presuppose the divine conception in the 
 womb of the Virgin. The incarnation of the Logos is, once for all, a mystery 
 of a peculiar kind ; the fact is as certain and clear of itself as the manner in 
 which it took place by way of human birth is veiled in mystery, and is in no 
 way determinable a priori. This is also in answer to Philippi's assertion (Dog- 
 matik, IV. 1, p. 153, ed. 2), that the idea of the God-man stands or falls with 
 that of the birth from a virgin, a dangerous but erroneous dilemma. Danger- 
 ous, because Mary was not free from original sin ; erroneous, because God could 
 also have brought about the incarnation of the Logos without original sin in 
 some other way than by a birth from a virgin.
 
 CHAP. I. 20. 69 
 
 private, i.e. by means of a secret, private interview, without a 
 letter of divorce. This would, indeed, have been in opposition 
 to the law in Deut. xxiv. 1, which applied also to betrothed 
 persons (Maimonides, Tract. niBN, c. 1 ; Wetstein in loc. ; 
 Philo, de leg. spec. p. 788); but he saw himself liable to a 
 collision between the two cases, of either, in these circum- 
 stances, retaining the bride, or of exposing her to public 
 censure by a formal dismissal ; and from this no more legal 
 way of escape presented itself than that on which he might 
 with the more propriety lay hold, that the law itself in Deut. 
 I.e. speaks only of married persons, not of betrothed. De Wette 
 thinks, indeed, of dismissal by a letter of divorcement, but under 
 arrangements providing for secrecy. But the letter of divorce 
 of itself, as it was a public document (see Saalschutz, M. E. 
 p. 800 ff. ; Ewald, Alterth. p. 272 [E. T. p. 203 ff.]), is in con- 
 tradiction with the \a6pa. On the distinction between #e'X&> 
 and j3ov\o/j,ai, the former of which expresses willing in 
 general, the action of the will, of the inclination, of desire, etc., 
 in general ; while ^ovko^ai denotes a carefully weighed self- 
 determination, see Buttmann, Lexil. I. p. 26 ff. [E. T., Fish- 
 lake, p. 194 if.], partly corrected by Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 
 p. 316. Observe the aorist e{3ov\r]drj : he adopted the re- 
 solution. 
 
 Ver. 20. 'ISov] as in Hebrew and in Greek writers, directs 
 attention quickly to an object brought into view. Very fre- 
 quent in Matthew. KO.T ovap] in somnis, Vulg., Virg. Aen. 
 ii. 270 ; ev oveipois, Mceph. Schol. in Synes. p. 442. Frequent 
 in later Greek, but not in the LXX. and Apocrypha ; rejected 
 by Photius, p. 149. 25, as fidpfiapov ; amongst the old writers, 
 commonly only ovap. See Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 423 f. ; 
 Kara serves to designate the manner and way, and yields the 
 adverbial meaning, in a dream, #\|a<? ovetpou ev TO> virvy, Herod, 
 i. 38. The appearance of the angel was an appearance in a 
 dream; see Klihner, II. 1, p. 413. It might denote the time, 
 if, as in Joseph. Antiq. xi. 9. 3, Kara TOV<S farvovs, or icaO* 
 VTTVOV (Gen. xx. 6), had been employed. Express visions in 
 dreams in the N. T. are related only by Matthew. Com p. 
 besides, Acts ii. 17. vtos A] The reason of this address
 
 70 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (nominative, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 43) is not difficult to see 
 (de Wette) ; it is highly natural in the case of the angel, 
 because he has to bring news of the Messiah. B.-Crusius says 
 too little : Joseph is so addressed as one favoured ly God, or, 
 as he for whom something miraculous was quite appropriate. 
 Fritzsche says too much : " ut ad Mariam ducendam prom- 
 tiorem redderet." The former neglects the special connection, 
 the latter imports a meaning. rrjv Awaited <rov] apposition 
 to MapiAfi : the Mary, who is thy wife : in which proleptic 
 designation there lies an element stating the cause. This view 
 (in answer to Fritzsche, who explains : Mary, as thy wife) is 
 required by ver. 24. ev avrfj] not for ef avrrjf, but also not 
 to be translated, with Fritzsche : per earn, as ev with persons is 
 never merely instrumental, and as the context (ver. 18 : ev 
 ryaarpi e^oucra ex. TTV. ay.} demands a different rendering ; but, 
 quite literally, in utero Mariae, that which has been begotten 
 in her. The neuter places the embryo still under the imper- 
 sonal, material point of view. Comp., first, ver. 2 1 : 
 Se viov. See Wetstein, and on Luke i. 35. e/c irv. e 
 ayiov] proceeds from the Holy Ghost as author, by whom, 
 accordingly, your suspicions are removed. Observe the emphatic 
 position, which lays the determining emphasis upon Trvevpouros, 
 in opposition to sexual intercourse. Upon the distinction 
 between evdviieicrdat, with the genitive (rationem habere alic. 
 rei) and the accusative (" when he had considered this "), see 
 Kiihner, ad Xen. Memorabilia, i. 1. 17 ; Kriiger on Thucyd. 
 i 42. 1: 
 
 Ver. 21. Te^erat Be] and she will bear. " Non additur tibi, 
 ut additur de Zacharia, Luc. i. 13," Bengel. KaXeo-et? . . . 
 'Irj<rovv] literally: thou wilt call His name "Jesus" Comp. 
 LXX. Gen. xvii. 19 ; 1 Sam. i. 20 ; Matt. i. 23, 25 ; Luke i. 13, 
 31, ii. 21. Exactly so in Hebrew : tofrns &np. The Greeks, 
 however, would say : /caXeo-et? TO ovofjLa avrbv (or also auroJ) 
 'Irjo-ovv ; Matthiae, p. 935 [E. T., Kenrick, p. 6 75 ff.] ; Heindorf, 
 ad Plat. Phaedr. p. 238 A. ^aXeo-et?] the future serves in 
 classical writers to denote the softened idea of the imperative. 
 Bernhardy, p. 378; Kuhner, II. 1, p. 149. In the LXX. 
 and in the N. T. it is especially used of divine injunctions,
 
 CHAP. I. 22, 23. 71 
 
 and denotes thereby the imperative sense apodeictically, be- 
 cause it supposes the undoubted certainty of the result ; comp. 
 Winer, p. 296 [E. T. 396 f.]. So also here, where a divine 
 command is issued. When Fritzsche would here retain the 
 proper conception of the future, it becomes a mere prediction, 
 less appropriate in the connection ; for it is less in keeping 
 with the design of the angelic annunciation, according to 
 which the bestowal and interpretation of the name Jesus is 
 referred to a divine causality, and consequently the genus of 
 the name itself must, most naturally, appear as commanded. 
 avrosi] He and no other. TOV \aov avrov] The people of 
 Israel : because for these first, and then also for the heathen, 
 was the Messiah and His work intended, John iv. 22; Eom. 
 i. 16 ; Gal. iii. 14. As certainly, moreover, as the manner 
 and fashion in which the promised one was to accomplish the 
 salvation, and by means of His redemptive work has accom- 
 plished it, is to be conceived as being present to the eye of 
 God at the sending of this news, as certainly must Joseph be 
 conceived as regarding it only in its national definiteness, 
 consequently as referring to the theocratic liberation and 
 prosperity of the people (comp. Luke i. 68 ff.), along with 
 which, however, the religious and moral renewal also was 
 regarded as necessary ; which renewal must have presupposed 
 the antecedent forgiveness of sin (Luke i. 77). afjuapnccv, 
 therefore, is to be taken, not as punishment of sin, but, as 
 always, simply as sins. avrov, not to be written avrov (for 
 the angel speaks of Him as a third person, and without any 
 antithesis) : His people, for they belong to the Messiah, comp. 
 John i. 1 1 ; on the plural avrwv, see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 
 114 [E. T. 130]. 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. No longer the words of the angel (in answer 
 to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Paulus, Arnoldi), 
 but of the evangelist, who continues his historical narrative, 
 and that with a pragmatic observation, which serves to advance 
 his object. Comp. xxi. 4, xxvi. 56 iva is never e/c/Sart/eoz/ : 
 so that (Kuinoel and older interpreters), but always reXircov : 
 in order that ; it presupposes here that what was done stood 
 in the connection of purpose with the 0. T. declaration, and
 
 72 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 consequently in the connection of the divine necessity, as an 
 actual fact, by which the prophecy was destined to be fulfilled. 
 The divine decree, expressed in the latter, must be accom- 
 plished, and to tliat end, this, namely, which is related from 
 ver. 18 onwards, came to pass, and that according to the wlwle 
 of its contents (o\ov). The prophecy itself is Isa. vii. 14 
 according to the LXX., without any essential variation. 
 77 vrapdevos corresponds here to '""^pyn, which denotes an 
 unmarried young woman of nubile years, not also a young 
 woman (for which Prov. xxx. 1 9 is erroneously appealed to by 
 Gesenius and Knobel). See Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 53 ff. 
 On the other hand, TOrm means virgin in the strict sense 
 of the word. The evangelist, nevertheless, interpreting the 
 passage according to its Messianic destination, understands the 
 pregnant Mary as a real virgin. Here we have to observe 
 that such interpretations of 0. T. passages are not to be 
 referred to any principle of accommodation to the views 
 of the time, nor even to a mere occasional application, but 
 express the typical reference, and therewith the prophetic 
 meaning, which the N. T. writers actually recognised in the 
 relative passages of the O. T. And in so doing, the nearest, 
 i.e. the historical meaning of these passages in and of itself, did 
 not rule the interpretation, but the concrete Messianic contents 
 according to their historical definiteness a posteriori from 
 their actual fulfilment yielded themselves to them as that 
 which the Spirit of God in the prophecies had had in view as 
 the ideal theocratic subject-matter of the forms which they 
 assumed in the history of the time. Comp. Eiehm in the 
 Stud. u. Kritik. 1869, p. 272 f. [E. T., Clark, Edin. 1876, 
 p. 160 ff.]. The act by which they saw them Messianically 
 fulfilled, i.e. their Messianic contents become an accomplished 
 fact, was recognised by them as lying in the purpose of God, 
 when the declaration in question was spoken or written, and 
 therefore as " eventum non modo talem, qui propter veritatem 
 divinam non potuerit non snibsequi ineunte N. T.," Bengel. 
 This Messianic method of understanding the 0. T. in the New, 
 which they adopted, had its justification not merely in the 
 historically necessary connection in which the N. T. writers
 
 CHAP. I. 22, 23. 73 
 
 stood to the popular method of viewing the 0. T. in their day, 
 and to its typological freedom of exposition, but as it had its 
 justification also generally in the truth that the idea of the 
 Messiah pervades the whole of the prophecies of the O. T., 
 and is historically realized in Christ ; so also, in particular, in 
 the holy guidance of the Spirit, under which they, especially 
 the apostles, were able to recognise, both as a whole as well as 
 in details, the relation of prophecy to its N". T. fulfilment, and 
 consequently the preformations of Christian facts and doctrines, 
 as God, in conformity with His plan of salvation, had caused 
 them to take a beginning in the 0. T., although this result 
 was marked by varying degrees of certainty and of clearness 
 of typological tact among the individual writers. Although, 
 according to this view, the N. T. declarations regarding the 
 fulfilment of prophecies are to be presupposed as generally 
 having accuracy and truth on their side, nevertheless the 
 possibility of erroneous and untenable applications in indi- 
 vidual instances, in accordance with the hermeneutical licence 
 of that age, is thereby so little excluded, that an unprejudiced 
 examination upon the basis of the original historical sense is 
 always requisite. This way of estimating those declarations, 
 as it does justice on the one side to their importance and 
 ethical nature, so on the other it erects the necessary barrier 
 against all arbitrary typological hankering, which seeks to 
 find a connection between prophecy and fulfilment, between 
 type and antitype, where the N. T. has not attested the 
 existence of such. Comp. also Diisterdieck, de rei prophet, 
 natura ethica, Gottingen 1852, p. 79 ff. In reference to 
 types and prophecies generally, we must certainly say with 
 the N. T. : rovrat Trai/re? ol Trpo^rjrat fjiaprvpovaiv K.T.\., Acts 
 x. 43, but not with the Eabbins : " Omnes prophetae in 
 universum non prophetarunt nisi de diebus Messiae," San- 
 hedrin, f. 99, 1. As regards Isa. vii. 14, 1 the historical sense 
 is to the effect that the prophet, by his promise of a sign, 
 desires to prevent Ahab from begging the aid of the Assyrians 
 against the confederated Syrians and Ephraimites. The pro- 
 
 1 Comp. H. Schultz, alttest. Theolog. II. p. 244 ff. ; Engelhardt in the Luther. 
 Zeitschrift, 1872, p. 601 ff.
 
 74 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 mise itself does not indeed refer directly, by means of an 
 " ideal anticipation," to Mary and Jesus (Hengstenberg), but 
 neither also to the wife of the prophet (Gesenius, Knobel, 
 Olshausen, Keim, Schenkel, and others ; comp. also Tholuck, 
 das A. T. in N. T. p. 43, ed. 6), nor to any other mother 
 elsewhere of an ordinary child (Stahelin, H. Schultz), but to 
 the mother who at the time when the prophecy was uttered 
 was still a virgin of the expected theocratic Saviour, i.e. the 
 Messiah? the idea of whom lives in the prophetic conscious- 
 ness, but has attained its complete historic realization in Jesus 
 Christ. See especially Ewald on Isaiah, p. 339 f., ed. 2 ; 
 Umbreit in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1855, p. 573 ff. ; Bertheau in 
 the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie, 1859, 4 ; Drechsler on Isaiah, 
 I.e. ; Delitzsch ; Oehler in Herzog's Encyld. IX. p. 415 ; Engel- 
 hardt, I.e. That we might, however, from the consideration of 
 the fulfilment of the prophetic oracle, accomplished in the 
 birth of Jesus from a virgin, find in the word nc6j/ the mother 
 of the Messiah designated as a virgin, follows, as a matter of 
 course, from the meaning of no^j;, which by no means excludes 
 the idea of virginity, and was not first rendered possible by 
 
 1 Hofmann has corrected his earlier explanation ( Weissagung und Erfullung, 
 I. p. 221) in point of grammar (Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 85), but not in accord- 
 ance with the meaning. He sees in the son of the virgin mother the Israel 
 which does not arise in the way of a natural continuation of the present, but in a 
 miraculous manner, to which God again turns in mercy. In the person of 
 Jesus this Israel of the future of salvation takes its beginning ; while that which 
 in Isaiah was figurative language, is now realized in the proper sense. With 
 greater weight and clearness Kahnis (Dogmatik, I. p. 345 f.) remarks: The 
 Virgin and Immanuel are definite but ideal persons. The latter is the Israel of 
 the future according to its ideal side ; the Virgin, the Israel of the present and of 
 the past according to its ideal side, in accordance with which its vocation is, by 
 virtue of the Spirit of God, to give birth to the holy seed ; this Israel will one 
 day come to its true realization in a virgin, who will be the mother of the 
 Messiah. Substantially similar also is the view of W. Schultz in the Stud. u. 
 Kritik. 1861, p. 713 ff., who understands by the Virgin the quiet ones in the 
 land, the better portion of the community who are truly susceptible of the 
 working of the Lord. But the whole style of expression, and the connection in 
 the context farther on, are throughout not of such a character that in the Virgin 
 and her son, ideal, and indeed collective persons, should have been present, first 
 of all, to the prophet's view. I must continue, even after the objections of 
 Hengstenberg, Tholuck, W. Schultz, H. Schultz, and others, to regard Ewald's 
 view as the right one.
 
 CHAP. I. 24, 25. 75 
 
 the Trapdevos of the LXX., by means of the " subtleties of 
 Jewish Christians" (Keim), and this all the less that even irap- 
 Osvos also in Greek does not always denote virgin in the strict 
 sense, but also " nuptas et devirginatas." See Ellendt, Lex. 
 Soph. II. p. 210. Matthew might also just as well have 
 made use of i/eaz/t?, which Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus 
 employ. On the article, Bengel appropriately remarks : " ex 
 specula divinae praescientiae singularem demonstrandi vim 
 liabet ;" she who is present to the prophet's eye is intended. 
 they will call. The LXX. incorrectly gives 
 The evangelist generalizes the third person singu- 
 lar of the original Hebrew into the plural. 'E/j.pavovr)\] 
 ?x WSJ?, God is with us, which symbolical name, according 
 to the historical sense in the prophet, derives its significance 
 from the saving by divine help from the destruction 
 threatened by the war in question, but, according to its 
 Messianic fulfilment, which the evangelist now sees begin- 
 ning, has the same essential meaning as the name Jesus. The 
 Ka\,e<Tov<n TO ovo/j,a avTov ' E fjL[Mivovrj\ corresponds to the /caXe- 
 cret? TO 6Vo/4. avrov 'Iqaovv (ver. 21), and therefore the 
 translator of the Gospel has added the interpretation of the 
 significant name. The Fathers of the church (Hilary, Chrysos- 
 tom, Theodoret, Lactantius), and expositors like Calvin, Flacius, 
 Maldonatus, Jansen, Schegg, interpreted it of the divine nature 
 in Christ. In the divine nature of the Lord as the Son of 
 God is found the divine help and safety, which make up the 
 meaning of the name (Jerome), its dogmatic foundation in 
 the developed Christian consciousness, as the latter is certainly 
 to be assumed in the evangelists Matthew (ver. 20) and Luke 
 (i. 35), according to whom, as a consequence of the super- 
 human generation, the superhuman character, not merely the 
 Messianic vocation, is to come forth. 
 
 Ver. 24. MTTO TOV VTTVOV] from the sleep in which he had 
 had the vision. ical Trap e A,.] The course of the thought 
 proceeds simply, without any participial construction, by means 
 of the epexegetic and. 
 
 Ver. 25. 'Eyivwa-Kev] He had no sexual intercmirse with 
 her (imperfect). In this sense JTP is used by the Hebrews,
 
 76 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 and yivoxrueiv by the Greeks of a later age (often in Plutarch) ; 
 also the Latin novi and cognosco (Justin, v. 2, xxvii. 3 ; Ovid. 
 Meta. iv. 594 ; cornp. Caesar, de bello Gallico, vi 21 : feminae 
 notitiam habuisse). See Wetstein and Kypke. Since Epi- 
 phanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, 
 very many expositors have maintained, with a view to support 
 the perpetual virginity of Mary, but in opposition to the 
 straightforward and impartial character of the narrative, that 
 Joseph, even after the birth of Jesus, had no sexual inter- 
 course with Mary. 1 But (1) from &? ov of itself no infer- 
 ence can be drawn either in favour of or against such a view, 
 as in all statements with " until " the context alone must 
 decide whether, with regard to that which had not formerly 
 occurred, it is or is not intended to convey that it afterwards 
 took place. But (2) that it is here conceived as subsequently 
 taking place, is so clear of itself to every unprejudiced reader 
 from the idea of the marriage arrangement, that Matthew 
 must have eocpressed the thought, " not only until but after- 
 wards also he had not" if such had been his meaning. That 
 he did not, however, mean this is clearly shown (3) by his 
 use of irpwroTOKov, which is neither equivalent to TT/JWTO? teal 
 fjiovos (Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus), nor does it designate 
 the first-born, without assuming others born afterwards (so 
 formerly most expositors). The latter meaning is untenable, 
 because the evangelist employed Trpwrorotcov as an historian, 
 from the standpoint of the time when his Gospel was com- 
 posed, and consequently could not have used it had Jesus 
 been present to his historical consciousness as the only son of 
 Mary. But Jesus, according to Matthew (xii. 46 ff., xiii. 55 f.), 
 had also brothers and sisters, amongst whom He was the first- 
 lorn. Lucian's remark (Demonax, 29), speaking of Agathocles, 
 is correct : et pev TT^KOTO?, ov ptovcy el Se /ioi/o?, ov 
 
 1 As a logical consequence of this supposition, Joseph was made to be a worn- 
 out old man (Thilo, ad cod. Apocr. I. p. 361 ; Keim, Gesch. Jes. I. p. 365), 
 and his children were regarded either as children of a former marriage (Origen, 
 Epiphanius, and many other Fathers), or the brothers of Jesus were transformed 
 into cousins (Jerome). Of any advanced age in the case of Joseph there is no 
 trace in the N. T. In John vL 42, the Jews express themselves in such a way 
 that Joseph might be conceived as still alive at the time.
 
 CHAP. I. 25. 77 
 
 (4) All a priori suppositions are untenable, from which the 
 perpetual virginity of Mary is said to appear, such as that of 
 Euth. Zigabenus : TTW? av eTre^elptjaev, rj KOI oXo><? ev6vfj,ij6ri 
 yvwvai rrjv <rv\\a/3ovcrav IK TrvevpaTos arylov teal TOIOVTOV 
 Soxelov veyevrjfiewrjv ; of Olshausen : " it is manifest that 
 Joseph, after such experiences, might with good reason 
 believe that his marriage with Mary was intended for another 
 purpose than that of begetting children." Hofmann has the 
 correct meaning (Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 405), so also Thiersch, 
 Wieseler, Bleek, Ewald, Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 153 if., 
 Schenkel, Keim, Kahnis, I. p. 426 f. Comp. on the passage 
 before us, Diogenes Laertius, iii. 22, where it is said of 
 Plato's father : odev icadapav yd/iov <f>v\d^ai e&>9 T?}? airo- 
 /cuTjcreeo? ; see also Wetstein ; Paulus, exeget. Handb. I. p. 168 f. ; 
 Strauss, I. p. 209 ff. eicdXecre] is not to be referred to Mary, 
 so that eo>9 ov ere/ce . . . Kal e/cdXecre would be taken together, 
 as Paulus, after some older interpreters, maintains, but to 
 Joseph, as is certain after ver. 2 1 ; comp. Grotius.
 
 78 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 VER. 8. axpi(3. g&rdaare] According to B C* D N, 1, 21, 33, 
 82, 124, 209, Copt. Sahid. It. Vulg. Syr. p. Eus. Aug., we must 
 read e%trdo-art dxpi@Zi<;, with Lachm. and Tisch. Ver. 9. sarri] 
 B C D N, 33, 209, Or. Eus. read lerdd-n. So Lachm. and Tisch., 
 of the nature of a gloss ; for the more precise definition of the 
 conception in the passive, as in xxvii. 11, in almost the same 
 manuscripts. Ver. 11. e7&o\i] Elz. : tlpov, against decisive testi- 
 mony. Ver. 13. tpaivtrai xar ovap] C K n, Curss. Theophyl. : 
 xar ovap paivtrai, B : xar ovap itpdvri. So Lachm. Latter reading 
 is derived from i. 20, which passage also led to the xar ovap 
 being placed first. The Eeceived reading is therefore here to 
 be retained, and ver. 19, after B D Z K, Curss. Verss., to be 
 changed into paivsrai xar ovap (with Lachm. and Tisch.). Ver. 
 17. 6T&] B C D Z N, Curss. Verss. Chrys. Jer. read bid. Corre- 
 sponds to the standing style of quotation in Matth., therefore 
 rightly approved (comp. on iii. 3) by Griesbach and Schultz, 
 after Gersdorf ; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. Ver. 18. dpyvof 
 x. xXau0//,os] B Z S, 1,22, Verss. and Latin Fathers have merely 
 xXavdpos. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Keceived reading is an 
 extension from that of the LXX. Ver. 21. 5x0ei>] BC K: 
 i!sri\dfv. So Lachm. and Tisch. 8, correctly : the compound was 
 easily neglected. Ver. 22. evri] is wanting in B S, Curss. Eus. 
 Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But it was all the more 
 easily omitted as unnecessary, because the syllable El pre- 
 ceded it. 
 
 The genuineness of the whole of the first and second chapters 
 has been controverted, or at least suspected, by Williams (A 
 Free Inquiry into the Authenticity of the First and Second Chap- 
 ters of St. Matthew's Gospel, Lond. 1771, enlarged, 1790), by 
 Stroth (Eichhorn's Repert. IX. p. 99 ff.), Hess (Biblioth. d. heil. 
 Gesch. I. p. 208 ff.), Ammou (Diss. de Luca emendatore 
 Matthaei, Erl. 1805), J. Jones (Sequel to Ecclesiastical Ee- 
 searches, etc., Lond. 1813). In answer to Williams, Flemming 
 wrote a work (Free Thoughts upon a Free Inquiry, etc., Lond.
 
 CHAP. II. 79 
 
 1771) and Velthusen (The Authenticity of the First and Second 
 Chapters, etc., Loud. 1771); in answer to Stroth, Henke (de ev. 
 Matth. integritate, etc., Helmst. 1782); to Hess, Rau (Symbola 
 ad quaestionem de authentia, etc., 1793). Amongst the de- 
 fenders are Griesbach (Epimetron ad Comment, crit. in Matth. 
 II. p. 47 ff.), Schubert (de infantiae J. C. historiae authentia 
 atque indole, Gripeswald 1815), Kuinoel (Proleg. 6), Fritzsche 
 (Commentar. Excurs. III.), Mliller (ilb. d. Aechth. der ersten 
 Kapitel des Evang. nach Matth., Trier 1830). Amongst the 
 writers of Introduction, Eichhorn and Bertholdt have gone over 
 to the side of the opponents. Both chapters are genuine that 
 is, they were integral portions of the Hebrew Gospel writing, 
 of which our Matthew is the translation, and consequently 
 belonged to the latter from the very beginning. For (1) all the 
 Codices and Versions contain them, the Fathers of the second 
 and third centuries (Irenaeus, iii. 9. 2 f., Clement of Alexandria, 
 and others) also quote passages from them, and Celsus has 
 made reference to them (Orig. c. Gels. i. 28, ii. 32) ; (2) their 
 contents are highly appropriate to the beginning of a gospel 
 writing composed for Jewish Christians ; (3) the beginning of 
 ch. iii. is connected with ii. 23, where the residence of Jesus 
 at Nazareth is mentioned ; iv. 13 also manifestly refers to ii. 23. 
 The construction and style of expression are in keeping with 
 the character of the whole Gospel. See Griesbach, Epimetr. 
 p. 57; Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 38 ff.; Credner, I. p. 62 ff. ; Fritzsche, 
 I.e. p. 850 ff. The main argument of those who oppose the 
 genuineness is, that our chapters were wanting in the Gospel of the 
 Elionites (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13). But on a correct estimate of 
 the Gospel secundum Hebraeos in its relation to the Gospel of 
 Matthew, that counter argument can be of no weight (see Intro- 
 duction, 2) ; and, in accordance with Ebionitic views, it is very 
 conceivable that they did not admit the miraculous preliminary 
 history, and made their Gospel (according to Epiphanius), in 
 keeping with the original gospel type, begin at once with the 
 appearance of the Baptist. It is also related of Tatian (Theo- 
 doret, Haeret. fab. i. 20) : rds n yma>.oy/aj -^/xo-vj/ag xai TO. aXXa, 
 offa sx ffKip/uaros Aaj8/5 xara ffupxot, ysytvvq/Atvov rbv xvpiov Seixvvffiv. 
 But Tatian was a disciple of Docetism, and his treatment was 
 determined by dogmatic considerations. As, moreover, the 
 genealogy contained in ch. i. implies the use of a piece of 
 writing already in existence, so also the legendary character of 
 both chapters in general, and the certainly peculiar manner in 
 which the third chapter is connected with them, which, amid 
 all its literal connection with what has preceded it, passes over
 
 80 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the whole history of the youth of Jesus, appear to point to this, 
 that the portions composing both chapters were originally special 
 gospel documents. Ch. i. 1-16 appears to have been one such 
 document by itself, then vv. 18-25 a second, and ch. ii a 
 third, in which are now found for the first time the locality and 
 time of the birth of Jesus. The unity of the Greek style of 
 expression with that in the other parts of the Gospel is not 1 
 opposed to this (Ewald, Bleek, Holtzmann), but is to be ex- 
 plained from the unity of the translator. How much, how- 
 ever, considering the free style of quoting Old Testament 
 passages, is to be set down to the account of the first author of 
 these documents, or to that of the Hebrew editor of the Gospel, 
 or to the translator, cannot be determined. 
 
 Ver. I. 1 Tewr)6evTo^\ The star is to be considered as 
 appearing contemporaneously with the birth (ver. 7). But how 
 long it was after the birth when the Magi came, is ascertained 
 approximately from ver. 16, according to which, even taking 
 into account all the cruelty of Herod, and his intention to go 
 to work with thorough certainty, the arrival of the Magi is 
 most probably to be placed somewhat more than a year after 
 the birth. 
 
 Be is continuative, leading on to another history connected 
 with the birth of Jesus which has just been related. 
 I?7?$Xee/u, (house of bread) TT}<? 'louSa/a?, to distinguish it from 
 Bethlehem in the tribe of Zabulon, Josh. xix. 15. Our village 
 (Bethlehem Ephrata, Gen. xxxv. 16, 19), designated in John 
 vii. 42 as /cai^r), was situated in the tribe of Judah (Judg. 
 xvii. 9, xix. 1 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 12), six miles to the south of 
 Jerusalem, now the little manufacturing town Beit lachm. 
 See Eobinson, Pal. II. p. 379 ff.j Tobler, Sethi, in Palast. 
 1849, and the relative articles in Herzog and Schenkel. 
 
 1 See on the history of the Magi, Thilo, Eusebii Emese.nl oratio ripi &/rrpo*ci- 
 pav, praemissa de magis et Stella quaestione, Hal. 1835 ; Hunter, Stern der 
 Weisen, 1827 ; Roth (Catholic), de Stella a magis conspecta, 1865. In reference 
 to chronology based upon astronomical observation, Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. 
 II. p. 339 ff.; Anger in the Zeitschr.f. hlstor. Theol. 1847, p. 347 ff.; Wieseler, 
 chronol. Synopse u. Beitrdge z. Wiirdigung d. Evang., 1869, p. 149 ff. ; also 
 in Herzog's Encykl XXI. p. 543 f. ; Seyffarth, Chronol. sacr. 1846 ; "Weigl, ub. 
 d. wahre Geburts- u. Sterlejahr J. Chr. I., Sulzbach 1849 ; Keim, Gesch. J. 
 I. p. 375 ff.
 
 CHAP. II. 1. 81 
 
 ev fjpepais] ^3, Gen. xxvi. 1 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 1 ; 1 Kings x. 21. 
 'HpcaSov] Herod the Great, son of Antipater, received in 
 the year 714 u.c. from the Senate the dignity of king through 
 the influence of Antony, by whom he had been not long before 
 made tetrarch, but first came into the actual possession of his 
 kingdom after the capture of Jerusalem by himself and Sosius 
 in the year 717, and died, after a brilliant and flagitious 
 reign, in 750. See concerning the whole family of Herod, 
 Schlosser, Gesch. d. Fam. Herodes, Lpz. 1818; Ewald, Gesch. 
 d. Volks Isr. IV, and Gesch. Chr. p. 9 5 ff. ed. 3 ; Gerlach in 
 the Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 13 ff. ; Hausrath, neut. Zeitgesch. 
 I. and II. fj.dyoi] The Magi ( D ^9) constituted, amongst the 
 Persians and the Medes, of whom they formed, according to 
 Herod, i. 101, one of the six tribes, a distinguished priestly 
 caste, and occupied themselves principally with the know- 
 ledge of the secrets of nature, astrology, and medicine. Herod. 
 i. 32 ; Xen. Cyr. viii. 3. 6 ; Diog. Laert. i. 1-9 ; Aelian. 
 V. H. ii. 17; Porphyry, de abst. an. iv. 16; Cic. de div. i, 
 41; Plin. N. H. xxiv. 29, xxx. 2 ; Curt. iii. 3. 8. Amongst 
 the Babylonians also (Jer. xxxix. 3) there was, at the time 
 when the Chaldean dynasty was in power, such an order, of 
 which Daniel became the president (Dan. ii. 48). The name 
 of Magi was then generally transferred, without distinction 
 of country, to all those who had devoted themselves to 
 those sciences, which, however, were frequently also accom- 
 panied with the practices of magic and jugglery (Acts viii. 9. 
 xiii. 6, 8). See Wetstein, and Mliller in Herzog's Encykl. 
 VIII. p. 675 ff. airo avarJ] belongs to pdyot, Magi from the 
 Hast that is, Oriental Magi. The position of the words most 
 naturally suggests this connection ; but the article (pi airb 
 ai/ar.) is not required, because pcvyot, is without the article (in 
 answer to Fritzsche, who connects it with irape^evovro}. The 
 indefinite expression, eastern lands (viii. 11, xxiv. 27 ; Luke 
 xiii. 29 ; Eev. xxi. 13), is to be left in its indefiniteness, and 
 in so doing we are to assume that the evangelist himself had 
 no more precise information at his command. If Arabia has 
 been thought of (Justin, c. . Tr. 7 7 f. ; Epiphanius, Tertullian, 
 Maldonatus, Jansen, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Lightfoot, 
 MATT. F
 
 82 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Michaelis, Kuinoel, de Wette, Wieseler), or Persia (Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Petavius, 
 Casaubon, Wolf, Olshausen), or Parthia (Hydius), or Baby- 
 lonia (Paulus), or even Egypt (Moller, neue Ansichten in loc.}, 
 yet we have no sure hold, even in a slight degree, either in 
 the very indefinite avaro\S>v, or in the nature of the presents 
 in ver. 11. It was entirely baseless to determine their number 
 from the threefold gifts, and to regard them as kings 1 on 
 account of Ps. Ixviii. 30, 32, Ixxii. 10 ; Isa. xlix. 7, Ix. 3, 10 
 (especially since the fifth century ; yet Tertullian, c. Marcion, 
 already takes this view). Are we to think of heathens (so 
 most expositors, including Olshausen, Krabbe, B. - Crusius, 
 Lange, de Wette, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Keim), or of Jews 
 (v. d. Hardt, Harenberg in the Bill. Brem. VII. p. 470 ff. ; 
 Miinter, Paulus, Hofmann, L. J. von Strauss gcpruft, p. 249 ; 
 Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 217) ? Iii favour of the 
 first, the question, Where is the new-born King of the Jews ? 
 is decisive. And how appropriate was it to the idea of 
 Messiah, that the very first-fruits of the distant heathen 
 appeared to do homage to the King of the Jews (Isa. Ix. 
 3 ff.) ! The expectation of the Jews, that their Messiah was 
 to rule over the world, might at that period have been suffi- 
 ciently disseminated throughout the foreign countries of the 
 East (Sueton. Vesp. iv. ; Tac. H. v. 13 ; Joseph. B. J. vi. 5. 4) 
 to lead heathen astrologers, for the object in question, to the 
 Jewish capital. Comp. Dio Cass. Hist. R. xlv. 1 ; Suet. Oct. 
 xciv. 'Iepoao\vp,a\ In the capital they expected to find, if 
 not the Babe Himself, at least the most certain information 
 regarding Him. 
 
 Ver. 2. Pdp] Reason of the question. " De re deque 
 tempore ita certi sunt, ut tantum quaerant ubi" Bengel. 
 avrov rov dcrrepa] that is, the star which indicates Him. We 
 are to think of a strange star, which had not previously been 
 seen by them, from the rising of which they had inferred the 
 birth of the new King of the Jews, in accordance with their 
 
 1 According to Bede, their names also have been commonly given as Caspar, 
 Helchiw, and Balthasar (see Petr. Comestor. Hist, schol. 8), but also differ- 
 ently. See Beza in loc., and Paulus, exeget. Handb. I. p. 204.
 
 CHAP. II. 2. 83 
 
 astrological rules. Here we must observe the emphasis on 
 the avTov, which is placed first, the star which refers to Him, 
 and to no other. From the word acrr^p (not aa-rpov) it is 
 indisputably certain, ver. 8, that it is not a constellation which 
 is meant. This is in answer to Kepler, de J. Chr. servator. 
 nostri vero anno natalitio, 1605; Miinter, Ideler, Paulus, 
 Neander, Olshausen (with hesitation), Krabbe, Wieseler, Ebrard, 
 who think of a very close conjunction, which occurred in the 
 year 747 u.c., of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of the fishes ; 
 where Ebrard, however, keeping more closely to the word 
 avTrip, is of opinion that it is not that constellation itself, but 
 the new star of the first magnitude, which Kepler saw appear 
 in the year 1604 at the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, 
 and again disappear in 1605; whilst Wieseler summons to 
 his aid a comet which was observed in China in 750. The 
 Jew Abarbanel in his Commentary on Daniel (1547) inferred, 
 from a similar conjunction in the year 1463, that the birth 
 of the Messiah was at hand, and indicates the sign of the 
 fishes as that which is of importance for the Jews. If ver. 9, 
 however, points only to a miraculous star, to one that went 
 and stood in a miraculous manner, then it is evident that 
 neither a comet (Origen, Michaelis, Eosenmiiller), nor a fixed 
 star, nor a planet, nor even a meteor, is what is meant, which 
 IKTTYIP by itself might signify (Schaefer, ad Apoll. Eh. II. p. 
 206). The Fathers of the church (in Suicer, sub aa-rijp) 
 thought even of an angel. The glory of the star is wonder- 
 fully portrayed in Ignatius, Eph. 19 (sun, moon, and stars, 
 illuminated by it, surround it as a choir), Protev. Jac. xxi. 
 See Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. I. p. 390 f. The universal belief 
 of antiquity was, that the appearance of stars denoted great 
 changes, and especially the birth of men of importance. 
 Wetstein in loc. The Jews in particular believed, in accord- 
 ance with the Messianic passage, Num. xxiv. 17 (see Baur, 
 alttest. Weissag. I., 1861, p. 346 ff.), in a star of the Messiah; 
 Bertholdt, Christolog. Jud. p. 55 ff. ev rfj avaro^fj] Several 
 commentators (Hammond, Paulus, Fritzsche, Ebrard, Wieseler, 
 Ewald) translate : in the rising. Comp. Luke i. 78 ; Wisd. 
 xvi. 28 ; 2 Mace. x. 28 ; 3 Esdr. v. 47 ; Plat. Polit. p. 269 A ;
 
 84 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Locr. p. 96 D; Stob. Ed. Phys. i. 20; Polybius, xi. 22. 6. 
 In this way the avaro\r) corresponds to the te^^ei?. And as 
 the ordinary explanation, " in the East " (Luther), in accord- 
 ance with ver. 1, and especially with the current usage of the 
 word, which in the singular only rarely denotes the East (as 
 in Herodian, iii. 5. 1, ii. 8. 18), would lead us to expect the 
 plural (Gen. ii. 8 ; Judg. viii. 11 ; Ezek. xi. 1, xlvii. 8 ; Bar. iv. 
 36 f. ; 3 Mace. iv. 15 ; Herod, iv. 8 ; Polyb. xi. 6. 4, ii. 14. 4), 
 the first rendering is to be preferred. Comp. regarding the 
 use of the word to denote the rising of stars, Valckenaer, ad 
 Eur. Phoen. 506. irpoa /cvveiv] ^nn&n, to show reverence and 
 submission to any one by bowing doivn with the face toward the 
 ground. Gen. xix. 1, xviii. 2, xlii. 6, xlviii. 12 ; Herod, i. 
 134; Nep. Con. iii.; Curtius, v. 2, vi. 6. See Hoelemann, 
 Bibelstud. I. p. 96 ff. To connect it with the dative (instead 
 of the accus.) is a usage of the later Greek. Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 463. 
 
 Ver. 3. Herod was afraid, because he dreaded the over- 
 throw of his throne ; the inhabitants of Jerusalem, however, 
 not so much on account of the times of misfortune which 
 were expected to precede the Messiah (Lightfoot on Mark 
 xiii. 19 ; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 45 f.), but in keeping with 
 their special circumstances, because they dreaded the adoption 
 by the tyrant, in the maintenance of his rule, of measures 
 hostile to the people. 'lepoa-o^v/jLa] Feminine form, occur- 
 ring only here and in iii. 5, and without any various reading in 
 the Codd. It is found also in Latin (Tac. Hist. v. 2 ; Sueton. 
 Aug. xciii.). To take the name as neuter, and to supply 7ro7u<? 
 (Wetstein, Grimm, Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 16 [E. T. 18]), 
 is not grammatically possible. The feminine form must have 
 been in actual use, although the neuter, as in ver. 1, and 
 'Iepov<ra\rifj,, were and remained the prevailing forms. 
 
 Ver. 4. ndvra<; . . . \aov] is regarded, after Grotius, by 
 Pritzsche, Arnoldi, Lange, not as an assembly of the Sanhedrin 
 (so commonly), but an extraordinary convocation of all the 
 high priests and learned men. This explanation, in which, 
 moreover, Travras is not to be taken literally, is the correct 
 one. Indeed, ol ap%iepei<; /cat jpa/jifjt,ari<;, even without adding
 
 CHAP. II. 4. 85 
 
 the third element of the Sanhedrin, the Trpeafivrepoi, may 
 denote the Sanhedrin (xx. 18, xxi. 15; while, on the other 
 hand, elsewhere, as in xxvi. 47, xxvii. 1, the ypa^arei^ are 
 not mentioned along with them). But here travras is decisive, 
 which would designedly draw attention to a full sitting of the 
 high council, and therefore would have made it necessary not 
 to omit an entire class of the members, but to mention in full 
 all the three classes, as in xvi. 21, xxvii. 41 ; rov XaoO also 
 stands opposed to the common interpretation, as the latter, in 
 designating the Sanhedrin in Matthew, serves only to denote 
 the TrpearfivTepoi more precisely (xxi. 23, xxvi. 3, 47, xxvii. 1). 
 Herod summoned together all the theologians of the nation, 
 because he wanted a theological answer ; rov XaoO belongs to 
 both words ; observe the non-repetition of the article after 
 teat. apxiepels] certainly comprises partly the actual ruling 
 high priest (o ap^tepev^, t'inan \r\3 } Lev. xv. 10), partly those 
 who had formerly held this high official post, which very 
 often changed hands under the Herods. See Schiirer, Stud, 
 u. Krit. 1872, p. 593 ff. That the presidents of the twenty- 
 four classes of priests are also to be understood (Bleek, Ewald), 
 is nowhere certainly attested, and has against it the designa- 
 tion of the office itself, dp^tepet^ Both reasons, moreover, 
 are in opposition to our including, with Wieseler, the priestly 
 nobles, or, with Schiirer, the members of the at that time 
 privileged high-priestly families (Joseph. Sell. iv. 3. 6), which 
 is not justified by Acts iv. 6, and cannot be proved by a few 
 individual names mentioned in Josephus, whose relation to 
 the high-priesthood is otherwise unknown (Schiirer, p. 638 f.). 
 The last high priests who ruled before the death of Herod 
 were Matthias (5 B.C.), and Jozarus, who soon after followed 
 him (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 4. 2, xvii. 6. 4). ypapfiaTeis;] cor- 
 responds to the Hebr. D'HEiD that is, first, writers, then 
 learned men (Ezra vii. 6, 11 ; Neh. viii. 1 ; Gesenius, Thes. II. 
 p. 966). This was the name specially of the expositors of 
 the divine law, who, as Jewish canonists and learned coun- 
 cillors, belonged chiefly to the sect of the Pharisees, and in 
 part to the Sanhedrin, and were held in great respect. See 
 Lightfoot on the passage, and on xxiii. 1 3 ; Leyrer in Herzog's
 
 86 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Encyld. XIII. p. 731 ff. yfvvarai] not in the sense of the 
 future, but purely present : where is the Messiah born ? The 
 theologians were to tell what they knew concerning the birth- 
 place of the Messiah. By this question Herod leaves it quite 
 undetermined whether the birth had already taken place, or 
 was still to come. 
 
 Ver. 6. In Mic. v. 1 the sense is : Although Bethlehem is 
 too unimportant to be reckoned among the cities of the district, 
 yet a ruler in Israel will come forth from it. In Matthew this 
 thought is, with a slight deviation, changed into : Bethlehem is 
 undoubtedly an important place, because, etc. It is therefore 
 unnecessary, with Grotius, to take the passage in Micah as 
 interrogative : " Art thou, then, Bethlehem, too small," etc., 
 and to derive the turn of the thought with ouSa/zco? from this 
 interrogative interpretation (Hilgenfeld). But the Ruler to 
 whom Micah alludes is none other than the Messianic King of 
 David's race (see Ewald, Proph.}, so that in the birth of Jesus 
 this prophecy receives its complete historical fulfilment. Comp. 
 John vii. 42. ei/ rot? rj<ye/j,6a-iv] ^NS, LXX. eV %i\idcriv. 
 The Hebrew ^x denotes the subdivision of the tribes (the 
 thousands, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 323 f. ; Keil, Arch. II. p. 
 223), which had their principal places and their heads 
 See Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 106. The translation by 
 (Chrysostom : <f)v\dp^oi<;) clearly shows .that either the evan- 
 gelist himself had read the word in question not "'S?^?, but 
 'B7K2L, or that his translator had committed this mistake. In 
 the Septuagint also ^x is rendered by ^e/ico^, Gen. xxxvi. 
 1 5 f. ; Ex. xv. 1 5 ; 1 Chron. i. 5 1 f. ; Ps. Iv. 1 4. According 
 to the words as they stand in Matthew, Bethlehem, the town, 
 appears personified in the midst of the heads of families (Ewald, 
 " amongst the princes of Judah "), amongst whom it had by 
 no means the lowest position. Fritzsche conjectures rat? 
 rjyepcxTiv, in primariis familiarum in Judaea sedibus. But 
 even thus the sense of ^s? is not yet obtained. How easily, 
 on the contrary, might the evangelist or his translator derive 
 'abtf from sptf, as the rpyauftsftR which follows must have been 
 before him ! 777] not city, but strip of land, province, which 
 includes the same, 1 Mace. v. 68. Often likewise in the
 
 CHAP. II. 7-9. 87 
 
 tragic \triters. See Fritzsche in loc. Comp. Scidler, ad Eurip. 
 Troad. iv. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 361. e^e\evcrerai\ 
 will come forth, namely, by birth. Thus N^ Gen. xvii. 6. 
 Comp. Heb. vii. 5; 1 Mace. i. 10. Trot/iaz/et] Comp. the 
 Homeric Trot/tei/e? \awv. In like manner njn is used of rulers, 
 2 Sam. v. 2, vii. 7 ; Jer. xxiii. 2 ff. ; Mic. v. 3. 
 
 Ver. 7 f. AdOpa] Inconsistently enough, as that could only 
 arouse suspicion ; but to adopt secret measures is natural to 
 wickedness ! The question after the time of the appearance 
 [of the star] has its reason in this, that the mistrustful Herod 
 already thinks of the possibility of his not seeing the Magi 
 again, and that he will then still have a hold for taking 
 further proceedings against the mysterious child (ver. 16). 
 riKpifiwc-e] with the accusative does not mean : he investigated 
 minutely (aKpiftoo) irepi TWOS may mean this), but : after he 
 had made them come to him secretly, he obtained from them a 
 minute knowledge, and so on. Vulgate appropriately says : 
 " Diligeuter didicit." Comp. Plat. Charm, p. 1 5 6 A ; Xen. 
 Mem. iv. 2. 10 ; Eur. Hee. 1192 ; Lucian, Jov. trag. 27, Piscat. 
 xx.; Herodian, i 11. 14. But the passages where it means 
 to make exact (Aquila, Isa. xlix. 1 6 ; Simonides, Ixxxiv. ; Xen. 
 Cyr. ii. 1. 26) do not apply here. Euth. Zigabenus rightly 
 says : Trpoc-eSoicrja-e yap, art ore ouro? (the star) e<f)dvr), rare 
 iruwTWS eyevvrjOi] Kal^o Xpicrros. roO <j>aivofj,evov ao-repo?] 
 Grotius : " Non initium, sed continuitas" Herod asked : How 
 long does the star appear ? how long does it make itself visible ? 
 namely, since its rising in the east, where ye saw it arise 
 (ver. 9). Thus the present is not to be taken either in the 
 sense of the aorist or of the imperfect (de Wette, Bleek). 
 Tre/i^a?] not contemporaneous with the etTre (de Wette), but 
 prior to it ; comp. xi. 2. After he had directed them to 
 Bethlehem (in consequence of ver. 5 f.), he added the commis- 
 sion, etc. Otherwise it would have been eTre^ev . . . elirwv. 
 
 Ver. 9. '-4/eouo-ai/T65 TOV /Sao-tX.] After they had heard the 
 king, they set off on their journey. Description of their un- 
 suspicious behaviour. Comp. Theophylact. tcai ISov, 6 ao-r^p, 
 K.T.X.] They travelled by night, in accordance with Eastern 
 custom. See Hasselquist, Reise nach Palast. p. 152. Bengel
 
 88 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 appropriately remarks on ISov : " Toto itinere non Viderant 
 stellam." ov elSov] The aorist in the relative sentence, where 
 we use the pluperfect. See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 145 ; Winer, 
 p. 258 [E. T. 343]. Trpofjyev] is the descriptive imperfect, 
 not praecesserat (Hermann, Siiskind, Paulus, Kuinoel), as if the 
 star had again first shone upon them after they had come to 
 Bethlehem. This explanation is ungrammatical (Buttmann, 
 neut. Gr. p. 173 [E. T. 200]), and serves only to help to 
 diminish the miraculous element, which is quite opposed to 
 the character of the narrative. The common view alone is in 
 keeping with the words : the star, which they had seen in its 
 rising, went before them, on their journey from Jerusalem to 
 Bethleliem, and took up a position over the place (the house) 
 where the child was. Amongst the Greeks also stars are 
 mentioned as extraordinary guides, Eisner, p. 5 f. ; Wetstein 
 on the passage. etrdva) ov ?iv\ See ver. 11, rrjv ol/ciav. The 
 going and standing of the star is miraculous ; hence also the 
 manner in which the particular house is indicated is left 
 undetermined. 
 
 Ver. 10. 'E^dptjaav] Euth. Zigabenus correctly says: o>? 
 evpovres rov d-^revBeararov oSiyyov' eTrXrjpotyoprjdrja-av yap 
 \OITTOV, on KOI TO fyjTov/ji,vov vpij<rov(Tt,. <T(f)6Bpd] Adverbs 
 at the end; comp. iv. 8; Schaefer, ad Demosth. V. p. 367; 
 Bornemann, ad Xen. Andb. ii. 6. 9 ; Mem. iii. 5. 17. e%p- 
 X a P-] " Etenim ubi nomen per se ipsum verbi significationem 
 neque circumscribit neque intendit, adminiculo opus est vel 
 adjectivi vel pronominis vel articuli, quo reram genus certum 
 designatur," Lobeck, Paralip. p. 507. Therefore here ^apav 
 fj,eyd\i)v crtyoSpa. Comp. Mark v. 426 ; Wilke, neutestam. 
 Rhetor, p. 380. The opposite, fjueydXijv \vTrr)v \VTreta6ai, 
 John iv. 11 ; fa/Beio-dai <f)6/3ov peyav, Mark iv. 41. 
 
 Ver. 11. Els rrjv ol/clav] As the Magi did not arrive till 
 some time after the birth (ver. 1), it does not follow indeed 
 from et? T. OIK. in and ~by itself that the evangelist makes Jesus 
 be born not in the stable of a friend (Luke), or in a cave 
 (Justin and Apocrypha), but in Josephs house. Certainly, 
 however, the latter follows from this, that, according to 
 Matthew, Bethlehem is the dwelling-place of Joseph ; see
 
 CHAP. II. 12. 89 
 
 Remark after ver. 23. TO jraiSiov pera Mapias] The non- 
 mention of Joseph is not to be ascribed to any design. TOV? 
 OTjaavpoix;] the chests which held their treasures, Xen. Anal. 
 v. 4. 27 ; 1 Mace. iii. 29 ; 4 Mace. iv. 4. See Wetstein and 
 Valckenaer, ad Herod, iv. 162. To find symbolical references 
 in the individual presents is arbitrary. Tertullian and Chry- 
 sostom : Incense and myrrh they presented to Him as to a 
 God ; Irenaeus, Origen (in answer to Celsus, who ridiculed 
 the divine worship of a 1/7777-409), Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, 
 Erasmus, Luther : as a king, they presented Him with gold ; 
 as a God, with incense and with myrrh, &>9 /neXXoz/rt yevcracrdcu 
 6avdrov. Comp. the Christian Adamsbuch in Ewald, Jahrb. 
 V. p. 81, which makes the three gifts and their meaning to be 
 derived from Adam. It was and still is the Eastern custom 
 not to approach princes without presents, Gen. xliii. 11 ; 
 1 Sam. x. 27 ; 1 Kings x. 2 ; Aelian, V. H. i. 31 ; Harmar, 
 Beobacht. tib. d. Orient, II. p. 1 f. That the gifts of the Magi 
 are said to have enabled the poor parents to make out their 
 journey to Egypt (Wetstein, Olshausen, and others), is a 
 strange conceit. 
 
 Ver. 12. xprj/Aaria-QevTes] Vulgate correctly renders: 
 response accepto: passages in Wetstein, Kypke, Krebs, and 
 Loesner. The question that preceded is presupposed, Luke ii. 
 26 ; Heb. xi. 7. Comp. on Acts x. 22. Bengel well says : " Sic 
 optarant vel rogarant." The passive is found in this meaning 
 only in the New Testament and in Josephus (Antt. iii. 8. 8, 
 xi. 8. 4). avaKafi^at, . . . az/e^wp^o-ai/] The latter is not : 
 they turned lack (vv. 13, 14, 22, iv. 12), but they withdrew, 
 went away, made off ; avaKa^ai is " cursum reftectere." They 
 were not to turn lack to Herod, from whom they had come 
 hither, and that with the instruction, ver. 8, but were to select 
 another way to their home, Luke x. 6 ; Acts xviii. 2 1 ; Heb. 
 xi. 15 ; Herod, ii. 8 ; Plat. Phaed. p. 72 B; Diod. Sic. iii. 54. 
 The divine direction had for its object, that Herod should 
 not at once take measures against the true Child wJw was 
 pointed at. 
 
 REMARK. The narrative regarding the Magi, as it bears in
 
 90 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Matthew the stamp of real history, has its profound truth in 
 the ideal sphere, in which the Messianic idea, which was 
 afterwards set forth, realized in all its glory in the historical 
 life of Jesus, surrounded the little known childhood of this life 
 with the thoughtful legends its own creation preserved in 
 Matthew and Luke. The ideal truth of these legends lies in 
 their corresponding relation to the marvellous greatness of the 
 later life of the Lord and His world-embracing work ; they 
 are thereby very definitely distinguished from the legendary 
 poetry, which assumed various shapes in the Apocryphal nar- 
 ratives of the infancy. Whether, moreover, any real fact may 
 have lain at the basis of the narrative of the Magi, 1 and what 
 the nature of this is, cannot be more minutely ascertained. 
 Certainly Eastern astrologers may, according to the divine 
 appointment, have read in the stars the birth of the Jewish 
 Messiah, who was to be the light of the heathen, and with this 
 knowledge have come to Jerusalem ; but how easily did the 
 further miraculous formation of the history lay hold of the 
 popular belief in the appearance of a miraculous star at the 
 birth of the Messiah (see Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. I. p. 584 f. ; 
 Schoettgen, II. p. 531 ; Bertholdt, Christol. 14), a belief which 
 probably had its basis in Num. xxiv. 17 compared with Isa. 
 Ix. 1 ff. (Schoettgen, II. p. 151 f.), as well as in the Messianic 
 
 1 Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Lukas, p. 47, L. J. p. 75, assigned a symbolical 
 character to the narrative. According to Bleek, the symbolical point of view 
 ("the first destinies of the Christian church being, as it were, reflected") pre- 
 dominated at least in the mind of the first author ; but the preference in point 
 of historical truth is due to Luke. According to de Wette, the narratives con- 
 tained in ch. ii. are to be regarded more with a dogmatico-religious than with a 
 strictly historical eye ; the dangers surrounding the child Jesus are a type of the 
 persecutions awaiting the Messiah and His church, and an imitation of the 
 dangers which threatened the life of the child Moses, and so on. According to 
 Weisse, what is set forth is the recognition which Christianity met with amongst 
 the heathen, the hatred it experienced amongst the Jews, and then how it took 
 refuge amongst the Hellenists in Egypt. According to Ewald, the inner truth 
 of the narrative is the heavenly Light, and the division amongst men, on the 
 other hand, into the faith of the heathen and the hatred of the Jews. According 
 to Hilgenfeld, it is the expression of the world-historical importance of Jesus, 
 and of the recognition which, amid the hostility of the Jews, He was to find 
 precisely amongst the heathen. According to Kostlin, the narrative has an 
 apologetic object, to declare Jesus in a miraculous manner to be /W/Xswf rZ* 
 'lovlx'iui, at the basis of which, perhaps, was the constellation of the year 747. 
 According to Keim, it is an ideal history, the true form of which stands before 
 the eyes of the Christians of all ages, and which proceeded from the fundamental 
 thought of the conflict of the Messiah with the pseudo-Messias (Herod).
 
 CHAP. II. 13. 91 
 
 expectation that foreign nations would bring gifts to the Messiah 
 (Ps. Ixxii. ; Isa. lx.), as on other occasions, also, rich temple gifts 
 had arrived from the East (Zech. vi. 9 ff.). It was easy to 
 connect with this, by way of antithesis to this divine glorifying 
 of the child, the crafty and murderous interference of Herod as 
 the type of decided hostility, with which the ruling power of the 
 world, necessarily and conformably to experience, entered with 
 cunning and violence the lists against the manifested Messiah 
 (Luke i. 51 f.), but in vain. If we were to regard the whole 
 narrative, with its details, as actual fact (see amongst the 
 moderns, especially Ebrard and Gerlach), the matter would be 
 very easily decided ; the difficulties also which have been raised 
 against so extraordinary an astral phenomenon, both in itself 
 and from the science of optics, would be authoritatively removed 
 by means of its miraculous nature (Eusebius, Demost. ev. 9 ; John 
 of Damascus, defide orthod. ii. 7), but there would still remain 
 unexplained the impolitic cunning and falsehood of the other- 
 wise so sly and crafty Herod, who allows the Magi to depart 
 without even a guide to make sure of his designs, and without 
 arrangements of any other kind, his expenditure of vigilance 
 and bloodshed, which was as unnecessary as it was without re- 
 sult, and the altogether irreconcilable contradiction between our 
 account and the history narrated by Luke, 1 according to which 
 the child Jesus received homage of an altogether different kind, 
 and is not threatened by any sort of persecution, but at the date 
 when the Magi must have arrived, had been for a long time 
 out of Bethlehem (Luke ii. 39). Considering the legendary 
 character of the star phenomenon, it is not adapted to serve as 
 a chronological determination of the birth of Christ, for which 
 purpose it has been used, especially by Wieseler and Anger, 
 who calculate, according to it, the beginning of the year 750 as 
 the date of that birth. (Ideler, Mlinter, Schubert, Huschke, 
 Ebrard, 747 ; Kepler, 748 ; Lichtenstein and Weigl, 749 ; 
 Wurin, 751; Seyffarth, 752.) 
 
 Ver. 13. 'Ava^cop. Se avrwv] The divine direction and 
 flight into Egypt must be conceived as taking place imme- 
 diately after the departure of the Magi. Ver. 16. 
 
 1 The assumption (Paulus, Olshausen, Wieseler, Lichtenstein, Ebrard) that 
 the presentation in the temple took place before the arrival of the Magi, breaks 
 clown at once before Luke ii. 39. See, besides, Strauss, I. p. 284 ff. The 
 accounts in Matthew and Luke are irreconcitoWe (Schleiermacher, L. J. pp. 65 ff., 
 75). This is also recognised by Bleek, who gives the preference to Luke.
 
 92 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 historic present. The continuation of the narrative in con- 
 nection with the legend of the murder of the children by 
 Herod makes Jesus take refuge in Egypt, not because it was 
 near at hand, not subject to Herod, and inhabited by many 
 Jews, but because a residence in Egypt, and that as an anti- 
 type to that of the Israelites in that country, was in accord- 
 ance with the passage in Hos. xi. 1 (ver. 15). A later age 
 named Matarea, near Leontopolis, as the locality (see Paulus, 
 Merkw. Reisen in d. Orient, III. p. 256 ; Schubert, Eeise in d. 
 Morgenl. II. p. 170). eo>9 av ei-rrco crol] until I shall have 
 told thee (av, of a case occurring), that is, that thou shouldst 
 come back again. Ellipsis of the common " it " is, since the 
 time of Homer (Nagelsbach on the Iliad, pp. 60, 120, ed. 3), in 
 universal use. rov aTroXeo-cu] Expression of the intention; 
 see Kiihner, II. p. 204; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 232 [E. T. 270]. 
 
 Ver. 15. Tbv vlov pov] refers in Hos. xi. 1 (quoted accord- 
 ing to the original text) to the people of Israel (Ex. iv. 22 ; 
 Jer. xxxi. 9). The Septuagint has ra reicva avrov (Israelis). 
 Upon the iva irXrjpwdy, see on i. 22. Here it refers to the 
 arrival of Jesus in Egypt and His residence there, which could 
 not but take place as an antitype to the historical meaning of 
 Hos. xi. 1, in order that that declaration of the prophet might 
 receive its Messianic fulfilment. 
 
 Ver. 16. 'EveiraL^drf] mocked, made a fool of. Sophocles, 
 Ant. 794 ; Lucian, Trag. 331 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 108 ; 
 Luke xviii. 32 ; and frequently in N. T., LXX., and Apocrypha. 
 The words are from Herod's point of view. airo SteroO?] 
 Whether this is to be taken as masculine, a bienni, from two 
 years onwards (Syr., Ar., Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, Fritzsche, 
 Bleek), or as neuter, a bimatu, from the age of two years (Vulg., 
 Castalio, Calvin, Er. Schnaid, Eosenmtiller, Gratz), is not 
 determined by the similar passages^ Num. i. 3, xx. 45 ; 3 Esdr. 
 viii. 1; 1 Chron. xxvii. 23; 2 Chron. xxxi. 16. It is in 
 favour, however, of the latter view, that although several are 
 spoken of, yet the singular always stands (not a?ro Sierwv) ; so 
 likewise the analogy of eVl Stere?, Dem. 1135. 4 ; Aesch. in 
 Ctes. 122; err* rpieres, Arist. H. A. v. 14. Comp. likewise 
 Arist. H. A. ii. 1, and UTTO rpierovs, Plat. Legg. vii. p. 794 A.
 
 CHAP. II. 18. 93 
 
 ical KctTwrepa)] (beginning) from two years old and (con- 
 tinuing) dmvnwards. The opposite expression is : KOI eVai/a> 
 (Num. i. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. 16). The boys of two years old 
 and younger, in order the more unfailingly to attain his 
 purpose. riKpiftoxre] he had obtained precise knowledge 
 (ver. 7). He had therefore ascertained from the Magi that, 
 agreeably to the time of the appearance of the star, the child 
 could not be more than two years old at the most. ev Tra&t 
 TOIS opiois avr.] The houses and courts outside of Beth- 
 lehem which yet belonged to its borders. 
 
 Ver. 18. Jer. xxxi. 15 (freely quoted according to the 
 Septuagint) treats of the leading away of the Jews to Babylon, 
 whose destiny Eachel, the ancestress of the children of 
 Ephraim, bewails. According to the typically prophetic view 
 in Matthew, the lamentation and mourning of Eachel, repre- 
 sented by the prophet, has an antitypical reference to the 
 murdering of the children of Bethlehem, who are her children, 
 because she was the wife of Jacob, and the mother of Joseph 
 and Benjamin (Gen. xxxv. 18). And this reference was all 
 the more obvious that, according to Gen. xxxv. 19, 1 Eachel 
 was buried at Bethlehem (Eobinson, I. p. 373). Accord- 
 ing to Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Piscator, 
 Fritzsche, Eachel is regarded as the representative of Beth- 
 lehem, or of the mothers of Bethlehem. But why, in keeping 
 with the antitypical view of the prophet's words, should not 
 Eachel herself appear as lamenting over the massacre of those 
 children ? Rama, however, where, according to the prophet, 
 that lamentation resounded, is here the type of Bethlehem. 
 Eegarding the position of Eama (now the. village er Earn], near 
 to Gibeah, two hours to the north of Jerusalem, belonging at 
 one time to Ephraim, at another to Benjamin, and on its 
 identity, which is denied by others, with the Eamah of 
 Samuel (Gesenius, Thes. III. p. 1275 ; Thenius, Winer, von 
 Eaumer, Keim), see Graf in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 858 ff. ; 
 Pressel in Herzog's EncyU. XII. p. 515 f. There the exiles 
 were kept in custody, Jer. xl. 1. K\atova-a] The participle, 
 
 1 Where, however, the words Dl"6 JV2 Kin are to be regarded as a gloss. See 
 Thenius on 1 Sam. x. 2 ; Graf in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1854, p. 868.
 
 94 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 which in general never stands for the finite tense (in answer 
 to de Wette), has here its government either with ^KovaOrj 
 (Fritzsche) or with OVK ij0e\e, where /cat is to be translated 
 " also " (Rachel weeping . . . was also inaccessible to consolation ; 
 on the distinction between teal OVK and ouSe, see Hartung, 
 Partikell. I. p. 212 f.). The first is to be preferred as the 
 most natural and most appropriate to the emotional style, so 
 that 'Pa-)(r]\ K\aiovaa links itself on as an apposition, and 
 then the author " sequentium sententiarum gravitate corn- 
 motus a participio ad verbum finitum deflectit," Kiihner, ad 
 Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 30. On the tragic designation OVK elvai, 
 mortuum esse, comp. xlii. 36 ; Thuc. ii. 44. 2 ; Herod, iii. 65 ; 
 Wetstein in loc. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 515. 
 
 KEMAKK. The slaughter of the children at Bethlehem is 
 closely connected with the appearance of the Magi, and was in 
 its legendary character already extended as early as Justin 
 (c. Tr. 78) to all the children of Bethlehem. Josephus, who 
 makes such minute mention of the cruelty of Herod (Antt. xv. 
 7. 8, xvi. 11. 3, xvii. 2. 4; see Ottii Spicileg. p. 541), is silent 
 regarding this event, which, had it been known to him as a 
 matter of history, he would most probably have mentioned on 
 account of its unexampled brutality. The confused narrative of 
 Macrobius (Sat. ii. 4) 1 can here determine nothing, because it first 
 proceeded directly or indirectly from the Christian tradition. 
 Finally, the slaughter of the children itself appears not only as 
 an altogether superfluous measure, since, after the surprising 
 homage offered by the Magi, the child, recently born under 
 extraordinary circumstances, must have been universally known 
 in the small and certainly also provincial village of Bethlehem, 
 or could at least have been easily and certainly discovered by 
 the inquiries of the authorities ; but also as a very unwise 
 measure, since a summary slaughter of children could by no 
 means give the absolute certainty which was aimed at. To 
 understand the origin of the legend, it is not enough to point 
 back to the typical element in the childhood of Moses, or even 
 
 1 Ed. Bipont. p. 5541 of Augustus : " Cuin audisset, inter pueros, quos in 
 Syria Herodes, rex Jndaeorum, intra bimatum jussit interfici, filium quoque 
 ejus occisum, ait : melius est Herodis porcum (S) esse quam filium. (//>)." A 
 confusion of the murder of Antipater (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 7) with our history, 
 as if a son of the king himself (in answer to Wieseler, Beitr. p. 154) had been 
 among the murdered Syrian children.
 
 CHAP. II. 20, 21. 95 
 
 to the dangers undergone in childhood by Romulus, Cyrus, and 
 so on (Strauss) ; but see the Remark after ver. 1 2. It is arbitrary, 
 however, to exclude the flight of Jesus into Egypt from this 
 cycle of legends, and to explain it historically in an altogether 
 strange fashion, from the terrible commotion in which, after the 
 death of Herod, Jerusalem and the surrounding localities were 
 plunged (Ammon, L. J. I. p. 226 f.). It is indissolubly con- 
 nected with the slaughter of the children, and stands or falls 
 with it ; in the preliminary history of Luke there is no place 
 whatever for it. 
 
 Vv. 20, 21. TeOvijKacri . . . fyrovvres] is to be understood 
 simply of Herod. The plural is very often used where the 
 conception of a species is to be expressed, and then denotes 
 the subject, not according to number, but chiefly according to 
 the category to which it belongs. Reisig, ad Soph. Oed. C. 
 966, and Conject. in Aristoph. p. 58 ; Wunder, ad Soph. 0. 11. 
 361; Elwert, Quaestion. ad philolog. sacr. 1860, p. 10 f . ; 
 Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219]. Frequently, particularly in 
 the tragic writers, it contains a special emphasis, Hermann, 
 ad Viger. p. 739, which also announces itself in the present 
 passage. Others (Euth. Zigabenus) regard it as including 
 Herod and his councillors or servants. Ver. 19 is decisive 
 against this view. Others (Gratz, B. Crasius, de Wette) : the 
 plural is put, because the words are taken from Ex. iv. 19. But 
 there the plural is required not only by the iravres, which 
 stands in the text, but likewise by the whole connection. The 
 resemblance to Ex. iv. 19 is either accidental, or, more pro- 
 bably, intentionally selected in the consciousness of being a 
 historical parallel. et<? 7. 'Icr/>.] Note the extent and in- 
 definiteness of the designation ; Joseph could thus afterwards 
 turn his steps to Galilee without acting in opposition to the in- 
 struction. Comp. 1 Sam. xiii. 19 ; Ezek. xi. 17. ^ijreiv rrjv 
 tyvxr/v] B'Sirns B^a, seek the said that is, seek after one's life 
 (Rom. xi. 3). The present participle with the article used as 
 a substantive, see Winer, p. 103 f. [E. T. 219]. Comp. 
 Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 238. Herod died in Jericho 
 (according to Gerlach, in Jerusalem) in the year 750, his 
 genitals and bowels being eaten up of worms (Joseph. Pell.
 
 96 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 
 i. 33. 1, 5 ; Antt. xvii. 6. 5 ; Euseb. H. E. i. 68), in the thirty- 
 seventh year of his reign, and in the seventieth of his age, 
 Josephus, Antt. xvii. 8. 1, xvii. 9. 3. The tyrant became a 
 prey to despair at his death, an attempt at suicide having 
 failed in his last extremity. 
 
 Ver. 22. Augustus, after the death of Herod and the com- 
 plications connected with it, 1 divided the kingdom amongst 
 his three sons in such a manner that Arctielaus received the 
 half of the four quarters of the kingdom, namely, Judea, 
 Idumaea, and Samaria ; Antipas, Galilee and Perea ; Philip, 
 Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis. Both the latter were 
 called Tetrarchs, but Archelaus obtained the title of Ethnarch, 
 Josephus, Antt. xvii. 8. 1, xvii. 11. 4, which was to be ex- 
 changed for the title of king should he prove worthy of it. 
 But after nine years he was banished by Augustus on account 
 of his cruelty to Vienne (Josephus, Antt. xvii. 13. 2 ; B. J. ii. 
 7. 3), and died there. His territory was added to the province 
 of Syria, and placed under the administration of a procurator. 
 @a<rt\eveiv is therefore here taken generally: regnare, as 
 it often is in the classics. On avrl, compare Herod, i. 108 ; 
 Xen. Anab. i. 1, iv. 2 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 20 ; 1 Mace. iii. 1, 
 ix. 31, xiii. 4. e< 0/377 #17] for Archelaus resembled his father 
 in his suspicious and cruel temper, Josephus, Antt. xvii. 11. 
 2 f. eKei aire\0iv] a well-known attraction : adverbs of 
 rest with verbs of direction, xvii. 20; John vii. 35, viii. 21, 
 xi. 8, xviii. 3; Eom. xv. 24; LXX. Deut. i 37; 2 Sam. 
 xvii. 18 ; Winer, p. 439 [E. T. 591]; Bernhardy, p. 349 f. 
 Ta\t,\aia<$\ in the portions of his district belonging to Galilee. 
 (xv. 21, xvi. 13 ; Acts ii. 10), so that he avoided Judea, and 
 did not return to Bethlehem. The voluptuary Antipas was 
 known to be more humane than Archelaus. 
 
 Ver. 23. 'E\0(0v] to Galilee. et? iro\iv\ et? does not 
 belong to eXBcav (Fritzsche, Olshausen), but to KarwKTja-ev, 
 beside which it stands in Gen. xiii. 1 8 ; /tan-awe, includes the 
 movement connected with the settlement, and that in such a 
 way that the latter was the predominating element in the 
 
 1 Comp. Schneckenburger, neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 201 ff. ; Hausrath, neut. 
 Zeitgesch. I. p. 284 ff. ; Keirn in Scheiikel's Bibdlex.
 
 CHAP, ii, 23. 97 
 
 thought of the writer : he went and settled at Nazareth. 
 Comp. iv. 13; Acts vii. 4 ; 2 Chron. xix. 4. See Kiihner, 
 I. p. 471. Nazareth 1 ] in Lower Galilee, in the tribe of 
 Zabulon, situated on a hill (Luke iv. 20), with pleasant 
 environs. Robinson, Paldst. III. p. 419 ff. ; Hitter, Erdk. 
 XVI. p. 739 ff. ; Purer, Wander, durch Paldst. p. 267 ff. ; 
 Tobler, Nazar. in Paldst., 1868. Mentioned neither in the 
 0. T. nor in Josephus. OTT&X?] in order that. See i. 22. 
 Sta rS>v Trpo<f>.] not the plural of category (ver. 20, so 
 Fritzsche), according to which Isaiah only could be meant, but 
 the prophets generally, Luke xviii. 31 ; Eom. i. 2. OTI] not 
 the Eecitativum, although its use in the Gospel of Matthew 
 cannot be denied, vii. 23, ix. 18, xiv. 26, xxvii. 43, 47, but 
 " that" as no individual express statement is quoted. 
 Naa>paio9] of Nazareth, xxvi. 71. In Isa. xi. 1, the Messiah, 
 as the offspring of David, is called ~i), shoot, with which, in 
 the representation of the evangelist, this designation was 
 identified, only expressed by another word, namely, n (Jer. 
 xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15 ; Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12 ; Isa. iv. 2) ; therefore 
 he wrote, Bta TWV trpo^rwv. In giving this prophetic title 
 of 1X3 to the Messiah, he entirely disregards the historical 
 meaning of the same (LXX. Isa. xi. 1 : avOos}, keeps by the 
 relationship of the name Nazareth to the word 1V3, and recog- 
 nises, by virtue of the same, in that prophetic Messianic name 
 Nezer, the typical reference to this, that Jesus, through His 
 settlement in Nazareth, was to become a Na&palos ; the 
 translator therefore, rightly apprehending this typical reference, 
 
 1 Upon the form of the name Nafa, which, although attested as ancient in 
 many ways, is yet found only in a few passages in the Mss. of the N. T., and 
 very unequally supported (Tischendorf, 8th ed., has received it into the text in 
 iv. 13, and in Luke iv. 16), see Keirn, I. p. 319 ; comp. also Delitzsch, Jesus 
 u. Hillel, p. 13. In the passage before us it is without any support, as well as 
 in xxi. 11, and in the remaining passages of the other evangelists, except Luke 
 i 26, iv. 16. The form N^a^ is often found in Mss., as also Naa/>r. But it 
 is the admission of Na^tr (or Nafs0) alone into the text that can be justified, 
 and that as the standing reading, all the more that even in iv. 13 and in Luke iv. 
 16 there is by no means a decisive predominance of testimony for Naap, which 
 has no support, moreover, in Acts x. 38. Although Nazara was the original 
 form of the name (see in answer to Ewald's doubts, Keim, II. p. 421 f.), which is 
 probable, it must notwithstanding have been strange to the evangelists. 
 MATT. G
 
 98 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 expressed the Hebrew 1V3 by Nafapalos, although he may 
 have also found in the original Hebrew draft of the Gospel 
 tw p, or, more probably, nw. The evangelist must in any 
 case have derived the name Nazareth from 1V3, and it is like- 
 wise probable in itself ; see Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 
 124 ff. " Eruditi Hebraei" already referred the Na^cop. K\i]0. 
 back to the *i!M ; see Jerome on Isa. xi. 1, and, more recently, 
 Piscator, Casaubon, Jansen, Maldonatus, Surenhusius, Bauer 
 (bibl. Theol. I. p. 163), Fritzsche, Gieseler, Kern, Krabbe, 
 de Wette, B. Crusius, Kostlin, Bleek, Hengstenberg, Kahnis, 
 Anger, formerly also Hilgenfeld. But others (Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Clericus, Gratz) regard the words as a quotation 
 from a lost prophetical book. But always, where in the N. T. 
 the prophets are quoted, those in the completed canon are 
 meant. Others (Michaelis, Paulus, Kuinoel, Gersdorf, Kaliffer, 
 Olshausen, Ebrard, Lange) are of opinion that Na^wpalos 
 refers to the despised and melancholy position of the Messiah 
 depicted by the prophets in accordance with Ps. xxii., Isa. liii. 
 For Nazareth was despised, see John i. 47, vii. 52. But the 
 question here is not as to a prophetic description (of the 
 lowliness of the Messiah), but as to the definite prophetic 
 name (K^tjOijaerat), to which the settlement in Nazareth may 
 correspond ; and, indeed, the evangelist must have found the 
 name itself in the prophets, and not have inserted it ex eventu, 
 namely, because Nazareth served to make the Messiah an 
 object of misapprehension (in answer to Hofmann, Weissag. u. 
 Erf till. p. 66). For that reason also the opinion of others is 
 to be rejected (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, Hil- 
 genfeld), who, after Tertullian and Jerome, take Na%. for the 
 Hebrew "VW, that it might be fulfilled . . . that He shall be 
 (called) a Nazarite. Jesus had neither represented Himself 
 to be such a consecrated person, Matt. xi. 19, nor can any 
 passage in the prophets be pointed out as referring to this ; 
 therefore Ewald, in opposition to Sia rwv rirpofy., assumes the 
 statement to be taken from an Apocryphal book, in which the 
 Messiah, on His first appearance, was represented as a Nazarite, 
 so that the evangelist was led, from the similarity of the word, 
 to infer a reference to Nazareth. If, however, in Na%(0paio<;
 
 CHAP. II. 28. 99 
 
 the Hebrew "W3, Preserver, has been supposed to be contained, 
 and that in such a way that it had as its basis either Ex. 
 xxxiv. 6 f. (Zuschlag in Guericke's Zeitschr. 1854, III. p. 
 417 ff.) or Ps. xxxi. 24 (Riggenbach in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1855, p. 606 f.), then something entirely foreign is thus 
 imported, as in those passages there is to be found neither a 
 designation of the Messiah nor any prophetic declaration. Still 
 more arbitrary is the reference of Hitzig in the theol. Jahrb. 
 1842, p. 410, to Isa. xlix. 6, where ^3 has been taken as 
 singular, and explained as a predicate of the Messiah, as the 
 leader of those who are saved. Delitzsch has referred to Isa. 
 xlii. 6 ; so that Christ is predicted as He who is preserved in 
 dangers (1^3, Isa. xlix. 6), whilst Nazareth was His place of 
 concealment. 
 
 EEMARK. The evangelist expresses himself in ver. 23 in 
 such a manner that throughout the narrative Nazareth cannot 
 appear to the reader as the original dwelling-place of Joseph 
 and Mary. Bethlehem rather, according to his account, appears 
 to be intended as such (ver. 22), whilst Nazareth was the place 
 of sojourn under the special circumstances which occurred after 
 the death of Herod. The account given by Luke is quite 
 different. This variation is to be admitted, and the reconcilia- 
 tion of both accounts can only be brought about in an arbitrary 
 manner, 1 which is all the more inadmissible that, on the whole, 
 the narratives of Matthew and Luke regarding the birth and 
 early infancy of Jesus in important points mutually exclude 
 
 1 That Joseph, brought to Bethlehem by the census, settled there. Matthew 
 accordingly represents Bethlehem as his dwelling-place. The flight to Egypt, 
 however, again soon broke up the residence in Bethlehem, so that the sojourn 
 was only a passing one, and therefore Luke rightly regarded the subsequent 
 settlement at Nazareth as a return thither. See Neander, Ebrard, Hofmann, 
 Krabbe, Lange. Wieseler's reasons also (clironolog. Synopse, p. 35 ff.) against 
 the view that Matthew makes Bethlehem appear as the original dwelling-place 
 of Jesus, will not stand. This view is to be regarded, by the account in Matthew, 
 which is to be looked on as independent, and standing by itself, as a necessary 
 exegetical result by means of ver. 22, and is undoubtedly confirmed by ver. 23, 
 where Joseph's settlement in Nazareth appears as something new, which must 
 occur in order to fulfil a prophetic prediction, so that consequently no reader of 
 Matthew could come to think that Nazareth had been Joseph's dwelling-place. 
 "Wieseler, however, has, moreover, strikingly demonstrated the unhistorical 
 nature of the view that Jesus was born at Nazareth
 
 100 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 each other. Amid all their other variations, however, in the 
 preliminary history in which they are independent of one 
 another, they agree in this, that Bethlehem was the place of birth, 
 and it is in opposition to the history to relegate this agreement 
 to the sphere of dogmatic reflection, and to transport the birth 
 of Jesus to Nazareth (Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Keim), since the 
 designation of Jesus as belonging to Nazareth (Matt, xiii 34 ; 
 Mark vi. 1 ; Luke iv. 1 9) finds its natural and complete ex- 
 planation in the short and passing sojourn of His parents at 
 Bethlehem after His birth, whereas, had Jesus Himself been a 
 native of Galilee, He would neither have found a believing 
 reception amongst His people, nor, on the other hand, could 
 His Messiahship have been held to be based on a prophetic 
 foundation. Comp. also Luke ii 39 and John vii 42.
 
 CHAP. III. 1. 101 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 -VEIL 2. xa! Xsywn] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely \iyuv, only 
 after B K, Hil. and some Verss. The superfluous xai was easily 
 overlooked. Ver. 3. 0^] B C D K, 1, 13, 33, 124, 157, 209, 
 Syr" Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Sax. read 3/a; so Griesbach, 
 Gersdorf, Schulz, Lachm., Tisch. Correctly; see on ii. 17. 
 Ver. 4. The position %v aurou (Lachm., Tisch.) is, by means of 
 B C D K, 1, 209, so sufficiently attested, that it must be pre- 
 ferred to the ordinary position auroS %v, which spontaneously 
 suggested itself to the copyists. Ver. 6. 'lopddvp] B C* M A N, 
 Curss., and many Verss. and Fathers, add -rora/Aw; so Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8. Addition from Mark i. 5. Ver. 7. The auroD 
 was easily passed over after pdxnGfjt.a as unnecessary; it is 
 wanting, however, only in B K*, Sahid. Or. Hil., but is deleted 
 by Tisch. 8. Ver. 8. xap^bv a%iov] Elz. has xap-jrove a%<w$, after 
 too weak testimony. Eetained by Fritzsche. It arose from the 
 copyists, who deemed the plural more appropriate to the sense, 
 and had Luke iii. 8 in view. Ver. 10. ds xai] Lachm. Tisch.: 
 8t, which is so preponderantly attested by B C D M A N, Curss. 
 Verss. Or. Ir. Did. Bas., that di x/is to be regarded as introduced 
 from Luke iii. 9. Ver. 14. Instead of o bt 'luavvyc, Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 8 have only o ds, after B K, Sahid. Eus. Correctly ; the 
 name was much more easily interpolated than omitted. Ver. 
 16. The transposition evdvs avifiq in B D N, Curss. Verss. and 
 Fathers (so Lachm. and Tisch.), is a change, which assigned to 
 the tv6u$ its more usual place (Gersdorf, I. p. 485). aurw] is 
 bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., but has a decided pre- 
 ponderance of witnesses in its favour, and its significance was 
 easily misunderstood and passed over. xa/] before tfxJ>^. is to 
 be defended on decisive testimony, against Tisch. 8 ; comp. on 
 ver. 2. 
 
 Ver. 1. 'Ev . . . Keivai<i\ ann D'oja, Ex. ii. 11, 23 ; Isa. 
 xxxviii. 1. Indefinite determination of time, which, however, 
 always points back to a date which has preceded it. Mark
 
 102 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 i. 9 ; Luke ii. 1. Here : at the time when Jesus still sojourned 
 at Nazareth. The evangelist passes over the history of the 
 youth of Jesus, and at once goes onwards to the forerunner of 
 the Messiah ; for he might not have had at his command any 
 written documents, and sufficiently trustworthy traditions 
 regarding it, since the oldest manner of presenting the gospel 
 history, as still retained in Mark, began first with John 
 the Baptist, to which beginning our evangelist also turns 
 without further delay. It employs in so doing only the very 
 indefinite transition with the same simplicity of unstudied 
 historical writing, as in Ex. ii. 11, where by the same expres- 
 sion is meant the time when Moses still sojourned at the 
 court of Egypt, though not the time of his childhood (ver. 10), 
 but of his manhood. Accordingly, the following hypotheses 
 are unnecessary ; that of Paulus : in the original document, 
 from which Matthew borrowed the following narrative, some- 
 thing about John the Baptist may hav v e preceded, to which 
 this note of time was appended, which Matthew retained, 
 without adopting that preliminary matter ; of Holtzmann : 
 that a look forward to Mark i. 9 here betrays itself; of 
 Schneckenburger (fib. d. erste kanon. EV. p. 120): that in the 
 gospel according to the Hebrews ev rat? rj/jiepais 'HpcoBou 
 erroneously stood, instead of which Matthew put the indefinite 
 statement before us ; of Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 55 : in the older 
 narrative, which lay at the foundation of our Matthew, the 
 genealogical tree of Jesus was perhaps followed by / rat? 
 %/j,epai<$ 'HpooBov rov /3acrtXea>9 rf)? 'lovBaias f)\0v (or eyepero) 
 ' 'Iwdvvrjs ; compare also Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 61. The correct 
 view was already adopted by Chrysostom and his followers, 
 Beza, Camerarius, Bengel : " Jesu habitante Nazarethae, ii. 23 ; 
 notatur non breve, sed nulla majori mutatione notabile inter- 
 vallum." It is Luke iii. 1 which first gives the more precise 
 determination of time, and that very minutely. IT a pay i- 
 vrai] Historic present, as in ii 13. Euth. Zigabenus : iroQev 
 o 'Iwdvvrjs 'irapcuyk'yovev ; OTTO 7779 evBortpas 'pijfjiov. Opposed to 
 this is the ev rfj eprj^u) that follows. Matthew has only the 
 more general and indefinite expression : he arrives, he appears. 
 Luke xii. 51 ; Heb. ix. 11. o /SaTTTto-r.] Josephus, Antt.
 
 CHAP. III. 2. 103 
 
 xviii. 5. 2 : 'Iwdvv. o tiriKaXovpevos (BaTniaTifc. ev Ty 
 eptjfMO) TT}? 'loySata?] n T' n . " l ?'7 r ?, Judg. i. 16, Josh. xv. 61, a 
 level plain adapted for the feeding of cattle, sparsely cultivated 
 and inhabited, 1 which begins at Tekoa, and extends as far as 
 the Dead Sea. Winer, fiealworterb. s.v. Wilste ; Tobler, Denk- 
 Ucitter aus Jerus. p. 682 ; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 484 f. The 
 mention of the locality is more precise in Luke iii. 2 f. ; but 
 that in Matthew, in which the wilderness is not marked off 
 geographically from the valley of the Jordan, which was 
 justified by the nature of the soil (Josephus, Sell. iii. 10. 7, 
 iv. 8. 2 f.), and involuntarily called forth by the following 
 prophecy, is not incorrect. Comp. Ebrard (in answer to 
 Strauss) ; Keim, I.e. p. 494. 
 
 Ver. 2. Meravoeire] denotes the transformation of the 
 moral disposition, which is requisite in order to obtain a share 
 in the kingdom of the Messiah. Sanhedrin f. 97, 2 : " Si 
 Israelitae poenitentiam agunt, tune per Goelem liberantur." 
 In the mouth of John the conception could only be that of 
 the Old Testament (cni, 31$), expressing the transformation 
 according to the moral requirements of the law, but not yet 
 the Christian idea, according to which perdvoia has as its 
 essential inseparable correlative, faith in Jesus as the Messiah 
 (Mark i. 15), after which the Holy Spirit, received by means 
 of baptism, establishes and completes the new birth from 
 above into true %wr). John iii. 3, 5 ; Tit. iii. 5 f. ; Acts ii. 38. 
 r/774/ce] it is near ; for John expected that Jesus would 
 set up His kingdom. Comp. iv. 17, x. 7. r) J3aa-i\eia rS>v 
 ovpavwv] See Fleck, de regno div. 1829 ; Weissenbach, Jesu 
 in regno coelor. dignitas, 1868 ; Keim, Gesch. J. II. p. 40 ff. ; 
 Kamphausen, d. Gebet des Herren, p. 56 ff. ; Wittichen, d. Idee 
 des Reiches Gottes, 1872. The kingdom of heaven (the plural 
 is to be explained from the popular idea of seven heavens ; 
 see on 2 Cor. xii. 2) corresponds to the Eabbinical DWn mafo 
 
 1 The idea of a flat surface called "I31D is given us partially in the Liine- 
 burger Heath. See generally, dome, Bekrdge zur Erlddr. des N. T. p. 41 ff. 
 Not to be confused with rmjj, steppe, concerning which see Credner in the 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 798 ff. Compare in regard to our wilderness, Robinson, 
 Pal. II. p. 431.
 
 104 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (Schoettgen, Diss. de regno coelor. I. in his Home, I. p. 1147 ff., 
 and Wetstein in loc.}, an expression which is used by the 
 Eabbins mostly indeed in the e^/wco-theocratic sense, but also 
 in the eventually historical meaning of the theocracy, brought 
 to its consummation by the Messiah (Targum, Mich. iv. 75 in 
 Wetstein). In the N. T. this expression occurs only in 
 Matthew, and that as the usual one, which, as that which was 
 most frequently employed by Jesus Himself, is to be regarded 
 as derived from the collection of sayings (in answer to Weiss). 
 Equivalent in meaning to it are : fta<rt\eia rov 6eov (also 
 in Matthew, yet much rarer and not everywhere critically 
 certain), /3aeri\. T. Xpiarov, f) ftaaikeia. Comp. Isa. xx. 6 ; 
 Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14 ff., 26 f. The kingdom of the Messiah 
 is designated by 17 /3a<r. r. ovp., because this kingdom, the 
 consummated theocracy in its glory, is no earthly kingdom, 
 John xviii 36, but belongs to heaven, appears to us as descend- 
 ing from heaven, where, up till that time, its blessings, its 
 salvation, and its Sofa are preserved by God for bestowal at 
 some future period. Although among the Jewish people the 
 theocratic idea, of which the prophets were the bearers, had 
 preserved its root, and from this people alone, in accordance 
 with its divine preparation and guidance, could the realization 
 of this idea, and with it the salvation of the world, proceed, 
 as, indeed, the profounder minds apprehended and cherished 
 the mighty thought of Messiah in the Sense of the true rule 
 of God, and of its destination for the world, yet the common 
 idea of the people was predominantly political and particular- 
 istic, frequently stamped with the fanatical thought of a world- 
 rule and with millenarian ideas (the Messiah raises up the 
 descendants of Abraham, then comes the kingdom which lasts 
 a thousand years, then the resurrection and the condemnatory 
 judgment of the heathen, the descent of the heavenly Jeru- 
 salem, and the everlasting life of the descendants of Abraham 
 on the earth, which has been transformed along with the 
 whole universe). In the teaching of Christ, however, and in 
 the apostolic writings, the kingdom of the Messiah is the 
 actual consummation of the prophetic idea of the rule of God ; 
 and as it is unaccompanied by millenarian ideas (which exist
 
 CHAP. III. 2. 105 
 
 only in the non-apostolic Apocalypse), so also is it without 
 any national limitation, so that participation therein rests 
 only on faith in Jesus Christ, and on the moral renewal 
 which is conditioned by the same, and " God all in all " is 
 the last and highest aim, without the thought of the world- 
 rule, and the expectation of the renewal of the world, of the 
 resurrection, of the judgment, and also of the external glory 
 losing their positive validity and necessity, thoughts which 
 rather form the subject of living Christian hope amidst all 
 the struggles and oppressions of the world. Moreover, those 
 expressions, ftacrikeia r&v ovpavwv, K.T.\., never signify any- 
 thing else than the kingdom of the Messiah (Koppe, Exc. I. ad 
 Thess.*), even in those passages where they appear to denote the 
 (invisible) church, the moral kingdom of the Christian religion, 
 and such like ; or to express some modern abstraction of the 
 concrete conception, 1 which is one given in the history, an 
 appearance which is eliminated by observing that the manner of 
 expression is frequently proleptic, and which has its historical 
 basis in the idea of the nearness of the kingdom, and in the 
 moral development which necessarily precedes its manifesta- 
 tion (coinp. Matt. xi. 12, xii. 28, xvi. 19). Comp. on Eom. 
 xiv. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20; Col. i. 13, iv. 11; Matt. vi. 10. 
 That John the Baptist also had, under divine revelation, appre- 
 hended the idea of the Messiah's kingdom in the ethical light, 
 free from any limitation to the Jewish people (John i. 29), 
 without, however, entirely giving up the political element, is 
 already shown by ver. 7 ff. It cannot, however, be proved, 
 and is, considering the divine illumination of the Baptist, 
 improbable, and also without any foundation in xi. 3, that 
 too much has been put into his mouth by ascribing to him 
 the definite announcement of the kingdom. If Josephus, in 
 his account of John, makes no mention of any expression 
 
 1 e.g. an organized commonwealth under the principle of the divine will 
 (Tholuck) ; arrangement of things in which this will has come to its consumma- 
 tion, and now alone is operative (Hofmann). Schleiermacher : "The idea of 
 the kingdom of God must have originated in Christ from His self-consciousness 
 and His perception of sin, if He conceived of His life as disseminated among tfie 
 masses"
 
 106 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 pointing to the Messiah, 1 yet this may be sufficiently explained 
 from his want of susceptibility for the higher nature of Chris- 
 tianity, and from his peculiar political relation to the Eomans. 
 Ver. 3. rdp] " Causa, cur Johannes ita exoriri turn 
 debuerit, uti v. 1, 2, describitur, quia sic praedictum erat," 
 Bengel. Does not belong to John's discourse, ver. 3, so that 
 by ouT09 he points to himself, as Er. Schmid, Eaphel, Fritzsche, 
 Paulus, Rettigin the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 205 f., maintain, 
 since so prominent a self-designation has no basis in the con- 
 nection (John i. 2 3 ; on the other hand, John vi. 50, 5 8) ; 
 further, the descriptive present earl is quite in keeping with 
 Trapayiverai in ver. 1 ; and auro9 Se, ver. 4, is quite in keep- 
 ing with the sense of the objectively and generally delivered 
 prophetic description (the voice of one calling, and so on), and 
 leads to the concrete person thereby intended. ev rfi epr)p,w\ 
 belongs in the original text to erotfjudcrare, and in the LXX. 
 also there is no reason for separating it from it ; but here it 
 belongs to /3ooWo5, according to ver. 1 : Kypvaa-wv ev rfj epj?//.&>. 
 This in answer to Eettig, Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 
 77 f., and Delitzsch. The passage, Isa. xi. 3, quoted accord- 
 ing to the LXX., contains historically a summons to prepare 
 the way for Jehovah, who is bringing back His people from 
 exile, and to make level the streets which He is to traverse, 
 after the analogy of what used to take place in the East when 
 rulers set out on a journey (Wetstein and Miinthe). In this 
 the evangelist recognises (and the Baptist himself had recog- 
 nised this, John i. 23) the typically prophetic reference to 
 John as the prophet who was to call on the Jews to prepare 
 themselves by repentance for the reception of the Messiah 
 (whose manifestation is the manifestation of Jehovah). In 
 Isaiah, the voice which calls is that of a herald of Jehovah, 
 who desires to begin his journey ; in the Messianic fulfilment, 
 it is the voice of the Baptist. Faith in a God-sent fore- 
 
 1 Antt. xviii. 5. 2 : Knitu TUTOI 'Upturns, ayaiei eiv&pet xai <r"t* 'Iu3a/aij xi),i-j- 
 ciTft afirni Itraffxouvras *<*' TJJ rpo; a/.XtiXsi/; ^ixattxrvyri xai rpas for f'.ot ivfftpsiet 
 u; ftavrifftv rvviivai' tliTu yap Ktti <rr,t ftifriaii air ebiKTri* a,vTca Qav.iccxi, fjLti 
 t a.f*.<tfru&ui rapuirvrti xptiftitvf, aXX' i^' ctyvito. <rov ffufj.tt.ros, rt $n *ai rf,;
 
 CHAP. III. 4. 107 
 
 runner of the Messiah, based on prophecy (Mai. iii. 1 ; Luke 
 i. 17, 76) and confirmed by Jesus Himself (xi. 10, xvii. 11), 
 and attested as realized in the appearance of the Baptist, had 
 in various ways (see Bertholdt, Christol. p. 58) assumed the 
 form of the expectation of the return of one of the ancient 
 prophets. Comp. xvi. 14 ; John i 21. 
 
 Ver. 4. AVTOS] ipse autem Johannes, the historical person 
 himself, who is intended (ver. 3) by that fairf of Isaiah. 
 et%e . . . Kap,r)\ov\ He had his (distinctive, constantly worn) 
 robe of camels' hair. The reading is avrov, which is neither 
 to be written avrov (it is used from the standpoint of the 
 narrator, and without any reflective emphasis), nor is it super- 
 fluous. Whether are we to think of a garment of camels' 
 skin, or a coarse cloth of camels' hair ? Er. Schmid and 
 Fritzsche are of the former opinion. But as hair alone is 
 expressly mentioned as the material * (comp. also Mark i. 6), 
 the latter is to be preferred. Even at the present day coarse 
 cloth is prepared from camels' hair for clothing and for cover- 
 ing tents. See Harmar, III. p. 356. Of clothes made from 
 the hides of camels (probably, however, from sheep and goat- 
 skins, compare Heb. xi. 37) there is not a trace to be found 
 among either ancient or modern Oriental saints (Harmar, III. 
 p. 374 ff.). Sepf^aTivrjv] not of a luxurious material, but 
 like Elijah, 2 Kings i. 8, whose copy he was (comp. Ewald, 
 G-esch. d. Volks Isr. III. p. 529). Dress and food are in 
 keeping with the asceticism of the Baptist, and thereby with 
 the profound earnestness of his call to /ieraz/ota. " Habitus 
 quoque et victus Johannis praedicdbat" Bengel. a/cpiSes] 
 Several kinds of locusts were eaten, Lev. xi. 22. Comp. Plin. 
 N. H. vi. 35, xi. 32, 35. This is still the custom in the 
 East, especially amongst the poorer classes and the Bedouins. 
 The wings and legs are torn off, and the remainder is sprinkled 
 with salt, and either boiled or eaten roasted. Niebuhr, Eeise, 
 I. p. 402 ; Harmar, I. p. 274 f . ; Eosenmliller, altes und neues 
 Morgenl. in loco. The conjectures of the older writers, who, 
 deeming this food unworthy of John, have substituted soine- 
 
 1 Comp. Josephus, Bell. Jud. xvii. 24. 3 : ; VT) <r &&ffi).ix*i> i r<i%ti npifn- 
 fcva-iv tavrccTf i* rpt%a rifiinfj.inif.
 
 108 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 times cakes (^yaptSw), 1 sometimes crabs (KapiSes), or fruits of 
 the nut kind (dicpoSpva) and other articles, deserve no con- 
 sideration. /iteXt ayptov] Commonly: honey prepared by 
 wild bees, which in the East flows out of the clefts of the rocks. 
 Euth. Zigabenus : TO ev rait rwv Trerpwv a^ia^al^ VTTO T&V 
 fjieXia-a-wv jewpyovfievov. Bochart, Hieroz. II. 4. 12 ; Suicer, 
 TJies. II. p. 330; Ewald, Gesch. Isr. III. p. 50. It is still 
 frequently found in abundance at the present day in the 
 Jewish wilderness. Schulz, Leitungen d. Hochsten auf den 
 Reisen durch Eur. As. Afr. V. p. 133 ; Eosenmliller, L 1, p. 7 ; 
 Oedmann, Sammlungen aus d. Naturk. zur Erkl. d. heil. Schr. 
 VI. p. 136 f. Others (Suidas, Salmasius, Eeland, Michaelis, 
 Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Schegg, Bleek, Volkmar) understand tree 
 honey, a substance of the nature of honey which issues from 
 palms, figs, and other trees. Diod. Sic. xix. 9 4 ; Wesseling 
 in loc. ; Plin. N. H. xv. 7 ; Suidas, s.v. dtepk. Comp. Heyne, 
 ad Virg. Ed. iv. 30. Similarly, Polyaenus, iv. 3. 32 : TO vov 
 /tteXt, the Persian manna. This explanation of tree honey is to 
 be preferred, as, according to Diod. Sic. I.e. and Suidas, the 
 predicate aypiov, as terminus technicus, actually designates this 
 honey, whilst the expression /ie\t aypiov cannot be proved to 
 be employed of the honey of wild bees (which, moreover, is the 
 common honey). 
 
 Ver. 5. 'H Tre/ot^twpo? TOW 'lopSdvov] HI-L 1 "'S?, Gen. 
 xiii. 10, 11 ; 1 Kings vii. 47 ; 2 Chron. iv. 17. The country 
 on both sides of the Jordan, now Elgor, see Robinson, Pal. II. 
 
 1 Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13 quotes from the Gospel according to the Hebrews : 
 
 xa.i ft fipwf&a aiirtv, Ifvffi, fti).i aypiov, eu ri 'ytufis ri* rau pawec us iyxpif in Xa/ (con- 
 
 jecture : i ^EX/T/). A confusion has here been supposed between *^'Ssj and 
 iyxptiis, and it has been inferred that that Gospel was derived from Greek sources, 
 especially from the Greek Matthew. So also Credner, Beitr. I. p. 344 f. ; Bleek, 
 Beitr. p. 61 ; Harless, Erl. Weihnachtsprogr. 1841, p. 21. Comp. Delitzsch, 
 Entsteh. u. Anl. d. kanon. Ev. I. p. 20. But that passage from the Gospel to 
 the Hebrews contains only one kind of sustenance employed by John, the ,i>/ 
 ciypiav, the taste of which is described according to Ex. xvi. 31, Num. xi. 8. 
 The Ebionites altogether omitted the locusts, as being animal food, but did not 
 substitute, as Epiphanius erroneously supposes, lyxpfits for a.xptiis. The resem- 
 blance of the tree honey to the manna could not but be welcome to their Jewish 
 point of view ; but because the word lyxp!; occurs in the books of Moses in the 
 description of its taste, they adopted it ; this has no relation whatever to our
 
 CHAP. III. 5. 109 
 
 p. 498 ff. Comp. Lightfoot, Hor. p. 216. The whole passage 
 conveys an impression of solemnity, with which also the 
 naming of the town and district, instead of the inhabitants 
 (Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 103 ff. ed. 3), is connected. The 
 baptism of John has been erroneously regarded as a modified 
 application of the Jewish baptism of proselytes. So Selden 
 (jus. nat. ii. 2), Lightfoot (Hor. p. 220 ff.), Danz (in Meus- 
 chen, N. T. ex Talm. ill. pp. 233 ff., 28*7 ff.), Ziegler (theol. 
 Abh. II. p. 132 ff.), Eisenlohr (hist. BemerL ftb. d. Taufe, 
 1804), Kaiser (bibl. Theol. II. p. 160), Kuinoel, Fritzsche, 
 Bengel, ub. d. Alter d. Jud. Proselytent. 1814. For the 
 baptism of proselytes, the oldest testimony to which occurs in 
 the Gemara Babyl. Jebamoth xlvi. 2, and regarding which 
 Philo, Josephus, and the more ancient Targumists are alto- 
 gether silent, did not arise till after the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 Schneckenburger, ub. d. Alter der Jud. Proselytent. u. deren 
 Zusammenst. m. d. joh. u. chr. Eitus, 1828; Paulus, exey. 
 Handb. I. p. 307 ff. The reception of proselytes was accom- 
 plished, so long as the temple stood, by means of circumcision 
 and the presentation of a sacrifice, which was preceded, like 
 every sacrifice, by a lustration, which the proselyte performed 
 on himself. It is not, however, with this lustration merely, 
 but chiefly with the religious usages of the Jews as regards 
 washings, and their symbolical meaning (Gen. xxxv. 2 ; Ex. 
 xix. 1 ; Num. xix. 7, 19; 1 Sam. xvi. 5 ; Judith xii. 7), 
 that the baptism of John has its general point of connection 
 in the history of the people, although it is precisely as baptism, 
 and accompanied by the confession of sin, that it appears only 
 as something new given to this dawn of the Messiah's king- 
 dom, under the excitement of the divine revelation, of which 
 John was the bearer. Venerable prophetic pictures and 
 allusions, like Isa. i. 16, iv. 4, xliv. 44, 3 Ez. xxxvi. 25, 
 Zech. xiii. 1, Ps. li. 4, might thus serve to develope it still 
 further in the soul of this last of the prophets. What was 
 symbolized in the baptism of John was the uerdvoia. Comp. 
 Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 2. 1 To this, however, the immersion 
 
 1 See this passage of Josephus above on ver. 2. Without any reason has this 
 meaning been discovered in it, that John viewed his baptism as a means of
 
 110 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 of the whole of the baptized person, as the perdvota, was to 
 purify the whole man, corresponded with profound signifi- 
 cance, and to this the specifically Christian view of the sym- 
 bolic immersion and emersion afterwards connected itself 
 (Rom. vi. 3 ff. ; Tit. iii. 5) by an ethical necessity. egofio- 
 Xo7.] In the same way as in the case of the sin-offering 
 (Lev. xvi. 21 ff. ; Num. v. 7), and in general to be taken as a 
 venerable pre-condition of divine grace and blessing, Ps. xxxii. 
 5, li. 1 ff . ; Ezra ix. 6 ; Dan. ix. 5. The participle is not to 
 be taken as if it were conditional (Fritzsche : " si . . . conftteren- 
 tur "), as the subjection to this condition, in the case of every 
 one who came to be baptized, is necessarily required as a 
 matter of course ; but : they were baptized whilst they con- 
 fessed, during the confession, which is conceived as connected 
 with the act of baptism itself. Whether is it a summary or 
 a specific confession which is intended ? Both may have 
 taken place, varying always according to the individuals and 
 their relations. The compound, however (Josephus, Antt. viii. 
 4. 6 ; passages in Philo ; see in Loesner), expresses, as also in 
 Acts xix. 18, Jas. v. 16, an open confession. 
 
 Ver. 7. The Pharisees (from K^S, separavit, the separated 
 ones, Bia rrjv e6e\oTrepia-(ro0pr)cr(ceiav, Epiphanius, Haer. i. 16) 
 received, besides the law, also tradition ; taught the doctrine of 
 fate, without, however, denying the freedom of the will ; of im- 
 mortality, and that in the case of pious persons, in pure bodies ; 
 of good and evil angels, and were, in all the strictness of external 
 righteousness, according to law and statute, the crafty, learned, 
 patriotic, and powerful supporters of the degenerate orthodoxy. 
 The Sadducees l recognised merely the written law, and that 
 
 covenant, by explaining &avrur?tM <TVVMO.I to mean : to unite through or for baptism 
 (Strauss, Keim, Hausratk). The meaning of the passage is rather : John com- 
 manded the Jews to be wise in the exercise of virtue, and so on (sapere, comp. 
 Rom. iii. 11 ; 2 Cor. x. 12), by means of baptism. 
 
 1 Epiphanius, Haer. i. 14 : ivovofta^ouffi iavrov; 'S.aS&ovxaioVi SSJ08V a.vl dixaioffvvvs 
 
 **-, \viK\naius oppugns. The Jewish tradition derives it from the proper name 
 Zadok. R. Nathan, ad Pirke Aboth, i. 3. The latter is to be preferred, with 
 Ewald, Geiger, Hitzig, and others ; see Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 275. Hausrath, 
 Zeitgesch. 1. p. 118. That name, however, is to be understood as that of an old 
 and distinguished priestly family; 2 Sam. vii. 17, xv. 24; Ezek. xlviii. ]1 ; 
 1 Mace. vii. 14.
 
 CHAP. III. 7. Ill 
 
 not only of the Pentateuch, but of the whole of the O. T., 
 although according to the strict exposition of the letter, and to 
 the exclusion of tradition ; they denied the existence of higher 
 spirits, of fate and personal immortality, and adhered to a 
 strict code of morals ; they had less authority with the people 
 than the exclusive orthodox Pharisees, against whom they 
 formed a decided party of opposition, but had much influence 
 over men of rank and wealth. The strictly closed order of 
 Essenes, in its separation from the world and the temple, as 
 well as in its ascetic self-satisfaction and self-sanctification, 
 the quiet separatistic holy ones of the land, connected together 
 by community of goods, and under obligation, besides, daily to 
 perform holy lustrations, kept themselves far away from the 
 movement evoked by John. Observe that the article is not 
 repeated before Sa&SovK., because they are conceived as forming, 
 along with the Pharisees, one unworthy category. " Nempe 
 repetitur articulus, ubi distinctio logica aut emphatica ita 
 postulat," Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 574. evrt] not contra 
 (Olearius), which would be quite opposed to the context, but 
 telic, in order to be baptized ; comp. Luke xxiii. 48. Why 
 should the Pharisees and Sadducees not also have come to 
 baptism, since they shared with the people the hope of the 
 Messiah, and must have felt also on their part the extraordi- 
 nary impression made by the appearance of John, and the 
 excitement awakened by it, and, in keeping with their moral 
 conceit, would easily enough have compounded with the con- 
 fession of sins ? It is, however, already probable a priori, 
 and certain, by means of Luke vii. 30, that they, at least so 
 far as the majority were concerned, did not allow themselves 
 to be baptized, although they had come with this intention, 
 but were repelled in terror by the preaching of repentance 
 and punishment, ver. 8 ff. There exists, therefore, no 
 variation between this and Luke vii. 30 ; the Pharisees and 
 Sadducees are no addition by Matthew (Ewald, Holtzmann), 
 and neither is Matthew to be blamed for committing a his- 
 torical mistake, occasioned by John i. 24 (Schneckenburger, 
 Bleek), nor is Luke to be charged with want of originality in 
 this section (de Wette). But the former relates with more
 
 112 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 minuteness than Luke (iii. 7 : rot? . . . o^Xot?) in separating 
 the persons in question from the mass along with whom they 
 came. yevvrjftctra exiSvwv] cunning, malignant men! xii. 
 34, xxiii. 33 ; Isa. xiv. 29, lix. 5 ; Ps. Iviii. 5 ; Wetstein on 
 the passage. Comp. Dem. 799. 4: trucpov Kal e%iv rrjv 
 <t>vcriv avSpwirov. r?}? //.eXXouo-?;? 0/977)9] is to be un- 
 derstood of the divine wrath which is revealed at the Messianic 
 judgment (Rom. ii. 5 ; 1 Thess. i. 10). The common belief 
 of the Jews referred this to the heathen (Bertholdt, Christol. 
 pp. 203 ff., 223 ff.). John, however, to the godless generally, 
 who would not repent. The wrath of God, however, estab- 
 lished as a unity in the holy nature of the divine love as its 
 inseparable correlate, is not the punishment itself, but the holy 
 emotion of absolute displeasure with him who opposes His 
 gracious will, and from this the punishment proceeds as a 
 necessary manifestation of righteousness. The revelation of 
 the divine wrath is not limited to the last judgment (Rom. 
 i. 18 ; 1 Thess. ii. 16 ; Luke xxi. 23), but in it attains its 
 consummation. Comp. Rom. i. 18 and Eph. ii. 3, and so on, 
 especially Ritschl, de ira Dei, 1 1859 ; Bartholomaei in the 
 Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1861, II. p. 256 ff. ; Weber, vom 
 Zorne Gottes, 1862. <j>vyelv OTTO] is, like IP n"i3 (Isa. xlviii. 
 20, xxiv. 18), constructio praegnans : to flee away from, xxiii. 
 33 ; Mark xvi. 8 ; John x. 11 ; Horn. Od. xii. 120 : (frvyeeiv 
 KapTia-Tov air au-ny?, Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 31; Plat. Phaed. p. 
 62 D. The infinitive aorist designates the activity as momen- 
 tary, setting forth the point of time when the wrath breaks 
 forth, in which the flight also is realized. Meaning of the 
 question : Nobody can have instructed you, that you should 
 escape. Comp. xxiii. 33 : 7r<u9 ^vjrjre. 
 
 Ver. 8. Ovv\ Deduction from what precedes. In your 
 impenitent condition you cannot escape from the wrath ; proceed 
 then to exhibit that morality of conduct which is appropriate to 
 the change of mind as its result. Instead of your unrepentant 
 
 1 Who determines the conception, p. 24, thus: "Certum argumentum jus- 
 titiae divinae ab humana diversae, quatenus valet ad defendendum adversus 
 homines contumaciter Deo fidem denegantes finem ejus summum et absoluture, 
 per Christum cum genere humano communicatum. "
 
 CHAP, in, 9, 10. 113 
 
 condition, I require of you a practical repentance, the hind- 
 rance and opposition to which arises from your overweening 
 conceit as children of Abraham (ver. 9). What John here 
 requires applied, indeed, to the people in general, but was 
 especially appropriate to their scholastic leaders. TT)? 
 voias is governed by agtov (Acts xxvi. 20) ; on tcapw-bv 
 like '"]> rfiwy. (occurring likewise in Greek writers), borrowed 
 from fruit-trees, comp. vii. 1 7 f. oil. ; KapTroiroios, Eur. Ehes. 
 964 ; Kapir. is collective, Gal. v. 22 ; Eph. v. 9 ; Phil. i. 11. 
 
 Ver. 9. A 6 gyre] Do not allow yourselves to suppose, do not say 
 to yourselves, 1 Cor. xi. 16; Phil. iii. 4. \eyeiv ev eavrols] 
 tepa IDX, cogitare secum. It objectively represents reflection as 
 the language of the mind. Ps. iv. 5, x. 6, xiv. 1 ; Matt. ix. 21; 
 Luke iii. 8, vii. 49. Delitzsch, Psych, p. 180 [E. T. 213]. 
 Comp. \eyeiv trpbs eavrov in Plat. Phaed. p. 88 C. irarepa 
 . . . 'Afipadft] The Jews of the common sort and their party 
 leaders believed that the descendants of Abraham would, as 
 such, become participators of salvation in the Messiah's king- 
 dom, because Abraham's righteousness would be reckoned as 
 theirs. Sanhedrin, f. 901 : sin D^J?i> p^n urh W ^mw W>. 
 Bereschith, E. xviii. 7. Wetstein on the passage. Bertholdt, 
 Christol. p. 206 ff. Comp. in the N. T., especially John 
 viiL 33 ff. orfc Svvaraj,, .r.\.] God is able, notwithstanding 
 your descent from Abraham, to exclude you from the Messiah's 
 salvation ; and, on the other hand, to create and bring forth out of 
 these stones j which lie here around on the bank of the Jordan, 
 such persons as are GENUINE children of Abraham, that is, as 
 Euth. Zigabenus strikingly expresses it : ol ras aperas avrov 
 ptfjiovfjievoi teal TTJS aur?}9 avTto Kara^iovfj,evot fjiepiSos ev rfj 
 /Jao-tAeia TWV ovpavwv. Comp. Rom. iv., ix. 6 ff. ; Gal. iv. ; 
 John viii. 39 f. It is an anticipation, however, to find the 
 calling of the heathen here indicated. It follows first from 
 this axiom. 
 
 Ver. 10. Already, however (it is then high time), is the 
 decision near at hand, according to which the unworthy are 
 excluded from Messiah's kingdom, and are consigned to 
 Gehenna. In ^8rj is contained the thought that the hearers 
 did not yet expect this state of things ; see Baeumlein, 
 
 MATT. H
 
 114 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 PartiJc. p. 139 ; the presents eKKOTrrerai and fidXkerai denote 
 what is to happen at once and certainly, with demonstrative 
 definiteness, not the general idea: is accustomed to be hewn 
 down, against which ovv is decisive (in answer to Fritzsche), 
 the meaning of which is : " that, as a consequence of this, 
 the axe, etc., every tree will be, and so -on." See upon the 
 present, Dissen, ad Find. Nem. iv. 39 , p. 401. 
 
 Ver. 11. Yet it is not I who will determine the admission 
 or the exclusion, but He who is greater than I. In Luke iii. 
 16 there is a special reason assigned for this discourse, in 
 keeping with the use of a more developed tradition on the 
 part of the later redactor. els perdvotav} denotes the telic 
 reference of the baptism (comp. xxviii. 19), which imposes an 
 obligation to fierdvoia. To the characteristic evvSari et? 
 voiav stands opposed the higher characteristic ev 
 ayiq) K. irvpL, the two elements of which together antitheti- 
 cally correspond to that " baptism by water unto repentance ; " 
 see subsequently. ev is, agreeably to the conception of 
 /3a7TTt&> (immersion), not to be taken as instrumental, but 
 as in, in the meaning of the element, in which immersion 
 takes place. Mark i. 5 ; 1 Cor. x. 2 ; 2 Kings v. 14 ; Polyb. 
 v. 47. 2 : /3a7mo/iez/ot ev rot? re\puffi\ Horn. Od. ix. 392. 
 
 6 Be oTriaw .pov ep%6/j,evo<;] that is, the Messiah. His 
 coming as such is always brought forward with great emphasis 
 in Mark and Luke. The present here also denotes the near 
 and definite beginning of the future. la^vpor, jiov ecrriv] 
 In what special relation he is more powerful is stated after- 
 wards by auro9 y/ia? fiaTrrlaei,, K.T.\. ov OVK el pi, /c.r.X.] In 
 comparison with Him, I am too humble to be fitted to be one 
 of His lowest slaves. To bear the sandals of their masters 
 (/Sacrrao-at), that is, to bring and take them away, as well as 
 to fasten them on or take them off (the latter in Mark and 
 Luke), was amongst the Jews, Greeks, and Romans the busi- 
 ness of slaves of the lowest rank. See Wetstein, Eosen- 
 mtiller, Morgenl. in loc. ; cornp. Talmud, Kiddusch. xxii. 2. 
 
 auro9] He and no other, i. 21. v/ta?] was spoken indeed 
 to the Pharisees and Sadducees ; but it is not these only who 
 are meant, but the people of Israel in general, who were repre-
 
 CHAP. III. 12. 115 
 
 sented to the eye of the prophet in them, and in the multitude 
 who were present. ev trv. ay. K. Trvpt] in the Holy Spirit, 
 those who have repented ; in fire (by which that of Gehenna 
 is meant), the unrepentant. Both are figuratively designated 
 as fiaTTTi&iv, in so far as both are the two opposite sides of 
 the Messianic lustration, by which the one are sprinkled with 
 the Holy Ghost (Acts i. 5), the others with hell-fire, as per- 
 sons baptized are with water. It is explained as referring to 
 the fire of everlasting punishment, after Origen and several 
 Fathers, by Kuinoel, Schott (Opusc. II. p. 198), Fritzsche, 
 Neander, de Wette, Paulus, Ammon, B. Crusius, Arnoldi, 
 Hofmann, Bleek, Keim, Volkmar, Hengstenberg, Weber, vom 
 Zorne Gottes, p. 219 f. ; Gess, Christi Vers. u. Werk, I. p. 310. 
 But, after Chrysostom and most Catholic expositors, others 
 (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Clericus, Wetstein, Storr, Eichhorn, 
 Kauffer, Olshausen, Glb'ckler, Kuhn, Ewald) understand it of the 
 fire of the Holy Spirit, which inflames and purifies the spirits of 
 men. Comp. Isa. iv. 4. These and other explanations, which 
 take TrvpL as not referring to the punishments of Gehenna, are 
 refuted by John's own decisive explanation in ver. 12 : TO Se 
 ayvpov KaraKavaet Trvpi aa/Seo-ro). It is wrong, accordingly, 
 to refer the Trvpi to the fiery tongues in Acts ii. (Euth. Ziga- 
 benus, Maldonatus, Eisner, Er. Schmid, Bengel, Ebrard). 
 The omission of ical Trvpi is much too weakly attested to 
 delete it, with Matthaei and Einck, Lucubr. crit. p. 248. See 
 Griesbach, Comm. crit. p. 25 f. 
 
 Ver. 12. And fire, I say ; for what a separation will it 
 make ! ov] assigns a reason, like our : He ivhose [German, Er, 
 dessen]. See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 371 ; Klihner, II. p. 939. 
 It is not, however, as Grotius, Bengel, Storr, Kuinoel think, 
 pleonastic, but the literal translation is to be closely adhered 
 to : whose fan is in his hand ; that is, he who has his (to him 
 peculiar, comp. ver. 4) fan in his hand ready for use. Comp 
 LXX. Isa. ix. 5. According to Fritzsche, eV rg %eipl avrov 
 is epexegetical : " cujus erit ventilabrum, sc. in manu ejus." 
 But such epexegetical remarks, which fall under the point of 
 view of Appositio partitiva, stand, as they actually occur, in 
 the same case with the general word, which they define more
 
 116 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 minutely (ov TO TTTVOV, -ri}? %etpo<? avrov). See Eph. iii. 5, and 
 remarks in loc. a\cova] a\w? (Xen. Oec. xviii. 6; Dem. 
 1040. 23), in Greek writers commonly after the Attic 
 declension, is the same as pa, a circular firmly - trodden 
 place upon the field itself, where the grain is either trodden 
 out by oxen, or thrashed out by thrashing machines drawn 
 by oxen. Keil, Arch. II. p. 114; Robinson, III. p. 370. 
 Similarly in Greek writers ; see Hermann, Privatalterth. 
 xv. 6, xxiv. 3. The floor is cleansed in this way, that 
 the seed grains and the pounded straw and similar refuse 
 are not allowed to lie upon it indiscriminately mingled 
 together, in the state in which the threshing has left this 
 unclean condition of the floor, but the grain and refuse 
 are separated from each other in order to be brought to 
 the place destined for them. In the figure, the floor, which 
 belongs to the Messiah, is not the church, (Fathers and 
 many others), nor mankind (de Wette), nor the Jewish 
 nation (B. Crusiue), but, because the place of the Messiah's 
 activity must be intended (Ewald), and that, according to the 
 national determination of the idea of the Baptist, the holy 
 land, as the proper sphere of the work of the Messiah, not 
 the world in general (Bleek), as would have to be assumed 
 according to the Christian fulfilment of the idea. In accord- 
 ance with this view, we must neither, with Zeger, Fischer, 
 Kuinoel, de Wette, explain r. a\cava, according to the alleged 
 Hebrew usage (Job xxxix. 12 ; Ruth iii. 2), as the grain upon 
 the floor ; nor, with Fritzsche, regard the cleansing as effected, 
 removendo inde frumentum, which is an act that does not follow 
 until the floor has been cleansed. The SuiKaOapi^etv, to 
 purify thoroughly, which is not preserved anywhere except 
 in Luke ii. 17, designates the cleansing from one end to the 
 other ; in classical writers StatcaOaipeiv, Plat. Pol. iii. pp. 
 399 E, 411 D ; Alciphr. iii. 26. air oOrjKtjv] place for storing 
 up, magazine. The grain stores (crnoftdXiov, Polyb. iii. 1 0. 4 ; 
 Orjo-avpol ffirov, Strabo, xii. p. 862 ; o-iroSoKi], Pollux) were 
 chiefly dry subterranean vaults. Jahn, Archaol. I. 1, p. 376. 
 a^vpov] not merely chaff in the narrower sense of the word 
 (pb), but all those portions of the stalk and ear which contain
 
 CHAP. III. 13. 117 
 
 no grain, which are torn in pieces by the threshing, and re- 
 main over (!?n), Herod, iv. 72 ; Xen. Oec. xvii. 1, vi. f. ; Gen. 
 xxiv. 25 ; Ex. v. 7. These were used as fuel. Mishna 
 tract, SchaVbath ii. 1 ; Parah. iv. 3. Paulsen, vom Aclcerbau 
 der Morgenl. p. 150. The sense, apart from figurative lan- 
 guage, is : The Messiah will receive into His kingdom those who 
 are found worthy (comp. xiii. 3 0) ; but upon the unworthy He 
 will injlict in full the everlasting punishments of Gehenna. 
 Comp. Mai. iii. 19. der/Sea-reo] which is not quenched (Horn. 
 II. xvii. 89 ; Find. Isthm. iii. 72 ; Dion. Hal. Antt. i. 76, corre- 
 sponding to the thing portrayed; comp. Isa. Ixvi. 24). Not, 
 therefore : which is not extinguished till all is consumed (Paulus, 
 Bleek). 
 
 EEMARK. John i. 26 is not to be regarded as parallel with 
 Matt. iii. 12, for, according to John, the Baptist speaks after the 
 baptism of Jesus, and to the members of the Sanhedrim. And 
 doubtless he had often given expression to his testimony regard- 
 ing Christ, who was the point which the prophet had in view 
 in his preaching of repentance and baptism. That he is not yet 
 definitely designated in Matthew as Elijah (Luke i. 1 7 ; Matt. 
 xi. 10, 14), is rightly regarded as an evidence of the truth of the 
 gospel narrative, which has not anticipated the subsequently 
 developed representation of John. To relegate, however, the 
 announcement of the Messiah from the preaching of the Baptist 
 into the realm of legend (Strauss) is a mockery of the entire 
 evangelical testimony, and places it below the narrative of 
 Josephus, which was squared according to the ideas of political 
 prudence (Antt. xviii. 5. 2). 
 
 Ver. 13. Tore] at that time, when John thus preached the 
 advent of the Messiah, and baptized the people, vv. 1-1 2. 
 OTTO r. r*aX,tX.] See ii. 23. It belongs to irapaj. The posi- 
 tion is different in ii. 1. TOV ^aim^O. vir avrov] Jesus 
 wished to be baptized by John (genitive, as in ii. 13), but 
 not in the personal feeling of sinfulness (B. Bauer, Strauss, 
 Pecaut), or as the bearer of the guilt of others (Riggenbach, 
 Krafft) ; not even because He, through His connection of 
 responsibility with the unclean people, was unclean according to 
 the Levitical law (Lange), or because He believed that He 
 was obliged to regard the collective guilt of the nation as His
 
 118 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 guilt (Schenkel) ; just as little in order to separate Himself 
 inwardly from the sins of the nation (Baumgarten), or make it 
 certain that His crap d&deveias should not be opposed to the 
 life of the Spirit (Hofmann, Weissag. und Erf Oil. II. p. 82), or 
 because the meaning of the baptism is : the declaration that 
 He is subjected to death for the human race (Ebrard) ; not even 
 to bring in here the divine decision as to His Messiahship 
 (Paulus), or to lay ike, foundation for the faith of others in 
 Him, so far as baptism is a symbol of the regeneration of 
 those who confess Him (Ammon, L. J. I. p. 268), or in order to 
 honour the baptism of John by His example (Calvin, Kuinoel, 
 Keim), or to bind Himself to the observance of the law (Hof- 
 mann, Krabbe, Osiander) ; or because He had to conduct 
 Himself, before the descent of the Spirit, merely as an Israelite 
 in general. The opinion also of Schleierrnacher, that the 
 baptism of Jesus was the symbolical beginning of His announce- 
 ment of Himself, and, at the same time, a recognition of John's 
 mission, is foreign to the text. The true meaning appears 
 from ver. 15, namely, because Jesus was consciously certain 
 that He must, agreeably to God's will, subject Himself to the 
 baptism of His forerunner, in order (w. 16, 1 7) to receive the 
 Messianic consecration ; that is, the divine declaration that He 
 was the Messiah (%va uvaSei^Of) ro> XacS, Euth. Zigabenus), and 
 thereby to belong from that moment solely and entirely to this 
 great vocation. The Messianic consciousness is not to be re- 
 garded as first commencing in Him at the baptism, so that He 
 would be inwardly born, by means of baptism, to be the 
 Messiah, and would become conscious of His divine destina- 
 tion, to full purification and regeneration as the new duty 
 of His life ; but the irperrov ea-rlv fjfuv, ver. 15, presupposes a 
 clear certainty regarding His vocation ; and John's relation to 
 the same, as in general the existence of that consciousness, 
 must have been the necessary result of His own consciousness, 
 which had attained the maturity of human development, 
 that He was the Son of God. But that baptism, to which He 
 felt certain that He must submit Himself, was to be for Him 
 the divine ordination to the Messiahship. It is clear, according 
 to this, that His baptism was quite different from that of others,
 
 CHAP. III. 14. 119 
 
 so far as in Him, as a sinless being, there could be no confes- 
 sion of sin ; but the lustrative character of the baptism could 
 only have the meaning, that from that moment He was taken 
 away from all His previous relations of life which belonged 
 to the earthly sphere, and became, altogether and exclu- 
 sively, the Holy One of God, whom the Father consecrated 
 by the Spirit. Although He was this God-sanctified One from 
 the beginning, yet now, as He was aware that this was the 
 will of God, He has, by the assumption of baptism, solemnly 
 bound and devoted Himself to the full execution of His 
 unique destiny, a devotion which was already more than a 
 vow (Keim), because it was the actual entrance into the Mes- 
 sianic path of life, which was to- receive at the very threshold 
 its divine legitimation for all future time. In so doing, He 
 could, without any consciousness of guilt (xi. 29), associate 
 Himself, in all humility (xi. 2 9), with the multitude of those 
 whom the feeling of guilt impelled to baptism ; because in His 
 own consciousness there was still the negation of absolute 
 moral goodness, to which He, long afterwards, expressly gave 
 so decided expression (xix. 17). 
 
 Ver. 14. According to John i. 33, it was revealed to the 
 Baptist that He upon whom he should see the Spirit descend- 
 ing was the Messiah. It was accordingly not until this 
 moment that the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah entered 
 his mind ; and therefore, in the Gospel of John, he says of 
 the time which preceded this moment : Kaya> OUK fjSeiv avrov. 
 The passage before us is not in contradiction with this, for the 
 recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus does not yet lie at its 
 foundation, but the prophetic anticipation of the same, which 
 on the approach of Jesus, as that solemn decision was about 
 to begin through the revelation of the a-ypeiov, seized the soul 
 of the Baptist involuntarily and miraculously, and yet psycho- 
 logically, in keeping with the spiritual rapport prepared by 
 revelation. Comp. Luther : " he scents the Spirit." Accord- 
 ingly, we are not to assume in our passage either a recogni- 
 tion only of higher excellence (Hess, Paulus, Hofmann), or a 
 contradiction with John (Strauss, de Wette, Keim), or, after 
 Lticke, Holtzmann, and Scholten, that .the oldest and shortest
 
 120 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 tradition of Matthew contained nierely vv. 16, 1*7, while vv. 
 1 4, 1 5 were a later addition of the complete Matthew, 1 which 
 Hilgenfeld seeks to support from the silence of Justin regard- 
 ing the refusal of the Baptist, whilst Keim gives, indeed, the 
 preference to the statement of Matthew over that of John, but 
 still allows it to be very problematical. SiK(o\vev] Stronger 
 than the simple verb. The word (which does not occur else- 
 where in the N. T. nor in the LXX., yet in Judith iv. 7, xii. 7, 
 and frequently in the classical writers) is selected, in keeping 
 with the serious opposition of the astonished John. The 
 imperfect is descriptive, and, indeed, so much so, that " vere 
 incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu," Schaefer, ad 
 Eur. Phoen. 81. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 123. John actually repelled 
 Jesus, and did not baptize Him at once, but only when the latter 
 had made representations to the contrary effect. 6701 %petav, 
 /c.T.X.] Grotius : Si alter nostrum omnino baptizandus sit, ego 
 potius abs te,ut dignissimo, baptismum petere debui. Thus spoke 
 John in the truest feeling of his own lowliness and sinfulness, 
 in the presence of the long-longed for One, the first recogni- 
 tion of whom suddenly thrilled him. KOI a-v ep^y Trpos 
 fie ;] A question indicative of the astonishment with which 
 the Baptist, although he had received the divine declaration, 
 John i. 33, was yet seized, through the impression made on him 
 by the presence of the Lord. Moreover, this discourse neces- 
 sarily excludes the idea that he too connected the baptism of 
 Jesus with the profession of a confession of His sins. Yet the 
 
 1 According to Epiphanius, ffaer. xxx. 13, the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews contained the conversation, although with embellishments, but placed 
 it after the baptism. The want of originality of this narrative in itself (in answer 
 to Schneckenburger, Hilgenfeld) already shows its apocryphal and extravagant 
 character. The correctness of its position has found favour, indeed, with Bleek 
 (p. 179 f., and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 436), Usteri (in the same, 1829, p. 
 446), and Liicke, and Keim also, at the expense of our Gospel ; but, after what 
 has been said above, without any reason, as the want of agreement between 
 Matthew and John is only apparent, and is not to be removed by changing the 
 meaning of the simple and definite oux. j?Suv alr'ov. See on John i. 31. The 
 Wolfeributtel Fragmentist (vom Zwecke Jesu, p. 133 ff.) has notoriously misused 
 John i. 31 to assert that Jesus and John had long been acquainted with each 
 other, and had come to an understanding to work to each other's hands, but 
 to conceal this from the people.
 
 CHAP. III. 15, 16. 121 
 
 apocryphal Praedicatio Pauli, according to Cyprian, Opp. p. 142, 
 Kigalt (Credner, Beitr. I. p. 360 ff), had already made Jesus 
 deliver a confession of sin ; in the Evangelium sec. ffebraeos, 
 on the other hand, quoted by Jerome, c. Pel. iii. 1, Jesus 
 answers the request of His mother and His brethren to let Him- 
 self be baptized along with them : " Quid peccavi, ut vadam et 
 baptizer ab eo ? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est." 
 
 Ver. 15. "Apri] now, suffer it just now. The antithesis 
 of time is here not that of the past (see on Gal. i. 9), but of 
 the future, as in John xiii. 37 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Chrysostom : 
 ov Strjveicws ravra earat,, d\V crvjret pe ev TOVTOIS ol<j eTri6vfj,et$' 
 apn fjievToi vTropeivov TOVTO. The meaning : " sine paulis- 
 per " (Fritzsche), comp. de Wette : " let it be for once," is not 
 sufficient. Schneckenburger, p. 122, regards the a$e? as 
 having been inappropriately transferred from the Gospel ac-. 
 cording to the Hebrews. Erroneously, as it there belongs (in 
 the sense : let it remain) to the apocryphal addition, according 
 to which John, after the baptism of Jesus, prays tJie latter to 
 baptize him ; and Jesus answers : a0e9, ort OVTCOS e'ari irpeTrov 
 7r\r)pa)6fjvat, irdvra (Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13). This apo- 
 cryphal outgrowth is manifestly a farther spinning out of the 
 tradition, as recorded in Matthew. Several of the Fathers 
 likewise inferred from apn, in our verse, that John was after- 
 wards baptized by Jesus. ^/LUZ/] to thee and to me. To refer 
 it merely to Jesus (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, 
 Glockler), or, in tJie first place to Jesus (de Wette, Bleek), is 
 opposed to the context. See ver. 14. iraaav SiKaioo-vvrjv'] 
 all righteousness, all which as duty it is obligatory on us to do. 
 Ch. R Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 81. Comp. TrXyp. 
 ev<re(3euiv, 4 Mace. xiv. 15. If I do not allow myself to be 
 baptized, and thou dost not baptize me, there remains some- 
 thing unfulfilled (therefore, OUTCD) which ought to be done by 
 us, in accordance with the divine will ; then satisfaction is not 
 made by us to all righteousness. Comp. on Traa-av the plural 
 expression SiKaioavvai in Sir. xliv. 10 ; Job ii. 14. 
 
 Ver. 16. Ev6vs\ which cannot belong to avear^d. (Maldo- 
 natus, Grotius, B. Crusius), nor can it be referred to paTrrurdek 
 by supposing a hyperbaton (Fritzsche) ; see Kiihner, II. 2, p.
 
 122 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 642. Matthew would have written, teal evOiis fiaTrn&dek. It 
 belongs to di/e/3??, beside which it stands : after He was bap- 
 tized, He went up straightway, etc. This straightway was 
 understood at once as a matter of course, but does not belong, 
 however, merely to the descriptive, but to the circumstantial 
 style of the narrative, setting forth the rapid succession (of 
 events). ave^^drja-av avrat ol o vp a voC] designates neither 
 a clearing up of the heavens (Paulus), nor a thunderstorm 
 quickly discharging itself (Kuinoel, Ammon), since the poetic 
 descriptions, as in Sil. It. i. 535 ff., are quite foreign (see 
 Drackenborch, ad Sil. It. iii. 136 ; Heyne, ad Virg. Aen. iii. 
 198) to our simple historical narrative; as, moreover, neither 
 in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, nor in Epiphanius, 
 Haer. xxx. 13, nor in Justin, c. Tryph. 88, 1 is a thunderstorm 
 meant. Only an actual parting of the heavens, out of which 
 opening the Spirit came down, can be intended. Ezek. i. 1 ; 
 John i. 52; Rev. iv. 1; Acts vii. 56; Isa. Ixiv. 1. avrw 
 does not refer to the Baptist (Beza, Heumann, Bleek, Kern, 
 Krabbe, de Wette, Baur), since ver. 16 begins a new portion 
 of the history, in which John is no longer the subject. It 
 refers to Jesus, and is the dative of purpose. To Him the 
 heavens open ; for it was on Him that the Spirit was to de- 
 scend. Comp. Vulgate. etSe] Who ? not John, but Jesus, 
 without eV avrov standing for e<' ainov (Kuinoel) ; Klihner, 
 II. 1, p. 489 f. ; Bleek on the passage. The Gospel according 
 to the Hebrews clearly referred etSe to Jesus, with which Mark 
 i. 10 also decidedly agrees. 2 axrel irepta-repdv] The ele- 
 ment of comparison is interpreted by modern writers not as 
 referring to the shape of the visibly descending Spirit, but to the 
 manner of descent, where partly the swiftness (Fritzsche), partly 
 the soft, gentle movement (Bleek) and activity (Neander), and the 
 like, have been imagined as referred to. But as all the four 
 evangelists have precisely the same comparison (Mark i. 10; 
 
 1 In the Gospel according to the Hebrews : npi's^aff^iv rot rivo* <ps ftiy/x. 
 Justin : xttrit-fivros TOV 'lr,aau if'i TO u^up xail -rvp a.*f,$0n it TU 'lapSdtn. 
 
 2 Schmidt in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1869, p. 655, erroneously says : If Jesus 
 were the subject, i<p' avro* must necessarily have been put. See Buttmann, 
 
 Or. p. 97 f. [E. T. Ill f.].
 
 CHAP. III. 17. 123 
 
 Luke iii. 22 ; John i. 32), which, as a mere representation of 
 the manner of the descent, would be just as unessential as it 
 would be an indefinite and ambiguous comparison ; as, farther, 
 Luke expressly says the Spirit descended, a-cafjMriKa> etSet wcret 
 TTepia-Tepd, where, by the latter words, the crwfjLar. etSet is 
 defined more precisely (comp. the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews in Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13 : etSe, namely, Jesus, 
 TO TTvevp-a rov Oeov TO a<yiov ev el'Set TrepKTTepds KaTe\0ov<rrj<> ; 
 also Justin, c. Tr. 88), so that interpretation appears as a 
 groundless attempt to lessen the miraculous element, and only 
 the old explanation (Origen and the Fathers in Suicer, Thes. 
 s.v. irepia-Tepd, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther), that the 
 form of a dove actually appeared, can be received as the correct 
 one. So also Paulus (who, however, thought of a real dove 
 which accidentally appeared at the time !), de Wette, Kuhn 
 (L. J. I. p. 319), Theile (zur Biogr. Jesu, p. 48), Keim, Hilgen- 
 feld, who compares 4 Esdr. v. 26. The symbolic element of 
 this divine a-rj^eiov (see remarks after ver. 17) rests just in 
 its appearance in the form of a dove, which descends. 
 
 Ver. 17. $(0vv). . . \eyovcra] Here neither isejveroto be 
 supplied, after Luke iii. 22 ; nor does the participle stand for 
 the finite tense. See onii. 18. But literally: and lo, there, a 
 voice from heaven which spoke. Comp. xvii. 5 ; Luke v. 12, xix. 
 20 ; Acts viii. 27; Eev. iv. 1, vi. 2, vii. 9. o ayaTryTos] 
 dilectus, not unicus (Loesner, Fischer, Michaelis, and others). 
 The article, however, does not express the strengthened concep- 
 tion (dilectissimus), as Wetstein and Eosenmliller assert, but is 
 required by grammar ; for the emphasis lies on o vio<s /uoi/, to 
 which the characteristic attribute is added by way of distinc- 
 tion. Comp. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 529 f. Exactly so in the same 
 voice from heaven, xvii. 5. ev o> evSoKrjcra] Hebraistic 
 construction imitative of 3 fan. See Winer, p. 218 [E. T. 
 291]. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 371 (Polybius ii. 12. 13 
 does not apply here) ; frequently in LXX. and Apocrypha. 
 The aorist denotes : in whom / have had good pleasure (Eph. 
 i. 4 ; John xvii 24), who has become the object of my good 
 pleasure. See Hermann, ad Viger. p. 746 ; Bernhardy, p. 
 381 f. ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 134 f. The opposite is
 
 124 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Rom. ix. 13 ; ij%0r)pe tcpovitov, Horn. 77. xx. 306. The divine 
 voice solemnly proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah, 6 vlos pov ; 
 which designation, derived from Ps. ii. 7, 1 is in the divine 
 and also in the Christian consciousness not merely the name 
 of an office, but has at the same time a metaphysical meaning, 
 having come forth from the Father's being, Kara irvev^ia, Rom. 
 i. 4, containing the Johannine idea, 6 \6yo<; crapj; eyevero (accord- 
 ing to Matt. i. 20, Luke i. 35, also the origin of the corpo- 
 reity). That the passage in Isa. Ixii. 1 (comp. Matt. xii. 18) 
 lies at the basis of the expression of that voice, either alone 
 (Hilgenfeld) or with others (Keim), has this against it, that 
 o vlos fjuov is the characteristic point, which is wanting in Isaiah 
 I.e., and that, moreover, the other words in the passage do not 
 specifically correspond with those in Isaiah. 
 
 REMARK. The fact of itself that Jesus was baptized by John, 
 although left doubtful by Fritzsche, admitted only as possible 
 by Weisse, who makes it rather to be a baptism of the Spirit, 
 while relegated by Bruno Bauer to the workshop of later 
 religious reflection, stands so firmly established by the testi- 
 mony of the Gospels that it has been recognised even by Strauss, 
 although more on d priori grounds (L. J. I. p. 418). He rejects, 
 however, the more minute points as unhistorical, while Keim 
 sees in it powerful and speaking figures of spiritual occurrences 
 which then took place on the Jordan ; Schenkel again intro- 
 duces thoughts which are very remote ; and Weizsacker recog- 
 nises in it the representation of the installation of Jesus into 
 His vocation as Ruler, and that by the transformation of a 
 vision of Jesus into an external fact, and refers the narrative 
 to later communications probably made by the Lord to His 
 disciples. The historical reality of the more minute details is 
 to be distinguished from the legendary embellishments of them. 
 The first is to be derived from John i. 32-34, according to 
 which the Baptist, after an address vouchsafed to him by God, 
 in which was announced to him the descent of the Spirit as 
 
 1 In the Gospel according to the Hebrews the words of the voice ran, accord- 
 ing to Epiphanius, ffaer. xxx. 13 : tu pov i7 o vies iyairnrot, It vti tv&oxtffa,- ai 
 xo.\ir iy* fftifttpof yiy'ivvwa. <ri. So also substantially in Justin, c. Tr. 88. 
 Manifestly an addition from later tradition, which had become current from the 
 well-known passage in Ps. ii. Nevertheless, Hilgenfeld regards that form of 
 the heavenly voice as the more original. See on the opposite side, Weisse, 
 Evangelienfrage. p. 190 ff.
 
 CHAP. III. 17. 125 
 
 the Messianic awtfo* of the person in question, saw the Holy 
 Spirit in the form of a dove descend upon Jesus, and abide 
 upon Him, and, in accordance with this, delivered the testimony 
 that Jesus was the Son of God. The seeing of the Baptist, and 
 the testimony which he delivered regarding it, is accordingly 
 to be considered as based on John i. 32-34, as the source of the 
 tradition preserved in the Synoptics, in the simplest form in 
 Mark. According to Ewald, it was in spirit that Jesus saw 
 (namely, the Spirit, like a dove, consequently " in all its liveli- 
 ness and fulness" according to Isa. xi. 2) and heard what He 
 Himself probably related at a later time, and that the Baptist 
 himself also observed in Jesus, as He rose up out of the water, 
 something quite different from what he noticed in other men, 
 and distinguished Him at once by the utterance of some extra- 
 ordinary words. But, considering the deviation of John's 
 narrative from that of the Synoptics, and the connection in 
 which John stood to Jesus and the Baptist, there exists no 
 reason why we should not find the original fact in John. 
 Comp. Neander, L. J. p. 83 f. ; Schleiermacher, p. 144 ff. ; 
 Ewald, Gfesch. Chr. p. 230 f. Moreover, that seeing of the Spirit 
 in the form of a dove is a spiritual act, taking place in a vision 
 (Acts vii. 55, x. 10 ff.), but which was transformed by the tradi- 
 tion of the apostolic age into an external manifestation, as the 
 testimony of John (John i. 34), which was delivered on the basis 
 of this seeing of his, was changed into a heavenly voice (which 
 therefore is not to be taken as Bath Kol, least of all " as in the 
 still reverberation of the thunder and in the gentle echo of the 
 air," as Ammon maintains, L. J. p. 273 f.). The more minute 
 contents of the heavenly voice were suggested from Ps. ii. 7, to 
 which also the old extension of the legend in Justin, c. Tryph. 
 88, and in the Ev. sec. ffebr. in Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13, points. 
 Consequently the appearance of the dove remains as an actual 
 occurrence, but as taking place in vision (Orig. c. Gels. i. 43-48. 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia : sv t't'dsi fffpiffrepas yivo^vr^ f) rov <>rviufj,aro 
 ou nasiv ZxpSri ro?<; irapovaiv, aXXa xard riva 
 
 rt 
 rot, irciffiv adstLprtra fiXeffsiv , . . cirrae/a 'yap %v, od puff/s ri 
 
 , as also the opening of the heavens (Jerome : " Non 
 reseratione elementorum, sed spiritualibus oculis"). Origen 
 designates the thing as dtwpia vorinx^. Comp. Grotius, 
 Neander, Krabbe, de Wette, Bleek, Weizsacker, Wittichen. 
 Finally, the question * whether before the time of Christ the 
 
 1 Talmudic and Rabbinical witnesses, but no pre-Christian ones, are in exist- 
 ence for the Jewish manner of regarding it (amongst the Syrians the dove was
 
 126 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Jews already regarded the dove as a symbol of the Divine 
 Spirit, is so far a matter of perfect indifference, as the Baptist 
 could have no doubt, after ike divine address vouchsafed to him, 
 that the seeing the form of a dove descending from heaven was 
 a symbolical manifestation of the Holy Spirit ; yet it is pro- 
 bable, from the very circumstance that the ov-rada took place 
 precisely in the form of a dove, that this form of representation 
 had its point of connection in an already existing emblematic 
 mode of regarding the Spirit, and that consequently the Eab- 
 binical traditions relating thereto reach back in their origin to 
 the pre-Christian age, without, however (in answer to Liicke on 
 John), having to drag in the very remote figure of the dove 
 descending down in order to brood, according to Gen. i. 2. Here 
 it remains undetermined in what properties of the dove (inno- 
 cence, mildness, and the like ; Theodore of Mopsuestia : <p iX6e- 
 ropyov x. (pfravdpuKov uov) the point of comparison was originally 
 based. Moreover, according to John i. 32 ff., the purpose of 
 what took place in vision does not appear to have been the 
 communication of the Holy Spirit to Jesus (misinterpreted by 
 the Gnostics as the reception of the Xo'yo;), but the making 
 known of Jesus as the Messiah to the Baptist on the part of 
 God, through a eriptTov of the Holy Spirit. In this the difficulty 
 disappears which is derived from the divine nature of Jesus, 
 according to which He could not need the bestowal of the 
 Spirit, whether we understand the Spirit in itself, or as the 
 communicator of a nova virtus (Calvin), or as ci/sD^a ^PO^TIKOV 
 (Thomasius), or as the Spirit of the divine e%ouff!a for the work 
 of the Messiah (Hofmann), as the spirit of office (Kahnis), which 
 definite views are not to be separated from the already existing 
 possession of the Spirit. The later doubts of the Baptist, 
 Matt. xi. 2 ff. (in answer to Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, Keiin), 
 as a momentary darkening of his higher consciousness in human 
 weakness amid all his prophetic greatness, are to be regarded 
 neither as a psychological riddle nor as evidence against his 
 
 held sacred as the symbol of the brooding power of nature ; see Creuzer, Symbol. 
 II. p. 80). See Cfutgig. ii., according to which the Spirit of God, like a dove, 
 brooded over the waters (com p. Bereshith rabba, f. iv. 4 ; Sohar, f. xix. 3, on Gen. 
 i. 2, according to which the Spirit brooding on the water is the Spirit of 
 the Messiah). Targum on Cant. ii. 12: "Vox turturis, vox Spirituss." Ir. 
 Gibborim, ad Gen. i. 2 ; Bemidb. rob. f. 250. 1. See also Sohar, Num. f. 68, 
 271 f., where the dove of Noah is placed in typical connection with the Messiah ; 
 in Schoettgen, II. p. 537 f. Comp. besides, Lutterbeck, neutest. Lehrbegr. I. p. 
 259 f. ; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 539. The dove was also regarded as a sacred bird 
 in many forms of worship amongst the Greeks.
 
 CHAP. III. 17. 127 
 
 recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, which was brought about 
 in a miraculous manner ; and this is the more conceivable when 
 we take into consideration the political element in the idea of 
 the Messiah entertained by the imprisoned John (comp. John 
 i. 29, Eemark). If, however, after the baptism of Jesus, His 
 Messianic appearance did not take place in the way in which 
 the Baptist had conceived it, yet the continuous working of the 
 latter, which was not given up after the baptism, can carry 
 with it no well-founded objection to the revelation of Jesus as 
 the Messiah, which is related in the passage before us. Comp. 
 on John iii. 23.
 
 128 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTEE IV. 
 
 VER. 4. 6 avOpuv.'] Elz., Scholz omit the 6. It might easily 
 have been added from the LXX. in Deut. viii. 3, where, how- 
 ever, it is wanting in several witnesses ; but as the article is 
 superfluous, and the witnesses in its favour greatly prepon- 
 derate, there are decisive reasons for retaining it. tiri vavri] 
 iv vavTlis found in C D, 13, 21, 59, 124, 300; approved by Griesb., 
 adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. Kightly ; / was just as 
 easily suggested by the first clause of the sentence by itself as 
 by the reading of the LXX., which is attested by preponderat- 
 ing witnesses. Ver. 5. iffrqaiv] B G D Z K, 1, 33 : ter^etv. 
 Eecommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. 
 The aorist interrupts and disturbs the representation as present, 
 and has been introduced from Luke iv. 9. Ver. 6. \iyti\ 
 Lachm., but upon very slight authority, reads tJvtv, which is 
 not to be adopted, even in ver. 9, instead of xiys/, with Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8, after B C D Z X and Curss. It is taken from 
 Luke. Ver. 10. 6 */*&> /*ou] is wanting in Elz., deleted also 
 by Fritzsche and Tisch. 8, bracketed by Lachm. The wit- 
 nesses are greatly divided, and the preponderance is uncer- 
 tain (against it: B C* K P S V A K, Curss., Or. Ir. and 
 other Fathers, and several Verss., among which Syr. Vulg. ; in 
 favour : C** I) E L M U T Z, and several Curss., Justin., and 
 many Fathers and Verss., amongst which is It.). An old in- 
 sertion from xvi. 13, where the circumstance that Peter is there 
 the person addressed, might cause the less difficulty that he 
 also is called Satan. In Luke iv. 8, vnayt OT/VW /*ou car. is also 
 an interpolation. Ver. 12. 6 'lj<joDs] is wanting in BC*DZN, 
 16, 33, 61, Copt. Aeth. Or. Eus. Aug. The omission is approved 
 by Griesbach. Kightly ; the addition of the subject suggested 
 itself the more easily that a new section begins in ver. 12. 
 Comp. ver. 18. Deleted also by Tisch. Ver. 18. 31] Elz. adds 
 o 'ijffoy, against decisive testimony. Comp. on ver. 12. Ver. 
 23. oXjjv r. raX/x.] Lachm. : x?j r. raX/Xa/a, without evidence, 
 as not merely C but B also has Iv oXj r. raX., which Tisch. has 
 adopted, 8th ed. N* has merely Iv rf Tax. The reading of
 
 CHAP. IV. 1-11. 129 
 
 Tisch. 8 is to be adopted ; the Received reading is a change 
 made to harmonize with the more common construction. 
 
 Vv. 1-11. Temptation of Jesus. Mark i. 12 f . ; Luke 
 iv. 1 ff. ; Alex. Schweizer, eoceg. hist. Darstellung d. Versuchs- 
 gesch. in s. Kritik d. Gegensdtze zw. Rationalism, u. Supernat. 
 1833; P. Ewald, d. Versuch. Christi mit Bczugnahme auf d. 
 Versuch. d. Protoplasten. 1838 ; Kohlschlitter in the Sachs. 
 Stud. 1843; Ullmann, Silndlosigk. Jesu, ed. 7,1863; Graul 
 in Guericke's Zeitschr. 1844, 3; Pfeiffer in the Deutsch. 
 Zeitschr. 1851, No. 36; Koenemann (purely dogmatic) in 
 Guericke's Zeitschr. 1850, p. 586 ff. ; Laufs in the Stud. u. 
 Krit. .1853, p. 355 ff. ; Nebe, d. Versuch. d. Hernn e. dussere 
 Thatsache, 1857 ; v. Engelhardt, de Jesu Chr. tentatione, 1858 ; 
 Held in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1866, p. 384 ff. ; Haupt in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1871, p. 209 ff. ; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld's 
 Zeitschr. 1870, p. 188 ff. The narrative in Matthew (and 
 Luke) is a later development of the tradition, the older and 
 still undeveloped form of which is to be found in Mark. 
 rore] when the Holy Spirit had descended upon Him. 
 dviJX07)] He was led upwards, i.e. from the lower ground of 
 the river bank to the higher lying wilderness. Luke ii. 22, 
 xxii. 66. rr}v eprj/jLov] the same wilderness of Judea spoken 
 of in ch. iii. According to the tradition, we are to think of 
 the very rugged wilderness of Quarantania (wilderness of 
 Jericho, Josh. xvi. 1), Ptobinson, Pal. II. p. 5-52 ; Schubert, 
 Reise, III. p. 73 ; Eaumer, p. 47. But in that case a more 
 precise, distinctive designation must have been given; and 
 Mark i. 1 3, yv /zera rwv dypiwv, is a point which has a suffi- 
 cient basis in the idea of the wilderness in general. Nothing 
 in the text points to the wilderness of Sinai (Chemnitz, 
 Clericus, Michaelis, Nebe). VTTO TOV TrvevpaTos] ly the 
 Holy Spirit, which He had received at His baptism. avrj^Qfj 
 does not indicate (Acts viii. 39 ; 2 Kings ii. 16) that He was 
 transported in a miraculous, involuntary manner, but by the 
 power of the Spirit, which is expressed still more strongly in 
 Mark i. 12. Others (Bertholdt, Paulus, Glockler) understand 
 Jesus' own spirit, Paulus regarding it as an ecstatic condition. 
 This would be opposed to the context (iii. 16), and to the 
 
 MATT. 1
 
 130 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 view of the matter taken by the Synoptics, which, in Luke 
 iv. 1, is expressed without any doubt whatever by the words 
 aytov irKr/pr]?. Euth. Zigabenus well remarks : 
 eavrov fiera TO /SaTrrtoywi TG> ayiw TrvevjuiTi KOI vir 
 avrov ayerai TT/OO? o av efcelvo K\evrj } KOI dvd^erai ei<? rrjv 
 epr)]j,ov eTTt TCO TroXe/iT/fl^z/at VTTO TOV 8ia/36\ov. 7retpa<r Oijvai] 
 designates the purpose for which the Spirit impelled Jesus to 
 go into the wilderness : n-eipd^etv, to put to the proof, receives 
 its more precise definition in each case from the connection. 
 Here : whether the Messiah is to be brought to take an unrighteous 
 step which conflicts with His calling and the will of God. UTTO 
 row Sta/QoXou] In what shape the devil appeared to Him, 
 the text does not say ; and the view of the evangelist as to 
 that is left undetermined. Yet the appearance must be con- 
 ceived of as being directly devilish, not at all as taking place 
 in the form of an angel of light (Ambrose, Menken), or even 
 of a man. 
 
 KEMAKK. The two opposed principles, uvb ?o\j w. and l*b ?> 
 &a/3., are essentially related to one another ; and the whole 
 position of the history, moreover, immediately after the descent 
 of the Spirit on Jesus, proves that it is the victory of Jesus, 
 filled with the Spirit (Luke iv. 1, 2), over the devil, which is to 
 be set forth. It appears from this how erroneous is the inven- 
 tion of Olshausen, that the condition of Jesus in the wilderness 
 was that of one who had been abandoned by the fulness of the 
 Spirit. The opinion of Calvin is similar, although more cau- 
 tiously expressed, ver. 11:" Interdum Dei gratia, quamvis 
 praesens esset, euin secundum carnis sensum latuit." 
 
 Ver. 2. IV^o-revo-a?] to be taken absolutely. Luke iv. 2. 
 Comp. Deut. ix. 9 ; Ex. xxxiv. 28 ; 1 Kings xix. 8. It is 
 explained, without reason, by Kuiuoel, Kuhn, and many others 
 in the sense of deprivation of the usual means of nourishment. 
 This relative meaning, which, if presented by the context, 
 would be admissible (Kuhn, L. J. I. p. 364 ff.), is here, how- 
 ever, where even the nights are mentioned as well as the days, 
 contradicted by the context, the supernatural character of the 
 history, the intentionally definite statement of Luke (iv. 2), 
 and the types of Moses and Elijah. It is just as irrelevant 
 to change the forty days as a sacred number into an indefinite
 
 CHAP. IV. 3. 131 
 
 measure of time (Koster) ; or, as a round number, into several 
 days (Neander, Krabbe). That, moreover, the forty days' fast 
 became the occasion of the temptation, cannot appear as out rf 
 keeping (Strauss, de Wette) with the object, but, according to 
 ver. 1, was contained in the design of the Spirit. varepov] 
 of itself superfluous, indicates, however, the circumstance that 
 the hunger did not attack Him until He had fasted. Bengel : 
 " Hactenus non tarn fuerat tentatio, quam ad earn praeparatio." 
 Comp. the similar usage of etra and eireira after participles by 
 classical writers, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 70 E. 
 
 Ver. 3. 'O Treipd^wv] Part, present taken substantively. 
 See on ii. 20. Here : the devil. Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 5. ei] 
 does not indicate that Satan had doubts of Jesus being the 
 Son of God (Origen, Wolf, Bengel), or was not aware of it 
 (Ignat. Phil, interpol. 9), comp. xxviii. 40 ; but the problematical 
 expression was to incite Jesus to enter upon the unreasonable 
 demand, and to prove Himself the Son of God. Euth. Ziga- 
 benus : Sero, on Trapa/cvia-OrjaeTcu ra> \6y<p, KaOdirep oveiSio-- 
 0et<? eVl r<n fir] elvai wo<? 6eov. ino? roO 6eov\ See iii. 17. 
 The devil makes use of this designation of the Messiah, not 
 because he deemed Jesus to be only a man, who vioQerrjOr] 
 T<X> 6eq> Sia ra? dperas avrov (Euth. Zigabenus), or because 
 he had become doubtful, owing to the hungering of Jesus, of 
 His divinity, which had been attested at His baptism (Chry- 
 sostom) ; but because Jesus' supernatural relation to God is 
 well known to him, whilst he himself, as the principle opposed 
 to God, has to combat the manifestation and activity of the 
 divine. Observe that by the position of the words the 
 emphasis lies on uuo?: if Thou standest to God in the 
 relation of Son. etTre, iva] iva after verbs of commanding, 
 entreaty, and desire, and the like, does not stand in the sense 
 of the infinitive, as is commonly assumed (Winer, de Wette, 
 Bleek), in opposition to the necessary conception of the words, 
 but is, as it always is, an expression of the purpose, in order 
 that, the mistaking of which proceeds from this, that it is not 
 usual in the German language to express the object of the 
 command, and so on, in the form of a purpose. Here : speak 
 (utter a command) in order that these stones, and so on.
 
 132 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Comp. xx. 21. The oldest examples from Greek writers after 
 e6e\eiv, o(f>pa, in Horn. II. i. 133 (see Nagelsbach thereon), 
 occur in Herodotus and Demosthenes. See Schaefer, ad Dem. 
 279. 8: aguJvv, iva #077077077; Kuhner, II. 2, p. 519. ot 
 \iOoi OVTOI] comp. iii. 9. <apro<i] Bread, in the proper 
 sense; not, like on?, food in general. Comp. vii. 9. The 
 Son of God must free Himself from the state of hunger, which 
 is unbecoming His dignity, by an act similar to the divine 
 creation, and thus employ His divine power for His own 
 advantage. The tempter introduces his lever into the imme- 
 diate situation of the moment 
 
 Ver. 4. Deut. viii. 3, after the LXX., contains the words of 
 Moses addressed to the Israelites, which have reference to the 
 divinely-supplied manna. Note how Jesus repels each one 
 of the three temptations, simply with the sword of the Spirit 
 (Eph. vi. 17). eV apr(d\ the preservation of life does not 
 depend upon bread alone. Examples of tftv eVi in Kypke, 
 Obss. I. p. 141; Markland, ad Max. Tyr. Diss. xxvii. 6 ; 
 Bergler, ad Alciphr. p. 294. This construction is a common 
 one in classical writers with ex, 0,77-0, or the simple dative. 
 ^crerat] The future tense designates in Deut. i. 1, and in 
 LXX. as well as here, simply the future, that which will 
 happen, the case which will occur under given circumstances. 
 So also in classical writers in general sentences. Dissen, ad 
 Dem. de cor. p. 369. o av6pa>7ro<t] universal: Man. So 
 in the original text and in the LXX. ; there is the less reason 
 to depart from this, and to explain it : de insigni illo hominc, 
 that is, Messiah (Fritzsche), as the application of the uni- 
 versal statement to Himself on the part of Jesus was a matter 
 of course. popart] Word, in its proper sense. By every 
 statement which proceeds from the mouth of God, that is, 
 through every command which is uttered by God, by which the 
 preservation of life is effected in an extraordinary, supernatural 
 manner (without apro?). 1 Comp. Wisd. xvi. 26. pfjfia is 
 
 1 Amongst the Israelites it was effected by means of the manna ; therefore we 
 must not say with Euth. Zigabenus : a> pvpa ix.-roptuop.iva> ato. ff<rafnarcs Qiw i*i 
 
 TOV -TfMuiita. S/x)v rfefyris ffvt/i%it TV* %uvv avTau. Comp. ChrySOStom : ^vvurai a 
 
 ties *a< pr.ftari tf'f^-cti <re tutu*-*. Pfleiderer also refers it to the power of
 
 CHAP. IV. 5. 133 
 
 not res O?* 1 !). n t even in xviii. 16, Luke ii. 15, Acts v. 32, 
 1 Mace. v. 37, since eWop. Sia CTTO/A. deov necessarily points to 
 the meaning of word, declaration, which, however, is not to be 
 explained, with Fritzsche (comp. Usteri and Ullmann) : omni 
 mandato divino peragendo. 
 
 Ver. 5. IIapa\a/ji{3J] he takes Him with him, 1 Mace. iii. 
 37, iv. 1, and frequently in Greek writers. rrjv ay lav 
 TroXtv] tsn'pn -vy, Isa. xlviii. 2, Iii. 1 ; Neh, xi. 1. Jeru- 
 salem, the city of God, on account of the national temple, 
 v. 35, xxvii. 53 ; Lukeiv. 9 ; Sir. xxxvi. ISjxlix. 6 ; Josephus, 
 Antt. iv. 4. 4 ; Lightfoot, Hor. p. 43 ;. Ottii Spicileg. p. 9. 
 Even at the present day it is called by the Arabs : the place 
 of the Sanctuary, or the Holy City [El Kuds]. Hamelsveld, 
 bibl. Geogr. I. p. 204 ff. ; Bosenmuller, Morgenl. in loc. The 
 designation has something solemn in contrast to the devil. 
 ta-Trja-iv] not " auctor erat, ut Christus (with him) illuc se con- 
 ferret " (Kuinoel, Fritzsche), but : he places Him, which im- 
 plies the involuntary nature of the act on the part of Jesus, 
 and the power on the part of the devil. Comp. Euseb. H. E. 
 ii. 23 : ecrrrja-av . . . rov 'IdKojjSov eirl TO Trreptjiov rov vaov. 
 A more precise determination of what is certainly a miracu- 
 lous occurrence (conceived of by Jerome as a carrying away 
 through the air) is not given in the text, which, however, does 
 not permit us to think of it as something internal taking 
 place in the condition of a trance (Olshausen). Comp. Acts 
 viii. 38. TO Trrepvyiov rov lepov] the little wing of the 
 temple l is sought for by many on the temple building itself, so 
 that it is either its battlement (Luther, Beza, Grotius), that 
 is, the parapet surrounding the roof, or the ridge (Fritzsche, 
 Winer), or the gable, pediment (Vulgate : pinnaculum ; Paulus, 
 Bleek), the two latter from their wing shape ( A ), or roof 
 generally (Keim, and older expositors. See especially Krebs 
 
 spiritual nourishment contained in the divine word ; as also Calovius, who says : 
 ' ' Revocat a verbo potentiae, quo lapides erant in panem convertendi, ad verbum 
 gratiae, cui adhaerentes vivent, etiamsi pane careant." 
 
 1 Amongst the Greeks (Strabo, Plutarch, the Scholiasts), x-Tt/wr, wing, is 
 specially used in an architectural sense. See the Lexica, also Mtiller, Archaol. 
 220. 3. On art/if? in this sense, comp. Poll. vii. 121 ; on vrtpvyiit, Joseph. 
 Antt. xv. 11. 5 ; on a- rifuft.it, Vitruv. iii. 3. 9.
 
 134 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 on the passage), that is indicated. But, apart from this, that 
 the roofing of the temple house, according to Josephus, Antt. 
 v. 5. 6, vi. 5. 1, was furnished on the top with pointed stakes 
 as a protection against birds, and, moreover, on account of 
 the extreme sacredness of the place, would hardly be selected 
 by tradition as the spot where the devil stationed himself, 
 the rov lepov is opposed to it, which does not, like z/ao<?, 
 designate the main building of the temple, properly speaking, 
 but the whole area of the temple with its buildings. See 
 Tittmann, Synon. p. 178 f. The view, therefore, of those is 
 to be preferred who, with Euth. Zigabenus, Olearius, Reland, 
 Valckenaer, seek the -rrrepvyiov in an outbuilding of the temple 
 area ; where, however, it is again doubtful whether Solomon's 
 portico or the aroa fiaaiXifaj, the former (Josephus, Antt. xx. 
 9. 7) on the east side, the latter (Josephus, Antt. xv. 11. 5) 
 on the south, both standing on an abrupt precipice, is intended. 
 Wetstein and Michaelis prefer the former ; Kuinoel, Bret- 
 schneider, B. Crusius, Arnoldi, the latter. In favour of the latter 
 is the description of the giddy look down from this portico 
 given in Josephus : et n<s air' aicpov rov ravrt]^ reyovs 
 avvridels ra fiddr) SiOTrrevei, (TKoroSivtav, OVK 
 T?}<? o-vjrew? et9 dfArpr)Tov rov ftv66v. In Hegesippus, quoted 
 by Eus. ii. 23 (where James preaches downwards from the 
 irrepvyiov rov vaov, and the scribes then go up and throw 
 him down), it is not the gable, but the pinnacle, the balustrade 
 of the temple building, which formed a projection (aKpcorrjpiov), 
 that we are to think of. Comp. Hesychius : nrepv^iov 
 aicpwrripiov. The article denotes that the locality where the 
 occurrence took place was well knovni. 
 
 EEMAEK. The second temptation in Matthew is the third in 
 Luke. The transposition was made with a view to the order in 
 which the localities succeeded each other. But in a climactic 
 point of view, how inappropriate is the order in which it occurs 
 in Luke, and how appropriate is that in Matthew, 1 whose 
 
 1 Luther : At the first temptation, the devil appeared as a black one ; at the 
 second, where he puts forth a word of Scripture, a light, white one ; at the 
 third, " quite as a divinely majestic devil, who comes out straightway, indeed, 
 as if he were God Himself."
 
 CHAP. IV. 6, 7. 335 
 
 greater originality must here also be maintained against 
 Schneckenburger and Krafft. The variation itself, however, is 
 not removed by the circumstance that Matthew only continues 
 the narrative with TOTS and KO.XIV (Ebrard), but it remains and 
 is unessential. 
 
 Ver. 6. In Ps. xci. 11, 12, according to the LXX., it is 
 God's providential care for the pious in general that is spoken 
 of. Here the tempter, who now himself grasps the weapon 
 of Scripture, which had just been used against him, cunningly 
 applies the typical expressions in the Psalms (the figure is 
 borrowed from maternal anxiety) strictly to the Messiah. 
 ort], not the recitative, but a part of the passage. The Son of 
 God, in reliance on the divine protection, must undertake a 
 daring miracle of display in order to win over the masses for 
 Himself. For the multitudes, with a view to influencing 
 whom this miracle is proposed, are understood to be, as a 
 matter of course, on the temple area ; and therefore we are not 
 to assume, with Kohlschiitter, Ullmann, Engelhardt, that it 
 was only an exhibition of divine favour and protection, and no 
 public spectacle, which was aimed at. On that view no suffi- 
 cient reason is shown why Jesus is brought from the wilder- 
 ness to the most populous centre of the metropolis. Euth. Ziga- 
 benus strikingly remarks : Sia KevoSoJ;ia<; e\eiv avrbv eTri^eipet. 
 
 Ver. 7. Hd\iv\ rursus, never signifies in the N. T., not 
 even in 2 Cor. x. 7, Gal. v. 3, 1 John ii. 8, at quoque, e diverse, 
 a meaning which it frequently has in classic writers (Ellendt, 
 Lex. Soph. II. p. 485), as Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Schleusner, 
 B. Crusius, have interpreted it ; but here means, on the other 
 hand, looking back to the yeypaTrrai of the devil in ver. 6, 
 and introducing another passage of Scripture as something 
 which again has been written; comp. v. 33. Bengel well 
 says : Scriptura per scripturam interpretanda et concilianda. 
 OVK eK7reipd<rei<;~\ future, as in i. 21 ; the compound strengthens 
 the meaning ; comp. on 1 Cor. x. 9. The meaning is : " Do 
 not let it be a question whether God will save thee from dangers 
 on which thou hast entered uncalled." Flacius : Si habuisset 
 expressum mandatum dei, non fuisset tentatio. Deut. vi. 16 
 (LXX.), comp. Ex. xvii. 2.
 
 136 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Ver. 8 f. ndaas . . . Koo-pov] jnsn tfcBOri Ezra i. 2. Not 
 a hyperbolical expression : amplissimum terrarum tractum, but 
 actually all the kingdoms of the world, Luke iv. 5. The 
 devil could indeed regard only all heathen lands as his dis- 
 posable possession (Luke iv. 6 ; Lightfoot, p. 1088; Eisen- 
 menger, entd. Judenth. II. p. 820 ff.) ; but even unto those remote 
 heathen lands, and beyond, and far beyond the small country 
 of Palestine, has the marvellous- height of the mountain 
 enabled the eye to look ; the Holy Land, with the temple and 
 the peculiar people of God, certainly belonged besides to 
 the Son of God as a matter of course ; therefore to explain it 
 away as omnes Palaestinae regiones- (Krebs, Loesner, Fischer, 
 Gratz) is quite away from the point, -eav Tfecr. . . . poi] If 
 Thou wilt have cast Thyself down before me as Thy master, 
 and thereby have manifested Thy homage (ii. 2) to me. By 
 the fulfilment of this demand the devil would have made 
 Jesus unfaithful to Himself, and would have secured his own 
 world-rule over Him. Where the mountain in question is to 
 be sought for (according to Michaelis, it was Nebo ; according 
 to others, the Mount of Olives, Tabor, Mbriah, HoreV) is, con- 
 sidering the miraculous nature of the scene (Luke iv. 5 : cv 
 crxtfy/iJ; xpovov), not even to be asked ; just as little is Beifcwaiv 
 to be rationalized as if it denoted not merely the actual 
 pointing, but also the verbis demonstrare (Kuinoel, Glockler) ; 
 the Sofa avrwv, moreover, is the external splendour of the 
 kingdoms that lay before His eye. 
 
 Ver. 10. "TTraye] The spurious words oiriffw /*ov would 
 have to be explained: go behind me that is, go back that 
 I may see thee no longer ! acjjavia-drjTi, Euth. Zigabenus. 
 oTTio-ci) with the genitive belongs to the LXX. and the Apo- 
 crypha, after the Hebrew, 'a ^.ns ; in this way the Greeks 
 construe O7rta-0v. aaTava] to infer from this that Jesus 
 now for the first time (too late) recognises Satan (de Wette), 
 is arbitrary, and opposed to the representation of the matter 
 in ver. 1, according to which Jesus cannot have been unaware 
 of the intention of the Holy Spirit, who impelled Him to go 
 into the wilderness. That He now calls Satan "by name, is in 
 keeping with the growing intensity of the emotion in general,
 
 CHAP, iv 11. 137 
 
 as well as with the personal address of the tempter in ver. 9. 
 " Tentatorem, quum is maxime favere videri vult, Satanam 
 appellat," Bengel. tcvpiov, K.T.\.] Jehovah alone shalt ihou 
 worship, do homage to Him only as thy master. Deut. vi. 13, 
 according to the LXX., freely applied to the proposal of 
 Satan. According to this arrangement, it is by the way of 
 obedience to God that Jesus is aware that He will attain to 
 the government of the world. John xviii. 36 ; Phil. ii. 6 ff. ; 
 Matt, xxviii. 1 8 ; Acts x. 3 6 ff. 
 
 Ver. 11. "AyyeXot,"] Angels, without the article. Sirj- 
 KOVOVV] ministered to Him. The remark of Bengel is correct: 
 " sine dubio pro eo, ac turn opus erat, sc. allato cibo." So 
 Luther, Piscator, Jansen, Wolf, Hammond, Michaelis, Paulus, 
 Fritzsche, Strauss, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Nebe, Keim. 
 Concerning the use of Siaicovelv in this sense, see Wetstein, 
 and Matthiae, ad Soph. Phil. 284; and how pragmatically 
 does this appearance of angels, after a series of temptations 
 that have been victoriously withstood, correspond to the 
 appearance of Satan in> ver. 3 ! Comp. 1 Kings xix. 5. 
 Others, not referring it to food, say that extraordinary 
 divine support (John i. 52) is intended (Calvin, Maldonatus, 
 Kuinoel, Olshausen, Kuhn, Ammon, Ebrard), on which view 
 the angels themselves are partly left out, partly effaced from 
 the narrative ; whilst Chrysostom (who compares the carrying 
 of Lazarus by angels into Abraham's bosom), Theophylact, Euth. 
 Zigabenus, Grotius, do not enter into any more minute exposi- 
 tion of the Sta/coveiv. But considering the appropriateness of 
 the above definite explanation, it is not right to be satisfied 
 with one that is indefinite and wavering. 
 
 EEMAEK. According to the representation of the evangelists, 
 the temptation of Jesus by the devil appears in the connection 
 of the history as a real external marvellous occurrence. See Ch. 
 F. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 122ff. To abide by this 
 view (Michaelis, Storr, Ebrard, P. Ewald, Graul, Konemann, 
 Arnoldi, Schegg, Delitzsch, Nebe, Engelhardt, Hofmann, Eiggen- 
 bach, Baumgarten) is a necessary consequence of the denial of 
 any legendary elements in the canonical Gospels, and is equally 
 justifiable with this denial in general. The evangelists were 
 aware that they were relating a real external history in time
 
 138 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 and space (in answer to Kuhn, Lichtenstein), and the choice 
 only remains between adopting either this view or assuming 
 that of an ideal history in the garb of legend, gradually brought 
 into shape by the power of the idea. All attempts at explain- 
 ing away the devil and his external appearance are arbitrary 
 contradictions or critical carpings, opposed to the design and 
 representations of the evangelists, more or less of a rationalistic 
 character. This holds good, not merely of the absurd, and, in 
 relation to the third act, even monstrous view of those who, 
 instead of the devil, introduce one or even various individuals, 
 perhaps a member of the Sanhedrim or high priest, who 
 wished to examine Jesus and to win Him over, or destroy Him 
 (Herm. v. d. Hardt, Exegesis loc. difficilior. qiiat. ev. p. 470 ff. ; 
 Basedow, Venturini, Holier, neue Ansichten, p. 20 ff. ; Eosen- 
 miiller, Kuinoel, Feilmoser in the Tub. Quartalschr. 1828, 1, 2), 
 but also of the view which regards the event as a vision, whether 
 this was brought about by the devil (Origen ? Pseudo- Cyprian, 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia), or by God (Farmer, Inquiry into the, 
 Nature, and Design of Christ's Temptation, London, 1761 ; comp. 
 also Calvin on ver. 5), or by natural means (Balth. Becker, 
 Scultetus, Clericus, Wetstein, Bolten, Bertholdt, Jahn, Gabler, 
 Paulus, Gratz, Pfleiderer), or of those who view it as a signi- 
 ficant morning dream (Meyer in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1831, p. 
 319ff.), which interpretations, moreover, are in contradiction 
 with the clear repose and moral definiteness of the divine- 
 human consciousness of Jesus, in virtue of which there never 
 occurs in His life any condition of ecstasy, or a trace of any 
 special manifestations in dreams. Akin to this, but equally 
 offensive to the gospel history, and besides by no means leaving 
 unaffected the moral character of the development of Jesus 
 Himself, if we look to Heb. ii. 18, iv. 15, is the view which 
 transforms the occurrence into an internal history, which took 
 place in the thoughts and fancy of Jesus (Doderlein, Eichhorn, 
 allg. Bill. III. p. 283 ff. ; Thaddaeus d. i. Dereser, d. Versuch. 
 Christi, Bonn 1794; Hezel, Augusti, Bretschneider, Weisse, 
 Kritik d. ev. Gesch. II. p. 1 2 ; Hocheisen in the Tub. Zeitschr. 
 1833, 2 ; Kohlschutter, Pfeiffer, Eink, Ammon, Laufs, Schenkel, 
 Held). On this view the devil has again been recently brought 
 forward, on grounds exegetically justifiable, as the operating 
 principle (Krabbe, Hoffmann, Schmid, libl. TJieol. I. p. 65 ; and 
 very indirectly also by Ullmann) ; while, in a more arbitrary 
 manner, it has been attributed to the disciples that they appre- 
 hended in an objective form the inner fact related to them by 
 Jesus, that He had rejected the false idea of the Messiah ; whilst
 
 CHAP. IV. 11. 139 
 
 Neander, L. J. p. 120ff., substantially giving up the reality of 
 the history of the temptation (" a fragmentary symbolical setting 
 forth of the facts of His inner life," where the manner of the 
 devil's co-operation is left undetermined), holds hesitatingly by 
 its truth ; and Kuhn, moreover, is divided between the historical 
 and unhistorical view of the manner of its occurrence. To 
 those who transfer the history into the inner life of, Jesus' 
 spirit, belong also Hase and Olshausen, the former of whom 
 recognises in it the whole history of His mental growth, pro- 
 bably externalized by Himself, with reference to Ex. xvi., Deut. 
 viii. 2, Ps. xci. 1 1 f., into an individual fact, but in the tradition 
 assumed to be actual history, and who volatilizes the devil into 
 the spirit of the world ; while Olshausen, notwithstanding the 
 ucri roD irvsu^ctaro; in ver. 1, finds the reality of the occurrence 
 in this, that the soul of Jesus was exposed to the full operations 
 of the kingdom of darkness ; while Lange regards the internal 
 temptation of Jesus as caused by the devil, but brought about 
 by human means that is, as an assault of the sympathetic 
 inworking of the national and world spirit upon His soul, and 
 as the tentative representatives of this spirit, drags in, by an 
 invention that is his own, the deputation of the Sanhedrim, 
 which had been despatched to John (John i. 1 9), as they were 
 on their way back to Jerusalem. With more caution and with 
 profotmder historical insight, Keim (comp. Weizsacker, p. 239 ff.) 
 regards the history of the temptation in the light of the victo- 
 rious beginning of the struggle with Satan, xii. 25 ff., where the 
 historical kernel is the heavy weight of questions and doubts 
 which were imposed on the soul of Jesus whilst He was calmly 
 meditating upon the obligation and the manner of His vocation 
 to the Messiahship, and on His decision to enter upon it, which 
 had so powerfully taken hold of Him on the banks of the 
 Jordan ; on this initial victory Jesus could not have left His 
 disciples without some information. But however we may 
 apprehend the narrative as an historical occurrence in the mind 
 of Jesus, the monstrous nature of the external formation of the 
 history remains the more inexplicable the more directly its 
 origin is brought into connection with Jesus Himself and His 
 circle of disciples, especially as the threefold details of the 
 temptation were still unknown to Mark. To view the event 
 as a parable, is in contradiction to the narrative, arbitrary in 
 itself, and alien to the style of parabolic address employed by 
 Jesus elsewhere. So, after older writers, who, however, endanger 
 the sinless character of Jesus, it has been viewed as a sym- 
 bolical address of Jesus or of one of His disciples directed
 
 140 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 against false Messianic hopes. See Schleiennacher, Sclir. d. 
 Lukas,p. 54 f., and L.J. p. 157 ff.; B. Crusius, UU. Theol. p. 303, 
 and on Matthew, p. 82; Usteri in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 
 455 ff., who at a later time recanted this opinion, and regarded 
 the narrative as a myth (1832, p. 768) ; Kichter, formam narrat. 
 Matth. iv. 1-11, parabolicam ex Judaeor. opinions de duplici 
 Adamo esse repetend., Viteb. 1824; Schweizer, Bleek; comp. 
 Theile, z. Biogr. J. p. 49 : "a warning directed by some adherent 
 or another in support of the spiritually moral view, in opposition 
 to the chief elements of the earthly Messianic hope." Against 
 the parabolic character, see Hasert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 
 p. 74 f. ; Strauss, L. J. I. p. 444 f. ; Schmid, UU. Theol. I. p. 60 ; 
 Engelhardt, Nebe. As now, however, the history of the 
 temptation in the first and third evangelists, viewed as an 
 actual external occurrence, contains not merely a legendary 
 magical scenery which is still foreign to the oldest Gospel, but 
 also absolute impossibilities and contradictions with the moral 
 character of Jesus as filled with the Spirit, who does not at 
 once get rid of Satan, but allows him to proceed to the utmost 
 extreme ; as, moreover, this occurrence on the other side stands 
 in contradiction with the devil's cunning and craftiness (Paulus, 
 cxeget. Handb. I. p. 376), whose assaults as proceeding from the 
 devil against the Son of man would be planned with as much 
 clumsiness as pointlessness, there thus remains nothing else 
 than to explain the narrative which in Mark still exhibits its 
 first undeveloped beginnings, the first crystallisations of its 
 ideal contents, the subject of which the narrators deemed to be 
 true history, and repeated as such, as a legend, the contents of 
 which, regarded as thought, possessed historical truth, and which 
 arose among Jewish Christians, 1 being derived from the idea 
 of the Messiah as opposed to the devil, and the necessity and 
 complete realization of which was exhibited in the whole life 
 and work of Christ, placed, like a compendious programme, an 
 " epitome omnium tentationum " (Bengel), at the beginning of the 
 Messianic career, which commenced at the baptism. Not as if 
 
 1 Various conceptions from the legendary or mythical point of view, see in 
 Theiss, Lbffler, kl. Schr. II. p. 185 ff.; Fritzsche, Usteri in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1832, p. 768 ff.; Strauss, I. p. 479 f.; de Wette, Gfrorer, Gesch. d. Urchr. I. 1, 
 p. 379 ff.; Ewald. The locality of the temptation, the wilderness, was at once 
 suggested as the idea gradually assumed bodily form from the sojourn of Jesus 
 with the Baptist, and from the popular belief that demons had their dwellings 
 in the wilderness; the forty days, however, found their venerable point of con- 
 nection in the types of Moses and Elias (hardly of the forty years' duration of 
 the wanderings of the people in the wilderness, which Delitzsch, Baumgarten,
 
 CHAP. IV. 11. 141 
 
 there had not been on the part of Jesus after His baptism, and 
 before His entrance on His work, the most serious preparation 
 and most intense concentration of thought in still retirement, in 
 which the whole opposition of the devil, as well as the manner 
 of His own struggles and conquests which had been peculiarly 
 determined by God, must have presented themselves vividly 
 before His eyes ; although this alone could not have given rise 
 to the history of the temptation. For that purpose it was 
 necessary that His holy life, that actual victory over Satan, 
 should first be completed. That narrative might now first 
 have arisen in the living history-moulding power of the ideas 
 which prevails generally throughout the preliminary history, 
 first of all in the form in which it appears in Mark, but soon 
 after gradually expanded into detail, yet again silently excluded 
 by John, considering the impossibility of assigning a place to 
 it in connection with his history. Its expanded form, however, 
 as it lies before us in Matthew and Luke, corresponds with the 
 highest internal truth to the main relations of the opposition 
 directed by the power of the devil against the second Adam and 
 His kingdom, an opposition which is decidedly to be recog- 
 nised from the very beginning onwards to the end, and victory 
 over which was the condition of His whole work. In this way 
 the contents of the narrative, the psychological factors of which 
 are quite as much the temptability as the sinlessness of the 
 Lord, certainly belong to the history, but not as a concrete 
 occurrence with its three individual acts, but as a summary 
 reflection of the work of Jesus in His vocation in relation to 
 the demoniacal kingdom, without, however, our being obliged 
 to assume as an historical foundation any internal temptation 
 taking place in thought, and any originally symbolic repre- 
 sentation of the same, which was transformed into actual 
 history in the course of tradition (de Wette). This foundation 
 is rather the complete victory of our Lord over the craft and 
 power of the devil, as the whole course of His Messianic life 
 is a series of temptations by the devil, with the result of the 
 latter being conquered both in detail and in the main (Heb. 
 
 and others drag in here as a type). They are also not excluded by the statement 
 of Justin, c. Tr. 103, that, according to the uTofivnpo*. T. avrea-r., the devil came 
 to Jesus apa <ru a.* infant at avrot atro TOU roTa./j.ou TOJ 'lopSamu ; but this statement 
 agrees with Mark i. 12f. As regards the individual temptations, the first was 
 thus connected with the forty days' fast of Moses, Dent. ix. 9, 18 ; the second, 
 with the necessity which existed in the case of the Messiah of His being 
 accredited by miracles; the third, with the certainty of the Messiah's rule over 
 the world, by means of which the government of the devil must come to an end.
 
 142 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 ii. 18, iv. 15); comp. John xiv. 30. With profound meaning 
 and truth (for from, the, very beginning must Jesus make expe- 
 rience of the enemy of His kingdom, begin the struggle with 
 him, and become certain of the right victory) has the synoptic 
 tradition unanimously assigned to the narrative the early place 
 which it occupies; and the attempt cannot be successful to 
 maintain a later special situation as the historical seat of its 
 origin, as Pfleiderer does, who transposes the vision which he 
 assumes into the time of ch. xv. xvi., making use, moreover, 
 of John vi. 26 for the first act of the temptation. That the 
 history of the temptation in Matthew is even a later insertion 
 derived from oral tradition (Kostlin), is a very arbitrary infer- 
 ence, from the circumstance that ver. 12 does not make any 
 reference to the history of the temptations ; Matthew follows 
 Mark, and quotes his short notice from a special source. The 
 existence of Satan, as well as his personality, is attested 
 throughout the whole of the New Testament, and is altogether 
 independent of the view which may be taken of this individual 
 narrative; see in answer to Hofmann, Schriftbew., Philippi, 
 Dogm. III. p. 332 ff. ed. 2. 
 
 Ver. 12. Fritzscbe gives the sense and connection of vv. 12 
 to 1 6 thus : " Post conditi in carcerem Johannis famam dis- 
 cessit Jesus in Galilaeam, et relicta Nazaretha Capharnaumi 
 quidem consedit, ut, quemadmodum apud prophetam est, 
 magnis, amisso Johanne, tenebris oppressi Galilaei splendida 
 Messiae luce fruerentur." But it appears, from the words in 
 ver. 12, that Jesus, upon learning that the Baptist had been 
 delivered over to Herod, deemed it dangerous to appear in the 
 same district where the latter had baptized and excited so 
 much attention, and that therefore He withdrew into the more 
 remote Galilee (comp. xii. 15, xiv. 13). This belonged, 
 indeed, to the dominion of Herod Antipas, who had caused 
 the Baptist to be apprehended (xiv. 3) ; but it removed Jesus 
 more from his attention and that of the hierarchical party, and 
 gave Him the natural retirement of home. According to John 
 iii. 24, John had not yet been apprehended, and the journey to 
 Galilee was occasioned by the marriage at Cana (ii. 1). In 
 Luke iv. 14 no external reason is stated for the journey, which 
 is a later avoidance of the inaccuracy of the earlier tradition 
 (retained in Mark and Matthew) (in answer to Schnecken-
 
 CHAP. IV. 13, 14. 143 
 
 burger). The contradiction, however, between Matthew and 
 John is to be recognised, and to the latter is to be assigned 
 the preference in point of accuracy. 1 Comp. on John iii. 24. 
 A longer intervening period between the temptation and the 
 return to Galilee is not hinted at by Matthew (nor even by 
 Mark), and is excluded by Luke. 
 
 Vv. 13, 14. Ka(f)apvaovfj,] so, with Lachmann, Tischen- 
 dorf, we must write B1D3 i?3, vicus Nachumi, not ^wpiov 
 7rapaK\rjaeca<; (Origen), or villa pulcherrima (Jerome). It was 
 a prosperous manufacturing town on the north-west shore of 
 the Lake of Tiberias. Not mentioned in the Old Test. ; in 
 Josephus, Vit. Ixxii., nwfjuj Kefapvuftr). It has now dis- 
 appeared, and not even can its site be determined with cer- 
 tainty (Tell Hum ? so also Wilson's Lands of the Bible, II. p ; 
 137 ff., and Furer in Schenkel's Bibellex. III. p. 494 f., like- 
 wise Bitter, Ewald, and several others ; Eobinson, 2 III. p. 
 543 fi.,and Later Researches,-^. 457 ff. ; Saulcy, II. p. 491 ff. ; 
 Hitter, Erdk. XV. 1, p. 338 ff.). The designation of the situa- 
 tion by T. 7rapa6a\. and eV 6/>iW, etc. (where the boundaries 
 of both tribes touch each other), is given with reference to the 
 following prophecy, for which even the position of these 
 boundaries was not a matter of indifference (in answer to 
 Hengstenberg, Christol. II. p. 93), as, in consequence of it, the 
 settlement in Capernaum had reference to the districts of both 
 the tribes. KaraXnr. T. Na^ap.] why, Matthew does not 
 say, but see Luke iv. 16 ff. Misconceived in Nazareth, Jesus 
 preferred as a place of settlement the more populous, and, 
 
 1 We cannot say that it is the journey to Galilee, John vi. 1, which is intended 
 in our passage (Wieseler, chronol. Synapse, p. 161 f., and Beitr. z. Wurdig. d. Eu. 
 p. 174 ff.), for that Matthew conceived the journey recorded by him as the first 
 after the sojourn in the wilderness, is shown not only by the whole context, but 
 also by ver. 13 ff., where the settling down at Capernaum is related, and the reason 
 assigned for it ; and by ver. 17, where Jesus first actually begins His office as 
 teacher. This holds good against the frequent assumption that the journey to 
 Galilee, Matt. iv. 12, coincides with John iv. 3, 43-45 (Kuhn, Ebrard, Lang'e, 
 Marcker, Uebereinst. d. Matth. u. Joh., 1868, p. 9). Exegetically, the dis- 
 crepancy must remain a blank, which is also recognised by JBleek and Keim ; by 
 the latter, however, in such a way that he denies to John's account a strictly 
 historical character. 
 
 2 According to Robinson, it is the present Khan Minieh, farther south than 
 Tell Hum ; so also Sepp, Keim.
 
 144 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 through intercourse with strangers, the more liberally-minded 
 Capernaum. Considering His migratory life and work, neither 
 viii. 5 1 nor viii. 20 can be regarded as not agreeing with the 
 statement in our passage (in answer to Hilgenfeld). 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. As the evangelist, ii. 23, found a prophecy in 
 support of the settlement at Nazareth, so also now for the 
 removal to Capernaum, viz. Isa. viii. 22, ix. 1 (quoted from 
 memory, but adhering to the LXX.) : The land of Zabulon 
 and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond 
 Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, the people which sat in darkness, 
 and so on. 777 is not the vocative, but the nominative, corre- 
 sponding to o Xaos, etc., ver. 16. The article was not re- 
 quired ; see Winer, p. 114 f. [E. T. 2-2]. As, by the 6Sov 
 6a\dcra-T)<}, the rrjv Trapada\a<Tviav expressed of Capernaum in 
 ver. 13 is prophetically established, so must #aXa<r 0-779, in the 
 sense of the evangelist, refer to the Sea of Galilee, the Lake 
 of Gennesareth. These words, namely, determine the situation 
 of yij Zaf3. and 777 Ne<j>8., and are to be translated seawards. 
 The absolute accusat. 6S6v is quite Hebraistic, like TH in the 
 sense of versus (Ezek. viii. 5, xl. 20, xli. 11 f., xlii. 1 ff. ; 1 Kings 
 viii 48; 2 Chron. vi. 38; Deut. i. 2, 19), a usage which 
 is partly retained in the LXX. 1 Kings viii. 48, 6Sbv 7779 
 avTcav, in the direction of their land; exactly so in 2 Chron. 
 vi. 38, and most probably also in Deut. i. 19. In this sense 
 has the evangelist also understood QJ? ^Hl in the original text 
 of the passage before us ; so also Aquila and Theodotion, not 
 the LXX., according to B (in A, by an interpolation). No 
 completely corresponding and purely Greek usage is found, as 
 the accusatives of direction, in Bernhardy, p. 144 f., comp. 
 Kiihner, II. 1, p. 268 , do not stand independent of a verb. 
 rrepav TOV 'Jo/aS. is not, like 6Sbv 0a\., a determination of the 
 position of yfj Zaft. and 7?) Netyd., as these tribes were situated 
 on this side the Jordan, while irepav (in answer to Bengel, 
 Kuinoel, Linder in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 553) can never 
 signify on this side (Crome, Beitr. p. 8 3 ff.) ; but it designates, 
 after these two lands, a new land as the theatre of the work- 
 ing of Jesus, viz. Peraea (comp. on ver. 25), whose customary 
 designation was p~pn isy, irepav TOV 'lop&uvov that is, the land
 
 CHAP. IV. 16. 145 
 
 east of Jordan. The evangelist includes this land as well as 
 PaXtX. T. edvwv, because it stands in the prophetic passage 
 along with the others (not with reference to the Peraean 
 ministry of Jesus, de Wette, Bleek, which has no place here), 
 leaving it, besides, to the reader to decide that it was only in 
 <y>) Za/3ov\o)v . . . 0a\da-<ri]<; that the specific element of 
 locality which was to be demonstrated from the prophecies 
 was contained. The citation, moreover, which specially sets 
 forth that Jesus, after He had quitted Nazareth, settled at 
 Capernaum, on the borders of Zebulon and Naphtali, in their 
 telic connection with a divine prediction (iva of the divine 
 determination), shows in this very circumstance the Messianic 
 fulfilment of the historical relation of the prophetic declara- 
 tion, according to which there was announced to northern 
 Galilee safety and salvation from the oppression of the 
 Assyrians, and consequently theocratical, political salvation. 
 Fa\. T. edvG)v\ D'pan ?v3 (district of the heathen), that is, in 
 keeping with the originally appellative term ^j, which had 
 become a proper name, Up/oer Galilee, in the neighbourhood 
 of Phoenicia, inhabited by a mixed population of heathens 
 (Strabo, xvi. p. 760) and Jews. 1 Mace. v. 15 : laXtX. 
 d\\o(f)v\a)v. Its geographical limits are defined by Joseph. 
 Bell. iii. '6. 1. 
 
 Ver. 16. 'O Xao<? o Kadrfpevos, /e.r.X.] In opposition to 
 PaXtXai'a rwv idvwv, whose inhabitants are characterized as 
 darkened, that is, devoid of divine truth, and sunk in ignorance 
 and sin. The great light, however, which these darkened ones 
 saw is Jesus. ical TO? KaOrjpevois, /e.r.X.] repeats the same 
 thought, with the climactic designation of darkness : ev %/? K. 
 cricia Oavdrov, in the land and darkness, which belong to 
 death. Death, that is, spiritual death (viii. 22, see on Luke 
 xv. 24), the negation of that living activity which recognises 
 the truth and is morally determined, is personified; the land, 
 whose inhabitants are spiritually dead, belongs to it as the 
 realm of its government, and darkness surrounds it. The 
 common interpretation of it as ev Sia Svoiv: "in regione et 
 in spissis quidem tenebris = in regione spiss-is tenebris obducta " 
 (Fritzsche), is, indeed, admissible (see Fritzsche, Exc. IV. p. 
 
 MATT. K
 
 146 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 856 ; Nagelsbach on Horn. II. iii. 100), but unnecessary, and 
 takes away from the poetic description, which is .certainly 
 stronger and more vivid if davdrov is connected not merely 
 with <TKM ( n .}'??V, infernalis obscuritas, i.e. crassissima), but 
 also with x<w/9- On the significant KaOrjpevos, comp. Lam. I.e. 
 Find. 01. i. 133 : ev OVCOTW Ka6r)n,evo$. " Sedendi verbum aptum 
 notandae solitudini inerti " (Bengel). Comp. especially, Jacobs, 
 ad Anthol. VI. p. 397; Bremi, ad Dem. Phil. I. p. 119. Nagels- 
 bach on Horn. II. i. 134. aurot?] see Winer, p. 139 F. 
 [E. T. 265]; Buttmann, p. 125 [E. T. 381]. 
 
 Ver. 17. 'ATTO rare] from tliat time' onwards that is, after 
 this return to Nazareth and Capernaum. It determines the 
 commencement of the preaching not merely from Capernaum 
 onwards. In the N. T. OTTO rare stands only here, xvi. 21, 
 xxvi. 16 ; Luke xvi. 16. More frequently in the writers Of 
 the Koivrj, LXX. Ps. xciii. 2 ; Wetstein in loc. Not in classical 
 writers. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 461. fiaa: TWV ovpavwv] 
 See on iii. 2. Jesus in the presence of the people does not 
 yet designate Himself as the Messiah, but announces in quite 
 a general way the nearness of the Messianic kingdom, the 
 divinely-ordained bearer of which He knew Himself to be ; 
 this is quite in keeping with the humility and wisdom of His 
 first appearance, when He resumed the preaching of John. 
 The view, that at the beginning He did not regard Himself as 
 the Messiah, but only as a forerunner like John, and only at a 
 later time appropriated to Himself the Messianic idea (Strauss, 
 Schenkel), is in contradiction to all the four Gospels. But in 
 His self-attestation as the Messiah He proceeded to work, 
 according to the Synoptics, in a more gradual manner than 
 He did according to John. Comp. Gess, Christi Person u. 
 WcrJc, I. p. 247 ff. 
 
 Ver. 18. Comp. Luke v. 1 ff. 0d\acra. rr)<; PaXtX.] Lake 
 of Gennesareth or Tiberias (see on John vi 1) is 140 stadia 
 long and 40 broad, with romantic environs, and abounding in 
 fish (Josephus, Sell. iii. 10. 7), about 500 feet below the level 
 of the Mediterranean. See Eobinson, Pal III. pp. 499, 509 ; 
 Hitter, Erdk. XV. 1, p. 284 ff. ; Eiietschi in Herzog's EncyTd. 
 V. ; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 599 ff. TOV \eyou,. Ilerpov] not
 
 CHAP. IV. 19, 20. 147 
 
 a ficnepiv -irporepov, but see on xvi. 18. That the evangelists 
 always have (with the exception of the diplomatic passage, 
 John i. 43) the name Peter, which in Paul is certainly found 
 only in Gal ii. 7 ,f., ,not Cephas, is explained in the case of 
 Matthew by the circumstance that his Gospel is only a trans- 
 lation, and that at the time of its composition the Greek name 
 had become the common one. 
 
 Vv. 19, 20. JeOre OTTIO-OJ pov] come here after me 1 ! T)fiK w 
 (2 Kings vi. 19 ; 1 Kings xi. 5), be my pupils. The disciples 
 were in constant attendance on their teacher j.Schoettgen, Hor. 
 in loc. * 7rot77<7&> . . . dvOpatTTcov] I will put you in a position 
 to gain men, tJiat they may become members of the kingdom of the 
 Messiah. Words borrowed from the domain of hunting and 
 fishing (Jer. .xvi. 16) often denote the winning over of souls 
 for themselves or others. Wetstein and Loesner, Hemster- 
 husius, ad Lucian. Dial. Mort. viii. ; Burmann, ad fhaedr.iv. 4. 
 Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 20. Here the typical phraseology sug- 
 gested itself from the circumsta nces. eu#e&>9] belongs to 
 d<f>evT<;, not to r)K_o\. ^/coX] as disciples. lunufftSh either 
 arranging (Bengel) or repairing (Vulgate and most commen- 
 tators). We cannot determine which ; Luke has 
 
 .EEMAKK. The want of harmony between Matthew iv. 1 8 ff. 
 and John i. 35 ff. is to be recognised, and is not (as the Fathers 
 of the church, Kuinoel, Gratz, Olshausen, Hoffmann, Krabbe, 
 Neander, Ebrard, Arnoldi, Luthardt, Bleek, Piiggenbach, Lange, 
 Ewald, Hausrath, Marcker, have attempted) to be removed by 
 supposing that in Matthew it is a second calling of the apostles 
 in question that .is recorded, viz. that they had already been at 
 an earlier date (John i. 35 ff.) disciples of Jesus in the wider 
 sense of the word, but that now for the first time, they had 
 become so in the narrower sense that is, had become apostles. 
 Comp. on John, remark after ch. i. Matthew does not even 
 agree with Luke v. 4 ff. See remarks on the passage, and 
 Keim, Gesch. J. II. p. 215. We must in any case (in answer 
 to Baur, Hilgenfeld) seek the true history of the occurrence in 
 John, in whose account a merely preliminary adherence to 
 Jesus is the less to be thought of, that immediately afterwards 
 oi fAadrjrai auroD go with Him to Cana (ii. 2), to Capernaum 
 (ii. 12), and to Jerusalem (ii. 17, 22). This also in answer to 
 Llicke on John, I. p. 466 f., and to Wieseler, who distinguishes
 
 148 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 a threefold act in the selection of the disciples : the preliminary 
 calling in John i. 35 ff. ; the setting apart to be constant attend- 
 ants, Matt. iv. 18 ff., ix. 9 ff. ; and the selection of the Twelve 
 to be apostles, Matt. x. 2-4. Wieseler (chronol. Synopse, p. 
 278) lays especial weight on the circumstance that John names 
 rots Swfcxa for the first time in John vi. 67. But John in 
 general, with the exception of this passage (and the verses 70 
 and 71 belonging to it), only once again expressly mentions the 
 rove 8uBsxa (viz. in xx. 21), which is determined by the anti- 
 thetic interest in the context. Especially in vi. 67 are the 
 Twelve opposed to those others, many of whom had deserted 
 Him. Previously, however, John had no opportunity, where 
 this or any other antithetical relation might give him occasion, 
 to give prominence to the number of the Twelve. Besides, the 
 history of the calling in Matthew, if it were not in contradic- 
 tion to John, would by no means bear in itself a mythical 
 character (Strauss finds in it a copy of the call of Elisha by 
 Elijah, 1 Kings xix. 19 ff.), but is to be explained from the 
 great, directly overwhelming impression made by the ap- 
 pearance of Jesus on minds prepared for it, which Matthew 
 himself experienced (ix. 9) ; and this also is to be applied to the 
 Johannine account. This narrative, which Schenkel and Keim 
 relegate to the sphere of free invention, does not exclude the 
 profound and certainly original words, " fishers of men," which 
 may have proceeded from the mouth of Jesus to His first called 
 disciples on that day, John i. 40 ; and upon the basis of these 
 words the narrative of the call, as it is preserved in Matthew 
 and Mark, might easily be formed. 
 
 Vv. 23, 24 serve by way of introduction to the Sermon on 
 the Mount, where the description is manifestly exaggerated as 
 regards the time of the first ministry of Jesus, and betray 
 the work of a later hand in the redaction of our Gospel. 
 Comp. ix. 35. The synagogues were places of assembly for 
 public worship, where on Sabbaths and feast days (at a later 
 period, also on the second and fifth days of the week, Jerusalem 
 Megillah, f. 75. 1 ; Babylonian Bava Cama, f. 82. 1) the 
 people met together for prayer, and to listen to the reading of 
 portions of the Old Testament, which were translated and 
 explained in the vernacular dialect. With the permission of 
 the president, any one who was fitted might deliver addresses. 
 Vitringa, de synagoga veterum, Franecker 1696; Keil, ArcMol.
 
 CHAP. iv. 24. 149 
 
 30 ; Leyrer in Herzog's EncyU. XV. p. 299 ff. ; Keim, GcscJi. 
 J. I. p. 432 ff. aiiT&v] of the Galileans. Traaav] every 
 kind of sickness which was brought to Him. See Hermann, 
 ad Viger. p. 728, pakaicia, weakness, deprivation of strength 
 through sickness. Herod. Vit. Horn. 36, and often in the 
 LXX. Comp. fia\aKi^ofj,ai and /taXa/aw, Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 389. In the K T. only in Matthew (x. 35, x. 1).- 
 ev TO) Xa&>] belongs to QepaTr. Comp. Acts v. 12, vi. 8. 
 Observe that such summary accumulations of the activity of 
 Jesus in healing as v. 23 f. (viii. 16, xii. 15) are not men- 
 tioned in John's Gospel. They are, moreover, especially at so 
 early a date, not in keeping with the gradual progress of the 
 history, although explicable enough in the case of a simple 
 historian, who, easily anticipating the representation which he 
 had formed from the whole history, gives a summary state- 
 ment in the account of a single portion of the narrative. 
 
 Ver. 24. Els o\v)v rrjv Svptav] His reputation spread 
 from Galilee into the whole province. Trdvras rovs tcaKus 
 e%ovTa<i] all the sufferers that there were. The following 
 7rotfci\. voaois belongs not to Kaica)? e^ovras (Syriac, Euth. 
 Zigabenus), but to o-vvexpjjievovs. v6<roi<; K. fiaa-dvois] 
 Sicknesses and torments. The first is general, the last 
 special. /cat Baipov. ical creX^z/. K. TrapaXur.] makes 
 prominent three special kinds of what had previously been 
 described in a general manner, so that the first xal is to be 
 rendered: especially also particularly also. 8ai/j,ovi^ofj,evovs] 
 according to the popular view, shared by the evangelist : 
 possessed by demons (ix. 34, xii. 26), whose bodies had become 
 the seat and organ of demoniacal working ; Saifj,6viov is not a 
 diminutive form, little devil (Ewald, Keim), but the neuter of 
 Saifjiovios as substantive. See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. Socr. 
 p. 2 7 f. They were real sick persons with diseases of a 
 peculiar character (mania, epilepsy, delirium, hypochondria, 
 paralytic condition, temporary dumbness), whose sufferings, 
 being apparently inexplicable from physical causes, were 
 believed to have their foundation not in an abnormal organi- 
 zation, or in natural disturbances of the physical condition, 
 but in diabolical possession that is, in the actual indwell-
 
 150 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 ing of demoniac personalities, very many of which might 
 even be counted in one sick person (Mark v. 9, xvi. 
 9). 1 This belief, which is conceivable from the decay of 
 the old theocratic consciousness arid of its moral strength, 
 which referred all misfortune to God's sending, is, however, 
 a belief which rendered healing possible only through the 
 acceptance of the existing view leaving the idea itself un- 
 touched, but made it all the more certain for the Messiah, 
 who has power over the kingdom of devils, and who now, in 
 the pure manifestation of Jesus, accompanied with miraculous 
 
 1 After the old view of actual bodily possession of the sick had, after Balth. 
 Becker (bezauberte Welt, iv. 5 ff.), Mead (medico, sacra, ix.), Wetstein, been, 
 especially by Sender (Comment, de daemoniacis, 1760, u. umstandliche Untersuch. 
 d. ddmonischen Leute, 1762), successfully refuted, and had disappeared altogether 
 (see also Timmermann, de daemoniac. evangelior. 1786 ; Winzer, de daemanologia 
 jV. T., 1812, 1821), although attempts at its defence were not wanting ^Storr, 
 Opusc. I. p. 53 ff. ; Eschenmayer, Mysticism, 1823 ; Jahn, Nachtragezu s. theol. 
 Werken, 1821), the old view was again -brought forward, partly before (v. 
 Meyer, Bibekleut. p. 40 ff. ; Olshausen on Matt. viii. 28, and others), partly 
 after, the assaults of Strauss (Krabbe, Hoffmann, Ebrard, Arnoldi, Hofmann, 
 Steinmeyer), and supported with more or less acuteness, and with turns of a 
 partly obscure and evasive character, especially by means of comparisons with 
 magnetism. Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 293 ff. ; Ebrard in Herzog's Encykl. 
 III. p. 240 ff. Not so, however, Lange, 11. 1, p. 285 ff., who, regarding the 
 condition' as a natural one, refers it to a nervous disease, having an elective 
 affinity with demoniacal influences, which the patient as well as the people re- 
 presented to himself as possession. By this the old view is not' retained even in 
 appearance. Against its tenability, however, irrespective of all objections of a 
 physiological and medical kind, the following are decisive proofs : (1) The non- 
 occurrence of demons in the 0. T> ; (2) the undisputed healing of the same by 
 exorcists (Matt. xii. 27 ; Mark ix. 38 ; Josephus, Antt. viii. 2. 5 ; Justin, c. 
 Tryph. 85 ; Lucian. Ph'dopseud. 16) ; as well as (3) the non-occurrence of reliable 
 instances in modern times (? Justinus Kerner, Gesch. Besessener neuerer Zeit., 
 Carlsruhe 1834), although the same sicknesses, which were deemed to be de- 
 moniacal, are common ; and (4) the complete silence of John, which (comp. 
 especially Luke ix. 49) is the more eloquent the more essentially he also regards 
 miraculous healing as belonging to the work of the Messiah, and the conquest of 
 the devil as the Messiah's task. In John, moreover, diabolical possession is 
 found mentioned (xiii. 27), but not as the effect of physical sickness, but of 
 spiritual domination and obduracy, the so-called obsessio spiritualis. Comp. 
 John vii. 28, viii. 48, x. 20. Definite references to the expulsion of demons from 
 the sick are wanting also in Paul's Epistles, although they might be included 
 with others in 1 Cor. xii. 9. Observe, moreover, (5) the demoniacs were not at 
 all filled with godless dispositions and anti- Christian wickedness, which, never- 
 theless, was necessarily to be expected as the result of the real indwelling of 
 devils.
 
 CHAP. IV. 25. 151 
 
 working, stood victoriously opposed to all diabolic power. 
 Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. VII. p. 54 ff., also Bleek, Neander, p. 
 237 ff. If we assume, however, that Jesus Himself shared 
 the opinion of His age and nation regarding the reality of 
 demoniacal possession of the sick (Strauss, Keim, Weiss), 
 we find ourselves in the dilemma of either being obliged 
 again to set up the old doctrine upon the authority of 
 Jesus, or of attributing to the latter an erroneous belief not 
 by any means remote from the religious sphere, and only 
 of a physiological kind, but of an essentially religious charac- 
 ter, and which would be irreconcilable with the pure height 
 of the Lord's divine knowledge. /cat a-eX^i/. K. TrapaXur.J 
 Epileptics, whose sufferings, it was observed, increased as the 
 month advanced (Wetstein), and sufferers from nervous diseases 
 (Richter, de paralysi, 1775). Epilepsy also might be of such 
 a kind as to be regarded as demoniacal sickness (xvii. 15) ; 
 here, however, is meant the form of sickness which is regarded 
 as natural 
 
 Ver. 25. ^de/caTroXeo)?] a strip of land with ten cities 
 (Josephus, Vit. 9), chiefly inhabited by the heathen, on the 
 other side of the Jordan, in the north-east of Palestine. As 
 to the towns themselves, which were reckoned as included in 
 it, and to which Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippo, and Pella cer- 
 tainly belonged, there was, so early as the time of Pliny 
 (ff. N. v. 16), no unanimity of opinion, Lightfoot, Hor. p. 
 563 ff. ; Vaihinger in Herzog, III. ; Holtzmann in Schenkel's 
 Bibellex. irepav rov 'lop&dvov] as in v. 15, xix. 1, 
 Mark iii. 8, a geographical name : Peraea (Josephus, Bell. 
 ix. 3. 3 ; Plin. v. 15), the land east of the Jordan, from Mount 
 Hermon down to the river Arnon.
 
 152 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 P 
 
 VER. 1. avrp] is wanting in Lachm., after B. Correction, 
 with a view to improve the style. Ver. 5. Lachm. Tisch. 
 have this verse before ver. 4, but on too weak authority (D, 
 33, Lat. Verss. Syr cur Or. Eus. and other Fathers). A logical 
 bringing together of the -TTTU^O) r$> KVSV/AUTI and of the wpatTs. 
 
 Ver. 9. avroi] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. 8, 
 wanting in C D K, 13, 134, Lat. Verss. Syr. Hil. But how 
 easily would the omission occur in writing, since here the 
 similarly ending vki follows (otherwise in ver. 4 ff.) ! Ver. 
 11. p 5J/.4 a] is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B D N, 
 Vulg. It. and other Verss. and some Fathers. But as the word 
 is altogether unnecessary as far as the meaning is concerned, 
 it might easily be omitted, especially after the syllable PON. 
 
 -^ivdo/tivoi] is wanting only in D, Codd. of the It., and 
 Borne Fathers, including Origen. Suspected, indeed, by Gries- 
 bach, and deleted by Fritzsche, Tisch. 7 ; wrongly, however, 
 since the word is quite decisively attested (again restored by 
 Tisch. 8). A definition that appeared so much a matter of 
 course might easily be passed over. Ver. 13. $Xq 03 '' ?""<*(] 
 Lachm. Tisch. 8; fixydtv t%u, after B C K, 1, 33. An attempt 
 to help out the style. Ver. 22. s/xSj] is wanting in B K, 
 48, 198, Vulg. Aeth. Or. and some other witnesses. Ex- 
 pressly rejected as spurious as early as Jerome and Augustin. 
 Retr. i. 19, and Pseud. -Athan. Iren. and Hil. place it 
 after opy. Deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. It is an 
 inappropriate addition, resulting from bias, although of very 
 ancient date (already in Syr. It. Eus.). Ver. 25. The second 
 a Kapadti is wanting only in B N, 1, 13, 124, 127* Arm. 
 Aeth. 13, 124, 127* Chrys. Hilar. Arn. Deleted by Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8. Passed over as unnecessary, because its em- 
 phasis was mistaken. Ver. 27. sppedy] Elz. adds 70?$ a^a/o/s, 
 for which, however, decisive testimony is wanting. Taken 
 from vv. 21 and 33. Ver. 28. svid. a-irjji/] Elz.: smd. aurSjj, 
 against decisive testimony. N, 236, Clem. Or. Chrys. Isid. 
 Tert. have no pronoun at all. So Fritzsche and Tisch. 8.
 
 CHAP. V. t. 153 
 
 But the testimony for avryv is too strong, and the omission 
 might easily have aris ( en from its being unnecessary. Ver. 30. 
 ,SX)j()5j tlsyiivvav] Lachm. and Tisch. : sis ytimuv airsXQri, after 
 B I) ? K, Curss. and many Verss. and Fathers ; it is uncertain 
 whether also in Or. Correctly ; the Eeceived reading is derived 
 from ver. 29. Ver. 31. or/] is wanting in B D L K, Curss. 
 Vulg. It. Chrys. Suspected by Griesbach, deleted by Lachm. 
 and Tisch. Eightly. An addition that easily suggested itsejf. 
 See the exegetical remarkson ii. 23. Ver. 32. og av airo'/.var^] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : nas 6 avoXuuv, after B K L M A n N, 
 Curss. Vulg. It. and other verss. A change made in accord- 
 ance with vv. 22, 28; Luke xvi. 18. fj,ot^as8<x.i] Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 8 : /toiyjvBrivai. So B D K, Curss. Theoph. Or. Chrys. 
 Theod. A gloss (to le seduced to adultery) to distinguish it from 
 ^otyJtTai, which follows. Lachm. has afterwards xai 6 d-roXeXy- 
 /iii/TjK yap'/iaag, after B and some Curss., connected with the 
 reading eras o airol.vuv at the beginning of the verse. Ver. 
 39. pacr/ffs/] B N, 33: favifyi ; so Tisch. 8. Correctly; the 
 future is a conformation to ver. 41. Ver. 42. didov] Lachm. 
 and Tisch.: Me, after B D K, 13, 124, Clem. The Eeceived 
 reading is taken from Luke vi. 30. Ver. 44. roT$ piao\Jciv\ 
 Elz. : roil*; fjueowras, against the best and most numerous wit- 
 nesses. To exchange, with Lachm. and Tisch., the whole pas- 
 sage from suXoy. to pie. fyiSj, after B K, Curss. Copt. Syr cur and 
 many Fathers (including Or. Eus.), and to explain it as an 
 interpolation from Luke, is too bold, since in Luke vi. 27 f. the 
 sentences stand in different order. Omissions, however, caused 
 by the Homoeoteleuta might easily occur. s^pia^ovruv i/,u; 
 7.0.1 is, however, very suspicious ; it is wanting in B N, Curss. 
 and many Verss. Or. (five times ; he has the words twice, but 
 then sea/ diuK. lif^a.g is wanting) ; also in Cypr. Aug. Lucif. and 
 in others stands after 8iux. ; it therefore betrays itself as an 
 interpolation from Luke vi. 28. Ver. 47. adt^povs] p/Xou?, in 
 E K L M S A n, Curss. Arm. Goth. Bas. Lucif., is a gloss. 
 !0n/xo/]Elz. ; Matthaei and Scholzhave nXStvcn, against B D Z N, 
 Curss. Verss. and Fathers. Brought hither from ver. 46. Ver. 
 48. 6 lv ToTg ovpavt>?$] Lachm. and Tisch.: 6 ovpdviog; also 
 approved by Griesb., in accordance with very important wit- 
 nesses. Is to be preferred ; the Eeceived reading flowed as a 
 gloss from ver. 45. 
 
 Ver. 1. See on the Sermon on the Mount, the exposition 
 of Tholuck, ed. 5,1872. [Achelis, Die Bergpredigt, 1875.] 
 Luther's exposition (sermons of 1530), which appeared in
 
 154 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 1532. Toi5 o%Xou5] see iv. 25. The evangelist does 
 not determine either the time or place precisely, yet he 
 by no means agrees with Luke vi. 17. The fjiad^ral avrov 
 are not the twelve apostles (Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld), against 
 which ix. 9 is already decisive, but, besides the first four 
 that were selected (iv. 1 8 ff.) His disciples generally, " qui 
 doctrinam ejus sectabantur," Grotius. et? TO 0/105] The 
 article is not indefinite : upon a mountain (Luther, Kuinoel), 
 which explanation of the article is always incorrect (Bengel on 
 xviii. 1 7), but also not generic ; upon tJie hilly district, or on the 
 heights (Ebrard, Bleek), as 0/305 in the singular (on the plural, 
 comp. xviii. 12, xxiv. 16) in the N. T. is always only a single 
 hill, as in classical writers ; but TO 0/505 designates that hill ivhich 
 is situated in the place, where Jesus saw the o^Xoi>5. Comp. 
 John vi. 3 ; Euth. Zigabenus : TO 0/305 TO 7r\rja-iov. Others 
 (Fritzsche, de Wette) make it the well-known hill ; comp. 
 Delitzsch : " the Sinai of the New Testament ; " Ewald : " the 
 holy hill of the gospel history." These are arbitrary presup- 
 positions, opposed to the analogy of xiv. 23, xv. 29. It is a 
 misuse of the article, however, to assume that in the Gospels the 
 same mountain is always designated by TO 0/305 (Gfrorer, heil. 
 Sage, I. p. 139 ; B. Bauer; Volkmar). Tradition points out 
 the " mount of beatitudes " as near the town of Saphet ; see 
 Eobinson, Palestine, III. p. 485. Comp. also Schubert, III. p. 
 233 ; Sitter, Erdk. XV. 1, p. 387 ; Keim, Gesch. J. II. p. 236. 
 Ver. 2. 'Avoiyeiv TO o-To/ua] after ns nr\B ; Vorstius, de 
 Hebraismis, p; 703 ff. Individual instances also amongst 
 classical writers; Aristophanes-,^. 1720; Aeschylus, Prom. 
 612; Lucian. Philops. 33. This phrase belongs to the distinctly 
 descriptive style of narrative, and denotes of itself nothing else 
 than the opening of the mouth to speak, where the connec- 
 tion alone indicates whether in this descriptive element the 
 emphasis of solemnity, of boldness, or the like is contained or 
 not. Comp. on 2 Cor. vi. 11 ; Eph. vi. 19. Here, where the 
 first extensive discourse of Jesus, which forms the great pro- 
 gramme for the membership of His kingdom, follows, the 
 solemn character of the moment, " He opened His mouth," is 
 not to be mistaken; compare xiii. 35. A similar indication
 
 CHAP. V. -10. 155 
 
 of purpose in Job iii; 1, Dan. x. 16, Acts viii. 35, x. 34, 
 but not in Acts viii. 14. Luther well says, "There the 
 evangelist makes a preface and shows how Christ placed 
 Himself to deliver the sermon which He intended ; that He 
 goes up a mountain, sits down, and opens His mouth, that men 
 may see that He was in earnest." avroix;] rovs pati^-ras. 
 Jesus at first directed His discourse to the entire circle of His 
 disciples, but kept also in view the o%\oi, who, according to 
 vii. 2 8, pressed after Him, and became hearers of the discourse ; 
 see also Luke vi. 20, vii. 1. 
 
 Vv. 310. The beatitudes in general, in order to set forth, 
 first, in a general way, the moral conditions of future partici- 
 pation in the Messiah's kingdom. " That is, indeed, a fine, 
 sweet, friendly beginning of His teaching and sermon. For 
 He does not proceed, like Moses, or a teacher of- the law, with 
 commands, threats, and terrors, but in a most friendly manner, 
 with pure attractions and allurements, and pleasant promises," 
 Luther. pa/cdptoi] "Initiale hoc verbum toties repetitum 
 indicat scopum doctrinae Christi," Bengel. What the blessed- 
 ness is C^K) which He means, is stated by all the causal sen- 
 tences 1 with on in vv. 3-10, viz. that which is based on this, 
 that they will attain the salvation of the kingdom, which is 
 nigh at hand. ol Trrw^ot ra> Tr-vevpcnt] the ^UJJ, E 11 ?^*? 
 (see Isa. Ixi. 1, Ixvi. 2, and the post-exilian Ps. xxxvii. 11) 
 were those who, according to the theocratic promise of the 
 0. T., had to expect the Messianic blessedness (Luke iv. 18). 
 Jesus, however, according to Matthew, transports the idea of 
 the poor (les miserables) from the politico-theocratic realm (the 
 members of the oppressed people of God, sunk in poverty and 
 external wretchedness) into the purely moral sphere by means 
 of the dative of more precise definition, r<a Trvevnan (comp. 
 
 1 These causal sentences justify also the usual enumeration of the Makarisms 
 as the " seven beatitudes." For vv. 3 and 10 contain the same promise, which, 
 therefore, is to be counted only once in order to retain the number seven ; comp. 
 Ewald, Jalirb. I. p. 133 ; also Kostlin and Hilgenfeld. Others, like Weizsacker 
 and Keim, counting ver. 10 specially with the others, arrive at the number t'vjht. 
 But Delitzsch, to bring out an analogy with the Decalogue, reckons, besides the 
 paxdpi/H in ver. 11, the %a!ptrt * ^*->.. also in ver. 12, as "the full-sounding 
 finale," and in this way knows how to force out ten beatitudes.
 
 156 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 ver. 8) : the poor in reference to their spirit, the spiritually 
 poor that is, those who feel, as a matter of consciousness, 
 that they are in a miserable,, unhappy condition; comp. Isa. 
 Ivii. 15 ; Prov. xxix. 23. The Trrw^e/a intended is then sub- 
 jectively determined according to the consciousness of the 
 subject, so that these latter (comp. vv. 4-6) are conceived of 
 as those who feel within them the opposite of having enough, 
 and of wanting nothing in a moral point of view ; to whom, 
 consequently, the condition of moral poverty and helplessness 
 is a familiar thing, as the praying publican, Luke xviii. 1 
 (the opposite in Eev. iii. 1 *7 ; 1 Cor. iv. 8), was such a poor 
 man. We have neither to supply an " also " before TU> 
 nor, with Baur, to explain it as if it meant ol 
 a\\a TO> irvevpart irKovaiot, ; comp. 2 Cor. vi. 10. 
 Chrysostom is substantially correct (comp. Theophylact) : ol 
 Taireivol K. a-vvrerpi^evot, vrjv Sidvoiav. Comp. de Wette in the 
 Stud, von Daub und Creuzer, III. 2, p. 309 ff. ; de morte eocpiat. 
 p. 8 6 f. Jerome strikingly says : " Adjunxit spiritu, ut humili- 
 tatem intelligeres, non penuriam." Comp. 1^77X09 
 Eccles. vii. 8. They are not different from the //^ 
 in John ix. 39. They know that in point of knowledge and 
 moral constitution they are far from divine truth. The 
 declaration that such are blessed, however, at the begin- 
 ning of the Sermon on the Mount, is in perfect accordance 
 with the fundamental condition of participation in the king- 
 dom of the Messiah, the ^eravoel-re, with the call to which 
 both Jesus and John began their public appearance. The 
 TTTw^eia ra> irvevfjuari is the precondition of TrXovrelv et9 6eov 
 (Luke xii. 21), and of becoming a true TrXovaios TW Trvev/uLan 
 (Barnabas 19). These poor people are humble, but we are 
 not to say that TTTW^. r. irv. signifies the humble (in answer to 
 Kuinoel and older interpreters) ; for which reason we have not 
 to appeal to Isa. Ixvi. 2, where nn does not agree with ^V- 
 Fritzsche, in a way that is not in harmony with the moral 
 nature and life of the whole discourse, limits the meaning to 
 that of discernment : " Homines ingenio et eruditione parum 
 florentes ;" so also Chr. Fritzsche, Nov. Opusc. p. 241, in which 
 meaning (consequently equivalent to ol irrm^ol ry Siavota, as
 
 CHAP. V. 4. 157 
 
 Origen, de princ. iv. 22, calls the Ebionites) the saying was 
 already made a subject of ridicule by Julian. Older Catholics 
 (Maldonatus and Corn, a Lapide), after Clement of Alexandria 
 and many Fathers, taking TrvevfjiaTt of the self-determination, 
 misused our passage in support of the vow of voluntary poverty. 
 On the other hand, Calovius strikingly remarks : " Paupertas 
 haec spiritualis non est consilii, sed praecepti." Others (Olearius, 
 Michaelis, Paulus) connect rw irvev^art with pa/cdpiot: the 
 poor are spiritually happy. Opposed to this is the position of 
 the words and ver. 8. Moreover, no example is found in the 
 N. T. or in the Jewish writings, where, in the case of beati- 
 tudes, to the fiaKaptos, or *y?$, or ^ib, any more precise 
 designation of fortune was immediately subjoined. Comp. 
 especially, Knapp, Scripta var. arg. pp. 351-380. According 
 to Kostlin, p. 66, the TG> Trvevfian, which is not expressly 
 read in the Clementines (see Homily xv. 10) and Polycrates 
 ii. (as also rrjv Sifcaioa. ver. 6), is said to be a limiting addition 
 proceeding from later reflection, one of the many changes 
 which must be assumed as having taken place in the original 
 collection of discourses ; comp. also Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Bleek, 
 Wittichen, Jahrb. f. D. Tlieol. 1862, p. 323; Holtzmann, 
 p. 176; Schenkel, and others. But see on Luke vi 23. 
 rj ft a or. T. ovpJ] the kingdom of heaven belongs to them (see 
 on iii. 2), namely, as a certain possession in the future. Comp. 
 the following futures. Observe in all the beatitudes, vv. 3-10, 
 the symmetrically emphatical position of avrwv, avroi ; it is 
 just they who. 
 
 Ver. 4. Ol irevdovvres] Comp. Isa. Ixi. 2, Ivii. 17 f. 
 After Chrysostom, these have frequently been understood as 
 those who mourned over their own sins and those of others. 
 These are not excluded, but they are not exclusively or 
 specially meant by the general expression (Keim). They are 
 generally those who are in suffering and distress. Think, for 
 example, of Lazarus, of the persecuted Christians (John xvi. 
 20; Heb. xii. 11), of the suffering repentant ones (2 Cor. 
 vii. 9), and so on ; for that no unchristian Trevdetv, no XI/TTT; rot) 
 Koa-fiov, is meant, is (2 Cor. vii. 10) understood of itself from 
 the whole surroundings. The TrevQouvres shall, Eom. viii. 18,
 
 150 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHETV. 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 17, John xiv. 13, be comforted as , matter of fact 
 in the Messiah's kingdom by the enjoyment of its blessedness 
 (Luke ii. 25, xvi. 25), therefore the Messiah Himself is also 
 called amo (Schoettgen, Hor. II. p. 18 ; Wetstein, I. p. 665). 
 According to the beatitudes, which all refer to the Messiah's 
 kingdom, there is no , mention of temporal comfort by the 
 promise of the forgiveness of sins, and so on. This in answer 
 to Kienlen in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1848, p. 681. 
 
 Ver. 5. According to Ps. xxxvii. 11, where the LXX. have 
 ot Se Trpaet? KXypovo/jLTJaovpi yrjv. The Trpaei? (xi. 29, xxi. 5) 
 are the calm, meek sufferers relying on God's help, who, without 
 bitterness or revenge as the Tcnretvol K. rjo-v^ioi (Isa. Ixvi. 2), 
 suffer the cruelties of their tyrants and oppressors. The 
 opposite is ^aXeTrot (Plat. Pol, vi. p. 493 B), Triicpol (Dem. 
 315, 5), arypwi, and the like; Plat. Def. p. 412 D : rrrpaor^ 
 Kardcrracris icivrjcrea)? rfjs VTT' 0/37%' /epa<u<? tyvxTJs cru//,yu.eTpo?. 
 Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 4. The very ancient popular (Gen. xv. 7 f.) 
 theocratic conception : to come into possession <o/ the land (of 
 (Palestine) (in Ps. xxxvii. : after the expulsion of their haughty 
 enemies), has been raised to its antitypical Christian idea, so 
 that the Messiah's kingdom and the receiving possession of it is 
 intended. Comp. on Gal. iii. 18 ; Eph. i. 11. 
 
 Ver. 6. Concerning Treivrjv and St^z/, which regularly 
 govern the genitive with the accusative, where the object is 
 conceived as that which endures the action, see examples of 
 this rare use in Kypke, Obss. !. p. 17 ; Loesner, Obss. p. 11 ; 
 and especially Winer, p. 192 [E. T. 256]. The meta- 
 phorical meaning (Isa. Iv. -1; Ps. xlii. 3; Sir. li. 24) of the 
 verbs is that of longing desire. See Pricaeus and Wetstein 
 in loc. ; as regards Sity., also Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 26, VIII. 
 p. 233. The Sucaioavvr), however, is the righteousness, the 
 establishment of which was the aim ,of Christ's work, and the 
 condition of participation in the Messiah's kingdom. They 
 are designated ; as such whose "great earnestness, desire, and 
 fervour" (Luther) are directed towards a moral constitution 
 free from guilt. i,uther, besides, strikingly draws attention to 
 this, that before all these portions of the beatitudes, " faith 
 must first be there as the tree and headpiece or sum" of
 
 CHAP. V. 7, 8. 159 
 
 righteousness. ^opracrOijcrovrai] not generally rcgni Mcs- 
 siani felicitate (Fritzsche), but, as the context requires, Siicaio- 
 crvi/779 : they will obtain righteousness in full measure, namely, 
 in being declared to be righteous (Eom. v. 19 ; Gal. v. 5, and 
 remarks thereon) at the judgment of the Messiah (Matt. 
 xxv. 34), and then live for ever in perfect righteousness, so 
 that God will be all in all (1 Cor. xv. 28). Comp. 2 Pet. 
 iii. 13. On the figurative %opTd%., Ps. xvii. 15, cvii. 9. 
 
 Ver. 7. Ol e\e 77/4 01/69] the compassionate (Heb. ii. 17 ; 
 Horn. Od. v. 191) in general, not, as de Wette arbitrarily 
 limits it, in opposition to the desire for revenge and cruelty 
 against the heathen, which were contained in the ordinary 
 Messianic hopes. eXerjOija-ovrai] that is, in this way, that 
 they get assigned to them the salvation of the Messiah's kingdom, 
 which will be the highest act. of the divine compassion, Luke 
 i. 72 ; Eom. ix. 16, v. 17. The divine maxim, which lies at 
 the foundation of the statement/Matt, vii. 2, xxv. 35. Kienlen 
 is wrong when he says the e\et}0. refers to the forgiveness of 
 the sins which still cleave even to the regenerate ; it points 
 to this, that the entire bestowal of Messianic salvation is the 
 work of divine grace, which follows in its procedure its own 
 moral rules (faith working by love). 
 
 Ver. 8. Ol KaOapol TTJ KapSia] denotes the moral Uame- 
 lessness of the inner life, the centre of which is the heart, in 
 conformity with the view that iraa-a apapria pinrov evriOija-t, 
 rf) ^rvxy, Origen, Horn, in Joh. Ixxiii. 2. Comp. Ps. Ixxiii. 1, 
 xxiv. 4 ; 1 Tim. i. 5, iii. 9 ; Plat. Crat. p. 403 E, ^rv^rj 
 KaOapd, p. 405 B, al. How this purity is actually attained 
 (by justification and the sanctification of believers) remains 
 even now left over to the future. TOV Bebv otyovrai] 
 certainly refers, according to the analogy of all the other 
 beatitudes, to the alwv yu,eXX&)j/, but is not (in accordance with 
 the Oriental idea of great good fortune in being an intimate 
 friend of the king's, 1 Kings x. 8 ; Esth. i. 14) 'to be taken 
 as a typical designation of tlie Messianic happiness in general 
 (Kuinoel, Fritzsche, and others), nor as an inward seeing of 
 God (knowledge, becoming conscious of God, inmost fellowship 
 with God), as de Wette also understood it to mean direct
 
 100 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 spiritual fellowship with God here on earth and there in 
 heaven ; but, as the words do not allow us to understand it 
 differently : of the seeing of God who gloriously reveals Himself 
 in the Messiah's kingdom, a seeing ivhich will be attained in the 
 condition of the glorified body, Eev. vii. 15, xxii. 4; 1 John 
 iii. 2 ; Heb. xii. 14. Passages like Ex. xxxiii. 20, John 
 i. 18, vi. 46, Col. i. 15, Eom. i. 20, 1 Tim. vi. 16, are not 
 opposed to it, because they refer to seeing with the earthly 
 eye. The seeing of God, who, although Spirit (John iv. 24), 
 has His essential form of manifestation (Phil, ii 6), will one 
 day be the consummation of the IT poo-ay wy 77 obtained through 
 Christ (Eom. v. 2). Comp. Clem. Horn. xvii. 7. 
 
 Ver. 9. Ol elprjvoTroiot] not the peaceful (eipvjviKoi, Jas. 
 iii. 17, 2 Mace. v. 25 ; or elprjvevovres, Sir. vi. 7), a meaning 
 which does not appear even in Pollux, i. 41, 152 (Augustine 
 thinks of the moral inner harmony ; de Wette, on the contrary, 
 of the inclination of the contemporaries of Jesus to war and 
 tumult ; Bleek reminds us of Jewish party hatred), but : the 
 founders of peace (Xen. Hist. Gr. vi. 3. 4 ; Plut. Mor. p. 279 B ; 
 comp. Col. i. 20 ; Prov. x. 10), who as such minister to God's 
 good pleasure, who is the God of peace (Eom. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 11), as Christ Himself was the highest Founder of peace 
 (Luke ii. 14; John xvi. 33; Eph. ii. 14 ff.). viol 6eov 
 K\i)6ria:] again a characteristic designation of community in 
 the future kingdom of the Messiah, so far, namely, as the 
 participators in it have obtained the vloOecrla, a relation which 
 begins with their reception into the kingdom ; comp. on Luke 
 vi. 35. If we import the conception of being loved by God 
 (Kuinoel), or of resemblance to God (Paulus, de Wette), and the 
 like, then we are not in harmony with the expression, and, 
 contrary to the context, we identify it with the conception of 
 the temporal Sonship of God, as it appears in John as a being 
 begotten by God; in Paul, as adoption ; see John i. 12, 14. 
 Certainly this temporal Sonship is the moral premiss of that 
 future one ; but it is only the latter which can here be meant ; 
 comp. Eom. viii. 19, 23. K\v)0rja-ovTai] What they are is 
 designated as expressly recognised by the (honourable) name 
 in question, by which they are called. That icakdaBai, does
 
 CHAP. V. 10. 1G1 
 
 not stand for eiuai, see Fritzsche on i. 16 ; Winer, p. 571 f. 
 [E. T. 769]. Comp. Eur. #ec. 625 : o S' tv TroXmu? rlfuot 
 reX?;^eVo9 ; and Pflugk on the passage; Horn. //. ii. 260; 
 and Nagelsbach ,in loc. 
 
 EEMARK. In the beatitudes, vv. 3-9, the various character- 
 istic designations of the Messianic happiness ingeniously cor- 
 respond to the various designations of the subject, so that in 
 the first declaration, ver. 3, the subject of the promise, the 
 kingdom of the Messiah, is named expressly, and as a whole, 
 and in the following it is always those individual sides of the 
 happiness of this kingdom that are brought forward which 
 correspond to the subjects designated. Thus, .to those who 
 mourn corresponds the state of being comforted ; to the patient 
 sufferers, who now allow themselves to be oppressed, the future 
 condition of possession and mastership ; to the hungry, that of 
 being filled ; to the merciful, the receiving of mercy ; to the 
 pure in heart, the seeing of God, of which no impure person is 
 capable ; to the founders of peace, the sonship of God, who 
 Himself in His own Son has reconciled men to Himself, and to 
 one another. Merely different beams of light from the same 
 glory. At the close, after the seven independent beatitudes, in 
 ver. 10, which is the foundation and transition to the following 
 direct address, the Messiah's kingdom is once more expressly 
 named, and as a whole, as : in the beginning, ver. 3. In this 
 way vv. 3-10 form an ingenious and profound harmonious 
 whole. To this unity and completeness belongs also the series 
 of the subjects, which, taken together, set forth the whole position 
 (vv. 3-5) and the whole endeavours and life (vv. 6-9) of the 
 future member of the kingdom. For as to his position, he 
 is full of lowly feeling (ver. 3), a bearer of suffering (ver. 4), in 
 quiet patience (ver. 5). But as to his endeavours and life : full 
 of fervour after moral perfection (ver. 6), he cherishes towards 
 others the feeling of compassionate love (ver. 7), and by the 
 purity of heart which he attains (ver. 8), his outward actions 
 tend towards peace (ver. 9), whether he also suffer persecution 
 (this by way of transition to ver. 11) for righteousness' sake 
 all springing from the one root, faith in his Lord. 
 
 Ver. 10. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 14, iv. 14. Sucatovvv., as in 
 ver. 6 eveK. &IK., is, as to substance, not different from eveicev 
 /AOV, ver. 11. In communion with Christ there is righteous- 
 ness, and in this evetcev e/tov is expressed the full Messianic 
 
 MATT. L
 
 162 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 consciousness? the certain holy self-feeling of which for the 
 persecuted begins (Acts ix. 4). To take the avrv ecrriv % 
 /Sao-iX. r. ovp. differently from ver. 3 (Kienlen in d. Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1848, p. 678 : ver. 3 is the entrance, into the kingdom 
 of God ; ver. 1 0, the consummation in the same, comp. Lange) 
 is purely arbitrary. See rather the preceding remark. 
 
 Vv. 11, 12. Comp. Isa. 1L 7 ff. Application of ver. 10 to 
 the disciples. To explain ovetSifeii/, to 'make, reproaches 
 (Wurm, Dinarch. p. 77), and Sifoicetv (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 12), 
 with Beza, Eaphel, and Wolf, of indignities and accusations 
 before the court, is an unwarrantable limitation. The whole of 
 the hostility which is to assail His disciples stands even now 
 before the soul of the Lord, and He prepares them for it ; 
 there is accordingly no reason to see in vv. 10-12 an addition 
 by the evangelist (Hilgenfeld). The tyevSo/Aevoi, which is to 
 be defended as genuine (see the critical remarks), easily and 
 appropriately connects itself with Ka6' V/JLWV, so that the latter 
 forms with evetcev epov an emphatic correlative ; the whole 
 participial definition, however, from etWwo-t to pfj/Jta, is ap- 
 pended as a statement of modality, " in their speaking falsely 
 against you for my sake " that is, because you belong to me, 
 which is their motive for making lying statements against you. 
 On tyevSea-Oai with Kara, contra, comp. Jas. iii. 14 ; often 
 thus amongst Greek writers. 
 
 Ver. 12. 'O fiicrQos] comp. Karep^d^erai, 2 Cor. iv. 17, and 
 remarks thereon. The article denotes : the reward which is 
 destined, kept in readiness for you (Matt. xxv. 34 ; Col. i. 5), 
 and that for the indignities, persecutions, and lies borne 
 through faith in me. ev rot? ovpavols] is great in heaven. 
 A reference to the book of life (Fritzsche, Gratz), Phil. iv. 3, 
 Eev. iii. 5, xx. 15, xxi. 27, Dan. xii. 1, is not yielded by 
 the text, which only presents the idea that the reward is laid 
 up in heaven until the future communication of it, which 
 
 1 This putting forward the person as Lord and Master is, in Weizsa'cker's 
 view, p. 151, a reason for regarding ver. 11 f. as a later explanation to the 
 original text. But even in the whole train of the discourse that follows from 
 ver. 17 onwards, such a personal assertion comes out strongly enough ; comp. 
 especially the constant symmetrical recurrence of iyu St >.ijn>> iftTv, and imme- 
 diately in ver. 17 the expression of the Messianic consciousness, Jx^ov, *.T.A.
 
 CHAP. V. 13. 163 
 
 begins with the establishment of the kingdom, and therefore 
 not ea-rat, but e<m, is to be supplied ; and this is to be taken 
 not as irrespective of time (de Wette), but as present. 7/>] 
 assigns the reason from the recognised certainty (x. 41) that 
 to the prophets, who formerly were persecuted in like manner 
 (xxiii. 29 ff.), great reward is reserved in heaven for future 
 communication in the kingdom of the Messiah. The prophets 
 (comp. vii. 52) are a typical example for the disciples. On 
 the conception of pi<r66s, which Kara %dpw \(yyi^erai (Rom. 
 iv. 4), comp. xx. 1 ff. ; Luke xvii. 1 ; see generally Weiss in 
 d. Deutsch. Zcitschr. 1853, p. 40 ff. ; Bill. Theol. p. 104 ff. 
 
 Vv. 1 3-1 6. The course of thought : The more important 
 and influential your destined calling is, all the less ought you 
 to allow yourselves to be dispirited, and to become faithless 
 to your calling through indignities and persecutions ; you are 
 the salt and the light ! Weizsacker rightly claims for this 
 section (in answer to Holtzmann, Weiss) originality in this 
 connection, in which it attaches itself with great significance 
 to the last beatitude and its explanation. 
 
 Ver. 13. To aAo.<? rfj<} 7^?] A figure of the power which 
 counteracts corruption, and preserves in a sound condition 
 the effect which salt has upon water (2 Kings ii 20), meat, 
 and such like. Thus the ministry of the disciples was des- 
 tined by the communication of the divine truth to oppose the 
 spiritual corruption and powerlessnesa of men, and to be the 
 means of bringing about their moral soundness and power of 
 life. An allusion to the use of salt in sacrifices (Mark ix. 49) 
 is not hinted at here (in answer to Tholuck). Comp. rather 
 Col. iv. 6 ; Theodoret, Heracleon (in Cramer, Cat, p. 33) : aXa? 
 r. 7% ICTTIV TO ^rv^iKov apTvpa. Without this salt 
 humanity would have fallen a prey to spiritual <f>0opd. 
 Fritzsche, overlooking the positive efficacy of salt, derives the 
 figure only from its indispensable nature. Observe, moreover, 
 how the expression T% 77}?, as a designation of the 'mass of 
 the inhabitants of the earth, who are to be worked upon by 
 the salt, is as appropriately selected for this figure as rov 
 for the following one. And Jesus thus even now throws 
 
 down the thought of universal destination into the souls of
 
 164 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the disciples as a spark to be preserved. pwpavBf)] will have 
 become savourless, Mark ix. 5 : avakov <yewr)Tai ; Dioscorides in 
 Wetstein : piai yeverafievw^wpal. evrivi aTcia-Oijcrerai, ;] 
 by what means will it again receive its salting power ? Theo- 
 phylact : Siopdctid^a-erat. Laying figures aside : If you, through 
 failing to preserve -the powers bestowed upon you, and by 
 allowing them to perish, .become in despondency and torpidity 
 unfaithful to your destiny and unfitted for your 'Calling, how 
 will you raise yourselves again to the power and efficiency 
 appropriate to your vocation, which you have lost. 1 Your 
 uselessness for your calling will then be an irreparabile 
 damnum ! " Non enim datur sal salis," Jansen. Grotius well 
 says, " ipsi emendare alios debebant, non autein exspectare, 
 ut ab aliis ipsi emendarentur." Augustine, de serm. in mont. 
 i. 16. Luther differently : Wherewith shall one salt ? Erasmus, 
 Paraphr. : " quid tandem erit reliquum, quo multitudinis 
 insulsa vita condiatur ? " Putting figure aside : Who, then, 
 will supply your place ? However appropriate in itself this 
 meaning might be, nevertheless et? ovSev ta-^vei stands opposed 
 to it. 2 See also Mark ix. 50. VTT.O TU>V av0p.] ab homini- 
 bus " obviis quibusque" Beugel. 
 
 Ver. 14. To <fxo<? TOV Kocrpov] As the natural light illu- 
 mines the world, which in itself is dark, so are ye intended to 
 spiritually enlighten humanity. Christ is principaliter the 
 Light (John i. 4, ix. 8, xii., al.~) ; the disciples mediate (Eph. 
 
 1 Whether the salt can really become quite insipid and without power, and 
 thus lose its essential property, is not at all the question. Jesus puts the case. 
 We need not therefore either appeal, with Paulus, to the salt which has been 
 exposed to the weather and become tasteless, which Maundrell (Seise nach Pal. 
 p. 162 ; Rosenmiiller, Morgenland, in loc.) found in the district of Aleppo, or 
 make out of the common cooking' salt, saltpetre (Altmann, Vriemoet), or 
 asphalt (v. d. Hardt, Sehoettgen), OP sea-salt (Ebrard). 
 
 2 This ils olll* !f xvti, etc., clearly sets forth. its utter uselessness for the pur- 
 pose for whkh it was designed, not the exclusion from the community, or the 
 being rejected by Christ (Luther, Chemnitz, and others), to which the idea, "it 
 is fit for nothing but," is not appropriate. It would be different if Christ 
 had said (M.vMfft'rai \\u, etc. Theophylact understands exclusion from the 
 dignity of teacher ; Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others, the most supreme con- 
 tempt. Observe, moreover, that the expression lex,"" (has power for nothing 
 except, etc.), and so on, contains an acumen in its relation to the following 
 passive /3AViii>a<, etc.
 
 CHAP. V. 15, 16. 165 
 
 iii. 9), as the mediators of His divine truth to men ; and all 
 Christians in general are, as those who are enlightened, also, 
 on their part, bringers of light, and light in the Lord (Phil, 
 ii. 15 ; Eph. v. 8). ov 8vvarai 770X49, /e.r.X] If you would 
 desire timidly to withdraw into concealment (comp. vv. 1 1, 13), 
 then that would be conduct as opposed to the purpose for 
 which you are destined as if a town set on a hill should wish 
 to be concealed, or if one were to place (ver. 15) a light 
 under a bushel. No definite town is intended ; Saphet has 
 been conjectured ; see, on the other hand, Eobinson, Pal. III. 
 p. 587. We are not to think of Jerusalem (whose destination 
 the disciples are, in the opinion of Weizsacker, to realize, 
 p. 336). It is just any city in. general situated upon a hill. 
 
 Ver. 15. 'IVo rov poSiov] Fulgentius, iii. 6: " lucernam- 
 que modio contegit." The article denotes' the grain measure 
 that is at hand in the house. On ftoSto?, comp. Plut. Demetr. 33. 
 It was one-sixth of the /ieoVyaz/o?, the peBifjivos, according to 
 Boeckh, 2602 Paris cubic inches [nearly 12 gallons English]. 
 What Hebrew measure did Jesus mention ? most probably 
 HND, as in Mark x-iii. 33. The icai is the consecutivum : and, 
 and thus, that is, placed upon the candlestick ; comp. iv. 19; 
 Maetzner, ad Lycurgum, p. 253. On the lamps which were 
 in domestic use, and the candlesticks upon which they were 
 placed, see as regards the Greeks, Hermann, Privatalterth. 
 xx. 23 ; Becker, Charikl. II. p. 214 ff. ; as to the Greek ex- 
 pression \vxyia, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 313. 
 
 Ver. 16. O{/TO>] like a burning lamp upon its stand. 
 TO </>co9 v(j,a)v] the light, of which you are the trusted posses- 
 sors. This shines before men, if the disciples come forward 
 publicly in their office with fidelity and courage, do not draw 
 back, but spread abroad the gospel boldly and freely. 6V&>? 
 iBwcriv vfioSv, /c.T.X.] that they may see the excellent works done 
 by you. These are not their virtues in general, but, in 
 accordance with the whole context from ver. 11, their ministry 
 as faithful to its obligations, their specific works as disciples, 
 which, however, are also of a moral nature. ical Sogdawa-t,, 
 K.T.X] that He has made you fit (2 Cor. iii. 5) to perform such 
 works, they must recognise Him as their author ; comp. ix. 8 ;
 
 166 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 12. The opposite, Rom. ii. 24. r. IT en. v 
 r. ev rot? ovp.] see on vi. 9. This designation of God, which 
 Christ gives forth from the fundamental standpoint of His 
 gospel, already presupposes instructions previously given to 
 the disciples upon the point. Observe, moreover, that here it 
 is not vfjiwv which, as formerly, has the emphasis. 
 
 Vv. 17-48. Messianic fulfilment of the law by the setting 
 forth of which Jesus now, after He had made clear to the dis- 
 ciples their high destiny, desired to establish before all other 
 things the relation of His ministry to the religion of the Old Testa- 
 ment, introducing it, indeed, with fj,rj vo^lcnjre, K.T.\. ; because 
 the thought of an abrogation of the law by the Messiah (which 
 was actually current among the Jews, upon the basis of Jer. 
 xxxi. 31, see Gfrorer, Jahrh. d. Heils, II. p. 341), and there- 
 with a renewal of religion from the very foundation, might 
 easily suggest itself so as to become highly injurious, and might 
 give to the work of the disciples themselves an altogether 
 perverted direction, as it was, moreover, maliciously laid hold 
 of by their enemies in order to accuse the Lord (xxvi. 61) and 
 His disciples (Acts vi. 14, xxi. 21). The more designedly 
 Jesus introduces and carries through this part (of His dis- 
 course), the less does it suffice to assume the occasion thereto 
 as arising from the law retiring into the background in His 
 daily life, and from a neglect of the law thus inferred (Keim) ; 
 or from this, that Jesus was accustomed to set out, not from 
 the law, but from the universal truths of faith, from testi- 
 monies of nature and life (Weizsacker, p. 346). In this 
 way the twice sharply emphasized " destroy " especially would 
 appear altogether out of proportion. 
 
 . Ver. 17. 1 A connection with what precedes is not to be 
 
 1 Special writings upon the passage : Baumgarten, doctrina J. Ch. de lege 
 Mos. ex oral. mont. 1838 ; Harnack, Jesus d. Christ oder der Erfuller d. 
 Gesetzes, 1842 ; J. E. Meyer, iiber d. Verhaltn. Jesu und seiner Jiinger zum 
 alttest. Gesetz. 1853. See especially, Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 35 ff. ; Bleek 
 in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 304 ; Lechler, ibidem, 1854, p. 787 ff. ; Weiss, 
 ibidem, 1858, p. 50 ff., and bibl. Theol. 27 ; Ewald, Jahrb. X. p. 114 ff. The 
 collection of sayings is to be simply regarded as the source of this section, not 
 any special treatise upon the position of Jesus towards that law (Holtzmann) ; 
 comp. Weiss in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 56 L
 
 CHAP. V. 17. 167 
 
 artificially sought out. Jesus breaks off and introduces the 
 new section without any intermediate remarks, which corre- 
 sponds precisely to its pre-eminent importance (for He shows 
 how the Christian BiKaioo-vvrj, having its root in that of the Old 
 Testament, is its consummation). On prj vo^ia: ort, rj\0., comp. 
 x. 34. T/] never stands for icai (see Winer, p. 410 [E. T. 
 549 f.] ; comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 27), but is always distinctive. 
 Here, to abrogate the one or the other. I have to abrogate 
 neither that nor this. The VO/AOS is the divine institute of the 
 law, which has its original document in the Pentateuch. The 
 further Old Testament revelation, in so far as its final aim is 
 the Messiah and His work, is represented by ol Trpo^rjrai,, 
 who make up its principal part ; accordingly, o vopos and ol 
 Trpoffirai, summarily denote the whole Old Testament revelation 
 (comp. Luke xvi. 6), partly as a living divine economy, as 
 here; partly as jpa^, as in Luke xxiv. 27; Acts xxiv. 14, 
 xxviii. 23 ; Rom. iii. 21. Moreover, in the expression rot/? 
 irpo^raf we are not to think of their predictions as such (the 
 Greek Fathers, Augustine, Beza, Calovius, and others ; also 
 Tholuck, Neander, Harnack, Bleek, Lechler, Schegg, and 
 others), as nobody could imagine that their abrogation was to 
 be expected from the Messiah, but, as the connection with 
 i/o/io? shows (and comp. vii. 12, xxii. 40 ; Luke xvi. 29), and 
 as is in keeping with the manner in which the idea is carried 
 out in the following verses, their contents as commands, in 
 which respect the prophets have carried on the development 
 of the law in an ethical manner (Bitschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 
 36 f.). In i/o/io<?, however, to think merely of the moral law is 
 erroneous, as it always signifies the entire law, and the dis- 
 tinction between the ritualistic, civil, and moral law is modern ; 
 comp. on Eom. iii. 20. If, afterwards, sentences are given 
 from the moral law, yet these are only quotations by way of 
 illustration from the whole, from which, however, the moral 
 precepts very naturally suggested themselves for quotations, 
 because the idea of righteousness is before the mind. He has 
 fulfilled the entire law, and in so doing has not destroyed the 
 slightest provision of the ritualistic or civil code, so far as its 
 general moral idea is concerned, but precisely everything which
 
 168 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the law prescribes is raised to an ideal, of which the old legal 
 commands are only a-roi^eta. Theophylact well illustrates 
 the matter by the instance of a silhouette, which the painter 
 ov Kara\vei, but carries out to completion, avaWk^pol. 
 fcara\vcrai] often employed by classical writers to denote the 
 dissolution of existing constitutions (specially also of the 
 abrogation of laws, Isocr. p; 129 E; Polyb. iii. 8. 2), \vhich 
 are thereby rendered non-existent and invalid ; comp. 2 Mace. 
 ii. 22 ; John vii. 2 3 ; also vopov ttarapyeiv, Rom. iii. 3 1 ; 
 aQerelv, Heb. x. 28 ; GaL iii 15. The 7r\ijpa)<ri<; of the law 
 and the prophets is their fulfilment by the re-establishment of 
 their absolute meaning, so that now nothing more is wanting 
 to what they ought to be in accordance with the divine ideas 
 which lie at the foundation of their commands. It is the 
 perfect development of their ideal reality out of the positive form, 
 in which the same is historically apprehended and limited. So 
 substantially, Luther, Calvin (comp. before them Chrysostom ; 
 he, however, introduces what is incongruous), Lightfoot, Ham- 
 mond, Paulus, Gratz, de Wette, Olshausen, Eitschl, Ewald, 
 Weiss, Hilgenfeld; likewise Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 314ff., 
 and others. Gomp. Tholuck (who, however, brings together 
 the too varying elements of different explanations), also Kahnis, 
 Dogmat. I. p. 474, who understands it as the development of 
 what is not completed into something higher, which preserves 
 the substance of the lower. This explanation, which makes 
 absolute the righteousness enjoined and set forth in the law 
 and the prophets, is converted into a certainty by the two 
 verses that follow. The matter is represented by fr\i}p. as a 
 making complete (John xv. 1 1 ; 2 Cor. x. 6), in opposition to 
 KaraXvcrtu, which expresses the not allowing the thing to remain. 
 Others (Bretschneider, Fritzsche) : facere quae de Messia pre- 
 scripta sunt ; others (Kauffer, B. Crusius, Bleek, Lechler, 
 Weizsacker, after Beza, Eisner, Vorst, Wolf, and many older 
 interpreters) : legi satisfacere, as in Rom. xiii. 8, where, in 
 reference to the prophets, 7r\rip. is taken in the common sense 
 of the fulfilment of the prophecies (see specially, Euth. Ziga- 
 benus, Calovius, and Bleek), but thereby introducing a reference 
 which is not merely opposed to the context (see ver. 1 8 f.), but
 
 CHAP. V. 17. 169 
 
 also an unendurable twofold reference of TrXrjp. 1 Luther 
 well says : " Christ is speaking of the fulfilment, and so deals 
 with doctrines, in like manner as He calls ' destroying ' a not 
 acting with works against the law, but a breaking off from the 
 law with the doctrine." The fulfilling is " showing the right 
 kernel and understanding, that they may learn what the law 
 is and desires to have." / did not come to destroy, but to fulfil ; 
 the object is understood of itself, but the declaration delivered 
 in this general way is more solemn without the addition of 
 the pronoun. 
 
 REMAKE. The Apostle Paul worked quite in the sense of 
 our passage ; his writings are full of the fulfilment of the law in 
 the sense in which Christ means it; and his doctrine of its 
 abrogation refers only to its validity for justification to the 
 exclusion of faith. It is without any ground, therefore, that 
 this passage, and especially vv. 18 f., have been regarded by 
 Baur (neutest. TheoL p. 55) as Judaistic, and supposed not to 
 have proceeded in this form from Jesus, whom, rather in 
 opposition to the higher standpoint already gained by Him, 
 (Schenkel), the Apostle Matthew has apprehended and edited iii 
 so Judaistic a manner (Kostlin, p. 55 f.), or the supposed Matthew 
 has made to speak in so anti-Pauline a way (Gfrorer, h. Sage, 
 II. p. 84) ; according to Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1867, p. 374, 
 ver. 17 is indeed original, but in accordance with the view of 
 the Hebrew gospel ; vv. 18 f., however, is an anti-Pauline addi- 
 tion; Weizsacker sees in ver. 19 only an interpolation; but 
 Schenkel finds in vv. 18 f. the proud assertion of the Pharisee, 
 not Jesus' own conviction. Paul did not advance beyond this 
 declaration (comp. Planck in d. theol. Jahrl. 1847, p. 268 ff.), 
 but he applied his right understanding' boldly and freely, and 
 
 1 Vitringa, who compares "1)03, even brings out the meaning "to expound." 
 The explanation of Kuinoel goes back to the legi satisfacere, but gives as 
 meaning, docendo vivendoque stabilire. Comp. Keim, " to teach the law, to 
 do it, and to impose it." The older dogmatic exegetes, who explained it by 
 satisfacere, here found the satisfactio activa. See, for example, Er. Schmid and 
 Calovius ; recently, Philippi, vom that. Gehors. Chr. p. 34 ; Baumgarten, p. 15. 
 On the other hand, B. Crusius and also Tholuck. According to Bleek, p. 304, 
 Christ has fulfilled the moral law by His sinless life, the ceremonial law by His 
 sacrificial death, by means of which the prophecies also are fulfilled. According 
 to Lechler, Jesus fulfils the law as doer, by His holy life and sacrificial death ; 
 as teacher, in teaching mankind rightly to understand and fulfil the command- 
 ments.
 
 170 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 iu so doing the breaking up of the old form by the new spirit 
 could not but necessarily begin, as Jesus Himself clearly 
 recognised (comp. ix. 16; John iv. 21, 23 f.) and set forth to 
 those who believed in His own person and His completed 
 righteousness (comp. Eitschl). But even in this self-repre- 
 sentation of Christ the new principle is not severed from the 
 O. T. piety, but is the highest fulfilment of the latter, its anti- 
 typical consummation, its realized ideal. Christianity itself 
 is in so far a law. Comp. Wittichen, p. 328 ; Holtzmann, 
 p. 457 f. ; Weizsacker, p. 348 f. ; see also on Rom. iii. 27 ; Gal. 
 vi. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 21. 
 
 Ver. 18. ^Afjurjv yap Xeyw vplv\ for verily (ajj^v = a\r}- 
 , Luke ix. 2 7), that is, agreeably to the truth, do I tell you. 
 What He now says serves as a confirmation of what preceded. 
 This form of assurance, so frequently in the mouth of Christ, 
 the bearer of divine truth, is not found in any apostle. eeo? 
 av irape\6r), /e.r.X] until heaven and earth shall have passed 
 away. These words of Jesus do not indicate a terminus, after 
 which the law shall no longer exist (Paulus, Neander, Lechler, 
 Schleiermacher, Planck, Weizsacker, and others), but He says : 
 onwards to the destruction of the world the law will not lose its 
 validity in the slightest point, by which popular expression 
 (Luke xvi. 17 ; Job xiv. 12) the duration of the law after the 
 final catastrophe of the world is neither taught nor excluded. 
 That the law, however, fulfilled as to its ideal nature, will 
 endure in the new world, is clear from 1 Cor. xiii. 3 (070^-77) ; 
 1 Pet. i 25 ; 2 Pet. iii. 3 (SiKaio<rvvij). The unending 
 authority of the law is also taught by Bar. iv. 1 ; Tob. i. 6 ; 
 Philo, vit. Mos. ii p. 656 ; Joseph. 'c. Ap. ii. 38, and the Rabbins. 
 See Bereschith R. x. 1, " omni rei suus finis, coelo et terrae 
 suus finis, una excepta re, cui non suus finis, haec est lex." 
 Schemoth E. vi., " nulla litera aboletur a lege in aeternum." 
 Midrash Cohel.i. 71, 4, (lex) " perpetuo manebit in secula 
 seculorunL" The passage in 1 Cor. xv. 28 is not opposed to 
 our explanation ; for if God is all in all, the fulfilled law of 
 God yet stands in its absolute authority. eta? av Trdvra 
 ryevrjTat] not : until all the prophecies are fulfilled, that would 
 then be down to the Parousia (Wetstein, J. E. Meyer, comp. 
 Ewald) ; nor even till all is carried out theocratically which I have
 
 CHAP. V. 18. 171 
 
 to perform (Paulus), or what lies shut up in the divine decree 
 (Kostlin), or even until the event shall occur by means of 
 which the observance of the law becomes impossible, and it 
 falls away of itself (Schleiermacher) ; but, in keeping with the 
 context, until all which the law requires shall be accomplished 
 (vi. 10), nothing any longer left unobserved. This sentence 
 is not co-ordinate to the first eitu?, but subordinate (Kiihner, ad 
 Xen. Mem. i. 2. 36) : " So long as the world stands shall no 
 iota 1 of the law pass away till all its prescriptions shall be 
 realized." All the requirements of the law shall be fulfilled ; 
 but before this fulfilment of all shall have begun, 2 not a single 
 iota of the law shall fall till the end of the world. Fritzsche : 
 till all (only in thought) is accomplished. He assumes, accord- 
 ingly, agreeably to the analogous use of conditional sentences 
 (Heindorf and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 6 7 E ; Kiihner, 
 II. 2, p. 988 f.), a double protasis: (1) eiws av 7rape\0p, K.T.\., 
 and (2) &os . . . yevrjrai. But the parallel passages, Matt, 
 xxiv. 34, Luke xxi. 32, are already opposed to this; and 
 after the concrete and lively ecu? av irape\6rj o ovpavbs K. 
 rj 777, this general and indefinite ecu? av iravra yevrjTat would 
 be only a vague and lumbering addition. As correlative to 
 ev and pia, irdvra can only mean all portions of the law, 
 without, however, any definite point of time requiring to be 
 thought of, in which all the commands of the law will be 
 carried out, according to which, then, the duration of the 
 
 1 'lam, the smallest letter, and mpaia, horn, a little stroke of writing (Plut. 
 Mor. p. 1100 A, 1011 D), especially also in single letters (Origen, ad Ps. xxxiii.), 
 by which, for example, the following letters are distinguished, 3 and 2, "1 and "7, 
 H and H. See Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and "Wetstein. Both expressions denote 
 the smallest portions of the law ; see ver. 19. 
 
 8 Im this is contained the perpetually abiding obligation of the law ; for that 
 condition of things, in which no part of the law remains unfulfilled, in which, 
 consequently, all is accomplished, will never occur until the end of the world. 
 Of the itaiia., moreover, nothing is to be excluded which the law contains, not 
 even the ritualistic portions, which are to be morally fulfilled in their ideal 
 meaning, as e.g. the Levitical prescription regarding purification by moral 
 purification, the sacrificial laws by moral self-sacrifice (comp. Rom. xii. 1), and 
 so on, so that in the connection of the whole, in accordance with the idea of 
 *>.*ipiaffif, not even the smallest element will perish, but retains its importance 
 and its integral moral connection with the whole. Comp. Tholuck ; Gess, Chrlali 
 Pers. und Werk, I. p. 292; and before him, Calvin on ver. 17.
 
 172 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 present condition of the world would be conformed. This 
 thought is rendered impossible by the nearness of the Parousia, 
 according to xxiv. 29, 34, as well as by the growth of the 
 tares until the Parousia, according to xiii. 30. The thought 
 is rather, the law will not lose its 'binding obligation, which reaches 
 on to the final realization of all its prescriptions, so long as heaven 
 and earth remain. Observe, moreover, that the expression in 
 our passage is different from xxiv. 35, where the permanency 
 of the Xoyot of Christ after the end of the world is directly 
 a'nd definitely affirmed, but that in this continued duration 
 of the \6yoi of Christ the duration of the law also is implied, 
 i.e. according to its complete meaning (in answer to Lechler, p. 
 797) ; comp. on Luke xvi. 17. " The Si/catocrvvr) of the new 
 heavens and of the new earth will be no other than what 
 is here taught," Delitzsch. So completely one with the idea 
 of the law does Jesus in His spiritual greatness know His 
 moral task to be, not severed from the latter, but placed in 
 its midst. 
 
 Ver. 19. Conclusion from ver. 18. On 05 lav with the 
 conjunctive of the aorist, denoting that which was probably 
 to happen in the future (the contingent futurum exactum), 
 see Winer, p. 28 7 f. [E. T. 385]; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 929; 
 edv for av, see Winer, p: 291 [E. T. 390]. Xvo-^] like 
 KaTa\v<rai, ver. 1 7 ;* Fritzsche and Arnoldi (after Castalio, 
 Beza, Wolf, and others) : transgressus fuerit, on account of the 
 n-onja-r} in the opposition ; comp. also Eitschl, p. 40. But 
 this TTorfa-r) partly forms a very appropriate antithesis to the 
 \vcrp in our sense, which, after /fara\vaai, in ver. 17, would 
 be abandoned only from arbitrariness ; partly there is by no 
 means wanting between \vew and SiSda-Keiv an appropriate, 
 i.e. a climactic, distinction (they shall declare it to be of no 
 authority, and teach accordingly) ; partly it is not credible 
 that Jesus should have declared that the transgressor of the 
 
 1 Comp. on Xi/t/v in the sense of abrogating, overturning of laws, John vii. 23 ; 
 Herod, iii. 82 ; Demosth. xxxi. 12. 186. 14. Ebrard (on Olshausen) erroneously 
 explains it : " the mechanical dissolution of a law into a multitude of casuistical 
 and ritualistic precepts. " The TOUTUI **> iXa^iVra/v should have prevented this 
 view. Amongst Greek writers also the simple verb represents the compound 
 that has preceded it ; comp. on Rom. xv. 4.
 
 CHAP. V. 20. 173 
 
 law was eka-^Lirrov ev TT} (3a<T. r. ovpavdav, see xi. 11. Doing 
 (770477077) and teaching (Bt,8dj;rj) refer, as a matter of course, 
 without it being necessary to supply any object besides the 
 general word " is " (translated : whosoever shall have done and 
 taught it), to that which is required in the smallest command- 
 ment, and that in the sense of the 77X77/30x745, ver. 17. rv 
 evro\wv TOVTWV T&v i\AvitfTO>v~\ TovTtov points back to 
 what is designated by iCra and fcepaut in ver. 18, not forwards 
 to vv. 22,28 (Bengel) ; eXa^to-ron/ refers, therefore, not to 
 the Pharisaic distinctions between great and small command- 
 ments (see especially, Wetstein, p. 295 f.), but to what Jesu-s 
 Himself had just designated as Iwra and xepaia, those precepts 
 which in reality are the least important. They stand, how- 
 ever, in accordance with the 77X77/30)0-45 of the law, in essential 
 organic connection with the ideal contents of the whole, and 
 can therefore be so little .regarded as having no authority, that 
 rather he who does this (\varf), and teaches others to act in 
 this manner (BiSd^rj'), will obtain only one of the lowest places 
 (one of the lowest grades of dignity and happiness) in the 
 kingdom of the Messiah. He is not to>be excluded (as Augus- 
 ine, Luther, Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, and others have 
 misinterpreted the meaning -of eX%. K\r)0.), because his 
 antinomianism is not a principle, not directed against the law 
 as such, but only against individual precepts of the law, which 
 in themselves are small, and whose importance as a whole 
 he does not recognise. 1 Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 15. Note the 
 correlation of rwv e\a^Lcrro)v . . . e\d%icrTO<i . . . peyas. 
 
 Ver. 20. Tap] Unnecessary difficulties have been raised 
 on account of this connection (Eitschl and Bleek, who even 
 declare Se to be more appropriate), and the obvious sense 
 passed over (de Wette, who, as well. as Hilgenfeld, refers back 
 to ver. 17). Jesus does not state any ground for recognising 
 
 1 Ver. 19 stands in so essential a connection with the discourse, that the 
 supposition of Olshausen, that Jesus had in view special acts of an antinomian 
 tendency on the part of some of His disciples, appears just as unnecessary as it 
 is arbitrary. Kostlin and Hilgenfeld find here a very distinct disapproval of 
 the Apostle Paul and of the Paulinites, who break free from the law ; nay, Paul, 
 thinks Kostlin, was actually named by Jewish Christians the smallest (Eph. 
 iii. 8), as he so names himself (1 Cor. xv. 9). A purely imaginary combination.
 
 174 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 why there must be distinctions of rank in the kingdom 
 (Ritschl), which must be understood as a matter of course ; 
 but He assigns the reason and how important was that for 
 the vocation of the disciples ! for the Troi^a-rj K. SiSa^y which 
 He had just uttered, in accordance with its necessary connec- 
 tion : " For if ye do not unite acting with teaching, then can 
 ye not enter into the kingdom, being upon the same stage of 
 righteousness as the scribes and Pharisees" (xxiii. 2 f., 14). 
 
 irepicra: TrXeioi/ is to be rendered : shall have been more 
 abundant than} Comp. irepta-a-evetv virep riva, 1 Mace. iii. 30. 
 
 rj SiKaio<rvvr) vfj.(bv] your moral righteousness, as in w. 
 6, 10, not the justitia fidei (Calovius), although the truly 
 moral life rests upon the latter. rwv ypappar. K. $apia.] 
 well-known comparatio compendiaria for rfjs StKaioa-vvir; TWV, 
 K.T.X., Klihner, II. p. 847. It is understood, besides, as a 
 matter of course, that Jesus here has in view the false 
 righteousness of the Pharisees in general, so that nobler mani- 
 festations, like Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and others, do not deter- 
 mine His general judgment. 
 
 Ver. 21. There now follow on to the end of the chapter six 
 neither five (Hilgenfeld) nor seven (Kostlin) antithetic 
 examples of the fulfilling of the law of Jesus, not merely 
 derived from the Decalogue, or from its second table (Keim), 
 but from the Pentateuch generally ; not, however, of an anti- 
 nomian kind, consequently not in opposition to the divine law 
 itself (Chrysostom and many Fathers, Maldonatus, Neander, 
 Bleek, Socinians and Arminians), but opposed, indeed, to all 
 the manifold limitations and one-sided apprehensions and 
 applications of the same, as it was represented and followed 
 out in life by the common traditional Judaism, and specially 
 by the Pharisees, without insight into the deeper unity and 
 
 1 These men thought and appeared to make themselves prominent by abun- 
 dant acts of ^maiea-vvn, whilst they " ceremonialem et forensem morali missa 
 tutati sunt" (Bengel). An abounding in righteousness on the part of His 
 disciples in a higher degree and measure of morality, which r>.t7i ) however, in 
 accordance with the actual relation of the thing compared, contains in itself an 
 essentially quite different kind of $ixait><ruiti, is required by Christ on the ground 
 of faith in Him. That external righteousness, whilst the heart is impure, ' ' does 
 not belong to heaven, but to hell " (Luther).
 
 CHAP. V. 21. 175 
 
 the purely moral absolute meaning. Comp. also Hofmann, 
 Schriftbew. I. p. 5991; Harless, d. JEhescheidungsfrage, 1861, 
 p. 7 f. ; Weiss, Keim. That use of the law produced a false 
 legalism, without sincerity and virtue, in opposition to which 
 Jesus wishes to develope and assert the true and full righteous 
 morality out of the divine law. ^Kovcrare] from the law 
 which is read before you (John xii. 34; Rom. ii. 13 ; Gal. 
 iv. 21 ; Acts xv. 21), and from the instruction which you 
 have received regarding its exposition. rot? dpxatois] may 
 grammatically be taken not only as a dative (Chrysostorn, 
 Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, Erasmus, Grotius, 
 Wetstein, Bengel, and many others ; also Tholuck, Neander, 
 de Wette, Ritschl, Bleek, Weizsacker), but also as an ablative : 
 by the ancients (see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 368 f.; Winer, p. 206 
 [E. T. 277]); so Beza, Piscator, Schoettgen, Eaphel, and 
 many ; also Paulus, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Olshausen, Baum- 
 garten, Ewald, Lechler, Keim. On the first rendering, which 
 most obviously suggests itself (Eom. ix. 12, 26; Gal. iii. 16; 
 Eev. vi. 11, ix. 4), the ancients are the Jewish generations of 
 earlier times (before Christ), to which Moses and his followers 
 (xxiii. 2 f.), the scribes, spoke (de Wette, Ritschl), not simply 
 the Israelites in the time of Moses, to whom the latter spoke 
 (Neander, Bleek) ; on the latter view it is Moses (who would 
 not have to be excluded, as Keim maintains), and his ancient 
 expositors learned in the Scripture; for there follow their 
 sayings, which are partly without, partly accompanied vjith, 
 additions proceeding from the scribes. The decision between 
 th'ese two views is given not merely by the constant usage of 
 the N. T., which joins eppeOrj with the dative, but also by the 
 antithesis 6700 8e \ey(o vplv, in which eyo> corresponds to the 
 logical subject of eppeQr), and vpiv to rot? ap^aiW ; the latter 
 consequently cannot itself be the subject. Luther therefore 
 rightly renders : that it is said to them of old time. 1 Pointless 
 
 1 Instead of Iffitn, Lachmann and Tischendorf have, after B D E K V, the form 
 ippMv. Both forms are found in Plato (see Heindorf, ad Gorg. p. 46), to whom, 
 however, Schneider, ad Pol. V. p. 450 A, everywhere assigns the latter as the 
 proper one. The first is the more common in the later Greek, and therefore to 
 be preferred in the N. T. See in general, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 447. Comp. 
 on Rom. ix. 12 : Gal. iii. 16.
 
 176 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 objections are made by Keim, II. p. 248, who even finds in 
 this view something opposed to the sense ; because the people 
 of the present day have not yet .heard of that which was 
 enjoined on them of .old time, but of what has been enjoined 
 upon themselves. On the other hand, it is to be recollected 
 that it was precisely a peculiarity of the .Jewish method of 
 instruction, and still is so, to refer the present generation to 
 those of old time, to inculcate upon the former the irapdSoa-Ls 
 which had been common in ancient times, and had been 
 already given to their forefathers. Thus the people of the 
 present time have certainly heard in the synagogues what was 
 said to them of old time. Cornp., moreover, Diodorus Siculus 
 xii. 20 : a\w9 et/j^rat rot? TraXatot?, cm, K.T.\. ov <fyovevcrei<i\ 
 Ex. xx. 12. The prohibition refers to the act, though not by 
 itself, but as the effect of anger, of hostility, and so on ; for 
 there is also a putting to death .which is permitted, nay, 
 even commanded. The Pharisaic explanation and application 
 of the legal saying was confined to the literal prohibition of 
 the act ; the fulfiller of the law lays open the whole disposition 
 that deserves punishment, which, as the ethical condition of 
 the act, was aimed at by the prohibition of the latter. The 
 following words contain a traditional addition, although one 
 not alien to the law, by the scribes, .who interpreted that pro- 
 hibition externally. /c/jt'o-i?, according to ver. 22, opposed to 
 the Sanhedrin, is the local court, found, according ,to Dent, 
 xvi. 18, in every "city of .Palestine, to ,which it belonged to 
 take cognizance of and to punish even murder (execution by 
 the sword), 2 Chron. xix. 5 ;.Joseiphus,Antt. iv. 8. 14. Accord- 
 ing to the Eabbins, it consisted of twenty-three members ; 
 according to Josephus, of seven. See generally, Tholuck, 
 Keil, Arch. II. p. 250 ff. To the higher court of justice, the 
 Sanhedrin, ver. 22, it belonged to take cognizance also of 
 crimes punishable by .stoning. 
 
 Ver. 22. I, on the other hand, as the fulfiller of the law, 
 already declare unrighteous anger to be as worthy of punish- 
 ment as the act of murder was declared to be to those of old 
 time ; as still more worthy of punishment, however, the ex- 
 pression of such anger in injurious language, to which I, in
 
 CHAP. V. 22, 1T7 
 
 the worst cases, even assign the punishment of hell. Observe 
 
 (1) that Jesus does not at all enter into the question of 
 murder itself, by which He makes it to be felt that it was 
 something unheard of amongst those who believed on Him ; 
 
 (2) that for the same reason He does not mention any out- 
 bursts of anger in acts, such as ill-usage and the like ; (3) 
 that the abusive words, which are quoted by way of example, 
 represent different degrees of outbursts of anger in speech, in 
 accordance with the malignity of the disposition from which 
 they proceed ; and (4) that tcpltris, a-vveSpwv, yeevva, illustrate 
 different degrees of greater culpability before God (for icpiais 
 and vvveBpiov are also analogical representations of divine, 
 although temporal, penal judgment), down to the everlasting 
 damnation ; so that (5) as the general moral idea in the con- 
 crete discourse, whose plastic ascent in details is not to be 
 pressed, the highest and holiest severity appears in the point of 
 unlovingncss (comp. 1 John iii. 15), and therein lies the ideal 
 consummation of the law, ov fovevcreis, not only in itself, but 
 also in the antithesis of its traditional threat, 09 S 1 av fovevo-y, 
 etc. o opyiZop.] has the emphasis of opposition to foveveiv. 
 TO) aSeX<j&eu] does not go beyond the popular conception 
 (a member of the nation, comp, ver. 47), out of which grew 
 at a later time the representation and designation of Christian 
 brotherly fellowship. The conception of the ir^ffiov from 
 the point of view .of humanity, Luke x. 29, is not contained in 
 the dSe\<o9. If eitcfj were genuine (but see critical remarks), 
 then this idea would be contained in it, that Jesus does not 
 mean simply being angry, but the being angry without a 
 reason (Eom. xiii. 4.; CoL ii. 18), the anger of mere passion- 
 ateness, ivithout moral justification ; eltcf) would stand as equiva- 
 lent to dXo7/o-TG)<? (Polyb. i. 52. 2), TrapaXoya)? (Polyb. i 
 74. 14), aoveoTra)? (Polyb. iv. 14. 6). There is, moreover, a 
 holy anger, which has its basis in what is right, and in its 
 relation to the unholy world. Comp. on Eph. iv. 26. But 
 never ought it to be unloving and hostile anger ; and that such 
 an anger is here meant is shown by the context, therefore 
 elxfj would not even be an appropriate closer definition. 
 POKU] as Jerome and Hesychius already correctly interpret 
 
 MATT. M
 
 178 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 it, is the Chaldee K^l, vacuus, that is, empty head ! At that 
 time a very common word of opprobrium. Buxtorf, Lex. 
 talm. p. 2254; Lightfoot, HOT. p. 264; Wetstein in loc. 
 That it is, so far as regards its idea, of the same nature with 
 pwpe that follows, speaks rather in favour of than against 
 this common interpretation. Comp. icevos (Jas. ii. 20 ; Soph. 
 Ant 709), Kevo<j)pwv (Aesch. Prom. 761), tcevoicpavos (Sibyll. 
 iii. p. 418). Ewald thinks of the Aramaic Kyp~i, and inter- 
 prets it: rascal. fitope] -'33, fool, but in the moral sense 
 (Hupfeld on Ps. xiv. 1), as the virtuous man was rightly 
 regarded as wise (comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 9. 4) and the wicked 
 as foolish ; therefore equivalent to " wicked" and thus a 
 stronger word of opprobrium, one affecting the moral character, 
 than paicd; see Wetstein. eis rrjv yeevvav] literally: into 
 hell, 1 which is to be regarded as a pregnant expression from 
 the idea of being, cast down into hell. Winer, p. 200 [E. T. 
 267]; Buttmann, p. 148 [E. T. 170]. Plastic represen- 
 tation with the increasing liveliness of the discourse, instead 
 of the more abstract dative. No example elsewhere. <yeevva, 
 properly Dan K^, or ESrrja soa (Dlin, name of a man otherwise 
 unknown ; other interpretations, as " valley of howling" are 
 arbitrary), a valley to the south of the capital, where the 
 idolatrous Israelites had formerly sacrificed their children to 
 Moloch (2 Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. vii. 32, xix. 2); Eitter, 
 Erdk. XVI. 1, p. 372 ; Eobinson, Pal II. p. 38. The name 
 of this hated locality was transferred to the subterranean 
 abode of the damned. Lightfoot, HOT. ; Wolf on the passage ; 
 Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum, II. p. 323 ff. So always 
 in the N. T., where, however, it is found only in the Synoptics 
 and James. 
 
 1 The attributive genitive rou trvpa; (xiii. 42 ; 2 Thess. i. 8), as an expression 
 of the specific nature, is to be explained from the well-known popular represen- 
 tation of hell (comp. iii. 11, xviii. 8 f., xxv. 41, and elsewhere). The explana- 
 tion of Kuinoel, who follows the older interpreters, " is dignus est, qui in valle 
 Hinnomi vivus comburalur, " is, irrespective of the illegality of burning alive, 
 opposed to the constant usage of yiitta. as signifying hell, which usage also for- 
 bids us to think of the burning of the body in the valley of Hinnom (Michaelis) 
 after execution, or at least of a casting forth of the latter into this detested place 
 (B. Crusius, comp. Tholuck).
 
 CHAP. V. 23, 24. 179 
 
 Ver. 23 f. 'Eav . . . 7rpocr(j}epr]<i] If thou, then, art about to 
 present thy sacrifice (Bdopov, viii. 4, xv. 5, xxiii. 18, also in the 
 LXX., Apocrypha, and Greek writers) ; consequently, art 
 already occupied with the preparation of the same in the 
 temple. 1 This explanation is required by the words epTrpoa- 
 6ev rov 6v&. (ad aram), ver. 24. eVt TO Ova-iacrTj] to the 
 altar, in order that the priests may offer it upon the same. 
 Kdfcei fi vt) o-0?79, tf.r.A,.} "inter rem sacram magis subit re- 
 cordatio offensarum, quam in strepitu negotiorum," Bengel. 
 The injured part is the aSe\(f>6<} ; differently in Mark xi. 25, 
 where forgiveness is required. efiTrpovO. rov 0v<ria<rT.~\ A 
 closer definition added to eet. -rrp&rov] in the first place 
 (vi. 33), before everything else, what thou now hast to do. 
 Compare Tore afterwards. It is to be connected with inrasye 
 (Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Bengel, and many others; also 
 Gersdorf, p. 107 ; de Wette, Ewald, Arnoldi, Bleek). Comp. 
 vii. 5, xiii. 30, xxiii. 26. The connection with Sta\\dy. 
 (Beza, Calvin, Er. Schmidt, and many others ; also Kuinoel, 
 Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others) overlooks the essential moment 
 which is contained in the connection precisely by the vjraye, 
 the unavoidable, surprising, nay, repellent removal of oneself 
 from the temple. For that inrwye is not here merely an 
 appeal, age, is shown by the context through the words a<e? 
 e'/cet, etc. In xviii. 15, xix. 21, also, it means obi. 8ia\- 
 Xdyrjdi] be reconciled, deal so that a reconciliation may begin 
 with him who has been injured by thee. Comp. 1 Sam. 
 xxix. 4, and on the passage 1 Cor. vii. 11. In this way the 
 act of sacrifice receives the moral foundation of a disposition 
 pleasing to God, by which it is no mere external work, but is 
 at the same time Xoyiicr) \arpeia, Rom, xii. 1. Flacius well 
 remarks, s.v. munus : " Vult primam haberi rationem moraliuni, 
 secundum ceremonialium." Moreover, the distinction asserted 
 by Tittmann to exist between StaXXao-o-etv and 
 
 1 The severance of the Jewish believers from the temple service was only to 
 begin at a later time, John iv. 21. The Catholic exegesis knows, indeed, how 
 to find here the permanent sacrifice of the Eucharist, regarding which Christ is 
 said in the passage before us to have given a law which is for ever valid, 
 ger, Christenthum und Kirche, p. 250 f., ed. 2.
 
 180 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 that the former denotes the removal of mutual hostility, the 
 latter that of one-sided enmity (Synon. p. 102), is decidedly 
 erroneous. Fritzsche, ad Bom. I. p. 276 ff. 
 
 Ver. 25 f. The precept, to be reconciled with the injured 
 person in order not to be cast into hell by God the judge, is 
 made clear by the prudential doctrine of satisfying a creditor in 
 order not to become liable to imprisonment. To abide merely 
 by the prudential doctrine itself which the words convey (Theo- 
 phylact, Vatablus, and others, including Paulus), is opposed to 
 the context (vv. 21-24) ; to take the <j>v\aKrj, however, as the 
 representation of purgatory (many Catholics, not Schegg), or of 
 Sheol (not Gehenna) (Olshausen), is forbidden by the idea 
 of the judgment, which also excludes the vague and indefinite 
 " transference of that which is destructive for the external 
 life to that which is destructive in a higher sense " (de Wette). 
 Luke xii. 58 has the precept in quite a different connection; 
 but this does not justify us in not regarding it in the present 
 passage as belonging te it (Pott, Kuinoel, Neander, Bleek, 
 Holtzmann, Weiss, and others), since it may be given here and 
 there as a popular symbolical proverb ; while precisely here it 
 is most clearly and simply appropriate to the connection. 
 evvooov] be loell disposed that is, inclined to satisfy him by 
 making payment or composition. TO> ai/TiSt/cw <TOV\ The 
 opponent (in a lawsuit) is to be conceived of as a creditor 
 (ver. 26). The injured brother is intended ; comp. ver. 23. 
 Explanations of the Fathers referring it to the devil (Clement 
 of Alexandria), to God (Augustine), to the conscience (Euth. 
 Zigabenus), see in Tholuck. ra^.y] without delay, without 
 putting off, xxviii. 7 f . ; John xi. 29; Eev. ii. 16. " Tarda 
 est superbia cordis ad deprecandum et satisfaciendum," Bengel. 
 eo>9 OTOV] If by ra^v it was intimated that the compli- 
 ance should begin without delay, so it is now stated that it 
 shall remain till the extreme termination : even until thou art 
 with him on the road to the judge even then still shalt thou 
 yield compliance. Not of itself (in answer to Tittmann, Synon. 
 p. 167), but, in virtue of the context, is eco? the inclusive 
 " until," as according to the context it may also be exclusive 
 (comp. on the passage, i. 2 5). The servant of justice
 
 CHAP. V. 27, 28. 181 
 
 ^67779) belongs to the representative of the legal act ; and who 
 is meant thereby, is evident from xiii. 41 f. {3\ij #770-77] 
 The future, which might be dependent on /i^Vore (Winer, 
 p. 468 f. [E. T. 629]; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 201 [E. T. 
 233]; see on the passage, Col. ii. 8), taken independently, 
 gives the appropriate emphasis to the tragic closing act. 
 In ver. 26 is by no means contained the finality of the con- 
 dition of punishment, but its non-finality ; since the aTro&iSovcu, 
 that is, the removal of the guilt of sin, is for him who is in 
 this $v\aicr) an impossibility, xviii. 34, xxv. 41, 46, etc. 
 9 states, then, a terminus which is never reached. Comp. 
 xviii. 34. The quadrans is As in copper, or 2 Xerrra, f of a 
 farthing (Mark xii. 42) ; see on the Eoman coins in circula- 
 tion amongst the Jews, Cavedoni, bill. Numismat. I. p. 78 ff. 
 
 Ver. 27 f. From w. 28-30 it appears that the tradition 
 of the Pharisees limited the prohibition in Ex. xx. 14 to 
 adultery proper, and left out of consideration adulterous 
 desires. /SXe-Trwi/] he who looks upon a woman, opposed to the 
 actual fj,oi^eveiv. Awaited] woman in general, so that it may 
 be a married (Erasmus, Grotius, Tholuck, de Wette, Bleek) or 
 an unmarried one ; for the /SXeVwi/ is conceived of as a married 
 man, as is clear from the signification of ov /iot%eu<ret9, which 
 means adultery. 7rpb<t TO iiriGvp^aai avrijv] not ita ut, 
 etc., not even in accordance with (Weiss), but, agreeably to the 
 constant usage of Trpos with the infinitive, to denote the telic 
 reference (vi. 1, xxvi. 12, and elsewhere): in order to desire 
 her. The $Xe7ri/, which terminates in lustful desire, which 
 is kindled and felt to be strengthened by gazing on, is de- 
 signated. 'O yap (nrov&dfav opav ra? evjJLopfyovs o^eis, avrof 
 paXivra rrjv Kapivov avdirret, rov 7ra#ot/9, Chrysostom. Comp. 
 Augustine : " qui hoc fine et hoc animo attenderit, ut earn con- 
 cupiscat, quod jam non est titillari delectatione carnis, sed 
 plene consentire libidini." He who looks upon a woman with 
 such a feeling has already (jam eo ipso, Bengel), in virtue of 
 the adulterous desire with which he does so, committed 
 adultery with her in his heart, which is the seat of feeling 
 and desire. Thus he is, as regards his moral constitution, 
 although without the external act, already an adulterer.
 
 182 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Similar proverbs from the Eabbinical writers in Lightfoot and 
 Schoettgen ; from the Greek and Roman writers, in Pricaeus. 
 On fjioi^eveiv with the accusative, comp. Plato, Eep. p. 360 B. 
 eTTiOvpeiv] with the accusative, is rare and late. Comp. 
 Ex. xx. 17 ; Deut. v. 20 ; Judith xvi. 22 ; see Winer, p. 192 
 [E. T. 255]. Even if avrrfv were spurious, it could not be 
 explained with Fritzsche : " ut adsit mutua cupiditas." 
 
 Ver. 29. 1 Unconditional self-denial, however, is required in 
 order not to stumble against the prohibition of adultery in its 
 complete meaning, and thereby to fall into hell. Better for 
 thee that thou decidedly 'deprive thyself of that which is so 
 dear and indispensable to thee for the temporal life, and the 
 sacrificing of which will be still so painful to thee, than that 
 thou, seduced thereby, and so on. In the typical expression 
 of this thought (comp. on Col. iii. 5) the eye and hand are 
 named, because it is precisely these that are the media, of lust ; 
 and the right members, because to these the popular idea gave 
 the superiority over the left, Ex. xxix. 20 ; 1 Sam. xi. 2 ; 
 Zech. xi. 17; Aristotle, 'de animal, incessu, iv. The non- 
 typical but literal interpretation (Pricaeus, Fritzsche, likewise 
 Ch. F. Fritzsche in his Nov. Opusc. p. 347 f., Arnoldi) is not 
 in keeping with the spirit of the moral strictness of Jesus ; and 
 to help it out by supplying a limitation (perhaps in the extreme 
 case, to which, however, it cannot come ; comp. Tholuck) is 
 arbitrary. The view, however, which is, indeed, also the 
 proper one, but hyperbolical, according to which the plucking 
 out is said to represent only the restraining or limiting the use, 
 does not satisfy the strength of the expression. So Olshausen, 
 comp. already Grotius. Only the typical view, which is also 
 placed beyond doubt by the mention of the one eye, satisfies 
 the words and spirit of Jesus. Yet, having regard to the 
 plastic nature of the figures, it is not the thought " as is done 
 to criminals " (Keim), but merely that of thoroughgoing, un- 
 sparing self-discipline (Gal. v. 24, vi. 14; Eom. viii. 13). 
 a typical designation, borrowed from a trap 
 and <rKavSa\.edpov, the trap- spring), of the idea of 
 
 1 Comp. xviii. 8 f. ; Mark ix. 43 ff. Holtzmann assigns the original form to 
 Mark. On the other hand, see Weiss.
 
 CHAP. v. si. 183 
 
 seducing to unbelief, heresy, sin, etc. Here it is the latter 
 idea. The word is not found in Greek writers, but in the 
 LXX. and Apocrypha, and very frequently in the N. T. 
 Observe the present. What is required is not to take place 
 only after the completion of the seduction. <rvij,<j>epei yap 
 (TO i, iva, /C.T.X.] not even here, as nowhere indeed, does tva stand 
 instead of the infinitive (comp. xviii. 6), but is to be taken as 
 teleological : " it is of importance to thee (this plucking out of 
 the eye), in order that one of tliy members may be destroyed, 
 and not thy whole body be cast into hell" Thus Fritzsche alone 
 correctly ; comp. Kauffer. The alleged forced nature of this 
 explanation is a deception arising from the customary usage of 
 the infinitive in German. Kal /AT; o\ov . . . yeevvav] namely, 
 at the closely impending establishment of the kingdom ; comp. 
 x. 28. Ver. 30 is the same thought, solemnly repeated, 
 although not quite in the same words (see the critical re- 
 marks). " Sane multos unius membri neglecta mortificatio 
 perdit," Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 31 f. 1 In Deut. xxiv. 1 there is stated as a reason for 
 the dismissal which is to be carried out, "i^J nny, something hate- 
 fid, loathsome (see Ewald, Alterthum. p. 272 ; Keil, Archdol. 
 II. p. 74 f . ; Gesenius, Thes. II. p. 1068). This was explained 
 by the strict Eabbi Sammai .and his adherents as referring to 
 adultery and other unchaste behaviour; but the gentle Eabbi 
 Hillel and his school as referring to everything in general that 
 displeased the husband (Josephus, Antt. iv. 8. 23 ; Vita, 76). 
 Lightfoot, p. 2 73 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. X. p. 56 ff., 81. Eabbi 
 Abika went still further, who allowed dismissal if the husband 
 found a more beautiful woman ; see Wetstein. To these and 
 other (see Othonis, Lex. Edbb. p. 504) ill-considered principles 
 for Hillel's doctrine had become the prevalent one Christ 
 
 1 The assertion that, if Jesus had delivered this declaration here, the dis- 
 cussion regarding divorce in .ch. xix. could not have taken place (Kb'stlin, 
 p. 47; Holtzmann, p. 176f.), has no foundation, especially as in xix. 3, Mark 
 x. 2, the discussion is called forth by the Pharisees ; comp. Weiss. Olshausen 
 and Bleek also find in ch. xix. the historical position for the declaration, which 
 Hilgenfeld regards as a non-original appendix to what precedes ; which is also 
 substantially the judgment of Eitschl, who regards the metabatic 2 in ver. 31 
 as introducing an objection to vv. 29, 30.
 
 184 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 opposes Himself, and draws out from the original and inmost 
 nature of marriage (comp. xix. 4 ff.) a firm rule, preserv- 
 ing the sanctity of the idea, and admitting only that as a 
 ground of separation by which the nature of marriage and its 
 obligations is, as a matter of fact, directly and immediately 
 destroyed. 1 aTroXver^] not repudiare constituent (Fritzsche 
 after Grotius), but will have dismissed. In this is implied the 
 oral declaration of dismissal, the accomplishment of which as 
 a fact is to take place by means of a letter of divorce. The 
 command to give the letter of divorce, moreover, the use of 
 which was already in existence before the law, is only indi- 
 rectly implied in Dent. xxiv. 1 ; comp. on xix. 7. The Greek 
 expression for the dismissal of the woman is aTroTrepTretv, 
 Bekker, Anecd. p. 421 ; Bremi, ad Dem. adv. Onetor. iv. p. 92. 
 On the wanton practice of the Greeks in this matter, see 
 Hermann, Privatalterth. 30. aTrovTaffiov] departure, that 
 is, by means of a f3if3\lov aiToa-rao-iov, Deut. xxiv. 1 ; Matt, 
 xix. 7; Mark x. 4; Jer. iii. 8. In Demosthenes, 790. 2, 
 940. 15, it is the desertion of his master, contrary to duty, 
 by a manumitted slave; Hermann, I.e., 57. 17. The 
 formula of the letter of divorce, see in Alphes. in Gittin, f. 600; 
 in Lightfoot, p. 277. The object of the same was to prove 
 that the marriage had been legally dissolved, and that it was 
 competent to enter into a second marriage with another man 
 (Ewald, I.e.}. Observe, moreover, how the saying of the 
 scribes, which has been quoted, is a mutilation of the legal 
 precept, which had become traditional in the service of their 
 lax principles, as if it, beside the arbitrary act of the man, 
 were merely a question of the formality of the letter of divorce. 
 Ver. 32. Hape/cro? \6yov iropv^] that is, except (see on 
 2 Cor. xi. 28) if an act of whoredom, committed by the woman 
 during marriage (consequently adultery, John viii. 41 ; Amos 
 vii. 17; Hos. iii. 3; Sir. xxvi. 9, xiv. 12), is the motive 
 (Xo705, comp. Thuc. i. 102, iii. 6, Ixi. 4; and see on Acts 
 x. 2 9). In spite of the point of controversy which lies at the 
 foundation, Paulus and Gratz are of opinion most recently 
 especially, Dollinger, Christenthum und Kirche, p. 392ff., 
 1 Comp. Harless, Eheschddungsfrage, p. 17ff.
 
 CHAP. V. 32. 185 
 
 460 ff., ed. 2 (comp. Baeumlein in the Stud, und Krit. 1857, 
 p. 336) that by tropveia, which does not mean adultery, 1 
 whoredom before marriage is meant, so that the man, instead 
 of a virgin, receives one who is no longer so. 2 The correct 
 view is already to- be found in Tertullian, and in the whole 
 old exegetical tradition, where, however, on the Catholic side, 
 the permission was limited only to- separation a toro et mensa. 
 On the subject, comp. the explanation which was specially 
 called forth on a later occasion, xix. 3 ff. But in Mark x. 11, 
 Luke xvi. 18 (also 1 Cor. vii. 10 f.), this exception is not 
 expressed, not as if Jesus had at the beginning made greater 
 concessions to the pre-Christian Jewish marriages, and only at 
 a later time completely denied the dissolubility of marriage 
 (Hug, de conjugii christ. vinculo indissolub. 1816, who therefore 
 declares, in xix. 9, prj eVt iropveia to be spurious), nor even as 
 if that TrapetcTos, /c.r.X., were a later modification, and not 
 originally spoken by Christ (Bleek, Wittiehen, Weiss, Holtz- 
 mann, Schenkel, and others), but Mark and Luke regard this 
 exception by itself, understanding it as a matter of course ; and 
 rightly so, 8 since adultery eo ipso destroys the essence of all 
 marriage obligations ; comp. Weiss in d. Zeitschr. f. christl. 
 Wissensch. 1856, p. 261. But as the exception which Jesus 
 
 1 It means in general every kind of whoredom (Dem. 403. 26, 433. 25, 612. 5). 
 Where it specially refers to adultery (^ai^ila,) this is clear from the context, as 
 here and xix. 9. Thus, for example, it means also the idolatry of the people of 
 God, because that is adultery against Jehovah r #pn!ee, as in Hos. i. 2 ; Ezek. 
 xvi. 15, xxiii. 43. 
 
 * How can one seriously suppose that Jesus could have laid down so slippery 
 an exception ! indelicate, uncertain, unwise, a welcome opening to all kinds of 
 severity and chicanery, especially considering the jealousy of the Jews. And 
 the exception would have to hold good also in the case of marriages with 
 widows ! 
 
 3 But by the circumstance that Jesus here expressly quotes as an exception 
 this actual ground of separation, which was understood as a matter of course, 
 He excludes every other (comp. especially Caloviusy ; and it is incorrect to 
 say that, while He grants one actual ground of separation, He still allows 
 several others (Grotius, de Wette, Bleek, and others; comp. also Werner 
 in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 702 ff.), which is quite opposed to the point of 
 view of moral strictness, from which He excepts only that case in which the 
 actual dissolution of the marriage in its innermost nature is directly given. 
 That Christ bases His answer on the question of divorce purely upon the nature 
 of the divine ordinance of marriage as it was already given at the creation (una
 
 186 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 here makes cannot become devoid of meaning by 'means of 
 Lev. xx. 10 (in answer to Schegg, see John viii. 3 ff.), so also 
 it is not to be annulled on critical grounds, which in view of 
 the witnesses is impossible (in answer to Keim here and on 
 xix. 9). The second half of the verse also, teal .09, K.T.\., cannot 
 be condemned with Keim on the authority of D and Codd. in 
 Augustine. iroiel avrrjv ft,oi^aff6ai\ "per alias nuptias, 
 quarum potestatem dat divortium" (Bengel), although, ac- 
 cording to that principle, she is still the wife of the first 
 husband ; therefore the man also, if he marries again, fiot^aTat 
 (xix. 9). /cot] not causal, but and, and on the other side. 
 f^oi^drai] because he has intercourse with a person who, 
 according to the divine law, is the wife of another. That by 
 a7ro\\viJ,evr}v, a woman who is dismissed illegally, consequently 
 not on account of adultery, is intended, was understood as a 
 matter of course, according to the first half of the verse. 
 
 Ver. 33. TlaKiv] as in iv. ,7. OVK eTriopKrja-eis] Doc- 
 trinal precept, according to Ex. xx. 7; Lev. xix. 12. It is 
 not to the eighth commandment that Jesus refers (Keim, 
 following an artificially formed scheme), but the second com- 
 mandment forms the fundamental prohibition of perjury. 
 The Pharisaic tradition made arbitrary distinctions between 
 oaths that were binding (by Jehovah) and those that were not 
 binding (coinp. also Philo, de Spec. Legg. p. 770 A). See Light- 
 
 caro, ix. 5), not upon its object, is of decisive importance for the legislation in 
 question, where we have also to observe that the altered form of divorce (the 
 judicial) can make no change in the principles laid down by Jesus. Otherwise 
 the legislation relating to marriage is driven on and on, by way of supposed 
 consistency, to the laxity of the Prussian law .and that of other lands (comp. the 
 concessions of Bleek). Moreover, as regards malicious desertion, the declarations 
 of Christ admit of application only so far as that desertion quoad formam, con- 
 sequently according to its essential nature, is fully equivalent to adultery, 
 which, however, must always be a question in each individual case. It cannot 
 be shown from 1 Cor. ix. 15 that malicious desertion .was regarded as a reason 
 for dissolving Christian marriage. See on the passage. Of that case of separa- 
 tion, where the man commits adultery, Christ does not speak, because the law, 
 which does not know of any dismissal of the man on the part of the woman, 
 presented no occasion to it. But the application of the principle in the case of 
 adultery on the part of the woman to that of the man as a ground of divorce 
 rightly follows in accordance with the moral spirit of Jesus ; comp. Mark x. 12 ; 
 GaL iii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xi. 11.
 
 CHAP. V. 34 -?6. 187 
 
 foot, p. 280 ; Eisenmenger, II. p. 490 ; Wetstein on ver. 36 ; 
 Michaelis, Mos. Recht,\. p. 141 ff., upon their loose principles 
 regarding this matter. The second half of the precept quoted 
 (formulated after Num. xxx. 3 ; Deut. xxxiii. 22) was so 
 weakened by them, that special emphasis was laid upon the 
 words TcS Kvpiw, and other oaths were deprived of their 
 obligatory powers. 
 
 Vv. 34-36. My opoa-ai oXta?] to swear not at all (the 
 adverb placed emphatically at the end, compare ii. 10), de- 
 pendent upon \ejd) vfj,tv (comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 5 9 E, Menex. 
 240 A), in which the command is implied (Jacobs, ad Anthol. 
 X. p. 200; Kiihner, ad Anal. v. 7. 34; Wunder, ad Soph. 
 0. C. 837), interdicts all kinds of swearing in general; 1 not 
 merely that of common life, which is at variance with reverence 
 for God (Luther, Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, Fritzsche, Ewald, 
 Tholuck, Harless, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and others), nor even 
 merely oaths regarded " ex Judaeorum sensu " (thus Matthaei, 
 doctrina Christi dejurejur. Hal. 1847). The simple prohibition, 
 given, however, to the disciples, and for the life of fellowship 
 of true believers, and in so far not less ideal than the require- 
 ments that have preceded, appears from the words themselves 
 (comp. Jas. v. 12), and also from ver. 37. Christianity as it 
 should be according to the will of Christ, should know no oath 
 at all : TO fir) oftvveiv oX<u<? eTrtreti/et fiaXiara rrjv eixrefieiav, 
 Euth. Zigabenus. To the consciousness of the Christian, God 
 should always be so vividly present, that, to him and others 
 in the Christian community, his yea and nay are, in point of 
 reliability, equivalent to an oath. His yea and nay are oath 
 enough. Comp. on oXa>9, prorsus ( = TrayreXw?, Hesychius), 
 Xen. Mem,, i. 2. 35 : Trpoayopevofjuev rot? i/eot? 0X0)9 ^ Sia\ey- 
 
 1 Comp. West in the Stud. u. Krtt. 1852, p. 221 ff. ; Nitzsch, christl. Lehre, 
 p. 393 ff. ; Werner in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 711 ff. ; Wuttke, Sittenl. II. 
 277 ; Acheiis in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 436 ff. Jerome had already re- 
 marked, with striking simplicity : " evangelica veritas non recipit juramentunv 
 cum omnis sermo fidelis pro jurejurando sit. " The emphatic clas forbids, how- 
 ever, the limitation only to the forms of the oath that are afterwards mentioned 
 (Althaus in d. Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 504, and already Theophylact, 1), so 
 that the oath by the name of God would remain unaifected ; in like manner, the 
 restriction of the prohibition to promissory oaths (Ficker in the same Zeitsclir. 
 1870, p. 633 ff., and already Grotius).
 
 188 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 ecrOai, Oecon. xx. 20. Accordingly, it is only in the incom- 
 plete temporal condition of Christianity, as well as in the 
 relation to the world in which it is placed, and to the existing 
 relations of the department of public law, to which it conforms 
 itself, that the oath has its necessary, indeed (comp. Heb. 
 vi. 1 6), but conditional and temporary existence. Christ Him- 
 self has sworn (xxvi. 63 f.) ; Paul has frequently sworn (Eom. 
 i. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 23, xi. 3f.; Gal. ii. 20 ; Phil. i. 8); nay, God 
 swears to His own people (Gen. xxii. 1 6, xxvi. 3 ; Num. 
 xiv. 23 ; Isa. xlv. 23 ; Luke i. 73 ; Acts vii. 17 ; Heb. vi. 13). 
 Therefore Anabaptists and Quakers are wrong in rejecting an 
 oath without any exception, as was already done by Justin, 
 Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and other 
 Fathers. The various but altogether arbitrary explanations 
 of those who here recognise no absolute prohibition may be 
 seen in Tholuck. The direct oath, by God, is not indeed ex- 
 pressly mentioned along with others in what follows ; its pro- 
 hibition, however, is implied, just as a matter of course, and 
 entirely, first of all in the general fivj ofioa-at 0X009, as it is 
 the reference to God which constitutes precisely the funda- 
 mental conception and nature of the oath, and, as in the 
 doctrine here discussed, ver. 33, the direct oath is contained 
 not only in OVK eViop/e., according to Lev. xix. 12, but also 
 expressly in aTroSeoo-et? T<J> Kvplw, etc. If Christ, therefore, 
 had intended to forbid merely the oaths of common life, He 
 would, instead of the altogether general statement, ^ o/j,6<rat 
 o\&)?, have made use of a form of expression excluding oaths to 
 be taken in relation to the magistracy (probably by a Tra/oe/cro?, 
 as in ver. 32). It is true, indeed, that in the special pro- 
 hibitions which follow, He mentions only indirect oaths, 
 consequently not those that are valid in a court of justice, 
 but just because the prohibition of the direct oath was already 
 contained in ^ O/AOO-. oX9, first of all and before all other 
 kinds of oaths ; and His object now is simply to set forth that 
 even indirect swearing fell under the general prohibition of 
 swearing. And He sets this forth in such a way, that in so 
 doing the prohibition of the direct oath forms the presupposition 
 of His demonstration, as it could not otherwise be expected
 
 CHAP. V. 3-1-26. 189 
 
 after yJr] opcxrai 0X0)9. Wl.at a scanty TrA^poxn? of the law 
 
 and one altogether out of keeping with the ideal character 
 of the points which preceded would it have been had Jesus 
 only intended to say : I forbid you " the wanton oaths of the 
 streets, of the markets" (Keim), in all their forms! ^77 re 
 ev rc5 ovp., /C.T.X.] not to swear in general, nor (specially) by 
 heaven, nor by earth. See on /i^ ... /LM?T, Klotz, ad Devar. 
 p. 709 ; Kiihner, II. 2, p. 828 f. ; Winer, p. 454 [E. T. 612]; 
 also Baeumlein, Part. p. 222. The kinds of swearing cen- 
 sured by Jesus were very common amongst the Jews ; Philo, 
 de Spec. Legg. p. 770 A; Lightfoot, I.e. ; Meuschen, N. T. ex 
 Talm. illustr. p. 58. Opov-os 6eov and viroTroBiov . . . avrov] 
 (Isa. Ixvi. 1 ; Matt, xxiii 22). rov pey. /3a<r.] of Jehovah 
 (Ps. xlviii. 2, xcv. 4 ; Job xiii. 1 8 ff. : therefore the holy city, 
 iv. 5). fj.rjre 1 ev ry /ce^aA,?}] Not merely the Jews (Bera- 
 choth, f. iii 2 ; Lightfoot, Hor. p. 281), but also the heathen 
 (Eur. Eel. 835), swore ly their head. Dougtius, Anal. II. 
 p. 7 f. ; Wetstein on the passage. Comp. the exposition of 
 Virg. Aen. ix. 300. f>fj,vveiv is by the Greek writers con- 
 nected with Kara 711/09, or with the accus. (Jas. v. 1 2). Here, 
 as in xxiii. 1 6 f., Jer. v. 7, Dan. xii. 7, with ev (in harmony 
 with the idea that the oath cleaves to the object appealed to, 
 comp. on 6/j,o\oyetv ev, x. 32), and with' 6*9 (directing the 
 thought; comp. Plut. Oth. 18), after the; Hebrew '3 ???. 
 
 or i ov SvvcKrai, tf.T,X.]/0r thou art not in a condition to 
 make, one. single hair (if it is black) white or (if it is white) 
 Hack. There is, of course, no allusion to the dyeing of hair. 
 Wolf, Kocher, Kuinoel, and others incorrectly render it : thou 
 canst not produce a single white or black hair. On such a 
 signification, what means the mention of the colour \ The 
 meaning of the whole passage is : " Ye shall not swear by all 
 
 Vt were here the reading (Fritzsche), then the 'meaning would be: not 
 even by thy head ; see Hartung, Partik. I. ,p. 196. But this reading is neither 
 critically admissible as it has only $$** in its favour nor exegetically neces- 
 sary, since the series of negations is symmetrically continued with p*Tt i r. 
 i<p. <r., which symmetry is not interrupted by oft,a<rs, because the latter does not 
 stand before r* *ip. <r. Matthew might have written p*>$i (comp. also Borne- 
 mann, ad Xen. Anab. iii. 2. 27; Ellendt, Lex, Soph. II. p. 123), but he was 
 not obliged to do so.
 
 190 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 these objects; for all such oaths are nothing less than the oath 
 directly by God Himself, on account of the relation in which 
 those objects stand to God." In the creature by which thou 
 swearest, its Creator and Lord is affected. 
 
 Ver. 37. Let your manner of asseveration be affirmation or 
 negation, without an oath. The repetition of the vat and ov is 
 intended to make prominent the earnest and decisive nature 
 of the assurance. 1 Similar examples of jn }n and N^ N^ in the 
 Eabbins, in Lightfoot, and Schoettgen, p. 41. Comp. the val 
 teal ov IIvdayopcKov in Ausonius, Idyll. 17: "Si consentitur, 
 mora nulla intervenit est est; Si controversum, dissensio sub- 
 jiciet non." As a matter of course, by this representation 
 other asseverations made, however, without an oath are not 
 excluded. TO 8e Trepia-a: TOUT.] whatever is more than yea 
 and nay (TOVTWV), that is swearing. e'/c TOV Trovrjpov] Euth. 
 Zigabenus : e' TOV Sia(3o\ov : auctorem habet diabolum. So 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Beza, Zwingli, Castalio, Piscator, 
 Wetstein, and others; also Fritzsche, Keim. Comp. John 
 viii 44; 1 John iii. 8, 12. Others (Luther, Calovius, Bengel, 
 Bosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Paulus, Tholuck, de Wette, Baumgarten 
 Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, and others) take TOV Tr&vrjpov as neuter, 
 so that it would have to be explained : is in the category of 
 evil, is sinful. Comp. the use of eVe ToO ejAffravovs, e/c TOU evTrpe- 
 7ro{9, etc., Matthiae, p. 1334. But how insipid and devoid 
 of meaning is the closing thought if this be the meaning ! 
 how energetic if o Trowjpos, xiii. 19, 38, is intended ! And 
 by this energetic rejection of the oath amongst the ideal 
 people of God, to whom the completed law applies, there is no 
 opposition to the Old Testament sacredness of an oath. But 
 if under the completed law the mere yea and nay are to have 
 
 1 In answer to Beza's erroneous explanation, " let your affirmative discourse 
 be yea, and your negative, nay;" and, in answer to Grotius (comp. also Eras- 
 mus), who takes the second vz/ and oS to refer to the act which corresponds to 
 the assurance, so that the meaning would be: " fidem a nobis praestari debere in 
 promissis etiam injuratis," see Fritzsche on the passage. According to Hilgen- 
 feld, the original text is said to have been, in accordance with the quotations in 
 Justin (Apol. i. 16, p. 63) and the Clementines (Rom. iii. 55, xix. 2) : IO-TU Si 
 i[j.ui re J a,i, *at TO eS ell. Comp. Jas. v. 12 ; 2 Cor. i. 17. Matthew would 
 appear again to introduce an assurance like an oath. Keim also deems the form 
 of statement as given by Matthew to be less correct.
 
 CHAP. V. 38. 191 
 
 the weight and reliability of an oath, then this highest moral 
 standard and ordinance of truthfulness would be again taken 
 away and perverted by him who nevertheless should swear ; 
 while the yea and nay would again be deprived of the 
 guarantee of truthfulness, which, like all opposition to the 
 truth, -would be diabolical (John viii. 44). The oath by God 
 could not be rejected by Jesus, in and ~by itself, as etc rov 
 Trowrjpov, for it certainly rests upon the divine law ; but (in 
 answer to Keim) it has, upon the standpoint of the TrX^pwo-t? 
 of the law, given way to the yea and nay, therefore its re- 
 establishment would only be a desertion of these higher stages, 
 a falling away from the moral TeXeiorr)?, up to which Christ 
 means to fulfil the law. This could not proceed from God, 
 but only from the enemy of His will and kingdom. In a 
 similar way, as Theophylact rightly saw, circumcision in the 
 0. T. is ordained of God, and is worthy of honour ; but to 
 uphold its validity in Christianity to the injury of faith, and 
 of righteousness by- faith, is sinful, devilish; 2 Cor. xi. 3, 14. 
 So also with sacrifices, festival days, prohibition of meats, and 
 so on. 
 
 Ver. 38. 'O(f)0a\/j,bv . . . oSovTo<j] supply Staa-ei, which sup- 
 plement is presupposed as well known from the saying referred 
 to (see Ex. xxi. 24). In the usual formula (comp. also Lev. 
 xxii. 20, xxiv. 20 ; Deut. xix. 21) is expressed the jus talionis, 
 the carrying out of which was assigned to the magistracy 
 (comp. XII. Tab. : " si membrum rupit, ni cum eo pacit, talio 
 esto"). Instead of seeking and asserting this right before 
 the magistracy, the Christian, in the feeling of true brotherly 
 love, free from all desire of revenge, is to exercise self-denial, 
 and to exhibit a self-sacrificing spirit of concession. Comp. 
 1 Cor. vi. *7. This principle of Christian morality, laid down 
 absolutely as an ideal, by no means excludes, under the deter- 
 mining circumstances of sinful life, the duty of seeking one's 
 legal rights, as is clear, moreover, from the history of Christ 
 and His apostles. That Jesus, moreover, is speaking against 
 the misuse by the Pharisees of the legal standard, as a standard 
 within the sphere of social life, is a groundless supposition of 
 Luther, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Bengel, B. Crusius, Keim, and
 
 192 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 others, especially as in ver. 40 KptOfjvcu, follows. But certainly 
 the Pharisees may, unlovingly enough, in cases occurring in 
 social life, have claimed those rights before the magistracy, 
 and have influenced others also to practise similar unloving 
 conduct. Glosses in reference to the payment in money of 
 legal tcdio, see in Lightfoot. 
 
 Vv. 39, 40. To> TrovTjptp] is neither to be understood of 
 the devil (Chrysostom, Theophylact), nor, as neuter (Augustine, 
 Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Ewald, and others), of injustice ; but, 
 in accordance with the .antithesis aXV oo-u9 ere pairL&i, etc., 
 and with vv. 40 and 41 : homini maligno. Christ names 
 first the right cheek, although the blow most naturally strikes 
 first the left, but after the common fashion of naming 
 the left after the right. KpiQr\vaC\ to go to law.. Vulgate 
 well renders : in judicio contendere. Comp. on 1 Cor. vi. 1 ; 
 Eom. iii. 4 ; and see Wetstein, Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 
 305, ed. 3. It refers to legal controversy, not to the extra- 
 judicial beginnings of contention (de Wette ; also Beza, Grotius, 
 Kuinoel, and others), by which the distinction between the 
 two cases, vv. 39 and 40, is quite overlooked. xtrcova] 
 rohs, the shirt-like under-garment, tunica ; on the other hand, 
 ifidriov] '"WB>, "U3, the mantle-like over-garment, toga, which 
 also served for a covering by night, and might not therefore be 
 retained as a pledge over night ; Ex. xxii. 26 ; Deut. xxiv. 13. 
 The indnov was more valuable .and more indispensable than 
 the ^trow; that is the point which, according to Matthew, 
 Jesus has in view. It is different in Luke vi. 29 (according 
 to the order of succession in covering the body). \a(3elv] 
 by the lawsuit, which follows from xpiOfjvat ; whilst the 
 pettiness of the object is not opposed to this, seeing that the 
 method of illustration is by way of concrete example. 
 
 Ver. 41. 'Ayyapeveiv, passed over from the Persian (see 
 Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 23) into Greek, Latin (angariare, Vul- 
 gate, Augustine, ep. 5), and into the Rabbinical dialect (Np.33K, 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. p. 131 ; Lightfoot on the passage), to force 
 into transport service. The Persian arrangements respecting 
 post messages, instituted by Cyrus, justified the couriers 
 (ayyapoi) in making requisitions from station to station of
 
 CHAP. V. 42. 193 
 
 men, or cattle, or carriages for the carrying on of their 
 journey, Herodotus, viii. 98 ; Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 6. 17 ; 
 Josephus, Antt. xii. 2. 3. See Dougtius, Anal. II. p. 9 f. 
 Here it refers to continuing a forced journey, comp. xxvii. 32. 
 /ttt'Xtai/] One thousand steps, or eight stadia, one-fourth of 
 a German mile. A .late word found in Strabo. 
 
 REMARK. The spirit of the ethics of Jesus, His own example 
 (John xviii. 22 f.) and that of the apostles (Acts xxiii. 3, xvi. 
 35, xxvi. 25, xxv. 9 f.), require us to recognise, in these mani- 
 festly typical representations, vv. 39-41, not precepts to be 
 literally followed, but precepts which are certainly to be deter- 
 mined according to their idea. This idea, which is that of love, 
 yielding and putting to shame in the spirit of self-denial, and 
 overcoming evil with good, is concretely represented in those 
 examples, but has, in the relations of external life and its in- 
 dividual cases, the measure and the limitation of its moral 
 practice. Comp. on ver. 38. Luther appropriately lays emphasis 
 here upon the distinction between what the Christian has to do 
 as a Christian, and what as a .worldly person (in so far as he 
 is in a position or an office, and so on). The Lord leaves to the 
 state its, own jurisdiction, xxii. 21. 
 
 Ver. 42. A precept (in opposition to selfishness) which does 
 not stand indeed in essential connection with what precedes, 
 but which is still brought into connection with it through the 
 natural connection of the thoughts. According to Ewald, 
 who here lays weight (Jahrb. I. p. 132 f.) upon the number 
 seven in the quotations of the 0. T. laws, there must have stood 
 after ver. 41 in the original collection of sayings the following 
 words : rjicovcrare, OTI epprj&y ov /cXe\Jreis, aTroS&Jcrei? 8e TO 
 lfj,driov TO) TTTtw^o!/ lyo> Se Xeyw vjjuv' ry alrovvri, and so on, 
 and then, ver. 40. The command that is wanting was put 
 together from Ex. xx. 15 ; Deut. xxiv. 12 f. A very thought- 
 ful conjecture, which is followed by Holtzmann ; but unneces- 
 sary, for this reason, that the contents and order of the 
 sentences, vv. 40-42, attach themselves to one funda- 
 mental thought ; and improbable, because not merely an omis- 
 sion, but also a transposition, is assumed, and because rot 
 alrovvri, /c.r.X., does not correspond to the prohibition of 
 
 MATT. N
 
 194 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 thieving as its fulfilment. Saveta:] That Jesus did not think 
 of lending out at interest, appears from Ex. xxii. 24 ; Lev. 
 xxv. 37 ; Deut. xv. 7, xxiii. 20 ; Ewald, Alterthumer, p. 
 242 f. [E. T. 181]. 
 
 Ver. 43. Tov 7rXi/erioz> crov] In Lev. xix. 18, ^JH denotes 
 a member of the nation, whereby the proselyte also is included 
 with others ; hatred towards the heathen, however, is not con- 
 ceived of by the legislator as an antithesis that follows of 
 itself, and therefore we may all the less assume that Jesus 
 Himself introduced into the law hatred of one's enemies, as an 
 abstraction from the national exclusiveness, in which the law 
 keeps Judaism towards heathenism, as if it commanded this 
 hatred (Weiss, Bleek). The casuistic tradition of the Pharisees, 
 however, explained Lev. xix. 18, as the antithetical f. fydpov a-. 
 shows, of a friend, and deduced therefrom (perhaps with the 
 addition of passages like Deut. xxv. 1719, comp. Mai. i. 3) 
 the antithesis (which confessedly was also a principle of the 
 common Hellenism), see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phil. 110, p. 154 ; 
 Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 144 : KOI fjLia-ija-ei*) rov e%6p6v aov, by 
 which was meant not the national enemy (Keim), but the 
 personal (<rov) private enemy, in opposition to the law (Ex. 
 xxiii. 4 f. ; Lev. xix. 18) and to the pious spirit of the Old 
 Covenant (Ps. vii. 5, xxxv. 13 f. ; Job xxxi. 29 ; Prov. xxiv. 
 17, 29, xxv. 21 f . ; comp. Gen. xlv. 1 ; 1 Sam. xxiv. 7, 
 xviii. 5 ; 2 Kings vi. 22). Jesus Himself also may have 
 understood the Pharisaic addition only to refer to private 
 enemies, as is clear from His antithesis, w. 44 ff. 
 
 Ver. 44. Observe the entire love which is here required : 
 disposition, word, act, intercession ; " primo fere continetur 
 tertium, et secundum quarto " (Bengel). But it is as a<yairav 
 (to esteem highly], not as $i\eiv (amare), that we are required 
 to love our enemy. Comp. on John xi. 5. It rests upon the 
 clearness and strength of the moral will to separate between 
 the person of the enemy and his hostile disposition towards 
 us, so that the latter does not prevent us from esteeming the 
 former, from blessing it, and applying to it acts of kindness and 
 intercession. The Christian receives this moral clearness and 
 strength, and the consecration of enthusiasm thereto, in his
 
 CHAP. V. 45, 46. 195 
 
 self-experience of the divine love of one's enemy in Christ 
 (xviii. 21 if. ; Eph. iv. 32 ; Phil. ii. 1 f . ; 1 John iv. 10 f.). 
 
 Ver. 45. "OTTW? yevrja-Be viol, AC.T.X.] is commonly under- 
 stood, in keeping with the ort, rov rfkiov, AC.T.X., that follows, of 
 the ethical condition of similarity to God, according to which 
 the child of God also exhibits in himself the divine disposition 
 and the divine conduct (Eph. v. 1 f,). But the correct inter- 
 pretation is given by ver. 9, and is supported by yevrj^Be (for 
 yivea-Ocu is never equivalent to elvai). What is meant is, as 
 in ver. 9, the obtaining of the coming salvation in the kingdom 
 of the Messiah, which, according to the connection, as in ver. 9, 
 is designated as the future sonship of God, because the partici- 
 pators in the Messianic blessedness must necessarily be of the 
 same moral nature with God as the original type of love ; 
 therefore the words that follow, and ver. 48. rov ev ovpav.] 
 See on vi. 9. As to the thought, comp. Seneca, de lenef. iv. 26 : 
 " Si deos imitaris, da et ingratis beneficia ; nam et sceleratis 
 sol oritur, et piratis patent maria." o-rt] is not equivalent 
 to 09, but the simple as (for), stating that 6Vo>9 yevqaBe viol, 
 K.T.\., is rightly said. Fritzsche here inappropriately (comp. 
 already Bengel) drags in the usage of et<? etcelvo OTI (see on 
 John ii. 18, ix. 17, etc.). avare\\et] transitive, Horn. 
 II. v. 777; Find. Isthm. vi. 5, v. Ill; Soph. Phil 1123 ; 
 Diod. Sic. xvii. 7 ; LXX. Gen. iii. 1 8 ; Sir. xxxvii. 1 7 ; 
 Clem. Cor. I. 20. rov ri\io-v avrov] " Magnifica appel- 
 latio ; ipse et fecit solern et gubernat et habet in sua unius 
 potestate" (Bengel). The goodness of God towards His 
 enemies (sinners) Jesus makes His believers feel .by the 
 experimental proof of His all good administration in nature 
 a proof which, like every one derived a posteriori in favour 
 of a single divine attribute, is, on account of opposing ex- 
 periences (God also destroys the good and the evil through 
 natural manifestations), in itself insufficient, but, in popular 
 instruction, has its proper place, and is of assured efficacy, 
 with the same right as the special consideration of individual 
 divine attributes in general. 
 
 Ver. 46. Argumentum e contrario in favour of the command 
 to love one's enemy ; for the mere love of one's friend belongs
 
 196 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 to no higher stage of moral life than that of the publicans and 
 heathens. In what follows neither is a povov to be supplied 
 after TOW? a^air. u^ta?, nor is e^ere to be taken for l^ere (both 
 in answer to Kuinoel and others). Jesus opposes the doctrine, 
 " Love them wJw love you" and views the reward, as in ver. 12, 
 vi. 1, as a possession, preserved in heaven with God, to be 
 realized in the kingdom of the future. ol re\u>vai] the tax- 
 gatherers (partly natives, partly Romans), who were employed 
 in the service of the Koman knights, who farmed the revenues. 
 They were generally greatly hated amongst the Jews on 
 account of their severity and avarice, especially, however, for 
 being the servants of the Roman power. Wetstein on the 
 passage ; Keirn, II. p. 217 f. 
 
 Ver. 47. And if ye shall 1mm welcomed your brethren alone 
 (saluted them lovingly), what special thing have you done 3 
 The conception, " to act in a friendly manner " (Luther, 
 Tholuck, Bleek, Hofmann), is not the significatio, but certainly 
 the adsignificatio of aafrd^eaOai, as often in classic writers. 
 Comp. atnrd&ffdai KOI </>tXe>, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Ap. p. 2 9 D, 
 and Rep. 499 A. rot's d8e\^>. vpuiv povov] is not to be 
 limited to the members of families and other close associations 
 (Tholuck and others), as was already done by the reading 
 <f)[\ov<j, approved of by Griesbach ; but it refers to the members 
 of the nation, and applies to the national particularism of the 
 Jews ; consequently the national antithesis is ol cOvtKol. 
 Comp. Bleek. rl irepia-crov} what preference? what dis- 
 tinguishes you above others, "ut decet filios Dei," BengeL 
 Comp. Eom. iii. 1 ; Soph. 0. R. 841. Instead of rl irepia- 
 aov, Justin, Apol. i. 15, quotes rl icaivov, which substantially 
 agrees with rl Trepicro-ov, and belongs only to another form of 
 the idea, not to a higher point of view (Hilgeufeld). See 
 Eitschl in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 490 f. 
 
 Ver. 48. "Ea-ecrBe] imperatively. ovv] draws a deduction 
 from vv. 44-47, where the emphatic t>/u,ets forms the sublime 
 antithesis to the last-mentioned publicans and heathens. The 
 highest summary of the unending obligation of Christian love. 
 re\ioi] ev fir)8evl XetTro/tevot, Jas. i. 4. Euth. Zigabenus 
 well remarks : ol /j.ev dya7rvre<; rov<? dycnrwvTas
 
 CHAP. V. 48. 197 
 
 el<riv els ayaTTijv : oi Be rov<; e^Opovs, ovrot 
 Comp. Luther : " after the example of the heavenly Father, 
 who does not piece nor divide His love," and already Ignatius, 
 ad Philad., interpol. 3. Thus the closing admonition stands 
 in close relation to what precedes. Others (Beza, Fritzsche, 
 Kuinoel, Ewald, who also regards vii. 12 as originally belong- 
 ing to this passage) : integri, sine vitiis in general, without 
 exclusive reference to the commandment of love. They con- 
 sider the verse as the top-stone of the whole discourse, directed 
 from ver. 20 onwards against the Pharisees. But this anti- 
 Pharisaic tendency is still continued also in ch. vi., and the 
 pointing to the example of God would at least not be appro- 
 priate to vv. 27 ff. and to 31 ff. axnrep] equality of the 
 moral modality, ver. 45, by which the relation of the adequate 
 degree is not required, and yet the ideal task, the obligation of 
 which is never exhausted (Eom. xiii. 8 ff.), is for ever made 
 sure. Observe, moreover, how this wcnrep corresponds, indeed, 
 to the Platonic conception of virtue (oftotovcrOcu TU> 0ee5) ; the 
 latter, however, is surpassed, on the one side, by the specific 
 requirement of love as similarity to God ; and, on the other, 
 by the idea of God as the heavenly Father.
 
 198 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 VER. 1. After vpoa's^. Tisch. inserts 8t, no doubt only in con- 
 formity with L Z X, Curss. Verss. ; yet correctly, inasmuch as ds 
 would be readily omitted from its coming immediately after 
 the syllable TE, and from its reference not being noticed. 
 dtxaioavvqv] Elz. Matth. Scholz have eXiri/ioewr.v, against B D K, 
 1, 209, 217, It. (Brix. excepted) Vulg. Or. and some other 
 Fathers. A false gloss. Ver. 4. auT6$] not found in B K L 
 U Z K, Curss. Vulg. It. Copt. Syr cur and several Fathers. It 
 seemed superfluous, and was accordingly omitted, and that all 
 the more readily that it is likewise wanting in vv. 6, 18. Can- 
 celled by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 8. <ro/] Elz. Griesb. 
 Matth. Scholz add lv r& <pavtp&, which is not found in B D Z N, 
 Curss. Codd. gr. in Aug. Syr cur Copt. Vulg. and several Fathers. 
 Also in the case of ver. 6, the testimonies in favour of omitting 
 are essentially the same ; while, as regards ver. 1 8, the testimony 
 for excluding is far more decided. It should be retained in 
 vv. 4 and 6, but in ver. 1 8 it is an interpolation, and ought to 
 be deleted. 1 Ver. 5. irpoaevxy, ^ x * a ?>] Lachm. and Tisch.: 
 npofftvxriadi, ovx. tasffdt, after B Z, 1, 22, 116, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. 
 Goth. It. Vulg. Or. Chrys. Aug. Correctly ; the singular was 
 occasioned by the use of that number in what precedes and 
 follows. N has Kpoatu-xy oux steeds ; see, however, Tisch. on Cod. 
 K. Ver. 12. Ap/i/4ivj D E L A n, 157, 253, Ev. 26: Apioptt', 
 B Z K*, 1, 124 (on the margin), Harl. For. Or. Nyss. Bass.: 
 a<prix.a/tfv. So Lachm. and Tisch. The latter is to be adopted. 
 The reading of the Received text and aplopsv are from Luke xi. 4, 
 into which, again, as quoted in Origen (once), a<fr,^a^v has 
 found its way from our present passage. Ver. 13. vovqpov] 
 Elz. Matth. add the doxology : on eou term ^ /SaovXs/a xai q <5of a 
 i/$ TO-JS aiuvag, ' \fLi)v. Against a preponderance of testimony, and 
 contrary to the whole connection with ver. 14 f. A very old 
 (Syr.) addition from the liturgy ; one, however, that has assumed 
 
 1 Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted lv ipav^f in all the three passages ; in 
 ver. 18 it is also erased by Griesb. Matth. and Scholz.
 
 CHAP. VI. 1. 199 
 
 a variety of forms. Ver. 15. T ^apairr. alruv] is correctly de- 
 leted by Tisch. It is wanting in D N, Curss. Vulg. It. Syr. Aug., 
 and how easy was it mechanically to insert it as a supplement 
 from ver. 14! Ver. 18. eoi\ Elz. Fritzsche add tv ry <py,vepu; 
 see on ver. 4. Instead of xpvvrp, Lachm. and Tisch., in both in- 
 stances, have xpupa/w, after B D X, 1, 22; correctly, seeing that 
 xpvTrrZ is the common reading, and derived from vv. 4, 6. 
 Ver. 21. Instead of vpuv, B N, 1, 128, and important Verss. and 
 Fathers, have aw both times, which Griesb. has recommended, 
 and Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. have adopted. Correctly; vpuv 
 is taken from Luke xii. 34. Ver. 22. After the first op0aX/*o's 
 Lachm. has aou, only after B, Vulg. Aeth. Codd. It. Or. Hil. 
 Taken from the one which follows. Then in what comes next 
 Lachm. places the j immediately after olv, only according to B. 
 In K and several Verss. and Fathers ouv is omitted ; deleted by 
 Tisch. 8, against decisive testimony. Coming as it does after 
 lav, it might easily be left out through an oversight on the part 
 of the transcriber. Ver. 25. xai r'i\ Fritzsche, Lachm. i) ri, 
 according to B, Curss. and a few Verss. and Fathers. Too in- 
 adequate testimony. K Curss. Verss. and Fathers, who are fol- 
 lowed by Tisch. 8, omit x.l ri virin altogether. In conformity 
 with Luke xii. 22. Ver. 28. Instead of av%dvu, xoma, and vrjjtei, 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have the plurals, after B X, Curss. Ath. Chrys. 
 Correctly. See Luke xii. 27. Likewise in ver. 32, where 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have !-/r/?jroDff/i>, the sing, is used to conform 
 with Luke xii. 30. Ver. 33. r. /3a<r. r. 6to\j x. r. otxa/off. 
 auroD] Lachm. : r. dixaioa. xal T^V /Saff/Xs/av aOroy, only after B. 
 In N, r. 6to\j is wanting ; and its omission, in which Tisch. 8 con- 
 curs, is favoured by the testimony of the reading in B. Several 
 Verss. and Fathers also leave out r. &oD, which, as being a 
 supplement, ought to be deleted. The testimony is decisive, 
 however, in favour of putting r. I3aff. first. Ver. 34. ra. eaurqs] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have merely saurqs, according to important 
 testimony. Correctly ; from the genitive not being understood, 
 it was attempted to explain it by means of ra, and in other 
 
 ways (tip! savr^g, tavrqv, saury). 
 
 Ver. 1. Connection : However (irpoae^ere Se, be upon your 
 guard), to those doctrines and prescriptions regarding the true 
 Siicaioa-vvr), I must add a warning with reference to the prac- 
 tice of it (iroieiv, 1 John iii. 7), This warning, stated in 
 general terms in ver. 1, is then specially applied in ver. 2 to 
 almsgiving, in ver. 5 to prayer, and in ver. 16 to fasting.
 
 200 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Accordingly Si/caiocrvvr) is righteousness generally (v. 6, 10, 20), 
 and not benevolence specially, which, besides, it never means, 
 not even in 2 Cor. ix. 10, any more than npnv (not even in 
 Prov. x. 2-, xi. 4 ; Dan. iv. 24), which in the LXX., and that 
 more frequently by way of interpretation, is rendered by 
 \T]fj,oavvii, in which the SiKaioa-vw) manifests itself by acts 
 of charity; comp. Tob. ii. 14, xii. 9. On et 8e /irfye, after 
 which we are here to supply Trpoae^ere rrjv Siicaiocrvv. v/ju. fj,rj 
 nroielv, etc., see on 2 Cor. xi. 16. pia-dov . . . ovpavols] 
 See on v. 12, 46. 
 
 Ver. 2-. M r) vdhTrla-rjff] do not sound a trumpet, meta- 
 phorically : make no noise and display until it (Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus). Comp. Achill. Tat. viii. 
 p. 507; Cic. ad Div. xvi. 2-1: " te buccinatorem fore exis- 
 timationis meae." Prudent, de Symmach. ii. 68. Here e/ivrp. 
 refers to> the idea of a person sounding a trumpet, which 
 he holds up to his mouth. Others (Calvin, Calovius, Wolf, 
 Paulus, also rives referred to by Euth. Zigabenus) render : 
 cause not a trumpet to be sounded before tJiee. They think that, 
 in order to make a display, the Pharisees had actually made 
 the poor assemble together by the blowing of trumpets. But 
 the expression- itself is as decidedly incompatible with this 
 extraordinary explanation as it is with the notion that what is 
 meant (Homberg, Schoettgen) is the sound produced by the 
 clinking of the money, dropped into the alleged trumpet-like 
 chests in the temple (see on Mark xii. 41), and this notwith- 
 standing that it is added, eV T. <rvvary. n. ev T. pi')/*. On the 
 injunction generally, eomp. Babyl. Chagig. f. v. 1 : " E. Jannai 
 vidit quendam nummum pauperi dantem palam ; cui dixit : 
 praestat non dtedisse, quam sic dedisse." In the synagogues it 
 was the practice to collect the alms on the Sabbath ; Lightfoot 
 and Wetstein on this passage. viroKptraC] in classical 
 writers means actors; in the New Testament, hypocrites. 
 " Hypocrisis est mixtura inalitiae cum specie bonitatis," Bengel. 
 aTre^ova-i . . . avTwii] inasmuch as they have already 
 attained what was the sole object of their liberality, popular 
 applause, and therefore have nothing more to expect, atre-^eiv, 
 to have obtained, to have fully received. See on Phil. iv. 18.
 
 CHAP. VI. 3-5. 201 
 
 Ver. 3. 2ov Be] in emphatic contrast to hypocrites. /U.T; 
 f) apiffrepd aov, /c.r.X] The right hand gives, let not 
 the left hand know it. Proverbial way of expressing entire 
 freedom from the claiming anything like self-laudation. For 
 sayings of a similar kind among the Fathers, see Suicer, Thes. 
 I. p. 508. De Wette, following Paulus, thinks that what is 
 referred to is the counting of the money into the left hand 
 before it is given away with the right. This is out of place, 
 for the warning is directed, not against a narrow calculating, 
 but against an ostentatious almsgiving. For the same reason 
 we must object to' the view of Luther, who says : " When you 
 are giving alms with the right hand, see that you are not 
 seeking to receive more with the left, but rather put it behind 
 your back," and so on,. 
 
 Ver. 4. 'O P\eirwv ev ro3 tcpwrrrat] who sees, i.e. knows 
 what goes on in secret, where He is equally present. Grotius 
 and Kuinoel arbitrarily take the words to be equivalent to ra 
 ev rc3 Kp. aw TO 5 a TTO Stooge* aoi] He Himself will reward 
 you, that is, at the Messianic judgment (i.e. ev TO> fyavepw, 
 2 Cor. v. 10); avro<j forms a contrast to the human rewards, 
 which the hypocrites, with their ostentatious ways of acting, 
 managed to secure in the shape of applause from, their fellow- 
 men, ver. 2. 
 
 Ver. 5. OVK ea-ea-de] See the critical remarks. The future, 
 as in v. 48. OTI] as in v. 45. <pi\ovcriv] tliey have 
 pleasure in it, they love to 'do it, a usage frequently met with 
 in classical writers (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 910 f.), though 
 in the New Testament occurring only here and in xxiii. 6 f. 
 eo-T cores] The Jew stood, while praying, with the face 
 turned toward the temple or the holy of holies, 1 Sam. i. 26 ; 
 1 Kings viii. 22; Mark xi. 25; Luke xviii. 11; Lightfoot, 
 p. 292 f. ; at other times, however, also in a kneeling posture, 
 or prostrate on the ground. Therefore the notion of fixi, immo- 
 biles (Maldonatus), is not implied in the simple eo-reSr., which, 
 however, forms a feature in the picture ; they love to stand 
 there and pray. ev rat? yovtais T. TT\.] not merely when 
 they happen to be surprised, or intentionally allow themselves 
 to be surprised (de Wette), by the hour for prayer, but also at
 
 202 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 other times besides the regular hours of devotion, turning the 
 most sacred duty of man into an occasion for hypocritical 
 ostentation. 
 
 Ver. 6. Tapeiov] any room in the interior of the house, as 
 opposed to the synagogues and the streets. We are there- 
 fore not to think exclusively of the closet in the strict 
 sense of the word, which was called inrepwov ; see note on 
 Acts i. 13. For the expression, comp. Isa. xxvi. 20 ; for 
 rafjuelov, conclave, see Xen. Hell. v. 4. 5 ; Matt. xxiv. 26 ; Sir. 
 xxix. 12; Tob. vii. 17. aTroSdxrei <roi\ for thy undemon- 
 strative piety. It is not public prayer in itself that Jesus con- 
 demns, but praying in an ostentatious manner ; rather than this, 
 He would have us betake ourselves .to a lonely room. Theophy- 
 lact : o T07T09 ov (SKdirrei,, dXA,' o T/JOTTO? ical 6 O7co7ro9. 
 
 Ver. 7. A e] indicating a transition to the consideration of 
 another abuse of prayer. f3arTo\oyelv] (Simplic. ad Epict. 
 p. 340) is not to be derived, with Suidas, Eustathius, Erasmus, 
 from some one of the name of Battus (passages in Wetstein), 
 who, according to Herod, v. 155, was in the habit of stammer- 
 ing, but, as already Hesychius correctly perceived (tcaTa pi^aiv 
 n)<? <jxovf)<i), is to be regarded as a case of onomatopoeia (comp. 
 jBarraXo? as a nickname of Demosthenes, ^arrapi^co, /Sarra- 
 pto-/i05, fiaTTapta-Tris), and means, properly speaking, to stammer, 
 then to prate, to babble, the same thing that is subsequently 
 called iro\v\oyia. B N have the form ySarraXo^ ; see 
 Tisch. 8. ol edvi/coi] Whose prayers, so wordy and full of 
 repetitions (hence, fatigare Deos\ were well known. Terent. 
 Heautont. v. i. 6 ff. In Eabbinical writers are found recom- 
 mendations sometimes of long, sometimes of short, prayers 
 (Wetstein). For an example of a Battological Jewish prayer, 
 see Schoettgen, p. 58 f., comp. Matt, xxiii. 15 ; and for dis- 
 approval of long prayers, see Eecles. v. 1, Sir. vii. 14. ev 
 T7) 7ro\v\oyia avr&v] in consequence of their much speaking ; 
 they imagine that this is the cause of their being heard. As 
 to the thing, consider the words of Augustine : " Absit ab 
 oratione multa locutio, sed non desit multa precatio, si fervens 
 perseveret intentio ; " the former, he adds, is " rem necessariam 
 superfluis agere verbis," but the multum precari is : " ad eum,
 
 CHAP. VI. 8, 9. 203 
 
 quern precamur, diuturna et pia cordis excitatione pulsare " 
 (Ep. 130. 20, adprobam). 
 
 Ver. 8. Ovv] seeing that you are expected to shun heathen 
 error. olSe yap, /c.r.X] so that, this being the case, that 
 (3aTTo\oyeiv is superfluous. 
 
 Ver. 9. " Having now rebuked and condemned such false 
 and meaningless prayer, Christ goes on to prescribe a short, 
 neat form of His own to show us how we axe to pray, and 
 what we are to pray for," Luther. The emphasis is, in the 
 first place, on oi/T<9, and then on vftek, the latter in contrast 
 to the heathen, the former to the /SarroXoyeiy ; while ovv is 
 equivalent to saying, " inasmuch as ye ought not to be like 
 the heathen when they pray." Therefore, judging from the 
 context, Christ intends ourw? .to point to the prayer which 
 follows as an example of one that is free from vain repetitions, 
 as an example of what a prayer ought to be in respect of its 
 form and contents if the fault in question is to be entirely 
 avoided, not as a direct prescribed pattern (comp. Tholuck), 
 excluding other ways of expressing ourselves in prayer. The 
 interpretation, " in hunc sensum " (Grotius), is at variance with 
 the context ; but that of Fritzsche (in some 'brief way such as 
 this) is not " very meaningless " (de Wette), but correct, 
 meaning as he does, not brevity in itself, but in its relation to 
 the contents (for comprehensive brevity is the opposite of the 
 vain repetitions). On the Lord's Prayer, which now follows, 
 see Kamphausen, d. Gebet d. Herrn, 1866 ; J. Hanne, in d. 
 Jahrb. f.D. Th. 1866, p. 507 ff.; and in Schenkel's Bibellex. 
 II. p. 346 ff. According to Luke xi. l,the same prayer, though 
 in a somewhat shorter form, was given on a different occasion. 
 In regard to this difference of position, it may be noted: (1) 
 That the prayer cannot have been given on both occasions, and 
 so given twice (as I formerly believed) ; for if Jesus has 
 taught His disciples the use of it as early as the time of the 
 Sermon on the Mount, it follows that their request in Luke 
 xi. 1 is unhistorical ; but if, on the contrary, the latter is 
 historical, then it is impossible that the Lord's Prayer can 
 have been known in the circle of the disciples from the date 
 of the Sermon on the Mount. (2) That the characteristic
 
 204 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 brevity of Luke's version, as compared with the fulness of 
 that of Matthew, tells in favour of Luke's originality ; but, 
 besides this, there is the fact that the historical basis on which 
 Luke's version is founded leaves no room whatever to suspect 
 that legendary influences have been at work in its formation, 
 while it is perfectly conceivable that the author of our version 
 of Matthew, when he came to that part of the Sermon on the 
 Mount where warnings- are directed against meaningless repe- 
 titions in prayer, took occasion also to put this existing model 
 prayer into our Lord's mouth. Schleiermacher, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Sieffert, Olshausen, Neander, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, 
 Holtzmann, Weiss, Weizsacker, Schenkel, Hanne, Kamphausen, 
 also rightly declare themselves against the position of the 
 prayer in Matthew as unhistorical. The material superiority 
 of Matthew's version (see especially Keim) remains unaffected 
 by this verdict. On the Marcionitic form, especially in the 
 first petition, and on the priority of the same as maintained 
 by Hilgenfeld, Zeller, Volkmar, see the critical notes on Luke 
 xi. 24. Trdrep rjfiwv] This form of address, which rarely 
 occurs in the O. T. (Isa. Ixiii. 1 6 ; Deut. xxxii. 6 : in the 
 Apocrypha, in Wisd. ii. 16, xiv. 3; Sir. xxiii. 1, li. 10; 
 Tob. xiii. 4 ; 3 Mace. vL 3), but which is constantly em- 
 ployed in the N. T. in accordance with the example of Jesus, 
 who exalted it even into the name for God (Mark xiv. 36 ; 
 Weisse, Evangdienfr. p. 200 ff.), brings the petitioner at once 
 into an attitude of perfect confidence in the divine love ; 
 " God seeks to entice us with it," and so on, Luther. 1 But 
 the consciousness of our standing as children in the full and 
 specially Christian sense (eomp. on v. 9), it was not possible 
 perfectly to express in this address till a later time, seeing 
 that the relation in question was only to be re-established by 
 the atoning death. o iv rots ovpavois] distinguishes Him 
 who is adored in the character of Father as the true God, but 
 the symbolical explanations that have been given are of an 
 
 1 In his translation, Luther renders it here and in Luke xi. 2 by unser Vater ; 
 in the Catechism and manuals of prayer and baptism, Vater unser, after the 
 Latin Pater noster. See Rienecker in d. Stud. u. Krlt. 1837, p. 323 f. Kamp- 
 hausen, p. 30 f.
 
 CHAP. VI. 9. 205 
 
 arbitrary character (Kuinoel, " Deus optime maxime, benignis- 
 sime et potentissime;" de Wette, " the elevation of God above 
 the world ;" Baumgarten-Crusius, " God who exists for all 
 men ;" Hanne, " Father of all "). Surely such a line of inter- 
 pretation ought to have been precluded by ver. 10, as well as by 
 the doctrine which teaches that Christ has come from heaven 
 from the Father, that He has returned to heaven to the right 
 hand of the Father, and that He will return again in majesty 
 from heaven. The only true God, though everywhere present 
 (2 Chron. ii. 6), nevertheless has his special abode in heaven ; 
 heaven is specially the place where He dwells in majesty, and 
 ivhere the throne of His glory is set (Isa. Ixvi. 1 ; Ps. ii. 4, 
 cii. 19, cxv. 3; Job xxii. 12ff.; Acts vii. 55, 56; 1 Tim. 
 vi. 16), from which, too, the Spirit of God (iii. 16 ; Acts ii.), 
 the voice of God (iii. 17 ; John xii. 28), and the angels of God 
 (John i. 52) come down. Upon the idea of God's dwelling- 
 place is based that very common Jewish invocation D'wai? u*3K 
 (Lightfoot, p. 229), just as it may be affirmed in a general 
 way that (comp. the #eot ovpaviwves of Homer) " Traj/re? rov 
 av&Tarco T&> 0LO) TOTTOv aTToSiSoaat," Aristot. de Coelo, i. 3. 
 Comp. generally, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nov. Opusc. p. 2 1 8 ff. 
 Augustine, Ep. 187. 16, correctly thinks there may be an 
 allusion to the heavenly temple, " ubi est populus angeloruni, 
 quibus aggregandi et coaequandi sumus, cum finita peregrina- 
 tione quod promissum est suniserimus." On heaven as a 
 plural (in answer to Kamphausen), comp. note on 2 Cor. xii. 2 ; 
 Eph. iv. 10. aryiacr6r)Ta>] Chrysost, Euth. Zigabenus, 
 &o%aa-6iJT(o ; more precisely, let it be kept sacred (Ex. xx. 8 ; 
 Isa. xxix. 23). God's name is, no doubt, "holy in itself" 
 (Luther), objectively and absolutely so ; but this holiness must 
 be asserted and displayed in the whole being and character of 
 believers (" ut non existiment aliquid sanctum, quod magis 
 offendere timeant," Augustine), inwardly and outwardly, so 
 that disposition, word, and deed are regulated by the acknow- 
 ledged perfection of God, and brought into harmony with it. 
 Exactly as in the case of Vfaty, Lev. x. 3, xxii. 2, 32 ; Ezek. 
 xxviii. 22, xxxviii. 23; Num. xx. 13; Sir. xxxiii. 4; 1 Pet. 
 iii. 15. TO ovopd <rov] Everything which, in its distinctive
 
 206 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 conception, Thy name embraces and expresses, numen tuum, 
 Thy entire perfection, as the object revealed to the believer 
 for his apprehension, confession, and worship. So rrirp DB>, 
 Ps. v. 12, ix. 1.1; Isa. xxix. 23; Ezek. xxxvi. 23; and 
 frequently also in the Apocrypha. Everything impure, repug- 
 nant to the nature of God, is a profanation, a /Se/S^XoOz/ TO 
 ovofj,a TO aytov (Lev. xviii. 21). Observe once more that the 
 three imperatives in w. 9, 10 are not meant to express the 
 idea of a resolution and a vow (Hanne, comp. Weizsacker), 
 which is opposed to Trpoarev^ea-de, but they are al-rrj^aTa 
 (Phil. iv. 6), supplications and desires, as in xxvi. 39, 42. 
 
 Ver. 10. 1 'EX0eT&>, /e.r.X.] Let the kingdom of the Messiah 
 appear. This was likewise a leading point in the prayers of 
 the Jews, especially in the Kaddisch, which had been in 
 regular use since the captivity, and which contained the 
 words, Eegnet tuum regnum ; redemptio mox veniat. Hence the 
 canon, nra ru' rvota m jw na-a ba. Bab. Berac. f. 40. 2. 
 Here, likewise, the kingdom of God is no other than the king- 
 dom of the Messiah, the advent of which was the supreme 
 object of pious longing (Luke ii. 25, xvii. 20 ; Mark xv. 43 ; 
 Luke xxii. 18, xxiii. 51 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8). This view of the 
 kingdom and its coming, as the winding up of the world's 
 history, a view which was also shared by the principal Fathers 
 (Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Euth. Zigabenus), is the 
 only one which corresponds with the historical conception of 
 the /SaatXeta T. 6eov throughout the whole of the N. T. ; comp. 
 on iii. 2, the kingdom comes with the Messiah who comes to 
 establish it; Mark xi. 9, 10; Luke xxiii. 42. The ethical 
 development (xiii. 31 ff., xxiv. 14 ; comp. on iii. 2, v. 3 ff., 48 ; 
 also on Acts iii. 21), which necessarily precedes the advent of 
 the kingdom (Luke xix. 11) and prepares the way for it, and 
 with which the diffusion of Christianity is bound up, xxviii. 1 9 
 (Grotius, Kuinoel), 'forms the essential condition of that advent, 
 and through eXflereo, /e.r.X., is thus far indirectly (as the means 
 toward the wished-for end) included in the petition, though 
 
 1 On the inverted order of the second and third petition in Tertullian, see 
 Nitzsch in the Stud, u, Krit. 1830, p. 846 ff. This transposition appeared more 
 logical and more historical.
 
 CHAP. VI. 11. 207 
 
 not expressly mentioned in so many words, so that we are not 
 called upon either to substitute for the concrete conception of 
 the future kingdom (Luke xxii. 18) one of an ethical, of a 
 more or less rationalistic character (Jerome, Origen, Wetstein : 
 of the moral sway of Christianity ; Baumgarten-Crusius : the 
 development of the cause of God among men), or immediately 
 to associate them together. This in answer also to Luther 
 (" God's kingdom comes first of all in time and here below 
 through God's word and faith, and then hereafter in eternity 
 through the revelation of Christ"), Melanchthon, Calvin, de 
 Wette, Tholuck, " the kingdom of God typified in Israel, coming 
 in its reality in Christ, and ever more and more perfected by 
 Him as time goes on;" comp. Bleek. yevr)0ijTca>, /e.r.X] 
 May Thy will (vii. 21; 1 Thess. iv. 3) be done, as by the angels 
 (Ps. ciii. 21), so also by men. This is the practical moral 
 necessity in the life of believers, which, with its ideal re- 
 quirements, is to determine and regulate that life until the 
 fulfilment of the second petition shall have been accomplished. 
 " Thus it is that the third petition, descending into the depths 
 of man's present condition and circumstances, damps the glow 
 of the second," Ewald. " Coelum norma est terrae, in qua 
 aliter alia fiunt omnia," Bengel. Accordingly the will of God 
 here meant is not necessarily the voluntas decernens (Beza), 
 but praecipiens, which is fulfilled by the good angels of heaven. 
 This petition, which is omitted in Luke, is not to be taken 
 merely as an explanation (Kamphausen) of the one which 
 precedes it, nor as tautological (Hanne), but as exhibiting to 
 the petitioner for the kingdom the full extent of moral require- 
 ment, without complying with which it is impossible to be 
 admitted into the kingdom when it actually comes. As, 
 according to ver. 33, the Christian is called upon to strive 
 after the kingdom and the righteousness of God; so here, 
 after the petition for the coming of the kingdom, it is asked 
 that righteousness, which is the thing that God wills, may be 
 realized upon the earth. 
 
 Ver. 11. Tbv dprov] same as DH?, victus ; Gen. xviii. 5; 
 Prov. xxx. 8 ; 2 Thess. iii. 12 ; Sir. x. 26 ; Wisd. xvi. 20. 
 rbv eirioiHriov] occurring nowhere else in the Greek language
 
 208 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 but here and in Luke xi. 3. See Origen, de Oral. 27 : eot*re 
 ire7r\acf6ai VTTO rwv evay<ye\t<TTQ)v. It is possible that it may 
 be derived from ovcria, and accordingly the phrase has been 
 supposed to mean : the food necessary for subsistence, ^n Dr6, 
 Prov. xxx. 8. So Syr., Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Euth. Zigabenus, Etym. M. ; Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Tho- 
 luck, Ewald (de Wette undecided), Arnoldi, Bleek, Weizsacker, 
 Keim, Hanne, and probably this explanation has also given 
 rise to the rendering "daily bread" (It., iChrysostom, Luther), 
 e</7/A609, Jas. ii. 15; comp. Victorinus, <c. Ar, ii. p. 273, 
 Augustine. But ova La does not mean subsistence (o-uarrao-t?), 
 but (Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 491 f.) essence, as also reality, and, 
 finally, possessions, res familiaris, in which sense also it is to 
 be taken in Soph. Track. 907 (911), where the words ra? 
 amuSa<? ovarias denote a home without .children. In deriv- 
 ing the expression, therefore, from ovvia, the idea of necessary 
 food * must be brought out in a very indirect way (as Gregory 
 of Nyssa : that which is requisite or sufficient for the support 
 of the body ; comp. Chrysostom, Tholuck, Hitzig). Again, if 
 the word were to be derived from ova-la (elvai), it would have 
 to be spelt, not eVtoyo-io?, but eirov<rio<s, in a way analogous to 
 the forms eirovaia, overplus, eVoyo-toiS^?, non-essential, which 
 come from elvai. Forms in which there is either a different 
 preposition (such as Trepiovcnos], or in which the derivation 
 has no connection with elvai, (as eViop/cetv), have been brought 
 forward without any reason with a view to support the above 
 ordinary explanation. After all this we must, for reasons 
 derived from grammatical .considerations (in answer to Leo 
 
 1 To this amounts also the view of Leo Meyer in Kuhn's Zeitschr. f. vergleich. 
 Sprachforsch. VII. 6, p. 401 ff., who, however, regards the word as expressing 
 adjectively the idea of the aim involved in the l-ri : "what If! is." In this 
 Kamphauseu substantially concurs. The word is said to be derived from 
 irt7nti : "belonging to," in which the idea of being "sufficient" or necessary is 
 understood to be implied. But in that case we should also have expected to 
 find imvirios, and besides, \vtlim certainly does not mean to belong to, but to be 
 by, also to be standing over, to impend, and so on. This explanation of inovim; 
 is an erroneous etymological conjecture. Bengel very properly observes : " / 
 non semper quidem in compositione ante vocalem amittit, sed amittit tamen in 
 ix-nrnr." [See Lightfoot, A Fresh Revision of the, English New Testament, 
 Appendix on the words \-rnut us, nfiavrnf. ED.]
 
 CHAP. VI. 11. 209 
 
 Meyer, Weizsacker, Kamphausen, Keim), prefer the other 
 possible derivation from r) cTrtova-a (therefore from eirievai), 
 dies crastinus (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 464; Prov. xxvii. 1), 
 which is already expressly given by Ambrose, lib. v. de sacram. 
 4. 24, and according to which we should have to interpret the 
 words as meaning to-morrow's bread. 1 So Ar., Aeth., Copt, 
 Sahid., Erasmus, Annot., Scaliger, Salmasius, Grotius, Wolf, 
 Bengel, Wetstein, Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 190, and V; also 
 Winer, p. 92 [E. T. 120], Fritzsche, Kauffer, Scliegg, D61- 
 linger, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Schenkel, Wittichen. This 
 explanation, furnished historically by the Gospel according to 
 the Hebrews, where Jerome found "ino, is recommended in the 
 context by the o-rfpepov, which, besides, has no correlative, nor 
 is it incompatible with ver. 34, where the taking no thought 
 for to-morrow does not exclude, but rather presupposes (1 Pet. 
 v. 7), the asking for to-morrow's bread, while, moreover, this 
 request is quite justified as a matter of prayer, considering how 
 certain is the uncertainty of life's duration. The granting 
 to-day of to-morrow's bread is, accordingly, the narrow limit 
 which Christ here assigns to prayers for earthly objects, a 
 limit not open to the charge of want of modesty (Keim), inas- 
 much as it is fixed only at de die in diem. Of late, Olshausen 
 and Delitzsch ("the bread necessary for man's spiritual and 
 physical life") have again adopted, at least along with the 
 other view, the erroneous explanation, exegetically inconsis- 
 tent with a-rifMepov, but originating in a supposed perverse 
 asceticism, and favoured by the tendency to mystical interpre- 
 tation generally, no less than by the early (Irenaeus, Haer. 
 iv. 18) reference to the Lord's Supper in particular, the 
 explanation, namely, that what is here meant is supernatural? 
 
 1 Not what is necessary for the next meal (Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, 
 p. 238). Baumgarten-Crusius, correctly, "to-day, what we need for to- 
 morrow." On rripifov was founded the very ancient (Constitutt. apost. vii. 24. 
 1 f., Tertullian, Cyprian) daily use of the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 2 The expression was derived partly from l-nuv (as Ambrose) the bread of 
 the world to come (so again Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 201) ; partly from <, 
 in which case it was interpreted to mean : the bread requisite for the life of the 
 soul ; or, as though it were irtfivfios : panis supersubstantialis ; as in the Vulg. 
 and Jerome ("super omnes substantias"). Melanchthon fully and pointedly 
 
 MATT.
 
 210 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 heavenly food (John vi.), as, indeed, many Fathers (Cyprian and 
 Jerome) and older expositors understood loth kinds of bread to 
 be included 
 
 Ver. 12. f /2? Ka\ ^et9, /c.r.X.] does not indicate the extent 
 (Chrysostom, Baumgarten-Crusius) to which forgiveness is 
 asked from God, which is not in harmony with the tone of 
 the prayer ; rather is o>? the as which assigns the reason as 
 well as makes the comparison, doubtless not as being directly 
 equivalent to nam (Fritzsche)j but it expresses the existence 
 of a frame of mind on the part of the petitioner corresponding 
 to the divine forgiveness : s then, we also, and so on. See 
 on John xiii. 34 ; Schaeffer, ad Dem, V. p. 108; Hartuug, 
 Partikell. I. p. 46 ; Klotz, -ad JDevar. p. 766; comp. Luke 
 xi. 4. Yet not as though human forgiveness can be supposed 
 to merit the divine pardon, but the former is the necessary 
 moral " requisitum subjecti " (Calovius) in him who seeks for- 
 giveness from God. Oomp. xviii. 21 ff. . ; Apol. Conf. A. 
 p. 115 f . ; Cat. maj. p. 528; Kamphausen, p. 113. 
 d^^Ka/jLev] see the critical remarks. Jesus justly pre- 
 supposes that the believer who asks from God the remission of 
 his own debts has already forgiven (Sir. xxviii. 2 ; Mark xi. 25) 
 those who are indebted to him that, according to Luke, he 
 does it at the same time. 
 
 Ver. 13. After the petition for forgiveness of sin, comes 
 now the request to be preserved from new sin, negatively and 
 positively, so that both elements constitute but one peti- 
 tion. Luke makes no mention whatever of the d\\a pvaai, 
 etc. pr) ela-eveyfcys, #:T.X.] Neither the idea of mere per- 
 mission (p/rj frapa^wprjay^ elcreve^Bfjvai, Euth. Zigabenus, Ter- 
 tullian, Melanchthon), nor the emphatic meanings which have 
 been given, first to the elcrevej/cr)^ (fj,rj KaTaTroOfjvai viro TOV 
 ireipaa-fjiov, Theophylact), then to the 7retpao-/i05 (Jerome, in 
 Ezek. xlviii. : " in tentationem, quam ferre non possumus "), and 
 lastly, to the a? (Grotius: " penitus introducere, ut ei suc- 
 
 expresses his opposition to the view of heavenly bread, when he says: "Its 
 advocates are deficient in eruditio et spirituale judicium." However, it is 
 likewise found in Erasmus' Paraphr.; but Calvin pronounces : "prorstis 
 absurdum est."
 
 CHAP. VI. 13. 211 
 
 cumbas "), are in keeping with the simple terms employed ; 
 such interpretations are rationalistic in their character, as is 
 also, once more, the case with Kamphausen's limitation to 
 temptations with an evil result. God leads into temptation in 
 so far as, in the course of His administration, He brings about 
 a state of things that may lead to temptation, i.e. the situations 
 and circumstances that furnish an occasion for sinning ; and 
 therefore, if a man happens to encounter such dangers to his 
 soul, it is caused ty God it is He who does it (1 Cor. x. 13). 
 In this way is solved, at the same time, the apparent contra- 
 diction with Jas. i 13, where it is a question of subjective 
 inward temptation, the active principle of which is, not God, 
 but the man's own lusts. 1 In these latter are also to be found, 
 in the case of the believer, and that in consequence of his 
 adpj; (xxvi 41; Gal. v. 17), the great moral danger which 
 renders this prayer a matter of necessity. d\\a pvcrat, 
 ri/j,a<; d'rro TOV irovripov] Rom. xv. 31; 1 Thess. i. 10; 
 2 Thess. iii. 2 ; 2 Tim. iv. 18. But TOV Trovtjpov may be 
 neuter (Augustine, Luther, see, however, Cateeh. maj. p. 532 f., 
 Tholnck, Ewald, Lange, Bleek, Kamphausen) as well as 
 masculine (Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Eras- 
 mus, Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Qlshausen, Ebrard, 
 Keim, Hilgenfeld, Hanne). In the former case, it would not 
 mean " evil " in general (" omne id, quod felicitati nostrae 
 adversum est," Olearius), but, according to the New Testament 
 use of Trovrjpos, as well as the context, moral wickedness, Eom. 
 xii. 9. However, it is more in keeping with the concrete 
 graphic manner of view of the New Testament (v. 37, xiii. 19 ; 
 John xvii. 15 ; 1 John ii. 13, iii. 8, 12 ; Eom. XVL 20 ; Eph. 
 vi. 1 6 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3), to prefer the masculine as meaning 
 the devil (/car' efo^;j/i/ Be OUTO? e'/eetvo? KaXetrai, Chrysostom), 
 whose seductive influence, even over believers, is presupposed 
 in the seventh petition, which also supplicates divine deliver- 
 ance from this danger, by which they know themselves to be 
 threatened (CLTTO: away, from; not etc, as in Eom. vii. 24; 
 2 Cor. i. 10 ; Col. i. 13 ; 2 Tim. iii. 11, iv. 17 ; 2 Pet. ii. 9). 
 Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 447 ; Krummacher in the Stud. 
 1 Comp. Koster, bibl. Lehre v. d. Versuch, p. 19 f.
 
 212 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 u. Krit. 1860, p. 122 ff. For an opposite view of a by no 
 means convincing kind, see Kamphausen, p. 136 ff. 
 
 KEMA.KKS. The Lord's Prayer, as it stands in Matthew, is an 
 example of a prayer rich and true in respect of its contents, and 
 expressed in language at once brief and comprehensive ; see on 
 ver. 9. It is only in an indirect way that it presents itself in the 
 light of a summary of the principal matters for which one is to 
 pray (Nosselt, Exercitatt. sacr. p. 2 ff., Kuinoel, de Wette), inas- 
 much as Jesus, as matter of course, selected and connected with 
 each other such leading requests as were appropriate to the 
 solemn period when the establishment of His kingdom was at 
 hand, that, by setting before us a prayer of so comprehensive a 
 character, He might render the model thus supplied all the more 
 instructive. Tertullian, indeed, correctly describes the contents 
 of it as breviarium totius evangelii. According to Moller (neue 
 Ansichten, p. 34 ff.) and Augusti (Denkwurdigk. IV. p. 132), the 
 prayer before us is made up merely of the opening words of 
 well-known Jewish prayers, which Jesus is supposed to have 
 selected from the mass of Jewish forms of devotion as being 
 eminently adapted for the use of His disciples. Wetstein 
 already was of opinion that it was " ex formulis Hebraeorum 
 concinnata" But between the whole of the parallels (Light- 
 foot, Schoettgen, Wetstein), not even excepting those taken 
 from the synagogal prayer Kaddisch, there is only a partial 
 correspondence, especially in the case of the first and second 
 petitions ; but lively ecJwes of familiar prayers would so naturally 
 suggest themselves to our Lord, and any reason for rejecting 
 them was so entirely wanting, that the absence of such popu- 
 larly consecrated echoes, extending to the very words, would 
 even have been matter for surprise. Augustine divides the 
 contents into seven petitions ; and in this he is followed by the 
 Lutheran practice, as also by Tholuck, Bleek, Hilgenfeld. On 
 the other hand, Origen and Chrysostom correctly make six, in 
 which they are followed by the practice of the Eeformed church 
 in the catechisms of Geneva and of the Palatinate, as also by 
 Calvin, Keim. As to the division of the prayer in respect of form, 
 it is sufficient to observe, with Ben gel: "Petita sunt septem, quae 
 universa dividuntur in duas partes. Prior continet tria priora, 
 Patrem spectantia : tuum, tuum, tua ; posterior quatuor reliqua, 
 nos spectantia." According to Calvin, the fourth petition is the 
 beginning of " quasi secunda tabula " of the prayer. In. regard 
 to the matter, the twofold division into coelestia and terrena, 
 which has been in vogue since Tertullian's time, is substantially
 
 CHAP. VI. 11-16. 213 
 
 correct ; and in the more detailed representation of which there 
 follows after the upward flight towards what is of highest and 
 holiest interest for believers, and the specific nature of which, 
 with the aim for which it longs, and its moral condition, floats 
 before the praying spirit a humble frame of spirit, produced 
 by the consciousness of man's need of God's favour, first in 
 the temporal and then in the moral sphere, in which the realiza- 
 tion of that with which the prayer begins can be brought about 
 only through forgiveness, divine guidance, and deliverance from 
 the power of the devil The division into vows and petitions 
 (Hanne) is inaccurate ; see on ver. 9. 
 
 Ver. 14 f. Tap] points back to ver. 12, the subject of 
 which is now further discussed. a^^o-et] like the pre- 
 ceding d(J3rJTe, placed first to render it emphatic. For the 
 thought, the fundamental basis of which was stated in ver. 
 44 ff., comp. Sir. xxviii. 2 ff. 
 
 Ver. 16. Je] indicating a transition from the subject of 
 prayer to another kindred subject. vy a- reu^re] here with 
 reference to private fasting, which depended on the inclination 
 of the individual (Ewald, Alterth. p. 110), though regularly 
 observed by the Pharisees on Thursday (when Moses is sup- 
 posed to have ascended Mount Sinai) and on Monday (when 
 he is believed to have come down again), but never on the 
 Sabbath and festival days, except at the feast of Purim. 
 Mourning attire was worn during the fasting. Isa. Iviii. 5, 
 Ixi. 3 ; Joel ii. 12 ; Zech. vii. 3 ; Dan. x. 3 ; 2 Sam. xii. 20, 
 xiii. 19; 1 Mace. iii. 47. a-tcvdpcoirol] common in the 
 classics ; " plerumque in vitio ponitur et notat hominem non 
 solum tristem et tetricum vultum habentem, sed fingentem 
 vel augentem," Bremi, ad Aeschin. adv. Ctesiph. p. 290 f. 
 a<l>avl%ov(Ti\ is a play upon the word in allusion to tyavwcri. 
 They conceal their countenances with a view to their " being 
 seen of" and so on. This is intended to indicate how, partly 
 by sprinkling themselves with ashes, and by the dirt on the 
 unwashed face and beard, and partly by actual veiling of 
 themselves (2 Sam. xv. 30 ; Esth. vi. 12), they contrive to 
 prevent it being seen what their countenance is really like. 
 It should be observed, however, that dfavl&iv does not mean 
 to disfigure, but, even in passages like the one quoted from
 
 214 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Stob. Serm. 74, 62, with reference to a painted woman, it 
 denotes to make invisible, e conspectu submovere. The Vulgate 
 correctly renders by exterminant, i.e. e conspectu removent. 
 Beck, Anecd. p. 468, 25 : oX&>? TO ave\eiv KOI d<f>ave<} Troifjo-at, 
 oTrep etcaXovv durr&ffa^ Hence in Greek writers it is often 
 associated with Kpinrreuv. 
 
 Ver. 17. Dress thyself as if to go to a festive entertain- 
 ment. Ps. xxiii. 5 ; Luke vii. 46 ; Suicer, TJies. I. p. 185 ; 
 Wetstein. Of course- Jesus does not intend the anointing, 
 and so on, to be taken literally ; but under this form of require- 
 ment He expresses the sincerity which He desires in connec- 
 tion with the of itself voluntary practice of fasting. Comp. 
 Chrysostom. The form is one that is- suited to an attitude of 
 radical opposition to Jewish formalism. Luther : " If thou 
 so fastest between thyself and thy Father alone, thou hast 
 rightly fasted in that it pleases Him ; yet not as if one must 
 not go on a fast-day with few clothes, or unwashed, but the 
 additional ceremony is rejected, because it is observed for the 
 sake of applause, and to hoodwink people with such singular 
 demeanour." 
 
 Ver. 18. Tw ev TO> Kpvfyaiai} sc. OVTI, i.e. who is present 
 where we are hidden from human eye. He who fasts is eV TO> 
 icpvfyaiw everywhere, when he is present as anointed and 
 washed, for in this state of his person no one will be able to 
 recognise him as fasting. In accordance with this, we are 
 bound to reject the explanation of Fritzsche, who supplies 
 vqa-Teveiv (" eo quod clam inediam in te suscipias"\ which, 
 however, is far-fetched, and introduces a superfluous meaning, 
 besides being inconsistent with ver. 6. aTroScoo-t c-oi] not 
 the fasting by itself, but the sincerely penitent and humble 
 frame of mind, which seeks to express itself in that devout 
 fasting which is free from everything like pretence and osten- 
 tation ; there is therefore no satisfactory reason for expunging 
 vv. 1618 (as also w. 16) from the Sermon on the Mount 
 (Wittichen, Idee des Menschen, p. 100). 
 
 Vv. 19-34. Comp. Luke xii. 33 f. r xi. 34 ff., xii. 22 ff. 
 The theme stated in ver. 1 is still pursued, and, without any 
 formal indication of a transition, a new and essential point in
 
 CHAP. VI. 19, 20. 215 
 
 the discourse is here introduced, viz. care, about earthly things, 
 which is treated (1) as striving after wealth, vv. 1924, and 
 (2) as care for food and raiment, vv. 25-35. To give up the 
 idea of a fixed plan from this point onwards (de Wette), and 
 especially to regard vv. 19-34 as an irrelevant interpolation 
 (Neander, Bleek, Weiss), is quite unwarranted, for we must 
 not lose sight of the fact that the discourse was intended not 
 merely for the disciples, but for the people as well (vii. 28). 
 The unity of the Sermon on the Mount is not that of a sermon 
 in our sense of the word ; but the internal connection of the 
 thought in ver. 19 ff. with what goes before lies in the airo- 
 Soicrefc a-oi just mentioned, and the object belonging to which 
 is, in fact, the heavenly treasures. 
 
 Ver. 19. Oija-avpoixi] Treasures. To understand par- 
 ticular kinds of them, either stores of corn, or costly raiment, 
 or gold and silver, is a mistake, for the special treasure meant 
 would also require to have been specially indicated. fipaHris] 
 eating, corroding in general. Any further defining of the 
 matter, whether with the Vulgate and Luther we understand 
 rust (Jas. v. 2, 3) or weevils (Clericus, Kuinoel, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius) to be meant, is arbitrary, as is also the assumption 
 of a ev Sia Svoiv for 0-7)5 fipaxncovcra (Casaubon in Wolf). 
 dtfravi^ei] causes to disappear, annihilates. Comp. note on 
 ver. 1 6. On OTTOV (upon earth) Bengel correctly observes : 
 " Habet vim aetiologiae." The thieves dig through (the wall, 
 comp. Dem. 787. 13, 1268. 12 ; Job xxiv. 16 ; Ezek. xii. 5) 
 and steal. 
 
 Ver. 20. 'Ev ovpav\ belongs to Grjaavpi^ere. By what 
 means is this done ? By everything which the Lord has 
 hitherto been insisting upon from ver. 3 onwards as the con- 
 dition on which those who believe in Him are to obtain 
 eternal salvation, and which therefore constitutes the sum and 
 substance of the Si/caioa-vvri that comes through faith in Him. 
 In this way, and not specially by almsgiving, xix. 21, which, 
 according to v. 7, vi. 3, is here only included along with other 
 matters (in answer to Chrysostom), do men gather treasures 
 (the Messianic felicity) for themselves, which are reserved for 
 us with God in heaven until the establishment of the Messiah's
 
 21G THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 kingdom, in which their bestowal is then to take place. Comp. 
 on v. 12. 
 
 Ver. 21. For (deep moral obligation to comply with that 
 exhortation) if the treasure which you have gathered is upon 
 earth, so will your heart, with its feelings, dispositions, and 
 tendencies, be also upon the earth as in the congenial sphere 
 of your inner life, will be ethically bound to the earth, and 
 vice versa. From the treasure, which is the result of effort 
 and the object of love, the heart also cannot be separated. In 
 the ground of obligation just stated it is assumed that the 
 believer's heart must be in heaven (Phil. iii. 3 ; Col. iii. 2 ff. ; 
 2 Cor. iv. 17; 1 John ii. 15 ff.). 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. Connection: In order to fulfil the duty men- 
 tioned in vv. 19, 20, and warranted by what is said in ver. 
 21, you must not allow the light within you, i.e. the reason 
 (6 1/01)9, Chrysostoin), which apprehends divine truth, to be- 
 come obscured, i.e. it must be preserved in that state of normal 
 action in which error and moral evil find no place. The 
 obscuring of this faculty of thought and volition, by which the 
 divine is perceived and morally assimilated, imparts a wrong 
 tendency and complexion to the entire life of the individual 
 man. Comp. Luther : " This is a warning not to allow our- 
 selves to be taken in by fair colours and outward appearance, 
 with which avarice may trick itself out and conceal the knave." 
 The supposition that ver. 22 f. originally stood immediately 
 behind v. 16 (Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 129) is therefore without 
 sufficient logical warrant, and Luke xi. 33-36 may be a later 
 digest of similar import. Observe, moreover, that nothing is 
 said here about the capability of the natural reason, purely as 
 such, to apprehend the divine by its own unaided efforts ; for 
 Jesus has in view those who are believers, whose 1/01)9 is already 
 under the influence of the divine truth which He has revealed 
 to them (Eph. i. 18; Eom. xxii. 2). However, the subjective 
 meaning of o$0aX/i09 and <&>9 must be preserved intact, nor is 
 0o>9 to be understood, with Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 320, 
 as referring to the holy nature of God, which seeks to illuminate 
 the hearts of men. 6 \v%vo<} rov <7&>//,aT09 ecrrtv 6 6<f)0a\- 
 /to 9] for without the eye the body is in darkness ; the blind man
 
 CHAP. VI. 22, 23. 217 
 
 is without light, which comes through the medium of the eye 
 as though it were a lamp. The subject is not 6 6<#aX/zo9 
 (Luther, Bengel), but 6 Xi/^z/o? rov o-eo/i., to which corresponds 
 TO <(U9 TO ei> trot, the subject in the application of the illustra- 
 tion. aTrXoC? and irovripo^ are mostly understood in the sense 
 of: healthy (which many have defined more precisely as the 
 opposite of double-sight), and damaged. But usage is in favour 
 only of irowrjpos being employed in this sense (see Kypke ; 
 comp. Plat. Hipp. min. p. 374 D: irovrjpia 6<f>da\fj,a)v, also 
 the German expression " lose Augen"), but not duXou?, which 
 means only integer in the moral sense of the word. Comp. 
 Test. XII. pair. p. 624: aTrXoV-?;? ofyOakpwv, as meaning the 
 opposite of the dishonest, hypocritical cast of the eye. Con- 
 sequently the above meaning is contrary to usage, and both 
 words must be understood in their moral signification, so that 
 Jesus has selected the predicates in His illustration in view of 
 the state of things to which the illustration refers, and in which 
 the darkness of the vovs is the result of the evil will resisting 
 divine truth (Eom. i. 21). Therefore: if thine eye is honest, 
 i.e. if it honestly does its duty, and : if it is good for nothing, i.e. 
 if it maliciously refuses to perform its functions. (fjcareivov] 
 is enlightened, so that it is clear round about him ; through the 
 light which is perceived by the eye, no one of his members is 
 in darkness. et ovv, /c.T.X] Inference a minori ad majus. 
 TO </>&>? TO ev a-oi] i.e. the 1/01)5 especially as practical reason 
 (Vernunft). The figurative designation (Philo, de cond. mund. 
 I. p. 12: OTrep 1/01)9 eV ^v^, TOVTO o<#aXyu,o5 ev a-(a/j,ari,, comp. 
 Plat. Rep. vii. p. 533 D : TO T^? -^1^75 op,fia, Soph. p. 254 A. 
 Creuzer, ad Plot, de pulcr. p. 361) is suggested by, and is 
 correlative to, o Xi^i/o?, etc., ver. 22. Comp. Euth. Zigabenus : 
 o vovs 6 &(opi<)6el<i et? TO </>&meM/ /cat oSrjyetv TTJV ^rv^v. 
 CT/COTO?] corresponds to TTOI/^/JO? above, though denoting at the 
 same time the effect of the evil condition. TO O-/COTO? iroaov] 
 s.c. earl: how great then (since the worthlessness of the out- 
 ward eye involves one in darkness) is the darkness, TO GT/COTO?, 
 in which thou liest ! But TO CT/COTO?, from being put first, is 
 very emphatic. Luther (following the ordinary reading of the 
 Vulg.: ipsae tenebrae) and Calvin interpret incorrectly: how great
 
 218 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 will then be the darkness itself. Thine, in that case, is the 
 condition in which there is no susceptibility for that divine 
 truth which would enlighten and sanctify thee ; and this dark- 
 ness, how great is it ! 
 
 Ver. 24. But certainly do not suppose that ye can combine 
 the eager pursuit of wealth with striving after the kingdom of 
 God ! no, aut, aut ! Svcrt] i.e. of course, two who are of oppo- 
 site characters. r) yap . . . Kara<j)pov^a-ei] he will either 
 hate A and love B, or if not, vice versd, he will cleave to A 
 and despise B. In the second clause evos is without the article, 
 because the idea is somewhat different from that in the first, 
 namely : " or he will cleave to one (not both) and despise the 
 other concerned." uua-eiv and a7a7rai/ ; like SMS? and 2Htf,are used 
 neither here nor anywhere else (Gen. xxix. 31 ; Mai. i. 2, 3 ; 
 Luke xiv. 26, xvi. 13 ; John xii. 25 ; Eom. ix. 13) "with a 
 less forcible meaning " (de Wette, Tholuck, Bleek), so as to be 
 equivalent to posthabere and praeferre. See, on the other 
 hand, note on Eom. ix. 12, also Fritzsche on this passage. 
 The two masters are conceived of as being of such a nature 
 that the one is loved, the other hated, and vice versd, and that 
 in a decided manner, without any intermediate attitude of 
 indifference. Luther : although the world can do it skilfully ; 
 and as it is expressed in German, by " carrying the tree on both 
 shoulders." In the second alternative, then, the Kara^povelv 
 corresponds to the fttcreiv as being the effect of the hatred, while 
 to the ayajrav corresponds the avTe^eadai as the effect of the 
 love. avOe% erat] he will hold to him, faithfully cleave to him. 
 Plat. Hep. x. p. 600 D ; Phil. p. 58 E; Ax. p. 369 E ; Dem. 290. 
 9 ; 1 Mace. xv. 34 ; Tit. i. 9. ^a^a>va^\ Chaldee WtoO, Syr. 
 poV>V>, consequently it should be spelt with only one /j>, and 
 derived, not from |K, but from fota, so that its origin is to be 
 traced to fio^D, thesaurus (Gen. xliii. 23). Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 
 552. It means riches, and, according to Augustine, is, in the 
 Punic language, equivalent to lucrum. In this instance it is 
 personified owing to its connection with Sov\eveiv, and from 
 its antithesis to #e&>: wealth conceived of as an idol (Plutus). 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1217 f. Moreover, the idea implied 
 in the Bov\eveiv prevents the possible abuse of the saying.
 
 CHAP. VI. 25, 26. 219 
 
 Luther says well : To have money and property is not sinful ; 
 but what is meant is, that thou shouldst not allow them to be 
 thy master, rather that thou shouldst make them serve thee, 
 and that thou shouldest be their master. Comp. Chrysostom, 
 who quotes the examples of Abraham and Job. According to 
 the axiom in the text, Christ justly (sec on Luke xvL 9, the 
 note) requires unfaithfulness in regard to mammon. 
 
 Ver. 25. Aia roOro] because this double service is impos- 
 sible. y%t 'n y l rv X^> Af - T -^-] Chrysostom: OTOIVVV TO /zei^oz/ 
 (life and body) Sov? 7r&>9 TO e'XaTToi> (food and clothing) ov Bcao-et ; 
 The care has been unwarrantably limited to anxious care, a 
 meaning which is no- less- unjustifiable in Sir. xxxiv. 1 ; the 
 context would be expected to- furnish such a limitation if it 
 were intended. Jesus does not only forbid believers the 
 pifjivav (Xen. Gyr. viii, 7. 12), or the aA/yetz/a? 
 d? (Soph. Ant. 850), the fj,pifivijfj,aT e%eiv /3dpv) (Soph. 
 Phil. 187), or such like, but His desire is that simply giving 
 themselves to the undivided (curae animum diverse trahunt, 
 Terence) service of God, ver. 24, and trusting to Him with 
 true singleness of heart they should be superior to all care 
 whatsoever as to food, drink, etc. (PhiL iv. 6}' nevertheless, 
 to create for themselves such cares would amount to little faith, 
 ver. 30 ff., or a half-hearted faith as compared with their 
 duty of entire resignation to that God whose part it is to 
 provide for them. It is only by absolute and perfect faith that 
 the moral height of avrdpiceia, (Phil. iv. 1 1 ff.), and of exemp- 
 tion from earthly care, is to- be attained. Comp. A. H. Franke's 
 example in founding the orphanage. rfj "fyv%fi] Dative of 
 immediate reference : in regard to the soul (as the principle of 
 physical life, x. 39, xvi. 25, ii. 20), in so far as it is sustained 
 by means of food and drink. In the ease of pept/jivdv the 
 object (TI (f>dyr)Te) is in the accusative (1 Cor. vii. 32-34, 
 xii. 25 ; Phil. ii. 20, iv. 6). 
 
 Yer. 26. To. Treretva TOV ovpavov] DW? fpy, the birds 
 that fly in the air, in this wide, free height, are entirely 
 resigned! Genitive of locality, as in ver. 28. This is mani- 
 fest (in answer to Fritzsche: towards the heavens) from the 
 juxtaposition of the words in Gen. i. 25, ii. 19 ; Ps. viii. 9,
 
 220 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 civ. 12 ; comp. Horn. II. xvii. p. 675 : vTrovpaviw Trererjvwv. On 
 the saying itself, comp. Kiddushin, s. fin. : " Vidistine unquam 
 bruta aut volatilia, quibus esset aliqua officina ? et tamen ilia 
 nutriuntur absque anxietate." orC\ equivalent to et? e/ceivo 
 ort, John ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 51, xvi. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10. 
 To this belongs all that follows as far as avrd. f*a\\. 
 Sta(f>epeTe avrfav] This //.aXXoi/ (magis) only strengthens the 
 comparative force of &ia(f)epetv TWOS (to be superior to any one). 
 Comp. on Phil. i. 23, and the fjt,a\\ov that frequently accom- 
 panies TrpocupeiaQai. 
 
 Ver. 27. Trjv ^XiKiav] the duration of life (Hammond, 
 Wolf, Eosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Schott, Kauffer, Olshausen, de 
 Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Tholuck, Ewald, Bleek, Hilgen- 
 feld). For, after the more comprehensive exhortation of ver. 
 2 5, Jesus passes in ver. 26 to the special subject of the 
 support of life by means of rpo^, with which subject ver. 27 
 is intimately connected. Vv. 28-30 refer, in the first place, 
 specially to the body itself, regarded by itself and as an out- 
 ward object. The duration of life determined ~by God is set forth 
 under the figure of a definite lineal measure. Comp. Ps. xxxix. 
 6; Mimnermus in Stobaeus, 98. 13. In opposition to this, 
 the only true connection, others (Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, 
 Luther, Maldonatus, Jansen, Bengel, Fritzsche), following the 
 Vulgate and Chrysostom, interpret : the height of the body, the 
 stature, Luke xix. 3, ii. 52. But what an absurd dispropor- 
 tion would there be in such a relation in representing a very 
 trifling addition (Luke xii. 26) by TT^I/I/! For TTT^U?, n>N, is 
 equivalent to the whole length of the lower part of the arm, 
 two spans or six handbreadths, Bockh, metrol. Unters. p. 2 1 ff. 
 Fenneberg, ub. d. Ldngen-, Feld- u. Wegemaasse d. Volk. d. 
 Alterth. 1859, who thinks, however, without any reason, that 
 the sacred ell (seven handbreadths) is meant. 
 
 Ver. 28. Kal irepl evBv/j,.'] the new object of care placed 
 first in the sentence. Kara/judOere] consider, observe : occur- 
 ring nowhere else in the New Testament, frequent in Greek 
 writers, Gen. xxiv. 21, xxxiv. 1 ; Job xxxv. 5. fcpivov, JEW, 
 lilies generally, various kinds of which grow wild in the East, 
 without cultivation by human hands (rov dypov). There is
 
 CHAP. VI. 29-82. 221 
 
 no reason to think merely of the (flower) emperors crown 
 (Kuinoel), or to suppose that anemones are intended (Furer 
 in Schenkel's Bibellex) ; the latter are called avefjiwvai in 
 Greek. TTGK] relatively: how, i,e. with what grace and beauty, 
 they grow up ! To take mo? av!~. interrogatively (Palairetus, 
 Fritzsche), so that ov KOTT., etc., would form the answer, is not 
 so simple, nor is it in keeping with the parallel in ver. 26. 
 They toil not, neither (specially) do they spin, to provide their 
 raiment. The plurals (av^dvovo-iv, etc., see the critical remarks) 
 describe the lilies, not en masse, but singly (Kiihner, ad Xen. 
 Mem. iv. 3. 12, ad Andb. i. 2. 23), and indeed as though they 
 were actual living persons (Kriiger on Thuc. i. 58. 1). Comp. 
 in general, Schoemann, ad Isaeum ix. 8. 
 
 Ver. 29. 'Ev irdcrr) ry So^rj avrov] Not even (ovoe) Solo- 
 mon when he appeared in all his glory, not merely in his royal 
 robes (Kuinoel) ; it is in TrepteySaXero that the special part of 
 the whole Sofa is first mentioned. On the Sofa of Solomon, 
 see 2 Chron. ix. 1 5 ff. avrov, not avrov. Observe further the 
 / : his glorious apparel was not equal to any one of these. 
 
 Ver. 30. Tbv %6prov rov dypov] Placed first for sake of 
 emphasis ; 6 ^0/3x09, however, is simply the grass, so that Jesus 
 mentions the genus under which the lilies (which grow among 
 the grass) are included, and that intentionally with a view to 
 point them out as insignificant ; 1 Cor. iii. 12 ; 1 Pet. i. 24. 
 o-rf/juepov ovra] which to-day exists. 45 /cX//3. /SaXXo/u..] 
 expresses what is done to-morrow, hence the present. Comp. 
 Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. 206]. Dried grass with 
 its flower-stalks and such like was also used for the purpose 
 of heating baking ovens (K\i/3avoi, or Attic icpiftavoi, see 
 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 179). Comp. remark on iii. 12 ; Harmar, 
 Beobacht. fib. d. Orient, I. p. 239 f. 'iro\\m yu-dXX.] express- 
 ing certainty. 
 
 Ver. 32. The second yap does not append another reason 
 co-ordinate with the first, but after the injunction contained 
 in ver. 31 has been justified by the reference to the heathen 
 (to whom they are not to compare themselves), this same 
 injunction is provided with an explanation of an encouraging 
 nature, so that the first yap is logical, the second explanatory,
 
 222 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 as frequently in classical writers (Ktihuer, ad Xen. Anal, v. 
 6. 6. Frotscher, ad Hieron. 11. 6). The referring of the 
 second yap to something to be supplied after TO, edvri, such 
 as " who know nothing of God " {Tholuck), is arbitrary. 
 oZSe is emphatic; is certainly known to your Father, and so 
 on. ori] that, not o, TI (Paulus : that, which; Fritzsche : 
 quatenus). 
 
 Ver. 33. Zijrelre Se] now states what they ought to do, 
 instead of indulging that care forbidden in ver. 31. 
 Trp&rov] in the first place, before you strive after anything 
 else ; your first striving. In that case a second is, of course, 
 unnecessary, because their food, their drink, and their raiment 
 Trpoa-redija-erai,. But in the irptarov the subordinate striving 
 after something is not even " darkly " sanctioned (de Wette) ; 
 on the contrary, and notwithstanding the irparov, this striving 
 is excluded as much by ver. 32 as by Kal . . . rrpoareO. Accord- 
 ingly, that first striving is the only one. The simple fyrelre 
 is distinguished from eVt^r. not in respect of degree, but only 
 in such a way that the latter points out the direction of the 
 striving. Hence eTrifyrelv erri nva, 2 Sam. iii. 8. Comp. 
 note on Kom. xi. 7; Phil. iv. 7. rrjv /3acrt\. teal rrjv 
 &t,Kat,oo-vvr)v avrov] (see the critical remarks) where the avrov 
 belonging to both substantives refers, according to ver. 32, to 
 God, and is meant to convey the idea that what is to form the 
 object and aim of our .striving is the Messianic kingdom, the 
 becoming partakers in it, the being admitted into it, and the 
 moral righteousness which God imparts to the believer to assist 
 him to attain the kingdom. ravra Trdvrd] See w. 31, 32. 
 The distinction between rain a vdvra and irdvra ravra lies 
 merely in this, that in the former it is the demonstrative idea 
 on which the , emphasis is placed, whereas in the latter it is 
 the idea of universality that is so. See Winer, p. 510 [E. T. 
 686]. Cornp. Lobeck, ad Aj. 1023 ; Saupp, ad Hipparcli. 
 VI. 5. rcpoGreOrjve'rai] will be added, namely, . to the 
 moral result of your striving. Comp. the saying of Christ 
 handed down by Clement, Origeu, and Eusebius : alrelre ra 
 f*eyd\a, Kal ra /jLifcpd vpJiv TTpovredrfcrerai,' teal alrelre ra CTTOV- 
 pdvia, Kal ra eTrryeia irpoGreOrjcrerai, vpJiv (Fabricius, Cod.
 
 CHAP. VI. 84. 223 
 
 Apocr. i. p. 329), which differs from our passage in the 
 generality of its terms, and in having alrelre. 
 
 Ver. 34. Concluding saying of this section practical, fresh, 
 bold, and taken from the life. Fritzsche arranges the words 
 thus : 17 jap avpiov fiepi/mv^o-ei. Ta eaim/9 apicerbv TTJ f)/J>epa, 
 rj /caKia aur?}?. He takes rj KUK. avrrjs as in apposition with 
 TO, eairrr/?; which is forced in itself, and precluded by the 
 reading eavrf)*; without rd. If this reading be adopted, the 
 meaning will be as follows : Therefore (inference from all that 
 has been said from ver. 25 onwards) have no care about to- 
 morrow; for to-morrow will care for itself will have itself as 
 the object of its care, which you ought not, to-day, to take 
 away from to-morrow (rj avpiov is personified). The day, i.e. 
 every day (Bernhardy, p. 315) as it comes round, has enough 
 (does not need to have anything more added, as would be the 
 case if we cared for to-morrow) in its own evil, i.e. in its evil 
 nature, as represented by dangers, sorrows, and so on. Luther 
 well observes : Why wilt thou be concerned beyond to-day, 
 and take upon thyself the misfortunes of two days ? Abide 
 by that which to-day lays upon thee : to-morrow, the day will 
 bring thee something else. Comp. on tcafcia (Chrysostom : 
 raXatTTO/Jt'a), Luke xvi. 25; Eccles. vii. 15, xii. 1; Amos 
 iii. 7 ; Sir. xix. 6 ; 2 Mace. iv. 47. In classical writers, 
 commonly /ea/co-nfc; Horn. 77. xi. 382; Od. v. 290; Herod, 
 ii. 128; Soph. El. 228. Comp. however, also Kaicta, Thucyd. 
 iii. 58. 1 ; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 814 A. pepipvav does not occur 
 elsewhere with the genitive, but, like <f>povTieiv TM/OV, may be 
 connected with it; Bernhardy, p. I76f. ; Kriiger, 47. 11 ; 
 Ku'hner, IV. 1, p. 325. On the well-known neuter usage, 
 aprcerov, sufficient, see Kuhner, IL 1, p. 52 f.
 
 224 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 VER. 2. pirpvd.'] In opposition to decisive testimony, Elz. has 
 avripsrprid., from Luke vi. 38. Ver. 4. For &v6, Lachm. Tisch. 
 8 read Ix, found only in B K, Curss. With sxfi&Xu and ver. 5 
 before them, the copyists involuntarily wrote the sx. Ver. 6. 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have the future xa-raKarriaovGiv, according to 
 B C L X, 33. With such important testimony in its favour, it 
 is to be preferred to the generally received aor. conj. Ver. 9. 
 The omission of ianv in B* L, Curss. and several versions (Lachm.: 
 ?! ng), as well as the reading ov airqeti which follows (Lachm. 
 Tisch. 8), is meant to help out the construction. Ver. 10. x; 
 sav ixdvv airqarf] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : 95 xoc/ i%6i>v aiTqffii, as in B C X, 
 
 Curss. Verss., after Luke xi. 11. Ver. 13. q TUXJJ] is deleted 
 by Lachm. and bracketed by Tisch. 8, but only, however, after 
 tf Codd. of the It. and Fathers (Clem. Or. Cypr. Hilar. Lucif.). 
 From its resemblance to -s-XarE/a immediately preceding, this 
 word was very liable to be omitted. The authority for its 
 omission in ver. 14 is decidedly weaker (K being in this case 
 against it). Here also it is bracketed by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. 
 Ver. 14. r/J Elz. and Tisch., with a decided preponderance 
 of testimony against them, prefer on, which owed its origin to 
 on TXarf/a, etc., ver. 13, the meaning of /' not being under- 
 stood. Ver. 16. ffrapvXriv] Schulz, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have 
 crapuXas, according to B N and several Curss. and Verss. The 
 plural originated in consequence of ffuXXiy. and suxa. Ver. 1 8. 
 Tisch. 8. has evf/xtTv for voisTv in both instances, against decisive 
 testimony. After v&v Lachm. has ouv in brackets (C** L Z, 
 Curss. Verss.). An interpolation for the sake of connection, ren- 
 dered in Brix. by enim, and in Germ. 2 by autem. Ver. 21. 
 After sv (Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ev roTg, according to B Z K) ovpuvoJs, 
 Fritzsche, following Bengel, inserts <&TO$ tiaihtvaerai sic rfo /3a<r. 
 TUV ovpavuv, but on far too slender authority. A supplementary 
 gloss. Ver. 24. o/totuxsu aurov] B Z K, Curss. Verss. and 
 several Fathers have o/Aoiutyesrai. Derived from ver. 26 for 
 the sake of the nominat. tag. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
 8. Ver. 28. euvtrehsfftv Lach. Tisch. read friXftfv, accordin
 
 CHAP. vii. i. 225 
 
 to B C Z ? r K, Curss. Or. Chrys. But how easily might the 
 syllable <nv drop out between OTE ETE ! especially as cwr&iTv 
 occurs nowhere else in Matth. Ver. 29. Lachm. inserts alrujv 
 xal oi <bot.piaaibi after ypafj,,uari?g, on authorities of unequal value. 
 The evidence is stronger in favour of a'jTuv, which, moreover, is 
 confirmed by K. Tisch. has adopted merely avruv after ypa/j,- 
 pureTf, in which, however, he is right ; because, whilst there was 
 no reason for adding avruv, the omission of it was natural in 
 itself, and suggested by Mark i. 22. 
 
 Jesus warns (1) against judging, vv. 1-6 ; urges (2) to 
 prayer, vv. 711 ; then (3) prepares for the transition, ver. 12, 
 to the exhortation to enter the Messianic kingdom through 
 the strait gate, w. 13, 14; warns (4) against false prophets, 
 vv. 15-23 ; and concludes with the powerful passage regarding 
 the wise and the foolish man, vv. 24-27. 
 
 Ver. 1. Without any intermediate connection, the discourse 
 passes on to a new subject. Comp. v. 17, vi. 1. pr) fcplvere] 
 tcpivetv means nothing more than to judge, and the context 
 alone will decide when it is used in the sense of a condem- 
 natory judgment, as in Rom. ii. 1, xiv. 4; Gal. v. 10; Heb. 
 x. 30 (frequently in John). In this respect it resembles the 
 Heb. BSIP. But in this instance it is proved by ver. 2 and 
 vv. 35 that tcpivetv is not to be explained as synonymous 
 with /carafcpiveiv (in answer to Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, 
 Kuinoel, and Olshausen). Nor is this required, but, on the 
 contrary, plainly forbidden, by Luke vi. 37, for there the 
 difference between xpivetv and KaraBiKa^eiv is of the nature of a 
 climax, the latter being the result of the former. Accordingly, 
 the correct interpretation is this : Do not sit in judgment 
 upon others ; do not set yourselves up as judges of their faults 
 (ver. 3), meaning thereby an officious and self-righteous 
 behaviour (the opposite of that prescribed in Gal. vi. 1-5), 
 that ye may not become obnoxious to judgment, i.e. that ye may 
 not be subjected to the divine, the Messianic, judgment ; that 
 instead of obtaining mercy and the forgiveness of your sins 
 in that judgment, you may not draw down upon yourselves 
 that judicial sentence (which, according to v. 7, vi. 15, is 
 averted by cherishing a forgiving spirit). To refer Kpt6rjre 
 
 MATT. P
 
 226 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 to our being judged by others (Erasmus, Calvin, Kuinoel, 
 Fritzsche), and not, with Chrysostom, to the future judgment, 
 is wrong; because ver. 2, if referred to the Nemesis of the 
 existing order of things, would not tte altogether true ; and 
 further, because, throughout His address, Jesus treats the idea 
 of retribution from the Messianic point of view (v. 112, 19, 
 
 20, 22, 25, 29 f., vi. 1, 4, 6, 14 f., 18, 20, 33, vii. 13, 19, 
 
 21, 23, 24ff.). Of course it is unnecessary to say that, in 
 forbidding judging, Christ is not speaking " de ministeriis 
 vel officiis divinitus ordinatis, sed de judiciis, quae fiunt extra 
 seu praeter vocaliones et gubernationes divinas" Melanchthon. 
 Nor does He forbid the moral judging of others in general, 
 which is inseparable from truth and love, and is at the 
 same time a necessary element in the duty of brotherly 
 vovOerelv. " Canis pro cane et porous pro porco est habendus," 
 Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 2. *Ev] Instrumental repetition of the same thought: 
 Sota, ed. Wagenseil, p. 52. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 78. The 
 second ev is also instrumental, by means of, and perpov is to 
 be understood as a measure of capacity (Luke vi. 38). 
 
 Ver. 3. Ka/30o9, a minute fragment of twig, wood, or straw, 
 which, in entering the eye (see Wetstein), becomes the 
 figurative representation of a slight moral fault ; So/eo?, again, 
 is the figure by which a heinous 1 fault is denoted. Comp. 
 Lightfoot, p. 307; Buxtorf, Lex Talm. p. 2080. Tholuck 
 prefers to find the point of comparison in the pain caused by 
 the splinter or beam in the eye. This is inadmissible, for 
 otherwise it could not be said, in reference to the learn in 
 the eye, ov KaTavoel?, i.e. thou perceivest not, art not aware. It 
 is the magnitude of his own moral defects that the self- 
 righteous man fails to discover. The brother, as in v. 22. 
 
 1 The view of Theophylact, Baurngarten-Crusius, and several others, that the 
 beam in a man's own eye is calculated to make him conscious of his incapacity 
 for recognising the faults of others, is foreign to the context. Luther correctly 
 observes : " That He may the more earnestly warn us, He takes a rough simile, 
 and paints the thing before our eyes, pronouncing some such opinion as this, 
 that every one who judges his neighbour has a huge beam in his eye, while he 
 who is judged has only a tiny chip, (and) that he is ten times more deserving of 
 judgment and condemnation for having condemned others."
 
 CHAP. VII. 4-6. 227 
 
 Notice, further, the arrangement of words so appropriate to the 
 sense in the second clause. 
 
 Vv. 4, 5. Or how will it be morally possible for thee to say, 
 and so on. The TTW?, like TI (cur), ver. 3, expresses what is 
 morally absurd. " Est enim proprium stultitiae, aliorum vitia 
 cernere, oblivisci suorum," Cic. Tusc. iii. 30. 73. KOI ISov, 
 K.T.X] The more emphatic from there being no eVrt ; and lo, 
 the beam in thine eye! ,/e/8uA,&>] Conjunct, hortatory, and in 
 the present instance, in the sense of calling upon oneself 
 (used also in the singular, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 185 ; Nagels- 
 bach on Iliad, p. 404, ed. 3 ; Bornemann, in d. Sachs. Stud. 
 1846, p. 30). vTTOKpiTa] Hypocrite, who pretendest to be 
 free from faults. The attribute is here taken from his 
 demeanour as seen from its objective side, while the subjective 
 side, which here presents itself as hypocrisy, is the conceit 
 of self-delusion. Siafi^etyeisi] neither imperative nor per- 
 missive (thou mayest see), but future. The result of self- 
 amendment will be the earnest effort to help others to 
 amendment. Observe the compound (correlative of the simple 
 verb, ver. 3) intenta acie spectabis. Comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 
 86 D ; Arist. de Som. 3 ; Plut. Mor. p. 36 E. 
 
 Ver. 6. The endeavour to correct the faults of others must 
 be confined within its proper limits, and not allowed to become 
 a casting of holy things to the dogs. As is usual, however, 
 in the case of apophthegms, this progress in the thought is 
 not expressed by a particle (aXXa). To abandon the idea of 
 connection (Maldonatus, de Wette, Tholuck), or to suppose 
 (Kuinoel, Neander, Bleek ; Weiss doubtful) that vv. 6-11, at 
 least ver. 6, do not belong to this passage, is scarcely war- 
 ranted. TO a<yiov] the holy, not the holy flesh, tf'JP "IB'?, Jer. 
 xi. 15, Hagg. ii. 12, the flesh of sacrifices (v. d. Hardt, Paulus, 
 Tholuck), which, besides, would require to be more precisely 
 designated, otherwise there would be just as much reason to 
 suppose that the holy bread, tnp Dr6 (1 Sam. xxi. 5), or any 
 other meat-offering (Lev. xxii. 2), was meant. Christ has in 
 view the holy in general, figuratively designating in the first 
 clause only the persons, and then, in the second, the holy thing. 
 What is meant by this, as also by TOU? fj.ap'yapi'ras immediately
 
 228 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 after, is the holy, because divine evangelic, truth by which men 
 are converted, and which, by TOU<? papyap. v^v, is described 
 as something of the highest value, as the precious jewel which 
 is entrusted to the disciples as its possessors. For Arabian 
 applications of this simile, comp. Gesenius in Eosenm. Rep. I. 
 p. 128. Dogs and swine, these impure and thoroughly despised 
 animals, represent those men who are hardened and altogether 
 incapable of receiving evangelic truth, and to whom the holy 
 is utterly foreign and distasteful. The parallelism ought to 
 have precluded the explanation that by both animals two 
 different classes of men are intended (the snappish, as in Acts 
 xiii. 46; the filthy livers, Grotius). piJTrore Karair., K.T.\., 
 ical (TTpatyevres, /c.r.X.] applies to the swine, who are to be 
 conceived of as wild animals, as may be seen from avroix; and 
 the whole similitude, so that, as the warning proceeds, the 
 figure of the dogs passes out of view, though, as matter of 
 course, it admits of a corresponding application (Pricaeus, 
 Maldonatus, Tholuck). But this is no reason why the words 
 should be referred to both classes of animals, nor why the 
 trampling should be assigned to the swine and a-rpd<f>. pij^. to 
 the dogs (Theophylact, Hammond, Calovius, Wolf, Kuinoel). 
 For the future KaraTr. (see the critical remarks), comp. note on 
 Mark xiv. 2; Matt. xiii. 15. kv TO 45 "rroa-lv avrJ] instru- 
 mental. arpa<f>evTes] not: having changed to an attitude 
 of open hostility (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus), or to savagery 
 (Loesner), but manifestly, having turned round upon you from 
 the pearls, which they have mistaken for food, and which, in 
 their rage, they have trampled under their feet ; the meaning 
 of which is, lest such men profane divine truth (by blasphemy, 
 mockery, calumny), and vent upon you their malicious feeling 
 toward tlie gospel. In how many ways must the apostles have 
 experienced this in their own case ; for, their preaching being 
 addressed to all. they would naturally, as a rule, have to see 
 its effect on those who heard it before they could know who 
 were " dogs and swine," so as then to entice them no further 
 with the offer of what is holy, but to shake off the dust, and 
 so on. But the men here in view were to be found among 
 Jews and Gentiles. It is foreign to the present passage (not
 
 CHAP. VII. 7-9. 229 
 
 so xv. 26) to suppose that only the Gentiles as such are 
 referred to (Kostlin, Hilgenfeld). 
 
 Vv. 7-9. The new passage concerning prayer begins, without 
 any trace of connection with what goes before. Comp. note 
 on ver. 1. It is otherwise in Luke xi. 9, which, however, 
 does not affect Matthew's originality (in answer to Holtzmann, 
 Weiss, Weizsacker), nor does it warrant the opinion that some 
 connecting terms have been omitted. Influenced by a later 
 tradition, Luke has given the sayings in a connection of his 
 own, and one that, so far as can be discovered, has no claim 
 to be preferred to that of Matthew. alreire, ^relre, 
 Kpovere] Climax depicting the rising of the prayer into 
 intense fervour, that " he may thereby urge us all the more 
 powerfully to prayer " (Luther). Ver. 8. The obvious limi- 
 tation to this promise is sufficiently indicated by d<ya6d in 
 ver. 11 (1 John v. 14), just as the childlike, therefore believing, 
 disposition of the petitioner is presupposed 1 in vv. 9-11. 
 Ver. 9. 77] or, if that were not the case, then, in the analogous 
 human relation must, and so OIL rt's eo-nv . . . //,?; \i6ov 
 7ri&. avrw] Dropping of the interrogative construction with 
 which the sentence had begun, and transition to another. A 
 similar change in Luke xi. 11. See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 
 34ff.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 243 f. [E. T. 284]. This 
 irregularity is occasioned by the intervening clause, quern si 
 filius poposcerit panem. The sentence is so constructed that 
 it should have run thus : rj r/<? ea-riv e' vp&v dvOpcoTro?, ov eav 
 alrrjcrri (i.e. 09, eav avrbv alT^a-rj, see Kiihner, II. 2, p. 913), 
 6 wo? avrov dprov, \L6ov emSwa-et avra> (without fir)} ; but 
 after the relative clause the construction with pr) supersedes 
 that at the beginning of the sentence. py \iOov eiriS. 
 avrw] surely he will not give him a stone? With regard to 
 the things compared, notice the resemblance between the piece 
 of bread and a stone, and between a fish and a serpent ; and 
 
 1 The specific determination of prayer that will certainly be heard, as prayer 
 offered in the name of Jesus (John xiv.-xvi.), was reserved for a further stage of 
 development. Comp. on vi. 13, note 2. It is not the divine relation to men 
 in general (Baur), but to His own believing ones, that Jesus has in view. Comp. 
 Weiss, bibl. Theol p. 67 f., ed. 2.
 
 230 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 on the other hand, the contrast with regard to the persons : 
 e vfj.a)v avOpwiTos, and o Trarrjp vp,. o ev T. ovpavois. 
 
 Ver. 11. novrjpol orre?] although ye, as compared with 
 God, are morally evil. 1 Comp. xix. 17. Even Kuinoel has 
 given up the false rendering, niggardly (in conformity with 
 Prov. xxiii. 6 ; Sir. xiv. 5). otSare BiBovat] not soletis dare 
 (Maldonatus, Wetstein, Kuinoel), but ye know, understand, 
 how to give (1 Tim. iii 5, and see note on Phil. iv. 12), not 
 as referring, however, to the disposition (de Wette, Fritzsche), 
 which in so doing is rather presupposed, but appropriately 
 pointing to the thoughtful nature of paternal love, which, in 
 spite of the irovypia, understands how to render possible the 
 giving of good gifts to children. 86/j,aTa djaOd] wholesome 
 gifts, in contrast to the stone and the serpent. For the 
 second dya6d, Luke xi. 13 has irvevpa ayiov a later sub- 
 stitution of the particular for the general. For the inference 
 a minori ad majus, comp. Isa. xlix. 15. 
 
 Ver. 12. At this point Jesus takes a retrospective glance 
 at all that He has been saying since v. 1 7, beginning with 
 Moses and the prophets, concerning our duty to our neigh- 
 bour, but introducing, indeed, many other instructions and 
 exhortations. But putting out of view such matters as are 
 foreign to His discourse, He now recapitulates all that has 
 been said on the duties we owe to our neighbour, so that ovv 
 points back to v. 1 7. The correctness of this view is evident 
 from the following : ovro? <ydp kanv o vopos, etc., from which 
 it further appears that ovv does not merely refer back to 
 v. 15 (Kuinoel, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius). As Luther 
 well observes : " With those words He concludes the instruc- 
 tions contained in those three chapters, and gathers them all 
 into one little bundle." Fritzsche is somewhat illogical when 
 he says that ovv generalizes the conclusion from otSare 
 a . . . re/cvoi? vfioSv, which proposition, however, was a 
 
 1 Chrysostom appropriately says : ravra St Ixsys* ov 3//3a>.x T fy<r/ 
 
 Qvffit, aiSt xctxiZu* TO ytvos, aXXa <rpe; aT($/a<TTaXjv <rfi; a.ya.6'oT^tat tft; aiiriu (of 
 
 God) TJ ^t\etT(y'n*.i rtit trarpixri* vrampiar x.a\ui. It is not original sin, but the 
 historical manifestation of the sin of all men, which is spoken of, of which, how- 
 ever, original sin is the internal, natural root. Comp. IT. 19; John iii. 6.
 
 CHAP. VII. 13. 231 
 
 mere lemma. Ewald thinks that ver. 12 is here in its wrong 
 place, that its original position was somewhere before arycnrare, 
 v. 44, and might still be repeated after v. 48 ; according to 
 Bleek and Holtzmann, founding on Luke vi. 31, its original 
 position was after v. 42. But it is precisely its significant 
 position as a concluding sentence, along with its reference to 
 the law and the prophets, that Laike has taken away from it. 
 Comp. Weiss. On BeKetv iva, see note on Luke vi. 31. 
 OUTW] not for ravra, as if the matter were merged in the 
 manner (de Wette), but in such a manner, in this way, corre- 
 sponding, that is, to this your 0e\ew. The truth of this 
 Christian maxim lies in this, that the words 6<ra av deXtjTe, 
 etc., as spoken by Jesus, and, on the ground of His fulfilment 
 of the law (ovv), which presupposes faith in Him, can only 
 mean a willing of a truly moral kind, and not that of a self- 
 seeking nature, such as the desire for flattery. OVTO?, etc.] 
 for this is the sum of moral duty, and so on. For parallels 
 from profane writers, see Wetstein ; Bab. Schdbb. f. 31. 1 : 
 " Quod tibi ipsi odiosum est, proximo ne facias ; narn haec est 
 tota lex." But being all of a negative character, like Tob. 
 iv. 15, they are essentially different from the present passage. 
 For coincidences of a more meagre kind from Greek writers, 
 see Spiess, Logos Spermat. p. 24. 
 
 Ver. 13. There now follow some additional concluding 
 exhortations and warnings, which in Luke are partly omitted, 
 partly scattered and displaced (in answer to Calvin, Keim) 
 and abridged. With ver. 13 comp. Luke xiii. 24. The 
 thought is one of the fundamental thoughts of the Sermon on 
 the Mount. ela-eXOere] where the entering leads to is not 
 stated till ver. 14. ort] assi^ninar the reason e contrario. 
 
 J O O 
 
 49 rrjv a7T(i)\6iav] i.e. to eternal death, as being the punish- 
 ment of such as are condemned in the Messianic judgment. 
 Phil. i. 28 ; Heb. x. 39 ; 2 Pet. iii. 7, 16. The opposite is 
 <o?7, the eternal life of felicity in the kingdom of the Messiah. 
 Wide gate and broad way ; figures representing the pleasures 
 and excesses of sin and wickedness. Strait gate and narrow 
 way ; representing, on the other hand, the effort and self- 
 denial which Christian duty imposes. It is only when re-
 
 232 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 generated that a man comes first to experience the lightness of 
 the yoke (xi. 29), and of the commandments (1 John v. 3), 
 and all the more the further progress he makes in the love of 
 Christ (John xiv. 15 ff.). 17 dyaTr. et<? r. a-TreoX.] refers 
 equally to 17 7rv\r) (Kuhner, II. 1, p. 70 f.), to which again the 
 Si' 00x775 belongs. There is a similar construction in v. 14, 
 where avr^v in like manner refers to TTV\TJ. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. TC\ quam (Vulg.) : how strait is the gate ! as 
 conforming to the Sept., which renders "o in this sense by ri 
 (2 Sam. vi. 20 ; Cant, vit 6 ; Luke xii. 49), though not good 
 Greek. The rendering why, as though there were something 
 sorrowful in the question (Fritzsche), is unsuited to the whole 
 tone of the discourse. evpicrfcovTes] The strait gate requires 
 to be sought, so far is it from being readily seen, or from 
 obtruding itself upon the attention. By most, the gate is 
 erroneously conceived to be at the end of the way; with 
 Bengel, Schegg, and Lange, it is to be understood as at the 
 beginning of it, as opening into it, for which reason, in w. 13, 
 14, the gate is mentioned before the way. The entering by 
 the strait gate is therefore the entering into life (into the 
 Messiah's kingdom), but still brought about through following 
 the narrow way, which is reached by means of the strait gate. 
 
 Trpoo-e^ere Se] But in order to find it, beware, and so on. 
 
 The -fyevSoTrpoffiTcu are not the Pharisees (Tholuck), nor 
 Jews, pretending to be divine messengers (Bleek), nor people 
 like Judas the Galilean (Acts v. 37, de Wette), but false 
 Christian teachers without a divine call (xxiv. 11, 24), as 
 is evident from w. 21-23. Comp. Chrysostom, Calvin, 
 Grotius, Calovius. A warning in view of coming events, and 
 such as Jesus knew His followers would soon be needing. 
 ev v8v/j,a(Ti TrpoySar.] dressed in sheep's clothing. Here we 
 are not to think of literal sheep skins (Grotius, Kuinoel), seeing 
 that these were worn by others, and were not specially the 
 prophets' dress (comp. iii. 4), but as emblematic of the outward 
 appearance of innocence and gentleness, not of the external 
 profession of a member of the Christian church ("nominis 
 Christian! extrinsecus superficies," Tertullian, de praescr. 4), 
 which would have been admissible only if the context had
 
 CHAP. VII. IG-23. 233 
 
 spoken of the church in the light of a flock, in which case 
 the false prophets would have been far more appropriately 
 represented as in shepherds' clothing. Bengel well remarks : 
 " Vestibus ut si essent oves" e<ro>6ev\ i.e., according to the 
 figure ; under the sheep's clothing ; in reality ; in their true 
 inner nature, which is disguised by hypocrisy. With \VKOL 
 apTrayes, as representing soul-destroying agency, comp. Acts 
 xx. 29; John x. 12. 
 
 Vv. 16-18. 'ETriyvaxr.] Ye will know them, not ye should 
 (Luther). The icapiroi are the results of principles, as seen 
 in the whole behaviour, the works (vv. 21, 23, xii. 33), not 
 the doctrines (Jerome, Calvin, Calovius). atcctv0at, K. rpi- 
 /SoXot] Thorns and thistles occur together in a corresponding 
 figurative sense in Heb. vi. 8. OVTW] application of those 
 images to the false prophets, in such a way, however, that the 
 latter, in keeping with airo T.tcapir. avr. (comp. ver. 20), just 
 before, appear again as trees. A SevSpov ayadov is, as con- 
 trasted with the a-airpov, a sound, healthy tree ; for a a-cnrpov 
 is not some tree of an inferior species, but one whose organism 
 is decaying with age, etc., rotten, the aairpoT^ of which (Plat. 
 Eep. p. 609 E; Diosc. i. 113), owing to a defective and cor- 
 rupted state of the sap, admits of nothing in the way of fruit 
 but what is bad, small, and useless. Comp. %v\ov aairpov, 
 Job xli. 19. a-atrpol artyavoi, Dem. 615. 11. " Bonitas 
 arboris ipsius est veritas et lux interna, etc. ; bonitas/rwcfaram 
 est sanctitas vitae. Si fructus essent in doctrina positi, nullus 
 orthodoxus damnari posset," Bengel. With the ov Svvarat 
 of the corrupt tree, comp. Eom. viii. 7 f. In this emphatic 
 ov Svvarat, lies the progressive force of the simile. 
 
 Ver. 19. Simply a thought introduced by the way (not as 
 being necessary for the logical connection of vv. 16-20), and 
 pointing to the condemnation to Gehenna which awaits the 
 false prophets. Comp. with iii 10. 
 
 Ver. 20. v Apa<ye] itaque (xvii. 26 ; Acts xi. 18), pointing 
 to the inference from vv. 17, 18, and, by way of emphasis, 
 introducing once more that which was already stated in ver. 
 1 6 as the theme of discourse. 
 
 Vv. 21-23. Jesus now states in literal terms what He
 
 234 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 meant to convey through the simile of the fruit. There is 
 much that is arbitrary in the way this passage is dealt with 
 by those who, from their having supposed the i|rei;8o7r/30(/>. 
 of ver. 15 to be Jews, are under the necessity of adopting a 
 different explanation in the ^present instance. De Wette, 
 going against the context, sees a gradual transition from 
 teachers who teach what is unsound (vv. 1520) to such 
 (teachers and others) as are satisfied with the mere acknow- 
 ledgment of their belief. That it is still the same false pro- 
 phets against whom the warning in vv. 21-23 is directed, 
 appears from the use of TrpoefyriTevaapev in ver. 22, and of 
 ol epya%. r. avopiav in ver. 23, the latter further showing 
 that Kapirol irovijpoi is to be understood as denoting the 
 characteristic mark of such prophets. ov Tras] not, no one 
 (Eisner, Fritzsche), but, not every one, 1 Cor. xv. 39. Winer, 
 p. 161 [E. T. 214]. Not all who acknowledge me as their 
 teacher will enter the Messianic kingdom, only those among 
 them, and so on. Many will not enter therein. Therefore it 
 is not the case that the teachers are not referred to till ver. 
 22, according to the idea of gradation which de Wette intro- 
 duces into that verse : " even those who work in my name," 
 and so on. Kvpte, Kvpie] In addressing their teachers, the 
 Jews employed the title ^} or "i. Accordingly it came to be 
 used as a title in addressing the Messiah (John xiii. 13 f.), 
 and in the church itself came to be regarded as the summary 
 of belief, inasmuch as it contained the full recognition of the 
 majesty of Jesus' person (1 Cor. xii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 11). Christ 
 Himself called no man master. It is on this occasion, and 
 while applying to Himself this Messianic title, that He also 
 says for the first time, 6 Trarrjp fj-ov (comp. iii. 17). The 
 twice repeated Kvpte is meant to convey the idea of earnestness. 
 See Borneinann, Schol. in Luc. p. 53, and in the Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1843, p. 124. Comp. xxv. 11 ; Add. adEsth. iii. 2, 3 ; 
 LXX. Ps. Ixxi. 5, 16. 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. 'Ev /c. rfj rjpepa] Euth. Zigabenus, 
 eKeivrjv etTre Trjv T% pi'trW?, o>9 eyvcoff fievrjv Kal Trpo 
 pevrjv. Comp. the Jewish phraseology ; Schoettgen, Hor. in 
 loco, TO> cro> ovofiarij not jussu et auctoritate sua (as the
 
 CHAP. VII. 22, 23. 235 
 
 majority of commentators, Fritzsche included), as if it had 
 been ev TQJ o-&> ovop,., but by means of Thy name, i.e. through 
 Thy name (" Jesus Messiah "), having satisfied our religious 
 consciousness, and having become the object of our confession. 
 It was by this, as forming the condition and instrument, that 
 the works in question were accomplished. In the casting out 
 of devils and in performing miracles the name was pronounced, 
 Acts iii. 6, xix. 13; comp. on Luke ix. 49, x. 1*7. Notice 
 the stress laid upon the <ra>, and the threefold repetition of the 
 prominent words rta erw ovofj,., as expressing that by which 
 the individuals in question think to shelter themselves from 
 disapprobation and rejection, and make good their claim to 
 the Messianic kingdom. 7rp&6<f>r)Tv<T.'] not in the special 
 sense of foretelling (Grotius, Fritzsche), but (comp. ver. 15) 
 with reference to those who taught under the influence of a 
 prophetic enthusiasm (see note on 1 Cor. xii. 10). The dis- 
 tinguishing feature in those men is an impure, often fanatical, 
 boldness in the faith, which, though enabling them to perform 
 outward acts of a marvellous nature, yet fails to exercise any 
 influence upon their own moral life just the sort of thing 
 described by Paul in 1 Cor. xiii. 2, and the manifestations of 
 which are to be met with in every age, especially in times of 
 great religious excitement. Ver. 23. 0/40X07.] " aperte, magna 
 potestas hujus dicti," Bengel. The conscious dignity of the 
 future judge, of the world. OTL] Recitative, The rendering 
 because, to which a different arrangement of the words by Origen, 
 Chrysostom, Cyprian, and others has given rise (on . . . fyta? 
 after aTro^w/j.), is less in harmony with the emotion of the 
 passage. eyvuv] not -probam (Kuinoel), but novi. Because 
 ("etsi nomen meum allegatis," Bengel) I have never known 
 you, have obtained no knowledge of you whatever, which I 
 would have done (John x. 14) had ye really been in fellow- 
 ship with me. Comp. Luke xiii. 27. The knowledge is the 
 knowledge of experience founded upon the possession of a com- 
 mon life. Similarly 1 Cor. viii 3, xiii. 12; Gal. iv. 9. 
 aTTO^tapelre, /c.r.X] according to Ps. vi. 9. Comp. xxv. 41. 
 ot ep7ao/*. is used as a substantive ; while az/o/ua is the 
 antithesis of Succuocrvvi), 2 Cor. vi 14, Heb. i. 9, as in xiii. 41,
 
 236 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 xxiii. 28, xxiv. 12. Notice how in this passage the great 
 utterance of w. 17, 18 continues to echo to the last, and to 
 bear the impress of the final judgment ; comp. Rom. ii. 13. 
 
 Vv. 24-27. Conclusion of the whole sermon, but, as appears 
 from ovv, taking the form of an inference from what is said 
 immediately before, where admission into the Messianic kingdom 
 is made to depend on moral obedience. irat ovv ocms, 
 K.T.X.] The nominative with rhetorical emphasis placed anaco- 
 louthologically at the beginning in x. 14, xiii. 12, xxiii. 16. 
 See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 42; Winer, p. 534 f. [R T. 718]. 
 6fj,oi(t)aa)] This future, as well as opoi&Orja-erai, ver. 26, is not 
 to be taken as referring to the comparison immediately following 
 (which is the common view), which is not warranted by the 
 interrogatory passages, xi. 16, Mark iv. 30, Luke vii. 31, xiii. 18, 
 20, but to be understood (like 6fi,o\oyr)cr(i) in ver. 23) of the day 
 of judgment (Tholuck), when Christ will make him who yields 
 obedience to those sayings of His, like (i.e. demonstrate as 
 matter of fact that he is like) a wise man, and so on. 'Ofioioca 
 therefore does not here denote comparare, but the actual making 
 him like to (Plat. Rep. p. 393 C ; Matt. vi. 8, xxv. 1, xiii 24 ; 
 Eom. ix. 29). See the scholion of Photius in Matthaei, ad 
 Euth. Zig. p. 290. De Wette is at one with Fritzsehe as re- 
 gards o/jiOKaa-ci), but differs from him, however, in his view of 
 ofj,oiw6ri<TeTai as referring to the future result that is developing 
 itself. <f>povifi<p] as in xxv. 2. eirl rrjv Trerpav] upon 
 the rock. No particular rock is intended, but the category, as 
 in ver. 26 : upon the sand. Observe the emphatic, nay solemn, 
 polysyndeta, and (instead of ore or eirei, followed by a statement 
 of the consequence ; Kriiger, Xen. Anal. p. 404; Kiihner, II. 
 2, p. 782 f.) the paratactie mode of representation in w. 25 
 and 2 7, as also the important verbal repetition in ver. 2 7, where, 
 in the last of the assaults, "Trpoa-eKo^av (they assailed it) is only 
 a more concrete way of describing the thing than the corre- 
 sponding TrpoaeTrevov of ver. 25. The three points in the 
 picture are the roof, the foundation, and the sides of the house. 
 On the pluperfect Te#e/ieXiWo without the augment, see 
 Winer, p. 70 [E. T. 85]. //, 670X17] " magna, sane totalis," 
 BengeL The meaning of this simple but grand similitude,
 
 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 237 
 
 harmonizing in some of its features with Ezek. xiii. 1 1 ff., is 
 this : Whoever conforms to the teaching just inculcated is 
 certain to obtain salvation in my kingdom, though trying 
 times may await him ; but he who is disobedient will lose the 
 expected felicity, and the dire catastrophe that is to precede 
 the advent of the Messiah will overwhelm him with aTrd!>\.eia 
 (inasmuch as the Messiah, at His coming, will consign him to 
 eternal death). 
 
 With regard to the Sermon generally, the following points 
 may be noted : 
 
 (1.) It is the same discourse which, though according to a 
 different tradition and redaction, is found in Luke vi. 2049. 
 For although it is there represented as occurring at a later 
 date and in another locality (ver. 1 7), and although, in respect 
 of its contents, style, and arrangement it differs widely from 
 that in Matthew, yet, judging from its characteristic introduc- 
 tion and close, its manifold and essential identity as regards 
 the subject-matter, as well as from its mentioning the cir- 
 cumstance that, immediately after, Jesus cured the sick servant 
 in Capernaum (Luke vii. 1 ff.), it is clear that Matthew and 
 Luke do not record two different discourses (Augustine, 
 Erasmus, Andr. Osiander, Molinaeus, Jansen, Biisching, Hess, 
 Storr, Gratz, Krafft); but different versions of one and the 
 same (Origen, Chrysostom, Bucer, Calvin, Chemnitz, Calovius, 
 Bengel, and most modern commentators). 
 
 (2.) The preference as regards originality of tradition is not 
 to be accorded to Luke (Schneckenburger, Olshausen, Wilke, 
 B. Bauer, Schenkel, and, in the main, Bleek and Holtzmann), 
 but to Matthew (Schleiermacher, Kern, Tholuck, de Wette, 
 Weiss, Weizsacker, Keim), because, as compared with Matthew, 
 Luke's version is so incomplete in its character, that one sees 
 in it merely the disjointed fragments of what had once been 
 a much more copious discourse. In Matthew, on the other 
 hand, there is that combination of full detail, and sententious 
 brevity, and disregard of connection, which is so natural in 
 the case of a lengthened extemporaneous and spirited address 
 actually delivered, but not suited to the purpose of a mere
 
 238 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 compiler of traditions, to whose art Ewald (Jahrb. I. p. 131) 
 ascribes the structure of the discourse. The Sermon on the 
 Mount is omitted in Mark. But the view that this evangelist 
 originally borrowed it, though in an abridged form, from 
 Matthew's collection of our Lord's sayings, and that the place 
 where it stood in Mark iii. 19, just before KOA, ep-%. et9 OLKOV, 
 may still be traced (Ewald, Holtzmann), rests on the utterly 
 unwarrantable supposition (Introduction, sec. 4) that the 
 second Gospel has not come down to us in its original shape. 
 On the other hand, see especially Weiss. Besides, there is no 
 apparent reason why so important a passage should have been 
 entirely struck -out by Mark, if it had been originally there. 
 
 (3.) Since the original production of Matthew the apostle 
 consisted of the \6yia rov tcvpiov (Introduction, sec. 2), it may 
 be assumed that the Sermon on the Mount, as given in the 
 present Gospel of Matthew, was in all essential respects one 
 of the principal elements in that original. However, it is 
 impossible to maintain that it was delivered (and reproduced 
 from memory), in the precise form in which it has been pre- 
 served in Matthew. This follows at once from the length of 
 the discourse and the variety of its contents, and is further con- 
 firmed by the circumstance that Matthew himself, according 
 to ix. 9, did not as yet belong to the number of those to 
 whom it had been addressed. By way of showing that the 
 Sermon on the Mount cannot have been delivered (Luke 
 vi. 20) till after the choice of the Twelve (Wieseler, Tholuck, 
 Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keirn), reasons of this 
 sort have been alleged, that, at so early a stage, Jesus could 
 not have indulged in such a polemical style of address toward 
 the Pharisees. This, however, is unsatisfactory, since even a 
 later period would still be open to a similar objection. On 
 the other hand, it is to be observed further, that so important 
 a historical connection (viz. with the choice of the Twelve) 
 could not fail to have been preserved among the ancient 
 traditions recorded by Matthew if such connection had actually 
 existed, while again it is in accordance with the natural 
 development of tradition, to suppose that the presence of the 
 i (Matt. v. 1), which is historically certain, as well as the
 
 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 239 
 
 numerous important references to the calling of the disciples, 
 may have led to the adoption of a later date in the subsequent 
 traditions. Those who represent the evangelist as introducing 
 the Sermon at an earlier stage than that to which it strictly 
 belongs, are therefore charging him with gross confusion in 
 his determination of the place in which it ought to stand. 
 But although Matthew was not present himself at the Sermon 
 on the Mount, but only reports what he learned indirectly 
 through those who were so, still his report so preserves that 
 happy combination of thoughtful purpose with the freedom of 
 extemporaneous speech which distinguished the discourse, that 
 one cannot fail clearly enough to recognise its substantial 
 originality. This, however, can only be regarded as a relative 
 originality, such as makes it impossible to say not only to 
 what extent the form and arrangement of the discourse have 
 been influenced by new versions of the \6jia on the one hand, 
 and new modifications of the Gospel on the other, but also 
 how much of what our Lord altered on some other occasion 
 has been, either unconsciously or intentionally, interwoven 
 with kindred elements in the address. But, in seeking to 
 eliminate such foreign matters, critics have started with sub- 
 jective assumptions and uncertain views, and so have each 
 arrived at very conflicting results. Utterly inadmissible is 
 the view of Calvin and Semler, which has obtained currency 
 above all through Pott (de natura atque indole orat. mont. 
 1788) and Kuinoel, that the Sermon on the Mount is a con- 
 glomerate, consisting of a great many detached sentences 
 uttered by Jesus on different occasions, 1 and in proof of which 
 we are referred especially to the numerous fragments that are 
 to be found scattered throughout Luke. No doubt, in the 
 case of the Lord's Prayer, vi. 9 ff., the claim of originality 
 
 1 Strauss compares the -different materials of the discourse to boulders thai 
 have been washed away from their original bed ; while Matthew, he thinks, has 
 shown special skill in grouping together the various cognate elements. This is 
 substantially the view of Baur. Both, however, are opposed to the notion that 
 Luke's version is distinguished by greater originality. Holtzmann ascribes to 
 Matthew the arrangement and the grouping of the ideas, while to Jesus again 
 he ascribes the various apothegms that fill up the outline. Weizsacker regards 
 the discourse as fabricated, and having no reference to any definite situation,
 
 240 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 must be decided in favour of Luke's account. Otherwise, 
 however, the historical connection of Luke's parallel passages 
 is such as, in no single instance, to justify their claim to the 
 originality in question. In fact, the connection in which most 
 of them stand is less appropriate than that of Matthew (Luke 
 xi. 34-36 compared with Matt. vi. 22 f. ; Luke xvi. 17 
 compared with Matt. v. 18 ; Luke xii. 58 ff. compared with 
 Matt. v. 24 ff. ; Luke xvi. 18 compared with Matt. v. 32), 
 while others leave room for supposing that Jesus has used the 
 same expression twice (Luke xii. 33 f. comp. Matt. vi. 19-21 ; 
 Luke xiii. 24 comp. Matt. vii. 13 ; Luke xiii. 25-27 comp. 
 Matt. vii. 22 f. ; Luke xiv. 34 comp. Matt. v. 13 ; Luke xvi. 
 13 comp. Matt. vi. 24) on different occasions, which is quite 
 possible, especially when we consider the plastic nature of the 
 figurative language employed. For, when Luke himself makes 
 use of the saying about the candle, Matt. v. 1 5, on two 
 occasions (viii. 16, xi. 33), there is no necessity for thinking 
 (as Weiss does) that he has been betrayed into doing so by 
 Mark iv. 21. Luke's secondary character as regards the 
 Sermon on the Mount is seen, above all, in his omitting Jesus' 
 fundamental exposition of the law. In deriving that expo- 
 sition from some special treatise dealing with the question of 
 Jesus' attitude towards the law, Holtzmann adopts a view that 
 is peculiarly untenable in the case of the first Gospel (which 
 grew directly out of the \6<yia) ; so, on the other hand, Weiss, 
 1864, p. 56 f. 
 
 (4.) Those whom Jesus addressed in the Sermon on the 
 Mount were, in the first instance, His own disciples (v. 1), 
 among whom were present some of those who were afterwards 
 known as the Twelve (iv. 18 ff), for which reason also a part 
 of the discourse has the apostolic office distinctly in view ; 
 
 with a view, as he thinks, to show the relation of Jesus to the law, and there- 
 with its introduction into the kingdom of God ; what interrupts this branch of 
 the discourse, which was sketched as a unity, viz. v. 11 f., vi. 9ff., vii. 21-23, 
 are inexplicable additions, and vii. 1-23 contains insertions which have a general 
 relationship to the principal thoughts. According to Weiss, the following 
 passages in particular belong to the insertions : v. 13-16, v. 25 f., vi. 7-15, vi. 
 19-34, vii. 7-11. The discourse, moreover, is said to have begun originally 
 with only four beatitudes.
 
 THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 241 
 
 but the surrounding multitude (vii. 28) had also been listening, 
 and were deeply astonished at the instruction they received. 
 Accordingly, it may well be supposed that though Jesus' 
 words were intended more immediately for the benefit of His 
 disciples (v. 2), the listening multitude was by no means over< 
 looked, but formed the outer circle of His audience, so that by 
 look and gesture He could easily make it appear what was 
 intended for the one circle and what for the other ; comp. v. 2. 
 What is said of ancient oratory is no less true of the anima- 
 tion with which Jesus spoke : " in antiqua oratione oculus, 
 manus, digitus vice interpretis funguntur " (Wolf, ad Lcptin. 
 p. 365). These observations will suffice to explain the pre- 
 sence of a mixed teaching suited to the outer and inner circle, 
 partly ideal and partly of a popular and less abstract character 
 (in answer to Wittichen, Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, p. 318 ff.). 
 
 (5.) The object of the sermon cannot have been the conse- 
 cration of the apostles (Zacharias, Pott, Ewald, Jahrb. I. p. 129), 
 partly because the connection in which Luke places this address 
 with the choosing of the Twelve is not to be preferred to the 
 historical connection given in Matthew (see above, under 2) ; 
 partly because Matthew, who does not record any passage con- 
 taining special instructions for the apostles till ch. x., makes 
 no mention whatever of such an object (he only says e'S/Sao7cei/ 
 auTov<;, v. 2); and partly because the contents are, as a whole, 
 by no means in keeping with such a special aim as is here 
 supposed. Judging from the contents, the object of Jesus, as 
 the fulJUler of the law and the prophets, is to set forth the moral 
 conditions of admission to the approaching Messianic kingdom. 
 But the principle of a morality rooted in the heart, on which 
 He insists, is, seeing that it is His disciples that are immediately 
 addressed, necessarily faith in Him, as Luther especially has 
 so often and so ably maintained (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
 I. p. 598 ff., Tholuck). The whole discourse is a lively com- 
 mentary on the words with which Jesus introduced His public 
 ministry : peravoetTe, rjyyiice <yap f) ftacri\6ia rwv ovpavcav, set- 
 ting forth the great moral effects of the fjuerdvoia which He 
 requires, and declaring them to be the condition of Messianic 
 bliss for those who believe in Him. So far the discourse may 
 
 MATT. Q
 
 242 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 be correctly described as the inaugural address of His kingdom, 
 as its "magna charta" (Tholuck), less appropriately as the 
 " compendium of His doctrine " (de Wette). 
 
 (6.) The passages in which Jesus plainly reveals Himself 
 as the Messiah (v. 1 7 f., vii. 2 1 ff.) are not at variance with 
 xvi. 17 (see note on this passage), but fully harmonize with 
 the Messianic conviction of which He was already possessed at 
 His baptism, and which was divinely confirmed on that occa- 
 sion, and with which He commenced His public ministry 
 (iv. 1 7) ; just as in the fourth Gospel, also, He gives expression 
 to His Messianic consciousness from the very outset, both within 
 and beyond the circle of His disciples. Consequently, it is 
 not necessary to suppose that a varepov irporepov (de Wette, 
 Baur) has taken place, which, according to Kostlin, had already 
 been forced into the \oyta ; nor need we allow ourselves to be 
 driven to the necessity of assigning a later date to the dis- 
 course (Tholuck, Hilgenfeld). Besides, in the Sermon on the 
 Mount, Jesus does not as yet assume to Himself any express or 
 formal designation as Messiah, although a Messianic sense of 
 the importance of His eya) runs through the entire discourse ; 
 and the notion that His consciousness of being the Messiah only 
 gradually developed itself at a later period (Strauss, Schenkel, 
 Weissenbach), is contrary to the whole testimony of the 
 Gospels. 
 
 Ver. 28. Kal ejevero] . Winer, p. 565 [E. T. 760]. 
 CTTL] as throughout the New Testament. In classical Greek 
 the usual construction is with the dat., sometimes with the 
 ace., and more rarely with eiri (Xen. Cyrop. i. 4. 27 ; Polyb. 
 v. 48. 3, ii 3. 3, al.). The discourse, which has been listened 
 to with deep and unwearied attention, having now been brought 
 to a close, there follows an outburst of astonishment, " quod 
 nova quaedam majestas et insueta hominum mentes ad se 
 raperet," Calvin. This in answer to Kostlin, p. 77, Holtz- 
 mann, who regard this statement as borrowed from Mark i. 2 2. 
 
 Ver. 29. *Hv 8i8d<rtccov] expresses more emphatically 
 than a simple imperf. that it was a continuous thing, Klihner, 
 II. 1, p. 35. Winer, p. 526 f. [E. T. 437]. o>9 ct-ovtriav
 
 CHAP. VII. 29. 243 
 
 e^o) v\ as one who is invested with prophetic authority, in con- 
 trast to the vpa/j,/j,aTeis, in listening to whom one could hear 
 that they were not authorized to speak in the same fearless, 
 candid, unconstrained, convincing, telling, forcible way. " All 
 was full of life, and sounded as though it had hands and feet," 
 Luther. Comp. Luke iv. 32, 36; Mark i. 22, 27; Eev. 
 ix. 19.
 
 244 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 VEK. 1. xaraftavn ds avru] Lachm. According to Z Codd. 
 of the It. Hil. : xai xarafiavTog avrou, instead of which B C N** 
 Curss. have xaru@dvro$ de aurou. A mere correction, like the 
 similarly attested titriXdovros ds auroZ, ver. 5, in Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 8. Ver. 2. IX 6uv] Lachm. and Tisch. : KpostXdw, accord- 
 ing to B E M A N and several Curss. as well as some Verss. 
 and Fathers. Correctly, vpos having dropped out owing to the 
 final syllab. of fovpoe. Ver. 3. 6 'iy<sovi\ is not found in 
 B C* tf, Curss. Verss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A 
 common supplementary addition, and evidently such in the 
 present instance, from its shifting position, for several authori- 
 ties have it before ^-vj/aro. Ver. 5. aur<] Elz. : T& 'lj<roD, con- 
 trary to decisive authorities. Ver. 8. Xo'yw] Elz.: Xoyov, 
 against such decisive authority, that X6yw must not be regarded 
 as introduced from Luke vii. 7 ; but Xo'yov seems to be a cor- 
 rection through ignorance. Ver. 9. After s%ovciav Lachm. has 
 racffoptvos (B N, 4, 238, 421, Vulg. It. Chrys.) ; taken from Luke 
 vii. 8. Ver. 10. ovfie sv rw *I<rpai)X roeavrqv K/'ariv tZpot] 
 Lachm.: nap ovdsv! iroaavTrjv irienv sv ru 'lap. sbpov, only according 
 to B, Curss. and several Verss. and Fathers. The same reading, 
 though not so well attested, is also found in Luke vii. 9. An 
 interpretation in which the meaning of ovde has been missed, 
 and the prefixing of sv rf 'laprtfa. misunderstood (comp. Vulg.). 
 Ver. 12. x/3xj0J3<r.] Tisch. 8: eeXsu<roi/ra/, on too slender 
 authority; among the Codd. only X*. Ver. 13. auroD] want- 
 ing in B K and several Curss. and Verss. and in Basil. De- 
 leted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Passed over as unnecessary. 
 For what immediately follows Lachm. reads a-^b r%$ Zpac exsivqs, 
 in accordance with less important authorities (C A). In con- 
 formity with ix. 22, xv. 28, xvii. 18. Ver. 15. aur] so also 
 Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch., according to decisive authority. The 
 avroTs of the Received text, defended by Griesb. and Fritzsche, is 
 taken from Mark i. 31, Luke iv. 39. Ver. 18. *roXXoi)s o^Xoug] 
 Lachm.: o^Xov, only according to B, but correct. Matth. would 
 certainly have written S^Xou; ToXXoug, as in ver. 1, xiii. 2, xv. 30,
 
 CHAP. vni. 245 
 
 nnd all through ; for only in xiv. 1 4 does he put croXu; first, where, 
 however, the singul. occurs. Besides, the reading of the Received 
 text might easily be a gloss to strengthen the expression. 
 Ver. 23. rb vhoTov] The article is omitted in B C, Curss. Or., 
 and is deleted by Lachm., but had been left out from not being 
 understood. So also in ix. 1, xiii. 2, in which cases it is deleted 
 by Tisch. 8 as well. Ver. 25. 01 padvirai] The Received text 
 inserts auroD, which, however, is deleted, in accordance with 
 decisive testimonies, o/ /aa^ra/ is also omitted in B K, Verss. 
 as well as by Jerome, Bede. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by 
 Tisch. 8. But the omission may be accounted for from the fact 
 that, similarly in the parallels of Mark and Luke, this, the 
 obvious subject, is not expressed. ^5] is wanting in B C K 
 1, 13, 118, 209. Justly deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and 
 Tisch. ; for, while there seemed to be no reason why it should 
 have been omitted, the insertion of it, on the other hand, would 
 naturally suggest itself, if it did not happen to be noticed how 
 the mode of expression is suited to the feeling of the passage. 
 Ver. 28. sX66vei aural] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : eXdon-o? aurou, accord- 
 ing to B C ** and Curss. See ver. 1. Tipaaqvuv] Fritzsche and 
 Scholz, also Tisch. : radapqvuv, according to B C M A, Curss. 
 Syr. utr. Perss. Eus. Epiph. ; Elz. : Tipyserivuv, according to C*** 
 E K L S U V X K. See in general, Orig. iv. p. 140. The 
 reading Tadapwuv, which Orig. found Iv oXiyoig, has topographical 
 reasons in its favour; Tepueqvuv, however, is supported by 
 Origen's statement, that in his time it was the prevailing read- 
 ing. 1 Ver. 29. <ro/] Elz. and Scholz insert 'ijjffoD, which is not 
 found in B C L K, Curss. Codd. It. Copt. Cypr. Or. Taken from 
 Mark v. 7, Luke viii. 28. Ver. 31. eirirpt-^ov q/tTv avtXdfTi/] 
 Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. : amarsiXov vpS.;, according to B N, Curss. 
 Syr. and the majority of Verss. Correctly ; the reading of the 
 Received text is adopted from Luke viii. 32 (where several 
 authorities have avt^dsTv instead of fie&QfTv). Had it been a cor- 
 rection from Mark v. 1 2, we should have found vs^ov instead of 
 avosrsiXov in the present passage. Ver.'32. ilc, TOVS ^olpovs] as 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 8, according to B C* N, Curss. and most Verss. 
 But the Recept. tic n}v ayiXriv ruv ^oipuvia to be preferred all the 
 more that the adoption of sis rws %o/>ouj, from the parallels in 
 Mark and Luke, was favoured by the greater definiteness of 
 meaning (into the bodies of the swine). After jj ayXj Elz. 
 
 1 Tipatr. is still found in the Syr. p. on the margin, Sahid. Sax. It Vulg. 
 Hilar. Nyss. Ath. Juv. Prud. Adopted by Lachm. For the decision, see 
 exegetical notes. N* has Ta^apntu, which is only another way of pronouncing 
 Tat Jap. ; see Grimm on 1 Mace. iv. 15.
 
 246 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 inserts rZv %o/>wv. It is wanting, indeed, in B C* M A K, Curss. 
 and the majority of Verss., and is deleted by Griesb. Scholz, 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily may it have been omitted 
 as quite unnecessary, owing to the parallels in Mark and Luke ! 
 In a case where the meaning was so obvious, there was no 
 motive for inserting it. 
 
 Ver. 1. Avru> . . . avroS] as in v. 40, and frequently in 
 Matthew as well as in classical writers. See Bornemaun, ad 
 Zen. Symp. iv. 63; Winer, p. 139 f. [E. T. 275]. The 
 healing of the leper occurs in Luke (v. 12 ff.) before the Sermon 
 on the Mount, and in Mark (i. 40 ff.) and Luke not till after 
 the healing of Peter's mother-in-law. It is not to be regarded 
 as the earliest of all the miracles of healing. 
 
 Ver. 2. AeTrpos] \e7rpa, nynv, a most dangerous, contagious 
 disease, descending to the fourth generation, which lacerated 
 the body with scales, tetter, and sores ; Trusen, bill. Krarikh. 
 p. 103 ff.; Kurtz in Herzog's Encykl. I. p. 626 ft; Furer in 
 Schenkel's Bibellex. I. p. 317ff. ; Saalschutz, M. R. p. 223ff. 
 Kvpie] To express the reverence that is founded on the 
 recognition of higher power. eav OeXys] entire resignation 
 to the mighty will of Jesus. KaOapia-ai] from the disease 
 that was polluting the body ; Plut. Mor. p. 134D. exa0a- 
 pia-07) avrov 17 \eirpa] and immediately his leprosy was 
 cleansed (John xi 32), xiii. 25,' xxii. 13, xxv. 51. The 
 leprosy is spoken of as cleansed, according to the idea that 
 the disease experiences the healing that the disease is healed 
 (iv. 23). Differently and more correctly expressed in Mark 
 i. 42. On 6i\a), Bengel aptly observes : " echo prompta ad 
 fidem leprosi maturam." In answer to Paulus, who under- 
 stands the cleansing in the sense of pronouncing clean, as 
 also Schenkel, Keim, see Strauss, II. p. 48 ff., and Bleek. 
 
 Ver. 4. The injunction, not to mention the matter to any one, 
 cannot be regarded as an evidence of Matthew's dependence 
 on Mark (Holtzman ; comp. xii. 15 with Mark i. 43 and 
 iii. 7 ff.), because the connection in Mark is supposed to be 
 somewhat more appropriate, but is only to be taken as ex- 
 pressing a desire on the part of Jesus to prevent any commo- 
 tion among the people with their fanatical Messianic hopes, at
 
 CHAP. VIII. 4. 247 
 
 least as far as, by discouraging publicity, it was in His own 
 power to do so (Chrysostom) to prevent what, according to 
 Mark i. 45 (Luke v. 15), actually took place through a dis- 
 regard of this injunction. Comp. ix. 30,xii. 16 ; Mark iii. 12, 
 v. 43, vil 36, viil 26, 30; Matt. xvi. 20, xvii. 9. The 
 miracle was no doubt performed (ver. 1) before the people (in 
 answer to Schenkel), and in the open air; but, in the first 
 place, only those standing near would be in a position to hear 
 or see the course of the miracle with sufficient minuteness ; 
 and, secondly, in giving this injunction, Jesus was also keeping 
 in view the fact of the leper's being about to visit Jerusalem, 
 and to sojourn there. Consequently we must reject the view 
 of Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Paulus, 
 Glockler, to the effect that He wished to provide against any 
 refusal on the part of the priests to pronounce the man clean. 
 Equally inadmissible is that of Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 and Keim, that at present, above all, He insisted on the more 
 important duty, that, namely, of the man's subjecting him- 
 self to the inspection of the priests, which is not in accordance 
 with the occasional opa (conip. ix. 31) ; nor can we accept 
 Olshausen's view, that the motive for the injunction ig to be 
 sought in the man himself. Baur holds that the injunction 
 is not to be regarded as historical, but only as the product of 
 tradition, arising out of the application to Jesus of Isa. xlii. 1 ff. 
 But the truth is, that prohibition is not once mentioned in 
 Isa. xlii., which contains only a general description of the 
 Messiah's humility. Moreover, it would not be apparent why 
 the passage from Isaiah is not quoted here, when the injunc- 
 tion in question occurs for the first time, but afterwards in 
 xii. 17. <reavTov\ thyself. Instead of making a talk about 
 the matter, go and present yourself in person before the 
 proper authorities. T&> te/oet] Lev. xiv. 2. TO Swpov] the 
 offering prescribed in Lev. xiv. 10, 21. See Ewald, Alterth. 
 p. 210 f . ; Keil, Archdol. 59. et<? jjuaprvptov avrol<i\ as 
 an evidence to them, i.e. to the people, that thou hast been 
 healed. This reference of avrois follows contextually from 
 opa, fMTjSevl eiTr?;?, and that of papTvpiov (evidence that tho'ti 
 art cleansed) from a consideration of the object of the legal
 
 243 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 prescription in question ; see Lev. xiv. 5 7. It is importing a 
 foreign element, to suppose that the testimony was further 
 meant to show that " I am not abrogating the law " (Chry- 
 sostom, Theophylact ; see what follows) ; comp. also Fritzsche, 
 who looks upon the words as containing a remark by Matthew 
 himself : " Haec autem dixit, ut turbae testaretur, se magni 
 facere Mosis instituta." As decisive against the latter view, 
 we have the fact that both Mark and Luke record the words 
 els paprvpiov avTois, and that, too, in such a way as to make 
 it evident that they formed part of what was spoken by Jesus 
 (Luke v. 14). Chrysostom and Fathers understand aurot? as 
 referring to the priests, in which case the testimony is regarded 
 as intended to show either (what is in itself correct) Jesus' 
 respect for the law (Euth. Zigabenus, Bengel, Keim), to which 
 the person cleansed was expected to bear witness "before, the 
 priests (Chrysostom : et? e\ey^oi>, ei? aTroSeifyv, 19 Kar^opiav, 
 eav dyv(i)fju)V(t)(Tiv), or the reality of the cure, " si sc. vellent in 
 posterum negare, me tibi sanitatem restituisse " (Kuinoel, 
 Erasmus, Maldonatus, Grotius), and at the same time the 
 Messiahship of Jesus (Calovius). According to Olshansen, it 
 is a testimony borne by the priests themselves that is meant ; 
 inasmuch as, by pronouncing the man clean, they become 
 witnesses to the genuineness of the miracle, and at the same 
 time condemn their own unbelief (a confusion of two things 
 that are no less erroneous than foreign to the purpose). If 
 auroi? referred to the priests, then of course paprvptov could 
 only be understood as meaning an evidence or proof that the 
 cleansing had taken place (Grotius). However, the offering 
 was not meant to furnish such evidence to the priests, but to 
 the people, who were now at liberty to resume their intercourse 
 with the person who had been healed. 
 
 KEMARK. Attempts of various kinds have been made to 
 divest the miracles of Jesus 1 of their special character, and to 
 
 1 See Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 206 ff. ; Julius Miiller, de miraculor. J. Ch. 
 natura et necessitate, I. II. 1839, 1841 ; Kostlin, de miraculor. quae Chr. et 
 primiej. discip. fecerunt, natura et ratione, 1860; Rothe iu d. Stud. u. Krit. 
 1858, p. 21 ff., and zur Dogmat. p. 104 ff. ; Beyschlag, ub. d. Bedeut. d. 
 Wwiders im Christenth. 1862; Dorner, Jesu sundlose Vollkommenh. 1862,
 
 CHAP. VIII. 4. 249 
 
 reduce them to the order of natural events (Paulus), partly by 
 accounting for them on physiological or psychological grounds, 
 and partly by explaining them on certain exegetical, allegorical, 
 or mythical principles of interpretation. Some, again, have 
 sought to remove them entirely from the sphere of actual fact, 
 and to ascribe their origin to legends elaborated out of Old 
 Testament types and prophecies (Strauss) ; to the influence of 
 religious feeling in the church (B. Bauer) ; to narratives of an 
 allegorical character (Volkmar) ; to the desire to embody cer- 
 tain ideas and tendencies of thought in historical incidents 
 (Baur) ; as well as to mistakes of every sort in the understand- 
 ing of similitudes and parables (Weisse). To admit the super- 
 natural origin of Christianity is not inconsistent with the idea 
 of its historical continuity (Baur) ; but the denial of miracles 
 involves both an avowed and a covert impugning of the evan- 
 gelic narrative, which, as such, is in its substance conditioned 
 by miracles (Holtzmann, p. 510), and consequently does away 
 almost entirely with its historical character. As a further 
 result, Christianity itself is endangered, in so far as it is matter 
 of history and not the product of the independent development 
 of the human mind, and inasmuch as its entrance into the 
 world through the incarnation of the Son of God is analogous 
 to the miracle of creation (Philippi, Glaubensl. I. p. 25 ff., ed. 2). 
 The miracles of Jesus, which should always be viewed in con- 
 nection with His whole redeeming work (Kostlin, 1860, p. 
 14ff.), are outward manifestations of the power of God's Spirit, 
 dwelling in Him in virtue of His Sonship, and corresponding to 
 His peculiar relation to the world (Hirzel), as well as to His 
 no less peculiar relation to the living God ; their design was to 
 authenticate His Messianic mission, and in this lay their telic 
 necessity, a necessity, however, that is always to be regarded 
 as only relative (Schott, de eonsilio, quo Jesus mirac. ediderit, 
 Opuse. I. p. Ill ft.). And this according to John ii. 11. In 
 exercising His supernatural power of healing, the usual though 
 not always (Matt. viii. 5ff.; John iv. 47 ff. ; Matt. ix. 23ff. ; 
 Luke xxii. 51) indispensable condition on which He imparted 
 the blessing was faith in that power on the part of the person 
 to be healed ; nothing, however, but positive unbelief prevented 
 
 p. 51 ff.; Hirzel, ilb. d. Wunder, 1863; Giider, ub d. Wunder, 1868; Stein- 
 meyer, Apolog. Beitr. I. 1866 ; Baxmann in d. Jahrb.f. D. Th. 1863, p. 749 ff. ; 
 Kostlin, ibid. 1864, p. 205 ff; Bender, d. Wunderbeg. d. N. T. 1871. On the 
 synoptic accounts of the miracles, see Holtzmann, p. 497; and on the various 
 kinds of miracles, Keim, II. 125 ff. ; on the miracles of healing, see Weizsacker, 
 p. 360 ff.
 
 250 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 this power from taking effect (Matt. xiii. 58; Mark vi. 5f. ; 
 comp. Julius Miiller, II. p. 17); but Christ's heart-searching 
 look (John ii. 25) enabled Him to detect those cases where the 
 attempt would be fruitless. Moreover, the miracles of Jesus 
 are not to be regarded as things that contradict or violate the 
 laws of nature, but rather as comprehended within the great 
 system of natural law, the harmonious connection of which in 
 all its parts it is not for us to fathom. In this respect the 
 phenomena of magnetism furnish an analogy, though a poor 
 and imperfect one ; and the more that is known of the laws of 
 nature, the idea of any annulling or suspension of these laws 
 only appears the more absurd. See Kostlin, 1860, p. 59 ff., 
 1864, p. 259 ff.; Eothe, p. 34 ff. The miracles, therefore, are 
 " reflections in nature " of God's revelation of Himself (Bey- 
 schlag), " something strictly in accordance with law" (Nitzsch), 
 which, in the sphere of nature, appears as the necessary and 
 natural correlative of the highest miracle in the spiritual world 
 viz. the accomplishment of the work of redemption by the 
 incarnate Son of God. As this work has its necessary condi- 
 tions in the higher order of the moral world established and 
 ruled by the holy God in accordance with His love, so the 
 miracles have theirs in the laws of a higher order of nature 
 corresponding to the loving purposes of the Creator, inasmuch 
 as this latter order, in virtue of the connection between nature 
 and spirit, is upheld by that Being whose spiritual power 
 determines all its movements. Comp. Liebner, Christologie, I. 
 p. 351 : "The miracles of Christ are occasional manifestations 
 of the complete introduction, through the God-man, of that 
 relation between nature and spirit which is to be perfected in 
 the end of the world " means by which the Xoyos reveals Him- 
 self in His human impersonation and work, so that they are 
 always of a moral nature, and have always a moral aim in view, 
 unfolding, in their essential connection with His preaching, the 
 miracle of the incarnation on which His whole work was based 
 (Martensen, Dogm. 155 [E. T. p. 301]). Observe, moreover, 
 how the power to work miracles was a gift and ff^sJbv of the 
 apostles (Rom. xv. 19 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Heb. ii. 4), and a ^dpta/ia 
 of the apostolic church (1 Cor. xii. 9 f.), a fact which warrants 
 us in assuming, indeed in inferring a minori ad majus, the 
 reality of the miracles of Jesus Himself in general, we mean, 
 and without prejudice to the criticism of the narratives in 
 detail. At the same time, in the application of such criticism, 
 the hypothesis of legendary embellishments should be treated 
 with great caution by a modest exegesis, and all the more that,
 
 CHAP. VIII. 5-7. 251 
 
 in the fourth Gospel, we have a series of miracles bearing the 
 attestation of one who was an eye-witness, and which, in their 
 various features, correspond to many of those recorded by the 
 Synoptists. 
 
 Ver. 5. The centurion was a Gentile by birth, ver. 10, but 
 connected with Judaism (Luke vii. 3), probably from being a 
 proselyte of the gate, and was serving in the army of Herod 
 Antipas. The narrative is, in the main, identical with Luke 
 vii., differing only in points of minor importance. The ques- 
 tion as to which of the two evangelists the preference in 
 point of originality is to be accorded, must be decided not in 
 favour of Matthew (Bleek, Keim), but of Luke, whose special 
 statements in the course of the incident (misinterpreted by 
 Strauss and Bruno Bauer, comp. de Wette) cannot, except in 
 an arbitrary way, be ascribed to an amplifying tendency ; they 
 bear throughout the stamp of historical and psychological 
 originality, and nothing would have been more superfluous 
 than to have invented them for the sake of giving greater 
 prominence to the man's humility, which is brought out quite 
 as fully and touchingly in Matthew's narrative. Comp. 
 Neander, Krabbe, Lange. For the points of difference in the 
 account John iv. 47 fi'., see note on that passage. 
 
 Ver. 6. 'O Trals pov] not son (Strauss, Neander, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Keim), but slave (Luke vii. 
 7 ; Matt. xiv. 2) ; yet not : my favourite slave (Fritzsche, 
 comp. Luke vii. 2); but either the centurion had only the 
 one, or else he refers to that one in particular whom he had 
 in view. From ver. 9, the former appears to be the more 
 probable view. /SeySX^rat] is laid down. Comp. ix. 2. 
 The perf. as denoting the existing condition. The description 
 of the disease is not at variance with Luke vii. 2, but more 
 exact. TrapaXur.] see on iv. 24. 
 
 Ver. 7. And Jesus (perceiving, from his mode of address 
 and whole demeanour, the centurion's faith in His divine mira- 
 culous power) answered him : I (emphatically) will come, and 
 so on. Fritzsche puts it interrogatively. But (real, by way of 
 coupling an objection, Person, ad Eur. Phoen. 1373) said Jesus 
 to him, Am I to come and heal him (depair. conj. aor.) ? This
 
 252 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 is refining more than is necessary, and not in keeping with 
 the simple character of the passage. Ben gel well says, 
 " Divina sapientia Jesus, eos sermones proponit, quibus elicit 
 confessionem fidelium eosque antevertit." 
 
 Ver. 8. Aojw] Dat. of the means and instrument, as in 
 Luke vii. 7 ; speak it, i.e. command, with a word, that he 
 become whole. This is by way of expressing a contrast to 
 the proffered personal service. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 525. 
 Here again the iva does not represent the infinitive construc- 
 tion, but : I am not sufficient (worthy enough) for the purpose 
 that Thou shouldst go (John i. 27) under my roof (Soph. Ant. 
 1233). As a Gentile by birth, and loving, as he does, the 
 Jewish people (Luke vii.), he feels most deeply his own 
 unworthiness in presence of this great miracle- worker that has 
 arisen among them, and " non superstitione, sed fide dixit, se 
 indignum esse," Maldonatus. 
 
 Ver. 9. Kal . . . el;ov<Tiav]a7roTOv tcaO* eavTov vTroSeiy/jLaros 
 Karaa-Kevd^ei, on, Kal Xojw /MOVM Svvarai, Euth. Zigabenus. 
 "Av0p. VTTO e. go together (in answer to Fritzsche). The con- 
 necting of this substantive with %a)v, etc., serves to indicate 
 at once his own obedience and that which he exacts and 
 receives from others. It is quite gratuitous to suppose that 
 the centurion regards the disease as caused by demons that 
 are compelled to yield to the behests of Jesus (Fritzsche, 
 Ewald) ; and it is equally so to impute to him the belief that 
 the duty of carrying out those behests is entrusted to angels 
 (Erasmus, Wetstein, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius). From 
 the context it simply appears that he looked upon diseases as 
 subject to Christ's authority, and therefore ready to disappear 
 whenever He ordered them to do so (Theophylact, Euth. Ziga- 
 benus, Bengel, de Wette). It is thus that he commands the 
 fever in Luke iv. 39, and it ceases. Observe with Bengel the 
 " sapientia fidelis ex ruditate militari pulchre elucens." His 
 inference is a case of reasoning a minori ad majtis. 
 
 Ver. 10. OvBe ev r. 'lap.] not even among Israelites, 
 the people of God, who are in possession of ras Trepl e/nou 
 fuzprvpias TWV ypatywv (Euth. Zigabenus). So the centurion 
 was not a proselyte of righteousness ; comp. ver. 1 1 f., where
 
 CHAP. VIII. 11, 12. 253 
 
 Jews and Gentiles are contrasted with each other. And yet in 
 him faith and humility were found inseparably united as by 
 nature they ought to be, and that more than in the case of the 
 ordinary native Jew. With this unfavourable testimony against 
 Israel, comp. the history of the woman of Canaan, xv. 22 ff. 
 
 Ver. 11. 'Airo avar. ical Svcr/*.] from the most widely 
 separated quarters of the world Gentiles. Comp. Isa. xlv. 6 ; 
 Mai. i. 11. According to Jewish ideas, one of the main 
 elements in the happiness of the Messianic kingdom was the 
 privilege of participating in splendid festive entertainments 
 along with the patriarchs of the nation. Bertholdt, Christol. 
 p. 196. Schoettgen on this passage. Jesus employs the expres- 
 sion in a symbolical sense (xxvi. 29 ; Luke xiii. 28, xiv. 15 ; 
 Eev. xix. 9 ; Matt. xxii. 30 ; 1 Cor. xv. 50): many Gentiles 
 will become believers, and so have their part in the blessings of the 
 Messianic kingdom in happy felloivship with tlie patriarchs of 
 the people of God. In sharp contrast to incarnate (iii. 9) 
 Jewish pride, Tanchum (in Schoettgen) : " In mundo futuro, 
 (dixit Deus) mensam ingentem vobis sternam, quod gentiles 
 videbunt et pudejient." Bertholdt, p. 1*76. Hilgenfeld sees 
 in the whole narrative the milder comprehensive Judaeo-Chris- 
 tianity of the author of the revised Gospel ; but Keim again, 
 while upholding the account in all other points, ascribes ver. 
 1 1 f. to the hand that framed the later version, although, with 
 ver. 10, preparing the way for them, the words neither inter- 
 rupt the connection nor clash with the then standpoint of 
 Jesus (iii. 9), seeing that in the Sermon on the Mount (espe- 
 cially vii. 21 .) He has taken away from the kingdom of God 
 anything like national limitation. 
 
 Ver. 12. The sons of the kingdom: the Jnvs, in so far as, 
 according to the divine promise, they have the right, as the 
 theocratic people, to the Messiah's kingdom (John iv. 22 ; 
 Eom. ix. 4, 5, xi. 16 f.), and are, in consequence, its potential 
 subjects. The article describes them, summarily, in a body, 
 wo?, }3, as denoting physical or moral relationship, Winer, p. 
 223 [E. T. 298]. The true viol T. par., who are so in 
 point of fact, see xiii. 38. TO eg&repov] which is outside the 
 (illuminated) Messianic banqueting hall. Wetstein on this
 
 254 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 passage, comp. on egwrepos, LXX. Ex. xxvi. 4, xxxvi. 10 ; 
 Ezek. x. 5 ; not found in Greek authors. For the thing, see 
 xxii. 13, xxv. 30. It is not some special degree of infernal 
 punishment that is represented to us (Grotius), but the 
 punishments themselves, and that as poena damni et sensus 
 at once. o K\av6po<t . . . oSovriov] indicating the wail of 
 suffering, and the gnashing of teeth that accompanies despair. 
 The article points to the well-known (KUT efo^i/) misery 
 reigning in hell (xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30). 
 Found in Luke only at xiii. 28, where the same expression 
 occurs on a different occasion, a circumstance which is not in 
 Luke's favour (de Wette, Gfrorer), but is to be explained from 
 the fact that Jesus made frequent use of the figure of the 
 Messianic reclining at table, and of the expression regarding 
 the infernal /cXavdjios, etc. 
 
 Ver. 13. 'Ev rfj &pa e/c.] a>pa is emphatic. In the very 
 hour in which Jesus was uttering these words, the slave 
 became whole, and that through the divine power of Jesus 
 operating upon him from a distance, as in John iv. 46 ff. 
 The narrative is to be explained neither by a desire to present 
 an enlarging view of the miraculous power of Jesus (Strauss), 
 nor as a parable (Weisse), nor as a historical picture of the 
 way in which God's word acts at a distance upon the Gentiles 
 (Volkmar), nor as being the story of the woman of Canaan 
 metamorphosed (Bruno Bauer) ; nor are we to construe the 
 proceeding as the providential fulfilment of a general but sure 
 promise given by Jesus (Ammon), or, in that case, to have 
 recourse to the supposition that the healing was effected 
 through sending an intermediate agent (Paulus). But if, as is 
 alleged, Jesus in His reply only used an affirmation which was 
 halfway between a benediction depending on God and the 
 faith of the house, and a positive act (Keim), it is impossible 
 to reconcile with such vagueness of meaning the simple 
 imperative and the no less impartial statement of the result. 
 Moreover, there exists as little a psychical contact between the 
 sick man and Jesus, as at the healing of the daughter of the 
 woman of Canaan, xv. 22, but the slave was cured in con- 
 sideration of the centurion's faith.
 
 CHAP. VIII. 14-17. 255 
 
 Ver. 14. Mark i. 29 ff., Luke iv. 38 ff., assign to the 
 following narrative another and earlier position, introducing 
 it immediately after the healing of a demoniac in the syna- 
 gogue, which Matthew omits. The account in Mark is the 
 original one, but in none of the reports are we to suppose the 
 evangelists to be recording the earliest of Jesus' works of 
 healing (Keim). et? TTJV oltciav Ilerpov] in which also 
 his brother Andrew lived along with him, Mark i. 29. Not 
 inconsistent with John i. 45, as Peter was a native of Beth- 
 saida, though he had" removed to Capernaum. Whether the 
 house belonged to him cannot be determined. rrjv Trevdepav 
 avrov] 1 Cor. ix. 5. 
 
 Vv. 15, 16. AirjKovei] at table, John xii. 2 ; Luke x. 40. 
 There is a difference, though an unimportant one, in Luke's 
 account (iv. 39) of the mode in which the miracle was per- 
 formed. oi/rta9 Se 7i/.] with more precision in Mark and 
 Luke, at sunset. Besides, in the present instance there is 
 nothing of the special reference to the Sabbath which we find 
 in Mark and Luke, but we are merely given to understand 
 that Jesus remains in Peter's house till the evening (comp. on 
 xiv. 15). By this time the report of the miraculous cure had 
 spread throughout the whole place ; hence the crowds that 
 now throng Him with their sick, a fact which accords but 
 ill with the attempt to destroy or weaken the supernatural 
 character of the act ("mitigating of the fever," and that by 
 gentle soothing words or a sympathetic touch of the hand, 
 Keim, comp. Schenkel). \6yy] without the use of any other 
 means. 
 
 Ver. 1 7. This expelling of demons and healing of diseases 
 were intended, in pursuance of the divine purposes, to be a 
 fulfilment of the prediction in Isa. liii. 4. Observe that this 
 prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus in another sense also, viz. by 
 His atoning death (John i. 29 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24). The passage 
 is quoted from the original (Hebrew) text, but not according 
 to the historical meaning of that original, which would involve 
 the necessity of representing the Messiah, in the present 
 instance, as the atoning sin-bearer (see Kleinert in d. Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1862, p. 723 f.), which, however, is not suited to the
 
 256 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 connection but rather according to that special typical refer- 
 ence, which also seems to have been contemplated by that 
 prediction when read in the light of the acts of healing 
 performed by Jesus. At the same time, \afj,(3dveiv and /Sao-- 
 rd&iv must not be taken in a sense contrary to that of N2 : J 
 and 7?9> t to^ 6 away, to remove (de Wette, Bleek, Grimm) ; 
 but when their ailments are taken away from the diseased, 
 the marvellous compassionate one who does this stands forth 
 as he who carries them away, and, as it were, bears the burden 
 lifted from the shoulders of others. The idea is plastic, 
 poetical, and not to be understood as meaning an actual 
 personal feeling of the diseases thus removed. 
 
 Ver. 18. Els TO irepav] from Capernaum across to the 
 east side of the lake of Tiberias. He wished to retire. In- 
 stead of putting the statement in the pragmatic form (it is 
 different in Mark iv. 35) adopted by Matthew, Luke viii. 22 
 merely says, /cat eyevero ev /ua TWV f)p,epwv. According to 
 Baur, it is only the writer of the narrative who, in the histo- 
 rical transitions of this passage (here and ver. 28, ix. 1, 9, 
 14, 18), "turns the internal connection of all those events 
 into an outward connection as well." 
 
 Ver. 19. El? jpa/jifjiaTev^] Never, not even in passages 
 like John vi. 9, Matt xxi. 19, Eev. viii. 13 (in answer to 
 Winer, p. Ill [E. T. p. 145]; Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 74 
 [E. T. 85]), is el? equivalent to the indefinite pronoun rk, 
 to which the well-known use of el? T/? is certainly opposed, 
 but is always found, and that in the N. T. as well, with 
 a certain numerical reference, such as is also to be seen 
 (Blomfield, Gloss, in Persas, 333) in the passages referred 
 to in classical writers (Jacobs, ad Acliill. Tat. p. 398, ad 
 Anthol. XII. p. 455). It is used (vi. 24) in the present 
 instance in view of the erepo? about to be mentioned in ver. 
 21 ; for this 7/>a/i/taTet9, ver. 19, and the subsequent ere/309, 
 were both of them disciples of Jesus. It is therefore to be 
 interpreted thus : one, a scribe. It follows from ver. 2 1 that 
 this <ypafj,fjMTv<; already belonged to the number of Jesus' 
 disciples in the more general sense of the word, but he now 
 intimated his willingness to become one of His permanent and
 
 CHAP. viii. 20. 257 
 
 intimate followers. The difference in time and place which, 
 as regards the two incidents, vv. 19-22 (in Mark they are 
 omitted), is found in Luke ix. 57-60, is not to be removed. 
 The question as to which evangelist the preference is to be 
 assigned in point of the historical faithfulness of his narrative, 
 falls to be decided in favour of Matthew (Eettig in d. Stud. u. 
 Krit. 1838, p. 240 ff.), as compared with the loose and in- 
 definite account in Luke (Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, 
 Gfrorer, Olshausen, Arnoldi, Holtzmann), who, moreover, adds 
 (ix. 61 f.) still a third, and doubtless no less historical an 
 incident with which he had been made acquainted. Schleier- 
 macher inaptly refers OTTOV av dnep^r) to the various roads by 
 which Jesus might travel to Jerusalem (Schleiermacher, Schrift. 
 d. Luk. p. 169). It is clear, however, from the fact of this 
 narrative occurring so far on in Luke, that he cannot have 
 supposed that the 7/oa/z/iaTev? was Judas Iscariot, and that 
 the ere/305 was Thomas (Lange). As far was he from suppos- 
 ing that the one was Bartholomew and the other Philip (Hil- 
 genfeld), according to the discovery already made by Clement 
 of Alexandria. Observe, further, how quite differently Jesus 
 answers the scribe with his supposed claims as compared with 
 the simple-minded erepo? (Ewald), and how in addressing the 
 latter He merely says, dfco\ovdei fiot,. 
 
 Ver. 20. KaTaa-Kijvaxreis] Places of abode, where, as in 
 their quarters, so to speak (Polybius, xi. 26. 5), they used to 
 dwell. Comp. xiii. 32; Wisd. ix. 8; Tob. i. 4; 2 Mace. 
 xiv. 35. Not nests specially. o v/o? rov dv6p. 1 Jesus, 
 who thus designates Himself by this title (in Acts vii. 56 
 
 1 For the idea of the Son of man, see Scholten, de appell. rev v'mu <r. 
 1809 ; Bb'hme, Geheimniss d. Menschensoknes, 1839 ; Gass, de utroque J. Chr. 
 nomine, 1840 ; Nebe, ub. d. Begr. des Namens o vlos T. vfy. 1860 ; Baur in Hil- 
 genfeld's Zeitschr. 1860, p. 274 ff. ; Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1863, p. 330 ff. ; 
 Holtzmann in the same Zeitschr. 1865, p. 213 ff. ; Schulze, vom Menschensohn 
 u. v. Logos, 1867 ; Weissenbach, Jesu in regno coel. dignitas, 1868 ; Gess, 
 Christi Person u. Werk, I. 1870, pp. 185 ff., 208 ff. ; Keim, Gusch. Jesu, II. p. 
 65 ff. ; Beyschlag, Christol. d. N. T. p. 9 ff. ; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 304 f., 
 ed. 3 ; Wittichen, Idee des Menschen, 1868 ; Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul u. 
 Petr. 1868, p. 179 ff. ; Colani, J. Chr. et les croyances messian. p. 112 ff,, 
 ed. 2 ; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 53 ff., ed. 2 ; Volkmar, d. Evangelien, 1870, p. 
 197 ff. 
 
 MATT. B
 
 258 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, 
 
 Stephen does so likewise), means nothing else by it than 
 " the Messiah" according to its significant 'prophetic character- 
 istic, which, assuming it to be known to those whom He 
 addressed, the Lord claims for Himself. But this self-chosen 
 title, the expression of His full Messianic consciousness, is not 
 founded (Delitzsch, Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 446), not even in the 
 first place, at least (Keim), upon Ps. viii 5, seeing that evi- 
 dence of a Messianic interpretation of this psalm is nowhere 
 to be found in the New Testament (not even in Matt. 
 xxi 16). Still less again must we start with the well-known 
 usage in Ezek. ii 1, iii. 1 (Weizsacker), which has nothing to do 
 with the Messianic idea. Much rather is it to be traced, and, 
 as specially appears from xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64, to be solely 
 traced, to the impressive account of that prophetic vision, 
 Dan. vii. 13, so familiar to the Jews (John xii. 34), and 
 vividly reflected in the pre-Christian Book of Enoch, a 
 vision in which the Messiah appears in the clouds, twt* ">3?, &><? 
 v/o9 avdpdnrov, surrounded by the angels that stand beside the 
 throne of the divine Judge, i.e. in a form which, notwith- 
 standing His superhuman heavenly nature, is not different 
 from that of an ordinary man. 1 Comp. Eev. i. 13, xiv. 14 ; 
 Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 1, p. 10 f. ; Schulze, alttest. Theol. 
 II. p. 330 f. ; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 146 ff. ; Schulze, p. 26 ff. ; 
 Weissenbach, p. 14 ff. The whole depended, then, on whether 
 those who were present when Jesus named Himself the Son 
 of man would understand this predicate in Daniel's sense or 
 not. In himself, however, this Son of man, whose form had 
 been delineated in Daniel's vision, was Jesus Himself, as the 
 historical reality, in so far as in His person He who there 
 appeared in heavenly form had come down to earth. As often, 
 therefore, as Jesus, in speaking of Himself, uses the words, 
 " the Son of man," He means nothing else than " the Son of 
 
 1 Hitzig, Schenkel, Keim understand by " the son of man " in Daniel, not the 
 Messiah, but the people of Israel. This, however, is unquestionably wrong. 
 See, on the other hand, Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 231 f. On the son of man in the 
 Book of Enoch, see Dillmann, d. B. Henoch, p. xx. ff. ; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. 
 p. 147 ; Weizsacker, p. 428 ; Weissenbach, p. 16 ff. ; Wittichen, Idee des 
 Menschen, p. 66 ff. On insufficient grounds, Hilgenfeld is disposed to delete 
 ch. xxxvii.-lxxi. of the Book of Enoch as a Christian interpolation.
 
 CHAP. VIII. 20. 259 
 
 man in that prophecy of Daniel," i.e. the Messiah. 1 But, 
 behind the consciousness which led Him to appropriate to 
 Himself this designation from Daniel, there was, at the same 
 time, the correlative element of His divine Sonship, the neces- 
 sary (in answer to Schleiermacher) conviction, more decidedly 
 brought out in John, of His divine pre-existence (as Logos), 
 the Soga of which He had left behind, in order, as the 
 heavenly personage in Daniel's vision, &>? wo? avdpwirov, to 
 appear in a form of existence not originally belonging to Him. 
 And so far those are right, who, following the Fathers, have 
 recognised (Grotius contradicted by Calovius) the Pauline 
 /ee'z/wo-19 in this self-designation, based as it is upon the con- 
 sciousness of His pre-existent divinity. Comp. Chrysostom 
 on John iii. 13, where he says : Jesus has so named Himself 
 OTTO T}5 e\ttTToi>o9 ov<Tia<$ ; and Augustine, de consens. ev. ii. 1, 
 who observes : in this we are taught " quid misericorditer dig- 
 natus sit esse pro nobis." It is to import ideas historically 
 inconsistent with Dan. vii., when, in spite of the definite 
 nature of the expression in Dan. vii. 13, it has been so under- 
 
 1 Markviii. 27 ff., where the settled faith of the disciples is contrasted with 
 the views of the people, is plainly a very decisive passage (in answer to Weisse, 
 Hvangelienfrage, p. 212 f.) in favour of the Messianic nature of the expression ; 
 for in ver. 31 of that chapter vlcg nv iifpuirov is evidently identical with 
 i XpnTTts, ver. 30. On John xii. 34, see the notes on that passage. Comp. 
 also on Matt. xvi. 13, which passage, according to Hofmann, Weiss, u. Erf. 
 II. p. 19, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 79, and Kahnis, is also supposed to contradict 
 our explanation of the vies *<> Mpvvou. Only let it be carefully observed that 
 the expression, "the son of man," is not directly synonymous with "the Mes- 
 siah, " but acquired this definite meaning for others only when first they came 
 to refer it, in Daniel's sense, to Jesus, so that it did not immediately involve the 
 idea of " the Messiah," but came to do so through the application, on the part 
 of believers, of Daniel's prophetic vision. But we must avoid ascribing to this 
 self-designation any purpose of concealment (Ritschl in d. theolog. Jahrb. 1851, 
 p. 514 ; Weisse, Wittichen, Holtzmann, Colani, Hilgenfeld), all the more that 
 Jesus so styles Himself in the hearing of His disciples (already in John i. 52). 
 Comp. with Mark ii. 8. And He so names Himself in the consciousness that in 
 Him the above prediction has been fulfilled. For those, indeed, who did not 
 share this belief, this designation of Himself continued, as well it might, to be 
 mysterious and unintelligible, as xvi. 13. But to suppose that Jesus has chosen 
 it " to avoid the consequences of a haphazard Messianic title " (Holtzmann), 
 would be to impute a calculating reserve which would scarcely be consistent 
 with His character.
 
 260 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 stood as if Christ meant thereby to describe Himself as the 
 man in the highest sense of the word, as the second Adam, 
 as the ideal of humanity (Herder, Bohme, Neander, Ebrard, 
 Olshausen, Kahnis, Gess, Lange, Weisse, Beyschlag, Witti- 
 chen), or as the man toward whom, as its aim, the whole 
 history of humanity since Adam has been tending (Hofmann, 
 Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 81 ; Thomasius, Chr. Per. u. Werk, II. p. 
 15), or as the true man renewed after the image of God 
 (Schenkel), as He who is filled with the whole fulness of God 
 (Colani), and such like. Fritzsche supposes Jesus to have 
 meant, filius ille parentum humanorum, qui nunc loquitur, 
 homo ille, quern bene nostis, i.e. ego, and that, on the strength of 
 Dan. vii. 13, the Christians were the first to ascribe to the 
 words the signification of Messiah. This would only be con- 
 ceivable if 6 ito9 rov av0p<a7Tov had happened to be a current 
 self-designation in general, in which case it would not be 
 necessary to presuppose a special historical reason why Jesus 
 should so frequently have used the title in reference to Him- 
 self. Consequently Baur is likewise in error in thinking that 
 the expression denotes the man as such who stands aloof from 
 nothing human, and esteems nothing human foreign to himself. 
 In like manner Holtzmann's view, viz. that Jesus intends to 
 describe His central place in the circle of the viol rwv dvdpdt- 
 TTCOV, is at variance with the original meaning of the phrase as 
 used in Daniel, and rests upon inferences from expressions 
 which Jesus, while designated as above, has used in reference 
 to Himself, which predicates, however, cannot determine the 
 meaning of the subject. This, at the same time, in answer to 
 Weizsacker, p. 428 ff., who thinks that by that expression 
 Jesus had endeavoured to bring His followers to a higher 
 spiritual conception of the Messiah, for whom it was possible 
 to appear without royal splendour. In 6 vlb? rov avdp. He 
 describes Himself as the great Messiah, and that in the form 
 of a human life, but not specially as the lowly, self-humbling 
 servant of humanity (Keim), or he who is intimately bound 
 up ivith humanity (Gess, I. p. 186). According to the cor- 
 responding passages elsewhere, ideas of this sort are found 
 first to emerge in predicates, and, as a rule, in the course of
 
 CHAP. VIII. 21, 22. 201 
 
 the context ; which, however, is not the case here, where 
 the main point is the contrast, as seen in the fact that He 
 who is that son of man of the prophet's vision has not 
 where to lay His weary head. Finally, Holsten asserts what 
 is contrary to the whole Christology of the New Testament, 
 as well as irreconcilable with Rom. i. 3 f., when he says that 
 as Messiah of the aio>v oSro?, Jesus is Daniel's wo<? rov 
 avOpoyjrov, and that as Messiah of the future alcav He passes 
 over into the form of existence belonging to the wo? rov 
 Oeov, which latter He is in this present era of time, as being 
 the Son of man, destined to become the Son of God. In the 
 analysis of the phrase, rov dvOpamov is to be understood 
 neither of Adam (Gregoiy Nazienzen, Erasmus) nor of the 
 Virgin Mary (Euth. Zigabenus), but, according to Dan. I.e., to 
 be taken generically ; so that, as far as the essential meaning 
 goes, it is in no way different from the anarthrous dvOpdyrrov 
 in Daniel. rrov rrjv K<p. K\Lvrf\ i.e. a resting-place, a sleep- 
 ing-place which He can call His own. Of course an evidence 
 of poverty (in contrast to the earthly aims of the scribe, which 
 the eye of Jesus had fully penetrated), but of that which is 
 connected with an unsettled life, which is not necessarily to 
 be identified with want (John xiii. 29, xii. 5, xix. 23). 
 
 Ver. 21. Tv /j,a0i)ra)v'] of His disciples, in the more 
 general sense of the words. This is evident from erepos, 
 which (see note on ver. 19) places him whom it represents in 
 the same category with the scribe. According to Luke ix. 59, 
 the erf/309 is not spoken of as fj,a0r)rij<;, and is summoned by 
 Jesus to follow Him, which is to be regarded as an altered 
 form of the tradition. n-ptorov] in the first place, before I 
 follow thee, vv. 19, 22. 0a-Jrcu] It was, and, to some 
 extent, is still the practice of the Jews, to bury their dead on 
 the very day on which they die, Matt. ix. 23, Acts v. 7 f. ; 
 nnd it was the sacred duty of sons to attend to the obsequies 
 of their parents. Gen. xxv. 9 ; Tob. iv. 3 ; Schoettgen, 
 Horae, on this passage. 
 
 Ver. 22. Tovs vetcpov? . . . veicpov<i\ The first vexp. (not 
 the second likewise, as Weisse improperly holds) denotes the 
 spiritually dead (comp. on iv. 16, on John v. 21, 25, and on
 
 2 02 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Luke xv. 24), who are without the spiritual life that comes 
 through Christ. Origen in Cramer's Catena : tyvyr] ev Katcta 
 ova-a vexpd eeriv. The second literally ; the dead belonging 
 to their own circles. Fritzsche (comp. Kaeuffer, de not. o>?7? 
 alwv. p. 34) interprets literally in both cases : let the dead 
 bury themselves among one another, as a paradox by way of 
 refusing the request. What a meaningless view of Jesus' 
 thoughtful way of putting it ! The seeming harshness of 
 Jesus' reply (in answer to Weisse, Bruno Bauer) must be 
 judged of by considering the necessity which he saw of 
 decided and immediate separation, as compared with the 
 danger of the contrary (Chrysostom) ; comp. x. 3 7. More- 
 over, it is to be inferred from aKoXovdet, pot. Comp. with 
 Luke ix. 60, that this paOrjTrjs proceeded at once to follow 
 the Lord, while that ^/pa^arev^ of ver. 19 probably went 
 away like the rich young man mentioned in xix. 22. 
 
 Ver. 23 ff. Comp. Mark iv. 36 ff. ; Luke viii. 22 ff. TO 
 ir\olov\ the boat standing ready to convey them over, ver. 18. 
 01 jj,a6r)Tai~^ not the Twelve in contrast to the multitude, 
 ver. 18 (Fritzsche), which is forbidden by ix. 9, but His 
 disciples generally, who, as appears from the context, are in 
 the present instance those who had joined themselves more 
 closely to Him, and were following Him, as the scribe also of 
 ver. 1 9 and the person indicated in ver. 2 1 had declared their 
 willingness to do. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. 5 1 660-^69] Agitation, specially in the sense 
 of earthquake, here : storm (Jer. xxiii. 1 9 ; Nah. i. 3). 
 The waves were dashing over the boat. 
 Se GKaOevbe] but He Himself was sleeping, contrasting 
 with the dangerous position of the boat in which He was. 
 " Securitas potestatis/' Ambrose. a-axrov, a7roXXv/ie#a] 
 Asyndeton indicating urgent alarm, and this alarm with Jesus 
 present was the ground of His rebuke. On the situation of 
 the lake, as rendering it liable to gusts and storms, see Eobinson, 
 Pal. III. p. 571 ; Eitter, Erdk. XV. p. 308. 
 
 Ver. 26. 'ETreTifitja-e] increpuit, on account of the un- 
 seasonable fury of its waves. Similarly "W3, Ps. cvi. 9 ; Nah. 
 i. 4. Comp. xvii. 18 ; Luke iv. 39. This rebuking of the
 
 CIIAP. VIII. 27. 263 
 
 elements (at which Schleiermacher took special offence) is the 
 lively plastic poetry, not of the author of the narrative, but of 
 the mighty Euler. On Tore Bengel observes : " Animos discipu- 
 lorum prius, deinde mare composuit." Unquestionably more 
 original than Mark and Luke ; not a case of transforming 
 into the miraculous (Holtzmann). The miraculous does not 
 appear till after the disciples have been addressed. ya\^vr) 
 /&ey.] Ver. 24. eretoyio? pey. Here was a greater than Jonas, 
 xii. 41. 
 
 Ver. 27. Ol avOpwrroi] Meaning the people who, besides 
 Jesus and His disciples, were also in the boat, not the disciples l 
 included (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek), seeing that 
 the specially chosen avdpumoi, (Matthew does not at all say 
 7rai/T9) most naturally denotes other parties than those pre- 
 viously mentioned, viz. " quibus nondum innotuerat Christus," 
 Calvin. Fritzsche's homines guotguot hujus portenti nuntium 
 acceperant is incorrect. From the nature of the case, and by 
 means- of the connection with ver. 28, Matthew represents the 
 astonishment and the exclamation as coming immediately 
 after the stilling of the tempest, and in the boat itself. ori\ 
 seeing tliat. Giving the reason for the TroraTro? (qualis, see on 
 Mark xiii. 1). The narrative itself must not be traced to a 
 misconception on the part of the disciples, who are supposed 
 either to have attributed the cessation of the storm to the 
 presence of Jesus and His observations regarding this con- 
 dition of the weather (Paulus), or to have misapprehended the 
 Lord's command to be still, addressed to the storm within them 
 at the moment when that which raged without was over 
 (Hase). As little should we have recourse to a symbolical 
 explanation of the fact, as though it had been intended to 
 exhibit the superiority of the friend of God to the war of the 
 elements (Ammon), or to represent the tranquillity of the 
 inner life that is brought about by the spirit of Christ 
 
 1 According to Mark iv. 41, Luke viii. 25, it was the disciples who uttered the 
 exclamation. Possibly a more original part of the tradition than the statement 
 in Matthew, which presupposes a wider reflection than Mark's account, that 
 statement being that what the exclamation asked the disciples already knew. 
 Moreover, the preference, in all essential respects, is due to Matthew's account ; 
 comp. Weiss in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 344.
 
 264 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (Schleiermacher). But if Strauss has classed the narrative in 
 the category of mythical sea stories, Keim again, though feeling 
 sure that it is founded upon fact, is nevertheless of opinion 
 that the actual event has been retouched, beyond recognition, 
 with the colouring and in the spirit of the psalms (such as 
 cvi., cvii.), while Weizsacker sees in it nothing more than an 
 evidence of the spiritual power with which, in a case of out- 
 ward distress, Jesus so works upon the faith of His disciples 
 that they see themselves transported into a world of miracles ; 
 the miracle, he thinks, resolves itself into the extraordinary 
 impression produced by what had taken place. It is to do 
 manifest violence to the clear and simple account of the 
 Gospels, to adopt such expedients for divesting the narrative of 
 its supernatural character, as Schenkel also has had recourse 
 to, who thinks that, after the pilot had despaired, Jesus, with 
 assured confidence in His destiny, stood up, and, after rebuking 
 and allaying the fears of those around Him, assumed to Him- 
 self the direction of the boat. The text renders it necessary 
 to insist on treating the event (Keander, Steinmeyer) as 
 miraculous as a proceeding the cause of which is to be found 
 in the divine energy dwelling in the Lord (Luke xi. 20) in 
 a powerful exercise of His authority over the elements, which 
 there should be no more difficulty in admitting than in the 
 case of His other miracles in the sphere of nature (the feeding, 
 Cana) and upon the bodily organism (even when dead). 
 
 Ver. 28 ff. Comp. Mark v. 1 ff. ; Luke viii. 26 ff.. Comp. 
 Ewald, Jahrb. VII. p. 54 ff. repaa-yvwv] Since Gerasa, the 
 eastern frontier town of Peraea (Joseph. Sell. iii. 3. 3, iv. 9. 1), 
 which Origen and others look upon as even belonging to 
 Arabia, stood much too far to the south-east of the Sea of 
 Tiberias, as the ruins of the town also still prove (Dieterici, 
 Reisebilder aus d. Morge.nl. 1853, II. p. 275 ff. ; Eey, Voyage 
 dans le Haouran, 1860); since, further, the reading Tep- 
 'yea-ijvwv has the preponderance of testimony against it, and 
 since that reading has gained currency, if not solely on the 
 strength of Origen's conjecture (on John i. 28, ii. 12; Opp. 
 iv. p. 140, ed. de la Rue), at least mainly on the strength of 
 his evidence ; since, again, no trace is found of a Gergesa
 
 CHAP. VIII. 28. 265 
 
 either as town (Origen : TroXt? up^aia) or as village (Ebrard), 
 Josephus, in fact, Antt. i. 6. 2, expressly stating that of the 
 ancient Fepyea-atot (Gen. xvi. 21, x. 16 ; Deut. viii. 1 ; Josh, 
 xxiv. 11) nothing remains but their names ; since, finally, the 
 reading Ta&aprjvwv has important testimony in its favour (see 
 the critical remarks), being also confirmed by Origen, though 
 only as found ev 0X17049, and harmonizes with geographical 
 facts, we are therefore bound to regard that as the original 
 reading, whilst Tepaarjv&v and Tepryeffrjvwv must be supposed 
 to owe their origin to a confusion in the matter of geography. 
 Even apart from the authority of Origen, the latter reading 
 came to be accepted and propagated, all the more readily from 
 the circumstance that we are made acquainted with actual 
 Gergesenes through the Old Testament. On Gadara, at present 
 the village of Omkeis, at that time the capital of Peraea 
 (Joseph. Bdl. iv. 7. 3), standing to the south-east of the 
 southern extremity of the Sea of Tiberias, between the latter 
 and the river Mandhur, consult Patter, Erdk. XV. p. 375 ff. ; 
 Eiietschi in Herzog's EncyTd. IV. p. 636 f.; Kneucker in 
 Schenkel's Bibellex. II. p. 313 ff. According to Paulus, who 
 defends Fepaarjvcov, the district of Gerasa, like the ancient 
 Gilead, must have extended as far as the lake ; the TroXt?, 
 however, vv. 33, 34, he takes to have been Gadara, as being 
 the nearest town. The context makes this impossible. Svo] 
 According to Mark and Luke, only one. This difference in 
 the tradition (ix. 27, xx. 30) is not to be disposed of by con- 
 jectures (Ebrard, Bleek, Holtzmann think that, as might easily 
 enough have happened, Matthew combines with the healing of 
 the Gadarenes that of the demoniacs in the synagogue at 
 Capernaum, Mark i. 23 ff.), but must be allowed to remain as 
 it is. At the same time, it must also be left an open question 
 whether Matthew, with his brief and general narrative (Strauss, 
 de Wette), or Mark and Luke (Weisse), with their lively, 
 graphic representations, are to be understood as giving the 
 more original account. However, should the latter prove to 
 be the case, as is probable at least from the peculiar features 
 in Mark (comp. Weiss, op. cit., p. 342), it is not necessary, 
 with Chrysostom, Augustine, Calvin, to hit upon the arbitrary
 
 206 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 method of adjustment implied in supposing that there were 
 no doubt two demoniacs, but that the one whom Mark (and 
 Luke) accordingly mentions was far more furious than the 
 other. According to Strauss and Keim, the change to the 
 singular has had the effect of giving a higher idea of the 
 extraordinary character of a case of possession by so many 
 demons; Weisse and Schenkel hold the reverse; Weiss thinks 
 the number two owes its origin to the fact of there having 
 been a great many demons. Mere groundless conjectures. 
 The demoniacs are lunatics, furious to a high degree ; they 
 took up their abode amoog the tombs (natural or artificial 
 grottoes in the rocks or in the earth) that were near by, 
 driven thither by their own melancholy, which sought gratifi- 
 cation in gloomy terrors and in the midst of impurity (Light- 
 foot in loc., and on xvii. 1 5 ; Schoettgen, p. 92; Wetstein 
 in loc.*), and which broke out into frenzy when any one hap- 
 pened to pass by. Many old burial vaults are still to be 
 seen at the place on which Gadara formerly stood. 
 
 Ver. 29. Ti r^ilv K. o-ot] See on John ii. 4. The demons. 
 according to their nature, already recognise in Jesus, the 
 Messiah, their mighty and most dangerous enemy, and " cum 
 terror e appellant filiuin Dei," Bengel. irpo icaipov] prema- 
 turely, i.e. before the Messianic judgment (xxv. 41). /3a<ra- 
 via-ai 17/4 a 9] to hurl us, as servants of Satan, down to the 
 torments of Hades (Luke xvi. 23; Eev. xiv. 10, xx. 10). 
 The lunatics identify themselves with the demons by whom 
 they are possessed. It is plain, however, from their very 
 language that they were Jews, and not Gentiles (Casaubon, 
 Neander). 
 
 Ver. 30. Maicpdv] relative idea, therefore not incompatible 
 with sicel in Mark v. 11 ; Luke viii. 32 (Wilke, Holtzmann). 
 Seeing the Jews were forbidden (Lightfoot) to keep swine, 
 as being unclean animals, the herd must either have been 
 the property of Gentile owners, or been the subject of Jewish 
 trade. /Socr/co/tei/^] not to be connected with tfv, but with 
 
 Ver. 31. Eh . . . %olpa)v\ They mean: into the bodies of 
 the swine that were feeding. To the unclean spirits in the
 
 CHA.P. VIII. 32-31. 267 
 
 possessed Jews, anticipating, as they certainly do, their in- 
 evitable expulsion, it appears desirable, as well as most easily 
 attainable, that they should find an abode for themselves 
 in impure animals. Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judcnth. II. 
 p. 447 f. The request implies that the demoniacs con- 
 sidered themselves to be possessed by a multitude of evil 
 spirits, a circumstance noticed in detail by Mark and Luke, 
 from which, however, it may be inferred that the form of 
 the tradition is not the same as the one made use of in our 
 Gospel. The former is so peculiar, that, had Matthew only 
 abridged it (Ewald), he would scarcely have omitted so 
 entirely its characteristic features. On the contrary, he fol- 
 lowed another version of the story which he happened to 
 light upon, and which likewise mentioned two demoniacs 
 instead of one; comp. on ver. 28. Probably this is also the 
 source to which we are to trace the expression Saipoves, which 
 does not occur anywhere else in Matthew, and which in Mark 
 v. 12 is of doubtful critical authority. 
 
 Ver. 32. 'EgeXBovres a7rrj\0ov, /e.r.X.] therefore the 
 demons who, quitting those who were possessed, enter the 
 bodies of the swine. The idea that the demoniacs ran away 
 among the swine is opposed to the narrative. /cat ISov, 
 wppija-e, tf.r.X.] in consequence of the demons taking posses- 
 sion of the animals, and thereby producing in them a state of 
 fury corresponding to that which had been excited in the 
 men. 
 
 Vv. 33, 34. Ildvra ical, K.r.\J] They reported everything, 
 and especially how it had fared from first to last with the two 
 demoniacs (xxi. 21). tracra 17 770X49] the Gadarenes. See 
 ver. 28. TrapetcdXecrav, OTTCOS p,era^y, /c.r.X.] The subject 
 of the request is conceived as the aim in asking (xiv. 36 ; 
 Mark v. 1 0). The motive for the request was fear lest a 
 greater disaster should follow. 
 
 EEMARK. Seeing that all the attempts that have been made 
 to evade the force of this narrative such as saying that the 
 demoniacs themselves had rushed in among the swine, or that 
 the herd perished through some accidental and unknown cir- 
 cumstance (Neander), or that in the shsp^sa^ai we have merely
 
 268 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 to think of an operating in some way or other upon the animals 
 as a whole (Olshausen) run counter to what is clearly re- 
 corded, nothing remains but either to take the whole account 
 as real history, and just as it stands (Krabbe, Ebrard, Delitzsch, 
 l)ibl. Psycliol. p. 296 ff. ; Klostermann, Markusevang. p. 101 ff. ; 
 Steinmeyer, apolog. Beitr. I. p. 144 ff.), in which case it will be 
 necessary to dispose of objections in the best way possible, 1 or 
 else to admit the existence of legendary elements, and then 
 eliminate them. The latter course is imperative and inevitable 
 if we are not to look upon the condition of the demoniacs as a 
 case of possession at all (see on iv. 24, note). According to this 
 view of the matter, Jesus is supposed to have cured the two 
 maniacs by means of His wonderful power, transmitting its 
 influence through a humouring of their capricious fancies, and 
 that this yielding to their request to be allowed to enter the 
 swine may have led in a subsequent form of the tradition a 
 tradition, at the same time, which did not require to be assisted 
 by the supposed recollection of some disaster to a herd of swine 
 that happened about the same time on that side of the lake 
 
 1 Paulus and Strauss object that the demons would have acted the part of very 
 silly devils, if they had gone so far as immediately to destroy again their new 
 abodes. It is observed by Ebrard, on the other hand, that they were unable to 
 control their wicked desires, or (on Olshausen, p. 306) that the shock to the 
 nervous system of the animals was so much greater than was expected. Theophy- 
 lact and Euth. Zigabenus suppose that their intention was to do damage to the 
 owners, that they might not be disposed to welcome Jesus. Some explain one 
 way and others another. In reply to the objection founded on the morality of 
 the thing, Ebrard (comp. Wetstein) pleads the absolute right of the Son of God, 
 and that the object was to punish the Gadarenes for their avarice. Similarly 
 Luther. Comp. Bengel : " ret erant Gergeseni amittendi gregis ; jus et poles- 
 tatem Jesu res ipsa ostendit ; " so Olshatisen, coupling with his own the opinion of 
 Theophylact. Schegg contents himself with supposing that what happened was 
 by way of testing the Gadarenes to see whether, to them, the possession of 
 eternal was of more consequence than the loss of temporal things, therefore a 
 matter of discipline and to awaken faith ; comp. Arnold! and Ullmann, Sundlo- 
 siglc. p. 176. Bleek thinks the whole question of the morality is one with 
 which he is not called upon to deal, inasmuch as the destruction was not the 
 . doing of Jesus, but of the lunatic. According to Steinmeyer, it was not the 
 doing of the demons, but of the animals. The only way of deciding this ques- 
 tion is to reply that, according to the text, it was not the demoniacs but the 
 demons that caused the destruction of the swine a result which Jesus did not 
 anticipate. Otherwise it is vain to try further to help matters by the view that 
 it was the Redeemer offering Himself to deliver from the power of Satan and 
 calling for the feeling that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for the sake of this 
 deliverance (Klostermann), in violation of that principle of justice whjch forbids 
 the use of means so flagrantly unrighteous to attain a holy end.
 
 CHAP. VIII. 33, 34. 269 
 
 to the statement being added about the drowning of the whole 
 herd, which addition might take place all the more readily from 
 the fact that swine were unclean and forbidden animals, and 
 considering also how much is often due to the play of popular 
 wit (Ewald), which, in the death of the swine, would pretend 
 to see the demons going down at length to the hell they feared 
 so much. Strangely enough, Lange, L. J. II. p. 661, inserts in 
 the text that the hideous yell of the demoniac in his last 
 paroxysm has acted like an electric shock upon the herd. 
 Ewald likewise supposes that the last fearful convulsions of 
 the sufferer just before he was quieted may have occasioned 
 such a terror as might readily communicate itself to a whole 
 herd. But in this affair of the demons, not one of the three 
 accounts says anything whatever about last convulsions and 
 such like. Yet Schenkel, too, boldly asserts that, just before 
 the cure took place, there were viobnt outbursts of the malady, 
 which threw a herd of swine into a panic, and sent them rush- 
 ing into the water. Keim, on the other hand, favours the view 
 that " the introduction of the four-footed leasts owes its origin to 
 legend, inasmuch as it sought to expound the healing from the 
 life, and with bitter mockery of the Jews to explain and avenge 
 the banishing of Jesus from the district." If this is to ascribe 
 too much to legend, too much to invention and wit, had not, 
 indeed, the presence of a herd offered a handle for it, then, to 
 say the least of it, Weizsacker followed the more cautious 
 course when he abandoned the idea of finding out the fact on 
 which the obscure reminiscence may probably have been 
 founded, although, when we consider the essential uniformity 
 of the three evangelic narratives in other respects, the obscurity, 
 if we keep out of view the difference in the naming of the 
 locality, may not appear sufficiently gieat to warrant such 
 entire abandonment.
 
 270 THE GOSPEL OF MAT PHEW. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 VER. 2. ap'euvrai] Lachm. Tiscli. 8: apisvrai (also ver. 5), only 
 according to B K, Or. (once). On the other hand, ffou ai apap- 
 riai (Lachm. Tisch.) for eoi ai /*. is certainly supported by im- 
 portant testimony, but suspected, however, of being taken from 
 ver. 5. Ver. 4. SBuv] Lachm.: ei8u$, according to B M E** 
 n* Curss. Verss. Chrys. ; a gloss. Comp. xii. 25 ; Luke vi. 8. 
 Ver. 5. sou] Elz. : coi, against decisive testimony. eynpai] 
 There is decisive testimony for eysip*. Adopted by Scholz, 
 Lachm. Tisch. Correctly ; see the exegetical notes. In all the 
 passages in which i-yaps occurs, there is found, as a diff. reading, 
 tyiipai. Ver. 6. eyipSsis^ Lachm.; according to B, Vulg. Codd. 
 of the It. : tysip t. Mechanical repetition from ver. 5. Comp. 
 Mark ii. 11. Ver. 8. !po/3jj0j<rai/] so also Lachm. and Tisch., 
 according to B D N, Curss. Verss. (also Vulg. It.) and Fathers. 
 sdavpaffav of the Received text is a gloss. Ver. 9. j5xoXo60jj<r*"l 
 Tisch. 8: faol.oudei, on the too slender authority of D N and 
 three Curss. Ver. 12. The omission of 'iqffout, favoured by 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 8, rests on too slender authority; while 
 that of avnT;, which Lachm. and Tisch. leave out, has a prepon- 
 derance of evidence in its favour. Ver. 13. IXsov] Lachm. and 
 Tisch.: sXeog; see the exegetical notes. a^a^rwXouj] Elz., 
 Fritzsche, and Scholz insert sis psrdvoiav, which B D V* r* 
 A N, Curss. Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Perss. Aeth. al. and several 
 Fathers omit. Supplement from Luke v. 32. Ver. 14. -roXXa] 
 although deleted by Tisch. 8 (only according to B X* and three 
 Curss.), has decisive testimony. Ver. 17. dtToXoDura/] Lachm. 
 Tisch. 8 : d-roXXuira/, after B N, Curss. Verss. The present is 
 due to the other verbs around it. upipoTfpoi] Elz. : apporfpa, 
 against decisive testimony. A correction. Ver. 18. eJf lX0oii/] 
 Elz.: sXduv, only after Curss. ; others: fiasXduv; others: rig elaf\- 
 6uv ; others : ng &duv ; others : rig (or (Tg) vpoa&6uv ; Lachm. : tf( 
 vpofftXduv, after B K**. In the original, stood EiSEAenN. 1 
 Ver. 19. Tisch. 8 (comp. on ver. 9) has jjxoXou^/, after BCD. 
 
 1 But whether tit iA0* (Griesb. Scholz, Kuinoel, Fritzsche) or uViX0* (Tiscli.) 
 should be written, see the exegetical notes.
 
 CHAP. IX. 1-3. 271 
 
 Ver. 30. Lachm. Tisch. have the rare Alexand. form 
 which has B* N iu its favour, and was replaced by the more 
 usual evsppipriffaiTo. Ver. 35. (tal.axiav] Elz. inserts sv rs> Xaw, 
 against B C* D S A N**, Curss., and several versions and Fathers. 
 Supplement from iv. 23. Ver. 36. IffxuX^si/o/] Elz.: IxXsXu- 
 pevoi. The former, on which the latter is a gloss, rests on 
 decisive testimony. 
 
 Vv. 1 ff. Mark ii. 1 ff., Luke v. 1 7 ff., introduce the account 
 somewhat earlier. Matthew reports, briefly and simply, only 
 the essential points, following, it may be, an older form of the 
 tradition. Trjv IBiav TTO\IV] Kapernaum; r) pev yap ijvey- 
 xev avrbv rj Brj&Xeep; } Be Wpetyev f) Na^aper' ) Be i%ev 
 OIKOVVTO, Kcnrepvaovfji, Chrysostom. See iv. 13. 
 
 Vv. 2, 3. Avrwv] the paralytic, and those who were carrying 
 him. TCKVOV] affectionately; Mark ii. 5, x. 24; Luke 
 xvi. 25, and elsewhere. Comp. Ovyarep, ver. 22. atfrewv- 
 rai] are forgiven; Doric (Suidas), not an Attic (Etym. M.} 
 form of the perf. ind. pass. ; Herod, ii 165, avewvrat, 1 with 
 aveivrai (so Bahr), however, as a different reading ; Winer, p. 
 77 [E. T. 96]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 42 [E. T. 49]. Beza 
 correctly observes, that in the perf. is " emphasis minime 
 negligenda." The view that Christ's words imply an accommo- 
 dation to the belief of the Jews, and also of the paralytic himself, 
 that diseases are inflicted by way of punishment for sins, is all 
 the more to be rejected that Jesus elsewhere (John ix. 3 ; Luke 
 xiii. 1) contradicts this belief. He saw into the moral condi- 
 tion of the sick man, precisely as afterwards, ver. 4, He read 
 the thoughts of the scribes (John v. 14, ii. 25), and knew how 
 it came that this paralysis was really the punishment of hia 
 special sins (probably of sensuality). Accordingly, he first of 
 all pronounces forgiveness, as being the moral condition necessary 
 to the foaling of the body (not in order to help the effect upon 
 the physical system by the use of healing psychical agency, 
 Krabbe), and then, having by forgiveness removed the hindrance, 
 He proceeds to impart that healing itself by an exercise of 
 His supernatural power. elirov ev eatr.] as in iii. 9. 
 
 1 See also Phavorinus, p. 330, 49, and G6ttlinr, Lehre vom Accent, p. 82 ; 
 Alarens, DM. Dor. p. 344 ; Giese, Dor. Dial. p. 334 fc
 
 272 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 through the assumption of divine authority (Ex. 
 xxxiv. 7 ; comp. with xx. 5 f.). He thereby appeared to be 
 depriving God of the honour that belongs to Him, and to be 
 transferring it to Himself; for they did not ascribe to Him 
 any prophetic authority to speak in the name of God. 
 
 Ver. 4. The power to discern the thoughts and intentions 
 of others (comp. on ver. 3) was a characteristic mark of the 
 expected Messiah (Wetstein), was present In Jesus in virtue 
 of His nature as the God-man, and analogous to His mira- 
 culous power. ivaTi] why? that is to say, tva ri yevyrat; 
 Hermann, ad Vig. p. 849; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 63 If. 
 77-01/77 pa] inasmuch, that is, as you regard me as a blasphemer, 
 and that with a malicious intention ; whereas the sick man, 
 and those who carried him, were full of faith. In contrast to 
 them is the emphatic u/aet? (you people!}, which, being ignored 
 by important authorities, is deleted by Tischendorf 8. 
 
 Ver. 5. Pdp] gives a reason for the thought expressed in 
 the preceding question, the thought, namely, that they were 
 not justified in thinking evil of Him. TI eerrtv evicoTrwTe- 
 pov] The meaning is unquestionably this ; the latter is quite 
 as easy to say as the former, and conversely; the one requires 
 no less power than the other ; the same divine %ovcria enables 
 both to be done ; but in order that you may know that I was 
 entitled to say the one, I will now add the other also : Arise, 
 and so on. The result of the latter was accordingly the 
 actual justification of the former. For ri in the sense of 
 Trorepov, comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat Phil. p. 168. eyetpe 
 (see the critical remarks) is not a mere interjection, like aye, 
 eireiye (Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 55 ), seeing that it is followed 
 by teal, and that the circumstance of the arising has an essential 
 connection with the incident (see ver. 2, eVt K\IV. ^e^k^fjue- 
 vov; comp. vv. 6, 7) ; but the transitive is used intransitively 
 (Kiihner, II. 1, p. 81 ff.), as is frequently the case, especially 
 in verbs denoting haste (Bernhardy, p. 340). Eur. Iph. 
 A. 624 : eyeip aSe\(f>r)<> e'</>' v/j,evaiov evru^ft)?. 
 
 Vv. 6, 7. 'E%ovcrav e^et] placed near the beginning of 
 the sentence so as to be emphatic : that the Son of man is 
 empowered upon earth (not merely to announce, but) to com-
 
 CHAP. IX. 8-10. 273 
 
 municate the forgiveness of sins. C'TJ 1 7% 7% does not belong 
 to d(p. dfi. (Grotius), in which case its position would convey 
 an awkward emphasis, and the order of the words would 
 naturally be d(f>. dp. eVi r. 7% (as Marcion read them), but it 
 is joined to egovcriav %<, in the consciousness of the egova-ia 
 brought with Him from Jieaven. " Coelestem ortum hie sermo 
 sapit," Bengel. TOTC \eyi ru> TrapaA-vr.] is neither to be 
 taken parenthetically, nor is roSe to be understood (Fritzsche), 
 in order to justify the parenthesis ; but Matthew's style is 
 such that no formal apodosis comes after dfutpTias, but rather 
 the call to the paralytic eyepOek, etc. Matthew reports this 
 change in regard to the parties addressed with scrupulous 
 fidelity; and so, after concluding what Jesus says to the 
 scribes with the anacoluthon tva Be elSrjre . . . dfjutprias, he 
 proceeds to add, in the narrative form, " then He says to the 
 paralytic." This is a circumstantial simplicity of style which 
 is not to be met with in polished Greek writers, who would 
 have omitted the Tore \eyei ra3 7rapa\. altogether as a mere 
 encumbrance. See passages from Demosthenes in Kypke, I. 
 p. 48 f. xal eyepOels, /c.r.X.] therefore an immediate and 
 complete cure, which does not favour the far-fetched notion 
 that the declaration of Jesus penetrated the nervous system of 
 the paralytic as with an electric current (Schenkel). 
 
 Ver. 8. 'EtyofiTJOija-av] not equivalent to edavfiaaav (not 
 even in Mark iv. 41 ; Luke viii. 35), but they were afraid. 
 This was naturally the first impression produced by the extra- 
 ordinary circumstance ; and then they praised God, and so on. 
 rot? dv6pa)Trois] Not the plural of category (ii 20), so 
 that only Jesus is meant (Kuinoel), but men generally, 
 the human race. In one individual member of the human 
 family they saw this power actually displayed, and regarded 
 it as a new gift of God to humanity, for which they gave 
 God praise. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. Comp. Mark ii. 13ff. (whom Matthew follows) 
 and Luke v. 27 ff. Kal irapd^wv] not: as He went 
 farther (as is commonly supposed), but (xx. 30; Mark i. 16, 
 xv. 21 ; John ix. 1 ; 1 Cor. vii. 31) : as He went away from 
 where (He had cured the paralytic), and was passing by 
 
 MATT. S
 
 274 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (3 Mace. vi. 16; Polyb. v. 18. 4), the place, that is, where 
 Matthew was. Exactly as in Mark ii. 14, and in ver. 27 
 below. Mar 6. X 670/4.] Named Matthew (ii. 23, xxvi. 36, 
 xxvii. 33), anticipation of the apostolic name. TO re\faviov] 
 the custom-house of the place (Poll ix. 2 8). On Matthew him- 
 self and his identity with Levi (Mark ii. 14; Luke v. 27), 
 further confirmed in Constitt. Ap. viii. 22. 1, see introduction, 
 1. Considering the locality, it may be assumed that Matthew 
 already knew something of Jesus, the extraordinary Rabbi and 
 worker of miracles in that district, and that he does not now 
 for the first time and all of a sudden make up his mind to 
 join- the company of His disciples (aKo\.ov0elv). What is here 
 recorded is the moment of the decision (in answer to Strauss, 
 B. Bauer). This in opposition to Paulus, who interprets thus: 
 " Go with me into thy house ! " See Strauss, II. p. 570, who, 
 however, sweeps away everything in the shape of a historical 
 substratum, save the fact that Jesus really had publicans 
 among His disciples, and that probably Matthew had likewise 
 been one of this class ; " that these men had, of course, left 
 the seat at the custom-house to follow Jesus, yet only in the 
 figurative sense peculiar to such modes of expression, and not 
 literally, as the legend depicts it." 
 
 Ver. 10. -Eyevero . . . /cat] see note on Luke v. 12. ava- 
 Keipevov] In classical Greek, to recline at table, is represented 
 by KaTarcela-Oai, as frequently also in the N. T. (Mark it 
 15, xiv. 3), though in Polybius, Athenaeus, and later writers 
 dvaKeiadat, too, is by no means rare. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, 
 p. 217. On the custom itself (with the left arm resting on a 
 cushion), comp. note on John xiii. 23. ev rfj olicia] With 
 the exception of Fritzsche, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim, Hilgen- 
 feld (yet comp. already the still merely doubtful remark of 
 Bengel), critics have gratuitously assumed the house to have 
 been that of Matthew, which accords, no doubt, with Luke 
 v. 29 (not Mark ii. 15), but neither with the simple ev rfj 
 oltcia (see ver. 23, xiii. 1, 36, xvii. 25) nor with the con- 
 nection. Seeing, then, that the publican who rose from his 
 seat at the custom-house and followed Jesus cannot, of 
 course, have gone to his own residence, nothing else can
 
 CHAP. IX. 11, 12. 275 
 
 have been meant but the house of Jesus (in which He lived). 
 There lies the variation as compared with Luke, and like 
 many another, it cannot be disposed of. But de Wette's 
 objection, reproduced by Lichtenstein, Lange, and Hilgenfeld, 
 that it is scarcely probable that Jesus would give feasts, has 
 no force whatever, since Matthew does not say a single word 
 about a feast ; but surely one may suppose that, when the 
 disciples were present in his residence at Capernaum, Jesus 
 may have eaten, i.e. have reclined at table with them. The 
 publicans and sinners who came thither were at the same time 
 hospitably received. K<L\ a/j,apTa>\ol] and in general men of 
 an immoral stamp, with whom were also classed the publicans 
 as being servants of the Koman government and often guilty 
 of fraudulent conduct (Luke iii. 1 3) ; comp. Luke xix. 7. 
 Observe that Jesus Himself by no means denies the Trovrjpbv 
 elvat in regard to those associated with Him at table, ver. 1 2 f. 
 They were truly diseased ones, who were now, however, yield- 
 ing themselves up to the hands of the physician. 
 
 Ver. 11. 'ISoi/re?] How they saw it is conceivable in a 
 variety of ways (in answer to Strauss, B. Bauer), without our 
 requiring to adopt the precise supposition of Ebrard and de 
 Wette, that they saw it from the guests that were coming out 
 of the house. May not the Pharisees have come thither them- 
 selves either accidentally or on purpose ? Comp. TopevOevres, 
 ver. 13 ; eyepQek, ver. 19 ; and see note on ver. 18. 
 
 Ver. 1 2. The whole and the sick of the proverb are figurative 
 expressions for the SLKCUOL and the apapraiXoi, ver. 13. In the 
 application the Pharisees are included among the former, not 
 on account of their comparatively greater (de Wette), but be- 
 cause of their fancied, righteousness, as is evident from the 
 sentiments of Jesus regarding this class of men expressed 
 elsewhere, and likewise from ver. 13. The thought, then, is 
 this : " the righteous (among whom you reckon yourselves) 
 do not need the deliverer, but the sinners." This contains an 
 " ironica concessio " to the Pharisees, " in qua ideo offendi eos 
 docet peccatorum intuitu, quia justitiam sibi arrogant," Calvin. 
 The objection, that in point of fact Jesus is come to call the 
 self-righteous as well, is only apparent, seeing that He could
 
 27G THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 not direct His call to these, as such (John ix. 39 ff.), so long 
 as they did not relinquish their pretensions, and were them- 
 selves without receptivity for healing. 
 
 Ver. 13. After having justified His holding intercourse with 
 publicans and sinners, Jesus with the Be proceeds to tell the 
 Pharisees what they would have to do in order to their receiv- 
 ing His invitation to be healed : " but go and learn what is 
 meant by that saying of the Scripture (Hos. vi. 6, LXX.), I will 
 have mercy and not sacrifice" You must understand that first 
 of all, if you are to be of the number of those who are to be 
 invited to enter the Messiah's kingdom : "for I am not come 
 to call righteous, but sinners" (1 Tim. i. 15). Through that 
 quotation from the Scripture (mentioned only by Matthew 
 here and xii. 7), it is intended to make the Pharisees under- 
 stand how much they too were sinners. According to others, 
 Jesus wishes to justify His conduct, inasmuch as the exhibition 
 of love and mercy constitutes the Messiah's highest duty 
 (Ewald, Bleek). This, however, is less probable, owing to the 
 7ropevdevT<i with which He dismisses them from His presence, 
 the analogy of xii. 7, and the very apt allusion in ov 
 to the Pharisees with their legal pride. iropevO. 
 corresponds to the Rabbinical form tefo NX, which is used in 
 sending one away, with a view to fuller reflection upon some 
 matter or other, or with a view to being first of all instructed 
 regarding it ; see Schoettgen. 7p] assigns the reason for the 
 TTopevdevTes ^dOere, through which pavOdveiv they are first to 
 be rendered capable of receiving the invitation to participate 
 in the blessings of the kingdom. This invitation is uniformly 
 expressed by the absolute KaXelv. The masculine eXeo? is the 
 classical form ; the neuter, which rarely occurs in Greek 
 authors (Isocr. 18, p. 378 ; Diod. iii. 18), is the prevailing 
 form in the LXX., Apocrypha, and the New Testament, 
 although the manuscripts show considerable fluctuation. In 
 the present instance, the neuter, though possessing the 
 authority of B C* D K (like xii. 7), was naturally adopted 
 from the LXX. ical ov 0va-J] The negative is absolute, in 
 accordance with the idea aut . . . aut. God does not desire 
 sacrifice instead of mercy, but mercy instead of sacrifice. The
 
 CHAP. ix. 14, 15. 277 
 
 latter is an accessory (Calvin), in which everything depends on 
 the right disposition, which is what God desires. 
 
 Ver. 14. Concerning private fasting. See note on vi. 16. 
 On the fasting of the Baptist, comp. xi. 18. On the fasting 
 of the Pharisees (Luke xviii. 12), to whose authority on the 
 rigid observance of the law the disciples of John adhere, see 
 Light-foot on this passage. Serar. de Trihaeresio, p. 36. 
 TToXXa] frequenter, Vulg., Stallbaum, ad Plat. Pliaed. p. 61 C, 
 ad Parmen. p. 126 B ; Klihner, II. 1, p. 270. A not inappro- 
 priate addition by Matthew (Weiss, Holtzmann). ov vrjcr- 
 rev overt?) comparatively, to be understood from the standpoint 
 of the questioners, who hold the freedom of the disciples of 
 Jesus, as contrasted with the frequent fasting of themselves and 
 the Pharisees, to be equivalent to no fasting at all. 
 
 Ver. 15. Ol viol (viii. 12) TOV vvp,fyG)vo<$\ (of the bride 
 chamber, Joelii. 16 ; Tob. vi. 16 ; Heliod. vii. 8) are theirapa- 
 vv/jifaoi, the friends of the bridegroom, who amid singing and 
 playing of instruments conducted the bride, accompanied by 
 her companions, to the house of her parents-in-law and to the 
 bride-chamber, and remained to take part in the wedding 
 feast, which usually lasted seven days. Pollux, Onom. iii. 3 ; 
 Hirt, de paranymph. ap. Hebr. 1748 ; on the Greek Trapa- 
 vvfj,<j>iot, consult Hermann, Privatalterth. 31, 18. Meaning 
 of the figure : So long as my disciples have me with them, they 
 are incapable of mourning (fasting being the expression of 
 mourning) : when once I am taken from them and that time 
 will inevitably come then they will fast to express their sorrow. 
 Christ, the bridegroom of His people until His coming, and 
 then the marriage; see on John iii. 29. It is to be observed 
 that this is the first occasion in Matthew on which Jesus 
 alludes to His death, which from the very first He knew to be 
 the divinely-appointed and prophetically-announced climax of 
 His work on earth (John i. 29, ii. 19, iii. 14), and did not 
 come to know it only by degrees, through the opposition which 
 he experienced ; while Hase, Wittichen, Weizsacker, Keim, 
 postpone the certainty of His having to suffer death the 
 latter, till that day at Caesarea (chap, xvi.) ; Holsten even puts 
 it off till immediately before the passion ; see, on the other
 
 278 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 hand, Gess, op. tit., p. 253 ff. The Tore, which has the 
 tragic emphasis of a sorrowful future (Bremi, ad Lys. p. 248, 
 Goth.), expresses only the particular time specified, and not all 
 time following as well, and while probably not condemning 
 fasting in the church, yet indicating it to be a matter in which 
 one is to be regulated, not by legal prescriptions (ver. 1 6 f.), 
 but by personal inclination and the spontaneous impulses of 
 the mind. Comp. vi. 1 6 ff. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. No one puts a patch consisting of cloth that has 
 not been fulled upon an old robe, for that which is meant to Jill 
 up the rent (the patch put on to mend the old garment) tears 
 off from the (old rotten) cloak^ when it gets damp or happens 
 to be spread out, or stretched, or such like. That avrov does 
 not refer to the piece of unfulled cloth (Euth. Zigabenus, 
 Grotius, de Wette, Bleek), but to the old garment, is suggested 
 by the idea involved in TrX^w/ia (id quo res impletur, Fritzsche, 
 ad Bom. II. p. 469). Ti is not to be supplied after aipei, but 
 the idea is: makes a rent. Comp. Eev. xxii. 19, and espe- 
 cially Winer, p. 552 [E. T. 757]. The point of the com- 
 parison lies in the fact that such a proceeding is not only 
 unsuitable, but a positive hindrance to the end in view. " The 
 old forms of piety amid which John and his disciples still 
 move* are not suited to the new religious life emanating from 
 me. To try to embody the latter in the former, is to proceed 
 in a manner as much calculated to defeat its purpose as when 
 one tries to patch an old garment with a piece of unfulled 
 cloth, which, instead of mending it, as it is intended to do, 
 only makes the rent greater than ever ; or as when one seeks 
 to fill old bottles with new wine, and ends in losing wine and 
 bottles together. The new life needs new forms." The 
 Catholics, following Chrysostom and Theophylact, and by way 
 of finding something in favour of fastings, have erroneously 
 explained the old garment and old bottles as referring to the 
 disciples, from whom, as " adhuc infirmes et veteri adsuetis 
 homini" (Jansen), it was, as yet, too much to expect the 
 severer mode of life for which, on the contrary (ver. 1 7), they 
 would have to be previously prepared by the operation of the 
 Holy Spirit. This is directly opposed to the meaning of Jesus'
 
 CHAP. IX. 18. 279 
 
 words, and not in accordance with the development of the 
 apostolic church (Col. ii. 20 ff.), by which fasting, as legal 
 penance, was necessarily included among the a-Toi^la rou 
 Koa/jiov, however much it may have been valued and observed 
 as the spontaneous outcome of an inward necessity (Acts xiii. 
 2 f., xiv. 23 ; 2 Cor. vi. 5, xi. 27). Neander suggests the 
 utterly irrelevant view, that "it is impossible to renovate 
 from without " the old nature of man " (the old garment) 
 through fasting and prayers (which correspond to the new 
 patch). Leathern bottles, for the most part of goats' skins 
 (Horn. II iii. 247, Od. vi. 78, ix. 196, v. 265) with the rough 
 side inward, in which it was and still is the practice (Niebuhr, 
 I. p. 212) in the East to keep and carry about wine. Comp. 
 Judith x. 6 ; Eosenmliller, Morgenl. on Josh. ix. 5. cnro- 
 \ovvrai] Future, the consequence of what has just been de- 
 scribed by the verbs in the present tense. On el 8e ft^ye, 
 even after negative clauses, see note on 2 Cor. xi. 16. 
 
 EEMAEK. According to Luke v. 33, it was not John's disciples, 
 but the Pharisees, who put the question to Jesus about fasting. 
 This difference is interpreted partly in favour of Luke (Schleier- 
 macher, Neander, Bleek), partly of Matthew (de "Wette, Holtz- 
 mann, Keim), while Strauss rejects both. For my part, I decide 
 for Matthew ; first, because his simpler narrative bears no traces 
 of another hand (which, however, can scarcely be said of that of 
 Luke) ; and then, because the whole answer of Jesus, so mild 
 (indeed touching, ver. 1 5) in its character, indicates that those 
 who put the question can hardly have been the Pharisees, to 
 whom He had just spoken in a very different tone. Mark 
 ii. 18 ff., again (which Ewald holds to be the more original), 
 certainly does not represent the pure version of the matter as 
 regards the questioners, who, according to his account, are the 
 disciples of John and the Pharisees, an incongruity, however, 
 which owes its origin to the question itself. 
 
 Ver. 18. *Ap%<i>v\ a president ; Matthew does not further 
 define the office. According to Mark v. 22, Luke viii. 41, it 
 was the synagogue-president, named Jairus. The correct read- 
 ing is eiaeXOwv (comp. the critical remarks), and not el? e\dwv 
 (Gersdorf, Kinck, de Wette, Tischendorf, Ewald), yet not as 
 though the et? following were at variance with Matthew's
 
 280 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 usual style (xxii. 35, xxiii. 15, xxvi. 40, 69, xxvii. 14; see, 
 on the other hand, v. 41, vi. 27, xii. 11, xviii. 5, xxi. 24) ; 
 but since this, like the former incident, also occurred at that 
 meal in the residence of Jesus (according to Matthew, not 
 according to Mark and Luke), and as this fact was misappre- 
 hended, as most critics misapprehend it still, consequently it 
 was not seen to what ela-fXOwv might refer, so that it was 
 changed into eT? e\0a>v. According to Matthew, the order of 
 the incidents connected with the meal is as follows: (1) Jesus 
 sends away the Pharisees, vv. 1113. (2) After them, the 
 disciples of John approach Him with their questions about 
 fasting, and He instructs- them, vv. 14-17. (3) While he is 
 still speaking to the latter, a president enters, ver. 18, and 
 prefers his request. Thereupon Jesus rises, i.e. from the table 
 (ver. 1 0), and goes away with the aprons, ver. 1 9 ; and it is not 
 till ver. 28 that we read of His having returned again to His 
 house. apri ereXevTTjo-ei/] has just now died. The want 
 of harmony here with Mark v. 23, Luke vii. 49, is to be recog- 
 nised, but not (Olearius, Kuinoel) to be erroneously explained 
 as meaning jam moritur, morti est proximo,. Others (Luther, 
 Wolf, Grotius, Eosenmiiller, Lange) interpret, with Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus : ffToxatypevos djrev, w7re\a/3e 
 jap, on pexpt Tore iravTa><s av aTreOavev. A harmonizing 
 expedient. Laying on of the hand, 'the symbol and medium 
 in the communication of a divine benefit, xix. 1 3 ; Luke 
 iv. 40, xiii. 13. See on Acts vi 6, viii. 17 f., xiii. 3, xix. 5 ; 
 Gen. xlviii 14; Num. xxvii. 18. The account of Mark 
 v. 22-42, which is followed by Luke viii. 41 ff., is so unique 
 and fresh in regard to the detail which characterizes it, that 
 it is not to be regarded as a later amplification (Strauss, Baur, 
 Hilgenfeld, Keim, Bleek) ; that of Matthew follows a con- 
 densed form of the tradition, which, moreover, is responsible 
 for straightway introducing the eVeAeyr^o-ei/ as if forming part 
 of what the president addressed to Jesus. 
 
 Ver. 20. The particular kind of haemorrhage cannot be 
 determined. Some : excess of menstruation. Others : haemor- 
 rhoids. From its having lasted twelve years, it may be inferred 
 that the ailment was periodical. oTriffOev] out of modesty.
 
 CHAP. IX. 22, 23. 281 
 
 LXX. Num. xv. 38, ny^if. Such was the name 
 given to the tassel which, in accordance with Num. xv. 38 f., 
 the Jew wore on each of the four extremities of his cloak, to 
 remind him of Jehovah's commands. Lund, Jud. Heiligth. 
 ed. Wolf, p. 896 f. ; Keil, Archaol 102 ; Ewald, Alterth. p. 
 307. The article points to the particular tassel which she 
 touched. Comp. xiv. 36. 
 
 Ver. 22. Jesus immediately (see on ver. 4) perceives her 
 object and her faith, and affectionately (dvyarep, as a term of 
 address, like TCKVOV, ver. 2, occurs nowhere else in the New 
 Testament) intimates to her that 77 TrtoTt? aov creaco/ce o-e, on 
 account of thy faith thou art saved (healed) ! The perfect de- 
 scribes what is going to happen directly and immediately, as 
 if it were something already taking place. See Kiihner, 
 II. 1, p. 129. Comp. Mark x. 52, Luke xviii. 42, and the 
 counterpart of this among tragic poets, as in oXo>\a, redvTjKa, 
 and such like. The cure, according to Matthew, was effected 
 by an exercise of Jesus' will, which responds to the woman's 
 faith in His miraculous power, not through the mere touching 
 of the garment (in answer to Strauss). The result was in- 
 stantaneous and complete. To try to account for the miracle 
 by the influence of fear (Ammon), religious excitement 
 (Schenkel), a powerful hope quickening the inactive organs 
 (Keim), is not sufficiently in keeping with the well authenti- 
 cated result, and is inadequate to the removal of so inveterate 
 a malady (the twelve years' duration of which must indeed be 
 ascribed to legend), airo TT}<? &p. etc.] not equivalent to ev 
 rfj &p. etc. (viii. 14), but the thing begins to take place from 
 that hour onward. Comp, xv. 28, xvii. 18. 'Airb and ev 
 therefore express the same result, the instantaneous cure, in 
 forms differing according to the manner in which the thing is 
 conceived. According to Eusebius, IT. E. vii. 1 7, the woman's 
 name was Veronica (Evang. Nicod. in Thilo, I. p. 561), and a 
 Gentile belonging to Paneas, where she erected a statue to 
 Jesus. However, see Robinson, neuere Forsch. p. 537. 
 
 Ver. 23. The use of the lugubrious strains of flutes (and 
 horns), such as accompanied the funerals of the Jews (Light- 
 foot on this passage ; Geier, de luctu Hebr. v. 16 ; Grundt,
 
 282 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 die Trauergebrduche d. Heir. 1868), was known also among 
 Greeks and Eomans. o%\ov] consisting partly of the women 
 hired to mourn, partly of the friends and relations of the 
 president. tfopu/Sou/t.] did not require an article, as being 
 a mere qualifying attribute. Therefore Qopvfi. is not, with 
 Fritzsche, Ewald, to be referred to iS<uv. 
 
 Vv. 24, 25. The maid is not to be regarded as being per- 
 manently dead, but only as sleeping and certain to come to life 
 again, like one who awakens out of sleep. Thus, from the 
 standpoint of His own purpose, does Jesus clearly and confi- 
 dently speak of her actual death. " Certus ad miraculum 
 accedit," Bengel. It is wrong to found upon these words the 
 supposition of a mere apparent death (Paulus, Schleiermacher, 
 Olshausen, Ewald, Schenkel ; Weizsacker, without being quite 
 decided). See, on the other hand, John xi. 4, 11. This 
 hypothesis is as incompatible with the view of the evangelists 
 as it is inconsistent with a due regard to the character of 
 Jesus. See Krabbe, p. 327 ff. Keim, again, hesitates to 
 accept the idea of an unreal death, yet continues to harboiu 
 doubts as to the historical character of the narrative. He 
 thinks that, at least, the firm faith of the president may be 
 accounted for by the later hopes of Christianity, which may 
 have prompted the desire to see, in the risen Christ, the future 
 restorer of the dead already manifesting Himself as such in 
 His earthly ministry, a matter in connection with which the 
 statement in xi. 5 and the parallel of Elias and Elisha 
 (1 Kings xvii. 17 ; 2 Kings iv. 8, 18. Comp. Strauss) also 
 fall to be .considered. Surely, however, a legendary anticipa- 
 tion of this sort would have been far more fertile in such 
 stories ! Then, apart even from the raising of Lazarus 
 related by John, we have always (xi. 5) to show how 
 hazardous it must be to relegate to the region of myths those 
 cases in which Jesus raises the dead, considering what a small 
 number of them is reported. e'fe/SX^tf??] Comp. xxi. 12. 
 The request to retire (ava^wpetre, ver. 24) not having 
 been complied with, a thrusting out follows. Mark i. 43 ; 
 Acts ix. 40. Notice in elcrekdav (viz. into the chamber of 
 death) the noble simplicity of the concise narrative. TO
 
 CHAP. IX. 27-33. 283 
 
 Kopacriov] See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 74; on rj <p>i(j,r], 
 Wyttenbach, ad Julian. Or. I. p. 159, Lps. 
 
 Vv. 27, 28. Avo ru<p\oi] fj,a06vre^, irepl wv edav^arovp- 
 7et, Kal TTHTTeiKravres, aurov elvat rov TrpocrSoKcafjievov Xpiarov, 
 Euth. Zigabenus. Matthew alone records the two miracles, 
 w. 27-34, but it is rash to regard them (Holtzmann) as a 
 literary device in anticipation of xi. 5. The title "son of 
 David " is surely conceivable enough, considering the works 
 already done by Jesus, and so cannot serve as a ground for 
 regarding the healing of the blind man here recorded as a 
 variation of xx. 2 9 ff. (Wilke, Bleek, Weiss, Keini). Trapay. 
 as ver. 9. el? T. ol/ciav] in which Jesus resided. Comp. 
 ver. 10. 
 
 Ver. 30 f. 'Aveu>'%6'r)aav . . . o<#aX/i<u] they recovered their 
 power of seeing. Comp. John ix. 10 ; 2 Kings vi. 17 ; Isa. xxx. 5, 
 xlii. 7; Ps. cxlvi. 8; Wetstein on this passage. evefipi,- 
 fjujdij (see the critical remarks) : He was displeased with them, 
 and said (see on John xi. 33). The angry tone (Mark i. 43) of 
 the prohibition is due to the feeling that an unsuccessful 
 result was to be apprehended. To such a feeling correspond 
 the strict terms of the prohibition : take care to let no one 
 know it ! Bietp^fjuaav, K.T.\.] " propter memoriam gratiae 
 non possunt tacere beneficium," Jerome. ^eXOovres : out of 
 the house. Ver. 28. Paulus, notwithstanding the context, 
 interprets: out of the town. See also ver. 32, where avr&v 
 e^epXp/jLevcw can only mean : whilst they were going out from 
 Jesus, out of His house. 
 
 Vv. 32, 33. 1 Avr&v] Placed first for sake of emphasis, in 
 contrast to the new sufferer who presents himself just as they 
 are going out. ecpdvr) OI/TW?] tydvv) is impersonal, as in 
 Thucyd. VL 60. 2 (see Kriiger in loc.\ so that the general " it " 
 is to be regarded as matter for explanation. See by all means 
 Kriiger, 61. 5. 6. Nagelsbach, note on Ilias, p. 120, ed. 3. 
 
 1 Holtzmann thinks that this story likewi.se owes its origin merely to an 
 anticipation of xi. 5. According to de Wette, Strauss, Keim, it is identical 
 with the healing mentioned in xii. 22 ff. According to various sources " marked 
 as a duplicate" (Keim). The demoniac, ch. xii., is blind and dumb. And see 
 note on xii. 22.
 
 234 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Wliat the matter in question specially is, comes out in the 
 context; vv. 33, 34, K/3d\\ei ra Scupovia. Therefore to be 
 taken thus : never has it, viz. the casting out of demons, been 
 displayed in such a manner among the Israelites. According 
 to Fritzsche, JesiLS forms the subject ; never had He, shown Him- 
 self in so illustrious a fashion (Eettig in d. Stud. u. Krit. 1838, 
 p. 788 f.). But in that case, how is ev TO> 'Icrpa^X to be 
 explained ? Formerly it was usual to interpret thus : O{/T<? 
 stands for rovro or roiovro TL, like the Hebrew |3 (1 Sam. 
 xxiii. 1 7). A grammatical inaccuracy ; in all the passages 
 referred to as cases in point (Ps. xlviii. 6 ; Judg. xix. 3 ; 
 Neh. viii. 17), neither J3 nor ovray; means anything else than 
 thus, as in 1 Sam., loc. cit., xal 2aov\ 6 irarrjp /u,ou olBev OVTWS : 
 and Saul my father knows it thus. That false canon is also to 
 be shunned in Mark ii. 12. 
 
 Ver. 34. What a contrast to those plaudits of the people ! 
 ev TO> ap%QVTt TWV $atfj,ovi(ov\ His power to cast out 
 demons originates in the prince of demons ; everything depends 
 on the Devil, he is the power through which he works. Comp. 
 on ev, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 597; Winer, p. 364 [E. T. 
 486] ; on o ap%e>v r. Saift., Ev. Nicod. 23, where the devil is 
 called apxiSid(3o\o<i ; see in addition, Thilo, p. 736. 
 
 Ver. 35. Here we have the commencement of a new sec- 
 tion, which opens, vv. 3538, with the introduction to the 
 mission of the Twelve, which introduction has been led up 
 to by the previous narratives. Comp. iv. 2325. avr&v] 
 Masculine. Comp. iv. 23, xi. 1. 
 
 Ver. 36. 'ISa>v Se] in the course of this journey. TOUS 
 o^\oi;9] who were following Him e<r/cv\fj,voi] What is 
 meant is not a herd torn by wolves (Bretschneider), which 
 would neither suit the words nor be a fitting illustration of 
 the crowds that followed Him ; but a dense flock of sheep 
 which, from having no shepherd, and consequently no protec- 
 tion, help, pasture, and guidance, are in a distressing, painful 
 condition (vexati, Vulg.) ; and eppipiievoi, not scattered (Luther, 
 Beza, Kuinoel, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek), which is not the 
 meaning of piTrreiv, ' nor even neglecti (Soph. Aj. 1250), like 
 the German weggeworfen (castaway), (Kypke, Fritzsche, de
 
 CI1AP. IX. 37, 38. 285 
 
 Wette), which would be too feeble, coming after eV/etA/*. ; but 
 prostrati, thrown down, stretched upon tlw ground (frequently in 
 the LXX. and Apocrypha), like sheep exhausted, that are 
 unable to walk any farther (Vulg. : jacentes}. Comp. Xenoph. 
 Mem. iii. 1. 7; Herodian, iii. 12. 18, vi. 8. 15; Polyb. v. 
 48. 2. Jesus was moved with compassion for them, because 
 they happened to be in such a plight (essent ; notice how He 
 has expressed His pity in this illustration), and then utters 
 what follows about the harvest and the labourers. We have 
 therefore to regard e<7/ev\/*. and epptfi/j,. as illustrations of 
 spiritual misery, which are naturally suggested by the sight 
 of the exhausted and prostrate multitudes (that had followed 
 Him for a long distance). The form pepifjLftevoi (Lachm. with 
 spir. len.) is found only in D. See Lobeck, Paral. p. 13 ; 
 Kiihner, I. p. 508; and for the usual spir. asp., Gottling, 
 Accentl. p. 205. On the form eptfjifievoi, adopted by Tischen- 
 dorf after B C K, etc., consult Kiihner, I. p. 903. 
 
 Vv. 37, 38. The fiaO^rai in the more comprehensive sense. 
 The Twelve are expressly specified in x. 1 immediately follow- 
 ing. o fiev Oepicrnos, /c.r.X] The literal (John iv. 35) 
 meaning of which is this : Great is the multitude of people that 
 may be won for the Messiahs kingdom, and that is already ripe 
 for being so, but small the number of teachers qualified for this 
 spiritual work; pray God therefore, and so on. Luke x. 2 
 connects those words with the mission of the Seventy. They 
 are as appropriate in the one case as in the other, and in 
 both cases (according to Bleek, only in Luke x. 2) were 
 actually used by Jesus. But to infer from the illustration of 
 the harvest what season of the year it happened to be at the 
 time (Hausrath, Keim), is very precarious, considering how 
 the utterances of Jesus abound with all sorts of natural 
 imagery, and especially considering that this present simile 
 was frequently employed. B etjdij re, /c.r.X] so entirely was He 
 conscious that His work was the same as a work of God, John 
 iv. 34. e'/e/SaXfl] force them out, a strong expression under 
 the conviction of the urgent necessity of the case. Comp. note 
 on Mark i. 12.
 
 286 THE GOSPEL OF MATTIIEW. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 VER. 2. Tiscli. 8 has xa/ before 'idxuf3o$, only according to B 
 Syr. Ver. 3. Ae/3/3. 6 Icr/xX. Qadd.] Fritzsche: &a88. 6 I 
 A?j8/3., only according to 13, 346. Changed because Qadd. is 
 really the proper noun. 1 Ver. 4. xavaviryg] the form xamvafts 
 (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested. Ver. 8. xaeapifyn] 
 Elz. inserts vtxpovg eysiprrt, which words Griesb. Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 8 (so B C* D N) place after dipavsvirt, while Fritzsche 
 puts them after Ix/SaXXsrs. Correctly struck out by Scholz and 
 Tisch. 7. For besides being suspicious, owing to their omission 
 inC***EFGKLMSUVXrn and very many 
 Curss., also several versions and Fathers, a suspicion that is 
 heightened by their diversity of position in the unquestionably 
 important authorities which witness in their favour, they have 
 the appearance of being an interpolation, which, 'in accordance 
 with the apostolic narrative (Acts ix. 20 ff.) ; seemed necessary 
 by way of completing the list of miraculous powers that had 
 been conferred. Had the words been original, their contents 
 would in any case have contributed much more to preserve 
 them than to cause their omission. Ver. 10. pafibov] C E F 
 GKLMPSUVXAn Curss. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. Theoph. 
 have pdfidovs. Adopted by Scholz and Tisch. Altered because 
 of the preceding plurals, and because what is spoken applies at 
 the same time to a plurality of persons. lari] should be deleted, 
 see on Luke x. 7. Ver. 19. The reading fluctuates between 
 
 (Elz. Tisch. 7), ffapaduffouffiv, and xapaduffiv (Tisch. 8, 
 
 1 D, 122, Codd. quoted in Augustine, Hesychius, Rnfinus, have merely 
 As/3/Sara,-. B tf, 17, 124, and several versions have only eSSroj. ' So Lachm. 
 I regard the simple As/3/3ars (with Tisch. and also Ewald) as the original reading. 
 The other readings are derived from Mark iii. 18, because of the identity of 
 Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus. Comp. Bengel, Appar. crit. Had the simple 
 aSSar<if been the true one, it would have been impossible to see how AE/3/3rs 5 
 should have been inserted, seeing it does not occur anywhere else in the New 
 Testament. No doubt D and Codd. of It., also Mark iii. 18, have Ai/3/3a?av, but 
 against testimony so decisive that it appears to have come there from our present 
 passage.
 
 CHAP. X. 1. 287 
 
 after BE* and Lachm.). The future is adopted from ver. 17-, 
 while the present, which is best authenticated, and most in 
 accordance with the sense, would be easily transformed into the 
 aorist by the omission, on the part of the transcribers, of the 
 middle syllable. SoSriasrai to XaXj<r?r] is not found in 
 D L, Curss. Arm. Codd. of It. Or. Cypr. and a few Verss. 
 Bracketed by Lachm. Ancient omission occasioned by the 
 homoioteleuton. Ver. 23. psvysrf tie T^V aXXjjn] Griesb. : 
 pt-j-ysri /j rjjc srepav, xav ex Tavrqt dtuxuaiv iytaj, psuytrs /j rqv 
 aXXTjv, 1 after D L, Curss. and some Fathers and Verss., however, 
 with differences in detail. A continuous extension of the sen- 
 tence. Ver. 25. ensxdXsffav] Elz. : sxdXsaav, against decisive 
 testimony. Lachm. again (defended by Eettig in Stud. u. Krit. 
 1838, p. 477 ff. ; Buttmann, ibid. 1860, p. 342 f.) has, instead 
 of the accusative, the dative 7$ oixodeaxorri and oixiaxoTg, only 
 after B*, which is to be ascribed to a grammarian who took 
 iT/xaXg/v as meaning to reproach. Ver. 28. <po@sT<idi] Elz., 
 Fritzsche : po/3jj05jre, against decisive testimony. Adopted from 
 ver. 26. Likewise in ver. 31 we ought, with Lachm. and Tisch., 
 to restore pofaTadt in accordance with B D L N, Curss. Or. Cyr. 
 
 oiKoxrfvovruv] SO also Scholz. The anoxreivovruv (B, Or.) of 
 
 "vlie Received text is condemned by counter testimony as a 
 grammatical correction. But although the form avoxnvovrtav is 
 supported by important testimony, yet we ought, with Lachm. 
 and Tisch., to follow C D U r A n K and Curss. and adopt 
 the Aeolic- Alexandrine form airoxrsw6vr& v (see Sturz, Dial. Al. 
 p. 128), because avoxnvovruv as a present is nowhere found, 
 while an aorist, if the verb had had that form, would have 
 been in this instance without meaning. Ver. 33. The position 
 xriyw alrov (Beng. Lachm. Tisch. 8) is a mechanical alteration 
 on account of ver. 32. 
 
 Ver. 1. Not the choosing, but merely the mission of the 
 Twelve, is here related ; Mark vi. 7 ; Luke ix. 1. The choos- 
 ing (Mark iii. 14; Luke vi. 13; comp. also John vi 70), 
 which had taken place some time before, although a still 
 earlier one, viz. that of the five (iv. 18 ff., ix. 9), is recorded, 
 is assumed, as far as the complete circle of the Twelve, to 
 be generally known, which is certainly an omission on the 
 
 1 Instead of the *xxi of the Received text, Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following 
 B N 33, 265, Or. Petr. Ath. have i*ipav, which, however, is undoubtedly 
 connected with the above interpolation.
 
 283 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 part of the narrator. egovalav] Authority over unclean 
 spirits. The following eoerre is epexegetical : so that they 
 would cast them out. But teal Qepa-rreueiv, etc., is not dependent 
 on wo-T6 also, but on .egova-iav (1 Cor. ix. 5). Power was 
 given to them both to cure demoniacs and to heal those who 
 suffered from natural disease as well ; comp. ver. 8. The 
 manner of imparting this power, whether through a laying on 
 of hands, or breathing on them (John xx. 22) through a 
 symbolic act (de Wette), <or by communicating to them certain 
 sacred words or signs, or by certain movements of the hands 
 (Ewald), or even by magnetic influences (Weisse), or by the 
 mere effectual word of the Lord (which is more likely, since 
 nothing is specified), is not stated. On the genitive, comp. 
 Mark vi. 7 ; John xviii. 2 ; Sir. x. 4. 
 
 Ver. 2. A(aSeied] Theophylact : KarcL TOP apiflftov rwv 
 ScoSeKa $v\wv; comp. xix. 28. On this occasion, when the 
 mission is understood to take place, it is precisely the designa- 
 tion aTTocrroXav (not occurring elsewhere in Matthew, while 
 in Mark it is found only in vi. 30) that is made clioice of, 
 though doubtless also used by Jesus Himself (John xiii. 16 ; 
 Luke vi. 13), and from that circumstance it gradually came to 
 be employed as the distinguishing official title. Trpwro? 
 2* ifji a v~\ The first is Simon. The further numbering of them 
 ceases, for Matthew mentions them in pairs. The placing 
 of Peter tirst in all the catalogues of the apostles (Mark 
 iii. 16 ff. ; Luke vi. 14 ff . ; Acts i. 13) is not accidental 
 (Fritzsche), but is due to the fact that he and his brother 
 were looked upon as the Tr/jeoro/cX^Tot (see, however, John 
 i. 41). This accords with the pre-eminence which he had 
 among the apostles as primus inter pares (xvi. 16 ff., xvii. 1. 
 xxiv. 19, xxvil 26, 37, 40 ; Luke viii. 45, ix. 32, xxii. 31 f. ; 
 John xxi. 15 ; Acts i. 15, ii. 14, v. 3 f., viii. 14, x. 5, xv. 7 ; 
 Gal. i. 18, ii. 7), and which was recognised by Jesus Himself. 
 For that they were arranged in the order of their rank is per- 
 fectly obvious, not only from the betrayer being uniformly 
 put last, but also from the fact that in all the catalogues 
 James and John, who along with Peter were the Lord's most 
 intimate friends, are mentioned immediately after that apostle
 
 CHAP. X. 3. 289 
 
 (and Andrew). Moreover, a conjoint view of the four cata- 
 logues of the apostles (Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 395 ff., Bleek, 
 Keim) will confirm Bengel's observation, that "universi 
 ordines habent tres quaterniones, quorum nullus cum alio 
 quicquam permutat ; turn in primo semper primus est Petrus, 
 in secundo Philippus ... in tertio Jacobus Alphaei; in 
 singulis ceteri apostoli loca permutant; proditor semper 
 extremus." o \e<y6fj,. JTerpo?] who is called Peter (Schaeffer, 
 Melet. p. 14); that was his usual apostolic name. 'Av&peas] 
 Greek name (found even in Herod, vi. 126), like Philippus 
 below. Doubtless both originally had Hebrew names which 
 are not recorded. 
 
 Ver. 3. BapdoXo^ato^i] ^n 13, son of Tolmai, LXX. 
 2 Sam. xiii. 3 7, patronymic. His proper name was Nathanael ; 
 see note on John i. 46, and Keim, II. p. 311. &a)^a<i\ 
 DNn, diSvpos, twin (John xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2), perhaps so 
 called from the nature of his birth. In Eusebius and the Acts 
 of Thomas he is called (see Thilo, p. 94 ff.) 'lovSa? tw/ia? o 
 KOI AL&V/JLOS. 6 Te\(bvr)s] In reference to ix. 9 without any 
 special object. 6 TOV *A\<j>aiov\ Matthew's father was like- 
 wise called Alphaeus (Mark ii. 14), but this is a different 
 person; see Introduction, sec. 1. Aefifialos] who must be 
 identical with Judas Jacobi, 1 Luke vi. 16 (comp. John xiv. 22), 
 Acts i. 1 3 ; who, however, is not the author of the New Testa- 
 ment epistle bearing that name. Lebbaeus (the courageous one, 
 from 3^), according to our passsage, had become his regular 
 apostolic name. According to Mark iii. 18, he had the apos- 
 tolic name of 0aS8ato9 (which must not be taken as the correct 
 reading of the present passage ; see the critical notes), and it 
 
 1 On the relation of the genitive in Judas Jacobi (not brother, but son), see 
 note on Luke vi. 16 ; Acts i. 13. Comp. Nonnus, John xiv. 22 : 'loulus uls 
 'laKtofiato. The view that this Judas is a different person from Lebbaeus, and 
 that he had succeeded to the place rendered vacant, probably by ihe death of 
 Lebbaeus (Schleiermacher, Ewald), cannot possibly be entertained, for this reason, 
 that iu that case the statement in Luke vi. 13 (cxAfgitEa$, etc.) would be 
 simply incorrect, which is not to be supposed in connection with a matter so 
 important and generally known (Kufinus, in Praef. ad Origen inep. ad Horn.). 
 According to Strauss, only the most prominent of the Twelve were known, while 
 the others had places assigned them in conformity with the various traditions 
 that prevailed. 
 
 MATT. T
 
 290 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 is in vain to inquire how this twofold appellation has arisen. 
 The name Thaddaeus, however, is not " deflexio nominis 
 Judae, ut rectius hie distingueretur ab Iscariota " (Lightfoot, 
 Wetstein), but the independent name i&nn, which is also 
 currently used in the Talmud (Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Wetstein). 
 There is the less reason to seek for an etymology of 0aSS. 
 such as will make the name almost synonymous with AefBfi., 
 as if from iri (which, however, signifies mamma}, or even from 
 V 1K>, one of the names of God, and meaning potens (Ebrard). 
 For the apocryphal but ancient Acts of Lebbaeus, see Tischen- 
 dorf, Ada ap. apocr. p. 2 6 1 ff. According to these, he received 
 the name aSSaZo? when John the Baptist baptized him, and 
 was previously known by the name of Leblaeus. This is in 
 accordance with the reading of the Eeceived text in the case 
 of the present passage, and with the designation in the 
 Constit. apost., Aefiftaios 6 eVt/cX^^el? GaSBaios, 6. 14. 1, 8. 
 25, a circumstance which, at the same time, goes to show 
 that the name of the apostle as given in Mark is to be pre- 
 ferred to that found in Matthew. 
 
 Ver. 4. 'O icavavaio<i\ see the critical remarks. Luke calls 
 him f^XtoTT??, the (quondam) zealot. Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 1 3 ; 
 Chald. 'asai?; Hebr. Wj?; Ex. xx. 5, xxxiv. 14; Deut. iv. 24. 
 Zealots were a class of men who, like Phinehas (Num. xxv. 9), 
 were fanatical defenders of the theocracy ; and who, while 
 taking vengeance on those who wronged, it, were themselves 
 frequently guilty of great excesses ; Ewald, Gescli. Chr. p. 6 7 f. 
 But the o Kavavalos (or KavaviTrjs, according to the Received 
 text) is not to be explained in this way, inasmuch as this form 
 of the epithet is derived from the name of some place or other : 
 the Canaanite, or Cananaean ; comp. Kavavirrjs in Strabo, 
 xiv. 5, p. 674 (d-TTo tcwfjUT]*; rtvo?). It cannot be derived from 
 the town of Cana in Galilee (Luther, Calovius) ; in that case 
 it would require to have taken the form Kavaios, just as the 
 inhabitants of Kdvai in Aeolis (Strabo, xiii. 1, p. 581) were 
 called Kavaloi (Parmenides in Athen. 3, p. 76 A). This 
 enigmatical name is to be explained from the fact that, in 
 accordance with his previous character, Simon bore the sur- 
 name N>??P, 77X0)7779, a name which was correctly interpreted
 
 CHAP. X. 5. 291 
 
 by Luke ; but, according to another tradition, was erroneously 
 derived from the name of a place, and accordingly came to be 
 rendered 6 Kavavalos. 'Icr/captwr?;?] rrinp B>'K, a native of 
 Karioth, in the tribe of Judah. Josh. xv. 25 ; Joseph. Antt. 
 vii. 6. 1 : "/O-TO/SO? (siD SJ*X). There is no evidence that he was 
 the only one that did not belong to Galilee (which has induced 
 Ewald to think that the place in question is the town of 
 n 9"}i? (Josh. xxi. 34) in the tribe of Zebulon. The proposal of 
 Lightfoot, to derive either from fcODilpDK, leather apron, or from 
 N"ODK> strangulation, is indeed recommended by de Wette ; but 
 like the interpretation Dnp{? B"K, man of lies (Paulus, Heng- 
 stenberg), it is not suited to the Greek form of the word ; nor 
 are de Wette's or Hengstenberg's objections to the ordinary 
 explanation of the name to be regarded as unanswerable. 
 o /cat TrapaSou? avrov] who also delivered him over (not 
 betrayed, in which case we should have had TrpoSoy?). A 
 tragic reminiscence, and ever present to the mind ! Kai has 
 the force of qui idem ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636. 
 
 Vv. 5 ff. From this on to ver. 42 we have the instructions 
 to the Twelve; comp. Mark vi. 8 ff., and especially Luke 
 ix. 3 ff. As in the case of the Sermon on the Mount, so on 
 this occasion also, Luke's parallels are irregular in their connec- 
 tion (in ch. ix. connected with the mission of the Twelve, in ch. x. 
 with the mission of the Seventy). But this is only an addi- 
 tional reason (in answer to Sieffart, Holtzmann) why the pre- 
 ference as respects essential originality a preference, however, 
 which in no way excludes the idea of the proleptical inter- 
 weaving of a few later pieces should also in this instance be 
 given to Matthew, inasmuch as the contents of the passage 
 now before us are undoubtedly taken from his collection of 
 our Lord's sayings. The mission itself, to which Luke xx. 35 
 points back, and which for this very reason we should be the 
 less inclined to regard as having taken place repeatedly (Weisse, 
 Ewald), was intended as a preliminary experiment in the inde- 
 pendent exercise of their calling. For how long? does not 
 appear. Certainly not merely for one day (Wieseler), although 
 not exactly for several months (Krafft). According to Mark 
 VL 7, they were sent out by twos, which, judging from Luke
 
 292 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 x. 1, Matt. xxi. 1, is to be regarded as what originally took 
 place. As to the result, Matthew gives nothing in the shape 
 of an historical account. 
 
 Ver. 5. With the Gentiles (68bv eBvwv, way leading to the 
 Gentiles, Acts ii. 28, xvi. 17; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 286) Jesus 
 associates the Samaritans, on account of the hostility which 
 prevailed between the Jews and the Samaritans. The latter 
 had become intermixed during the exile with Gentile colonists, 
 whom Shalmaneser had sent into the country (2 Kings xvii. 
 24), which caused the Jews who returned from the captivity 
 to exclude them from any participation in their religious 
 services. For this reason the Samaritans tried to prevent the 
 rebuilding of the temple by bringing accusations against them 
 before Cyrus. Upon this and upon disputed questions of a 
 doctrinal and liturgical nature, the hatred referred to was 
 founded. Sir. L 2 off.; Lightfoot, p. 327 f. In accordance 
 with the divine plan of salvation (xv. 24), Jesus endeavours, 
 above all, to secure that the gospel shall be preached, in the 
 first instance, to the Jews (John iv. 22) ; so, with a view to the 
 energies of the disciples being steadily directed to the foremost 
 matter which would devolve upon them, He in the meantime 
 debars them from entering the field of the Gentiles and 
 Samaritans. This arrangement (if we except hints such as 
 viii. 11, xxi. 43, xxii. 9, xxiv. 14) He allows to subsist till 
 after His resurrection ; then, and not till then, does He give 
 to the ministry of the apostles that lofty character of a 
 ministry for all men (Matt, xxviii. 1 9 f. ; Acts i. 8), such as, 
 from the first, He must have regarded His own to have been 
 (v. 13). The fact that Jesus Himself taught in travelling 
 through Samaria (John iv.), appears to be at variance with the 
 injunction in our passage (Strauss) ; but this is one of those 
 paradoxes in the Master's proceedings about which the disciples 
 were not to be enlightened till some time afterwards. And 
 what He could do, the disciples were not yet equal to, so that, 
 in the first place, they were called upon only to undertake the 
 lighter task. 
 
 Vv. 6, 7. Ta TrpofiaTa . . . 'IvpaijX] the members of 
 Israel, the family of Israel (Lev. x. 6 ; Ex. xix. 3), the theo-
 
 CHAP. X. 8-10. 293 
 
 cratic nation, who were alienated from the divine truth and 
 the divine life, and so were found wandering in error, like 
 sheep without a shepherd. Comp. xv. 24. And such sheep 
 (ix. 36) were they all, seeing that they were without faith in 
 Him, the heaven-sent Shepherd. For the figure generally, 
 comp. Isa. liii. 6 ; Jer. 1. 8 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 5. Ver. 7. T/774/eey, 
 K.T.X.] being precisely the same terms as those in which Jesus 
 Himself (iv. 17), and the Baptist before .Him, had commenced 
 their preaching (iii. 2). 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. Awpeav . . . Sore] with reference to the miracu- 
 lous gifts just mentioned, not to the teaching, for which, as a 
 matter of course, nothing was to be asked in return except 
 the bare necessaries of life, ver. 10 (1 Cor. ix. 4 ff.). 
 e\d/3ere] refers back to ver. 1. pr) tcrrja-ya-Oe] you must 
 not provide for yourselves. The girdle, which holds together 
 the loose upper robe, served the double purpose of keeping 
 money as well, the different kinds of which are, in the order 
 of their value, denoted by %pva6v, apyvpov, ^aX/eoz/. llosen- 
 miiller, Morgenl. V. p. 53 f. Therefore et? T. v. : in your 
 girdles, is depending on KTTJO: 
 
 Ver. 10. Mrf\ sc. /CTTja-yaOe, with which et? 6Sov is to be 
 connected. Ilijpa, a bag slung over the shoulder, see Duncan, 
 Lex. Horn. ed. Eost, s.v. 8vo ^trwya?] two under -garments, 
 either with a view to wear both at one time (Mark vi. 9), or 
 only one while carrying the other with them in case of need. 
 vTroB^ara] namely, for the requirements of the journey, 
 besides the pair already in use. The question whether, as 
 Lightfoot and Salmasius think, it is shoes in the strict sense of 
 the word (vTroB^ara Koi\a, Becker, Charicl. p. 221) that are 
 here meant, or whether it is ordinary a-avBa\ia (Mark vi. 9), 
 is, judging from the usual Oriental mode of covering the feet, 
 to be decided in favour of the sandals, which the Greeks also 
 called by the same name as that in the text (Pollux, VII. 
 35 ff.). fjLij&e pdfiSov] nor a staff to carry in the hand for 
 support and self-defence (Tob. v. 1 7), an unimportant variation 
 from Mark vi. 8. afto9 7p, /e.r.X.] a general proposition, 
 the application of which is of course evident enough. Free 
 and unembarrassed by any v\ncrj<i (frpoini&os, ek JUJVTJV Se j3\e-
 
 294 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 7TOVT69 rrjv y^Lpi<T0elcrav avrois Siaicoviav (Euth. Zigabenus), 
 such as is represented by the matters just specified, they are 
 to rely upon God's care of them, who will cause them to 
 realize in their own experience how true it is that the labourer 
 is worthy of His support. 
 
 Ver. 11. "A % to 9] according to what follows: worthy to 
 provide you lodging at his house, " ne praedicationis dignitas 
 suscipientis infamia deturpetur," Jerome. Jesus forbids the 
 apostles to indulge in a fickle and frequent shifting of their 
 quarters as a thing unbecoming their office, and as calculated 
 to interfere with the steady progress of their labours. And 
 He directs them to go to private houses, not to the synagogues 
 nor to the market-places, seeing that they were unaccustomed 
 to making public appearances, but also out of regard to the 
 importance of domestic efforts. 
 
 Ver. 12. J3t9 TTJV OIK lav] This does not mean the house 
 at which you arrive (de Wette), but that which belongs to him 
 whom, on inquiry, you find to be worthy of you (ver. 11), and 
 where, if the owner is worthy, you are to stay until you 
 remove to another locality. The article is definite as referring 
 to Kafcet. aairaa-affOe avrrfv] Euth. Zigabenus: eTrej^ecr^e 
 elpijvrjv avry, the usual form of salutation, 1^ Dv^, Gen. xl. 23; 
 Judg. xix. 20 ; Luke x. 5. 
 
 Ver. 13. 'A %l a] not " bonis votis, queue, salute dicenda con- 
 tinebuntur" (Fritzsche), but, as in ver. 11, worthy of your 
 remaining in it. It should be noticed that $ and pr) y are 
 put first for sake of emphasis ; and should the house be worthy, 
 then come, and so on ; but if it is not a worthy one, then, and 
 so on. In this way the reference of ato9 remains unchanged. 
 e\#eTo>] shall come, that is my will. 77 elp 
 the blessings brought by you by way of salutation. 
 vfj,a<} Tri(7Tpa<p^T(o] Euth. Zigabenus : ftrjBev evepyycrdrco, 
 a\\a TavTtjv //,e#' iawr&v \a/36vTes e^ekOere. An expression 
 which represents the idea to the senses. Isa. xlv. 23, Ix. 11. 
 
 Ver. 14. Kal 09 eav, /c.r.X.] The nominative is a case of 
 anacoluthon, and placed at the beginning, so as to be emphatic, 
 as in vii. 24 : Whosoever will not have received you ... as you 
 qitit that house or that town, shake, and so on. e
 
 CHAP. X. 15, 16. 295 
 
 with a simple genitive (Acts xvi. 39) ; Kiiliner, II. 1, p. 346. 
 The efo>, which Lachmann, Tischendorf 8. insert (B D ), is a 
 gloss upon what is a rare construction in the New Testament. 
 .Notice the present participle, thereby meaning " upon the 
 threshold," and relatively " at the gate." 77] or, should a 
 whole town refuse to receive you and listen to you. The 
 sJialdng off the dust is a sign of the merited contempt with 
 which such people are reduced to the level of Gentiles, whose 
 very dust is defiling. Lightfoot, p. 3 3 1 f. ; Mischna Surenhusii, 
 VI. p. 151 ; Wetstein on this passage ; Acts xiii. 51, xviii. 6. 
 This forcible meaning of the symbolical injunction is not to 
 be weakened (Grotius, Bleek : " Nil nobis vobiscum ultra 
 commercii est ; " de Wette : " Have nothing further to do 
 with them ; " Ewald : " Calmly, as though nothing had hap- 
 pened"); on the contrary, it is strengthened by ver. 15. 
 Comp. vii. 6. 
 
 Ver. 15. Tf) SoS., /e.r.X.] the land (those who once inhabited 
 the land) where, Sodom and Gomorrah stood. The truth of this 
 asseveration is founded on the principle in morals, that the 
 more fully the will of God is proclaimed (Luke xii. 47 ; Matt, 
 xi. 2 ff.), the greater the guilt of those who resist it. Notice 
 how the resurrection of the wicked also is here assumed (John 
 v. 29) ; observe likewise how Jesus' words bespeak the highest 
 Messianic self-consciousness. 
 
 Ver. 16. MSov] Introduces demonstratively the thought ' 
 for which vv. 1 4, 1 5 have prepared the way. Such forms of 
 address as l&ov, aye, etc., frequently occur in the singular in 
 classical writers also, and that, too, where it is a question of 
 plurality (xviii. 31, xxvi. 65 ; John i. 29 ; Acts xiii. 46) ; see 
 Bremi, ad Dem. Philipp. I. 10, p. 119, Goth. lya>] here, as 
 always, is emphatic (in answer to Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek) : 
 It is / who send you into the midst of such dangers ; conduct 
 yourselves, then, in such circumstances in a manner becoming 
 those who are my messengers ; be wise as serpents, and so on. 
 o><? Trpoftara ev /te<7o> \VKCOV] tanquam oves, etc., i.e. so 
 that, as my messengers, you will be in the position of sheep 
 in the midst of wolves. Usually ev /iecrp \VK. is made to 
 depend on aTrooreXXo), in which case ev, in accordance with
 
 296 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 its well-known pregnant force (Bernhardy, p. 208 f.), would 
 not only express the direction of the verb, but also convey the 
 idea of continuing in the position in question, while &><? would 
 have the meaning of as. This is harsh, inasmuch as the 
 aTroo-reXXft), which occurs so often in the New Testament, is 
 in no other instance (in Luke iv. 19 it is an abstract expres- 
 sion) used in such a local sense. Moreover, ev fieaw gives 
 more striking prominence to the danger than the simple ev. 
 a/ce/aato?] Etyrn. M. : o /j,rj KCKpapzvos /catcols, a\X' aTrXoi)? 
 KOI a7rot/u\o<?. Comp. Rom. xvi. 19, Phil. ii. 15, common 
 in classical authors ; see Euhnken, ad Tim. p. 18. In view of 
 the dangerous circumstances in which they would be placed, 
 Jesus asks of them to combine (a combination to be realized 
 under the direction of the Holy Spirit, as in ver. 19) prudence 
 (in the recognition of danger, in the choice of means for 
 counteracting it, in regard to their demeanour in the midst of 
 it, and so on) with uprightness, which shuns every impropriety 
 into which one might be betrayed in the presence of the 
 dangers referred to, and therefore refrains from thinking, 
 choosing, or doing anything of a questionable nature in con- 
 nection with them. For Rabbinical passages bearing on the 
 wisdom of the serpent (Gen. iii. 1) and the innocence of the 
 dove (Hos. vii. 11), see Schoettgen. The loftiest example of 
 this combination is Jesus Himself ; while among the apostles, 
 so far as we know them, the one who ranks highest in this 
 respect is Paul. 
 
 Ver. 17. A e] denoting continuation of this same matter : 
 " But in order to comply with this injunction (usually the 
 wisdom alone is arbitrarily supposed to be referred to), be on 
 your guard, and so on." The passage that now follows on to 
 ver. 2 3 originally formed part (comp. Mark xiii. 9 ff.) of the 
 eschatological utterances, but the connection in which it now 
 stands was probably that in which it was already met with in 
 the collection of our Lord's sayings. Comp. xxiv. 9-1 3 ; Luke 
 xxi. 1 2 ff. Then again, taken in detail, the different portions 
 of this address, as given by Matthew, possess the advantage 
 of originality. Comp. Weizsacker, p. 160 ff. OTTO rv 
 The article is not meant to indicate men who
 
 CHAP. X. 18. 297 
 
 are hostile (ver. 16, Erasmus, Fritzsche), who must have been 
 indicated in some other way than by the simple article (by TOOJA 
 TOIOVTWV, or such like), or by the general expression dvBpcaTrwv ; 
 but it is to be understood generically : men in general, taken 
 as a whole, are conceived of as hostile, in accordance with the 
 idea of that /cocy*o9 to which the disciples do not belong 
 (John xv. 19), and by which they are hated (John xvii. 14). 
 o-vveBpta] taken generally, tribunals in general. ev rat? 
 o-vvay.] That scourging also belonged to the synagogal forms 
 of punishment, as a matter of synagogue discipline, is placed 
 beyond a doubt by the New Testament. See, besides the 
 Synoptists, Acts xxii. 19, xxvi. 11 ; 2 Cor. xi. 24. The evi- 
 dence from Rabbinical literature is doubtful. 
 
 Ver. 18. Kal . . . Be] and . . . but (always separated except in 
 the epic poets), is of the nature of a climax, introducing still 
 another circumstance, whereupon Be follows this new and 
 emphasized thought. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 1 8 1 f. ; Klotz, 
 ad Devar. p. 645; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 148 f. y ye novas] 
 comprises the three kinds of provincial chief magistrates, pro- 
 praetors, proconsuls, and procurators. Fischer, de vit. Lex. 
 N. T. p. 432 ff. et? /Jiaprvpiov . . . edveaiv] as a testimony 
 to them and to the Gentiles, i.e. those wrongs and that violent 
 treatment have this as their object, that (through your con- 
 fession and demeanour) a testimony regarding me may be given 
 to the Jeivs and the Gentiles. Cornp. viii. 4, xxiv. 14. Let it 
 be observed : (1) that it is arbitrary to refer et? paprvpiov, as is 
 usually done, merely to the last point, /cat eVl ^7e/i6i/a<?, etc., 
 seeing that everything, in fact, from TrapaBuxrova-i onwards, 
 belongs to one category and has one common aim ; (2) that 
 aurofc, therefore, cannot point to the ^e/iora? and /Sao-tXet?, 
 to whom it is commonly referred (Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek), 
 though not in keeping with the distinction expressed by /cat 
 rot? Wvea-iv, for the truth is, the procurators and kings were 
 Gentiles also ; but that, as is at once suggested to the reader 
 by this adding on of Kal rots Wveviv, it rather refers to the 
 Jews (Maldonatus, Bengel, Lange, Hilgenfeld, Schegg, follow- 
 ing Theophylact), who (avrwv, ver. 17) are the active subjects 
 of Tra/raSoKToucrt, (jLaa-Tiyaxroucriv, and partly also of dp
 
 298 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (3) that, according to the context, rot? eOveaiv, to the Gentiles, 
 refers to the yyefAovas and /SaenXefr, and their Gentile environ- 
 ment ; (4) and lastly, that the further reference of ^aprvptov 
 is to be gathered from eveicev epov : a testimony of me, regard- 
 ing my person and work. The dative case, however, is that of 
 reference as regards the paprvpiov ; to define more specifically 
 would be an unwarrantable liberty. This is applicable to the 
 view adopted since Chrysostom : et<? e\eyxov avrwv (Theo- 
 phylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Beza, Maldonatus, Kuinoel), 
 although this is included in that general reference. 
 
 Vv. 19, 20. But now, when the delivering of you up 
 actually takes place, give yourselves no anxious concern, and 
 so on. rj Tt] not KCU TI, but the distinctive expression used 
 renders more fully prominent the two elements, the how and 
 the what (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor, p. 264), in which " eleganter 
 notatur cura " (Bengel). The difficulty, first of all, is with 
 regard to the 7rcw9 ; observe, however, that in the sequel only 
 Tt is used ("ubi TO quid obtigit, TO quomodo non deest," 
 Bengel). Sodtja-eTat,] not docebitur, but suggeretur, by God 
 through the Holy Spirit, Isa. 1. 4 ; Eph. vi. 19 ; 1 Cor. ii. 10 ff. ; 
 Luke xxi. 15. Observe the difference between TI \a\r)cn]re 
 and rt \a\tfcreTe (what you ought to speak, and what you will 
 speak) ; and for this use of TI, see Bernhardy, p. 443. Kiihner, 
 II. 2, p. 1016. ov . . . a\\a] In this decided, and not in 
 any half and half way, does Jesus conceive of that relation, in 
 virtue of which His disciples were to become irvevpariicois 
 TrvevfAdTiica a-vyicpivovTes (1 Cor. ii 13). e<7Te] the future 
 situation is thought of as present. 
 
 Ver. 21. Comp. Mic. vii. 6. eVai/ao-T^o-.] not merely 
 before the judges, but generally. It is the expression in 
 classical Greek for rebellious rising (eTravda-Taa-is, 2 Kings 
 iii. 4; Kriiger, ad Dion. p. 55); in Greek authors usually 
 with the dative, also with eiri rivt. davarcaa-ovariv] take 
 away life (xxvi. 59), i.e. bring about their execution. A vivid 
 expression. Comp. also xxvii. 1. The reason of this hostile 
 treatment is self-evident, but may be further seen from 
 ver. 22. 
 
 Ver. 22. 'IVo TTUVTCOV'] Popular way of expressing the
 
 CHAP. X. 23. 299 
 
 universal character of the hatred. Si a TO ovo^d fiov] because 
 you confess and preach it. Tertullian, Apol. 2 : " Torquemur 
 confitentes et punimur perseverantes et absolvimur negantes, 
 quia nominis proelium est." t/Tro/ieiW?] whosoever will have 
 persevered in the confessing of my name. This is to be inferred 
 from 8ta ra ovopd fjLov. Comp. note on xxiv. 13. et? reXo?] 
 usque ad Jinem horum malorum (Theophylact, Beza, Fritzsche). 
 Others think that the end of life is meant, or (as also Bleek) 
 mingle together a variety of references. Contrary to ver. 23. 
 er&>e<r#cu] obtain the blessedness of the Messianic kingdom. 
 Ver. 23. Tavry and rrjv d\\r)v are to be understood 
 SetKTi/ccS?. Jesus points with the finger in the direction of 
 various towns. Your sphere is large enough to admit of your 
 retreating before persecution in order to save others. yap] 
 A ground of encouragement for such perseverance. ov p,rj 
 T6\eo-7/T6, /c.T.X.] You will not have completed your visits to the 
 towns of the people of Israel ; i.e., you will not have accom- 
 plished in all of them your mission, associated as it will be 
 with such flights from town to town. Comp. the analogous 
 use of avvei.v (Eaphel, Krebs, Loesner, on this passage), explere, 
 in Tibull. i. 4. 69 (Heyne, Obss. p. 47) ; consummare, in Flor. 
 i. 18. 1 (see Ducker on the passage). The interpretation: to 
 bring to Christian perfection (Maldonatus, Zeger, Jansen, fol- 
 lowing Hilary ; Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf all. II. p. 2 6 7 f.), is 
 an erroneous makeshift, by way of removing the second coming 
 farther into the future. Observe that here, too, as in ver. 5, 
 the apostolic ministry is still confined to Israel. eo>? av 
 e\drf\ until the Son of man will have come, i.e. the Messiah, 
 such as He has been promised in Daniel's vision (viii. 20), who 
 will then put an end to your troubles, and receive you into 
 the glory of His kingdom. Jesus means neither more nor less 
 than His second coming (Matt, xxiv.), which He announces 
 even at this early stage, and as being so near, that xxiv. 14, 
 and even xvi. 28, are not to be reconciled with this view. 
 Different elements of the tradition, which, in the course of 
 experience, came to view the prospect as more remote, a 
 tradition, however, that was still the product of the existing 
 7/ea (xxiv. 34, xiv. 28). The interpretations which explain
 
 300 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 away the final coming, content themselves, some with the idea 
 of a vague coming after or coming to their help (Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, Kuinoel ; even Origen 
 and Theodoret, Heracleon in Cramer's Cat. p. 78); others with 
 the coming through the Holy Spirit (Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, 
 Bleek), or with supposing that the, as yet too remote, destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem is referred to (Michaelis, Schott, Glockler, 
 Ebrard, Gess) ; and others, again, explaining it allegorically of 
 the victory of Christ's cause (Baumgarten-Crusius). On the 
 prediction of the second coming itself, see on ch. xxiv. 
 
 Ver. 24. Similarly, what follows from here on to the close 
 consists of anticipations of later utterances. Comp. as far as 
 ver. 33 ; Luke xii. 1 ff., and from ver. 34 onward ; Luke xii. 
 49 ff. Do not be surprised at such intimations beforehand 
 of the sad troubles that await you ; for (as the proverb has it) 
 you need not expect a better fate than that which befalls your 
 Lord and Master. Comp. John v. 2 ; Eabbinical passages in 
 Schoettgen, p. 98. 
 
 Ver. 25. ^Apicerov ru> fjtaOrjrf}, "va, /c.r.X] It is enough for 
 the disciple he should be as his Master, i.e. let him satisfy 
 himself with being destined to share the same fate ; a better 
 he cannot claim. For tva, comp. John vi. 29 and the note 
 upon it. KOI o SoOXo?, /c.r.X.] by attraction for teal rat 8ou\&>, 
 iva ^kvr]Tai to? o Kvp. avrov. Winer, p. 583 [E. T. 783]. 
 -BeeXe/3ou\, name of the devil, which the majority of 
 modern critics (Kuinoel, Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek, Grimm) 
 agree, with Lightfoot and Buxtorf, in deriving from ?J?3 and 
 >3 ., dominus stercoris, an expression intended to designate with 
 loathing the prince of all moral impurity. It is supposed, at 
 the same time, that the name BeelzeZmfr, the Philistine god of 
 flies, by being changed into Beelzeiw/ (god of dung), came to be 
 employed, in a jocular way, as a name for the devil. See below 
 on the reading .BeeXe/3ouy3. But, as against the meaning god 
 of dung, there is (1) the form of the name itself, which, if 
 derived from 73T, should have been spelt Bee\%a/3r)\, orBeeXa- 
 /6eX, according to the analogy of 'le&fifa (/ 5 ?.^), or 'Iea/3eX 
 (Eev. ii. 20). (2) The fact that Jesus' own designation of 
 Himself as ot/coSeo-Tro-n?? is evidently chosen with reference
 
 CHAP. X. 26, 27. 301 
 
 to the meaning of BeeXe/3ouX, as indeed is clear from 
 = f>JD, and that, accordingly, the name Bee\e/3ov\ must con- 
 tain something corresponding to ol/eo? as well. This being so, 
 it is preferable to derive the word from ?y? and 7>3T, a dwelling 
 (Gusset, Michaelis, Paulus, Jahn, Hitzig, Philista&r, p. 314 ; 
 Hilgenfeld, Volkmar), according to which the devil, as lord of 
 his domain, in which the evil spirits dwell, was called Domi- 
 nus domicilii (but neither tartari, as Faulus, nor domicilii 
 coelestis, as Hilgenfeld, Keim, suppose). Jesus was, in relation 
 to His disciples (TOU? ot/cta/cou? avrov), the Herus domesticus, 
 n3n ^3 (Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 333) ; but, in malicious jest, 
 they applied to Him the corresponding name of the devil : 
 Herus domicilii. Jerome wrote Bee\e/3ovj3, from 213T, musca, 
 i.e. Dominus muscarum. Such was the name given to a 
 fortune-telling divinity of the Ekronites (2 Kings i. 2, 16), 
 which during an illness was consulted by King Ahaziah, and 
 to which, in connection with the very ancient heathen worship 
 of flies, was ascribed the dominion over those insects, and 
 which therefore was supposed, at the same time, to have the 
 power of averting this scourge of the East. Plin. N. H. x. 28 ; 
 Pausan. viii. 26, 27 ; Aelian. H. A. v. 17 ; Solin. Polyh. 1. 
 But critical testimony most decidedly preponderates in favour 
 of the reading BeeXe/3ovX, which might easily have been 
 changed into JBee\^e/3ou/8, on account of what is found in 
 2 Kings i. ; and the greater the correspondence between the 
 meaning of the former name and that of ot/coSco-Tror^?, it is 
 also the more likely to be the correct form. That the Jews 
 really catted Jesus BeeXfe/SovX, is not elsewhere stated in any 
 of the Gospels, though from our present passage the fact cannot 
 be doubted, while it is probably connected with the accusation 
 in ix. 34, xii. 34, though going rather further. 
 
 Vv. 26, 27. Ovv\ inference from vv. 24, 25 : since, from 
 the relation in which, as my disciples, you stand to me as 
 your Master, it cannot surprise you, but must only appear as 
 a necessary participation in the same fate, if they persecute 
 you. The yap which follows, then, conjoins with the fir) <o/3. 
 avr. a further awakening consideration that, namely, which 
 arises out of the victorious publicity which the gospel is destined
 
 302 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 to attain; whereupon is added, in ver. 27, the exhortation 
 an exhortation in keeping with this divine destiny of the 
 gospel to labour boldly and fearlessly as preachers of that 
 which He communicates to them in private intercourse. This 
 addition is the more emphatic from there being no connecting 
 particle to introduce it. The thought, " elucescet tandem orbi 
 vestra sinceritas," which others (Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Theodoret, Heracleon in Cramer's Cat., Erasmus, Grotius, 
 Beza) have found in ver. 26, as well as the reference to the 
 judgment (Hilgenfeld), are equally at variance with the con- 
 text, as seen in ver. 27. For the figurative contrasting of 
 crKOTia and </>?, in the case of heyeiv and such like, comp. 
 Soph. Phil. 578, and Wunder in loc.; for et? r. o3<?, also a 
 common expression among classical writers for what is told in 
 confidence, see Valckenaer, ad Eurip. Hipp. 932. 
 
 Ver. 28. Tov Swdpevov . . . yeevvrj] who is in a position 
 to consign body and soul, at the day of judgment, to ever- 
 lasting destruction in Gehenna. Comp. v. 29. It is God that 
 is meant, and not the devil (Olshausen, Stier). Comp. Jas. 
 iv. 12 ; Wisd. xvi. 1315. (f>o/3eicr0ai airo, as a rendering 
 of jp N"V, and expressing the idea of turning away from the 
 object of fear, occurs often in the LXX. and Apocrypha ; the 
 only other instance in the New Testament is Luke xii. 4 ; not 
 found in classical writers at all, though they use ^0^05 UTTO 
 (Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 53; Polyb. ii. 35. 9, ii. 59. 8). fia\\ov'] 
 potius. Euth. Zigabenus : <o/3oi> ovv aTruxraaOe (boftw, TOV TWV 
 
 av6p(O7TCOV T<0 TOV 060V. 
 
 Ver. 26. Farther encouragement by pointing to the provi- 
 dence of God. cTTpovdia] The diminutive is used advisedly. 
 Comp. Ps. xi. 1, Ixxxiv. 3 ; Aristot. H. An. v. 2, ix. 7. Two 
 small sparrows for a single farthing. The latter was one-tenth 
 of a drachma, and subsequently it was still less. It is also 
 used by Rabbinical writers to denote the smallest possible 
 price of anything; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 175, Lightfoot, 
 Schoettgen. /cot] is simply and, and placed first in the 
 ansiver, which is, in fact, a continuation of the thought con- 
 tained in the question. See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 10. 2. 
 ev\ a single. Treo-eJIrat eirl T. yfjv] not spoken of the
 
 CHAP. X. 30-34. 303 
 
 bird that is caught in the snare or gin (Irenaeus, Chrysostom, 
 Euth. Zigabenus), but of that which has dropped dead from 
 the sky or the branches. dvev] independently of , without the 
 interference; the reading dvev T^? /3ouA% rov Tra-rp. vp,. is an 
 old and correct gloss. Comp. the classical expressions dvev 
 6eov, drep dewv, and sine Diis, Isa. xxxvi. 10. 
 
 Ver. 30. 'T/xwv 8e] Put first by way of emphasis. Euth. 
 Zigabenus aptly observes : fytet? Be TOO-OVTOV ecrre Tipiot, were 
 KOI irdaas vfjiwv Tpfyas r/pidprj/jLevas elvai Trapa 6eov . . . Kal 
 A.e7TT(tyie/a<w<? oI8e Trdvra TO, icaff v/j,a<s. Poetical expression for 
 the providentia specialissima. Comp. Luke xxi. 18 ; Acts 
 xxvii. 34 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 45 ; 2 Sam. xiv. 11 1 Kings i. 52 ; 
 Plato, Legg. x. p. 900 C. 
 
 Ver. 32 f. ITa? ovv, /c.r.X.] Nominative, like ver. 14. ev 
 e/jioi] is neither a Hebraism nor a Syriac mode of expression ; 
 nor does it stand for the dative of advantage ; nor does it 
 mean through me (Chrysostom) ; but the personal object of 
 confession is conceived of as the one to whom the confession 
 cleaves. Exactly as in Luke xii. 8. Similar to o/jivveiv ev, 
 v. 34. In the apodosis, notice the order: confess will I also 
 him -(as really one of mine, and so on). epTrpoo-Oev . . . 
 ovpavols\ namely, after my ascension to the glory of heaven 
 as <rvvdpovo<; of the Father, xxvi. 64; comp. Eev. iii. 5. 
 Vv. 32 and 33 contain, as an inference from all that has been 
 said since ver. 16, a final observation in the form of a promise 
 and a threatening, and expressed in so general a way that the 
 disciples are left to make the special application for them- 
 selves. The address, which is drawing to a close in ver. 33, 
 pursues still further the same lofty tone, and that in vivid 
 imagery, in ver. 34, so full is Jesus of the thought of the pro- 
 found excitement which He feels He is destined to create. 
 
 Ver. 34. 'HxOov fta\eiv] The telic style of expression is 
 not only rhetorical, indicating that the result is unavoidable, 
 but what Jesus expresses is a purpose, not the final design of 
 His coming, but an intermediate purpose, in seeing clearly 
 presented to His view the reciprocally hostile excitement as a 
 necessary transition, which He therefore, in keeping with His 
 destiny as Messiah, must be sent first of all to bring forth.
 
 30 4 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 /3a\eiv] an instance of zeugma, in which the thought of a 
 sword is the predominant one, after which the verb also spon- 
 taneously suggested itself for elprjvrjv, and all the more naturally 
 the more sudden and powerful was to be the excitement of 
 men's minds, which He, instead of a comfortable peace, was to 
 bring about. 
 
 Vv. 35, 36. Comp. ver. 21. Involuntary recollection of 
 Mic. vii. 6. Comp. also Sota xlix. 2, in Schoettgen. ?j\6ov 
 rydp] solemn repetition. St^da-at] to separate (Plat. Polit. 
 p. 264 D), i.e. to place a man in that attitude of party hostility 
 (Bi^offTacria) toward his father which results in their separation, 
 and so on. vv(ji<}>r): young wife (common in classical writers), 
 specially in the sense of daughter-in-law (in the LXX.). xal 
 e^dpol, /C.T.X.] imminent, as if already present: and a man's 
 enemies (are) the members of his own family ! fyBpol is a 
 predicate. 
 
 Ver. 37. Demeanour in the midst of this excitement: the 
 love of the family on no account to take precedence of love 
 to Christ, but quite the reverse ! The inalienable rights of 
 family affection remain intact, but in subordination to the love 
 of Christ, which determines how far it is of a truly moral 
 nature, -r fjuow aftos] worthy to belong to me as his Lord and 
 Master. Comp. Luke xiv. 26. 
 
 Ver. 38. To take up his cross means, willingly to undergo 
 the severe trials that fall to his lot (2 Cor. i. 5 ; Phil. iii. 1 0). 
 Figurative expression, borrowed from the practice according to 
 which condemned criminals were compelled to take up their 
 own cross and carry it to the place of execution; xxvii. 32 ; 
 Luke xxiii. 26 ; John xix. 16 ; Artemid. ii. 56, p. 153 ; Plut. 
 Mor. p. 554 A; Cic. de divin. i. 26 ; Valer. Max. xi. 7. The 
 form of this expression, founded as it is upon the kind of 
 death which Christ Himself was to die, is one of the indica- 
 tions of that later period from which the passage from ver. 24 
 onward has been transferred to its present connection. Matthew 
 himself betrays the prolepsis in xvi. 24 f.; comp. Mark viii. 34; 
 Luke xiv. 27. oirLaa) pov: in conformity with the Hebrew 
 Comp., however, CLKO\. Karoiriv nvos, Arist. Plut. xiii. 
 
 Ver. 39. Wvxtfv and avrrjv have no other meaning than that
 
 CHAP. X. 40, 41. 305 
 
 of soul (ii. 20, vi. 25, ix. 28); but the point lies in the 
 reference of the finding and losing not being the same in the 
 first as in the second half of the verse. " Whoever will have 
 found his soul (by a saving of his life in this world through 
 denying me in those times when life is endangered), will lose 
 it (namely, through the aTnuXeta, vii. 13, the eternal death at 
 the second coming ; comp. Luke ix. 24 f.) ; and whoever will 
 have lost his soul (through the loss of his life in this world 
 in persecution, through an act of self-sacrifice), will find it " 
 (at the resurrection to the eternal <u?7) ; o-w^o-erat, ver. 22. 
 For a?roXX. -^-v^ijv, comp. Eur. Hec. 21 ; Anth. Pal. vii. 272. 2. 
 The finding in the first half, accordingly, denotes the saving of 
 the ^^77, when to all appearance hopelessly endangered from 
 temporal death ; while, in the second, it denotes the saving of 
 the ^v%*? after it has actually succumbed to death. The former 
 is a finding that issues in eternal death ; the latter, one that 
 conducts to eternal life. 
 
 Vv. 40-42. Before concluding, the reassuring statement is 
 added that : In all such troubles you are to have the less hesitation 
 in claiming to be entertained and supported by believers; the holier 
 the deeds and the greater (in the Messianic kingdom) the reward 
 of those will prove to be who so receive and maintain you. Euth. 
 Zigabenus appropriately observes : ravra direv dvovyow rots 
 /j,a6r)Tai<; ra? oiKia<? rwv TrtffTevovT&v. Comp. with ver. 40, 
 John xiii. 20 ; and with ver. 41 f., comp. Mark ix. 37, 41. 
 
 Ver. 41. A general expression, the special reference of 
 which to the disciples is found in ver. 42. eis ovop,d\ from 
 a regard to that which the name implies, to the prophetic 
 character ; Sc avro TO 6vo/j,dea-0ai, KOI elvai, Euth. Zigabenus. 
 In Eabbinical writers we find 0??. Schoettgen, p. 107 ; Bux- 
 torf, Lex. Talm. p. 2431. Therefore; for the sake of the 
 cause which stamps them with their distinguishing character- 
 istics, for sake of the divine truth which the prophet interprets 
 from the revelation that has been made to him, and for sake 
 of the integrity which the St/eato? exhibits in his life. 
 SiKaiov] an upright man, correct parallel to Trpo^rrjv. The 
 apostles, however, belong to both categories, inasmuch as they 
 receive and preach the revelation (Trpoffirai) communicated 
 
 MATT. U
 
 306 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 by God through Christ, and seeing that, through their faith in 
 the Lord, they are characterized by true and holy righteous- 
 ness of life (SiKaioi). The reward of a prophet and of a 
 righteous man is the same reward, which they will receive (in 
 the Messianic kingdom). 
 
 Ver. 42. "Eva . . . T.OVTCOV] a single one of these (Sei/criKd)?} 
 little ones. According to 'the whole context, which has been 
 depicting the despised and painful circumstances of the dis- 
 ciples, and is now addressing to them the necessary encourage- 
 ment, it is to be regarded as intentional and significant that 
 Jesus employs the term fuicpwv (not fj,a0r)r<uv), an expression 
 which (in answer to Wetstein) is not usual among Rabbinical 
 writers to convey the idea of disciples. Otherwise xviii. 6. 
 /j,6vov~\ only, connected with what precedes. rov \iiaQov 
 auroO] the, reward awaiting Mm, in the kingdom of the 
 Messiah; v. 12. Grotius says correctly: "Docemur hie, facta 
 ex aiiinio, non animum ex factis apud Deum aesthnari"
 
 CHAP. XL 307 
 
 CHAPTER XT. 
 
 VER. 2. 5/] Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz: dio, against 
 B C* D P Z A K, 33, 124, Syr. utr. Arm. Goth. Codd. of It. 
 From Luke vii. 19. Ver. 8. /^ar/'o/s] wanting in B D Z X, 
 Vulg. Tert. Hil. al. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. 
 Interpolation from Luke. Ver. 9. /3s/v; irpo<pr,rrivi] Tiscb. : 
 vpotpqTw ids?]/ ; (with mark of interrogation after s^XQ.) So 
 B Z K*. The Received text, notwithstanding its preponder- 
 ance of testimony, is a mechanical conformation to ver. 8 (comp. 
 Luke). Ver. 10. Lachm. has bracketed yap and lyw. The 
 former only has important testimony against it (B D Z N, 
 Codd. of It. Syr cur Or.), is likewise deleted by Tisch., though it 
 may easily have been omitted in consequence of a comparison 
 with Luke vii. 27. On far too inadequate testimony, Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 7 have xa/ instead of 5$. Ver. 15. &xoveiv] is not 
 found in B D, 32. Here and in xiii. 9, 43, it is bracketed by 
 Lachm. and correctly deleted by Tisch. Borrowed from Mark 
 and Luke, where, in all the passages, axousiv cannot be disputed. 
 Ver. 16 f. iratdioig Iv ayopafg xadq/j,svoi<; xal vpoffifsuvoiJsi 
 roTg sTKipoig avruv xai Xt/ovtf/v] Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 
 257 f . ; Lachm. and Tisch. : -a/3/o/$ xadyp'ivoig ev ayopej, (Tisch. 7 : 
 ayopais, Tisch. 8 : rule, ay<y>.) a -Trpoatpuvovvra rote, traipoig (Tisch. : 
 sTtpois) hsyovatv. On the strength of preponderating testimony 
 this whole reading is to be preferred ; it was partially altered 
 in accordance with Luke vii. 32. But the balance of the testi- 
 mony is decidedly in favour of substituting eripoi$ for eraipois ; 
 and the former is to be preferred all the more that, for exegetical 
 reasons, it was much more natural to adopt the latter. Testi- 
 mony is also decidedly in favour of Iv ayopaT;, and that without 
 the article (which is found only in B Z K). Mpyvriff. v^?v] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. have merely idpqvqa., according to B C D Z X, 
 Curss. Verss. and Fathers. Correctly ; vpn is inserted from what 
 precedes. Tisch. 8 has spyuv instead of rexvuv, but only after 
 B* N, 124, Codd. in Jerome, and Verss. (also Syr.). An inter- 
 pretation (a. r. epycav ruv vi. a.). Ver. 23. 53 Iws roD ou^avoS 
 ' E F G S U V r n**. Curss. Syr. p. Chrys.: 1 "u;
 
 308 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 rot ovpavot v-^ufy's (approved by Griesb. and Rinck, also Tiscb. 7, 
 who, however, has correctly deleted roD). But B D** K, 1 , 
 22, 42, Copt. Aeth. Pers. Wh. Vulg. Corb. Tor. Ir. (comp. Colb. 
 Germ.) : py eus ovpavot i-^ud^er. The reading of the Received 
 text must be given up, then, on account of the external testi- 
 mony, and either % . . . v-^udqs or w . . . v^udfari is to be read. 
 The former is to be preferred. The reading w, etc., originated 
 in the final syllable of Kapapvaovf* having been twice written 
 by the copyist, which necessarily involved the change of tyudijg 
 into tr\J/w0jj<T9j. The other variations arose out of a misunder- 
 standing as to H. It was taken for the article, hence the read- 
 ing in the Received text : ^ . . . tyudtfea. The interrogative 
 reading, ^, etc. (Lachm. Tisch. 8), is foreign to the sense (you 
 will not be raised to heaven, surely ?), a reflection that is here 
 out of place. xara/3//3a<r0jjff7j] Lachm. and Tisch. 7 : xaraj3jj<nj, 
 after B D, It. Vulg. Syr. al. Ir. Correctly ; the reading of the 
 Received text is from Luke x. 15, where the testimony in 
 favour of xara/3^<r?) is somewhat weaker. 
 
 Ver. 1. 'EiceiOev] from where the sending out of the 
 apostles took place. It is impossible to define the locality 
 further ; at all events Capernaum is not intended, but some 
 open space (ix. 36) on the road, along which Jesus was at 
 that time prosecuting His journey through Galilee (ix. 35). 
 Whilst .the Twelve were out on their missionary tour, Jesus 
 continued His labours by Himself; and it was during this 
 interval also that He was visited by the messengers from the 
 Baptist. Where these latter happened to find Him, it is im- 
 possible to say. For the return of the Twelve, see note on 
 ver. 25. avr&v] in the towns of those to whom He came 
 (the Galileans'). Comp. iv. 23, ix. 35, xii. 9. Fritzsche 
 refers avr&v to the apostles : in which the apostles had already 
 published tJie knowledge of the kingdom. Incorrectly, for the 
 fj,eT/3i>], /c.T.X., follows at once and immediately upon the con- 
 clusion of the instructions to the Twelve. On the following 
 section, see Wieseler in the Gottingen Vierteljahrschr. 1845, 
 p. 197 ff . ; Gams, Joh. d. T. im Gefdngn. 1853 ; Gademann, 
 in d. Luth. Zeitschr. 1852, 4 ; Grote, ibid. 1857, 3, p. 518 ff. 
 Comp. also Erlang. Zeitschr. 1857, p. 167 ff.; Keim, II. p. 
 355 ff. 
 
 Vv. 2 ff. Comp. Luke vii. 18 ff., where the account is in-
 
 CHAP. XL 3-6. 309 
 
 troduced somewhat earlier, and where nothing is said about 
 the prison (but see Luke iii. 20). aKovcras, /e.r.X.] Occasion 
 of the message. See the note after ver. 5. ev TO> Seo-^wr.] 
 in the fortress of Machaerus. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 2. See 
 on xiv. 3. How John could hear anything of Jesus' works in 
 prison was possible in various ways ; most naturally it was 
 through his disciples, with whom he was permitted to have 
 intercourse. Luke vii. 18. ra epya] are the deeds, the first 
 element in the Trotelv re KOI SiSdo-tceiv (Acts i. 1). These 
 were for the most part miracles, though there is no reason to 
 suppose that they were exclusively so. See on John v. 36. 
 Tre/Ai/ra?] absolutely, Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 2 ; Hell. iii. 2. 9 ; 
 Thuc. i. 91. 2 ; Bornem. Schol. in Luc. p. Ixv. The following 
 Sia TWV fMaOrjr. avrov belongs to elirev avra), not to Tre/i^a? 
 (de Wette), because this latter connection would involve the 
 supposition of a Hebraism, T3 np: 1 Sam. xvi. 20, 1 Kings 
 ii. 25, Ex iv. 13, which is in itself unnecessary. 
 
 Ver. 3. 5*u] Placed first for sake of emphasis. Comp. 
 erepov. 6 e'/o%o/ieyos] He who is coming (Heb. x. 37), i.e. 
 the Messiah, who, because His advent, as being certain and 
 near, was the object of universal expectation, is called, /car' 
 ^X^ V > ^e coming one (K^n), perhaps in accordance with Ps. 
 xl. 8. Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Keim, suggest Ps. cxviii. 26 ; 
 Hengstenberg suggests MaL iii. 1; Hitzig, Dan. ix. 26. 
 e rep ov] so that thou too wouldst, in that case, be only a 
 forerunner. Trpoo-So/ea^ei/] may be conjunctive (as commonly 
 preferred) or indicative (Vulg. Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Eritzsche). 
 The idea of deliberation is, for psychological reasons, more 
 appropriate. The we in the question is the expression of 
 the popular expectation. 
 
 Vv. 5, 6. In words that seem an echo of Isa. xxxv. 5 f., 8, 
 Ixi. 1 ff., though, in accordance with existing circumstances, 
 embracing some additional matters, Jesus draws His answer 
 clearly and decidedly from the well-known facts of His 
 ministry, which prove Him to be the ep%6/j,evo<; foretold in 
 prophecy. Comp. Luke iv. 18. The words of the answer 
 form & resume of cases such as those in viii 2, ix. 1, 23, 27, 
 32 ; therefore they cannot have been intended to be taken in
 
 310 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the sense of spiritual redemption, which Jesus might lay claim 
 to as regards His works (in answer to de Wette, Keim, 
 Wittichen) ; comp. Schweizer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 
 IOC ff. ; Weiss, bibl. Theol, ed. 2, p. 48 ; Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
 II. 1, p. 181. TTTW^OI eu77eX.] well-known passive con- 
 struction, as in Heb. iv. 2, 6 ; Gal. ii. 7 ; Rom. iii. 2 ; Heb. 
 xi. 2; Bernhardy, p. 341 f. TT reopen] are the poor, the 
 miserable, the friendless, the oppressed and helpless multitude 
 (comp. on v. 3), elsewhere compared to sheep without a shep- 
 herd (ix. 36), and likened a little further on to a bruised reed 
 and smoking flax (xii. 20). Such people crowded about our 
 Lord, who proclaimed to them the Messianic deliverance. 
 And this deliverance they actually obtained when, as n-rw-^ol 
 TO) 7rvevfj,an, v. 3, they surrendered themselves to His word 
 under a deep heartfelt consciousness of their need of help. 
 <TKavSa\. ev fj,of] will have been offended in me, so as to 
 have come to entertain false views concerning me, so as to 
 have ceased to believe in me, to have come to distrust me ; 
 xiii. 57, xxvi 31, 33 ; comp. on v. 29. 
 
 EEMARK. Judging from John's question, ver. 2, and Jesus' 
 reply, ver. 6, it is neither unwarrantable nor, as far as can be 
 seen, incompatible with the evangelic narrative, to assume that 
 nothing else is meant than that John was really in doubt as to 
 the personal Messiahship of Jesus and the nature of that Mes- 
 siahship altogether, a doubt, however, which, after the honour- 
 able testimony of Jesus, ver. 7 ff., cannot be regarded as 
 showing a want of spirituality, nor as inconsistent with the 
 standpoint and character of one whom God had sent as the 
 forerunner, and who had been favoured with a divine revela- 
 tion, but only as a temporary eclipse of his settled conviction, 
 which, owing to human infirmity, had yielded to the influence 
 of despondency. This condition is so explicable psychologi- 
 cally from the popular nature of the form which he expected 
 the Messianic kingdom to assume on the one hand, as well as 
 from his imprisonment on the other, coupled with the absence 
 of any interposition in his favour on the part of Him who, as 
 Messiah in the Baptist's sense, should have given things a 
 totally different turn by manifesting Himself in some sudden, 
 overwhelming, and glorious crisis, and so analogous to un- 
 doubted examples of the same thing in other holy men (Moses,
 
 CHAP. XI. 5, C. 311 
 
 Elias), that there is no foundation for the view that, because of 
 this question of the Baptist (which Strauss even regards as an 
 expression of the first beginnings of his faith), the evangelic 
 accounts of his earlier relation to Jesus are to be regarded as 
 overdrawn (on the other hand, Wieseler, I.e. p. 203 ff.), a view 
 which seems to be shared by Weizsacker, p. 320, and Schenkel. 
 Actual doubt was the cause of the question, and furnished the 
 occasion for informing him about the works of Jesus, which, as 
 characteristic marks of the Messiah, formed again a counter- 
 poise to his doubts, and so awoke an internal conflict in which 
 the desire to call upon Jesus finally to declare Himself was 
 extremely natural ; and, accordingly, there is no reason for 
 Strauss' wonder that, ere this, oux axovcag has not been substi- 
 tuted in ver. 2 as a likely reading instead of axoUag. From 
 all this, and without importing any subjective element into the 
 accounts, it is to be considered as settled that the Baptist's 
 question proceeded from real doubt as to whether Jesus was 
 the sp^optvog, yea or nay ; nor is it for a moment to be limited 
 (Paulus, Olshausen, Neander, Fleck, Kuhn, Ebrard, de Wette, 
 Wieseler, Dollinger, and several others ; comp. also Hofmann, 
 Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 75 ; Lichtenstein, L. J. p. 256; Haus- 
 rath, Zeitgesch. I. p. 338 ; Gess, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 352) 
 to doubts regarding the true nature of the Messiah's manifesta- 
 tion and works ; but still less is the whole narrative to be 
 explained by supposing, in accordance with the time-honoured 
 exegetical tradition, that John sent the message for the benefit 
 of his own disciples, to confirm in them a belief in Jesus as the 
 Messiah (Origen in Cramer's Catena, Chrysostom, Augustine, 
 Jerome, Hilary, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Minister, Luther, 
 Calvin, Beza, Melanchthon, Clarius, Zeger, Jansen, Maldonatus, 
 Grotius, Calovius, Bengel), or by seeing in it an expression of 
 impatience, and an indirect challenge to the Messiah to establish 
 His kingdom without delay (Lightfoot, Michaelis, Schuster in 
 Eichhorn's Bill. XL p. 1001 ff.; Leopold, Joh. d. Tduf. 1825, p. 
 96 ; Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Hase). The correct view was sub- , 
 stantially given by so early a writer as Tertullian, and subse- 
 quently by Wetstein, Thies, J. E. Ch. Schmidt, Arnrnon, 
 Loftier, kl. Schriften, II. p. 150 ff. ; Neander, Krabbe, Bleek, 
 Riggenbach, and several others ; comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. 
 p. 420, who, however, supposes at the same time that the 
 disciples of John may have been urging him to tell them 
 plainly whether they ought to transfer their allegiance to Jesus 
 or not ; similarly Keim, who thinks that John, though hesitat- 
 ing between the alternative : He is the Messiah and He is not
 
 312 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEV,'. 
 
 so, was nevertheless more disposed in favour of the affirmative 
 view; so also Schmidt in the Jahrb.f. D. Th. 1869, p. 638 ff., 
 who notices the way in which, as he supposes, the Baptist 
 belies his former testimony regarding Christ. 
 
 Ver. 7. The answer to John's question has been given ; the 
 disciples are withdrawing; but just as they are going away 
 (iropevo/j,vtav) Jesus turns to the multitude that was present, 
 and with some emotion proceeds to set forth to them, in the 
 plainest way possible, the sacred character and the whole 
 position of the Baptist, and by this means seeks to anticipate 
 or correct any false opinion that might be formed regarding 
 him. The mark of interrogation should be placed after ded- 
 (ratjQai (in answer to Paulus and Fritzsche, who put it even 
 after eprj^ov) ; according to the correct reading (see the critical 
 remarks), the animated style of the passage does not change till 
 ver. 9, so that d\\a ri ef^Xtfere forms a question by itself. 
 e 77 \0ere] at the time that John appeared in the wilder- 
 ness. Observe that here stands 0ed<raa-6cu, to behold, and 
 immediately after the simple ISeiv, to see. The more earnest 
 expression is in keeping with the first question. aX era A,.] 
 figuratively, in allusion to the reed growing on the bank of 
 Jordan, and meaning : a fickle and irresolute man. Others 
 (Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Gratz, Fritzsche, de Wette) under- 
 stand it literally : " non credibile est, vos coivisse, ut arun- 
 dines vento agitatas videretis." This is not in keeping with 
 the qualifying expression, VTTO dve/jLov cra\evoiJ,evov. And how 
 meaningless the question would be alongside the parallels in 
 vv. 8, 9 ! Comp. 1 Kings xiv. 15 ; Ezek. xxix. 6. 
 
 Vv. 8, 9. *A\\d] no, on the contrary ; it is assumed that 
 what has just been asked was not the intention ; Hartung, 
 Partikell. II. p. 38. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 13. It seems, from 
 the fact of his sending those messengers, as if John were (1) 
 a man of hesitating, unstable character, ver. 7 ; or (2) a volup- 
 tuary, whose sole concern was how to exchange his condition 
 of hardship for one of luxurious ease, ver. 8. Jesus removes 
 any impression of this sort by appealing to His hearers to con- 
 sult their own hearts as to what they had eoepected, and what 
 they had found in John. Certainly they had expected neither
 
 CHAP. XL 10, 11. 313 
 
 a man of fickle mind, nor a voluptuary ; but what they had 
 looked for, that they had found in him, namely a prophet 
 (xxi. 26), indeed more than a prophet! Accordingly, there is 
 no apparent reason for regarding (Oppenrieder, Zeitschr. f. 
 luth. Theologie, 1856) the clauses containing a statement of 
 the intention as the rhetorical expression of the result (as it' 
 the words were rl e^eX&We? et? rrjv ep. eQedvaa-Qe). But even 
 to find in the negative questions an ironical allusion to the 
 character of the Galileans (Keim), is foreign to the connection, 
 especially as the real motive is given in the third of these 
 questions. Ver. 9. vaL confirms the TrpocjjrjTijv iSelv which has 
 just been asked (see the critical remarks), and that in accord- 
 ance with its result : " Certainly, I tell you (you saw a prophet), 
 and more" irepia-crorepov is regarded by Erasmus and Fritzsche 
 as masculine (Symmachus, Gen. xlix. 3 : OVK ea-rj Trepia-aorepos, 
 excellentior). Nowhere, however, in the New Testament does 
 the simple Trepia-a-orepos occur as masculine, and in this instance 
 the interrogative ri tells in favour of its being taken as neuter. 
 Comp. xii. 41 f. Therefore to be rendered: something more 
 (Vulgate : plus) than a prophet, inasmuch, that is, as he is 
 not only the last and greatest of the prophets, but also because 
 he was sent by God to prepare the way of the Messiah through, 
 the preaching and baptism of repentance, ver. 10. In a 
 different sense, viz. as the source, the aim, and the fulfiller of 
 all prophecy, is Christ more than a prophet. Comp. Klein- 
 schmidt, d. typolog. Citate d. vier Evang. p. 45. 
 
 Ver. 10 is not an interpolation by the evangelist (Weiz- 
 sacker) ; on the contrary, it forms the connecting link between 
 vv. 9 and 11. The passage is Mai. iii. 1, and is a free rendering 
 of the Hebrew and not from the LXX. In Malachi, Jehovah 
 speaks of His messenger going before Himself ; here, He ad- 
 dresses the Messiah ; before Him will He send the messenger 
 (not an angel). A free application without any substantial 
 change in the contents of the passage, also without any special 
 design in view ; comp. remark on iii. 3. 
 
 Ver. 11. 'Ev yew. <yvv.~\ among those lorn of woman. 
 Intended to denote the category of men according to that 
 nature which is peculiar to the whole race in virtue of its
 
 314 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 origin (mortality, weakness, sinfulness, and so on). Sir. x. 18. 
 Comp. nafcrTO], Job xiv. 1, xv. 14, xxv. 4 ; see also on Gal. 
 iv. 4. For fyfaeprai (by God), comp. Luke vii. 1 6 ; John 
 vii. 52 ; Acts xiii. 22 f. ftei^wv] a greater, one more distin- 
 guished generally, and that just because he is this promised 
 herald of God who was to precede the Messiah. The words 
 do not warrant our interpreting them to mean: a greater 
 prophet, as has been done by Rosenmiiller, Kuiuoel, and the 
 older critics. 6 Se fjuKporepos, /e.r.X] he, however, who is less 
 in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. It is to be observed, 
 (1) that neither here nor elsewhere does the comparative stand 
 for the superlative; (2) that, according to the context, the 
 reference of the comparative (see fjid^ov 'Iwdvvov, and after- 
 wards nL^o3v avrov) need not be looked for elsewhere but in 
 ^Iwdvvov rov ^aima-Tov ; l (3) that, since 6 fMKporepos cannot 
 refer to Jesus, it is (xviii. 1, 4) necessarily limited and defined 
 by ev rf) @a<ri\eia r<av ovpavwv, with which it has been con- 
 nected by Isidore, Cyril, Theodoret, Heracleon (see Cramer, 
 Cat. p. 85). Hence it is to be explained thus: But he who 
 stands lower in the kingdom of the Messiah, stands (according 
 to the divine standard) higher than he. Not as if John would 
 be excluded (as against this, see x. 41) from the kingdom of 
 Messiah that was about to be established, but the standpoint 
 of those who share in the kingdom is compared with the high 
 position which, as still belonging to the ancient theocracy, the 
 Baptist occupies in the aliav ovros. There he is the greatest of 
 all ; yet he who is lower in the approaching kingdom of the 
 
 1 Therefore not : less than the others who participate in the kingdom, as it has 
 been commonly understood of late (Winer, Buttmann, Bleek, Weizsiicker, Keim), 
 according to which view the superlative sense is developed, as in xviii. 1 ; Luke 
 xxii. 24. So Bengel also : "minimus in regno coelorum est minimus civiuru 
 regni. " Keim sarcastically observes that, according to the view I have given 
 above, John "would still occupy a subordinate place even in heaven," and I 
 confess that I am at a loss to comprehend how one can understand ver. 11 in 
 such a way as to exclude (so also Schenkel) the Baptist from the kingdom of 
 heaven, in which, however, the patriarchs and prophets find a place. Where is 
 the Baptist's place to be? Outside the kingdom is TO a-xores <ro l%arspav, viii. 12. 
 And outside the church, if this be understood (though erroneously) as what is 
 meant by the kingdom, is the xorftos of unbelievers. This also in answer to 
 Weizsacker, p. 411 f. ; Weissenbach, p. 31 f. ; Weiss.
 
 CHAP. XI. 12. 315 
 
 Messiah, and can by no means compare himself with the 
 eminent personage in question, is, nevertheless, greater than 
 he. Thus the jScwlXeia rwv ovpava>v, raised above the Old 
 Testament order of things, simply appears as the state of 
 perfection towards which the theocracy, ending with John, its 
 foremost representative, is only the first step. Others (Chry- 
 sostom, Hilary, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, 
 Melanchthon, Osiander, Jansen, Corn, a Lapide, Calovius, 
 Fritzsche, Fleck, de regno div. p. 83) interpret: he who, as 
 compared ivith him, retires into the shade (Jesus, fJUKporepos 
 Kara rrjv rjXirctav Kal /caret rrjv TTO\\WI/ So^av, Chrysostom) 
 will, as Messiah, outshine him in the kingdom of heaven. These 
 expositors have rightly understood the comparative fjurcporepos 
 as comparing some one with the Baptist ; but how extremely 
 improbable that Jesus, conscious as He was of a Messiahship 
 that had been divinely confirmed at His baptism, and with the 
 multitudes flocking around Him, would have spoken of Himself 
 as fj,iKp6repo<; than John the- prisoner ! And is it not utterly 
 foreign to the context to suppose that He would' here have 
 compared Himself with the Baptist ? Finally, were the eV rfj 
 {3ao-t\ia r&v ovpavwv, again (referred to what follows), only an 
 awkward toning down of the sharp character of the statement, 
 it would have been far more sensible (since Jesus would mean 
 Himself as the Messiah,- whose greatness in the Messianic king- 
 dom is a matter of course) if He had merely said with regard 
 to Himself: o-e fiiftporepos iieifyov avrov ea-nv. 
 
 Ver. 12. After the remark in passing that 6 Se fjUKporepos, 
 etc., Jesus now continues His testimony regarding John, 
 and, in order to prove what He had just said of him in 
 w. 10, 11, He calls attention to the powerful movement in 
 favour of the Messiah's kingdom which had taken place since the 
 commencement of the Baptist's ministry. arro rwv ^pep. 
 'Icodvv.] This is not the language of one belonging to a later 
 period, but only such as Jesus could have used at this junc- 
 ture ; for the days when John laboured and flourished were 
 gone by ! This in answer to Gfrorer, heil. Sage, II. p. 9 2, and 
 Hilgenfeld. J3tderai] Hesychius : /9ta/&>9 Kpareirai it is 
 taken possession of by force, is conquered (not magna vi prae-
 
 SIC THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 dicatur, according to the idea imported into the words by 
 Loesner and Fritzsche) ; Xen. H. G. v. 2. 1 5 : TroXet? . . . ra? 
 /3e$ia0yieVa<? ; Thuc. iv. 10. 5: /3id%oiTO, it would be forced; 
 Dem. 84. 24; Zosimus, v. 29; 2 Mace. xiv. 41; Elwert, 
 Quaestion. ad philol. sacr. N. T., 1860, p. 19, who, however, 
 would take the present indicative as meaning vult escpug- 
 nari, which is not required by the context. In this way is 
 described that eager, irresistible striving and struggling after 
 the approaching Messianic kingdom (Chrysostom: irdvre^ ol 
 fjiera a-rrouBf]^ TrpoaiovTe^ which has prevailed since the Baptist 
 began to preach ; it is as though it were being taken by storm. 
 Comp. the neuter usage in Luke xvi. 16 : 7ra9 et<? 
 /3taerat; and further, Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 69 : (3id<rcuvTo 
 likewise Thuc. i. 63, vii. 69 ; Ael. V. H. xiii. 32 ; Herodian, 
 vii. 10. 13 ; Polyb. i. 74/5, ii. 67. 2, iv. 71. 5. If others have 
 adopted the idea of a hostile violence with which the Messi- 
 anic kingdom is persecuted (Lightfoot, Schneckenburger, Beitr. 
 p. 49), or violently (Hilgenfeld) crushed and arrested (by the 
 Pharisees and scribes), their view is partly an anachronism, 
 and partly forbidden by the connection with ver. 13 and with 
 what goes before. Finally, to take the verb in a middle sense, 
 and as describing the breaking in of the kingdom which makes 
 its way in spite of all resistance (Melanchthon, Bengel, Baur, 
 Zyro in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 401), is certainly not con- 
 trary to usage (Dem. 779. 2 ; Lucian, Herm. 70), but incon- 
 sistent with the context in which ftuurnU follows. /cat 
 ftiaa-ral apird^oveiv avTrjv] and those who use violent efforts 
 drag it to themselves. The anarthrous ftiaa-rai is not intended to 
 be emphatic ; such is now the character of the times, that those 
 of whom tJie ft id^erat holds true achieve a speedy success, in 
 that, while they press forward to join the ranks of my fol- 
 lowers, they clutch at the approaching kingdom as though they 
 were seizing spoils, and make it their own. So eager and 
 energetic (no longer calm and expectant) is the interest in 
 regard to the kingdom. The Qiao-rat are, accordingly, believers 
 struggling hard for its possession. Jesus Himself (this in 
 answer to Zyro) cannot be included among those who are here 
 in view. Those who interpret f3iderai in a hostile sense, render
 
 CHAP. xi. 13, H. 317 
 
 tJicy snatch it away from men (according to 
 Schneckenburger, they bar the way to it), in allusion to the 
 conduct of the scribes and Pharisees. For Piaarr)?, comp. 
 Find. 01. ix. 114; Pyth. i. 18. 82, iv. 420, vi. 28 ; Nem. 
 ix. 122 ; Duncan, Lex., ed. Host, p. 209. In Pindar also it is 
 always used in a good sense. For apTrd., comp. Xen. Anab. 
 iv. 6. 11, vi. 5. 18 ; Herodian, ii. 6. 10, ii. 3. 23. 
 
 Vv. 13, 14 are by way of showing how it happens that, 
 since the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, the Messiah's 
 kingdom has been the object toward which such a violent 
 movement has been directed. All the prophets, and even the 
 law, have prophesied up till John's time; John was the 
 terminus ad quern of the period of prophecy which he brought 
 to a close, and he who forms the termination of this epoch 
 then steps upon the scene as the immediate forerunner of the 
 Messiah as the Elias who was to come. Accordingly, that new 
 violent stirring of life among the people must be connected with 
 this manifestation of Elias. Others interpret differently, while 
 Bleek and Holtzmann are even inclined to suppose that 
 originally ver. 13 was uttered before ver. 12. /cat o v6/j,o<;] 
 for even with this the era of prophecy began, John v. 46 ; 
 Acts vii. 37 ; Eom. x. 6, xi. 19 ; although prophecy was not 
 the principal function of the law, for which reason the prophets 
 are here mentioned first. Different in v. 17. el fleXere 
 Se^aa-dat] if you and on this it depends whether by you 
 also he is taken for what he is will not reject this assurance 
 (see on 1 Cor. ii. 14), but are disposed to receive it with 
 a view to fuller consideration. The reason for interposing 
 this remark is to be found in the fact that the unhappy 
 circumstances in which John was then placed appeared to be 
 inconsistent with such a view of his mission. ai/ros] no 
 other than He. 'HXta?] in accordance with Mai. iii. 23 
 (iv. 5), on which the Jews founded the expectation that Elias, 
 who had been taken up into heaven, would appear again in 
 bodily form and introduce the Messiah (Wetstein on this pas- 
 sage; Lightfoot on xvii. 10 ; Schoettgen, p. 148), an expecta- 
 tion which Jesus regarded as veritably fulfilled in the person 
 and work of the Baptist; in him, according to the ideal
 
 318 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 meaning of the prophecy, he saw the promised Ellas ; comp. 
 Luke i. 17. o /j,e\\a>v ep^ea-Oai] the usual predicate. 
 Bengel : " sermo est tanquam e prospectu testamenti veteris 
 in novum." 
 
 Ver. 1 5. A request to give due attention to this important 
 statement in ver. 14. Comp. xiii. 9 ; Mark iv. 9 ; Luke 
 viii. 8 ; Ezek. iii. 27 ; Horn. //. xv. 129. . 
 
 Vv. 1 6 ff. After this high testimony respecting the Baptist, 
 we have now a painful charge against the men of his time, 
 whom, in fact, neither John nor 'Himself is able to satisfy. 
 In expressive, appropriate, and certainly original terms (in 
 answer to Hilgenfeld), He compares the existing generation to 
 children reproaching their playfellows for not being inclined 
 to chime in either with their merry or their lugubrious strains. 
 Usually the Jews are supposed to be represented by those 
 refractory playmates, so that Jesus and John have necessarily 
 to be understood as corresponding to the children who play 
 the cheerful music, and who mourn (Fritzsche, Oppenrieder, 
 Koster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 346 f.). But (1) the 
 words expressly intimate that the children with their music 
 and lamentation represented the yeved, to which John and 
 Jesus stand opposed, so that the latter must therefore cor- 
 respond to the erepois who are reproached by the irai^ia. 
 (2) If the arrangement of the passage is not to be arbitrarily 
 disturbed, the thrice repeated Xeyovo-iv must be held to prove 
 that, since those who speak in vv. 18, 19 are Jews, it is to 
 these also that the children correspond who are introduced as 
 speaking in ver. 16. (3) If we were to suppose that Jesus and 
 John were represented by those children, then, according to 
 w. 18 and 19, it would be necessary to reverse the order of 
 the words in ver. 1 7, so as to run thus : edprjvriaa^ev vjuv . . . 
 ijvXija-afMv, etc. Consequently the ordinary explanation of the 
 illustration is wrong. The correct interpretation is this : the 
 TraiSla are the Jews; the ere/304 are John and Jesus; first 
 came John, who was far too rigid an ascetic to suit the tastes 
 of the free-living Jews (John v. 35) ; then came Jesus, and 
 He, again, did not come up to their ascetic and hierarchical 
 standard, and was too lax, in their opinion. The former did
 
 CHAP. XI. 18, 19. 310 
 
 not dance to their music ; the latter did not respond to their 
 lamentation (similarly de Wette with a slight deviation, Ewald, 
 Bleek, Keim). >irai$ioi<i, /e.r.X.] The allusion is to children 
 who in their play (according to Ewald, it was playing at a 
 riddle} imitate the way in which grown-up people give expres- 
 sion to their joy and their sorrow; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. in loco. 
 The flute was played at weddings and dancings. eico-fyacrde} 
 beating upon the breast was the ordinary indication of grief ; 
 Ezek. xx. 43; Nah. ii. 8; Matt. xxiv. 30; Luke xviii. 13; 
 Horn. II xviii. 31 ; Plat. Phaed. .p. 60 A, al; Herod, vi. 58 ; 
 Diod. Sic. i. 44; Koster, Erldut. p. 92 f. rot? erepois] the 
 other children present, who are not among the number of their 
 playmates. 
 
 Vv. 18, 19. Mtjre eo-Olwv ftiJTe TTIVCOV] hyperbolical; 
 f) fiev 'Iwdvvov Staira SvaTrpoaiTOs KOI rpa^ela, Euth. Ziga- 
 beuus. Comp. iii. 4; Luke i. 15 ; Dan. x. 3. In contrast 
 to the liberal principles of Jesus, who ate and drank without 
 imposing upon Himself Nazarite abstinences (like John) or 
 regular fastings (ix. 14), or without declining (bike the Phari- 
 sees) to go to entertainments provided by those in a different 
 rank of life from His own. Sat,fjt,6vio>v e%e*] which, through 
 perverting His judgment, leads Him into those ascetic eccen- 
 tricities; comp. John x. 20. (f>ay6si] glutton, is a word 
 belonging to a very late period. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 434; on the accent, Lipsius, gramm. Unters. p. 28. /cat 
 eSi/caKoOr) rj crofyla, airo r&v reKvajv at>T?}s] not a con- 
 tinuation of the words of the Jews, in which case eSiicaiwOr) 
 would have to be taken ironically (in answer to Bornemann), 
 but the closing observation of Jesus in reference to the perverse 
 manner in which His own claims and those of John had been 
 treated by the Jews; and justified (i.e. shown to be the true 
 wisdom) has been the wisdom (the divine wisdom which has been 
 displayed in John and me) on the part of her children, i.e. on the 
 part of those who reverence and obey her (Sir. iv. 11), who, 
 through their having embraced her and followed her guidance, 
 have proved how unwarranted are those judgments of ihepro- 
 fanum vulgus ; comp. Luke vii. 29. The (actual) confirmation 
 has come to wisdom from those devoted to her (cnro, comp. on Acts
 
 320 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 ii. 22 ; Hermann, ad Soph. El. 65 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. 
 vi. 5. 18 ; not UTTO). Those disciples of wisdom are the same 
 who in ver. 1 2 are said j3idetv rrjv f3acn\eiav ; but the icai 
 which introduces the passage " cum vi pronuntiandum est, ut 
 saepe in sententiis oppositionem continentibus, ubi frustra 
 fuere, qui Katroi requirerent," Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 
 2 9 B. Such a use of ical occurs with special frequency in John. 
 Wolf, ad Lept. p. 238; Hartung, Partikell I. p. 147. This 
 view is in the main that of (though in some cases the Tetcva 
 rfjs o-o<t'a? has been too much limited by being understood as 
 referring merely to the disciples of Jesus) Jerome ("ego, qui 
 sum Dei virtus et sapientia Dei, juste fecisse ab apostolis meis 
 filiis comprobatus sum "), Miinster, Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, 
 Hammond, Jansen, Fritzsche, Olshausen, de Wette, Ebrard, 
 Bleek, Lange, Hofmann, Keim, Weiss. Yet many, while also 
 retaining the meaning given above, take the aorist, though 
 without any warrant from the text, or any example of it in the 
 New Testament, in the sense of cherishing (see Kiihner, II. 1, 
 p. 139 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 305), as Kuinoel ("sapientia 
 non nisi a sapientiae cultoribus et amicis probatur et laudatur, 
 reliqui homines earn rident," etc.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 and Castalio understand the words as expressing the thought 
 that the wisdom, manifested in Jesus has nothing to answer for 
 with regard to the Jews (similarly Weizsacker); a view to which 
 it may be objected first, that Si/caiovaOai airo TWOS cannot 
 be taken in the sense of to be free from the guilt of any one (Site. 
 a-n-o TT}? dfjLaprlas TWOS ; comp. Sir. xxvi. 2 9 ; Eom. vi 7) ; and 
 secondly, that the Jews, unless something in the context should 
 specially suggest or lead to it, cannot straightway be spoken 
 of as the children of wisdom. The latter objection is equally 
 applicable to the explanation of Schneckenburger : and so 
 wisdom (which is supposed to mean God's care for His people ; 
 comp. also Euth. Zigabenus and Grotius) has been treated 
 cavalierly (has been arrogantly condemned) by her own children, 
 which, moreover, is precluded by the fact that Strcaiova-Ocu is 
 never used in this sense in the New Testament. Oppenrieder, 
 p. 441 f., likewise understands the children of wisdom to refer 
 to the Jews, inasmuch, that is, as they were subjected to the
 
 CHAP, XI. 20-24. 321 
 
 discipline of divine wisdom. The doings of crofyia were 
 demonstrated to be righteous by the conduct of the Jews ; that 
 is to say, they had desired, instead of John, a divine messenger 
 of a less ascetic character (and him the divine wisdom sent 
 them in the person of Christ) ; while, on the other hand, 
 instead of Christ, with His freer manner of life, they desired 
 one more rigorously disposed (and this wish the divine wisdom 
 had gratified by giving them the Baptist). So far Schnecken- 
 burger. But this conduct of the Jews was capricious and 
 wilful, and was ill calculated to display the justice of the 
 divine dealings, which it could have done only if it had been 
 supposed to proceed from a feeling of real moral need, for 
 which, however, in vv. 1619, Jesus shows Himself by no 
 means inclined to give them credit. Besides, one is at a loss 
 to see, even if this view were adopted, how the Jews with 
 their foolish and obstinate behaviour should come to be called 
 reicva rf)s crofyias. According to Ewald (Gesch. Chr. p. 432), 
 Jesus means to say that it is just her wrong-headed children 
 (who quarrel with her) that do most to justify the divine 
 wisdom by their not knowing, with all their wisdom, what 
 they would really like. But this view, again, which necessi- 
 tates an antiphrastic interpretation of the rexva rf)? aortas, 
 finds no support in the text, besides involving accessory 
 thoughts to which there is no allusion. Similarly Calvin even 
 understood the words to refer to the Jews who thought them- 
 selves so wise ; before whom, however, wisdom is supposed to 
 assert her dignity and authority through the medium of her 
 genuine children. 
 
 Vv. 20 ff. Then He began, and so on (r^faro). Luke intro- 
 duces this upbraiding of the cities at a later stage that is, on 
 the occasion when the instructions were addressed to the 
 Seventy (x. 13-1-5), for which he is assigned the preference 
 by Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, Holtzmann ; while de 
 Wette and Keim are justified in going against Luke, who 
 generally uses considerable freedom as to the connection in 
 which he introduces the sayings which in this chapter are all 
 connected with the same subject. The Gospels make no 
 further mention of the miracles in Chorazin and Bethsaida 
 
 MATT. X
 
 322 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (not far from Capernaum; Robinson, neuere Forsch. p. 457 ff.), 
 John xx. 30. ev Tvp<a K. 2i&., /c.r.X] Even these wicked 
 heathen cities would have been brought to amendment long 
 ago with deep sorrow for their sins. The penitent sorrow is 
 represented by ev crdfCK. K. o-TroSoS, a form of mourning in 
 popular use among the Jews (comp. on vi. 16). ev a-darca)] 
 i.e. in the dark, sack-shaped mourning attire, made of coarse 
 cloth, and drawn over the naked body ; Gesenius, Thes. III. 
 p. 1336. Ver. 22. 7r\rjv] however, in the sense of ceterum, 
 that is, to add nothing more, / tell you. Frequently used in 
 this way by classical writers, and comp. note on Eph. v. 33. 
 Ver. 23. And thou, Capernaum, who hast been exalted to 
 heaven, i.e. raised to the highest distinction through my dwell- 
 ing and labouring within thee, wilt be brought down to Hades, 
 namely, on the day of judgment, to undergo punishment in 
 Gehenna ; see ver. 24. Grotius, Kuinoel, Fritzsche interpret 
 the exaltation of Capernaum as referring to its prosperity, 
 derived from trade, the fisheries, and so on. But this is not 
 in keeping witk the connection as indicated by ev at? eyevovro 
 ai TrXeto-rat Svvdpeis avrov in ver. 20. Still more humiliating 
 than the comparison with Tyre and Sidon, is that with Sodom ; 
 because the responsibility was greatest in the case of Caper- 
 naum. e/jueivav dv] This av, here and in ver. 21, is simply 
 according to rule, because the antecedent clauses contain a 
 sumtio fata (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 488). Ver. 24. Comp. 
 on x. 15. vfjLtv . . . oW] Euth. Zigabenus : TO f^ev 
 7rpo9 TOV9 TroXtVa? r^s TroXetu? e/ceivr)*: efpqrcu' TO Se erot 
 rrjv 7ro\iv. The vfuv, that is, does not refer to the audience 
 (see ver. 22). Observe further in vv. 21-24, first, how the 
 passage assumes the form of a weighty climax; and then, 
 secondly, the solemn parallelism of the antecedent clauses in 
 vv. 21, 23, and of the threatened punishments in vv. 22, 24. 
 Ver. 25. 'AiroKp. means, like njy, to take up speech, and 
 that in connection with some given occasion, to which what is 
 said is understood to refer by way of rejoinder. Comp. xxii. 1, 
 xxviii. 5 ; John ii. 18, v. 17, al. However, the occasion in 
 this instance is not stated. According to Luke x. 2 1 (Strauss, 
 Ebrard, Bleek, Holtzmann), it was the return of the Seventy, of
 
 CHAP. XI. 25. 323 
 
 whom, however, there is no mention in Matthew. Ewald, 
 Weissenborn, and older expositors find it in the return of tlie, 
 apostles. See Mark vi. 12, 30 ; Luke ix. 6, 10. This is the 
 most probable view. Luke has transferred the historical con- 
 nection of the prayer to the account of the Seventy, which is 
 peculiar to that evangelist ; while in xii. 1, Matthew assumes 
 that the Twelve have already returned. The want of precision 
 in Matthew's account, which in x. 5 expressly records the 
 sending out of the Twelve, but says nothing of their return, is, 
 of course, a defect in his narrative ; but for this reason we 
 should hesitate all the more to regard it as an evidence that 
 we have here only an interpolation (Hilgenfeld) of this " pearl 
 of the sayings of Jesus " (Keim), which is one of the purest 
 and most genuine, one of Johannean splendour (John viii. 1 9, 
 x. 15, xiv. 9, xvi. 15). For efo/ioXtxy. with dative, meaning 
 to praise, comp. on Eom. xiv. 11 ; Sir. li. 1. ravra] what? 
 the imperfect narrative does not say what things, for it intro- 
 duces this thanksgiving from the collection of our Lord's say- 
 ings, without hinting why it does so. But from the contents 
 of the prayer, as well as from its supposed occasion, viz. the 
 return of the Twelve with their cheering report, it may be 
 inferred that Jesus is alluding to matters connected with the 
 Messianic kingdom which He had communicated to the disciples 
 (xiii. 11), matters in the proclaiming of which they had been 
 labouring, and at the same time been exercising the miraculous 
 powers conferred upon them. The o-o0ot and a-vverol are the 
 wise and intelligent generally (1 Cor. i. 19, iii. 10), but used 
 with special reference to the scribes and Pharisees, who, 
 according to their own opinion and that of the people (John 
 ix. 40), were pre-eminently so. The novices (n^ris), the dis- 
 ciples, who are unversed in the scholastic wisdom of the Jews. 
 Comp. on this subject, 1 Cor. i 26ff. Yet on this occasion 
 we must not suppose the reference to- be to the simple and 
 unsophisticated masses (Keim), which is not in keeping with 
 ver. 27, nor with the idea of aTroKaXirfis (comp. xvi. 17) 
 generally, as found in this connection ; the contrast applies to 
 two classes of teachers, the one wise and prudent, indepen- 
 dently of divine revelation, the others mere novices in point
 
 324 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 of learning, but yet recipients of that revelation. Observe, 
 further, how the subject of thanksgiving does not lie merely 
 in aireKokv^r. avra pjfT&f, but in the two, the aTretcpirfy-as 
 etc., and the aTreKaXvtyas, etc., being inseparably combined. 
 Both together are the two sides of the one method of proceed- 
 ing on the part of His all-ruling Father, of the necessity of 
 which Christ was well aware (John ix. 39). 
 
 Ver. 26. Solution of the contradiction regarded as a con- 
 firmation of the ground for thanksgiving. Understand eo^o- 
 i' trot before on (not because, but that, as in ver. 25). 
 dev aov] belongs to evSotcia : that thus (and not 
 otJierwise) was done (was accomplished, comp. vi. 10) what is 
 well-pleasing before T/iee, in Thy sight; what is to Thee an object 
 pleasing to look upon. Comp. xviii. 14; Heb. xiii. 21. For 
 evSoicia, comp. iii. 1 7 ; Luke ii. 1 4. 
 
 Ver. 27. Here the prayer ends, and He turns to address 
 the multitude (ver. 28), but, according to Luke x. 22, it is 
 His disciples, still full of the great thought of the prayer, 
 under a profound feeling of His peculiar fellowship with God. 
 iravra poi TrapeS.] It is quite as unwarrantable to limit 
 iravra in any way whatever, as it is to take TrapeSodq as re- 
 ferring to the revelation of the doctrine (Grotius, Kuinoel, and 
 others), or to the representation of the highest spiritual trutJis 
 (Keim), which Christ is supposed to have been appointed to 
 communicate to mankind. It is not even to be restricted 
 to all human souls (Gess). What Jesus indicates and has 
 in view, is the full power with which, in sending Him forth, 
 the Father is understood to have invested the Son, a power to 
 dispose of everything so as to promote the object for which He 
 came ; Bengel : " nihil sibi reservavit pater." Jesus speaks 
 thus in the consciousness of the universal authority (xxviii. 1 8 ; 
 Heb. ii. 8) conferred upon Him, from which nothing is excluded 
 (John xiii. 3, xvi. 15) ; for He means to say, that between Him 
 and the Father there exists such a relation that no one knows 
 the Son, and so on. 1 On both thoughts Christ founds the invita- 
 
 1 In this first clause, to supply the thought from the first viz., " arid to whom 
 the Father is willing to reveal it " (de Wette, following the older expositors) is 
 arbitrary, for Jesus has just said: VO.VTO. pm *ap>.$ti0>>, etc. To whomsoever the
 
 CHAP. XL 28-SO. 325 
 
 tion in ver. 28. On the. relation of the words 7rdvra.fj.oi 
 TrapeS. to xxviii. 18, see note on that passage. 7rt,yiv<o<Ticei] 
 means more than the simple verb, viz. an adequate and fall 
 knowledge, which de Wette wrongly denies (see ovS% TOV 
 Trarepa TIS eWyti/oicr/cei). Comp. on 1 Cor. xiii. 12. Nothing is 
 to be inferred from this passage as to the supernatural origin 
 of Jesus (in answer to Beyschlag, Christol. p. 6 0). The eVfyt- 
 vdxrK6iv TOV viov applies to His whole nature and thinking and 
 acting, not merely to His moral constitution, a limitation (in 
 answer to Weiss) which, if necessary, would have been shown 
 to be so in the context by means of the second correlative 
 clause of the verse. <5 eav @ov\. 6 m'o? airoicaXJ] bears 
 the impress of superhuman consciousness. According to the 
 context, we have simply to regard TOV TcaTepa as the object of 
 d-Tro/caX. For aTroKak. with a personal object, comp. GaL i. 16. 
 
 Ver. 28. Zlai/re?] gratia universalis. " In this all thou 
 oughtest to include thyself as well, and not suppose that thou 
 dost not belong to the number ; thou shouldst not seek for 
 another register of God," Melanchthon. KOTT. fcal 7re</>opT.] 
 through the legal and Pharisaic ordinances under which the 
 man is exhausted and weighed down as with a heavy burden, 
 without getting rid of the painful consciousness of sin, xxiii. 4. 
 Comp. Acts xv. 10, xiii. 39. Kayo)] emphatic : and I, what 
 your teachers and guides cannot do. a v air a v cra>] I will 
 procure you rest, i.e. eXet #e/a&><7a> ical TOV TOIOVTOV KOTTOV KOI TOV 
 TOIOVTOV fidpovs (Euth. Zigabenus), so as to secure the true 
 peace of your souls, John xiv. 27, xvi. 33 ; Eom. v. 1. Ver. 29 
 tells in what way. 
 
 Vv. 29, 30. To regard Oyo<? (Olshausen, Calvin) as re- 
 ferring to the cross, is at variance with the context. Jesus has 
 
 Son reveals the knowledge of the Father, to him He thereby reveals the know- 
 ledge of the Son likewise. Hilgenfeld adopts the Marcionite reading: u3i/s lyn 
 
 TO -ra.<riptt li firi a viof, xaii ran uln tl ft,* a <ra,rtip x.itt a o vie; ifaKaXu^ri. This 
 
 reading, being that of the Clementines, Justin, Marcion, has earlier testimony 
 in its favour than that of the Received text, which first appears in Irenaeus in a 
 duly authenticated form ; Irenaeus, i. 20. 3, ascribes it to the Marcosians, 
 though he elsewhere adopts it himself. However, an examination of the 
 authorities leads to the conclusion (see Tischendorf) that it must be excluded 
 from the text. Comp. also note on Luke x. 21.
 
 326 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 in view His guidance and discipline, to which they are to sub- 
 ject themselves through faith in Him. - Comp. Sir. li. 26, and 
 the very common Eabbinical use of hy in Schoettgen, p. 1 1 5 ff. 
 ort] not that, but because; motive for fidOere air epoo (i.e. 
 learn in me, learn from me; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 279 
 [E. T. 324]), with which words Jesus presents Himself as their 
 moral example, in contrast to the character of the teachers of 
 the law and the Pharisees, who, if they affected to be meek 
 and humble, were, as a rule, not so at heart (rrj /capB. belongs 
 to both words), but only in appearance, while in reality they 
 were tyrannical and proud. Cornp. 2 Cor. x. 1. K. evpij- 
 <76T6, K.T.\.] Jer. vi. 16. ^p^o-ros] may mean good and 
 wholesome (comp. 7rai8ev<ri<s XP^^tf' ^ a ^- -^ e P- P- 42 4 A), or 
 suave (Vulg.), gentle and agreeable. The latter suits the figure 
 and the parallelism. TO fyoprlov fj,ov\ the burden which I 
 impose (comp. on GaL vi. 5). e\a^pov\ for it is the disci- 
 pline and duty of love, through which faith manifests its 
 practical results, 1 John v. 3. " Omnia levia sunt caritati " 
 (Augustine), notwithstanding the strait gate and the narrow 
 way, and the cross that is to be borne.
 
 CHAP. XIL 327 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 VER. 3. sKfivuati] Elz. and Fritzsche insert avros, against decisive 
 testimony. From Mark ii. 25; Luke vi. 3. "Ver. 4. tpaytv] 
 Tisch. 8 : s<payov, only according to B N. Altered to suit what 
 follows. ou?] Lach. Tisch.: o, after B D 13, 124, Cant. Ver. 
 Harl.* Correctly ; the Received text is a correction in accord- 
 ance with Mark and Luke. Ver. 6. pei^uv] B D E G K M 
 S U V r n, Curss. and Fathers : ptTtpv. So Fritzsche, Scholz, 
 Lachra. Tisch. Authority and exegesis favour the neuter, by 
 way of explaining which the masculine would readily suggest 
 itself. Ver. 8. Before roD ffa/3/3drou Elz. inserts xai, which has 
 been deleted in accordance with decisive testimony. From 
 Mark and Luke. Ver. 10. v\v rjji/] is certainly wanting in 
 B C N, while Vulg. and Codd. of the It. Copt, leave it doubtful 
 whether they did not read simple %v. *HV rqv is deleted by 
 Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly. The brevity of Matthew's 
 statement was supplemented from Mark iii. 1, and hence sxs? 
 came to be inserted between %v and rqv (by others at a different 
 place). Ver. 11. Lachm., following inadequate testimony, 
 reads iyttpsi instead of lytptf. An error on the part of the tran- 
 scriber. Ver. 14. The following arrangement, l% > i\66vrss Se o't 
 <bap. ffu/Aj8. g'x. xar. auroD (B C D A N, Curss. Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. 
 Eus. Chrys. Fritzsche, Gersd. Lachm. Tisch.), is to be preferred 
 to that of the Eeceived text (o/ 5. o. a. ?x. K. a. Jg.), as being simpler 
 and more in keeping with Matthew's style. Ver. 15. o^Xo/J 
 omitted in B N, Vulg. It. Eus., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
 Homoeoteleuton. Ver. 17. "With Lachm. and Tisch. we ought 
 to adopt iva instead of onus, in accordance with B C D N, 1, 33, 
 Or. Eus. ; onus was introduced for sake of variety. Ver. 1 8. 
 /s 5v] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 (see note of the latter) : ov, after 
 B N* and several Curss. On inadequate testimony, for si; 
 would be readily dropped out, from a mechanical effort to con- 
 form the construction to ov fipsnaa, ; sv $ in D is a gloss. Ver. 
 21. r(f> ovo/tari] Elz. Fritzsche: sv r& ovo^.y against decisive 
 testimony, sv is an interpolation, as is also lic'i in Eus. and 
 several Curss. Ver. 22. rbv rvpxbv xal xu<p6v\ Lachm. and
 
 328 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Tisch. have merely rlv xu<p6v (B D N, Copt. Syr cnr Cant. Corb. 1 , 
 Germ. 1). But XaXgft coming first in what follows gave rise 
 partly to the omission of rupXdv, partly to the inverted arrange- 
 ment : xu<pbv xa! rv<pX6v (L X A, Curss. Syr. Arm.). Ver. 28. 
 The order sv irvtvp. 6toZ syu, as against that of the Eeceived text, 
 iyh lv xviv/jt,., is supported by decisive testimony (less adequately 
 the arrangement of Lachrn. and Tisch. : xpira! taovrai vpuv, in 
 ver. 27). Ver. 29. In accordance with B C* X, Curss., Lachm. 
 and Tisch. have apvdaai instead of Biapvrdasi. The reading of 
 the Eeceived text is adopted from Mark. In what follows 
 Lachm. has upx-daei instead of diapvdssi so also Tisch. 7, but 
 according to testimony that is far too inadequate. Tisch. 8, 
 following D G K n K, Curss., reads Stapvdep. But still the 
 evidence in favour of diapvdasi remains so strong, that there is 
 but the more reason to look upon diapTrdap as a supposed gram- 
 matical correction. Ver. 31. Tisch. 8, following Lachm., has 
 indeed also deleted the second ro?$ avdpuKotg (after B K, Curss. 
 Verss. and a few Fathers) ; it is, however, to be preserved as a 
 solemn yet superfluous repetition. Ver. 35. Elz., against 
 decisive testimony, inserts rjjs xa.p6ia$ after the first Qwavpov. A 
 gloss. But with Tisch. 8, and on the strength of sufficient 
 testimony, rd before dyadd is to be maintained, in opposition to 
 Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 7. The article came to be omitted from 
 a desire to conform to the second clause. Ver. 36. The reading 
 xXjjtfoa<r/v. adopted by Tisch. (B C S), is to be traced to the futures 
 which follow. Ver. 38. With Lachm. and Tisch. aurw should 
 be inserted after dirsxpid., in accordance with B C D L M N, 
 Curss. and most Verss. and Chrys. Perhaps it was omitted 
 from being considered unnecessary. xa! <J>apr.] is deleted by 
 Lachm. on too inadequate testimony. Ver. 44. The arrange- 
 ment : /'; T. OIK. p. eviffrp. (Lachm. Tisch.), as opposed to that of 
 the Keceived text (iinerp. I. r. o. //,.), finds testimony sufficiently 
 strong in B D Z K. Comp. Luke. k\66v\ D F G X r, Curss. : 
 &dw. So Fritzsche and Tisch. Correctly ; the reading of the 
 Eeceived text is here and in Luke xi. 25 a grammatical correc- 
 tion. Ver. 46. Se] omitted in B K, Curss. Vulg. It. Deleted 
 by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily may it have been 
 omitted at the beginning of the new section (one reading even 
 begins with a-iroD) ! Ver. 48. SIKOVTI] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. : 
 l.'syovri, after B D Z n K, Curss. Correctly. The former has 
 crept in mechanically, in conformity with ver. 47. 
 
 Ver. 1 ff. Comp. Mark ii. 23 ff. ; Luke vi. 1 ff. Any one 
 was allowed to pluck (r/XXety, Blomfield, ad Aesch. Pers. Gloss.
 
 CHAP. XII. 3. 4. 329 
 
 214) ears of corn in another man's field till he was satisfied. 
 Deut. xxiii. 25. It is customary and allowable even at the 
 present day. Robinson, II. p. 419. But according to Ex. 
 xvi. 2 2 ff., it might seem as if it were unlawful on the Sabbath, 
 and it appears from tradition (Schabb. c. 8 ; Lightfoot and 
 Schoettgen on this passage) that it was actually so regarded. 
 That the disciples did not hold themselves bound by this view, 
 is an evidence of their more liberal spirit. Comp. Weizsacker, 
 p. 390. tfpgavTo] After this plucking had begun, there came 
 the remonstrance on the part of the Pharisees, ver. 2. Luke, 
 in accordance with the historical arrangement which he ob- 
 serves, places this incident somewhat earlier ; Mark and Luke 
 introduce it after the question about fasting. Both of them, 
 however, mention only the first of the two proof-texts quoted 
 by Jesus. Matthew, following a tradition that is more original 
 as far as this matter is concerned, supplements the account in 
 Mark, from whom, however, he essentially differs in regard to 
 the object in plucking the corn (see on Mark, and Holtzmann, 
 p. 73). 
 
 Vv. 3, 4. 'Aveyvcore] 1 Sam. xxi. The spurious auro? 
 is unnecessary ; real ol /tier' avrov is connected with ri eTroirjaev 
 Aaveio. Comp. Thuc. i 47. 2 : e\e7e 8e 6 STIKJXOV /cat, ol 
 fj,er avrov, and Poppo's note. oto? TOU deov] in this 
 instance the tabernacle, which was then at Nob. Comp. Ex. 
 xxiii. 19. For the twelve pieces of skew-bread, on this 
 occasion called aprot, TT)? TrpoQea-etos, i.e. r i?~!J|E> ! !} Er6, loaves of 
 the pile (1 Chron. xxiii. 29 ; Ex. xl. 23), elsewhere named 
 apToi TOV 7rpoo-(07rov, E^BTI 2^6, loaves of the presence (of God), 
 1 Sam. xxi. 7, which, as a meat-offering, stood in the holy 
 place, arranged in two rows upon a golden table, and were 
 renewed every Sabbath, those of the previous week being 
 given to the priests, see Lev. xxiv. 5 ff. ; Lund, Jud. Heiligth., 
 ed. Wolf, p. 134 ff. ; Ewald, Alterth. pp. 37, 153 ; Keil, Arch. 
 I. p. 91. el prf] only appears to stand for d\\d, and retains 
 its usual meaning of nisi. The language, however, assumes 
 the tone of absolute negation : which it was not lawful for 
 Him to eat, nor for those who were with Him, not lawful except 
 for the priests alone. The neuter o (see the critical remarks)
 
 330 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 indicates the category : what, i.e. which kind of food. See 
 Matthiae, p. 987; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 55. Comp. note on 
 Gal. i. 7, ii. 16 ; Luke iv. 26 f. ; Dindorf in Steph. Thes. III. 
 p. 190 C ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 195. 
 
 Ver. 5. 'Aveyvfore] Num. xxviii. 9. (Sefirj^ovcri] that 
 is, if one were consistently to judge according to your precepts, 
 which forbid every sort of work on the Sabbath as being a 
 desecration of that day. For ySe/3^X., profanant, comp. Acts 
 xxiv. 6, and see Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 558. 
 
 Ver. 6. As in ver. 3 f. Jesus had reasoned a majori (from 
 the fact of David, when hungry, being allowed to eat the shew- 
 ~bread) ad minus (to the fact of the hungry disciples being 
 allowed to pluck the corn on the Sabbath), so in ver. 5 He 
 reasons a minori (viz. from the temple, where the Sabbath is 
 subordinated to the sacrificial arrangements) ad majus, viz. to 
 His own authority, which transcends the sanctity of the temple, 
 and from acting under which the disciples might well be the 
 less disposed to be bound to keep the Sabbath. The key to 
 this argument is to be found in ver. 6, which contains the 
 minor proposition of the conclusion : what is allowable in the 
 case of the servants of the temple, namely, to work on the 
 Sabbath, must be conceded to the servants of Him who is 
 greater than the temple ; I am greater than the temple ; 
 therefore, and so on. In all the elevation and truth of His 
 self-consciousness Jesus points with TOV iepov yu,eioi> eariv wSe 
 to His own person and character as surpassing the temple in 
 sanctity and greatness ; not to the Messianic work (Fritzsche, 
 de "Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius), with which the plucking of 
 the corn had nothing to do ; nor, again, to the interests of the 
 disciples ! (Paulus, Kuinoel) ; nor, finally, to the e\eo9 in ver. 7 
 (Baur). The neuter pei^ov, a greater thing, is more weighty 
 than the masculine. Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 396. Comp. 
 xi. 9. <wSe] demonstrative, as in vv. 41, 42. Notice how 
 sublimely great is the consciousness that God is dwelling in 
 Him in a higher sense than in the temple ; comp. note on 
 John ii 19. 
 
 Ver. 7. After this defence of His disciples, He shows the 
 Pharisees that in judging them as they had done they were
 
 CHAP. XII. 8-10. 331 
 
 animated by a perverse disposition. He shows how they were 
 destitute of the compassionate love which God requires in 
 Hos. vi. 6, while their thoughts were exclusively directed to 
 sacrifice and ceremonial religion generally. From want of 
 eXeo?, which would have disposed them to regard the conduct 
 of the hungry ones in a totally different light, they, i.e. those 
 ceremonialists, had condemned the disciples. See, besides, 
 note on ix. 13. 
 
 Ver. 8. Tdp\ TOW? avairlow, I say, for, and so on. " Ma- 
 jestate Christi nititur discipulorum innocentia et libertas," 
 Bengel. The authority of the Messiah (under which His dis- 
 ciples have acted) is superior to the law of the Sabbath ; the 
 latter is subject to His disposal, and must yield to His will. 
 Bertholdt, Christol. p. 1 6 2 f. For the idea, comp. John v. 1 8 ; 
 Holtzmann, p. 458. Others (Grotius, Kuinoel) interpret thus: 
 Man may set aside the laws regarding the Sabbath, whenever it 
 is for his advantage to do so. In opposition to the regular 
 use of o vibs T. avdp., the argument is different in Mark 
 i. 27. 
 
 Vv. 9 ff. Comp. Markiii. 1 ff. ; Luke vi. 6 ff. Kal /ieTa/9a<5 
 eiceldev, /c.r.X.] therefore on the same Sabbath day. Different 
 from Luke, who has ev erepw o-a/3/3ar&>, to which further 
 division of time Mark likewise fails to make any reference 
 whatever. aurwi/j the Pharisees, whom He had just sent 
 away. It is impossible to say where the synagogue was to 
 which those Pharisees belonged. But to take O.VTWV without 
 any definite reference, as in xi. 1 (" of the people of the place," 
 de Wette, Bleek), is precluded by cTrjipoyrtja-av, etc., of which 
 the Pharisees mentioned in ver. 14 are to be regarded as the 
 subject. 
 
 Yer. 1 0. The nature of the affection of the withered hand, 
 in which there was a defective circulation (1 Kings xiii. 4 ; 
 Zech. xi. 17; John v. 3), cannot be further defined. It is 
 certain, however, that what was wrong was not merely a 
 deficiency in the power of moving the hand, in which case the 
 cure would be sufficiently explained by our Lord's acting upon 
 the will and the muscular force (Keim). The traditions forbade 
 healing on the Sabbath, except in cases where life was in
 
 332 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 danger. Wetstein and Schoettgen on this passage. el] in 
 the New Testament (Winer, p. 474 [E. T. 639]; Buttmann, 
 n&id. Gr. p. 214 [E. T. 249]) is so applied, in opposition to 
 classical usage (see Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 202f. ; Klotz, 
 ad Devar. pp. 508, 511), that it directly introduces the 
 words containing the question. Comp. xix. 3 ; Luke xiii. 2 2, 
 xxii. 49 ; Acts i. 6 ; occurring also in the LXX., not in the 
 Apocrypha. However, in the order of ideas in the mind of the 
 questioner is to be found the logical connection, which has 
 occasioned and which will explain the indirectly interrogative 
 use of ei (I would like to know, or some such expression), just 
 as we Germans are also in the habit of asking at once : 
 ob das erlaubt ist ? The character of the questions introduced 
 by el is that of uncertainty and hesitation (Hartung, 1. 1 ; 
 Kiihner, II. 2, p. 1032), which in this instance is quite in 
 keeping with the tempting which the questioners had in view. 
 Fritzsche's purely indirect interpretation (" interrogarunt eum 
 hoc modo, an liceret" etc.) is precluded by \eyovres, and the 
 passages where the question is preceded by some form of 
 address such as rcvpie in Acts i. 6 ; Luke xxii. 49. tva 
 Karrjjop. avrov] before the local court (icpicris, v. 21) in the 
 town, and that on the charge of teaching to violate the law of 
 the Sabbath. 
 
 Ver. 11. The construction, like that of vii. 9, is a case of 
 anacoluthon. The futures indicate the supposed possible 
 case ; see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 147 : what man may there he from 
 among you, and so on. Trpoficn&v ev\ one, which on that 
 account is all the dearer to him. KOU eav efiTrea-g, K.T.\.] 
 There must have been no doubt as to whether such a thins 
 
 O 
 
 was allowable, for Jesus argues ex concesso. The Talmud 
 (Gemara} contains no such concession, but answers the ques- 
 tion partly in a negative way, and partly by making casuistical 
 stipulations. See the passages in Othonis, Lex Rdbb. p. 527; 
 Wetstein, and Buxtorf, Synag. c. 16. Kparij<rei avro tc. 
 eye pel] descriptive. He lays hold of the sheep that has 
 fallen into a ditch ({360wov, Xen. Oec. xix. 3, not exclusively a 
 well, but any kind of hole, like poOpos}, and, lifting out the 
 animal lying bruised in the pit, he sets it upon its feet.
 
 CHAP. XII. 12-14. 333 
 
 Yer. 12. Ovv] Inference founded on the value which, 
 according to ver. 11, is no doubt set upon an animal in such 
 circumstances, notwithstanding the laws of Sabbath observance : 
 Of how much greater consequence, then, is a man than a sheep ? 
 The answer is already involved in the question itself (is of far 
 more consequence, and so on) ; but the final conclusion is : 
 therefore it is allowable to do what is right on the Sabbath. By 
 means of the general expression /eaXw<? iroidv, which does not 
 mean to be beneficent (Kuinoel, de Wette, Bleek), but recte 
 agere (Acts x. 33 ; 1 Cor. vii. 38 f. ; Phil. iv. 14 ; Jas. ii 8, 19 ; 
 2 Pet. i. 19 ; 3 John 6), the Qepcnrevetv is ranked under the 
 category of duty, and the moral absurdity of the question in 
 ver. 1 is thereby exposed. So, by this adroit handling of the 
 argument, the inference of Jesus is secured against all contra- 
 diction ; de Wette's objection, to the effect that it might have 
 been asked whether the healing did not admit of delay, is 
 founded on a misunderstanding of the /caX<u<? iroielv. This 
 latter is the moral rule by which resting or working on the 
 Sabbath is to be determined. 
 
 Vv. 13, 14. '^Tre/careo-T.] just as he was stretching it out, 
 and at the bidding of Jesus. For the double augment, see Winer, 
 p. 69 f. [E. T. 84]. v 74 77-?] result of the aireKaretrT. See 
 Winer, pp. 491,580[E.T. 663,779]; Liibcker, grammat. Stud. 
 p. 3 3 f. ; Pflugk, ad. Hec. 690. Mark's version of the incident 
 is more animated, fresher, and more original (Keim's opinion is 
 different), and likewise free from the amplification contained in 
 what is said about the animal falling into the well. This 
 saying is introduced by Luke in another form, and in connec- 
 tion with a different incident (Luke xiv. 5), which, however, 
 would not justify us in holding, with Strauss, that the different 
 narratives are only different settings for the saying in question, 
 while supposing at the same time that there is even an allusion 
 here to 1 Kings xiii. 4, 6. According to the Evang. s. Hebr. 
 (Hilgenfeld, N. T. extra can. IV. 16, 23), the man with the 
 withered hand was a mason, who begged to be healed, that he 
 might not be under the necessity of begging. ef eX0oi/re<y] 
 from the synagogue, ver. 9. or/ttySouX. eXa^S. KO.T. avr., 
 0770)9] they devised measures for the purpose of crushing Him
 
 334 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 (see on xxii. 15); the opposition to Him had now assumed 
 this very decided character. 
 
 Ver. 15 ff. Vv. 17'- 21 are peculiar to Matthew. avrovs 
 Trai/ra?] all the sick who were among the multitudes. Inde- 
 finite expression. On the condensed style of Matthew, 15 f., 
 comp. Mark iii. 7 ff. ; Luke vi. 17 ff. Ver. 16. He gave them 
 strict injunctions, in order that, and so on (xvi. 20, xx. 31) ; for 
 He did not wish, by creating too great a sensation, to provoke 
 His enemies to proceed to extremities before the time. 
 Comp. on viii. 4, Ver. 17. This eVer//*. avTois was designed, 
 in accordance with the divine order in history, to fulfil 
 the prophecy that the Messiah was to act without anything 
 like ostentatious display in His proceedings. On the silent 
 majesty of Jesus, comp. Dorner, Jesu siindlose Vollkommenh. 
 p. 28 ff. 
 
 Ver. 18. Isa. xl. 1 ff., a very free rendering of the original 
 Hebrew text, yet not without some reminiscences of the LXX. 
 For the njn* lay, which the LXX. ('Ia/ea>/8 o Trafc /MW) and 
 modern expositors interpret as applying to Israel as a nation, 
 or the ideal Israel of the prophets, see, besides, the com- 
 mentaries on Isaiah ; Drechsler and Delitzsch in Eudelbach's 
 Zeitschr. 1852, 2, p. 258 ff. ; Tholuck, d. Propheten u. ihre 
 Weissag. p. 158ff; Kleinert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, 
 p. 699ff. ; F. Philippi in the Mecklerib. Zeitschr. 1864, 5, 
 and 6. Matthew understands it as referring to the Messiah. 
 Similarly the Chaldee paraphrasts and Kimchi, in which they 
 are justified by the Messianic idea, as fulfilled in Christ, run- 
 ning through the whole passage. See Acts iii. 13, 26, 
 iv. 27, 30 j Hengstenberg, Christ&l. II. p. 216 ff, compared 
 with Kleinert, I.e. et9 ov\ in regard to whom. Direction 
 of the approbation. Comp. 2 Pet. i. 1 7. The aorists, as in 
 iii. 17. Orjao) TO Trvevfjua] i.e. I will make Him the possessor 
 and the bearer of my Holy Spirit, by whose power He is to 
 work, Isa. xi. 2, Ixi. 1 ; Matt. iii. 16 ; Acts iv. 27. icpi<riv] 
 not : quod fieri par est (Fritzsche) ; not : justice and righteous- 
 ness (Bleek) ; the good cause (Schegg) ; or the cause of God 
 (Bauingarten-Crusius) ; not : recta cultus divini ratio (Ger- 
 hard) ; nor : doctrina divina (Kuinoel), which interpretations
 
 CHAP. XII. 19, 20. 335 
 
 have been given in view of the D3B>o of the original (where it 
 denotes the right, i.e. what is right and matter of duty in the 
 true theocracy. Comp. Ewald on Isaiah, I.e. ; Hengstenberg, 
 p. 233 ; and see in general, Gesenius, Thes. III. p. 1464). But 
 in the New Testament Kpia-is has no other meaning but that 
 of final sentence, judgment (also in xxiii. 23) ; and this, in fact, 
 is the sense in which the Hebrew was understood by the LXX. 
 Matthew's Greek expression is doubtless to be understood no 
 less in the sense of a judicial sentence, i.e. the Messianic judg- 
 ment, for which the Messiah is preparing the way through 
 His whole ministry, and which is to be consummated at 
 the last day. rot? edvecriv] not: the nations, generally, 
 but the heathen. Similarly also in ver. 21. The point of 
 fulfilment in the prediction here quoted lies simply in its 
 serving to describe, as it does in ver. 19 f., the unostentatious, 
 meek, and gentle nature of Christ's ministry (ver. 16), so that 
 it is unnecessary to look to what precedes in order to find 
 something corresponding to rots eOve&t (some finding it in the 
 multitudes that followed Jesus). Jesus did not preach to the 
 heathen till He did it through the apostles, Eph. ii. 17, a 
 matter altogether beyond the scope of the present passage. It 
 should be observed generally, and especially in the case of 
 somewhat lengthened quotations from the Old Testament, that 
 it is not intended that every detail is to find its corresponding 
 fulfilment, but that such fulfilment is to be looked for only in 
 connection with that which the connection shows to be the 
 main subject under consideration. 
 
 Vv. 19, 20. Contrast to the conduct of the Jewish teachers. 
 He will not wrangle nor cry (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 337), and 
 so on. The bruised reed and smoking wick represent those who 
 are spiritually miserable and helpless (xi. 5), whom Christ does 
 not reduce to utter hoplessness and despair, but (xi. 28) to 
 whom He rather gives comfort, and whose moral life He 
 revives and strengthens. And seeing that ver. 17 refers to 
 ver. 16, they cannot be taken to represent the sick, whom 
 Jesus heals (Hengstenberg). For those figures, comp. Isa. 
 xxxvi. 6, Iviii. 6, xliii. 17. ea><? av K@d\r) K.T.\.] until He 
 shall have led forth to victory the judgment announced by Him,
 
 33 G THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 i.e. until He shall have finally accomplished it at the last day. 
 For with this holding of the assize is associated the subjection 
 to it of every hostile power. The final holding of it is the 
 victory of the judgment. In eicfiaXr), forced out, is implied 
 the idea of violent effort, overcoming the resistance offered. The 
 words, however, do not correspond to the BSKTp fcOifV noxi?, Isa. 
 xlii. 3, but to the B3fp T$* D ^P2, ver. 4, as is evident from 
 e9, and from the words KOI TO) ovofian, etc., which follow. 
 But this is a very free quotation made from memory, with 
 which, however, the expression in ver. 3 (N^V) is at the same 
 time blended. 
 
 Ver. 21. Tc3 ovopari avrov] In Hebrew, \nrtrb LXX., 
 tVl TO> 6v6fjL. avrov. Matthew and the LXX. had a different 
 reading before them (toB^). This is the only passage in the 
 New Testament in which eX7r/o> is used with the dative (else- 
 where and in the LXX. with ev, et9, or eVt) ; it is proved, 
 however, to be good Greek from the fact of its occurring in 
 Thuc. iiL 97. 2, and it is meant to indicate the object on 
 which, as its cause, the hope (of salvation) is resting. On tJie 
 ground of His name, i.e. on account (Kiiiger's note on Thucy- 
 dides, as above) of that which the name Messiah imports, the 
 Gentiles will cherish hope. 
 
 Ver. 22. In Luke (xi. 14ff.) this incident comes in at a 
 later stage, while he reports less of what was spoken on the 
 occasion, and arranges it to some extent in a different, though 
 not the original, order ; Mark iii. 2 2 ff., who omits the incident 
 in question, introduces the discourse which follows in a peculiar 
 connection of his own. The resemblance of the narrative to 
 that contained in ix. 32 is not due to a mixing together of 
 different incidents, viz. the healing of the blind man on the 
 one hand, and of the man who was dumb on the other, 
 ix. 27, 32 (Schneckenburger, Hilgenfeld), nor to the way in 
 which incidents often assume a twofold form in the course of 
 tradition (Strauss, de Wette, Keim), but is founded upon two 
 different events : the former demoniac was dumb, the present 
 one is blind as well, a circumstance, however, which is not 
 recorded by Luke, who follows a less accurate version. The 
 term Beelzebul, used in this connection as in ix. 34, is one,
 
 CHAP. XII. 23-20. 337 
 
 however, which may have been found often enough upon the 
 lips of the Pharisees. Its recurrence can no more prove that 
 a later hand has been at work (Baur, Hilgenfeld), than the 
 circumstance that we find ourselves back again into the heart 
 of the contest, although from ver. 14 it seemed to have 
 reached its utmost extremity ; for the measures which in 
 ver. 14 the Pharisees are said to have taken, have just led to 
 further and no less bitter hostility, a hostility in keeping with 
 the spirit of the purpose they have in view. \a\. K. /3\e/3.] 
 the thing as it actually takes place. Casaubon and Fritzsche, 
 without sufficient grounds, assume the existence of a Chiasmus 
 here. 
 
 Ver. 23 ff. MrjTt ovro?, K.T.\.] Question of imperfect yet 
 growing faith, with emphasis upon OVTOS : May this (who, how- 
 ever, does not possess the qualities looked for in the Messiah) 
 not possibly be the Messiah? John iv. 29. To this corresponds 
 the emphatic ouro9 in ver. 24. aKov<ravre<i[ that question 
 fjirj-n euro?, etc. elirov] to the multitude, not to Jesus; for 
 see ver. 25. They desire at once to put a stop to such 
 dangerous language, and that, too, in a very demonstrative 
 way. ev ra> Bee\e(3ov\, ap^ovrt rwv Saifi.] See on 
 ix. 34. apxpvTi T. 8. is not to be rendered : the ruler of the 
 demons (which would have required T&> ap%.), but : as ruler over 
 the demons. Pragmatic addition. Mark iii. 22, comp. John 
 vii. 20, x. 20, states the accusation in more specific terms. 
 et'S&>9] comp. ix. 4. The charge urged by the Pharisees is a 
 foolish and desperate expedient proceeding from their hostility 
 to Jesus, the absurdity of which He exposes. pepio-Oeta-a 
 Ka0' eavTTJfi] i.e. divided into parties, which contend with 
 each other to its own destruction. In such a state of matters, 
 a kingdom comes to ruin, and a town or a family must cease 
 to exist ; a-TaOfjvai means the same as (nrfvai, see Bornemann, 
 ad Xen. Cyr. II. 1, 11; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 851. 
 Ver. 26. /ecu] the and subjoining the application. el o 
 craravas rov aaravdv e/c/3aXXet] not: the one Satan, the 
 other Satan (Fritzsche, de Wette), but : if Satan cast out 
 Satan, if Satan is at once the subject and the object of the 
 casting out, being the latter, inasmuch as the expelled demons 
 
 MATT. Y
 
 338 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 are the servants and representatives of Satan. This is the 
 only correct interpretation of an expression so selected as to 
 be in keeping with the preposterous nature of the charge, for 
 there is only the one Satan ; there are many demons, but only 
 one Satan, who is their head. This explanation is an answer 
 to de Wette, who tabes exception to the .reasoning of Jesus 
 on the ground that Satan may have helped Christ to cast 
 out demons, that by this means he might accomplish his own 
 ends. No, the question is not as to one -or two occasional 
 instances of such casting out, in which it anight be quite con- 
 ceivable that " for ,the nonce Satan should be faithless to his 
 own spirits," but as to exorcism regarded in the light of a 
 systematic 'practice, which, as such, is directed against Satan, and 
 which therefore cannot be attributed to Satan himself, for 
 otherwise he would be destroying his own kingdom. 
 
 Ver. 27. A second way of rebutting the charge. Notice 
 the emphatic antithesis : eyoo and ol viol VJJLWV. The latter 
 (people of your own school; see, in general, note on viii. 12) 
 are exorcists who have even pretended actually to cast out 
 demons (Acts xix. 13 ; Josephus, Antt. viii. 2. 5, Bell. 
 vii. 6. 3 ; Justin, c. Tryph. p. 311), who have emanated from 
 the schools of the Pharisees, not the -disciples of Jesus, as the 
 majority of the Fathers have supposed. " Quod discipuli 
 \ estri daemonia ejiciunt, vos Beelzebuli non attribuitis ; illi 
 ergo possunt hac in re judices vestri esse, vos ex virulentia 
 haec de actionibus meis pronuntiare," Lightfoot. Jesus reasons 
 ex concessis. avrol (ipsi) V/JL&V are placed together for sake 
 of emphasis. 
 
 Ver. 28. Previously it was -<ya> that was emphatic in the 
 antecedent clause ; but here it is ev -Trvevf^ari 6eov : hit if it 
 is ly THE POWER OF GOD'S SPIRIT that I, on the other hand, cast 
 out the demons, then it follows that the KINGDOM OF GOD has 
 come to you; in the consequent clause (the apodosis) the em- 
 phasis is on the words: the kingdom of God has come, etc. The 
 reasoning is founded on the axiom, that such deeds, wrought 
 as they are by the power of Gods Spirit, go to prove that He who 
 performs them is no other than He who toings in the kingdom 
 the Messiah. Where the Messiah is present and work-
 
 CHAP. XII. 29, 30. 339 
 
 ing, there, too, is the kingdom; not yet, of course, as completely 
 established, but preparing to become so through its preliminary 
 development in the world. See on Luke xvii. 20 f. For 
 (f>ddveiv (used by classical writers as meaning to anticipate, 
 1 Thess. iv. 15), in the simple sense of to reach, arrive at, see 
 on Phil. iii. 1 6 ; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 356; Liinemann's 
 note on 1 Thess. ii. 16. Notice, in the form of the reasoning 
 in vv. 27, 28, the real dilemma (tertium non datur) : el 
 Se, etc. 
 
 Ver. 29. "H] Transition by way of proceeding to give 
 further proof of the actual state of the case. TOV la-^vpou] 
 The article indicates the particular strong man (hero) with 
 whom the rt? has to do. The thought embodied in this illus- 
 tration is as follows : Or if you still hesitate to admit the 
 inference in ver. 28 how is it possible for me to despoil Satan 
 of his servants and instruments (TO, a-Kevrj avrov corresponding 
 to the demons in the application) withdraw them from his 
 control without having first of all conquered him? Does my 
 casting out of demons not prove that I have subdued Satan, 
 have deprived him of his power, just as it is necessary to 
 bind a strong man before plundering his house ? For 77, when 
 serving to introduce a question by way of rejoinder, see Baum- 
 lein, Partik. p. 132. The <rtcevr) in the illustration are the 
 furniture of the house (not the weapons), as is evident from r. 
 ol/ciav at>Tov below. Mark iii. 27. The figurative language 
 may have been suggested by a recollection of Isa. xlix. 
 '24 f. 
 
 Ver. 30. Jesus' is speaking neither of the Jewish exorcists 
 (Bengel, Schleiermacher, Neander), nor of the uncertain, fickle 
 multitude (Elwert in the Stud. d. Wirtemb. Geistl. IX. 1, 
 p. Ill ff.; Ullmann in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1851, p. 21 fif. ; 
 Bleek), neither of which would suit the context ; but as little 
 is He expressing Himself in general terms; so that /tier' e/ioO 
 must be applied to Satan, while Jesus is understood to be 
 representing Himself as Satan's enemy (Jerome, Beza, Grotius, 
 Wetstein, Kuinoel, de Wette, Baumgarten - Crusius) ; for the 
 truth is, He, previously as well as subsequently, speaks of 
 Himself in the first person (vv. 28, 31), and He could not be
 
 3 40 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 supposed, He who is the Messiah, to represent Himself as 
 taking up a neutral attitude toward Satan. On the contrary, 
 He is speaking of the Pharisees and their bearing toward Him, 
 which must necessarily be of a hostile character, since they 
 had refused to make common cause with Him as it behoved 
 them to have done : He that is not with me is, as is seen in 
 your case, my enemy, and so on. a-vvdjwv] illustration 
 borrowed from harvest operations ; iii. 12, vi. 26 ; John iv. 36. 
 Ver. 31. A i a rov TO] refers back to all that has been said 
 since ver. 25 : On this account because, in bringing such an 
 accusation against me, ver. 24, you have as my enemies 
 (ver. 30) resisted the most undoubted evidence of the con- 
 trary (ver. 25 if.), on this account I must tell you, and so on. 
 dfjuapr. K. ySXao-^).] Genus and species: every sin and 
 (in particular) blaspheming (of sacred things, as of the Messiah 
 Himself, ver. 32). rj rov rev. /3\aa-<J>.] Blaspheming of the 
 Spirit (Mark iii. 2 9 ; Luke xii 1 0) is the sin in question, and 
 of which that allegation on the part of the Pharisees, ver. 24, 
 is an instance, so that it is probably too much to say, as though 
 the new birth must be presumed, that it can only occur in the 
 case of a Christian, a view which was held by Huther, 
 Quenstedt, and others. As, then, in the present instance the 
 Pharisees had hardened themselves against an unmistakeable 
 revelation of the Spirit of God, as seen in the life and works 
 of Jesus, had in fact taken up an attitude of avowed hostility 
 to this Spirit ; so much so that they spoke of His agency as 
 that of the devil : so in general the (3\aa-<frriiiia rov rrvevfiaro^ 
 may be defined to be the sin which a man commits when he 
 rejects the undoubted revelation of the Holy Spirit, and that 
 not merely with a contemptuous moral indifference (Gurlitt; see, 
 on the other hand, Miiller, Lehre v. d. Silnde, II. p. 598, ed. 5), 
 but with the evil will struggling to shut out the light of that 
 revelation ; and even goes the length of expressing in hostile 
 language his deliberate and conscious opposition to this divine 
 principle, thereby avowing his adherence to his anti-spiritual 
 confession. This sin is not forgiven, because in the utterly 
 hardened condition which it presupposes, and in which it 
 appears as the extreme point of sinful development, the recep-
 
 CHAP. XII. 32. 3-il 
 
 tivity for the influences of the Holy Spirit is lost, and nothing 
 remains but conscious and avowed hatred toward this holy 
 agency. In the case of the Christian, every conscious sin, and 
 in particular all immoral speech, is also sin against the 
 Holy Spirit (Eph. iv. 30) ; but what is meant by blaspheming 
 the Spirit in the passage before us, is to go to the utmost 
 extremity in apostasy from Christ and TT/JO? Bdvarov (1 John 
 v. 16, and Huther's note). See Grashoff in the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1833, p. 935 ff.; Gurlitt, ibid. 1834, p. 599 ff. ; Tholuck, 
 ibid. 1836, p. 401 ff. ; Schaf, d. Silnde wider d. heil. G. 1841 ; 
 Jul. Miiller, I.e. ; Alex, ab Oettingen, de pecc. in Sp. s. 1856, 
 where the older literature may also be found, and where the 
 different views are criticised. 1 For the way in which the 
 blaspheming against the Spirit is supposed to coincide, as far as 
 the Christian is concerned, with the falling away mentioned 
 in Heb. vi. 46, see Delitzsch On the Hebrews, p. 2 3 1 ff. ; 
 Liinemann, p. 205 ff. OVK d<j)e6r)<reTai] should not have 
 its meaning twisted by supplying " as a rule," or such like ; 
 nor, with Grotius, is OVK to be taken comparatively (more heinous 
 than all other sins). The simple impossibility of forgiveness is 
 just to be sought in the man's own state of heart, which has 
 become one of extreme hostility to God. 
 
 Ver. 32. Kara TOV vlov r. avOp^\ against the Son of man, 
 such as Daniel promised that the Messiah should be. In this 
 case also (comp. on ix. 6, viii. 20) this select expression indi- 
 cates the majesty of the Messiah in His human manifestation, 
 in contrast to the hostile terms with which it has been assailed. 
 Grotius and Fritzsche erroneously understand it as in contrast 
 to man in general. a^eOrfcrerai avTQ)] For if the hostile 
 expressions are directed only against the person of the Mes- 
 siah as such, not against the Holy Spirit who may be recog- 
 nised in that person, even without our ascribing to it a 
 Messianic character, it is possible that fuller knowledge, 
 change of disposition, faith, may be created by the Spirit's 
 
 1 At p. 87, Oettingen defines the sin thus : " Impoenitentia perpetua atque 
 incredulitas usque ad fincm, quae ex rebellante et obstinatissima repudiatione 
 testimonii Sp. s. evangelic sese manifestantis et in hominum cordibus operautis 
 profecta blasphemando in Sp. s. per verbum et facinus in lucem prodit."
 
 342 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 own influence, whereupon the man will be forgiven. Comp. 
 Luke xxiii. 34. o ala>v OUTO? is the period pre\ious to the 
 coming of the Messiah, n*n n:>iy > as Jesus understood it : the 
 time before the second coming. 'O ala>v fjieXkwv, the period that 
 succeeds the coming of the Messiah, Nsn D<>iy, as Jesus under- 
 stood it : the time that follows the second coming. Bertholdt, 
 Christol. p. 38 ; Koppe, Exc. 1, ad Ep. ad Eph. p. 289 ff. 
 ovre ev r&> /ieXXoyrt] where it would be granted in the shape 
 of acquittal in the judgment, combined with the eternal conse- 
 quences of such acquittal (everlasting felicity). The threaten- 
 ing of a very different fate that is to say, the thought of 
 endless punishment must not be in any way softened down 
 (Chrysostom, de Wette). Schrnid, bibl. Theol. I. p. 358 (comp. 
 Olshausen a'nd Stirm in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1861, 
 p. 300), is quite mistaken in thinking that the period referred 
 to is that between death and judgment, which, in fact, does 
 not belong to the alaiv /ieXX&w at all. 
 
 Ver. 33. Euth. Zigabenus says correctly (comp. Hilary, 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Jansen, Raphel, 
 Kypke, Kuinoel, Schegg, Grimm) : Tronja-ctTe dvrl TOV etVare. 
 Karatcr^yvei Be iraXiv erepto? avrovs, a>? dvareo\ovda Kal Trapa 
 KarT]jopovvTa<f. 'Eirel yap TO pev d7re\avvecr6ai TOI)? 
 OVK e/tdfci^ov . . . TOV Be d7re\avvovTa TOUTOU? 
 /, TrapaBeiyfJiaTiKW'; avroix; eXey^et, TO pev epyov irakov 
 , TOV Be ep<yaofj,evov KCIKOV, orep early evavTiorrjTos 
 /cal dvaMTxyvTias. Either make the tree good (i.e. judge it to 
 be good), and its fruit good ; or make the tree bad, and its 
 fruit bad (see on vii. 17), do not proceed in the same 
 absurd way as you did when you pronounced an unfavourable 
 judgment upon me, when you made the tree bad (declared me 
 to be an instrument of the devil), and gave him credit for 
 good fruit (the casting out of demons), -jroieiv, similarly to 
 our make, is used to denote the expression of a judgment or 
 opinion, therefore in a declarative sense. John v. 18, viii. 53, 
 x. 33 ; 1 John i. 10, v. 10 ; Xen. Hist. vi. 3. 5 : TroieiaOe Be 
 TToXe/uovs-, you declare them to be enemies. Stephanus, 
 Thesaurus, ed. Paris, VI. p. 1292, and the passages in Eaphel, 
 Herod, p. 154 ; Kypke, I. p. 66 ; among Attic writers usually
 
 CHAP. XII. 34. 343 
 
 in the middle voice. TO Bev&pov denotes the tree on which 
 you pronounce a judgment, and nothing is to be supplied after 
 rov Kap-jTov avrov. Some (Grotius, Fritzsehe), who, however, 
 attach substantially the same meaning to the figurative terms, 
 take Troielv in the sense of to suppose, assume, animo fingcre 
 (Xen. Anal. v. 7. 9 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 136 f.), though 
 the imperative is not so well suited to the second clauses, KCU 
 rov Kapirov, etc. Others, understanding -jroietv as meaning, 
 partly to judge, as well as partly to assume, refer it to the evil 
 disposition of the Pharisees, which can be detected in the kind 
 of language they indulge in. So Munster, Castalio, 1 Mal- 
 donatus, and others ; also de Wette, Neander, Bleek (comp. 
 Olshausen). But in that case the imperative is no longer 
 appropriate to the second clauses. According to Ewald (comp. 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, and Holtzmann, p. 187), the connection 
 and meaning may be thus stated : " Let it not be supposed 
 that these are but mere words ! It is exactly the words . . . 
 that spring from the deepest source, and proceed as it were 
 from the root of a man ; like tree, like fruit." TroirjcraTe is a 
 bold expression in reference not only to the fruit, as has been 
 supposed, but also to the tree itself (" cultivate the tree well, 
 and thus make the tree good "). But iroteiv is not used in this 
 sense (which would have required <f>vetv instead) ; and, once 
 more, the imperative expression would scarcely have suited the 
 second clauses, for an alternative so imperious might, with much 
 more propriety, be addressed to persons who were undecided, 
 neutral. Similarly Keim, though without any further gram- 
 matical elucidation (" man either makes himself good a tree 
 which bears good fruit or makes himself evil "). 
 
 Ver. 34. OVK ea-rtv Oavfiaa-rbv, el roiavra (the preposterous 
 nature of which Jesus has just exposed, ver. 33) /3\a<r<})Ti/j,eiTe, 
 TTovrjpol yap 6We? ov ovvaaOe dyaOa \d\elv. Elra /cat <f)v<ru)- 
 \oryitca)<; cnro&eiKWGt, 7rw9 ov ovvavrai, Euth. Zigabenus. For 
 yevvijfj,. e%iov. comp. iii. 7. TTW? Bvvaade] moral impossi- 
 bility founded upon the wickedness of the heart, although not 
 
 1 " Hoc pro certo habere necesse esse, quae arbor sit bona, ejus fractum esse 
 bonum. . . . Atqui ista vestra verba malus fructus est : ex quo consequens est 
 vos stirpem esse malam. "
 
 344 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 denying that one may still be open to conversion, and that 
 with conversion the impossibility in question must cease to 
 exist. etc <y. T. irepiacrev^. r. /capB.] out of that with 
 which the heart is overflowing, so that with the speaking a 
 partial emptying, outflow, takes place. Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 68. 
 
 Ver. 3 5. Qfja-avpo^, here the inward treasure - house (re- 
 ceptaculum) of the heart's thoughts (Luke vi. 45) which are 
 revealed in words, through which latter they take outward 
 shape, are thrown out, as it were, from the heart of the speaker 
 through the channel of the mouth. Trovrjpov Orjcravpov] 
 6rja-avp, of wickedness, also in Eur. Ion. 923. 
 
 Ver. 36 f. Nominative absolute, as in x. 14, 32. apjov] 
 meaning, according to the context, morally useless, which 
 negative expression brings out the idea more pointedly than 
 TTovypov, the reading of several Curss., would have done. 
 Comp. \6yoi atcapTroi in Plato, Phaedr. p. 27V A. etc 
 yap TWV \6<ya)v aov, /c.r.X.] For on thy words will be 
 founded thine acquittal, on thy words will be founded thy 
 condemnation in the Messianic judgment. The connection 
 required that this matter of a man's accountability for his 
 words should be prominently noticed; and, seeing that the 
 words are to be regarded as the natural outcome of the dis- 
 position, such accountability is quite consistent with justice ; 
 nor does it exclude responsibility for his actions as well, 
 though this does not come into view in connection with the 
 subject now under consideration. With reference to the 
 bearing of this saying on justification by faith, Calovius appro- 
 priately observes : " Quid enim aliud sermones sancti, quam 
 fldes sonans ? " and vice versd. 
 
 Ver. 38. The narrative is more original than that in Luke 
 xi. 16. a-yfAeiov] a manifestation of miraculous power that, 
 by appealing to the senses, will serve to confirm thy divine mission. 
 In such a light they had not regarded the cure of the 
 demoniacs, ver. 24. In thus insisting as they did upon yet 
 further proof, they were actuated by a malicious desire to put 
 Him to the test and reduce Him to silence. a?ro o-oO] from 
 Thee Thy sign. In deference to Mark viii. 11, Luke xi. 16, 
 many erroneously suppose that in this instance it is specially
 
 CHAP. XII. 39, 40. 345 
 
 a (7r]fj,Lov e/c Tov ovpavov that is meant. In xvi. 1, however, 
 the sign is being requested for the second time. 
 
 Ver. 39. Motp^aX/9] &>9 a^o-Ta/ievot airo TOV Oeov, Theo- 
 phylact. The Hebrew (Ps. Ixxiii. 27 ; Isa. Ivii. 3 f. ; Ezek. 
 xxiii. 2 7, al.) conceived his sacred relation to God as repre- 
 sented by the figure of marriage, hence idolatry and intercourse 
 with Gentiles were spoken of as adultery. Gesenius, TJics. 
 I. p. 422. On this occasion Jesus transfers the figure to 
 moral unfaithfulness to God, Jas. iv. 4 ; Eev. ii. 20 ff. yeved] 
 generation; the representatives of which had certainly made 
 the request, while the multitude, ver. 46, was likewise present. 
 eTrt^ret] Seeonvi. 32. cr-rj^eiov ov Sodrfa-eTai avrfj] 
 Seeing that the demand of the Pharisees had manifestly 
 pointed to a sign of a higher order than any with which Jesus 
 had hitherto favoured them, that is to say, some wonderful 
 manifestation, by which He might now prove, as He had never 
 done before, that He was unquestionably the Messiah for 
 they would not admit that the miracles they had already seen 
 were possessed of the evidential force of the actual o-ypelov ; 
 it is certain that, in this His reply, Jesus must likewise have 
 used a"r)fieiov as meaning pre-eminently a confirmatory sign of 
 a very special and convincing nature. Consequently there is 
 no need to say that we are here precluded from looking upon 
 the miracles in the light of signs, and that, according to our 
 passage, they were not performed with any such object in 
 view (de Wette) ; rather let us maintain, that they were cer- 
 tainly performed for such a purpose (John xi. 41 f., with 
 which John iv. 48 is not at variance, comp. the note following 
 viii. 4), though, in the present instance, it is not these that 
 are referred to, but a sign /ear' e^o^v, such as the Pharisees 
 contemplated in their demand. Euth. Zigabeuus (comp. 
 Chrysostom) inaptly observes : ri ovv ; OVK en-oirja-ev CKTOTC 
 crrjfAelov ; 7roLi)(rev aXX' ov Si avrovs, TreTrapcofjLevot yap r](Tav' 
 aXXa Bta Trjv TWV aX\.fov ax/>eXetcw/. TO O-^/A. 'Itwva] which 
 was given in the person of Jonah, John ii. 1. Jesus 'thus 
 indicates His resurrection, Bia rrjv ofjLotorrjra, Euth. Zigabenus. 
 Notice the emphasis in the thrice repeated o-yfielov. 
 
 Ver. 40. Tov KIJTOVS] the monster of the deep, Horn. II.
 
 346 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 v. 148 ; Od. iv. 446 ; Buttmann, Lexil. II. p. 95. The allusion 
 is to the well-known story in Jonah ii. 1. Jesus was dead 
 only a day and two nights. But, in accordance with the 
 popular method of computation (1 Sam. xxx. 12 f. ; Matt. 
 xxvii. 63), the parts of the first and third day are counted as 
 whole days, as would be further suggested by the parallel that 
 is drawn between the fate j of the antitype and that of Jonah. 1 
 The sign of Jonah has nothing to do with the withered rod 
 that budded 1 , Num. xvii. (in answer to Delitzsch) ; Jonah is 
 the type. 
 
 REMAKK. Luke (xi. 30) gives no explanation of the sign of 
 Jonah (v. 40), as is also the case with regard to Matt. 
 xvi. 4 (where, indeed, according to Holtzmann, we have only a 
 duplicate of the present narrative). Modern critics (Paulus, 
 Eckermann, Schleiermacher, Dav. Schulz, Strauss, Neander, 
 Krabbe, de Wette, Baumgarten - Crusius, Ammon, Bleek, 
 Weizsacker, Schenkel) have maintained that what Jesus meant 
 by the sign of Jonah was not His resurrection at all, but His 
 preaching and His whole manifestation, so that ver. 40 is sup- 
 posed to be an " aivkward interpolation" belonging to a later 
 period (Keim), an interpolation in which it is alleged that an 
 erroneous interpretation is put into Jesus' mouth. But (1) if 
 in ver. 41 it is only the preacliing of Jonah that is mentioned, 
 it is worthy of notice that what is said regarding the sign is 
 
 1 But the question as to what Jesus meant by to-ra/ . . . i c-fi xafiia. -rrn 
 yvi, whether His lying in the grave (so the greater number of expositors), or His 
 abode in Hades (Tertullian, Irenaeus, Theophylact, Bellarmin, Maldonatus, 
 Olshausen, Kb'nig, Lehre von Chrisli Hollenfahrt, Frankf. 1842, p. 54; Kahnis, 
 Dogmat. I. p. 508), is determined by xapSla TVS yv;, to which expression the 
 resting in the grave does not sufficiently correspond ; for the Jieart of the earth 
 can only indicate its lowest depths, just as xttpSia, T?? 6a.'^a.atins means the depths 
 of the sea in Jonah ii. 4, from which the biblical expression xapSia. in our present 
 passage seems to have been derived. Again, the parallel in the xoi\'ia. rov 
 xYiroui is, in any case, better suited to the idea of Hades than it is to that of a 
 grave cut out of the rock on the surface of the earth. If, on the other hand, 
 Jesus Himself has very distinctly intimated that His dying was to be regarded 
 as a descending into Hades (Luke xxiii. 43), then *< . . . Iv *f x/tpS. r. y. 
 must be referred to His sojourn there. There is nothing to warrant Gilder 
 (Erschein. Chr. unter d. Todten, p. 18) in disputing this reference by pointing 
 to such passages as Ex. xv. 8 ; 2 Sam. xviii. 14. "We should mistake the plastic 
 nature of the style in such passages as those, if we did not take 3^5 as referring 
 to the inmost depth.
 
 CHAP. XII. 41, 42. 347 
 
 entirely brought to a close in ver. 40, whereupon, by way of 
 threatening the hearers and putting them to shame, ver. 41 
 proceeds to state, not what the Ninevites did in consequence of 
 the sign, but what they did in consequence of the preaching of 
 Jonah ; and therefore (2) it is by no means presupposed in 
 ver. 41 that the Ninevites had been made aware of the prophet's 
 fate. (3) Of course, according to the historical sense of the 
 narrative, this fate consisted in the prophet's being punished, 
 and then pardoned again ; but according to its typical reference, 
 it at the same time constituted a ff^iTov, deriving its significance 
 for after times from its antitype as realized in Christ's resurrec- 
 tion ; that it had been a sign for the Ninevites, is nowhere said. 
 (4) If Jesus is ranked above Jonah in respect of His person or 
 preaching, not in respect of the sign, this-, according to what has 
 been said under observation 1, in no way affects the interpreta- 
 tion of the sign. (5) The resurrection of Jesus was a sign not 
 merely for believers, but also for unbelievers, who either 
 accepted Him as the Risen One, or became only the more con- 
 firmed in their hostility toward him. (6) Ver. 40 savours 
 entirely of the mode and manner in which Jesus elsewhere 
 alludes to His resurrection. Of course, in any case, he is found 
 to predict it only in an obscure sort of way (see on xiv. 21), not 
 plainly and in so many words ; and accordingly we do not find 
 it more directly intimated in ver. 40, which certainly it would 
 have been if it had been an interpretation of the sign put into 
 the Lord's mouth ex eventu. The expression is a remarkable 
 parallel to John ii. 21, where John's explanation of it as re- 
 ferring to the resurrection has been erroneously rejected. It 
 follows from all this that, so far as the subject-matter is con- 
 cerned, the version of Luke xi. 30 is not to be regarded as 
 differing from that of Matthew, but only as less- complete, 
 though evidently proceeding on the understanding that the 
 interpretation of the Jonah-sign is to be taken for granted 
 (Matt. xvi. 4). 
 
 Ver. 41 f. ' AvacrTr)crovTai\ Men of Nineveh will come for- 
 ward, that is to say, as witnesses. Similarly Dip, Job xvi. 8 ; 
 Mark xiv. 57; Plat. Legg. xi. p. 937 A; Plut. Marcell 27. 
 Precisely similar is the use of eyepB^a-erat below (comp. xi. 11, 
 xxiv. 1 1). Others (Augustine, Beza, Eisner, Fritzsche) inter- 
 pret : in vitam redibunt. This is flat and insipid, and incon- 
 sistent with ev rfj rcpia-ei: p, era] with, not: against. Both 
 parties are supposed to be standing alongside of each other, or
 
 348 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 opposite each other, in the judgment. /cara/cp.] by their 
 conduct, ort, fierevorja-av, etc. " Ex ipsorum comparatione 
 isti merito damnabuntur," Augustine. Comp. Rom. ii. 2 7. 
 <a8e] like ver. 6, refers to the person of Jesus, which is a 
 grander phenomenon than Jonah. For irXelov, comp. xii. 6. 
 /SatrtXKTo-a VOTOV] a queen from tlu South, i.e. from Sheba 
 in Southern Arabia, 1 Kings x. 1 ff. ; 2 Chron. ix. 1 ff. 
 
 Vv. 43-45. Having foretold that the existing generation 
 would be condemned on the judgment day by the Ninevites 
 and that queen from the South, Jesus now proceeds according 
 to the account in Matthew, which is undoubtedly original 
 (comp. Weiss, 1864, p. 84 f.) to explain in an allegorical 
 way the condition of things on which this melancholy cer- 
 tainty is founded. The case of this generation, He says, will 
 be very much like that of a demoniac, into whom the demon 
 that has been expelled from him is ever seeking to return. 
 The demon finds his former abode ready for his reception, 
 and, reinforced by seven others still more wicked than himself, 
 he again enters the demoniac, making his latter condition 
 worse than the former. So will v it be with this generation, 
 which, though it should happen to undergo a temporary 
 amendment, will relapse into its old state of confirmed wicked- 
 ness, and become worse than before. The reason of this is to 
 be found in the fact that the people in question have never 
 entered into true fellowship with Christ, so that their amend- 
 ment has not proved of a radical kind, has not been of the 
 nature of a new birth. Comp. Luke xi. 23, 24 ff., where the 
 words are connected with what is said in Matt. xii. 30, and 
 are equally allegorical, and not intended literally to describe 
 a case in which demons have actually returned after their 
 expulsion. Se] the explanatory autem. It is quite gratuitous 
 to suppose that in our present Matthew something has dropped 
 out before ver. 43 (Ewald). aTro TOV dvOpairov] in whom 
 he had had his abode. St' dvuBpwv TOTTWV] because deserts 
 (r) avv&pos, the desert, in Herod, iii. 4) were reputed to be the 
 dwelling-place of the demons. Tob. viii. 3 ; Bar. iv. 35 ; 
 Eev. xviii. 2. e\#ow, ver. 44 (see the critical remarks), is due 
 to the fact that the irvev^a d/cdOaprov is viewed in the light
 
 CHAP. XII. 46-50. 349 
 
 of a Sat/Awv, in accordance with a construction, Kara avvea-iv, 
 of which classical writers also make a similar use'; see Kiihner, 
 II. 1, p. 48 f. ; Bornemann in the Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 40. 
 a"xo\dovTa, ffeaap<ou. K. /eeKoaa.~\ empty (unpossessed), 
 swept and garnished, a climax by way of describing the man's 
 condition as one that is calculated to induce re-possession, not 
 to indicate (Bengel, de Wette, Bleek) that healthy state of 
 the soul which forms such an obstacle to the demon in his 
 efforts to regain admission, that he is led to call in the 
 assistance of others. This would be to represent the state of 
 the case in such a way as to make it appear that the demon 
 had found the house barred against him ; but it would like- 
 wise be at variance with the whole scope of the allegory, which 
 is designed to exhibit the hopeless incorrigibility of the yeved, 
 so that what is pragmatically assumed is not the idea of moral 
 soundness, but merely that of a readiness to welcome the 
 return- of evil influence after a temporary amendment. The 
 reinforcement by seven other spirits is not to be ascribed to 
 the need of greater strength in order to regain possession, but 
 rather (hence Trovyporepa, not la-^ypoTepa) to the fiendish 
 desire now to torment the man. much more than before; and 
 so, according to our interpretation, it is no more necessary to 
 impute the calling in of those others to the noble motive of 
 sympathetic friendship (de Wette's objection) than it would 
 be in the case of the legion with its association of demons. 
 ra ea^aTa] the last, i.e. the condition in which he finds him- 
 self under the latter possession ; ra rrpwra : when there was 
 only one demon within him. 2 Pet. ii. 20 ; Matt, xxvii. 64. 
 Vv. 4650. The same incident is given in Luke viii. 19 If. 
 in a different but extremely loose connection, and, as there 
 recorded, compares unfavourably with Matthew's version (in 
 answer to Schleiermacher, Keim). The occasion of the in- 
 cident as given in Mark iii. 20 ff. is altogether peculiar and 
 no doubt historical. ol dSe\(j>oi avTov] even if nothing 
 more were said, these words would naturally be understood to 
 refer to the brotJiers according to the flesh, sons of Joseph and 
 Mary, born after Jesus ; but this reference is placed beyond all 
 doubt by the fact that the mother is mentioned at the same
 
 350 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 time (Mark iii. 31 ; Luke viii. 19 ; John ii. 12 ; Acts i. 14), 
 just as in xiii. 55 the father and the sisters are likewise men- 
 tioned along with him. The expressions in i. 25, Luke ii. 7, 
 find their explanation in the fact of the existence of those 
 literal brothers of Jesus. Comp. note on i. 25 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5. 
 The interpretations which make them sons of Mary's sister, or 
 half brothers, sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, were 
 wrung from the words even at a very early period (the latter 
 already to be found as a legend in Origen ; the former, 
 especially in Jerome, since whose time it has come to be 
 generally adopted in the West), in consequence of the dogmatic 
 assumption of Mary's perpetual virginity (nay, even of a corre- 
 sponding state of things on the part of her husband as well), 
 and owing f to the extravagant notions which were entertained 
 regarding the superhuman holiness that attached to her person 
 as called to be the mother of Jesus. The same line of inter- 
 pretation is, for similar reasons, still adopted in the present 
 day by Olshausen, Arnoldi, Friedlieb, L. J. 36 ; Lange, 
 apost. Zeitalt. p. 189 ff. ; and in Herzog's Encykl. VI. p. 415 ff. ; 
 Lichtenstein, L. J. p. 100 ff. ; Hengstenberg on John ii. 12 ; 
 Schegg, and others ; also Dollinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 
 103 f., who take the brothers and sisters for sons and daughters 
 of Alphaeus i while Hofmann, on the other hand, has aban- 
 doned this view, which he had previously maintained (Erlang. 
 Zeitschr. 1851, Aug., p. 117), in favour of the correct inter- 
 pretation (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 405 ). See, besides, Clemen 
 in Winer's Zeitschr. 1829, 3, p. 329 ff. ; Blom, de rok aSeX<ofr 
 Kvpiov, 1839 ; Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 71 ff., 
 and note on Gal. i. 19 ; Schaf, ueber d. Verh. dcs Jak. Bruders 
 des Herrn zu Jakob. Alpliai, 1842 ; Neander, Gesch. d. 
 Pflanzung u. s. w. p. 554 ff. ; Hilgenfeld on Gal. p. 138 ff. ; 
 Wijbelingh, Diss. quis sit epistolae Jacobi scriptor, 1854, p. 
 1 ff. ; Eiggenbach, Vorles. ub. d. Leb. d. Herrn, p. 2 8 6 ff. ; 
 Huther on Jas. Einl. 1 ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 426 f.; Wiesinger, 
 2. Br. Judd Einl. ; Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 1 5 3 ff. ; Keim, I. p. 
 422 ff. For the various interpretations of the Fathers, see 
 Thilo, Cod. Apocr. I. p. 262 ff. e] The former incidenc 
 (ver. 22 ff.) must therefore have occurred in some house.
 
 CHAP. xii. 4c-;o. 351 
 
 Mark iii. 20; Luke viii. 20. eVt rov<f paGr/ras avroii] 
 not his hearers generally (TOIM? o^Xow), and yet not merely 
 the Twelve (ver. 50), but those who followed Him in the 
 character of disciples ; these He indicated by pointing to them 
 with the finger. ISoii 17 fi^rrjp pov, /e.r.X.] my nearest re- 
 lations in the true ideal sense of the word. Comp. Horn. //. 
 vi. 429; Dem. 237. 11 ; Xen. Anab. i. 3. 6, and Klihner's 
 note ; Eur. Hec, 280 f., and Pflugk's note. True kinship with 
 Jesus is established not by physical, but by spiritual relation- 
 ship; John i. 12 f., iii. 3; Eom. viii. 29. In reference to 
 the seeming harshness of the reply, Bengel appropriately ob- 
 serves: " Non spernit matrem, sed anteponit Patrem ; ver. 50, 
 et nunc non agnoscit matrem et fratres sub hoc formali." 
 Comp. Jesus' own requirement in x. 37. He is not to be 
 understood as avowing a sharp determination to break off His 
 connection with them (Weizsacker, p. 400), a view, again, 
 which the account in Mark is equally inadequate to support. 
 Besides, it is evident from our passage, compared with Mark 
 iii. 20 f., John vii. 3, 'that the mother of Jesus, who is placed 
 by the latter in the same category with the brothers, and 
 ranked below the naOijrai, cannot as yet be fairly classed 
 among the number of His believers, strange as this may seem 
 when viewed in the light of the early gospel narrative 
 (Olshausen has recourse to the fiction .of a brief struggle to 
 believe). Again, judging from the whole repelling tendency 
 of His answer, it would appear to be more probable that He 
 declined the interview with His relations altogether, than that 
 He afterwards still afforded them an opportunity of speaking 
 with Him, as is supposed by Ebrard and Schegg. Be this as 
 it may, there is nothing to justify Chrysostom and Theophylact 
 in charging the mother and the brothers with ostentation, 
 inasmuch as they had requested Jesus to come out to them, 
 instead of their going in to Him. oo-rt? yap, /e.r.X.] spoken 
 in the full consciousness of His being the Son of God, who 
 has duties incumbent upon Him in virtue of His mission. 
 aw TO 5] He, no other.
 
 352 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTEE XIIL 
 
 VER. 1. The omission of d< (Lachm. Tisch. 8) is supported by 
 B K, three Curss. It. Arm. Aeth. Or. But the apparently super- 
 fluous 8e might very easily be left out, coming as it does before 
 rr. avb r. o/'x.] Lachm. Tisch. 8: I-/, r. OIK., after Z X, 33, Or. 
 Chrys. Weakly attested. Yet B, Or. (once) omit the preposition 
 altogether. Ver. 2. rb -jrXo/bv] Lachm.: n-Xo/bn (B C L Z N). 
 But see on viii. 23. Ver. 4. ^X0g] Lachm.: %xdov, after D L Z, 
 Curss. Since xar'scpaytv below necessarily presupposes the 
 singular, this reading must be regarded as merely an error on 
 the part of the transcriber, which was amended in B, Curss. by 
 substituting s\66vra and omitting the following xai (so Tisch. 7). 
 Otherwise, Fritzsche, de conform. JN. T. crit. Lachm. p. 52 f. 
 Ver. 7. Instead of airlmigav, with Tisch. 8, read imgav, after 
 D N, Curss. The reading of the Received text is from Luke. 
 Ver. 9. axoveiv] is, with Tisch., to be deleted, in accordance with 
 B L K* Codd. It. See on xi. 15. Ver. 14. afiroft] Elz. : I* 
 auro/c, against decisive testimony. An interpretation. Ver. 1 5. 
 <ruvS<ri] So Elz. 1624, 1633, 1641, Griesb. Matth. Lachm. 
 Tisch., according to decisive testimony. Scholz : awtuffi. 
 idffupai] Lachm. Tisch. : ia.aofj.ai, after testimony of so decisive 
 a character that it cannot have been derived from the LXX., 
 while the subjunctive mood may have been adopted for sake of 
 conformity with the preceding verbs. Comp. on John xii. 40. 
 
 Ver. 16. After ura Lachm. deletes the superfluous vpuv, only 
 according to B, Curss. Codd. It. Hil.; and for axouti, he and Tisch. 
 read axovovaiv, after B C M X N and Curss. Or. Eus. Cyr. Chrys. 
 The latter is a mechanical conformation to the previous verb. 
 
 Ver. 17. ydp] is deleted by Tisch. 8, only after X K, Curss. 
 It. Arm. Aeth. Hil. Ver. 18. For evijpovros Lachm. Tisch. 8 
 read oxeipavrog, after B X S* Curss. Syr. p. Chrys. Correctly; 
 the ovsipuv of ver. 3 would still be lingering in the minds of the 
 transcribers. Therefore, in deference to still stronger testimony, 
 should eirftpavTi be adopted in ver. 24, with Lachm. and Tisch. 
 8. Ver. 22. roin-ou] omitted after aiuvoc in B D K* Arm. 
 Cant. Verc. Germ. 1, Corb. 2, Clar. Deleted by Lachm. and
 
 CHAP. xin. S53 
 
 Tisch. Explanatory addition. Ver. 23. The form 
 (Lachm. Tisch., after B D K, 238, Or.) instead of owiw has been 
 adopted in consequence of ver. 19. Ver. 25. savfips] Lachm. 
 and Tisch.: evriffwupev, after B K** (* has eveffirapxtv) and Curss. 
 Arm. It. Vulg. Clem. Or. and several Fathers. Correctly; how 
 easily might the preposition be dropped through carelessness 
 in transcribing! More easily than that the sniamiptv, 'which 
 occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, should have been 
 inserted as a gloss. Ver. 27. The article, which in Elz. is placed 
 before /av/, is deleted by Griesb. and the later critics, accord- 
 ing to decisive testimony. So also with regard to rf before 
 xuipw in ver. 30, where Fritzsche wrongly maintains rf to be 
 necessary. Ver. 30. e/'g d'ea^ag] D L X A, Curss. Or. Chrys. 
 Codd. I. have merely Ssa/tas, some with and others without aOra. 
 Tisch. 7 has deleted sis (comp. Einck), and that correctly ; an 
 explanatory addition. Ver. 32. The form xara.ax.wo7v (Lachm. 
 Tisch.) is only found in B* D ; in the case of Mark iv. 32, only 
 in B*. Ver. 34. ovx] Lachm. Tisch. : oud, after B C M A ** 
 Curss. Syr. p. Arm. Clem. Or. Chrys., should be adopted on the 
 strength of this testimony, and because oux is found in Mark, 
 and is by way of toning down the expression. Ver. 35. did] 
 N* 1, 13, 33, 124, 253 insert 'Hoaiov, which is supported by 
 Eus. Porphyr. and Jerom. A false gloss, 1 notwithstanding that 
 it is adopted by Tisch. 8. Jerom. suggests 'Aadp. xoapo-J] 
 deleted by Tisch. 8, after B ** 1, 22, several Codd. of the It. 
 Syi-cur Or. Clem. Eus. The omission was occasioned by the 
 LXX., which has merely &v y-pyys. Ver. 36. 6 'irjffoDj] and 
 auroft, ver. 37, as well should be deleted as interpolations, 
 according to B D N, Curss. Verss. and Or. Chrys. Ver. 40. 
 xaierai] Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. 8: xaraxaierai, after B D N. 
 Taken from ver. 30. For aluv. ro-jTov Lachm. and Tisch. have 
 merely aiuvog, after B D r N, Curss. Verss. Cyr. Ir. Hil. Cor- 
 rectly ; rourou is quite a common addition, as in ver. 22. Ver. 
 44. TX/K oAto/'a] B D N, Vulg. It. Syr cur Copt. Arm. Tisch. have 
 merely o/*o/a ; Lachm. has vahiv only in brackets. It would be 
 more readily deleted than inserted, for at this point a new 
 series of parables begins, and it would seem to be in its proper 
 
 1 A clear idea of the age of this erroneous addition may be obtained from the 
 fact that it was even found in a copy of Matthew made use of by the Clementine 
 Homilies (see Uhlhorn, Homil. u. Recogn. d. Clem. p. 119), and also from the 
 circumstance of Porphyry's chuckling over the 'Hfaiav as being an error on the 
 part of the inspired evangelist. But the weight of critical testimony is very 
 decidedly in favour of rejecting the reading 'Hruitv in Matthew as spurious (in 
 answer to Credner, Beitr. I. p. 302 ff. ; Schneckenburger, p. 136, and Bleek). 
 
 MATT. Z
 
 354 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 place only in the passage that follows (vv. 45, 47). Ver. 46. 
 For S; slpuv, we should, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. 
 and Tisch., read tvpuv ds, after B D L N, 1, 33, Cyr. Cypr. and 
 Verss. To continue the discourse with the relative was in 
 accordance with what precedes and what comes after, which 
 accounts for the relative construction superseding the evpuv 81, 
 which would seem to break the continuity. Ver. 48. Lachm. 
 has avrqv after ava/3//3. ; so also Tisch. 7. On too inadequate 
 testimony. With Tisch. 8, and on sufficient testimony, read 
 instead of ayytTa, the more uncommon term ayyjj. Ver. 51. 
 X'f/fi alroTs 6 'lr)ffovi\ before auvfa. is wanting in B D K, Copt. 
 Aeth. Vulg. Sax. It. (not Brix. Clar. Germ. 2) Or. Deleted by 
 Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. ; would be more readily inserted 
 than omitted, although the discourse of Jesus is only continued. 
 With Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., and on somewhat similar autho- 
 rity, we should delete the xupie after vat as being a common 
 addition. Ver. 52. rr jSaff/Xs/a] Elz. Scholz: ei; rr^v fiasitelav, 
 Lachm. : Iv rfj /Saff/x. (D M 42, Vulg. It. Chrys. Ir. Hil. Ambr. 
 Aug.). Both readings appear to be explanations of TTJ ftasi'k., 
 which latter is sufficiently confirmed by the testimony of B C 
 K n S, Curss. Syr. Ar. Aeth. Slav. Or. Ath. Cyr. Procop. 
 Ver. 55. 'lw<r5js] without adequate testimony, B C N** 1, 33, 
 Copt. Syr. p. (on the margin) Syr cur It. (exc. Cant.) Vulg. Sax. 
 Or. (twice) Eus. Jer. have 'L*rtjp.; DEFGMSUVXrN*? 
 Curss. Cant. Or. (once) have 'IWCCWTJS. Accordingly, with Lachm. 
 and Tisch., we ought to prefer 'lw<r^ as having the largest 
 amount of testimony in its favour. See, besides, Wieseler in 
 the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 677 ff. 
 
 Vv. 1-52. 'Ev 8e rfj 17^. e/e.] fuller detail than in Mark iv. 1, 
 which evangelist, however, describes the situation with more 
 precision, though he likewise introduces the parable of the 
 sower immediately after the scene with the mother and brothers 
 (otherwise in Luke viii.), and indeed as one of the many 
 (iv. 2, 33) that were spoken at that time, and thereupon 
 proceeds in ver. 26 ff. to add another having reference to 
 sowing, which is followed again by the parable of the mustard 
 seed, which Luke does not introduce till xiii. 18 ff. along with 
 that of the leaven. But seeing that Matthew lets it be 
 distinctly understood (ver. 36) that the four first parables (on 
 to ver. 34) were spoken in presence of the multitude, and the 
 other three again within the circle of the disciples, there is the
 
 CHAP. XIII. 2-5. 355 
 
 less reason for regarding the similarity of character which runs 
 through the seven, as recorded by Matthew, in the light of an 
 " overwhelming " with parables (Strauss), and the less need to 
 ascribe some of them (Keim, comp. Schenkel), and especially 
 those of the mustard seed and the leaven, to a different period, 
 from their being supposed to be applicable (Weizsacker) to a 
 later order of things. Yet, when we consider that Jesus 
 surveyed the future of his work with a prophetic eye, we 
 need not be at a loss to see how a parabolic address might 
 contemplate a later state of things just as fittingly as does the 
 Sermon on the Mount, to which this series of parables stands 
 in the same relation as the superstructure to the foundation of 
 a building. Comp. Ewald, who holds, however, that originally 
 the parables stood in a somewhat different order. airo T. 
 ot/cta?] is to be taken in connection with eo>, xii. 46, and 
 not to be regarded .as referring to no house in particular 
 (Hilgenfeld). 
 
 Ver. 2. To irXoiov] the boat standing by. eVt TOW 
 alyia\6v] along the shore (comp. xiv. 19), as in xviii. 12. 
 Winer, p. 380 [E. T. 508]; Nagelsbach, note on Horn. //. 
 ii. 308. The expression is suited to the idea of a gathering 
 of people extending over a considerable space. 
 
 Ver. 3 f. Tlapapo^r, (Arist. Rhet. ii. 20), ^, the nar- 
 rating of an incident which, though imaginary, still falls within 
 the sphere of natural events, with the view of thereby illustrating 
 some truth or other (Jva KOI e/jLtfraTiKcorepov TOV \6yov Troiija-rj, 
 teal TrXeiova rrjv (unjftaiv evQf}, KCU VTT' otyiv d<yd<yr] ra Trpdjfjiara, 
 Chrysostom). See Unger, de parabolar. Jesu natura, interpre- 
 tation, usu, 1828, who gives the following definition: collatio 
 per narratiunculam Jictam, sed veri similem, 1 serio illustrans 
 rem sublimiorem. 2 The correct canon for the interpretation of 
 
 1 To be distinguished from the fable, which, for example, may introduce 
 animals, trees, and such like as speaking and acting. " Fabula est, in qua nee 
 vera nee verisimiles res continentur, " Cic. invent, i. 19. So far as appears from 
 the New Testament, Christ newer made use of the fable; as little did the apostles; 
 in the Old Testament, in Judg. ix. 8 ff. 
 
 3 Observe, moreover, that the New Testament ra/>a/3aX and ^Wft &y mean 
 
 T T 
 
 something more comprehensive and less definite (including every description of 
 figurative speech, Mark iii. 23. iv. 30, vii. 17 ; Luke iv. 23, v. 36, vi. 39.
 
 356 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the parables is already to be found in Chrysostom on xx. 1 : 
 ovSe %pr) irdvra ra ev rais Trapapo\ai<; Kara \ej-iv irepiepyd- 
 %e<r0ai, d\\a rov O-KOTTOV padovres, Si' ov a-vveredrj, TOVTOV 
 BpeTT6<r6ai Kal fJiySev 7ro\V7rpayfjLOveiv Trepairepw. o ffireiptav\ 
 the sower, whom I have in view. Present participle, used as 
 a substantive. See on ii. 20. A similar parable is given in 
 the Jerusalem Talmud Kilaim I. f. 27. Trap a r. 6 Soy] 
 upon the road (which went xound the edge of the field), so 
 that it was not ploughed in or harrowed in along with the 
 rest. ra 7Trp(i)Bij] the rocky parts, i.e. " saxum continuum 
 sub terrae superficie tenui," BengeL 
 
 Ver. 6 f. 'Efcavfiar.] was scorched (Rev. xvi. 8 f. ; Plut. 
 Mor. p. 100 D, with reference to fever-heat). 8ia TO firj 
 e%eiv pi%av] Owing to the shallowness of the earth, the seed 
 sent up shoots before the root was duly formed. eVt ra<? 
 d/cdv0.] upon the thorns (which were about to spring up 
 there), and these grew up (avejBr)<rav, Xen. Oec. xix. 18), shot 
 up. Comp. Jer. iv. 3 ; Theophrastus, c. pi. ii. 1 7. 3 : TO rfj 
 dtcdvOg 7rHnTeip6fjt,evov (nrepfj.a. 
 
 Ver. 8. 'Eicarbv K.T.\.] That grains are meant is self- 
 evident, without our having to supply Kapirovs. For the 
 great fertility of the East, and especially of Galilee, consult 
 Wetstein on this passage. Dougtius, Anal. II. p. 1 5 f. ; Koster, 
 Erldut. p. 171 ; Keim, II. p. 448. However, such points of 
 detail (cornp. as to exarov, Gen. xxvi. 12) should not be 
 pressed, serving as they do merely to enliven and fill out the 
 picture. 
 
 Vv. 9, 10. See on xi. 15. The parabolic discourse is 
 resumed at ver. 24, after Jesus has finished the private 
 exposition of those already spoken, into which he was led in 
 consequence of the question addressed to him by the disciples. 
 The exposition was given in the boat, where it is sufficiently 
 possible to conceive such a conversation to have taken place 
 
 xiv. 7 ;' Matt. xv. 15, xxiv. 32) than is implied in the above definition of the 
 parable as a hermeneutical terminus ttchnicus. Comp. the Johannean />/,/ 
 (note on John x. 6). John does not use the word parable ; but then he does 
 not report any such among the sayings of Jesus, though he has a few allegories ; 
 as, for example, those of the vine and the good shepherd.
 
 CHAP. xiii. 11, 12. 357 
 
 without the necessity of our regarding the whole situation as 
 imaginary (Hilgenfeld), or without our having to suppose it 
 " rather more probable " that the exposition took place after 
 the whole series of parables was brought to a close (Keim). 
 Ver. 10. The question, which in Matthew is framed to suit 
 the reply (Neander, Weiss, Holtzmann), appears in a different 
 and certainly more original form (ia answer to Keiin) in 
 Mark iv. 10; Luke viii. 9. 
 
 Ver. 11. JeSorcu] by God, through the unfolding, that is, 
 of your inward powers of perception, not merely by means of 
 the exposition (Weizsacker, p. 413). The opposite condition, 
 ver. 13. yvuvat] even without the help of parabolic illus- 
 tration, although previous to the outpouring of the Spirit, nay, 
 previous to the second coming (1 Cor. xiii. 9 f.), this would 
 always be the case only to an imperfect degree. TO, ^var. 
 r. fta<r. r. ovpav.] the secret things of the Messiah's kingdom, 
 things which refer to the Messiah's kingdom. They are called 
 fj,v(TTrjpta, because their aTroKaXvfyis was now being brought 
 about for the first time by means of the gospel. Comp. note 
 on Bom. xi. 25, xvi. 25. They are the purposes that are hid 
 in God, which man can only know by the help of divine 
 teaching, and which the gospel unveils. eicelvois Se ov 
 SeSorou] is still to be connected with on (because). 
 
 Ver. 12. Proverbial saying derived from the experience of 
 ordinary life (xxv. 29): The wealthy man will become still 
 richer even to superabundance ; while the poor man, again, 
 will lose the little that still remains to him ; see Wetstein. In 
 this instance the saying is used with reference to spiritual 
 possessions, and is applied thus : With the knowledge you have 
 already acquired, you are ever penetrating more deeply and fully 
 into the things of God's kingdom ; the multitude, on the other 
 hand, would lose altogether the little capacity it has for under- 
 standing divine truth, unless I were, to assist its weak powers of 
 apprehension by parabolic illustrations. The contrast between 
 the two cases in question is not to be regarded as consisting 
 in uti and non uti (Grotius), being willing and not being willing 
 (Schegg). For the passive Trepia-<revecr6ai, to be in possession 
 of a superabundance, see on Luke xv. 17. 00-7*9 e^et is
 
 358 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the nominative absolute, as in vii. 24, x. 14. e%eiv and OVK 
 %iv, in the sense of rich and poor, is likewise very common 
 in classical authors, Ast, ad Plat. Legg. V. p. 172 ; Bornemann, 
 ad Xen. Anal. vi. 6. 38. 
 
 Ver. 13. A La TOVTO] refers to what immediately precedes'; 
 because their case is similar to that of the poor, and so they 
 would lose the little that they had ; but the on (because, 
 namely) which follows introduces an explanation by way of 
 justifying Bia TOVTO (comp. John x. 17), and which depicts in 
 proverbial language (Isa. xxxii. 3, xxxv. 5 f., 9 f. ; Jer. v. 21) 
 the people's dulness of apprehension. It is unnecessary to make 
 the reference of Bta TOVTO extend so far back as ver. 11 
 (Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek). In defiance of grammar, yet in 
 deference to the parallels in Mark and Luke, Olshausen says 
 that OTI, because, expresses the result intended (wo) ; similarly 
 Schegg; comp. also Weizsacker, p. 413. 
 
 Vv. 14, 15. Kal] still depending on ort; but, in a manner 
 suited to the simplicity of the language, and the conspicuous 
 reference to the fulfilling of the prophecy, it begins a new 
 sentence : and indeed so utterly incapable are they of com- 
 prehending the pure, literal statement of divine truth is being 
 fulfilled with regard to them, and so on. dva7r\r)p., as being 
 more forcible than the simple verb (comp. on Gal. vi. 2, and 
 K7r\r)p., Acts xiii. 33), is expressly chosen (occurring nowhere 
 else in Matthew, and, as referring to the predictions and such 
 like, not found again in the whole New Testament), and for sake 
 of emphasis placed at the beginning of the sentence ; avTols 
 is the dative of reference : the fulfilment of the prophet's 
 words is realized in them. The passage in question is Isa. 
 vi 9, 10, as found in the LXX. Comp. on John xii. 40 ; 
 Acts xxviii. 25 ff. eira^vvdrf] in a metaphorical sense, like 
 pinguis. See Wetstein. The expression represents the indolent 
 and inactive state into which the energies of the spiritual life 
 have been allowed to sink. /Sapeco? rjKovaav] they have 
 become dull of hearing (fiapvijKooi). eicdfifjLva-av] have they 
 dosed, Isa. vi. 10, xxix. 10; Lam. ill 44. The genuine 
 Greek form is KaTapveiv. See Lobeck, Phryn. p. 339 f . ; 
 Becker, Anecd. I. p. 103. /j,rJ7roTe] ne ; they are not willing
 
 C1IAP. XIII. 14, 15. 359 
 
 to be instructed by me, and morally healed. This shows that, 
 in regard to the weakness of their capacity, it is their own 
 will that is to blame. By adopting the reading Idaopai (see 
 the critical remarks) we do not introduce the meaning, which 
 is out of place in the present instance : and I will heal them 
 (Fritzsche), but rather effect a change in the construction of 
 fArjTrore (Heindorf, ad Plat. Crat. p. 36 ; Hermann, ad Soph. 
 El. 992 ; Winer, p. 468 [E. T. 630]), that is, in accordance 
 with the sense (because expressing the result}. Comp. note 
 on Mark xiv. 2. Notice in idaojjMi the consciousness of being 
 a personal revelation of God. 
 
 REMAEK. According to Matthew, then, the principle on 
 which Jesus proceeds is this : He speaks to the multitude in 
 parables, because this mode of instruction is suited to their 
 intellectual poverty and obtuseness. Plain literal teaching 
 would fail to attract them, and so lead to their conversion, 
 which latter their very obtuseness stubbornly resists. But what 
 is spoken in a parabolic form captivates and lays hold of the 
 man of limited comprehension, so that it does not repel him 
 from his instructor, but rather becomes in him, even though 
 not yet apprehended in its abstract meaning, the starting-point 
 of a further gradual development of fuller understanding and 
 ultimate conversion. There is no reason why de Wette should 
 be stumbled to find that the disciples themselves likewise failed 
 to understand the parable, and were therefore on the same level 
 as the multitudes ; therefore, he argues, one is at a loss to see 
 why Jesus did not favour the latter also with an explanation. 
 But the difference between the two cases is, that the disciples, 
 from having been already converted, and from their minds 
 having been already stimulated and developed by intercourse 
 with Jesus, were just in a position to understand the interpreta- 
 tion, which the people, on the other' hand, were incapable of 
 doing, so that it was necessary to present to them the mere 
 illustration, the parable without the interpretation, in order to, 
 first, interest and attract them. They had to be treated like 
 children, for whose physical condition the only suitable food is 
 milk, and not strong meat likewise, whereas the disciples had 
 already shown themselves capable of receiving the strong meat 
 as well. Consequently de Wette is wrong in conceiving of the 
 matter differently from the representation of it given by the 
 evangelists, and which is to this effect : that the object of Jesus
 
 360 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 in awakening a spirit of inquiry by means of the parables was, 
 that those so awakened should come to Him to obtain instruction ; 
 that those who did so are to be regarded as the fiadrirai in the 
 more comprehensive sense of the word ; and that to them the 
 explanation was given and the congratulation addressed ; while, 
 on the other hand, Jesus pities the unimpressionable multitude, 
 and applies to them the words of Isa. vi. 9 f. (cornp. already 
 Mlinster). Lastly, Hilgenfeld professes to find in this passage 
 indications of the view, censured by Strauss as " melancholy," 
 that the use of parables was mot intended to aid weak powers 
 of comprehension, but in the truly literal sense of the words to 
 keep them slumbering. But as regards Matthew, above all, this 
 is out of the question, seeing that in ver. 13 he has on, and not 
 7va. Comp. Keim also, II. p. 441. It is otherwise in Mark 
 iv. 12; Luke viii. 10. 
 
 Vv. 16, 17. 'T/j,wv] stands first for sake of emphasis, and in 
 contrast to the stupid multitude. /jLa/cdpiot ol o<j)0a\fj,oi] 
 Personification of the faculty of sight. Luke xi. 27 ; Acts 
 v. 9; Isa. Hi. 7. on /SXeTrouo-4 . . . on, aicovei] The 
 thought underlying this (and keeping in view w. 13, 15) 
 may be stated thus : your intellect, as regards the apprehension 
 of divine truth, is not unreceptive and obtuse, but susceptible 
 and active. yap] justifies the congratulation on the ground 
 of the important nature of the matter in question. Sitcatot] 
 Upright, holy men of old. Comp. x. 41, xxiii. 29, also ayiot, 
 xxvii. 52. ISeiv a (3\e7T6Te, /c.r.X] the fjbva-Ttjpia -nfc /Sacrt- 
 Xet'a9, ver. 11; Heb. xi. 13, 39. The vision of Abraham, 
 John viii. 56, is foreign to the present passage, from the fact 
 of its not having been seen during his life in the body. The 
 fi\.e7reiv in ver. 16 was equivalent to, to le capable of seeing, 
 while here it means simply to see. Comp. note on John ix. 
 39. But there is no ground for supposing that Matthew has 
 mixed up two distinct discourses (de Wette). 
 
 Yer. 18 f. 'Tfieis] emphatic, as in ver. 16. ovv] for it 
 is with you precisely as has been said in ver. 16. atcov- 
 o-are] not : understand (de Wette), but : hear, attend to the 
 parable, that is, with a view to see the meaning that it is 
 intended to convey. Travrbs, K.T.X.] an anacoluthon. The 
 evangelist had perhaps intended to write: Trai/ros a/covoi/ro?
 
 CHAP. XIII. 21. 361 
 
 ex Trfi tcapSias ap-rrd^ei o Trovtjpb<; TO e&Trapfjievov, 
 from the heart of every one that hears without understanding, the 
 wicked one, and so on ; but, from the circumstance of the 
 epxerai coming in the way, he was led to break off the con- 
 struction with which he had set out. Bornemann in the 
 Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 107. T, \6<yov r. /Sao-.] the preach- 
 ing of the Messianic kingdom, iv. 23, xxiv. 14; Acts i. 3, 
 xxviii. 31. <TvvievTo<t] understands, not: attends to it, which 
 is grammatically and contextually (GV TJJ KapSia) wrong (in 
 answer to Beza, Grotius). Mark and Luke say nothing what- 
 ever here about the not understanding ; it does not appear to 
 have been found in the collection of our Lord's sayings (\ojia), 
 but to have been added to the original narrative by way of 
 explanation (Ewald), its adoption being now rendered further 
 necessary owing to the turn given to the sentence by traino?, 
 which latter would otherwise be- out of place. The explanation 
 given in this addition happens, however, to be correct ; for the 
 word that is not understood, that is, not appropriated through 
 the understanding, lies on the surface of the heart without 
 being incorporated with the inner life, and therefore, in 
 presence of the devil's temptations, is the more liable to be 
 forgotten again, and cast away, so that faith fails to take 
 possession of the heart (Rom. x. 10). OVTOV ecrriv, K.T.\.] a 
 cutting short of a similitude before it is fully worked out, that 
 is not uncommon owing to the liveliness of the Oriental 
 imagination. Not the man, but the truth taught, is 6 o-Tra/aei?. 
 What is meant is to this effect : This is he in whose case the 
 seed was sown upon the road. Others (Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, 
 Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Rosen- 
 miiller/Kuinoel) interpret : This is he who was sown upon the 
 road. Paulus and Vater refer OUTO? to Xo709. Neither of 
 the explanations harmonizes with vv. 20, 22, 23. That the 
 loss of the seed is tantamount to the loss of one's own life, 
 though not stated in so many words (Lange), is implied in the 
 nature of the case. 
 
 Ver. 21. Description of one whose mind is so stirred as 
 instantly to welcome the word with joy, but who, when sub- 
 jected to the testing influence of affliction, abandons his faith
 
 362 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 and relapses into his former condition. Such an one is 
 without root in Ms own inner bsi?ig, i.e. he is destitute of that 
 faith (Eph. iii. 16 f.) which, as a power in the heart, is fitted 
 to maintain and foster the life that has been momentarily 
 awakened by means of the word. Trpoa fcaip 05] temporary, 
 not lasting, not enduring. See Wetstein. O^ltyetos r? 
 Siwypov] by means of the "or" the special is added on to 
 the general. o-/cavBa\^eTai] he encounters a stumbling- 
 block, i.e. a temptation to unbelief; see notes on v. 29, i. 6. 
 Affliction in his case proves a Tretpaoyio? to which he succumbs. 
 Substantially the same as Luke viii. 13 : a^icrravTat. 
 
 Ver. 22. 'Atcovcov] is simply to hear, as in all the other 
 cases in which it is here used ; and neither, with Grotius, are 
 we to supply teal pera %a/aa? \a/jt,/3dvo3v, nor, with Kuinoel 
 and Bleek, to take it in the sense of admittere. The care for 
 this world, which (vv. 39, 49) extends even to the setting up 
 of the promised kingdom (TOVTOV is a correct gloss), is the care 
 which men cherish with regard to temporal objects and tem- 
 poral affairs, as contrasted with the higher concern, the striving 
 after the Messiah's kingdom (vi. 33). Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10. 
 
 aTrarrj] the deceitfulness of those riches, which (personified) 
 delude men with their enticements ; not : " Delectatio, qua 
 divitiae animos hominum afficiunt" (Kuinoel), a classical 
 meaning of curdr?) (Polyb. ii. 56. 12, iv. 20. 5) which is 
 foreign to the New Testament, and which in this instance is 
 as unnecessary as it is flat. 2 Thess. ii 10 ; Heb. iii. 13. 
 cLKapir. yiv.] not the word (Bengel), but the man; see ver. 23. 
 
 Ver. 23. "O?] refers to a/c. K. cvv. For the more correct 
 accentuation, a-vviwv, see note on Eom. iii. 11. 77] gives 
 significance and prominence to. the 05: and now this is he 
 who ; " ut intelligas, ceteros omnes infrugiferos, hunc demum 
 reddere fructum," Erasmus. See Hartung, PartiJcell. I. p. 
 2*74 f. ; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 404 ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 106. 
 
 Whether we ought to read 6 fiev . . . o &e . . . 6 e (Beza, 
 Grotius), or o fjuev , . . o Se . . . o Be (Bengel, Lachmann, Tischen- 
 dorf, following the Vulgate), is certainly not to be determined 
 by Mark iv. 20, though I should say the latter is to be pre- 
 ferred, on account of the solemn emphasis with which, accord-
 
 CHAP. XIII. 24, 25. 303 
 
 ing to this reading, the concluding words of the parable itself 
 are repeated at the close of the exposition, without their 
 requiring any particular explanation : the one (seed, i.e., accord- 
 ing to the blending which takes place of the figure and the 
 person : one of those who hear and understand) brings forth a 
 hundred, the other sixty, and so on. 
 
 Ver. 24. AVTOIS] to the multitude. Comp. vv. 3, 10, 34. 
 a)fj,o(,(t)dr)] the Messiah's kingdom has become like (see note 
 on vii. 26). The aorist is to be explained from the fact that 
 the Messiah has already appeared, and is now carrying on His 
 work in connection with His kingdom. Comp. xii. 28. 
 aTreipavrt, (see critical remarks) : the sowing had taken place ; 
 whereupon followed the act that is about to be mentioned. 
 It is to be observed, moreover, that the kingdom is not repre- 
 sented merely by the person of the sower, but by his sowing 
 good seed, and by all that follows thereupon (as far as ver. 
 30); but to such an extent is the sower the leading feature 
 in the parable, that we are thereby enabled to account for such 
 phraseology as u>p.oi(a6r] rj /Sao-tXeta . . . avdpuTra (rireipavTi. 
 Comp. ver. 45, xviii. 23, xx. 1. 
 
 Ver. 25. Zi%dviov] Darnel, lolium temulentum, a grain 
 resembling wheat, acting injuriously upon the brain and 
 stomach, and likewise known by the name of alpa ; . see 
 Suidas. In Talmudic language it is called pit ; Buxtorf, Lex. 
 Talm. p. 680. The people who slept are men generally (prag- 
 matic way of hinting that it was during the night, when no 
 one else would be present), not merely the agri custodes 
 (Bengel), or the labourers (Michaelis, Paulus), whom it would 
 have been necessary to indicate more particularly by means 
 of SouXot or some similar expression. This little detail forms 
 part of the drapery of the parable (comp. xxv. 5), and is not 
 meant to be interpreted (as referring, say to the sleep of sin, 
 Calovius; or to the negligence of instructors, Chrysostom, 
 Jerome ; or to the slowness of man's spiritual development, 
 Lange), as is further evident from the fact that Jesus Himself 
 has not so explained it. avrov o ex&p.] his enemy ; comp. 
 note on viii. 3 l-rriaireipeiv : to sow o'oer what was previously 
 sown, Find. Nem. viii. 67 ; Theophr. c.pl. iii. 1 5. 4 ; Poll. L 223.
 
 364 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Vv. 26 ff. It was only when they were in the ear that it 
 was possible to distinguish between the wheat and the tares, 
 which when in the blade resembled it so much. eruXXef &>- 
 fiev~] deliberative; shall we gather together? e/cpi^wo-rjTe] 
 ye take out by the root. The roots of tares and wheat are 
 intertwined with each other. apa avrol*;] along with them. 
 apa, which is in the first instance to be regarded as an adverb 
 (hence a/*a crvv, 1 Thess. iv. 1 7, v. 1 0), is also used as a pre- 
 position by classical writers (which Klotz, ad Devar. p. 97 f., 
 denies, though without reason), and that not merely in refer- 
 ence to time (xx. 1), but on other occasions, such as the pre- 
 sent for example. Herod, vi. 138; Soph. Phil. 971, 1015; 
 Polyb. iv. 2. 11, x, 18. 1 ; comp. Wisd. xviii 11 ; 2 Mace. 
 xi. 7. 
 
 Ver. 30. 'Ev xaipm] without the article, Winer, p. 118 
 [E. T. 147 ff.]. 8 770- are avra Seo-/*.] (see critical remarks) : 
 bind them into bundles. For this construction of Sijo: with two 
 accusatives, considering the resemblance between it and the 
 root of Secr/j,., comp. Klihner, II. 1, p. 274. The explanation 
 of the parable, which latter is different from that given in 
 Mark iv. 26 ff. (in answer to Holtzmann, Weiss), is furnished 
 by Jesus Himself in ver. 37 ff. It is to this effect. The 
 visible church, up till the day of judgment, is to comprise 
 within its pale those who are not members of the invisible 
 church, and who shall have no part in the kingdom that is to 
 be established. The separation is not a thing with which 
 man is competent to deal, but must be left in the hands of 
 the Judge. The matter is to be understood, however, in a 
 broad and general way, so that it cannot be said at all to 
 affect the right of individual excommunication and restoration. 
 In regard to individuals, there remains the possibility (to which, 
 however, the parable makes no reference whatever) : " ut qui 
 hodie sunt zizania, eras sint frumentum," Augustine. 
 
 Ver. 31. SivaTrt] a herbaceous plant that, in the East, 
 sometimes attains to the height of a small tree ; Celsii Hierob. 
 II. p. 250 ff. In Attic Greek it is called VCLTTV, Phrynichus, 
 ed. Lobeck, p. 228. Inasmuch as the plant belongs (ver. 32) 
 to the order of the \a^ava } it is unnecessary to suppose, with
 
 CITAP. XIII. 32, S3. 3C5 
 
 Ewald (Jahrb. II. p. 32 f.), that it is the mustard- tree (Salvadora 
 Persica, Linnaeus) that is intended ; comp. in preference the 
 expression BevSpdXd^ava (Theophrastus, h. pi. i. 3. 4). 
 \a/3<ov] an instance of the usual circumstantiality (comp. 
 ver. 33), but not intended to convey the idea of the care with 
 which so tiny a seed is taken into the hand (Lange). 
 
 Ver. 32. f 'O] refers to KOKKO? O-IVUTT., and owes its gender 
 to the fact of its being attracted by the neuter following ; 
 Winer, p. 156 [E. T. 217 ff.]. fjUKporepov] not instead 
 of the superlative; see, however, on note xi. 11. But, inas- 
 much as this is a proverbial expression of a hyperbolical 
 character, little need be made of the fact that seeds of a still 
 more diminutive kind are to be met with; comp. xvii. 20, 
 and Lightfoot. " Satis est, in genere verum esse, quod dicit 
 Dominus," Erasmus. T>V \a^dvo>v\ than any other vege- 
 table. orav 8e avg. #.T.\.] but when it shall have grown, 
 portrays the extraordinary result that follows tha sowing of 
 the tiny little seed. The astonishing nature of such a result 
 is still more forcibly brought out in Luke xiii. 19 by means 
 of BevBpov fj,eya. Karaa-icJ] dwell. The interpretation of the 
 word as meaning to build nests (Erasmus) is not general 
 enough; comp. note on viii. 20. 
 
 Ver. 33. %drov\ nxp, one-third of an ephah, a dry measure, 
 and, according to Josephus, Antt. ix. 4. 5, and Jerome on this 
 passage, equivalent to one and a half Roman bushels. It befits 
 the pictorial style of the passage that it should mention a 
 definite quantity of flour ; without any special object for doing 
 so, it mentions what appears to be the usual quantity (Gen. 
 xviii. 6 ; Judg. vi. 19 ; 1 Sam. i. 24). So much the more 
 arbitrary is Lange's remark, that three is the number of the 
 spirit. A great deal in the way of allegorizing the three adra 
 is to be found in the Fathers. According to Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, they denote the Greeks, Jews, and Samaritans ; 
 Augustine, Melanchthon suppose them to signify the heart, the 
 soul, and the spirit. 
 
 The parable of the mustard seed is designed to show that 
 the great community, consisting of those who are to participate 
 in the Messianic kingdom, i.e. the true people of God as con-
 
 360 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 stituting the body politic of the future kingdom, is destined to 
 develope from a small beginning into a vast multitude, and 
 therefore to grow extensively ; TTOI/JLVIOV 6We<? oXiyov, 619 aTreipov 
 rjv$q&r)<rav t Euth. Zigabenus ; Acts i. 15, ii. 41, 47, iv. 4, 
 v. 14, vi. 7, xxi. 20 ; Eom. xv. 19, xi. 25 f. The parable 'of 
 the leaven, on the other hand, is intended to show how the 
 specific influences of the Messiah's kingdom (Eph. iv. 4 ff.) 
 gradually penetrate the whole of its future subjects, till by 
 this means the entire mass is brought intensively into that 
 spiritual condition which qualifies it for being admitted into 
 the kingdom. 
 
 Ver. 34. OvSev eXaXet] Kara rbv icaipov erceivov SrjXaBij, 
 Euth. Zigabenus ; comp. Chrysostom. This is further indi- 
 cated by the imperfect relative (previously aorists were being 
 used). The absolute sense in which the words are under- 
 stood by Baumgarten-Crusius and Hilgenfeld is inconsistent 
 with historical facts ; nor could Matthew, or Mark iv. 34, have 
 intended the words to be so taken without being guilty of the 
 grossest absurdity. This in answer no less to Weiss, Holtz- 
 mann, Volkmar. 
 
 Ver. 35. The circumstance that, on this occasion, Jesus 
 spoke exclusively in parabolic language, was supposed, accord- 
 ing to the divine order in history, to be a fulfilling l of, and 
 so on. Trpo^tfrov] Asaph, who in 2 Chron. xxix. 30 is 
 called nrhn (LXX. has rot) irpoQiJTov). The passage referred 
 
 1 The passage, however, is not a prophecy so far as its historical meaning is 
 concerned, but only according to the typical reference which the evangelist dis- 
 cerns in it. In the original Hebrew it is expressly said T'C'Dn, not in parables, 
 but in a song of proverbs, the contents of which, however, though historical from 
 beginning to end, "latentes rerum Messiae figuras continebat " (Grotius), and a 
 similar instance of which we meet with afterwards in the discourse of Stephen. 
 Accordingly, the prophet, instructing and warning as he does by means of a 
 typical use of history, is looked upon by the evangelist as the type of Christ 
 speaking in parabolic narratives, and through this medium unfolding the 
 mysteries of the completed theocracy. In Christ he finds realized what the 
 prophet says with reference to himself : vo/|, etc., and iptv&ftai, etc., the anti- 
 typical fulfilment, though it must be granted that in doing so it is undoubtedly 
 the expression it <rapap/>*.a7s on which he makes the whole thing to turn, but 
 that, availing himself of a freedom acknowledged to be legitimate in the use of 
 types, he has employed that expression in a special sense, and one that is foreigr 
 to the original Hebrew.
 
 CHAP. XIII. 36-38. 367 
 
 to is Ps. Ixxviii. 2, the first half being according to the LXX., 
 the second a free rendering of the Hebrew text. epeuyea-Oai] 
 to give forth from the mouth, V^n, employed by Alexandrian 
 Jews in the sense of pronuntiare, Ps. xviii. 2 ; Lobeck, ad 
 Phryn. p. 63 f. Ke/cpvpfj,. ATTO /cara/3. tfo<r/i.] i.e. ra p,va- 
 Ti'jpia T?)? fiao-iXeias, Rom. xvi. 25. 
 
 Ver. 36. Trjv oiKiav] the house mentioned in ver. 1. 
 <j>pdcrov; comp. xv. 15. Occurs nowhere else in the New 
 Testament. It denotes speaking in the way of explaining, 
 unfolding anything. Plat. Gorg. p. 463 E, Theaet. p. 
 180 B; Soph. Track. 158, Phil 555. The reading Siaad- 
 (firja-ov (Lachmann, after B N and Origen once) is a correct 
 gloss. 
 
 Vv. 37, 38. In explaining this parable Jesus contents Him- 
 self, as far as ver. 39, with short positive statements, in order 
 merely to prepare the way for the principal matter with which 
 He has to deal (ver. 40), and thereafter to set it forth with 
 fuller detail. There is consequently no ground for treating 
 this explanation as if it had not belonged to the collection of 
 our Lord's sayings (Ewald, Weiss, Holtzmann), for regarding 
 it as an interpolation on the part of the evangelist, in advo- 
 cating which view Weiss lays stress upon a want of harmony 
 between the negative points in the parable and the positive 
 character of the exposition ; while Hilgenfeld questions the 
 correctness of this exposition, because he thinks that, as the 
 progress that takes place between the sowing and the harvest 
 corresponds with and is applicable to the whole history of the 
 world, therefore the sower cannot have been Christ, but God 
 and Him only, an objection which has been already disposed 
 of by the first parable in the series. The good seed represents 
 the sons of the kingdom, the (future) subjects, citizens of the 
 Messianic kingdom (comp. note on viii. 12), who are estab- 
 lished as such by the Messiah in their spiritual nature, which 
 is adapted thereto (6 travlpmt TO KO,\OV cnrepua ecrriv 6 v/o? rov 
 avQptoTTov, ver. 37). It is not "fruges ex bono semine enatae" 
 (Fritzsche) that are intended by TO Be tca\ov o-7rep/j.a, but see 
 vv. 24, 25. ol viol TOU Trovrjpov] whose ethical nature is 
 derived from the devil (see ver. 39). Comp. John viii. 41,
 
 3 08 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 44 ; 1 John iii. 8, 1 0. Not specially : the heretics (the 
 Fathers and several of the older expositors). 
 
 Ver. 39. SvvreXeia r. ala)vo<f] not found in any of the 
 other Gospels : the close of the (current) age (ver. 22), i.e. of the 
 pre-Messianic epoch ; the great catastrophe that is to accompany 
 the second coming, and which is to introduce the Messianic 
 judgment, 4 Esdr. vii. 43 ; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 39 ; comp. 
 vv. 40, 49, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20 ; Heb. ix. 26, and see note on 
 xii. 32. The reapers are anyds ; see xxiv. 31; comp. John 
 xv. 6. 
 
 Ver. 40. Kcuercu] not KaraicaieTai, but are set on fire. 
 No doubt the tares are consumed by tire (ver. 30); still the 
 point of the comparison does not lie in their being consumed, but 
 in the fact of their being set on fire, a fact which is intended 
 to illustrate the everlasting punishment now beginning to 
 overtake the wicked in Gehenna. John X:V. 6 ; Matt. xxv. 46. 
 The wicked (the <rKav&a\a, ver. 41 ; the craTrpd, ver. 47) 
 are connected with the church as a mere outward institution, 
 but do not belong to the number of its living members (to the 
 body of Christ). Comp. Apol. Conf. A. p. 147 f. ; Thomasius, 
 Chr. Pers. u. Werk, III. 2, p. 370. 
 
 Ver. 41. Avrov . . . avrov] they are His to serve Him 
 whenever He chooses to command ; " majestas filii hominis," 
 Bengel ; comp. note on viii. 20. a-v\\el;ov<riv e/c] pregnant 
 expression, equivalent to: colligent et secernent ex. ex rfjs 
 f3ao-i\. avrov] for the judgment will take place as soon as 
 the earth has undergone that process of renovation (xxiv. 2 9 f. ; 
 2 Pet. iii. 13) which is to transform it into the scene of the 
 Messiah's kingdom. Moreover, the separation about which 
 Jesus here speaks is a separation of persons of the good on 
 the one hand, from the bad on the other, which, again, is the 
 only means of likewise effecting a separation between good 
 and bad things. Comp. xxiv. 31. Jesus distinguishes only 
 between <ricdvoa\a and Slicatoi,, without recognising any inter- 
 mediate classes of men (xxv. 32 f.), a view which subsequently 
 found its explanation in the doctrine of faith and of justifica- 
 tion by faith. The question as to whether or not there are 
 various degrees of felicity for the righteous, as of punishment
 
 CIIAi'. XIII. 42-46. 369 
 
 for the wicked, is one upon which the present passage does not 
 touch. a-Kav8a\a] stumbling -blocks, i.e. men who, through 
 their unbelief and sin, may put temptation in the way of others. 
 Comp. xvi. 23. Euth. Zigabenus is correct, so far as the sub- 
 stantial meaning is concerned, when he observes : cricdvSaXa 
 KOI iroiovvre? rrjv avopiav TOU<? aurou? ovofid^ei. For this 
 abstract way of designating individuals by means of the cha- 
 racteristic feature in their character, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 10 f. 
 The avo/j,M is immorality, as in vii. 23, xxiii. 28, xxiv. 12. 
 
 Ver. 42. The furnace (Dan. iii. 6) represents Gehenna. 
 Comp. Eev. xx. 15. 6 K\av0/j,6<}] see note on viii. 12. 
 
 Ver. 43. Tore] then, when this purging out of all the 
 a-KavSa\a has been effected. e/eXa/*,^.] the compound verb, 
 which is used on purpose (to shine forth, to burst into light, 
 Xen. Cyr. vii. 1, 2 ; Plat. Gorg. p. 484 A, Rep. iv. p. 435 A), 
 and so not to be taken merely as descriptive of eternal felicity 
 in its general aspect, but as conveying the idea of a sublime 
 display of majestic splendour, of the Sofa of the righteous in 
 the future kingdom of the Messiah. Comp. Dan. xiii. 3 ; 
 Enoch xxxviii. 4, xxxix. 7, civ. 4. Contrast to the fate of 
 the wicked in the furnace of fire. TOV irarpo<; avr&v] 
 sweet closing words, full of blessed confidence, xxv. 34. 
 
 Vv. 44 ff. nd\tv oftoia] introduces a second illustration 
 of the kingdom of the Messiah, by way of continuing that 
 instruction of the disciples which began with ver. 36. eV 
 T3 d<yp<j>] in the field; the article being generic. For cases 
 of treasure - trove mentioned by Greek and Roman writers, 
 consult Wetstein. ov evp&v avOpcoTros eicpvifre] which 
 some man found and hid (again in the field), so as not to be 
 compelled to give it up to the owner of the field, but in the 
 hope of buying the latter, and of then being able legitimately 
 to claim the treasure as having been found on his own property. 
 It is mentioned by Bava Mezia f. 28, 2, that, in circumstances 
 precisely similar, R. Emi purchased a hired field in which he 
 had found treasure: " utplenojure thesaurum possideret omnemgue 
 litium occasionem praecideret" Paulus, exeg. Handb. IL p. 187, 
 observes correctly : " That it was not necessary, either for the 
 purposes of the parable or for the point to be illustrated, that 
 
 MATT. 2 A
 
 370 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Jesus should take into consideration the ethical questions 
 involved in such cases." Fritzsche says : " quern alibi, credo, 
 repertum nonnemo illuc defoderit." But the most natural way 
 is to regard evpcav as the correlative to KeKpv^evy ; while, 
 again, the behaviour here supposed would have been a proceed- 
 ing as singular in its character as it would have been clearly 
 dishonest toward the owner of the field. arro rr)$ %apa<? 
 avrov] drro marks the causal relation (xiv. 26; Luke xxiv. 
 41 ; Acts xii. 14 ; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 366 f.), and avrov is not 
 the genitive of the object (over the treasure : Vulgate, Erasmus, 
 Luther, Beza, Calvin, Maldonatus, Jansen, Bengel, Kuinoel, 
 Fritzsche), but, as the ordinary usage demands, the genitive of 
 the subject : on account of Ms joy, without its being necessary 
 in consequence to read avrov, but avrov, as looking at the 
 matter from the standpoint of the speaker. The object is to 
 indicate the peculiar joy with which his lucky find inspires 
 him. vTrdyei tc.r.\.] Present: the picture becoming more 
 and more animated. The idea embodied in the parable is to 
 this effect : the Messianic kingdom, as being the most valu- 
 able of all possessions, can become ours only on condition that 
 we are prepared joyfully to surrender for its sake every other 
 earthly treasure. It is still the same idea that is presented in 
 vv. 45, 46, with, however, this characteristic difference, that 
 in this case the finding of the Messiah's kingdom is preceded 
 by a seeking after blessedness generally ; whereas, in the 
 former case, it was discovered without being sought for, there- 
 fore without any previous effort having been put forth. 
 ^rjrovvrt] with the view of purchasing such goodly pearls 
 from the owners of them (cornp. vii. 6 ; Prov. iii. 1 5, viii. 1 9, 
 and see Schoettgen). eva\ one, the only one of real worth ; 
 according to the idea contained in the parable, there exists only 
 one such. irkrrpaKe\ the perfect alternating with the aorist 
 (rj<y6pa<Tv) ; the former looking back from the standpoint of 
 the speaker to the finished act (everything has been sold by the 
 merchant}, the latter simply continuing the narrative (and he 
 bought}. Kiihner, II. 1, p. 144f. 
 
 Vv. 47 ff. For cu7taXo<?, see note on Acts xxvii. 39. 
 ra ica\d and traTrpa] the good, i.e. the good fish, such as were
 
 CHAP. xiu. 52. 371 
 
 fit for use, and the putrid ones (comp. note on vii. 17), which, 
 already dead and putrefying, are yet enclosed in the a-ayijvrj 
 (large drag-net, Luc. Pise. 51, Tim, 22; Plut. de solert. an. 
 p. 977 F) along with the others. The men took them out of 
 the net (eo>) and cast them away. The aorists in vv. 47 and 
 48 are to be understood in a historical sense, not as express- 
 ing what was the practice, but merely as narrating what took 
 place on the occasion, just as in w. 44, 45, 46. Observe 
 further, that the net encloses fish of every 761/09, i.e. of every 
 species (that is, according to the literal meaning, out of every 
 nation) ; yet no yevos, as such, is cast away, but only the 
 putrid fish belonging to each 761/05, and that not before the 
 end of the world (in answer to the whole Donatist view). 
 Ver. 50. Closing refrain, as in ver. 42. 
 
 Ver. 52. Tavra Trdvra] that which has been addressed to 
 the disciples since ver. 36. This val /cvpte, this frank acknow- 
 ledgment, calls forth from Jesus- a gladsome Sta TOVTO, as 
 much as to say, "it is because of such understanding that 
 every one, and so on (such as you are), resembles a house- 
 holder, and so on." But for the understanding in question, 
 this similitude would not have been made use of. ypa/j,- 
 fjuarev^ The ordinary conception of a Jewish scribe is here 
 idealised and applied to the Christian teacher, comp. xxiii. 34. 
 But in order specifically to distinguish the Christian ypafj,- 
 /iarevs from the Jewish scribes, who were Moses' disciples 
 (xxiii. 2 ; John ix. 28), he is significantly described as paOr]- 
 reuflet? TT} /SacrtX. T. ovp., i.e. made a disciple of the kingdom of 
 heaven, (ta&ifttuettf nvi, to be a disciple of any one (xxvii. 5 7 ; 
 Plut. Mor. p. 837 D), is here used transitively (discipulum 
 facere alicui), comp. xxviii. 19 ; Acts xiv. 21. The kingdom 
 of heaven is personified ; the disciples of Christ are disciples 
 of the kingdom of heaven, of which Christ is the representative 
 (comp. xii. 28). icacva ical ira\aia] is on no account to 
 be restricted to any one thing in particular, but to be ren- 
 dered : new and old, i.e. things hitherto unknown, and things 
 already known, already taught in former ages, and that in 
 regard both to the matter and the manner. Thus the pre- 
 dictions of the prophets, for example, belong to the things
 
 372 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 that are old, the evidences of their fulfilment to those that are 
 new ; the precepts of the law are to be ranked among the old, 
 the developing and perfecting of them, in the way exemplified 
 by Christ in Matt, v., among the new ; the form of parables 
 and similitudes, already in use, is to be referred to the old, the 
 Messianic teaching embodied in them is to be included under 
 the new. The view that has been much in vogue since 
 Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, and Jerome, and which repre- 
 sents the words as referring to the Old and New Testament, or 
 to the law and the gospel (Olshausen), is a dogmatic limitation. 
 In the illustration the Oqaavpos means the chest (ii. ll,xii. 35) 
 in which the householder keeps his money and jewels (not the 
 same thing as aTroQ^Kt]} ; in the interpretation it means the 
 stores of knowledge which the teacher has at his disposal for 
 the purposes of instruction. e/e/SdXXet] throws out, thus 
 describing the zeal with which he seeks to communicate 
 instruction. Comp. Luke x. 35. 
 
 Vv. 53-58. The majority of more recent critics (Lichten- 
 stein, L. J. p. 271 ff., de Wette, Baur, Bleek, Kostlin, Holtz- 
 mann, Keim) adhere to the view, received with special favour 
 since Schleiermacher, that this narrative (which, moreover, in 
 Mark vi. 1 ff., comes after the raising of Jairus' daughter) is 
 identical with Luke iv. 16-30. But, in that case, it becomes 
 necessary to set aside the very precise statements in Luke's 
 narrative on the one hand ; and, on the other, to tamper with 
 the rigid sequence so distinctly indicated by Matthew in 
 w. 53, 54, xiv. 1, as has been done in the most awkward way 
 possible by Olshausen (" he came once more to the town in 
 which he had been brought up "). It is not without ample 
 reason that Storr, Paulus, Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 284 f., 
 Ewald, have insisted that our passage is not identical with 
 Luke iv. 16 ff. What Luke records is an incident that took 
 place during the first visit of Jesus to Nazareth after the 
 temptation in the wilderness. The only passage to which this 
 can correspond is Matt. iv. 12, 13, so that in Luke we get an 
 explanation of what Matthew means by his Kara\nrcbv rrjv 
 Na&per. How conceivable, likewise, that on two* occasions 
 Jesus may have been driven from Nazareth in a similar way,
 
 CHAP. XIII. 54-57. 373 
 
 so that he would be twice called upon to utter the words about 
 the prophet being despised in his native place, " Nazarethanis 
 priore reprehensione nihilo factis inelioribus," Beza. 
 
 Ver. 54. IlarpiSa avrov] Nazareth, where His parents 
 lived, and where He had been brought up, ii. 23. iroOev 
 TOUTW] rovru is contemptuous (Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 30 ; John 
 vi. 42, and frequently), and iroOev is due to the circumstance 
 that the people knew all about the origin and outward train- 
 ing of Jesus. John vii. 15, vi. 41 f. KOI al Svvd/jLi<i] 
 so that in Nazareth also He must not only have taught, but 
 must have performed miracles, although not to the same 
 extent, ver. 58. 
 
 Vv. 55 ff. ToO re/cT 01/09] of the carpenter, which, however, 
 also embraces other workers in wood (the cabinetmaker, the 
 cartvvright, and such like). See Philo, Cod. apocr. I. p. 368 f. ; 
 Justin, c. TrypTi. 88 ; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1254 f. In Mark 
 vi. 3, Jesus Himself is spoken of by the people as o retcrtov, 
 and certainly not without reason ; see note on that passage. 
 ol ae\<f)ol avrov] See note on xii. 46. According to the 
 reading Iw<rr)<f>, there was only one of the sons of that Mary, 
 who was the wife of Alphaeus, who was certainly of the same 
 name, viz. James (xxvii. 56 ; on the Judas, brother of James, 
 see note on Luke vi. 16). But if this Mary, as is usually 
 supposed, had been the sister of the mother of Jesus, we would 
 have been confronted with the unexampled difficulty of two 
 sisters bearing the same name. However, the passage quoted 
 in support of this view, viz. John xix. 25, should, with 
 Wieseler, be so interpreted as to make it evident that the sister 
 of Jesus' mother was not Mary, but Salome. Comp. note on 
 John i. 1. Tracrat] therefore hardly to be understood, as some 
 of the Fathers did (in Philo, Cod. apocr. p. 363), as meaning 
 only two. Observe, further, that in the course of what is said 
 about the relatives, there is not the slightest indication of their 
 being supposed to be different from the ordinary inhabitants 
 of .the place. OVK ecrrt Trpo^rr]^ . . . eV rfi vrarpioi, avrov 
 (not avrov) K. ev r. OIK. avr. is (John iv. 44) a principle 
 founded on experience, which is found to apply to the present 
 case only as relatively true, seeing that, under different condi-
 
 374 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 tions, the contrary might prove to be the case. The ev r. 
 oiKia avrov, in his own family (xii. 25), corresponds with 
 John vii. 3, comp. Mark iii. 20. See also the note on 
 xii. 46-50. 
 
 Ver. 58. 'ETroiycrev'] In Mark vi. 5, put more definitely 
 thus : r/Svvaro Troirja-at. This does not include the idea of 
 unsuccessful attempts, but what is meant is, that the unwill- 
 ingness of the people to acknowledge the greatness of His 
 person (ver. 55) compelled Jesus, partly on moral (because of 
 their unworthiness) and partly also on psychical grounds 
 (because the condition of faith was wanting), to make but a 
 limited use of His miraculous power.
 
 CHAP. XIV. 375 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 VER. 3. Kal sSero ev puX.] Lachm., after B N* Curss. : xa/ sv ry 
 <p uX. axidsTo. So also Tisch. 8, though without rJj, after X*. The 
 simple sv 77i <p^- is found in D, Or. (once), but it is adopted from 
 Mark vi. 1 7. Lachm.'s reading is all the more to be regarded 
 as the original, that dcriforo also occurs once in Origen, and that, 
 in restoring the verb that had been omitted, in accordance with 
 Mark, the simple sdsro, without the preposition (comp. Acts v. 25, 
 xii. 4), would most readily have suggested itself. ^/x/V-roD] 
 after yuva/xa is omitted in D, Vulg. Codd. of the It. Aug., is 
 deleted by Tisch. 7, and only bracketed by Tisch. 8. Supple- 
 ment from Mark, the interpolation: on aun?v Jya>j<rgv, being 
 derived from the same source. Ver. 6. ytviaiuv 8e dyo/i.] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. : ytvseiots 8s yivo,u,evot<;, after B D L N, Curss. 
 Correctly. The genitive was by way of explaining the dative, 
 hence the reading ysvisiuv 8s yevopsmv, and then came dyo,tt. 
 (Received text) as a gloss on ysvop., which gloss is partially 
 found in the case of the dative reading as well (ysveslots 8s ayo- 
 ivswiz, 1, 22, 59). Ver. 9. IXOT^JJ] Lachm. and Tisch. : AUTJJ- 
 6sis, omitting the 8s after 8id, according to B D, Curss. and Codd. 
 of It. The reading of the Received text is a logical analysis of 
 the participle. Ver. 12. a &)/*] B C D L K, Curss. Copt. Syr cnr 
 have irrupt*. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and 
 Tisch. 8. Taken from Mark vi. 29. Ver. 13. With Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8 we ought to read dxouffaj 8s, after B D L Z N, 
 Curss. Verss. Or. ; xai is a mechanical repetition. With Tisch. 
 read mfyi for Ki^fj, according to adequate testimony (including 
 N). The reading of the Received text is taken from Mark. 
 Ver. 14. On the strength of important testimony, 6 'iriaous after 
 e%e\6uv (Elz. Scholz) is deleted. Beginning of a church lesson. 
 Similarly, in ver. 22, after ^vayx. Comp. ver. 25, where, in like 
 manner, 6 'l]<roDg was inserted after avrovg. sv avroTs] Elz.: 
 fir aurous, against decisive testimony. Ver. 15. Tisch. has o3 
 after d^roX., and that only according to C Z fit, 1, 238, Copt. Syr.
 
 376 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 p. (on the margin) Or. (twice) ; but correctly, seeing that o3v 
 might readily drop out in consequence of the ON immediately 
 preceding it, as well as from its not being found in Mark vi. 36. 
 
 Ver. 19. 7ovg ^oprovs] The readings D ^oprov (B C* N, 
 Curss. Or., so Lachm. and Tisch. 8) and rbv ^oprov (L\ Curss.) 
 are to be explained from the circumstance that the plural of 
 /j>pro$ occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Xa/3utQ 
 Elz. : xai Aa/3wv, against the best and most numerous authorities. 
 
 Ver. 21. The arrangement: cr/<5. %. y\iv. (Lachm.) is, as also 
 in xv. 38, without adequate testimony. Ver. 22. The deleting 
 of tvd'sag (Tisch. 8), which, no doubt, may have been adopted 
 from Mark, is, however, not warranted by testimony so inade- 
 quate as that of C* K Syr cur Chrys. Ver. 25. d^riXOs] Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8 : ijxfc, after B C** K, Curss. Verss. Or. Eus. Chrys. 
 The preposition overlooked in consequence of the attraction not 
 having been noticed (comp. the simple 'ipy^rat in Mark). IT/ 
 rqs QaXdffaqc] Lachm. and Tisch.: lirl rfc Qd^aaaav, after B P 
 A s, Curss. Or. The reading of the Keceived text is taken 
 from the parallel passages. Ver. 26. lr rqv dd'katsca*] 
 Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : titl rr,g eaXdaa?};, after B C D T e t*, Curss. 
 Eus. Chrys. Theophyl. Correctly; the accusative crept in 
 mechanically from ver. 25, through not noticing the difference 
 of meaning in the tw.o cases. Ver. 28. The arrangement Ix0s/v 
 <rpos as (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by decisive testimony. 
 Ver. 29. ixdfTv] Tisch.: %a! fa6sv, after B C* (?) Syr* Arm. 
 Chrys. By way of being more definite, since, according to 
 ver. 31, Peter was beside Jesus. 
 
 Ver. 1 f. '.Ei/ Ki,va> ro> /cat/oo5] See xiii. 54-58. The 
 more original narrative in Mark vi. 14 ff. (comp. Lukeix. 7-9) 
 introduces this circumstance as well as the account of the 
 Baptist's death, between the sending out and the return of the 
 Twelve, which, considering the excitement that had already 
 been created by the doings of Jesus, would appear to be rather 
 early. Yet Luke represents the imprisonment of John as 
 having taken place much earlier still (iii. 1 9 ff.). 'Hpu&ys] 
 Antipas. Comp. note on ii. 22. Not a word about Jesus, 
 the Jewish Eabbi and worker of miracles, had till now reached 
 the ear of this licentious prince in his palace at Tiberias ; 
 because, without doubt, like those who lived about his court, 
 he gave himself no particular concern about matters of this 
 sort : he, upon this occasion, heard of Him for the first time
 
 CHAP. XIV. 2, 3. 377 
 
 in consequence of the excitement becoming every day greater 
 and greater. T. aKorjv'Iijffov, as in iv. 24. 
 
 Ver. 2. To 49 vraio-lv avrov] to his slews (comp. note on 
 viii. 6), who, according to Oriental ideas, are no other than his 
 courtiers. Comp. 1 Sam. xvi. 1 7 ; 1 Mace. i. 6, 8 ; 3 Esdr. 
 ii. 17 ; Diod. Sic. xvii. 36. avro?] indicating by its emphasis 
 the terror-stricken conscience : He, the veritable John. CLTTO 
 TWV veicpwv} from the dead, among whom he was dwelling in 
 Hades. The supposition of Wetstein and Bengel, that Herod 
 was a Sadducee (erroneously founded upon Mark viii. 15, 
 comp. Matt. xvi. 6), is no less inconsistent with what he here 
 says about one having risen from the dead, than the other 
 supposition that he believed this to be a case of metempsychosis 
 (Grotius, Gratz, von Colin) ; for he assumes that not merely 
 the soul, but that the entire personality of John, has returned. 
 Generally speaking, we do not meet with the doctrine of trans- 
 migration among the Jews till some time after ; see Delitzsch, 
 Psychol. p. 463 f. [E. T. 545 f.]. Herod's language is merely 
 the result of terror, which has been awakened by an evil con- 
 science, and which, with the inconsistency characteristic of 
 mental bewilderment, believes something to have happened 
 though contrary to all expectation which, in ordinary cir- 
 cumstances, was looked upon as theoretically impossible ; while, 
 again, the opinions that were circulating respecting Jesus 
 (Luke ix. 7 f.) would suggest, in the case before us, the parti- 
 cular idea to which Herod here gives expression. The Phari- 
 saic belief in the resurrection, which was not unknown to 
 Herod, became, in spite of himself, the psychological starting- 
 point. Bta TOUTO] on this account, because he is no ordinary 
 man, but one risen from the dead. at Swdpet,*;] the powers 
 manifesting themselves in his miracles. 
 
 Ver. 3. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, son of 
 Herod the Great, and of Berenice. She married Herod Antipas, 
 who had become so enamoured of her that he put away his 
 wife, the daughter of the Arabian king Aretas. Joseph. Antt. 
 xviii. 5. 1, 4. The brother of this Herod, Herod Philip (Mark 
 vi. 17), called by Josephus simply Herod, a son of Herod the 
 Great and Mariamne, the high priest's daughter, and not to be
 
 378 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 confounded 1 with Philip the tetrarch, who was Cleopatra's son, 
 had been disinherited by his father, and was living privately at 
 Jerusalem in circumstances of considerable wealth. Joseph. 
 Antt. xvii. 1. 2, 8. 2. The aorists are not to be taken in the 
 sense of the pluperfect, but as purely historical. They relate, 
 however (Chrysostom : SiqyovfJLevos OVTWS <f>rj(mi), a statement 
 that has been already made, in a previous passage (iv. 12), 
 namely, that Herod, in order to give a more minute account of 
 the last (and now completed, see on ver. 13) destiny of the 
 Baptist, seized John, 'bound him, and so on. Buttmann, neut. 
 Gr. p. 173 [E. T. 200]. v rfj <f>v\aKrj] Comp. xi. 2; 
 for the pregnant use of the ev, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 385 f . ; 
 Buttmann, p. 283 [E. T. 329]. What Josephus, Antt. 
 xviii. 5. 2, says about Machaerus being the place of imprison- 
 ment, is not to be regarded as incorrect (Glb'ckler and Hug, 
 Gutachten, p. 32 f.) ; but see Wieseler, p. 244 f., to be com- 
 pared, however, with Gerlach as above, p. 49 f. On the date 
 of John's arrest (782 u.c., or 29 Aer. Dion.), see Auger, rat. 
 temp. p. 195; Wieseler, p. 238 ff. ; and in Herzog's Encycl. 
 XXL p. 548 f., also in his Beitr. p t 3 ff. Otherwise, Keim, 
 I. p. 621 ff. (Aer. Dion. 34-35), with whom Hausrath sub- 
 stantially agrees. For a-Tredero (see critical notes), comp. 
 2 Chron. xviii. 26 ; Polyb. xxiv. 8. 8 (et? <f)v\aKriv). 
 
 Ver. 4 f . OVK e^ecrri] Because Philip was still living, and 
 had a daughter. Lev. xviii. 16, xx. 21 ; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 
 5. 1, 2 ; Lightfoot on this passage. For e%eiv ^vvalica, as 
 expressing matrimonial possession, see note on 1 Cor. v. 1. 
 It is probable that Herod only made John's bold rebuke a 
 pretext for putting him in prison ; the real cause, according 
 to Josephus, xviii. 5. 2 f., was fear lest he should be the 
 means of creating an insurrection. el%ov] not: aestumabant 
 
 1 Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 51, thinks that Mark has fallen into this error, and 
 that the omission of the name Philip in Matthew and Luke (iii. 19) should be 
 regarded as intended to -correct it. Comp. also Hase, Bleek, Volkmar, Keim. 
 No doubt it is strange that the two sons of Herod the Great should have borne 
 the name Philip. But then this was only a surname, while it is to be remem- 
 bered that Herod had also two sons, both of whom were called Antipater. 
 Besides, the two Philips were only half-brothers. See Gerlach also in the 
 Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 32 f. j Wieseler, Beitr. p. 7.
 
 CHAP. XIV. 6-8. 379 
 
 (a common but ungrammatical rendering), but : they fold him 
 as a prophet, i.e. they stood to him as to a prophet. This is in 
 conformity with classical usage, according to which e'^ty nva, 
 with a predicate, expresses the relation in which a person 
 stands to some other person ; for example, </\ou9 avrov? e%et? 
 (Xen. Symp. iv. 49): thou standest related to them as to friends ; 
 Eur. Here. fur. 1405 : iralB' OTTO)? e^a> <r epov, I stand to thee 
 as to a child; Herodian, i. 13. 16 ; and see likewise the note 
 on Luke xiv. 1 8 ; Philem. 1 7. The appended o>9 means : not 
 otherwise than as. Kriiger, 57. 3. 1 and 2 ; Kuhner, II. 2, 
 p. 995. Similarly also in xxi. 26. Otherwise in Mark xi. 32. 
 Ver. 6 ff. reve&ia, Birthday celebration. Lobeck, ad Phryn. 
 p. 103 f. ; Suicer, Thes. I. p. 746; Loesner, Obss. p. 40. 
 Others (Heinsius, Grotius, Is. Vossius, Paulus) interpret: a 
 festival by way of commemorating Herod's accession, because the 
 latter is often compared to a birth, Ps. ii. 7 ; 1 Sam. xiii. 1. 
 An unwarranted departure from ordinary usage. Wieseler 
 likewise takes the word as referring to the accession, but 
 improperly appeals, partly to the fact of its being used to 
 denote a celebration in memory of the dead (Herod, iv. 26), 
 comp. Lex. rhet. p. 231, a figurative sense which only tells 
 in favour of our interpretation, and partly to the Eabbinical 
 csta *?W JTDl3:i (Avoda Sara i. 3), where, however, the royal 
 birthdays are likewise meant. No instance is to be found in 
 the Greek classics (for the Latin natalis, see Plin. Paneg. 82). 
 For the dative of time, see Winer, p. 205 [E. T. 276]. 
 T] Ovydryp TT}? 'H/xuS.J and of Philip. She was called 
 Salome, and married her uncle, Philip the tetrarch. See 
 Josephus, Antt. xviii. 5. 4. Her dancing was, doubtless, of a 
 mimetic and wanton character. Hor. Od. iii. 6. 21. Wet- 
 stein on this passage. Moreover, this circumstance of the 
 girl dancing is in keeping with the view that fixes the date of 
 this scene as early as the year 29 ; while it is entirely at 
 variance with Keim's supposition, that it occurred in the year 
 3435, by which time Salome had been long married, and, 
 for aught we know, may already have been left a widow ; for 
 which reason Keim considers himself all the more justified in 
 ascribing a legendary character to the narrative, though with-
 
 380 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 out interfering in any way with the historical nucleus of the 
 story, which he believes has not been affected by the plastic 
 influence of legend ; while Volkmar again declares the whole 
 to be a fabrication. ev TOJ /leo-w] In the centre of the 
 banqueting hall. The subject of r/pecre is still 17 dirydr. 
 odev] as in Acts xxvi. 19, frequently in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, and common in classical writers. 7rpo/3t,/3aa-0ia-a] 
 urged, induced, prevailed upon, not : instructed (neither is it 
 to be so rendered in Ex. xxxv. 34). See Plat. Prot. p. 328 B ; 
 Xen. Mem. i. 5. 1 ; Polyb. iii. 59. 2, xxiv. 3. "7 ; Bremi, ad 
 Aeschin. Ctesiph. 28 ; Klihner, ad Xen. Mem. \. 2. 17. wSe] 
 therefore without any delay. e-rrl Trivaxi] upon a plate. 
 
 Ver. 9. Avrri]6ei<i\ he was annoyed, BIOTI e/ieXXe pvyav 
 are\eiv avBpa, Kai Kivrjaai Trpo? [uaos eavrov TOV oyfiov, Euth. 
 Zigabenus, comp. ver. 5; Mark vii. 20. Altogether, he was 
 deeply pained at finding matters take this sudden and tragic 
 turn, which is not inconsistent with ver. 5, but may be 
 accounted for psychologically as arising out of that disturbed 
 state of the conscience which this unlooked-for catastrophe 
 has occasioned ; consequently, we must not, with Schnecken- 
 burger, suppose (comp. Weiss and Holtzmann) that Matthew 
 has failed to notice Mark's statement that Herodias was 
 desirous to see John put to death. This circumstance is 
 involved in what Matthew says in ver. 8. Bengel appropri- 
 ately observes: " Latuerat in rege judicii aliquid." Bia TOV? 
 optc.] The petf 1 opx. in ver. 6 represents a series of oaths that 
 had been given, one at one time and another at another. 
 a-vvavafceifjLevovs] to whom he did not wish to appear as 
 perjured. A case of unlawful adhering to an oath, similar in 
 its character to what was done by Jephthah. 
 
 Vv. 10, 11 f. Considering that it would require rather 
 more than two days to return from Machaerus (see note on 
 ver. 3), the fortress on the southern frontier between Peraea 
 and the dominion of Aretas, to Tiberias (where Antipas was 
 residing), Fritzsche thinks that it is out of the question to 
 suppose that the head can have been actually delivered at the 
 feast ; comp. Lightfoot. But this circumstance, helping as 
 it does to lend a tragic air to the whole proceeding, is just
 
 CHAP. XIY. 13. 381 
 
 one which the reader naturally takes for granted, and one 
 which is found to be necessary in order to give unity and 
 completeness to the scene (Strauss, I. p. 397); so that, with 
 Maldonatus, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius, Gerlach, Keim, we 
 must suppose the festival to have taken place in Machaerus, 
 and not in Tiberias. Not even Wieseler's view, that the feast 
 was held in Julias in Peraea, and that the head was brought 
 thither by messengers travelling post-haste, can be said to be 
 in sufficient accord with the tragic scenery of the simple 
 narrative. The account in Mark (vi. 25, e'^aim??; ver. 27, 
 eve^Orjvai) is unfavourable to such a view, as is also the wSe 
 in ver. 8 and ver. 11, which plainly implies that the thing 
 was done there and then. ev rfj ^>v\aKfj] therefore in 
 private by the hand of an assassin. " Trucidatur vir sanctus 
 ne judiciorum quidem ordine servato; nam sontes populo 
 omni inspectanti plecti lex Mosis jubet," Grotius. ical 
 eSo#77 r. K. teal Y/veyice r. p. a.] the horrible scene in a few 
 simple words. Ver. 12. The disciples, to be near their master, 
 had remained somewhere in the neighbourhood of the prison, 
 probably in the town of Machaerus itself. For vrroi/xa, a 
 corpse, see Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 375. 
 
 Ver. 13. Since we find it stated immediately before that 
 K. eA#. a7njyyei\av r<p 'Irjcrov, it is clear that the real cmovcras, 
 which is not further defined, can only be referred to the 
 aTrrtyyeiXav of the preceding verse (Jerome, Augustine, Euth. 
 Zigabenus, Erasmus, Maldonatus, de Wette, Ewald, Keim) ; 
 while the reference to ver. 2, so frequent since Chrysostom's 
 time, is arbitrary, inasmuch as Matthew does not so much as 
 hint at it. There is no anachronism here, occasioned by 
 Mark vi. 31 (Weiss in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 40 f.). 
 Matthew does not show such want of .skill in the use he 
 makes of Mark ; neither does he go to work in so reckless and 
 confused a way as Wilke and Holtzmann would have us 
 believe. But the narrative runs somewhat as follows : (1) 
 Matthew mentions that, at that time, Herod heard of Jesus, 
 who was then in Nazareth, and said : This is John, and so on ; 
 (2) thereupon he gives an account of the death of John, co 
 which reference has thus been made ; (3) and lastly, he
 
 382 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 informs us in ver. 12 f. how Jesus came to hear of this death, 
 and how it led to His retiring into some solitude or other, to 
 shelter Himself for a little from the persecution of Herod, 
 which was probably being directed against Himself as well. 
 From this it would appear that it must have been whilst 
 Herod, who had just beheaded John, was indulging such 
 dangerous thoughts regarding Jesus (ver. 2), that the latter, 
 through hearing from John's own disciples of the fate of their 
 master, so felt the necessity of being upon His guard against 
 Herod's hostility, that He took the precaution to retire lest His 
 own death should be precipitated. Comp. iv. 12, xii. 15. It 
 is clear from the shape in which the narrative is thus pre- 
 sented, that the beheading of John is to be understood as 
 having taken place only a short time before the words of ver. 2 
 had been uttered, so that the terror that was awakened in 
 Herod's conscience when he heard of Jesus came on the back 
 of his recent crime ; but there was no reason why vv. 1 and 
 2 should have been regarded as a literary expedient devised 
 merely for the purpose of introducing John once more into 
 the narrative. etcelOev] from the place, where He had been 
 staying when the intelligence reached Him ; whether this 
 was still Nazareth (xiii. 54) or some other locality in Galilee, 
 is determined by ev ir\oia>, according to which it must have 
 been a place upon the sea-coast. epyfiov TOTTOV] according 
 to Luke ix. 10, near to Bethsaida in Gaulonitis, lying within 
 the dominion of Philip the tetrarch. tear IStav] "nemine 
 assumto nisi discipulis," Bengel. -n-e^oi (see critical notes): 
 ly land, walking round by the head of the lake. 7r6Xeo>i/] 
 of Galilee. 
 
 Ver. 14. 'E%\6(0v'] that is to say, from the solitude into 
 which he had retired. In opposition to ver. 13, Maldonatus 
 and Kuinoel, following Mark vi. 34, interpret : out of the boat. 
 60-77X017^. evr' aur.] aurot? refers not merely to the sick 
 (Fritzsche), but, like avrwv below, to the 0^X05, which, how- 
 ever, became the object of compassion just because of the 
 sick that the people had brought with them. Not so in 
 Mark vi. 34. 
 
 Ver. 15 ff. Comp. Mark vi. 35 ff. ; Luke ix. 12 ff.; John
 
 CHAP. XIV. 13-18* 383 
 
 vi. 5 ff. 'O-^i'a<?] means, in this instance, the first evening, 
 which lasted from the ninth till the twelfth hour of the day. 
 It is the second evening, extending from the twelfth hour onwards, 
 that is meant in ver. 24. Gesenius, Thes. II. p. 1064f. 
 r) wpa] the time, i.e. the time of the day ; comp. Mark xi. 11. 
 Some, like Grotius, understand : meal time ; others (Fritzsche, 
 Kauffer) : tempus opportunism, sc. disserendi et sanandi. But 
 the " disserendi " is a pure importation ; and how far the suit- 
 able time for healing might be said to have gone by, it is 
 impossible to conceive. Our explanation, on the other hand, 
 is demanded by the context (o^i'a? 8e yevo/j,.), besides being 
 grammatically certain. See Eaphael, Polyb.; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. 
 p. 580. eaurots] for we, as far as we are concerned, have 
 nothing to give them. According to John vi. 5 ff, it was 
 Jesus who first began to inquire about bread, and that not 
 in consequence of the evening coming on. An unimportant 
 deviation, which shows that even the memory of an apostle may 
 sometimes be at fault. Of greater consequence is the fact 
 that, according to John, Jesus puts the question whenever he 
 sees the multitude, a circumstance made to tell against John 
 by Strauss especially ; comp. also Baur and Hilgenfeld. And 
 there can be no doubt that this little detail is an uncon- 
 scious reflection of the Johannine conception of Christ, accord- 
 ing to which it was but natural to suppose that Jesus had 
 Himself intended to work a miracle, and that from the very 
 first, so that in John the recollection of the order of proceed- 
 ing, which we find recorded by the Synoptists with historical 
 accuracy, had been thrust into the background by the pre- 
 ponderating influence of the ideal conception. Comp. note 
 on John vi. 5 f. John, on the other hand, mentions the 
 more precise and original detail, that it was a irai^dpiov who 
 happened to have the bread and fish. Sore aurot? u/iei? 
 (jiay.] said in view of what the disciples were immediately to 
 be called upon to do ; therefore, from the standpoint of Jesus, 
 an anticipation of that request, which the expectation of some- 
 thing in the way of miracle was just about to evoke on the 
 part of the disciples. Bengel well observes : fytefr, vos, signifi- 
 canter. " Eudimenta fidei miraculorum apud discipulos."
 
 38-i THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Ver. 19. 'E-Trt r. xP r -] u P n the grass, xiii. 2. Participle 
 following upon participle without conjunctions, and in logical 
 subordination. See Stallbaum, ad Plot. Apol. p. 2 7 A ; Kiihner, 
 ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 249. 
 K \da-a 9] The loaves were in the form of cakes, a thumb's 
 breadth in thickness, and about the size of a plate. Winer, 
 Eealworterluch, under the word Backen. Eobinson, Pal. III. 
 pp. 40, 293. In saying grace, Jesus did what was done 
 by -the father of a family. In John it is expressed by 
 ey^apto-T^cra?, because the meaning of the grace was the 
 giving of thanks (comp. notes on xxvi. 26 f. ; 1 Cor. x. 16, 
 xiv. 16) ; Luke again says : evX&yrja-ev avTovs, where we have 
 the idea of a consecrating prayer, as in the case of the Lord's 
 supper. 
 
 Ver. 20 f. Twv K\aa-fi. is independent of TO Trepicro-. (the 
 fragments that were over), with which latter also &o8e/ea KO(J>. 
 7r\ijpei<i, twelve baskets full, is in apposition. In travelling, 
 the Jews carried small baskets with them to hold their pro- 
 visions and other necessaries. For KO&VOS, see Jacobs, ad 
 Anthol. IX. p. 455. It is more general (in Xen. Anab. iii. 
 8. 6, it is used in the sense of a cfam^-basket) than vrrvpis 
 (xv. 37 ; Acts ix. 25). fjpav] they took up, from the ground 
 on which the people had been eating. The subject of the verb 
 is the apostles (John vi. 12); each of the Twelve fills his 
 travelling-basket. But the K\do-fiara are the pieces (comp. 
 ver. 19, \acra<?) into which the loaves had been divided, and 
 which had so multiplied in the course of distribution that a 
 great quantity still remained over. <yvvauc. K. TraiS.] occur- 
 ring frequently in classical writers, and sometimes with the 
 order of the words inverted ; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. p. 75. But 
 observe here the diminutive TraiSiW, little children, whom their 
 mothers either carried in their arms or led by the hand. 
 
 KEMARK. To explain away the miracle, as Paulus has done 
 (who thinks that the hospitable example of Jesus may have 
 induced the people to place at His disposal the provisions they 
 had brought along with them ; comp. Gfrorer, Heiligth. u. 
 Wahrh. p. 171 ff. ; Ammon, L. J. II. p. 217 f.), is inconsistent 
 with the accounts of all the evangelists, and especially with that
 
 CHAP. XIV. 20, 21. 385 
 
 of the eye-witness John. Notwithstanding this, Schleiermacher, 
 L. J. p. 234, thought that, even on exegetical principles, the 
 plural a*i,utTa in John vi. 26 (but see note on this passage) would 
 justify him in declining to rank the incident among the miracles ; 
 whilst Schenkel thinks he sees his way to an explanation by 
 supposing what is scarcely possible, viz. that Jesus fed the 
 multitude with a rich supply of the bread of life from heaven, 
 which caused them to forget their ordinary food, though at the 
 same time He devoutly consecrated for their use the provisions 
 which they had brought with them, or had managed to procure 
 for the present emergency. Weizsacker likewise leaves the fact, 
 which is supposed to underlie the present narrative, too much 
 in a state of perplexing uncertainty ; this element of fact, he 
 things, must somehow correspond with the symbolism of the 
 miracle, which is intended to teach us that there is no sphere in 
 which the believer may not become a partaker of the fulness 
 of Jesus' blessing. Keim, adhering above all to the ideal 
 explanation that the bread which Jesus provided was spiritual 
 bread, and referring by way of parallel to the story of the 
 manna and the case of Elisha, follows the Paulus- Schenkel 
 line of interpretation, in conceding a residuum of historical 
 fact, though he seems to doubt whether that residuum will be 
 considered worth retaining. But to eliminate the element of 
 fact altogether, is no less inconsistent with historical testimony. 
 This, however, has been done by Strauss, who thereupon pro- 
 ceeds to account for the narrative, partly by tracing it to some 
 original parable (Weisse, I. p. 510 ft'.), partly by treating it as a 
 myth, and deriving it from the types of the Old Testament 
 (Ex. xvi. ; 1 Kings xvii. 8-16; 2 Kings iv. 42 ff.) and the 
 popular Messianic ideas (John vi. 30 f.), partly by supposing it 
 to belong to the lofty sphere of ideal legend (Ewald, see note on 
 John vi. 12), and partly by understanding it in a symbolic sense 
 (Hase, de Wette). Such a mode of dealing with this incident 
 is the result of denying the possibility of bringing a creative 
 agency to bear upon dead, rather upon artificially prepared 
 materials, a possibility which is not rendered more conceivable 
 by having recourse to the somewhat poor expedient of sup- 
 posing that what was done may have been brought about by an 
 accelerated natural process (Olshausen). But that such agency 
 was actually brought to bear, is a historical fact so well estab- 
 lished by the unanimous testimony of the evangelists, that we 
 must be contented to accept it with all its incomprehensibility, 
 and, in this case not less than in that of the changing of water 
 into wine at Cana, abandon the hope of being able to get a 
 
 MATT. 2 B
 
 386 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 clearer conception of the process of the miracle by the help of 
 natural analogies. The symbolical application, that is, to the 
 higher spiritual food, was made by our Lord Himself in John 
 vi. 26 ff. ; but, in doing so, He takes the miraculous feeding 
 with material bread as His historical basis and warrant. More- 
 over, the view of Origen, that it was rf Xo'yw xal rfj u>.oy/a that 
 Jesus caused the bread to multiply, is greatly favoured by the 
 fact that the circumstance of the thanksgiving is mentioned by 
 the whole four evangelists, and above all by Luke's expression : 
 
 Ver. 22 f. The walking on the sea comes next in order, in 
 Mark vi. 45 and John vi. 15 as well. 1 Luke omits it alto- 
 gether. ev 6 eo>9 rjvdyKaa-e] not as though He were already 
 looking forward to some unusual event as about to happen 
 (Keim) ; He rather wanted to get away from the excited multi- 
 tudes (who, according to John, had gone the length of wishing 
 to make Him a king), and retire into a solitary place for 
 prayer, ver. 23. The disciples would much rather have 
 remained beside Him, therefore He compelled them (Euth. 
 Zigabenus) ; evO. rjva^K. implies the haste and urgency with 
 which He desires to get them away and to withdraw into 
 retirement, not an outward compulsion, but the urgere which 
 takes the form of a command (Kypke, I. p. 2 8 6 f. ; Hermann, 
 ad Eur. Bacch. 462). Comp. Luke xiv. 23. eo>9 ov . . . 
 o^Xov?] literally : until He should have sent the multitude away ; 
 and then He will come after them. The disciples could only 
 
 1 Instead of the mere t!f jrifa.i, ver. 22, Mark vi. 45 specifies Bethsaida, 
 and John vi. 17 Capernaum. A more precise determination without substantial 
 difference. Not so Wieseler, Chronol. Synapse, p. 274, who thinks that the 
 town mentioned in Mark vi. 45 was the Bethsaida (Julias) situated on the 
 eastern shore of the lake ; and that it is intended to be regarded as an inter- 
 mediate halting-place,vf}ieTe the disciples, whom He sends on before Him, were to 
 await His arrival. This view is decidedly forbidden by Matt. xiv. 24 (comp. 
 Mark vi. 47) : TO S *K/>7o* %$* (*.iat* rr, ; fa.\iar. , from which it is clear that 
 what is meant in <rpott.ym UT> ils T -ripa* is a direct crossing of the lake. It is 
 likewise in opposition to John vi. 17, comp. with w. 21, 24. Wieseler's view 
 was that of Lightfoot before him ; it is that which Lange has substantially 
 adopted, although the constantly prevailing usage in regard to the simple tit 
 -r'tpni, ver. 22 (viii. 18, 28, xvi. 5 ; Mark iv. 35, v. 1, 21, viii. 13; Luke viiL 22), 
 should have prevented him from doing so.
 
 CHAP. XIV. 24, 25. 387 
 
 suppose that He meant to follow them upon foot. Comp. 
 note on John vi. 24, 25. TO 0/309] the mountain that was 
 close by. See on v. 1. /car' iSiav belongs to avefirj', ver. 13, 
 xvii. 1. oifrtas] second evening, after sunset; ver. 15. 
 
 Ver. 24 f. Mecrov] Adjective ; with more precision in 
 John vi. 19. At first the voyage had proceeded pleasantly 
 (77877), but they began to encounter a storm in the middle of 
 the lake. @acravi6jji.] not dependent on TJV: being plagued 
 by the waves; vivid picture. rerdprr) <f>v\atcp] Trpwt, i.e. 
 in the early morning, from three till somewhere about six 
 o'clock. Since the time of Pompey, the Jews conformed to 
 the Eoman practice of dividing the night into four watches of 
 three hours each ; formerly, it consisted of three watches of four 
 hours each. See Wetstein and Krebs, p. 39 f. ; Winer, Real- 
 wDrterbuch, under the word Nachtwachen; and Wieseler, Synopse, 
 p. 406 f. a7rri\6e TT/DO? avr.~\ He came aivay down from the 
 mountain to go to them. Attraction. Hermann, ad Viger. 
 p. 891 ff. ; Bernhardy, p. 463. According to the reading: 
 Trepiir. eVt rrjv daXaaa-av (see critical notes) : walking over the 
 sea ; according to the reading of the Received text : TT. e. T% 
 6a\.d(T(7r)<{ : walking on the sea. According to both readings 
 alike, we are to understand a miraculous walking on the water, 
 but not a walking along the shore (eVl T. 6a\., on the ground that 
 the shore may be said to be over the sea ; comp. Xen. Andb. 
 iv. 3. 28 ; Polyb. i. 44. 4 ; 2 Kings ii. 7 ; Dan. viii. 2 ; John 
 xxi. 1), as Paulus, Stolz, Gfrorer, Schenkel are disposed to 
 think ; this view is absolutely demanded by the character of 
 the incident which owes its significance to this miraculous 
 part of it, by the solemn stress that is laid on the Trepnrar. 
 eVt T. Oak., by the analogy of the TrepieTraTrja-ev eVt ra vSara 
 in ver. 29, by the ridiculous nature of the fear of what was 
 supposed to be an apparition if Jesus had only walked along 
 the shore, by the aTrrfkBe 777)09 ai/rov? in ver. 25, as well as by 
 the fact that, if Jesus had been on the shore (Strauss, II. p. 
 170), then the disciples, who were in the middle of the lake, 
 forty stadia in breadth, with the roar of the waves sounding 
 in their ears, could not possibly hear what He was saying 
 when He addressed them. It remains, then, that we have herd
 
 388 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 a case of miraculous walking on the sea, which least of all 
 admits of being construed into an act of swimming (Bolten) ; 
 but neither are we to try to explain it by supposing (Olshausen) 
 that, by the exercise of His own will, our Lord's bodily nature 
 became exempted, for the time being, from the conditions of 
 its earthly existence ; nor should we attempt to render it 
 intelligible by the help of foreign analogies (the cork-footed 
 men in Lucian. Ver. hist. ii. 4 ; the seeress of Prevost ; the 
 water-treaders, and such like), but, as being akin to the miracle 
 of the stilling of the tempest (iv. 35 ff.), it should rather be 
 examined in the light of that power over the elements which 
 dwells in Christ as the incarnate Son of God. At the same 
 time, it must be confessed that it is utterly impossible to 
 determine by what means this miraculous walking was accom- 
 plished. From a teleological point of view, it will be deemed 
 sufficient that it serves to form a practical demonstration of 
 the Messiahship of Jesus, a consideration (comp. ver. 33) 
 which was no less present to the minds of the evangelists in 
 constructing their narratives. The credibility of those evan- 
 gelists among whom is John, whose personal experience lends 
 additional weight to his testimony must prove fatal, not only 
 to any attempt to resolve our narrative into a mythical sea 
 story (Strauss, who invokes the help of 2 Kings ii. 14, vi. 6, 
 Job ix. 8, and the legends of other nations), or even into a 
 docetic fiction (Hilgenfeld), but also to the half and half view, 
 that some event or other, which occurred on the night in 
 question, developed (Hase) into one of those genuine legendary 
 stories which serve to embody some particular idea (in this 
 instance, the walking on the water, Job ix. 8). In the same 
 way Baumgarten-Crusius, on John, I. p. 234, regards a case of 
 walking on the sea, recorded by John, as the original tradition ; 
 while Weisse, p. 521 (comp. Schneckenburger, erst. Jean. Ev. 
 p. 68), avails himself of the allegorical view; Bruno Bauer, 
 again, here as elsewhere, pushes negative principles to their 
 extreme limit; and Volkmar sees reflected in the narrative 
 Paul's mission to the Gentiles. Weizsacker and Keim likewise 
 assume, though with more caution and judgment, the allegorical 
 standpoint, the former being disposed to regard the interposing
 
 CHAP. XIV. 26-32. 389 
 
 of Jesus with His help, and the power of faith in conquering 
 danger, as constituting the essence of the whole ; Keira again 
 being inclined to see in the story an allusion to the distress 
 and desolation of the church waiting for her Lord, and not 
 knowing but that He may not come to her help till the very 
 last watch in the night (xxiv. 43 ; Mark xiii. 35), an idea 
 which, as he thinks, is indebted in no small degree to Job 
 ix. 8, where God is represented as treading on the waves of 
 the sea. But even this mode of interpretation, though in 
 accordance, it may be, with the letter, cannot but do violence 
 to the whole narrative as a statement of fact. Comp., besides, 
 the note on John vi. 1621. 
 
 Ver. 26 ff. 'Eirl r?}9 0a A aero- 77 9 (see critical notes) : upon 
 the sea. Tliere, just at that spot, they saw Him walking as He 
 was coming toward them over the sea (ver. 25). Observe the 
 appropriate change of cases. For genitive, comp. Job ix. 8. 
 TrepnraTwv . . . eVt 6a\da<rr)<f > Lucian, Philops. xiii. e<' vSaro? 
 f3a8%ovTa, Ver. hist. ii. 4, al. fyavracrpa] They shared (Luke 
 xxiv. 37) the popular belief in apparitions (Plat. Phaed. p. 81 D : 
 ^rv^cov afcioeiSr] ^awaa^aTa\ Eur. Sec. 54; Lucian, Philops. 
 29 ; Wisd. xvii. 15). Comp. the nocturnes Lemures in Horace, 
 Ep. ii. 2. 209. Ver. 27. e'AaX avrJ] cnro T^? (pwvrjs Sfaov 
 eavrov Trotet, Chrysostom. Vv. 28-31 are not found in any 
 of the other Gospels, but their contents are entirely in keeping 
 with Peter's temperament (6 iravra^ov Oeppos K. ael TWV 
 a\\wv 'rrpo-TT^wv, Chrysostom). /SXeTrcoz/] not: as He per- 
 ceived, but : as He saw ; for, when on the sea, He was in 
 immediate contact with the manifestations of the storm. 
 icaraTrovrl^ea-Oai,] "pro modo fidei ferebatur ab aqua" 
 (Bengel) ; namely, by the influence of Christ's power, for which 
 influence, however, he became unreceptive through doubt, and 
 accordingly began to sink. 
 
 Ver. 31 f. JEt<? rt eSterr.] Start TT/DCOTOI/ ftev eOdpprja'as, 
 varepov Se eSetAiWa? ; Euth. Zigabenus. For eis ri, where- 
 fore ? comp. xxvi. 8 ; Wisd. iv. 17 ; Sir. xxxix. 17, 21 ; Soph. 
 Tr. 403, Oed. C. 528, and Hermann's note. e/i^ai/rwi/ 
 avTwv] According to John, Jesus did not go up into the boat, 
 but the disciples wanted to take Him on board. A difference
 
 390 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 that may be noted, though it is of but trifling importance. 
 See note on John vi. 21. e/coTrao-ei/] Comp. Herod, vii. 191. 
 LXX. Gen. viii. 1. It became calm. Anthol. vii. 630: 77 
 paicpr) KCLT efjLov SvaTrXoiij KOTrdcrei, and see Wetstein. 
 
 Ver. 33. Qeov vio<i\ the Messiah. See note on iii. 17. 
 The impression recorded in the text was founded, so far as the 
 people were concerned, upon the miraculous walking on the 
 sea itself, and partly upon the connection which existed, and 
 which they recognised as existing, between the calming of the 
 storm and the going on board of Jesus and Peter, ol ev TW 
 IT\OIM are not the disciples (Hilgenfeld, Schegg, Keim, Scholten), 
 but those who, besides them, were crossing in the boat, the 
 crew and others. Comp. ol avd pea-rot,, viii. 27. By means of 
 an expression of this general nature they are distinguished 
 from the ^adrjraL (ver. 26), who had hitherto been in question. 
 Grotiug limits the meaning too much when he says : " ipsi 
 nautae" Mark omits this concluding part of the incident, 
 and merely records the great astonishment on the part of the 
 disciples. As it stands in Matthew, it is to be regarded as 
 connecting a traditional amplification with the episode of 
 Peter, which that evangelist has embodied in his narrative, 
 but yet as containing nothing improbable, in so far as it makes 
 it appear that the outburst of astonishment was so great that it 
 expressed itself in the acknowledgment of our Lord's Messiah - 
 ship, especially as it is to be borne in mind that the miraculous 
 feeding of the multitudes (John vi. 14, 15) had taken place 
 but so short a time before. Moreover, this is, according to 
 Matthew, the first time that Jesus was designated the Son of 
 God by men (iii. 17, iv. 3, viii. 29). According to John 
 (i. 50), He had already been so styled by Nathanael; in the 
 present instance He received the designation from those who, 
 as yet, were not of the number of His disciples. 
 
 Ver. 34. Comp. Markvi. 53 ff. Trf Tewqa-^ that beauti- 
 ful district of Lower Galilee, stretching along the border of the 
 lake, and measuring thirty stadia in length by twenty in 
 breadth, Josephus, Antt. iii. 10. 8, the el Guweir of the pre- 
 sent day; Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 334; Furer in Schenkel's 
 Bibellex. II. p. 324.
 
 CHAP. XIV. 36. 391 
 
 Ver. 36. Summary statement, as in iv. 24. irapetcdX.'] 
 descriptive imperfect. Kpao-ireSov] See note on ix. 20. 
 They wanted merely to touch Him, as in ix. 21. Biecro)- 
 6ricrav] were completely saved (Xen. Mem. ii. 10. 2; Luke 
 vii. 3), so that they quite recovered from their ailments, and 
 that, according to the analogy of the other miracles of healing, 
 just at once. Hilgenfeld is wrong in supposing that this took 
 place " without the medium of faith ;" as a matter of course, 
 faith was implied in their very 7rapaica\elv.
 
 392 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTEE XV. 
 
 VER. 1. o/] is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B D N, 
 Curss. Or. But how readily might the article have been over- 
 looked, seeing that, in this passage, it might well appear super- 
 fluous, as rather in the way, in fact ! Had it been adopted from 
 Mark vii. 1 (whence, according to well-nigh the same testimony, 
 is derived the arrangement <&ap. /.. ypap/*., followed by Tisch. 8), 
 it would have been put before ypupp. Ver. 4. Iverf/Xaro 
 x'eyuv] Fritzsche, Lachm.: fl-irtv, which Griesb. likewise ap- 
 proved, after B I) T e , 1, 124, and several Verss. and Fathers. 
 Taken from Mark vii. 10. Ver. 5. xa! ol ^59 n priori] Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8 : ou fir] TI^GII, after BCD T e N (which has r/^jj^), 
 Curss. Verss. and Fathers. The omission of xa/ is by way of 
 simplifying the construction. But the future has so much 
 testimony in its favour, besides that of B C D, etc., that (with 
 Tisch.) it must be preferred. In what follows Lachm. has 
 deleted 55 rfiv /j,r,repa auroD (after B D N Syr cur ). Omitted in con- 
 sequnce of homoeoteleuton. Ver. 6. rr]v vroXr}\i] Lachm.: 
 7bv Xo'/on, after B D N** Verss. and Fathers ; Tisch. : rlv vopov, 
 after C T e X* Curss. Ptol. The last is correct ; r. lnroX. is from 
 ver. 3, r. X6y. from Mark vii. 13. 6 "ha.bg euro $] Elz. Scholz : 
 h/yifyi pot 6 Xaoc ourog ru> Grdf^an avruv xa/, against B D L T e K, 
 33, 124, and many Verss. and Fathers. From the LXX. 
 Ver. 14. ofijjyo/ tiGt 7v<p\oi rv<p\uv\ Numerous variations; 
 Lachm. : rup>.o/ tlaiv ofyyo} <pXuv. So L Z N**, Curss. and many 
 Verss. and Fathers, and supported also by B D, 209, Syr cur , 
 which latter have merely rupXo/ siaiv oBrr/oi, 1 where rvtphuv has 
 been displaced by the ru<pX6; immediately following. Never- 
 theless, we must prefer to retain the reading of the Eeceived 
 text, which has still strong testimony in its favour, besides 
 being defended by Tisch. The reading of Lachm. is an unsuc- 
 cessful attempt to amend the style. Ver. 15. rair?jv] deleted 
 by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after B Z K, 1, Copt. Or., but it may 
 have been omitted all the more readily from the fact that 
 Mark vii. 1,7 has no demonstrative, and because the parable
 
 CHAP. XV. l. 393 
 
 does not immediately precede. Ver. 16. 'lr,ffots] with Lachm. 
 and Tisch., and on the strength of important testimony, 
 is to be deleted as being a common supplement. Ver. 17. 
 OVKU] Fritzsche, Lach. and Tisch.: ou, after B D Z, 33, 238, 
 Syr. Syr cur Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. Altered in conformity with 
 Mark vii. 19. Ver. 22. txpavyaatv al>T^>\ Lachm.: expafyv 
 (on the margin : expy^tv), after B D N** 1 ; Tisch. 8 : expa^*, 
 after Z N* 13, 124, Or. Clirys. But of the two words xpafyiv is 
 far more generally used in the New Testament (xpuvyafyiv occurs 
 again in Matthew only in xii. 19), and was further suggested 
 here by ver. 23. AVT&, although having rather stronger testi- 
 mony against it, is likewise to be maintained ; for, with the 
 reading Jx^auy., it proved to be somewhat in the way, and hence 
 it was either omitted, or interpreted by means of ovleu auroD (D, 
 Cant.), or placed after Xsyovaa (Vulg. and Codd. of It.). Ver. 25. 
 irpoasxvvnffiv] Elz. : Kpoe'.xvvu, which Fritzsche, Lachm. Scholz, 
 Tisch. likewise read, after Griesb. had approved of the aorist, 
 and Matthaei had adopted it. The greatest amount of testimony 
 generally is in favour of the aorist ; the greatest amount of the 
 oldest testimony (including Curss. B D N*, though not C), in 
 favour of the imperfect; the latter is to be preferred, partly 
 just because it is better authenticated, and partly because the 
 transcribers were more used to the aorist of vpoaxuv. Ver. 26. 
 oux sen xaXov] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.: ovx t&eri, only 
 after D and a few Verss. and Fathers, also Orig. Correctly ; 
 the reading of the Eeceived text is from Mark vii. 27. Ver. 
 30. Instead of ro\J 'I?j<roD we should read aOroD, with Lachm. and 
 Tisch., according to important testimony. Ver. 31. For XaXoDv- 
 ras, B, Aeth. and a few Curss. have nxovovrag. Defended by 
 Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 348. It is taken from 
 xi. 5. For sdo^acav, Tisch. 8 reads s86%a?ov, only after L N, 
 Curss. Ver. 32. j^lpa/] Elz.: jj/a^ac, against decisive testi- 
 mony. Correction. Ver. 35 f. IxiXiuffi . . .-Xaj8w] Lachm. 
 and Tisch. 8 : -rapaj-ys/Xas rw o'p^Xw avaK. k. r. y. g'Xa/Ssi/ (and xai 
 before t^ap. below), after B 1) N, Curss. Or. An attempt to 
 amend the style with the help of expressions taken from Mark. 
 For Huxi, Tisch. 8 has ftidov, after B D, Curss. Chrys. Taken 
 from Markviii. 6. Ver. 39. av'sfSri] Elz. Schulz, Scholz, Lachm. 
 Tisch. 8 : m/3j, only after B N, Curss. Correction, because e^/S. 
 tig T. irX. happens to be the common form of expression ; viii. 23, 
 ix. 1, xiv. 32. D has sv!3a!vsi. 
 
 Ver. 1. The three sections of ch. xv., having as their 
 respective subjects the washing of hands (vv. 1-20), the
 
 394 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 woman of Canaan (w. 21-31), and the feeding of the four 
 thousand (vv. 32-39), occur elsewhere only in Mark (vii. 8), 
 whom Matthew partly abridges and partly supplements. 
 Tore] when He was staying in the country of Gennesareth. 
 oi airo 'Iepo<r. jp. (see critical notes) : the scribes who be- 
 longed to Jerusalem, and had come from that city (Mark vii. 1). 
 Well-known attraction of the preposition with the article. 
 See Klihner, II. 1, p. 473 ff., and ad Zen. Mem. iii. 6. 11. 
 Comp. Acts XXL 27 ; Col. iv. 16, al. 
 
 Ver. 2. IIapdSocri<}] aypafos 8iSaa-tca\ia, Hesychius. The 
 Jews, founding upon Deut. iv. 14, xvii. 10, for the most part 
 attached greater importance to this tradition than to the 
 written law. Hence, Berachoth f. 3. 2 : nmiD DnaiD nn D^an 
 mm. Comp. Schoettgen. They laid special stress upon the 
 traditional precept, founded on Lev. xv. 11, which required 
 that the hands should be washed before every meal (orav 
 apTov eadioxnv, a rendering of the Hebrew Brp 73S). See 
 Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein. Jesus and His disciples 
 ignored this TrapdSoais as suck. TWV Trpecr/Syr.] which had 
 been handed down from the men of olden time (their forefathers). 
 It is not the scribes that are meant (Fritzsche), nor the elders 
 of the nation (Bleek, Schegg), but cornp. Heb. XL 2. It is the 
 wise men of ancient times that are in view. Observe, more- 
 over, the studied precision and peremptory tone of the ques- 
 tion, which has something of an official air about it. The 
 growing hostility begins to show itself in an open and decided 
 manner. 
 
 Ver. 3. Kai] also, implies a comparison between the u^ets 
 and ol fMtQrjTat crov ; that is to say, the irapa/Baiveiv is acknow- 
 ledged to be true of both parties, the only difference being in 
 the matters in which the transgression is exemplified. Klotz, 
 ad Devar. p. 636. StA T. -rrapdS. v/j,.~\ which you observe. 
 Notice how the one question is met with another in the same 
 style, thereby rendering the reductio ad alsurdum only the 
 more telling. Luther appropriately remarks that " He places 
 one wedge against the other, and therewith drives the first 
 back." 
 
 Ver. 4. Ex. xx. 12, xxi. 17. rip a] involves the idea of
 
 CHAP. XV. 5, 6. 395 
 
 a practical manifestation of reverence in the form of kind 
 deeds, ver. 5. Oavdrw reXevr.] HOV nio, the meaning of 
 which (he shall certainly die, be executed) has not been exactly hit 
 by the LXX. in the phrase Oavarw reX., though it is in con- 
 formity with Greek idiom: He shall end (ii. 19) by death 
 (execution, Plat. Eep. p. 492 D, and very frequently in classical 
 writers). See Lobeck, Paral. p. 523 ; Koster, Erldut. p. 53. 
 Ver. 5 f. Autpov] sc. eVri, J3"]P, a gift, tear e^o-^ijv, namely, 
 ta God, i.e. to the temple. See Lightfoot and, in general, 
 Ewald, Alterth. p. 81 ff. Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, Mal- 
 donatus connect 8copov with oxfrekyBys : a temple -offering, 
 which will be given by me, will bring a blessing to thee. The 
 conjunctive, however, is clearly independent of edv. Chry- 
 sostom observes correctly : Swpov effTt TOVTO ra> 6ew, b 0e\ei<f 
 e efjiov <afa\r)6rivai, Kal ov Bvvao-ai \a(3elv. There is an 
 aposiopesis after ax^eX?; #?}<?, whereupon Jesus proceeds in His 
 discourse with ical ov pr) u/tTjo-. But your teaching is : " Who- 
 ever will have said to his father: It is given to the temple, 
 whatever thou wouldest have got from me by way of helping 
 thee " (the Jews, of course, understood the apodosis to be this : 
 he is not bound by that commandment, but the obligation is 
 transferred to his Corbaii). And (in consequence of this vow) 
 he will certainly not be honouring. Comp. Kauffer, de 0)7)5 
 alcov. notione, p. 32 f., and Beza, de Wette, Keim. Some, how- 
 ever, postpone the aposiopesis till the close, and understand 
 ical ov pr) Tiprja: as forming part of what is supposed to be 
 spoken by the Pharisees in their teaching : But whosoever says 
 . . . and does not honour . . . (he is not liable to punishment). 
 So Fritzsche. But this is not in keeping with usage as regards 
 ov pij ; nor is it in itself a probable thing that the Pharisees 
 should have said quite so plainly that the honouring of parents 
 might be dispensed with. Others, again, reject the aposiopesis, 
 and regard KOI ov pr) rip. etc. as an apodosis, taking the words, 
 like the expositors just referred to, as forming part of what is 
 understood to be spoken by the Pharisees : " wlwever says . . . he 
 is not called upon, in such cases, to honour his parents as well." 
 Such, after Grotius, is the interpretation of Bengel, Olshausen, 
 Bleek; comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. 750, note]. According
 
 396 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 to this view, ical would be that of the apodosis (Klotz, ad 
 Devar. p. 636) in a relative construction (Baeumlein, Partik, 
 p. 146). But oi/ firj rip. does not mean: he need not honour, 
 but : he assuredly will not honour ; or, as Ewald and Hofmann, 
 Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 391, explain it, he shall not honour, 
 which direct prohibition from the lips of such wily hypocrites 
 as those Pharisees, is far less conceivable than the prudent 
 aposiopesis above referred to. For &x/>e\eicr#ai ri e/c TWOS, 
 comp. Thuc. vi. 12. 2 : w^eX^dfj TI etc rfjs /)%?}?, Lys. xxi. 18, 
 xxvii. 2 ; Aesch. Prom. 222 ; Soph. Aj. 533. More frequently 
 with VTTO, Trapd, airo. The opposite of it is : fyfttowrGcU n e/e 
 TWOS, Dem. lii. 11. For the passive with accusative of the 
 thing, see Kiihner, II. 1, p. 279 f. teal rjKvpdxraTe] and 
 you have thereby deprived of its authority, rficvp. is placed first 
 for sake of emphasis, and is stronger than Trapa/Saivere in ver. 3. 
 That such vows, leading to a repudiation of the fifth command- 
 ment, were actually made and held as binding, is evident from 
 Tr. Nedarim v. 6, ix. 1. Joseph, c. Ap. i. 22. Ver. 6 is a 
 confirmation, and not a mere echo, of what is said in ver. 3. 
 
 Ver. 7 ff. KaXcw?] admirably, appropriately characterizing. 
 -jrpoe^TjT.] has predicted, which de Wette unwarrantably 
 denies to be the meaning of the word in the present instance, 
 understanding irpofy. in the sense of the inspired utterance 
 generally. Jesus regards Isa. xxix. 13 (not strictly in accord- 
 ance with the LXX.) as a typical prediction, which has found 
 its fulfilment in the conduct of the scribes and Pharisees. 
 /j,dTi)v BJ] Be denotes a continuation of the matter in hand ; 
 and paTfjv indicates, according to the usual explanation, that 
 their creftecrdai is attended with no beneficial result (2 Mace. 
 vii 18, and classical writers), produces no moral effect upon 
 their heart and life, because they teach as doctrines the 
 commandments of men. But seeing that the fidrirjv crejSea-dat, 
 consists of mere lip-service in which the heart plays no part, 
 thus according with the idea involved in viroKpnal, and 
 inasmuch as BiBda-Kovres, etc., is evidence that such is the 
 nature of the service, the interpretation : sine causa, found so 
 early as in the Vulgate, is better suited to the context. Their 
 cre/3ecr0at of God is meaningless (temere, comp. Soph. Aj. 634,
 
 CHAP. XV. 10-12. 397 
 
 and Lobeck's note, Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 285), because they do not 
 teach divine, but human doctrine, the consequence of which is 
 that the <re/3ea-dat has no motive principle in the heart, where, 
 on the contrary, human interest takes the place of the fear of 
 God. Comp. the /iaraio? Bprjancela of Jas. i. 26. For the 
 opposite of such worship, consult John iv. 24. See Apol. 
 Conf. A., pp. 206, 256. There is no Hebrew word correspond- 
 ing to fjidrvjv in the above quotation from Isaiah ; probably 
 the text made use of by the LXX. contained a different read- 
 ing. evra\fi. av0p.] promulgating as doctrines, precepts of 
 a merely human origin; comp. Col. ii. 22. 
 
 Ver. 10. 'Exeivovs fj,ev eVto'TO/zio-a? KOI /carato^vi/a? 
 60? avidrovs, rpeTret Be TOV \6<yov 7rpo<? TOV o^Xov, a><? a 
 pov, Euth. Zigabenus. During the discussion the 0^X05 had 
 been standing in the background ; He invites them to come 
 near. 
 
 Ver. 11. Koivoi] makes common, profanes fflfy, comp. 
 4 Mace. vii. 6, nowhere found in classical writers ; in the 
 New Testament, in Acts x. 15, xi. 9, xxi. 28 ; Heb. ix. 13 ; 
 Eev. xxi. 27. What Jesus has in view at present is not 
 legal, but moral defilement, and which is not produced 
 (1 Tim. iv. 4) by what goes into the mouth (food and drink, 
 as well as the partaking of these with unwashed hands), but 
 by that which comes out of it (improper language). So far as 
 can be gathered from the context, he is not saying anything 
 against the Mosaic regulations relating to meats, though one 
 cannot help regarding what he does say as so applicable to 
 these, as to bring into view the prospect of their abrogation 
 as far as they are merely ceremonial (comp. Keim, and Weiz- 
 sacker, p. 463), and, as a consequence of this latter, the 
 triumph of the idea which they embody, i.e. their fulfilment 
 (v. 17). Observe, further, that it is meat and drink only in 
 themselves considered, that he describes as matters of indiffer- 
 ence, saying nothing at present as to the special circumstances 
 in which partaking of the one or the other might be regarded 
 as sinful (excess, offences, 1 Cor. viii., and so on). See ver. 1 7. 
 
 Ver. 12. IIpoa-e\0.] Matthew does not say where ? Accord- 
 ing to Mark vii. 17, this took place in the house. TOV \6yov]
 
 398 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Fritzsche and many more take this as referring to vv. 3-9. 
 It is to understand it, with Euth. Zigabenus, as pointing to 
 the saying in ver. 11 (Paulus, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Bleek). For this, addressed as it was to the multitude, must 
 have been peculiarly displeasing to the Pharisees ; and CLKOV- 
 o-ai/re? rov \6yov would, on any other supposition than the 
 above, be deprived of its significance as stating the ground of 
 offence. 
 
 Ver. 13. The correct interpretation is the ordinary one 
 (being also that of Ewald and Keim), according to which 
 </>t/Te/a is taken as a figurative way of expressing the teaching. 
 The fact of Jesus having attacked their teaching, in ver. 11, 
 had given offence to the Pharisees. Consequently He now 
 explains why it is that He does not spare such teaching : every 
 doctrine, He says, that is not of God, that is merely human in its 
 origin, will pass away and perish, as the result, that is, of the 
 Messianic reformation which is in the course of developing 
 itself. Nothing is said about the Pharisees personally (whom 
 Chrysostom supposes to be included in what is said about the 
 teaching) till ver. 1 4. This in answer to Fritzsche, Olshausen, 
 de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Bleek, who find in the words a predic- 
 tion of the extirpation of the Pharisees (" characters of this 
 stamp will soon have played out their game," de Wette). 
 What is expressed figuratively by means of ira<ra (jjvreia, TJV 
 OVK efyvrevaev o Trarijp (JLOV, is the same thing that, in ver. 9, 
 is designated literally as StSaovcaXia? eWaA/ttara dvOpcaTrwv. 
 On (frvreia, planting (Plat. Theag. p. 121 C ; Xen. Oec. vii. 20, 
 xix. 1), i.e. in this instance : something planted, comp. Ignatius, 
 ad Philad. III. ad Trail, xi., where, however, it is not used 
 with regard to false teaching, but with reference to false 
 teachers. In classic Greek the form is fyinevfjia, or <f>vrov. 
 
 Ver. 14. "A<f)eTe avrov<i] Let them alone, dismiss them.' from 
 your thoughts! Comp. Soph. Phil. 1043 (1054): afare jap 
 avrbv, fjifj^e Trpoa-^rava-r)^ e-n. " Indignos esse pronuntiat, 
 quorum haberi debeat ratio," Calvin. In the application of 
 the general saying : ru(/>\o9 Se 7v$\ov, etc., the falling into a 
 ditch (cistern, or any other hole in the earth, as in xii. 17) is 
 to be understood as a figurative expression for being cast into
 
 CHAP. XV. 15-20. 399 
 
 Gehenna. These blind teachers, whose minds are closed 
 against the entrance of divine truth (comp. xxiii. 16; Rom. 
 ii. 19), are with their blind followers hopelessly lost ! Observe 
 what emphasis there is in the fourfold repetition of Tvtj>\oi, 
 etc. The very acme of Pharisaic blindness was their main- 
 taining that they were not blind, John ix. 40. 
 
 Ver. 15. C O Her/Do 9] differs, though not materially, from 
 Mark vii. 17. irapa^o\rf\ in this instance r>e>, a saying 
 embodied in some figurative representation, an apophthegm. 
 Etym. M. : alviyfiaTwBi)*; \6<yo$, b TroXXot \eyovffi 
 
 v n, OVK avrodev Be 7rdvTQ)<> Bfj\ov b OTTO 
 , a\V e^ov eVro9 Bidvoiav KeKpv^fjLevrjv. Comp. note 
 on xiii. 3 ; (f>pdcrov, as in xiii. 36. ravTijv] It was the say- 
 ing of ver. 11 that was present to Peter's mind as having 
 giving occasion to the words that had just fallen from Jesus. 
 It is just that same Xtfyo? which, according to ver. 12, had 
 given offence to the Pharisees. But the explanation of it 
 which is now furnished by Jesus is of such a nature as to be 
 by no means self-evident. 
 
 Ver. 16. 'AKfjLijv] in the sense of adhuc (frequently met 
 with in Poly bins), belongs to the Greek of a later age. 
 Phrynichus, p. 123, and Lobeck's note. - ical u/iel?] even 
 you, although you are my regular disciples. 
 
 Ver. 17 ff. Oi/TTCD vo el-re, K.T.X.] Do you not yet under- 
 stand that, and so on, notwithstanding all that I have already 
 done to develope your minds ? Food and drink are simply 
 things that pass into the stomach to be digested there, and 
 have nothing in common with man's spiritual nature, with his 
 reason, his will, and his affections and desires (icapSia, the 
 centre of the whole inner life, see note on xxii. 37). Notice 
 the contrast between et9 rr)i> icoi\iav (abdominal cavity, see 
 note on John vii. 38) and ex 7-779 KapBias. Ver. 19. Proof of 
 what is said in ver. 18 : for the heart is the place where 
 immoral thoughts, murders, adulteries, and so on, therefore 
 where inward and outward sins, are first conceived, and from 
 which they pass into actual transgressions. Accordingly, it is 
 that which comes out of the heart, and expresses itself by 
 means of the mouth (ver. 18), which defiles the man as a
 
 400 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 moral being. The opposite case, in which the heart sends 
 forth what is good, presupposes conversion. The plurals 
 denote different instances of murder, adultery, and so on 
 (Klihner, II. 1, p. 15 f . ; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. p. 144 f.), 
 and render the language more forcible (Bremi, ad Aescliin. 
 p. 326). fiXaa-ffrrj/j,.] i.e. against one's neighbour, on account 
 of the connection with tyevSofj,. Comp. note on Eph. iv. 31. 
 
 Ver. 21. 'EiceWev] See xiv. 34. dve-^^ptja-ev] He with- 
 drew, to avoid being entrapped and molested by the Pharisees. 
 Comp. xii. 15, xiv. 13. et? ra fiepri] not: towards the 
 districts, versus (Syr. Grotius, Bengel, Fritzsche, Olshausen), 
 for the only meaning of et? that naturally and readily suggests 
 itself is : into the districts (ii. 22), of Tyre and Sidon. This, 
 however, is not to be understood as implying that Jesus had 
 crossed the borders of Palestine and entered Gentile territory, 
 which is precluded by the words of ver. 2 2 : OTTO r. opiwv ere. 
 e%e\6ov<Ta, but as meaning, that he went : into the (Galilean) 
 districts which border upon the precincts of Tyre and Sidon. 
 Comp. note on Mark vii. 24, according to which evangelist 
 Jesus does not pass through Sidon till afterwards, when pro- 
 ceeding farther on His way (vii. 31). This in answer -to 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, de Wette, Arnoldi, 
 Bleek, Schenkel, whose expedient of supposing that Jesus 
 betook Himself to this Gentile valley, not for the purpose of 
 teaching, but to make Himself acquainted with the feelings of 
 the people who lived there (Schenkel), may be pronounced to 
 be as arbitrary as the supposition that He only wanted (Calvin) 
 to give praeludia quaedam of the conversion of the Gentiles. 
 
 Ver. 22. Xavavaia] Several tribes of the Canaanites, V^?, 
 who were the original inhabitants of Palestine, went and 
 settled in the north, and founded what was subsequently known 
 as the Phoenician nation, Winer, Realwdrterbueh. Lightfoot on 
 this passage. e^e\9ova-a] She crossed the frontier into the 
 contiguous territory of the Jews, where Jesus happened to be. 
 According to Paulus, the woman came out of her house; 
 according to de Wette, Bleek : from some place nearer the 
 centre of the country. Both views are in opposition to the 
 terms of our passage,, which plainly state where she came out
 
 CHAP. XV. 23, 24. 401 
 
 from. vie Jay.] She so addresses Jesus, because, from living 
 in the neighbourhood of the Jews, she was familiar with their 
 Messianic expectations, and with the Messiah's title, as well 
 as with the Messianic reputation of Jesus. Looking to what 
 is said in ver. 26, she cannot be supposed to have been 
 a proselyte of the gate. The Gentiles also believed in 
 demoniacal possession. e'Xe^croy /u,e] " Suam fecerat pia 
 mater miseriam filiae," Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 23. At first a silent indication, and then an express 
 intimation of His disinclination to favour her. air6\v<rov 
 avrr/v] send her away, that is, with her request granted. 
 Bengel says well : " Sic solebat Jesus dimittere." Thus they 
 begged Jesus ; very frequently in the New Testament (in 
 Matthew, only on this occasion ; in Mark, only in vii. 2 6 ; in 
 Luke and John, very often ; in Paul, only in Phil. iv. 3 ; 
 1 Thess. iv. 1, v. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 1), and contrary to classical 
 usage, though according to the LXX. (=?$w } see Schleusner, 
 Thes. II. p. 529). epwrdta is used in the sense of to beg, to 
 request. It is not so with regard to eVe/jcoTao). See note on 
 xvi. 1. on icpd^et, /C.T.X.] so importunate is she. 
 
 Ver. 24. Those words are addressed to the disciples (comp. 
 note on x. 6) ; the answer to the woman comes afterwards in 
 ver. 26. It is usually supposed that what Jesus had in view 
 was merely to put her confidence in Him to the test (Ebrard, 
 Baur, Schenkel, Weiss) ; whilst Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. 
 Zigabenus, Luther, Glockler, assert that His aim was to fur- 
 nish her with an opportunity for displaying her faith. But 
 the moral sense protests against this apparent cruelty of 
 playing the part of a dissembler with the very intention 
 of tormenting; it rather prefers to recognise in our Lord's 
 demeanour a sincere disposition to repel, which, however, is 
 subsequently conquered by the woman's unshaken trust (Chry- 
 sostom : Ka\r)v avata-^yvrlav). Ewald appropriately observes 
 how, on this occasion, Jesus shows His greatness in a twofold 
 way : first, in prudently and resolutely confining Himself to 
 the sphere of His own country ; and then in no less thought- 
 fully overstepping this limit whenever a higher reason rendered 
 it proper to do so, and as if to foreshadow what was going to 
 
 MATT. 2 G
 
 402 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 take place a little farther on in the future. It was not 
 intended that Christ should come to the Gentiles in the days 
 of His flesh, but that He should do so at a subsequent period 
 (xxviii. 19), in the person of the Spirit acting through the 
 medium of apostolic preaching (John x. 16 ; Eph. ii 17). 
 But the difficulty of reconciling this with viii. 5, xi. 12, on 
 which Hilgenfeld lays some stress, as being in favour of our 
 present narrative, is somewhat lessened by the fact that, 
 according to Luke vii. 2 ff., the centurion was living in the 
 heart of the people, and might be said to be already pretty 
 much identified with Judaism ; whereas we have a complete 
 stranger in the case of the woman, before whom Jesus sees 
 Himself called upon, in consequence of their request, ver. 23, 
 strictly to point out to His disciples that His mission, so far 
 as its fundamental object was concerned, was to be confined 
 exclusively to Israel. Volkmar, indeed, makes out that the 
 words were never spoken at all ; that their teaching is of a 
 questionable nature ; and that the whole thing is an imitation 
 of the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 
 xvii.) ; while Scholten, p. 213, regards it merely as a symbolical 
 representation of the relation of the Gentile world to the 
 kingdom of God, and which had come to be treated as a fact. 
 
 Ver. 26. It is not allowable (see critical notes) to taJce 
 (sumere, circumstantial way of putting it, not : to take away) 
 the bread belonging to the children and cast it to the dogs, a 
 general proposition for the purpose of expressing the thought : 
 I must not allow the Gentiles to participate in my blessings, belong- 
 ing as they do only to the people of Israel (the children of God, 
 Eom. ix. 4). Jesus speaks " ex communi gentis loquela potius 
 quam ex sensu suo " (Lightfoot) ; for it was the practice 
 among the Jews to designate heathens (and subsequently, 
 Christians also) as dogs ; see Lightfoot and Wetstein, likewise 
 Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. p. 713 ff. For the diminu- 
 tive, see note on ver. 27. In this passage it is intended to 
 mitigate the harshness of the expression. 
 
 Ver. 27. Nai, as in xi. 9, 26, confirms the whole statement 
 of Jesus in ver. 26 (not merely the appellation of dogs, Theo- 
 phylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Maldonatus) ; and KCU yap
 
 CHAP. XV. 27. 403 
 
 means, as everywhere in the New Testament, and even to a 
 far greater extent among classical writers (who use it but 
 rarely in the sense of namque, xai consequently is connective), 
 for even; see especially, Kiihner, II. 2, p. 855. It gives a 
 reason for the vai; but it is quite according to rule to regard 
 TO, Kvvdpia as the expression to which /cat is meant to give 
 prominence. Consequently the passage would run thus : Yes, 
 Lord, Thou art right in what Thou sayest, for even the dogs 
 eat of the crumbs, and so on ; or, to express it negatively (with 
 ovSe yap) : for even the dogs are not sent away empty, and so 
 on. That is to say, this /cat, so far as can be seen from the 
 context, cannot be intended to serve any other purpose than 
 to suggest a comparison between the Kvvdpia and the reicva, 
 so that the passage may be paraphrased as follows : Thou art 
 right, Lord ; for not merely the children are filled with bread 
 at the family-meal, but so richly is the table spread even 
 the dogs receive their share, inasmuch as they eat of the frag- 
 ments, and so on. It would therefore be but the more un- 
 seemly to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs, so 
 as possibly to leave the former unfed. But in thus justifying 
 her vai, icvpte, the woman seeks to suggest the inference to our 
 Lord that He might yet venture to give her that which is 
 hinted at in those ^fv^ia with which the Kvvdpia have to be 
 contented. Of course by this she means a share of His 
 abundant mercy, after the wants of Israel have been fully 
 supplied. Following Grotius and Kuinoel, de Wette explains 
 incorrectly : for it is even usual for the dogs to get nothing but 
 the fragments. In that case we should have expected to find : 
 KOI yap aTTo TWV A/rt^tW e<r0it, K.T.\. Fritzsche (cornp. Bleek, 
 Schegg) is likewise wrong when he explains thus : Yes, Lord, 
 it is allowable to give the bread to the dogs, for, and so on. 
 As against this view we have not merely vai, which can only 
 be taken as a confirming, a justifying of what Jesus had said, 
 not simply the ignoring of KOI yap, which it would involve, 
 but also the " repugnandi audacia," which is not to be excused 
 in consideration of the tcvpte, and the meaning itself, which 
 would certainly not bear out the idea of a contradiction on the 
 part of the woman. But if there is one thing more than
 
 404 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 another that must not be associated with the tender language 
 of this woman, it is the appearance of anything like contra- 
 diction. Finally, all interpretations are wrong which would 
 necessitate our having d\\d instead of teal yap (Chrysostom, 
 Luther, Vatablus, Glockler, Baumgarten-Crusius). The reason 
 why we find Jesus, ver. 26, and consequently the woman 
 also, ver. 2 7, making use of the diminutive tcvvdpia (a classical 
 term, Plat. Euthyd. p. 298 D; Xen. Cyr. viii. 4. 20, although 
 discarded by Phrynichus, p. 180), is because His idea is that 
 of a family-meal, in connection with which it was not un- 
 natural to think of the little house-dogs that ran about under 
 the table (comp. TpaTre^fjes tcvves, Horn. II. xxiii. 173). The 
 plural r&v Kvpiwv may be ascribed to the fact that, in what 
 she says, the woman is understood to be stating what is 
 matter of general experience. 
 
 Ver. 28. 'Airo TT)S upas e/c.] See note on ix. 22. The 
 miracle is one of healing from a distance, as in viii. 13, John 
 iv. 46 ff., and is to be regarded neither as an allegory of Jesus' 
 own composing (Weisse, I. p. 527), which came subsequently 
 to be looked upon as the record of a miracle, nor as being a 
 mere case of the miraculous prediction of the future (Ammon. 
 L. J. II. p. 277). 
 
 Vv. 29 ff. Ilapa rrjv OaX. r. PaX.] according to Mark 
 vii. 31, the eastern shore. TO 0/305] the mountain just at 
 hand. See notes on v. 1, xiv. 22. KV\\OVS] deformed, 
 lame, without specifying further; but the word is used not 
 merely with reference to the hands or arms (comp. as evidence 
 to the contrary, the well-known nickname of Vulcan : KV\\O- 
 TroStW, Horn. //. xviii. 371, xxi. 331), but also to the feet. 
 eppnjrav] The Jlinging down is to be taken, not as indicating 
 the careless confidence (Fritzsche, de Wette, Bleek), but rather 
 the haste of the people, in consequence of so many sick being 
 brought to Jesus. Comp. Er. Schmid, Bengel. The reference 
 to the helplessness of the sick (Baumgarten-Crusius) would be 
 suited only to the case of the p^wXot and KV\\OI. Trap a 
 r. 7ro8a9] for as Trpoff/cvvovvre? it behoved them to prostrate 
 themselves before Him. Ver. 31. TOV 0ov 'Ic'p.] who 
 shows His care for His people by communicating to them,
 
 CHAP. XV. 32-38. 405 
 
 through Jesus, such extraordinary blessings. 'Joyx is added 
 in the consciousness of the advantages they possessed over the 
 neighbouring Gentiles. 
 
 Ver. 32. In this second instance of feeding the multitude, 
 and which is likewise recorded" in Mark viii. 1 ff. (and that in 
 a more authentic form), Jesus takes the initiative, as in John 
 vi. 5 ; not so in Matt. xiv. 15. ^pepat rpei<i] because they 
 have remained with me, it is now three days, and, and so on. 
 For this elliptical way of inserting the time in the nominative, 
 see Winer, p. 523 [E. T. 704]; Buttinann, neut. Gr. p. 122 
 [E. T. 139] ; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 310 f. teal OVK e^ova-i. 
 /C.T.X.] for in the course of the three days they had consumed 
 the provisions they had brought along with them. 
 
 Vv. 33 ff. See note on xiv. 15 ff. f)nlv~\ " Jam intellige- 
 bant discipuli, suas fore in ea re partes aliquas," BengeL 
 ware] not a telic particle (de Wette), but what is meant is : 
 such a quantity of bread as will be sufficient for their wants, 
 and so on. The use of ware after TOO-OUTO? in a way corre- 
 sponding to this is of very frequent occurrence (Plat. Gory. 
 p. 458 C). See Sturz, Lex. Zen. IV. p. 320; Kiihner, II. 
 2, p. 1003. Notice the emphatic correlation of TOO-OVTOI and 
 rotrovTov. The perplexity of the disciples, and the fact of 
 their making no reference to what was formerly done under 
 similar circumstances, combined with the great resemblance 
 between the two incidents, have led modern critics to assume 
 that Matthew and Mark simply give what is only a duplicate 
 narrative of one and the same occurrence (Schleiermacher, 
 Scholz, Kern, Credner, Strauss, Neander, de Wette, Hase, 
 Ewald, Baur, Kostlin, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Weiss, Weiz- 
 sacker, Volkmar, Keim, Scholten) ; while Wilke and Bruno 
 Bauer maintain, though quite unwarrantably, that in Mark 
 the account of the second instance of miraculous feeding is 
 an interpolation ; and Weiss, on the other hand, is of opinion 
 that this evangelist has constructed his duplicate out of mate- 
 rials drawn from two distinct sources (1865, p. 346 f.). As 
 a consequence of this duplicate-hypothesis, it has been found 
 necessary to question the authenticity of Matt, xvi 9 f., Mark 
 viii. 19. The whole difficulty in connection with this matter
 
 406 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 arises chiefly out of the question of the disciples, and the fact 
 of their seeming to have no recollection of what took place 
 before, a difficulty which is not to be got rid of by remind- 
 ing us of their feeble capacities (Olshausen), but which justifies 
 us in assuming that there were actually two instances of 
 miraculous feeding of a substantially similar character, but 
 that (Bleek) in the early traditions the accounts came to assume 
 pretty much the same shape, all the more that the incidents 
 themselves so closely resembled each other. Ver. 34. l^Bv- 
 8 1 a] Observe the use of the diminutive on the part of the 
 disciples themselves (" extenuant apparatum," Bengel) ; the 
 use of tydvas, on the other hand, in the narrative, ver. 36. 
 Ver. 35. Ke\evetv rtvi\ occurs nowhere else in the New 
 Testament, though frequently in Homer and later writers 
 (Plat. Rep. p. 396 A). See Bornemann in the Sachs. Stud. 
 1843, p. 51. Ver. 37. Seven baskets full is in apposition 
 with TO Trepia-cr. r. K\aarp,., as in xiv. 20. (nrvpis is the term 
 regularly employed to denote a basket for carrying provisions 
 when on a journey, sporta. Comp. Arr. Ep. iv. 10. 21; 
 Athen. viii. p. 365 A; Valckenaer, ScJwl. I. p. 455. The 
 seven baskets corresponded to the seven loaves, ver. 34 ; the 
 twelve baskets, xiv. 20, to the twelve apostles. x^P^ 
 yvvaiic. K. vrcuS.] See note on xiv. 21. 
 
 Ver. 39. The village of Magdala (Josh. xix. 38 ?) is not to 
 be regarded as situated on the east (Lightfoot, Wetstein, 
 Cellarius), but on the west side of the lake, where now stands 
 the Mohammedan village of Mcjdel. See Gesenius on Burck- 
 hardt, II. p. 559 ; Buckingham, L p. 404; Robinson, Pal. III. 
 p. 530. This situation likewise corresponds with Mark vii. 
 21. Comp. note on ver. 29. It is well, however, to take 
 note of the reading MayaSdv (B D K Syr cur Syr. in this 
 instance ; similarly Lachmann, Tischendorf ; comp: Erasmus 
 and Grotius), or MayeSdv (Vulgate, It., Jerome, Augustine), 
 which unknown name might readily enough have been sup- 
 planted by one rendered more familiar on account of its con- 
 nection with Mary Magdalene. In C M, Curss. the final 
 syllable is still retained (MaySa\dv). According to Ewald, 
 Magadan, or Magedan, refers to the well-known town of Megiddo.
 
 CHAP. XV. 89. 407 
 
 But this latter was too far inland (Robinson, III. p. 413 f. ; 
 Purer in Schenkel's JSibellex.), for it would seem, from what is 
 stated in the text (aveftr) ei<? TO TT\. KOL r)\6ev), that the place 
 meant must have been somewhere on the shore, and one 
 admitting of being approached by a boat. Mark viii 10 calls 
 it Dalmanutha.
 
 408 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTEE XVI 
 
 VER. 3. uToxp/ra/'] omitted before rb psv in C* D L A, Curss. 
 Verss. Aug. Deleted by Lachmann (who has xai instead, only 
 after C**) and Tisch. Correctly; borrowed from Luke xii. 56. 
 In accordance with important testimony, Lachm. and Tisch. 
 have correctly deleted D wpopfaov, ver. 4 (conip. xii. 39), as also 
 auroD, ver. 5. Ver. 8. IXa/Ssrg] Lachm.: t^n, after B D N, 
 Curss. Vulg. It, and other Verss. (not Or.). Correctly ; iXajS. 
 was more likely to be derived mechanically from ver. 7 than 
 ex. irf to have been adopted from Mark viii. 1 7. Had the latter 
 been the case, we should likewise have found s^o^tv in ver. 7. 
 Ver. 11. apTou] Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. : aprw, which Griesb. 
 likewise approved, in accordance with a preponderance of testi- 
 mony. The sing, would naturally come more readily to the 
 transcribers, and that on account of the material rather than 
 the numerical contrast. For fpoee^eiv, B C* L K, Curss. Verss. 
 Or. have : vpos^Ti 8s (D, Curss. and Verss., however, omitting 
 the 3i). Correctly adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The 
 infinitive, as well as the omission of df, originated in the 
 reference of the words not having been understood. Ver. 12. 
 ro\j aprov] Tisch. 8 : ruv Qaptaaiuv x. 'Saddovx., only after N* 33., 
 gyjcur . Lachm. has ruv apruv, which, however, is not so well 
 supported as in ver. 11 (B Ltf**), besides having the appear- 
 ance of being simply conformed to this verse. The reading of 
 Tisch. 8 is somewhat of a gloss. Ver. 13. pi] is omitted after 
 rtva in B K and several Verss. and Fathers ; in C it is found 
 after xiy. Deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., bracketed by 
 Lachm. Omitted because, from the circumstance of r. vibv r. 
 av6p. following (otherwise in Mark and Luke), it seemed super- 
 fluous and out of place. Ver. 20. ditgreiXard] Orig. already 
 found JTT//i7]i' in Codd. So Lachm. after B* D, Arm. Taken 
 from Mark viii. 30, Luke ix. 21, for diacriXXu occurs nowhere 
 else in Matthew. o Xp/<rr6g] Elz., after numerous and im- 
 portant Codd. (also C N**) : 'irjffoDs 6 xpioros. But 'ir,<so\j$ is 
 omitted by very important authorities, and, as it is out of place 
 in the present connection, the transcriber must have inserted it
 
 CHAP. XVL 1. 409 
 
 mechanically. Ver. 23. pou 7] B C K, 13, 124: t7 fact (so 
 Lachm. Tisch. 8), or i7 pou. D, Marcell, in Eus. Vulg. It. al. : 7 
 ifj.oi (so Fritzsche). With such a want of unanimity among the 
 authorities, the reading of the Eeceived text cannot be said to 
 have a preponderance of testimony, while the variations turn the 
 scales in favour of 7J,aoS. Ver. 26. wpXs/Ya/] Lachm. Tisch.: 
 J)>Aj0J3<rcra/, after B L N, Curss. Verss. Or. Cyr. Chiys. Altered 
 to be in conformity with the verbs in the future that precede 
 and follow. Comp. also Mark viii. 36, 37. Ver. 28. ruv &&e 
 Elz. : ruv uds terqxoTuv, after K M n. Fritzsche: ruy 
 g, after Ev. 49. Both are to be rejected, owing to the 
 testimony being too inadequate. Scholz and Tisch. 7 : uds 
 s, after EFGHVXrA, Curss. No doubt ruv uds 
 is supported by the preponderating testimony of B C D 
 L S U N, Curss. Or. Ephr. Chrys. Epiph. Theodoret, Damasc., 
 and adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8; still it is clearly taken 
 from Mark ix. 1, Luke ix. 27. It therefore remains that uds 
 is the correct reading. 
 
 Ver. 1 ff. Comp. Mark viii. 11 ff. Not a duplicate of the 
 incident recorded in xii. 38 (Strauss, de Wette, Bruno Bauer, 
 Schneckenburger, Volkmar, Weizsacker, Bleek, Scholten), but 
 a second demand for a sign, and that from heaven, in which 
 respect it is distinguished from the first. With regard to the 
 alliance between Pharisees and Sadducees, supposed by some 
 to be utterly improbable (de Wette, Strauss, Weiss, Scholten), 
 it is sufficient to say, with Theophylact : KUV rot? Soyfiaat 
 BiicrravTo H?apia-aloi Kal ^aSSovKaloi, a\Xa ye Kara XpicrTov 
 crv/jLirveovcn' arj^elov Se e TOV ovpavov KflTOvcrw, e&o/covv yap, 
 on ra 6Trl T?}S 7775 (fq^iela a?ro Sai/iovi/cris Swa/nea)? Kal ev 
 Bee\%e/3ov\ yivovrai. In the unbelieving hostility with which 
 they are animated, they demand of Him the very highest sign 
 which the Messiah would be expected to give (xxiv. 29 f. ; 
 Joel iii 3 f.), intending thereby to have Him put to the test, 
 but thinking, all the time, that it would be beyond His power 
 to comply with their demand. eTryptaTrjaav] Their chal- 
 lenge was put in the form of inquiry. The compound eVe/3o>- 
 rav never means : to request, to leg ; see note on xv. 23. 
 Their questions had reference to such a sign, by way of 
 Messianic credential, as, coming from heaven, would be visible
 
 410 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 to their outward eye. e7rtSe*fcu] spectandum praelere, John 
 ii. 18. 
 
 Vv. 2, Sf. 1 Lightfoot, p. 373: " Curiosi erant admodum 
 Judaei in observandis tempestatibus coeli et temperamento 
 aeris." Babyl. Joma f. 21. 8 ; Hieros. Taanith f. 65. 2. For 
 Greek and Eoman testimonies relative to the weather signs 
 in our passage, see Wetstein. evSla] clear weather! An 
 exclamation in which it is not necessary to supply carat, 
 except, perhaps, in the way of helping the grammatical 
 analysis, as also in the case of o-rffjuepov '^eiyMv (stormy weather 
 to-day /). For the opposite of evSla and ^eif^fiov, comp. Xen. 
 Hell. ii. 3. 10: ev evSia ^etfj-wva irotovcriv. aTvyvd^tov] 
 being lowering. See note on Mark x. 22. TO Trpoa-covrov] 
 " Omnis rei facies externa," Dissen, ad Find. Pyth. vi. 14, 
 p. 273. TO; Se arj^eia TWV icaipwv] the significant pheno- 
 mena connected with passing events, the phenomena which 
 present themselves as characteristic features of the time, and 
 point to the impending course of events^ just as a red sky at 
 evening portends fine weather, and so on. The expression is 
 a general one, hence the plural T&V icaipwv ; so that it was a 
 mistake to understand the frrjpeia as referring to the miracles 
 of Christ (Beza, Kuinoel, Fritzsche). Only when the reproach 
 expressed in this general form is applied, as the Pharisees 
 and Sadducees were intending to apply it, to the existing 
 Kaipos, do the miracles of Christ fall to be included among the 
 signs, because they indicate the near approach of the Messiah's 
 kingdom. In like manner the fulfilment of Old Testament 
 prophecy, such as was to be traced in the events that were 
 then taking place (Grotius), was to be regarded as among the 
 signs in question, as also the Messianic awakening among the 
 people, Matt. xi. 12 (de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius). Accord- 
 ing to Strauss, the saying in vv. 2, 3 is inconceivable. But 
 the truth is, it was peculiarly in keeping with the thoughtful 
 
 1 The whole passage from Inlets on to Su<r&, ver. 3, is omitted in B V 
 X r N, Curss. Codd. in Jerom. Syr " Arm. Or. (?), while in E it is marked with 
 an asterisk. Tisch. 8 encloses it in brackets. The omission is certainly not to 
 be explained on the physical ground (Bengel) that these signs of the weather 
 are not applicable to every climate, but from the fact that a similar saying does 
 uot happen to be found in the corresponding passage in Mark.
 
 CHAP. XVI. 5, 6. 411 
 
 manner of Jesus, if, when a sign from heaven was demanded, 
 He should refer those demanding it to their own practice of 
 interpreting the appearances of the sky, so as to let them see 
 how blinded they were to the signs that already existed. A 
 similar saying is found in Luke xii. 54 f., where, however, it 
 is addressed to the multitude. There is no reason for thinking 
 that it appears in its authentic form only in Matthew (de 
 Wette), or only in Luke (Schleiermacher, Holtzmann), for 
 there is nothing to prevent us from supposing that Jesus may 
 have used similar and in itself very natural language on 
 several occasions. /cat KaTa\nr. avr: airri\0e\ depicting 
 in a simple way the "justa severitas" (Bengel) shown toward 
 those incorrigibles. Comp. xxi. 1 7. Gomp., besides, the note 
 on xii. 39: 
 
 Ver. 5. This, according to Fritzsche, is the voyage men- 
 tioned in xv. 39, so that the disciples are supposed to have 
 come shortly after " in eum ipsum locum, quern Jesus cum 
 Pharisaeis disputans : tenebat." Unjustifiable deviation from 
 the very definite account in Mark viii. 13. After disposing 
 of the Pharisees and Sadducees, Jesus- crossed over again to 
 the east side of the lake along with His disciples ; but 
 Matthew mentions only oi fUidrjTai, because they alone happen 
 to form the subject of eTreXdQovro, though ver. 6 shows, 
 beyond all doubt, that Jesus crossed along with them. e-TreXa- 
 Oovro] is neither to be taken (Erasmus, Calvin, Paulus, Hil- 
 genfeld) as a pluperfect (see, on the other hand, note on John 
 xviii. 24), nor as equivalent to " viderunt se oblitos esse" (Beza, 
 Kuinoel> Fritzsche), but thus : after the disciples had reached 
 the east side, they forgot to provide themselves with bread (to 
 serve them for a longer journey). After coming on shore 
 they should have obtained a supply of provisions in view of 
 having a further journey before them, but this they forgot. 
 According to Mark viii. 1 4 if., which in this instance also is 
 the more authentic version, the following conversation is not 
 to be understood as having taken place in the boat (Keim, 
 Weiss), but in the course of the further journey after going 
 on shore. 
 
 Ver. 6. The craft and malice of the Pharisees and Saddu-
 
 412 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 cees were still fresh in His memory, w. 1-4. ^v^tjv rrjv 
 SiSa^is] tcd\<rev, to? ogtoSrj KOI <ra.7rpdv (Euth. Zigabenus) ; 
 see ver. 12. The allusion is to their peculiar sectarian views, 
 in so far as they deviated from the law. The expression is 
 explained differently in Luke xii. 1. Comp. note on GaL v. 9 ; 
 1 Cor. v. 6. For the figurative use of "INK> by the Eabbis (as 
 denoting the infecting influence of any one who is bad), see 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 2303. Lightfoot on this passage. 
 Used differently again in xiii. 33. 
 
 Ver. 7 f. Owing to the notion of bread being associated in 
 their minds with that of leaven, the words of Jesus led them 
 to notice that their supply of the former article was exhausted, 
 so that they supposed all the time that His object was to warn 
 them against taking bread from the Pharisees and Sadducees. 
 8ie\oyiovTo] not disceptabant (Grotius, Kypke, Kuinoel), 
 but : they consulted among themselves, i.e. they deliberate 
 (X^/o^re?) over the matter within their own circle without say- 
 ing anything to Jesus, who, however, from His being able to 
 penetrate their thoughts, is quite aware of what is going on, 
 ver. 8. Comp. Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 1. ort] not: recitative, but : 
 (He says that) because we have not provided ourselves with bread. 
 In ver. 8 it means : over the fact, that. ri 8ia\oy.~] why, 
 and so on, how meaningless and absurd it is ! 
 
 Ver. 9 f. After those two miracles you have so recently 
 witnessed (xiv. 15, xv. 32), have you still so little penetration 
 as not to understand that the thing to which I am alluding is 
 not literal bread, which you ought to have depended (0X470- 
 TTio-r.) on my being able to supply whenever occasion might 
 require, but rather to something of a spiritual nature ? Jesus 
 lays no more stress here than He does elsewhere upon the 
 physical benefit of His bread-miracle (de Wette), but simply 
 makes use of it in the way of suggesting deeper reflection. 
 The difference between KO$. and tnrvp. does not lie in 
 cnrvpis being larger (Bengel, which does not follow from Acts 
 ix. 25), but in the fact that /co<>o<? is a general term, whereas 
 CTTTV/J/? denotes a food-basket in particular. See note on 
 xiv. 20, xv. 37. 
 
 Ver. 11. IIS><i] how is it possible! Astonishment in
 
 CHAP. XVI. 13. 413 
 
 which a certain amount of censure is expressed. Trpoo-e^ere 
 Be] see critical notes. It is not necessary to supply elirov 
 (Paulus, Fritzsche), but we are rather to understand that after 
 the question ending with elirov vjuv, Jesus repeats, and with a 
 view to its being yet more deeply pondered, the warning 
 given in ver. 6, in which case Be is simply continuative 
 (autem) : But (let me say again) beware, and so on. 
 
 Ver. 13 ff. Comp. Mark viii. 27 ff. ; Luke ix. 18 ff. (which 
 latter evangelist rejoins, at this point, the synoptic narrative, 
 having left it immediately after recording the first miraculous 
 feeding of the multitude, a circumstance which is sometimes 
 alleged as a reason for doubting the authenticity of the second 
 miracle of this kind). Caesarea Philippi, a town in Gaulonitis, 
 at the foot of Mount Lebanon, which was formerly known by 
 the name of Paneas, Plin. N. H. v. 15. Philip the tetrarch 
 enlarged and embellished it (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2, Bell. ii. 
 9. 1), and called it Caesarea in honour of Caesar (Tiberius). 
 It received the name of Philippi in order to distinguish it 
 from Caesarea Palestinae. Robinson, Pal. III. pp. 612, 626 ff., 
 and neuere Forsch. p. 531 ff. ; Eitter, Erdk XV. 1, p. 194 ff. 
 rbv viov rov avdpwirov] See, in general, note on 
 viii. 20. The words are in characteristic apposition with A*e. 
 That is to say, Matthew does not represent Jesus as asking in 
 a general way (as in Mark and Luke) who it was that the 
 people supposed Him to be, but as putting the question in this 
 more special and definite form : whom do the people suppose me, 
 as the Son of man, to be ? He had very frequently used this 
 title in speaking of Himself ; and what He wanted to know 
 was, the nature of the construction which the people put upon 
 the designation in Daniel, which He had ascribed to Himself, 
 whether or not they admitted it to be applicable to Him in its 
 Messianic sense. Comp. Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 
 1865, p. 228. From the answer it appears that, as a rule, He 
 was not being taken for the Messiah as yet (that consequently 
 the more general appellation : o uto? rod avOp., was not as yet 
 being applied to Him in the special sense in which Daniel 
 uses it), He was only regarded as a forerunner ; but the dis- 
 ciples themselves had understood Him to be the Son of man
 
 41-i THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 in Daniel's sense of the words, and, as being such, they looked 
 upon Him as the Messiah, the Son of God. Accordingly it is 
 not necessary to regard T. vlov r. av&p. as interpolated by 
 Matthew (Holtzmann, Weizsacker), thereby destroying the 
 suggestive correlation in which it stands to the expression, 
 Son of God, in Peter's reply. It is not surprising that Strauss 
 should have been scandalized at the question, seeing that he 
 understood it in the anticipatory sense of : " whom do the 
 people suppose me to be, who am the Messiah ? " Beza inserts 
 a mark of interrogation after elvai, and then takes the follow- 
 ing words by themselves thus : an Messiam ? But this would 
 involve an anticipation on the 'part of the questioner which 
 would be quite out of place. De Wette (see note on viii. 20) 
 imports a foreign sense into the passage when he thus explains : 
 " whom do the people say that I am, I, the obscure, humble 
 man who have before me the lofty destiny of being the Messiah, 
 and who am under the necessity of first of all putting forth 
 such efforts in order to secure the recognition of my claims ? " 
 Keim's view is correct, though he rejects the fie (see critical 
 notes). Observe, moreover, how it was, after He had performed 
 such mighty deeds in His character of Messiah, and had pre- 
 pared His disciples by His previous training of them, and 
 when feeling now that the crisis was every day drawing nearer, 
 that Jesus leads those disciples to avow in the most decided 
 way possible such a conviction of the truth of the Christian 
 confession as the experience of their own hearts might by this 
 time be expected to justify. Com p. note on ver. 17. As for 
 themselves, they needed a religious confession thus deeply 
 rooted in their convictions to enable them to confront the 
 trying future on which they were about to enter. And to 
 Jesus also it was a source of comfort to find Himself the 
 object of such sincere devotion; comp. John vi. 67 ff. But 
 to say that it was not till now that He Himself became con- 
 vinced of His Messiahship (Strauss, before 1864, Schenkel), is 
 to contradict the whole previous narrative in every one of the 
 evangelists. Comp. Weizsacker, Keim, Weissenborn, p. 41 ff. 
 Ver. 14 f. 'Icoavvijv rbv ySaTrr.] Their opinion is similar 
 to that of Antipas, xiv. 2. 'H\iav~] These a\\oi cannot,
 
 CHAP. XVI. 1C, 17. 415 
 
 therefore, have realized in the person of the Baptist that 
 coming of Elias which was to precede the advent of the 
 Messiah. erepot, Be] a distinct class of opinion which, 
 whatever may have been the subsequent view, was not at that 
 time understood to be in any way connected with the expected 
 coming of Elias. For ere/jo?, comp. note on 1 Cor. xii. 9, 
 xv. 40 ; 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. i. 6. As forerunner of the Messiah 
 they expected Jeremiah, who at that time was held in very 
 high repute (Ewald, ad Apoc. XI. 3), or some other ancient 
 prophet (risen from the dead). Bertholdt, Christol. p. 58 f. 
 rj eva rwv 7rpo<f>.~] where we are not to suppose a\\ov to be 
 understood (Fritzsche), but should rather regard the persons in 
 question as intending to say (in a general way) : it is el? row 
 7rpo<f). ! without mentioning any one in particular. For el?, 
 see note on viii. 19. vpeis Se] from them He expected a 
 very different kind of confession, and He was not disappointed. 
 
 Ver. 16. As was to be expected from his impetuous 
 character, his personal superiority, as well as from the future 
 standing already assigned him in John i. 43, Peter (TO crro/ta 
 T&V aTrooToAtBi/, Chrysostom) assumes the part of spokesman, 
 and in a decided and solemn manner (hence : 6 wo? TOV 6eov 
 TOV &)z/T09, the higher, and not, as in xiv. 33, the merely 
 theocratic meaning of which the apostle could as yet but dimly 
 apprehend, it being impossible for him to understand it in all 
 its clearness till after the resurrection, comp. note on Eom. 
 i. 4) declares Jesus to be the Messiah (6 Xpia-ro^, the Son of 
 the living God (TOV aWo9, in contrast to the dead idols of the 
 heathen). Both elements combined, the work and the person 
 constituted then, as they do always, the sum of the Christian 
 confession. Comp. xxvi. 63; John xi. 27, xx. 31 ; Phil. ii. 
 11 ; 1 John ii. 22 f. Observe the climax at the same time ; 
 " nam cognitio de Jesu, ut est filius Dei, sublimior est quam 
 de eodem, ut est Christus," Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 17. Simon, son pa) of Jona, a solemnly circumstan- 
 tial style of address, yet not intended as a contrast to the 
 designation of him as Peter which is about to follow (de 
 Wette), in connection with which view many expositors have 
 allegorized the Bapicard in an arbitrary and nugatory fashion,
 
 416 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 but merely on account of the importance of the subsequent 
 statement, in which case Bapiwva is to be ascribed to the 
 practice of adding the patronymic designation, and blending the 
 /3dp. with the proper name (x. 3 ; Acts xiii. 6 ; Mark x. 46). 
 OTI] because thou art favoured far above my other fol- 
 lowers in having had such a revelation as this. <rapt; K. 
 alpa] 071 "it?3 (among the Kabbis), paraphrastic expression for 
 man, involving the idea of weakness as peculiar to his bodily 
 nature, Sir. xiv. 1 8 ; Lightfoot on this passage ; Bleek's 
 note on Heb. ii. 14. Cornp. the note on Gal. i. 16 ; Eph. vi. 12. 
 Therefore to be interpreted thus : no weak mortal (mortalium 
 ullus) has communicated this revelation to thee ; but, and so on. 
 Inasmuch as aTroKaXinrreiv, generally, is a thing to which no 
 human being can pretend, the negative half of the statement 
 only serves to render the positive half all the more emphatic. 
 Others refer trap!; K. alpa to ordinary knowledge and ideas 
 furnished by the senses, in contradistinction to irve.v^a (de 
 Wette, following Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Neander, Olshausen, 
 Glockler, Baumgarten-Crusius, Keim). Incorrectly, partly 
 because the lower part of man's nature is denoted simply by 
 <rap%, not by <rap% K. alpa (in 1 Cor. xv. 50 the expression 
 flesh and blood is employed in quite a peculiar, a physical 
 sense), partly because airefcd\v^e (xi. 25) compels us to think 
 exclusively of a knowledge which is obtained in some other 
 way than through the exercise of one's human faculties. For 
 a similar reason, the blending of both views (Bleek) is no less 
 objectionable. It must not be supposed that, in describing 
 this confession as the result of a divine revelation, there is 
 anything inconsistent with the fact that, for a long time before, 
 Jesus had, in word and deed, pointed to Himself as the Mes- 
 siah (comp. above all the Sermon on the Mount, and such 
 passages as xi. 5 f., 27), and had also been so designated by 
 others (John the Baptist, and such passages as viii. 29, xiv. 
 33), nay, more, that from the very first the disciples them- 
 selves had recognised Him as the Messiah, and on the strength 
 of His being so had been induced to devote themselves to His 
 person and service (iv. 19 ; John i. 42, 46, 50); nor are we 
 to regard the point of the revelation as consisting in the 6 wo?
 
 CHAP. XVI. 17. 417 
 
 T. Oeov T. &5vTo<?, sometimes supposed (Olshausen) to indicate 
 advanced, more perfect knowledge, a view which it would be 
 difficult to reconcile with the parallel passages in Mark and 
 Luke ; but observe : (1) That Jesus is quite aware that, in 
 spite of the vacillating opinions of the multitude, His disciples 
 continue to regard Him as the Messiah, but, in order to 
 strengthen and elevate both them and Himself before begin- 
 ning (ver. 21) the painful and trying announcement of His 
 future sufferings, and as furnishing a basis on which to take 
 His stand in doing so, He seeks first of all to elicit from them 
 an express and decided confession of their faith. (2) That 
 Peter acts as the mouthpiece of all the others, and with the 
 utmost decision and heartiness makes such a declaration of 
 his belief as, at this turning-point in His ministry, and at a 
 juncture of such grave import as regards the gloomy future 
 opening up before Him, Jesus must have been longing to hear, 
 and such as He could not fail to be in need of. (3) That 
 He, the heart- searching one, immediately perceives and knows 
 that Peter (as o rov 'Xppov rwv aVo<rr6X&>i> icopv^aios, Chry- 
 sostom) was enabled to make such a declaration from his having 
 been favoured with a special revelation from God (xi. 27), 
 that He speaks of the distinction thus conferred, and connects 
 with it the promise of the high position which the apostle is 
 destined to hold in the church. Consequently a7re/ca'\injre is 
 not to be understood as referring to some revelation which 
 had been communicated to the disciples at the outset of their 
 career as followers of Jesus, but it is to be restricted to Peter, 
 and to a special revelation from God with which he had been 
 favoured. This- confession, founded as it was upon such a 
 revelation, must naturally have been far more deliberate, far 
 more deeply rooted in conviction, and for the Lord and His 
 work of far greater consequence, than that contained in the 
 exclamation of the people in the boat (xiv. 33) when under 
 the influence of a momentary feeling of amazement, which 
 latter incident, however, our present passage does not require 
 us to treat as unhistorical (Keim and others) ; comp. note on 
 xiv. 33. Observe, further, how decidedly the joyful answer 
 of Jesus, with the great promise that accompanies it, forbids 
 
 MATT. a D
 
 418 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the supposition that He consented to accept the title and 
 dignity of a Messiah only from " not being able to avoid a 
 certain amount of accommodation" to the ideas of the people 
 (Schenkel; see, on the other hand, Weissenborn, p. 43 ff.). 
 
 Ver. 18. But I again say to thee. The point of the com- 
 parison in Kay& is, that Peter having made a certain declara- 
 tion in reference to Jesus, Jesus also, in His turn, now does 
 the same in reference to Peter. Trer/oo?] as an appellative : 
 thou art a rock, Aram. N^s. The form o Trerpos * is likewise 
 common among classical writers, and that not merely in the 
 sense of a stone, as everywhere in Homer in contradistinction 
 to 7TTpa (see Duncan, p. 937, ed. Eost, and Buttmann, Lexil. 
 II. p. 179), but also as meaning a rock (Plat. Ax. p. 371 E: 
 Sto-vfov TreT/30?; Soph. Phil. 272, 0. G. 19, 1591; Pind. Nem. 
 iv. 46, x. 126). Jesus declares Peter to be a rock on account 
 of that strong and stedfast faith in himself to which, under 
 the influence of a special revelation from God, he had just 
 given expression. According to John i. 43, however, Jesus 
 conferred the name Cephas upon him at their very first inter- 
 view (according to Mark iii. 16, somewhat later); but our 
 passage is not to be understood as simply recording the giving 
 of the name, or the giving of it for the second time. It is 
 rather intended to be taken as a record of the declaration 
 made by Jesus, to the effect that Simon was in reality all that 
 the name conferred upon him implied. Consequently our 
 passage is in no way inconsistent with that of John just 
 referred to, which could only have been the case if the words 
 used had been <rv K^Orjcr^ HeTpos. /cat CTTI ravry rfj 
 n-erpa] The emphasis is on ravrp, which points to Peter (not 
 to Jesus, as Augustine would have us suppose), and to be 
 understood thus : on no other than on this rock, hence the 
 feminine form in this instance, because it is not so much a 
 question of the name as of the thing which it indicates, i.e. of 
 that rocky element in the apostle's character which furnished 
 
 1 Among the later poets *> -r'tTfos is likewise to be met with. See Jacobs, ad 
 Anthol. XIII. p. 22. The name nirpei is also to be found in Greek writers of a 
 later age (Leont. SchoL 18) ; more frequently in the form ntrfcun (Lobeck, 
 Paral. p. 342).
 
 CHAP. xvi. is. 419 
 
 so solid a foundation for the superstructure of the church that 
 was to be built upon it. otKoSo/t^crto ftou rr^v KK\r)criav] 
 will I build for myself (JAOV, as in viii. 3, and frequently ; see 
 note on John xi. 32) the church. The e/c\7;cria in the Old 
 Testament ^\>, Deut. xviii. 16, xxiii. 1, Judg. xxi. 8, the 
 whole assembly of the Jewish people (Acts vii. 38), the 
 theocratic national assembly (comp. Sir. xxiv. 1, and Grimm's 
 note) is used in the New Testament to denote the community 
 of believers, the Christian church, which, according to a common 
 figure (1 Cor. iii. 10 f . ; Eph. ii 19 ff.; Gal. ii. 9 ; 1 Pet. ii. 
 4 f.), is represented as a building, of which Christ here speaks 
 of Himself as the architect, and of Peter as the foundation on 
 which a building is to be raised (vii. 24 f.) that will defy 
 every effort to destroy it. But the term eV/cX. was in such 
 current use in its theocratic sense, that it is not necessary to 
 suppose, especially in the case of a saying so prophetic as this, 
 that it has been borrowed from a later order of things and put 
 into Jesus' mouth (Weisse, Bleek, Holtzmann). Besides, there 
 can be no doubt whatever that the primacy among the apostles 
 is here assigned to Peter, inasmuch as Christ singles him 
 out as that one in particular whose apostolic labours will, in 
 virtue of the stedfast faith for which he is peculiarly dis- 
 tinguished, be the means of securing, so far as human effort 
 can do so (comp. Eev. xxi. 14 ; Gal. ii. 9), the permanence 
 and stability of the church which Jesus is about to found, and 
 to extend more and more in the world. As in accordance 
 with this, we may also mention the precedence given to this 
 disciple in the catalogues of the apostles, and likewise the 
 fact that the New Testament uniformly represents him as 
 being, in point of fact, superior to all the others (Acts xv. 7, 
 ii. 14 ; Gal. i. 18, ii. 7, 8). This primacy must, be impartially 
 conceded, though without involving those inferences which 
 Eomanists have founded upon it ; for Peter's successors are 
 not for a moment thought of by Jesus, neither can the popes 
 claim to be his successors, nor was Peter himself ever bishop 
 of Eome, nor had he any more to do with the founding the 
 church at Rome than the Apostle Paul (for the false reasoning 
 on this subject, see Dbllinger, Christcnth. u. Kirche, p. 315 ff.).
 
 420 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 The explanation frequently had recourse to in anti-popish 
 controversies, to the effect that the rock does not mean Peter 
 himself, but his stedfast faith and the confession he made of it l 
 (Calovius, Ewald, Lange, Wieseler), is incorrect, because the 
 demonstrative expression : eVi ravry TTJ trk-rpa, coming imme- 
 diately after the crv el -Trerpo?, can only point to the apostle 
 himself, as does also the teal Bctxrco, etc., which follows, it being 
 understood, of course, that it was in consideration of Peter's 
 faith that the Lord declared him to be a foundation of rock. 
 It is this circumstance also that underlies the reference to the 
 apostle's faith on the part of the Fathers (Ambrose : " non de 
 carne Petri, sed de fide ; " comp. Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, 
 Augustine). The expression: irv\ai aSov (which does not 
 require the article, Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 147 ff.J), is to be 
 explained by the circumstance that because Hades is a place 
 from which there is no possibility of getting out again (Eusta- 
 thius, ad Od. xi. 276 ; Blomfield, Gloss, in Aesch. Pers. p. 164), 
 it is represented under the figure of a palace with strong gates 
 (Cant. viii. 6 f. ; Job xxxviii. 1 7 ; Isa. xxxviii 10; Ps. ix. 
 14, evil 18 ; Wisd. xvi. 13 ;,3 Mace. v. 51 ; Ev. Nicod. xxi., 
 and Thilo's note, p. 718 ; more frequently also in Homer, as 
 //. viii. 15; Aesch. Agam. 1291; Eur. Hipp. 56). ov 
 KaTia^vaovaiv aur?}?] So securely will I build my church 
 upon this rock, that the gates of Hades will not be able to resist 
 it, will not prove stronger than it ; indicating, by means of a 
 comparison, the great strength and stability of the edifice of the 
 church, even when confronted with so powerful a structure as 
 that of Hades, the gates of which, strong as they are, will yet 
 not prove to be stronger than the building of the church ; for 
 when the latter becomes perfected in the Messianic kingdom 
 at the second coming, then those gates will be burst open, in 
 order that the souls of the dead may come forth from the 
 subterranean world to participate in the resurrection and the 
 glory of the kingdom (comp. note on 1 Cor. xx. 54 f.), when 
 
 1 Comp. Luther's gloss : "All Christians are Peters on account of the con- 
 fession here made by Peter, which confession is the rock on which he and all 
 Peters are built." Melauchthon, generalizing the xirpa, understands it in the 
 sense of the verum ministerium. Comp. Art. Smalc. p. 345.
 
 CHAP. XVI. 18. 421 
 
 death (who takes away the souls of men to imprison them in 
 Hades), the last enemy, has been destroyed (1 Cor. xv. 26). 
 So far the victory of the church over Hades is, of course, 
 affirmed, yet not in such a way as to imply that there had 
 been an attack made by the one upon the other, but so as to 
 convey the idea that when the church reaches her perfected 
 condition, then, as a matter of course, the power of the nether 
 world, which snatches away the dead and retains them in its 
 grasp, will also be subdued. This victory presupposes faith 
 on the part of the Kara^Oovioi (Phil. ii. 10), and consequently 
 the previous descensus Christi ad inferos. Moreover, had He 
 chosen, Christ might have expressed Himself thus : KOI irvKuv 
 aSov KaTMrxya-ei ; but, keeping in view the comparative idea 
 which underlies the statement, He prefers to give prominence 
 to " the gates of Hades " by making them the subject, which 
 circumstance, combined with the use of the negative form of 
 expression (Eev. xii. 8), tends to produce a somewhat solemn 
 effect. Kana^veiv TWOS '. praevalere adversus aliguem (Jer. 
 xv. 18 ; Ael. N. A.v. 19 ; comp. avna^yetv rtz/o?, Wisd. vii. 30, 
 and la"xyeiv Kara 7*1/09, Acts xix. 16). If we adopt the no less 
 grammatical interpretation of: to overpower, to subdue (Luther 
 and the majority of commentators), a most incongruous idea 
 emerges in reference to the gates, and that whether we under- 
 stand the victory as one over the devil (Erasmus, Luther, 
 Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Maldonatus, Michaelis, Keim) or over 
 death (Grotius) ; for the gates of Hades would thus be repre- 
 sented as the attacking side, which would hardly be appropriate, 
 and we would have to suppose what, on the other hand, would 
 be foreign to the sense, that all the monsters of hell would 
 rush out through the opened gates (Ewald, comp. also Weiz- 
 sacker, p. 494). The point of the comparison lies simply in 
 the strength that distinguishes such solid gates as those of 
 Hades, and not also in the Oriental use of the gates as a place 
 of meeting for deliberation (Glockler, Arnoldi), as though the 
 hostile designs of hell were what was meant. Notwithstanding 
 the progressive nature of the discourse and the immediate 
 subject, Wetstein and Clericus refer avrrjs to Peter (ravrp T. 
 jrerpa), and suppose the meaning to be : " eum in discrimen
 
 422 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 vitae venturum, nee tamen eo absterritum iri," etc. Xotice, 
 besides, the grandeur of the expression : " grandes res etiam 
 grandia verba postulant," Dissen, ad Find. p. 715. 
 
 Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys of the Messianic 
 kingdom, 1 i.e. the power of deciding as to who are to be 
 admitted into or excluded from the future kingdom of the 
 Messiah. For the figurative expression, comp. Luke xi. 52 ; 
 Eev. i. 18, iii. 7, ix. 1, x. 1 ; Isa. xxii. 22 ; Ascens. Isa. 
 vi. 6. 8 co era)] The future expresses the idea of a promise 
 (the gift not being, as yet, actually conferred), as in the case 
 of olKoSofiija-Q), pointing forward to the time when Christ 
 will no longer administer the affairs of the church in a direct 
 and personal manner. This future already shows that what 
 was meant cannot have been the office of preaching the gospel, 
 which preaching is supposed to lead to admission into the 
 kingdom of heaven, wherever God has prepared men's hearts 
 for its reception (Diisterdieck, Julius Muller). The similitude 
 of the keys corresponds to the figurative olfcoSo/j,., ver. 18, in 
 so far as the e/cX^o-/a, ver. 18 (which is to be transformed 
 into the /Sao-tXet'a T. ovp. at the second coming), is conceived 
 of as a house, the doors of which are opened and locked by 
 means of keys (generally, not exactly by two of them). In regard 
 to Peter, however, the figure undergoes some modification, in- 
 asmuch as it passes from that of the foundation of rock, not 
 certainly into the lower one of a gate-keeper, but (comp. 
 Luke xii. 4; 1 Cor. iv. 1, ix. 17; Tit. i. 7) into that of 
 an oifcovofios (rapias, Isa. xxii. 15 ff.), from the ordinary 
 relation of a disciple to the church to the place of authority 
 hereafter to be assigned him in virtue of that relation. 
 The authority in question is that of a house-steward, who is 
 empowered to determine who are to belong and who are not 
 to belong to the household over which his master has com- 
 missioned him to preside. 2 All this is expressed by means of 
 
 1 See Ahrens, d. Amt. Schlussel, 1864; Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, 
 p. 436 ff. ; likewise the reviews of the first-mentioned work in the Erlang. 
 Zeitschr. 1865, 3, p. 137 ff. ; and that of Diisterdieck m the Stud. u. Krit. 
 1865, p. 743 ; Julius Muller, dogm. Abh. p. 496 ff. 
 
 2 There is no force in the objection that this would be to confound the keys 
 of the hotise-steward with those of the porter (Ahrens). The keys of the
 
 CHAP. xvi. 19. 423 
 
 an old and sacred symbol, according to which the keys of the 
 house are promised to Peter, " that he may open and no man 
 shut, that he may shut and no man open" (Isaiah as ahove). 
 For the forms Xet<? and (as Tischendorf 8, on inadequate 
 testimony) /cXetSa?, see Kiihner, I. p. 357. ical o eavSijcr)*; 
 /c.T.X] a necessary adjunct of this power: and whatsoever 
 thou wilt have forbidden upon earth will be forbidden in 
 heaven (by God), so that it will, in consequence, prevent 
 admission into the Messianic kingdom; and whatsoever thou, 
 wilt have permitted upon earth (as not proving a hindrance 
 in the way of admission to the future kingdom) will be per- 
 mitted in heaven. It will depend on thy decision which 
 God will ratify what things, as being forbidden, are to 
 disqualify for the kingdom of the Messiah, and what things, 
 as being allowed, are to be regarded as giving a claim to 
 admission. Seeiv and \veiv are to be traced to the use, so 
 current among the Jews, of "IDS and "Win, in the sense of to 
 forbid and to allow. Lightfoot, p. 378 ff . ; Schoettgen, II. 
 p. 894 f., and Wetstein on this passage; Lengerke's note on 
 Dan. vi. 8; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. 67; Steitz, p. 438 f. 
 Following Lightfoot, Vitringa, Schoettgen, and others, Fritzsche, 
 Ahrens, Steitz, Weizsacker, Keim, Gess (I. p. 68), Gottschick 
 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1873, also adopt this interpretation of 
 those figurative expressions. In the face of this common 
 
 house are entrusted to the steward for the purpose of opening and locking it ; 
 this is all that the figure implies. Whether he opens and locks in his own 
 person, or has it done through the medium of a porter, is of no consequence 
 whatever, and makes no difference as far as the thing intended to be symbolized 
 is concerned. The power of the keys belongs, in any case, to the tl*nii*t t and 
 not to the fvpupos. The view of Ahrens, that the keys are to be regarded as 
 those of the rooms, and of the place in which the family provisions are stored, 
 the <ra.ft.iiov, the contents of which it is supposed to be the duty of the steward 
 to distribute (so also Dollinger, Christenth. u. Kirche, p. 31), is in opposition 
 to the fact that the thing which is to be opened and locked must be understood 
 to be that which is expressed by the genitive immediately after *Xu'j (accord- 
 ingly, in this instance, the kingdom, not the T^H), comp. note on Luke 
 xi. 52, likewise Isaiah as above. Moreover, according to the explanation of 
 Ahrens, those, on whose behalf the Tupi'sts uses his keys, would have to be 
 regarded as already within the kingdom and participating in its blessings, so 
 that there would be no further room for the idea of exclusion, which is not in 
 keeping with the contrast which follows.
 
 424 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 usage, it would be arbitrary and absurd to think of any other 
 explanation. The same may be said not only of the reference 
 to the supreme administrative power in general (Aruoldi and 
 the older Catholics), or to the treasures of grace in the church, 
 which Peter is supposed to be able to withhold or bestow as 
 he may deem proper (Schegg), but likewise of the view which 
 represents the words as intended to indicate the power of 
 admitting into and excluding from the church (Thaddaeus a 
 S. Adamo, Commentat. 1789, Rosenmiiller, Lange), and in 
 support of which an appeal is made, notwithstanding the o, 
 to the ancient practice of tying or untying doors ; as well as 
 of that other view which has been so currently adopted, after 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, 
 Beza, Calvin, Maldonatus, to the effect that what Jesus means 
 is the remission and non - remission of sins. 1 So Grotius, 
 Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, Neander, Glockler, Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Dollinger, Julius Miiller, Diisterdieck. But to quote 
 in connection with this the different and much later saying 
 of Jesus, after His resurrection, John xx. 23, is quite un- 
 warranted ; the idea of sin is a pure importation, and 
 although \vi,v a^apr. may properly enough be understood as 
 meaning : to forgive sins (Isa. xl. 2 ; 3 Esdr. ix. 13; Sir. 
 xxviii. 8 ; and see Kypke on xviii. 18), yet the use of Beeiv 
 apapr., in the sense of retaining them, is altogether without 
 example. Exception has been taken to the idea involved in 
 our interpretation ; but considering that high degree of faith 
 to which Peter, as their representative, 'here shows them to 
 have attained, the apostles must be supposed to possess " the 
 moral power of legislation " (objected to by de Wette) as 
 well, if they are to determine the right of admission to the 
 
 1 In which case the result of apostolic preaching generally, i.e. its efficacy 
 in judging men by the spiritual power of the word (Julius Miiller, comp. 
 Neander and Diisterdieck), ceases to have any significance other than that of a 
 vague abstraction, by no means in keeping with the specific expression of the 
 text, and leaving no room for assigning to Peter any special prerogative. This 
 also in answer to Weiss, bibl Theol. p. 99, 2d ed., who holds that, originally, 
 the words were intended to indicate merely that general commission which 
 was given to the apostles to publish among men the call to the kingdom of 
 God.
 
 CHAP. XVI. 20, 21. 425 
 
 Messiah's kingdom; see Steitz also, p. 458. This legislative 
 authority, conferred upon Peter, can only wear an offensive 
 aspect when it is conceived of as possessing an arbitrary 
 character, and as being in no way determined by the ethical 
 influences of the Holy Spirit, and when it is regarded as 
 being of an absolute nature, as independent of any connec- 
 tion with the rest of the apostles (but see note on xviii. 18). 
 Comp. Wieseler, Chronol. d. Ap. p. 587 f. Ahrens, likewise, 
 correctly interprets the words in the sense of to forbid and to 
 allow, but supposes the words themselves to be derived from 
 the practice of fastening with a knot vessels containing any- 
 thing of a valuable nature (Horn. Od. viii. 447). Artificial 
 and far-fetched, but resulting from the reference of the keys 
 to the rafieiov. co-rat SeSe/x,.] Observe how that is spoken 
 of as already done, which is to take place and be realized 
 immediately on the back of the b eav Sija-ys. Comp. Butt- 
 niann, neut. Gr. p. 267 [E. T. 311]; Kiihner, II. 1, p. 35. 
 To such a degree will the two things really harmonize with 
 one another. 
 
 Yer. 20. Jteo-TetXaro] He appointed, strictly enjoined. 
 Comp. Plat. Eep. p. 535 B ; Aristot. Polit. ii. 5 ; Judith xi. 12; 
 2 Mace. xiv. 28 ; Mark v. 43 ; Acts xv. 24 ; Heb. xii. 20. 
 on auro? ear iv 6 X.] that He Himself is the Messiah. This 
 auro9 points back to ver. 14, according to which some one else 
 was looked for as the Messiah, while Jesus was only regarded 
 as His forerunner. The reason of this prohibition is not that 
 He wanted to anticipate any offence that might afterwards 
 arise in consequence of His sufferings (Chrysostom, Euth. 
 Zigabenus), for Jesus quite foresaw His resurrection and 
 Sofa, and the effect which these would have upon His fol- 
 lowers (John xii. 32) ; but (see note on viii. 4) its explanation 
 is to be found in His uniform desire to avoid awakening and 
 fostering sanguine Messianic hopes among the people. 
 
 Ver. 21. 'ATTO rore rjpf aro] Comp. iv. 17 ; a note of time 
 marking an important epoch. " Antea non ostenderat," Bengel. 
 To announce His future sufferings 1 to His disciples, and that 
 
 1 Whoever supposes that it was only somewhere about this time that the 
 thought of His impending sufferings and death first began to dawn upon Jesua
 
 428 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 immediately after their decided confession, ver. 1 6, was highly 
 opportune, both as regards their capability and their need 
 their capability to stand so trying an intimation, and their need 
 of beginning to relinquish their false hopes, and of attaining 
 to a true and exalted conception of what constitutes the work 
 of the Messiah. Mark viii. 31 likewise introduces the 
 beginning of the announcement of the future sufferings some- 
 what prominently after Peter's confession, whereas Luke 
 ix. 21 f. omits it altogether. Set] Necessity in accordance 
 with a divine purpose, xxvi. 54 ; Lukexxiv. 26 ; John iii. 14. 
 a.7re\0elv el<j 'lepocr.] because connected with KOI TroXXa 
 iradelv K.T.\, does not forbid the idea of previous visits to 
 Jerusalem mentioned by John (in answer to Hilgenfeld, 
 Evang. p. 89); comp. xxiii. 37. airo] at the hands of; 
 comp. note on xi. 19. rwv frpea-fi. K. />%. K. jpafjLfjiJ] 
 This circumstantial way of designating the Sanhedrim (comp. 
 note on ii. 4) has here something of a solemn character. 
 cnroKravOJ] further detail (though with ver. 24 already in 
 view) reserved for xx. 19. What Jesus contemplates is 
 not being stoned to death by the people (Hausrath), but 
 judicial murder through the decision of a court of justice. 
 real rfj rpirp 17/4. eyepd^vat] With so clear and distinct a 
 prediction of the resurrection, it is impossible to reconcile the 
 fact that, utterly disheartened by the death of their Lord, the 
 disciples should have had no expectation whatever that He 
 would come to life again, that they consequently embalmed 
 the body, and that even on the Sunday morning the women 
 wanted to anoint it ; that they should have placed a heavy 
 stone at the mouth of the grave, and afterwards are utterly at 
 a loss to account for the empty sepulchre, and treat the state- 
 ment that He has risen and appeared again as simply incred- 
 
 (Hase, Weixsacker, Keim, Wittichen), can do so only by ignoring previous state- 
 ments on the part of the Lord, which already point with sufficient clearness to 
 His painful end (see especially ix. 15, x. 38, xii. 40) statements the testimony 
 of which is to be set aside only by explaining away and rejecting them by the 
 artifice of mixing up together dates of different times, and the like, and thus 
 depriving them of validity, a course which is decidedly opposed to the Gospel 
 of John (comp. i. 29, ii. 19, iii. 14, vL 51 ff.) so long as its authenticity is 
 recognised!
 
 CHAP. XVI. 21. 427 
 
 ible, some of them even doubting His identity when they do 
 see Him ; and further, that the risen Jesus appeals, indeed, to 
 an Old Testament prediction (Luke xxiv. 25), but not to His 
 own ; just as John, in like manner, accounts for Peter and 
 himself not believing in the resurrection till they had actually 
 seen the empty grave, merely from their having hitherto 
 failed to understand the scripture (John xx. 9). All this is 
 not to be disposed of by simply saying that the disciples had 
 not understood the prediction of Jesus (Mark ix. 22); for 
 had it been so plainly and directly uttered, they could not 
 have failed to understand it, especially as, in the course of 
 His own ministry, cases had occurred of the dead being re- 
 stored to life, and as the Messianic hopes of the disciples 
 must have disposed them to give a ready reception to tidings 
 of a resurrection. Then, again, the fulfilment would neces- 
 sarily have had the effect of awakening both their memory 
 and their understanding, and that all the more that precisely 
 then light was being shed upon the mysterious saying regard- 
 ing the temple of the body (John ii. 2 1 f.). We must there- 
 fore suppose that Jesus had made certain dark, indefinite 
 allusions to His resurrection, which as yet had not been 
 apprehended in their true meaning, and that it was only ex 
 eventu that they assumed, in the course of tradition, the clear 
 and definite form of a prediction such as is now before us. 
 It is only such faint, obscure hints that are as yet to be met 
 with in John ii. 19, x. 1*7 f., and see observation on Matt, 
 xii. 40. Comp. besides, Hasert, iib. d. Vorlwrsag. Jesu von s. 
 Tode u. s. Auferst. 1839, Neander, de Wette, Ammon. Other 
 expositors (Paulus, Hase, Scholten, Schenkel, Volkmar), arbi- 
 trarily ignoring those traces of a dim prophetic hint of the 
 resurrection, have contended that, originally, nothing more 
 was meant than a symbolical allusion, an allusion, that is, to 
 the new impetus that would be given to the cause of Jesus, while 
 some of them have denied that any announcement of the death 
 ever took place at all (Strauss ; see, on the other hand, Ebrard). 
 But the arguments of Siiskind (in Flatt's Magaz. VII. p. 
 181 ff.), Heydenreich (in Huffel's Zeitschr. II. p. 7 ff.), Kuinoel, 
 Ebrard, and others in favour of the perfect authenticity of the
 
 428 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 definite and literal predictions of the resurrection, are not con- 
 clusive, and, to some extent, move in a circle. 
 
 Ver. 22. HpocrXa/3o/w,.] after he. had taken Him to himself, 
 comp. xvii. 1, i.e. had taken Him aside to speak to Him pri- 
 vately. The very common interpretation: he took Him ly 
 the hand, imports what does not belong to the passage. 
 jjp^ard] for Jesus did not allow him to proceed farther with 
 his remonstrances, which had commenced with the words 
 immediately following; see ver. 23. i\e&>9 <roi] sc. eirj 6 
 $eo?, a wish that God might graciously avert what he had 
 just stated, a rendering of the Hebrew n ???, 2 Sam. xx. 20, 
 xxiii. 17 ; 1 Chron. xi. 19, LXX. 1 Mace. ii. 21, and see 
 Wetstein. Comp. our : God forbid ! co-rat] purely future ; 
 expressive of full confidence. 'O jj,ev aTreKaXv^drj, 6 Herpes 
 6p9o)$ aiftoXoyrja-ev o Se OVK a7reKa\v(j)d'i] > ecr<f>d\r), Theophylact. 
 Peter was startled ; nothing, in fact, could have formed a more 
 decided contrast to the Messianic conception on which his 
 confession seemed to have been based, than the idea of a 
 Messiah suffering and dying like a malefactor. 
 
 Ver. 23. Srpa(j>el<i] He turned away, by way of indicating 
 His horror. vTraye OTT/O-&) /-tot;] See note on iv. 10. 
 a-arava] Satan ! A term of reproach, springing out of the 
 intense displeasure with which He now saw Peter 1 striving, 
 like Satan, against that purpose of God of which he was so 
 profoundly conscious. Not "moral vexation" (Keim), but 
 moral displeasure. Comp. John vi. 70. Seeing that Peter's 
 feelings have changed, it was proper that the testimony of 
 Jesus regarding him should undergo a corresponding change 
 (Augustine), although without prejudice to the high position 
 just promised to him by Jesus -, for this distinction neither 
 excludes the idea of there being still a strong carnal element 
 in Peter's character, nor does it imply that he was beyond the 
 need of correction; consequently, the evasive interpretation 
 of Catholic expositors who, in this instance, take crarava as 
 an appellative (adversarius ; so Maldonatus, Jansen, Arnoldi), 
 is utterly groundless. <r/cdv8. fiov et] e/^TroBiov pov vvv 
 dvTitcelfjiei'os TO> efjL<a 0e\^fj,aTi, Euth. Zigabenus. 
 tliou hast in thy mind; indicating the direction of
 
 CHAP. XVI. 24-26. 429 
 
 his aims, the bent of the practical reason. Corap. note on 
 Horn. viii. 5. r<fc rov deov] matters of divine interest; 
 because God is to be understood as having ordained the suffer- 
 ings of Jesus for the purpose of carrying out the plan of 
 redemption. rh ra>v avOpwirtov] who are concerned about 
 having as their Messiah a mere earthly hero and prince. 
 
 Ver. 24 f. Comp. Mark viii. 34 ft; Luke ix. 23 ff. As 
 7 must suffer, so also must all my followers I oTrt'creo pov 
 e\6elv\ as in iv. 19. eavrov] i.e. His own natural self; TO 
 eavrov de\r)fj,a TO (f>i\r)Sovov, TO </HXoa>oi>, Euth. Zigabenus. 
 To that which this fleX^/ia desires, He says : No I dpdra) r. 
 O-T.] let him not shrink from the pain of a violent death such 
 as He Himself will be called upon to endure. Comp. note on 
 x. 38. nal aoX. pot] that is, after he has taken up his 
 cross. What goes before indicates the precise kind of follow- 
 ing which Jesus requires. John xxi. 19. According to the 
 context, it is not a question of moral following generally (KOI 
 Trdcrav rrjv a\\v)v dperrjv eTriSeucvvadco, Theophylact, conip. 
 Euth. Zigabenus, Chrysostom). But, by way of illustrating 
 the idea of self-denial, Theophylact appropriately refers to the 
 example of Paul, Gal. ii. 20. Ver. 25. See note on x. 30. 
 
 Ver. 26. Ver. 25, compared with ver. 24, involved the 
 thought that the earthly life must be sacrificed for sake of 
 gaining the eternal. The reason of this thought is now 
 brought forward. &>0e\etTat] represents as already present 
 the man's condition at the day of judgment, not an Attic 
 future (Bleek). rrjv Be tyvft. avrov fypiwdfj] but will 
 have lost his soul, that is to say, by his having rendered him- 
 self unfit for eternal life, by having, therefore, lost his soul 
 as far as the Messianic &>? is concerned, and become liable to 
 eternal death, fyfuwdy is the opposite of KepB^cry. It must 
 not on this ground, and because of the avrd\\a^fia which 
 follows, be explained as meaning, to sustain damage in his 
 soul (Luther), but : animae detrimentum pati (Vulgate), comp. 
 Herod, vii. 39 : ToO ei/o? rrjv ^v^v fyiudxreat, thou wilt lose 
 thine only one through death. rj] It avails a man nothing 
 if he, and so on, it might be that (at the judgment) he would 
 have something to give to God with which to purchase back
 
 430 TIIE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 his lost soul (avrd\\a^fjia, Eur. Or. 1157, frequently met 
 with in the LXX. and Apocrypha). There exists no such 
 means of exchange (commutationem, Vulgate), nothing which, 
 in the sight of God and according to His holy standard, would 
 be of such value as to serve as an avraXXayna for the soul. 
 " Non sufficit mundus," Bengel. Comp. Eitschl in the Jahrb. 
 /. D. Th. 1863, p. 234 ff. 
 
 Ver. 27. Pdp] justifies and confirms what Jesus has just 
 stated with respect to the loss of the ^rv^. I say that not 
 without reason ; for assuredly the time of the second coming 
 and of a righteous retribution is drawing near (/teXXa being 
 put first for sake of emphasis). ev rfj Bo^rj rov -Trarp. 
 auT.] in the same glory as belongs to God. For in this state of 
 glory (John xvii. 5) the ascended Christ occupies the place of 
 crvvOpovos of God. rrjv Trpa^iv] the conduct, the sum of 
 one's doings, including, in particular, that self-denying adher- 
 ence to their faith and their confession on which, above all, 
 so much depended, in the case of the apostles, in the midst 
 of those persecutions which they were called upon to endure. 
 
 Ver. 28. Having affirmed the certainty of the second 
 corning and the divine retribution, He now proceeds to do the 
 same with regard to their nearness. el<ri rive? /c.r.X.] which 
 refers to those present generally, and not merely to the dis- 
 ciples, presupposes that the majority of them will have died 
 previous to the event in question. yevaiovTai OavaTov] 
 The experiencing of death regarded as a tasting of it (of its 
 pains). See note on John viii. 52, and Wetstein. eo>9 tf.r.A,.] 
 not as though they were to die afterwards, but what is meant 
 is, that they will still be living when it takes place. Comp. 
 xxiv. 34; Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 629 f. ev rfj 
 /3ao-i\ia avrov] not for et9 rrjv K.T.\ (Beza, Eaphel, and 
 others), but as a king in all His regal authority (Plat. Eep. p. 
 499 B: TWV vvv ev Swacn-eiais rj {3a<ri\eiai<; ovrwv). Luke 
 xxiii. 42. There is no substantial difference between the 
 present prediction of Jesus as to His impending advent in 
 glorious majesty (comp. x. 23, xxiv. 34), and that in Mark 
 ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 27. The @a<ri\eia cannot be supposed to 
 come without the /3a<nAeu9. This, at the same time, in
 
 CHAP. XVI. 28. 4f,l 
 
 answer to Ebrard (comp. Baumeister in Klaiber's Studicn,ll. 1, 
 p. 19), who interprets this passage, not of the second coming 
 to judgment, but, laying stress on the eV (against which the eV 
 777 Sol??, ver. 27, should have duly warned), understands it as 
 referring to the founding of the church, and particularly to 
 what took place at Pentecost, and that notwithstanding the 
 context and the words elal rives, etc., which, if this view were 
 adopted, would be entirely out of place (Glass, Calovius). It 
 is likewise to explain it away in a manner no less arbitrary, to 
 understand the passage in the sense of a figurative coming in 
 the destruction of Jerusalem and the diffusion of Christianity 
 (Jac. Cappellus, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Schott, Glockler, Bleek), 
 or of the triumphant historical development of the gospel 
 (Erasmus, Klostermann, Schenkel), or of the powerful influ- 
 ences of the spirit of the glorified Messiah as extending over 
 the world (Paulus). Others, such as Beda, Vatablus, Mal- 
 donatus, Jansen, Clarius, Corn, a Lapide, following Chrysos- 
 tom, Euth. Zigabenus, Theophylact, have so strangely perverted 
 Christ's prediction as even to make it refer to the incident of 
 the transfiguration immediately following. On the impend- 
 ing advent in general, see the observations at the close of 
 ch. xxiv.
 
 432 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 CHAPTEE XVIL 
 
 VER. 3. Sxpdriaav] Lachm. and Tisch. : Zxpdy, after B D K, Curss. 
 and Codd. of the It. The plural is a grammatical correction ; 
 the sing, can scarcely be taken from Mark ix. 4. Ver. 4. 
 voiqffupev] Lachm. and Tisch. : noir^ta, after B C X, Ver. Corb. 
 1, Germ. 1. Correctly ; the plural is from Mark and Luke. 
 The arrangement *HX/cf piav (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by 
 decisive testimony. Ver. 5. <po*Teivfi~\ Only on the authority of 
 a few Curss. and Ephr. Griesb. and Fritzsche have pwro&, which 
 Olshausen also prefers. An interpretation for the purpose of 
 defining the wonderful nature of the cloud. The order KXOVITI 
 aurov (inverted in Elz.) is, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, after 
 B D K, 1, 33, to be preferred. The reading of the Received 
 text is according to the LXX. Ver. 7. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : 
 xai irpotri'kSiv 6 *I. xal a-^dfttvos eivruv ifaev, after B (in the first 
 half of the sentence also D) K, Verss. Seeing how much 
 the reading fluctuates in the various authorities, the Eeceived 
 text, from having the balance of testimony in its favour, is not 
 to be abandoned. Ver. 9. I x] Elz. : &KO. Approved by Scholz, 
 against decisive testimony. From Mark ix. 9, for the sake of 
 conformity with the ordinary usage. ai/acrrjj] Lachm. and 
 Tisch : lytpdy, after B D, Sahid. The reading of the Eeceived 
 text is from Mark ix. 9. Ver. 11. On important testimony, 
 'iriffotg and auroTg are, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. 
 Common interpolations. wpurov] is omitted after ep%. in B D X, 
 Curss. Verss. Aug. Hil. ; L inserts it after aToxar. Suspected 
 by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm., Tisch. Eepetition 
 from ver. 10, in accordance with Mark ix. 12. Ver. 14. avruv] 
 which Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted, is omitted in B Z K, 1, 
 124, 245, Sahid.; it might easily have been overlooked from 
 coming, as it does, immediately after Jx^o'i/TflN. auro'i/] Elz. : 
 avry, against decisive testimony. Ver. 15. vdff^si] Lachm. : 
 s%si, after B L Z N, Or. Either an involuntary alteration occa- 
 sioned by the current use of the expression xaxug s%siv (iv. 24, viii. 
 16, ix. 12, xiv. 35), or intentional, on account of the apparent 
 pleonasm. Ver. 17. The order psO' vpuv seo^ai (Lachm.
 
 CHAP. xvii. i. 433 
 
 Tiscli.) is supported by the preponderating testimony of 
 B C D Z K, Curss. Or., and ought to be adopted. Comp. Mark 
 and Luke. Ver. 20. amariav] Lachm. Tisch. 8: oXr/ovitiTiav, 
 after B K, Curss. Syr cur Sahid. Copt. Arm. Aetli. Or. Chrys. An 
 ancient emendation to soften the expression, anoriav, after ver. 
 17 especially, may have offended pious sensibilities. The 
 reading /Lsrdpa ev&sv (Lachm. Tisch.) is neither satisfactory nor 
 has it uniform testimony in its favour. Ver. 21. Tisch. 8 has 
 deleted the whole verse, but only after B N* 33, and a few 
 Verss. The great preponderance of testimony is in favour of 
 retaining it, although Weiss likewise rejects it. It might have 
 been regarded as inserted from Mark ix. 29 had the terms of 
 the two passages coincided more fully. Why it was omitted, it 
 is really impossible to say ; it may only have happened acci- 
 dentally, and the omission remains an isolated instance. Ver. 
 22. avaffrpetp.] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : ffwrpip., after B N, 1, Vulg. 
 Codd. of the It. A gloss, in order that avaarpep. might not be 
 taken in the sense of return. Ver. 23. e-ytpdriffirai] Lachm.: 
 avaarqesTai, after B, Curss. Or. Chrys. From Mark ix. 31. 
 Ver. 25. ort g/'ff?jX0v] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 : eis&dovra, which is 
 found in N*; in B it is : IXdo'vra; in C : STB fadov; in D : iiatMovn. 
 Others have : ore tiafadov, i!0i\66vruv, iiai\96vro;. Seeing there is 
 such variety in the readings, we -ought to prefer, not the 
 simple verb, which B and C concur in adopting, but the com- 
 pound form, which is supported by D K and the numerous 
 authorities in favour of the reading of the Eeceived text ; further, 
 the plural is to be rejected, inasmuch as it is without adequate 
 testimony and has been inserted from ver. 24 ; and finally, the 
 reading on is to be regarded as an analysis of the participle. 
 Consequently the reading eiff&dovra should be adopted. Ver. 
 26. For \\yti a-jrw o n&rpoc read, with Lachm. and Tisch. 8, 
 simply g/Vovro? 8s, after B C L K, Verss. Or. Chrys. The reading 
 of the Eeceived text is somewhat of a gloss. 
 
 Ver. 1. Comp. Mark ix. 2 ff. ; Luke viii. 28 ff. ; 2 Pet. i. 
 16 ff. Me0' rip, e pas e] Luke ix. 28: wael ^/ze'pat o/rnu. 
 This axret makes it unnecessary to have recourse to any 
 expedient for reconciling the numbers. Chrysostom, Jerome, 
 Theophylact, Erasmus, and many others, are of opinion that 
 Luke has included the dies a quo and ad quern. ei? 0/305 
 v-^rr)\6v] Since the fourth century there has been a tradition 
 that the mountain here referred to was mount Tabor, tho 
 
 MATT. 2 E
 
 434 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 situation of which, however, was such as altogether to preclude 
 this view. If we are to understand that Jesus remained 
 during the six days in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi, 
 we may, with some probability, suppose that the height in 
 question was one of the peaks of Herman, a clump of hills 
 standing to the north-east of that town. Those three dis- 
 ciples were the most intimate friends of Jesus. Comp. xxvi. 
 3 7. For dvatyepei, comp. Luke xxiv. 5 1 ; 2 Mace. vi. 1 ; 
 Polyb. viii. 31. 1. tear' IS lav] so that they alone accom- 
 panied him to this mountain solitude. 
 
 Ver. 2. MeT6fjuop<j).] was transfigured, in the way about to 
 be described. That is to say, His external aspect was changed 
 (" non substantial, sed accidentalis fuit transformatio," Calo- 
 vius) ; His face gleaming like the sun, and His raiment being 
 so white that it shone like light. He appeared in outward 
 heavenly Sofa, which /neyaXetoT*^ (2 Pet. i. 16) was the 
 foreshadowing of His future glorified state (John xii. 16, 23, 
 xvii. 5, xxii. 24 ; 2 Cor. iii. 18 ; Matt. xiii. 43). The analogy 
 presented by Ex. xxxiv. 29 comes short in this respect, that, 
 whereas the brightness on the face of Moses was the result of 
 God's having appeared before Mm, in the case of Christ it pro- 
 ceeded from His own divine nature and life, the So^a of which 
 radiated from within. to 9 TO </>o3s] The aspect of it, there- 
 fore, was luminous, radiant. 
 
 Ver. 3. AVTOIS] the disciples, ver. 2. .They saw conversing 
 with Jesus, Moses and Elias, who, as forerunners of the 
 Messiah, represented the law and the prophets (Schoettgen, 
 Wetstein). Comp. vv. 5, 8. It was not from what Jesus 
 told them afterwards that they came first to know who those 
 two were, but they themselves recognised them at once (ver. 4), 
 though not from their conversation, as has been arbitrarily 
 supposed (Theophylact). The recognition was immediate 
 and directly involved in the marvellous manifestation itself. 
 The subject of conversation, so far as the accounts of Matthew 
 and Mark are concerned, does not appear to have been once 
 inquired into. According to Ebrard, Jesus communicated to 
 the fathers of the old dispensation the blessed intelligence of 
 his readiness to redeem them by His death. According to
 
 CHAP. XVII. 4-8. 435 
 
 Luke ix. 31, Moses and Elias converse with Jesus about His 
 impending death. 
 
 Ver. 4. 'ATTotcpiO.'] see note on xi. 25. Taking occasion 
 from what he now saw before him, he proceeded to say. 
 Ka\ov ea-Ttv /r.T.X,.] is usually interpreted thus: " Amoenus 
 est, in quo commoremur, locus " (Fritzsche, Keim) ; or, what is 
 much to the same effect, it is referred particularly by 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus to the 
 security of the place, protected as it was by the two celestial 
 visitants, in contrast to Jerusalem, where Jesus was destined 
 to suffer. But, inasmuch as the terms used by Peter are 57/^9 
 (not fjfuv) and the simple elvcu (not peveiv) ; further, inasmuch 
 as what he says is occasioned by the presence of Moses and 
 Elias, and has reference to them, as is likewise proved by the 
 following el OeXeis K.T.\., which implies that he wishes to do 
 something towards enabling Jesus to have a longer interview 
 with them, it is preferable, with Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
 Klostermann, Weiss, Volkmar, to interpret as follows : It is 
 highly opportune that we (disciples') happen to be here (in which 
 case, therefore, the rj^a^ is emphatic) ; accordingly, I would 
 like to erect (TTO^O-W, see critical remarks) tabernacles (out of 
 the brushwood growing around) for you here, with a view to 
 a more prolonged stay. The transition to the singular is in 
 keeping with Peter's temperament ; he would like to make the 
 tabernacles. 
 
 Ver. 5 ff. 'ISou /cal . . . l&ov] lively way of introducing 
 the various points of importance. ve(f>e\ij <f>a)Tivij] a 
 luminous, clear, bright cloud, represented in Matthew as, 
 without doubt, a marvellous phenomenon, not in itself certainly, 
 but in connection with the incident which it accompanies. 
 eireaKiaaev] A luminous cloud oversJiadows them, casts a 
 kind of light and shade over their forms, so that they are 
 rendered less clear than they were before the cloud intervened. 
 Olshausen unwarrantably fancies that eweoTc. has been em- 
 ployed in consequence of the light having leen so strong as to 
 dazzle the eyes and affect the sight. aurou?] viz. Jesus, 
 Moses, and Elias (ver. 4). The disciples hear the voice from 
 out the cloud (vv. 5, 6), are therefore not to be regarded as
 
 436 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 being ivitkin it, as is likewise manifest a priori from the fact 
 that the cloud, as was so frequently the case in the Old 
 Testament, is here the sacred symbol of the divine presence 
 (Wetstein on this passage, cornp. Tea, ad Hor. Od. i 2. 31), 
 and therefore accompanies those three divine personages as a 
 ffrjfielov for the disciples, on whose account likewise the voice 
 sounds from the cloud. This in answer to Olearius, Wolf, 
 Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, who refer avrou? to the disciples ; 
 and to Clericus, who refers it to all who were present. 
 <f}0)vr) K.T.\] no less the voice of God than that in in. IV. 
 a/covere avTov (see critical remarks) is the divine ratification 
 of the words of Moses in Deut. xviii. 15, according to their 
 Messianic import. However, the hearing (i.e. faith and 
 obedience) is the point on which stress is to be laid, as is 
 evident from its being put first. This command is now in 
 order (not so, as yet, in iii 17), coming as it does at a time 
 when Jesus had attained to the full dignity of His prophetic 
 office, but when, at the same time, the prospect of what 
 awaited Him was calculated to put the dicoveiv of the disciples 
 to the severest test. Vv. 6, 7 occur only in Matthew. 
 Comp. Dan. x. 9 f . ; Eev. i. 17. jj^aro] " Tactus familiaris 
 et efficax," Bengel. 
 
 Ver. 9. "Opapa] the thing seen, spectaculum. Acts vii. 31 ; 
 Sir. xliii. 1 ; Xen. Cyr. iii. 3.66; de re equestr. ix. 4 ; Dem. 
 1406. 26 ; Pollux, ii. 54 ; used in the LXX. with reference 
 to whatever is seen in vision by a prophet. IK veicpwv} 
 from Sheol, as the abode TWV veicpwv. On the omission of the 
 article, see Winer, p. 117 [E. T. 153]. The reason of the 
 prohibition can only be the same as in xvi. 20, where see 
 note. According to the mythical view (see observations after 
 ver. 12), it was intended to explain the circumstance of a 
 narrative composed in a later age, and, nevertheless, one which 
 proceeded from the three witnesses. 
 
 Ver. 10. Ovv] can have no other reference than to the 
 foregoing prohibition (comp. xix. 7) : " Seeing that we are 
 forbidden to tell any one about the appearing of Elias which 
 we have just witnessed, and so on, what reason, then, have 
 the scribes for saying that Elias must first come (before the
 
 CHAP. xvn. 10. 437 
 
 Messiah appears, to establish His kingdom) ? " Does it not 
 follow from Thy prohibition that this teaching of the scribes 
 must be erroneous, seeing that, if it were not so, Thou wouldst 
 not have enjoined us to keep silence regarding this manifesta- 
 tion of Elias ? This is likewise in harmony with the answer 
 of Jesus, , which is to this effect : " That teaching is quite 
 correct ; but the Elias whom it speaks of as being the Messiah's 
 forerunner is not the prophet who has just been seen upon the 
 mount, but John the Baptist, whom they did not recognise, 
 and so on." This view is so entirely in accordance with the 
 context as to exclude any others, as, for example, that of 
 Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Kuinoel, who, emphasizing Trpwrov, 
 interpret thus : Start ot yp. Xey., OTI 'H\tav %pr) e\Beiv TTpo 
 rod Xptarov ; Trtw? ovv OVK rj\0ev ouro? vrpo eroO ; or that 
 which ascribes to the disciples the idea, of which there is not 
 the remotest hint, that Christ is going to be revealed before 
 the world in His glory, and that therefore there is really no 
 further room for the manifestation and the services of Elias 
 (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 518); or that of Grotius, 
 Michaelis, Fritzsche, Lange, Olshausen, Bleek, Hengstenberg, 
 who understand the question of the disciples as referring to 
 the circumstance that Elias had not remained, but had so 
 quickly disappeared again (it was believed, though of this the 
 question contains no hint whatever, that Elias would teach 
 the Jews, settle the disputes among their instructors, restore 
 the pot of manna and Aaron's rod, and so on ; Lightfoot on 
 this passage; Winzer, de aTroKaraa-Taaei Trdvrtov, II., 1821, 
 p. 9) ; or, again, that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Neander, 
 Krabbe, Ebrard, who suppose that the object of the question 
 was to know whether the manifestation of Elias, which the 
 scribes had in view, was that which had just taken place, or 
 whether it was some other one yet to come ; or, lastly, the 
 expedient of Schleiermacher and Strauss, who think that the 
 whole conversation originated in the disappointment felt in 
 consequence of the prediction regarding the coming of Elias 
 not having been fulfilled, and that it has only found its way 
 into the present connection through an erroneous process of 
 combination. According to Kostlin, p. 75, ovv does not refer
 
 438 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 back to the transfiguration at all, but seems to say : " Seeing 
 that the Messiah is already come," which is the idea supposed 
 to be contained in xvi. 1327. He thinks the connection 
 has been interrupted by the evangelist interpolating the story 
 of the transfiguration between xvi. 2 7 and xvii. 1 0. 
 
 Ver. 11. In His reply, Jesus admits the correctness of the 
 teaching of the scribes in regard to this matter, and at the 
 same time supplements the quotation made from it by the 
 disciples (by adding K. airotcar. TT.), in which supplement the 
 use of the future-present ep^erai and the future aTTOKaraarr. 
 are to be justified on the ground that they are the ipsissima 
 verba of the teaching in question. " Unquestionably it is pre- 
 cisely as they say ; Elias is coming and will restore every- 
 thing again." Inasmuch as what is here meant is the work 
 of the coming Elias, and not the whole moral work of the 
 Messiah in regenerating the world (as in Acts iii. 21), 
 the aironardaTacns irdvrwv, an expression taken from the 
 rendering of Mai. iv. 6 by the LXX., refers, in the sense 
 of the scribes, to the restitutio in integrum (for such is the 
 meaning of the word, see note on Acts iii. 21) of the entire 
 theocratic order of things by way of preparation for the Messiah, 
 in which case we are not to think merely of a'moral regenera- 
 tion of the people, but also of the restoration of outward 
 objects of a sacred character (such as the urna mannae, and so 
 on). Jesus, on the other hand, knowing as He does that the 
 promised coming of Elias has been fulfilled in the Baptist 
 (xi. 14), refers to the preaching and preparatory labours of 
 the latter, in which he believes the aTroKarao-T^a-et irdvra to 
 have been realized in the highest sense, and in the way most 
 in keeping with the prophet's own words in Mai. iv. 6 (Sir. 
 xlviii. 10 ; Luke i. 17, iii. 1). The coming of the real Elias, 
 who is expected to appear before the second advent (Hilary, 
 Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, the 
 majority of the older Catholic expositors, likewise Arnoldi, 
 Schegg), is taught by Jesus neither here nor elsewhere. See, 
 on the contrary, ver. 1 2 f., xi. 1 4. This also in answer to 
 Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 831. 
 
 Ver. 12. OVK eTreyvco&av avrov] that is, as the expected
 
 CHAP. XVII. 12. 439 
 
 Elias. The subject is the <ypa/j,(jiaTei<j > ver. 10. ev aura] 
 towards him, not classical, but comp. LXX. Gen. xl. 14 ; 
 Dan. xi. 7; Luke xxiii. 31. ocra e'fleXijcraz/] indicating 
 the purely arbitrary manner in which they treated him, in 
 contradistinction to the way in which God desired that he 
 should have been received. 
 
 REMAKK. The incident of the transfiguration lias been 
 regarded as a vision by so early a writer as Tertullian, c. Marc. 
 iv. 22, by Herder, Gratz, Krabbe, Bleek, Weizsacker, Pressense*, 
 Steinmeyer ; it would have been nearer the truth if a distinction 
 had been made between the real and the visionary elements 
 contained in it. We have no vision, but a reality in the 
 glorious change which came over the outward appearance of 
 Jesus, vv. 1, 2, that objective element to which the ecstatic 
 subjective manifestation owed its origin. On the other hand, 
 we cannot but regard as visionary the appearing of Moses and 
 Elias, and that not merely in consequence of Zap dy, ver. 3 (Acts 
 ii. 3, vii. 26 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff.), but owing to the 
 vanishing away of the heavenly visitants in the cloud, and the 
 impossibility of any bodily manifestation, at least of Moses 
 (whose resurrection would, according to Deut. xxxiv. 5 f., have 
 to be presupposed). 1 Moreover, Matthew and Mark themselves 
 represent the manifestation of both in such a way, that it is 
 impossible to assert that they regarded it in the light of an 
 actual fact; notice, on the contrary, the different modes of 
 
 1 It is thus that Origen, Jerome, and other Fathers consistently argue. 
 According to Hilgenfeld, the " Ascension of Moses" (N. T. extra canon. I. p. 
 96 ; Messias Judaeor. p. 459) was already known to the evangelist ; but the 
 Ascensio Moais belongs, in any case, to a somewhat later period. Grotius saw 
 himself driven to adopt the expedient of supposing that " haec corpora videri 
 possunt a deo in hunc usum asservata," very much as Ambrose had maintained 
 that the body of Moses had been exempted from putrefaction. According to 
 Calvin, God had raised the bodies ad tempus. Thomas and several other 
 expositors refer the appearing of Moses to the category indicated by the words : 
 " sicut angeli videntur." Similarly Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 427 [E. T. 499], 
 according to whom the form in which Moses appeared, and which bore a 
 resemblance to His earthly body, was the immaterial product of his spiritualized 
 psychic nature. Gess, with greater indefiniteness, speaks of the manifestation 
 as a coming forth on the part of Moses and Elias from their state of invisibility. 
 But neither Delitzsch nor Gess satisfies the requirements of the words fitr *'vrtu 
 truXXaX., which in any case presuppose a glorified corporeity, or else it amounts 
 to nothing else than a mere appearance. Comp. Beza, who adds : nisi malumus 
 ecstaticam fuisse visionem.
 
 440 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 conception as implied in xa/ fttripopipudr) qwrpoflb* alruv (not : 
 x. utpdrj avroTg (itraftopfuStJf) and uxpdq avro?s Mwff5jr, etc. Only 
 in the case of Luke is it manifest that he has followed a 
 tradition which has divested the incident of its visionary 
 character (Luke ix. 30, 31). The of course obvious and common 
 objection, that three persons must be supposed to have wit- 
 nessed the same phenomena and to have heard the same voice, 
 is deprived of its force if it is conceded, as must necessarily be 
 done, that a supernatural agency was here at work with a 
 view to enable the three leading disciples to have a glimpse 
 beforehand of the approaching glory of Him who was more to 
 them than Moses and the prophets. However, it is at- 
 tempting too much to attempt to show the higher naturalism 
 of the incident (Lange, L. J. II. p. 904 ff., thinks that the 
 heavenly nature of Jesus flashed forth from under the earthly ; 
 that the disciples had actually had a peep into the spirit world, 
 and had seen Moses and Elias, which was rendered possible 
 in their case through the peculiar frame of Christ's mind and 
 the intercourse with those spirits which He enjoyed), in opposi- 
 tion to which Ewald insists that the event was altogether of an 
 ideal character ; that the eternal perfection of the kingdom of 
 God was unquestionably disclosed to view, in such a manner, 
 however, that everything of a lower nature, and which was at 
 all calculated to suggest the form which the narrative ultimately 
 assumed, was lost sight of amid the pure light of a higher sphere 
 of things (Gesch. Chr. p. 462). To assume as the foundation 
 of the story (Baumgarten-Crusius) only some inward manifesta- 
 tion or other in Jesus Himself, such as led to His obtaining a 
 glimpse of the glory that was to follow His death, is as decidedly 
 at variance with the statements of the Gospels as it is to trace 
 the matter to a vision in a dream (Rau, Synibola ad ill. ev. de 
 metamorph., etc., 1797 ; Gabler in the neuest. tlieol. Journ. 1798, 
 p. 517ff., Kuinoel, Neander), in connection with which view- 
 some have likewise had recourse to the idea of a thunderstorm 
 (Gabler), and the presence of two secret followers (Kuinoel). 
 This way of looking at the matter is not favoured by Luke 
 ix. 32. No less inconsistent with the gospel narrative is the 
 hypothesis of a secret interview with two wiknown personages 
 (Venturini, Paulus, Hase, Schleiermacher), in connection with 
 which, again, a good deal has been made of atmospheric illu- 
 mination, and the effect of the shadows that were projected 
 (Paulus ; Theile, z. Biogr. J. p. 55 ; Ammon, L. J. p. 302 ff.). 
 The mythical view (Strauss, Scholten, Keim) which regards 
 the narrative as a legendary invention, and substantially
 
 CHAP. XVII. 12. 441 
 
 ascribes its origin to a desire to see the glory of Moses on 
 Sinai repeated in a higher form in the case of Jesus, and to 
 represent the latter as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets 
 can least of all be justified here, where it is not only at 
 variance with the studied unanimity of the evangelists in 
 regard to the date of the occurrence, but also with the fact that 
 the testimony of the three apostles must have gone far to pre- 
 vent the myth from finding its way into the circle of their 
 brethren ; while, as regards the silence of John, it is certainly 
 not to be explained on anti-docetic grounds (in answer to 
 Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 62 ff., see Strauss, IT. p. 250), but it is 
 explicable, to say the least of it, on the ground of his ideal 
 conception of Christ's mundane 5&'a, and no more disproves 
 the reality of the incident in question than his silence regard- 
 ing so many other important historical facts already recorded 
 by the Synoptists. Further, .we must regard as purley sup- 
 jective, and subversive of the intention and meaning of the 
 evangelists, not merely the rationalistic explanation of the 
 incident, according to which Jesus is represented as telling the 
 three disciples in what relation He stood to Moses and Elias, and 
 as thereby bringing them " into the light of His Messianic calling " 
 (Schenkel), but likewise the imaginary notion of an admonitory 
 symbol, after the manner of Eev. i. 1 2 ff., xi. 3 ff., the historical 
 basis of which is supposed to be contained in the fact that 
 Peter and the first disciples had seen the risen Lord appear in 
 heavenly radiance (Volkmar) ; and lastly, also the allegorical 
 view (Weisse), according to which we are understood to have 
 before us the symbolical conception, originating with the three 
 enraptured apostles themselves, of the light which then dawned 
 upon them in regard to the mission of Jesus, especially in 
 regard to His relation to the old theocracy. But, according to 
 Bruno Bauer, the incident is to be regarded as the product of 
 the conviction on the part of the church, that, in the principle 
 on which it is founded, the powers of the past have found their 
 glorified centre of unity. The passage 2 Pet. i. 16-18 can be 
 of no service in the way of confirming the historical character 
 of the incident, except for those who see no reason to reject 
 this Epistle as spurious ; but it is of great importance, partly as 
 furnishing, all the same, an ancient testimony in favour of the 
 occurrence itself, and the significance attached to it as a 
 historical event ; partly in reference to the telic point of view 
 from which it is to be regarded, namely, as a foreshadowing 
 of the impending do^a of the Lord, in which He is to come 
 back again, and into which His most intimate disciples were
 
 442 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 in this wonderful way privileged to gaze previous to His suffer- 
 ings, in order that they might be strengthened for fulfilling the 
 difficult task that would devolve upon them after His ascension. 
 So far as the object of the incident is concerned, it must have 
 been intended expressly for the disciples, as is evident from 
 aKouiTt airoS. According to what has been said above, and 
 judging from what is stated in ix. 31 as to the subject of con- 
 versation, it may be affirmed that Luke's account bears the 
 impress of a later stage of development (Fritzsche, Strauss, de 
 Wette, Weisse, Ewald, Weiss), so that in point of originality 
 we must give Matthew the preference (in answer to Schulz, 
 Schleiermacher, Holtzmann, and others), and that even over 
 Mark (comp. Ewald, Kostlin, p. 90 ; Keim, II. p. 588). See 
 also note on Mark ix. 2 ff. 
 
 Ver. 14. Notwithstanding divergence in other respects, the 
 healing of the lunatic (o-eX^vm^., see note on iv. 24) comes 
 next in order in all the three Synoptists (Mark ix. 1.4 ff. ; Luke 
 ix. 37 ff.), a circumstance which also militates against the 
 mythical view of the transfiguration. avTov] Comp. Mark 
 i. 40, x. 17. The accusative is to be understood as conveying 
 the idea that He was directly touched by the man, as much 
 as to say: he clasped Him by the knees. Comp. irpoa-Kvveiv 
 Tiva, TrpoaTTiTveiv riva, Trpoa-TrtTTTeiv <yovv TWO? (Pflugk, ad JEur. 
 Hec. 339 ; Klihner, II. 1, p. 251). 
 
 Ver. 15. The lunatic, whose malady was regarded as the 
 result of demoniacal possession (ver. 1 8 ; Mark v. 1 6 ; Luke 
 v. 39), was evidently suffering from epilepsy, and, according 
 to Mark, deprived of the power of speech as well. /ca/cw? 
 Trda^eiv] to be ill (opposite of e5 Tracr^.), is likewise very 
 common among classical writers. Horn. Od. xvi. 275; Plat. 
 Menex. p. 244 B ; Xen. Anab. iii. 3. 7 ; Herod, iii. 146. 
 
 Ver. 17. unbelieving and perverse generation! Comp. 
 Phil. ii. 15. By this Jesus does not mean the scribes 
 (Calvin), but is 'aiming at His disciples, who are expected to 
 apply the exclamation to themselves, in consequence of their 
 not being able to cure the lad of his disease. In no sparing 
 fashion, but filled with painful emotion, He ranks them, owing 
 to their want of an energetic faith, in the category of the un- 
 believing generation, and hence it is that He addresses it.
 
 CHAP. XVII. 18-20. 443 
 
 Bengel fitly observes : " severe elencho discipuli accensentur 
 turbae." That the disciples are intended (Fritzsche, Baum- 
 garten-Crusius, Steinmeyer, Volkmar), is likewise evident 
 from ver. 20. They wanted the requisite amount of confi- 
 dence in the miraculous powers conferred upon them by 
 Christ. The strong terms aTrto-ro? K. Steo-rpa/i//,. (Deut. xxxii. 5 ; 
 Phil. ii. 5, ii. 15), are to be explained from the deep emotion 
 of Jesus. Nor can the people be meant, who are not con- 
 cerned at all, any more than the father of the sufferer, who, 
 in fact, invoked the help of Jesus because he had faith in 
 Him. The words are consequently to be referred neither to 
 all who were present (Paulus, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Krabbe, 
 Bleek, Ewald), nor to the father (Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius), nor to him and the people (Keim), 
 in which latter case many go the length of holding that the 
 disciples are exculpated, and the blame of the failure im- 
 puted to the father himself (ov T?)? eiceivtov atrOevet'as TO<TOVTOV 
 TO Trraia-fjua, oaov TT}? o-/}? aTrtc-r/a?, Theophylact). In opposi- 
 tion to the context (vv. 16, 20). Neander and de Wette 
 explain the words in the sense of John iv. 48, as though 
 Jesus were reflecting upon those who as yet have not known 
 what it is to come to Him under a sense of their deepest 
 wants, and so on. eo>9 TTOTS /c.r.X.] a passing touch of im- 
 patience in the excitement of the moment : How long is the 
 time going to last during which I must be amongst you and 
 bear with your weakness of faith, want of receptivity, and so 
 on? <f>pTe] like what precedes, is addressed to the dis- 
 ciples; it was to them that the lunatic had been brought, 
 ver. 16. This in answer to Fritzsche, who thinks that Jesus 
 " generatim loquens " refers to the father. 
 
 Ver. 18. 'JBTreTi/u,. avry] He rebuked him, namely, the 
 demon (Fritzsche, Ewald), reproached him for having taken 
 possession of the boy. Comp. viii. 26. For this prolepsis in 
 the reference of auro? (which Vulgate, Theophylact, de Wette, 
 Winer, Bleek, refer to the lunatic), see Fritzsche, Conject. 
 p. 11 f. ; Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. viii. 34. airo T. eo/aa? 
 etc.] as in xv. 28, ix. 22. 
 
 Ver. 20. The disciples ought to have applied to themselves
 
 444 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 the general exclamation in ver. 17. . This they failed to do, 
 hence their question. But the asino-Tia with which Jesus 
 now charges them is to be understood in a relative sense, 
 while the Trum*?, of which it is the negation, means simply 
 faith in Jesus Christ, the depositary of supernatural power, so 
 that, in virtue of their fellowship with His life, the disciples, 
 as His servants and the organs of His power, were enabled to 
 operate with greater effect in proportion to the depth and 
 energy of the faith with which they could confide in Him. - 
 eav e^Tjre] if you have (not : had}. &>9 KOKKOV triv,~\ found 
 likewise in Eabbinical writers as a figurative expression for a 
 very small quantity of anything. Lightfoot on xiii. 32. The 
 point of the comparison does not lie in the stimulative quality 
 of the mustard (Augustine ; on the other hand, Maldonatus). 
 To remove mountains, a figurative expression for : to accomplish 
 extraordinary results, 1 Cor. xiii. 2. Lightfoot on xxi. 21 ; 
 Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1653. For legends in regard to the 
 actual removing of mountains, see Calovius. ovSev] the 
 hyperbole of popular speech. For abwar., comp. Job xiii. 2. 
 
 Ver. 21. TOVTO TO yevo 5] this species of demons to which 
 the one just expelled belongs. Otherwise, Euth. Zigabenus : TO 
 7eVo? TGOV SatfjLovwv TTUVTCW. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
 Eisner, Eritzsche, Bleek. But the TOUTO, used with special 
 reference to the fact of its being a case of epilepsy, must be 
 intended to specify a kind of demons which it is peculiarly 
 difficult to exorcise. ev Trpocrev^f] K. vya-reta] inasmuch 
 as the TT/o-Tt? is thereby strengthened and elevated, and attains 
 to that pitch which is necessary in order to the casting out of 
 such demons. The climax in vv. 20 and 21 may be repre- 
 sented thus : If you have only a slender amount of faith, you 
 will, no doubt, be able to accomplish things of an extraordinary 
 and seemingly impossible nature ; but, in order to expel spirits 
 of so stubborn a character as this, you require to have such a 
 degree of faith as can only be reached by means of prayer and 
 fasting. You have neglected the spiritual preparation that 
 is necessary to the attainment of so lofty a faith. Comp. 
 Acts xiv. 23. Prayer and fasting are here represented as 
 means for promoting faith, not as good works, which are cj
 
 CHAP. XVII. 22, 23. 44 o 
 
 themselves effectual in dealing with the demons (Schegg and 
 the older Catholics). Paulus and Ammon incorrectly suppose 
 that the prayer and fasting are required of the sick persons 
 themselves, with a view to some dietetic and psychological effect 
 or other being produced upon their bodies ; while Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, and Euth. Zigabenus are of opinion that they are 
 demanded not merely from the healer, but also from thepatient, 
 as necessary weapons to be used against the demon. Inas- 
 much as eKTTopevercu is, according to the context, the corre- 
 lative of e/3aXetj/, ver. 19 (coinp. also e^f)\dev, ver. 18), we 
 must likewise discard the view of Ewald, who thinks that in 
 Matthew there is an allusion to a class of men whose character 
 is such that they cannot be induced to set to work but with 
 fasting and prayer. Comp. on the contrary, eWo/x, Acts 
 xix. 12 (and Mark ix. 29 : egeXQelv). Those who adopt the 
 mythical t view of the whole incident (Strauss) pretend to find 
 the origin of the legend in 2 Kings iv. 2 9 ff., which is no less 
 unwarrantable than the interpretation, according to which it 
 is treated as a symbolical narrative, intended to rebuke the 
 want of faith on the part of the disciples (Scholten), or as a 
 didactic figure as an admonition of the hidden Christ for an 
 increase of faith amid the violent demoniacal excesses of the 
 time (Volkmar). Moreover, the somewhat more circumstantial 
 account of Mark is of a stamp so peculiar, is so clear and full 
 of meaning, that it is not to be regarded as a later amplifica- 
 tion, but the account in Matthew (and Luke) is rather to be 
 looked upon as an abridgment of the former. 
 
 Vv. 22, 23. Comp. Mark ix. 30 ff.; Luke ix, 43 ff.- 
 While they were still in Galilee (avaarpe^)., Xen. Cyr. viii. 8. 7, 
 Mem. iv. 3. 8 ; Thuc. viii. 94 ; Josh. v. 5), and before they 
 entered Capernaum (ver. 24), Jesus once more (comp. xvi. 21) 
 intimated to His disciples His approaching sufferings, death, 
 and resurrection. This is not a meaningless repetition of xvi. 
 21 (Kostlin, Hilgenfeld) ; but this matter was introduced 
 again because Jesus knew how much they required to be 
 prepared for the impending crisis. et's ^elpa<f avOp.] into 
 men's hands, uttered with a painful feeling, sensible as He was 
 of the contrast between such a fate and what He knew to be
 
 446 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 His divine dignity. It was in keeping with the feelings now- 
 present to the mind of Jesus, not to indicate that fate with so 
 much detail as on the former occasion (xvi. 21). eXvirr)- 
 Orjcrav <r<j)6?)pa] therefore not impressed by the announcement 
 of the resurrection, although it is said to have been made with 
 so much clearness and precision. This announcement, however, 
 is not found in Luke. See note on xvi. 21. 
 
 Ver. 24 ff. Peculiar to Matthew. After the return from 
 the Babylonian captivity, all males among the Jews of twenty 
 years of age and upwards (on the ground of the command in 
 Ex. xxx. 13 f. ; comp. 2 Chron. xxiv. 6 : Neh. x. 32 ; 2 Kings 
 xii. 4 ff.) were required to contribute annually the sum of half 
 a shekel, or two Attic drachmae, or an Alexandrian drachma 
 (LXX. Gen. xxiii. 15 ; Josh. vii. 21), about half a thaler (Is. 6d. 
 English money), by way of defraying the expenses connected 
 with the temple services. See Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 291 f . ; 
 Ewald, Alterth. p. 40 3 ; Keim, II. p. 5 9 9 f. After the destruc- 
 tion of the temple the money went to the Capitol, Joseph, 
 vii. 6. 6. The time for collecting this tax was the fifteenth 
 of the month Adar. See Tract. Schekalim i. 3, ii. 7 ; Ideler, 
 Chronol. I. pp. 488, 509. Certain expositors have supposed 
 the payment here in question to have been a civil one, exacted 
 by the Roman government in other words, a poll-tax (see 
 "Wolf and Calovius ; and of modern writers, consult especially, 
 Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 265 ff., and Beitr. p. 108 ff.). 
 This, however, is precluded, not merely by the use of the 
 customary term TO, BiSpa^a, which was well known to the 
 reader as the temple-tax, but likewise by the incongruity which 
 would thereby be introduced into the succeeding argument, 
 through making it appear as though Jesus had strangely and 
 improperly classed Himself among the, kings of this world, with 
 a view to prove with how much reason He could claim to be 
 free. Even had He regarded Himself as David's son, He would 
 have been wrong in arguing thus, while, so far as the case 
 before us is concerned, He was, to all intents and purposes, 
 one of the a\\orpioi. ol . . . \a/j,/3dvovT<;] used as a sub- 
 stantive : the collectors. That there were such, though Wieseler 
 denies it, is not only evident from the nature of the case,
 
 CHAP. XVII. 23. 447 
 
 seeing that it was not possible for everybody to go to Jerusalem, 
 but is also proved by statements in the Tr. Schekalim (" tra- 
 pezitae in unaquaque civitate," etc.) ; see also Lightfoot. The 
 plural ra St'Spa^a indicates the large number of didrachmae 
 that were collected, seeing that every individual contributed 
 one ; and the article points to the tax as one that was well 
 known. In the question put by the collectors (which question 
 shows that this happened to be the time for collecting, but 
 that Jesus had not paid as yet, though it is impossible to 
 determine whether or not the question was one of a humane 
 character, which would depend entirely upon the tone in which 
 it was put) the plural ra SiSpa^fia indicates that the payment 
 had to be repeated annually, to which the present reXet likewise 
 points. That the collectors should not have asked Jesus Him- 
 self, and that Peter should have happened to be the particular 
 disciple whom they did ask, are probably to be regarded merely 
 as accidental circumstances. But why did they ask at all, and 
 why in a dubious tone ? They may have assumed or supposed 
 that Jesus would claim to rank with the priests (who did not 
 consider themselves liable for temple-tax, Tr. Schekal. i. 4), 
 seeing that His peculiarly holy, even His Messianic, reputation 
 cannot certainly have remained unknown to them. 
 
 Ver. 25. From the vai of Peter it is clear that Jesus had 
 hitherto been in the habit of paying the tax. Trpoe<j>0a<rev] 
 Since it is stated in ver. 24 that the collectors came to Peter, 
 and as one is at a loss to see why, if Jesus had been present 
 at the same time, they should not have asked Himself, it 
 follows that the evangelist must have ascribed what Jesus 
 says to Peter to His immediate knowledge of the thoughts of 
 others. Comp. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, 
 Steinmeyer, Ewald, Keirn. Instead of irpoe^daaev \eytov 
 (Arist. Eccl 884; Thuc. vii. 73. 3) we might also have had 
 7r/9o</>0ao-a<? eX-eye (Plat. Rep. vi. p. 500 A; Thuc. viii. 51. 1). 
 See Kiihner, II. 1, p. 626 f. Sipav] " appellatio quasi 
 domestica et familiaris," Bengel. Comp. Mark xiv. 37. 
 TeXrj] duty upon goods. Krjv<ro<i] Tax upon individuals and 
 landed property, xxii. 17, 19, the Greek <f)6po<; in contradis- 
 tinction to TeXo9 (indirect tax). Comp. note on Luke xx. 22 ;
 
 448 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 Rom. xiii. 7. airo rwv aAAorp.] from those who are not 
 members of their family, i.e. from their subjects. 
 
 Ver. 2Q."Apaye . . . VIOL] Application: Therefore I, as the 
 Son of God, am exempt from the tax which is payable to 
 Jehovah, i.e. to His temple. The inference in this argument, 
 which is of the nature of a dilemma, and which proceeds on 
 the self-consciousness of Jesus regarding His supernatural 
 sonship (comp. note on xxii. 45), is an inference a minori ad 
 majus, as is indicated by ol /Sacr. 7779 7/75. If, indeed, in the 
 case of earthly kings their sons are exempted from the taxes 
 they impose, it follows that the Son of the heavenly King, the 
 Son of God, can be under no obligation to pay the taxes which 
 He imposes (for the temple). The plural ol viol is justifiable 
 in the general proposition as a generic (comp. note on ii. 20) 
 indefinite plural, but the application must be made to Jesus 
 only, not to Peter as well (Paulus, Olshausen, Ewald, Lange, 
 Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 131, Gess, Keim), inasmuch as 
 the predicate, in the sense corresponding to the argument, was 
 applicable to Jesus alone, while viol, taken in the wider 
 spiritual sense, would embrace not merely Peter and the 
 apostles, but those believers in general whose connection with 
 the Jewish temple was not broken off (John iv. 21) till a some- 
 what later period. The principle laid down by Jesus, that 
 He is under no obligation to pay temple-tax on the ground of 
 His being the Son of God, is, in thesi, to be simply recognised, 
 and requires no justification (in answer to de Wette) ; but, in 
 praxi, He waives His claim to exemption, and that from a 
 regard to the offence which He would otherwise have given, 
 inasmuch as the fact of His divine sonship, and the /ietbz/ 
 elvai rov lepov (xii 6) which it involved, were not recognised 
 beyond the circle of believers, and He would therefore have 
 been looked upon exclusively as an Israelite, as which He 
 was, of course, subject to the law (Gal. iv. 4). If on some 
 other occasion we find Him asserting His Messianic right to 
 subordinate certain legal enactments to His own will (see xii. 8 ; 
 John vii. 21 ff.), it must be borne in mind that in such cases 
 He had to do with enemies, in answer to whose accusation He 
 had to appeal to the authority implied in His being commis-
 
 CHAP. XVII. 27. 449 
 
 sioncd to bring about the Messianic fulfilment of the law 
 (v. 17). This commission did not supersede His personal 
 obligation, imposed upon Him in His birth and circumcision, 
 to comply with the law, but only gave to His obedience the 
 higher ideal and perfect character which distinguished it. 
 \ev6epoi] put well forward for sake of emphasis. The idea 
 that the SlSpa^ov is given to God, is found likewise in Joseph. 
 Antt. xviii. 4. 1. 
 
 Ver. 27. But in order that we may not scandalize them (the 
 collectors), that we may not give them occasion to misjudge 
 us, as though we despised the temple. Bengel : " illos, qui 
 non noverant jus Jesu." Jesus thus includes others along 
 with Himself, not because He regarded Peter as strictly entitled 
 to claim exemption, nor because He was anticipating the time 
 when His followers generally would cease to have such obli- 
 gations in regard to the temple (Dorner, Jesu siindlose Volk. 
 p. 37), but because Peter, who, in like manner, had his resi- 
 dence in Capernaum (viii. 14), had not paid, as yet, any more 
 than Himself. iropev6ei<i\ belongs to els rrjv 6d\aa-<r. (to 
 the sea), which latter Fritzsche connects with /3aXe, which, 
 however, would have the effect of rendering it unduly emphatic. 
 ayxiarpov] It is a fish-hook (Horn. Od. iv. 369; Herod, 
 ii. 70, al.}, and not a net, which Jesus asks him to throw in, be- 
 cause in this instance it was a question of one particular fish. 
 Consequently this is the only occasion in the Gospels in which 
 mention is made of a fishing with a hook. rov dvafidvra] 
 out of the depths. TT/XWTOZ/] the adjective : the first fish that 
 has come up. apov\ lift it with the hook out on the land. 
 Jesus is therefore aware that this one will be the first to snap 
 at the hook. evptjaets <narripa\ that is, in the mouth of 
 the fish. The stater was a coin equivalent to four drachmae, 
 for which reason it is likewise called a TerpaSpa^o?, and 
 must not be confounded with the gold stater (20 drachmae). 
 avrl efjiov K. <rov] not an incorrect expression for /cat avrl 
 epov (Fritzsche), but avri is used with reference to the original 
 enactment, Ex. xxx. 12 if., where the half-shekel is repre- 
 sented as a ransom for the soul. Comp. xx. 28. With conde- 
 scending accommodation, Jesus includes Himself in this view. 
 
 MATT. 2 F
 
 450 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW. 
 
 EEMARK. The naturalistic interpretation of this incident, so 
 far as its miraculous features are concerned, which, in a teleo- 
 logical respect, and on account of the magical character of the 
 occurrence, Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 228, also regarded with 
 suspicion, has, in conformity with earlier attempts of the kind, 
 been advocated above all by Paul us and Ammon, and consists 
 substantially in supposing that svpfoets trar. was accomplished 
 by the selling of the Jish. But whether avoids rb erfaa, avro\J 
 be referred to the act of taking the fish from the hook (Paulus, 
 Komment), or even to Peter as offering it for sale, in which 
 case auroD is said to signify on the spot, we always have, as 
 the result, an incongruous representation and unwarrant- 
 able perversion of what, for the narrative of a miracle, is 
 extremely simple and appropriate, to say nothing of so enor- 
 mous a price for a single fish, and that especially in Capernaum, 
 though Paulus, in spite of the vpurov, understands the lyjvv in a 
 collective sense. The mythical mode of explaining away this inci- 
 dent (Strauss, II. p. 184, according to whom it is " a legendary 
 offshoot of tales of the sea") the occasion of which is to be 
 found partly in a take of fish by Peter, partly in the stories 
 current about jewels (for example, the ring of Poly crates, 
 Herod, iii. 42) having been found in the inside of fish breaks 
 down in consequence of its own arbitrariness, and the absence 
 of any thought or Old Testament event in which the myth 
 might be supposed to originate. Again, it would be to make it 
 simply a curiosity (in answer to Strauss in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 
 1863, p. 293 ff.) to treat it as an invention for the purpose of 
 exhibiting the superiority of Jesus over the circumstances to 
 which He was accommodating Himself. But Hase's hypothesis, 
 that what was a figurative way of expressing the blessing 
 that attended the labour by means of which the little sum was 
 handily raised, has been transformed, in the popular legend, 
 into an apocryphal miracle, is inconsistent with the fact that 
 the actual miraculous capture of the fish is not once men- 
 tioned, an omission which is scarcely in keeping with the usual 
 character of apocryphal narratives. Lastly, the view is no less 
 unfounded which derives the narrative from a parable, in which 
 our Lord is supposed to be representing the contrast between 
 the righteousness of faith that distinguishes the children of 
 God, and the legal righteousness of those who are only slaves 
 (Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 263 ff.). Besides, this would be to 
 import into the passage the Pauline contrast of a similar kind. 
 In short, the incident must continue to be regarded as in every 
 way as historical as the evangelist meant it to be. As for the
 
 CHAP. XVIT. 27. 451 
 
 difficulties involved in so doing, such as that of the fish snatch- 
 ing he hook with the stater in its mouth (not in the stomach), 
 or that implied in the circumstance that, of all places, Caper- 
 naum was the one where Jesus had no need whatever to have 
 recourse to miraculous means for raising the little sum required, 
 they must likewise continue unsolved, belonging as they do to 
 those mysteries that are connected with miracles generally ; 
 and while not justifying us in discarding the narrative without 
 other reasons for so doing, they will at least warrant us in letting 
 it stand as it is (de Wette), no matter whether the miraculous 
 character of the affair, so far as Jesus is concerned, is supposed 
 to lie in what He there and then performed (" piscis eo ipso 
 momento staterem ex fundo maris afferre jussus est," Bengel), 
 or in what He knew, which latter is all that the terms of the 
 passage permit us to suppose (Grotius). Finally, the fact that 
 the execution of the order given by Jesus, ver. 27, is not expressly 
 recorded, is no reason why the reality of the thing itself should 
 be questioned ; for, considering the character of the Gospel, as 
 well as the attraction which the thing must have had for Peter, 
 the execution in question is to be assumed as a matter of 
 course. But even apart from this, the result promised by Jesus 
 would be sure to follow in the event of His order being com- 
 plied with. For this reason Ewald's view also is unsatisfactory, 
 which is to the effect that Jesus merely wanted to indicate with 
 what readiness the money for the tax could be procured, the 
 phraseology which He.employed being supposed to proceed upon 
 well-known, although extremely rare, instances of such things 
 being found in fish. 
 
 EXD OF VOL. I.
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 Complete Critical and Exegetical Apparatus on the Old Testament. 
 
 KE/L AND DELITZSCH'S 
 
 COMMENTARIES ON AND INTRODUCTION TO 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 npHE above series (published in CLARK'S Foreign Theological Library) is now 
 JL completed in 27 Volumes, and, in compliance with numerous requests, 
 Messrs. CLARK will supply it at the Subscription price, in COMPLETE SETS (only'), 
 of 7, 2s. 
 
 Separate volumes may be Jutd at the non-subscription prke o/lte. 6d. each. 
 
 So complete a Critical and Exegetical Apparatus on the Old Testament is 
 not elsewhere to be found in the English language, and at the present time, 
 when the study of the Old Testament is more widely extended than perhaps 
 ever before, it is believed this offer will be duly appreciated. 
 
 The ' Keil and Delitzsch ' series is so well known that little need be said 
 regarding it, but the Publishers may refer to the following opinions during the 
 >currency of its publications. 
 
 ' This series is one of great importance to the biblical scholar, and as regards its general 
 execution, it leaves little or nothing to be desired.' Edinburgh Review. 
 
 ' We have often expressed our opinion of Dr. Delitzsch's great merits as a commentator, 
 and, in particular, of his portion of the admirable Commentary on the Old Testament, 
 written by himself and Dr. Keil, that we need only now congratulate our readers on the 
 completion of the entire work.' Church Bells. 
 
 ' A more valuable commentary for the " theological students and scholars," for whom 
 it is exclusively intended, than the one contained in these volumes, does not exist in 
 English.' Methodist Recorder. 
 
 'The authors are among the most accomplished of living Hebraists, and Delitzsch is, 
 in addition, a man of fine historical imagination, and of clear spiritual vision.' Baptist 
 Magazine. 
 
 ' A more important contribution than this series of commentaries has, we think, never 
 been presented to English theological students.' Rock. 
 
 'Very high merit, for thorough Hebrew scholarship, and for keen critical sagacity 
 belongs to these Old Testament Commentaries. {No .scholar will willingly dispense 
 with them.' British Quarterly Review. 
 
 ' The very valuable Keil and Delitzsch series of Commentaries.' Wesleyan Methoditt, 
 Magazine. 
 
 ' From a pretty careful study of his commentaries we have come to the conclusion 
 that for painstaking fidelity, extensive and thorough knowledge, and capacity to enter 
 into the spirit of the writer he is busy with, there are few commentators so competent 
 as Keil.' Daily Review. 
 
 1 In Delitzsch's work we find the same industrious scholarship which is of acknow- 
 ledged worth, and the same conscientious exegesis which is always worthy. _ No book 
 could be treated with more pains than by this writer, and none could be examined more 
 thoroughly every phrase, every word, every syllable showing the utmost interest and 
 research of the commentator.' Scotsman.
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 SELECTION FROM 
 
 ANTE-NICENE LIBRARY 
 
 AND 
 
 ST. AUGUSTINE'S WORKS. 
 
 nnHE Ante-Nicene Library being now completed in 24 volumes, and the 
 JL St. Augustine Series being also complete (with the exception of the ' LIFE ') 
 in 15 volumes, Messrs. CLARK will, as in the case of the Foreign Theological 
 Library, give a Selection of 20 Volumes from both of those series at the Sub- 
 scription Price of FIVE GUINEAS (or a larger number at same proportion). 
 
 In Twenty-four Handsome 8vo Volumes, Subscription Price 6, 6s., 
 
 Cfmsikn: !p 
 
 A COLLECTION OP ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE 
 CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A. 
 
 EDITED BY THE 
 
 REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations. 
 1 Vol. 
 
 Clementine Homilies; Apostolical Con- 
 stitutions. 1 VoL 
 
 Arnobius. 1 Vol. 
 
 Dionysius ; Gregory 
 Syrian Fragments. 
 
 Lactantius. 2 Vols. 
 
 Early Liturgies and remaining Fragments. 
 1 Vol. 
 
 Thaumaturgus 
 1 Vol. 
 
 Apostolic Fathers, etc. 1 Vol. 
 
 Justin Martyr ; Athenagoras. 1 Vol. 
 
 Tatian ; Tbeopbilus ; tbe Clementine Re- 
 cognitions. 1 Vol. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria. 2 Vols. 
 
 Irenseus and J I ippolytus. 3 Vols. 
 
 Tertullian against Marcion. 1 Vol. 
 
 Cyprian. 2 Vols. 
 
 Origen. 2 vols. 
 
 Tertullian. 3 Vols. 
 
 Methodius; Alexander of Lycopolis, etc. 
 1 Vol. 
 
 Any Volume may be had separately, price 10s. 6d.. with the exception of ORIGKX 
 Vol. II., 12s. ; and tbe EARLY LITURGIES, 9s. 
 
 In Fifteen Volumes, demy 8vo, Subscription Price 3, 19s., 
 EDITED BY MARCUS DODS, D.D. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The ' City of God.' 2 Vols. 
 
 Writings in connection with the Donatist 
 Controversy, 1 Vol. 
 
 The Anti-Pelagian Works of St. Augus- 
 tine. 3 Vols. 
 
 Letters. 2 Vols. 
 
 Treatises against Faustus the Manichsean. 
 IVol. 
 
 Ench Volume is sold separately at 10s. Cd. 
 
 The Harmony of the Evangelists, and the 
 
 Sermon on the Mount. 1 Vol. 
 On the Trinity. 1 Vol. 
 Commentary on John. 2 Vols. 
 On Christian Doctino, Enchiridion, on 
 
 Catechizing, and on Faith and the 
 
 Creed. 1 Vol. 
 Confessions. With Copious Notes by 
 
 Rev. J. G. PiLKiNGToy. 1 Vol.
 
 T. and T. Clark's Publications. 
 
 MEYER'S 
 
 Commentary on the New Testament. 
 
 ' Meyer has teen long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest of the German 
 expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to say that he is 
 unrivalled as an Interpreter of the grammatical and historical meaning of the sacred 
 writers. The Publishers have now rendered another seasonable and important service to 
 English students In producing this translation.' Guardian. 
 
 The Subscription Is 21s. for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo, payable In advance. 
 Each Volume will be sold separately at (on an average) 10s. Qd. to Non-Subscribers. 
 
 CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 B y D r. H. A. W. MEYER, 
 
 OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. 
 
 In order to secure perfect accuracy, the Publishers have placed the whole 
 work under the editorial care of Kev. Dr. DICKSON, Professor of Divinity in the 
 University of Glasgow ; Rev. Dr. CROMBIE. Professor of Biblical Criticism, St. 
 Mary's College, St. Andrews; and Rev. Dr. STEWAKT, Professor of Biblical 
 Criticism, University of Glasgow. 
 
 The following are now ready : 
 
 1st Year Romans, Two Volumes. 
 Galatians, One Volume. 
 St. John's Gospel, Vol. I. 
 
 2d Year St. John's Gospel, Vol. II. 
 
 Philippians and Colossians, One Volume. 
 Acts of the Apostles, Vol. I. 
 Corinthians, Vol. I. 
 
 3d Year Acts of the Apostles, Vol. II. 
 
 St. Matthew's Gospel, Two Volumes. 
 Corinthians, Vol. II. 
 
 4th Year Mark and Luke, Two Volumes. 
 
 Ephesians and Philemon, One Volume. 
 Thessalonians. (Dr. Lilnemann.) 
 
 The series, as written by Meyer himself, is completed by the publication of Ephesians 
 with Philemon in one volume. But to this the Publishers have added Thessalonians, by 
 Dr. Lunemann, in one volume, which completes four years' Subscriptions, or 16 volumes. 
 
 In addition to this, the Publishers propose to complete the Neio Testament (with perhaps 
 the exception of Revelation). Subscribers need not, however, take those volumes unless they 
 desire it. 
 
 ' I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned com- 
 mentary of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout ; and I must again, 
 as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholar- 
 ship of the learned editor.' BISHOP ELLICOTT in Preface to his ' Commentary on Ephesians.'' 
 
 ' The ablest grammatical exegete of the age.' PHILIP SOHAFF, D.D. 
 
 ' In accuracy of scholarship and freedom from prejudice, he is equalled by few.' 
 Literary Churchman. 
 
 ' We have only to repeat that it remains, of its own kind, the very best Commentary 
 of the New Testament which we possess.' Church Bells. 
 
 'No exegetical work is on the whole more valuable, or stands in higher public esteem. 
 As a critic he is candid and cautious ; exact to minuteness in philology ; a master of the 
 grammatical and historical method of interpretation.' Princeton Review.
 
 T. and T. Claris Publications. 
 
 Just published, in deiny 8vo, price 5s., 
 
 MESSIANIC PROPHECIES. 
 Hectares, 
 
 BY PROFESSOR DELITZSCH. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE MANUSCRIPT 
 
 BY PROFESSOR S. I. CURTISS. 
 
 Just published, in crown 8vo, price Is. 6d., 
 
 NOTES ON GENESIS; 
 
 OR, 
 
 CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH AMONG THE 
 PATRIARCHS. 
 
 BY REV. N. KEYMER, M.A., 
 
 VICAR OF HKADOX, NOTTS. 
 
 WITH A PRELIMINARY NOTICE BY THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. 
 
 Just published, in crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d., 
 
 THE CHRIST.? ** '"" 
 
 &ete ^Lectures, 
 
 BY ERNEST NAVILLE, 
 
 AUTHOE OF ' THE PROBLEM OF EVIL,' ETC. 
 
 TRANSLATED BY THE REV. T. J. D ESP RES. 
 
 In the Press, 
 
 THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE, 
 
 IN CONNECTION WITH 
 
 REVELATION, INSPIRATION, AND THE CANON. 
 BY REV. PROF. J. J. GIVEN, MAGEE COLLEGE. 
 
 Just published, price 15s. nett, 
 SUPPLEMENTAL VOLUME TO LANGE'S COMMENTARY, 
 
 THE APOCRYPHA OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 WITH HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONS, A REVISED TRANSLATION, 
 AND NOTES CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY, 
 
 BY REV. E. C. BISSELL, D.D.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Santa Barbara 
 
 v 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW. 
 
 Series 9482